be into Scholia, Perpetual Annotations, Commentaries, and Paraphrases; whose united design is, to lead their readers to the right understanding of the author whom they undertake to explain. Hence their province is, to illustrate obscure passages, to reconcile apparent contradictions, to obviate difficulties, whether verbal or real, and, in short, to remove every thing that may tend to excite doubts in the minds of the readers of the Bible. stood, unless the genealogy of the Messiah, and his descent A more correct_classification of expository writings may from Abraham and David, be distinctly traced. This is obvious from the prophecies, which, ages before his advent, determined the line of his descent; and left nothing to chance or imposture on the important subject of the promised seed, that, in the fulness of time, was to "bruise the serpent's head," and by his one oblation of himself, once offered, was to make a full and perfect atonement for the sins of the whole world. Many neat genealogical tables are to be found in some of the earlier and larger editions of the Bible. Some of the most useful treatises on this subject are noticed in the BIBLIOGRAPHICAL APPENDIX. II. SCHOLIA are short explanatory notes on the sacred writers; whose authors, termed scholiasts, particularly aim at brevity. In this kind of expository writings, obscure words 5. Of equal importance with either of the preceding branches and phrases are explained by such as are more clear; figuraof knowledge is NATURAL HISTORY; by which alone many, tive by such as are proper; and the genuine force of each word otherwise obscure, passages of Scripture can be explained. and phrase is pointed out. Further, the allusions to ancient Thus, frequent direct mention is made of animals, trees, manners and customs are illustrated, and whatever light may plants, and precious stones; sometimes the Scripture ex-be thrown upon the sacred writer from history or geography presses sentiments either in allusion to, or by metaphors taken is carefully concentrated, and concisely expressed: nor does from, some fact in natural history; and sometimes characters the scholiast fail to select and introduce the principal and are described in allusion to natural objects; and without the most valuable various readings, whose excellence, antiquity, knowledge of these, we cannot perceive the nature of the and genuineness, to the best of his judgment, give them a characters intended. Much information concerning this im- claim to be noticed. The discordant interpretations of difficult portant topic may be derived from the labours of the oriental passages are stated and examined, and the most probable one travellers already mentioned, and especially those of Shaw, is pointed out, but without exhibiting the grounds of the Russell, Hasselquist, Forskäl, and Niebuhr. The most exposition. These various topics, however, are rather touched successful investigations of this interesting topic are to be upon, than treated at length: though no material passages found in the writings of Bochart, Celsius, Scheuchzer, Pro- are (or at least ought to be) left unnoticed, yet some very fessor Paxton, and especially of the Rev. Dr. Harris, of Dor- obscure and difficult passages are left to be discussed and chester, Massachusetts. expounded by more fearned men. Such was the method, according to which the ancient scholiasts composed their Scholia for illustrating Homer, Sophocles, Aristophanes, Horace, Virgil, and other Greek and Latin classics; and the same mode has been adopted by those Christian writers who have written scholia on the Bible.' 6. Lastly, in perusing the sacred volume, the attentive reader cannot fail to be struck with allusions to PHILOSOPHICAL NOTIONS and SECTS, as well as to certain branches of learning, which were cultivated by the nations or people therein mentioned: it is impossible fully to apprehend the force, propriety, and beauty of these allusions without a knowledge of the notions, &c. referred to. A short sketch of the principal Jewish sects occurs in the second volume of this work; but the only writer, to the best of the author's recollection, who has discussed this subject in a separate treatise, is the learned and indefatigable Professor Buddeus, in his Introductio ad Historiam Philosophiæ Hebræorum, Hala, 1720, 8vo.; of whose labours he has availed himself. The philosophical notions which obtained among the Jews are also incidentally treated in most of the larger commentaries, as well as in most of those works which profess to be Introductions to the Bible. III. The various topics, which engage the attention of the scholiast, are also discussed, but more at length, by CommentaTORS; whose observations form a series of continuous annotations on the sacred writers, and who point out more clearly the train of their thoughts, as well as the coherence of their expressions, and all the various readings which are of any importance. The commentator, therefore, not only furnishes summaries of the argument, but also resolves the expressions of his author into their several parts, and shows in what respects they agree, as well as where they are apparently at variance. He further weighs and examines different passages, that admit of different interpretations; and while he offers his own views, he confirms them by proper arguments or proofs, and solves any doubts which may attend his own interpretation. Further, a judicious commentator will avoid all prolix, extraneous, and unnecessary discussions, as well as far-fetched explanations, and will bring every philological I. Different classes of Commentaries.-II. Nature of Scholia.-aid to bear upon passages that are in any degree difficult or III. Commentaries.-IV. Modern versions and paraphrases. obscure. Commentators ought not to omit a single passage -V. Homilies.-VI. Collections of observations on Holy Writ. that possesses more than ordinary difficulty, though the con—VII. The utility and advantage of Commentaries.-VIII. trary is the case with many, who expatiate very copiously on Design to be kept in view, when consulting them.