^•♦/ 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 Theological Seminary, 
 
 PRINCETON, N; J. 
 Case,., •-r— vrr:r..r^^ 
 Shelf, . X 2.4!^^ 
 Book, 
 
J 
 
 a 
 
 c^^ 
 
 a^ ^^^l^<^u:^^^t^ 
 
 

COUIISE OF LECTUMES, 
 
 CONTAINING A 
 
 DESCRIPTION AND SYSTEMATIC ARRANGEMENT 
 
 OF THE SEVERAL 
 
 BRANCHES OF DIVINITY : 
 
 ACCOMPANIED WITU 
 
 AN ACCOUNT, BOTH OF THE PRINCIPAL AUTHORS, AND OF 
 
 THE PPOGRESS, WHICH HAS BEEN MADE AT 
 
 DIFFERENT PERIODS 
 
 %f)tolo5ml Hearning* 
 
 BY HERBERT MARSH, D. D. F.R. S. 
 
 MARGARET PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY. 
 
 PART I. 
 
 CAMBRIDGE : 
 
 PUBLISHED BY WILLIAM HILLIARD. 
 
 Hiliiarcl Cf Metcalf printers. 
 
 1812. 
 
Digitized by tine Internet Archive 
 
 in 2011 witii funding from 
 
 Princeton Tiieological Seminary Library 
 
 littp://www.archive.org/details/courseoflecturesOOmars 
 
PREFACE 
 
 TO THE FIRST EDITION. 
 
 When thesC Lectures were written, they were 
 not designed for publication, at least not for present 
 publication. I proposed to follow the example of 
 other Lecturers, and, when I had completed the 
 Course, to make the same Lectures serve again and 
 again for every successive audience. For so doing I 
 had this additional inducement, that three years at 
 least must elapse before the whole series of Lectures 
 can be completed, during which time the Young Men 
 of the University, for whom they were principally in- 
 tended, will have been succeeded by a new genera- 
 tion. And as soon as I had performed the task of 
 •writing the Lectures, I could have divided them into 
 a triennial course, commensurate with the usual peri- 
 od of academical study. After all, if I thought it ex- 
 pedient, I had the publication of them in reserve, 
 whenever sickness, or the infirmities of age might 
 prevent me from continuing to deliver them. 
 
 Such was my original plan, which I have been in- 
 duced to abandon by the solicitation of my friends ; 
 and it is now my intention to publish every year the 
 Lectures, which have been delivered in that year. I 
 
ir PREFACE. 
 
 shall thus lose the advantiige, when the present Course 
 is finished, of being provided with a fund for future 
 uses, since Lectures once published can never be de- 
 livered again. But this private inconvenience will be 
 amply compensated, if the printing of them affords 
 any benefit to the public. One advantage at least 
 will arise from the present publication of them, name- 
 ly, that the Young Men, \Nho are now entering on 
 their academical studies, will be thus enabled, before 
 the Lectures are resumed, to make themselves ac- 
 quainted with the subjects already explained. And 
 even they, who had an opportunity of hearing the Lec- 
 tures now printed, may find it convenient to have 
 their memories assisted in the recollection of many 
 points, which it is necessary to know, in order to un- 
 derstand the subjects of inquiry in future Lectures, 
 For as the whole Course is intended to form a system- 
 atic arrangement, the connexion of the several parts 
 must be constantly kept in view, or the purport of 
 that arrangement will be defeated. These considera- 
 tions have had the chief influence on my present de- 
 termination. Nor must I neglect either to mention, 
 or to acknowledge with gratitude, the additional in- 
 ducement in the liberal offer of the Syndics of the 
 Press to defray the expense of publication. 
 
 As these Lectures were delivered in the Universi- 
 ty Church, it was necessary to adapt the mode of com- 
 position to the place and the audience, for which they 
 were intended. In writing a book, which is design- 
 ed for private meditation, an author cannot easily be 
 too minute, either in his own researches, or in refer- 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 ences to the works of other authors. In a private 
 Lecture-room, where a Lecturer can occasionally wait 
 while his pupils are taking notes, and where other 
 circumstances compensate for the dryness of his man- 
 ner, he may likewise be minute in his references, or 
 even produce the authors as he quotes them. But 
 when a Professor is speaking from the University 
 Pulpit, and is addressing a numerous audience, it 
 would be difficult to obtain unremitted attention, if 
 the fluency of his discourse were interrupted by par- 
 ticular references to chapter and section, to volume 
 and page. This inconvenience however is in a great 
 measure remedied by the circumstance, that it is an 
 essential part of my plan to give an account of the 
 principal books in Theology ; and these are at the 
 same time the sources, from which I myself have de- 
 rived the information contained in the Lectures. 
 Thus, the auihors enumerated at the end of the fourth 
 Lecture are the vouchers for that history of Sacred 
 Criticism, during the early and the middle ages, 
 which is given in the third and fourth Lectures. In 
 like manner, when the Criticism of the Greek Testa- 
 ment is finished, an account will be given of the prin- 
 cipal authors on that subject, and the same will be 
 done in every other branch. It is true, that many of 
 the quoted works are of considerable size : but since 
 for the most part they are methodically arranged, since 
 many of them are provided with indexes, and others 
 with tables of contents, the particular subjects, for 
 which it may be necessary to consult them, will gen- 
 erally be found without difficulty. Little or no bene- 
 
VI PREFACE. 
 
 fit therefore would have been derived from printing 
 the Lectures in any other form, than that, in which 
 they were delivered. And even without this consid- 
 eration, it would probably be less agreeable to those 
 who so lately heard them, if on reading them there 
 should appear any material difference. Trivial alter- 
 ations, in regard to single expressions, such as occur 
 to every author, while he is correcting the proof 
 sheets of his work, were of course admitted, as it 
 would be blameable to reject them. But in substance 
 nothing has been altered. I had even printed, at the 
 beginning of the third Lecture, that enumeration of 
 the branches of Divinity, with which I closed the sec- 
 ond Lecture, and which were repeated at the begin- 
 ning of the third, because it was necessary to impress 
 tl!em on the minds of every hearer. But in correct- 
 ing the proof sheet at p. 49, and on perceiving that 
 the same enumeration, which appeal's in p. 47, was 
 repeated on the opposite page, I erased the repetition 
 as unnecessary for the reader^ though it was necessary 
 for the hearer. 
 
 For the reasons already assigned I have retained 
 the exordium of the first Lecture, though it relates to 
 two deviations from the custom of my predecessors, 
 for which only my immediate hearers could require 
 an apology. I have retained also the English trans- 
 lation of French title-pages, which could not with pro- 
 priety have been given in the original from an English 
 pulpit. French proper names are likewise written, as 
 they are commonly used in England, which is the 
 more necessary, as a departure from this rule would 
 
PREFACE. VII 
 
 frequently create confusion. For instance, the French 
 name of the celebrated editor of the Greek Testament 
 was Robert Estienne ; but as he is always called in 
 English Robert Stephens, it would have led the read- 
 er into error, if I had called him by any other name. 
 A similar motive has induced me to call the well- 
 known Oxford editor of the Greek Testament by the 
 name of Dr. Mill : for though it was not his real 
 name, but was formed from the omission of the ter- 
 mination in his Latin name Millius, yet as he is gen- 
 erally known by the name of Mill, it might have per- 
 plexed the reader if I had used any other. 
 
 As the Lectures for the present year were finished, 
 before the description of the first branch of Divinity 
 was completed, I thought it necessary at the end of the 
 last Lecture to make some general observations in 
 respect, both to that, and to some other branches of Di- 
 vinity not yet described. The reasons for so doing 
 are assigned in their proper place, and therefore it is 
 unnecessary to mention them at present. Tliere is 
 only one point, on which I must say a few words, in 
 order to prevent misconstructions, or false inferences 
 from what I have asserted. On taking leave of my 
 audience, I noticed, among other subjects, which v/ill 
 be matter of future discussion, the conformity of the 
 doctrines of the Church of England with the doctrines 
 of Scripture. And hence was deduced the inference 
 (which necessarily follows, if those premises are true) 
 that to dissent from those doctrines, was to dissent 
 without a real cause. From this declaraticn no can- 
 
Vm PREFACE. 
 
 did Dissenter will conclude, that the speaker was ani- 
 mated by a spirit of persecution, or wished that reli- 
 gion should be combated by force. Though I am 
 myself convinced, that the doctrines of the Church of 
 England are agreeable to Scripture; though I am 
 likewise convinced (what I did not express in the 
 Lecture, as the subject did not require it) that there 
 is nothing in the discipline of our Church, which is in- 
 consistent with Scripture, I should be very sorry that 
 any man, who quietly and conscientiously dissented 
 from either, should be interrupted in the exercise of 
 his own worships or his own opinions. But if a Pro- 
 fessor of Divinity in an English University, standing 
 in the University pulpit, and addressing himself im- 
 mediately to the members of that University, all of 
 whom are educated in the Church, and most of them 
 as ministers of the Church, cannot declare, that the 
 doctrines of the Church are agreeable to Scripture, 
 and consequently that there is no real cause to dissent 
 from them, if under such circumstances, and before 
 such an audience, he cannot make this declaration, 
 v/ithout giving offence to tliose, who are of a different 
 persuasion, the persons so offended must expect some- 
 thing more than the free exercise of their own opin- 
 ions ; they must be unwilling to grant to the Estab- 
 lishment the same toleration of religious sentiment, 
 which they claim and enjoy themselves. These re- 
 marks are so obvious, that I should have thought it 
 unnecessary to introduce them, if I had not received a 
 
PREFACE. IX 
 
 letter containing reproaches for making the declara- 
 tion in question.* 
 
 When, according to the plan proposed in the sec- 
 ond Lecture, the time shall arrive for the description 
 of that branch of Divinity, which relates to the Doc- 
 trines of the Bible, it will be examined with all the 
 attention, which the importance of the subject requires. 
 But to enter upon this branch, before those, which 
 precede it, have been fully described, would defeat the 
 
 • This letter, as appears from the post mark, was put into the post- 
 office at Cambridge. It was sent on Sept. 15, more than three months 
 after the Lectures were finished, but only three days after the manu> 
 script had been sent to the printing-office for publication. There are 
 various indications of its being written iji a disguised hand. No name 
 is affixed to it : but it appears to have been composed by a person not 
 unacquainted with the subject, though upon the whole it is an incohe- 
 rent rhapsody. The writer begins with expressing his surprise at the 
 " fase assertion," as he calls it, contained in the above mentioned de- 
 claration. He then immediately proceeds to correct an error, which in 
 his opinion I had committed on a fcrvier occasion, in maintaining tliat 
 the Articles of our Church are not Calvinistic, though " everj' person, 
 who has read, knows (as he asserts) that the authors of them were Cal- 
 vinists." But the letter is chicfiy distinguished by the spirit of intoler- 
 ance, which it uniformly breathes, and by tlie views of the writer, 
 which it too manifestly discovers. In these respects it is so remarka- 
 ble, that I at first intended to publish it : but, as it is too long for in- 
 sertion in this Preface, I will quote only one sentence. Having previ- 
 ously extolled the present state of religious toleration in France, which 
 I am sure no English Dissenter, who had read the Articles organiques 
 des Cultes Protestans in the late French Concordat, would wish to see 
 adopted in this country, he proceeds, with manifest reference to the 
 Church of England, in the following manner : " Antichrist must fall.- 
 the late events on the Continent prove, that the blood of the Saints must be 
 
 avenged.^* From this single sentence a tolerable judgment may be 
 
 formed, botli of the ternper, and of the txiishes of the WTiter. It is to be 
 hoped, that there are not many, who with the same sentiments unite 
 equal zeal. 
 
 2 
 
X ■ PREFACE. 
 
 very object of that theological order ^ without which it 
 is impossible to form such a system of Theology, as 
 shall exempt us from the danger of arguing in a cir- 
 cle. 
 
 The Lectures now published were delivered in 
 the University Church on six successive Saturdays, 
 in the Easter Term. And it is my intention to give 
 the same number in every Easter Term, till the 
 Course is finished. 
 
 Cambridge, 
 Oct. 14, 1809. 
 
PREFACE 
 
 TO THE SECOND EDITION. 
 
 In this second edition very few alterations have 
 been made, and those only such as occur to every au- 
 thor on a revisal of his work. It was printed before 
 the first edition had been noticed in any Review. 
 But in the interval between the impression and the 
 writing of this Preface, the fifth number of the Quar- 
 terly Review, (where honourable mention is made of 
 the Lectures, for which I beg leave to express my 
 thanks) has noticed (p. 210) as inaccurate, a para- 
 graph at the beginning of the second Lecture, which 
 my respect for that Review would certainly induce me 
 to cancel, if I did not entertain a hope, that I could 
 give such an explanation, as would satisfy the Re- 
 viewer himself. 
 
 At the beginning of that Lecture, before I intro- 
 duced my own theological arrangement, which the 
 Quarterly Reviewer approves, I observed, " Theolog- 
 " ical writers are far from being unanimous, either in 
 " regard to the number, or in regard to the kind of di- 
 " visions, into which Theology should be resolved, 
 " In England especially so little has been determined 
 " on this point, that few writers agree in their divi- 
 
Xll PREFACE. 
 
 " sions : and in some of them the difference is sucli, 
 " that one should hardly suppose they were analysing 
 *' the same subject." In support of this observation, 
 I referred to two writers, no less distinguished by 
 their learning than by their rank, one of whom divides 
 Theologj^ into four^ the other into fourteen classes. 
 Here the Reviewer remarks, " It appears to us that 
 " he (the author) misunderstands die design of both 
 " these Prelates. They seem to have had no other 
 *' object in view, than the recommendation of books, 
 " and to have made their distribution, not for the di- 
 " rection of the Student in arranging the order of his 
 *' studies, but solely for their own convenience and 
 " that of their readers.'* Now if the opinion be coV' 
 recti that those learned writers " had ;?o other object in 
 " view, than the recommendation of books," they at 
 any rate present one species of theological division, 
 and as in this species they are so unequal, they afford 
 a fair instance of the observation, that theological wri- 
 ters are not unanimous in respect to the divisions of 
 Theology, an observation which was made in such 
 general terms, as to be capable of including every 
 species of theological division. But I really did sup- 
 pose that they had another object in view : I suppos- 
 ed, that the distribution of the classes, under which 
 the books were arranged, was not wholly fortuitous: 
 and being unable, when a classification is once intro- 
 duced, to discover why the books of oiie class should 
 be placed before the books of another class, unless the 
 author of the classification intends that those of the 
 former should be read before those of the latter, I con- 
 
PREFACE. XIU 
 
 eluded, that whatever might be their primary object, 
 they at least intended to unite " a plan of study" with 
 ** a classification of books." In this conclusion I was 
 confirmed by the fact^ that the learned Prelate, who 
 makes the four-fold division, really has observed, and 
 accurately observed the principle just mentioned : and 
 on this very account I commended his theological ar- 
 rangement, with the exception of the last class, in 
 which a ^wi^-division would have rendered the classi- 
 fication more complete. With respect to the other 
 learned Prelate, though I could not discover the fact^ 
 that he had observed the principle in question, and 
 therefore described his arrangement as less judicious 
 (which implies no disrespect to his general learning,) 
 I supposed, that he at least intended \.q make his clas- 
 sification of books in some manner subservient to that 
 course of study, which he himself approved. And 
 though in my own opinion the course of study, re- 
 sulting from this classification, is less judicious, than 
 the course of study resulting from the other classifica- 
 tion, I thought that I was not unjust in concluding, 
 that he really had such a course of study in contem- 
 plation, because he himself says at the end of the Pref- 
 ace, " I subjoin the following questions with the ref- 
 *• erences annexed, in order to shew how far the heads 
 " or chapters under which the books are classed, may 
 " be useful toward forming a regular course ofstudij,''' 
 
 Cambridge, 
 April 25. 1810. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 LECTURE I. 
 
 Page 
 Introductory Remarks on the Sttidy of Theology - 16 
 
 LECTURE n. 
 
 On Theological Arrangement. Tlie Author^s Analysis^ 
 and Division of Theology into Seven Branches - 31 
 
 LECTURE m. 
 
 An account of IntrodTictions to the Old and JS*ew Testa- 
 ment. History of Sacred Criticism in the early and 
 middle Ages ------.-49 
 
 LECTURE rV. 
 
 T^is History continued and concluded - - - 70 
 
 LECTURE V. 
 
 The Criticism cf the Greek Testament - - . §5 
 
 LECTURE VI. 
 
 This Subject continued to the formation of the Textus Re- 
 ceptus -98 
 
LECTURE I, 
 
 Befor E I commence my intended Course of Lec- 
 tures, it may be proper to apologize to the Universi- 
 ty for giving them in English, since former Margaret 
 Professors gave Lectures, na nely, the few which they 
 did give, in Latin. When this Professorship was 
 founded, all Lectures were given in Latin. But this 
 custom, in regard to other Lectures, has been long 
 abolished : and even in the foreign Universities, at 
 least in the Protestant Universities with which I am 
 acquainted, it is now usual for Professors of Divinity 
 to lecture, not in Latin, but in the language of the 
 country. No reason therefore can be assigned, why 
 an exception should be made in the solitary instance of 
 Lady Margaret's Professor of Divinity, especially as 
 the Foundress herself, in the deed of foundation, has 
 prescribed no rules in respect to the language of the 
 Lecture. It is not with the view of saving myself 
 trouble, that I propose to depart from this custom of 
 my predecessors : for, if we may judge from their ex- 
 perience, two or three lectures, if written in Latin, 
 would suffice for the whole time of holding the Pro- 
 fessorship. A Latin Lecture in Divinity is a sort of 
 Concio ad Clerum : and we all know that, whoever 
 
IS LECTURE I. 
 
 be the preacher, a Concio ad Clerum is delivered to 
 an empty pit, and to empty galleries. The mere garb 
 of learning has long ceased to be imposing : it ih in- 
 formation, and not parade, which men now require, 
 and they require it through that medium, which con- 
 veys it to them with the greatest ease and perspicuity. 
 It is no wonder therefore that Latin lectures are desert- 
 ed, or that former Margaret Professors b.ave read with- 
 out an audience. Now, if no one attends the lectures 
 of the Margaret Professor, it cannot be his duty, in- 
 deed it would be absurd, to continue to deliver them. 
 In this manner the most valuable Professorship in the 
 gift of the University has been gradually converted in- 
 to a sinecure. But as I do not desire that it should 
 remain so, as I would rather perform the duties of my 
 office, than seek for a pretext to evade them, I hope 
 the University will excuse my addressing them in a 
 language, which alone can enable me to obtain an au- 
 dience, alone therefore enable me to do my duty. 
 
 Another deviation from the custom of my prede- 
 cessors I should have left unnoticed, were it not that 
 every deviation from former practice is liable to give 
 offence. It is well known, that my predecessors, when 
 they gave lectures, read them from the professorial 
 chair ; and without doubt it was originally intended, 
 that divinity lectures should be given in the divinity 
 schools. It was also intended that lectures in law and 
 physic should be given in the schools, which are ap- 
 propriated to those faculties. But who would ever 
 censure a Professor of law or physic for giving lec- 
 tures elsewhere ? And w ith respect even to divinity, 
 
LECTURE I. 19 
 
 who has ever censured either the late or the present 
 Norrissian Professor for choosing some other place for 
 the delivery of theological lectures ? Why then should 
 the Margaret Professor be censured, who, in leaving 
 the schools, only follows their example ? In fact, the 
 divinity ^schools, whatever may have been their origin- 
 al destination, are calculated, according to their pres- 
 ent construction, for the mere purpose of public dis- 
 putations. They have not the requisites of a public 
 lecture room. The doctors and professors, indeed, 
 are well pro\ided \^ith seats, and some few seats are 
 provided for the masters of arts ; but in the space, 
 which is allotted to the undergraduates, not a single 
 seat is provided. If any one complains then, that I 
 hive deserted the schools, let him say why the younger 
 part of the University should be exposed to the incon- 
 venience of standing during a whole lecture, of stand- 
 ing on a cold pavement, when convenient benches are 
 provided for them in another place ? It is true, that 
 I have not exchanged the schools for that place, where 
 one of my learned colleagues gives divinity lectures ; 
 but I have exchanged them for a place, to which the 
 subjects of discussion are certainly appropriate. Nor 
 is the selection of this place a matter of choice only ; 
 it is a matter of necessity. For where is the lecture 
 room, where are the schools in this University, which, 
 however inconvenient, or however crowded, could 
 contain the audience, which is now before me ? I shall 
 proceed therefore, without further apology, to the busi- 
 ness, for which "\ve are here assembled. 
 
 The Lectures, which I propose to deliver, will re- 
 
20 LECTURE I. 
 
 late to every branch of Theology. Such is their con- 
 nexion, that without some knowledge of the whole, it 
 is hardly possible to form a due estimate of any part. 
 Indeed, whatever be the business of our study, we 
 should previously ask what are the objects of inquiry ; 
 for till this question has been answered, we know not 
 its real meaning. In the first place therefore the sev- 
 eral parts of Theology must be described. 
 
 In the next place, they must be properly arrang- 
 ed. A course of Lectures may contain all the divi- 
 sions and sub-divisions, into which Theology is capa- 
 ble of being resolved ; but unless it contains them in 
 a luminous order, it never can produce conviction ; it 
 can never lead to that, which is the ultimate object of 
 all theological study, the establishment of the great 
 truths of Christianity. To effect this purpose, the 
 several parts must be so arranged, that the one may be 
 deduced from the other in regular succession. The 
 evil consequences which follow the violation of this 
 rule, may be best explained by an example. Sup- 
 pose, that a Professor of Divinity begins his course of 
 lectures with the doctrine of Divine Inspiration ; this 
 doctrine, however true in itself, or however certain the 
 arguments, by which it may be established, cannot 
 possibly, in that stage of his inquiry, be proved to the 
 satisfaction of his audience, because he has not yet es- 
 tablished other truths, from which this must be dedu- 
 ced. For whether he appeals to the promises of Christ 
 to his Apostles, or the declarations of the Apostles 
 themselves, he must take for granted, that those prom- 
 ises and declarations were reallv made ; that is, he 
 
LECTURE I. 21 
 
 must take for granted the authenticity of the writings, 
 in which those promises and declarations are record- 
 ed. But how is it possible, that conviction should be 
 the consequence of postulating, instead of proving, a 
 fact of such importance ? This example alone is suf- 
 ficient to shew the necessity of method in the study of 
 Theology, the necessity of arranging the several parts 
 in such a manner, that no argument be founded on a 
 proposition, which is r.ot already proved. For if (as 
 is too often the case in theological works) we under- 
 take to prove a proposition by the aid of another, which 
 is hereafter to be proved, the inevitable consequence 
 is, that the proposition in question becomes a link in 
 the chain, by which we establish that very proposition, 
 which at first was taken for granted. Thus we prove 
 premises from inferences, as well as inferences from 
 premises ; or, in other v/ords, we prove — nothing. 
 
 Nor is it sufficient merely to describe and to ar- 
 range the several parts of Theology. The growids of 
 arrangement, the modes of connexion, must also be 
 distinctly stated. For hence only can be deduced 
 those general principles, \\ ithout which the student in 
 Divinity will never be able to judge of tlie proofs, 
 which are laid before him. 
 
 When we have proceeded thus far, our next ob- 
 ject must be to learn where we may obtain informa- 
 tion on the manifold subjects, which will gradually 
 come under discussion ; that is, we must obtain a 
 knowledge of the best authors, who have written on 
 those subjects. But for this purpose it is not suffi- 
 cient to have a mere catalogue of theological books. 
 
22 LECTURE I. 
 
 arranged alphabetically, or even arranged under heads, 
 unless the heads themselves are reduced to a proper 
 system. Nor is it sufficient to inform the hearer of 
 the titles only of those books which it may be proper 
 for him to read : he should be informed, at least to a 
 certain degree, of tlieir contents : he should be inform- 
 ed also of the diiferent modes, in which the same sub- 
 ject has been treated by different authors, and of the 
 particular objects, which each of them had in view. 
 Further, since many excellent treatises have been pro- 
 duced by controversy, and many by other occasions, 
 which it is always useful, and sometimes necessary to 
 know, in order to view the writings themselves in their 
 proper light, a knowledge of theological works should 
 be accompanied with some knowledge of the persons 
 who wrote them, a knowledge of their general charac- 
 ters, of the times in which they lived, and of the situ- 
 ations in which they were placed. 
 
 Lastly with this knowledge of authors, if it be prop- 
 erly disposed, may be united a knowledge equally in- 
 structive and entertaining, a knowledge of the advance- 
 ment or decline of theological learning, a knowledge 
 of how much or how little has been performed in the 
 different ages of Christianity. 
 
 A course of Lectures so comprehensive in its plan, 
 as to embrace the manifold objects, which have been 
 just enumerated, may appear too much for one lectur- 
 er to undertake, especially for the lecturer, who is now 
 addressing you. And, even if he had ability for the 
 undertaking, it might still be apprehended, that, be- 
 fore he had done, the patience of the most indulgent 
 
LECTURE I. 23 
 
 auditory would be exhausted. But it would be for- 
 eign to the very plan of these Lectures to deliver co- 
 pious dissertations on single points of Divinity, in 
 which case they might never be brought to a conclu- 
 sion. They relate indeed to all the branches of Di- 
 vinity, however minute ; they describe, as well the 
 fruits which have been gathered, as the store-houses 
 in which the fruits are preserved ; but they do not 
 contain the fruits themselves. Or they may be com- 
 pared with a map and a book of directions, from which 
 the traveller may learn the road which he must take, 
 the stages which he must go, and the places where he 
 must stop, in order to arrive with the greatest ease and 
 safety at his journey's end. Descriptions of this kind 
 are no less useful in travelling through the paths of 
 knowledge, than in travelling over distant lands. And 
 it is a description of this kind, which v/ill be attempt- 
 ed in these Lectures. 
 
 Here it may be asked, What is the end of the 
 journey, to which these Lectures are intended to lead ? 
 Is it the object cf elements, thus general and compre- 
 hensive, to generalize Christianity itself, to represent it 
 in the form cf a general theorem, from which individ- 
 ual creeds are to be deduced as so many corollaries ? 
 Or is it their object to maintain one particular creed 
 to the exclusion of all others ? The latter may ap- 
 pear to be less liberal than the former, but it is only 
 so in appearance ; while the advantages ascribed to 
 the former, are as imaginary, as those possessed by 
 the latter are substantial. It is difficult to conceive 
 any thing more painful or more injurious to the stu- 
 
24 LECTURE I. 
 
 dent in divinity, than to be left in a state of uncertain- 
 ty, what he is at last to believe or disbelieve. Where 
 no particular system of faith is inculcated, where a va- 
 riety of objects is represented without discrimination, 
 the minds of the hearers must become so unsettled, 
 they must become so bewildered in regard to the 
 choice of thtir creed, as to be in danger of choosing 
 none at all. The attempt to generalize Christianity, 
 in order to embrace a variety of creeds, will ultimately 
 lead to the exclusion of all creeds ; it will have a sim- 
 ilar effect with Spinosa's doctrine of Pantheism ; it 
 will produce the very opposite to that, which the name 
 itself imports. And, as Pantheism, though nominal- 
 ly the reverse, is in reality but another term for Athe- 
 ism, so Christianity, when generalized, is no Christi- 
 anity at all. The very essentials of Christianity must 
 be omitted, before we can obtain a form so general, as 
 not to militate against any of the numerous systems, 
 which in various ages have been denominated Chris- 
 tian. Some particular system therefore must be adopt- 
 ed, as the object and end of our theological study. 
 What particular system must ho. the o! )ject and end 
 of our theological study, cannot be a question in this 
 place : it cannot be a question with men who are 
 studying with the very view of filling conspicuous 
 stations in the Church of England. That system then, 
 which was established at the Reformation, and is con- 
 tained in our liturgy, our articles, and our homilies, is 
 the system, to which all our labours must be ultimate- 
 ly directed. 
 
 If it be objected, that the student will thus be pre- 
 
LECTURE I. 25 
 
 judiced in favour of a particular system before he has 
 had an opportunity of comparing it with others, one 
 answer to the objection has been already given, name- 
 ly, that, however specious the plan of teaching Chris- 
 tianity on a broad basis, it is incapable of being reduc- 
 ed to practice ; that, if various s} stems be taught, they 
 must be taught, not in union, but in succession ; and 
 consequently, that at least in point of time some one 
 system must have the precedence. Further, as a com- 
 parison of the doctrines of the Church of England 
 with the doctrines of other churches, will form a part 
 of these very lectures ; as a review will be taken of 
 other systems, when our own has been examined, ^nd 
 no advice will be given to shrink from inquiry, I hope 
 I shall not be accused of attempting to fetter the judg- 
 ment of my hearers in a matter of such importance as 
 religious faith. 
 
 After all, should the selection of a particular sys- 
 tem as the object of our primary consideration be at- 
 tended with the unavoidable consequence, that a pre- 
 dilection be formed in regard to that system, which 
 may render us less disposed to listen to the claims of 
 any other, than perhaps strict impartiality might re- 
 quire, it may be asked, whether such consequence is 
 really a matter of regret ? Is it a thing to be lament- 
 ed, that members of the Church of England are edu- 
 cated with prepossessions in favour of the national 
 church ? Or is it want of candour in a Professor, 
 who, after an examination of other systems, can dis- 
 cover none, which he thinks so good as his own, to 
 shew more regard to this system than to any other ? 
 
26 LECTURE I. 
 
 Can it be blameable at a season, when every exertioa 
 is making by the very means of education, by educa- 
 tion conducted both openly and privately, to alienate 
 the rising generation from the established church, can 
 it be blameable, or rather is it not our bounden duty, 
 at such a season, to call forth all our energies, in mak- 
 ing education on our part subservient to the establish- 
 ed church ? 
 
 That theological learning is necessary to make a 
 good divine of the Church of England, is a position, 
 which a learned audience will certainly be disposed to 
 admit. And this position will appear still more evi- 
 dent, when we consider, what it is, which constitutes 
 the chief difference between the learned and the un- 
 learned in Theology. It is not the ability to read the 
 New Testament in Greek, which makes a man a learn- 
 ed divine, though it is one of the ingredients, without 
 which he cannot become so. The main difference 
 consists in this, that while the unlearned in divinity 
 obtain only a knowledge of what the truths of Chris- 
 tianity arcy the learned in divinity know also the 
 grounds, on which they rest. And that this knowl- 
 edge ought to be obtained by every man who assumes 
 the sacred office of a Christian teacher, nothing but 
 the blindest enthusiasm can deny. If St. Peter, in 
 addressing himself to the numerous converts of Pon- 
 tus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, Bithynia, required 
 that they should be always ready to give a reason of 
 the hojie that was in them, how much more necessa- 
 ry must he have thought this ability in those, who 
 were set apart to be teachers of the Gospel ? But 
 
LECTURE I. 27 
 
 ask any one of those illiterate teachers, with which this 
 country unfortunately abounds, ask liim why he is a 
 Christian and not a Mahometan ; ask hitn why he be* 
 lieves that Christianity is a real revelation, and Ma- 
 hometanism only a pretended one ? He would an- 
 swer, either with a -s^acant stare, or with a reproach at 
 the impiety of the question, as if it had been propos- 
 ed vvith any other view than to tr}' his knowledge. Not 
 so the learned divine : he would enter into those his- 
 torical and critical arguments, of which the unlettered 
 enthusiast has no conception, but by which alone the 
 authenticity of the Gospel history can be established, 
 by which alone the miracles recorded in it can bie con- 
 firmed, by which alone the claims of Christianity to a 
 divine origin can be proved legitimate. 
 
 There is no ground then for that distinction be- 
 tween science and religion, that the one is an object 
 of reason, the other an object of faith. Religion is an 
 object of both ; it is this very circumstance, which 
 distinguishes the unlearned from the learned in divin- 
 ity ; while the former has faith only, the latter has the 
 same faith accompanied with reason. The former 
 believes the miracles and doctrines of Christianity, as 
 being recorded in the New Testament ; the latter also 
 believes the miracles and doctrines recorded in the 
 New Testament, and he believes them, because by 
 the help of his reason he knows, what the other does 
 not, that the record is true. 
 
 But is not religion, it may be said, a matter of gen- 
 eral import ? Does it not concern all men, the un- 
 learned, as well as the learned ? Can it be true then, 
 
SS LECTURE I. 
 
 that such a literary apparatus is necessary for the pur- 
 pose of reiii^ioR ? And would not at least nine-tenths 
 of mankind be, in that case, excluded from its bene- 
 fits ? Certainly not from its practical benefits, which 
 alone are wanted, as they alone are attainable, by the 
 generality of mankind. Men, whose education and 
 habits have not prepared them for profound inquiry, 
 whose arteiitio.j is wholly directed to the procuring of 
 the necessaries of life, depend, and must depend, for 
 the truth of the doctrines m hich are taught them, on 
 the authority (^f their teachers and preachers, of whom 
 it is taken for granted, that they have investigated, 
 and really know the truth. But is this any reason 
 why men, who are set apart for the ministry, should 
 likewise be satisfied with taking things upon trust? 
 Does it follow, because a task is neglected by those, 
 who have neither leisure nor ability to undertake it, 
 that it must likewise be neglected by those, who pos- 
 sess them both ? Ought we not rather to conclude, 
 that in proportion to the inability of the hearers to in- 
 vestigate for themselves, in proj^iortion therefore to the 
 confidence which they must ]">lace in their instructor, 
 their instructor should endeavour to convince himself 
 of the truth of his doctrines ? And how is this con- 
 viction, this real knowledge of the truth to be attained 
 without learning? 
 
 But investigation, it is said, frequently leads to 
 doubts, where tliere were none before. So much the 
 better. If a thing is false, it ought not to be received. 
 If a thing is true, it can never lose in the end, by in- 
 quiry. On the contrary, the conviction of that man, 
 
LECTURE I. 29 
 
 who has perceived difficuhies and overcome them, is 
 always stronger, than the persaasion of him who nev- 
 er heard of their existence. The danger, which is 
 apprehended, arises from superficial knowledge, which 
 carries a man just far enough, to enable him to per- 
 ceive difficulties, and there leaves him. In fact, it is 
 not learning, but want of learning, which leads to er- 
 ror in religion. It was the want of learning which oc- 
 casioned the abuses of religion in the middle ages ; it 
 was the learning of our early reformers, by which 
 those abuses were corrected. Nor is that variety of 
 religious sentiment, by which this nation is distracted, 
 to be ascribed to learning. On the contrar}'', the 
 Icuiers of that sect, which is now the most numerous, 
 rather reprobate, than encourage learning ; and that, 
 in this respect, their practice agrees with their princi- 
 ples, is known to every man, who has once listened to 
 their harangues. Let no one therefore apprehend, 
 that theological learning will create divisions in the 
 Church of England ; let no one apprehend, that it will 
 now undo what it did at the Reformation. It is in 
 fact the only method of ensuring to us the advantages 
 of the Reformation, by guarding against enthusiasm 
 on the one hand, and infidelity on the other. 
 
 That knowledge pufFeth up, may be true of some 
 kinds of knowledge ; and it might certainly be affirm- 
 ed of that kind, to w hich St. Paul alludes in the pas- 
 sage so often misapplied by unlettered teachers, in 
 vindication of their own defects. St. Peter com* 
 mands us to add to our virtue knowledge ; and St. 
 Paul himself complains elsewhere of those, who, in re- 
 
30 LECTURE I. 
 
 ligious matters, have zeal which is not according to 
 knowledge. The more we advance in tlie study of 
 Divinity, the more Hkely are we to learn humility ; 
 the most profound Divines are generally men of mod- 
 est manners ; and spiritual pride and vanity is chiefly 
 to be found among those, who are the least distin- 
 guished for theological learning. 
 
 We have every reason therefore to persevere in 
 the study of Divinity ; there is none whatever to dis- 
 suade us from it. We have every reason to applaud 
 the wisdom of our illustrious founders, who were not 
 of opinion, that it is easier to become a good divine, 
 than a good mechanic ; who were not of opinion, that 
 the head requires less exercise than the hands ; or 
 that, if a seven years' apprenticeship is necessary, to 
 learn the manual operations of a common trade, a less 
 time is requsite for the intellectual attainments of a 
 Christian teacher. No. They required a two -fold 
 apprenticeship to Divinity ; a seven years' study of 
 the liberal arts, as preparatory to the study of Divini- 
 ty, and another seven years' study of Divinity itself, 
 before the student was admitted to a degree in that 
 profession. 
 
 In conformity with the principles which directed 
 our ancestors, in obedience to the commands of the 
 Foundress of this Professorship, and, I hope, with the 
 approbation of my audience, I shall proceed therefore 
 next Saturday, at the same hour, to develop the plan, 
 already announced in this Lecture. 
 
LECTURE 11. 
 
 In the preceding Lecture it was observed, that on 
 our entrance to the study of Divinity, we should en- 
 deavour in the first place to obtain a knowledge of 
 the parts or branches, of which it consists ; and in the 
 second place, a knowledge of the manner, in which 
 those parts or branches should be arranged. 
 
 .Theological writers are far from being unanimous, 
 either in regard to the number, or in regard to the 
 kind of divisions, into which Theology should be re- 
 solved. In England especially, so little has been de- 
 termined on this point, that k\v writers agree in their 
 divisions ; and in some of them the difference is such^ 
 that one should hardly suppose they were analysing 
 the same subject. 
 
 A learned Prelate in our sister University, who 
 has published a list of books recommended to the 
 younger clergy, has made not less than fourteen di- 
 visions in Theology, which he has arranged in the 
 following order : i. The first division relates to 
 Practical and Pastoral Duties. ii. Devotion, in. 
 Religion in general, iv. Revealed Religion, v. The 
 Scriptures, vi. Comments on the Scriptures, vii. 
 
32 LECTURE II. 
 
 Concordances, &c. viii. Doctrines, ix. Creeds, 
 Articles, Catechism, and Liturgy. x. Sacraments 
 and Rites, (subdivided into Baptism, the Lord's Sup- 
 per, and Confirmation), xi. Constitution and Estab- 
 lishment of the Church of England, xii. Ecclesias- 
 tical History, xiii. Ecclesiastical Law. xiv. Mis- 
 cellaneous subjects. — Then comes a second list, in 
 which these fourteen divisions are repeated ; and last- 
 ly a third, in which they are exchanged for another 
 set, amounting to seventeen, which it would be really 
 tedious to enumerate. Indeed throughout the whole 
 of this theological arrangement there is nothing like 
 system to be discovered : no reason is assignable for 
 the peculiar position of any one head : nor does their 
 disposition in any way contribute to that, which should 
 be the primary object of every writer — perspicuity. 
 
 A more judicious Prelate of our own University, 
 in his Preface to his Elements of Christian Theology, 
 divides the subject into four parts. The first relates' 
 to the Exposition of the Scriptures ; the second to 
 the Divine Authority of the Scriptures ; the third to 
 the Doctrines and Discipline of the Church of Eng- 
 land ; the fourth to Miscellaneous subjects, including 
 Sermons and Ecclesiastical History. — In this arrange- 
 ment there is method. For the Bible must l)e un- 
 derstood, before we can prove its divine authority ; 
 and both of these tasks must be performed, beiore we 
 can proceed to deduce articles of faith. Sermons, it 
 is true, should not be placed in the same class with 
 Ecclesiastical History ; and in all systematic arrai\ge- 
 ments, the term " miscellaneous" should be wholly 
 
LECTURE II. 3» 
 
 avoided. Where a classification is complete, the 
 classes must be such, that every individual article 
 may, in some one of them, find its proper place. 
 
 A four-fold division of Theology is a division, 
 which has been long in use among the German di- 
 vines. With them likewise the first division relates 
 to the exposition of the Scriptures, and is termed Ex- 
 positor}^ Theology. The second is called, by way of 
 eminence. Systematic Theology : it includes both 
 evidences and doctrines. The third division is called 
 Historical Theology : it comprises the internal, as well 
 as external history of the Church. The fourth and 
 last division is called Pastoral Theology, comprehend- 
 ing such subjects, as relate especially to the duties of 
 a parish priest. 
 
 This division, though not universal among foreign 
 divines, is at least the prevailing one, and the best, 
 which has been hitherto introduced. 
 
 To attempt therefore the introduction of any other 
 may appear to savour of presumption. But as the 
 inconveniences, which I have felt from all former ar- 
 rangements, during a twenty years* study of this par- 
 ticular subject, have suggested such modifications, as 
 seem at least to answer the purpose of theological or- 
 der, the sole object of which either is, or should be, 
 to represent the several parts of Theology according 
 to their connexions and dependences, a theological 
 arrangement, formed on this principle, will be attempt- 
 ed in the present Lecture. 
 
 That we should commence our theological studies 
 with the study of that Book, from which all Cliristian 
 5 
 
34 LECTURE II. 
 
 Theology is derived, is a proposition, which can haid- 
 ly require demonstration. That book, l^y which eve- 
 ry Christian professes to regulate his rehgious creed, 
 that book, of which our own Church declares, that 
 *' whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved 
 thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should 
 be believed as an article of the faith," is of course the 
 primary object of religious inquiry. It is a fountain, 
 at which every man must draw in preference even to 
 the clearest of the streams, which flow from it. In- 
 deed, if we neglect to draw there, we shall never know, 
 whether the streams, which flow from it, are pure or 
 turbid. 
 
 But the Bible may be studied in such a variety of 
 ways, there are so many points of view, from which it 
 requires to be examined, and the accuracy of our con- 
 clusions depends so much on the order ^ in which these 
 several surveys are taken, that it is of the utmost im- 
 portance to determine where we should begin. We 
 must establish the Authenticity of the Bible, the Cred- 
 ibility of the Bible, the Divine Authority of the Bible, 
 the Inspiration of the Bible, the Doctrines of the Bi- 
 ble. Now that we cannot begin \\\l\\ the Inspiration 
 of the Bible appears from what was said in the preced- 
 ing Lecture. Nor can we begin with the Doctrines 
 of the Bible; for till we have proved its divine au- 
 thority, its doctrines have not the force of obligation. 
 Nor can we begin with its Divine Authority, or, in 
 other words, with the Evidences for the divine origin 
 of our religion. For these evidences are arguments 
 deduced from the Bible itself, and of course presup- 
 
LECTURE II. 35 
 
 pose that the Bible is true. The authenticity of the 
 Bible therefore must be previously established, or the 
 evidences, as they are called, have no foundation, 
 whereon to rest. But no man can undertake to prove 
 the authenticity of the Bible, till he thoroughly under- 
 stands it. The interpretation of the Bible therefore is 
 manifestly one of the first parts or branches of Theol- 
 ogy. 
 
 It deserves however to be considered, whether a 
 branch of Theology, hitherto unnoticed in these Lec- 
 tures, is not entitled to a still higher rank. I mean 
 the Criticism of the Bible. In that four-fold division, 
 which I have already stated, both the criticism and the 
 interpretation of the Bible are included in the first di- 
 vision. But the operations of criticism, and the ope- 
 rations of interpretation are so distinct, that they ought 
 not, however subdivided, to be placed in the same 
 class. But if we refer them to separate classes, parts, 
 or branches, we must be careful to refer them in such 
 a manner, as not to violate the principle, which we ap- 
 ply to the other branches. Now the criticism of the, 
 Bible is a branch of such extent, it so encircles the 
 interpretation of the Bible, that, however different their 
 operations, it is difficult to determine where the sepa- 
 ration shall begin. There is one department of sacred 
 criticism, in which at least its application would be 
 very inefficient, if the Bible were not already under- 
 stood. But there is another department, which we 
 may apply, as well as learn, even before we begin to 
 interpret the Bible. And we shall find that it is ne* 
 cessary so to do. 
 
36 LECTURE II. 
 
 When we attempt to expound a work of high an- 
 tiquity, which has passed through a variety of copies, 
 both ancient and modern, both WTitten and printed, 
 copies which differ from each other in very numerous 
 instances, we should have some reason to believe, that 
 the copy or edition, which we undertake to interpret, 
 approaches as nearly to the original, as it can be 
 brought by human industry, or human judgment. 
 Or, to speak in the technical language of criticism, 
 before we expound an author, wc should procure the 
 most correct text of that author. But in a work of 
 such importance as the Bible, we should confide in 
 the bare assertion of no man, with respect to the ques- 
 tion, in what copy or edition either the Greek or the 
 Hebrew text is contained most correctly. We should 
 endeavour to obtain sufficient information on this sub- 
 ject, to enable us to judge for ourselves : and the in- 
 formation, which is necessary for this purpose, may 
 be obtained, even before we are acquahited with any 
 other branch of Theology. For when a passage is 
 differently worded in different copies, or, to speak in 
 technical terms, when it has various readings, the 
 question, which of those readings is probably the orig- 
 inal or genuine reading, must be determined by au- 
 thorities, and by rules, similar to those, which are 
 applied to classic authors. The study of sacred criti- 
 cism therefore, as far as it relates to the obtaining of a 
 correct text, may precede the study of every other 
 branch : but, if it may^ there are obvious reasons, why 
 it should. And, if that department of it, which relates 
 to the genuineness of whole books, belongs on one 
 
LECTURE II. Sr 
 
 account to a later period of theological study, it may 
 still on another account be referred even to the first. 
 Though the application or the practice of it requires 
 the assistance of another branch, yet a knowledge of 
 its principles may be previously obtained. Now the 
 study of sacred criticism produces an habit of accu- 
 rate investigation, which will be highly beneficial to 
 us in our future theological inquiries. Its influence, 
 also is such, that it pervades every other part of The- 
 ology : and, as our notions in this part are clear or 
 obscure, our conclusions in other parts will be distinct 
 or confused. In short, it is a branch, which affords 
 nutriment and life . to all the other branches, which 
 must become more or less vigorous^ in proportion as 
 this branch either flourishes or decays. To Sacred 
 Criticism then the foremost rank is due. 
 
 The reproaches, which have been made, and the 
 dangers, which have been ascribed to it, proceed only 
 irom the want of knowing its real value. It is not the 
 object of sacred criticism to expose the Word of God 
 to the uncertainties of human conjecture : its object 
 is not to weaken, and much less to destroy the edifice, 
 which for ages has been the subject of just veneration. 
 Its primary object is to shew the firmness of that foun- 
 dation, on which the sacred edifice is built, to prove 
 the genuineness of the materials, of which the edifice 
 is constructed. It is employed in the confutation of 
 objections, which, if made by ignorance, can be re- 
 moved only by knowledge. On the other hand, if in 
 the progress of inquiry excrescences should be dis- 
 covered, which violate the symmetry of the original 
 
is LECTURE II. 
 
 fabric, which betray a mixture of thehuinaii with the 
 divine, of interpolations, v/hich the authority or arti- 
 fice of man has engrafted on the oracles of God, it is 
 the duty of sacred criticism to detect the spurious, and 
 remove it from the genuine. For it is not less blamea- 
 ble to accept what is false, than to reject what is true : 
 it is not less inconsistent with the principles of religion 
 to ascribe the auihority of Scripture to that which is 
 not Scripture, than to refuse our acknowledgment, 
 where such authority exists. Nor should we forget, 
 that, if we resolve at all events to retain what has no 
 authority to support it, we remove at once the criteri- 
 on, which distinguishes truth from falsehood, we in- 
 volve the spurious and the genuine in the same fate, 
 and thus deprive ourselv^es of the power of ever ascer- 
 taining what is the real text of the sacred writings. 
 
 But so far is sacred criticism from exposing the 
 word of God to the uncertainties of conjecture, that 
 there is no principle more firmly resisted in sacred 
 criticism than the admission of conjectural emenda- 
 tion, of emendation not founded on documents. In 
 the application of criticism to classic authors, conjec- 
 tural emendations are allowable. There such liberties 
 can do no harm either to the critic, or to his readers : 
 they affect no truth, either religious or moral. But 
 the case is widely different, when conjectural emenda- 
 tion is applied to the sacred writings. It then ceases 
 to be merely an exercise of ingenuity : it becomes a 
 vehicle for the propagation of religious opinion : and 
 passages have been altered, in defiance of all authority, 
 lor the sole purpose of procuring support to a partic- 
 
LECTURE II. -39 
 
 iilar creed. It is true, that we have many at least in- 
 genious conjectures on the Greek Testament, which 
 come not within this description. But even such 
 conjectures should never be received in the text. If 
 one kind were admitted, it might be difficult to ex- 
 clude anothCT, since the line of discrimination is not 
 always apparent. Thus the Bible would cease to be 
 a common standard ; it would assume as many forms, 
 as there are Christian parties. Now that edition of 
 the Greek Testament, which above all others deserves 
 the name of a critical edition, is founded on this avow- 
 ed principle, JVil mutetur e conjectura, 
 
 I have been more diffuse on this subject, than the 
 present Lecture would otherwise require, lest any one 
 should have imbibed a prejudice against that branch 
 of Theology, to which I have assigned the foremost 
 rank. 
 
 Having thus properly prepared ourselves for the 
 study of the Bible, and having procured the best crit- 
 ical editions of it, we may then proceed to its exposi- 
 tion, or interpretation. For this purpose we must ob- 
 tain a knowledge of various subjects, \vhich have ref- 
 erence either to the Old or to the New Testament* 
 We must study what may be comprised under the gen- 
 eral name of Jewish Antiquities : nor must we nf^glect 
 to obtain similar information in regard to other nations,, 
 who are recorded in die Bible, whether it relate to 
 their civil, or to their religious establishments. The 
 state of literature, the peculiar modes of thinking, tlie 
 influence of false philosophy, either on the Jews, or on 
 their neighbours, are likewise subjects, which demand 
 
40 LECTURE II. 
 
 our attention. A knowledge of history, as far as it 
 regards the Bible, is also necessary, not merely to elu- 
 cidate the historical, but to explain the prophetical 
 parts. And, in aid of histor}'-, it is further necessary 
 that we should understand biblical chronology, and 
 biblical geography. On all these subjects we are so 
 well provided with information, through the industry 
 of our predecessors, in works hereafter to be mention- 
 ed, that a knowledge of these subjects is more easily 
 attainable, than the apparent extent of them might in- 
 duce us to suppose. 
 
 But the qualification, next to be mentioned, as ne- 
 cessary for a good interpreter of the Bible is not of so 
 easy attainment, namely, the knowledge of some fixed 
 rule or principle, by which we may direct our judg- 
 ments, amid the discordant interpretations of biblical 
 commentators. That all men should agree in adopt- 
 ing one rule of interpretation, is no more to be expect- 
 ed, than that all men should agree in one religious 
 creed. The very first principle of interpretation, 
 namely that the real meaning of a passage is its literal 
 or grammatical meaning, that, as the writer himself 
 intended to apply it, so and no otherwise the reader 
 must take it, this principle, from which no expounder 
 of any other work would knowingly depart, is expressly 
 rejected by many commentators on the Bible, not only 
 among the Jews, who set the example in their Tar- 
 gums, but also among Christians, who have followed 
 that example in their comments and paraphrases. It 
 would be foreign to the present Lecture to discuss the 
 question, whether it is allowable in our interpretation 
 
LECTURE II. 41 
 
 of the Bible, to depart in some cases from the princi- 
 ple, just mentioned. But if it be allowable, this de- 
 parture must be made at least with consistency ; it 
 must not be made, till the divine authority of the Bible 
 is already established, for on that ground only can we 
 defend the adoption of other rules. 
 
 Now we must learn to understand the Bible, be- 
 fore we can judge of its pretensions to divine authori- 
 ty. But if, while we are ascertaining the justice of 
 these pretensions, we apply rules of interpretation, 
 which, if applicable at all, can be applicable only, 
 when those pretensions are confirmed, we are contin- 
 ually moving in a circle, and never find an end. It is 
 not sufficient, that a proposition be true, to warrant our 
 arguing from the truth of it : we must not only know 
 it to be true, but we must be able to prove it inde- 
 pendently of the proposition, to which we apply it. If 
 in geometry the proposition, that the square of the 
 hypothenuse equals the squares of the sides, would, 
 though indisputably true, be thought absurdly applied 
 to demonstrate the properties of parallel lines, because 
 these properties must be established before that pro- 
 position can be proved, shall we argue less logically in 
 our religious inquiries, shall we think it allowable, 
 where our eternal welfare is concerned, to proceed 
 less rigidly in our researches, than in cases of tempo- 
 ral moment, or in matters of mere speculation ? If it 
 be true then (what no one will deny), that internal 
 evidence is necessary to establish the divine authority 
 of the Bible, if that internal evidence is nothing more, 
 than the application of its contents to a particular ob- 
 6 
 
43 LECTURE II. 
 
 ject, and this application requires, that those contents- 
 should be understood, it is manifest, that we must 
 learn to interpret tliem, at least in the first instance, 
 by the rules, which are applied to the interpretation 
 of other works. Even if we admit that every word, 
 as well as every thouglit, was inspired, yet as the ob- 
 ject of revelation is not to perplex but to enlighten, 
 we must still conclude, that the words, which are 
 used in Scripture, are there used in the accepta- 
 tion, which was common in the intercourse between 
 man and man. 
 
 When by the means above-mentioned we have 
 acquired due information in respect to any portion of 
 Scripture, for instance, the Five books of Moses, or 
 the Four Gospels, we are then qualified, if not to in- 
 vestigate for ourselves, at least to study the investiga- 
 tions, which have been made by others, in respect to 
 the authenticity of those books, that is, whether they 
 were written by the authors, to whom they are ascrib- 
 ed. This is the plain question, which we must ask 
 before we go further, Did such a person write such a 
 book, or did he not ? It is a mere historical question, 
 which must be determined, partly by external, and 
 partly by internal evidence. But great confusion has 
 taken place on this subject, by intermixing matter, 
 with which it has no necessary connexion. When the 
 fact, that the first of our four Gospels, for instance, 
 was written by St. Matthew, has been once establish- 
 ed by historical and critical arguments, (which histor- 
 ical and critical arguments must be applied precisely 
 *'AS we would apply them to a profane author) it will 
 
LECTURE II. 4S 
 
 follow of itself, that the Gospel was inspired, when we 
 come to the subject of inspiration, and shew, that the 
 author, whose work we have already proved it to be, 
 had received the promise of the Holy Spirit. But if 
 we investigate the two subjects at the same time, if 
 we intermix the question of inspiration with the ques- 
 tion of authenticity, we shall probably establish nei- 
 ther. In fact, the two questions are so distinct, that we 
 cannot even begin with the one, till we have ended 
 w ith the other. Before the point has been ascertain- 
 ed, whether this Gospel was written by St. Matthew, 
 or by an impostor in his name, there is no g^round 
 even for asking, whether it was written by inspiration; 
 for in the latter case it would not be Scripture. It is 
 obvious therefore, that in our inquiries into the au- 
 thenticity of the sacred writings, the subject of inspi- 
 ration must be left for future discussion. 
 
 When we have established the authenticity of the 
 sacred writings, that is, when we have established the 
 historical fact, that they were written by the authors, 
 to whom they are ascribed, the next point to be as- 
 certained is, the credit due to their accounts. And 
 here we must be careful to guard against a petitm 
 principiij to which very many writers on this subject 
 have exposed themselves. If we assert, that the 
 narratives, for instance, in the New Testament are 
 therefore entitled to credit, because the writers were 
 prevented by divine assistance from falling into mate- 
 rial error, we assert indeed what is true ; but it is a 
 truth, which we can no more apply in the present 
 stage of our inquiry, than we can apply the last propo*' 
 
44 LECTURE II. 
 
 sition of a book of Euclid to the denionstiatioii of the 
 first. For what other arguments can we produce, to 
 shew that those writers had such assistance, than ar- 
 guments deduced from die writings themselves ? 
 And does not this argumentation imply, diat the truth 
 of those writings is already established ? It must be 
 established therefore without an appeal to inspiration, 
 or it cannot be established at all. for as long as this 
 truth remains unestablished, so long must inspiration 
 remain unproved. The credibility therefore of the 
 sacred writers must be estimated, in the first instance, 
 as we would estimate the credibility of other writers. 
 We must build on their testimony as human evi- 
 dence, before we can obtain the privilege of appealing 
 to them as divine. 
 
 The branches of Theology, which have been hith- 
 erto described, are those, which require the same kind 
 of treatment, as we apply to the investigation of an- 
 cient writings in general. We now come to a more 
 important part of our duty, on which we shall be qual- 
 ified to enter, (and then only,) when we have obtained 
 a competent knowledge of the preceding branches. 
 WTien the authenticity and credibility of the Bible 
 have been established in the manner, and by the steps 
 above-mentioned, we are then enabled to collect evi- 
 dence for the divine origin of our religion. When 
 a prophecy, so descriptive of a particular event as to 
 warrant the belief, that this event was meant to be 
 described, when such a prophecy is recorded in a 
 book, which we have proved to have been written 
 some centuries before the event, we have the strong- 
 
LECTURE II. AH 
 
 est evidence, that the person, who deUvered the proph- 
 ecy, was endowed with more than human wisdom. 
 Or, if a miracle, ascribed to a particular person, is 
 recorded in a book, which we have already proved to 
 be worthy of credit, we have again the strongest evi- 
 dence, that the person, to whom the miracle is as- 
 cribed, was endowed with more than human power. 
 If then such persons deliver doctrines, which from 
 their internal excellence are worthy of being commu- 
 nicated from God to m-,n, we may argue to the reali- 
 ty of such communications, and regard the proph- 
 ecies and miracles, as credentials of a divine com- 
 mission. Thenceforward we may view the Bible, 
 as a work containing the commands of God : thence- 
 forward we may treat it as the fountain of religious 
 l^ith. 
 
 Such are the steps, by which we must gradually 
 advance toward the evidence for the divine origin of 
 our religion. 
 
 From evidences we might proceed immediately 
 to doctrines. But as this interval is the proper place 
 for examining the subject of inspiration, we must 
 assign this place to it in our plan of study. The 
 arguments, which are used for divine inspiration are 
 all founded on the previous supposition that the Bible 
 is true : for we appeal to the contents of the Bible in 
 proof of inspiration. Consequently those arguments 
 can have no force till the authenticity and credibility 
 of the Bible have been already established. Nor is 
 the establishment even of these points sufficient for 
 our purpose. We must likewise have established 
 
46 LECTURE 11. 
 
 the divine origin of our religion, before wc can prove 
 inspiration. For nothing but either divine testimony, 
 or fulfilled prophecy can confirm it. These general 
 observations are sufficient to shew how far we must 
 have advanced in our study of Theology, before wc 
 are qualified to enter upon this branch of it. 
 
 The next branch of Theology relates to Doctrines. 
 When we have learnt to interpret the Bible, and have 
 gone through the evidences for our religion, we are 
 qualified to study its doctrines. Our knowledge of 
 the former will enable us to judge, whether doctrines 
 are warranted or not warranted by Scripture : and if 
 they are, our knowledge of the latter will enable us to 
 perceive the force of their oblig'ation, and convince us, 
 that it is our interest, as well as our duty, to adopt 
 them. 
 
 As the creeds, which have been professed in dif- 
 ferent ages, and by Christians of different denomina- 
 tions, are not only various, but sometimes contradic- 
 tory, yet all agree in claiming the Bible for their sup- 
 port, their respective claims must be examined with 
 all the attention, which is due to so important a sub- 
 j.ect. But as those claims require, each of them, a 
 separate examination, and therefore some one religious 
 creed must be the first object of consideration, there 
 cannot be a doubt in :egard to the question, where it 
 is our duty tg begin. When we have obtained a 
 knowledge, and have learnt the value, of our own sys- 
 tem, we may undertake to compare it with others, and 
 again examine those points, in which one or more of 
 them shall be found to differ from it. 
 
LECTURE II. 47 
 
 • 
 
 Lastly, when we have thus acquired a knowledge 
 both of the doctrines themselves, and of the founda- 
 tions, on which they are built, we shall find it as use- 
 ful, as it is entertaining, to trace the progress of relig- 
 ious opinion through the different ages of the Christian 
 world. And, as this progress of religious opinion 
 cannot easily be traced, nor satisfactorily explained, 
 without knowing likewise the external causes, which 
 operated in promoting the adoption of them, we must 
 sum up our theological studies with the study of ec- 
 clesiastical history. 
 
 Let us now recapitulate the branches of Theology, 
 thus formed and arranged according to the principle 
 laid down at the beginning of the Lecture. 
 
 1. The first branch relates to the Criticism of the 
 
 Bible. 
 
 2. The second to the Interpretation of the Bible. 
 
 3. The third to the Authenticity and Credibility of 
 
 the Bible. 
 
 4. The fourth to the Divine Authority of the Bible, 
 
 or the Evidences* for the Divine Origin of the 
 religions recorded in it. 
 
 5. The fifth branch relates to the Inspiration of the 
 
 Bible. 
 
 6. The sixth to the Doctrines of the Bible, which 
 
 branch is subdivided into 
 [a) Doctrines deduced by the Church of Eng- 
 land. 
 {b) Doctrines deduced by other Churches. 
 
 7. The seventh and last branch relates to Ecclesiasti- 
 
 cal Historv. 
 
4S LECTURE 11. 
 
 Having thus given a general description of the 
 several branches of Theology, and having arranged 
 them in such a manner, that a knowledge of the one 
 may lead to a knowledge of the other, I shall proceed 
 in the next and following Lectures to give a more 
 minute description of them, as they successively come 
 under particular review. 
 
LECTURE IIL 
 
 The principle on which the proposed arrange- 
 ment was made, and the reasons for the position of 
 each branch, were so fully detailed in the preceding 
 Lecture, that it cannot be necessary to give any fur- 
 ther explanation. I will only therefore observe in 
 general terms, that they are placed in such a manner 
 as gradually to lead toward the establishment, the firm 
 establishment, of Christianity. 
 
 But in order to obtain both a firm conviction, and 
 a clear perception of the Christian doctrines, we must 
 be content to travel through the paths of Theology, 
 without departing from the road, which lies before us. 
 We must not imagine, that any particular branch may 
 be selected at pleasure, as it may happen to excite in 
 us a greater degree either of interest or of curiosity ; 
 for if this were allowable, where would be the utility 
 of theological order ? We must study the Criticism 
 of the Bible, before we can be qualified, at least he- 
 fore we can be well qualified, to study the Interpreta- 
 tion of the Bible. And we must obtain a knowledge 
 of the Bible, before we can even judge of the argU' 
 7 
 
50 LECTURE III. 
 
 ments, which are alleged for its Authenticity and 
 Credibility. But till these points have been estal^lish- 
 ed, we have established nothing in a religious view : 
 and consequently if we undertake the latter branches 
 of Theology, before we have gone through the former, 
 we shall not only build the doctrines of Christianity, 
 but Christianity itself on a foundation of sand. In 
 short, whoever undertakes to study Theology without 
 preparing himself for the latter i^ranches by a knowl- 
 edge of the former, undertakes as desperate a task, as 
 a student in mathematics, Avho should venture upon 
 Newton's Principia, before he had learnt/ eit-her the 
 properties of Conic Sections, or even the Elements of 
 Plain Geometry. 
 
 I am well aware, that a numerous sect of Chris- 
 tians in this country have a much more easy and ex- 
 peditious mode of studying Divinity. No literary 
 apparatus is there necessary, either for the interpreta- 
 tion of the Bible, the establishment of its truth, or the 
 elucidation of its doctrines. Inward sensation sup- 
 plies the place of outward argument ; divine commu- 
 nication supersedes theological learning. But as I 
 am not able to teach Divinity in any other way than 
 I have been able to learn it, as my own conviction of 
 the truth of Christianity is the result, not of sudden 
 impulse, but of long and laborious investigation, as I 
 have no other knowledge of its doctrines, than that 
 which is founded on the Bible, interpreted by human 
 learning, my hearers must be satisfied, if they contin- 
 ue their attendance, to follow with patience and per- 
 severance in all the portions of Theology, through 
 which it is proposed to lead them. 
 
LECTURE III. Si 
 
 As a reason for recommending so laborious a pur- 
 suit, which perhaps to many persons will appear un- 
 necessary, it may be obsei'ved, that the object of these 
 Lectures is to form a theologian, who shall be thor- 
 oughly acquainted with his ground from the com- 
 mencement to the close of his theological career, who, 
 in the interpretation of the Bible, shall never refer to 
 a fact in the criticism of the Bible, with which he is 
 not previously acquainted, nor be compelled, when he 
 is searching the doctrines of the Bible, to adopt a rule 
 of interpretation, without perceiving the foundation, 
 on which it rests. 
 
 To those especially, who seek for conviction in 
 certain inward feelings, which the warmth of their 
 imaginations represents to them as divine, I would 
 reconuuend the serious consideration of this impor- 
 tant fact, that the foundation, which they lay for the 
 Bible, is no other, than what the Mahometan is accus- 
 tomed to lay for the Koran. If you ask a Mahome- 
 tan, why he ascribes divine authority to the Koran, 
 his answer is, Because, when I read it, sensations are 
 excited, which could not have been produced by any 
 work, that came not from God. But do we therefore 
 give credit to the Mahometan for this appeal ? Do 
 we not immediately perceive, when the Mahometan 
 thus argues from inward sensation, that he is merely 
 raising a phantom of his own imagination ? And 
 ought not this example, when we hear a similar ap- 
 peal from a Christian teacher, to make us at least dis- 
 trustful, not indeed with respect to Christianity itself, 
 but with respect to his mode of proving it ? He may 
 
43 LECTURE III. 
 
 answer indeed, and answer with truth, that his sensa- 
 tions are produced by a work, which is really divine, 
 while the sensations excited in the Mahometan, are 
 produced by a work, which is only thought so. But 
 this very truth will involve the person, who thus uses 
 it, in a glaring absurdity. In the first place he ap- 
 peals to a criterion, which puts the Bible on a level 
 with the Koran : and then to obviate this objection, 
 he endeavours to shew the superiority of his own ap- 
 peal, hy presupposing the fact, which he had under- 
 taken to /?roi'^. Let us leave then to the enthusiast 
 these imaginary demonstrations, v/hile we are seeking 
 for proofs, which will bear the test of inquiry, and sat- 
 isfy the demands of reason. Such proofs there are. 
 But they are attainable only by him, who will resolve 
 to enter on those paths of kno\A'ledge, which alone can 
 conduct him to the place, where Christianity is con- 
 firmed. 
 
 As the Criticism of the Bible is the first object of 
 our studv, and as without it no man can become a 
 sound divine, it must not only be described l^efore all 
 other branches, but must be described at considerable 
 length. Nor can it be necessary to apologize to this 
 audience for being diffuse on such a subject. If the 
 critical inquiries into the poems of Homer, which 
 have been lately instituted by Wolf and Heyne, are 
 justly read with avidity by every real scholar, surely 
 the same scholar, when he transfers his attention to 
 the Bible, cannot listen with indifference to a recital 
 of whatever has been attempted to place its criticism 
 on a firm foundation. 
 
LECTURE III. 53 
 
 But before we proceed to this recital, it is neces- 
 sary, according to the plan prescribed in the first Lec- 
 ture, to give some account of those very useful works, 
 which are known by the name of Introductions to the 
 Bible. These Introductions will furnish the theolog- 
 ical student with such general information on the sub- 
 jects of criticism and interpretation, as will be highly 
 useful to him, before he undertakes these branches in 
 detail. The works, which relate to special objects of 
 criticism, will be mentioned hereafter, in their proper 
 places. 
 
 Among the introductory works, which we are 
 now to consider, there are some, which have particu- 
 lar reference to the languages of the Sacred Writings. 
 Of this description is Hottinger's Thesaurus Philolo- 
 gictis. In this work Hottinger, who was Professor at 
 Zurich in Switzerland, about the middle of the seven- 
 teenth century, treats of the Targums or Jewish Para- 
 phrases, of the Masora or Jewish Criticism, and other 
 branches of Jewish literature, with the view of illus- 
 trating the Hebrew Bible. Works of similar tenden- 
 cy are the Philologus Hehrceus^ and the Phiblogus He- 
 brceo-mixtus of Leusden, who was Professor at Utrecht 
 in the latter half of the seventeenth century. Leus- 
 den wrote likewise a similar introduction to the Greek 
 Testament, entitled Philologus Hehnso-gracus, 
 
 Other introductions to the Sacred Writings con- 
 tain information explanatory of their contents, without 
 entering so particularly into the language, in which 
 they were written. Of this description is the Opus 
 Analyticum of Van Til, who was Professor at Ley- 
 
 \ 
 
o4 LECTURE 111. 
 
 den, at the beginning of the last century. This work, 
 which is the substance of Van Til's lectures, and to 
 which Heidegger's Enchiridion Blblicum served as a 
 syllabus, contains an introduction to the several books, 
 both of the Old and New Testament, relative to the 
 authors of them, to the times when, and the places 
 where tliey were written, and to their general con- 
 tents. 
 
 Of greater value are the Introductions of Carpzo- 
 vius and Pritius, the one to the Old, the other to the 
 New Testament. Carpzovius, or, as he was called 
 in his own country, Carpzov, was Professor at Leip- 
 zig in the former part of the last century, and pub- 
 lished, in the year 1721, the first edition of his Intro- 
 ductio ad Libras Canonicos Bibliorum Vcteris Testa- 
 menti,, which was reprinted in 1731, and again in 1741. 
 Carpzov was a man of profound erudition, and inde- 
 fatigable industry. His work contains the principal 
 materials, which have been afforded by his predeces- 
 sors, perspicuously arranged, and augmented by his 
 own valuable observations. It is also partly employ- 
 ed in the confutation of Hobbes, Spinoza, Toland, 
 
 and other antiscripturists. The service, which 
 
 Carpzov rendered to the Old Testament, was render- 
 ed by Pritius to the New Testament, who in 1704 pub- 
 lisiied at Leipzig, his Introductio ad Lectionem A^ovi 
 Testamenti^ which went through several editions with 
 notes and additions by Kapp and Hofmann. Hof- 
 niann's edition was printed at Leipzig in 1737, and re- 
 printed in 1764. Its improvements on the original 
 edition are so considerable, that whoever purchases 
 
LECTURE III. 33 
 
 the Introduction of Pritius (and it deserves to be pur- 
 chased by every student in Divinity) must be careful 
 in regard to the date of the title-page. 
 
 With respect to French writers of Introductions 
 to the Bible, we may mention in the first place Du 
 Pin's Preliminary Dissertation, or Prolegomena to ' 
 the Bible, which w^s prefixed to his work, called 
 The Library of Ecclesiastical Authors, and was re- 
 printed both at Paris and at Amsterdam in 1701, with 
 considerable additions, in two quarto volumes. It 
 explains various subjects relative both to the Old and 
 to the New Testament ; and is a very useful work, not- 
 withstanding the severity, with which it was treated 
 by Richard Simon. 
 
 The Apparatus Biblicus written by Lamy, a priest '' ^ 
 of the Oratory, published first in Latin, then in 
 French, and translated into English in 1723, contains 
 likewise much useful introductory information, par- 
 ticularly in respect to Jewish Antiquities. 
 
 More extensive and more profound are Calmet's 
 Dissertations, in the form of Prolegomena to the Sa- 
 cred Writings. Cahnet, a very learned Benedictine 
 at the beginning of the last century, first published 
 these dissertations in his Commentary on the Bible, 
 where they were severally prefixed to the books, to 
 which they were intended as introductions. They 
 were afterwards collected into one work by Calmet 
 himself, and published with considerable additions, in 
 three quarto volumes, at Paris in 1720. This Vv^ork, 
 I believe, has likewise been translated into English : 
 but as I have never seen the translation, I can give no 
 account of it. 
 
56 LECTURE III. 
 
 L'Enfant, a French Clergyman of the Reformed 
 Church, who, in conjunction with Beausobre, trans- 
 lated the New Testament into French, which was first 
 published at Amsterdam in 1718, wrote a Preface to 
 the translation, which makes a good historical intro- 
 duction to the New Testament. Of this Preface 
 there has been published an. English translation, 
 which some 3'ears ago was reprinted at Cambridge. 
 
 Nor have our own countiymen, especially within 
 the last sixty years, been deficient in writing Intro- 
 ductions to the Bible. One of our earliest publica- 
 tions of this kind is Collier's Sacred Interpreter. The 
 author of this work, who must be distinguished from 
 the author of the Ecclesiastical History, lived in the 
 former part of the last century. It not only went 
 through several editions in England, but in 1750 was 
 translated into German. It is printed in two octavo 
 volumes, and relates both to the Old and to the New 
 Testament. It is calculated for readers in general, 
 and is a good popular preparation for the study of the 
 Holy Scriptures. The last edition was printed in 
 1796. 
 
 Lardner's History of the Apostles and Evange- 
 lists, which was first printed in three volumes in 1756 
 and 1757, but makes the sixth volume of Kippis's 
 edition of Lardner's works, is an admirable Introduc- 
 tion to the New Testament. It is a storehouse of lit- 
 erary information collected with equal industry and 
 fidelity. 
 
 In 1761 the first edition of Michaelis's Introduc- 
 tion, which had been published in Germany in 1750, 
 
LECTURE III. ST 
 
 was translated into English : and three years after- 
 wards Dr. Owen published his Observations on the 
 Four Gospels. — From the three last mentioned works, 
 Dr. Percy, the present Bishop of Dromore, compiled 
 that very useful manual called A Key to the New 
 Testament, which has gone through many editions, 
 and is very properly purchased by most candidates 
 for Holy Orders. 
 
 In imitation of this Key to the New Testament, 
 as the author himself says in his Preface, Mr. (now 
 Dr.) Gray, formerly of St. Mary Hall in Oxford, pub- 
 lished in 17S0, A Key to the Old Testament and 
 Apocrypha. But it is a much more elaborate perform- 
 ance, than the Key to the New Testament. It is a 
 compilation from a great variety of authors, whose 
 writings are generally quoted : and, as the materials 
 are metliodically arranged, it furnishes at one view 
 what must otherwise be collected from many writers. 
 But the author seems to have been unacquainted with 
 some of the most valuable foreign writers. Not even 
 Carpzov is noticed, whose Introduction to the Old 
 Testament contains a treasure of biblical learning, 
 though it had been then published above half a cen- 
 tury, and being written in Latin was accessible to ev- 
 ery scholar. Nor does the author appear to have been 
 very conversant with that department of sacred criti- 
 cism, which relates to the manuscripts of the Bible, 
 or he would not have supposed, in a note toward the 
 end of his work, that the celebrated Codex Alexan- 
 drinus was at present in any other place, than the 
 British Museum. But, notwithstanding these defects 
 8 
 
58 LECTURE III. 
 
 it is Oil tlie whole a valuable publication. A later 
 edition, I believe, was published in ISO J : but I can- 
 not say in what respects it differs from the former. 
 
 Dr. Harwood's Introduction to the Study and 
 Knowledge of the New Testament, of which the first 
 volume was published in 1767, the second in 1771, I 
 mention at present more on account of its title, than 
 on account of its contents. Though entitled an In- 
 troduction to the New Testament, it is not so in the 
 sense, in which the abovementioned works are Intro- 
 ductions. It does not describe the several books of 
 the New Testament, but contains a collection of dis- 
 sertations, relative partly to the characters of the Sa- 
 cred Writers, partly to the Jewish history and cus- 
 toms, and to such parts of heathen antiquities, as have 
 reference to the New Testament. But, as these dis- 
 sertations display great erudition, and contain much 
 information illustrative of the New Testament, Dr. 
 Harwood's Introduction is certainly to be recommend- 
 ed to the theological student. 
 
 The last English publication, containing an intro- 
 duction to the Sacred Writings, is the present Bishop 
 of Lincoln's Elements of Christian Theolog}% the first 
 volume of which contains an Introduction both to the 
 Old and to the New Testament, and has been since 
 published for that purpose in a separate volume. Hav- 
 ing already in another place delivered my opinion on 
 this work, I will here repeat it in the same words : 
 *' It is the result of extensive reading ; the materials 
 of it are judiciously arranged ; the reasonings in it 
 are clear and solid ; it is well adapted to the purpose^ 
 
LECTURE III. 5f 
 
 for which it was intended, as a manual for students in 
 Divinity, and it may be read with advantage by the 
 most experienced divine." 
 
