we try to leave our own personality wholly behind, and by the various helps of science and life already mentioned seek to apply to our time only the objective force of the Divine word whose organs the sacred writers were, not saying anything new, not adding anything of our own, not putting anything into the word; as is the case with those strained attempts at spiritualization, which read into the text rather than read out of it, and in which the effort is, however unconsciously, rather to glorify self, than to let the word take its own simple and profoundly majestic course. What we aim at in the method here proposed, is just to guard against the danger of a too subjective tendency, so as to draw out the treasures that lie in the depths of the word itself, and to bring them forth in fresh view to the living sense of the present. We aim to let the word speak through us, rather than to speak ourselves. We try, for example, to recognize in the difficulties of the Corinthian church the difficulties of our own time; and when we have succeeded, by all the means of science and art before noticed, in understanding properly what the apostle Paul says of the questions belonging to his own day, and how he deals with them, we will be able to reproduce his presence, as though we heard him speak and saw him act among the questions and difficulties also of the present time. It was thus, to borrow an example from another sphere, that the great historian and statesman Niebuhr knew how to read the present in the past, and to make the truths of past history of living force for his own age. So must the practical expositor understand, how to bring the apostolical period by proper historical reduction into union with that in which he himself lives. And in this practical application we may not stop simply with the truths expressly spoken by the inspired writers; the consequences also which flow from these, so far as they can be shown to be well grounded, are to be regarded as part of the revelation, and ought to be included accordingly in our application. In this way, keeping the different departments of knowledge asunder, and making proper account at once of their difference and their uni ty, we may bring truly to pass that which we see other forms of exegesis struggling after from the beginning, but which for the reasons already assigned has not been heretofore fully reached, at least not so far as regards the art of practical exposition.

Let us now cast a look on the New Testament itself, to see if we can find here countenance for the idea of what we have been thus far describing. We notice first the words of our Lord himself, when he compares a scribe rightly instructed for the kingdom of God to a householder, who brings forth from his

treasure things new and old, (Matth. xiii: 52), and who thus by such alternation of old and new pleases and excites his hearers, by attaching the new to the old finds for it more ready acceptance, makes the old to appear new and the new old. Our Lord says this here particularly in reference to the parables, which by the very fact of their answering to this rule, are suited to bring clearly before men truths that are new to them, and also to facilitate their comprehension. But the declaration is not to be confined certainly to such instruction, valued as it was by the Saviour especially on this account; it contains rather a general rule for the regulation of the teacher in the service of the kingdom of God. Every form of instruction, which in conformity with this law teaches the right knowledge and use of the mysteries of the kingdom of God, may be regarded as having here accordingly the commendation of the Lord himself. And especially must this hold of practical exegesis, which as we have shown is suited above all for setting the new in connection with the old, and for causing the old to become for us new and young. Again we reckon as here in point the warning of the apostle Paul (1 Cor. x: 11) to the Corinthian christians, who were disposed to indulge a vain self-confidence and false security, relying too much on the fact of their past conversion, their incorporation into the Lord's body by baptism and their continued fellowship with it through the holy supper; a warning drawn from the example of that great mass of the ancient Israelites, who all followed the conduct of Moses, enjoyed the same Divine mercy in the passage of the Red Sea, were united together by the same covenant seals, while yet only a very few of them ever reached the land of promise. The punishment with which the nation generally was visited for its unfaithfulness and disobedience, should serve as an admonition to those who considered themselves in secure connection with the new christian theocracy, and so came short in its proper terms of fidelity, obedience and self-denial. What else now is this method of the apostle than what we have been describing as practical exegesis; in the past to read the present, and from the Divine conduct in relation to another age to draw the truth that is to be applied to the parallel relations of the age now passing? The way in which God formerly acted towards his people, is used as doctrine for the people of God in the time then present. And whilst Paul so applies this example out of the history of the ancient covenant people, he brings out himself the rule and method according to which the Scriptures generally are to be applied to a later time; for he says: "All these things happened unto them for exam

ples, and they are written for our admonition upon whom the ends of the world are come." This implies the canon, that what has been written for the past we are to consider as written also for ourselves. Paul speaks thus of the Old Testament, as related to those who had experienced the coming in of the new covenant as the close of God's kingdom upon the earth. We may however apply it in the same way, and with still greater force, to the relation of the apostolical period to ours, inasmuch as our connection with the life of the early christian church is one of far greater nearness and unity.

