SEC. 25. THE VALUE OF METHOD.

      (1.) Definition of method.--According to Webster, Method is--

      "1. An orderly procedure or process; a rational way of investigating or exhibiting truth; regular mode or manner of doing anything; characteristic manner.

      "'Though this be madness, yet there is method in it.'--Shakespeare.

      "2. Orderly arrangement, elucidation, development, or classification; clear and lucid exhibition; systematic arrangement peculiar to an individual.

      "'However irregular and desultory his talk, there is method in the fragments.'--Coleridge.

      "'All method is rational progress, a progress toward an end.'--Sir W. Hamilton."

      We use the word, in the present work, to indicate the arrangement or plan of investigation. It is the system by which facts are to be introduced and conclusions reached.

      (2.) Method is superior to rule.--Methods are general and rules are special, hence the method governs all rules, or directs their use. One of the weaknesses of hermeneutics is the want of system, or of any thought that system is necessary in the study of the Scriptures. Rules have been furnished in abundance, but the great need has been that of method. Rules may explain how to cut stone and lay up the wall, but without method you would be [48] as likely to have one form as another in the building. The material that went into the temple at Jerusalem could have all been put into a building ten feet high and ten feet wide, by extending it far enough. If rules were all that had been needed, the men of King Hiram would have known just how to erect the temple of Solomon without any directions from him. But rules were not enough; it took the divine plan to govern them, to render them of any particular value in erecting the temple. An army might have all the rules necessary to success--marching, camping, cooking, fighting--but, without method, they would not unite against any foe, or conduct a campaign with any profitable results.

      SEC. 26. WHY METHOD HAS NOT BEEN EMPLOYED.--Several superstitions seem to have combined to prevent the world from the exercise of common sense in dealing with the word of God.

      (1.) The idea that it is a supernatural book, and, therefore, must have a supernatural interpretation, has done much to weaken efforts at close and profitable study of the Bible.

      (2.) It has been regarded as the right of those who have been divinely appointed to bring out its meaning and that it would be presumption for others to meddle with their prerogatives.

      (3.) Men have looked upon the Bible as not having been given according to any plan. They have regarded it as a mass of truth irregularly thrown together, and that we are as apt to find its meaning without system in our investigation as with it. They suppose its truth to be gold pockets, and not to be mined after any plan; and if we accidentally happen to hit upon a deposit we are fortunate. Getting the meaning of the [49] Scriptures is more a question of genius or accident, than of study or research.

      (4.) Others, as we will see, have looked upon the Bible as a blind parable, and if it mean anything, then it is as likely to mean one thing as another.

      They would not think of treating any other book in this way. When they read books of law and medicine, they suppose that intelligence and a wish to communicate has made the author present his thought in a way in which be could be the most easily understood. And why they have imagined that. God has acted less kindly and sensibly than do men in making their communications, I can not understand. Against this injustice, thinking men have arrayed themselves for many centuries. But they have been too few in number, and have been overborne by the thoughtless masses.

      Milton says:

      "We count it no gentleness or fair dealing in a man of power to require strict and punctual obedience, and yet give out his commands ambiguously. We should think he had a plot upon us. Certainly such commands were no commands, but snares. The very essence of truth is plainness and brightness; the darkness and ignorance are our own. The wisdom of God created understanding, fit and proportionable to truth, the object and end of it, as the eye to the thing visible. If our understanding have a film of ignorance over it, or be blear with gazing on other false glisterings, what is that to truth? If we will but purge with sovereign eyesalve that intellectual ray which God has planted within us, then we would believe the Scriptures protesting their own plainness and perspicuity, calling to them to be instructed, not only the wise and the learned, but the simple, the poor, the babes; foretelling an extraordinary effusion of God's Spirit upon every age and sect, attributing to all men and requiring from them the ability of searching, trying, examining all things, and by the Spirit discerning that which is good." [50]

      This presents us no method of reading the Scriptures, but contains a valuable truth in respect to the divine purpose in giving the word of God to men. In the mind of Milton, there is no reason to suppose that God intended any other rules to be employed in the investigation of His book, than those which are needed in the examination of all other books.

      Prof. Moses Stuart, of Andover, says:

      "Nearly all treatises on hermeneutics, since the days of Ernesti, have laid it down as a maxim which can not be controverted that the Bible is to be interpreted in the same manner, that is, by the same principles, as all other books. Writers are not wanting, previously to the period in which Ernesti lived, who have maintained the same thing; but we may also find some who have assailed the position before us, and labored to show that it is nothing less than a species of profaneness to treat the sacred books as we do the classic authors with respect to their interpretation. Is this allegation well grounded? Is there any good reason to object to the principle of interpretation now in question? In order to answer, let us direct our attention to the nature and source of what are now called principles or laws of interpretation: Whence did they originate? Are they the artificial production of high-wrought skill, of labored research, of profound and extensive learning? Did they spring from the subtleties of nice distinctions, from the philosophical and metaphysical efforts of the schools? Are they the product of exalted and dazzling genius, sparks of celestial fire, which none but a favored few can emit? No; nothing of all this. The principles of interpretation as to their substantial and essential elements, are no invention of man, no product of his effort and learned skill; nay, they can scarcely be said with truth to have been discovered by him. They are coeval with our nature. Ever since man was created and endowed with the powers of speech, and made a communicative and social being, he has had occasion to practice upon the principles of interpretation, and has actually done so. From the first moment that one human being addressed another by the use of language, down to the present hour, the essential laws of interpretation became, and have continued to be, a practical matter. The person addressed has always been an interpreter in every instance [51] where he has heard and understood what was addressed to him. All the human race, therefore, are, and ever have been, interpreters. It is a law of their rational, intelligent, communicative nature. Just as truly as one human being was formed so as to address another in language, just so truly that other was formed to interpret and understand what is said."

      (5.) More than any other thought or feelings a want of sound faith, has contributed to a wrong system of hermeneutics, and even to the abolition of all system. At a very early date, philosophies were introduced as the equal of the teaching of the apostles. And even up to the time of the Reformation, the study of Christian philosophers was thought to be more desirable than the study of Paul. And it made such a lasting impression on the minds of the people that they have not entirely recovered from it yet. Men studied Augustine, and were regarded sound, or otherwise, as they agreed with that saint. The schools of theology were not so much to study the Bible as to become acquainted with the views of their great men.

      Blackburne, in his "History of the Church," pp. 226, 227, gives us a good statement respecting the condition of things in the ninth century:

      "A subtle philosophy was brought into the controversies of the West by John Scotus Erigena (Irishman), the adviser and confidant of the French king, Charles the Bald, who had some of the tastes of his grandfather, Charlemagne. John was the teacher of the court school. He was the enigma and wonder of his time. He suddenly comes, and all at once disappears; so that we know not whence he came nor whither he went. He was undoubtedly the most learned man, and the deepest, boldest and most independent thinker of his age, in which he was neither understood nor appreciated, and he was scarcely deemed even worthy of being declared a heretic. The churchmen of Paris rectified the omission in 1209, and burnt some of his books and pantheistic followers. Though he wished to retain [52] some of the essential doctrines of Christianity, his system was one great heterodoxy, based upon Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, and himself. Theology and philosophy were, in his view, merely forms of the same truth. He said: 'Authority springs from reason, not reason from authority.' He was the Western writer who used logic as a means of discovering truths. His philosophy was rationalistic; his pantheism foreran that of Hegel. The French king directed him into a new field. It is a startling feature of the times that one, whose theories were so divergent from the teaching of the Church, was called to speak as an authority on two of the most awful topics of the faith. These were the doctrines of predestination and the Eucharist, which, owing to the great activity of thought engendered in the Carlovingian schools, were now discussed with unwonted vehemence."

      This is but the case of an individual philosopher, but the Christian world in general conducted no investigations in any religious matter for a thousand years, except as they did it by questions which were discussed. The opponent of Christianity appealed to philosophy as much as it friends, but to another class of philosophers. And heterodoxy consisted more in not agreeing with them respecting the philosophers who were to be guides for them in this wilderness of speculation than in anything else.

      Guided by the thought that the apostles of Christ were only splendid philosophers, and that truth could be as easily and as safely gained from the others, it is not strange that there was no system of hermeneutics thought of; for there was but little attempt at investigation into the word of God.

      And yet we may reserve our sympathies for ourselves, as we have nearly the same need of method in our attempts at investigation that they had. But we are coming to the light, and, it is sincerely hoped, that in the near future we shall have the common sense and common [53] honesty to treat the Bible as we do other books: let it speak for itself.

      Now and then, we find a man in the dark ages contending for something like a correct method of interpretation. But his voice is soon hushed, and a century goes by before the world is favored with another reformer of sufficient force to be known and felt.

      SEC. 27. WRONG METHODS OF INTERPRETATION ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR MUCH OF THE MISUNDERSTANDING RESPECTING THE MEANING AND INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES.

      (1.) By their use many things are sustained that we know to be false.--The unbeliever says, "There, that is what your Christianity teaches;" and we do not dare to deny it, for by the use of false methods of interpretation the church has adopted it. And we are in the condition of the Egyptians when Cambyses came against them. In front of his own men he drove a large number of their calves, and dogs, and cats. The Egyptians did not dare to injure them. They were their gods. As they could not reach the Persian army save through their own divinities, all that was left for them to do was to flee before the approaching enemy. So when the enemies of our religion can defend themselves by our creeds, we are helpless. When the Bible is made to teach that there are no good impulses in our nature, and that we can no more believe than we can make a world, except by a power that must come to us from above, the logical mind concludes at once that if he fails to believe, the fault is not his. And hence, if he is to be damned, it will be for that unbelief which he could not help. We argue in vain against his atheistic fatalism, for he can show that our Christian fatalism is no better. When we make the [54] Bible teach that a man can not even think a good thought, of himself, the thinking world says your Bible teaches what every man knows to be false. Supposing that the Scriptures have been fairly dealt with, the thinking man turns away from them in utter disgust.