-IX. Rules the more easy passages of Scripture, while they scarcely for consulting Commentaries to the best advantage. touch on those which are really difficult, if they do not altogether omit to treat of them. In a word, it is the commentator's province to remove every difficulty that can impede the biblical reader, and to produce whatever can facilitate his studies, by rendering the sense of the sacred writings more clear and easy to be apprehended. $9. ON COMMENTARIES. I. THE labours of expositors and commentators have been divided into various classes, according to the nature of their different works; for, although few confine themselves to one method of interpretation, exclusively, yet each generally has some predominant character, by which he is peculiarly distinguished. Thus, some are, IV. A peculiar and important method of exposition is that of MODERN VERSIONS and PARAPHRASES. Neither can be properly executed unless their authors have previously masparaphrase, and are well versed in the language. Versions tered the book or passage which they intend to translate or of different books and with different designs should not all 1. Wholly Spiritual or Figurative; as Cocceius, and those foreign commentators who have followed his untenable system, viz. that the Scripture is every where to be taken in the fullest sense it will admit; and in our own country, Dr. Gill, Dr. Haw-be conducted upon the same plan. ker, and some minor writers. 2. Lateral and Critical; such are Ainsworth, Wetstein, Dr. Blayney, Bishop Patrick, Lowth, and Whitby, Calmet, Chais, Bishop Lowth, Archbishop Newcome, Wall, Dr. Campbell, Dr. Priestley, and others. 3. Wholly Practical; as Musculus, Zuingle, Baxter, Henry, Ostervald, Dr. Fawcett, the "Reformer's Bible, &c. &c. 4. Those who unite critical, philological, and practical obser faithfully, of the words and ideas of an author into a dif 1. A VERSION is the rendering fully, perspicuously, and ferent language from that which he used. The properties of a good version are correctness and fidelity in expressing the order, connection, and mode of writing; yet without being precise manner in which the idea is presented, the figures, always literal and expressing word for word. Further, it vations such are the commentaries of Dr. Dodd, Bishop Mant and 1 Somewhat similar to Scholia are the Questions or inquiries concerning Dr. D'Oyly, Poole, Scott, M. Martin, Dr. A. Clarke, Mr. Benson, particular books of Scripture which were composed by ancient ecclesias &c. on the entire Bible, and the paraphrases of Pyle, and of Mr.tical writers: they differ from Scholia in this respect, that questions are exclusively confined to the consideration of some difficult passages only, Orton, on the Old Testament; on the New Testament, Dr. S. whose meaning was at that time an object of discussion, while it is the Clarke and Pyle, Dr. Doddridge, Mr. Locke, Dr. Benson, Dr. design of Scholia to notice every difficult or obscure passage with brevity Macknight, Mr. Gilpin, &c. &c. and perspicuity. Augustine, among other biblical treatises, wrote two books of Quastiones Evangelica, on the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. should be accommodated to the idiom of the language, which all these, the reader will find some account in the BIBLIO the translator is using, and at the same time be perspicuous and flowing. In reference to versions it may be inquired, 1. Under what circumstances it may be lawful to depart from the style and manner of the original author? (There are words, figures, and modes of construction, which cannot be literally expressed in a different language.) 2. Whether the Hebraic construction is to be retained? It seems by no means proper, that the peculiar manner of an ancient author should be entirely obliterated; much less, that a different manner be obtruded upon him. 3. Whether the technical terms which occur in the New Testament should be changed for others. 2. A PARAPHRASE is the expression, in greater extent, of the meaning of the sacred author; in which is inserted whatever is necessary to explain the connection and exhibit the sense: so that what is obscure is thus rendered more perspicuous, in one continued and unbroken narrative. Provided the integrity of his author's sense be observed, the paraphrast is at liberty to abridge what is narrated at length, to enlarge on what is written with brevity, to supply supposed omissions, to fill up chasms, to illustrate obscure and apparently involved passages, by plain, clear, and neatly turned expressions, to connect passages which seem too far asunder, or not disposed in order either of time or subject, and to arrange the whole in a regular series. These, indeed, it must be admitted, are important liberties, not to be taken with the Scriptures by any paraphrast without the utmost caution, and even then only in the most sparing manner. Paraphrases have been divided by Professor Rambach, and other writers on the interpretation of the Bible, into two classes-historical and textual. In the former class of paraphrases, the argument of a book or chapter is pursued historically; and the paraphrast endeavours to give his author's meaning in perspicuous language. In the latter instance, the paraphrast assumes, as it were, the person of the sacred writer, closely pursues the thread of his discourse, and aims at expressing every word and phrase, though in circumscribed limits, yet in terms that are both clear and obvious to the capacities of his readers. Hence it would appear, that a paraphrase is the most difficult species of expository writing; and, as the number of paraphrasts on the Scriptures is, comparatively, small (probably from this circumstance), the ingenious classification of them proposed by Rambach is not sufficiently important to render it necessary that we should form them into a separate class of interpreters. It is of infinitely greater moment to Bible readers, when purchasing works of this description, that they select those which are neither too prolix nor too expensive, and whose authors avoid every thing like party-spirit; neither extolling beyond measure any thing ancient, merely because it is of remote antiquity, nor evincing a spirit of dogmatical innovation; but who, "rightly dividing the word of truth," while they express themselves in clear and perspicuous terms, show themselves to be