those which are of comparatively less importance, and subordinate to the former. Thus, in the epistle to Philemon, our attention must chiefly be directed to verses 8. and 17., whence we collect that Saint Paul's design or scope was to reconcile Onesimus (who had been a runaway slave) to his master, and to restore him to the latter, a better person than he had before been. In the epistle to the Ephesians, the principal conclusions are, ch. ii. 11, 12. and ch. iv. Î. 3. The subordinate or less principal conclusions are ch. i. 15. iii. 13. iv. 17. 25. v. 1. 7. 15. 17. and vi. 13, 14.1

4. The scope of a passage may further be known from history.

For instance, we learn from history, that during the time of the apostles there were numerous errors disseminated; and therefore they wrote many passages in their epistle with the express design of refuting such errors. An acquaintance with these historical particulars will enable us to determine with accuracy the scope of entire books as well as of detached passages.

5. A knowledge of the time when a book was written, and also of the state of the church at that time, will indicate the scope or intention of the author in writing such book.

Thus, the epistle of Saint James was written about the year of Christ 61. at which time the Christians were suffering persecution, and probably (as appears from ch. ii. 6. and ch. v. 6.) not long before the apostle's martyrdom; which, Bishop Pearson thinks2 happened A. D. 62. in the eighth year of Nero's reign, when the destruction of the Jewish temple and polity was impending. (James v. 1.8.) At the period referred to, there were in the church certain professing Christians, who, in consequence of the sanguinary persecution then carried on against them both by Jews and Gentiles, were not only declining in faith and love, and indulging various sinful practices for instance, undue respect of persons, (chapter ii. verse i. et seq.) contempt of their poor brethren, (chapter ii. verse 9. et seq.) and unbridled freedom of speech, (chapter iii. verse 3. et seq.); but who also most shamefully abused to licentiousness the grace of God, which in the Gospel is promised to the penitent; and, disregarding holiness, boasted of a faith destitute of its appropriate fruits, viz. of a bare assent to the doctrines of the Gospel, and boldly affirmed that this inoperative and dead faith was alone sufficient to obtain salvation, (chapter ii. verse 17. et seq.) Hence we may easily perceive that the apostle's scope was not to treat of the doctrine of justification; but, the state of the church requiring it, to correct those errors in doctrine, and those sinful practices, which had crept into the church, and particularly to expose that fundamental error of a dead faith unproductive of good works. This observation further shows the true way of reconciling the supposed contradiction between the apostles Paul and James, concerning the doctrine of salvation by faith.3

6. If, however, none of these subsidiary aids present themselves, it only remains that we REPEATEDLY AND DILIGENTLY STUDY THE ENTIRE BOOK, AS WELL AS THE WHOLE SUBJECT, AND CAREFULLY ASCERTAIN

THE SCOPE FROM THEM, before we attempt an examination of any particular text.

Thus we shall be enabled to understand the mind of its author, and to ascertain the main subject and tendency of the book or epistle which may be under consideration or if it have several views and purposes in it, not mutually dependent upon each other, nor in subordination to one chief end, we shall be enabled to discover what those different matters were, as also in what part the author concluded one and began another; and, if it be necessary to divide such book or epistle into parts, to ascertain their exact boundaries.

But in this investigation of the scope, there is not always that clearness which leads to a certain interpretation: for sometimes there are several interpretations which sufficiently agree with the writer's design. In those places, for instance, where the coming of Christ is mentioned, it is not always determined whether it is his last advent

1 Franckii Manuductio, cap. iii. pp. 87, 88. 292. or English edition, pp. 61. et seq. 177. et seq. Franckii Prælect. Herm. pp. 38. et seq.

2 Annales Paulinæ, p. 31.

3 Jo. Henr. Michaelis Introductio Historico-Theologica in Jacobi Minoris Epistolam Catholicam, § viii. xi.

to judge the world, or his coming to inflict punishment on the unbelieving Jews. In such cases the interpreter must be content with some degree of probability. There are, however, two or three cautions, in the consideration of the scope, to which it will be desirable to attend. 1. Where, of two explanations, one is evidently contrary to the series of the discourse, the other must necessarily be preferred.

