individuals, were in a ruined state, about to perish everlastingly, and utterly with out the power of rescuing themselves from destruction; that God provided for their rescue and salvation by giving his son to die for them; and that all who be lieve in him, that is, who believe what God has spoken concerning Christ, his sacrifice, the end for which it was offered, and the way in which it is to be applied in order to become effectual; that all who thus believe shall not only be exempted from eternal perdition, but shall also ultimately have everlasting life, in other words, be brought to eternal glory. Yet how are these "good tidings of great joy to all people," narrowed and restricted by certain expositors, who adopt the hypothesis that Jesus Christ was given for the elect alone! How, indeed, could God be said to love those, to whom he denies the means of salvation, and whom he destines by an irrevocable decree to eternal misery? And what violence are such expositors compelled to do to the passage in question in order to reconcile it to their preconceived notions! They are obliged to interpret that compre hensive word, the world, by a synechdoche of a part for the whole; and thus say, that it means the nobler portion of the world, namely the elect, without calling to their aid those other parallel passages of Scripture, in which the above consolatory truth is explicitly affirmed in other words. A similar instance occurs in Matt. xviii. 11., where Jesus Christ is said to have "come to save that which was lost," To aroλwhos; which word, as its meaning is not restricted by the Holy Spirit, is not to be interpreted in a restricted sense, and consequently must be taken in its most obvious and universal sense. In this way we are to understand Deut. xxvii. 26. and Isa. lxiv. 6.

3. Before we conclude upon the sense of a text, so as to prove any thing by it, we must be sure that such sense is not repugnant to natural

reason.

If such sense be repugnant to natural reason, it cannot be the true meaning of the Scriptures for God is the original of natural truth, as well as of that which comes by particular revelation. No proposition, therefore, which is repugnant to the fundamental principles of reason, can be the sense of any part of the word of God; and that which is false and contrary to reason, can no more be true and agreeable to the revelations contained in the sacred writings, than God (who is the author of one as well as the other) can contradict himself. Whence it is evident that the words of Jesus Christ, This is my body, and This is my blood, — (Matt. xxvi. 26. 28.) are not to be understood in that sense, which makes for the doctrine of transubstantiation: because it is impossible that contradictions should be true; and we cannot be more certain that any thing is true, than we are that that doctrine is false.

4. Although the plain, obvious, and literal sense of a passage may not always exhibit the mind of the Holy Spirit, yet it is ordinarily to be preferred to the figurative sense, and is not to be rashly abandoned, unless absolute and evident necessity require such literal sense to be given

up.

"I hold it," says the learned and venerable Hooker, “for a most infallible rule in expositions of sacred Scripture, that, where a literal construction will stand, the farthest from the letter is commonly the worst. There is nothing more dan gerous than this licentious and deluding art, which changes the meaning of words, as alchemy doth or would do the substance of metals, making of any thing what it pleases, and bringing in the end all truth to nothing." Hooker applies this rule to the discussion of some points controverted in his day, which it would be foreign to our plan to notice; we shall therefore proceed briefly to show in what cases we may depart from the strict sense of the letter of Scripture, without incurring the charge of rashness or presumption.

(1.) Where words, properly taken, contain any thing repugnant to the doctrinal or moral precepts delivered in other parts of the Scripture, such proper and literal sense may safely be abandoned.

For it would be the extreme of absurdity to affirm that the Holy Spirit contradicts himself. Thus, the command of Jesus Christ, related in Matt. xviii. 8, 9. if interpreted literally, is directly at variance with the sixth commandment, (Exod. xx. 13.) and must consequently be understood figuratively. So, the declaration of Jesus Christ in John, xiv. 28. (My father is greater than I) is to be understood

1 Ecclesiastical Polity, book v. c. 58-60., or in p. 211. of Mr. Collinson's Analysis.

of himself, as he is man. This is evident from the context and from the nature of his discourse. In John, xiv. 24. Christ tells his disciples that the father had sent him; that is, in his quality of Messiah, he was sent by the father to instruct and to save mankind. Now as the sender is greater than he who is sent (xiii. 16.); so, in this sense, is the Father greater than the Son. It certainly requires very little argument, and no sophistry to reconcile this saying with the most orthodox notion of the Deity of Christ; as he is repeatedly speaking of his divine and of his human nature. Of the former he says (John x. 30.) I and the Father are one ; and of the latter he states with the same truth, the Father is greater than 1.

(2.) If the Holy Spirit, who is the best interpreter of his own words, elsewhere deliver his mind concerning the same thing, in proper and clearer words, the latter are preferably to be adopted.

Jerome (on Isa. xix.) has long since remarked, that in the Scriptures clear expressions are ordinarily subjoined to those which are obscure, and that what is in one place stated in enigmatical terms, is in another passage delivered clearly and explicitly. In illustration of this remark, it will be sufficient to refer to and compare the following passages, viz. Matt. xiii. 15. with Mark iv. 12. and Luke xi. 20. with Matt. xii. 28. See also Ezek. xx. 37, 38. Isa. i. 22, 23. xliii. 20, 21. xliv. 35. and li. 1, 2.

