and explaining clearly the import of these tropes or figures. Besides, the dignity and importance of the matter propounded in these books ought to appear so great in the eyes of every sincere and pious Christian, as to demand the exertion of all his faculties for the discovery of those truths which lie concealed under the veil of figurative imagery. Hence the best interpreters have always paid great attention to the interpretation of tropes, though they have not always agreed in the explanation of particular passages. Every one who knows any thing of exegetical and dogmatical Theology, must be aware, what dissensions have existed in the Christian Church respecting the right interpretation of that most important passage, John vi. 47-53; of the words used by our Saviour at the institution of the Eucharist; of 1 Cor. iii. 13, 15, commonly advanced as a proof of purgatory; and, finally, respecting the right definition and application of those terms which relate to the order of salvation, such as κλήσις, φωτισμός, ἀναγένεσις, ἐπι

For a full examination of this passage, see Martin Chemnitz, examen concilii Tredentini, p. 569, 570. ed. Gen. 1641. fol. [See also Ernesti's Institutes, Bibl. Cab. i. 150: and for the form of Eucharistic institution, id. 146— 149.1

C

στροφή (Acts xv. 3), παλιγγενεσία (Tit. iii. 5), ȧvaxaívwois (Rom. xii. 2), and others of the same class. Nor are we, in our own days, without examples of men, who, from a misapprehension of certain passages in the Apocalypse, (such as xxi. 10, sq; xx. 4—6.) are looking for some celestial city to be built upon this earth, adorned with gold and the most precious stones, furnished with every thing that can delight the senses, in which they fondly hope that thrones and regal honours will be prepared for them and their partizans. It is therefore of the highest importance that we should be enabled to judge of the tropical language of the New Testament, and to interpret it according to fixed rules of Sacred Hermeneutics. And the best theologians of all ages have endeavoured to lay down rules for thus judging,

See J. A. Tittman's inquiry into the technical terms of the Gospel in his Opuscul Theol. (Lips. 1803. 8vo.) p. 278. sq. and 393. sq. Also his inquiry respecting the indwelling of the Spirit, ib. 399. sq. and the observations of that learned person at p. 688. sq. of this collection. With the above we may also class several phrases relative to ethical Christianity, such as draugau rhy rágna and others. Consult Duttenhoffer über Pietismus und orthodoxie (Halle. 1787. p. 118, 119. 146, 279, sq. 294, sq.)

d See Corrodi Kritische Geschichte des Chiliasmus, Critical History of Millenarianism. Zurich, 1794.

and to produce apposite examples for the illustration of those rules.

It cannot, however, be denied, that the party spirit too prevalent among theologians, has had a very hurtful influence on this portion of sacred literature; especially when examples have been taken from passages relating to controverted doctrines: instances of which, to pass over earlier examples, we may find in J. A. Ernesti himself, and in the copious answer to him by J. J. Hottinger, both of whom bring almost all their illustrations of the tropical language of the New Testament from passages relating either to the person of Christ, or to the institution of the Eucharist. Hence each being led aside by his party dogmas, exhausted his strength upon obscure passages of Scripture, either entirely omitting,

Inst. Interpretis. Bibl. Cabinet, p. 143. sq. and p. 105. Ammon's Ed.

Opuscula Hermeneutica and Critica (Lips. 1817.) p. 217 -244. On the other portion of our inquiry, however, namely, the interpretation of tropical language, this acute writer has illustrated the subject by many excellent observations. [The reader will observe that the two divisions of the subject, are Dijudicatio and Interpretatio. We have, under the first, to determine whether an expression be used tropically or literally and if we judge it to be tropical, we have then, under the second, to interpret its proper sense.]

or only briefly touching upon those which are clear and perspicuous. A safer path has been followed by those, who have referred this in'quiry respecting tropical language to fixed rules, and have illustrated the subject by examples whose interpretation was plain, easy, and remote from all dogmatic controversy. Such is the course pursued by Morus, Keil, h and Griesbach : among later writers, Lueck has omitted this question entirely, and Keyser1 has touched upon it very briefly. Following this path, then, I propose to offer a few observations which may tend to the illustration of the tropical language of the New Tes

tament.

• Super Hermeneutica N. T. Acroases Academicae. Ed. J. A. Eichstädt. vol. i. (Lips. 1797.) 260, sq.

b Lehrbuch der Hermeneutic des N. T. Manual of the Hermeneutics of the New Testament, (Lips. 1810.) p. 50

53.

1

Vorlesungen uber die Hermeneutic des N. T. herausgegeben von Steiner. Prælections on the Hermeneutics of the New Testament, edited by Steiner. (Nuremberg, 1815.) p. 114, sq.

Grundriss der Neutestamentlich Hermeneutic und ihrer Geschichte. Elements of the Hermeneutics of the New Testament with its history. (Göttingen 1817.)

1 Grundriss eines Systems der Neutestamentlichen Hermeneutik. Elements of a System of New Testament Hermeneutics, (Erlangen, 1817.) p. 120.

T

The whole of this inquiry resolves itself into two heads; the first relates to the detection, the second to the interpretation of tropes..

In the first place, then, we have to inquire by what methods we may detect tropes, or determine whether any expression whose sense we are examining, is to be understood figuratively or literally: and this inquiry is not without difficulties of considerable magnitude. For it is evident from the New Testament history itself, that not only the occasional hearers of our Saviour's discourses; as, for instance, the Jews (John ii. 19, 22, and vi. 30-35. 52 and 60), and Nicodemus, who was a teacher in Israel, (iii. 3—-5), and finally, the Samaritan woman, (iv. 11-25), were often mistaken as to the sense of his figurative expressions; but that even his immediate followers, who possessed the best opportunities for becoming acquainted with the peculiarities of his style, were themselves often in error (Matt. xvi. 6— 12). We find also that the question whether certain expressions of our Saviour and the Apostles, are to be understood figuratively or literally, has been most furiously agitated between theologians of different parties. Nor are the rules which have been given by some for the determination of this most important