After the commencement of the 5th century, grammatical interpretation fell entirely into decay ; which ruin was effected partly by the full develop ment of the eccle,iastical system of doctrines de fined in all their parts, and by a fear of deviating from this system, partly also by the continually in creasing ignorance of the languages in which the Bible was written. The primary condition of eccle siastical or dogmatical interpretation was then most clearly expressed by Vincentius Lirinensis (Com motif. i.) :—Quia videlicet scripturam sacmm pro sa sua altitudine non uno eodenique sensu uni versi accipiunt, sed ejusdem eloquia aliter atque aliter alius atque alius interpretatur, ut peene quot laomines sunt, tot illinc sententix erui posse videan tur. . . . in ipsa catholica ecclesia magnopere curandum est, ut id teneamus, quod ubique, quod semper, quad ab omnibus creditum est (compare COMMOIIP. ii., ed. Bremensis, i6SS, p. 321, seq.) Henceforward, interpretation was confined lc the mere collection of explanations, which had first been given by men whose ecclesiastical orthodoxy was unquestionable. Prmstantius prxsumpta no vitate non irnbui, scd priscorum fonte satiari (Cas siodori Institut/ones Prdi Compare Al cuini Epistala aa' Gislam ; Opera, ed. Frobenius, p. 464. Comment. in Yoh. Praf., ib. p. 46o. Claudius Turon, Prolegomena in Comment. in //bras Regnm. Haymo, Historia Ecclesiashica, ix. 3, etc.) Doubtful cases were decided according to the precedents of ecclesiastical definitions. In his cpite vel dubia vel obscura fuerint id noverimus sequendum quod nec preeceptis evangelicis con trarium, nee decretis sanctonim invenitur adversum (Benedicti Capilulara, iii. 58, in Pertz, .11.1onumenta Veteris German. Hiskr. iv. 2, p. Io7). But men like Bishop Agobardus (A.D. 840, in Galandii Bihl., p. 446), Johannes Scotus, Erigena, Druth mar, Nicolaus Lyranus, Roger Bacon, and others, acknowledged the necessity of grammatical inter pretation, and were only wanting in the requisite means, and in knowledge, for putting it successfully into practice.
During the whole period of the middle ages the allegorical interpretation again prevailed. The middle ages were more distinguished by sentiment than by clearness, and the allegorical interpreta tion gave satisfaction to senthnent and occupation to free mental speculation.
When, in the r5th century, classical studies had revived, they exercised also a favourable influence upon Biblical interpretation, and restored gram matical interpretation to honour. It was especi ally by grammatical interpretation that the domi neering Catholic church was combated at the period of the Reformation ; but as soon as the newly sprung-up Protestant church had been dogmatically established, it began to consider granunatical inter pretation a dangerous adversary of its own dogmas, and opposed it as much as did the Roman Catholics themselves. From the middle of the 16th to the middle of the 18th century this important ally of Protestantism was subjected to the artificial law ot a new dogmatical interpretation ; while the Roman Catholic church changed the principle of interpre tation formerly advanced by Vincentius into an ecclesiastical dogma. In consequence of this new
oppression the religious sentiment, which hau frequently been wounded both among, Roman Catholics and Protestants, took refuge in allegori cal interpretation, which then re-appeared under the forms of typical and mystical theology.
After the beginning of the 18th century gram matical interpretation recovered its authority. It was then first re-introduced by the Arminians, and, in spite of constant attacks, towards the conclusion of that century it decidedly prevailed among the German Protestants. It exercised a very beneficial influence, although it cannot be denied that mani fold errors occurred in its application. During the last thirty years both Protestants and Roman Catho lics have again curtailed the rights and invaded the province of grammatical interpretation, by promot mg (according to the general reaction of our times) the opposing claims of dogmatical and mystical in terpretation (comp. J. Rosenmfiller, Historia In terpretation's Librorum sacrorum in'Ecclesza Chris tiana, Lipsire 1795-1814, vols. ; W. Van Mil dert, An inquizy into the General Principles of Scripture Interpretation, in Et:cht Sermons, etc., Oxford 1815 ; G. W. Meyer, Geschichte der Schrift erkbirung seit der Wiederherstellung der 1-Vissen schaften, Gottingen 1802-9, vols. ; Richard Simon, Histoire Critique des principaux Commen tateurs NozT. Test., Rotterdam 1693 ; H. N. Klausen, Hermeneutik des Armen Testamentes, Aus dem Ditnischen, Leipzig 1841, p. 77, seq. ; E. F. K. Rosenmfiller, Hana'buchfiir die Literatur der Biblischen Xritik una' Exegese, Gottingen 1797-1 Soo, 4 vols.) The aim of human speech in general may be de scribed as the desire to render one's own thoughts intelligible to others by means of words in their capacity of signs of thoughts. These words may be written, or merely spoken. In order to understand the speech of another, several arts and branches of knowledge are requisite. The art of understanding the language of another is called hermeneutics, epn7; vetrritit -rxpn, or brio-Ilan. Every art may be re duced to the skilful application of certain principles, which, if they proceed from one highest principle, may be said to be based on science.
Here we have to consider not the spoken, but the written language only. The rules to be observed by the interpreter, and the gifts which qualify him for the right understanding of written language, are applicable either to all written language in general, or only to the right understanding of par ticular documents ; they are, therefore, to be divided into general and particular, or especial rules and gifts. In Biblical interpretation arises the ques tion, whether the general hermeneutical rules are applicable to the Bible and sufficient for rightly understanding it, or whether they are insufficient, and have to undergo some modification.