Scripturas interpretari; nisi quando me argumenta cogunt
evidentissima,--quod nunquam eventurum credo[441]." So spake one who had
read the Fathers with no common care, and who turned his reading to no
common account. "I persuade myself," he says, "that you will learn the
modesty of submitting your judgment to that of the Catholic Doctors,
where they are found generally to concur in the interpretation of a text
of Scripture, how absurd soever that interpretation may, at first
appearance, seem to be. For upon a diligent search you will find, that
_aliquid latet quod non patet_,--'there is a mystery in the bottom:' and
that which at first view seemed even ridiculous, will afterwards appear
to be a most certain truth[442]." "No man can oppose Catholic consent,
but he will at last be found to oppose both the Divine Oracles and Sound
Reason[443]."
The distinction thus drawn between individual opinion and the collective
voice of the Church, was far better understood anciently than at
present. The interpretation of a Council, especially if oecumenical,
was accounted decisive. Even the generally consentient voice of Doctors
and Fathers, as far as it could be ascertained, was held to be of the
same authoritative kind. An interesting illustration occurs. Than
Eusebius, Bishop of Cæsarea, few Fathers of the fourth century were more
learned in Holy Scripture. He, commenting upon "the Captain of the
LORD'S Host," mentioned in the vth chapter of the Book of Joshua,
delivers it as his opinion that it was the same Personage who spoke to
Moses 'in the Bush;' viz. the Eternal SON[444]. On which opinion, a
learned man of the same age, in a scholion of singular beauty which has
come down to us, remarks as follows:--"Aye, but the Church, O most holy
Eusebius, holds a view on this subject altogether at variance with
thine[445]." He goes on to allege reasons why the =archistratêgos= of
Joshua must be held to have been not an _uncreated_, but a _created_
Angel; the Archangel Michael, in fact. We will not now go into that
matter. You are but requested to observe, how profoundly unimportant the
opinion of a very learned individual was held to be, by one in whose
ears the Patristic "torrent" was yet sounding; although Justin Martyr is
known to have been of the same mind with Eusebius.--And thus much for
individual views as to the meaning of Holy Scripture; as contrasted with
the decisions of Councils and Fathers. To judge from the signs of the
Age, we have exactly reversed the ancient estimate; and expect that more
respect will be shewn to our own private fancies, than to a general
consensus of Divines, ancient and modern. It seems to have been
discovered that the supreme guide of Life is the individual
conscience,--"without appeal--except to himself[446]!"
II. Before descending, however, to the _business_ of Interpretation,
there is clearly one preliminary question to be settled: namely, _the
principle_ on which Interpretation is to be conducted. And this is all
that can be discussed to-day. To seek for that principle in the
contradictory pages of solitary theorists, would of course be hopeless,
as well as absurd. To elicit it from Patristic Commentaries, would
obviously leave a door open for cavil. The ancient Fathers, (allowing
that they often speak with consentient voice,) singly, were but
fallible men,--however famous, as professors of Theological Science,
they may have been. _This_, however, I venture to assume without any
hesitation whatever,--that if, instead of either of these two ways of
ascertaining how Holy Scripture ought to be handled, we can be so
fortunate as to discover from the Inspired Writers themselves what
_their_ method was with respect to the Word of GOD,--in such case, I
say, we shall be in a position of entire certainty[447]. We shall then
have full warrant for disregarding the dicta of modern sciolists on this
great subject;--however arrogant their dogmatism, however confident
their unsupported asseverations.
I desire to be very clearly understood. My position is this. All
Christian men allow that the Apostles and Evangelists of our LORD were
inspired. Before such an audience as the present, I will not condescend
even to _allude_ to the absolute claim of our SAVIOUR CHRIST, who, as
the Son of Man, enjoyed the gift of the Spirit without measure; who, as
very GOD, "in the beginning created the Heaven and the Earth,"--(for,
"In the beginning was THE WORD; and THE WORD was with GOD; and THE WORD
was GOD.... All things were made by Him, and without Him was not
anything made that was made[448]:")--I will not, I say, for every
utterance of our _SAVIOUR CHRIST_ pause even, to claim the entire
reverence of our hearts,--the prostrate homage of our understandings....
