other terms in the same statement, so that it is not always sufficient to understand the lexical meaning of a word; it is also necessary to comprehend the signification required by its use in connection with other words; for instance, the word faith simply denotes belief, trust, confidence; but in 1 Tim. iii. 9 it means the gospel; in Rom. iii. 3 it expresses faithfulness; in Acts xvii. 31 it signifies evidence or proof.

The principle just illustrated seems so simple as scarcely to need mention, and yet it has been frequently neglected. The advocates of the "rational method of interpretation" charge church expositors with a great deal of fanciful exposition in which this principle has been disregarded. Now we are free to admit that in some instances there has been among church teachers a neglect of sound literal and grammatical interpretation; but has this neglect been all on one side? Many rationalistic interpretors have been as unmindful of this plain rule as any orthodox teachers, ancient or modern. Take for instance the explanation which Paulus gives of Christ's walking on the sea. It was not a walking on the sea at all, but a mere optical illusion; peculiar atmospheric conditions contributing with the dim light of early morn to make it appear that Jesus was walking on the sea, while in reality he was walking on the shore. Can an exposition like this be accepted as fairly expressing the literal and grammatical meaning of the narrative? We know of nothing more fanciful and baseless within the wide range of orthodox interpretation. And take as a more modern instance the explanation which Renan gives of the miraculous meal which Jesus furnished to the multitude in the desert, Matt. xiv. 15-seq. “Jesus, fearing the ill-will of Herod retired to the desert along with many of his followers; the exercise of extreme frugality enabled them to subsist;" and here is all we are required to understand by the account the Evangelist gives of this miracle in the desert. However vehemently rationalistic writers may protest against the violation of this first and simple principle, we cannot help thinking that they disregard it more frequently than writers on the opposite side.

The words employed, and their connection in a sentence, will not always suggest the meaning, and under such circumstances it is necessary to consult the context, and here emerges another principle of interpretation-interpret contextually. Since words depart more or less from their plain lexical meaning, and are used with various shades of signification, it frequently happens that the interpreter has to pass beyond the passage immediately in hand, in order to ascertain the exact meaning of a term. The word perfection is used in several senses. Its Old Testament meaning is commonly uprightness, sincerity; in the New Testament, however, it sometimes denotes clear and accurate knowledge, as in 1 Cor. ii.

6; at other times, completeness, and excellency of character, as in James i. 4; and in almost every instance it is necessary to look to the context so that the true meaning may be elicited. Peculiar forms of expression are sometimes explained in the context, as in Gal. iii., where the covenant with Abraham is stated to have been the promise God made to him. Attention to this rule will prevent any undue weight being attached to particular phrases, as, for instance, those used in Rom. vii., where one class of expositors gives prominence to such expressions as seem to refer to the regenerate, while another class places in the foreground phrases of an opposite kind. Now, it is only by broad contextual interpretation that we can fairly weigh and balance antithetic statements, and fully comprehend the writers' meaning. The context frequently limits the signification of words, as in John ix. 3, where the meaning appears to be, that the man's blindness was not the consequence of any particular sin. The Romish church founds the sacrament of extreme unction, which its doctors teach as essential to the salvation of the soul, upon a solitary passage in the epistle of James, but a reference to the context shows that the word save is used in the sense of heal, and that it is not to the salvation of the soul, but to bodily restoration that the passage refers. This rule is also of service in deciding which of two interpretations, each grammatically admissible, ought to be accepted, as in Phil. i. 10; here, the words rendered "approve things that are excellent," may also be understood in the sense of trying and discerning things which differ; upon grammatical and lexical grounds either sense is admissible, but a reference to the context decides in favour of the reading of the received version.

When all ambiguity cannot be removed by explaining the words in a passage, and developing their connection, or by reference to the context, it then becomes necessary to pay attention to the writer's general use of words and phrases, and also to the scope and purpose of his writing; and here is evolved another important principle of exegesis. A writer should be interpreted agreeably to his own use of terms and the general purpose for which he writes. In several of Paul's epistles a conclusion is stated in reference to which the whole course of argument ought to be explained, as in Rom iii. 28; and Eph. ii. 11-12; and these conclusions are made the basis of further exhortation and remark, in the explanation of which they are of first importance. It is frequently necessary to take into consideration the occasion upon which any section of scripture was written; indeed, in every case this is requisite in order to full and accurate interpretation; we need only mention in illustration of this point the Psalms and Paul's Epistles. This principle of exposition demands the close and repeated study of the several books of scripture, and we venture to

affirm that attention to it will remove many causes of perplexity, as for instance, the apparent discrepancy between Paul and James respecting faith and works; allow each writer to explain his own terms, and all is clear,-interpret each by the other, and there is nothing but confusion of thought and contradiction.

An amplification of the principle just stated, but which may be advanced as a fourth rule of interpretation, is, that Scripture should be compared with Scripture. The Bible is an organic whole, and the teaching of one part contributes, more or less, to the elucidation of all the other parts. It is the application of the rule just stated which marks the characteristic difference between biblical interpretation and interpretation in general. The unity of Scripture requires, as its condition, the inspiration of Scripture; without the latter the former could not be; the harmony and oneness apparent amid all the diversity of culture, style, and subject-matter, upon which this principle of interpretation rests, can only be explained by the presence and voice of the same Spirit, speaking in all and through all. This rule is of the utmost importance in determining the teaching of scripture. The doctrine of the book is not what may be taught here or there, but what is either uncontradicted or supported by the general strain of the record. A scripture doctrine expresses all that a consistent interpretation of the book teaches in respect to the subject examined; and the same observation applies to precept and duty.

