is demanded as proof of inspiration would be-, come an argument against it. And herein we cannot but admire the perfect wisdom which guided the sacred writers, while we mark the weakness and shallowness of the objections which are urged against their inspiration.

On the whole, after carefully investigating the subject of inspiration, we are conducted to the important conclusion that all Scripture is divinely inspired; that the sacred penmen wrote as they were moved by the Holy Ghost;' and that these representations are to be understood as implying that the writers had, in all respects, the effectual guidance of the divine Spirit. And we are still more confirmed in this conclusion because we find that it begets in those who seriously adopt it, an acknowledgment of the divine origin of Scripture, a reverence for its teachings, and a practical regard to its requirements, like what appeared in Christ and his apostles. Being convinced that the Bible has, in all parts and in all respects, the seal of the Almighty, and that it is truly and entirely from God, we are led by reason, conscience, and piety to bow submissively to its high authority, implicitly to believe its doctrines, however incomprehensible, and cordially to obey its precepts, however contrary to our natural inclinations. We come to it from day to day, not as judges, but as learners, never questioning the propriety or utility of any of its contents. This precious Word of God is the perfect standard of our faith, and the rule of our life, our comfort in affliction, and our sure guide to heaven.-L. W.

INTERPRETATION (BIBLICAL), AND HERMENEUTICS. There is a very ancient and wide-spread belief that the knowledge of divine things in general, and of the divine will in particular, is by no means a common property of the whole human race, but only a prerogative of a few specially-gifted and privileged individuals. It has been considered that this higher degree of knowledge has its source in light and instruction proceeding directly from God, and that it can be imparted to others by communicating to them a key to the signs of the divine will. Since, how ever, persons who in this manner have been indirectly taught, are initiated into divine secrets, and consequently appear as the confidants of deity, they also enjoy, although instructed only through the medium of others, a more intimate communion with God, a more distinct perception of his thoughts, and consequently a mediate consciousness of deity itself. It therefore follows that persons thus either immediately or mediately instructed are supposed to be capable, by means of their divine illumination and their knowledge of the signs of the divine will, to impart to mankind the ardently-desired knowledge of divine things and of the will of deity. They are considered to be interpreters or explainers of the signs of the divine will, and, consequently, to be mediators between God and man. Divine illumination and a communicable knowledge of the signs and expressions of the divine will, are thus supposed to be combined in one and the same person.

This idea is the basis of the Hebrew N, prophet. The prophet is a divinely-inspired seer, and, as such, he is an interpreter and preacher of the divine will. He may either be directly called by God, or have been prepared for his office in the

|

|

schools of the prophets (comp. Knobel, Der Prophetismus der Hebräer vollständig dargestellt, Breslau, 1837, pt. i. p. 102, sq.; pt. ii. p. 45, sq.).

However, the being filled with the Holy Ghost was the most prominent feature in the Hebrew idea of a prophet. This is even implied in the usual appellation 1, which means a person in the state of divine inspiration (not a predicter of future events). Prophetism ceased altogether as soon as Jehovah, according to the popular opinion, ceased to communicate his Spirit.