 I now come to a class of introductory writers, 
 who have particularly distinguished themselves by 
 their profound critical researches. The author, who 
 took the lead in this branch of learning, was Richard 
 Simon, a priest of the congregation of the Oratory at 
 Paris. In 1678 he published his Critical History of 
 the Old Testament, which was reprinted in 1685 with 
 considerable additions. It consists of three parts, the 
 first containing a Critical History of the Hebrew Text, 
 the second a Critical History of the Translations, the 
 third a Critical History of the Interpretation of the 
 Old Testament. In 1684 he published his Critical 
 History of the Text of the New Testament, which 
 corresponds to the first part of the former work : and 
 in correspondence with the second and third parts of 
 that work, he published, in 1690, his Critical History 
 of the Versions of the New Testament, and in 1693 
 his Critical History of the principal Commentators on 
 the New Testament. Lastly, in 1695 he published 
 his New Observations on the Text and Versions of 
 the New Testament. The criticism of the Bible be- 
 ing at that time less understood, than at present, the 
 researches, which were instituted by Simon, soon in- 
 volved liini in controversy, as well with Protestant as 
 with Catholic writers, particularly with the latter, to 
 whom he gave great offence by the preference which 
 he shewed to the Hebrew and Greek texts of the Bi- 
 ble above that, which is regarded as the oracle of the 
 
6© LECTURE III. 
 
 Church of Rome, the Latin Vulgate. Though I 
 would not be answerable for every opinion advanced 
 by Simon, I may venture to assert, that it contains 
 ver}'^ valuable information in regard to the criticism, 
 both of the Hebrew Bil:)le, and of the Greek Testa-^ . 
 meat. 
 
 The same critical acumen, which Simon' display- 
 ed in France, has been since displayed by Michaelia 
 and Eichhorn in Germany ; by the iormer in his In- 
 troduction to the New, by the latter in his Introduc- 
 tion to the Old Testament. Both of these Introduc- 
 tions are formed on the same plan : they are each di- 
 vided into two parts, the one containing a critical ap- 
 paratus necessary for the understandir>g of the origin- 
 al, the other an introduction to every single book. It 
 is that critical apparatus, which distinguishes these 
 Introductions from all other Introductions, either to 
 the Old, or to the New Testament. But the Intro- 
 duction of Michaclis is too well known in this place, 
 to require a particular descri[)tion : and were it oth- 
 erwise, the translator, whose notes are closely con- 
 nected with the text of the author, is not qualified to 
 make a due estimate of the publication.* Nor can it 
 be necessary to say any thing more at present of Eich- 
 horn's Introduction, which has never been translated, 
 
 • As the 7S/-j« edition of Michaelis's Inti-ocjuction, which was publish- 
 ed in Germany in 1750, and translated into Eng-lisii in 1761, still appears 
 in catalo^es of books, it is necessary to warn the reader of the material 
 difference between that edition, and thejourth edition published in 1788, 
 which was translated by the Aut||pr of tliese Lectures. To say nothing 
 of the notes and additions by the translator, ihe fourth edition in tlie orijf- 
 inal consists of two quartos, the^r^tof a single octavor, 
 
LECTURE III. 61 
 
 and from the difficulties both of the language and of 
 the subjects, cannot be understood by many English 
 readers. 
 
 After this account of the principal Introductions, 
 we may undertake a particular examination of Sacred 
 Criticism, and proceed, agreeably to the plan prescib- 
 ed in the first Lecture, to a review of what has been 
 done in different ages, with respect to this primary 
 branch of Theology. 
 
 It will appear perhaps to those, who are less con- 
 versant with the subject, that a recital of this kind 
 should rather be a sequel, than a preface, to the study 
 of criticism. Now this observation would certainly 
 apply to science properly so called : and no one who 
 was not a mathematician, for instance, sliould under- 
 take to read such a work, as Montucla's History of 
 Mathematics. But the principles and the history of 
 sacred criticism bear to each other a very different re- 
 lation, from that of the principles and the history of 
 mathematics. In the latter, a knowledge of princi- 
 ples is necessary to understand the history : in the 
 former, the history is necessary to understand the 
 principles. Sacred criticism has for its object an ag- 
 gregate of literary labours, undertaken at different pe- 
 riods, and for different purposes; and its principles 
 are general conclusions deduced from those literar}^ la- 
 bours. Consequently, though we may comprehend 
 the laws of criticism without a previous knowledge 
 of what has been done in this branch of Theology, yet 
 without this previous knowledge we shall never com- 
 prehend the reason or foundation of those laws. On 
 
62 LECTURE III. 
 
 the other hand, a knowledge of diose laws is not nec- 
 essary for the understanding of the plain facts, which 
 a history of criticism has to record. A review there- 
 fore of the progress, which has been made in this 
 branch of Theology, tvvn from the earliest to the 
 present ag-e, may be given in such a manner, as to be 
 intelligible to every man of liberal education. And 
 the advantages arising from such a review are obvi- 
 ous, not only because it will enable us to judge of the 
 rules, which modern critics have adopted, but because 
 we shall thus become acquainted with the several 
 stages, through which the criticism of the Bible has 
 passed, and with the means, by which it has acquired 
 its present form. We shall perceive how the general 
 stock of kr.owledge has gradually increased, to whom 
 we are indebted for each augmentation, with what ra- 
 pidity or slowness these augmentations accumulated, 
 what causes accelerated or retai'ded, what ii^fluence 
 gave to each of them its peculiar direction. That 
 these things are worthy of notice, will surely be allow- 
 ed by all men, to whom literature is an object of re- 
 gard. Let us proceed then to the intended review. 
 
 The first writer, who appears to have paid atten- 
 tion to the Criticism of the Bible, is the celebrated 
 Origen, who was born in Egypt toward the end of the 
 second century, and died at Tyre soon after the mid- 
 dle of the third century. His criticism was directed 
 to the emendation of the Septuagint, a Greek transla- 
 tion of the Hebrew Bible, made at Alexandria in the 
 time of the Ptolemies, for the benefit of the Greek 
 Jews, who were established there, and which derived 
 
LECTURE III. 6% 
 
 its name from the now-exploded story of seventy or 
 seventy-two translators being employed for that pur- 
 pose. Oi'igen himself relates in his Commentary on 
 St. Matthew, that in the manuscripts of the Septua- 
 gint, which was become the Bible of the Greek Chris- 
 tians, such alterations had been made, either by de- 
 sign, or through the cai'elessness of transcribers, as to 
 make the manuscripts materially differ from each oth- 
 er, and of course, even if no other cause prevailed, 
 from the Hebrew Bible, Of this difference the Jews 
 availed themselves in their controversies with the 
 Christians, who, with a very few exceptions, were ig- 
 norant of Hebrew, while the Jews, especially since the 
 establishment of the school at Tiberias in Galilee, had 
 begun again to cultivate the original language of the 
 Old Testament. This knowledge enabled them, in 
 their controversies with the Christians, to detect the 
 differences between the Hebrew and the Greek Bi- 
 ble : and, as it frequently happened, that the passages 
 quoted by the Christians against the Jews, were either 
 not contained at all in the Hebrew, or contained there 
 in a different shape, the arguments, which were found- 
 ed on such quotations, fell immediately to the ground. 
 It was sufficient to reply, *' the words, which you 
 quote, are not in the original." It is true, that an 
 oiig'mal may be corrupted as well as a translation : 
 and that the Jews were guilty of such corruptions, has 
 been asserted both in ancient and in modern times. 
 But when we consider die rules, which were observ- 
 ed by the Jews in transcribing the sacred writings, 
 rules which were carried to an accuracy that bordered 
 
64 LECTURE III. 
 
 on superstition, there is reason to believe, that no 
 work of antiquity has descended to the present age so 
 free from alteration, as the Hebrew Bible. Nor does 
 Origen appear to have suspected, that the differences 
 between the Hebrew and the Greek arose from any- 
 other cause, than alterations in the latter. , 
 
 He made therefore the Hebrew text the basis of 
 those corrections, ^vhich he proposed to introduce in 
 the Septuagint. For this purpose he formed a kind 
 of Polyglot : and, as this was not only a work of im- 
 mense labour, but has served as a model, even to the 
 signs or marks of criticism, for later editors, it may 
 not be improper to give a detailed account of it. 
 
 It contained the whole of the Old Testament, di- 
 vided into columns, like our modern Polyglot Bibles. 
 The first column was occupied by the Hebrew. But, 
 as very few of those persons, to whose immediate 
 benefit his labours were directed, were acquainted 
 even with the letters of that language, he added, in a 
 second column^ the Hebrew words in Greek letters, 
 that his readers might have at least some notion of the 
 form and sound of the Hebrew words. To express 
 their meaning, he added, in a third column, a Greek 
 translation from the Hebrew, which had been lately 
 made by a Jew, of the name of Aqulla, and which ad- 
 heres so closely to the original, as frequently to violate 
 the common rules of Greek construction. The fourth 
 column was occupied by another Greek translation of 
 the Hebrew Biljle, likewise lately made, but probably 
 after the translation of Aquila. The author of this 
 second Greek translation was Symmachus, whose ob- 
 
LECTURE III. 65 
 
 ject was to give, not so much a literal translation of 
 the Hebrew, as a translation expressive of the sense, 
 and free as possible from Hebraisms. 
 
 Having thus prepared the way for his proposed 
 emendation of the Septuagint,, Origen placed in the 
 fifth column the amended text of the Septuagint ; and 
 in the sixth column another Greek translation, which 
 had been lately made by Theodotion. 
 
 In this revision of the Septuagint, the first part of 
 Origen's labour was to collate it throughout with the 
 Hebrew ; and wherever he found any word or words 
 in the former, to which there was nothing correspond- 
 ent in the latter, such word or words he did not ex- 
 punge from the Septuagint, but he inclosed them 
 within certain marks expressive of their absence from 
 the Hebrew, namely with an obelus, or mark of minus 
 prefixed, and a crotchet at the end to express how far 
 the obelus or mark of minus was meant to extend. 
 On the other hand, where the Hebrew had any word 
 or words, to which there was nothing correspondent 
 in the Septuagint, there he inserted such word or 
 words, as were necessary to supply the deficiency. 
 And, that the reader might always kno.v where such 
 insertions were made, he prefixed to them an aster- 
 isk, or mark of plus^ again denoting by a crotchet 
 at the end, what words the asterisk was meant to 
 include. And, as the version of Theodotion held a 
 middle rank between the closeness of Aquila and the 
 freedom of Symmachus, the additions in question 
 were chiefly made in the words which were used by 
 Theodotion. For this preference there was also 
 9 
 
«e LECTURE III. 
 
 another reason, namely, that the style of Theoc' -^^ 
 tion more nearly resembled the style of the Sept . >' 
 gint, than eitlier of the other translations, and there- 
 fore was better adapted to the purpose, to which 
 Origen applied it. Hence also the translation of 
 Theodotion very properly occupied the column ad- 
 jacent to the corrected version of the Septuagint, 
 In some instances, either where Theodotion's trans- 
 lation was defective, or for other reasons at present 
 unknown, Origen used the words of Aquila or Sym- 
 machus. But in all cases he expressed by the in- 
 itials A, 0, 2, the translations from which he cop- 
 ied. These were the sources, from which Origen 
 drew in every part of the Old Testament. But in 
 some books he used two other Greek translations, 
 of which the authors are unknown : and in certain 
 passages even a seventh Greek version, of which 
 the author is likewise unknown. 
 
 The name, which is commonly given to this work 
 of Origen, is Biblia Hexapla, or Bible in six columns, 
 which it contained throughout, namely, the Hebrew^ 
 the Hebrew in Greek characters, the version of Aqui- 
 la, the version of Symmachus, the Septuagint version, 
 and that of Theodotion. In those books, which con- 
 tained likewise two anonymous versions, and filled 
 therefore eight columns, it was called Bibha Octapla ; 
 and in the passages, where the third anonymous ver- 
 sion occupied a ninth column, it received the name of 
 Enneapla. On the other hand, as out of the six col- 
 umns, which went through the whole work, only four 
 were occupied with Greek translations, the same work* 
 
LECTURE III. 67 
 
 which most writers call Hexapla, has by others been 
 denominated Tetrapla. They are only different names 
 of the same work, viewed in different lights, though 
 some authors have fallen into the mistake of supposing, 
 from the difference in the names, that they denoted 
 different works. 
 
 The labour, which v/as necessary for a work of 
 such magnitude, can be estimated only by those, who 
 have been engaged in similar undertakings. Eight and 
 twenty years are said to have been employed in mak- 
 ing preparations for it, independently of the time, 
 which was employed in the writing of it. It was be- 
 gun at Ccesarea, and probably finished at Tyre. The 
 text of the Septuagint, as settled by Origen, is called 
 the Hexapiarian text, to distinguish it from the text 
 of the Septuagint, as it existed before the time of Or- 
 igen, which is therefore called the Ante-hexaplaria*. 
 
 On the value of the Hexapla modem critics are 
 divided ; and it has been considered by some very 
 recent writers, rather as a mechanical, than as a critical 
 undertaking. It is true, that great as the labour was, 
 much was still wanting to make it a perfect work. It 
 does not appear, that Origen at all collated manuscripts 
 of the Hebrew Bible : and, though he compared dif- 
 ferent manuscripts of the Septuagint, without which 
 he could not have known the variations, of which he 
 speaks, it does not appear, that he applied those colla- 
 tions to the purpose of correcting the text. A com- 
 parison between his own copy of the Hebrew Bible 
 and his own copy of the Septuagint seems alone to 
 have determined the places, in which he deemed it 
 
68 LECTURE III. 
 
 necessary to introduce corrections. It was his design, 
 to render tlie Bible of the Christians in all respects 
 the same with the Bible of the Jews, that in future 
 controversies there might be a common standard, to 
 which both parties might appeal. And if in the exe- 
 cution of this work, the rules, which modern critics 
 have learnt from longer experience, are not discerni- 
 ble, it must be remembered that this was the first ef- 
 fort, which was ever made to amend a corrupted text, 
 either of the Old or of the New Testament. 
 
 The work, in its entire state, has long ceased to 
 exist ; and we are indebted, for our knowledge of it, 
 to Eusebius and Jerom, both of whom had seen it in 
 > the library of Caesarea, whither the original itself was 
 removed from Tyre, where Origen died, by Pamphi- 
 lus, the founder of the Cesarean library. But as the 
 magnitude of the work was such, that it could not be 
 transcribed without an heavy expense, no copy, as far 
 as we know, was ever taken of the whole : and the 
 original perished in the flames, which consumed the 
 library of Cassarea on the irruption of the Saracens. 
 
 But that column of the Hexapla, which contained 
 the corrected text of the Septuagint, with its critical 
 marks, was transcribed by Eusebius and Pamphilus 
 with occasional extracts from the other versions. If 
 f^s^h.^ we had this column entire, it might make some repar- 
 L, ^ "' ation for the loss of the rest : but even this column 
 
 ™ has descended to us only in fragments, which have 
 
 been collected by the industry of the learned, particu- 
 larly of Montfaucon, the author of the Palasographia 
 Graeca, who published them at Paris, in 1714, in two 
 
LECTURE III. /' 69 
 
 folio volumes, by the title Hexaploram Origenis qua 
 supersunt. 
 
 Such is the history of one of the most celebrated 
 among the literary undertakings of antiquity. In the 
 next Lecture, this review of sacred criticism, as far as 
 it relates to the early and the middle ages, will be con- 
 tinued and concluded. 
 
LECTUHE IV. 
 
 In the preceding Lecture was given some ac- 
 count of the labours of Origen to amend the corrupt- 
 ed text of the Septuagint version. At the end of the 
 third, and at the beginning of the fourth century, sim- 
 ilar, though less laborious tasks, being founded pro- 
 bably on the prior labours of Origen, were undertak- 
 en by Lucian, a Presbyter of Antioch, and by Hesy- 
 chius, an Eg}ptian Bishop. Their revisions, or, as 
 we should say of printed books, their editions of the 
 Septuagint, were held in such high estimation, that 
 the edition of Hesy chins was generally adopted by the 
 churches of Egypt, and that of Lucian was command- 
 ed by Constantine tlie Great to be read in all the 
 churches from Antioch to Constantinople. 
 
 Nor was the criticism of the Hebrew Original 
 neglected in those ages. Tiberias in Galilee was then 
 the seat of Jewish learning : it was the residence of 
 the best Hebrew scholars, the repository of the best 
 Hebrew manuscripts. The two great works of Jew- 
 ish literature are the Talmud, and the iMasora. The 
 commencement of the Talmud may be dated from 
 the third century : but, as it chiefly relates to doc- 
 
LECTURE IV. 71 
 
 Irines, a description of it would be foreign to the pres- 
 ent Lecture. The materials of Jewish criticism are 
 contained in the Masora, which received its title from 
 the mode of forming it, the primary parts of it being 
 a collection of literary notices, which had been pre- 
 served by tradition, not indeed from the time of Mo- 
 ses, as some of the Jews pretend, nor even from the 
 time of Ezra, as others assert, but probably during 
 several centuries before they were committed to writ- 
 ing, or rather before they were collected into one gen- 
 eral mass. This collection was formed at Tiberias. 
 In what century it was begun is not positively known, 
 but certainly not sooner than the fourth, and probably 
 not sooner than the fifth century. It was considered 
 in the light of a common-place book, to which new 
 materials were continually added, till at length it be- 
 came as large as the Bible itself. The subjects, of 
 which it treated, were, the great and small divisions 
 of the Hebrew text, the words with various readings, 
 the letters, the vowel points, and accents. It is true, 
 that the Masora, in addition to the materials, which it 
 afforded for Hebrew criticism, contained such fanci- 
 ful and absurd remarks, as might excite a prejudice 
 against the whole. But we must not therefore reject 
 the good with the bad r for we are indebted to those 
 learned Jews, who began and continued the Masora, 
 for the accuracy, with which the manuscripts of the 
 Hebrew Bible have descended to the present day ; aa 
 obligation, which should never be forgotten, however 
 great in other respects might have been the prejudices 
 of those, to whom the obligation is due. 
 
72 LECTURE IV. 
 
 The history of sacred criticism now conducts uS 
 into Italy, and directs our attention to the labours, 
 which Jerom bestowed on the Latin version, at tlie 
 end of the fourth, and the beginning of the fifth cen- 
 tury. 
 
 The old Latin version was a translation from the 
 Greek, in the Old Testament, as well as in the New, 
 the Hebrew not being understood, except in rare in- 
 stances, by the members of the Latin Church. It 
 was probably made in the early part of the second 
 century : at least it was quoted by TertuUian before 
 tlie close of that century. But before the end of the 
 fourth century, the alterations, either designed or ac- 
 cidental, which had been made by transcribers of the 
 Latin Bible, were become as numerous, as the altera- 
 tions in the Greek Bible, before it was corrected by 
 Origen. Indeed, if we may judge from the strong 
 expressions, which were used on this subject by Au- 
 gustine, as well as by Jerom, they were even more 
 numerous. For Augustine, in one of his epistles to 
 Jerom, calls the Latin version *' tarn varia in diversis 
 codicibuSy ut vix tolerari possit ;" and Jerom himself 
 says, " cum apud Latinos tot sint exemplaria^ quot cod- 
 ices., et unusquisque, pro arbitrio suo, vel addiderit vel 
 subtraxerit quod ei visum estJ'^ 
 
 It has been doubted, whether these numerous va- 
 rieties arose from alterations in one Latin translation, 
 or whether from the beginning there were not several 
 Latin translations. A discussion of this question 
 would employ more time, than the present Lecture 
 can admit. But the probable result of such a discus- 
 
LECTURE IV. 73 
 
 sion is, that before the time of Jerom there was only 
 one Latin translation of the Old Testament but jnore 
 than one of the New^ whence the variations in the 
 Latin manuscripts of the New Testament, were aug- 
 mented by the additional cause, that different transla- 
 tions were sometimes blended in the same copy. But 
 whatever causes might have operated in producing 
 the evil, both Augustine and Jerom were of opinion, 
 that it was such, as required an immediate remedy. 
 And as no one was so well qualified for a critical re- 
 vision of the Latin version as Jerom himself, he was 
 commissioned to undertake the task by Damasus, 
 who then presided over the See of Rome. 
 
 In correcting the Latin version of the New Tes- 
 tament, he every where compared the translation with 
 the original. In the Old Testament, as the Latin 
 version was there only the translation of a translation, 
 he compared it with that translation ; for he was not 
 commissioned to make a new translation from the 
 Hebrew, but to correct an existing translation, which 
 had been made from the Greek. But he determined 
 to select, for the basis of his emendations, the most 
 accurate text of the Septuagint, which he could pro- 
 cure ; and a journey to Palestine afforded him an op- 
 portunity of consulting the Hexapla preserved in the 
 Library of Cassarea. Though his revision therefore 
 of the Latin version, was only in the New Testament 
 a revision according to the original, yet the emenda- 
 tions, which he made in the Old Testament, were 
 founded on a copy of the Septuagint, which Origen 
 himself had corrected from the Hebrew. 
 10 
 
!r4 LECTURE lY. 
 
 But whatever defects, or whatever excellencies 
 might have existed in Jerom's revision of the Old 
 Testament, only two books of it, the Psalms and the 
 book of Job, have descended to the present age. In 
 fact, these two books, with the Chronicles, the Prov- 
 erbs, Ecclesiastes, and Solomon's So.g, were the on- 
 ly parts of it, which were ever published. Tne man- 
 uscripts, which contained his revision of the other 
 books of the Old Testament, w^ere entrusted by him 
 to some person, who either secreted or destroyed 
 them. Of this enemy to sacred criticism, who, like 
 certain niodern writers, appears to have preferred a 
 corrupted to a genuine text, we know nothing more 
 than what Jerom has incidently said of him in a letter 
 to Augustine, Pkraque priori^ lahorisfraude cujusdam 
 amisitnus. 
 
 The loss sustained by this treachery served only 
 to stimulate Jerom to fresh exertions. He determin- 
 ed no longer to revise an old translation from the 
 Greek, but to make a new translation from the He- 
 brew, And this translation from the Hebrew he fin- 
 ished in the year 405. 
 
 But nearly two hundred years elapsed before this 
 translation received the sanction of the church. The 
 contemporaries of Jerom regarded a translation from 
 the Hebrew, as a dangerous innovation : for, strange 
 as it may appear, the Septuagint version was more 
 respected in the Latin church, than the Hebrew orig- 
 inal. At that time, the now-exploded story of seven- 
 ty-two interpreters, all translating by divine inspira- 
 tion, all translating independently, yet each of them 
 
LECTURE IV. 75 
 
 producing the same translation, was firmly believed, 
 in the Latin as well as in the Greek church. Aad 
 this belief, united with a hatred of the Jews, and an 
 ignorance of Hebrew, gave to the Septuagint version 
 an higher rank, than to the original itself. Hence 
 Augustine, in other respects a friend and admirer of 
 Jerom, who concurred with him in opinion, as to the 
 state of the old version, and promoted his revisal of it 
 from the Greeks yet, when Jerom undertook his trans- 
 lation from the Hebrew^ inveighed bitterly against it, 
 as if Christianity itself were affected by the undertak- 
 ing. At length, however, Pope Gregory' the Great, 
 at the end of the sixth century, gave to Jerom's trans- 
 lation the sanction of Papal authority. From that pe- 
 riod the old translation from the Greek was gradually 
 abandoned for Jerom's translation from the Hebrew, 
 except in the Psalms, where the daily repetition of 
 them in the church service, and their being adapted 
 to church music, made it difficult to introduce altera- 
 tions. 
 
 Such is the history of the Latin Vulgate in the 
 Old Testament. In the New Testament the Latin 
 Vulgate is the old translation, corrected by Jerom, as 
 already related. With respect to the Apocrypha, as 
 contained in the Vulgate, those books are partly in 
 the old translation, and partly in a translation made by 
 Jerom himself. But it must not be inferred that mod- 
 em manuscripts, or printed editions of the Vulgate, 
 contain either Jerom's translations, or Jerom's correc- 
 tions in the same state, in which he delivered them. 
 Latin manuscripts were no less exposed to alteration 
 
76 LECTURE TV. 
 
 in the middle ages, than tlicy were in the earl}- ages 
 of Christianity. Even the two editions of the Vul- 
 gate, wliich were printed at Rome in 1590 and 1592, 
 both of them under Papal authority, and both of them 
 pronounced authentic, differ materially from each 
 other, in sense, as well as in words. But the modern 
 state of the Latin Vulgate is a subject, which is foreign 
 to the present Lecture ; though the fact, which has 
 been just stated, may teach us this useful lesson, that 
 nothing but sacred criticism can preserve the Bible in 
 its pristine purity. 
 
 We must now asjain direct our attention to the 
 East, and proceed from the Latin to the Syrian church. 
 For this church, at an early age of Christianity, a 
 translation had been made, of the Old Testament from 
 the Hebrew, and of the New Testament from the 
 Greek. And this translation, which is called the Old 
 Syriac version, soon became, and still remains, the 
 established version of the Syrian church. 
 
 But there was another Syriac version of the New 
 Testament, which has likewise descended to the pres- 
 ent age : and it is this Syriac version which properly 
 belongs to an history of criticism, because it was af- 
 terwards collated with Greek manuscripts. It is cal- 
 led the Philoxenian version, from Philoxenus, bishop 
 of Hierapolis, under whose auspices it was made by 
 Polycarp, his rural bishop. It was undertaken at the 
 beginning of the sixth century, from motives at pres- 
 ent unknown, though not improbably from a desire of 
 having a translation of the New Testament, which 
 should approach to the original even more closely, 
 
LECTURE IV. T7 
 
 than the old or common version. For the Philoxe- 
 nian version adheres to it, even with servility. And 
 this quality, instead of forming an objection to it, con- 
 stitutes its chief value. In the translation of works, 
 which are designed for amusement, something more 
 must be attempted, than mere fidelity. But in works 
 intended for divine instruction, a translation cannot be 
 too close. And, whenever ancient versions are appli- 
 ed to the purposes of criticism, even a servile adher- 
 ence to their original augments the value of them. 
 An ancient version, except in places where that ver- 
 sion has been altered, is regarded as the representative 
 of the Hebrew or Greek manuscript, from which that 
 version was taken; consequently, the more closely 
 such manuscript is represented, the more accurately 
 shall we know its readings, and hence the more pre- 
 cisely shall we be enabled to judge, when the authen- 
 ticity of readings is disputed. 
 
 To render this close translation still more conform- 
 able with the original, it was collated with Greek man- 
 uscripts in Egypt, at the beginning of the seventh 
 eentury. The person who undertook this collation 
 was Thomas, bishop of Germanicia ; and he not only 
 corrected the Syriac text from those manuscripts, 
 where he thought that correction was necessary, but 
 at other times he noted their various readings in the 
 margin. As these various readings were taken from 
 manuscripts of the Greek Testament, which were 
 probably much older, than the oldest now extant, they 
 are of course important to sacred criticism. A copy 
 of this revision or edition of the Philoxenian version. 
 
7S, LECTURE IV. 
 
 with the Greek readings in the margin, is now in the 
 Bodleian Librar}^ ; and it has been printed by Dr. 
 White, the Hebrew Professor at Oxford, with short, 
 but veiy useful notes. 
 
 Tiie collation of the Philoxenian version is the last 
 effort in sacred criticism, which was attempted in 
 Egypt : nor does any part of Asia, since that period, 
 present us with a similar undertaking. In six years 
 from the date of this collation, commenced the Era, 
 and soon afterwards the devastation, of the Arabs, 
 The Jewish school at Tiberias, with another, which 
 had been established at Babylon, continued, it is true, 
 to preserve a precarious existence. It is true also, 
 that learning revived under the Caliphs of Bagdad ; 
 but it was not the learning of tte Bible. The Chris- 
 tians of the East remained in subjection and ignorance ; 
 and even the Jews were compelled at last, to abandon 
 the schools, to which they were so long attached. 
 
 If we turn our attention from the East to the Greek 
 empire at this period, we shall find it equally devoid of 
 materials for our present inquiry. Indeed the criticism 
 of the Bible does not appear to have ever taken root 
 in Greece : and the metropolis of the Greek empire, 
 as far as religion was concerned, seems to have been 
 wholly engaged with the controverted points of dog- 
 matic Theology. 
 
 If we go onward to the West of Europe, the pros- 
 pect is still gloomy : for after the death of Jerom, we 
 find no one among the Latin fathers, who could lay 
 claim to the title of critic. Some dawnings of this 
 science occasionally indeed broke through the general 
 
LECTURE IV. 79 
 
 darkness ; and the corruptions, which then were creep- 
 ing into the Latin Vulgate, from tht: removal especial- 
 ly of marginal glosses into the text, were noticed by 
 some men of superior sagacity, who at the same time 
 endeavoured to apply a remedy for the evil. Alcuin, 
 secretary to Charlemagne, at the beginning of the 
 ninth century, and one of the most learned men of 
 that aee, undertook to revise the Vulgate, f om the 
 Hebrew in the Old Testament, and from the Greek 
 in the New. Another revision of the Vulgate was 
 undertaken at the end of the eleventh century, by 
 Lanfrane, archbishop of Canterbury. And about fifty 
 years afterwards a third revision was attempted in Ita- 
 ly by Cardinal Nicolaus, who made the same com- 
 plaint of the Vulgate, which Jerom had made of the 
 old version, " quot codices tot examplariaJ''* At length 
 these complaints became so general as to give rise to 
 the Correctoria Biblica, in which the false readings of 
 the Vulgate were corrected by a comparison, partly 
 with the originals, and partly with more ancient man- 
 uscripts. But our countryman, Roger Bacon, who 
 acknowledges the evil, and describes some of its caus- 
 es, appears to have been dissatisfied with many of 
 those corrections. 
 
 While the criticism of the middle ages, in Eng- 
 land, France, and Italy, was confined to the Latin Vul- 
 gate, the south of Spain produced a race of critics in 
 the Hebrew Bible, who might contend with those of 
 any age or nation. When the learned Jews of Tibe- 
 rias and Babylon were compelled to take refuge iu 
 Europe, the^ chiefly settled in that part of Spain, 
 
80 LECTURE IV. 
 
 which was inhabited by the Moors, who spake the 
 language then become vernacular in the countries, 
 from which the Jews were driven. Hence the south 
 of Spain became, during the middle ages, the centre 
 of Hebrew learning. It is sufficient to mention the 
 names of Abn Ezra, Moses Maimonides, and David 
 Kimchi, who were all born in Spain in the twelfth 
 century, and laid the foundation of that Hebrew learn- 
 ing, which afterwards extended to Germany, and was 
 thence propagated by the invention of printing 
 throughout the rest of Europe. 
 
 Reuchlin, or Capnio, the father of Hebrew learning 
 among Christians, was born at Pfortsheim in Suabia 
 in 1454. Being a man of rank, as well as of learning, 
 he operated not only by precept, but by example : 
 and at the end of the fifteenth century, it became the 
 fashion in Germany to study the Old Testament in 
 Hebrew. For this study an opportunity was afforded 
 by the circumstance, that the Hebrew Bible was one 
 of the earliest printed books, the first edition having 
 been printed in 1488, and parts of it, as the Psalms, 
 and the Pentateuch, still earlier. The Catholic clergy 
 at Cologne opposed indeed, to the utmost of their 
 power, the cultivation of the Hebrew language, which 
 they considered as replete with danger, not only to the 
 Latin Vulgate, but to the church, of which they were 
 members. Nor were their fears ungrounded. The 
 revival of Grecian literature about the same period, of 
 which Capnio was likewise one of the chief promot- 
 ers, increased the dangers of the church of Rome : 
 and Luther began his reformation before Capnio died. 
 
LECTURE IT. 8i 
 
 The preceding review of the progress, which was 
 made by sacred criticism, during the early and the 
 middle ages, is sufficient to supply the student in Di- 
 vinity with general notions on this subject, and to fur- 
 nish him with a clue to future inquiries. More than 
 this it is hardly possible to perform in a public lecture, 
 in which a limit must be assigned to minuteness of 
 investigation, or the attention of the audience would 
 soon be exhausted. In fact, minuteness of investiga- 
 tion must be reserved for the closet ; and all that now 
 remains for the lecturer to perform, in respect to the 
 critical labours of the early and the middle ages, is to 
 mention the works, from which a more ample knowl- 
 edge of those critical labours may be derived. 
 
 Of the labours of Origen in amending the text of 
 the Septuagint, Montfaucon, the editor of the Hexaplo- 
 rum Origenis quce supersunt^ has given a full account 
 in the preface, entitled, Prceliminaria i?t Hexapla Ori- 
 genisj which is divided into eleven chapters, according 
 to the subjects, of which it treats. Another work, 
 which ought to be consulted, though it was published 
 before Montfaucon's edition, is that of Humphrey Hody, 
 who was Greek Professor at Oxford in the beginning 
 of the last century. This work is entitled, De Biblio- 
 rum Textibus origmalibuSy versionibus Gi'cecis et Lati- 
 nd VulgatUj libri qiiatuor^ and was printed at Oxford 
 in 1705. Among the writers on the Septuagint ver- 
 sion, no one has displayed either more knowledge of 
 the subject, or more critical sagacity, than Hody. 
 The fourth and last part of this work, is that which 
 relates to the Hexapla. 
 11 
 
82 LECTURE IV. 
 
 Of the similar labours of Luciaii and Hesychius, 
 in amending ihe text of the Septuagint, there is no 
 writer either ancient or modern, from whom any par- 
 ticular account can be derived. Their editions are 
 no longer in existence : nor have even fragments re- 
 mained of them. Readings, derived from those edi- 
 tions, are undoubtedly contained in manuscripts of 
 the Septuagint : but we have no means of distinguish- 
 ing them from other readings. We only know, that 
 those editions did exist, and were in high repute : and 
 fgrr this information, little as it is, we are chiefly in- 
 debted to Jerom, who has occasionally mentioned 
 them, especially in his Preface to the Chronicles, and 
 in his Preface to the four Gospels. 
 
 Of the industry bestowed by the learned Jews of 
 Tiberias on the criticism of the Hebrew Bible, the 
 most complete information is aiForded by John Bux- 
 torf, who was born in Westphalia about forty years 
 after the death of Capnio, and after having studied at 
 several German universities, was at last Professor of 
 the Oriental languages, at Bale or Basel in Switzer- 
 land. To his work on this subject he gave the title 
 of Tiberias : it was first printed at Basel in 1620, and 
 reprinted in 1665 with additions by his son, John 
 James Buxtorf. No Christian has ever possessed so 
 great a- share of Jewish literature, as John Buxtorf : 
 his Tiberias is indispensably necessary for the under- 
 standing of the Masora, and indeed all the other 
 writers on this subject have derived their materials 
 from Buxtorf, among whom we may particularly 
 mention Bishop Brian Walton, who has given an 
 
LECTURE IV. 83 
 
 account of the Masora in the eighth chapter of the 
 Prolegomena prefixed to the London Polyglot. 
 
 Of the industry employed by Jerom on the Latin 
 version, the first source of intelligence is Jerom's owi> 
 works, of which the Benedictine edition by Martianay 
 was printed at Paris in five volumes folio between the 
 years 1696 and 1706 : but the last, the most complete, 
 and the best arranged edition, was published by Val- 
 larsi at Verona, between 1734 and 1742 in eleven vol- 
 umes folio. The information, which relates to our 
 present subject, must be chiefly sought in die first 
 volume of Martianay's edition, and in the nmth and 
 tenth of Vallarsi's : for these are the volumes, which 
 contain the Bibliotheca divina Hieronymi, with the 
 dissertations of the editors on Jerom's translation and 
 correction of the Scriptures. But to form a due es- 
 timate of the excellencies or the defects in those trans- 
 lations and corrections, it is further necessary to con- 
 sult the Prolegomena of Walton, Mill, and Wetstein, 
 with Simon's Critical History, and the Introduction 
 of Michaelis. 
 
 On the criticism of the New Syriac or Philoxenian 
 version, which was displayed at the beginning of the 
 seventh century by Thomas, bishop of Germanicia, 
 the first, though very imperfect, account was given in 
 the second volume of the Bibliotheca Orientalis by 
 Assemani, who derived his intelligence from Syrian 
 writers. More particular information may be derived 
 from a treatise entitled Dissertatio de Syriacarum novi 
 foederis versioimm indole atque usu^ published in 1761, 
 by Dr. Glocester Ridley, who possessed the manu- 
 
84 LECTURE IV. 
 
 scripts of the Philoxenian version, which are now at 
 Oxibrcl, and from which Dr. White printed his edi- 
 tion. But I know of no work, in which the subject 
 is so fully discussed as in the Introduction of Micha- 
 elis. 
 
 For the efforts, which were made in the ninth and 
 following centuries to correct the Latin Vulgate, the 
 above-mentioned work of Hody must be again con- 
 sulted. And for the merit of those learned Jews, who 
 distinguished themselves in the twelfth and thirteenth 
 centuries, must be consulted Woljii Bibliotheca He- 
 breea, which was published at Hamburg between 1715 
 and 1733 in four quarto volumes. 
 
 The description, which has been given in this 
 Lecture, has been given, as the subjects occurred, 
 without regard to any other, than chronological order. 
 But from the sixteenth century to the present period, 
 the labours of the learned are so connected in the sub- 
 jects of their inquiry, that it is necessary to keep that 
 connexion in view : and that connexion would be 
 lost, if the subjects were intermixed. Though chro- 
 nological order therefore will still be preserved in each 
 single description, the subjects themselves must be 
 described separately. 
 
 The subject of the next Lecture will be the Criti- 
 cism of the Greek Testament, 
 
LECTURE V. 
 
 The Criticism of the Greek Testament is a sub- 
 ject of the very first importance to every Christian : 
 and though a knowledge of the language, in which it 
 was written, is necessary for the exercise of that criti- 
 cism, yet even without such knowledge some notion 
 may be formed of the efforts of the learned, to place 
 the documents of Christianity on a firm foundation. 
 The importance of this subject must be manifest to 
 every one, who considers, that the criticism of the 
 Greek Testament contains the elements of that analy- 
 sis, by which we gradually discover the truth of our 
 religion. 
 
 To determine the mode of analysis, which is ne- 
 cessary for this purpose, of analysis, which shall bring 
 with it conviction, let us suppose a man of liberal edu- 
 cation, of sound understanding, and of serious dispo- 
 sition, who in his religious opinions, for want of proper 
 instruction on that subject, has remained unsettled, 
 but would willingly assent to the truth of Christianity, 
 provided certain propositions, necessary to establish 
 that truth, were clearly explained to him. A man of 
 this description, if a person endeavoured to convince 
 
86 LECTURE V. 
 
 him from the New Testament, would argue in the fol- 
 lowing manner. '* The book, which you lay before me, 
 professes indeed to contain a faithful account of what 
 was done and taught, both by the founder of Chris- 
 tianity, and by others, who assisted in the propagation 
 of it. But you cannot expect, that I should allow its 
 pretensions to. be ^ iilid, till 3-0U have assigned sufficient 
 reasons that they arc so ; and these reasons involve 
 several propositions, which must be distinctly stated, 
 and distinctly proved. That our attention may not 
 be distracted by discussing different subjects at the 
 same time, let us, in the first instance, confine our- 
 selves to the Epistles, which you ascribe to St. Paul, 
 who, as you assure me, not only became a zealous 
 promoter, from a zealous enemy of Christianity, but 
 was vested even with divine authority for that purpose. 
 On this divine authority you found a set of doctrines, 
 which you require me to receive through the medium 
 of }^our interpretation, and declare at the same time, 
 that if I do not receive them, the consequences will 
 be the most dreadful, that imagination can conceive. 
 Now I am perfectly willing (the supposed person 
 might continue to say) I am perfectly willing to assent 
 to truths of such importance; but I must previously 
 know that they are truths, or I have no foundation for 
 my assent. For the present I will wave the question, 
 whether your interpretations be right or wrong; 
 though I am well assured, that something more is re- 
 quisite to a right understanding of those Epistles, than 
 is possessed by many, who venture to explain them. 
 But whatever be thtir meanings you must first con- 
 
LECTURE V. 87 
 
 vince me, that St. Paul was the author of them, or you 
 leave them devoid of all religious obligation. And I 
 ex[3ect, that your proof be conducted, not with lofty 
 declamation, or deep denunciation against unbelief; 
 but by sober sense, and plain reason. For though I 
 am ready to place implicit confidence in St. Paul^ as 
 soon as you have proved, that he was a teacher sent 
 from God ; though I am ready to have unboundecl 
 faith in divine doctrines, as soon as I know, that they 
 are divine ; }et I cannot transfer tliis unbounded faith 
 to any inodern preacher of the Gospel, however great 
 his pretensions, whether from learning, or from sanc- 
 tity. When you therefore assure me, that St. Paul 
 had a divine commission, and that he wrote the Epis- 
 tles in question, I expect these assertions, on your 
 part, to be supported by argument : for ijour author- 
 ity goes as far as your arguments go, and no further." 
 If the theologian, to whom this supposed person 
 addressed himself, were a man accustomed to biblical 
 investigation, and had sought a (6asi^ for his faith, such 
 theologian would reply, " I will undertake to produce 
 arguments, which shall convince any reasonable man, 
 that Paul, the apostle of Jesus Christ, was really the 
 author of the Epistles ascribed to him : and when this 
 point has been established, we have then a foundation, 
 on which our superstructure may rest without dan- 
 ger." But before you undertake this task, the ob- 
 jector may still reply, there are certain preliminaries, 
 which must be settled between us, or we shall never 
 come to any definite conclusion. You must not take 
 the English translation, as the work, which is to be 
 
8^ LECTURE V. 
 
 proved authentic ; for tlie term authentic translation is 
 a term without meaning. You may say a correct 
 translation, or a faithful translation ; but the term au- 
 thentic applies only to the origuial^ it applies only to 
 the Greek Epistles, as written, or alleged to be writ- 
 ten, by St. Paul himself. Now that the Greek man- 
 uscripts of those Epistles very frequently diifer, as 
 well from each other, as from the printed editions, is 
 a fact, which it would be useless to deny, and absurd 
 to overlook. Which therefore of the Greek manu- 
 scripts, will you take into your hand, when you as- 
 sert, *' these are the Epistles, which proceeded from 
 the pen of St. Paul." This is no easy matter to de- 
 termine ; and yet it must be determined, if the ques- 
 tion of authenticity be examined with that precision, 
 which the importance of the subject demands. This 
 supposed conversation will render our present subject 
 familiar to every hearer : it will shew him, where, 
 and what is the key-stone of the arch, which supports 
 the fabric of Christianity. 
 
 The first operation, tlierefore, in respect to the 
 Greek Testament, which must be performed by a 
 theologian, who intends to build his faith on a firm 
 foundation, is to ascertain what copy of the Epistles 
 ascribed to St. Paul, what copy of an Epistle ascribed 
 to any other Apostle, what copy of a Gospel ascribed 
 to this or that Evangelist, has the strongest claim to 
 be received by us, as a true copy of the author's own 
 manuscript ; whoever the author, or authors, may re- 
 ally have been, which must be left to future inquiry, 
 or we shall again take for granted the thing to be prov- 
 
LECTURE V. 89 
 
 ed. Now the investigation of this previous question 
 is a work of immense labour. The Greek manu- 
 scripts of St. Paul's Epistles (or, as we should rather 
 say in the present stage of our inquiry, of the Epistles 
 ascribed to St. Paul,) amount, as flir as we know 
 them, to more than an hundred and fifty : and the 
 Greek manuscripts of the Gospels, with which we are 
 acquainted, amount to more than three hundred and 
 fifty. But among all these manuscripts there is none, 
 which is so far entitled to precedence, as to be receiv- 
 ed for the true copy, of which we are in search. In 
 fact the truth lies scattered among them all : and in 
 order to obtain the truth, we must gather from them 
 all. Nor is an examination of these manuscripts, nu- 
 merous as they are, alone sufficient for the object, 
 which we have in view. The quotations from the 
 Greek Testament in the voluminous writings of the 
 Greek fathers, must likewise be examined, that we 
 may knovv what they found in their Greek manu- 
 scripts. The ancient versions must also be consult- 
 ed, in order to learn what the writers of those versions 
 found in their copies of the Greek Testament. When 
 all these collections from manuscripts, fathers, and 
 versions, have been formed, and reduced into proper 
 order, we have then to determine in every single in- 
 stance, which among the various readings is probably 
 the genuine reading. And that we may know how to 
 determine, we must establish laws of criticism, calcu- 
 lated to counteract the causes, which produced the 
 variations, and, by these means, to restore the true 
 copy, of which we are in search. 
 12 
 
90 LECTURE V. 
 
 Now it cannot be supposed that labours, for 
 which, when taken collectively, no single life is sufii- 
 cient, would be recommended even by a zealot in his 
 profession, as forming a regular part of theological 
 study. Those labours are unnecessary for us ; they 
 have been already undertaken, and executed with 
 success. But if the industry of our predecessors has 
 removed the burden from our shoulders, we must not 
 therefore become indifferent spectators, unconcerned 
 whether the burden be ive/l or ill supported. We 
 must at least inform ourselves of the nature and ex- 
 tent of those labours ; or we shall never know, wheth- 
 er the object has been obtained, for which they were 
 undertaken. We must make ourselves acquainted 
 with the causes, which produced the variations in 
 question, or we shall never know, whether the laws of 
 criticism, which profess to remedy that evil, are 
 founded in truth or falsehood. 
 
 We must inquire therefore, first, into the causes 
 of the evil, and then into the remedies, which have 
 been applied to it ; remedies, which we shall find 
 hereafter to have been applied with great success. 
 
 The manuscripts of the Greek Testament, dur- 
 ing the fourteen hundred years, which elapsed from 
 the apostolic age to the invention of printing, were 
 exposed, like all other manuscripts, to mistakes in 
 traqscribing : and as every copy had unavoidably 
 some errors, those errors multiplied with the multipli- 
 cation of the copies. Letters, syllables, words,, were 
 added, omitted, or transposed, from mere carelessness 
 in writing, whether the writer transcribed from a 
 
LECTURE V. U 
 
 manuscript before him, or wrote, as was frequently 
 the case, from tiie dictation of another. In the lattei* 
 case, his ear might be deceived by a similarity in the 
 sound of different words ; in the former case, his ei^e 
 might be deceived by a similarity in their form, by 
 diiferent words having the same final syllable, or by 
 different sentences having the same final word. At 
 other times, a transcriber misunderstood the manu- 
 script, from which he copied, either falsely interpret- 
 ing its abbreviations, or falsely dividing the words, 
 where they were written (as in the most ancient man- 
 uscripts) without intervals. Or the fault might be 
 partly attributable to the manuscript itself, in cases, 
 where its letters were wholly or partly effaced or fad- 
 ed. 
 
 But the greatest variations arose from alterations 
 made by design. The transcribers of the Greek Tes- 
 tament were not bound, hke the transcribers of the 
 Hebrew Bible, by rul^s prescribed to them in a Ma- 
 sora, or critical law book. Hence they often took the 
 liberty of improving^ as they supposed, on that manu- 
 script, of which it was their business to have given 
 only a copy ; a liberty similar to that, which is now 
 taken in a printnig- office, where a compositor often 
 improves on the manuscript of an author. Hence, a 
 native of Greece, accustomed to hear his own lan- 
 guage withou an admixture of Oriental idioms, and 
 regarding therefore a Hebraism or a Syraism, in the 
 light of a solecism, would accordingly correct it, not 
 considering or not knowiiig, that these Hebraisms and 
 S^iaisms are the very idioms, which we should ex- 
 
»3 LECTURE V. 
 
 pect from Greek writers, who were born or educated 
 in Judea, idioms ■ herefore which form a strong argu- 
 ment for the authenticity of their writings. At other 
 times, these same improvers, when they remarked 
 that one EvangeHst recorded the same thing more ful- 
 ly than another, (a circumstance again of great impor- 
 tance, as it shews there was no combination among 
 the EvangeUsts,) regarded this want of perfect coinci- 
 dence as an imperfection, which they deemed it ne- 
 cessary to remove, by supplying the shorter account 
 from the longer. Nor did they spare even the quo- 
 tations from the Old Testament, whether those quota- 
 tions were transcripts from the Septuagint, or transla- 
 tions from the Hebrew by the author himself. If 
 they only differed from the transcriber's Septuagint, 
 he concluded, that they were wrong, and required 
 amendment. 
 
 But the most fruitful source of designed altera- 
 tions was the removal of marginal annotations into the 
 text. Indeed to this cause may be ascribed the al- 
 terations from parallel passages, whenever those par- 
 allel passages had been written in the margin. Oth- 
 er marginal notes, consisted of explanations, or ap- 
 plications of the adjacent text : and, when a manu- 
 script, with such notes, fell into the hands of a trans- 
 criber, he either supposed, that they were parts of 
 the text, accidentally omitted, and supplied in the 
 margin, or considered them as useful additions, 
 which there would be no harm in adopting. In ei- 
 ther case he took them into the text of that manu- 
 script, which he himself was writing. 
 
LECTURE V. 93 
 
 The latter case may indeed be referred to that 
 class of various readings, which derive their origin 
 from wilful corruption, being introduced for the sole 
 purpose of obtaining support to some particular doc- 
 trine. That such things have been done, and done 
 by all parties, is not to be denied : for we have ex- 
 amples on record. But as we have received our 
 manuscripts of the Greek Testament, not out of the 
 hands of the ancient heretics, but from the orthodox 
 members of the Greek church, we have less reason 
 to apprehend, that they have suffered, in points of 
 doctrine, from heretical influence. 
 
 Having thus taken a general review of the causes, 
 which operated, till the invention of printing, in pro- 
 ducing the variations of the Greek Text, I have 
 ROW to undertake the more agreeable office of re- 
 cording the attempts, which have been made in la- 
 ter ages, to restore it to its original purity. 
 
 For this purpose it is necessary to give a descrip- 
 tion, or history of the critical editions of the Greek 
 Testament ; that is, a description of all those edi- 
 tions, which were printed either wholly from Greek 
 manuscripts, or with emendations from Greek man- 
 uscripts, or with a critical apparatus, for the pur- 
 pose of emendation. In this description, an account 
 of the materials employed by each editor, and of 
 the use which he made of them, must form an es- 
 sential part : for hence only can we determine the 
 value of his edition. We must observe also the in- 
 fluence of preceding on subsequent editions, and 
 trace the progress of the Greek text throughout its 
 several stages. 
 
U LECTURE V. 
 
 The description must be divided into two pe- 
 riods. The or.e commences with the first edition of 
 the Greek Testament, and ends with the Elzevir edi- 
 tion of 1624 : the other includes the critical editions, 
 which have appeared from that time to the present. 
 The first period is limited by the Elzevir edition of 
 1624, because this edition forms an epocha in the his- 
 tory of the Greek text. After having fluctuated, dur- 
 ing more than a century in the preceding editions, the 
 Greek text acquired in this edition a consistency, 
 which it has retained to the present day. In this edi- 
 tion was established the Greek text, which is now in 
 daily use, and is known by the name of the Textus 
 receptus. The description therefore of the first peri- 
 od will record the gradual formation of this text, and 
 will furnish an estimate of its excellences or defects. 
 Nor will the description of the second period be less 
 important : for it will contain the rise aisd pro^^ress of 
 that critical apparatus, which now enables us lo form 
 a more accurate text, than it was possible to form at 
 an earlier period. 
 
 The first printed edition of any part of the Greek 
 Testament, is one by Aldus Manutius, who printed 
 the six first chapters of St. John's Gospel at Venice 
 in 1504; and in 1512 the whole of St. John's Gospel 
 was printed at Tiibingen in Suabia. But these im- 
 pressions, though it is. proper to inention them, as the 
 first of their kind, can now be regarded only as litera- 
 ry curiosities. They had no influence on subsequent 
 editions, and therefore are of no importance in a criti- 
 cal history of the Greek text. 
 
LECTURK V. 9^ 
 
 The first printed edition of the xuhole Greek Tes- 
 tament is that, which is contained ia the Compluten- 
 sian Polyglot, so called from Coniplutum, now Alca- 
 la, in Spain, where it was printed. The volume con- 
 taining the Greek Testament, which is accompanied 
 with the Latin Vulgate in a parallel column, is dated 
 the 10th of January 1514. The whole was conduct- 
 ed under the auspices of Cardinal Ximenes, archbish- 
 op of Toledo, who employed for that purpose some of 
 the most distinguished Hebrew and Greek scholars of 
 that age, and who spared neither pains nor expense, 
 in procuring Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. 
 
 The Greek manuscripts, which were used for this 
 work, are not particularly described by the editors, 
 but are all included under one general character, 
 
 namely, " exemplaria vetustissima simul et emen- 
 
 datissima.'''' But as the term " ancient" is only a rel- 
 ative expression ; as the accuracy of a manuscript, in 
 its critical sense, dejiends not on the precision of its 
 orthographical execution, but on the genuineness of 
 its readings ; and as all editors are disposed to en- 
 hance the value of their materials, the assertion of the 
 Complutensian editors, in respect to their manu- 
 scripts, requires the confirmation of internal evidence. 
 But the manuscripts themselves, which were deposit- 
 ed in the university library at Alcala, are no longer 
 in existence. And if manuscripts were sent to them 
 by Pope Leo the Tenth, as the editors assert, from 
 the Vatican Library, no one knows, at present, what 
 they are, or even where they must be sought. 
 
 The only means therefore of ascertaining the qual- 
 
96 LECTURE V. 
 
 ity of the Greek manuscript or manuscripts, from 
 which the Complutensian Greek Testament was 
 printed, are those, which are afforded by the evidence 
 of the Complutensian text itself. And this internal 
 evidence directly contradicts the assertion of the edi- 
 tors in respect to the antiquity of their manuscripts. 
 For wherever modern Greek manuscripts, manu- 
 scripts written in the thirteenth, fourteenth, or fif- 
 teenth centuries, differ from the most ancient Greek 
 manuscripts, and from the quotations of the early 
 Greek fathers, in such characteristic readings the 
 Complutensian Greek Testament almost invariably 
 agrees with the modern, in opposition to the ancient 
 manuscripts. There cannot be a doubt therefore, 
 that the Complutensian text was formed from mod- 
 ern manuscripts alone. 
 
 The only cause of hesitation on this subject was 
 removed about twenty years ago. As the editors had 
 boasted of valuable manuscripts, sent to them from 
 the Vatican Library, it was formerly thought not im- 
 probable, that the very ancient manuscript marked in 
 the Vatican Library 1209, and distinguished by the 
 name of The Vatican Manuscript, was one of the 
 number. And as only imperfect extracts from this 
 manuscript had been printed till very lately, we had 
 not sufficient data to ascertain the question. But in 
 1788 Professor Birch of Copenhagen published, in 
 his edition of the four Gospels, complete extracts from 
 this manuscript. Now since the Complutensian is 
 the first printed edition of the Greek Testament, since 
 the text of this edition has had great influence on sub- 
 
XECTURE V. d!? 
 
 sequent editions, and it is therefore important to de- 
 termine the value of its readings, I have taken the 
 pains to collate the Complutensian edition with those 
 extracts from the Vatican manuscript ; but have nev- 
 er found in it a reading peculiar to that manuscript. 
 That manuscript therefore could not have been used 
 for the Complutensian edition : for, if it had, the in- 
 fluence of such a manuscript must have been some- 
 times apparent. And even were this conclusion erro- 
 neous, the result would be still the same : for, if it 
 were true, that the Complutensian editors had the use 
 of the Vatican manuscript, yet, if they never followed 
 it, except where it harmonized with modern manu- 
 scripts, the effect is the same, as if they had never 
 used it at all. Whatever zeal then may have been 
 displayed, both by Cardinal Ximenes and by the 
 learned men who assisted him, their edition contri- 
 buted little or nothing toward the restoring of the pu- 
 rity of the Greek text. 
 
 The other principal editors of the sixteenth centu- 
 ry were Erasmus, Robert Stephens, and Beza. But 
 a description of their editions, and of the gradual for- 
 mation of that text, which is now in common use, 
 must be deferred to the following Lecture. 
 
 13 
 
LECTURE ¥L 
 
 In the preceding Lecture was given an account 
 of the Compkitensian edition of the Greek Testament, 
 as far as it could be collected from the imperfect data, 
 which now remain. The next edition, which de- 
 mands our attention, is the first edition by Erasmus, 
 of w^hich we are enabled to give a much more minute 
 description, because we are much better acquainted, 
 both with the materials, of which it was composed, 
 and with the manner, in which those materials were 
 applied. A minute description of this edition is like- 
 wise of much greater consequence, as its influence on 
 subsequent editions was much greater, than that of 
 the Complutensian. It was printed at Basel, or Bale, 
 in Switzerland in 1516, and was the first-published, 
 though not the first-printed edition of the Greek Tes- 
 tament. 
 
 The Greek manuscripts, which were used by 
 Erasmus for this edition, amounted to four, l^eside a 
 manuscript of Theophylact, containing his commen- 
 tary on the Gospels, the Acts, and the Epistles, ac- 
 companied with the Greek text. Three of those four 
 manuscripts are still preserved in the Public Library 
 at Bale ; but the fourth is at present unknown. It 
 must not however be supposed, that those four man- 
 
LECTURE VI. 9d 
 
 ^scripts were four copies of the whole Greek Testa- 
 ment : for Greek manuscripts contain usually only 
 parts of it. Indeed three of Erasmus's manuscripts, 
 when put together made only one copy of the New 
 Testament, the first containing only the Gospels, the 
 second only the Acts and the Epistles, and the third 
 only the book of Revelation. From these three man- 
 uscripts, constituting one copy of the whole, he print- 
 ed his Greek Testament ; but not from these manu- 
 scripts unaltered. Before he sent them to the press, 
 he made many corrections ; and these corrections 
 were founded, pardy on his fourth manuscript, partly 
 on his manuscript of Theophylact, partly on the au- 
 thority of the Vulgate, and partly on his own conjec- 
 ture. 
 
 The value of this edition must depend, first on 
 the value of its materials, and secondly on the mode 
 of employing those materials. Now his manuscript 
 of the Gospels, which is one of the three now preserv- 
 ed at Bale, is so modern a manuscript, that according 
 to Wetstein, it was ^\Titten in the fifteenth century, 
 and therefore not long before it was used by Eras- 
 mus. The manuscript from which he printed the 
 Acts and the Epistles, (another of the three now pre- 
 served at Bale) is likewise a modern manuscript, 
 though according to Wetstein, who examined them 
 both, it is older than the former. 
 
 The Greek manuscript of the Revelation, which 
 was used by Erasmus, belonged at that time to Cap- 
 nio : but all the efforts of the learned to discover where 
 it is now preserved, have been hitherto fruidess. The 
 character, which Erasmus him^lf has given of this 
 
19^ LECTURE VI. 
 
 manuscript, is so higli in respect to its antiquity, as to 
 make it almost coeval with the Apostles themselves. 
 " Tatitcc vetustatisy"^ says Erasmus to Stanica, " ut 
 apostolorum atate scriptum videri possit.'*'^ But this 
 declaration must be construed with the same latitude, 
 as the similar declaration of the Complutensian edi- 
 tors. For in this very manuscript the Greek text 
 was accompanied with the commentary of Arethas : 
 and ArethaSj according to Fabricius, a name of great 
 authority in the literary history of Greek writers, was 
 subsequent to the apostolic age by no less a period, 
 than nine hundred years. 
 
 The Greek documents, which Erasmus applied 
 to the correction of the manuscripts, from which he 
 printed his edition, were, his fourth manuscript, and 
 his manuscript of Theophylact. His fourth manu- 
 script, which is the third of the tlire6 preserved at 
 Bale, is at least of respectable antiquity, for it was 
 written in the tenth century, and, -as it contains the 
 whole New Testament, except the Revelation, it 
 might have afforded him considerable service. But 
 Erasmus made very little use of it, as he himself re- 
 lates in his answer to Stunica, because he suspected, 
 though it appears unjustly, that it contained readings 
 derived from the Latin Vulgate. The chief source 
 of his corrections therefore was the text and commen- 
 tary of Theophylact. But Theophylact was the last 
 of the Greek fathers : he lived at the end of the elev- 
 enth century : and his quotations from the Greek Tes- 
 tament are not to be compared, in deciding the au- 
 thenticity of a reading, with the quotation of the early 
 fathers. In the book of Revelation, Erasmus had no 
 
LECTURE VI. 101 
 
 Other Greek document, than the manuscript, from 
 which he printed. He corrected therefore from con- 
 jecture, where that manuscript was inaccurate : and 
 where it was defective, as especially at the end, where 
 the six last verses were wanting, he supplied the de- 
 fect by Greek of his own making from the Latin 
 Vulgate. 
 
 If we may judge from the title-page, Erasmus had 
 likewise at least occasional recourse to the writings of 
 Origen, Chrysostom, and Cyril. But it is hardly 
 possible that Erasmus should have derived many 
 readings from their works, especially from the v^^orks 
 of Origen and Cyril, in which the quotations from 
 the Bible are indiscriminately scattered, and of which 
 there was no edition at that time provided with those 
 convenient indexes, which now enable a collector of 
 various readings to turn in an instant to any passage 
 of Scripture. In fact no edition of those fathers had 
 then been printed in Greek ; for the editions of Ori- 
 gen, Chrysostom, and Cyril, which were then in print, 
 were only in a Latin translation. 
 
 But there is another source of sacred criticism, of 
 which Erasmus made considerable use, though it is 
 the last source, from which we should suppose that 
 an editor would have drawn, who had objected to the 
 use of a Greek manuscript on the ground of its read- 
 ings being formed from the Latin Vulgate. One 
 should hardly suppose, that the same editor would 
 have had recourse to the Latin Vulgate, for assistance 
 in the formation of his own text. Perhaps however 
 he acted more from necessity than choice. When 
 he published hii? Greek Testament, the Latin Vulgate 
 
dU2 LECTURE VI. 
 
 liad for ages been the oracle of the Church of Rome : 
 and to have pubHshed a New Testament, without 
 shewing some regard for this oracle, might have ex- 
 posed him to more embarrassment, than all his learn- 
 ing could have removed. 
 
 Lastly, the time which was employed in the exe- 
 cution of this work, bore no proportion to tlie magni- 
 tude of the undertaki!!g. The first application to E- 
 rasmus on tliis subject was made in a letter from 
 Rhenanus bearing date the 17th of April 1515 : and 
 this application was repeated on the 30th of April. 
 Now the edition itself, as appears from the subscrip- 
 tion^ was finished in the following February. Kv^n 
 therefore were it begun immediately on the second 
 application, which from other circumstances there is 
 reason to doubt, it could not have employed more than 
 nine months, both in the preparation for it, and in the 
 printing of it. And Erasmus had not merely Greek 
 materials to arrange ; he had to correct a Latin ver- 
 sion, which he published in a parallel column with the 
 Greek ; he had also to furnish a considerable body of 
 annotations. Nor must it be forgotten, that he was 
 engaged at the same time in the publication of Je- 
 rom's works, which alone would have been sufficient 
 to have occupied his whole attention. If it be asked, 
 why Erasmus, under such circumstances, v\^as so pre- 
 cipitate in the publication of the Greek Testament, 
 the answer is, that in this respect Erasmus Mas not 
 his own master. He had been engaged by Frobenius, 
 a printer and bookseller at Bale, to publish a Greek 
 Testament for a certain sum, and under certain con- 
 ditions. And the profits of Frobenius, as a booksel- 
 
LECTURE VI. 105 
 
 ]er, depended at that time on expedition ; they depend- 
 ed on his edition being finished, before the Complu- 
 tensian, already printed, was delivered to the public. 
 
 Such is the history of the first edition by Erasmus, 
 of which it was necessary to give a minute description, 
 as it is the basis of all the subsequent editions. 
 
 In three years from the publication of the first 
 edition, Erasmus published a second : and as in the 
 mean time he had an opportunity of consulting other 
 Greek manuscripts, or of receiving extracts from his 
 friends, he made numerous alterations in his second 
 edition, which, according to the account of Dr. Mill, 
 amount at least to four hundred. And in 1522 he 
 published a third edition, in which was added the sev- 
 enth verse in the fifth chapter of St. John's first Epis- 
 tle, which he had not printed in his two former edi- 
 tions, because it was not contained in his Greek man- 
 uscripts. 
 
 These three editions were published by Erasmus 
 before he had seen the Complutensian Greek Testa- 
 ment, which, though printed in 1514, remained, 
 through the death of Cardinal Ximenes, more than 
 eight years unpublished at Alcala. But when Eras- 
 mus published his fourth edition in 1527, he availed 
 himself of the Complutensian, especially in the book 
 of Revelation, where he had only one manuscript, and 
 that a defective one. According to Dr. Mill's ac- 
 count, in the Prolegomena to his Greek Testament, 
 Erasmus corrected his text of the Revelation in nine- 
 ty places from the Complutensian edition, but in only- 
 twenty- six places in all the other books. The fifth 
 and last edition by Erasmus was printed in 1535 : 
 
104 LECl'URE VI. 
 
 but, according to the same authority, it differs in only' 
 four places from the preceding. 
 
 In the interval, which elapsed between the first and 
 the last edition of Erasmus, nine or ten other editions 
 of the Greek Testament were printed, which were all 
 taken with a few alterations from some one of the edi- 
 tions of Erasmus, with the exception of the edition by 
 Colinaeus, which was printed at Paris in 1534. The 
 text of this edition was formed partly from the Com- 
 plutensian edition, partly from the editions of Eras- 
 mus, and partly from Greek manuscripts, which were 
 collated for that purpose. But as the editor, (which 
 was often the case in the early editions of the Greek 
 Testament) gave no account of the sources, from 
 which he derived his materials, it was suspected, that 
 all those readings, which were contained neither in 
 the Complutensian, nor in the Erasmian editions, 
 readings, which according to Dr. Mill amount to more 
 than seven hundred and fifty, had no other foundation, 
 than critical conjecture. It has been since discover- 
 ed, that those readings were taken from Greek manu- 
 scripts : three of them are still preserved at Paris, and 
 have been collated by Wetstein and Griesbach. The 
 edition of Coliuceus therefore is entitled to great re- 
 spect. But partly in consequence of the suspicion 
 just mentioned, partly in consequence of the superior 
 though undeserved reputation of the editions publish- 
 ed at Paris, a few years afterwards, by his son-in-law^ 
 Robert Stephens, the edition of Colinaeus was neg- 
 lected, it was never re-printed, and has had no influ- 
 ence on the modem editions of the Greek Testament, 
 
 No editions have been attended with greater ce- 
 
LECTURE VI. 105 
 
 Icbrity, than the editions of Robert Stephens, a learn- 
 ed bookseller and printer at Paris, and father of the 
 still more learned Henry Stephens. His two first 
 editions are as distinguished by the elegant neatness, 
 as the third and chief edition by the splendor of its 
 typographical execution. These qualities greatly 
 contributed toward bringing them into general circu- 
 lation : and the critical pretensions, which were as- 
 sumed by the editor, seemed to stamp on them an in- 
 delible value. In the preface to the first edition, which 
 was printed at Paris in 1546, says Robert Stephens, 
 " Having obtained froni the royal library several man- 
 uscripts, which, from their appearance of antiquity, 
 are almost entitled to adoration f codices vetustatis spe- 
 cie pene adorandosj I have formed from them this edi- 
 tion in such a manner, as not to print even a single 
 letter, which is not confirmed by the greater, and bet- 
 ter part of them." But with all this ostentation, Rob- 
 ert Stephens's first edition is little more, than a com- 
 pilation from the Complutensian and the fifth edition 
 of Erasmus. His second edition, which was printed 
 in 1549, is in respect to its exterior a close resem- 
 blance of the first ; nor even in respect to its text is it 
 materially difierent. But these editions had very lit- 
 tle influence on the subsequent editions of the Greek 
 Testament, an influence reserved for the folio edi- 
 tion, which appeared in the following year. 
 
 The text of this folio edition, printed in 1550, was 
 once supposed to have been formed entirely on the 
 authority of Greek manuscripts, which Robert Ste- 
 phens, in the Prefiice to it, professes to have collated for 
 
 that purpose a second and even a third time. But it 
 14 
 
i06 LECTURE Vr. 
 
 is so far from having been formed on their authority, 
 that, except in the book of Revelation, it is hardly any- 
 thing more than Erasmus's fifth edition reprinted. 
 And even in the book of Revelation, where he often 
 departs from Erasmus, he departs only for the sake of 
 Complutensian readings. In fact Stephens himself 
 has openly contradicted his own declarations : for in 
 the margin of this edition there are more than a hun- 
 dred places, in which he has quoted all his authorities 
 for readings different from his own. With this glar- 
 mg evidence, evidence which requires no collation of 
 manuscripts, but only a superficial view of the edition 
 itself, in order to be perceived, it is extraordinary that 
 credit was ever attached to tlie pretensions of the edi- 
 tor on the formation of the text. 
 
 There is another point of view, from which this 
 edition must be examined, and in which it distinguish- 
 es itself from all preceding editions, namely the criti- 
 cal apparatus displayed in the margin. This critical 
 apparatus consists of quotations from the Compluten- 
 sian edition, and from fifteen Greek manuscripts. 
 Now the Complutensian edition differs from that of 
 Stephens in more than thirteen hundred places, of 
 which Stephens has totally neglected at least seven 
 hundred ; and those, which he has noticed, are often 
 quoted falsely. The same objection applies to the 
 quotations from his other documents as far as they 
 have been compared : and Dr. Mill says with great 
 propriety of the collection of readings exhibited in 
 Stephens's margin, " in pompam magis quam in usum 
 congesta videtur.^^ 
 
 But the inward defects of this edition were over- 
 
LECTURE VI. Idr 
 
 looked for its outward beauties. There was also a 
 religious morive, which operated in its favour. In 
 England, in Holland, and in Switzerland, the edition 
 was esteemed for the sake of the editor, who became 
 a convert to the Protestant cause, and fled on that ac- 
 count from Paris to settle at Geneva, in the neigh- 
 bourhood of Calvin and Beza. 
 
 The next revision of the Greek text was under- 
 taken by Beza, who like Robert Stephens was a na- 
 tive of France, and fled to Switzerland on account of 
 his religion. The critical materials, which he em- 
 ployed, were for the most part the same, as those 
 which had been used by Robert Stephens. But he 
 had likewise the advantage of that very ancient manu- 
 script of the Gospels and the Acts, which he after- 
 wards sent to this University, and which is known by 
 the name of the Codex Bezse. He had likewise a 
 very ancient manuscript of St. Paul's Epistles, which 
 he procured from Clermont in France, and which is 
 known by the name of the Codex Claromontanus. 
 Lastly, he had the advantage of the Syriac version, 
 which had been lately published by Tremellius with a 
 close Latin translation. 
 
 But the use, which he made of his materials, was 
 not such, as might have been expected from a man of 
 Beza's learning. Instead of applying his various 
 readings to the emendation of the text, he used them 
 chiefly for polemical purposes in his notes. In short 
 he amended Stephens's text, in not more than fifty 
 places : and even these emendations were not always 
 founded on proper authority. 
 
 We now come to the Elzevir edition of 1624, in 
 
109 LECTURE VI. 
 
 which was established the text, that is now in daily 
 use. The person who conducted this edition (for El- 
 zevir was only the printer) is at present unknown : 
 but whoever he was, his critical exertions were con- 
 fined within a narrow compass. The text of this edi- 
 tion was copied from Beza's text, except in about fif- 
 ty places ; and in these places, the readings were bor- 
 rowed partly from the various readings in Stephens's 
 margin, partly from other editions, but certainly not 
 from Greek manuscripts. 
 
 The texfus receptus therefore, or the text in com- 
 mon use, was copied, with a few exceptions, from the 
 text of Beza. Beza himself closely followed Ste- 
 phens : and Stephens (namely in his third and chief 
 edition) copied solely from the fifth edition of Eras- 
 mus, except in the Revelation, v/here he followed 
 sometimes Erasmus, sometimes the Complutensian 
 edition. The text therefore in daily use resolves it- 
 self at last into the Complutensian and the Erasmian 
 editions. Bat neither Erasmus nor the Compluten- 
 sian editors printed from ancient Greek manuscripts : 
 and the remainder of their critical apparatus included 
 little more than the latest of the Greek fathers, and 
 the Latin Vulgate. 
 
 I have thus finished the first period in the critical 
 history of the Greek text. The time docs not permit 
 us to enter on the second. But as almost a year will 
 elapse before these Lectures will be renewed, as in 
 this audience there may be many, who will lose the 
 opportunity of farther attendance, and as the Lecturer 
 
LECTURE VI. 109 
 
 himself from the daily accidents of human life may 
 not live to renew them, it is proper, before we sepa- 
 rate, to make some general observations, not only on 
 the Criticism of the Greek Testament, which has been 
 left unfinished, but also on some other branches of 
 Divinity on which, though the description of them is 
 still to come, the theological student should have sorr.e 
 decided opinion before he departs. 
 
 With respect to the labours of the learned, which 
 belong to the second period in the critical history of 
 the Greek text, it has been their object to obtain a 
 copy of the Greek Testament, which shall come as 
 nearly, as possible, to the original records. Now, if 
 it is thought desirable to obtain an accurate text for 
 the Plays of Terence or the Odes of Horace, and the 
 prosecution of this purpose be deemed an object for 
 the talents of a Bentley, surely the smallest emenda- 
 tion must be deemed important in that work, which is 
 the source of religious faith. And be it observed, 
 that no emendation from conjecture, no emendation 
 unfounded on documents, or not warranted by prepon- 
 derating authority is admissible in the Greek Testa- 
 ment. It is true, that the various readings, which af- 
 fect the sense, bear but a small proportion to the 
 whole number : but who would not choose to read a 
 Gospel or an Epistle rather in originaly than in synon- 
 Tjmous expressions. 
 
 On the other hand, care must be taken not to 
 magnify this subject beyond the limits of its real im- 
 portance. To the Theologian, who undertakes to es- 
 tablish the authenticity of the Greek Testament, it is 
 of consequence to ascertain its very words, its very 
 
110 LECTURE VI. 
 
 syllables. But, for tlie common purposes of religious 
 instruction, the text in daily use is amply sufficient. 
 For, whatever difference in other respects may exist 
 between this text and the Greek manuscripts, or 
 whatever diiference may exist among the manuscripts 
 themselves, they all agree in the important articles of 
 Christian feith ; they all declare, with one accord, the 
 doctrine of the Trinity, and the doctrine of the atone- 
 ment, by Jesus Christ. 
 
 On three other brandies of Divinity, the Authen- 
 ticity of the Bible, the Divine Origin of our Religion, 
 and the Doctrines of the Church of England, I must 
 likewise make some general observations. 
 
 As it is the object of these Lectures, to exhibit a 
 system of Divinity, which beginning with first princi- 
 ples shall establish propositions in regular progression, 
 it would be a violation of their plan to anticipate sub- 
 jects of future demonstration, because such anticipa- 
 tion would involve our arguments in a circle. Nor is 
 it my intention to anticipate any truth, for the purpose 
 of employing it in proof of another. But the plan 
 will not be violated, if to those, who will lose the op- 
 portunity, either of hearing the arguments themselves, 
 or of learning what authors have best conducted them, 
 I should briefly state the result. 
 
 I may venture therefore to assert, that the evi- 
 dence, by which we establish the fact, that the books 
 of the New Testament were written by the authors to 
 whom they are ascribed, is, to say the least of it, as 
 strong, as the evidence for the facts, that the Orations 
 against Catiline v/ere WTitten by Cicero, or that the 
 Life of Agricola was written by Tacitus. That Mo- 
 
LECTURE n. Ill 
 
 scs was the author of the Pentateuch, I have already 
 shewn in a separate publication ; nor is it less certain, 
 that the prophetical books of the Old Testament were 
 written by the persons, whose names they bear. Some 
 books indeed there are, such as the Kings and the 
 Chronicles, of which we know not the authors. But, 
 if they had not been entided to credit, they would not 
 have been received in the Hebrew Canon : nor would 
 that Canon have been confirmed by the authority of 
 Christ. 
 
