UC-NRlf iiiiiiiiiiiiii nil mil mil I nil 1 1 nil III B 3 37M MMfl TI-IE ELEMENTS I { BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION, i REV. L. A, SAWYER, A. M 1834. -'V^'V'^^^.-V^'*. v%.-v ^ w ■x^^*-'^ ■<*. -V ^ ^*J(^ e of incalculable benefit and of inestimable value : and wliile so many loose and erroneous, and contra- dictory views are entertained on the subject of its com- munications, it is truly surprising that biblical inter- pretation has not been more generally a subject of in- vestigation and inquiry. Other branches of knowledge have received at least a share of public attention ; this has by the multitude been almost entirely overlooked and ne- glected. Indeed it is hardly known by many a fierce religious disputant and wrangler in our land, that there is any such science as that of Biblical Interpretation. But though neglected by the common people, be- lievers and unbelievers, the most accurate biblical scholars have devoted to it a large share of their at- tention. In the seats of learning, and by the most suc- cessful cultivators of biblical knowledge, it has been studied with increasing interest and benefit, both to themselves and the world with whom they communi- cate. Lectures and other scientific instructions are given on this subject in our best theolo^rical seminaries, and the ablest expounders of God's word are devoting themselves to this study with singular assiduity and zeal. 3. An essay on the subject of biblical interpreta- tion briefly explaining its fundamental principles and rules, and presenting them to view in their mutual re- lations and dependences, has long been needed and desired by at least a respectable portion of the Chris- tian public. There is nothing of this kind in circula- tion at present in this country. Prof. Stuart's trans- it D BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION. latioii of Ernesti is not adapted to interest and instruct the general reader, though deeply interesting to the accurate classical and biblical scholar. 4. In the present elementary treatise an endea- vor has been made to exhibit the fundamental prin- ciples and rules of biblical interpretation, in such a manner, as to place them within the reach and com- prehension of every intelligent reader of the English language. These rules are accompanied with such illustrations and examples, as will sufficiently evince their truth and show their application. The system of interpretation which is taught in this essay, is substantially the same as that of Ernesti ; technical expressions however are generally avoided, as being ill adapted to instruct the great body of the Christian community for whose benefit this essay is more par- ticularly designed. 5. In applying the following rules of interpreta- tion to the Bible, it is to be remembered, that the holy word of God is to be approached with the profound- est reverence. Rash and hasty judgments are not for a moment to be tolerated in relation to those vitally important subjects, which the Bible unfolds to our view. Here, if any where, when examining this blessed book if ever, we are to proceed with delibera- tion, and judge with candor and caution. How much is lost by a neglect to do this, no tongue can tell, no pen describe, no pencil paint. Much of the error in faith and practice, with which the world is flooded, may be traced to this prolific source; men leap to their conclusions on religious subjects, before they well un- derstand the premises ; and those conclusions are such BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION. 7 as suit their own misguided fancy, whether they can be educed from the word of God by fair means or foul. Many undertake the study of the Bible with their ultimate conclusions all predetermined. They look into itj not to hear all that God is pleased to say, for the purpose of deterring them from sin, and exciting them to seek holiness and heaven ; but to see what they can find, to estabhsh themselves in this and that favorite opinion. That such persons should make much pro- gress in sound scriptural knowledge is not to be ex- pected. They do not labor to correct their errors and enlarge their views, a work which cannot be ac- complished without labor. They only strive to con- firm themselves in their preconceived opinions : in that they generally succeed, no matter how absurd those opinions may be. 6. Let the work of Biblical Interpretation be un- dertaken with honesty and humility. Human opi- nions are an empty sound, and even learning is a vain show when arrayed against the truths of the Bible. Truth will stand; it is destined to a glorious and universal triumph. It will bless and comfort all those who hold it in rigfhteousness. It has outlived the scoffs of the most heaven-daring infidels. The mists of scepticism cannot conceal and essentially dark- en it, the storms of persecution have been unable to sweep it away. Woe to the man who lifts up his puny hand against divine truth. In doing this, he rebels against God, and treasures up wrath against the day of wrath to be poured out upon his guilty soul. y BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION. Joy to that man who is on the side of truth. Truth will be on his side. If he has taken the part of truth ao^ainst an angry and unbeUeving world, truth will take his part against all that may threaten to disturb his peace and destroy his soul. By God's truth he shall be sanctified, and being sanctified shall enjoy a blissful eternity with him, whose words are truth, whose favor is life, whose loving-kindness is better than life. The work of biblical interpretation is easy to the candid, attentive and prayerful inquirer. By such the principles and leading rules of this interesting science, will be readily apprehended. To the captions and ca- viling, they will be more diflacult of acquisition : but yet, I do not despair of affording them some aid, if they will patiently examine the subject by the light of their good common sense, to see if these things are so. SECTION II. THE RULES OR LAWS OF INTERPRETATION. What is first to be dose. 1. The first business of an interpreter is to deter- mine the meaning of words. No communication can be correctly understood or explained, without an accu- rate knowledge of the meaning of the words in which it is expressed. If one or more important words of a communication are misapprehended and wrong ideas attached to them by the reader or hearer, the commu- nication will be so far misunderstood and wrongly interpreted. Language cannot be correctly interpre- ted without the most careful attention to words, for the purpose of ascertaining their precise meanings. Ne- gliofence here is the cause of many errors, and is of itself hiofhly criminal ; and yet we are not unfrequently guilty of it to a very high degree in the study of the Bible, the most important, and in some respects the most difficult, of all studies. 2. DEFINITION OF THIS SCIENCE. Interpretation is the science which teaches how to ascertain and explain the true meaning of language. 10 THE RULES OR LAWS All intelligent persons are more or less familiar with the art of doing this, though, few have ever studied minutely its principles. The interpretation of lan- guage is so intimately connected with the use of it, that every man is compelled to make himself in some measure master of the art. And yet no man can be completely master of this, any more than of any other art, without an accurate acquaintance with its principles and rules. 3. GENERAL PRINCIPLES RELATING TO THE MEAN- ING OF SINGLE W^ORDS. 1. Every word has some meaning either of itself, or else as qualifying the meaning of other words and pointing out their mutual relations and dependences. The only use of words is to stand for ideas and to serve as a medium for communicating them ; if there- fore any word had no meaning, it would be entirely useless. The meaning and power of words is determined by usage and custom. There is necessarily a kind of general agreement among those who use any particu- lar language, that particular words shall stand for particular ideas and objects. Thus man, time, earth, heaven, &c., stand for particular objects, and designate them in distinction from all others, by the general con- sent of those who use the English language. 2. Most words have more than one meaning, or admit of some modifications of the general idea for which they stand. Thus heat denotes, first, a substance which exists in the natural world, and which enters into the com- OF INTERPRETATION. 11 position of natural bodies ; secondly, the sensation produced by that substance on the animal frame ; thirdly, animal excitement, ardor. So the word spirit denotes, first, animal excite- ment, ardor ; as when we say of soldiers, they fought with great spirit ; secondly, the soul of man or of other creature, an incorporeal thinking being ; as when we speak of the spirit of man going upward to God at death, when we say that God is a spirit, that he maketh his angels spirits, (fee. ; thirdly, temper, dis- position ; as when we say of a man, that he showed a good spirit or a bad spirit, meaning evidently, that he showed a good or bad disposition or state of mind, a good or bad temper. Most if not all the principal words in our lan- guage as well as those of other languages, have more than one meaning ; or at least some diversity of signification growing out of the same general idea. The different meanings of the same word are con- nected together by some general relations, such as similarity, the relation of cause to the effect, and effect to the cause, cfec. The fact that many words have more meanings than one, deserves special consideration. Many per- sons too often overlook it, and having proved that a word sometimes and in some connections, has a parti- cular meaning; infer that it must at all times and in all places have the same meaning. Such pretended proof is entirely fallacious. The fact that a word has one particular meaning in one connection and in relation to one subject, is no proof at all. that it has the same 12 THE RULES OR LAWS meaning iu a different connection and in relation to a different subject. In view of this subject it is obvious that an inter- preter ought to famiharize himself with all the different meanings of important words, in order to be fully qualified for the business of interpretation. Otherwise he will be in great danger of mistake, m applying the meanings he is familiar with, where others were in- tended to be conveyed. 3. No word, has more than one meaning in one and the same place. Though it may have twenty meanings in different places, it can have but one of them in any one place. The correctness of this pro- position will appear from a careful inspection of any part of language, and from a consideration of its very nature. When I use a particular name to designate a particular object, I wish it to be understood as stand- ing for that object and no other. If either of the prin- cipal words of a simple sentence had two meanings, that sentence would express two simple ideas: if two of them had two meanings at the same time, that sen- tence would express four simple ideas. A language constructed on this principle would be in the highest degree confused. It would be an anomaly among the languages of the earth, and entirely unfit for the pur- poses of social hitercourse and instruction. 4. As many words have different meanings, the question naturally arises, how shall we determine which of those meanings is intended in any particular passage ? Answer. The most common meaning is always to be chosen where the nature of the subject or context OF INTERPRETATION. lo does not clearly indicate another. Where different meanings are equally common, the nature of the sub- ject or context must always decide which are to be taken. Thus in the sentence, '-God is a spirit;" we have the word spirit, which is used in different senses. The nature of the subject clearly indicates which of the meanings is intended here ; namely that God is an incorporeal thinkins: being. The other meanings of this word, though common, would not suit this pas- sage at all, and therefore we with propriety infer that they could not have been intended by the author of the declaration. 5. Most words are capable of being used figura- tively to express different ideas from those to which they are ordinarily applied. A word is used in a figu- rative sense when it is applied to some object or ac- tion of which it is not the proper name. Thus we say that anger burns, sin is a venomous disease, where burns and venomous disease are used figuratively, and the meaning is, that anger is excited, and that sin is like a venomous disease in its effects. The most important figurative expressions and those which occasion most difficulty to the interpreters, are included under the following heads, the Metaphor, the Allegory, and Metonymy. A metaphor is a word expressing similitude without any expressed sign of comparison ; as God is a con- suming fire ; meaning that God is like a consuming fire, in certain particulars. Metaphorical expressions are very common, both in the sacred Scriptures and in other writings. 