      (2.) Not only is the Bible made to teach what we know to be untrue, but also to contradict itself.--It is said that to come to God in any acceptable devotion, we must not only believe that God is, but that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him. Then we are told that faith is a direct gift of God, and that the only thing that one can do in order to become a believer, is to ask God for that faith by which he can be saved. The logical mind balks at the sight of such confusion. He says: I can not be heard and have my prayer answered, unless I have faith when I go to Him. But I have not that faith, and am told that I must pray for it. That is, I must have the faith before the prayer can be heard, and I must pray before I can have faith. He says that such doctrine is nonsense. And, supposing that the exegetes have done their work all right, he declares the Bible to be self-contradictory, and, from that hour sneers at the claims of inspiration made in its favor.

      (3.) False methods have turned over the Bible to the clergy, as a kind of convenient toy.--We wonder that Christianity has outlived the treatment it has received at the hands of its friends. From the beginning of the fifth century to the close of the fifteenth, real scriptural examination was almost entirely dispensed with. The most ingenious travesty on the word of God was accepted as evidence of the fitness for the ministry of the man who could arrange it. Theology related to the forms of church government, or some question about Transubstantiation, [55] Trinity, Predestination, Indulgences, Penance, or whether tonsure should be made by shaving the head from the forehead, backward over the crown, or to begin at one ear and shave over the crown to the other ear. This was a grave question, on which the English Church and the Church of the Pope could not agree, until it was settled by King Oswy, before whom the question had been argued by the ablest theologians of the time.

      There were reformers, here and there, who wished to give to the people the word of the living God, and to urge them to follow it as their guide to heaven; but, as said before, they were few in number, and their power for good was scarcely felt. Religious people were controlled by scientific theology, and not by the word of God. As the philosophical puzzles of the day had little or nothing to do with the Scriptures, everything was left to those who had the time and were paid to attend to such things.

      We think that it was a great misfortune to have lived in that day, and yet how much have we improved? Orthodoxy and heterodoxy are determined now, more by the canonized authorities than by the word of God. If a missionary now be questioned as to the soundness of his faith, it is to be decided more by the custom of the church, than by the word of Scripture. The sensational sermons of to-day are excused on the ground of dullness of the people and the need of something to appetize them. But whatever the cause, it is lamentably true that the masses are getting but little help in understanding the Bible from the pulpit at the present time. Upon the weaknesses of the pulpit, not of ancient, but of modern time, in matters of exegesis, I have nowhere seen a clearer or more manly statement than is to be found in [56] a work of Homiletics, "The Theory of Preaching," by "Austin Phelps, D. D., late Professor of Theology in Andover. He says:

      "(3.) It should be further observed, that the past and present usages of the pulpit respecting truthfulness of interpretation is not entirely trustworthy. Explanations which exegesis has exploded are sometimes retained by the pulpit for their homiletic usefulness. Preachers often employ in the pulpit explanations of texts which they would not defend in an association of scholars. The pulpit suffers in its exegetical practice by retaining for polemic uses explanations which originated in an abuse of philosophy. I do not say in the use of philosophy. We have seen that there is a legitimate use of philosophy, within certain limits, in aiding the discoveries and application of sound philology. But philosophy has often tyrannized over philology. In the defence of the creeds of the Church, the exigencies of philosophy have overborne the philological instinct of the popular mind, as well as the philological learning of the schools. A modern exegete affirms that the interpretation of the seventh chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, which makes it a description of Christian experience, was never heard of in the Church till the time of Augustine. He originated it to support his theory of original sin. He held the opposite interpretation, as now held by many German exegetes, till he was pressed in the argument with Pelagius. The authority of Augustine, and the force of his theology; have sent down to our own day the interpretation he then adopted."

      Again the same author says:

      "Still further: the pulpit suffers, in its exegetical authority, from the habit of spiritualizing all parts of the Scripture indiscriminately. Ancient usage justified any use of a text, which, by any eccentric laws of association, could be made serviceable to any practical religious impression. Popular commentaries have largely contributed 'to this abuse. Some of them no preacher can read respectfully without insensibly surrendering somewhat of his integrity of exegetical taste.

      "Such are the more important reasons for the caution which I have advanced, that the past and present usage of the pulpit respecting truthfulness of interpretation is not entirely trustworthy. You can not safely accept that usage as authority. It [57] is improving, but it is no model for a youthful ministry. Do not be misled by it. Form your own model, and let it be one which scholarship and good taste and good sense can approve."--See pp. 160, 161, 162.

      The foregoing are brave, true words, and voice the sentiment of the present time. The fact is, we are just entering upon more thoughtful and conscientious times. A new and more reliable hermeneutics will have to be accepted. The people are beginning to demand it. The time-servers among the clergy may as well get ready to faithfully interpret the word of God for the people, as that will soon be the means by which they shall be able to hold their places.

      The time has come when men will demand that the meaning of the Scriptures shall be presented, instead of human vagaries. When that voice shall be heard from the pew, the pulpit will address itself to the task. Then the question will be, not, What can I make out of the text? but, What has the text in it for me and the people? not, How can I display my genius, in discovering some new way of filling the text with a meaning it never had? but, What did the Lord mean when he directed its use?

      To present all that ought to be said on this subject in the most direct way possible, we shall consider the several methods that have been proposed. We shall not then have to charge the many failures in the interpretations of the word of the Lord to some unknown evil, but to definite mistakes.

      SEC. 28. THE MYSTICAL METHOD.

      (1.) This originated in heathenism.--Because of its origin it is called "mythical." It was maintained that no man could interpret the communications from the deities unless be was en rapport with said divinities. This gave [58] position and prominence to those men of holy calling. The church adopted as much of heathenism as was thought best to render Christianity popular with the people; hence the same, or similar claims, had to be, made for her priests. This was not done all at once but came, like other thing, which have no authority in, the New Testament, little at a time, until the whole distance was overcome.

      (2.) The several reformations that have taken place have removed somewhat this veneration for the priesthood, but have not entirely removed the mistake; for while we have ceased to regard ourselves as the subjects of priest-craft, we continue a superstition quite akin to it. A common error remaining is that God's book is to be miraculously interpreted--that no one is competent to understand these things unless he has been called and divinely qualified for the task. This about as effectually removes the Bible from the masses, as the old theory of its interpretation belonging only to the priesthood. It leaves us dependent upon those highly fortunate ones who have been thus especially endowed for the work. They may be priests, or not. But in either case they must have been called of God to this work. If this theory were true, the Bible would be of no value whatever. The inspiration in these interpreters would be sufficient, without any Bible. Hence the effect of this theory has been to prevent the people from looking to the Bible for instruction. Regarding themselves as dependent upon inspiration, they have waited for it to accomplish its work, and break to them the will of God.

      (3.) The evil results of this theory might be called legion, for they are many. All kinds of ambitious pretenders have found security under such claims. If we [59] deny their rights to such espionage over the great family of God, they are able to beat us back, by their assumptions that it had been given to them only to understand their prerogatives. Sects and parties have grown from this seed in great abundance. Men who have wanted a following, have been thus enabled to lead away multitudes of disciples after them. As these leaders have differed as to the things of God, many of their followers have been led into doubt and skepticism. If these inspired men can not agree concerning the things which their God wishes them to do, the common people can not be expected to know anything about it. They know, too, that where there is contradiction there is falsehood, for it is not possible that truth should disagree with itself.

      (4.) If the Bible does not mean what it says, there is no way by which we can know what it does mean. Indeed, if it is a revelation at all, then it must signify just what such words would mean if found in another book. If they have any other meaning than that in which they would be understood by the people to whom they were employed, then they were absolutely misleading. In that case the Bible is not only not a revelation, but a false light, doing a vast amount of injury by leading simple-hearted people into the wrong way.

      SEC. 29. THE ALLEGORICAL METHOD.

      Definition.--This method treats the word of God as if it had only been intended to be a kind of combination of metaphors--a splendid riddle. Interpreting by this method is not exegesis but eisegesis--they do not obtain the meaning of the text, but thrust something into it. Its statements of history are mere figures of speech, and mean one thing or another, or nothing, as the interpreter may choose. What the Bible may mean to any man will [60] depend upon what the man would like to have it mean. The genius that would be able to make one thing out of it would be able to make it have the opposite meaning if he preferred. Clement of Alexandria maintained that the law of Moses had a fourfold significance--natural, mystical, moral and prophetical. Origen held that the Scriptures had a threefold meaning, answering to the body, soul and spirit of man; hence that the meanings were physical, moral, and spiritual. Philo of Alexandria gives a fair specimen of allegorizing in his remarks on Gen. ii. 10-14:

      "In these words Moses intends to sketch out the particular virtues. And they, also, are four in number--prudence, temperance, courage, and justice. Now, the greatest river, from which the four branches flow off, is generic virtue, which we have already called goodness; and the four branches are the same number of virtues. Generic virtue, therefore, derives its beginning from Eden, which is the wisdom of God: which rejoices, and exults, and triumphs, being delighted and honored on account of nothing else, except its Father, God. And the four particular virtues or branches from the generic virtue, which, like a river, waters all the good actions of each, with an abundant stream of benefit."