 That the writers of the New Testament, consid- 
 ered merely as human evidence, as they must be con- 
 sidered in the first instance, are entitled to full credit 
 for all that they have recorded of Christ and his Apos- 
 tles, appears from the records themselves. The sim- 
 plicity of the writers, their manifest honesty, their own 
 conviction, where they could not be deceived, and 
 their sufierings, even unto death, in support of that 
 conviction, guarantee the veracity of their accounts. 
 And if the miracles and doctrines recorded in the 
 New Testam.ent be true, the divine origin of Christi- 
 anity requires no further confirmation. 
 
 With respect to that system of doctrines, which is 
 adopted by the Church of England, I must here again 
 appeal to the proofs hereafter to be given, and again 
 state the result. On the strength of this appeal then 
 I can venture to assert, that when the doctrines of the 
 Church of f'.ngland, as taught in the Liturgy, the Ar- 
 ticles, and the Homilies, are duly examined, they wUl 
 be found in all respects conformable with the Sacred 
 Writings. To dissent therefore, in this country, 
 from the doctrines of the Established Church, is to 
 
lis LECTURE VI. 
 
 dissent without a real cause. Indeed there are many, 
 who dissent without knowing the difference between 
 our doctrines and their own, nay without knowing 
 whether the doctrines be different, or the same. But 
 this dissent is dangerous in every view. It is dan- 
 gerous to the person, who adopts false notions in re- 
 ligion, it is dangerous to his neighbour, it is danger- 
 ous to the State. The religious dissensions in the 
 Greek Empire, by diminishing its strength, prepared 
 its downfall by the Turks : and God grant, that the 
 religious dissensions among ourselves, which unavoid- 
 ably produce dissensions in the State, may not ulti- 
 mately effect the downfall of Britain. 
 
 Lastly, as knowledge is of no value, unless it be 
 applied to some useful purpose, let us apply our knowl- 
 edge of religion to the amendment of our thoughts 
 and actions. May those who are placed in authority 
 be careful to set a good example ; and may the young- 
 er members be as careful to follow it. In tliis place 
 especially, two of our principal duties are, attention to 
 study, and regularity of deportment. Let us all then 
 resolve, both young and old, to observe particularly 
 the duties, which immediately belong to us, that our 
 faith, and our preaching may not be vain. So shall 
 'we all become one fold under one Shepherd, Jesus 
 Christ, the righteous, to whom with the Father and 
 the Holy Ghost be ascribed all power, might, majes- 
 ty, and dominion, now and forevermore. 
 
COUKSE OF LECTURES. 
 
 CONTAINING A 
 
 DESCRIPTION AND SYSTEMATIC ARRANGEMENT 
 
 OF THE SEVERAL 
 
 BRANCHES OF DIVINITY : 
 
 ACCOMPANIED WITH 
 
 AN ACCOUNT, BOTH OF THE PRINCIPAL AUTHORS, AND OF ^ 
 THE PPOGRESS, WHICH HAS BEEN MADE AT 
 DIFFERENT PERIODS 
 
 XIjeoICEgical ^Learning* 
 
 BY HERBERT MARSH, D. D. F. R. S. 
 
 MAEGARET PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY. 
 
 PART II. 
 CAMBRIDGE : 
 
 PUBLISHED BY WILLIAM IIILLIARD. 
 
 Hllliard & Metcalf.... printers. 
 1812. 
 
 1 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 In the six following Lectures, which were given in the 
 Easter Term of 1810,* the first branch of Theology, or the 
 criticism of the Bible, is continued and concluded. It is hard- 
 ly necessary to say any thing further of the plan, on which 
 these Lectures are conducted, as it was fully explained in th© 
 first and second Lectures. It may be useful however to re- 
 mind the reader, that their object is not to supersede the study 
 of other works, but to direct the theological student in the iise 
 of other works. Their object is to teach him how to study 
 Divinity, and then, as he gradually proceeds, to inform him 
 of the most distinguished writers on the several subjects. In 
 the arrangement of those writers no attention is paid either to 
 the alphabetical order of their names, or to the size of their 
 works. Their position is regulattsd solely by a regard to the 
 departments, and divisions of departments, to which the wri- 
 ters respectively belong. The arrangement therefore is pure- 
 ly systematic. Whether the system itself is founded on just 
 principles, is a question which must be left to the decision of 
 the learned. 
 
 * I must except however Lecture XII, which, though here printed, 
 
 was not spoken with the other five. Indeed the title-pages of books, 
 with which it is replete, make it rather a subject of examinatioa in the 
 closet, than of delivery to a public audience. 
 
 Camhridge^ 
 J)ec. 15, 1810. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 LECTURE VII. 
 
 Page 
 
 Criticism of the Greek Testament from the formation of 
 the Textus lieeeptus to the Ediiioii cf TFdstein - 5 
 
 LECTURE Vm. 
 
 TJie same Subjeci ccntinued to the Edition of Grleshach 29 
 
 LECTURE IX. 
 
 Description of the Jluthors, who have illustrated the criti- 
 cism of the Greek Testament according to its several 
 Depariments - --.---43 
 
 LECJTUTIE X. 
 
 Criticism of the Hebrew Bible - - - - - 64r 
 
 LECTURE XL 
 
 Tlie same Subject continued to Kennicott^s Edition^ - 89 
 
 LECTURE XIL 
 
 Description of the Authors, who have illustrated the criti- 
 cism of the Hebreiv Bible, according to its several De- 
 partments --__.-. -97 
 
LECTURE VII, 
 
 1 HE Lectures, which were given in the preced- 
 ing Easter-term, contained a plan of theological study, 
 in which the several branches were so arranged, that 
 a knowledge of the one should gradually lead to a 
 knowledge of the other. To recapitulate those 
 branches would be unnecessary at present, as the 
 Lectures themselves are now in print, and were in- 
 deed published especially for the purpose of enabling 
 those, who have lately entered on their academical 
 studies, to make themselves acquainted with the sub- 
 jects already explained. Taking therefore for grant- 
 ed, that every one, who is desirous of following the 
 whole chain of argument, and of comprehending the 
 whole series of propositions, has duly informed him- 
 self of what has gone before, I shall resume, without 
 further preface, the thread of the discourse in the 
 place, where it vv as broken oft' in the last Lecture. 
 
 The History of the Criticism employed on the 
 Greek Testament, which was divided into two peri- 
 ods, the one ending with the year 1624, the other 
 continuing from that time to the present day, was cou- 
 2 
 
6 LECTURE VII. 
 
 ducted only to the end of the former period, when the 
 text of the Greek Testament acquired, in the first El- 
 zevir edition, a consistency, which it has in general 
 preserved. That is, the editions of the Greek Testa- 
 ment printed since the year 1624 have, with a few ex- 
 ceptions hereafter to be mentioned, been copied word 
 for word from the Elzevir edition of that year : whence 
 the text of that edition has acquired the title of textus 
 receptus. 
 
 The gradual formation of this text out of the pri- 
 mary editions by Erasmus and the Complutensian ed- 
 itors, with the stages, through which it passed before 
 its final settlement, was sufficiently described in the 
 fifth and sixth Lectures to enable the hearer to form a 
 competent judgment, in regard to its critical correct- 
 ness, or, in other words, in regard to the question, 
 whether it approaches as nearly to the autographs of 
 the sacred writers, as we are able, and therefore in 
 duty bound to advance it. Now the further we pro- 
 ceed, the more clearly shall we perceive the necessity 
 of greater improvement ; and the history of the latter 
 period, on which we now enter, will fully confirm the | 
 inference deduced from the history of the former. 
 
 The subject, which demands our first attention in 
 the history of the latter period, is the celebrated Lon- 
 don Polyglot, a work, which confers immortal honour, 
 as well on the nation at large, as on the learned men 
 who were engaged in it ; whose merit indeed is the 
 more conspicuous, as it was undertaken and complet- 
 ed at a time, when the study of theology in this coun- 
 try was immersed in the metaphysical depths of puri- 
 
LECTURE VII. 7 
 
 tanical disquisition. It was projected, and with the 
 assistance of several other distinguished scholars, was 
 executed by Brian Walton, formerly of Peter-House 
 in this University. It consists of six folio volumes : 
 and the printing of them was finished in the year be- 
 fore Cromwell died. 
 
 As an appendage, was added in two more folio 
 volumes that inestimable work, the Lexicon Hepta- 
 glotton^ by Edmund Castle of Emmanuel College, 
 Arabic Professor in this University, and Walton's 
 chief assistant in the Polyglot itself. As a general 
 description of this splendid performance would be for- 
 eign to the present Lecture, I must refer my hearers, 
 who wish for further information, as well on the Lon- 
 don Polyglot, as on the Antwerp and Paris Polyglots 
 which preceded it, to the Bibliotheca sacra of Le Long. 
 We are at present concerned only with the text of the 
 Greek Testam.ent, and with the critical apparatus, 
 which accompanied that text. Now the text itself, 
 (which is contained in the fifth volume) is a re-impres- 
 sion of the folio edition by Robert Stephens, which 
 Walton adopted in preference to the Elzevir text, be- 
 cause he embodied in his own work the various read- 
 ings in Stephens's margin, which being adapted to 
 Stephens's text might often be no various readings to 
 any other. The importance therefore of the London 
 Polyglot, as far as it relates to our present history, is 
 confined to the materials^ which it afforded for the pur- 
 pose of future emendation. 
 
 The materials derived from Greek authorities 
 comprise a collection of extracts from sixteen Greek 
 
8 LECTURE VII. 
 
 manuscripts, in addition to the readings which had 
 been quoted by Stephens. For the collation of these 
 manuscripts, as also on many other accounts, Walton 
 was greatly indebted to Archbishop Usher. They 
 are described at the head of the collation in the sixth 
 volume by Walton himself: and a further account of 
 them is given in the Prolegomena to Mill's Greek 
 Testament. 
 
 But the extracts from Greek Manuscripts were 
 neither the sole nor the chief materials, which the Po- 
 lyglot afforded for the emendation of the Greek text. 
 We have already seen, that the a?tcie?it versions of the 
 New Testament are another source of various read- 
 ings : and this source was opened more amply and 
 more usefully in the London Polyglot, than in any of 
 those, which had preceded. In addition to the Latin 
 Vulgate, it contains the Syriac, the Arabic, and the 
 Ethiopic versions of the New Testament, with the 
 Persian in the Gospels. And these oriental versions 
 are not only arranged in the most convenient manner, 
 for the purpose of comparing them with the Greek, 
 but they are accompanied with literal Latin transla- 
 tions, that even they, who are unacquainted with the 
 oriental languages, might still have recourse to them 
 for various readings, though indeed with less securi- 
 ty, as every translator is liable to make mistakes. For 
 a more particular account of those oriental versions, 
 and for the mode of applying them to the criticism of 
 the Greek Testament, I must refer my hearers to the 
 Introduction of MichAclis, where the subject is treat- 
 ed with equal fulness and perspicuity. 
 
LECTURE VII. 9 
 
 As the temper of the times, in which the Polyglot 
 appeared, was ill-adapted to calm investigation, we 
 need not be surprised that it met with a partial oppo- 
 sition. Dr. John Owen, one of the most distinguish- 
 ed among the puritanical Divines under the govern- 
 ment of Cromwell, soon attacked it in his " Consider- 
 ations on the Prolegomena and Appendix of the late 
 Biblia Polyglotta," which^he gave as an addition to 
 two other tracts printed at Oxford in 1659. In the 
 same year it was answered by Walton in a pamphlet 
 entitled " The Considerator considered ; or a brief 
 View of certain Considerations upon the Biblia Polyg- 
 lotta, the Prolegomena and the Appendix thereof, 
 wherein amongst other things the certainty, integrity, 
 and divine authority of the original texts is defended 
 against the consequences of Atheists, Papists, Anti- 
 scripturists, &c. inferred, from the various readings, 
 and novelty of the Hebrew points, by the author of 
 the said Considerations." The Restoration, which 
 soon followed, put an end to the controversy ; and 
 within a few months after Charles the Second's return. 
 Dr. Walton was promoted to the see of Chester. The 
 prejudices, excited by Owen's pamphlet, and the false 
 conclusions, which he drew from that variety of read- 
 ings unavoidably resulting from a multiplication of 
 copies, did not indeed immediately subside : but those 
 prejudices and apprehensions were at least mitigated 
 by the endeavours of Dr. Fell, who published, as he 
 relates in his Preface, an edition of the Greek Testa- 
 ment for that purpose. 
 
 But before we proceed to Dr. Fell's e(Jition, the 
 
10 LECTURE ^^I. 
 
 order of time requires that we should notice a critical 
 edition, which was published at Amsterdam in the 
 year after the London Polyglot. It is known by the 
 name of the edition of Curccllseus, and is one of the 
 most beautiful, as well as one of the most correctly 
 printed, among the small editions of the Greek Testa- 
 ment. The editor does not appear, when the work • 
 was printed, to have seen the London Polyglot. In- 
 deed it is hardly possible that he should : for though 
 this edition bears the date of 1658, and the Polyglot 
 that of 1657, yet, as the Preface, which is always the 
 last thing printed, is dated the eighth of January, the 
 work itself must have been printed in the year preced- 
 ing. It contains however a selection of readings suf- 
 ficiently copious for the time and circumstances of the 
 publication, a selection derived partly from former 
 collections, partly from printed editions, and partly 
 from manuscripts collated on purpose for the edition 
 in question. These manuscripts are described by the 
 editor in his Preface, which on other accounts de- 
 serves our attention, especially for its excellent re- 
 marks in vindication of such iiterar}'' labours. It is 
 one of the Elzevir editions, and contains precisely the 
 same text, as the other editions, which issued from 
 that press. 
 
 The edition of the Greek 'l^estament, which was 
 published by Dr. Fell, then Dean of Christ Church, 
 and shortly afterwards also Bishop of Oxford, was 
 printed in 1675 in one volume octavo. Dr. Fell of 
 course availed himself of the collections already form- 
 ed, in the London Polyglot, and the edition of Curcel- 
 
LECTURE Vn. It 
 
 Iffiiis ; "which he augmented by the addition of read- 
 ings from twelve Bodleian, four Dublin, and two Pa- 
 ris manuscripts. He further added the extracts from 
 twenty-two Greek manuscripts, which Caryophilus 
 had collated at Rome, by order of Pope Urban VIII, 
 for an edition of the Greek Testament, which was in- 
 tended to be, but never was published. The extracts 
 however were printed by themselves, and in sufficient 
 time to enable Dr. Fell to apply them to the purpose 
 of his own edition. He likewise added various read- 
 ings from manuscripts of the Coptic and Gothic ver- 
 sions of the New Testament, which were supplied by 
 Dr. Thomas Marshall, Rector of Lincoln College. 
 Dr. Fell's edition therefore cantained a more ample 
 apparatus, than any preceding edition : and it was re- 
 printed, twice at Leipzig, and once at Oxford, the last 
 of which is known by the name of Gregory's edition. 
 But Gregory's edition, though of greater magnitude 
 than its prototype, contains no accession of critical 
 materials. 
 
 We now come to a period in the history of sacred 
 criticism, which may be considered as the commence- 
 ment of its manhood. Bishop Fell, notwithstanding 
 the superiority of his own edition, was so sensible, 
 that much more remained to be performed, in order 
 to obtain a genuine text, that he determined to pro- 
 mote a new edition. He v;as likewise so well aware 
 of the labour, which it would cost, and the many 
 years, which it would employ, to collect, arrange, and 
 apply the materials, which he perceived were wanting, 
 that he deemed his own life insufficient for the pur- 
 
IS LECTURE Vn. 
 
 pose, and resolved therefore to delegate the task to 
 some biblical scholar, \vhose age might afford an ex- 
 pectation of living to complete it. He selected for 
 that purpose Dr. John Mill, then Fellow of Queen's 
 College in Oxford, and afterwards Principal of Ed- 
 mund Hall. The history of this edition is related at 
 large by Dr. Mill himself in his Prolegomena. The 
 preparation of the materials, and the printing of the 
 work, employed not less than thirty years. It was 
 published at Oxford in 1707 : but Dr. Mill survived 
 the publication of it only a few weeks. 
 
 This noble edition contained, not onlv a much 
 larger collection of readings from Greek manuscripts, 
 than any former edition, but also what was totally 
 wanting in former editions, a copious collection of 
 quotations from the New Testament in the writings of 
 the Greek Fathers, which are of great importance, es- 
 pecially the quotations made by the early Fathers, in 
 ascertaining the authenticity of the Greek text. The 
 extracts from the Coptic and the Gothic versions, 
 which appeared in Bishop Fell's edition, were revised 
 and augmented ; and the various readings, both of the 
 Vulgate, and of the oriental versions, were selected 
 from the London Polyglot. The variations observable 
 in the early printed editions were likewise noted. But, 
 with all this critical apparatus, the learned editor made 
 no alterations in the text, v\'hich he printed, as it was 
 given in the London Polyglot, from the folio edition 
 of Robert Stephens. He left to future critics the ap- 
 plication of the materials which he provided, though 
 he frequently delivered his own opinion, in tlie Prole- 
 gomena, and' in the Notes. 
 
LECTURE VII. IS 
 
 We are greatly indebted to Dr. Mill for having 
 supplied us with such ample means of obtaining a 
 more correct edition of the Greek Testament. But 
 his labours were .misunderstood and misrepresented 
 by his contemporaries. The appearance of so many 
 thousand various readings (they are said to amount to 
 thirty thousand) excited an alarm for the safety of the 
 New Testament : and those very materials, which 
 had been collected for the purpose of producing a 
 correct, an unadulterated text, were regarded as the 
 means of undermining its authority. The text in 
 daily use, originally derived from modern manuscripts,'^ 
 and transmitted through Stephens and Beza into the 
 Elzevir editions, was at that time supposed to have 
 already attained its highest perfection ; and was re- 
 garded in the same light, as if Erasmus had printed 
 from the autographs of the sacred writers. The pos- 
 sibility of mistakes in transcribing the Greek Testa- 
 ment, the consequent necessity of making the copies 
 of it subservient to mutual correction, and hence the 
 inference, that the probability of obtaining an accu- 
 rate copy is increased by the frequency of compari- 
 son, did not occur to those, who were offended at Dr. 
 Mill's publication. They were not aware, that the 
 genuine text of the sacred writers could not exclusive- 
 ly be found in any modern manuscript, from which 
 the first editor of a Greek Testament might accident- 
 ally print : they were not aware that the truth lies 
 scattered among them all, and must be collected from 
 them all. Still less were they aware, that those very 
 readings, which excited their apprehensions, werei thQ 
 
14. LECTURE Vn. 
 
 means, not only of ascertaining the genuineness of 
 words and phrases, but also, as will be shown hereaf- 
 ter, of proving the authenticity of whole books. 
 
 Three years had not elapsed, when Dr. Whitby, 
 the well-known and justly esteemed commentator on 
 the New Testament, published in opposition to it, an 
 elaborate work, entitled Examen var'mntium Lectio- 
 num Johannis Miliii, which was first printed in Lon- 
 don in 1710, and was afterwards annexed to Whit- 
 by's Commentary on the New Testament. In this 
 Examen the author argues, as if every printed word 
 "Vvere. precisely the same, as it was originally written; 
 he asserts that in a// places the reading of the common 
 text may be defended, in lis omnibus lectionem textus 
 defendi posse. And this palpably false position, set 
 forth in the title-page itself, he made the basis of a se- 
 vere and bitter criticism on a work, which he was un- 
 able to appreciate. 
 
 The well-meaning but ill-judged remarks of Whit- 
 by were soon applied by Anthony Collins in his Dis- 
 course of Free Thinking, to a very different purpose : 
 for he quoted the Preface to Whitby's Examen, in 
 order to shew, that the very text of the Greek Testa- 
 ment was uncertain and precarious. But the argu- 
 ments of Collins against Divine Revelation, and the 
 mistaken notions of Whitby, on which those argu- 
 ments were founded, were soon confuted by the most 
 acute critic, not only of this nation, but of all Europe. 
 I mean Dr. Richard Bentley, who replied to Collins 
 under the assumed title of Phileleutherus Lipsiensis. 
 This reply of Bentley was first printed in 1713, the 
 
LECTURE VII. 15 
 
 same year with Coilins's Discourse : it has frequent- 
 ly been reprinted ; it has been translated into several 
 of the foreign languages, and should be studied by 
 every man, who is desirous of forming just notions of 
 biblical criticism. Indeed Dr. Francis Hare, after- 
 wards Bishop of Chichester, made his public acknowl- 
 edgments in a pamphlet printed in the same year, 
 entitled " The Clergyman's Thanks to Phileleuthe- 
 rus." 
 
 That Dr. Mill's edition however had its defects, 
 is certainly not to be denied : but they were chiefly 
 defects, which were inseparable from the nature of the 
 undertaking, and from the circumstances, in which 
 the editor was placed. Among the manuscripts col- 
 lated for Mill's edition were many, which could not 
 be collated by Mill himself: and if the extracts from 
 such manuscripts are any where defective or errone- 
 ous, the fault is not the editor's, but the collator's. 
 And if the opinions, which he has frequently expres- 
 sed on the genuineness of readings, are sometimes in- 
 accurate, we must recollect, that he was the first edi- 
 tor, who undertook a critical edition of the Greek 
 Testament on so large a scale. And if those opinions 
 had been more frequently inaccurate than they are, we 
 should further remember, first, that he produced the 
 evidence on which those opinions were founded, thus 
 enabling the reader to judge for himself, and secondly 
 that he never suffered his opinions to influence the 
 text. The gi-eatest defect in Mill's Greek Testa- 
 ment consists in the quotations from the oriental ver- 
 sions, which Mill did not understand, at least not suf- 
 
16 LECTURE VII. 
 
 ficiently to collate them. He had recourse therefore to 
 the Latin translations of them in the London Polyglot, 
 and consequently erred, whenever those translations 
 were not sufliciently exact. But these defects, with 
 the similar defects in the edition of Bengelius, hereaf- 
 ter to be noticed, have been all corrected by Profes- 
 sor Bode of Helmstadt, in his work rather harshly en- 
 titled, Pseudo-cr'itlca Millio-Bengeliaiia. 
 
 Three years after the publication of Mill's Greek 
 Testament at Oxford, it was reprinted at Amsterdam 
 under the direction of Ludolph Kiister. Whatever 
 readings were given in the Appendix to the Oxford 
 edition, as coming too late for insertion under the 
 text, were in this second edition transferred to their 
 proper places : and the critical apparatus was aug- 
 mented by the readings of twelve Greek manuscripts, 
 some of which indeed had been previously, but im- 
 perfectly collated. 
 
 In the year following, namely in 1711, Gerard of 
 Mastricht published (likewise at Amsterdam) an oc- 
 tavo edition of the Greek Testament, with readings 
 selected, not from Mill's, but from Fell's edition, and 
 a small accession of new matter, consisting of readings 
 from a manuscript in the Imperial Library at Vienna. 
 As the editor gave only the initials of his name and ti- 
 tle, and the edition was published by Henry Wet- 
 stein, a printer and bookseller at Amsterdam, it im- 
 properly acquired in this country the name of Wet- 
 stein's edition : and hence the octavo edition by Gerard 
 of Mastricht is sometimes confounded with the edi- 
 tion of Professor John James Wetstein, which was 
 published forty years afterwards in two volumes folio. 
 
LECTURE vn. ir 
 
 The editions hitherto described in the present 
 Lecture have all contributed to augment the stock of 
 materials ; but they left the text itself unaltered. The 
 first editor, who applied Mill's critical apparatus to the 
 emendation of the Greek text, was Dr. Edward Wells, 
 Rector of Cotesbach in Leicestershire, who published 
 an edition of the Greek Testament at Oxford, in sep- 
 arate portions, and at different times between 1709 
 and 1719. It is accompanied with the common Eng- 
 lish version, corrected according to the Greek read- 
 ings preferred by the editor. It is further accompani- 
 ed with a paraphrase and annotations, on which ac- 
 count it is generally classed, not among the editions 
 of the Greek Testament, but among the commenta- 
 ries on it: and in this view I shall have occasion 
 to speak of it, in the second branch of Theology, as a 
 very useful work. But as it exhibits a corrected text 
 of the Greek Testament, it claims also a place in the 
 present description, though subsequent improvements 
 in sacred criticism have in a great measure supersed- 
 ed the emendations of Dr. Wells. 
 
 In 1729 was printed in London another edition of 
 tlie Greek Testament, with a new text, and an Eng- 
 lish translation, in which the editor professed to have 
 founded his alterations on the authority of Greek man- 
 uscripts. It was soon discovered that those profes- 
 sions were false ; and the edition has been long con- 
 signed to merited oblivion. 
 
 But in 1734 a very respectable attempt to improve 
 the sacred text was made by Bengel, or, as he is com- 
 monly called in England, Bengelius, Professor at the 
 
18 LECTURE VII. 
 
 University of Tubingen in Suabia. In that 5^ear he 
 published a quarto edition of the Greek Testament, 
 to which he prefixed an Introductio in Crisin Novi 
 Testamenti, and subjoined an Apparatus crificus. But 
 the prejudices of that age in respect to sacred criti- 
 cism, cf which we have seen an instance in Whitby's 
 Examen, restricted Bengelius in the exercise of his 
 judgment, and imposed on him a law, which defeat- 
 ed iu numerous instances the very object of his revi- 
 sion. If the best Greek manuscripts, with the most 
 ancient Fathers and Versions, agree in supporting any 
 particular reading, we must conclude that it is the gen- 
 uine reading, whether that reading were contained, or 
 not, in the manuscripts of Erasmus or the Complu- 
 tensian editors, whether that reading were contained, 
 or not, either in their editions, or in any which suc- 
 ceeded them. But such was the importance, which a 
 reading was then supposed to derive from having been 
 once in print, and so necessary did this stamp of au- 
 thority appear, in order to legalise its claim to admis- 
 sion, that no reading was adopted by Bengelius, how- 
 ever great its critical authorit}^, unless it had already 
 received the sanction of the press. He himself says, 
 *' j\e syllabam quidem^ etiamsi mille inanuscripti, mille 
 critici jiiberent^ antehac non receptam, adducar ut re- 
 cipiam.'*'* But when he came to the Apocalypse, he 
 departed from this rule : and in the other books of 
 the New Testament he endeavoured to make com- 
 pensation by placing under the text -the readings, 
 which he thought the most worthy of notice, and clas- 
 sing them accordijig to their value by the means of 
 
LECTURE Vn. i« 
 
 Greek numerals. With respect to his critical appa- 
 ratus, it was chiefly taken from Mill's Greek Testa- 
 ment, to which however he made some important ad- 
 ditions, consisting of extracts from above twenty 
 <jreek manuscripts, and from sevenil of the ancient 
 Latin versions, to which were added, for the first time 
 in this edition, some extracts from the Armenian ver- 
 sion. 
 
 But the edition of Bengelius was shortly supersed- 
 ed by the more important edition of John James 
 Wetstein, who was born and educated in the place, 
 where Erasmus had published his editions of the 
 Greek Testament. In his twentieth year, while a stu- 
 dent at Basle, he published a treatise, De variis Lee- 
 tionibus Novi Testamenti : and, when he had finished 
 his studies, he visited the principal libraries of France- 
 and England, in search of Greek manuscripts, which 
 he every where collated with great assiduity. The 
 fruits of his researches, containing observations, not 
 only on Greek manuscripts, but on the quotations of 
 the Greek Fathers, and on the ancient versions, were 
 published four years before the edition of Bengelius, 
 being printed at Amsterdam in 1730, by the title, 
 Prolegomena ad Testamenti Gr^eci editionem accura- 
 tissimamy e vetussimis codicibus manuscriptis denuo pro- 
 curandam ; in quibus agitur de codicibus manuscriptis 
 JVovi Testamentiy scriptoiibus qui Novo Testamento usi 
 sunt^ versionibus veteribusy editiojiibus prioribus, et da- 
 rts interpretibus ; et proponuntur Animadversiones et 
 Cautiones, ad JExamen variarum Icctionum A^'ovi Tes- 
 tamenti necessaria. The bare recital of the title-page 
 
20 LECTURE VII. 
 
 is sufficient to shew the importance of the subjects 
 discussed, and to indicate the expectations, which 
 were excited from an edition of the Greek Testament 
 thus announced by an author so distinguished, as 
 Wetstein, by his learning and talents. 
 
 But the edition itself, from various causes, which 
 it is here unnecessary to relate, was retarded more 
 than twenty years. It was at length published in 
 1751 and 1752, in two folio volumes, at Amsterdam, 
 where Wetstein was then Professor in the College of 
 the Remonstrants. It is divided into four Parts, the 
 first containing the Gospels, the second containing the 
 Epistles of St. Paul, the third containing the Acts of 
 the Apostles with the Catholic Epistles, and the fourth 
 containing the Apocalypse. Each of these four Parts 
 is accompanied with Prolegomena, in which the Greek 
 manuscripts are described, that are quoted in each 
 Part : and Wetstein's motive to this four- fold divi- 
 sion was, tl^t it corresponds with the usual contents 
 of the Greek manuscripts, which seldom comprise the 
 whole New Testament, but contain, some of them the 
 four Gospels only, others only St. Paul's Epistles, 
 others again the Acts of the Aposdes with the Catho- 
 lic Epistles, and lastly, others the Apocalypse alone, 
 though two or more of these portions are sometimes 
 found united in the same manuscript, while on the 
 other hand there are manuscripts, in which the por- 
 tions are still smaller. The Prolegomena to the first 
 Part, in addition to the description of Greek manu- 
 scripts, contain an account of the ecclesiastical wri- 
 ters, and of the ancient versions, which are quoted in 
 
LECTURE vn. SI 
 
 this edition. These Prolegomena, with the Animad' 
 versiones et Caut'iones at the end of the second volume, 
 must be studied by every man, who would fully ap- 
 preciate the work in question, of which it is impossi- 
 ble to give an adequate notion in the compass of the 
 present Lecture. 
 
 The text of this edition is precisely the same with 
 the Elzevir text, and hence it is called on the title- 
 page A'hvum Testamentum Gr^cum editionis recepta. 
 Though Wetstein very considerably augmented the 
 stock of critical materials, though he drew from vari- 
 ous sources, which had hitherto remained unopened, 
 though he collated, not by other hands, but by his 
 own, and though few men have possessed a greater 
 share either of learning or of sagacity, yet no alteration 
 was made in the Greek text. He proposed indeed al- 
 terations, which he inserted in the space between the 
 text and the body of various readings, with reference 
 to the words which he thought should be exchanged 
 for them : and where a reading should, in his opinion, 
 l^e omitted without the substitution of another, he 
 prefixed to it a mark of mi?uis in the text. But these 
 proposed alterations and omissions are in general sup- 
 ported by powerful authority, and are such, as will 
 commonly recommended themselves to an impartial 
 critic. Though among the various readings he has 
 occasionally noted the conjectures of others, he has 
 never ventured a conjecture of his own : nor has he 
 made conjecture in any one instance the basis of a 
 proposed alteration. 
 
 The charge therefore, which has been laid to 
 
fm LECTURE vn. 
 
 Wetstein, of proposing (not makin,^) alterations in the 
 text for the mere puqDose of obtaining support to a 
 particular creed, is without foundation. Whether an 
 editor is attached or not to the creed of his country, 
 whether he receives pain or pleasure, when he discov- 
 ers that a reading of the text is supported by less au- 
 thority than a various reading, are questions, with 
 which the reader is only so far concerned, as they 
 may affect the conduct of the editor in his office ofcrit' 
 ic. The question of j'eal importance is. Does the ed- 
 itor, whether orthodox or heterodox, suffer his relig- 
 ious opinions to influence his judgment, in weighing 
 the evidence for and against any particular word or 
 passage. Now men of everi/ religious profession are 
 exposed to the temptation of adopting what they wish 
 to adopt, and of rejecting what they wish to reject, 
 without sufficient regard to the evidence against the 
 one, and in favour of the other. Hence greater cau- 
 tion is certainly requisite in our admission of emen- 
 dations, which favour the editor's religious creed, than 
 in the admission of readings unconnected with that 
 creed. That is, VvC must be more careful to scrutin- 
 ize, whether such emendations are really supported 
 by greater authority, than the readings, which it is 
 proposed to reject. But then we must endeavour in 
 this investigation to abstain, on our parts, from the 
 fault, which we suspect in the editor. We must not 
 suffer a bias in an opposite direction to mislead our 
 awn judgment, to magnify or diminish authorities, as 
 they are favourable or unfavourable to the readings, 
 which we ourselves would adopt. Now I have been 
 
^LECTURE VII. S3 
 
 long in the habit of using Wetstein's Greek Testa- 
 ment; I have at least endeavoured to weigh carefully 
 the evidence for the readings, which I have had occa- 
 sion to examine ; yet I have always found that the al- 
 terations proposed by Wetstein were supported by 
 respectable authority, and in general by much better 
 authority, than the correspondent readings of the text. 
 The merits therefore of W^etstein, as a critic^ ought 
 not to be impeached by ascribing to him undue influ- 
 ence in the choice of his readings. His merits, as a 
 critic, undoubtedly surpass the merits of his prede- 
 cessors : he alone contributed more to advance the 
 criticism of the Greek Testament, than all who had 
 gone before him : and this task he performed, not on- 
 ly without support, either public or private, but dur- 
 ing a series of severe trials, under which a mind of 
 less energy than Wetstein's would infallibly have 
 sunk. In short, he gave a new turn to the criticism 
 of the Greek Testament, and laid the foundation, on 
 which later editors have built. That mistakes and 
 T oversights are discoverable in the work detracts not 
 from its general merits. No work is without them : 
 and least of all can consummate accuracy be expected, 
 where so many causes of error never ceased to ope- 
 rate. Such are Wetstein's merits as a m^zV. As 
 
 an interpreter of the New Testament, in his explana- 
 tory Notes, he shews himself in a different and less fa- 
 vourable light : but this subject must be deferred till 
 we come to the second Branch of Theology. 
 
 The emendations, which Wetstein had proposed^ 
 were adopted by Mr, Bowyer, a learned printer in 
 
S* LECTURE VII. 
 
 London, who inserted them in the text of his edition 
 pubhshed eleven years afterwards. And as these 
 emendations were founded on the authority of Greek 
 manuscripts, Mr. Bowyer gave to his edition the fol- 
 lowing title, Novum Testamentum Gracu7n, ad Jidem 
 Grcecorum solum Codicum Manuscriptorum nunc pru 
 mum expressum, adstipulante Johanne Jacobo JVetste- 
 nioy ^c. 
 
 The history of our second period has now been 
 conducted to the year 1763. The remaining and 
 most important part of it will be given in the next 
 Lecture. 
 
LE CTURE VIII. 
 
 The preceding Lecture having concluded with 
 the account of Wctstein's emendations adopted in 
 Bowyer's edition, our attention must now be directed 
 to the literary labours of Dr. Griesbach, Professor of 
 Divinity at Jena in Saxony. The first display of his 
 critical ability was made in a short treatise on the 
 manuscripts of the four Gospels, which were used by 
 Origen, entitled, De Codicibus quatuor Evangeliorum 
 OrigenianiSj published in 1771 at Halle in Saxony, 
 where Griesbach had studied, and where he afterwards 
 published his editions of the Greek Testament. 
 
 In 1774 he published a Synopsis, or Harmony of 
 the three first Gospels, with an amended text, and a 
 selection of various readings ; to which were added, 
 likewise with an amended text and a selection of read- 
 ings, the Gospel of St. John, and the Acts of the Apos- 
 tles. In the year following he published in the same 
 manner, the Epistles and the Apocalypse. And, as 
 the Synopsis, though in itself a very useful work, and 
 deservedly re-pubUshed, yet formed a contrast with 
 the other books of the New Testament, he printed in 
 
36 . LECTURE Vm. . 
 
 1777 the three first Gospels entire. Such were the 
 component parts of wliat is called Griesbach's first 
 editic of the Greek Testament, of which it was ne- 
 cessary to give a short account, though our examina- 
 tion of Griesbach's merits as a critical editor, must be 
 reserved for the description of his second and more 
 important edition. 
 
 It may be useful however to observe that .Gries- 
 bach's object was not to supersede tlie edition of 
 Wetstein, which in many respects retains its original 
 value. But as the purchase of two folio volumes, 
 which were daily growing scarcer and dearer, was im- 
 practicable for students in general, who yet ought to 
 be provided with soi'ne means of information on the 
 existing state of the Greek text, he determined ibr 
 that purpose to prepare a portable edition, which might 
 suit the convenieTice of every reader. In the critical 
 apparatus of such an edition could be expected only a 
 selection of the most important readings, and a parties 
 ular citation only of the (?,^z<?/'authorities. It was suf- 
 ficient that the choice was made with judgment. Both 
 the readings and the authorities were selected from 
 Wetstein's edition : but they were revised and aug- 
 mented by subsequent collations, of which the princi- 
 pal were supplied l:y Griesbach himself. And as the 
 notion, that the Elzevir text required no amendment, 
 had gradually subsided since the editions of Bengeli- 
 us, Wetstein, and Bowyer, the selection of various 
 readings, and the authorities, on which they were 
 founded, were applied b}' Grics')ach to tiie emenda- 
 tion of the text. With w hat success the application 
 
LECTURE VIII. 37 
 
 has been made, we shall consid-. r hereafter, when we 
 come to the second edition, of which the first volume 
 was printed after an interval of twentt/y and the second 
 after an interval of thirty years. 
 
 In the mean time the stock of critical materials 
 was very considerably augmented by the editions of 
 Matthaei, Alter, and Birch, of which it is the more 
 necessary to give some account, as the materials, 
 which they provided, were all transferred into Gries- 
 bach's second edition. 
 
 But before we proceed to the description of their 
 editions, the order of time requires us at least to no- 
 tice an edition of the Greek Testament, which, though 
 it did not furnish any new materials, contained a new 
 revision of the text, and is therefore entitled to a place 
 in the present history. I mean the edition of Dr. Har- 
 wood, of which the first volume was published in 1776, 
 the second in 1784. Now this learned editor, instead of 
 applying, like Wetstein, Bowyer, and Griesbach, the 
 ^t^/io/e of the critical apparatus already provided, se- 
 lected the Codex Bezse as his chief authority in the 
 Gospels and the Acts, and the Codex Claromontanus 
 in St. Paul's Epistles. But no single manuscript, 
 however ancient or respectable, can determine the 
 question, whether a reading be genuine : for this de- 
 termination must be made by the comparative evidence 
 of all our authorities. Dr. Harwood's revision there- 
 fore is of little or no value. 
 
 The edition of the Greek Testament, published 
 by Matthai, who was Professor, first at Moscow, and 
 afterwards at Wittenberg, was printed at Riga, in 
 
28 LECTURE VIII. 
 
 twelve octavo volumes, at different times between 
 1782 and 1788. This very learned editor, who was 
 educated at Leipzig under the celebrated John Au- 
 gustus Ernesti, commenced his work under various 
 disadvantages, which had material influence on his 
 formation of the Greek text. When invited from 
 Leipzig to Moscow by the Empress Catharine, he had 
 not directed his attention to the peculiar department 
 of sacred criticism, and was therefore unacquainted 
 with the progress, which had been made in this branch 
 of learning. And when the numerous manuscripts of 
 the Greek Testament, which he found at Moscow, 
 especially in the library of the Synod, suggested the 
 thought of publishing a new edition, he had no longer 
 access to the works, which might have furnished the 
 necessary knowledge. Neither the edition of Wet- 
 stein, nor even that of Mill could be procured in his 
 new situation : and the only collection of various 
 readings supplied there by any former editor, was that 
 of Bishop Fell, as reprinted in Gregory's edition. 
 When he attempted therefore emendations in the re- 
 ceived text, his emendations were chiefly founded on 
 the authority of the manuscripts, which he himself 
 collated at Moscow. 
 
 Now the Russian Church being a daughter of the 
 Greek Church, the Moscow manuscripts were of 
 course collected from Constantinople, and other parts 
 of the Greek empire. They belong therefore to that 
 particular class, which modern critics have called the 
 Byzantine edition, and which cannot be entitled to the 
 exclusive privilege of ascertaining what is genuine or 
 
LECTURE Vm. 29 
 
 spurious. The Greek Fathers who lived at Alexan- 
 dria, the Greek manuscripts which accord with their 
 quotations, and those ancient versions which harmo- 
 nize with both, have at least an equal claim to our at- 
 tention. Nor ought we to decide before we have 
 heard the evidence of a thi7'd class of manuscripts, 
 containing the Greek text accompanied with the an- 
 cient Latin version. The application therefore of the 
 Moscow manuscripts a/owe, after Mill and Wetstein 
 had supplied such a fund of materials derived from 
 other sources, was an undertaking both injudicious 
 and useless. It is true, that when Matthsei collected 
 his own materials, he had not access to those of Mill 
 or Wetstein : yet he knew at least of their existence^ 
 and ought not to have amended without them. But 
 having done so, and having thus incurred the censure 
 of men more experienced in sacred criticism, espe- 
 cially of Michaelis and Griesbach, he resolved to de- 
 fend himself, by vilifying the sources, from which, 
 when he began to publish, it was not in his power to 
 draw. To the class of manuscripts, to which the Co- 
 dex Bezse, the Codex Claromontonus, and others of 
 high antiquity belong, he gave in his Preface to St. 
 John's Gospel the appellation of editio scurrilis: nor 
 are softer epithets applied by him to the critics, who 
 ventured to defend such manuscripts. The antipathy, 
 which he thus acquired, deterred him, even after his 
 return to German}^, which was before the publication 
 of the four last-pri.nted volumes, from making that use 
 of Wetstein's edition, which it was then in his power 
 
 to do, and which he probably would have done, if he 
 5 
 
30 LECTURE Vm. 
 
 had possessed it at the commencement of his labours. 
 It is much to be lamented, that so distinguished a 
 scholar should have been led, either by necessity or 
 by choice, to make so partial an application of critical 
 materials. Whatever opinion be formed of the rela- 
 tive value attached to the different classes of Greek 
 manuscripts, whether the opinion of Michaelis and 
 Griesbach on the ojte hand, or of Matthaei on the oth- 
 er hand be the true one, the fact, that Matthaei under- 
 took a revision of the Greek text on the authority of 
 one set of manuscripts, must remain undisputed. And 
 since no impartial judge can admit, that the genuine 
 text of the Greek l^estament may be established, as 
 well by applying only a part of our materials, as by a 
 judicious employment of the whole, the edition of 
 Matthzei is only so far of importance, as it furnishes 
 new materials for future uses ; materials indeed, which 
 are accompanied with much useful information, and 
 many learned remarks. 
 
 About the same period, namely in 1786 and 1787, 
 Professor Alter at Vienna published an edition of the 
 Greek Testament in two thick octavos. The text of 
 this edition is neither the common text, nor a revision 
 of it, but a mere copy from a single manuscript, and 
 that not a very ancient one, in the Imperial Library at 
 Vienna. The various readings, which are not ar- 
 ranged as in other editions, but are printed in separate 
 parcels as first made by the collator, are likewise de- 
 rived from Greek manuscripts in the Imperial Libra- 
 ry. And the whole collation was augmented by ex- 
 tracts from the Coptic, the Slavonian, and the Latin 
 
LECTURE vni. 31 
 
 versions, which are also printed in the same indi (jest- 
 ed manner, as the Greek readings. Alter's edition 
 therefore contains mere materials for future uses. 
 
 While Matthcei was employed at Moscow and 
 Alter at Vienna, Professors Birch and Alder were en- 
 gaged by the late King of Denmark to travel into It- 
 aly, and Professors Moldenhawer and Tychsen to 
 travel into Spain, in search of further materials for 
 the criticism of the Greek Testament. For this pur- 
 pose they examined the principal libraries in Venice, 
 Florence, Bologna, and Rome, with the library of the 
 Escurial in Spain. The produce of their researches, 
 as far as relates to the four Gospels, was published by 
 Professor Birch at Copenhagen in 1788, in a quarto 
 volume, designed for the first volume of an edition of 
 the Greek Testament : and in the Prolegomena to 
 this volume was given a detailed account of the col- 
 lated manuscripts. In the text of this edition no al- 
 terations were made. It contains therefore only mar 
 teriah for emendation : and if these materials had been 
 printed by themselves, the same benefit would have 
 accrued to the public at a smaller expense. Indeed 
 the various readings to the other books of the New 
 Testament ivere printed by themselves, though not 
 before 1798, the publication of the second volume of 
 the Greek Testament, to which the editor proposed to 
 annex them, having been prevented by the fire at Co- 
 penhagen, which destroyed the royal printing-office. 
 Now these extracts, with those printed in the former 
 volume, contain some very important additions to our 
 stock of critical materials. A complete collation is 
 
^ LECTURE Vm. 
 
 given of that distinguished manuscript, which is 
 known by the name of the Codex Vaticanus, and 
 which till that time, namely in the New Testament, 
 had been only partially examined. Another very im- 
 portant addition consisted in the extracts from a Syr- 
 iac version, written in a peculiar dialect, which Adler, 
 who collated it at Rome, calls the dialect of Jeru- 
 salem. This ancient version, which Adlcr has mi- 
 nutely described in his Versiones Syriac^, published 
 at Copenhagen in 1789, is chiefly remarkable for its 
 agreement with our Codex Bezas. Indeed there are 
 eleven readings, hitherto thought peculiar to this man- 
 uscript, which are all found in that ancient version. 
 And as the manuscrij)t, to which it has the nearest 
 affinity after the Codex Bezae, is the Codex Vatica- 
 nus, its critical value is decided. 
 
 In addition to the new sources, which were open- 
 ed in the interval between Griesbach's first and second 
 edition, must be noticed some publications, which 
 contributed to augment or improve the knowledge aU 
 ready acquired. Thus the Philoxenian version, which 
 Wetstein had imperfectly collated in manuscript, be- 
 ing printed by Dr. White at Oxford in 1778 (namely 
 the four Gospels, for the other books were deferred 
 more than twenty years,) enabled Griesbach to cor- 
 rect various mistakes in the former collation, and 
 make to it considerable additions. Similar advanta- 
 ges were derived from the publication of some ancient 
 Greek manuscripts, of the Codex Alexandrinus by 
 Woide in London in 1786, of the Codex Boerneria- 
 nus by Matthsei at Meissen in 1791, and of the Co- 
 dex Bezas by Dr. Kipling at Cambridge in 1793. 
 
LECTURE VIII. 33 
 
 But after all the materials collected for the purpose 
 of obtaining a correct edition of the Greek Testament, 
 materials for which all the known libraries in Europe 
 had been searched, and which it had employed nearly 
 three centuries to obtain, there was still wanted an ed- 
 itor of sufficient learning, acuteness, industry, and im- 
 partiality in the weighing of evidence, to apply those 
 materials to their proper object. Dr. Griesbach, by 
 his first edition of the Greek Testament, had already 
 afforded convincing proofs of his critical ability : and 
 hence the learned in general, especially in his own 
 country, regarded him as the person, who was best 
 qualified to undertake this new revision of the Greek 
 text. Indeed the subject had formed the business of 
 his life. Like Wetstein, when he had finished his ac- 
 ademical studies, he travelled into France and Eng- 
 land, for the purpose of collating manuscripts of the 
 New Testament. But as the stock of materials was 
 then very considerably larger, than when Wetstein 
 commenced his literary labours, it was not so much 
 his object to increase^ as to revise^ the apparatus al- 
 ready provided. For this purpose he re-examined 
 the most ancient manuscripts, wherever doubts might 
 be entertained, and it was important to ascertain the 
 truth. The peculiar readings, which distinguish one 
 class of manuscripts from another, and are the basis 
 on which that classification is formed, were likewise 
 objects of particular attention. But he in general dis- 
 regarded the juass of readings, which are common to 
 most manuscripts, as serving rather to encumber, than 
 to improve our critical apparatus.. At the same time, 
 
S4. LECTURE VIIL 
 
 whenever uncoUated manuscripts presented them- 
 selves to his notice, he neglected not to extract what 
 was worthy of attention. The fruits of his researches, 
 with his remarks on the examined manuscripts, he 
 published in two octavo volumes printed at Halle in 
 1785 and 1793 under the following title : Symbolce 
 entices^ ad supplendas et corrigendas variarum A'uvi 
 Testamenti lect'ionum collectiones : accedit multorum 
 J\''ovi Testamenti codicum Gr^corum descnptio et exa- 
 vien. This work contains tlie principles, on which 
 Gricsbach has founded his critical system ; and con- 
 sequently should be studied by every man, who at- 
 tempts to form an estimate of his critical merits. 
 
 As the quotations from the Greek Testament, 
 which are scattered in the writings of the most ancient 
 Greek Fathers, are of great importance in ascertaining 
 the genuineness of disputed passages, he undertook a 
 new and complete collation of the works of Origen, 
 which he also published in his Symbolse critical, ac- 
 companied with the quotations of Clement of Alex- 
 andria, which differed from the common text. 
 
 Further, as the testimony of the most ancient Lat- 
 in versions, such as those, which have been published 
 by Blanchini and Sabatier, are, in many cases, impor- 
 tant to the Greek text, he undertook a new collation 
 of those ancient versions. Of the Sahidic version, or 
 the version in the dialect of the Upper Egypt, he 
 quoted the readings, which had been furnished by 
 Woide, Georgi, and Miinter. Of the Armenian ver- 
 sion a new collation was made for him by Bredenkamp 
 of Bremen : and the Slavonian version was collated 
 
LECTURE VIII. 3S 
 
 for him, both in manuscript, and in print, by Dobrow- 
 sky at Prague. Nor must we neglect to mention the 
 fragments of two very ancient Greek manuscripts, 
 preserved at Wolfenbiittel, which Knittel had pub- 
 lished with his Fragment of the Gothic version. 
 
 Such were the materials, which Griesbach appli- 
 ed to his second and last edition of the Greek Testa- 
 ment, in addition to the apparatus, which was already 
 contained in Wetstein's edition, and which was sub- 
 sequently augmented by the editions described in this 
 Lecture. The Jirst volume of Griesbach's second 
 edition, containing the four Gospels, was published in 
 1796 ; the second volume, containing the other books 
 of the New Testament, was published in 1806. The 
 place of publication was Halle, the same bookseller, 
 who had purchased the copy-right of the first edition, 
 having purchased also the copy-right of the second. 
 And as a part of the impression, (which was taken off 
 on a better paper sent by his Grace the Duke of Graf- 
 ton) was destined for sale in England, the name of 
 London as well as of Halle was put on the title-page. 
 But, what is more important than either the paper or 
 the place of publication^ it was printed at Jena under 
 Griesbach's immediate inspection. 
 
 There is a question however in reserve, of still 
 greater consequence than the extent or the value even 
 of the critical materials ; and that is, Have those ma- 
 terials been properly applied to the emendation of the 
 Greek text ? That they were conscientiously applied, 
 is admitted by every man, to whom Griesbach's char- 
 acter is known. His scrupulous integrity, as a man 
 
86 LECTURE VIII. 
 
 and as a scliolar, is sufficient £i;uarantee for the honest 
 appUcation of them. Nor have his contemporaries 
 ever questioned either his learnin,^, or his judgment, 
 if we except Matthcei, who wrote under the influence 
 of personal animosity. Of the emendations, which he 
 has introduced, there are many, which had received 
 the approbation even of the early editors, Erasmus 
 and Beza ; others had been approved by Mill ; oth- 
 ers again by Bengelius ; and most of them by Wet- 
 stehi and Bowyer. That on the other hand, there are 
 many, on which the opinion of Griesbach differs even 
 from that of Wetstein, may be explained from the op- 
 eration of three causes, which it is here necessary to 
 assign. 
 
 In the first place, the augmentation of the critical 
 apparatus since the death of Wetstein, and the conse- 
 quent alteration in the relative evidence for different 
 readings to the same passage, must in some cases have 
 made an alteration in their respective claims to au- 
 thenticity. Another difference was occasioned by the 
 circumstance of Wetstein's entertaining a suspicion, 
 that the Codex Alexandrinus, the Codex Bezas, and 
 some other very ancient manuscripts contained a 
 Greek text, which had been altered from the Latin 
 version. That this suspicion is ungrounded, has 
 been clearly shewn, both by Griesbach in his Sym- 
 bolse criticse, and by Woide in his Preface to the Co- 
 dex Alexandrinus. And it is manifest, that, when 
 we are weighing our authorities, our decisions will be 
 greatly affected by the rejection on the one hand, or 
 by the admission on the other, of such manuscripts, 
 
LECTURE VIII. 37 
 
 as those, which I have just mentioned. But the third 
 cause was more powerful in its operation, than either 
 of the preceding : and as this third cause forms the 
 basis of Griesbach's critical system, it must be more 
 fully explained. 
 
 In determining the quantum of evidence for or 
 against a particular reading, the authorities used to be 
 rather numbered than -weighed; so that, if a reading 
 were contained in thirty manuscripts out oi fifty ^ the 
 scale was supposed to turn in its favour. It is true, 
 that under similar circumstances, more importance 
 was attached to ancient^ than to modern manuscripts : 
 but the modes of estimating that importance were so 
 various, that the same premises not unfrequently led 
 to different conclusions. Nor was due attention paid 
 to that necessary distinction between the antiquity of 
 a manuscript^ and the antiquity of its text, Wetstein, 
 in his Animadversiones et Cautiones^ annexed to his 
 Greek Testament, went a great way toward the reduc- 
 ing of sacred criticism to a regular system. But 
 much still remained to be performed, for which we 
 are indebted to Semler, who laid the foundation, and 
 to Griesbach, who raised the superstructure. 
 
 From a comparison and combination of the read- 
 ings exhibited by Wetstein it was discovered, that 
 certain characteristic readings distinguished certaia 
 manuscripts, fathers, and versions ; that other charac- 
 teristic readings pointed out a second class ; others 
 again a third class of manuscripts, fathers, and ver- 
 sions. It was further discovered, that this three-fold 
 
 classification had an additional foundation in respect to 
 6 
 
33 LECTURE VIU. 
 
 the placeSy where the manuscripts were written, the fa- 
 thers lived, and the versions were made. Hence the 
 three classes received the names of Recensio Alexan- 
 drina, Recensio Constantinopolitana or Byzantina, and 
 Recensio Occidentalis : not that any formal revision of 
 the Greek text is known, either from history or from 
 tradition, to have taken place, at Alexandria, at Con- 
 stantinople, or in Western Europe. But whatever 
 causesy unknown to us, may have operated in produc- 
 ing the effect, there is no doubt of its existence : there 
 is no doubt that those characteristic readings are real- 
 ly contained in the manuscripts, fathers, and versions, 
 and that the classification, which is founded on them, 
 is founded therefore on truth. Hence arises a new 
 criterion of authenticity. A majority of individual 
 manuscripts can no longer be considered, either as 
 decisive, or even as very important on this subject. 
 A majority of the Recensions^ or as we should say of 
 printed books, a majority of the Editions ^ is alone to 
 be regarded, as far as number is concerned. The tes- 
 timony of the individual manuscripts is applied to as- 
 certain what is the reading of this or that Edition : 
 but the question oi fact being once determined, it 
 ceases to be of consequence what number of manu- 
 scripts may be produced, either of the first, or of the 
 second, or of the third of those Editions. For in- 
 stance, when we have once ascertained that any par- 
 ticular reading belongs both to the Alexandrine and 
 to the Western, but not to the Byzantine Edition, the 
 authority of that reading will not be VvTakened, even 
 though it should appear on counting the manuscripts. 
 
LECTURE Vm. S5 
 
 that the number of those, which range themselves un- 
 der the B}^zantine Edition, is ten times greater, than 
 that of the other two united. We must argue in this 
 case, as we argue in the comparison of printed edi- 
 tions, where we simply inquire, what are the readings 
 of this or that edition, and never think of asking for 
 the purpose of criticism^ how many copies were struck 
 off at the office, where it was printed. The relative 
 value of those three editions must likewise be consid- 
 ered. For if any one of them, the Byzantine for in- 
 stance, to which most of the modern manuscripts be- 
 long, carries with it less weight than either of the oth- 
 er two, a proportional deduction must be made, 
 whether it be thrown into the scale by itself, or in 
 
 conjunction with another. Such are the outlines oi 
 
 that system, which Griesbach has applied to the criti- 
 cism of the Greek Testament. The subject is so 
 new, and at the same time so intricate, that it is hard- 
 ly possible to give more than a general notion of it in 
 a public Lecture. It requires long and laborious in- 
 vestigation : but it is an investigation, which every 
 biblical scholar will readily undertake, when he con- 
 siders, that it involves the question, What is the gen- 
 uine text of the New Testament ? 
 
 As the classification of manuscripts, fathers, and 
 versions, with all its concomitant circumstances, sup- 
 plies us widi the rules of external evidence, an exam- 
 ination of the causes which produced the variations of 
 the text, suggests the laws or canons of internal evi- 
 dence. Thus a knowledge of the fact, that transcrib- 
 ers have in general been more inclined to add than to 
 
40 LECTURE VIII. 
 
 oinit, suggests the canon, that, where different read- 
 ings are of unequal lengths, the shorter is probably the 
 genuine. Again a knowledge of the fact, that tran- 
 scribers were disposed to exchange the Hebraisms of 
 the New Testament for purer Greek, suggests the ca- 
 non, that, when of two readings the one is oriental^ 
 the other classical, the former is the genuine reading, 
 the latter a correction. Further, as it is more proba- 
 ble that an easy reading should be substituted for a 
 hard one, than the contrary, the latter, as far as inter- 
 nal evidence goes, deserves the preference. And 
 whether alterations be ascribed to design or to acci- 
 dent, we must consider, when we meet with several 
 readings to the same passage, which of them might 
 most easily have given rise to the others. For, if by 
 supposing that one in particular is the ancient reading, 
 we can account for the origin of the rest, and the same 
 supposition, when applied to any other, affords not a 
 similar solution, the reading, to which it does apph% 
 acquires from this circumstance an argument in its fa- 
 vour. 
 
 But neither external nor internal evidence can be 
 estimated alone. They must be weighed together: 
 and we must be careful to ascertain the momentum, 
 which belongs to each. Sometimes the external evi- 
 dence is at variance with the internal: at other times 
 the sources of external evidence are at variance among 
 themselves : and in all these cases very extensive 
 knowledge, and the most strict impartiality are neces- 
 sary for the adjustment of their respective claims. 
 
 That Griesbach has fulfilled the duties, which in 
 
LECTURE VIII. 41 
 
 these respects he owed to the pubhc, that his dili- 
 gence was unremitted, that his caution was extreme, 
 that his erudition was profound, and that his judg- 
 ment was directed by a sole regard to the evidence 
 before him, will in general be allowed by those, who 
 have studied his edition, and are able to appreciate its 
 merits. That his decisions are always correct, that 
 in all cases the evidence is so nicely weighed as to 
 produce unerring results, that weariness of mind un- 
 der painful investigation has in no instance occasioned 
 au important oversight, that prejudice or partiality has 
 710 where influenced his general regard for critical jus- 
 tice, would be affirmations, which can hardly apply 
 to any editor, however good or great. But, if at any 
 time he has erred, he has at the same time enabled 
 those, who are competent judges, to decide for them- 
 selves, by stating the contending evidence with clear- 
 ness and precision. Emendations founded on con- 
 jecture, however ingenious, he has introduced nof in 
 a single instance : they arc all founded on quoted au- 
 thority. Our attention is even solicited and directed 
 to that authority, the adopted readings being always 
 printed in smaller characters than the rest of the text, 
 and with reference to the rejected readings, which are 
 printed in the inner margin in the same letters with 
 the text, while both of them refer to the respective 
 evidence, which is produced below. If readings are 
 added, where none existed before, or are withdrawn 
 without substitution, the changes are marked with 
 equal clearness, and are equally supported by critical 
 authority. When the evidence is not sufficiently de- 
 
4i3 LECTURE VIII. 
 
 cisive to warrant an alteration in the text, the readings 
 worthy of notice are placed in the inner margin, with 
 different marks expressive of their different claims. 
 
 Whoever proposes to use this edition (and it 
 should be used by every biblical scholar) ^vill find in 
 the Prolegomena a more comj^lete description, both 
 of the critical apparatus, and of the mode of applying 
 it. I have been already so diffuse on this subject, 
 that it is time to close it. But let not the attention, 
 which has been given to it, be given in vain. The 
 edition thus minutely described is the most important, 
 which has been hitherto published : nor is it proba- 
 \ ble, that during the lives even of the youngest of my 
 hearers any other critical edition should supersede it. 
 From the exertions, which have been already made, it 
 is not likely that new materials of much importance 
 should be brought to light : and even if there should, 
 it is still less likely, that another such editor should be 
 found to arrange and digest them. 
 
 Having thus finished the history of the Greek text, 
 I shall describe in the next Lecture the criticism of 
 the Greek Testament, according to its several depart- 
 tnents ; and at the same time shall enumerate the au- 
 thors, which respectively belong to them. 
 
 ■5 / 
 
LECTURE IX. 
 
 In the account of the plan, which I proposed to 
 observe throughout the course of these Lectures, they 
 were represented as a Book of directions, from 
 which in the first place might be learned the order 
 and connexion^ in which Theology should be studied, 
 and in the next place might be derived a knowledge 
 of the authors J who have best explained the several 
 subjects. With this knowledge of authors it was 
 further proposed to mnite " a knowledge of the ad- 
 vancement or decline of theological learning, a knowl- 
 edge of how much or how little has been performed 
 in the different ages of Christianty." 
 
 Agreeably to this plan I have hitherto treated the 
 criticism of the Bible, which was shewn in the sec- 
 ond Lecture to be the primary branch of Theology. 
 During the early and the middle ages, it was describ- 
 ed in the order of time, as critics and criticism suc- 
 cessively presented themselves to our view. But as 
 authors have multiplied since the invention of print- 
 ing beyond all comparison with former periods, per- 
 spicuity required a separation of the subjects in the de- 
 
44 LECTURE IX. 
 
 scription of the three last centuries, though the order 
 of time has still been preserved. The criticism of 
 the Greek Testament^ which demands our peculiar at- 
 tention, was selected as the first object : and the his- 
 tory of the Greek text from the Complutensian edi- 
 tion in 1514 to that of Griesbach which was finished 
 in 1806, has employed more than three Lectures. But 
 though the labour and the researches necessary for 
 this description have been no less extensive, than for 
 a dissertation adorned with all the pomp of learning, it 
 has been my chief endeavour to give as plain and as 
 popular an account, as the subject would admit. I 
 have rather studied to excite a taste for biblical criti- 
 cism, by presenting it in an easy and acceptable form, 
 than to assume the garb of erudition, which, by mag- 
 nifying the difficulties of the task, might have deter- 
 red my hearers from engaging in it. Nor did the 
 plan, which Ir proposed to adopt generally in these 
 Lectures, require more than an introductory narrative, 
 though perhaps in the present instance the execution 
 of the plan has in some measure exceeded the origin- 
 al design. Whether more or less has been performed, 
 than was expected, it is necessary in the present Lec- 
 ture to fulfil another part of the general plan, and to 
 give some account of the authors, who have illustrat- 
 ed the criticism of the Greek Testament, according 
 to its several departments. 
 
 But be'fore we enter on the proposed enumeration, 
 we must guard against the difficulties and contradic- 
 tions, arising from the diffiirent lights, in which bibli- 
 cal criticism has been viewed by different writers. It 
 
LECTURE IX. 4^ 
 
 was observed in the second Lecture, that the opera- 
 tions of criticism and the operations of interpretation 
 are so distinct, that they ought not, however sub-di- 
 vided, to be placed in the same class. But this dis- 
 tinction is so far from being generally observed, that 
 mani/ if not 7?iost English writers, use the term " bib- 
 lical criticism" in so extensive a sense as to include 
 also biblical interpretation y especially when the inter- 
 pretation relates to the original languages of the Bible. 
 It is true, that no inconvenience will arise from this 
 application of the term, if care be taken to keep sepa- 
 rate the subjects, which it is thus made to comprehend. 
 But though some writers, who use the term in this 
 extensive sense, (for instance Dr. Gerard) have made 
 the proper distinctions, there are other writers, who, in 
 consequence of their using one name for different 
 things, have treated them indiscriminately, and thence 
 have perplexed both themselves and their readers. To 
 prevent such confusion I have in these Lectures inva- 
 riably used the term " biblical or sacred criticism" in 
 its proper and confined sense, namely as the sum and 
 substance of that knowledge, which enables us to as- 
 certain the genuineness of a disputed text. That this 
 is the sense in which the term is here used, appears 
 not only from the explanation of it in the second Lec- 
 ture, but from the constant application of it in all the 
 subsequent Lectures. 
 
 The operations of criticism having been thus dis- 
 tinguished from those of interpretation, we may now 
 deduce an additional argument in favour of that pri- 
 ority, which has been given to the study of the for- 
 7 
 
46 LECTURE IX. 
 
 mer. Throughout the description of this branch of 
 Theology, no position has been taken for granted out 
 of any other branch. But when we enter on the sec- 
 ond branch, or the interpretation of the Bil^le, we shall 
 be frequently obliged, unless our inquiries are super- 
 ficial, to refer to the criticism of the Bible. We shall 
 frequently be obliged to determine the true reading of 
 a passage, before we can determine its true meaning* 
 *' Inter pretationem veram frustra quserimus, ubi de 
 vera lectione dubitamus." This very just observa- 
 tion is made by Dr. Kennicott in his Dissertatio gen- 
 eralis, who immediately adds, " Statuatur vera lectioy 
 et banc presse sequatur ve7'a interpretation'''* Since 
 then an 'interpreter of the Greek Testament should be 
 previously acquainted with the criticism of the Greek 
 Testament, and so much knowledge in respect to the 
 criticism of the Greek Testament, as is necessary to 
 form a tolerable judgment of the text, may be acquir- 
 ed even before we enter on the business of interpreta- 
 tion, we can no longer hesitate on the question, where 
 our theological studies should begin. 
 
 Let it not be objected, that the laws of criticism 
 can hardly be understood, and much less applied to a 
 passage of the Greek Testament, by those, who are 
 not already able to construe it. These Lectures are 
 addressed in particular to an audience, where it may 
 be safely pre supposed, that every one is already able 
 to construe the Greek Testament, able therefore, both 
 to comprehend the nature of the various readings, and 
 to understand what is meant, when he is informed, 
 that such and such readings are supported by such 
 
LECTURE IX. 47 
 
 and such authorities. But to construe and to interpret 
 a passage are two distinct things. To the latter 
 something more is wanted, than a readiness at the 
 former : otherwise the English translation, which is 
 Greek construed into English, would be sufficient 
 without otiier assistance. It is true, that the further 
 we advance in the interpretation of the Bible, the bet- 
 ter we shall be qualified to criticise on the Bible. But 
 does it follow, that, because the highest excellence in 
 criticism is not to be obtained till we are conversant 
 with another branch of Theology, we must therefore 
 defer the study of its principles^ till that other branch 
 is completed ? Has it not been shewn, that without 
 criticism this other branch never can be completed ? 
 We must distinguish between the acquirement of 
 knowledge, and that readiness, that certainty in the 
 application of it, which can only be obtained by long 
 experience. 
 
 It is surely desirable even at the commencement of 
 our theological studies to be provided with the best 
 critical edition of the Greek restament, as being the 
 edition most likely to contain the genuine text. And 
 as this edition not unfrequently differs from the com- 
 mon text, which we ought in no case to reject without 
 reason, it is our primary duty to obtain as much in- 
 formation, as may enable us to form some judgment 
 on the question, whether there is reason or not for the 
 proposed alterations. For this purpose it is not re- 
 quired, that we should undertake the drudgery of col- 
 lating either manuscripts, fathers, or versions. This 
 labour of criticism is performed to our hands: we 
 
4S LECTURE IX. 
 
 have only to learn what others have already done^ and 
 to understand what has been done, that wc may know 
 whether it is well or ill done. The more convejiient 
 and expeditious mode of studying theology is certain- 
 ly to take for granted on the bare assertion of those, 
 who are supposed acquainted with the subject, that 
 such and such readings are genuine, and that such 
 and such readings are spurious. It is likewise a more 
 convenient and expeditious mode of studying mathe- 
 matics^ when a pupil confiding in the assertion of his 
 tutor, that the properties ascribed to the coTiic sections 
 are founded in truth, proceeds to Newton's Principia, 
 without learning to demonstrate those properties. And 
 this confidence, this deference to the judgment of oth- 
 ers is not uncommon, in Mathematics as well as in 
 Divinity. But neither in the one case, nor in the oth- 
 er, will this confidence be attended with conviction. 
 Now the avowed object of these Lectures is to prodtwe 
 conviction. If it only be desired, in the shortest pos- 
 sible time to learn enough of Divinity to pass an ex- 
 amination, the well-known publication of Dr. Arthur 
 St. George is much better fitted for- the purpose. 
 
 Even that portion of sacred criticism, which in its 
 application belongs to the third branch of Divinity, or 
 the authenticity of the Bible, is in its principles so 
 connected with verbal criticism, that the basis, on 
 which they rest, is nearly one and the same. From 
 the criticism of words we ascend to the criticism of 
 sentences, from the criticism of sentences to the criti- 
 cism of chapters, and from the criticism of chapters to 
 the criticism of whole books. To illustrate this as- 
 
LECTURE IX. 49 
 
 cent, an example of each will be sufficient. If we 
 turn to Griesbach's Greek Testament at Matth. 
 xxviii. 19. we shall find the passage thus worded : 
 HopivhvTsg fJt.ct.9't^Tivarcx.rz 'xccvrcc roc iQv/i (BocTTTi^ovTsg 
 OLvrovi etg ro ovof^oc rov Hccr^og, kcci rov Ttov xoct too 
 ecytov Hvsvfjbctroc, where the whole difference from 
 the common text consists in the omission of the par- 
 ticle ovv. This omission is founded on the authority, 
 not only of many ancient Greek manuscripts, but of 
 the ancient Greek Fathers, Origen, Athanasius, Basil, 
 Chrysostom, and Cyril, who are expressly quoted for 
 this purpose. From the criticism of the particle ovv, 
 which is probably spurious, we ascend to the criti- 
 cism of the whole passage, which is undoubtedly gen- 
 uine. For if Origen, who was born in the century 
 after that in which St. Matthew wrote, found the 
 passage in his manuscript of the Gospels, with the 
 exception only of a particle, and the Greek Fathers of 
 the fourth centur}^ found it worded in the same man- 
 ner in their manuscripts, we have as strong a proof of 
 its authenticity, as can be given or required in works 
 of antiquity. This passage therefore, which includes 
 the three persons of the Trinity, rests on a very dif- 
 ferent foundation from that of the similar passage in 
 the fifth chapter of St. John's first Epistle, a passage, 
 which no ancient Greek manuscript contains, and 
 which no ancient Greek Father ever saw. 
 
 From the criticism of sentences we ascend to the 
 criticism of chapters. It is well known, that attempts 
 have been made to invalidate the testimony which the 
 two first chapters of St. Matthew's Gospel bear to the 
 
so LECTURE IX. 
 
 doctrine of the incarnation, by contending, that those 
 chapters were not original parts of Si. Matthew's 
 Gospel, but were prefixed to it by some other per- 
 son, at some later period. Now, if we turn to the 
 second volume of Griesbach's Symbolce criticee, 
 where he quotes the readings of the Greek Testament 
 from Clement of Alexandria and Origen, we shall find 
 a quotation from the Jirst chapter of St. Matthew's 
 Gospel, and a reference to the secondj made by Cel- 
 sus the Epicurean philosopher, which quotation and 
 reference are noted by Origen, who wrote in answer 
 to Celsus. " Hinc patet (says Griesbach very just- 
 ly) duo priora Matthaei capita Celso nota fuis^e." 
 Now if Celsus, who wrote his celebrated work against 
 the Christians in the time of Marcus Aurelius, and 
 consequently little more than an hundred years after 
 St. Matthew himself wrote, yet found the two first 
 chapters in his manuscript of St. Matthew's Gospel, 
 those chapters must either have been original parts of 
 St. Matthew's Gospel, or they must have been added 
 at a time so little antecedent to the age of Celsus, that 
 a writer so inquisitive, so sagacious, and at the same 
 time so inimical to Christianity, could not have failed 
 to detect the imposture. But in this case he would 
 not have quoted those chapters as parts of St. Mat- 
 thew's Gospel. Consequently the truth must lie in 
 the other part of the dilemma, namely that those chap- 
 ters are authentic. 
 
 From the criticism of chapters we may further as- 
 cend to the criticism of whole books. If we again 
 consult Griesbach's collection of readings from Clem- 
 
I 
 
 LECTURE IX. 5i 
 
 ent of Alexandria and Origen, we shall find that these 
 very ancient Fathers had not only manuscripts of the 
 Greek Testament, but manuscripts of the same Greek 
 Testament, which we possess at present ; not indeed 
 the same throughout in words, but the same in their 
 general contents, the same in the leading doctrines of 
 the Christian Faith. In this manner does the study 
 of sacred criticism contribute to the discovery of those 
 means, by which we gradually establish the truth of 
 Christianity. 
 
 After these preliminary observations, we may en- 
 ter on the enumeration of the authors, who have illus- 
 trated the criticism of the Greek Testament, accord- 
 ing to its several departments. 
 
 Of general and elementary treatises, there is none, 
 which is more to be recommended, either for perspi- 
 cuity or correctness, than the institutes of Biblical 
 criticism, published at Edinburgh in 1808, in one 
 volume octavo, by Dr. Gerard, Professor of Divinity 
 at Aberdeen. 
 
 A knowledge of the editions of the Greek Testa- 
 ment may be taken from Le Long's Bibliotheca sacra. 
 Le Long, who was one of the Fathers of the Oratory 
 at Paris, published his Jirst edition of this work at the 
 beginning of 1709 in two octavo volumes : and be- 
 fore the end of that year a new edition of it appeared 
 at Leipzig with additions by Dr. Boerner. In twelve 
 years from the publication of the first edition, Le 
 Long had further augmented his work by such an ac- 
 cession of materials, as to increase it to two folio vol- 
 umes, which were published at Paris in 1723, two 
 
m LECTURE IX. 
 
 years after the death of the author. The first volume 
 of this /olio edition contains an account of the then- 
 known manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible, with the 
 editions of it to the beginning of the eighteenth centu- 
 ry ; an account of the then-known manuscripts of the 
 Greek Testament, with the editions of it to the same 
 period ; an account of the oriental and other ancient 
 versions, both of the Old and New Testament ; and 
 lastly an account of the translations of the Bible into 
 the modern languages. Works of this description 
 arc of great utility to the biblical scholar : but new 
 editions of them, or at least suppleinents to them are 
 frequently wanted, to register the accessions, which 
 are continually made to the stock of biblical literature. 
 After an interval of more than fifty years. Dr. An- 
 drew Masch, Superintendent of the diocese of Star- 
 gard at New Strelitz, selected for publication those 
 parts of the Bibliotheca sacra, which relate to the 
 printed editions ; namely the editions of the Hebrew 
 Bible, of the Greek Testament, of the ancient ver- 
 sions, and of the modern Latin versions. In fact 
 those parts were made only the basis of a publication, 
 which may be considered rather as a new work^ than 
 as a new edition. It was published at Halle in six 
 quarto volumes, the first in 1778, the last, which con- 
 tains the chronological index, in 1790. All the edi- 
 tions of the Greek Testament, to the time of its pub- 
 lication, are enumerated in the first volume, and the 
 principal editions are described. This volume is the 
 standard book, whence subsequent writers have chief- 
 ly derived the accounts which they have given of the 
 
LECTURE IX. S9 
 
 editions of the Greek Testament : and it is composed 
 with so much care and accuracy, that we may in gen- 
 eral depend on it. But little or no information can 
 be derived from it in respect to the critical history of 
 the Greek text, though it is of great value in respect 
 to the external history of the editions. — In this res- 
 pect, the principal editions of the Greek Testament 
 are very well described in Dibdin's Introduction to 
 the Greek and Latin Classics. A neat and correct 
 account of some of the principal editions is likewise 
 given in Buder's Horae Biblicae. A short account of 
 the editions of the Greek Testament to the year 1790 
 is also given in the last edition of Fabricii Bibliotheca 
 Grseca, at the end of the fourth volume. A view, 
 though an imperfect one, of the principal editions of 
 the Greek Testament is annexed by Dr. Harwood to 
 his own edition. In the sixth volume of that very 
 useful publication, the Bibliographical Dictionary, is 
 a very copious catalogue of the editions of the Greek 
 Testament accompanied with instructive remarks. 
 Many other catalogues might be added ; but it will 
 be sufficient, if we close the account with the BibliO' 
 theca biblica serenissimi JVuertenbergensium DuciSf 
 olim Lorkianay published by Adler at Altona in 1787. 
 It is a catalogue of great merit, and great utility. 
 