well skilled both in the theory and application of sound principles of scriptural interpretation, and who have diligently availed themselves of every internal and external aid for ascertaining the sense of the sacred writers. The utility of both versions and paraphrases is great; but neither can supersede the necessity of more extended and minute interpretation. V. HOMILIES are another kind of interpretation in which either larger portions of Scripture or single texts are explained and practically applied to the several purposes of instruction, admonition, or consolation; and properly destined to the service of the church. Homilies answered to our discourses on detached texts of Scripture, but they were filled with pious fables and the philosophy of the times when their authors lived. The best homilies extant are those of Origen and Chrysostom. VI. Closely allied to commentaries are the collections of OBSERVATIONS ILLUSTRATIVE OF THE SACRED WRITINGS, which have been formed of late years, and require to be consulted with similar cautions, and in the same manner. These books of observations are either grammatical and philological, or miscellaneous; sometimes they discuss only a few passages which are peculiarly difficult and obscure, and sometimes they appear in the form of a grammatical and philological commentary, following the order of the sacred books. On this account, as well as to facilitate reference, we have classed them with expositions of the Bible: of the best editions of 1 Rambachii Institutiones Hermeneuticæ. pp. 706, 707. VOL. I. 2 Y GRAPHICAL APPENDIX to the second Volume, PART II. CHAP. V. SECTIONS II. and III., occasionally interspersed with con cise bibliographical and critical observations.2 VII. Opinions widely different have been entertained respecting the utility and advantage resulting from commentaries, annotations, and other expositions of the Sacred Writings. By some, who admire nothing but their own meditations, and who hold all human helps in contempt, commentaries are despised altogether, as tending to found our faith on the opinions of men rather than on the divine oracles: while others, on the contrary, trusting exclusively to the expositions of some favourite commentators, receive as infallible whatever views or opinions they may choose to deliver, as their expositions of the Bible. The safest way in this case, as in all others, is to take the middle path, and occasionally to avail ourselves of the labours of commentators and expositors, while we diligently investigate the Scriptures for ourselves, without relying exclusively on our own wisdom, or being fascinated by the authority of a distinguished name. The late eminent divine and theological tutor, Dr. Campbell, was of opinion that the Bible should be first read and studied without a commentary; but his advice was addressed to students who were previously acquainted with the originals: and though the design of the present work is to facilitate to studious inquirers the understanding of the Scriptures, yet the author presumes not to suppose that his labours will supersede the necessity of commentaries; or that he can furnish them with all that information which renders such works desirable to the generality of Bible readers. A sensible writer has observed, that the Bible is a learned book, not only because it is written in the learned languages, but also as containing allusions to various facts, circumstances, or customs of antiquity, which, to a common and unlettered reader, require explanation. So far, indeed, as relates to the way of salvation, he that runs may read:" but there are many important points, if not of the first importance, in which we may properly avail ourselves of the labours of inquirers who have preceded us; especially in clearing difficulties, answering objections, and reconciling passages which at first sight appear contradictory. 66 Further," the Bible is a large book, and we are under no small obligations to those who have collated its different parts, the New Testament with the Old, the prophetic with the historical books, &c.; and to reject their assistance, in making the Scriptures their own interpreter, is to throw away the labours of many ages. As well might we reject all our historians, and insist on believing nothing but what we derive immediately from state papers, original records, or other documents, on which all history is founded." Once more, "the Bible is intended as a directory for our faith and practice. Now to have an experienced friend who has long been in the habit of perusing it with patient study and humble prayer,-to have such a friend at hand, to point out in every chapter what may be useful or important, and especially to disclose its latent beauties, may be no less desirable and useful, than it is, when travelling in a foreign country, to have with us a companion who has passed the same route, and is acquainted both with the road, and with the objects most worthy of notice. It is granted, however, that there are extremes; and that it is no less wrong to place implicit confidence in commentators than it is to treat them with contempt: to derive advantage from them, we should treat them as commentators only, and not as inspired writers."3 VIII. The USE to be made of interpreters and commentators is twofold: FIRST, that we may acquire from them a method of interpreting the Scriptures correctly. It is not sufficient that we be enabled rightly to understand the Bible ourselves, but it is essentially necessary that those who are destined for the sacred office should be able to explain it with facility, and also to communicate its sense and meaning with perspicuity to others. As, however, this faculty is not to be attained merely by studying rules for the interpretation of the Scriptures, habitual and constant practice must be superadded; and it will further prove of singular advantage to place before us some good expositors, as models for our imitation. In order to accomplish this desirable object, we must not accumulate and read every interpreter or commentator indiscriminately, but should select one or two, or a few at most, of acknowledged character for learning and piety; and by frequent perusal of them, as well as by