cause Scripture is in some sense the product of the infinite Spirit of God, therefore it must have, not merely one meaning, or two meanings, but an infinite fulness of meaning. But this, in fact, is to say that it has no meaning at all. A combination of words that should be capable of having an indefinite number of meanings, would manifestly have no meaning at all for any particular person, except such as he might himself read into it. If the Bible were a composition of this kind, it would contain no revelation for us. This is the Swedenborgian theory of the Bible. Under its verbal statements the Bible, according to this theory, hides an infinitude of spiritual meanings, which only they can understand who are themselves spiritual, and have the key to the mind of the Spirit. That the right understanding of Scripture is conditioned by the possession of a spiritual frame of mind, as the right understanding of a poem is conditioned by the possession of a poetical frame of mind, must of course be admitted; but even such spiritual frame of mind could discover no definite meaning in Scripture, if such meaning were not there. In such case there would be no occupation for the scientific exegete; as there would be no meaning to be ascertained by philological methods, but only to be guessed.

Even the more modest claim of the old allegorists must be rejected. They were content to assume a four-fold sense, namely, the literal, the moral, the spiritual, and the mystical or anagogical. The following example may serve for illustration: Of the sentence, "When Israel went out of Egypt," Ps. 114: 1, the literal sense may be said to be the actual deliverance of Israel from Egyptian bondage; the spiritual sense, the redemption of the world through Christ; the moral sense, deliverance of the sinner from the bondage of sin; and the anagogical sense, the passage of soul and body from the life of earth to the life of heaven. The precedent of treating Scripture in this way was set partly by the later Greek philosophers who, by this means, got rid of the immoral stories of their ancient mythology and literature, and partly by Philo and the Alexandrian Jews, who thus spiritualized the whole of the Old Testament, and made it teach

the philosophical and moral ideas of the Greeks. From these sources this method of treating sacred Scripture was borrowed first by the Alexandrian theologians, Clemens, and especially Origen, and their successors, and by them transmitted to the church in later times. It was employed generally during the middle ages, and continued to be used even long after the Reformation, probably because by means of it any man can get out of the Bible whatever he wants to get. Studied in this way the Bible indeed comes to be open to the reproach contained in the following verses:

"Hic liber est in quo quaerit sua dogmata quisque,

Invenit et pariter dogmata quisque sua."

In recent times it has come to be a somewhat favorite method to distinguish in Scripture a two-fold sense, an external and an internal, or a natural and a spiritual sense. The ascertainment of the external or natural sense may then be said to be the aim of scientific exegesis, while the discovery of the internal or spiritual sense may be regarded as the aim of what has been called practical exegesis. This distinction may be regarded as valid, if by external sense there be understood simply the historical meaning of a passage, or its original meaning, and by internal sense the religious and moral truth which it may involve for particular times and persons. Strictly speaking, however, the latter truth is not a sense of Scripture distinct from the literal sense, but rather an application of the literal sense; and the discovery and discussion of it is not interpretation, but preaching. Take, in the way of illustration, the account of the calming of the tempest on the sea of Galilee, Matt. 8: 23-27. In its historical or literal sense that means that Jesus, after a day of unwonted activity, late in the evening, embarked in a boat with His disciples to sail to the other side of the sea; that, as they were rowing, and while Jesus, being weary, was lying asleep in a certain part of the boat, there suddenly came down upon the sea one of those furious tempests which are common in that locality, being caused by the close proximity of strata of hot and cold air, whose equilibrium is dis

turbed by slight changes of temperature; that the disciples were greatly alarmed for their safety, being ignorant or forgetful of the security which the presence of Jesus in the ship afforded; that, being aroused from His slumber, and having first calmed the storm of fear in the bosoms of the disciples, Jesus, by an exertion of His wonderful power, calmed the tempest of the sea; and that this made a very profound impression upon those who were in the ship, notably strenghtening their faith in the Messiahship of Jesus. This is the literal sense of the story which the evangelist relates. Now what is the spiritual or practical sense of this relation? Generally, that Christ is in His church and with His people in all times of trial and adversity, and will safely bring them out of every danger, if they will steadfastly believe and trust in Him. If I am in physical danger, then this narrative of Scripture means for me that Jesus, who calmed the storm on the Sea of Galilee, can and will deliver me safely from every peril. If I am in spiritual danger, in temptation of any sort, or in doubt as to my salvation, then it means for me that, if I am faithful to Him and continue in His fellowship, Jesus will surely accomplish my salvation, and bring me to the haven of eternal life. This practical explanation and application of Scripture, however, is not the business of scientific exegesis, but of preaching; while, on the other hand, preaching has nothing to do with grammatical and philological discussions of the text, or with the determination of questions concerning the origin of the storm, or the source of Jesus' power over it. Some dogmatic inferences may indeed be drawn from the events of this gospel. For instance, the fact that Jesus was weary and lay in the ship asleep, may be regarded as a proof of His real humanity, while His command over the elements of nature may be considered a proof of His divinity. But strictly speaking the formulating and systematizing of such inferences is neither the work of preaching nor of exegesis, but of Biblical theology; although these functions can perhaps not always be thus strictly separated.

