^¦¦Tf^J!*^'^'?V^^^7f1W^9S(f''^^V^

m^'mr»r^^'^'>%% <

'i>Mr'ti^f^>y}

I t'tt.U-4llvt/ttfuii>'ffUl^fi^4#iAf*thr'<-4T' •

':'^L^iuw<ii<>mli>nt'M«--"

i.iii'««isi*aii>'.ii!i(*i»»»"'"-

D

"I give tie/e Boalei
I for the /(mndiiig of- a. ColUgtybi iMM^oWn.^)^

"Yi^LH-WlMIIVIEIESIirY"

F>om the Library of
Dr. C. Ray Palmer
1915

i^i;ta!Br«j?te*M»^^Jg'»ife5a^^ii«ajig^a»siM.»i^#!^

<i

i<

Edinbxibgh, 38 George Street,
ApHl 1843.

)f

Mr. Clark begs leave respectfully to acquaint the Clergy ||
and Students of Divinity, that the undermentioned Works ^|)
l|l will speedily be published.
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
JUSTIN MARTYR — HIS LIFE, WRITINGS,
AND DOCTRINES.
By the Rev. CHARLES SEMISCH, of Trebnitz, in SUesia.
<¥<[ Translated from the German by J. E. Ryland, Esq.
lij 2. ELEMENTS OF CHURCH HISTORY.
% By the Ret. DAVID WELSH, D.D.,
II Professor of Ecclesiastical History in the University of Edinburgh. ¦•'
k{
III BIBLICAL CRITICISM AND EXPOSITtON.
3. HISTORICO-GEOGRAPHICAL ACCOUNT
OF PALESTINE in the TIME of CHRIST;
Or, The Bible Studenfs Help to a thorough Knowledge of Scripture.
By D. J. ROHR.
SEVENTH EDITION.
Translated from the German by the Rev. David Esdaile,
WITH NOTES AND CORRECTIONS.
4. COMMENTARIES on the GOSPEL of St. JOHN.
By Dr. C. C. TITTMAN,
Professor of Theology in the University of Wittenberg.
5. EXPOSITION OF THE PSALMS of DAVID, &c.
By Dr. E. W. HENGSTENBERG,
Professor of Theology in the University of Berlin,
Translated by the Rev. Patrick Fairbairn.

SACRED HERMENEUTICS.
Just Published, in one large volume, Octavo,
SACRED HERMENEUTICS DEVELOPED AND APPLIED;
including
A HISTORY OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION, FROM THE
EARLIEST OF THE FATHERS TO THE REFORMATION.
By the Rev. SAMUEL DAVIDSON, LL.D.,
Professor of Biblical Literature, Ecclesiastical History, and Oriental Languages,
in the Lancashire Independent College, Manchester, Author of
" Lectures on Biblical Criticism."

SACRED HERMENEUTICS
DEVELOPED AND APPLIED;
INCLUDING
A HISTORY OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION
FROM THE EABLIEST OF THE FATHERS
TO THE REFORMATION.

BY
SAMUEL DAVIDSON, LL.D.
AUTHOR OF LECTUBES ON BIBLICAL CRITICISM.

WflXXwf ya^ ^^offop^tif ecvccyivaffKOVTis ra, h7a. VtofAt^a- — OriGEN,

EDINBURGH:
THOMAS CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET.
LONDON: HAMILTON, ADAMS, & CO. — DUBLIN: CUKRY & CO.
M DCCC XLIIL

PRINTED AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS,
THISTLE STREET, EDlHEXTRCtH,

Ktv44

^>*^

PREFACE.

The following work is intended to complete the plan
which the writer proposed, when publishing his Lectures
on Biblical Criticism. Having prepared the way for the
interpretation of the sacred volume by describing the
principles on which the text is adjusted, it remained for
him to unfold the general rules that should guide the
BibHcal expositor in ascertaining and presenting the true
meaning. Such a system of Hermeneutics has accord
ingly been attempted. The fundamental principles, con
stituting the theory of interpretation, have been laid down
and exemplified. As it would have been comparatively
useless to state naked precepts apart firom the mode in
which they should be applied in exegesis, numerous ex
amples are given, which may lead the inquiring student
to a right apprehension of the extensive operation of a
few hermeneutical laws.
The volume is published under the impression that such
an one was needed. It is true, that there are various
books on Hermeneutics in the EngHsh language, but none
of them is constructed on the plan which the author re
gards as best adapted to the subject. They are unne
cessarily brief, encumbered with a multiplicity of rules,
deficient in examples, objectionable in arrangement, or
partially antiquated. A course has been pursued differ
ing in several respects from that of other writers — a course

IV PREFACE.

designed to be more obvious to the majority of Biblical
readers, and more practical in its genuine result.
It is not pretended that the volume exhibits a complete
system of Hermeneutics, in the view usually taken of the
subject. Many wiU look in vain for chapters on emphasis,
the figures of speech, the principles of prophetic interpre
tation. Sec, which have been purposely omitted. The
first does not appear rightly to belong to Hermeneutics, as
far as the author is able to see, though he cannot pause
to explain the reasons of his opinion. To describe gram
matical or rhetorical figures separately, is the business of
'grammar or rhetoric; — and it would have been inconsis
tent with the original plan to take up the third topic at
length and by itself, as if it were peculiar or unique. In
addition to these, the second leading part of the subject
has been omitted, viz. the best mode of giving an exact
deUneation of the original when understood, or of bringing
forward the meaning after it has been discovered. Here
the character of versions, paraphrases, commentaries, and
scholia should have been discussed, with the comparative
merits of these expedients for making the mind of the
Spirit intelKgible to others. To compensate for the
omission of this division, it has been incorporated with
the other. It appeared of little consequence to reserve
for it a distinct place ; while the volume increased to such
an extent as to compel abridgment. Perhaps also, some
may consider Schleiermacher's definition of Hermeneutics,
which excludes from the science the art of appropriately
explaining the meaning of an author (die Darlegung des
Verstandnisses), as more philosophical and correct than
the usual explication.
The nature and characteristics of Hebrew poetry have
been waived, chiefly for want of sufficient space, although

PREFACE.

it was at one time intended that parallelism should be no
ticed at large, and the late attempts of Koester and Ewald
to extend the principle to entire verses, brought under
review. In the mean time, it may be said of Ewald's
" AUgemeines iiber die Hebraische Poesie," published at
Gottingen in 1839, that it is a very ingenious and elabo
rate essay on the structure and strophes of Hebrew poetry,
thoroughly German in its nature, and metaphysically ob
scure. That it is a failure, it would not be difficult to
demonstrate, although it displays great acuteness and ori-
ginaUty of conception. «
The Bibliographical Appendix has been compiled with
considerable labour, and a studious desire of accuracy.
The author is satisfied that he has given as fair and im
partial a judgment respecting the works noticed, as his
acquaintance with them warranted. It is time, that stu
dents of the Bible should cease to be guided by the deci
sions of popular reviews and sectarian magazines. It is
time, that bibliographical notices should be made to serve
as useful guides to the inquirer, and not as laudatory com
mendations calculated to mislead. A faithful estimate of
such books as are mentioned has been attempted; how far
the attempt is successful, remains to be determined by the
opinion of competent scholars. On this as well as every
other subject, the writer has exercised independent thought,
uninfluenced by the praises or censures pronounced by
others, and often unknowing of their particular senti
ments respecting the volumes and dissertations inserted
in the chapter. In the absence of a fuU history of Bibli
cal interpretation from the Reformation to the present
time, the portion in question may serve to indicate the
progress of Hermeneutical investigation, with the various
phases through which it has passed.

VI PREFACE.
The book contains general, not special Hermeneutics,
With the former it is wholly occupied. This arose from
the leading idea that guided the author, viz. that the Bible
should be as far as possible its own interpreter. The
manifestation of such a plan is prominent throughout.
It has been kept steadily in view. Hence special Her
meneutics have been avoided — and hence, too, the Her
meneutics of the Old and New Testaments have been
combined, after the manner of the older writers. In special
Hermeneutics great room is afforded for the introduction
irf)f doctrinal sentiments previously held, and the influence
of theological creeds previously subscribed. They embody,
in general, the doctrinal system of a particular individual,
which is brought to bear upon the exposition of Scripture
in an order the reverse of right. Avoiding a procedure
so objectionable, the author of the present volume has
studied to simplify the principles of interpretation as
much as possible, so that all Christians, sincerely profess
ing to receive the Bible as the word of God, may be
disposed to acquiesce in them as certain and self-evident.
They have been in some degree axiomatised, which can
only be done with success by resting on the broad basis
of Scripture and common sense together.
The idea may occur to some, that two topics have been
treated with a copiousness disproportioned to the others
with which they are associated, viz. the quotations from
the Old Testament in the New, and the apparent con
tradictions of Scripture. The reason of this is, because
they demand more detail in order to be useful to the
student of the Bible. If it be found, that nothing essen
tial has been omitted in either, or that the discussion of
them is satisfactory and near to completeness, the writer's
design has been answered. Had space permitted, other

PREFACE. "^11
chapters should have been enlarged, and appropriate ex
amples increased. Possibly this may be done at a future
time, should a second edition be called for.
The author is sincerely sensible of many imperfections in
the work which he now ventures to send forth. But he has
endeavoured to do what he could, in the time and circum
stances connected with its composition. Had he possessed
greater advantages and leisure, it might have had a higher
claim to the approbation of learned and intelligent judges.
By the kind providence of God he has been enabled to
bring it, such as it is, to a termination; and it is his^
humble prayer, that it may tend to promote the intelli
gent study of the Holy Scriptures, to restrain error, and
to check the influence of unsound exposition. It is of
preeminent importance, that a healthy piety, founded on
a clear apprehension of divine truth, should be formed
and matured. Dangerous sentiments, professedly drawn
from the word of God, are widely afloat in the religious
world. Delusive views of essential doctrines are fearfully
prevalent. It becomes, therefore, the imperative duty of
each one who undertakes to expound the Bible, to have
certain fixed principles by which he may be guided amid
the rubbish of antiquated notions and the accumulation of
ingenious novelties thrown in his path. Let him seek for
truth and truth alone, undismayed by the opprobrium of
sect, the standard of party, the fear of heresy, the tyranny
of prejudice, or the current of opinion. The Bible must
be his only infallible text-book. To understand its para
mount disclosures, he should bring all the perspicacity
and learning he may possess, unswayed by the dogmas of
any creed, however wisely framed, or industriously lauded.
Let him strive to attain, under the influence of the Holy
Ghost, those broad, comprehensive views of revelation,

Vm PREFACE.

which sliaU at once settle and enlighten the mind, while
purifying the heart from selfishness and sin. If rules
have only a negative effect, they will not be worthless ; —
if their only tendency be to keep away from false opinions
claiming to be derived from the word of God, they will
not be propounded in vain: — but if they have a positive
as well as a negative character; — if they be adapted to
open up the true meaning, no less than to discountenance
erroneous exegesis, they will rise in importance in the
estimation of the believer, and demand to be faithfully
applied, with all Christian sobriety and holy solicitude.
In conclusion, the writer cordially adopts the language
of the illustrious Neander: — " The judgment of aU im
partial friends of truth, be it favourable or adverse, will
be always welcome to me. The judgment of those who
are the leaders or slaves of parties and schools, I despise.
Every kind of popery, whether it be a state-church, a
doctrinal, a pietist or a philosophical, an orthodox or a
heterodox popery, is to me an abomination. May the
Lord preserve to his church that freedom which he has
procured for her, and prevent his disciples from becoming
the slaves of any man, or of any human spirit !"
The Indices have been compiled by the Rev: James
Bewglass, to whom I beg to express my grateful acknow
ledgments.

Lancashire Independent College, Manchester,
March Slst 1843.

@Sr A table of Errata will be found at the end of the mlmne.

CONTENTS.

Chap. I. Hermeneutical Qualifications, — 1. Moral. 2. Intellectual. 3. Lit
erary, . ...... 1
II. Use of Reason in the Exposition of Sceipiube, . ¦ ^^^
III. Limitations of the Sentiment, that the language of the Bible should
be interpreted like that of other books. — Some peculiarities in Bibli
cal Interpretation, . . .... 47
IV. Allegorical Intebpbetation, . . . . .57
V. History op Biblical Intebpretaiion.  Patristic Period. —
Barnabas — Hermas — Clement of Rome — Ignatius — Polyearp —
Justin Martyr — Clement of Alexandria — Irenaeus — The Clemen
tine Recognitions — TertuUian — Origen — Cyprian — The Tradi
tion of the Alexandrian Church — The Tradition of the Latin Church
— Gregory Thaumaturgus — Hippolytus — Eusebius — Athanasius
— Ephraein the Syrian — Basil the Great — Gregory of Nazianzum
— Gregory of Nysaa — Diodorus — Chrysostom — Hilary — Am
brose — Jerome — Augustine — Tichonius — Theodoret — Cyril of
Alexandria — Isidore of Pelusium — Pelagius — Julian — Vincentius
Lirinensis — Andreas — Cassiodorus — Gregory the Great — General
estimate of the Fathers, ..... 70
VI. History of Biblical Interpretation in the Sierarchical Period,
or from the beginning of the Seventh Century to the Reforma
tion — Bede — Alcuin — Rhabanus Maurus — Walafrid Strabo —
Druthmar — Claudius — Oicumenius — Arethas — Notker — Theo-
phylact — Lanfranc — Nicetas — Peter Lombard — Euthymius Ziga-
benus — Rupertus — Thomas Aquinas — Hugo de St. Caro — Albert
— Bonaventura — Nicolaus de Lyra — Gerson — John Wessel —
John Huss — PauluB Burgensis — Laurentius Valla — James Faber
Stapulensis — Erasmus ^ Review of the Second Period, . 163
VII. Systems of Interpretation. — The Moral or Kantian — ThePsy-
chologico-Historical — The Accommodation System — The Mythic
— The Rationalistic — The Pietist, ... 193
VIII. The Principles op Intebpbetation Stated and Exemplified, 225
IX. The [Pbinoiples of Intebpbetation applied to Figurative
Lanqdaqe — Allegory — Parable — Fable — Enigma, . 285
X. Use of Histoeical Circumstances in Intebpbetation, . 32»

XU CONTENTS. Taga
Ch, XI. Quotations from the Old Testament in the New. — 1. The
source or sources whence quotations in the New Testament were
taken — A full table of all the citations, accompanied by the original
Hebrew, the Septuagint Version, and the authoi-ised English trans
lation, with critical Remarks on each. 2. The various modes in
which they are made — Their introductory formulas — Causes of the
diversity in Formulas — The degree of accuracy with which Quota
tions adhere to their originals. 3. The purposes for which citations
were made — The most important formulas considered — Supposed
instances of accommodation expounded — Quotations classified —
Complete list of passages in which the New Testament writers have
merely referred to the Old — The connexion of the subject with
verbal inspiration, ...... 334
, XII. Alleged Contradictions of Scripture. — Preliminary considera
tions — Discrepancies between the Old Testament Writers re
solved — Discrepancies between the New Testament Writers
explained — Discrepancies between the Old and New Testament
Writers resolved — The Genealogies of our Lord in Matthew
and Luke unfolded — Discrepancies between Sacred and Profane
Writers, ....... 616
XIII. Ancient Versions, Commentaries, and Lexicons as Sources
of Interpretation, comprehending 1. The Septuagint. 2. Vul
gate. 3. Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion. 4. Saadias. 6. The
Ai'abic immediate Versions of the New Testament in the London
Polyglott. 6. The Targums. 7. Peshito. 8. The Commentaries of
Jarchi, Abenesra, Kimchi, and Tanchum of Jerusalem"; with the
Lexicons of Abulwalid, Judah ben Karish, David Kimchi, and Pag-
ninus on the Old Testament. The Works of Scholiasts and early
Glossographers, with the Commentaries and Catenae of the Fathers
on the New Testament — Axiomatic Principles, . . C12
XIV. Cognate Languages as Sources of Interpretation. — 1. The
Arabic. 2. The Syriac. 3. The Chaldee, . . . 643
XV. Use op General Infoemation in the Intebpbetation of
SoRiPTUBB, comprehending, — 1. General History. 2. Chronol
ogy. 3. Archaeology. 4. Geography. 5. Natural History. 6. Geology.
7. Medicine, &c. Natural objects popularly described, . . 669
XVI. Bibliographical Account op Hermeneutical Writers from
the Reformation to the present Time, containing an analysis
of their Works, with a critical Estimate of their value. The
best works on General History, Chronology, Archseology, Geo
graphy, Natural History, Geology, and Medicine, specified and cha
racterised with reference to Chapter XV. . . , . ^77
Index of Topics and Names, .... . 727
Index of Greek and Hebrew terms, in which some remark or illustra
tion is offered,. . . .... 738
Texts of Scripture referred to, .... 740

SACRED HERMENEUTICS.

CHAPTER I.
HERMENEUTICAL QUALIFICATIONS.
The meaning of all language, written or spoken, is developed
by the application of general laws, usually termed Hermeneutics.
These principles, in their relation to Scripture, are styled Sacred
Hermeneutics ; and their application to particular instances has
received the name Exegesis. When the interpreter has obtained
a pure text by the results of criticism, he enters upon another
and a more important field. He has now a twofold duty to per
form : first,, to associate in his own mind with the terms employed
the exact ideas which the Spirit intended they should symljolise ;
and secondly, to excite the same ideas in others by means of
spoken or written signs. He has to apprehend the meaning of
Scripture, and to exhibit it, when apprehended, so as to be in
telligible. In this way he steps forth into a higher criticism than
that of textual settlement. Hitherto he has been employed in
clearing away impediments, and preparing the soil. Initiatory
processes being completed, the problem has been made ready for
solution. To it, therefore, as to a momentous demonstration, he
addresses himself with all diligence, feeling that in its successful
treatment high interests are concerned. But there are certain
qualifications which must not be forgotten. The Bible is a book
peculiar in its kind, and authoritative in its claims. The source
from which it comes is heavenly ; the message it announces, ele
vated and ennobling. It awes by its supernatural energy, or
attracts with a persuasive power. We find that it depicts our
condition with unerring truth, whilst the . unaffected simplicity
and majesty of its delineations commend themselves to the ac
ceptation of all. A book so wondrous should not be rashly ap-

I HERMENEUTICAL QU ALIFICATIOXS.
proached. Qualities of head and heart are needed by him who
undertakes to expound it, not merely as ornamental appendages
but inseparable concomitants of real advancement. These may
be divided into three kinds: — \st, Moral; 2d, Intellectual; 3(/,
Literary. 1*^, A singleness of desire to know the mind of God, accom
panied by a sincere and steady determination to obey it.
This state of mind is of primary importance in every investi
gation of the Holy Scriptures. When we view their affirmations
as directly addressed from heaven to beings immortal and ac
countable, we put ourselves so far in a right attitude for ascer
taining their true meaning. If we be disposed to look for divine
light, or to reckon our own wisdom unable to conduct us to a
saving acquaintance with the truth, we shall go with cheerful
docility to that sacred book which contains the record of eternal
love. According to its impressive statements, we are morally
impotent — alienated in affection from Jehovah — indisposed to
his faith and favour. Our desires, going out habitually towards
forbidden objects, are not directed to Him. This is the charac
ter which all bring along with them, in the first instance, to the
infallible source of true knowledge ; and unless it be corrected,
selfish or sinister motives will assuredly prevail. A thousand rea
sons for the perusal of this volume, rather than one which com
mends itself to the approbation of Jehovah, soon present them
selves. Mere curiosity impels many to read its pages with great
interest. Imbued, it may be, with a taste for history, chrono
logy, geography, or some other department of knowledge, they
are anxious to ascertain the sentiments of the various writers on
these topics ; heedless the meanwhile of Him who inspired them,
or of the great salvation to which minor details are subordinate.
A book so ancient, coming, as it does, with an authoritative de
mand upon the faith, excites an eagerness to know how these
topics are treated. Some even dare to read in order to find with
in itself a ground for rejecting its holy claims, and casting off the
restraints of its severe morality. We might thus enumerate very
various, but oft commingling reasons, by which men are induced
to peruse the Scriptures. But there is one motive that ought
ever to actuate the believer in approaching them, viz. a simple
desire to know the will of their omniscient Author. This is the
predominant and pervading feeling of the true Christian, as he

HERMENEUTICAL QUALIPICATIONS. 3
takes up the volume on whose reception his destiny depends-
When I thus reverentially draw nigh to Jehovah through his
word, I put myself in the posture of submission, and prepare my
powers for a believing apprehension of the momentous truths he
has been pleased to communicate. But should any other feeling
acquire the ascendancy within me ; should I entertain the idea
that some things are incredible ; or that the tone of the commands
is far too strict for the infirmities of humanity, I begin to set
myself against the Creator, and claim a higher wisdom than be
longs to man. My pride rises up to counteract the better prin
ciples of my nature, and transfers me to a less favourable position
for surveying the wide field of revelation. It is this which pre
sents an insuperable barrier to a cordial and complacent reception
of the word — the latent pride of understanding suddenly starting
into activity, when an authoritative demand for total subjection
is made upon it by the Almighty. In hours of sober seriousness,
when we would come to the word as little children with the ut
most simplicity, we hear the knockings of a sinful pride ready to
suggest unrighteous thoughts.
That we should entertain an honest desire to learn the revealed
will of God, is not only useful, but indispensably necessary to the
attainment of the end proposed. We shall never discover its full
meaning, till we come with hearts longing to know the mind of
our heavenly Parent. Here he speaks to us, commanding and
beseeching us to give ear to his words ; and unless we attend to
the gracious message with an eagerness proportionate to its value,
we cannot expect to know its worth, or enjoy its comfort. We
must submit to the teaching of God, ere we be prepared to com
prehend the real import of his communications. No human
science compensates for this single-hearted desire ; no extent of
acquirements furnishes an equivalent. It cannot be purchased
for gold, or bought with silver. Nor does it spring up sponta
neously in the soil of unrenewed nature. Rather is it a plant of
heavenly origin, pointing to God its great author, and bearing
fruit to the glory of his name. We are thus conducted to the
source of that desire which forms a qualification indispensable to
the true expositor. The influences of the Holy Spirit produce it.
Without Him, it cannot exist or abide in the heart. The training
of the schools suffices not to call it into existence ; nor can a re
ligious education furnish it. The operation of the Holy Ghost
alone can create and preserve it in living activity, amid opposing

iieEjMeneutical qualifications.

passions. Vain is the expectation to arrive at truth without His
gracious guidance, or to be fed with the rich viands of heaven
from the table of our own poverty. I am quite persuaded, that
we shall never be penetrated with an abiding sense of the wisdom
of thus putting ourselves directly under the tuition of God, until
we receive his Spirit in answer to prayer. Do we supplicate at
the footstool of mercy ? the mind is enlightened, and the honest
determination formed. Do we cease to pray ? the soul is covered
with the sable curtain of unbelief; it loses the attributes of ho
nesty and humility ; the motives are complex and corrupt.
Where then is the student of Scripture, who habitually searches
the sacred volume with a sincere and steady desire to know the
will of the Most High ? Such an one is truly illuminated. To
him, the paltry motives of petty theologians are unknown. He
searches, not to defend a favourite system, or to woo the perishing
praise of men by ingenious opinions, but to discover the solemn
and sublime truths unfolded by God for the salvation of men.
His heart is touched with the torch of heaven; and it requires no
prophetic vision to foresee, that he will succeed in his researches.
He will be infallibly guided into the way of truth, righteousness,
and peace. The word of God will become plainer as he reads,
obscurities gradually vanishing from its surface before the strength
of heavenly principle. The great mountain will become a plain.
Things inexplicable to the tortuous mind will develop themselves
to the eye of enlightened faith and earnest expectation. Humble
submission to the teaching of Heaven will usher the dominion
and dignity of truth into the soul. Such are the results of the
attitude of mind to which I would seek to call attention. Those
who wish to be good interpreters must obtain it. The Holy
Spirit is willing to bestow it, in answer to prayer ; and present
duty urges to ask its bestowment. Perhaps some cherish the
secret wish, that the result of their inquiries may tend to the
upholding of a system, or the honour of a creed ; and are even
uneasy lest fundamental investigations shake the theological struc
ture they have been wont to admire. But such possess not the
moral frame recommended by sanctified reason. They long like
Israel after the flesh-pots of Egypt. We want every student to
banish these unwortliy conceptions, and to become the sincere
follower of Jesus. Come and learn of me, is His invitation to
all — thus shall ye find rest to your souls. Approach with reve
rential awe and prayerful spirit. Expect that your doubts will

• hermeneutical qualifications. 5
dissolve in the clear light of His countenance ; — that the promise
of rest will be fulfilled in deliverance from perplexity. Were this
moral preparation contemplated in its preeminent desirableness,
and humbly sought by every professed interpreter, the creeds of
churches would exhibit fewer diversities.
But some are desirous to know the will of God, and averse to
obey it. They approve of it in theory, but not in practice. They
survey it as a beautiful portrait which cannot exert a permanent
influence on the conduct, or infuse into the bosom a vigorous
current. Now the interpreter must be persuaded in his own
mind to follow the will of Jehovah, as far as he discovers it in
the Scriptures. Knowledge without piety is not sufficient. Let
there be a combination of both. To stop short with the former,
is to disobey the commandment of God, and to exclude the soul
from the element of its own safety. " If any man will do His
will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God."*
Consistent walking with God has a mighty influence on the re
ligious faith. How many set out with atheism in their lives, and
become infidel in their opinions, deriving fuel from practical un
godliness to feed the unholy flame that burns up every sound
principle ! It is no uncommon thing to witness extensive know
ledge without corresponding practice, as though we were designed
to be creatures of dry intellect — beings devoid of practical energy
or devoted holiness. But the Bible brings us into contact with
holy men, who spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost*
To understand their language, we must be holy ourselves ; else
we may be ready to exclaim, Ye bring strange things to our ears,
— a new doctrine, which we cannot understand. What commu
nion of soul can the selfish sinner have with the sacred writers ?
To understand the poet's creations, we must be imbued with a
poetic taste, and enter into the very conceptions of the man of
genius whose productions we admire. So is it with other studies.
To comprehend or relish the profound speculations of the mental
philosopher, we must imbibe a kindred spirit of investigation, and
go with ardour to the examination of his works. And thus too
with the sacred interpreter. He comes into the society of holy
men and high themes. He ascends into a region of hallowed
purity, where eternal truth reigns. How then can such com
panionship be suited to the apprehension of him who cherishes
no sincere determination to follow the leadings of perfect good-
• John vii. 17.

b hermeneutical qualifications.
ness ? He cannot hope to be initiated into the full sense of the
Scriptures, if his heart be not open to receive the lessons of su
preme wisdom; and if the spirit of obedience be absent. A current
of holy feeling pervades the Bible ; and holy in the bosom must
be the current of feeling which commingles with it. Between
the genius of the Bible and the ungodly man there is no cement
ing element. He is amazed at the strangeness and frequent re-
pulsiveness of the precepts he meets with. He perceives not their
meaning, because he does not heartily love it. Just as in nature
two bodies repel each other ; so does the mental element of un
godliness shrink back from the spiritual revelations of heaven,
refusing to sympathise with their quickening power. But the
determination of the godly to act according to the ascertained
meaning of the divine will, is with them a habitual purpose. As
they believe, so do they live and move. Their consistent, con
scientious desire is, to submit in all things to the dictates of di
vine revelation.
This is the great secret of the success of many interpreters
who are not furnished with much learning, viz. a steady deter
mination to receive doctrines as principles intimately connected
with their well-being. On the contrary, it is not difficult to ac
count for the failure of some, who heap together stores of erudi
tion, whilst they are neglectful of the necessity of entire confor
mity to the standard of righteousness. They who never possessed
a treasure cannot estimate its value aright. Men without spiritual
relish for the things that are written, cannot open up to others
beauties unperceived by themselves.
The mind tinges language with its own colours. If, therefore,
it be corrupted by vicious habits,- or pernicious dogmas, the purity
of revelation is tarnished. When systems of philosophy are the
standard by which it measures the word of God ; or when reason
alone decides in matters of faith, it is easy to perceive that the
consequences will be detrimental to the meaning of Scripture.
A distorted mind imparts ambiguity to diction where no obscurity
exists ; or disputes about the signification of words which an in
genuous mind sees in the light of its own simplicity. All hunt
ing after ingenious novelties or recondite meanings, discovers a
spirit corrupted by the artificial employments of life, by the me
taphysical subtleties of scholastic theology, or by a fancied supe
riority seeking to display its own acumen. It has often been a
subject of surprise, that conflicting opinions should be founded

hermeneutical qualifications. 7
on the same words, and derived from the same passage. Men
not deficient in judgment or slow in perception take opposite
views of paragraphs not obscure in themselves. But were the
moral qualification to which we have adverted sufficiently insisted
on, the wonder should soon abate. When reflecting indeed on
the promise, " and they shall be all taught of God," we may-
well marvel that Christians disagree so widely in their exposi
tions of Scripture, and consequently in their notions respecting
faith and duty. But such diversities arise because the promise is
not realised. We are shut up to the conviction that prayer is
mightily overlooked ; else the great Teacher of the church would
produce greater similarity in the sentiments of brethren. We re
fer not to such persons as are virtually under the power of Satan,
and whose eyes the god of this world has blinded ; but to the
true professors of Christianity translated into the kingdom of
light. Perhaps even they depend too much on their own fancies,
in proportion to their want of earnest importunity in supplicating
the Spirit's guidance. Holy humility is an effectual preparation
for learning many a lesson as to the meaning of the word, which
all the aids of human learning, and all the commentaries of men
could not avail to impart. Every right-hearted student will pro
bably admit, that many painfiil researches might have sooner and
successfully terminated, had he relied with simpler faith on God
himself, and banished the selfishness which stood in the way of
his true seeking. Were the old man more crucified, the pro
mise " and they shall be all taught of God" would have greater
effect. Such is the moral furniture which it behoves the interpreter to
bring to the Bible. It includes belief in a divine revelation, hu
mility, candour, simplicity, teachableness, and purity, with ha
bitual prayer to the Spirit, from whom proceed all holy desires.
These attributes and acts are implied in " a singleness of desire to
know the mind of God, with a sincere and steady determination
to obey it ;" and whoever agrees to the description is so far well
equipped for exegetical labour. It is of much importance that
the heart should be cultivated equally with the understanding ;
that it should be taught to feel aright, and to enter into the full
experience of the operations which sacred writ describes as taking
place in the world of thought within. " Keep thy heart with all
diligence, for out of it are the issues of life."
We are disposed to attribute the miserable character of the

» hermeneutical QUALIFICATI0N3.
German interpretation to the neglect of divine teaching, and an
undue confidence in human wisdom. Too seldom dreaming of
spiritual illumination, or looking up to God for his gracious as
sistance, they set about the task of sacred exegesis as they would
undertake to ascertain the meaning of a heathen author. With
their apparatus of grammars and lexicons, they come to the Bible
as to Homer or Herodotus ; believing that they have nothing to
do except to use the same appliances. But thus an essential ele
ment in the interpreter's success is overlooked. They are loaded
with a cumbrous burden that cannot, with all its value, lead to
satisfactory results apart from a higher treasure. Accordingly,
we see admirable investigations of single words and phrases pro
duced by a kind of mechanical process from the grammar and
lexicon, or from the ulterior sources to which these works them
selves are indebted ; but the soul and spirit of the sacred writings
is unapprehended. A habit of analytical investigation — a love
of novelty or of ingenuity, gives birth to speculations highly re
fined ; whilst there is no comprehensive survey of the pages of
revelation on which the mind of the believer can dwell with de
light. What avails it, that the interpreter is so richly furnished
with the results of learning as to enumerate the varying opi
nions of writers, and point out their defects, if he be unable to
infuse life into the one meaning intended by the Holy Spirit ?
The mind of the German delights to feed as it were on husks,
neglecting the nutritious and abundant aliment of the Father of
spirits. It loves to trace out analogies, but rests not on the
Source who alone can impart a sanctified perception of the con
nexion and symmetry of revelation. He devotes his labours to
the petty peculiarities that afford no solid nutriment to the hungry
soul of the sinner. We fear that he prays not heartily for that
divine teaching which may enable him to apply his varied learn
ing with success, by seizing upon the force of living truth. His
heart has not been warmed to feel the fervour of divine love, or
his pride humbled to seat him low at the Redeemer's feet. Else
why do not expressions of gratitude and praise to the great Author
of revelation occasionally burst forth with utterances of profound
humility in view of the deep things of God ? What invaluable
furniture is given to the interpreter, when he receives a spirit of
submission to the authoritative teaching of Jehovah ! Speak of
external helps to him who believes in the omnipotence of intel
lect ; or of inward resources to him whose mind is stored with

HERMENEUTICAL QUALIFICATIONS. V
accumulated learning ; but neglect not to tell him of the necessity
of the wisdom that cometh from above ; and let him be abased
before the Lord his Maker. Thus will you prove a greater be
nefactor, than by urging the study of all the commentaries that
have been elaborated in the spirit of- literary ardour or of curious
research. Bring to the foot of the eternal throne the man of
lofty intellect and learned demeanour ; there let the prayer of
humble confession, with fervent entreaty for the Spirit's influences,
ascend as the rising incense to Heaven ; and the suppliant will
receive a spiritual impulse far more to be desired than a liberal
apparatus of grammars and lexicons, or the critical knowledge
of the ancient languages employed in communicating a divine
revelation. 2d, Intellectual qualifications  To these belong a good judg
ment, fitted to examine and compare whatever comes under its
notice ; or a power of analysis by which the mind separates and
clearly apprehends things that are easily confounded. Such a
faculty distinguishes the false from the true — the unwarranted
assumptions of men froH(i the uncorrupted truth of God. In
comparing one passage with another, it readily perceives the
aegree of similarity existing between theiri, and the light mu
tually reflected. In considering an extended portion, it discerns
the adaptation of the instructions to the circumstances of those
to whom they were addressed ; and their appropriate position
in connexion with the neighbouring paragraphs. In choosing
among the different significations of a word, it affixes the right
meaning in a particular place. In short, in proportion as the
judgment is stronger and more discriminating, the more vigorous
will be the grasp with which the mind seizes the exact idea of
the original writer. And when the expositor has himself appre
hended the true meaning, he will convey it in palpable form to
the perception of others. But if he think confiisedly, and do not
discriminate between things having a natural affinity ; should he
have but a faint idea of the power of an argument ; he loses the
elements of true exposition, and leaves a defective or erroneous
impression on the minds he undertakes to instruct. Thus a good
judgment exercised to discern true and false, erroneous and sound,
is necessary to a good interpreter. Strong vigorous sense will
prevent the expositor from falling into many blunders which even
the learned may readily commit ; and save the church from p,

10 HERMENEUTICAL QUALIFICA TIONN.
world of theories which the weakness of men is wont to entertain.
Who does not know, that thousands attempting to be wise, and
incautiously handling Scripture, whilst destitute of penetration
sufficient to check their erratic tendencies, expose themselves to
the ridicule of all sober-minded men ? A sound judgment will
not hazardously explore what lies beyond its reach, or meddle
with things too high for its comprehension.
An unlicensed imagination has produced disastrous effects in
the interpretation of Scripture. All have heard of the allego
rising system of Origen and many of the fathers, whereby the
true meaning of the Spirit was obscured or perverted. Mystics
too in all ages have endeavoured invito, Minerva to procure the
sanction of the Bible for strange and fanciful notions. Ingenuity
has been busy in fabricating new theories, and in persuading itself
that they are in entire accordance with the mind of the Spirit.
Hence the hidden senses, the spiritualising processes of Cocceius
and his followers ; the metaphorical dreams of Gill and Keach ;
the philosophical reveries of Hutchinson. But from such extra
vagancies the judicious interpreter is wont to keep away. He has
little inclination to wander into the dim regions of speculation,
or to lose himself amid the shadowy phantoms of an unsubstan
tial reality. It is his aim to keep within the limits of what is
known and useful, leaving others to tread the dubious paths of
adventure. He regards Scripture as a mine to be explored, not
as a meadow to be heedlessly traversed. Endowed with a quick
and clear perception, he apprehends the doctrines of Scripture as
they are propounded for his reception, acknowledging them to be
the lessons of heaven. Instead of confounding things that differ,
or pursuing curious novelties, he abides by established exposi
tions till they be proved erroneous. The more mature the judg
ment, the more easily will it acquiesce in those conclusions which
it finds to be accordant with the analogy of Scripture, however
reluctantly they be welcomed by the worldly affections of the
heart. Confiding in its own strength, it will not lean on others'
opinions without previous examination. Every thing will be
brought to the test. Such, at least, are the native tendencies of
that attitude of mind which we conceive to be of great import
ance in the business of interpretation. He who carries about
with him an apparatus thoroughly capable of weighing conflict
ing evidence, and of impartially estimating its value, corresponds
to our description.

HERMENEUTICAL QUALIFICATIONS.

