Or, as expressed more briefly by Dr. G. J. PLANCK (Introduction to Sacred Philology, p. 147): "In interpreting a writing, constant reference should be had to the character, views, and known principles of the writer from whom it originates." For this rule he assigns the following reason, “that a man of understanding will not readily act in opposition to his own design; will not, in general, easily contradict himself; will not, without some evident cause, alter his opinions."

[6] Wherever any doctrine is manifest, either from the whole tenor of divine revelation or from its scope, it must not be weakened or set aside by a few obscure passages. T. HARTWELL HORNE: Introduction, vol. i. p. 343.

-

This rule is frequently neglected; but no one will theoretically deny its validity. Dr. J. P. SMITH (Scripture Testimony to the Messiah, vol. i. p. 57) well remarks, that "it is contrary to all just rules of evidence, and to the conduct of the best and wisest part of mankind, in relation to innumerable cases, philosophical, moral, and political, to violate or renounce great principles, which have been sufficiently established by prior proofs, because minor difficulties arise of which we are not able to find a solution."

[7] General terms are used sometimes in their whole extent, and sometimes in a restricted sense; and whether they are to be understood in the one way or in the other must depend upon the scope, subject-matter, context, and parallel passages. -T. HARTWELL HORNE: Introduction, vol. i. p. 325.

Dr. GERARD (Institutes, § 844) illustrates his rule, which is the same as that just quoted, by a great number of examples. Christians of all denominations will admit its justness and importance; but probably few apply it without sometimes being influenced by dogmatical prepossessions.

[8] Before we conclude upon the sense of a text, so as to prove any thing by it, we must be sure that such sense is not repugnant to natural reason. – T. HARTWELL HORNE: Introduction, vol. i. p. 326.

In p. 394, the same writer justly observes, that "articles of revelation may be above our reason; but no doctrine which comes from God can be irrational, or contrary to those moral truths which are clearly perceived by the mind of man."

Dr. ROBERT SOUTH (Animadversions on Sherlock's Vindication, p. 133) says: "Whatsoever is a truth in natural reason cannot be contradicted by any other truth declared by revelation, since it is impossible for any one truth to contradict another."

To the same purpose might be quoted a host of other writers; but, though few would venture to deny the truth of the principle here laid down, there are many who seem to act very inconsistently in its application.

In our endeavors, however, to arrive at the true sense of any passage in Scripture, it would be prejudging the matter to take for granted that that sense cannot be repugnant to reason; for, though the supernatural revelations which are contained in the sacred books never can contradict the judgments formed by a right use of the intellectual powers, there is no evidence for the dogma that all portions of Scripture were given by infallible inspiration. Our sole object should therefore be merely to ascertain the meaning of a sacred author, without assuming the foregone conclusion that it is impossible for him to err, to express a doctrine contrary to reason, or to be inconsistent with the views of such other writers as have had better opportunities of arriving at the truth, either by natural or supernatural means. If, after an investigation pursued in no spirit of reckless scepticism, but with a manly freedom blended with caution and docility, a passage should be found manifestly opposed to the highest and best conceptions of our minds, we may, from the known character and sentiments of the author in whose compositions it appears, have some grounds, even without the authority of any extant manuscript, for believing the text of that passage to be corrupt or interpolated; but, faithful to the duty of using aright the natural gifts bestowed on us by Heaven, we cannot accept, as a declaration of the divine will, the doctrine which it expresses.

Suppose, for instance, that a man has been led, by the united voices of reason and revelation, — by the light of nature and the whole spirit of Christianity, to believe that it is the design of the Creator and Father of the human race to bring each and all of his children into the fold of the Saviour, through such trials and sufferings as are best adapted to purify and exalt their nature; and suppose, too, he find some passages in the Bible unequivocally declaring or implying the doctrine of unmitigated torture to multitudes throughout eternity,— he must not bend or distort the language so as to make it speak his own sentiments, though, according to the supposition, these are founded on a solid basis. We say, "unequivocally declaring or implying;" for, if the passages be merely ambiguous or obscure, they cannot justly be regarded as erroneous; or, if highly figurative, they may fail to give the precise doctrinal views of the writer; but they are not necessarily opposed to reason, and may admit an interpretation which is both rational and consistent with the writer's opinions as clearly expressed in other places of his compositions.

In this sentiment, that no proposition, repugnant to reason, though it were found in books containing God's revealed will, is entitled to credence, we are supported, more or less, by the authority of eminent Trinitarians. Thus S. T. COLERIDGE, in Literary Remains (Works, vol. v. pp. 193-4), says: "If we are quite certain that any writing pretending to divine origin contains gross contradictions to demonstrable truths in eodem genere, or commands that outrage the clearest principles of right and wrong, then we may be equally certain that the pretence is a blasphemous falsehood; inasmuch as the compatibility of a document with the conclusions of self-evident reason, and with the laws of conscience, is a condition à priori of any evidence adequate to the proof of its having been revealed by God."

Thus, also, Dr. SOUTH, in pp. 133-4 of his Animadversions on Sherlock's Vindication, asks the Dean "whether it be a proposition true in natural reason, that God is one infinite mind or spirit;" and says, that, if this be granted, the doctrine that God is three infinite minds or spirits cannot be proved true from revelation," since the certain truth of the first proposition supposed and admitted must needs disprove the truth of that revelation which pretends to establish the second. . . . If it be certainly true from reason that God is one infinite mind or spirit, no revelation can or ought to be pleaded that he is three distinct infinite minds or spirits."

