union of the most sedulous and respectful scripture conference and collation, with the most enlarged and liberal use of the accumulated and progressive stores of sacred literature, there can assuredly be opposed not even the shadow of objection. But, even supposing the best and purest intentions in the biblical student, I conceive that something more is needful to his preservation from dangerous, perhaps from fatal, error. The want of this additional something is scarcely supplied by the succeeding words of ALBIUS: Without at all sacrificing the principle of self interpretation as our cardinal guide, we may profit, even to an indefinite extent, from the antecedent or concurrent investigation of the wise, the learned, the studious, and the pious." I will own myself somewhat jealous of this "indefinitely extended profit, from all the belps that we can find." I will confess my fears, that among the weighty volumes of the wise, the learned, the studious, and the pious, and among the lighter essays of those for whom it might not be difficult to find more appropriate epithets (a class of writings, this last, which I am sure ALBIUS would reprobate, but which, I am equally sure, his unrestricted rule would multiply)-I will confess my fears, that, amidst such a miscellaneous gathering of commentators, the honest, but defenceless, student, might be hurried far beyond the precincts of our holy faith. To the rule, therefore, that Scripture is to be interpreted by Scripture, I could wish to see invariably annexed another rule,-quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus; a rule, subordinate indeed, and subsidiary, to the paramount authority of Scripture; but which, if wisely studied, and faithfully ap plied, will protect us alike from the wanderings of private fancy, and from the deceptions of those who would entice us into various la

byrinths of "erroneous and strange doctrine."*

The next point to be re-examined is the second objection to the self-interpreting rule of the Protest of Spires; namely, that by making plainer passages a standard of construction for the more obscure, it would despoil Revelation of all its specific richness, and leave it nothing beyond its simpler and ordinary elements.

In considering this branch of the subject, some misconception may possibly be removed, and some embarrassment avoided, by inviting attention to the following particulars:-That objection was made to the rule, as announced in the Protest, without qualification or restriction, and, at the least, in contradistinction to church authority; that objection was made to the rule, not as it may and ought to be applied, in combination with a reverent attention to catholic consent," but, as it might be

"The perfection of Scripture is a point allowed, and is no part of the question between us: the main questhe full benefits of that perfection; whetion is, how we may be sure of reaping ther with the light of antiquity before us, or without it.-It might be shown, that those who have least indulged their own fancies, but have adhered strictly to antiquity in the prime things, have done most honour to the perfection of Scripture, and have kept the rule of faith entire." WATERLAND on the Importance of the Trinity, pp. 395-397. Cited by Doctor VAN MILDERT. Bampt. Lect. P. 342. The whole context of Dr. W. to adduce, may be consulted with ad which it was unnecessary for Dr. V. M.

vantage.

+ See Jebb's Appendix, p. 367. It is with peculiar gratification, that I find this language sanctioned by the following weighty authority: nor can I refrain from expressing my fervent hope, that such doctrine may long characterize the divinity chair of OXFORD "But, while our church is thus careful not to set up

her authority as an unerring standard of truth, she omits not to testify her deference to the judgment of the church

abused, and has been abused, in a manner foreign from the practice of all orthodox antiquity; and lastly, that objection was made to the rule, not only as announced in the Protest, but as since unhappily elucidated, by the practical commentary of Ultra-Socinian heresies inculcated from the chairs of foreign professors, and the pulpits of foreign theologians. These particulars may not, indeed, have been precisely laid down in the Appendix; but, with very slight attention, they may be collected from it: and, with these particulars in view, it was thought not merely allowable or expedient, but a bounden duty, to set forth the extreme danger of the unrestricted rule, by an exhibition of its worst consequences; consequences, assuredly, not theoretic; and which it is my purpose hereafter to exemplify, by references to the most popular works of the modern continental school.