Well then. If we _can_ but discover what the mind and method of these
several speakers and writers was, with regard to the Interpretation of
Holy Scripture; on what principle, and with what sentiments, _they_
bandied the Book of GOD'S Law; we shall have discovered the thing of
which we are in search. For the _Author_ of a book must perforce be
allowed to be the best judge of the method and intention of that
book:--the HOLY SPIRIT _must_ be allowed to be the best authority as to
His own meaning!
Now this method,--(of which, as I will presently remind you, we possess
a great many specimens,)--proves to be very extraordinary. It altogether
establishes the fact that the Bible _is not to be interpreted "like
any other book."_ That it _could_ not be so interpreted, might have been
confidently anticipated beforehand, from the very fact of its Divine
origin[449]. What I mean,--Since, "by the mouth of David," the HOLY
GHOST is expressly declared by CHRIST and by St. Peter to have "spoken;"
and since the Psalms collectively are described by St. Paul as the
utterance of the HOLY GHOST; since Jeremiah's witness is said to be the
witness of the HOLY GHOST; and the HOLY GHOST is actually said to have
spoken by Isaiah; while the Spirit of CHRIST Himself, (St. Peter says,)
dwelt in the Prophets:--in a word, since "holy men of GOD spake _as they
were moved by_ the HOLY GHOST," and the provisions of the Mosaic Law are
to the same HOLY GHOST by St. Paul emphatically ascribed[450];--stubborn
_facts_, you are requested to observe, which Essayists may prudently
suppress but which no Sophistry on earth can either evade or
deny:--seeing, I say, that Holy Scripture is declared by inspired men
to be the utterance of the Eternal God, it was to have been expected
beforehand that its texture would bear witness to its Divine origin; and
that, to interpret it "like any other book," would be to forget its
extraordinary character. Interpret Sophocles and Plato, if you will,
like any other book, for a very plain reason; but beware how you apply
your purely human notions to the utterance of the Ancient of Days; for
that utterance, enshrined in one particular volume, clearly makes that
one volume essentially unlike any other volume in the world.
You are particularly requested to observe, further,--that singular pains
have been taken to mystify this entire subject. It has been a favourite
device to multiply difficulties,--real or imaginary,--and so, to create
a miserable sense of the dangers which fairly hem the subject in,--in
order to render more palatable a desperate escape from them all. Thus,
we are told of the risks to which Grammatical nicety, and Rhetorical
accommodation expose us; and again, the snares into which the Logical
method may betray. Metaphysical aid, we are assured, mystifies; and even
Learning, (would to Heaven we had a little more of it!) obscures the
sense[451]. Might we just take the liberty of suggesting that the study
of the exploded works of German unbelievers, (of which Germany herself,
thank GOD! is beginning to be ashamed,) on the part of men of very
moderate intellectual powers, however wise in their own conceit; and
with no previous Theological knowledge to guide them,--is another yet
more fruitful avenue to error?... Next, we are threatened with the
manifold inconveniences which would ensue from the discovery that there
is more than one sense in Holy Scripture,--(_that_ one sense being
assumed to be, _not_ the sense intended by its Divine Author, but the
sense which the first hearers may be supposed to have put upon it[452].)
"If words may have more than one meaning," (it is not very logically
argued,) "they may have _any_ meaning[453]." We are told a great deal
about "the growth of ideas;" and of human prejudices; and of "the
disturbing influence of Theological terms."--But all this kind of thing,
it will be perceived at once, is altogether foreign to the matter in
hand. _Ought Scripture to be interpreted like any other book,--or not_?
_That_ is the real question! _Has Scripture only one meaning_, or _more_?
_That_ is the point in dispute! Above all, _What is the true principle of
Scripture Interpretation_? _That_ is the only thing we have to discover!
Now, as for _how_ the principles of Divine Interpretation are to be
discovered, it is undeniable that there can be no surer way than by
discovering _what is the method of the HOLY GHOST_; by inquiring, what
is the method of our SAVIOUR CHRIST, and of His Evangelists, and of His
Apostles?