We do not, however, believe that, as to the nature and character of the Divine Being, there are any contradictions to reason found in the New Testament. We have no doubt that the evangelists and apostles all agree in recognizing the strict Oneness of God,- the essential and unqualified Supremacy of the heavenly Father; a doctrine as rational as it is sublime. But if, on the other hand, the dogma of a Trinity in Unity were certainly taught by any of the sacred writers, we should feel, that, however repulsive it might seem to reason and common sense, we had no right, as interpreters, to carry our own notions into Scripture, and to rationalize its absurdities.

[9] No doctrine can belong to the analogy of faith which is founded on a single text; for every essential principle of religion is delivered in more than one place. - Dr. GILBERT GERARD: Institutes, § 503.

T. H. HORNE (i. 343), having defined the analogy of faith to be "the constant and perpetual harmony of Scripture in the fundamental points of faith and practice," lays down the same canon as that given by Dr. Gerard.

Bishop HAMPDEN (in Bampton Lectures, p. 55) says emphatically that "there must be, in fact, a repeated revelation to authorize us to assert that this or that conclusion represents to us some truth concerning God."

S. F. N. MORUS, in his Treatise on the Style of the New Testament (Biblical Repository, vol. i. p. 430), makes the following sensible remarks on this rule of interpretation: "The analogy of faith and doctrine is contained in the principal maxims and precepts of religion clearly taught. This is, as I understand it, a summary of all religious doctrine; for if such evident propositions as that God is one, that he created the world, that he governs all things, that he reforms us by his truth, and that there is a future state of rewards and punishments, be collected, they will constitute a summary of religion; and this constitutes the standard according to which every thing must be interpreted, so that all shall harmonize. It is wrong to make this analogy consist in the doctrines approved by any one sect, as the Lutherans, Calvinists, or Papists; for then there would be many analogies: each sect would hold up its own religious system as the standard. The system of no sect can ever become the law of interpretation; for this refers to the plain and evident testimony of Scripture. Nor does the analogy of doctrine consist in the system of any particular person; for these systems are disposed in order, and the doctrine explained in a manner merely to suit the authors. Such systems cannot be made a rule of interpretation."

GENERAL REMARKS.

...

Could they who dogmatize on sacred subjects peremptorily, be persuaded to examine them carefully, we might soon bring to an issue those unhappy disputes about the doctrines of Christianity, which, though started perhaps with honest intentions, have yet been carried on with a most unchristian temper. . . . By examination I do not mean the rapid effusion of scriptural phrases, which it is far easier to accumulate than to connect; which those who display most ostentatiously do not always explain most intelligibly; and in the repetition of which it is possible for the understanding to slumber, while the memory is exercised, and the faney captivated. But, in the investigation of doctrines on which eternity is suspended, it is necessary to trace every word through its significations, whether primary or subordinate, common or appropriate; to analyze every sentence into its component parts; to mark the connection of those parts to each other, and the relation of the whole to preceding or subsequent passages; to account for local and temporary circumstances; to bear in mind on what occasion any doctrine is introduced, and to what persons it is addressed; to determine ambiguous texts by such as are more definite, — the obscure by such as are plain; to support general doctrines by particular proofs, not with the licentiousness of arbitrary assumption, but the calmness and precision of elaborate induction; not to be staggered by accidental difficulties, the solution of which progressive knowledge or persevering industry may supply; never to be seduced by indirect or partial expressions into a desertion of those leading, indisputable truths on which revelation is known to hinge. — DR. SAMUEL PARR: Sermons on Faith and Morals; in Works, vol. vi. pp. 616-17.

The principles of interpreting Scripture which we have quoted are taken from writers of eminent merit belonging to the orthodox body, and will probably be regarded by all Protestants, worthy of the name, as substantially correct, whatever notions they may hold respecting the inspiration of the Bible, and the canonicity of its various books. Their bearing on the great question at issue between Trinitarians, and the believers in the simple oneness of the Divine Being, will often be noticed in the succeeding volumes of this work. In attempting to apply them, may both writer and reader be pervaded by a single-minded desire to ascertain the truth!

227

CHAPTER IV.

CHRISTIANITY INTELLIGIBLE, RATIONAL, AND PRACTICAL.

SECT. I.

THE TEACHINGS OF THE SAVIOUR DISTINGUISHED FOR
THEIR CLEARNESS AND SIMPLICITY.

All the doctrine which Christ taught and gave
Was clear as heaven from whence it came.

GEORGE HERBERT.

In many of the quotations introduced into the preceding chapter, the duty of tasking, to the utmost extent, the faculties of the human understanding in the study and interpretation of Holy Scripture, is strongly urged on the attention of Christians; and rules and directions are given for the purpose of facilitating inquiry, of guarding against error, and of leading to the possession of truth. All this implies, that the Bible is not to be regarded as a volume which "he who runneth may read," which one may hastily or passively peruse, and at the same time perfectly understand; but as a collection of sacred books, for the due appreciation of which, and for the comprehension of its various and important contents, our intellectual powers and our moral affections should alike be devoted. Indeed, apart from the value of the facts it records, or the principles it develops, no book requires more assiduous and patient study to understand than the Bible; for there is none perhaps which as a whole is so hard, difficult, or obscure.

The documents of which it consists are very ancient, some of them the oldest of extant compositions. They were written in languages or in dialects which have long ceased to be spoken, and with which the best educated men are but imperfectly familiar. They abound in allusions to customs, manners, opinions, and modes of thought, which are very different from those which prevail at the present day in Western Europe and in the New World. They have been more or less corrupted in their passage to our times. They have been transferred into innumerable versions, all differing one from another in a vast variety of particulars. They have been commented on by fathers, by schoolmen, by priests, and by critics; by adherents of the Romish, Greek, and Protestant churches; by Athanasians and Arians, Sabellians and Socinians, Lutherans and Calvinists; by fanatics, ranters, rationalists, and transcendentalists; and, widely as these disagree in opinion,