14 THE RULES OR LAWS An allegory is a continued metaphor. It differs from a metaphor only in being drawn oat to a greater length. As there is an implied comparison in every metaphor, so in an allegory the suliject of discourse is illustrated by a familiar representation of something else resembling that subject in some of its properties or circumstances. The 80th Psalm contains one of the most beautiful allegories in the language. It com- mences in the 8th verse and ends with the 16th. " Thou hast brought a vine out of Egypt, Thou hast cast out the heathen, I planted it Thou preparedst room before it," &c. In this allegory God's chosen people are compared to a vine, and by the description of this supposed vine, several facts in their history are forcibly brought to mind and illustrated. The parables of the New Tes- tament are allegorical representations in which the familiar incidents of common life are made to illus- trate important religious truths. Metonymy is the use of one word for another, as cause for effect, whole for a part, container for con- tained, &c. As "he bare our sins in his own body on the tree" ; that is bare the effects or penalty of our sins. "As often as ye drink of this cup," that is of the liquor contained in it ; " There went out to him all Judea and Jerusalem and all the region round about Jordan, and were baptized of him" ; that is, there went out all the people of Jerusalem, Judea, (fee. 6. The design of figurative language is to illus- trate, embellish and enforce. It is of very great utiUty in contributing both to the copiousness, beauty, and OF INTERPRETATION. 15 force of language ; and renders it a much more per- fect vehicle of thought, than it could otherwise be. Some writers use figurative language more sparingly than others. Poetry abounds more in figurative language than prose. The oriental writers generally use figu- rative expressions in greater profusion than those of other nations. The sacred Scriptures abound in figurative language more than almost any other wri- tings of equal extent. On this account the biblical interpreter ought to be well acquainted with the prin- ciples of figurative language and the laws by which it is to be interpreted. 4. HOW TO DISTINGUISH LITERAL FROM FIGURA- TIVE LANGUAGE. 1. The literal meaning of words is never to be de- parted from without evident reason and necessity. To interpret words on all occasions in fiofurative senses, because they are sometimes or indeed often used so, would be one of the grossest abuses of languag-e, and the most entire perversion of reason. An intelligent writer does not introduce figurative expressions in such a way, as to leave room to doubt whether they are fiofurative or not. That a word will admit of beincr interpreted in a figurative sense is not a sufiicient rea- son for interpreting it so. It ought not to admit of a different interpretation, without evident violence being done to the language, in order that its claim to be con- sidered figurative may be made good. Such is always the case with figurative language. It cannot without manifest violence being done to it, be interpreted liter- ally. ifc 16 THE RULES OR LAWS 2. Words are to be considered figurative, when there is manifest incongruity between the subject spoken of, and the affirmation made respecting it ; as when corporeal and incorporeal, animate and inani- mate, rational and irrational, &c. are conjoined. Thus Christ says of himself, " I am the true vine," " the liv- ing bread ;" here is a conjunction of animate and in- animate. " Wisdom crieth without ;" crieth expresses the act of a living agent and is applied to Avisdom, which is inanimate, by a figure of speech called per- sonification. Anger burns or is kindled ; here is a conjunction of anger an incorporeal object, with burns, which expresses the state of a corporeal or material object. Whenever an expression would be manifestly false or absurd, if understood literally, and makes a good sense if understood figuratively, we are to con- sider it figurative. Thus Christ said of the sacrament- al bread, " this is my body." This declaration, if un- derstood literally, would be false and absurd. No logic could make out, that bread is identical with a liv- ing human body, and such was the body of Christ, when he made the declaration referred to. But if we consider bread as being a figurative representation of the Redeemer's body, the sense of the passage is good, agreeing both with the subject and context. We therefore conclude that it is figurative; and so of like expressions generally. 3. A word is frequently known to be used in a figurative sense, by a definitive clause, expressing in a literal sense the idea intended to be conveyed by the figure. As in the sentence, " We being dead in tres- passes and sins," 6cc. dead is known to be used in a OF INTERPRETATION. 17 figurative sense, by the phrase in trespasses and sins, which indicates literally the kind of death intended, and shows the word to be used in a figurative and not in its literal sense. 4. When different words and those of different significations, are applied to the same subject, though that subject is an unknown one, we may justly infer that some of them at least are to be understood figura- tively. Thus the change that takes place in becom- ing a Christian, is called being born again, being con- verted, renewed after the image of God, &c. some of which must of course be figurative representations of that change. 5. When the same words or those of similar im- port are every where in the Bible, used in reference to any particular subject, though that subject is otherwise an unknown one, we may infer that they are to be in- terpreted hterally. Thus the future punishment of the wicked is represented by various terms and forms of expression, all of which unequivocally denote suf- fering ; we therefore infer that punishment will lite- rally be inflicted. The doctrine of the resurrection of the body at the last day stands on a foundation equally firm. It is referred to in various passages of Scripture, and by various modes of expression, but all indicating the same thing and expressing substantially the same idea. Thus resurrection of the dead, of the body, being quickened or made alive, are expressions constantly used, in reference to an event to take place at the end of the world. This rule is one of very general application and of great practical importance in relation to such subjects 18 THE RULES OR LAWS as do not come within the sphere of our observation, and for a knowledge of which, we are indebted solely to divine revelation. 5. HOW TO ASCERTAIN THE LITERAL MEANING OF WORDS. 1 . The meaning of v/ords is determined by cus- tom and general usage as we have already had occa- sion to remark. As far as any individual departs from this usage in the expression of his ideas, his communi- cation becomes obscure, and his language incorrect. No intelligent writer intentionally departs from it without what he supposes to be good reason for doing so, and explicitly pointing out how far he does it. The correct and true meaning of words as they are generally understood by those who use them, is that which every intelligent writer expects to be under- stood as expressing. This he aims to express, and to this, he endeavors to adhere. In relation to this sub- ject, the sacred writers are to be placed at least on an equality with others. They have not used language with less accuracy and propriety than intelligent unin- spired writers. 2. The first and simplest means of ascertaining the meaning of words, is by definition. In giving the de- finition of a word a man gives his individual testimony in favor of that meaning, or those meanings, which he assigns, being the true meaning or meanings of the words. Such testimony is to be estimated like all oth- er testimony, and is more or less valuable, according to the character of the witness. When a writer defines his own terms, they are of course to be interpreted in OF INTERPRETATION. 19 his writings according to his definition of them, unless he manifestly departs from it. Writers generally de- fine such terms as they think will not be well under- stood by those for whom their works are designed, without definitions. Dictionaries are highly useful to the student and interpreter, in exhibiting the principal meanings of words as they were understood by their respective au- thors. They ought to be constantly consulted as repo- sitories of valuable knowledge on this subject. 3. The nature of the subject treated of, affords very essential service in limiting and defining the meaning of words. When words have different meanings, we generally infer from the nature of the subject, which of those meanings is to be taken in any particular passage. The facility with which we do this is truly remarka- ble, and affords us just occasion for wonder and admi- ration. Notwithstanding that most of the words we use have different meanings, yet we discover almost intuitively, which of the meanings is intended in any particu}a.r application of them. So that language may be considered almost as definite, as if every word had its own definite signification and no other. The defi- niteness and precision of language, taken in connection with the indefiniteness of meaning belonging to single words, may well be accounted among the wonders of literature. 4. Words are often illustrated and explained by examples, where there is no logical definition, and where the nature of the subject would not be sufficient- ly clear to aftbrd a clue to the true meaning. Exam- ples illustrative of the meaning of words, are common 20 THE RULES OR LAWS ill almost every kind of writing, and deserve the par- ticular attention of every student and interpreter. Thus we learn the meaning of the word prayer as much from the examples of the performance of this duty recorded in the Bible, as from any other source. The same may be said of piety, faith, repentance, and many other of the most important terms, in which the divine will is treasured up, and by which it is made known to men. 5. A comparison of parallel passages, together with a careful attention to the context, is another and effect- ual means of eliciting the true meaning of some words, which could not be otherwise ascertained. Those pas- sages of the sacred Scriptures are parallel, which ma- nifestly relate to the same subject and express similar sentiments. The same sentiment may be expressed in different terms, in two or more passages, but more defi- nitely and perspicuously in some passages than in oth- ers. The same fact is sometimes related in two or more differs nt passages, and related more fully in some than in others. A comparison of parallel passages is one of the most effectual means of acquiring an accu- rate and extensive knowledge of the precise and accu- rate meaning of many of those words, by which the doctrines and duties of relio;ion are tauoht. The parallel passages on prayer are those which relate to the subject of prayer, and explain and enforce the duty ; those on the day of final judgment, are those which relate to the subject of a final judgment, and describe the nature and circumstances of it, (fcc. Care ought to be taken to determine whether the passages which we examine as parallel, are truly so or not. There may be a mere verbal parallelism, when OF INTERPRETATION. 21 the subjects treated of are entirely different. In this way multitudes suffer themselves to be bewildered and deceived. By considering passao^es of Scripture which relate to the final judgment, parallel to those which relate to the infliction of temporal judgments, multi- tudes have endeavored to explain away the doctrine of a final judgment, to the very great detriment of reli- gion. So by considering passages of Scripture which relate to the subject of the future punishment of the wicked, parallel to those which relate to the infliction of temporal punishment, many have endeavored to ex- plain that doctrine away. In both the above cases parallelism has been assumed when it does not really exist, and the premises being incorrect it is not strange that the conclusion should be false. 6. HOW TO ASCERTAIN THE FIGURATIVE MEANING OF WORDS. 1. General usage in regard to figurative expres- sions, is the general rule, according to which they are to be interpreted. This usage is remarkably uniform, both in sacred and profane writers, in regard to a large portion of figurative language. In the sacred Scriptures light is universally an em- blem of prosperity and happiness, and sometimes of knowledge and virtue. Darkness represents misery, ignorance, and sin. Fire has two figurative meanings. It is a common emblem of God's consuming wrath, and Also of the Holy Spirit's purifying influences. These meanings, however, are always kept distinct in the sa- cred volume. The '• refiner's fire,"' through which the pious are represented as passing, and the " baptism of 22 THE RULES OR LAWS the Holy Ghost and of fire," are as distinct and differ- ent from "the lake of fire and brimstone, the place where the worm dieth not and the fire is not quench- ed," as heaven is from hell, or as happiness is from misery. The meaning of the Scripture figurative language is as determinate and precise, as that of any other part of the sacred volume ; and is rendered so, by the uni- formity of the sacred writers in using particular figura- tive expressions to denote and illustrate particular ideas and those only. This uniformity in the use of figura- tive language is founded in the nature of things, and is common to all languages and all writers. 