THE science of Biblical Interpretation may be superficially judged of, either by the amount and variety of labor and learning which have been devoted in bringing it to perfection, or by the effects it has produced. In the one case we should probably conclude that nothing, in the other that everything, remained to be done. But if we look into the science itself, and carefully weigh the principles it has brought to light, and compare them with the results that have followed their application, we shall arrive at a conclusion neither altogether favorable nor wholly unfavorable to its merits. We shall conclude that the science contains many excellent Principles, and has laid down many valuable laws, but that it is wholly wanting in the establishment of an all-comprehensive and pervading method which alone can properly apply those principles, and determine where and when to enforce those laws; and hence, that good rules have been improperly used, neglected, or violated, for want of a presiding and predominant power to direct and govern their employment. Every interpreter has pursued his own method, and has called in the aid of such hermeneutical principles only as that method required. Hence, if those labors were multiplied a thousandfold, and were all to be confined, as they have hitherto been, to the axioms and rules of exegesis, the same results would continue to follow. [25]

      The distinction between the province of method and that of rules we deem of sufficient importance to have a separate chapter devoted to its illustration; in this place, therefore, we can be better occupied in showing that the discrepancies which exist are really traceable to the perversity of the methods which obtain.

      And in the first place, let us inquire, what aids do we now possess in coming to a consistent and true understanding of the sense of Scripture? Let us cast in our minds the number and transcendent ability of the Commentaries, Notes, Scholia, Paraphrases, Rules of Interpretation, Keys to the Bible, Introductions, to the Scriptures, Sacred Hermeneutics, Principles of Exegesis, Sacred Geographies, Bible Dictionaries, Biblical Antiquities, et cætera ad infinitum,--and we pause and ask ourselves whether anything of value can be added to labors so abundant and learning so various and profound? The question is pertinent and forcible. And certainly it were the height of immodesty to attempt to rival, to undervalue, or to set aside such able and invaluable productions. The author has no such chimerical purpose, and no such unworthy desire. But he cannot conceal from himself the fact that these works have failed to render Hermeneutics what it ought to be--a science, in the true acceptation of the word. He cannot ignore the fact that they have failed to accomplish what should have been, and what doubtless was, the ultimate object of their production, and that, consequently, our interpretations are characterized by as much discrepancy and uncertainty now as before their publication. [26]

      Subjects of the highest practical moment, are still in controversy. Earnest and studious Christians are still arrayed in opposition to each other. The membership of one church are conscientiously debarred from the communion-table of another; while the serious preaching from one pulpit is seriously contradicted by that from another. Men equally distinguished for learning and piety take opposite views of the same passage, and are taught irreconcilable doctrines from the same page. But we shall be told by some one who is satisfied and even pleased with this state of things, that the points concerning which differences exist are all of secondary importance--the mere drapery of Christianity; and that our exegetical science has proved abundantly equal to the settlement of all the weightier matters. But does he reflect that, in this statement, he charges the whole Protestant world with the guilt of making or perpetuating divisions in the body of Christ upon trifling considerations? Whereas, if his statement be false, a large majority of Protestants must be in error on subjects that are of vital moment. But it must be either true or false; and, therefore, divided Protestants must be either guilty of schism, or a majority of them have mistaken falsehood for truth. They are either involved in a malignant sin, or they are in imminent danger. For one, we believe that the points of disagreement are, many of them, of the greatest importance. All Divine truth is important, and all radical misapprehension of it to be deprecated; but when the subject of it pertains directly to the matter of our salvation--to the divinity or non-divinity of the Author of [27] it; to the terms of accepting and enjoying it; and to the daily and weekly worship and service superinduced by it,--we can hardly think a Christian man serious who calls this the "drapery of Christianity." Does not the earnestness and pertinacity with which the dispute is carried on demonstrate the importance that is attached to it? Does not every man feel that his position cannot be yielded without his suffering the loss of valuable truth? He may regret the condition in which he finds the Church, and may labor to correct it; but we are slow to learn that our divisions are not healed by singing hosannas to union once a year in our Tract Societies, or by laying aside for a week our peculiarities in order to have a union revival. Nor will the evil ever be corrected by the dignified assemblies and powerless resolves of Evangelical Alliances, or Young Men's Christian Associations. Sincere convictions cannot be corrected by a vote, nor made to yield to a resolution, nor be sacrificed to a love of union. The cause of our differences must be ascertained and removed, and then the evil will correct itself.

      This cause we have attributed to the insufficiency of our exegetical science.

      But is our science alone at fault? May not the discrepancies in our interpretations be accounted for by reference to the peculiar character of the Bible itself, or the moral obliquity of those who consult it? In reply, we submit, that when different interpretations exist, as they now do, respecting the practical details of Christianity,--its laws, ordinances, membership, officers, and order, together [28] with the great Foundation upon which all profess to stand, they can only be accounted for upon one of the following hypotheses:--

      1. Those who profess to draw their conclusions from the Bible are dishonest; or

      2. The Bible itself is unintelligible; or

      3. It teaches the contradictions which are professedly drawn from it; or 4. It is not interpreted according to the proper Method.

