It has been already remarked (Chap. 24, No. 5) that in New Testament usage many words have a technical and therefore peculiar meaning.  We are not at liberty, however, to determine such technical meanings at random, or in accordance with any preconceived opinions.  It can only be done, as in the case of all other writings, in accordance with the acknowledged laws of interpretation.  The general result, then, at which we arrive is, that in determining the meaning of scriptural terms we must be guided by the same rules which we follow in the interpretation of other writings.

2.  From the signification of particular words we proceed to the consideration of the sense embodied in the language of the sacred writers.  A knowledge of the words which enter into the composition of a sentence does not of itself give us a true apprehension of the sense which the writer seeks to convey.  We must know the writer’s aim, the shape and course of his argument, the ideas which he is combating as well as those which he seeks to establish, the emphatic words of the sentence, whether he wishes to be understood literally or figuratively, and various other particulars; all which are to be ascertained by the same rules which we employ in the interpretation of language generally.

3.  The scope or design of the inspired writer may be general or special; the former being his design in writing the whole work in question, the latter, his design in particular sections of it.  “The scope,” it has been well observed, “is the soul or spirit of a book; and, that being once ascertained, every argument and every word appears in its right place, and is perfectly intelligible; but if the scope be not duly considered, every thing becomes obscure, however clear and obvious its meaning may really be.”  Horne’s Introduct., vol. 2, p. 265, edit. of 1860.  This language is not too strong.  It is by a neglect or perversion of the scope that the meaning of the inspired writers is perverted, and they are made to contradict one another.

The apostle Paul says, for example:  “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.”  Rom. 3:28.  The apostle James:  “Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.”  James 2:24.  If one insists on leaving out of account the separate and distinct design which each of these two writers had in view respectively, he can easily bring their words into contradiction.  Had the scope of Paul’s argument been to show that faith in Christ releases men from the obligation of obeying the divine law, and thus makes good works unnecessary; or had James been laboring to prove that good works are the meritorious ground of men’s forgiveness, then the doctrines of the two apostles would have been irreconcilably at variance.  But we know that neither of these suppositions is true.  Paul was combating the error of the Pharisees “who