MANUAL
OF
BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
BY
JOSEPH MUENSCHER, D.D:
GAMBIER, O.
PRINTED FOR THE AUTHOR.
MDCCCLXV.




Entered according to Act of Congress. in the year 1865, by
JOSEPH  MUENSCHER,
In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the Uuited States,
for the Northern District of Ohio.




PREFACE.
A work of convenient size on the Principles of
Biblical Interpretation adapted to the wants of
ministers and theological students, and at the
same time of a cast sufficiently popular to be acceptable to intelligent laymen, has long been regarded as a desideratum. It has been the aim of
the writer in the preparation of the following unpretending manual to supply this want. That the
subject of which it treats is one of great importance, no intelligent reader of the Bible will be
disposed to deny; and yet for the want, perhaps,
of a book on the science easily accessible, and
neither too concise and technical on the one hand,
nor too copious and diffuse on the other, it has not
received the attention either from ministers or
from the readers of the Bible generally, to which
it is justly entitled. That the present work
may be instrumental of promoting a more general appreciation of the science, and of directing
the minds of Biblical students to a more attentive
study of the Principles which lie at the basis of all
sound and rational interpretation of the Sacred
Volume, is the earnest prayer of
THE AUTHOR.
MT. VERNON, O., May 2, 1865.








PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION.
CHAPTER  I.
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.
The blessed- God has been pleased to communicate to man a revelation of himself, of his
providential arrangements and designs of grace
and mercy towards our race, of his relation to
us and our duty to him, to ourselves, and-to the
human family. This revelation was not made
at one time in all its entireness, and through a
single individual, but in sundry parts or portions,
through different persons; and at various times,
extending through a period of four thousand
years. Embodied in permanent records originally written in languages which have long since
ceased to be spoken, this revealed religion, together with its history during the long period
just named, has been handed down to the pres-.
ent day,. and still claims to be the rule of our
faith, the ground of our hope, and the guide of
our life. The sacred oracles have been placed
in our hands with the solemn and oft repeated
injunction that they be made the subject of'
earnest and prayerful study by all men without!
exception who have the ability and opportunity;.
and that we " so read, mark, leain, and inwardly$




2        INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.
digest them," as to become wise unto salvation
through faith in Christ Jesus. For this end they
have been translated into the different languages
of men, and widely circulated over the face of
the earth. In. the contents of these, sacred records all men are. equally interested, and the
same responsibility rests upon all in respect to
the use they make of them. But that which is
the duty of all Christians in this regard, is especially and pre-eminently incumbent on the
Ministers of Religion, because it is their particular vocation' to apply themselves closely and
diligently to the study of the Scriptures, and to
acquire an extensive and critical knowledge of
them, so as to be able to explain them to the
people committed to their charge, and so to exhibit the truths they contain to the minds of
their hearers as that their understandings may
become enlightened, their affections moved, and
their wills rightly directed and controlled. They
*are the authorized public teachers of revealed
religion, by whom the Church is to be thoroughly instructed in the principles of that religion.,
rand grounded in the faith once delivered to the
Saints, and they are expected to be qualified to
divide rightly the word of God, and to bring
forth from the treasury of that word new things:as well as old. It becomes, therefore a question
*of profound interest and importance to every
private Christian, and especially to every minister of the Gospel, and to all;those who are looking forward to the sacred office, in what manner:and spirit, and by the aid of what helps and
guides, shall I apply myself to the study of the
Divine Word, so as most successfully to acquire
a pro.per understanding of its meaning, and, if




INTRlODUCTORY REMARKS.
aneed be, so as rightly to explain and unfold that:meaning to others.
That the sacred scriptures should not be interpreted according to the whims and caprice,
the fancy -or the prejudices of each individual,'but according to some fixed principles, and in
thecuse of appropriate helps and guides, must be.quite obvious to all, and is so generally admitted
as hardly to require an extended argiument. But
what principles shall be, adopted,:and what
guides followed cland what v-eight shall be given
to each respectively, are points of' very grave
importance, in regard to,which.W Christian men.and Christian ministers are by n-o means agreed.
Hence the almost innumerable and contradieto-,ry interpretations which have been given to the,Scriptures; and hence the multiplicity of sects
land denomllinations into wbhich the Christian.Church is divided. That entire unanimity of
opinion in regard to the meaning of every par-,.of the Bible will ever be reached by any process
now known to man, is more tha7n, as the human
mind is now constituted, we are warranted to
expect.  Amniraele greater by far than has yet'been performed, would be required to accomplish.such A result.  At the same time, it cannot be
questioned, tlhat a great approximation may be
made towards it by a better appreciation and a
more diligent study of sound and well-defined
principles, and by a more careful, independent
and discriminating use of. such aids as we possess for the correct understanding and:interpretation of the Bible. Iia the following work an
attempt is made to exhibit and illustrate the
principles and laws of Biblical interpretation,
-and to-show the grounds Qn,vwhich Ahey rest, ii




4'          TVe IMPORTANCE OFP
ai form adapted to the comprehension not onlyof scholars and clergymen, who may be supposed:
to be somewhat familiar with the subject, but
also of that large class of intelligent laymen, whoare honorably and usefully emiployed in imparting biblical instruction to tle rising generation:
iih our Sunday Schools and BiWle Classes.
C'HAPTER  fI.
~tHE  M'POtT,'ANCE OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETA —
TION.
The only verbal revelation which God has
mnade to the human race, is contained in the
Bible. No other writings than the canonical
books of the Old and New Testament are regarded by the Protestant Church throughout
Christendom as of divine authority. iNo others
are, in the truest acd highest sense of the term,.
inspired. The Bihle, and the Bible alone, divested of all apocryplalf additions, and as distinguished from all oral and apostolical tradition, is the
only infallible and sufficient rule of faith and
practice, and is possessed of %paramount and
final authority. This is one of the fundamental
principles of Protestantistht,-one of the two
main pillars' Which support the superstructure.
Other books may contain truth of the greatest
ialue, and be worthy of all colmmendation. But,




BIB'LICAL NTE RPRETATrION.'however excellent, they are-merely human; they.:have not God for their author; they cannot command our implicit belief, homage and obedi-,ence. This exalted position is accorded to the
Bible alone. What say ttie Scriptures?  Here
is the appeal, and this appeal is final in regard
-to all Questions in which'the vital interests of
the soul are concerned.  "Holy Scripture," in
-the language of the Thirty-nine articles of the
Protestant Episcopal Church, "containeth alf'things necessary to salvation, so that whatsoever
is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby,'is not required of any wpan, that it should be believed as an article of faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation." The Confessions.of all Protestant Churches are in harmony with
-this declaration.
Now, the Bible being -the record of a Revelaiion, is necessarily written in human language.'Intended for the use and instruction of man"kindl, it could not have:been otherwise. If it'had been clothed in signs and symbols which,were unintelligible to us,- it would not have been
-a revelation, —it could not have been understood.
It might as well not have been communicated.'The language then, in which the Bible is written is human, marked with all the imperfection,which characterizes human'language, and subject to all the laws which govern it.'cbhe thoughts,
the ideas and sentiments conveyed to our mind,through this medium, are divine; but all else is
of the earth earthly. The'languages in which'the sacred scriptures were originally written, are
foreign to us, and became' log since, as to aul
practical purposes, dead.'Hence, if the ScripYwures,are to be undprstood'-:.the original, the&




86.'IIA~HE IMTPbRTANCE OF'
languages must be thoroughly and critically:
studiediin the use of all the appropriate helpswhich we can command. If they are to be read
and understood by the masses of mankind, who,
have not the opportunity of becoming acquainted with the original, they must be translated
into the living vernacular languages of the,
earth.
The Scriptures, we believe, were written to be
read and understood by all men, and not exclusively by any particular class. Every man has.
an equal andccommon interest in them.  They
contain the doctrines and principles by whichr
he is to govern, his belief. They contain the
law by which he is to regulate his life. But, al-k
though the Scriptures may be faithfully tra.nslatedA into the vernacular language, so thatallwho,
are able to read may have access to them, yet
many circumstances may and'do operate to.prevent them from being fully understood by the
majority of those who read them. The want of
competent learning, the want of sufficient leisure, the imperfections which unavoidably adhere to human language as an instrument of
thought, an imperfect knowledge of the laws of'
intrepretation, or an incapacity to apply them
rightly-; the changes which are constantly taking place in the usages of language, the difference in the forms of expression and modes of
thinking, in the manners and customs of different countries,. and' nations, and ages of the world;
the great antiquity of the scriptures; the extent
and variety of the sacred volume, the different,
periods in which, and persons by whom it was,
written, and to whom it. was immediately ad —
&eessed, together with the loftiness and.mysteri



BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.          7
ousness of the subjects presented, are among the
circumstances which render it exceedingly difficult for the uneducated to obtain, by personal
study merely, an accurate knowledge of every
point revealed in the Scriptures. Hence an order
of living teachers, thoroughly instructed themselves in the Bible, and competent to aid and
instruct others, is required. Our blessed Saviour
accordingly ordained twelve apostolic men for
this purpose, and empowered them to commission others for the same work, so that there
might be to the end of time duly authorized
and qualified living teachers in the church of
Christ
To defend, explain, illustrate and apply the
sacred Scriptures, is the chief part, the highest
function of the Christian ministry. The ministers of the Gospel are, by virtue of their office,
emphatically and pre-eminently teachers-expounders of God's word. By the requisitions of
their master, and by their ordination vows, they
are bound to feed the flock committed to their
care. There are, doubtless, other duties appertaining to their office of great importance, which
they may not neglect; but their main business
is to explain, illustrate and  enforce the truths
whieh are contained in the Bible. The. Bible
is the Protestant minister's text book-the open
Bible, which others may read as well as he, and
by which they may judge of the correctness of his
statements and views. From  this fountain of
truth he must be constantly bringing forth
things new and old, for the edification of the
Church, the refutation of error, the cbnviction
of the individual conscience, and the establish-.ment of the truth. For the accomplishment of




8           THE IMPORTANCE OF
-this object, he must be conversant with the sacred scriptures, with their evidences, history,
doctrines and precepts. He must be acquainted
with them not merely in a translation, but acquire a competent knowledge of the languages
in which they were written, and be able by an
examination of the original text, to draw his expositions from that. In all matters of controversy the appeal must be made to this original
text. This alone is final and conclusive. The
foundation, therefore, of a theological and ministerial education must be laid in the critical,
grammatical, and exegetical study of the Holy
Scriptures.  Exegetical theology must be the
groundwork of a thorough ministerial education
in every age; but it is especially important in
-the age in which we now live. That education.should, doubtless, be such as will enable the
ambassador for Christ to cope with living men,
-and living ideas, and to employ most successfully those weapons which the present mode in
which the Christian warfare is conducted, demands. That theological training which might
have been of great service and quite sufficient in,the medimval ages, would be entirely inadequate,and answer no valuable purpose now. It must
be adapted to the, demands of the present age,
and to the priesent advanced state of biblical and
theological science.
A thorough and critical knowledge of the
tHoly Scriptures is particularly necessary for the
-ministry of the,Church at the present day, because the Bibleis the.battle-ground of skepticism
and-infidelity. The chief assaults from this quariter are now directed against the Bible itself.,any.sniatio men of.skeptical -views and pro



BIBLICAL INTERPRETAT1ON.           9
clivities, are laboring hard to prove that the
facts of natural science and the statements of:Scripture are contradictory.. Rationalism, also,
which is but another namie for the most subtle
form of infidelity within the bosom-of the Church
-itself, is wholly occupied with attacks on the
Bible, and the' position it occupies and the facil-ities it enjoys for mischief. render it a far more
formidable and dangerous enemy than open and
-avowed infidelity. On the ground of philosophy
ical criticism, it aims to overthrow the canonici-ty, the integrity, ti.e credibility, and the inspire,
tion of Scripture; and while it professes great
respect for the moruerity of the Bible, and claims
to be its true friend and advocate, and has really,done some service in elucidating its contents,
the legitimate and inevitable effect of its labors
is to impair, if not entirely to destroy, all confi-.dence in that blessed volume as containing a suw
pernatural revelation.
NNor is Rationalism any longer a distant enemy confined to the country which gave it birth.
It is rapidly.making its -way over the Christian
-world. Its deadly poison is working extensively
in England, both in the Established Church and
*among the Dissenters; *nor has our own country,entirely escaped its polluting touch and de*structive influence.  Now  one indispensible,means of checking the progress of this foe to
piety is the thorough training of candidates for
the ministry in the critical study of the Bible,
It is impossible for any minister to contend sue-,cessfully with this great evil who is not thor,,oughly versed in exegetical theology; who does,not understand the lan guagesof the Bible, and




TIE' IMPOIRTANCE OF, &.;
who is, not familliar with the principles of Biblieal criticism and interpretation.
The Bible is, moreover, the battle-ground of
the numerous sects and parties into which Pro —
testant Christendom is divided. These acknowledge no other standard than the Bible. They
recognize this and no other authority as final,
and conclusive. They plant themselves on the
WNVord of God interpreted in accordance with the
laws of language and of rational exegesis. No
minister, therefore, can be properly prepared to,
defend and maintain the distinctive doctrines
and peculiarities of his own church, or to appreciate the arguments by which others support
their peculiar views, who does not understand
the right method of explaining the Word of
God.
The field of research in exegetical theology, is
both attractive and boundless; the mine to
be explored is inexhaustable. This interestingdepartment of study, from  its very nature, is
progressive. All other branches of knowledge,
— philology, history, chronology, antiquities, geology, astronomy, geography, etc.-are constantly pouring their treasures into its lap, and shedding light on the pages.of the Bible. The minister, therefore, who diligently applies himself to
the cultivation of this field, and acquires a taste
for it, cannot fail to find it a constant source of
delight, and to derive from it a perpetual incentive to increased diligence. He will gather from
it the best materials of thought for the pulpit
and become eminently fitted for that expository
preaching which consists in the faithful presentation of the Word of God in all its truthfulness
and fullness.




THE THRE' GREAT EIH. TS.          11
CHAPTER III.
THE THREE. GREAT LIGHTS,.
Three great lights have been furnished us to,
Be our guides in the study and interpretation of'
the Word. of God, to which it is. of the utmost
importance that we should take heed, if we,
would avoid. the numerous mistakes and errors,
into which so many have fallen. These are the
light of reason, the light of authority, and the
light of the tHoly Spirit. Of these the first named
is of primary and paramount importance, be-.
cause it is a gift bestowed upon all mankind, andconferred for the very purpose, among others, of
enabling us to hold intelligent communication
with our fellow beings, and impart reciprocally
to one another, by means of oral and written
language, a knowledge of our individual thoughts
and feelings, desires and purposes, views and
opinions.  Iuman language is the product of
human reason. And as the faculty of reason isg
the parent of language,so it is likewise the proper
interpreter of it. The light of authority is not an,
original, distinct, and. independent light, like
that of reason, but like that of the moon, it is a
borrowed light, and derives all its illuminating.
power from the other two-reason and the Holy
Spirit,. and its aid is valuable and. reliable only
so far as it is a true reflection from these. The
light of the Holy Spirit is an inward, hidden
light, not outward and! manifest to observation,
and not distinguishable from the ordinary operations of the intellectual powers or the natural,
conwcience by him, who enjoys- it. Hence it is




12       I~iE THREE GREAT rLIGHTS.
liable to be mistaken and misapprehended.  Ns
one of these guides is to be followed exclusively,
and to the neglect or rejection of the other two.
Errors without nuimber have sprung from a disxegard of this simple, but most important rule.
An exclusive reliance on reason is the fruitfil:source of rationalism  and skepticism. A like
~exclusive reliance on human authority, whether
it be that of an individuad, or of the Church,
tends to degrade the human intellect, to destroy.all self-reliance, to weaken our sense of personali
responsibility, and becomes the foster-parent of'blind credulity, bigotry, intolerance, and perse-,cution. An entire dependence on the supposed
inward light or illumination of the Holy Spirit,
in disregard of reason and authority, is the prolific source of mysticism. fanaticism, and latitudinarianism.  But where the aid of all these is
-sought in proportion to their intrinsic and relative importance, there we may expect to find a
safe, sound, reliable interpreter of the Word of,God.
1. The l9igqt of reason. By this is meant the.exercise of our natural faoulties in connexion:with the use of such means and instrumentalities as are afforded us by literature and science
for the investigation of truth. This is necessary
to the attainment of any branch of knowledge,:and to the understanding of any production of
Thuman genius and learning. And it is not less
~necessary for gaining a knowledge of revealed
-truth; for the Deity, in condescending to em-,ploy human language as the vehicle of commu*nication with his rational creatures, manifestly
-intended that it should be understood, and that
4he weaninIg of the.communication should be




TIE THREE. GREAM LIGHT~S.         13
aseertanied by the same means and in the samemanner as the import of all other oral or written
eommunicaftions is determined.  Otherwise itcould not be comprehended,, and the professed
Revelation would be no revelation at all.
The exercise of our intellectual faculties inc
the. investigation and  discovery of revealed
truth, implies of course the right of private, i. e.
of individual judgment; for to employ our reasonm
in the Study of Scriptare, would be of no avail,,
unless we are at liberty to embrace the deductions to which our reason may lead us. Deny
this right,. and th;e i~njunction. of our blessed
Lord to "'search the Scriptures,!' would be but a
solemn mockery. This topic will form the subject of the next chapter.
It is of the utmost importance that we shouldk
entertain correct views as to the Proper province
of reason in the investigation of revealed truth.
It is not the province of reason to determine
before hand what the Bible, as~ a revelation fromGod, ought to contain, but to ascertain what it
(does contain; not to decide in advance what the,
Scriptures ought to! mean, but' to determine in
the use of all legitimate and appropriate means,
what they dq mean. Neither is it her province
to sit in judgment on the truths revealed in the,
Bible, and to adrmit or reject them according as
they may or may not coincide with our pre-conceived opinions, or as they may or may not be
comprehensible by us. She is not competent to
such a task. It would be transcending her powers.  It would be an abuse, a perversion, a
usurpation of reason. And to this abuse and
usurpation may be traced a vast multitude of
the most dangerous errors and -false doctrines;




414'THE THREE GREAT tLIGHTS.
which have prevailed and do still infest the,Church. The rationalism and neology prevalent,at the present day in some portions of the Christian world are attributable to this cause. Unitarianism and Universalism are also measurably
cchargeable with this abuse.
Reason is competent, however, to investigate
the evidence both external and internal for the,,truth of Revealed religion. She is competent to
ascertain by the application of sound critical
laws the genuine text of Scripture. She is competent to determine amid the various interpret-:ations of which a passage of Scripture is supposed
lo be capable, which is probably the true meaning.
And this she is to do not arbitrarily and capriciously or under the influence of an unrestrained
imagination, or of prejudice, but by the application of the established laws of language'and the:acknowledged principles and canons of interpretation; for these principles and canons are
merely the deductions of reason, approved by
the common sense of mankind. lohere for the
most part her ttask ceases, and Faith steps in
with her mighty power to appropriate the living
truths which Reason has thus developed in the
word of God. and to accomplish in the individL:al soul the great moral work for w.:lich thre
IBevelatioP  was given.




TRADITION.
CHAPTER IV..'TRADITION.-RIGHT'OF PRIVATE JUDGMENT..
We have said that one of the two main pillars
-on which the superstructure of Protestantism
rests is the sunicicncy of Holy Scripture for all the
purposes of the divine life in the soul of man,
and its exclusive divirne authority as the Rule of
faith and the Law of life. The Romish Church,
on the contrary, maintains, as appears from the
acts of' the Council of Trent, that " the truth is
contained in thle written books, and in the unwritten
-traditions, which, having been received by the
Apostles, either firom the mouth of Christ himself, or from the dictates of the Holy Spirit, were
handed down even to us," and that Church "receives and venerates with equal feeling of piety.and reverentce all the books of the Old and New
Testamen t, since one God was the author of them
both, and also the tradition, relating as well tofJtait/
as to morals, as having, either from the mouth of;Christ himself, or from the dictation of the Holy
Ghost, been preserved by continuous succession
in the Catholic Church."*  Against this claim
* A few words may be necessary in order to explain.what is'here meant by traflition. It properly denotes
that information which Christ, and his inspired servants communicated to men, which is not embodied
in the Canonical Scriptures, but which, it is alleged,
*was handed down by other means. The New Testament is not a large book, and must be supposed to
~contain but a small part of what our Saviour and his
Apostles said and taught. Several of the Apostles,
indeed, committed nothing to writing, at least nothing




TRADITION.
of coordinate authority for a vague, uncertain
tradition with the written word of God, the
Reformers protested, and this constitutes one of'
the fundamental points of difference between
the two great Communions into which the Western Church is divided. "In the books of the
that we possess or of which we have any knowledge.
Tradition, therefore, in the strict sense here intended,
is the entire body of those apostolical instructions and
facts which have been transmitted otherwise than by
writing, otherwise than by the New Testament, in
the state in which it has reached~ vs.  As the Jewish
Rabbies maintained that in addition to the written
lawo of Moses, there was also, an unwritten traditional
law, which had been handed down orally from the
times of the Hebrew lawgiver, by which the written
law contained in the Canonical Books was to be interpreted; so the same thing is alleged in regard to
many of the sayings and doings of Christ and his
Apostles. This tradition is termed Oral, from having
been transmitted at first by word of mouth from one
to another, but at length committed to! writing, or said
to have been so, by the Fathers, or Councils. " The
rule of faith in the Church of Rome,'" says Bishop J.
H. Hopkins, "professes like our own,to be the Word of"
God, and of course, it includes the Holy Scriptures.
But they maintain that besides the Scriptures, there
-was an oral delivery of divine truth to the Church
which is equally obligatory on every believer.; of
which unwritten word, the Church is the sole depository, and in the safe preservation of which, as well as
in her power of interpreting the written word, she cannot err, being absolutely infallible."  "By the unwritten Word of God," says Dr. Wiseman, "we mean a
body of doctrines, which in consequence of express
declarations in the written word, we believe not to~
have been committed to writing, but delivered by
Christ to his Apostles) and by the Apostles to their




TRADITION.                   17
New Testament alone," says a late English writer, "is to be found a trustworthy record of the
life and conversation of Christ —of all [so far as
we know] that he said and did' of his labors
and sufferings, of his death and resurrection,and of the efforts, happily the successful efforts
of the apostles in diffusing far and wide the glad
tidings of his Gospel.  But having these, says
the genuine Protestant, we have all that is needed. They are all-sufficient for the purpose of
successors. We believe that no netw doctrine can be
introduced into the Church, but that every doctrine
which we hold has existed and been taught in it, ever
since the time of the Apostles and was handed down
by them to their successors, under the guarantee of
which we receive doctrines from the Church, that is,
Christ's promise to abide with it forever, to assist, direct and instruct it, and always teach in and through
it. So that while giving our explicit credit, and trusting our judgment to it, we are believing and trusting
to the express teaching  of Christ himself."  Strictly
speaking then, the oral Tradition here intended, is a
traditional revelation concerning doctrine, in matters
of faith and morals, which is not to be found in Scrip -
ture, and which is equally certain, equally divine,
and equally to be embraced, and reverenced with
Scripture itself. In point of fact, however, the Word
is commonly taken in a wider sense and made to include ecclesiastical tradition, i. e., Tradition concerning Church government, discipline, rites and ceremonies, and hermeneutical tradi4ion, i. e., certain doctrines
handed down from early times, and certain interpretations of Scripture, which are found in the writings
of the fathers. And it is in this wide sense that, according to the Romanists and Anglo-Catholics, Scripture and Tradition taken together, are the joint rule
of faith."
2




18              TRADITION.
making us acquainted with the great truths of
Christianity; with the mind and character of
Christ; with the principles, the spirit and the
genius of his religion. If we cannot learn from
the New Testament all that is essential and necessary to make a man wise unto salvation; if
from this source, we cannot derive an adequate
knowledge of what Christ taught as most important to be believed, then there are no authentic documents to which we can have recourse, and in which such knowledge is to be
found. If it exists anywhere, it exists in the
writings of those who were his immediate followers and attendants. There, then, we shall
seek it, and there we hope to find it." This is
what the immortal Chillingworth meant when
he said "The Bible, the Bible alone is the religion of Protestants." This is what is intended
by the sufficiency of Scripture. "In contending
for that sufficiency, it is not meant that Scripture alone should be read and studied, and that
we throw aside every means,-that we should
despise and reject every help, that might enable
us more correctly to ascertain its meaning, and
more fully to enter into its spirit. This would
be a monstrous perversion, a most pernicious
abuse of the maxim that'the Bible only is the
religion of Protestants." All that is to be understood by it is, thatno other work carries with
it the same title to our regard and submission,
and that when once its principles are clearly ascertained, they furnish the only authoritative
rule for Christian faith and practice; that no'
other writings, of whatever age or country they
may be, can be allowed to come into competition with them, —to qualify their statements or




RIGHT OF PRIVATE JUDGMENT.    19
-to supercede their authority; that on every,question where they speak positively and explicitly, their decision is paramount and final; and
that no opinion or.practice, Munsanctioned by'them, is to be received as a necessary and essential part of the Christian scheme."
This view of the sufficienqy of scripture is
"held universally by all who claim  to be Protestant Christians. The.only exception, if it may
bescalled an exception, are a few English Tractarans, most of whom, however, have followed
out their principles not only to their logical but
their practical results, and apostatising from the
Church, whose faith they had denied, have gone
to Rome. It is unnecessary, therefore, to dwell
longer upon this topic.
The second of the two main pillars on which
the superstructure of Protestantism  rests is the
riqht of private judgment iA MIe interpretation of Scriplure. This. right is denied by the Romish hierar-,chy, which, claims either for its representatives
assembled in council, or for its ecclesiastical
head, the Bishop of Rome, or for both concurrently, an infallible judgment, and an exclusive authority to determine for the faithful the.meaning of Scripture.  The: Protestant Church
however, utterly repudiates the idea that infallibility belongs to any individual man,, or body
of men-to the Pope or any ecclesiastical council whatever. This claim is regarded as a mon-:strous and arrogant assumption, wholly incapable of proof, and actually disproved by the contradictory decisions both of Popes and Councils.
But while all Protestants agree in rejecting the
iRomish dogma of infallibility, and the coordi-nate authority of tradition, there are some who




20f            THE RIGHT Os"
*irtuglly dent the right of private judgment in'
the interpretation of Scripture itself by ascribing'
to the writings of the primitive fathers a judicial authority in determining its meaning.  It
must be evident to all that this is a vital point,
which requires serious and attentive examination. IPor if men may not rightfully exercise
their private or individcual judgment in investigating the meaning of scripture itself, then it is;
entirely a work of supererogation, both useless,
and irreverent to invoke the aid of reason an(d
prescribe laws and rules for the interpretation,
of the Bible. Then. may the science of biblicatl
hermeneutics be reduced to a very narrow compass, and the whole.be comprised in this one simpie law-"Follow your leader, right or wrong."
We are told by the advocates of Romish infallibility, that it is a very desirable thing, that;
there should be some authoritative umpire
supernaturally  qualified to  distinguish  with'
Infallible certainty between truth and error;
and that it is incredible that the  Deity, in
granting a revelation, should have left its mean*ing to be ascertained by so weak and erring a
tribunal as private j dgment.  Admitting thedesirableness of such an infallib!e umpire andt
arbiter in the interpretation of scripture, does
this establish the fact that such a judge has been
actually appointed by the Deity?  If it can be
shown that any one mb:n, or that any'body of'
men are gifted with infallibility,-that the judgment, in any case pronounced by.him or thenm
must be right, then, to be sure, there is no presumption in requiring me to: yield unhesitatingly to his or their decisions. But that, since
-the time of Christ and his apostles, such a pro



PRIrvATE JUDXMENT.,perty has been lodged in any one individual or
number of individuals, there is not an atom of
evidence to prove. On the supposition of such
an appointment by the Deity, is it not reasonable,to expect that He would have told,us explicitly
and unmistakeably in his word, where that infalJlible judgment and.judicial authority reside?whether in the Pope exclusively, or in a general
Council exclusively, or in the Pope<and Council
conjointly? This is a question certainly of vast
~rnoment which the Church of Rome has never
yet been able to settle.
It is indeed true, that human reason is fallible,.and, consequently, that the decisions founded
upon it may be, and in point of fact, often are
erroneous. Xt is true, that sincere and intelligent Christians have been led in the exercise
-<of their rational faculties to the most opposite
conclusions, and have claimed,with equal confiAence and pertinacity, the authority of Scripture
for their conficting opinions and systems. It is
true, that the rightof private judgment may
-be abused, as may other inherent rights which.men possess, ard that its exercise involves great.responsibility.  But what warrant does all this
afford for the conclusion that t.hre must be
some unquestionable umpire, from whose decisions in matters of religion there ca.n be no apepeal? Before such an idea can be seriously entertained, it must be shown that in granting a
-revelation the Deity designed to preclude the,possibility of dispute and disagreement as to its
meaning, and to secure beyond the possibility.of failure perfect unanimity of opinion. But as
diversity of olinion can be prevented only by
tckint  g away the Jiberty f individual juadgimelt




22             nTE RIGItr OF
it must befurther shown, that He also designed to-,
deprive men of this freedom, and to compel them;
to take their religious opinions upon trust, and':
with implicit submission to the decisions of some
recognized arbiter and dictator. But most certainly it is impossible for us to determine what
the Deity intended to do in this regard, except
from what he has actually done. Entire unanimity, however, lias never yet been attained
even among those who recognize a self-constituted infallible interpreter and judge. We are'
therefore authorized to conchl:de, that it never
was the intention of the Deity to prevent the ineidental evils arising from a: diversity of opinions by means of a human infallible guide.
The human understanding is so constituted!
that it cannot be compelled to the belief of'
anything by external force. Such force may
make hypocrites, but cannot produce conviction. Hence all attempts to coerce men into'
the belief of certain dogmas have proved a,
failure. Wherever coercive measures have been
resorted to, the result has invariably disappointed the expectations of its employers. The?
ease of Galileo is here in point. Witness als(o
Luther and the other Continental as well as.
E-glish reformers and martyrs-the English Pu-.
ritans-the Early Christians, of whom  it was;
truly said, "the blood of the martyrs is the seed&:
of the Church."  The attempt to coerce men:
into a unity of belief, or even into a uniformity
in respect to external ceremonials, so far from.
accomplishing the object sought after, has led tothe principal divisions into sects and separate
ecclesiastical organizations, whilh unhappily exist in the Church. And if entire unanimity:'




PRIVATE JUDGMENT.            23
opinion in regard to material points of Christian
doctrine, and even in regard to immaterial points
of ceremonial and ritual observances never has
been, and never can be effected by coercion, or by
requiring implicit submission to an authoritative
arbiter, whose right to control opinion is unacknowledged, how can we expect entire harmony
and agreement in the interpretation of the whole
volum~e of inspired truth by any such means?
The idea is utterly preposterous, and even the
infallible Bishop of Rome has never acted so
absurdly as to attempt the accomplishment of.
such an impossibility; but allows in his paternal
clemency the exercise of individual judgment
and the use of our rational faculties in relation
to such doctrines and passages of Scripture, as
he has not authoritatively pronounced an infallible judgment upon.
Again: the fundamental verities of all religions rest necessarily and purely on the exercise
of reason and consciousness. On no other ground
can we believe even in the existence of a God,
which must first be established before the idea
of a Divine revelation can be seriously entertained. The free exercise of the reason and
judgment in the intrepretation of Scripture,
moreover, cannot be superceded without destroying human responsibility. For if there were an
infallible preservative against error, a right belief could not be a matter of choice, just as if
there were an irresistable safeguard against vice,
obedience could not be a virtue. But in the di,
vine government men are treated as free-agents
and made responsible for their opinions as well
as for their conduct. It is true that in the exercise of their freedom they may err, and there



24            THE RIGHT OF
by involve themselves in ruin: but liability to
error is inseparable from a state of probation:
and consequently an infallible guide in matters
of faith and practice, would be incompatible
with the exercise of a rational faith, and with a
moral submission to the divine laws. Finally:
the denial of the exercise of the right of private
judgment in the concerns of religion is incompatible with the intellectual advancement of the
human race. And accordingly it has ever been
the settled policy of those who deny this right
to shut out from the mass of mankind the sour
ces of knowledge and to deprive them even of
the Scriptures in the vernacular language except
in peculiar cases and under stringent restrictions.
This right is also fully recognized in the Scriptures
themselves. Though our Saviour and his apostles were infallible, they never insist on their
own infallibility as a reason for compelling men's
faith. On the contrary, they uniformly address
mankind as intelligent creatures, and invite
them to examine and then judge of the truth
of what they propound.
But it is said, all men are not competent to
judge of the meaning of Scripture. On the one
hand, there is so much of the Bible which is
deep and mysterious, so much that is dark and
intricate and hidden from common observation,
as to render its interpretation extremely difficult even to the well-informed; and, on the other
hand, many, from their education and the circumstances of their lives-from being altogether
unaccustomed to think and reflect, are wholly
disqualified for coming to a sound conclusion
upon the various questions pertaining to religion. Hence it is proper, if not absolutely neces



PRIVATE JUDGMENT.           25
sary that there should be some reliable guidesome fixed and certain standard by which the
true doctrine and the' true interpretation of
Scripture should be distinguished from the false
and erroneous.
In reply to this it may be observed that right,
and ability properly to use the right, are very
different things, and must not be confounded
with one another. The one is not necessarily
and in point of fact is not actually, the accompaniment of the other. A man may possess the
right to do, what he is ill qualified for doing
wisely and beneficially. "You may have the
right to choose your physician, your lawyer,
your engineer, and it is important that you
should choose well; and yet, from the circumstances in which you are placed, you may not be
very competent to make agood choice. In such
a case we cannot say, it does not belong to you
to determine the matter. That is left to another
who will do this for you, and to his decisions you
must unhesitatingly bow. We could not address to any one language like this; but we
might reasonably and. becomingly say to him;
before you come to a decision upon a matter of
such great importance, take care that ybu have
qualified yourself to judge rightly. Avail yourself of the knowledge and experience of others.
Learn from them the facts which will'give you
the means of coming to a sound and satisfactory
conclusion. The power, the right of deciding
is unquestionably yours. That we do not deny.
You may choose whom you please. All we say
is, see to it that you render yourself competent
and qualified to choose well. Such advice, such
recommendation as this would be reasonable and




26            THE' tIGhIT OF'
proper. And if this were all that is meant by,
questioning the right of private judgment on
the subject of religion; if it were only intended
to check presumption, to curb rashness, to prevent haste, to make men cautious and careful
in their inquiries, willing to receive instruction
and anxious to avail themselves of all the light
which the labors and learning of others might
throw upon the subject, there would be little or
nothing to object to." (Madge.) No intelligent
advocate for the right of private judgment ever
claimed that men should willfully disregard all
assistance from others, and proudly rely on their
own superior discernment alone in the investigation of the Scriptures. And those whd may
have pursued this course in their inquiries, have
been guilty of great rashness and presumption.
On the contrary they should avail themselves
gladly of all the lights of former ages and all
the lights of the present age within their reach.
"No person," says Dr. J. Pye Smith, "is competent to ex-cogitate for himself a religion out of
the Bible, or out of any other book, without the
assistance of all those various means, which in
the Bible, as in every other book, are indispensible to his reading, understanding, feeling,
analysing and judging of its multifarious contents. Qur appeal should be to the Bible, with
every note and comment from every quarter; from
all those legitimate and necessary helps which
are supplied by grammatical, critical, historical,
moral and spiritual considerations, and which
regulate our interpretation of every other book."
There is unquestionably a duty as well as a right
involved in the exercise of this privilege of
judging for ourselves. In contending for the




PRIVATE JOUDGMENT.            27
sight we must not overlook or forget the duty..
The duty is to see that we are competent to judge'
respecting the questions that come before us;
1hat we are duly qualified, both intellectually
and morally, for forming an opinion on the matter under consideration. It would then be felt'
that there is a right and a wrong use of the faculties of the intellect as well as of the body;
and that we are answerable, not indeed to man,but to God, for the principles we adopt.'-The
question," says Archbishop Whately, "when
plainly stated, is not whether men should;follow'
the guidance of inclination and fancy; nor, again
whether they should reject all human teaching,.
and refuse all assistance in their inquiries after,
religious truth; but, supposing a man willing to,
avail himself of all helps within his reach and,
to divest himself of all prejudice, is he ultimately to decide according to the best of his own
judgment, and embrace what appears to him to:
be truth? or, is he to forego the exercise of his
own judgment, and receive implicitly what is.
decided for him by the authority of the Church)
laboring to stifle any different conviction that
may present itself to his mind."  "We are, all
of us," says Madge, "a good deal dependent uponone another; we are, all of us, obliged to take
much upon trust. This is the case not only with
men of little learning arnd little information, but
with men well accomplished in both these respects. Take as an example the case of two or'
three men of different talents and attainments.
inquiring into the evidences of the Christian religion. The first, we will, say, is a scholar andc
well read in all the branches of Christian literature. The second is one who, though, not able,




28             TEE RIGHT OF
to read the New Testament in the original or
the works of the Greek and Latin fathers. has.still leisure and opportunity for reading such
ti'anslations as have been made of them, or such
Ewritings as contain the best and fullest information concerning them. The third is possessed of
plain good sense, but has little or no time for
reading works of.any considerable extent, and
derives therefore most of his knowledge on the,subject from  those who are able to give himn,
in a small compass, the result of their reading. Now each of these gets hold of the same
facts, though in different rways; and, possessing these facts, the one may be as competent
to draw from them  the just inference as the,other. The first will say that, from  his own
personal examination, he knows that the books,of the New Testament existed in their present
fbrm at a very early period of.the Christian era,:as is testified by the large quotations made fromn
them in the works of the first Christian fathers,.and which have come under his observation.
The second will say that he also has ascertained
the same fact, not indeed from a perusal of the an~cient authors themselves, but from the account,given of them  in the. works of Lardner, Less,
Paley and others in whose representations he
]places the most entire confidence. Then comes
the third, and he tells us that he has learnt this
fact, neither from the Fathers themselves, nor
from the writings of those by whom the Fathers
are largely quoted, but from the verbal testimony or assurance of those who did thus obtain'their knowledge, and on the truth and integrity
of whose statements he firmly relies. Now, in,these cases, it might perhaps be said, that the




PRIVATE  JUDGMENT.           2
last person, the poor unlettered man, is altogether
disqualified for drawing any argument in favor
of the authenticity of the New Testament from
the fact in question, because he has not been
able to obtain a knowledge of it by means of
his own personal examination of the authorities
on which he depends. To this I answer that,
availing himself as lie may of the labors and
learning of others for the desired informationr
he then becomes (unless there are other disqualifications to hinder him) quite as competent to
reason from the fact thus made known to him,,
as the other two that have been mentioned,
though without their aid and apart from their
testimony no such competency would be possessed by him. It is certainly true that on thesubject of religion,-on matters connected with
the interpretation of the New Testament,-there
is much concerning which many persons, from
their situation and circumstances, from their
state and condition intellectually and morally
considered, are not very well qualified to form a
correct judgment. If they think about them at
all, their thoughts will probably be very crude
and ill-digested; and hence perhaps we shall be
told that they, more especially, stand in need of
guidance and direction. Undoubtedlv they do;
but instead of saying to them, you have no rightto look into these matters, you have no right to
inquire and to judge of such things, you must
look up to us, and take our opinions as the rulea
and measure of your own, the wiser course would
be to say, The great essential points of Christian
belief, all that it is most necessary and important for you to know, are so clearly and explicitly and emphatically taught in the Scripture of




PATRISTICAL AUTHOIWrY
the New Testament, that all may understand
~them from the least to the greatest. -'Secret things.belong unto the Lord, but those which are revealed  belong unto us and to our children.'
Upon these let your thoughts be chiefly exercised; they will instruct you in the one thing
needful; they will make you wise unto salvation;
and if you are desirous of extending your inquiries beyond these,-if you are-anxious to become acquainted not only with the leading principles, the object,,the purpose, the spirit of
tChristianity, but with the letter of the New Testarnent, with the exact meaning of all its various
contents, argumentative as well as didactic, con-,troversial as well as historical, obscure as well;as plain,-remember that, for this purpose, certain qualifications are absolutely necessary, and
Athat without these you will only trouble and;perplex yourselves in vain."*
CHAPTER V..PATRISTICAL AUTHORITY IN INTERPRETATION,
It is the doctrine of the Romanists that the,Church, (by which they rnean of course the'Church. of Rome, or rather the Hierarchy of that.Church,) is the infallible judge and interpreter.-of Holy Scripture, on the ground that she is the
*Lectares on Puseyism.




IN INTERPRETATION.             31
onIly authority which represents Christ upon
earth, and that ever possessing his mind and supernaturally guided by his Spirit, she cannot
possibly err in her doctrinal decisions. This, as
we have seen, is utterly denied by the Reformed
Church. Some Protestant divines, however,
distinguished for their learning and piety, who
have no faith in the paramount or co-ordinate
authority of oral tradition, and repudiate the
papal claim to infallibility, do, notwithstanding,
virtually deny or greatly circumscribe the right
of private judgment in tie interpretation of the
Bible, by according to the early Church fathers
an authority incompatible with the exercise of
that right. They shift the ground of authoritati.ve interpretation from  the Church in all ages
or the Pope its spiritual head and representative, to the primitive Church as represented
by the fathers and early councils. Thus we
are told that "the Scriptures are the Rule of
Faith according to the primitive catholic interpretation, with the right of private judgment to decide what that interpretation was."  The Scriptures
are represented as the law, and the early fathers
as the judges and interpreters of that law, whose
concurrent decisions we are implicitly to follow.
"'As judges and interpreters of the written word,of God, they (i. e. the ancient fathers) have our
absolute confidence. whenever they are unanimous. But where they are not unanimous, we
are compelled to do as they did; compare their
discordant sentiments with Scripture, and adopt
that sense, which seems most conformable to
the language of inspiration."  Again: " there is a
part of the English law, although it is not expressed in the [thirty-nine] articles [of the Church




32       PATRISTICAL AUTHORITY
of England], and has no formal recognition in
the system of the American [Episcopal] Church,
which I consider important to a perfect understanding of our doctrine concerning the Rule of
Faith; and this is the provision that the Scriptures should be expounded according to the
sense of the ancient fathers."
If this is the doctrine of the English Church
it is extraordinary that it should have found no
place in the Articles of that Church, many of
which relate to points of far less consequence
than this. Besides, why did not the Anglican
Reformers append to their admirable translation of the Scriptures a catena of patristical interpretation, as the Romanists have done, so that
the clergy as well as the unlearned reader might
be enabled in every instance to put the authoritative interpretation upon them, and not by furnishing them with the naked text, leave them
to exercise presumptuously their own private
judgment inr regard to cases already adjudicated?  Or, why did they not at least cause the
writings of the fathers to be translated into the
English language and circulated among the people, in order that they might have the true key
with which to unlock the treasures of the Bible?
Even Mr. Newman saw clearly the propriety of
this course, and he and his co-adjutors among
the Oxford Tractarians undertook to supply this
defect. Remarking on the tenacity with which
Christians of the present age maintain the notion, that they are inadequate judges of tradition, he follows it up by saying, "It does seem a
reason for putting before them, if possible, the
principal works of the Fathers, translated as
Scripture is, that they may have by them, what,.




IN INTERPRETATION.            33
whether used or not, will at least act as a check
upon the growth of an undue dependence on
the word of individual teachers, and will be
something to consult, if they have reason to
doubt the catholic character of any tenet to
which they are invited to accede." It would
seem, then, according to the views here presented, that although we may read the Scriptures, we
may not interpret them in the exercise of our rational faculties, as we do any other book; but
must first go to the early church fathers and ascertain what interpretation they put upon the
sacred volume. That interpretation, as far as it
goes, we are implicitly to receive and adopt as
conclusive, whether it accords with reason and
common sense or not. It is true, that, where
the fathers are not unanimous, we are allowed
to do as they did. And what did they do? They
studied the Scriptures for themselves. And
why may we not do the same thing, as well in
regard to points on which they have expressed
an opinion, as in reference to those upon which
they are silent? The very fact that they have
advanced discordant opinions conclusively proves
that they were not, infallible, and not always reliable. Truly this stuclying of the Scriptures
through the writings of the fathers, instead of
going directly to the fountain head, is a most
recondite and circuitous, as well as unsatisfactory way of coming at their meaning.
But who are the primitive or ancient fathers,
whose authority is decisive as to the meaning of
Scripture? Does the term embrace the writers
of the first two centuries only or of the first
three? Or does it comprehend also those of the
fourth, fifth and sixth centuries?  Are lrenmaus
3




34       PATRISTICAL AUTHORITY
and Tertullian the latest writers who are entitled to this enviable distinction? Or are we to
include Augustine and Jerome in the number?
This is a point of very considerable importance,
and yet it is one by no means settled among the
advocates of patristical authority. By some
much is said about Nicene Christianity, the Nicene Church and the Nicene Creed. These have
been lauded to the skies as perfect, comprehending all Divine truth, and presenting nothing but
apostolic truth. With such, doubtless, the authority of the Nicene or ante-Nicene fathers, as
interpreters of Scripture, is decisive and unquestionable. Supposeo, then, we restrict the t-rrnm
to these, who are the men, we may ask, that
must be recognized as authoritative interpreters
of the Word of God?  In addition to the soi
disa.t apostolic fathers, who are not of much account in reference to the matter under consideration, there are Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Irenmus, Tertullian, Cyprian and Origen.
Now on what ground are the interpretations of
these men to be implicitly followed by us? It
must be either on the ground of their possessing superior literary qualifications for such a
work, or on the ground of their proximity to
the apostolic age, or on both.
What then were the personal qualifications
and literary attainments of these men?  No
one claims that they were generally eminent biblical scholars. The works of most of them which
have come down to our times are apologetic
rather than exegetical.  Where they belong to
the latter class of writings, they are open to
most weighty objection on account of the erroneous principles of interpretation which pervade




IN INTERPRETATION.            33
them, Some of them carried the allegorical and
mystical system to a most unwarrantable, extravagant and even ridiculous extent. At the
head of Biblical interpreters during this period
stands Origen. Possessed of great genius, extensive erudition, amazing industry and vast
powers of memory, he holds the most conspicuous place among the Christian writers of the
ante-Nicene age. But he pushed the allegorical
mnode of interp —tation to a far greater and more
dlangerous extent'than any of his predeces30rs.
To the Scriptures h.e ascribed a three-fold sense,
viz.: the literal or grammatical, the moral, and
the spiritual or mystical. To the first of these
he attached very little value; but regarded the
hidden or mystical sense as the only one worthy
of regard. None but the most wild and visionarv of the present day would regard him as a
safe and judicious expositor of the sacred voluine. S"wedenborgians might adopt him  as a
guide, but not any one who places common sense
above fancies and dreams.
But it is alleged that the ante-Nicene fathers
possessed the advantages of having lived very
near the age of the Saviour and his apostles, and
on this account alone are e ntitled to implicit
confidence. To their writings the legal maxim
is applied, CondtC'?rporanco:s interpretation is the
Lest inaterpretation.  This principle is doubtless
a sound one in reference to Biblical as well
as secular writings. But the rule is not applicable to any great extent to the writers in question. They did not live near enough to the
times and scenes of the apostolic ministry to impart to their interpretations the character of
genuine and uncorrupted apostolic tradition,




36        PATRISTICAL AUTHORITY
The rule applies in their case only to general
doctrines and facts, and not to particular interpretations of Scripture, and therefore cannot
supercede a personal examination and an independent judgment of Scripture for ourselves.
Testimony may be early and yet not contemporaneous. We should hardly affirm of two inditiduals who lived one or two hundred years
apart that they were contemporay and that the
latter was fully competent to tell us what interpretation the former put upon this or that passage of Scripture in the absence of all documentary evidence to that effect. The ftct that a
Christian father of the third century has put
a certain construction upon a passage of Scripture would certainly be very inadequate testimnony to prove that the Apostles of the first
century pat the same construction upon it. The
Constitution of the United States has been inl
texistence scarcely three-fourths of a century;
and yet, notwithstanding 1ll the light thrownr
upon that. instrument from the well-known pri-'ate opinions of its framers, the statesmen of
our age have already begun to dispute about its
mea.ning.  But few of the ante-~ricene fathers
lived soon after the death of the Apostles, and
their writings are of no special value as interprttations of Scripture. Clement of Rome, Ignatius and Polycarp are all. Still the testimony of
the others is. comparatively early, and would be
entitled to our respect on this ground provided,:ther thin. swere equal.  But other things are not
qu al. Th ey did not possess other requisite qualifications. Several of those who lived at a nuch
later period, (e. g. Chrysostom, Augustine and,Teromle,) are entitled from their superior learn



IN INTERPRETATION.            37
ing and sounder judgment to much greater respect and deference, than are any of those who
previously flourished and wrote.
Are the ante-Nicene fathers then, it may be
a.sked, of no value? Most certainly they are of'
value; but this is not the question under consideration. They are of some vatue as interpreters of Scripture; but of much greater importance as credible witnesses of facts which came
under their observation. A man may be perfectly competent to testify to a fact, and at the
same time very incormpetent to expound an an-cient document. Tihe testimony of the primitive fathers is highily important, no doubt, iv
reference to the canon of Scripture, tle polity.?
rites and ceremonies of the Church, and her received and traditional doctrines. The following
examples will illustrate our meaning. I take
up the New Testament, and by a careful and
critical examination of its contents, I come to
the conclusion that the Divinity of Christ is
most clearly taught therein. T find divine names
bestowed upon him, divine attributes ascribed
to him, divine works attributed to;him and divine honors paid to him. I am compelled therefore to believe that such ig the doctrine of that.
inspired book. But this cdoctrine'by some is
-denied on the ground that such islnot the teaching of this book. Now to satisfy myself more
fully that I have read and interpreted the pas-sages bearing on this point rightly, I turn to the
history of the. early church and its doctrines as
-these are developed in the writings of the fathers of the first three centuries and other authentic documents, and I find that, with few exscepfious, the doctrine of CbhriAt's, ivinity was




38        PATRISTICAL AUTHORITY
held as a fundamental truth bv the whole church,
and that the few who denied it were regarded
as heretical.  This corroborative testimony from
the universal belief of the early church affords
the most satisfactory confirmlation of the correctness of my interpretation.
Again: I read the historical account of the
institution of the Lord's Supper in the Gospels,
and also. the command of the Saviour to his
apostles to baptize all nations, and am led by a
aound gralrnatical exegesis to the conclusion that,
these ordinances were designed by the Saviourl
to be perpetuated in his Church to the end of
time.  I then turn to the inspired records of the
Apostolic Church as contained in the Acts of the
Apostles and their Epistles, and am  confirmed
n the opinion that I have interpreted the words
of Christ correctly.  But a sect has sprung up
which denies that such was the intention of the
Saviour.  I, then, in order to render assurance
doublv sure, recur to the uninspired but authentic writings of the early fathers and their testiniony and above all their practice puts the fact
beyond a peradventure, for it is a sound principle universally admitted  that the early vzsage
4under a law is the best itderprtation'qf that law.
One more:. I find our Saviour. on one occasion, washing his disciples' feet in order to inculcate in the most impressive manner the
Christian duty of humility and condescension.
But I am not sure whether this ceremony was.
intended by our Saviour to be continued in his
Church, and was so understood by his disciples
or not. Some maintain that it was so intended.
To satisfy myself on this point I examine the
remains of Christian antiquity and find that the




IN INTERPRETATION.           39
early Christians practiced no such rite. The inference to my mind is irresistable, that our Saviour was not understood by his disciples to impose the perpetual obligation of such observance
on his Church. Thus we see that the writings of
the early fathers are of great value historiccaly,
and furnish much information and light to the
student. In this point of view, no doubt, more
deference was paid to them by the Church of
England at the Reformation, than by the Continental Reformers. But hermeneutical/y they have
no special clairm to our regard or attention.
Our remarks thus far have been confined
to the ante-Nicene fathers. Suppose now we
extend our views somewhat beyond the anteNicene fathers, and take in those of the 4th, 5th
and 6th centuries, we still fail to find what is
claimed,-an authoritative exposition of Scripture, which in any sense supercedes the right
and dutyof exercising our own deliberate
iudgment in the investigation of the sacred volume. In regard to literary appliances and qualfications forthe work of scriptural interpretation
-hey were for the most part in far less favorable
circumstances than are the Biblical interpreters
)f the present day. With only one exception
jJerome) they were entirely unacquainted even,vith the language in which the Old Testament,vas written, and were consequently obliged to
ely on imperfect and in many instances inaccu*ate translations of it. They had never studied
he principles of interpretation, and adopted
uch as are now universally admitted to have
)een unsound and derogatory to the Scriptures
themselves.  Their expositions are frequently
so childish and absurd that we may well wonder




40        PATRISTICAL. AUTHORITY
how sober-minded men could have. entertained
them, and still more that the authors of them
should be held up not only, as the best, but as
authoritative and nearly if not quite infallible
guides and lights in the investigation of Scripture truth.
The doctrine that the Scriptures are to be understood according to the interpretation of the
Christian fathers must proceed on the assumption that the Scriptures on the one hand, are so
written as to be unintelligible in themselves, and
on the other, that the writings of the fathers
are clear and luminous. But such an assumption is without foundation. The Bible, notwithstanding its many difficulties, is a considerably
more intelligible book than the works of the fathers; and the latter often stand much more in
need of comment and elucidation than the former. The writings in question are frequently
so obscure and unintelligible as to perplex and
confound the most careful and discerning reader. "Let theScriptures," says Milton, "be hard;
are they more hard. more crabbed, more abstruse
than the fathers?  lie that cannot understand
the- sober,, plain and; unaffected style of the
Scriptures, will be ten times more puzzled with
the knotty Africanisms, the pampered metaphors,. the intricate and involved sentences of
the fathers."
Again:: The expository writings of the fathers  of the first six centuries cover only
*. comparatively small portion  of the Sacred,
Volume, On some parts of the New Testament
they are somewhat copious and valuable, especially those of Chrysostom; but on the Old theyare very meagre, and witb. the exception of JA



IN INTERPRETATION.            41
rome, of little value. If we rely, therefore, upon
them to enlighten us in regard to the true meaning of the Bible, we shall find ourselves in five
cases out of six without a guide, and be compelled to pursue our way in the best manner
we can in the exercise of our rational faculties.
The works of these writers also are so voluminous that but few could ever read them  thoroughly, even if they were translated. It occupied Archbishop Usher 18 or 19 years of his life
to read them through, although he read a portion of them every day. Besides, these expositors of the Word of God are far from  being
agreed in their interpretations. Many of their
expositions are contradictory and irreconcilable
to such an extent as to lead Chillingworth to remark, "there are fathers against fathers, and fathers against themselves: a consent of fathers
of one agwfe against a consent of fathers of another age." HIow, then, amid such conflicting
opinions is the student to decide? Must he or
must he not fall back on his own reason and
judgment, however fallible they may be, to help
him out of the labyrinth?
There is no evidence that the fathers either
of the ante-Nicene or of the post-Nicene church
claimed for their opinions any such authority
and deference as are accorded to them by some.
And if they had, there is abundant evidence
that the validity of such a claim would not have
been allowea by the Church. Their opinions in
many instances, were rejected by the Church as
heretical and unscriptural. Origen who was the
ablest and most learned among the early writers
was anathematised by the 2d council of Constantinople. Tertullian was grossly heretical during




42        PATRISTICAL AUTHORITY
a portion of his life, and Lactanius was also
charged with heresy.
Some writers more moderate than the rest,
claim for the fathers not authority to enunciate
doctrine, but simply to test it. To their interpretations of Scripture we must bring ours; and
if we do not find ourselves in conflict with them
we are at liberty to hold what we have excogitated. And where they have expressed no opinion we are at liberty to interpret for ourselves.
Put a test is of little value unless it be absolutely certain. A chemist's tests are unerring and
therefore infallible  If they  were not, they
would be discarded by science as useless. A
test, moreover, must be complete in itself. It
must not admit of appeal to other tests molra
complete or more certain, but must decide. the
point to which it is applied. Now to concede
such a testing power or authority to the fathers
is in reality to concede everything.'To grant a
testing power, is to grant a judging power, fi-om.which there can be no appeal. In all cases, therefore, in which they have given any decision,
they are, according to this view, judges-supreme
udges and consequently, infallible judges.
But it is alleged that we are bound to listen to
the voice of the Church: -the fathers are the
epresentatives of the Church in their different
iges and the proper exponents of its teaching;
2onsequently we are bound to yield  implicit
tssent to their interpretations of Scripture.  If
he truth of the major premise in this syllogism,e admitted, it does not follow that the minor is
rue; and if the minor be not proved, the conlusion falls to the ground. But we apprehend..t would be difficult to establish the truth of the




IN INTERPRETATION.            43
minor proposition. The Christian fathers whose
writings have come down to our times, represent
indeed the opinions of a certain number in their
day, just as I)r. Pusey or Bishop McIlvaine represents those of a certain class in ours, or as
Jeremy Taylor or Jonathan Edwards represented those of another class in a former age; and
that is all. But to call Origen or Ambrose or
NAugustine the voice of the unlive:sal Church, is
an assertion the truth of which cannot be substantiated.  Doubtless the circle of their influence was great, but it was far from being universal. The vast tomes of the fathers embody, beyond dispute, mnuch truth, much eloquence and
much genius, and are therefore entitled to respect; but we are under no obligation to bow
implicitly to their dogmatic or their exegetical
theology.
If; indeed, it could be shown, that they lived
for the most part so very near the apostolic age,
as to render it improbable that they could have
been unacquainted with the meaning which our!;aviour and his apostles attached to their own
language; if it could be shown that they possessed the requisite literary qualifications for
explaining the scriptures in a satisfactory manner:-that they always expressed their own
views with clearness and perspicuity, so as to
render their meaning unmistakeable:-that their
exegetical writings cover the whole or nearly
the whole ground of Scripture: —that they are
embraced within a reasonable compass, so as not
to require years of laborious study to plod
through them:-that the writers were generally
agreed in the exposition of the sacred volume
and of Christian doctrines:-that they claim for




44        PATRISTICAL AUTHORITY
their opinions and expositions the authority accorded to them, and established that authority
by proper evidence:-and finally, if it could be
shown that their interpretations were generally
regarded as of determinate authority in the age
in which they lived, and fairly exhibited the
donminant and prevailing view)s of the Church:
-then there might be some ground, perhaps,
for insisting that we should hold our own reason
in abeyance, lay aside the study of philology, of
hermeneutics, and cf kindred sciences, and read
the Bible only through the medium furnished
by the fathers. But we apprehend the clay is far
distant when these things will be proved.
But it may be said that primitive interpretation
of Scripture is to be gathered, not solely from
the writings of the Fathers, but from the Creeds
and Confessions and Decrees of the Councils,
and especially the general or ecumenical Councils. Whatever doctrine or interpretation the
primitive ages unanimously attest, whether by
consent of the. Fathers or by Councils, is to be
implicitly received. It is in both these forms
that the Church speaks, ard from both we are to
learn what the Scriptures teach. Let us pass
then front the Fathers to the Councils. If we
seek for the consentient testimony of the Churclh
in the decrees of the Councils, we shall find
ourselves in the same dilemma as before. For
as there are Fathers against Fathers, so there are
Councils against Councils.  Suppose that we
confine our view to General Councils, how does
the matter stand?  The Romanists reckon as
many as eighteen General Councils. How many5
of these are we to regard as of authority in matters of interpretation and doctrine?  3Mr. New



IN INTERPRETATION.             45
mnan says that the termination of the era of
purity cannot be fixed much earlier than the
Council of Sardicia. A. D. 347. Suppose, then,
we call the first four centuries "primitive antiquity" and the doctrines of that period "primitive
purity."  How many General Councils do we
find in this period?  Only two, viz. that of Nice,
A. D. 325. and thl-t of Constantinople A. D. 381.
If we include the fifth century we get only four;
and if we embrace the sixth and seventh centuries, we have in all, six General Councils.  Will
the decisions of any or all of these furnish us
with an authoritative interpretation of Scripture?
From the first two we get the Nicene Creed in
its present form, and this is all which the Episcopal Church has received from  them.  T'he
Apostles' Creed we also receive from  primitive
times, although it was never formally set forth
by a General Council. And this Creed we venerate and love, not merely for its antiquity, but
for its beautiful simplicity, its conformity to
Scripture, and its remarkable freedom  from all
philosophysing and theorysing.  But after all,
upon how few points in the Christian systemn do
these Creeds touch? They relate mostly to facts
in the Gospel history which  lie open  and
conspicuous on the face of the New Testament,
and which, with the exception of the doctrine
of the Trinity, as enunciated in the -Nicene ('reed,
and the Descent of Christ into Hell in the Apostles' Creed, hardly admit of la diversity of opinion among those who acknoswledge    th- suplreme
authority of Scripture. These councils, therefore, have done but comparatively little towards
providing the student of the Bible with an infallible standard of interpretation, And on what




46        PATRISTICAL AUTHORITY
ground does the Episcopal Church receive these
Creeds?  This is a question of the gravest import-apce and is vital to our present inquiry.
"They ought thoroughly to be received and believed," says Article VIII, "because they may be
proved by most certain warrants of Hloly Scripture."  The Scriptures then, according to the
express teaching of this venerable Church, are
the sole rule of faith, and the ancient Creeds are
to be received not -on the ground of any independent and special authority which in consequence ot their antiquity they are supposed to
possess to comnmand our assent, but because, whenl
brought to the test of Scripture, they are found
to accord with its obvious teachings.  The views
of the Episcopal Church also in regard to the authority of c,uncils are unmistakeably ex.,ressed
in Art. XXI. "'As they are an assembly of men
whereof all are not governed by the Spirit and
word of God, they may err, and sometimes have
erred in things pertaining to God; wherefore
things admitted by them  as necessary to salvation, have neither stre7,gth nor authorily, unless it
may be declared that they are taken out of HIoy
Scripture."
In all that we have said with respect to the
early fathers, it has been neither our purpose
nor our wish to detract one iota from their value
or diminish their influence as competent and
credible witnesses of facts; and in this view their
testimony is the more valuable the nearer it approaches the Apostolic age.  For this purpose it
is not necessarly that they should be learned anal
able to explain in a satisfactory manner the
many difficult passages of Scripture.  All that i.s
required is the  opportunity of knowing and




IN INTERPRETATION.           47
honesty in declaring what they know. The
great advantage to be derived from  the earlier
Fathers is that they give us in their writings a
faithful picture of the' times in which they lived
-that they make us acquainted with the external.and inteTnal state and condition of the
primitive Church, its ecclesiastical polity, its
rites and ceremonies, its moral discipline and
influence: —that they tell us of the opinions and
practices that prevailed in the early ages, and
especially that they furnish us with the most
abundant and satisfactory evidence of the existence of the books of the New Testament at
such a period of' the Christian era as to render it
impossible for them, widely dififsed as they
were, to have been forged and palmed upon the
world, in so short. a time, as the genuine writings
of apostles and apostolic men. All that we contend for is, that they were fallible men, who
were not only li:;ble to commit mistakes in their
interpretation of Scripture, but who actually did
commit many mistakes: that as interpreters they
were clothed with no authority which obliges us
to submit implicitly to their opinions: that the
Bible is not the Rule of faith as interpreted by
the Fathers, but that the Bible is the Rule of
faith interpreted by all the lights we can bring
to bear upon it.