studying their manner of expounding, should Arigler, Hermeneutica Biblica, pp. 256-263. Ernesti, Instit. Interp. Nov. Test. pp. 278-286. Morus (Acroases, toin. ii. pp. 204-340.) has given a detailed account of the various kinds of commentaries and commentators. The Christian Reader's Guide, by Thomas Williams. Part i. p. 82. endeavour to form ourselves after them, until we are completely masters | geography, and chronology of the Scriptures; and to these subjects few of their method. But the reading of commentaries will further assist us, men in Europe were better qualified to do justice."s SECONDLY, to understand whatever passages appear to us to be difficult and obscure. It is not to be denied that there are many passages in the Sacred Writ ings both difficult and obscure, in consequence of the various times when the different books were written, the different topics of which they treat, and their allusions to ancient customs, &c. The helps, by which most of these difficulties may be removed, have already been stated in the course of the present work. But we cannot suppose that the solitary and unassisted researches even of the most learned expositor are adequate to the removal of every difficulty, or to the elucidation of every obscurity, or that he is not liable to mistake the sense of the sacred penman. By the united labours, however, of many learned and pious men, of different ages and countries, we are put in possession of accumulated information relative to the Bible; so that we may derive large accessions of important knowledge from the judicious use of the writings of commentators and expositors. IX. In order, then, that we may avail ourselves of their valuable labours to the utmost advantage, the following hints are submitted to the consideration of the reader : 1. We should take care that the reading of commentators does not draw us away from studying the Scriptures for our selves, from investigating their real meaning, and meditating on their important contents. us. This would be to frustrate the very design for which commentaries are written, namely, to facilitate our labours, to direct us aright where we are in danger of falling into error, to remove doubts and difficulties which we are ourselves unable to solve, to reconcile apparently contradictory pas sages, and, in short, to elucidate whatever is obscure or unintelligible to In the first instance, therefore, no commentators should be consulted until we have previously investigated the Sacred Writings, for ourselves, inaking use of every grammatical and historical help, comparing the scope, context, parallel passages, the analogy of faith, &c.; and even then commentaries should be resorted to only for the purpose of explaining what was not sufficiently clear, or of removing our doubts. This method of studying the sacred volume will, unquestionably, prove a slow one: but the student will proceed with certainty; and, if he have patience and resolution enough to persevere in it, he will ultimately attain greater proficiency in the knowledge of the Scriptures, than those who, disregarding this method, shall have recourse wholly to assistances of other kinds. From the mode of study here recommended many advantages will result. In the first place, the mind will be gradually accustomed to habits of meditation: without which we cannot reasonably hope to attain even a moderate, much less a profound, knowledge of the Bible;-secondly, those truths will be more readily as well as indelibly impressed on the memory, which have thus been "marked, learned, and inwardly digested" in the mind by silent thought and reflection; and, thirdly, by pursuing this method, we shall perceive our own progress in sacred literature more readily, than if (like idle drones in a bee-hive) we devour and exhaust the stores provided by the care and labour of others.1 2. We should not inconsiderately assent to the interpretation of any expositor, or commentator, or yield a blind and servile obedience to his authority. The canon given by Saint Paul (1 Thess. v. 21.)-Prove all things, hold fast that which is good-is therefore particularly worthy of our notice; for since no man is an infallible judge of the sense of Scripture, not only the expositions given by commentators ought to be carefully examined, but we should also particularly investigate the proofs by which they support their interpretations, uninfluenced by the celebrity of their names, the semblance of ingenuity and novelty, the appearance of learning, or the excellency of speech. Commentators, in fact, are witnesses, not judges: their authority is merely human, and does not surpass the sphere of human belief. But we should not read, exclusively, commentators of a particular school, to which we are perhaps attached, and to whose opinions we subscribe; and though the writings of those who inculcate erroneous doctrines are to be received with the greatest suspicion, yet they are not to be alto gether disregarded, as they sometimes contain valuable and important hints for the elucidation of difficult passages of Scripture. That he may not be misunderstood, the author will explain himself by a single example. The variety of erroneous theological notions, asserted in different publications by the late Dr. Priestley, has justly excited suspicions in the minds of all, who cherish a regard for what they conscientiously believe to be the peculiar doctrines of the Christian dispensation: so that any theological or expository writings, bearing his name, are by them received with caution, and subjected to the most rigorous examination. His "Notes on all the Books of Scripture" are, nevertheless, well worthy of being consulted: for "though the Doctor keeps his own creed (unitarianism) continually in view, especially when considering those texts which other religious people adduce in favour of theirs, yet his work contains many invaluable notes and observations, particularly on the philosophy, natural history, 1 Bauer, Herm. Sacr. p. 302. Steph. Gausseni Dissertatio de Ratione Studii Theologici, pp. 25, 26. Dr. Henry Owen's Directions for young Students, in Divinity, p. 37. 5th edit. C. D. Beckii Monogrammata Hermeneutices Librorum Novi Testamenti, pars i. pp. 174, 175. 