For scientific exegesis, and for the establishment of doctrine, Scripture has and can have but one sense, namely, the literal,

historical or philological. This, however, does not mean that every word and every sentence in Scripture is used in its simple, plain, or literal sense. In point of fact such is far from being the case. The language of the Bible is often highly figurative; and it is the business of exegesis to show where it is figurative and where it is literal. The Hebrew mind-and all the writers of Scripture were Hebrews in mind, whatever may have been the training which they had received, or the language in which they wrote the Hebrew mind is highly imaginative and emotional. The Hebrew mind thinks not in abstract terms or formulas, but in concrete images. The Hebrew language, indeed, is not adapted to the expression of abstract thought, but of concrete conceptions and feelings. It is not calm, cold reflection, nicely distinguishing between fine shades of thought, but warm, emotional and poetical feeling that characterizes the Hebrew mind. Hence the Hebrew writer, even when writing in a foreign tongue, loves to express himself in bold figures and poetical imagery; and his language must, therefore, be interpreted with poetic freedom, not with the cold precision with which one would interpret a legal document. The language of Scripture abounds in figurative expressions of every sort. We have simile, metaphor, parable, allegory, fable, and probably legend and myth. One peculiarity of Hebrew thought and speech, which has not generally received the attention which it deserves, consists in what may be called hyperbole exaggeration, or straining of language beyond the intended idea. It is the extension of expression beyond the intention of thought. We have illustrations of this use of language in our own daily life. For example, a student in a moment of despondency may say, "I know nothing at all," when he only means to say that he knows but little; and a professor, in a fit of petulence, may say to a student, "you have no brains," which he certainly does not wish to be understood in a literal sense. So we may say that a person's manners are "perfectly charming," when we only mean to say that they are very agreeable. It has been said that using such language is "lying without deceiving." In fact, in ordinary life nobody is deceived thereby. And the

more emotional people are, the more they will be inclined to such abusive or hyperbolic use of words. As examples of this peculiarity of Scripture the following quotations may be given: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated (Mal. 1: 3, quoted Rom. 9: 13); "If any man will come after me and hate not his father and mother, he cannot be my disciple" (Luke 14: 26); "Whosoever is born of God does not commit sin, because his seed abideth in him; and he cannot sin, because he is begotten of God" (I. John 3: 9); "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us " (I. John 1: 8); "That which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God" (Luke 16: 15). These and similar passages have been the dread of commentators simply because they took literally and as sober matter of fact what is to be taken hyperbolically and poetically. It should be observed, however, that in such cases the tropical or figurative sense is really the philological sense, because it is the sense intended by the writer. Many a writer of Scripture would doubtless be greatly astonished if he could see how his emotional and impassioned utterances have been made into cold and chilling dogmas.

The scientific or philological interpretation of Scripture, then, consists in ascertaining the true original meaning of the sacred writers, and in formulating the doctrine and ethical truth involved in that meaning. The method which it follows is grammatical, historical and psychological. By the aid of grammar, history, and psychology the exegete studies the language of the sacred writers, and unfolds the doctrinal and ethical truths which those writers intend to express. Further than this exegesis does not go. It is not its business to compare these truths and combine them in a systematic whole. This is the business of Biblical theology. Nor is it the business of exegesis to point out the practical applications of the truth which has been discovered in the text of Scripture. That is the business of preaching. Nor, finally, is it the business of exegesis to justify the views or ideas of the sacred writers in the forum of absolute truth. It would be a mistake, for instance, for a commentator to undertake to justify