66 in which one word may be used by the same or by different writers. If this be so, it is evident that the mere recurrence of a word will not authorize us in concluding that the same thing is meant. The following examples will illustrate our meaning. In Phil. ii. 12. the Apostle exhorts us-" Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling:" whereas St. John declares, "there is no fear in love," but on the contrary, perfect love casteth out all fear," 1 Epist. iv. 18. So, in one place, we read of the Samaritans, that "they feared the Lord" (2 Kings xvii. 32, 33); but in the following verse, it is said, "They feared not the Lord." Our Saviour declared, "If a man keep my saying he shall never see death," John viii. 51: whereas it is elsewhere affirmed, that "it is appointed unto all men once to die," Heb. ix. 27. Paul declares, we are "justified by faith, without the deeds of the law" (Rom. iii. 28); whereas James says, "By works a man is justified, and not by faith alone, James ii. 24. In these passages, however (and they might be greatly multiplied), there is nothing contradictory. To a superficial reader, indeed, or to one desirous of finding difficulties in the Bible, they appear to be so: but upon reference to the several passages, it will be seen that the discrepancy arises from the various senses in which the same word is used. This will sometimes be apparent on the slightest inspection; but in other cases, it can only be ascertained by attending to the scope of the writer, carefully examining the context, &c. As these topics have been treated of in their place, they need not here be enlarged on. 3. " Where two parallel passages present themselves, the clearer and more copious place must be selected to illustrate one that is more briefly and obscurely expressed." This rule is too obvious to need any remark: the diligent reader of the Scriptures will feel its importance, and find the advantages of its uniform adoption. The only suggestion, therefore, that we offer is, that, according to this rule, parables are to be compared with their exposition; visions, with their interpretation; laws, with their explication; Prophecies, with their fulfilment; types, with their anti-types, &c. an example, compare Numb. xxi. 9, with John iii. 14–16; Exod. xyi. 15 and xvii. 6, with 1 Cor. x. 3, 4; Matt. xiii. 3, etc. with ver. 18, etc. As 4. "Other things being equal, a nearer parallel is to be preferred to one that is more remote." By this is meant, that in general more advantage is derivable, in the interpretation of history and prophecy especially, See Lamy's Apparatus Biblicus, b. ii. ch. 11. from a comparison of passages referring to the same event in writers who were contemporary, or nearly so, than from comparing similar passages in those writers who lived in more remote times. It is evident, therefore, that an acquaintance with historical circumstances must be sought after by the reader to render this canon available to him. These will be treated of in PART II. 5. "No assistance is derivable from similar passages, the sense of which is uncertain." An obscure passage, it is evident, can never be explained by another, or by any number of others, which are equally obscure and uncertain. The comparison of such passages, therefore, will be of no avail. To the above rules, we may add the following. 6. Attend to the scope or design of the writer, in comparing passages where similar things are spoken of. We have fully discussed this subject in its proper place, but a few remarks are here necessary to shew its importance in consulting parallel passages. Thus our Lord declared, when speaking of his own person, and that of his Father"My Father is greater than I" (John xiv. 28): but St. Paul, speaking on the same subject, says, Christ" thought it no robbery to be equal with God," Phil. ii. 5, 6. Again, our Saviour says, "If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true" (John v. 31); but he elsewhere says, "Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true," viii. 14. It is said that the kingdom of Christ "shall be an everlasting kingdom" -that "it shall be without end" (Isa. ix. 7; Luke i. 33); yet the Apostle declares that the time shall arrive when Christ "shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father, that God may be all in all," 1 Cor. xv. 24. Now in these, and in many other passages which might be cited, where there is an apparent contradiction in speaking of the same thing, the discrepancies will be effectually removed by a careful attention to the design of the writers, from which it will be apparent, that they are either speaking of several parts of the same thing, or of the same thing in different respects. These appear to be the principal rules that should be attended to in availing ourselves of the assistance of parallel passages. The reader will find that much depends upon practice in the use of this aid: but let him not be discouraged; patience and perseverance will effect wonders. If he can command the time, and submit to the labour, he will find the advantage of making for himself a collection of such passages as are really parallel: this will induce a habit of careful reading and minute research, which is of the utmost consequence to the biblical student. Where this cannot be effected, he must be content with the references in the margin of our larger Bibles, or those belonging to the English version of Bagster's Polyglott. Assistance, however, more valuable than either of these afford, may be derived from a recently published work, entitled "Scientia Biblica," in which the student will find a very extensive collection of really parallel passages, printed in words at length, and placed under every verse of the New Testament. A very full index of subjects, gives to this work the character of a copious Common Place Book to the Bible. VI. LET REGARD BE HAD TO THE ANALOGY OF FAITH. This has been viewed as one of the most important aids that can be employed for investigating and ascertaining the sense of Scripture. But if it be one of the most important, it is also one of the most dangerous, and unless there be the greatest circumspection in its application, it will tend rather to confirm error than to discover truth. Indeed so precarious do we view the aid that is to be derived in the interpretation of Scripture, from the directions which have been given for the use of this rule, that it would have been here passed by unnoticed, but for the imputations which might have been