per." Compare also Isa. vii. 9. Since, however, the Gospel is the most perfect revelation of the divine will to mankind, it is in the New Testament particularly that the word faith denotes (6.) a cordial assent to the Christian Revelation, or to some of its leading and fundamental points; as in those passages where we are commanded to believe in Christ, or that he is the son of God, or that he arose from the dead. But as many things that were revealed by God, as well under the Old as under the New Testament dispensation, were future and invisible, the word faith signifies (7.) an assent to future and invisible things revealed by God, as in Heb. xi. 1. where it is defined to be the substance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things not seen, that is, the giving of a present subsistence to things future, which are fully expected, and the proving and demonstrating of things which are not seen. Since, however, all who truly receive and assent to the Christian revelation, cannot do otherwise than obey God, the words faith and believing include (8.) all the duties enjoined by the Gospel; in consequence of which, so many commendations of faith are to be found in the Scriptures, where it is said to purify the heart (1 Pet. i. 22.), to be the victory that overcometh the world (1 John v. 4.), and to justify us. (Rom. v. 1.) Because they who sincerely believe the Gospel, must necessarily obey Christ, and become partakers of the benefits conferred by him.

There are a few other acceptations of the term faith, differing indeed but slightly from the preceding, but which are nevertheless worthy of observation. Thus it means (9.) the Gospol, in Gal. iii. 2. where Saint Paul demands of the Galatians, whether they received the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith in which passage it is evident that the hearing of faith denotes the hearing of the preached Gospel; and in this sense the word faith appears to be used in all those parts of the Epistle to the Romans, where it is opposed to the works of the law. Sometimes also it signifies (10.) a persuasion that what we do is well pleasing to God: thus the meaning of Rom. xiv. 23. Whatsoever is not of faith, is sin, is, that it is sinful in us to do any thing, which we are not fully persuaded is well pleasing to God, or at least permitted by him. Once more, faith denotes (11.) faith in miracles, that is, a firm confidence in Christ, to which, at the first propagation of the Gospel, was annexed the performance of miracles: such was the faith, which Jesus Christ frequently required of his disciples and others, that he might work certain miracles by them (compare Matt. xvii. 20. Mark xi. 22. xvi. 17. and Luke xvii. 6.); and to which Saint Paul refers in 1 Cor. xiii. 2. Lastly, faith sometimes signifies (12.) fidelity, or faithfulness in the discharge of duties or promises, and so the Greek word miss is properly rendered in Tit. i. 10.; as it also should have been in 1 Tim. v. 12., the faith there said to have been cast off by the younger widows, being their fidelity to Christ.

These various senses of the word faith ought, as much as possible, to be kept in mind when perusing the sacred writings; lest we fall into the mistake, so commonly committed, of always understanding the same thing by it.

2. The Greek word purngiov, which is of very frequent occurrence in the New Testament, and is in our English translation uniformly rendered mystery, may also be adduced as an example of the rule above stated. In its ordinary acceptation, a mystery denotes something incomprehensible; and this meaning, for want of due consideration, is not unfrequently transferred to those passages of the New Testament, where the word mystery does indeed occur, but in very different significations.

The first or leading meaning of the word is, a secret, something that is hidden, not fully manifest, not published to the world, though perhaps communicated to a select number. In this scuse it occurs in 2 Thess. ii. 7. where Saint Paul, speaking of the Antichristian spirit, says, the mystery of iniquity doth already work." The spirit of Antichrist has begun to operate, but the operation is latent and unperceived. In this sense also the same apostle applies the words "mystery," and "mystery of Christ," in a peculiar manner to the calling of the Gentiles (Eph. iii. 3-9.); " which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it is now revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit, that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs and of the same body (namely, with the Jews), and partakers of his promise in Christ by the Gospel." Compare also Rom. xvi. 25, 26. Eph. i. 9. iii. 9. vi. 19. Col. i. 26, 27.