The ancient Greeks and Romans kept the idea of divine inspiration more distinct from the idea of interpretation of the divine will. They, according to a more natural manner of viewing the subject, recognised generally, in the mediator between God and man, more of an experienced and skilful interpreter than of a divinely-inspired seer. They distinguished the interpreter and the seer by different names, of which we will speak hereafter. It was the combination of the power of interpretation with inspiration, which distinguished the Hebrew prophets or seers from those of other ancient nations. The Hebrew notion of a ' appears, among the Greeks, to have been split into its two constituent parts of μάντις, from μαίνεσθαι, to rave (Platonis Phædrus, § 48, ed. Steph. p. 244, a. b.), and of nynths, from nyeîolai, to expound. However, the ideas of μávris and of EnynTĤS could be combined in the same person. Comp. Boissonnade, Anecdota Græca, i. 96, Aάμπ ούξηγητής μάντις γὰρ ἦν καὶ χρησμοὺς ἐξηγεῖτο (comp. Scholia in Aristophanis Nubes, 336), and Arriani Epictetus, ii. 7, τὸν μάντιν τὸν ἐξηγού μevov тà σnμeîa; Plato, De Legibus, ix. p. 871, C., μet' ¿¿nyntŵv kal μávтewv; Euripidis Phenissæ, v. 1018, ¿ μávtis ényhσaro, and Iphigenia in Aulide, l. 529. Plutarch (Vita Numæ, cap. xi.) places enynths and πрophтns together; so also does Dionysius Halicarnassensis, ii. 73. The two first of these examples prove that ¿è̟nynraí were, according to the Greeks, persons who possessed the gift of discovering the will of the Deity from certain appearances, and of interpreting signs. Jul. Pollux, viii. 124, è̟nyntal dè èkaλοῦντο, οἱ τὰ περὶ τῶν διοσημείων καὶ τὰ τῶν Awv iepŵv diddokovtes. Harpocration says, and Suidas repeats after him, ¿¿nynrýs & ¿enyovμevos тà iepά. Comp. Bekker, Anecdota Graca, i. 185, è̟nyoûvrai oi čμmεipoi. Creuzer defines the enynraí, in his Symbolik und Mythologie der Alten Volker, i. 15, as 'persons whose high vocation it was to bring laymen into harmony with divine things.' These nynraí moved in a religious sphere (comp. Herod. i. 78, and Xenophontis Cyropædia, viii. 3, 11). Even the Delphic Apollo, replying to those who sought his oracles, is called by Plato ¿¿nynths (Polit. iv. 448, b.). Plutarch mentions, in Vita Thesei, c. 25, dolwv kal iepŵv ¿¿nynτaí; comp. also the above-quoted passage of Dionysius Halicarnassensis, and especially Ruhnken (ad Timai Lexicon, ed. Lugd. Bat. 1789, p. 189, sq.). The Scholiast on Sophocles (Ajax, 1. 320) has ghynois eπl Tŵv beiwv, and the Scholiast on Electra, 426, has the definition échynois diaσápnois Delwv. It is in connection with this original signification of the word nynths that the expounders of the law are styled nynTai; because the ancient law was derived from the gods, and the law-language had become unintelligible to the multitude. (Comp. Lysias, vi. 10; Diodorus Siculus, xiii. 35; Ruhn

ken, as quoted above; the annotators on Pollux and Harpocration; and K. Fr. Hermann, Lehrbuch der Griechischen Staats-alterthümer, Marburg, 1836, 104, note 4). In Athenæus and Plutarch there are mentioned books under the title yuca, which contained introductions to the right understanding of sacred signs. (Comp. Valesius. ad Harpocrationis Lexicon, Lipsia, 1824, ii. 462.)

interpres, denoting Alorcas, by whose instrumentality peace was offered. At an earlier period interpretes meant only those persons by means of whom affairs between God and man were settled (comp. Virgilii Æneis, x. 175, and Servius on this passage). The words interpretes and conjectores became convertible terms:-unde etiam somniorum atque ominum interpretes conjectores vocantur:for which reason the interpreters of dreams and omens are called also conjecturers' (Quintil. Instit. iii. 6).

From what we have stated it follows that hynois and interpretatio were originally terms confined to the unfolding of supernatural subjects, although in Latin, at an early period, these terms were also applied to profane matters. The Christians also early felt the want of an interpretation of their sacred writings, which they deemed to be of divine origin; consequently they wanted interpreters and instruction by the aid of which the true sense of the sacred Scriptures might be discovered. The right understanding of the nature and will of God seemed, among the Christians, as well as at an early period among the heathen, to depend upon a right understanding of certain external signs; however, there was a progress from the unintelligible signs of nature to more intelligible written signs, which was certainly an important progress.

