portant idea lies at the foundation of it, obscured, however, and distorted, so as to lose all prominence. Conversion is necessary to the attainment of a right knowledge of the word of God. The light of God's spirit within, casts its welcome rays on the pages of the Bible, enabling the believer to see the truth as it is in Jesus. In so far as this idea is recognised and insisted on by the Pietists, they uphold an indubitable and invaluable fact. If, however, it gave birth to the system, it soon lost its native character amid the errors engrafted upon it. The first Pietists of Germany were men of God, whose names we revere and honour. Spener and Francke were able as well as practical men. They laboured ardently and earnestly to give a practical tone to theology. But the system they pursued was afterwards altered-it became associated, and at last almost identified with fanaticism. In its present form it has lost all scientific character, and pursues an eccentric path of its own.

*For the allegorical system of interpretation, see above, p. 57 et seq.

CHAPTER VIII.

THE PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION STATED AND EXEMPLified.

THE question now arises, what mode of interpretation do we profess to adopt? Among numerous systems, how are we to choose that which is right? We follow the method which has been called grammatico-historical. This alone we conceive to be founded in truth, and sanctioned by the Scriptures themselves. The grammatico-historical sense is made out by the application of grammatical and historical considerations. Hence it has received the compound appellation, first given it, we believe, by Keil. The great object to be ascertained is the usus loquendi, embracing the laws or principles of universal grammar which form the basis of every language. These are nothing but the logic of the mind, comprising the modes in which ideas are formed, combined, and associated, agreeably to the original susceptibilities of the intellectual constitution. They are the physiology of the human mind as exemplified practically by every individual. General grammar is wont to be occupied however with the usage of the best writers; whereas the laws of language as observed by the writers of Scripture should be mainly attended to by the sacred interpreter, even though the philosophical grammarian may not admit them all to be correct. It is the usus loquendi of the inspired authors which forms the subject of the grammatical principles recognised and followed by the expositor. The grammar he adopts is deduced from the use of the language employed in the Bible. This may not be conformed to the practice of the best writers it may not be philosophically just; but he must not therefore pronounce it erroneous.

The modes of expression used by each writer- the utterances of his mental associations, constitute his usus loquendi. These form his grammatical principles; and the interpreter takes them as his own in the business of exegesis. Hence too there arises a special, as well as a universal grammar.

Now we attain to a knowledge of the peculiar usus loquendi

F f

in the way of historical investigation. The religious, moral, and psychological ideas, under whose influence a language has been formed and moulded, all the objects with which the writers were conversant, and the relations in which they were placed, are traced out historically. The costume of the ideas in the minds of the Biblical authors, originated from the character of the times, country, place, and education under which they acted. Hence, in order to ascertain their peculiar usus loquendi, we should know all those institutions and influences whereby it was formed or affected.

Grammatical and historical interpretation when rightly understood are synonymous. The special laws of grammar, agreeably to which the sacred writers employed language, were the result of their peculiar circumstances; and history alone throws us back into these circumstances. A new language was not made for the authors of Scripture; - they conformed to the current language of the country and time. Their compositions would not have been otherwise intelligible. They took up the usus loquendi as

they found it, modifying it, as is quite natural, by the relations internal and external amid which they thought and wrote. Many writers in Germany take the phrase historical interpretation in a lax and dangerous application. They think it sufficient to inquire into the genius or character of each writer, — the prevailing opinions of his time, especially those concerning religious subjects, the nature of the things themselves about which he wrote, &c. &c.,—and interpret accordingly. But the authors of Scripture indited divine communications for the use of all men and all times. They received them from the Holy Ghost, not as the mere echo of current notions, but as high and holy revelations of God. Their doctrines regulated the right theology of the times and places to which they belonged; and the national sentiments may have been wholly erroneous. It is true, that in ascertaining the mode of their statements, historical circumstances are of essential benefit; but historical interpretation, as understood by Neologists, localises religion by making it a thing of one age, and one country. It should never be forgotten, that it is the express communication of Heaven, intended for all times, places, and human beings. We shall have very imperfect ideas of its nature, by limiting the sense of certain passages to that deduced from them by the persons to whom the writings were originally addressed. They frequently misunderstood