2. Where figurative expressions are of double or doubtful meaning, they must be interpreted according to the nature of the subject treated of Where the ge- neral usage of the sacred writers has given different meanings to particular figurative expressions, or where the figure is in its nature indefinite in its meaning, the subject must necessarily decide which of the possible meanino's is the one intended. Where figurative ex- pressions have different established meanings, they ought to be carefully borne in mind. It is a very great fault, as well as folly, to urge a particular meaning on a metaphor in all places, because it sometimes has that meaning; or because considered without any relation to the subject in hand, it may have it ; and yet cases of this error being fallen into, are by no means rare. 3. The context may be consulted with advantage for the purpose of determining the meaning of figu- rative language, just as it is, in regard to the literal meaning of words. In like manner does a comparison OF INTERPRETATION. 23 of parallel passasfes throw light on many figurative expressions, which without this illustration would ap- pear dark and doubtful. 4. In the explanation of figurative language, sub- stitute literal expressions for fis^urative, expressing what is supposed to be the true sense of the passage. Wherever a figurative expression is rightly understood, it is easy to express the sense of it in plain language ; where we find ourselves unable to reduce figurative to plain language, we may justly conclude that we do not understand it. The endeavor to substitute plain language, is useful in leading us to investi- gate with more precision and accuracy than we should be likely otherwise to do, the expressions we endeavor thus to change and simplify. Examples of figurative language changed into plain. "I am the true vine ; ye are the branches."' That is ; I am like the true vine, and ye are hke branches in relation to me. '• This is their condemnation, that light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil." Here are several figures blended together. Light is a metaphor used to denote truth or knowledge, which is personified and represented as coming into the world like a person. Darkness is also a metaphor, and signifies ignorance or error. The literal expressions being substituted for the figurative, the passage would read thus : This is their condemnation that truth thus has come into the world, and men loved error rather than truth, because their deeds were evil. There is still an elipsis to be supplied in order to make the passage literal, as the 24 THE RULES OR LAWS word condemnation is used by metonym y fcrthecause of condemnation. With the aUeration it would read ; This is the cause of their condemnation, &.c. If on making a substitution of plain for figura- tive language, the expression does not harmonize with the context, and with the nature of the subject, it may be inferred that the substitution is incorrect. One of the advantages of substituting plain for figu- rative language, is to facilitate the application of the before mentioned rules of interpretation. 7. HOW TO ASCERTAIN THE MEANING OP ALLE- GORIES. 1. First, inquire into the design of the allegory, the purpose for which it was introduced. This will generally be explained in the context, and when no particular declaration of it is made, may be inferred from the circumstances and connection in which it is introduced. To disregard the evident or de- clared design with which an allegory is introduced, is as great an error in interpretation, as it is to disre- gard entirely the proposition which an argument is intended to prove in the consideration of that argu- ment. An allegory is generally, only a part of the discourse in which it occurs, and is to be investigated in its connection with the other parts of that discourse, and not independently of them. Having ascertained the design of an allegory as far as it can be determined from the context ; next proceed to examine the alle- gory itself 2. Let the different parts of an allegory be explain- ed in accordance to the main design. Most allegories OF INTERPRETATION. ^O are introduced for the purpose of illustrating some particular point, and are to be considered as constitii-' ting one whole illustration, not necessarily a collection of illustrations. Thus the parable of the prodigal son was introduced by our Saviour into one of his dis- courses, to illustrate the benignity and kindness with which God receives the repenting sinner. The para- ble of the good Samaritan was introduced to illustrate and enforce the duty of universal beneficence. The different parts of these parables therefore, are to be interpreted in subserviency to their main design. 3. As no two objects resemble each other in every particular, so we are not to expect the subject of an allegory to bear a perfect resemblance to the subject intended to be illustrated by it in every particular that may be mentioned respecting it. The subject of an allegory, is always supposed to have some resem- blance to the subject which it is intended to illustrate. This resemblance, like that in every other case, con- sists in some properties or circumstances, being the same in both. It is a very common fault in the interpretation of allegories, to seek for too many points of resemblance, and to press the analogy on which the allegory is founded too far. 4. The application of allegories to purposes of instruction and argument, has been practised exten- sively, both in sacred and profane writings. Many of the inimitable discourses of our Saviour, were made up mostly of allegorical illustrations. The allegories of the Bible are of unparalleled beauty and excellence, so that the frequency with which they are introduced 3 26 THE RULES OR LAWS in the sacred volume, contributes not a little to en- hance its value, both as a hterary production, and as a manual of instruction. Allegorical discourses are peculiarly adapted to encounter prejudice and opposition, and they have very frequently been made use of for this purpose in the sacred Scriptures and in other writings. 5. The foregoing rules for the interpretation of allegories may be illustrated by the following example. Luke 18: 2—8. " There was in a city, a judge which feared not God, neither regarded man. And there was a widow in that city, and she came unto him, saying, avenge me of my adversary. And he would not for a while, but afterward he said within himself, though I fear not God, nor regard man, yet because this widow troubleth me, I will avenge her, lest by her continual coming she weary me. And the Lord said, hear what the unjust judge saith. And shall not God avenge his own elect that cry day and night to him, though he bear long with him ? I tell you he will avenge them speedily." 1. As to the design of this parable, it is exphcitly declared in the context ; " That men ought always to pray, and not to faint." 2. The poor widow asking redress of a judge, repre- sents the case of a sinner asking favors of God. Both are alike helpless and dependent. The success of the widow's importunity is an encouragement to sinners to be importunate with God. The fact that the judge was unjust, renders the case a peculiarly strong and encouraging one ; if an OF INTERPRETATION. 27 unjust judge would yield to the importunity of a feeble, helpless widow, whom he cared nothing about, how much more would a just God, who cherishes a tender concern for his children, listen to their impor- tunate cries and grant their reasonable requests! The rules that have already been given for deter- mining the meaning of words must of course settle most questions respecting the doctrines of the Bible. The doctrines of the Christian religion are revealed to us by the use of terms, which need only to be explained correctly, in order that the doctrines should be correctly apprehended. But to obtain still farther aid, we may apply where the case admits of it the following rules. 8. DOCTRINAL INTERPRETATION, HISTORICAL. 1. When a doctrine or fact is clearly stated in the sacred Scriptures and indubitably taught, other pas- sages of ambiguous or doubtful meaning, relating to the same subject are always to be explained in accord- ance with that doctrine or fact. The propriety and necessity of this rule arise from the fact, that we are never particular to avoid ambiguous expressions, and those considered by themselves of doubtful meaning, in relation to a subject that has been fully explained, and may be presumed to be understood. What is known in relation to such a subject is supposed to afford means of ascertaining with certainty and precision which of the meanings is to be taken in cases of am- biguity, and what is the true meaning in cases of ob- scurity. For example, the doctrine of the necessity of faith in Christ during the present hfe, in order to the 28 THE RULES OR LAWS attainment of salvation, is clearly stated and definitely and indubitably taught in the New Testament. " He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved ; He that believeth not shall be damned." " There remaineth a rest to the people of God. Let us labor therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief f that is, after the example of the rebellious Jews, whose unbelief was the cause of their being cut off in the wilderness and not being permitted to enter the land of Canaan. So now through unbe- lief men become liable to be cut off in their sins and lose the enjoyment of heaven. Again we are taught^ that " Christ died for all men, especially for them that believe ;" that he " tasted death for every man," &c. These passages taken by themselves are ambiguous, or rather indefinite, and may be understood as teaching that Christ died absolutely to save all men without regard to character or conduct ; or that he died to make it possible for all men to be saved, if they would accept salvation, on such reasonable conditions as he might see fit to propose. The doctrine of the neces- sity of faith to the attainment of salvation, which is clearly of scriptural authority, shows the latter to be the true meaning and the former to be entirely inad- missible. This rule is to be used cautiously, and yet it is one of very general application. The doctrine or fact which is made a rule for the interpretation of am- biguous and obscure passages and such as are indefi- nite, ought to be investigated with great accuracy and care ; otherwise we shall be liable to great mistakes in making our own unfounded conjectures instead of God's undoubted truth, both an article of faith and a OF INTERPRETATION. 29 rule of interpretation. A single mistake in making an erroneous doctrine a rule of interpretation, may lead to the most pernicious perversion of a multitude of Scripture texts. 2. Authentic history furnishes another source of information in relation to the interpretation of the sa- cred writinofs. which is in some cases at least of very essential service. Many subjects which are imperfectly explained in the sacred vokime were more fully ex- pounded in the oral instructions of the apostles and other inspired teachers ; and some forms of expression which are ambiguous and obscure now, were per- fectly plain, when the sacred writings were first com- mitted to the church. In many cases therefore, it is a matter of considerable importance to ascertain what were the usages of the apostles, and of the churches in apostolic times : and how particular passages were un- derstood by the primitive followers of Christ. So far as any doctrine can be proved by historical evidence, to be of apostolical origin ; that historical truth may be relied on as a safe rule of interpreta- tion. For example: We learn from authentic history that the first day of the week was observed by the pri- mitive Christians as a sabbath; — that the churches planted in difierent countries, and by different apostles concurred in this observance. As it is utterly impro- bable that they should have concurred in such an ob- servance, unless it had been authorized by apostolic authority, we refer the institution of the Christian sab- bath to the apostles, on the ground of the historical evidence in its favor. The observance of the first 3* 30 THE RULES OR LAWS day of the week must have been an apostohcal usage, or it could not have been universal in the primitiv^e church. This knowledge of the usage of the apostles, throws additional light on some passages in the New Testament which to many at least would be other- wise obscure. Finding the notices of the first day of the week interspersed through the New Testament, to be in perfect accordance with this historical fact, and such as cannot well be reconciled with any other hy- pothesis, we conclude with as much certainty in favor of the divine origin and authority of the Christian sab- bath, as we do in favor of any other part of the Christ- ian system. 