Having submitted this explanatory statement, I proceed to consider the further animadversions of ALBIUS. He conceives, that "the second objection involves two propositions, neither of which it is very easy implicitly to adopt: first, it implies that a clear passage can properly be employed to explain the doctrine contained in an obscure one, only when both treat of the same thing, and mean to propound the same, or nearly the same, truth: secondly, it implies, that an identity of subjectmatter between a plain and an obscure passage does seldom or never take place, and therefore cannot be assumed to exist, without leading to error."

After the most careful scrutiny, I can venture to pronounce, that

catholic, when it can be duly obtained. She every where shows her readiness to abide by that judgment, and to reverence, it, in proportion to the evidence of its antiquity, and its uninterrupted continuance."-VAN MILDERT. Bampt. Lect. p. 278.

the former of these propositions is not either expressed or implied throughout the whole Appendix. So deep'y, indeed, is this my conviction, that I am willing to adopt a proposition nearly its converse, almost in the precise words of my opponent; namely: "That a diffi cult passage may often be explained by means of a simpler one, when both passages do not contain the same doctrine, and even when the plainer [I will add, even when the obscurer passage] does not contain any doctrine at all." The cases truly are innumerable, and the classes of circumstances could not easily be reckoned, in which passages either totally or partially differing in their subject-matter may give and receive mutual elucidation. A few of those classes, however, may be intimated, were it only for the purpose of removing any misconception which may have arisen on this head respecting the views of the Appendix, and its writer. The meaning, then, of words and phrases may be settled, difficulties in grammatical construction may be removed, figurative language may be elucidated, historical allusions may be opened and verified, by the careful and judicious collation of texts, which, in their leading purpose, have little or no similarity or relationship to each other. This admission might, with perfect consistency, have been made in the Appendix; but surely its absence may be pardoned, on the simple ground that no man of common sense or common information, even slightly versed in the study of Scripture, could be supposed so ignorant as not to know, or so extravagant as not to apply, these first principles of hermeneutical theology. The truth is, that, however imperfect in its execution, the Appendix aimed at higher matters; and, in the branch of it now under consideration, the aim was to guard against the unqualified, irregular, and licentious application

of a rule which requires much caution, even in its most legitimate use,* to cases almost, if not altogether, beyond its lawful sphere of operation.

The second proposition deduced by ALBIUS from the second objection urged in the Appendix, against the rule of naked self-interpretation, now remains to be considered. The objection, it will be recollected, was, that by making plainer passages a standard of construction for the more obscure, this unrestricted rule would despoil Revelation of all its specific riohness, and leave it nothing beyond its simpler and ordinary elements. The remaining proposition deduced by ALBIUS from this objection, as urged in the Appendix, is, "That an identity of subject-matter between a plain and an obscure passage does seldom or never take place, and therefore cannot be assumed to exist, without leading to error."

From the maintenance of this proposition, I do not shrink; and the office of maintaining it, for the present, is both brief and easy, since your able correspondent has brought forward no example, and, to my apprehension, no argument in favour of the strict identity between clearer and obscurer passages of Scripture. The words used in the Appendix are the following: "It is obvious, that, in the sacred word, different degrees of clearness and obscurity can have arisen only from the various nature of the subject-matter." The truth of this position may be supported in the following manner : an obscure passage occurs to me, for example, in the writings of St. Paul. I recollect a plainer passage, apparently of a similar character. The obscure passage,

For a most wise, temperate, and impressive description and enforcement of this necessary caution, I beg leave to refer to Dr. Van Mildert's Sixth Sermon, Bampt. Lect. pp. 115, 116, with the note upon that passage, pp. 384, 385.