      Clement of Alexandria had definitions for the interpretation of the Scriptures not unlike the rules found, in a dream-book. He said the sow is the emblem of voluptuous and unclean lust for food. The eagle meant robbery; the hawk, injustice; and the raven, greed.

      Emanuel Swedenborg is a fair illustration of the workings of this theory. He is commonly written down as a mystic, but he is properly denominated an allegorical interpreter. Every statement of the Bible, according to his view, has a meaning such as no sane person would gather from the use of these words if they occurred anywhere [61] else. He is able to find four distinct thoughts in almost everything that has been said, anywhere in the Scriptures. He is mystical in his claims to the means of knowledge. He is lifted above other mortals into the realm of clearer light, and therefore he is able to say that the Bible does not mean what it says, but means that which has been revealed to him. His position, as stated by himself, is:

      "The word in the letter is like a casket, where lie in order precious stones, pearls and diadems; and when a man esteems the word holy, and reads it for the sake of the uses of life, the thoughts of his mind are, comparatively, like one who holds such a cabinet in his hand, and sends it heavenward; and it is opened in its ascent and the precious things therein come to the angels, are deeply delighted with seeing and examining them. This delight of the angels is communicated to the man, and makes consociation, and also a communication of preceptions" (The True Christian Religion, iv. 6).

      This, however, only accounts for the power of knowing the higher import of the Scriptures, through his science of correspondences. But his interpretations are allegorical, and should be classed as such.

      SEC. 30. SPIRITUAL INTERPRETATION.--This method differs only in liberality from the Mystical. Instead of supposing that a few persons are favored above the rest of mortals, it regards such power to be within the reach of every one. Piety and a possession of the light of God in the soul, will enable every one to understand the Scriptures in this spiritual way. Of course, many plain passages of the word of God will, to them, have the meaning of something very different from what has been said. For, with them, it is not so much what the Lord has said, as what He revealed to them as the meaning of that language. The Friends have held this [62] idea most firmly, though there are many in other churches now who hold similar views. It is strange that those who are thus enlightened of the Lord do not interpret the Bible in the same way. Even the Allegorists are better agreed. They follow some law of language, and hence, necessarily, reach conclusions a little similar. But the Spiritualizers are not bound by any law. Whatever may be the pious whim of the exegete, he will be able to find it in the Bible. Every one becomes a law of interpretation unto himself. Of course like all other people, those who live together or read the same books will spiritualize the word of God in the same way, and reach nearly the same conclusions. The reason is that they have formed ideas and convictions just like other people, and then in their ecstasy, suppose they receive these impressions from above. The Bible is, of course, worth but little to them, for the inward light in the soul of each one would be quite sufficient. When a man's practice is found to be contrary to some direct statement of the word of God, the easiest way to reconcile his conduct with Christian faith, is to say that such a passage is "spiritual." By that he ordinarily means that the text agrees with his practice, whatever may be its statement to the contrary; at any rate, it is above and beyond the comprehension of the reprover. No one would think of dealing thus with any other book. Law, or medicine, science, history, mechanics, anything else except religion, must be submitted to the rules of common sense. Everywhere else words are supposed to have a meaning, to be interpreted by the laws of language, but this superstition relieves its disciples from any bondage to law respecting exegesis.

      Jesus said, "The words that I speak unto you, they [63] are spirit and they are life." This metaphor is not difficult of interpretation. He is the bread from heaven, the vine, the door of the sheep; and the bread and wine of the supper were His body and His blood. Christians should be filled with wisdom and spiritual understanding; should speak of spiritual things by spiritual words, for they receive spiritual blessings, and are built up into a spiritual house, to offer up spiritual sacrifices to God. The city in which the witnesses lay for three days and a half was denominated spiritually Sodom and Egypt. In spirit it would be like these places. But this says nothing about spiritual interpretation, but uses the figures most common in the presentation of such thought.

      SEC. 31. THE HIERARCHICAL METHOD.

      (1.) This method differs from the Mystical, or Mythical, not so much in the manner of receiving the knowledge from heaven, as in the assumption of authority in presenting it. It affirms that the church is the true exponent of the Scriptures. As the church was built before the New Testament Scriptures were finished, and was appointed as their guardian, it has, therefore, the right to interpret them.

      (2.) This interpretation, is to be given, by the priesthood.--When we ask what is meant by interpretation being given by the church, we are told that the word church does not mean all the members of the body, but simply that portion of its membership appointed to speak for it. Hence not the members of the church are intended in any general way, but its priests only.

      (3.) But when priests are not agreed, then there must be provision for a higher tribunal than the parish priest. If his opinion shall be doubted, the bishop of that Holy See may settle the question. But even then there may [64] be trouble. Bishops differ like other men, and then we will have to go to the archbishop, or the matter may be carried to the Pope, if it should merit the attention of the Holy Father. In the past there have been some who have even doubted his infallibility, and carried the question up to a Council. Of course that will end its consideration. However, the Pope now commits no more mistakes!

      (4). After, all, their decisions have been reached something like those of other people.--Some have maintained that whatever has always been believed, must necessarily be right. This has been a conservatism to retain the opinions of the past, and prevent any further search for truth.

      (5.) Pinning our faith to the sleeves of the fathers is one of the features of this method that remains, to some extent, even among Protestants at the present time. Just now, however, the world is waking up to the fact that error may live and thrive for a thousand years, and never be disturbed during that time. While that which has been held to be true by good and competent men should not be hastily thrown aside, yet it may be utterly false. There are many traditions which have scarcely been doubted during the whole Christian era, that never had any foundation in truth. To begin with, they were only the unstudied guesses of popular men. Others suppose that they have duly considered them, and therefore adopt them without any further investigation. Still others, seeing their names to the theory, adopt it the more readily; and so on to the end. And yet when we come to look for evidence of truth in the matter, we find it wholly wanting. In this way we have had a traditional Mount Calvary, and have told and sung about the [65] Saviour's transfiguration on Mount Tabor. In the same way, many errors have lived long, simply for the want of any examination. But this method prevents any falsehood from being disturbed. As it has long been the faith of the church, it must be correct!

      (6.) This method is followed, not so much to find what the Scriptures mean, as to know what the Lord would have them believe and do as revealed through the church. Hence, in the use of this method, the Scriptures are not the guide of the faith and lives of the people, but rather, the priest, the bishop, the archbishop, the Pope, the Council. The question is not, What say the Scriptures? but, What saith the church? While, then, we would retain a proper respect for the opinions of good and great men, we can not assent to this method of interpretation, as it sets the word of God at naught to make room for the traditions of men. In the seventh chapter of Mark and the twenty-third chapter of Matthew, we discover this to have been the trouble with the ancient Pharisees, and for it they received the condemnation of the Master.

      (7.) In the plan of revelation according to this method, God has chosen strange ways of causing His people to understand the good and the right way. The correctness of a doctrine has been ascertained by the ordeal. In confirmation of this truth, its advocate partook of the Host, and that publicly. And as the emblem of the Saviour's body did not kill him, he was supposed to be right. Of course, this was looking to the supposed miracle for divine direction, and not to the word of the Lord. It is quite common for Protestants to smile at Catholics for superstitions so groundless, and yet to practice others as unreasonable. Even now there lingers the suspicion [66] that the Lord directs His people in the line of duty, and shows them that they are right while they do not follow the Scriptures. We ought not to speak of the superstition of Catholics when we are doing the same things. Now, if we are to learn the will of the Lord in this way, what use have we for the Bible? It is better that we seek its meaning and follow its direction, or confess that God could not or would not give us the kind of book we need.

      (8.) This method stands in the way of Christian liberty. It prevents all investigation, and so hinders the people from knowing more of the word of God than they did during the dark ages. Luther began the Reformation in direct opposition to this idea. And yet we are ready to stop all search after truth, and bind the world to the opinions of the last reformer. This was the tyranny against which he rebelled, and yet we are trying to fasten upon the rest of the world this usurpation. If the right does not now exist to differ from the views of canonized authority and hoary tradition, then it did not exist in the days of Luther; and, if it did not then exist, we ought all to be in the bosom of Rome. Of all methods of interpretation yet considered, if we shall call this one, it is the most unreasonable, and attended with the greatest amount of evil.

      SEC. 32. THE RATIONALISTIC METHOD.

      (l.) It is very nearly the rule of unbelief. Though many of these exegetes have professed to strive only to know the exact meaning of Scripture, yet they have done more to compel the Bible to harmonize with the latest philosophies than anything else. They have differed only from the dogmatists in the standard by which all Scripture statements are to be compared. With them, [67] "Nature is the standard, and Reason the guide." If the Bible can be made to harmonize with the notions of the reasoner, then it is to be understood as meaning what it says; but if not, it is to be regarded as mythical, or used by way of accommodation, or the writer has been mistaken respecting his inspiration, or we have been imposed upon by apocryphal books. After all has been said respecting the efforts at exegesis in the use of this method, we regard it not so much exegesis as exit-Jesus! The interpreters are the guide and rule of life, and the Bible is merely called upon to sanction their conclusions, not that they feel themselves at all in need of its light and instruction, or that it would be any proof to a sensible world of the correctness of their positions, but to patronize believers a little, they quote their sacred books to show that, after all, they are not bad friends. I speak of the German critics especially, not because they are alone in the use of this method, but because they are leading. Some of these claim to believe in the inspiration of the Bible, and others do not. But no man holding their views of the right to compare the Bible with the thoughts and feelings of men, and to compel the sacred text to agree with erring men, can have any particular conviction respecting its inspiration. It would be better if they were all avowed infidels, for then the world would not be deceived by them.