11

In investigating the meaning of Scripture, questions occur that
tax the intellectual powers to their utmost. Complicated discus
sions call forth all the internal resources. Points of subtle dis
putation present themselves to view, requiring to be settled by
the dictates of a sober mind. Hence the thorough theologian
who is resolved to know the system of revealed truth with its
numerous ramifications, needs metaphysical acumen no less than
intellectual expansion. Unless he be competent to detect the
fallacies and false glosses of the erroneous interpreter, he will
soon be entangled in inextricable difficulties. Here may the
loftiest genius find fitting scope for its strong and steady exer
cises, as it traverses the field of theology stretching even to the
throne of the Supreme.
It has ordinarily happened, that the men of greatest imagina
tion have proved the most superficial and unsatisfactory exposi
tors, being borne away by the fervour of their emotions on wings
of beautiful but fragile texture. Witness Jeremy Taylor, whose
fancy, wandering amid the glorious magnificence of heaven, and
selecting the finest images which it shed forth in luxurious exu
berance, was scarce restrained within the boundless universe. We
know that he had defective views of the leading doctrines which
constitute the foundation of evangelical truth. Witness, too, the
immortal Milton, whose undying poetry has raised him to the
summit of fame among the sons of genius. His treatise on Chris
tian doctrine shows that he speculated in the domain of revelation
more adventurously than man may wisely attempt. The com
bination of a splendid imagination with strong intellectuality is
rare. A sound judgment or acute ratiocinative faculty seldom
coexists with a fine fancy. And even when they are almost equally
balanced in the same individual, the one is apt to overpower the
other. The man of vigorous judgment will naturally chasten and
subdue his imagination when it tempts him beyond the boundaries
of safe excursion. On the other hand, a weak judgment joined
with a florid imagination is unable to resist the allurement. Des
titute of equal power, it will soon be overcome. Fascinated by
the spell of the higher faculty, its voice will cease to be heard
amid the pomp and music of beautiful creations. It is unques
tionably of greater importance to the expositor of Scripture that
he cultivate and strengthen the judgment.
The present are times when the foundations of ancient usages
and traditions are subjected to the severe scrutiny of enlightened

12 HERMENEUTICAL QUALIFICATIONS.
investigation ; when the literature of the Bible is steadily advanc
ing, casting down before it whatsoever loveth or maketh a lie. If,
therefore, we be not possessed of sufficient penetration to discover
the mind of the Spirit in the written word; — if we be destitute
of sound sense and exegetical tact, we shall probably expose our
selves to the scorn of infidelity by falling into errors reproachful
to Christianity. The enemies of religion are not slow to observe
the extravagancies of its adherents, and to convert them into
evidences of its human origin. However unjust or illogical it be
to draw such a conclusion, we know it has been often advanced.
The deductions of sober reason, or the interpretations in which
evangelical and able divines generally agree, are thus disregarded ;
whilst opinions claiming to be founded on the word, are eagerly
seized for unholy purposes of hostility to truth. Whatever, there
fore, has a tendency to preserve the Bible from the false impu
tations of the sceptical, should be carefully watched and tended.
And although it be impossible to remove all cause of stumbling
even by the soundest exposition ; yet by the exercise of a good
judgment, we shall afford less scope for evil insinuations.
From these remarks it is apparent, that the habitude of mind
of which we have been speaking is not an acquired talent. Eru
dition cannot impart or create it. It is a natural endowment re
ceived from the Creator. Such an intellectual sagacity, mightily
contributing, as it does, to the skill of an interpreter, and with
out which the amplest acquirements will frequently mistake the
meaning of the sacred writers, must be referred to a superhuman
source. It is the offspring of nature rather than the child of art.
An acquaintance with languages, and the opinions of the best
commentators, will be but a poor substitute for it. Doubtless it
may be improved and strengthened by practice, just as all the
mental powers are invigorated ; but it cannot be evoked from
nonentity by any process.
Yet although the want of this sagacity cannot be compensated
by erudition, however extensive or profound, the fact that it is
capable of being sharpened by exercise, should prove a great in
centive to diligence and ardour of investigation. Even he who
possesses it in small measure ought not to despond, as though he
were incapable of arriving at the right meaning of the Scriptures,
but should cultivate his one talent to the utmost, and make up
for innate capacity by intensity of persevering application. It
may also show the wisdom of the usual practice adopted in col-

HERMENEUTICAL QUALIFICATIONS. 13
leges, to train the mind by a long course of studies before enter
ing upon the sublimer investigations which theology presents.
Here is needed a well-disciplined mind, such as philosophical
studies have invigorated, and science served to mature. Intel
lectual acumen no less than strength is demanded ; and the stu
dent who has passed through a course of preparatory studies, may
be expected to bring along with him into the field of theology a
degree of sagacity which soon developes itself as exegetical tact.
But a good expositor should farther possess a power of exciting
in others the ideas which he discovers to have been in the mind
of the sacred writers. To be a skilful interpreter, it is not ne
cessary to possess merely a good judgment, but also to be able
to set before the reader or hearer the true meaning of Scripture
in a perspicuous form. The two faculties are distinct, though
often united in the same person. It is one thing to seize upon
the very ideas attached to the words employed by the original
writer ; and another, to guide the persons to whom an exposition
is addressed to a distinct and clear apprehension of the same ideas.
The latter depends in no small measure on the use of suitable
terms. Language is the vehicle of thought ; and he who is most
skilful in the selection of appropriate words, will best communi
cate to others such conceptions as he wishes. We do not com
mend a superfluity of outward signs, which tends to confuse rather
than enlighten. Whilst a certain number of words, whether writ
ten or spoken, is absolutely necessary to give forth the meaning,
we do not advocate, verbosity. It is of more importance to em
ploy select and suitable terms than a paraphrastic method, which
takes but a feeble grasp of the sense. Still, however, regard must
be had to the circumstances of the persons addressed. A certain
degree of fulness, and even of repetition may be allowed, in pre
ference to obscurity arising from condensation. Here the rule is
best, " Medio tutissimus ibis."
The great object, then, in the interpretation of the sacred
writings is, first, to ascertain the sense which the Holy Spirit
intended, and the writers themselves attached to their own lan
guage; and next, to exhibit it clearly to others. But if we
bring our preconceived opinions to bear upon Scripture, and sub
stitute them in place of the thoughts which the Spirit willed to
embody, we injure its character and misapprehend its import.
Whatever ideas we attach to the language, must be the very
ideas which the language was intended to convey. As soon as

14 HERMENEUTICAL QUALIFICATIONS.
we connect with the words, the identical thoughts which the wri
ters meant them to signify, we fully comprehend their meaning ;
and whenever we perspicuously exhibit these thoughts, we inter
pret their writings. This is truly to understand and to expound.
All other modes of proceeding must be defective. No theory of
our own can be safely joined with the diction of the sacred wri
ters. No philosophical or theological system can be engrafted
on it, before examining in the first instance, whether it be really
set forth by the writers. We must lay aside all notions of what
they should have written, until we discover what they did mean.
All our theological opinions must be deduced from, not intro
duced into, Scripture. The question to which regard must al
ways be had is. What ideas did the Holy Spirit intend to convey
by such and such words ? This is the object of all investigation,
embracing a singleness of aim, far removed from the ends which
the Bible is so often compelled to subserve. The science of in
terpretation will never advance, if it be not prosecuted with a
simple desire to ascertain the very meaning which the words
were designed to express. When selfish and secular ends shall
be absorbed in the honest endeavour to know the precise ideas
connected with the words by the sacred writers themselves, we
may expect Hermeneutics to take a commanding place among
the sciences ; itself a regular science, where the wanderings of
imagination find no fitting scope. How often has wanton spe
culation defaced the beauty of Scripture ! How often has false
philosophy interwoven it with mazy threads ! Prejudice and in
tellectual pride, heedless of truth, but intent upon the promotion
of their own purposes, have substituted their creations for the
sense of the original text. While such conduct continues, it is
vain to augur instantaneous success for simple, scriptural exe
gesis. Established maxims must first fall before the ark of truth;
and the influence of names be divested of its perniciousness. The
spirit of fearless, but faithful investigation must first go abroad,
dispelling the phantoms conjured up by cunning men, and walk
ing forth in moral grandeur unappalled by the disastrous forms
it meets. The Bible must be exalted to that rightful supremacy
from which it is frequently dethroned by its professed friends.
It must be followed as the only standard of eternal truth, in pre
ference, and in opposition to human articles of belief. To the
omnipotence of its claims, all self-sustained, independent systems
must yield ; and take as their basis the principles of immutable

HERMENEUTICAL QUALIFICATIONS. 15
truth. When their foundation shall have been laid in the ever
lasting rock, in place of the shifting sands, the winds of public
opinion may expend their unavailing force upon the indestruc
tible battlements of divine faith.
Thirdly, Literary Qualifications, — \st, A knowledge of va
rious subjects and sciences is demanded: — (a) History civil and
sacred ; (6) Geography ; (c) Chronology ; (d) Antiquities ; (e)
mental Philosophy; (f) Rhetoric; (g) the Natural Sciences, as
Astronomy, Geology, Meteorology, &c. &c. The professional in
terpreter is supposed to enter upon his task, after passing through
a course of extended training. Furnished with an adequate
knowledge of the branches usually taught in a University, he
comes to the science of Theology with a disciplined mind. Ha
bituated to investigations of various kinds, which are not only
fitted to expand the powers, but to impart real utility in his in
quiries, he comes to the business of actual exegesis with a stock
of knowledge for which he finds abundant scope. This appa
ratus serves two purposes. It braces the mental faculties, giving
them a tone of firmness and independence ; and it is also an in
strument by which the meaning of Scripture is better evolved,
and more vividly presented to others. Such information, there
fore, is not to be regarded as cumbrous lumber piled up in the
mind, and incapable of application to exegetical purposes ; but
as truly adapted to sacred uses, influencing, directing, pervading,
and consolidating all states of mind, especially such as are most
concerned with the science of interpretation. It has been pro
perly arranged, that in the course of education marked out for
candidates for the ministry, the attention should be previously
directed to other studies, all of them interesting to the student,
calculated to open up the workmanship of Jehovah, to illustrate
his perfections, and to excite a reverential regard to his name.
It is well to range over the field of literature, and to take a ge
neral survey of its varied products, before coming into close con
tact with the field of the written word. It is well to know the
operations of the human mind — its moods and complex feelings
— most of which are graphically described in the sacred scrip
tures. The science of mind sheds a light upon the delineations
of inspiration ; whilst the latter illustrate and verify the teachings
of the true metaphysician.
2d. Among the literary qualifications of an interpreter may

16

HERMENEUTICAL QUALIFICATIONS.

be mentioned in the next place, an adequate acquaintance with
the original languages of the Old and New Testaments. This
is a requirement without which no true progress can be made.
We do not mean simply a superficial knowledge of them, with
which the majority of commentators are satisfied; but a fun
damental acquaintance with their nature and genius, including
a perception of the changes they underwent, and the idiomatic
peculiarities of their phraseology. Languages are proverbially
mutable. Exposed to incessant fluctuations, they present a dif
ferent aspect in successive periods of their history. The varying
relations of the people by whom they are spoken, produce many
modifications of structure and terminology.
Ut sylvse foliis pronos mutantur in annos :
Prima cadunt, ita verborum vetus interit Betas,
Et juvenum ritu florent modo nata, vigentque. — Horace.
Hence it becomes necessary for the interpreter to attend to the
changing aspect of the Hebrew language, and to mark the dis
tinctive peculiarities of each period. The phases of diction which
distinguish one author from another, and even the peculiar genius
of contemporary writers should be carefully noted ; since the early
life, the education, the habits, influence their modes of thought,
and consequently their diction. Thus it is befitting both to compare
the characteristics of the Hebrew tongue as they appear in the
writings of Moses, with such as it exhibited in the time of David
and Solomon ; and also to observe the styles of contemporary
writers as Isaiah and Micah. We readily admit, that it requires
no slight acquaintance with a language minutely to separate
its words and phrases. It is not the tyro who is fitted to under
stand, much less to perceive of himself, the delicate shadings
which serve to individualise the styles of Hebrew writers. Years
of patient study and laborious research must precede and produce
the ability for such a task. It demands long practice, and con
siderable sagacity. It is rather the province of the great masters
of Hebrew literature than of the inferior men that never rise above
mediocrity. Hitherto, the privilege has chiefly pertained to the
German school of philologists, not to the feebler race who are
contented to follow the footsteps of their advanced brethren. It
is impossible to bestow the praise of an extended and radical ac
quaintance with the language upon one who has not so studied
it. He may possess a general knowledge of it ; but to an eminent
advancement he can lay no claim.

HERMENEUTICAL QUALIFICATIONS. 17
The Greek writings of the New Testament differ from the
Hebrew in this,, that having been composed within the interval
of a few years, they cannot be assigned to different ages. They
all belong to one and the same period. But the phraseology
of one New Testament writer differs notwithstanding from that
of another. The language of Matthew can be distinguished
from that of Luke ; and Paul's from that of John. Though
the Hebrew-Greek be common to all, each has his own mode
of expression. This is what Origen and Eusebius point to,
when they speak of a ;^agaxT-))g r^g Xi^iug or (p^doiug belonging
to single New Testament writings ; though they mistake it in
regard to the Epistle to the Hebrews. We would therefore
urge upon the professed interpreter the necessity of acquaint
ance with the diction of the Bible, not merely in its general
but special characteristics. Thus will he be prepared to enter
with advantage upon his arduous work, and to reap at every
step the benefit of his acquirements. To show the importance
of such knowledge, it may suffice to refer to the fact, that the
character of the language has been employed to undermine the
authenticity of entire books. Thus the nature of the Penta-
teuchal diction has been supposed by many to point to a period
coincident with the Babylonish captivity. The books attributed
to Moses are said to have received their present form at the time
of the exile. It is easy to see how this theory detracts from their
authority. It virtually discards their inspiration, and degrades
them to the level of human compositions. And when they cease
to be regarded as divine, they call for no laborious efforts of
exegesis. The educement of their meaning no longer appears a
matter of high concernment, or extended effort, but an object
scarce deserving attention. In the same manner the latter part
of Isaiah has been attributed to some other writer than the pro
phet himself, and reduced in the eyes of the right-minded theo
logian to such a position as to dissuade any serious effort towards
its right interpretation. The diction is thought to consign it to a
much later period than Isaiah.
These instances are adduced to show the necessity of a minute
acquaintance with the languages of the Bible, and the charac
teristic style of the various writers. By them the friends of truth
are exhorted to greater vigilance, that they may be able to detect
the failure of all processes instituted apparently on the foundation
of the language, but in reality from doctrinal prejudices.

HERMENEUTICAL QUALIFICATIOXS.

It is painful to reflect upon the slow progress which this
qualification has made in public estimation. Judging from the
conduct of many, they appear to deem it wholly unnecessary to
aim at such an acquisition. And yet without it, they must ac
quiesce in received modes of interpretation or trite elucidations,
without the ability to assign any reason except that they are held
by a favourite commentator, or found in a certain system. It needs
no argument to prove, that the theology of the man who cannot
test all opinions by the Scriptures themselves, is built on a slender
basis. It leans upon a reed which every wind of controversy
shakes. The force of prejudice or education may indeed retain
him in the belief which circumstances at first induced him to adopt;
but assuredly the expoundings to which he has been accustomed
will not withstand the philological critic who undertakes to
subvert current expositions. A man may, indeed, be a popular
theologian, without any knowledge of the original languages of
Scripture ; but he has no claim to be considered a learned one ;
nor can he presume to expound the Scriptures with a conscious
ness of truth which is highly desirable.
We would gladly bring back those who have departed from the
true method of proceeding, or at least stir up the student who
has the office of the ministry in view, to commence it with ala
crity and perseverance. We are bold to aver, that not a few pas
sages of Scripture are inexplicable to the man who is ignorant
of the original languages. Our excellent and admirable version
has frequently failed to give the true sense. Since the birth of
enlightened philology, a great accession of materials has been
brought to the aid of the intei'preter, and similar treasures are
being daily amassed. The light thus thrown on many dark places
of the divine word is cheering. Let it be welcomed by every
lover of truth as tending to exalt the written revelation so deeply
interesting to every Christian. The professed guides of the re
ligious belief of others should be competent to derive their eluci
dations of Scripture from the word itself; to defend it against the
plausible objections of learned sceptics ; and to shew forth its ex
cellence in all the fulness of its intrinsic merit. This cannot be
done without a goodly acquaintance with the originals. Thus
the right sequence of biblical arguments; — the coherence of dif
ferent parts ; — and subtle trains of thought will present themselves
all the more readily to him who thoroughly understands the con
necting words which usually link propositions and sentences to-

HERMENEUTICAL QUALIFICATIONS. 19
gether. These terms constitute, perhaps, the most important
part of that mental furniture which must be brought to bear upon
the connexions of doctrinal statements. They are the bands and
ligaments which at once give unity to the different members, and
shew the harmonious beauty of the whole structure. It needs
no effort of mental thought to estimate their importance in the
province of interpretation. Thus even in the department of
single terms, especially the vocables whose office is to shew the
relations of thought, does the interpreter need to be well ac
quainted with the original languages, so as to examine and
judge for himself. The grammar and lexicon must be his con
stant companions, but they are not infallible. However highly
he may value the learning and ability of their authors, he will
always remember the motto, Nullius addictus jurare in verba
magistri. We have no hope that the noble science of theology
will make real advances, unless thorough students of the word
of God, imbued with a love of sacred literature, and resolved
to bring every thing to the test of Scripture itself, appear among
us. Fundamental investigations of doctrines we do not expect
to see, till men be impregnated with the belief, that the Bible
is a mine whose treasures have not yet been exhausted. Soul-
satisfying discussions, such as chase away every doubt, and convey
the truth with irresistible cogency, must needs be rare, so long
as the great body of commentators are content with a meagre,
miserable apparatus, by which a sound and healthful exegesis is
soon starved. We desire another spirit to be infused into the
accredited expositors of the divine word. We commend to their
acceptance a more copious and learned furniture. We would
shew them, that they are oft feeding on husks. We would lead
them to the source of purity, learning, wisdom, and light, where
they may themselves partake of true riches. Did they resolve so
to study the words of truth, the words of truth would assuredly
be better understood. Their vague doubts of the soundness of
theological systems would give place to definite ideas ; and the
Scriptures be exalted to that supremacy from which they are
lowered by appeals to fathers, and the authority of names. We
have hitherto spoken of the necessity of acquaintance with the
original languages of the Bible in order to understand it aright.
But there are beauties, that cannot be transfused into any trans
lation. These lie hid from the eye of such as cannot look into
the originals. Like the excellencies of a fine painting, they es-

20 HERMENEUTICAL QUALIFICATIONS.
cape the observation of all but the connoisseur. Converse with
the works of the great masters can alone ensure a just apprecia
tion of their merits ; and in like manner, familiarity with the lan
guage of divine truth prepares the mind of the interpreter for
relishing its just charms. Graces of composition, sublimity of
diction, pathos of sentiment, tender expostulations of divine love,
lie all open to the view of such as read for themselves. The re
corded observations of others cannot affect with the same vivid
ness. Here it may be more apposite and effective to produce ex
amples attesting the truth of our remarks. It is easy to descant
on the desirableness and absolute necessity of such knowledge,
without producing a permanent impression. A practical exem
plification of our meaning will weigh with many much more than
theorising expostulation. We are quite willing, then, to shew
the justness of the preceding observations by an appeal to facts,
in the selection of which we shall have a chief regard to sim
plicity. Psalm xlv. 7  Christian expositors are accustomed to inter
pret the 45th Psalm of the Messiah, to whom they are infallibly
directed by the Epistle to the Hebrews, i. 8. They also refer to
the seventh verse as a strong argument in favour of their senti
ments, because the King, the subject of the psalm, is there ad
dressed as God. But the non-messianic interpreters, including
Jews, Rationalists, and Unitarians, seek to evade the testimony
obviously furnished by this verse. And it is needful to follow them
in manifold and subtle disquisitions, which chiefly turn on gram
matical minutise. Some of the most learned Hebraists belonging
to the Neologian school of Germany have employed their erudi
tion to refute the Messianic exposition, and especially the philo
logical arguments derived from the seventh verse. How then
shall we presume to meet them without an extensive knowledge
of the Hebrew language, in which they are preeminent? De
Wette renders the clause, thy God's throne stands for ever and
ever. This, however, would require the suffix to be joined to
the latter of the two nouns, or in other words the genitive ; and
not with the former, or the noun governing.* A general rule is
violated for the sake of this new interpretation. But 2"py'' T)''"13
(Levit. xxvi. 42) is adduced as a similar example : my Jacob's
* See Gcsenius' Lehrgcbaude, § 194, p. 732.

HERMENEUTICAL QUALIFICATIONS. 21
covenant, i. e. my covenant made with Jacob.* Here the noun
Jacob is a proper name, which justifies the exception to a rule,
for suffixes cannot be attached to proper names. In the pre
sent instance, no cause of this kind prevents the noun elohim
from taking the suffix. Gesenius, who adopted this explanation
in his commentary on Isaiah, has since abandoned it, probably
because he found it to be incapable of philological justification.
Others, again, as Ewald and Paulus, render the clause, thy
throne is the throne of God, supplying NDO (throne), and
taking elohim as the genitive. The same explanation is offered
by Gesenius in the last edition of his Lexicon. But such usage
is totally unexampled. No trace of a similar construction can be
adduced. Some again take elohim as a nominative case, i. e. thy
throne is God for ever and ever, meaning, God will aluiays sup
port thy throne. Nothing can be pleaded for this interpretation
in the words themselves, whilst the harshness of the expression
and several parallel places favour the idea, that eternity is pre
dicated of the kingdom, not of God himself. We are thus shut
up to the conclusion, that elohim is in the vocative case ; and
that the proper translation is, thy throne, O God, is for ever and
ever. But it is affirmed by some, that elohim is used of judges
and earthly kings (a statement we are not disposed to deny), and
that therefore Solomon may be here addressed by that title. This
conclusion cannot be admitted, because in no passage of Scrip
ture is elohim ever applied to one king or judge. Princes or
judges, in their collective capacity, may be so denominated, as
in the 82d Psalm, 1st verse ; but the title is never applied to a
single person bearing the regal office. In addition to these ob
servations, we may borrow the following from Gesenius on Isaiah
ix. 5 : — " To understand elohim here of kings, has so much the
greater difficulty, since in the Korahite psalms, it is the prevail
ing and in part the exclusive appellatioii for Deity (instead of
Jehovah.") The preceding arguments may suffice to vindicate the received
exposition from the innovations which have been so liberally made
upon it ; and may serve to explain the necessity of an extended
acquaintance with the Hebrew language. The quotation in He
brews i. 8 stands in equal need of learning to free it from per
version ; for it has been sometimes translated, God is thy throne
* See Gesenius' Commentar iiber den lesaia, ersten Theiles erste Abtheilung, pp.
364, 5 (note **,)

22 HERMENEUTICAL QUALIFICATIONS.
for ever and ever ; a sentiment unusually harsh, and incapable
of vindication either on philological or metaphorical grounds.
" And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily,
I say unto you. Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name,
he will give it you."* These words are sometimes adduced to
shew that Christ forbad prayers to be offered to him after his
resurrection. Though such seems plausible to an unlearned reader
of the New Testament, it vanishes before an inspection of the
original. The phrase, " ye shall ask me nothing," does not
mean, ye shall present no petition ; but, ye shall ask me no ques
tions. Such is the signification of the verb Ijwraw. But when
it is added, " Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name,
he will give it you," the Greek word aireu, of which ask is here
the representative, signifies to pray to. RosenmiiUer, in his
Scholia, well expresses the sense of the entire verse in these
words. " 'Egwrai/ h. 1. habere interrogandi notionem, contex-
tus, sermo, et ipsa res, docet. Ovdhv est exponendum de ejus-
modi interrogationibus, qua) supra legebantur  Isto tempore,
quo vos videro, et quo omni veritate imbuti fueritis, atque impo-
tenti tristitia liberati, non opus erit interrogatione ; nam quamvis
me magistro (visibili) orbati, tamen non carebitis necessaria in-
stitutione alterius, quem mei loco vobis promisi." f Thus a know
ledge of the Greek word standing in the first clause rendered to
ask, dissipates the argument adduced from the verse to prove
that Christ himself forbad prayers to be addressed to him after
his resurrection.
It is alleged by some, that the preposition diSc always denotes
the instrumental cause or agent, in contradistinction from u^ri or
sji expressive of the primary cause or agent. Hence, in several
passages of the New Testament, such as Hebrews i. 2, it is
affirmed by Unitarians, that Christ was merely an inferior agent
employed by the Father in creation. But this may be justly
questioned. The actual usage of dia will not warrant this rea
soning. We find it applied to the Father himself as well as the
Son, so that the idea of inferiority is manifestly untenable. So
1 Cor. i. 9 ; Gal. i. 1 ; Rom. i. 5. Besides, the expressions 8i'
&VTOU and di' ov Toc itdwa are applied to the Father himself; Ro
mans xi. 36; Hebrews ii. 10. The preposition does not imply
inferiority, but distinction. 'Ex manag and hid manug, in refe-
* Jolm xvi. 23.
f Scholia in N. T. Tom. ii. ed. sexta. Norimbcrg 1827, pp. 753, 4.^

HERMENEUTICAL QUALIFICATIONS. 23
rence to justification, occur in some of the Pauline epistles in the
same sense.*
The preposition dwl has been deemed of essential importance
in the discussion of the doctrine concerning atonement. Some
have denied that it favours the idea of substitution, whilst it has
been satisfactorily proved to imply and to countenance it. The
idea of one suffering for another, or of a mediator putting him
self in the place of men, and bearing their sinSj is scriptural and
true. The preposition occurs in 1 Tim. ii. 6 ; Matthew xx. 28 ;
Mark x. 45 ; and it would be difficult to find terms more clearly
expressive of the idea of vicarious offermg. The deniers of a
real atonement may endeavour to set aside the testimony of such
passages ; but when the true force of dvri in connexion with its
context is perceived, it is vain to argue against vicariousness in
the atonement made by the Redeemer.!
The verb '^r^ogxuvica is of such importance, that the question,
whether Christ ought to be worshipped or not, depends in a
great measure upon it. If it mean only civil right or homage,
such as an inferior renders to a superior, then is the way pre
pared for the introduction of the tenet, that divine worship should
be paid to the Father alone. But it can be proved, that the
term does not denote civil homage exclusively, though this be
its primary signification, but supreme adoration. For instance,
in Luke xxiv. 52, the disciples cannot be said to have offered
mere civil respect to Christ, for he was not present. Such re
verence can be predicated merely of those who offer it to another
in his presence. Here, however, he was out of their sight, and
they worshipped him in the highest sense which the word is
capable of expressing.
Hebrews i. 3. " Who being the brightness of his glory, and
the express image of his person," Sec. This version has given
rise to the opinion, that the word person, as applied to the Tri
nity, is scriptural. The Greek word vTrogragig, however, signifies
substance or essence. It is true that in ecclesiastical Greek it
is also used to denote person ; but this signification had not been
given to it when the New Testament was written. After the
rise of the Arian controversy, the word uvogTamg began to be used
for person, but at an earlier period that sense was unknown.
* Compare Kom. v. 1, and Galat. ii. 16.
•[• See Winer's Grammatik des Neutestamentlichen Sjrachidioms. 4th Edition,
Leipzig, 8vo. 1830. § 61, p. 348.

24 HERMENEUTICAL QUALIFICATIONS.
The term person, therefore, is not found in Scripture in the
sense in which we usually speak of the three persons of the
Trinity, although it would be difficult to find one more con
venient in the English language. However much it has been
abused, it has yet been useful in controversy. No better could
have been found ; and it is now impossible to lay it aside.
The last example on this topic will be given in the words of a
learned writer belonging to the Romish Church. " In the three
last (last three) verses of the fifty-second, and through the whole
of the following chapter (of Isaiah), are represented the charac
ter and fate of the servant of God. Perhaps no portion of the
same extent in the Old Testament is so honoured by quotations
and references in the New ; it is the passage which divine Provi
dence used as an instrument to convert the eunuch of the queen
of Ethiopia. As early as the age of Origen, the Jews had taken
care to elude the force of a prophecy which described the ser
vant of God as afflicted, wounded, and bruised, and as laying
down his life for his people, and even for the salvation of all
mankind. Though the Targum, or Chaldee paraphrase of Jona
than, understood it of the Messiah, the later Jews have explained
it, either of some celebrated prophet, or of some collective body.
The modern adversaries of prophecy have generally adopted the
latter interpretation, though with considerable diversity as to the
particular application. The favourite theory seems, that it repre
sents, under the figure of the Servant of God, the whole Jewish
people, often designated under that title in Scripture, — and that
it is descriptive of the sufferings, captivity, and restoration of the
whole race. Others, however, prefer a more restricted sense, and
apply the whole passage to the prophetic body. This explanation
has met with an ingenious and learned patron in Gesenius.
It is true, that this servant of God is represented as one in
dividual, but the advocates of the collective application appeal to
one text as containing a decisive argument in their favour. This
is the eighth verse of the fifty-third chapter, " for the sin of my
people a stroke (was inflicted) upon him." The pronoun used
here is one of rare occurrence, found chiefly in the poets (IQ?)
This it is asserted is only plural, and the text should therefore be
rendered " a stroke is inflicted on them." Now, this meaning
would be absolutely incompatible with a prophecy regarding a
gingle individual, and is therefore assumed as giving the key
to the entire passage, and proving that a collective body alone

flEEMENEUTICAL QUALIFICATIONS. 25
can be signified under the figure of God's servant. The pro
phecy therefore would be totally lost ; instead of a clear pre
diction of the mission and redemption of the Messiah, we should
only have a pathetic elegy over the sufferings of the prophets or
of the people ! To this word the learned RosenmiiUer appeals
in his prolegomena to the chapter, for a decisive determination of
the contest, and supposes the prophet to have used this pronoun
for the express purpose of clearing up any difficulty regarding
his meaning. To it Gesenius in like manner refers for the same
purpose; and he considers it a mere prejudice to render the -pas
sage in the singular, as has been done by the Syriac version,
and by St. Jerome. But Gesenius, as I have before hinted, had
prepared the way for his commentary, and prevented the neces
sity of any discussion in it, by framing a rule in his grammar,
evidently intended for this passage.
There he has laid down that the poetical pronoun ID? is only
plural ; and that though sometimes referred to singular nouns, it
is only when they are collectives. After noticing a certain num
ber of examples, he adds the text under consideration. " In this
passage," he remarks, " the grammatical discussion has acquired
a dogmatical interest. The subject of this chapter is always
mentioned in the singular, except in this text, but it is perfectly
intelligible how it should be changed in verse eight for a plural,
since, as appears to me certain, that servant of God is the repre
sentative of the prophetic body.'' You see, therefore, how im
portant a discussion, in itself of small consequence, may become ;
how the inquiry whether an insignificant pronoun is only plural
or may be singular, has become the hinge on which a question of
real interest to the evidence of Christianity has been made to
turn. The grammatical labours of Gesenius were not so perfect as
to deter others from cultivating the same field. In 1827, a very
full critical grammar was published by Ewald, who necessarily
discussed the grammatical rule laid down by Gesenius on the
subject of this pronoun. He brings together more examples,
and by an examination of their context or parallel passsges, de
termines satisfactorily, that this unusual form may well bear a
singular signification. The difficulty against the prophetic inter
pretation is thus removed by one of the most modern gramma
rians, and all those internal arguments in its favour are restored
to their native force, by perseverance in the very study which had

26 HERMENEUTICAL QUALIFICATIONS.
been brought to confute them." In a note to the text, the au
thor farther observes " that besides the examples given by Ewald
from Job xxvii. 23, but especially Isaiah xliv. 15, 17, which
is quite satisfactory, other considerations confirm the singular
rendering of ioV. 1. The sufiix ^O attached to nouns is certainly
singular in Psalm xi. 7, 'lO''33 " his face," speaking of God. A
plural suffix is never referred to the name nin;' as a plurale ma-
jestatis (Ewald), and hence Gesenius supposes the use of this
suffix to have been a mistake of the author's. 2. In Ethiopic
the suffix iO^ is certainly singular. Lud. de Dieu. Crit. Sacra,
p 226. Anitnad. in V. T. p. 547. This pronoun seems to be
common not only to both numbers, but also to both genders, as
it seems to be feminine in Job xxxix. 7."*
Such are a few examples to prove that without a knowledge of
the original, the Scriptures cannot be understood. But we have
said that there are beauties which the illiterate reader is shut out
from perceiving ; which none in fact but the scholar, can observe
or relish. For instance, in 2 Peter i. 5, the translation add is far
from giving a true notion of the force of the Greek verb s'!rix,'>^ri'ysu.
There is an allusion to the chorus in the ancient tragedy, where
the coryphcBus or principal personage leads the way, taking by
the hand the next in order, who again leads the third, and thus
the entire choir advances in a continued line.
In the 100th Psalm, 1st verse, " make a joyful noise" dilutes
the energy and beauty of the original, which was employed to
express the sound of the jubilee-trumpet. In the bosom of a
Hebrew the term would awaken the most pleasing associations,
where an English reader perceives nothing peculiar. The cele
bration of the jubilee was a joyous event in the life of the Jew ;
and his heart must have beat high with delightful expectations,
when the notes of the trumpet first sounded in his ears. Titus
iii. 8 — " This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that
thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God
might be careful to maintain good works." In these words a
nicety lies concealed from the English reader, which, when per
ceived, contributes largely to the understanding of the passage.
The conjunction ha signifies in order that; thus suggesting a
train of thought that might not occur to the reader of any trans-
* Twelve Lectures on the Connexion between Science and Revealed Religion, by
N. Wiseman, D.D., vol. ii. pp. 200-205. London, 1836.

HERMENEUTICAL QUALIFICATIONS. 27
lation. A truth of no small importance in the ministrations of
the Christian ambassador, is here brought to view. The apostle
enjoins upon Titiis the constant affirmation of certain things for
the purpose of rendering believers careful to maintain good works.
They are regarded by the inspired author as means to the attain
ment of an end ; and if Titus desired to witness the accomplish
ment of the object, he must seek it in the way prescribed. By
referring to the preceding verses, the things to be constantly af
firmed are at once apparent. The great doctrines of free grace,
such as regeneration, and justification by faith, are expressly re
corded as the matters which should be brought before the minds
of believers, to keep them observant of good works. We learn
therefore from' the passage, that the preaching of certain doctrines
usually styled evangelical, or in other Words, the distinguishing
tenets of the gospel of Christ, so far from leading to licentious
ness, is the very way of maintaining holiness, and preserving the
practice of good works.
Into the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures we necessarily
carry those ideas of the attributes and government of God which
natural religion inculcates. We believe in his absolute perfec
tion ; in the unity, spirituality, and immutability of his nature ;
and in the great principles of truth and equity by which his
moral government is upheld. There are notions respecting the
eternal distinctions between good and evil, virtue and vice, right
and wrong, which the human mind constitutionally entertains
and follows. The plain evidence of the senses, the universal ex
perience of mankind, and those palpable conclusions,' which men
form everywhere and alike as sOon as reflection begins, so far
from being discarded by revelation, revelation presupposes to
eiist. By virtue of the primary laws belonging to our mental
and moral nature — that intuitive and universal philosophy
which God has implanted in his rational creatures — we are and
must be influenced in our inquiries into the meaning of His
heavenly oracles. Hence it is impossible to believe, that the
Supreme Being possesses human organs or limbs; that he is.
subject to human passions or infirmities. Thus also, when the
sacred writers recommend the cutting off of a right hand, the
plucking out of a right eye, the crucifying of our members, or
any mutilation of the body, it is self-evident, that they should
not be understood literally. We cannot give credence to an
impossibility, or suppose that the law written upon the conscience

28

HERMENEUTICAL QUALIFICATIONS.

contradicts the law written in the word.* Considerations such as
these are antecedent to revelation ; and it is neither possible, nor,
were it possible, would it be wise, to divorce them from the in
vestigation of revealed truths. The fundamental laws of human
belief, and the principles common to all, are the very means by
which we are able to interpret, and it were absurd to speak of
refusing their aid. We can no more do without them, than we
can shake off that responsibility which cleaves to us as the sub
jects of God's moral government ; neither can we ever cease to
be influenced by their suggestions, in the high walk of scriptural
investigation. There are thus certain elements of thought and
feeling universally recognised by mankind — considerations of
fitness and congruity in respect to the relations between God and
his creatures — that must be carried into the business of interpre
tation, and exert control on the decisions of philology. The
constituents of our intellectual and moral nature regulate the
deductions of a comprehensive and sound philology, preventing
such conclusions as are self-contradictory, or manifestly opposed
to our sense of rectitude.
It is true, that the principles of our moral nature have been
occasionally transferred from their proper province ; — that the
intuitive notions of fitness and congruity have been set up to deal
with the language and doctrines of inspiration as supreme arbi
ters ; but in this, violence is done to their own nature. Instead
of going hand in hand with revealed religion, a supremacy has
been assigned them to which they make no legitimate preten
sion. As they are obviously defective and deteriorated, in con
sequence of our fallen nature, they should be kept in due subor
dination. Then only do they become important handmaids in
comprehending the word of God. In its exposition they in
fluence, but should not exert supremacy over our judgments.
Those who are not content with allowing sound reason and sound
philology to lend mutual assistance, impiously exalt the former
* "Reason is natural revelation, whereby the eternal Father of light, and fountain
of all knowledge, communicates to mankind that portion of truth which he has laid
within the reach of their natural faculties : revelation is natural reason enlarged by a
new set of discoveries communicated by God immediately, which reason vouches the
truth of, by the testimony and proofs it gives that they come from God. So that he
that takes away reason, to make way for revelation, puts out the light of both, and
does much-what the same, as if he would persuade a man to put out his eyes, the
better to receive the remote light of an invisible star by a telescope." — Locke on the
Human Understanding, Book iv. chap. xix. § 4.

HERMENEUTICAL QUALIFICATIONS. 29
above the latter. It is expedient that they should walk side by
side, neither supplanting nor falsifying each other.
This leads us to consider the use of reason in religion. God
has addressed us as intelligent, accountable creatures. His varied
communications are presented to our understandings no less than
to our hearts. The powers with which He has endowed us, are
to be exercised in humble dependence upon his aid, and to be
gratefully improved. Our reason was given for the express pur
pose of enabling us to know, and fear, and obey him. What
then is its office with regard to religion ? What is its province in
matters pertaining to God ? The subject lies at the foundation
of religious faith. The opinions of men as to the essence and
character of Christianity vary with their views of the present
topic. It is therefore of no small moment, to have accurate ideas
of the legitimate boundaries which encircle the sphere and limit
the extent of reason.

(30 )

CHAPTER II.

USE OF REASON IN THE EXPOSITION OF SCRIPTURE.