3. The best commentators and interpreters only are to be read. So numerous are the commentaries at present extant on the Sacred Writings, that to notice them all would require a distinct volume. Not to mention the magnitude of their cost, the labour and fatigue of turning over and examining such a multitude of massy volumes, is sufficient to deter any one from the study of them; and must necessarily prevent an inge nious student from deriving any real advantage. For the perplexity of mind, arising from so great a variety of conflicting opinions, will either dis gust him altogether with sacred studies, or he will so bewilder himself, that he will not be able to determine which to follow or embrace. Although the more ancient commentators and expositors did not possess those peculiar facilities for interpreting the Scriptures, with which we are now happily favoured, yet they are not to be altogether despised by those, who may have leisure and opportunity to consult them, for the purpose of tracing the time when, and the authors by whom, particular expositions of certain passages were first introduced. The more ancient interpreters, being coeval or nearly so with the sacred writers, and also living in the neighbouring countries, are thus rendered good evidence, for the received sense of certain words in their day. Hence the Jews frequently throw in the extracts from their writings which are to be found in all the larger much light on the meaning of Hebrew words and usages, as may be seen commentaries; and in like manner the Greek fathers, the value of whose labours it has been the fashion unduly to depreciate, are excellent evidence for the meaning attached to Greek words, particularly in controversies relating to the deity of Jesus Christ, the reality and efficacy of his atonement, &c. And since there are some expositions of very important pas agreed, these have a high claim to our attention.4 sages, in which all or nearly all expositors, both ancient and modern, are discussions in their expositions; in introducing too much of history and The more ancient interpreters erred in mingling too many doctrinal archæology, not immediately connected with the passage under considera tion; and in investigating too exclusively the arguments of the sacred writers. Modern interpreters, on the contrary, have erred, in too frequently and copiously disputing about the events of Scripture, and also in applying so extensively to morals the passages which they undertook to elucidate. For although the methods of exposition may be different, as authors have different objects in view, yet the office of the critic, the interpreter, the theologian, and the popular teacher, ought never to be con founded. whom we may consult as guides: and those may be considered as the Of the more modern commentators, the best only must be selected, critical skill; who most diligently investigate the literal sense, and do not best commentators, who are most deeply furnished with the requisite attempt to establish a mystical sense until the literal sense is most clearly mentators, but, while they avail themselves of every help for the interascertained; who do not servilely copy the remarks of preceding compretation of the Scriptures, elicit what appears to be the true meaning, and support it by such clear and cogent arguments, and state it with such perspicuity, as convinces the reader's judgment. To these acquirements, it is scarcely necessary to add, that deep yet sober piety and uprightness are indispensably necessary to a commentator on Holy Writ. On the subject of commentaries it is an excellent advice of Ernesti's difficult passages of the Sacred Writings, which have been variously exthat we shall find considerable advantage in making memoranda of the more plained by expositors, as well as of those in which there is any remarkable diversity of reading, but concerning which our own researches, or those of others, have failed in procuring satisfactory information. Thus, whenever any professedly new commentary falls into our hands, we can in a short time ascertain whether it contains any thing intrinsically new or valuable, or that may lead us to ascertain the genuine sense of a passage. By consulting commentators and expositors in this manner, we shall be able to distinguish ideas of things from ideas of sounds; and, thus becoming habituated to the investigation and consideration of the Sacred Writings, we shall, under divine teaching, be enabled to understand the mind of the Spirit in the Scriptures. 4. Where it does not appear that either ancient or modern interpreters had more knowledge than ourselves respecting particular passages; and where they offer only conjectures,in such cases their expositions ought to be subjected to a strict examination. If their reasons are then found to be valid, we should give our assent to them: but, on the contrary, if they prove to be false, improbable, and insufficient, they must be altogether rejected. 5. Lastly, as there are some commentaries which are either wholly compiled from the previous labours of others, or which contain observations extracted from their writings, if any thing appear confused or perplexed in such commentaries, the ori ginal sources whence they were compiled must be referred to, and diligently consulted. 