WHEN it is considered that so large a portion of Holy Writ is in typical, allegorical, parabolical, and metaphorical language, it will be perceived that, if the principles of the Mystic Method may be employed in the interpretation of such texts, we have effected very little comparatively, when we have rescued the remainder of revelation from such perversion. But we trust that we shall be able to show that these Scriptures are susceptible of an interpretation as perfectly accordant with the sober judgment of common sense, and as completely independent of the rhapsodies of self-styled "illumination," as the plain and unadorned declarations of the most literal texts.

      We have sought to steer clear of the Scylla,--we must now be on our guard against the Charybdis of interpretation. For while to interpret a literal text upon Mystic principles is to destroy the force and meaning of that text, [101] the opposite error, which interprets figurative language in its literal sense alone, gives the high sanction of the Bible to propositions at once the most absurd and monstrous. It hence becomes necessary, in the first place, to determine with all possible accuracy what texts are figurative; afterwards we shall attempt to establish the principles of their interpretation. How, then, shall we know what language is figurative?

      Perhaps the best general rule that could be given in answer to this question, is, that this is to be determined just as we determine the same thing in any other book. Whatever rules and guides we have in ascertaining this matter in Homer or Plato, in Cicero or Virgil, in the Spectator, the Novum Organum, or Paradise Lost,--the same will direct us in the Bible. In reading these works we have in our minds the definition of the various figures of speech employed in human language--(all of which are in the Bible)-- and we observe the context, the subject-matter, the scope or design, and all the circumstances of a given passage, in the light of these definitions, and seldom find the least difficulty in determining when a passage is figurative, or what particular figure is employed--whether irony, simile, metaphor, synecdoche, or what. This rule we should think, therefore, would be altogether sufficient in the Bible; but in addition to it we will offer some specifications.

      "The literal meaning of words is to be given up," says Horne, "if it be either improper, or involve an impossibility, or where words, properly taken, contain anything [102] contrary to the doctrinal or moral precepts delivered in other parts of Scripture."¹ He also lays down the proposition, "That whatever is repugnant to natural reason cannot be the true meaning of the Scriptures; for God is the original of natural truth as well as of that which comes by particular revelation." To these specifications we may add the numerous Scriptures which are declared to be parables, types, or allegories, and the fact that all general laws are in plain and literal language--as the ten commandments, for example, or the new commandment--though directions to particular individuals, however general in their application, may be in figurative language, as, " Let your light shine." From all which we may deduce this brief, but plain and comprehensive rule:--

      That all Scriptures are to be regarded as figurative which are either declared to be such, or which, the various attending circumstances show to be such, or which, when taken literally, contravene any general precept, or are contrary to evident reason and the nature of things.

      There is, we think, no instance of figurative language that does not come under some clause of this rule; and hence we can readily determine by it whether any given text is figurative or literal. We have but to consider, for example, whether anything in the context or elsewhere declares it to be figurative; if not, we may then inquire whether the literal meaning is absurd, or contrary to evident reason, when viewed in the light of its [103] subject-matter and all the circumstances; and if this, too, be answered in the negative, we ask whether it contravenes any general precept; and finally, we consider whether all the circumstances require us to class it under some one of the various figures of speech defined in oar grammars and other elementary works. In thousands of instances we shall be constrained to answer some one of these questions in the affirmative, and thus to pronounce the text figurative. In all other cases we shall conclude that it is literal, and, therefore, that its meaning is to be reached in the way already pointed out.

      It now only remains, having settled the rule for determining what Scriptures are figurative, for us to answer the second demand in this investigation, viz.: How is the sense of such passages to be acquired? And we deem it particularly important to place this matter in the clearest possible light, from the fact that men are so prone to give play to their imaginations in expounding this class of Scriptures. The rule of Irenæus, for the interpretation of parables, may well be extended to all language in which the same principle is involved.