Like the Greeks, the Romans also distinguished between rates and interpres (Cicero, Fragm.; Hortens.):-Sive vates sive in sacris initiisque tradendis divinæ mentis interpretes.' Servius (ad Virgilii En. iii. 359) quotes a passage from Cicero, thus:-ut ait Cicero, omuis divinandi peritia in duas partes dividitur. Nam ant furor est, ut in vaticinantibus; aut ars, ut in aruspicibus, fulguritis sive fulguratoribus, et auguribus: that is, the science of divination is twofold; it is either a sacred raving, as in prophets, or an art, as in soothsayers, who regard the intestines of sacrifices, or lightnings, or the flight of birds. The aruspices, fulguriti, fulguratores, and augures, belong to the idea of the interpres deoTum. Comp. Cicero, Prodomo sua, c. 41:-Equidem sic accepi, in religionibus suscipiendis caput esse interpretari quæ voluntas deorum immortalium esse videatur:-' I have been taught thus, that in undertaking new religious performances the chief thing seems to be the interpretation of The Christians retained about the interpretathe will of the immortal gods.' Cicero (De Divi- tion of their sacred writings the same expressions natione, i. 41) says:-Etruria interpretatur quid which had been current in reference to the interquibusque ostendatur monstris atque portentis.pretation of sacred subjects among the heathen. The Hetrusci explain the meaning of all re- Hence arose the fact that the Greek Christians markable foreboding signs and portents.' Hence, employed with predilection the words nois in Cicero (De Legibus, ii. 27), the expression, and enynths in reference to the interpretation of interpretes religionum.' the Holy Scriptures. But the circumstance that St. Paul employs the term punvela yλwooŵv for the interpretation of the yλwoσais daλeiv (1 Cor. xii. 10, xiv. 26), greatly contributed that words belonging to the root pμnveve were also made use of. According to Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiastica, iii. 9), Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, wrote, as early as about A.D. 100, a work under the title of λογίων κυριακῶν ἐξηγήσις, which means an interpretation of the discourses of Jesus. Papias explained the religious contents of these discourses, which he had collected from oral and written traditions. He distinguished between the meaning of ¿¿nyeîσbai and épμnvevei, as appears from his observation (preserved by Eusebius in the place quoted above), in which he says concerning the Aoyia of St. Mathew, written in Hebrew, ερμήνευσε δὲ αὐτὰ ὡς ἐδύνατο ἕκαστος, 'but every one interpreted them according to his ability'. In the Greek Church, & enynths and è̟è̟NYnTal TOû Xóyou were the usual terms for teachers of Christianity. (See Eusebii Historia Ecclesiastica, vii. 30, and Heinichen on this passage, note 21; Photii Biblioth. Eod. 105; Cave, Hist. Liter. i. 146). Origen called his commentary on the Holy Scriptures nynrikά; and Procopius of Gaza wrote a work on several books of the Bible, entitled σxoλal ¿¿nyntikal. However, we find the word épμnveía employed as a synonym of enyhσis, especially among the inhabitants of Antioch. For instance, Gregorius Nyssenus says, concerning Ephraim Syrus, ypapǹv ὅλην ἀκριβῶς πρὸς λέξιν ἡρμήνευσεν (see Gregorii Nysseni Vita Ephraimi Syri; Opera, Paris, ii. p. 1033). Theodorus of Mopsuestia, Theodoret,

An example of this distinction, usual among the Greeks, is found in 1 Cor. xii. 4, 30. The Corinthians filled with the Holy Ghost were γλώσσαις λαλοῦντες, speaking in tongues, cousequently they were in the state of a μávris; but frequently they did not comprehend the sense of their own inspiration, and did not understand how to interpret it because they had not the ἑρμηνεία •phoov, interpretation of tongues: consequently they were not ἐξηγηταί.

The Romans obtained the interpretatio from the Etruscans (Cicero, De Divinatione, i. 2, and Ottfried Müller, Die Etrusker, ii. 8, sq.); but the above distinction was the cause that the interpretatio degenerated into a common art, which was exercised without inspiration, like a contemptible soothsaying, the rules of which were entained in writings. Cicero (De Divinatione, i2 says:-Furoris divinationem Sibyllinis maxime versibus contineri arbitrati, eorum decem interpretes delectos e civitate esse voluerunt:Supposing that divination by raving was especially contained in the Sibylline verses, they appointed ten public interpreters of the same.'

