Besides the three modes of interpretation which have been mentioned above, theological writers have spoken of TYPICAL, PROPHETICAL, EMPHATI CAL, PHILOSOPIIICAL, TRADITIONAL, MORAL, or PRACTICAL interpretation. But all these are only one-sided developments of some single feature con tained in the above three, arbitrarily chosen ; and, therefore, they cannot be considered to be separate modes, but are only modifications of one or other of those three. The interpretation in which all these modes are brought into harmony, has lately been called the PANHARMONICAL, whiCh word is not very happily chosen (F. H. Germar, Die Pan harmonische Interpretation der Heiligen Schrift, Leipsic 1721; and by the same author, Beitrag 211Y Allgezneinen Hermenezzlik, Altona IS2S).
The ALLEGORICAL, as well as the DOGMATICAL, mode of interpretation, presupposes the GRAM MATICAL, which, consequently, forms the basis of the other two ; so that neither the one nor the other can exist entirely without it. Consequently, the grammatical mode of interpretation must have an historical precedence before the others. But history also proves that the church has constantly endeavoured to curtail the province of grammatical interpretation, to renounce it as much as possible, and to rise above it. If we follow, with the exa., mining eye of an historical inquirer, the course in which these three modes of interpretation, in their mutual dependence upon each other, have generally been applied, it becomes evident that in opposition to the grammatical mode, the alle gorical was first set up. Subsequently, the alle gorical was almost entirely supplanted by the dogmatical ; but it started up with renewed vigour when the dogmatical mode rigorously confined the spiritual movement of the human intellect, as well as all religious sentiment, within tbe too narrow bounds of dogmatical despotism.
The dogmatical mode of interpretation could only spring up after the church, renouncing the original multiplicity of opinions, had agrded upon certain leading doctrines ; after which time, it grew, toge ther with the church, into a mighty tree towering high above every surrounding object, and casting its shade over everything. The longing desire for light and warmth, of those who were spell-bound under its shade, induced diem to cultivate again the allegorical and the grarnmatical interpretation; but they were unable to bring the fruits of these modes to full maturity. Every new intellectual revolution. and every spiritual development of nations, gave a new impulse to grammatical interpretation. This impulse lasted until interpretation was again taken captive by the ovenvhelming ecclesiastical power, whose old formalities had regained strength, or which had been renovated under new forms. Grammatical interpretation, consequently, goes hand in hand with the principle of spiritual pro gress, and the dogmatical with the conservative principle. Finally, the allegorical interpretation is as an artificial aid subsenrient to the conservative principle, when, by its vigorous stability, the latter exercises a too unnatural pressure. This is con firmed by the history of all times and countries, so that we may confine ourselves to the following few illustrative observations. The various tendencies of the first Christian period were combined in the 2d century, so that the principle of one general (Catholic) church was gradually adopted by most parties. But now, it became rather difficult to se lect, from the variety of doctrines prevalent in various sects, those by the application of which to Biblical interpretation a perfect harmony and sys tematical unity could be effected. Nevertheless, the wants of science powerfully demanded a sys tematical arrangement of Biblical doctrines, even before a general agreement upon dogmatical prin ciples had been effected. The wants of science
were especially felt among the Alexandrine Chris tians ; and in Alexandria, where the allegorical interpretation had from ancient times been prac tised, it offered the desired expedient which met the exigency of the church. Hence, it may natu rally be explained why the Alexandrine theologians of the 2d and 3d century, particularly Clemens Alexandrinus and Origen, interpreted allegorically, and why the allegorical interpretation was per fected, and in vog,ue, even before the dogmatical came into existence, Origen, especially in his fourth book, De Principiis, treats on scriptural in terpretation, using the following arguments :— The Holy Scriptures, inspired by God, form an har monious whole, perfect in itself, without any de fects and contradictions, and containing nothing that is insignificant and superfluous. The gram matical interpretation leads to obstacles and objec tions, which, according to the quality just stated of the Holy Scripturcs, arc inadmissible and impos sible. Now, since the merely grammatical inter pretation can neither remove nor overcome these objections, we must seek for an expedient be yond the boundaries of grammatical interpre pretation. The allegorical interpretation offers this expedient, and consequently is above the grammati cal. Origen observes that man consists of body, soul, and spirit ; and he distinguishes a triple sense of the Holy Scriptures analogous to this division :— okay Tpio-o-Co's ciaro-yptiOerrOat off eis g-carrol., 1,1,vxip ra Tc1)1, hrylcou ypatti.hcircop po-hiLara' 'Iva 6 aez, etrXoticra-cpor oixoSodufiTat, cisrO Tfis °lope/ uctpir.63 Tfg ypags, arces OPoi.kai-OpTcop srph xcipop exboxfp, • 6 Se earl roo-dp apapegnaos, ets.rd ri)s (.'ousrcpci ati-rijs • 6 Se TeXeios KaZ &cows a-as 7rapa TO cisroaraci; (1 Cor. ii. 6, 7) XE-yoftevotr. aorplep Se XaNaitcy . . . etar6 TOti srPevo.arcKoi, pop.ov o-tcap eX03,7-05 7-(23, 1.00%6m-cep dya063p. (:::corep -yhy eipOpcusros 0-11140-771KEP 0-4wros Ka/ Oxijs Kat srpeOptcras, TOP aUTOP irp6arav Ka! oiKopop.-q Bcio-a bra Toii Bea EIS d.v0pcO' ?flop o-corwiap Soqpat -ypaq* (De Princip., iv. i.o8 ; comp. Klausen, Berme/sena des Nenen Teslamenfes, Leipzig 1841, p. to4, sq.) Since, however, allegorical interpretation can not be reduced to settled rules, but always depends upon the greater or less influence of imagination ; and since the system of Christian doctrines, which the Alexandrine theologians produced by means of allegorical interpretation, was in many respects ob jected to ; and since, in opposition to these Alexan drine theologians, there was gradually established, and more and more firmly defined, a system of Christian doctrincs which formed a firm basis for uniformity of interpretation, in accordance with the mind of the majority, there gradually sprung up a dogmatical mode of interpretation founded upon the interpretation of ecclesiastical teachers, which had been recognised as orthodox in the Catholic church. This dogmatical interpretation has been in perfect existence since the beginning of the 4th century, and then more and more sup planted the allegorical, which henceforward was left to the wit and ingenuity of a few individuals. Thus St. Jerome, about A.D. 400, could say :—Regula scripturanim est : ubi manifestissima prophetia de futuris texitur per INCERTA ALLEGORDE non ex tenuare gum scripta sunt (Comment. in Malachi i. 16). During the whole of the 4th century, the ec clesiastico-dogmatical mode of interpretation was developed with constant reference to the grammati cal. Even Hillary, in his book De Trinitak, properly asserts :—Optimus lector est, qui dictorum intelligentiam expectet ex dictis potius quam im ponat, et retulerit magis quam attulerit ; neque cogat id videri dictis contineri, quod ante lectionem praesumpserit intel 1 igen dum.