3 Dr. A. Clarke, General Preface to vol. i. of his Commentary on the Bible, p. xi. Bauer, Herm. Sacr. p. 304. Turretin de Interp. Sac. Scrip. p. 333. Beckii Monogrammata Herm. Nov. Test. p. 184. Institutio Interpretis Novi Testamenti, part iii. cap. ix. § 44. p. 306. BOOK II. ON THE SPECIAL INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE. with that Inferential Reading, and that Practical Application of them to the heart and conscience, without which all knowledge will be in vain. If, indeed, the previous investigation of the sense of Scripture be undertaken with those moral and devout qualifications which have been stated in the early part of this volume,' it is scarcely possible that we can fail to understand the meaning of the word of God. HAVING stated and illustrated the general principles of in- | Scriptures, and of Passages alleged to be contradictory, together terpretation in the preceding chapters, it remains that we show in what manner the sense, when discovered, is to be communicated, expounded, and applied. The consideration of this topic will lead us to notice the interpretation of the Figurative and the Poetical Language of the Bible, and also the interpretation of the Spiritual and Typical, Prophetical, Doctrinal, and Moral parts of the Bible, as well as the interpretation of the Promises and Threatenings contained in the CHAPTER I. ON THE INTERPRETATION OF THE FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE OF SCRIPTURE. FIGURATIVE language had its rise in the first ages of mankind: the scarcity of words occasioned them to be used for various purposes: and thus figurative terms, which constitute the beauty of language, arose from its poverty; and it is still the same in all uncivilized nations. Hence originated the metaphorical diction of the Indians, and the picture-writing of the Mexicans. The Bible, though too commonly regarded as containing only lessons of morality and plain statements of facts, abounds with the most beautiful images, and with every ornament of which style is susceptible. Yet these very ornaments are. sometimes occasions of difficulty; for the books, which contain the revelations of God, being more ancient than any others now extant, are written either in the language used by mankind in the first ages, or in a language nearly allied to it. The style of these writings, therefore, being very different from that of modern compositions, to interpret them exactly as they are usually expounded, is without doubt to mis-interpret them; accordingly, persons ignorant of the character of the primitive languages, have, by that method of interpretation, been led to imagine that the Scriptures contain notions unworthy of God: and thus have not only exposed these venerable writings to the scorn of infidels, but have also framed to themselves erroneous notions in religion. To prevent similar mistakes, and, it is hoped, to render more delightful the study of the sacred volume by an explanation of its figurative language, is the design of the present chapter. Figures, in general, may be described to be that language, which is prompted either by the imagination or by the passions. Rhetoricians commonly divide them into two great classes, figures of words and figures of thought. Figures of Words are usually termed tropes, and consist in the advantageous alteration of a word or sentence, from its original and proper signification to another meaning; as in 2 Sam. xxiii. 3. The rock of Israel spake to me. Here the trope lies in the word rock which is changed from its original sense, as intending one of the strongest works and most certain shelters in nature; and is employed to signify, that God, by his faithfulness and power, is the same security to the soul which trusts in him, as the rock is to the man who builds upon it, or flees for safety to its impenetrable recesses. So, in Luke xiii. 32. our Lord speaking of Herod, says Go ye, and tell that fox here the word fox is diverted from its proper meaning, which is that of a beast of prey and of deep cunning, to denote a mischievous, cruel, and crafty tyrant; and the application of the term gives us a complete idea of his hypocrisy. The other class, called Figures of Thought, supposes the 1 Pp. 186, 187. supra. Macknight on the Epistles, vol. iv. 4to., or vol. vi. 8vo. essay viii. sect. 1. On the right Interpretation of Scripture. The materials of this chapter are abridged chiefly from Professor Dathe's edition of Glassius's Philologia Sacra, lib. ii. forming the whole second volume of that elaborate work. See also Jahn's Enchiridion Hermeneuticæ Generalis, cap. iv. (De Tropis Recte Interpretandis, pp. 101-125.), and Rambach's Institu tiones Hermeneuticæ Sacræ, lib. i. c. ii. De Adminiculis Rhetoricis, pp. 429-440. words to be used in their literal and proper meaning, and the figure to consist in the turn of the thought; as is the case in exclamations, apostrophes, and comparisons, where, though we vary the words that are used, or translate them from one language into another, we may nevertheless still preserve the same figure in the thought. This distinction, however, Dr. Blair remarks, is of no great use, as nothing can be built upon it in practice; neither is it always very clear. It is of little importance, whether we give to some particular mode of expression the name of a trope or of a figure, provided we remember that figurative language always imports some colouring of the imagination, or some emotion of passion expressed in our style; and perhaps, figures of imagination, and figures of passion, might be a more useful distribution of the subject.3 Without regarding, therefore, the technical distinctions which have been introduced by rhetorical writers, we shall first offer some hints by which to ascertain and correctly interpret the tropes and figures occurring in the Sacred Writings; and in the following sections we shall notice the principal of them, illustrated by examples, to which a diligent reader may easily subjoin others. SECTION I. GENERAL OBSERVATIONS ON THE INTERPRETATION OF TROPES AND FIGURES. "ALL languages are more or less figurative; but they are most so in their earliest state. Before language is provided with a stock of words, sufficient in their literal sense to express what is wanted, men are under the necessity of extending the use of words beyond the literal sense. But the application, when once begun, is not to be limited by the bounds of necessity. The imagination, always occupied with resemblances, which are the foundation of figures, disposes men to seek for figurative terms, where they might express themselves in literal terms. Figurative language presents a kind of picture to the mind, and thus delights while it instructs: whence its use, though more necessary when a language is poor and uncultivated, is never wholly laid aside, especially in the writings of orators and poets." 