9. ENTIRE DISCOURSES AND PARAGRAPHS. The different parts of an entire discourse or para- graph, ought to be studied in their proper connections and dependences. The limb of a discourse like that of the human frame when amputated from the body to which it be- longs, may become an incumbrance in the pursuit of knowledge, rather than a means of hastening and facilitating our progress. In the study of the sacred Scriptures consider first the nature of the composition, whether it consists of prose or poetry : whether it is historical or doctrinal ; &c. It would be absurd to interpret prose and poetry, historical and doctrinal composition by the same rules without any regard to the peculiar nature of the com- position. Poetry is to be interpreted as poetry, prose as prose, preceptive writing is to be interpreted as being OF INTERPRETATION. 31 preceptive, and history as history. The same general rules of interpretation apply to sacred history as to profane, and to sacred poetry as to profane, &c. Having determined what kind of composition any particular portion of the sacred Scriptures is, you are investigating: ; next determine the natural divisions. Every discourse, whether historical or doctrinal, every poem and every prophecy, has a beginning, middle, and end. These ought to be distinctly noted. The beofinnino: of a discourse ousfht to be connected with the middle and end ; and the middle and end ought to be connected with the beo^inning". The force and beauty of many passages is entirely lost to multitudes from a neglect of this direction. It is not to be taken for granted, that the beginning of a chapter is in all cases the beginning of a discourse, or even of a para- graph. This is in many instances far from being the case. The Bible ought to be studied without reference to the division into chapters. The natural divisions are to be determined just as we would determine them, if there were no artificial divisions at all. Divisions of chapters frequently occur, where there is no natural division, and natural divisions still more frequently oc- cur where there is no division into chapters in the com- mon Bible. The present division of the r?ible into chapters was made b> cardinal Hugo, a Dominican, in the year of our Lord 1240. The further pnd more minute divi- sion of the Bible into verses, was introduced in 1445, by a distinguished Jewish Rabbi, Mordecai Nathan. The object of these divisions being introduced, was to lav the foundation for a concordance, and to facilitate 32 THE RULES OR LAWS references to different parts of the Bible. That object they have subserved admirably well; but at the same time, they have been highly injurious by disjointing parts of discourses which are intimately connected, and separating passages into different chapters which cannot be correctly understood without being studied in connection with each other. 10. THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE CON- SIDERED AS A TRANSLATION. The rules that have been given for interpreting the sacred Scriptures, apply equally to any language. They apply to the original Hebrew and Greek, and to every translation. But the best translations are imper- fect. And the scholar that does not understand the ori- ginal languages, needs to be informed how he may ascertain the correctness of the translations he uses, in any particular passage. For if the translation of any particular passage is incorrect, the meaning educed from it by the best rules of interpretation, must be wrong. The difficulties in which this subject is invol- ved, have, no doubt, discouraged some from even endeavoring to settle their belief in regard to impor- tant doctrines of the Bible. They have furnished a plausible excuse for skepticism and error to such as were quite willing to remain in the dark on religious subjects. But honest inquirers need not despair. Truth may be ascertained in regard to this subject, as far as is necessary for the important purposes of faith and practice. OF INTERPRETATION. 33 Ilules by ichich those unacquainted with the original languages of the Scriptures^ may decide on the correctness of the translation. 1. The general agreement of commentators in regard to the correctness or incorrectness of any par- ticular passage, maybe safely rehed on as indicating the truth. Because such an agreement cannot exist, except wliere the case is one of undoubted certainty. If several different commentators, skilled in the origin- al languages, decide that a passage is correctly trans- lated, we have the strongest reason to confide in their decision, especially if there is no counter testimony. This rule lays a foundation for confidence in regard to the great body of the sacred Scriptures. Commen- tators of every respectable denomination of Christians, and many persons who have joined no particular sect, have generally acquiesced in the decision, that our common English Bible is correct ; and that, considered as a whole, it is a faithful representation of the sense of the original. This agreement is general and decisive ; cases of dissent from it are partial and particular. 2. In all cases where the correctness of the English translation is called in question, we are to decide according to evidence, and not arbitrarily, as is too often done. Evidence is sometimes found in the context, either for or against the common translation. Especially when a new translation is recommended, ought its agreement or disagreement with the context to be carefully observed. A translation which does not agree with the context must be wrong. This disagreement is decisive evidence against it. 34 THE RULES OR LAWS 3. A translation which does not make sense must of course be wrong. To maintain the contrary, is a high impeachment of the sacred vokime. All that scripture which has been given by inspiration of God, makes a good and consistent sense in the original, and must, in all cases when correctly translated, be of the same character. 4. When a particular translation makes a good and consistent sense, and does not disagree Avith the context, and is, at the same time, a matter of dispute among biblical scholars and commentators; — first take the opinions of the critics and commentators in ques- tion, and consider on which side there appears to be the most learning, candor, integrity, and piety. That side on which there is a preponderance of these qualifi- cations, is probably right. Secondly ; examine the reasons given in favor of the translation in question, or against it. If these reasons are substantial, we may safely yield our assent ; otherwise not. A commentator who dissents from the common translation of any particular passage, and proposes a different one, is bound to give substantial reasons for that dissent, and for the translation he recommends. These reasons may, in most cases, be apprehended with perfect clearness by such as are unacquainted with the original languages, and will afibrd very important aid in resolving difficulties of this kind. Whoever attends to these rules will seldom be involved in very great perplexity as to any thing effecting materially the fundamental articles of the Christian faith. In relation to those numerous pas- sages of Scripture, in which, these articles are taught OF INTERPRETATION. 35 either directly or by implication, there is a general and happy agreement among the great body of sound biblical scholars, and especially among that portion of them that are eminent for piety as well as learning. 5. If any man finds himself involved in doubt as to the translation of any particular passage or passa- 2:es of Scripture, and is unable to obtain the works of biblical commentators and expositors as directed above ; let him go to a well instructed clergyman of any respec- table branch of the Christian church, and ask instruc- tion in the case, and he will seldom fail of obtaining it. Knowledge is to be had, if men will take the trouble to apply for it ; and surely none can desire it on easier terms. I do not propose that any man's ipse dixit should be taken as a rule of faith or of interpretation. To pursue such a course would be to perpetuate errone- ous interpretations indefinitely. But I do recommend that those who have not the means of extensive and accurate information on this subject, should allow those who have, to direct their minds to principles and facts which may lead them to truth, and protect them from error in all matters of vital importance. Error is the child of ignorance, and ignorance in most cases springs from a voluntary and criminal neglect of the means of improvement and information. God has made it our duty to know the truth, and has amply furnished us with the means of gaining this knowl- edge. iNo man need be a skeptic, none need be an unbeliever, if he will consent to use honestly, and diligently, and prayerfully, those means of instruction, which God has placed within his reach, and urged upon his acceptance. SECTION III. THE RATIONALISTIC MODE OF INTERPRE- TATION. 1. Many persons talk a great deal of the Scriptures being according to reason ; and take considerable liberties in the interpretation of them, for the purpose of making them speak such language as they think is reasonable. The mode of interpretation adopted by such, is in some respects peculiar. The fundamental principle of it is^ that the sacred Scriptures are accordant to reason. This principle is not pretended to be applicable to men's productions, because men are liable to hold sen- timents and make statements that are untrue and un- reasonable ; and therefore the fact that a particular doc- trine is unreasonable, is no proof that men have not held, and inculcated it in their writings. 2. Let us investigate this rule. The sacred Scrip- tures must be accordant to reason ? What is reason ? If reason is a rule of interpretation it ought to be well understood. The word reason has two principal meanings. 1. It designates the foundation or cause of an opinion or conclusion — as we think thus and so, for THE RATIONALISTIC MODE, ETC. 37 this and that reason. Every correct opinion is based on some sufficient reason, which is the cause of our holding- it. We beUeve that Cohuiibus discovered America ; and the reason for this behef, or the foundation on which it rests, is the fact that the discovery of it, is universally attributed to him ; especially by those ac- quainted with the history of the times in which he lived. To believe without reasons is denominated unrea- sonable ; and is well entitled to this denomination. Those sentiments, therefore, are reasonable for which reasons of sufficient weight can be assigned ; in this connection, reasons are nearly the same as evi- dences. 2. The word reason also designates that power of the mind, by which we distinguish truth from error, and gain knowledge by comparison and inference. We employ this faculty in all our investiga- tions, whether of the Bible and Bible-truth, or of any other subject. No matt^ what system of interpreta- tion we adopt, reason is the faculty, in the exercise of which we apply the rules of that system to the inter- pretation of language. The true sense of the sacred Scriptures, is that sense, which, in the right and intelligent use of reason is educed from them. This, however, is by no means making reason a rule of interpretation ; it is only making it an instrument, by which the acknowledged rules of the art are applied. 3. From a consideration of the definitions of reason here given, which will be found to be correct, and in conformity with the best authorities, it appears 4 38 THE RATIONALISTIC MODE highly improper to make reason a rule of interpreta- tion. The fact, that any thing is asserted in the Bible, without any collateral evidence, is itself a reason for our belief, and one that amply justifies the highest con- fidence man can repose in any assertion. This subject may be farther and more fully illus- trated by the following propositions. 1. Knowledge is a safe rule of interpretation, and one of universal application. Any interpretation of Scripture which gives a meaning contradictory to our absolute knowledge must be wrong. Though in other respects, the meaning in question might appear to be the true one, yet the fact that it contradicts our certain knowledge proves it to be false. The reason of this rule is obvious. Men are never expected to speak and write with as much precision upon subjects well un- derstood, as upon those which are obscure. In refer- ence to such subjects we use words in figurative and uncommon senses, as best suits our convenience, and expect them to be interpreted as the nature of the sub- ject rtiay require, — neither are we disappointed in our expectations. In reference to subjects which are difficult, or such as are not generally understood, we find it necessary to use words with more precision and accuracy, in or- der to make our communications intelligible. This distinction, in regard to the loose and accurate use of words, obtains in all correct writers, sacred and pro- fane, and ought to be more generally known and re- garded than it is. Christ is called a son of David, meaning as every one knows, a descendant of that prince ; a vine, that is, metaphorically like a vine ; a OF INTERPRETATION. 39 corner stone, like a corner stone in relation to the church ; — a rock of offence, that is, a cause of offence to the imbeheving and disobedient ; all which are per- fectly intelligible, because the subject to which they relate is too well understood, to allow of mistake in regard to their meaning. 