Another meaning of the word mystery is, "a spiritual truth couched under an external representation or similitude, and concealed or hidden thereby, unless some explanation be given." To this import of the word our Saviour probably

alluded when he said to his disciples, To you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God; but, to them that are without, all these things are done in parables. (Mark iv. 11.) The secret was disclosed to the apostles, who obtained the spiritual sense of the similitude, while the multitude amused themselves with the parable, and sought no further. In this sense, mystery is used in the following passages of the New Testament: Rev. i. 20. The mystery, that is, the spiritual meaning, of the seven stars. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches; and the seven candlesticks are the seven churches. Again, xvii. 5. And upon her forehead a name written, Mystery, Babylon the Great, that is, Babylon in a mystical sense, the mother of idolatry and abominations; and in verse 7. I will tell thee the mystery, or spiritual signification, of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, &c. In this sense likewise the word mystery is to be understood in Eph. v. 32.

A third and principal meaning of the word mystery is, "some sacred thing, hidden or secret, which is naturally unknown to human reason, and is only known by the revelation of God." Thus in 1 Tim. iii. 16. we read Without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. "The mystery of godliness, or of true religion, consisted in the several particulars here mentioned by the apostle-particulars, indeed, which it would never have entered into the heart of man to conceive (1 Cor. ii. 9.), had not God accomplished them in fact, and published them by the preaching of his Gospel; but which, being thus manifested, are intelligible as facts to the meanest understanding.' So in 1 Cor. xiii. 2. the understanding of all mysteries denotes the understanding of all the revealed truths of the Christian religion, which in 1 Tim. iii. 9. are called the mystery of faith, and of which in 1 Cor. iv. 1. the apostles are called stewards of the mysteries of God.

Lastly, the word mystery is used in reference to things or doctrines, which remain wholly or in part incomprehensible, or above reason, after they are revealed. Such are the doctrines, of the resurrection of the dead, that all shall not die at the last day, but that all shall be changed (1 Cor. xv. 51.), the incarnation of the Son of God, the doctrine of the Trinity, &c. This is the ordinary or theological sense of the word mystery; it does not imply any thing contrary to reason, nor utterly unknown as to its being; but it signifies a matter, of whose existence we have clear evidence in the Scriptures, although the mode of such existence is incomprehensible, or above our reason.2

X. It is of particular importance that we distinguish figurative expressions from such as are proper or literal, and that we ascertain how far they are to be extended.

For want of attention to this rule, how many absurd doctrines have been deduced from the Scriptures! Transubstantiation, for instance, which has already been shown to be founded on an erroneous literal interpretation of figurative expressions.3 With regard to the manner in which such figurative expressions are to be distinguished from proper and literal ones, it will suffice to refer to a former chapter, in which this topic is fully considered.4

XI. Although the Scriptures sometimes speak of God after the manner of men, they are not to be understood literally, but must be taken in a sense worthy of God.

This rule was not unknown to the Jews, with whom it was usual to say that the Scriptures speak of God with the tongue of the sons of men. When, therefore, human members, faculties, senses, and affections are attributed to the Deity, they are to be understood in a sense worthy of Him: and the manner in which that sense is to be ascer1 Schleusner's and Parkhurst's Greek Lexicons to the New Testament, voce Musnptov. Dr. Campbell's Translation of the Four Gospels, vol. i. pp. 298-306. See also J. G. Pfeiffer's Instit. Herm. Sac. pp. 704-724.

2 On the subject of mysteries in religion, see Vol. I. Chap. V, Sect. I. § 4. pp. 429-433.

3 See pp. 583, 584. supra.

4 See Chapter V. supra, particularly Section I. pp. 581-589.

VOL. II.

84

tained is twofold: 1. From the light of nature, which teaches us that all ideas of imperfection are to be removed from God, and consequently corporeity: and, 2. From the comparison of other passages of Scripture, in which it is written, that God is a spirit, that he cannot be represented by any figure, and that he is not a man that he should repent, &c. Numerous illustrations of this remark might be offered, were it necessary; but as this subject has already been discussed in a former chapter, it will be sufficient to give a reference to it.1 XII. Avoid all subtle and far-fetched expositions.