In Psal. xlii. 2. the royal psalmist pathetically exclaims When shall I come and appear before God-This verse has, by some writers, been expounded thus; that a man may wish for death, in order that he may the sooner enjoy that state of future blessedness which is sometimes intended by the phrase seeing God. Now this exposition is manifestly contrary to the design of the Psalm; in which David, exiled from Jerusalem, and consequently from the house of God, through Absalom's unnatural rebellion, expresses his fervent desire of returning to Jerusalem, and beholding that happy day when he should again present himself before God in his holy tabernacle. In the fourth verse he mentions the sacred pleasure with which he had gone (or would repair, for some of the versions render the verb in the future tense) with the multitude to the house of God. There is therefore in this second sense a necessary and evident connection with the scope and series of the discourse.

In 1 Cor. iii. 17. we read, If any man defile (more correctly destroy) the temple of God, him shall God destroy. The phrase temple of God, in this passage, is usually interpreted of the human body, and by its defilement is understood libidinous unchastity, which God will destroy by inflicting corresponding punishment on the libidinous man. This sense is certainly a good one, and is confirmed by a similar expression at the close of the sixth chapter. But, in the former part of the third chapter, the apostle had been giving the teachers of the Corinthian Christians an important caution to teach pure and salutary doctrines, together with that momentous doctrine-Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ, (v. 11.) and that they should not add false doctrines to it. After largely discussing this topic, he subsequently returns to it, and the passage above cited occurs intermediately. From this view of the scope it will be evident, that by the temple of God is to be understood the Christian church; which if any man defile, corrupt, or destroy, by disseminating false doctrines, God will destroy him also.

2. Where a parallel passage plainly shows that another passage is to be understood in one particular sense, this must be adopted to the exclusion of every other sense, although it should be supported by the grammatical interpretation as well as by the scope.

66

Thus, in Matt. v. 25. we read Agree with thine adversary quickly, whilst thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison." This passage has been interpreted to refer either to a future state of existence, or to the present life. In the former sense, the adversary is God; the judge, Christ; the officer, death; and the prison, hell and eternal punishments. In the latter sense, the meaning of this passage simply is, "If thou hast a lawsuit, compromise it with the plaintiff, and thus prevent the necessity of prosecuting it before a judge: but if thou art headstrong, and wilt not compromise the affair, when it comes to be argued before the judge, he will be severe, and will decree that thou shalt pay the uttermost farthing." Now, both these expositions yield good senses, agreeing with the scope, and both contain a cogent argument that we should be easily ap peased but if we compare the parallel passage in Luke xii. 58, 59. we shall find the case thus stated-When thou goest with thine adversary to the magistrate, as thou art in the way, give diligence that thou mayest be delivered from him, lest he hale thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer (w pakrapi, whose duty it was to levy fines imposed for violation of the law); and the officer on nonpayment cast thee into prison. Itell thee thou shalt not depart thence till thou hast paid the very last mite. — In this passage there is no reference whatever to a future state, nor to any punishments which will hereafter be inflicted on the implacable and thus a single parallel text shows which of the two senses best agrees with the scope of the discourse, and consequently which of them is preferably to be adopted.1

1 Bauer, Herm. Sacr. pp. 201-204. J. B. Carpzov. Herm, Sacr. pp. 33—35.

SECTION VIII.

OF THE ANALOGY OF FAITH.

1. The Analogy of Faith defined and illustrated. II. Its importance in studying the Sacred Writings. -III. Rules for investigating the Analogy of Faith.

I. OF all the various aids that can be employed for investigating and ascertaining the sense of Scripture, the ANALOGY OF FAITH is one of the most important. We may define it to be the constant and perpetual harmony of Scripture in the fundamental points of faith and practice, deduced from those passages, in which they are discussed by the inspired penmen, either directly or expressly, and in clear, plain, and intelligible language. Or, more briefly, the analogy of faith may be defined to be that proportion which the doctrines of the Gospel bear to each other, or the close connection between the truths of revealed religion.

The Analogy of Faith is an expression borrowed from Saint Paul's Epistle to the Romans, (xii. 6.) where he exhorts those who prophesy in the church (that is, those who exercise the office of authoritatively expounding the Scriptures) to prophesy according to the proportion, or, as the word is in the original, the analogy of faith. To the same effect many commentators interpret Saint Peter's maxim, (2 Pet. i. 20.) that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private, or self-interpretation; implying that the sense of any prophecy is not to be determined by an abstract consideration of the passage itself, but by taking it in conjunction with other portions of Scripture relating to the subject, "comparing things spiritual with spiritual" (1 Cor. ii. 13.); a rule, which though it be especially applicable to the prophetic writings, is also of general importance in the exposition of the sacred volume.1