2. As every part of the sacred Scriptures is equally true, those passages which contain apparent contra- dictions must be so explained, as to liarmonize with each other. Apparent contradictions are often far from beino^ real ones. The most rash and superficial students of the inspired volume, are those who find the most difficulties of this kind. Patient investigation of the meaning of the words, of the context and sub- ject treated of, will generally demonstrate the apparent contradictions of the Bible to be perfectly harmonious, and in perfect agreement with each other. 3. Preconceived opinion which does not amount to knowledge, cannot with propriety be made a rule of interpretation. The natural world presents many objects and the course of divine providence unfolds many events which we did not expect to find, and which when observed awaken our wonder and surprise. It is but reasonable therefore to expect in the economy of grace, and in the moral and religious system of the uni- verse, many things exceedingly strange to us, and en- tirely different from what we should have thouo;ht best to have. The Bible explains the moral and religious system of the world. The design of it is to teach what we could not learn from any other of the sources of knowledge in relation to the subject in question. 40 THE RATIONALISTIC MODE The fact therefore, that some of the representations of the Bible, are at variance with our preconceived opinions, and different from what we should think best, is no objection at all to the correctness and truth of them, but furnishes a substantial argument in favor of the fidelity and correctness of the inspired writers. This rule is directly opposed to the fundamental one of the rationalistic mode of interpretation. Those who talk so much of the sacred Scriptures being accordant to reason, do not mean simply that they must be accord- ant to certain knowledge and known truths. For re- specting that, there is no dispute and cannot be. But they mean, that the sacred Scriptures must be accord- ant to those opinions, which do not come under the denomination of known truths, but which are readily acquiesced in as being probable, without any decisive evidence in their favor. But happily for the cause of truth and'pibty, though unfortunately for the honor of this system of interpretation, in all cases where our knowledge of the subject under consideration, is not sufficiently accurate and extensive to be a safe guide to interpretation, words are used in their most com- mon and usual significations. This fact supersedes the necessity of any other rule of interpretation than the usual ones, for ascertaining the meaning of words. When men are treating of subjects not well or gene- rally understood, they never use words in uncom- mon significations without giving the clearest intima- tion of the fact, and showing precisely what those sig- nifications are, unless they mean to bewilder and de- ceive their readers. OF INTERPRETATION. 41 In relation to such subjects, they are compelled to use words with precision, and in their most usual meanings, in order to make their commu- nications intelligible. In exact accordance to this principle as well as the other principles of language, the divinely inspired writings were composed. To assert the contrary amounts to nothing less than an impeachment of the wisdom and goodness of God and is unsupported by the least substantial evidence. Be- sides, so far as reference is had to the opinions of men in the interpretation of language, that reference must of course be to the opinions of contemporaries and countrymen, and not to those of later times and of other lands. Hence the necessity of every interpreter of the Bible acquainting himself as far as possible with the history of opinions in the times when the different parts of the sacred Scriptures were written. The opinions of the Jews and heathen in relation to the state of the wicked after death, will serve as an illustration of this subject. In the times of our Sa- viour and the apostles, two of the principal sects of the Jews, all who believed in a future state, believed in the doctrine of the punishment of the wicked after death. The same doctrine was held by the most popular of the heathen philosophers and was inculca- ted on the people generally. We are therefore to con- sider the instructions of the New Testament as ad- dressed to persQns holding this sentiment, and to inter- pret them accordingly. If believers in the doctrine of the future punish- ment of the wicked, would not naturally interpret the instructions of the New Testament as authorizing 4* 43 THE RATIONALISTIC MODE, ETC. a belief in that sentiment and inculcating it, we are not to understand them as doing so. But if they v/ould naturally, and necessarily put this construc- tion on the communications relating to this sub- ject in the New Testament, we must acknowledge it to be correct. For if Christ or the apostles had wished to discountenance the prevailing sentiment of the times in relation to the subject in question, they would doubtless have done it, in terms too unequivocal to be mistaken by any candid hearer or reader. And the fact that they have not discountenanced it, but have interspersed their instructions with expressions highly favorable to the sentiment in question, and have in many instances positively asserted that sentiment, if language may be allowed to have the same force in their mouths that it has in the mouths of others, is conclusive evidence of the strongest kind in favor of the doctrine. From the foregoing remarks the legitimate con- elusion is, that the Rationalistic mode of interpretation is entirely incorrect, being based upon principles that are entirely false. Consequently the application of it to explain the Holy Scriptures, is alike impious and delusive. It is impious, inasmuch as it implies the setting up of the fabric of human opinions against God's eternal truth, and in the place of it. It is delu- sive, inasmuch as it erects an impregnable wall of defence around the erroneous opinions and baseless conjectures of men, for the purpose of maintaining them in possession of the stolen honors of truth. SECTION IV. THE ALLEGORICAL MODE OF INTERPRET A^ TION, OR THEORY OF DOUBLE SENSES. 1. The allegorical mode of interpretation is of very great antiquity. It was in use among the Jews before the Christian era. Philo was an allegorist ; so were Pantaenus and Clemens Alexandrinus of the second century and in the Christian church. Origin in the third century took greater liberties with this mode of interpretation, than any Christian teacher had done be- fore him. Before his time all interpreters explained the narrations and laws contained in the Bible according to their literal meaning. Origin turned a large part of biblical history into fables, and many of the laws into allegories. In doing this he followed the track that had already been marked out in the school of Ammonius at the close of the preceding century. Ammonius Saccas an Alexandrine philosopher of the second century, opened a school near the close of the century, and laid the foundation of that sect of philosophers called the New Platonic. His object was to bring all religions and all sects of philosophers into harmony. He taught that philo- 44 THE ALLEGORICAL MODE sophy was first produced and nurtured among the people of the east. That it was cultivated and dis- seminated in Egypt by Hermes, and that it passed thence into Greece, and was explained with tolerable accuracy and correctness by Plato. It is the opinion of many, that the pretended work of Hermes and Zo- roaster originated in the schools of the New Plato- nics. In order to reconcile the prevailing religions with his philosophical system, Ammonius turned the whole pretended history of the pagan Gods into allegory. This system Origin applied with specifications and modifications pecuUar to himself, and borrowed from various sources, to the interpretation of the sacred volume. Preceding writers had resorted to allegories princi- pally to discover predictions of future events, and rules for the direction of life ; he resorted to them princi- pally to establish his favorite system of heathen phi- losophy on a scriptural basis. The Platonic idea of a two-fold world, a visible and invisible one, and the one emblematical of the other, lead him to search for a figurativ^e description of the invisible world, in the inspired history of this. He supposed, that as man was admitted to consist of three parts, a rational mind, a sensitive soul, and a visible body, so the Scriptures have a three-fold sense, a literal, moral, and mystical or spiritual sense. The mystical or spiritual sense, he supposed, acquainted us with the nature, state, and history of the spiritual and heavenly world ; which he believed to have been made after the same pattern as this. OF INTERPRETATION, ETC. 45 The mystic sense he attributed to every part of the sacred Scriptures ; the hteral sense was only partially diffused, according to his view, some passages having no literal meaning at all. A similar system of allegorical interpretation has more recently been inculcated by Swedenborg. He attributes to the sacred Scriptures three senses, which he entides the literal, spiritual, and celestial. While both the systems here referred to, have been generally discarded by the Christian church, multi- tudes in all ages have turned Scripture into allagory for the purpose of rendering particular passages of them more significant than they would otherwise be, either in the prediction of future events or in the com- munication of moral and religious instruction. 2. The allegorical system of interpretation is built upon what is called the doctrine of correspondences ; namely, that there is such a correspondence between natural and spiritual, terrestrial and celestial objects and events, as to make the former correct and perfect types of the latter. If the doctrine of a correspondence between natural and spiritual, terrestrial and celestial objects and events, be admitted in its full extent, so that the one is an exact resemblance of the other; then all descriptions of natural objects and events, as well as those contained in Scripture, may be considered figurative of spiritual and heavenly things, and may be applied to represent such things with the utmost pro- priety. The principle is very broad and extensive in its application. It applies with as much force to pro- fane as to sacred history ; and, according to this sys- tem of philosophy, (for it deserves the appellation of a 46 THE ALLEGORICAL MODE system of philosophy, rather than one of rehgion, or of interpretation) all profane history would be allegorical and descriptive of spiritual and heavenly things, how- ever ignorant the authors mig^ht be of any such meaning being attached to their language. 3. But the doctrine of correspondences is no where asserted in the Bible. The inspired writers have used figurative language just as they might be expected to do, if no such correspondence existed ; and the use of these figures, with which their writings abound, is fully authorized by that principle of general analogies which is the foimdation of metaphorical language among uninspired writers. Figurative language may be pressed too far. We are "not to suppose that there is a perfect resemblance in every particular wherever there is a general one in some particulars. Things resemble each other which have some things in com- mon. The more things they have in common the greater is their resemblance. Earth resembles heaven just as far as it has things in common with it. Body resembles mind just as far as it has properties in common with it. God resembles the sun, to which he is several times compared, just as far as he has properties and relations in common with it, and no farther. So light resembles knowledge as far as it has relations and properties in common with it. Light and vision are to the eye what knowledge is to the soul ; that is, their relations are analogous. But in this view of the subject, perfect resemblance of earthly to heavenly objects is not assumed ; neither is it necessary to assume it, in order to justify the ana- logical and figurative language of the sacred Scriptures, OF INTERPRETATION, ETC. 47 4. Arguments generally adduced in favor of a double sense being attributed to the sacred Scrip- tures. 1. Unless we allow them to have other meanings than the plain and obvious one according to the com- mon rules of interpretation, some parts of the sacred volume will become uninstructive and unimportant. Answer. The knowledge contained in the Bible, in- terpreted by the common rules of interpretation, is of the greatest extent and highest value. It is a fountain which the most powerful and active minds have been unable to fathom, and still more so, to exhaust. Ex- plained on these principles only, it teaches the purest morality, and the sublimest theology. It discloses the only way of life and salvation, and points out the only effectual means of regaining the favor of God. Those parts of the Bible, or those passages, for it is only to occasional passages that the remark can be applied, which seem unimportant to us, may have been highly important and useful when they were originally written, or may be still so in some future period of the world, without any aid being derived from the theory of double senses to render them so. 2. It is also urged, that on the hypothesis of double senses, the Bible is made more spiritual than on the other hypothesis. Answer. The word spiritual has three meanings. 