LECTURE XVI.

Of the literal and figurative use of words; and of the foundation of this distinction in the origin and formation of language.-Consequences of interpreting words literally, when they are used figuratively.-Necessity of arranging the senses of words in genealogical order

LECTURE XVII.

Relation of Allegory to Metaphor.—Metaphorical interpretation an interpretation of words.-Allegorical interpretation, an interpretation, not of words, but of the things signified by the words.—Origin of allegorical interpretation among the Greeks.-This kind of interpretation not warranted by St. Paul

LECTURE XVIII.

Adoption and injudicious use of it by the Greek Fathers. -Abuse of it by unbel evers.-The sense of Scripture rendered by it arbitrary and ambiguous.-Allegorical or spiritual interpretation substituted for grammatical interpretation in the twelfth century by the Mystics of the Church of Rome, who have been followed in modern times.-Typical interpretation warranted by the sacred writers.-Definition of a Type; and the consequences of neglecting it.-Types and antitypes multiplied by various interpreters, without end, and without foundation

75

93

LECTURE XIII.

THE Criticism of the Bible having been finished in the last Lecture, we now enter on the Interpretation of the Bible, which is the next branch of Theology according to the system explained in the second Lecture. The nature of this system, with the connexion of its several parts, has been already so minutely detailed, that another description of it cannot now be wanted. For, though a knowledge of the preceding Lectures is necessary to a right understanding of what will follow, yet even they, who were not present at the delivery of them, may obtain the required information, as the preceding Lectures are all in print.

But, as Criticism and Interpretation are not unfrequently confounded, it may not be unnecessary, before we enter on the latter, to explain once more its relation to the former. They are so closely connected, that no man can be a good Interpreter of the Bible, who is not previously acquainted with the Criticism of the Bible. It is Criticism, and Criticism alone, which enables us to judge of the

genuineness, whether of single words, or of whole passages, or of whole books. And, when we have thus obtained what we have reason to believe a genuine text, we have then a solid foundation, on which we may build our interpretation of the text. But till we know what is the genuine text, we must remain in a state of uncertainty, whether our interpretation is founded on a rock, or founded only in the sand. The process of theological study is undoubtedly much shortened, by taking for granted what can be known only by long and laborious investigation. But in a subject so important as that of religion, which concerns our future as well as present welfare, no labour is too great, no investigation too severe, which may enable us to discern the truth unmixed with falsehood. In this place I am addressing myself immediately to those, who pos sess the advantages of a learned education, and chiefly to those, who receive a learned education, for the purpose of becoming qualified to preach the Gospel. From such an audience no apology can be required, for applying to the Bible the principles of reason and learning; for, if the Bible could not stand the test of reason and learning, it could not be, what it is, a work of divine wisdom. The Bible therefore must be examined by the same laws of Criticism, which are applied to other writings of antiquity and every man, who is set apart for the ministry, should consider it as his bounden duty to study with especial care that primary branch of

Theology, the Criticism of the Bible. It is a branch, which gives nutriment and life to all the other branches; and these will become more or less vigorous, in proportion as that branch either flourishes or decays. By cultivating the Criticism of the Bible, we acquire a habit of calm and impartial investigation, which will enable us to enter with greater advantage on the other departments of Theology; we learn to discriminate between objects apparently alike, but really distinct; we learn to sharpen our judgments, and correct our imaginations; we learn to think for ourselves, without blindly trusting to bare assertion, which may deceive, but can never convince; and, while we fortify our faith against the shafts of infidelity, we become proof against the seductions of ignorance and fanaticism. Such are the advantages resulting to an Interpreter of the Bible from a previous acquaintance with the Criticism of the Bible; advantages unknown to the mere theological empiric, who regards them as useless for no other reason, than because he has never learnt to comprehend them.

But however close the connexion may be between Criticism and Interpretation, they are quite distinct in their respective operations. By the one we ascertain what an author has actually written : by the other we ascertain what is really the author's meaning. This distinction we must keep constantly in view, or we shall be in perpetual danger of drawing false conclusions. The difficulty indeed, attend.

ant on the one, is closely allied with the difficulty attendant on the other; each increases with the antiquity of the author. The more ancient an author is, and the more frequently his works have been transcribed, the greater is the probability that no single copy has descended to posterity, without numerous deviations from the autograph. And beside the accidental mistakes, which are unavoidable in every transcript of an extensive work, the transcribers of the Sacred Writings had stronger temptation to make alterations by design, than can ever take place in the copying of works unconnected with religion. So much the more necessary is a knowledge of Criticism to the student in Theology. The same difficulty, which attends the Criticism of an ancient work, and which increases in proportion to its antiquity, attends also the Interpretation of that work, and likewise increases with its age. The further we are removed from the period, in which an author wrote, the more difficult is it to discover, the circumstances in which he was placed, the peculiar object which he had in view, the situation and sentiments of his original readers, and the probable consequent tendency of the author's arguments. If, beside the distance of time, we are far removed from him in place, if the laws and customs of his country had no resemblance to our own, if not only his language was different, but his forms of expression were so little analogous to those which are in use among ourselves, as when literally