 Of the manuscripts of the Greek Testament, as far 
 as they were known an hundred years ago, a descrip- 
 tion is given in the folio edition of the Bibliotheca sa- 
 cra. But the number of manuscripts, which have 
 been collected since that period, is so great, and our 
 knowledge of manuscripts in general has so increased, 
 8 
 
54 LECTURE IX. 
 
 that only a small part of the necessary information can 
 now be derived from that work : for the last edition 
 of the Bibliotheca sacra, as was before observed, con- 
 tains no account of manuscripts* To obtain a com- 
 plete knowledge of all the collated manuscripts of the 
 Greek Testament, we must consult the Prolegomena 
 or Prefaces to the editions of Mill, Wetstein, Matth^i, 
 Birch, and Griesbach, with Griesbach's Symbolae 
 criticse. Wetstein's Prolegomena have been pub- 
 lished separately in an octavo volume in 1764, at Halle, 
 by Dr. Semler, Professor of Divinity in that Uni- 
 versity, who accompanied the edition with many val- 
 uable notes. But there is no work, from which a 
 general knowledge of the manuscripts of the Greek 
 Testament can be derived in so easy a manner, as 
 from the Introduction of Michaelis, of which the sec- 
 ond volume contains a descriptive catalogue alphabet- 
 ically arranged. It would be tedious to enumerate 
 the accounts, which have been published of sijigle 
 manuscripts : nor can it be necessary at present, as 
 references to such publications may be seen under 
 their respective heads, in the descriptive catalogue just 
 mentioned, either in the author's text or in the trans- 
 lator's notes. But the description of the Codex 
 Alexandrinus, which is given by Woide in the Pref- 
 ace to his edition of it, so surpasses all other descrip- 
 tions, which have been given of single manuscripts, 
 that it merits particular notice. On this account it 
 was printed separately at Leipzig two years after- 
 wards, with notes by Spohn, under the title, Woidii 
 Notitia Codicis Alexandrini. 
 
LECTURE rX. $5 
 
 Of the ancient versions of the Greek Testament, 
 as fai- as relates to the printed editions of them, a very 
 full account is given in the second Part of Masch's 
 edition of the Bibliotheca sacra. But for a critical 
 knowledge of those ancient versions, we must have 
 recourse to the Introduction of Michaelis, where the 
 table of contents prefixed to the second volume will 
 immediately shew where each of them may be found. 
 Indeed the description, which IVlichaelis has given of 
 the ancient versions and of the manuscripts of the 
 Greek Testament, is that which constitutes the most 
 distinguished merit of his Introduction. I of course 
 mean the fourth and last edition ; for the Jirst edi- 
 tion, though still produced in catalogues and lists of 
 theological books, is in these respects of no value 
 whatever. 
 
 The quotations from the Greek Testament in the 
 works of ecclesiastical writers have been the subject 
 of long and serious controversy. While the Elzevir 
 text was considered as perfect, every deviation from 
 that text was consequently regarded as a deviation 
 from the truth. Whenever it was observed therefore, 
 that a Greek Father quoted the Greek Testament in 
 words, which were not precisely the same as the El- 
 zevir text, it was inferred that in those quotations 
 there was something wrong. And since it is not 
 probable, that the manuscripts used by the Greek Fa- 
 thers in the second, third, and fourth centuries, should 
 be less conformable than modem manuscripts with the 
 autographs of the sacred writers, the differences be- 
 tween those quotations and the Elzevir text were as- 
 
S6 LECTURE IX. 
 
 cribed to the carelessness of the Fathers, in quoting 
 from their manuscripts. But as it is no longer be- 
 lieved, that the common reading may always be de- 
 fended, the supposition, adopted to account for the 
 deviations in question, has lost its chief support. Ex- 
 amples of inaccuracy may indeed be discovered in ev- 
 ery writer, whether ancient or modern. But we are 
 only concerned with the general practice of the Fa- 
 thers : we only want to know, whether we may in 
 general, or upon the whole, conclude from their quo- 
 tations to what was contained in the manuscripts, 
 from which they quoted. When we meet with quo- 
 tations from our English Bible in the writings of 
 English Divines, we in general consider their quota- 
 tions as fair representations of our English text, 
 though examples of inaccuracy might be easily pro- 
 duced, arising either from their being incorrectly re- 
 memberedj or incorrectly transcribed. In like manner, 
 when we meet with quotations from the Greek Bible, 
 whether of the Old or New Testament, in the writ- 
 ings of the Greek Fathers, there appears to be no rea- 
 son for our refusing to consider those quotations as 
 fair representations of their respective copies of the 
 Greek text, unless particular circumstances in partic- 
 ular examples interfere to warrant our making an ex- 
 ception. We must likewise recollect, that the Greek 
 Fathers were frequently engaged in controversy, which 
 rendered accuracy in quotation peculiarly necessary : 
 for neglect on this point, which could not fail to be 
 detected, would immediately have put arms into the 
 hands of their adversaries. If Justin Martyr in his 
 
LECTURE IX. 37 
 
 Dialogue with Trypho, a work written to convince 
 the Jews that Jesus was tlie Messiah, had been care- 
 less in his quotations from the Greek Bible, the detec- 
 tion of their inaccuracy would have defeated the very 
 object he had in view. Again if Origen, in his An- 
 swer to Celsus, or Cyril of Alexandria, in his Reply 
 to Julian the Apostate, had been incorrect in their 
 quotations from the Greek Testament, what greater 
 triumph could the enemies of Christianity m thos6 
 ages have desired, than the exposure of such mis- 
 takes. With respect to Justin Martyr, I once had oc- 
 casion to collate his quotations from the Septuagint 
 with the text of the Codex Vaticanus. The result of 
 this collation, with observations on the subject, is 
 contained in a publication, which was printed seven 
 years ago at Cambridge. At present therefore I shall 
 only observe that Justin's quotations from the Septu- 
 agint were found to agree much more closely with 
 the Codex Vaticanus, than the Codex Vaticanus itself 
 agrees with another manuscript of the Septuagint, 
 which is next in importance to it, the Codex Alexan- 
 drinus. 
 
 No man has placed the subject of quotations from 
 the Greek Testament in so clear a light as Griesbach, 
 first in the treatise mentioned in the preceding Lec- 
 ture, De Codicibus quatuor Evangelwrun Origenianis ; 
 and secondly in his work entitled, Curce in historiam 
 textus Graci epistolarum Paulinarum^ published at 
 Halle in 1777. The Introduction of Michaelis may 
 likewise be consulted in the chapter appropriated to 
 this subject, though it is less excellent than the chap- 
 
58 LECTURE IX. 
 
 ters which relate to the Greek manuscripts, and the 
 ancient versions. With respect to the Fathers in 
 general, the most information comprised in a small 
 compass is afforded in the Bibliolheca patnstica^ by 
 Dr. John George Walch, Professor of Divinity at Je- 
 na, who published it there in 1770 in one volume oc- 
 tavo. It relates to the lives, the writings, the edi- 
 tions, and the various uses of the Fathers, and like- 
 wise enumerates the authors, who have explained the 
 particular subjects of inquiry. A more detailed and 
 copious account of their writings is contained in 
 Cave's Historia Literaria, of which the best edition 
 was printed at Oxford in 1740 and 1743 in two vol- 
 umes folio. Of the Greek Fathers the most ample 
 account is given in the seventh, eighth, ninth, and 
 tenth volumes of the new edition o^ Fabricii Bibliothe- 
 ca Gneca, The editor of this work. Professor Harles 
 of F.rlangen, has given a short but useful account of 
 the Greek Fathers in the last volume of his Introduc- 
 tio in Historiarn Linguce Grcecce^ which was publisheej 
 at Altenburg in Saxony in 1795. Of the writings of 
 the Latin Fathers, and of the different editions of 
 them, the most ample and the most accurate account 
 is given in a work printed at Leipzig in 1792 and 
 1794 in two large octavos, entitled Bihliotheca histori- 
 co-literaria Patrum Latinorum^ by Mr. Schoenemann, 
 one of the librarians at the University of Goettingen. 
 Whoever is desirous of entering into the controversy 
 on the quotations of the Fathers will find every thing 
 that can be said against them in a work written by 
 Daille, a French Protestant Clergyman, which was 
 
LECTURE IX. 39 
 
 published at Geneva, first in French in 1632, and af- 
 terwards in Latin, at several times, by the title Dal- 
 Iseus de usu Patrum. And every thing, which can 
 be said in favour of the Fathers is contained in the 
 following work, Cast'i Innncentis Ansaldi^ Ordinis PrcS' 
 dicatorum, de authenticis sacrarum scripturarum apud 
 sanctos Patres lectionibus, libri duo ; which was pub- 
 lished at V^erona in 1747 in one volume quarto. 
 
 Before I dismiss the subject of quotations, I must 
 notice the difference in the degrees of evidence afford- 
 ed by the Fathers, according to the language in which 
 they wrote : and it is the more necessary, as there are 
 several writers, especially in England, who have not 
 perceived the difference. Direct testimony to the au- 
 thenticity of readings in the Greek Testament, is af- 
 forded only by the Greek Fathers, who alone quoted 
 the words of the original. The quotations of the 
 Latin Fathers were taken from the Latin versiofi, and 
 consequently bear immediafe evidence to this version^ 
 or to its readings as contained in their copies of it. If 
 therefore we have reason, in any particular place, to 
 believe that this version has been altered or interpolat- 
 ed, the circumstance that Latin writers may be found 
 who agree with it in that place in opposition to the 
 Greek manuscripts, is evidence of no value whatsoev- 
 er. For it is manifest, that wherever a version is cor- 
 rupt , the reading produced from it cannot be genu- 
 ine. 
 
 The three grand sources of various readings to 
 the Greek Testament having been thus explained, 
 with reference to the principal authors, it is necessan,* 
 
60 LECTURE IX. 
 
 to take some notice of another source, namely emen- 
 dation from conjecture. Where a passage is mani- 
 festly faulty, and we have only one copy of the work, 
 or where, if we have more, they agree in the erratum, 
 we have no other means, by which we can even at- 
 tempt to restore the genuine reading, than conjecture. 
 But in the Greek Testament our means of correction 
 from authority are so ample, that conjecture is unne- 
 cessary : and, if unnecessary, it is injurious, especial- 
 ly in a work, where, if the words might be altered 
 from conjecture, a door would be opened to every 
 species of corruption. For this reason, neither Wet- 
 stein proposed, nor Griesbach received, an alteration 
 of words from conjecture. But though it is not al- 
 lowable in the Greek Testament to alter words from 
 conjecture, we are at full liberty to apply it, in regard 
 to the stops. For the most ancient manuscripts afford 
 no evidence on this head : and where stops are added, 
 as in modern manuscripts and printed editions, they 
 are founded only on the judgment of the writers or 
 editors, which we are at liberty to exercise, as well as 
 they. In this respect the critical conjectures, annex- 
 ed by Mr. Bowyer to his edition of the Greek Testa- 
 ment, and afterwards published with considerable ad- 
 ditions in a quarto volume in 1782, are of real value. 
 The remarks above-made in respect to the stops, ap- 
 ply also for the most part, to accents and marks of as- 
 piration. 
 
 It now only remains to mention the principal au- 
 thors, who have written on the utility^ and the applica- 
 tion of various readings. The first author, who wrote 
 
LECTURE IX. 64 
 
 systematically on this subject, was Professor Pfliff, of 
 the University of Tiibingen in Suabia, whose Dis^er- 
 tatio critica degenuinis Novi Testamenti lectionibus was 
 printed at Amsterdam in an octavo volume in 1709. 
 It was published at the commencement of the contro- 
 versy about the various readings to Mill's Greek 
 Testament : and its principal object was to confute 
 two opposite and equally false positions, the one main- 
 tained by the adversaries of our religion, that the va- 
 rious readings undermined the authority of the text, 
 the other maintained by its well-meaning but injudi- 
 cious friends, who argued for the perfection of the 
 Elzevir text. The admirable work of Bentley, 
 which was published four years afterwards on this 
 subject, has been noticed in a former Lecture. A- 
 nother systematic treatise on the subject of various 
 readings is the Tractatio critica de variis Lectionibus 
 J^ovi Testamenti caute colligendis et dijiidicandis, pub- 
 lished at Halle in a quarto volume in 1749, by Dr. 
 Christian Benedict Michaelis, father to the author of 
 the Introduction to the New Testament. This work 
 goes more into the detail of the subject ; it gives 
 rules for the application of the readings, according to 
 their several sources; and is of particular value in 
 respect to the readings of the oriental versions. To 
 the second volume of Wetstein's Greek Testament, 
 which was printed three years afterwards, were an- 
 nexed the Aniinadversiones et Cautiones, which were 
 mentioned in a former Lecture, and were re~ publish- 
 ed by Dr. Semler at Halle in 1766, under the title, 
 IVetstenii libelli ad crisin atque interpretationem A''ovi 
 9 
 
9% LECTURE IX. 
 
 4. 
 
 Testamentu Tht Apparatus Criticus, which uccora-' 
 panied the edition of the Greek Testament by Benge- 
 lius, has likewise been separately pubhshed in a quar- 
 to volume in 1763 with considerable additions. — 
 Much valuable information may be derived from each 
 of these writers, though it cannot be expected, that 
 they should be unanimous on every point. The cri- 
 ticism of the Greek Testament has made such rapid 
 advances within the last sixty years, that several posi- 
 tions have been found untenable, which had been 
 adopted without reserve, while others have been 
 adopted, of which the earlier writers were uninform- 
 ed. To obtain a perfect knowledge of it in its pres- 
 ent and most correct state, we must study, again and 
 again, the Prolegomena to Griesbach's Greek Testa- 
 ment. Nor should we neglect, if we are able to pro- 
 cure it, Griesbach's Commentarms criticus in textum 
 Gracum Novi Testament^ of which the first Part was 
 published at Jena in 1798. Whether this work has 
 been continued, I am unable from the present inter- 
 rupted communication with Germany to declare. 
 But, as far as it goes, it admirably elucidates the crit- 
 icism of the Greek Testament in every passage, and 
 clearly explains the mode, in which Griesbach's sys- 
 tem must be applied. 
 
 Lastly, let it be observed of verbal criticism, that 
 the value of tlie labour, which has been employed in 
 collecting various readings, depends neither on the 
 greatness of their number, nor on the diversity of 
 their meaning. If the readings are numerous, which 
 alter the sense, they afford the means of correction, in 
 
LECTURE IX. «0 
 
 proportion as it is wanted. On the other hand, if 
 such readings are few in number, the discovery, that 
 they are so, is sufficient to pay the cost of that discov- 
 ery. 
 
 Having thus exhausted the criticism of the JVew 
 Testament,* I shall proceed in the next Lecture to 
 the criticism of the Old Testament. 
 
 • As I did not menlion in the preceding Lecture Dr. Knapp's edi- 
 tion of the Greek Testament, which was published at Halle in 1797, in 
 one volume octavo, and this edilion, as well as Griesbach's, contains a 
 revision of the Elzevir text, it may appear to be a neglect, if it is left 
 whoUy unnoticed, though it is very little kn<j\\ n in this countiy. The 
 date of the title-page shews, that it was published a year after the^rsf 
 volume of Giiesbach's last edition, and nine years before the second ; 
 consequently that the learned editor could avail himself of Gi-iesbach's 
 reseaiches us far as tlie end of St. John's Gospel and no further. Nor 
 are any authorities quoted in this edition, either for the readings intro- 
 duced in the text (which are not distinguished, as in Griesbach's edif 
 tion, by a difference of character, J or for that selection of readings, 
 which the editor thought worthy of notice in the margin. This state- 
 ment is not intended as a censure, brevity being necessary for the edi- 
 tor's object, which was to furnish the German students with a cheap 
 pocket edition. But for the purposes of criticism, Griesbach's edition 
 musy. remain the standard edition. 
 
 An account of re-impressions, or of publications copied from Gries- 
 bach's last edition, though it enters into the province of the bibliogra- 
 pher, has no place in a history of tlie Greek text. 
 
 Dr. White's edition of Uie common text (Oxford 1808, in two vol- 
 umes octavo,) accompanied, as well with the readings, which Gries- 
 bach thought only equal to tlie common text, as with those, which 
 Griesbach thought decidedly preferable, and therefore adopted in his 
 own, will more properly come under consideration in the third branch 
 of Divinity, when we inquire into the integrity of the Greek text. 
 
LECTURE X. 
 
 Xo ascertain the accuracy of the Hebrew text in 
 the Old Testament, we must proceed by a method 
 similar to that, which was applied to the Greek text 
 in the New Testament. We must consider the caus- 
 es^ which have produced the variations in the Hebrew 
 manuscripts, and then the remedieSy which have been 
 employed to correct them. 
 
 As in the Greek Testament so in the Hebrew Bi- 
 ble the various readings have arisen, partly from acci- 
 dental, partly from designed alteration. Under the 
 former head may be reckoned, in the first place, the 
 casual omission, addition, exchange, or transposition, 
 of letters, syllables, and words, which no transcriber, 
 however careful, can wholly avoid. The eye is fre- 
 quently deceived by a similarity in the form of differ- 
 ent letters. This cause has operated more in the He- 
 brew Bible, than in the Greek Testament : for the 
 Hebrew letters resemble each other more than the 
 Greek letters. At one time the whole difference con- 
 sists in the acuteness or obtuseness of an angle ; at 
 other times, either on the length, or the straitness of a 
 
LECTURE X. 60 
 
 line, distinctions so minute, that even when the letters 
 are perfect, mistakes will sometimes happen, and still 
 more frequently when they are inaccurately formed, 
 or are partially effliced. In fact this is one of the 
 most fruitful sources of error in the Hebrew manu- 
 scripts, as will appear to every one, who takes only a 
 cursory view of Dr. Kennicott's Bible. 
 
 Again, as likeness of yor;;2 occasions mistakes in 
 reading, so likeness of sound occasions mistakes in 
 hearing, when a copyist writes as another dictates. 
 And this cause is likewise more powerful in Hebrew 
 than in Greek, on account of the gutturals, which are 
 less distinguishable, than' the sounds of any other 
 class. Another kind of exchange from dictation, 
 which is peculiar to the Hebrew, was the custom of 
 reading, in certain cases, differently from what was 
 written. For instance, the word Jehovah, which ex- 
 presses the Being, the Essence, and the Eternity of 
 the Deity, was considered by the Jews as a word too 
 sacred for human utterance : and therefore, whenever 
 they met with this word in the Bible, they read for it 
 another word, expressive not of God, but of Lord, 
 Hence the latter is frequently found in one Hebrew 
 manuscript, when the former is found in another. 
 Hence also in the Septuagint the word Jehovah is nev- 
 er expressed by Qeog, but uniformly by Kuf/o?. 
 
 Other accidental variations arose from what is call- 
 ed the homcEoteleuton, or the recurrence of the same 
 word after a short interval, which may occasion the 
 omission of the words which lie between. Some- 
 times abbreviations, sometimes numerical marks were 
 
P LECTURE X. 
 
 falsely decyphered : at other times, if the words of 
 the copied manuscripts were written without intervals, 
 they were improperly divided. Lastly, as it was not 
 uncommon to add letters at the end of a line in the 
 Hebrew manuscripts, in order to fill up the space 
 where it was too small for the following word, (it not 
 being usual to write Hebrew words partly in one line 
 partly in another) those supplemeritat y letters were 
 sometimes mistaken for letters of the text, especially 
 if they were such, as were capable of representing 
 some Hebrew word. 
 
 It appears then, that the causes of accidental varia- 
 tion must have operated more powerfully in the trans- 
 cribing of Hebrew, than in the transcribing of Greek 
 manuscripts. On the other hand there is reason to 
 believe, that the designed alterations, whic h have been 
 made in the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, are 
 less numerous, than the similar alterations, which have 
 been made in the Greek text of the New Testament, 
 Indeed it is obvious from Dr. Kennicott's collation, 
 that such alterations have been inconsiderable since 
 the introduction of the Masora. But as no circum- 
 spection could wholly prevent the liberties, which for 
 various reasons transcribers were inclined to take, 
 those reasons, or causes of alteration, must be dis- 
 tinctly examined. And this examination is the more 
 necessary, as before the introduction of the Masora, 
 which cannot be dated higher than the fourth or fifth 
 century, those causes had nothing to counteract them. 
 It is true, that the oldest of the Hebrew manuscripts, 
 now extant, are younger by some centuries, than the 
 
I 
 
 LECTURE X. 67 
 
 Masora. But as these must have been copied from 
 more ancient manuscripts, and those again from man- 
 uscripts, which were written before the learned Jews 
 of Tiberias, or the Masorets, as they are called from 
 the work which they established, had erected a guard 
 against future innovation, the effects of previous alter- 
 ation must have still continued to be partially felt, and 
 consequently must have been transmitted to the pres- 
 ent age. 
 
 Let it not however be imagined, that the altera- 
 tions, of which we are now speaking, were intentional 
 corruptions of the sacred text, or, in other words, alter- 
 ations introduced with the consciousness, that they 
 ■were corruptions. Such conduct were incompatible 
 with that profound veneration, which the Jews in ev- 
 er)' age have entertained for the Hebrew scriptures. 
 It is true that such conduct has been ascribed to them. 
 The charge originated with some of the early Fathers 
 in their controversies with the Jews, who sometimes 
 reproached their Christian adversaries with producing 
 passages from the Greek Bible, which differed from 
 the Hebrew. In such cases the Fathers should have 
 critically examined the words, both of the Hebrew and 
 of the Greek : for an ancient translation may^ and 
 sometimes does retain the genuine reading of a pas- 
 sage, where modern copies of the original have lost 
 it. But no such examination appears to have taken 
 place by those, who were the most strenuous in accus- 
 ing the Jews. Indeed few of them were capable of 
 the examination : and they charged their adversaries 
 with wilful corruption, because they had nothing else 
 
08 LECTURE X. 
 
 to reply. Now accusations made without proof, are 
 entitled to no credit. Jerom, who of all the fathers 
 was i)erhaps the best judge of this subject, was cer- 
 tainly of opinion, that the Jews had not corrupted the 
 Hebrew scriptures : for in contradistinction to the 
 Septuagint he calls the Hebrew Bible Feritas Hebrai- 
 ca : and when he made a new translation, he translat- 
 ed, not from the Greek, but from the Hebrew. Nor 
 was Origen, notwithstanding some expressions, which 
 seem to indicate the contrary, of a different opinion 
 from Jerom. 
 
 The alterations therefore, of which we are now 
 speaking, are such as have taken place from erroneous 
 judgment, from a false opinion in the transcribers, that 
 they were supplying defects, or correcting mistakes. 
 They chiefly arose from the custom of ^vriting notes 
 in the margin of Hebrew manuscripts, which notes 
 were in subsequent copies transferred into the text. 
 These notes were of various kinds. Sometimes^ if a 
 city mentioned in the Bible had in the course of ages 
 changed its name, the new name was added in the 
 margin of the passage. At another time if an ancient 
 name was still preserved, a note was added to express, 
 that the place was so called to that day. At other 
 times observations were made, which related to histo- 
 ry or chronology. Annotations of all these kinds 
 may be still traced in the Pentateuch. They have 
 been quoted indeed by the adversaries of our religion 
 for a different purpose : and, as such readings mani- 
 festly betray a later hand, than that of Moses, it has 
 been inferred, that the books, which contain them, are 
 
LECTURE X. M 
 
 furious. But such readings may be explained, as 
 marginal notes removed into the text : and if the ar- 
 guments for the authenticity of the Pentateuch are 
 conclusive, they must be explained in that manner. 
 
 Other marginal annotations were drawn from par- 
 allel passages, being added, either to supply the short- 
 er description from the longer, or to explain a diffi- 
 cult by an easy passage. Indeed explanatory notes 
 appear to have been added from various sources, tak- 
 en sometimes from Chaldee paraphrases, at other 
 times from commentaries, at other times again from 
 those allegorical interpretations, to which the Jews 
 gave the title of Medrash. Now such annotations 
 being sometimes mistaken, especially by ignorant 
 transcribers, for parts of the text, which had been ac- 
 cidentally omitted, and afterwards supplied in the 
 margin, were in the next copy transferred, as was 
 supposed, to their proper places. — Or readings of this 
 description might sometimes find their way into the 
 text, even without the intervention of a marginal note. 
 
 Lastly, there is a source of various readings in the 
 Hebrew manuscripts, which appears to have been 
 equally productive with all the other sources put to- 
 gether, namely the difference in the mode of writing 
 certain Hebrew words. It is to be observed, that the 
 letters Aleph, Vau, and J-od are denominated matres 
 lectionis, from their utility in instructing the reader of 
 an unpointed manuscript how to pronounce the words, 
 in which those letters are contained. But after the 
 introduction of the vowel points, the letters Vau and 
 Jod became less necessary, and they were considered 
 10 
 
f^ ' LECTURE X. 
 
 chiefly as props, or fulcra (as they are called) to those 
 points, with which they are usualh accompanied. 
 When manuscripts therefore were written with poi <ts, 
 those letters were sometimes inserted, sometimes 
 omitted, and apparently at the discretion of the copy- 
 ist. Where they are inserted, the words are said to 
 be plene scripta : \\here they are omitted, the words 
 are said to be defective scripta. Now variations of 
 this kind are only various modes of writing the same 
 wordy and seem to be no more entitled to a place 
 among various readings, than the orthographical dif- 
 ferences in the Greek manuscripts, which neither 
 Walton, nor Mill, nor Wetstein, nor Griesbach have 
 thought worthy of notice. But as the cases of the 
 Hebrew and the Greek manuscripts are not exactly 
 parallel, as examples 7naif occur in which the above- 
 mentioned fullness or defectiveness has resulted from 
 some other cause, tlian the discretion of a transcriber 
 in regard to a mater lectionis, the variations in ques- 
 tion must not be wholly disregarded, though more at- 
 tention has certainly been shewn to them, than they 
 deserve. 
 
 The principal causes, which produced the varia- 
 tions in the Hebrew manuscripts having been thus 
 explained, we must now examine the means, which 
 have been adopted to obtain a correct edition of the 
 Hebrew Bible. In our researches on this subject we 
 must be contented with much less information, than 
 w^e were able to obtain in our similar researches on the 
 Greek Testament. The manuscripts^ which were 
 used by the early editors of the Hebrew Bible, and 
 
LECTURE X. V± 
 
 the fnodesy in which those editors employed their ma- 
 terials, are equally unknown to us : nor have we suffi- 
 cient dat^ to ascertain the influence of preceding on 
 subsequent editions. We are indeed amply provided 
 "with catalogues of Hebrew Bibles, which determine 
 their chronological order : but how far the editors 
 were governed by their manuscripts, how far they 
 copied from their predecessors, what rules they adopt- 
 ed in the choice of their readings, why some of them 
 preferred a marginal, where others chose a textual 
 reading, the editors themselves have not informed us, 
 and it is not in our power to learn. To trace there- 
 fore the progress of the Hebrew text, as we traced the 
 progress of the Greek text, throughout its several 
 stages, from edition to edition, is wholly impractica- 
 ble. All, that can be attempted, is to mention in the 
 first place such of the early editions, as in a critical 
 history are most entitled to attention, and then to con- 
 sider the steps, which have been taken toward the for- 
 mation of a critical apparatus. 
 
 The first edition of the xvhole Hebrew Bible was 
 printed in 148S at Soncino, a small town in the neigh- 
 bourhood of Cremona. It is at present so scarce, that 
 only nine copies of it are known, one of which is pre- 
 served in the library of Exeter College, at Oxford. 
 The next edition of the whole Hebrew Bible was 
 published in 1494 at Brescia, and is remarkable for 
 being the edition, from which Luther made his Ger- 
 man translation. The edition, which in the next 
 place deserves our attention is the Complutensian 
 Polyglot, of which the parts containing the Hebrew 
 
72 LECTURE X. 
 
 Bible were finished in 1517. In 1518 Daniel Bom- 
 berg published at Venice two editions of the Hebrew 
 Bible, the one in quarto, the other in large folio. The 
 latter was conducted by Felix Pratensis : and as it 
 contains the Hebrew text accompanied witli the Ma- 
 sora, it is called Bomberg's first Rabbinical Bible. 
 The second edition of it, which is more correct, was 
 printed in 1525 under the direction of Jacob Ben 
 Hajim, who had the reputation of being profoundly 
 learned in the Masora, and other branches of Jewish 
 erudition. 
 
 The Brescia edition of 1494, the Complutensian 
 edition of 1517, and the last- mentioned Bomberg's 
 edition of 1525, are the three editions, which were 
 principally used in the printing of the subsequent edi- 
 tions. 
 
 The editions hitherto mentioned were all print- 
 ed under the inspection of Jews, or of Jewish Con- 
 verts. But in 1534 Sebastain Miinster, a learned 
 German, who was Professor, first at Heidelberg, and 
 afterwards at Basel, commenced an edition of the He- 
 brew Bible, which was finished in the following year, 
 at the office of Frobenius, where Erasmus about the 
 same period was engaged in printing his editions of 
 the Greek Testament. In 1536 Sebastian Miinster 
 published a second edition, accompanied, not, as the 
 first edition was, with a Latin translation, but with 
 parts of the Masora, and various critical annotations. 
 Three years afterwards Robert Stephens began his 
 quarto edition of the Hebrew Bible, which was finish- 
 ed in 1543 : and in the two following years he printed 
 
LECTURE X. 78 
 
 his duodecimo edition. In 1569 the Antwerp Poly- 
 glot began to be printed, of which the four first vol- 
 umes contain the Hebrew Bible, accompanied with all 
 the ancient versions, which were then known. In 
 1587 was printed at Hamburg the edition of Elias 
 Hutter. In 1611 the celebrated John Buxtorf printed 
 at Basel his octavo edition of the Hebrew Bible : in 
 
 1619 he published his great Rabbinical Bible : and in 
 
 1620 he published his Tiberias, which was intended 
 to illustrate the Masora, and other additions to his 
 great Bible. 
 
 We are now arrived at a period, which forms an 
 epocha in the history of the Hebrew text. Hitherto 
 it was commonly supposed, that all the copies of the 
 Hebrew Bible, as well manuscript as printed, contain- 
 ed the same text with little or no variation. It is true 
 that the Rabbinical Bibles had the marginal words of 
 the Masora, with references to the correspondent 
 words of the text. But of these marginal words such 
 fanciful notions were then entertained, as prevented 
 their application to any critical purpose. We know 
 at present that they are various readings to the He- 
 brew Bible : and Dr. Kennicott relates in his Disser- 
 tatio generalis, that among a thousand of them (as 
 printed by Van der Hooght) there were only fourteen, 
 which were not found in the text of some one of the 
 Hebrew manuscripts collated for his edition. They 
 are various readings therefore in the true sense of the 
 term : they resulted from ancient collations of He- 
 brew manuscripts, begun probably before the age of 
 the Masora, though first recorded, as well as continu- 
 
r# LECTURE X. 
 
 ed and augmented, in that work. Indeed the text it- 
 self, as regulated by the learned Jews of Tiberias, was 
 probably the result of a collation of manuscripts. But 
 as those Hebrew critics were cautious of introducinj^ 
 too many corrections in the text, they noted in the 
 margins of their manuscripts, or in their critical col- 
 lections, such various readings, derived from other 
 manuscripts either by themselves or by their prede- 
 cessors, as appeared to be worthy of attention. This 
 is the real origin of those marginal or masoretic read- 
 in£rs, which we find in many editions of the Hebrew 
 Bible. But the propensity of the later Jews to seek 
 mystical meanings in the plainest facts, induced grad- 
 ually the belief, that both textual and marginal read- 
 ings proceeded from the sacred writers themselves, 
 and that the latter were ti'ansmitted to posterity by oral 
 tradition, as conveying some mysterious application of 
 the Tvritten words. They were regarded theretore as 
 materials, not of criticism^ but of interpretation. 
 
 Under these circumstances it is not extraordinary, 
 that the Masoretic readings suggested not the notion 
 of a diversity in the Hebrew manuscripts : it is not 
 extraordinary, that Elias Levita, a learned Jew at the 
 beginning of the sixteenth century, should say, (as 
 Buxtorf has translated the Rabbinic original.) " Post 
 lahorem ilium, quern prastiterunt Masoreta^ impossibile 
 est ut ceciderit, vel cadere possit mutatio aut depravatio 
 quisdam ulh modo in ullos libros biblicos .*" Nor is it 
 extraordinary that Buxtorf, who quotes this passage 
 in the second chapter of his Tiberias, should confirm 
 it by saying of the Hebrew manuscripts, Omnium lib^ 
 
LECTURE X. Vf 
 
 rorum, qui vel in Asid^ vel in Africd^ ve^ in Eurofj& 
 sunt, sine uiia discrepantia, comonans harmonia cerni- 
 tur. Elias Hutter, in the Preface to his edition, 
 which was pubUshed more than thirty years before 
 Biixtorf's Tiberias, had indeed declared, that the edi- 
 tions of the Hebrew Bible, as printed by Bomberg, 
 by Stephens, and in the Antwerp Polyglot, differed 
 from each other in several thousand places, and more- 
 over that the differences in the Hebrew manuscripts 
 were still greater. But either Buxtorf never read 
 this Preface, or his attachment to the Masora prevent- 
 ed him from attending to its evidence. He believed 
 thorefore in 2i perfect uniformity of the Hebrew man- 
 uscripts : and this perfect uniformity was supposed to 
 have uninterruptedly existed from the times, when 
 the books of the Old Testament where severally writ- 
 ten. It was likewise the common opinion in the age 
 of Buxtorf, to which his great authority materially 
 contributed, not only that the Hebrew letters had de- 
 scend-^d unaltered from the time of Moses, but that 
 the vowel points, with all their gradations and refine- 
 ments, were coeval with the letters themselves. 
 
 But soon after the publication of Buxtorf's Tibe- 
 rias a discovery was made, which gave a new turn to 
 the sentiments of the learned, not only in respect to 
 the Hebrew letters and points, but in regard to the 
 text itself. It had been long known, that the Samar- 
 itans, originally descended from the ten tribes who re- 
 volted in the reign of Rehoboam, and still existing as 
 a separate sect in Samaria and its neighbourhood, 
 possessed the five books of Moses in a form peculiar 
 
74 LECTURE X. 
 
 to themselves. But from the time of Eusebius and 
 of Jerom, who have noticed this Samaritan Penta- 
 teuch, no European appears to have seen it till the be- 
 ginning of the seventeenth century, when Pietro della 
 Valle, during his travels in the East, obtained not on- 
 ly a copy of the Samaritan Pentateuch itsel/l but also 
 a translation of it into the Samaritan language. The 
 latter he took with him to Rome : the former he sent 
 to Harlaeus de Sancy, one of the Fathers of the Orato- 
 ry at Paris, who presented it in 16^0 to the library of 
 that religious house. 
 
 No event in the history of literature has excited 
 more sensation, than the discovery of this Samaritan 
 Pentateuch. It was observed that, though its letters 
 are very different from the Hebrew, it contained the 
 same Hebrew xvoitis as the common manuscripts ; and 
 that, though its text was in many places different, it 
 manifestly contained the same work. It was further 
 observed, that its letters w^ere no where accompanied 
 with voM'el points. It was then considered, that, as 
 the Pentateuch is the only part of the Bible, which is 
 received by the Samaritans, their copies of it must 
 have been derived, if not from those of their ancestors, 
 who seceded from the tribe of Judah, at least from 
 some copy, antecedent to the Babylonish Captivity. 
 For if their sacred books had been received from the 
 Jews after the Babylonish Captivity, they would not 
 have been confined to the five books of Moses. This 
 argument was strengthened by the reflection, that the 
 animosity between the Jews and the Samaritans com- 
 njienced immediately on the return of the former from 
 
LECTURE X- rr 
 
 Babylonia. It was therefore as improbable, that the 
 Samaritans should then borrow from the Jews, as it 
 was improbable, that their forefathers should have se- 
 ceded without some copies of the Law, which was the 
 rule both of their civil and of their religious institu- 
 tions. Finally, as the Jews, who returned to Pales- 
 tine at the expiration of the captivity, returned with 
 the language of their Chaldean masters, and the letters 
 of this language were the letters, in which the Jews 
 have written since that period, the supposition, that, 
 with their language, they exchanged also their letters, 
 whik^ the Samaritans retained them, appeared more 
 probable, than that the letters of the Jews were origin- 
 ally the same with those of the Chaldees, and that the 
 exchange took place on the part of the Samaritans, 
 It was inferred therefore, that the original alphabet of 
 the sacred writinsrs was not the Chaldee but the Sa- 
 
 o 
 
 maritan : and as the Samaritan letters are not accom- 
 panied with points, it was further concludixl, that the 
 * points wow used with the Hebrew or Chaldee letters 
 M;, were the invention of a later age. 
 
 Such were the reflections suggested by the exam- 
 ination of the Samaritan Pentateuch. Four years had 
 not elapsed from the arrival of the copy of it in the 
 Oratory at Paris, when Ludovicus Cappellus, He- 
 brew Professor at the French Protestant University of 
 Saumur, composed his celebrated work, Arcanum 
 punctationis revelatum. This work contains almost 
 all the arguments, which have been since used atrainst 
 the antiquity of the Hebrew points ; and they are stat- 
 ed so fully and clearly, that the subject appeared to be 
 11 
 
ro LECTURE X. 
 
 exhausted in the first essay on it. But as the opin- 
 ion, that the Hebrew points \yere of modern origin, 
 was likely, when first advanced, to be regarded as an 
 infringement on the integrity even of the text^ Cap- 
 pellus had the precaution to send his work in man- 
 uscript to be examined by Buxtorf, who returned it 
 with the request, that it might not be printed. Cap- 
 pellus then sent it to Erpenius, Professor of the Ori- 
 ental languages at Leyden, who so approved of it, that 
 with the permission of the author he printed it at Ley- , 
 den in 1624. Buxtorf made no reply to it : and as 
 he died about five years afterwards, he left it to be an- 
 swered b}^ his son, who was likewise Professor in the 
 University of Basel. But many years elapsed before 
 the younger Buxtorf had prepared an answer to Cap- 
 pellus. In the mean time Johannes Morinus, one of 
 the Fathers of the oratory at Paris, attacked the anti- 
 quity of the Hebrew letters in his Exercitationes eC" 
 clesiastic^j printed at Paris in 1631. And as the an- 
 tiquity of the letters appeared more important, per- 
 haps also more defensible, than the antiquity of the 
 points, the younger Buxtorf made his first essay in a 
 defence of the Hebrew letters, entitled Dissertatio de 
 literarum Hebraicarum gemiind antiqidtate. The pre- 
 cise year when this treatise was Jirst published is not 
 known : but in 1645 it received an answer from Cap- 
 pellus in his Diatriba de veris et antiquis Hebrceorum 
 Uteris, in which Cappellus contended, as Morinus had 
 already done, that the true and the ancient letters of 
 the Hebrews were no other than the Samaritan. In 
 1648 the younger Buxtorf made his reply to Cappel- 
 
LECTURE X. 79 
 
 lus on the subject of the points^ in a work entitled, 
 Tractatus de punctorum vocalium et accentuum in libris 
 Veteris Testamenti Hebraicis origine, antiguitate, et 
 authoritatey oppositus Arcano punctationis revelato Lu- 
 dovici Cappellu To this work Cappellus prepared an 
 answer entitled Arcani punctationis Findicice, But he 
 died before the publication of it : and his son, to 
 whom it was left in manuscript, did not publish it, till 
 many years after the death also of his opponent Bux- 
 torf. 
 
 This controversy about the antiquity of the He* 
 brew letters and points must be carefully distinguish- 
 ed from another controversy hereafter to be mention^ 
 ed, in which Cappellus and the younger Buxtorf were 
 likewise engaged, on the integrity oj the Hebrew 
 text : for the two controversies, though in some 
 measure connected, and frequently confounded, rest 
 on totally distinct grounds. In the opinion, that the 
 Hebrew or Chaldee character was not used by the 
 Jews till after the Babylonish Captivity, and that the 
 present system of vowel points was introduced in a 
 still later age, the most distinguished Hebrew schol- 
 ars, with a very few exceptions, have sided with Cap- 
 pellus. 
 
 From the controversy on the letters and points we 
 fnust proceed to the more important controversy, 
 which relates to the words. Of this controversy, and 
 of the subsequent labours of the learned to provide a 
 critical apparatus for the purpose of amending the 
 Hebrew text, an account will be given in the follow* 
 ing Lecture. 
 
LECTURE XL 
 
 vV E are now entering on a question of much 
 greater moment, than the antiquity, either of the He- 
 brew points, or of the Hebrew letters, namely the in-, 
 tegrity of the Hebrew text. The letters may have 
 been changed^ the points may be ncw^ yet tlie words 
 may have remained the same. 
 
 To prevent confusion in this inquiry, we should 
 previously determine the meaning of the expression 
 " integrity of the Hebrew text^ The text of an an- 
 cient author may be said to have preserved its integ- 
 rity, if it has descended to the present age in such a 
 state, as upon the -whole the author gave it. If we go 
 further, and require a perfect uniformity in all the 
 copies of an ancient work, before we will grant, that 
 its integrity is preserved, we require more, than it is 
 possible to obtain : for it is impossible to multiply 
 •written copies of a work, without some deviation frorai 
 the author's own manuscript. We have seen how- 
 ever that Buxtorf, in the second chapter of his Tibe- 
 rias, carried his notions on this subject so high, as to 
 deny the existence of variations in the Hebrew text ; 
 
 % 
 
 '% 
 
LECTURE XI. SI 
 
 and thus, by placing its integrity on a false basis^ ex- 
 pobcd it to the danj^^er of being questioned upon 
 grounds, which constitute no real cause of impeach- 
 ment. 
 
 The Jirst person who combated the opinion of 
 Buxtorf on this subject, was not Cappellus, but Jo- 
 hannes Morinus, who, as mentioned in the preceding 
 Lecture, was a priest of the Oratory at Paris, the reli- 
 gious house, which possessed the first-known copy of 
 the Samaritan Pentateuch. Of this Pentateuch Mo- 
 rinus gave a short account in the Preface to his edi- 
 tion of the Septuagint, which was printed at Paris in 
 1628. He gave a more copious account of it, as also 
 of its translation into the Samaritan language in his 
 Exer citation es ecclesiastiae in utrumque Samaritano- 
 rum Pentateuchum, published at Paris in 1631, in 
 which he not only maintained (as related in the pre- 
 ceding Lecture) that the Samaritan letters were the 
 ancient letters of the Jews, but also, that the Samari- 
 tan Pentateuch, or the Pentateuch as written with 
 Samaritan letters, contains a more ancient and accu- 
 rate text of the five books of Moses, than the Hebrew 
 Pentateuch, or the Pentateuch as written with the 
 common Hebrew letters. In 1632 the Samaritan 
 Pentateuch, with its translation into the Samaritan 
 language, was under the inspection of Morinus print- 
 ed in the sixth volume of the Paris Polyglot : and in 
 1633 Morinus published the first volume of his Ex' 
 ercitationes biblias de Kebrai Gracique textus sinceri' 
 tate, which was reprinted many years afterwards (in 
 1669) with the addition of a second volume. 
 
«'3 JbEOTURE XI. 
 
 The object of these Exercitationes hihliac is to 
 shew that the Hebrew Bible has descended to poster- 
 ity in a very imperfect state ; not that the Jews had 
 wilfully corrupted the sacred writings, but that they 
 had transcribed them so negligently^ as to have lost in 
 very numerous instances the original and genuine 
 text. To establish this position, Morinus appealed 
 not to any diversity, which might be found in the He- 
 brew manuscripts ; for a collation of Hebrew manu- 
 scripts seemed at that time to form no part of the bus- 
 iness of a Hebrew critic, whether this omission was 
 owing to the circumstance, that the Hebrew manu- 
 scripts were chiefly in the hands of the Jews, or that 
 the prevalent opinion in regard to their general coin- 
 cidence deterred men from undertaking a task sup- 
 posed to be useless. Morinus appealed to the differ- 
 ences between the Hebrew and the Samaritan texts in 
 the Pentateuch, and to the differences between the 
 Hebrew and the Septuagint in other parts of the Bi- 
 ble. As he believed that the Samaritan Pentateuch 
 contained a more ancient and correct text, than the 
 Hebrew Pentateuch, he concluded^ that the latter was 
 incorrect, where it differed from the former. And, as 
 the Scptuagint version was made from manuscripts, 
 "which must have been older by a thousand yeai's, than 
 the oldest of the Hebrew manuscripts extant in the fif- 
 teenth and sixteenth centuries, or from which any edi- 
 tion of the Hebrew Bible could have been printed, he 
 inferred that the Scptuagint version had greater criti- 
 cal authority, than either Hebrew manuscripts or He- 
 brew editions. But Morinus, in preferring the Greek 
 
LECTURE XL m 
 
 Version to the Hebrew original, did not consider, that 
 this version has itself undergone material alterations. 
 Morinus argued, as if his copy of the Septuagint con- 
 tained the Greek text in its original and unadulterated 
 state. It is only on this supposition, that his reason- 
 ing from the antiquity of that version compared with 
 the age of the present Hebrew manuscripts, and the 
 inference, which he thence deduced in favour of the 
 former, to the disparagement of the latter, can have 
 the least foundation. But the supposition is evident- 
 ly false, as appears both from the testimony of Origen, 
 which was given in a former Lecture, and from a col- 
 lation of the manuscripts now extant. In fact, before 
 we can safely apply the Septuagint to the emendation 
 of the Hebrew Bible, we must be furnished with a 
 
 critical edition of the Septuagint itself. From what 
 
 has been aheady stated, it appears that Morinus went 
 as far into 07ie extreme, as Buxtorf had gone into the 
 other. But Morinus was not satisfied with going thtis 
 far : he went still further, and opposed to the Hebrew 
 the authority likewise of the Latin version, for which 
 he could have no other reason, than that the Latin is 
 the established version of his own church, the church 
 of Rome. Here then he mixed religious with critical 
 inquiries, which must always be kept distinct, or ev- 
 ery Christian party will at length have a Bible of its 
 own. 
 
 In the year following Simeon de Muis, who had 
 written already against the Exercitationes ecclesiastics 
 respecting the Samaritan Pentateuch, published his 
 Assertio altera Veritatis Hebroia^, against the Exerci- 
 
84 LECTURE XI. 
 
 tationes biblic^y and the objections of Morinus to the 
 integrity of the Hebrew text. But the controversy 
 on this subject was soon afterwards transferred to 
 Cappellus and the younger Buxtorf. 
 
 In 1650 was pubUshed at Paris the first edition of 
 Cappelli Critica sacra. In this work, though the au- 
 thor so far trod in the footsteps of Morinus, that he 
 combated the strict notions of the elder Buxtorf in 
 regard to the integrity of the Hebrew text, he avoided 
 that extreme on the opposite side, into which Morinus 
 had fallen. He maintained, and rightly maintained, 
 that the Hebrew Bible, like all other works of anti- 
 quity, had been exposed to the variations, which un- 
 avoidably arise from a multiplication of copies : but 
 he contended not, that the sacred text was thereby 
 rendered uncertain, as a rule of faith and manners. 
 He contended, that the printed editions were not every 
 where so correct, as to warrant the opinion, that 
 emendation is superfluous ; but at the same time he 
 admitted that we possessed the means of emendation. 
 He considered the ancient versions, when applied un- 
 der proper restrictions, as one source of critical author- 
 ity in ascertaining the genuineness of disputed passa- 
 ges : but he regarded not, with Morinus, a deviation 
 of the Hebrew from the Septuagint or the Vulgate as 
 a reason for supposing, that in such places the Hebrew 
 was incorrect. In short his principles of criticism 
 were such, as the best judges have applied to ancient 
 authors in general. Where Cappellus failed, he fail- 
 ed in the application of his principles. He was right 
 in asserting, that the Hebrew manuscripts, from which 
 
LECTURE XL 86 
 
 the Septuagint and other ancient versions were made, 
 had not precisely the same text, as modern manu- 
 scripts, or printed editions. But he sometimes ascrib- 
 ed to a diversity of readings what might rather be as- 
 cribed to a diversity of translation. He was right in 
 asserting, that the authors of the Masora had not es- 
 tabUshed a Hebrew text, which was free from fault : 
 but he was unjust in not acknowledging the services, 
 which they really performed. He was right in assert- 
 ing, that even the Masoretic text had not descended to 
 posterity without variations : but he was unjust to the 
 authors of the Masora in not acknowledging the care, 
 which they took to preserve it. For if their success 
 has not been complete, either in establishing or in pre- 
 serving the Hebrew text, they have been guilty only 
 of the fauh, which is common to every human effort. 
 Nor was Cappellus enabled by the actual production 
 of Hebrew manuscripts (a defect indeed rather of the 
 times than his own) to confirm several positions, 
 which in themselves were true. 
 
 In these various respects was Cappellus open to 
 attack : and his work had not been published a year, 
 when it was assailed by Arnoldr.s Bootius, a name 
 now buried in oblivion, and which deserves to be 
 mentioned on no other account, than that his attack 
 was published in the form of a letter to Archbishop 
 Usher, to whom Cappellus immediately addressed his 
 £pistola apologetica, in qua Arnoldi Bootii teweraria 
 Critica censura refellitur^ which was published at Sau- 
 mur in 1631. 
 
 But all other assailants were forgotten in the 
 12 
 
86 LECTURE XI. 
 
 younger Buxtorf, who in 1653 published at Basel his 
 Anticritica, sen vindicia veritatis Hehrawte^ adversus 
 Ludovici Cappelli Critwam quam vocant sacram^ ej us- 
 que defensionem. If Buxtorf had been contented with 
 pointing out the defects, which really existed in the 
 work of Cappellus, if he had been satisfied with shew- 
 ing, that Cappellus was sometimes mistaken in the ap- 
 plication of his principles, if he had only claimed for 
 the Masora, what is really its due, the victory would 
 have been decidedly in his favour. But he failed of 
 success by attempting too much. Educated, like his 
 father, no less in the prejudices^ than in the learning of 
 the Jewish Rabbins, he adhered to those strict notions 
 on the integrity of the Hebrew text, which can never 
 apply to a work of antiquity. And by refusing to ad- 
 mit, what was indisputably true, he contributed to es- 
 tablish at least the principles of Cappellus, by the very 
 efforts, which he made to confute them. 
 
 Four years after the publication of BuxtorPs An- 
 ticritica, Bishop Walton, in his Prolegomena to the 
 London Polyglot, declared in favour of the principles 
 asserted by Cappellus, acknowledged the necessity of 
 forming a critical apparatus for the purpose of obtain- 
 ing a more correct text of the Hebrew Bible, and ma- 
 terially contributed thereto by his own exertions. 
 
 A collation of Hebrew manuscripts^ like those 
 which have been made of the Greek manuscripts, was 
 still wanted : but as the necessity of such a collation 
 began now to be acknowledged, attempts to that pur- 
 pose were gradually made by the subsequent editors 
 of the Hebrew Bible. In 1661 Joseph Athias, a learn- 
 
LECTURE XL W 
 
 cd Rabbi and printer at Amsterdam, published a He- 
 brew Bible (reprinted in 1667) the text of whi h was 
 founded on manuscripts, as well as on printed editions. 
 And in the Preface, which was written by John Leus- 
 den, Hebrew Professor at Utrecht, it is related that 
 one of the manuscripts was nine hundred years old. 
 In 1690 Jablonski, a Lutheran Clergyman at Berlin, 
 published a Hebrew B.ble, for which he likewise col- 
 lated manuscripts, and gave some account of them in 
 his Preface. In 1705 was printed at Amsterdam the 
 edition of Van dei- Hooght, well known for its typo- 
 graphical beauty, and its convenience for common use. 
 The text was chiefly formed on that of Athias. It 
 has the Masoretic readings in the margin, and a col- 
 lection of various readings from printed editions at the 
 end. In 1709 Professor Opitz at Kiel published a 
 Hebrew Bible, for which he collated both editions and 
 manuscripts: and in 1720 John Henry Michaelis, 
 Pofessor at Halle, and uncle to the author of the In- 
 troduction to the New Testament, published a He- 
 brew Bible, for which he collated, beside many print- 
 ed editions, five Hebrew manuscripts preserved at Er- 
 furt, of which the various readings are quoted at the 
 
 bottom of the page These are the chief among 
 
 the critical editions of the Hebrew Bible, wliich ap- 
 peared before the midlle of the last ceniury ; for 
 though the edition of Heincecius, which was several 
 times reprinted, professes on the title-page to have 
 been formed at least partly on the authority of manu- 
 scripts, those manuscripts are no where mentioned 
 in it. 
 
88 LECTURE XL 
 
 Toward the middle of the last century the expec- 
 tations of the public were considerably raised by the 
 preparations for an edition of the Hebrew Bible by 
 Houbigant, a priest of the Oratory at Paris. Like 
 Wetstein he published his Prolegomena before he 
 published the edition itself. They were first printed 
 in 1746, and were followed in 1753 by a splendid edi- 
 tion of the Hebrew Bible in four volun-ies folio. The 
 text of this edition was copied from the text of Van 
 der Hooght, divested indeed of points, and of ^y^ivy 
 thii ig \A bich appeared Masoretic. Its value therefore 
 as a critical edition must depend, first on the appara- 
 tus. \\hich the editor provided for the purpose of 
 amending the Hebrew text, and secondly on the 
 Hiode, in which he applied his apparatus. Now this 
 apparatus bore no proportion to the magnitude of the 
 undertaking. If we except the Samaritan readings, 
 which are printed in the margin of the Pentateuch, it 
 consisted altogether (if extracts from only twelve He- 
 brew manuscripts, three of which were preserved in 
 the Roval Librarj-, and nine in the library belonging 
 to the Oratorv, of wliich Houbigant was member. 
 They are described partly in his general Pi olegome- 
 na, partly in the Dissertation prefixed to the Proph- 
 ets. He says indeed (Prol. p. evil.) that he saw and 
 had in his possession some otb.er manuscripts belong- 
 ing to the Royal Library : but it does not appear that 
 he ever used them. Nor did he make imich use even 
 of the manuscripts, which he did collate. Their vari- 
 ous readings are not regularly quoted at the bottom of 
 the page as is usual in critical editions of tlie Greek 
 
LECTURE XL 89 
 
 Testament : they are introduced occasionally in the 
 notes, which are subjoined to each chapter : and when 
 they are introduced, which is not very often, they are 
 introduced chiefly for the purpose of supporting such 
 readings, as the editor himself preferred. The gener- 
 al evidence therefore, which a collation of manuscripts 
 affords, is here withholden. In fact the learned edi- 
 tor himself, as appears from what he says in his Pro- 
 legomena, attached little or no value to any of the He- 
 brew manuscripts now extant : and, though he allows 
 them a place among the sources of emendation, that 
 place appears, both from his principles, and from his 
 practice, to have been rather nojninal than reaL Like 
 his predecessor Morinus, he attached much greater 
 importance to the readings of the Septuagint, and oth- 
 er ancient versions. Like Moriaus too, he uniform- 
 ly preferred the text of the Samaritan to the text of 
 the Hebrew Pentateuch. Now though it cannot be 
 denied, that the Samaritan Pentateuch is of great im- 
 portance to a biblical critic, though it is probable that 
 many of its readings are preferable to the correspondent 
 readings of the Hebrew, yet to assume, as a general 
 principle, that the Hebrew is faulty, or even to be sus- 
 pected, because it differs from the Samaritan, is to reg- 
 ulate our judgment by a single evidence, where other 
 witnesses are at least entitled to be heard. But there 
 was a fourth source of emendation, to which Houbi- 
 gant had more frequent recourse than to any other, 
 namely, emendation from his own conjecture. And 
 here he indulged himself to such a degree, as no so- 
 ber critic can approve. It is true, that he did not ob- 
 
90 LECTURE XL 
 
 trude his conjectures on the Hebrew text. But he 
 introduced them in his Litin translation, which not 
 only accompanied the Hebrew, but was afterwards 
 printed separately, and is necessarily more read than 
 the original. Though he professed therefore to adopt 
 the principles of Cappellus, he had not the caution^ nor 
 had he the sagacity of tiiat eminent critic : and in his 
 opposition to tiie two Buxtorfs he was most defective 
 where they were most distinguished. \^ e must not 
 indeed deny the ingenuity^ which he sometimes dis- 
 plays in his critical conjectures : but if he had known 
 "inore^ he would have conjectured less. He knew too 
 little of the Masora, to form a judgment of it : and he 
 rejected, as is frequi ntly the case, what he did not ful- 
 ly understand. In short, if we must go into extremes, 
 the extreme of the two Buxtorfs is infinitely wiser 
 and safer, than the extreme of Houbigant : and we 
 had better declare at once, that the Hebrew text re- 
 quires no emendation, than submit the Bible to the 
 critical licentiousness of an editor, who corrects with- 
 out controul. 
 
 In the same year, in which Houbigant's edition 
 was delivered to the public. Dr. Kennicott, then Fel- 
 low of Exeter College in Oxford, published his first 
 Dissertation on the state of the printed Hebrew text, 
 in which he endeavoured to shew the necessity of the 
 same extensive collation of Hebrew manuscripts, as 
 had been already undertaken of the Greek manu- 
 scripts : and in support of his opinion he exhibited a 
 specimen of various readings from seventy Hebrew 
 manuscripts preserved in the Bodleian Library. In 
 
LECTUIIB XI. SI 
 
 1759 he published his second Dissertation, on the 
 state of the printed Hebrew text, wherein he also re- 
 plied to the objections which had been made to his 
 first Dissertation. And the utility of the proposed 
 collation being then very generally admitted, a very 
 liberal subscription was made to defray the expenses 
 of the collation. The subscription amounted on the 
 whole to nearly ten thousand pounds, and the name of 
 his present Majesty headed the list of subscribers. 
 Various persons were employed, both at home and 
 abroad : but of the foreign literati the principal was 
 Professor Bruns, of the University of Helmstadt, who 
 not only collated Hebrew manuscripts in Germany, 
 but went for that purpose into Italy and Switzerland. 
 The business of collation continued from 1760 to 
 1769 inclusive, daring which period Dr. Kennicott 
 published annually an account of the progress, which 
 was made. More than six hundred Hebrew manu- 
 scripts, and sixteen manuscripts of the Samaritan 
 Pentateuch were discovered in different libraries in 
 England and on the continent : many of which were 
 wholly collated, and others consulted in important pas- 
 sages. Several years of course elapsed, after the col- 
 lations were finished, before the materials could bear- 
 ranged and digested for publication. In 1776 the 
 first volume of Dr. Kennicott's Hebrew Bible was 
 delivered to the public, and in 1780 the second vol- 
 ume. It was printed at the Clarendon Press : and 
 the University of Oxford has the honour of having 
 produced the first critical edition upon a large scale^ 
 both of the Greek Testament^ and of the Hebrew Bi* 
 
i^ LECTURE :XI. 
 
 ble, an honour, which it is still maintaining by a simi- 
 lar edition, hitherto indeed unfinished, of the Greek 
 Version. 
 
 The text of Kennicott's edition was printed from 
 that of Van der Hooght, with which the Hebrew man- 
 uscripts, by Kennicott's direction, were all collated. 
 But, as variations in the points were disregarded in 
 the collation^ the points were not added in the text. 
 The various readings, as in the critical editions of the 
 Greek Testament, were printed at the bottom of the 
 page with references to the correspondent readings of 
 the text. In the Pentateuch the deviations of the Sa- 
 maritan text were printed in a column parallel to the 
 Hebrew ; and the variations observable in the Samar- 
 itan manuscripts, which differ from each other as well 
 as the Hebrew, are likewise noted with references to 
 the Samaritan printed text. To this collation of man- 
 uscripts was added a collation of the most distinguish- 
 ed editions of the Hebrew Bible, in the same manner 
 as Wetstein has noted the variations observable in the 
 principal editions of the Greek Testament. Nor did 
 Kennicott confine his collation to manuscripts and 
 editions. He further considered, that, as the quota- 
 tions from the Greek Testament in the works of ec- 
 clesiastical writers afford another source of various 
 readings, so the quotations from the Hebrew Bible in 
 the works of Jewish writers are likewise subjects of 
 critical inquiry. For this purpose he had recourse to 
 the most distinguished among the Rabbinical writings, 
 but particularly to the Talmud, the text of which is 
 as ancient as the third century. In the quotation of 
 
LECTURE XI. • 93 
 
 his authorities he designates them by numbers from 1 
 to 692, including manuscripts, editions, and Rabbini- 
 cal writings, which numbers are explained in the Dis- 
 sertatio generalis annexed to the second volume. 
 
 This Dissertatio generalis, which corresponds to 
 what are called Prolegomena in other critical editions, 
 contains, not only an account of the manuscripts and 
 other authorities collated for this edition, but also a 
 review of the Hebrew text divided into periods, and 
 beginning with the formation of the Hebrew canon af- 
 ter the return of the Jews from the Babylonish Cap- 
 tivity. Though inquiries of this description unavoid- 
 ably contain matters of doubtful disputation, though 
 the opinions of Kennicott have been frequently ques- 
 tioned, and sometimes justly questioned, his Disser- 
 tatio generalis is a work of great interest to every bib- 
 lical scholar. Kennicott was a disciple of Cappellus, 
 both in respect to the integrity of the Hebrew text, 
 and in respect to the preference of the Samaritan Pen- 
 tateuch : but he avoided the extreme, into which Mo- 
 rinus and Houbigant had fallen. And though he pos- 
 sessed not the Rabbinical learning of the two Bux- 
 torfs, his merits were greater, than some of his con- 
 temporaries, as well in England as on the continent, 
 were willing to allow. 
 
 That the mass of various readings exhibited in 
 this edition, which greatly surpass in number the vari- 
 ous readings collected by the industr}- of three centu- 
 ries for the Greek Testament, contains but few of real 
 importance, is no subject of reproach to the learned 
 «ditor, who could only produce what his authorities 
 13 
 
94 LECTURE XI. 
 
 aflforded. Nor is he to be censured for giving a// that 
 he had, without regard to their relative value. His 
 was the first attempt, which was ever made, to give a 
 copious collection of Hebrew readings : and he could 
 hardly have been justified, if he had exercised his own 
 discretion in regard to the portion, which should be 
 laid before the public. He wisely therefore afforded 
 the opportunity to his readers of selecting for them- 
 selves : and though his extracts are rarely of mUch 
 value for the purpose of critical emendation, they en- 
 able us, both to form an estimate of the existing He- 
 brew manuscripts, and to draw some important con- 
 clusions in regard to the integrity of the Hebrew text. 
 The major part of this immense collection consists 
 in mere variations of orthography, in the fulness or 
 defectiveness of certain words, in the addition or sub- 
 traction of a mater lectionis, of a Fau or a Jod. And 
 if we further deduct the readings, which are either 
 manifest errata, or in other respects are of no value, 
 the important deviations will be confined within a very 
 narrow compass. In short Dr. Kennicott's collation 
 has contributed to establish the credit of the Masora. 
 We learn from it this useful lesson, that although a 
 multiplication of written copies will, notwithstanding 
 all human endeavours, produce variations in the text, 
 the manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible have been so far 
 protected by the operation of the Masora, that ail 
 which are now extant, both the oldest and the newest, 
 may be compared with those manuscripts of the 
 Greek Testament, which Griesbach refers to the same 
 edition. 
 
LECTURE XI. 95 
 
 That the integrity therefore of the Hebrew text, 
 from the time when it was fixed by the authors of the 
 Masora, has been as strictly preserved to the present 
 age, as it is possible to preserve an ancient work, is a 
 position, which no longer admits a doubt. Another 
 question of equal importance is, whether we have suf- 
 ficient reason to believe, that this Masoretic text is it- 
 self ^n accurate copy of the sacred writings. In the 
 examination of tlus question Hebrew manuscripts are 
 of no use ; the oldest now extant are younger by some 
 centuries than the Masora itself: and therefore they 
 cannot furnish the means of correcting the faults, 
 which the Masorcts themselves may have committed. 
 For though Ante- Masoretic readings should occa- 
 sionally be found in Hebrew manuscripts, it would be 
 very uncritical to correct the Masoretic text on their 
 authority alone, unless we might take for granted, 
 what we certainly may not, that every Masoretic al- 
 teration was an alteration for the worse. But if we 
 cannot appeal to positive evidence, we must argue 
 from the evidence, which the nature of the case ad- 
 mits. It is indeed one of those questions, which 
 ought to be holden in the affirmative^ till we have rea- 
 son to believe the negative. Now the learned Jews of 
 Tiberias, in the third and fourth centuries, must have 
 had access to Hebrew manuscripts which were written 
 before the birth of Christ. We know that they 
 sought and collated them. We know that their ex- 
 ertions to obtain an accurate text were equal to their 
 endeavours to preserve it. Why then shall we con- 
 elude, that they laboured in vain ? 
 
H LECTURE XI. 
 
 Our notions of integrity must not indeed be car^ 
 ried to such an height, as to imply that no deviations 
 from the sacred autographs were retained in the Ma- 
 soretic text, that there are no passages in our present 
 Hebrew Bibles, which betray marks of corruption, 
 and still require critical aid. Such passages undoubt- 
 edly there are : and we are stiii in wsLWt of an edition 
 of the Hebrew Bible, conducted on the plan of Gries- 
 bach's Greek Testament. Kennicott's edition brought 
 us hardly so far in the criticism of the former, as Mill's 
 edition in the criticism of the latter. In the years 
 1784 — 1788 John Bernard de Rossi of Parma pub- 
 lished four quarto volumes (afterwards augmented by 
 a supplemental volume) of extracts from Hebrew 
 manuscripts, which form a considerable addition to 
 Kennicott's collations : and in 1795 an edition of the 
 Hi. brew Bible was published at Leipzig by Doeder- 
 lein and Meisner, with the most important readings, 
 which had been given both by Kennicott and Dr. 
 Rossi. But we sti// want an edition of the Hebrew 
 Bible, in which the readings oi manuscripts are united, 
 as in critical editions of the Greek Testament, with 
 judicious extracts from the ancient versiofis. Such an 
 edition would supply the materials, which, if carefully 
 used, might enable us in various places to correcit 
 what appears inaccurate. 
 
 The history of the printed Hebrew text being now 
 brought to a conclusion, it is necessary according to 
 the general plan to describe the authors who have il- 
 lustrated the criticism of the Hebrew Bible, accord- 
 ing to its several departments. This description will 
 form the subject of the following Lecture, 
 
I 
 
 I- 
 
 LECTURE XII. 
 
 In the enumeration of the authors, who have best 
 explained the several departments of Hebrew criti- 
 cism, we may proceed by a method similar to that, 
 which was adopted in respect to the Greek Testa- 
 ment. 
 
 As a general and elementary treatise on the criti- 
 cism of the Hebrew Bible, Dr. Gerard's Institutes^ al- 
 ready mentioned in the ninth Lecture, may be again 
 recommended. Though it relates as well to the in- 
 terpretation, as to the criticism of the Bible properly 
 so called, and both subjects are comprehended under 
 one name, yet, as they are not confounded, it will be 
 easy to select such parts, as immediately relate to our 
 present inquiry. 
 
 A knowledge of the editions of the Hebrew Bible 
 may be best obtained from the first volume of the Bib- 
 liotheca sacra^ as published by Masch. An account 
 both of the original and of the last edition of this work 
 was given in the ninth Lecture, and therefore it is un- 
 necessary at present to observe any thing more, than 
 what particularly relates to the Hebrew Bible. On 
 
9s LECTURE Xil. 
 
 this subject the learned editor is much more diffuse, 
 and much more profound, than in the account, which 
 he has given of the editions of the Greek Testament. 
 In his description of the Hebrew Bible he confines 
 himself not merely to the external history of the edi- 
 tions, but occasionally institutes critical inquiries in 
 respect to the formation of their text>. He has given 
 also a preliminary dissertation De codicum Hebraico- 
 rum diversitatibus, in which the editions of the He- 
 brew Bible are divided into two classes, the one call- 
 ed Masoretic, the other Amasoretic. The former 
 class comprises the Hebrew Bibles, which have the 
 marginal readings of the Masora, aiid is subdivided 
 into two portions, according as those readings are 
 quoted, either ^ wholly, or only in part. The second 
 class comprises those editions, in which the readings 
 of the Masora are unnoticed. An account of the edi- 
 tions of the Hebrew Bible to the year 1730 is given 
 also in the second and fourth volumes of JVblJii Bibli' 
 otheca Hebrcca, De Rossi of Parma has greatly con- 
 tributed to our knowledge of the early editions of the 
 Hebrew Bibles, both by his Disquisitio critica de He- 
 braicce typographicd origi?ie, published at Parma in 
 1776, and by his .apparatus Hebrceo-Biblicus^ publish- 
 ed at Parma in 17o2. But all the information, com- 
 municated on this subject, as well by De Rossi as by 
 Wolf, has been transferred to the Bibliotheca sacra by 
 Masch, either in the first or in the supplementary vol- 
 ume. With no less industry and fidelity has the au- 
 thor of the Bibliographical Dictionary (noticed in the 
 jiinth Lecture) availed himself of the labours of his 
 
LECTURE XII. 99 
 
 predecessors. The critical editions of the Hebrew 
 
 Bible are described in Dr. Kennicott's Dissertatio 
 generalis : and a critical dissertation on the editions of 
 the Bible, which preceded the London Polyglot, is 
 contained in th,e fourth chapter of Walton's Prolegom- 
 ena. These Prolegomena, to which we shall have 
 frequent occasion to refer, and which contain an ines- 
 timable treasure of Oriental literature, were reprinted 
 in octavo at Leipzig in 1777, by L A. Dathe, Profes- 
 sor of the Oriental Languages in that University, who 
 accompanied that edition with a valuable preface. 
 The Dissertatio generalis was likewise reprinted in oc- 
 tavo at Brunswick, in 1783, by Professor Bruns of 
 Helmstadt, who was Kennicott's chief assistant in the 
 collation of Hebrew manuscripts, and who accompa- 
 nied the edition both with a preface and notes. 
 
 Of manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible some account 
 is given in the fourth chapter of Walton's Prolegom- 
 ena. In the folio edition of the Bibliotheca sacra, 
 published in 1723, a catalogue of the Hebrew manu- 
 scripts is given as far as they were then known. In 
 the second and fourth volumes of the Bibliotheca He- 
 hraa, tlie latter of which was published in 1733, a fur- 
 ther account is given of the then-known Hebrew man- 
 uscripts. To this work should be added H. F. Koe- 
 cheri Nova Bibliotheca Hebraica, published at Jena in 
 1783 and 1784, in two volumes quarto, as a supple- 
 ment to that of ^Volf. Till the collation was made 
 for Dr. Kennicott's edition our knowledge of Hebrew 
 manuscripts was confined to a very small number. 
 This number however was so increased by that colla- 
 4 
 
lai LECTURE XII. 
 
 tion, that they now amount to more than six hundred. 
 They are all enumerated by Dr. Kennicott in his Z)w- 
 sertatio generaiis; and the learned editor has related 
 in what library each manuscript is preserved, by what 
 mark or number it is there known, what books it con- 
 tains, in what year it was written, (where a date is an- 
 nexed to it,) or to what century he himself refers it 
 (where the maiiuscript has no date,) whether it is 
 written in Spanish or German hand, and (whenever an 
 account of it has been already published) vv hat author 
 or authors may be further consulted. The Disserta- 
 tio generaiis therefore is the work, which is always to 
 be examined in the first instance by those, who are 
 desirous of obtaining information on any Hebrew 
 manuscript, which had been collated before 1770, 
 when Kennicott's collation was closed. A valuable 
 supplement to Kennicott's catalogue is contained in 
 the following work, Apparatus Hebr^eo-biblicus^ seu 
 manuscr'ipti^ editique codices Sacri Textus^ quos possi- 
 det novceque variantium lectionum collationi destinat Jo. 
 Bern, de Rossu Parma ^ 1782. %vo, But whoev- 
 er wishes to become more intimately acquainted with 
 the nature of Hebrew manuscripts in general, must 
 consult the following work by Professor O. G. Tych- 
 sen, of the University of Rostock in Mecklenburg : 
 Tentamen de variis codicum Hebraicorum Feteris Tes- 
 tamenti manuscriptorum generibus, a Judais et non Ju- 
 dais descriptis, eorumque in classes certas distributione, 
 et antiquitatis et bonitatis characteribus. Rostochii^ 
 1772. 8vo. In addition to the rules, which it pre- 
 scribes, for judging of the antiquity, country, writer, 
 
LECTURE XIL 101 
 
 &c. of Hebrew manuscripts, it has digressions on oth- 
 er points of Hebrew literature, which shall be noticed 
 in the sequel. — In determining the antiquity of He- 
 brew manuscripts, it may be useful likewise to con- 
 ■sult a short treatise by Professor Schnurrer of Tiibin- 
 gen, entided, Z)<? codicum Hebrieorum Veteris Testa- 
 maiti atate difficulter determinandd, printed in his 
 Dissertationes philologico-criticce^ which were publish- 
 ed at Gotha and Amsterdam in 1790, octavo. They, 
 who are acquainted with German, will find the most 
 perspicuous, and the most systematic account of He- 
 brew manuscripts in the second volume of Eichhorn's 
 
 Introduction. Beside the manuscripts in Hebrew 
 
 letters, sixteen manuscripts of the Pentateuch in Sa- 
 moritan letters were collated for Kennicott's edition, 
 of which an account is given in the catalogue of man- 
 uscripts in the Dissertatio generalis. It was related in 
 the tenth Lecture, that we first became acquainted 
 with the Samaritan Pentateuch at the beginning of the 
 seventeenth century ; that the first known copy of it 
 was deposited in the library of the Oratory at Puris ; 
 and that the deviation of its text from that of the He- 
 brew Pentateuch gave rise to a controversy on tiie 
 subject of their relative value. But an account of the 
 principal authors on this subject will be more proper- 
 ly given, when we come to that department, which re* 
 lates to the utility and application of various readings. 
 
 The Samaritan Pentateuch was first printed in 
 
 the Paris Polyglot under the inspection of Morinus, 
 and was reprinted by Walton in the London Polyglot. 
 In these editions it is printed in the Samaritan chacac- 
 14 
 
10« LECTURE Xn. 
 
 ter. In 1790 the late Dr. Blayney, Hebrew Profes- 
 sor at Oxford, published it, in an octavo volume, in 
 the Hehrexv character, which had been already used 
 by Houbigant and Kcnnicott, in printing the devia- 
 tions of the Samaritan text. Dr. Blayney's edition is 
 moreover accompanied with the readings of the Sa- 
 maritan manuscripts (collated for Kennicott's edition) 
 which differ from the printed Samaritan text. 
 