cast upon the work for its omission. The analogy of faith has been defined, "the uninterrupted harmony of Scripture in the fundamental points of faith and duty; or, the proportion which the doctrines of Scripture bear to each other.' Now it is very clear from this definition, that unless there be a total freedom from prejudice in favour of any particular opinions or theological system, every part of the divine revelation will be interpreted with reference to that standard which is assumed as correct, and which will be considered as the analogy of faith to which the whole of Scripture must be rendered subservient. Hence there will be as many analogies of faith assumed as the standard of Scriptural interpretation, as there are shades of opinion in the Christian world. And who shall decide in such a case? But further, in order to render this aid available in the study of the Scriptures, there must be, according to those who estimate its importance so highly, a previous knowledge of every part of divine revelation. Thus Mr. Horne has remarked, not, we think, with his usual discernment, that an indispensable preparation for this aid, is " a perfect acquaintance with the whole scheme of revealed religion."* If this be true, it is clear that no help is to be derived from the application of this rule, but in the confirmation of the doctrines already ascertained. But, as Dr. Campbell had previously and justly remarked, "What is the reason, the principal reason, at least, for which the study of Scripture is so indispensable a duty? It is precisely, all consistent Protestants will answer, that we may thence discover what the whole scheme of religion is. Are we then to begin our examination with taking it for granted that, without any inquiry, we are perfectly acquainted with this scheme already? Is not this going to Scripture, not in order to learn the truths it contains, but in order to find something that may be made to ratify our own opinions?"† Be it observed, then, that in laying it down as a rule, that regard must be had to the analogy of faith, in the interpretation of Scripture, we mean, that where an expression is either dark or equivocal, an interpretation is not to be adopted, which would contradict any other passages, where the sentiment is manifestly declared in clear and unequivocal terms. Proposed in this way as a canon of Scriptural interpretation, the analogy of faith will direct us to the sense of many passages which in themselves would admit of more than one sense. Beyond this we cannot venture, for the reasons already assigned. Adopting this principle, then, as our guide in the interpretation of the sacred records, it will be found that for the purpose of preserving entire the analogy of faith, several passages which, by some have been construed literally, should have been interpreted as metaphorical, and vice versa. Thus, our Lord, on the evening before he suffered, at the institution of the holy supper, " took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave to his disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body" (Matt. xxvi. 26.); but according to the analogy of faith, this must be understood figuratively-the sign being put for the thing signified, by a very common metonymy-for Christ's human nature has ascended into heaven, where he will remain until the restitution of all things, Acts iii. 21, &c. So we are commanded to eat our Lord's flesh-to pluck out our right eye, and cut off our right hand, John vi. in several places; Matt. v. 29, 30. But to understand these passages literally would be to violate the analogy of faith, according to which violence must not be offered to ourselves or others. On the other hand, there are passages of Scripture which some persons interpret metaphorically, whereas, according to the analogy of faith, they should be understood literally.— * Introduction, vol. ii. p. 557. fourth edit. Thus, the passages in which Christ is said to "bear the sins of many;" to "bear our sins in his own body on the tree," &c. have been interpreted figuratively, to mean, only, that he occasioned their forgiveness, by introducing the Christian system. But this is an unnecessary departure from the analogy of faith, according to which Christ suffered as a vicarious atonement, or bore the punishment of our iniquities. In the use of this aid, then, it must be seen that we apply those passages which have a clear and obvious meaning to the interpretation of those which are more obscure and doubtful. Thus, if two passages relating to any doctrine or duty appear contrary to each other, that one of which the meaning is apparent must be brought to explain the other, which taken separately, would admit of two senses. The same rule also requires that those passages in which a topic is but incidentally introduced, should be interpreted according to those in which the subject is professedly treated. This requires an attention to the scope or design of the writer, of which we have already spoken. VII. CAUTIONARY RULES FOR PRACTICAL READING. To the rules which have been laid down for ascertaining the sense of Scripture, we must add two or three cautionary rules which demand attention in the practical reading of the Scriptures. By the practical reading of Scripture, we mean that which is instituted for the purpose of personal edification and growth in grace, and which is accompanied with self-examination. It is clear that such a kind of reading will include what is generally comprised under doctrinal, inferential, and expository reading; each of these being requisite in order to render the word the mean of spiritual and practical advantages. The following observations are therefore submitted to the reader's attention. 1. The most plain and obvious sense of a passage is to be regarded as exhibiting its genuine meaning; and no history or expression of Scripture is to be carried beyond the meaning positively assigned to it by Revelation itself; or that which plain sense and a sound judgment might be warranted in drawing from any other writings of a similar nature, if not inspired. A want of regard to this necessary rule has, as before remarked, been the source of much mischief in the Christian Church, Many of the heresies in the early ages of Christianity may be traced up as taking their rise with men who, being more curious than wise, laboured to extract from various passages of Scripture, and particularly from the parables of our Lord, a mystical, remote, and far-fetched sense, while they wholly |