The first thing which reason has to do, in relation to the Bible,
is to examine the evidences of its divine origin and authority.
To inquire whether it be a book which has, in reality, proceeded
from God; or whether it be merely of human origin,— seems to be
the first office of reason. Here it judges of the evidences by which
the divine original of the Bible is proved. There are external
and internal evidences which are fit subjects for its consideration,
and in whose investigation it finds ample exercise. Unless we be
persuaded that the Scriptures have come from God, we shall never
securely defend them against the attacks to which they are ex
posed. We must be firmly convinced of their emanation from
heaven, else we shall not be stedfast and immoveable when the
Christianity of our position is assailed. We are liable to be tossed
to and fro by every wind of doctrine, if we be not certainly as
sured, that the written revelation which comes to us with all the
sacredness of its claims, possesses a character consistent with its
pretensions. When it is attacked by the weapons of the Infidel,
we must meet him with arguments drawn from reason. It is our
duty to present such palpable proofs of its holy origin as are
adapted to carry conviction to his mind, or, at least, to silence
his Cavils. While he would persuade us that we are following
cunningly-devised fables, we demonstrate, on grounds to which
he cannot refuse assent, that he is grievously in error. Thus the
shafts of unbelief, aimed at divine revelation, have been nobly
repelled. The opponents of Christianity have been driven from
the field they wished to occupy. Routed on their own territory,
they have retreated from the combat with dismay. The Almighty
requires no man to believe without evidence ; — He addresses him
self to us as judging, reasoning creatures ; and it is our duty to
examine his statements, by the means which we possess. This
is not the place to set forth the evidences of Christianity. All
our readers probably acknowledge its divine origin. Their rea-

USE OF REASON IN BIBLICAL EXPOSITION. 31
son has been convinced of its truth ; — their intellectual powers
have yielded a full assent to its authority ; — and its reception is
thought to be a most important duty. We presume that all are
agreed on this fundamental point. Christians, however, having
proceeded thus far together, often separate. All who admit
Christianity to be from God, differ widely in their views of its
nature. With regard to the outworks of religion, our readers
may be perfectly agreed ; but when they approach nearer to sur
vey its internal structure, their opinions may partake of diversity.
This brings us to the second use of reason in matters of reli
gion, which is, to discover what laws of interpretation should be
applied to the Bible — to ascertain those general principles, which
serve to guide its worshippers through the interior of the temple.
Every man is not at liberty to put such a meaning on the word
of God as he may choose ; — or to impose on a particular passage
the construction which his fancy may suggest. All are not per
mitted to expound the Old and New Testaments according to
the peculiar notions they may have previously formed. Revela
tion is not to be approached in the spirit of irreverence, or self-
righteousness. Certain laws or determinate rules must be adopted
by every expositor, to direct him in the province of interpreta
tion; and if he depart from these, he abandons the path of safety.
He who casts them aside as useless, resembles the foolish mariner
embarking on a boundless ocean without chart or compass. God
has wisely condescended to make use of such language as we can
understand. He has suited his revelation to our modes of thought
and of utterance. Had He employed language which we could
not understand, or phraseology opposite to that in which our ideas
are wont to be embodied, we could not have appreciated the com
munication of his will, being unable to apprehend the sentiments
He intended to convey. But He has accommodated himself to
our conceptions. He has brought down his revelation to our ca
pacities, as far as it could be effected without derogation to His
essential dignity, or detriment to the true character of His word.
The language he employs is altogether such as we are capable
of knowing, because it is adapted to carry home to our minds
such ideas as the Deity meant to communicate. The Bible,
therefore, is to be explained on the same principles as other
books. Words should be taken in their ordinary acceptation, un
less the contrary be expressly stated or fairly implied. Men have
agreed to employ terms as signs expressive of their inward emo-

32 USE OF REASON IN BIBLICAL EXPOSITION.
tions; and therefore the Deity has thought fit to convey his will
to them through the same medium. Now, it is obvious, that
there are certain rules tacitly acknowledged, and followed by all,
in developing the meaning of a book. These, so far from doing
violence to reason, are, in reality, its genuine dictates. They
are sanctioned by the power of judging in all. They are the
legitimate offspring of reason itself. The importance, as well as
the necessity of some principles, to guide us in interpreting an
author's meaning, cannot be disputed. Of their great utility in
ascertaining the sense of Scripture, all classes of Christians must
be aware. The evils which have resulted from their non-adoption
are immense. The errors into which men departing from them
have fallen are almost innumerable, and assuredly, most danger
ous. Men of enthusiastic temperament and warm imaginations
whilst doing violence to them, have run into all manner of excess
in religion ; and metaphysical minds, in perverting the same simple
guides, have gone into systems of belief imbued with no power
to improve the heart, or influence the judgment, or purify the
motives. Reason, then, adopts and recommends certain princi
pies as worthy of acceptation by all men in their sacred inquiries
after truth. It points to them as data, forming an essential part
of the expositor's knowledge. The widely differing modes of in
terpretation pursued, shew that many have not a sufficient ac
quaintance with them, or rather, that they are neglected by men
unpossessed with a right reverence for the language of God. It
is strange, that they should be universally followed in the inter
change of our ideas with our fellow-men, and that they should
be abandoned in our communing with God through his word.
It would even be inexplicable, did we not know, that we are
averse to the commands of heaven, and often inclined, in the
perversity of our nature, to distort them. What, then, are the
principles which reason recognises and follows ? It is not our
purpose, at present, to describe and explain them all. They
require more ample detail than our immediate object allows. We
shall merely give a specimen of them, shewing, at the same time,
their application and bearing, from which it will be easy to per
ceive, that they are such as approve themselves to reason, being
in reality the legitimate result and emanation of its exercise.
The first law we shall mention is, that the Bible does not con
tradict itself. If it proceed from God, it must be consistent with
itself. It matters not through what instruments God has com-

Use op REASON in biblical exposition. 33
municated his will, unless it be proved that they have corrupted
or changed it. In the accomplishment of his purposes He may
employ whatever agency he pleases. But, whether he make use
of the unlettered or the learned, the high or the low ; the revela
tion communicated is all his own, and must therefore harmonise
in all its parts. Thus Luke cannot make a different statement
from Paul, or Mark from John. They are to be regarded as the
mere media of intercourse between the Creator and the creature.
We look beyond them to the great Author of their inspiration.
Every one will at once admit, that it is a law acknowledged by
reason, that the Deity cannot state opposite things in different
portions of his revelation. Let us. apply the observation to seve
ral passages of Scripture.
' The New Testament frequently ascribes the title God to Jesus
Christ. It also states, that he was man, possessing a human
body, and liable to the sinless infirmities of our nature. Humanity
and Deity are both attributed to him in the gospel, and both
must be true. If we reject one of these statements, we should
equally reject the other, and renounce the authority of the Scrip
tures as repugnant to our feelings. But there are some who will
not admit that he is God, although they profess to hold the prin
ciple from which it follows as a necessary inference. They en
deavour to extract from the Bible the opinion, that Christ is not
God. Others again do not believe his manhood in the proper
sense of the word; and attempt to wrest the Scriptures so as
to favour another dogma. And yet these classes of professing
Christians firmly maintain, that the Almighty cannot contradict
himself, in different parts of his revealed will. They acknow
ledge the truth of a great principle ; but when we begin to apply
it, immediately they are offended. Although God himself has said,
in the New Testament, that the Son was both God and man, and,
therefore, the propositions cannot be opposed the one to the other,
many deny their agreement, and regard them as contradictory.
What the Almighty has affirmed to be consistent, they treat as
irreconcilable. Mark, then, the perverseness of mind thus ex
hibited in defiance of heaven. If submission to his will be an
attribute of the Christian, we look in vain for that attribute
among such as are guilty of this stout-hearted opposition to the
palpable averments of Jehovah. They tell us, however, in justi
fication of their sentiments, that it is opposed to their reason to
believe, that Christ was both true. God and true man at the same
E

34 USE OF REASON IN BIBLICAL EXPOSITION.
time. We have seen that reason itself adopts and sanctions the
general principle, that the Deity cannot reveal two things irrecon
cilable in their nature. And yet we are gravely told by some, that,
in the eye of their reason, two statements respecting the person of
Christ are contradictory. Thus, as far as the general law of in
terpretation is concerned, they acknowledge reason ; but when
ever we apply it in the simplest manner, they rise up in rebellion
against their own principle. They follow reason, and they do not
follow it at the same time. They profess to follow it in words, but
they deny it in reality. What, then, are we to say of such ? They
boast of their reason, but they do not adopt its guidance ; — they
profess to be conducted by it in all their expositions, whilst they
readily abandon it when militating against themselves.
Another rule of interpretation, similar to the last, is, that we
should compare Scripture with Scripture, or, in the words of the
Apostle, " spiritual things with spiritual." This principle is re
commended in the Scriptures themselves, and none will be so bold
as to deny its truth. When we wish to know the mind of the
Spirit, as it is set forth in the word, it is consonant to reason to
proceed after this manner. Let us apply the canon also. In
the Epistle to the Hebrews i. 3, we thus read, " When he (the
Son) had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right
hand of the Majesty on high." Archbishop Newcome renders
the phrase hi savrou, by the sacrifice of himself The editors of
the ' Improved Version' object to this translation, because the
word sacrifice is not in the original. It is true that there is no
corresponding word in the Greek ; but this does not demonstrate
that the English term sacrifice is improperly supplied. In the
9 th chapter of the same Epistle, 26th verse, we find the full form
of the phrase ; " but now once in the end of the world hath he
appeared, to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." The
meaning, then, of the words hi' saurou in the former passage, is by
the sacrifice of himself, and Newcome was correct in so para
phrasing it. The parallel place directs us to understand it in this
sense. We compare one part of the Epistle to the Hebrews with
another, and discover the full form of a phrase which is sometimes
elliptical. The Holy Scriptures thus shed a light on themselves
which all should attentively behold. Why should reason hesitate
to admit the doctrine of a real atonement, when it is affirmed, in
Hebrews i. 3, that Christ purged our sins by the sacrifice of him
self? We have legitimately applied a principle sanctioned by Qom-

BSE OP REASON IN BIBLICAL EXPOSITION. 35
mon sense. Why, then, should reason refuse assent to the applica
tion of the principle ? Here the reason of many departs and differs
from its own acknowledgment. Let us take another example.
In Matthew iii. 3, it is written, " For this is he that was spoken
of by the prophet Esaias, saying, the voice of one crying in the
wilderness, prepare ye tKe way of the Lord, make his paths
straight." Who is the Lord whose way John was to prepare ?
Who is the Lord whose paths he was to make straight ? The
quotation is taken from Isaiah xl. 3, from which it is manifest,
that the person of whom the Baptist speaks is Christ. In Isaiah
he is denominated the Lord, or as it is in the original, Jehovah
We infer, therefore, that Christ is styled Jehovah in the Scrip
tures. Men may deny this fact, but it is no less true. A very
slight comparison of one passage with another shews it in all its
clearness. Here, again, those who are pleased to call themselves
rational Christians desert a principle of reason which they pro
fess to hold, by virtually denying its proper application. But if
it be consonant to reason to maintain the principle as a guide in
expounding Scripture, it is no less agreeable to reason to adhere to
its fair and genuine application. To abandon it in some cases, and
to follow it in others; is most preposterous. We assert, without
fear of contradiction, that they who reject the legitimate inferences
of a just canon are inconsistent with themselves. With regard to
this second law of interpretation, whose application I have just
shewn in two instances, it may be remarked, that it differs little
from the former. It is in reality a corollary naturally flowing
from its predecessor. Jehovah cannot contradict himself in dif
ferent portions of his revealed will ; therefore, it is our bounden
duty to compare one passage with another, that we may discover
the true harmony and just connexion subsisting between the com
ponent parts of revelation. Reason prompts every inquirer into
the Divine Word to examine all places that treat of the same
doctrine or the same duty. It urges him to attend to every in
junction of God contained in the manifestation of his will. It
will be found, on careful investigation, that all false doctrines
which men profess to derive from the Scriptures, may be traced
to a desertion of this principle. It is just because many will not
take into account the whole range of the Bible, that they extract
a creed from its pages which they vainly imagine to be Scrip
tural and sound. In their induction of passages they stop short.
They do not survey the entire system of revelation together, that

86 USE OF REASON IN BIBLICAL EXPO.'ilTIOX.
they may perceive its extent, and the proportions of the dif
ferent parts of which it is composed. They may use great dili
gence in examining many passages of the divine record; — their
patience of investigation may be exemplary, so far as it is exer
cised in pursuing truth ; but they do not dwell on every portion
of the Divine Word in the same laudable spirit. Thinking that
they have certainly discovered the mind of God, they leave off
their inquiry at a point where it is truly abhorrent of cessation.
Of the fair and lovely landscape before them, they survey many
objects with minuteness and care ; but they do not traverse the
length and breadth of its expanse. They rest satisfied with an
indistinct view of many prominent features of surpassing interest.
They even form an erroneous idea of objects which they have not
been desirous to survey ; and, like the spies whom Moses sent to
traverse the fertile plains of Canaan, they return from the goodly
land with a report essentially evil. But the true Christian in
terpreter, with philosophic spirit, takes in the wide range of all
that belongs to revelation, comparing its parts with one another,
and discovering, by such a process, those links of connexion
which are oft unnoticed by the inattentive observer. He will not
be contented with a partial survey without travelling over the
extended province into which Heaven invites him to enter. No
mountain or valley escapes his eye; — ^no sunny hill or verdant
mead is unnoticed; — he overlooks no part of the pleasant land
scape, — he takes in its broad dimensions, — and comes back, like
Joshua and Caleb, reporting correctly. All false creeds owe their
origin in a great degree to this want of comparing Scripture with
itself. They do not carry out the principle in its length and
breadth. Hence they partake of imperfection and error. Up to
a certain length they may be true ; but they are defective of the
whole truth. Thus the Socinian system, which represents Christ
as a man, is so far true ; for it is an unquestionable fact that he
was so ; but it does not take into account those Scriptures, which
ascribe to him a higher existence than mere humanity. It dis
regards or perverts the testimony of the passages which affirm
that he was God. These do not enter into its composition. They
form no part of the structure. The building is regarded as com
plete without them. However valuable or precious they may
appear to others, the Socinian uses them not as materials in
framing his theological system. They are set off from the ac
count as items foreign to its arithmetical existence.

USE OF REASON IN BIBLICAL EXPOSITION. 37
I have thus given a specimen of those principles of exposition
which every interpreter of the Bible should follow, and which
all, indeed, profess to adopt. They are not the product of deep
thought, or extensive erudition ; they did not emanate exclusively
from the learned ; but they are acted upon by men in general in
their daily intercourse. No deep analysis first brought them into
notice, nor did they owe their origin to the learning of the schools;
— all are conversant with them, although they may not attend to
the fact, of which, unconsciously, their own procedure affords
ample demonstration. Reason recognises them as worthy of all
acceptation : for they are its own production. They are the pro
geny of common sense, which is nothing but reason under an
other appellation. All who would rightly understand the Holy
Scriptures must follow their direction. If their proper applica
tion be abandoned, then is reason no longer reason ; it wars against
itself. If it admit a thing as just, and yet in practice depart from
the acknowledgment, it is the most preposterous of all guides.
The next office of reason, with regard to the Bible, is to ac
quiesce in its statements. If God has really spoken to us in his
word, it is quite reasonable to listen to his commands, and to
obey them. It is the duty of reason to assent to whatever he has
said, as to the utterance of infinite wisdom and unerring truth.
God has given us a revelation, and we are bound to believe what
ever it contains. When an individual affirms that he will not re
ceive what Heaven speaks, there is no hope of his being convinced
of any truth. He rejects all evidence, — acting as though he
were not an intelligent and rational being. After we have as
certained, by the fair and legitimate principles of interpretation
which common sense dictates, what is actually made known in
the Scriptures, we have nothing farther to do than bow with
implicit submission and faith to the revealings of Omnipotence.
Having applied our reason in finding out the sense of the book of
God, we abide by its fair and proper results. • With the docility
of children we attend to the teachings of the omniscient Spirit.
In the first place we explore, with anxiety and reverence, the
meaning intended to be conveyed to us by Heaven in such lan
guage as we are fitted to understand. Knowing that there are
laws which, in our ordinary intercourse, lead us at once to un
derstand the words of our fellow men, we use the same easy and
safe means of ascertaining the sense of Scripture. Herein is the
wisdom of the Almighty remarkably manifested, that the un-

38 USE OF REASON IN BIBLICAL EXPOSITION.
learned equally With the learned, — the simple no less than the
wise in this world's knowledge, are placed on a perfect equality
as to the mode in which they must discover the way of salvation,
and obtain an interest in its blessings. The rules of exposition
are equally obvious to the most superficial as to the most pro
found intellect.
But there may be statements in the Bible which reason cannot
fathom, and which it is utterly inadequate to explain. Here,
therefore, we are assailed with the objection, — If the Deity has
given a revelation, has he not given it to be understood? What
is its use, if it be not intelligible ? This is no new argument. It
has often been adduced. I answer, however, that reason can un
derstand all that is revealed. Whatever is contained in the Bible
is quite comprehensible by the understanding of man. Every doc
trine is capable of being known as far as it is revealed. Many,
however, would be wise above what is written, and inquire into
the reasons of things which Jehovah has not thought fit to divulge.
They would know the why and the wherefore of truths contained
in the Scriptures. Thus reason would fain go beyond Scripture,
and explore a region with which it has no concern. With unholy
curiosity it would pry into secret causes which it has not seemed
good to infinite wisdom to unfold. It aspires to stretch into the
wide unknown, and to bring to light mysteries which man may
not know here. It would adventure into the dark confines of spe
culation, where there is a vast gulf fixed by the omnipotence of
God, beyond which it is unsafe to pass. The twilight suffices not
to deter from lingering amid its shadowy clouds until thick dark
ness pervade the world of nothingness that has been conjured up
by the deceitful magician. Reason can understand a truth, in so
far as it is revealed in Scripture. Whenever it advances a step
farther, it leaves its proper sphere. The Bible seldom investi
gates the causes of doctrines or of duties. It simply states a fact,
without entering into a philosophical investigation of the mode in
which such a fact harmonises with the attributes of Deity, and
the present condition of man. Thus the existence of the Supreme
Being is taken for granted, but there is no description of the
mode of his existence. We are informed that he is omnipresent,
and that he beholds the evil and the good ; but we learn not from
the pages of the Bible how he can be everywhere present at the
same time. It is therefore the office of reason simply to assent
to this truth, without inquiring ^ohy and how it is so. The Bible

USE OP REASON IN BIBLICAL EXPOSITION. 39
itself never attempts to explain it ; and our reason was not given
for the purpose of exploring the causes of those sublime facts which
are brought before us in their simple purity. Thus, also, it is
stated that Jesus was a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief,
while at the same time his Godship is declared. In other words,
the divine and human natures were united in him. But it de
serves particular notice, that there is no explanation of the mode
in which the two natures subsisted in Christ. The fact is af
firmed: but how it was so, is nowhere intimated. Reason, how
ever, has attempted to proceed beyond this, and to discover the
nature of the union. Here it has quitted its proper sphere. It
has forsaken its true province, to wander in a field of speculation
from which man is wisely excluded. When it simply inquires ;
Has God revealed in his word that Christ was possessed of two
natures, the divine and the human ? it is fairly in its own place ;
but when it advances farther, to search out the modus of this
mysterious union in the person of the Mediator, it oversteps the
limits assigned to it by Jehovah. As far, then, as a thing is re
vealed, reason is capable of comprehending it; but no farther.
When it attempts boldly to scan the secret purposes of the Al
mighty which he has not thought fit to unfold, it is not won
derful that it loses itself in doubts and difficulties. Let us take
another example, closely connected with the point before us. We
believe that there is only one God. This fiindamental truth is
repeatedly affirmed in the Bible. But we also find that there
are three subsistences, or, as they are usually called, three per
sons. We use the word person, because language does not sup
ply a better. These three are distinguished from one another,
for it is written, that the Son will send the Holy Spirit from the
Father. In the economy of man's redemption, they are also
said to perform separate offices. The Father elects, Ephes. i. 4.
The Son redeems, Eph. i. 7. The Spirit sanctifies, Rom. xv. 16.
There must therefore be such a oneness between them, as en
titles them to be called one God. The Scriptures plainly set
forth a most intimate connexion between them ; but they never
explain the nature of the relation. They affirm the divine unity,
but they also lead us to believe in a distinction of persons. As
to the manner in which they are one and three at the same time,
they describe it not. One thing is certain, that there is no con
tradiction in holding that they are both three and one, because
they are not so in the same respect. They are not three in the

40 USE OP REASON IN BIBLICAL EXPOSITION.
same point of view in which they are one ; nor are they one m
the same respect in which they are three. It is therefore the
office of reason simply to believe both statements, because they
are contained in the Scriptures. Common sense observes that
they are found there, and it necessarily concludes that they are
true. But if reason begin to cavil and ask, how they can be both
three and one at the same time, it forsakes its proper sphere, and
would be wise above what is written. It is because men have
wished to penetrate beyond the path of wise and safe expatiation,
that they have grievously gone astray, and have even rejected
what is coincident with reason. Revelation and reason can ne
ver truly come into contrariety. The latter may endeavour to
go beyond the former, and to search out secret things belonging
to the Lord alone ; but this is no justification of the sentiment,
that they are sometimes in an attitude of hostility. Because
there are truths in the Bible which the line and plummet of rea
son cannot reach, men should not affirm that the Deity has set
forth many things contradictory to its decisions. I am bold to
aver, that revelation contains nothing which the mind cannot
fathom according to the degree of light in which the Spirit him
self has surrounded it. I hesitate not to avow my conviction,
that God has not propounded a single doctrine which is not fitted
to command the assent, and to challenge the approbation of the
highest intellect. But this does not preclude the belief, that
there are many things in the Old and New Testaments which
give rise to thoughts that cannot be gratified, and desires that
cannot be fulfilled. Such aspirations are not warranted by the
nature of revelation itself. It may give birth to them, but it can
never be shewn that it was intended to foster them. In the mani
festation of Jehovah's written will, it is natural to find paths of
peculiar subhmity, which it were almost presumptuous for man
to tread. This is what we might expect a priori. But it is to
be remembered, that however men may take occasion to pursue
the ideas to which brief and passing intimations give rise, and to
follow something beyond the letter of inspiration, the divine word
itself neither warrants nor satisfies such curious speculations. The
Deity, then, does not set forth what is opposed to reason, neither
does he propound matters revolting to our powers of reflection
or contrary to our intellectual constitution. The Bible contains
a system which is wholly consistent with reason from first to last.
It is addressed to men as rational and moral beings. " I speak,"

USE OP REASON IN BIBLICAL EXPOSITION. 41
says an apostle, " as to wise men, judge ye what I say." Reflect
upon what I write to you. Examine my statements, — weigh
them with unbiassed minds, and then judge whether they be not
accordant with your unbiassed decisions. If the Bible were not
a system of reason, we could not receive it ; and if it were con
trary to reason, we could not admit its divine origin. If it pro
mulgated aught opposed to our intellectual mechanism, the Deity
would contradict himself. Reason and Scripture must, therefore,
harmonise, because both proceed from the same great Author.
This we look upon as self-evident. But, whilst we not only ad
mit, but maintain their agreement, we believe, also, that reason
is fallible. Man is liable to err. He finds himself deceived in
his judgments of things that take place around him. He draws
conclusions which he afterwards finds to be wrong. The fallibi
lity of his reason constitutes him in fact a fallible being. Since,
therefore, his nature is such, he may form wrong opinions respect
ing the truths of revelation. He may fail to perceive what is
propounded for his reception. Finite and imperfect as he is, it is
not marvellous that he should frequently go astray in his senti
ments. Rather would it be a cause of wonder, if he should never
tax himself with error, or acknowledge that his mind does not
judge accurately on all topics which come before it. Every thing
connected with him partakes, at present, of imperfection. His
soul is tainted with sin and alienated from God. His body is
liable to decay. The Bible is infallible, because its Author is so ;
but reason is fallible, because man has corrupted his ways, and
deteriorated his constitution. He is not what he once was. The
candle of the Lord shines not within him in its original brightness.
The lamp of reason has been dimmed by his infatuation. Its
beams are not shed forth with the same lustre or loveliness, as
when Jehovah himself first lighted up the luminary of the soul.
Let us always, then, bear in mind this truth, that reason is falli
ble, while the Scriptures cannot err, either in their propoundings
of doctrine, or expositions of duty, or statements of eternal truth.
Of reason's liability to err we have ample proof in the fact, that
there are important differences in the conclusions at which its ex
travagant encomiasts arrive. Far from coinciding, the results of
their researches are widely at variance. Reason, it is said, teaches
some to believe that Christ was not a true njan, consisting of a
human soul and a mortal body ; but that the Logos supplied the
place of a soul in the man Christ Jesus. Others are conducted.

42 USE OF REASON IN BIBLICAL EXPOSITION.
by the same guide, to the opinion that he was nothing higher
than a man, with a real body and a reasonable soul. The innu
merable varieties of creed among such as call themselves by the
common appellation of Unitarians, prove the fallibility of the
guide to which they abandon themselves. The folly of extend
ing the province of reason beyond what is written, is abundantly
evident. All contradictions between Arians and Socinians owe
their origin to a dissatisfaction with the amount of the Scripture
revelation. They begin to exercise their reason in matters be
yond what is written ; and thus lose themselves in speculations
no less presumptuous than unprofitable. Upholding reason as the
supreme judge of Scripture, they bring every doctrine before its
tribunal, and yet are not agreed in the decision which the umpire
is supposed to pronounce. The sentence of the judicial authority
they profess to follow is ambiguous and delusive ; each party
contending that it favours its own tenets. What a varying and
capricious standard is this, which leads to such opposite conclu
sions ! How unsafe must it be, when it thus conducts to views
and opinions directly contrary the one to the other. Scripture
should not be treated in this uncourteous manner. It is de
rogatory to the Supreme Being thus to handle His sacred word.
Reason should, indeed, judge of its doctrines; but when it finds
any thing, the cause and modes of which it cannot ascertain, it
is its office not to reject but to acquiesce in the statement, al
though many things connected with it may be above its view.
If reason were contented to abide by the plain exposition of the
written word, no perplexity would ensue. Let all unholy animo
sity be repressed ; let there be a simple and entire acquiescence in
all its sayings. Unreserved submission to the dictates of Heaven
is the right and righteous exercise of reason. Partial homage,
on the contrary, is the sin of such as do not cause it to bow
with implicit reverence to all utterances proceeding from the
sanctuary of Heaven. It is the source of the fallacies and fol
lies of those who permit reason to go beyond the limits assigned
to it by Infinite wisdom. If every doctrine and precept which
it cannot fathom are to be set aside on the ground of their ob
scurity, the Scriptures will be reduced to a very meagre compass-
Such rational chemistry will soon pulverise them to a few dry
elements. The glorious features of the divine mercy imprinted
on every page will be effaced. Their brightness will be obscured
by the narrow crucible into which they are put, that they may

USE OF REASON IN BIBLICAL EXPOSITION. 43
be fitted for general use. If man were possessed of a pure and
perfect reason, by which he could discern the relations of the
universe, — if he could discover the connexion subsisting be
tween things natural and moral, — if he could understand the
ways of the Lord unto perfection, and the reasons of his deal
ings with men, he might then employ a reason, which could
accomplish so much, to search out the things which are only
hinted at in the Bible ; but if he must be contented with know
ing in part here below, reason must acquiesce in many circum
stances as right and true, although it cannot tell why or where
fore they are so. The whole question comes, at last, to this, —
Am I to believe God or not? — am I to sympathise with his
word by yielding a full and hearty assent to all which he has
been pleased to make known ? Nothing, in my opinion, seems
to be more consistent with reason than to give ear unto the Al
mighty. My reason was given me for the very purpose of know
ing, and loving, and obeying him. Why, then, should I hesitate
to act according to his word ? Why should I refuse, for a mo
ment, to sit at the feet of Jesus, and to learn of him who was
meek and lowly in heart ? Why should I not approach Jehovah
in prayer, and entreat him to purge out the old leaven of my
heart, that it may at once concur in the asseverations of Scripture,
without seeking to lift up the vail, and look within the holy of
holies, into which it is forbidden to enter ? He has given us his
word to be a lamp unto our feet, and a light unto our paths. I
submit, therefore, to the enlightenment of this heavenly instruc
tor. What could my reason do for me without it ? Let the state
of the heathen tell; — let the state of the world, before the ad
vent of the Messiah, declare how gross and sensual mankind had
become. The trophies of reason, are superstitions, and idola
tries ; — but the trophies of Christianity, who can tell? What
man or angel can enumerate the millions that have been re
deemed to God, by the belief of the truth in Jesus ? Who can
describe the immense advantages that have accrued to society
from the diffusion of the written word? And now that reason
is concerned with the doctrines and duties of Christianity, let
it judge fairly and dispassionately concerning them. Let it
consider whether it be not altogether becoming that it should
submit to every thing which Heaven has divulged. Whenever
it departs from the written word, and devises for itself another
method of salvation than that which the Scriptures record, it

44 USE OF REASON IN BIRLICAL EXPOSITION.
performs not the duty it was designed to fulfil. It sets itself in
reality above its Author, and virtually refuses to receive such a
plan of mercy as he has proposed. Thus frail worms rise up m
rebellion against the God of heaven ; and instead of bowing be
fore him in the dust, turn away with aversion. Let none ima
gine from this, that I would for a moment afford the least ground
for supposing that our reason must be entirely laid aside, or that
we must not foUow its direction. Far be it from me to depreciate
any gift of God, much less one of his noblest. I would neither
attempt to lessen its value, nor to lower its dignity. Reason must
be followed as well as Scripture ; but both must be kept in the
spheres where they were designed to move. By means of reason
we judge, whether the Almighty has propounded a certain doc
trine for belief ; and if it be ascertained that he has done so, the
doctrine should be unhesitatingly received. We must not bring
to the Scriptures a mind charged with such ideas of religion as
it imagines the Almighty ought to follow. The revelation gra
ciously given to men should not be approached and sifted by a
reason impregnated with opinions apparently most rational; but
men should judge and see what it really contains. If the Deity
has given a revelation of his will to mankind, they must have
been in need of the communication, and it must be exactly suited
to their condition. Should any think that He ought to have
plainly inculcated a precept or a doctrine which is but obscurely
set forth in his word, they declare hereby that they are wiser than
He. Let reason, then, judge fairly respecting the things con
tained in the sacred volume, and if it discover that they are pro
mulgated, they should be forthwith received as coming from the
High and Holy One. If such be the office of reason, surely it
is easy to discover our duty. He that runs may read. How, then,
comes it to pass, that there are innumerable diversities in the re
ligious opinions of professing Christians ? The thousand varieties
of complexion and outward form find a counterpart in the thou
sand creeds. To enumerate all the causes of such variations
would be difficult, if not impossible. But some are so obvious,
that they cannot escape the most superficial thinker. The im
proper use of reason leads to many erroneous systems. Because
it is frequently set up as the judge of what Jehovah should re
veal, not of what he has revealed, men do therefore fall into
great and grievous mistakes. It has been applied to determine
what he should have said, instead of being directed to the ascer-

USE OP REASON IN BIBLICAL EXPOSITION. 45
tainment of what he has said. It has not been confined to the
simple judging of the meaning of what is set forth ; it has been
allowed to lose itself in fruitless attempts to discover why this
thing and that have been promulgated. Hence the most unscrip-
tural creeds have been framed by men in the pride of their hearts.
Whatever causes of procedure are not explained in the Bible it
self ; — whatever reasons of administration in the spiritual and
moral world have been kept secret, man should not attempt to
explore, else his reason is not kept in proper submission. When
employed to dissect every truth and doctrine of the Bible with
anatomical precision, it necessarily leads to the most pernicious
heresies. It is a noble gift, for which we should ever be grateful ;
but it is a most dangerous weapon in the hands of those who do
not know its right use. And there are many such, who plume
themselves on their high intellects, and their pure theories re
garding the meaning of the Bible ; while they scruple not to
denounce all others as though they cast aside their judgments.
Men of colossal minds like themselves are applauded, as if wisdom
were their rightful monopoly ; whilst the secret of their fancied
greatness is the abuse of the rational faculties given them by God.
Not contented with arrogating to themselves the power of think
ing correctly, they stamp all who presume not to give unwonted
license to speculation in religion, as slaves to bigotry, or enemies
to liberality. But they are guilty of slander in the accusations
they bring against the reverent students of the word of God. In
examining the meaning of revelation we do employ our reason,
but we do not set it above God himself. We will not allow it to
dictate to the Almighty ; nor suffer the thing formed to say to
Him that formed it, why hast thou taught this and not that ?
It savours of impiety to be thus forward and fearless. Reason is
good if a man use it reasonably, just as the law is declared to be
good, if one use it lawfully ; but if either be placed in an orbit
where it was not intended to move, it becomes unsafe.
I have thus endeavoured, with conciseness, to explain the use
of reason in connexion with the Bible. In the first place, it
judges whether this book contain a communication from Heaven,
or whether the evidences be such as to prove its emanation from
God. When it has ascertained that the Scriptures have come
from the' Sovereign Lord of all, it sets about the discovery of the
import of the words and phrases, by means of the usual laws of
interpretation, which all acknowledge and profess to adopt. Thus

46 USE OF REASON IN BIBLICAL EXPOSITION.
we become acquainted with the truths propounded for our in
struction in righteousness. These laws having been legitimately
applied to discover the mind of the Spirit, as manifested in the
phraseology employed, reason should receive and concur in all
their recommendations. It has simply to acquiesce in the things
inculcated in the Bible, not rejecting what it may not relish, or
discarding what it cannot fathom. The non-reception of un
palatable notions and unwelcome sentiments, is its abuse and
not its use ; its pride, not its province. I cannot but think that
every one who exercises his rational powers in the manner I have
shewn, and attempted to maintain, will be conducted to that re
ligious truth which is most intimately connected with his highest
interests. I shall conclude with observing, that in our inquiries after
truth, sincerity will not suffice. A man may be most sincere in
error. It is therefore a matter of no small moment how we em
ploy our reason. The Romanist, we doubt not, is most sincere,
when he walks barefoot on a pilgrimage to do penance for his
sins ; but he commits a fatal mistake in detracting from the per
fect righteousness of' Christ. The Hindoo and the Brahmin are,
doubtless, most sincere in all their superstitions ; so that were
sincerity the only requisite, men are as sincere in idolatry as in
the practice of the true religion. Away, then, with all such
notions of sincerity, which lead to the preposterous opinion that
Saul of Tarsus was as acceptable to God when he persecuted
the Church before his conversion, as he was afterwards, when
he preached Christ crucified, the power of God, and the wisdom
of God, for in the midst of his blood-thirsty zeal he verily thought
he was doing God service. The sentiment is equally false and
dangerous. Actions good and upright in the sight of Jehovah,
can flow only from right principles ; as we believe, so do we act.
If the fountain be impure, the streams cannot be otherwise : if
the tree be corrupt, how can the fruit be good ? Accountability
for the use of our reason should be impressed on the minds of
all. Solemn is the thought of the reckoning which we must
give at the great day. Let us, therefore, earnestly seek to serve
God acceptably with our bodies and spirits, which are His ; and
we shall be counted worthy, hereafter, to join in the pure and
spiritual employments of the heavenly sanctuary, where boundless
scope will be given to the exercise of our reason, and the activi
ties of our renovated nature.

( 47 )

CHAPTER III.
LIMITATIONS OF THE SENTIMENT, THAT THE LANGUAGE OF THE BIBLE
SHOULD BE INTERPRETED LIKE THAT OF OTHER BOOKS.

We have said above, that the Bible is to be explained on the
same principles as other books. To this remark there are some
exceptions. There is a peculiarity belonging to most of the pro
phetic parts which should be taken into account. It arises from
the manner in which occurrences were presented to the internal
view of the prophets. They saw things together ; not in a regu
lar succession of smaller pictures, but delineated in one group.
Hence the use of the present tense, even when they speak of
remote objects. Individuals stand before them, to whom they
point as present. So in Isaiah, " For unto us a child is born,
unto us a son is given" (chap. ix. 6) ; and again, " Thus saith
Jehovah to his anointed, to Cyrus, whom I hold by the right
hand; to subdue nations before him, and ungird the loins of
kings ; to open before him the folding doors, and the gates shall
not be shut." (xlv. 1 .) Distinctions of time were thus annihilated
to the prophets. They viewed things not in time but in space,
and so painted in perspective, as Olshausen aptly denominates
it. They exhibit neither the remoteness of the objects they be
hold, nor the intervals of time between them. On the contrary,
events are adduced just as they are seen, in juxta-position, or
continuous succession, as though they all pertained to the same
period. But not only are objects and events presented by the prophets
in juxta-position, but also in a state of commixture. So when
we look at distant objects, those which are in reality apart seem
to be joined. " Quemadmodum simili fallacia optica longissime
distans turris domus propinquse tecto incumbere, aut lunse discus
montibus nemoribusque contiguus videtur."* Events flow to
gether and appear coincident, which are separated in reality by
centuries. " The object of prophecy was never wholly manifest
* Yelthusm, de optica rcrum futurai'um descriptione, p. 89.

48 SOME PECULIARITIES IN BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
to them (the prophets), partly because they viewed the future
only in the remote distance (perspectively), and partly because
every prediction first receives its complete elucidation from the
fulfilment. Such perspective or optical viewing implies, not
only that they see the near future alone in clear sketches, and
the more remote with obscuration always increasing, and, so to
speak, with diminished features ; but also, that they put together
in the manner of the painter the nearest and the most remote
under one point of view, with constant reference to its highest
limit, viz. the complete fulness of the kingdom of God, which
always makes out the background of the picture. This perspec
tive peculiarity is particularly observable in the predictions of
Balaam; of Micah, 2d chap.; and of Isaiah, 5th and 6th."*
The same characteristic is apparent in many predictions of the
New Testament, shewing that it is founded in the nature of
prophecy. Several parts of the gospels and the Apocalypse ex
hibit it.
The following are examples oi juxta-position and of comming
ling. Jeremiah, 50th and 51st chapters. The city of Babylon was
besieged and taken by Cyrus, from which time its importance
declined. It did not, however, become utterly desolate till more
than a thousand years after. In the time of Pausanias, i. e. the
first half of the second century, the walls alone remained. But
in these chapters, its conquest by Cyrus and its total ruin are
connected together, although they took place successively.
Again, in Isaiah, 11th chapter, the universal diffusion of know
ledge and holiness characteristic of millennial times, is annexed to
the appearance of Christ in the flesh ; although the occurrences
are separated by a wide interval.
In Zechariah, 9th chapter, ninth and tenth verses, a description
of the glorious completion of Christ's kingdom immediately fol
lows the appearance of Jesus in his humiliation. In Isaiah, 61st
chapter, first verse, the same thing is observable ; for, after a de
scription of Christ's entrance upon the prophetic office, the full
blessings of his reign in the latter days follow in continuous suc
cession. See also Jeremiah xxiii. 5, 6; xxxi. 31, &c. ; xxxiii.
15, 16, &c. ; Ezekiel xxxiv. 23, &c. ; Isaiah ix. 6, 7. In the
* Koster, die Propheteu des Alten und Neuen Testaments nach ihrem Wesen und
Wirken dargestellt, Leipzig 1838, pp. 249, 250. See also Hengstenberg's Christo-
logie, vol. i. p. 305.

SOME PECULIARITIES IN BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION. 49
same manner several of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Micah,
Hosea, Amos, and Ezekiel, frequently connect the deliverance of
the Israelites from captivity, with their deliverance from a greater
thraldom by Christ.
Examples of commingling may be found in 2 Samuel vii. 14.
" I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit ini
quity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes
of the children of men : but my mercy shall not depart away from
him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee." This
passage manifestly relates to Solomon, as both the occasion on
which it was uttered, and the words themselves, clearly demon
strate. But that it also depicts the Redeemer, may be inferred
from Hebrews i. 5, where part of it is quoted, and expressly
applied to him. It is vain to deny the double reference of the
passage ; the features of the type and antitype being blended
together. Another instance is observable in Isaiah xxxiv. 8, 9, 10. " For
it is the day of the Lord's vengeance and the year of recompenses
for the controversy of Sion. And the streams thereof shall be
turned into pitch, and the dust thereof into brimstone, and the
land thereof shall become burning pitch. It shall not be quenched
night nor day ; the smoke thereof shall go up for ever : from ge
neration to generation it shall lie waste ; none shall pass through
it for ever and ever." This prophecy respects the fearful de
struction of Edom, upon which the Lord is represented as taking
vengeance for the sake of his church. The terms employed are
exceedingly forcible, especially in the tenth verse, and cannot be
confined to Edom alone. They rather point to the general judg
ment, which that of Edom prefigured — to the terrible vengeance
which shall befal all the enemies of God at the last day. The
words of the book of Revelation, 14 th chapter, 10th and 11th
verses, and of Jude, 7th verse, may be aptly compared with this
passage. A third example is to be found in Isaiah xlv. 13th verse. " I
have raised him up in righteousness, and I will direct all his ways ;
he shall build my city, and he shall let go my captives, not for
price nor reward, saith the Lord of hosts." This language, ap
plied to Cyrus the deliverer of the Jews from exile, depicts at the
same time a greater deliverer, even the Lord Jesus Christ. The
words, " I have raised him up for righteousness, and I will direct
all his ways," are quite similar to those in Isaiah xlii. 6, which

50 SOJIE PECULIARITIES IN BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
describe the Messiah. " I the Lord have called thee in right
eousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee," &c.
Isaiah vii. 14, 16, 16. " Therefore the Lord himself shall
give you a sign : Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son,
and shall call his name Immanuel. Butter and honey shall he
eat, that he may know to refuse the evil and choose the good.
For before the child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the
good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her
kings." Here a child born in the time of the prophet is taken as
a representative of the child Immanuel about to be born of a
woman. The description applies to both.
Joel, chapter 3d. Here the first outpouring of the Spirit on
the day of Pentecost, and the general outpouring during the
Millennium, are not distinguished. In the same way, we are
inclined to interpret most of the Messianic Psalms which depict
circumstances in the life of David or Solomon, with corresponding
features in the history of our Lord. So Psalms ii., Ixxii., xlv.
The second Psalm refers to David and to his greater Son ; the
seventy-second to Solomon and Him whom he typified. So also
the forty-fifth. In the New Testament, the same feature ap
pears. Thus in the 24th chapter of the gospel according to St.
Matthew, the destruction of Jerusalem and the general judgment
are represented as coincident. The description includes both ; —
the former having been an adumbration of the latter. Those who
have endeavoured to separate one part of the chapter to the one
event, and the remainder to the coming of Christ to judgment,
have failed to make good their position, not from want of ability,
but of the right key to the exposition.* The 29th verse has been
usually fixed upon as the boundary ; but the 34th manifestly dis
proves the whole view. In like manner Matthew xvi. 27, 28,
with the parallels, exemplifies a flowing together of analogous
events, both being represented as coincident.t
This peculiarity of prophetic vision and description, demands
a corresponding peculiarity of exegesis. When events are laid
upon one another, or blended together in narration, the words in
which they are described have a twofold reference. A single
application does not include all that was designed; they look
* See Schotfs Commentaruis exeget, dogmat. in eos Christi Sermones qui de reditu
ejus ac judicium future agunt, Jenae, 1820, 8vo ; and Horsley's Sermons.
•\- See Olshausen's Biblischer Commentar iiber sammtliche Schriften des Neuen
Testaments, vol i., 3d Edition, p. 868 et seq., and pp. 521, 22.