394 The language of the Scriptures is highly figurative, especially in the Old Testament. For this, two reasons have been assigned; one is, that the inhabitants of the East, naturally possessing warm and vivid imaginations, and living in a warm and fertile climate, surrounded by objects equally beautiful and agreeable, delight in a figurative style of expression: and as these circumstances easily impel their power of conceiving images, they fancy similitudes which are sometimes far fetched, and which to the chastised taste of European readers do not always appear the most elegant. The other reason is, that many of the books Blair's Lectures, vol. i. p. 320. • Bishop Marsh's Lectures, part iii. p. 69. of the Old Testament are poetical; now it is the privilege of a poet to illustrate the productions of his muse, and to render them more animated, by figures and images drawn from almost every subject that presents itself to his imagination. Hence David, Solomon, Isaiah, and other sacred poets, abound with figures, make rapid transitions from one to another, every where scattering flowers, and adorning their poems with metaphors, the real beauty of which, however, can only be appreciated by being acquainted with the country in which the sacred poets lived, its situation and peculiarities, and also with the manners of the inhabitants and the idioms of their language. thee a defenced city, and an iron pillar, and brazen walls against the (2.) In Psal. xviii. 2. God is termed a rock, a fortress, a deliverer, a (4.) The command of Jesus Christ, related in Matt. xviii. 8, 9. if interpreted literally, is directly at variance with the sixth commandment (Exod. xx. 13.), and must consequently be understood figuratively. So, the is to be understood of himself, as he is man. This is evident from the condeclaration of Jesus Christ in John xiv. 28. (My Father is greater than I) figu-text and from the nature of his discourse. In John xiv. 24. Christ tells bis disciples that the Father had sent him; that is, in his quality of Messiah, sender is greater than he who is sent (xiii. 16.); so, in this sense, is the he was sent by the Father to instruct and to save mankind. Now as the Father greater than the Son. It certainly requires very little argument, and no sophistry, to reconcile this saying with the most orthodox notion of the deity of Christ; as he is repeatedly speaking of his divine and of his human nature. Of the former he says (John x. 30.), I and the Father are one; and of the latter he states with the same truth, the Father is greater than I The language of the New Testament, and especially the discourses and speeches of our Saviour, are not less figurative; and numerous mistakes have been made by a literal application of what was figuratively meant. When our Saviour said to the Jews, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up,' the Jews understood the word temple in its natural sense, and asked him, Whether he could raise again in three days what had taken six-and-forty years to build? They did not perceive that his language was rative, and that he spake of the temple of his body."2 In order, then, to understand fully the figurative language of the Scriptures, it is requisite, first, to ascertain and determine what is really figurative, lest we take that to be literal which is figurative, as the disciples of our Lord and the Jews frequently did, or lest we pervert the literal meaning of words by a figurative interpretation; and, secondly, when we have ascertained what is really figurative, to interpret it correctly, and deliver its true sense. For this purpose, Ernesti has given it the following general rule:-We may ascertain whether any expression is to be taken literally or figuratively, by recalling the thing spoken of to its internal or external sense, that is, by seeking out its internal or external meaning; and this may in general be readily ascertained. Hence it is, that in human compositions we are very rarely If ever in doubt, whether a thing be spoken literally or figuratively; because the thing or subject spoken of being human, and capable both of external and internal senses, may be recalled to a human sense, that is, to a sense intelligible by man. To understand this subject more particularly: 1. The literal meaning of words must be retained, more in the historical books of Scripture than in those which are poetical. For it is the duty of an historian to relate transactions simply as they happened; while a poet has license to ornament his subject by the aid of figures, and to render it more lively by availing himself of similes and metaphors. Hence we find, that the style of narration in the historical books is simple and generally devoid of ornament, while the poetical books abound with images borrowed from various objects: not, indeed, that the historical books are entirely destitute of figurative expressions; for, whatever language men may use, they are so accustomed to this mode of expression, that they cannot fully convey their meaning in literal words, but are compelled by the force of habit to make use of such as are figu. rative. But we must not look for a figurative style in the historical books, and still less are historical narratives to be changed into allegories, and parables, unless these be obviously apparent. From inattention to this important rule, "some interpreters, in ancient and modern times, have turned into allegory the whole Jewish ceremonial law. So, formerly and recently, the history of the creation of the world, the fall of man, the flood, the account of the tower of Babel, &c. have been explained either as Mud, or as philosophical allegories, i. e. philosophical speculations on these subjects, clothed in the garb of narration. By the same principles of exegesis, the Gospels are treated as o50, which exhibit an imaginary picture of a perfect character, in the person of Jesus. In a word, every narration in the Bible, of an occurrence which is of a miraculous nature in any respect, is uvos; which means, as its abettors say, that some real fact or occurrence lies at the basis of the story, which is told agreeably to the very imperfect conceptions and philosophy of ancient times, or has been augmented and adorned by tradition and fancy. "But that such liberties with the language of Scripture are utterly incompatible with the sober principles of interpretation, is sufficiently manifest from the bare statement of them. The object of the interpreter is, to find out what the sacred writers meant to say. This done, his task is performed. Party philosophy or skepticism cannot guide the interpretation of language." 