      "Parables," he says, "cannot in any case be made the original or the exclusive foundations of any doctrine, but must be themselves interpreted according to the analogy of faith;² since, if every subtle solution of one of these might raise itself at once to the dignity and authority of a [104] Christian doctrine, the rule of faith would be nowhere."³ To the same effect speaks Tertullian: "We are kept within limits in the exposition of the parables, accepting as we do the other Scriptures as the rule to us of truth, as the rule, therefore, of their interpretation."⁴

      The correctness and necessity of this canon are evident the moment it is presented to the mind. For, if any doctrine be allowed to rest exclusively upon such "subtle solution," there is an end to all certainty, but no end to argument, and controversy, and false doctrines. But to say, as we must, that no doctrine is to be founded exclusively upon a solution of such Scriptures, is equivalent to saying that no such doctrine is true. For certainly it is our duty to receive and to inculcate all true doctrine; but as we cannot receive these subtle solutions for doctrines, we admit that they are not true, or, if true, that they cannot possibly be known to be so, and hence to believe them would be to have faith in the interpreter, and not in the word of God. All doctrinal truth,⁵ therefore, is taught in literal and plain language. Every particular embraced in the faith that saves the soul, and every duty which our Heavenly Father enjoins in connection with that faith, while they may be exhibited in a variety of the most beautiful images, and clothed with all the exuberance of Oriental metaphor, are also taught in language clear and level to the meanest capacity. [105] Now faith and obedience embrace in their ample significance the whole of religion. Our pardon, peace, enjoyment, and hope in this world--and our glory, honor, and immortality in the next, are, in one sense, dependent upon and secured by them. Surely, then, if we can be right in the particulars, all things else may well and safely be made matters of mutual forbearance. If so, we begin immediately to approach a point from which we can all see eye to eye.

      From the premises before us it follows that parables and figures do not, as such, teach new truth; they illustrate the truth elsewhere taught without a figure--either in the immediate context, or in some other portion of the Bible. This being so, the rule for their interpretation follows clearly and necessarily, viz.: Figurative language must always be interpreted by literal, or in harmony with the doctrine of non-figurative Scripture.

      Says Dean Trench: "From the literal to the figurative, from the clearer to the more obscure, has ever been recognized as the law of Scripture interpretation." The "other Scriptures," says Tertullian, are "the rule to us of truth," and, therefore, the "rule for interpreting" parables and figures.

      The rule we have laid down above, instead of erecting a standard outside of the Bible, as Origen and others did, to which the figurative language of Scripture was adjusted, finds the standard in the Bible itself--thus allowing the Holy Spirit to be his own interpreter. The literal Scriptures, therefore, are the touchstone of all sound interpretation. [106]

      We have thus brought out, one by one, principles of hermeneutics, which, unless we have greatly mistaken their force, it will be difficult to over-estimate; particularly if they are viewed in connection with the controversies which a disregard of them has perpetuated in the church. For, if literal Scriptures teach that and only that which their words fairly import or necessarily imply, when construed in the light of all the modifying circumstances, they must teach the same thing to every man of common sense who thus construes them; and if all other Scriptures are to be interpreted by these, they, of course, could never be the occasion of important disagreement; because, upon these principles, they can never be quoted or relied upon in controversy, except as confirmations or illustrations of literal truth. Hence, when these principles are generally allowed and practically observed by the intelligent of all parties, as sooner or later they must be, the first result will be to confine controversy to the ground covered by the literal texts; and, as the principles for their interpretation are so plain and simple, when viewed apart from the perverting influence of the "subtle solution" of figurative language, that it will be next to impossible to mistake their sense, a second result will ultimately follow, namely, agreement as to their meaning; and this, as we have seen, will lead directly to agreement as to the meaning of those other texts which are to be interpreted by these.

      A beautiful passage is quoted from Anselm by Dean Trench, "on the futility of using as primary arguments what indeed can but serve as graceful confirmation of truths [107] already on other grounds received and believed;" and he adds: "It is a recognized axiom, Theologia parabolica non est argumentativa. And again, Ex solo sensu litterali peti possunt argumenta efficacia." These principles are indeed founded upon the sure basis of reason and the nature of things, and were never denied in any age of the church, except by such as divorced themselves from reason that they might court to their embraces an infatuating mysticism. They are the legitimate offspring of a calm and enlightened common sense--the lawful spouse of the intellect; and no proposition can be more evident than that their recognition and hearty adoption by all, in lieu of those mystic principles which have supplanted them, must precede the general and accurate knowledge of the truth, and the settlement of points now in controversy. Well established as we must now consider them to be, by the concurrent testimony of common sense and recognized authorities,⁶ they are the germs of an exegesis which we [108] hope to be able to develop into something like scientific form and accuracy.