 On the ancient versions of tl.e Hebrew Bible, 
 which open a second sour:e of various readings, our 
 means of information are very ample. A considera- 
 ble part of Walton's Prolegomena is devoted to this 
 subject : and they are particularly valuable in respect 
 to the oriental versions, which are described in the six 
 last chapters. The second book of Simon'^s critical 
 History of the Old Testament is wholly employed on 
 the translations of it, both ancient and modern, though 
 the latter are of no value in a critical history of the 
 Hebrew text, on which account the notice of Lewis's 
 and other histories of our English translations must be 
 reserved for the second branch of Theology, the In- 
 terpretation of the Bible. In Carpzov's Critica sacra 
 Veteris Testamenti, printed at Leipzig in 1728, quarto, 
 the second part contains also an account of the trans- 
 lations of the Old Testament. A popular account is 
 given of them in the second volume of Prideaux^s 
 Connexion : and also in Dr. Brett's Dissertation on the 
 ancient Versions oj the Bible ^ of which the second edi- 
 tion was published in London in 1760, and is reprint- 
 ed in the third volume of Bishop Watson's Theologi- 
 cal Tracts. The object of this latter work, as the au- 
 
 i 
 
LECTURE Xlf. loa 
 
 thor declares on the title-page, was to shew the excel- 
 lent use, that may be made of the ancient versions to- 
 wards attaining the true readings of the Holy Scrip- 
 tures in doubtful pUces, But that, which far surpas- 
 ses all other works on the critical application of the 
 ancient versions, is Eichhorn's Introduction to the 
 Old Testament, in which the latter half of the first vol- 
 ume is devoted to this subject. The best account 
 
 of the editions of the ancient versions is given in the 
 second part of the Bibliotheca sacra, published by 
 Masch. No work contains so many of the ancient 
 versions, and so well arranged, as the London Polyg- 
 lot. 
 
 As the Septuigint is not only the most ancient 
 version of the Hebrew Bible, but is frequently quoted 
 in the Greek Testament, and as, it is likewise more fa- 
 miliar to us, than any other ancient version, the Latin 
 only excepted,* the authors, v/ho have written on it, 
 deserve more particular notice. The first writer, who 
 instituted a systematic inquiry into the Septuagint 
 version, was Archbishop Usher, in a work entitled De 
 Grcecd Septuaginta interpretum Versione Syntagma^ 
 printed in London in 1655, quarto. It is divided in- 
 
 * The histoiy of the Latin Version has been ah-eady given in the 
 fourth Lecture. It is only the Latin Vulgate^ made by Jerom from the 
 Hebrew which can be applied to the criticism of the Hebrew Bi- 
 ble. The old Latin version published by Sabatier (at Rheims ia 
 1743, in three volumes folio,) being in the Old Testament made from 
 the Septuagint, applies immediately to the criticism of the Septuagint. 
 In the edition of the Bibliotheca sacra, Pait II, Vol. HI, as published 
 by Masch, both versions are fully described. Much information on the 
 subject of the Vulgate may be obtained from Hody's work De textil 
 bus, C/f. 
 
10* LECTURE XII. 
 
 to nine chapters, and relates to the origin of the ver- 
 sion according to the account of Aristeas (then sup- 
 posed to be genuine,) to the time when and the place 
 where it was written, to the alterations which were 
 gradually made in its text, to the corrections of Ori- 
 gen, to the modern editions, and other subjects, with 
 which these are immediately connected. This is a 
 work of great merit ; it displays niucli original, inqui- 
 ry, and may be regarded as the ground-work of later 
 publications on the Septuagint. In 1661 Isaac Vos- 
 sius published at the Hague, in quarto, his work enti- 
 tled De Septiiaginta inter pretihuSy eorumque trahxtione 
 et chronologia dissertationes. Isaac Vossius was such 
 an admirer of the Septuagint, that he ascribed to it 
 more authority, than to the original itself. But he 
 met with a very pov.^erful adversary in Humphrey 
 Hody, then a young man and Fellow of Wadham Col- 
 lege in Oxford, who in 1685 published in London, in 
 octavo, his treatise entitled Contra historia'm Aristeas 
 de IjXXj interpretibus dissertatio : in qua prohatur il- 
 lam a Judao aliquo confectam Jiiisse ad condliatidam au' 
 thoritatem Fersioni GriCOff ; et clarissimi doctissimiqiw 
 viri Z). Isaaci Fossil aliorumque defensiones ejusdem 
 examini subjiciuntur. This very acute and learned 
 writer has clearly proved his position in respect to the 
 writing w^hich bears the name of Aristeas : some fee- 
 ble efforts were made indeed to defend the authentici- 
 ty of that writing, especially by Whiston in an Appen- 
 dix to his Literal Accomplishment of Scripture Proph- 
 ecies: but the opinion of Hody is at present very gen- 
 erally adopted. In 1705 Hody, who was then become 
 
LECTURE XII. ±0S 
 
 Greek Professor and Archdeacon of Oxford, publish- 
 ed the work already quoted in the fourth Lecture, De 
 Bibliorum textibus originalibus, Versio?iibus Gracis et 
 Latin a Vulgata libri quatuor. This is the classical 
 work on the Septuagint :* but there are others which 
 are worthy of notice ; especially two publications by 
 Dr. Henry Owen, Rector of St. Olave, Hartstreet, the 
 one An Inquiry into the present state of the Septua- 
 gint Version of the Olcl Testament; London^ 1769, 
 ^vo ; the other A brief Account historical and critical 
 oj the Septuagint Version of the Old Testament. Lon- 
 don, 1787, Sfo. The author, who is himself an ex- 
 cellent critic, treads closely in the footsteps of Hody. 
 The last work especially should be read by every 
 man, who wishes to be acquainted with the history of 
 the Septuagint. The following is likewise a very 
 useful work, as it represents both concisely and per- 
 spicuously the several topics, which suggest them- 
 selves for consideration on the origin of the Septua- 
 
 * As Hody in common with many other learned men considers the 
 Hexapla and Tetrapla as different 'works, and they were represented in 
 the third Lecture as only different names of the same work viewed in 
 different lights, it may be necessary to observe, that the latter is the 
 opinion of Eichhom, and several other very distinguished critics of the 
 present age. It would be foreign to the design of these Lectures to 
 enter into an elaborate discussion on this subject. I will take however 
 this opportunity of correcting an inaccuracy in the same Lecture at p, 
 68. From what was there said of the column of the Hexapla, which 
 contained the corrected text of the Septuagint with its critical marks, 
 and which was transcribed by Eusebius and Pamphilus, it might be in- 
 ferred, that the Hexaplai-ian text of the Septuagint has descended to us 
 only in fragments, whereas the observation is true only of the other 
 Greek versions, which Origen applied to the emendation of the Septu- 
 ?g^nt. 
 
106 LECTURE XII. 
 
 gint version. De origine ifersicnis Septuaginfa infer- 
 pretiim : auctore S. T. Aliiecke^ Conrectore Lycei So- 
 
 raviensis. ZiiWchovia^ 17fc8, ^vo. The aiuhois, 
 
 on some particular subjects, connected with the utility 
 and application of various readings, will be noticed 
 when we come to that department. 
 
 The editions of the Sepluagiiit, are fully described 
 in the second volume of the Gecond part of the Biblio- 
 theca sacra, as published by Masch ; to which descrip- 
 tion is prefixed an account of the origin, both of the 
 Septuagint and the other Greek versions of tiie Bible. 
 It may be proper to observe, that there are four prin- 
 cipal or cardinal editions of the Septuagint, from one 
 or more of which all the other editions of the Septua- 
 gint have been copied ; namely the Complutensian, 
 the Aldine, tlie Roman of Sixtus V, and Grabe's edi- 
 tion. The Complutensian Septuagint bears the date 
 of 1515; it was printed from a collation of Greek 
 manuscripts, which the editors highly extol, but of 
 which we have no further knowledge. The Aldine 
 edition Vvas published at Venice in 1518, two years 
 after the death of Aldus Manutius. The text of this 
 edition was likewise formed from several Greek man- 
 uscripts, but was interpolated in various places from 
 other Greek versions. The Roman edition of Sixtus 
 V, which appeared in 1587, was copied from the cel- 
 ebrated Codex FaticanuSy with the exception of such 
 words as the editors regarded in the light of errata. 
 But as such corrections depended wholly on \\w judg- 
 merit of the editors, and it is of importance to know 
 the real readings of the Codex ^'^aticauus, Dr. Holmes 
 
LECTURE Xll. ia7 
 
 in liis edition of the Pentateuch has carefully noted the 
 differences, however minute, between the texts of the 
 Roman edition and of the Vatican manuscript. Grabe's 
 edition was taken from the no less celebrated Codex 
 Alexandrinus, and was printed at Oxford in four folio 
 volumes at different times from 1707 to 1720. But 
 though this edition has the Codex Alexandrinus for 
 its basis ^ it is far from being a mere copy of that man- 
 uscript : for Grabe (also Lee who continued it after 
 Grabe's death) adopted many readings partly from the 
 Roman edition, partly from other manuscripts, where 
 those readings were believed to be genuine. The 
 most convenient edition is that of Breitinger, published 
 at Ziirich in 1730 — 1732 in four quarto volumes : for 
 it contains the text of Grabe's edition with the devia- 
 tions of the Roman edition in the margin. Hither- 
 to no collation of manuscripts of the Septuagint had 
 been undertaken upon an extensive scale. In 1779 
 Dr. White, Arabic (now Hebrew) Professor at Ox- 
 ford, published a letter to the Bishop of London, sug- 
 gesting a plan for a new edition of the Septuagint. In 
 the same year Mr. Stroth, master of the Grammar 
 school at Gotha, published in the fifth volume of 
 Eichhorn's Repertorium the first part of his Catalogue 
 of MSS. of the LXX, which he continued in the 
 eighth and eleventh volumes. In 1788 Dr. Holmes 
 (afterwards Dean of Winchester) published at Oxford 
 proposals for a collation of all the known manuscripts 
 of the Septuagint. The undertaking was promoted 
 by the Delegates of the Clarendon Press ; a subscrip- 
 tion was made toward defraying the expense ; litera- 
 
108 LECTURE XU. 
 
 ry men were engaged in various parts of the continent 
 for the business of collation ; and Dr. Holmes pub- 
 lished annually an account of the progress which was 
 made. In 1798 he published at Oxford the Book of 
 Genesis, which was successively followed by the oth- 
 er books of the Pentateuch, making together one folio 
 volume, with one title-page, and one general Preface. 
 From this general Preface it appears, that eleven 
 Greek manuscripts in uncial letters, and more than an 
 hundred manuscripts in small letters, containing either 
 the whole or parts of the Pentateuch, were collated for 
 this edition. They are all described in the second and 
 third chapters. And as the text of this edition is a 
 copy of the Roman edition of 1587, the deviations 
 from it observable in the the three other cardinal edi- 
 tions, the Complutensian, the Aldine, and Grabe's 
 edition, are constantly noted. The quotations, which 
 are found in the works of the Greek Fathers, are like- 
 wise alleged : and finally the various readings of the 
 ancient versions, namely of such as were made from 
 the Septuagint^ for versions made immediately from 
 the Hebrew can furnish no various readings for the 
 emendation of the Greek, The plan therefore of this 
 edition is good : it is that which had been already ap- 
 plied by Mill, Wetstein, and Griesbach to the Greek 
 Testament. Nor is the execution of the plan to be 
 less commended: it displays uncommon industry, 
 and apparently great accuracy. The learned editor 
 died in 1806 : but shortly before his death he publish- 
 ed the book of Daniel, both according to the Septua- 
 gint version and that of Theodotion, the latter only 
 
LECTURE Xn. 109 
 
 havinj^ been printed in former editions, because the 
 Septuagint version of this book is not contained in the 
 common manuscripts, and was unknown till it was 
 printed at Rome in 1772 from a manuscript belonging 
 to Cardinal Chigi. Since the death of Dr. Holmes, 
 the continuation of this important work has been un- 
 dertaken by Mr. Parsons, who has properly resumed 
 it with the historical books as they follow the Penta- 
 teuch, and from the specimen which he has already 
 given (the Book of Joshua just published) appears 
 well worthy of the task, which has been committed to 
 his care. Every friend of biblical literature must 
 wish to see the completion of this edition. — On the 
 application of the Septuagint version to the criticism of 
 the Hebrew Bible may be consulted the two following 
 Works : F. V. Re'inhardi Dissertatio de versionis Alex- 
 andrine authoritate et usu in constituendd librorum He- 
 hraicorum Icctione genuind. Vitembergce, 1117, Ato, 
 
 G, C. Knappii Dissertatio de versione Alexandri- 
 
 nd in emendandd lectione exempli Hebraici caute adhi- 
 
 hendd. P. i. ii. HaU, 1775, 1776, Uo. The 
 
 authors who have applied the Septuagint to the expla- 
 nation of the Bible will be mentioned under the second 
 branch of Theology. 
 
 Having already mentioned two sources of various 
 readings, Hebrew manuscripts, and ancient versions^ 
 with the writers, from whom the best information may 
 be derived on those subjects, we may now proceed to 
 the third source, which consists of quotations from the 
 Hebrew Bible, which are found in the works of aa- 
 cient authors. Philo and Josephus, who wrote in 
 15 
 
il» LEC rURE XU. 
 
 Greek and used the Septuagint version, if not exclu- 
 sively, at least ciii^fly, especially the former, are of 
 very little use in the criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 
 The Talmud, and such other Rabbinical works as 
 contain quotations from the Hebrew, are alone of any 
 value. The Talmud (a word which signifies literally 
 doctrine) may be regarded as the Corpus doctrince Ju- 
 daictff : and as the precepts, which it contains, relate 
 not merely to doctrines properly so called, but to cer- 
 emonies as well civil as religious, it has not been im- 
 properly termed Judceorum jus civile et canonicum. 
 The text of it, which is called Mishna, was compiled 
 in the second century by Rabbi Jehuda Hakkadosh ; 
 a commetary, called Gemara, was added to it at Jeru- 
 salem, and another commentary bearing the same name 
 was afterwards added to it in Babylon. The text of 
 the Talmud is sometimes accompanied with the for- 
 mer, at other times with the latter commentary ; and 
 the text and commentary together receive the appella- 
 tion of Talmud of Jerusalem, or Talmud of Babylon, 
 according to the commentary, which is annexed. For 
 the different editions of the Talmud the first and 
 fourth volumes of TFolfii Bibliotheca Hebraa rmisiht, 
 consulted. That of Surenhusius (Amsterdam 1698 
 — 1703, six tom. fol.) contains only the Mishna: but 
 it is accomjjanied with a Latin translation. The co;i- 
 tents of the Mishna are described in the second part 
 of the Antiguitates Hebneoriim^ published by Professor 
 Wahner at Gottingen in 1743, in two volumes octa- 
 vo. It was observed In the preceding Lecture, 
 
 that the Talmud was collated for Dr. Kennicott's edi- 
 
LECTURE XIL Hi 
 
 tion: several other Rabbinical works were collated, 
 whicli are mentioned in the Dissertatio generalise and 
 of which a more ample account must be sought In the 
 Bibliotheca Hebrcsa, % 
 
 The fourth and last source of emendation in the 
 Hebrew text is critical conjecture. It was asserted in 
 the ninth Lecture, that the words of the Greek Testa- 
 ment ouglit in no case to be altered from conjecture : 
 and this rule has been strictiy observed by Griesbach. 
 But in the Hebrew Bible there are various reasons 
 against the total exclusion of conjectural emendation, 
 though no prudent critic will approve of it, when car- 
 ried to excess. The causes of accidental error in the 
 transcribing of Hebrew manuscripts were more nu- 
 merous, as was shewn in the tenth Lecture, than in 
 the transcribing of Greek manuscripts. Hence the 
 very long period, which elapsed between the time 
 when the books of the Old Testament, especially the 
 Pentateuch, were composed, and the time, when even 
 the oldest of the now-existing Hebrew manuscripts 
 were written, may have occasioned in various places 
 the genuine reading to be totally lost. And the cir- 
 cumstance, that all the Hebrew manuscripts now ex- 
 tant belong, as it were, to one edition^ renders the pro- 
 bability, that in various places the genuine reading is 
 contained in no Hebrew manuscript now extant, still 
 greater. The means therefore of correcting from au- 
 thority are less ample, than in the Greek Testament ; 
 and consequently conjectural emendation may be al- 
 lowable in the former, though not in the latter. Be- 
 sides, conjectural emendation is not liable to the abuse 
 
il« LECTURE XII. 
 
 in the Old Testament, to which it is liable in the 
 New : conjectura theologica m the form of conjectura 
 critica does not so easil) find room in the former, as it 
 does in the latter. Hence Bishop Lowth in his trans- 
 lation of Isaiah (London, 1778, quarto) not only cor- 
 rected in many places the common Hebrew text on 
 the authority of manuscripts,* but sometimes intro- 
 duced emendations from mere conjecture. Yet even 
 Lowth has been supposed to have taken this liberty 
 too often, especially by Professor Kocher of Bern in a 
 dissertation entitled Findicice S. textus Hebrai Esaiie 
 Fdtis, adversiis D. Roberti Lowthiy Fenerandi Episcopi 
 Lojidmensis, Criticam^ printed at Bern in 1786, and 
 reprinted at Tubingen in 1790. The principles of 
 Houbigant, who carried his conjectures beyond all 
 bounds, have been very ably combated in the follow- 
 ing work : Sebaldi Ravii Exercitationes philologies in 
 C. F. Hubingantii Prolegomena in Scripturam sacram, 
 Lugduni Bdtavorum^ 1785, 4^o. Indeed before we 
 have recourse to tne desperate remedy of altering an 
 author's words from our own conjecture, we should be 
 fully satisfied that no mode of interpretation will re- 
 move the diificulties, which may present themselves, 
 
 * It is worthy of notice, ihoug-Ii the remark is foreign to the present 
 parag'i-itph, tha: Micliaelis in iiis German translation of Isaiah, whicli 
 was male about the same time, and of which nearly one half was pi-int- 
 ed wiien i-owth's Isaiah appeared, has in most places, where he haft 
 preferred a various reading' to the common text, agreed in tlie choice 
 of that reading with Lowth. This coincidence, without previous con- 
 cert, between two such eminent critics, argues strongly in favour of 
 the adopted readings. The readings here meant are readings really 
 existing either in manuscripts, or ancient versions : for on tlie subject 
 of conjectural emendations M ichaelis and I.owth did not agree. 
 
LECTURE XIT. IIB 
 
 Under the different modes of interpretation may be 
 reckoned also the different modes of pronouncing, or, 
 which is the same thing, of pointing, the same word. 
 Michaeiis, in his German translation of the Hebrew- 
 Bible, has frequently recourse to an alteration of the 
 points : but he made it a rule never to alter the conso- 
 nants, that is, the words themselves, except in cases of 
 extreme necessity. 
 
 The last department of Hebrew criticism, which 
 we have to consider, is the utility and application of 
 various readings. This department has been rendered 
 very extensive by the turn, which the criticism of the 
 Hebrew Bible took at the beginning of the seven- 
 teenlh century. We have seen that the elder Buxtorf 
 denied the very existence of various readings to the 
 Hebrew Bible. The history of the controversy, 
 which consequently took place between Cappellusand 
 the younger Buxtorf, on the integrity of the Hebrew 
 text, was given in the preceding Lecture, where the 
 works were also quoted, which were published at that 
 period. The Critica sacra of Cappellus, which has 
 ever remaiiied a standard work, was again published 
 at Halle in 1775 — 1786 in three octavo volumes, with 
 very valuable Notes by Professor Vogel at Halie, and 
 Professor Scharfenberg at Leipzig. Another very 
 excellent work is the Critica Sacra Veteris Testamenti, 
 published at Leipzig in 1795 by Professor Bauer of 
 Altorf. It is in fact a revision of the first section in 
 the second volume of Glassii philologia sacra, which 
 relates to the criticism of the Bible, as the second sec- 
 tjion relates to the interpretation of it. Glass, who 
 
di'k LECTURE XII. 
 
 was Professor at Jena in the seventeenth centurj% had 
 adopted Buxtorf's high notions of integrity, whicli are 
 properly modified in Professor Bauer's revision of the 
 work. Carpzov in his Critica Sacra Veteris Testa- 
 mentis published at Leipzig- in 1728, quarto, adheres 
 likewise too closely to those high notions : but if 
 proper allowance be made on this account, it will be 
 foiuid to be a very useful work, and replete with infor- 
 mation on the subject of Hebrew criticism. 
 
 With the inquiries, which have been instituted on 
 the integrity of the Hebrew text, two other questions 
 have been mixed, which have no necessary connexion 
 with it, namely the antiquity of our present Hebrew 
 characters, and our present Hebrew points ; for, as 
 was observed in the preceding Lecture, the letters may 
 have been changed, the points may be new, yet the 
 words may have remained the same. But the two 
 Buxtorfs, and ottier writers who have carried to the 
 highest pitch their notions on the integrity of the He- 
 brew text, have considered this integrity, which in re- 
 ality relates only to the preservation of the wordsy as 
 including the unchangeableness of ihc forms, in which 
 the words are expressed. They defended the latter 
 therefore with as much warmth as the former : and 
 represented such critics, as Cappellus and Walton, 
 who denied to the shadow what they allowed to the 
 substance, as men impeaching the integrity of the sa- 
 cred writings. Hence Professor Wasmuth at Ros- 
 tock published a quarto volume in 1664, entitled Vin- 
 dicia Sacra Hehrccce Scripture, in whicli he under- 
 takes to defend what he calls originalis authentva divu 
 
LECTURE XII. 115 
 
 na^ tarn vocalium et accentuum^ quam ipsarum litcrarum 
 sacr'i textiis Hebrm ; and this defence is conducted, 
 as h.^ further savo on the title-page, adversus impia et 
 imperita multorum prajudicia^ hnprimis contra Cappel- 
 lU f^ossi' F. et TValtoni, autoris operis Anglicarii 'xoXvy- 
 AwTTou, assertiones falsissimas pariter et perniciocissi' 
 mas. But in later tinnes these questions have been dis- 
 cussed with greater calmness, in proportion as the de- 
 fence of them appeared less necessary for the purpose 
 of religion. With respect to the letters^ the contro- 
 versy between Johannes Morinus and Cappellus on 
 the one hand, and the younger Buxtorf on the other, 
 has been already related in the tenth Lecture. The 
 opinion of the two former, that the Samaritan were 
 the ancient letters of the Jews, was very ably support- 
 ed by Walton in the tliird chapter of his Prolegomena, 
 On the other hand, Stepli. Morinus, a French pro- 
 testant clergyman, in his Exercitationes de lingua pri- 
 mcevd (published at Utrecht in 1G94, quarto,) and 
 Wolf in the second volume of his Bibliotheca Hebraay 
 have defended the antiquity of the Hebrew letters. 
 The latest and most useful work on this subject is, 
 Josephi Dobrowsky de antiquis Hebrceorum characteri' 
 bus dissertatio. Pragcc, 17S3, 8z;o. This tract con- 
 tains in a short compass a perspicuous statement of 
 all the arguments, both for and against the antiquity 
 of the Hebrew letters : and the conclusion \vhich the 
 author deduces is, that not the Hebrew^ but that the 
 Samaritan was the ancient alphabet of the Jews. That 
 the present Hebrew or Chaldee character was not used 
 by the Jews before the Babylonish captivity is an 
 
416 LECTURK XU. 
 
 opinion, which is now almost universally received, 
 and the truth of it seems no longer disputable. But it 
 is still a question whether the Samaritan letters, in the 
 form in which we 7ww JiJid them in manuscripts of the 
 Samaritan Pentateuch^ were the letters used by the 
 Jews before the Babylonish captivity. Now as letters 
 are continually liable to some trifling alteration, accord- 
 ing to the taste or fancy of transcribers, and altera- 
 tions, though at first insensible, will by frequent repe- 
 tiiion, in the course of two or three thousand years, 
 produce such changes, that the modern form becomes 
 materially different from the ancient one, it is highly 
 probable if v/e argue from analogy, that the Samari- 
 tan letters, which are used in the manuscripts now ex- 
 tant, are in many respects difterent from those which 
 were used by the Jews and Samaritans before the Bab- 
 ylonish captivity. But what was the form of the let- 
 ters then in use among them, or even by what name 
 that alphabet should be called, are questions on which 
 the learned are divided, and on which, for want of da- 
 ta, it is impossible perhaps to come to a decision. 
 Many writers call this alphabet the old Samaritan: 
 Professor Bauer in the Critica sacra above-quoted 
 calls it Phoenician : FJchhorn in his Introduction calls 
 it Phoenician-Egyptian : Michaelis seems undeter- 
 mined about the name, though he is equally of opin- 
 ion that the ancient alphabet differed from the present 
 Samaritan, as well as from the Hebrew. A detailed 
 account of the authors, who by the aid of inscriptions 
 and medals have endeavoured to tnice the forms of 
 the ancient letters in quebtion, of whom the principal 
 
LECTURE Xll. 10 
 
 are Bayer, Caylus, Biittner, and Dutens, would occa- 
 sion a digressioa, which however interesting in itself, 
 is not immediately connt cted with critical theology. 
 
 Of the Hebrew points the antiquity has been no 
 less contested, than that of the Hebrew letters : and 
 here again their advocates have considered their an- 
 tiquity as so connected with the integrity of the text, 
 that they have argued for the divine origin of the He- 
 brew points. The controversy between Cappellus 
 and the younger Buxtorf on this subject was related 
 in the tenth Lecture, where the works weie quoted, 
 which appeared on that occasion. The Arcanum 
 punctationis revelatum^ first printed in 1624, was re- 
 printed in L. Cappelli Commentarii et not a critica in 
 Fetus Testamentum^ which were published at Amster- 
 dam in 1689 by his son, who prefixed to it a clear and 
 useful statement of the controversy. In the same 
 work was published also the Vindicice mentioned in the 
 tenth Lecture. The subject was so exhausted by the 
 original combatants, that from this period the respec- 
 tive advocates, who were numerous on each side, and 
 whom it would be tedious to enumerate, had only to 
 repeat the arguments of their leaders. At length Al- 
 bert Schultens, Professor of the Oriental languages at 
 Ley den, in his Institutiones adfundamenta linguce He- 
 br^ce^ published at Ley den in 1737 and reprinted in 
 1756, proposed a middle path between the two ex- 
 tremes : and as Schultens was a man of great authori- 
 ty, it will not be improper to quote his words. In the 
 second section, after a statement of the arguments, 
 which had been advanced for and against the antiqui- 
 16 
 
148 LECTURE Xlf. 
 
 ty of the points, he says, " Controversia simplicius pro 
 posita non ita dij^culter componi potuisset, si sold veri' 
 tas qiiccsita fuisset. Amputa quccstionis iip])endices, de 
 hodiernis figuris et nominibus voculium^ de Schevati- 
 bus, </(? acGentuum numero etmunere midt'iplwi: dis- 
 quire dein quid verisirnilius^ adfuerintne tnde iib anti- 
 quissimis tempnribus vocales_ an non ? Hoc ipsum quo- 
 que adhuc rest7inge^ et disputa^ an non ibi saltern \ oca- 
 hum notulae adject a a sacris scriptoribusy itbi sum ma 
 necessitas id postulabat. Hoc negare non valde vere- 
 cundum ; idterius quid e.vigere imprudens et bonce cau- 
 see noxium. His Jinibus si lis hcecce semet coerceaty 
 Concordia inter criticos et theologos sponte coibit : et 
 puncta vocalia communi consensu justuin ilium et natu- 
 ralem locum obtinebunt, quem ir doles linguae Hebrcec^^ 
 quern usus Orientis, iride a primgeva origine, iisdem in- 
 ter Chald(£OSy SyroSy Arabes assignavit''^ In 1769 
 
 Michaehs, who had formerly defended the antiquity of 
 the present points, adopted in the second volume of 
 his Miscellaneous Works (Vermischte Schriften) pub- 
 lished in that year, the middle path proposed by Schul- 
 tens. He admitted on the one hand, that our present 
 system of punctuation was invented and introduced 
 by the Masorets : but he maintained on the other 
 hand, that even in the earliest ages the Hebrews made 
 at least occasional use of some vowel points. —In the 
 thirty-sixth volume of the History of the Academy 
 of Inscriptions and Belles Lettres published at Paris 
 in 1775 is a very valuable Dissertation by Dupuy, 
 (directed chiefly against the system of Mascleif and his 
 followers) in which the same medium is observed as 
 
LECTURE XII. Idd 
 
 by Schultens and Michaelis. In the eighteenth 
 
 volume of Eichhorn's Rcpertorium is a dissertation 
 by Trendelenburg, of whicii the object is to piove 
 that the ancient Hebrews had three vowel maiks. 
 And Eichhorn in his Introduction to the Old Testa- 
 ment, \, 62, says, " From the preceding remarks it 
 appears, that we may draw the certain conclusion, that 
 tlie ancient Hebrews had vowel marks, but not the 
 whole number of those which are now in use, probably 
 only three ; that the ancient Hebrew authors provid- 
 ed their writings with vowel marks, not indeed 
 throughout, but only here and thtre, in difficult, ambig- 
 uous passages ; and that our present system of punc- 
 tuation was introduced in some later age, probably 
 after Hebrew had ceased to be a living language." 
 The question is very clearly stated by Eichhorn : but 
 as these Lectures aie not intended to convey disserta- 
 tions on any single subjects, it would be foreign to 
 their purpose to translate more. The opinion of 
 Schultens, Michaelis, and Ei«3hhorn is now the com- 
 mon opinion of the Oriental scholars in Germany. 
 We must except indeed Professor Tychsen, who has 
 uniformly adhered to the system of Buxtorf. In our 
 own country, Walton, Kennicott, Lowth, and many 
 other distinguished Hebrew scholars have sided with 
 Cappellus. Among the few, who in later times have 
 defended the antiquity of the present points, may be 
 mentioned Dr. James Robertson, Professor of the 
 Oriental languages at Edinburg, who prefixed to his 
 Clavis Fentateuchi, publislied at Edinburg in 1/70, 3 
 
126 LECTURE Xn. 
 
 Dissertatio de g'enuind punctoritm vocalhim Hebraico- 
 rum Antiquitate.* 
 
 Though the integrity of the Hebrew text depends 
 not on the decision of the questions, whether the 
 points be coeval with the letters, or whether the let- 
 ters themselves were the original letters of the Jews, 
 yet a question of some importance to the criticism of 
 the Bible arose out of the controversy, as conducted 
 by Cappellus and Buxtorf. This question is, wheth- 
 er the Hebrew Pentateuch or the Samaritan Penta- 
 teuch has the greater critical authority. Most writ- 
 ers, who have maintained the superior antiquity of the 
 Samaritan to the Hebrew letters^ have hence conclud- 
 ed that the text of the Samaritan Pentateuch is more 
 ancient, and more free from corruption, than the He- 
 brew Pentateuch. On the other hand, most writers 
 who defend the antiquity of the Hebrew letters^ prefer 
 
 * As the learned of the present age, with ver\' few exceptions, 
 wMch bear no proportion to the whole number, admit, that ow present 
 system of Hebrew points (whatever the ancient mode of punctuation 
 might have been, or whether Hebrew, while a li\'ing language, had 
 points or not) was introduced in a later age, after Hebi'cw had become 
 a dead language, the question occurs, whether it is not allowable there- 
 fore, in learning Hebrew,fo discard tlie points altogether, and to make 
 some pronunciation for ourselves, after the manner, either of Masclef, 
 or of Parkhurst, or in some similar way, especially as the study of the 
 language is thereby rendered considerably easier. This question shall 
 be examined , when we come to the Interpretation of the Bible. At 
 jH-esent it will be sufficient to observe, that the decision of this question 
 is not wholly dependent, as is commonly supposed, on the decision of 
 the previous question, whether our present points are ancient, or not. 
 For though it necessai'ily follows, that they must be retained if they are 
 ancient, it is not a necessary consequence, that they must be rejected, if 
 they are maderiu There may be other reasons for retaining them ; an4 
 it will appear, that those reasons are valid. 
 
LECTURE Xll. 121 
 
 at the same time the Hebrew to the Samaritan text. 
 The principal advocates of the Samaritan Pentateuch 
 are J. Morinus, in his Exercitationes ecclesiastical 
 (Paris, 1631, 4to) and his Opuscida Hebrceo- Samarita- 
 na (Paris, 1657, 12mo :) Walton in the eleventh 
 chapter of his Prolegomena ; Houbigant, likewise in 
 the Prolegomena to his Hebrew Bible ; Kennicott, as 
 well in his Dissertatio generalise as in his Second Dis- 
 sertation on the State of the printed Hebrew lext; 
 and Dr. Henry Owen in his Dissertation on the com- 
 parative Excellence of the Hebrew and Samaritan Pen- 
 tateuch^ which is annexed to his above- quoted Brief 
 Account of the Septuagint Vei'sion. The principal ad- 
 versaries of the Samaritan Pentateuch are Hottinger, 
 in his Exercitationes Anti Moriniance de Pcntateucho 
 Samaritano, published at Ziirich in 1644, quario ; S. 
 Morinus in his above-quoted Exercitationes de lingua 
 primcevd ; F. J. Schwartz, Professor at Wittenberg, 
 in his Exercitationes historico criticce in iitrumque Sa- 
 maritanorum Pentateuchum. Vitembergce^ 1756, 4?o/ 
 and lastly Professor Tychsen, as well in the above- 
 quoted Tentamen, as in his Disputatio philologico-crit- 
 ica^ de Pentateucho Ebrao- Samantano^ ab Ebmo eo- 
 que AfasoreticOf descripto exemplari. Butzovii^ 1765, 
 4^0. From the very title of this work it appears that 
 Tychsen was resolved to degrade the Samaritan Pen^ 
 tateuch to the utmost. Hottinger indeed, (to whonj 
 Walton replied, Prol. XL 12.) had called the Samari- 
 tan Pentateuch Apographum vitiosum ex Hebr<xo Au-> 
 tographo : but Tychsen goes so far as to assert, that 
 ■^t was derived from some Masoretic copy of the He- 
 
v^2 LECTURE Xir. 
 
 brew Pentateuch, and not before the tenth century. 
 But Tychsen's arguments were fully confuted by 
 Professor Hassencamp of Rintein, in a German work* 
 
 printed at Mindcn in 1775, octavo. After all, 
 
 though the Samaritan Pentateuch has been rescued 
 from the charges of its adversaries, it is no necessary 
 consequence, that it deserves the preference, which is 
 given to it by some of its friends. The Pent-iteuch 
 in Samaritan letters, and the Pentateuch in Hebrew 
 letters, emanate from the same source : they are equal- 
 ly derived from the autograph of Moses. The differ- 
 ence in the age between the oldest Hebrew and the 
 oldest Sa??jarifaK manuscripts novv extant (on whatev- 
 er side the scale may preponderate) can bear but a 
 small proportion to the 7v/iole period, which elapsed 
 from the time of Moses : and during that period the 
 manuscripts in Samaritan letters were subject at least 
 to similar though not the same, alterations, as the man- 
 uscripts in Hebrew letters. The purity of the text 
 depends not on tke sfmpe of the chiracter^ in which it 
 is expressed : the former may be preserved, though 
 the latter be changed, or the former may be changed, 
 though the latter be preserved. Even therefore if tlie 
 letters now used in Samaritan manuscripts vvere pre- 
 eisely the same as those, which were used by Moses 
 himself, we could neither conclude from this conser- 
 vation of character to a conservation of text, nor from 
 the cliange of character in the Hebrew manuscripts to 
 
 * Its German title, which I add for tiie sake of those who under- 
 etand the Iang\iage, and who may wish to procure the work, is, *• Def 
 entdeckte Wahre Ursprung der alten IJibel-Uebei'setzung^enf" 
 
LECTURE XII. 13^ 
 
 a ehans^e in the text. But if \vie may judge from in- 
 scriptions and medals, the original letters of the Pen- 
 tateuch have undergone material changes, as well in 
 the Samaritan, as in the Hebrew manuscripts. Upon 
 the w')o'c then the two Pentateuchs are more nearly- 
 equal for the purposes of criticism ^ than the advocates 
 of either have commor.ly supposed : and wherever 
 their readings are different, the genuijie reading must 
 be determined by other arguments than those, which 
 are founded on a supposed intrinsic superiority of one 
 to the other. 
 
 Connected with this subject is the question, which 
 has been agitated, whether a copy of the Samaritan^ 
 or a copy of the Hebrew Pentateuch was used by the 
 person or persons, who made what is called the Septu- 
 agint version of the Pentateuch. The decision of this 
 question is of some importance in forming our judg- 
 ment of readings, where the Hebrew and the Samari- 
 tan copies are at variance. For, if the Septuagint 
 version of the Pentateuch was made from the Samar- 
 itan text, it does nothing more, where it agrees with 
 the Samaritan in opposition to the Hebrew, than re~ 
 peaty or echo, the evidence of its original ; whereas in 
 the places, in which it agrees with the Hebrew in op- 
 position to the Samaritan, it aifords presumptive evi- 
 di^nce, that in those places the Samaritan text was 
 originally the same as the present Hebrew text, and 
 that the error lies in the present Samaritan text. Now 
 that the Septuagint version of the Pentateuch was 
 made from a Sa?naritan manuscript, is an opinion, 
 which many writers have entertained. Even Hottui:- 
 
104 LECTURE XII. 
 
 ger was of that opinion, though he believed that the 
 Samaritan itself was derived from the Hebrew. But 
 no one has treated this subject so fully as Professor 
 Hassencamp in his Dissertatio philoiogico-cntica de 
 Pentateiicho JLXX^ Literpretum Gncco^ non ex He- 
 briCOy sed Samaritano textu converso^ printed at Mar- 
 burg in 1765, 4to. Professor Tychsen of Rostock in 
 the above-quoted Tentamen printed in 1772, attempt- 
 ed to support the opinion, that it was taken from the 
 Hebrew text, and moreover from a manuscript, in 
 which the Hebrew text (as in the second column of 
 Origen's Hexapla) was expressed in Greek letters. 
 This opinion however was very successfully combated 
 by Hassencamp, in the second part of the German 
 work, which has been quoted in a preceding note. 
 
 After this description of the several subjects, 
 which are more or less connected with the criticism of 
 the Hebrew Bible, we cannot better conclude than 
 with a caution against both of the extremes, into which 
 authors have fallen, with respect to the integrity of the 
 Hebrew text. What we ought to understand by that 
 expression was explained at the beginning of the pre- 
 ceding Lecture, where it was observed, that an ancient 
 work may be properly said to have preserved its in- 
 tegrity, if it has descended to the present aaje in such a 
 state as upon the whole the author gave it. In order 
 therefore to defend the integrity of the Hebrew text, 
 it is not necessary to maintain with Buxtorf, that there 
 are no variations in die Hebrew manuscripts, a thing 
 impossible in itself, and contradicted by fact ; nor is 
 it necessary for this purpose to contend, as Professor 
 
LECTURE XU. 133 
 
 Tychsen has lately done in his Tetita?nen, that our 
 Masoretic text is hO perfect, as to require not the aid 
 of a critical appaiatus. The Hebrew Bible, like the 
 Greek Testament, has Ijeen exposed to the variations, 
 which unavoidably result from a multiplication of 
 written copies : and even after the introduction of the 
 Afasora, it was impossible wholly to avoid them : nor 
 can it be supposed that with all the religious care ap- 
 plied by the learned Jews of Tiberias, the te:it origin- 
 ally established by the Masora, was every where free 
 from error. Indeed the Jewish writers of the greatest 
 distinction have themselves admitted that the Maso- 
 retic text is not infallible, as De Rossi has shewn by 
 some remarkable quotations in the Prolegomena (§. 
 10.) to his Farice Lectiones Veteris Testamenti. We 
 must apply therefore in doubtful passages the same 
 critical remedies, which are applied to ail other ancient 
 works. But among those critical remedies, we must 
 be very cautious of introducing thai- desperate reme- 
 dy, emendation from conjecture^ which should never 
 even be attempted^ till all other remedies have failed. 
 Nor must we be less cautious of concluding, that the 
 Hebrew text is at any place faulty, because at that 
 place soTne other text, or some ancient version, to 
 which we choose a priori to give higher authority, has 
 a different reading. Indeed if the Hebrew text were 
 so faulty, as Morinus has made it in theory^ and Hou- 
 bigant m practice^ it would be impossible, in any 
 sense, to assert, that the integrity of the Hebrew Bible 
 had been preserved. The truth, as usual, lies be- 
 tween the two extremes, of Buxtorf and Tychsen on 
 
126 LECTURE XII. 
 
 the one hand, and of Morinus and Houbigant on the 
 other. Among all the works on this subject, whether 
 English or foreign, I know of none, in which this 
 golden mean is so well preserved as in the following, 
 of which I will subjoin the whole title, as it clearly 
 expresses the design of the author. Des Titres Prim- 
 itifs de la Revelation, ou Considerations critiques sur la 
 purete et Vintegrite du texte original des livres saints de 
 VAncien Testament ; dans lesquelles on montre les 
 avantages que la Religion et les Lettres peuvent retirer 
 d^une nouvelle editioii projettee de ce texte compare avec 
 les manuscripts Hehreux, et les anciennes versions Grec- 
 ques, LatineSy et Orientales. Par le R, P. Gabriel 
 Fahricy, de Vordre des FF. Precheurs Docteur TlieO' 
 logien de Casanate^ de V Academic des Arcades. Romcy 
 1772, 2 totn, 8z;o. This work was published, while 
 the collations were making for Dr. Kennicott, to 
 whose then-intended edition the title refers, though it 
 is not exactly descriptive of it, as Kennicott's edition 
 (though Fabricy supposed it would) contains no quo- 
 tations from the ancient versions. 
 
 Having thus described the first branch of Theolo- 
 gy, or the criticism of the Bible, according to the plan 
 proposed in the first Lecture, I shall in the next 
 Course describe, on a similar plan, the second branch, 
 which relates to the interpretation of the Bible. 
 
 
COURSE OF LECTURES. 
 
 CONTAINIWO 
 
 A DESCRIPTION AND SYSTEMATIC ARRANGEMENT 
 
 Of THE SETEEAt 
 
 BRANCHES OF DIVINITY : 
 
 ACCOMPANIED WITH 
 
 AN ACCOUNT, BOTH OF THE PRINCIPAL AUTHORS, AND Ot 
 THE PROGRESS, WHICH HAS BEEN MADE AT 
 DIFFERENT PERIODS 
 
 IK 
 
 THEOLOGICAL LEARNING. 
 
 By HERBERT MARSH, ». d. f.r.s. 
 
 MARGARET PROFESSOR OF DIV1NITT„ 
 
 www 
 
 FART III. 
 
 On the interpretation of the Bible. 
 
 vwvvv 
 
 BOSTON : 
 
 PUBLISHED BY CUMMINGS AND HILLIARD. 
 
 Hilliard & Metcalf, printers. 
 
 1815. 
 
ADVERTISEMENT. 
 
 IN presenting' to the Public the Six followinjj Lectures, which have 
 been lately delivered before tlie University of Cambridge, in continua- 
 tion of Part I. and Part II. already published, it is necessary to explain 
 what is here meant by the term Part, lest it should be supposed synon- 
 ymous with the term Branch of Theology, as used in these Lectures. 
 The term Part is here applied in the sense only of Fasciculus y or portion 
 of Lectures given and published at the same period. But the Branches 
 of Theology, as described in the second Lecture, beii^ of very unequal 
 extent, will occupy, some more, others less, than one part or Fasciculus. 
 Thus the Criticism of tlie Bible, which is a very extensive Branch, was 
 continued to the end of Part II. And the Interpretatiu7i of tlie Bibje, 
 which is a still more extensive Branch, not only occupies Part II[., but 
 will be continued at least to the end of Part IV. 
 
 Cambridge, 10 June, 1813. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 LECTURE XIII. 
 
 Pag-e. 
 Of tJie relation, which the Interpretation of the Bible 
 
 bears to the Criticism of the Bible. — Difficulty of bibli- 
 cal interpretation. — Some erroneous notions on this 
 subject corrected » 5 
 
 LECTURE XIV. 
 
 Of Words, considered as signs to the reader of what was 
 thought by the writer. — Degrees of difficulty attending 
 the discovery of the notion affixed to any word by the 
 writer. — Sources of intelligence, in respect to the words 
 of the Hebrew Bible, and the Greek Testament. — Of our 
 authorised version ; and the necessity of interpreting 
 from the original Scriptures 24 
 
 LECTURE XV. 
 
 Rules/or the interpretation of Words. — Consequences of 
 neglecting them in the interpretation of the Bible. — . 
 The Interpreter, who explains the Bible by the aid of 
 reason and learning, compared with the Interpreter, who 
 aspires to the possession of higher means. — Important 
 practical difference between the terms " does not err," 
 and " cannot err." — Further remarks on the necessity 
 of theological learning, and on the causes of it? neglect 42 
 
IV CONTENTS. 
 
 LECTURE XVI. 
 
 Of the literal and figurative use of words ; and of the 
 fouudation of this distinction in the origin and fornw,' 
 lion of language. — Consequences of interpreting words 
 literally, when they are used figuratively. — JSTeces- 
 sity of arranging the senses of words in genealogical 
 order 58 
 
 LECTURE XVII. 
 
 Relation of Mlegory to Metaphor. — Metaphorical interpre- 
 tation an interpretation of words. — jltlegorical interpre- 
 tation, an interpretation, not of words, but of the things 
 signified by the words. — Origin of allegorical interpre- 
 tation among the Greeks. — This kind of interpretation 
 not warranted by St. Faul 75 
 
 LECTURE XVm. 
 
 Adoption and injudicious use of it by the Greek Fathers. 
 — Abuse of it by unbelievers. — Tlie sense of Scripture 
 rendered by it arbitrary and ambiguous. — Allegorical or 
 spiritual interpretation substituted for grammatical in- 
 terpretation in the twelfth century by the Mystics of 
 the Church of Rome, who have been followed iti modern 
 times. — Typical interpretation warranted by the sacred 
 writers. — Definition of a Type; and the consequences 
 of neglecting it. — Types and antitypes multiplied by 
 various interpreters, without end, and without foun- 
 dation 93 
 
LECTURE Xin. 
 
 X HE Criticism of the Bible having been fin- 
 ished in the last Lecture, we now enter on the In- 
 terpretation of the Bible, which is the next branch 
 of Theology according to the system explained in 
 the second Lecture. The nature of this system, 
 with the connexion of its several parts, has been 
 already so minutely detailed, that another descrip- 
 tion of it cannot now be wanted. For, though a 
 knowledge of the preceding Lectures is necessary 
 to a right understanding of what will follow, yet 
 even they, who were not present at the delivery of 
 them, may obtain the required information, as the 
 preceding Lectures are all in print. 
 
 But, as Criticism and Interpretation are not un- 
 frequently confounded, it may not be unnecessary, 
 before we enter on the latter, to explain once more 
 its relation to the former. They are so closely 
 connected, that no man can be a good Interpreter 
 of the Bible, who is not previously acquainted with 
 the Criticism of the Bible. It is Criticism, and 
 Criticism alone, which enables us to judge of the 
 
6 LECTURE XIIT. 
 
 genuineness, whether of single words, or of whole 
 passages, or of whole books. And, when we have 
 thus obtained what we have reason to believe a s:en- 
 uine text, we have then a solid foundation, on 
 which we may build our interpretation of the text. 
 But till we know what is tlie genuine text, we must 
 remain in a state of uncertainty, whether our inter- 
 pretation is founded on a rock, or founded only in 
 the sand. The process of theological study is un- 
 doubtedly much shortened, by taking for granted 
 what can be known only by long and laborious in- 
 vestigation. But in a subject so important as that 
 of religion, which concerns our future as well as 
 present welfare, no labour is too great, no investiga- 
 tion too severe, which may enable us to discern the 
 truth unmixed with falsehood. In this place lam 
 addressing myself immediately to those, who pos- 
 sess the advantages of a learned education, and 
 cMeflij to those, who receive a learned education, for 
 the purpose of becoming qualified to preach the 
 Gospel. From such an audience no apology can 
 be required, for applying to the Bible the princi- 
 ples of reason and learning ; for, if the Bible could 
 not stand the test of reason and learning, it could not 
 be, what it is, a work of divine wisdom. The Bi- 
 ble therefore must be examined by the same laws 
 of Criticism, which are applied to other wr'tings of 
 antiquity : and every man, who is set apart for the 
 ministry, should consider it as his houuden duty to 
 study with especial care that primary branch of 
 
LECTURE Xlll. 7 
 
 Theology, the Criticism of the Bible. It is a 
 branch, whicli gives luitrimeut and life to all the 
 other branches ; and these will become more or less 
 vigorous, in proportion as that branch either flour- 
 ishes or decays. By cultivating the Criticism of 
 the Bible, we acquire a habit of calm and impartial 
 investigation, which will enable us to enter with 
 greater advantage on the other departments of The- 
 ology ; we learn to discriminate between objects 
 apparently alike, but really distinct ; we learn to 
 sharpen our judgments, and correct our imagina- 
 tions ; we learn to think for ourselves, without 
 blindly trusting to bare assertion, which may de- 
 •ceive, but can never convince ; and, vrliile we for- 
 tify our faith against the shafts of infidelity, we be- 
 come proof against the seductions of ignorance and 
 fanaticism. Such are tlie advantages resulting to 
 an Interpreter of the Bible from a previous ac- 
 quaintance with the Criticism of tl-e Bible ; advan- 
 tages unknown to the mere theological empiric, who 
 regards them as useless for no other reason, than 
 because he has never learnt to comprehend them. 
 
 But how^ever close the connexion may be be- 
 tween Criticism and Interpretation, they are quite 
 distinct in their respective operations. By the one 
 we ascertain what an author has actually written . 
 by the other we ascertain what is really the author's 
 meaning. This distinction we must iieep constantly 
 in view, or we shall be in perpetual danger of draw- 
 ing false conclusions. The difficulty indeed, attend- 
 
8 LECTUUE XIII. 
 
 ant on the one, is closely allied with the difficulty 
 attendant on i\iQ other ; each increases with the antu 
 quity of the author. The more ancient an author is, 
 and the more frequently his works have been trans- 
 cribed, the greater is the probability that no single 
 copy has descended to posterity, without numerous 
 deviations from the autograph. And beside the 
 accidental mistakes, which are unavoidable in every 
 transcript of an extensive work, the transcribers 
 of the Sacred Writings had stronger temptation to 
 make alterations by design, than can ever take 
 place in the copying of works unconnected with re- 
 ligion. So much the more necessary is a knowl- 
 edge of Criticism to the student in Theology. The 
 same difficulty, which attends the Criticism of an 
 ancient work, and which increases in proportion 
 to its antiquity, attends also the Interpretation of 
 that work, and likewise increases with its age. 
 The further we are removed from the period, in 
 which an author wrote, the more difficult is it to dis- 
 cover, the circumstances in which he was placed, 
 the peculiar object wliich he had in view, the situ- 
 ation and sentiments of his original readers, and 
 the probable consequent tendency of the author's 
 arguments. If, beside the distance of time, we 
 are far removed from him in place, if the laws and 
 customs of Jiis country had no resemblance to our 
 own, if not only his language was diiferent, but his 
 forms of expression were so little analogous to those 
 which are in use among ourselves, as when literally 
 
LECTURE XIJI. t> 
 
 lendered to imply not unfrequently what the au- 
 thor intended not to say, we must be blind, not 
 to perceive the difficulties, which attend the inter- 
 jjretation of that author. We must be blind not to 
 perceive, that, in order to become thoroughly ac- 
 quainted with him, something more is wanted, than 
 a knowledge of our own customs, and our oivn lan- 
 guage. 
 
 Let us apply then these general observations to 
 the Bible. When a work is put into our hands, com- 
 posed partly in Hebrew, and partly in Hebrew- 
 Greek ; when that work contains historic, legisla- 
 tive, poetic, prophetic, and didactic materials ; when 
 between the earliest and the latest of its compositions 
 an interval elapsed of more than fifteen hundred 
 years, and an interval still greater has elapsed be- 
 tween the latest of its compositions and the present 
 age : when they were written in a country, and un- 
 der circumstances, very different from our own; 
 when these several kinds of composition, breathing 
 more or les^ the oriental spirit of the writers, re- 
 quire an attention, as well to particular, as to gen- 
 eral rules of interpretation ; surely no man of com- 
 mon understanding will assert, that such a wwk is 
 easy of interpretation. If the meaning of the sacred 
 writers is so easy and so obvious, why has it been 
 deemed necessary in every age to write Commenta- 
 ries on the Bible ? Why has it been deemed ne- 
 cessary in every Christian country to set apart by 
 public authority a class of men, for the purpose of 
 
10 LECTURE Xlll. 
 
 studying and explaining the Scriptures, and to ex- 
 empt them from secular employments, that their 
 time might be wholly employed in their profession. 
 al duties ? It is an error too frequently instilled, 
 and too readily received, that the qualifications for 
 a good Divine are of small extent and of easy at- 
 tainment. But let those, who have been seduced 
 into this fatal error, reflect only on the manifold sub- 
 jects, which should engage the attention of the Cler- 
 gy, and they will soon be convinced that the knowl- 
 edge, which they ought to possess, is less circum- 
 scribed than they imagine. Let them consider that 
 Christianity is founded in miracles, which must be 
 verified, and in prophesies, wiiich must be ex- 
 plained ; that the writings, which attest the one, 
 and record the other, must be proved authentic and 
 credible ; that to establish this authenticity and 
 credibility a series of testimony must be examined 
 commencing with their first publication ; that inter- 
 nal evidence must be applied to corroborate the ex- 
 ternal ; that this iuternal evidence can be derived 
 only from an intimate knowledge of the writings 
 themselves ; and lastly that, to obtain this intimate 
 knowledge, we must become acquainted witli the 
 languages, in which tliose writings were composed, 
 and with the various opinions and institutions, 
 which prevailed at different times, among the peo- 
 ple and in the country, where and when they were 
 composed. The discourses of inspired writers, no 
 less than the discourses of common writers, were 
 
LECTURE XIII. n 
 
 necessarily adapted to the comprehension of those, 
 to whom they were immediately addressed ; adapt- 
 ed therefore to their modes of expression, and their 
 habits of reasoning. If ice then would understand 
 the inspired writers, as they themselves intended to 
 be understood, we must likewise be acquainted with 
 those modes of expression, and those habits of rea- 
 soning. But this acquaintance can be formed only 
 by those, who have opened to themselves the stores 
 of ancient learning. 
 
 Should argument however fail to convince us, 
 that a just interpretation of Scripture requires, on the 
 part of the interpreter, an ample share as well of 
 erudition as of judgment, we may appeal to the ex- 
 perience of almost every age since the foundation 
 of Christianity. If the interpretation of Scripture 
 were easy and obvious, there would be little or no 
 diversity in the explanations, which different com- 
 mentators have given of the same passage. But if 
 Vve compare the Greek with the Latin commenta- 
 tors, we shall frequently find such a variety of in- 
 terpretation, as would appear almost impossible 
 to be extracted from the same text. If we compare 
 the Jeivish commentators, either with the Greek, or 
 with the Latin, we shall find as great a variety, 
 though a variety of a different kind. If we com- 
 pare our English commentators with any of the pre- 
 ceding, we shall find no diminution in the variety 
 of interpretation. Nor do we find uniformity, either 
 among commentators of the same language;, or even 
 
12 LECTURE Xill. 
 
 amon^ eommentators of the same Church. It is 
 true, that in all things relating to doctrine and dis- 
 cipline^ the Church of Rome preserved during sev- 
 eral ages an uniformity of interpretation by the com- 
 mentary, which was called the Glossa ordinaria. 
 But when the revival of learning had opened new 
 sources of intelligence, and the Reformation had 
 restored the right of unfettered exposition, the 
 Glossa ordinaria was exchanged for neic systems 
 of interpretation, from Luther and Melanchthon, 
 from Calvin and Beza, from Grotius, and from 
 Spanheim. 
 
 Here we may observe, that the uniformity of in- 
 terpretation, in respect to doctrine and discipline, 
 preserved by the Glossa ordinaria, has been con- 
 trasted with that variet7j of interpretation, vvhich 
 the religious liberty, procured by our Reformers, 
 has introduced among the manifold parties, compre- 
 hended under the title of Protestant. It has been 
 urged, that this diversity of interpretation has oc 
 casioned those religious divisions, which have grad- 
 ually arisen since the period of the Reformation. 
 It has been urged, that both the cause and the ef- 
 fect would have been prevented, if the interpretation 
 of Scripture had remained subject, as in the Church 
 of Rome, to some general and acknowledged rule. 
 Before therefore we inquire into the diiferent modes 
 of interpretation, we must examine the principle, 
 on which biblical interpretation is conducted, by 
 the Church of Rome on the one hand, and by the 
 
LECTURE Xlir. IS 
 
 fjhiivch of Ein j;land on the other. It was decreed 
 in the fourth rf^ssiou of the Council of Trent, *^ ne 
 qnis sacram scripturani interpretari audeat contra 
 earn sensum quemtenuit et tenet mater ecclesia, cu- 
 jus est judicare de vero sensu." But if the author- 
 ity, which directs our interpretation, is itself liable 
 to error, we can never be certain that it will exempt 
 us from error : we can never conclude that, because 
 the interpretations, whlcli are founded on that au- 
 thority, will agree with each other, they will there- 
 fore agree with the truth. Now the Mnle, by which 
 the Church of Rome decides in the interpretation 
 of Scripture, is that wliich is commonly known by 
 the name of Traditon : and, as the meaning of Scrip- 
 ture is made subject to this Rule, the Rule itself is 
 necessarily considered as indejjendent of Scrip- 
 ture. It is represented, therefore, as derived from 
 the Apostles through a di^erent channel than ?hat 
 of their azTw writings. It is represented as a doc- 
 trina fradita, handed down by the Fathers of the 
 Church, who are considered as the depositories of 
 this Rule ; whence it is inferred that the expositions 
 in which tlieij agree, are the true expositions of 
 Scripture. Now all this is mere matter of opinion, 
 and is calculated solely to support the credit of the 
 Church of Rome. Tliere is not the slightest liis- 
 torical evidence, that tlie Apostles transmitted to 
 posterity any Rule, but what is recorded in thft 
 New Testament. The Fathers therefore are pre- 
 cisely on the same footing with respect to the au- 
 
1* LECTURE XIII. 
 
 thoritij of their interpretations, as tlie commentators 
 of the prpsent age. Nor in fact are they uniform 
 in their interpretations even in regard to doctrine, 
 notwithstanding the agreement alleged by the 
 Church of Rome ; though some commentators may 
 be selected, as well ancient as modern, which agree 
 on particular points. The Regulajidei, therefore, 
 set up by the Church of Rome, was justly discard- 
 ed by our Reformers, who contended for the right 
 of biblical interpretation unfettered by the shackles 
 of tradition. But in rejecting the llegula fidei of 
 the Roman Church, as an authority independent of 
 Scripture, (a rejection which constitutes the vital 
 principle of the Reformation) they did not therefore 
 determine that no Rule of Faith should be acknow- 
 ledged by Protestants. The Confession of Augs- 
 burg, the Saxon Confession, the Helvetic Confes- 
 sion, our own Articles, the Articles of Dordrecht, 
 are so many different formularies containing the 
 Megida fidei of the respective Churches. Indeed 
 they were absolutely necessary, to distinguish as 
 well Protestants in general from the Church of 
 Rome, as the different parties of Protestants from 
 ea.ch other. But though we have a Rule of Faith, 
 as well as the Church of Rome, and to depart from 
 that Rule is to depart from the Established Church, 
 there is a fundamental difference in the principle 
 from which the respective Rules derive their au- 
 thority. Tradition is supposed independent of 
 Scripture; and is applied as a criterion, to deter- 
 
LECTURE XIlI. 15 
 
 mine the meaning of Scripture. But whatever be 
 the Rule of Faith adopted by any Protestant com- 
 munity, it is so far from being considered as inde- 
 pendent of Scripture, or as resting on authority de- 
 rived through another channel, that its validity is 
 acknowledged on the sole condition of its being a 
 fair and legitimate deduction from Scripture. 1 his 
 total and absolute dependence of the Regula fdei 
 on tlie Bible (uot the refusal to admit one at all) 
 is that which characterizes Protestants. 
 
 The preceding remarks on the dependence or 
 independence of the Regula fidei on the BiMe have 
 been introduced for the purpose of ascertaining the 
 principle on which Protestants shuuld consistently 
 interpret the Bible. When our reformers had dis- 
 carded Tradition, as a guide to the meaning of 
 Scripture, it has been asked ; By what means did 
 they determine, that their oum interpretations were 
 right, where the Reformers differed, iher from the 
 Church of Rome, or from efich other? They could 
 not appeal to any neiv Rule of Faith, even if their 
 principles would have allowed it ; for in the inter- 
 val, which elapsed between the secession from 
 Rome and the publication of the Augsburg Confes- 
 sion, no new Rule of Faith existed. When Luther 
 therefore and Melancthon interpreted the Bible 
 with a view to the formation of that Confession, 
 their interpretation was unfettered by pre-r( nceiv- 
 ed religious opinions ; they interpreted the Bible, 
 as they would have interpreted any other work of 
 
16 LECTUK'K XJII. 
 
 antiquity ; and fov that purpose they employed tlie 
 erudition, by wliicli our early Reformers were so 
 hi2;hly distinguishe<l. When they ai)an(1oned there- 
 fore the guidance of Tradit on, they supplied its 
 place by Jleason and Leariuno\ But these inval- 
 uable substitutes, tliese qualities of sterling worth, 
 have been exchan2;ed in raodein times for baser 
 metal; and the Scriptures have been committed to 
 the guidance of disordered imaginations. Nay, our 
 Reformers themselves have been pressed into the 
 service of ignorance a^d fanaticism ; and expres- 
 sions which they applied to oue purpose have been 
 grossly misapplied to another. Of these expres- 
 sions therefore it is necessary to give an explana- 
 tion. 
 
 One of these expressions is, ^» that the Bible ig 
 its own interpreter." To understand this expres- 
 sion, as it was meant ])y our Rpformers, we must 
 consider, that it was used in ojjposition to the Church 
 of Rome. It was used solely with reference to 
 Tradition ; it was intended solely to deny, that 
 Tradition was the interpreter of the Bible ; it was 
 designed to rescue the interpretation of the Bible 
 from an authoritative rule, which would have coun- 
 teracted the expositions, on w hich w as founded the 
 Confe'><sion of Augsburg. But our Reformers did 
 not assert, that the Bible w as so far its own Inter- 
 preter, as to require no explanation whatever. If 
 this had been their meaning, we might ask ; For 
 ivhat reason did both Luther and Calvin think it 
 
LECTURE XUL 17 
 
 necessary to write Commentariei^ on the Bible ? To 
 what purpose did Luther enjoin the practice, still 
 observed by his fvdlowers, of explaining to the peo- 
 ple from the pulpit the Grospel, which had been 
 read at the altar? In fact learning, especially ^ram- 
 matical learning, was the pillar, by which the edi- 
 fice of the Reformation was supported : and Me- 
 lincthon, wlio composed the Confession of Au^^s- 
 burg, appealed uniformly to the maxim, ScrijAn- 
 ram. iion posse intelligi theoiogice, nisi antea ratel- 
 hcia sit gramraatice. But the meaning of onr He- 
 formers, in respect to the Bible being its own inter- 
 preter, has been strangely perverted in modern 
 times ; and a mere relative expression has been so 
 construed, as if they had applied it in a positive and 
 absolute sense. An expression, meant only to ex- 
 clude Tradition, has been made a pretence for the 
 exclusion of Theological Learning ; and the max- 
 im, that the Bible is its own interpreter, has been 
 carried so far in the present, as well as in a former 
 age, that men, who can scarcely read the Bible, 
 have dreamt that they are able to expound it. Nor 
 is their inconsistency less remarkable, than their 
 presumption. For if the Bible is absolutely its 
 own interpreter, there can be no necessity for their 
 interpretations : tliere can be no necessity for any 
 class of men employed to study and explain it. 
 Whether we are acquainted with Hfbrew and 
 Gr^^elv, or know only our mother tongue ; whether 
 we are provided with a store of ancient learning, or 
 
Xa LECTURE XIII. '^ 
 
 our philosophy is couiined to the awl and the anvil, 
 we are all equally qualified to understand the Bi- 
 ble. Hence the early reformers, who were among 
 the most distinguished scholars of their age, have 
 been converted into patrons of ignorance : and a 
 Reformation, which was produced by erudition, has 
 been represented as indebted for its origin to the to- 
 ix\ absence of human learning. 
 
 Another expression used by our Reformers, 
 namely, ^'the perspicuity of the Sacred Writings, " 
 has been no less abused than tlie similar expression 
 already noted. When they argued for the per- 
 sjnciiity of the Bible, they intended not to argue 
 against the application of Learning, but against 
 the application of Tradition to the exposition of 
 Scripture. The Church of Rome, on the ground, 
 and indeed just ground, that the Bible required 
 explanation, contended, that this explanation must 
 be sought in Tradition. No I said our Reformers; 
 We need not the aid of your Tradition ; to us 
 the Bible is sufficiently perspicuous icithout it. 
 Here then they made their stand ; here it was, 
 that they unfurled the banner of the Reformation. 
 But in rejecting Tradition as necessary to make 
 (he Bible perspicuous, they never meant to ileclare, 
 that the Bible was alike perspicuous, to the 
 learned and the unlearned. If they had, they 
 would never have supplied the unlearned with 
 explanations of it. But the ^perspicuity of the 
 Bible,' i« again an expression, wliich lias been so 
 
LECTURE XIII. i9 
 
 construed in modern times, as if the genuine 
 principle of Protestantism required us to reject 
 what the authors of Protestantism have j^rovided. 
 In fact the learned, as well as the unlearned, r.re 
 in need of continual help, to understand the Bible ; 
 men already provided with a store of biblical 
 erudition are perpetually feeling the necessity of 
 further information ; the more we advance, the 
 more sensible do we become of what we want to 
 know ; and only superficial readers will imagine, 
 that a knowledge of the Bible is a matter of easy 
 attainment. Fortunately for mankind, the passages 
 of Scripture, which we are most concerned to 
 understand, are those, which are understood with 
 the greatest ease. Neither a critical nor a philo- 
 logical apparatus is necessary to discover the will 
 of God in what relates to our own conduct. How- 
 ever difficult it may be, to penetrate into the 
 councils of the Deity, and to fathom the depth 
 of his decrees, the laws, which he has prescribed 
 for the government of onr own actions, and in 
 which a misunderstanding might be fatal, ar* 
 intelligible to the meanest capacity. But the diver- 
 sity^ which prevails in many articles of faith among 
 different Christian communities, shews the diffi. 
 culty of rightly understanding the passages of Scrip- 
 ture, on which the Articles, wherein we differ, are 
 founded. And if we fuither consider the 7nanifold 
 attainments, which are necessary to understand 
 the original vScriptures in all their various rela- 
 
20 LECTURE XIIl. 
 
 tions, we shall not conclude, tliat they are alike 
 perspicuous to the learned and the unlearned. 
 Augustine, who was not in other respects an 
 advocate for deep erudition, though few jnen have 
 surpassed hira in acuteness of reasoning, has 
 acknowledged, in a Letter to Volusian, the great- 
 ness of the difficulties which attend the interpre- 
 tation of Scripture. '^Non quod ad ea, quie 
 nccessaria sunt saluti, tanta perveniatur difficultate ; 
 sed, cum quisque ibi fideui tenuerit, sine qua ^^ie 
 recteque non vivitur, tani multa, tamque multipli- 
 cihus mysteriorum umhraculis opacata, intelligenda 
 pro&cientibus restant, tantaque non solum in verbis^ 
 quibus ii-ta dicta sunt, sed etiani in rebiis quse 
 intelligendse sunt, latet altitudo sapientise, ut 
 annosissimis, acutissimis, flagrantissimis cupidi- 
 tate descendi hoc contingat, quod eadem Scriptura 
 quodam loco habet, ^ Cum consummaverit homo, 
 tunc incipit.'*' In the same epistle he calls the 
 
 Scripture ^'omTzz&its accessibilis paucisshuis 
 
 penetrabilis.'' Of the easy and obvious passages, 
 such as relate to our own practice, he says, " Sine 
 fuco ad cor loquitur indoctorura atque doctorum.'^ 
 But of those, wliich require the aid of erudition, 
 he says, ^' Non audeat accedere mens tardiuscula et 
 inerudita, tanquam pauper ad divitem." 
 
 Lastly, let us guard against the prevalent abuse 
 of another position, which was maintained by our 
 Reformers, and likewise in reference to Tradition. 
 When Tradition was discarded as a Rule of Faith 
 
LECTURE XIII. ai 
 
 independent of tlie Bible, our Reformers of course 
 maintained, that tlie Bible alone contained all 
 things, which were necessary for salvation. To the 
 Bible alone, to tlie Bible u'ithout Tradition^ did 
 they appeal therefore in opposition to the Chureh 
 of Rome : and, that all men might be enabled to 
 judge, whether they rightly appealed, they wisely 
 insisted, that the privilege of reading the Bible 
 should be common to all men. But the Commen- 
 taries, which they wrote, beside the Confessions of 
 Faith, which they composed, may convince us, 
 that when they put the Bible into the hands of the 
 people, they thought it necessary to add an expla- 
 nation of it. Our Reformers therefore carried 
 tJieir opposition to the Church of Rome beyoni 
 the mere act of giving a Bible without note or 
 comment. The sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures 
 without the aid of Tradition, did not imply in 
 their opinion the inutility of all explanation. Nor, 
 because the Bible contains all things, which are 
 necessary for salvation, did our Reformers con- 
 clude, that in giving the Bible alone, they did all 
 things, which were wanted on their parts, for re- 
 ligious instruction. When Tradition was dis- 
 carded, the Bible only became the religion of the 
 Protestant; the Bible only was recognized as the. 
 fountain of religious truth. But so apprehensive 
 were the early Reformers, that the streams, which 
 might be drawn from it, would lose the purity of 
 their source, and become tainted in their progress. 
 
23 LECTURE Xlir. 
 
 unless care were taken to lead tliem into proper 
 channels, that these Reformers employed the most 
 strenuous exertions, to prevent their flowing, either 
 to Popery again, or in any other direction, where 
 falsehood might he mingled with the truth. It 
 was chiefly for tJiis purpose, that they composed 
 both Expositions of Scripture, and those Con- 
 fessions of Faith, to which their followers assented 
 on the ground, that our Reformers had rightly 
 explained the Scripture. On this gi'ound we as- 
 sent in particular to our oicn Liturgy and Articles : 
 and if we neglect them, we neglect the Faith, to 
 which we profess ourselves attached. On the other 
 hand, as our Liturgy and Ai'ticles are avowedly 
 founded on the Bible, it is the special duty of those^ 
 who are set apart for the ministry, to compare 
 them with the Bible, and see that their pretensions 
 are well founded. But then our interpretation of 
 the Bible must be conducted independently of that, 
 of which the truth is to be ascertained by it. Our 
 interpretation of the Bible therefore must not be 
 determined by religious system: and we must 
 follow the example of our Reformers, who supplied 
 the place of Tradition by Reason and Learning, 
 Let us beware then, as Protestants, of undertaking 
 that important office, without due preparation. 
 Wouhl any man undertake to expound the law of 
 the land, without a due preparation in the study 
 of the law? Or, if any one thus unprepared should 
 venture on the task, would hearers or readers be 
 
LECTURE Xni. ,23 
 
 found sufficiently credulous to believe in his expo- 
 sitions ? And shall the law of God be treated with 
 greater levity, than the law of man P 
 
 Here then, I trust, the arguments for theo= 
 logical learning may be concluded. It shall be the 
 business therefore of the next, and of the following 
 Lectures, to give directions for the application of it. 
 And let us all implore the blessing of Almighty God, 
 while we are conscientiously striving to discover 
 the truth. If we employ the means, which Grod 
 has provided us for the understanding of the Scrip- 
 tures, we may hope, that the grace of God will be 
 granted to our honest endeavours. But, if we 7ieg- 
 lect those means, let us not deceive ourselve by the 
 vain expectation, that the Almighty will interpose 
 by supernatural means, to supply the defects, which 
 we ourselves occasion, when we disregard the nat- 
 ural means, which he has already furnished for 
 that purpose. 
 
LECTURE XIT. 
 
 The first office of an interpreter is the investi- 
 gation of single words : for he must understand 
 the elements, of which a sentence is composed, be- 
 fore he can judge of their combination. Now in all 
 languages icords are only signs. When they are 
 spoken, they are signs to the hearer of wliat was 
 thought by the speaker: when they are written, 
 they are signs to the reader of what was thought by 
 the writer. The interpretation therefore of any 
 word, whether written by an ancient or by a mod- 
 ern author, must depend on the following question ; 
 What notion did the author himself affix to that 
 word, when he committed it to writing ? Conse- 
 quently, all our inquiries into the meaning of a 
 word in any particular passage, inquiries which 
 sometimes diverge in numerous directions, must be 
 all brought at last to concentre in that single point, 
 the notion affixed to it in that passage by the author. 
 
 The discovery of this notion will be attended 
 with greater or less difficulty, according to the re- 
 lative situation of the reader to the author. If the 
 
LECTURE XIV. 3S 
 
 latter uses the same language, which is spoken by 
 the former, and writes on a, familiar subject, he will 
 ^e readily understood, because he employs expres- 
 sions, of which the meaning is determined by usage 
 equally known to both parties. In such cases, the 
 reader, unless he has a previous desire of pervert- 
 ing the author's meaning, will commonly under- 
 stand the words, as they were intended to be under- 
 stood : they will really be signs to the reader, of 
 what was thought by the Avriter. If, instead of 
 writing on a familiar subject, he writes on mat- 
 ters of science, the difficulty of interpretation will 
 indeed be increased ; but this additional difficulty 
 will not be of that description, which creates ambi- 
 guity. The words will still perform their functions 
 with exactness : for the definitions, which are used 
 in science, prevent all misunderstanding. The El- 
 ements of Euclid will be understood, in every age 
 and nation, precisely in the same sense, as they were 
 understood by the author. In works composed on 
 morality and religion, wiiere mixed modes, which are 
 not easily defined, are the objects of contemplation, 
 it is always more diffi«ult to ascertain an author's 
 meaning, however attentive he himself may have 
 been to the choice of his expressions. But in 
 works of fancy and imagination, where, even in 
 the author's own mind, precision and discrimination 
 are frequently overlooked in the combinations of 
 poetic imagery, occasional ambiguity will iinavoid* 
 ably take place in the interpretation of his words. 
 
26 LECTURE XIV. 
 
 If the work, which we undertake to interpret, 
 is written in a foreign language, we shall not only 
 have to encounter the preceding difficulties, ac- 
 cording to their several gradations, but the ad- 
 ditional difficulty of understanding the language 
 itself. If indeed it be a modern language, and, 
 beside the assistance derived from grammars and 
 dictionaries, the reader lias the advantage of 
 conversing with those, whose language it is, the 
 words of that language may gradually become to 
 him as familiar signs, as the words of his oicn 
 language. But if the work, which we undertake 
 to interpret, is written in a dead language, an 
 accumulation of difficulty will take place, according 
 to the extent or the scantiness of the means, 
 which we possess, of discovering the meaning of 
 the words, which are extant in that language. 
 This is a kind of difficulty, entirely distinct from 
 that, which attends what is commonly called the 
 learning of a dead language. A dead language, 
 which can be acquired only by grammar and 
 lexicon, is more or less easily learnt, according 
 to the paucity or abundance of its words , the 
 simplicity or variety of its inflexions ^ and the 
 clearness or intricacy of its construction. Hence 
 the Hebrew language is more easily learnt, than 
 the Greek : yet the examples, in which it is 
 difficult to ascertain with precision the meaning 
 of words, are more frequent in the former, than 
 in the latter. A passage may be easily construedf 
 
LECTURE XIV. 27 
 
 yet not easily understood. When the structure 
 of a sentence is involved in no obscurity, we can 
 easily put togetliev, by the help of a Lexicon, 
 a set of words in one language, corresponding to 
 a set of words in another. But the correspond- 
 ence will not necessarily be such, that the 
 meaning, expressed by the translator, shall be the 
 meaning intended by the author. The meaning 
 of words is purely conventional ; their connexion 
 with the notions, which thej^ convey, is founded in 
 the practice or the usage of those, who speak the 
 language, to which the words belong. In a living 
 language this usage is known from conversation. 
 But in a dead language it can be discovered only 
 by reading : and therefore the fewer hooks we have 
 in that language, the more circumscribed will be 
 our means of discovering what was the usage of it, 
 when it was spoken. Now the Old Testament i« 
 the only work, which remains, in the antient He- 
 brew : nor have we any thing like a Lexicon or 
 Glossary composed, while it was a living language. 
 Lideed it ceased to be a living language so long 
 ago as the Babylonish Captivity ; for Jerusalem 
 was re-built by Jews, who were born in Chaldea, 
 and who returned to the country of their ancestors 
 with the language of their conquerors. 
 