the real meaning; and it is therefore absurd to make their minds the standard of our interpretations. Because they attached a certain idea to a word, we should not forthwith conclude, that it is the proper idea intended by the Spirit. The student of Scripture must beware of this abuse of historico-grammatical interpretation, and guard against the dangerous supposition, that because a term had already a certain signification when it was used by the New Testament writers, it must have retained the same signification, when applied to express the doctrines of revelation. Though they generally employed current terms, to designate the doctrines of which they wrote, yet they made a new application of them,-an application to new subjects to which the words had not been subjected before. In this way the terms acquired a new sense, though their generic signification may have remained unchanged.

In connection with this point we observe, that each word has but one signification in a particular place. No one term has two senses at the same time. It is contrary to all analogy to assume, that any other meaning than one, was really intended. If this remark be just, two different modes of exposition cannot be adopted. One mode only must be applied, viz. the historicogrammatical. The historical interpreter and the grammatical interpreter do not pursue separate, distinct methods of procedure; -they follow the same path, and are occupied with the same thing. It is quite erroneous to make historical and grammatical exposition different things. The grammatical meaning is the same with the historical; and both constitute all the meaning intended by the Holy Spirit. When the grammatical or historical meaning of a passage is ascertained, all the theology of the passage is also known.

We come now to speak more particularly of the manner in which the sense of the sacred text is discovered. The basis of all interpretation is a thorough knowledge of the usus loquendi of the languages employed in the expression of ideas. How then is the usus loquendi of a dead language ascertained?

1st, From the works of those who lived when it was current, and to whom it was vernacular. Thus, in investigating the meaning of a term, we naturally consult the writer himself by whom it was used. He may give a definition of the word in question. Or, its connexion may probably explain it; or again, parallel passages point out its signification with sufficient clear

ness.

If we do not find its signification in the author himself, we have recourse to some other writer who employed the same language.

2dly, From the traditional knowledge of the usus loquendi, retained partly in ancient versions, partly in commentaries and lexicons.

3dly, From writers who employed a cognate dialect.

These are general principles applicable to all languages. They are the true means of discovering the legitimate usage of every tongue which has ceased to be spoken.

We shall now speak of them in their connexion with the original languages of Scripture.

In regard to the first, it is well known, that a writer in the Old or New Testament occasionally furnishes a definition or explanation of the words he employs, either at the place where they first occur, or in some other position. Thus Moses, in Genesis xiv. 14, interprets by in domestics or servants

born in his house. So also St. Matthew explains Immanuel, God with us. Again, a parallel passage in the work of the same writer may serve to give the proper signification of a term, or the meaning of a phrase.

2dly, In relation to the Hebrew, we have the Septuagint, the Chaldee versions or Targums, the Peshito or old Syriac, the Latin and the Arabic versions, with several others; as also the Greek translations of Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, and the Venetian version; and the works of the Jewish Rabbins, Jarchi, Aben Ezra, Kimchi, and Tanchum of Jerusalem.

In the New Testament, we have the two Syriac versions, the Latin, the Arabic, and some others; the profane writers, Polybius, Diodorus Siculus, Arrian, Herodian, &c., embracing generally such as wrote in the zon dráhexros; the writings of Josephus and Philo; the works of the scholiasts and early lexicographers; the catena and commentaries of the Greek fathers.

3dly, A knowledge of the usus loquendi of the Hebrew language is to be derived in part from authors who wrote in cognate dialects, such as the Chaldee, Syriac, and Arabic.

Of these three sources, the first is obviously the most important and satisfactory. It ought, therefore, to be most relied on. The others are rather confirmatory of the meaning when partially ascertained, than original helps to the first discovery