and the plain passage, must present, at least, a verbal difference; otherwise, they would be identically the same, and must consequently be equally clear, or equally obscure. A verbal difference, then, being granted, it is certain, that either the obscure passage must contain some expression not included in the clear passage, or the clear passage must contain some expression not included in the obscure one. But, as the sacred writers never express themselves at random, never write without a clear conception of what they mean, and, at least, a competent power to do justice to their meaning, it follows that each expression must have its value; that is, must be the representative of some portion of subject-matter; and consequently, between these two passages, one of which does contain and one of which does not contain a certain expression, there must exist a difference of subject-matter. The generic subject, indeed, may be the same, but the specific subject must be diverse. This reasoning, I apprehend, may be justly and safely generalized; and, in the vast majority of profound passages, it will probably appear, that the specific differences, far from being subordinate and trivial, constitute, in fact, the grand and leading features. Nor let it be said that the difference may be purely verbal ; that, in the obscure passage, an obscure expression, may occur, while, in the plain passage, an equivalent though plainer expression may be given. On close inspection, I am persuaded it will be found, that, almost invariably, the obscurity lies, not in words, but in things; and that, by accepting the plainer term as an equivalent for the more obscure, we should sacrifice the profound and peculiar truth, thus profoundly and peculiarly expressed, not from an arbitrary selection of obscure terms, but because no other terms could do justice to the meaning. It will

be recollected, that when St. Peter makes cautionary mention of the dvovonta of St. Paul, he refers the obscurity not, in any degree, to the language of the writer, but altogether to the intrinsic difficulty of the subject-matters.* In all such cases, then, I must still protest against reducing difficult texts to the level of plain ones. And, thus protesting, may I be permitted to sketch what I would recommend as a more safe and legitimate procedure? Let the serious student, in the first place, recommend himself to that Divine assistance, without which all human. labour must be unavailing; then, let him study, with every grammatical aid, the words of the text itself; next, let him examine, with all imaginable diligence, the immediate context; afterward, let him collate both text and context with parallel passages, rather with a view to the discovery of specific differences, than for the purpose of melting down such differences in a vague, superficial, common-place agreement. These prime labours being finished, commentators may be usefully consulted; and, lastly, the conclusion drawn should be most scrupulously brought to the test, not only of the analogy of Scripture, but of Catholic orthodoxy, as established by Catholic consent; in order that, if needful, it may be reconsidered and revised. Whoever thus examines difficult passages of Scripture, may occasionally and subordinately fall into error; but it is next to impossible, that, in any material point, he should err against the faith or the morality of Scripture and the church of Christ.

This defence, I would hope, may not prove altogether unsatis

* Καθως και ο αγαπητως ήμων αδελφος Παυ λος, κατά την αυτω δοθεισαν σοφίαν, έγραψεν έμιν, ώς και εν πάσαις ταις επισολαίς, λαλων εν αυταις περι ΤΟΥΤΩΝ, εν ΟΙΣ επί δυσνόητα τινα, ά δι αμαθεις και ασήρικτοι ςρη λυσιν, ὡς και τας λοιπας γραφας, προς την ίδια αυτών απώ Auay, 2 Pet. iii. 15, 16.

factory; and, viewed in the light of the principles just laid down, I would also hope, that both ALBIUS and others of your readers may be induced to re-examine and rejudge a passage, which I will take the liberty of extracting from the Appendix.

The clearer passages of Scripture will, in general, be those which recognise principles deducible from Nature and Providence, without the aid of Revelation; and, by parity of reason, the obscurer passages will commonly be those in which pure matter of Revelation is promulgated. If, therefore, it be adopted as the leading principle of interpretation, that the sense of the latter class of passages should be settled or limited by the sense of the former class, it may be reckoned upon, that, through the continualTM application of this rule, the appropriate and peculiar truths of Revelation will gradually be absorbed in mere natural verities. This result appears inevitable. For so long as there are any plainer passages to be resorted to, these, according to the rule, must be the standard for explaining any that are less plain consequently, those pas sages, than which nothing can be plainer, must eventually be regard-W ed as the virtual compendium of all that is, in other words, thờ© lowest level which is to be found, is, as much as possible, to be made the level of the whole."-Appendix to Jebb's Sermons, pp. 366, 367.

These consequences, it was stated, might naturally have been expected from the adoption of this levelling principle. It may now be added, that the apprehension will appear the more reasonable, when we consider the known tendency of human pride and vanity to reject every thing mysterious; every thing above the level of human discovery or invention. The actual realization of these consequences was also inferred from the general approximation of foreign Protest