 It is a matter therefore of great importance to- 
 the interpretation of the Hebrew Bible, to know 
 the sources, from which we derive our knowledge 
 of the Hebrew language. It is true, that we hav^ 
 
28 LECTURE XiV. 
 
 tlie advantage of an English translation, as well in 
 the Old Testament, as in the *N*ew : hut no man 
 would wlioUy confide in a modern translation, who 
 had the means of understanding the original. At 
 any rate, it is of consequence to know how far our 
 translators themselves were in possession of those 
 means, because this knowledge must determine the 
 degree of confidence to be placed in them. Let us 
 consider therefore in the first instance what were 
 the fvimarij sources, from which the knowledge of 
 Hebrew' was drawn ; and in the next place let us 
 inquire into those, which had the chief influence on. 
 our modern translations. 
 
 As Chaldeewas thelanguage spoken by the Jews 
 of Jerusalem after the Babylonish Captivity, they 
 gradually translated the Hebrew Scriptures, or at 
 least the greatest part of them, into that languge. 
 While Chaldee was spoken in the southern part of 
 Palestine, Syriac was the language of Galilee. 
 Now we have a Syriac translation of the whole He- 
 brew Bible, as well as of the Greek Testament. 
 Since then we have Chaldee and Syriac translations 
 from the Hebrew, they are sources, from which we 
 derive a knowledge of the Hebrew. It is true that 
 Chaldee and Syriac have themselves long ceased to 
 be spoken, if we except perhaps some villages of 
 Palestine, wliere it is said, that a remnant of them 
 is still preserved. But we have the means of as- 
 certaining the sense of Syriac words from the wri- 
 tings of the Syrian Fathers^ especially as some of 
 
LECTURE XIV. 39 
 
 them were translated into Greek, and the knowl- 
 edge of Chatdee was long preserved anioug the 
 Jews, who retained it as a learned language many 
 ages after their final dispcL'sion. Chaldeeand Syr- 
 iac assist also each other : for in fact they are not 
 so much different languages, as different dialects 
 of the same language. Tlie chief difference be- 
 tween them consists in the vowel points, or the mode 
 of pronunciation. And though the forms of the 
 letters are very unlike, the correspondence be- 
 tween the languages (or rather dialects) themselves 
 is so close, that if Chaldee be written with Syriac 
 letters without points, it becomes Syriac, with th& 
 exception of a single inflexion in the formation of 
 the verbs. 
 
 Another oriental source, from which we derive 
 a knowledge of Hebrew words, is the Arabic. The 
 most ancient among tlie Arabic versions of the He- 
 brew Bible was made indeed above a thousand 
 years after Hebrew had ceased to be spoken. But 
 on the other hand, we have the means of deter- 
 mining with the greatest exactness the sense of 
 Arabic words, because Arabic is still a living lan- 
 guage, and is spoken over a greater extent of coun- 
 try, than almost any other language. It is at the 
 same time a kind of classical language : it has au- 
 thors on almost every subject; and has undergone 
 the investigation of native grammarians and lexicog- 
 raphers. Its importance therefore to the interpreta- 
 tioH of Hebrew i« apparent. It serves indeed as a, 
 
30 LECTURE XIV. 
 
 leey to that language ; for it is not only allied to the 
 Hebrew, but is at the same time so copious, as to 
 eontain the roots of almost all the words in the He- 
 brew Bible. 
 
 But of all the ancient versions of the Hebrew 
 Bible, there is none so important, both to the critic, 
 and to the interpreter, as the Greek version, which 
 is known by the name of the Septuagint. Nor is 
 the advantage, derived from the Septuagint, confin- 
 ed to the Hebrew. It is a source of interpretation 
 also to the Greek Testament : and so valuable a 
 source, that none other can be compared with it. 
 The Septuagint version was made in Egypt, under 
 the government of the Ptolemies, for the use of the 
 Jews then settled iu that country, who were as much 
 in need of a Greek version, as the Jews of Palestine 
 were then in need of a Chaldee version. The 
 Egyptian Jews, to whom Greek was become their 
 vernacular language, were of course desirous of 
 possessing in Greek a faithful representation of the 
 Hebrew Scriptures. But then the structuve of the 
 two languages was so widely different, that the trans- 
 lators, adhering to the original, more closely than 
 perhaps necessity required, retained Hebrew /orms 
 and modes of expression, while the words, which 
 they were writing, were Greek. The language there- 
 fore of the Septuagint is a Wndof Hebrew -Greekf 
 which a native of Athens might sometimes have 
 found difficult to understand. But. as this version 
 became the Bible of all the Jews^ who were dispers- 
 
LECTURE XIV. S.l 
 
 ed througliout the countries, where Greek was spok. 
 en, it became the standard oi their Greek language. 
 St. Paul himself, who was born in Tarsus, and was 
 accustomed from his childhood to hear the Septua- 
 gintresid in the synagogue of that city, adopted the 
 Hebrew idioms of the Greek version. And when 
 he was removed to Jerusalem and placed under the 
 guidance of Gamaliel, the Hebrew tincture of St. 
 Paul's Greek could have sufl'ered no diminution. 
 The other Apostles were all natives of Palestine ; 
 as was also the Evangelist St. Mark, and probably 
 the Evangelist St. Luke. TViefr language therefore 
 was Syriac or Chaldee, of which the turns of ex- 
 pression had a close correspondence with those of 
 the ancient Hebrew. Consequently, when they 
 wrote in Greek, their language could not fail to re- 
 semble the language, which had been used by the 
 Greek translators. And, as every Jew, who read 
 Greek at all, (which they who icrote in it must have 
 done) would read the Greek Bible, the style of the 
 Septuagint again operated in forming the style of the 
 Greek Testament. Both the Hebrew Bible there- 
 fore and the Greek Testament are so closely con- 
 nected with the Septuagint, as well in their lan- 
 guage as in their matter, that the Septuagint is a 
 source of interpretation, alike important to the one 
 and to the other. 
 
 TVe now come to the consideration of that source, 
 from which we have most copiously drawn, and 
 which has had greater influence on our modern trans- 
 
33 LECTURE XIV. 
 
 lations, than is commonly supposed. This source 
 is the Latin Vulgate. It has heen applied to the 
 interpretation, as well of the JV'eit', as of the Old Tes- 
 tament. But it is of more especial use in the lat- 
 ter, because our sources of intelligence in respect to 
 Hebrew words, are more circumscribed than in res- 
 pect to Greek. Its intrinsic value also in the Old 
 Testament is greater than in the New. The Latin 
 Vulgate in the New Testament was only corrected 
 by Jerom ; but in the Old Testament it is a trans- 
 lation made by Jerora himself, and made imme- 
 diately from the Hebrew. Now Jerom was by 
 far the most learned among all the Fathers of 
 the Latin Church : and in order to make his 
 translation of the Hebrew Bible as correct as 
 possible, he passed sev^eral years in Palestine, 
 where he was assisted by learned Jews, belonging 
 to the celebrated college of Tiberias. Indeed the 
 benefit to be derived from the Latin Vulgate, was 
 acknowledged by our early Reformers, in the ex- 
 tensive use wliich they made of it themselves^ 
 Wickliife's English translation was made entirely 
 from the Vulgate : and Luther himself, when he 
 made his Grerman translation, translated indeed 
 from the Hebrew and the Greek, but with the as- 
 sistancp of the Latin Vulgate. This assistance is 
 "visible throughout ; and passages have been discov- 
 ered in LuMier's German translation, which agree 
 with the I. atin, even where the Latin differs from 
 the Hebrew. 
 
LECTURE XIV. S3 
 
 But the use of the Latin Vulgate, in translating 
 irom the Hebrew, was at that period not merely 
 matter of convenience. It was matter also of neces- 
 sity. Without the Vulgate, Luther would not have 
 possessed the means of translating from the He- 
 brew. The knowledge of Hebrew had for ages 
 preceding the period of the Reformation, been con- 
 fined to the learned among the Jews; and when 
 Luther undertook the task of translating from the 
 original Scriptures, this knowledge had begun only 
 to dawn among Christians. The comprehensive 
 grammars and lexicons, to which we have now ac- 
 cess, are sources of intelligence, which were not open 
 to our early Reformers. The elder Buxtorf, one of 
 the fathers of Hebrew learning among Christians, 
 was not born till after Luther's death ,* and Luther's 
 only helps in the form of a Hebrew Lexicon, were 
 those of Reuchlin and Mlinster, extracted from the 
 meager glossaries of the Rabbins. Under sjich cir- 
 cumstances a translation from the Hebrew, without 
 the intervention of the Latin, would have been 
 wholly impracticable. . . jj 
 
 Here the subject requires a few observations on 
 our own authorised version. It was published by 
 royal authority in the reign of James the First, hav- 
 ing been then compiled out of various English Bi- 
 bles which had been printed since the time of the 
 Reformation. To judge therefore of our authorised 
 version, we should have some knowledge of those 
 'previous English Bibles. The first of them was a 
 
34 LECTURE XIV. 
 
 translation made abroad, partly by Tyndal, and 
 partly by Rogers, but chiefly by the former. It was 
 undertaken soon after the Reformation commenced 
 in Germany^ and therefore several ye rs before the 
 Reformation was introduced into England. What 
 knowledge Tyndal had of Hebrew is unknown ; 
 But he of course understood the Latin Vulgate ; 
 and he was likewise acquainted with German. 
 Indeed he passed some time with Luther at Wit- 
 tenberg; and the ])ooks, which Tyndal selected 
 for translation into English, were always those, 
 wliich Luther had already translated into German. 
 Now Luther did not translate according to the or- 
 der, in which the several books follow each other in 
 the Bible : he translated in an order of liis own, and 
 the same order was observed also by Tyndal, who 
 translated ft/fe?* Luther. We may conclude therefore 
 that TyndaVs translation was taken at least in part 
 from Luther's : and this conclusion is further con- 
 firmed by the Gerwanisms, vfhich it contains, some 
 of which are still preserved in our authorised ver- 
 sion. Further, when Rogers had completed what 
 Tyndal left unfinished, he added notes and prefa- 
 ces from Luther. The translation of the whole 
 Bible, thus made by Tyvidal and Rogers, was pub- 
 lished at Hamburg under the feigned name of Mat- 
 thewe : and hence it has been called Matthe we's Bi- 
 ble. Subsequent English editions were Coverdale's 
 Bible, Cranmer's Bible, (called also the Great Bible, 
 and sometimes by the^iames of the printers, Grafton 
 
lECTURE XIV. Ss 
 
 and Whitchurch,) the Geneva Bible, and Parkers or 
 the Bishops' Bible, which last was published ia 
 i5tiSy and from that time was used in our Churches 
 till the introduction of our present version. Now 
 the Bishops' Bible, as appears from Archbishop 
 Parker's instructions, was only a revision of Cran- 
 mer's Bible : and Cranraer's Bible was only a cor- 
 rection (in some places for the worse) of Matthewe's 
 Bible, that is, of the translation made by Tyndal 
 and Rogers. We see therefore the genealogy of 
 the Bishops^ Bible ; and the Bishops' Bible was 
 made the basis of our present authorised version. 
 For the first rule, given by James the First to the 
 compilers of it, was this, ^* The ordinary Bible^ 
 read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops' 
 Bible, to be followed, and as little altered, as the 
 original would permit." But whenever Matthewe^e 
 Bible, or Coverdale's, or Whitchurch's, or the Ge- 
 neva Bible came nearer to the original, (that is to 
 the editions of the Hebrew Bible and Greek Testa- 
 ment then in use,) the text of these other English 
 Bibles was ordered to be adopted. Now as this 
 collation was made by some of the most distinguish- 
 ed scholars in the age of James the First, it is pro- 
 bable, that our authorised version is as faithful a 
 representation of the original Scriptures as collide 
 have been formed at that period. But when we 
 consider the immense accession which has been 
 since made, both to our critical and to our philo- 
 logical apparatus ; when we consider, that th*?- 
 
36 LECTURE Xn. 
 
 whole mass of literature, commeucing mththe Lon- 
 don Polyglot and continued to Griesbach's Greek 
 Testament, was collected subsequently to that pe- 
 riod ; when we consider that the most important 
 sources of intelligence for the interpretation of the 
 original Scriptures were likeicise opened after that 
 period, we cannot possibly pretend that our author- 
 ised version does not require amendment. On this 
 subject we need only refer to the work of Arch- 
 bishop Newcome, entitled, " An Historical Yievv 
 *^ of the English Biblical Translations ; the expe- 
 " diency of revising by authority our present Eng- 
 ** lish Translation ; and the means of executing 
 " such a revision. '' Indeed Dr. Macknight, in the 
 second section of his general Preface, goes so far as 
 to say of our authorised version, " It is by no 
 "means such a just representation of the inspired 
 *' originals, as merits to be implicitly relied on, 
 *' for determining the controverted articles of the 
 " Christian faith, and for quieting the dissensions, 
 *^ which have rent the Church/' 
 
 In excuse however for neglecting the original 
 languages, and trusting to a modern translation, it 
 has been lately urged, that a man may spend his 
 life in the study of Hebrew and Greek, and yet 
 not become master of the originals, while the mere 
 English scholar, who is versed in the phraseology 
 of our authorised version, may be said to have 
 wade no inconsiderable progress in divinity. In 
 answer to this excuse we may propose the following 
 
LECTURE XIV. 37 
 
 questions : If, with our preseut critical and pliilo- 
 log^ical apparatus, toe are unable to discover the 
 meaning of the originals, how could that meaning 
 have been discovered by our early translators ? 
 How can ice make a considerable progress in the 
 knowledge of the Scriptures by reading only a 
 translation, if tlie understanding of the originals is 
 impeded by diiTiculties, which tlie very authors of 
 that translation must have found much harder to 
 surmount? In the study of the Bible therefore, 
 let those, who are set apart for the Christian min- 
 istry, consider well what is required from a good 
 interpreter. Would it not be thought absurd, if a 
 man ignorant of Greek undertook to write a Com- 
 mentary on Homer, or a man ignorant of Latin to 
 write a Commentary on Virgil ? And is it not equal- 
 ly absurd, to comment on the New Testament 
 without a knowledge of Greek, or on the Old Testa- 
 ment without a knowledge of Hebrew? A knowl- 
 edge of Greek is, in a greater or less degree, attain- 
 ed by all, who have had the benefit of a learned 
 education. But a knowledge of Hebrew, which is 
 equally VQqu'iv&a from tht foreign Protestant Clergy, 
 is considered as less necessary in this country : 
 and indeed it is so far less necessary, as a perfect 
 understanding of the Old Testament is less neces- 
 sary to a Christian^ than a perfect understanding 
 of the JSTew. Yet we should surely endeavour to 
 obtain at least so much knowledge of it, as may 
 
 enable us to compare with the original our English 
 6 
 
38 LECTURE XIV. 
 
 translation, and see th it ths te\t itself is accurate — 
 before we attempt an interpretation of that text. 
 
 A farther excuse for dlsrei^arding the originali 
 and conlidiag in a modern translation, has been 
 founded in an arii;umeut, which to a certain extent 
 is indisputably true. It has been urged, that even 
 if we do learn the original languages, we must still 
 confide in a translator ; and, that whether we look 
 into a Lexicon, which gives us the meaning of sin- 
 gle words, or into a Translation, which gives us 
 the meaning of them all together, we are dependent 
 on the Lexicographer in the one case, as on the 
 Translator in the other. But there is a material 
 difference, both in the hind, and in the extent of 
 the confidence, which we thus repose. If we de- 
 pend on a continued translation, we place a two- 
 fold confidence in the translator ; a confidence in 
 his knowledge of each single word, and a confi- 
 dence in his right construction of them. But our 
 confidence in the Lexicographer is only of the for- 
 mer description : we learn to construe for our- 
 selves, and thus are enabled to judge, whether 
 others have construed rightly. AVe are enabled 
 also to judge whether the translator has added or 
 omitted, which we can never know without examin- 
 ing the original. Nor is the confidence, which we 
 place in a Lexicographer even for single words, by 
 any means so implicit, as when we trust to a con- 
 tinued translation In the latter case, we must 
 whollij rely; both on ihe judgment and on the 
 
LECTURE XIV. 39 
 
 fidelity of the translator, being destitute of that 
 knowledge, without which we can form no estimate 
 whatever. But the case is widely different, when 
 we consult a Lexicon. It is not in the fower of 
 a Lexicographer to impose on us, as a common 
 translator can. In a Lexicon (at least if it is of any 
 value) we frequently find the same word quoted in 
 various passages, which assists us in determining its 
 meaning ; if it is a derivative, we become acquaint- 
 ed with the primative, with which its meaning must 
 have some, connexion ; and if it has various senses, 
 (which we should never know from a continued 
 translation,) we may judge from the context and 
 other circumstances, which of those various senses 
 is best adapted to any particular passage. If we 
 extend our knowledge to the oriental languages 
 allied to the Hebrew, and apply also the Septu- 
 agint version, the dependence on our Lexicon will 
 hQ further diminished. We ourselves shall obtain 
 possession of the sources, from which the Lexicog- 
 rapher himself must have drawn his materials, and 
 thence we shall be enabled to judge, whether he 
 has properly applied them. 
 
 Lastly, let us consider the additional obligation 
 of studying the original Scriptures, which lies es- 
 pecially on those, who pretend to the title of Prot- 
 estant. To repose implicit confidence in a transla- 
 tion f is characteristic of the Church of Rome. Let 
 the Church of Home decree of her authorised ver- 
 sion, Ut nemo illam rejicere quovis prwtextu andeat 
 
40 LECTURE XIV. 
 
 vel prcesumat. But let no Protestant apply these 
 words of the Council of Trent to his oicn authorised 
 version, whatever predilection he may have for it 
 himself. It is the privilege of Protestants to appeal 
 to the inspired originals. We do not believe, that 
 our translators were inspired, though the Jews be- 
 lieved it of their Sejituagint translators. The ear-' 
 ly Reformers^ especially Luther and Melancthon, 
 thought it one of the most important advantages ob- 
 tained by the Reformation, that the learned were 
 no longer forced to walk in the trammels of an au- 
 thorised Version, but were at liberty to open the 
 originals. Nor have the foreign Protestant Cler- 
 gy, from the period of the Reformation to the pres- 
 ent age, appealed, either in x4.cademic disputations, 
 or in writings designed for the learned, to any oth- 
 er scriptural authority, than that of the Hebrew, 
 and the Greek. For those indeed, who were una- 
 ble to understand the originals, they provided trans- 
 lations conducted to the best of their abilities. And 
 since it is infinitely better to read the Scriptures in 
 a translation, than not to read them at all, the le- 
 gislature of different Protestant countries has wisely 
 provided for the reading of them in Churches, accor- 
 ding to those translations, which were most approv- 
 ed. But the high and decisive authority, belong- 
 ing to the inspired originals, was never supposed 
 by any Protestant, at least not by any real Pro- 
 testant, to attach to a mere translation ; though the 
 Church of Rome requires such authority for her 
 
LECTURE XIV. » 41 
 
 oivn authorised version. When a Protestant gov- 
 ernment has selected a particular translation, and 
 appointed it to be read in Churches, this selection 
 and appointment has implied only, that such trans- 
 lation was the best which could then be obtained. 
 But it did not imply perfection, or that no future 
 amendment could be required. Indeed we know 
 that the English version, which had been author- 
 ised by Queen Elizabeth, was exchanged for an- 
 otJier version, authorised by James the First. We 
 have therefore a precedent in our own Church, for 
 following the advice of Archbishop Newcome, and 
 again revising by authority our English version. 
 But whether we revise it or not, there is one infe- 
 rence, which must be drawn from the preceding 
 remarks, namely, that Ave cannot be qualified for 
 the Interpretation of the Bible, till we understand 
 the languages of the Bible. 
 
LECTURE XV. 
 
 The sources of biblical interpretation having 
 been explained in the preceding Lecture, let us now 
 consider w\mt rules must be observed in the investi- 
 gation of words, in order to make them perform the 
 office, for which they were intended, and become 
 signs to the hearer or reader of what was thought 
 by the speaker or writer. 
 
 Whether we speak, or whether we write, it is 
 in either case our object to be understood. Every 
 Author therefore must be supposed to employ such 
 words, for the conveyance of his thoughts, as he 
 believes will excite in his readers the same thoughts. 
 Otherwise, he defeats his own object. His words 
 will h^ fallacious signs ; they will be signs of one 
 thing to the writer, of another thing to the reader ; 
 and whether they convey a true, or convey a, false 
 proposition, they will not convey, what the reader 
 wants to know, the proposition of the author. 
 Hence also he must be supposed to use his words 
 in the same sense, in which they are commonly us- 
 ed by the persons, who speak the language, in 
 which he writes. For, if he uses them in any Qtli- 
 
LECTURE XV. 43 
 
 er sense, they will again be signs of one thing to 
 the writer, of another to the reader. 
 
 To interpret therefore a word in any language, 
 (whoever be the author that used it) we must ask 
 in the first instance ; What notion is (or was) af- 
 fixed to that word, by the persons in general, who 
 speak (or spake) the language ? And the answer 
 to this question will constitute our first rule of in- 
 terpretation. Now the question, when applied to 
 a living language, is easily answered, because the 
 usage of a living language is known from conver- 
 sation. But when it is applied to a dead language, 
 of which the usage can be learnt only from books, 
 the answer may involve very extensive inquiries. 
 If, for instance, the question be applied to a word 
 in the Hebrew Bible, the answer will involve the 
 use of those sources of intelligence, which were ex- 
 plained in the last Lecture. In like manner, if it 
 be applied to any word in the Greek Tastament. 
 the answer will involve inquiries into the usage of 
 words, both among the Greeks in general, and 
 among those in particular, who used the peculiar 
 dialect of Hebreic -Greek, 
 
 But whatever be the sources, from which we 
 derive our knowledge of words, whatever be our 
 means of answering the question above-proposed, 
 that answer will in general determine our interpre- 
 tation of words, as it determines in general an au- 
 thor's application of them. The rules themselves 
 therefore, which we are now considering, may be 
 
44 LECTURE XY. 
 
 explaiued, without reference to any particular lan- 
 guage. But, on the other hand, we must not for- 
 get, that they apply only to the words of an orighi' 
 al. For when we interpret a translation^ the words, 
 which we investigate, are signs to the reader of 
 what was thought by the translator. They may, 
 or they may not, be signs of what was thought by 
 the author. 
 
 It has been already observed, that authors must 
 in general use their words in the sense, in which 
 they are generally understood : and that hence is 
 derived our first rule of interpretation. But how, 
 it may be asked, is the rule to be applied, if a word 
 has various senses ? Is not such a word an ambig- 
 uous sign ? And must not the application of the 
 rule be attended in this case with uncertainty P 
 Now if a word has various senses, it will undoubt- 
 edly be a sign of one thing in one place, of anoth- 
 er thing in another place. But it is no necessary 
 consequence, that the word is an amhiguous sign. 
 Its senses, however different, may be distinctly 
 marked by the relation of that word to other words, 
 with which it is connected in a sentence. And as 
 in cases where a word has only one sense, that 
 sense is determined by usage, in like manner, where 
 a word has various senses, each single sense will 
 be determined by usage. But then the question 
 above-proposed must be restricted to the particular 
 case. And instead of asking indefinitely, What 
 notion was affixed to the word by the persons in 
 
LECTURE XV. 45 
 
 geaeral, who spake the language, we must ask; 
 Whit nation did they affix to it, in that 'particular 
 connexion. 
 
 Shoulil a doubt however remain, where a word 
 iias various senses, that doubt may be frequently 
 removed by the application of another rule, which 
 is likewise founded on the principle, that words 
 are signs to tlie reader of what was thought by the 
 writer. As the general meaning of words depends 
 on general usage, so their particular application 
 may depend on the particular situation of the per- 
 sons, to whom they were immediately addressed. 
 We may lay it down therefore as a second rule of 
 interpretation, that the meaning of a word, used by 
 any writer, is the meaning, which was affixed to it 
 by those, for whom he immediately wrote. For, if 
 a writer, addressing himself in the first instance to 
 particular persons or communities, does not adapt 
 his expressions to the mode, in which they are likely 
 to apply them, he will fail to be understood by the 
 very persons, for whose immediate benefit he wrote. 
 When St. Paul, for instance, composed an Epistle 
 to any particular community, whether at Rome, at 
 Corinth, at Ephesus, or any other place, he un- 
 doubtedly used such eocpressions, as well as such 
 arguments, as he knew would be understood by that 
 community. And, as he intended to be understood 
 by that community, so and no otherwise did he in- 
 tend to be understood by all other readers, whether 
 in the first or in the nineteenth century. Now, in 
 7 
 
46 LECTURE XV. 
 
 order to discover the meaning ascribed to St. PauPs 
 expressions by any particular community to which 
 he wrote, we must make ourselves acquainted with 
 the peculiar situation of that community. We must 
 understand the opinions, which they maintained on 
 the subjects, on which St. Paul addressed them ; 
 or the expressions, which he employed in the cor- 
 rection or confutation of those opinions, may be un- 
 derstood by us in a different manner from that, in 
 which they understood his expressions ; and conse- 
 quently in a different manner from that, in which St. 
 Paul meant them to be understood. For if he had 
 not expressed himself so as to be understood by 
 those, whose religious errors it was his immediate 
 object to remove, his immediate object would not 
 have been attained. 
 
 Again, as the situation and circumstances of the 
 original readers afford frequently a clue to an au- 
 thor's meaning, so on the other hand, his own situ- 
 ation and circumstances are not less necessary to 
 be taken into the account. We may lay it down 
 therefore as a third rule of interpretation, that the 
 words of an author must be so explained, as not to 
 make them inconsistent with his known character, 
 his known sentiments, his known situation, and the 
 known circumstances of the subject, on which lie 
 wrote. 
 
 To judge of the itfi7iY?/of these rules, let us take 
 a case of interpretation, which is very common, 
 and where the want of them is especially felt. 
 
LECTURE XV. ^ 47! 
 
 When a word has various senses, it often happens, 
 that more than one of them will so far suit the con- 
 text, as to afford some sort of meaning to the pas- 
 sage. In such a case, an expounder of the Bible 
 takes the liberty of exercising his own discretion ; 
 and this discretion is commonly so exercised, as to 
 make the author mean what the expounder wishes 
 him to have meant. Instead of considering 
 the situation of the author, the expounder contem- 
 plates his own situation. Instead of considering 
 the situation of those, whom the author addressed, 
 the expounder contemplates those, whom he himself 
 is addressing. Instead of inquiring into the opin- 
 ions, which it was the author's object to confute, he 
 concerns himself only with those opinions, which 
 it is his own object to confute. In this manner 
 does he divert the author's meaning from its original 
 purpose ; and by torturing his words, or rather the 
 words of his translator, he contrives to extract from 
 them a meaning, which they were not intended to 
 convey. But let us ask, in the name of common 
 sense, whether it be possible to interpret an author 
 as he ought to be interpreted, without due attention 
 to the preceding rules. Suppose, that an ancient 
 author has written on a point of controversy. Will 
 any man venture to assert, that such an author can 
 be understood by those, who are ignorant of the 
 subject and circumstances of the controversy? 
 Take, for instance, the controversial parts of St. 
 PauVs writings, and see the consequence of expound- 
 
4S LECTUI^E XT. 
 
 ing them, withont a knowledge of the subject and 
 circumstances. What was the cMpJ controversy, 
 which engaged the attention of St. Paul? It was 
 a controversy between the Jewish Converts and the 
 Heathen Converts. The Jewish Converts, attach- 
 ed to their former institutions, contended that the 
 Law of Moses should be united with tlie Faith of 
 Christ. Had this proposition been true^ the Heath- 
 en Converts would have been only imperfect Chris- 
 tians ; and, in order to obtain the perfection requir- 
 ed of them by the Jewish Converts, they must have 
 submitted to the rites enjoined by the Levitical Law. 
 The question therefore at issue between them, was 
 simply this ; Whether a man could become a good 
 Christian, without remaining, or becoming a Jew ? 
 This question, which was tlien of the liighest im. 
 portance, St. Paul has discussed, especially in his 
 Epistles to the Romans and the Galations, where 
 he has decided the question in the affirmative. But 
 the question, there decided, is very different from 
 any question, wliich now agitates the religious 
 world : for no man would now suppose, that the 
 best Christians are they, who have been Jews. 
 Tet how seldom do we find an interpreter of St. 
 Paul, who keeps in view the subject and circum- 
 stances of that controversy, on which St. Paul him- 
 self was writing? Men interpret his Epistles, as 
 if he were a writer of the present age : and passa- 
 ges, relating solely to the question at issue between 
 Jewish and Heathen Converts, are so explained. 
 
LECTURE XV. 49 
 
 as if the Apostle had been sitting in judgment, to 
 decide between Calvin and Arminius. 
 
 Here perhaps it will be objected, that as the 
 Christian dispensation was designed for all men, 
 there is an inconsistency in supposing, that minute 
 inquiries into the transactions of antiquity should 
 be necessary, in order to comprehend it. Howev- 
 er useful such researches may be in the study of the 
 Old Testament, yet to suppose that the JSTeiv Tes- 
 tament, which prescribes not laws and regulations 
 for a single nation, but dictates equally to all man- 
 kindy to suppose that such a work should require 
 a knowledge of what happened eighteen hundred 
 years ago, and in another quarter of the globe, be- 
 fore it can be understood, may appear incompatible 
 with the design of the Deity, in making it the ve- 
 hicle of his will. Now the object of the Deity is 
 not to be determined by any preconceived opinions, 
 on our part, concerning what he ought, or ought 
 not, to have done. What he ought to have done, 
 can be discovered by no other means, than by in- 
 quiring what he has done. And, if we find by ex- 
 ferience, that the understanding of the JSTew, as 
 well as of the Old Testament, requires extensive 
 knowledge, we must argue accordingly. Instead 
 of the gratuitous supposition, that things ought to 
 have been otheriaise, we must conclude that things 
 ought to be, as we find they really are ; instead of 
 complaining about difficulties, we must endeavour 
 to surmount them, by obtaining the knowledge, 
 
50 LEUTUIiE XV. 
 
 which God has given us the means of obtaining, 
 and which, from its very necessity, we may con- 
 cliulcj it is our duty to obtain. 
 
 It may be further objectedj that the situation 
 of inspired writers is different from that of common 
 writers. This is certainly true ; it is true, both 
 in respect to the writers themselves, and in respect 
 to the confidence, which we may repose in them. 
 We may be previously assured, when a writer is 
 inspired, that every proposition, which he advances, 
 is in strict conformity with the truth. But we must 
 understand an inspired writer, as well as a com- 
 mon writer ; or we shall not know what his propo- 
 sitions are. And the very circumstance, that his 
 propositions must be true, should make us the more 
 anxious to investigate their meaning. But how 
 shall we investigate their meaning, unless we inter- 
 pret the words by the rules, which we apply to oth- 
 er writings ? Shall we imitate the Church of Rome, 
 and rejecting the aid of human learning, resolve the 
 interpretation of Scripture into the decrees of a 
 Council, on the presumption, that it interprets un- 
 der the infuence of the Spirit, and therefore that 
 its interpretations are ihfallible ? Or shall we imi- 
 tate the modern Enthusiast, who likewise rejects 
 the aid of human learning, who likeicise aspires to 
 the influence of the Spirit, and, acting on the same 
 principles as the Church of Rome, determines with 
 equal ease, and with equal confidence in his own 
 decisions ? Or shall we follow the example of our 
 
LECTURE XV. 51 
 
 Meformers, who, when they had rejected Tradi- 
 tion as a guide to the meaning of Scripture, suppli- 
 ed the flace of that tradition by reason and learn- 
 ing ? 
 
 It is true, that if we interpret the Scriptures by 
 the aid of reason and learning, we must resign all 
 pretensions to that infallibility, which is claimed by 
 those, who aspire to the influence of the Spirit ; 
 whether that influence is supposed to display itself 
 in the assurances of an individual, or in the decrees 
 of a general council. But, on the other hand, 
 there are advantages, which compensate for every 
 defect. The man, who interprets Scripture by the 
 aid of reason and learning, without being elated by 
 the supposition of a supernatural interference on his 
 account, will apply, no less modestly than industri- 
 ously, the means which Providence has placed 
 within his reach. While he uses his honest en- 
 deavours to discover tlie truth, he will pray to God 
 for a blessing on those endeavours : he will pray 
 for that ordinary assistance of the Holy Spirit, 
 without which all our endeavours xnnsthe fruitless ; 
 but he will not expect that extraordinary assis- 
 tance, which was granted of old, and for higher 
 purposes. He may vary indeed from the inter- 
 pretations of others, and sometimes perhaps from 
 tliose which he himself had adopted at an earlier 
 period, when his knowledge of the subject was 
 more confined. If the final results of his interpre- 
 tation should be such, as in points of doctrine t« 
 
52 LECTURE XV. 
 
 agree with the deductions, which he had learnt as 
 articles of faith, he will rejoice at the coincidence, 
 and be thankful, that his labours are thus reward- 
 ed. But he will feel no enmity to those, whose de- 
 ductions are different ; he is too well acquainted 
 with the numerous requisites of a good interpreter, 
 to expect that they should be often united; and 
 knowing, that interpreters, difterently qualified, 
 and interpreting on different principles, can never 
 agree in their results, he will have charity for those, 
 w^hose opinions are different from Ms own. He 
 will believe indeed, like other men, that his own 
 opinions are right, and consequently, that what op- 
 poses them is wrong. But the pri^iciple, on which 
 he argues, that his opinions are right, is very dif- 
 ferent from the principle, on which either a general 
 council, or an individual enthusiast, would rest as 
 a basis of the truth. He will not pretend, that he 
 cannot err; he will not pretend, even that the 
 Church, of which lie is a member, cannot err. And, 
 though in point of fact, he believes that it does not 
 err, yet, as he admits the possibility, he feels no en- 
 mity to those, who contend, that it does err. 
 Though he believes, that he himself ]ms rightly in- 
 terpreted the Bible, and thereon founds his convic- 
 tion, that his own Articles of Faith are legitimate 
 deductions from the Bible, he is no less desirous of 
 granting to others, than of obtaining for himself, 
 tlie privilege of acting from private conviction. 
 The freedom, with which he maintains, that i]^e doc- 
 
LECTURE XV. 55 
 
 frines of his own Church are in unison with 
 Scripture, the same freedom he allows to those, 
 who claim that unison ior themselves. He believes 
 indeed, and he asserts, that his own is the true re- 
 ligion. Yet he thinks it right, that other men should 
 also have the liberty of believing and asserting that 
 theirs is the true religion. And he submits with 
 humility to that Almighty Being, who alone cannot 
 err, to determine, whether he, or they, be really in 
 possession of what each possesses in his oum belief. 
 Such is the interpreter, who explains the Bible 
 by the aid of reason and learning. Let us now con- 
 sider the interpreter, who aspires to the possession 
 of higher means. When a general Council, assem- 
 bled by the Church of Rome, deliberates on points 
 of faith, the Holy Spirit is supposed to guide them 
 ill their inquiries, and to exempt their decisions 
 from even the possibility of a mistake. Here then 
 lies the grand distinction between the interpretative 
 principle of the Church of Rome, and the interpre- 
 tative principle of the Church of England. The 
 Church of England, like all other Christian com- 
 munities without exception, asserts, that its doc- 
 trines are in strict conformity with Scripture. But 
 in so doing, it merely asserts the fact, that it does 
 not err from the truth ; whereas the Church of 
 Rome, beside the fact of not erring from the truth, 
 claims also the opinion, that it cannot err from the 
 truth. Now this claim of opinion, in addition to 
 
 the claim of fact, makes a difference of infinitely 
 8 
 
54 LECTURE XV. 
 
 greater moment, than men in general suppose. It 
 has been frequently said, and very lately repeated, 
 that, as the two Churches act alike in maintaining, 
 each for itself, that it does not err, 'tis mere meta- 
 physical subtlety to distinguish between the petty 
 terms of * does not,' and ^ can not.' But these terms, 
 insignificant as they may appear, denote nothing 
 less, than two distinct principles of action, and 
 principles so distinct, that the one leads to charity 
 and toleration, the other to intolerance and persecu- 
 tion. On the former principle, which is maintain- 
 ed by the church of England, though we believe that 
 we are right, we admit, that we are possibly wrong; 
 though we believe that others are wrong, we admit 
 that they slyg possibly right ; and hence we are dis- 
 posed to tolerate their opinions. But on the latter 
 principle, which is maintained by the Church of 
 Rome, the very possibility of being right is denied 
 to those, who dissent from its doctrines. Now, as 
 soon as men have persuaded themselves, that in 
 points of doctrine they cannot err, they will think 
 it an imperious duty to prevent the growth of all 
 other oinnions on a subject so important as religion. 
 Should argument therefore fail, the importance of 
 the end will be supposed to justify the worst of 
 means. But the intolerance, thus produced by an 
 imaginary exemption from error, is frir from being 
 confined to the Church of Rome. The same intol- 
 erance is produced in every man, who imagines, 
 that he interprets the Scriptures under the especial 
 
LECTURE XV. 55 
 
 guidance of the Holy Spirit. It makes no differ- 
 ence, in this respect, whether such especial guid- 
 ance is supposed to be vouchsafed to a general 
 coiuicilf or to an individual in his private apart- 
 ments. The result in either case is the same. In 
 either case, the persons who believe themselves so 
 gifted, will conclude, that they cannot err. In ei- 
 ther case, they will deem it impious to tolerate what 
 the Spirit, as they imagine, has condemned. And 
 hence we may justly infer, that the same inquisito- 
 rial power, which has been exercised by the Church 
 of Rome, would be exercised by others^ who set up 
 similar pretensions, if the means of employing that 
 power were once at their command. 
 
 Have we not (hen sufficient ground for resist- 
 ing pretensions, no less dangerous to the communi- 
 ty, than fallacious in themselves ? Can we want 
 further arguments for the interpretation of Scripture 
 by reason and learning? Perhaps indeed I ought 
 not in this place to use arguments at all in their fa- 
 vour. It may appear superfluous to plead for rea- 
 son and learning in an University like this, where 
 mathematical acumen and classical literature go 
 hand in hand. But it is the misfortune of many 
 well-intentioned young men, to have been seduced 
 into a belief, that the acuteness of reasoning, which 
 is wanted in mathematics, and the learning, which 
 they employ in the study of the classics, may be 
 laid aside as useless, nay, even as an incumbrance, 
 when they transfer their inquiries to religion. The 
 
5G LECTURE XT. 
 
 words of man's wisdom are then exchanged for a 
 supposed demonstration of the Sjnrit. But let us 
 not deceive ourselves on so momentous a subject; 
 Because an inspired Apostle has declared, that his 
 wisdom was derived from the suggestions of the 
 Holy Spirit, let us not imagine, that our wisdom 
 will be dignified by the same supernatural aid. Be- 
 cause an inspired Apostle has declared, that his 
 wisdom was not the wisdom of inarif but the power 
 of God, let us not imagine, that the same divine Il- 
 lumination, the same intellectual light, in which 
 St. Paul composed his Epistles, will be infused in- 
 to a modern expounder of them. Nor, because St. 
 Paul has declared, that the wisdom of this world 
 is foolishness with God, let us conclude, that the 
 duty of a Christian requires him to discard from the 
 study of the Bible the assistance of human learning. 
 The wisdom of this world, which St. Paul advised 
 the Corinthians to reject, is very different from that, 
 which is meant by human learning : indeed so dif- 
 ferent, that they, who are least acquainted with the 
 latter, are often best acquainted with the former. 
 Let us remember also, that they who depreciate hu- 
 man learning, as the means of interpreting the Scrip- 
 tures, depreciate what was the pillar of the Refor- 
 mation : that they act contrary, both to the princi- 
 ples, and to the practice of our Reformers : that 
 they would involve us in mental darkness, and thus 
 firing us back to Popery again. 
 
 .Lastlyj let us inquire, whether the rules of in- 
 
LECTURE XV. 57 
 
 tcrpretation, wliicli apply to human authors, are 
 still applicable, when Scripture is referred to the 
 Holy Spirit as its author. Now in whatever man- 
 ner we suppose that inspiration was communicated, 
 and whatever degree of agency Ave ascribe to the 
 writers themselves, we shall find, that the words of 
 Scripture must be still interpreted by the same 
 rules as those, which apply to the words of merely 
 human authors. If the Sacred Writers were so in- 
 spired, that, while their knowledge was suggested 
 to them, the mode of committing that knowledge to 
 writing was left to their own discretion, the words 
 which they employed for that purpose, must evi- 
 dently be interpreted as their words, and conse- 
 quently by the rules above described. Nor will 
 the conclusion be different, if the words were in- 
 spired. For if the words themselves were dictated 
 by the Holy Spirit, the choice of those words must 
 have been determined by the same rules, as if they 
 had been chosen by the Sacred Writers. The 
 choice of them must hsL\e equally depended on their 
 common usage in the intercourse between man and 
 man. If they had mot been so chosen, they would 
 not have been understood by man. They would 
 not have conveyed to the reader what was thought 
 by the author, and the object of revelation would 
 not have been attained. 
 
LECTURE XVI. 
 
 The rules of interpretation, explained in the last 
 Lecture, were founded on the usage of words, ei- 
 ther general, or particular. Now the usage of 
 words in any language means the use of them as 
 determined by the practice of those, who spake and 
 wrote the language. Lexicographers therefore, 
 when they give the senses of words, accompany 
 those senses with passages from authors, who have 
 used them in those senses : and the passages, thus 
 quoted, are considered as authorities or vouchers, 
 that such senses belong to those words. When a 
 Lexicon however relates to a dead language, the 
 compiler of it is seldom in possession of authors suf- 
 ficiently numerous and multifarious, to teach him 
 the usage of that language in lis full extent. Ex- 
 amples of the same word, occurring only in a feui 
 instances, are common in most of the dead lan- 
 guages, and in none so much as in the Hebrew. But 
 the less frequently a word is usedy the fewer are 
 the opportunities afforded by the language itself, 
 ef learning what the usage of it is. Nor are the ex- 
 amples uncommon of words occurring only once 
 among the authors extant in a dead language. And 
 
 ><^ 
 
LECTURE XVI. 59 
 
 lu such cases^ the language itself affords us no oth- 
 er opportunity of learning its usage, than one sin- 
 gle comparison of a word with others in connexion 
 with it. And though the majority of words in a 
 dead language may often occur, yet whenever the 
 number of their senses bears a considerable pro^ 
 portion to the whole number of examples^ the au- 
 thorities for each single sense will be proportional- 
 ly reduced. 
 
 To aid therefore our imperfect means of dis- 
 covering by observation the usage of words, we 
 must extend our inquiry beyond the mere relation of 
 words to those who use them. We must consider 
 the relation, which words, as signs, bear immedi- 
 ately to the notions, of which they are signs : and 
 we must further inquire into the ground of that re- 
 lation. For, though the meaning of words is no 
 other than that, in which they have been actually 
 usedy we must not conclude, that usage is altogeth- 
 er fortuitous. Though the connexion between 
 words and their notions is conventional, that con- 
 vention may have been regulated by determinate 
 laws. Indeed the connexion between words and 
 their notions may have originated in various caus- 
 es. But unless the causes are understood, we can- 
 not judge of the effects. Let us inquire therefore 
 into the origin of that connexion, which subsists be- 
 tween words, as signs, and the notions of which 
 they are signs. 
 
 A word may be considered at present;, either as 
 
 .M. 
 
60 LECTURE XVI. 
 
 something seen, or as something heard : either as 
 a written word, or as a spoken word : either as a 
 visible, or as an audible sign, of its notion. But in 
 the infancy of language, it was only an audible, not 
 a visible sign. A word was then a mere sound, or 
 utterance of the voice, conveying to the hearer some 
 notion entertained by the speaker. And, though 
 the invention of writing was introduced in so early 
 an age, that all remembrance of that invention is 
 lost in the darkness of remote antiquity, a consider- 
 able period must have elapsed before spoken words 
 could have acquired a representation in written 
 words. Indeed, before any attempt was made to 
 write by the use of letters, it is probable that in ev- 
 ery country some kind of hieroglyphic or picture- 
 writing was employed. But representations of this 
 kind had no connexion whatever with the use of 
 letters : they could not even have led to the inven- 
 tion of letters. They were representations not of 
 the words, but of the objects, to which the words 
 referred. They were easy and obvious represen- 
 tations, when applied to external objects ; nor was 
 the transition difllcult, when representations were 
 wanted for things abstracted from the observation 
 of the senses. Some resemblance to a visible ob- 
 ject suggested a correspondent mark ; as, for in- 
 stance, when a circle, which is a line without end, 
 was used in hieroglyphics, to denote sl period with- 
 out end. But, as soon as men began to write with 
 those characters, which are called letters, they no 
 
LECTURE XVI. fll 
 
 longer represented the objects, to which the words 
 had reference. The thing then represented was 
 the sound, or utterance of the voice, which denoted 
 the object. Letters are elements, which are simply 
 expressive of sound ; and tliey were probably sug- 
 gested by the different forms assumed by the mouth 
 in the utterance of each single sound. In the most 
 ancient languages, each letter was a distinct sylla- 
 ble, or distinct single sound ; and hence they were 
 easily combined into forms expressive of combined 
 sounds. In this manner did the sjjoken word ac- 
 quire a representation in the icritten word ; and 
 thenceforward they were so identified, that the word 
 became no less a determinate sign to the reader of 
 what was thought by the writer, than it was pre- 
 viously to the hearer of what was thought by the 
 speaker. 
 
 In the interpretation therefore of words it is im- 
 material at present, whether we consider them as 
 visible, or consider them as audible signs. But 
 there is another relation between words and their 
 notions, which has very material influence on the 
 usage of them in every language. And in order to 
 understand this relation, we must consider in what 
 manner it is probable, that language ifscZf was orig- 
 inally formed. The first notions, which men must 
 have wanted to convey to others by the means of 
 words, were notions excited by objects of the sen- 
 ses : and, when words had been provided for these 
 
 notions, the next effort was the invention of word« 
 9 
 
6^ LECTURE XVL 
 
 for notions acquired by reflection* But here sl diffi- 
 culty occurred, which did not occur in the former 
 case. The words, which were first employed in 
 the infancy of language, to denote external objects^ 
 were probably, more or less, an echo to the sense. 
 The particular tones, which were uttered by difFer-^ 
 ent animalsy or were heard in the operations of ii2r_ 
 animate nature, suggested probably the sounds or 
 words, by which the first attempts were made to 
 express the correspondent objects. And, though 
 an object, which itself was destitute of sound, was 
 more easily represented to the eye, than to the ear, 
 more easily provided with a picture, than with 
 a word^ yet an object, even by its external /c»r?w, or 
 an action, by the mode of its operation, might have 
 occasioned in the person, who was forming a sound 
 for it, such a formation of the mouth, as produced a 
 correspondent utterance. In short, external ob- 
 jects, as well as external actions, might, in various 
 ways, which it is here unnecessary to detail, have 
 suggested the sounds or words, which were origin- 
 ally used to denote them. But when words were 
 wanted for things, which could be neither heard, 
 nor seen, nor perceived by any other of the senses, 
 there was no clue, which could lead directly to a 
 sound corresponding with the thing to be represent, 
 ed. All notions, acquired by reflection, are ex- 
 cluded by their very origin, from any immediate re- 
 semblance with either visible or audible signs. 
 They may operate indeed mediately, if they operate 
 
LECTURE XVI. 63 
 
 ou the passions : for in that case an effect may be 
 produced, either in the voice, or in the gesture, 
 which may give rise to a sound corresponding with 
 that effect, and therefore indirectly with the cause, 
 which produced that effect. But if the notion was 
 so abstracted from all sensible effect, as to produce 
 no external mark, which might have suggested a 
 correspondent sound, a sound, or word, must have 
 been provided for it in one of these two ways. 
 Either an arbitrary sound must have been invent- 
 ed, without any attempt at similitude between the 
 sound and the thing to be represented by it ; or 
 some similitude must have been sought between the 
 abstract notion, for which a word was wanted, and 
 some other notion, already provided with a word. 
 The latter mode was not only more easy and ob- 
 vious ; but also more consonant with an early state 
 of civilization, when the imagination is always 
 more employed in finding resemblances, than the 
 judgment in discovering differences. In such cases 
 therefore, it would frequently, and perhaps com- 
 monlij happen, that words already provided for one 
 purpose, would, for want of neio words, be applied 
 to another purpose, in consequence of some resem- 
 blance, whether real or imaginary, between the 
 primary and the secondary purpose. 
 
 In this representation of the origin and forma- 
 tion of language, we see th& foundation of those dis- 
 tinctions in the senses of words, which are observ- 
 ed in all languages, and which are expressed by 
 
64 LEC'J'URE XVi. 
 
 the terms, proper and improper sense — literal and 
 jigurative sense — grammatical and tropical sense. 
 When a word is used in that sense, which was 
 jirst annexed to it, the sense, in which it is thus 
 used is its oivn, or its jJ^'oper sense. But when a 
 word is wanted for a sense, which has had no word 
 exclusively attached to it, and it is necessary there- 
 fore to employ some word, which has already a con- 
 nexion of its own, the word, so used in a sense, 
 which does not properly helong to it, is said to be 
 used in an improper sense. The literal sense of 
 a word corresponds so far to its proper sense, that 
 the term literal, by referring to the elemeiitSy of 
 which a word is composed, implies that the word is 
 used in its original simplicity, or its original sense* 
 But as the origioal sense of a word is frequently 
 lost, especially in its transition from one language 
 to another, some derivative sense, occupying the 
 place of the original sense, becomes, from that time, 
 the literal sense. Now the literal sense is no oth- 
 er than the grammatical sense, the term grammat- 
 ical having the same reference to the Gi-eek lan- 
 guage, as the term literal to the Latin. They 
 equally refer to the elements of a word. For a sim- 
 ilar reason, the tropical sense is no other than the 
 figurative sense. As we say in language derived 
 from the Greek, that a trope is used, when a word 
 is turned from its literal or grammatical sense, so 
 we say in language derived from the Latin, that a 
 figure is then used, because in sugh cases i\i^ 
 
LECTURE XVI. 65 
 
 meaning of the word assumes a new form. The 
 same opposition therefore, which is expressed by 
 the terms literal sense and figurative sense, is ex- 
 pressed also by the terms grammatical seyise and 
 tropical sense. But the opposition expressed by 
 the terms proper sense and improper sense is of a 
 different description. When a word is diverted 
 from its proper sense, the senses, to which it is ap- 
 plied, are, all of them, denominated improper sens- 
 es, of whatever number or kind those senses may 
 be. But though a figurative sense is always an 
 improper sense, as being equally a departure from 
 the first sense, an improper sense is not always a 
 figurative sense. To make a sense figurative in 
 the common acceptation of the terra, there must not 
 only be a departure from the first sense, as in the 
 case of an improper sense, but there must at the 
 same time be excited something like an image in 
 the mind. 
 
 All languages are more or less figurative : but 
 they are the most so in their most early state. Be- 
 fore 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 their words beyond the literal sense. 
 
 But the application, when once begun, is not lim- 
 ited by the bounds prescribed by necessity. The 
 imagination, always occupied with resemblances, 
 which are the foundation of figures, disposes men to 
 seek for figurative terms, where they might have 
 
66 LECTURE XVI 
 
 expressed themselves in literal terms. Figurative 
 lauguage presents a kind of picture to the mind, 
 and thus delights while it instructs ; whence the 
 use of it, though more necessary, when a language 
 is poor and uncultivated, is never laid aside, espe- 
 cially in the writings of orators and poets. The 
 Hebrew language is Jiighly figurative, as well in 
 the prophetical as in the poetical parts of the Old 
 Testament. The speeches and discourses of our 
 Saviour are not less figurative : and numerous mis- 
 takes have been made by a literal application of 
 what \\?LS 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 literal 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 figurative, and 
 that he spake of the temple of his hody. 
 
 But among all the mistakes, which liave been 
 made in the iuterp rotation of that figurative lan- 
 guage, so frequently employed by our Saviour, 
 there is none, which has led to such important con- 
 sequences, and has created such dissensions in the 
 Christian world, as that which relates to the body 
 of Christ, at the celebration of the Holy Sacrament. 
 When our Saviour at the Last Supper took bread, 
 and blessed it and brake it, he gave it to his disci- 
 ples, saying. Take, eat, this is my lody. In like 
 manner, when he had taken the cup, and given 
 
I 
 
 LECTURE XVI. 67 
 
 thanks, he said to his disciples, Drink ye all of it, 
 for this is my blood of the New Testament. In the 
 same figurative language he liad spoken on a for- 
 mer occasion, when he said. He that ealcth my 
 flesh and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and 
 I in him. And then comparing his body with 
 bread, he added, 'This is that bread, which came 
 down from heaven.' The Jews indeed, as 
 well on this occasion, as when he spake of the /ew- 
 ple of his body, understood him literally, and asked, 
 *How can this man give us his flesh to eat?' 
 though our Saviour himself, when he said of his 
 body, that it was the bread which came down, 
 from heaven, plainly indicated, that he was only 
 comparing his body with bread. The Church of 
 Rome has followed the example of the Jews, and 
 has likeivise ascribed a literal meaning to words, 
 which were purely figurative. But the difficulty 
 which pressed upon the Jews, in regard to literally 
 eating the body of Christ, is not felt by the Church 
 of Home. The mistake of the Jews consisted in 
 supposing, that our Saviour literally offered them his 
 hodij to be eaten ; whereas he literally offered hie 
 body as a sacrifice, and what he offered in remem- 
 brance of that sacrifice was literally bread and 
 wine. But the Church of Rome, regarding the 
 ceremony of the Lord's Supper as an actual rep- 
 res riitation of that sacrifice, not as a commemora- 
 tion of it, supposes, that the body and blood of 
 Christ is literally presented to the view of the com- 
 
<JS LECTURE XVr. 
 
 municaiit. And believing, that Clirist himself, by 
 the consecration of the bread and wine at the Last 
 Supper, had literally converted them into his owa 
 body and blood, before he said to his disciples, 
 ' This is my body,^ and ' this is my blood,' they 
 conclude, that the miraculous conversion, thus as- 
 cribed to Christ himself, (a conversion, which, had 
 it been necessary, lay undoubtedly witliin the reach 
 of almighty power,) is equally performed by the hu- 
 man power of an officiating priest. But the Church 
 of England, with due attention to that figurative 
 style, so frequently employed by our Saviour on 
 other occasions, has interpreted his words on that 
 solemn occasion by the rules of analogy, and by the 
 dictates of common sense. We eat the bread in re- 
 membrance, that Christ died for us ; we feed on 
 him only in our hearts by faith with thanksgiving. 
 We believe, that the blood of Christ was shed for 
 us, and will preserve us to everlasting life. But 
 the cup, which we drink, we drink only in remem- 
 brance that Christ's blood was shed for us. The 
 same interpretation of our Saviour's words was 
 adopted by the Reformers in general, with the ex- 
 ception only of Luther. He firmly indeed resisted 
 the doctrine of Transubstantiation, or an actual 
 change in tlie substance of the elements, as main- 
 tained by the Church of Rome. He so far took the 
 words of Christ in a figurative sense, as not to be- 
 lieve that tlie bread and wine, even after the conse- 
 <i'nfion, meant the same things as the body and 
 
LECTURE XVI. 6^ 
 
 blood of Christ. He believed that the bread and 
 wine still retaiaed their proper qualities. But he 
 was perplexed by this expression, This is my bo- 
 dy ; and though conference after conference was 
 holdeu on the subject, he could never be persuaded 
 to construe that expression consistently with the 
 figurative language which is used throughout ; and 
 he persevered to the last in so strict an interpreta- 
 tion of that expression, as if it meant. This is real- 
 hj and literaJly my body. Having rejected howev- 
 er the doctrine of Transubstantiation, or an actual 
 change in the elements, he endeavoured to remove 
 the difficulty, in which he had unnecessarily involv- 
 ed himself, by supposing that, after the consecra- 
 tion, the body of Christ was united with the bread ; 
 and this union (not conversion) of substance was 
 called Consuhstantiation, But there was a difficul- 
 ty still remaining, which occasioned a controversy 
 of long duration after Luther's death. The Hi- 
 vines of Switzerland objected to the Lutherans, that 
 our Saviour could not be every where corjmreally 
 present, which the doctrine of Consubstautiatiou 
 implied ; while the Lutherans, on their parts, en- 
 deavoured to remove that objection, by accounting 
 for the hypostatic union on the ground of what they 
 technically termed ^ Communicatio idiomatum,^ or 
 the Commuuication of properties. And since 
 Christ, as God, must be omnipresent in respect to 
 his divine nature, they hence inferred, that as this 
 
 divine nature had been united to his human nature^ 
 10 
 
70 LECTUUE XVI. 
 
 there existed a comniunicatioii of properties from 
 the former to the latter, which made him corpore- 
 ally present, where he was spiritually present. The 
 argument however did not satisfy their opponents, 
 who thought it wiser to prevent the difficulty, by 
 an uniformly consistent interpretation of figurative 
 language. 
 
 The importance therefore of a due distinction 
 between tlie literal and figurative use of words in 
 the interpretation of Scripture, can require no fur- 
 ther illustration. But in all cases, the literal mean* 
 ing of a word must be the first object of our inqui- 
 ry, because its figurative meaning is ou\j slvl appli- 
 ed meaning ; and, to judge of the propriety of the 
 application, we must understand the nature of the 
 thing applied. If a word has only one sense, that 
 sense is of course considered as its literal sense. 
 But if it has various senses, it then becomes a mat- 
 ter of inquiry, and sometimes of difficult inquiry, 
 in what manner those various senses ^hall be ar- 
 ranged. Now as the words, which relate to the 
 compound notions of reflexion, are used for the most 
 part witii the greatest latitude, an examination of 
 the manner, in which the various senses of such 
 words may have been successively formed, will 
 most easily suggest the general principle, on which 
 the senses of words should be arranged. When 
 such a compound notion is altered only by the sub- 
 traction of one of its constituent notions, or by the 
 addition of one other simple notion, the second state 
 
LECTURE XVI. 71 
 
 of that compound notion will so nearly resemble its 
 first state, that the difference will be hardly percepti. 
 ble ; and hence the same word, which expressed it in 
 its first state, will follow it to its second state. By a 
 similar addition or subtraction, this compound no- 
 tion enters on a third state, differing more from the 
 first, but still resembling the second. In like man- 
 ner it goes on to ?i fourth and ^ fifth state, each re- 
 sembling the state immediately preceding it, but dif- 
 lering more and more from the first state, till at 
 length the word acquires a meaning, which has lit- 
 tle or no resemblance with the primary meaning. 
 Examples of this description are numerous in eve- 
 ry language : and there is no department of inter- 
 pretation, which affords such scope for the skill of 
 the artist, as the discovery and the due arrangement 
 of these several senses. If we put them together in 
 any other order, than that, in which they were sue- 
 sessively formed^ we shall never comprehend hoio 
 the same word could have acquired such a variety 
 of senses ; and consequently we shall be exposed 
 to perpetual doubt, whether a word, which admits 
 of one sense, is capable of being applied in another. 
 To facilitate the analysis, we should endeavour in 
 the first place to discover, ichich among the various 
 senses could most easily have given rise to all the 
 rest : for this must have been the primary sense. 
 That which most resembles it, must be the second 
 in order; and so onward. In this manner we may 
 form a genealogy of senses, in which the resem- 
 
 ^^%M. 
 
ft LECTURE XVI. 
 
 blance between each parent and its immediate oif- 
 spring is distinctly visible, tliough all resemblance 
 be lost between the ancestor and the latest de- 
 scendant. No Lexicographer has paid such atten- 
 tion to this genealogjf of senses, as Schleusner in 
 Ills Lexicon to the Greek Testament, a Lexicon, 
 which should be in the possession of every student 
 in Theology. 
 
 Nor is it enough, that an interpreter of Scripture 
 understands this arrangement of senses, in regard 
 only to the words of the original. He must be 
 equally attentive to the language, which he employs, 
 as the medium of interpretation. For it frequently 
 happens, that one language authorises a ^^g-itrftfii^e 
 use of words, which is not applicable to the words, 
 that literally correspond to them in another lan- 
 guage. If then the latter rire substituted for the 
 former, where the former are used in their figura- 
 tive sense, we shall have an interpretation, it is 
 true, but such an interpretation, as conveys to the 
 reader what was thought by the interpreter, not 
 what was thought by the author. Here then we 
 again perceive the superiority of the learned above 
 the unlearned interpreter. The former extracts 
 the senses, which attach to the words, and thus 
 produces an J^^position. The latter, intent only on 
 imposing his own meaning on the words, produces 
 what may be termed rather an Imposition. Above 
 all thin2;s. let us beware of the fulse conclusion, 
 that we have discovered the meaning of a word, if 
 
 m 
 
LECTURE XVI. rs 
 
 it does but make a passage intelligihie. For if the 
 meaning of a word had nothing else to determine it, 
 than the mere circumstance of its making the pas- 
 sage intelligible^ the sense of Scripture would be 
 involved in the greatest ambiguity. It often hap- 
 pens, that various senses may be ascribed to a 
 word, and yet that in each case the sentence will 
 be intelligible. It is possible even, that in eacU 
 case it will convey a truth. But, if it conveys not 
 that truth, which was intended by the author, it 
 conveys not the truth; with which we are then con- 
 cerned. 
 
 After what has been already said on the gener- 
 al nature of literal and figurative language, it can- 
 not be necessary to examine in detail the several 
 kinds of figures, which have been enumerated by 
 grammarians and rhetoricians. Indeed the figures 
 of diction, as they are called, relate merely to the 
 addition or subtraction of letters or syllables, and 
 have no concern whatever with the ijiterpretationof 
 words. Nor have we, in this respect, any concern 
 with the figures of construction ,• for they relate to 
 grammatical arrangement, and not to the meaning 
 of words. In short, the figure, with which we are 
 chiefly concerned, is Metaphor : for it is a figure, 
 which is more frequently employed, than all other 
 figures of rhetoric put together. Now, as similitude is 
 the foundation of figurative language in general, so 
 is it especially of Metaphor. Indeed a Metaphor is 
 itself Si Simile, though not in the form of a Simile, 
 
r* LECTURE XVI. 
 
 For instance, if we say of a distinguished Divine, 
 that he supports the established religion, as a pillar 
 supports the incumbent edifice, we make use of a 
 Simile, drawn out in the, form of a Simile. But if we 
 contract the Simile into a single position, and give 
 a metapJiorical sense to the word Pillar, which be- 
 fore was used literally, we may then say of such a 
 person, that he is a pillar of the Church^ On the 
 other hand, as any one who was secretly at work 
 for its destruetion, might be compared with a man, 
 who was undermining an edifice, we should say ia 
 metaphorical language, that such a person wa§ 
 undermining the Church. But if the mine should 
 at length exjplode, and the Church should /aW, the 
 defender of that Church might exclaim, again io 
 Metaphor, and again in Truth, 
 
 Impavidum ferient ruince. Jlu-raJT^ 
 
 '^I^^KKr 
 
 "^" y^mm^ 
 
LECTURE XYII. 
 
 The last Lecture having concluded with an ex- 
 planation of Metaphor^ our present inquiry must 
 be directed to Mlegorij, But before we attempt 
 the interpretation of the latter, we should clearly 
 understand its relation to the former. Now a JMet' 
 aphor, as the origin of the term imports, is a kind 
 of transfer, which takes place whenever a word, 
 belonging 2? ro^er/^ to one subject^ is transferred to 
 another subject, to which it does not properly be- 
 long. If we apply the word ^pillar' to an edifice, 
 we apply it where it properly belongs : but if we 
 transfer it to a person we apply it where it does not 
 properly belong. The metaphorical sense there- 
 fore, like the figurative sense in general, belongs 
 to the class of improper senses ; and it possesses 
 in an eminent manner that character of the figura- 
 tive sense, which consists in presenting an image to 
 the mind. When a Statesman is called a pillar of 
 the State, or a Churchman a pillar of the Churcli^ 
 there is presented an image, which exhibits more 
 clearly, as well as more forcibly', what is meant tr- 
 
76 LECTURE XVII. 
 
 be expressed, than could have been expressed by a 
 mere literal term. But metaphorical interpreta- 
 tion always remains an interpretation of words; 
 whereas allegorical interpretation, as we shall pres- 
 ently find, is an interpretation, not of wo^'ds, but of 
 tilings. 
 
 An Allegory indeed has been sometimes con- 
 sidered as only a lengthened Metaphor ; at other 
 times as a continuation of Metaphors. But we 
 shall best understand, both the nature of Allegory 
 itself, and the character of allegorical interpreta» 
 tion, by attending to the origin of the term, which 
 denotes it. Now the term ^ allegory,' according to 
 its original and proper meaning, denotes — a repre- 
 sentation of one thing, which is intended to excite 
 the representation of another thing. Every Alle- 
 gory therefore must be subjected to a two-fold ex- 
 amination : we must first examine the immediate 
 representation, and then consider, what other rep- 
 resentation it was intended to excite. Now in 
 most Allegories the immediate representation is 
 made in the form of a narrative : and since it is 
 the object of an x'^llegory to convey a moral, not an 
 historic truth, the narrative itself is commonly 
 fictitious. The immedi-jte representation is of no 
 further value, than as it leads to the ultimate rep- 
 resentation. It is the ajjplication, or the moral, of 
 the Allegory, which constitutes its ivorth. 
 
 Since then an Allegory comprehends two dis- 
 tinct representations, the interpretation of an 
 
LECTtJRE xvir. rr 
 
 Allegory must coinpreliend two cUstinet operations. 
 The first of them relates to the im/necUate repre- 
 sentation : the second to the ultimate represen- 
 tation. The immediate representation is under- 
 stood from the words of the Allegory : the ultimate 
 representation depends on the immediate represen- 
 tation applied to its jproper end. In the interpre- 
 tation therefore of the former, we are concerned 
 with an interpretation of words ; in the interpreta- 
 tion of the latter, we are concerned with the things 
 signified by the words. Now, whenever we 
 speak of allegorical interpretation, we have al- 
 ways in view the ultimate representation, and 
 consequently are then concerned with an inter- 
 pretation of things. The interpretation of the 
 words, which attaches only to the immediate rep- 
 resentation, or the plain narrative itself, is com- 
 monly called the grammatical, or the literal inter- 
 pretation ; though we should speak mi>re correctly, 
 if we called it the verbal interpretation, since even 
 in the plainest narratives, even in narratives not 
 designed for moral application, the use of words is 
 never restricted to their mere literal senses. Cus- 
 tom however having sanctioned the application of 
 the term literal, instead of the term verbal mi&Y])VQ- 
 tation, to mark the opposition to allegorical inter- 
 pretation, we must understand it accordingly. But 
 whatever be the term, whether verbal or literal, 
 which we employ to express the interpretation of 
 the ivords^ we must never forget, that the allegorical 
 
 a 
 
78 J.ECTURE XVIl. 
 
 interpretation is the interpretation oHht tJiings ^ of 
 the things signified by the words, not of the words 
 themselves. If we lose sight of this distinction, the 
 subject of allegorical interpretation will immedi- 
 ately be involved in obscurity. Indeed the nume- 
 rous difficulties, which have usually attended the 
 treatment of it, have been chiefly owing to this 
 cause. An interpretation of things has been treat- 
 ed, as if it were an interpretation of words ; and 
 this heterogeneous mixture of subject and predi- 
 cate has occasioned equal perplexity, in the argu- 
 ments, and in the conclusions. 
 
 That the subject of allegorical interpretation, 
 which is of liigh importance to the Sacred Writings, 
 may be better understood, let us apply the princi- 
 ple, which has been here explained, to a few ex- 
 amples of Scripture. And, as every parable is a 
 kind of allegory, let us consider in the first place, 
 that example, which is esjpecialhj clear and correct, 
 the parable of the sower. '^ A sower went out to 
 ^^sow his seed. And, as he sowed, some fell by 
 *■' the way-side ; and it was trodden down, and the 
 *^ fowls of the air devoured it. And some fell 
 *^ upon a rock: and as soon as it sprang up, it 
 " withered away, because it lacked moisture. And 
 " some fell among tiiorns : and the thorns sprang 
 "up witli it, and choked it. And other fell on 
 *^good ground: and sprang up, and l)are fruit an 
 *^ hundred-fold.'' Here we have a flain narrative, 
 a statement of a few simple and intelligible facts, 
 
LECTURE XVII. 7^ 
 
 such probably as had fallen within the observation 
 of the persons, to whom our Saviour addressed 
 himself. When he had finished the narrative, or 
 the immediate representation of the allegory, he 
 then gave the explanation^ or the ultimate repre- 
 sentation of it. That is, he gave the allegorical 
 interpretation of it. And that this allegorical in- 
 terpretation was an interpretation, not of the ivords^ 
 but of the things signified by the words, is evi- 
 dent from the explanation itself. '^ The seed is 
 "the Word of God. Those by the way-side are 
 'Uhey that hear: then cometh the devil, and taketh 
 " away the Word out of their hearts, lest they 
 '^should believe and be saved. They on the rock 
 '^are they, which, when they hear, receive the 
 '^ Word with joy : and these have no root, which 
 '^for awhile believe, and in time of temptation 
 "fall away. And that, which fell among thorns, 
 " are they, which, when they have heard, go forth, 
 '* and are choked with cares, and riches, antl pleas- 
 " ures of this life, and bring no fruit to perfection. 
 " But that on the good ground are they, which in 
 " an honest and good heart having heard the Word, 
 *^keep it, and bring forth fruit with patience." 
 Here then we have an evident explanation, not 
 of the words employed in the narrative, but of the 
 tilings signified by them. It was the seed itself, 
 with which the Word of God was compared. As 
 the seed was choked, which fell among thorns, so 
 the Word of God is choked by the pleasures of the 
 
no LECTURE XVII. 
 
 vrorld : and, as that Tiliicli fell on good ground 
 produced an hundred-fold, so the "Word of God 
 produces in those, who are prepared to receive it. 
 In short, an Allegory with its application consti- 
 tutes a kind of Simile, in both parts of which the 
 words themselves are construed, as oi> other occa- 
 sions, either literally or figuratively, according to 
 the respective use of them: and then we institute 
 the comparison between the things signified in the 
 former part v.ith the things signified in the latter 
 part. 
 
 Let us now take, as an example of Allegory 
 from the Old Testament, that impressive and pa- 
 thetic Allegory, addressed by Nathan to David. 
 ^* There were two men in one city, the one rich, 
 " and the other poor. The rich man had exceed- 
 ^'^ing many flocks and herds. But the poor man 
 •^ had nothing, save one little ewe lamb, which he 
 '■ had bought and nourished up ; and it grew to- 
 ^^gether with him and with his children ; it did eat 
 '^^ of his own meat, and drank of his own cup, and 
 ^* lay in his bosom, and was unto him as a daugh- 
 ^^ ter. And there came a traveller unto the rich 
 ^•man, and he spared to take of his own flock, 
 *^ and of his own herd, to dress for the way-faring 
 *' man, that was come unto him ; but took the poor 
 " man's lamb, and dressed it for the man, that was 
 vcome to him." When Nathan had finished this 
 narrative, which he had addressed to David, as 
 9.11 allegory, David, not immediately perceiving 
 
LECTURE XVII. 8i 
 
 the intended application, replied, " As the Lord 
 ^^ liveth, the man, that has done this thing, shall 
 *^ surely die: and he shall restore the lamb four- 
 *^fold, because he did this thing, and because he 
 ^^ had no pity.'' In application then of the narrative 
 to the intended purpose, replied Nathan to David, 
 ^^Thou art the man. Thus saith the Lord God 
 '^ of Israel ; I anointed thee king over Israel, and 
 "I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul, and I 
 ^^ gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's 
 *^ wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of 
 ^' Israel and of Judah ; and if that had been too 
 ^^ little, I would moreover liave given unto .thee 
 *^such and such things. Wherefore liast thou 
 ^^ despised the commandment of the Lord to do 
 ^^ evil in his sight? Thou hast killed Uriah the 
 ^' Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife 
 '' to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword 
 ^' of the children of Ammon." 
 
 In the preceding examples, the allegorical nar- 
 ratives were accompanied with their explanations ; 
 that is, both parts of the Simile were introduced. 
 But allegorical narratives are more frequently left 
 to explain themselves, especially when the resem- 
 blance between the immediate and the ultimate 
 representation is sufficiently apparent, to make an 
 explanation unnecessary. Of this kind we cannot 
 have a more striking example, than one, which 
 has been frequently quoted, namely, that beautiful 
 allegory in the eightieth Psalnio "Thou hasf 
 
82 LECTURE XXlh 
 
 ^' brought a vine out of Egypt : thou liast cast out 
 *^ the heathen, and planted it. Tliou preparetlst 
 '^room for it, and didst cause it to take deep 
 "root, and it filled the land. The hills were 
 '^covered with the shadow of it, and the boughs 
 ''^ thereof were like the goodly cedars. She sent 
 '• out her boughs unto the sea, and her branches 
 '•^unto the river. Why hast thou broken down 
 '^ her hedges, so that they, which pass by the way, 
 ''do pluck her? The boar out of the wood doth 
 ''waste it, and the wild beast of the field doth 
 "devour it. Heturn, we beseech thee, O God of 
 " hosts, look down from heaven, and behold, and 
 "visit this vine.'' In this Allegory was finely 
 depictured the then-unhappy state of the Jews 
 contrasted Avith their former prosperity : and its 
 application was sufficiently obvious, without any 
 formal explanation ; for the vineyard of the Lord 
 of Jiosis. was the Jiouse of Israel. It is indeed an 
 essential requisite in every Allegory, which is 
 left to explain itself that the application be easy 
 and obvious. The subject, designed to be sug- 
 gested must be one that is familiar to the reader ; 
 and the several circumstances of the immediate 
 representation, must have a manifest correspond- 
 ence with those of the ultimate representation. 
 The immediate representation must be consistent 
 also in its several parts. Whatever object be 
 selected for the comparison, that object must be 
 kept constantly in view ; and we must be careful 
 
LECTURE XVII. aJ 
 
 tbat nothing be affirmed of it, which does not prop- 
 erly belong to it. Otherwise the Allegory itself 
 will displease by its incongruity, and lose its effect 
 in the application. 
 
 After these examples from Scripture, let me be 
 allowed to quote an instance of Allegory from a 
 jirofaiie author, especially as it has been made a 
 subject of examination by Quintillian. It is the 
 well-known passage in Horace^, 
 
 O Navis, referent in mare te novi 
 Fluctu3 ? O quid agis? Foi tiler occupa 
 Portum. 
 
 On this passage Quintillian observes, *•' Navim pro 
 *^ republica, fluctuum tempestates pro bellis civili- 
 " bus, portum pro pace atquc coucordia dicit." But, 
 though the passage may be explained by the sub- 
 stitutions here made, it is not that the words, used 
 by Horace, are synonymous with the words, em- 
 ployed by Quintillian for the explanation ; but be- 
 cause the things signijied by the former may be 
 compared with the things signified by the latter. 
 It is not that JSTavis can signify a republic, or that 
 Fluctus can signify civil wars, or that Portus can 
 signify peace. But a ship tossed by the waV'Cs may 
 be compared with a nation agitated by civil wars, 
 as a ship, lying safely in harbour, may be agaiw 
 compared with a nation enjoying the blessings of 
 peace. Here then we have another proof, that alle- 
 gorical interpretation is an interpretation, not of 
 words, but of things. 
 