      Before finally dismissing the subject, it may be well to dispose of the single objection which has been urged against the position we have taken with reference to the figurative Scriptures. It is contended that, upon our principle, those Scriptures are useless, inasmuch as we possess the whole truth without them. This will best be met by mentioning a few of the benefits derived from them notwithstanding the truth of our position.

      1. Figurative language heightens the interest of the Bible. However grand and lofty the truths it reveals, they would be read with great comparative indifference if they were dryly stated, without metaphor, simile, or illustration of any sort. In fact, it is scarcely too much to believe that if such had been its character, it would, apart from some special interposition of Providence, long since have perished from the earth, and its saving light have been extinguished by the dullness and sterility of its forbidding style.

      2. It serves as an illustration of the meaning of literal truth; it gives clearness to, and intensifies the meaning of, that which is taught without a figure. And this, notwithstanding it must itself be explained by the literal. If we [109] desired to give an untaught savage a correct idea of a steam-engine, it would not be sufficient to describe it to him, even in the most plain and unadorned language we could command; nor should we succeed better by placing an exact picture of it before him, unaccompanied by such explanation. But if we place the picture before him, and at the same time explain it, he understands the picture by means of the literal description, while the description is itself made plain by means of the picture. Only one engine is described, but it is doubly described. So in the Bible, the literal and the figurative language do not communicate distinct and different truths, but they mutually aid in filling the mind with the same great truth. Hence, while the parables and metaphors are explained in accordance with the literal truth, they intensify and extend its meaning. If all the truth revealed had been thus illustrated, we should have had in one volume two copies, as it were, of divine truth--one literal, the other figurative; the latter understood in the light of the former, and that illustrated, beautified, and rendered comprehensive by the latter.

      3. It keeps the great truths of the Bible ever before the mind. Infidels have contended that if God had given a revelation to men, he would have inscribed it upon the sun or the prominent objects of the material world. And this is just what is done. The law of gravitation is not more clearly written upon the face of a falling apple, than is the law of man's spiritual life on the clustering grapes and verdant leaves of the forest vine. The intelligent consideration of a believer sees the law in the one case as in [110] the other. Spiritual truth, in the same way, is transferred to almost everything we behold. When our eyes take in the light of the morning, or when raised to view the stars of evening, the mind may be filled with a truth, may perceive a Light and a Star which shed their beams upon the heart. And when the majestic sun dispels the shadows of night, and throws his resplendent beams over fields, and trees, and streams,--he himself, with all that he illuminates, gives a grand, a harmonious expression to heavenly, revealed, eternal truth. Thus, too, whatever we see transpiring around us, whether in the city or the country, or whatever we ourselves do from the morning till the night, almost every action is God's impressive gesticulation enforcing his word. He must be blind indeed who cannot recognize divine wisdom and benevolence in thus devising a scheme, simple as the Bible, by which the whole universe becomes vocal with eternal truth, and beaming with heavenly light!

      Such are the uses and benefits of figurative language, when it occupies the place we have assigned it; but not one of these blessings can be claimed from it upon any other ground. Hence, he who opposes the principles we have laid down, does but tell us in effect, to sacrifice all these treasures to the Moloch of party, or immolate them to the demon of fanaticism.

      If the reader has followed us through the several chapters of this second part, and carefully observed the different phases of the subject of mysticism, as we doubt not he has, [111] he is prepared, before taking a final leave of it in order to enter upon the consideration of another and perhaps more formidable evil, to pronounce an intelligent judgment upon the premises already submitted. What that judgment will be, the author will not pretend to decide; but for himself, with all his responsibilities before him, he has no hesitation in recording his conviction, that mysticism, in whatever shape or form presented, differs the breadth of the heavens from the spiritual religion of Jesus; that it has been the fruitful parent of naught but falsehood and folly; that its delusive light is but an ignis fatuus, which

      and that its methods of interpretation, while presumptuously arrogating superior penetration into truth, and sublimer conceptions of the Spirit, do, in fact, eviscerate religion of its substance, and the Bible of its meaning. [112]

[TOOS 101-112]