      (2.) The theory of Strauss. In his Life of Jesus, he lays down the following rules to guide in the investigation:

      "A narrative is not historical (1) when its statements are irreconcilable with the known and universal laws which govern the course of events; (2) when it is inconsistent with itself or with other accounts of the same thing; (3) when the actors converse [68] in poetry or elevated discourse unsuitable to their training or station; (4) when the essential substance and ground-work of a reported occurrence is either inconceivable in itself, or is in striking harmony with some Messianic idea of the Jews of that age."

      This theory has been exposed so many times, and this has been so well done, that no more is now necessary than to call attention to its unreasonable demands. (1.) That all miracles must be rejected. That is, no man can pretend to be an interpreter of the Bible till he is prepared to deny its claims to inspiration and to its record of miracles. (2.) If any accounts differ, they must both be false. (3.) If the actors were inspired, and, therefore, spoke in a manner above those of their time and station, the account is to be regarded as untrue. (4.) If the interpreter can not conceive of the correctness of the statement, or if any affirmation is made that harmonizes with ideas common to the Jews respecting their coming Messiah, then it must be untrue. Now, for unreasonableness and dogmatic unfairness, this has no parallel. According to David Friedrich Strauss, no one can interpret the life of Jesus, or any other portion of the sacred volume, till he is a confirmed infidel.

      (3.) Other theories of the same kind.--Those of Kant, Baur, Renan, Schenkel and Eichhorn, while they may differ from each other in many things, have the same general plan of investigation. Human reason is held to be superior to anything that can be revealed in the Bible. Hence they do not interpret the Scriptures, but simply interview the interpreter, and then demand that the Bible shall say the same things, or be set aside as a work of fiction; and, having been the child of a dark age, it must hold an inferior position. We shall not deny that [69] good Christian men have held this view as the right method of investigation, that is, that everything must be made to harmonize with something they call reason but we do say that the rule is of no value whatever, as it determines beforehand what must be found, and thereby limits all investigation.

      (4.) Further objections to the Rationalistic Method.

      (a) No new truth or fact could be received; hence all investigation would be stopped. Every discovery is at variance with some preconceived idea, and therefore adverse to what some interpreter will regard as the eternal and universal law. This new truth being opposed to his previous ignorance, it would be rejected at sight. The king of Siam is said to have reasoned in this way; and when the missionary told him that in his country, in the winter, water would turn to ice, and on the lakes and rivers there would be a crust strong enough to bear up wagons and horses, the king decided that he was trying to practice upon his credulity, and told him plainly that he had no further interest in anything he might tell him. All his knowledge of nature's laws were set at naught by this daring man, and he felt outraged by him, and drove him from his presence. He was using this method consistently.

      (b) It is a wrong use of reason.--The critical ability of every investigator should be employed (1) to determine whether the Bible is from God, or only from man; and (2) all the mental resources should be brought into requisition to ascertain what it teaches. If the Bible is not of God, then interpret it according to its contents; or if it is of God, do the same. But no man who shall first decide that the message is from God, can retain any [70] right to contradict its statements, or differ from its conclusions.

      (c) For a man to make his reason the guide and standard of all truth, is to say that the reason of others is worthless--that he alone is the standard of appeal. This is indelicate.

      (d) A man's reason can decide nothing of itself.--All that belongs to that faculty of the mind is to properly argue, and dispose of all facts reported by perception. Perception only gathers depositions from one or more of the five senses. Hence, when a man decides that nothing at variance with his reason can be admitted as true, he asserted that he has had all possible facts reported to his mind that can have any bearing on the subject, and that he has properly considered them, so that in their use no mistake could have occurred. This is too assumptive for any modest man, and, we might say, for any man of common sense.

      SEC. 33. THE APOLOGETIC METHOD.

      (1.) It maintains the absolute perfection of all statements in the Bible.--It was brought into being by the Rationalistic Method, as the mind swings from one extreme to another. As the former denied everything but what agreed with the views of the exegete, this view finds its adherents to everything, and anything that can be found in the Bible, and regards it all as from God. Whether the witch of Endor, Cain, Ahimelech, Laban, Esau, Judas Iscariot, or the devil himself, everything is filled with inspired truth, and made to serve as a perfect guide to the world. This is unreasonable. Very much of the Bible was spoken by the enemies of God's people, and for the correctness of what they say, the Bible is in no way responsible. It has reported them correctly, and [71] that is all it had to do in the matter. Suppose, then, that Abraham and Isaac did equivocate respecting their relation to their wives, or that Rachel did deceive her father concerning his teraphim, the Bible is not to blame for her falsehood in the matter. David did many things that were wrong, and the Bible tells all about it. Suppose that David was a favored man--that does not demand that he should have been perfect in all that he did. If it could be shown that Jephthah did really offer up his own daughter, it does not make the word of God endorse the deed. When Paul speaks of him as an example of faith, he does not affirm that he was without fault, nor does he indicate that God did not hold him guilty for the act.

      (2.) This method opposes one of the very first rules necessary to any fair and thorough investigation--TO KNOW WHO SPEAKS.--With the question of authorship, our inquiries have first to do in all matters for investigation. Was it the language of Balak, or Moses; of one of the three comforters, or Job? Was the man inspired? Did he claim to be? Was he truthful, even? Was he competent to speak on such a subject? Job's wife offered very poor advice, and yet it is a part of the Bible. To regard it as authoritative is to do more than Job did, for he said she talked like a foolish woman.

      (3.) This method takes it for granted that if a man was ever inspired, then he always was.--But when we come to examine the Scriptures on the subject, this is not found to be. true. A man might have been inspired for one message only, and all his life before and afterward may have been without such divine guidance. Caiaphas once spoke by inspiration, as well as Balaam; but it does not follow that they always did so. The beast on which [72] Balaam rode had an inspiration, but it was for one occasion only.

      SEC. 34. THE DOGMATIC METHOD.

      (1.) This method is noteworthy for two things: first it assumes the doctrine to be true; and, second, it regards it as certainly true by being proven. It proceeds by assumption and proof. We have found more or less of this in all the methods yet considered. It has, indeed, been the rule that that which was desired to be found, was looked for, and, the conclusions reached were those that were desired at the beginning. Men have been able to find what they have looked for.

      (2.) It came into existence during the dark ages, when speculators and Christian philosophers were the only guides of the people. These were soon found to differ from each other; hence there must be found some way to test the correctness of the positions taken. This correctness was determined by argument, tradition and Scripture.

      (3.) It has been kept alive by the same power that brought it into existence.--The desire to rule in spiritual matters made it necessary for leaders and parties; and the desire now, on the part of men and sects, continues the use of a method which, without such potencies, would soon die out. But men and parties hold and teach doctrines nowhere found in the Bible, and they must do something to support their theories. To go to a plain reading of the word of the living God, for support, would be ruinous; hence, resort must be had to what is known as proof. The assertion is made, and then something is found that sounds like the position already announced. This is satisfactory to those who want the theory sustained. [73]

      (4.) This method was begun in Catholicism, and is continued in Protestantism.--We are now in the same condition, largely, as those to whom this plan was a necessity. Many of the practices of Mother Church are continued to-day. For them, there never was any Scripture warrant. Once they might have been upheld by the direct voice of the church, as it spoke in its councils. But now having denied that these councils have had any right to change divine regulations, and finding no directions for our practices, we have to resort to methods of proof that would not be recognized in any other search for knowledge.

      (5.) Truth has been found in this way, and yet the manner of investigation has been a great hindrance. It should be said that men have found truth in opposition to the method, rather than by it. A very honest mind will sometimes see that the proposition, though made by himself, is not sustained by the facts, and turn to that which is true; but it is the exception, and not the rule. He who has taken a position and made it public, is in a poor condition to see that his affirmation is not correct. He may see it, but he is not likely to do so.

      Wishes and previous conclusions change all objects like colored glasses, and convert all sounds into the assertions which the mind prefers to have made. The horse hears no sound in the morning that indicates it to be his duty to stop, but in the evening, when he has traveled all day, almost anything would convey to him that thought. In the morning there were many frightful objects that suggested the propriety of running away, but in the evening he is not troubled with any such evil apprehensions. The reason of this difference is very obvious: in the morning he wanted to run, and in the [74] evening he wanted to stop, and he understands everything in the light of his desires. When Moses and Joshua went down the hill together, and heard the children of Israel in their frolic around the golden calf, Joshua thought he could recognize the sound of battle in it, for he was a warrior. Moses had a different thought about it. They reached different conclusions, not because they heard differently, but because their minds were on different topics. So it is with most of us. If we start out to find some particular doctrine or dogma in the Scriptures, we shall probably find it. It may not be there; there may not be anything on the subject; but we can find a hundred things that comport with that thought, and hence conclude that it must be true.

      (6.) This does not indicate that the Scriptures speak in riddles, or that they are not clear.--Such misuse may be made of any book. A man may not only prove anything he wishes by the Bible, but he may do so by any other book, if he will treat it in the same way.

      (7.) It exalts traditions and speculations of men to an equality with the word of God.--In the heat of argument, with a determination to find a theory in the Scriptures, anything is accepted as proof. If the desired proof can not be found in the Bible, it will be found somewhere else. The fathers, the canonized authorities, the practice of the church--anything, to save the doctrine, from which we are determined not to part.

