then gravely pretend to maintain that by this parade of complexity and confusion he had proved astronomy to be the most uncertain of all the sciences; and, further, that he alone proceeds scientifically and surely, who rejecting all instruments, and abandoning all theories, however firmly based on mathematical demonstration, with the copious accumulation of facts in so many observatories, should betake himself with the naked eye alone to the study of the heavens? Yet this is precisely the absurdity propounded by some modern interpreters of the Bible. But after all, "The foundation standeth sure." The Bible is the most certain of all books: and its theology the surest and highest of all sciences. To specify and illustrate the more essential principles of interpretation, with the rules founded thereon; to show that they are neither arbitrary in their origin nor uncertain in their results; and to establish their necessity by a reference to the invariably pernicious consequences of their violation or neglect; will be the object of the remaining portion of this chapter.

CHAPTER VI.

SECTION II. PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION.

"I shall not ask Jean Jacques Rousseau

If birds confabulate or no;

'Tis clear that they were always able

To hold discourse, at least in fable;

And e'en the child who knows no better
Than to interpret by the letter,

A story of a cock and bull,

Must have a most uncommon skull."

THOSE literalists who deprecate, though they cannot deny, the use of figurative language in Scripture, and who imagine that its avoidance would have rendered the language of Revelation more intelligible, and its meaning more indubitable, should be reminded that the realization of their idea, even if it were practicable, would still be most undesirable. If every paragraph of the Bible had exhibited all that exactness of legal precision which characterizes a parliamentary enactment; what then? Even this, as we have already seen, would not have prevented dissension and dispute. But even were this fact otherwise; even if-contrary to all experience, and contrary to the very nature of things-we admit for the moment that this supposed uniformity of expression were attainable; and then admit further-though this too is opposed to all experience-that when attained it answered the desired end, i.e. prevented the possibility of misinterpretation or mistake; what then? Who would be benefitted? You would, on the suppositions now admitted, have produced a book such as in your opinion the Bible ought to have been. But where would such a book find readers? Give to every man the abilities and the application of a Lord Chancellor, and he may then be able to understand it when he tries. But how will you get him to try? How will you awaken

his interest? how will you arrest his attention? There is only one way open to you. Restore to the Bible that human element of which your chimerical imagination had robbed it. Instead of deterring us by the rigid immobility of the statue, pointing with undeviating finger, and gazing with unsympathising eye, let us be again attracted by the loving voice, the beckoning hand, the wistful glance, that attemper the divinity of the message by the humanity of the messenger; that speak of human emotion and of human passion, of human contrition and of human aspiration, until every fibre of our nature thrills with the stirring consciousness, This message comes to me for 'I myself also am a man !”

We maintain therefore, that if the Bible is to speak naturally, it must of necessity speak figuratively. For the language of nature is the language of figure. It is so among the most highly civilised of earth's peoples; and it is so among those rude and savage tribes where civilisation is unknown. In this respect, what Butler says of Sir Hudibras is of universal application,

"For rhetoric he could not ope

His mouth, but out there flew a trope."

Nor would this be less true even if there should be many who, with respect to rhetoric, should find themselves in the condition of poor M. Jourdain with respect to prose, when at last he discovered, to his great admiration, that he had talked it for more than forty years without knowing it. Yet what else is it but to speak most tropically when instead of speaking of ships or oxen, we put the part for the whole, and say so many head of cattle, or so many sail of the line? when we say (not that old age, but) that grey hairs should be respected; or when we turn “a cabinet minister" into "a pillar of the state?" But more than this. Not merely are these simplest combinations of words stamped with that indelible figurativeness which characterises all language, but we shall find that the same characteristic clings to each word considered separately and alone. "Pontiff" still tells us of the bridge which the first pontifex had to keep in repair; "calamity" still points backwards to the first calamity (calamus), the loss of standing corn; in the "dactyl" we perceive the joints of the finger, while the "sycophant" is re

LANGUAGE ESSENTIALLY FIGURATIVE.