48             RATIONALISM.
CHAPTER VI.
RATIONALISM.
Thus far it. has been our aim to advocate the
claims of right Reason as a guide of paramount
importance in the interpretation of Scripture,
and to vindicate as a necessary consequence
the right of private judgment, in opposition to
the alleged judicial authority of the Bishop of
Rome on the one hand, and of the early church
fathers on the other. We have endeavored also
to define briefly the legitimate province of Reason in reference to the interpretation of Scripture, and to show the necessity of restricting its
exercise to its own proper domain. But while
it is highly important to guard against an im])licit reliance on the decisions of the Roman
Pontiff or on the opinions of the early expounders of sacred writ, it must not be overlooked that our greatest danger at the present
day lies in the opposite direction, viz: in placing
an exclusive reliance on human reason, and exalting it to the position of a supreme, exclusive
and infallible arbiter, test, and judge of the
tru'th or falsehood of the facts and doctrines of
the Bible. This abuse, misapplication and perversion of human reason in dealing with the
claims and statements of Divine Revelation, is
usually designated by the term  Rationalism.
The system  has its origin partly in the corruption of the human heart, which, while it cannot
bring itself to an open rejection of the Gospel
as a divine revelation, proudly rises in opposition
to its humiliating and self-denying doctrines,




RATIONALISM.             49
and partly in a high. overweening and deceptive
estimate of man's religious instincts and reasoning powers. The tendency to exalt and exaggerate the powers and capacities of the human
mind, and to bring everything if possible down
to the level and within the grasp of its comprehension is a very remarkable characteristic of
the present age; and in no department of science has this tendency been more conspicuous
than in that of theology.
Rationalism as a system differs from what is
termed Naturalism  in this respect. The latter
recognizes nothing but the religion of nature, or
pure Deism; it denies the possibility or at least
the necessity and probability of a supernatural
Revelation, and consequently denies that the
Holy Scriptures are in any proper sense a Revelation firom God. The former, however, acknowledges the doctrine of Scripture as a divine
revelation, but brings that doctrine to the standard of human reason and conscience. The advocates of this system claim not only the moral
right, but the full capability of each individual,
not merely to ascertain by the application of
sound and acknowledged principles of interpretation the meaning of the sacred writers, but to sit
in judgment on the facts and doctrines of Scripture themselves, and either to reject- them as untrue, or to put such a forced and unnatural construction upon the text as to make its teachings
accord with their subjective feelings and philosophical speculations. Everything which the Bible contains must, according to this system, be
brought down to the comprehension of human
reason, and whatever is beyond the reach of the'
human faculties or offensive to the moral sensi4




50              RATIONALISM.
bilities of the individual is to be discarded.  Rationalists proceed on the ground that whatever is
not intelligible or comprehensible is incredible;
that only what is of familiar and-easy explanation,
and involves no difficulties, is entitled: to belief,
and. that all which is miraculous and mysteriousih Scripture must be rejected;  Theyeither deny
entirely the divine inspi.ation of the sacredA
writers, or else advocate such loose views of inspiration as practically amounts to a denial of it.
By the application of a destructive criticism they
get rid of entire books or large portions of books
from  the sacred canon.  They generally take
some system of philosophy to which as a touchstone they bring the evidences and doctrines of
Revelation.  Whatever passages of the Bible
appear to be inconsistent with this standard, are,
discarded from  their creed.  This accounts for
the varying aspects and numerous phases which
Rationalism  presents, according to the current
of the prevailing Philosophy,-a circumstance;
which renders it ext.re nelv difficult to define it.
or to describe fairly and accurately its prominent
a.nd distinctive features.
The system of interpretation followed by the.
Rationalists exhibits precisely the same treatment of the sacred books as of the Greek and
Latin classics, in utter disregard of the divine,
and spiritual nature of the truths they contain,
the unimlpeached and unimpeachable character
of the writers, their entire credibility and trustworthiness, and the divine guidance, superintenclence and inspiration, under which they
Mcaim. to have composed their writings. The,
principle which lies at the basis of their hermeneutics, is. Interpret the Bible as you woduld anrty




'RATIONALISM.                51
thfier book. This principle, which is undoubtedly
a, sound.one carried to a certain extent, and
applied with proper limitations and qualifications, is grossly abused and perverted by this
class of interpreters, and the Bible is treated b'y
them as they would not treat any other'book
possessing the least claims to authenticity and
credibility, much less to divine authority.'Possessed of no real reverence for the sacred docuanents, and destitute of humility in its approaches
-to the fountains of heavenly truth, Rationalismt
comes not to drink of the pure waters and be
satisfied, but to disturb their pI1acidity and to
lessen the enjoyment of such as drinki at ths
zame hallowed source.  It suffers little of a
purely religious nature t.o stand in thle Biht,~..
and even that which. it leaves untouched, is so.affected by the breath of its scepticism, as to yield
*no salutary or solid nutrimentu to the hungry
spirit.  It levels the -mountains of God into
plains and  iemoves the  ancient landmarks
wvhich ages have justly -venerated.  Nor does it
-fspare the holiest discouarses of TJesus, but reduces
cven these to barrenness by the wvithering blight
Of' its presence."
it is not our puirpose to atternpt a reflt ation
of this most fallac-ious1 baseless, and pernicious
system.  This would require volumes instead of
a few paragraphs, which is all the space we can
give to it. We have endeavored simply to present an outline cf'its most prominent fea.tures,,ncl  to put our readers on their gua.rd against a
syxstem  which enthrones reason in tbhe seat of,supremacy, which strips Revelation of every
thing peculiar to fi, and hurls the divine fhbrie.f' revealed truth to.the grlaund, leaving nothing




t2        LIGHTT OF AXT1H6AITft.
for the faith or hope of a poor sinner to rest
upon. From- such a;n awfful heresy, the offspring
of the evil one-A ilying vanity by which many
who call themselves Christians, and some who
occupy prominent positions have been unhappily
deceived-the Church should be quickly and
thoroughly purged, or we shall have no word of
God left us.
CiIAPTER  VII:
TIHE LIGHT OF AUTHORITY.
One of the guides whose assistance should be:
invoked in the study of the Scriptures, is t/he
light of authority. AII men are influenced in
a greater or less degree in the formation of their
opinions on difficult and important subjects, by
the views and sentiments of others, who are
supposed from their superior talents, or education, their extensive learning, or favorable opportunities, to be better qualified than themselves
for arriving at just conclusions. The field of
knowledge is so vast, that it is impossible, within
the short span of human life, for any man to
investigate for himself every subject on which
he is expected to have and to e:zpress an opirtion.
Hence, for a large part of what we profess to
know, we are indebted to the testimony of others; and the authority of names is everywhere
confessedly great. This hold's true in regard to
every science and department of knowledfge.




LIGHT OF AUTHORITY.:- 53
and theology furnishes no exception to the remark. It is natural and highly proper that we
should pay a suitable respect and deference to
the opinions of those who may be possessed of
superior qualifications and advantages to unfold
the meaning of Scripture. The Bible is a collection of ancient records relating to a divine
economy, composed by different authors, in different ages, and in different languages and styles,
embracing a great variety of subjects, historical,
prophetical, poetical and ethical. To investigate
de',ovo every point of importance in respect to
them, in disregard of the labors of other minds
who have been employed in the same field of
inquiry and research, is beyond the power of a
single individual, however well qualified for the
task. And the attempt to do this would only
betray a profound ignorance of our own incompetency and consummate vanity and self-conceit.
There is not one, therefore, who does not feel
alnd at least practically acknowledge the necessity of resorting to foreign aid and relying more
or less on authority in the interpretation of
Scripture. Even the most learned and intelligent are not insensible to its influence, and the
uneducated, who are disqualified for forming an
independent opinion, depend almost entirely on
authority. Its value on the one hand has undoubtedly been unduly magnified and exaggerated, and on the other, as unduly depreciated.
With millions the authority of opinion has the
force of law. It overrides every thing else, and
is paramount to all other considerations. Thus
Newman (on Romanism) remarks, "When the
sense of Scripture, as interpreted by reason, is
contrary to the sense given to it by catholic an



JU'"-      L'IGHT OF AiUtHO1IT;t
tiquit.y, we ought to abide with the latterf7
Others, on the Ce6itrary, have affected to despise
authority, anti to rely exclusively either updrI
their independent judgment or the inward light
of the Spirit.
The term authority is not always used in precisely the same sense.  We speak of the atthoritf of law, and the authority of testi/mony.  By
authority in the former case, we mean  ihyAtflt
power; but in the latter, we employ the term ias
equiivalent to we;ght, aifyuence.  The author ity of
law does not admit of degrees; it is perfect and
complete in itself.  But the authority of testimony does admit of various degrees, and is
wveaker or stronger Atccording -to the circui —
stances of the case and the, nature of the testimiony.  The authority of law is obligatory a-mnd
imperative within the sphere of its action.  It is
armed with power to command and to enforce
obedience to its mandates by peral sanctions.
Not so is it with the an-ithority of testimonyn;That has no binding force, and it is in the. power 
bf each individual to admit or reject it, as his
judgment may dictate.  In determining  the
meaning of the Scriptures in the 6riginal languages, we depend chiefly npon testimony, and
are governed by its autholrity, i. e.; We relty  in
most dases for $he signification of particular
words and their sense in combination, on ap
proved lexicons and grammars, which embody
in a convenient form a.nd sniall compass the results of a laborious and extensive examination
of the usage, which from the want of opportunity or facilities, we may not be able to investigate for ourselves.  We ascertain, therefore} the
preort of a divine precept, through the medium




LIGHT OF AUTHORITY.             55
-of human authority, i. e.,,of testimony; we obey
the precept because it has the authority qf God.
It is to this human testimony and its authority,
or that weight and influence we are accustomed,to accord to it in the formation or confirmation
of our opinions, that we refer in relation to the
present subject.  This estimony is of course
fallible, and therefore Tiable to err, while the
testimony of God is infallible, and is implicitly
to be received.
Human testimony is of different kinds: —
1. There is the testinlonv of tradition,:and hence
we speak of the authority of tradition.  The
word tradition, (rcgaeoaw~, traditio.) in its etymological and most extensive sense signifies any
information, whether fact, doctrine, or precept,
delivered from  one person to another in any
lmanner, whether orally or in writing.  In this
sense it is constantly employed by the early,Church fathers in reference to the Gospels aend
Epistles of the New Testament-the first being
~ca.lled for the sake of distinction the Evangelical'tradition; the second the Apostolical tradition.
But in the strict and now more common and appropriate sense, the word signifies that which was
originally delivered orally, and not embodied in
the sacred volume, though it may finally have
been reduced to writing in a subsequent age, to
which it had been handed down by word of
mouth.*  This is a species of testimony, which,
though elevated by the Jewish Rabbins and by
the Church of Rome to the same position as the
volume of inspired truth, is held in very light,esteem by Protestants, because it corresponds to
* See Note, p 15-] 7..




56         LIGHT OF AUTHORITY.
what in courts of law is called hearsay evidenZ.e,
which is universally regarded as of little intrinsic worth on account of the infirmity and
treachery of the human memory, and the possibility of designed misrepresentation which cannot be detected from the want of direct and.positive evidence.
2. There is next the testimony of an eye or ear
witness. As the testimony of tradition is the
weakest, so this is the strongest and most reliable of all testimony, so far as pertains to all matters cognizable by the senses. Because the early
church fathers were competent witnesses of facts
coming within their own personal observation
and knowledge, although possessed of very limited information in reference to other things,
we haye no hesitation in relying on their testimony with regard to the received canon of
Scripture, the change of the Sabbath, the mode
and subjects of. baptism, the different orders in
the Christian ministry, the form of ecclesiastical
government, the admission of females to church
memlbership and communion, the doctrine of
the Deity of Christ, of the Trinity, &c., and the
authority of such testimony cannot be rejected
without betraying great inconsistency and want
of candor.
3. There is further the testimony of opinion,
whether of one individual or of many collectively, and this irrespective of the grounds on
which that opinion may be based. Of course
this opinion is of greater weight where the
grounds of belief are distinctly stated, but where
this is not done the naked opinion of those
whom we believe to be competent to form a correct opinion carries with it no little influence.




LIGHT OF AUTHORITY.             57
When we find, for example, that such men as
Sir Isaac Newton, Locke, Pascal, Addison, Johnlson, Bunsen, Daniel Webster, and a host of oth,
ers possessed of the most vigorous and capacious
intellects, of comprehensive and liberal views,
and of profound and varied learning, were firm
believers in the truth and divine authority of
the Scriptures, though this fact does not directly
ptrove the truth of these scriptures, it must and
will have great weig ht with all dispassionate,
unprejudiced and thoughtful men, in confirming
their own previous convictions, and furnishes at
the same time an irrefragable confutation of the
assertion so often to be met with in the writings
of infidels and sceptics, that none but men of
shallow intellects and limited knowledge have
placed confidence in the written word of God
This remark applies also with equal truth and
force to particular doctrines and expositions of
Scripture.
The witness or testimony in question embraces: --. The teachings of the Universal
Church, or of some particular branch of that
church. 2. The teachings of individual members of the church. The first is contained in
Church Creeds, Confessions of Faith, Articles of
Religion, Catechismns, Liturgies, Homilies, and
other symbolical writings. The visible Church
was established to be'the witness and keeper of
Holy Writ," —not the exclusive witness or exclu-.
sive keeper, but especially charged with these
responsible duties. Others may preserve and
bear testimony to the Scriptures as well as she,
but it is specially incumbent on her, because to
her has been committed " the Oracles of Truth,"
A.cl she cannot fail to ojQ her duty in this regarcl




MQi8        LIGHT OF AUTHORITY.
wit.hout being wanting  in  her allegiance t6
Christ.  But to be a witness of holy writ necessarily includes the office of teaching the doctrines and precepts which it inculcates and enjoins.  Nor could she be " the pil;lr nar1 ground
of the truth,"' unletss she w ere in ested w ith the
l)owuer and -abilityS, not only to preserve, in her
keeping. but to'st forth. inculcate anrd maintain
yv  her doematic and ethic al teaching, (-ospel
truth.  Revealed religion is a' system  of faith
mtnd practice, requiring instruction for its propagation in the world; anridc as th;e Arpostles promulgated it by word of owouthl as well as by
their wvritings, so the Chulrch was instituted to:suplyv in some measure their plac-e, by te(aching
the same to her inemnbers, no less thin by placing
in their hands'the in-spired volmne. T'his priviIe e an Ad duty sh e has aim ed to dischar ge i n her
eollective. ce.,pacity by eml)odying the chief and
r-ost essential articles of the (Christian ft'ith in
forms sutpposed to be best rladpted to meet t!o(,
wants of the people.'lhe riglt to set forth inl
dloctrinal. catechetical and litlurical fo mularies
her sense of the general meaning of Scripture,
has been almost universally accorded to the.
church catholic, and has been exereised by her-'from the earliest period o' h-er establishment, as
a duty which she owed to herself in order to
preserve her unity, and to her members tihat
they might under all circumstances have a sunmmary of Christian faith, drawn up by the collec-;tive wisdom of the church, to which they mayv
refer as a guide in the study of the sacred volume.  It cannot be denied, that in the exercise
of this right she has frequently erred, by setting
tbrth-dogmras which either find little support in




LIGHT OF AUTHORIt[Y.            5
the word of God, and which are by no means
essential, or that are clearly at variance with the
sacred record. tncd has enforced them with an intolerance utterly inconsistent with the spirit of
the Gospel.  But notwithstanding this, her right
thus to embody the collective opinions of her
members in creeds and( confessions of faith, cannot well be questioned.  And what may be done
by the whole church, may be done by any Sporn
tion or branch thereof'The powers and privit
leges with which the church catholic is investe(d
a'ttach to any sound branch of the same.  And
there is not a singcle denomination of Christian.
claiming to be a part of the visibie church)
which has not either at writ ten or a mental creed..
Put as the several individ'usls who compose the
churclh or any branch of it, ae not infalliblie, so
neither does infallibillity attach to either of thenm
collectively'; and their s'ybollC t bFooks are to
be receive(l only so far as ve are assuried they
may be proved -)by most certain warrants of Holy
Scripture.  At the same time, much deference
and respect are due to formulari'es thus set ftorth
un(ler the sanction of ecclesiastical auth'ority,
and these are generally accorded to themn. 1They
are important helps in the investigation of Scriptuire.
But this method of propornding divine truth
Vor th'e use of the members of the church is altogether inadequate for the purpose intended.
lience our Saviour instituted within the church
a standing ministry, who should have ecclesiastical authority to explain the Scriptures to the
people. Accordingly we find that those who
are ordained to the sacred office are to be teachers (1 Cor. 12: 28., Eph. 4: 11); to give attend



60         LIGHT OF AUTHORITY.
ance to reading,  to exhortation, to doctrine
(1 Tim. 4: 13); to labor in word and doctrine.
(1 Tim. 5: 17); to rightly divide the word of
truth, (2 Tim. 2: 14); to preach the word, to
reprove, to rebuke and exhort, (2 Tim. 4: 2); to
be mighty in the Scriptures, (Acts 18: 24); to beo
opt to teach, (I Tim. 3: 2); to be an example to
believers in word and in faith, (1 Tim. 4: 12)all which plainly intimates that they should be
possessed of the requisite qualifications to expound truly and faithfully the doctrines which
they themselves have learned from the vword of
God, and to commend them  to the belief and
practice of mankind.  Ilence the Church is
bound to furnish those who are preparing for
the sacred office every facility ill her power for
acquiring a. thorough and critical knowledge of
the Scriptures, and to see that those whom she
appoints to minister at her altars and to be the
authorized  expoun(lers of the Word from  her
pulpits, are properly qualified rightly to divide
thle word of truth, that the laity vwho look to
them  for instruction, and who naturally and
properly place great confidence in their teaching,
may be rightly instructed in the way of life.
But in addition to the oral instruction of individual ministers, there are ample facilities for
embodying their.expositions of Scripture in a
more systematic andl permanent form by means
of the press; and those who have left as a legacy
to the church their views of its meaning in their
writings, are entitled to our gratitude and respect. Of these writings, such as embody professed commentaries and exegetical treatises on
the whole or separate portions of the Bible are
of chief value to the student, and their use can



LIGHT OP AUTHORITY.            61
hot be dispensed with without great loss to himself. The weight which we are to attach to the
opinions of commentators must depend o. nvait
rious consideratiolis:: sttcb Ns the age ih which
they lived, t1heir literary attaitments. and qualifications, their etegebieeal tact, discrimination
and judgment, and the state of their moral feelings.  It reference to the fast, it should be
specially borne in mind that religion addresses
itself not to the intellect alone, but also to the
nmoral feelings of r-ankl.ind, and that those feelings are deeply interested in the questionsWhat is Scripture? and What is its meaning?
The heart will necessarily and unavoidably exert
more or less influence over the judgment on all
mioral questions, and in all matters of Biblical
criticism and interpretation involving important
principles, or essential doctr ines.  Something
mnore, therefore, than competent learning and
exegetical tact is necessaryv to a iight interpretation of Scripture. The moral feelings of the
interpreter must be in unison with those of the
sacred writer, else no sympathy will exist betwveen them, and the meaning of the latter will
)e often m'issed, and misrepresented. Hence,
b)efore we adopt this or that commentator as a
guide in our religious inquiries, we should endeavor to ascertain the character and inward
life of him whom we consult-the state of his
religious affections, and the influence which
these may have had in giving a particular complexion and direction to his views of Christian
doctrine. In many cases, it is true, adequate
learning may be all that is requisite to give the
true sense, and we should candidly and imapartially examine and weigh the reasons which




0'2    LIGHT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.
may be assigned in support of an interpretation;
let it come from.whatever quarter it may. Still
no nman can be qualified in the highest and best
sense to be a reliable interpreter of the inspired
writings, whose mind is not imbued with the
spirit of Christ, and whose moral and religious
feelings are not in unison with his.
CItAPTER  VIII.
TIlE LIGHT OF TIIE IIOLY SPIRIT.
There remains to be noticed one more guide,
whose assistLance should  be i.nvolked ill thel,tudy and interpretation of the Word of God,
viz., the iebuard /(l7ht of the Holy'ASiir't, one part
of whose office it is to guide the humble and
sincere inquirer into the truth.  Th1 ie a bsolute necessity of the teaching  of the  Holy
S'pirit, in order to enlighten the mind in the
knowledge of the Scriptures, is a fact as clearly
asserted in the Word of God as any other doec
trine of revelation.  This divine aid is rendered
necessary in consequence of the fall of nman, by
reason of which not only has his will become perverse and his affections estranged from God, but
his understanding has become dlarkened, so that
he cannot discern spiritual truths, in all their
fulness, unction and power.'The natural mnan,
(i.e. the unrenewed man,) receiveth not the things
of the Spirit of God," -the truths of his word



I'GHT OR THE HOLY. SPIRIT.          63
"for they are foolishness to him; neither can he
know themn because they are spiritually discerned," i. e. they can onl) be fully understood
by the assistance of the Holy Spirit of which
lhe is destitute.'he Spirit alone can fully inter,
pret what was given by the Spirit.  Accordingly
the assistance of the Spirit for this purpose is
repeatedly promised to all believers, who will
seek foar it in earnest prayer. But as the operations of the Holy Spirit on the.understanding
are not distinguishable from  those of our own
mlinds, the utmost caution is necessary, lest we
impute to the H}eavenly Teacher what is properly the ofspriing of human prejudice, superstition, fanaticism or ignorance.  For while, on
the one hand, the necessity of special aid fronw
on high is denied, and even derided by Rationalistic interpreters, such aid has been relied onr
by others to the exclusion of everything else.'This exclusive reliance on the inwvardl liqht, as it
is termed, has led its advocates to disparage human learning, to disregard the plainest principles of intelrpctation, and to. undervalue the
Bible itself as the highest source of religious
knowledge, and the onlly standard of faith and
practice.  But while both these extremes, leading as they do to the most mischievous errors,
are to be carefully avoided, there is a middle.
ground which every studlent of the Bible should
occupy.  The piromis(cd assistance of the IHoly
Spirit, it should be well considered. is not granted to believers in answer to prayer, for the puri)ose of conmmunicating to them new truths not
before revealed; for this would be equivalent to
supernatural inspiration;-but simply for the
purpos.e af enabling them rightly to. undersLand,




64      LIGHT OF TE HUOLY SPIRIT.
those which have been already made known,
The grace conferred is co-operating grace-grace
hot to supercede the exercise of our reason, the
teachings of others, or the use of human learning and literary appliances, but to render them
nore effective. The promised illumination is
only the ordinary assistance of the Holy Spirit
extended to the understanding —an assistance
which neither supercedes the use, nor overrules
the decisions of our natural faculties. On the
contrary, we are constantly exhorted to employ
these faculties on the subject of revealed truth,
While the Spirit assists and exalts, it leaves our
reason free, and no more makes us infallible
than the ordinary influences of the Spirit upon
the heart render us impeccable. The teaching
in question does not imply any peculiar difficulty in Scripture. Its necessity does not arise from
the obscurity and intricacy of its language, or
from the incomprehensibility of its doctrines,
but simply from  the natural blindness of the
human mind with respect to spiritual things and
its deep rooted aversion to the wisdom of God
displayed in the plan of salvation. In truth, it
is the things which are most clearly revealed,
that are often most misunderstood.  hIence
some writers who have most grossly perverted
the plainest language in relation to the distinguishing truths of the Gospel, have most successfully explained some of the most perplexing
difficulties of diction and phraseology with regard to matters in which the great truths of the
Gospel are not immediately concerned. Nor are
we to suppose that the teaching of the Spirit
communicates any meaning to Scripture which
is not contained in the words themselves. I-Ie




lIGHT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.            65
mtnales men wise up to what is written, and not
beyond it. The Spirit of God teaches only what
is contained in the Scriptures, and this always
through the instrumentality of the Scriptures.`'Open Clhou mine eyes," prays the Psalmist,
"'that T may see wondrous things in thy law;"
but the wondrous things here spoken of, are not
things which are not contained in the law. but
things already there, which our natulral blindness disqualifies us' fronl seeig.  Whatlever is
taught contrary to the Scriptulre, therefore, or in
addition to them, or without their instrumentality, is to be ascribed to the Spirit of darkness,
or to our own perverted undelstandings.  Nor
does it follow because true Clhristians aure taught,by the Spirit, that they are taught the true
nmeaning of every passage of the Worod of God.
The correctness of the explanation must ultinmately rest on the arguments by which they
support it, and not on the alleged ground of di-vine assistance.  The explan.tions of an  inspired apostle ale doubtless to be received implicitly, even though wve muay not able to see the
legitimacy of the conclusion fromn the premises.
But the. explanat-ions of every uninspired man
mrust be received no farthei than they are seen
to be the necessary result of the word of inspiration.  Nor because all true  Christians are
more or less taught by the Spirit, does it follow
that they all must agree in their interpretations.
This assistance is not granted in the same proportion and clegree to all.  Even good men are
not able to divest themselves altogether of prejudice, and passion, or a regard to self-interest
in their examination of Scripture.  Prejudice is
ino doubt one of the greatest obstacles in the
5




LIGHT OF THE HOLY SPIRIt.
way of understanding and explaining the Word
of God. While this will take out of Scripture
the meaning which it manifestly contains, it will
put into it a meaning which it ias never intend;
ed by the writer to convey.  Hence, while it was
related of Grotius that he could find Christ nowhere in the Old Testament, it was said of Coccaous, that he found Christ everywhere. The
doctrine of the teaching of the Holy Spirit;
then, affords no warrrant for implicit submission
to the interpretation even of the best of men.
At the same time, from what. has been said, we
clearly perceive the duty oft' prayer fr divine
guidance.  Without this no sure progrevss or certain results can be expected in the knowledge
of the Word of God.  There is' reat truth and
force in Luther's aphorism. when rightly understood, Bene orasse est beae st!cauisse. And yet even
this is not, as to any particular passage, to be received as conclusive evidence that wie have attained the true interpretation. We are warranted to believe that God will leallr our sincere
prayer; but the only evidence that he has done
so is that we now have light when before we
wevre in darklness: that Nye now  perceive the
meaning which before lay hiid friom us.
Intimatelv connected Nwith the aid  of the
Spirit afforded to the td(cr1S/awdirg of the dCevout inquirer after truth, is his moral influence
on the will and afi'ections.  As we look fori
right disposition of heart in the cormmentator
whom we consult as reliable authority, so the
same disposition is equally important in ourselves, if we would  rightly  apprehend  tlhe
meaning of the Scriptures.  Literary  qualifications are obviously necessary to the inter



tIGHT OF THiE  HOLY SPIRIT.        67
pieter; indeed they cannot be dispensed with;
but moral qualifications are no less indispensible.
tWhen Christ appeared on earth, the light of his
teaching shone in the darkness-not in the
midst of intellectual dlarkness, but of moral
and spiritual darkness-among unholy  and
sinful hearts-and the darkness did not comprehend it. Unholy affections had surrounded the mental eye and prevented the apprehension and reception of divine truth. Such
is the influence of the heart for good or for evil
on our judgment, in regard to all moral questions, and of course in regard to the whole of
Scripture verity, that it may be laid down
as a fundamental principle, that Scripture to be
rightly understood must be convtemplated from  within
anzd not from without. The old maxim, Pectus facit theoloqum,-"the breast makes the theologian," will always remain true, and other things
being equal or nearly equal, he will best understand and explain Scripture, who most loves
Scripture. "God has determined," says Pascal,
"that Divine things shall enter through the heart
into the mind, and not through the mind into
the heart. In divine things, therefore it is necessary to love them, in order to know them,
and we enter into truth only through charity."
"An inward interest in the doctrines of theology," says Hagenbach, "is needful for a Biblical
interpreter. The study of the New Testament
presupposes as an. indispensible requisite a sentiment of piety, and religious experience. The,Scripture will not be rightly and spiritually
comprehended, unless the Spirit of God become
himself the interpreter of his Word: the angelus interpres, to open us the true meaning."  It




68      LIGHT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.
was a favorite maxim with Augustine, "Believe
that you may know," —not first know in order to
believe; for the understanding, while it is not
the way to faith, is yet the reward of faith.  "He
who has not believed," says'Anselm, " will not experience; and he who has not experienced cannot know." "The theologian," says Tholuck,
"'must himself believe the doctrines which he
studies.  Without this moral qualification it is
impossible to obtain a true insight into theological truth."  "If goodness," says Trench, "be so
essential even to the orator, that one of old defined him as Vir bonus, dicendi paritus, and few
I think will quarrel with that 6onzs, or count it
superfluous in the definition, how much more
essentially must it belong, and in its highest
form of love towards God, and to all which truly
witnesses of God, to the great theologian." Tle
interpreter of Scripture must possess a heart in
cordial sympathy with its writings, otherwise he
cannot grasp their profound, spiritual import.
Iie must have the mind of' Christ in order to
comprehend the word of Christ.  Hemust earnestly desire to know the truth for the truth's
sake. He must possess an humble, docile spirit.
He must be willing to sit with meekness at the
feet of inspiration and draw  the pure water of
life from the great fountain of revealed truth.
"The meek will he guide in judrgment; the meek
will he teach his way."  And not only are a
confiding faith, a childlike docility, and an humble, prayerful frame of mind essential to the
successful study of divine truth, but.also an o0edient heart. Some appear desirous to know the
will of God, who yet are averse to obey it. They
approve of it in theory, but not in practice.




LIGHT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.          69
But such will not succeed. There must be the
willing mind and a sincere endeavor to exhibit
in the daily tenor of life the grat principles and
precepts of God's Word.'"If any man," says the
Saviour, "will do his will, he shall know of the
doctrine, whether it be of God."  The Bible
brings us into contact with holy men, who spake
as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.  To
understand aright their language we must be
holy ourselves.  An analagous truth is universally admitted in relation to every other subject
of inquiry.  To understand the poet's creations
we must be imbued in some mieasure with a poetic taste.  To comprehend or relish the profound speculations of the mental philosopher
requires a philosophic spirit.  In like manner,
what comnmunion of soul can the unrenewed
and selfish sinner have with the sacred writers?'rhe possession of a loving heart, open toreceive
the teachings of heavenly wisdom, in connexion
with a spirit of cheerful obedience to the divine
precepts, is the great secret of the success of many
interpreters who are not furnished with much hunman learning.  On the other hand, the entire
want of a spiritual taste and relish for divine and
lheaLvenly truths is sufficient to account for the
failure of many a man who heaps together rich
stores of erudition. Which only serve to obscure
the truth instead'Of elucidating it.




70     LANGUAGE  INTERPRETATION.
CHAPTER IX.
LANGUAGE-INTERPRETATION.
Before proceeding to exhibit in detail the
principles and rules of Biblical Interpretation,
it will facilitate our progress if we devote a few
paragraphs to some general preliminary remarks
on Language, with which Interpretation is concerned. Latnruage is the expression of thought
-the outward medium through which a communication is formed between mind and mindthe mode by which we convey to other minds a
conception of the ideas, sentinments, and emotions, which exist in our own. There is no
direct communication between the minds of
men. One man cannot immediately perceive
the thoughts and sentiments of another. If
then we desire to make known to others the
thoughts and feelings which lie Within our
breasts, we can do so only by resorting to some
outward manifestation of them, i. e., to signs and
symbols cognizable by the senses.  But the
necessary intercourse of mankind in social litfe
-the progressive improvement and advancement of in(lividuals and communities, and the
intellectual and moral culture of the race, render a mutual communication and interchange
of thought and opinion among the various members and orders of society unavoidable and indispensible. There is found in man, also, a prima-eval principle ever urging him to represent
outwardly what moves him strongly within, independently of any idea of utility, or a conscious
desire to obtain a certain end by this development. Hence means were devised and resorted




LANGUAGE-INTERPRETATION.             71
to from the first to facilitate this mutual comnmunication.  The means employed for this purpose are denominated th/e sigrns of ideas, and the
term Language, in its broadest sense, includes all
these means.  Language is not absolutely indispensible to the exislence of thl-lught, but only to
its development and expression.  Pure thought,
like pure spirit, is certainly a conceivable think,
however rarely it may be found.  It unmay exist
in the mind as an idea in a dormant or latent
state, just as a principle of action may lie dorinant in the soul, till it is called out in the transactions of life; and just as heat exists in all bodies in a latent state.  Butt that thought nmay
possess an actulal as well as an ideal existence,
whether in the mind itself, or in its outward
vollrkinrs, it must be clothed in somne form, and
that form. whatever it nlay be, is called lainguagce.
Thinlkirng,"'ays Plato, "is the talking of the
soul with itself."  Thinking then, as an act, process, or operation of the mind, is dlistinguishable
from a thought or idea existing in the mind, and
this process cannot be carried on without the
use of language, any more than can a communication of thought to others.
There are three modes of developing the
thoughts which exist in the mind-three distinct
varieties of signs of ideas.  The first is the material, as-in the plastic or fine arts.  The second
is the phenominal, as in outward actions, looks, gestures, pantomimic  representations, &c.  The
third is the, verbal, as in oral and written language.
The signs employed in the first two are addressed
to the eye, or the touch; those employed in the
third are addressed either to the eve or the
ear.  4ccoQringy la ngua$e, in its widest accep



72      LANGrAGE-INTERPRETATT0N.
tation, is the expression, by visible, audible, or
tangible signs, of the thoughts, feelings or state
of one mind, in order to excite the conception
of the same in another.  Laingiage is either
natural, artificial, or mixed.  It is natucral, when
the signs employed are spontaneously suggested
to the mind, a.n( are of such a nature thalt they.
may l;be easily and rea(lily untteirstoold by any
one without pIreious instruction, or any conventional- alg'eemetlt, or the  intrioduction  of
arl'itirary  cUstoms.  O)f this description arle cctfain looks,-ciies, gestunies, &c., indicative of some
poxaterful einotio-1,  of' distress, joy, soiirow, fear
or alarm.  lThese signs are  - icrc-sal in their use.
anti limlited to no partieulli' nation o'ago of tlle
wo lid. L anguale is ca'/./lc;c,  h lven it consists of
sins Tl  hicli  are not sponitaneous, but arbitrary
and  adopted by tac-it convention  or coinmmon,
consent as expressive e of ide(as.   Suciih atie vwol(ds
hieiroglypri cs, som ne svylmfbolicil actions and en.blems.  It is wioi.r   w hen it consists'of signs
par tly natunll an(l partly artificial.  The languare of' tle deaf and dumb is of this character, and is the most successfIul attempt to reduce
inaucidib-le si-ns anld esturles to a scientific form.
Arbitrary signs are of' course partial and limited
in their use, an(i understood only by those who
agree to adopt them, there being no natural fitness in them  to convey the ideas intended, but
deriving their signification from previous agreenent of the parties using them.  Verbal language, whether oral or written, belongs entirely
to this class, because there is nothilg in the
sound, with the exception perhaps of onomatopoetic words, and nothing in the forms of the
letters or of the words calculated to suggest the




LANGUAGE-INTERPRETATION.              73
i(leas to our minds, which they are employed to
convey. Spoken language is remote friom thought
and written or alphabetical language is equally
remote from  oral language, and  there is no
necessary connexion between the two.  We express a thought by an arbitrary sound addresse(d
to the ear, which has no natural conlnexion xwith
it whatever; and  this arbitrary sound is then
representeld t  tlhe eye,by an arbitlary figure,
which has no mllore natu.l:l connexion with tle
sound than the sounld has with the tlotiol-it.
That both the words of speech ancl the cllbacters of w-iiting are in the-mselves entirely aribitrary, is mafni est from  thle flet fltat a great varietv of difti;rent soundls and difflTeient si(ns is
used by dlifferent nations, woith equal convenience, to exp)iess the samle thinlg. W0lds, whether
sl)' ken or written,  ale t le mo-t pci fect signs of
ideas.  As vocal orgxans xwe(C  bes)itowe(l upon
mankin d flor thle pllipose of intelrcomaunlnion,
the emplolyment of articulate sounds is a natura.l
process in itself, and hlence universally   pirevails,
though the paiticular sounds employed to convey ideaqs are arbitrary, and left to the choice of
individuals or communities.  As there never has
been a time since the origin of the human race,
when men did not possess the faculty of speech,
so there never has been a time when oral language was not employed.  At first man's wants
and ideas were fewr and he required but a few
words to express them;  but as his knowledge
increased and his intellect expanded, additions
were made to his stock of words, and those already in use receivred an'accession of meaning.
Alphabetical or written language was the invewntion of a later period, and did not most probably




74      LANGUAGE —INTERPRETATION.
come into use, until about the time of Abraham.
In the mean time, however, the longing desire
to give a permanent form  to thought, and to
transmit information to distant persons and
places and to future times, was gratified to some
extent, by the invention of pictorial representations and hieroglyphics, such as were employed
in Egypt, and in the East generally.  These
cumbersome and very inadequate signs of ideas
were superce(led by the introduction of phonetic characters.  Words expressed( in soomds are
the imrimediate signs of thought: wvoids expressed
in writing, the'mediart.  We have renlarked that
the term la aucage  is applied to sins of any kind
which are employ!ed a's the vehicle of thoulitt.
In like manner, the telins to ex.plq;i,a and to oitdeipi-et, are not confined to wolds, sirnply, -but used
in refer ence to sxmnbols, emblems, hunmaln actions, and all the outward sid ns which men have
adopted to give expression to their thoughts and,emotions.  In a more restr icted sense, however,.
the terlm  l.anguage is applied to'eirbal signs of
thought., whether spoken or wxritter and as in
the Bible we have to deal chiefly with such
signs, so the terms language and interpretation,
when used without any additional expression,
are to be understood in this work as employed
exclusively in reference to words.
Words are articulate sounds, or the representatives of articulate sounds on or in some material, by certain adopted characters to which,
single or combined, we attach certain ideas.
The particular idea or action thus attached to
anv word, is called its signification, and the general idea, or assemblage of ideas, conveyed by
seyeral words grammatically cpnpected together,




LANGUAGE-INTERPRETATION.              75'
is called the sense'or meaning of the combined
words or period. And it is the business of the
interpreter, by the application of correct principles and rules, to discover and exhibit this true
sense.
Interpretation is both a science and an art.
As a science, it consists of axioms, principles
and rules. according to which we ought to proceed in discovering  the true meaning of an author.  As an art, it is the practical and skillful
application of those principles and rules to the
explanation of particular passages.  The former
is technically  denominatecd   lIer'neeZutics; the
latter, E.egesis.  Thlese stand to each other in
the relation of tbeoiy and practice   Thus we
sp)ealk of the Excccs's of' a passage according to
I7ermeenutlical?)'it;1l2:lcs. Thle theory by which
the Sacred books ai e explained, as distinguislhed
from  Legtl instriument-s or other writings, is
called Saicr-e d or Bi;bical Icleateueities, which,
when ranked as a part of Theology, is called.lge.ctical  itAco/ogy.
As an art. Interpretation is co-eval with language itself' and men, following the light of their
reason and comnhon sense, discovered the true
inmport of language long before Interpretation
was reduced to a scientific form, just as they
learned to speak and write their vernacular cc'rectly without the aid of Dictionaries and Grammars.  As a science, Interpretation is of comparatively modern date.  The general principles
of Ifermeneutics are such as lie in the common
mind, and thbse which every man who speaks
or hears, unconsciously applies in the daily use
of language. The basis on which they rest is
reason,n.4 common sense, as applied tp!ap



'76     LANGUAGE-INTERPRETATION.
guage; and any principles which can be shown
to be at variance with these can never be admitted as rules in the science.  The ability of
good men, from  education and careful observation, to explain Scripturle cor-rectly wxithout having studied the theory of interpretltion, by no
means detracts fromil the utility or iimiportance
of' the science.  Rules of interpetation. tihemselves, it is tiue, can no more make a good intelpleter, thlan rules of p(,etry can minke k  a good
poe t.  At the same timre, they are lhigrhly ser-iceaible in teachimg us how to a1pply the  equisite
learning and natural talent and tacet to thle best
a(IVanlal t      neI. anyI   Biblic il cex ositors, of unquestioInedl pliety ad cosiderable l eamrnip, aid talent, have fail.cd throuh thle 0 wanit of wllat is
commonly called j  (20/ltc/; andl it is to thle culture  of the,judgmenl   thiat tlhe rules which
appertain to this science ar1e especiillv directed.
Thouhll    the study of JIntelrpre(ta tion  lmayl fail to
render the Bible studentl t a veiy good intelpreter, it canll hiadI  fasil to presvent hinm f'iom  beconminlt a vely bad one.  It will not only asist.
him  in forming an independent opinion hlilnself,
but en:able him  to judge with discrimination of
the interpretations of others, and amid various
and conflictingLr  opinions, to adopt that which is
best supported by ieason; and this is by far its
most extensive application.




OBJECT OF INTERPRETATION, &C.   77
CHAPTER X.
THE OBJECT OF INTERPRETATION-ITS NECESSITY AND DIFFICULTY.
The object of interpretation is to discover and
exhibit tile true sense of another's words-his
real meaning, no more and no less. This of
course implies that this sense is not obvious;
for if it were, there would be no necessity for
rules of interpretation-no room  for the exercise of the art in question.  But as words are
emnployed expressly to convey ideas, how  does
it happen that, if properlly used for this purpose,
there can be any reasonable doubt as to the
ideas designed to be conveyed? There are
many circumstances which condluce to render a
speaker or writer's meaning elquivocal and capablof isosttio. e of misconstruction. Some of these it may
be proper briefly to notice.
In the first place, it should be borne in mind,
that language is at the best but an imperfect vehicle of thought. Its nature and essence is not
a direct communion of mind, buta communion
by intermediate signs, and hence the total exclusion of every imaginable misapprehension is
in many cases absolutely impossible. The words
employed, takeln b3y themnselves, often express
more or less than the speaker or writer intended, and consequently without further explanation and proper qualiticLation are liable to be
misconstrued. Nor wouldl further explanations
always remedy the difficulty, but rather increase
it. For the explanations given might still be
open to misconstruction and require further explanations to make them clear. And men have




i8      OBJECT OO INtERPITAtIO —'
learned by experience that little is gained by at:
tempting to speak or write with absolute clearness and endless specifications. We are, therefore, constrained in a multitude of instances, to
leave a considerable part of our meaning to be
found out by interpretation; and this circumStance must often hecessarily cause great'er or
less uncertainty with regard to the exact meaning which our words were intended to convey.
Mathematical precision is impossible except in
inathematics themselves.
Again: Another circumstance which renders
interpretation both necessary and difficult is the
intrinsic ambiguity  of language. By this is
mhcant that a large portion of sentences considered in themselves, i. e. if regard be had merely
to the words of which they are composed, are
capable of expressing more than one meaning.
Take the following passage of Scripture as an iliustration of this remalrk. "Ye have an unction
(anointing) from the Holy' One, and know all
things." 1 John 2: 20. Now if we consider these'words in themselves merely, admitting that they
were addressed to Christians, it will be perceived
that they are capable of several different interpretations.'lhus the first clause may signify,
"Through the favor of God you have become
(Christians or believers in Christ, —anointing
being a ceremony of consecration, and Christians
being considered as consecrated and set apart
from  the rest of mankind as a peculiar people;
devoted to the service of God. Or it may meanl
"You have been truly sanctified in heart and
life by the power of God," —a figure borrowed
from outward consecration, being used to denote
inward holiness. Or,'you have been endued




fS NECESSITY AND DIIftICUtT;.   79
With miraculous powers —consecrated as inspired
prophets and teachers in the Christian community."  The term Holy One in this relation may
denote either God the Father, God the Son, or
God the Holy CGhost. The second clause "Ye
know all things;" literally expresses Omniscionce, and if addressed to God would be under:
stood in that sense. But besides this meaning,
it may signify, "you are fully acquainted with all
the oljects of human knowledge." Or, "you know
every truth connected with Christianity," or;
"you have all the knowledge requisite to forni
your faith and  direct your c6nduct."   This
ambiguity of language arises from  a variety
of causes, among which are the following:
1. Nearly every word in all languages is used
in a variety of significations and with different
shades of meaning.  Now as we assign one or
another of these meaninas to different words ini
a sentence, we change the import of the whole
sentence. Take the following example: "Thd
child is learning his letters," —"The merchant is
writing his letters,"-Dr. Johnson was a man of
cctters."  Now  it is plain to every one, that the
Wiord lettors is used in each of these sentences ill
a (lifierent sense, and no Iman of common sense
would attach one and the sanie sigilification to
it in the three in c t ances specified.  M[any words
too, hav e a diffi'rent meaning in combination
with other worls, as in set phrases and idiomatic expressions. ifrom what they have singly and
separately. Now if words were all univocall
and inrvariablv employed whether singly or in
comnbination in the same sense, there would be
little occasion for explanation, and the labor of
thie interpreter would be circumscribed within




80      OBJECT OF INTERPRETATIONvery narrow limits. But, as it is, it is possible to
understand all the separate words in a sentence
and still not be certain of the writer's meaning.
2. In addition to the common and literal siygnification, words may be used in a multitude of
figurative senses, and many sentences may
be understood  either figuratively or literally.
3. Many sentences not properly figurative, are
yet not to be taken strictly.and in the full extent of their meaning, but with some limitation.
4. In the Sacred Scriptures as in many other
productions, much of the language employed is
the language of emotion or strong feeling.  l'he.strict and literal import of this language may
indeed express the meaning really intended, but
such is rarely the case.  A proper allowance
must. be made for the excited state of mind of
the writer, and his words should not be interpreted w.ith strlict philosophical accuracy. 5. As
language is conventional, its use varies in different ages and nations, according to the state of
society, the prevailing customs and the temperament of the people. Some nations as well as
individuals are in the habit of expressing themselves in comrmon life far more strongly, figuratively and hyperbolically than others.  Hence
a sentence translatedl verbally from one language
into another will often convey a wider meaning
than was intended by him who uttered it. Our
Saviour, for example, says of John the Baptist
that he "came neither eating nor drinking,"
Matt. 11: 18. This idiomatic expression, if uttered for the first time in our language, would
appear exceedingly strange and  paradoxical.
But such was not its character as spoken by
Christ. The words simply mean that John,'lead



ITS NECESSMYT AND DIPFFICULTY.   81
ing ojn ascetic life, practiced the strictest self-denial, abstained from indulging in the use even of
such food and drinks as were customary among
the people, and co ntented himself with the
poorest fare. He refrained from  "eating bread
and drinking wine," as Luke informs us in the
fuller form of the same expression, (ch. 11. 33)
and lived upon "'locusts and wild honey."  Our
Saviour, on another occasion said, that he who
would be a follower of his "must hate father
and mother." Luke 14: 26. Taken literally, the
import of this declaration would be not only
impious but impossible. But the Greek verb
f,.sl is frequently to be understood in a limited
sense, and by this bold figure our Saviour simply
meant that his followers must be willing and
prepared to sacrifice their dearest earthly attachinerts in his cause, and allow no worldly
ties to interfere with their allegiance to him,
(compare Math. 6:24 aid 10: 37, where the
meaning is more clearly expressed.)
Further: it will be recollected that the Bible
is not the production of one man or one age, but
composed of a number of separate and independent writings, penned by different persons, unknown to each other, living in different and
remote ages, extending through a period of
nearly 2000 years, and treating the subjects on
which they write in a great variety of style, from
the simplest prose to the most lofty poetry.
And not only are we widely separated from the
authors of the Bible by distance of time, in consequence of which wve have to contend with the,lifficulties inseparable from written language in.a greater degr ee than otherwise we should have
ito do; but we are separated front them, also, by
6i




82      OBJECT Or INTXIEtRE1 ATIONdistance of place andr circumnstance. Their laws,
their manners, their customs, their mnodes of
thinking, were entirely dissimilar to everything
of the kind with which we are now conversant,
and their allusions to existing circumstances
among other people are sometimes so slight,.
and yet so intimately connected with an argumlent or illustration, as to require on the part of
the readers a large measure of previous information and knowledge. Add to these considerations the fact that the Holy Scriptures were
originally written in languages entirely different
from our own, both of which have long ceased to.
be vernacular, and that as to one of them we have
no contemporaneous.iterature to aid us in the
interpretation of the Sacred books. The Scriptures, moreover, abound in ref erences and allu-:ions to supersensuous and spiritual objects and to.
events such as never occur in our times. All
these and many other circumstances which might
be mentioned, conspire to make it difficult to understand the Scriptures and render the labors of
a skillful and intelligent interpreter necessary.
But one of the chief causes of difficulty in the interpretation of the Bible and of diversity of
opinion with regard to its meaning,-a cause.
which may be said to be peculiar to that book,.
— is the habit of perverse and pernicious interpretation, which has unhappily prevailed
for ages, arising from the force of educational
bias and sectarian prejudice, or from the unlimited indulgence of a misguided imagination, or
from a desire to make. the Bible mean all that
it can by any possibility be supposed capable of
meaning. Methods of interpretation have been
adoptcdl as erroneous as they are pernicious.




ITS NECESSITY AED DIFFICULTY.   83
The Bible is constantly treated as if fancy or caprice and not reason and common sense were
the proper *organ to direct its meaning.  Instead,of following the inductive method, which is the
only true and safe mode of discovering the
meaning of the Word of God, as of every other
book, men have resorted to the dogmwtic method, the scholastic or philosaphic, or the mystical
and allegoric.a, by means of which they have
-succeeded in patting such a meaning into the
Bible as su-ported their particular doctrinal ox
philosophical creed, or in giving free scope to the
vagariesof a lawless imagination.  Hence tomes
ulpon tomes have been written professedly to
elucidate the Scriptures, which serve only to
perplex the student and lead him far away from
the right path to truth.  it is related in:tihe
Persian letters, that Rica, one;of tile correspondents in trouced in to them, having been to visit
the library of a French convent, wrote thus to his
friend iaa Persia. coaeerTning vha.t had passed.'Father," said I to the LJiblarian, ~'whatare tbhese
uluge volurmes which fill the wihole side of the
library?"  "These," said he,'are the interpre.ters of the Scriptures."  "There is a prodigious
ptumber of them.," replied I, "the Scriptures
nust. have been  very darIk fi. merly;   and very
Clear at present.  Do there remain still any
doubts?  Are there now any points contested?'
Are there!" answered he with surprise, *" are
there! There are ahmost as many -as there are
lines."  "You astonish me,"said 1.'"what then
have all these authors been doing?'  "These;uthors," returned  he, "never searched  the
Scriptures for what ouhlitto be believed, but for.-hat they did td:ehaselses!believye. They diq




not consider them as a book, wherein were comtained the doctrines which they ought to reeiver
but as a work whiclk. migh4 lse ade-e to aunthorize
their own ideas. For this reasomr, they have
corrupted all the mearziags, and have. put every
passage to, the tortu-rer to makel it speak their
own sense:. It is a country whereenm people of'
all sects make invasions, and. go for pi~ge; it;'
is a field of battle, *htere;- Whent hostile nations
meet, they engaege,,atack arn  skirmish in a.
thousand diftfm-ent w.ys." Such are sorme of the
difficulties, obiective and subjective, which lie irv
the way of investigating the Scriptures and discovering their tdmue sense: They furnBish, a widey
scope to the l&bors of tle, Interpetetr ad im-;
part to his work; a dignity and importance, un~urpassed in the entire range of Christian TLe-;
slogy.
C-IAPTER  XI.L
lHE' PECULIARITIES F' TIEE BIBLE].
From what has been said in the precedinge
pages we see the necessity of some rules an(l
eanons-for the interprettionl of the Bible. Nonewill conten-d thsat the SacrediScript ares are to be'
interpreted in an- arbitrary -mlanner, aceording
to the caprice, the prejudices, the sulbjective feelings, or the wayward fancy otf each individual,
All Nwho hold to the right of' private judgliment,.
Antlit the propriety and necessity off bei,:...F.