1. Surely it is needless to remind an audience like the present, _what_
that method is! Turn the first page of St. Matthew's Gospel, and weigh
well the three famous cases of Interpretation which there encounter
you[454]:--namely, the assurance that Hosea's words, "Out of Egypt have
I called my son[455];"--that Jeremiah's declaration concerning the tears
of Rachel[456];--and that the many prophetic utterances concerning "the
Branch[457];"--found fulfilment, each, in CHRIST. The first,--when, at
Jehovah's bidding, He was carried up out of Egypt into Palestine; the
second,--when the bereaved mothers of Bethlehem wept for their murdered
offspring; the third,--when CHRIST, being bred up in Nazareth, was
called a "Nazarene,"--the root of which, etymologically, denotes "a
branch."--But look further, and your surprise will increase at
discovering how extraordinary the Divine method is. When our Saviour
cast out evil spirits and healed the sick, St. Matthew declares that He
fulfilled that prophecy of Isaiah, "Himself took our infirmities and
bare our sicknesses[458];" the language of the prophet in fact being,
"Surely He hath borne our _griefs_ and carried our _sorrows_[459];"
which, as far as the words go, is rather a different thing.
2. But it is St. Paul who affords us the largest induction of instances.
When he would establish the right of the Clergy to have due provision
made for them, he finds his warrant in a most unexpected place of
Scripture. "Say I these things as a man? or saith not the Law the same
also? For it is written in the Law of Moses, 'Thou shalt not muzzle the
mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn.' Doth GOD care for the oxen
here alluded to[460]? (=mê tôn boôn melei tô Theô?=) or saith He it
altogether for our sakes? _For our sakes_, no doubt, this is
written[461]." I remind you of the entire passage, because it is so very
express.--Elsewhere, St. Paul adduces a few verses from the viiith
Psalm, the primary and more obvious meaning of which appears to assert
nothing more than the supremacy of Man's present nature over the
inferior races of animals; ("all sheep and oxen, yea and all the beasts
of the field[462].") The application of it, in a prophetic sense, to the
supreme dominion of our Redeemer over all created beings in Heaven and
Earth, is certainly not one which would naturally suggest itself to us;
yet is it for this purpose, and this only, that St. Paul adduces it; and
as confirmatory of the universal sovereignty of CHRIST, the place in
question is three times quoted by the same Apostle[463].--Elsewhere,
when he would warn persons who have been partakers of both Sacraments,
of the danger of final rejection, he cites the example of the Fathers of
Israel in the Wilderness. "The waters of the Red Sea were a wall unto
them, on their right hand and on their left[464]," and the watery Cloud
covered them above; whereby it came to pass that "all our Fathers were
under the Cloud, and all passed through the Sea; and were all therefore
_baptized_ unto Moses in the Cloud and in the Sea." Moreover, he
declares that they "did all eat the same spiritual meat;" (alluding to
the Manna;) "and did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank
of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and _that Rock was
CHRIST_[465]." ... Our SAVIOUR'S emphatic application to Himself (in the
vith of St. John) of the Manna, "the bread which came down from
Heaven,"--none can forget[466].
3. But St. Paul further largely interprets the ordinances of the Mosaic
Law. Thus, the provision that the High-priest alone should enter, once a
year, into the Holy of Holies, not without blood, he interprets as
follows;--"the HOLY GHOST this signifying,"--("the _HOLY GHOST this
signifying!_)--that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made
manifest, while as the first Tabernacle was yet standing[467]." He
explains further that "CHRIST being come an High-Priest of good things
to come, by a greater and more perfect Tabernacle, ... by His own Blood
entered in once into the Holy Place, having obtained eternal Redemption
for us[468]."--The Veil of the Temple, (he says,) typified CHRIST'S
flesh[469]; and St. Paul intimates that he could further have spoken
particularly of the Golden Censer, and the Ark of the Covenant, and the
Pot of Manna, and Aaron's rod, and the Tables of the Covenant, and the
Cherubims of Glory[470].--Again, he says, that "the bodies of those
beasts whose blood is brought into the Sanctuary by the High Priest for
Sin, are burned without the camp. Wherefore Jesus also, that He might
sanctify the people with His own Blood, _suffered without the
gate_[471]."--_Who_ is not familiar with the same Apostle's declaration
that the words of our father Adam relative to Marriage, are expressive
of a great mystery, and set forth symbolically the union of CHRIST and
His Church; "For we are members of His Body,--of His Flesh and of His
Bones[472]?"--St. Peter is at least as remarkable in his Interpretations
as St. Paul; for he says of the Ark "wherein eight souls were saved by
water,"--"The like figure whereunto, even Baptism, doth also now save
us[473]."