      (8.) This method now very greatly hinders the unity of the people of the Lord.--Much as we dislike to own it, we maintain our creeds by its use. It serves us, not as a means of ascertaining the meaning of the Bible, but as a means of supporting our theories. In our very best books of discipline, we say that "The Scriptures of the [75] Old and New Testaments furnish the only and sufficient: rule of faith and practice, so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any one to be believed, or thought requisite or necessary to salvation." It may not be "read therein" but if it can be "proved thereby," then it is to be continued in the church. Hence it will be continued, beyond any possible doubt. If proof is desired, proof will be found, and the doctrine will continue to be taught, and those who prepare themselves for the ministry will have to run the gauntlet of this doctrinal test. The Bible may know nothing about the doctrine, but it is kept alive by this method of assumption and proof.

      (9.) The Bible is not a book of proof for doctrines, but is the doctrine of God itself to men.--We are to go to God's book, not in search of our views, with the intent to find them in some way or other, but to go to it for what it has in it for us. Many of the interpreters of prophecy are prophets first, and then they go to the Bible to see if they can get the old prophets to agree with the new ones. Of course they always succeed. The man who fails to make out his interpretation, should be regarded as wanting in common genius. I am hopeful of overcoming this method, notwithstanding its strong hold on the people. All works on Hermeneutics of recent date condemn it. I give a short quotation, by way of example. Immer's Hermeneutics, pp. 144, 145:

      "One of the most frightful causes of false explanations is dogmatic presupposition. See Matt. vii. 16-20. This passage has been thus understood by Luther and by other old Protestant exegetes in an anti-Catholic interest: The tree must first be good before it can bring forth good fruit--i. e., man must, through faith, be regenerated, before he can perform good works. But this contradicts the connection and the clear intention of [76] the passage. Immediately before, Jesus has warned his disciples against false prophets, who appear outwardly like innocent and pious sheep, but inwardly are ravening wolves. He now gives them the criterion by which they may distinguish the false and the good teachers from each other, viz.: their fruits--i. e., good works, conduct corresponding to the words of Jesus."

      The writer continues to show, at considerable length, the many blunders that have been maintained in this way. The doctrine is assumed, or presupposed, and then everything is bent, to give it support.

      (10.) The manner in which it is done.--Conclusions are reached without the facts necessary to warrant them. Sometimes it is by a mere jingle of words, something like the theory. The author may have no reference to anything relative to the subject that the interpreter is considering, but the application is made. The exegete supposes that the author has his subject under contemplation, for what else could he be thinking about? It is of such importance to him, that of course the writer or speaker must have been discoursing on that topic. Again, misinterpretation is very innocently reached by associating one of the premises of the speaker with one of his own, and then drawing a conclusion. In this way one man frequently misrepresents another-he hears a statement made, which, if associated with a position of his, a certain doctrine would be advocated. Then it is common to clothe that thought in one's own speech, and say that a certain man taught it. And yet he may never have thought of such a thing in his life. He did not hold the premise that we did, and therefore did not teach as we said he did. But the position was in our mind, and we assumed that it was in his, without inquiring about it. When Jesus was dining at the house [77] of a Pharisee, somewhere in Galilee, there came behind Him a woman whose character was not good. Simon said in himself: "If he were a prophet, he would know what sort of woman this is." Now, he assumed that if Jesus did know, He would send her away; and because He did not send her away, therefore He (lid not know what sort of woman she was. This was his mistake. Jesus did know what kind of woman she was, but He was not like the Pharisee in the disposition to order her away.

      (11.) Dogmatism first determines what it is willing shall be found in the Scriptures, and then goes to work at once to find nothing else there, and even to refuse that anything else shall be found. The infidel has this dogmatism as largely developed as any one. In all the reading that he may do, his determination never wavers for a single moment. From first to last he is determined to find that the Bible is only the work of man. Hence the evidences which he has no way of meeting, or turning to a bad account, he regards as unintelligible, or he deliberately shuts eyes and ears to all that has been said therein. It is just as difficult for a man to be made to believe what he does not want to believe, as it is to cause him to throw away long cherished opinions. And no investigation will ever be worthy of the name while conducted under this controlling power of prejudice.

      (12.) Liberalism is just as dogmatic as the most orthodox creed.--They who boast of their liberality are, many times, the most narrow and unreasonable bigots. They are liberal while they differ from the old church authorities, and are perfectly willing that you should join them in their new views of inspiration, or of obedience to [78] Christ, but they are unwilling that you should differ from them. Hence it is plain that they have reached their views without the tedium of the introduction of facts and the uncompromising use of logic, but have simply jump=ed to their conclusions without any such examination, and are determined that the rest of the world shall adopt their views of liberality. And those who are not able to do so are denominated by them "legalists." They may adopt as many forms as any others, and those, too, that are not known to the Scriptures, but. when others fail to adopt their liberal ideas and still cling to the word of the Lord and the ordinances as they were first commanded, they are denominated bigots by those who are continually advertising their extreme liberality. This is the way dogmatists deceive themselves quite commonly. With them, the world is perfectly illiberal, because it will not adopt their dogmatic opinions. Dogmatism here is just what it is everywhere else, only the points assumed at the beginning, differ from those which have generally been regarded as orthodox; but the manner of maintaining them is just the same.

      SEC. 35. LITERAL INTERPRETATION.

      (1.) This is most commonly employed by dogmatists, in order to maintain a view that can not be supported in any other way.

      (2.) It makes all the language of the Bible literal.--It treats the word of God as if it were au essay on chemistry or mechanics. Hence, almost anything can be proved by its use. Something can be found, by taking a jingle of words, that will establish any theory. They do not stop to consider that God spoke to men in their own language, and by such methods of speech as would [79] render the thoughts of God most easily understood. If they would read Oriental writings, on any other subject, they would be convinced that much of it is highly figurative; but, coming to the Bible, it must be made to bow down to a gross materialism, and take a yoke upon its neck that will make it the merest slave of the merciless task-master, who allots the tale of bricks, and will be satisfied with nothing less. These exegetes do not pretend that David's heart melted within him like wax, that all his bones were out of joint, and were staring at him in the face; that he was a worm, and no man; for they have no theory dependent upon the literal use of these figures. But let their theory be involved for a moment, and then, if the literal meaning will avail them anything, they will use it, and deny that any other is possible. If the word in question has a low meaning, then it has been used only in that sense. Many of our spiritual conceptions are expressed in the Scriptures by the use of words once employed in material affairs; hence they are enabled to shut out everything but the grossest meaning the word had in its first use. The materialists of the present time insist on making the soul of man as material as his body, or, at any rate, dependent upon it for its existence.

      The disposition, however, manifested by materialists, does not differ much from the spirit of dogmatists generally. Everywhere the aim is to carry the point and maintain the doctrine, whatever may come of Scripture truth. Others, from the same determination respecting the doctrine to be proved, will compel a word into any peculiar meaning which is only possible to it under peculiar circumstances. But, the word having been used in that sense somewhere, it must have that unusual [80] import in the passage under consideration, for two reasons: first, the word could be used in that sense; and, second, the doctrine in question is in need of that being regarded as the meaning in this place.

      This trifling with the word of God does not come from that dishonesty to which we are ready to attribute it. This dogmatism has fostered the idea that whatever may be proved by the Bible, no matter in what way the proof may be found, or extorted, must be right, Hence there is a kind of undefined feeling of right to manufacture teaching in that way. And the work seems to be undertaken and accomplished without any compunctions whatever. Not one of these persons would think for a moment of interpreting the words of a friend in that way. A letter having been received from father or brother, they would feel insulted if any one should insist on such a mode of interpretation. With such a communication before them, the question would be, What does the writer mean? not, What can we make him mean?

      The latter forms of materialism go even farther, in one respect, than any former effort, to maintain the desired doctrine. It is not uncommon to assume a meaning for a word which it never has, and then make a play on the sound of the word, using it so repeatedly in that sense that many persons will come to the conclusion that such must be its import. In this way very much is being done at the present time to establish religions speculations nowhere mentioned in the Bible. We have before seen the evils resulting from the Allegoric method, and yet it is but little, if any, more likely to prevent the right interpretation than the Material or Literal. Either one is a foolish and hurtful extreme. [81] Much of the Bible is written in language highly figurative. And not to recognize the fact, and treat the language according to the figures employed, is to fail entirely in the exegesis. This, of course, does not imply that God has said one thing while He means another, but simply that He has spoken in the language of men, and in the style of those to whom the revelations were made. No one reading the Prophecies or the Psalms without recognizing this fact, will be able to arrive at any reliable conclusions whatever as to their meaning.

      SEC. 36. THE INDUCTIVE METHOD.

      (1.) What is it? A leading or drawing off a general fact from a number of instances, or summing up the result of observations and experiments. Roger Bacon, to whom we are largely, if not wholly, indebted for this method of philosophy, was less clear in the definition of terms than in the use of the method itself. Still, we can arrive at his meaning fairly well. This is what he had to say of it:

      "In forming axioms, we must invent a different form of introduction from that hitherto in use; not only for the proof and discovery of principles (as they are called), but also of minor, intermediate, and, in short, every kind of axioms. The induction which proceeds by simple enumeration (enumerationem simplicem) is puerile, leads to uncertain conclusions, and is exposed to danger from one contradictory instance, deciding generally from too small a number of facts, and those only the most obvious. But a really useful induction for the discovery and demonstration of the arts and sciences, should separate nature by proper rejections and exclusions, and then conclude for the affirmative, after collecting a sufficient number of negatives."