'PEC1MTI~AITIES 0F THE BIBLE.    8s
ierned in our investigatilon of the meaning of
Glod's word by some acknowledged principles,
and hence all allow the necessity of hermeneutics. The diversity of Biblical interpretation
has arisen, not from the rejection -of hermeneutical principles,.I.At either from  adopting false
principles, or froma mnisapplication of right ones,'The basis on which our science rests being right
reason and common sense, not only should its
canons be such as are obviously founded in
reason, but theyy shou1ld be such as need only to
to be clearly  stated  and  understood, to,be
universally approved.  Now the language of the
Bible is the language of men-such language
as they employ in communicating their ideas
and sentiments to  one another in  the intercourse of life, and hence, if understood at all,
its meaning must be ascertained by the same
nleans and according to the same laws by which
all other writings are understood., Accordingly
it may be la.id down as a general preliminary
principle, that tAe Bible.shold be interpreted as
ether o&oks are interpret!ed. The same laws which
are considered legitimate and proper in regard
to the explanation of other books, are applicable to the Bible.  I say this is the general principle, but it is subaject to certain limitations and
modifications arising from the peculiarities of the
Scriptures.  The Bible, as we shall see, is a book
in some. respects sui generis; as such it has
its distinctive peculiarities, and these peculiarities are of such a nature as to necessitate a
somewhat different treatment from that which
other books receive at our hand, and give rise to
canons of interpretation which belong exclusively to Sacred flermeneutics, and are not applica



86    tcrrrUtIAtPrIt  O'F TIHEl BrBt,':
ble to other books. And these limit and mod{fy the general principle which has been stated,.
1. One of these peculiarities is the fact that
the Bible is the inspired record of a supernatu —
ral revelation. Not only are the truths revealed
-therein of divine origin, but. the sacred' writers
were supernaturally assisted in the composition
ef their books. There is in the Bible a humanr
elpienmnt and a d-iVi'ie element. To the fof'mer
belong the diction, the phraseology, the style,.
the selection and arrangement of topics annd
facts, and the mode of argumentation, of proof
and illustration. To the latter belong the
thoughlts, sentiments and ideas, so far as these
claim to have conme from CGod, And with regaro&
to the human elementr the Bible diffelrs from all
other books in this important respect; that the;
sacred penmen were under the supernatural
guidance and superintending care of the Holy
Spirit, so far at least as to preserve them, friom
all error or mistake in their statement; of doctrine and of material facts, so that implicit reliance may be placed on the truth of what they
have written.. This is called the dynamic theory of inspiration, inr distinction from the maeehanical or- oragnic theory. It is the theory
Which,, since the Reformation, has been substantially adopted by nearly every respectable writer
of the Church of England, and with few exceptions, by the orthodox continental writers on
this subject. It is also believed to be at present
the prevailing theory in the Romish Church.
It has this advantage over the stricter theory of
verbal inspiration, that it accords best with the
facts as they lie on the' face of the record, and
obviates many difficulties created by the other,




PECULIARITIES OF THE BIBLE.    87
which are sure to perplex the student in the investigation of the Word of God. The inspiration of the sacred writers rests mainly on the
promises of Christ- to his Apostles, and on the
unequivocal testimony of the sacred writers
themselves, whose veracit~y and credibility have
been nbhmdantly proved to be worthy of entire
and implicit confidence. That the Bible was
written under the special inspiration of the Holy
Spirit, though not of thenature of a self-evident
proposition, is nevertheless a proposition which
has been fully proved by those who have written
upon the subject, and is most firmly believed by
all orthodox Christians. It is hence to be regarded as a foundation principle and axiom of
our science.
Now the fact that the Bible is the inspired record of a supernatural revelation, obviously requires that we deal with it very differently in
some respects from the way in which we deal
with a purely human composition. "As the record of supernatural events we must accept
them as beyond the reach of that historical critb
icism which we would warrantably apply to similar events recorded by a profane historian.
Take the earlier pages of profane history-such
for example, as the narrative of Livy of a prehistoric period of the Roman state, and we deal
with the legends and prodigies which it records,
as events not trustworthy, and with the historian as mistaken. The mythical theory of inter-.
pretation which reduces such histories to the
level of unhistoric legends; or the naturalistic
theory of interpretation which brings its supernatural events within the circle of common
things, and the range of common criticism, may,




88    PECULIARITIES OP THE BIBLE.
in such cases, each assert its claims to a hearing
and be allowed. Not so with the Scriptures.
These claim to be an inspired record of a supernatural religion. In such a case there must be
superhuman events embraced in the narrative,
which are not to be dealt with in the same way
as events of a similar character recorded in any
hfuman history might be dealt with, and the authors of the narrative, because inspired men,
must be judged of as infallibly true in what
they assert,"'*
And this remark applies to doctrines as well
as to events. In a book containing a divine element-a supernatural revelation-we are to expect a communication of truths of the greatest
importance for us to know, which yet lie beyond
our comprehension-which are too high and too
vast for human reason to grasp, and which,
therefore, we are to receive simply, yet implicitly, on faith, without attempting to explain the
mnodus of the truths revealed, or without being
capable of answering a thousand questions
which may be proposed respecting them. Of
this character are the doctrine of the Trinitythe Incarnation  of Christ-his  Atonement,
and the regenerating influences of the Holy
Spirit. There is in these and kindred truths
very much that transcends human comprehension; but this furnishes no ground for re —
jecting the doctrines, or for attempting, as many
have done, by a forced and unnatural construction, to explain away the obvious meaning of the
passages which assert them.
2. Another peculiarity of the Bible is, that
* North British Review,




PECULIARITIES OF THE BIBLE.    89
though composed of many treatises, historical,
biographical, ethical, prophetical, poetical and
epistola.y, written by different authors and at
different times, it is one organic whole, proceeding from the same divine pervading mind and
having throughout a unity of plan, of object, and
design. This circumstance also necessitates a
modification of the common principles of interpretation in order to adjust them  to this distinctive feature. "The unity of thought and
consistency of opinion which in human compositions, are found within the limits of one author's writings, and which so greatly aid us in
the interpretation of them, are in Scripture extended over the many authors' writings which
it embraces from Genesis to Revelation, because
all are the product, not of the same human person, but of the same superhuman inspiration.
This fact evidently warrants and requirers us to
brinug to our aid in the elucidation of the Bible,
to a greater extent than to profane writings, the
canon, that the one part of it must be interpreted by another, and that the doctrines and revelations of earlier and later times, the principles
of past and present dispensations must beequally taken into account, as throwing harmonious
light on its meaning."*  We are not at liberty
to infer real contradictions between the different writers of the Bible, but where there exist
apparent discrepancies, we are to resort to
every reasonable and legitimate mode of reconciliation, and if these fail us, we are to suspend
our judgment and wait for further light.
3. This unity of plan, which under the control* North British Review.




90    PECULIATiITIES OP TIE BIBLt.
ing influence of the Spirit of God, pervades the
whole of the sacred volume, from Genesis to
Revelation, gives rise to numerous prophecies,
symbols and types, which bind the several parts
together, and which being peculiar to this book,
require special canons of interpretation, not at
all applicable to other books.
4. "Another modification of the general principles of interpretation, when applied to the sacred volume, arises out of the consideration, that
necessary and manifest consequences drawn
from  Scripture, are as really a part of Divine
Revelation as Scripture itself. It is not so in
the case of man and of hunlan writings. The
inferences drawn from human expressions of
opinion, even though they be necessary and lawful inferences from such expressions, are not always to be taken as forming part of the opinions
of the author. A man is not to be charged with
the consequences of the opinions he avows, because he may not have foreseen or intended the
consequences.  But with God and divine revelation it is different. He both foresaw and intended all that he has revealed, whether in the shape
of express statement or necessary implication.
What is virtually contained in Scripture, because
the lawful and unavoidable deduction from its
statements, is as really part of the mind of God
as these statements themselves. This demands
a minuter and more anxious inquiry into the
letter of Scripture, and a more thorough investigation into the dogmatic relations and import of
each passage, than would be required in the case
of other writings; and it warrants interpreters to
educe a more extensive sense and a profounder




BIBLICAL CRITICISTM.          91
fneaninng from its statements, than could be safely
elicited from human compositions."*
Such are some of the more prominent peculiarities of the Scriptures, which have a greater or
less influence on the general principles of interpretation. and render a system of Biblical IHermeneuticsi applicable especially to them, necessariy. At the same time, these peculiarities affect
rather the thoughts and facts of Scripture than
the' words in which they are clothed, and do not
necessitate any other method of dciscovering the
meanina of the language, tihan what is pursued
in regard to the language of any other book.
CHAPTER   XII.
BIBLICAL CRITICISM.
Before proceeding to investigate the meanii,
of Sacred Scriptures. the attention of the Biblical student should first be directed to the text
itself, in order to ascertain whether it be puire
or corrupt. By the text of Scripture is to be understood whatever the author has written or
caused to be written, as an expression of his
thoughts. We must know what an author has
written before we undertake to explain its meaning. Hence Quinctillian justly remarks,'Enarrationem prmcedat emendata lectio."
"An emended reading precedes interpretation."
* North British Review.




92         1BIBLICAL CRITICISM.
Until the invention of th.e art of printing, the
Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament,
both in the original languages and in translations made from them into foreign languages,
wvere handed down from age to age by means of
manuscript copies. Of the autographs or original manuscripts of the New Testament no less
than of the Old, it is universally admitted that
none are now extant, though there is evidence
that at least some of' them for many years were
carefully preserved among the ancient Christian
churches. Their final loss is probably to be ate
tributed in a great degree to the dreadful persecutions which raged against the Christians in the
earlier ages, and to the efforts of their barbarous persecutors to destroy all their sacred books.
All the manuscripts of the scriptures extant,therefore. are but copies of the original. Now anterior
to any particular investigation of the facts in the
case, a reasonable presumption exists that many
various readings have crept into these numnerous transcripts of the Scriptures during the lapse
of so many centuries. This antecedent presuription is founded upon the very nature of the
case, and upon the fact that all other ancient
books have suffered from  this cause. Such is
the frailty of man, and his liability to error and
mistake, that in transcribing any book it is impossible entirely to prevent mistakes. The utmost diligence and carefulness will not secure
immaculate purity and uncorruptness to any
text.  Verbal mistakes will occur in spite of the
greatest vigilance. And the only way to arrive
at the true reading, where more than one exists,
is to weigh carefully the evidence by which the
Yvrious readings are respectively sustained, and




SIBIACAL CRITICISM.. 
the claims they severally present to a favorable
reception, and to adopt that which oft the whole
seems best supported by appropriate evidence.
As it is withi the iaor~ls of the ancient heathet
and gentile writers, so is it with the Bib'ical writers, notwithstanding the extraordinary care e:ercised in their uncorrupted preservation. iNothing could prevent this but a perpetual miracle,
of which there is not a shadow of evidence. There
was indeed a time when not onlyv the Jews, but
learned men in the Christian Church, maintained
the absolute inviolability of the Scriptates.  Tihe
B3u:torfs and m-en of tlat cIass, gigantic scholars,
in their particular line of study, did not hesitate
from the force of prejudice to maintain that not
only all the Hebrew letters were the same in all
manuscripts the world over, but that even the
vowel points and accents were and always had
beern identically thesame from the time of IMoses
down to their day.  And when Dr. Mills (1707)
published his edition of the New Testament with
various readings, Whitby, the celebrated commentator, sounded' the  tocsin  of alarm, as
though the volume of divine truth were iv
danger  of b'elng throYri overboard.  Tnvestiga-;
tion has, however, dissipated the pleasant dreani
of the Buxtorfs and allayed the groundless fears
of the Whitbys.  In point of fact Providence is
found to have left, the' words of Scriptmt'e fto  the
same casualties as the writin gs of uninspit ed mein,
While at the same time the  great doctrines
and duties of revealed religion have. notwithstanding, been all sacredly guarded and effectually preserveld.  hile the critical investigations7
which'i h]uave been made in modern times-, halve'
iresultcd i bin- b in g to liglt, a v:ast' inu'ltber of




94 -:BIBLICAL CRITICISM.
various readings, both of the Old and New Testament, a careful examination of these various
readings shows that they are of such a nature as
not to shake in the least our belief in a single
doctrine or duty of Christianity; at the same
time it imposes on the Biblical student the duty
of giving sufficient attention to this subject to be
able to sift the evidence adduced in support of
different readlinas and to form an independent
judgment as to the true reading of the original.
That department of Sacred Literature which
has relation to the purity of the text is called
Biblical Criticism. This expression is often used
in a more extended sense, so as to embrace
Biblical Interpretation also.  But the difference
between the two is capable of being made pei,,
fectly intelligible to the most ordinary capacity.
The object of Biblical Criticism  (i. e., of lower,
special, verbal criticism,) is the genuineness of
the.text itself; the object of Biblical Interpretation is the sense or mceaning of the text.  The one
i,; conversant with the mere letter of Scripture;
the other with its bimport.  It is the province of
the former to ascertain what an author,has
vwritten, and of the latter to determine what he
intends by it. Criticism, therefore, in the order
of nature, precedes interpretation.  The former
is properly introductory to the latter, and serves
as a basis for it.  And the nearer one comes by
the application of judicious critical laws to the
very words of an author, the nearer he will be
to a correct interpretation of them.  The application of textual criticism  to the treatment of
the Bible is quite as necessary and useful as to
that of any ancient writer whatever.  Indeed
it is more inmportant an1  beneficial with regard




BIBLICAL CRITICISM.           95
to the former in proportion to the greater importance of its contents. Accordingly we find
that Criticism has always been held in high estimation by all truly learned and scientific theologians; and those skilled in it have always been
reckoned in the first class of divines. Such
were Origen, Gregory Nazianzen, Basil, Chrysostom. Jerome, and others among the ancients.
Augustine declared it as his opinion, that the
talents of those who sought to understand the
Scriptures, ought in the first place to be exercised upon the correction of the text.
The sources of Biblical Criticism are-Manuscripts, or written copies of the Scriptures, both
ancient and modern-Ancient versions or translations into various languages-the writings and
remains of those early ecclesiastical writers or
Church fathers, who have quoted the Scriptures
— Parallels, or repeated passages-and Critical
conjecture. The last of these, however, has no
place in the criticism of the New Testament.
There is no need of it there. The materials for
procuring a correct, unadulterated  text, are
abundant. Critical conjecture, therefore, is rendered superfluous by the very copious array of
proper resources; and hence none of the critical editors of the New Testament sanction the
adoption of conjectural emendations into the
text. In reference to this portion of the Sacred
volume, the authority of manuscripts, versions,
and quotations by the fathers, is paramount;
and in no case ought the words of the New Testament to be altered from mere conjecture. The
internal probability in favor of a particular reading is only taken into account, when it is at the
same time accompanied with at least an equal




g6         jBIBLICAt CtITICTISM.
amount of external'authority. But with regard
to the Hebrew Scriptures the case is different;
and here there are various reasons against the
total exclusion of conjectural emendations. The
instances of accidental error in the transcribing
of Hebrew manuscripts are far tnore numerous
than in the transcribing of the Greek tnanuscripts, notwithstanding the extraordinary care
observed by the Jewish Scribes. The long period, also, which elapsed between the time when
the books of the Old Testarhent, especially the
Pentateuch, were composed, and the time when
even the oldest Hebrew manuscripts now extant
were written, may have occasioned in various
places the genuine reading to be entirely lost.
And the circumstance that all the Hebrew
manuscripts now in existence belong to one edition, family or recension, viz., the Masoretic,
lenders the probability that in various places
the genuine reading is contained in no known
ITebrew manuscript still greater. The means)
therefore, of correcting the text of the Old testament from authority, are far less ample that
in the New Testament, and consequently conjectural emendations may be allowable in the
former, though not in the latter. Instances
occur where the very exigency of the case (exegeatia loci) requires the aid to be derived from
conjecture.  In some instances the received
reading is such as we can not conceive it possi-'ble that the Sacred penman could have written;
it bears on the face ofi' it evident malrks of' COL'ruption. In such cases, the amount of external
evidence in favor of such a reading as this is
comparatively of little importance.  A single
versiorn may be conclusive. Nay, the exigency




BIBLICAL CRITICISM.           97
may be so strong, that a reading which will meet
it in a satisfactory manner may have irresistible
claims to be received into the text of a critical
edition, though sanctioned by no existing manuscript or version. At the same time, this liberty
should doubtless be taken with extreme prudence and caution, and should be exercised only
in cases where all other means of reconciliation
lail. Many conjectural emendations proposed
by Bishops Lowth, Blaney, llorsley, Dr. Kennicutt and other distinguished Biblical scholars of
the 18th Century, have since been shown to be
entirely unnecessary and unjustifiable, in consequence of a more thorough method of studying the Hebrew language inaugurated by GCesenius and other German scholars.
The genuineness or spuriousness of an ancient
book or passage is a question of fact to be determlined on the ground of external and internlal evidlence. By the former is meant the testimony
of competent witnesses; by the latter, the testimony arising from  certain tokens or indications
observable in the contents, language, style, and
character of the book or passage in question,
which show it to be in all probability the production of a certain author, or at least of a certain age. The following fundamental laws of
evidence will show the relative inmportance of
external or historical, and internal critical evidlence.
1. The genuineness of a book, passage, or
wvord, whether profane or sacred, inspired or uninspired, is to be established by evidence, either
external or internal, or both. When these two.
species of evidence coincide in support of the'
7




98          BIBLICAL CRITICISM.
affirmative, then the conclusion is irresistible
that it is genuine.
2. If either of these be wholly wanting, still
the book, passage, or word, may be shown to be
genuine by the other alone, provided it be clear
and indisputable.
3. But if they disagree, and contradict each
other, then the following laws apply:-1. If the
internal evidence be clearly, and unequivocally
against the genuineness of the book, passage, or
word, then no amount of external evidence can
prove it genuine; e. q. if it contains anacronisnls,
or manifest allusions to persons and things which
did not exist until after the time of the reputed
author; or if the passage as it stands affords no
intelligible meaning, or one wholly incongruous
or unsuitable; or if it makes a prudent, consistent, and conscientious writer contradict himself. With regard to the last poinItr however, a
profane writer may sometimes, in a long discourse or treatise, say something inconsistent
with or contradictory to what he said before;
but this cannot be admitted in regard to the
sacred writers. Not only must they be consistent with themselves, but with one another. We
may find apparent discrepancies in their writing, but can impute no real contradictions to
them. 2. But if the external evidence be clearly
and decidedly against the genuineness of a passage, then no amount of internal evidence can
establish its genuineness. In such a case internal criticism is of small value in determining
what an author might have said, or might not.have said. A spurious passage may be surreptitiously introduced and fitted to the context as.
well as a genuine passage. It may he so dove



BIBLICAL CRITICISM.             99
tailed into the, text as to render it nearly if not
quite impossible to detect it.  When the genuineness of a particular passage of a sacred writer
is disputed, there.ore, the proper questions to be
asked are, Is the passage found in the manuscripts, especially the earlier and nmore ancient
nmanuscripts?  Is it contained in the ancient
versions?  Is it quoted by tahe early fathers,
where fronm its relevancy and appropriateness,
owe should have expected it to be quoted or alluded to?  Is its genuineness admitted in critical editions of the Scriptures?  If the answer
to these questions must be in the affirmative,
then its genuineness is indisputable.  But if, on'the contrary, the passage is not found in the
ancient manuscripts; it' it is not contained in
the ancient translations; if it is not quoted or
alluded to by the fathers, when it would have
been appropriate in them to quote or refer to it;
if its genuineness is not recognized by the best
lanid niost reliable critics, then we may infer that
it is spurious, no matter what may be said in its
_favor on thle giround of internal evidence.
T'le necessity of examining the original anthoirities for the purpose of textual criticism,
even if it were in the power of the student to do
so. is now entirely obviated by the researches of
learned divines who have embodied the results
of their laborious investigations in critical editions of the Scriptures.  (riesbach (1774-5) first
applied these results to the correction of the
text of the New Testament, and for this purpose
classified his authorities into three recensions or
fanilies. These were subsequently reduced by
Scholz to two.  But the whole system  of classification introduced by Griesbach, after suffer



100          BIBLICAL CRITICISM.
ing s-everely from repeated blows, has been compelled to give way before the. new  and popular
theory of Lachman (1831-42), who  professes
mainly to exhibit the text as contained in the
oriental manuscripts and versions, or as it was
received in the East in the fourth century; but
especially of Tischencdorf (1.541), who gives the
text according to the authority of the m.ore an,cient witnesses.  Of his work in its l.ter eciitions, Alford remnarks, " I cannot but. regard it as
thll most valuable contribution which has beenl
yet made to the revision of the text of the XNew
T'estament.  And I believe that all future texts;
arranged on critical principles, will be found to
approach very closely to his."  These principles
lhave been followed by Alford, whose work onl
the Greek Testament, both for critical and exegetical purposes, is undoubtedly the most con-,
venient and valuable for theologrical-  students
and ministers which has yet appealred.  No application has yet been made of the critical materials collected friom  IHebrew manuscripts andt
other sources, by Kennicutt. De Rossi, and(
others, to the emendation of the text of the Oldt
Testament.  A  critical edition of the Ilebrew
Scriptures, with a revised text, is therefore still
ai desideratum.  Tile nearest'approach to such a
worlk wNill be fo. und in a tliJn octavo volume:
froim the pen of Dr. Samu1-l Davixdson (1855).
entitled "The Itebrew text of the (r(lI Testament
Tevisedl from critical sources,"  whEic  in a conv(nient form  exhibits, Ibult without  the text., all
tllhe important. various readings, and the authoirities for each.




aGIltsATIATICO - tSTORICAL SENSE.  101
CITAPTER  XIII.
TREi GRAMMATICO -HISTOIRICAL SE NSE —USIAGE.o,' WORDS.
Tn'the stu(lv'of the Bible -as in that of any
other book our Maim should be to get at the true
sense and meanlinig -of the Sacted write:rs. DPi~
vine Revelation c3nsists not in the words of
S7cripture, but in the thoughts, sentiments and
facts, which are commurnicated to us through
the mledium of the words.  This idea was clearllv expressed lomg ago by Jerorme -Awhen he said(l
-'Let us not iinagine that the Gospel consists ii
the words of' Scripture, but in the sense."*  The.
sense is thle nut; the letter is the nmere shell
which encloses the nut.  Ience the legal maxim,
Qui hmrit in litera, h1lrit in cortice.`:lIe who sticks in the letter, sticks in the bark."
lte who considers nmerely the letter of an in-:strune.ent, goes but sklin deep into its meaning
Thle sense of a word, phrlase, or proposition.
may inl general be stated to be that mean-ing
which appears to be the natural, obvious andcustomary mieaning of the languayge, as asc'-r
tained from usage, ire spective of extrinsic considerations. This is -called the grammatical sensc.
In a majority of instances this is the true arnd
exact sense intended by the writer.  But it is
not always the case, not merely because the language employed may be ambiguous and fairly
susceptible of different interpretations equally
*"Nec putemu.q in verbis scripturarum evangelium
ese, sedin scnsu." Comment. in Epist. ad Gal. cap. 1.




102  GtAMMATICO-IISTOBlICAL SXNSEaccordant with usage amn grammar; but because
an author may have uniltentionally expressed
himself improperly or loosely. He may have
carelessly or ignorantly chosen a wrong word or
words to express his meaning, or assigned a
wrong position to them in the sentence; or he
may have employed words in a different sense
from the customary one-in a technical, provincial or foreign sense, or in one entirely new, in
order to convey an idea peculiar to the system
of religion or philosophy which he has embraced.
it is frequently necessary, therefore, in order to
arrive at the true sense, to take into consideration a variety of extrinsic circumstances.  Sornme
knowledge is requisite concerning the age and
country  in which the writer lived, his education, temperament, style of writing, his religion and various surroundings, and the preva
lent opinions, usages and custoins of the times
5We must understand the design and scope o,
his writings, the logical connexion of his though]ts;
in fine, it is necessary to attend to all those historical circumstances and considerations, and to
those subjective influences which would be likelv to affect or throw light upon his meaning.
This is called the historical sense. The following
example will illustrate'the difference between
the grammatical and the historical sense.  The
Greek  word;da,  grammatically  considered,
simply denotes time, age, but if we consult the
history of Jewish dogmas we find that the phrases IWy-oTr.s and; ae a'du; IxxAw this world or age and
the world or age to come. (HIeb. 2: 5, 6: 5.) mean the
time present, and the time subsequent to the
advent of the Messiah; in other words the Jewish and Christian Dispensations. The first would




rSAGIE OF WORDs,            103
be the interpretation according to general usage,
the latter, according to the usage of a particular
age and people-the one classical and grammatical, the other historical and Jewish.  But
though the grammatical sense. is in itself distinct
from the historical, there is no contradiction between them. In a majority of instances they
are perfectly identical, and when we have ascertained the one, we have determined the other.
And where there is a formal difference between
them, they still uniformly coincide. For no historical interpretation can be admitted which violates or sets aside and contravenes the grammatical. The true sense is the only one in every
case; and this is made out by the application of
the laws of universal grammar, modified, if need
be, by historical circumstances. As grammatical interpretation must lie at the basisof all sound
exegesis, the attention of the: student in the investigation of S6ripture should be first directed
to the customary signification of the words employed, whether singly or in combination. But
if he stop here, he will in very many cases miss
the real sense. Hence we find that many Commentators particularly among the Germans, have
excelled as verbal critics and thrown much
light on the dictioh'an4 phraseology of Scripture, while at the same time, from disregarding
thelogical connexion, from over-looking important extrinsic considerations, or from want of
the ability or disposition to enter into the spirit
of the sacred writers and to sympathize with
them in their religious feelings and sentiments,
they have entirely failed to comprehend and
exhibit the true spiritual and profound import
of their writings. Grotius, for example, was a




104  GRAMMATICO-IHISTORICAL SENSEprofound scholar and excellent verbal critic, but
beyond this he did not go. Hence it has been
justly said of him that " the shell he took off with
wonderful dexterity; but the nut he seldom
tasted, and still more seldom relished."  The
only true method of interpretation therefore, is
the grammatico-historica1. This compound term
is used to indicate that both grammatical and
historical considerations are employed in making
out the sense. The basis on which this method
of interpretation rests is the use of the laniguage
(usus loquendi) employed in the expression of
ideas. It may be laid down as a fundamental
principle of Interpretation, that use is the only
arbiter of the meaning of words. In other terms
the signification of words depends on the usage
of those who employ it. " Usus est jus et norma
loquendi."  Use founded on human institutions
and customs has constituted the conwexion between word~ and ideas. Words have not the
particular meaning or meanings attached to
them from nature or necessity, but only from
human institutions and customs, by which a
connexion has been conventionally formed between them and the ideas they are employed to
convey. But though this connexion was in its
commencement and institution arbitrary, yet
being once established by custom, it has become
necessary; and hence we are not at liberty to
give what sense we please to a word either in
writing or in interpreting. The fact that usage
has attached any particular meaning to a word,
like any other historical fact, is to be proved by
adequate testimony. But once established, the
meaning can no more be changed at pleasure or
denied than any other fact whatever.




USAGE OF WORDS.              105
The usage of language is affected by manlny
thlings; by the time in which the writer lived,
the religion he professed, the sect or party to
which he belonged, his peculiar style and mode
of expressing himself, the habits of ordinary
life and the political institutions of the country.
For the sense in which words are used, either
originates from or is modified by all these; and
thus the same word may signify one thing in
ordinary life, another in religion, a third in the
schools of philosophers, and a fourth -as used by
a particular writer.  The same word or expression may convey one idea when employed by a
I:eathen, another when used by a Jew, and still
another when employed by a Christian.  It may
have a classic sense, and a Jewish sense, and a
Christian sense.  Thus the words victims, sacri ice,
law, in the Old Testament are often employed in
a sense which differs from  that of the same
words in the New Testamrent.  The verb to pcrceive in common life means to feel or experietnce;
in philosophy, to forim an idea in thle rtind; an(d
anmong the academic sect it meant to ]'know a
t/hitg with certainty, in opposition to mere conjecture.  So pur/fication, flesh, regeneration, &c., differ
in meaning as employed by a TIeathen, a Je-w,
or a Christian.  Usage, accordintly, may be divi(led into genleral, particular, and pec/tl;r.  General usage is that which is commonly employed
by writers in the language; particular usage is
that which is confined to a particular age or
portion of the country where the language is
spoken; and peculiar usage is that which is
limited to an individual, and forms a distinctive
feature of his style. As an example of the last,
we have the use of o' xiyo;, the word, by St. John,




106   -LAWS OF INTERPRETATIONas designating the compound person of the Messiah, or God incarnate. We learn the usage in
living languages from conversation and personal
intercourse; in the dead languages, as the Hebrew and Greek, it is ascertained from various
sources, such as the writer himself, contemporary writers, Scholiasts and Glossographers, ancient translations, made when the languages
were still living, kindred dialects, &c. But it is
not at all necessary for the critical student of
the Bible to dig into all these deep mines. This
labor is in a great degree saved by the use of
good dictionaries, grammars and concordances.
Ife has but to provide himself with such works
as the Septuagint and Vulgate Translations,
Robinson's Gesenius' I ebrew Lexicon, Conant's
Rodiger's Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar, Robinson's Lexicon and Winer's Grammar of the New
Testament and the Englishman's Ilebrew and
Greek Concordances, and he is thoroughly equipped for determining the usage both of the Old
and New Testament writers. The mere English scholar will derive great assistance from the
use of such works as Brown's Dictionarv of the,
Bible, or some other similar work, andl Cruden's
Concordance.
CHAPTER XIV.
LAWS OF INTERPRTATION- MEANING OP
WORDS.
Having shown in the preceding chapter that
the Gramm;natico-historical sense (i. e. the grammatical sense modified when necessary by the




MEANING OF WORDS.             107
hlistorical,) is the true sense ef Scripture, we are
prepared to lay down the following:
CANON T.
The language of Scripture is to be interpreted according to its grammatical inport; and the sense of
any expression, proposition, or declaration is to be determined by the words enployed.
It was the just remark of Mielancthon that
" Scripture cannot be understood theologically
unless it is understood grammatically." In other
words, no one can be a good theologian, who
does not interpret Scripture according to its
grammatical sense. The reason of this is obvious. Theology is nothing but the grammatical
sense of Scripture classified and arranged in
systemnatic order. TI'eology is not one thing
and the meaning of Scripture another; but the
sense of Scripture is the whole of theology.
Luther also truly observed, that " the knowledge
of the sense can be derived from nothing but
the knowledge of the words."  As soon, therefore, as we learn the meaning of the words of
any passage of Scripture, singly and in combination, we possess the knowledge of the sense
of that passage. Any system  of theology is
consequently sound just so far as it accords with
and is based upon the grammatical or true sense
of Scripture, and no farther. tience there is a
necessary and most intimate connexion between
a bonus textuarius and a bonus theologus. Plain and
obvious as this Canon of Interpretation is, it is
constantly violated by those who bring their
pre-conceived opinions to bear upon the Scriptures, and by forced and unnatural or frigid interpretation, make them  speak in accordance




108    LAWS OF INTERPRETATIOXNwith those opinions, and thus attempt to banish
from the New Testament all its peculiar and distinctive doctrines, such as the Deity of Christ,
the Atonement, etc.  Not only is this violation
chargeable upon the German Rationalists, who
eliminate fiom the Bible every thing supernatural, and whose systems of theology are. any
thing but scriptural, but also upon many who
claim to occupy a higher position. Such, they
say, cannot be the meaning of this passage, andl
such cannot be the meaning of that passage, because it would not be in accordance with the
truth.  The doctrine enunciated )by the words
ot' Scripture interpreted according to their obvious and grammatical import is not true; therefore such cannot be their meaning. These men
conse(uently put a forced and arbitrary sense,
unauthlorized  by usage, on the words, so as to
make them speak in accordance with the opinion thley ma,y have previously formed on tl~(
subject to which they relate, independently and
irrespective of Scripture.  Few books perhaps
abound more with instances of this error than
the Improved Version of the New Testament,
published by the English Unitarians in 180S.
For example, John 1: 2. the zword was i~n the,cg.inniang wiih God, is thus rendered  in the note:
"Before he entered upon his ministry, he was
fully instructed by intercourse with God in the
nature and extent of his commission."  And
again at v. 14, And the word was iade (or became)
flesh, i. e. "a mere mortal man."  Again, John
6: 62, What tAhen if ye shall see the 8onc of oman
going up where he was before, i. e. says the note,
"What would you then do, if I should still fartlier advance into the subject of my mission,




MIEANING OF WORDS.              109
and reveal truths which would be still more reliiote from  your apprehension and more offensive to your prejudices."  These examples furniish striking instances of the abuse of reason,
and an utter disregard of all sound hermeneutical principles, in the interpretation of Scripture.
Other religionists adopt certain  notions of
Gfod from their own fancies, and then make this.
char.acter of him their standard of the meaning
of Scripture.  Fanatics in every age have also
perverted( the Scriptures in the same way.  Our
('anon requires us to derive our theological opinions from the wortds of Scripture faithfully and
conscientiously interpreted, and not to bring
our previously formed opinions to the Scriptures,.and put upon them, under the influence of prejudice, a meaning not warranted by the words.
-And this we are to do irrespective of the trut h
or the erroneousness of those opinions: for a
sentimuent may be true in itself and conformable
t) scripture, and yet not contained in the particular passage under examination.
CANON  II.
n, all its conmmuticatioas tMle Bible lics one mea7i,7g
tr) co07i'7/, Zand no more; conscqucntl. no ot 07l( cao /7CL'c,,ore tfa.,n oine fi'xedl meaoig 2  earcl/ occurreniCC.
Tl'here are few wordls in any language, if we
eceept the  lanames of  )eisons and things, or
)roper nouns, which have not more significations than  olne.  Custom  has, by degrees, attachled various mea.nings to words, in order to
facilitate the acquisition of language, by preventing the infinite multiplicity of terms. But,
while words may have a variety of meanings,
they can not have this variety at the same time,




110    LAWS OF INTERPRETATION —
and in the same place. In every instance of its
occurrence each word in a passage has but one
meaning, and every passage has but one sense;
and, consequently, there can be but one interpretation of it genuine and correct. The words
employed may be used in a literal or in a figurative sense; in their primary or in a secondary
nmeaning; but not in both at the same tinme.
The whole passage may be interpreted as history or as allegory; but as it can not be both, so
the interpretation can not be dlouble.
All men, in the daily intercourse of life, and
in their writings' attach but one meaning to the
words they employ, unless they design to speak
in enigmas, and are playing a game at riddles
or douhble entendres. No prudent, fair-minded,
cand conscientious person in common life, who,
whether lie expresses his thoughts orally, or
commits them to writing, intends that a dliversity of imeanings should be attached to what lie
says or writes, and hence his hearers or readers
do not aflix to it any other than the single sense
which they suppose he intended to convey.
Now, if such is the practice in all fait and u,)riglht intercommnunication  between man and(l
man, can it be supposed that the Deity, in his
communications with his creatures, would depart from  this simple and truthful method?
The Bible was written, under Divine guidance
and inspiration, by men. in the language of men,
and for the use of nlen: it is to be presumed,
therefore, that it would be written in such a
manner as to be intelligible to men, —as other
books are written,-in accordance with the common laws and usage of language,  But other
books are not written with a double or threefold




MEANING OF WORDS.            111
meaning. In them we expect to find one clear,
definite, and intelligible meaning, and no more.
The antecedent presumption that the Scriptures
were written in the same way, is so strong and
violent, that it can be overcome only by evidence so manifest and indisputable as to amount
to a demonstration.  The perspicuity of the
Scriptures requires this unity and simplicity of
sense, in order to render intelligible to man the
plan and purpose of their great Author, which
could never be comprehended if a multiplicity
of senses were admitted.  "There can be," says
Firnesti, " no certainty at all in respect to the
interpretation of any passage of Scripture, unless a kind of necessity compel us to affix a particular sense to a word, which sense mvst be
oeie." The words of Scr'ipture, then, like the
words employed in profane writings,. have, and
can have, but one determinate signification attached to them  in each and every instance of
tlheir occurrence, if the Bible is what it purports
to be-a revelation from God. A single sense
must be chosen, and it is the proper business of
the interpreter to discover what that is. In doing this, it may often be a matter of reasonable
doubt which of two or more interpretations is
the right one. But they can not all, nor any
two of them, be right.  If we approve of one,
we must, if they really differ, reject the others.
The breach of this canon is most derogatory to
the Scriptures, and destructive of all distinct
views of divine truth. But plain and essential
as it is, in one form or another it is more firequently violated than any other principle in the
whole science of IIermieneutics.  The practice
of attachling more than one meaning to each




112    LAWS OF INTERPRETATION —
passage of Scripture may be traced back to a remote age. It sprung, indeed, from the schools
of the Jewish Rabbies, and passed from them,
in early times, into the Christian church.  It
was a IRabbinic maxim: that, "on every point of
the Scriptures hang suspended mountains of
sense."  The Talmud says, " As a hammer separates into many particles, so each text of Scripture has many meanings."  Again; "God so
gave the Law to lMoses, that a thing  can be
shewn to be clean and unclean in tbrtv-nine
diffe'ent ways."  The Rabbies even invented a
science or art called Caballa, which, by changing, disjoining, or transposing letters, or by calculating their value as arithmetical signs, elicited worlds of profound mystery. According to
this system, letters instead of being taken in
their alphabetical force, so as, in their combination to represent words, which words are, in
their turn, signs of ideas, indicate, by peculiarities in their own structure and position, a
mystical sense aside from or explanatory of the
sense expressed by the words to which they
belong. From  the Jews this method of inter
pretation, so far as respects a multiplicity of
senses, passed into the Christian church, being
suggested, probably, by the variety of interpretations given to ambiguous passages, more than
one of which appeared probable, and were recommended by a sentiment of respect for their
authors.  Nor was it confined in early times to
minds of an inferior order, or to men of little
information; but it was adopted by such men as
Origen, Augustine, and Jerome. These men,
and others like them, held that, in addition to
their grammatical and obvious sense, the Scrip



MEANING OF WORDI.             1-13
tures have an occult, mystical, or allegorical
sense. Some of the ancients subdivided this
occult or mystical sense into the allegorical, the
tropological (or moral), and the anagogical;
hence these well-known lines:
"Lzttera gesta docet; quid eredas Allegoria;
Moralis quod agas; quo tendks Anagogia.'
By the allegorical sense they meant the mystical
sense, which has reference to the church upon
earth; by the tropoloqical, that which refers to
moral conduct; and by the anagogical, that
which refers to the church in its glorified state
above. Somewhat after this fashion are the
three different senses which Emanuel Swedenborg attached to every word of Scripture in
every instance of its occurrence, viz., the literal,
the moral or spiritual, and the heavenly.  In the
Roman Catholic Church the practice of giving
Various senses to the same passage of Scripture
has prevailed to a very great extent.  ThusPope Innocent III. (A. D. 1216), who excommunicated King John of England, and threat,
ened even  the Emperor of Constantinople,
maintained that the two great lights spoken of
in Gen. I., signified mystically the office of Pope
and the office of /iin.q-the greater light meaning
the former office. and the lesser light the latter';
so that as the light which rules the day is superior to the light which rules the night, the
dignity of Pope is superior to the dignity of
King. This is merely a specimen of the kind
of interpretation which has been common in
that church. But Protestants have not been
behind the Catholics in their invention of a
multitude of senses.  The earlier Reformers
were more free from extravagant fancies of this
8




114     LAWS OF INTERPRETATIONsort: but Cocceius, a celebrated Dutch divine of
Leyden, (1669), advocated the principle that
all the possible meanings of a word in the Scriptures
are to be ezited; in other words, whatever a word
may mean it does mean. A single noun could
thus have twenty different significations in the
same place, and refer to twenty different things.
He held that' the whole of the Old Testament
was an anticipatory history of the Christian
church, containing a full recital of every tlliung
which should happen to the end of time.  Even
tlhe Lord's Prayer, according to hil, is a prophecy, and its six parts denote six gireat epochs in
history.  LEvery good mal in the Old Testa tlent
is a type of Christ or his Apostles; and evelry
bad m1an a type of the de-vil or the unbelieVing,
Jews.  By the learning  and influence of Cocceius,  a powerful party was raised up in the
Protestant Church in favor of this groundless
and absurd principle.  They pressed each world
of a text until every idea whichl,  by mere possibility, it might contain, etylmolooicallv or otherwise, was forced out; for, by this operation, tho
prceiynant sense of Scripture, as they termed it, and
the holy emphasis of its expressions, which had
heretofore been neglected, could alone be discovered and received in all its fullness. John
Bunyan, whose beautiful and nearly faultless
allegory of the Pilgrim's Progress, there are few
to be found who have not read with delight,
wrote a treatise, in which he undertook to show
that not only the temple, with its solemn ritual
and impressive service, was significant of future
good things, but that even its minutest parts
were in like manner significant. The vases, the
censors, the trays, the snuffers, yea, the snuff




rIEANING OF WORDS.              115
i-tself of the lamps-all had an important spiritual meaning. We find much of a similar charpcter in AWitsius on the Covenants, and other
wolrks of a like-nature.  Suclh schemes of interpretation, however  edvifying  they may be to,some people, are to be utterly rejected, for they
les-,oyv all certainty of interpretation.  They
take the ground fi'oni  beneath our feet, and
maike the Scripturles a nose of wax,.which a man
man:yv tuini into lhaLte1erx siaipe his fancy or im-,ainn'ation mayn' suggest.   Later and more sober.'.;itelrs it, is tlrue, have disavowed these extreme;,i;ows, but iwitlout abain-doning the principle of,a double sense.  Tllii  i still held by a large
num.ber oi' coilimentator s     and clvines, thOUhl
with considexlaoi-e diversity as to the extent of
its ai)pliceationi.  It is,enierally conlined to the
Alrlegoieis  nl and   i'a es of Scripture, to the
J3ook of 1Psbalms ge-erally, antd to those passages
Ifromn the plo!)'heticall and other wr'itin's of the
)11id Testallent, which a-.e quoted or alluded to.in the New T' est alent Nwith reference to Christ.ncnd the Chutclh.
The Docule seaSe may be thus explained.  If
ve ascribe to any passage of Scripture a literal,.obvious, historical sense, and interpret it as conveying and intended to convey the meaning
which  the words naturally seem  to  conve-,
and yet at the same time ascribe to the same
words another and dissimilar meani)ng  as designedly referring to another person or event,.or as relating to another subject, and intended
to be conVeyed by those same words, we then
tnake out a double sense.  Take the following
sexamples:  If the second Psalm  is interpreted
As a description of the coronation of David or




fti   LAWs OFr I'IAPt io —
of Solomon on the hill of Zion, and all that [ig
there said be literally and historically applied td
him; and if then we go on to find in the wordy
of the same Psalm a secondary sense as prophetically descriptive of the Messiah, or of believers, we give them a double sense. Again:
If we give to the language of the sixteenth'
Psalm a grammatical and historical interpretation as designedly applicable to David and descriptive of his feelings on the bed of sickness
and of his faith that God would again restore
him to health; and then regard the language
as designedly and prophetically descriptive in
another sense of the resurrection of Christ from'
the dead, we manifestly give to the language a
double sense. Once more: If we interpret the
forty-fifth Psalm'as an epithalamiumn or niuptial
song, composed on the Occcasion of Solomnon's
marriage with a foreign princess, and as referring primarily and' historically to that event:
and then proceed to show that a secondaryv
deeper and mystical sense, distinct from and independent of this, runs throthA the Whole, by
virtue of which the xWords are found to be designedly descriptive of the Ring M3~essiah and of"
his spiritual union with the Church, then we
give to the Psalm a double sense.
Now the question arises, is such a system of
interpretation admissible according to the acknowledged laws of language? To this question,.as it seems to me, the answer must be in the
negative. If the principle be admitted in regard to these and other Psalms of a like character, why not with regard to all the Psalms?
And if applicable in regard to one part of Scripture, why not to every part.? Who shall decide




1IEANING OF WORDS.            117,within what limits the principle shall be confined? And if we are at liberty to invent a
secondary sense equally true and perhaps more
important than the primary, why may we not:invent a third sense and a fourth? But would.
not this destroy all certainty in the use of laaguagbe? " When we receive a letter on an important subject from a friend," says Dr. J. Pye
Smith, "we read it with a view to ascertain its
meaning, to know the real sentiments and intention of the writer, and having obtained this
we are satisfied. That which it is our duty in
all cases to seek after is the true, genuine, intended sense of the word of God, the mind of
the Spirit, and this must be ultimately and essentiallv one."
It is true there are kinds of composition in
swhich an apparent sense is presented, which
every intelligent reader sees is only an envelope
for another, and it is this other meaning which
is the author's real design, his one and true intention. In allegories, for instance, the apparent meaning is not what the author intends;
this is a mere covering. under which is concealed
the true meaning. The sense is still but one,
and the interpretation one. Allegories, therefore, form no exception to our Canon. Nor are
Parables an exception. These are either allegorical, and subject to all the laws which apply
to allegories; or they are historical and designed
to illustrate and enforce some important moral
truth or duty, and in this case, are susceptible of
only one meaning like any other historical narrative or fictitious story. And yet perhaps'there is no
portion of Scripture to which the principle of a
4ouble sense has been more frequently applied




1Ig      LAWS OF INTERnTRETATIONthan to the parables.  Thus Dodd and others
tell-us that by the priest and levite in the parable of the Good Samaritan, are intended natural
religion  and the Mosaic dlispcnsation, and by
the two pence gix-eon to tlle Inukeeper are Imeant
tlhe t wo Chrlisian'                 -e'n tt Oe   tel  sl
that thie man travellil   froln Jeri uis le   to aeJiiho10 w1  feli 1 inol  tliieves,  e llre ents. da1'
and his posterit-y  te'i ing t  hrllol. li  tile  viliereness of tLis wori (l, -xilo iare rol),c (  11(1 1nt  oll(c(l
oy Satin  tat tllce l'.'i         te \-p10 dieh pst
by w ithout helping 1e;'i, 1repiQ'se t tlte )l xw iic! 
cannot save thle s.iniel, ('l" d oo wO0(i T10l', I cinl co-,
rellrlonial ob.<ervaiies, woir',h cai not 1e01l) lhimi
-that the Good SaMrnlti Lt'n is Ct1'ist;   ta tt thle c,il
anc  wine are the forliveness and grace of tile
Gospel; and tllat tee Iratlitolls we'O  If lp'in,
the wounded Iman  is a lively cmbllen  of' t!leC
Redeemern's gratuitou s  xwork in I'respet to'sineis.   oow all tlis nlmay be very evaneiieal,, bit
is it the true seinse of the  r)aill)1e?
A1mTl.if/y is not a ciouble sense.  A  pansagae
may be equivocal in its ternms,'and even dcesii nedly so, and vet havre but one real meaning in
the mind and intention of tlhe speaker or writer.
We find this designed and studied ambiguity in
some of the hedthe en oracles, which  Niere so
framed that the event, whatever it might be,
would verify the pretended prediction, and thus
sustain the character of the oracle.  The wellknown Delphic oracle " Aio te Romanos vincere
posse," is an example of this, which  may be
renderedi, with  equal propriety, that the RoMnans vWould conquer Pyrrhus, or.Pyrrhus the
Romans. The words of our Saviour addressed
to the Jews (John 2: 19,) were equivocal, and




MIEANING  OF WORDS.                 119
admitted of two different interpretationl.'IDestroy this termple. and in three days I  will ira:is4
it up.'   This is alleg ed by Olshaiis-:n., ]_ushll and
others, to be. an instalnce of' a d1ol)]e,fe1 SO. dBote
suchI is not the c ase, if te:e inspii   ipodste is to:      is  rl[ster's lo, nnga?.  Ti   l:'-n~,".5".i    L
tiolBably   cuiv Biocal(    and d'cai!  etl tie.(:?  out~,Sa io', becase it i s i.()!C. 1.1. t L"..o,
like most, pil,ecies. ver il'l  in  o',:'''Ii!'it t.!'ie
exact m1eanin, and l l   1iip1oait of s.ivs.hI cou;Ld,.
only b e learneiti'mn t!   C::t t\eIC!l11 i-t"t  -     I.
1ilment of it.  It in,ovt   y V a,    1e,1i  ni -
lndert ilhe circuimstan tes. tlct. tle h,i T s mi, P- 
ter preted thl(c   a(ecla  tin,  nl -i          d  11 t'
our Lorid r1ferred to the destriuc tioll ol' flle J1ewish Temlple.  I cFr ec n t}ie (isciipls (i, l'tot Iftiily
sipreihCenld(I its miPeaiin.I   ti lt a f'te1    I'ic IO'e ti-on.
The 1 ssage in CGal. O':, 2;0.    e iator is noa 
mled(iator cf one:  uIt G(oed is one i iO 1s saidl (1as
been interpr eted  in    ifity diffrent ways.  Shall
we then adopt the Cocceian  principle and say
that it actually has fifty differ.nt senses?  O)r
shall we adopt the Sweclenborgian  theory and
choose out of these fifty meanings, three
which may appear to be the most probable.?  Or,
shall we say, with many others, that it has two
nmeanings?  Because a passage of Scripture is
capable of being understood  in  two or more
senses, this is no proof that it was designed to
be taken in all these senses.
The fact that certain persons or things mentioned in the Old Testament are typical of certain persons or events recorded in the New, furnishes no exception to our Canon. Typ es are
not words but persons or things, which under the




120     LAWS O1 INTEIPRETATIONOld Dispensation, were designed in certain respects to prefigure corresponding persons or
things called the antitypes, under the New Dispensation.  There is no typical sense in the
words which relate to these persons or things
distinct from the obvious sense, any more than
there is in the words of Scripture relating to
any other subject.  The words, for instance,
which describe the rites, sacrifices, or occurrences, of tfle ancient dispensation, are to be interpreted in their plain, usual, historical sense.
And although many of these rites were undoubtedly typical of future events under the Gospel dispensation, no secondary, typical or mystical
sense is to be attributed to the language employed in speaking of them. David was undoubtedly
in some respects a type of Christ; but it does
not hence follow that all which he uttered or
wrote, even under divine inspiration, has a typical import.
It is no violation of our Canon to attach especially to the words of our Saviour, a deeper
and profounder sense than that which lies upon
the surface, and would first suggest itself to the
mind of the careless and indifferent reader.
This rxnze&,; or Voyms, as it is called, is not a
Moxy;,, or double sense, though it has often been
confounded with it. It is the real and only
sense intended by Christ,-the only sense which
corresponds to the character and office of Christ
and the spiritual nature of his religion. Nor is
it an occult or hidden sense any farther than that
it requires more thorough examination and
thoughtful attention, and a deeper and more
truthful insight into the spirit of Christianity,
to bring out to view the real meani'ng, ta   is




MEANING  OF WORDS.           121
necessary in regard to historical passages. For
example: by the expression " to be born again,"
as used by our Saviour in his discourse with Nicodemus, a Jew, according to the particular
usage of his nation and of the time, wouhl natu:
rally understand by it, to become a proselyte to
the Jewish religion; and many Christian interpreters regard it as identical or nearly so with
baptism. But our Saviour employed the expression in a peculiar sense, in accordance with the
whole nature and spirit of his religion, as denoting a radical change of heart or affections and
will-a complete moral and spiritual regeneration, of which baptism or the public profession
of religion and initiation into the Christian
Church is but an outward sign, symbol, and indication.
Again: it is no violation of our Canon to emaploy the Scriptures in an accommodated sense
for devotional purposes, or for moral and religious instruction and improvement, provided it
is understood that the accommodated sense is
not the real one intended by the writer, but
only an adaptation of the passage to a particular use.  In this way we accommodate the
Psalms, when we employ them for devotional
purposes in public or private worship, rather
than for instruction.' We adopt the language of
the Psalmist as our own and employ it as expressive of our circumstances and feelings as far
as by accommodation we can do so.
The question of a double sense is not the same
with the question whether any prophecy is so
constructed as to admit of a gradual fulfilment,
not confined to one precise object or time, but
extending through a considerable period and




122   LAWS OF INTERPRETATION
designedly applicable to more than one event.,
It is very probable, that there are prophecies
vwhich  extend thlrough a long course of' years
and point out a succession of events, a11 tendiny
to one lpoint, or a11 centeled inl one perlson.  It
is  doubtless to such pr ophecies as have this
graduial accomnplislment and comnpletion, that
Lord Bacon  efers when hic S)2': ao, opii!lg and ge'lniilant, aIcCOliiilislloel  t.:  Si
ple point i, s  lletlher a p7rophecy fulfiled ie n oc,,
soewc, look-s Iolrvarxd to  anllother accolnmplishlmelt
in a sense entirely n'ewa 2n\  d dliverse, alto  ether
iidlepen(lenti of thle foi -iler seise, not l)eariil  oil
tLihe samie ioint, not forimin g a Par)l't of thei sille
dispensation, no  ireferring to the  same general
c esi-n.
That there are clifficulties in re'l'lrd to the Ilse
d1 tle by th   e  NXe  e. L'esaln   t  lwriters of certaill
passages in the Old'Testalnent. whllich th  tlheory
of a double sense is supposed to solve, will not
Ie cleniedl.   liut it wouldc  seem  to  be better to
leave these difficultie s ullexplalined, than to resort to a metho(d of solution, which violates the
established laws  of lanuage.
C A (ANON   III.
A word which has more meavemiegs lan. o02C, Cal2let,
at the option Olf an iteyrcter, be eidlerastood as colzbiZinig aiy two of th/em.
This canon is no less self-evident than the one
last considered.  An  interpreter has no  more
right to combine two distinct meanings of a
word, than he has to  create a third meaning.
It is at his option to select either of two meanings belonging to a word, which he may regard
as most suitable; but he is not at liberty  to




3fiXANING OF woRDS.                     123
Combine the  two  and(l thus virtually to  form   a
third not authorized by  usage, nor required  by
the  exigecnc  y  of thle  passage.  This law  is uot
perh!';s so fre qnently or systematically              t ransressecl, ag Can'l-mon  2, blut is neveritheless   often
(li.re nor d     e(l ell l   enlleil1n  t lillical expositois.  Thle following   are ex i'uiI   s of this.  Tlle
nlivase itna.-:lted ii   oult stoadan(Ac( v  ersilo o'i,;
C.s,,,iCc in  Ilob. 10: o)  is lii;(iierod   0  Prot-.
LStnu: t,:   C'o-l  ouC i.C-,   of  evil,"  or   a c on0C  ii,,e o~ll'tc sstn            n   5Cl wit,i''(-rlf
a:',o. }.rflete0ivt ie o t (.1]i iti1m si -'tI   and 1 V,1  
11a. th.  Ttihus tllis  ('sti:,SL'is:,l coCi.xleiitt'tor
makes  the same wo rd 4 Si (SniV 0oth  CS.             ll 11 ii
oCiOs':,''o:,t: ce ill  ontibii'ttioll. n  Ictlinubtecil   thle
eoig1oiawd xVohd I as i)ot! t so si;'iiiCations,  ut
not at tle  salxe tieime,     ri     lI ii  tle sale ifco.
Besides it, is qxuit. e ( oul tix,!   wt-ii titer tteii  phrasme
has in  thi:, passage, eitler of tl e two meaniilig s
asci-ib t   to  it by  Prof.  Stuiart.   The  piliase: conSCiousnlss of o     xevil,   or' ConsCiousroess of
being  evil or sinlful," i. e. of intrinsic  denmerit,
is certainly not r1emnoved  eithler by the pairdon
ing or sanctiflyin   efficacy of' the Tblood of Chlrist.fIr this renlmains withi the Chrlistian  till deathl
lie will ever feel that  hie is a guilty   sinner, i. e,
a transgressor of the Divixne law, and consequently dtcsacrvig of punislment, thllough  by means of
a pardon no  longe.r licdluc to punishment.   It is
no part of the  Saviouir's work  or of the Spirit's
work to remove this conviction of sin and of its
ill desert, but to  deepen it, in order to  magnify
the grace of God  in the pardon of the self-condemnned soul. The rendering of our standard
tersio~ is much to be preferred,  and is not diffi



124    LAWS OF INTERPRETATIONcult of explanation.  By conscience is understood
that faculty of the mind by which we either justify or condemn ourselves, in view of our conduct regarded as good or evil according to a
known law. An evil conscience is a gui/lt.y, accesing,
self-condemning conscience.  See John 8: 9.
Tit. 3: 11. 1 John 3: 20. It is opposed to a
good conscience, i. e. an approviamy conscience, one
which commends instead of blaming us: -that
which gives a favorable testimony to the sincerity and uprightness of a man's conduct. See
Acts 23: 1. 2 Cor. 1: 12. 1 Tim. 1: 13, 19.
Ifeb. 13: 18. 1 Pet. 3: 16.
A pur. Finl conscience, or an heart sprinkled firom
an evil conscience, is one fiom which the accusations and terrors of a guilty conscience are
removed by means of a pardon, so that the sinner, though fully conscious of his sinfulness and
ill-desert, is enabled by faith in Christ Jesus, to
rejoice in hope of the bliss of heaven.  See Ileb.
9: 14; 10: 2. It is to such a conscience that
the Apostle here refers.
The Greek verb.r~,eh. in the New Testament,
like the corresponding H1-ebrew word in the Old
Testament, signifies both to instruct and to ciacstise. 2 Tim. 2: 25. Titus 2: 12. Ileb. 12: 6, 7,
10. In 1 Tim. 1: 20, the Apostle speaking of
Hymeneus and Alexander, says, " whom I have
delivered unto Satan that they may learn not to
blaspheme." Now Parkhurst in his Lexicon of
the New Testament has invented a meaning for
the word in this place, which combines both instruction and correction. But this is as arbitrary and unauthorized as if he had assigned to
the word a meaning at random. It is true that
it was through the medium of chastisement or




MEANINs  OP Wo1DS.             125
ecclesiastical discipline, the instruction to which
the Apostle alludes was given: this, however, is
not expressed in the words, but is ascertained
from the context.
The Hebrew word rendered in -our standard
version to deal prudently, in Isa. 52: 13. signifies
both to act wisely, and to prosper. Somne commentators understand it in this passage in the
former, and others in the latter sense. But
Prof. Hlengstenberg in the first edition of his
Christology, undertakes to combine the two.
"It is better," he says "to join both significations together; he shall in wisdom reign prosperously; or more briefly, he shall reign well." Now these
two significations are entirely distinct; and
though national prosperity may be and often is
the result of a wise administration of the government, the word never has, and by our Canon
never should be made to have both significaa
tions in the same occurrence. Prof. 11. subsecquently perceived his error,, and in the last edition of his valuable work he has corrected it,
and adopts the rendering shall act wisely, though
he erroneously asserts that the verb always has
that meaning and never to be successful. The
Greek noun translated in our standard version
volue,, Hleb.' 10: 7, Dr. Owen explains as uniting
the signification of volume, roll, and that of head
or beginning.  "As the book itself," he says, "was
one roll, so the head of it, i. e. the beginning of itamong the first things written in it, is this recorded concerning the coming of Christ to do
the will of God. This includes both senses of
the word; in the roll or Vrolume itself, and in
the head, or in the beginning of the roll, i. e. of
the part of Scripture which was written when




126      LAWS OF INTERlRETAPONDavid penned this psalm:"-alluding to the first
promise of the Saviour in Gen. 3: 15.  But nei
ther does the Greek word nor tllhe   ebrew word
to which it answers in the Psalm fronl wxhiich the
passage is quoted, ever signify the bcyiglmilg   / of
a book, but, as ou1 translation has it, a  oui/az'ae or
-roil.  And if the Greekl word from  its etvmrolog
could be suplosedl to siglifyt  the /.hee(t or  lJc-)j;
n;;ib, it cannot li ave both sirnifications at the
samei place. P    li    or(d tlrainslated jt.lire'Itt in
Hleb. 10): 2, Dr. Owen observets,         is somletimies
taken fibr tlie s,c,,icc and  onietimes the  ),liiS/tnt/ suffere' d accori'dang     to the award."  "I doubt
not,  lie adds,  "b ut in the awoid here usedl botlh
tllese are inclludled, viz., the ri'lhteous seiteonco
of CGtodl j(l;;  and dcter'-ninn' onl thle guilt of
tllis sil, and ithle    1/,i,..I t  iscl' wxiich ensueS
tlheteio  1." i.Put thoughal the sentence of condellnatian andc the pulllishmllln t awarded as the pnlty of the violated lxv are c   onn11( te(l a  lltecedent and c Conseq1ue1nt, there 1   is Lno reason w c atever for uniting them  ill any case, and in tblis
particular  instance suc I a combination is eiitirely out of place, for the reason that the punislhrnent conse(uient on the sentence of condlenination is explicitly allud(ed  to in  the expression
fiery iadigeotioa., wlhich immediately follows.  The
lebrew  word translated to wi/tcr in Psalml   1: 3,
sianifies also to fall, to fall og; and the Septuagint renders it in this place to fall &of   But Plrofi
Bush  combines the two and translates it jall
witherig oft —lremarking, that " the primary sense
of the verb is doubtless to dry up1', to wither, ancd
connected with this to flag,, to droop, to  be. cx10austed.  But as the leaves of trees when thus
withered and dried up fall to the ground, we sh4lli




MEANING OF WORDS.               127
probably do most justice to the original by retaining both ideas."  Such an interpretation as
this is a violation of our Canon.
The Greek noun vroovy4, is translated in our
standard version in Ron. 2: 7, patient contisuance. XNow this word signifies sometimespa.tience,
viz., under trials and afflictions, and sometimes
coi~sttacy or persevrance, viz., in the performance
of good works.  But in our version the two
meanin s are combined.  The context shows
that the propelr meaning in this place is con7stacy/
orl )er7seecrglee, an.l denotes continued activity
and steadfistness in the Christian life.'The
passive virtue of p)aticnce does not seem to be at
all alluded to.
The G(reek verb l.,ss-    signifies ill the Nev
Testament, 1. to  rai/ce.~eit or loblq?, intrinsically.
2. to decla(/re or ronoullice j.ust judicially, i. e. to
acquit, to clear.  3. to?'( arCd adid tCreat as juast or.olqq, extra-judicially, i. e. to pardoin, to absolve
from guilt or liability to punishment.  But Faber and some other theological writers combine
the second and third significations, and regard
tle cognate noun justi/fication in its evangelical
sense as a complex term denoting both acquittal
and pardlon.  But the ideas severally conveyed
by these two terms are incompatible with each
other.  A  man cannot be both acquitted and
pardoned in relation to the same act or acts.
For acq/uittal implies inrutocence, and parldon implies
geutNt.
Our Canon does not forbid us to regard certain
terms and expressions in the Scriptures as used
in an inltesive sense.  Thus the Greek word
4'aroxeoxm,, has in Rom. 8: 19, and in Phil. 1: 20,
an intensive force, which is well expressed in




i28      LAWS OF INTERPR~ATi0t1
our standard version by earnest expectation. This
is evident both from the composition of the
word and the nature of the passage. So alsd
the Hebrew word in Psalm 2: 1, rage appears
to be intensive, and may be rendered as in our
Prayer Book translation furiously -rage, or better
still with others, tumultuously assemble. The word
rendered in the same Psalm, v. 4., sore displeasure)
is intensive and denotes hot displeasure, violent
anger. See also Psalm 6: 1.
Again: our Canon does not forbid us to attach
to a word or passage as full, comprehensive and
fertile a sense, as the usage of the sac.red writers
justifies or the context, nature of the subject,
and the spiritual and comprehensive character
of Christ's religion seem to require. A feeble;
jejune and frigid sense so commonly attached to
the Scriptures by rationalistic commentators, is
derogatory to the Word and Spirit of God. As
the Scriptures were appointed by God to enlighten, reform and sanctify the human race, it is to
be presumed that those books and passages in
which weighty religious and moral truths are
propounded, contain an important, rich, and
comprehensive sense, worthy of their Divine
Author, and adapted to accomplish the great
utnd for which they were given.




