who would find the key of the Old Testament in the Wisdom Literature, would commit a most unpardonable blunder. How much greater is the sin of those who first insist upon interpreting the epistles of St. Paul in accordance with the analytical principles of modern logic, and then of interpreting all the rest of the New Testament by this interpretation of St. Paul, and then the whole body of the Hebrew Old Testament by this interpretation of the New Testament. In view of such a method, one might inquire, why take all this trouble to impose meanings upon such a vast body of ancient literature? It would be far easier and more honest to construct the dogmatic system by logical principles, and leave the Bible to itself. We are not surprised that when and where such methods have prevailed, biblical studies have been neglected and despised.

(b) Rhetorical interpretation is closely connected with logical. There are common features of rhetoric that belong to all discourse, and there are special features which are peculiar to the Biblical Literature. The Bible has been tested and interpreted too often, after Greek, German, French, and English models. We have to discriminate in the Bible the more logical parts from the more rhetorical parts. The fault of the Halacha and scholastic methods was in their overlooking the rhetorical features of the Bible. The fault of the Haggada and allegorical methods was in overlooking the logical. In rhetorical exegesis it is essential to discriminate poetry from prose, the different kinds of poetry and prose from each other, the style of each author, as well as the literary peculiarities of the people and race which produced the Bible. Here is a field of study which promises still greater rewards to those who will pursue it, and it will prove of especial richness to the homilist and catechist.

III. HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION

Thus far all parties work in common. As we rise to the higher stage of historical interpretation there arise differences between the rationalistic and supernaturalistic interpreters, owing to certain presuppositions with which they approach the

1 See Chap. XIII.

Bible. There are different conceptions of history. The supernaturalistic interpreters recognize the supernatural element as the determining factor; the rationalistic interpreters endeavour to explain everything by purely natural laws. Among believers in the supernatural there is also a difference, in that some are ever resorting to the supernatural to explain the history, while other more judicious interpreters explain by the natural element until they are compelled by overpowering evidence to resort to the supernatural. Semler has the credit in modern. times of laying great stress on the historic interpretation. In historical exegesis we have to recognize that the biblical writers were men of their times and yet men above their times. They were influenced by inspiration to introduce new divine revelations, and to revive old truths and set them in new lights; they were reformers, and so came into conflict with the conservatives of their time. Many errors spring up here. The Pharisees interpreted the Old Testament by tradition. The scholastics pursue the same course with reference to the New Testament. The rationalists interpret Scripture altogether by history and natural forces. Here the scholastic and rationalistic interpreters of our times lock horns. They are both alike in error. Tradition is the bastard of history and should be resorted to only when we have no history, and then with caution and suspicion as to its origin. History is to help, not rule; for in the history of redemption the supernatural force shapes and controls history. The true method is to rise from the natural to the supernatural. History has been impregnated with the supernatural. We must not expect to find the supernatural everywhere on the surface. The supernatural comes into play only when the natural is incapable of accomplishing the divine purpose; so it is to be sought when it alone is capable of affording explanation of the phenomena. Then the supernatural displays itself with convincing, assuring force. Lutz has some admirable remarks here: 1

"The historico-grammatical method of interpretation has brought out truths which cannot be valued too highly. No book needs more than the Holy Scriptures to be understood in accordance 1 Bib. Herm., Pforzheim, 1861, 2te Ausg., p. 168.

with the times in which they were first read. . . . But it is just as true that such an exposition in its one-sidedness limiting itself to grammar and history, entirely loses sight of the peculiar features of the Bible, and would bring about a complete separation between church and exegesis. Thereby the church would be deprived of its light, and exegesis would dig its own grave."

