IN this chapter we shall present an a priori argument for the practicability of interpreting the holy Scriptures according to the principles of the inductive method. And it is hoped that this, while it relieves the mind of the suspense which it might otherwise feel, will dispose it also to a more careful examination and consideration of what follows. In other words, to use one of the beautiful figures of Bacon, we shall first "pay down the interest" on the sum of our obligations to the reader, as a means of obtaining further indulgence "until the principal shall be raised."

      God has spread out before his children two great volumes--the Book of Nature, and the Book of Revelation. In these are treasured up all the stores of wisdom and knowledge which are accessible to us in our present state. It may be true, indeed, that they are but the indexes, as it [187] were, to those vast libraries of eternity which are to interest and instruct us forever and ever, or merely the preface to the volumes which we shall hereafter study; but however this may be, they are the beginning and the end of our investigations and acquirements in this life--the primers of our childhood, and the text-books of our maturer years. We can, indeed, know nothing that is not taught either in one or in both of these wonderful productions; and hence, to these heaven-indited volumes we are to look for all truth, all wisdom, all eternal law and unchanging principle. And now the method of acquiring a knowledge of their contents is the subject of our investigations. Not that it is possible for us ever to know all the depths of the riches of the wisdom of God contained in these profound works, but that we can learn much--perhaps far more than men have hitherto acquired--even in the brief period of our earthly pilgrimage. And, surely, if anything can interest a rational man, that method which proposes to enable him to learn more, to give him a broader, deeper, juster conception of God's own truth, should command his most earnest and concentrated attention. Our proposition is, that the same method should be pursued in the interpretation of both volumes. And as we have already shown the inductive method to be that in the pursuit of which nature is correctly interpreted, if we succeed in establishing the above proposition it will be equivalent to the establishment of this one, namely, that the holy Scriptures should be interpreted according to the inductive method.

      This we argue, first, from the fact that both volumes are [188] the production of the same mind, and are analogous in their character.

      As all science rests upon the indisputable assumption that that mind is uniform in the principles of its operation, we do but contend that a particular proposition is embraced in its own universal, when we say that this uniformity extends to the Bible. At any rate, when it is admitted that the Bible is the work of the same Being that formed the universe, the presumption is in favor of our proposition, while, for the same reason, the onus probandi rests upon those who contend that this work is an anomaly in the universe. Proving this, they may, perhaps, disprove our proposition, but in doing so they will undermine all science, and leave us without a fulcrum upon which to rest any lever that could elevate us to truth. This would not, however, of itself show that both volumes should not be interpreted according to the same method, but only that the method hitherto pursued in the one depended upon a false postulate. We shall, therefore, take it for granted than the Author of the Bible was consistent with himself when he produced it; and that he acted in harmony with the uniform principles which are elsewhere and everywhere seen to have characterized his actions. But if it was written upon the same principles, it follows that it must also be interpreted upon the same. Or, if the two works are analogous in their nature, they must be also in the manner in which their truths impress themselves upon the mind.

      Let us note, then, in what respects this likeness is apparent, in so far as the subject before us is affected by it. And [189] first, they are both the record of the will and wisdom of God. In the Book of Nature, which is the first volume, written first, and always read and partially understood first,--this record is engraved upon material objects or physical facts. Looking upon these we discern the inscription, we read the law written upon each individual case; for example, that this stone which. I cast into the air, falls to the ground according to a certain definite law. But whether this is the law of all stones, or whether it is a law confined to stones, we can ascertain alone by the inductive method; by observing other stones and other objects, and tracing the law upon each one of them, variously modified, perhaps counteracted, but still plainly seen; and inferring from these numerous particulars the general law of the whole creation. If now vie open volume second, the Book of Revelation, what do we see? Precisely what we saw before, the will and wisdom of God written upon facts. Of course the facts are different, and the record upon them peculiar, but the method observed in their communication is precisely similar. We are apt, it would seem, to imagine that the truths and laws of the Bible are abstract; that they have no necessary or real connection with the facts along with which they seem to be commingled; and that they may be acquired without that attention to the facts which, in scientific pursuits, is recognized as necessary. But nothing is farther from the truth. It cannot be too emphatically repeated, nor too deeply engraved upon the heart, that the Bible is not an, abstraction, but that the comprehension of its [190] revelation of law and truth is just as dependent upon the facts it contains as a knowledge of the laws of nature upon the facts of nature. We could just as easily rise to the highest generalizations of science without the phenomena of the physical creation, as we could attain to the knowledge of spiritual truth without the phenomena of a spiritual world; without beings, that is, contemplated in their moral and spiritual aspects and relations, as so many facts upon which, as it were, those laws and truths are written. And however that necessity may be accounted for, the church has ever recognized it as a necessity, to maintain the accuracy of the Scripture facts in order to give warrant and support to its claims as a teacher of truth. And however surprised we may be when the proposition is first submitted to us, it is a truth that the whole Bible is founded upon facts--historical events, persons, and things; and that even those portions which might seem to be less dependent upon history, as the poetry and epistles, have, nevertheless, their basis on history, and derive their significance and their claims from the facts with which they are connected. The whole Bible, then, is history, and allusion to history, past, present, or to come.

