dy? 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? If no more were meant by making the analogy of the faith the rule of interpreting, than that, where an expression is either dark or equivocal, an interpretation were not to be adopted, which would contradict the sentiments of the writer, manifestly declared in other passages perfectly clear and unequivocal; this is no more than what candour would allow in interpreting any profane author, who seems to have enjoyed the exercise of his reason; nay, though the rule were extended to what should be found clearly contained in any other sacred writer, it would be but of little significance as an help in the explanation of the holy oracles. For, in the phrase the analogy of the faith, when proposed, in this manner, as a canon to direct us in the interpretation of Scripture; it is only the uncontroverted truths, about which there has never arisen any doubt in the church, that ought to be comprehended. But why,' say you, should we confine the meaning to the uncontroverted truths?' Attend a little, and you must perceive that what I have now advanced, is almost self-evident. When I recur to holy writ, my view is, or ought to be, that I may know what it teaches; more especially that, as its doctrine is so variously represented by different sects, I may thence discover, amid such a multiplicity of jarring sentiments, where the truth lies. My purpose manifestly is, by the Scripture, to judge con cerning all such controverted sentiments, and not, by a particular set of controverted sentiments, previously, and therefore inconsiderately, adopted, to determine concerning the sense of Scripture. This would not be judging the parties by the law, but resolving to judge of the import of the law by the interpretation that shall be given by one of the parties, whom we have contracted a strong inclination to favour. Surely such a conduct in a civil judge would be universally pronounced incompatible with every principle of reason and justice. And is not at least as great a deference due from the devout Christian to the divine oracles, as is due from the secular judge to the law of his country? 14. In vain do we search the Scriptures for their testimony concerning Christ, if, independently of these Scriptures, we have received a testimony from another quarter, and are determined to admit nothing, as the testimony of Scripture, which will not perfectly quadrate with that formerly received. This was the very source of the blindness of the Jews in our Saviour's time. They searched the Scriptures as much as we do; but, in the disposi tion they were in, they would never have discovered what that sacred volume testifies of Christ 2. Why? Because their great rule of interpretation was the analogy of the faith; or, in other words, 2 See John, v. 39, 40. in this Translation, with the note upon it. the system of the Pharisean scribes, the doctrine then in vogue, and in the profound veneration of which they had been educated. This is that veil by which the understandings of that people were darkened, even in reading the law; of which the Apostle observ ed, that it remained unremoved in his day, and of which we ourselves have occasion to observe, that it remains unremoved in ours. And is it not precisely in the same way that the phrase is used by every sect of Christians, for the particular system or digest of tenets for which they themselves have the greatest reverence? The Latin church, and even the Greek, are explicit in their declarations on this article. With each the analogy of the faith is their own system alone. And that different parties of Protestants, though more reserved in their manner of speaking, aim at the same thing, is undeniable: the same, I mean, considered relatively to the speakers; for absolutely considered, every party means a different thing. When a Lutheran tells you, "You are to put no interpre"tation on any portion of Scripture, but what per fectly coincides with the analogy of the faith;" sift him ever so little on the import of this phrase, and you shall find that, if he mean any thing, it is, that you are to admit no exposition that will not exactly tally with the system of his great founder Luther. Nor is he singular in this. A Calvinist has the same prepossession in favour of the scheme of Calvin, and an Arminian of that of Arminius. Yet they will all tell you with one voice, that their respec tive doctrines are to be tried by Scripture, and by Scripture alone. To the law and to the testimony, is the common cry; only every one of them, the better to secure the decision on the side he has espoused, would have you previously resolve, to put no sense whatever on the law and the testimony, but what his favourite doctor will admit. Thus they run on in a shuffling circular sort of argument, which, though they studiously avoid exposing it, is, when dragged into the open light, neither more nor less than this: "You are to try our doctrine by the Scripture on"ly. But then you are to be very careful that you explain the Scripture solely by our doctrine." A wonderful plan of trial, which begins with giving judgment, and ends with examining the proof, wherein the whole skill and ingenuity of the judges are to be exerted in wresting the evidence so as to give it the appearance of supporting the sentence pronounc ed beforehand. 'But,' say some, is not this mode of interpretation warranted by apostolical authority? Does not Paul, in speaking of the exercise of the spiritual gifts, enjoin the prophets to prophesy, xata τnv avaλογιαν της πίςεως, according to the proportion of 'faith, as our translators render it, but as some critics explain it, according to the analogy of the 'faith? Though this exposition has been admitted into some versions and adopted by Hammond 4 3 Rom. xii. 6. • Port Royal and Saci, though translating from the Vulgate, which says, secundum rationem fidei, have rendered the clause selon l'analogie et la regle de la foi. and other commentators, and may be called literal, it is suited neither to the ordinary meaning of the words, nor to the tenor of the context. The word avaλoyia strictly denotes proportion, measure, rate, but by no means that complex notion conveyed in the aforesaid phrase by the term analogy, which has been well observed by Whitby, to be particularly unsuitable in this place, where the Apostle treats of those who speak by inspiration, not of those who explain what has been thus spoken by others. The context manifestly leads us to understand avaλoyia лisews, v. 6. as equivalent to μerρov rusɛws, v. 3. And for the better understanding of this phrase, the measure of faith, it may be proper to observe, 1st, that a strong conviction of any tenet, from whatever cause it arises, is in Scripture sometimes termed faith. Thus, in the same Epistle, the Apostle says, Hast thou faith? Have it to thyself before God. The scope of his reasoning shows that nothing is there meant by faith, but a conviction of the truth, in regard to the article of which he had been treating, namely, the equality of days and meats, in point of sanctity, under the gospel dispensation. The same is evidently the meaning of the word, v. 23. Whatsoever is not of faith, is sin; where, without regard to the morality of an action, abstractly considered; that is concluded to be sin which is done by one who doubts of its fawfulness; 2dly, as to spiritual gifts, prophecy and 5 Rom. xiv, 22. |