34 LECTURE XVII. 
 
 From tlie preceding explaDations we are ena- 
 bled also to reconcile two seemingly contradictory 
 assertions on this subject, for which it would be oth- 
 erwise difficult to account. It is well known, that 
 many of the ancient Fathers were so fond of alle- 
 gorical interpretation, as to employ it, not only in 
 the interpretation of allegory, but also in the inter- 
 pretation of history. In this respect has Jerom 
 complained especially of Origen, ^* quod ita alle- 
 gorizet, ut histoHce aiiferat veritatem.^^ On the 
 other hand, Ernesti in his Opuscula philologica et 
 critica, has a Dissertation entitled, J)e Origene in- 
 terpretationis libroriim sacrorinn grammaticse auc- 
 tore. If Origen then, according to Ernesti, was so 
 distinguished for his grammatical interpretation, 
 with what propriety could Jerom complain, that he 
 was so attached to allegorical interpretation ? Is not 
 grammatical or literal interpretation always consid- 
 ered as opposite to allegorical interpretation ? How 
 then, it may be asked, could the interpretations of 
 Origen be considered as grammatical by one writer, 
 and as allegorical by another P Now this seeming 
 mystery will be explained at once, when we con- 
 sider, that as Allegoi'y comprehends two distinct 
 representations, the interpretation of it comprehends 
 two distinct operations. The one relates to its im- 
 mediate, the other to its ultimate representation. 
 The one is an interpretation of icords ; the other 
 of the things signified by the words. H^he former 
 is the literal or grammatical ; the latter the allegori 
 
LECTURE XVII. 85 
 
 cal interpretation. Here then we see very clearly, 
 that both literal and allegorical interpretation, 
 though opposed to each otlier, not only may exist 
 together, but actually do exist together in the inter- 
 pretation of every Allegory. And they exist to- 
 gether without any inconsistency, because they re- 
 late to two distinct operations. The same reason- 
 ing applies also to any example of real history, if 
 that example be treated as allegory, and adapted to 
 some purpose ieside the narrative, as allegory is in 
 its ultimate representation. For in such a case we 
 have an historical narrative subjected to a two-fold 
 interpretation ; of which the first is the literal, the 
 second the allegorical. And, as these two kinds of 
 interpretation may exist together without contradic- 
 tion, we can easily comprehend, that the same inter- 
 preter may display grammatical accuracy in the 
 former, and yet fall into extravagancy in the em- 
 ployment of the latter. This was really the case 
 with Origen. 
 
 From what has been already stated it appears, 
 that the use of allegorical interpretation is not con- 
 fined to mere allegory, or fictitious narratives, but 
 is extended also to history, or real narratives. And 
 in this case the grammatical meaning of a passage 
 is called its historical meaning, in contradistinction 
 4o its allegorical meaning. Now there are two dif- 
 ferent modes, in which Scripture-history has been 
 thus allegorized. According to one mode, facts 
 
 aad circumstances, especially those recorded in the 
 IS 
 
86 LECTURE XVII. 
 
 Old Testament, have been applied to other facts 
 and circumstances, of which they have been de- 
 scribed as representative. According to the other 
 mode, those facts and circumstances have been de- 
 scribed as mere emblems. The, former models war- 
 ranted by the practice of the Sacred Writers them- 
 selves ; for when facts and circumstances are so ap- 
 plied, they are applied as types of those things, to 
 whieh the application is made. But the latter 
 mode of allegorical interpretation has no such au- 
 thority in its favour, though attempts have been 
 made to procure such authority. For the same 
 things are then described, not as types, or as real 
 facts, but as mere ideal representations, like the im- 
 mediate representation in allegory. By this mode 
 therefore is history not ouly treated as allegory, but 
 converted into allegory : or, in other words, histo- 
 ry is thus converted into fahle. Now it is by arti- 
 fices, like these, that the adversaries of Christiani- 
 ty have endeavoured to undermine the truth of 
 Scripture- Historij : and we have lately had a not- 
 able example in a distinguished writer of this coun- 
 try. Nor are these allegorical interpreters content- 
 ed always with their oimi preservations ; for some 
 of them have attempted to enlist even St. Paul in- 
 to the service of infidelity. They have endeavour- 
 ed to prove, that the Mosaic history is mere allegO' 
 ry, by appealing to that passage in the Epistle to 
 the Galatians, where St. Paul, in reference to the 
 history of the two sons of Abraham, says, ^ Which 
 
LECTURE XVII. 87 
 
 things are an Allegory.' Since then an Allegory 
 is a picture of the imagination, or n fictitious narra- 
 tive, they conclude that St. Paul himself has war- 
 ranted, by his own declaration, that mode of alle- 
 gorical interpretation, which they themselves ap. 
 ply to the subversion of Scripture-history. 
 
 If the pretext, which infidelity thus derives from 
 the words of our authorized versioiiy had been af* 
 forded also by the words of the original, we might 
 have found it difficult to reply. But as soon as we 
 have recourse to the words of the original, the fal- 
 lacy of the appeal is visible at once. If St. Paul 
 himself \i3it\ been quoted, instead of the translators 
 of St. Paul, it would have instantly appeared, that 
 the Apostle did not apply, as is supposed by En- 
 glish readers, the title of allegory to any portion of 
 the Mosaic history. The word 'aaauvo/i/^ has never 
 been used by St. Paul in any one instance through- 
 out all his Epistles r nor indeed does it occur any 
 where in the Greek Testament, nor even in the 
 Greek version of the Old Testament. At the place 
 in question, St. Paul did not pronounce the histo- 
 ry itself an allegory : he declared only that it was 
 allegorized. His own words are 'at(v« io-nv uxx„. 
 yopsviistx, which have a very different meaning from 
 the interpretation of them in our authorized version. 
 It is one thing to say, that a history is allegorized : 
 it is another thing to say, that it is allegory itself 
 If we only allegorize an historical narrative, we do 
 not of necessity convert it into allegory. And 
 
88 LECTURE XVn. 
 
 tliough allegorical interpretatioiij when applied to 
 liistory, may be applied, either so as to preserve^ 
 or so as to destroy its historical verity, yet when 
 we use the verb ' allegorize/ as *SY. Taul has used 
 it, the allegorical interpretation is manifestly of the 
 former kind. Had he meant that the history was 
 an allegory, he need not have allegorized it : an at- 
 tempt to make a thing what it is already would in- 
 deed be no less absurh, tlian superfluous. In short, 
 when St. Paul allegorized the history of the two 
 sons of Abraham, and compared them with the two 
 covenants, he did nothing more than represent the 
 iirst as types, the latter as their antitypes. Though 
 he treated that portion of the Mosaic history in the 
 same manner as we treat an Allegory, he did not 
 thereby convert it into Allegory. Though he insti- 
 tuted the same comparison which we institute in an 
 Allegory between its immediate and its ultimate re- 
 presentation, yet the subjects of St. PaiiVs com- 
 parison did not thereby acquire the same cliaracter 
 with the subjects of an Jlllegory. In the interpre- 
 tation therefore of the Scriptures, it is essentially 
 necessary, that we observe the exact boundaries be- 
 tween the notion of an Allegory and the notion of a 
 Type. And it is the more necessary, as some of 
 our own commentators, among others even Mact- 
 night, misled by the use of the term •' Allegory' in 
 our authorized version, have considered it as sy- 
 nonymous with Type. An Allegory, as already ob- 
 served, is a fictitious narrative : a Type is some- 
 
LECTURE XVII. B9 
 
 thing real. An Allegory is a picture of the imagin- 
 ation ; a Type is an historic fact. It is true, th^t 
 typical interpretation may in one sense be consid- 
 ered as a species of allegorical interpretation ; that 
 they are so far alike, as being equally an interpre- 
 tation of things ; that they are equally founded on 
 resemblance ; that the type corresponds to its anti- 
 type, as the immediate representation in an Allego- 
 ry corresponds to its ultimate representation. Yet 
 the quality of the things compared, as well as the 
 purpoH of the comparison, is very different in the 
 two cases. When, for instance, Joshua, leading 
 the Israelites into the Holy Land, is described as a 
 type of our Saviour leading his disciples into the 
 kingdom of heaven ; or when the sacrifice of the 
 Passover is described as a type of the sacrifice of 
 our Saviour on the cross ; the subjects of reference 
 have nothing similar to the subjects of an Allegory, 
 though the comparison between them is the same. 
 And though a type, in reference to its antitype, is 
 called only a shadow, while the latter is called the 
 substance, yet the use of these terms does not im- 
 ply, that the former has less historical verity, than 
 the latter. 
 
 St. Paul therefore has afforded, neither by his 
 language, nor by his arguments, the slightest pre- 
 text for that wildness of allegorical interpretation, 
 which has been applied to the subversion of histor- 
 ical truth. The practice of converting into allego- 
 ry the narratives of ancient authors was derived 
 
90 LECTURE XVII. 
 
 from a very difterent source. It originated among 
 the Greeks; and long before the birth of Christ. 
 The work, on which this species of allegorical in- 
 terpretation was first employed, was the Iliad of 
 Homer : and a collection of allegorical expositions 
 is still extant, which has been published under the 
 title, Heraclidis Megorice Ilomericce. It is true, 
 that the actions ascribed to the heroes of the Iliad, 
 cannot be regarded as real history ; that they can- 
 not be considered as a journal of events, which actu- 
 ally happened before the walls of Troy. But the 
 author certainly meant, that they should assume the 
 character of real events. For unless the descend- 
 ants of those heroes could have siipjjosed at least 
 that they were reading the actions of their ances- 
 tors, the Iliad would never have become a national 
 poem. There was nothing tlierefore in the charac- 
 ter of those actions, at all resembling allegorical re- 
 presentation, a representation, which not only pro^ 
 fesses to be a picture of the imagination, but a pic- 
 ture introduced merely for the sake of another pic- 
 ture, that resembles it. Nor were the actions, as- 
 cribed even to the Deities of the Iliad, any other 
 than such, as accorded with the superstition of the 
 age, and to the original readers exceeded not the 
 bounds of credihilitij. But when the savage man- 
 ners of the ancient heroes became offensive to the 
 polished Greeks of later ages, and the mythology 
 of Homer became disgusting to those, who had been 
 educated in the schools of Aristotle and Plafo* the 
 
LECTURE XVII. 91 
 
 commentators on Homer had recourse to the expe- 
 dient of allegorical interpretation. Unable to de- 
 fend him by a literal exposition, yet unwilling to 
 abandon a national author, whom the Greeks had 
 ever holden in the highest veneration, his philoso- 
 phic interpreters drew the veil of allegory over the 
 actions of the Iliad, and represented them thus dis- 
 guised, as the depositories of sublime and mysterious 
 truths. 
 
 The example of the Greeks became infectious 
 to the Jews, who, after the age of Alexander, were 
 established among them in numerous colonies, es- 
 pecially in Egypt under the government of the 
 Ptolemies. Hence they learnt, not only the lan- 
 guage of the Greeks, but their habits of tJiinJcing 
 and reasoning. And, since Judaism appeared fool- 
 ishness to the Greeks, as did afterwards Christian- 
 ity, the Jews themselves had the weakness and the 
 impiety, to treat the writings of Moses as the Greeks 
 had treated the writings of Homer. Thus they sac- 
 rificed the historic truths recorded by the divine 
 Lawgiver, and converted miracles into allegories, 
 that Moses might appear in the garb of a Platonic 
 philosopher. Philo of Alexandria, who wrote in 
 the early part of the first century, has exhibited in 
 numerous instances the Jewish mode of allegorizins; 
 the books of Moses. Educated at Alexandria in 
 the Platonic philosophy, he made this philosophy a 
 rule for the interpretation of Scripture. If then the 
 grammatical or historical meaning of a passage ac- 
 
g2 LECTURE XVII. 
 
 corded not with the rule^, a mystical meaning; was 
 sought to supply its place ; and facts, which had 
 been recorded by Moses as supernatural events, 
 were transformed into ideal representations, sup- 
 posed to have no other object, than to convey some 
 religious mystery, or moral truth. The same mode 
 of allegorical interpretation, as Philo himself re- 
 lates, was employed by the Therapeutse and the 
 Essenes : and from the Jews it was transferred to 
 the Christiau Fathers. 
 
LECTURE XYIII. 
 
 When the early Fathers had adopted the 
 mode of allegorical interpretation, which was de- 
 scribed at the end of the last Lecture, they appli- 
 ed it to the defence of the Sacred Writings against 
 the objections of the Greek philosopher. But 
 however icell-intentioned that application might 
 have been, it was ill calculated to serve the cause 
 of Christianity. For, instead of confuting their ad- 
 versaries by an argumentura ad judicium, they only 
 silenced their adversaries by a retort of the argu- 
 mentum ad hominem. Thus, when Celsus, the 
 Epicurean philosopher, had objected to the Mosaic 
 account of the Creation, the Temptation, and the 
 Fall of Man, the answer of Origen, in his treatise 
 against Celsus, was better adapted to a defeat of 
 his immediate opponent, than to a permanent de- 
 ftMice of the Bible. It was urged by Origen, that 
 the narratives, to which Celsus had objected, 
 should be explained allegorically : and he argued, 
 
 that Celsus could not consistently reject this mode 
 18 
 
94 LECTURE XVIII. 
 
 of interpretatioiij because it was employed by the 
 Greek philosophers themselves. But, though 
 truth is frequently conveyed in the form of an Al- 
 legory, the truth, which is thus conveyed, is morale 
 not historic truth. The narrative, which imparts 
 the Moral, is. itself fictitious. If therefore a nar- 
 rative, professedly historical, be treated as a nar- 
 rative purely allegorical, the history itself is there- 
 by ahandoned. That some moral inference may 
 slill be drawn from it, is nothing to the purpose. 
 Moral inferences are drawn from professed fahles, 
 which are themselves a kind of allegory. But their 
 value is confined entirely to the application of 
 them; whereas historic facts are recorded for their 
 own sakes, and independently of any moral use, 
 which may afterwards be made of them. If we 
 ascribe then the character of allegory to an histor- 
 ical narrative, we defeat the very purpose, for 
 which the facts, contained in it, were recorded. 
 Besides, if this treatment of an historical narrative 
 is admissible in one case, it is admissible in others: 
 and thus all history, both sacred and profane, may 
 be diverted from its original intent. For nothing 
 is more easy, than such a mode of treatment. We 
 have only to look for some sort of resemblance 
 between the fact, to which allegorical interpreta- 
 tion shall be applied, and some other fact, (whether 
 near or remote, is of little consequence.) and we 
 obtain at once, upon these principles, the immedi- 
 ate and Vi'i ultimate representation of au Allegory ; 
 
LECTURE Xnil. 95 
 
 we. have at once an allegorical, instead of an his- 
 torical narrative. In this manner was the history 
 of our Saviour and the twelve Apostles converted 
 a few years ago by a French writer into a mere Al- 
 legory : and persons, whose existence is establish- 
 ed by the strongest of all possible evidence, were 
 transformed into ideal representations of the Sun 
 and the twelve signs of the Zodiac. By a similar 
 process were the miracles of our Saviour converted 
 into Allegories, in the former part of the last cen- 
 tury, by a member of this very University. Indeed 
 this writer imagined, that he had not only the ex- 
 ample of the Fathers, but the example also of St. 
 Faiil in his favour. And since, according to the 
 words of our authorised version, St. Paul had 
 made an Allegory of one fact, he thought himself 
 at liberty to make an Allegory of another. That 
 St. Paul did not apply the title of Allegory to any 
 historic fact, that he afforded not even a pretext 
 for this mode of allegorical interpretation, was ful- 
 ly proved in the last Lecture. But it wouid be 
 difficult, if not impossible, to vindicate the conduct 
 of the Fathers. T/ieir mode of allegorizing Scrip- 
 lure was of a very different description from that, 
 which was applied by St. Paul. For instead of 
 applying historical facts, as types of other facts, 
 by which the historical verity is preserved, they 
 often applied them in such a manner, that tlie 
 historical verity w^as destroyed. They often ex- 
 plained histoiical facts, as if real existence no more 
 
96 LECTURE XVm. 
 
 attached to tliem, than to the iinmcdiaie represen- 
 tation of an Allegory. 
 
 We have reason therefore to comiilain, that the 
 early Fathers have afforded by their own conduct 
 a pretext to modern unbelievers for such a mode 
 of allegorical interpretation. It is true, that a 
 mode, Avhicli is indefensible in itself, can derive no 
 real support from the practices of those, to whom 
 authority no more attaches, than to any modern 
 interpreter. And whatever confidence the Church 
 of Home may repose in the expositions of her Fa- 
 thers, we may hence learn, that such confidence is 
 ill bestowed. Indeed the early Fathers, by their 
 injudicious conduct in the interpretation of the 
 Bible, not only affected many parts of its history, 
 but placed the Bible itself in a very false and in- 
 jurious light. Though they silenced, by tjie aid 
 of Allegory, tlieir immediate opponents, w lio argu- 
 ed on the same 'principles, yet the very circum- 
 stance, that principles, applied to the defence of 
 the Heathen mythology, were applied also to the 
 defence of the Bible, could produce no other effect, 
 than that of degrading the latter to the level of the 
 former. When a passage of the Bible, conveying 
 professedly an historical fact, was defended against 
 the objections of the Heathens by resolving that pas- 
 sage into a mere Allegory, the veil, which was 
 thus drawn over it, served only to present it in the 
 same dress, in which the Heathens exhibited the 
 fables of their Gods. The latter indeed had some 
 
LECTURE XVllI. §7 
 
 excuse for their allegorical interpretations ; they 
 had 7'easoniov concealing under the veil of Allego- 
 ry their ludicrous and indecorous legends. Hence 
 Arnohius, in his treatise adversns Gentes, addres- 
 ses himself to a Heathen in the following manner : 
 Istce omnes Mstorke, qum tibi turpes videntm\ 
 atque ad labem pertinere divinam, mysteria in sp 
 continent sancta, rationes miras atque altas» nee 
 quas facile qiiivis possit ingenii vivacitate pevnos- 
 cere. JS'eqiie enim quod scriptum est, at^ue in 
 prima est positum verhorum fronte, id si^nijicatur 
 et dicitiir, sed allegoricls sensihus, et suhditivis 
 intelliguntur omnia ilia Secretis. But tiiat Chri». 
 tian Commentators should in like manner have 
 sought for allegorical senses and hidden meanings 
 in the Bible, where the Sacred Writers liave re- 
 corded the plain and simple words of Truth, of 
 Truth which has 7io deformity to hide^ and needs 
 not the veil of xYUegory, affords equal matter of 
 surprise and of regret. 
 
 Nor is this the only evil, which has arisen from 
 such a treatment of Scripture. If the literal or 
 grammatical meaning of a passage may be exciiang- 
 ed at pleasure for a,n allegorical meaning, the 
 meaning of Scripture w ill be involved in perfect 
 ambiguity: it will assume as many different forms, 
 as the fancies of interpreters are multifarious. In 
 grammatical interpretation, which is an interpre- 
 tation of words, there arc certain rides of inter- 
 pretation, from which we cannot depart. Bat al- 
 
9S LECTURE XVIII. 
 
 legorical interpretation, which is an interpretation 
 of things, is subjected to neither rule nor limit. 
 As soon as an interpreter has learnt, what things 
 are literally signified by the words of a passage, 
 he has notliing else to do, than to let loose his 
 imagination for the discovery of some other things, 
 which may resemble the things literally signified, 
 and then those other things will at once be alle- 
 goricdUy slgnilied. And since the same thing 
 may to various interpreters suggest various resem- 
 blances, the same passage may have as many 
 allegorical meanings, as there are persons, who 
 inidertake its interpretation. Hence Arnobius, in 
 contijuiation of tliis subject, observes, Potest alius 
 aliud, et argutius finger e, et veri cum similitudine 
 suspicari. Potest aliud tertius ; jmiest aliud 
 quartus : atqiiCy ut se tulerint ingeniorum opinan- 
 tium qualitates, ita singulce res possunt ivfinitis 
 interpretationibus explicari. Cum enim e rebus 
 occlusis omnis ista, quce dicilur Jillegoria, sumatur, 
 nee habeat finem certum, in quo rei, quce dicitur, 
 sit fixa atque immota sententia, unicuique liberum 
 est in id, quo velit, attrahere lectioncm, et ajjirmare 
 id positum, in quod eum sua suspicio, et conjectu- 
 ra opinabilis duxerit. 
 
 But, notwithstanding the numerous objections, 
 to which this mode of interpretation is exposed, it 
 has prevailed, more or less, in almost every age of 
 Ciiristianity. Indeed the very causes, which 
 should have led to the rejection of it, are the causes 
 
LECTURE XVllI. 9^ 
 
 which have operated in its favour. For tliongh a 
 mode of interpretation; which may he applied to 
 any purpose, is really fit for no purpose, yet, if au 
 interpreter has no other means of attaining his pur- 
 pose, he finds it difficult to withstand the tempta- 
 tion of employing what is always at hand for 
 every purpose. The use, which was made of it 
 by the early Fathers, and the advantage taken of 
 their injudicious conduct, have heen already ex- 
 plained. But allegorical interpretation, when once 
 adopted, was not long confined to the controver- 
 sies between tlie Greek Fathers and the Greek 
 philosophers. It was soon discovered to be equal- 
 ly useful for controversy of every description. And 
 hence, if one opinion was supported by grammati- 
 cal interpretation, a different opinion could be as 
 easily supported by allegorical interpretation. But 
 beside the motive of utility, there was something at- 
 tractive in the thing itself. The imagination, delight- 
 ing in allegory, is easily charmed into allegorical 
 interpretation, while the dryness o^ grammatical in- 
 terpretatiou is, in an equal degree, an object of its 
 aversion. The former was recommended also by 
 the facility of its application, while the exercise of 
 the latter required, on the part of the interpreter, at 
 \ea.si some share of knowledge and judgment. It 
 is no wonder therefore, that in proportion as learn- 
 ing declined, the passion for allegorical interpreta- 
 tion increased. And the use of grammatical in- 
 terpretation having been proportionally diminished 
 
100 LECTURE XVIII. 
 
 in the Church of Rome by the substitution of an 
 authorised version for the original Scriptures, there 
 at length arose, in the darkness of the middle ages, 
 a race of Fanatics, who rejected grammatical inter- 
 pretation altogetlier. They were distinguished in 
 the twelfth century by the appellation of the Mys- 
 tics, from their mystical mode of interpreting Scrip- 
 ture. These Mystics had an utter contem'pt for 
 human reason, and human learning: they supposed 
 themselves especially guided by the Spirit; and 
 hence they compensated, by a kind of spiritual 
 interpretation, for that grammatical interpretation, 
 which they had never learnt. At the same time, 
 the Latin version of the New Testament, in the 
 absence of the Greek original, supplied them with 
 an argument for the rejection of literal or gra^n- 
 matical interpretation, and the adoption of spirit- 
 ual or allegorical interpretation, which Ihe original 
 itself does not supply. They appealed namely 
 to that passage in St. Paul's Second Epistle to the 
 Corinthians, which in the Latin Vulgate is trans- 
 lated ^ litera occidit, spiritus autem vivificat f and 
 in our oicn authorised version, *the letter killeth, 
 but the spirit giveth life.' In this passage, the 
 Mystics imagined that St. Paul was drawing a 
 parallel between two different kinds of interpre- 
 tation. Construing therefore Hitera' by 'literal 
 interpretation,' and ^spiritus ' by 'spiritual inter- 
 pretation,' they inferred, that the Apostle had 
 condemned the fovmer, and recommended the ex- 
 
LECTURE XVIII. 101 
 
 elusive employment of the latter. Now the Apos- 
 tle, according to his oicn words, was drawing a pa- 
 rallel of a totally different description : a parallel, 
 which had no concern whatever with interpretation. 
 He was drawing a parallel between the Law of 
 Moses and the Gospel of Christ. The former 
 does not afford the means of salvation : the latter 
 does afford the means of salvation. This, and this 
 only^ is what St. Paul meant, when he said, that 
 the one killeth, and that the other giveth life. It is 
 true, that he applied the term T^ocuf^a, to the form- 
 er, the term ITj/jy^a to the latter. But then he ad- 
 ded explanations of those terms, which remove all 
 ambiguity. The Law of Moses he called T^ocf^f^a, 
 as being Atuxovia \v y^a,f/,f^U!rty as being AtuKovicc 
 hrsrvTrcouAvfj h "ktQoig. The Gospel of Christ ha 
 called Uvsvf^ct, as being AietKovicc rov Uvevf/jUTo? eif 
 oo^r,. Now, as these explanations arc not only 
 Greek explanations, but Greek explanations of 
 Greek terms, they are absolutely incapable of teing 
 transfused into any version. They can be under- 
 stood only, with reference to the words of the orig- 
 inal. It is therefore impossible, that any one who 
 expounds this passage from the v/ords of a trans- 
 lotion, should expound it in the sense of the Jluthor. 
 But as the Mystics, like other members of the 
 Church of Rome, expounded from an authorised 
 version, they fell into an error, which a knowledge 
 of the original would have prevented. They fell 
 into the error of supposing, that literal or grammat- 
 1^ 
 
162 LECTURE XVIII. 
 
 ical exposition not only might be, but ought to be 
 discharged. And hence they acquired such a con- 
 tempt for every thing not spiiytual or allegorical, 
 that the p ain and literal meaning of a passage was 
 regarded as a sort of husk, or chaff, fit only for the 
 carnally-minded, and not suited to the taste of the 
 godly. 
 
 But whatever absurdities might result from their 
 interpreting the New Testament without a knowl- 
 edge of Greek, the Mystics were in no danger 
 of ohserving them. And in other respects the use 
 of a translation was really advantageous. They 
 could more easily lend it to their particular pur- 
 pose : for, in the interpretation of Scripture, the 
 words of a translation are always more pliant, 
 than the words of the original. The obscurity, in 
 which the sense of Scripture was thus involved, so 
 far from being thought injurious, afforded them both 
 pleasure and protection. Mystical interpreters 
 delight in obscurity : obscurity is their proper 
 element. If a passage is obscure in itself, they 
 are in less danger of being thwarted by a literal 
 meaning. If they inaJce it obscure, they obtaia 
 this advantage, that the greater the obstacles, which 
 they can oppose to the judgment, the greater is 
 the scope for the exercise of the fancy. This fan- 
 cy has been equally indulged by the Mystics of 
 every age ; and however eccentric we may think 
 the expositions displayed in the Area mystica, or 
 Mystical Ark, of Richard of St. Victor, who flour- 
 
LECTURE XVIII. 103 
 
 isbed in the twelfth centuiy, they have been fully 
 equalled by the mystical expositions of these lat- 
 ter times. Nor is it by any means a matter of as- 
 tonishment, that spiritual interpretation should rec- 
 ommend itself to our modern practitioners. No 
 grammatical analysis, no knowledge of Hebrew or 
 Greek, no knowledge of antiquity, no knowledge ot 
 the situation and circumstances, either of the author, 
 or of his original readers, is necessary for this pur 
 pose. Such knosvledge is wanted only for gram- 
 matical interpretation. It is wanted only, when 
 the words, which we interpret, are destiued to per- 
 form the office, for which they were originally in- 
 tended. It is wanted only, wlien the words, which 
 we interpret, are considered, as signs to the reader 
 of what was thought by the author. But the ex- 
 pounder, who regards them as passive instruments 
 disposeable at his own will, and who employs them, 
 as machines for the conveyance of his own thoughts^ 
 is freed at once from the shackles, which bind the 
 grammatical interpreter, and is exempted from all 
 other wants, than merely that of knowing what is 
 best adapted to his 02cn purpose. 
 
 Men, who are little versed in the history of 
 biblical interpretation, and have never witnessed 
 the iconders, that are done by the aid of allegory, 
 will be surprised perhaps to hear, that the Supre- 
 macy of the Pope has been discovered in the first 
 chapter of Genesis. The interpreter, who made 
 this discovery, was himself a sovereign pontiff', and 
 
 ¥ 
 
104 LECTURE XVllI. 
 
 on&, who exercised that supremacy with unlimited 
 sicay. It was Pope Innocent the Third; the 
 same, who excommunicated King John of England, 
 and who threatened even the Emperor of Constan- 
 tinople. For this purpose he addressed to him a 
 Latin Epistle, in which he quoted from the first 
 chapter of Grenesis the passage relating to the 
 two great lights, the greater light to rule the day, 
 the lesser light to rule the night. By these two 
 lights, said he, are meant the office of Pope and 
 the office of King ; by the greater light is meant 
 the former office, by the lesser light the latter 
 office ; so that, as the light, which rules the day, 
 is superior to the light, which rules the night, 
 the dignity of Pojpe is superior to the dignity of 
 King. Lest this interpretation should appear 
 incredible, I will give the words of the original 
 Epistle. Pope Innocent III. then, having quoted 
 from the Latin Vulgate, Fecit Dens duo liiminaria 
 magna, luminare majiis, ut jwceesset did, et Inmi- 
 nare minus, ut prceesset nocti, subjoined the fol- 
 lowing interpretation ; Id est, duas dignitates 
 instituit, quce sunt, Pontificalis Auctoritas, et 
 Megalis Majestas. Sed ilia, quce prceest diebus, 
 id est spiritualibus, major est altera, quce noctibus, 
 id est, carnalibus / ut quanta est inter Solem et 
 Liinam, tanta inter Fontijices et Reges, differen- 
 tia cognoscatur. Now this allegorical interpre- 
 tation, absurd as it may appear, is not more absurd, 
 than many, which are vented in the present age. 
 
LECTURE XVIII. lOiS 
 
 it is however absurd enough: for the comparison 
 is not only unwarranted, but is an actual inver- 
 sion of the truth. The things spiritual^ and the 
 things carnal, to which reference is here made, 
 should have changed their position ; the lumina- 
 ries should have been transjwsed. For spiritual 
 dominion, whether exercised by the Pope, or by 
 those who resemble him, is not a power, that rules 
 the day, but a power, that rules the night. 
 
 Let us now consider that kind of allegorical 
 interpretation, which consists in the application 
 of things, recorded in the OW Testament, to sfwzz- 
 lar things recorded in the ^eiv Testament. That 
 kind may be properly called typical interpretation ; 
 for it is an application of types to their antitypes. 
 It is warranted by the authority of the Sacred 
 Writers themselves. But they have warranted the 
 use of it only to a certain extent; and, if we 
 transgress the limits, which they have prescribed, 
 we shall be in perpetual danger of taking things 
 for what they were not designed to be. To con- 
 stitute one thing the type of another, as the term 
 is generally understood in reference to Scripture, 
 something more is wanted than mere resemblance. 
 The former must not only resemble the latter, but 
 must have been designed to resemble the latter. 
 It must have been so designed in its original in- 
 stitution. It must have been designed as some- 
 thing preparatory to the latter. The type, as well 
 as the antitype;, jnust have been pre-ordained: 
 
106 LECTURE XVIII. 
 
 and they must have been pre-ordained, as con- 
 stituent parts of the same general scheme of divine 
 providence. It is this previous design^ and this 
 pre-ordained connexion, which constitute the re- 
 lation of type and antitype. Where these qualities 
 fail, where the previous design and the pre-ordain- 
 ed connexion are wanting, the relation between 
 any two things, however similar in themselves, is 
 not the relation of hjpe to antitype. The exist- 
 ence therefore of that previous design and pre-or- 
 dained connexion must be clearly established, be- 
 fore we can have authority for pronouncing one 
 thing the type of another. But we cannot establish 
 the existence of that previous design and pre-ordain- 
 ed connexion, by arguing only from the resem- 
 blance of the things compared. For the qualities 
 and circumstances, attendant on one thing, may 
 have a close resemblance with the qualities and cir- 
 cumstances attendant on another thing, and yet the 
 things themselves may be devoid of all connexion. 
 How then, it may be asked, shall we obtain the 
 proof required ? By what meaus shall we deter- 
 mine, in any given instance, that what is alleged 
 as a type was really designed for a type ? Now 
 the only possible source of information on this 
 subject is Scripture itself. The only possible 
 means of knowing, that two distant, though simi- 
 lar, historic facts, were so connected in the general 
 scheme of divine Providence, that the one was 
 designed to pre-figure the other, is the authority 
 
LECTURE XVIII. 10? 
 
 ot'that Work, in which the scheme of divine Prov- 
 idence is unfolded. Destitute of that authority, 
 we may confound a resemblance, subsequently 
 observed, with, a resemblance 2^7'e-or6?aitte^ .• we may 
 mistake a comparison, founded on a mere accident- 
 al parity of circumstances, for a camparison, found- 
 ed on a necessary and inherent connexion. There 
 is no other rule, therefore, by which we can distin- 
 guish a real from a 'pretended type, than that of 
 Scripture itself. There are no qW\q.x possible means^ 
 by which we can know, that a previous design, and 
 a pre-ordained connexion existed. Whatever 
 persons, or things therefore, recorded in the Old 
 Testament, were expressly declared by Christ, or 
 by his Apostles, to have been designed as pre- 
 figurations of persons or things relating to the 
 JK*ew Testament, such persons or things, so record- 
 ed in the former, are types of the persons or things, 
 with which they are compared in the latter. But 
 if we assert, that a person, or thing, was designed 
 to pre-figure another person or thing, where no 
 such pve-figuration has been declared by divine au- 
 thority, we make an assertion, for which we nei- 
 ther have, nor can have, the sliglitest foundation. 
 And even when comparisons are in«^tituted in the 
 New Testament between antecedent and subse- 
 quent persons or things, we must be careful to dis- 
 tinguish the examples, where a comparison is insti- 
 tuted merely for tlie sake of illustration, from 
 the examples, where suqh a connexion is declar- 
 
\oi LECTURE XVlir. 
 
 ed, as exists ia the relation of a type to its anti« 
 type. 
 
 The consequences of neglecting the precautions 
 here proposed are sufficiently apparent in the his- 
 tory of typical interpretation. Volumes have been 
 filled with types and antitypes, which exist only 
 in tlie fancy of the writers. Men of lively imagi- 
 nation are continually at work for the discovery of 
 resemblances, while judgment and erudition are 
 not always at hand, to suggest the differences. 
 Things really discordant are thus supposed to be 
 consonant : and they are united on the ground of 
 similaritif, when their difference should have led to 
 a separation. But, when once they are brought 
 together, however fanciful their resemblance, it 
 is but a small additional effort of the imagination, 
 to perceive in the one a symbol of the other. And 
 the things, when thus symbolized, find an easy 
 transition into types and antitypes. Suppose how- 
 ever, that the resemblance between the things them- 
 selves would bear the strictest inquiry, yet if the 
 inference be drawn without a proof of previous de- 
 sign and pre-ordained connexion, we may still 
 multiply our types and antitypes without end. 
 Even the self-same type may be provided with 
 various antitypes, according to the different views 
 of the interpreters. For the discovery of types 
 and antitypes is often determined by the religious 
 farty, to which the interpreter belongs, or by the 
 peculiar sentiments, which the interpreter enter- 
 
LECTURE XVIII. 109 
 
 tains. Thus Cardinal Bellarraine, in his treatise 
 De Laicis, discovered, that the secession of the 
 Protestants under Luther was typified by the se- 
 cession of the Ten Tribes under Jeroboam ; while 
 the Lutherans with equal reason retorted, that Jero- 
 boam was a type of the Pope, and that the secession 
 of Israel from Judah typified, not the secession of 
 the Protestants under Luther, but the secession of 
 the Church of Rome from primitive Christianity. 
 But to wiiichever of the two events the secession 
 under Jeroboam may be supposed the most similar^ 
 (if similarity exists there at all beyond the mere 
 acf of secession) we have no authority for pronounc- 
 ing it a type of either. We have no proof of pre- 
 vious design, and of pre-ordained connexion between 
 the subjects of comparison : we have no proof, 
 that the secession of the Israelites under Jeroboam 
 was designed to pre-figure any other secession 
 whatever. This single example is sufficient to 
 show what abuse may be raa.de of typical interpre- 
 tation : and though examples might be easily mul- 
 tiplied, by cpiotations from various authors, the 
 precautions already given will serve to secure us 
 from error, without further inquiry into the errors of 
 others. 
 
 The subject of allegorical and typical interpre- 
 tation having been thus concluded, our next inqui- 
 ry must be directed to the interpretation o^ proph- 
 ecy. For the interpretation of prophecy is so far 
 15 
 
iio LECTURE XVIIL 
 
 connected with typical interpretation, as types are 
 prophetic of their antitypes. But the interpreta- 
 tion of prophecy opens such a field of investigation, 
 and involves so many important considerations, 
 that it must be reserved for another season. 
 
 END OF PART III, 
 
Boston Bookstore. 
 
 CvyntiTsos & Hilliard, at No. 1, Cornhlll, Boston, and at their 
 Bookstore in Cambridge, have lately published the ioUowing 
 valuable works, viz. 
 
 CUMAHNGS' GEOGRAPHY Sc ATLAS. 
 
 This introduction to Ancient and Modem Geography was 
 first published in May 1813, since which (now eighteen months) 
 about 700U copies have been disposed of It has received the 
 decided approbation of the best judges, and has been introduced 
 into the first schools and academies in Boston, and most of tlie 
 otlier principal towns in New England. Several hundreds have 
 gone into tlie Middle States, especially into New York, wiiere 
 the demand for it is fast increasing. As fartlier recommenda- 
 tion it may be stated, that scholars will hereafter be examined in 
 Ancient and Modern Geogi-aphy according to tl;e plan of this 
 work, for admission into Harvard College at Cambridge. 
 
 This Geography is accompanied with an Atlas o^ eight JMod- 
 ern and four .^Indent JMaps, bound either together, or separate, 
 as may best suit the convenience of scholars and teachers. 
 
 GUMMING S' TESTAMENT. 
 
 N. B. Citmmings ^ Hilliard have just published an edition of 
 the JVe-M Testament in a clear, plain type, with an Introdnctio7i, 
 giving an account of the Je~vish and other sects ; with J\'otes, il- 
 lustrating obscure passages, and explaining obsolete vords and 
 phrases ; to which are added Rules for pronouncing Scripture 
 Proper JVumes, a catalogue of the Proper JK'ames in the Testa- 
 ment correctly accented according to Walker, and four maps of 
 the countries, through which our Saviour and his apostles trav- 
 elled ; for the use of Schools, Academies, and Private Families. 
 
 VALPEY'S GREEK GRAMMAR. 
 
 Cummings & Hilliard have also just published the first Amer- 
 ican edition of Vcdpeifs Greek G-rammar, a work in great estima- 
 tion, and extensive use in England, and which in the opinion of 
 good judges is better calculated for general use, than any before 
 published in tliis country. The arrangement of the Grammar is 
 simple, the Syntax is full and particular, and much light is thrown 
 on the subject of Accents and derivation. There are added an 
 explanation of grammatical terms, and a SjTiopsis of parsing, de- 
 signed early to Initiate the learner into a correct and regular 
 mode of parsing each word, without constant application to the 
 instructor for direction. 
 
 Locke's Essays 
 
 Bigelow's Plants of Boston 
 
 Bichat on the Membranes 
 
 Adams' Lectures on Rhetoric 
 
 Alison on Taste 
 
 Allen's Biographical Dictionary 
 
 Walker's Rhetorical Grammar 
 Evans' Sermons 
 Wilson's Sacra Privata 
 Wellbeloved's Devotional Exer- 
 cises 
 Fitzosborne's Letters 
 
t/V^u; Publications continued. 
 
 Collectanea Grxca Majora 
 Do. Minora 
 
 JEsop's Fables in Gi-eek 
 Livy 
 New Testament with Notes and 
 
 Maps 
 Geography of New Testament 
 
 with Maps 
 Lowth's English Grammar 
 Evening's at Home 
 Mrs. Edgeworth's Early Lessons 
 
 Rational Sports 
 
 Horace in London 
 
 Junius' Letters 
 
 Bishop Watson's Address to 
 
 Youth 
 Channing's Sermon on the Duties 
 
 of Children 
 Byron's Poetical Works compL 
 A few Weeks in Paris during the 
 
 residence of the allied sove'ns 
 Henry's Chemistry, &c. &c. 
 
 Cwnmings & Hilliard have also constantly on hand the best as" 
 sortment of works on Divinity, Medicine, and Law ; a varie" 
 ty of Latin and Greek Classics, new and second hand ; works 
 on Taste ; all kinds of School Books ; books of Devotion and 
 Piety ; Children's books, &c. among which are the following : 
 
 Latin Classics. 
 Alnsworth's Dictionary 
 Young's Do. 
 
 Entick's Do. 
 Adam's Latin Grammar 
 Eigelow's Abridgment of Do. 
 Chever's Accidence 
 Latin Tutor 
 B)gelow's Introduction to Mak 
 
 ing Latin 
 Clarke's Do. 
 Delectus 
 Latin Pi inier 
 Corderius 
 Historic Sacrae 
 Viri Romae 
 Narrationes Excerpta 
 Eutropius 
 Jisop's Tables 
 Erasmus 
 Nepos 
 
 Selectse e Profanis 
 Wilson's Sallust 
 Livy 
 
 Cicero's Orations 
 Grotius de Veritate 
 Cxsar's Commentaries 
 Virgil 
 Horace 
 
 Greek Cissies. 
 Grxca Mojora 
 Grscca Minora 
 
 Valpey's Greek Grammar 
 
 Gloucester Do. 
 
 Smith's Do. 
 
 Moor'.s Do. 
 
 Jones' Do. 
 
 Port royal Do. 
 
 Sell revel ius' Lexicon 
 
 Greek Testament 
 
 Xenophon 
 
 Homer 
 
 Longinus 
 
 Neilson's Greek Exercises 
 
 Huntingford's Do 
 
 J\EsceUaneo%is. 
 Stewart's Philosophical Essaj's 
 Stewart on tlie Mind 
 Lempriere's Classical Dictionary 
 
 Biographical Do. 
 
 Smellie's Philosophy of Nat. His. 
 {^ovvper's Translation of Homer 
 Pliny's Letters 
 Gillie's Greece 
 Reloe's Heroditus 
 Artist's Manual 
 Paley's Works 
 Priestley's Lectures 
 Life of Washington 
 Murray's Grammar 
 Lewis and Clarke's Expedition 
 Hume's Hist, of England, Con- 
 tinued by Bisset and Smollet 
 Bos well's Johnson, &c. Sec. 
 
COURSE OF LECTURES, 
 
 CONTAIMNS A 
 
 DESCRIPTION AND SYSTEMATIC ARRANGEMENT 
 
 OF THE SEVEUAL 
 
 BRANCHES OF DIVINITY : 
 
 ACCOMPANIED -WITH 
 
 AN ACCOUNT, BOTH OF THE PRINCIPAL AUTHORS, AND OF THE 
 
 PROGRESS, WHICH HAS BEEN MADE AT 
 
 DIFFERENT PERIODS, 
 
 IS 
 
 THEOLOGICAL LEARNING. 
 
 BY HERBERT MARSH, D. D. F. R. S. 
 
 MARGARET PBOFESSOR OF BIVINITr, 
 
 PART IV. 
 
 On the Interpretation of Prophecy. 
 
 BOSTON : 
 
 PUBLISHED BY CUMMINGS AND HILLIARD, 
 
 Boston Bookstore, No. 1 Cornhill. 
 
 Univ. Press Hilliard & MetcalK 
 
 1819. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 LECTURE XIX. 
 
 CoNTfEXiosr between the interpretation of types^ and the 
 interpretation of prophecy. Ji type is a species of prophecy. 
 Of the difference between real and imaginary types. Pro- 
 phetic character of a real type. The principles, here 
 applied to the inteiyretation of types, illustrated by two 
 examples, the one relating to Baptism, the other to the 
 Lord^s Supper. Digression on the Sacrament of Baptism 
 as connected with Regeneration, occasioned by the present 
 controversy on that subject. Mditional remarks on the 
 previous design, which is essential to the character of a 
 real type. Revelation alone can afford an explanation 
 of types. False reasoning about their obscurity. Prophecies 
 delivered by words subject to the same difficulties as 
 prophecies delivered by things. Of the qualifications 
 necessary for an interpreter of Hebrew prophecy. 
 
 LECTURE XX. 
 
 The general principles of interpretation, which were ex- 
 plained in Lecture xiii — xvii, applicable to the inteiyret- 
 ation of prophecy. Whether the inspiration of suggestion, 
 which is absolutely necessary in prophecy, creates a 
 difference in the principle of interpretation. The prophe- 
 cies relating to the Messiah selected for particular exam- 
 ination, not only on account of their importance, but 
 because they involve almost every question of real interest 
 in the subject of prophecy in general. Connexion between 
 
 Page. 
 
rV CONTENTS. 
 
 Pdge. 
 
 these prophecies and the truth of our religion. Frequent 
 appeals to these prophecies, both by Christ, and by his 
 Apostles, as prophecies, which testified of Christ, and 
 which 7vere fulfilled in his Divine Mission. Prophecies 
 of this description must be prophecies, which relate to the 
 coming of Christ, according to their literal and primary 
 sense ------ 20 
 
 LECTURE XXI. 
 
 The importance o/" literal prophecies relating to the Messiah 
 further considered. Various examples of such prophecies 
 quoted and explained - - - -------36 
 
 LECTURE XXII. 
 
 Jin inquiry into the foundation ofsecondary senses, ascribed 
 to Hebrew prophecy. Of the difficulties, xvith which 
 that notion is attended. The primary and secondary 
 senses of a Hcbretv prophecy have no analogy to the double 
 meaning observable in various examples of heathen 
 oracles. J\''or have they any resemblance to the double 
 sense of an allegory. Bishop TFarburton^s system of 
 primary and secondary senses considered. The existence 
 of secondary senses can be previously established by no 
 system whatever. In every single instance they depend 
 entirely on the authority of Christ and his Apostles. Ex- 
 planation of this position. Some passages of the Old 
 Testament, which are qtwted in the JVew Testament, are 
 applied, neither as prophecy in a primary sense, nor as 
 j)rophecy in a secondary sense, but merely in the way of 
 accommodation 55 
 
LECTURE XIX. 
 
 ii-S we proceeded in the last Lecture from the in- 
 terpretation of allegory to the interpretation of types, 
 so we may now proceed from the interpretation of 
 types to the interpretation of prophecy. There is 
 indeed a natural connexion between the one and the 
 other : for since a type is not an accidental, but a de- 
 signed prefiguration of its antitype, it is virtually a 
 prediction of its antitype. Nor is the resemblance 
 between types and prophecy confined to the things 
 themselves; it extends also to the principles, by 
 which they must be interpreted. The pi'inciples, 
 which apply to the interpretation of types, having 
 been already explained, it is unnecessary to repeat 
 them in detail : but it will be proper to take a gener- 
 al view of them, that the analogy of the former to the 
 present subject may be distinctly seen. 
 
 To constitute a type, something more is requisite, 
 than a mere resemblance of that, which is called its 
 antitype. For one thing may resemble another, when 
 the things themselves are totally unconnected. But 
 it is the very essence of a type, to have a necessary 
 
2 LECTURE XIX. 
 
 connexion with its antitype. It must have been de- 
 signed, and designed from the A'ery beginning, to pre- 
 figure its antitype ; or it partakes not of that charac- 
 ter, which belongs to a real type ; a character, which 
 implies, not an accidental parity of circumstances, 
 but a pre-ordained and inherent connexion between 
 the things themselves. Where this character is 
 wanting, there is wanting that relation of type to an- 
 titype, which subsists between the things of the Old 
 Testament, and the things of the New. And the on- 
 ly mode of distinguishing the cases, where this rela- 
 tion actually exists, from the cases where it is only 
 supposed to exist, is to examine what things in the 
 Old Testament have been represented by Christ and 
 his Apostles as relating to things in the New. For 
 then we have authority for such relation : then we 
 know, that one thing was designed to prefigure the 
 other. But without such authority, it is absolutely 
 impossible, that we should obtain the knowledge, 
 which is necessary on this subject. There are no 
 human means, by which we can discover, that what 
 has happened at one period, or in one nation, was 
 originally intended to point out something similar, 
 which should happen at another period, or in anoth- 
 ■** er nation. The reality of such previous design, the 
 reality of a fore-ordained connexion between a type 
 and its antitype, must depend therefore entirely on 
 Ihe authority of Christ and his apostles. 
 
LECTURE XIX. S 
 
 Having ascertained the mode^ by which alone we 
 can discover the existence of a type, we may in the 
 next place consider its prophetic character. When 
 two apparently independent events, distant from each 
 other many hundreds, or even some thousands of 
 years, are so connected in the general scheme of Di- 
 vine Providence, that the one was designed to indi- 
 cate the other, the one is no less prophetic of the oth- 
 er, tiian a verbal declaration, that the thing, which 
 forms the antitype, would in due season be accom- 
 plished. Whether a future event is indicated by 
 wordSf or indicated by other tokens, the connexion of 
 that event with the words in the one case, or the tok- 
 ens in the other, will be equally a fulfilling of proph- 
 ecy. We cannot have a more remarkable, or a more 
 important example, than that of the paschal lamb, as 
 applied to the death of Christ. For not only was the 
 paschal lamb sacrificed for the sins of the Jews under 
 circumstances resembling those, under which our Sa- 
 viour was sacrificed for the sins of the world, but we 
 have the authority of Scripture itself for the asser- 
 tion, that the sacrifice of the paschal lamb was from 
 the very beginning designed to indicate the sacrifice 
 of Christ on the cross. AVhen John the Baptist first 
 saw our Saviour, he exclaimed, "Behold the Lamb 
 of God, which taketh away the sins of the world." 
 St. Paul is still more particular : for he says, Christ, 
 " our passover is sacrificed for us :" and St. Peter de- 
 clares, that we were redeemed " with the precious 
 
4 LECTURE XIX. 
 
 blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and 
 without spot, who verily was fore-ordained^ before 
 the foundation of the world.*' From a comparison of 
 these passages we learn, not only that the two sacri- 
 fices resembled each other, but that the sacrifice of 
 the paschal iamb was originally intended^ to designate 
 the sacrifice of Christ. The former sacrifice therefore 
 has all the qualifications, which are necessary to con- 
 stitute a type. And since the Sacrament of the 
 Lord's Supper was instituted by Christ himself in 
 remembrance of his death and passion, the ceremo- 
 ny, which was a type of the one, may be considered 
 as a type also of the other. 
 
 Again, as the sacrifice of the paschal lamb, by 
 prefiguring the death of Christ, has reference to the 
 Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, so the Sacrament 
 of Baptism was likewise prefigured by an event of 
 great importance in the history of the Jews. St. 
 Paul, in his first Epistle to the Corinthians, (x. 1.) 
 says, ^' Brethren, I v/ould not that ye should be 
 ignorant, how that our fathers were under the cloud, 
 and all passed through the sea, and were baptiz- 
 ed unto jVloses in the cloud, and in the sea: and 
 did all eat the same spiritual meat, and did all drink 
 the same spiritual drink ; for they drank of that 
 spiritual liock, that followed them, and that Rock 
 was Christ." In this passage it is evident, that St. 
 Paul considered the being baptized unto Moses, as 
 typical of being baptized unto Christ. The Jews, 
 
LECTURE XIX. 5 
 
 who admitted proselytes by baptism, appear to have 
 generally considered the passage of their forefathers 
 through the Red Sea, not as a mere insulated histor- 
 ical fact, but as something representative of admis- 
 sion to the divine favour hy baptism. They said, 
 that "they were baptized in the desert, and admitted 
 into covenant with God before the law was given.'' 
 (See Whitby in loc.) On the authority of St. Paul 
 the Church of England also considers that event as 
 a type of baptism : for in the baptismal services we 
 pray in the following w^ords, '< Almighty and ever- 
 lasting God, who — didst safely lead the children of 
 Israel thy people through the Red Sea, figuring 
 thereby thy holy Baptism.'' The circumstances al- 
 so, which attended the type, accord with the cir- 
 cumstances attending the antitype. When the fol- 
 lowers of Moses, having forsaken Egypt, passed 
 through the Red Sea, in their progress to the Holy- 
 Land, that passage was to them an entrance, not 
 only into a new temporal, but into a new spiritual 
 state. In like manner, the followers of Christ, 
 when they have forsaken sin, and passed through the 
 laver of baptism, on their progress to the kingdom 
 of heaven, have also entered into a new spiritual 
 state. " Know ye not (saith St. Paul in his Epistle 
 to the Romans, vi. 3.) that so many of us as were 
 baptized unto Jesus Christ, were baptized unto his 
 death ?" — and therefore that we " should walk in 
 newness of life ?" ^^ As many of you (saith St. Paul 
 
6 LECTURE XIX. 
 
 again iu his Epistle to the Galatiaus, iii. S7.) as 
 have been baptized unto Christ, have put on Christ." 
 And when he gave an account of his own conversion, 
 in the speech which he made to the Jews of Jerusa- 
 lem, he used the following words, which, though ad- 
 dressed to him by Ananias, he sanctions by his own 
 repetition of them. " Arise and be baptized, and 
 wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the 
 Lord.'' (Acts xxii. 16.) And this washing away of 
 sin, in the sacrament of Baptism, the same Apostle 
 in his Epistle to Titus (iii. 6.) has called ^' the wash- 
 ing of regeneration.^^ Here then we have another in- 
 stance of type and antitype, ratified by the authority 
 of a divine Apostle, in all their various relations. 
 
 Resting on such divine authority, the Church of 
 England has adopted this example with all the cir- 
 cumstances, which are warranted by St. Paul : and 
 since in this particular instance our Church has been 
 lately subjected to severe and unmerited censure, the 
 occasion requires a few additional remarks in its 
 defence. Our twenty-seventh Article declares, that 
 " Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark 
 of difterence, whereby Christian men are distinguish- 
 ed from others, that are not christened, but it is also 
 a sign of regeneration or new birth, whereby as by 
 an instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly, are 
 grafted into the Church, the promises of forgiveness 
 of sin, and of our adoption to be the sous of God by 
 the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed." In 
 
LECTURE XIX. 7 
 
 the several services for Baptism;, as also in the ser- 
 vice for Confirmation, Regeneration is represented as 
 an essential part of Baptism. It is the inward grace 
 of that, of which water is the outward sign. Nothing 
 can be clearer on this subject than our Catechism, 
 which expressly declares, that whereas the outward 
 visible sign in Baptism is " Water wherein the per- 
 son is baptized,"* so the inward spiritual grace, is '^ a 
 death unto sin, and a new birth unto righteousness." 
 If then we detach regeneration from baptism, we not 
 only fall into the absurdity of making the outward 
 act a visible sign of nothing to he signified^ but we 
 destroy the Sacrament of Baptism as a Sacrament, 
 altogether. It is essential to a Sacrament, that the 
 outward act be accompanied with an inward grace. 
 If Baptism, therefore, as some pretend, is nothing 
 more, than ^^an outward work of man upon the body,'^ 
 it is a perfect mockery of religion to retain it as a cer- 
 emony in our Church : for if such only be Baptism, it 
 has no more to do with the concerns of religion, than 
 the common ablutions of domestic life. Vain is the 
 pretence of those, who assert, that we imitate the 
 Church of Rome, in believing, that grace is conferred 
 at baptism merely exopere operato, (as it is called in 
 the Canons of the Council of Trent.) The grace of 
 Grod accompanies the outward act : but the outward 
 act is not the efficient cause of it. The twenty- 
 seventh Article compares indeed Baptism with an 
 instrument, by which the promises of God to forgive 
 
& LECTURE XIX. 
 
 our sins are visibly signed and sealed. But, not to 
 mention, that in every legal instrument the signing 
 and the sealing is accompanied with the declaration 
 of its being our own act and deed, and that this men- 
 tal assent is the thing, which gives /orce to the signa- 
 ture and the sea!, the comparison in question is limit- 
 ed by the very words of the Article to those, who 
 ^* receive Baptism righthj.^^ And Baptism, according 
 to the general rules of our Church, is not received 
 rightly, unless, either by ourselves or by our sureties, 
 we make professions of Repentance and Faith. " What 
 is required (says our Catechism) of persons to be bap- 
 tized? Repentance, wliereby they forsake sin ; and 
 Faith, whereby they stedfastly believe the promises 
 of God made to them in that Sacrament." Conforma- 
 bly with this doctrine of our Catechism, godfathers and 
 godmothers, in the name of the child to be baptized, 
 make a public declaration, before the baptism itself is 
 administered, that they renounce sin, and believe in 
 ilie promises of God. And whereas these previous 
 ^leclarations are made by the godfathers and god- 
 mothers at the public baptism of infants, the same 
 previous declarations are made by tlse parties them- 
 selves, in tlie ministration of baptism to such as are 
 jof riper years. In the exhortation also to this ser- 
 vice, the Priest says, *' Doubt ye not, therefore, but 
 earnestly believe, that he will favourably receive 
 these present persons, truly repenting^ and coming to 
 him by faitJi.^' Repentance and Faith, therefore, 
 
LECTURE XIX. p 
 
 expressed either by ourselves or by our sureties, are 
 the causes which operate in producing that spiritual 
 grace, which is conferred at baptism. Thus St. Paul, 
 when he spake of washing away sins at baptism, 
 spake at the same time of *^ calling on the name of 
 the Lord.'^ But how under such circumstances can 
 we call on the name of the Lord, except by profes- 
 sions of repentance and faith ?* In like manner, 
 when we receive the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, 
 it is not the bread, which we eat, nor the wine which 
 we drink, any more than the tvater, which is used in 
 baptism, which confers the spiritual grace, but the 
 repentance and faiths which accompany the eating of 
 the bread and the drinking of the wine. Our Articles 
 are very clear and precise on this subject. The 
 
 * If it be objected, that in t!ie short service, which our Church 
 has provided for the jwivate baptism of infants, there are no 
 expressions ot faith and repentance, though by our Catechism they 
 are required of persons to be baptized, we may answer, that we 
 seldom meet with a general rule, without some exception for ex- 
 treme caseb. In the words of the rubric, this short service is to 
 be used only " when need shall compel :"' and if the child lives^ it 
 must afterwards be brought to Church, when the same professions 
 of repentance and faith are made as in the other services. These 
 professions therefore are only deferred, and deferred from the 
 urgency of the case. On the other hand, if the child dies^ we trust 
 that the Almighty takes the will for the deed, since the intended 
 professions of faith and repentance would have been carried into 
 eifect, if the opportunity had been afforded by the life of the child 
 being spared = 
 
 2 
 
10 LECTURE XIX. 
 
 twenty -eighth Article says, " To such as rightly, 
 worthily, and with faith receive the same, the Bread, 
 which we break, is a partaking of the Body of 
 Christ : and likewise the cup of blessing is a partak- 
 ing of the blood of Christ." On the other hand, says 
 the twenty-ninth Article, *^ The wicked, and such as 
 be void of a lively faith, although they do carnally 
 and visibly press with their teeth the Sacrament of 
 the body and blood of Christ, yet in no wise are they 
 <partalcers of Christ." The relation therefore both of 
 the outward sign to the inward grace, and of the in- 
 ward grace to that which is required to obtain it, is 
 so distinctly marked, that one should hardly suppose 
 it possible to mistake the meaning of our Articles. 
 There is an act of the mind, and there is an external 
 token of it : for every act of the mind must have some 
 external token. But neither here nor in other cases 
 does the real virtue of the act consist in the token. 
 Each of our Sacraments has lisown external token : but 
 in hoth of them are the acts of the mind acknowledg- 
 ments of Repentance and Faith. Unless therefore it 
 is superstition to believe, that the grace of God ac- 
 companies Repentance and Faith, there is no super- 
 stition in believing, that the grace of God accompanies, 
 as well the Sacrament of Baptism, as the Sacrament 
 of the Lord's Supper. And since that 'peculiar grace, 
 which is called Regeneration, is a grace, wliich is 
 conferred on us only once in our lives, (for it is a 
 different thing from renovation) the Sacrament, which 
 
 I 
 
LECTURE XIX. 11 
 
 we receive only once in our lives, and which then 
 admits us to the Christian Covenant, woul^ appear 
 k) be the appointed means of conferring that grace^ 
 even if St. Paul had not declared it. But that St. 
 Paul has declared it cannot admit a doubt. Unless 
 Regeneration had helonged to Baptism, the Apostle 
 would not have called the act of Baptism *^ the wash- 
 ing of Regeneration," or the laver of Baptism "the 
 laver of Regeneration." For there is nothing beside 
 Baptism, to which the term " washing," or rather the 
 term " laver," which is a better translation, can pos- 
 sibly apply. It is strange therefore, that such efforts 
 should now be made to detach Regeneration from 
 Baptism : though we must acknowledge, that in the 
 estimation of those, who make such efforts, the sepa- 
 ration is highly useful. For, as soon as Regeneration 
 is detached from Baptism, it may be employed on 
 other occasions : it may be made the instrument of 
 conversion at a later age : and thus the pangs of the 
 new birth may become tokens of admission to that 
 holy state, which the converts are taught to expect in 
 vain from a Sacrament deprived of its spiritual grace. 
 But strange as this doctrine may appear, it is yet 
 more strange, that men should detach Regeneration 
 from Baptism, and still pretend to be Churchmen, 
 There is no possible artifice, by which the words of 
 our baptismal services can be distorted from their real 
 meaning. In the words of our Public Baptism of 
 Infants, the Priest thus addresses the congregation, 
 
12 LECTURE XIX. 
 
 immediately after the baptism is completed. " Seeing 
 now, dearly beloved brethren, that this child is by 
 baptism regenerate, and grafted into the body of 
 Christ's Church,'' &c. And the thanksgiving, which 
 immediately follows, begins thus, " We yield thee 
 hearty thanks, most merciful Father, that it hath pleas- 
 ed thee to regenerate this infant with thy Holy Spirit." 
 Unless therefore the expression *^ it hath pleased God 
 to regenerate " is synonymous with the expression 
 " it shall please God to regenerate," unless the past 
 is the same with the future, it is impossible to deny, 
 that they, who wilfully and deliberately detach re- 
 generation from baptism, impugn essentially the doc- 
 trine of our established Church, inasmuch as they 
 impugn it in one of our Hohf Sacraments.* 
 
 Having thus illustrated two very remarkable types 
 of the Old Testament, the one applying to the Sacra- 
 
 * As it is impossible to explain awaj the strong expressions, 
 which have been here quoted, an attempt of another kind has been 
 made, namely, to shew that they are inconsistent with a prayer in 
 the former part of the service, which contains the following passage: 
 « We call upon thee for this infant, that he, coming to thy Holy 
 Baptism, may receive remission of his sins by spiritual regenera- 
 tion.*' But there is no inconsistency in believing, that what was 
 only a subject of prayer at the commencement of the service, was 
 a grace already obtained at the close of the service. The grace 
 conferred at Baptism is the effect of Repentance and Faith : and 
 the professions of Repentance and Faith are made after the prayer 
 for regeneration, but &e/ore the declaration, that the child is regen- 
 erate. The prayer therefore, and tiie declaration, arc ferfecthj 
 consistent. 
 
LECTURE XIX. IS 
 
 merit of Baptism, the other to the Sacrament of the 
 Lord^s Supper, we may now proceed with that anal- 
 ogy, which subsists between the interpretation of types 
 and the interpretation of prophecy. Whatever be the 
 mode, in which a prophecy is conveyed, whether it be 
 conveyed by words, or conveyed by things, the con- 
 nexion between that conveyance, and the event in 
 which we seek the completion, must be clearly estab- 
 lished, or the very existence of the prophecy will 
 remain unproved. But it appears from the arguments 
 already used, that an event in the history of the Jews, 
 or a ceremony performed in the temple of Jerusalem, 
 cannot be regarded as typical, and consequently not 
 as prophetical of any rite performed in the Church 
 of Christ, unless it was determined by the Deity, that 
 such event should happen, or such ceremony be in- 
 stituted, with a view to what the Deity foresaw would 
 take place in later ages. Where no such connexion 
 exists between a former event or ceremony, and a 
 later event or ceremony, the former can in no wise be 
 considered as typical, and consequently not as pro- 
 phetical, of the latter. The histories of Greece and 
 Rome afford various examples of events at one period, 
 which resemble the events of another period. But we 
 do not therefore regard them as types and antitypes. 
 And ivhy do we not regard them as such ? Because 
 we perceive no connexion between them : because we 
 perceive nothing more than, that the things are simi- 
 lar : because we have no evidence, that in the general 
 
14 LECTURE XIX. 
 
 scheme of Divine Providence, the one was intended 
 to represent the other. This evidence can be aiforded 
 only by revelation : and therefore we never seek for 
 types and antitypes except in the Sacred Writings. 
 But then, for this very reason we must make the Sa- 
 cred Writings the basis, and the sole basis, on which 
 we build our theories of types, and typical prophecy. 
 We have therefore no warrant to conclude, that the 
 events or ceremonies of one period were designed by 
 the Deity to be typical, and therefore prophetical, of 
 the events or ceremonies of another period, unless (as 
 in the two examples which I selected as an illustra- 
 tion of types) Revelation itself has declared t'hem to 
 be such. 
 
 It has indeed been objected by the advocates of a 
 more extensive scheme, that an explanation of types 
 in the Bible itself is in general not to be expected. 
 It has been urged that their very nature requires 06- 
 scurity and concealment : and consequently that an 
 explanation of them would be inconsistent with their 
 original design. But the explanation, for which we 
 must have recourse to Scripture, is not an explanation 
 to be sought in the Old Testament, or an explanation 
 accompanying the type. It is an explanation to be 
 sought in the JSTew Testament, or an explanation ac- 
 companying the antitype. That such explanations, 
 in various instances, are given in the New Testament, 
 no one can deny. Who, for instance, would deny 
 that the sacrifice of the paschal lamb is declared in 
 
LECTURE XIX. 15 
 
 the New Testament to be a prefiguration ot the death 
 of Christ. Aud if it was deemed necessary to explain 
 one type, where could be the expediency, or the mor- 
 al fitness, of withholding the explanation of others ? 
 Must not therefore the silence of the New Testament, 
 in the case of any supposed type, be an argument 
 against the existence of that type? If it was agreea- 
 ble to the design of typical representation, that they, 
 to whom the type was originally given, should re- 
 main ignorant of its real tendency, or of the thing, 
 which it was meant to prefigure, it must have been 
 agreeable to the same design, that, as soon as the 
 prefigured antitype had taken place, its relation to the 
 type should be clearly revealed. The observance of 
 a type is superseded by the accomplishment of the 
 antitype. It is necessary therefore that we should 
 know the exact period of that accomplishment : or we 
 shall know not the period, when the observance of the 
 type should cease. AVhatever advantage therefore 
 the Jews might have derived from their remaining in 
 ignorance, that certain ceremonies performed in the 
 temple of Jerusalem were only shadows of better 
 things to come, yet when those better things were 
 come, it was of the highest importance, that the mys- 
 tery should be removed, and the types explained. 
 But revelation alone could give the explanation. For 
 that one thing was designed to prefigure another, can 
 be known only to Him who designed it, and to those, 
 to whom he has vouchsafed to reveal it. 
 
16 LECTURE XIX. 
 
 When we proceed to the interpretation of prophe- 
 cies delivered in icords, we shall find no less caution 
 necessary, than in the interpretation of prophecies 
 delivered by things. We must not imagine that in 
 every instance, where the words of a Hebrew prophet 
 appear to bear some resemblance , or to be applicable 
 to events which are passing in the present age, they 
 were therefore designed to be predictions t)f those 
 events. If we argue from mere similarity, without 
 taking other things into consideration, the consequence 
 will be, that wherever the meaning of a passage is in 
 itself sufficiently general to admit of more applications 
 than one, various interpreters will compare it with 
 various events, and they will all declare, that the 
 passage is a prophecy of that particular event, to which 
 they themselves apply it. Indeed we know by expe- 
 rience, that passages in the writings of the Hebrew 
 prophets have been applied to as many different 
 events, as the interpreters themselves are numerous. 
 Yet each interpreter is confident of his own explana- 
 tion : and is persuaded that all other interpreters are 
 mistaken. In this manner is the sure word of proph- 
 ecy, as St. Peter very justly calls it, exposed to sus- 
 picion, on the part of those, who are inclined to ques- 
 tion the truth of our holy religion. 
 
 Kut though the difficulties attending the interpre- 
 tation of the Hebrew prophets are confessedly great, 
 those difficulties are not insurmountable. And if the 
 interpretation of prophecy is really subject to deter- 
 
LECTURE XIX. IT 
 
 minate rules^ the conclusions, to which such rules 
 must eventually lead, will be no less certain, when 
 those ditficuUics are overcome, than if they had never 
 existed. The sole difference consists in the labour, 
 in the skill, and in the time, which are wanted in the 
 one case, but not in the other. If it be objected there- 
 fore, that the sacred oracles are ambiguous, because 
 the explanations of them are various, we may confi- 
 dently answer, that the fault is in the interpretation, 
 and not in the text. It is no wonder that in the ex- 
 planations of the Hebrew prophets we should discov- 
 er inconsistency, when an office, for which so many 
 qualifications are required, is undertaken by men, in 
 whom those qualifications are wanting altogether. 
 In the first place, it is impossible to enter into the 
 true spirit of Hebrew prophecy, without a knowledge 
 of the Hebrew language. The style of history is for 
 the most part, so plain and simple, that a narrative 
 of events delivered in one language may be adequate- 
 ly expressed in otJier languages. The same obser- 
 vation applies to the didactic parts of Scripture : the 
 rules, which are necessary for the guidance of our own 
 conduct, requiring of themselves so much plainness 
 and perspicuity, as to be equally expressible in every 
 language. But the fvojihctic style of Scripture is of 
 so peculiar a kind, that it is always difficult, and 
 sometimes impossible to express in English what 
 is expressed in Hebrew. Even in poetry, which is 
 more easily rendered than prophecy, it is no easy 
 
18 LECTURE XIX. 
 
 task to transfer the spirit of the original into the words 
 of a translation. Words in one language may have 
 k literal correspondence to words in another lan- 
 guage ; while they are incapable of being employed 
 in the same figurative sense. The usage of the two 
 languages, which alone can determine the meaning 
 of words, may be alike in one respect and different 
 in another. But, if the words of a translation con- 
 vey only a literal sense, where the words of the orig- 
 inal convey a figurative sense, the words of the au- 
 thor and the words of the translator will convey two 
 different senses. Hence the same prophecy may be 
 differently understood, according as it is interpreted 
 from the words of the original, or interpreted from 
 the words of a translation. Now the style of proph- 
 ecy would in any language be more figurative than 
 that of history : and in Hebrew prophecy it is so 
 much the moi'e figurative, as the oriental languages 
 themselves more abound in metaphor, than the lan- 
 guages of Greece and Rome. 
 
 Another cause of difference in the interpretation 
 of Hebrew prophecy is, that while one interpreter 
 considers the situation and circumstances of the 
 writer whose works he explains, another interpreter 
 expounds without the least regard for what is neces- 
 sary to be known, in order to discover his author's 
 meaning. Hebrew writers, who lived at different, 
 periods, from five hundred to fifteen hundred years 
 before the birth of Christ, arc all viewed in the self- 
 
LECTURE XIX. 19 
 
 same light : and the light, in which they are thus 
 viewed, is moreover the light, in which the language 
 of the translator would be viewed, if that language 
 were the language of the author. Hence the notions, 
 which the Hebrew writers affixed to their own words, 
 are exchanged for notions, which the interpreter, dif- 
 ferently circumstanced, affixes to the words of a 
 translation. Again, while one interpreter investi- 
 gates the words of his author with grammatical pre- 
 cision, and attempts only to discover what the words 
 themselves convey, another interpreter, either re- 
 gardless or incapable of grammatical analysis, em- 
 ploys his ingenuity in torturing the words of his au- 
 thor, or rather of his author's translator, till he has 
 brought them to speak, what he had previously de- 
 termined, that they should speak. 
 
 Since then so many causes are incessantly ope- 
 rating to produce variety in the interpretation of 
 prophecy, we need not wonder, if the eftects corres- 
 pond with the causes. But the very consideration of 
 those causes is sufficient to remove the charge of am- 
 biguity from the sacred text, and to fix it, where it 
 belongs, in the interpretations alone. 
 
LECTURE XX. 
 
 JlIaving examined the causes, which produce the 
 variety observable in the expositions of Hebrew 
 prophecy, we might in the next place inquire, wheth- 
 er it is not possible to assign such rules of interpre- 
 tation, as may be the means of greater harmony in 
 our commentaries on that subject. But the general 
 rules for the interpretation of the Bible, which have 
 been fully explained in former Lectures, are appli- 
 cable, as well to the prophetic books, as to other 
 parts of the sacred volume. For in every instance 
 we must consider the words, which we interpret, as 
 signs to the reader of what was thought by the au- 
 thor. 
 
 There is indeed one distinction to be made be- 
 tween the interpretation of prophecy, and the inter- 
 pretation of history ; a distinction founded on a dif- 
 ference of inspiration. The inspiration of prophecy 
 must be different from that, which would at least be 
 sufficient for the inspiration of history. If an histo- 
 rian records events, which have eitlicr come within 
 his own knowledge, or of which he has the means of 
 
lecturf: XX. 21 
 
 obtaining correct information, he cannot want that 
 kind of inspiration, which is called an inspiration of 
 suggestion. And exemption from error is in such 
 cases sufficiently secured, if the Holy Spirit, while 
 it leaves the historian to act for himself, as long as 
 the record is true, is ready to interpose, whenever 
 there is danger of a deviation from the truth. But 
 widely different is the case of prophecy. An inspi- 
 ration of suggestion is there absolutely necessary : 
 for it lies not within the power of unassisted man to 
 discover what persons will be born, or what transac- 
 tions will take place, after a lapse of some hundreds 
 of years. It is true, that our own reason enables us 
 to argue from the past to the future. A comparison 
 of causes with their consequences at a former period 
 may warrant the conclusion, that a recurrence of the 
 same causes will probably lead to a recurrence of 
 the same consequences. And when those causes ac- 
 tually have recurred, we may predict with some prob- 
 ability, that the time is not far distant, when also the 
 consequences will recur. If, for instance, we com- 
 pare the present situation of our Church with its sit- 
 uation at a former period, we must have our appre- 
 hensions, and perhaps our forebodings. But such 
 forebodings are very different from that knowledge,, 
 which enables men to foresee, not merely the conse- 
 quences of causes noic operating, but such distant 
 events, as are wholly unconnected with any thing, 
 which is passing in the present age, AVhen, for in- 
 
22 LECTURE XX. 
 
 stance, Isaiali foretold the coining of Christ, he fore- 
 told not only a very distant event, but an event, to 
 which he could not possibly argue from the state of 
 the Jews, at tlie time, when he wrote. A foreknowl- 
 edge of such events can be obtained by no other 
 means, than by an immediate communication from 
 God himself. 
 