SOME PECULIARITIES IN BIBLICAL INTEBPBETATION. 51
towards two persons or objects. When thus commingled, they
must be considered as symbolical and antitypical. They are
blended in the picture presented to the prophetic view, just
because it was divinely purposed that the one should adumbrate
the other. There is, therefore, a natural and necessary connexion
between them, not merely as they are related in the internal
view of the prophets, but as antecedent and consequent mutually
adapted by divine arrangement. They flow together, because
much that was predicated of the one, may be also predicated of
the other. As the series of prophecy advanced, the events paint
ed on the prophetic canvass, in perspective, or in commingling
colours, were gradually distinguished and separated. Light was
thrown upon them by the unfolding of the divine purposes ; and
those who once failed to perceive the intervals of time between,
began to see widening vistas. The coming of Christ in glory
might have been regarded as almost coincident with his appear
ance in humiliation, until He was born of a woman. The one
phenomenon is pourtrayed in the Old Testament as closely con
nected in time with the other ; but in the Gospels, they are se
parated. Again, the destruction of Jerusalem and the general
judgment appear coexistent in the Gospels ; but in the book of
Revelation, they stand apart. Thus as prophecy advanced, and
the events connected with the Redeemer's church were accom
plished, the predictions of seers assumed a clearer form ; and the
readers of these inspired effusions were able to avoid the chrono
logical mistakes into which their predecessors fell.
The preceding observations have an important bearing on se
veral passages quoted in the New Testament from the Old, such
as Matthew i. 22; ii. 15, 17, &c. Unless the events there al
luded to had been related as type and antitype, the verb 'TrXriiou
could not have been employed with propriety. It is not enough
that they were similar or analogous : the similarity must have
been designed. In the description of the symbolical occurrence
was also contained a description of its correspondent antitype.
Such as confine the view to the former, as though it alone were
depicted, limit the range of vision to a narrower field than was
presented to the internal view of the seer. They lose sight of
the established relation of two things to one another, as soon as
they separate them into their naked individuality ; although the
fact of their commingling description, should have led to the ac
knowledgment of a preordained correspondence between them

52 SOME PECULIARITIES IN BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
The circumstance that events are fused as it were into one mass ;
or that a theocratic prophet, priest, or king, is described in lan
guage quite extravagant if limited to himself, shews a prefigu-
rative character. The points of resemblance are described in the
same language ; — with the differences of feature we have no con
cern. Others again look to the antitype alone, because the New
Testament intimates that language used in the Old refers to the
person and kingdom of our Lord. They take certain passages
in the ancient Covenant which truly allude to Messiah, to apply
to Him alone. Thus also the field of vision is narrowed. The
genius of the Jewish establishment was expressly modelled after
the kingdom of Christ. The Hebrews were instructed by out
ward and visible objects. Spiritual scenes were conveyed to their
mind through the medium of externals. They were taught to
look forward to the Redeemer and his reign through the heads of
their nation, and through important events connected with their
history. Taking the features of their theocracy, the inspired
prophets employed them as prominent images in drawing out a
picture of future blessings ; or as representations of the charac
teristics belonging to the Messiah and his kingdom. They ne
glected no opportunity of directing the believing Israelite to the
future Messiah. Was a temporal deliverer mentioned — one who
should confer signal benefits on the nation ? He was described in
language which could only find its full force and significancy in
the spiritual deliverer thereafter to appear. Was a signal judg
ment about to fall on a particular people ? The view was di
rected to the judgment of the great day, of which it was merely
a faint adumbration. Was a monarch introduced, surrounded by
a train of attendants, or pursuing and utterly discomfiting his
enemies ? The imagery transcends the type, and more appropri
ately pourtrays the antitype.
In commenting upon prophetic passages such as these, it is
usual to affirm, that they have a double fulfilment. Perhaps the
phrase is objectionable. There cannot with propriety be a dou
ble fulfilment, because the entire application and scope is not
realised till both events take place. The former occurrence is
merely an incipient and anticipative development of the latter.
It connects the visible and temporal in the Jewish economy with
the spiritual and distant future, pointing the waiting desires of
the pious Hebrew along the line of prophecy to a glorious con
summation. " The nearer subject in each instance," says an ad-

SOME PECULIARITIES IN BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION. 53
mirable writer, " supplies the prophetic ground and the prophetic
images, for the future Christian subject."* The former was to
the Jew a pledge, that the entire prediction would be fulfilled.
It was not itself the fulfilment, but an instalment, so to speak, of
the fulfilment. It kept the expectations of the Messiah alive in
the minds of the Hebrews. The former served as the envelope
of the latter ; whilst at the same time it declared a literal truth
or important fact in the history of the Jewish commonwealth.
When, therefore, the envelope was taken off by the occurrence
of the prior event; the substantial meaning it enshrouded and
adumbrated remained behind. Agreeably to this representation,
it has been well observed, that " there is both reason and subli
mity in prophecy; and we shall scarcely understand it, unless
we are prepared to follow it ¦ in both. Its sublimity is, that it
often soars, as here, far above the scene from which it takes its
rise. Its reason is, that it still hovers over the scene of things
from which it rose. It takes the visible or the temporal subject,
as its point of departure (if I may borrow the phrase) for its
enlarged revelation : and yet by that subject it governs its course.
In this method of it, I believe that men of plain unsophisticated
reason find it perfectly intelligible ; and that it is only the false
fastidiousness of an artificial learning which puts the scruple into
our perceptions either of its consistency or its sense. But when
we consider that this structure of prophecy, founded on a proxi
mate visible subject, had the advantage both in the aptitude of
the representation, and in the immediate pledge, of the future
truth ; a sounder learning may dispose us to admit it, and that
with confidence, whenever the prophetic text, or mystic vision is
impatient for the larger scope, and the conspicuous characters of
the Symbols and the Fact concur in identifying the relation." f
How important to the Jew the theocratic envelope was, may be
inferred from the fact of its adoption, even when spiritual events
connected with Messiah's reign are solely and singly predicted.
Thus after the second temple had been built and its services
established, Malachi foretels, that " from the rising of the sun
even unto the going down of the same, my name shall be great
among the Gentiles ; and in every place incense shall be offered
unto my name and a pure offering : for my name shall be great
among the heathen, saith the Lord of hosts." t Here it is de-
* Davison's Discourses on Prophecy, Fourth Edition, 1839, p. 316.
t Do. pp. 318, 19. J i. 11th verso.

54 SOME PECULIAPJTIES IN BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
clared, that in every place, incense should be offered to the name
of the Lord, even a pure offering ; intimating, that the holy wor
ship of the Christian church should be presented to Him in every
place no less than the Jewish temple.
So also the prevalence of love and harmony among the Jews
themselves when they shall be converted to God and delight in
Messiah their King, is expressed by a termination of the schism
that rent Israel and Judah, and by the total extinction of the for
mer jealousy existing between them (Isaiah xi. 13.)* Similar is
the representation given by Hosea i. 11. " Then shall the chil
dren of Judah and the children of Israel be gathered together and
appoint themselves one head, and they shall come up out of
the land : for great shall be the day of Jezreel."
In these and analogous instances, we must strip off the theo
cratic dress before arriving at the real meaning of the prophecies .
Here the envelope does not itself contain real facts or occur
rences, as in the majority of symbolical transactions. It serves
as a mere covering which the Jew can more readily understand,
and beyond which he must look in faith with eyes enlightened
by the gospel. The language does not foretel two events, the
one of which was adapted by the wisdom of Jehovah to fore
shadow the other, and when realised to be an earnest of a more
glorious consummation ; but it enwraps in Jewish drapery a sin
gle transaction more or less progressive. History will often en
able us to distinguish between examples of prophecy, where two
* Dr. Henderson, in his able work on Isaiah, appears to us to have mistaken the
meaning and application of the prophecy contained in Isaiah xi. 11-16. He refers it to
the restoration of the Jews from the Babylonish captivity, and not to a period in their
history still future. The considerations adduced to support such a view are insufficient
to recommend it. The phrase " in that day'' (verse 11), though used with some lati
tude of meaning, manifestly alludes to the time spoken of in the preceding part of the
chapter, viz. the period of the Messiah ; and we cannot perceive with what propriety
it can be supposed to designate a time prior to Christ's coming in the ilesh. From
the first verse of the eleventh chapter to the tenth, the prophet describes the exten
sion of the Gospel ; and when the eleventh verse proceeds with the expression " and it
shall come to pass in that day," it naturally refers to the same dispensation as that
just spoken of. Dr. Henderson, however, arbitrarily transfers the phrase to the ante-
messianic days when the Jews were restored to their own country out of Babylon.
That the Philistines, Edomites, Moabites, and Ammonites are mentioned when now
they no longer exist, cannot be an objection to the future aspect of the prophecy in
the eyes of those acquainted with the fact — that the prophets took a theocratic basis
or ground-work for their delineation of spiritual realities belonging to the New
Testament church. The ancient enemies of Judah and Israel symbolise the enemies
of the Messiah under tlie economy of grace. They stand asthe representatives of
his foes to the end of the world.

SOME PECULIARITIES IN BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION. 55
events are blended together in description, one belonging to the
ante-messianic age, and its associate to the times of the Messiah ;
and where a peculiar dress is employed to depict occurrences be
longing to the latter dispensation alone. In the same manner
the New Testament, particularly the Apocalypse, contains de
scriptions of the flourishing state of the Christian church during
the Millennial period in figurative words derived from the past
theocratic condition of the Jews. (See chapter xxi. 1, 2, 3.)
When symbolical persons or transactions are blended in the
description with their spiritual counterpart, it is observable, that
the features which more appropriately belong to the one are
sometimes made prominent, and again those peculiarly applicable
to the other. Occasionally, the language swells out in so ex
alted a strain, that theocratic objects recede ; leaving their spi
ritual associates to fill the eye and heart of the seer. At other
times, the former seem to have occupied their natural position in
the foreground. It is vain, however, to endeavour to separate
in exegesis the representations that may be supposed strictly to
belong to each. The same language usually applies to both ;
for although it be flattened by referring it wholly to the type,
the theocratic basis cannot well be excluded. We are not con
cerned to rebut the objection of arbitrariness advanced against
this method of exposition, as if it were uncertain and unsatisfac
tory. It is objected, for example, that it assigns one part of a
psalm to David, and another, to David's greater Son.* But a
* Thus Professor Stuart, after attaching to this mode of interpretation the objection
able phrase " double sense," proceeds to say, " Tliis scheme explains so much of the
Psalm (40th) as will most conveniently apply to David, as having a literal applica
tion to him ; and so much of it as will conveniently apply to the Messiah, it refers to
him. Truly a great saving of labour in investigation, and of perplexity and difficulty
also, might apparently be made, if we could adopt such an expedient! But the con
sequences of admitting such a principle should be well weighed. What bo"^ on earth
has a double sense, unless it is a book of designed enigmas ! And even this has^ but
one real meaning. The heathen oracles indeed could say : Aio te, Pyrrhe (JEacida),
Romanes posse vincere (vincere posse) ; but can such an equivoque bg admissible into
the oracles of the living God ? And if a literal and an occult sense can, at one and
the same time, and by the same words, be conveyed, who that is uninspired shall tell
us what the occult sense is ? By what laws of interpretation is it to be judged ? By
none that belong to human language ; for other books than the Bible have not a double
sense attached to them." — Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. Excursus
XX. Mr. Alexander writes in a like strain. " In most cases the advocates of this
theory present us, not with a double sense, a literal and a spiritual in each verse, but
with two distinct subjects, of which now one and then the other is taken up. Thus
in Psalm xxii. for instance, instead of showing that every verse refers to David in one
sense, and to the Messiah in another, we have the Psalm cut into fragments, of which

56 SOME PECULIARITIES IN BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
psalm may be expounded of both throughout; describing first
the type in a lower, and next the antitype in a higher strain.
Now that Christ has come, the latter should be our chief con
cern. The Messiah's person and kingdom ought most to fill our
minds. The scaffolding of a former economy has been taken
down ; the building itself rises before us in sacred majesty ; and
to it our eyes should be turned. We may indeed admire the
wisdom of Deity in adapting his mode of instruction to the in
fantine state of such as lived under a former dispensation, and
behold with reverential wonder the drapery employed to shade
from their weak vision the glories of the Redeemer ; but inas
much as we live amid the realities of His kingdom, it most befits
us to contemplate the objects imperfectly delineated by former
symbols. But it may be asked, how are we to know when a passage of
the Old Testament has this twofold reference ? — how are we to
discover when it alludes to Messiah alone, and when to a symboli
cal personage besides ? The only sure criterion is the authority of
Scripture itself. On this point the New Testament must be our
infallible guide. I am aware, that the New Testament neces
sarily renders prominent that side of the picture which relates to
Christ and his times ; and that it does not mark with equal dis
tinctness the symbolising person or transaction. But the ordi
nary means used for determining the meaning of paragraphs and
passages will determine, whether the original passage speaks of
an individual object or event prefigurative of future realities under
a spiritual economy. The preceding observations may serve to
shew, that the language applied to all types is peculiar, and can
not be explained like that of ordinary writings. The greater
part of prophecy being typical, falls under the same category.
Hence ^e structure and form belonging to it require an exegesis
adapted to themselves.*
this is held to refer only to David, and that only to the Messiah. Of such a mingling of
subjects, instances do occur in the prophetic Scriptures, but to spealt of this as a double
seTise is plainly absurd." — The Connexion and Harmony of the Old and ^ew Testa
ments, by W. Lindsay Alexander, M.A., page 224, note. We are persuaded that the
language of these writers is directed against an important truth, which they look at
with distorted view, and unceremoniously denounce.
* See Dr. J. P. Smith's worli, " On the Principles of Interpretation as applied to
the Prophecies of Holy Scripture," 2d edition, London, 1831 ; a masterly production,
proceeding from a most accomplished writer.

(57 )

CHAPTER IV.*

ALLEGORICAL INTERPRETATION.

Allegorical interpretation, as described by Klausen, does not
refer to the signification but to the sense of single terms. Ac
cording to him, a discourse which expresses a sense different from
that which the words employed naturally bear, is said to be alle
gorical. When the discourse itself is of a figurative character,
the interpretation which endeavours to ascertain the sense in
tended, from the mode of representation employed, is not alle
gorical. He defines allegorical interpretation to be that which,
without any demonstrable or assignable ground, assumes a repre
sentation to be figurative ; and, in consequence, instead of the
proper, supposes another and an improper sense, foreign to the
design of the speaker.!
This description is scarcely correct. It should rather be said,
that the interpretation in question arbitrarily assumes that a pas
sage has a figurative in addition to its literal sense. An allegori
cal expositor puts something more into the words of an author than
they really contain. He gives them a secondary besides the pri
mary meaning ; a mystical and mediate in addition to the imme
diate and direct sense. He does not substitute one sense for
another, but supposes one in addition to another, where there is
no valid ground for the assumption. If the inspired writer really
designed his words to have a primary and secondary representa
tion ; that is, if he has made use of allegory, he who explains it
according to the mind of the author is not properly styled an alle
gorical interpreter ; but if the expositor take for granted a double
sense without cause, and in opposition to the expressed or im
plied purpose of the Spirit, then according to the approved usage
of language he becomes an allegorist. Allegorical interpreters
* This Chapter, which ought more jjroperly to occupy a subsequent place, is in
serted here, on account of the very frequent allusion to allegorical interpretation in
the writings of the fathers.
\ Hermeneutik des Neuen Testaments, aus dem Diinischen iibersetzt, von C. O.
Schmidt-Phiseldek, Leipzig, 1841, 8vo, pp. 86-7. H

58 ALLEGORICAL INTEHPRETATIO.V.
regard the ordinary sense of a passage, ascertained in the usual
manner, as including in itself a still deeper hirowm, which every
reader cannot perceive because he wants the necessary acumen.
With such it is usual, neither to cast aside the primary represen
tation, nor to look upon it as entirely useless. They retain it as
a veil to the secondary. Nor do they believe that the secondary
did not proceed from the writer himself. On the contrary, they
maintain that he designed to express it ; and that it is an object
more worthy of attention than the obvious, literal sense. Here
the views of allegorical interpreters and others come into contact.
The former assume without proof, that many passages were de
signed to bear a hidden or secondary, as well as a primary sense ;
whilst the latter reject the position, and abide by the grammatical
meaning alone. The former think, that the writer meant to
convey a twofold sense, whilst they can produce no reason for
their opinion ; the latter, in the absence of any reason, affirm that
it is arbitrary to introduce into a passage a sense which they be
lieve to be foreign.
A great truth certainly lies near the foundation of the allego
rical system, viz. that whatever comes not under the cognisance
of the senses can only be presented to the mind by the help of
signs borrowed from the external world. But, for this, allego
rising substitutes another truth, viz. that each and every sensuous
object should be considered as expressive of things beyond the
sphere of sense. Such a mode of procedure cannot with any
propriety be styled interpretation ; for it strives to extract from
a series of words all that can be conceived to be in them. It
spiritualises, where no cause for doing so exists ; and, by the
aid of pure invention, puts another representation besides the pri
mary into an inspired narrative.
Allegorical interpretation is found among the Persians, Turks,
Greeks, and Christians. We shall briefly refer to its origin. It
prevailed both in times of high antiquity and in those much more
recent ; the same in substance, though differently applied accord
ing to the feelings of the people among whom it was current,
and the degree of mental cultivation at which they had arrived.
When the old nations of the east, sunk in barbarism, began to
observe the phenomena of nature around them, they were led to
notice the connexion of causes and effects. They saw that some
things regularly preceded and were necessary to the existence of
others. But they were soon perplexed by the multiplicity of ex-

ALLEGORICAL INTERPRETATION. 59
ternal phenomena which they could not resolve. With the im
posing and awful their minds were particularly struck. They were
prompted to refer them to unseen causes. Such causes came to
be exalted to the rank of super-human powers controlling and
influencing the earthly destinies of men. Thus the resources of
nature were personified, and became deities. Accordingly, the
periods in the sun's course, marked by his increasing and de
creasing strength, were regarded as the struggle between the evil
and good principle ; — as historical points in the life of a suffering
and dying, but resuscitating and victorious deity. The mythi of
Osiris, Mithras, Hercules, Atys, Adonis, Sec, which are sub
stantially the same, were designed to represent the phenomenon
in question. The sun is weak at a certain season, dies as it were,
and revives. So Osiris was overcome by Typhon, and put to
death ; but he recovered his former vigour, and conquered the
evil principle. In like manner, the remarkable relation between
the thirsty earth, the fructifying Nile, and the scorching sirocco,
was to the Egyptian a natural hieroglyphic of the corresponding
relation in the world of deities between the maternal Isis or Osiris,
the productive energy ; and Typhon, the evil principle, the per
secutor of all living things. Such astronomical and terrestrial
mythi are the applications of an allegorical system in which the
regular mutation of occurrences in nature symbolise the life of
the higher world. The same mode of representation was trans
ferred from the book of nature to the writings of men, especially
of such as were supposed to be initiated in the mysteries of the
world of deities, and qualified to reveal them. The written pro
ductions of personages to whom the secrets of a higher sphere
were supposed to be known, were looked upon with a reverence
so great as to preclude that sense which first presented itself, or
belonged to the sphere of daily life. Wherever a higher, in ad
dition to the obvious meaning, was not notified ; or the literal
acceptation presented a stumbling-block to the view, a remote
and mystic meaning was thought to be concealed beneath the
envelope of the outward.*
Such was the ancient system of allegorising, in which the ob-
• See Oreuzer's Symbolik und Mythologie der alten Volker, &c., Leipzig und
Darmstadt, 1819 : Dophe's Hermeneutik der Neutestamentlichen Schriftsteller, Leip
zig, 1829, p. 91 et seq. : and Bauer's Zeitschrift fur speculative Theologie, dritten
Bandes erstes Heft, Berlin, 1837, p. 117 et seq., where Creuzer's system is described
and criticised.

60 ALLEGORICAL INTERPRETATION.
jective and subjective are interchanged and commingled. ThuS
were the Grecian mythologists and poets Orpheus, Musseus,
Hesiod, and Homer, explained. The last writer exerted so great
an influence on all the institutions of the Greeks, civil and sa
cred, that it will not be out of place to refer particularly to him.
Homer's creations were drawn from the rude commencements
of civilisation ; for although his deities are far exalted above men,
they possess the same brutal qualities and vicious propensities.
But the charm of his genius procured a wondrous reception for
his sublime strains among all classes ; and so firmly did he retain
the hold he had acquired over society, that after it had advanced
to a much higher point of cultivation than the age from which
his characters were drawn, he remained the acknowledged source
of all true wisdom. What then was to be done with his poems,
when philosophical speculation had left them far in the dis
tance; — when the wisdom of antiquity, commonly supposed to
be concentrated in him, gave way to the more refined ideas of
later times ? A philosophising period could not but regard his
rude pictures of the gods with all their vices, as ill accordant
with more rational views of their sanctity, and as particularly
unfit to form the minds of youth to habits of virtue. In these
circumstances, philosophers, fearing the semblance of departing
from the current mythology, prudently affixed an occult sense
to writings so sanctified in the eyes of the people. They could
not admit the truth of the Homeric descriptions ; but by mystic
explanations they employed them as vehicles of notions more
exalted than the vulgar mind entertained. Afraid of offending
the prejudices, and doing violence to the ignorance of the people,
they were contented to attach a spiritual sense to the popular
belief. Thus the allegorical explanation was often the result
of scepticism in the minds of the more cultivated ;  of deviation
from current opinions too gross to be received by them in their
obvious sense. Agreeably to this representation we find, that
the Greek philosophers explained a great part of Homer and
Hesiod allegorically. And chiefly were the works of the former,
occupying among the Greeks as exalted a place as the Mosaic
writings among the Hebrews, expounded in this artificial man
ner. Even before the time of Plato, their literal meaning had
been thought too gross to be adopted.* The cultivated mind
* Plato mentions three allegorical expounders of mythi, — Stesimbrotus Glaucon
and ^Jletrodorus. See liis Jon, vol. iv. p. 179, Bipont. edition. — The oldest Hellenic

ALLEGORICAL INTERPRETATION.

61

and fine moral feeling of this celebrated philosopher were espe
cially offended with the Homeric fictions and narratives. Judging
them immoral as well as unworthy of Deity, and as likely to
exert a most prejudicial influence on the tender minds of youth,
he endeavoured to lessen, and if possible remove, the injurious
tendency. He therefore made extracts, giving them another
sense than the verbal; — a secret meaning concealed beneath
the outer covering. In this way he softened down the prejudice
existing against them in the eyes of the few, and rendered them
less corrupting to youth.* Other philosophers followed the ex
ample of Plato, by ingeniously discovering in the poet's descrip
tions ideas less revolting to virtue and more worthy of the gods
themselves. The custom of allegorising to which we have now alluded, ex
isted among the Jews also, especially those who resided in Egypt.
The oldest Alexandrian allegorist of whom we find mention is
Aristobulus. According to Valckenaer,t he was a peripatetic phi
losopher, and preceptor of Ptolemy Philometor, about 175 b. c.
The same able writer has shewn, in opposition to Richard Simon,
Hody, and Eichhorn, that he is no fictitious personage, but that
the remaining fragments of his writings are genuine. He com
posed an allegorical commentary upon the law, dedicated to King
Ptolemy, of which Clement, Cyril of Alexandria, and Eusebius,
have given all that is now left. This has been industriously col
lected in Eichhorn's AUg. Bibliothek, band. v. pp. 281-298. The
fragments shew that he was a reflective and pious believer in the
Old Testament — one who earnestly endeavoured to ascertain the
truth revealed for the salvation of God's ancient people. Owing
perhaps to the scantiness of the remains, they do not contain
much objectionable exposition. Dopke conjectures, that the
system was then in its commencement ; that the philosophy of
Aristotle first caused the author to take offence at anthropomorphic
descriptions in Scripture ; and that although apologetic interest
on behalf of the Jewish religion prompted him to carry this phi
losophy much farther into the Mosaic books, he had, notwith
standing, such a religious fear, as restrained him from excess.|
philosophers, such as Pythagoras, Anaxagoras, Empedocles, and Democritus explained
mythi in the same manner. Diogenes Laertius says of Anaxagoras, who lived neai'ly
SCO years B. c, that he was the first who applied this method to Homer.
* De Republics, Lib. ii. pp. 247-259, vol. 6th, Bipont edition.
•|- Diatribe de Aristobulo Judsco, Lugd. 1806, 4to.
J Hermeneutik der Neutestamentlichen Schriftsteller, pp. 115, 16.

62

ALLEGORICAL INTERPRETATION.

The Alexandrian school before Philo has been thought to fur
nish other allegorical interpreters. Sirach and the author of the
Book of Wisdom are said to have belonged to the same class.*
The following passage from Sirach or Ecclesiasticus, has been
adduced by Olshausen, f and RosenmiiUer, | as an instance of
allegorical representation. " All these things are the book of
the covenant of the Most High God, even the law which Moses
commanded for an heritage unto the congregations of Jacob. He
fiUeth all things with his wisdom, as Phison and as Tigris in the
time of the new fruits. He maketh the understanding to abound
like Euphrates, and as Jordan in the time of the harvest. He
maketh the doctrine of knowledge appear as the light, and as
Geon in the time of vintage. The first man knew her not per
fectly ; no more shall the last find her out. For her thoughts are
more than the sea, and her counsels profounder than the great
deep," &c. (Chapter xxiv. 23, 25-29.) The whole chapter con
tains a laudatory account of wisdom poetically personified ; but
it does not afford a proper example of allegorising.
The following instance has been adduced from the Book of
Wisdom. § " For in the long garment was the whole world, ij
and in the four rows of the stones was the glory of the fathers
graven, and thy Majesty upon the diadem of his head." (Chap.
xviii. 24.) This is simply a minuter description of the high
priest's dress than that given in Exodus xxviii. 6, 9, 36. The
writer reasons philosophically respecting the Old Testament
history ; but there is no good ground for assuming that he alle
gorises. Chapter x. 16th verse, has also been mentioned by Olshausen
as an instance. " She entered into the soul of the servant of the
Lord, and withstood dreadful Kings in wonders and signs." The
entire chapter shews what wisdom has done for the righteous
from the creation of the world ; how she has conducted them in
right paths ; whilst on the other hand, the disastrous fate of the
* According to Winer, the Greek translator of Ecclesiasticus, grandson of the au
thor, belongs to the time of Eurgetes the Second, who reigned in the second half of
the second century before Clirist. The Hebrew original may have been composed
sixty years before the version.
"t" Ein Wort iiber tiefern Schriftsinn, Konigsberg, 1824, 8vo, p. 57.
X Historia Interpretationis Librorum Sacrorum in Ecclesia Christiana ; in 5 parts
12mo, Hildburgh, 1795-1814, part i. p. 17.
§ The Wisdom of Solomon was written a full century b. c. See Grimm's Com
mentary, Einleitung, | 7.
II Luther translates xirfits by Schmuch, ornament or embellishment.

ALLEGORICAL INTEBPBETATION. 63
Egyptians and Canaanites whom she forsook, is forcibly depicted;
(compare verses 11-19.) Wisdom is poetically personified, pro
bably in imitation of the book of Proverbs. Our examination of
the preceding passages leads to the conclusion, that no true ex
ample of allegorising can be found in the Apocryphal books. In
this we are fully supported by Dopke and Klausen. How then
is the fact to be accounted for ? The nature of the writings will
serve to explain it only in part. It might have been introduced
on numerous occasions had there been a disposition to prompt
to its use. Perhaps the taste for such expositions first became
prevalent among the Jews towards the advent of Christ. Long
before that event, it was little, indulged in ; but as the fulness of
the time drew near in which He was to appear, it increased in
proportion.* Before proceeding to Philo, we have to notice a class or sect
to whom he alludes in various places of his writings as following
the same path with himself; and whom he occasionally censures
for their total rejection of the literal sense. They compared the
entire law to an animal ; the literal precepts representing its body,
the secret or invisible sense, its life. Probably these were the
TherapeutoB, a Jewish sect in high repute about the time of our
Lord's incarnation.
But the most remarkable representative of the system, and one
who is even said by Photius to be its inventor, was Philo.f He
was born at Alexandria about the year 20 b. c, and belonged to
a priestly family. He adopted the philosophy of Plato then
prevalent in Egypt, uniting with it the essential parts of the
oriental theosophy. When, therefore, he began to expound the
Mosaic religion, the influence of his philosophic views became
apparent. Confining himself almost exclusively to the Penta
teuch, he regarded its inspired author as the only man truly en
lightened and initiated into all the divine mysteries, whilst the
other writers of the Old Testament were less gifted with know
ledge and discernment. Philo's theory of allegorical interpreta
tion is based upon an exoteric and esoteric doctrine respectively
adapted to the -^yi-^QKol and the •jrnu/jja.riy.oK In conformity with
this, he represents Moses as making use of a twofold method of
communication, so that all classes, cultivated and illiterate, might
* See Klausen's Hermeneutik, p. Q5.
+ 6^ flu (raw iiXuvos), oTfitat, xot) Txf o ccXXnyo^tKOS iv iKKXyitr'ix kayos ux^v t^^x^'^
iiffpvrivat. Cod. CV.

64 ALLEGORICAL INTERPRETATION.
derive benefit from his writings. In the one, God is represented
as a human being with bodily members and qualities, because
the mass of mankind cannot think of the Deity without them.*
In the other, regard is had to the philosophical and the culti
vated ; — to such as are already initiated into the holy mysteries
by a life of vu-tue and piety. The latter are able to strip off the
secret sense lying beneath the bodily envelope. The offences
and stumbling-blocks presented by the former representation
prompt them to seek for the spiritual meaning which constitutes
the soul of a passage ; whilst the crowd find nothing to offend
their ideas in the doctrines just as they are presented to the out
ward view, or in the occurrences just as they are narrated. Thus
the hidden sense is the great object to which every consideration
should be subordinated; — the end and aim of the true interpreter.
The system amounts to nothhig less than Platonic specula
tion mixed with eastern theosophy. It is worthy of remark,
that Philo does not deny the reality of the literal sense, whilst
searching after the spiritual. He merely looks upon the former
as inferior to the latter.
The height which allegorising had attained in the time of Philo
is not to be attributed to his own efforts or zeal. He was not the
originator of the system, but rather its most distinguished advo
cate. He gave it the sanction of his high reputation, by apply
ing it extensively to the Mosaic writings. Many had followed it
before, but none so fully or so ably.
" By the writings and example of Philo, the fondness for alle
gories was vastly augmented and confirmed throughout the whole
Christian world : and it moreover appears, that it was he who
first inspired the Christians with that degree of temerity which led
them not unfrequently to violate the faith of history and wilfully
to close their eyes against the obvious and proper sense of terms
and words. The examples of this most presumptuous boldness
that occur in the writings of Philo are indeed but rare : particu
lar instances of it however are not wanting ; as may easily be
shewn from Origen and others who took him for their guide, and
who, manifestly, considered a great part both of the Old and New
Testaments as not exhibiting a representation of things that really
occurred, but merely the images of moral actions. If the reader
will give himself the trouble to refer to Philo de Allegoricis
* See Philonis Opera (ed. PfeifiFer), de Somniis, pp. 104,106, vol. v. De Confusione
Linguarum, vol. iii. p. 374. Quod Deus sit immutabilis, vol. ii. p. 411.

ALLEGORICAL INTERPRETATION. 65
Legis, lib. iii. p. 134, he will find in the turn that is there given
to the history of Joseph and Potiphar's wife, an instance which
may serve to convince him that this celebrated Jew made no
scruple of perverting, and even absolutely reversing the truth of
sacred history, whenever occasion might appear to demand it." *
But the traces of allegorising are not confined to the Alexan
drian Jews. Among those of Palestine we find the same striving
to set aside, or to remove out of the Old Testament books every
thing objectionable in the view of philosophy. The same sepa
ration between the body and soul of the text occurs in the oldest
memorials of Rabbinical literature, reaching to the second century
B. c, viz. the Cabbalistic books Zohar and Jezira; the Chaldee
Targums ; and the Mishna and Gemara. The former was called
^*^"13 J the latter, ^<J^att'J¦ Verbal interpretation is said to belong
to the corporeal state, but allegorical, to the spiritual state.f
This Rabbinico-cabbalistic method was carried to a frivolous and
most artificial excess in the use of letters and points to express
certain doctrines. Letters, for example, were changed into num
bers ; and in place of the letter, a certain object put, to which
the entire number exactly corresponds. This was styled K^TJOD^J
(Gematrayya, yeu/iST^ia.) Thus, Gen. xlii. 2, when Jacob said
" descend" H"), the word denoted the number of years which the
Israelites were to sojourn in Egypt ; for the letters make up 210.
Sometimes a term was resolved into its separate letters, each of
which again represented a word beginning with the same letter.
This was called lip''."iaj (Notaryekon), and was thought to be
exemplified in the verb N"l|l, Gen. i. 1 ; for the three letters are
taken for 3^>, 13., Pin, Father, Son, Spirit, indicative of the
Trinity. At other times, the letters composing a word were ar
bitrarily transposed, which was termed iTIIOin (temurah.) An .
example of it is given from Psalm xxi. 2, in which the letters of
the verb riQ'VI transposed, become n''tt'a the Messiah.^
Of Josephus Uttle definite can be said. In the preface to his
Antiquities he states, that Moses in his writings " expressed
some things enigmatically, as was worthy of stich a lawgiver ;
• Mosheim's Commentaries, translated by Vidal, vol. ii. pp. 158-9, note. — For a
complete and comprehensive view of Philo's opinions and the Alexandrian theosophy
in general, the reader is referred to the able work of Gfrcirer, entitled, Philo und
die JUdisch-Alexandrtnische Theosophie, 2 vols. 8vo, Stuttgart, 1831.
+ See Dopke, pp. 123 et seq., 134 et seq.
X Glassii Philologia Sacra, ed. Bauer, Tomi Secundi sectio posterior, p. 57 et seq..
I

6&

ALLEGORICAL INTERPRETATION.

others he allegorised with seriousness, and openly stated what
ever it was expedient to utter plainly. But to those who desire
to investigate the causes of each, much sublime and exceedingly
philosophical speculation would arise, which I shall now omit.
Should God however grant me time, I shall try to write of these
things hereafter." * From this language it would appear, that
he was in some measure addicted to allegory. Thus much at
least is certain, that in the structure of the temple and the holy
robes, he pointed out physical objects to which they correspond
ed. But his writings demonstrate his practice to be remote from
that of the Alexandrine Jews. He takes the Old Testament
history literaUy, without distorting it by far-fetched senses. In
his treatise against Apion he states, that the Greek philosophers
were not ignorant of frigid allegories ; but that the true philoso
phers despised them.f On the whole, it may be justly said of
Josephus, that he interpreted the law according to its strict Ute-
rality, as might have been expected of one belonging to the sect
of the Pharisees.
The origin of allegorical interpretation among the Jews has
been generally attributed to imitation of the Greek mythical
system. So Turretin, Eichhorn, RosenmiiUer (J. G.), Politz,
Schiitz, Fliigge, Planck, Brucker, and Spencer. Dopke resolves
it into the conflict of philosophy with the religion inherited by
the Jews. ^ This religion, being inseparably connected with writ
ten memorials, was unable to preserve a progressive development
so as to keep pace with the mental cultivation of the people ; and
it was moreover entirely grounded on a local, political basis.
Thus the last writer reasons. To me, however, it appears that
none of them has fallen upon the exact truth. However much
the Platonic philosophy prevailed at Alexandria among the
Greek-speaking Jews, its influenc'e must have been comparatively
feeble among those in Palestine. The former looked up to the
latter, and openly imitated their distant brethren ; but the Pales
tinian Jews would not have expressly copied after the Alexan-
^ • T<i u\v ccjnrrofiMu t«S ycy.o^iTcu dlius, t^ Se, dWyiyo^m'rc; fciri aifivir^n,.
era, 5' i| iv^lias XiyttrSx, irmi(pt^iv, Txvm pyirSs ifi.(pxti^n,rcs. ruTs ftino, liouXdu'-m
x.a.) TKf uirUs ixd^Tcu sxmt!^,, nXXn yivcT a> i, »i^^U, x«.) xU, (p,Xi,r<,<pos, h ]yl
,V> im^Ht^XcS/^ai. &£.? ii SiSwTfls ii/^Tv X?'"', !r£<5<io-o^a, ^t^i ra^Tm yj^„., ^m
s-jay^«Ti,'«v. Josephi Opera, folio, Coloniae. Sumptibus Weidmanni, 1691, pp. 3 4
•]- Toils ilUtoi Kar iXtiSiixv ii rcl; iWmixois (biXoniiihiiaot.vra.c, aiVs ^,~,„ ,,' ' '\- '
hikuht. fluTi Txs ^uxi'^s ¦^icfurlis Tu, ccXXny^iu,, iyvi„ra,. S/ JVsf, „.^, l^ ilxiT^t
Kurif^ivrKrav. Contra Apionem, lib. sec. p. 1679.

ALLEGORICAL INTERPRETATION. 67
idrian. The Jewish- Alexandrine writings may indeed have
unavoidably and imperceptibly influenced the Palestinian ; but
the fact is insufficient to account for the origin of the allegorising
system among the latter. It is certainly more plausible to allege
with Dopke, Liicke, and others, that the Palestinian Jews were
addicted to allegorising because they brought out of Chaldea the
remains of the ancient Oriental-Greek philosophy, whose conflict
with their own religion gave rise to the system among them.
Still the Sabaism of Zoroaster, though necessarily influencing
the modes of thought and religious sentiments of the Jews at
Babylon, could not have operated so powerfully as to create the
allegorical inethod of interpretation, had there not been some
thing both in the genius of their sacred writings themselves, and
in their religious tendencies, fitted to elicit, and in part to justify
its adoption. The cause lay deeper than any external influence,
although it is quite probable that Zoroaster's doctrines developed
and extended a principle but little applied before. On the other
hand, the Platonic philosophy so prevalent in Egypt consider
ably affected the exposition of the Alexandrian Jews. It led
them comparatively to disregard the literal sense, and to seek
after a hidden one which should coincide with their philosophical
ideas. And yet it cannot be truly regarded as the cause of such
exposition. The origin of allegorising is to be traced to a pious
feeling following out. the examples of spiritual interpretations
given by Moses and the prophets in the Old Testament itself,
and seeking to introduce more into the Scriptures than sound
judgment sanctions, or the Bible itself approves. The writers,
who most condemn it admit that both the Old and New Testa
ments contain clear instances of the same kind,* but they do not
allow that it had its origin in these.f Surely, however, it is not
too much to say, that a pious mind, looking at these indications
of an internal significancy embodied in an outward act, and ac
customed to refer the phenomena of nature to the world of ideas^
* Dopke mentions as examples Deuteron. x. 16 ; xxx. 6 ; Exodus xxviii. 38 ; Le
viticus X. 17 (p. 125) ; and Hartmann has given a great number in his Die enge
Verbindung des Alten Testaments mit dem Neuen, Ste., Hamburg, 1831, 8vo, pp. 694-
€31. "i" " Paulus Apostolus, secta3 Pharisaeorum addictus, eam eruditionem, quae turn
inter Judaeos usitata erat, sibi comparaverat, siquidem Pharisaei, teste Josepho, prop
ter peritiam litterarum sacrarum interpretandarum celebrabantur. A quibus igitur
cum allegoricam interpretationem, turn maxime vulgarem, Paulus didicerit ; quid mi-
rum, quod a juventute illi adsuetus in epistolis suis interdum morem Judseorum se-
quatur?" Bauer's Hermeneutica Sacra, Lipsise, 1797, 8vo, p. 29.

68 ALLEGORICAL INTERPRETATION;
would naturally fall into allegorising ; and all the more readUy if
the fancy were luxuriant. The foundation of the allegorical me
thod is undoubtedly observable in the Old Testament viewed in
the light of the New. There were many symbols, types, and
shadows, the essential meaning of which consisted in spiritual
realities or abstract truths. They were suited to the infancy of
the world's religious sera — to the sensuous mmds of the Jewish
people, — and admirably adapted to prepare the way for the full
unfolding of a perfect system which they served to adumbrate.
They were but the scaffolding employed in the erection of the
spiritual temple, and when the latter was reared, they must needs
be taken down.
From Jewish we pass to the Christian expositors, among
whom we find numerous instances of the same method. —
Whence then did they derive it? That they received it wholly
from imitating the Alexandrine Jews, especially Philo, is not
to be admitted, though asserted by Photius, and repeated by
Dopke. When we reflect that it consists in an excessive use of
the true spiritual interpretation contained in the New Testament ;
and remember the proneness with which a pious mind sUdes into
it, no reasonable doubt can remain that it was believed to be
right to carry out this method extensively into the Christian
writings. Its prevalence among the Jews would stiU farther re
commend it, since many of the fathers expressly followed them,
having previously employed them as their preceptors. Thus the
origin of the system among Jews and Christians was substantially
the same. A spiritual direction of mind, united with the convic
tion that the practice is sanctioned by Scripture itself ; a lively
imagination, under the influence of piety, and inclined to extend
what God approved ; a disposition to link to outward circum
stances truths lying deeper than the surface; a desire to find
analogies between the world of sense without, and that of ideas
within; these combined tendencies created the system in ques
tion, which, with all its faultiness, is not so absurd or injurious as
many represent. It is rather the unwarrantable application of
a just mode of interpretation, than one distinctly and essentially
erroneous. It is strange that men professing to believe in a divine revela
tion, and taking allegorical to be synonymous with typical in
terpretation, should hesitate to adopt the system as essentially
right. Hartmann regards typical, or (as it is sometimes called)

ALLEGORICAL INTERPRETATION.

69

secondary interpretation, as a species of the allegorical, and yet
rejects the latter.* If, however, the terms be employed inter
changeably, as many German writers loosely express themselves,t
then is allegorical exposition founded upon the practice of the
sacred authors themselves. This indeed is not denied. So Bauer ;
" Nos quidem non negamus scriptores Nov. Test, nonnunquam
allegoricam interpretandi rationem sectari. Imprimis autorem
epistolse ad Hebrseos in eo argumento versari scimus, ut Jesum,
doctrinamque ab illo traditam, cum Mose, Aarone, institutisque
relig^osis Vet. Test, comparet, et quid prsecipui nova oeconomia
habeat, clare demonstret."t Still they are unwilling to allow it
that authority and place which are necessarily its just preroga
tive. There are types in the Old Testament representing and
adumbrating persons, things, and places in the spiritual kingdom
of Christ. In the Epistle to the Hebrews the apostle has clearly
shewn that the Old Testament economy was expressly adapted to
symbolise the dispensation of grace by which it was succeeded.
(Compare Hebrews, 9th chapter, 1-10 verses.) Believing then
as we do, that events, individuals, places, and transactions, were
designed to set forth spiritual truths, and to foreshadow coming
realities, a sure foundation is laid for spiritual interpretation, in
which the literal sense is stripped off, and the deeper or bvivoioi.
brought out. As long as there are types and real allegories in
the Scriptures, so long must there be secondary or spiritual in
terpretation. Allegorical interpretation, however, as we under
stand it, is not a kind or species of typical, but an unwarranted
and unscriptural extension of it. It finds allegories where none
were intended by the inspired writers. Without necessity or rea
son, it puts a deeper sense under the envelope of the letter. It
arbitrarily adds to Scripture, to make it fuller in sense, or more
^jefitting the dignity of its divine Author.
* Die enge Verbindung, pp. 631, 2.
f See Loehnis' Grundziige der biblischen Hermeneutik und Kritili, Giessen, 1839,
8vo,p. 29, where mediate, symbolical, mystical, and typical, are all taken synonymously.
X Hermeneut. Sac. p. 28.