TIGURATIVE LANGUAGE.            1
CHAPTER XVtT.
]DIFFERENT  SENSES IN  WHICH  WORDS ARE
UISED.-FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE.
Before proceeding further to exhibit the Prin-,ciples and Canons of lnterpretatiota, it is necessary, in order to the right understanding of our
~subject, that some attention should be given to
the different senses in which words are em)lioyedl, and the uses to which they are applied.'rhe most common and by far the most impor trant division or distinetioai of words in respect to,their meaning, is into laitra or grammatical, anr1.fgurative or tropioal. The terms #eral and-gra.-n
mniatieal refer equally to the E.ENl S-TS of a word,
and in referenca to our present subject are used
r'eeisely in the same sense.  Literal, from the.
Ltatin ltera, denotes the rv.e-aniiag of a word.'which is according -to the ketter, the proper or
1lprimary meaning; anid the same is indicated by
— the term gramiaical, in this connexion, a word;-Of Greek derivation for what is according to the
-yfufLfe, or letter.  But when a wold,originallr
-appropriated to one thing, comes to be,-applied
-to another, which bears some real or fancied re-.semblance to it, as there is in such a ease a turn-,ing of it to a new use, we say a tro-e is-employed.,(Greek -reo'-o,, i,versio,  coeversio) an.d' ~t:he tra.ns
-Ifrred meaning is called tropieal: or we say in
ilanguage derived from  the Latin, (fiura, imnage.)
that a.fqure is then used, because in such cases
tlhe meaning of thte word assumes a new form.
WVhen other meanings become by usage attached.to a word, besides the primary and principa1
aeaning, they are all denominated aimpropfr or
9




130        FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE.
secondary senses; of whatever number or kind
they may be.  But to make a sense figurative in
the proper acceptation of that term, there must
be not only a departure from the primary sense,
but there must at the s:;me time be excited
something like an imacqe in  the mind.  Thus
when the property of hardiness is applied to a
stone, the expression is used litertallv in its proper and natural sense; but when it is apsplied to
the heart, it is used figuratively, or in an improper or tropical acceptation.  The sense, however,
allovwing for the change of subject, is virtually
the same, its application only )eing transferred
fr'om a physical to a moral quality.  In the phr.ses ros /face, snou? s i?7, the epithets ro.s,? and snoyu
are usedl tropically, because the propelties indicated by those terms cannot be literally an(d
properly applied to the face or skin.  The Greek
verb reocz;*r-i pioOperly signifies to sfril.te one substance a qai7st another-: as, for example, to strilke
the foot ag-ainst a stone.  Matt. 4: 6, and then
to stumble, —the na turl and freqtrent consequence
ft' thus striking the foot.  John 11: 9, 10. Put
it is transferred from  material to spiritlual objects, and then signifies tropically to st?.mzle at
any thing, i. e, to ttake ofyjtice at it.  Rom. 9: 32,1 Pet. 2: 8.
Tropes and figures abound in all languages,
They originate in some iDnstanees from necessitvy
as when the language furnishes no appropriate
term  to express the idea, or in order to avoid
the indefinite multiplication of new wor(ls.  Accor.'dingly we find tropictal language in use in thle
first ages of mankin(d, and abounding  most in
languag(es, t'le vocabuulary of wliich'i is most limited.  That which constitutes the beauty of lan



'IGUmRATtVE LANGUAGE.          13i
guage thus arose from its very poverty. But'Iecessity is by no means the sole cause of their
introduction. They are more frequently employed merely for the sake of variety in expression. in order to avoid the too frequent repetition of the same word; for in all humnan operations gratification is studied even more than
necessity. Still more commonly they are introduced for the sake of orrament. In proportion
as an author is desirous of adorning his style,
the more does he abound in tropes. The frequency of tropes depends much, also, on the genius of the writer, or the naiture of his subject,:nrd on t'ie state of his mind at the time of writing.
Men of warm and vivid imaginations, delight in
tropes, even of the boldest character.  This
arises from the fact that they easily perceive
and form similitudes, and by their peculiar tenmperament a.re excited to Bmake coniparisons.
Indeed the least excitement of feeling impels a
man of ordinary fancy to express his thoughts,
not by the words directly appropriated to themr,
but by some accessory idea, suggested to his mind
by the principle of association, and preferred on
account of its greater vivacity and beauty. It is
easy to see therefore, n ong -whaht. peo.1-e, aand in
what species of composition, were'especially to
look for tropical languoage. The nations which
hintabit tropieal celimates are from  their ardent
teirnmeratrment, -nore addicted to its use than
~thesewhich dwell in cold regions; and poetry,is particularly the field in which tropes most
-abound. Eastern nations indulge in figures,
also, far more than Western.'The common language of the Arabs of Western Asia, for in%stance, abounds in imagery of the boldest char



1         MFIGURATIVE LANGUAGE.
aCter.  Th'ese remarks Will explain why the
language of Scripture is sto highly figurative, especially of the Old Testanient. The Hebrews
Were Orientals, and like other inhabitants of the
East, possessing Warm and lively imaginations,
and living in a warm  and fertile climate, surrounded by objects equally beautiful and agreeable, they delighted in a figurative style of expression; and sometimes fancied similitudes
which seem to us farfetched, and to the chastened taste of. Western readers do not always
appear the hmst elegant. Another reason why
the Old Testament abounds in imagery is, that
much of it is Ipoetry. Now it is the privilege of:a poet to illustrate and adorn the productions of
his muse, and to render them more animated
and attractive by figures and images drawn from
almost every object that presents itself to the
imagination. " Hence David, Solomon, Isaiah,
and other sacred poets, abound with figures,
make rapid transitions fro'm  one to another,
everywhere scattering flowers, and adorning
their poems with metaphors, the real beauty of
which, however, can only be appreciated, by being acquainted with the country in which the
sacred poets lived, its situation and peculiarities,
and also with the manners of the inhabitants,
and the idioms of their language."  The language of the New Testament, and especially the
discourses of our.Saviour, are not less figurative.
A close attention, therefore, to the natulre of
figurative language in general, and especially of
the tropical language of the Scriptures. is of the
highest importance to the Biblical Student; for
while on the one hand, almost all the peculiar




FINURATIVE LANG1UAtEX.!3
doctrines of the Gospel have Wen resolved byone class of interpreters, into Oriental metaphors, numerous mistakes on the other hand,
have been made by another class, in consequence of a literal application of what was figuratively meant; important doctrines in theology
have been made to rest on tropical expressions
interpreted literally., and even grave dogmatic
errors have originated in the same way, and are
persistently maintained on this ground alone.
As an illustration of this remark, the following
example is taken from the admirable Lectures of
Bishop Marsh:
"When our Saviour at the Last Supper took
bread, and blessed it, and brake it, he gave it to
his disciples, saying,'Take, eat, this is my body!'
In like manner, when he had taken the cup, and
given thanks, he said to his disciples,' Drink ye
all of it, for this is my blood of the New Testament.' In the same figurative language he had
spoken on a former occasion, when he said,' He
that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood,
dwelleth in me and I in him.' And then,
comparing his body with bread, he added,' This is that bread which came down from heaven.' The Jews, indeed, as welloon this occasion,
as when he spoke of the temple of his body, understood him  literally, and asked,'How can
this man give us his flesh to eat?' though our
Saviour himself, when he said of his body, that
it was the bread which came down from heaven,
plainly indicated, that he was only. comparing his
body with bread. The Church of Rome has followed the example of the Jews, and has likewise
ascribed a literal meaning to words which were
purely figurative. Bit th rl;fficultv which press



134       FIGU'RATIVE LAN1GU1AGE.
ed upon the Jews, in regard to literally eating the
body of Christ, is not felt by the Church of Rome.
The mistake of the Jews consisted in supposing,
that our Saviour literally offered them  his body
to be eaten; whereas he literally offered his body
as a sacrifice, and what he offered in remembrance
of that sacrifice was literally bread and wine.
But the Church of Rome, regarding the ceremony of the Lord's Supper as an actual representation of that sacrifice, not as a commemoration of it,
supposes, that the body and the blood of Christ
are literally presented to the view of the communicant. And believing, that Christ himself, by
the consecration of the bread and wine at the
Lord's Supper, had literally converted them into
his own body and blood, before lie said to his
disciples,'This is my body,' and' this is my
blood, they conclude, that the miraculous conversion, thus ascribed to Christ himself, (a conversion, which, had it been necessary lay undoubtedly within the reach of almiqhty power,) is equally
performed by the Human power of an officiating
priest. But the Church of England [and the
same is true of the, Protestant Episcopal Church
in the United States,] with due attention to that
figurative style, so frequently employed by our
Saviour on other occasions, has interpreted his
words on that solemn occasion by the rules of
analogy, and by the dictates of common sense,we eat the bread in remembrance, that Christ died
for us; we feed on him  only in our hearts by
faith with thanksgiving. We believe that the
blood of Christ was shed for us, and will preserve
us to everlasting life. But the cup, which we
drink, we drink only in remembrance that Christ's
blood was shed for us. The same iaterpretatior




FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE.           135
of our Saviour's words was adopted by the Riformers in general, with the exception only of
Luther. lHe firmly indeed resisted the doctrine
of Transubstantiation, or an actual change in
the sebstaince of the elements, as maintained by
the Church of Rome. He so far took the words
of Christ in a figurative sense, as not to believe
that the bread and wine, even after the consecration, meant the same things as the body and
blood of Christ.  Iie believed that the. bread
and wine still retained their proper qualities.
But he was perplexed by this expression:'This
is my body!' and though conference after conference was holden on the subject, he could
never be persuaded to construe that expression
consistently with thefigurative language which
is used throughout; and he persevered to the
last in so strict an interpretation of that expression, as if it meant, T'l'his is really and literally
my body. ltaving rejected, however, the doctrine of transubstantiation, or an actual change
in the elements, he endeavored to remove the
difficulty, in which he had unnecessarily involved himself, by supposing that, after the consecration, the body of Christ was united with the
bread; and this union (not conversion) of substance was called consubstantiation. But there
was a difficulty still remaining, which occasioned
a controversy of long duration after Luther's
death. The divines of Switzerland objected to
the Lutherans, that our Saviour could not be
everywhere corporeally present, which the doctrine of consubstantiation implied; while the
Lutherans, on their part, endeavored to remove
that objection, by accounting for the hypostatic
union on the ground of what they technically




136.      FIGURA7IVX LAIGUJAGE.
termed' eommunicatio idiomatumr' or the cornmYnni'eation of properties, And. since Christ, as
God, rrmnt be (omnipresent, irn respect to his
divine nature, they -hence inferred, that as this
dsivine nature had been united -to his h]uman nature, there existed a communication of properties from the former to the latter, which made
him corporeally present, where he was spilritually
present.  The argument,. however, did not satisfy their opponents, who thought it wiser to prer'ent the difficulty, by an uniformly corsistent
interpretation of figurative language."
It is' strange that any sensible man should fail
to perceive that the expression of our Saviour.
here referred to, which has occasioned so much
bitter eontroversy and even bloodshed in the
Christian Church, is simply a metonymy of the
sign put for the thing signified. This is a figure
common to all} languages, and the idiomatic expression under consideration is of frequent oecurrence in the llebrew., because there is n}o
word in that language w-hieh properly means to
s;gnify or represent. In the absenee of such a
word the substansive verb is emplo3 ed in a
tropical sense, and is either expressed or understood, as in the following example:';"The three
branches are three days." Gon. 40: 12; and "the
three baskets are three dayvs," i. e. the branches
and the baskets represe-t three days  (See also.
ch. 41.. 26. Ezek. 32: 11.) The samle met.onymical expression is found in the service for the
celebration of the Passover among the modern
Jews; in which the master of the family and
all the guests take hold of the dish containing
the unleavened bread, which had been previously broken, and say, "Lo! this is the bread of




FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE.           137
affliction which all our ancestors ate in the land
of Egypt."  The same idiom occurs frequently
in the New Testament. Thus, " the field is the
world," " the harvest is the end of the world,"
etc. Matt. 13: 38. 39.'I am (represent) the
vine-ye are (represent) the branches."  John
15: 5. " That rock was (represented) Christ."
1 Cor. 10: 4. This tropical meaning is required
in reference to the words of our Savicur not
only by biblical usage, but also by the context
and the scope of the passage, not to mention the
demands of reason and common sense. And
yet in consequence of Luther's failing to see
this, and persistently refusing to yield his opinion, a large and important branch of the Protestant Church has had incorporated into her
creed a doctrine scarcely less unscriptural and
inconmprehensible than that of transubstantiation; while in the Church of Rome many a
valuable life has been sacrificed to expiate the
sin of rejecting a dogma, originating in the dark
ages, and founded on a misconception of a figure
of speech.
The Hebrews were exceedingly fond, as we
have already remarked, oi' a style of composition abounding with troes and figures of various kinds and  of the boldest character,
amounting in many instances to the most startling exaggeration.  Their poets in particular
indulged greatly the luxuriancy of their imagination in the employment of figurative language,
for.by presenting a kind of picture to the mind,
it afforded delight as well as instruction. Treating, as the Bible does, also, of supersensuous objects and of beings who move in a sphere beyond
our observation, much of the language of Scrip



138       FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE.
ture is necessarily analogical. It is highly important to the correct understanding of the Scriptures, therefore, that the Biblical student should
be familiarly acquainted with the different kinds
of figures employed by the sacred writers, and the
proper mQthod of distinguishing figurative frion
literal language.  Without this knowledge, it
will be impossible for him to make much progress in ascertaining the true meaning of the
Scriptures; and he will be constantly liable to
mistakes, which may lead to an erroneous belief,
or to wrong practice.  We proceed, therefore, to
enumerate and briefly explain some of the more
common and important figures which occur in
the sacred volume.
There are figures of diction which relate merely to the addition or subtraction of letters or
syllables. There are also figures of eoistr-ction;
but these relate to grammatical arrangement
and not to the meaning of words. Neither of
these has any relation to the interpretation of
the la.nguage of Scripture, with which alone ouri
subject is concerned.  It is rhetorical figures only
which affect the sense. These for the most part
are founded either on conjunction or on resemblance.
By conjunction is meant the mutual relation
subsisting between two things; and this relation
may be either physical or intellectual. When the
conjunction is physical, the trope is technically
called a synecdoche. This occurs when there is a
substitution of the whole for a part, or a part for
the whole. Thus the wor-ld sometimes denotes the
Roman Empire, which was a very small, though a
very remarkable portion of it. Luke 2: 1. The
soul is put for the entire person.. Acts 2: 41, 27:
37: thefezsh is put for the body, Ps. 16: 9. Many




rIo'RATIVYE LANGUAGE.           139
put for all, Dan. 12: 2, where the prophet certainly does not intend to describe a partial resurrection.  Rom. 5: 19, who the many are in
this place we learn from  the preceding verse.
The container is sometimes pat for the thing containe(. Thus a table is employed to denote the
food placed on it.  "Let their table become a
snare."  A eep stands for the liquor it contains.
" The cup of blessing which we bless," I Cor. 10:
16; just as we say of the intemperate man that
he is fond of the bottle.  House is put for household-the family residing in the house. Gen. 7: 1.
Heaven is put for God himself.  hence the often
recurring phrase "kingdom of heaven," applied
to the new dispensation of the Messiah, and the
Christian Church. There is no allusion in it to
the heavenly  state  of that dispensation or
church, but simply to their divine origin.
Where the conjunction is intellectual or supposed, the figure is called a metonymy, in which
there is the substitution of one word for another,
where the thoughts are closely conjoined and
rise up together in the mind,though there is no
proper resemblance between them. Thus where
the eause is put for the efect: as when the Holy
Apirit is put for the gifts and injfluences of the
Spirit. "Quench not the Spirit," 1 Thes. 5: 19,
Luke II: 13. Christ is called our life, because
he is the author of our spiritual life.  The sign
is frequently put for the thing signified. Thus a
sceptre is put. for power,-to bow the knee is to do
homage,-to lift up the hand is to sware.  Circumcision is called in Acts 7: 8, a covenant, because it
was the sigA of the covenant. In like manner
Baptism is denominated regeneration, Tit. 3: 5, because it is the visible token and symbol of in



140       FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE.
ward moral regeneration. The neglect of this
figure led the ancient fathers, who are followed
by many in the present day, to hold that baptism is itself a moral and spiritual regeneration.
Frequently a sentiment or action is used for the
object with which it is conversant. Thus faith sometimes signifies not the belief itself, but objectively the doctrines which are addressed to our faith
-the Christian truths believed. "Contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints."
Jude 3. Hope stands for Christ the great object
of hope:  " Which is Christ in you, the hope of
glory."  Col. 1: 27. Desire is put for the thing
desired: " I take awav from  thee the desire of
thine eyes," i. e. the prophet's wife. Ezek. 24: 16.
That numerous class of tropes which is founded on the resemblance or similitude which exists
between objects, is called metaphor, which consists in the substitution of one thing for another
which in some respects is like it.  When I say'God is my protector,' I express the thought in
its simplicity.  When I say,' He is my shield,'
I clothe the thought in metaphorical language.
In a metaphor the writer substitutes some imazge for the thought which that image is intended to express. This substitution takes place in
consequence of a tacit comparison which the
mind makes between the image and the thouglt,
so that the metaphor is nothing else than a virtual comparison between the image and the
thought which is illustrated by the image. A
metaphor is not the same thing as a simile,
though they are both founded on iesemblance,
and are very nearly allied to each other. The
simile and the metaphor differ in this respect,
that the metaphor is an implicit and virtual com:




FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE.           141
parison between two things, while in a simile
the comparison is express and formal. The difference may be illustrated by the following example: If a person should say of Alexander
the Great that he was a lion, it would be a metaphor; but if he should say that he is like a lion,
it would be a simile. In the formerl case the
word lion is not used in its proper and natural
sense for the animal designated by that name;
but it is turned from it and made to designate a
brave and courageous person: while in the latter it is obviously employed in its natural and
customary signification.  Hience the simile is
not classed among tropes.
In connection with metaphors it is important
to notice a numerous class of words and phrases
whichl are derived front human objects and used
-to express something in or concerning  God.
Upon a proper understanding of these depend
all correct apprehensions of the character of the
Supreme Being as revealed in the Bible. In the
language of Seiler, " As a finite being can have
no intuitive knowledge of an infinite, so no language of rational creatures can completely express the nature of God, and render it capable
of being comprehended.  Only one thing can
be imedi(clat// made known concerning him, HE
Is. Even of this we should have no idea, if we
had not an immediate consciousness of what is
ineant by the expressions I am, I work, I act
*freely,"  &c. All farther knowledge of God must
be communicated in words invented to express
ourselves intelligibly concerning human and
other terrestrial objects. All words which we
use -in human language, in order to speak with
others concerning God and divine things, have




142     tFIG1RAT'tVE LANGGAXOG.
their foundation in a resemblance, which, according to our conceptions, exists between the Deity
and human beings, and niust also exist in a eertain measure between causes and effects.  This
~ro-emblance is either essential or non-essential.
rlhe essential is such as regnrds the pure pcertecttons of our minds, i. e. such perfections as mae
inot necessarily accompanied by an-y iniperfections,-as.Reason, Liberty, Power, L fe, TIisdom,
Goodness. These human expressions, applied to
the Deity, afford an analogi&.zlknowledge.  1tence
trise analogical phrases, which am absolutely
necessary whenever we speak of God, and would
ourselves acquire, or would communic-ate  to
others, some knowledge of his perfc tions.  All
these analogical expressions nmust be received
properly, although'they give no irnlmediate and
intuitive, but merely a symbolieal knowledge of.
the Deity..God possesses indeed reason, wisriom, goodness, liberty, although it is not huiman
l'eason, human liberty, &c. There is between
God and finite minds a natural resemblance, inassmuch as'they have been formed after Ihis image; while without-reason and liberty. wisdom
land goodness, neither virtue nor happiness can
Possibly exist. Tireae'  thien sare proper expres-:sions of that which exists in God."*  In refer-'ence to such language, therefore, we are to interpret literally and not tropically.  But besides
-these analogical expressions, there are many
e-,thers of a different character which must be
regarded as improper or tropical. They are, t.
those in which human a Tcfections, passions, and sufferings are ascribed to the Deity. The figure in
* Biblieal Iermeneutics, by Seiler.




PIGUR.ATIVE LANGUAGE.            14-3
this case is called anltiropopathy/.  2. those in
which God is spoken of as if possessed of a hamanzform, human organs, and hurtan mvmbers, and
as if performing human. actions.  In this case the
figure is called anthropomonorphism.  "A rational
being, such as man is, who reeeiies his impressions through the. Clse:s, cah only form his knowl,,dge of God by what he finds in himself, —from
his own powers and properties.  Anthropomorph]itic modes of thought and expression are
therefore unavoidable in the religion of men;
they are absolutely necessary.  Although such
expressions can give no other than corporeal
or sensible representations of the Deity, they are
necessarily founded on the nature of things, and
consequently true and just, when we proceed no
farLher than the point of resemblance and guard
against transferring to Gud qualities pertaining
to the human senses.  God it is trtie thinks; but
thait God possesses hnman thoughts is untrue.
Ft'hat God knouws all things is a, proper expression.
but it is improper or tropical to say, God sees all
things. One is equally true with the other. But
the mnan who should iniagine that God sees in a
proper [literal] sense, w-ould be under a complete misapprehension." t  In explaining passacges therefore which are of an anthropopathic
or anthropomorphitic  character, we must be
carefull to understand them in a way suitable to
the infinite maljesty of God and free from every
thing which may savor of impurity or imperfection.' Tis eye' is his infinite knowledge;' his
arm,' is his almighty power;'the sounding df
ihis bowels' is his tender love and compassion;
t Seiler




144       FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE.'his repentance' is his purpose to change the
course of his providence for good and sufficient
rea.sns, springing out of the moral conduct of
his creatures; he is'angry,' when he punishes
the sinner; aud his'fury' paints the severity of
their doom.*
Among tropical expressions should likewise
be classed-the figure Prosopopeofa, or personification, in which sometimes in order to add force
and beauty to the discourse, and sometimes for
other purposes, properties, actions and character, are ascribed to fictitious, irrational or even
inanimate objects, which properly appertain
only to rational subjects or persons. The Personification evidently partakes of the nature of
the metaphor, and is by far the boldest of that
class of figures. Examples of this will be found
in Job 12: 7, 8; Ps. 85: 10; 1Rev. 8: 27-31;
Matt. 3: 9; Luke 19: 40.
Tie Alleg'ori is another figure employed in the
Scriptures, and like most others, is founded on
resemblance. Indeed by many writers on Rhetoric it is regarded as and frequently called a continued, or extended. metaphor. But it diffiers
materially from a metaphor in' this respectthat while in the met-aphor the tropical sense
expressed is the only one intended, -in the allegory one meaning is expressed while another is
intended, undear cover of the words. Tihe metaphor therefore admits of but one interlpretation;
the allegory, on the contrary, admits of two, viz.
the literal or grammatical and the allegorical
or the interpretation of that sense which underlies the natural and obvious sense. The meta* McClelland on Interpretation.




FIGURATIV1  LANGUAGE.             145
phorical interpretation is an interpretation of
words; the allegorical is an interpretation  of
things. Other figures occur in the Scriptures,
such as Irony, in which we say one thing and
design a nother, in ortler to give the greater force
and vehemenee to our meaning.  Examples of
this figure may be found in 1 Kings, 18: 27; 22:
15; Job 12: 2.  By some conmmentators the advice of Job's wife to her husband, Job 2: 9-'Curse God, and die," which they render " Bless
Go(ld, and (iie," is regarded as ironical; see also
I Cor. 4: 8. Itnder tlis figure belongs also the
irtrc(smn, which is irony in its superlative keen-,ess and asperity.  Matt. 27: 29; Mark 15: 32.
This figulre, however, is of rare occurrence in
the Scriptures as not well suited to the character and design of that sacred book.
CHT PTER XV.
FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE.
It is of the highest importance to the Bil)lical
ntudent to be able in the first place to distinguish the literal frorn the figurative language
of Scripture and then rightly to interpret what
is tropical.  Otherwise he wvill be very liklely in
many instances, on the one hand, to mistake the
iigurative for the literal, as was sonmetimes done
by the lJews, and even by the disciples of our
Lor.C  in their interpretation of his discourses,
(e. g. Johln 6: 52, 4: 11;  1,Matt. 16: 6, 12), or on
the other hand, to pervert literal fbrnis by forc10




146       FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE.
ing upon them a tropical sense. In relation to
this subject it is proper to remark that those
words are not to be considered figurative which
have altogether lost their original and proper
signification and are used no longer in any but
a secondary sense; or which have become so connected by usage with the objects to which they
have been transferred, as that the applied has become their usual and perhaps only signification;
e. g., when we predicate luxuriousne~s of a crop, and
when we speak of the wing of an army, the foot
of a mountain, the head of a river, or the bed of
a stream. The words 1uxuiiousness, wing, foot,
&c., were all originally proper nouns used in a
very different sense, but now they have become
proper as thus used by transfer. Again, thern
are certain kinds of composition in which a florid style and figurative language would in a good
degree be out of place, and are therefore not to
be looked for. Tropical language is not usually
to be expected in legal instruments, statutes, history, didactic, philosophical and scientific works,
Creeds and Confessions, &c. In writings like,
these, perspicuity and literal exactness are chiefly to be aimed at, and not elegance of diction.
At the same time allowance must be made for
the temperament, character and usages of the
people among whom the writer or speaker lived.
The prose compositions of Eastern nations
abound much more in metaphor and imagery
than those of Western nations, and hence we
may expect the more frequent occurrence of figures in the historical and didactic portions of the
Scriptures, than in the works of occidental writers of a similar character. It is also proper to
remark, that words, when employed to denote




FIGURATIVE  LANGUAGE.                147
moral or mental phenomena, are used in a secondary  and  tropical sense, because in their original and proper signification, they were designed
to express material and physical phenomena. e. y.,
to perceive, regenera.tion, illumination, sanctification. pm)1 ity, purification, straight, path, way, &c.
Thlle 4oloowin  Canon will assist us in determinin, wlhether a word is used figulratively or not.
Where the stlbject and attribute, whether assumed  or
in'rmed, are htter(o!eneovts, inrongrvous, and incompatit)l with each other, the predicate should  be irlterzretcd fiy9o'at;vely.  In  applying  this  rule, we
should ex amline the oblject spoken  of, either by
the external or internal senses, or by recalling
the external or internal perception.  E.qg. The
phrase infl(nied minel we understalnd tropically by
reieating the perception of the idea of Iind,
MA]d  observinv tlhat the literal meaning  of inflained is incompat.-ible with it..  In interpreting
tihe phriase snowy ltck's we al})eal to the external
senIes, u.Nhi(h  determine that the  meaning of
s.ou/y here must be tropical.  rThe subject and
prediie.te are  heterogeneous when  the one is
material nArnd the other immnaterial;   the one ratio)nal, the other irrational; the one animated,
tlhe other inanimate; as, also, when they are difPi rent species  of the  same genus.  Because
tinigs, which, fronm  a natural inlcongruity, cannot co-exist in the same sulbject, cannot logicallv. and thlerotore cannot properly be predicated
tlhe one of the other: fo'r logical truth  is the
blundation  of propriety of expression.  Hence
it they are plredictated at all. it must be figurlativelv: e y. the fields smile, the stones cry out, the floods
c!ap their hands, dary nto dLay uttereth speech.  Jashn
expresses the above rule substantially  in the




148       FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE.
following words: "If the subject and predicate
(or adjunct) be such, that in their proper sense,
they are inconsistent, we must conclude, that
one or the other is tropical, provided that both be
clearly known, and the repugnance be manifest,"
"From the rule," which we have given, "must be
excepted," says Ernesti, "those texts in which
divine and infinite attributes are predicated of Jesus, equally with those in which 8piritua.l attributes are ascribed to man. For as both corporeal and spiritual qualities may be predicated of
man, who is a being compounded of soul and body;
so both divine and human attributes rmay properly be predicated of Christ, on account of the
union of the two natures in his person."
In order to determine whether lang (uage is figurative or not, it is necessary in many cases to have
recourse to the nature of things; e. gi., the minrd i
ik7flamed. Here by resorting to the nature of' the
mind, we determine that the sense of the predicate i.fiamce must be tropical.  So when (God is
said to ascend, to descend, to walk, &cc, we must
resort to the real na.ture of tihe suliject spoken
of to ascertain the nature of the language employed. Our appeal may also be mnude to the
dictates of common sense and the plain elements
of knowledge; e. q., FPlck out the ji~/ht eT/e, Cot
off'the right heand, Put a knife to thy tieroat.  In considering expressions like these, our views of the
worth of life, and of our corporeal nmemberns,
which were given to us for the most importaint
use: our views of duty as to the preservattion of
life and usefulness: and our knowledge of the
nature of the Christian Religion in general, a11
conspire to lead us to reject the literal sense,
and give to them a figurative meaning.  When




FIGUR.TIVE LANGUAGE.         149
our Saviour says,';I am the vine, ye are
the branches;" "I am  the door," "I am
the good shepherd," no one thinks of understanding him literally. Common sense teaches us to interpret these expressions.uratively,
because taken literally they are utterly uninteligible. And does not common sense teach the.
same thing in regard to another declaration of our
lord respecting the sacramental bread, namely,
"'This is my bodv T' When this language was
first uttered, Christ's body had not been broken
nor his blood shed: the bread and wine used
then at the institution of the sacrament could
not have been a part of Christ's real body and
blood, and the apostles could not have understood him as so affirming. And the supposition
that the sacramental elements, are now after
consecration converted into the real body and
blood of Christ is utterly repugnant to reason
and common sense, for not only is such a miraculous change improbable in itself, but it is contradicted by all our senses: for our sight, our
taste and our smell testify that the consecrated
elements have none of the properties of flesh
and blood, but all the properties of bread,and
wine which they possessed before consecration.
" Let the dead bnry their dead," Common sense
teaches that this declaration must be understood
tropically, because a literal interpretation involves an impossibility. The connexion shows
that a metaphor is employed in the subject of the
proposition and that the meaning is, Let those
who are spiritually dead (the worldly-minded,
who are concerned only about the things of the
present life.) attend to the burial of those who
are corporeally dead. Christians are ealled."liv



150       FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE.
ing stones." They are exhorted to "put on the
armor of light," and to gird up the loins of their
minds." In all these places the connexion of
each word shows that a figure has been employed. Taken alone, disconnected from  the
context aMi subject of discourse, the language
of the predicates might be figurative or it might
be literal; but in the connexion in which they
stand, the literal interpretation would be incongruous. This leads to the remark that words
may be ascertained to be tropical not only by
the incongruity of the subject with its adjuncts,
but by the general context and parallel expressions. Thus Jeremiah 9: 7, "Behold, I will melt
them and try them." THere the latter verb determines the former to be figurative in its signification. Different terms, moreover, are frequently employed in different passages to express the same ideas. This greatly facilitates
the distinction between tropical and literal.  In
deriving assistance from this source, it is an important principle in regard to parallels, that uwe
mnust conmpare their homologqous parts.  If they be
simple propositions, we should compare subject
with subject, copula with copula, predicate with
predicate; if syllogisms, antecedents with antecedents, and  consequents with  consequents.
Where similar expressions are employed in different places, however, if the one is plainly literal, it does not necessarily follow that the other
is, for the context, or nature of the subject treated
of, may show that such is not the case; e. g., in H eh).
9:20 we have th- expression, "this is the blood
of the covenant," and in Matt.. 26: 28 "for this
is my blood of the new covenant.' In the former passage there is no doubt that the word




FIGOUATIVE LANGUAGE.           151
flood is to be taken in its proper and literal sense,
for it refers to that which the Jews, by all their
bodily senses knew to be blood, and nothing
else; but it does not follow that when the same
word was applied by -our Saviour to the eucharistic
wine, it was used in its proper sense, or that
the disciples who by all their senses, knewv it to
be wine, and nothing but wine, must have understood it in that sense. The ock which Moses
smote in the desert, was literally what the term
imports, and in speaking of it he used the word
rock in its proper sense; but when St. Paul (1
Cor. 10: 4) applies the same word to the anti-type
Christ, no onewould maintain thatanything more
is asserted than typical similarity. Once more:
God gave the Tsraelites breadfrom heaven,and Christ
gives his disciples breadfrom heaven. But the latter
is a very different thing from the manna; indeed
the word is plainly used in that case figuratively.
As itregards the language of Scripture employed to portray the realities of the invisible
world and of a future state, it has been a question how far it is to be taken literally and
how far figuratively, and some writers have
been guilty of gross inconsistency in admitting
that the language which describes the heavenly
world and its felicities is figurative, while that
which describes the world of woe and its punishments is literal. But "in examining whether
language be tropical or not, we necessarily carry
along with us those ideas which spring out of
innate tendencies in the mind. Thus in reading the Scripture language concerning the nature of Deity, we instinctively separate from it
whatever is material, or appropriate to humanity. The spirituality of his character leads us at




152      FIGURATIVX LANGVAGL
once to understand tropically the descripionrs
of his character; so also the invisible realities of
futurity, as heavent and hell, the state of the
righteous and that of the miserable are delineated in tropical diction. Such things could not
have been described otherwise than in language
borrowed from sensible, material things, else
it whild have been unintelligible.  Had a~b
stract phraseology been employed, we should
not have been able to attach to it definite conceptions. A spiritual vocabulary of this sort is
not in use among us. We are accustomed to
borrow the language of external nature, and to
adapt it to incorporeal agents with their acts and
operations. The wisdom of God is quite apparent in describing his own nature, as also the
heavenly and infernal worlds, in tropical diction.
Hence we explain such expressions as their worm
dietn;kot acd the fire is not quenched, everlasting fire,
&c., metaphorically to denote intense torment.
The imagery is taken from the death and corruption of the body. Carcases were destroyed
by fire or eaten by worms. Now this is transferred to the soul, with the superadded. idea ao
perpetuity. The state of the miserable, who
shall be excluded from the presence of God, is
one of active, intense and corroding torment forever and ever. The "lake of fire," (Rev. 20: 15)
and "faurnaee of fire," (Matt. 13: 42, 50) express
the same idea, viz., intensity of su-tering. Of the
same nature is the phraseology employed respecting the judgment seat of Christ, before
which assembled millions of human beings
stand. The opening of the books out of which
they are judged, the right and left hand of the
judge, are tropical also Thus atteatir an" wst




FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE.            153
always be given to the nature of the subject,
in regard to which it is inquired whether language is figurative or otherwise."*
The student of the. Bible. should be able not
only to detect figurative language, but rightly to
understand and explain it.  His progress in this
direction will be greatly facilitated, 1. By becoming intimately acquainted. with the sources from
which the Sacred writers principally drew their
imagery.  These are four, viz., nature, commnron life,
the political and religious institutions of the Ilcb)rews,
and their history.  In borrowing imagery from
natural objects. the Hebrew writers generally and
the poets in particular, selected such as were
well known and familiar to their readers. The
perspicuity of language, indeed, will be found
in a great measure to depend on this, for a principal use of metaphors is to illustrate the subject
by a tacit comparison; but if, instead of familiar
objects and ideas. an author introduces such as
are new, or unfamiliar and imperfectly understood, in order to shed further light on what
is already in a good degree plain; instead
of making fhe' subject clearer, he only renders
it more involved and obscure. Thus the familiar
images of light and darkness, are very frequently
employed in Scripture to denote respectively
good and evil, joy and sorrow, prosperity and
adversity, knowledge anl ignorance. Christ is
called "the light of the- world," and "the sun of
righteousness."  The Psalmist says, "God is a
sun and shield." The apostle St. Paul describes
the new moral creation of the Gospel in highly
figurative terms drawn from the creation of the
*Davidaon's Sacred Hermenautics, p. 28t6-4a8




154      FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE.
material world.'God who commanded  the
light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in
our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of
the'glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ."
Images are also derived from rivers and fountains, and the earth recreated with rain. The
scarcity of water, the paucity of showers, and
the extreme heat of the summer, together with
the remarkable fertility of the soil, rendered
these much more elegant and jocund comparisons in the East than with us. Irlence, to represent distress, such frequent allusions among them
to "a dry and thirsty land where no water is;'
and hence, to describe a change from distress to
p osperity, th; ir metaphors and comparisons are
founded on the falling of showers, and the bursting forth of springs in. the desert.'ihus we find
the blessings of the Gospel spoken of by the Sacred writers under the images of fountains of
water, rivers and copious showers. The numerous figures derived from the mountains of Palestine must be familiar to every reader of the Bible. Lebanon and Carmel. in particular, the
one remarkable for its height, magnitude and
the abundance of the cedars which adorned its
summit, exhibiting the appearance of strength
and  majesty; the other, rich  and fruitful,
abounding with vines, olives and delicious fruits
in a high state of cultivation, and displaying
the attractive appearance of fertility, beauty
and grace, furnish the Hebrew poets with the
most appropriate similes and beautiful metaphors. In the images of the awful and terrible with which the writings of the inspired
poets abound, they plainly drew their descriptions from  that violence of the elements and




FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE.           155
those concussions of nature, with which their
their climate made them familiar. Earthquakes
were not unfrequent, and sometimes were accompanied with land slides. To these the
Psalmist alludes, when he speaks of "the mountains being carried into the midst of the sea,"
(Ps. 46:3,) and of' their skipping like lambs, and
the little hills like young sheep," (Ps. 114: 4, 6.)
q'oi nadoes, followed by thunder, lightning, rain,
and hail, were also very common during the winter season in Judea.and Arabia, far exceeding
anlvthing of the kind which occurs in more temperate regions. To such phenomena Isaiah alludes when he says of the wicked, "The whirlwind shall take them away as stubble," (Isa. 40:
2-4), "Chased as thle chaff' of the mountains before the wind, and like a rolling thing (stW6Clc)
before the whirlwind." (Isa. 17: 13), (Ps. 83: 13.)
The illustrations drawn from the manners, cuSoens, arts, occupations and circumstances of commonlife among the HI-ebrews, are innumerable.. Simplicity and uniformity characterize these in the
greatest degree. There existed not that variety
of studies and pursuits, of arts, conditions and
employments, which may be observed amongst
other nations who boast of superior civilization. Separated from the rest of makind by
their religion and laws! and not at all addicted
to commerce they were contented with the few
arts which were necessary to a simple and uncul
tivated, or rather uncorrupted, state of life.
rTheir chief employments were agriculture and
the care of cattle and sheep; they were a nation
of husbandmen and shepherds. Hence not
even the greatest among them esteemed it mean
or derogatory to be employed in the various oc



156       FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE.
cupations of rural labor, the products of which
constituted the wealth of each individual. In
the Scripture history we accordingly read of
eminent persons called to the highest and most
sacred offices, heroes, kings and prophets, from
the plough and from the stalls. (see Judg. 3: 31,
6: 11; 1 Sam. 9: 3, 11: 5; 2 Sam. 7: 8; ps. 78:
72, 73; 1 Kings 19: 19, 20; Amos 1:1,7: 14, 15.)
Frequent allusions are made to pastoral and agricultural occupations. Thus Jehovah is described as a shepherd, (Ps. 23::1), and is represented as threshing out the heathen Ms corn,
trampling them under his feet and dispersing
them. In the New Testament, the world is compared to a field; the children of the wicked
one, to tares; the end of the world, is the harvest; the angels are reapers; the preacher of the
Gospel is a sower; the Word of God is the seed;
the heart of man is the soil; the cares, riches
and pleasures of life are thorns; the preparation
of the human heart by penitence, is ploughing
and breaking up the fallow ground.  An abundance of metaphors occuil in the Sacred writings
drawn from thereligiousinstitutiorzs of the Hebrews,
The Epistle to the Hebrews abounds with imagery drawn from this source, from which it is apparent that the entire system of ritual institutions under the Mosaic law, while it subserved
other important ends, was symbolical of the future dispensation of the Gospel and the sacrifices and expiations typical of the one great sacrifice and expiation for the sins of mankind
offered upon the cross. As examples of the use
of historical facts to represent spiritual truths,
we may instance the following: The moral renovation of the human heart is represented un



FmIGURATIVE LANGUAGE.             157
der the figure of a new creation, in allusion to
the original physical creation described in Genesis.  The lifting up of Christ on the Cross is
compared to, if not typified by, the lifting up of
the brazen serpent in the wilderness.  The miraculous supply of manna in tile desert, is made
a svmbol of that'rue bread which came down
fiom  heaven and which is the life of the soul.
The wanderings of the Israelites in their journey to (Canaan, are represented as emblematical
of the pilgrimage of the people of God to the
healvenly Canaan.  Thus we see that in order to
perceive the significancy, force and beauty of the
sacred imagery, the Biblical student must ttransport himself in imagination to the theatre of
Scripture events, and fitmiliarize himnself with
the ph~ysical geograllhy of Palestine. the antiquities of the Jews, their arts, nlrnalers and occupations, their political and religious institutioisf.1and their history.  2. Assistance may often be
obtained in determining the meaning of Scriptlnl'e tropes by consul.tiig  the piroe.n afte co text;'
Sometimes we dliscover by this means, that the
speaker or writer has himself made known his
intention by furnishing an explan.ation of hiD  s
languaige.'Thus when  Jesus admnonishes hiis
hearelrs( Matt. 11: 29) to take his.yoke upon themi
hie adds, and  lcarln~ of'ne- by wllih  lie clearly
shows that by the figurlative term yoke he meannt
tile moral precepts which lie taught.  The A postle St: Paul, after inquiring of' those wxhelo had
once bo en devot(-d to the practice of' vice. (Rom;
6: 21 ) "what fruit had ye then?" shows by inmme,
diately adding "for the end of these thinits is
death," that f-uit here signifies figuratively result, advantage or rewiatid.  The  sane  inspird




158        FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE.
Apostle in Phil. 3: 2, says, "Peware of dogs,' and
the tropical application of the word dtogs to false
and audacious teachers is made evident by what
follows, "beware of evil-workers."  Comp. Rev.
22: 15. In like manner in James 4: 4. the words'ladulterers and adulteresses," refer not to actual adultery, but to an undue attaclhment to worldly things, as appears,. not only from the context
generally, but also from what immediately follows: -Know ye not that the friendship of the
world is elmnity with God."  W'hen,Jesus compares (AMatt. 27, 28) the P'harisees to whited sep.
uilchres, making a ftir show  outwardly, but inl
ternally full of bones, filth and corruption, he.
hlimself immediately adds an explanation of the
figure,'so ye also withiout app'ar,  meaning evidently that they put on the external appearance
of probity and virtue, while their minds were
full of improbitv and injustice.  So tthe alpostle
Paul, in his valedictory  address to the pres Jbyters of the Ephesiian Cllurch, (Acts 20: 2,8) shtows
in the prop r-and tropical terms which lhe alternately elploys, that by the fJ,,ck which lhe conminald(ls themn  to watchl over, lhe means the church
of Christ, the associated organic botl( of Chlristians; and hence the vejb to fccd musIt be interpreted in the sense of to rule, to instruct, and to
provide for the spiritual  wants of the church.
In I Pet. 3: 21 the bapt's.nm which saves us is dtfined to be "not the putting away of the filth of
the flesh, but the answer ot a good conscience
towards God."  In Hosea. 4: 12, a spirit of lascivT
iousness is said to have dr'awn the Israelites
astraly; but then it. is immediately added "'They
sacrifice upon the tops of the mountains, and
burn incense upon the hills," to show that it is




FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE.             159
spiritual unfaithfulness of which the prophet is
speaking. When Christ said, "He that eateth
me, even he shall live by me," John 6: 57, the
Jews misunderstood his meaning, but he had
himself already explained it; for in the same
discourse he had repeated the truth in literal
terms, "ITe that believeth on we hath everlasting
life," v. 47. This text is understood literally by
most Roman Catholic writers, though our tord
expressly gave it this figurative interpretation,
and the ordinance of the Supper, to which they
suppose it to refer, had not then been institited
and was entirely unknown to his hearers. Whe re
no direct and explicit interpretation of tropical
language is furnished by the author himself, we
may sometimes ascertain the meaning by the
help of contrasted expressions. Thus, Matt. 7:9,
our Saviour does not expressly say what he
means by a stone instead of bread, and serpent instead of a fish.  But at v. 11, he explains bread
and fish as meaning generally goodgifts, things
usei'ul and salutary; hence we may conclude
from the opposition, that. by the stone and the
serpent are meant objects either useless or pernicious.  It is not uncommon for the Sacrcd
writers to subljoin to tropical expressions p1oper ones of similar import, so as to explain
the imagery they have just employed.  Especially is this the case in the parallellisms of
sentiment or thoughlt-rhythn m  which is a proinent characteristic of Ilebrew  poetiv.'lIhus
Ps. 97:11, "Light is sown for the righteous
and gladness for the upright"  Hlee the first
memrber of the couplet is tropical, and the second which is literal, explains it.  Isa. 46: 11,
"Calling  from the east, the eagqle; from a distanlt




160        FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE.
land, the man of my purpose."  Here the eagle in
the former member, a term  figur;,tively applied
to Cyrus, is explained in the latter by the man of
mq purpose.  Sometimes the sense of tropical
expressions may be gathered fr'om the ant ecedents or consequents.  We heae an exampile
of the toriner in Matt. 7: 3,, 4, wlere the figures
mzote and 6'ean  occur without plarticutlar explanation.  If we refer to vs. 1, 2, and consider that
the object of tlhe divine teacher was evidently
to wa.rin men against t'ornlinll ra.sh or uncharlitable j'dgnments of others, it Will tat once appear
that the imote is used for thle minror ofiene1es of
others, and the  eulz tor tile greater faults of
ourselves.  We hai ean example of the latter
in Matt. 9:88  wlle hert Jesus exhorts hiis disciplee
to pray, that Godl would send laborers into  his
ha;.vcst. lie ittiltnediately shlows ly selecting twel1ve
apostles froin among  them, annd coirinlissioning
thenl to preaelp the gl:t  tidings of the kingdorm,
(ch. 10(): 1, 7) that by harvest he means figuratively not as sotne suppose, the propagation of his
teligion, but the multitu(le of persons wiho lis'
tene(l attentively  to hlim, and therteby gave a
reasonable ground to hope that they were ri     ) e
for conversion.
3. In discovering the meaning of tropes assista.nce ma.y often be deriv ed floro  plrazlll psasces,
Thius in Mta'Lrk 10: 38, 39., the cup and the 6tc;ia;,sin
which were to be received by the Apostles John
and JTamnes, are the privations and sfite.rings
which they were to undergo, as clearly appears
from  a comparison of the parallel texts, Matt.
26:'3, John  18: 11, Luke  12:.5.  There  is1
moreover, another class'of texts, which thoughl
they canhot be considered  as strictly  paralel,




FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE.            161
may still be advantageously employed in discovering the sense of tropes.  Thus the denutnciation of St. Paul to the High Priest, (Acts 23:
3) "God will smite (i. e. punish) thee thou whited
wall, may haVe light thrown upon it from Matt.
23: 37, where our Saviour compares the Pharisees generally to whited sepulchres. Here it appears that the idea intended in both passages is
that of the worst hypocrisy.
4. It is necessary also to a right understanding
and interpretation of tropes, to consider the particular points of similitude existing between the
sign and the thing signified and specially alluded
to by the speaker or writer. Examples of comparison are not to be taken entirely and in all
possible relations, else they would cease to be
examples and become the things themselves.
They should not be extended beyond the point
or points of resemblance evidently intended by
the speaker or writer, as shown by the context,
and technically called  the tertium comparationis.
Thus, if Christians are represented under the
figure of lambs or sheep, the points of comparison
are innocence, patience and gentleness. God is frequently styled a king and a shepherd; the points
of similitude in such cases are guidance, protection,
authority, and accordingly we may substitute for
them'the proper terms, governor, guide or protector. St. Paul, (Rom. 12: 1) exhorts the Roman christians to present their bodies a living sacrifice to God  Here, the qualifying term living,
the context and common sense show, that he is
speaking of self-immolation.  We must, therefore, exclude the idea of sacrifice in any proper
sense, and substitute the notion of dedication and
presentation to God. A tropical expression may,
11




162      FIGURATIVE LANGUAGEL.
indeed, have several meanings and suggest various comparisons, but such only are pertinent in
a particular locality as harmonize with the context. When Jesus says (John 6: 35) "I am the
bread of life," adding by way of explanation,
"he that cometh to me," &c., he plainly indicates that he would make provision for all the
spiritual necessities of men: so that whoever
should be united to him by faith and obedience,
would enjoy true happiness, together with all
necessary safeguards to his salvation, and would
neither require nor wish for anything else. The
point of comparison lies, therefore, in tho property of bread to nourish men, preserve life and
support the sinking strength.
Again, when the apostle Paul (I Thes. 5: 2)
says that the second coming of the Lord will be
"like a thief in the night," the words which follow, "when they shall say peace and safety, then
sudden destruction cometh upon them," show
that it will come unexpectedly upon men, who
are not thinking of it, just as a thief glides by
night into the houses of those who sleep securely and anticipate no evil. Comp. Matt. 24: 43,
Luke 12: 39. When Jesus, in his address to the
pious women who followed him (Luke 23: 31),
after denouncing a miserable fate on the city
and inhabitants of Jerusalem, adds, " for if these
things be done in a green tree, what shall be done
in a dry?" it is clear from Ezek. 20: 47 and 21: 3,
and comparing for the sense 1 Pet. 4: 17, that
by the green tree is meant an innocent and righteous
person, the cause of safety to others; and by the
dry. a wicked person, the cause of injury to others.
And if we examine more carefully the passages
in Ezekiel, we shall readily discover what is the




FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE.           163
point of comparison between men and trees, and
will find that it lies in their good or bad qualities, as being the cause why we think a dry and
barren tree ought to be cut down, and why a
worthless and hurtful man is deserving of destruction. The sense of the passage in St. Matthew thus becomes clear. " If the innocent and
righteous be thus cut off, what may be expected
to befall the wicked and disobedient in the day
of visitation which impends over you."
While the figurative meaning of a word has
(doubtless some reference to its literal signification, it must not be supposed to include in the
figurative use all that is included in the literal;
similitude in some one respect, as we have seen,
is sufficient to justify the metaphor. Sin is
called in Scripture a debt; atonement, the payirlent if a debt; pardon, the forgiveness of a
debt. But we would err if we should interpret
these terms so rigidly as to maintain that, because Christ died for man's sin, therefore all
will be saved, or have a legal claim to forgiveness
and eternal life, for this would be opposed to the
analogy of Scripture. Again, men are represented figuratively as dead.in sins, but it would be
erroneous to infer that they are dead in such a
sense as to be exempted from the duty of repentance, or are guiltless if they disregard the divine call, for this would be contrary to the whole
tenor of Scripture, as well as the dictates of common sense. More errors, perhaps, have arisen
from pushing analogical expressions to an extreme, far beyond what the speaker or writer
intended, than from any other single cause.
Against this tendencythe sober,earnest studentof
the Bible needs to be be specially upon his guard,




164       FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE.
5. Ernesti and other writers on Interpretation
have laid down the following rule for determining whether figurative language is understood or
not, viz., to substitute proper words for tropical ones,
"Not," says Ernesti, "that a person who can do
this always rightly understands the words, but if
he cannot do its he certainly does not understand
them." Undoubtedly the very attempt to do
this may lead to greater discrimination in our
ideas; and in many cases we may thus succeed
in coming at the exact meaning and force of the
metaphor. But in a multitude of instances the
substitution of proper diction for figurative in
the Scriptures is impossible. When the Sacred
writers employ metaphorical language to convey to our minds sorme conception of spiritual
things, of the realities of the invisible world
and a future state, they do it not from choice
and for the sake of ornatment, but from the necessity of the case, because there are no literal
terms of equivalent import, in which to express
such spiritual truths. We may indeed, change
the figure, but this is only like turning liquid
from one vessel into another, No doubt each
word and phrase of Scripture employed in relation to spiritual truths, sets forth a definite sentiment with precision and certainty. No tropical word is entirely destitute of meaning, or
serves as a mere expletive,  Each has its use
and performs its appropriate office as far as human language can, though we may not be able
to discover the one or to perceive clearly the
other.
6. We may remark further, that important aid
towards the understanding of the figurative language of the Scriptures as well as discovering




FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE.          165
its beauties, may be derived from the cultivation
of the imagination. "Imagination is that power
by which we form images or pictures to be seen
by the eye of the mind, as the objects of the
outward world are seen by the bodily eye.
It was through the imagination that a large part
of the revelations recorded in the Bible were
made to those holy men, who have transmitted
them unto us. Divine revelations were addressed
to the minds of the prophets by symbols set before them in visions and dreams, and the events
of their daily life. Now it is imagination alone
that can reproduce these symbols to the mind
of the reader, so that they may be clearly apprehended, and stand out before his mind as they
did before the mind of the prophet. Moreover,
imagination looks into the soul and living principle of things, discerns those moral ideas, or spiritual truths, which they are fitted and designed
to express. The poet and the clown may both
look at the same outward object, e. g. the western sky at the time of some brilliant sunset; but
the one sees in it only what strikes his bodily
eye, while the other may see in it the emblem
of the gateway to the celestial city."* These remarks apply with peculiar force to the poetic
books of Scripture.
7. Finally it is important in the interpretation
of figurative language, to remember the inadequacy of figures of speech, or of any sensible symbols, fully to express spiritual truth. Without
comparisons and figures indeed we could have
no ideas at all of spiritual, invisible, and heaven*Robie on Figurative language of scripture in Bibliotheca Sacra. vol. 13 p. 321.




166          IiEBRgW  IbIOMSg.
ly realities. At the same time it should be remembered that the image of invisible things is
at best, but very imperfectly and inadequately
represented by language borrowed from material
things. And not only so; there are many spiritual truths which require many different figures, in order rightly, in some measure, to express their fullness and greatness. Thus all our
language with regard to the Supreme Being is
figurative. " God is a spirit," "God is a rock,"
"God  is a high tower," "God is a dwelling
place," "God is a sun and shield." Yet no one of
these figures, nor all possible figures put together;' can adequately represent God to us. In all
such cases, therefore, we must rest satisfied
with the general idea arising from the particular
comparison or comparisons employed, and neither on the one hand, seek for a perfect agreement
in the object compared, nor, on the other, imagine that we fully comprehend that object, because we may be able to understand to some extent the import of a particular image employed
to picture it to our minds.
CHAPTER XVI.
HEBREW  IDIOMS.
Every language has some forms of expression,
some characteristic modes of clothing ideas, peculiar to itself, and called the idioms of the language. The Hebrew language abounds in peculiarities of this sort, and it is impossible even for
the English reader to attain to a correct under



1iBREW  iDIOMS.           16?
ttanding of the meaning of Scripture without
some knowledge of them; for in our standard
English version, instead of being exchanged for
equivalent expressions in our own language,
they are to a considerable extent translated literally. Such expressions are consequently to be
interpreted not according to the English, but
according to the Hebrew idiomatic usage. This
Hebraistic style pervades the New Testament
no less than the Old, because though the New
Testament writers composed their Sacred books
in Greek, yet being native Jews they naturally
expressed their thoughts in the Hebrew style
and manner in which they had been educated,
and with which they were most familiar. The
following are a few examples of the Hebraisms
which occur in the Scriptures, and which for
the most part have been transferred in our English Bible.
One striking instance is the use of the limiting noun (the genitive) in regimen with another noun. The relations which the former bears
to the latter are much more various in Hebrew
than is customary in English. Sometimes the
genitive denotes the possessor, sometimes the
o6ject, and at others the agent; and not unfrequently it qualifies the governing noun as an
adjective. Thus the phrase "the love of God,"'
when employed in relation to man. according
to the English idiom would signify the 1ove
which God bears to us; but in the Bible it frequently signifies the love which we bear to God
In 1 Cor. 1: 5, St. Paul says "the sufferings of
Christ abound in us."  He does not mean by
this expression the sufferings endured by Christ
himself in our behalf, but those which are en



1G8          HEBREW  lDI03l1M
dured by Christians for or on account of him. The
corresponding English expression would be sufferings for the sake of Christ. The same is intended by the apostle when he calls himself "a
prisoner of Christ." He was a captive for or on
account of him In his Epistles he frequently
speaks of "the righteousness of God," denoting
thereby not subjectively an attribute or property
of the divine nature, but objectively the righteousness by which the sinner is pardoned, or the
method of justification through the perfect
righteousness and all-sufficient merits of Christ.
This is called God's righteousness, because he graciously provided and accepts it. In Col. 2: 11, "the
circumcision of Christ," means not the circumncision which he himself endured, but the circumcision of the heart enjoined by him. The phrase
"horn of salvation" signifies a horn (the emblemn of power among the Hebrews, borrowed
from their pastoral life,) which is the procuring
cause of salvation; or it may be equivalent to
the expression, "a powerful Saviour."  The e-ustom of employing nouns in regimen for adjectives was very common among the Hebrews, in
consequence chiefly of the paucity of qualifying
and limiting terms in their language. Thus the
apostle, addressing the Thessalonians, (1 Thes.
1: 3) speaks of their "patience of hope," meaning their patient hope or expectation. The expression "glory of his power" occurs for glorious power, "newness of life," for new life, "spirit of promise," for promised spirit, "bond of perfectness,"
for perfect bond.
Sometimes two nouns are joined by a copulafive, apparently indicating two distinct things
when only a single thing is really asserted (Hen'.