1. Consisting of spirit; as we say of the mind, it is a spiritual substance — a substance consisting of spirit. 2. Relating to spirit and the concerns of spirits, as we speak of spiritual enjoyments, spiritual 48 THE ALLEGORICAL MODE world, (fee. 3. Pious, religious ; as we say of a pious man, he is very spiritual, that is, h^ is very pious, devout. The appHcation of the term spiritual to the Bible. in the first sense, is absurd; for it contradicts our intuitive perception. We know by the evidence of our senses, that the different communications which com- pose the Bible, taken separately, and the whole taken collectively, are not spirit in the literal sense of that word. They do not consist of spirit, that is, they are not a living reasoning and thinking being. The word spiritual, in the second and third senses mentioned above, is strictly applicable to the sacred Scriptures, understood according to the common rules of interpretation. They relate principally to spirits, and the concerns and destinies of spirits ; and are of a highly devotional tendency. Nay, in these senses they are spiritual in the highest degree ; that is to say. they are in the highest degree devotional, and relate entirely to spiritual concerns. 3. It is further urged that the theory of double senses is more in accordance with the divine character and operations than that of single senses. Why enigmatical or allegorical discourses are more in accordance to the divine operations generally, than plain ones, it is difficult for a plain man to conceive. God's communications must be in accordance to his attributes. One of his attributes is truth : His communications must therefore be true. One of his attributes is justice ; his communications and require- ments must therefore be just. These are moral attri- butes, and give character to the divine communica- tions, as they do to the other divine operations. The OF INTERPRETATION, ETC. 49 same may be said of wisdom, mercy, and other moral attributes of the diviiae character. But you cannot with propriety add ; God is an Alle- gory, and therefore his communications must be alle- gorical — or that God is a spirit and therefore his com- munications must consist of spirit. Man too is a spirit ; but his communications do not consist of spirit. The spirituality of the communications does not follow as a consequence from the spirituality of the agent that makes them. Communications are only one class of phenomena resulting from the divine operations ; and if these consist of spirit so must all such phenomena. Besides it is according to the analogy of the divine operations and according to the attributes of the divine character, that if God should undertake to hold inter- course with men throu2;h the medium of lano^uage he would use language as men use it, and express himself intelligibly. No communication is intelligible, which is not contained in language understood by man. God has made his communications in languages which were generally understood at the time and in the countries in which they were made, and which we still have the means of learnino^. If he departed in any measure from the common usage, in the applica- tion of words to designate objects or to express ideas, it would become necessary in order to be understood, to show how far and in what, that usage was depart- ed from. No such explanation is found. God no where intimates that the meaning he attaches to words is different from the common one, neither does he any where intimate, that the theory of double senses is that according to which he requires his word to be explained. 50 THE ALLEGORICAL MODE 5. ADDITIONAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE THEORY OF DOUBLE SENSES. 1. The later inspired writers often quote from the writings of those who preceded them ; but never refer to those writings as having more than one true mean- ing. In Acts 2: 25, we find a quotation of this kind ; as also in Acts 13: 35 — 37. It is evident from an inspection of these passages, that the apostles con- sidered the declaration which they quoted, as referring solely to Christ, and not to David at all. For they expressly assert that it cannot be applied to David and that it did not receive its fulfillment in him. 2. The historical parts of the Bible are as simple narratives of events as any other history, and have no marks of allegorical and hidden meanings, that other historical writings do not have. Take for example the histories of David, Solomon, Ahab, Sec. They appear to be as free from allegorical and hidden meanings, as the histories of Constantine, George the 4th, Calvin, Luther, or any other individuals, narratives of whose lives are recorded. 3. The same may be said of the preceptive parts of the Bible. They exhibit no marks of hidden and al- legorical senses that other preceptive writings do not exhibit. The laws of God are stated with as much precision and with as much apparent si^mplicity as any intelligent father would use, in giving directions to his children. The command thou shalt not kill, forbids our unlawfully taking the life of a fellow man, and of course prohibits all those angry and revengeful feel- ings, that lead to murder. There is no need of alle- OP INTERPRETATION, ETC. 51 gorical interpretation to give such ample extent to this command. It is already sufiiciently extensive in its meaning. The same may be said of every other pre- cept. 4. The origin and early history of the allegorical mode of interpretation are agains: it. Authentic his- tory instead of referring it to the schools of the prophets or to the communications of divinely inspired men, can trace it only to the mystic instructions of Jewish Rab- bles, who made void the law of God by their puerile traditions, or to the schools of heathen philosophy whose very light consisted in the thickest darkness of paganism. When God spake to Moses from the burn- ing bush, and on various other occasions, his words must have been understood according to their usual meanings. Moses could not have supposed them to mean any thing more or less, than to designate those ideas which men generally attach to them. When God spoke to the children of Israel from Mount Sinai, he must have been understood in a similar manner by them. They had only one dictionary by which to learn the meaning of words whether used in the com- munications of God to man, or of man to his God and to his fellow man. 5. If God had intended that his words should be interpreted in allegorical senses, and that other mean- inofs different and distinct from the natural one, should be conveyed, we should suppose of course, that he would have intimated that fact to the prophets and have authorized them to have revealed it to the church at large ; but we have no historical evidence, that this was ever done, neither have any general or particular 52 THE ALLEGORICAL MODE rules been giv^en by inspiration according to which, the investigation of hidden senses is to be prosecuted. 6. Allegorical interpretation is injurious to the in- terests of religion, in leading persons to neglect and undervalue the natural sense of the sacred Scriptures. In these writings interpreted according to the common rules and principles of language, are treasured up the great doctrines and duties of the Christian reli- gion ; doctrines and duties by which, sinners are con- verted to God, and saints prepared for heaven. If the study of these doctrines and the practice of these duties are not constantly urged, religion can hardly fail to decline. A system of interpretation therefore, Avhich leads men to overlook and undervalue them, must be of highly pernicious tendency and this is cer- tainly in many instances the fact, with those who adopt the allegorical system of interpretation. They puzzle themselves with prying into supposed alle- gories, when they ought to be studying faith, repent- ance and prayer. 7. Again, in multitudes of cases, the pretended in- ternal senses are the plain and obvious meanings of the passages to which they are attributed, or nothing more than obvious inferences from those meanings, so that there is no need of other rules of interpretation than the common ones to elicit them. We ought carefully to distinguish between the proper meaning of a passage, and the inferences which may be even correctly drawn from it. For example ; the command thou shalt not kill, means thou shalt not unlawfully take human life. Inferences however) which may be drawn from it are exceedingly uumer- OP INTERPRETATION, ETC. 53 ous and various. If we are prohibited from inflicting death on the body, surely it must be wrong for us vo- luntarily to be the cause of the eternal death of the soul. But to prohibit inflicting spiritual injury, so to speak, was no part of the design of God, in the command under consideration. But though it was no part of his design to make that prohibition in this pas- sage, yet he has made and repeated it in many others, and the principle on which it is founded, is the same as that which serves as the foundation of the prohibi- tion referred to in the command, " Thou shalt not kill," that is, thou shalt not inflict temporal death. The principle of this and of every other prohibition and of every other command relating to social duties, is '• Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" And in applying it we are to remember, that love is kind, and that it worketh no ill to our neighbor. 8. Finally, according to the common rules of inter- pretation the Bible inculcates every moral virtue, and interdicts every species of sin, at the same time that it presents the strongest motives to obedience and holds out the strongest dissuasives from disobedience. The theory of double senses therefore, cannot increase the perfection of the Bible as a rule of life, it being already perfect and complete. From all which, the conclusion is obvious and irre- sistible, that the theory of double senses, or in other words, the system of mystical and allegorical interpre- tation is wrong and injurious. 5* SECTION V. INTERPRETATION OF THE PROPHECIES. The prophetical writings of the sacred Scriptures- are almost entirely useless to a lar^^e portion of pro- fessed Christians, from the imperfect understanding they have of them. Prophecy corresponds to history. It is a narrative or description of events, written before the events take place. Both prophecy and history are expected to give a correct and true delineation of the events to which they refer, and of no others. In many cases the language of prophecy is as full and explicit as it is possible for that of history to be. In many cases prophecies are obscure, especially, where they have not been fulfilled ; — and their obscurity arises principally from the difficulty of determining their chronology ; — and also of distinguishing plain from figurative language. The difficulty of determining the chronology of events referred to in the prophetical writings, occa- sions the same obscurity in the prophecies, which a similar indefiniteness of chronological notices, would occ£ision in history, if it were admitted there. INTERPRETATION OF THE PROPHECIES. 55 The diflaciilty of distinguishing plain from figura- tive lancruage, is greater in prophetical than in histori- cal writings, on account of our not being able to com- pare the description, with the event, as we uniformly do, when the event has taken place. This difficulty vanishes when the prediction is fulfilled and is known to be so. 1. The first step to be taken in the interpretation of a prophecy, is to determine if possible, the time when it was delivered, and the circumstances of the prophet and people at that time. In some cases, the time is expressly declared, as Isa. 6: 1. " In the year that king Uzziah died, I saw," 6cc. So also 7: 1 of the same book, which was at least seventeen years later than that of the preceding chapter, being in the time of Ahaz ; and the reign of Jotham, which continued sixteen years, having intervened. Sometimes when the date of a prophecy is not expressly given, it may be inferred from some expres- sion or expressions descriptive of the existing state of things. This is the case with the prophecy contained in the first chapter of Isaiah. In the sixth and seventh verses of this chapter, the land of Judah is described as being desolated by enemies, and the condition of the people as being one of extreme depression. By turn- ing to the books of Kings and Chronicles, we find, that the description above referred to, cannot have indicated the state of things, in the prosperous reign of Uzziah, or in that of Jotham. But that it accords well with the actual state of the country in the reign of Ahaz. Hence we infer, that the prophecy contained in this chapter was delivered in the reign of that idola- 56 INTERPRETATION OF THE PROPHECIES. trous and unfortunate monarch, and seventeen years later than the prophecy contained in the sixth chapter of the same book. In determining the times of the deUvery of different prophecies or prophetical discourses ; it is to be borne in mind, that the different prophetical books of the Old Testament, are not arranged in their proper chro- nological order. Jonah prophecied much earlier than Isaiah, not- withstanding his book is placed after that of Isaiah, in the sacred volume. The principle on which the present arrangement was made, was to place the prophetic books in the order of their comparative lengths, without any regard to the times of their composition and delivery. A similar arrangement was adopted in regard to the epistles of the New Testament. The longer epistles are placed before the shorter in the order of their com- parative lengths, with the exception that the epistle to the Hebrews, and the Revelation of St. John, for par- ticular reasons, stand out of their proper order. In addition to the fact that the arrangement of the prophetical books is not a chronological one ; it is worthy of particular remark, that the different parts of the same book do not always stand in their proper chronological order. An instance of this has already been given from Isaiah, others might easily be adduced from the longer books of the prophets. This irregu- larity arose probably from the different prophetical discourses having been published separately ; and when they came to be collected after the deaths of those prophets, they were put together without any INTERPRETATION OF THE PROPHECIES. 