(3.) Where the proper signification presents a meaning that is either absurd, or manifestly contrary to truth, it must necessarily be given up. As, first, If the predicate contain any thing which will in no respect whatever suit the subject, taken in a literal sense; and, secondly, if the event does not correspond with the prediction.

First, Matt. viii. 22. Let the dead bury their dead cannot possibly be applied to those who are really and naturally dead; and consequently must be understood figuratively, "Leave those who are spiritually dead to perform the rites of burial for such as are naturally dead." In Psal. cxxx. 1. David is said to have cried unto the Lord out of the DEPTHS, by which word we are metaphorically to understand a state of the deepest affliction; because it no where appears from Scripture, nor is it probable, that the Jewish monarch was ever thrown into the sea, even in his greatest adversity, as we read that the prophet Jonah was, who cried to the Lord out of the depth, or midst of the sea. (Jon. i. 15. 17. ii. 2, 3. 5.) Similar expressions occur in 1 Cor. iii. 13. and Rev. vi. 13.

Secondly, In Isa. i. 25. where the prophet is foretelling the purification of the Jewish church by the calamities consequent on the Babylonish captivity and exile, it is said, I will purely purge away thy DROSS, and take away all thy TIN. Now, here, reason teaches us that this expression cannot possibly be taken in its grammatical sense, because the event would not correspond with the prediction. (Compare also Zech. iv. 10.) But as silver may denote the sincere and pious worshippers of Jehovah, so tin is an apposite emblem of hypocrites; whose glaring profession might cause them to be taken for truly pious characters, while they are intrinsically worthless. It is the removal of such persons which is foretold in the passage above cited, as far as human weakness and the state of the church at that time permitted. Similar expressions occur in Isa. i. 10. and xiii. 10. 13. Ezekiel xxxii. 7. and Joel ii. 31. and iii. 15. Additional instances might be cited, but as they would in some degree anticipate a subsequent portion of this work, they are here omitted. The reader will find some further hints on this topic in Chapter V. Section IV. infra.

In the application of this rule, however, we must be convinced, after mature investigation and consideration, that an adherence to the proper signification does suggest a meaning that is really absurd or contrary to truth, before we give up the literal sense. It is not every apparent difficulty or absurdity which may strike our minds, nor a mere comparison of other passages where a single word may have a similar improper or figurative meaning (as Mark ix. 43, 44, compared with Jer. xvii. 27.), that will authorise a departure from the literal signification; and still less will it be sanctioned by the consideration of greater utility, or the larger measure of edification which we hope to derive from taking words figuratively and mystically. Inattention to this last-mentioned caution has led the way to

allegorical and mystical interpretations, the most far-fetched and contradictory that can well be imagined. Origen and many of the fathers have adopted this mode of interpretation, which was reduced into a regular method by the learned and pious professor John Cocceius, in the early part of the seventeenth century. We have already seen that many things related in the Old Testament are to be spiritually understood: but Cocceius represented the entire history of the Old Testament as a mirror, which held forth an accurate view of the transactions and events that were to happen in the church under the New Testament dispensation, to the end of the world. He further affirmed, that by far the greatest part of the antient propheeies foretold Christ's ministry and mediation, together with the rise, progress, and revolutions of the church, not only under the figure of persons and transactions, but in a literal manner, and by the sense of the words used in these predictions. And he laid it down as a fundamental rule of interpretation that the words and phrases of Scripture are to be understood in EVERY SENSE of which they are susceptible or in other words, that they signify in effect every thing which they can signify. These opinions have not been without their advocates in this country; and if our limits permitted, we could adduce numerous instances of evident misinterpretations of the Scriptures which have been occasioned by the adoption of them: one or two, however, must suffice. Thus, the Ten Commandments, or Moral Law as they are usually termed, which the most pious and learned men in every age of the Christian church, have considered to be rules or precepts for regulating the manners or conduct of men, both towards God and towards one another, have been referred to Jesus Christ, under the mistaken idea that they may be read with a new interest by believers !2 In like manner the first psalm, which, it is generally admitted, describes the respective happiness and misery of the pious and the wicked, according to the Cocceian hypothesis, has been applied to the Saviour of the world, in whom alone all the characters of goodness are made to centre, without any reference to its moral import! An ordinary reader, who peruses Isa. iv. 1., would naturally suppose that the prophet was predicting the calamities that should befal the impenitently wicked Jews, previously to the BabyJonish captivity; which calamities he represents to be so great that seven women should take hold of one man, that is, use importunity to be married, and that upon the hard and unusual conditions of maintaining themselves. But this simple and literal meaning of the passage, agreeably to the rule that the words of Scripture signify every thing which they can signify, has been distorted beyond measure; and, because in the subsequent verses of this chapter the prophet makes a transition to evangelical times, this first verse has been made to mean the rapid conversion of mankind to the Christian faith; the seven women are the converted persons, and the one man is Jesus Christ! A simple reference to the context and subject matter of the prophecy would have shown that this verse properly belonged to the third chapter, and had no reference whatever to Gospel times. On