 Let us apply then the principles of interpretation, 
 as explained in a former Lecture, to the two differ- 
 ent cases of history and prophecy. When we inter- 
 pret the words of a sacred historian, and consider 
 those words, as signs to the reader of what was 
 thought by the author, we may regard the historian 
 himself as the author. But when M^e interpret a 
 prophecijf we must distinguish between the author^ 
 and the icriter. For when the knowledge of the 
 writer is communicated to him by an immediate sug- 
 gestion of the Ilolij Spirit, we must consider the Ho- 
 ly Spirit, as the author of that knowledge, which the 
 prophet, as a writer, communicates to the reader. 
 But then this knowledge might be communicated to 
 the prophet in two different ways, either of which 
 lay within the reach of Almighty power. The un- 
 derstanding of the prophet might be opened in a su- 
 pernatural manner, so as to give him an insight into 
 future events, while the record of those events, or the 
 mode of committing them to icriting, was left entire- 
 ly to himself. In this case, though the prophecy has 
 the Holy Spirit for its author, yet the words of the 
 
 i 
 
LECTUU1-: XX. 23 
 
 prophecy are the words of the projihet. And if the 
 prophet was the author of the words, those words 
 must be signs to us of what was tliought by the 
 prophet. On the other hand, the ivords also, as well 
 as the things signijied by the words, might have beea 
 communicated to the prophet. In this case he was 
 the mere instrument of communication to the reader ; 
 and the Holy Spirit must then be regarded as the 
 author, as well with respect to the icords, as with 
 respect to the things. But whether the words were 
 chosen by the prophet, or chosen by the Holy Spirit, 
 the princij)le, on which they were chosen, must in 
 either case have been the same. In either case, the 
 choice of them must have depended on the connex- 
 ion, which the usage of ihe Hebrew language had es- 
 tablished between words, and the things signijied by 
 those words. If they had not been so chosen, they 
 could not have been signs to the reader of what was 
 thought by the author, whether we refer them to the 
 prophet, or refer them to the Holy Spirit. Whoever 
 was the author of a passage, which we propose to in- 
 terpret, we must conclude, that he u$ed his words in, 
 such senses, as he supposed would be ascribed to 
 them by his readers. For if he used them in other 
 senses, he v/ould not inform, but mislead. Conse- 
 quently, whether we interpret prophecy, on the sup- 
 position that the words were chosen by the prophet, 
 or interpret prophecy on the supposition that the 
 words were chosen by the Holy Spirit^ we must on 
 
24 LECTURE XX. 
 
 either supposition apply the same rules of interpre- 
 tation. 
 
 After these general remarks on the interpretation 
 6f prophecy, let us proceed to the jiarticular consid- 
 eration of the prophecies, which relate to the Messi- 
 ah. Various reasons may he assigned for selecting 
 these prophecies, as suhjects of our special attention. 
 In the first place, they arc more im'portant, than all 
 other prophecies put together. Whether we can dis- 
 cover in the writings of the Hebrew prophets a des- 
 cription of the events which are passing in the pres- 
 ent age, is a question of little moment. But the 
 prophecies relating to the Messiah are of such im- 
 portance, that they affect the very truth of our reli- 
 gion. And in the next place, an inquiry into those 
 propliecies includes the consideration of almost every 
 thing which relates to prophecy in general. It in- 
 cludes the questions o^ 'primary senses, and seconda- 
 ry senses, of prophecy. It includes also the ques- 
 tion, which has been so much agitated under the 
 name of accommodation. When we examine tliere- 
 fore the prophecies, which relate to the Messiah, we 
 examine every question of real interest in the subject 
 of prophecy at large. 
 
 Let us begin with an inquiry into that connexion^ 
 which subsists between the truth of our religion, and 
 the prophecies relating to the Messiah. It is evident 
 from the writings of tlie New Testament, that both 
 our Saviour and his Apostles appealed to the proph- 
 
LECTURE XX, 25 
 
 ecies of tl^e Old Testament, as affording a principal 
 proof of his divine mission. In a conversation with 
 the Jews in the temple of Jerusalem, relating to 
 this very sul)ject, our Saviour directed them to 
 " search the Scriptures " (John v. 39): and then 
 he added, " they are they, which testify of me.'' 
 Now the writings of the JVeM? Testament were not 
 then in existence : consequently our Saviour could 
 have meant only the Scriptures of the Old Testa- 
 ment, and therefore the prophecies of the Old Tes- 
 tament. When he addressed the twelve Apostles on 
 his last journey to Jerusalem, (Luke xviii. 31.) he 
 said, '^ Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things, 
 that are vk'ritten by the prophets concerning the Son 
 of man, shall he accomplished." When he shewed 
 himself, after his resurrection, to the two disciples, 
 who were journeying to Emmaus (Luke xxiv. 25.) he 
 said to them, " fools, and slow of heart, to believe 
 all that the prophets have spoken ! Ought not Christ 
 to have suffered these things, and to enter into his 
 glory ? And beginning at Aloses and all the prophets, 
 he expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the 
 things concerning himself." When he afterwards 
 appeared in Jerusalem to the eleven Apostles, he ad- 
 dressed them in a similar manner, (Luke xxiv. 44.) 
 "These are the words, which I spake unto you, 
 while 1 was yet with you, that all things must be 
 fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, 
 
-:i> LECTURE XX. 
 
 and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning 
 me/' 
 
 The same appeal, which was made to the prophe- 
 cies of the Old Testament by Christ himself, in proof 
 of his divine mission, was made also by the Apostles 
 of Christ. When Philip^ after his call to the Apos- 
 tleship, met with Nathaniel, he said, (John i. 45.) 
 ^» We have found Him, of whom Moses in the law, 
 and the prophets did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the 
 son of Joseph." When St. Peter addressed the Jews 
 after the miracle performed in the temple by himself 
 and St. John, he reminded them (Acts iii. 18.) how 
 "those things, which God before had shewed by the 
 mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, 
 he hath so fiiljilledJ' — " And he shall send Jesus 
 Christ, which before was preached unto you, whom 
 the heaven must receive until the times of the restitu- 
 tion of all things, which God hath spoken by the 
 mouth of all his prophets, since the world began.'' 
 Then observing that Moses had prophesied of Christ, 
 he concluded by saying, ^» Yea, and all the prophets, 
 from Samuel, and those that follow after, as many as 
 have spoken, have likewise foretold of these daysJ'^ 
 Again, in his address to Cornelius, St. Peter declared 
 of Christ, (Acts x. 43.) "To Him give all the proph- 
 ets ivitnesSf that through his name whosoever be- 
 lieveth in him shall receive remission of sins." And 
 in the first chapter of his first Epistle (v. 10.) speak- 
 ing of the salvation wrought by Jesus Christ, he said. 
 
LECTURE XX. 27 
 
 " Of which salvation the prophets have inquired and 
 searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that 
 should come unto you : searching what, or what 
 manner of time, the Spirit of Christ, which was* in 
 them, did tfstify, when it testijied beforehand the 
 sufferings of Christ, and the glory, that should fol- 
 low." 
 
 The appeals of St. Paul to the prophets of the 
 Old Testament, as bearing witness to the coming of 
 Christ, are still more numerous, than those of St. Peter. 
 At the very beginning of his Epistle to the Romans, 
 he calls himself ^^ an Apostle, separated unto the gos- 
 pel of God, which he had promised afore by his 
 prophets in the Holy Scriptures, concerning his Son 
 Jesus Christ our Lord.'' In the third chapter of the 
 same Epistle, he speaks of the righteousness of God, 
 manifested by Jesus Christ, as being " witnessed by 
 the law and the prophets.'' And at the close of the 
 same Epistle he declares of the preaching of Jesus 
 Christ, that it " now is made manifest, and by the 
 Scriptures of the prophets, according to the command- 
 ment of the everlasting God, made known to all na- 
 tions for the obedience of faith." In his second chap- 
 ter of the Epistle to the Ephesians he declares, that 
 Jesus Christ is the corner-stone of that building, which 
 is founded on " the Apostles and Prophets.^^ When 
 he was accused before Felix, he replied, (Acts xxiv. 
 14.) "After the way, which they call heresy, so wor- 
 ship I the God of my fathers, believing all things, 
 
28 LECTURE XX. 
 
 which are written in the law, and in the jjrophets.^^ 
 And when he pleaded before Agrippa, against the 
 same accusation of the Jews, he said, (Acts xxvi, gS, 
 28.) '^' Having therefore obtained help from God, I 
 continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and 
 to great, saying none other things, than those, which 
 the prophets and Moses did say should come ; that 
 Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first, 
 that should rise from the dead, and should shew light 
 unto the people, and to the Gentiles." Lastly, when 
 he was come to Rome, and had assembled before him 
 the chief of the Jews in that city, ^' he expounded and 
 testified of tlie kingdom of God, persuading them 
 concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and 
 out of the prophets." 
 
 Nor are the passages, already quoted, the only 
 passages in the New Testament, in which an appeal 
 is made to the prophets, as testifying of Jesus Christ. 
 The Evangelist St. Mark begins his Gospel with an 
 appeal of this description. " The beginning of the 
 Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, as it is writ- 
 ten in the prophets. Behold I send my messenger 
 before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before 
 thee." And Zacharias, the father of John the Bap- 
 tist, being " filled with the Holy Ghost," (Luke i. 67.) 
 pronounced the following blessing at the circumcision 
 of his son, who was destined to be the forerunner of 
 the Messiah. "Blessed be the Lord God of Israel ; 
 ibr he hath visited and redeemed his people, aud hath 
 
LECTURE XX. 29 
 
 raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of his 
 servant David, as he spake hy the mouth of his holy- 
 prophets, which have been since the world began." 
 
 From these repeated appeals to the prophets of 
 the Old Testament, it appears, that tlieir testimony is 
 represented in the New Testament as a principal ar- 
 £;ument for the divine mission of Christ. Search the 
 Scriptures, says our Saviour, for '^ they testify of me." 
 In me, says our Saviour, are the prophecies ''fuljil- 
 led.'^ Jesus of Nazareth, says St. Philip, is the per- 
 son, of whom the prophets did write. To Jesus 
 Christ, says St. Peter, gave the projihets witness. 
 The preaching of Jesus Christ, says St. Paul, was 
 made manifest hy the Scriptures of the prophets. The 
 fact, therefore, that Jesus was the Messiah, is c\i- 
 denily founded on the predictions of his coming in the 
 writings of the Hebrew prophets. 
 
 It is true, that our Saviour appealed also to his 
 miracles, in proof of his divine mission. When John 
 the I3aptist heard in prison the works of Christ, ho 
 sent two of his disciples, and said unto him (Mattb. 
 xi. 3.) ** Art thou He, which should come, or do we 
 look for another." Jesus answered, and said unto 
 them, '^ Go, and shew John again the things, w hich 
 ye do hear and see. The blind receive their sight ; 
 the lame walk ; the lepers are cleansed ; the deaf 
 hear; and the dead are raised up." Now the power 
 of working miracles affords an unquestionable proof, 
 that the person, possessed of that power, has authori- 
 
30 LECTURE XX. 
 
 ty from God. To perform a miracle is to suspend or 
 counteract ia that instance the general laws of nature. 
 And these are laws, which no one but the author of 
 them has the power of suspending, or counteracting.* 
 
 * We must distinguish between a power producing effects which 
 are really preturtiatural, and "a power which produces effects 
 which might seem preternatural to those, who have no knowledge 
 of the means." In Mechanics, and in Optics, experiments may 
 be made, which to those, who arc unacquainted with the principles, 
 roust appear wonderful. But in such experiments, wonderful as 
 they may appear to the illiterate, the laws of nature are neitlier 
 suspended nor counteracted. On the contrary, those very experi- 
 ments are the results of the laws of nature. They have no resem- 
 blance therefore to a miracle, in any degree whatever, or in any 
 sense whatever. In our Saviour's miracles, there was neither 
 mechanical, nor optical, nor any other deception ; but a real sus- 
 pension of the laws of nature. And that any other power, than the 
 Mmighty power, which both made those laws, and governs the 
 world by them, should be able to alter the constitution and course 
 of nature by a suspension of those laws, is, as far as I can judge, 
 absolutely incredible. The Jews indeed, who did not deny the 
 reality of our Saviour's miracles, ascribed them to the operation of 
 evil spirits : and Celsus, in his attack, on the Christian religion, 
 ascribed them to the operation of magic. The Jewish argument 
 that evil spirits can work miracles, and therefore that the miracles 
 of our Saviour are no proof of bis divine authority, was revived 
 in the former part of the last century, during the controversy on 
 the argument from miracles. And even a late Prelate of our own 
 Church, whose words are quoted at the beginning of this note, baa 
 very incautiously subscribed to the Jewish doctrine, that evil spir- 
 its have the power of working miracles : a doctrine which tends 
 to destroy the argument from miracles, since the performance o 
 a miracle, if it does not in i^sW/ imply divine authority, cannot 
 
LECTURE XX. 31 
 
 When our Saviour therefore appealed to his miracles, 
 he appealed to them as a proof, as a legitimate proof, 
 that he was armed with divine authority. And his 
 miracles alone (independently of other arguments, 
 which establish his own true Divinity) would be suf- 
 ficient to prove, as Nicodemus declared, that he was 
 " a teacher sent from God/' But that connexion, 
 which subsists between the covenant made with the 
 Jews through Moses, and the covenant made with all 
 mankind through Christ, would be entirely lost, were 
 it not for the intervention of the prophecies relating 
 to the Messiah. These prophecies form the link, 
 which connects the two covenants. By these proph- 
 ecies are we enabled to comprehend the ichole scheme 
 of Divine Providence, and to understand in what 
 manner it was gradually unfolded for the redemption 
 of mankind. 
 
 That Jesus of Nazareth therefore was the prom- 
 ised Messiah, is a fact, which we must be able to es- 
 tablish, or we shall fail of establishing that compre- 
 hensive scheme of Divine Providence, which includes 
 the two covenants in one general system. And we 
 shall otherwise be unable to account for those repeat- 
 possibly do so by any accidental circumstances, whether of benev- 
 olence or of any otlier attribute, which may accompany tlie mira- 
 cle. These remarks I should not have made in a Lecture relating 
 to jiroiihecy, if Uie passage, to which this Note refers, had not been 
 disputed on the authority of Bishop Horseley. But the further 
 consideration of this question must be deferred, till miracles tiiera- 
 selves become the immediate subjects of our inquiry. 
 
3£ LECTURE XX. 
 
 ed and solemn appeals to the Hebrew prophets, on 
 the part, both of Clirist, and his Apostles. Christ 
 iiimseir has commanded us to search tiie scriptures, 
 that we may know how they testify of him. We 
 must be able therefore to find what he has command- 
 ed us to seek : or the command will have been given 
 in vain. His Apostles have further declared, that he 
 is the person, of whom the prophets did write ; that 
 he is the person, to whom the prophets gave witness ; 
 that he is the person, whose preaching was made 
 manifest by the prophets. Unless therefore we could 
 shew in what manner the prophets did testify of 
 Christ, the declarations, that they did so, would 
 serve only to confound us. And the argument for 
 the truth of our religion, which we now derive from 
 prophecy, would weaken, instead of confirming, the 
 argument derived from miracles. 
 
 The Hebrew prophets therefore must manifestly 
 have borne testimony to the coming of Christ. And 
 this testimony must have been so decisive, as to ad- 
 mit of no ambiguity, no question, whether their pre- 
 dictions relate to the person of Jesus Christ, or not. 
 There must be prophecies therefore in the Old Tes- 
 tament, which strictly, literally, and directly predict 
 the coming of our Saviour. There must be some- 
 thiug more than passages, which may be accommo- 
 dated (as it is called) to his life and character. Pas- 
 sages from classic authors are frequently accommo- 
 dated, or, in other words, applied to a present event, 
 
LECTURE XX. ' 3S 
 
 as descriptive of that event. But such applications 
 are founded on a mere accidental parity of circum- 
 stances. In such cases, there is no previous design 
 on the part of the quoted author ; there is no con- 
 nexion, foreseen on his part, between the quoted 
 words and the event, to which they are applied. 
 Though they are descriptive tlierefore of the event, 
 they are not predictive of it. 
 
 There must likewise be something more in the 
 writings of the Hebrew prophets, than passages, 
 which predict the coming of Christ in a sense, which. 
 \9 sometimes called remote, at other times secondary, 
 at other times mystical, A prophecy which relates 
 to our Saviour in a mere remote or mystical sense, 
 can hardly come within that description of prophecy, 
 by which the preaching of Christ was made manifest. 
 Nor is this the only inconvenience, to which we are 
 thus exposed. For, if we adopt the notion, that the 
 prophecies in general, which relate to the Messiah, 
 have two senses, a primary and a secondary, we in- 
 volve prophecy itself in such uncertainty, as to de- 
 prive it of the character ascribed to it by St. Peter, 
 who called it the sure word of prophecy. I do not 
 mean to assert, that no prophecy in the Old Testa- 
 ment has a secondary sense : but 1 mean to assert, 
 and shall hereafter endeavour to prove, that the sys- 
 tem, by which prophecies of the Old Testament are 
 in general supplied with a double meaning, is unten- 
 able. Nor do I mean to assert, that there are no 
 
34 LECTURE XX. 
 
 passages of the Old Testament, which are quoted 
 and applied in the New Testament to events, of 
 which they neither are, nor were meant to be, pro- 
 phetic. The writers of the New Testament were at 
 liberty to make such applications of passages from 
 Hebrew authors, as we make ourselves from Greek 
 and Latin authors. But if we extend the doctrine of 
 accommodation even to those passages, where the sa- 
 cred writers have both declared them to be prophetic, 
 and have employed them as arguments founded on 
 prophecy, the doctriue of accommodation, so under- 
 stood, amounts to nothing less, than a rejection of 
 prophecy. And even with regard to secondary sen- 
 ses, if it were true, that the passages in general, 
 which have been quoted in the New Testament as 
 prophetic of Jesus Christ, were prophetic of him, not 
 in their primary and literal sense, but merely in 
 some secondary or mystical sense, the evidence for 
 our religion, which is founded on prophecy, would 
 be much less satisfactory, than we have reason to be- 
 lieve it. 
 
 Under such circumstances, it becomes a matter of 
 the highest importance, that we should be able to 
 produce a sufficient number of passages from the Old 
 Testament, which predict the coming of Christ in 
 their plain, literal, antl proper sense. For such pas- 
 sages alone can possess that decisively prophetic 
 character, which the declarations of Christ and his 
 Apostles have taught us to expect. It shall be the 
 
LECTURE XX. ' S5 
 
 business therefore of the next Lecture to collect, and 
 explain, such passages. And when we are satisfied 
 about the existence of prophecies, which have strict- 
 ly and literally foretold the coming of Christ, we may 
 safely inquire in another Lecture, into the foundation 
 of secondary senses. 
 
 I 
 
LECTURE XXL 
 
 It appears from the preceding Lecture, that, 
 "wheu, agreeably to our Saviour's directions, we 
 search the Scriptures of the Old Testament for pas- 
 sages, which tesl^ify of Christ, for passages which 
 in the words of St. Peter give witness to Christ, 
 and by which in the words of St. Paul the preach- 
 ing of Christ is made manifest, we must search for 
 passages, which relate to our Saviour, according 
 to their plain, literal, and proper sense. If the 
 words of a Hebrew prophet, though applicahle to a 
 certain event, were not originally written with refer- 
 ence to that event, they cannot be considered as pro- 
 phetic of that event. No passage therefore of the 
 Old Testament, which from mere accidental simili- 
 tude, may be accommodated or applied, like a pas- 
 sage from a classic author, can be included among 
 those passages, for which our Saviour commanded us 
 to search, as for passages, by which he was testified. 
 Nor can wc, in the first instance, include those pas- 
 sages, which, though they do relate to our Saviour, 
 relate to him only in some secondary seuse. For we 
 have no means of discovering^ that a prophecy of the 
 
LECTURE XXI. Sr 
 
 Old Testament really has any other meaning, than 
 that, which the words themselves convey by their 
 own proper import, except where some other mean- 
 ing has been affixed to them, either by Christ or by 
 his Apostles. In whatever case a passage of the Old 
 Testament, which, according to its plain and literal 
 sense, relates to some earlier event in the Jewish 
 history, is yet applied, either by Christ, or by an 
 Apostle of Christ, to what happened in their days, 
 and moreover is so applied as to indicate that the 
 passage is jirophetic ; of that passage we must con- 
 clude, on their authority, that, beside the plain or 
 primary sense, it has also a remote or secondary 
 sense. But, in arguing from that authority to the 
 existence of a secondary sense, we must be careful 
 not to argue in a circle. When we are searching 
 the Scriptures for prophecies, which testify o{ Christ, 
 we are searching for that, by which his divine au- 
 thority is to be established. We are searching for 
 the means of establishing that authority. If there- 
 fore while we are thus searching, we have recourse 
 to passages, which depend on that authority, to pas- 
 sages, of which, without that authority, we should 
 not even knoiv, that they were prophetic of our Sa- 
 viour, we previously take for granted the thing, 
 which is hereafter to be proved. We argue from 
 premises, which are only so far valid, as the infer- 
 ence is valid, which we deduce from those premises. 
 In other words, we prove, as well the premises by 
 
38 LECTURE XXI. 
 
 the inference, as the inference by the premises. Con- 
 sequently, when we search the Scriptures of the Old 
 Testament for prophecies, which testify of Christ, we 
 must, in the^7's^ instance, confine our search to those 
 prophecies, which relate to him in a strict and literal 
 sense. And the divine authority of Christ being 
 thus established, in conjunction with the argument 
 from miracles, we may then with consistency consid- 
 er the prophecies, which relate to him in a secondary 
 sense. 
 
 Such then being the importance of tlipse prophe- 
 cies, which relate to the Messiah according to their 
 strict and literal sense, I trust that this Lecture will 
 not be considered as tedious, if, instead of producing 
 only one or two examples by way of illustration, I 
 extend the inquiry to many such examples. But to 
 prevent mistakes about the meaning of any passage, 
 which is said to be literally prophetic of the Messi- 
 ah, it is necessary to define the term, and to explain 
 what is generally understood by literal interpreta- 
 tion. When we consider the senses of single w ords, 
 we consider whether they are used in a literal sense, 
 or used in a figurative sense ; whether they are used 
 in a grammatical sense, or used in a tropical sense ; 
 whether they are used in their primary and proper 
 sense, or used in an improper or acquired sense. 
 But when we speak of the literal or grammatical in- 
 terpretation of a whole sentence, we do not thereby 
 understand that every single word in that sentence 
 
LECTURE XXI. 39 
 
 is to be construed according to its proper, literal, and 
 grammatical sense. Even in the plainest narratives 
 we often meet with single words, which are used in 
 a figurative sense. Yet if no mystical, or allegorical 
 meaning is affixed to those narratives, in addition to 
 the plain facts, which the words themselves were in- 
 tended to record, those narratives are still said to 
 be taken in a literal sense. In like manner, if a 
 passage, instead of recording a past event, is the rec- 
 ord of Si future event, that passage is said to be liter= 
 ally understood, if the application of it is conjined to 
 that one event, however figurative the sense may be 
 of any single word, or words, employed in that pas- 
 sage. This explanation is so much the more neces- 
 sary, as Hebrew prophecy abounds with figurative 
 terms. 
 
 Let us now consider the examples, which strictly 
 and literally relate to the Messiah, though in some 
 of them we shall find many single words, which 
 are highly figurative. But I must previously ex- 
 press my obligations on this subject to Bishop Chand- 
 ler, whom I have chosen for my guide in the selec- 
 tion of those prophecies, wliich literally predict the 
 coming of Christ. Indeed a better guide on this sub- 
 ject we cannot have. No man has more clearly per- 
 ceived the importance of literal prophecy relating to 
 the Messiah ; no man has taken greater pains to de- 
 termine the question, what is literal prophecy, and 
 what is not : nor has any one surpassed him in that 
 
40 LECTURE XXI. 
 
 kind of erudition, which is necessary for such an in- 
 quiry. Since then we may he contented with the 
 examples, which Bishoi) Chandler has given of liter- 
 al prophecy, I will now produce them, accompanied 
 with such brief remarks, as the prophecies themselves 
 suggest.* 
 
 15eginning with the last prophet in the Old Testa- 
 ment, and concluding with the prophet Isaiah, he 
 takes his first example from Malachi iii. 1. <^ Behold, 
 I send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way 
 before me : and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall sud- 
 denly come to his temple, even the Messenger of the 
 Covenant, whom ye delight in ; behold he shall come, 
 saith the Lord of hosts." This prophecy is the more 
 remarkable, as tico persons are introduced into it ; 
 namely, the Lord, who shall come to his temple, and 
 the Messenger, who shall prepare his way. When 
 two 01* more persons are mentioned, there is always 
 less probability, that the agreement between the de- 
 scription and the event should be accidental^ than 
 when only one person is mentioned. And in the 
 
 * A minute and critical examination of every expression, used 
 in the prophecies liere quoted, would be contrary to the plan of 
 these Lectures. In fact, it is a deviation from that plan, (as ex- 
 plained in the first Lecture.) to produce so many examples relafe- 
 ing to one subject, and nothing but the great importance of this 
 subject could justify such a deviation. We are at present con- 
 cerned with the principles of interpretation : and examples only 
 so far accord with the plan, as they serve to illustrate those prin- 
 ciples. 
 
LECTURE XXI. 41 
 
 present case the description not only corresponds 
 witli the persons of our Saviour, and John the Bap- 
 tist, but corresponds with no other two persons in the 
 whole Jewish history. It must therefore heaproph- 
 ecy of our Saviour and John the Baptist : a prophecy 
 of our Saviour and Joha the Baptist, according to 
 its plain and literal meaning : and it is quoted as such 
 by our Saviour himself, Matth. xi. 10. 
 
 The second example is tali:en from Malachi iv. 
 5, 6. ^' Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet 
 before the coming of the great and dreadful day of 
 the Lord. And he shall turn the heart of the fathers 
 to the children, and the heart of the children to the 
 fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse/*' 
 This prophecy our Saviour liimself applies to .John 
 the Baptist, Matth. xvii, IS, 13. Some commenta- 
 tors indeed have supposed, that he applied it only in 
 a secondary sense, because when Jo!in the Baptist 
 was asked, ^* Art thou Elias ?" he saith, ^» 1 am not."* 
 John i. 21. But though John the Baptist was not 
 literally Elias, or Elijah, the prophecy might literal- 
 ly relate to liim ; lor the literal interpretation of a 
 whole sentence does not exclude the fisjurative use of 
 single words. In all countries, and in all languages, 
 it is common to affix the names of known and distin- 
 guished characters to persons resembling them in a 
 later age : and there were various points, in which 
 John the Baptist resembled the prophet Elijah. They 
 were alike in courage : they were alike in zeal for 
 6 
 
42 LECTURE XXI. 
 
 tbe restoration of pure religion : they were alike iu 
 the austerity of their manners. Truly therefore 
 might John the Baptist be called another Elijah. 
 And though he was not literally Elijah, though be 
 was Elijah only in a metaphorical sense, yet we have 
 already seen, that the metaphorical use of single 
 terms does not prevent a whole passage from being a 
 literal prophecy. 
 
 The third example, which is a very important one, 
 is taken from Haggai ii. 6 — 9. " For thus saith the 
 Lord of hosts ; Yet once, it is a little while, and I 
 will shake the heavens, and the earth, and the sea, 
 and the dry land. And I will shake all nations, and 
 the Desire of all nations shall come, and I will fill 
 this House with glory, saith the Lord (rf hosts. The 
 silver is mine, and the gold is mine, saith the Lord 
 of hosts. The glory of this latter house shall be 
 greater, than of tbe former, and iu this place will 1 
 give peace, saith the Lord of hosts." It is well 
 known, that the second temple of Jerusalem was in 
 itself {siT inferior in glory to the first temple, or the 
 temple of Solomon. The greater glory therefore of 
 the second temple could have been no other, than 
 that, which it derived from the advent of the Messi- 
 ah. The Jews themselves have always understood 
 this passage of the Messiah, though, when the Mes- 
 siah was come, they refused to acknowledge him, be- 
 cause he did not answer in all respects to tlie expec- 
 tations, which they themselves had formed. But 
 
LECTURE XXI. 43 
 
 whatever doubts they might have entertained during 
 the life of our Saviour, wiiatever expectations they 
 might have formed, while the second temple was still 
 standings one should have supposed, that the destruc- 
 tion of that temple by the Romans, with the total 
 failure of the attempts, which have been made to re- 
 build it, would have convinced the Jews of later ages, 
 that the Messiah, whom they expected, as the glory 
 of the second Temple, could have been no other, than 
 Jesus Christ. There is no longer room for an expec- 
 tation of the Messiah : there is no possibility of a fu- 
 ture Messiah being the glory of the second Temple. 
 For the second Temple is destroyed, and destroyed 
 as the true Messiah predicted. 
 
 The fourth example is taken from Zech. ix. 9. 
 " Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion ; shout, O 
 daughter'of Jerusalem : behold thy fi'in^g' cometh unto 
 thee; he is just, and having salvation; lowly and 
 riding upon an ass, and upon a colt, the foal of an 
 ass." There is no other event in the Jewish history, 
 to which this prophecy can be applied, than to the 
 entrance of our Saviour into Jerusalem : and the 
 Evangelists accordingly apply it to that purpose. It 
 is therefore a plain and literal prophecy of Jesus 
 Christ. For of whom but of Jesus Christ, can it be 
 said, that he is both just and having salvation P Of 
 whom but of Jesus Christ, can it be said, that he 
 entered Jerusalem in the manner described, and was 
 at the same time entitled to the appellation of ICing f 
 
44 LECTURE XX I. 
 
 The fifth example is taken from Zech. xii. 10. 
 "I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the 
 uihabitauts of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of 
 supplications : and they shall look upon me, whom 
 they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as 
 one moLirneth for his only son, and shall be in bitter- 
 ness for him, as one, that is in bitterness for his first- 
 born." This passage is quoted by St. John in his 
 account of the crucifixion, and is there represented as 
 prophetic of our Siviour's being pierced with a spear 
 by one of the Roman soldiers. An objection indeed 
 has been made on account of the difference in the 
 personal pronouns ; the words of Zechariah being 
 *^ They shall look on me, whom they have pierced," 
 whereas the words quoted by St. John (xix. 37.) are, 
 " They shall look on him, whom they pierced." But 
 there are Hebrew manuscripts, in which the text of 
 Zecharinh agrees with the text of St. John ; and even 
 if there were not, the first person is so frequently 
 exchanged for the third person in quotations, that one 
 cannot allow the exchange in question to form any 
 serious ground of objection. The prophet was hard- 
 ly speaking of himself; and that he could allude only 
 to our Saviour, appears from a comparison of this 
 prophecy with the corresponding prophecy in Isaiah 
 (liii. 5.) ''Hie was wounded for our transgressions.'" 
 For if the simple fact, that one of the Roman soldiers 
 pierced our Saviour's side, does not of ifse/f determine 
 the prophecy as belonging to our Saviour, the cir- 
 
LECTURE XXI. 45 
 
 ciimstances of tbe case must confine it to him alone. 
 Here can be no accidental parity of circumstances ; 
 for there is no other person, beside our Saviour, to 
 whom the words of the prophet can be applied. He 
 is assuredly the only one, whose side was pierced for 
 our transgressions : he is assuredly the only one, of 
 whom it can be said, that he bare our sins in his owq 
 body on the tree. 
 
 The sixth example is taken from Daniel ii. 4-1. 
 '^ And in the days of these kings shall the God of 
 heaven set up a kingdom, which shall not be destroy- 
 ed ; and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, 
 but it shall break in pieces, and shall consume all 
 these kingdoms, and shall stand for ever." 
 
 There is no necessity for dwelling long upon this 
 prophecy. There is only one kingdom, of which we 
 can say, ^* it shall not be destroyed," There is only 
 one kingdom, of which we can say, ^^it shall stand 
 ior ever." And that kingdom is the kingdom of 
 Christ. 
 
 The seventh example, which is likewise taken 
 from the book of Daniel (vii. 13, 14.) is a similar 
 prophecy of the Messiah, though with considerable 
 amplification. " I saw " (says Daniel) ^' in the night- 
 visions, and behold oue like the Son of Man came 
 with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient 
 of days, and they brought him near before him. And 
 there was given him dominion, and glory, and a king- 
 dom, that all people, nations, and languages should 
 
46 LECTURE XXI. 
 
 serve liim : his dominion is an everlasting (lominion, 
 which sliall not pass away, and his kingdom that, 
 which shall not l)e destroyed." 
 
 That this prophecy was literally and strictly ful- 
 filled in the person of our Saviour, and that it neither 
 has been, nor ever can be, fulfilled in any one else, is 
 so ohvious, that explanation is unnecessary. Of no 
 temporal pi'ince can it be said, that all nations and 
 languages shall serve him. Of no human being can 
 it he said, that his dominion is an everlasting do- 
 minion. 
 
 The eighth example is the celebrated prophecy of 
 Daniel relating to the seventy weeks. Cb. ix. 24- — 
 S7. ^^ Seventy weeks are determined upon thy peo- 
 ple, and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgres- 
 sion, and to make an end of sins, and to make recon- 
 ciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting 
 righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, 
 and to anoint the most Holy. Know therefore and 
 understand, that from the going forth of the com- 
 mandment, to restore and to build Jerusalem, unto 
 the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and 
 threescore and two weeks. The street shall be built 
 again, and the wall even in troublous times. And 
 after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut 
 off, but not for himself. And the people of the Prince, 
 that shall come, shall destroy the city and the sanc- 
 tuarv : and t!ie end thereof shall be with a flood, and 
 unto the end of the war desolations are determined. 
 
LECTURE XXL 47 
 
 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one 
 week : and in the midst of the week he shall cause 
 the sacrifice and the oblation to cease ; and for the 
 overspreading of ahominaLions he shall make it deso- 
 late, even until the consummation, and that deter- 
 mined, shall be poured upon the desolate.'' 
 
 No prophecy has been subjected to greater con- 
 troversy, than this : and the modes of computing the 
 chronological parts of it are almost as various as the 
 interpreters are numerous. An examination of the 
 various opinions, which have been entertained on this 
 very difficult subject, cannot now be attempted, as it 
 would require a dissertation of itself : nor is it neces- 
 sary for our present purpose. From whatever event 
 we date the computation, or in whatever manner we 
 explain the threescore and two weeks, after which 
 Messiah shall be cut off, the description of the thing 
 itself so accords with the circumstances of our Sa- 
 viour's death, that we cannot apply it to any one else. 
 He was cut off, but not for himself. And before the 
 seven weeks, which were added to the threescore and 
 two weeks, had likewise elapsed, that is, before seven 
 times seven years had elapsed after the time when 
 Messiah was cut off, the people of the prince, that 
 should come, that is, the Romans under the command 
 of Titus, destroyed the city and the sanctuary. And 
 that the prophecy of Daniel was accomplished accord- 
 ing to its strict, literal, and primary sense, is evident 
 from the definition of time, with which it is accom- 
 
48 LECTURE XXL 
 
 panied. A prophecy, in which the period of its ac- 
 coinplishmeut is determined, is incapable of a two-fold 
 application. 
 
 The ninth example is taken from the prophet 
 Micah, ch. v. 3. " But thou Betlilehem Ephratah, 
 though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, 
 yet out of thee shall Ue come forth unto me, that is 
 to be ruler in Israel, whose goings forth have been of 
 old from everlasting." Nothing can be clearer, than 
 that this prophecy was strictly and literally fulfilled 
 in the person of our Saviour. No one ever doubted 
 that our Saviour was born at Bethlehem, a town near 
 Jerusalem, a town belonging to the tribe of Judah, 
 and anciently called Ephrath or Ephrata, which name 
 the prophet Micah retains, in order to distinguish the 
 Bethlehem of Judah from another Bethlehem in the 
 north of Palestine. That Bethlehem of Judah, though 
 formerly a place of some importance, was little better 
 than a village at the time of our Saviour's birth, is a 
 fact universally known. That our Saviour was a 
 Tiller in Israel, appears from the tenor of his whole 
 life. And he is unquestionably the only one, who 
 ever appeared in the form of man, of whom we declare, 
 that his goings forth were ^' from everlasting,^^ 
 
 The tenth example is taken from the prophet Ha- 
 bakkuk, (ii, 3, 4.) : and the eleventh from the proph- 
 et Amos (ix. 11, 13.) But as the application of these 
 two prophecies to the Messiah is less obvious, than 
 that of the other examples, let us proceed to the 
 
LECTURE XXI. 49 
 
 twelfth and last example, which is the most important 
 of all. 
 
 This example is taken from the fifty -third chapter 
 of Isaiah, and properly begins at the third verse. 
 *^ He is despised and rejected of men ; a man of sor- 
 rows and acquainted with grief. And we hid as it 
 were oar faces from him : he was despised, and we 
 esteemed him not. Surely he hath borne our griefs, 
 and carried our sorrows : yet did we esteem him 
 stricken, smitten of God and afflicted. But he was 
 wounded for our transgressions ; he was bruised for 
 oifr iniquities. The chastisement of our peace was 
 upon Him, and with his stripes we are healed. All 
 we, like sheep, have gone astray : we have turned 
 every one to his own way ; and the Lord hath laid 
 on Him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed, 
 and he was afflicted : yet he opened not his mouth. 
 He is brought, as a lamb to the slaughter : and, as a 
 sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not 
 his mouth. He was taken from prison and from 
 judgment; and who shall declare his generation? 
 For he was cut out of the land of the living : for the 
 transgression of my people was he stricken. And he 
 made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in 
 his death, because he had done no violence, neither 
 was any deceit in his mouth. Yet it pleased the Lord 
 to bruise him ; he hath put him to grief. When thou 
 shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see 
 his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure 
 
50 LECTURE XXI. 
 
 of the Lord shall prosper in his hand. He shall see 
 of the travail of his soul, and shall he satisfied. By 
 his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify 
 many : for he shall bear their iniquities. Therefore 
 will I divide him a portion with the great, and he 
 shall divide the spoil with the strong : because he hath 
 potiredout his soul unto death, and he was numbered 
 with the transgressors, and he bare the sin of many, 
 and made intercession for the transgressors." 
 
 In the chapter of Isaiah, which has been just 
 quoted, we have a plain and literal description of our 
 Saviour's sufferings, death, and burial : indeed ho 
 less plain and literal, than any historical narrative 
 could be, which was written after the events them- 
 selves had taken place. And that this literal descrip- 
 tion is really literal prophecy, is a matter, which can- 
 not be questioned. The only way to prove, that it is 
 history, and not prophecy, would be to prove the 
 wliole chapter an interpolation in the book of Isaiah. 
 Now one should hardly suppose, that it was interpo- 
 lated by the Jews, to whom it is a serious obstacle. 
 But if it is an interpolation, the Jews alone could 
 have been the authors of it. Had it been interpolated 
 by Christians, it would never have been admitted by 
 the Jews into their copies of the Hebrew Bible. Yet 
 it has been universally admitted : for not a single 
 Hebrew manuscript was ever discovered irithout this 
 Chapter. If the Jews however dtd interpolate this 
 Chapter, we cannot possibly suppose, tliat the inter- 
 
LECTURE XXI. 51 
 
 polation was subsequent to the death of Christ. They 
 would surely not have beeu so absurd as to fabricate 
 evidence against themselves, though their veneration 
 for the sacred oracles prevented them from expunging 
 what already existed there. If therefore the Chapter 
 is an interpolation at ally it must have been interpo- 
 lated before the events described in it had taken place. 
 But if the Chapter was written before the events, 
 described in it, had taken place, it is still an example 
 of literal prophecy, whether it proceeded from Isaiah, 
 or proceeded from some other prophet. And it is 
 immaterial whether we call the writer of this prophe- 
 cy by the name Isaiah, or call him by any other name. 
 But in fact there is no more reason to doubt the au- 
 thenticity of this Chapter, than of any other in the 
 whole book. Nor have the Jews themselves, when 
 pressed with this prophecy, though they acknowledge 
 the difficulties to which it exposes them, ever attempt- 
 ed to evade those difficulties by pretending that Isaiah 
 was not the author of it. 
 
 Now there is no person in the whole of the Jew- 
 ish history, from the time of Isaiah to the destruction 
 of Jerusalem, to whom this prophecy is applicable, 
 except to our Saviour : and to Him it is applicable in 
 every point. Of M'hom but of our Saviour can it be 
 said, that he hath borne our griefs, and carried our 
 sorrows? Of whom but of our Saviour can it be 
 said, that he was wounded for our transgressions, and 
 bruised for oiw iniquities ? Of whom else could it be 
 
52 LECTURE XXI. 
 
 said, that he was stricken for the transgression of his 
 peojjle, and that his soul was an offering for sinP In 
 fact that single sentence, *^ he was numbered with the 
 transgressors, he bare the sin of many, and made 
 intercession for the transgressors,'^ is the sura and 
 substance of the histi ry, which the Evangelists have 
 given of our Saviour's passion. An objection indeed 
 has been made to that part of the prophecy, where it 
 is said, " he made his grave with the wicked, and 
 with the rich in liis death." For though our Saviour 
 died with the wicked, he did not make his^j'are with 
 the wicked : nor v/as he literally buried with the rich. 
 But the objection does not affect the Hebrew original ; 
 it affects only our English translation. Bishop Lowth 
 has more correctly rendered the passage in the fol- 
 lowing maner : ^' His grave was appointed with the 
 wicked ; but with the rich man was his tomb." This 
 translation removes the first difficulty, but not alto- 
 gether the second. The most accurate translation is 
 the Latin translation of Professor Dathe: *•' Bestin-' 
 atiim quidem ei erat sepulchrura cum impiis, sed in 
 morte sua divitibus similis fuit." This translation 
 perfectly accords with the circumstances of our Sa- 
 viour's death and burial. In cons-equence of being 
 crucified in company with malefactors, he was so far 
 destined to have also his grave with them ; for, ac- 
 cording to the common course of things, he would, 
 after being crucified with them, have been also buried 
 with them. On the other hand, though he was not 
 
LECTURE XXI. 53 
 
 buried itith the rich, being laid in a sepulchre where 
 no one had lain before, yet he was buried after the 
 manner of the rich, being laid in a tomb, which a man 
 of the highest rank among the Jews had prepared for 
 his own family. Thus we see, that every part of this 
 remarkable prophecy was strictly and literally fulfil- 
 led in the person of our Saviour. 
 
 To the examples already quoted from Bishop 
 Chandler^s Defence of Christianity, might be added 
 ofAer prophecies, which literally apply to our Saviour, 
 and to no one el«e. But it will be sufficient to add 
 one more example, which is an example of great im- 
 portance. In the niuth chapter of Isaiah, savs the 
 prophet ; "Unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is 
 given ; and the government shall be upon his shoulder ; 
 and his name shall be Wonderful, Counsellor, The 
 mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of 
 Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace 
 there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and 
 upon his kingdom to order it, and to establish it with 
 judgment and with justice, from henceforth even for 
 ever." Here we have a description, which is quite 
 inapplicable to any temporal prince. Whatever al- 
 lowances be granted for oriental hyperbole ; whatever 
 deductions be made on this account from the grandeur 
 of this description, there is one part at least, which 
 must be taken literally. When Isaiah declared, that 
 of his government there should be no end, the expres- 
 sion is too -precise, to admit any latitude of interpret- 
 ation. This part therefore must be interpreted liter- 
 
54 LECTURE XXI. 
 
 ally. But of what temporal Prince can we say, that 
 his government has no end P There are also other 
 reasons, which prevent its application to any temporal 
 Prince among the Jews, The prophecy was deliv- 
 ered in the reign of Hezekiah, to whom indeed a son 
 was born ; but a son, who was neither Counsellor, nor 
 Wonderful, nor the Prince of Peace. For " Manas- 
 seh made Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem to 
 err, and to do worse than the heathen^ whom the 
 Lord had destroyed before the children of Israel." 
 (2 Chron. xxxiii. 9.) And his government had not 
 only an end, but a melancholy end : for the King of 
 Assyria " bound him with fetters, and carried him cap- 
 tive to Babylon." Nor did many years elapse, before 
 Jerusalem itself was levelled with the ground. And 
 if we examine the later period of the Jewish history, 
 if we endeavour to find in this sublime passage a 
 description, either of Judas Maccabseus, or of Simon, 
 or of Hyrcanus, or of any other prince of the Asmo- 
 nsean race, the prophecy is again inapplicable. For 
 those princes were not of the house of David : and to 
 the house of David was that prophecy restricted. It 
 applies therefore to the person of the Messiah, and of 
 the Messiah alone. 
 
 The examples, which have been quoted in this 
 Lecture, afibrd suflBcient proof, that the Hebrew 
 prophets have strictly and literally foretold the coming 
 of Christ. IIow far, and in what respect, they have 
 foretold his coming in a secondary sense, shall be the 
 subject of inquiry in the next Lecture. 
 
LECTURE XXII. 
 
 J. HE examples, which were quoted in the preced- 
 ing Lecture, are sufficient to shew, that, if agreeably 
 to our Saviour's directions, we search the Scriptures 
 of the Old Testament for passages, which testify of 
 Him, our researches will not be fruitless. For the 
 examples, quoted in that Lecture, are prophecies, 
 which testify of Christ, according to their plain and 
 literal meaning. We may now, therefore, without 
 anxiety, inquire into the foundation of that sense, 
 which is sometimes called the remote sense, at other 
 times the mystical sense, at other times the secondary 
 sense, of prophecy. For let the result of an inquiry 
 into secondary senses be what it will, the prophecies, 
 which testify of Christ according to their primary 
 sense, are sufficiently numerous, to supply us with 
 arguments for the truih of our religion. 
 
 In conducting the proposed inquiry, we must ex- 
 amine the two following questions. First, we must 
 examine what the difficulties are, which attend the 
 notion of secondary senses in s^enernl. And then we 
 
56 LECTURE XXII. 
 
 must examine, whether, notwithstanding those diffi. 
 culties, there are not some prophecies of the Old Tes- 
 tament, which really have a secondary sense. 
 
 In the first place then, let us consider the difficul- 
 ties, which attend the notion of secondary senses in 
 general. With respect to single words, there are few, 
 which do not admit of more senses than one : and it 
 frequently happens, that the same word, in diflPerent 
 passages, is used in very different senses. But then 
 it must be observed, that in each of these passages, 
 the word has its determinate meaning : and that it is 
 not allowable to exchange at pleasure the sense, which 
 attaches to the word in one case, for the sense, which 
 attaches to it in another. If it were, the words of an 
 author would be understood in a very different sense 
 from that, which he himself afUxed to them ; they 
 would not be signs to the reader of what was thought 
 by the author ; and the object of his writing would 
 be defeated. 
 
 On the other hand, though perspicuity is in gen- 
 eral the first duty of an author, there are cases, where 
 the object, which he has in view, can be attained only 
 by amhigiiity. It may be an author's design to write 
 enigmatically : and this object will be best promoted 
 by the selection of such words, as admit of two differ- 
 ent senses in one and the same place. Words so 
 chosen, and so placed, are then designedly used in a 
 double sense. But in such casrs, though the icords 
 are used in a double sense, and the author's meaning 
 
LECTURE XXII. 57 
 
 is 80 far arabigaous, there is in general a limit to the 
 ambiguity. If the author intentleil nothing more, than 
 a common enigma, it is a thing, which admits of a 
 solution. We may discover, not only what the two 
 senses are^ in which the ambiguous term is used, but 
 also in wiiat manner each of those senses, according 
 to the author's design, is to be applied. And eveo 
 where the author intended- to leave the reader, or 
 bearer, entirely in the dark, with respect to the proper 
 application of the two senses attached to the ambigu- 
 ous term it is seldom a question what those senses a7'e. 
 When, for instance, a heathen oracle was delivered 
 in such ambiguous terms, as to make it accord with a 
 future event, whether that event proved favourable, or 
 unfavourable, to tiie person, who consulted the oracle, 
 the ambiguity consisted, not in any doubt about the 
 senses themselves^ between which the person had to 
 choose, but in the want of a clue, to determine his 
 choice. 
 
 There is no analoj^y, therefore, between the am- 
 biguity observable in the two preceding cases, and 
 the double sense of prophecy, as the term is under- 
 stood, in reference to tiie sacred writings. When we 
 interpret a prophecy of the Old Testament, which, 
 besides its literal meaning, is supposed to contain a 
 mystical meaning, or, in other words, a prophecy, 
 which is supposed to contain, both a. primary, and a 
 secondary sense, the grand difficulty is to ascertain 
 what that secondary sense really is. We are not la 
 8 
 
58 LECTURE XXII. 
 
 want of a clue, to deterraiue our choice between two 
 senses already known ; but we want a clue, which 
 shall lead us from the knowledge of one sense to a 
 discovery of the other. The primary sense of a He- 
 brew prophecy is ascertained by a grammatical analy- 
 sis of the Hebrew ivorils. But no such grammati- 
 cal analysis will assist us, in discovering the secon- 
 dary sense of a Hebrew prophecy. Indeed most 
 writers, who treat oi secondary senses, contend, that 
 those secondary senses were unknown to the proph- 
 ets themselves ; and that Divine Providence so or- 
 dered it, that the very persons, who committed to 
 writing the words, which were dictated by the Holy 
 Spirit, did not perceive the whole extent of their 
 meaning. But if words, employed in a Hebrew 
 prophecy, were intended to convey a sense so remote^ 
 from the common acceptation of the words, that even i 
 the prophet, who wrote the words, did not perceive 
 the sense intended, the same divine authoiity, which 
 communicated the prophecy, must interpose, to ex- 
 plain the propliecy. For, icithout such divine in- 
 terposition, it would be absurd to suppose, that we _ 
 could discover the meaning of a prophecy, which the 
 prophet himself was unable to discover. If we say, 
 that a prophecy relating to the Messiah may be un- 
 derstood by us, though not by the prophet, becansa- 
 we have the advantage of having seen its accomplish- 
 ment, we argue, thou2;h unconsciously, from a petitio 
 principii. When it is previously known, that a 
 
LECTURE XXII. 59 
 
 prophecy does relate to the Messiah, they, who live 
 to see its accomplishment, will undoubtedly have a 
 more comprehensive view of the subject, than they, 
 who lived in a preceding age. But, when the ques- 
 tion is in agitation^ whether a certain passage of the 
 Old Testament, which, according to its literal mean- 
 ing, does not apply to the Messiah, has also a mys- 
 tical meaning, which does so apply, we take for 
 granted the thing to be proved, if we begin by argu- 
 ing about its Gccomplishment, We must ascertain 
 the existence of the prophecy, before the accomplish- 
 ment of the prophecy can be matter even of inquiry. 
 It is true, that the words, in which the prophecy is 
 delivered, may be of such general import, as not to 
 excite the notion of any one particular event ; but 
 that a particular event may happen in a future age, 
 which so accords with the words of the prophecy, as 
 to enable us to perceive a connexion between the 
 words and the event, which was not perceived before 
 the event. And, if a prophecy can be interpretedhy 
 no other means than by history, or by the actual arri- 
 val of that very event, to which the prophecy relates, 
 the prophecy must in that case be fulfilled^ before 
 the prophecy can be understood. But then it must 
 be observed, that throughout the whole of this rea- 
 soning the existence of the prophecy is presupposed. 
 We set out with the supposition, that a certain pas- 
 sage was originally designed to be prophetic of some 
 future event : and then comparing a particular event 
 
60 LECTURE XXII. 
 
 with the description given in that passage, wc argue 
 from the similarity between the event and the des- 
 cription, that the one is connected with the other. 
 But ia whatever case we must previously examinef 
 whether a passage of the Old Testament really was de- 
 signed for prophecy, or not ; in other words, wherev- 
 er the existence of a prophecy must be previously 
 established, something more is requisite for that pur- 
 pose, than a mere correspondence between the pas- 
 sage in question, and the event, to which we apply it. 
 [Now, if we consider the peculiar character of 
 prophecy in a secondary sense, we shall find that 
 the existence of every such prophecy must be estab- 
 lished, before we can begin to argue about its ac- 
 complishment. And to conduct such a proof il^ot 
 quite so easy, as many writers have imagined. In 
 this respect, there is a material difference between 
 prophecy in a jjrimary sense, and prophecy in a sec- 
 ondary sense. The primary sense of a prophecy is 
 the literal sense of the passage, by which the proph- 
 ecy is conveyed. And this sense we obtain by a gram- 
 matical analysis of the words. But when we attempt 
 to discover a secondary sense, we attempt to go fur' 
 thery than the words will carry us. Beside the plain 
 and primary sense, which the words of the prophecy 
 do convey, we seek for some remote, or mystical 
 sense, which the words of the propliecy do not con- 
 vey. Const" quently we undertake what we ourselves 
 have not the means of performing. 
 
LECTURE XXIT. Gl 
 
 It is true, that many writers have endeavoured 
 to shew the practicability of the attempt by compar- 
 ing the double seuse of prophecy with the double 
 sense of allegory. Every allegory has two senses ; 
 one of which is a literal sense, the other an allegor- 
 ical sense. And a knowledge of the ^rsf sense leads 
 us to a discovery of the second sense. Why therefore 
 (it is said) may we not ascribe a double sense to proph- 
 ecy ? And, if a prophecy has a double sense, may 
 we not argue from the first to the second sense, in 
 the same manner, as we argue from the first to the 
 second sense in allegory P This is the common ar- 
 gument in favour of that system, which provides a 
 double meaning for the propliecies of the Old Testa- 
 ment, the one relating to the Jewish, the other to the 
 Christian dispensation. But the argument, though 
 very specious, and employed by very eminent writ- 
 ers, will appear on examination to be altogether un- 
 tenable. It is founded on a supposed analogy be- 
 tween the double sense of prophecy, and the double 
 sense of allegory; whereas, the two things, instead 
 of being analogous, are totally dissimiltt^\ When M'e 
 interpret a prophecy, to which a double meaning is 
 ascribed, the one relating to the Jewish, the other to 
 the Christian dispensation, we are in either case con- 
 cerned with an interpretation of words. For the 
 same words, which, according to one interpretation, 
 are applied to one event, are, according to another 
 interpretation, applied to another event. But, in the 
 
62 LECTURE XXII. 
 
 interpretation of au allegory, we are coueerned ouly 
 in the^rs^ instance with an interpretation of w^ords : 
 the second sense, which is usually called the allegor- 
 ical sense, being an interpretation of tilings, as was 
 fully proved in the Lecture on that subject. An al- 
 legorv is commonly delivered in the form of a narra- 
 tive, as in those two incomparable allegories, our 
 Saviour's parable of the sower, and Nathan's para- 
 ble to David. And the interpretation of the words 
 gives nothing more, than the plain and simple nar- 
 ratives themselves ; whereas the moral of the allego- 
 ry is learnt by an application of the tilings, signified 
 by those words, to other things, which resemble 
 them, and which the former were intended to suggest. 
 There is a fundamental difference therefore between 
 the interpretation of an allegory, and the interpreta- 
 tion of a prophecy with a double sense. 
 
 If we proceed with the parallel, we shall find 
 other differences, which destroy the analogy alto- 
 gether. In the interpretation of prophecy we are 
 concerned with historic truth : in the interpretation 
 of allegory we are concerned with moral truth. 
 And this difference leads again to a still greater dif- 
 ference. For since the object of allegory is moral 
 truth, the narrative, which conveys the allegory, is 
 commonly fictitious, as in the two examples already 
 quoted. But in the interpretation of prophecy, 
 whether w^e consider tiie primary, or consider the 
 secondary sense, we are wholly and solely concern- 
 
LECTURE XXII. 63 
 
 ed with real events. Lastly, in the interpretation of 
 an allegory, we have a clue, which leads us from 
 one sense to tlie other. Sometimes the allegory is 
 accompanied with an explanation : and even where 
 an allegory is left to explain itself^ the application of 
 one sense to the other must be easy and obvious, or 
 the object of the allegory will be defeated. If the 
 immediate representation, which is suggested by the 
 words of the allegory, has not a manifest correspon- 
 dence with the ultimate representation, or the moral 
 of the allegory, we lose the very thing, which consti- 
 tutes its worth. In exerj allegory tlierefore there 
 is, and must &e, a clue, which leads from one sense 
 to the other. But in the interpretation of a jirophecy, 
 to which a double meaning is ascribed, we have no 
 clue whatever, which can lead us from the primary 
 to the secondary sense. The primary sense is sug- 
 gested by the words of the prophecy. But the sec- 
 ondary sense is suggested, neither by the words of 
 the prophecy, nor by the things, which those words 
 signify. It is a hidden, a remote sense ; indeed so 
 hidden, and so remote from the literal sense, that it 
 is supposed to have been unknoicn even to the proph- 
 et, who committed the prophecy to writing. 
 
 Yet, with all these impediments, the system of 
 primary and secondary senses received such an ac- 
 cession of strength from the celebrated author of the 
 Divine Legation, that many subsequent writers have 
 agreed with him in the opinion, that tlie* system, as 
 
€4 LECTURK XXI I. 
 
 he explained it, is proof against every objection. 
 According to this explanation, the existence of sec- 
 ondary senses in Hebrew prophecy is founded on the 
 supposition of their *^ logical propriety and moral fit- 
 ness." The secondary sense of a prophecy is there 
 represented, as having the same relation to the pri- 
 mary sense, which an antitype has to its type. But, 
 if the primary and secondary senses of prophecy are 
 subservient to the same end with types and antitypes, 
 it is inferred, that they rest on the same foundation. 
 As the Jews, for instance, wlien they sacrificed their 
 paschal lamb, were not aware, that this was a type, 
 prophetic of the sacrifice of Christ, so it is argued, 
 that there might be verbal prophecies of the same 
 event, though the literal meaning of those prophecies 
 no more suggested that event to the Jews, than the 
 type^ by which it was prefigured. And the moral 
 Jitr,ess, as well of primary and secondary senses on 
 the one hand, as of types and antitypes on the other, 
 is argued on the following ground. The Law being 
 only a preparation for the Gospel, the Jews were 
 kept in ignorance about the real tendency of types, 
 till those types were superseded by the accomplish- 
 ment of their antitypes : for, if they had previously 
 understood the meaning of those types, they might 
 have neglected the Law, before the fulness of time 
 was come. A fore-knowledge of its intended aboli- 
 tion, a fore-knowledge, that it was only a shadow of 
 better things to come, might have induced thera to 
 
LECTURE XXII. G5 
 
 disregard the preparatory Dispensation, even during 
 the period, while it was destined to last. But the 
 same reason, as is further argued, for which the Jews 
 were kept in ignorance about the meaning of f^Z/'es re- 
 lating to the Messiah, must have operated also in the 
 case of verbal prophecy relating to the Messiah. The 
 same veil of obscurity, which was thrown over the 
 former, is supposed therefore to have been necessari- 
 ly thrown over the latter, in order to preserve con- 
 sistency in the several parts of the Jewish Dispensa- 
 tion. And to this purpose nothing is supposed to 
 have been better adapted than the use of secondary 
 senses ; because these senses are so remote from the 
 literal sense, that tliey occurred not to the prophets 
 themselves. Lastly, to the objection, that secondary 
 or mystical senses may be multiplied without end, 
 while the literal or primary sense of a passage can 
 be only one, it is answered, that, when the system is 
 so explained, the secondary sense has no less its lim- 
 it, than the primary sense, the one being determined 
 by a reference to the Christian dispensation, as the 
 other is determined by a reference to the Jewish dis- 
 pensation. 
 
 Such is the sum and substance of that ingenious 
 system, which was proposed by the celebrated au- 
 thor of the Divine Legation. Eut, if we examine it 
 closely, we shall find, that it labours under difficul- 
 ties, which are not easily surmounted. In the first 
 place, the tendency of this system is to destroy ew- 
 9 
 
66 LECTURE XXII. 
 
 tirely the notion of prophecies, which relate to the 
 coining of Christ according to their literal sense. 
 But we have already seen, not only how important 
 it is to shew the existence of such prophecies ; we 
 have further seen, that many such prophecies really 
 do exist. That the tendency of this system is to de- 
 stroy the notion of literal prophecy, appears from the 
 very 2?iir/7or^ of the system. The logical propriety 
 and moral fitness, which are supposed to have operat- 
 ed in one case, must be supposed to have operated 
 in another. The whole system would be destroyed 
 by the allowance of exceptions. If concealment was 
 the object of secondary senses, that object would be 
 defeated by every prophecy, which foretold the com- 
 ing of Ciirist in a literal sense. And accordingly 
 we find, that the author himself, in his Doctrine of 
 Grace, speaks of the prophecies which relate to the 
 Messiah, as relating to hira generally in a secondary 
 sense. But in a part of his Divine Legation he ap- 
 pears so sensible of the importance of literal prophe- 
 cy, that he allows the existence of some such proph- 
 ecies, and even argues against Grotius, who denies 
 their existence. At the same time, being aware, 
 that prophecies, however /t^tt*, which predict the com- 
 ing of Christ according to their primary sense, are so 
 many obstacles in the way o a system, which is 
 founded in obscurity, he endeavours to remove those 
 obstacles by saying, that whatever prophecies do re- 
 late to the Messiah in their primary sense, are dc- 
 
LECTURE XXII. 6T 
 
 livered in such figurative terms, as to produce the 
 same obscurity, which is produced by secondary sen- 
 ses. But this attempt to remove the acknowledged 
 obstacles is by no means satisfactory. For however 
 figurative the use of single words in any passage may 
 be, yet if the passage itself is interpreted literally, 
 as the primary sense requires, we shall still obtain a 
 determinate sense. We shall obtain the sense, con- 
 veyed by the words of the passage : and the meaning 
 of each word, whether literal or figurative, will be 
 ascertained by the context. Let the terms therefore 
 of any passage be as figurative, as the argument may 
 require, yet the primary sense of that passage can 
 never be subject to the same obscurity, which envel- 
 ops a mystical or secondary sense. It is impossible, 
 that a sense, which the words of the passage do con- 
 vey, should be equally concealed from the view of 
 the reader, with a meaning, which the words of the 
 passage do not convey. The system in question 
 therefore is irreconcileable with the notion of proph- 
 ecies, which predict the coming of Christ in a, prima- 
 ry sense. And the consequences of rejecting that 
 notion are sufficiently apparent from the preceding 
 Lecture. 
 
 Another difficulty, under which the system labours, 
 is this ; that the existence of a thing is argued from 
 the supposed propriety of the thing. But there are 
 hundreds of things, of which we might plausibly shew, 
 that they would properly have taken place, not one 
 
68 LECTURE XXil. 
 
 of which ever has taken place. Even therefore if it 
 be granted, that a passage of the Old Testament, 
 which literally relates to one event, has a moral fitness 
 for relation to another event, that moral fitness will 
 not establish (he existence of such relation. But let 
 the inference be allowed, and the existence of the 
 secondary sense admitted, it will still be of no use to 
 us, unless we have the means of discovering that sense. 
 And how shall we discover that sense by the logical 
 propriety or moral fitness, which we ascribe to it? 
 These are qualities, which attach to so many things, 
 that they can never lead to the discovery of any one 
 thing. If we say; that the secondary sense is de- 
 termined by a reference to the Christian Dispensa- 
 tion, there are again so many objects of reference in 
 the Christian Dispensation, that we shall be still at a 
 loss for the ^particular application. In the application 
 of secondary senses we are concerned, not with the 
 comparison of some event with a sense already known, 
 but with the comparison of some event with a sense, 
 which is to be discovered, and discovered by its rela- 
 tion to that event. Consequently, if different inter- 
 preters select different events for^the objects of com- 
 parison, as they undoubtedly will, unless they abide 
 by some common authority, they may agree in the 
 opinion, that a passage of the Old Testament has a 
 secondary sense, but they will differ in opinion with 
 respect to t!ie question, what that secondary sense 
 really is. 
 
LECTURE XXIT. 69 
 
 II. 
 
 After all then, it appears that there is uo system 
 whatever, by which we can either establish the exist- 
 ence of secondary senses, or by which, on the swp- 
 position of their existence, we can discover their real 
 meaning. We must be contented, therefore, as at 
 the beginning of the preceding Lecture, to resolve the 
 question of secondary senses, into a question of au- 
 thority. In whatever case a passage of the Old Tes- 
 tament, which, according to its strict and literal sense, 
 relates to some earlier event in the Jewish history, is 
 yet applied, either by Christ, or by an Apostle of 
 Christ, to what happened in their days ; and more- 
 over, is so applied, as to indicate, that the passage is 
 prophetic ; of such passage we must conclude on their 
 authority, that beside its plain and primary sense, it 
 has also a remote or secondary sense. The difficul- 
 ties, v/hich no human system can remove, are in such 
 eases removed by Divine Power ; the discoveries, 
 which human reason attempts in vain, are there un- 
 folded by divine intelligence ; and the same divine 
 authority, which conununicated the prophecy, inter- 
 poses to explain the prophecy. Though we ourselves 
 are unable to discover any other meaning in a Hebrew 
 prophecy, than that which the words themselves con- 
 vey b}^ their own proper import ; yet, when we have 
 such authority for the opinion, that beside the plain 
 or primary sense, which the words convey to us, they 
 
ro LECTURE XXII. 
 
 have also a remote or hidden sense, which the words 
 do not convey to us, it would be presumptuous to 
 question tlie existence of that sense, by opposing the 
 result of our own researches to the decisions of uner- 
 ring wisdom. 
 
 Notwithstanding the difficulties therefore, which 
 attend the notion of secondary senses in general, we 
 must allow, that there are some passages of the Old 
 Testament, which really have a secondary sense. 
 Bat, since in every instance, where a passage of the 
 Old Testament has a secondary sense, the existence 
 of that secondary sense depends entirely on the divine 
 authority, which has ascribed it to the passage, we 
 must wholly confine the application of a secondary 
 sense to those particular passages, to which a second- 
 ary sense has been ascribed by divine authority. 
 There is no supposed logical propriety, no supposed 
 moral fitness, which can either establish the existence, 
 or lead to the discovery, of such senses. It is author- 
 ity, and authority alone ; though we may fairly pre- 
 sume from the very exercise of such authority, that in 
 every instance where a secondary sense is applied by 
 such authority, there is a moral fitness for the appli- 
 cation. But then the application does not depend on 
 such moral fitness : it depends on the authority itself. 
 And since this authority is confined to individual cases, 
 the doctrine of secondary senses is reducible to no 
 system. As in the relation of types to antitypes we 
 cannot go beyond those particular examples, which 
 
LECTURE XXII. 71 
 
 are ratified by divine authority^ so in every instance 
 the same divine authority must be produced, before 
 we can recognise, in a prophecy of the Old Testament, 
 both a primary and a secondary sense. 
 
 Indeed, if we once transgress the limit prescribed 
 by this authority, it will be difficult to find any limit 
 to the introduction of secondary senses. For since 
 the secondary sense of a passage is a sense, which the 
 words do not cony ey of therns elves, it is manifest that, 
 as soon as we begin to trust in our oum interpretation, 
 we shall interpret without rule or guide. Though no 
 passage can have more than one grammatical mean, 
 ing, yet, as soon as we begin to indulge ourselves in 
 the invention of mystical meanings, it is impossible 
 to say, where we shall stop. We shall come at length 
 to that wantonness of interpretation, which is display- 
 ed by most of the Jewish Commentators, and by many 
 among the Christian Fathers. We have already seen, 
 that there is no analogy between the interpretation of 
 prophecy and the interpretation of allegory, unless 
 indeed it should so happen that an allegory was 
 meant to be prophetic, which however is not its usual 
 character. But such was the fondness for allegorical 
 interpretation, that instead of confining it to allegory 
 itself, both Jewish and Christian Commentators have 
 extended it to history and prophecy, where it is wholly 
 inapplicable. When allegorical interpretation is em- 
 ployed where it properly belongs, namely, in the 
 interpretatioa of a real alles;ory, there is always a 
 
7SL LECTURE XXIL 
 
 conneicion between the literal and the allegorical 
 sense. There is always a chief which leads us from 
 one sense to the other. But if we endeavour to find 
 an allegorical sense, either in history or in i)roj)hecy, 
 we endeavour to find a sense, with which the literal 
 sense is wholly unconnected^ The sense therefore 
 will be supplied by mere imagination : and not only 
 will different interpreters invent different senses, but 
 even the same interpreter may invent as many as he 
 pleases. Indeed there have been Jewish Commen- 
 tators, wlio have boasted, that they could discover 
 seventy Midrashin, or mystical meanings in one sen- 
 tence. Some limit therefore is absolutely necessary : 
 and enough has been already said to shew, that the 
 only limit, in which we can confide, is the limit as- 
 signed by the authority of Christ and his Apostles. 
 This appeal to authority, as the foundation of 
 secondary senses, is consistent also with the plan, 
 which is adopted in these Lectures. For it has been 
 already shewn, that there are prophecies, which fore- 
 tel the coming of Christ, according to their literal and 
 primary sense. By these propliecies, united with the 
 argument from miracles, we establish the divine au- 
 thority of Christ and his Apostles, independently of 
 secondary senses. When we appeal therefore to their 
 authority in proof of secondary senses, we are not 
 liable to the charge of arguing in a circle. Such a 
 charge applies only to those, who, while they under- 
 take to prove the truth of our religion from prophecy. 
 
LECTURE XXTT. 73 
 
 yet argQe only on the supposition of secondary senses. 
 For, as the existence of secondary senses depends on 
 the authority of Christ and his Apostles, we cannot 
 argue from those senses to the truth of our religion 
 without taking for granted the thing to be proved. 
 But, on the other hand, though we cannot apply them 
 to that particular purpose, there are other purposes, 
 to which they may be applied. For though they 
 prove nothing by themselves, yet when combined with 
 those prophecies, which relate to the Messiah in their 
 primary sense, they serve at least to illustrate that 
 unity of design, which connects the Jewish with the 
 Christian Dispensation. 
 
 If we further undertake to examine, ivJiat partic- 
 ular passages of the New Testament afford exam- 
 ples of prophecy applied in a secondary sense, we 
 shall find it to be a question, in which there ever has 
 been, and probably ever ivill be a diversity of opin- 
 ion. For not only are commentators at variance on 
 the question, what are literal prophecies of our Sav- 
 iour, and what are not, but even they who are agreed 
 on this previous question, are still at variance as to 
 the question, what appellation shall be given to those 
 passages, which are applied to the period of our Sav- 
 iour's ministry, and yet literally belong to another 
 period. That there are such passages we cannot 
 doubt : and we may allege, as an instance, that pas- 
 sage in the thirty-tirst Chapter of Jeremiah, which is 
 applied to the massacre of the children at Bethlehem. 
 
 10 
 
74 LECTURE XXII. 
 
 The words of Jeremiah are, " A voice was heard m 
 Ramah, lamentation, and bitter weeping : Rahel 
 weeping for her children, refused to be comforted for 
 her children, because they were not. Thus saith the 
 Lord, Refrain thy voice from weeping, and thine 
 eyes from tears : for thy work shall be rewarded 
 saith the Lord, and they shall come again from the 
 land of the enemy." This passage evidently relates 
 to the carrying away of the Jews into captivity, and 
 their future return. For it appears from the fortieth 
 Chapter of Jeremiah, that Ramah was the place, to 
 which Nebuzaradan, the captain of Nebuchadncz- 
 zar^s guard, first brought his captives from Jerusalem. 
 According to its literal meaning therefore it is obvi- 
 ously a prophecy of a totally different event from the 
 massacre of the children in Bethlehem by order of 
 Herod. Nor do we perceive how it can be a proph- 
 ecy of this event even in a secondary sense. For not 
 only were Ramah and Bethlehem two distinct places, 
 the one lying as far to the north as the other to the 
 south of Jerusalem, but the consolation, afforded to 
 Rahel, that her children should come again, was a 
 consolation, which could not be afforded to the moth- 
 ers of the murdered children in Bethlehem. A com- 
 parison therefore of the sorrow, expressed in the one 
 case, with the sorrow, which was felt in the other, 
 appears at least to constitute the sole ground of ap- 
 plication. Such applications of passages in the Old 
 Testament to events recorded in the New, various 
 
LECTURE XXI 1. 75 
 
 writers, for instance Bishop Kidder in liis Demon- 
 stration of the Messias, and Dr. Nicholls in his Con- 
 ference with a Theist, have called hy the name of 
 accommodation. But other writers have asserted 
 that even such passages are prophecies, at least in a 
 secondary sense, of the event, to whi<:h they are ap- 
 plied. The very passage, which we have been just 
 considering, is introduced with the words, "Then 
 was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the 
 prophet." Hence it has been inferred, that St. Mat- 
 thew, who quoted the passage, regarded it as a proph- 
 ecy at least in some sense, since the use of the term 
 '' fulilled '' implies a prediction of that event, in 
 which it was fulfilled. And if in the opinion of an 
 inspired Apostle any passage of the Old Testament 
 was a prediction of that event to which he himself 
 applied it, we must conclude, that such passage really 
 was a prediction of that event, though we ourselves 
 could not have discovered it. To diminish however 
 the diflRculties, wkich we should still feel on such oc- 
 casions, a distinction has been made by some Com- 
 mentators, especially by Professor Dathe in the Notes 
 to his Latin translation of the Hebrew Bible, between 
 quotations introduced with the formula, " Then was 
 fulfilled," and quotations introduced with the formu- 
 la, ^^This was done that it might be fulfilled." 
 Though quotations therefore of the latter kind are 
 quotations oi prophecies , relating either in a primary 
 or ill a secondary sense, to those very events, to 
 
76 LECTURE XXll. 
 
 which they are applied, quotations of the former 
 kind are supposed to have been intended for no- 
 thing more, than wliat is called an accommodation y 
 or an application of a passage to a corresponding 
 event. And this distinction has really a foundation 
 in the practice of the Jews themselves. For Suren- 
 husius in his third Thesis De formulis allegandi, has 
 quoted Rabbinical expressions corresponding to the 
 expressions of the New Testament, " Then was ful- 
 filled," and ^^ this was done that it might be fulfil- 
 led." And it appears, that the latter expression on- 
 ly was used with passages, which were quoted by 
 way of argument, or proof. But if the term acconi' 
 modation be applied, as it is by some writers, to pas- 
 sages of the Old Testament, which are quoted in the 
 New Testament with the strong expression, "this 
 was done that it might be fulfilled," the use of it in 
 such cases is neither warranted by the practice of the 
 Jewish writers, nor can be consonant with the design 
 of the sacred writers themselves. Passages so in- 
 troduced must be regarded as real prophecies, at least 
 in a secondary, if not in a primary sense. To use 
 therefore the term accommodation for the passages in 
 general^ which are taken from the Old Testament, 
 and applied to the events of the New, is to carry 
 the principle of accommodation to an extent, which it 
 will not bear. Nor can the terra " secondary sense " be 
 applied in that general manner : for there are certain- 
 ly prophecies in the Old Testament, which relate to 
 
LECTURE XXII. rr 
 
 the Messiah in a primary sense. Indeed, if all the 
 passages, which are quoted as prophecies in the New- 
 Testament, were mere accommodations, they would 
 cease to be prophecies altogether. They would not 
 be prophecies even in name. And though passages, 
 which are prophetic in a secondary sense, are still 
 prophecies, yet if all the prophecies relating to the 
 Messiah predicted the coming of Christ in a mere 
 mystical or secondary sense, we should not have that 
 sure word of prophecy, which both our Saviour and 
 his Apostles have taught us to expect. 
 
 Let us now recapitulate, and place in one point 
 of view, the preceding inquiries into the prophecies 
 relating to the Messiah. Many of these prophecies 
 relate to him according to their literal and primary 
 sense. From these prophecies, in conjunction with 
 miracles, we can argue to the divine authority of 
 Christ and his Apostles. Their authority being thus 
 estahlishedf we can appeal to that authority, as evi- 
 dence, that any passage of the Old Testament, liter- 
 ally relating to some event under the Jewish dispen- 
 sation, but quoted by them as a prophecy of some 
 event under the Christian dispensation, is a prophe- 
 cy of that event in a secondary sense. But as not 
 all the passages of the Old Testament which literally 
 relate to events under the Jewish dispensation, are 
 in their application to events under the Christian dis- 
 pensation applied in the same manner, we must en- 
 deavour to distinguish the cases, in which the Sacred 
 
7S LECTURE XXI I. 
 
 Writers themselves intended to give examples of 
 prophecy, from the cases, in which they meant only 
 to quote for the purpose of similitude or illustration. 
 In the former, we have examples of prophecy in a 
 secondary sense : in the latter alone, we have exam- 
 ples of accommodation. 
 
 END OF PART IV. 
 

/ / 
 
 n^( 
 
 6^ 
 
LiT--^^ '■^'^ 
 
 I ~ 
 
 (J^>^h{A 
 
 ■t 
 
 c ,