Sea, and the seats of Japhet's posterity, viz. the northern parts of Asia, Asia Minor, and Europe, together with some other regions.

2. Where, besides the direct or immediate signification of a passage, whether literally or figuratively expressed, there is attached to it a more remote or hidden meaning, this is termed the SPIRITUAL or mystical sense: and this sense is founded not on a transfer of words from one signification to another, but on the entire application of the matter itself to a different subject. Thus,

Exod. xxx. 10. and Levit. xvi.—What is here said concerning the high priest's entrance into the most holy place on the day of atonement, we are taught by St. Paul to understand spiritually of the entrance of Jesus Christ into the presence of God, with his own blood. (Heb. ix. 7-20.)

The spiritual sense of Scripture has frequently been divided into allegorical, typical, and parabolic.

(1.) The ALLEGORICAL SENSE is, when the Holy Scriptures, besides the literal sense, signify any thing belonging to faith or spiritual doctrine.

Such is the sense, which is required rightly to understand Gal. iv. 24. in our version rendered, which things are an allegory: literally, which things are allegorically spoken, or, which things are thus allegorized by me; that is, under the veil of the literal sense they further contain a spiritual or mystical sense.

(2.) The TYPICAL SENSE is, when, under external objects or prophetic visions, secret things are represented, whether present or future; especially when certain transactions, recorded in the Old Testament, presignify or shadow forth those related in the New Testament.

Thus, in Psal. xcv. 11. the words, they should not enter into my rest, literally understood, signify the entrance of the Israelites into the Promised Land; but, typically, the entering into rest and the enjoyment of heaven, through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ, as is largely shown in the third and fourth chapters of the Epistle to the Hebrews.

(3.) The PARABOLIC SENSE is, when, besides the plain

and obvious meaning of the thing related, an occult or spiritual sense is intended. As this chiefly occurs in passages of a moral tendency, the parabolic has by some writers been termed the moral or tropological sense.

Of this description is the parable of the talents: the design of which is to show that the duties which men are called to perform are suited to their situations and the talents which they severally receive; that, whatever good a man possesses, he has received from God, as well as the ability to improve that good; and that the grace and temporal mercies of God are suited to the power which a man has of improving them. Thus, also, the injunction in Deut. xxv. 4. relative to muzzling the ox while treading out the corn, is explained by St. Paul with reference to the right of maintenance of ministers of the Gospel. (1 Cor. ix. 9—11.)

It were easy to multiply examples of each of the different senses here mentioned; but, as they have all one common foundation, and as we shall have occasion to adduce others in the course of the following pages, when stating the rules for interpreting the sense of Scripture after it has been ascertained, the instances above quoted may suffice to illustrate the distinctions subsisting between them.

3. The MORAL SENSE or interpretation, advocated by the late Professor Kant, of Berlin, (whose philosophical system has obtained many followers on the Continent,) consists in setting aside the laws of grammatical and historical interpretation, and attributing a moral meaning to those passages of Scripture, which, agreeably to grammatical interpretation, contain nothing coincident with the moral dictates of unassisted reason. According to this hypothesis, nothing more is necessary, than that it be possible to attach a moral meaning to the passage; it is of little moment, how forced or unnatural it may be. Against this mode of interpretation (which is here noticed in order to put the student on his guard) the following weighty objections have been urged :

(1.) Such a mode of explaining Scripture, does not deserve the name of an interpretation: for this moral in

terpreter does not enquire what the Scriptures actually do teach by their own declarations, but what they ought to teach, agreeably to his opinions.

(2.) The principle is incorrect, which is assumed as the basis of this mode of interpretation: viz. that the grammatical sense of a passage of Scripture cannot be admitted or at least is of no use in ethics, whenever it contains a sentiment, which reason alone could not discover and substantiate.

(3.) Such a mode of interpretation is altogether unnecessary for the Bible is abundantly sufficient for our instruction in religion and morality, if its precepts are construed as applying directly or by consequence to the moral necessities of every man. And, although there are passages of difficult explanation in the Bible, as might naturally be expected from the antiquity and peculiar languages of the Scriptures; yet, in most instances these passages do not relate to doctrines; and, when they do, the doctrines in question are generally taught in other and plainer passages:

(4.) As, on this plan, the mere possibility of attaching a moral import to a text is regarded as sufficient for considering it as a true signification; almost every passage must be susceptible of a multitude of interpretations, as was the case during the reign of the mystical and allegorical mode of interpretation, which has long since been exploded. This must produce confusion in religious instruction, want of confidence in the Bible, and, indeed, a suspicion as to its divine authority: for this must be the natural effect of the moral interpretation on the majority of minds.

(5.) Lastly, if such a mode of interpreting the doctrines of Christianity should prevail, it is not seen how insincerity and deceit, on the part of interpreters, are to be detected and exposed. (Schmucker's Elementary Course of Biblical Theology, vol. i. pp. 272, 273.)

4. Equally untenable is the hypothesis of some modern

critics, that the Declarations of Jesus Christ and his Apostles are an ACCOMMODATION TO POPULAR OPINION AND PREJUDICE. For not only do the advocates of this hypothesis make a very arbitrary supposition, but they violate the fundamental and unexceptionable principles of interpretation, and deny that authority and credibility, which we are compelled to ascribe both to Jesus and to his Apostles. How little foundation this system of accommodation really has, will appear from the following arguments:

(1.) The moral character of Jesus and his Apostles renders such a supposition inadmissible.

(2.) The supposition, that Jesus and his Apostles propagated falsehoods under the garb of truth, is overturned by the fact, that miracles evinced their high authority as teachers.

(3.) No sure criterion can be given, which shall enable us to distinguish between such of their declarations as they believed themselves, and those in which they accommodated themselves to the erroneous notions of the Jews. The Scriptures nowhere make a distinction between what is universally true; and what is only local or temporary. The theory of accommodation involves the whole of revelation in uncertainty.

(4.) Many of those coincidences between the instructions of Christ and the Jewish opinions, which have been referred to accommodation, cannot even be proved to be historically true. The rabbinical writings, which are appealed to, are of more recent origin than the age of Christ and his Apostles; the works of Philo and Josephus do not uniformly exhibit the ideas which were prevalent among the Jews resident in Palestine. Moreover, the representations contained in these works, and also in some apocryphal books, differ in a variety of respects from the doctrines of the New Testament. If, however, some of the instructions of Jesus and his Apostles did coincide with the popular opinion of the Jews, it will by no

means follow that they must therefore have been erroneous. So far as these Jewish opinions were correct they were worthy of the approbation of Jesus: and the Providence of God may, by previous intimations of them, have paved the way for the reception of the peculiar doctrines of Christianity.

(5.) The necessity for such an accomodation, on the part of Jesus and his Apostles, cannot be proved. (Ibid. vol. i. pp. 229, 230.)

SECTION II. Rules for Investigating the Meaning of Words generally.

Since words compose sentences, from which the meaning of Scripture is to be collected, it is necessary that the individual meaning of such words be ascertained, before we proceed further to investigate the sense of Holy Writ. As the same method and the same principles of interpretation are common both to the sacred volume and to the productions of uninspired man, 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. 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 any 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. The following general rules will be found useful for this purpose: —

1. Ascertain the usus loquendi, or 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.

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