      But whatever is, or has been, or shall be, is a fact; while that which conforms to, or accords with it, is truth. This being so, it follows that truth cannot be originated or formed, but, like Him whose being it describes, it is self-existent. The Bible is not the creator, but the revealer of truth. A fact is produced, and then truth springs spontaneously and immediately into being. You may change the [191] fact, but you cannot change the truth; that remains unalterable as the exponent of the fact which was, while a new truth springs into being to represent the new fact which is. Thus truth, from its very nature, must be everlasting and unchangeable: "The eternal years of God are hers."

      But again, as everything which is, or has been, or shall be, except God alone, can be traced to a cause which brought it into being as the result of an act, a deed, a factum, He alone is truth absolute, as He alone is Jehovah, I Am, Self-existent. And hence, although He is truth, He is not fact; because his existence is not predicated by Gignomai, but by Eimi; because He is not I BECOME, but I AM. But as all things else are facts, and all truth else conformity to them, it follows that truth must have facts underlying it, and must conduct the mind immediately and directly to their consideration.

      The study of spiritual truth is, therefore, the study of spiritual facts; and the word of God is their phenomena. Behold, then, how perfectly alike are the two volumes; they both exhibit--what? Facts themselves? No, but the phenomena of facts; the one, the phenomena of those which are material; the other, of those which are spiritual. In neither case are the things themselves the immediate objects of investigation, but in both we study them through the medium of the phenomena which they respectively exhibit. In both cases, these phenomena represent rules, laws, circumstances, influences, forces, connections, and dependences, which may be expressed in words; which science does so express; and which, in revelation, are already so expressed, [192] In science, then, let it never be forgotten, the observed phenomena are written down in words, and become "recorded instances." And it is from these records, from these words which express the phenomena of individuals, that the induction rises to general law. A, after careful observation and experiment, records a number of phenomena with precision and accuracy. B, without having seen what A saw, but having faith in the reliability of his record, takes it, studies it, weighs and compares its several parts and circumstances, and draws from it a conclusion, which is afterwards verified and shown to be strictly correct and according to the facts. And here we have a record of spiritual phenomena, made by the unerring hand of God, concerning facts the momentous importance of which should arouse every faculty into activity, and awaken every energy to diligence; a record in all respects analogous to that of a competent scientific observer; a record containing, like his, rules, laws, incidents, circumstances, influences, modifications, and everything necessary to enable us to rise to the clear, full, and joyful comprehension of the truth; and now does it not seem reasonable that we should--does it not seem marvelous if we should not--pursue the same method, and go up from these particular and recorded instances to general law and universal principle? True, if we thus act, we may, and in most instances we shall, find these general laws expressed for us and before us in the words of the Holy Spirit; but we shall then know that they are general; and in learning this, we shall learn what is special, what circumstantial, what limited in its application; we [193] shall perceive the exact place and the precise force of every fact, incident, circumstance, precept, doctrine, and communication; and thus learning "rightly to divide the word of truth," we shall assign every sentence to its proper place, and give to every word its legitimate force.

      To show that we are not singular in occupying the above position, it will be sufficient to quote from a few of the many distinguished authors who have also advocated it. Professor Nichol, of the Glasgow University, in the article "Bacon," in the Cyclopedia of Biography, says: "Although the advance of the physical sciences, caused by the impulse Lord Bacon communicated, has exacted for them processes more complete and perfect than his;¹ when, as to the moral sciences--as to inquiry, political, ethical, and RELIGIOUS--shall the time arrive in which inquirers shall practically recognize the validity even of the most general precepts in the Organon? The ultimate application of these precepts is sure; but humanity has not yet acquired the strength to accomplish it." All must agree with him that the ultimate application of this method is sure, for it is founded upon the eternal principles of common sense; and we venture to hope and believe that its consummation is not in the far distant future, but that the free-born sons of America and Great Britain, even in this nineteenth century, have the strength and the courage to accomplish it.

      Says Mr. Mill, System of Logic, page 174: "The logic of science is the universal logic, applicable to all inquiries in [194] which man can engage, and the test of all the conclusions at which he can arrive by inference." And again, page 187, speaking of induction per enumerationem simplicem, he says: "It was, above all, by pointing out the insufficiency of this rude and loose conception of induction, that Bacon merited the title so generally awarded to him, of Founder of the Inductive Philosophy. Although his writings contain, more or less fully developed, several of the most important principles of the inductive method, physical investigation has outgrown the Baconian conception of induction. Moral and political inquiries, indeed, are as yet far behind that conception. The current and approved modes of reasoning on these subjects are still of the same vicious description against which Bacon protested; the method almost exclusively employed by those professing to treat such matters inductively is the very inductio per enumerationem simplicem which he condemns; and the experience which we hear so confidently appealed to by all sects, parties, and interests is still, in his own emphatic words, mera palpatio."