The ideas of interpres and of interpretatio were not confined among the Romans to sacred subjects; which, as we have seen, was the case among the Greeks with the corresponding Greek terms. The words interpres and interpretatio were not only, as among the Greeks, applied to the explanation of the laws, but also, in general, to the explanation of whatever was obscure, and even to a mere intervention in the settlement of affairs; for instance, we find in Livy (xxi. 12) pacis

and others, wrote commentaries on the sacred Scriptures under the title of épμnvela (compare A. H. Niemeyer, de Isidori Pelusiota Vita, Scriptis, et Doctrina, Halae, 1825. p. 207).

Among the Latin Christians the word interpres had a wider range than the corresponding Greek term, and the Latins had no precise term for the exposition of the Bible which exactly corresponded with the Greek. The word interpretatio was applied ouly in the sense of occUPATION OF ACT of an expositor of the Bible, but not in the sense of CONTENTS elicited from biblical passages. The words tractare, tractator, and tractatus were in preference employed with respect to biblical exposition, and the sense which it elicited. Together with these words there occur commentarius and expositio. In reference to the exegetical work of St Hilary on St. Matthew, the codices fluctuate between commentarius and tractatus. St. Augustine's tractatus are well known; and this father frequently mentions the divinarum scripturarum tractatores. For instance, Retractationes 1.23. divinorum tractatores eloquiorum. Sulpicius Severus, Dial. i. 6. originis.... qui tractator sacrorum peritissimus habebatur. Vincentius Lirinensis observes in his Commonitorium on 1 Cor. xii. 28:-tertio doctores qui tractatores nunc appellantur; quos hic idem apostolus etiam prophetas interdum nuncupat, eo quod per eos prophetarum mysteria populis aperiantur:in the third place teachers who are now called tractatores; whom the same apostle sometimes styles prophets, because by them the mysteries of the prophets are opened to the people' (compare Dufresne, Glossarium media et infimæ Latinitatis, sub TRACTATOR et TRACTATUS; and Baluze, ad Servat. Lupum, p. 479).

The

and concealed, but explains what is unclear and obscure (see Weigand, Wörterbuch der Deutschen Synonymen, 1. Mainz, 1840, p. 140 sq.). Hence it follows that the Ausleger of the Bible occupies a position different from that of the Erklärer, although these terms are frequently employed as if they were synonymous. Ausleger, enynths, opens what is concealed under the words of the Bible. He unveils mysteries, while the Erklärer, épμnveús, sees in the words of the Bible not merely signs for something concealed and hidden, but words the sense of which is to be cleared up whenever it is obscure. The Erklärer stands on NATURAL ground, but the Ausleger on

SUPERNATURAL.

From ancient times the church, or rather ecclesiastical bodies and religious denominations, have taken the supernatural position with reference to the Bible, as, before the Church, the Jews did in respect of the Old Testament. The church and denominations have demanded Ausleger, not Erklärer. They have supposed that in the authors of Biblical books there did not exist a literary activity of the same kind which induces men to write down what they have thought, but have always required from their followers the belief that the Biblical authors wrote in a state of inspiration, that is to say, under a peculiar and direct influence of the Divine Spirit. Sometimes the Biblical authors were described to be merely external and mechanical instruments of God's revelation. But however wide, or however narrow the boundaries were, within which the ope ration of God upon the writers was confined by ecclesiastical supposition, the origin of the Biblical books was always supposed to be essentially different from the origin of human compositions; and this difference demanded the application of peculiar rules in order to understand the Bible. There were required peculiar arts and kinds of information in order to discover the sense and contents of books which, on account of their extraordinary origin, were inaccessible by the ordinary way of logical rules, and whose written words were only outward signs, behind which a higher and divine meaning was concealed. Consequently, the church and denominations required Deuter, Ausleger, ¿¿nynraí, or interpreters, of the signs by means of which God had revealed his will. Thus necessarily arose again in the Christian church the art of opening or interpreting the supernatural; which art had an existence in earlier religions, but with this essential difference, that the signs, by the opening of which supernatural truth was obtained, were now more simple, and of a more intelligible kind, than in earlier religions. They were now written signs, which belonged to the sphere of speech and language, through which alone all modes of thinking obtain clearness, and can be readily communicated to others. But the Holy Scriptures in which divine revelation was preserved, differ, by conveying divine thoughts, from common language and writing, which convey only human thoughts. Hence it followed that its sense was much deeper, and far exceeded the usual sphere of human thoughts, so that the usual requisites for the right understanding of written documents appeared to be insufficient. According to this opinion a LOWER and a HIGHER sense of the Bible were The Erklärer does not develope what is hidden | distinguished. The lower sense was that which