2. The literal meaning of words is to be given up, if it be either improper, or involve an impossibility, or where words, properly taken, contain any thing contrary to the doctrinal or moral precepts delivered in other parts of Scripture.3 (1.) The expressions in Jer. i. 18. are necessarily to be understood figuratively. God is there represented as saying to the prophet, I have made 1 Bishop Marsh's Lectures, part iii. p. 69. Stuart's Elements of Interpretation, p. 76. Mori Acroases, tom. i. pp. 281-291. "I hold it," says the learned and venerable Hooker, "for a most infalli ble rule in expositions of sacred Scripture, that, where a literal construction will stand, the farthest from the letter is commonly the worst. There is nothing more dangerous than this licentious and deluding art, which changes the meaning of words, as alchemy doth or would do the substance of metals, making of any thing what it pleases, and bringing in the end all truth to nothing." Ecclesiastical Polity, book v. cc. 58-60. or p. 211. of Mr. Collinson's Analysis, (5.) Whatever is repugnant to natural reason cannot be the true meaning of the Scriptures; for God is the original of natural truth, as well as of that which comes by particular revelation. No proposition, therefore, which is repugnant to the fundamental principles of reason, can be the sense of any and This is my blood (Matt. xxvi. 26. 28.),-are not to be understood in that part of the word of God; hence the words of Christ,-This is my body, sense, which makes for the doctrine of transubstantiation, or, of the conversion of the bread and wine, in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, into the actual body and blood of Christ: because it is impossible that contradictions should be true; and we cannot be more certain that any thing is true, than we are that that doctrine is false. Yet it is upon a forced and literal construction of our Lord's declaration, that the Romish church has, ever since the thirteenth century, erected and maintained the doctrine of transubstantiation:-a doctrine which is manifestly "repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions." In fact, if the words this is my body"-must be literally understood, why are not other words of similar import also to be taken literally? In which case Jesus Christ must be a vine, a door, and a rock; for so he is expressly termed in John x. 9. must be transubstantiated, not into the blood of Christ, but into the New xv. 1. and 1 Cor. x. 4. And in the other part of the sacrament, the cup Testament: for he said," This cup is the New Testament" or covenant (Luke xxii. 20.), that is, the representation or memorial of it. Further, as the words-" This is my body," and "This is my blood”—were spoken BEFORE Christ's body was broken upon the cross, and BEFORE his blood was shed, he could not pronounce them with the intention that they should be taken and interpreted literally by his disciples. He could not take his body in his hands, nor offer them his blood in the cup, for it had not yet been shed. If the bread which he broke had been changed, he would have had two bodies, one of which would have been instrumental in presenting the other to the apostles. Of such a transformation they do not appear to have had the smallest idea; and if it did not take place in this first sacrament, what reason can we have to believe that it has been effected in any other? Hence it is clear that the doctrine of transubstantiation has no foundation in the words of Christ, which must necessarily be understood, not literally and properly, but figuratively, agreeably to the well known metonymy, common in all languages, but peculiar to the Hebrew (the impression of which the Greek here naturally takes), in which the sign is put for the thing signified. Thus in Gen. xl. 12. the three branches are three days, and in v. 18. the three baskets are three days; in xli. 26. the seven good kine are seven years, and the seven good ears are seren years; and in Ezek. xxxii. 11. the dry bones are the whole house of Israel." • Art. xxviii. of the Confession of the Anglican Church. The term"transubstantiation"-was not invented until the thirteenth century; the first idea of Christ's bodily presence in the eucharist was started in the beginning of the eighth century; the first writer who maintained the doctrine was Paschasius Radbertus, in the ninth century, before it was firmly established: and the first public assertion of it was, at the third Lateran Roman popes, and inculcated by the clergy dependent on them, in obeCouncil, in the year 1215, after it had been for some time avowed by the dience to their injunctions. But the term itself was not known before the thirteenth century, when it was invented by Stephen bishop of Autun. Mosheim's Eccl. Hist. vol. iii. pp. 217. 231. and 1 Cor. xi. 24, 25. Matt. xxvi. 26. 28. and Mark xiv. 22. 24. compared with Luke xxii. 19, 20. "Solet autem res, quæ significat, ejus rei nomine quam significat nuncupari, sicut scriptum est, Septem spice septem anni SUNT: non enim hujusmodi." Augustini Quæstiones in Leviticum. lib. iii. Quæst. 27. (Opedicit, septem annos significant: et Septem bores septem anni SUNT, et multa rum, tom. iii. pars i. p. 516. Paris, 1680.) In another place the same writer says, "Inde est, quod ait Apostolus, Petra autem ERAT Christus (1 Cor. x. 4.), non ait, Petra significabit Christum." (Ibid. Quæst. in Genesin. c. xl. Op. tom. iii. pars 1. p. 335.) The Hebrews, having no particular word denoting to represent, supply its place by the verb substantive, which is sometimes left to be understood as in Isa. v. 7. and sometimes is expressed by the personal pronoun, as in the passages above cited, agreeably to the well-known rule of Hebrew grammar, viz. that where these pronouns stand simply for the verb of existence, they are to be translated accordingly; as we read in the Septuagint Greek and Latin Vulgate versions, and also in every modern version of the Bible. Various additional examples of this construction may be seen in Stuart's Hebrew Grammar, § 649. o. 163. Oxford, 1831.) Robertson's Hebr. |