HEBIRREW I1DIOMS.         169
diadys), one of the nouns being employed as a
limiting term. Thus in Acts 23: 6, the apostle
Paul says, "Of the hope and resurrection of the
dead I am called in question," by which he
means the hope of the resurrection of the dead.
The phrase "kingdom and glory" is used to denote a glorious kingdom. We are informed in
Acts 14: 13, that the priests of Jupiter brought
"oxen and garlands," to their gods. The oxen
were decoratad with the garlands, and the precise idea is indicated by the phrase oxen crowned
with garlands. Many Commentators explain
by this grammatical figure, the expression in
Matt. 3  11, "He shall baptize you with the Holy
Ghost and with fire," i. e. a burning spirit-a
spirit who is a power penetrating and all-purifying as the element of fire. The context, however, strongly favors a diffeirent interpretation,
based on the supposition that the connective
particle should be taken in a disjunctive sense;
thus, "He shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit
or with fire," i.e. he will copiously imbue you
with the influences of the Holy Spirit, if you
yield your hearts to him; or else, if. you reject
him, he will overwhelm you with the severest
punishment. The word name is frequently used
as synonymous with person. Thus to believe on
the name of Christ (Jo. 1; 12) is to believe on him.
Soul also is put forperson, as being the more important part of man. - In Acts 2: 41. it is said, that
there were added unto them about three thousand souls," i. e., persons. In consequence of
there being no superlative in their language,
the Hebrews employed the additional words of
or to God, or of the Lord, in order to denote
the greatness or excellency of a thing. Thus in




170           HEBREEW  IDIONIS.
Gen. 13: 10. a beautifulgarden is called the garden
of the Lord"; very high mouttains are called
" the mountains of God."  In Ps. 80: 10. the tallest cedars are termed in the original " the cedars
of God." In Ax. 9: 28. loud thunderings is in the
original " the voices of God."  In Jonah 3: 2.
Nineveh is termed an exceeding great city, which
in the original is " a city great to God." In Acts
7: 20. Moses is said in the original to be' fair to
God," i. e., as it is correctly rendered in our ver;
sion, exceeding fair. In the last four examples
our Translators have departed from their usual
custom of giving a literal rendering and thus
transferring idiomatic expressions, and have ex:
pressed the sense in language accordant with
our own usage. In 2 Cor 10: 4. The weapons
of the Christian's warfare are declared to be
"miglhty to God;" i. e., exceedingly powerfulj
not mighty through God, as in our standard version.
It- is in the use of verbs, however, that the
Hebraic style of the Scriptures is most strikingly
manifest. These verbs frequently indicate not
the action itself which the word signifies, but
something approaching or allied to it, the desire or endeavor to perform  it, its commencement merely, or the giving occasion to it, its
permission, or the obligation to its performance.
For -example: Things are said to be done where
there is only the endeavor or intention to do them.
Thus Reuben is said (Gen. 37-: 21) to have delivered Joseph from the hands of his brethren.
He indeed intended  the deliverance of his
brother, and attempted it but with only partial
success. Thus too, in Ex. 6: 18. the magicians
are said to have done so with their enchant



hIEBREW  IDIOMS.            171
ments, i. e., they attempted to do so.' Whosa
findeth his life," says our Saviour " shall lose it,'
i e., he who seeks to find, is unduly anxious for
its preservation.
Sometimes verbs only intimate that the subject gave occasion to the action. Thus in Jere,
38: 53. God says to King Zedekiah by the prophet, " Thou shalt be taken by the hand of the
King of Babylon: and thou shalt cause this city
to be burned with fire;" i. e., the conduct of
the unhappy monarch would lead to this catastrophe.  Our Saviour said, " I came not to bring
peace on the earth, but a sword." i. e., my advent in the flesh will be the occasion of sharp
persecution and bloodshed. " This child," said
Simeon, " is set for the fall and rising again, (or
rather rising) of many in Israel." (Lu. 2: 34) He
will be the occasion of the fall, the ruin and misery
of many *ho will reject his message; and the
rise or restoration to spiritual life a.nd happiness
of many who shall embrace his religion.' The
wrath of man says the Psalmist, "shall praise
God":-not actually utter his praise, but be the
occasion of praise being rendered to him. In
Acts 1: 1:8. St. Luke says, that Judas "purchased
a field with the reward of iniquity," while St.
Matt. states(ch.27: 6. 7.) thatthe field was bought
by the priests and elders with the thirty pied.es
of silver which Judas Iscariot had returned to
them. The fact is that Judas was no further
concerned in the transaction, than that he gave
occasion for it. The two statements are thus satisfa.ctorily harmonized. The word cannot, which
properly denotes a physical inability is fiequently employed to signify merely a moral inability,
or indisposition to do a thing. Thus in Ruth 4:




172           HEBREW  IDIOMS.
6. the near kinsman of Elimelech says, "I cannot
redeem his inheritance." Now he could have
done so, had he been disposed; for he was evidently a man of property; but he was unwilling
to do it, on account of the pecuniary sacrifices it
involved. The householder in our Lord's parable into whose house a friend solicited admission
at midnight, replies that the door is shut, that the
children are with him in bed, and that he cannot rise. All that he meant by this expression is
that it was extremley inconvenient to rise and
therefore he was unwilling. It is said of our Sayv
iour in Mar. 6: 5. that "he could do no mighty
works" (perform no miracles) in a particular district because of the unbelief of its inhabitants,
i. e., he could not with pleasure and satisfaction
to-himself or profit to others. It was painful to
him, as well as useless to throw pearls before
swine. Joseph's brethren it is said "hated him,
and could not speak peaceably unto him." (Gen.
37: 4.) "I have married a wife, and therefore
I cannot come." (Lu. 14: 20.) In all these instances there was obviously no lack of capacity. or
natural power. The inability was wholly of a
moral nature, the inability of the will. This
idiom  however, is not peculiar to the Hebrew.
We find it in all languages, ancient and modern.
In our own language for instance we find the
word cannot frequently used in two different
senses; the one expressing what is termed a
moral, the other, a natural, inability; the one a
mere inability of disposition and will; the other
an inability extraneous of the will, and over
which the will has no power. Thus we ask a
pious friend to lift up for us a thousand pounds.
He replies; " 1 cannot do it." We ask him to




hEBREW IDIOMS.            173
go to some place of amusement on the Sabbath;
he replies again; "I cannot do it." In both
cases he pleads an inability. But it is easy to see
that here there are two kinds of inability. Our
friend has no natural power to lift a thousand
pounds. He could not do it if he would. He
has all the physical power necessary to comply
with the other request, and only lacks the willing mind.
Sometimes verbs are used in a declarative
sense, denoting the recognition.of the thing
spoken of as having been performed or as being
about to be. " Behold," says Isaac to Esau, " I
have made Jacob thy lord, and all his brethren
have I given him for servants." (Gen. 27: 37).
The only agency which the venerable Patriarch
had in the transaction consisted in announcing
it. He designed to say, I have declared, (or
have declaratively made,) Jacob thy lord. So
Jeremiah was set up by God over the nations,
to root up, pull down and destroy. The Prophet was not a military conqueror; but as a divine
messenger he declared what would be accomplished by the hand of Nebuchadnezzar. When
a priest saw on a man signs of leprosy, he was
required by the law "to pollute, or make him
unclean," i. e., to pronounce him unclean, as our
common version, casting off the Hebraisim,
rightly expresses it. In Ps. 2: 7, we have another example of the declarative use of the
verb. The Lord hath said to me, Thou art my
son; this day have I begotten thee." The import of the language undoubtedly is; " This day
do I declare thee to be begotten by me; comp.
Romans 1: 4.  "What God hath  cleansed,
call not thou common," i. e., what God has pro



174          HEBREW  IDIOMS.
nounced clean, that call, &c. Verbs have sometimes a permissive sense. Thus, Ps. 119: 31, "I
have adhered to thy testimonies, put me not to
shame," i. e., permit or suffer me not to be put
to shame, and reproach. Again, Isa. 62: 7.
"O Lord, why hast thou made us to err from
thy ways, and hardened our heart from thy
fear"? This does not mean that by a positive,
immediate agency God produced the moral
evils complained of by the prophet; but that
he had simply permitted them in his providence.
In a similar manner we may explain the petition in our Lord's prayer, "'Lead us not
into temptation," i. e., suffer us not to be
brought under the power of temptation. The
declaration that God hardened Pharoah's heart
is susceptible of a like interpretation. Misapplicati'on of this idiom at one time led some New
England metaphysical divines to assert as an article of their belief the monstrous and revolting
doctrine that unholy as well as holy volitions
were the immediate effect of divine agency.
Such are onlya few specimens of the very numerous  and  various  idiomatic  expressions
which occur in the Scriptures. But these are
sufficient to show the great importance of a
careful study of them to the right understanding of the sacred volume.




GENERAL LAWS, &C.           175
CHEAPTER  XVII.
GENERAL LAWS OF INTERPRETATION.
We now propose to exhibit and illustrate some
of the general laws of Biblical Interpretation.
And first:'The Bible should be interpreted in harmvony with the clear deductions of reason.
Reason and Revelation have the same author,
and proceed from the same source of infinite intelligence and truth: they must therefore coincide in their decisions. They can never really
come into contrariety. And yet it is well known
that in some parts of Christendom the attempt
has been made under cover of the phrase " pure
reason" to get rid simply by way of interpretation, of the plainest facts and doctrines of Revelation, nay of Christianity itself. And some of
the most plausible and mischievous of all attacks
on revealed religion in recent times, have been
made under the pretence that its distinguishing
doctrines as deduced from the plain and obvious
meaning of its language, are repugnant to reason. Hence recourse has been had to violent
and forced interpretation, to metaphor and figure,
to the doctrine of accommodation and various
other false schemes, in order to eliminate these
doctrines from the pages of the Bible. But notwithstanding this gross and palpable abuse and
perversion of Reason, it still remains unquestionably true, that our chief weapon for the defence of Scripture truth is our reason, rationally,
legitimately and properly used. We may be sure
that the Spirit of God speaking in and through
the Scriptures does not in a single instance design to assert for truth what is evidently contrary




176           GENERAL LAWS.to the clear and acknowledged decisions of reason properly enlightened and rightly employed.
But it must ever be borne in mind, that human
reason is limited and finite. Its sphere of operation is circumscribed by certain boundaries
which it cannot pass. It is possible, therefore,
that there may be statements in the Bible which
reason cannot explain, because they lie beyond
the domain of human comprehension, and are,
therefore, inscrutable to the mind of man. Nor
is this merely possible, but from the very nature
and design of a supernatural Revelation, it is
highly probable: nay; in point of fact, it is absolutely certain. But to assert things which human reason cannot comprehend in their modes,
is one thing; and to assert things contrary to
the innate dictates of reason, is quite another
thing. The latter, we may boldly affirm, the
Scriptures have never done. There is a class of
texts which, if construed according to the strict
letter, might seem to oppose the dictates of reason. Thus in Heb. 12: 29, we have the declaration "God is a consuming fire."  The literal
import of this passage asserts the ancient doctrine of the Persians that God is literally the
principle of fire. But such an interpretation
would not only contradict the whole tenor of
Scripture, but be at war with reason and common sense. The language therefore, must be
taken figuratively as descriptive of God's power
utterly to destroy. Jere. 23: 24. "Do I not fill
heaven,and earth, saith the Lord?" This passage taken literally would appear to teach Pantheism, than which nothing is more repugnant
to reason. John 6: 53, " Except ye eat the flesh
of the Son of Man and drink his blood, ye have




OF INTERPRETATION.           17?
no life in you."  The literal interpretation of
this passage is contrary to reasoh: it must, thereCore, be rejected, and the text understood in a,
figurative and spiritual sense.
There is another numerous class of texts
which when literally explained, as they manifestly should be, assert nothing contrary to reason, but which involve doctrinal truths which
lie beyond and above the range of the human
faculties, and are therefore incomprehensible.
Take for example the doctrine of Divine Omni;
presence. The doctrine that God is everywhere
and at all times present, beholding the evil and
the good, is everywhere asserted in the Bible,
and as a fact is perfectly consonant with the decisions of reason. But we are no where told
tow he can be thus every where present, and the
saaaaer of his omnipresence is beyond the reach
of our coimprehension. Shall we then reject
the plain and obvious meaning of the passages
Which teach the doctrine, and put upon them a
forced and unnatural interpretation? Certainly
not. Again: the Scriptures clearly teach in
their literal and obvious sense, that the Father,
the Son and the Holy Ghost, all possess divine
attributes and perform separate offices in the
economy of human redemption. At the same
time they as clearly and unequivocally assert
the divine unity.  Upon these two facts the
Church doctrine of the Trinity in Unity in the
godhead is based. Now` the proposition that
in the godhead, these three persons, so called for
the want of a better term, are one in precisely
the same respects in Which they are three, and
three in the same respects in which they are
une, cannot be true, because it is repugnant to
12




178           GENERAL LAWS
reason. But the proposition that the Father,
Son and IIoly Spirit, are three in certain re
spects, and one in certain other respects, is not
contrary to reason, and therefore may be true.
That there is numerically but one God is a fact
which we believe on the clearest testimony of
Scripture.  That the Father, Son and Holy
Spirit are each partakers of the divine nature,
and therefore are equally entitled to, as they
justly claim our homage, is also a fact abundantly established on the same testimony. —
These two facts we fully receive on the authority
of the word of God. And we are sure that
however inexplicable they may be to us, there
is in them  no contradiction. But of the  oiode
of the divine existence, as a Trinity in Unity,
beyond the simple fact., we know and can know
nothing. This is one of those mysteries which
the Bible has not solved, and about which we
are not at liberty to speculate. If reason begins
to cavil and ask, how the Deity can be three
and one at the same' time, it forsakes its proper
sphere, and would be wise above what is written.
Of one thing we may be certain, that in the
statements of Scripture in relation to this or
any other doctrine there can be nothing contradictory to right reason. The two must harmonize, because they both proceed from the same
author.
It is also of the highest importance to remember that human reason is not onlyfinite butfallible. "Man is liable to err. Ie finds himself
deceived in his judgments of things that take
place around him. He draws conclusions which
he afterwards finds to be wrong. The fallibility
of his reason constitutes him a fallible being.




OF INTERPRETATION.            179
Since, therefore, his nature is such, he may form
wrong opinions respecting the truths of revelation. He may fail to perceive what is propounded for his reception. Finite and imperfect as
he is, it is not marvellous that lihe should frequently go astray in his sentiments.  Rather
would it be a cause of wonder, if he should
never tax himself with error, or acknowledge
that his mind does not judge accurately on all
topics which come before it.. Every thing connected with him partakes, at present, of imperfection. His soul is tainted with sin, and alienated from God. His body is liable to decay.
The Bible is infallible, because its author is so;
but reason is fallible, because man has corrupted
his ways, and deteriorated his constitution. He
is not what he once was. The candle of the
Lord shines not within him in its original brightness. The lamp of reason has been dimmed by
his infatuation.  Its beams are not shed forth
with the same lustre or loveliness as when Jeho:
vah himself first lighted up the luminary of the
soul. Let us always, then, bear in mind this
truth, that reason is fallible; while the Scriptures cannot err, either in their propoundings
of doctrine, or expositions of duty, or statements
of eternal truth. Of reason's liability to err we
have ample proof in the fact. that there are important differences in the conclusions at which
its extravagant encomiasts arrive.  Far from
coinciding, the results of their researches are
widely at variance.  Reason, it is said, teaches
some to believe that Christ was not a true man,
consisting of a human soul and a mortal-body;
but that the Logos supplied the place of a soul
in the man Christ Jesus; others are conducte4




180          GENERAL LAWS
by the same guide, to the opinion, that he Was
nothing higher than a man, with a real body
and a reasonable soul. The innumerable varie;
ties of creed among such as call themselves by
the common appellation of Unitarians, provd
the fallibility of the guide to which they abandon themselves. The folly of extending the
province of reason beyond what is written, is
abundantly evident. All contradictions between
Arians and Socinians owe their origin to a dissatisfaction with the amount of Scripture revelation. They begin to exercise their reason in
matters beyond what is written; and thus lose
themselves in speculations no less presumptuous
than unprofitable. If reason were contented
to abide by the plain exposition of the written
word, no perplexity would ensue. Unreserved
submission to the dictates of Heaven is tho
right and righteous exercise of reason. Partial
homage, on the contrary, is the sin of such as
do not cause it to bow with implicit reverence
to all utterances proceeding from the sanctuary
of heaven. It is the source of the fallacies and
the follies of those who permit reason to go beyond the limits assigned to it by Infinite Wisdom. If every doctrine and precept which it
cannot fathom are to be set aside on the ground
of their obscurity, the Scriptures will be reduced
to a very meagre compass. If man were possessed ef a pure and perfect reason, by which
he could discern the relations of the universe,if he could discern the connexion subsisting between things natural and moral,-if he could
understand the ways of the Lord unto perfection, and the reasons of his dealings with men,
he might then employ a reason, which could




OF INTERPRETATION.           181
accomplish so much, to search out the things
which are onlv hinted at in the Bible; bnt if he
must be contented with lknowing in part here
below, reason must acquiesce in many circunstances as right and true, although it cannot tell
whFy or whlerefore they are so."*
Second law:  The B3ible should be interpreted in
harmony with the well-established facts of natural,cience. Truth is always in accordance with
herself. The book of nature and the book of
Revelation proceed from the same author, and
have a common origin. There can never, therefore, exist any absolute and irreconcilable diserepancy between the laws of nature and the
disclosures of Divine Revelatior. If there seems,
jn any instance, to be a real discrepancy; it must
be owing either to a misinterpretation of the
written record, or to some error inl regard to the
alleged facts of science. With regard to the
latter, there may have been too hasty a generalization, or a position may have been assumed
on insufficient evidence, and further discoveries
on the subject may rectify the erroneous conclusion. Especially is this remark applicable to
the comparatively moderns and, as yet, imperfectly developed science of geology. "A natural science, while in its infancy, when but partially developed, while some of its main features
are still under discussion, is not to be placed on
the same footing with sciences whose laws have
been long established.  Its earliest revelations,
though seemingly adverse to Biblical truth,
need not occasion alarm or anxiety.  The laws
of philology are to be admitted as unhesitat# Payidson's Sacred Hermeneuties.




1s2           GENERAL LASW
Ingiy as those of any physical science. There 1i
the same certainty that the Bible camne from
God as that the solar system did.  It would be
no greater mark of folly to reject the evidence;
on which the facts of the material sciences rest,
than that by which Scripture truth is supported."* One thing is certain, no absolute contradiction between physical and Biblical truth has
yet been established, notwithstanding the prating and dogmatizing of some sceptical and halffledged sciolists. It should be constantly borne
in mind that it is not the design of' the sacred
writers to teach the natural sciences, but moral
and spiritual truth.  Whenever they have occason, therefore, to allude incidentally to physical
phenomena, they describe them according to
apparent truth, in conformity with the usage
and imperfect knowledge of the times in which
they lived, and not with philosophical accuracy.
tTad the languaae of revelation beea scientifically accurate, it would have defeated the object
for which the Scriptures were written; for it
must have anticipated the scientific discoveries
of a later age, and therefore have been unintelligible to those for whose benefit they were written, and who were ignorant of such discoveries.
Professor Manury, indeed, undertook to show
that the Psalmist anticipated the modern discovery in geography with respect to the spherical form of the earth. And in proof of this, he
appealed to Psalm 98: 8, as rendered in our
Prayer Book version-" Let the sea make a
noise, and all that is therein; the round world,
and they that dwell therein."  Now the fact is,
* B. B. Edwards.




OP INTERPRETATION.           18A
there is no qualifying word in the original corresponding to round in this translation; the
only Hebrew word used signifies simply world,
considered as the habitation of man: a fact
which he might have ascertained, had he merely
consulted the authorized version, where it is
correctly rendered.  Sometimes an apparent
contrariety exists between the Bible and natural science, in consequence of an imperfect or
inaccurate translation, even in our common version. Take the following examples in chemistry:  In Prov. 25: 20, we find it said that, " as
vinegar upon nitre, so is he that singoth songs
to a heavy heart."  We should infer fronm this
statement, that when we pour vinegar upon the
s:ubstance which we call nitre (nitrate of soda)
it would produce some effervescence, or other
disturbing influence; but on trying the experimnenIt,, we wiould find no such result to follow.
So Jere. 2:'22-" Though thou wash thee with
nitre, and take thee much soap, yet thy iniquity
is marked before me, saith the Lord."  Here,
too, we should expect that the use of nitre or
saltpeotre would increase the purifying power of
soap; but the experiment would prove the contrary. There is a well-knownl substance, indeed,
viz: (iCr6onate of Soda, which if substituted for
the nitre, would effervesce with vinegar, and al,
so aid the purifying power of soap. Now on recurring to the original we find that the Hebrew
word'nn3, (nether, nitrum or natrurn) does not signify the salt which we call nitre, but a fossil alkali, the natron of the ancients, and the carbonate
or rather sesqui-carbonate of soda of the moderns.
"Scarcely any truth," says President Hitchcock, "seems more clearly taught in the Bible




-184          GENERAL LAWS
than the future resurrection of the body. Yet
this doctrine has always been met by a most formidable objection. It is said that the body laid
in the grave fs ere long decomposed into its ele-ments, which are scattered over the face of the
earth, and enters into, new combinations, even
forming a part of other human bodies. Hence
not even Omnipotence can raise from the grave
the identical body laid there, because the particles may enter successively into a multitude of
other human bodies. I am  not aware that any
successful reply has ever been given to this objection, until chemistry and natural history
taught us the true nature of bodily identity:
and until recently the objector has felt sure that
he had triumphed. But these sciences teach us
that the identity of the body consists, not in a
sameness of particles, but in the same kinds of
elementary matter, combined in tlh  same proportion, and having the same form  and structure. Hence it is not necessary that the resurrection body should contain a single particle of
the matter laid in the grave, in order to be the
-same body; which it will be if it consist of the
same kind of matter combined in the same proportions, and has the same form  and structure.
For the particles of our bodies are often totally
changed during our lives; yet no one imagines
that the old man has not the same body as in
infancy."
Until the time of Copernicus no opinion respecting natural phenomena was supposed to be
more firmly established, than that the earth is
fixed immovably in the centre of the universe,
and that the heavenly bodies move diurnally
around it: And this opinion was attempted to




OF INTERPRETATION.             1S5
be established incontrovertibly on the authority
of Scripture in opposition to the Copernican systenm.  In proof of it the appeal was made to
those passages which speak of the sun as movxinin the heavens, and as rising and setting.  (Ps.
19: 5.  104: 19. Eccles 1: 5.); to the alleged
fact that the sun, by a miracle, stood still in the
time of Joshua.  (Josh. 10: 12-14), and by a
miracle  went back in the time of I-Hezekiah.
(Isa. 38: 8); and to the assertions respecting the
iinmovabtility of the earth, (Ps. 93: 1; 10t1: 5;
119: 90, 91.)  But if we only adclit that the sacred writers did. not intend to teach scientific
instead of popular truth, but that they spoke of
astronomical phenomena, accorling  to appearances, and in conforniity to commnon opinion,
th   their Ia.n guange is seen to be perfrectly  proper
and consistent with the facts; it conveyed   no error, and is as well adalpted now as ever to the
common intcrcourse of life.  Hence. its use ha-1s
never been laid aside, notwitlhstanding its alpaent contrariety to the true system  of the universe.  It is nu impeachment of the inspiration
of the sacred writers to admit that in common
with their countrymen they were ignorant of
the true principles of astronomy, for upon this
point they had received no information fromn
above, and had no oracle to utter. With respect
to the discrepancies which are alleged to exist
between the statements of the Bible and the
modern discoveries in Geology, space will only
permit me to refer to the admirable work of
President Hitchcock, entitled "The Religion of
Geology and its Connected  Sciences."   "Science," says MIcCosh, " has a foundation, and so
has religion; let them  unite their foundations,




186             GENERAL LAWS
and the basis will be broader, and they will be
two compartments of one great fabric reared to
the glory of God.  Let the one be the outer and
the other the inner court. In the one, let all
look, and admire, and acore; and in the other,
let those who have faith kneel, and pray, and
praise.  Let the one be the sanctuary where hui
nan learning may present its richest incense an
offering to God; and the other the holiest of all,
separated from  it by a veil now rent in twain,
and in which, on a blood-sprinkled imercy-seat,
we potur out tlle love of a reconciled heart, and
hear the oracles of the livingr CGod."
3. T'he  ie  8ibe   71o6(I b6 we i nt.O,?e. i - n /aii',oi,?/ wvh
0t-i i,'(c morle ji'0(1,(:c/.  It C'minot be at issue wit'h  any of these.  If, tilereforle, it recomrmends " tile cuttina  off a rirllt lhand, and pIluckingy out a right eye," it must not be tlaken liteial!y to inean bodily mutilation.  Our life andi
rnemllbes are a, sled(l trlust conllomitted to us,!,icll must not be trifled xwith.'lle declara
tion of our Saviouru,  " if any nan hlate not his
ifather  lind  imother, and -vife ancil  children he
ceannot be my disciplie," if interpreted literally,
N1wouldl be re-)llitini to our nmorhl sense, and11(1 no
exposition wich would sanction the feeling of
i-atred to paients would for a moment be tolerated.  We must rec ard it, therefore, as a stron,
]hyperbole denoting the greater love which is
due to himself.
In St. Luke 10: 4, Christ commands his seventy
disciples while in the performance of their missionary tour, " not to salute any by the way."
lWe cannot suppose that our Lord here intended
to inculcate rudeness and incivility.  Their missioni required haste; he therefore enjoins upon




OF INTERPRETATION.              187
them not to waste their time in merely complimentary or courteous addresses, and in holding
unnecessary intercourse "ith their friends to
the neglect of the weightier concerns of their
sacred vocation  AMatt. 5: 39. " Whosoever shall
smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him  the
other also."  That the commands in this andl
the following ~verses are not to be taken literally,
as enjoining the particular actions here specified(,
and foibidding self-defence, but rather as incuLlcating the;i.sJ)ositioi, of forgiveness and benevolence. is alppar ent not onily f'irom its being usual
in the East to put the action for the disposition,
and fromn the mnanner in which the precepts are
introduced, but also from our Lord's own conduct (,ohn 18; 22, 23), and that of his Apostles,
(Act, 23: 3 )  Not s/atc,/.s-/lJ/y andt lit alyl, but tro',I.
and in the s)irit,  our Iedeemer obeiyecl thlis
p'r-ece"pt' for " lie  aveo his back to tlhe smit'ers,
and hic cheoeks to them tlhat plucked off thle 1air,
and hidl not his fac( fniom shame and spittin,"'
(Isa. 5A: 6); and his Apostles falso did the sallo,
(ee  Cor. 4: 9-13.) Thle precept requirinr us' not
to revenge ouirselves," fo:bids indeed the takin',
(f private revenge, but it was not designed to
forbid judicial punishment.  ()ur Saviour in
AMatt. 5: 33, commands us to'swear not." Now
it, is evident from  the context, that our Lo7rd is
here not to be understoodl as forbidding judicial
oaths, or oaths oin solenirr occasions and for the
satisfaction of others, for tlhat would be a nzere
technical Pharisaism  wholly at variance with
the spirit of the. Gospel, and inconsistent with
the example of God himsc/f. (lieb. 6: 13-1'; 7.
21); of our Lord when on earth. and of his Apostle.s.
(Gal. 1: 20. 2 Cor. 1: 23.  Rom. 1: 9. Phil 1:




188            GENERAL LAWS
S. and especially 1 Cor. 15: 31); but such oaths
as are introduced into common  conversation,
and on ordinary occasions, which are not only
unnecessary but highly irr everent.
On a similar principle are to be explained
those passages, whichl exhibit the prophets as
doing by the command of Go(l things inconsist.
ent with natural propriety.  tlosea, tor example,
is commanded to marry two i'mpu're women, and
Ezekiel to lie on his left side a vear ancl a montll,
looking at ain iron pan —and then to turn over
to his riglit side, on which he mnust lie forty adclitional  lays, —eating duringl  the whole period,
a composition of vegetables and grain prepared
in a manner most decidedly disagreeable. These
are not to be taiken as real transactions, for that
would both dishlonor the word of God and betray an utter want of taste.  They were doubtless symbolical representatiolns, which passed
before the prophet,'s 1Smind in his inspired ecstacy.
4. The Bi~6e s/ounJ( be isteipreted ia harrmony
wit/ univetrsal erx crie, e and obseirvation.
This principle iequires us to take universal
termns and expressions in a modified and limited
sense. Tl'hus absolute expressions often denote
only what itsually takes place-what is accordant
with general but not universal experience and
observation.  Solomon tells us, for example, ini
Prov. 22: 6, "train up a child in the way he
should go, and when he is old he will not depart
from it."  This we know does not always lold
true. Strange as it may appear, Solomon himself at one period of his life, was an exception
to it. Nevertheless it is true generally. And
the precept loses nothing of its value and importance because we are compelled to limit




OIF INTERP.iETATION.           18D
somewhat its application. The exceItions only
proves the rule.
Sometimes such expressions only denote the
narural tendency of a thing.  Proy. 15: 1: "A
soft answer turneth away wrath," i. e., it is evidently calculated to produce this happy result.
St. Paul declares that the "goodness of God
leadeth to repentance."  Such is doubtless its
natural tendency, and such we should reasonably expect would be its consequence; but we
know that sometimes it produces the very opposite effect; it corrupts and hardens.  At other
times such expressions merely indicate d-t/y-~
riqght-of/i.cial obli;/ation.  Thus, Prov. 16: 10, "a
divine sentence is in the lips of the king, his
mouth transgresseth not in judgment."  St. Peter, in like manner says of the civil magistrate;
"'he is the minister of (Aod for good, a terror to
evil workers, alad a praise to them that do well."
Such declarations show what he ought to be in
the exercise of his official functions-what lie is
de jure; but not what he always is de facto,
Sometimes wT, find assertions broadly made
that refer only to external character and prof'ession.
Thus all credible professors of the Gospel are
called "saints," and "holy"; and the sacred
writers treat them as being what they profess
and ought to be.
5. The Bible should be interpreted in rharmony?with
the testimony of our senses.
Thus when David says that " he is poured out
like water, and all his bones are out of joint,
that his heart is melted in the midst of his bow;
els," it is manifest that a literal pouring out and
melting cannot be intended, as nothing of the
kind has ever been witnessed. Again, when our




190            GENERAL LAWS
Saviour, in the institution of the Supper, declares of the bread then in his hand, that it is
his body, and of the wine, that it is his blood,
his disciples must have necessarily understood
him to be speaking not literally, for that would
have contradicted the clear testimony of their
senses, but figuratively and symbolically.
And when Christians tn Accordance with the
command of their Lord celebrate this Supper,
their senses distinctly see, taste, smell, and feel,
that the sacramental elements are nothing but
real bread and wine.  The Rtomish doctrine of
Transubstantiation, therefore, is most clearly
and unequivocally refuted by the evidence of
the senses, and hence cannot be true. To believe a doctrine in direct and palpable opposition
to the clear evidence of the senses, is dcestruc
tive of all evidence, and can be required of no
intelligent being.
6t. The lyible should be intey reted in harmony
ewih itself:
Viewed in all its relations, this is by far the
most comprehensive and important principle of
Biblical interpretation; and it is a principle of
constant application.  It requires not only that
each individual writer should be explained in
harmony with himself, but also with every other
sacred writer. Let us apply the principle, in
the first place, to the composition or compositions of a particular writer. It is to be presumed that no judicious and sensible writer will
contradict himself, or introduce in the course of
his argument what is entirely irrelevant to his
immediate purpose, or inconsistent with his
general design and object.  When a passage,
therefore, is obscure, ambiguous or of doubtful




THE CONTEXT.               191
import, the first care of the interpreter should
be to consult the immediate or proximate context, 6oth
preceding andflollowing.  I'he context is in the Scriptures as wll as in all other writings, the primary means of discovering the true sense. The
legal maxim on this subject is thus expressed:
ex anteceden.tibus et consequentibts fit optima interpretatio, " a passage will be best explained by referring to that which precedes and follows it.'  A
single sentence pluclied rudely from its connexion in an argumert, it matters not from what
writer, may often be made to express a sentinment which was  not only not in the mind of
the writer and foreign to his intention at the
time, but which is in contradiction to his real
sentiments elsewhere expressed, and wholly irrelevtant to his course of reasoning. And yet
this is the manner in which the word of God is
very frequently treated in homiletics and didactic theology. In sermonizing nothing is more
common than to select a text and deduce a sentiment from it as the foundation of a discourse,
not only in utter disregard of the context, but
in perfect contradiction to it. Many popular
preachers, in giving scope to their fancy and im.
agination, allow  themselves to be captivated
with the mere phraseology of the English version, or with the mere sound of an expression
without any regard to its real meaning in the
particular connexion in which it occurs. In the
departments of didactic and polemic theology,
it is very frequently the case that isolated passages are quoted as proof texts of doctrines,
which when taken in their connexion are found
to be quite irrelevant to the subject. What
should we think if we heard any other book




1 9~1           GENERAL LAWS
discoursed upon in this way? or what should
we think of a judge on the bench expounding
in this way a legal instrument or statute?  The
civil law has laid down an express canon on this
subject in which the practice alluded to is strongly rebuked.  Turpe ist do lge e judicare tota lege o0?,
i,.specta.' It is disgraceful to judge of a ltw, by
examining only a palt of it."  It is certain that,
many of the controversies which have been carried on with acrimonious zeal in the (Christian
Church, have arisen in consequence of their au;
thors having overlooked this rule.  ITacd the
texts which thav hurled against their antagoniists, with, as they verily believed,  overwhelnming force, been first examined in their connexion, these theological combatants would have
found themselvas deprived of many a weapon
with which they carried on their wordy wartlare;
Some indeed th, re are, who are fhr f rom being
lawless interpreters, that do not hold the rule
under consideration in very high estilmation
but conceive its use to be confinedl within very
narrow limits.  But this is by no means an ace
curate view of the subject; for, as Professor Stuart has justly remarked:' the immediate context, either preceding, succeeding, or both together, is a rule for judging of the meaning of
words [and sentences] of the very broadest extent.  In very many cases, indeed, the evidence
of the usu-s loquendi is itself built upon the context.  We adopt the opinion, that the usus lo(,,cendi sanctions this or that particular sense,
because the context clearly shows that such a
meaning is to be assigned to it, and that no
other can be given without rendering the sense
frigid and inept.  Moreover, the general scope of




OF INTERPRETATION.           193
an author does not forbid the admission of a
great variety of arguments, illustrations and episodes, into the immediate parts of a discourse;
so that one is far more certain of giving a sense
that is congruous, by consulting the immwediate
context, than by immediately consulting the general scope of the whole. Both, no doubt, are to
be regarded; but of the two, the former is by
-far the more important means of assistance.
Indeed I should doubt whether there is any one
rule in the whole science of hermeneutics so
important, and of such practical and actual use
as the one in question. Great care, illdeed, is
necessary to decide with certainty, what sense
the context requires that a word should have,
especially when the immediate subject is briefly
stated. But this care is as easily practised as
any other rule is, which hermeneutics prescribes
in different cases. Violence must not be done
to words, by forcibly subjecting them to the context, agarinst etymology, analogy, the rules of
grammar, and the nature of language. But in
every thing short of this, all good lexicographers
and commentators adapt the meaning of words
to the context, in cases too numerous to need
any specification." - The remarks of the Professor with special reference to the signification of
particular words, are equally applicable to the
sense of words in combination.  The exanination of the context is as important to the meaning of sentences as of words. The manner in
which our Bibles are commonly printed is unfavorable to a proper examination of the context.
The fracture of great coherent masses into sepa* Ernesti: Elements of Interpretation.
13




194            GENERAL LAWS
rate verses, is an unhappy a'rangeml ent in this
respect, though attended with advantages for
reference, which, however, could as well be secured by placing the figures in the nmargin as is
done in some editions.  The reader's attention
is diverted from the flow and current of thought
and fixed on an isolated proposition. Thus the
logical connexion is overlooked and revelation
is apt to be treated as a vast collection of proverbial sayings  or independcent propositions.
The following ex.anmples will illustrate what has
been said.  Thle declaration of our Saviour,
Matt. 22: 14. M' rany are called but. few  aite
chosen,'" is supposed byy manv to refer to sovereign election; but the context shows that he iS
only stating the fact that while a11 are invited to
the Gospel feast, theie aie comparatively few
admitted to the participation of' it in consequence of neglect on their part to secure the
necessary qualifications.  I nivxersal grace for
the purpose of salvation  is attempted to be
provedfrom  1 Cfor. 12: i':': the manifestation
of the Spirit is given to every man to profit
withal."  But the whole argument shows that
the Apostle is speaking of supernatural gifts of
the Spirit, and is addressing Church menmbers
exclusively. In 1 Cor. 15: 22, the Apostle says,
" For as in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be
made alive." From these words there has been
deduced by some the doctrine of universal salvation, and by others the legal identity of the
human race with our first parent and their spiritual death in him. But the context shows that
it was not the design of the Apostle in the passage to teach either of these doctrines.  He is
proving the resurrection of our Lord as a dem



OF INTERPRETATION.            X95
onstration of the resurrection of all inmen.  After citing the testimony of witnesses to our
Lord's resurrect-ion, he proceeds to an argument
distinct from that of testimony, in the gracious
design of God in this matter.  lie says, " fo
since by nmen came death, by iSan also (ac-cor'ding to the design of God) camine the resurrection
of the dead.  For as in Adam" &c Thit is as
physical death (not spiYriltal death as is shown Fby
the antithesis) came by Adam and wnas the con.sequence of his sin, so the physical esurrectionr
from the dead will come by Christ; as in the
providential arrangement of' God man brourghtin death, so by the same arrancement mar n
wold bring  in the resurrection.  The passatge
t!len-relates solely to the iresurrection, and theraiis in it not the faintest trace of' universal salv-ation, nor of manklind's oneness with Adam.  Int
James 5: 14 the elders of the church are commanded to anoint the sick and to pray over hinm,
" and the prayer of faith shall save him."  The
Chuich of Rome founds on this one passage the
doctrine of extreme unction, which they say is
to save the soul of the dying.  But fiom verses
15, 16, it is plain that by " save" in this passage
is meant " heal," so that, whatever the practice*
may have implied, it was to be observed, not
with the view of saving the soul, but in the case
of one already a Christ.ian, with a view of restoring his health.
The Canon applicable to this branch of our
subject is, Every passage must 6e interpreted in har-mony with the context. In other words, No explanation must be admitted which is opposed, or
unsuited to the context. We have an instance
of the direct violation of this canon, on the part




196           GENERAL LAWS
of the Church of Rome, in regard to Matt. 18:17.
"Tell it unto the Church, but if he neglect to
hear the Church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican."  This passage is interpreted by the Romanists as referring to the infallible decisions of all doctrines by the (Roman)
Catholic Church. But what says the Evangelist? By reading the passage carefully in its
connexion, the obvious meaning will be found
to be this; "' if a man have done you an injury,
first admonish him privately; if that does not
avail, tell the Church,-not the universal Church
dispersed throughout the world, but the particular church, to which you both belong. Through
the whole of the context there is not one word
said about disobeying the determination of the
Catholic Church respecting a disputed doctrine.
Where no connexion manifestly exists between
what immediately precedes or follows, none of
course should be sought. This observation applies to the. Proverbs of Solomon, and chiefly to
the 18th and following chapters, which form the
second part of the Book. This portion of Scripture consists almost entirely of isolated propositions connected by no principle of association.
In reference to parenthetical clauses, also, ur
lrule must be applied with caution.  Where tile
parenthesis is short, it, creates no special difficulty, and can hardly be said to interrupt the flow
of the argument; but when it is long, it sometimes materially affects the' continuity of the
discourse, and occasions considerable difficulty.
e. g. Eph. 3: 2-14. The connexion is also sometimes interrupted by the introduction of a covert
dialogue, in whic!4objections, responses, and replies are not distinctly marked.




OF INTERPRETATION.           1 }7
The Scope.-It sometimes happens, however,
that the context fails to remove all doubt as to
the exact meaning of the writer. Recourse, in
that case, should be had to the scope, or design
of the writer, either in regard to the entire book,
or some large section in which the passage occurs. Every intelligent author proposes to himself some definite object or objects which he'
seeks by his writings to attain; and not only
may it be presumed that he will say nothing inconsistent with that design, but also that what
he does say will coincide and harmonize with it.
The scope, therefore, is the soul —the vis vix —
of a work, which lives and breathes through the
whole, giving order, force, consistency and beauty to every part.  As an illustration of the importance of regarding the scope of a writer, take
the passage in Jlames 2: 14, where the Apostle
says, "' Ye see how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only." St. James here appears to express a sentiment at variance with
the declaration of St. Paul, when he says that
" a man is justified by faith only." Luther, to
whom the doctrine of justification by faith only,
or gratuitous justification, was most precious, as
being, in his estimation, the crowning excellence
of the Gospel, perceiving no way of reconciling
the statements of the two Apostles with each
other, rashly pronounced the letter of James an
epistle of straw, and-refused to acknowledge its
inspired authority.  The Romish Council of'
Trent, on the contrary, relying exclusively on
the passage in James, enacted the following decree and anathema, in opposition to the Protestant doctrine, " Whosoever shall affirm that the
good works of a justified man are, in such sense,




-I I-8W    OGENERAL LAWS
the gifts of G'od, that they are not his worthy
merits, and that he really does not deserve increase of grace and eternal life, let him be accursed." Htad the Romanists, on the one hand,
and Luther onr the other, directed their attention to the res_;ective designs of the two Apostles, and the scope of their epistles, both would
probably have come to a different and harmonious decision. St.,James' object was to warn
converted Jews of the danger of relying on the
mere profession of ibith.  He.would have them
understand directly, that obedience must accompany the Christian faith; and that a man
who was satisfied with merely saying he be'
lieved,. to t the neglect of holy living, was like a
bady without a. vital spirit. A-  n inoperative faith
is a dead faith, and without avail. It must be a
living principle in the soul, or it is nothing. In
all this St. James has no reference to the question on what ground is a man justified (i. e. pardoned and accepted) in the sight of God? It
was St-; Paul's object to answer that question.
St. James had another point, wholly distinct,
before his mind.  Ile intended-to enforce practical piety, and maintained, not, in opposition
to St. Paul, that men are not pardoned by faith,
but that an alleged faith, unaccompanied and
unevidenced by obedience, was no faith at all.
In this sense the declaration of St. James is to
be understood; and so interpreted, it does not
contradict, but confirms the doctrine of St. Paul.
The scope of a writing may be ascertained by
examining into the particular occasion and circumnstanccs, which led to its composition, and the
class of personts addressed or had specially in
view. Sometimes it may be learned from the




o01 IN'ERPRnETiATlON.          199:epress mention or clcur intintison  of thetwriter or
speaker himself.  See John 20: 31. Lu. 1: 1-4.
-2 Pet. 3: 1. 1 Jo. 2:; 14. Prov. 1: 1-4. In several
of our Lord's Parables we find their design expressly announced, so that there could be no
mistake as to their particular application. See
Lu. 12: 15. 1S: 1. With respect to the scope,
two canons are to be observed:1. No argument from scope is allowable, when the
scope is wzot ascertained witA ce(tainty.  Writers frequently make a scope to suit their own purpose.
When the design of the writer or speaker is
known with certainty, too much stress cannot
be laid upon it in interpretation.
2. In the argument from scope, the allegel scope'imust necessarily demnand the alleyed interpretation.  It
is not sufficient that the interpretation should
harmonize with the scope, and that it should
serve to promote it.  For it might do both
without being the true interpretation.  That
which is in opposition to the scope, cannot. indeed, be the true meaning, but a false meaning
may be in harmony with the scope.  All parts
of a discourse have not invariably a strict connexion with its general scope; many things being,often introduced which are merely obiker dicta.
These are to be interpreted not by the general
scope of the discourse, but agreeably to the subject treated of, in the place where they occur.
Next to the context and scope, the most important aid in the investigation of the usage of
words and the meaning of sentences, is the comparison of similar or parallel passages. By these
are meant passages, whether occurring in the
writings of the same author, or of different.authors, which contain substantially the same




200             FGENERAL LAWS
idea, expressed either in the same or equivalent
terms.  Where the same words occur, whether
in the same or a different sense, the parallelism
is said to be vcrbal; and where the same idea isexpressed, though the words may be different,
the parallelism is real.  There is therefore a parailelisnl of words, and a parallelism of idcas; or of
both words and ideas. The comparison of passages, between which the similarity is only verbal, is highly important for ascertaining the
usage of the language.   For this purpose the
student should nimake diligent use of such works;
as The Englishmlan's HIebrew Concordance, and
Greek Concordance; Robinson's Greek Lexicon
of the New Testament, and his Translation of
Gesenius' Hfebresw  Lexicon.  When the same
words, however, are used in a different sense, or
in relation to a different subject, the passages
are not really parallel and throw no light upon
each other. It is only the parallelism of ideas
that is of much importance to the interpreter,
and those passages only are to be placed in juxtaposition either for exposition or illustration,,
which relate to the same subject, and convey
substantially the same sentiment. It is in reference to'such passages that the Canon applies:
Cogmpare'cl-ritui-e with S'cripte'are; s'lf'rit aal thing#s
with spiritcual.   It is by the observance of this,
comprehensive rule alone that we become sure
of the true meaning of particular passages.  In
the examination of parallel passages a certain
order should be observed. WXe should seek forparallels 1. in the writings of the same author.
2. in the compositions of other sacred writers.
1. Every correct writer is accustomed to usethe words he employs in -one and the same



OF' INTERPRETATION.           201
sense, when treating of the same subject.  That
sense may be peculiar to himself: hence we find
that Paul, Peter and John use the same words
in a difftirent sense from each other, as well as
adopt a different style of expression.  We have
a strikirg instance of this, as it regards St. John,
in the use of O      tXy he, the Word, as denoting the
Godman Christ Jesus.  (Comp. Jo. 1: 1. 14. 1
Jo. 1: 1. Rev. 19: 13.)  Consequently a difficult
passage of an evangelist or apostle is best explained by a comparison of parallel passages in
his own writing.  The style of a writer in treating of the same subject will at one time be more
concise and obscure, at another, more diffuse
and clear; and as consequently both easy and
difficult passages may be:expected to occur in
his writings, when treating of the same subject,
so it is a dictate of Sound reason to explain the
obscure and doubtful passages by the clear and
unequivocal, the difficult by the easy, and to
employ the more diffuse in eliciting the sense of
the briefer propositions, e. g. In Heb. 1: 3. the
phrase " by himself" is an elliptical form of expression, and the meaning is uncertain.  But if
we compare it with Heb. 9: 26. where the full
form occurs,." by the sacrifice of himself," the
meaning is made plain.  Some expositors assert
that the phrase "all things" (   rM b-ra) in Col.
1: 16, signifies the giew moral creation.  But in 1
C('or. 8: 6. the same phrase is employed in the
sense of all cr'eated thilng-,-the material worldand the act of creation in this sense is ascribed
to the Father and the Son.   The doctrine of
justification by faith, or gratuitous justification,
is discussed by St. Paul, both in his Epistle to
the Romans, and in that to the Galatians; but




202          (IGENERAL LAWS
it is elaborated more fully in the former than
in the latter. They should be studied, therefore, in connexion. There is great similarity
between the Epistle to the Ephesians and that
to the Colossians in regard both to the words,
style and sentiment. Hence they shed mutual
light on each other, and should be studied concurrently.
2: But we may go beyond the compositions Qf
the same writer, and refer to parallels in any
part of Scripture. It is manifestly proper, however, that the works of conteniporary writers
should be consulted before those of others.  In
the Old Testament this mode of conducting parallel investigation is particularly important, because the nature of the Hebrew language varied
remarkably at different periods. The later Hebrew of Kings and Chronicles is very different
from the earlier of the Pentateuclh.  But the
component parts of the New Testament Canon
were written almost contemporaneously. Again:
it is obviously the dictate of common sense, that
writings of the same general character should
be brought together for mutual illustration
rather than such as belong to different classes of
composition. Hence prophetical passages should
be compared with prophetic, historical with historical, and poetical with poetical.  The Books
of Kings and Chronicles should be read in connexion, because they relate to the same periods
of Jewish history, and reflect mutual light on
each other.  In like manner, and for the same
reason also, should the Gospels be read, particularly the first three, or synoptical Gospels, as
they are termed.
The poetical compositions of the Hebrews are




OF INTERPRETATION.             203
characterized by another kind of parallelism,
called the parallelism  of members, which is deserving of special attention. Each verse or short
period usually consists of two members, between
which there exists a certain relation of thought,
by virtue of which one corresponds with the
other, so as to produce a beautiful proportion.
This peculiarity runs throughout the books of
Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Canticles, and most of
the Prophets. Sometimes the parallelism is synonyinous or grcd(-lctional, giving precisely the same
thought, or the same thought with some extension.  Sometimes the parallelism  is antitlhctic;
containing opposite terms, and not unfrequently
opposite sentiments.  The Book of Proverbs
abounds in antithetic parallelism.  This peculiarity of tIebrew poetry is occasionally to be
met with in the New Testament, and penetrates
even the prosaic compositions of the evangelical
writers. The late Bishop of Limerick (Dr. Jebb)
has given some happy illustrations of this in his
Sacred Literature. In regard to parallelisms of
this class, the principal idea which lies at the
ground of both parts of the distich should be
first ascertained; and then the several parts or
members should be subjected to a minute examination.
The foundation of the parallelisms occurring
in the'sacred writings is the perpetual harmony
of Scripture itself, which, though composed by
various writers and in different ages, yet proceeding from one and the same infallible source,
cannot but agree in the sentiments it expresses.
This is called the analogy (similarity) of Scripture,.and upon.this is based  its self-interpreting
power.




204          GCENERAL LANWS
The principle of illustrating an author by comparing him with himself; or with other authors,.
who write on the same subject, or were formed
in the same school, seems so natural and so obviously just, that even Roman Catholics have
not refused a qualified admission of it  Thus
Father Lami, an enlightened but zealous disciple of the Romish Communion, in his Apparatus
Biblicus, where he is delivering rules for interpreting Scripture, writes as follows: " When the
same thing is expressed obscurely in one place
and clearly in another, that which is clear must
serve as a rule by which to explain that which
is obscure, and the light in one passage must be
employed to dispel the darkness of another."
But this rule is laid down in connexion with.another'in which is enjoined a strict adherence
to the interpretation of the Church, whatever
that interpret'ation may be.  Thus the analogy
of Scripture is admitted as a principle of interpretation but in subordination to the dogmatic
law, that, " it belongs to the Church, to judge of'
the true sense and interpretation of Scripture."
The following directions are important to beobserved in the comparison of parallel passages,
whether historical, doctrinal, or ethical:
1. The interpreter should satisfy himself that
the passages which he brings into comparison;
are real, and not merely verbal, parallelisms. In,
many instances this cannot be done without
consulting the Scripture in the original, because
in our standard version different Hebrew orGreek words are often translated by the same
English word, and as frequently the same Hebrew
or Greek words are represented by different Eng —
ligh words.




ANALOGY OF SCRIPTURE.          205
2. A passage which is more concise should be
~explained by one which is more full and particular, and consequently less open to doubt and
dispute fiom ambiguity.  The maxim applies
here in its full extent. "Pauciorc'a exponi debent
per plura." e. g. Lu. 6: 20. "Blessed are ye poor."
This passage should be interpreted by the aid of
Matt. 5: 2. "Blessed are the poor in Spirit."  The
-explanatory adjunct "in Spirit," shows very
clearly who are meant by " the poor."  Ma. 10:
11 and Lu. 16: 18 should be explained by Matt.
5: 32. where we find the exception " fornication"
introduced as a just ground for divorce; which
is omitted by the other two Evangelists. Comp.
also Lu. 12: 20. with Matt. 12: 32.
CHAPTER XVIII.
ANALOGY OF SCRIPTURE-ANALOGY OF FAITH.
The Harmony of different passages of Scripture, relating to the same subject, which form
the subject of the preceding chapter, belongs to
what is denominated the Analogy of Scripture.
This principle of analogy is based on the Inspiration of the sacred writers, and is a logical sequence fiom  the position, that the entire volume of revealed truth is substantially the emanation of one infallible mind. This Analogy is
consistent with apparent discrepancies, but incompatible with the admission of real contradictions, in the sacred volume.  The old Protestant canons on this subject were, Scriptura sua in



2(6t      ANALOGY OF SCRIPTURE.
teprecs, "Scripture its own interpreter," and N2omi
nisi ex Scriptoera Scripturam potes inzterpretari.'You
cannot interpret Scripture except from  Scripture "  A portion of the Rationalistic school of
interpreters, however, rejecting the irnspiration
of Scripture, have recently substituted for the
principle in question, the following rule: Infter
pret ScriJpt ree from~ it/Scl/t: by which they mean,
that each passage is to be explained apart from,
and independently of, any connexion with other portions of a, different age or writer.  According to this rule, the Biblical student has simply
to make himself familiar with that part of Scripture which he attempts to explain, regardless of
other passages relating to the same subject to be
found in other portions of the sacred volume.
He may put upon it such a construction as he
thinks it will bear, without troubling himself to
inqure whether that meaning agrees or disagrees with the clearly ascertained sense of other
passages.
The principle ot Scriptural analogy admits of
a much more extensive application, and a much
wider scope, than parallel passages.  It embraces the entire scheme of revealed religion and
the general tenor of Scripture in regard to all
material facts, doctrines and precepts.  In this
wider application it is usually denominated the
analogy of faith, or of Scripture doctrine.  The
Bible contains but one and the same religion
throughout, though existing under different and
successive dispensations. Hence there must exist a correspondence and harmony between its,
several doctrinal statements and the general
scheme of revelation, so that one class of texts
relating to a particular doctrine or moral duty,




ANALOGrY (CF }FA ITH.         207
cannot conflict with the true sense of another
class, relating to kindred doctrines in the scheme
of religion, by which the truth of those doctrines
is established to the satisfaction of the interpreter.
Illust, -ai0es.-No truth is asserted more frequently in the Bible, and consequently none is
more certain in religion, than that God is good,
not only to some individuals, but also towards
all men. See Ps. 145: 9. Ez. 18: 23.  Frequently, in the Old Testamt  nt, as well as in the New,
does the Almilghty declare how earnestly he desires the sinner's return to him. See. amiong
other passages, Deut. 5: 29. Ez. 18: 32 and 33:
11. Mat.t. 23: 37. John 3: 16. 1 Tim. 2: 4. Titus
2: 11. 2 Pet. 3: 9.  If; therefore, any passages
occur, which at first sight appear to contradict
the benevolence of God, in such case, the clear
and certain doctrine relative to the divine goo.1ness is not to be impugned, much less set aside
by these obscure places, which, on the contrary,
ought to be illustrated by such passages as are
more clear and indisputable. One such passage
is alleged' to exist in Prov. 16: 4. where, according to our authorized English version, we read,
that "the Lord hath made all things for himself; yea, even the wicked for the day of evil."
This passage, thus translated, has been supposed
by several eminent writers to refer to the predestination of the elect, and the reprobation of
the wicked. Interpreted in this way, it would
seem to express a sentiment at variance with
the general benevolence, as well as justice of
God.  But the sentiment which the passage
contains, according to the common rendering, is
simply this, that there is nothing in the world




208     ~ANALOGY OF FAITH.
which does not contribute to the glory of God,
and promote the accomplishment of his adorable
and gracious designs. A more correct translation of the passage, however, and one which
frees it of all appearance of contradiction, is this:
" Jehovah hath made everything for its end"
(or purpose,) " yea, even the wicked for the day
of evil."  i. e. Jehovah in the administration of
his natural and moral government, has ordained
an inseparable connexion between cause and
effect, so that piety and uprightness will surely
receive their appropriate reward; while punishment, sooner or later, will certainly follow the
commission of unrepented sin. John 4: 24.;' God is a Spirit."  This locus classicus is explicit
and indisputable in support of the doctrine of
the Spirituality and immateriality of God; and
if there were no other passage in the Bible in
which the same truth is affirmed or implied, no
one would be disposed to call it in question. It
is a fundamental article of belief among all who
admit the existence of a Supreme Being at all.
Now the analogy of faith demands, that we interpret all those passages which seem to represent God as material, as possessed of a human
form, human organs, human limbs and human
passions, agreeably to this clearly revealed and
universally admitted truth. The language, in
such cases, is regarded very properly as figurative and analogical.
The same remark applies to all those passages
which appear to represent God as local or limited in knowledge, in power, in righteousness.
They must be explained consistently with those
clear passages, in which he is set forth as omniscient, omnipotent, holy and just. Again: in




ANALOGY 0'' FAIT.            20-5t0'
the beginning of St. John's Gospel. Je]sls Ch',ist
is called God.  The question arises, is the appelative here used in its highest sense?  Or
does it import merely one personally or officially exalted or venerable. (godlike): just as magistrates and angels are sometimes calle  gods'?
Unitarians maintain the latter opinionl  but to
refute it, and remove all doubt as to the me:lring of the Apostle, we collect all the passaeQ
which relate to Christ, and we find divine wrolrks
and attributes ascribed to him, divine na'mes
given to him, and divine honors paid to hilm.
The conclusion, therefore, to which the unprejudiced mind involuntarily comes is this,
that IHe who is said to have created the world,
who sustains it, who is omniscient, possesses aIl
power in heaven and on earth, must be the Supreme God, and not merely godlike, and consequently that there need be no hesitation from
the analogy of faith in understanding the term
as here used in its highest sense.  " And their
works do follow them." Rev. 14: 13. This clause
by itself' will fairly bear the interpretation, that
the good works of the pious dead follow them
into eternity, as the ground of their acceptance
and happiness there. But this interpretation is
refuted by the analogy of faith.  For we find
that, not only is such a sentiment not avowed by
any sacred writer, but it is directly opposed to
the doctrine of salvation by the alone merits of
Jesus Christ.  We conclude, therefore, that it
cannot be the real meaning of the words, intended by the writer. The works of the righteous
do, indeed, follow them into eternity, and undergo the scrutiny of omniscience there, as
furnishing a test of their faith and fidel.ty; but
14




'210       IANALOtGY OF FPAITH.
it is not for these good works, that they are
saved. Salvation is the gift of God, conferred
by grace through faith, and not the purchase or
reward of good works.
James 5: 20. " He who converteth the sinner
from the error of his way, shall save a soul from
death, and shall hide a multitude of sins." This
text will bear two distinct constructions. 1. The
soul saved and the multitude of sins covered,
may refer to the person who reclaims his erring
Brother; or 2. The words may refer to the
brother reclaimed.  NAow if the appeal be made
to the general system of revealed truth to determine which of these is correct-, we shall find
that the first is xwholly at variance with it.  We
are saved by faith in Christ, not by acts of kindness done to an erlinr, brother. Hence we conclude the mneaning of the passage to be, that he,who reclaims a backslider is the instrument of
savihg that backslider's soul and procuring the
pardon of his sins.
Again: Tam   fte,j(loij cj God is 7orcl,  e id,s'it-.e::. So the Saviouir has  ostexllicitly declared.: The kingdomn of God comleth not with observation; neither shall they say, Lo, here! or lo, there!
for behold  /:I, i Ji; o f Godl is williln'Iou."  Lu.
17: 20, 21.  So also says St. Paul: "The kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness, and peace, anod joy in the Holy Ghost.:"
Roen. 14: 17.  So said Jesus to Pilate: "'My
kingdom  is not of this world-my kingdom  is
not from hence.",John 18: 46  These explicit
declarations are in accordance with the whole
tenor of the Bible.  This truth lies on the face
of all its requisitions, commands, and promises;
and on the lace of the qualifications demanded




ANATAL,O(CGY  OF  EA' -TH.                211
of all  who  would   belong  to   this   kingdom.
To enter it ma n  mlust  undergo a s.iri,./ll  clango.
Tro remain  faithiful  to  his  ailegiance,   he  nlmust
combat and COnqituer'  his sp;tirI,          "i enei es.' 1o
attain its highest rewat ds, he rust priofe ss p,rolieess and pluitv of Pe'rt.    It is nmanifestlyv. therefore, not a nlater      i'irj, doni; it is ntca- polit Coecclesiastical li:eLo.            It is int e-na l,  hting
its  outwalcd  n-'tii't(  tattio ois   ill  the     liIfe.  T'he
rei'n of -God     ili: d ovei  thei soul.  It is  in
this li-'e; it,ii,i,   i        i the.i iy  to  co(tI.   It is so
1now,  ant it i. l e,',nt'nilt e  to be So, till  t}o enrld
of  item'['-(';'.n            [ 1' f S-eri}p)tni r  doc,:ie%
tilh e  fre,, eq'.l"' e-,  th..t th lose,}.s'i.s w      ich
seem   to  spef~,k. of Ch.ist's v''    bilf    reif''en'openl
eart.-h at,'!0oll( s' in" ft  e     pelidl, aiol  of hii es:bldosIl  or.'rt $i:o_,l',  inl t' piit''::, ti    P slcrti cily
nof(d s!)4 itulI-,  not 1Wt    r i  ly.
i}h(' o"a.ulogy of    t'i r~.:-l:-ir:n' tli  x},L-,i., afterr.a  fu.       l  V;'m:lioti?-ttf,t' <,.t('pt (;' t;e' i ct-c  iL'1
pir.dc' to ('         t:ll,   s:l:. c'i(,(1; lv ihe:oe.n'sent of
pias.s:g(5s, Or by;e  & -i; i:,t,] ex-l'ic'it st" tir-. rnts, no
p'a s;ae sheuld  It (1 I-   1        d,',,to(d'as C0:1'alicti-m
tis'  and tufthn ir, tl h  t':lcn any p iss'ag c,  i t inb gr,ou1s or susn;e'<pta.-ble ci  of o t ilit    oite interpret tionr, thbat meobnin"l t'till be  pri                  iecd,
which   is 1(1ot ae's.eortnt wvith tle vth I;ole seh1 lIIe
of revealed reliien:mnl the'ig   e            cal i cuient of
Scripture.  It t in t}is way that, philisophy interiprets nrituatl"I phtieo    leria; hviien o1ce a general
law  is estiblisited  p'u1t:t ie, lar facts are  placed unider it, and any appeara1rce tlhat sfems" coiitradietory is speeially exanminedt; and of two exlanations of the apparent ationm(;.ly. that one is chosen
wthich harmonizes bestt with the general laws.