(70)

CHAPTER V.
HISTORY OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
In giving the history of- Biblical interpretation from the earliest
period of the Christian Church, we shall adopt, the division of
Klausen into periods: — 1st, the patristic period, reaching to the
7th century. Secondly, the hierarchical, from the 7th to the
1 6th. We omit his last three periods, because their history would
occupy much more space than could be given to them in the
present work. PATRISTIC PERIOD.
The majority of the fathers belonging to this period are cha
racterised as allegorical interpreters. Not a few, however, of
those who thus designate them, put to their account as items of
allegorising exposition, specimens of true, spiritual interpretation.
They may be called mystical expounders, not because they pur
sued a system essentially and radically wrong, as many suppose ;
but because they followed a true system beyond its just and rea
sonable limits. Such an exegesis would not have been so general
in the Christian Church, from the earliest time downward, had
it been founded on a basis totally unsound. In characterising
the majority of the fathers as allegorical interpreters, we do not
blame them for being spiritual inteTpTeters; — their anxiety for the
holy character of revelation was too great to prompt the entire
rejection of mystical meanings ; — but we impugn their injudicious-
ness and folly in the excessive application of a principle to por
tions of the Scripture for which it has no affinity. Perhaps, too,
the frigid opponents of all spiritual interpretation, have usually
looked at the instances of sound, secondary exposition, and of
allegorical together; as though they were equally faulty. Hence
an epistle or commentary may be described as aUegorical in its
character, when it contains much fewer specimens of this method
than rationalistic writers perceive or allow.
Next to the apostles themselves, come, in order of time, the
apostolic fathers. These are five ; Barnabas, Hermas, Clement
of Rome, Ignatius, and Polyearp. Of Barnabas one epistle is

BARNABAS.

extant. Some indeed have questioned or doubted its authenticity,
such as Basnage, Jones, Cotelerius, &c. ; but the majority of the
learned, among whom are Pearson, Cave, Du Pin, Vossius, Ham-
niond. Bull, Wake, and Lardner, suppose it to be a real produc
tion of Barnabas the companion of Paul (Acts iv. 36, 37 ; xv.
36.)* The epistle consists of two parts, the first containing « an
exhortation and argument to constancy in the belief and profes
sion of the Christian doctrine ; particularly the simplicity of it,
without the rites of the Jewish law. The second contains moral
instructions."t In the first chapter Barnabas promises that he
would communicate to the Christians to whom he wrote, things
adapted not only to establish them in religion, but to increase
and perfect their jmeig, by which he means the recondite sense
of Scripture ; f for after quotmg Leviticus xx. 24, in which God
promises to the Israelites the possession of a land flowing with
milk and honey, he adds, " Now what the spiritual meaning of
this is, learn. It is as if it had been said, put your trust in Jesus,
who shall be manifested to you in the flesh. For man is the
earth which suffers ; forasmuch as out of the substance of the
earth, Adam was formed." ||
In the 7th chapter, the following commentary is given upon
the precepts respecting the Jewish sin-offerings. The two goats
(Leviticus xvi.) were to be fair and perfectly alike ; both there
fore typified the one Jesus, who was to suffer for us. The
circumstance of one being driven forth into the wilderness, the
congregation spitting upon it and pricking it; whilst the other,
instead ^ of being accursed, was offered upon the altar to God,
symbolised the sufferings and death of Jesus. The washing of
the entraUs with vinegar, denoted the vinegar mixed with gall
which was given to Jesus on the cross. The scarlet wool, put
about the head of one of the goats, signified the scarlet robe put
upon Christ before his crucifixion. The takmg off the scarlet
wool and placmg it on a thorn-bush, refers to the fate of Christ's
* Neander thinks that the present epistle is unworthy of the companion of Paul
and that it proceeded from a Jew educated at Alexandria, who had embraced Chris
tianity. I. 3, p. 1100 et seq.
+ Lardner's Works, London, 1768, 11 vols., vol. ii. pp. 11, 12.
X " Scilicet guis sensus spiritualis et mysticus .'" says Cotelerius in his edition of
the Apostolic Fathers, vol. i. p. 18 (2 vols. fol. Amstel. 1724, by Le Clerc.)
II Wake's translation of the genuine Epistles of the Apostolical Fathers, 6th edition,
London, 1833, p. 300. The words of the original are — " Ti kiyi, » ymns, liiS-i-ri.
"EXvKTxTi t*j rh i» irx^xi ft'iKXnTa fxyi^ourixi ifiiv 'inraVv. "AtS^uvos yri 'iirri iri,ir-
X'wa.- aTra r^oiru'rou yxg rris yns, h rrkelti; rcS 'ASa/i iyinn." Vol. i. p. 18.

72 HISTORY OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
church ; " for, as he who would take away the scarlet wool must
undergo many difficulties, because that thorn was very sharp,
and with difficulty get it ; so they, says Christ, that will see me
and come to my kingdom, must through many afflictions and
troubles attain unto me." *
In the 8th chapter, the red heifer brought forth without the
camp and there slain and burned, whose ashes the young men
should take up and put in vessels ; and with which, having tied
a piece of scarlet wool and hyssop on a stick, they should sprinkle
every one of the people that he might be freed from his sins —
this heifer, is said to be a type of Christ led forth to death : the
young men who performed the sprinkling are the preachers of the
gospel ; three in number, to denote Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,
because they were great before God. The wool was put upon a
stick, because the kingdom of Jesus was founded upon the cross.
" But why were the wool and hyssop put together ? To signify,
that in the kingdom of Christ there shall be evil and filthy days,
in which, however, we shall be saved ; and because he that has
any disease in the flesh by some filthy humours, is cured by hys
sop."! The 9th chapter is occupied with the signification of cir
cumcision. Abraham, it is said, who was the first that brought
in circumcision, circumcised 318 men of his house, because this
number in Greek letters (l=10, H=8, T=300, i. e. 318) sig
nifies Jesus, and the figure of his cross. Such, he adds, is the
mystery of three letters received by Abraham ; and this circumci
sion pointed to the death of Jesus as its object. That Barnabas
assigned great value to this Cabbalistic interpretation is apparent
from his own words : " No one ever learned from me a more
genuine truth; but I know that ye are worthy."!
In the 15th chapter, the words of the 90th Psalm 4th verse
are adduced to prove, that the present world will continue 6000
years, and that in the succeeding period a glorious rest will take
place. This sentiment was quite common both among the Greek
and Latin fathers, as Cotelerius has shewn in a note to the pre
sent chapter (note 65. ||) The specimens given from Barnabas
* Wake's translation, p. 303, and Cotelerius' edition of the Apostolic Fathers, pp.
20-24, vol. i.
'Y Wake's version, p. 304, — A/a t/ oi olfj^a. to 'ipiov xa) tov uo'ffio^ov ; 'on iv Tvi (iaffif-
klia, ai/Tou hfAi^oci 'iiTovTon rrovyi^oc'i xa,) pu^ot^et), Iv oils hfJ^iis ooi&rtif'ofjLi^a,' 'on xolI dkyuv
T7IV ffa^xtx, iia. rod pv-TTov rod inftnuTrou iccrai. p. 26, vol. i. ed. Cotel.
X OySs/j yvniriaTt^ov 'i[Aa6iv oo-r' ifiou x'oyov dWa, oliia, 'on cc^iot \trrt u(£t7s. p. 30.
II Pp. 44, 5, vol. i. RosenmUUer, after Bernard, endeavours to shew, that Barna-

JtfSTIN MARTYR. (3
justify the decision that his expositions are highly fanciful, and
that he may be truly styled an allegorical interpreter.
Hermas — The Shepherd of Hermas was written in Greek,
but now we have only an old Latin version with a few fragments
of the original. It consists of three books, the first containing
four visions, the second twelve commands, and the third ten simi
litudes. It has no Scripture quotations ; and therefore it is im
possible to judge of the mode in which Hermas interpreted the
sacred writings. The entire treatise is made up of peculiar and
exaggerated allegories having no foundation in the Bible.
Clemens Romanus  The only genuine remains of Clement
are his first epistle to the Corinthians, which is almost wholly
practical. It contains but one express mention of a New Testa
ment book, viz. 1 Cor. i. 12, although there are various quota
tions and allusions. The data for ascertaining the manner in
which this father interpreted Scripture are slight. It would seem,
however, that he was not averse to allegorical exposition ; for
in the 12th chapter, where he praises the faith and hospitality of
Rahab, he supposes, that by the scarlet thread suspended from
her house was signified the redemption that should be to all who
believe and hope in God.* The same allegory is found in a
number of the fathers, in Justin Martyr, Irenseus, Origen, Am
brose, &c., as is shewn by Cotelerius.
Ignatius. — The Ignatian epistles contain nothing definite with
respect to any principle of interpretation.
Po/yca^T?.^— Polycarp's epistle to the Philippians has many
citations from the New Testament, but they are not explained.
Justin Martyr (+163.) — Next to the apostolic fathers is usu
ally placed Justin Martyr, who belongs to the early apologists
for Christianity. He was born at Flavia Neapolis, formerly called
Sychem, in Samaria. After studying various systems of philo
sophy, he adopted the Platonic, which, however, he professes to
have renounced after his conversion to Christianity, observing,
that he found the latter to be " the only certain and useful philo
sophy." In general he is distinguished by his allegorising. After
this fashion he explains, not only the Greek and Latin poets,
but also the Old Testament. He endeavours to reduce to a con-
bas' words should be understood of the things that were to happen until the times of
the gospel, and not of those about the end of the world. Part i. p. 70 et seq.
* 'on S/flc Tov a'tfj^XTDS tou Ku^iov Kvr^oiirts 'iarai ^xairi to7s -TrttrnvoviTiv xa,) lk,Ti^oviriv
zt) tov Qiov. Pp. 154, 5, vol. i. K

74 HISTORY OP BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
nected and refined whole, the quintessence of the wisdom embo
died in the writings both of uninspired and inspired antiquity. It
is somewhat strange, however, that he should have so much ne
glected the New Testament, although in his proofs and illustra
tions of Christian doctrines he might have readily found much
stronger and more direct arguments in it, than those adduced out
of the Old. RosenmiiUer conjectures, that his sUght regard for
the books of the New Testament arose from the fact of his be
longing either to the Nazarenes or Ebionites ; but this is uncer
tain. Justin supposes that the Grecian poets and philosophers
received the greater portion of their valuable Imowledge indirectly
from the Old Testament, since Plato, Homer, and others, visited
Egypt.* Disfigured and concealed as this traditional knowledge
was by allegorical coverings and mythical additions,! he thinks
it necessary to reduce it to its true, original condition, by divest
ing it of these erroneous or fictitious incrustations. Hence he
discovers the garden of Eden in the gardens of Alcinous ; the
building of Babel, in the piling up of Ossa and Pelion by the
Titans ; and the fall of Satan, in the banishment of Ate.J These
conjectures may be true ; but in entertaining them Justin was
prompted by a pious desire to uphold the oracles of heaven as the
source of all wisdom, rather than by an enlightened conviction of
their susceptibility of rational proof. || The following example of
his exegesis is taken from his Second Apology : — " The words,
' binding his colt to a vine, and washing his garment in the blood
of the grape,' § were a sign, representing what should be done
to Christ, and what he should himself perform. For an ass's
colt was standing in a certain village bound to a vine, which he
then commanded his disciples to lead to him ; and when it was
brought, he sat thereon, and entered into Jerusalem, where was
* See his Cohortatio ad Grfficos, p. 18 et seq. (Opera, fol. Coloniae, 1686.) Ka)
O^^Etiff, xk) "Ofjt,7i^os, xa,) 1o\ojv o tovs vofiovs A^ijvatots yzy^acpus, xa) IlvSa.yopaSy xa.)
TlXarojv, xcc) akXoi nvig, ev t^ Atyv^Toi yivo/jotvoi^ xa) ex rris Muffius larofiias attptXfi-
S-EUTif, 'virn^av 'ivavna ruv ^^on^ov fjiri xocXas ^ep) Qieov oo^avTuv auToTs dorttp'^vavTo.
Do. p. 15.
•|* "Six nvos ixiivtjs aKXvyo^'ias uTo Mwfl-eiws xa) raiv Xoi^av cr^a^«Twv Iv to7s 'tavreov
irvyy^diifiac-iv aTTnyyiXxoroiv, p. 32. A similar sentiment is found in the Quaest. et
Eespons. ad Orthodoxos, although it be doubtful whether they proceeded from Justin ;
Kesponsio ad Quaest. X. p. 397.
X See chapters 29 and 30 of his Cohortatio ad Graecos, Hutchin's edition, 8vo, Ox
ford, 1703 ; or pp. 27, 28, editio Colonic.
II Neander doubts whether this treatise really proceeded from Justin (Band I. Ab-
theil. 3, p. 1120 et seq.), and with good reason. g Gen. xlix. 11.

JUSTIN MARTYR. 75
that most magnificent temple of the Jews, which was afterwards
thrown down by you. And after these things he was crucified ;
that the rest of the prophecy might be fulfilled. For the words,
' washing his garment in the blood of the grape,' predicted his
passion, which he was to undergo, cleansing by his blood those
who believe in him. For that which is called, by the prophet
in the holy spirit, his garment, are the men which believe in him,
in whom dwells the seed which is from God, even the word. And
that which is called ' the blood of the grape,' indicates, that he
who was to appear should have indeed blood, but that he should
have it by divine power, and not of human seed. And the prin
cipal power, after God the Father and Lord of all things, is the
Son, the Word : the manner of whose incarnation, and how he
was made man, we shall hereafter shew. For as not man, but
God, hath made the blood of the vine, so this intimated that the
blood should not be of human seed, but of the power of God, as
we before said." * The same explanation is given in his Dia
logue with Trypho, where the colt is said to be a symbol of the
Gentiles ; and the ass, of the Jews.f
In the disputation with Trypho, the following principle or canon
is laid down. " Do you know that whatever the prophets said
and did, as you have also confessed, they covered in similitudes
and types, in order that the greater number of things might not
be easily understood by all, concealing the truth in themselves,
that they who seek to find and to learn it, may have toil in doing
so ?"t This principle is substantially correct ; but the applica
tion of it is urged so far as to produce numerous instances of alle
gorical exposition. Thus the wrestling of Jacob with the angel
is said to denote the temptation of Jesus ; the injury he received
in the encounter, the sufferings and death of our Lord; || his double
marriage with Leah and Rachel, the revelation of God in the
Jewish and Christian Church ; § and the miracle which Elisha
* From "A Translation of the Epistles of St. Clement of Rome, Polyearp, and Ig
natius ; and of the Apologies of Justin Martyr and TertuUian. By the Rev. Temple
Chevallier, B.D." Cambridge, 1833, 8vo, pp. 223, 4— (pp. 73, 74, ed. Colonia;.)
t P. 271 et seq. do.
X oiaSa, 'on 'offa CiTtov xoa X^ro'iviaav o'l ^^oip^rai, as xa) atfioXoy^H iifjuv, ora^alioXaTs
xa) Tvirots d,x'txdku'^av, as (,t,h pacta's rd ,;rXua-Ta u,To ^ravrajv voriPvvai, x^i,rrovTts rhv
'iv aiiToTs aXvihtav, bis xa) vovitrai rous l^vlTOVvras Ev^sTv xa) f^ahiv. p. 317 (ed. Colon.);
or pp. 272, 3 (ed. Jebb.)
Jl Pp. 364, 365 (ed. Colon.) ; or 364, 365 (Jebb's ed. 8vo, London, 1719).
§ Pp. 364 et seq. (ed. Colon.) ; or p. 386-391 (ed. Jebb.)

76 HISTORY OP BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
wrought by causing the iron to swim, deliverance from the burden
of sin by baptism.*
Justin distinctly alludes to three of the four senses of Scripture
mentioned in many of the succeeding fathers. These are the lite
ral, the allegorical, the tropological, and the anagogical. The last
he does not name, but many examples of it occur in his writings.
According to it, the scriptural accounts of things pertaining to the
present life are applied to spiritual and heavenly matters. Christ
(says he) is frequently called by Isaiah x«os (a stone), Jv m^ajSoXp
(allegorically), whUst he is styled Jacob and Israel, Iv ¦rgo'jrokoyice,
(tropologically.)t The other apologists for Christianity, viz. Tatian, Theophilus,
and Athenagoras, are characterised by the same kind of interpre
tation as Justin. They diverge into aUegories by carrying typical
exposition to excess ; and thus follow the method of the first
apologist.^ Clemens Alexandrinus  The dogmatic theology of the Alex
andrian school stands in close connexion with its Hermeneutics ;
and it is necessary to glance at the former, before attempting to
unfold the latter. In the works of Clement and Origen a sepa
ration is made between itkng and ymgig, which pervades the entire
series of writers belonging to the school of Alexandria. By
viarig is meant an immediate reception of the truth, and a firm
adherence to it, without previous examination of the grounds and
reasons on which it rests ; by ymeig, a complete view of the truth,
the chiefest gift of God, by means of which the object of faith
becomes a firm and sure possession. This separation of Christians
into the believing (jieroi), and the discerning {yvugn-yiol), is based
upon the actual aspect of the church, and is implied in its whole
character. The essence of theology as a science supposes a re
moval of the distinction, by comprehending the internal nature
of faith. When the objects of faith are perceived and known ;
when the mind has advanced on the path-way of Christianity so
far, as to take in the range of revealed truth with its grounds
* Pp. 313, 314 (ed. Colon.) ; or 262, 263 (ed. Jebb.)
t See Dial, with Trypho, p. 341 (ed. Colon.) — See Bp. Kaye's Account of the Wri
tings and Opinions of Justin Martyr.
X The only treatise of Tatian extant is his Oratio contra Graces. Tlieophilus of
Antioch wrote three boolcs against the Calumniators of the Christian religion. Of
Athenagoras of Athens, we have remaining. Apologia vel Legatio pro Christianis •
and De Resurrectione Mortuorum. All of these are appended to the Cologne edition
of Justin Martyr's writings (1686), and examined by RosenmiiUer in his Historia In
terpret xtionis. Part i. pp. 193-200. See also Neander's Geschichte, i. 3, p. 1131 et seq.

CLEMENT OP ALEXANDRIA.

77

and reasons, the difference between vlgng and yvung disappears.
The two things are distinct with regard to their form and power ;
but they are essentially one. Hence Clement says, trigT^n rohw
7) yvuigig' yvciigrri hi ij vigrig Qiici, rivl axoXou6icf, ri xal avroi,KoXou6icf
yinrai,* It is not difficult to see, how this mode of viewing rt'igTig and
ywgig led to error. When the latter was strictly and minutely
severed from the former, it came to be regarded as a divine qua
lification, by virtue of which alone, the Christian system could
be supplemented and expounded. Initiated into the mysteries of
the spiritual life, the individual possessed of the ywgig had within
himself a principle, by whose speculative efficacy he could ex
plain all revelation. The fact that faith and knowledge rested
upon the same basis was gradually lost sight of, the latter serving
to develope and to establish in the mind the objects of faith.
The Vvugig came to be regarded as an independent power, contain
ing within itself a wondrous efficacy.
Tmgig is defined by Clement, " a certain view which the soul
takes of existences, consummated or perfect ;"t and in another
place, it is characterised as " a firm and stable demonstration of
the things already apprehended by faith.":]: Tl'igTig again is de
scribed as " the establishing or settlement of our soul, concerning
that which exists." \
The allegorising system was first extended by Clement to the
New Testament, and incorporated with the nature of interpreta
tion in general. It was looked upon as an important part of all
scriptural exegesis, and was therefore insisted upon as indispens
ably necessary.
* Stromata, lib. ii. p. 366 (ed. Sylburg, fol. Paris,. 1641.) To the same purpose we
find the following in the same book of the Stromata, p. 373. us S' avtv tuv Turffd^uv
a-Toixsioiv ouK 'iirn Z,^v, ouV avtv -Tritmus yvaffiv i^axoXov^tiirai. " As it is impossible to
live without the four elements, so it is equally impossible to follow up or attain to
yvZtris without yitiiA."
+ Sia T/j ten <r>is -^tix^s fuv ovraiv, '/irot nvos, n nvaiv, TiXsiuSucra tuv (fUfjLvdvruv.
Strom, lib. vi. p. 649.
X a^oisi^is TUV Sii ^iiTTSus ^a^si ktifi/Asvuv, iirxu^a xa) ^'s(iaios. Strom. lib. vii, p, 732.
II iT£^J TO ov, ffTcca-ts TTjs "^i^x^^ vif,i.uv. Lib. Iv. p. 531. On the doctrinal peculiarities of
the Alexandrian School, and its views of yvuiris and vt'iaTis, the reader is referred to
Neander's AUgemeine Geschichte der Christlichen Religion und Kirclie, Hamburg, 1 827
et seq.. Band I. Abtheil. 3, p. 905 et seq., or Rose's translation, vol. ii. pp. 195-234 ; but
especially to the profound and admirable volume of Professor Baur, of TUbingen, Die
Christliche Gnosis, TUbingen, 1835, 8vo, where he wUl find a masterly development
of philosophy as connected with and influencing Christianity, from the earliest down
to the present time. Compare pp. 84-97 ; and upon Clement's system, pp. 488-540.
The work requires and deserves to be repeatedly read and thoroughly digested.

78 HISTORY OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
The following rules or remarks respecting the interpretation
of the Scriptures are selected from his writings : —
1st. AU Scripture, including the New Testament as weU as
the Old, has a parabolic or allegorical sense.* To shew the
truth of this, he quoted the first and second verses of the 78th
Psalm; and 1 Cor. ii. 6-10. He then gives some examples to
iUustrate the canon, taking for this purpose the Mosaic account
of the construction of the tabernacle, and the various furniture
belonging to it (Exod. 25th and 26th chapters.) " The candle
stick situated south of the altar of incense signified the move
ments of the seven stars making circuits southward. From each
side of the candlestick projected three branches with Ughts in
them, because the sun placed in the midst of the other planets
gives light both to those above and under him by a kind of di
vine music. The golden candlestick has also another enigma,
not only in being a figure of the sign of Christ, but also in the
circumstance of giving light in many ways and parts to such as
believe and hope in him, by the instrumentality of the things at
first created."!
" The particulars related of the ark signify the world which
is perceived by the mind only (toD vorirov xcg/^ou), which is con
cealed and shut from the many."| The high priest's robe reach
ing down to his feet, is a symbol of the world of sense (per
ceived by the outward senses, Kogf/^ou aigSrjrov, in opposition to tou
vo'^Tou xoV/iou.) The three hundred and sixty-six bells hanging
from the high priest's robe, are " the period of a year, the ac
ceptable year of the Lord, proclaiming and echoing the great
advent of the Saviour." The golden mitre extended, signifies
" the kingly power of the Lord," || &c.
In the same extravagant way are the narratives of the New
Testament explained. Thus it is said, in reference to the miracle
wrought by our Saviour (John vi. 5-15), " five loaves are in a
very mystical manner broken by the Saviour, and multiplied to
* ^'Avnx^us yovv irg^i vdev\s y^aip^is Tris xa^ vi/aocs, Iv toTs ¦^'aXfioTs y'ly^avrai, us 'iv
^apafioX^ il^nfAivns. Lib. v. p. 657.
'f* i] Tt Xuxvia iv To7s voTiois ixBiTO TOU ^v//,iaT9}^tou' Qi' ris 001 TUV 'soTTco <puffip'opuv xivyi~
trsis iii^XuVTBOi, voTious TOEf ^£^i^oXriO'lts •TToiov^'tvuv. T^sTs yol^ 'ixaTi^uhv Ttis Xuxvi^s
ifi,,ffi{pijxaffi xXdioi, xa) X-tt avroTs ot Xvxvoi' lo-eJ xa) o "KXios, uffynp « Xuxvioo, fjoitras
TUV aXXuv TrXavviTuv riTayf^tvos, ToTs te u^e^ avTov, roTs Ti y^* uiirov, xara. Tiva hiav
fjLOVfftxnv 'ivVihuffi TOU (puTos. Ej^E' ^s Tl xa) ocXXo a)'viyfia ri Xuxvia h XZ^'^^t '^o'u tr'/ijatiou
TOU XpiifTov, oil Tu ffX'fiH'",'^' f/,'ovu, aXXa xa) tu tpuTifj(ioXi7v '^oXuTQooreos xa) ^oXuy.tpus
Tous its auTov ,7riffTlvovTaiy iXTTi^ovTas Ti xa) (iXiTTovTas Ota rtjs tuv ,jr^OTOXTtffTUV 2ia-
xovlas. Lib. V. p. 663. J Do. || Do. p. 664.

CLEMENT OP ALEXANDRIA. 79
the crowd of the hearers. For many attend to instruction with
the senses only, as if they were the only percipients. These are
they who think that there is nothing else save what they can
take in their hands;— as to acts and productions, and all that
cannot be seen with the eyes, they do not admit them to belong
to the order of existences." * " But perhaps the Lord fed with
two fishes and five barley loaves the multitude of those who
reclined on the grass over against Tiberias, because he wished
enigmatically to point out the erudition of the Jews and Greeks,
that goes before the divine sustenance produced by the law. For
barley ripens sooner than wheat in the summer-time. The fishes
signified the Greek philosophy which is generated and carried
through heathen waters, given in place of liberal nourishment to
such as were yet lying on the ground,"! &c.
Connected with the preceding rule is his assertion, that the
Mosaic laws have, a fourfold sense ; r=rja;^£s h\ nfuv ixXr}'?rTsov tou
v6/Lou Tfjv jSouXrigiv. " He however enumerates only three of those
senses ; the mystical, the moral, and the prophetical. Every law,
according to him, in the first place, represents some sign, that is,
the words of the law are images of other things ; and, in addi
tion to their proper sense, have an improper or secondary one
also attached to them. Secondly, Every law comprises a pre
cept for the right ordering of life. Thirdly, Every law, Uke a
prophecy, predicts something future. As Clement enumerates
only three senses in which the law is to be understood, although
he speaks of four, Hervetus, his translator into Latin, conjectures
that in the word nrga-xui there is a corruption, and that instead
of it we ought to read Tgi^Sig. But the learned writer has in
this respect fallen into an error. Clement, in his enumeration,
passes over the natural sense attached to the words of the law,
as a thing too obvious to require pointing out, and particularises
merely the three less evident ones. For the investigating these
recondite senses of the Mosaic law with effect, he deems philo
sophy, or the dialectic art, an highly necessary auxiliary." J
2dly. Another hermeneutical observation in Clement's Stromata
is, " The Scriptures conceal the sentiment they contain, for many
reasons," || three of which are specified, (a) " That we may be
diligently inquiring and always watchful, with a view of finding
• Lib. V. p. 562. + Lib. vi. p. 661.
X Mosheim's Commentaries, translated by Vidal, vol. ii. p. 156, note.
11 Si« ^oXXas a'lTias ivix^vorroVTai Tov vouv cti y^a(p«i. Lib. vi, p. 676.

80 HISTORY OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
out the doctrines of salvation." (b) " It was not expedient for
all to understand (the secret sense), lest they might be injurea
by taking things savingly uttered by the Holy Spirit otherwise
than they were meant. Wherefore the sacred mysteries of the
prophecies are preserved and covered in parables for those who
are chosen from among men and fitted by faith for yvZigig." (c)
" Since the parabolic or mystic mode is the most ancient, it justly
prevailed most among the prophets, in order that the Holy Spirit
might shew, that the philosophers of Greece and other countries
were ignorant of the future coming of the Lord, and the mystic
doctrine he was to deliver." *
3dly. Another principle found in Clement is, that the literal
sense of Scripture which is obvious to all, produces only elemen
tary faith, but the allegorical leads to the true yvZgig, — the sublime
wisdom, t By way of example, he expounds the decalogue al
legorically. " The writing of God and his formation of figures
on the tablet, is the creation of the world. The decalogue, by
a heavenly image, contains the sun, moon, stars, clouds, lights,
wind (vviufj^a), water, air, darkness, fire. This is the natural or
physical decalogue of heaven. The image of the earth contains
men, cattle, reptiles, beasts, and of aquatic tribes, fishes and
whales ; and again of birds, such as are carnivorous, and such as
feed on mild nutriment (the fruits of the earth) ; and of plants in
like manner, both those that bear fruit, and those which are bar
ren. This is the natural decalogue of the earth." $
He then mentions several other things making up the number
ten which are said to be symbolised by the decalogue. " The
letter iota signifies the blessed name Jesus." || In commenting
upon the single precepts of the law, he finds mysterious meanings
in each. Thus the 5th commandment relates to our heavenly
Father, and " the divine yvZeig and ffop/a, as Solomon says, when
he calls wisdom the mother of the just ;" but he denies that the
latter means either our mother, or the church. Adultery in the
7th commandment, he refers to a person forsaking the ecclesias
tical and true ymgig, turning aside to a false, improper opinion,
and making gods of created things. §
» Lib. vi. pp. 676,7.
.j- ih^Xou S' a^a Thv fjciv y^a^nv tt^o^'/iXov iival Tratri xara Tviv ^tXviv avayvuiriv ixXau-
f,avopiv>!f xa) TauTnv thai Tnv stiVtiv irToix"uv t«|/» 'ixouirav' 5/ o xa) ii orpos To
ypdftfta. avayvatris uXXfiyo^i'rar Tyiv oidoTTU^iy 2\ tv}v yvuirnxviv tuv ypaS/uv, wpoxo'K-
TOUffns ^3*1 T^5 :T(Vt£wj, iixd^ia-^at Tn xaTa tus ffuXXafias avayvuirit ix'^ixoy-i^a. Lib.
vi. p. 679. X Do. p. 680. || Do. p. 687. § Do.

CLEMENT OP ALEXANDRIA. 81
Fourthly. In various places Clement mentions a xaviiv tth dM-
di'iag or ixxkrigiagTixhg, — i. e. a hermeneutical tradition or principle,
by which the true meaning of Scripture is educed. The following
quotations will shew the nature of this tradition.
" If the object of the wise man be spiritual contemplation, —
this contemplation, which yet belongs to philosophers, eagerly seeks
after divine knowledge, but does not obtain it, unless it receive
by learning, the prophetic voice made known to it, whereby it
comprehends the present, the future, and the past state of things.
Now this very ymgig has come down by succession, being commit
ted without writing, by the apostles, to a few."*
" After the Saviour had taught the apostles, the unwritten
tradition of that which is written, is now delivered to us also, in
consequence of the renovation of the book (effected by the book)
being written upon new hearts, by the power of God."f
" Those who attempt the greatest things must necessarily fall
into the greatest error, unless they receive the rule of truth from
truth herself, and hold it fast. Such persons having fallen from
the right way, are deceived in most things singly. This might
be naturally expected, because they have not a criterion of false
hood and truth carefully fitted by exercise to choose what is
right. For if they had such a touchstone, they would obey the
divine Scriptures." $
" That man has ceased to belong to God, and to continue
faithful to the Lord, who has rejected the tradition of the church,
and started aside into the opinions of human heresies."
" He then that is faithful of himself, is justly deserving of faith,
by the Scripture and voice of the Lord, which work mightily by
the Lord for the good of men ; these we employ as a touchstone
for the finding out of things  Thus, then,
xai ori xa) ii 'ifTi TiXos tou ffo^ou h Siupia, opiylTai f/.lv, h fAtv 'in tpiXoa'o^uv, Ttjs
Sitas svrtffTnfins' ohdtfru ai Tuyxdvsi ijv f^h (Jiadrjffzi ^otpaXdlivi, ffa^'/iviirH7ffav aUTu t>3v
v^oipyinxnv ^eovuv, oi* ns Ta r iovTa too t \(fco(j.iva, or^o t iovTa, 'oorus 'ix^i Tl xa) eVxev
xai i^ti, ora^aXafAfidvii' 9] yvuffis 5e avTVi h xaTO, diadoxas Eif oXtyous, ix tuv ' Attoct'oXuv
xy^xtfus vrx^a'Soh7irx, xariXriXuhv. Strom, lib. vi. p. 645.
T xuTixa didd^avTos tou "Siut^^os tous ' AoroffToXovs, h tyis iyyQXtpou ay^atfios «S>i xx)
SIS vifAxs oixOidoTai ^x^x^oiris, xx^tais xaiva7s xard rriii avaxx'ivaijtv tou ^ifixiou t« %uvx-
fiii TOU Qiou 'lyyiy^Xfjifiivriv. Do. p. 679.
+ ff(pxXXtf8xi yx^ xvxyxn (/.eyiiTTX tous fAtyiffTots iyx^^ouvTxs vpdyfAairiv, yiv fjoTt tov
xxvovx Ttis xXrihixs Tfa^ xuTtis Xxjiovres 'iX^'^' Tvis aX^hias' oi Totourot Se an aorocrt-
rovTss Tris o^6ris odou, xa) to7s orXiiiTTois tuv xxtx fjoipos fffpxXXovTxr llxorus, iid ro lAti
tXiiv xXnduv Kx) ^piu^uv x^iTv^iov, ffuyyiyUfAvafff^ivov ax^ijius tx Viovra a)pi7ff0ai' il yap
ixtxTtivTo, Tx7s hixis i'xiidovTo dv y^u(pa7s. Lib. vii. p. 766. L

82 HISTORY OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
we too, bringing perfect demonstration respecting the Scriptures
themselves out of themselves, persuade convincingly by faith."
The Gnostic Christian is described in these terms. " In our
view he alone is possessed of the true ywgig who has grown old
in the Scriptures themselves, preserving the right apostohc and
ecclesiastical line of doctrines, living most uprightly according to
the gospel, and who is conducted by the Lord, the law, and the
prophets, to find proofs when he seeks them; for I think that
the life of the Gnostic Christian is nothing else than deeds and
words which follow the tradition of the Lord."t
In another place, after stating that heretics adulterate truth
and steal the canon of the church, he says, " Since they have
not the key of entrance, — but a certain counterfeit key, by the
help of which they do not lift up the veil, as we go in by the
tradition of the Lord, — they break open the door, and secretly
dig through the wall of the church, &c." %
" We say that there is but one ancient and catholic church
in the unity of the one faith, which is according to its own cove
nants, or rather, according to the covenant that was one at dif
ferent times  for as there was one doctrine
belonging to all the apostles, so also there was one tradition." ||
" All things are right, says the Scripture, in the eyes of those
who understand; i. e. of such, as having received the interpreta
tion of the Scriptures made known by Christ himself, agreeably
to the ecclesiastical canon, abide by it. Now this ecclesiastical
rule is the harmony of the law and the prophets with the cove-
* dvS^uTtos iivai TOU Qlou, xa) TiiTTos TU xupiu "htafjo'lvliv xoroXuXixiv 0 dvxXxxTtffxs Tr\v
ixxXrjcTiXtrnxhv ,7expxhoffiv, xx) a^o^xipT'/jiras us So^as aip'streuv xvS^wjt'ivuv' ..."
 0 jtiEV OUV eI 'iXVTOU ^TlffTOS, T^ XU^IXX^ y^X<P^ Tt XXI
(puv^ a^to,jriffTos iixoTus XV Ota tou Kvpiou orpos Triv tuv avPpu^uv iuipylff'txv ivipyoufitvn'
df^lXn ,T^os Tnv TUV or^ayfAXTuv tv^to'tv, xut^ X€ufAl6a xpiTt^piaj 
ovTus OUV xx) rifi,i7s d,jT aUTuv ^ep) xvtuv tuv ypa(puv tbXsius a'Xo'htixvuvTis, ix oriiTTlus
vrafof^ida d^o^sixTixus. Lib. vii. p. 757.
¦f a^o; hf^oiv f/,ovos Ev xuTa7s xaTayyjf^xffxs tx7s ypa<pa7st Tnv ' Aoroo'ToXixhv xa) ExxXti-
fftaoTixhv ffui^uv o^doTofAtav tuv ooy^aTuv, xXTO, TO EuxyyiXiov 'ogdoTXTX {ito7, rds ccjro-
"ii't^iis. us dv i^i^nTyiUri dviu^irrxtiv dva^Bfi^ofiSvos iiTo tou VLupiou, ii^o t£ vofiov xx) cr^fl-
^tlTuv 0 jiios yx^ oifAxi TOU yvuffTixou flySfiv xXXo iiTTiv V 'ipya xa) Xoyoi Tri tou K-VPIou
xxoXou5-oi ^ira^u^'oiru. Do. pp. 762, 3.
X dXX' o'uVi TTIV xXsrV 'ixOVTiS XUTo) TVS tlffO^OU, 'V^EI/SS Vi TIVX dvTIxXil^X, 2i' nS OU TVIV
auXaixv xvaofiTatravTis ucr^Tfi^ ri/Ai7s oid ttis tou Kv^iou cra^a^oo'ius i'lirifjoiv, 'prxpxdupov Se
xvxTlfjo'ovTts xa) "hio^u^xvTis XdS^a to Tlix'tov ttis 'ExxXntrtxs, x. t. X. Do. p. 764.
11 /x,ovnv iTvai tpafj,\v Tr\v d^x^'^^'V xa) Kx&oXtxhv ixxXticrtxv, lis 'ivOTVTX -TriirTius fjLtxs
TViS xxTX Tas oixltxs aiaSriXXs, f/,aXXov oi xxtx tvv oix^rixnv T*jv jtt/fljv ^taip'opots To7s XS^'
vols  ¦ fi-ia yd^ h oravTuv yiyovt tuv ' A<jroOToXbiv ufforip h^affxaXix,
o'vTUs Tl xa) n ^a^d}offis. Do. p. 765-

IREN.EUS.

83

nant delivered by the Lord during his presence on earth."* This
is the most direct explanation given of the ecclesiastical canOn
or tradition.
In another place, we find these words respecting it. " What
soever ye do therefore, do all to the glory of God ; i.e. all things
which you are permitted to do under the rule of faith ."t
We reserve our observations upon this principle to a future
page, when it may be conveniently compared with a like canon
mentioned by other fathers.
In the meantime, it is apparent from th§ remarks and quotations
already given, that Clement was much addicted to the allegorising
system ; and that, in consequence, he is often fanciful. Devoted
to the Platonic phUosophy, and an admirer of PhUo,t he brought
the tenets of the former into the field of scriptural exegesis, and
gave currency to the excessive typification of the latter. Hence,
although he did not reject the natural, historic sense, he despised
it in comparison of the allegorical, deeming it of little value in the
sight of the Gnostic Christian. His writings, in short, abound with
allegorical interpretations, devoid of truth, sobriety, and judgment. ||
IrencBus (+202.) — Irenseus belonged to the latter part of the
second century. He was probably a Greek, and a native of
Asia. He became Bishop of Lyons in Gaul. Many of his
works have been lost. The only treatise extant is that which he
wrote against Heresies, in five books, part of which we have only
in a Latin translation of ancient date.
The allegorising method had been zealously prosecuted by the
Gnostics, and in their hands produced most pernicious effects
upon the treatment of Scripture. It claimed to be ancient, and
professed to reverence the written word by extracting from it
* ' A^avTX op$d ivuviov TUV ffVviivTuv, <pyjff)v VI ypa^Yi. tovtIitti tuv 'offal uv auTou ffx-
(pnviffh7ffxv, TUV y^x(puv 'l^viyviffiv xaTa tov ixxXviffiaffTixov xavovx ix'htxof^otvai ^ixffu^ouffi.
xavuv oi ixxXnfftaffTixos, vt ffuvu^ix xa) vj ffv/xfuvix vofAou ti xa) fir^o(f»]Tuv Tri XXTX Tnv
TOU KvQtov •jra^ovir'iav orx^aii^ofzivvl ^ixdvixn. Lib. vi. p. 676.
•j* TlxvTa OUV 'offa oroii7Tt, lis Vo^av Qsou ^oiuTl' 'offa ijTTo Tov xavova Ttis TtffTlus "jroiuv
loriTiT^aotTxi. Lib. iv. p. 613.
X " Clement's devotion to this writer (Philo) is unbounded : him he is continually
extolling, him he imitates, and from him he transcribes a variety of passages without
even the changing of a word." — Mosheim's Commentaries on the Affairs of the
Christians before the time of Constantino the Great : translated by Vidal, vol. ii. p.
158, note.
II In Bishop Kaye's "Account of the Writings and Opinions of Clement of Alex
andria," 8vo, London 1835, a work well worthy the student's attention, a great
number of allegorical expositions are collected from the works of this father. See p.
374, et seq.