The apostle, in another place, speaks against the undue valuation put upon the gift of tongues; one that was suited to attract much attention, and was more flattering to spiritual vanity than the gift of generally intelligible edifying discourse, which went under the name of prophecy in the apostolical age. Paul could not fail to disapprove of this judgment. He would restrain rather the use of the gift of tongues, as being of less account for the purposes of general edification. Only then should it be employed, when there was a capacity at the same time along with it to translate its generally unintelligible utterances into the form of common language. On the other hand he recommended so much the more the awakening discourse supplied by the gift of prophecy, as being suited to promote the spiritual benefit both of such as were already believers and of others also favorably disposed for religion, who attended the christian meetings out of curiosity or from some rising concern for their own salvation. To represent to the Corinthians now the absurdity of their judgment, he appeals (1 Cor. xiv: 21, 22) to the passage Isaiah xxviii: 11; where God threatens the Jews, that because they refused to hear the prophets speaking his will plainly to them, and calling them to repentance, in their own language, he would withdraw from them this voice of instruction and warning, and address them in tones of holy indignation through nations of foreign barbarous tongue sent against them as the instruments of his justice. This the apostle applies to the circumstances of the Corinthian church, and to the gift of tongues as compared with that of prophecy. As the nations speaking in unintelligible tongues sent to those addressed by the prophet were a sign of the Divine displeasure, so must it be taken as a sign of the same thing towards stiff necked unbelievers, who refused to hearken to the direct appeals of christian exhortation, when they found themselves left in a christian meeting to the mere sound of tongues which they had no power to understand; just as the parables, for those who would not understand them, were to be

a sign of their own condemnation for such ignorance. In this sense Paul says, that the use of tongues is a sign, not for believers, among whom he here reckons also such as are in the way to faith, but for unbelievers, those who have no heart to believe. He applies thus the general thought which lies in the passage from Isaiah, to the particular circumstances of the Corinthian congregation, what was true of foreign nations addressing the Israelites as the instruments of God's wrath, as compared with the prophets who had addressed them in their own tongue, to the case of the New Testament prophesyings as compared with the gift of tongues. To do this in detail was the business of practical exegesis. It required special scientific links and connections, to bring over the true historical sense of Isaiah's words in their immediate primary application, to the new application made of them by the apostle. The apostle however, having in his eye only the practical purpose immediately in hand, springs over all these intermediate links which it is the duty of science to explore. In the discharge of this duty thus, we learn from his example.

We notice farther the way, in which the apostle (Rom. iv: 3) quotes Abraham as an example and pattern of justification by faith. Paul applies here what was contained in a divine fact of the primitive history of the O. T. theocracy, to believers under the Gospel. We learn from the example of Abraham, that the distinguishing characteristic of the righteous is always only faith. By this man renounces himself, rises above himself, gives himself up to God's self-revelation, resigns himself to his way and will; and so it is the only condition, by which it is possible for man to become what the will of God concerning him requires. It is on the side of man the act of apprehension by which he appropriates what God offers and gives. So Paul applies the words in Genesis, that to Abraham his faith was counted for righteousness. Abraham was just as little as any other man sinlessly and absolutely righteous; but this his faith, as the only possible and indispensable means of receiving what is divine on the part of man, was of so much worth in the eyes of God, answerably to the interior sense of what faith in itself is, that in view of it he counted him righteous, allowed him to stand towards himself in this relation. The general sense of this fact now, Paul applies to the relation in which the christian stands to God. Faith is brought to pass in his case by the same psychological and ethical process as in the case of Abraham, though the object of the faith may be different. It is of the same significance as a deciding and determining power for the entire

religious life, and the force of it is still to place a sinful man în the same relation to God by which he becomes righteous. The christian through it alone can become, what God proposes to make of him by his grace. Here again we have an example of genuine practical exegesis, although we have to supply the links which it is the business of scientific inquiry to bring into view.

One more example finally we note, where Paul (1 Cor. ix: 9) applies the regulation of the Mosaic law Deut. xxv: 4, to the case of ministers in the christian churches, for whose support they are bound to provide in view of their having devoted all their activity to the spiritual service of their brethren. In this view he says with such reference: "Doth God take care for oxen? Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written." The passage however in its histori cal character did certainly refer to animals. The Mosaic law aimed to prefigure an ethical conception even in the treatment of the animal world. The counterpart of that righteousness which is due towards men, must be called into typical exercise in this conduct already towards mere dumb beasts. But the apostle applies it at once to the last term of the ethical conception, as this regards the treatment of men. He springs over the intervening general thought; this namely, that from what is due even to animals laboring for us, we should learn what we are bound to do for men laboring for us, how we must recompense their service and not withhold from them their right. And this general thought is now at once applied to the particular relation of the congregation to their teachers. Here also we see what practical exegesis has to perform, how it must derive the general from the particular, and then apply this again to existing circumstances and wants; and here also as regards the intermediate operations belonging to science, the same is to be said that has been said before.

We have only a word yet to say on the importance of practical exegesis, for those who undertake the office of the sacred ministry, especially at the present time. We have in the Evangelical Church no priestly office. We know only one Priest for mankind at large, and are persuaded that through him all believers have become a priestly race, that every christian is a priest in the calling assigned to him of God. In this respect accordingly those, who from having the gift of teaching or of government specially bestowed upon them have been called by the church to exercise a corresponding office in its service, have still no priority over the rest of the congregation. Neither can we say that in virtue of their office they alone are called to go before 11.

VOL. III.-NO. II.