II. It is evident that God does not act without a design in the system of religion taught in the Gospel, any more than he does in the works of nature. Now this design must be uniform: for, as in the system of the universe every part is proportioned to the whole, and is made subservient to it, so, in the system of the Gospel, all the various truths, doctrines, declarations, precepts, and promises, must correspond with and tend to the end designed. For instance, if any one interpret those texts of Scripture, which maintain our jusErnesti, Institutio Interp. Nov. Test. pp. 61, 62. Mori Acroases in Ernesti, tom. i. pp. 150-160. Franckii Prælect. Herm. pp. 29-61. Franckii Commentatio de Scopo Veteris et Novi Testamenti, Halæ 1724, 8vo. Jahnii Enchiridion, pp. 6971. Rambach, Inst. Herm. pp. 145–197. 234. 238-240. Chladenii Instit. Exeget. PP. 375-387. J. E. Pfeifferi, Inst. Herm. Sacr. pp. 147–151. 267–276. Schafer, Institutiones Scripturistice, pars ii. pp. 62-68.

1 Bishop Van Mildert's Bampton Lect. p. 181. Pfeiffer, Herm. Sacr. c. xii. (Op. t. ii. p. 659.) Carpzov. Prim. Lin. Herm. Sacr. p. 28. It may here be remarked, that the New Testament presents three terms, which appear to be synonymous with the analogy of faith, viz. 1. Rom. ii. 20. Μορφωσις της γνωσεως, και της αληθείας εν TW vouw, the form of knowledge, the grand scheme and draught of all true science, and the system of eternal truth in the law. 2. Rom. vi. 17. Turos didans, the form or mould of doctrine into which the Christians were çast.-3.2 Tim. îì. 17: Yorπωσις υγιαινόντων λόγων, the form of sound words

tification by faith only, or our salvation by free grace, in such a sense as to exclude the necessity of good works, this interpretation is to be rejected, because it contradicts the main design of Christianity, which is to save us from our sins (Matt. i. 21.), to make us holy as God is holy (1 Pet. i. 15.), and to cleanse us from all filthiness both of flesh and spirit. (2 Cor. vii. 1.) In the application, however, of the analogy of faith to the interpretation of the Scriptures, it is indispensably necessary that the inquirer previously understand the whole scheme of divine revelation; and that he do not entertain a predilection for a part only; without attention to this, he will be liable to error. If we come to the Scriptures with any pre-conceived opinions, and are more desirous to put that sense upon the text which coincides with our own sentiments rather than the truth, it then becomes the analogy of our faith rather than that of the whole system. This, Dr. Campbell remarks, was the very source of the blindness of the Jews in our Saviour's time they searched the Scriptures very assiduously; but, in the disposition they entertained, they would never believe what that sacred volume testifies of Christ. The reason is obvious; their great rule of interpretation was the analogy of faith, or, in other words, the system of the Pharisean Scribes, the doctrine then in vogue, and in the profound veneration of which they had been educated. This is that veil by which the understandings of the Jews were darkened, even in reading the law, and of which Saint Paul observed that it remained unremoved in his day; and we cannot but remark that it remains unremoved in our own time. There is, perhaps, scarcely a sect or denomination of Christians, whether of the Greek, Romish, or Protestant churches, but has some particular system or digest of tenets, by them termed the analogy of faith, which they individually hold in the greatest reverence; and all whose doctrines terminate in some assumed position, so that its partisans may not contradict themselves. When persons of this description, it has been well remarked, meet with passages in Scripture which they cannot readily explain, consistently with their hypothesis, they strive to solve the difficulty by the analogy of faith which they have themselves invented. But allowing all their assumptions to be founded in truth, it is by no means consonant with the principles of sound divinity, to interpret Scripture by the hypothesis of a church; because the sacred records are the only proper media of ascertaining theological truth.2

III. Such, then, being the importance of attending to the analogy of faith, it remains to state a few observations which may enable the student to apply it to the clearing up of obscure or difficult passages of Scripture.

1. Wherever any doctrine is manifest, either from the whole tenor of divine revelation or from its scope, it must not be weakened or set aside by a few obscure passages.

As the observance of this canon is necessary to every student of the inspired volume, so it ought especially to be regarded by those who are apt to interpret

1 Dr. Campbell's translation of the Four Gospels, vol. i. dissert. iv. § 14. p. 116.

3d edit.