84 HISTORY OF BIBLirAL UtTERPRKTATlOX.
such ideas as beseemed a divine revelation, and the holy majesty
of its Author. With such a profession it was naturally accept
able to the pious mind, especially as it was actually based upon
truth. But the true spiritual interpretation was never soberly
appUed by the patristic adherents of Christianity; and when
adopted by the Gnostics, its excesses were too formidable not to
excite opposition. The ymgig which these heretics constantly
appealed to, advanced to such daring height under the guise of
just exposition, that others began to be convinced of its erroneous
tendency in bringing systematically into the Bible unwarrant
able and false sentiments. So long as it proceeded thus. Chris
tian truth became insecure, and Antichristian error prevailed.
Hence, too, arose the necessity of opposing a barrier to its pro
gress, and of bringing back enlightened Christians to derive sure
principles of interpretation from the Bible itself, rather than
from any philosophy or yvZigig with its pretended mysteries. In
Irenseus and TertulUan we find the first vehement opposers of
Gnosticism ; the first condemnation of the allegories in which it
indulged.* These fathers attempted to lay down a path of pro
ceeding deserving to be called real interpretation, by which the
true sense might be certainly elicited. Whether they succeeded,
will be seen from the following pages.
The principle of interpretation chiefly commended and urged by
Irenseus, is termed by him xavdiv Tijg aXr\Ma.g, or regula veritatis.
The subsequent extracts serve to shew what he meant by it.
" He who possesses the rule of truth which he has received in
baptism, immoveable in himself, will come to the knowledge of
the words, expressions, and parables (or similitudes) belonging
to the Scriptures  for by this means he will know
perfectly, even before evidence, that the truth preached by the
church is firm, and their (the heretics') fictions unfounded and
false. For the church, though scattered throughout the whole
world, as far as earth's extremities, received from the Apostles
and their disciples the faith which is in one God Almighty, who
made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is ; and in
one Jesus Christ, the son of God," &c., continuing a formulary
of faith coinciding in substance with the apostles' creed.j
* See Neander's Antignostikus, Geist des TertuUian und Einleitung in dessen
Schriften, 8vo, Berlin, 1825; and Baur's Gnosis, pp. 640-43.
-j" ouTU Tl xa) 0 TOV xavovx Ttjs xXn^stas dxXivn iv 'iauTu xxtixuv, 'ov ^ix tou ^xorTiff-
fiXTos llXnipi, TX fiiv ix TUV y^aipuv ovofiXTX xa) Tas Xillis, xa) txs rx^afioXxs ioriyvii-

irenjEus. 85
" Since we abide by the rule of faith, i. e. that there is one
God Almighty, who made all things by his word," * &c.
" When the Gnostics are convicted out of the Scriptures, they
turn to accuse the Scriptures themselves  But when
again we refer those who oppose tradition, to that tradition which
is derived from the apostles, and preserved in the churches by
the succession of presbyters, they will say that they are wiser,
not only than the presbyters, but even the apostles, because
they have found the pure truth." t
" The true yvZgig is the doctrine of the apostles, and the ori
ginal system (or state) of the church in the whole world, and
the express image of the body of Christ, according to the suc
cession of bishops, to whom they (the apostles) delivered that
church which is in every place. This yvugig has come down to
us, being preserved without falsification of the Scriptures, in its
fullest development, without addition or curtailment, both with
out danger and blasphemy," &c.t
" Should a dispute arise concerning any question, ought we
not to have recourse to the most ancient churches in which the
apostles lived, and take from them what is certain and clear ?
And if the apostles had not left the Scriptures to us, should we
not have followed the order of tradition, which they (the apostles)
handed over to those whom they entrusted with the charge of
the churches ? " ||
iriTai ....£» TOUTOU yx^ xx^ijius ffuvihi7v 'iffTai, xa) t^d tw? xTo^ii^ius, ^s(ixiav
Tjjy v^o Tns 'ExxXvtrixs xn^uffffo/Alvviv xXnhiav, xx) tviv u^o toutuv ,Tl^ivrivt'oinfA'ivnv ^^w-
^vtyo^'ixv. 'H fiiv ydp ixxXn'ffia xa'tofi^ xotff oXns Tns olxoufLlvns 'lus •jripaTuv Tns yns
iilfforxpfjoivn, orxpd Se tuv 'AoroffToXuv xx) tuv ixiivuv (AxdnTuv ,7rxpxXa^ouffu Tnv its 'ivx
©iflv, VXTl^x vavTox^xTO^a, Tflv •Ttl'TroivixOTa TOV ou^xvov xx) Tnv ynvt xx) Tflsf 9-xXxtrffas,
xx) TXVTX TX £V XVTo7s, CTIffTlV Xx) ItS iVX X^lffTOV 'inffOUV, TflV VtOV TOU &lOU, x. T. A.
Adversus Haereses, lib. i. capp, i, ii. p. 34. ed GaUasii, Genevae 1570, fol,
* Cum teneamus autem nos regulam veritatis, id est, quia sit unus Deus omnipo-
tens, qui omnia condidit per verbum suum, &c. Lib, i. cap, 19, p, 74,
+ Cum enim ex Scripturis arguuntur, in accusationem convertuntur ipsarum Scrip
turarum  Cum autem ad eam iterum traditionem, quae est ab
apostolis, quae per successiones presbyterorum in ecclesiis custoditur, provocamus eos
qui adversantur traditioni, dicent se non solum presbyteris, sed etiam apostolis exis-
tentes sapientiores, sinceram invenisse veritatem. Lib. iii. cap. 2, pp. 169, 170.
X Vvuffis xXnSns h tuv dvoffToXuv ^ihxxn, xx) to x^x^-i'^v rns ixxXnffias ffuffTn/xa XXTX
ordvTos Tad xofffiou, et character corporis Christi, secundum successiones episcoporum
quibus illi eam quae in unoquoque loco est, ecclesiam tradiderunt, quae pervenit usque
ad nos, custodita sine fictione Scripturarum, tractatione plenissima, neque ablationem
recipiens, lectio sine falsatione, et secundum Scripturas expositio legitima et diligens
et sine periculo, et sine blasphemia, etc. Lib. iv. cap. 63, p, 292.
II Quid enim et siquis de aliqua modica quaestione disceptatio esset, nonne oporteret
in antiquissimas recurrere ecclesias, in quibus apostoli conversati sunt, et ab eis de

86

HISTORY OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.

The churches of Smyrna and Ephesus are mentioned as be
longing to the most ancient, but especially that of Rome, whose
twelve bishops were chosen in succession after the apostles.
" Since it would be tedious in the present volume to enumerate
the successions of all the churches, we point to the tradition of
the greatest and most ancient church, known to all, founded and
established by two most glorious apostles Peter and Paul at
Rome, which tradition it has from the apostles ; and we make
known also the faith announced to men, and reaching by succes
sions of bishops even to us. By this means we confound all such,
&c  By this ordination and succession, the tradition
in the church which is derived from the apostles, and the
preaching of the truth, have come directly to us ; and this is the
most complete proof that there is but one and the same quicken
ing truth which has been preserved in the church from the time
of the apostles, and has been transmitted in truth to the present
time  With this church (of Rome), on account of its
preeminence (potiorem principalitatem), it is necessary that every
church should agree, because in it has been preserved the tradi
tion derived from the apostles." *
These extracts are sufficient to shew the importance which
Irenseus attached to the rule of truth, and the tradition of the
church .f
Opposed as he was to Gnosticism with its fanciful and danger
ous allegorising, it is not surprising that in Scripture exposition
he should insist upon adhering to what is " certain, indubitable,
praesenti quasstione sumere quod certum et re liquidum est ? Quid autem si neque
apostoli quidem Scripturas reUquissent nobis, nonne oportebat ordinem sequi tradi-
tionis, quam tradiderunt iis quibus committebant Ecclesias ? Lib. iii. cap. 4, p. 172.
* Sed quoniam valde longum est, in hoc tali volumine, omnium ecclesiarum enume-
rare successiones, maxima; et antiquissimae, et omnibus cognits, a gloriosissimis duo-
bus apostolis Petro et Paulo Roma; fundatas et constituta; ecclesiae, eam quam habet
ab apostoUs traditionem, et annuntiatam hominibus fidem, per successiones episcopo
rum pervenientem usque ad nos, indicantes confiindimus omnes eos qui, &c. . . .
.... Hac ordinatione et successione, ea quae est ab apostolis in ccclesid tradi'tio'
et veritatis praeconiatio pervenit usque ad nos. Et est plenissima haec ostensio, unam
et eandem vivificatricem fidem esse, quae in ecclesia ab apostolis usque nunc sit conser-
vata, et tradita in veritate. ... Ad banc ecclesiam propter potentiorem princi-
palitatem,necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam, in qud semper ab his qui sunt undique,
conservata est ea quae est ab apostolis traditio. Lib. iii. cap, 3, pp. 170 171 On the
meaning of this place, which has been somewhat differently understood, the reader is
referred to a long note in Gieseler's Text-booh of Ecclesiastical History, translated
by Cunningham, in three volumes, 8vo, PhUadelphia 1836, vol, i, pp, 96 '97 . and to
Mosheim's Commentaries, translated by Vidal, vol ii p, 91, note (z.)
•f For some remarks on this point, seepage 109,

IREN.EUS.

87

and true ;" upon not turning aside to vain and foolish questions,
and so rejecting " primam et veram de Deo sapientiam," If the
interpreter do not set out with the things " quse ante oculos nos-
tros occurunt, et quaecunque aperte, et sine ambiguo ipsis dictio-
nibus positse sunt in Scripturis," then, " apud nullum erit regula
veritatis ; sed quanti fuerint qui absolvent parabolas, tantse vide-
buntur et veritates oppugnantes se invicem et contraria sibimet
dogmata statuentes," &c. " A mind sound, free from danger,
devout, and attached to truth," lays as the basis of exposition,
whatever is expressed in the Scriptures " openly and unambi
guously." Thus parables " quse possunt multas recipere abso-
lutiones," will be similarly expounded by all.*
The sure positions thus laid down may, however, be readily
abused. They may lead the incautious into an extreme the very
opposite of that against which they are justly advanced. Accord
ingly, Irenseus was not always able to avoid the errors which
originated from his system of interpretation (if such it may be
called) when injudiciously applied. Hence his notions respecting
a temporal earthly kingdom of the saints after the resurrection.
In all the declarations of the Old and New Testament connected
with the judgment and resurrection, he rejects the spiritual accep
tation of every statement descriptive of heavenly blessings in a
future life. In his opinion, an earthly kingdom, such as the Chi-
liasts imagined, exhausted all such expressions as are commonly
understood to pourtray everlasting happiness in the kingdom of
heaven. " Should any try," says he, " to allegorise things of this
kind, they will be found inconsistent with themselves respecting
them all, and will be convicted by the express words," &c.t
But when he finds his opinion contradicted by the words of
the apostle (1 Cor. xv. 50), he is obliged to have recourse to
that very allegorising which he so much condemns. " As many
as have not that which saves and forms them into life, they will
be, and be called too, flesh and blood, since they have not the
spirit of God in them."|
" Thus also flesh by itself cannot inherit the kingdom of God,
* See Lib. ii. chapters 46 & 47, pp. 146, 7.
¦(¦ Si autem quidam tentaverint allegorizare haec quae ejusmodi sunt, neque de omni
bus poterunt consonantes sibimet ipsis inveniri, et convineentur ab ipsis dictionibus
disserentibus quoniam, &c. Lib. v. cap. 36, p. 468, Grabe's edition, Oxford, 1702,
fol. + Quotquot ergo id quod salvat et format in vitam, non liabent. hi consequentcr
erunt et vocabuntur caro et sanguis, quippe qui non habent Spiritum Dei in sc. Do.
p. 411.

88 HISTORY OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION,
but it may be itself inherited (by the Spirit) in the kingdom of
God."* Irenjeus, in short, was not altogether free from the allegorising
spirit which he condemned in others. Thus he infers from John
viii. 56, 57, that Christ was nearly fifty years old when he suf
fered. In commenting upon the import of the name Jesus, he
indulges in a rabbinic conceit. Various instances of the same
kind might be selected which shew an undue license in expound
ing, and an unwarrantable extension of the typical sense. Still
he must not be classed among the allegorical, but the historico-
theological interpreters. THE CLEMENTINE RECOGNITIONS.
The three pieces called the Clementine Recognitions, the Cle
mentine HomiUes, and the Clementine Epitome, are universally
acknowledged to be apocryphal, and are probably different edi
tions of the same production ; the Homilies being, as Lardner sup
poses, the original work upon which the Recognitions were formed,
whilst the author of the Clementine Epitome has borrowed from
both. Cotelerius assigns the Recognitions to the second century .t
They consist of a series of conversations or disputations between
Peter, the representative of apostolic truth, and Simon Magus,
the abettor of the Gnostic heresies. Baur thinks, with good rea
son, that Marcion's opinions are concentrated in Simon. |
Whoever the writer was, he by no means favoured the allego
rical system. He opposes not only the Gnostic sentiments, but
their strained and artificial mode of interpretation. He belongs,
therefore, to the class of historico-theological expounders, who
follow correct and sound principles. The following passages may
assist in shewing the writer's sentiments regarding biblical inter
pretation. " The things," says Peter in reference to the prophetic writ
ings, " which were plainly spoken, are not also plainly written ; so
that when they are read, they cannot be understood without an
expositor, by reason of the sin which has grown up with men." ||
* OUTU xx) h ffxQ^ xaf 'iaurhv fiaffiXuxv ©soy xXn^ovof,c,nffxi oil iuvxTxi, xXnpovounSnvai
SI El's Tnv (ixffiXiiav TOU Gtou ^uvaTai. Lib. V. cap, 36, p.- 472.
•)¦ Quantum ex re ipsa, veterum testimoniis, ac recentiorum judiciis coUigere licet
libri isti pseudepigraphi sunt et apocryphi, secundo seculo compositi a viro docto qui
dem juxtaac diserto, sed phUosopho magis et philologo, quam theologo, Patres Apo-
stolici, 2 vols, fol, Amsterdam, 1724, vol, i, p, 190,
X Die Christliche Gnosis, p. 301 et seq.
11 Qua; tamcn manifesto quidem dicta, non tamcn manifeste scripta sunt : in taiitum

THE CLEMENTINE RECOGNITIONS, 89
" Those persons are accustomed to entertain absurd notions
against God, who read the law without the guidance of teachers,
and have themselves only for instructors, and think that they are
able to understand the law, even when not expounded to them
by one who has learned it from a master." *
" There are many things which to some appear indeed to be
inconsistent, but yet harmonise in a profounder sense. In like
manner, some things seem to have consistency, which, when
closely examined, are found to be incompatible." f
" I see that ingenious men take many verisimilitudes out of
what they read ; and therefore it should be carefully observed,
that the law of God, when read, should not be read according to
each one's understanding. For there are many words in the di
vine Scriptures that may be drawn to that sense which each has
previously formed for himself. This ought not to be done. You
should not seek a sense foreign and extraneous, which you may
bring in from another source ; but you should draw from the
Scriptures themselves the sense of truth. Wherefore it is fitting
that you should acquire a knowledge of the Scriptures from him
who preserves it transmitted from his predecessors, according to
the truth delivered to him ; so that he also may be able efficiently
to maintain the doctrines he has rightly received. For when any
one has taken from the divine Scriptures the rule of truth entire
and sure, it will not be amiss for him to derive assistance from
common erudition and liberal studies, prosecuted it may be in his
youth, for the purpose of maintaining true doctrine ; yet so as to
turn aside from false and counterfeit things, as soon as he has
learned the true." J
ut cum leguntar, intelligi sine expositore non possint, propter peccatum quod coado-
levit hominibus, (Cotelerii ed.) Lib. i. 21, p. 497, vol. i.
* Solent ista absurda adversum Deum meditari, hi qui legem non magistris traden-
tibus legunt, sed semetipsos doctOres habent, et putant se intelligere posse legem, quam
sibi non exposuit ille, qui a magistro didicerit. Lib. ii. 55, p. 621.
+ Multa sunt quae videntur quidem inconsona esse nonnuUis ; habent tamen pro-
fundiore ratione in semetipsis consonantiam ; sicut et aliqua videntur habere conson-
antiam, discnssa diligentius, inveniuntur inconsona. Lib. ii. 34, p. 517.
$ Multas, ut video, ingeniosi homines ex his quae legunt, verisimilitudines capiunt :
et ideo diligenter observandum est, ut lex Dei cum legitur, non secundum proprii in-
genii intelligentiam legatnr. Sunt enim multa verba in Scripturis divinis, quae possunt
trahi ad eum (vel suum) sensum, quem sibi unusquisque sponte praesumsit ; quod fieri
non oportet. Non enim sensum quem extrinsecus attuleris, alienum et extraneum de-
bes quaerere ; sed ex ipsis Scripturis sensum capere veritatis. Et ideo oportet ab eo
intelligentiam discere Scripturarum, qui eam a majoribus, secundum veritatem sibi
traditam, eervat, ut et ipse posset ea, quae recte suscepit, competenter adierere. Cum
M

90 HISTORY OF BIBLICAL INTERPRET.tTlON.
The right view here taken of interpretation is applied with consi
derable ability to various passages in the Old and New Testaments
respecting the true God, and to apparent contradictions between
Scriptural expressions. Examples may be found in the first, second,
and third books, which exemplify the truth of this statement.
TertuUian (+220.)— We have already spoken of TertuUian in
connexion with Irenseus, as a strenuous opponent of the Gnostic
opinions prevalent in the second and third centuries, and an
able defender of apostolic truth. Among the Latin fathers, he
occupies a conspicuous place. His varied learning and oratorical
powers, as also his fertile imagination, and the forcibleness of his
arguments, combine to give him an elevated rank among the
writers of the third century.* The reputation he has acquired
is tarnished, however, by a partial defection from the true faith
into the errors of the Montanists. It is generally admitted, that he
did not embrace all the views of these enthusiasts. The most offen
sive and erroneous he seems to have avoided. In consequence of
his opposition to the doctrines and fanciful comments of the Gnos
tics, we find him frequently decrying philosophy, condemning its
utility in theology, and representing it as the fruitful parent of
numerous errors. Such invectives are neither surprising nor un
deserved, when we consider the disastrous effects produced by the
Platonism of his predecessors upon the literal truth of the Bible.
He saw that the propagation of opinions derived from Gentile
philosophy and engrafted on the word of God, was destructive
of the fundamental doctrines transmitted from the apostles ; and
accordingly he raised his voice against such perverse inventions.
In reproaching philosophers and heretics, he sometimes appears
unduly to decry the use of reason, as though a dogma were to be
believed the more readily, in proportion to its greater repugnancy
to sound reason. But his meaning is merely this, that reason
must often be kept in abeyance to faith ; that many things must
be received on the simple testimony of God, though they appear
incredible in the eye of reason. His language may be misunder
stood, and his real sentiments misrepresented ; since the words
are not, perhaps, sufficiently guarded, or most happily used. But
enim ex divinis Scripturis integram quis susceperit et firmam regulam veritatis ; ab-
surdum non erit si aliquid etiam ex eruditione communi ac de liberalibus studiis quae
forte in pueritia attigit, ad adsertionem veri dogmatis, conferat ; ita tamen, ut ubi
vera didicit, falsa et simulata declinet. Lib. x. 42, p. 697 .
* Compare Neander's description of TertuUian's mental character. Band i. Ab
theil. .3, pp. 1152, 3.

TERTULLlAN. 91
his meaning is, on the whole, consonant with truth, and sup
ported by Scripture. There are many things above reason, which
the true Christian must believe, simply because God has stated
them.* TertuUian's method of interpretation coincides with that
of Irenseus. He follows the literal, in preference to the allego
rical sense. This is the prevailing tendency of his comments and
reasonings, although occasional departures from it are not want
ing. He had no partiality for the strained and artificial fancies
produced by the allegorising processes of the Gnostics.
In reference to prophecy he says, " There is another kind of
prophetic diction in which most things are figuratively intimated
by means of enigmas, allegories, and parables, and which must be
understood otherwise than they are written. For we read, that
' the mountains shall drop down new wine,' (Joel iii. 18;) and
we hear of ' a land flowing with milk and honey,' (Exod. iii. 8.)"t
This happens because, as he says in another place, " words are
to be taken not merely as they outwardly strike the ear, but ac
cording to the sense they are meant to convey to the mind." J
Against such as asserted that every thing in the Old and New
Testaments should be understood figuratively, especially the pro
phecies, he affirms, " that if the prophets had spoken all things
by images, the images themselves could not have been distin
guished, had not the truths been proclaimed from which the
images might be pourtrayed. And, therefore, if all are figures,
what will become of the things of which they are figures." ||
* Rosenmiiller has done injustice, I think, to TertuUian, on this head. Following
up the depreciating judgment given by Semler, he attributes to the father in question
such a position as this. " Quo quid absurdius sit, quo magis sanae rationi repugnet,
eo magis esse credendum, ac Deo dignum," (Historia Interpretationis, pars, ii, pp,
11-13.) A careful perusal of the 3d, 4th, and 5th chapters of TertuUian's book, De
Came Christi, does not bear out the German writer in this accusation. (See Tert.uUiani
Opera, folio, Paris, 1608, pp. 664, 565.) The late Mr. Conybeare truly remarks,
" His memory has been treated with far too much of harshness and contempt by those
who have occasionally shewn themselves by no means his superiors either in the art
of reasoning, or the command and correctness of language." Bampton Lecture for
1824, p. 112.
¦j- Alia species erit (prophetici eloquii) qua pleraque figurate portenduntur per
fenigmata, et aUegorias, et parabolas, alitor intelligenda quam scripta sunt. Nam et
montes legimus destillaturos dulcorem  et terram audimus lacte
et meUe manantem, &c. Advers. . Marcionem, lib. iii. cap. 5, p. 480, Rigalt's edi
tion, foL Paris, 1634.
X Verba non solo sono sapiunt sed et sensu ; neque auribus tantum modo audieiida
sunt, sed et mentibus, p. 623. Scorpiacum, cap. 7.
11 Si ita esset, ne ipsae quidem imagines distingui potuissent si non el veritates prio-
dicatae fuissent, ex quibus imagines deliniarentur. Atque adeo, si onuiia figurae, quid
erit iUud, cujus figurae ? De Resurr. Carn. cap. 2ti, pp. 392, 3.

92 HISTORY OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
" Since even parables do not obscure the light of the gospel,
much less should sentences and definitions whose nature is clear,
be made to convey a different sense from the obvious one."
The foUowing passages relate to the Gnostic treatment of
Scripture, and apply in general to allegorising interpreters.
" That heresy does not receive some parts of Scripture ; and the
portions it does receive, it perverts by additions and subtractions
according to its own purpose. If it adopt them entire, or pre
serve them in some measure entire, it nevertheless perverts them
by giving different expositions."!
" Adulteration, both of the Scriptures and their exposition,
must be expected where diversity of doctrine is found. Those
who are resolved to teach otherwise, are compelled by necessity
to arrange in a different way (from the apostles and their suc
cessors) the instruments of teaching (instrumenta doctrinse.) For
they could not teach otherwise at any other time, unless they had
in another form the means by which they teach heresy. The
one (Marcion) perverts the Scriptures with the hand (machsera,
non stylo usus est) ; the other (Valentin us) perverts their exposi
tion by devising and bringing his own sentiments into them," t &c.
After adducing and objecting to the allegorical explanation
given by some of the parable of the younger son, viz. that the
two sons denote the Jewish and Christian churches, he takes occa
sion to point out the arbitrariness of such expositions, " Although
all the particulars might correspond as in a mirror, yet one chief
thing should be avoided in interpretations, viz. that the suitable
ness of the comparisons should not be regulated otherwise, than
the subject matter of each parable demands 
But we are not anxious to extort every thing in our exposi
tion of the parables, because we do not invent doctrines out of
them, but interpret them according to their subjects, and avoid
every thing opposed to this. Wherefore are there a hundred
* Quod si nee parabolse obumbrant Evangelii lucem ; tanto abest ut sententiae et
dcfinitiones quarum aperta natura est, alitor quam sonant, sapiant, De Resun*. Carn.
cap, 35, p, 403,
¦)¦ Ista haeresis non recipit quasdam Scripturas ; et si quas recipit, adjectionibus et
detreetationibus ad dispositionem instituti sui intervertit : et si recipit integras : et si
aliquatenus integras praestat, nihilominus diversas expositiones commentata convertit.
Advers, Haereticos, cap. 17.
X lUic igitur et Scripturarum et expositionum adultei-atio deputanda est, ubi diver-
sitas invenitur doctrinae. Quibus fuit propositum alitor docendi, eos necessitas coegit
alitor dispouendi instrumenta doctrinae. Alias enim non potuissent aliter docere, nisi
alitor haberent per quae docerent haeresim  Alius manu Scripturas,
aUus sensu expositiones intervertit, &c, &c, Advers. Ha;ret, cap 28.

TERTULLlAN. 93
sheep, and why ten drachmae, &c. &c 
such curious speculations both awaken suspicion, and by the
subtilty of forced expositions generally lead away from truth.
But on the contrary, there are things which are laid down simply
for the purpose of disposing, arranging, and filUng out a para
ble, that they may lead to the point for which the example was
selected  We prefer to be less wise perhaps in the
Scriptures, than to be more wise than the Scriptures. We ought,
therefore, to guard the sense intended by the Lord, as well as
his precept. A fault in interpretation is not of less magnitude,
than a fault in the life." *
But the principle which he chiefly urged is what he calls reg
ula fidei, the same as that upon which Irenseus insisted in op
position to false doctrines. This was the authoritative barrier
set up by both against heretical innovations, viz. a traditional
interpretation transmitted from the apostles through the pastors
of the churches.
" Our adversaries," says he, " appeal to the Scriptures ; and
by this bold conduct, immediately excite some spirits to oppose
them. But in the very encounter, they weary out such as are
steadfast, deceive the infirm, and send away the undecided with
scruples in their mind. First of all, therefore, we shut them out
from this position which they assume ; we do not admit them
to any disputation respecting the Scriptures. If this be their
strength, it ought, for the purpose of shewing whether they
should have it, to be inquired, to whom the possession of the
Scriptures properly belongs, lest he, who has no right, be ad
mitted to it 
The appeal, therefore, must not be made to the Scriptures, nor
the contest settled on this ground ; for in that case the victory
would not be ours, or it would be uncertain, or nearly so. The
* Quanquam etsi omnia ad speculum respondere possint, unum sit praecipuum peri-
culura interpretationum, ne aliorsum temperetur felicitas comparationum, quam quo
parabolae cujusque materia mandavit  Nos autem, quia non ex parabolis
materias commentamur, sed ex materiis parabolas interpretamur, nee valde laboramus
omnia in expositione torquere, dum contraria quaeque caveamus. Quare centum oves ?
et quid utique decem drachmse, etc  Hujusmodi enim curiositates
€t suspecta faciunt quaedam, et coactarum expositionum subtilitate plerumque deducunt
a veritate. Sunt autem quae et simplieiter posita sunt ad struendam, et disponendam,
et texendam parabolam, ut illuc perducantur, cui exemplum procuratur 
Sed malumus in Scripturis minus si forte sapere, quam contra. Proinde sensum
Domini custodire debemus atque prseceptum. Non est levior transgressio in inter-
pretatione, quam in conversatione. Do Pudicitia, capp. 8, 9, pp. 724-26.

94 HISTORY OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
right mode of proceeding requires this point to be previously dis
cussed. To what party does the faith itself belong ? to whom do
the Scriptures belong ? from whom, and by whom, and when,
and to whom, has the doctrine by which they become Christians
been delivered ? for wherever it shall appear that the true Chris
tian doctrine and faith exist, there also will be found to exist the
Scriptures, and their expositions, and all Christian traditions, in
their true state 
The apostles founded churches in each city, out of which other
churches have borrowed the layer (conveyancer) of faith and the
seeds of doctrine, and do daUy borrow, in order that they may be
true apostolic churches, and be reckoned the posterity of such
churches 
What the apostles preached, that is, what Christ revealed tO
them, ought not to be proved otherwise than by the same apos
tolic churches, which the apostles themselves founded by means
of their personal, viva voce preaching, and afterwards by epistles.
It appears, therefore, that every doctrine which agrees with those
apostolic churches which are the conveyancers and originals of
the faith, is to be accounted truth ; because it contains, without
doubt, what the churches received from the apostles, the apostles
from Christ, Christ from God ; and that every doctrine is to be
looked upon a priori as false, that pretends to wisdom contrary
to the truth of the churches, and the apostles, and Christ, and
God."* * Adversarii Scripturas obtendunt, et hac sua audacia statim quosdam movent : in
ipso, vero, congressu, tirmos quidem fatigant, infii-mos capiunt, medios cum scrupulo
dimittunt, Hunc igitui- potissimum gradum obstruimus, non admittendos eos ad uUam
de Scripturis disputationem. Si hae sunt illae vires eorum, anne eas habere possint
dispici debet cui competat possessio Scripturarum, ne is admittatur ad eam, cui nullo
modo competit  Ergo non ad Scripturas provoeanduni est : nee
in his constituendum certamen, in quibus aut nuUa aut incerta victoria est, aut pai'
incertae  . , Ordo rerum desiderabat illud prius proponi, quod nunc
solum disputandum est, quibus competat fides ipsa : cujus sint Scripturae : a quo et
per quos et quando et quibus, sit tradita disciplina qua fiunt Christiani ubi enim ap-
paruerit esse veritatem et discipline et fidei Christianae, illic erit Veritas Scriptura
rum et expositionum et omnium traditionum Christianarum  Apostoli
ecclesias apud unamquamque civitatem condiderunt, a quibus traducem fidei et semina
doctrinae, caeterae exinde ecclesiae mutual^ sunt, et quotidie mutuantur ut ecclesiae fiant,
ac per lioc apostolicae deputantur, ut soboles apostolicarum ecclesiarum 
. . . Quid autem praedicaverint, id est, quid illis Christus revelaverit, et hic prae-
scribam non aliter probari debere, nisi per easdem ecclesias quas ipsi apostoli condide
runt, ipsi eis praedicando tam viva quod aiunt voce, quam per epistolas postea. Si
haec ita sunt, constat proinde omnem doctrinam quae cum Ulis ecclesiis apostolicis ma-
Iricibus et originalibus fidei conspii-et, veritati deputandam : sine dubio tenentem quod

TERTULLlAN. 95
" No Other tradition of the apostles must be acknowledged,
than that which is published at this day among their church
es."* " The rule of faith is altogether one, the only unchangeable
and unalterable rule, viz. to believe in one God Almighty," &c. ;
then follows the substance of the apostles' creed.j
" If the case be such then, that the truth must be assigned
over to us who walk according to that rule which the church
has received from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, Christ
from God, our proposition is evident in which it is maintained,
that heretics should not be aUowed to appeal to Scripture. We
prove, without the Scriptures, that they have nothing to do with
the Scriptures  That is my possession : I am the
heir of the apostles ; I hold to the things which they provided
for me by their will ; which they committed to faith, which they
solemnly assigned over. You, they have certainly disinherited
and disavowed at all times, as aliens, as enemies." J ....
" Though we should still think it necessary to inquire ; yet where,
and of whom, ought the inquiry to be made ? Is it among here
tics ? — no. Let us therefore inquire in our own society, and of
our own, and about our own things ; and let us seek that only
which can properly be made a subject of inquiry, always main
taining inviolate the rule of faith." He then gives the rule of
faith, consisting substantially of the articles contained in the
apostles' creed,
" This rule, instituted as we shall prove, by Christ, gives rise
among us to no questions, except such as introduce heresies and
make heretics  Since they are still inquiring,
they have not yet obtained (the truth ;) and since they have not
ecclesiaB ab apostolis, apostoli a Christo, Christus a Deo accepit : omnem vero doc
trinam de mendacio praejudicandam, quae sapiat contra veritatem ecclesiarum et apos-
tolorum, et Christi, et Dei, Liber Adversus Htereticos, capp. 15-22, pp, 23G, 7, 8.
* Non alia agnoscenda erit traditio apostolorum, quam quae hodie apud ipsorum
ecclesias editur. Lib. i, Adversus Mare, cap. 21, p, 446,
t Regula quidem fidei una omnino est, sola, immobilis et irreformabilis, eredendi
scilicet, in unicum Deum omnipotentem, etc, De Velandis Virginibus, p, 192.
X Si haec ita se habent, ut Veritas nobis adjudicetur quicunque in ea regula incedi-
mus quam ecclesia ab apostolis, apostoli a Christo, Christus a Deo tradidit, constat
ratio propositi nostri, definientis non esse admittendos haereticos ad ineundamde Scrip
turis provocationem, quos sine Scripturis probamus, ad Scripturas non pertinere,
. , . Mea est possessio. Ego sum haeres apostolorum, sicut caverunt testamento
suo, sicut fidei commiserunt, sicut adjuraverunt, ita teneo. Vos certe exhaeredaverunt
semper, et abdicaverunt ut extraneos, ut inimicos. De Praescrip, adv. Haeret. capp.
37, 38, pp. 245, 6.

90 HISTORY OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
yet obtained it, they have not yet believed ; and since they have
not yet believed, they are not Christians."*
" Faith is contained in the rule (of faith.) .... Let
curiosity give way to faith, honour to salvation. Let them either
cease raiUng against this rule, or hold their peace. To know
nothing in opposition to the rule, is to know all things." t
From these passages it may be inferred what authority and
importance TertuUian attached to the rule of truth, or of faith.
Like Irenseus, he adhered to the historico-theological method, in
so far as it was supposed to lead to results coinciding with that
traditional summary of doctrine which he beUeved to possess in-
falUble efficacy against the falsifications of perverse interpreters.
The only subject on which he permits allegorical interpretation
is that of prophecy, and even then with limitations.^ But his
exceptions are no where accurately stated, so that the rule re
specting prophetic diction is vague and indeterminate. In a few
cases he is inconsistent with himself in allegorising some passages
which cannot reasonably admit of any other except the literal
sense ; but his faults lie rather in urging the literal method too
rigidly, to support carnal notions of a millennarian, earthly felicity
after the resurrection. || This extreme, neither he nor Irenseus
were careful to avoid ; although he has advanced pertinent argu
ments against the Marcionite views of the nature, connexion, and
separation of the soul and body. §
Origen. — The most distinguished of the fathers belonging
to the third century was unquestionably Origen. Possessed of
extensive learning, an acute genius, amazing industry, and vast
powers of memory, he is justly conspicuous among the Christian
writers of antiquity, and has exercised a most extensive influence
on his successors. His authority and example were so great as
* Nobis etsi quierendum esset adliue et semper, ubi tamen quaeri oportet ? . .
, , , , Quasramus in nostro, et a nostris, et de nostro : idque duntaxat quod salva
regula fidei potest in qusestionem devenire  Haec regula a
Christo ut probabitur, instituta, nuUas habet apud nos quaestiones nisi quas haereses
inferunt, et quae haereticos faciunt, , , , . , . Cum quserunt adhuc, non-
dum tenent : cum autem non tenent, nondum crediderunt ; cum autem nondum credi-
derunt, non sunt Christiani, De Praescrip. adv. Haeret, capp. 12, 14, pp. 235, 6.
+ Fides in regula posita est  Cedat curiositas fidei, cedat
gloria saluti. Certe aut non obstrepant, aut quiescant, Adversus regulam nihil scire
omnia scire est. Do, p, 236.
X Non semper, nee in omnibus, allegorica est forma prophetici eloquii, sed interdum
et in quibusdam, De Resur, Carnis, cap, 20,
II See his Treatise De Resurrectione Carnis.
§ Kosenmiiller's Historia, &o. pp. 150-183, part ii.

ORIGEN, 97
to render current notions of no intrinsic value, and promote the
growth of sentiments in which error and truth were blended to
gether. But with all his faults, he presents a remarkable monu
ment of activity in the cause of truth, exhibiting mental powers
raised to a high tone of cultivation, and exerted with unwonted
vigour on behalf of Christianity.
It is well known that he was addicted, like his predecessors,
Pantsenus and Clement, to allegorical interpretation. If we
bear in mind the distinction between «lgTig and ymgig, peculiar to
the theology of the Alexandrian school, and the prevalency of
Platonism, we shall not be surprised at the attempts of Origen
to supply and expound the Christian religion by the power of
reason, or of a philosophy supposed to exhibit its results. To
the same philosophy, Philo, Clement, and Ammonius had been
also addicted.
As man consists, according to Plato, of body, soul, and spirit
(<r£/ta, •vf/ux'ij 'Kviuij.a), so, according to Origen, Scripture has a
threefold sense, and requires a corresponding triple interpretation,
viz. goifj^oLTixhg, -i^u-zj-nhg, muiiarixog.* The following passages re
fer to this triple division, and the purposes it serves.
" The sentiments of the Holy Scriptures must be imprinted
upon each one's soul in a threefold manner, that the more simple
may be built up by the flesh (or body) of Scripture, so to speak,
by which we mean the obvious explanation ; that he who has ad
vanced to a higher stage may be edified by the soul of Scripture,
as it were ; but he that is perfect, and like to the individuals spoken
of by the apostle (1 Cor. ii. 6, 7), must be edified by the spiritual
law having a shadow of good things to come." f
" And perhaps the waterpots said to be set for the purification
of the Jews, as we read in the gospel according to John, contain
two or three measures apiece, because the word enigmatically
expresses, in regard to those who were Jews secretly, according
* uffffTlp ydp 0 xv^puoros ffvviffTvxlv ix ffufixTos xai ^vxns xa) otviufAXTos, tov xvtov
T^oTov xa) n olxovof/,nSt7ffa uoro tov Qiou sis dvS^uoeuv ffUTti^iav ^o^nvxi y^atpn. Origenis
Opera, ed. Delarue, Paris, 1733, fol. vol. i. 168. In the next page he says, t/V/ nvts
y^xtfx) Tfl ffufiXTixov ouhx/AUS 'ixouffxi, us iv To7s 'l^ns ot't^of/ilv, iffnv 'ocfov oiovl) Tnv ^u-
xhv xa) TO 'jtvivi/.x Tns y^a<pns f^'ovx x^^ ^nTi7v. Lib, iv, a*£^I A^x'^v, and in his Philo-
calia, pp. 8, 9, ed, Spencer, 4to, Cambridge, 1658.
•f* Oiixouv TQiffffus xirty^x^lffdxi Se? lis Tnv iavrou -^puxhv tx tuv xyiuv y^a/A/AXTUv
van/^xTx* 'ivx 0 fiiv dvXovffTi^os olxo%of/,nTai x^o Tns o'tovi) ira^xas rns ypa(f>ns. (o'vtus
ovofial^ovTuv n/*,uv Tnv vr^oxn^ov ixooxnv.) o oi iw) oeoffav uvafii^nxd's, x-ffo Tns uffvrtpu
^uxns xiiTns' o Si tsXhos, xa) ofcoios to7s wa^d tu dvoffToXu Xiyo/joivois (1 Oor. ii, 6, 7),
aWfl TOV ^vtvfiXTixov vofiov ffxidv 'ixoVTos TUV [itXXevTuv dya^uv. Uip) xpxuv, lib. iv.
cap, 11, p. 168, Philoc. p. 8. N

98 HISTORY OP BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
to the representation of the Apostie Paul (in the epistle to the
Romans), how they are purified by the doctrine of the Scriptures,
whilst they contain sometimes two measures — the spiritual, so to
speak, and the pneumatic word ; sometimes three measures ; since
some, in addition to those already mentioned, have the bodily
(grammatical) also, which is able to give edification. But the
six waterpots reasonably stand for those who are cleansed in the
world, the number of perfection being contained in six days. That
it is possible to be benefited by the first perception, which profits
even of itself, is testified by the multitudes who have believed
with sincere and simple spirit.'""
In confirmation of such a mode of interpretation, he appeals to
various passages of Scripture itself, as to Prov. xxii. 21; 1 Cor.
ii.6, 7 (as we have just seen) ; ix. 9, 10; x. 11; Gal. iv. 21, &c.
Let us attend to these diflerent senses in order.
\st, The ga/j^otTixhg, I. e. the literal, grammatical, or histori
cal. Ernesti maintains that Origen was the first who used this
method ; and that whatever good was done by it, especially in the
New Testament books, among the ancient Christian writers, is
to be attributed to him.-f- But this accomplished writer overrates
Origen's merit. From the father's own expressions and exposi
tions, it is abundantly evident, that he did not set so high a value
on the literal sense, as Ernesti believes. According to Eusebius,
he was addicted to grammatical studies in his youth ; but as he
advanced in age, the profounder tenets of philosophy occupied
his attention, to the neglect of the former. Hence we may rea
sonably infer, what indeed the tenor of his comments sufficiently
confirms, that he pursued the allegorical more than the literal
method. J He paid much less regard to the literal than to the
* xx) Taxa Old TouTo, xl 'lor) xx^x^iffftu tuv 'lov^aiuv v^piai xiiffSai Xlyofjoivai, us 'iv
TU XXTX 'ludvvnv tvxyytXiu dviyvufAiv^ xu^ouffiv xvd /itTpnTxs avo xa) T^l7s' xivirffofil-
vov TOV Xoyou ortp) tuv ora^x tu 'AoroffToXu 'lou^xiuv, us xpx outoi xxSa^i^ovTxt otx Tov
X'oyov TUV y^xipuv, oVaf folv duo filT^nTxs, tov, 'iv o'utus i'Ittu, •^vx'xov xx) tov n'viufix-
Tixov Xoyov xu^ovvTuv. 'oorov Ti T^its, iorit nvis 'ixovfft or^os To7s vf^oli^nfioivois xx) tov ffu-
fianxov olxoiofjinffai ^vvdfitvov e| Se v^^ixi ivX'oyus llff) To7s iv tu xoirfLU xxSx^tl^ofJo'lvois,
yivofjoiv^ iv 6^ nf^i^xis d^JfAu TlXtioi' xoro /Av ouv Tns or^uTns 'ixioxns xx) xxrd touto
u^iXouffns, 'oTi 'iffnv 'ovaffdai, fjoa^TV^ii Tx orXn^n tuv yvnfftus xa) xvXovffTlpov oriofiff-
Tiux'oTuv. Lib. iv. cap. 12, pp. 169, 70, or Philoc. p. 9.
f In his Commentatio de Origene, interpretationis librorum sacrorum grammaticas
Buctore, translated by Patton in Hodge's Biblical Repertory, vol. iii. New York,
1837, 8vo. Compare also Ernesti's Principles of Biblical Interpretation, translated
by Terrot, vol. ii. p. 191.
X Ammon, misled no doubt by Ernesti, states just the reverse of the truth in his
note to Ernesti's Institutes, vol. ii. p. 191, translated in the Biblical Cabinet.