57 very thorough investigation of the order in which they were written and pnbhshed. 2. Having ascertained as nearly as we can, the time when a proplietical discourse or poem was dehvered, we are prepared to proceed intelhgently to the investiofation of that discourse. Here we are to consider that every discourse has a beginning, mid- dle, and end ; and that these are in many cases very different, from what, the division into chapters would indicate. We are not to take it for granted that a dis- course ends with a chapter. Discourses are sometimes continued through several chapters successively, and every part ought to be studied in connection with every other part. 3. The principal subject treated of in every pro- phetical discourse, ought to be carefully ascertained and descriptive terms interpreted so as to correspond with the subject. If there is an incongruity between any of those terms and the subject to which they relate when understood literally, they ought to be interpreted figuratively, as in historical writino^s, and indeed in all other kinds of composition. Some figurative modes of expression acquire a fixed and certain meaning from established usage ; as using the term days to designate years, &-c. The abundant use made of figures of speech in the prophetical writings, renders the interpretation of them exceedingly difficult. This peculiarity arises in part perhaps, from those writings having been composed in poetry, which is character- istically figurative. 4. Events which are represented as continuous, ought to be carefully distinguished. Events are often 58 INTERPRETATION OF THE PROPHECIES. grouped together in prophecy as well as in other kinds of writing, in consequence of having some gene- ral relation to each other, which, in point of time, are widely separated. We are not to infer, because events are described or referred to in immediate succession, that their occurrence will be in immediate succession too. The fact is sometimes quite the reverse of this. Take, for example, the Redeemer's kingdom. The feeble beginnings of it are mentioned in connection with its glorious establishment and universal preva- lence, and yet they are separated by centuries of time. Inattention to this point has occasioned floods of error in the interpretation of prophetical language both in ancient and modern times. The 24th chapter of Matthew has been enveloped in needless obscurity by a neglect of this rule. The subjects treated of in that chapter, are mentioned in the 2d and 3d verses — the destruction of Jerusalem, the future coming, or second advent of Christ, and the end of the world ; events perfectly distinct, though treated of continuously. To the 29th verse, the discourse of our Saviour relates evidently to the destruction of Jerusalem. From the 29th to the 31st inclusive, it treats of the second advent of Christ, and of preceding and attend- ing events. The 33d, 34th, and 35th verses, refer evidently to the former, under the appellation these things. The 36th, and the following, refer to the latter, under the appellation that day, an appellation applied to the second advent of Christ, in other parts of the sacred volume. See 2 Tim. 4: 7, 8, INTERPRETATION OF THE PROPHECIES. 59 '' Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness which the Lord the righteous judge shall give me at that day" ; that is, the day of the second advent and judgment. 5. Those representations of the future are to be considered figurative, in which there is a distinct refer- ence to earlier occurrences in Jewish or general his- tory. The future is often described in prophecy by figurative descriptions borrowed from events that are past. An example of this may be found in Isa. 11: 15, 16, where it is said, that in effecting a new deliverance for his people, " the Lord will utterly destroy the tongue of the Egyptian sea, and with his mighty wind shall he shake his hand over the river, and shall smite it in the seven streams, and make men go over dry- shod, and there shall be a highway for the remnant of his people, which shall be left from Assyria, like as it was to Israel in the day that he came up out of the land of Egypt." This destroying of the Red sea, and making a passage across the seven streams of the Nile, contain an evident allusion to events which character- ized the Exodus from Egypt, and forcibly and clearly leach that God was to effect a wonderful deliverance for his covenant people, but not that he was literally to dry up the sea, or open a passage through the river. So also in Isa. 4: .5. '• And the Lord will create upon every dwelling place of Mount Zion and upon her assemblies, a cloud and smoke by day, and the shining of a flame of fire by night, for upon all the glory shall be a defence." This passage contains an allusion to the cloudy and fiery pillar which God exhibited to the Israelites at the time of the Exodus from Egypt, and 60 INTERPRETATION OF THE PROPHECIES. which was rendered both the guide and protection of that people during their perilous journey. The mean- ing of it is, that at the time referred to, God will grant special protection to his children, as much as if every assembly for his worship, and every dwelling of his worshippers were surrounded wit?i the cloud of the divine presence in the day time, and with the fire by night. Zechariah 10: 11, and Hosea 2: 14, 15, afford examples of a similar nature. 6. Those representations of the future are to be considered figurative, in which there is a distinct refer- ence to the Levitical rites and ceremonies. This rule is similar to the preceding, and is founded on the same principle, a principle which prompts us intuitively to represent and describe things unknown by imagery drawn from such as are known. The modes o^ Christian worship were to the pious in the days of the Old Testament prophets, things unknown, though the principles of it are the same as they ever have been. It is not strange, therefore, that the prophets should array the religion of future times in the pious garb with which the saints of that age were familiar. An example of this may be found in Jer. 33: 17, 18, " For thus saith the Lord, David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel ; neither shall the priests, the Levites, want a man before me to offer burnt offerings, and to kindle meat offerings, and to do sacrifice continually." This passage relates evidently to the times of the Messiah. To make it assert the perpetuity of the Levitical rites and ceremonies, would be an utter per- INTERPRETATION OF THE PROPHECIES. 61 version of its true meaning, inasmuch, as according to that construction, the assertion it contains is entirely false in fact, and opposed to the doctrine of a different and new dispensation to commence under the auspices of the Messiah, which the prophets had clearly pre- dicted. Instead, therefore, of considering it as asserting the perpetuity of the Levitical rites, we ought to view it as declaring the continued and universal prevalence of the true worship of God, and that in language, and by the aid of imagery, best adapted to the imperfect knowledge of those times. 7. Those representations of the future in which there is a distinct reference to persons who had lived previoQS to the time of the prophecy, are to be con- sidered as figurative. Of this kind, is that prediction contained in Mai. 4 : 5. " Behold 1 will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord, and he shall turn the heart," &c. Not that Elijah should come in person, but that one should come of his fervent, ardent and faithful spirit, to perform the office referred to. 8. Figurative and literal expressions are often blended in prophecy, so as to require much care and attention in discriminating between them. In such cases, the literal, when ascertained, must be allowed to explain and modify the figurative ; and one part of a prophecy must be interpreted in consistency with other parts of the same. Because some part of a prophetic description is figurative, we are not to infer that the whole is, neither because some part of it is to be under- 6 62 INTERPRETATION OP THE PROPHECIES. Stood literally, are we to infer that the whole is to be so understood, any more than we should make the same inference in regard to history or any other kind of poetry than the prophetic. 9. The prophecies are to be considered as consti- tuting one connected chain of events and are to be interpreted so as to harmonize with each other. All such interpretations of them as set them at variance with one another, are manifestly wrong, and deroga- tory to the sacred Scriptures. Every part of the pro- phetic writings has some relation to other parts of the same ; just as every part of a well written history, has some relation to other parts of the same. In or- der to understand one part of the prophecies well, we must study the whole. For example, in order to un- derstand well one part of Isaiah, we must study the whole of that distinguished prophet ; and in order to understand well that prophet, we must study the rest of the prophets, both Old Testament and New ; so intimately are the prophetical v/ritings connected, and so happily and forcibly do they illustrate each other. 10. No prophecy is to be interpreted as having more than one true meaning, however comprehensive it may be, and to whatever length of time it may relate. The obscurity of this part of the sacred Scrip- tures and the sudden transitions they contain, from one subject and from one event to another, have led biblical scholars to apply to theuj the theory of allegori- cal senses, more frequently and confidently than to other parts of the sacred Scriptures. It has been very conve- nient to suppose that many prophecies have received INTERPRETATION OF THE PROPHECIES. 63 one fulfillment in events that transpired at one time, and that they waited till a more remote period for another full accomplishment. This system of inter- pretation has the recommendation of convenience in helping us to get comfortably around difficulties, which on the other plan, we must look full in the face and boldly encounter. But it is unsatisfactory and unphilosophical. Be- sides, the principle is just as inappropriate to pro- phecy as it is to history. The idea of describing two events at one dash, whether past or to come, appears absurd. It is what man never attempted to do in works of moral, religious or scientific instruction. God has never commanded us to compass the im- possibihty of making out primary and secondary senses to the simple and ample disclosures of his word. No sober scholar thinks of giving a double sense to history ; why then obtrude it upon prophecy? Why consider God in this part, and in this part only of his word, as departing from the universal rules of human composition and language. But if we drive the theory of double senses from one part of the sacred volume, we may by the same weapons and by the same sys- tem of warfare drive it from every part of that blessed book, around which it has thrown such a mist of ab- surdity. 11. The prophetical writings ought to be studied in connection with the historical parts of Scripture. In the first place, we ought to make ourselves famil- iarly acquainted with the state of things, when the prophetical discourse we are studying, was delivered. This will elucidate many passages which to one des- 64 INTERPRETATION OF THE PROPHECIES. titute of tliat knowledge would be necessarily ob- scure. In the second place, we ought to make ourselves fa- miliar with the history of events to which the prophe- cy we are investigating relates. Prediction derives il- lustration from the history of the event to which it re- lates, just as a description in geography, is rendered more clear by a map representing to the eye the places described. The history of events which were the ful- fillment of prophecy is contained partly in the sacred volume, and is to be sought for partly in the records of profane history. A large number of the prophecies have the history of their fulfillment in the later portions of the sacred Scriptures. This is the case, with many of the predictions which relate to the fortunes of the Jewish nation — the Messiah, and the first establishment of his kingdom in the Christian dispensation, &c ; also several predictions relating to the fortunes of ancient heathen nations. 