However, the occupation of interpres, in the nobler sense of this word, was not unknown to St. Jerome; as may be seen from his Præfatio in libros Samuelis (Opera, ed. Vallarsi, ix. p. 459):— Quicquid enim crebrius vertendo et emendando solicitius et didicimus et tenemus, nostrum est. Et quum intellexeris, quod antea nesciebas, vel interpretem me estimato si gratus es, vel mapaopathy si ingratus :-' for whatever by frequently translating and carefully correcting we have learned and retain, is our own. And if you have understood what you formerly did not know, consider me to be an expositor if you are grateful, or a paraphrast if you are ungrateful.'

In modern times the word interpretatio has again come into repute in the sense of scriptural exposition, for which, indeed, interpretation is now the standing technical term.

The German language also distinguishes between the words auslegen and erklären in such a manner that the former corresponds to enyeiota and interpretari. The word auslegen is always used in the sense of rendering perceptible what is contained under signs and symbols. Compare Dionysii Halicarnassensis Antiq. Rom. ii. 73: τοῖς τε ἰδιωταῖς, ὅποσοι μὴ ἴσασι τοὺς περὶ τὰ θεῖα | σεβασμούς, ἐξηγηταὶ γίνονται καὶ προφῆται : “ for the ignorant, who do not know what belongs to divine worship, there are expositors and prophets.' The word erklären, on the contrary, means to clear up by arguments what has been indistinctly understood, so that what was incomprehensible is comprehended.

could be elicited according to the rules of grammar; the higher sense was considered to consist of deeper thoughts concealed under the grammatical meaning of the words. These deeper thoughts they endeavoured to obtain in various ways, but not by grammatical research.

The Jews, in the days of Jesus, employed for this purpose especially the typico-allegorical interpretation. The Jews of Palestine endeavoured by means of this mode of interpretation especially to elicit the secrets of futurity, which were said to be fully contained in the Old Testament. (See Wæbuer, Antiquitates Hebræorum, vol. i. Gottinge, 1743, p. 341, sq.; Döpke, Hermeneutik der neutestamentlichen Schriftsteller, Leipzig, 1829, p. 88, sq., 164, sq.; Hirschfeld, der Geist der Talmudischen Auslegung der Bibel, Berlin, 1810; comp. Juvenal, Sat. xiv. 103; Justin Martyr, Apol. i. pp. 52, 61; Bretschneider, Historisch-dogmatische Auslegung des Neuen Testamentes, Leipzig, 1806, p. 35, sq.)

The Alexandrine Jews, on the contrary, endeavoured to raise themselves from the simple sense of the words, rò &ʊxikóv, to a higher, more general, and spiritual sense, rò avevμATIKÓv (see Dahne, Geschictliche Darstellung der JüdischAlexandrinischen Religions-Philosophie, Halle, 1834, i. p. 52, sq.; ii. 17. 195, sq, 209, 228, 241). Similar principles were adopted by the authors of the New Testament (see De Wette, Ueber die Symbolisch-Typische Lehrart in Briefe an die Hebraer, in der Theologischen Zeitschrift, von Schleiermacher und De Wette, part iii.; Tholuck, Beilage zum Commentar über den Brief an die Hebräer, 1840).

restricted this as follows:-návra σapĥ кal evléα τὰ παρὰ ταῖς θειαῖς γραφαῖς, πάντα τὰ ἀναγκαῖα dλa (Homil. iii. c. 4, in Ep. 2 ad Thessaloni censes): In the divine writings everything is intelligible and plain, whatever is necessary is open (compare Ilomil. iii. de Lazaro, and Athanasii Oratio contra gentes; Opera i. p. 12).