OBIGKN. 99
moral and mystical sense, as the comparison of the former to the
body necessarily implies. The body, he asserts, often leads even
the pious into sin ; so an adherence to the historic sense, betrays un
guarded readers into error and falsehood. The following passage
will serve to shew the estimation in which he held the grammati
cal sense, and the reasons he alleges for frequently forsaking it.
" What person in his senses will imagine that the first, second,
and third day, and the evening and the morning, were without
sun, moon, and stars, and that the first day too was without a
sky ? (or firmament.) Who is there so foolish and destitute of
common sense as to believe that God planted a garden eastward
in Eden, like a husbandman, and created in it the tree of life,
perceptible to the eyes and senses ? 
But what need is there for many words, since those who are
not altogether stocks, may collect innumerable instances of this
kind, written indeed as the transactions occurred, though the
things were not done as they appear from the letter of Scrip
ture? The gospels, also, abound in expressions of this kind;
as when the Devil is said to have taken Jesus to a high moun
tain that he might shew him from thence all the kingdoms of
the world and the glory of them. For who could believe, if
he read such things with the least degree of attention, that the
kingdoms of the Persians, Scythians, Indians, and Parthians,
were seen with the bodily eye, and with as great honour as
kings are looked upon among men? Any one who reads the
gospels attentively may observe, that innumerable other particu
lars like these — things that did not take place — are interwoven
with real narratives of events which happened according to the
letter. And if we come to the laws of Moses, many of the pre
cepts, were they observed in their literal sense, would either be
repugnant to reason, or impossible to be done."
This assertion he endeavours to prove by Levit. xi. 13, 14 ;
Gen. xvii. 14 ; Deut. xiv. 5, 12 ; Exodus xvi. 29.
" If we come to the gospel and seek for like examples, what
can be more abhorrent to reason than this ? ' Salute no man by
the way,' which the simple think the Saviour to have enjoined
his disciples," * &c. &c.
* Tts yovv vouv 'ixuv olnffiTxi oT^UTnv, xx) ^ivt'i^xv, xx) Tg;V*jv nft,'lzxv, 'iffxi^xv T-i xx)
orputxv, X'^i'^ vXiOV yiyovivxt, xa) fflXnvns, xx) dffT^uv i Tnv Ti olovli or^uTnv xx) X'^C*^
oupavou i Tl! Tl o'utus nXi^ios, us oln^nvxi T^oorov xvi^uorou yiat^you tov 0iov ^ifvTluxUai
orx^ailiffov l» 'ESi|K xaTa dvaroXds : xx) IvXov l^uni i» a'uru vioroinxivai o^aTov xa) xlff-
^,j,j,gj,  K«) t1 Si? ^Xtiu Xiytiv, tuv fAvi ,rdvv dfJ,(hXloiv fAv^ia

100 HISTORY OF BIBLICAL INTEBPBETATION.
The reason, then, alleged by Origen for forsaking the gram
matical, and having recourse to the allegorical is, because many
narratives both of the Old and New Testaments, as also many
precepts, are irrational or impossible when taken in their obvious
sense. When they are absurd or unworthy of God, they must
be spiritually understood.
Lest we should believe that there was no other higher meaning
in the Scriptures, " the wisdom of God provided that certain of
fences, and stumbling blocks, and impossibilities, should be inter
spersed throughout the law, and history, .... in order that
individuals devoting themselves to the labour of examining into
the things written, may be assuredly persuaded of the necessity of
seeking sentiments worthy of God, in regard to such matters." **
As farther examples of things impossible and irrational, where
there is a plain necessity for finding a mystical sense concealed
beneath the letter of Scripture, Origen mentions the account of
Lot's incest, of Abraham's two wives, and of Jacob's marriage to
two sisters. " These," says he " are mysteries" {/j-ugrrigicc raCra.)
So also, the construction of the tabernacle, the different wars and
histories in the Old Testament, are represented as figures (rh-jroi)
of spiritual things.!
In the same manner he states, that it is impossible to observe
according to the letter the prescriptions of Moses respecting the
Sabbath. $ To this head too he refers chronological and histori
cal discrepancies between the different gospels. ||
'offa ToixuTX ivvxfAivuv ffuvxyxyi7v, yly^xftfiivx fiiv us yiyovoTx, ov ylylvn/J,ivx Tl xard
Tnv Xi^iv : *AXXx xa) Td Evxyy'lXix Tt tou avTftu t't^ovs tuv Xoyuv oriorXnpuTxi' lis v-^n'
Xov 'o^os TOV 'Inffovv dvajitlia^ovTos tov AixlioXov, 'iv iKir^Ev auTu ^li^n tov otxvtos x'offuov
TXS (ixfftXiias xa) Tnv 'ha^xv xutuv. tis yd^ oux xv tuv f,on orx^i^yus dvxyivuffxovTUV tx
ToixvTX, xxTayivuffxoi Tuv olo/iivuv TU Tns ffx^xos ofixXfiZ iu^xffixi Tnv Ui^ffuv, xx)
7,xvfuv, xa) "iv'iuv, xa) Ua^Svxiuv (iaffiXlixv, xx) us ioi,dZ,ovTai orx^x xvi^uffrois oi (iaffi-
XiuovTis ; Xla^aorXnffius Tl tovto7s xx) xXXx fiv^ia xffeo tuv KvxyyiXiuv 'ivlffTi tav xxpi-
iiouvTx Tn^nffxi, iiori^ t»5 rvyxxTatifflxi ffvvvfxiviff^xi Ta7s xxtx to pnrov ysyivnfo'ivxis
IffTo^lxts 'Iti^x foh rufifiilinxoTX. "Eiv Si xx) ior) Tnv vo/aohffixv 'ix6ufi.lv Tnv Muffius,
V'OXXOI TUV VO/iHv, T^V oV«V 'ioT) TU XxC 'iXVTOVS Tn^l7ffSxi, TO xXoyOV 'l/,ofxiVOVfflV, ETSfa/
Si TO diuvaTov  cl Ti xx) iv) to EuxyyiXiov 'iXi'ovTls
rd o/ioix ZnTWai/Alv, ti dv ii'n xXoyuTl^ov toZ, MnTlva xaTX Tnv o'Sov dirrxffnrh. 'oorip
i.TiXXtoeai vofi'iZ,ovffiv ol xxi^uioi to. 2a,T?ja to7s 'AoroffToXois i Lib, iv, vi() iixuv,
p, 175 et seq,, and Philoc, pp, 12, 13, 14,
• uxovo/inffi nvx^ olovi) ffxdvixXx xx) or^offxofi/iaTx xx) dlvvarx iix foiffou 'lyxxTxxtn-
vai TU vofiu XXI Tn iffTopta 0 TOU @lou Xoyos. " - n '
'"•' . r- , . t . / »  lyx vn fixffxvu
Tns 'llirdffius TUV ylyiafCfi.ivuv 'iriUovTis 'ixvTovs m7fffix d^i'oXoyov Xdjiuff, «f! „S Sij-y
TOU eiou xifov vouv lis TX TOIXUTX ^BTi/'v. Do. Lib. iv. c, 16, pp. 173 174.
+ Do. cap, 9, p, 166, $ Do, cap. 17, p. 176.'
II Do. cap. 18, pp. 179, 80. Numerous specimens of grammatical interpretation
!iave been selected by Kosenmiillor. Historia Interpretat. pars iii. pp. 61-91.

ORIUKN.

101

2dly, The •4/u;^^;xof.
Origen has not explained the idea he attached to this epithet,
but we are able to infer it from the examples given. In all parts
of Scripture a sense is concealed which respects the improvement
of the morals, and promotes edification. It is not very obscure,
but yet its apprehension requires more than ordinary skill. Those
who have learned to look beneath the surface, and not to rest in
the ga/iarixhg, may find it. It is not however so deeply hid as the
•ffviu/J/aTixog. The following is an example of the -^ux^iog. Gen. i. 20.
" According to the letter, creeping things and fowls are pro
duced from the waters by the command of God, and thus we
know by whom these things which we see were made. But let
us also see, how these same things may be done in our firmament
of heaven, i. e. the solidity of our mind or heart. In my opinion,
if our mind be illuminated by Christ our sun, it is thenceforth
ordered to produce out of the waters which are in it, creeping
things and winged fowls, i. e. to bring forth good or bad thoughts,
that the good may be separated from the bad, both having pro
ceeded from the heart  For from our heart,
as from the waters, are produced both good and bad thoughts.
But let us, by the word and precept of God, bring forth both to
the view and judgment of God, that with his illumination we
may be able to distinguish what is bad from the good, i. e. that
we may separate from us those things which creep upon the
earth and bear earthly anxieties ; and allow such as are better,
i. e. winged, to fly, not only above the earth, but along the fir
mament of heaven," * &c.
From this illustration it appears, that the sense called ^^ux'",));
* " Porro dixit Deus : (Gen. i. 20) Producant aqum repentia animarum vivarum,
et volatilia volantia super terram secundum frmamentum cceli. Et factum est sic.
Secundum literam, jussu Dei producuntur ab aquis repentia et volatilia, et haec quae
videmus, a quo sint facta, cognoscimus. Sed videamus, quomodo etiam secundum nos
trum flrmamentum cceU, id est, mentis nostrae vel cordis soliditatem, haec eadem fiant.
Arbitror, quod si mens nostra illuminata fuerit a nostro sole Christo, jubetur post-
modum ex his, quse in ea sunt aquis, producere repentia et volatilia volantia, i. e, cogi-
tationes bonas vel malas proferre in medium, ut discretio fiat bonorum a malis, quae
utique utraque ex corde procedunt  De corde namque nostro
velut de aquis proferuntur, et bonee cogitationes et malee. Sed nos verbo ac praecepto
Dei, utraque proferamus ad conspectum et judicium Dei, ut cum ipsius illuminatione
discernere possimus a bono quod malum est ; id est, ut ea quae super terram repunt, et
terrenas soUicitudines gerunt separemus a nobis ; ilia vero, quse meUora sunt, i. e.
volatilia, sinamus volare non solum super terram, sed etiam secundum firmamentum
coeli," &c. Voh ii. p. 65, Homil. prim, in Gen.

102 HISTORY OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
is not properly a meaning belonging to the words of Scripture,
but the application of a passage to practical purposes. It is the
process of extracting lessons for the amelioration of the heart, and
the regulation of the life, which cannot be rightly termed a dis
tinct sense.
3d, The wviu/z^aTixbg or mystical.
This is the sense concealed beneath the words of the inspired
writers expressive of the most elevated truths which the Gnostic
Christian can receive — of the history and laws belonging to the
spiritual world that lies beyond the apprehension of the great
mass of believers. More refined and abstruse than the -^uxiKig,
it is adapted to sustain and nourish the noblest part of man's na
ture, and to promote the exercise of the speculative powers. Ac
cording to some, Origen divided this sense into three parts or
forms ; viz. allegorical, tropological, and anagogical. So Huet
supposed.* Mosheim, on the other hand, thought that the
rrvivf^aTDchg or mystical sense, was, in the view of Origen, either
allegorical or anagogical, the former pertaining to the church or
lower world ; the latter to the heavenly world.f I am incUned,
however, to agree with Rosenmiiller in believing, that the terms
wiuf/iCiTixbg, dvayoiyn, &£Wg/a, dXXriyo^ia, T^ovoXoyioi,, and mysticUS,
allegoricus, spiritualis, anagogicus, tropologia, were used sy
nonymously in the vocabulary of this father. As an example of
the sense called vuufioi.Tixhg, we take the following from his tenth
homily on Genesis, § 2. Gen. xxiv. 15.
" Rebecca came daily to the wells, and therefore she could
readily be found by the servant of Abraham, and joined in mar
riage with Isaac, Do you think that these circumstances are
fables, and that the Holy Spirit narrates stories in the Scrip
tures? That is the erudition and spiritual doctrine of souls,
which teaches thee to come daily to the wells of Scripture, that
thou mayest always draw the waters of the Holy Spirit, and
carry home a full vessel  All the things
written are mysteries : Christ wishes to betroth thee to himself,
for to thee he speaks, saying by the prophet (Hosea ii. 19,
20.) Because, therefore, Christ wishes to betroth thee also to
himself, he sends before to thee, that servant, who symbolises the
! * See his note on Origen's Commentary on Matthew, at p, 458, vol. iii. of Delarue's
edition. f Commentarii de Rebus Christianorum ante Constantinum Magnum, Helmstadii,
4to, 1741, p. 640 et seq. The passage in question is quoted by RosenmiiUer, pp, 110,
111, 112, 113, Hist, Interpretat,

OHISEN.

103

prophetic word ; and unless you first receive him, you cannot marry
Christ." *
If these observations be correct, it follows that Origen had
three modes of interpretation ; viz. the grammatical ; the 4'u;)(;/xJf,
intermediate between the highest and lowest ; and the •Knuiiarni.hg,
or spiritual; — to the last of which he gave the various names
'biia^ia,, dvayciiyri, /j^vgrri^ioii, r^ovoXoyia, d'KKrjyo^ia, etc. There is no
reason for concluding, that he held four kinds of interpretation,
grammatical, allegorical, tropological, and anagogical, as the
majority of writers belonging to the Latin church have been led
to imagine. The allegorical, anagogical, and tropological, are
merely different names for .the same thing. And yet this fourfold
division, founded though it be on mistake, is still perpetuated in
the Romish church, according to the well-known lines, —
Littera gesta docet ; quid credas, Allegoria ;
Moralis quid agas ; quo tendas, Anagogia.+
The late Bishop Marsh has well shewn, that rgoToXoy/a and
avaywy?) are synonymous ; and that the former was applied to the
spiritual sense, because this sense is obtained by the use of tropes,
not because it tends " ad informandos mores," as Huetius explains
it, understanding rg^Trof in the sense of mos. % It is plain, also,
that rgoffoXoy/a and aW^yopa were used by Origen interchange
ably, from his referring to the authority of the apostle Paul in
support of r^omXoylai ; quoting for this purpose Gal. iv. 21, &c.
It is impossible, indeed, for any one to read the fourth book
against Celsus (especially pages 193, 4, 7,8, of Spencer's edition),
and not to believe, that r^oToXoy/a and aXXriyo^la were the same
in Origen's view.
With regard to the •4/ii;^/x4«, it is certain that he distinguished
it from the irvev/naTixhg, although it is not easy to point out the
precise difference. The latter was adapted to those who had
* Rebecca quotidie veniebat ad puteos, idcirco inveniri poterat a puero Abrahami,
et in matrimonium sociari Isaac. Heec fabulas putatis esse, et historias narrare in
scripturis Spiritum Sanctum ? Animarum est ista eruditio, et spiritalis doctrina, quse
te instituit, et docet quotidie venire ad puteos scripturarum, ad aquas Spiritus Sancti,
et haurire semper, ac plenum vas domum referre  Mysteria sunt
cuncta quae scripta sunt : vult te Christus sibi desponsare, ad te enim loquitur, per
prophetam dicens (Hosea ii. 19, 20.) Quia ergo vult et te sibi Christus despondere, id
est, desponsare, prBomittit ad te istum puerum. Pueriste sermo propheticus est, quem
nisi prius susceperis, nubere Christo non poteris. Homil, x, vol. ii. p. 87.
¦|- See Lohnis's Grundziige der Biblischen Hermeneutik, &c. p, 25.
X Lectures on the Criticism and Interpretation of the Bible, 8vo, Cambridge, 1828,
pp. 483, 4,

104 HISTORY or BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
arrived at the highest state of spiritual perception, by virtue of
which they were able to strip off the mythical dress in which
divine wisdom is clothed ; while the former, being an instructive
application of such passages of Scripture as relate to individual
cases, was neither so profound, nor so commonly concealed from
the majority of believers. Between the go}/j,aTixhi and -rrnu/icf.-nxhg,
the -^uxix^ig held a middle place.
The rule according to which Origen had recourse to the spi
ritual sense has been already stated, viz. where the literal yields
a sense irrational or impossible. This amounts to little more
than the affirmation, that philosophy is the ultimate standard by
which all Scripture exposition should be regulated. The posi
tion is dangerous, and productive of the most pernicious effects.
It is worthy of notice, that this writer did not allegorise every
part of the Scriptures, or set aside the literal history as always
useless or irrational. On the contrary, he affirms, " The things
which are true according to the letter and history, are far more
numerous, than the merely spiritual things interwoven with them."
And again, " Who would not say that the commandment. Honour
thy father and thy mother, &c. is useful, and should be observed
without any higher sense ?" * Portions containing precepts uni
versally binding on all, were excepted by Origen from the num
ber of such as bear a mystical meaning, as also narratives in the
Old and New Testaments, whose truth is so obvious as to afford
no room for doubt. In conformity with this, he did not allego
rise the decalogue ; nor should we have expected him to spiritua
lise the history of our blessed Lord. And yet he has been guilty
of the latter. He found in the actions, movements, and discourses
of our Saviour, something more than the simple truth ; some far
fetched allusion to the spiritual kingdom of Christ, for which
there is no ground in the New Testament itself. " This princi
ple of interpretation," says the philosophical and pious Neander,
" gave an opportunity for the exercise of every kind of caprice,
and was liable to make historical Christianity a thing of nought ;
as every one could thus place whatever did not suit his subjective
ideas and feelings in the class of those things which were not to
be taken literally. Origen felt with much force, what danger
* oroXXu orXsiovx 'iffTl TX xaTa Tnv tffTo^txv xXnhuo/alva tuv orpoffvtpxv^'lvTuv yvu-vuv
^vlvfixTixuV orxXtv Tl XU TIS ovx XV iioroi Tnv Xtyovffxv 'ivToXnv, Ttfix TOV orxTlpa, x. t. X.
Xu^)s orxffns dvayuyns x^''^'/^"" Tvyxxvuv xx) Tn^vTiav yi\ x, t. X. Vol, i. p. 108,
and Pliiloc. p. 15.

CYPRIAN. 1 05
¦might arise from this to objective Christianity ; and he therefore
always declared, that for the most part, the spirit and the letter
were both alike to be maintained ; and that the letter was to be
abandoned, only after careful examination. But where were there
any certain limits?"*
We need not look for consistency in this father. With all his
piety and learning he did not adhere to fixed principles, or to
sobriety of interpretation. His ingenuity and love of specula
tion frequently tempted him to deviate from what he had else
where recommended. His theological opinions underwent several
changes ; and the pervading principle of his allegorising appears
to have been equally fluctuating.
There is another rule connected with Biblical interpretation
which Origen professes to follow. We allude to an ecclesiastical
tradition or canon. In this respect his sentiments coincide with
those of Clement his predecessor. This exegetical tradition was
transmitted from the apostles, through the bishops of the church ;
and nothing could be Christian truth, that did not harmonise
with it. On this head it is only necessary to refer to the follow
ing passage.
" Let that ecclesiastical preaching which has been transmitted
by the order of succession from the apostles, and which continues
to the present time in the churches, be preserved entire : for that
only is to be believed as truth, which disagrees in no respect with
the ecclesiastical and apostolical tradition," t
Cyprian (+258.) — In the third century, Cyprian was the most
distinguished father of the Latin church, as Origen was of the
Greek. He seems to have followed the same mode of interpre
tation as TertuUian, of whom he was a great admirer and imita
tor, f His writings, indeed, do not contain much that is definite
* Neander's History of the Christian Religion and Church, &c., translated by H.
J, Rose, B.D,, vol, ii. p. 233, 8vo, London, 1841 ; or Band i. Abtheil 3, pp. 964, 6.
¦fServetur ecclesiastica praedicatio per successionis ordinem ab apostolis tradita,
et usque ad praesens in ecclesiis permanens ; ilia sola credenda est Veritas, quae in nullo
ab ecclesiastica et apostolica discordat traditione. Praef. *! j! d^x"'- Rufino inter-
prete. No, 3, p. 47, vol. i. The reader is particularly requested to study the portion
of Neander's Church History relating to the Alexandrian school ; Band i. Abtheil 3,
pp. 899-957, and translated by Rose, vol, ii, pp. 196-234 ; also Baur's Gnosis, pp.
488-643, p, 540, note 42.
X Jerome, in his catalogue of illustrious men, cap. 59, relates a traditional account,
said to have been derived from the secretary of Cyprian, that he never allowed a day
to pass without reading some part of TertuUian's writings, and that he was accus
tomed to call him by the name Master (Magister.) O

106 HISTORY OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
in regard to BibUcal interpretation, although they present a
great number of passages quoted from the Scriptures, and ap
plied to practical purposes. So far as an explanation is given, it
is literal, not allegorical. The influence of TertuUian on his
mental and doctrinal development is sufficient to account for
this. We know too, that the Latin church rejected and opposed
the philosophy which, in the Alexandrine school, led to so much
and so dangerous spiritualising of the letter. The only deviation
from the strict grammatical interpretation is in those typical al
lusions to Christ and his church, which were common to all the
fathers. Some of these are certainly without authority from
Scripture itself; — others are well founded. Hence Cyprian be
longs to the class of historico-theological interpreters, and not to
the allegorising school.
In regard to the apostolic or ecclesiastical tradition so frequent
ly mentioned by TertuUian, his sentiments coincided with those
of his predecessor, as appears from the following passage.
" Were a canal conducting water, which formerly flowed copi
ously and abundantly, to fail on a sudden ; would not recourse be
had at once to the fountain-head, that the reason of the failure
might be known ; that the canal might be refitted and repaired,
should there be any defect in it ; and the water be again collected,
and flow in the same abundance and purity, in which it springs from
the fountain-head ? The same thing ought we the priests of God
to do now ; preserving the divine precepts, so that if the truth
has suffered the least vacillation or change, we may return to the
original fountain of our Lord and of the gospels, and to apostolic
tradition." *
We have now arrived at a step in the history of Biblical inter
pretation, from which we may conveniently take a glance at the
nature of that tradition which occurs in the writings of the Alex
andrian and the Latin fathers under various appellations, and in
different connexions.
According to the Alexandrian theology, the prominent and es
sential attribute belonging to ymgig is its absoluteness. It con-
* Si canalis aquam ducens, qui copiose prius et largiter profluebat, subito deficiat ;
nonne ad fontem pergitur, ut illuc defectionis ratio noscatur, ut si vitio interrupti aut
bibuli canalis effectum est quo minus aqua continua perseveranter ac jugiter flueret ;
refecto et confirmato canali ad usum atque ad potum civitatis, aqua coUecta eadem
ubertate atque integritate repraesentetur, qua de fonte proficiscitur. Quod et nunc
facere oportet Dei sacerdotes, prsecepta dlvina servantes, ut si in aliquo mutaverit et
vaoiUaverit Veritas ; ad originem Dominicam et evangelicam ; et apostolicam tradi
tionem revertamur. Cypriani Opera, Fell's edition, Oxford, 1782. ep. 74, pp. 216, 6.

THE TRADITION OP THE ALEXANDRIAN CHURCH. 107
sists in knowledge in the highest sense of the term — in absolute
cognition, such as agrees in all respects with the reality of exist
ing objects, whilst it lays hold of and contemplates them accord
ing to their true nature. This ymgig presupposes faith, without
which it cannot exist. Faith is the basis on which it rests ; the
Holy Scriptures forming the objective source of both. The
truths received by faith into the inward life, are raised by ymgig
to full consciousness. Now this gnosis, of which Clement affirms
that it was delivered by the apostles to a few, and had come down
to him as an unwritten tradition, is not a written document in the
form of an authoritative church-creed different from the Scrip
tures; for the Gnostic Christian is described as one, who has
grown gray in the study of the Scriptures themselves.
Truth may be represented either in its relation to faith, or
to gnosis. Those possessed of faith, hold fast the main truths
of Christianity communicated to them by instruction, or directly
drawn from the Scriptures in accordance with the prevailing
belief of the church. Those again, who have attained to gnosis,
have not been contented with a stage of the spiritual life so in
ferior as the former, although it implies a living reception by
faith, of the fundamental doctrines of revelation. They now
prove doctrinal truths by a comparison of Scripture with itself,
develope them in their whole extent, reduce them to system, sup
ply what is necessary, and defend them against all the objections
and gainsaying of adversaries. The capacity and the knowledge,
by virtue of which the Gnostic Christian can effect this, present
his distinguishing characteristic, gnosis, in an exalted aspect.
When, therefore, the ecclesiastical rule is defined to be the har
mony of the law and the prophets with the covenant delivered
by our Lord during his presence on earth, we must attend to the
means by which this identity of the two covenants is effected and
exhibited. It is by the allegorical method of interpretation. In
deed, the chief object of allegorical interpretation is to point out
the complete identity of both; and thus it forms an essential
part of gnosis. To gnosis belonged the power of explaining all
Scripture in its harmonious accordance with reason, and with it
self. It contained within itself the true meaning of revelation.
The common mass of believers are satisfied to abide by the fun
damental doctrines in which they were early instructed, without
being able to give a reason for their reception ; whereas the
Gnostic Christian, not departing from these acknowledged doc-;

108 HISTORY OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
trines, but proceeding upon their basis farther and deeper, is
able to expound them philosophically and rationally; to point
out their bearings ; and to establish their truth. All that be
longs to faith, is also the object of gnosis ; but to the former it
is historically presented. The doctrines and institutions recog
nised hy faith, are taken up by gnosis out of the various historic
religions which lie before it, referred to the idea of an absolute
religion, judged according to their internal value, and separated,
the essential from the non-essential. Thus the rule of truth, or
the ecclesiastical canon, does not correspond to a written docu
ment such as a church-creed. It is founded on Scripture. It is
not an independent source of knowledge apart from the Bible.
It takes its stand upon the Bible. It is a spiritual possession
common to all Gnostic Christians. It is Christian truth, not
only as it exists in the written word, but as transferred from it
to living consciousness. It sounds within as one loud accordant
note, struck from the spiritual harps of numerous souls.
We have thus seen, that the ecclesiastical canon is connected
with the Gnostic believer, being the chief or essential part of the
ymgig by which he is characterised. It is viewed either as a process,
or the concentrated result of a process. In the former case, it
brings forth by a spiritual method known but to a few, the right
meaning of the Scriptures concealed beneath the outward guise.
It is the key which unlocks the treasures of divine wisdom and
knowledge. In the latter, it contains a body of doctrines in all
their relations and developments — a system of revealed truth
embracing every thing spoken by the Lord, and worthy of his
supreme dignity.
Our Redeemer is said to have spoken unto the multitude in pa
rables, and not to have spoken without a parable to them (Matt.
xiii. 34 ;) whilst he explained to his disciples in private, the spi
ritual import of his discourses. This spiritual interpretation is
the gnosis. The apostles, again, taught it to those who suc
ceeded them in founding and presiding over churches. Thus it
was continued and transmitted. The mgnxol do not possess it ;
it is the inheritance of the ymgTixol, not descending to them by
birth, but coming to them by education, faith, and reason, through
the inworking of God's Holy Spirit. Should it be inquired,
whether this traditional gnosis professed to have truths not found
in Christianity, the answer is, that it never put forward such a
pretension. Christianity, on the contrary, was viewed as the ab-

THE TRADITION OF THE LATIN CHURCH. 109
solute religion — the one perfect and complete religion, differing
from, and in a measure opposed to, both Heathenism and Ju
daism. Nothing therefore was farther from the mind of the
Alexandrians than to make such an assertion. The canon of
truth possessed, and developed explanations of the Old Testa
ment prophecies and the law, which Christ had given to his
apostles ; it embraced the solution of all mysteries recorded in
Scripture, and took right views of every transaction narrated by
the Spirit. And yet it is plain, that whilst the Gnostic Christian
asserted his adherence to apostolic tradition alone, and thus
obviated the objection of subjective caprice, the ultimate prin
ciple by which he determined the real contents and the divine
meaning of the Holy Scriptures, was speculation. The yvSigig
was a mixture of Platonic eclecticism and spiritualising interpre
tation, which professed to assign the reasons, and unfold the com
prehensive relations of Christian truth.
It remains to be considered, whether the rule of faith or of
truth so frequently mentioned in the works of the Latin fathers,
be the same as the traditionary canon of the Alexandrian school.
For this purpose it is only necessary to refer to the writings of
Irenseus and TertuUian, the oldest in the Latin church, especially
as the works of the latter afford copious data for ascertaining its
nature. With these representatives of the doctrinal system main
tained by the western church, it appears to have been a principle
of high authority. They were alarmed at the proceedings of the
Gnostic heretics, whose opinions they justly believed to be fraught
with danger ; and against such adversaries they supposed that
truth could not be sufficiently protected by means of Scripture it
self. Probably they were not able successfully to vindicate the
main doctrines of the Christian system against the subtilties of
its enemies, without the aid of ecclesiastical authority. Hence
they appealed to a positive rule of interpretation without the
sphere of the Bible, — a rule existing in the church from the earliest
period, — universally admitted to be authoritative and infallible.
This was the rule of faith, or a church-symbol, the contents of
which are given more than once by Irenseus and TertuUian. It
consisted of truths, framed chiefly in opposition to the Gnostic
views respecting the origin of the world and the nature of Christ,
and traced up to Christ through presbyters, bishops, and apostles.
An uninterrupted succession of bishops from the apostles down
ward preserved the symbol in question, as a sacred deposit entrust-

110 HISTORY OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
ed to their care ; to whom as its legitimate guardians. Christians
were directed to look. It was to be taken for granted, without
controversy and without doubt, subject to no enlargement, addi
tion, or correction. Thus an important difference between the
theology of the oriental and occidental churches arose ; a differ
ence, which meets us with no little prominence in their subsequent
history. And when those who presided over the churches were
supposed to possess a rule of faith handed down through their
predecessors from the apostles and Christ himself the spiritual
head, it is easy to perceive, that human nature, prone to the as
sumption of superior wisdom and power, would not fail to claim
and assert its prerogative. Hence the western church began to
decree Christian truths in councils, according to the voice of the
majority — its teachers necessarily bringing their interpretations of
Scripture into conformity with these decrees — while the Greek
church maintained the perspicuity and sufficiency of Scripture,
or in other words, the important principle, that its own meaning
could be developed by means of itself.* The great defenders of
the truth in ancient times took care not to separate tradition from
Scripture ; but sought for traditionally received doctrines in
the Word of God to which they appealed as the sole standard.
But in the Latin church, the doctrine of the unity of the whole
church considered externally, the dependence of single churches
on their presbyters, of presbyters on their bishops, of bishops
upon the apostles ; and the dependence of Biblical exegesis upon
tradition, were found to be most useful positions against supposed
or real corrupters of the truth. Hence this appeal to a traditional
interpretation came in the room of an appeal to the simple rule
which should be ever maintained, viz. Scripture itself. Did
Irenseus and TertuUian then, it may be asked, believe that this rule
of faith, or summary of doctrines resembling the apostles' creed,
was opposed to the word of God ? The supposition cannot be
entertained for a moment. It is highly probable, that they re
garded it as originally founded on and derived from Scripture.
* " In the infancy of councils, the bishops did not scruple to aclinowledge that
they appeared there merely as the ministers or legates of their respective chm-ches
and that they were, in fact, nothing more than representatives acting from instruc
tions ; but it was not long before this humble language began, by little and little, to
be exchanged for a loftier tone ; and they at length took upon them to assert tliat
they were the legitimate successors of the apostles themselves, and might consequently,
of their own proper authority, dictate laws to the Christian flocli." Mosheim's Com
mentaries, translated by Vidal, vol. ii. p. 107.

GREGORY THAUMATURGUS  HIPPOLYTUS. Ill
They were neither so ignorant or blind as not to perceive,
that it was expressly accordant with the written word. They
knew weU, however, that if they had endeavoured to prove the
truths of the formulary to be contained in the Bible, they would
have been met by contrary truths professedly derived from the
same source. It was therefore more convenient for the disposing
of all objections, to appeal to a creed lying out of the Scriptures,
and independent of them ; sufficient of itself to regulate all inter
pretation. This they took for granted ; and by it as a test, they
tried every doctrine. Whatever did not agree with it, they dis
carded without hesitation as a heretical thing. But where was
this authoritative criterion to be found ? It was deposited in the
church, or rather in its bishops, who derived it from the apostles
themselves. And yet those who were regarded as possessing the infallible
symbol, found it necessary to enlarge it by the enactments of
councils. As propounded by Irenseus, it was too short to meet
all the heresies which started up in the church. Accordingly its
sacred depositaries spread it out more at length.
It is impossible to calculate the mischief which this appeal to
ecclesiastical authority occasioned in after times. The sufficiency
of the holy word was virtually impugned and denied; the overseers
of the church claimed to be authorised interpreters by virtue of a
commission handed down from the apostles ; and doctrines were
promulgated, not by the aid of the Scriptures, but by the aid of
a tradition existing in the church.
Gregory Thaumaturgus (t265.) — Gregory, surnamed Thau
maturgus or the wonder-worker, was bishop of Neo-Csesarea in
Pontus. In an oration still extant, containing a panegyric on
Origen, he says of this father's exposition: — " I think he spoke
this in no other way than by the communication of the Holy Spirit.
 This man received the greatest gift of God, to be
interpreter, for men, of the words of God,"*&c. This language
evidently implies, that he approved of the allegorical method. A
paraphrase of Ecclesiastes, and a confession of faith by Gregory,
still remain.
Hippolytus  Hippolytus was probably bishop of Porto (Por-
tus Romanus, Ostia), at the mouth of the Tiber, near Rome,
* x'lyii Tfljuras oux xXXus, oTfAxi, n xoivuvix tov hiov ttviu/joxtos 
'hupov Tfl (/,'iyiffTov TOUTO hohv 'ixit Xa(iuv, 'iQfinvivs Civxi Tuv TOU 0lov Xoyuv or^os av6^u-
^ovs. p. 73, ed. Paris, 1622.

112 HISTORY OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
although others place his see in Arabia.* From different parts
of Eusebius's and Jerome's writings, collated with the account of
Photius in his Bibliotheca, and the inscription on the marble
statue to his memory, dug up at Rome on the road to Tivoli
A. D. 1551, we obtain a catalogue of his writings. Most of them
were exegetical ; but only a few fragments are preserved. Ac
cording to Photius,t he was a disciple of Irenseus, and must
have been contemporary with Origen, for Jerome quotes a homily
in praise of our Saviour, delivered by Hippolytus in presence of
the great Alexandrian teacher. $ His mode of interpretation
seems to have been highly allegorical. In the history of Isaac
and Jacob, he makes Isaac represent God — Rebecca, the Holy
Spirit — Esau, the Jewish nation — and Jacob, Christ. Isaac's old
age denotes the fulness of time ; his blindness, spiritual darkness.
The two kids brought by Jacob out of the flock, are sins selected
from those of the Jews and the heathen ; and the food made of
them represents sacrifice well-pleasing to God. Again, Esau's
raiment is the faith of the Jews, and their sacred books ; whilst
the skins put upon Jacob's hands represent the sins of men which
were fastened to the cross, as the hands of Christ, &c. His in
terpretation of Susanna's history is of the same character, far ex
ceeding the exegetical caprice of Origen, whom he exceedingly
admired. Eusebius (t340.) — Eusebius was bishop of Csesarea in Pales
tine. Besides his Ecclesiastical History, he wrote various treatises
from which his mode of expounding Scripture may be discovered.
He was a great imitator of Origen, and even wrote a defence of
his character in conjunction with Pamphilus against those who
malevolently accused the Alexandrian father. Following his
favourite expositor, he naturally fell in with the allegorising
method. In his grammatical expositions, it has been generally
supposed that he manifested an inclination to Arianism ; though
Socrates, Valesius, and Cave, endeavour to vindicate him from
the charge. His belief concerning the Son was certainly not the
same as that of Arius. Neither did it coincide with the Atha-
nasian or Nicene faith. He seems to have agreed with Origen
* Neander thinljs that all is uncertainty respecting the town in which he was
bishop, i. 3, p. 1148.
+ Cod. 121.
X Neander's Church History, translated by Rose, vol. ii. pp. 359-62 ; or Band i. 3,
p. 1148 et seq., in the original.

ATHANASIUS.