Now these samples of _Inspired Interpretation_ would be abundantly
sufficient for our present purpose. But before I proceed to make any use
of them, it is right to draw attention to a phenomenon, even more
extraordinary.
4. It is found then, that besides vindicating for the Scriptures of the
Old Testament this unsuspected depth and fulness of prophetic and
typical meaning, the very Narrative itself teems to overflowing with
mysterious purpose. You have but to weigh well what the HOLY SPIRIT hath
delivered concerning Abraham and Melchizedek, Hagar and Sarah,--to
perceive that the texture of the Historical Narrative itself is of
supernatural fabric. All are familiar with what I allude to; but I
_must_ remind you of it, in detail. The Apostle is bent on shewing the
superiority of our SAVIOUR'S Priesthood to that of Aaron. How does he
proceed? He lays his finger, unhesitatingly, on a verse in the cxth
Psalm, ("Thou art a Priest for ever after the order of
Melchizedek;")--declares with authority that it is CHRIST whom the
prophet there alludes to,--or rather, whom GOD apostrophizes,--(for
_that_ is what St. Paul actually _says_; =prosagoreutheis hypo tou
Theou=[474]: although David undeniably wrote the Psalm;)--and proceeds,
without more ado, to draw out minutely the characteristics of our
SAVIOUR'S Priesthood, from the very brief narrative contained in the
xivth Chapter of Genesis. Do but hear him!
The compound name "Melchi-zedek," being interpreted, denotes "King of
Righteousness:" while "King of Salem" denotes "King of Peace." These
titles, (it is implied,) are emphatically appropriate to CHRIST our
King; to Him who "is our Righteousness," and the very "Prince of Peace."
It happens that nothing is said in Genesis about the parentage of
Melchizedek, nor about the family from which he sprang: not a word as to
when he was born, or when he died. From this _silence_ of Scripture, St.
Paul collects the typical adumbration of One who, as very GOD, was
_without_ human parentage,--had _no_ earthly lineage;--"was before all
things," GOD from all eternity,--having _indeed_ "neither beginning of
days nor end of life."--Did not Abraham give to Melchizedek a tithe of
the spoils? Consider then, (St. Paul says,) how great an one Melchizedek
must have been! Nay, consider that the descendants of Levi are commanded
to take tithe of their brethren, although all are sprung from Abraham
alike; but here is one, altogether of a different family, taking tithes
of _Abraham_,--aye and _blessing_ Abraham too;--(=dedekatôke=,
=eulogêke=, "_hath_ tithed," "_hath_ blessed,"--the effect of the act
_remaining_ for ever in CHRIST typified by Melchizedek.)--This
mysterious King of Salem and Priest of the Most High GOD not only tithes
but blesses Abraham, who had received from ALMIGHTY GOD the promises,
which included all blessedness, earthly and heavenly. Now, this implies
Melchizedek's superiority,--for, of course, the less is blessed of the
greater.--Men who receive tithe here below are mortal; but the very
silence of Scripture respecting Melchizedek's death, symbolically
teaches that HE whom Melchizedek typified, yet liveth.--And indeed, (so
to speak,) the tribe of Levi who take tithes, _paid_ tithes to
Melchizedek in the person of their great progenitor; because Levi was as
yet in the loins of his father Abraham when Melchizedek met him[475]....