      The thirteenth century was a little too early for such a philosopher to be well understood, and far too early for him to be appreciated. Still his views gained some [82] support even then, and have been gaining ever since, and now they are quite extensively adopted.

      In the uses of this method of interpretation, all the facts are reported, and from them the conclusion is to be reached. Of course during the time of the collection of these facts, there will be incertitude as to whether some of them are facts or not. Still, judgment is to be formed as best it can, for the time. But when the whole number of facts are reported, it is probable that all the facts will stand approved as such, and the guesses that were incorrect will be found to be wanting in the necessary evidences, and will be easily thrown aside. After the pyramid shall have been built, it can be put into line, and whatever of material there gathered which will not harmonize with the whole amount will be readily refused as not being according to truth. Hence we may say that in the inductive method, we have necessarily the deductive. We will not only induce, or bring in all the facts, but we will reach conclusions as to truth from these.

      (2.) The law of analogy.--Everything must be found to agree. Harmony is one of the first demands of truth. Two truths are never contradictory. It is impossible for contradiction to be found where there is truth in all concerned. Hence, when any fact has come to be known, and about it there can be no longer any doubt, whatever may be reported after this, which is contradictory thereof, is rejected at once as being certainly untrue. And yet this rule must not be employed so as to prevent investigation, for it is possible that we may be perfectly satisfied with an error. We have long regarded it as truth, and may make it the reason fir the rejection of facts that would be of great value. But if the new fact is admitted, then that which has been accepted must [83] be displaced, for it is impossible for both to be correct. Hence no interpretation can be true which does not harmonize with all known facts.

      (3.) This method demands that all facts shall be reported.--It assures all concerned that if all facts are reported, and they are permitted to speak for themselves, error will not be possible. But it is not always possible to obtain all facts that have bearing on any given subject. Indeed, it is very probable that complete success in this respect has never yet been attained. All the mighty works of Jesus were not reported; but enough were presented for the faith of all who were willing to believe. John said that He did many other signs beside those which he recorded, but that the record he made was sufficient. This method demands that when all the facts can not be had, as many shall be reported as possible. The falling of one apple would not be enough to prove the law of gravity, for there might have been something peculiar (1) in the then present condition of things; or (2) in the form of the falling body; or (3) in its contents; or (4) something present which had attraction for it and not for other bodies. On the other hand, it is not necessary that all bodies shall have been observed in their relation to each other; a large number will do, if they embrace the several kinds of material, and are tried in many circumstances--provided there is no opposing fact. One opposing fact will be enough to introduce an exception, at least, to the rule. Hence it would not be a universal law. Before reaching a conclusion, then, all facts attainable should be gathered.

      (4.) To always heed this command is difficult.--Men have ever been ready to deduce without having properly [84] induced. Sometimes a number of exceptions are reported as the rule. One man is an enemy to the Christian religion, and therefore he proves that it is of no value to the race, by finding a number of cases in which it has done no good, or, at least, it has not made the right kind of persons out of those who have professed it. The argument is augmented by finding a large number of men who are out of the church who are better persons. Now, this examination is very imperfect. It should be known (1) what they were before conversion, so that the life afterward might compared with what it was before. It ought to be known (2) what they probably would have been without this religion (3) On the other hand, too, it should be known if, the men who have been presented from the outside of the church are fair representatives of those who, have never made any profession of Christianity. (4) And again, it should be known what have been the effects of Christianity on them. It might be that although they had never been church members, the morality which made them so respectable was all obtained from that very religion. (5) Then again, on the other hand, it should be borne in mind that other influences than those of the religion under consideration may have controlled those church members, and that the religion is not so much to blame as the other forces that have controlled them. (6) Finally, it should be known whether the persons compared are fair representatives. If they have been the exceptionally bad on one side and the exceptionally good on the other, then there has not been an induction of facts, but an induction of falsehoods. Neither the inside nor the outside of the church has been properly reported. He who would pursue such a [85] method would be about as truthful in his investigations as the man who undertook to prove that his neighbor's ground was not as good as his. To do this, he went into his neighbor's field and plucked ten ears of corn, of the smallest and smuttiest that he could find. He then went into his own field, and took the same number of the largest and best filled ears that he could find. Then he made a comparison.

      The same unfairness is exhibited sometimes in the examination of the results of temperance laws. A large number of exceptions are reported as the rule; hence the conclusion is reached that such laws are accomplishing no good. In order that all facts shall be considered, we should ask, (1) Are the statements made correct? or are they only part of the truth? or are they wholly false? (2) Has the law itself been what it ought to have been? or has it been full of flaws and weaknesses? (3) Is it a new law, and therefore not understood, or loyally accepted; as it contravenes longstanding customs? (4) Is the party in power in favor of the law, or is it opposed to it, and therefore will not enforce it? or (5) while the party in power wishes well to the law, is there a large number of its members on the other side, so that the leaders of the party are afraid to do anything in the way of enforcement, for fear of dividing the party? (6) Are other laws, under similar circumstances, disobeyed as much as those? I refer to these things because they are within easy reach of every one nowadays, and to show what I mean by the inductive method.

      But men have been no more rash in these matters than in many other things. In medicine, a cure is reported by a certain remedy, but the condition of the patient is not [86] known; indeed, it may not have been properly diagnosed, and hence the report may have contained falsehoods instead of facts. Or, if the Condition has been made known, it may be that other assistance may have been received from other sources to which the recovery was in part due, and may be wholly due.

      Experiments in science are conducted hastily, sometimes, and deductions made before the facts have been induced. If a deformed creature is found in some part of the earth, forthwith some one is ready to reach the conclusion that it is the representative of a race, and hence that the connecting link has been found. We might find a large number of hunchbacks and unfortunate creatures in this country, and we are at liberty to suppose that abnormal conditions have existed in other places; and hence, from such a partial introduction of facts we have really no report at all.

      (5.) The inductive method has long been used in almost all departments of investigation except that of theology.

      (a) I could quote many passages from the great jurists of the world, showing that in the interpretation of law they follow this method. One quotation, from Blackstone's Commentaries, Vol. I. pp. 59-61, must suffice for the many we would like to give:

      "To interpret law, we must inquire after the will of the maker, which may be collected either from the words, the context, the subject-matter, the effects and consequences, or spirit and reason of the law. (1) Words are generally to be, understood in their usual and most known significance; not so much regarding the propriety of grammar, as their general and popular use. . . . (2) If words happen still to be dubious, we may establish their meaning from the context, etc,; of the same nature and use is the comparison of a law with laws that are made by the same legislator, that have some affinity with the subject, or that expressly relate to the same point." [87]

      This shows that in the mind of this jurist the great aim of all research in legal investigation was to arrive at all the facts in the case. Whether constitution, or code of legislative enactment was to be interpreted, the absolute intent of the maker was to be sought after, and any failure to get a right understanding of such purpose would result in a misapprehension of the enactment to be interpreted. And to know this aim of the law-making power, all facts that bear upon the subject should be employed. I know of no jurist or constitutional lawyer that differs from this opinion.

      (b) When witnesses give in testimony in our common courts, they are sworn to tell "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." This demand is made upon the presumption that the only way of meting out justice to all concerned, is to render a decision according to all the facts. And as these must be gained by the testimony of witnesses they must make known to the court the whole of their knowledge relating to the question in hand. In the pleadings too, before the court, decision is to be according to the facts revealed in the trial. Indeed, the jurymen are sworn to render the decision according to the law and evidence. And all the arguments allowed in the case are to prevent the misunderstanding of either law or evidence. At least, such is the ostensible purpose of the pleading in the civil courts. Speculation as to the possible meaning of law is not tolerated, when the facts can be had by which the purpose of the law-makers can be known.

      (c) The great teachers in the science of medicine have long held to this method of investigation. Medical associations have for their main object the increase of knowledge by the induction of facts. Hence, any one [88] in the regular practice who knows of any special remedy, for any ailment of the human body, is in duty bound to give others the benefit of his discovery. The thought of all this is, that, in order to deal successfully with the enemies of human life and health, they are in great need of all the facts that can be had; that, when all these facts are revealed, the healing art will be perfected. It is not to be denied that there are theorizers in medicine as well as in theology, but it remains true that Medical Science presumes, at least, on the induction of facts, and by their light the men of healing are guided. Of course, every year they are discovering that some of the former decisions were not correct; but this is the method by which facts are finally reached.

      (d) The things already said of law and medicine may be truly said of political economy, history, or any other science or study that engages the attention of man. Facts alone are supposed to guide men in forming their conclusions. Speculators there may be, but the science of investigation in any of these departments of thought, is supposed to be conducted in the light of the inductive method. When our historians gathered up the accounts of the last war, they did it that the whole truth might appear. In doing so, they found that many things which had been reported and had been believed by very intelligent men, were not true. During the war it would almost have been impossible for any historian to have written correctly of any battle. All the facts could not at that time be ascertained. Hence they had to wait patiently till they could be gathered and compiled, and a history, true to the facts, given to the people.