This rule may be applied to words and phrases, for it is often requisite to institute an extensive comparison of this kind in order to decide the meaning in a particular instance: as an example may be instanced the word grace-it has various shades of signification, and, if not always necessary, a knowledge of its several uses will invariably be found of service in deciding its import in any given passage. The phrase to "put on Christ" may also be instanced as an example. An acquaintance with this phrase in the several passages where it occurs is at least, if nothing more, a help to a proper understanding of it in any given instance. These verbal parellelisms may be reduced to three classes: First. When the same terms are used to denote precisely the same thing; as in reference to the decalogue in Exodus xx. 2-17, and Deut. v. 6-18; and the rending of the temple veil at the death of Christ, Matthew xxvii. 50, 51, and Mark xv. 37, 38. Second. When occurrences are related in a similar manner, but not in identical phraseology, of which there are numerous instances in the Pentateuch, the historical books of the Old Testament, and the Gospels. Third. When the same terms or forms of expression are used in different connecnections. Sometimes the phrases are similar in meaning, as the phrase "sound doctrine," in 1 Tim. i. 10, and Titus ii. 9. In other instances the phrases, though similar, are used in different

senses; as for example, John v. 31, and viii. 14. This parallelism of words should not be closely pressed upon the basis of a limited comparison; care ought to be taken to ascertain the usage of the author, and of other authors of about the same date, and also what is the general biblical sense of the terms or phrases in question.

But we are not only accustomed to compare words and phrases with a view to decide their meaning; but also facts and statements, with a view to elicit a general truth. This is the parallelism of thought. The comparison of thought or general teaching casily passes over to what has been commonly called the "analogy of faith." This expression denotes the whole tenor of Scripture teaching respecting any particular subject; the truth elicited depending not upon one text, nor upon a few texts; but upon all statements relating to the question; the forms of expression being carefully and impartially compared, and each so restricted by the others, that the explanation is mutual and consistent. By way of illustration we need only refer to Scripture teaching concerning the nature and character of God. He is said to be a spirit; to be all-knowing, all-powerful, all-present, holy, and supreme; now all expressions relating to deity which seem materialistic, or in any sense limited, ought to be explained agreeably to what is the plain tenor of Scripture teaching on the subject. The "analogy of faith" has been recently explained, as the agreement, in the statement and exposition of Christian doctrine, of the creeds which the church has solemnly sanctioned and accepted as the authoritative symbols of faith; we, however, prefer the meaning given above.

These are the general principles by which an interpreter of the Scriptures ought to be guided. Let the meaning and grammatical relation of terms be first ascertained; if this is not sufficient to develop the import of the passage, consult the context; if the meaning is still obscure, consider the writer's general use of words and phrases, and also the occasion and purpose of his writing; if ambiguity still remains, then endeavour to ascertain what is required by the general teaching of Scripture upon the particular point in question. These principles admit of application to all Scripture, whether it be history or prophecy, parable or plain didactic discourse, and whether language be used figuratively or literally. There is not one rule for figures of speech and another for literal statement; neither are parables interpreted by the application of principles which have no reference to historic narrative.

The aids to interpretation are both numerous and important; our space forbids any lengthy notice of them, but reference may be made to a few of the most necessary. A knowledge of the

L

peculiar characteristics of Jewish thought at the time any part of Scripture was written will be found of service in attempting to develop the writer's meaning. The phrases-"kingdom of heaven," "bind and loose," and many of the precepts contained in the sermon on the mount are strikingly illustrative by reference to the opinions prevalent among the Jews at the time of Messiah's advent. There is also considerable help derived in the work of interpretation from an acquaintance with the religious beliefs of the various nations with whom the Jews had any intercourse. This is especially the case in reference to the ancient Egyptians, Phoenicians, and Persians. It is also of service to have an acquaintance with the principles of the Oriental philosophy and the speculative opinions of the ancient Greeks. In several instances these philosophical tenets modified Christian thought, and produced the heresies by which the early church was disturbed. The writings of John are generally admitted to have been produced for the purpose of opposing the Christianised forms of heathen philosophy. Archæology and profane history also contribute to shed much light upon the sacred text. The Pentateuch and the Old Testament become doubly interesting and instructive when studied with aids furnished by ancient Egypt and Assyria. The monumental records of past ages, and the scanty historic lore concerning the earlier periods of our race contribute alike to afford valuable assistance in elucidating the Word of God and makes plain his revealed will. Reference need only be made to the works of Hengstenberg, Layard, Bunsen, and Rawlinson. A knowledge of Eastern manners and customs also is of great service in interpreting Scripture. In every part of the book there is reference to the habitations of the people, their modes of intercourse and general habits of life; and an acquaintance with these is requisite to a true and instructive interpretation. The same may also be said respecting an acquaintance with the physical and political geography of the countries mentioned in Scripture. Natural history is also of importance as an aid to interpretation, and so is botany, chronology, mineralogy, ecclesiastical history, and several other branches of learning; indeed, the whole range of human knowledge may be made tributary to the great work of expounding and enforcing the teachings of holy writ.

It would be well were the Scriptures more earnestly and devoutly studied, and their plain meaning enforced with all the energy of deep personal conviction, then would much that is shallow and worthless in the religious life of this age be destroyed, and man would become in heart and life what the great author of his being designed he should be-pure and good.

A. J.