Page images
PDF
EPUB

common sense of men must ultimately prevail over whim and caprice.

It is the other method of interpretation, namely, that which makes a primary and secondary meaning throughout such passages of Scripture as are supposed to relate to the new dispensation, that has been the usual and prevalent one among those who defend the vлóroia or occult sense. This then, at least, must be briefly examined.

The first and great difficulty with this scheme of interpretation is, that it forsakes and sets aside the common laws of language. The Bible excepted, in no book, treatise, epistle, discourse, or conversation, ever written, published, or addressed by any one man to his fellow beings, (unless in the way of sport, or with an intention to deceive), can a double sense be found. There are, indeed, charades, enigmas, phrases with a double entendre, and the like, perhaps, in all languages; there have been abundance of heathen oracles which were susceptible of two interpretations; but among even all these, there never has been, and there never was a design that there should be, but one sense or meaning in reality. Ambiguity of language may be, and has been, designedly resorted to in order to mislead the reader or hearer, or in order to conceal the ignorance of soothsayers, or to provide for their credit amid future exigencies; but this is quite foreign to the matter of a serious and bona fide double meaning of words. It bears no comparison with the alleged iлóvoa in question. Nor can we, for a moment, without violating the dignity and sacredness of the Scriptures, suppose that the inspired writers are to be compared to the authors of riddles, conundrums, enigmas, and ambiguous heathen oracles.

How then can we prescribe a rule of interpretation, and apply this rule to the Scriptures, when we are constrained to acknowledge, that no other book on earth, addressed

by intelligent and serious men to the reason and understanding of their fellow beings, can bear interpretation by such a rule?

I am aware of the usual answer to this question, viz., that "the Bible is a divine book, and that, since God is the real author of it, we must not expect to place it on the common basis of other books."

But how can we be satisfied with such an answer? I am indeed fully persuaded, that "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God." I believe the Bible to be of divine authority; and that the men who wrote the Scriptures were under a divine influence which guarded them against error or mistake, when they composed the sacred books. I have no hesitation in admitting and defending these positions. But I cannot deduce from them any thing in the way of defending a double sense. For why should we suppose, because the Bible is a divine book, that its manner, style, or diction, differs essentially from those of all other books? We may well suppose the matter to transcend the discoveries of unenlightened reason. But why should the manner of communicating information to us, differ from what is usual and common among men? Nay, we may boldly advance further and ask: How could the Bible be what it is, viz., a revelation from God, provided its diction and the principles of interpreting it are to be regarded as entirely diverse from those of all other books? What can be more rational or plain than the proposition, that when God speaks to men for their instruction, he speaks by man, and for men, and therefore expects to be understood. Did ever a considerate father undertake to teach his children, and yet employ language the words and exegetical principles of which were entirely beyond their cognizance? And when God speaks to his erring children, with an intention to enlighten and instruct them, and to reclaim them from their

wandering ways, does he employ words in such a manner, that no analogy drawn from human methods of interpreting language can enable men to understand what he communicates ?

Independently of the disputed question before us, no man on earth would hesitate a moment as to the answer which he must give. A revelation must be intelligible, or it is no revelation. It must be made in language that men have been accustomed to use, or they have no key to it. And if it be made in such a language, then it must be interpreted by the common rules and usages of language, else there is no key again to the meaning. A revelation in the peculiar language of angels, (if they can be supposed to use a language), would have no meaning, and be of no use to men. Who possesses the appropriate dictionary or commentary ? Who has studied the grammar and idiom? A revelation (so called) to men, which is clothed in words not employed agreeably to the usus loquendi, and not to be interpreted by the usual principles of exegesis, is of course no revelation at all. It is no more than sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal; for it neither gives any distinct, articulate, intelligible sounds, nor does it represent them to the eye. It is in vain, therefore, that we seek for any rules, by which such a book can be explained.

Indeed, the moment we assume that there is in the Scriptures a substantial departure from the usus loquendi, either in the choice of words, the construction of sentences, or the modes of interpretation, that moment we decide, that, so far as this departure extends, they are no revelation. According to such an assumption, moreover, a necessity would of course be presented for a new inspiration, in order to find out and comprehend what the authors of the scriptural books meant. But if a new inspiration be needed, then of what use or advantage are the Scriptures, or have

they ever been, to men? It would be just as easy to communicate a revelation de novo to men, so often as they needed one, as it would be to give them special inspiration in order that they might understand what had already been communicated. Nothing then could be gained by such a Bible as the case before us supposes.

We must, therefore, either concede that the usual laws of language are to be applied to the Bible, or else that it is, and can be, no proper revelation to men, unless they are also to be inspired in order to understand it. For if we suppose words are to be employed, and sentences constructed and interpreted, in a manner entirely new and different from all that has hitherto been known or practised, then there is no source from which we can derive rules to interpret the Bible, unless it be one which is supernatural and miraculous. Who then is it, that has a just claim to supernatural instruction or illumination? Among all the contending and antagonist parties, some of whom have virtually claimed such inspiration, who is in the right, and is to be heard and confided in with respect to his claim?

These views may serve to show, that we must give up any pursuit, in this direction, after a terra firma on which we can with confidence fix our resting place. Either God has spoken more humano by men to men, or he has not spoken what they can with any good assurance pretend to understand without miraculous aid.

A divine book, therefore, must, like all other books, be intelligible in order to be useful; and if intelligible, then it must conform to the usus loquendi, both in respect to the choice of words and the meaning of them. How then can the Scriptures present us every where with examples of the vлóvoa or double sense, when we find, and expect to

find, such a sense in no other grave book on the face of all the earth?

To prevent all misunderstanding of what I mean, however, it is proper to add here, that I do not by any means design to detract from the force of those passages of Scripture, which declare that religious experience is necessary to a full and spiritual understanding of some portions of the Bible. What is true of other books must, in the way of analogy, be true of the Bible also. We do not expect any one fully to understand Milton's Paradise Lost, who has little or nothing of a poetical taste. We can not suppose that any one, who is destitute of attachment to mathematical and philosophical science, should enter fully into the comprehension of a La Place or a Bowditch. Even so with the Scriptures which unfold a spiritual and experimental religion. Religious experience is necessary to the full and adequate understanding of such passages as relate to that experience. But all this is far enough from establishing a double sense. In truth, all this is only in the way of analogy with regard to other books besides the Scriptures. If now there were no other obstacle in the way of a double sense, except that it is entirely different from and opposed to all analogy in respect to interpreting language, this one consideration would come near to settling the question. Nothing but divine authority for such a mode of interpretation would make it proper to practise it.

But secondly, there are other difficulties in abundance; and a few of them must be brought into notice. The very name, vлóvoa or occult sense, shows that the meaning in question is not deducible from or by the laws of language; for it is against the usage of all times and nations to employ language in such a way. The question then arises, of course, in the second place: How is an occult sense to be ascertained?

« PreviousContinue »