      (e) The Bible recognizes the correctness of this method.--When Jesus appeared to the two disciples as they went [89] into the country, he expounded to them all things found in the law and the prophets concerning himself, (Luke 24). He thus introduced all the facts from that divine source that would bear upon their minds, that they might understand the truth. When the apostles met with the elders and the whole church at Jerusalem, to consider the question of admitting the Gentiles into the church without circumcision or keeping the law, they first heard the testimony of Peter respecting the work of the Lord by him among the Gentiles, at the house of Cornelius. Afterwards they gave attention to Paul and Barnabas, while they recounted the things which the Lord had done by their hands during the missionary journey which had just closed. After this, James makes a speech to them reminding them of another witness which they had overlooked--the testimony of one of their prophets (Amos ix. 11, 12). Now, when all these facts were introduced, there was but one conclusion possible for them, which was that the Gentiles were under no such obligations as those Judaizing teachers had affirmed. When Moses wished to prepare Israel to go over into the land of Canaan, and inherit it according to the promise of the Lord, he made them three speeches, which constitute nearly the whole book of Deuteronomy. In these speeches he brings before their minds nearly all their history, with all the obligations that rested upon them to keep the commandments of the Lord. He does this, that they may have all the facts in the case before them, that they may be guided thereby. When Philip would convince the Ethiopian nobleman that Jesus was the Christ, and the only way of salvation, he began at the same Scripture which the man was then reading, and preached to him Jesus. [90] Now, what he did was to make him understand the testimony of the Lord respecting His Son. Fact after fact was in that way presented to his mind, till he became convinced, and asked for admission into the service of the Son of God. Nothing more respecting the Scripture method need be said, for it is everywhere apparent that when the Lord would conduct an investigation on any subject, He did it by the inductive method. When the devil wished to gain a point, he did it by quoting a text for its sound. When the Jewish rulers condemned the Saviour, they affirmed well but proved nothing.

      (6.) Inference may be used legitimately in the ascertainment of facts, and also in the conclusions reached from them.--Many do not seem to know what an inference is; they speak of it as if it were a kind of guess, and therefore never to be used either in induction or deduction. The truth is, it is the logical effort to know the facts in the case, and to ascertain the facts from phenomena. Certain things seem to have been done; were they done or not? may require the best effort of the mind to determine. This is done by associating the whole number of things which are known, and reaching conclusions, in a logical way, as to what else was done or said at the time, or in connection therewith. A few illustrations will help us to know the place of legitimate inference.

      (a) Abraham went down from Canaan into Egypt; when he came out from that country Lot returned with him. Though it is not said that Lot went into Egypt with him, we infer it. They had journeyed from Haran together; the same wants were common to them both; they remained together for some time afterwards; hence, though we did not see them going together into that country, the mind naturally infers that they did. And [91] we are about as certain of this fact as we are that Abraham went there.

      (b) There were four kings who came from the east and fell upon the kings of the plain of the Jordan, and overcame them, and took away much goods. Abraham took his trained men, and, joining with his friends, followed the returning victors and overcame them, and returned, not only with the spoil, but with the family of Lot and the women. Here are persons said to be brought back, that have had no mention as being among the captured, but we infer that they were captured. And we are just as certain of that fact as we are of the facts that have been recorded.

      (c) If we read in the book of Joshua that the conquering army of Israel did to certain kings just what they did to the king of Jericho, and we learn that they hanged those kings, though nothing be said about what they did to the king of Jericho at the time they took that city, yet we infer that they banged him. We have the necessary premises, and can not reach any other conclusion.

      (7.) Things assumed in the Bible are to be regarded the same as those which have been stated. In the first verse of the Bible it is said that "in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." It is not stated in this verse that God existed; that he had the wisdom and power to accomplish this work; but it is assumed, and, being assumed, no interpreter has the right to call it in question. Of course great caution should be had in the use of this rule, that we may not at any time be mistaken as to what has been assumed. Anything that God takes for granted is true; hence, anything which [92] He has assumed or taken for granted, we are bound to regard as true. Illustrations:

      (a) God has everywhere treated man as if he could repent.--(1) He has nowhere said that man could not repent. (2) He has commanded all men everywhere to repent. Here our ideas of divine knowledge and justice come in to help us in the solution of the case in hand. We say that God knew whether man could repent or not; that He would not have required man to repent if it had not been possible for him to do so. With all this in the mind when we hear an apostle: saying that He has commanded all men everywhere to repent, it is assumed that all men can repent, and that if they do not, the fault is their own; and if they are damned, they will have no one to blame but themselves.

      (b) An honest heart is necessary to the reception of the truth.--It is never stated in so many words. And yet every attentive reader of the Scriptures recognizes the correctness of the statement at once. When the "sower went forth to sow," the seed must have found soil congenial, or there would have been no results whatever. And that which brought forth the thirty, sixty and a hundredfold, referred to those who received the word in a good and honest heart. The result of this condition of mind is seen in the difference between the people of Thessalonica and they of Berea, who "received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures daily, to see if these things were so." Therefore, many of them believed. On the day of Pentecost, those who "heard the word gladly," obeyed the requirement of the Holy Spirit made known by the apostle Peter. The honest-hearted Cornelius was in the right condition to receive the pure gospel of the grace of God. His good and [93] honest heart was the right kind of soil in which to sow the divine seed, and from which there was an immediate and very large yield.

      (c) Man's general wants are assumed.--When God provides for man a teacher, sending the revelator before him to mate known to hire his duty, it is not thought to be necessary to announce that man is ignorant and needs an instructor. God's treatment of His creatures is sufficient for that. When a sacrifice was required it was not preannounced that man was a sinner, and that for the sin he had committed his right to live had been forfeited, and that God would accept of a substitute. His treatment of men carried that thought, and the lesson was taught in that way as effectively as it could have been done by the use of words. God does not stop to inform man that he is weak and wayward, that he is in need of a government to control and protect him. It would be a waste of time. He simply gives him that government and protection, and furnishes the necessary instruction respecting man's condition by the things He does for him.

      And yet the wants of the world are known just as well in this way as if Jehovah had written a systematic theology on the subject. It does not seem to be known that God can teach in any other way than that which men have employed to get their theologies before the minds of their fellows. The truth which God acts is just as valuable as that which He has revealed in any other way.

      (8.) When a result is spoken of which is commonly attributed to several causes, though, in mentioning the result, at a given time, no cause should be assigned: they are understood. to be present.--It has first been determined that these causes are necessary to the result, hence if they had [94] not been present the result would not have been reached. Since, then, their presence is necessary to the result, and the result has been reached, it follows beyond question that the causes were present. So with a part of these causes. If we find the result, and yet one or two of the causes are not mentioned, it is taken for granted that. they were present. They have been associated with the result as causes, and, though not mentioned in a given case, we assume that these unmentioned causes were present.

      (9.) Religious truth may be gathered from approved precedent.--We learn from the authorized conduct of the children of God. If we can first be assured that what is done is approved, we can know certainly what we are at liberty to do under similar circumstances. Indeed, if the conduct. has been directed by men under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, we learn from the example what we ought to do. If the Scriptures are to be our guide from earth to heaven, then to be religiously right we must be scripturally right. Or the statement may be made stronger in this way: no one can be religiously right and scripturally wrong at the same time. Or, again: no one can be religiously wrong while lie is scripturally right. Now, if the will of God has undergone no change since the New Covenant was completed, what was His will then is His will yet. And if those men did that will, and we do the same now, we will be accomplishing His pleasure.

      But there is need of caution.--(1.) Because a man has been inspired for a given work or a single message, it does not follow that he is always under the direction of such wisdom. When Elijah directed the contest on the top of Carmel, and when he saw the plentiful rain in the little [95] cloud, hanging over the Mediterranean, he was inspired. But when he was frightened at the threat of Jezebel, and fled to the Mount of God in the wilderness of Sinai, he acted on his own motion, for God does not approve of his course. When Peter spoke on the day of Pentecost, he did so as he was moved upon by the Holy Spirit, and when he went to the house of Cornelius and gave to them the way of salvation, his way and his speech were directed by the Lord. But when he went down from Jerusalem to Antioch, and ate with Gentiles till "certain came from James," and then withdrew from Gentile associations, he was doing things Peter's way. Paul afterwards, writing by the inspiration of the Lord, says that he withstood Peter to the face, for he was to be blamed (Gal, ii.11-14). (2.) We must also he careful not to confound mere incidents or accidents with the approved precedents. The disciples met together in an upper room in Jerusalem, and so they did at Troas, but that does not make it binding on the disciples of to-day to meet in upper rooms. These were accidents or conveniences. And to elevate them into divinely appointed rules for the service of the Lord, would be to miss the purpose of the record altogether. The Master took all his journeys on foot, but it does not follow that we are only at liberty to travel in that way. (3.) There are things which they did not do, yet which it would be perfectly right for us to do. But they belong to the same class. There are matters of propriety that would, under some circumstances, render some things improper, and, though there would be no harm in the act itself, yet, owing to the surroundings, it would not be well to do them. Customs being entirely different in another place or at another time, these very things may be well enough. [96] The apostles built no church-houses or colleges, but this is not proof that the existence of these things is offensive to God. These things, too, they could have done, but they did not choose to do them. They were busily engaged in other work, which, for the time, was of more importance.

      But the question recurs, How shall we determine what is an approved precedent? How shall we be able to separate the many things done in the times of the apostles which are merely incidental, from those that were meant for our benefit, that we may know what to do? (1.) Those actions performed by the apostles or other disciples in their day, which have a divine approval, or, if done by an apostle, nothing has been said by inspiration in opposition thereto. (2.) Customs of the Church under the eye and sanction of apostles. For if, in an unguarded moment, an apostle should turn aside, he would not continue in that condition. And if it could be possible for one apostle to continue to err in his public character, it would not be so with all of them. A general custom is established in harmony with that which is allowed, taught, approved by the many. If we shall find the whole church engaged in a common custom in religious service, no matter how we may come to that intelligence, if we can certainly know that such was the custom everywhere among the disciples in the days of the apostles, such practice will show certainly what was the will of God.