The SECOND expedient adopted by the church was to consider certain articles of faith to be LEADING DOCTRINES, and to regulate and define accordingly the sense of the Bible wherever it appeared doubtful and uncertain. This led to the THEOLOGICO-ECCLESIASTICAL OF DOGMATICAL mode of interpretation, which, when the Christians were divided into several sects, proved to be indispensable to the Church, but which adopted various forms in the various sects by which it was employed. Not only the heretics of ancient times, but also the followers of the Roman Catholic, the Greek Catholic, the Syrian, the Anglican, the Protestant Church, &c., have endeavoured to interpret the Bible in harmony with their dogmas.

The different modes of interpreting the Bible are, according to what we have stated, the following three--the GRAMMATICAL, the ALLEGORICAL, the DOGMATICAL. The grammatical mode of interpretation simply investigates the sense contained in the words of the Bible. The allegorical, according to Quintilian's sentence aliud verbis, aliud sensu ostendo,' maintains that the words of the Bible have, besides their simple sense, another which is concealed as behind a picture, and endeavours to find out this supposed figurative sense, which, it is said, was not intended by the authors These two modes of interpretation, the ALLE- (see Olshausen, Ein Wort über tieferen SchriftGORICO TYPICAL and the ALLEGORICO-MYSTICAL, sinn, Königsberg, 1824). The dogmatical mode are found in the Christian writers as early as the of interpretation endeavours to explain the Bible first and second centuries; the latter as yvwois, in harmony with the dogmas of the church, folthe former as a demonstration that all and every-lowing the principle of analogia fidei. Comthing, both what had happened, and what would come to pass, was somehow contained in the sacred Scriptures (see Justin Martyr, as quoted above, and Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem, iv. 2, Prædicatio discipulorum suspecta fieri posset si non assistat auctoritas:- The preaching of the disciples might appear to be questionable, if it was not supported by other authority').

To these allegorical modes of interpretation was added a third mode, which necessarily sprung up after the rise of the Catholico-apostolical church, namely, the DOGMATICAL, or THEOLOGICO-ECCLESIASTICAL. The followers of the Catholico-apostolical church agreed that all apostles and all apostolical writings had an equal authority, because they were all under an equal guidance of the Holy Ghost. Hence it followed that they could not set forth either contradictory or different doctrines. A twofold expedient was adopted in order to effect harmony of interpretation. The one was of the apparent and relative kind, because it referred to subjects which appear incomprehensible only to the confined human understanding, but which are in perfect harmony in the divine thoughts. Justin: (Dialogus cum Tryphone, c. 65) says:-K TаVTÓS TETELOμévos ὅτι οὐδεμία γραφὴ τῇ ἑτέρᾳ ἐναντία ἐστὶν, αὐτὸς μὴ votiv párrov sporoyńow τà eipnμéva:- Being quite certain that no Scripture contradicts the other, I will rather confess that I do not understand what is said therein,' St. Chrysostom

pare Consilii Tridentini sess. iv. decret. 2 :-Ne quis Sacram Scripturam interpretari audeat contra eum sensum quem tenuit et tenet sancta mater ecclesia, cujus est judicare de vero sensu et interpretatione Scripturarum Sacrarum :- Let no one venture to interpret the Holy Scriptures in a sense contrary to that which the holy mother church has held, and does hold, and which has the power of deciding what is the true sense and the right interpretation of the Holy Scriptures.'

Rambach, Institutiones Hermeneutica Sacræ, Jena, 1723: Auctoritas, quam hæc analogia fidei in re exegetica habet, in eo consistit, ut sit fundamentum ac principium generale, ad cujus normam omnes Scripturæ expositiones, tamquam ad lapidem Lydium, exigendæ sunt:- The au thority which this analogy of faith exercises upon interpretation consists in this, that it is the foundation and general principle according to the rule of which all Scriptural interpretations are to be tried as by a touchstone.'

Ecclesia Anglicana, art. xx. :-ECCLESIÆ non licet quicquam instituere, quod verbo Dei scripto adversetur, nec unum Scripturæ locum sic exponere potest, ut alteri contradicat:It is not lawful for the church to ordain anything that is contrary to God's word written, neither may it expound one place of Scripture so as to be repugnant to another.'

Confessio Scotica, 18:-Nullam enim interpretationem admittere audemus, quæ alicui prin