Franck's Guide to the Scriptures, p. 79. Franckii Prælect. Herm. p. 185

passages, which are not of themselves plain, by those opinions, of the belief of which they are already possessed; but for which they have little ground besides the mere sound of some texts, that appear, when first heard, to be favourable to their preconceived notions. Whereas, if such texts were compared with the scope of the sacred writers, they would be found to bear quite a different meaning. For instance, no truth is asserted more frequently in the Bible, and consequently is more certain in religion, than that God is good, not only to some individuals, but also toward all men. Thus, David says, (Psal. cxlv. 9.) The Lord is good to ALL, and his tender mercies are over ALL his works; and Ezekiel, (xviii. 23.) Have I any pleasure at all in the wicked that he should die? saith the Lord: and not that he should turn from his ways and live? Frequently also does the Almighty declare, both in the books of the law as well as in the prophets, and also in the New Testament, how earnestly he desires the sinner's return to him. See, among other passages, Deut. v. 29. Ezek. xviii. 32. and xxxiii. 11. Matt. xxiii. 37. John iii. 16. 1 Tim. ii. 4. Titus ii. 11. and 2 Pet. iii. 9. If, therefore, any passages occur which at first sight appear to contradict the goodness of God, as, for instance, that He has created some persons that he might damn them (as some have insinuated); in such case the very clear and certain doctrine relative to the goodness of God is not to be impugned, much less set aside, by these obscure places, which, on the contrary, ought to be illustrated by such passages as are more clear. Thus, in Prov. xvi. 4. according to most modern versions, we read, that The Lord hath made all things for himself, yea even the wicked for the day of evil. This passage has, by several eminent writers, been supposed to refer to the predestination of the elect and the reprobation of the wicked, but without any foundation. Junius, Cocceius, Michaelis, Glassius, Pfeiffer, Turretin, Ostervald, Dr. Whitby, Dr. S. Clarke, and other critics, have shown that this verse may be more correctly rendered, The Lord hath made all things to answer to themselves, or aptly to refer to one another, yea even the wicked, for the evil day, that is, to be the executioner of evil to others: on which account they are in Scripture termed the rod of Jehovah (Isa. x.5.), and his sword. (Psal. xvii. 13.) But there is no necessity for rejecting the received version, the plain and obvious sense of which is that there is nothing in the world which does not contribute to the glory of God, and promote the accomplishment of his adorable designs. The pious and the wicked alike conduce to this end; the wicked, whom God has destined to punishment on account of their impiety, serve to display his justice (see Job xxi. 30.), and consequently to manifest his glory. "God," says Dr. Gill (who was a strenuous advocate for the doctrines of election and reprobation)" made man neither to damn him nor to save him, but for his own glory, and that is secured whether in his salvation or damnation; nor did or does God make men wicked: He made man upright, and man has made himself wicked; and being so, God may justly appoint him to damnation for his wickedness, in doing which he glorifies his justice.'

2. No doctrine can belong to the analogy of faith, which is founded on a SINGLE text: for every essential principle of religion is delivered in more than one place. Besides, single sentences are not to be detached from the places where they stand, but must be taken in connection with the whole discourse.

From disregard of this rule, the temporary direction of the apostle James (v. 14, 15.) has been perverted by the church of Rome, and rendered a permanent institution, from a mean of recovery, to a charm, when recovery is desperate, for the salvation of the soul. The mistake of the church of Rome, in founding what she calls the sacrament of extreme unction upon this place, is very obvious; for the anointing here mentioned was applied to those whose recovery was expected, as appears from verse 16. where it is said that the Lord in answer to the prayer of faith shall raise up and restore the sick whereas in the Roman Catholic church, extreme unction is used where there is little, or no hope of recovery, and is called the sacrament of the dying.2 The same remark is applicable to the popish system of auricular confession to a priest; which is attempted to be supported by James v. 16. and I John i. 9. neither of which passages has any reference whatever to the ministerial office. In the former, confessions of our faults is represented as the duty of the faithful to each other; and in the latter, as the duty of the penitent to God alone.

1 Gill in loc. See also J. E. Pfeiffer's Instit. Herm. Sacr. p. 134-136.

2 See Bishop Burnet on the 25th Article; Whitby, Benson, Macknight, and other commentators on this text; and Mr. Fletcher's Lectures on the Principles and Institutions of the Roman Catholic Religion, p. 198. et seq.