      (10.) To know the meaning of any statement, we should know what the author was trying to say.--The purpose before his mind will be a safe guide before the mind of the investigator in gathering the facts to put to record. [97] We know intuitively that no man should be made to say what he does not intend to say.

      (11.) In searching for causes, that upon which all facts agree is the cause, or one of the causes.--If any known fact denies that it was one of the causes, then it must be dismissed from such a responsible position. On the other hand, if any fact claims it as a cause, then it must be so enrolled. As there can be no opposing facts, we may experience a little difficulty in deciding between two supposed facts, one claiming it as a cause and the other denying it such an honorable place. In that case, we must continue to search till the mistake is discovered, then introduce the triumphant fact and listen to its decision. If it shall enroll any thing or act as a cause, it must be so regarded till there shall be some dispute, there being found some other fact, or supposed fact, which denies the conclusions already reached. When such questions arise, we are required to pass through the investigation again, and satisfy our minds as before.

      (12.) We are not to reject a cause for the want of philosophical probability, when miracle is declared or assumed to be present.--When Israel was called out of Egypt, many things were commanded which philosophy would never have suggested. No one could have seen why they should sprinkle the blood of the lamb on the lintel of the door and the two door posts. Philosophy would have said: The angel now knows whether the inmates are Hebrews or not; and, knowing that, they are as safe without the blood as with it. When they came to cross the sea, Moses was told to stretch out the rod over the sea, and that its waters would divide. Philosophy would have said: There is nothing in such an act to bring the desired result. When they thirsted for fresh water in the [98] wilderness, and Moses was told to go and smite the rock, or, as afterwards, to speak to the rock, philosophy would have seen no connection between the act commanded and the water that was promised. Afterwards, when they were in the land of Canaan, they were told how to take Jericho; to march around it once every day for six days, and then on the seventh day to march around it seven times; and as they marched they were to blow on trumpets made of ram's horns, and, on completing the last round, they were to give a long, loud blast and a great shout. And the promise was that the wall of the city should fall, and they were to go up into the city, each from the point where he might happen to be. But if philosophy or military skill had directed the matter, the plan would have been different. We find a man from Syria, Captain Naaman, who was told by the prophet of the Lord to go and wash himself seven times in the river Jordan, in order that he might be cleansed from leprosy. At first he was insulted at the thought; but, when his servant reasoned with him, lie did what Elisha told him, and was healed.

      We must remember, when we come to religious truth, that God is its author, and that it is His place to say what are to be the conditions of the reception of any grace or blessing. Our philosophies may be good in some things, but in the religion of the Bible they amount to but little. "The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: the things that are revealed belong unto us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law." This is the manner of God's legislation. He has not asked the counsel of the wisest of His people, but held all authority in His own hands, and has, at all times, said what should and what should not be law. [99] One single fact of divine statement must settle any controversy on which it speaks.

      (13.) Contrary or negative facts may be used in the establishment of truth.--"He that believeth not shall be damned," is sufficient to show that faith is at least one of the conditions of pardon. Like this is the statement of the Master: "If ye believe not, ye shall die in your sins, and where I am ye can not come." This would have the same bearing. "Ye believe not, because ye can not hear my words," would be just like saying that hearing His word was one of the conditions of becoming a believer. "Ye believe not because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you." His sheep heard His voice and followed Him. Hence, if they had listened to His teachings, and been in the company of those who followed Him, they too would have been believers. "For except ye repent ye shall all likewise perish." This is equal to saying "those who repent not shall perish." This is the negative form of saying that repentance is one of the conditions of salvation. We read of some who "rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of John." This is saying in substance that if they had been baptized of John they would not have rejected the counsel of God against themselves. Hence we have it stated in this negative way that John's baptism was the counsel of God, or, at least, a part of it. "No man can come to me except the Father who sent me draw him, and I will raise him up at the last day." This is a plain declaration that those who were drawn of the Father could come to Him. This is carried out by the Saviour as He continues: "It is written in the prophets, and they shall be all taught of God; every man therefore that hath beard and hath learned of the Father cometh unto me." [100] So in this negative way we have opened to us the manner in which sinners could come to Christ, being drawn to Him by the truth of God, by having heard and having learned of the Father. When Jesus was approached by Nicodemus, who seemed to want to be admitted as a disciple without endangering his standing among his people, the Master told him that except a man be born again he could not see the kingdom of God. No teaching could be plainer to this Senator, that, though there might be other conditions of seeing the kingdom of God, beyond all question being born again was one of the conditions. And though he tried to break the force of the statement by his question, "How can a man be born when he is old?" he finds no way of escape, as the Lord turns upon him with the "Verily, verily, I say unto you except a man be born of water and the Spirit, he can not enter into the kingdom of God." This is as emphatic as language could make it, and leaves no doubt respecting the requirement that men shall be born of water and the Spirit, in order to enter the kingdom of God. We might continue this form of affirmation till we should find every duty marked out in this way, both as to the manner of becoming Christians and also as to how to live the Christian life. Indeed, the negative form of the statement is frequently used as a means of emphasis.

      A wrong use of this principle is sometimes made by finding a negative, and arguing therefrom that no other quality or deed is demanded for a given purpose except the one implied in the one statement. To illustrate: it is said that "without faith it is impossible to please God:" from this it is contended that if faith is present, the possessor will please God. Nothing else is regarded as a necessity in order to please Him, simply because it [101] is not referred to in the passage. This is the same blunder that takes it for granted, from an affirmative statement, that only the one thing there mentioned can be requisite to the desired blessing; that if it were any part of the cause, it would have been mentioned in that one text. This is not a weakness of this feature of the inductive method, but a mistake in its use. When a truth is taught by the use of the negative, it is the same as if that truth were taught by the use of a direct statement. All that can be found in it is that the cause named is necessary to the result; but it does not follow that it is the only cause. We are at liberty to pray, "give us this day our daily bread;" but if we shall depend upon prayer alone for bread, we shall go hungry. While we should pray for food, there are other conditions by which it shall be acquired-finding, then, that any act is for a certain end, is not finding that it is the only thing necessary to that purpose.

      (14.) Causes will frequently become obvious by arranging the facts in the order of intensity.

      a. Illustrations of this rule.--Physicians sometimes are enabled to diagnose the case by the use of medicine. A small dose of medicine has a given result. The same remedy is increased, and the effect is increased; this is repeated several times, and the conclusion is fairly reached that a certain medicine has a certain result. And, as a certain condition of the system would be necessary in order that that medicine should have that result, the condition is determined upon, and the patient treated accordingly.

      Any physician or scientist, finding that the increase of any chemical increased a certain result, would decide at [102] once that such result was produced, at least in part, by that act, chemical, or medicine, as the case might be.

      b. If we find in the Scriptures that with the increase of testimony faith becomes stronger, we at once reach the conclusion that faith comes by the medium of testimony. If we find in Christian experience that just as the members of the Church increase their faithfulness in the worship, on the Lord's day, their uprightness and integrity is made to grow, every one reasons from cause to effect, and from the effect back to the cause.

      c. On the other hand, if we find that as people have been deprived of the word of God, their faith becomes weak, we leer n by a negative rule that faith comes by the word of God. If, among the heathen, who have never heard of our Saviour, there are none who believe in Him, we conclude that, without this word, it is impossible to constitute people believers in Christ.

      d. A caution is needed.--We may increase the testimony and not increase the faith, for there may be modifying causes that will remove all disposition to believe, or that will turn away the people from hearing the word of the Lord. Hence, when we are looking fog causes by arranging the facts in the order of intensity, we must be sure that there are no modifying forces; at least, that there are no more of them than there were before increasing the supposed power.

      (15.) A particular fact can not be learned from a general statement, when other than the cause mentioned might have produced the result.--If it is ascertained that a gentleman went to the city on a certain day, the fact that he went does not establish the manner of his going, for there are more ways than one by which he might have gone. [103] A murder having been committed, no one man is to be hanged merely from that fact. Indeed, if it should be known that it must have been committed by one of two men, neither one is convicted by the general fact of murder, for it might have been done by the other.

      In the case of the conversion of Lydia (Acts xvi. 13-15), it is said that "the Lord opened her heart, that she attended to the things spoken of Paul." It is easy to jump to the conclusion that this opening of the heart of that woman was by a miracle, for it might have been done in that way. But we are not at liberty to reason so hastily. We must ask, Could her heart have been opened in any other way? And if it shall be determined that her heart could be opened by natural means, and that such force was present, it is not reasonable to conclude that the result was reached by a cause that was not necessary and that was not known to have been present. If the preaching of the word had been found to be sufficient to open the hearts of other men and women, so that they would accept the gospel of Christ and obey its requirements, and that power was present, then there is no reason for the supposition that the abstract power was present, or that it bad anything to do with the opening of the heart of that pious Jewish woman. Again, should it be argued that the word attend means to consider, give attention to, it will be in order to ask, Is that is necessary import? And if it is found to mean to do the things spoken of, then no more will be found in the passage than that, hearing the gospel of Christ from this messenger of the Lord, her heart was so enlarged that she was ready at once to accept of Christ in all His demands.

      This rule, however, does not interfere with the effort [104] to find the meaning the word may have in any particular occurrence. This is a lawful and just procedure. All we notice in this place is the error of reasoning from a general statement to a particular conclusion. [105]

[HATB 48-105]