153

dolent of figs; the "ducat" suggests the duke who coined it, just as the pound sterling' suggests the sovereign whose name and effigy it bears; the "adage" has its own practical lesson of something to be done;' the ram-rod (like the battering-ram) points to a natural action as old as the creation; and if the "primrose" points to primus, it has good reason as an early flower of spring.

But further. To this class of words, each with its own imagery, but each too with one definite meaning, must be added that other class of words innumerable which, besides their primitive signification, have also an indefinite number of others. Père Bourgeois tells us (-speaking of his Chinese studies, and preparation of his first sermon-) "They told me chou signified a book, so that I thought when ever the word chou was pronounced, a book was the subject of discourse; not at all. Chou, the next time I heard it, I found signified a tree. Now I was to recollect that chou was a book and a tree; but this amounted to nothing. Chou I found also expressed great heats. Chou is to relate. Chou is the Aurora. Chou means to be accustomed. Chou expresses the loss of a wager. I should never have done were I to enumerate all the meanings of chou." To take an instance nearer home: Block (according to Dr. Johnson) signifies a heavy piece of timber; a mass of matter. Block means the wood on which hats are formed. Block means the wood on which criminals are beheaded. Block is a sea-term for a pulley. Block is an obstruction, a stop; and finally, block means a blockhead. Yet in every instance, the transition from the literal to the metaphorical usage is so obvious and natural, that unless we could alter the conditions of thought, and the consequent structure of speech, it must remain unavoidable. Proceeding to apply these considerations to the interpretation of Scripture, we may notice first, the usage of single words and idiomatic expressions; then the meaning of the words as deter

This epithet "sterling" as a denomination for genuine English money-not to speak of its many metaphorical applications-is derived from the Easterlings, i.e. Prussians and Pomeranians, who,

in old time, were artists in fining gold and silver, and taught their art to the Britons.

2

Adagia, i e. proverbs, ad agendum apta; apt for action and use.

mined by the rest of the sentence, or of sentences as determined by the whole scope of the passage; and lastly, the principles which regulate the interpretation of passages confessedly figurative, e.g., parables and allegories.

I. 1. As the sacred writers wrote to be understood, we must interpret their language as we interpret the language of common life. In order to put the right meaning on their words we must first of all ascertain the sense in which general usage employs them. When we read, for instance, that "Judah is a lion's whelp," " Joseph, a fruitful bough," "Issachar, a strong ass," and "Naphtali, a hind let loose," every one admits that the language is figurative. So, too, when our blessed Lord represents himself as being now "The Door," and now "The Way;" now "The True Bread," and now "The True Vine." So that they who single out one solitary expression of this sort, and put upon it a forced construction of their own devising, are guilty not merely of imputing absurdity to the Lord himself, but also of the grossest inconsistency in their interpretation of His words. By what possible process of reasoning can it be right to affirm literally, "This [bread] is my body," and yet wrong to affirm literally "All flesh is grass?"

2. We must proceed from the known to the unknown. The literal must be our guide to the metaphorical, and not the metaphorical to the literal. The figurative declaration, “All flesh has corrupted his way," must be interpreted by the literal declaration, "There is none that doeth good." The allegorical "Behold the Lamb of God!" and the parabolical "Led as a lamb to the slaughter," alike unfold their meaning in that literal declaration, of "Christ our Passover sacrificed for us."

3. A due observance of Hebraisms, and of those idiomatic expressions which abound in all languages, is essential to correct interpretation. Thus, e.g., To love and to hate, is a Hebrew expression for preferring one thing to another. Hence for the literal translation in Luke xiv. 26, "If any man come to me and hate not his father," we have the true meaning in the parallel passage (Matt. x. 37.), "He that loveth father more than me." Similarly (Ge. xxix. 31.) we read that "Leah