The reason of this canon will appear when it is considered (as we have already remarked) that the sacred writers, being almost wholly persons in the common rank of life, and addressing persons in the same condition with themselves, spoke to them in a familiar style adapted to their capacities. No sense therefore is to be assigned to their words, that requires great mental acumen to discover. On this ground, those interpretations should be received with great caution, which profess to find allegories every where in the Scriptures: and those interpretations should be altogether rejected, which do violence to the sacred text. Of this description are the expositions given of numerous passages of Scripture by those who deny the divinity and atonement of the Son of God. It is not intended to assert in this remark that there are not in the Bible many figurative expressions; these were at that time perfectly familiar to the Jewish people, who, in some instances, apprehended them more readily than literal expressions. This mode of speaking, we have already seen, obtained greatly among the Jews, in common with other oriental nations.

XIII. When easy and natural interpretations offer themselves, those interpretations ought to be avoided, which deduce astonishing and incredible doctrines.

We are not to seek unnecessarily for mysteries in the sacred writings. Those, which are most clearly revealed in the Scriptures (for instance, the incarnation of the Son of God, the doctrine of the Trinity, &c.), are to be received precisely in the terms in which they are propounded to our belief. But, where a plain and obvious meaning presents itself, mysteries are on no account to be sought. In illustration of this remark, we may adduce the doctrine of transubstantiation, already noticed in the course of this work; which the church of Rome has erected into a mystery, founding it on a direct violation of the preceding rule, and supporting it by forced and unnatural interpretations of passages, which are in themselves most easy to be understood.

XIV. In explaining passages we must attend to the effect or sense which particular words, understood in a particular way ought naturally to produce and if such effect be not produced, it is manifest that such words are not to be taken in that sense.

The doctrine of transubstantiation, already referred to, may be adduced as an example; for unquestionably, if our Saviour's words, This is my body, &c. had been understood by the apostles in that sense, it must have excited in their minds the utmost astonishment, which, however, does not appear to have been the case.

XV. No doctrine is admissible, or can be established from the Scrip

1 See pp. 599, 600. supra.

tures, that is either repugnant to them, or contrary to reason or to the analogy of faith.

The same example may be cited in illustration of the present canon; for if the doctrine of transubstantiation were to be admitted, the evidence of our reason, as well as of our senses, could no longer be believed, and the consequence would be, that the arguments for the truth of the Christian religion, arising from the miracles and resurrection of Jesus Christ, would fall to the ground, and become of no effect whatever. Articles of revelation indeed may be above our reason; but no doctrine, which comes from God, can be irrational, or contrary to those moral truths, which are clearly perceived by the mind of man. We are sure, therefore, that any interpretation of revealed doctrines that is inconsistent with common sense, or with the established laws of morality, must be erroneous. The several parts of those doctrines, which are dispersed through the Scriptures, ought to be collected and explained so as to agree with one another, and form an intelligible and consistent scheme. The different parts of a revelation, which comes from God, must all be reconcileable with one another, and with sound reason. The prejudices of different denominations unfit them for understanding the passages, which are connected with the subjects of their disputations; but there are general principles that all parties adopt and no text can be interpreted in a sense inconsistent with those articles which are universally received. This conformity, of every part to first principles, is commonly called the analogy of faith.1

:

XVI. In considering the doctrines of the Christian religion, what is clear is not to be rendered obscure by a few dark passages: but, on the contrary, obscure passages are to be illustrated by such as are more

clear.

This rule having been more fully stated in a former page, and supported by examples, it is not necessary here to cite additional instances. The reader is therefore simply reminded, that the application of it to the investigation of the doctrinal parts of Scripture, is of very considerable moment.2

XVII. It is of great importance to the understanding of the doctrinal books of the New Testament, to attend to and distinctly note the transitions of person which frequently occur, especially in Saint Paul's Epistles.

The pronouns I, We, and You, are used by the apostles in such a variety of applications, that the understanding of their true meaning is often a key to many difficult passages.