IV. COMPARATIVE INTERPRETATION

In rising to comparative interpretation we have to distinguish still further the attitude of interpreters toward the Bible. Supernaturalists come to the Bible as a sacred Canon, an organic whole. Rationalists come to the Bible as a collection of merely human writings. It is the merit of the Puritans, of the Federalists of Holland, and in recent times of the schools of Schleiermacher and Hofmann, that they urged the organic unity of Scripture. It is presumed that writers are consistent, and that writers of the same school are in substantial accord. This is a general presumption derived from the study of all literature. But we must go further and insist that as all the writers of the Bible are of the school of the Holy Spirit and all conspired to give us the complete organism of the Canon, there is a unity and concord that extends throughout the Bible. There is error here on the right and the left. The rationalists regard the Bible as a bundle of miscellaneous and heterogeneous writings. The scholastics regard them as a homogeneous mass. As Lange says:

"We should read the Bible as a human book, but not as a heathen book; as a divino-human book according to the fact that there is a distinction between elect men of God who walk on the heights of humanity and the populace in the low plains of humanity; as the documents of revelation, which participate throughout in the revelation, the unicum among all religious writings." 1

The rationalists sink the unity in the variety; the scholastics destroy the variety for the sake of the unity. The true position is, that the Bible is a vast organism in which the unity springs from an amazing variety. The unity is not that of a mass of rocks or a pool of water. It is the unity that one finds

1 Grundriss d. bib. Hermeneutik, Heidelberg, 1878, p. 68.

in the best works of God. It is the unity of the ocean, where every wave has its individuality of life and movement. It is the unity of the continent, in which mountains and rivers, valleys and uplands, flowers and trees, birds and insects, animal and human life combine to distinguish it as a magnificent whole from other continents. It is the unity of the heaven, where star differs from star in form, colour, order, movement, size, and importance, but all declare the glory of God.

V. THE LITERATURE OF INTERPRETATION

The fifth stage of exegesis is the use of the literature of interpretation. The Bible is the Canon of the Christian 'Church. What relation does it sustain to the Church? We are separated from the originals by ages. Multitudes of students have studied the Bible, and their labour has not been in vain. As a prince of modern preachers says:

"In order to be able to expound the Scriptures, and as an aid to your pulpit studies, you will need to be familiar with the commentators: a glorious army, let me tell you, whose acquaintance will be your delight and profit. Of course, you are not such wiseacres as to think or say that you can expound Scripture without assistance from the works of divines and learned men, who have labored before you in the field of exposition. . . . It seems odd, that certain men who talk so much of what the Holy Spirit reveals to themselves, should think so little of what he has revealed to others." 1

But the question presses itself upon the exegete, how far he is to go in allowing himself to be influenced by the history of exegesis. The Roman Catholic Church makes the literature of the Church itself, the consent of the Fathers, the decision of councils, and the official utterances of the Popes the authoritative expositors of Holy Scripture, to which all other exposition is to be conformed. We have learned from the history of exegesis how cautious we should be with the expositions of the Fathers. We have found the best interpreters using false methods and following false principles. The literature of exegesis is an invaluable help, but this help is negative as well 1 Spurgeon, Commenting and Commentaries, p. 11. 2 See pp. 447 seq.

as positive. It exhibits a vast multitude of errors that have been exposed, and so prevents us from stumbling into them. It shows us a great number of positions so plainly established and fortified, that it were folly to question them. But at the same time it presents a number of positions so weakly supported that they excite suspicion of their validity; and others, where contests have not resulted in settlement. The literature of exegesis enables us to understand the real state of the questions that have to be determined by the interpreter of the Scriptures. It prevents us from wasting our energies in doing what others have done before us, or in working in barren or unprofitable fields; and it directs us to the fruitful soil of the Bible, the mines to be worked, and the problems to be solved. If it is suicidal for interpretation to limit itself to the exegesis of the Fathers and the schoolmen, it is just as perilous to implicitly follow the Reformers and theologians of the Protestant churches. It would result in our forsaking the interpretation of the Scriptures, and devoting ourselves to the interpretation of the interpreters. In some respects Protestants have been in greater bondage here than Roman Catholics, for Roman Catholics have been held in check only by the authoritative decisions of the Church and the consent of the Fathers, whereas Protestant interpreters have very generally followed the private opinions of Luther, or Calvin, or Knox, or Wesley, or some other. If there is to be a limitation it is safer that such limits should be found in a consensus or official decision than that they should be found in any individual, however great he may be.

Francis Roberts happily says:

"There must be constant caution that all tongues, arts, histories, translations, and comments be duly ranked in their proper place, in a subserviency under, not a regency or predominancy over the Holy Scriptures, which are to controule them all. For when Hagar shall once usurp over her mistress, it's high time to cast her out of doors till she submit herself." 1

1 In l.c., p. 5.