212         ANALOGY OF F.AITI1.
If we would comprehend the sense in- whice.
God speaks to man, we must contemplate revelation, not in its fragments, but as a whole. We
may not be able to frame a system  from  the
Scriptures, which will be logically complete in
all its parts.  Links may be wanting in the
chain, which we may be unable to supply. But
the grand outline of Christian doctrine cannot
be easily mistaken. wle'e the heart is duly prepared to embrace the truth.  The essential doctrines and precepts of revealed religion are presented so frequently on the pages of the sacred:
volume, that none truly desirous of knowing the
will of God, can well ifail to discover them. In
regard to these the voice of Scripture is uniform,
and this uniformity constitutes the analogy of
faith, and becomes a law of interpretation of
very frequent and extensive application.  It is
not necessary, that a doctrine, in order to come
within the scope of this analogy, and be received
with the utmost assurance, should be uncontroverted; for almost every truth of God has been
controverted. But it must be proved to the
conviction of all who appeal to this analogy, before the rule can be applied as a principle of interpretation. This analogy is a rule to the expositor himself. If others dispute what he believes to be concurrently taught in the Word of
God. and by the aid of which he rejects one
meaning of a passage, and adopts another, the
principle will be useful only to himself. But
should they agree with him in acknowledging
the inculcation of revelation, this analogy then
becomes a rule not only to the individual himself, but also to those who coincide with him in
opinion.  Neither systems of philosophy, or of




ANALOGY OF FAITH.            213
Divinity, nor the Creeds and Confessions of different churches. constitute this rule of analogy,
although nothing is more common than the
substitution of such systems and Creeds for the
Word of Life. The utility and even necessity of
some formulary of faith. either written or unwritten, to the maintenance of an outward ecclesiastical organization, and to the promotion
of Christian communion and fellowship, cannot
be successfully controverted. Such a formulary,
in order to accomplish the ends contemplated
by it. and to accord with the genius and design
of the Gospel, should evidently consist, like the
Apostles' Creed, of a brief statement of the principal facts and essential doctrines of Revealed
religion, expressed in simple and perspicuous
language, and divested as much as possible of
all metaphysical subtleties and distinctions, foreign to the Bible.  Creeds more or less sharp
and circumstantial have existed in the Church
throughout all its branches from the Apostles'
age down to the present time.  A few modern
sects, it is true, claim that they have no creed
except the Bible; but the only difference in
this respect between them and others is, that
their creed is unwritten.  At the same time, it
must be remembered that human creeds are
not a rule or standard of interpretation; for if
they were, the rule would vary with' every existing dogmatic formulary, and every system of
theology, which the ingenuity of man has devised, and consequently would be worthless.'Whatever is not read therein " (in the Bible)
says the Protestant Episcopal Church in her Articles of Religion, " nor may be proved thereby,




214            ANALO(GY  OF FAITH.
is not to be reqluiroe l of any man, that it should
be beleved asl an article of faith."''
O1l thl'e c(;antrary, it is a do-tatiic  law in the
sy sten  of hrml m- notics, ree, irved by tllhe Romish
Church, tli t " thler   is i. fte ('th   arch of C1hris'.
(mean',ti- tile (],C'.]i It of Uo-,oi:,e) at cer't(iz  SaColC/oard
otf t,-prtti/i.t pr 1 idt. 601/1 t, o -l.,oi t!   c,!ip/tac ilseli:.
aid t/lc proie(t/(  1.tt!iit of' thilC'Eari';  to  hic/lc,
stalld(ar  all iii le'p'cit,'laio,1    f,S'c'ritl'C rvi'vst beC coiformed.l    T rhis stan lalrd of' interlpretation  thus
extrilisic both to the Bible and to pirivate or individual.judgaient, is claimed to be " that body
of doctrine of wilich  the Alpoto/ole  ttleclrilg was
composed.'  This apostolic teachin(, independent of Scripture and furnishing the rule for its
interpretation, is alleged to be found in the writings of the Christian  fathers, which  have preserved  the  traditions of  the  Church.   This
standard, we are told, ihas positively  declared
the meaning of some parts of Scripture, and in
regard to such  passages this meaning must be
given to the sacred  text.   And as to the other
parts of Scripture, which are not positively explained by this standard, we must take care not
to give to them  any interpretation which woulld
be opposed  to  it.   According to  the  Romisl1
Church, then, the analogy of faith  is not the
harmony of Scripture with  itself, but the harmony of Scripture with tradition, and the traditional teaching  of the fathers is made by  this
law  the  touchstone to which the word of God
must be brought, and tried and explained.
Thus an arbitrary law, having no foundation
or authority in reason, and recognized no where
else in the domain  of Literature, is made to
override and supersede to the broad extent of




LAWVS 01' INTERltPRETATION.       2 1.
its application, all acknowledged hermeneutical
principles; and the whole science of interpretation, by the powerful spell of this mragic wand,
is circumscribed within such narrow limits, as to
be practically useless. Ilolcling such a law, is it
surprising that the Romish Priesthood should
look with disfavor on the general circulation of
the Scriptures, and positively forbid the reading
of them  by the people except in their own  authorized translation and accompanied wvith notes
and conmments in support of the dog tnmals o F theiChurch.
C' ATEl I-      XIX.
LAWVS 01 INTI.
C' ONS 1v'.
The sonic aCI1ds ai.a icnt, stalod ini the scaiu -ne c?c Xiot, ace to ec i c/7)1, c d {   ci  e (cEd th e scoie
sense.
The object which anv autllor   i- hr.s discourlse
or writing has in view  is to communicate his.
ideas to others by the aid of words.  These,
however, would not express his thoughts intelligibly, if the same words vwhen occurring in the
same connexion, were used sometimes in one
sense, and sometimes in another.  He would be
constantly liable to be.misunderstood. Nothing can be more unreasonable and more likely
to mislead than an arbitrary variation without
notice in the meaning of important words in
the same passage.  This canon is not, however,




216            tGENERAL LAWS
of universal application.  Sometinmes the same
word is designedly repeated in the closest connexion in a different sense even in serious discourse.  In such cases, however, which are not
very numerous, the difference is generally rendered so obvious by circumstances, that there
can be no reasonable doubt of the change of
neaning.
I/zlustraijis.e  -Xlatt. 2: 22. S' Let the dead bury
their dead."'  fTere the word dcead is used first
in a figurative or,coral' sense, as in Rev  3: 1.
and then  itcra.ly   Rom. 9: 6. "They are not:all Israel (i. e. Spiritual Israel) who are of Iseiaei."   (i e. the liteiral   Israel.)  2 Cor. 5: 21.
i; He bath mia4de hirn to be see, (i. e. a sin-offering) for us who knew  no aid, (i. e. who was conscious of having  never committe.d  sin.)  The
figure enploved in such cas'es is called antanaCt  N o N V.:;/  or,' so                    i   t'    lxitedi?'. i /.
lf/.si.,O;,~'.-Ex  9' C,. A1All the cattle of
Egypt died.'  The connexion in which this passage occurs, shows that this clause refers to some
of all ]diit., rather than the absolute tolalzit of the
number spoken of; for in subsequent parts of
the same chapter, the cattle of the king and
people of Egypt are mentioned in such a way as
shows that a considerable part of the nation's
property  of this  description  still remained.
Again: Ex. 9: 25. "The hail smote every herb
of the field, and brake every tree of the field."
A few days after this, we find the devastation of




OF INTERPRETATION.            217
the locusts thus described: " They did eat every
herb of the field, and all the fruit of the trees,
which the hail had left.' E.. 32: 3. " All the
people brake off the golden earrings which were
in their ears, and brought them  unto Aaron.'
That the phrase " all the people," here simply
denotes a large number, and( not the whole, or
even a majority of the people, may be reasonably
inferred from the circumstance, that the stroke
of punitive justice, for this act of idolatry, fell
only upon 3900 persons, while the totality of
Hebrew men at that time capable of beaiing
arms, was 600,000.  Matt. 3: 5. "There went
out to him Jerusalem and all Judea, and all the
country about the Jordan." A large number
only can here be intended.  We find the phrase'' tnd,' r heaiezm," employed by the inspired writers
to signify an extent of country large, indeed,
but falling far short of a geographical universality.  Acts 2: 5. "There were dwelling at Jerusalem, Jews, devout men, out of every nation'nnder I(carvc."  With this passage is combined a
geographical enumeration, which points out the
extent of country intended by' every nation"
-as being from Italy to Persia, and from Egypt
to the Black Sea.  (See also Col. 1: 23.)  Rom.
11: 26. "Then all Israel shall be saved."  i. e.
the greater part, and not every individual. Deut.
28: 63, 64. "' Ye shall be plucked from off the
land whither thou goest to possess it, and the
Lord shall scatter thee among all people, from
one end of the earth even unto the other end
of the earth."  This is a poetic description of
the dispersion of the Jewish people, as the punishment of their apostacy from God, and their
rejection of the Messiah: but no one can regard




2198 (o!'\;. riA1', L 1LAWS
ttlhe oxpIe-s io I;,,,i,.~)otiil, a prope  geozralhica1l U niv,':, i'tv       (q'}  S    a., s ll lantls
and o"!i rn;at!',.-;"',1;' 1}'ll~on(, 14: 17. ca nnot be
takeDn,as r,-,("Pl!, n:'  Ot,.,  tihe  r iniegto of Svvia,
A, rrll.a.   5.   A,   1n A.,1)i~, and  Egypt.
I Kgs  1()': 24- "    i;\ t,!ii lthe (eait  sought the
plr'sen,'ce of  (li~! tl' lint,' his vwisdoml."  This
must be s},| )po,-0I t  to r{iel( rlme'ely to the resort
(f embassies   inl   cel-nllimintiairy  visits fromr
sovereignls ani 4St Sats within such a distance of
the  metrlopolis of tlhi  Ilebhrew  mnonaichy, as
might have oapc-lr eed innmeruse in those tiries..
but which wa, quite sniall as comnpo'ed with the
then inhabited tp,- Its of the earth.  Our Saviout
says of the (Qu-en of Sheba, who Nwas one of the
principal of these visit ants, and  whose dominions were on the easteorn side of the Pled Sea.
only about 12 or 1400 miles south of Jerusalem.
-that she " that came from  the utter2,nost e)arts ofJ
the carth/ to hear the wiscom of Solomon."  The
language employed in instances suchl as thesce
is in  ftact a natural hyperbole  belonging   not
to artificial rhetoric,  but to the dialect, of cormmon life. -
CANOeN VI,
It is a coni  on usa(eC ine   -'icjil:,tun'c to c,(-.2e' C1 0i s'-,
parity betwcco thwo objects by a rejectiioiz oj tie less.
Thus in  Hos. 6: 6. Jehovah  says, "I desire
mercy and not sacrifice," i. e. rather than sacrifice.   Both mercy and sacrifice are important;
and both are therefore commended; yet the
former is to be regarded as of superior excellence.  Moral duties occupy  a higher ground
* See J. Pye Smith's Lectures on Geology.




01' ISTERPRETATION.'21i
than ritual observances.  John 6: 27. "Labor
not for the meat which perisheth, but for that
which endureth unto everlasting life," by which
our Lord doubtless meant that we should labor
chiefly for the latter, and give it the preeminence
in our thoughts and efforts.  St. Paul declares
(1 Cor. 1: 17) that Christ had sent himn?o70, to
baptize, but to preach the Gospel.  i. e. the
preaching of the Gospel was to be his main business, and baptizing, though important, was to
occupy a subordinate place.  Eph. 6: 12. " We
wrestle not against flesh and blood;" i. e. out
struggle is not only, or not chiefly, against human beings, but against superhuman adversaries.  In Ex. 16: 2. it is said that "the, whole
congregation  murmured  against AMoses andt
Aaron;" while in ver. S. it is saidt "your murmurings are no! against us, but against the Lord.'
The criminality of the people in murmuring
against God was so flagrant, as to make their offence against their human superiors unworthy
of notice.  Acts 5: 4. "Thou hast not lied unto
men, but unto God," i. e. not so much unto
men as unto God.
CAN ON' VII.
Ti/e na{tural cllnd obviozs 9neanib,9 of a n sa pasisj o,
sentence is zusually th thue re  eanizng.
A man of sense will speak or write in order to
be understood, unless he has a particular object
to gain by employing ambiguous terms and expressions.  It is, therefore, to be presumed that
he will express himself by the use of well-chosen
and. appropriate words, as clearly and intelligibly as possible.  Hence the more easy and natural interpretation-that which lies plainly on




GENERL. LA..WS
the surflace, and which would ordinarily first
occur to the mind of the hearer or reader as the
rnpaning, should be preferred to one which is
difficult and less obvious.  This law does not
imply. of course, that every word in the sentence
or proposition should be employed in its primary Ar literal sense: for the figurative meaning
of a word mav be just as plain and intelligible
to the most counmon apprehension as the literal
meaning.  But it has reference to the entire
thought contained in the passage. Tthis canon,
however, has several exceptions and limitations.
1. When the literal or apparent meaning asserts
that which involves a known impossibility, or a
strong improbability, it must be given up.
Iftlstri-,tioiz. Ps. 58; 3. "The wicked  are
estranged from the womb; they go astray, as
soon as they are born, speaking lies."
The meaning of the letter here is, that the
wicked sin from the moment in which they are
born; and that from  the same moment, they
both walk, and speak lies, which is a natural
impossibility.  Ps. 51: 5.'; Behold, I was shapen
in initquity; and in sin did my mother conceive
me.'  Interpreted strictly according to its literal and apparent meaning. this passage would
impeach the chastity of David's mother-a supposition unwarranted by history and having no
probability in its favor. Such passages as these
belong to the domain of rhetoric, and are to be
interpreted by poetic license, as the strong language of hyperbole. They are not the material
with which dogmatic theology should be constructed.
2. When the literal and apparent meaning
contradicts any positive precept of Scripture, it




Of INTERPRETATIOANT.          221
must be abandoned.  The principle of seifconsistency attributed to the Bible fborms the basis
of this exception.
Illustrtion.-Eph. 4: 26.  "i Be ye anglry, and
sin not."   This appeairs to be incorisistent with.
v. 31. in which all angler is forbidcden   It1c w
then are we to reconcile the two passagcs?  Various methods have been adopted to remove the
apparent discrepancy.  All agree, that it is not
a command to be angry.  The whole tenor of
Scripture forbids such a ccnstruction.  Some
render both clauses of the verse interrogatively:
"Are ye angry? and do ye not sinl?"'  But the
context forbids such a construction.  Others
render only the first clause interrogativelv: "Are
ye angry? yet sin not."   Others interpret the
passage hypothetically:  " If, or though, ye be
angry, sin not,".  OtIers still, take the imperative in a permissive sense:' Be angry," (viz.
when the occasion properly authorize,-s anger):
"yet sin not."  (viz. by yielding irrnoderately
to the emotion, and thus cherish'ng a harsh and
unchristian temper.)  These interpreters allege
that anger is not in itself necessarily sinful, and
that it 1i only cavscless, (Matt. 6: 22.) or exccssivet
anger which is forbidden.  The emotion described by the Nword " anger " (oey) is complex,
and consists in a sense of personal wrong, unjustly inflicted, and a feeling more or less intense towards the author of the supposed injury.  The first is doubtless a feeling entirely
proper: for it is involuntary and necessary to
keep alive in our minds the distinction between
right and wrong in human conduct.  The sinfulness of the other depends upon its degree
and character. If it rises to the height of ade



9222 9(:;ENERAL LAWS
sire for revenge, it is a wrong feeling and expressly forbidden.  But if it terminates in mere
displeasure, or just indignation, it is not sinful.
Both  feelings, or the two  combined, are expressed in Scripture by the term anger.   Thus
when our Saviour is said to have looked "round
about"  on  the  perverse  Jews " with  anger,"
nothing more is intended than that he was filled
with  virtuous  indignation  at their conduct.
(Ma. 3: 5.)  It is in this sense also that anger is
attributed to God.   But even when justifiable,
the feeling is not to be cherished and perpetuated.  "Let not tile  sun  go down  upon  your
ria.th,."  i. e. your a'niger inust not only be  modeate  ad  en a, iOA.'Ay f''ti re l ferorn  the spirit of re-;en"eO, but it munLIt ule of s  uo t  dlurtion; it must
nOt ab allxoweCd t3o hrve alnvTonOtinued influence
in the mind.
3. The obvious'nll:n,iur  is not the true mieomni:, wvhen the'e, is an expreiss lim-itation of it
else  here aff7PinrmedJ.
7,.'[u,,t,,o;J' iot,. JoJ's    1 11     1.' le ca.me unto
his o7 vn, a-ndl his (tn  reece(ivd him  not'."  We
sltldCt irnfr  i'~ ouni this pa.lse taken by itseif,
th,?t nIOt, so()litzriy Jewv  believed in Christ.  But
thO-e voey next  senltence containsr the necessary
limnitoion. t       I'ut as mansy as c; eceivved him  t)
thernm   a gv he p-ower," &e.  A very slight exatmliation of St. John's wlrtings,    whose style is the
nmost simple and direct of all the E'angelistst
wVil supply many more ilustration-.  See also
Judg. 9: o. Matt. 26: 60. Jo. 1: S. comp. with
ch. 3: 9.  In 1 Chron. 23: 13. it is said that the
Aaronic priesthood is established forever.   But
from  Jere. 31: 31-34. and Hfeb. viii. and ix. we
learn that the continuance of the  priesthood,




OF  INTERPTRETA'TION'.           223
and indeed of thle wh.'ole Lvifieal c1ipipant tion,
is limited  to thel  apaiwnt-ld tinwe,. when  thlat dispensation shl1e1d  pass away    ald  be suceed ed
by another moil e pei fa-t a:nil rnor e    ndurinr
4. WhTe-n t}ie,1 [)pll'eit I me'aI I'  isi to-r       i, nept,
forced  or triflingu, it c:annotta    be   nte  mlaning intended.   Such a n-ia i,ce:,:'to I0t )    e-qjected as
unworth y ol 0  inl'iration.:tl'ad      thet  dig nity and
gravity of the subject    i'by ict;.,':,  ai r cent when
at seniti   ent 0 is a - ilaLuta   ti' wier, tiwhiA   is
alike tC o:i.'.;tl  haotl, tci) liS  c,,nst - tci, m!anner of
thila1iily,nl~ Sl ki7,:apl(  to,'!as il' antion and
objec          t i it atei'itreIti  ie1n  w  ih  do tvioitnee3
ill  xny   txv  toU  the  t'ui a    ao:-a'trii   to[ a'rtthor's
11l 1s /;i.                              tL,.'  0li  t 1jy be
WI rlte i'ipr('tdti-,'        ia:'    is cortati,.T. to tileA orf-,it'        t.e          a     i,t',: a
an   d;'ct'l'om/;l/l.,,f ll. r. A(  ii:w',-;'eto   tot tthie;d.s e' -iz' toe i}-.i. w,,'),h / 7i>t.,/c.'.,: ti p i',cad l.p t in
n.,c, lnte,'i'"t l             ro,'., w'ich    ais,*n,:   tC, tt he
dinl'n'y ct, 0 f17 t/}c,    w              it':_ tt t Sa'
Tl t, oeetN -las'    till'-''on  i      t  itflpat'l ant doetine in the court  a ot'ton  zt ".i me-l di   s  as ity'ccountd  d  fLi  bh ai   s-e' 11 oo',,     pr inapie- ot  the
emind.   Toe let     l riaXia-i (eXp S'es; it thu, s: I.
is impos~sib!,  to  hink   of emvery  thing, to foresee
everything, to( oxpiess e-verv y tIling.l."   The onlis



224            GENERAL LAWS
sion of a doctrine, where we should expect to
find mention of it, is, therefore, no proof that
the doctrine is ignored.
Illustration.a —ark 16: 16.   Ifre that believeth
and is baptized, shall be saved."  Here is an
omission of repentance, as a condition of salvation. Matt. 28: 19.' Go ye, therefore, and teach
all nations, baptizing them," &c.  In this passage there is no expressive mention either of repentance or faith as a pre-requisite to baptism.
1 Tim. 2: 5. "There is one God, and one mediator between God and man, the mani  Christ
Jesus."  In this passage there is affirmed the
unity of God and the mediatorship and humanity of Christ.  But to quote this passage to prove
that Christ is simply a man, would be a violation of our canon, because his divinity is elsewhere clearly and abundantly taught.  The
passage undoubtedly teaches the humanity of
Christ; but it does not disprove his divinity.
Just as in the sentence " man is mortal," there
is an important truth omitted and the meaning
of the sentence is to be determined in harmony
with it.  It does not disprove directly, or implied, the immortality of the soul.  In Eph. 5:
23. it is said that " Christ is the Saviour of the
body."  Surely the apostle does not mean to assert that he merely saves the body, and leaves
the soul to perish.
CANON Ix.
Of two or nore possible meanings of a passage, that
is to 6e preferred which exhibits the most full and fertile sense.
The Holy Scriptures were appointed by God
to enlighten and improve mankind in all ages




OF INTERPRETATION.'225
and under all circumstances.  It is, thereforel
to be presumled that those books and passages.
in which weighty religious truths are propounded, contain an important, rich, and comprehensive sense. It is not unfrequently the case that
a passage of Scripture is granmmnatically susceptible of several meanings, all of which accord with
the context and the analogy of'Scripture; but
one of them contains a fullness, (,-xnewon;), richness and fertility of sense, not possessed by
the others, which render it more instructive,
and admits of a wider application than the others. This is to be preferred, because it answers
best the end for which a rexvelation was given,
alnd is, therefore, most likely to be the meaning
intenlded by the inspired author.
This Canon is not intended to afford the least
sanction to the practice of putting a sense into a
writer's words, which he cannot be supposed to
have himself attached to them.  A certain class
of expositors are in the habit of pressing each
word of the sacred text, until every idea, which
by mere possibility it might etymologically contain, is forced out, and alledge as.a reason for
this violent and singular method of treating the
inspired volume, that by this operation the pregnant sense —' pragnantes sensus Scripture'-as
they call it, and the holy emphasis of its expressions can alone be received in all their fullness.  This method is pursued without the least
regard to connexion, design, character of the
writer, and coherence of his ideas.  By this
means they hope to make the sense of Scripture
more edifying than it is likely to become by a
mere grammatico-historical interpretation.
15




226             GENTERAL LAWS
CANON X.
The Old Testcaneit shoulld be iatelretL(ed in the
light of the NATew.
Much of the New Testament consists of exposition of the Old.  The true intent and spirit of
the latter are unfolded in the former.  The discourses of our Saviour, and especially his sermon
on the mount, are emphatically of this character.  In these the falsity and carnality of the
traditional interpretation.are exposed, and the
spiritual and comprehensive import of the Mo
saic law are fully exhibited.  It is true that the
New Testament w-ri;teos often quote the Old Testamlent by  acconmmodation  for the  purpose
merely of illustruaiting their sub"jeot.   But it
should also be remelmbe ed that very friequently,
when they quote oi' reftl to Old restatmek  t texts,
they cite tLheir    s proofs: and not only so. but
they authorlitativxely interpret and apply ttlem,
drawing outt their properoi  and full meaning sas
developed in tle 1'ttr rxevelation.  From th er
interpretation ai.td applicaton of the Old Testamrent tliere is nlo appeal; for the Divine inspiration of our Loirl'antd  his apostles, being received
as an axioll in tle science, of Biblical hermeneutics —as a do;l'rnatic lai of interpi'ettion, whlich
must be conestntly kept in mind;  it ftollows  that
their expositions o' the Old Testamient must be
regarded as ii fallible.  By this rule we learn the
irnport and fulfillment of the Old Testament
prophecies respecting the Messiah, and the typical character of the Jexwish sacrifices and of
many historical personages and events under
the ancient dispensation.  TIie principrle in question, however, should be applied only to such




OF INTERPRETATION.                   227
passages and events as are particularly referred
to by the  New  Testament writers;  and it prohibits us froln interpreting a passage in the Old
Testament in a differ ent sense from  that which
is declared by Christ or his apostles, to be the
true meaning.  We may refer to the 2d and 16th
Psalms in illustration of ouI' rule.  These Psalnms
are expressly  declared  by the New Testament
writers to refer prophetically to  Christ and the
latter especially, both St. Peter and( St. Paul affirm  to  apply to  him  exciusively.    -engstenberg, however-,, adop tilg, the idecalistic hypothesis, lregards the  16th P alil as g    eneric  and designedly de -ciriptive of the whole class of pious
sufi'erers i  thus (tt;ip'. a?:ide altoiether its proper
Iessiane and  prohi'otic  clharacter.   in this he
is foliow,.: d by  Dr. Alexacnder in his comlmentary
o n the Pu.l::lip.   Bat svitri sin;,tular inconsistency, the slm.  Ime lea edcl   co e1111 i  ntato  in his valuabl  tle we    o  thlte At.  of t0le Ap)ostles, mlnaintains
on tii':e't —ority of the  two   tpostles       l already
nantmed, thlat thle  plltm   IS nmlesianic, and that
the ex e  anl    d  aregut  entl Llal i    dti ve     nial by both
of trheam, tlat. the wvoYlis can be applied to Dav-id,'exclud.s not only  thei  typicfal, but also  the
genere.-i c  m.:atld ol  interptz tationn." e
]'/~ lr,:i,',.S'Jt' (/O7 i(e  tdich /'   /,/./i,wi:J i   cld p7/iv,, p,~'s tsc,c,.,c.  a,'f ef_/ct[  / o' /Il ctg, c]tiracteri
morct aot. i, a.W/ci-/c:r dtc:,zsoyt,,t circqm sh)esso'e
ofJ nrtri z; in Olltucr' w1o;rgs, th~el hctr:c 57r, _ e)ro si ve.
The race, like the individual,' las  its peliod. of
infancy, of childhood, of youth, and of maturity;
See Alexander on Acts 2: 29, and 13: 35 37.




22S            C(ENERAI,  I,AWS
and the light conimmunicated must be adapted to
each of these periods respectively. The former,
as well as the latter, requires to be educated;
and this education is carried on partly by the
ordinary providence of God, and partly by his
extraordinary and special interposition.  In respect to the supernaturalprocess, Jehovah, after
the flood, selected a particulal family to be the
favored depositors of his revealed wiil.  Next a
nation was chosen,-the descendants of that
fanmily;-and at last, the door of the Temnple of
Truth wias thrown open to all rmankind. and the
Gospel was directed to lie preached to all nations.  The entire Bible, indeed, contains but
one and the samtne doctrine, so f4ar1 aS reslicts the
essential truths of revealed iel -ion; yet the
communication and developmentt of these tutihs
and of the corresponding duties which they involve, were gradual and progressive; and not
immerdiately and at once complete.  The notions which were entertained by men at various
periods, or, in other words, the subjective ideas
of religion, were far front being unform, and
the expression or exhibition of religious truths
was necessarily proportioned to the more confined, or subsequently to the more enlarged
views, the less refined or more rational knowledge which prevailed at separate periods, and
among various successive generations of miankind. The moral weakness of the llebrews in
the time of Moses, and the strength of their
sensual affections, and evil propensities, rendered it necessary to make some allowance to that
people, and not to strain the divine law to too
high a pitch of moral perfection. Thus our Saviour declares that it was on account of their'




OF INTERPRETATION.          229' hardness of heart," that certain practices were
permitted to continue among them, which are
inconsistent with the higher law of Christianity.
On this accouut polygamy, and concubinage,
div6rce on the most frivolous grounds, slavery,
the avenging of blood, and several other things
were not entirely prohibited, but only had limits assigned to them. Nothing can be more e(vident than that God has acted in his dealings
with men on the principle of a tapting his requirements to the capacity of the human race,
and of raising the standard of duty in proportion to the intellectual and moral advancement
of mankind, and the progress of a true civilization, and that lie has regarded good men and
their acts in a different manner under different
degrees of light.  Hence what has been tolerated in one age, ceases to be so in another, and
even comes to be regarded as criminal in a third,
Both the ignorance of man and the hardness of
his heart, are elements which seem to have entered into the calculations of the Supreme Intelligence, (if the expression may be permitted)
whenever he has vouchsafed a revelation of his
will. In thus educating mankind step by step,
the Creator has advanced the standard of piety
and virtue, as men have become more capable of
understanding the principles on which they rest.
And it is not easy to see how this could have been
otherwise; unless the Deity had hastened the progress of-society by an overpowering and miraculous impulse. This, however, we know to be altogether alien from the general character of his
providential government.  The Mosaic institutions and laws were doubtless the best that
could have existed at the time they were pro



230              GENERAL LAWS
mulgated, among a people, who were yet at so
low a degree of civilization.   And is a denmonstrative proof of the divinity and irmmutability
of Christianity, that it lays clown principles in
relicion and ethics adapted to the very highest
state of moral culture  to which man can attain
in this world.  In view of this gre'at principle in
the moral government, of' God, the interpreter
in  explaining  the doctrines  contained in the
books of the Old Testaml:  nt, should  carefully
guard against t;.ansfei-ri,-  to a  orlmer'ae the
superior knowledge  of subscquent periodsagainst obtrudinrg upon ancient timecs nicad earlier
dispensations that whl1ich  onlyl belongs to more
recent times andc to a kat,:-r andri moe i-rfect,
dispensation.
CANON XII.
T!]c C0on lanC-S rf (rod  7ddrieeSS/cd tO) woc w:,i:n, oi' O'iC
g9e"a c0rca  of mi aCi'?c 6iilt;, o/i' bCa O i C/i(-i'
gencrations oni1o So 1  a1 s /i.  sToi   cc. i  Ci.i C CS'c,. cci
adcl  co'dlitioo  ae sairc l.
This principle., which mnoe pl ropeley       respecsts
the application than the interpret'ation of Scip'J)ture, is doubtless liable to  evasion  an1d Vpelversion; but its truth cannot well be denied, "lndo it
is acted upon constantly by the Christian world.
"So far," says Prof. Stuart,'as our circumst.iaces
and relations are like those of the persons to
whom  the Scriptures were originally addressed,
so far what was said to them, is bindin   upon us 
but no further."  In consequence of the progressive character of Revelation, and its adaptation to
the particular condition of man at certain periods of his intellectual and moral growt'h, some
laws which were once required to be rigidly ob



OF INTERPRET.ATION.              231
served accordin  to their literal exactness, have
ceased to be obligatory in their strict sense; but
inasmuch as in their s);i7)it they were adapted to
future periods and equally important and useful
at all times, they are in tha t sense still in force
while other laws beinr intendled only to be temporary,  local, anzl confinlle  to a particular dis.pensation, ha;ve passed away with that dispensation, and are no longer in iforce.  It is so wit h
human Iltw\s; and hlience the leg Ital raxims,'"Jie/vteii.: (raltco,i  t(,lnCt i).sca {ca," and, i'r'd" c,:n   cessat C     lati
lcgis, ccssat isl. Cex.'i-le getter of the injunction
to hallow  the Sabbath day, was in its utmost
stirictness, applicable only to the  Jews; but the
Suprene authority from which it proceededthe sole-mnity with which it was inculcated-the
position it occupies in the tahbles written by the
finger of Gods-its a(lmii abl  acdaptation to the
necessities of -man both temporal anld spiritual
in every age, a-ll these and various other considerations wh  ic      ht mi bht e mentioned, combine
to nmake it certain that this rwas no transitory
institution.  lThe slpi'it- o  the ordinance, therefore, survives the Mo'osi'c ('coriomny,  altlhou(gh the
mere letter of it mvay have bee  alb olished. It
has lost. nothing by tile delilutiiolln rf tlie,TJcwish polity, except tlhose incidental ciicu;atances, such as the precise day oil the wcek, the prohibition to travel, etc., which hav.e unavoidably
dropped  away  fbrom  it in cn(seqtuence  of a
change of dispesation, but which are iot at all
essential to the attainment of the ends contem —
plated by the law.  Other laws have ceased altogether to be operative and obligatory.   Such
is the case with the sacrificial rites, the Levitical
institutions and the ceremonial ordinances of




232             GENERAL LAWS
the Hebrew ritual.  Though prescribed by Jehovah, they have accomplished  their purpose,
and are no longer in for6e.  Theyv received their
fulfilment in Christ, and by that fulfilment in
the great. antitype, they  were abrogated and
paSsed away.
('ANON XSII.
The inte?:pretcr should eadeauor to plac(e /iiaself in
the i(lentteal sittation and ci vrncu sttlces of the indic:idttal wvhose writings he interiprets, c-rtl ot those to?whom they were imecldiatcl' ad&les'se(l.
Every man has sorme peculiarity, according to
which his thought's and the expression of them,
are fashioned.  It is a dictate of reason, that
this peculiar characteristic, or individuality, of a
writer, should be, as fai as possible, studied and
observed in interpretation.  Accordingly, the
expositor should endleavor to make himself acquainted with all those circunmstances, which
would have a-n influence iii giving shape to this
individuaIlity; such as the authoi's c,- urntry aind
origin;  hisi eAucation: the instruction which he
received  in his youth in religious and secular
knowled(ge;  his custoinmary  vocation and habits
of life: his na.tural temperanment an(l previous
history; his nmanners, opinions, and relations, so
far as they can be discovered, and as they stand
in connexion ~with some one or more passages of
his writings.  A knowledge of these particulars
will often  throw  great light on an author's
meaning, and render that luminous which otherwise would be obscure and uncertain. Tl'he
occasion which gave rise to the composition of a
writing, is often the cause of an author's writing
just what and in the manner he does, and no




OF INTEPIIF.TATIONX.              233
other.  The time, place, and circums;tances of a
writer frequently determine his thoughts and
sentiments, and influence the choice of his words
and their combinations.  Men are accustomed,
moreover, to express themselv es in various ways,
according to the several states of mind in which
they happen to be at the time of speakingg or
writing.  The interpreter, therefotre, should attentively consider the particular state of'mind in
which words are spoken or written; xwhether in
a calm  and collected, or in an excited state.
Hence the rule: a writers l-msngtyge s/ouult be interpreterl in conformity with his /-nown character, previous
history,  ha]bits of thoghl, o)iiions, relioin, situation,
ndl circntmstanccs; and no princij)le.foreiynr to the
views enaicl habitfs!f the writer shole te b allowedo to exee t an iuflcce on' the interpr cttion, of his writngS,
whether philo.sophical or thceoloyicct.
Again: Evexry author writes imnledia.teiy for
his conteminwiorarics, or at least.'or a certain class
of themn. - I  is consequently expected  to make
choice of woirds and phrases, to;vhich the reader
is likely to attach the same ideas as the writer.
Accordingly the interiprreter must pay particular
attention to the usage of words which prevailed
at the time, to the modes of thinking, the sentiments, the manners and custonms, of those for
whom  the xwriter composed his work.    That',"
says Planck, m'may always be considered as the
true sense of the writer to be explained, which
-either alone, or at least as the most natural sense,
would be suggested  by his expressions to the:men, to whom, and for whom, he wrote."  This
remark. however, is not intended to authorize
an interpreter to allow the spirit and mode of.thinking, of the age to modify or do away with




234             Gr-ENERALI  LAWS
the evident mnieaning of a passage; but merely
to assist him  in ascertaininL what the meaning
is.  lefstrati(-to: The New  Testament  was written by native JTews, principallv for the immediate benefit of Jewiishl converts to Christianity,
who were  acquainted onlSy with the Greek language of common life.  Consequently we should
expect them  not only to employ the common
dialect (xoi/ h'~:o)    bu4t to  use  particular
words an1.l phrases on religious subjects in a Hebraic rather thlle   a casici C Greek sense.  Thus
the ph7rase "You, rill die in your sins,'" (John
8: 24) would mesa. acco:'ding to the Greek idiomn1,
YoI in;e11 i'cr.seeve)re /o(!tec cete of   l;)i sioio.?erg; but
accoirding to the ILebrew, IT.I ueil' e co..dCtin^tt/d
on  ccO,;t' e  oto i r' s,,,.s.  It cailnnot be doubted,
therefore, tilat thle latter is the true meaning.
Again: No one would. have thougtlt that oaths
were  Ti rbid 1den on every occaseionin Matt. 5: 24.
James 5: 12, provided hs had sufliciently considered to os0o7. the interidiction was made. and the
customs and cpinions wylich werei pat'ticularly
reproblatcd.  For the poitsonls here specially referred to, wtere probably those who at that tinme
neither afilmed nor denied any  thin, even  on
the most triflina occasions, wxithout the addition
of an oath, (Matt. 5: 37 ); and who thought that
in an oath, iln which  they swore by heaven or
by something  else than  God, even falsehood
mi ght be affillmed or truth denied, nithloten ])Cijry,
which they supposed could not be committed,
unless by those wiho inti oduced the name of Jehovah in their oaths.  There is no reflerenee
whatever to judicial oaths, and there is no reason for supposing that a necessary oath taken  religiotss/y i? the nacme of' Godl is forbidden,




OF INTERPRETATION.              235
By carrying ourselves back into the age of the
writer, and making ourselves familiar with the
circumstances by which he was surrounilded-the
geography of the country, the history of the
times,  the customs,  manners, and prevailing
opinions of the people, and all the objects, natural and artificial, which most usually engagecd
their attention -we shall be enabled to understand, limit and apply expressions, w\Nhich otherwise rnight be unintelligible, or which, from the
imperfection of' human language(, are too Ceneral
and extensive to be taken in tleii literal sense.
To this end, the most valuable  assistance may
be derived from the study of Biblic.l Archaology, in which are collected into-a focus all the
most important facts from  travels in the Eis.st
and other sources, which illustrate the Bible.
It sometimes happens,  howev e:', thal a spea'.k.
or writer propounds truths, which are either not.
understood at all, or very imperfectly apprehended by his hearers or first readers; or truths
+which are  at variance with their educational
prejudices, pre onceiyed opinions an-d cherished
sentiments.  In that case, the sense of the author must be carefully distinguished from  that
in which his hearers or reade-rs understand him.
In such instances, the sense does not necessarily
consist in that meaning which the hearers or
readers attach to the words, but it is thlat sensec
wlhch th]e hearcrs or readers oaght to attach to thlcmn.
Nothing is more common in the ordinary intercourse of life than for one person to misunderstand and misinterpret the meaning of another's
language, even on trite and familiar subjects;
and this, not simply in consequence of the intrinsic ambiguity of human language, but from.




236           GENER.AL LAWS
the influence of prejudice. The difficulty is often
wholly subjective, anld lies in the heart of the
hearer. This was pre-eminently the case with
the Jews in their conversation with our Saviour.
He employed ternms and phrases which were in
com0m1on use, such as to be bor, ajbini, regemner^ation,
ianydlolm omf lcaven, &c.; but he attached a, deeper
and more spiritual sense to them, than that to
which his hearers were accustomed; hence they
misunderstood or perverted his meaning.  Nothing is more evident than that his hearers frequently misunderstood Christ. Thus, when he
spake of the leven of the Pharisees and Sadduces, his disciples reasoned among themselves,
saying, "It is because we have taken no bread."
Miatt. 16: 6.  We may sometinmes choose for wise
reasons to speak obscurely and ambiguously.
Lu. 9: 44, 45. John 2: 19.  In enunciating the
doctrines of the new dispensation, our Saviour
and his Apostles were necessitated to employ
words and phrases in a new and different sense,
though sonimeh.at similar to that which common
use had-t assigniled to thein; for they taught many
tiruths which were  new and unknown to their
hearers, or whlich, though revealed in the Old
Testament, were not understood at the time.
The contemporaries of Christ, fbr instance, allotted to their own nation exclusively, and perhaps to every individual in it, a place in Abraham's bosom. Yet Christ employs the Jewish
phrase (Lu. 16: 22) to express the general idea
of blessedness and enjoyment in company with
Abraham; but instead of annexing to it the false
notions of the Jews, he attaches other views entirely opposed to theirs. He teaches them in
express terms, that the posterity of Abraham




C31' INTERPRETA\ TION.          237
may be excluded from that happiness, and that
strangers will be admitted to it.
CSANSON XIV.
Th. Itcyt iS /      it tec  f a(, tt  to a a sygmp
t1. in, tioz(ht!od triitq l i./] [/dh the   ct scr'l wrtcrci'.
acawsr     nye h;ni7Xe s cSs to?ofoldl: o0, "'n oi/ceeoi^ w
he 7wl nst, piOSsCSeS (- koi'rcI s-?p7Yrt n taie etuhlllo aroi
Such symipathy is not (required for the interpl etation of the inslRired wriitings merely: it is
equally necessary in respect to any author, ancient or mod ern, and the possession of it to some
extent mlust be regarded as altogether indispensible.  But it i is pre-eminently necessary in refereice to the sacred truths of revealed religion.
Those who possess the state of heart enjoined in
the word of God are most likely to succeed in its
interpretation, because in their case, the mind is
divested of prejudice and is in a kindred state to
that of its author and the thing interpreted.  It
is on this principle th:at no man is competent to
re-produce the life of Jesus. who is not in syinpathy with the mind of Jesus. He may possess
many and higlt qualifications for writing such
a work, but he lacks one which is indispensible.
No man in the light of this principle, can fail
to see that such men as Strauss and Renan were
not the men to write the Life of the Saviour.
It is plain, that no man  can truly  understandc
St. Paul or St. John, whose mind has not been
brought into harmony with theirs: has not been
elevated and purified by the same spirit., with
which they were filled. This was doubtless what
the pious Spener intended by his much disputed:




238               GENERAL LAWS
assertion that none but the regenerated  could
understand IToly Scripture.
CIT APTER XX.
FIGURRATIVE  DISCOURSE  AND  REPRESENTATION.
In rlitcri-c the term  -'O   is emIloyed ii quite
a. general sense.   It denotes not merely a mode
of speech, in iwhich, as in the,'o~. or, int/lpolr
one o1l    m0ore  words ar eC cb, a-e ge  i'fromn their liter-.t1 and p,.oper sense? to o0n'e whii.o ichs itnl'roper;
ju11t  it is   amp-lied  also, to  a diCcourse, in' which
two tho', I      rts o  s eCt ene,  U' ltrlly eSxpre-sedc
are placed  i  olppositon to each other, in order
to b.e nmo e sct.ikina ly pre(ent e td I-  co) t  st a
an tith. s.  Th Ce tei rn is fui  thIe ia )ipl ie  in its
ecn-Iric,'iilriL to ctl-:lin C rns  f!ittceraiy com-'0csitioi5-:, and  t o  cCrl ttii, oh)i ete rt  ( -presenltations anod si'ni ca ft.cti:,qs, ill wlvicht   thlle idea,of rcsm bl rlnme'or analorgy   eitie' real'-n.  or itnagin:ta:'v  ine.tc-na   Iiiia     axtiary:  in  som:-.aipe involved c, i'd Vwhicl-i con)tit te  thei r i stinctive peculniari ty.
Under the oene:ail heal. o-t fi'Turatilv e discourse.cnd  represeniation,   we shall arrance   certuain
topics, not alr-dv dciscussed,  whici  appropriately belong to  the science of Biblical hermeneutics, an(S are entitled to the special attentien
of the Biblical student.
I. T/he Comp.lti.Son or S,7^i;l(. —in  every comparison there  are two elements,-a subject of discourse and an object, of comparison.  These are




OF INTERPRETATION.                 239
placed side by side and viewed separately; the
former being supposed  to be but imperfectly
known or understood, and needing illustration
or ornament to make it more plain, or render it
mnore vivid, attractive, and impressive;  the latter
being assumed to be well known, or easily understood, and introduced for the purpose of
lending its light and beauty to the former. The
design of the simile (Gr. os,(-c/) is to suggest or
trace the  esemn blance formally existing between
the subject of discoullse and the  object with
which it is conilared; and which are in themselves dissimilar.'ro indicate the comparison
the  correlative signs as and so (Gr. x~.5-  and
os   Os' oru.;) i're employed;   the former being
placed befol  e the object of conripirson, and the
lattei beibrei the subjcct of discourse.  e. g, " He
w0as ild (a'ut Ill)xi to to  e sl ug iltu 1  t i  nid cI.s1hee p
be  fre his ishea rer     s -i dumb;   - op  aened he not
lis mouth-1     Isa. 63: 7.  Somentinmes  the coi1pison is i lndicated ty t hel adjective /I placed   i
beto.iee the cbicot of compari'son.  f..   Alexander was i/c a- lion   It is cliaracteris tic of a cor -
parisoni, o01' Siile, thatt every vo(rd is to be talken
in its proper sense, no wored bein- turne d out of
its iiter al aid u-sual signification.'I'hus in the
exainiple,   "Alexa'nder was like a lion,'  the subject andl attribute are both to be un dirsteeod litela!ly; and Alexanr-der is compaedl to   li on in
consequ-,1icc o'  Suosed-tp  resenllLnce  betwesen
hin and that an-ilial in res —pe     to c ct- t   eita   peculiaities.   So in p.asst-age, i' H awas led as a
lamb," a&c.-the wiords o/ab,, and sAicE are to be
taken in their piroper and  custonary rmeaning.
while  the subject of' discourse (the AMessiah)
is compared to these aninmals on account of a




240             ( GENLERAL LAWS
resemblance  in  certain  specified  particulars.
Somretin-es the olbject of comparison only is expressed, and tilh  subjiect of discoulrse is inferred
or left to be supplied by the reader; in which
case, the correlative sigLns a  ale tso omitted.  See
Ma. 3:' 23. Lu. 5: 36.
II. The JfciLTVl oIr.-T'ihe,7eCtalAor or tlre, (Gr.
~. =~~0~~, frOlmni 3:.-aoa, lo tnraifc;  an(l a o.ro5. front
~vw, to tr',) is a figure of speech by which a
word is transferred froem  the subject to -which it
propely belongs, and  applied to another which
has some similitude to its proper subject.  This
transferrence or substitution of some image for
the thoughit which ti e imag(e- is desirmned to illustrate, is groundcd on -i tacit comparison whNliich
the mlind makes between the imai.ge and t.h
thought illustrated by it; and hence the simile
is easily converted into a mnetaphor.  e. g. "Alexander was likie a lion'; this is a simile.  "Alexander was a lion"; this is a metaphor.  Thus it
appears that the imetaphor differs fi-om the simile
info-rm only, and not in substance.  in the simnile
the su}lject and the ol-ject of comparison are
kept distinct in the expressionl, as well as in the
thought; in the metaphor the two ale kept distinct in the thought only, and not in the expression, in which the two are blended.'rThe metaphor, howm-ver, always asserts what is literally
false; the comparison, on the contrary, assertsnothing but what is true.  In the simile the predicate or attributive is to be interpreted literally;
in the metaphor it is to be interpreted figurativelv and analogically. Thus in the sentence,'Alexander was a lion," the piedicate noun lion
cannot be taken in its natural and proper signification, because in that case, the sense of the




TIIE METAPHOR.                         241
proposition would be, that, the monarch  referred
to wa;t  literallyv  tile, animal calledl   a lion.   The
WO,'( "Llion)"   as it sttandls  in  the  rnetlphlor  is
cous,'qlrnttly  trilifrerr(l  o1-  turnl    frt'iom   its
p  opoe  rnlo:lin,?  a',vl i dtol toa (dles ig ito.   a blr ave
an I e. -',lr't'eotll  pers..~ -to   i  a0 ri; l birO   caonS#IqCu ou.a for these  q,!!lities.    Tlie  sianilo is not
the Il,,_rtlMte  0t' (elemtietle, b1tc c:rr ppfs-  the ntliId
of til ri' VIter or s9..ikP  r to 1 t, i   acool a': l titand t t   r z - W    i t, I' c t' stX?i  P;  n  i  t  e;  x c i  t   ( I.    t:.1 t 1
quio  *t:.te, a.1 gI lh ee Xit oc:F C-ul -S in mp i'  (lCsciitptior,l, it    Ilai  0t{:,.ivcS'~l(l evn  il (0i:10 dintied
flTl(] ti}he iot't''t'   0   is (il -    e ) to lt e xt' u.-lsive,
it Will  IItII ly Ci    n It, tI'eI  W (    il;-licat irg  tile
resen-ll]at11ce, a1.'t {'t,1 c't        (2 g P.sng  ll,-h  itl}'~(a,
at on0.0 oxe0t.ss i te- f  i  rnet-t;}'10lr'.'1'T'o inotaphol'1)  i   r}-e    l e 11i' th'11'. a   eise.l 1bl)1nrie oft t/Oig.,
orS'1 r1     l 11,,itl,ice of I e.l o: s.  ve  i th'  a't11  xar-p- -of'   title'onc1' l,Jotl  Io:  29. " B(-,hold t}le
Loe'of ( God wh'cl' taeth  nwy  tle  si1s of' tile
ps risn i slJb stit(   Ioe t} o e o   th leet (oI. of icoinbecolt-oe tileo, llt;et   1:ntl ot ject, i.n certin l  reFpetts  ts'lr, s tble o    ci}, ot'-1r.    Anot 1her ilstaneo
ocers 1in liL   13': 3'22    111e-' oelr Lot}l.c-alls Ieleod(
a lx.    1 (1l.od's claiacteol bor l  a restli 1n1l:.c e to
thef (di.slositiol of this eoun  ing  and c           tafty rani1nt:l.-?ii 1b ilwe  th}e na11e of  the oree is slbstituted for tlirt of the  othler.    As rin eX'tnlle of
the latter, take the declaration  of (t'rit ill.John
6: 35.'I amn  the bread of life."' lere thile metaphorical expression rests  on the  mere  reselmblanee of relations, i. e. the relation which bread
sustains  to  the  nourishnment  and  preservation
of physical Itfe, is like that which Christ sustains
16




242.                              Tif I     IT.:,E.
to the cxten,':on l:;...q:,;                                of the  cpiritual
lia,..
I. TtTI.e 1;.e (Jr.4/..','..','... -ii'},is is;1led by
t'.u  ('',~:;: 2,0i.:-.t;h,    4:. /;r"0x;. ~:.::';d,,.;, 1,id   by   the
It,:,. /X;,' r,%.            i }   I~,:}:;':-!,'.;:, trf,  It  -, g, n...,vl
1.                             -'i 31    it d1i'e; S  Oui't 4'  ly
ft}~ 1r1    3  izu;'1,',V 13;?           1*4o,   I'IIIII    I         "'    
11101'i, * )X ~
ti1               "'' ti f            f;it b i,-:     lii'   t t1n(-1 0lEt';:'Y:, ]i       3.";:~,i,; {;, [;,'; ~1,: i.  1 t  li 5    t 7- i. (.    i.'i'   Oe
9 1.  i iJ   d    f ild al n~,.. *'
Ir,.: *,67:. l...1i/3i,:;! i Sl:          l;.,:~: i-;:-i,,1  i 1 i-|
ke.:  4'ii'i'[~';:t!~:':>  C,                      I              lie-..t                                                                  l         11; I I1 {  >   s;    ) (  r  1..b z    s 1. 1 i l;.i.  Q   t 7  |  4  i s  a I   I I..
(3      J;1',,;'.''t i),'6 il-4;'t(  -Itclic];  v'1*i*4'i
t* 4J;  J 4..4 4  J    4 t          I                   11   t1)i      f 11 i***i     of't,7  it.'>:,     vr.':  1'7:;>y;:e   Ii~ 4:';;th, a nd    this   obvious
t *'!:,;!.1'$  a:  f )'  %{ J 81' tC>, t.u 1tv i tu IC I   S.




T HE MYt Yl,U                            243
depatujrejy fron t f-he well kno.wn  tawqs of'nature.
Arld  this is,o<)tbil,-'s   the  i'-:re,son  whty  wo }have:no  ilnst:ili3     oi &.co  <l 0) icuC}e  uI f ift   t}.1'. f.t.,e by
ouDtr  Saiou,".v i:{ l -o 1 1 e'ly  vto  c i':- y  (letinued etoxv- ild     (;iiiipi:; -:: "-I. O.' —           i oft eJstioa
a.e }to;) "          t'-' t'. z.  J   ig.
9: 7. s -'a.: 1 ";: 1.4' y9   " -' 1.  
3.,,,;....: -Ii, (              1:' t;.:          1.'
uat  S i.          1..is -   i               t,i (ii tL:.    l tot,  i s,ii,
t'3   t1Xar i                                                 o
a;!i'l'      r.t o.a;   f,' $t''t: j t *    iira o.
aoi:    1 - i'1'' i1*
1)       ^'            i.  iia  i 1- o t qi)           sii   -         n.
10  4I                                                1 - -'
i~) l i'          1     ) iniI         11, ":.), i,.'     i,1     of
C  I     -i    e V  M      e ia.  I I-   IIy I  1.m-     t ii9      t a,)i
n ot  a, i- i       3 i              I        I 0.I     4 i   mt t
pI     W'- I.ti.J-i' -I4  CO      i. i'iiC   j.si pip d     mth i' trouL
tlhius the J,    -'s    expi.'t —i a   1,  3t- pr jto' SZsml(t  of
ccri:in   atributcs   or,pir3ii' -t;                ho,  rlseiplos
though1t Je.~-u tio  he tire  Me -.uih1 "01114:woim-i 1)11t a
JIv               0Jii io r 111 All 0' tire  Su)I5r)lseI~d   (ti r'a ti    of
the  expected  Nlevsisiah.   So 0 ay the0 m1Iy th                 og)ists.