Thus, by the pronoun I, Saint Paul sometimes means himself: sometimes any Christian; sometimes a Jew; and sometimes any man, &c. If the speaking of himself in the first person singular have these various meanings, his use of the plural We is with far greater latitude for sometimes we means himself alone, sometimes those who were with him, whom he makes partners to the Epistles (as in the two Epistles to the Corinthians, and in those to the Philippians and Colossians); sometimes, with himself, comprehending the other apostles, or preachers of the Gospel, or Christians. Nay, he sometimes speaks in this way of the converted Jews, at others, of the converted Gentiles: sometimes he introduces the unregenerate as speaking in his own person; at other times he personifies false teachers or false Christians, whose names, however, he forbears to mention, lest he should give them offence. In all these instances, his application of the above

1 Concerning the analogy of faith, see pp. 556–562. supra.
2 See pp. 559, 560. supra.

mentioned pronouns varies the meaning of the text, and causes it to be differently understood. Examples, illustrative of this remark, may be found in every page of Saint Paul's Epistles. Further, in the current of his discourse, he sometimes drops in the objections of others, and his answers to them, without any change in the scheme of his language, that might give notice of any other person speaking besides himself. To discover this, requires great attention to the apostle's scope and argument: and yet, if it be neglected or overlooked, it will cause the reader greatly to mistake and misunderstand his meaning, and will also render the sense very perplexed. Mr. Locke, and Dr. Macknight, in their elaborate works on the Epistles, are particularly useful in pointing out these various transitions of persons and subjects.

XVIII. When weighty reasons are produced for and against a certain doctrine, they must be compared together with great diligence and sincerity, in order that we may see which reasons preponderate.

This rule is of singular importance in studying the doctrinal parts of the Bible for the case here supposed is of very frequent occurrence in theological controversies; in which, according to the previously formed opinions of various parties, the same reasons are urged by one class, as arguments for the truth of a controverted doctrine, which by their opponents are strenuously asserted as objections to it. Thus, in the question relative to the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the expressions, This is my body (Matt. xxvi. 26.), My flesh is meat indeed, my blood is drink indeed, and except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, &c. (John vi. 53. 55.), are by some understood of the bodily presence, and eating the flesh of Christ; but this interpretation is, on the other hand, justly opposed by arguments drawn from the evidence of our senses, from reason, and above all from comparing other passages of Scripture, in which the expressions of bread and wine are spoken of the Eucharist after consecration, and those where Christ is said to be received into heaven until the times of restitution of all things. (Acts iii. 21.) The former passages are adduced by the Roman Catholics as arguments for the truth of the real presence; while the latter are assorted by Protestants as objections against that doctrine. In order, therefore, to determine on which side the truth lies, we must carefully and accurately weigh the arguments adduced by both parties; and those reasons which appear most plainly manifest and insuperable, we must prefer, as supporting the cause of truth, and the arguments adduced on the opposite side must necessarily fall to the ground.

XIX. Where it is not clear what is the precise meaning attached by the sacred writers to particular words or expressions, it is better that we should restrain our judgment concerning them, than deliver our sentiments rashly on points which we do not fully comprehend.

Many examples of this kind are to be found in the sacred writings.

To instance only the apostle's supplications in behalf of believers, that God would grant unto them, that the eyes of their understanding might be enlightened (Eph. i. 18.), that he would make them perfect in every good work (Heb. xiii. 21.), and the like. Now, in these passages, the precise mode in which divine grace operates in believers, is not stated; and therefore it is not necessary that we should define what the word of God has not defined.

XX. In applying the Scriptures as a proof of any doctrine, it is necessary to ascertain, if all that is meant be expressed, or if it be not expressed, what is necessarily implied, in order to complete the passage.

Thus it is common (as we have already shown)2 for the sacred writers to mention, only the principal part of any subject, for the whole. In Rom. x. 9. Paul says; If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart THAT GOD HATH RAISED HIM FROM THE DEAD, thou shalt be saved. The resurrection of Christ is the only article which is men. tioned here, because, by that miracle, God established the Saviour's authority as a lawgiver, and confirmed all the doctrines which he taught. But there are other

1 Locke's Preface to the Epistles. (Works, vol. iii. p. 277.)

2 See p. 627. supra.