12. Those interpretations of prophecy in which the events supposed to be pointed out, do not corres- pond to the prediction, must be false. This rule shows the fallacy and incorrectness of those interpretations of the 24th and 25th of Matthew, which refer, all the pre- dictions contained in them, to the destruction of the city of Jerusalem by the Romans, and to contempora- neous and preceding events. The prophetic account of the advent of Christ, given in those chapters, and of the general judgment in which all nations are to be concerned, and their destinies of weal or woe decided upon, has^^nothing in the history of the destruction of Jerusalem, and con- INTERPRETATION OF THE PROPHECIES. 65 temporaneous events, which answers to it. There was no visible advent of Christ at the destruction of Jerusalem ; there was no general judgment at that time more than at other times : there was no receiving of the righteous into glory, and banishment of the wicked into hell, at that time, more than at other times. For these reasons, therefore, as well as others, we may- conclude, that all the predictions contained in these chapters did not receive their fulfillment at the time referred to. The accomplishment of prophecy may be gradual ; it may extend through a series of years, and embrace like history many subordinate events, but it must have one true proper fulfillment. A person who understands the rules of interpreta- tion for prophetical language, and who endeavors to follow them, may, in some cases, be mistaken, but one who does not understand and observe them, will be almost sure to err in numberless instances. And it will be found equally true in this, and in every other de- partment of sacred learning, that the hand of the dili- gent maketh rich in knowledge as well as wealth. Search therefore, diligently, intelligently, prayerfully, the Scriptures; "for in them ye think ye have eternal life," and the gospel which they communi- cate, "is the power of God to salvation." SECTION VI. ON THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE, CONSIDERED AS CONTAINING A SYSTEM OF PURE MORALITY AND RELIGION. 1. Moral and religious truths are not like objects of sense, that force themselves upon the attention of every beholder. They cannot be understood without reflection and study. Men must think in order to apprehend them aright. The subject of morals is in its nature, a complicated, and in some of its facts and relations, a diflicult subject. It is open to the studious, candid, persevering inquirer ; but its truths do not eifectually catch the eye and captivate the heart of the superficial, impatient and uncandid dogmatist. In this respect the Bible is like other books which relate to difficult subjects. Works on natural philo- sophy, mathematics, and other branches of science, though prepared with ever so much ability, and ever so well adapted to the human mind, cannot be under- stood without patient persevering study. 2. As far as the subjects treated of in the Bible, come within the sphere of human observation, ex- amine those subjects particularly ; and compare them INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE, ETC. 67 with the descriptions of them and references to them, contained in the Bible. This rule is one of funda- mental importance. When you read of man, as described in the Bible, look at him as living and acting in the world. Let the theoretical views of the Bible in relation to subjects of this kind, be illustrated by- living e:j^amples of that to which they refer. The examples will illustrate and explain the theory better than it can possibly be explained in any other way. 3. In all matters of duty practice as well as theo- rize. Even in the sciences, the path of experiment is the most direct, and in some cases, the only way to knowledge. This is emphatically the case in regard- to the most spiritual parts of the Christian system. They cannot be correctly understood and appreciated by the cold calculating theorist, while he continues such. Colors must be viewed with the natural eye in order that we may understand them correctly, and be able to distinguish one from another. Mere des- cription can never give us adequate ideas in relation to colors, except in connection with our own experi- mental knowledge. So in regard to holiness. We must understand it experimentally in order to under- stand it thoroughly. The necessity of practice, or in other words, of obedience, is expressly declared by our Saviour in John 7: 17, where he says, that if any man does the will of God, he shall know of his doc- trine, whether it be divine. This passage implies evidently, that without practicing obedience, the know- ledge referred to will not be attained. 68 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE, ETC. A man must practice morality in order to under- stand and appreciate the pure Gospel system, as it re- lates to this subject : He must in hke manner practice the duties of rehgion if he would rightly understand and appreciate them, as taught in the Bible. Much of the error of the religious world, arises from a disposition to theorize without experiment. Theorists have not benefitted and adorned the walks of physical science, except so far as their theories have gone hand in hand with experiment ; and I apprehend that the same principle will hold true, in relation to the higher depart- ments of moral and theological science. Immorality blunts the moral sense, and in that way incapaciates men, in a measure, for the successful investigation of moral subjects. This is exemplified in the case of the drunkard, the sensualist, the thief, the liar, and every other class of immoral men, that can be named. There is no exception. It is no wonder, therefore, that such persons, while they con- tinue such, should be unable to interpret correctly those parts of the Scriptures, which relate to a pure morality. It is their vice which obscures their intel- lectual and moral vision, that they cannot see. It is their vice which casts in dread eclipse the glorious sun of righteousness, so far as they are concerned, and shrouds them in fatal darkness. Every act of immo- rality contributes to harden the heart, to darken the mind, to stupify the conscience. Every act of impiety has the same efiect. The hardening and blinding influence of impiety, is more concealed, than that of immorality ; but it is not more certain. INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. ETC. 69 The moralist that Uves an irreUgious Ufe, as every unconverted man does, is found to be as hardened and Winded in his irrehgion as the sensuaUst, or gambler, or liar, is in his immorality. "When a man's objections to divine truth whether relating to morality or religion strictly so called, arise from immorality, or irreligion of heart and life, the soundest and most conclusive reasonings, if not direct- ed against these real and proper causes of the error, are expended in vain. 4. Lastly, reduce your knowledge to system as fast as you acquire it. This can be done to a greater or less extent by ev^ery intelligent person, that is, by every one that has common intelligence. I would not flatter every Christian with the hope of becoming a profound divine. That attainment is perhaps within the reach of but few. But I would hold out to every one the hope of becoming a sound, intelligent Christian. Sys- tematic knowledge is the most perfect knowledge. This holds true in relation to all subjects secular and religious. Those views of science which are not sys- tematic, have never been considered as constituting adequate knowledge. When persons undertake to teach the sciences, they do it in a systematic manner. They cannot do it to advantage in any other manner. So when persons study the sciences, they generally study them systematically, beginning with the elemen- tary principles, and ascending gradually and progres- sively to those parts which are abstruse and complica- ted. By proceeding in this manner every part of science is easy ; but reverse the process, and not a single science would be attainable by ordinary capaci- 70 INTERPRETATION OF THE BIELE, ETC. ties. The whole round of learning, which is now simple, and easily attained, if studied as many under- take to study the Bible, beginning with the darkest and most complicated portions of it, would be utterly unintelligible ; and universal skepticism, or in other words, universal ignorance would unavoidably ensue. Begin, then, with the elementary principles of religion ; learn them, and ascend gradually as you are able, to its higher and more difficult doctrines. In this way, the light of that which is simple, may be made to dispel the darkness, and remove the difficulties, in which more obscure portions of the word of God are involved. Catechisms and well written systems of divinity may be of very essential service in the systematic study of the sacred Scriptures. It is on this ground that the use of such works by students in theology has been so generally approved by the pious and in- telUgent of different denominations. All intelligent Christians may use these to advantage, not as ultimate sources of information, but as helps to the systematic study of the Bible, RECOMMENDATORY LETTERS The following letters from gentlemen whose studies have been directed to the subject of Interpretation, and who enjoy, in a high degree, the confidence of the Christ- ian public, show in what light the foregoing work is viewed by their respective authors. Rev. George Bush, Professor of Hebrew and Oriental Literature, in the New-York University, writes as follows : New-York J May 10, 1834. Mr. Sawyer : Dear Sir — At your request I have given an una- voidably hasty perusal to the little treatise on the Elements of Biblical Interpretation. Both the plan and the execu- tion of the work in their general features meet my cordial approbation. Perhaps, indeed, if rigidly interrogated I might hesitate in giving a full assent to some few of its positions, as it is scarcely possible to invest the principles of this science, particularly as they relate to Prophecy and the Double Sense, with a demonstrative certainty. But on the whole I consider your work a valuable ac&gssion to the department to which it belongs. It is clear,' simple, pre- cise, well-reasoned and well-arranged — the first ranuisites in any elementary work. Being free from scholastic tech- nicalities, it is well adapted to popular use, while the graver studies of the divine and the critic will be aided by its valuable hints. Very respectfully yours, • Geo. Bush. Rev. A. Barnes, of the First Church, Philadelphia. Mr. Sawyer. I have at your request given a perusal to your little ;ivork on the Interpretation of the Scriptures. With the sentiments expressed \\y^ Prof Bush in regard to it, I am RECOMMENDATORY LETTERS. happy to concur. Such a work seems to me to be much demanded, and adapted to do much good. The great mass of Christians have not access to the larger works on this science ; and yet nothing in my view, is more important in the promotion of humble, and enlightened piety than a correct knowledge of the laws of the interpretation of the Bible. Nothing, I am satisfied, will tend more to suppress wild, irregular, and fanatical views of divine truth, than such views of interpretation. To every effort, therefore, to promote such knowledge, I am happy to express my earnest wish of success. Very respectfully yours, Albert Barnes. Philadelphia, May 20, 1834. Rev. C. Hodge, Professor of Biblical and Oriental Literature in the Theological Seminary, Princeton. To the Rev. Mr. Sawyer : My Dear Sir, As the sacred Scriptures are the only infallible guide to the knowledge of divine truth, it is evident, that their right interpretation is a matter of vital importance. It is not ministers alone to whom this interpretation belongs ; it is at once the privilege and duty of every reader of the Bible to endeavor to ascertain its true meaning. I there- fore rejoice that you have been led to prepare a work designed for the instruction of general readers on this importa»nt subject. As far as I have had the opportunity of examining your treatise, I think it well adapted to the object you have in view. The portions on the Double Sense, and the Interpretation of Prophecy, I have not read, and therefore cannot say how far our views on those points may differ. Yours respectfully, C. Hodge. SKT THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE STAMPED BELOW AN INITIAL FINE OF 25 CENTS WILL BE ASSESSED FOR FAILURE TO RETURN THIS BOOK ON THE DATE DUE. THE PENALTY WILL INCREASE TO SO CENTS ON THE FOURTH DAY AND TO $1.00 ON THE SEVENTH DAY OVERDUE. D^C 12Nov'62BP REC P LP nCTl2'64-4PM tjyta.?,'970(^^ i?£G'Din JUL 1 3 7 -8 AM 2 2 ^3 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA UBRARY