1 Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History, vol. v. pp. 360. et seq. edit. 1808. 2 See an exposition of the Ten Commandments on the above principle, (if such a perversion of sense and reason may be so called,) in the Bible Magazine, vol. iv

pp. 13, 14.

the absurdity of the exposition just noticed, it is needless to make any comment. It is surpassed only by the reveries of a modern writer on the continent, who has pushed the Cocceian hypothesis to the utmost bounds. According to his scheme, the incest of Lot and his daughters was permitted, only to be a sign of the salvation which the world was afterwards to receive from Jesus Christ; and Joshua the son of Nun signifies the same thing as Jesus the son of Man!!!

And,

As the application of the spiritual sense of Scripture to the interpretation of the sacred writings, is discussed at some length in a subsequent part of this work, any further observations here would be premature: it may therefore suffice to remark that the Cocceian hypothesis has been very fully exposed both in our own country and on the continent by the able writers referred to below.3 although "spiritual improvements (as they are sometimes called) of particular passages of Scripture, that is, deducing from them spiritual instructions for the practical edification of the reader,whether or not they flow directly and naturally from the subject, may at least be harmless ;" yet" when brought forward for the purposes of interpretation, properly so called, they are to be viewed with caution and even with mistrust. For scarcely is there a favourite opinion, which a fertile imagination may not thus extract from some portion of Scripture; and very different, nay, contrary, interpretations of this kind have often been made of the very same texts, according to men's various fancies or inventions.*

1 M. Kanne, in his Christus im Alten Testament, that is, Christ in the Old Testament, or Inquiries concerning the Adumbrations and Delineations of the Messiah. Nurnberg, 1818, 2 vols. 8vo. Happily this tissue of absurdity is locked up in a language that is read by few comparatively in this country. The author's knowledge of its existence is derived from the valuable periodical journal, entitled Melanges de Religion, de Morale, et de Critique Secrée, published at Nismes, tome i. pp. 159, 160.

2 See Chapter VI. infra.

3 See particularly Dr. Whitby's Dissertatio de Scripturarum Interpretatione secundum patrum commentarios, 8vo. 1714, and Terretin De Sacra Scripturæ interpretande methodo, part i. c. iv. pp. 91-144. edit. 1728.

4 Bishop Vanmildert's Bampton Lectures, p. 247.

CHAPTER II.

ON THE SIGNIFICATION OF WORDS AND PHRASES.

I. General rules for investigating the meaning of words. — II. Ou emphatic words. III. Rules for the investigation of emphases. I. SINCE, as we have already seen, words compose sentences, and these form senses, it is necessary to ascertain the individual meaning of words, before we proceed further to investigate the sense of Scripture. In the prosecution of this important work, we may observe, generally, that as the same method and the same principles of interpretation are common both to the sacred volume and to the productions of uninspired man, consequently the signification of words in the Holy Scriptures must be sought precisely in the same way in which the meaning of words in other works usually is or ought to be sought. Hence also it follows, that the method of investigating the signification of words in the Bible is no more arbitrary than it is in other books, but is in like manner regulated by certain laws, drawn from the nature of languages. And since no text of Scripture has more than one meaning, we must endeavour to find out that one true sense precisely in the same manner as we would investigate the sense of Homer or any other antient writer; and in that sense, when so ascertained, we ought to acquiesce, unless, by applying the just rules of interpretation, it can be shown that the meaning of the passage has been mistaken, and that another is the only just, true, and critical sense of the place. This principle, duly considered, would alone be sufficient for investigating the sense of Scripture; but as there are not wanting persons who reject it altogether, and as it may perhaps appear too generally expressed, we shall proceed to consider it more minutely in the following observations.

1. Ascertain the notion affixed to a word by the persons in general, by whom the language either is now or formerly was spoken, and especially in the particular connection in which such notion is affixed.

2. The meaning of a word used by any writer, is the meaning affixed to it by those for whom he immediately wrote. For there is a kind of natural compact between those who write and those who speak a language; by which they are mutually bound to use words in a certain sense: he, therefore, who uses such words in a different signification, in a manner violates that compact, and is in danger of leading men into error, contrary to the design of God, "who will have all men to be saɛed, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." (1 Tim. ii. 4.)

3. The words of an author must not be so explained as to make them inconsistent with his known character, his known sentiments, his known situation, and the known circumstances under which he wrote.

4. Although the force of particular words can only be derived from etymology, yet too much confidence must not be placed in that frequently

uncertain science.

5. The received signification of a word is to be retained, unless weighty and necessary reasons require that it should be abandoned or neglected.

Thus, we shall be justified in rejecting the received meaning of a word in the following cases, viz.