      Again, page 520, he says: "If there are some subjects on which the results obtained have finally received the unanimous assent of all who have attended to the proof, and others on which mankind have not yet been equally successful,--on which the most sagacious minds have occupied themselves from the earliest date, with every assistance except that of a tried scientific method, and have never succeeded in establishing any considerable body of truths, so as to be beyond denial or doubt,--it is by generalizing [195] the methods successfully followed in the former inquiries, and applying them to the latter, that we may hope to remove this blot upon the face of science."

      "It is not," says Sir John Herschel, Discourse on Natural Philosophy, page 86, "the introduction of inductive reasoning, as a new and hitherto untried process, which characterizes the Baconian philosophy, but his keen perception, and his broad and spirit-stirring, almost enthusiastic announcement of its paramount importance, as the alpha and omega of science, as the grand and only chain for the linking together of physical truths, and the eventual key to every discovery and every application."

      But, not to multiply quotations, or to protract an argument which we think is already conclusive, we remark, that in many cases in which polemic theology has not interposed, with its warping influence, men have pursued the inductive method in their interpretations of Scripture; and in every such instance, where their investigations have been concluded, they are perfectly agreed. For, says Bacon, "if men would bind themselves to two things: 1. To lay aside received opinions and notions; 2. To restrain themselves, till the proper season, from generalization, they might, by the proper and genuine exertion of their minds, fall into our way of interpretation without the aid of any art." In many cases this has been done, and men have experienced that "interpretation," as Bacon immediately adds, "is the true and natural act of the mind, when all obstacles are removed."² Hence, although we can never embrace all [196] the immensity of the comprehension of the volume of infinite wisdom, yet whereunto we have attained, in all the researches made strictly upon the inductive method, there is as perfect agreement and uniformity as can be found in any branch of physical science. The reciprocal duties of husbands and wives, for example, of parents and children, of masters and servants, though not more plainly taught than the duties we owe to God, are yet cordially received and diligently enforced, because there is no scholastic theory to metamorphose their meaning; while concerning those duties last mentioned there is perpetual controversy about the place of this, the force of that, the essentiality of one, and the non-essentiality of another. The reason is, that in the duties of man to God there is some connection with salvation, and as they are constantly making incursions into some one's theory of conversion, or of regeneration, or of justification, they must be ruled out, or explained away, or forced to harmonize with such theory.

      In all cases where the inductive method has been strictly followed, men have arrived at conclusions, satisfactory, clear, and consistent, both in themselves and with the other Scriptures; and all are agreed and united. While, wherever any other method has been pursued, there is uncertainty, obscurity, inconsistency; and all are disagreed and disunited. Can those who love truth more than party hesitate to adopt a conclusion which is forced upon them by considerations so powerful?

      But, some one will say, this would but lead to the establishment of one more system, and thus, instead of lessening, [197] increase the evils now existing. To which it is replied, that so far from its being the means of resulting in any sectarian establishment, it is calculated solely to lead to those great catholic truths which are revealed for our learning and salvation. If properly used, it will make known the one only system of religion which Christ gave to the world, and will thus absorb whatever is true and reject whatever is false in all the systems and organizations in Christendom. We do not contend for the principles or the peculiarities of any existing or imaginary sect, but simply for the true method of acquiring truth, in its just proportions and proper relations.

      Others again will contend that this method has been employed, in so far as it is available, by many or all the students of the Bible. Without pretending to meet such an assumption, which can hardly be urged seriously in this place by those who have perused with any care what we have written, we respectfully refer them to Professor Nichol, to Sir John Herschel, to John Stuart Mill, and to Sir William Hamilton; and when all these distinguished gentlemen and as many more have been silenced, we will point them to the divisions and strifes of Protestantism, and tell them to account for that dark spot upon the garment of religion, upon their assumption.

      It is also to be anticipated that a few short-sighted partisans, like their illustrious prototype, will seek to cast ridicule upon our humble effort, by crying out, "How wonderful, that you should have discovered what so many wiser and older men have overlooked! How modest in you, to [198] presume to correct the reverend dignitaries of the church!" To which we would deign but this reply, that our argument cannot be set aside by a sneer which originated in the heart of Eckius, nor our position shaken by a taunt that rises from the spirit of Romanism.

      Upon the whole, then, we conclude that though in some instances, and perhaps in very many, due attention has been paid to the method by which truth is to be sought and found, in a very large majority this has been disregarded, or but partially employed, and then often neutralized by the simultaneous presence and employment of improper and heterogeneous processes. We think, also, that it is not too much to conclude, from the arguments introduced in this chapter, that the inductive method can be employed in the interpretation of Scripture; that it should be; and that, when thus employed, the best and happiest results may be expected to follow. The remainder of this part of the work will, therefore, be devoted to a particular elucidation and exemplification of this process. [199]

[TOOS 187-199]