      We will glance at each of these suppositions:--

      First. That those who consult the Bible are dishonest, or insincere, considered as a whole, is the last assumption that reason could admit or charity approve. The hypothesis, indeed, is clearly incompatible with well-known facts. Those who differ on the above subjects are, for the most part, men whose whole lives have been but a series of noble and generous deeds and self-sacrificing devotion; men characterized by the strongest faith, the most ardent love, and unaffected piety. Certainly, if any satisfactory evidence can be given of honesty and sincerity, it is furnished by those who suspend their own eternal interests, and those of their families and friends, upon the correctness of their faith and practice. Exceptions there may be, and doubtless are--men pervaded by that wide-spread skepticism we have pointed out, who, having no faith in any system, profess that one which is most pregnant with worldly promise; but these only prove the correctness of the general rule. The first hypothesis, therefore, will not serve to account for the disagreements complained of. [29]

      Second, The second is, that the Bible itself is unintelligible. But, then, why study it at all? Why ever contend for its meaning? Why ever feel confident in a position? According to this supposition it is all a transparent farce. It is neither a revelation, nor a safe directory. Its meaning, if it have a meaning, is placed upon a par with the ambiguous oracles of Delphi, and we are never less profitably or less wisely employed than when seeking to understand it.--But it is a revelation. Its very nature and design is to unfold and make known. It is declared to be able to make us "wise unto salvation," which it can only do by being understood. We should expect that a Being of infinite wisdom and goodness would, in giving directions to his creatures how safely to prosecute the journey of life, make those directions what they are declared to be, so plain that the wayfaring man, though a simpleton, need not err in them. The Bible, then, at least in so far as its practical parts are concerned--those upon which we all so widely differ--admits of being understood, and if it is not, the reason must be sought in some other quarter than its native obscurities.

      Third. That it teaches those contradictory and irreconcilable doctrines that are greeting our ears and our eyes from all the pulpits and presses in Christendom, is what no Christian believes and no infidel can prove. But if it cannot and does not teach contradictory doctrines, it follows that those which obtain in religious society cannot be drawn from it by any sound principles of exegesis.

      It is admitted, then, we may now safely conclude, that [30] men of great mental capacity and power do honestly and sincerely differ in their interpretation of the Bible, and take opposite ground respecting its teaching; on subjects, too, which are eminently practical and transcendently important; and this, when every consideration of reason, its own express declarations, and the character of Him who is revealed as its author, concur in bearing testimony that there is no contradiction in its doctrine, and that no one need mistake its meaning. There remains, therefore, but one other hypothesis, viz.:--

      Fourth. It is not interpreted according to the proper Method.

      The language a living writer¹ applies to Lord Bacon is singularly applicable here: "He attacked the ancient philosophy without having thoroughly understood it; he attacked it, because he saw that a method which conducted great intelligences to such absurd conclusions as those then in vogue, must necessarily be false." And the distinguished author of the Organum himself asks:--

      "Whence can arise such vagueness and sterility in all the physical systems which have hitherto existed in the world? It is not certainly from anything in nature itself; for the steadiness and regularity of the laws by which it is governed clearly mark them out as objects of precise and certain knowledge. Neither can it arise from any want of ability in those who have pursued such inquiries, many of whom have been men of the highest talent and [31] genius of the ages in which they lived; it can, therefore, arise from nothing else but the perverseness and insufficiency of the METHODS which have been pursued!"

      This language, mutatis mutandis, we repeat as our own conclusion from the premises and arguments which have gone before.

      Whence can arise such vagueness and sterility in the religious systems which have hitherto existed in the world? It is not certainly from anything in the Book of Scripture itself,' the very nature of which indicates that its laws must be objects of precise and certain knowledge. Neither can it arise from any want of ability in those who have pursued such inquiries, many of whom have been men of the highest talent and genius of the ages in which they lived; it can, therefore, arise from nothing else but the perverseness and insufficiency of the METHODS which have been pursued.

      Protestantism expressly recognizes the Bible as the only rule of faith and directory of conduct. Thus far it leaped in the beginning; but here it paused, and transmitted to the Protestants of our age the responsible duty of determining the means of its successful investigation; of ascertaining that method of interpretation which will enable individuals, not to choose their own faith, and mark out their own course of conduct--(for we have a Rule of faith and life)--nor yet to bind themselves to the dogmas or fetter themselves by the rules of a self-styled orthodoxy, but to ascertain with certainty what is the faith and what the requirements taught in the Bible. Hitherto this [32] important work has not been accomplished. And, until it be, it is most evident that the formidable evils existing in, and growing out of, disunion and partyism--evils which have never perhaps been appreciated in all their magnitude and influence--cannot be removed. Until then, skepticism must revel and destroy, beyond the reach of argument or the hope of correction. Until then, church will be arrayed against church, and Christian against Christian; doubt will be mingled with faith, and a hesitating uncertainty exert its congealing influence upon both individual and associated effort.

      From the whole premises we conclude that, notwithstanding the time, labor, and learning which have been devoted to it, the science of Biblical Interpretation is still wanting in some powerful and essential element; or else, that it embraces in itself incongruous and countervailing principles of sufficient potency to neutralize its influence. In either case we feel justified in making an attempt, however humble, to discover and remove the cause of its inefficiency; while we seek to find a Method that will furnish the diligent and earnest student with more satisfactory assurances that he has acquired the real sense of the Holy Bible--which sense alone is Divine Truth. [33]

[TOOS 25-33]