244                    THIE ALLEGORY.
In mnythology the cousae of the story is set before  us as the truth;  arId   uned ucated  and  untre
flectitig mitid,, in a less iniaginative age, receive
it as thei  truth.         It is only  the  r1 fl, ctive mind,
whichl peiintrates to(  tlie di tistilctilo bietween  the
vehicle andthe tt tlhl c)Ix'(   yd  i\  it..    i              n     ihemyth
would  not have been  nlticd,.hlieel, wei re  it not
that certain   COm!t nilotn lll critics,  ftollowd(1  },y,V
few  English~ imit attts, iav~  recnlltly alle!:cd  t}..at
the  }'elt(-tetlll.   alt1,.!; i l mri tl -;;'  dlld  thait the
biogrlap tip es (l' (01iri a vioui', i' iittl by  tll. ~vangelit-,   are in a g.catc r or             de e Ie rm3 thological
i V. 7'f'e A//'c5ar;/l'};o 2TIJ,,>A, 7   (l       %,~Xjn; i,,
forii  axx                          to   (fy wj  i   J           0  d  0 lt    it
anoudcr,) is                        d ti(-e m l IPjilt  or   -jpreOt(-n
tatiotl. ill wIti ci:i t( tlng. i's 0, i, -,ssU(i  o   i (.lle-;ei ate    im, vit, d,te/i,,c/' is iit, 1d-'   or a    irp!}vesntatiin cf osi    tti:  r. I        /'it.t - i.- - l i i A'. tl tx, ei   t I   i e t  e
rte.'-C-ts I,'mi.:;      c.'-v intl;('l-  tc} it.    All O,,)iess
riot uot'(11 it.-,             i  i.t  i  },,i  t <         l ley
are  lIl:tlxl. Jl,.x       r t t}{'1 iti Smt     l     {';llt'i-cter' -tid
Cli)ls'# (l iiitiv tEhi it(lt   ts'lXilt$-di   l.ii         is ntre
a's' the    ii   - it  h- oW — tiX                c-lt - i        t i ti1dut.ielt  iv.    l (' 1-i { -i,('ls,  the  t: "iii-, }'   t'I ltieh
deserioii 4  1    (e1,t::g,. i-l -' cl.        xii 1e  ('  tis
cLatiatc-tel.  I[lTe le   I   i' el i:tictl;.i  iS l-a, — id  Iby
the  ttist rc'ie   ldh,-,  el.itir-i as   an  i ~ii'M     XI(I ll. d  nlleg-.ry, bit I, Itgirlg  to   h}e  (lass (l          t  pore ad(1
utItii'xel'tallh-,ties.   1n  tlhe N,.w  TIstm in             t,. t.
]Paul s diesc.rip,titll of t[ie C}hri.tiAlal's,.armor, in hzis
Eldi-tle t(  lhe Ellie-sians, is allegorliceal. l                     any
ot  tlie  Ptmvoet s of  S;!-nion, antd  of  tlhe  New
Testaint ti adages are of  tlis natutie.   A llegory
is not clifilit d  to verbal des, -iption; a paintilig,




THE ALLEGORY.                           245
-a Pieep orf sculpture, or some architectural work
may be allegorical.'            ie's statue of XSilence is
allegorical.   lhe atstract ide-:  of silenc, is first
personified  in  the  mitd  and  tlien  ropresonted
under the inmage of a fenma:ile fii'rle. P,,al's Court
of  Death is an  allegoricdal   pictufrc.   (Certain  human  figureqs art'  (dllinelted ot        n  the  caInva ss  to
represlent the p ersonification ot nsl)tvct (liseases.
T''he alleg,-i'y htas been  f'i'qmintly' (des cviie)i  by
eminent. w ritei a   s saln exieml, (I met.-:plori;            but
thzere  is a  1iaid('d  d ifeii'ence  lI-stwe''  thle two,
In n  all.tf1-1,'yv  t }ere iS  1 i, nm  hyl,/    repyrese'toteon
called, tble..r —. ai5      d nil  Idu/ie repi e.settio.n
undl-,vin1?  tl,'te'!  si   e0 c't ima    Al  lunning
par)llel    w:th  ii', ":         r. "'I I e. a    e nt ta,ph o r                 Oik k  -   C. I-, 9 0 tif I:   };: d t     o view
bu't in' 1:',''v  d(it'oe' r(.: t n:in;:i:l-' t'i'i,:s the i-lleao
riy.    In  ie iet g;'
in  tlo       i       ~  I,.t':.      3 Ic:i tie: r    t:: iplor
tlhe I'ii    pai l, I   i-:,t 1-; i:; i —,n   }, s-ni. en-n(tly
to    - -w'   in  liie  r:l<:z(y!:  J:; ('a::e;:,         and
(5.'  jil                                          Al I
Cnt i te     t,;   st      nct s
alrlotli,  ~,:lit 7i-.tE i:..< t t'.Tc}:'.:'~  }.~t; vP'< ]:v (dittinct;
an   tIlI        ~'i I,':i->'-':'";lv  }isi't.:   Ye-,l'ie,> r,  iw ) et,;         li',  XT.   1It' the
fsn U j       5                                              vi v  tco
Cl,-isea, I:' a -.,' <, I,:   a
Or( sm.,  t  -   soe.-**;.    X!      I f'fait}," "t'::':' tIe''It,,: oii,,'B.t. in.n:,-y,       t.o,.s  S.,;:.':.::: lt'(ate




246  ALLEGORICAL INTERPRETATION.
representntion, are  severally  to  be  tnklen  in
their cu.tomarv meaiuing, as literal or figurativej.
and interpretedl nccotdin,, to their gramm:aticohistorical s,.nse; and so takon and interlpreted,
they  affi-,rd  a con-i:stent  mi-noning.  But from
the context, the occasion. the intiration or express d&clilt'tion of the wriitre  or spea rker, it appears that he intendo.d to coFvey another and
deepler  nlv.nin?'.  ITEviy  911'or'y. therefore,
m,,st be tu!ijecttd to- a twtfold  xa itrrtion; we
nllust fi.st (xn11mrir e tl-e impedec,1t representa tion,
andl then co'r,.d,:,lr whaflt othe-r relvn"S.e'tntbtion it
is intelvtedi to excite.  h'e'f (imm:a;s(te reprosentation is of no'i.'t}aer valute, th-.n a-; it la:ds to
the ultiae   - resen tation.   Ptt ti i  not the
case in tlal  nal-tartor.  ITcT, ti}tco i 9 but one
rypreisentatli n,,    fnl) no oet e' is to  bop'ouiht.. h-ence it, pRi;;,a's tha-t the inter'ip etatl-n osf metttnpholr,la  a v   ys r eaais  an  inl ert reiat ion  of
word;'; w;hl.,r-atsi the  intllpr-tat'ion of al,.gorties.is an  intevp:',  ttioan of' t/,iiqs   Con.requrHtly a
sequence of' rietn p)forh. o a In o)thThor pf1 Fonged,
inst;eadl (oIf'ein  Co)i fin ra to a    ijzwe w ar d it, never
becotneO s t.n:.c legolty, and i  not. t       to the
same laws (if irltef pr(t taion.
Alelqorical, Iatc7pretoato1.-7-Whcn  we  undertake to interpret a writing, we  undertake as a
general rule, to ascertain and  unfold the sense,
which the writer had in his own  mind,  and  designed by thle language he employs to communicate to other minds.  T'his kind of interpretation,
we have seen, when applied  to the Bible, takes
the name of historical interpretation.  Butthere
isa different method, which  thatcollection  of
sacred books has been thought by nmany to  demand, and which goes by the name of algeoricat




ALLEGORICAL INTERPRETATION.  247
into.rpretation.  This phrase require s orne explaZ
nation.  It does not mean the righlt iiite-rpretation of allegories.'To extlain an  allg, ry p, properly *a  such, accordlin  to the original  diesign  of
the writer, is to iltertpret it  histor)ieIlly.  Allegorical intlerpretation is no mnore the interpr tation of all goriwe,, t han th, iiiiterpretati, n  0cf any
other fi. lre wooll  pr)olFerly  take its  to..le t'rrtm
tthat fi sUrt;!o0 MO:re. for itntarCe,  th1 1  the  oxpl: nation Aofa  thyb-r,lp e coulI be pr (op) rly  calleld h/?/perbolic l it''rettill, io' thlt jllst expositio   1ti". a tt' i ot', mreta/o  oricatl in tt pretati-in.
N-ittler is    orllegor i;::l ltterilrel. tion thte u-,e of t he
wwvo:.d  of anoltir,   who'ltitir contiftinlin   narrative,
doctrine, ot' sonree ling elset, li'  the purpose ofillustirating in -in alt'o'izead or aCeonllnli dtedl applicltion, one's own i-la.  It; the hot ter to convey:my own thoullr ts, I (chose to fr in ie  n aliogorvy, I
nmay eitheri ctt.te a fignlent of my own, or I imay
have recou'rs, t) srn -t!in  whi  alreal ii    y exists.
]But in the litttr cast., 1 (do not atti ilute an allegory to the wr iter whose wo-r(l 1'niploy:l; I sin ply
adoptt his wo,'is l( In.odt(r to constiruet a0n aliegory
of mnly own.  Th'is has been done byv St. Paul in his.Epistle to the Galatians. (oh 4: 22-26.) in. referetnee to tlhe hiitory of' the two sons of Abraham,
and hence he ha-; been erroneously supposed to
give his apostolic and inspired sanction to the systemrn of al!eorieal interpretation.  In our' English
version, the Apostle is iande to say "which things
are an allegory." Now, since an allegory is a
picture of imagination, or a fictitious narrative,
it has been inferred that St. Paul in this passage
has warranted by his own declaration and conduct, the allegorical method of interpretation.
Such, however, is not the case. In the instance




248    ALLEGORICAL iNTERPRETATION.
referred to, St. Paul does not employ the Greek
noun signifyinlg allegory, nor indeed does it occur anywhere in the New Testament, nor even
in  the Septuagint Greek  Version  of the Old
Testament.  Ile does not pronounce the history
itself to which he refeirs an allegory; but simply
declares that it was alle.yorized by  him, for the
purpose of illustration.  Now, it is one thing  to
say that a history is allogorized for a particular
purpose..and quite anothler to say that it is itself
an:illegory.  Allegorical Interpretation, then, is
neither of these two processes.  T'he expression
is employed in relation to two processes entirely
distinct friom  these.  The terim alleRorical is applicable, to that interpretation  which, without
any  demonstrablle or assig"nable ground. and
without warrant or autloirity from  the context,
or from  significant markls of tile plan, structure
and coherence of the  composition, assumes a.
prpresentation  or description  to be  altogether
figurative:  andl  in  cotiq}s-oquence, cntirely rejects the literal and historicwal isrnse, and'supposes
another and  improper    sense, foreign  to the
design  of the  writer.'Ihe tc rn   allegorical
is also approptiiately uwed in referenrc  to that
interpretation  whiclt  arbitiarily ns'ait.Ct s that
a  passage  has  a figurta.tive in ad.l'hion  to  its
literal and proper sense.  In the one case  the
expositor wholly discardas thl.e, oClvious anrd proper sense, and converts  histfirv into a'llego ryg,   c0ontrnry to the original irtention a-nd true mantingn
of' the writer, tlihus tr:tnnfern ing the p'i9n;io,  or
wolk, frot:t tle (lomain o'f' hlistor' to  tlfat of fiction.  IT' tihe ot cfr, ihe:d:iiti, indrecdl. the}' hlistorieal sni14e.   bu)t also att:eh.s to th e, wIr(1ds
atwotaer nliltninlg,   cco01.i'rjg to  his own  Lfancy,




THE PROVERB.                   249
He puts more into the words of an author than
they really contain, by affixing a mystical and
mediate, in addition to  the immediate and direct
sense.  He  does not substitute one  sense  for
another, but, osztonsib)ly for the purpose-either of
obviating objioctions, or of rend-ring the Scriptures monre edifying, he supposes one sense in
addition  to another, where there is no  valid
ground for thle a sumn)tion.  It is; in  this sense
tlhat we employ the phrase   tqpical intcrpretation.
This does not irnpotrt the prope'Jr explaa)tion and
elucidati)on ofa r tal type:  but th e assumrntion of a
typle wheri'e nrone was intendedl.  lience the terms
allegorical, tqpic,l, atnd raystieal, are employed  as
Srynonymotis, when used to  represent that system  ot interpretat ion, wlhich attaches a secondary but hlidlden sense  to thle sacredl Scr'iptur'es,
foreeirn to the desi n of tir   e wriiters, and the  intention of the hioly Spirit'iT'tis is' the  more
common  npplica.tion  of thle phlrase allegorical
interpretation in the Ihistrv oft Biblical Ilermeneutics.  Tih0 method  of milte:.prpetatiton in question orignat,(d with Pf:tl,t'i t'ers',  fon m' whom
it was illt'o iu.eled i;ito thel Jewish scz}eools, and
thle ciry (C -rnistian w iters a.lpted it fhlrom  tlihem.
T/he Pl'ovc7b, or A(,.qe.-A  Proverb is a short
pithy snten,-jnc, whicl emnbodiies     a dwell knovn
and  adintt ed  truth, or conimon  tilct, ascertainldi  tby  exp)-ri(,lce  or  ob.e-'vxation,  and
wlh ichl  (ptats currzent  inmong  t!le  masses of
society.   Am ion   the (-te,cks  ll'rjiiiV,)s  were
called  rgaeo;si, (iiro   C, oc'er, n1r 1(I o,;. tway)
w     luay;e tdi,.    (- sr-goa )   beca se  c,linnlon,
ansi ad;;ptel t,,;i:t,f:iiOv W:.lts;',-antI also for
the  pL'f',i, se of diititl(-aii    t n lls e   fr nom  the
more l:.gca;l.t an   t:iCri ilaitut, g  lghIlarangue of




250                TEE PROVERB.
sehoo1s and philnophcer.   The Rotr-n.at  donomiinated them  ada:,iag,  )becanuse they  weread ayenatrin   npla, practtical maximlS   titted  t)r quiciklt
solvilng the potllenls of d(tily  ifle.   Bre:itl/ appears to be not only one of the Con.tilue-nt elemenlts, b)ut a  pniel  (exce-,llelnco of the proverb.''his is ind(ic.ate-l  y the:void  its:.ll —proverbia
(lrorn pro and ve;sbi,) for. orl irstf ad of words, i e.
a fvw *ords.'iov\' t.t ns   v b,-d vieted into two
distinct (ca.4ses, viz  tite'ial:i   ijturative  or alle.gor;cal.'l lie i cn."mr cliss co-mnrls.;s i thoe    which
admrlit onlyi  ot a  i    irie.:tli.     i'nc  n l and are
to be undet( sti' )(]d.a'co: Cipg to thein;.ai, obvio)ln,
gramin)tic'"'ll  nt:io.,g o0   tho t.crns7 ii which
the-y.lie exlr,I  (. j,'I.  e  t    rhe   cI tt C'er vo  %,-!ri,' those
in  ilhich one ti0i  3,?R slid ann.'l -)-:,t'ler" at^'.imt.
In tUhe   etnter. cr1,e hite litir;} s rns{, (, x}'.;?!,'st the
lm-anil:n'' i In i   ll   1.tIite:, it is oft ro tiu.t'lf-use
than to stl'eIit t.',r ae'i(p-ed (1meningr..   T he loll]orii! ire, xrl. ls i e  1   e fi- i   t    Clf s.i:    "lonesty
is tl e best tpol.,  l  igi't w'o:o n;: Po,      tC.e.
To  the F(ccnde class  s3lo, s          h  pr'   ii overicbs as
lheise: -' rti k  a\trIt'l     l;tt ftrom youir o.wn itern,"'Every en)e di:Cis the wat.,r to  his own mill."::There is ninnym   a slip b)tween  the cup) and the
lip."'"trike wLile the iron is hot." "Physician,
heal thy-se-lf'. "'')hste who  live in 4l.ss houses
thould not throw  stones."    Ihe Ptiths.rs ihave
eaten sour g-ap)s, annd the. children's teeth are
set on edge."   These and  sinfilar proverb., have
a-real sense  quite  distinct from   their literal
meaning, and this must be deter mined from  the
connexion in which they are employed, and the
particular application which is made of them.
There are many proverbs and adages scattered
through the ()ld and New  Testament; and the




THRE PROVERB.                  251
Book of Proverbs by Solomon is a col!oction of
those which  were co' mposed  by  tlhis  llettt'irw
monarchle, and current amolng the Hlebrevw peopie in his lday.   The tollowingl rules and ob,ervations will,assist the studlent in the stuly antl
interpretatlon of Pioverbs and particularly  of
the Btook of' P, overlbs:1. Proverbs 1ro i.ini    f ostly not int ended to
b]ave only  n inliid.ual l al pp iation.  From th eir
very  nar)ture tl!.y are t(- e l,~i(d  to apply to all
casets wherl'] e silnilrl t ity   nf ci(lll st': c',s wouid
render thlem.  lt,lrprite.  At t. silnme tillie,
Witll few  vx(-e'tlirls, tlet!)r'(oIlt); of Solomon
Lave not an u!:linuitedl an(d unlitersal tppllic:ttint
but only tlat, whichl is, genera   e.  cl.. It): 17.
1i6: 7. 22': 6.
2. Nothing nmoreo is fr'equontly intendodf in thb
Book oft Proverlbs tha:t whl;it u-;ulall  oc!urs. and
not wh.t is goold  ntd proper in itself'.  lndle( la
proverbia'tl     maxinml 1my, as a seF;tntillent,,t). fa'lse,
while a  a. na l:tte ol fl' ct it may be strictly tinue.
e. g. " Iight t,ik(ks right.'"'. lhe en" d jutstfips
the  rmeans."   Upon  such  f:llse principles as
these men are contiunually  acting, anrd to their
own minds. at least; justify, on  thle giroundf of
them, oppression), lavery, and an endless variety
of wicked acts.
3. In the Proverbs of Solomnon a thing is sometimes represented as really done, in order to indicate what ought to be done, although too often
neglected.  e. g. ch. 16: 12, 13.
4. Some maxims in that book, which, takenr
in their broadest and most unqualified sense,
and without regard to the circumstances which
gave rise to them, appear to be inconsistent with
the law of fraternal kindness, (e. g. the warnings:




252              THE PARABLE.
against suretyship.) are only salutary and impressive admonitions against indiscreet and imprudent actions.
5  In the study of the Book of Proverbs partienlr attention should he paid to the structure
of Hebrew poetry, especially to the laws of Hebrew parallelism.
CHAPTER XXI.
THIIE PARABLE.
The Greelk word  ~aCaoz,, from  which  ourEnglish word parablelI cnomes, is derived from  t-h
verb a'e-:Faax/xSve, [ae, nearto. and  axxs,,. to cast.
whichpi'     hrrleuly signlllies to throw?,ear, to cuast ont
thing hefore-or lesi/e anther, to place sile by side.
Hence the coagnate tnoun  rweo/3OXl imports primanily a placig side by side. as of shlips in battle,
ajuxta position.  Now, as thi. juxta-position  of
two things may be for the purpose of comparing
one with the other, a secondary meaning of the
verb is to comip.-re, annd of the nu n, a comparison,
and as tilis compalrison is commonly nimade  for
the purpose ofst'owing the resemblInc nce between
the  two, hence  thle  significatinn  simil!tude.
Cicero defines the parable to be'a fomn otf spoch
fh'wlich we compare one thlin,  with some other
on accoiunt of a resomblnce; l  h twen the two."
BBy the aid of'tymologry. therefore,  we nmay form
some i(letd of l.tie gnlinc  ch:lracter of Par"1l)les,
bult not of their sprec;  celnarl eir..  W e Io:irn t!,at
tll  t)he y l  tI,  t} i,, (tI co' fi gu rt t i  cv e ml:). p, i t ion
based on lrescmatlluce,   but we are left in uncer



THE PARABLE.                 253
tainty, whether they are simply metaphors, allegories, or examples.  And when we corne to inquire into the us- of the wordl parable in the'
Scriptures, we findl ourselves still more etnb-irrassed, from the fact that the wordl is employed
in a variety of, senses, and  with much  greater
latitude of sicnification, than  in classic usage.
In the Greek version of the Old Trstament, its
answer in every instance to the Ilebrew  noun
t7n, mashal, and as the  same IHebraic usage,
which obtains in the Septuagrint pervades the'New'estamehnt, in order to doetermine the precise import of the wordt parabilt in the latter, we
must. have recourse to the 1Iehrew Scriptures.
Now, the Ilebrew verb L:;: mrnslal, signifies to
liken, to compare, arnd tile pr1imary meanin of the
kind red notn.         a3 inassai, is a con,par'isoJn, a similitude.  Thus far, the correspodl;llg  [lehrew
and Greek words coincide.  But, beyond this,
thle ltebrew wvord takes a wi, l       er l';tng.  AmengAa
its secondrll;'   manings, arfe az imrrnye, afigu-e, or
word( picture, afable,  1n ap,)t/egin.  a praooerb or
ada e, an olscure. ezyiginaical expression, artn l/eorly,
agnone, or gtrave senttenltious,:     sayLing,, /;,tratioe
discourse genelrally, a prophetic announcement, expressel in figurative liangua:ge, and  finaly, a
poenm, becaus( that species ot'corn position abounldl
in inmazaes, and fijlr:ttive lanllguatg.  Thui it appelrs thalt thie word embraces  withii it4 co(nprehensive scope almost every variety of filures
and figurative discourse, based on resemblance.
The Greek word waae~Gxsn, therefore, both in the
Septuagint, and in the New Testament. like the
Hebrew  corresponding word, is generic in  its
usage, and the specific meaning  in any case




254                   TnE PARAELE.
mu.st he dete,:i:mined by the context and nature
of the conposition.  Ov-erlookingi              h ii ini ortant
fact, some w'ite:'s htavoe  Iis.evd3  lnetlpt llrs, farbles,
and   proverbs,  atno,- g   parsable s.   Dru nimnond,
espeiavly,     1 h!as evi.,:e    si    lulad' laIek ot (di Icriliination,  bV converltineg  nrea'1y  all) tle Imetaphorical and prov\ r       al';' sious  of our Lord, into
par:d. c      }:.s sw.Jels hL nulinber  record-ed
to,ei,o.'e,,,  wl'i.l,  in lpoiait  of  lcet,   tley  d(1o   not,0olkl a   xi('ei;: d  tb/irhf.   Vl-ious   aIfttrnTlits,  l1vo
eon   l,:f!   to!'.  ol - (,.1iiition   of  Iti  Pa al         le,
i i(.! }!       be,,' t:   i' iel'tl c<'m prn  lhnisi'e to cover
tile  w!.'0e   0,r<,iirOl   o foili0r Lodl's  p'trtb)ol'c  dliscoan li'. W:,;'e  t!,,\-,  t.tat l!' i,j^l,.i$ all (c:.-t in'nao
t':U. l. ~il1  iicl. -ti', a11  til)it. moO  ionl it'rm        -
u                       p 0,                            IV i tpt i r:~mjer, ft-}   ^-,r~,v,:!{i,- o d:(<iflt~uty in Ic.-ksti' ting
tt,o'sr p~fietci.:t:',l  tisf1a('tirui  *l,. oiiti,).  ltu t
(ii sC    i.:' 0df (ie1 0Iin   conlvil'.nsive.
neJo.          I'l'i. -i'i -J'l3    no  a('ltiqi',tt0  lq i   y',, th}e  so]u io.n ) pt' ie  p.):; it,]s   is      wlo \\.-t   rl   con seq      ot V  i.i  )    -1   1':.'l,  h' }};nt t00: h:,:. J:t,,)i vlii(h
1c.iOI''        0|   k s o  t I                  ( I I
otlet    q   }.; a:t sx!,.ht 11o t'    t':  tliht  yt l
e ltlrlAsS'. pejupl lt   ex hii,     Ti e Pfr0:1,l n ts o'four
L'  ly  r,it    v ). ci't,?, 1 o1 l'.v l.tlir two
Cl;3.ses,, dliIf iFt,'   i ",1tn  e; a'}l otit.or,  b totI in  their
outwar Il',.- a! ],rIg.'r            Of 1   th,    o;?- e  clagss
is   vcwu bio t.,; tile.NAoW  le''si:tii1rot, while the otherl is common to so~'t-e(-1 0:il  ipr'of;tnto.   litiera turo.
1.'hl- first c        olas. com)ri<(,s thlose which, in thelir
outward';)r'In  L  1  Conl-tiiutiori, fare  all igorieal.
T'I'ley  aTre, in 5lct~t, sacred anlpgoties, and,  iike all
other compositions of this kind,  they have   an




THE PARABLE.                         255
obvious and apparent meaning, and an'occult or
bidl(en  mnaning,  concealed  under the  outward
and  formal  description. a material and  immediate representation, and  an ultimate  representation, running  pr;allel  with   it'The   truth
which underlis the al llngorical p.rable, is htistorical truth; it miglit bet the. histoiry ot thile   ast, the
present,  or  the future'; bu[ in  point otft fct,  it
is geneiallvy the la-t;  itl  otelr   w, i ds  it is prophetic lhiseryl.  W\ith feiw e'xcept  olos:, tile t',i1lel,.
oft this el,.is are eoxl,  esily  (decla rtrl   to be  si llilitudles.   The sublj'.ct of conli ar son is announlcedc
at the rqop.,ini,  of t ie;lh:ral'e  Iy thIt?  formt'il,' tlhe kli:dol e l,1 t   l(f  l' lv'     is  like"  so  anId   so;
wllich tl   u    ishls  the ke<y   to its  ii terp)retation.
In ti.ihese  i'trbl, s,   thle  i1tni, din i   re  peseiltation o)r siiiUititilelf   is.f)' loi) i ilitlet'  lil-e thitn   to
servell,:sts.; tt,\'tbl  vhliiclt';lIr the  uilillate  representationl. V  ioeli exhibi t t.o retil senlte   inltended }by  til} p,:t!,le.
Our' Loe;, s iiio~diato des;, t    q in tJie  d(1livory
of th.se;.1!eri caee l l. Ibt)le5. xw, to  coinnutnicate in t'orai: tiori ni,t 1: ii taly  o)1' sse,,(d, nue1  J)et
illn; f eii'!till td   Iot'     11, a nat4l Zt a, t    r Aotle0i i;Ofnl
be?,ll( ll no Ct tIt: ti rne  ctlio,. to  Co)tn t iolllniCfltt
to tlet r, i'so(i;s  1w}0111 i!e (ile 1reseie  l  in at clear
and d:listinct tl n11nllr, I,lt. o),curvly,  tand   (lisguiseI uneti- t}ite v-il rt iinalngoelyv'li(l  alIegory,
xwhich  t q ui r,.l-(,x phlicllt  atio   to  ibo prol(rly   understood(.   Oii  xi mliitl: ionl, tlItese pt rt lIles  will
b) tfii ni to relalte ili (gTtoe'ill to thle Spilitual  or
lMoral Kit  i,)nln. wtlic-l onu    S.tviotl r was  about
to establish in the w(orld.-to  tihe new  d(iseCensation of grace wlhich l-e was about to  inaii,_urat+
— to tile outwardIl andr  viille  Chliurcli, which   hie
Was about to found; or else to  the growth  aud




256                  THE PARABLE.
development of true religion  in the  individunl
soul under that dispenriation, and in thlat visible
Church.   T'hey are tile vehlicles,  therefore. riot
ot'doctrines, but of facts; arid  consequently  are
pure  histories, only  not sinlt)ly  and  pr-operly
expressed.   A nd as the ftcts hal1, as yet, no real
existence, but were  still  in  the f'uture, consequently  tie.listory  thiley  d.scriie, is tprophetic
ai.-tory.   Acco(,(idingly, thl, ee  paratle1es are  allegorical. hisitorical, anld pro'lphetical, or propheticohistorical..
From  the vtrv natture  and   structure of  this
class of'our Lotid's  ial,alIles. it  is.vid(tent  thlat
they coul(l rnot  lhie teWlcIn   u,1ilrtsto(d   l,y  Ilis
auditors wito;out (x,!lla ion.   It. w;is  not tile
expectatiton ot o U1r,S.Vi,'tl' i   tltht. tlley   wruld  be
then  ltnderl(stool, n1or (did it t1all within thle scope,
of hliis de.irn, tl, t t  tIpsy  litiultl be tlihen  1ully  apprellende(., et-l.se I.t' WlOUl h),ve tbe( n dl.i;f1erc,.tly  expl.restd(l.   Fr,,   tlnis  ttlit.rl  nly  hiave  Ieen
several Ir,.a ('Is'l'e ltactl g  (ts(clit.i d  in  tli(rn,
hlaving, as  et, n(, real, t,ut olyx' a,  pp/,etie  ex
islte('t', tdwey  mlglIt l be,11c(1  as those   t. o() hbeal
th!em   wvt-e rtot at tlhe tinre lpe: onilly inter.t-lStd
in, or tlhir- i miglit Iltave ki;err  a1  Ilrsent  1,rtllgnance to tile kt,(iwl dge C(4' tlf.e ftiCts a li1d( d  to,
at(id a I,ei.-llt i( fli( ulty ii m kl;irn     tl It nll tindt'rI.too(d t   d l:(l  l,l, (l'at, i l by  tllh(oe  Wlhose  nrilids
W'e e etrllIv,(,td(l ill thr., nlist5s (t iglroralnie(-,  iind
prt judice  As I,.rga ( ds tlie tlu ru tue oatu)    t C,'il itual
relgion  arid  lwre gal;d -pultpose otl (ul  LIi(l's Rdvernt and iliissi inl.'iht-se (.   ] cun!st.t, nc st    would
render it not  only oflfensive anid drngeious, but,
perhaps, imlractcrliable, usltss.  alid atib-ud,  to
conlniunicate  thl ni  in  chf-ar,  a-nd  simple  language to the mixed wnultitLAdes who attended on




THE PARABLE.              257
his mlnistrv. Accordingly, we do not find that
any explanation was asked by, or given to them
at the time. Those tb whom they were addressed, were left to decipher the meaning of these
parables. if at all, by the grradual development
of the events theimselves, which they predictively described. But the immediate disciples of
our Lord stood in a different relation to them.
To them the subject-matter of these prophetic
parables was of the highest interest and importance, and consequently theyi embraced the
earliest opportunity to obtain -a private explana
tion ofthen-.' (see Matt. 133; 10-12, 1S. Mar. 4: 34.)
Aftersthe Saviour had fully explained to them
the parables of the Sower and the Tares, they
seeni to have had less difficulty in understanding
other parables of.the same class. They  were
thereby furnished with a key to the interpretation of similar parables; and when afterwards
he related the'pai-ables of the hidden treasure,
the pearl, and the diawn net, and then enquired
of them, if they understood thenm; they ieplied
that they did. (Mlatt. 13:'54.)
Now, it was to parables of this class, that our
Lord evidently alluded, whenr on being asked
by his disciples Why he spoke-to the niultitudes
in parables, he replied, " Because it-is given unto
you to know the mysteries (secrets)of.the kingdom of heaven,but to them -it is not given. For
whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he
shall have more abundance; but whosoever
bath not, from him shall be taken away even
that he'hith.'Therefore,AI speak to them  in
parables; because they seeing, see not, and hearing, hear not, neither do they understand." (Matt.
13; 1-!3.) This remark of our Lord seems, at
17




258            THE PARABLE.
first view. to be repugnant to the very design of
parables as commonly understood, which is to
illustrate asnbject and make it plainer, not to
involve it in obscurity..But, when it is understood to refer to the allegorical parables exclusively, its force and propriety are clearly perceived.
2. The second class of our Lord's parables
comprises such as consist of brief stories, tales
or narratives, designed in the most attractive
and impressive manner to illustrate and enforce.
some specific duty, or to inculcate some specific
doctrine. They are therefore in their scope and
design doctrinlal, ethical and practical. They occur in the midst of moral and doctrinal discourses, and often gave occasion to such discourses.
lTheir object was to elucidate and to impress,to simplify and to enforce.  Accordingly their
-scope was sufficiently obvious at the time, and
-required no explanation; or if explanation was
tneeded, it was given at the time, and to the perosons to whom they were immediately addressed,
and for whose benefit they were intended.
There was no motive for concealment; and indeed concealment would have defeated the very
end sought to be attained.  The language in
which they are clothed, therefore, is so plain
*that all could readily understand it, and their
purport must have been quite as intelligible to
their immediate hearers as it is to us.  Far-ables of this class are historical, but not in the
-sense of being the statement of actual facts and
scurrences, in opposition to fiction; but in the
sense of bearing a formal resemblance to truth,
by describing what might have happened, as
-opposed to that which is improbable or impossi



TIHE'PARABLE.             259;ble. They are historical in forrn, also, as distin-.guished from allegorical and mystical, inasmuch
as they have but one obvious or grammatico-his-:torical sense.  In this class of parables, the narrative or story answers to the protasis or imme-,diate representation in the allegorical parables,
while the doctrinal, or moral truth, or duty illustrated and enforced, corresponds to the apodosis.  The story, or protasis, may be true. iu
every particular, or it may be merely founded
on truth, or it may be wholly fictitious.  The
historical verity of the tale is notat all essential;.and in point of' fact, most, if not all. of our
Lord's moral parables are fictitious.  In the em-ployment of such illustrative examples, our Sa-viour is no more responsible for their literal and
historical truth, than is the novelist, whio, for a
similar purpose, gathers floers fri'or thie domain
of fiction, responsible for the truth ef the inci-dents which he has grouped together.  Nays
more thaon this; a moral tale ma1x  be t'atrlcd in
accordance with popular idvals,  elvn thiough
such ideas are known to be founde(i  iln error'..Our Saviour, therefore, should not be regarded
as compromising in  the  smallest degree hi s
character as an authoritative mernal teac-her, if
he should be found in any-in;stance to have  laid
hold of popular ideas, though groundless, for
the purpose of mere illustration.   The parable
of Dives and Lazarus, for example, may in some
particulars, have been constructed in acconmmo
dation to the prevalent, but erroneous, and essentially pagan notions of the common people,
without its divine author intending thereby to
commit himself to the truth of those opinions,




2G0             THE PARABLE.
or to vouch for their conformity to tile reality of
things.
The moral and historical parables of our Lord
have been frequently classed by commnentatorsamong fables; and the ancients (Aristotle, Cicero, Quinctillian) place the difference between,
them only in the more or less ample treatment
of the subject; inasmuch as the fable w-as rearded  by thenm as the more finished production of'
the two.  Some modern critics make the difference to consist sinmply -in this, tihat the fable
represents the single fact as real, the parableoniy as ),ssiic.t'   But the specific difference be
t vern the two is much more deeply seated th}an
this.  As to form, in both tbe moral parable and.
tle ftable we find a story, which is designed to,
unfoid a truth, or inculcate a duty.  But the reoion front which these t-wo species of inventive
ccnmposition derive'their imagery, and draw their
materials. are not the snme.  While the parable
sometimes avails itself of iainimate nature, (e.;.
the allegorical parables of the Sower, the Tares,.
and the Leaven) irrational creatures are rarely
introduced, and in our Lord's- parables never.
The parable, ealso. unlike the fable, derives its
materials only from the territory of the possible
and the real.  It adheres to probability, and
teaches through the imagination.  When beina,
and powers belonging to a lower sphere, are introduced into a parable, ag they sometimes are,
they always follow the law of their nature, while,
their acts in accordance with that law are usedc
to prefigure or represent those of a higher race.
The parable deciarie  what,igiAt have taken
place, and deduces a moral from it  whilst the
fable, with the same de-sign, descritcs what co?,;l




THE PARAXBLE.               261.4oot io3Ssiy ihave happened.   But tile grand (dif.
ference between the fable and the parable is inecrmla and relates to the substance. The ground
-occupied by the writer of fables is much lower
than that occupied by one who teaches by para-. bles; and the aim  ancd scope of fables are also
suborclinate'and inferior to those of parables.
The fable, as has been already remarked, confines
itself to earthly virtues, prudential maxims. or.commendable human qualities.  But thle parable introduces us to a higher sphere of action
and of duty —a purely morlal and spiritual domain.' ts element is preeitinently in the world
of mind-rational and resp)onsible inen —actin
not for time only, but for eternity; while that
of' the fable is essentially of the earth, and never
lifts itself above the elr-th.  Unlike the fiblebi,
tile pa-rable never jests at tihe follies, ridicules
the faults, or taunts the disappointmernt  s of
nmankind; it is full of righteous displeasure. of. holy rebuke, and condemnation of wr.ongdoing.it is always earnest, affectionate, and solemn
Some -writers confound the parable with the
proverb; but the difference between them is evident, both in respect to form  and substance.
The Proverb is a pointed, sententious, moral, or
prudential saying, which passes current amniong:the people, of which brevity is an essential characteristic.  The Scripture Parable is eit her a
prophetic allegory, or a continued and well ar-ranged narrative of some possible but fictitious
event, applied to the illustration of some sacred
truth.  It is not, indeed, greatly extended, but
-by no means contracted within the brief space
of a proverb.  There is nothing in the prove.b
eorrespondin to th e rotasis of the -  nOi i. para ble.




')2t-32         THit E PARABLTE.
A parlable, however, may in some instances have
been invented to illustrate a proverb already curretnt.  As to its substance, the mo)ral parable alway-s contains and inclcates some arave norar or
retilgiomis truth, and never an error.  A proverb, cn
the contrary, may be good or bad, true or false,
imnportant or trivial, wise or foolish.  The parabies of our Lord admit of no such distinctions
as these.
It' the d(istinction  vwe have made in the 1parlab'les of' our Lord is well founded, then it furnishs- us with a key to their interp-retatiton by
indica.tin. the riight. methodl of prroeedure.  As
are clSery   crmprehends two distinct repr'esentations, the parables belonging to this class must
be Luti.jtected to a txwo-fold exami-Ination.  lst, Of
the immlnediate   represe.ntation, and, 2d,.Of the
representation  it. was intendled   to excite.  Not
so'the  mcioral parables.  These have but one.
meaning, and xwere intelded to be understood'
only in their obvious grammatical sense.  In
the allegorica.l p'arables all, or nearly  all, thematerial circumstances introduced into the immediate representation, have their counterpart
in  the ultimate representation.   But such a
mode of interpretation would be u njustifiable
and vicious, when'applied to the moral pair' —bies.  Into these nmanv circumstances -are introduiced merely for the sake of ornament or verisimilitude, to beautify them, or to'give an air of
probability and reality to them and make themmore life-liike and entertaining.  They were intended to have no moral significance —no recondite or occult nmeaning,-and to demand such a
meaninga is to subject them to the wayward fancv and  lawless inmaination of any individual




THIE PARABLE.                23) 
wi-)o m1ay choose, to exercise his inenuuity in
hunting up a. meaning to suit hinself.  Irence
the most diversified, fanciful, and contradictory
inte'pretations have been given of these parables, while their true and only design has often
been ailmost entirely lost sight o'.. The scope of
the allegorical parables nmay generally be ascert.ai~l-d without difficulty.  These relate to the
iaingdo'nl of God viewed in some one of its numel'rout  aspects.'They describe prophetically,
as ha, alrea&dv been'er. lredI,   thie e.etab!tihmexkt
and I'-' i' itd'laIru   of thlne thri.tianl dipnsit;.
tion,-t"e promulgation of the Grospel and therteception it- would meet with firom  differenti;
e>al-_ cof heairs,, —ti e  h lanting, g'owth, and
cha acter or the Christian Churcllh  or else the
rise and progress of relirion in the individual
soul.  The scope of the moral parables nmay be
gathered  either from  the precedingl or subsequent context.   Sometimes it is lomally announced.'linus we are told in St. Luke 18: 1.
th!at the parable of the unjust judge was spoKen
by our ILord in order to inculcate the duty and
advantage of persevering prayer.  The parable
of the rich glutton (Lu. 1!2: 16-20) is prefaced
by the following caution in v. 15.' Take heed
and beware of covetousness."   The parable of
the Pharisee and Publican is introduced with
the announcement that our Lord "sp:ake this
parable unto certain who trusted in themselves
that they were righteous, and despised others."
(Lu. 1S; 9.) The Saviour concludes the parable
of. the unmercifutl creditor, who would not forgive his debtor the riniutest portion of his debt,
though much had been forgiven him, with the
following application:  "So likewise shall my



264            THE PARABLE.
heavenly Father do also unto you, it ye from
your hearts forgive not every one his brother
their trespasses."  (Matt. 18: 35.)  When no
declaration is prefixed or subjoined to a parable
of this class, its scope may be collected froml a
consideration of the subject-matter, or the occa-sion on which it was delivered.  Having ascertained the scope or design of the parable, we are
-to interpret it in its gramnmatico-historical sense
-in accordance with that design.  But no rule'has been more frequently transgressed than
this; and no portion of the New Testament has
been  more grossly perverted, tortured  and
abused by hunters after allegories than ihe
moral and doctrinal parables.'  A mystical or
spiritual meaning ha3 been given even to the
most trivial circumstances introduced into the
parable, by means of which their power for edification has been supposed to be rwonderfully
increased. By this process the rich man, for instance, in the parable of Dives and Lazarus, is
made to denote " the high priest under the law;"
the beggar means " the Gentiles;" the beggar's
death signifies " the close of the Levitical dispensation;" the lifting up of the rich man's eyes
in hell means " a conviction of the 6ondemning
power of the law;" his desire to have his brethren'warned is "the desire of the Gentile con —
verts to carry the Gospel to apostate Jews;" the
gulph 9 " the time appointed for' the blindness
of Israel;'" the five brethren are- "that partof
Israel broken off through unbelief."  Again:
what can be more sirnle and intelligible than
the parable of the- Good Samaritan, %which so
beautifully inculcates universal benevolence?
And yet in the hands of some interpreters it




THE PARABLE.              265
turns out to be a perfect riddle. By one expositor it is made -to teach the missiopn and example-,of Christ; the traveller is human nature, or
Adam, the, head of the race, who leaves the
heavenly city and falls into the power of Satan,.and is all but killed. - Christ now finds him and,restores him. The wvine poured into his wounds
-is the blood which Christ shed; and the oil is
-the anointing of the Holy Spirit; the binding
up is the Sacraments of the Church. The ring
in the parable of the prodigal son is described
by one as the everlasting love of God, or the
seal of the Spirit; the sinner is called the
younger son, because man as a sinner is younger
than man as righteous; the citizen to whom he
went was a legal preacher; the swine were selfrighteous persons; the husks were works of
righteousness:; the fatted calf was Christ; the
shoes were means of upright conversation, the
doctrines and precepts of Scripture; the music
which the elder brother heard was the preaching of the Gospel, etc. All such interpretations
may exhibit the ingenuity and piety of the interpreter, but they do so at the expense of his
common sense, and in utter disregard of the ob-.vious intention of our Lord.
The following extract from  McClelland's
Manual of Sacred Interpretation exhibits a far
more sober and correct mode of interpretation:
A" The parable of the ten virgins is dcesigned to
-teach the folly of those who neglect preparation
for their Redeemer's coming.  Virgins are selected, not on account of their purity, but be-..cause virgins in those days played an important
part at bridals; and a bridal feast was made the
tbasis of the fable [parable].  I'The;irginity,




266            TIlE PARATBLIE.
therefore, of the personages is a mere circumstance, which teaches nothing. So is the distinction, into "five wise'  and "five foolish.'
Nothing can be inferred as to the comparative
number of nominal an I sincere professors of religion in the world. The two classes are equalized to guard against all speculations on a sulbject
foreign to the speaker's abject. The "sleeping"
of the wise virgins is another mere circumstance
introduced to bring about the catastrophe in a
natural way, —not to teach the dangerous doctrine that the best Christians fail in spiritual
vigilance, and are very liable to be taken by surprise, when the Master calls them.  The truth
is, that their sleeping was designed to be rather
complimentary than otherwise, as it brought
out the fact that they were provided and ready.
They had nothing to fear; a little refreshment,
therefore, was not amiss, especially as they hads
no duties to perform until the arrival of the procession. The Parable of. the rich man and Lazarus is another example. The angels who -carry
the soul of Lazarus to Abraham's bosom, probably belong, as well as Abraham's bosom itself,,
to the machinery, and nothing is deducible from,
it. The representation of the rich man andt
Abraham being in the same region, and within
sight of each other, is an image taken from the
ancient idea of Hlades, and must not be listed
to prove that the souls of the blessed hold intercourse with those of the wicked in another
world."  The interpreter should constantly bear
in mind that the-moral parables are intended
rather for illustration than for proof; and that
consequently no doctrine should be founded on
the Parables, as its ultimate ground.  Not that




THE PARABLE.                267
the Parable is without its doctrine; but that itis in no case the first revelation or statenment of'
doctrine, and is merely the elucidation of a doctrine previously revealed. All doctrines of consequence are unfolded in clear, unfigurative expressions.   Hence parabolic theology is not argumentative.   It forms no part of the analogy
of faith.  On the contrary, tie analogy of faith
must regulate its teachings so far that they
should harmonize with or illustrate it.
The following classified list of most, if not all,
of our Lord's Parables will assist the student in
his interpretation of them:C.LASS I.
Allegorical and Prophetical Parables.
1. The Sower.-M- att. 13: 3-8, 18-23. (/Mar. 4:
3-9, 14-20. Lu. 8: 4-8, 11-15.)
2. The Tares. —fMatt. 13: 24-30, 36-43.
3. The Mustard Seed. —Matt. 13: 31, 32. (Mar.
4: 30-32. Lu. 13: 18, 19.)
4. The Leaven.-Matt. 13: 33. (Lu. 13: 20,21.)5. The Hidden Treasure.-Matt. 13: 44.
6. The Pearl.-Matt. 45, 46.
7. The Draw Net. -Matt. 13: 47-50.
S. The Laborers in the Vineyard.-Matt. 20:
1-16.
9. The Wicked Ilusbandman. Matt. 21: 3344. (Mfar. 12: 1-11.  Lu. 20: 9-18.)
10. The Wedding Garment, [Marriage of theKing's Son.-Matt. 22: 1-14.
I1. The Ten Virgins.-Matt. 25: 1-13.
12. The Talents.-Matt. 25: 14-30.
13. The Seed Growing Insensibly.-Mar. 4:
26-29.
14. The Different Servants.-Lu. 12: 39-48,
(Matt. 43-51.)




;268               SYMBOLS.
15. The Barren Fig Tree.-Lu. 13: 6-9.
16. The Great Supper.-Lu. 14: 16-24.
17. The Prodigal Son.-Lu. 15: 11-32.
18. The Pounds.-Lu. 19: 11-27.
CLASS II.
Historical, Doctrinal, anl Ethical Pa'rablCs.
1. The Unmerciful Servant.-Matt. 1S: 23-35.
2. The Two Sons.-Matt. 21: 28-32.
3. The Two Debtors. —Lu. 7: 41-43.
4. The Good Sanmaritan.-Lu. 10: 30-37.
5. The Friend at Midnight.-Lu. 11:.5-10.
6. The Rich Fool.-Lu. 12: M1-21.
7. The Lost Sheep. —Lu. 15: 3-7. (3att. 18:
12-14.)
8. The Unjust Steward. —Lu. 16: 1-8.
9. The Rich MIan and Lazarus.-Lu. 16: 19-31.
10. The Unprofitable Servants.-Lu. 17: 7-10.
11. The Unjust Judge. —L. 18: 1-S.
12. The Pharisee and Publican.-Lu. 18: 9-15.
CHAPTER XXII.
SYMIBOLS AND THIEIR INTERPRETATION.
Symbols are significant and representative objects, signs, or actions, employed for the purpose
of communicating  ideas.  The word symbol
(avU/3~xo,) is derived from  the Greek words av
and axxxaw, to cast, or place together, with a view to
comparison  or attentive consideration.  The
-original word was anciently employed in various
ways.  Thus it was customary to call the Apostles' Creed a symbol, probably in consequence
of the traditional, but erroneous belief, that the




SYIMBOLS.                 269
Apostles had each contributed, or thrown in, his
article to that formulary of faith.*
lience the confessions of faith, catechisms,
liturgies, and other doctrinal standards of the
Reformed Churches of Europe, came to bestyled
symbolical books.  The term sy~mbol was also applied to military watchwords. or counter-signs
by which the soldiers of an army could distinguish each other. But'the most frequent application of the word was to the rites of the heathen
religion, where those who were instructed in its
mysteries, or esoteric doctrines, and admitted
to the knowledge of its peculiar services and
private ceremonies, had certain signs, marks, or
tokens, called syprbola, delivered to them, and on
*The first particular- account of the traditional belief respecting the composition of the Apostles' Creed,
is given -by Ambrose, in the latter half of the 4th
century; and in a sermon attributed to Au'gustine,
who flourished a little later, the author assigns to
each one of the Apostles a.particular clause, or article.; as to St. Peter, the article, " I believe ia God the
Father Almighty;" to St. John,'' Maker of heaven
and earth," and so on. But passing by the objection
to this theory, - that had the facts been as here stated,
we should doubtless have had some intimation of
thenm in the Acts of the Apostles, or in the records of
the early Church, the fallacy as well as the absurdity
of the statement is evident from the fact that the Article " the communion of saints," attributed to Simon
Zelotes, is not found in any Creed till about 400
years after Christ; and the-article of Christ's descent
into Hell, attributed to St. Thomas, was neither in
the early Roman, nor the Oriental Creed. Itwas
first inserted in the Creed of the Church of Aquilia
(Italy) about the year 400; and did not find its way
intothe Roman Creed until A. D. 600'.
I




270              SYMBIOLS.'the declaration or presentation of these, they
were admitted without hesitation into any-temple, to the secret rites and worship of that god,
whose symbols they had received.
Pictorial symbols, as a medium of communicating ideas. originated in the necessities of
mankind, and may be traced back to the earliest period of antiquity. Their origin, nature,
and use, may be best understood by considering
briefly the rise and progress of written language.
Let us then, in imagination, carry ourselves
back to the infancy of the human race, before
the use of letters was known, and when the only established mode of intercommunication
among men was that of vocal language. How,
in such a state of society, may we rationally suppose that one person would inform another remote from him, andl with whom he could not
communicate orally, of anry circumstances' connected with a particular object., with which he
desired him  to became acquainted? The first
attempt would be to sketch a rude drawing of
the object, and substitute that for the object itself. In this manner the idea of a man, a horse,
a dog, a house, or a tree, may, as single objects,
be as distinctly communicated as by alphabetic
characters.; while two or more: shouses. may be
made significant or. a town, and two or more
trees, of a wbood. By the continrmus: copying,
in successive series, of auch familiar objects as
the traiin of our ideas might call for, -a kind of
connected narrative of: passing events might be
-furnished, which. though very imperfect and
often quite ambiguous, might. on the whole, be
generally understood.  Such may be supposed
to be the first attempt of men in the earliest




SYMIOLS.                271
stages of civilization, to ommnunicate their ideas
-by written characters.  This would be very
iproperly termed picture-writing, or object-writing;,for it would consist of delineations of the material forms or shape of objects, addressed to the
eye instead of the ear, for the purpose of suggesting to the mind the idea of those objects,
and certain circumstances connected with them.
It is manifest, however, that the scope of this
kind of imitative language would be extremely
limited, and swould entirely fail of delineating
the internal qualities of objects, and also of expressing abstract ideas.  The next step Would
be to remedy as far as possible this defect by
associating conventionally with certain external
forms and images, such properties or abstract
ideas, as these forms would be likely to excite,
and employ the one to express the other. Thus
aln eye might be made to signify wactchfuless or
care, if open; and sleep, or forgetfulness, if closed:
an arm, power; an arrow, calamity; a chain,
bondage; a how, strength, or victory; a shield,
defence.  In like nmnner, one object possessing
certain properties in a remarkable degree, might
be substituted for some other object', to which
one or more of the qualities or properties belonging to that object, were ascribed.  Thus a
fox might be delineated to repilesent a cunning
man; a lamb, a meek or gentle one; a lion, a
strong andl poiverful one; a tiger or leopard, a
ferocious one, or a bear, a fierce and savage one.
~On the same principle compound ideas might.be expressed by a combination of characters.'Thus, if it was desired to represent a man who
-was both powerful and ferocious, it would be
natural to make a figure compounded of the




272              SYMBOLS.
lion and the leopard; the figure of a man enclosed in a square, might denote a prisoner.
For the purpose of economizing time and space,
resort would next be had to abbreviation or substitution, as, for example, a part of a figure put
by synedoche for t-he whole.  Thus the idea of
a  allan represented by the delineation of hiswhole figure, might now be signified by his head,
or his legs alone.
What appears to be reasonable and probable
in theoiy, is found to accord with facts among
all the primitive nations of antiquity. Amongthe Egyptians, this kind of picture-writing, or
expression of ideas by representations of visible
objects and marks, was carried to the highest
degree of perfection.  Those historical traditions and sacred mysteries, whichM were regarded
as of sufficient importance to be transmitted to
posterity, were engraven, on their pyramids, the
walls of their temples, and other works of art;
and hence the name Hieroglyphic, sacsred sculpture, from two Greek words.,so; holy and yxvuw,
to engrave. It Was for a long time supposed that
the hieroglyphic or ideographic writing of the
Egyptians was a mysterious science, the secret of
which was known only to the priests, and by
thema studiously and religiously concealed from
the curiosity of the multitude.  But modern
discoveries have-shown clearly that this writing,
though called by the- Greeks sacred-in itself
veiled no mysteries, and must have been well
understood by the educated class of Egyptians.
The Hieroglyphics. in question, though similar
in form, are now ascertained to have consisted
of three distinct classes, each class subserving a
purpose of its own. Theise are denomintlated the




SYMBOLS.                273
Curiologic or figurative Hieroglyph, the symbolic,
or tropical, and the phonetic. To the first class,
belong those in which the representation of an
object either entire or abridged, conveys the idea
of the object itself and nothing else. This is
simple imitation, a pure picture writing and corresponds to the paintings, pictures and sculpture
of the present day. This class of hieroglyphs is
called, by some writers, figurative; not, however,
in the sense in which that term is employed in
rhetoric as synonymous with tropical, but as denoting that the sign employed is an imitation of
the figure, shape or form of some sensible object.
It corresponds analogically, to words in alphabetical language taken in their primary and literal sense, and may, therefore, to preserve the
analogy, be denominated the hieroglyph proper.
Such are a circle for the sun, a crescent for the
moon, an arch painted blue for the sky, the
proper figure of an ibis to represent the bird
itself. The second class is composed of those
which are either the signs of object.s very different in appearance from the forms of the hieroglyph, which designate them; or else denote
abstract ideas which are not the objects of sense,
but purely intellectual. Thus, when the figure
of a lion is drawn, not for the purpose of designating that animal, but to signify strength;-of
a fly, to represent impudence, or of a tree to de,note an obedient people.'In this class the designation is not a matter of imitation or of proper
likeness, but one which merely bears some an
alogy to it, real or supposed, imaginative, or conventional. Hieroglyphs, of this class, therefore,
correspond to words taken in a tropical or metaphorical sense in alphabetic language.  In the
18




274               SYMINBOLS.
third class, the sign or figure does not stand for
the particular object which it resembles, nor for
an abstract idea; but it indicates a particular
sound. The figure delineated in the Phonetic
hieroglyph, and representing a letter, was the
likeness of some animal or other object, the
name of which in the spoken language conimmenced with the sound of that letter. Thus
the letter A was represented by an eagle, the
initial letter of the Egyptian word signifying
eagle (Ahorn) being a. Of course there would
be found many objects the name of which began
with the sound of A, and hence an opportunity
was atiorded of choosing fronm  among the various homophonous characters, which the writer
wtas at liberty to employ. Accordingly we find
that a great number of different signs were emp,loyed at the option of the writer, to express
the same letter, and this circumstance creates
the principal difficulty in regard to their interpretation. The different kinds of hieroglyphics
and their uses may be illustrated by their application to the name of the' Egyptian god Osiris.
To suggest the idea of. this god by a figurative,
curiologic, or proper hieroglyphic, a full picture
of the god must be drawn, or at least some
prominent-and characteristic part, by which he
would be easily recognized: just as we make a
full length portrait, or merely the bust of a particular individual.  To indicate the same by a
symbolic or tropical hieroglyph, a picture must
be drawn of the' tiara and wand, the symbols of
the god, with which he is always represented.
To express the same by phonetic, or alphabetical hieroglyphs, a series of pictures must be
drawn, of visible objects, the first sounds in




SYMBOLS.               275
whose names shall be the successive souunds in
the word Osir, or, as written in the oriental
manner, without the, intermediate vowel, Osr.
The first sound O might be represented by the
picture of a reed, the Egyptian name of which
is oke; the second, by the picture of a child, in
Egyptian si; the third by the picture of a mouth,
in Egyptian ro.  Phonetic characters or signs,
it is ascertained, form by far the most numerous
class of Egyptian hieroglyphs.  All Chinese
writing was originally ideographic and imitative.
But now, at least one half of the Chinese characters are merely phonetic or alphabetic, in the
sense of syllabic. The Mexican hieroglyphs,
which have come to light, were ideographic and
pictorial.
We discover in Phonetic hieroglyphs the germ
of alphabetical writing; and although the interval between the two is apparently very considerable, yet it does not admit of a reasonable
doubt, that the latter originated in the -former;
that from this modified hieroglyph there arose,
in process of time, a regular alphabet, bonstructed so as to represent and express the various sounds uttered by the human voice,-a
method of communicating ideas by written
characters so vastly superior to the former, as
soon completely to supersede the more primitive and cumbersome method; so that in most
countries all traces of it are forgotten. The hieroglyphic origin of the ancient alphabets is evident from the names given to the letters, as
well' as'from the resemblance which can still be
perceived between their -present and their original- form
The names of the Hebrew letters ard of those




276               SYMBOLS.
of other Shemitic languages are significant. Thus
Aleph, the name of the first letter of the He-.brew alphabet signifies an ox;  Beth, the second
letter, a house; Gimel, the third letter, a camel.
These letters were at first pictures, or rude likenesses of a hut, and of the two animals, or of the
heads of the two animals just specified; proceeding on the very familiar system  found on
the ancient Dutch tiles, and not yet entirely
exploded in books for children, where an ass, a'
bull, and a cat, are associated with the first three
letters of the Rorman alphabet.  Tilhe letter D,
named Daleth, was evidently at first represented
by a door, the name of which begins with that
sound, and the picture of which would thus become the letter of that sound. The letter val
(1) signifies a hook, particularly a- tenlter-look, sucll
as is driven into a wall or post, for the purposo
of suspending things upon it.  Now if we trace
the different figures of this letter through the
several Shemitic alphabets, we shall find them
all derived  fioln  the. same source, and  all
corresponding in their outlines to the original
signification of the name.  The letter Ileth (fl).means in Hebrew a fence or enclosure, and is the
original source of our aspirate i-. In the Babylonian alphabet this letter -is an exact enclosure
of a triangular form; in the Phoenician, an enclosure with an opening at each end; in the old
Hebrew, a close enclosure, and so on. The capi
tal letter T in thb ancient Phonnician and I-Tebrew alphabets precisely resembled a cross, (thel
name of the Hebrew letter Tau'. () which resemblance is still preserve(d in the Rloman al



SYM BOLS.               277
plabet.*  That we cannot now in many instances trace the resemblance between the present
letters of the ancient alphabets and the particular objects after which they were named, is
owing to the various mutations to which they!kave been unavoidably subjected in the course
of time.
It does not appear that the ancient Egyptians
ever advanced beyond phonetic writing. For
we know that no proper alphabet existed among
them till after the advent of Olrist.  When the
Bible was translated into their language by the
*The original Greek alphabet was doubtless the
same as the Phognician or Sheinitic. This is evident
from the following considerations: 1. The Greek
letters used in the most ancient inscriptions are, as
to rnrm, essentially the same as the corresponding
characters found in the Phcenician inscriptions and
on Hebrew coins. 2 The relative position of nearly
all the letters in the two alphabets is the same. 3.
The-names-of the Greek letters are adically the same
as those of the corresponding Shemitic letters.
The priority of the Phoenician letters is satisfactorily established by the fact that the names of most
of the Phoenician letters, as stated- in the text, are
sifni'ficaglt; but the names of the Greek letters are entirely without significance; the words Alpha, Beta,
Gannzma, &;c., are merely imitations of the names of
the Hebrew letters, aidl( "simply designate certain
figures." Now if we admit that the Greeks, whose
language was radically distinct from the Shemitic
group, borrowed the forms and names of the Ph(onician letters, we see at once why those names should
have no meaning in Greek.  Hence in the Roman
alphabet, which succeeded the Greek, the names at
tached to the letters are very properly dropped altogether, and the letters only retained.