I do not ask your pardon for thus leading you in detail over one
unusually minute specimen of Divine Interpretation. I know well that
there are many persons to whom the Divine method is highly distasteful;
and who think their own method of Interpretation infinitely better. But,
unfortunately for those persons, the question in hand is not a question
of taste, but a dry _matter of fact_. We have to discover what is _the
Divine method_ of Interpretation, and no other thing. Its improbability
and its inconvenience,--its difficulty, and its strangeness,--its
seeming inconclusiveness, (apart from the authority on which it rests,)
and its certain uniqueness, (notwithstanding the many injunctions we
have met with that we must interpret the Bible like any other
book[476],)--all these considerations are all together irrelevant, and
beside the question. St. Paul himself admits that the Discourse now
before us is =polys kai dysermêneutos=,--long and of difficult
interpretation[477].--Some will perhaps be found to inquire how it
happens that while so many remote points of analogy are adduced, so
obviously typical a circumstance as Melchizedek's _bringing forth_
"_bread and wine_[478]" obtains no notice from the Apostle? I
answer,--For the same reason that Isaac is nowhere spoken of, nowhere so
much as hinted at, in the Bible, as being a type of CHRIST. A blind man
may see it. It requires no Revelation from Heaven to teach such things
as _that!_ But the typical foreshadowing of the superiority of our
SAVIOUR'S Priesthood over that of Aaron, in the story of Melchizedek,
would infallibly have escaped mankind altogether, unless it had been
thus specially revealed.
Some there may be so utterly wanting in Theological instinct, or so
depraved of taste; so utterly unused to the study of GOD'S Word, or so
unobservant of the characteristic method of it,--as to imagine that
there is something trifling in the specimens of Interpretation before
us. I am only concerned to maintain that they are Divine. You may think
what you please about them. They are the teaching of the HOLY GHOST.
Nay, if unfortunately any persons here present should think themselves
wiser than GOD, I would request them to observe that, singularly enough,
GOD has connected with this very exposition a short address _to
themselves_. It runs as follows:--"Concerning Melchizedek, we have to
deliver a long and difficult interpretation; difficult, however, _only
because ye have become dull of hearing_[479]." (The fault, you observe,
is _yours_. Whereas GOD made your spiritual senses sharp and quick, you
have blunted their edge, and are become stupid and obtuse. It
follows:)--"For when, by reason of the length of time that ye have
professed Christianity, ye ought to be Teachers," (pray mark
_that!_)--"ye have need that some one should teach _you_ the first
Principles of the Oracles of GOD; and ye have become such as have need
of milk, and not of solid food. For every one that useth milk, is
without experience in the Word of Righteousness; for he is an infant.
But solid food (=sterea trophê=) is for them that are of full age[480]."
Where you are requested to observe that a specimen of Interpretation
_you_ think trifling, the HOLY GHOST calls "_solid food_;" and
yourselves, who in your own conceit represent the World's Manhood[481],
He calls =nêpious=,--"_babes_." ... This discrepancy of opinion strikes
me as rather curious.
5. The time would fail, were we to enter as particularly into the Divine
Interpretation elsewhere given of another story, apparently as little
fraught with mystery as any in the Bible. _Who_ would ever have imagined
that the brief narrative of Hagar's dismissal from the house of Abraham
at Sarah's instance, was the =allêgoria= of so Divine a thing as St.
Paul declares;--the two Mothers setting forth the two Covenants, (one,
bearing children unto bondage,--the other, the free Mother of us all:
Sinai symbolized by _that_, the heavenly Jerusalem by _this_:) and even
Ishmael's mockery not being without mysterious meaning?--Such however
is the Divine Interpretation.--Elsewhere, when St. Paul desires to
contrast the method of the Gospel with the method of the Law,--(_this_,
glorious; _that_, with the same glorious features concealed;)--and also
to illustrate the present unbelief of the Jewish nation;--the Apostle
finds a prophetic emblem of their blindness in the veiled countenance of
their great Lawgiver, as described in the xxxivth chapter of Exodus. The
mystical intention of that veil, (he says,) was to symbolize the
nation's inability to look steadfastly to the end of the dispensation,
and to recognize MESSIAH. Nay, to this hour, while they read their
Scriptures, that veil (he says) is upon their hearts. And yet, even as
Moses, when he returned to GOD, is related to have taken off the veil
from his face, so (St. Paul says) will it fare with the Jews, when
_they_ convert and turn themselves to CHRIST. The veil will be
withdrawn[482].--Now, I gather from all this, and many a hint of the
like kind,--that the whole of Scripture is of the same marvellous
texture, the Old Testament and the New, alike,--whether we have the eyes
to see it or not.