278              SYMBOLS.
early missionaries, it was done by means of an
alphabet made from the Greek.  The most striking difference between the two forms of writing are the following: 1. In alphabetic writing
sounds are represented directly, and ideas only
indirectly; but in hieroglyphical writing it is
the reverse; ideas are represented directly, and
sounds only indirectly, This peculiarity in the
latter gives it an advantage over the formner of
considerable importance; viz., that when the
pictures are drawn at full length, or if abbreviated, when the key of the abbreviation is known,
or thetropical sense understood, it is a species
of writing addressed to all nations, and may be
interpreted without the knowledge of their vocal language, which is necessary to the reception
of an idea from alphabetic word.  Thus the
Chinese written language is entirely distinct
from any one of the numerous oral dialects in
use in the empire, and serves the purpose of a
universal tongue.  This advantage, however, is
far more than counterbalanced Dy the many
disadvantages attending it,  2.- When hieroglyphs represent sounds, there is an endless variety of characters for the sound; and the figures chosen to represent' the sound are not arbitrary: whereas.in alphabetic writing, the figures are arbitrary anad conventional, and each
elementary sound has its appropriate character.
3. EIieroglyphs represent full syllables; but alphabets only the elements of syllables.
From the preceding remarks it appears that,
while alphabetic language may be traced backl
to phonetic hieroglyphs, sp symbolical language
had its origin in what may be called tropical or
symbolical hieroglyphs. Thus we see that sym



sYBoI, S.             279
bols are the representatives of other forms and
other ideas than those which the material objects themselves, or their imitative figures would
naturally and obviously convey, and that, consequently, they bear an analogy to metaphors
and tropes in verbal language, though by no
means are they identical, as some writers have
supposed.  When Christ calls himself "the
Bright and Morning Star," it is a metaphor; but
when a star is employed by the Prophet Balaam
to presignify Christ, (Num. 24: 17) it is a prophetic symbol. The figure of a lion, delineated
on the military standard of the Hebrew nation
to signify the tribe of Judah, was a symbol: but
when Christ is called " the lion of the tribe of
Judah," a metaphor is employed. Symbols are
always things; metaphors are- always words. Symbols approach more nearly to allegories, than
they do to metaphors; because the allegory,
though verbal in form, like the symbol, stands
for things and ideas obviously different and distinct from  those expressed by it.  The use of
symbols and symbolical hieroglyphics for the ordinary purpose of communicating information,
has been entirely superceded by alphabetic langua.ge; but, notwithstanding, many are still employed in consequence. of their beauty and fitness to the ideas they are intended to convey.
Thus the working tools of the operative mason
are employed in speculative freemasonry, as
symbols of moral truths and duties.  The flag
of our country is the symbol of our federative
nationality. The anclior is a symbol of hope; the
cross, of C](ristianity; the crescent, of Islamism. An
ordinary finger-ring has no significance, and is
worn only for ornament; but the plain wedding



280              SYrMBOLS.
ring is a symbol of perpetual affection and fidelity. The language of symbols has in every age
been found particularly suited to religious purposes, as giving additional force and significance
to ideas expressed in vocal language, and adapted to afford material aid in deepening religious
impressions, and awakening religious emotions
through the medium of sensible objects addressed to the imagination. The Hebrews, in the
providence of God, were moreover brought into
contact for many years with the religious rites
and usages of a people, abounding in symbolical
rites and ordinances.  For both these reasons,
we should naturally expect to find many symbols employed in the Hebrew ritual, and that
not a few of them would be such as, from the
accident of their position, the Israelites had become familiar with in the land of their er-vitude.
Accordingly we find the Old Testament abounding in symbols. -  he worship of the Jewish
Tabernacle and Temple, with- the exception of'
the Psalmody, was entirely symbolical. Of this
nature were all the sacrifices and offerings, the
burning of incense, &c., &c.  Even from  the
simple ritual of the Christian Church the language of symbols is not entirely excluded. The
two sacraments ordained by Christ himself are
strikingly symbolic;-A-the water in the one symbolizingthedoctrineand necessity of regeneration
or an inward and spiritual change by the operation of the Holy Spirit; the bread and wine in
the other symbolizing the body and blood of
Christ) and teaching the doctrine of vicarious
atonement and the necessity of a vital union by
faith with the Saviour of men.  Symbols were
also found to be an admirable vehicle of proph



s8~ijoLs.               281
ecy, and accordingly we find the prophetical
writings, particularly of Ezekiel, Daniel, and St.
John abounding in  symbolical hieroglyphics.
Hence the study of symbolical language is eminently deserving the attention of the ministers
of religion. Symbols and emblems,* like words,
have a precise and determinate signification;
and, like words also, are for the most part conventional, and acquire their meaning from usage.
The interpreter, therefore, is not at liberty to
affix any meaning he pleases to them, but only such as usage has given them.  Not that
symbols have or can have, uniformly, but one
meaning; on the contrary, like words, they may
have, and often do have, several signiiications as
*The nouns symbol and enmblem, and the corresponding adjectives symbolical and cmbleematical, though not
strictly synonomous, are sometimes used interchangeably. Thus the elements in the Lord's Supper, are
sometimes called symbols of Christ's body and blood,
and sometimes sacred eniblems.  The word emblem
(in Greek sXnpo.a from Ev and  A;xXn, to throwt in, to
impress) literally signifies something inserted or stamped
on as a marlJ. It is employed most frequently in
English to signify a figurative representation, which
by the power of association -suggests to the mind some
idea expressed to the senses.  Crabb represents the
difference between emblem and symbol thus: " the
cbLlem is that sort of fig, ure of thought by which we
make corporeal objects to stand for moral properties;
thus the dove is represented as the emblem of meekness,
or the beehive is made the emblem of industry; the
symbol is that species of emblem which is converted
into a constituted sign among men; thus'the olive
and laurel are the symbols of peace, and have been
recognized as such among barbarous as well as enlightened nations."




282              SYMBOLS.
employed in different relations and circumstances. At the same time these different meanings
and various shades and modifications of signification all naturally flow from the radical import
of the symbol.  For example: The sun was
among the ancients the- legitimate symbol of
supreme authority. and the stars of sutbrdinate authority. Now, in strict accordance -with this generic idea, the sun, in reference to the-family
relation, was employed to symbolize the father,
the moon, the mother, and the stars, the sons;
as in Joseph's Dream. But, in respect to akingdom or empire, the sun represented the supreme
power, whether vested in a male or female, or
plurality of persons, and the moon is employed
to represent the people or subjects of the kings.
Stars sometimes symbolize not inferior magistrates, but kings.  In this case, however, more
than one king is spoken of, or the Ruler of the
Universe is alluded to in the context as the
King of'kings, while the powers ordained by
him are represented as stars. Now, in order to
ascertain the precise meaning of a symbol in
arty particular instance of its occurrence, we
must pursue the same course as when endeavoring to ascertain the specific meaning of a word.
In thee prophecies of Daniel and John,rmany of
the prophetic symbols employed are explained;
the meaning of others may be found elsewhere;
and where We fail to discover it.y collatling
other passages of Scripture, recourse may be had
to profane authors.
There is one thing in relation to the employment of symbols in prophetic Scripture, which
is worthy of special notice; I mean what may
not inmproperly, perhaps, be designated their




SYMBOLS.                28s
chronology. " In verbal description,' says Carpenter, "there is no difficulty in properly adjusting the several occurrences which pass under review, and assigning to each one its respective order in the series, and its particular epoch
in the teneral history. So also, if it be desired
to trace and delineate the effects of any particular principle or transaction on different states
of society, or communities of persons, a speaker
or writer may do so with the greatest facility,
passing from one state to the other in. reaular..
succession, and without the remotest probability
of misleading his hearers or readers.  Thus we
have historical works extant, in which the authors have, in successive chapters, narrated the
history of the community to which their writings
appertained, in its social, its civil, and its political state; each of which topics has been again
divided into separate branches; then has followed a review  of ecclesiastical matters, synchronizing with the events embraced in the
former sections of the work; which review has,
perhaps, been divided into the internal and the
external affairs of the Church, and each of these
again into several other distinct heads of inquiry.  But from  such a distribution and arrangement of the several parts of the work, no
inconvenience will arise, if the author but distinctly mark the limits of each, and properly
adjust'the whole of the general history. The
reader of such a work will very naturally pass
from one to the other, carrying back his mind
to the common epoch, at the beginning of each
of the respective divisions. It is not so, however, in symbolical or pictorial representations.
If a writer employing these be desirous to place




284         SYIMBOLICAL ACTIONS.
before the mind of his reader the leading occurrences of a state, throughout the entire period
of its history, he will be compelled by the principles of the science, sometimes to represent
distant events as existing at the same period of
time, as in Daniel's vision of the great image and
that of the four beasts; and at others, to employ
a successive series of symbols to denote occurrences, which are strictly s nchronical. as in the book
of Revelation.  And, however skilful and cautious he may be, it will be found impracticable
to mark the boundaries of time, and the transition from  one event to another with as much
strength and clearness, as is done in verbal description or narration."*'
SYNMBOLICAL ACTIONS.
intimately coinnectedl witi  the language cf
symbols is that of significant actions or signs,
called symbolica.l actions.  In the earliy ales of
the world verbal  language must have been extremneely rude, nalrrow, and equivocal. To sup)ly in part the deficiencies of speech or to aidd
to the force of olral la nguage, meni  were led to
make use of apt and significant signs, gestures
and actions; to which indeed, they were proomplted by nature.   Hence mutual converse -was
maintained by a mixed discourse of wordls and
actions, whence catle the eastern phrase of the
voice of the sign. Ex. 4: 8.   But this custom
which originated in. necessity, being improved
into ornamnent, subsisted long after the necessity
ceased, especially among Oriental nations, where
*Carpenter's Popular Lectures on Biblical Criticism
and Interpretation.




SYMDOLICAL ACTIONS.          285
natural temperament inclined them to a mode
of conversation which so well exercised their
vivacity by motion, and so much gratified it by
a perpetual representation of material images.
Many of these were the natural language of creation and common to all nations; others were
arbitrary and conventional. The Old Testament
abounds in examples of the use of symbolical
actions, or of instruction or information conveyed by arbitrary but significant signs. The
New Testament also supplies some instances;
but they are neither so numerous in their occurrence,.nor so complicated in their circumstances, nor so uniform in their design, as are
those of the Old. Thus the prophet Isaiah (ch.
xx.) walked naked (i. e, divested of the mantle
of sackcloth, or prophetic garment) and barefooted, to represent symbolically the captivity
of the Egyptians and Ethiopians, upon whom
thle Hebrews placed too much reliance, instead
of wholly. trusting in God.. So in Ezek, ch. iv,
the prophet is commanded to do several things
which would seem absurd, were.they not sym-.
bolical; and in ch. xii. there is an explanation
given of this kind of actions. The false prophet
pushed with horns of iron, to denote the entire
overthrow of the Syrians.  Jeremiah, by God's
direction, hid the linen girdle in the hole of a
rook, near the Euphrates; broke a potter's vessel in sight -of the people; put on bonds and
yokes, and cast a book into the Euphrates-all
these were symbolical acts.
Actions of this nature in the Old Testament
have commonly but one obiject in view; viz. the
adumbration of some future event,- under a sensible representation of one kind or another'




28(6       SYMBOLICAL ACTIONS.
Those which occur in the New Testament ap.
pea r to be of a mixed character; but few as they
are, some of them are vehicles of prophecy, others of purely moral instruction  The act of Agabus, when he caused his own hands and feet to
be bound with the girdle of St. Paul'to intima-te
that the Apostle himself would be bound in like
manner by the Jews of Jerusalem, was of the
former description; to'which we may add the
two miracles of the draught of fishes on the Lake
of Galilee, one before, and the other after the
resurrection of our Liord; but both with symbolical meaning.  The following are examples of
the latter description: The descent of the Holy
Spirit in the form.of a Dove on our Saviour at
his baptism was symbolica.l of the divine influence imparted to him without measure. When.Jesus breathed on his Apostles; and said —' IReceive ye the - Holy Ghost,"' this was merely a
symbolical action denoting the communication
of gifts of the Htoly Spirit by him, and their reception as so communicated by the apostles,
When Jesus on -two several occasions, placed a
little child in the midst of his disciples, it was a
symbolical act indicative of the manner in which
divine truth should be received.  When he
washed his disciples' feet it was to inculcate by
a most impressive symbolic act, the great duties
of Christian humility and condescension. When
he laid his hands upon the-sick and infirm, this
act was only a token or sign of the blessing to
be bestowed.  In like manner, when the same
ceremony — is performed in the ordination of
ministers of the Gospel, and in the administration of confirmation to the baptized, it is nothing more nor less than a symbolic action signifi.




NATURE OF TYPES.              287
cant of' tile wish and desire that suitable spiritual gitls anlld graces may be imparted to the individual.  Symbolical actions are much moreic
sitple and obvious in their import and designl
than symbols, and'consequently are of easier i1nterpretation, and require no special rules.
CHIAPTER  XXIII.
TIlE NATURE AN1 INTERPRETATION OF TYPES.
The word Ty'vpe (Gr. mroos, from  uvQrw, to strike)
properly signifies a mark- made by a blow or in
any other manner, as a. stamnp or impress on coin
produced -by a die, the rinark of. a letter, cut in
stone, &e., then 2._ form., figure, shape, pattern, or
moclel, after which anything is made.  These
secondary meanings all naturally spring from the
primary.  The word has been received into various modern languages and employed in different departments of-science-the radical idea, in
connexion with specific differences, being retained throughout. In numi.smatics, it has retained
most of its original meaning, and signifies the
impression: on a coin or medal.  In philosophy, it
is used in its most general sense, to designate.those forms which are conceived to exist in the
mind of the Creator1 according to which the
character of all individual existences is determined. In nature, type is that- form which gives
the character of similarity to all the individuals
of a species, and at which nature seems continually to aim. In theology, type signifies the pre-or.




288           THE NATURE AND
dained reresentative relation which certain persons,
events, and institutions of the Old Testament, are conceived to bear to corresponding individuals, events, and
institutions in the New Testanent.
The classical and biblical usage of -r'vw; (type)
is for the most part the same. The word occurs
sixteen times in the New Testament, and several times in the Septuagint; where it corresponds
to the Hebrew words DVy and nnnn. In its
primary sense it is used twice in the New Testament, where it is employed  to designate the
print or mark of the nails in our Savi6ur's hands.
John 20: 25.  In the secondary sense it occurs
in Acts 7: 43, 44.  Heb. 8:.5.  In the last two
passages there is a reference to Ex 25: 40, where
the Septuagint version has.ort.
In tile tropical sense of form, manner, the-word
is applied to the contents of a letter, (Acts 23: 25.
3 Mace. 3: 30,;) and to. a doctrine (-Born. 4: 17.
Comp. Rom. 2: 20.)  In the sense of an example!
(,utsaVsjt ) it occurS frequently.  (1 Co. 1-0 6, 1 1.
Phil. 1: 17. 1 Tlhess. 3: 9. l Tinm. 4: 12. Titus. 2: 7.
I Pet 5: 3.)  3. It is applied to a-person as bearing theform and figure of azwthaer person, i. e. as having a pre-ordained connexion one with the other, and bearing amutual pre-determined resemblance in certain respects and circumstances.
Thus in Rom. 5: 14. Adam  is called a type of
Christ.  The same idea is conveyed by other
terms in the New Testament, as by Xrm, shadow,
in-Col. 2: 17. -leb. 8: 5. 10: 1.: *,reoaA,, fig'e in
Ifeb. 9: 9. The-correlative term, or that which
correspondts to the Type, either in  the way of
designed similitude or antith-esis, is wmrvio,, antitype.'See I Pet. 3: 21. lleb. 9: 24   Although




INTERPRETATIGO  O. TYPES.    289
the Theological and Scriptural significatiqns-of
the word type coincide only in a single instance,
yet this is'sufficient to justify the application of
the term to designate the peculiar relation subsistinf between., certain peqsons, events and institutrons. under the -old dispensation and correv
sponding persons, events, and institutions, under the New, provided sumh a relation can he
established by adequate proof.  A Priori arguments against the existence of typical relations
in the sense-here intendex, are of no force whatever. The alleged conne.iQ, if it exists at all,
is simply one of the vari us methods employed
by the Deity to convey information in respect to
future events, to- establisi **e. connexion between different dispensations of his Providence,
and todisplay the wonderfs and beautiful unity
ofhis plan of grace-in the.conomy of human redemption and salvation.  It is simply a matter
of fact, therefore, to be Weished on evidence
draw-n:exclusively from   io word of.God; because eing;like propheo,, supernatural; all ar —
guments derived from -the analogy of what are
called typical forms in -te works of creation,
though affording a presumption in its favor, are
inluffieient to establish such a connexion. The
question then-to -be determined is, whether in
point of. fact Sod- has employed this method of
communicating -divine' -knowledge and confirming the truth of his word to his Church
-whether there is evidence of such an'intimate
spiritual.connexion between the Old and New
Testaments, that, in the history,'transactions,
and- religion recorded in. the former there are
persons, events, and institutions, which have a
designed foreshadowing relation to certain per19




290          THE NArURE ANb
sons, events, and institutions in the latter. The
existence of any such relation has been denied
by not a few.  But it is evident from various
passages of the New Testament, and especially
from the 3Epistle tot.he Hebrews, (see Heb. 8: 2,
5. 9; 7-9, 24, 24. 10: 17, 9. 11: 8-10, 16,) that the
doctrine of Typology in the sense which has
been explained~ rests on a Biblical basis; and it
has accordingly been held by the Church from
the ear-liest times down to the present day, -Indeed it is difficult to see how any one can clearly and thoroughiy     understand  the revealed
scheme of divine truth in its unity and completeness, and perceive the intimate connexion
and beautilul harmony subsisting between the
several dispensations of God, who overlooks the
typical relation which is. disclosed in the inspired. lecords.
-The analogy of nature warrants us in expecting that some suchA proceedure on thepart of
the Divine Being would be developed in:a volume purporting to-contain an inspired history
of'his revealed will apld of his providential dealings with the hum~p  race.- For the material
worll  abounds in typical forms. and special
adaptations.*. And tkis method of communicating instruction in regard to the future, for the
establishment and confirmation of faith in-those
who may embraee the Gospel, has the advantage of imparting vividness and- picturesqueness
to the inspired teaohing. "' The truth is exhibited; not, as in systems of divinity, as a bare abstraction; not, as il the words of Scripture, by a
*See McCosh's Typical forms and special ends in
Creation.




INTERPRETATION OF TYPES.        291
phrase expressive enough, but still a mere counter, bearing no resemblance to that which -it
represents; but by a picture, which the mind, as
it were, -sees before it. With such lively-jimages
before us,' we feel as if we were walking amid
living realities."
But while there is the very highest authority
for real types, the absurd and ridiculous extent
to which typical representations have been multiplied by the ingenuity of divines, is calculated
to bring the whole subject into disrepute, and
has doubtless been the cause of much of the
scepticism which has prevailed in regard to-it.
Typology is a field in which the excursive imagination of Biblical interpreters,. dogmatic theologians, and fanciful preachers, has had a Pretty
wide-scope for exercise, and.the. field-has in
every age of the Church been industriously-cultiva.ted  But the fruits produced-by tlte:toil
arnd labor assiduously bestowed upon -it, hve
not always been such as to afford healthf.Ul nutriment to the children -of God. They!.rlve
served- in many instances only to stimilate.. a
morbid appetite and create a dis'tase for mrre
solid and substantial aliment. Human ingenuity has been tax-ed. to, the utmost to - discoer rese.mblances- And detect. typical'relations in the
Scriptures. All persons and- facts which'eemed
to present some corres.pon dence, especially in
exterhal circumrstances, have been treated-as typical.
Types have been confounded-with other-kindred
images, and analogy, rea-l'or suppose, as  been
the only principle on which they have been explained. Hence the importance of a proper discrimination, and of adopting some principle of
typical interpretation not justly liable to tbt Qb



992          THE NATURE AND
jection on the one hand of being too limited in
its application, or on the other, of being too coinprehensive. Much confusion on the subject of
types has arisen from the loose manner in which
the word type has been employed by theological
writers, and by confounding it with other things
which bear indeed some resemblance to it, but
nevertheless are quite distinct.
It is important to observe'that types are
not words,' -but persons or things, which God intended- to' be  prefigurative of future  persons or' events. Th-ere is no typical sense of
words, distinct from the proper sense, as so-i'me
writers have supposed.  "When we explain a
passage'typically," says Pareau, "we only subjoin one-sense to the words; the typical sen-se
exists in the things."*
T-'ypes have not unfrequently been confounded
withailegor.ies and parables; but they tare Aobviously dissimilar, and should be carefully distinguished.  An allegory or parable is.jceitious; a
typ-,'on the contrary, is something real. The
one5isapieture of the imagination; the other is an
his'orcal' fact. Whatever it be which is' delgned ato prefigure something-future, whether a
a person,i thing, -instituti'ol:  or action, the type
neot les than the antitype must have a re'al, and
not'a merely imaginary existence.  "Tho esosence of a typ&.." says'Holden, "consisting in its
foreordained similitude -t something future, requires it t6-be reaAit y; otherwise it would want
thearstarind most important kind of resemblance,
v.iz., -truthl  Fiction may resenible fiction; one
*Interpretation of the Old Testament. See also
Stuart's Ernesti, p. 12.




INTERPRETATION OF TYPES.         293
ideal personage may be like another; but.there
can be no substantial relationship between a
nonentity and a reality.   If that which is prefigured be a fact, that which prefigures it must
be a fact likewise.   Hence, between the type
and the antitype there- is this correspondence,
that the reality of the one presupposes the reality of the other."t  There are, it is true, some
points of similarity between a type and an allegory. The interpretation of both is an interpretation of things, and not of words; and both are
equally founded on resemblance. The type, moreover, corresponds to its antitype, as the protasis
or immediate representation in an allegory or parable, corresponds to the apodosis, or its ultimate
representation   A material difference, however,
exists in the quality of the things compared, as
well as in the design of the comparison.  When,
for example, Joshua, conducting the Israelites
to Canaan, is described as a type of our Saviour
conducting his disciples to heaven; or, when the
sacrifice of the passover is described as a type of
the sacrifice of Christ on the cross; the subjects
of reference have nothing similar to the subjects
of an allegory- though the comparison between
them is the same. And though a type, in reference to its antitype, is called a shadow, while the
latter is called the substance, yet the use of these
terms does not imply that the former has less of
historical verity than the latter.
Again: The Type has been often confounded
with the symbol or emblem; but they are not the
same. In a type there is always some real and
tDissertation on the Fall of Man, p. 313.
-See Marsh's Lectures in Div. Lec. xvii, p. 89.




294          IRFE NAT[:RE AND
obvious resemblance to the person or thing
typified; but this is not a.t all necessary in a
symbol. In many instances the resemblance is entirely imaginary or of the most remote character.
Hence a type is never, like a symbol, the representative of an abstract idea. Persons as well
as things are typical; but persons are never syimbols  Types in the theological sense, are wholly
of divine origin and appointment.  Symbols
may be either of divine or human origin; for
the most part, they belong to the latter class.
Symbols indicate a known purpose, well understood from the beginning; whereas the relation
of types to their antitypes is unknown, and discoverable only by a subsequent revelation- The
term symbol is equally applicable to that which
represents a thing past, present, or future. The
paschal supper, together with all its-attendant
circumstances, was a symbolical representation
and commemoration of a past transaction. The
bread and wine in the Eucharist are- symbols of
the crucified body of Jesus. The images of the
Cherubim over the mercy-seat, were a symbol of
a present truth.  The ram and he-goat in Daniel, and the white, red, black, and pale horses,
in the Apocalypse. are symbols of future events.*
A Type has always reference to something future, and consequently it is a kind of proph/ecy/.
A verbal prophecy predicts, whereas a type pre-.yqures. The former describes in words what is
about to take place; the latter foreshows in its
*Symbols, wvhich have a prospective reference, or,
in other words, prophetic symbols, like the Types
under consideration, are of course exclusively biblical.




INTERPRETATION OF TYPES.    295
own outward simnilarity a future person or event.
But there. is nothing prefigurative in the baptismal water, or in the eucharistic bread and wine.
They are merely emblems, not types.  Thence it
appears that symbols and types belong to the
same genus, but'differ in their species. A divine
ordinance, however, may partake of the nature
both of a symbol and a type; it may be at the
same time commemorative and prefigurative; it
may have both a retrospective and a prospective
reference, and consequently exhibit the specific
character of the symbol and also of the type.
Such was the ordinance of the Jewish passovwr.
The paschal lamb was both a symbol and a type.
The festival of which it formed a prominent
part, was intended te perpetuate the remembrance of the miraculous 4.livermnce of the Hebrews firom Egyptian bondage, and of the remarkable circumstances  wlhich attended it.
Thus it primarily had a retrospective reference,
and was commemorative of a past event in the
history of the nation.  So far it was symbolic,
and was so regarded by the Hebrews. But in the
divine purpose.and appointment it also prefigured the propitiatory death and sacrifice of the
Messiah —the true Lamb of God-by means of
which the believer procures deliverance from
the penalty of sin. The ritual or legal types of
the Old Testament all possessed this complex
character. They were symbolical in their imme
liate and ostensible design, wa, connected with an
existing dispensation  and religious worship.
They were symbolically expressive of the great
truths and principles of a spiritual religion,
which were common indeed to both dispensations, but which could find only in the New,




296          THE NATURE AND
their proper development and complete realization.  The New Testament declares the whole,
therefore, to have been shadows (types) of the
better things of the Gospel (Heb. 10: 1. 8: 5. Col.
2: 16, 17.)
Once more; The mode of conveying information by types has been frequently confounded
with prophetic instruction -delivered by significant actions. These acts, of which we have already spoken, are in common with types, thinys
as distinguished from words; and they areprophetical in their import.  Hence we commonly
find them classed under the head of prophetical
types. But notwithstanding the points of resemblance between them, the two are not identical.
The significant acts in question were avowedly
-performed for a specific purpose, and with reference, for the most part, to some event or events
near at hand.  In every case they were insulated
acts, and not interwoven into the ordinary transactions of the prophet's life. Indeed they had
no relation to the prophet himself; he performed
them in an assumed character, and with designed and exclusive reference to their symbolical import and prophetical relation. But typical
actions, properly so called, arose directly out- of
the ordinary transactions in which the typical
person was engaged.  The character in which
he performed them, was his own proper character, and not. an asslined one.  The acts themselves were performed without any consciousness of their prospective and typical relation;
and the persons or events which they prefigured
were remote.
It is hardly necessary to add that a type is
wholly distinct from a metaphor. Our Saviour in




INTERPRETATION OF TYPES.    297
the evangelical history is compared to a door, a
vine, a -foundation, a corner-stone; but what reasonable man would hence infer that doors, vines,
foundations, and corner-stones are types of the
Messiah! But when our Lord is called the
Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the
world, the word lamb is indeed used in a metaporical sense, but the assertion is much more
than the application of a metaphor. It intimates a designed connexion between the lamb
slain in sacrifice under the Mosaic dispensation,
and the great expiation to be made in the person of the Messiah. So when Christ is called our
Passover, which is sacrificed for us, the assertion
is not a mere figure of speech; but it implies
that the passover bore a preordained relation to
the Saviour and his mediatorial work.
From what has been said, it will be perceived
that three things are necessary to constitute the
relation of type and antitype  There must be a
resemblance or correspondence between the two;
the resemblance must have been designed by God,
and the type must have respect'lto something future.
1. Resemblance. -There must be a likeness in
certain respects between the person or thing
prefiguring, and  that which it foreshadows.
Similarity must lie at the foundation of a type
in all cases. This requisite is too obvious to
need illustration. Indeed, writers on this subject have generally made this too exclusively the
object of attention.  Accordingly, when a resemblance, real or imaginary, has been discovered between two persons or events under the
two dispensations, this has been deemed quite
sufficient to establish a preordained connexion




298           THE NATURE AND
between them. In this way it is easy to see how
such persons as Job, Bazaleel, Aholiab, Phineas,
Boaz, Absalom, Eliakim, Daniel, Antiochus
Epiphanes, the-unmarried brothers of him who
left his widow childless, the hanged malefactors,
and a thousand and one other persons and things
to be met with in the Scriptures, came to be regarded as types.
When it is said that similarity in certain respects between the type and the antitype, is
requisite to constitute that relation, this does
not preclude the idea of dis.similarity in other respects. And when the points of dissimilarity
are brought particularly to our notice, in the
way of contrast, the type is called antithetic. We
have an example of this in Rom. 5: 14.
2. The second requisite in a type is, that it be
prepared and (esigned b2/ God to pre/fiure its antitype.
A type is not constituted such by the mere coincidence of external historical circumstances. There
must be an internal union and resemblance.  And
this internal correspondence must be traced to
the divineintention. Nomerely accidentalor outward similitude can constitute a true type. A
resemblance in very many respects may exist
between two individuals, living at different periods, without there being the remotest connexion between them.  Similar examples, and historical parallels are everywhere observable.
One person may successfully imitate the actions
of another.  One may casually be placed in circumstances like those of another, and the conduct of the two may be very similar in a variety
of respects.  But this similarity alone does not
establish  a typical relation  between  them.




INTERPRETATION Of TYPES.        299
Guild* finds no less than forty-nine typical resemblances between Joseph and Christ, and-seventeen between Jacob and Christ, not scrupling
to swell'the number by occasionally taking in
acts of sin, as well as circumstances of the most
trifling nature.  Yet thais does not prove that
either Joseph or Jacob was really a type of our
Saviour. If mere similitude were sufficient to
constitute the relation of type and antitype,
then would Capt. Fluellen's celebrated theory of
a typical connexion between Alexander the
Great and King Htarry of Monmouth, be strictly
true, being based on the following indubitable
facts. 1st. That the birth-place of both commenced with ani M.  2d. That both were great
fighters; and 3d. That there was a river in Monmouth and also a.river in Macedon, the name of
which, however, the honest gentleman had forgotten. The connexion between a type and its
antitype must have been originally preconcerted
and preordained by God himself. And it is this
original design and preordination, which constitutes the peculiar characteristic of a prefigurative
type, and distinguishes it essentially fronm all
mere examples of natural phenominal resemblances and other typical forms.  Where this
does not exist, the relation between two persons
or things, however similar they may be, is not
the relation of type and antitype.t But Cocceius,
*Moses Unveiled.
it "To secure its purpose," says Dr. Dick, "' the
type must be instituted by God, who alone can establish the relation; and it is by no means sufficient
that, between two distinct persons or events, there
should be an accidental resemblance.  The essence
of a type consists not in its similarity to another ob



300           THE NATURE ANi)
mn the contrary, a distinguished Hebrew scholar and learned expositor of Scripture in the 17th
century, advanced the opinion that every event
recorded in the Old Testament, which in any
way resembled something to be found in the
New, was to be regarded as typical.+  Upon this
broad foundation a multitude of writers soon
commenced the erection of an edifice spacious
enough to accommodate as many types as the
ingenuity of man chose to create. So that, for
more than a century and a half, the principle
was universally admitted that where tihe analogy
ject, but in its being divinely appointed to be a representative of it."  Theol. vol. 1. p. 144.  "' The
great point to be established is, that the likeness was
designed in the original institution. It is the previous jnerpose and intention, which constitute the whole
jelation of type and antitype." McClelland's Manual, p. 94. See also Marsh's Lee., pt. 2, Lec. 6.
Chevallier's Hulsean Lectures, p. 6.'John Cocceius (Koch) was born in Bremen in 1603,
and died in Leyden in 1660. He successively held
the Professorship of Biblical Philology in his native
city, Bremen, and in Franeker; and that of Theology
in Leyden. He belonged to the Reformed Church,
and was among the first to vindicate successfully the
right of theology to an exegesis free and independent of dogmatics, in opposition to the scholastic divines of the age. The views of Cocceius in regard to
the typology of Scripture, were embraced by his two
eminent pupils, Hermann Witsius and Campegius
Vitringa.  To the same school of interpreters belonged the English writers Matiler, Keach, Worden.,
J. Taylor, and Guild, nearly all of whom lived
towards the latterpartof the 17th century. These have
since been followed by McEwen, Ridgley, Brown of
Heddington, Laurentius, and a host of others.




INTERPRETATION OF TYPES.          301
is evident and manifest between things under the law
and things under the gospel, the former are to be reqarded (on the ground simply of that analogy) as
types of the latter.  The excessive and absurd multiplication of types resulting from the adoption
of this principle, tended at length to bring typical interpretations into disrepute, and either led
to the rejection of prophetical types altogether,
as a mere human invention, or disposed sober
men to regard the subject of typology as hopelessly involved in conjecture and uncertainty.
\Ve have said that that the dlivine intention enters fun-:laruentltlly into the relation of type and antitype.  ]But consciousness of such a relation in the
mind of the sacred writer is not necessary.  Lle
need- not know  or feel that there is an established correspondence between the person or
thing folesla(ldowing and that which is prefigure(l.  Nor is it needful that a typical person
should be aw'are of the fact that he was designed to be such, or that he was manifested as
bearing that relation.  In like manner it is unnecessary that a typical institution should be
known to be such by those among whom if was
established.
3. The last requisite in a type is, that it must
h/ave respect to something future.  The Old Testament types shadowed forth good things to come.
" Types were not appointed to represent present
but future realities.  They weie a temporary
mode of instruction, pointing to another and
clearer way of educating humanity in the highest truth." In consequence of possessing this
prophetic character, types may be employed to
prove, as well as to illustrate the gospel.  Examples, analogies, and resemblances, not announce




302          THE NATURE ANb
ed as typical, are illustrative only.  They explain truth rather than prove it.  The ulterior
and prophetic reference, however, was n'ot the
only purpose for which a religious institution
was anciently appointed.  It might, and generally did, subserve other purposes, subordinateperhaps, to this, but nevertheless in themselves
highly important and beneficial. And that subordinate, but immediate purpose, was, probably,
the only one which at the time was clearly and
distinctly understood by those who observed the
rite. Many, if not most, of the Mosaic ordinances, in point of fact, served a twofold office and
purpose.  While they pointed significantly to
the better dispensation to come, as their ultimate reference, they symbolized to the H-tebrews
present duties and. respotnsibilities, and inculcated
moral virtues and religious obligations of vital
importance.
The vital question now presents itself: how
are we to determine, whether an acknowledged
resemblance between two persons or things in
in the Old Testament is typical of something
connected with Christ or his Church recorded
in the New? Is there any principle which will
guide us with sufficient accuracy for all practical purposes in deciding whether there exists a
special relation between the two, designed or
ordained by God?
The previous design or preordained connexion constitutes, as we have seen, the typical relation. Now this must be shown by competent
testimony. It will not answer, in a matter of
this kind, to be guided by fancy and mere conjecture. What testimony then is sufficient to
establish the relation in question? A proper




INTERPRETATION OF TTYPES.          303
and sufficient answer to this question, we think,
is this: No pelrson, event, or insttituton should be regarded as typical, 6tu what l ylJ bec shown to be such
fromn the Scrip/ro-e ilse/J  lere is a I)lain and simple lavw, which furnishes a sure and sate criterion, by which alla fcifedl resecnblances, dignified
with the name of t//pical rclations-, are excluded.
The reason of the rule imust comlmend itself to
the sober judgment of every man: viz,. that no
one is competent to make known to us the divine intention, except (lod himself, or some person inspired and authorized by him.  This law
does not demand that there should De an express and formal declaration or explicit assertion totis verhis to that effect.  It is enough that
the allusion be of stch a nature, and the connexion in
which it is fontd be such as to afford a reasonable
prcsunmption in tfivor Ot this opinion.  And where
there. is room for doubt, that doubt may fairly
be resolved on the affirmative side. The following quotations show conclusively that this principle accords substantially with the views of some
of the ablest English and American divines in
the present century who have given their attention to the subject.
Bishop Mlarsh:- "The only possible source of
information on this subject is Scripture itself.
The only possible means of knowing that two
distant, though similar, historical facts were so
connected in the general scheme ot divine Providence that the one was (designed to prefigure the
other, is the authority of that work in which
the scheme of divine Providence is unfolded.
Destitute of that authority, we may confound a
resemblance, subsequently observed, with a resemblance preordained.  We may mistake a comr




304           THE NATURE AND
parison, founded on a mere accidental parity of
circumstances, for a comparison founded on a
necessary and inherent connection.  T'here is no
other rule, therefore, by whicht we can  distinguish  a real from  a pretendled type, than
that of Scripture itself.  There are no other
possible means, by which we can know, that a
previous design and a preordained connection
existed.*
Bishop Van Mildert:-" It is essential to a type,
in the Scriptural acceptation of the term, that
there should b)e competent evidence of the divine intention in the correspondence between it
and the antitype,-a matter not to be left to the
imagination of the expositor to discover, but
resting on some solid proof from  Scripture itself."t
Ernesti: —" Those who look to the counsel or
intention, as they call it, of the HIoly Spirit, act
irrationally, and open the roadl to the unlimited introduction of types.  The intention of
the Holy Spirit can be made known to us only
by his own showing."I:
Prof. Stuart:-" If it be asked how'far we are
to consider the Old Testament as typical, I
should answer, Without any hesitation, just so
much of it is to be regarded  as typical as the
New Testament affirms to be so, and Mao more.
The fact that.any thing or event under tehe
Old Testament dispensation was d(esigned to
prefigure something under the New. can be
known to us only by revelation, and, of course,
*Lectures pt. 2. Lec. 6.
fBampton Lectures, p. 239.
fTerrott's Ernesti, Vol. 1. p. 25.




INTERPRETATION OF TYPES.        305
all that is not designated by divine authority
as typical, can never be made so, by any authority less than that which guided the writers of
the New Testament."~
Prof. Stowe: —" In regard to types and allegories, we know of none, excepting those which
are explained as such in the Bible itself. All
the rest are merely c )njectural, and, though of'ten ingenious, are worse than idle, leading the
mind away from the truth, perverting it by false
principles of interpretation, and making it the
mere sport of every idle fancy.t
Dr. T. H. Horne:-" Unless we have the authority of the sacred writers themselves for it, we
cannot conclude, with certainty, that this or that
person or thing. which is mentioned in the Old
Testament, is a type of Christ, on account of the
resemblance which we perceive between them.'j"
Chevallier:-" The connection of typical events
with those which they foreshow, can be determined by authority only. For unless the Scripture has declared that the connection exists, we
can never ascertain that any resemblance, however accurate, is any thing more than a fanciful
adaptation, and we may go on to multiply imaginary instances without end." Again: "The
error of those who suffer their imagination to
suppose the existence of types where they are
not, should warn us that no action must be selected as typical of another, unless it be distinctly declared or plainly intimated in some
part of Scripture to possess that character."'
-Stuart's Ernesti, p. 13.
tIntroduction to the Study of the Bible, p. 35.
UIntrod. vol. 2. p. 530. 7th ed.
4Hulsean Lectures, pp. 34, 54.
20




306          THE NATURE AND
CGhristian Observer (London):-The truth of the
whole matter (viz. of types) unquestionably lies
in a short compass. The interpretations of this
nature, which are adopted by Scripture itself
are infallible; but when they stand alone upon
the authority of human invention and imagination, or, what is sometimes absurdly introduced
as the analogy of faith, they are simply fallible,
and often very simple indeed. No man of common sense will pretend, on such points, to any
superior inspiration or judicial authority over
another. Here the right of private judgment
must take its most legitimate stand. The Scriptures, no doubt, are suited to every turn of mind
and taste. The very large place which the imagination occupies in the mind of man cannot
have been unknown to him who framed the
Scriptures for man. Hence we may justly admire that ineffable wisdom which has given
forth enough for the dullest and most sterile
understanding of the wayfaring man, to guide
him; and has superadded an abundance of most
instructive and impressive analogies for every
higher grade of intellect or imagination, not
even refusing food to the most soaring and aerial of all minds, by the construction of narratives, occurrences and doctrines, which, with
almost a miraculous closeness of application,
may be made to fit into one another, and into
the analogy offaith. It is, however, we repeat it,
where these applications are warranted and
made to our hands, by the words of inspiration
itself, that we deem them- either positively certain or absolutely wise and safel 
IChrist. Obhs. vol. 27. p. 236.




INTERPRETATION OF TYPES.         307
clicClelland:-" This (the previous purptose and
iitcntion) must be proved, and there is only one
way of doing it. Show me from Scripture the
existence of such a connection.  Whatever per-sons or things in the Old Testament are asserted
-by Christ or his Apostles to have been designed
prefigurations of persons or things in the New,
I accept. But if you only presume the ftict from.a real or fancied analogy, you are drawing on
your imagination, and assuming the dangerous
liberty of speaking for God."~
Ellicott: "We should not positively assert the
-existence of typical relations between persons,
places, or things, unless it appears either directly or by reasonable inference that such relations
are recognized in Scripture."
In the application of this principle, we find
in the Old Testament two classes of types. I.
Ritual 7Types, and 2. Historical Types,-embracing
1. historical persons, and 2. historical eventa
But it has been the singular fortune of the
principle in question to be opposed on opposite
grounds. Some object to it as being too n.arrow
and restrictive; while others object to it on the
ground that it is too broad and conlpreh,-;s..ITo the former class of writers belong Fair- 
and Dr. Davidson; to the latter Dr W. L. A>!'.
der and Mr. Lord.  1. Fairbairn expresses::-.
disapprobation of the Cocceian system, baits —a, i.:analogy; but be at the same time declares 1 v
dissent from the principle which we have ]aid
down, based on authority, and in  his elaborate
work on the subject of typology has sought to-.'lay open aw via,naedia- betw,?n, the two'. -- But weWTManual of Bib. Int. p. 94.




308           THIE NATURE AND
do not think he has been entirely successful.
We have failed to discover in his instructive.
but diffuse treatise any clearly intelligible, well
defined and substantial basis, on which the.
mind can rest with satisfaction. He regards the
types which would fairly come under the Rule
here prescribed as simply " examples, taken from
a vast storehouse, where many more may be
found."  While he contends in the main for
Scripture authority in some sense to distinguish
what is typical from what is not, he often converts his ownu theological ideas into tle warrant.
~' Thus," says Davidson, " we are told that the,
cherubim were set up for representations to the
eye of faith of earth's living creature-hood, and
more especially of its rational and immortal,
though fallen head, with reference to the better
hopes and destiny in prospect.  From the very
first they gave promise of a restored condition
to the fallen; and by tile use afterwards made
df them, the light became clearer and more distinct,"'  c., L& c.*  All this is groundless and farfetched. The tree of life was also a type of immortal life and paradisaical delights yet to be
enjoyed by the people of God in ChrisLt  Enoch
is undoubtedly to be viewed as a type of Christ Z:
Noah was the type of him who was to come, in
whom the righteousness of God should be perfected.~  Abraham was the type at once of the
subjective and the objective design of the covenant, or in other words, of the kind of persons
who were to be the subjects and channels of
blessing, and of the kind of inheritance with
*Fairbairn'i Typology, 2d ed. vol 1, p. 240, 241.
tP. 214:P.216. ~P.295.




INTERPRE:TATION OF TYPES.        309
which they were to be blessed.ll  Pharaoh's de-struction was typical of Antichrist.~  The tabernacle was'a type of Christ, as God manifest in
the flesh, and reconciling flesh to God.'** Such
— things as these in the region of a biblical typology clearly indicates that a certain school of divines create types in abundance by the aid of
their peculiar theology.  Thinking that they
magnify Christ and his dispensation in this manner, they virtually convert Judaism into Christianity, instead of keeping them in their proper
relations. They mistake the essential, concrete
thing which constitutes a type."it   Dr. Davidson objects to our principle chiefly on the following grounds: " It is admitted," he says, "' that
types partake of the nature of prophecy. Now
in order to connect the thing or person described in prophecy as future with its counterpart, we do not require the exposition of the
Scripture writers themselves.  A prophecy is *not
said it Scri-ptuiec in most cases, to be fulfilled in
a person or event, even where we have reason to
believe that it is so. No one dreams of demandino the express testimony of an inspired writer
ior demonstrating the meaning of what is
fulfilled.  What was predicted is not identified
with its counterpart when the latter takes place.
Why then should a different rule be applied to
types?  Why should their spiritual sense be
every where pointed out by the Scripture w-riters themselves? Are we not warranted in assuming that there are predictions in the Old
Testament which were at least partially fulfilled
lIP. 306. Vol. 2d, p. 56.56. **P. 236.
ttDavidson's Horne's Intro vol, 2. p 444.




310          TIHE NAT'URE A-ND
in circumstances and persons belonging to the
New, without its being expressly said that they
were so fulfilled? In like manner, may it not beinferred that some types are not indicated in
the New Testament which must nevertheless
have been really such?  The prophetic Scriptures have their character.  We cannot alwaysfix their meaning or determine their scope.
There is no key to the interpretation of prophe —
cv in the'Nevs Testament.  Neither is there, in
many instances, an express declaration that a,
passage is prophetical in its nature. so that we
maxy sometimes mistake history for prophecy,
and rice'eresea. Types should be regarded in the
same manner."*   luch of this objection lies
against the principle as stated by Bishop Marsh
and Prof. Stuart, viz that an express declaration by Christ or his apostles to that effect is
necessary to establish the typical relation.  But
its force in this particular, we think, is obviated
by the more comprehensive character of the
principle as expressed above.  The case drawn
by- Dr. D. from prophecy, does not seem to be
altogether parallel.  Prophecies in general mayv
be ascertained to be such from the nature of the
subject, the form of expression, or the context,
and from these sources we may satisfactorily de
termine their proper meaning and fulfilment, ir
respective of any declaration or intimation to
that effect in the New T'estament.  But it is impossible in this way to ascertain what is typical
and what not, in the Old Testament.  Types
are indeed a species of prophecy, but they are
concealed prophecies, which only their comple*Davidson's Horne, vol. 2, p, 439.




INTERPRETATION OF TYPES.    311
tion can indicate or explain. There may undoubtedly be typical persons and things in the
Old Testament which are not alluded to as such
in the New; but we have no means of ascertaining what they are. Indeed we should not
have known of the existence of typical persons
and institutions in the Old Testament at all, had
we not been so advised in the New.
2. But there is another class of interpreters
who object to the principle in question as ad
mitting of too wide an application, and who
would greatly curtail the typical matter of Scripture. Thus Dr. W. L. Alexander* defines types to
he'"symbolical institutes expressly appointed
by God, to prefigure to those among whom they
were set up certain great transactions in connection with that plan of redemption, which, in
the fulness of time. was to be unfolded to mankind."  The same view has been adopted and
defended at length by Mr. Lord.t  According
to this writer types must possess the following
distinctive marks: They must have been specially constituted such by God: they must have
been known to be so constituted and contemplated as such by those who had to do with
them; and they must have been continued till
the coming of Christ; when they were abroga.ted or superceded by something analogous in,
the Christian dispensation.  By the definition of
Alexander and the distinctive marks of Lord,
historical types in the Old Testament are en —
*Connection and Harmonies of the Old and New
Testament. 1841.
tSee Lord's Ecclesiastical and Literary Journal,
No. 15.




312          THlE NATURE AND
tirely excluded, and by the latter especially;
nothing is admitted as belonging to this character but what appertained to " the tabernacle
worship, or to the propitiation and homage of
God;" this, in his judgment, embraces the entire sphere of the typical. All the distinctive
and essential marks of a type which Lord lays
down, are, in the sense intended by the writer,
incapable of Scriptural proof. "' The strictly religious symbols of the Old Testament worship
were not specifically constituted types, or formally set up in that character any more than
such transactions as the deliverance of the Hebrews from Egypt, or the preservation of Noah
in the deluge, which he denies to have been
typical. In the manner of their appointment,
viewed by itself, there is no more to indicate a
reference to the Messianic future in the one
than in the other. Neither were they for certain known to be types, and used as such by the
(1(1 T'estament worshippers. They unquestionably were not in the time of our Lord; and how
lhir they may have been so at any previous period, is a matter only of doubtful speculation.
Nor, finally, was it by any means an invariable
and  indispensable characteristic, that they
should have continued in use till they were superceded by something analogous in the Christia.n dispensation."T. In point of fact, many of
them did continue in use until the redemptive
work of Christ was finished on the cross; as, for
example, the sacrifices and other ritual observances of the Temple worship; and the commem-.orative ordinance of the Passover. But most of
Fairbairn's Typology, vol. 1, p. 51.




INTERPRETLTION  OF TYPES.    313
the historical types, whether persons or events,
were of such a nature as not to admit of being
repeated even by a symbolical or commemorative rite.
Types have been variously divided and classified by different writers. They speak of natural,
moral, historical, legal, prophetical, and other
types But for most of these classes there is no
foundation whatever.  The classification proposed by Chevallier is probably the best which
has been made. It is the following:-I. Those
which are supported by accomplished prophecy.
delivered previously to the appearance of the
antitype; as Moses, (Deut. 18: 15), Joshua, the
High Priest. Zech. 3: 8. 2. Those supported by
accomplished prophecy, delivered in the person
of the antitype; as the brazen serpent, (Num.
21: 5, 9. Comp. John 3: 14); the manna eaten
by the Israelites in the Desert, (John 6: 32, 49);
the paschal sacrifice, (1 Cor. 5: T, S. Comp. Lu.
2)2: 14-16); the miraculous preservation.of Jonah in the belly of the great fish, (John 11: 32.
Matt. 12: 40). 3. Those which in Scripture are
expressly declared, or clearly assumed to be
typical, after the prefigured events had taken
place; as the numerous types contained in the
Levitical priesthood and sacrifices, (the Epistle
to the Hebrews passimn) also Adam, Melchisedec,
Joshua, the son of Nun, David, Solomon, Elijah
as a type of John Baptist, etc.
In the interpretation of types the following
rules should be observed:
I. The analogy between type and antitype should
not be uryed beyond the points to which revelation has
extended it. This rule is founded on the principle that the relation between type and antitype




314           I'THE NA.TURE AND
is, and must be, generil; and consequently it was
never designed that the comparison should be
extended to every particular circumstance.  In
every case, especially of typical persons, there
are many things' in the type which have and
could have no place in the antitype, because the
persons and  things related  are respectively
earthly and spiritual, imperfect and perfect.
And for the same reason, some things are peculiar to the antitype, and could have no counter
part in the type.  It is not, therefore, throughout the entire compass of their history, but only
to certain specific acts, or to certainly divinely
appointed offices or relations, that we care to
look for what is properly typical.  In some instances we may discover other points of resemblance
also, which it may be interesting and instructive
to consider; but these being, as far as we know,
accildental, do not enter into the typical relation.
Thus Jonah was a type of Christ only in reference to his being three days in the belly of' the
great fish, and coming forth at the end of that
period alive and unharmed.  His disposition,
conduct, and character, have no concern with
the typical relation he bore in that part of his
history to which we have adverted.  To regard
the sinful acts of typical persons as prefigurative
of Christ, as has sometimes been done, is little
short of blasphemy. Indeed, it is never in their
personal or private characters that individuals
are types of the Messiah.  If they were official
persons, then the typical relation belongs not to
their private, but their offcial character.  Thus
Moses typified Christ as a prophet, lawgiver,
leader of the children of Israel, and head of the
ancient dispensation. Interpreters of the Coc



INTERPRETATION OF TYPES.          315
ceian school, however, not satisfied with this
general and official relation between Moses and
Christ, have enumerated various particular actions of his life as typical. ite married an Ethiopian, a stranger, and a black woman; so Christ
espoused the Gentiles, who were strangers to
God, and by reason of sin, as black as hell could
make them.  He sweetened the bitter waters of
Marah by a tree cast into it; so Christ sweetens
all our afflictions by means of his cross.  Hle
led Isr-tel through the Red Sea; so Christ leads
his Church through a sea of tribulation. As
Moses was transfigured on Mt. Sinai and seemed
so glorious that the children of Israel could not
behold his face; so Christ was also transfigured
on Mount Tabor so that his disciples were
amazed and knew not what to say.*
The Prophets, as a class, prefigured Christ the
great teacher; so likewise the priests and kin79s of
the Old Testament.  But we are not warranted
from this to regard the particular acts of individuals belonging to either of these classes as
typical of Christ. It was only in their public
and official position, and not in their private capacity that they were thus related to the Son of
God. The Levitical priesthood and the ritual
sacrifices of the Mosaic economy prefigured
Christ our great High Priest, and the sacrifice of
himself offered for sin on Calvary. Yet there
were many things in that priesthood which have
no  counterpart in  the  antitype.  The High
Priest was to offer sacrifices for his otcWt sins
(Heb. 5: 3) as well as those of others, which cannot apply to Christ (HIeb. 7: 27). The Aaronic
*Keach on the Metaphors, p. 960, ed. 1779.




316           THE NATURE AND
priesthood, moreover, was weak and unprofitable-attributes which certainly did not belong
to the Redeemer. The Tabernacle, with its
furniture and religious services, as a whole, is
affirmed in the epistles to the Hebrews and the
Colossians to have been of a typical nature; but
it was never intended that the relation of type
and antitype should be extended to every minute particular. The following examples, however, will show to what lengths the comparison
has been carried by writers of the Cocceian
school. The ark of the Covenant, (says Witsius),
being partly of wood and partly of gold, aptly
represents the two natures of Christ.`' The table of shewbread was a type of Christ, because it
was covered over with gold. and had a crown
about it, denoting the purity of Christ's humanity with the glory of his deity and the majesty
of his kingdom; because it had food set upon it,
of which none were to eat except the priest, signifying that spiritual nourishment which is in
Christ, which none receive or partake of but believers only, or the royal priesthood of the faithful. The bread was always to be upon the table,
which signifies that in Christ there is food continually for our souls. There was much bread,
twelve loaves, which signifies that in Christ
there is food or nourishment enough for all who
realize their need of him; or it shows how plentifully God feeds his elect; his poor shall not
want bread, his table is always spread, always
richly and abundantly furnished.t
The burnt-offering of fowls was a type of
*On the Covenants, vol. 2, p. 208.
tKeach, p. 969.




INTERPRETATION OF TYPES.    317
Christ, because they were turtle doves or pigeons,
signifying his meekness and innocency. The
neck of the fowl was to be pinched with the
nail, that the blood might flow out; but not that
the head should be plucked off from the body.
All this signified how Christ should die and shed
his blood; yet, thereby his deity, as the head or
principal part, should not be divided from his
humanity; nor yet by his death should he who
is our head be taken from his Church, but should
rise again, and be with themn by his Spirit forever. The blood thereof was strained or pressed
out at the side of the altar, before it was plucked and laid upon the altar to be burned; signifying thereby the straining or pressing out of
Christ's blood, in his grievous agony in the garden, before he was taken and stripped to be crucified: and so on ad nauseam.n   Now there is no
way of avoiding this palpable error, and egregious
trifling with the word of God, but by strictly
confining our expositions of types to those express points in respect to which the Scripture
itself authorizes us to consider them as typical;
or which immediately flow from the nature of
the particular relation or character, which we
are taught to regard as constituting the analogy
between the type and antitype.
II. kioV doctrinc s/0oul( be reqarded (ts( l'ntl, aental
which is founded soiclq on typical anclogy. The
great and essential truths of the word of God,
are taught in plain and unequivocal languIage.
They are not concealed under the veil of types
and shadows, or left to be deduced from obscure;See Keach's metaphors-quoted in Davidson's
Horne, p. 443.




31S      THIE NATURE &C. OF TYPES.
and figurative passages. The typical manifestations of the divine counsels will be found in
perfect harmony with these truths.  They serve
to illustrate and confirm the great doctrines of
salvation; but they do not reveal them for the
first time, nor exclusively.  They strengthen
our belief in the truth and reality of what is
made known elsewhere and in other and clearer
forms. Our belief, for instance, in the doctrine
of atonement, may be greatly streigthened by
contemplating the fact that it was not only revealed to our fathers by the clear intimations of
verbal prophecy, but precfigured in the numerous sacrifices which were offered from the time
of Adam to the death of Christ. At the same
time, it is highly improbable that Jehovah would
conceal, under the veil of figure, parable, and
type. truths necessary to salvation, and nowhere
disclosed in plain and literal terms. No person,
therefore, can be expected to receive, as a necessary article of faith, any doctrine, founded
exclusively or primarily on the types and shadows of the patriarchal and Mosaic dispensations.
THE END.








ERRATA.
The reader is requested to correct with his:pen the following errata. Other typographical
errors of minor importance will be easily de —
tected, and need not be noticed here:Page 65, line 14 from bottom-for "not able"
read "not be able."
Page 66, line 8 from top-for "Coccaous" read
"Coccius."
Page 190, line 7 from top —for "1341" read
"1841."'
Page 137, line 11 from  bottom-for "with
tropes" read "in tropes."
Page 166, line 16 from top-for "arising from"
read "suggested by."
Page 175, line 5 from bottom-for'rationally'
read "soberly."
Page 211, line 5 from top-for "profess' read
possess."
Page 224, line 9 from  top-for "expressive"
read "express."
Page 229, line 9 from bottom —for'-they rest'
read "it rests."
Page 253, line 8 from  top-for "its answer"
read "it answers."
Page 271, line 17 fiom  top-for "excite" read.
"suggest."
Page 2S8, line 6 fiom top-for "is" read "'are.'