113

in holding, that the Son was in some way subordinate to the Fa
ther and not absolutely eternal. And yet he would not place
him among the xrig/j^ara or creatures.*
Athanasius (t372.) — Athanasius, archbishop of Alexandria,
was the great defender of the Nicene faith in opposition to Arius.
Hence he is styled " the father of orthodoxy." In consequence
of his polemic zeal, and the doctrinal disputations in which he was
engaged during the greater part of his life, his writings are con
troversial rather than exegetical. Of the latter aspect they par
take, only in so far as it is subservient to the former. Yet the
principles of interpretation which he followed are not obscure.
They are stated with a precision consonant with the acuteness of
mind and dialectic talents for which he was distinguished. We
need not, however, expect to find them developed, since the influ
ence of his doctrinal system did not afford a favourable opportunity
for their exemplification. Had his object been to expound Scrip
ture, without especial reference to a heretical theology, we should
then have looked for the copious unfolding of his mode of inter
pretation ; but polemic purposes led him to reason and dispute,
rather than interpret. The principles by which he was chiefly
guided may be seen from the following extracts.
In regard to the Holy Scriptures and their explanation, the
following just sentiments are delivered.
" The holy and divinely inspired Scriptures are sufficient of
themselves for the declaration of truth," t &c.
" Whoever expounds them falsely, kills the forsaken soul which
had been won over to the truth." J
When it is said in Scripture that men sin always, and that
there is none that doeth good, no, not one, " these expressions
are not hyperbolical ; for nothing in the word of God is hyperbo
lical, but every thing is spoken in truth." ||
Of heretics, in another place, he says, " They pretend to be
meditating upon and uttering expressions, like their father the
Devil, that they may seem to have the right meaning, and may
* Compare Neander, Band ii, Abtheil ii, p. 784 (note), and p. 803 (note.)
•f" avTapxlis fiiv yap ilfftv xl xyixi xx) ^loTviuffToi yoa^x) or^os Tnv Tns dXnvUxs
xorxyyiXixv. Orat, contra Gentes, p, 1, vol, i. (Opera. Bened,, ed, Paris, 1698, 3
vols, fol,)
X X^Z""" ^^X^^ *^' 'ff^OffnXuTOV vouv XOrOXTltVll 0 XXXUS TXS 611XS y^xi^xs i^nyovfAivos.
Expos, in Psalm 93, verse 6, vol. ii, p. 1170,
II ovx v^lP^oXixus TaWT« li^nTxi, fluSiv yd^ vori^fioXixus, fJolT xXn^uas Si orxvTX vra^x
Tn ypxifn ii^nTxi, Expos, in Psalm 62, vol. ii. p. 1091. P

114 HISTORY OF BIBLirAL INTERPRETATION.
afterwards persuade wretched men to entertain sentiments con
trary to the Scriptures."*
Commenting on the first chapter of the Epistle to the He
brews, he states, " As it is necessary in every place of Scripture
faithfully to consider the occasion on which the apostle wrote, as
also the person and the thing on account of which he undertook
to write ; so is it in the present case, that the reader may not be
ignorant of these particulars, or go in opposition to them, and
miss the true sense." t
" When the same expressions are applied in the Holy Scrip
tures to God and to men, it is the business of perspicacious men,
as the apostle Paul declared (1 Cor. ii. 15), to attend to the
reading; and thus to distinguish and decide according to the na
ture of each object pointed out, and not confound the meaning
by understanding what is attributed to God in a sense character
istic of men ; or, on the contrary, by assigning to God what is
spoken of humanity in general." $
Thus Athanasius was a historico-theological, and not an alle
gorical interpreter. In a few instances only is he betrayed into
allegorising, as when, in expounding Matthew v. 29, he takes
the body to mean the church; the eyes and hands, the bishops
and deacons, who ought to be cut off, if they commit any crime
that might be hurtful to the church.
¦ Ephraem the Syrian (t378.) — Ephraem, the most distin
guished of the fathers belonging to the Syrian church, was born
at Nisibis, and died at Edessa A. D. 378. He is highly allegori
cal in his mode of interpretation. He mentions different kinds of
spiritual exposition, and shews that he had little apprehension of
sound exegetical principles. His treatment of Scripture is arti-
* ffXnfJi,aTll!^ovTai fOiXlTxv xa) X'iyitv Tas Xi^lis, us o vfXTn^ xutuv ^idSoXos,'iva ix tuv
X'l^iuv oo^uffiv op6ov 'ix^'v xa) to (ppovnf^x, xxi Xoivov TTiiffuffi orxpa txs ypxcpxs Ibooviiv
Tovs TxXxtifu^ovs dvS^uffrous. Epistola ad Episcopos jEgypti et Libyae, vol, i. p. 274.
'f' 'A Ssr Si us ior) 'ffxffns Tns ^iias y^atpns or^offnxli ^roniv, xa) dvxyxa7ov iffTi outu
xx) ivTxv^a, xa6' ov iioriv o doroffToXos xat^ov, xxi to v^offu-ffov xx) to ffipxyfjoa, ^i'offrip
lypa'^i, oriffTus ixXafifixviiv, "va fon rra^x txutx n xx) vra^ 'iTipov n toutuv dyvauv o
uvxytvuffxuv, 'i^u tVis dXnStvns ^ixveias yivnTxi. Oratio I. contra Arianos, 54, vol. i.
p. 458.
X ll Tl al auTa) X't^iis lor) hou xx) dvS^uoruv iv Ta7s 6lixis oroTi xuvTat ypa^a7s, dXX'
xvSpuoruv iffn liopxTixuv, us Tx^nyyuXiv o UxuXos (1 Cor. ii. 15), orpoffsxnv Tn xvxy^
vuffli xa) OUTU "iixxpiviiv xx) xaTa Tnv ixaffTou tuv ffnf/.aivof.'ivuv ipufftv tx yiypafifiiva
^tayivuffKiiv, xx) fih ffvyx'iliv Tnv oixvoirv, uffTS tx tou Qiou f,cn dvl}pbir-lvus voi7v, i4«Si tx
TUV xvSpuoruv us -r£f/ &iov ToTi XoytZ^iffSai. De Decretis Nicaenae Synodi, 10, vol. i.
p. 217. See M'ohler's Athanasius der Grosse, und die Kirche seiner Zeit, Mainz, 8vo,
1827.

Basil THE GREAT. 115
ficial and extravagant, exhibiting neither sobriety of mind, nor
proper enlightenment. It is true that he occasionally warns
against the allegorising of the Pentateuch practised by the Gnos
tics ; but his cautions do not refer so much to the method itself,
as to its application in a particular direction. Klausen supposes,
with much probability, that this spiritualising exposition which
prevailed in Mesopotamia was chiefly owing to the extreme of
literality into which the anthropomorphites blasphemously went,
and to the forced exegesis of the Marcionites, who endeavoured
to bring the Old Testament into a state of opposition to the New,
by adherence to the grossly literal, unfigurative interpretation.
Both sects are more than once mentioned by Ephraem with dis
approbation ; and several sound remarks made respecting the
language of Scripture in attributing human infirmities or passions
to the Supreme Being. These, however, are exceptions to his
general method, having no perceptible or extensive influence upon
it. Ephraem, as an interpreter, must be classed with the most
zealous allegorisers of Scripture.*
Basil the Great {f 37 9.) — Basil, bishop of Csesarea in Cap-
padocia, was surnamed the Great, from his profound erudition,
superior eloquence, exalted piety, and great skill in interpretation.
Extracts which he made, in conjunction with Gregory of Nazian-
zum, from various works of Origen, and usually called Philocalia,
are well known to the patristic scholar. This circumstance shews
an esteem for the Alexandrian father, which might lead us to ex
pect, that Basil would follow the same kind of interpretation as that
of the author whose writings he so highly valued. The reverse,
however, is the fact. In his Hexaemeron, consisting of nine
homilies on the history of creation in Genesis ; and in his homilies
on the Psalms, he manifests no attachment to the allegorical
mode, although it had been recommended by the authority of
Origen. The following extracts from his homilies shew his sen
timents relative to Scripture exegesis.
" Those who do not accept the obvious sense of what is written
say, that water is not water, but some other thing ; and explain
a plant and a fish, according to their own opinions 
. . . But for my part, when I hear grass mentioned, I think
* For a copious and excellent account of Ephraem as an interpreter, the reader is
referred to C. a Lengerhe's treatise de Ephraemi Syri arte Hermeneutica. Regiom,
1831, 8vo, pp. 23-44 and 65-92, where numerous extracts and examples from Eph-
raem's writings are given.

116 HISTORY OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
of grass. I take a plant, and a fish, and a wild beast, and a tame
one, all as they are mentioned. For I am not ashamed of the
gospel  Others have attempted by certain
perverted derivations, and by tropologies, to impart a dignity to
what is written, out of their own fancy." This is done by the
person who, according to Basil, " makes himself wiser than the
oracles of the Holy Spirit, and under the pretext of interpre
tation, introduces his own fictions."* On another occasion, he
censures the expositors " who have recourse to allegories, under
the pretence of mystery and higher sentiments." f
It has been justly observed by Klausen, that the preceding
observations should be kept in view when we judge of those that
are expressed with less precision. To Basil must be assigned a
knowledge of the true principles which form the basis of right
exposition. Although spiritualising was quite common in the
fourth century, his acute genius and extensive acquaintance with
the Greek language, preserved him from such an excess. As far
as his writings shew, he does not appear to have essentially devi
ated from historico-theological interpretation, although there are
not wanting instances in which he has fallen into allegorising.
These, however, are exceptions to his usual exegesis, or depar-
tui'es from the general principles which he followed.:!:
Gregory of Nazianzum (t390.) — The writings of Gregory
Nazianzen called the theologian, contain little information as to
the manner in which he interpreted Scripture ; for, as Rosen
miiUer truly observes, he appears in the light of a sacred rhetori
cian rather than that of an expositor. || In his declamations against
Arians and other heretics, he defends the Nicene faith by rhetorical
arguments, instead of by quotations from Scripture with his own
explications annexed. The relation between the Old and New
* 'As ol /jon x«T«Si;^;OjiAevoi txs xotvds tuv yiy^xftfiivuv ivvotxs to 'liiup ovx' u^u^
Xiyovfftv, xXXx Ttvx xXXnv <puffiv, xai tpvTov, xai Ix^vv orpos to iavTo7s ^oxovv 'ipfonvlvovffi.
 . . . , Ey&» Ss xo^Tov xxovffxs, xoPTOv vou, xa) ipvTov
xx) Ix^^v xx) 6n^tov xa) XTVJVOS, xdvTX us ll^nTai outus ixTlxofixi. Kx) ydp oux 'loratff-
Xuvofcai TO luxyyiXiov  Others, f^x^xyuya7s Tiffi xx) TPOvoXoyta7s
ffifivoTnTx TIVX ix Tns olxiixs XVTUV Sixvoixs 'ivixii^nffav To7s yiypxf/,f/.ivois ioritpnf^iffaij
X. .. X. Vol. i. p. 113 (Opera, 3 vols. 8vo, Paris, 1839, ed Gamier.)
f ol or^oipxffli xvuyuyns xa) vonf^aTuv u^nXoTl^uv lis xXXnyo^ixs xxTlcpvyov, x. T. X,
Vol. i. pp. 43, 44.
X See Dr. Klose's worlt entitled, Basilius der Grosse, nach seinem Leben und seiner
Lehre dai-gestellt, Stralsund, 8vo, 1835.
II This was owing to the nature of liis education. See Neander, ii. Abtheil i. pp.
320, 1.

GREGORY OP NYSSA. 117
Testament furnishes him with an occasion of expressing the
principles on which he expounded the word of God. After quot
ing Exodus XXV. 40, &c. (Coloss. ii. 17), he says, " I am per
suaded that none of these things has been instituted in vain, or
without reason, or with a mean object ; though it be difficult for
him who descends to particulars to discover a separate spiritual
sense corresponding to each one of the shadows." * Immediately
after he thus speaks of his own mode of proceeding : " We take
a middle path betwixt those who are gross in their ideas (follow
ing the carnal letter), and those who are influenced by a zeal for
spiritual exposition ; that we may neither continue altogether idle
and unmoved, nor become unduly curious, and thus miss what
is obvious, whilst meddling with what is foreign. The former is
Jewish and low ; the latter savours of dream-interpreting. Both
are censurable." t How far he foUowed this intermediate path it
is impossible to ascertain from his works; but the declaration
itself, places him among historico-theological interpreters.
Gregory of Nyssa (t394.) — Gregory Nyssene, so called
from his being bishop of Nyssa in Cappadocia, was a younger
brother of Basil the Great. The principal treatise connected
with the exposition of Scripture which he has left, is his Apolo
getic explanation of the six days' work, intended to be an ap
pendix to the composition of his brother Basil upon the same
subject, and a vindication both of Moses, and of Basil. His
method of interpretation is thus mentioned. " We did not con
vert into tropical allegory the diction of Scripture ; but, as far
as it was possible, we allowed the text to retain its own proper
sense." f
" In his proem to the homlKes on Solomon's Song, he separJites
the letter from the spirit of Scripture ; and finds fault with those
who adhere to the bare letter, whilst they neglect to perceive, or
* K«} oriidofjoai //.nTiv itxn, f^nTl dXoyiirTus, jWjjSi X'^f^^S'^rus, TovTuv ^ixTlTxx^xi
 It xx) xo^'Xiorov 'ixdffTn TUV ffxiuv, ixdffTnv itpiv^i7v huQixv lis XlOTTOV
xxTxfixivovTX, X. T. X. Grogorli Opera, 2 vols, fol, Paris, 1778, xi. Orat. 45, vol, i.
p, ,853.
•j- 'Ofjous Si fjoiffnv xu^ovvTiS. nf,ol7s tuv Ti ordvTn ^xxut'i^uv ttjv ^txvotav, xa) tuv dyav
hu^nnxuv Ti xa) xvnyf^lvuv, 'I'va f^nTl oravTlXus x^yoi xa) dxlvnTot fAlvufjolv, fjonTl ori^i^
fPyOTlpOl TOU TiOVTOS UfiiV, Xx) TUV OTPOXllfiivUV 'iXOTTUTOt xo) xXXOT^tOl' TO fiiV yX^ loV-
ixixov oFus xa) Txviivov, to Tl oviipoK^iTixov, xx) efioius xfAtpoTl^x xXTlyvufffAivx. Orat.
45, xii. p. 854.
X " These answers have we given to the questions proposed by you, O man of God,
fjovjTi Tl Tns ypaipixns xi^iojs its Tpoortxnv xXXnyo^txv fi^iTaitoinffxvTis 
dXX' us nv iuvxTov fjoivouffns rns x'l^ius 'lot) rns ITtas i(A<pdffius, x, t. X. Grogoi'ii Nys-
seni Opera, 2 vols. fol. Paris, 1615, vol. i, in Hexaemeron, p, 42.

118

HISTORY OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.

deny that any thing is expressed in the way of enigmas or senses
lying beneath the surface {hi' a!iiiy/j,dTm xai bmvoiSiv.') Such, ac
cording to Gregory, resemble persons who would give men corn
in the raw, unprepared state, for food ; inasmuch as they bring
nothing out of Scripture but the meaning which is most obvious,
neglecting all higher or spiritual significancy.* Between these
statements there is no contradiction, although the latter may ap
pear to represent Gregory as maintaining what he had before
renounced. The body and the spirit of the letter must always
be distinguished according to the sense in which he used the ex
pression. Beneath types and ceremonies, there is a spiritual sig
nificancy, which the superficial and slavish adherents of the out
ward letter may not observe. Spiritual truths are frequently
couched beneath the veil of emblems, or propounded in the form
of parables. For maintaining this, we do not blame Gregory,
as though he were an allegorising, or fanciful interpreter. In
accordance with truth and sobriety, he states, " What is done in
wisdom, is the word of God, not such as is uttered by certain
organs of speech, but that which is expressed by the marvellous,
among the things that are seen;"t and therefore, that the words
of Genesis, " God said," should not be understood of an articu
lated sound ; a supposition which were contrary to the nature
and unbecoming the majesty of God ; but of an intimation of
will. To the same purpose is the remark, that it " is the manner
of Scripture to describe what appears to be, instead of what really
is;" X or in other words, the diction of the Bible describes circum
stances and physical truths optically, according to the popular
opinions and customary phraseology of men, without strict scien
tific accuracy. The remark in question is applied by Gregory
to the case of the witch of Endor raising Samuel. It does not
appear, that he had correct notions of the limits between the
figurative and the literal, or that he was able to separate arbi
trary allegorising from the former. Hence, in his homilies on
the Song of Solomon, he diverges into fancies and artificial
senses. Destitute of ability to expound the book aright, and
living at a time when the allegorical method was all but univer
sal, it is not remarkable that he fell into the spiritualising extreme.
* Vol, i. pp. 468-73. Compare also his epistle to Theodosius 'Six Tnv 'lyyxffTpU
fj.v6ov, i. e. de Pythonissa, p, 867 et seq.
f TO iv croiplx yivofclvov eiou Xoyos io-T-lv, oux o^yxvois Tiffi ipi,ivnTixo7s Siapipoufiivos,
xXxd Si' XUTUV ixtpuvouft-ivos TUV 'iv To7s ^atvof/,ivois ^auf/.affTuv. in Hexaem, p, 19, vol. i.
X Ep. de Pythonissa, p. 870,

¦CHRYSOSTOM. 119
It would be unfair, however, thence to characterise him as an al
legorical interpreter. Neither does his treatment of the narrative
respecting Joshua's life place him in the class of mystical alle-
gorists, because he merely takes occasion, from the history in
question, to draw certain lessons of practical morality, or to make
certain applications of the sacred biography suited to edification.
As Joshua left the wilderness, and passed over Jordan ; so should
we leave sin, and seek the land of promise. As he destroyed Je
richo ; so should we destroy the old man, &c. &c. Such remarks
are not proposed as the development of a sense intended by the
inspired writer, but as an instructive application of the leading
circumstances in the life of an eminent servant of God, On the
whole, Gregory Nyssene belongs to the same class of interpre
ters as Gregory Nazianzen, although he did not always adliere
to definite principles.*
Diodorus (t394.) — Diodorus, bishop of Tarsus, is said by
SuidaSjf to have written a hermeneutical treatise on the diflTerence
between Sswj/a and dKX>]yo^ia,X with commentaries on the whole
of the Old Testament, and on several books of the New. He is
mentioned by Socrates and Sozomen || as an opponent of aUego
rical interpretation. It has been conjectured that, in consequence
of his suspected orthodoxy, and his opposition to the prevailing
mode of exposition, his works were either purposely destroyed,
or at least allowed to perish. A few fragments are all that re
main. Chrysostom (t407.) — John Chrysostom was born at Antioch,
A. D. 347, and became archbishop of Constantinople in the year
397. He died in exile, a. d, 407. It does not belong to our
present purpose to speak of his education, or the events of his
life. His mild, practical spirit, had been nurtured under the in
fluence of a deep study of Holy Scripture. Christianity had
penetrated into the depths of his soul, and produced the element
of divine love in the calm and steady development of continued
brightness. His own experience kept him from errors into
which less meditative spirits are liable to fall. Without much
* For a full account of Gregory, the reader is referred to the work of Heyns, Dis-
putatio Historico-theologica de Gregorio Nyssene, Lugd, 1835, 4to ; see pp, 47-61.
•j* In voce AioSu^os.
X This was called, tIs Sixipo^a, hu^ixs xa,) dXXnyo^ixs.
II "^iXu TU ypafJof^xTi Tuv 9-iluv of^offixuv y^x<puv, Tas hu^ixs xutuv ixT^i^xofilvos.
Socrates. Hist, Eccles. lib, vi, cap, 3.  ti^i to pnTov tuv h^uv Xoyuv txs i^nynffiis
9rotntxff6xt, TXS ^-iu^las doro^iuyovTa. Sozomen, Hist. Eccles. lib. viii. cap. 2.

120

HISTORY OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.

logical ability, or metaphysical acumen, he recognised and main
tained the great truths of revelation respecting God and man.
When we consider his talents, learning, character, and deep
devotional feeling, it is not surprising that he exerted so wide
an influence in the church. Many subsequent writers con
tented themselves with making excerpts from his numerous com
ments. No father in the Greek church, with the exception
perhaps of Origen, was so much admired ; and as we reflect upon
the elevated tone of his devotion breathing forth in strains of
fervid eloquence, or the varied talents he displayed as a sacred
interpreter, we may well forgive the excessive reverence of posterity
towards him. We are concerned with him as an expositor, not
as an orator. Here we shall find him intelligent and judicious.
In opposition to the arbitrary allegorising of his contemporaries,
he was actuated by a simple desire to ascertain the true sense of
Scripture, and to unfold it to the observation of men, in all its
richness and depth. Instead of bringing into the word foreign
senses, and thus trifling with the holy character of revelation, his
regard to it prompted him to adopt a different procedure — to dis
cover the mind of the Spirit speaking in the supernatural commu
nications of heaven.
His homilies are numerous, extending over a great part of the
Old and New Testaments, and affording ample data for judging
of the character of his exegesis, and the principles on which it is
founded. He generally adheres to the literal sense ; in accordance with
which are the following declarations.
" There is nothing in divine Scripture put superfluously and
without reason ; even the word which appears fortuitous, has a
great treasure concealed in it."*
" There is not a syllable, or a tittle belonging to Scripture,
in whose depth much treasure is not laid up."t
These sentiments are quite compatible with the following in
regard to anthropomorphic expressions. After quoting Gen. i. 5,
he says, " Do you see what condescension (accommodation to
our weakness) this blessed prophet (Moses) has used ; or rather
the benevolent God by the tongue of the prophet instructs man-
* OtiTlv iffTl TUV iv Tn Ilia y^xip^ dorXus xa) tlxlf xllfoivov, dXXx xx) to tuxov pnfox
woXuv 'ixi' 'ivxoroxilfiivov tov ^nffxv^ov. Homil. x. in Genesin. Chsysostomi Opera
Graece, 8 vols. fol. Etonae, 1613, Savile's edition, p. 59, vol. i.
-f- OliTl yx^ ffvXXalih, ovTi xl^a'ix foia iffnv 'iyxiiftivn nrx^x Tn ypxtpn, n fin oroXus iva-
oroxiiTxi ^nffxu^os iv tm (ixht. Homil, in Gen. vol. i. p, 144,

CHRYSOSTOM. 1 2 1
kind  for since mankind were yet imperfect, and
could not understand or comprehend things of a sublimer kind,
the Holy Spirit moved the tongue of the prophet in adaptation
to the weakness of the hearers, and thus expressed all things to
us in an intelligible manner." *
" This blessed prophet (Moses) utters every thing in confor
mity with the manner of men."f
Some have inferred from the following passage that he occa
sionally diverged into allegories.
" Some things in Scripture must be understood as they are
related ; others, in a manner contrary to that which lies on the
surface : as when Scripture says, the wolves and the lambs shall
feed together ; some things must be understood in a twofold sense,
so that we may both perceive the sensuous, and apprehend the
spiritual." i
There is no reason for charging allegory upon Chrysostom be
cause of this sentiment. It is both reasonable and just. Many
portions of the Old Testament must be referred to two connected
objects or events. The apostle Paul himself has given us an
example in the epistle to the Galatians.
In another place he refers to the complete harmony of Scrip
ture with itself, although we may have difficulty in understanding
it, II and affirms, that it was not the purpose of God to make all
things in Scripture plain and obvious at first sight, " in order that
he might stimulate our indolence, and lead us to use great watch
fulness, that thus we might derive full benefit from the words." §
In respect to the qualifications required for understanding the
sacred word, Chrysostom speaks thus. " Divine Scripture does
not need human wisdom to understand the things that are writ
ten ; but the revelation of the Spirit, &c. Let us only be sober,
* iTSes oroffn Tn ffvyxxTxfixffti o fixxdpios outos or^otpnTns ix^^'ffoiTo ; ftxXXov Si o tpi'
Xdv6^uoros Sios Sia Tns tou orpoipnTov yXuTTns Txidivuv TO TUV dv^Qucruv yivos ....
tori) S»7 ydp 'iTi XTlXiffTlpov SiixtiTO TO TUV xvS^uoruv yivGS, xa) ovx nSuvaTO TUV TIXIIOTSPUV
ffvviivai Tnv xaTxvonffiv, Sid tovto or^os Tnv Tuv xxovovtuv xff6ivtiav To orvlvfia to dyiov
Tnv Tflu or^oipnTov yXuTTav xtvnffxv outus xoravTx hfuv SixXiyiTxt. Homil. in Gen. p.
12, vol. i.
+ or^os Tnv ffuvnhixv Tnv xv^^uorivnv ffuyxxTxfixivuv olorxvTX ipS'lyylTat o fiaxdpios outos
^^oipnTtis. Do. p. 13.
X TX fAv us ii^nTxt 'ixXnorT'iov icTi- TX Si dorivavT)xs To7s Kiifiivois, us otxv xiyri, Ay-
xoi xa) XQVis xfjLX ^offxnSnffovTXi .... TxTi XXTX 'SiofX'nv ixSo^v ixXn^pofii^a,
rd ri xiffSnTx voovvtss xx) tx vonTx ixSixo/avoi, Hom. in Psalm xlvii. p. 652, vol. i.
II ivxvTiouTxi iawTsj n Sitx y^acpn ; f^h y'lvaiTo. Hom. in Gen. vol. i. p. 247.
§ 'ivx Tfiv vuSiixv nf*uv Si6yB/g»7 xx) oroXXhv Tnv dy^vorvixv ioriSui,dfAivoi outu Tnv »$ ali-
Tuv ti<piXiixv xx^xuffufiifx. Homil. 32 in Gen. vol. i. p. 253. Q

122 HISTORY OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
and not proceed rashly or hastily; but, fixing with earnestness our
thoughts, let us examine every thing with diligence," &c.*
The following hermeneutical observations are found in different
parts of his homilies.
1*^. "As a buUding without a foundation is rotten, so Scrip
ture is of no use without finding its scope." t " Let us follow the
scope of divine Scripture, which explains itself." { " The heretics
go astray, when they neither inquire into the scope of him who
speaks, nor the condition of the hearer. Unless we attend to
these, and other things, such as times, places, and the sentiments
of the hearers, many absurd things will follow." ||
" 2c?. Nothing in Scripture, not even a short expression or a
syllable, should be overlooked. AU must be interpreted with
accuracy. For they are not words at random, but the words of
the Holy Spirit." §
3d. Respecting allegorical or figurative interpretation (for he
allows that the Scripture sometimes uses such a method), he
affirms, " this is the law of Scripture on every occasion, that
when it employs allegory, it also adds the interpretation of the
allegory, lest the unbridled desire of those who wish to allegorise,
might be tossed about, and go astray at random."^
The Homilies of Chrysostom on Matthew's gospel, are ge
nerally considered the best. So thought Thomas Aquinas, and
a more competent judge in modern times, the celebrated Ernes-
* ovSi yd^ ffoiplxs dv^^uorivns Si7Txt ri hix y^x(pn vr^os Tnv xxTxvonffiv tuv yiy^xfifiivuv,
xXXx Tsjff TOU orviuf/,XTos xoroxaXu-^lus, x. t. X  foovov iav vnipufilv xa)
foh xffrXus srxpxT^iXufiiv xXXx ffuvriivovTls nfAuv TOV Xoyifffjoov xxTooTTluffuftiv xoravTa
fiiT dx^tjliias, x.T.X. Homil. 31 in Genes, vol. i. p. 144. Compare also Homil. 36 in
Genes, p. 280,
*f* us dvtu Sif/,iXiav ffxS^d h olxooofin' outus dvlu Tns supifflus tou ffxoorou oux u^iXlt h
y^x{pn. Homil. in Psalm iii. vol. viii. p. 1.
X xxTxxoXov^nffufiiv TU ffxo^TTu Ttjs 611XS y^xtpns 'ixuTnv 'ipfjonvivoiiffns, X. T. X. Homil.
13 in Genes, p. 79, vol. i,
II o'uTU ydp ol xl^lTIXo) OrXxVUVTXt OTXV finTl TOV ffXOOTOV 'i^lTX^Uffl TOU X'lyOVTOS, fiVITl
Tnv 'i^lV TUV XXOVOVTUV XV ya^ TXUTX fJLn ffT^OffSufAlV, XXI 'iTlPX Si OtX XXIPOUS Xx) TOOTOUS
xx) yvufciv dx^oxTou, oraXXd 'i,^iTxi tx xToorx. Homil, in Job, vol, ii, p. 720.
§ i'va filT xxetfillxs ijfjuiv xoravTa i^finvlvovTls oraiSivffufiiv vfjods finSi (ipxxiixv Xi^iv
f,onSi ffvXXalsnv fctav ,^a^xT^ixnv tuv iv Ta7s hixis y^x(px7s xitfji'ivuv' ov yxp pnflxTX iffTiv
dorXus dXXx tov orviifixTos tou dylov pnfiXTa. Homil. 16 in Gen. pp. 90, 91, vol. i.
So also Homil. 36 in Job. iv Ta7s h'lxis y^x{pa7s Iutx 'iv n fiiav xi^xixv oux d^nftiov ora-
paSpxfit7v xXXx orxvTx Sn^iuvdffdai x^n, x. t. X. Vol. ii. p. 699.
^ xa) oravTxxou Tns y^x<pns ovtos o vo/aos, iornSav xXXnyo^i7, xiyitv xa) Tns dxXnyo~
etas Tnv 'i^fjonvitxv, uffTi fin xorXus, finTi us 'iTuxi, Tnv xxoXxffTov 'iffriSvpoiav tuv xXXviye-
fii"v liovXofiivipv orXxvxfffai xx) orxvTxxou fi^iffixt. Homil. in Gen. cap, 5, p. 1056,
vol, i.

CHRYSOSTOM. 1 23
ti.* The Homilies on the New Testament are, as a whole, supe
rior to those on the Old. This may be explained in part, from his
excellent knowledge of the Greek language. The best lexicons
and critical commentaries will shew, how much Chrysostom has
contributed to a right understanding of the words and phrases
occurring in the New Testament. No other of the fathers could
have supplied the same valuable assistance. The reason why he
has not explained the Hebraisms of the diction must be attributed
to his ignorance of the Hebrew tongue, in respect to which, he
was necessitated to lean upon the information and testimony of
others. But although the exegetical merits of this father be high,t
yet we can scarcely refrain from alluding to his extraordinary cre
dulity, his great superstition, and his monastic notions. Some
of these are apparently so inconsistent with true, enlightened de
votion, that, when viewed by themselves, they tarnish the brighter
principles of the holy father. The absurdities of his creed, such
as, belief in the merits of saints and martyrs, in the veneration
due to relics, and in numerous miracles supposed to be wrought
in his day, detract from the high estimation in which the en-
Ughtened Protestant should otherwise hold him. But we must
remember, that he was not singular in these superstitious fancies.
They were the prevailing belief of the great majority of his con
temporaries, which his pious feelings withheld him from question
ing in the first instance, or examining with sceptical misgivings
in the next. Let us learn from the erroneous, delusive tenets
scattered throughout the best writings of ancient Christianity, to
take our stand upon a higher basis than the opinions and practices
of men, however venerable for antiquity, or amiable for piety, or
distinguished for attainments ; and to follow the word of God
alone, as our unerring, all-sufficient rule. We need neither fa
thers, nor oecumenical councils, nor synodical decrees, to inter
pret the Scriptures for us. By the illumination of God's Spirit,
* " In epistolas quidem Pauli nil melius aut par, tota antiquitas habet ; et quicun
que de Graecis post in has epistolas scripsere, ex Chrysostomo pendent. In histori-
cos libros optimus est et plenissimus Commentarius in Matthseum, imprimisque lectu
dignus," Ernesti's Institutio Interpretis,
•j- " In illo sane viro fuerunt omnia quae a grammatico interprete exspectantur ; ejus
homiliae baud dubie primum exhibent specimen continuse explicationis litteralis, quae in
Novum Testamentum extat." Morus, Hermeneutica, ed Eichstadt, vol, ii, p, 240.
See the admirable worlt of Neander, Der heilige J. Chrysostomus, und die Kirche, &c,
Berlin, 1832-6, 8yo, 2 vols.

124 HISTORY OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
each may understand for himself, the great truths of divine re
velation.* Hilary (t368.) — Having considered the chief fathers belong
ing to the Greek church in the fourth century, we proceed to the
examination of their Latin contemporaries, and first to HUary,
bishop of Poitou in Gaul. This prelate is mentioned by Jerome
as having translated a commentary of Origen on Job. His method
of interpretation may be seen in his Commentaries on the Psalms
and the gospel of Matthew. In the former he is said by Jeromef
to have merely imitated Origen, adding several things of his own.
The foUowing specimens, taken from his exegetical writings,
point out the manner in which he interpreted Scripture.
In commenting on the 58th Psalm he speaks of those who are
wise according to the letter (secundum literam sapiunt), but
states, that he would join to it the spirit, and interpret the Psalm
chiefly of Christ's passion. %
" In the heavenly Scriptures every discourse has been so mo
delled, as to correspond both with such things as have been already
done, and such as are yet to be done. This young man there
fore represents the Jewish people," &c. ||
" Most interpreters create obscurity, by wishing to judge of
the prophetic Scriptures solely by the ear, and find no other mean
ing in them than what the words used in describing each object
outwardly convey. In this they leave us nothing to understand,
and conclude that the prophets did not speak rationally of earthly,
much less of heavenly objects." §
On Psalm cl. 1, he speaks of " the sacred volume being ar
ranged according to the sense of a higher intelligence, beyond
the opinion of the letter." 1
* See Taylor's Ancient Christianity, a work of sterling value and great research,
London, 1838, &c,
+ In his catalogue of celebrated ecclesiastical writers, cap. c,
X Hilarii Opera, Benedictine edition, fol, Paris, 1693, pp, 127, 8,
II Ita semper in Scripturis coBlestibus sermonem omnem temperatum fuisse, ut non
minus his quae gerebantur, quam eorum quae gerenda essent, similitudini conveniret,
Juvenis hic itaque formam Judaici populi habet, &c. Comment, on Matthew xix, 4,
p, 703.
§ " Faciunt nobis plerique obscuritatem, volentes Scripturas propheticas solo au-
rium judicio aestimare, et non aliud in his intelligere quam quod sub singulis rerum
earumque vocabulis audiatur. Quod cum volunt, neque nobis quod intelligamus
relinquunt, neque prophetas, non dice coelestia, sed neque terrena quidem rationabi-
liter dixisse constituunt." Comment, on Psalm cxxiv. 1, p. 401.
T[ Cum ergo ultra literae opinionem celsioris intelligentiae sensu volumen digestum
sit, &c., p. 594. He here refers chiefly, if not wholly, to the Psalms.

Hilary. 1 25
By finding a spiritual sense, he wiU not aUow that historical
truth is weakened or destroyed.
" In the beginning of our treatise we warned others against
supposing, that we detracted ought from the beUef in transactions
by teaching that the things themselves contained within them the
outgoings of subsequent reaUties." *
" Although such things are generally found in them (the
Psalms) as ought to be referred to the person of patriarchs, pro
phets, apostles, and martyrs, both of the first generation and the
following one ; yet because all things are in and by Christ, what
ever is spoken in the Psalms in the persons of different prophets,
relates to Christ also."t
The only rule, or what approaches to the nature of a rule, to
be found in his writings, respecting the extent of typical inter
pretation, is found in his commentary on the 138th Psalm, where
he says, that there must be something peculiar in the description
which applies expressly to the person of our Lord and no other.
" Many venture to believe, that nothing in the Psalms is
spoken in a spiritual sense ; just as if we should adapt to our own
thoughts, the things that are written, rather than elicit the belief
of a diligent and attentive understanding from what is written." |
This is a just observation ; but Hilary did not follow it in practice.
His exegesis is highly allegorical. Thus in his Commentary
on Matthew (v. 5), where our Saviour promises the inheritance
of the earth to the meek, the earth means " the body which our
Lord himself took for a habitation." || The fowls of the air de
note the unclean spirits, to whom God has given the support of
life (vivendi substantia), without the trouble of acquiring or col
lecting it. The lilies again, are the angels ; the grass, the hea-
* In exordio sermonis admonuimus ne quis forte existimaret aliquid rerum gestarum
fidei detrahendum, si res ipsas profectus rerum consequentium continere in se do-
ceremus. Nihil enim veritati detrahit, imitationem Veritas consecuta." Comment, on
Matth. vii. 1, p. 640.
+ Tametsi plerumque in his talia sunt ut ad personam patriarcharum, prophetarum,
apostolorum, martyrum, generationis quoque primae et generatioms sequentis referri
oporteant ; tamen quia omnia in Christo et per Christum sunt, quidquid illud in
Psalmis est sub diversorum personis prophetarum, omne de ipso est, &c. Comment.
in Psalm cxxxviii. 1, pp. 504, 6,
X Profecto auderent multi nihil in Psalmis spiritaliter dictum existimare 
perinde quasi nos sensui nostro ea quae scripta sunt coaptemus, et non magis ex his
quae scripta sunt, sensum diligentis et soUicitae intelligentiae consequamnr. Comment.
on Psalm cxxv, p, 407.
II Mitibus terras hereditatem poUicetur, id est, ejus corporis, quod ipse Dominus
assumsit habitaculum, p. 621.

126 HISTORY OF BIBLICAL INTERrRETATION,
then.* The mother of Zebedee's children represents the law of
Moses ; her children themselves are the believing Jews.f In
short, Hilary belonged to the class of allegorising interpreters.
Ambrose (t39 7.)— Ambrose, bishop of Milan, was devoted to
the study of the Greek fathers, especially of Origen, on whom
he chiefly depended. He maintains accordingly, that there are
several senses in the same passage of Scripture. His exegetical
writings upon Genesis, Psalms, and the Gospel of Luke, are
full of allegorising. He despises the historical sense as mean
and abject, and has recourse to mysteries to heighten the ma
jesty of the diction. Origen indeed is left far behind by Am
brose ; for the latter gives the utmost license to an artificial and
strained exegesis. Thus the four rivers of Paradise, are the four
cardinal virtues, the head or source of which is Christ. J The ark
of Noah is a mystical representation of the human body.|| The
five kings represent the five senses of the body ; the four kings,
corporal and worldly enticements (illecebrae corporales atque
mundanse.) Abraham, who rolls back the destruction of Sodom,
is Christ, who subdues the sinful desires. §
Of the history of David in relation to Bathsheba, several ex
positions considerably different are given. The following is one
of them. David is the prophetic body ; Bathsheba, the Jewish
synagogue. The first child that died in infancy, is the Jewish
people, who could not arrive at maturity by the law of Moses ;
the second son, Solomon, represents the Christians.^
The following is his interpretation of Matthew xvii. 24 et seq.
" The fish is the first martyr ; our didrachma is Christ. That
first martyr, viz. Stephen, had the treasure in his mouth, when
in his passion he addressed Christ." **
Luke vii. 37 et seq. are thus explained. Bethany is the world;
the house of Simon, the earth, a part of the world (terra quse
mundi portio est.) The woman is the church. She anoints the
the head of Christ, viz. God, with ointment, i. e. with the odour
of her merits or good works, ft In the account of our Lord's
• Pp. 633, 4, 5. + P, 709 et seq,
X Opera, 2 vols, fol, Pai'is, 1686, De Paradise, cap, 3, p, 150, vol, i,
II See capp, 6-9, pp, 232-8, § De Abrah. lib. ii. 41, 42, pp. 330, 1.
^ Apolog. David, altera, cap. 7, pp. 719-21.
** Primus hic piscis, primus est martyr. Didrachma nostrum Christus est. Habe-
bat igitur primus ille martyr, Stephanas scilicet, in ore thesaurum, cum Christum in
passione loqueretur." Expos. Evang. sec. Luc. lib. iv. 75, p, 1064,
•t-t Expos, Evang, sec. Luc. lib. vi, u. 13-21, pp. 1386-88.

JEROME.

127

entry into Jerusalem, the ass bound, represents the human family
in its captive state, which was loosed by Christ. The apostles
put their garments beneath Christ, which denotes, that they
valued their own works less than the honour of being preachers
of the gospel. The people strewed branches by the way, i. e.
cut off their unfruitful works. *
These specimens place Ambrose before us as a highly artificial
interpreter, and almost justify the severe judgment of Jerome re
specting him, " in verbis ludens, in sententiis dormitans." t
Jerome (t420.) — ^The name of Jerome is so prominent in the
Latin church, that it is superfluous to describe the erudition and
acquirements which form the foundation of his fame. He was
born at Stridon in Dalmatia, and died in the vicinity of Beth
lehem, A. D. 420. Of his labours in the criticism of the Bible,
we have already spoken at large in another place. | At present
he comes before us as an interpreter of the sacred volume. His
commentaries upon the poetic and prophetical books of the Old
Testament, and the greater portion of the New, are still extant,
forming, in connexion with his translations, a surprising monu
ment of his unwearied industry, extensive learning, and indomit
able zeal. In many instances, however, he wrote hastily and
without reflection, transcribing from preceding writers, and add
ing a few remarks of his own.|| Had this fact been always kept
in mind by such as have undertaken to canvass his merits, their
judgments respecting him would have exhibited less diversity.
Like many of the fathers he wrote too much ; and therefore we
need not look for strict consistency, or uniform excellence. But,
after all the deduction that must be made from the extravagant
encomiums heaped upon him by some ; § and notwithstanding the
* Expos. Evang. sec. Luc. lib. ix. u, 3-15, pp, 1496-8,
•j- Prolog, in Homil, Orig. in Luc, + Lectures on Biblical Criticism, p. 74 et seq.
II "' Certe nfisti, et mendacii mei erubescerem te testem vocare, quod praesens opuscu-
lum tanta celeritate dictaverim, ut aliena magis legere, quam mea condere me putares.
Nee hoc de arrogantia et fiducia ingenii dictum putes ; sed quod ostendere tibi cupiam
quantum apud me valeas ; qui periclitari magis apud doctos voluerim, quam tibi sedule
postiilanti quicquam negare." From the end of his proem to the commentaries on
Matthew's Gospel, in the ninth volume of the edition of Jerome's works printed at
Paris 1633.  " IUud quoque in praefatione commoneo ; ut sciatis Originem tria
volumina in banc epistolam conscripsisse ; quem et nos ex parte seeuti sumus. Apolli-
narem etiam et Didymum quosdam commentariolos ledidisse : e quibus licet pauca
decerpsimus et nonnuUa (quae nobis videbantur) adjecimus, sive subtraximus, ut stu-
diosus statim in principio lector agnoscat, hoc opus vel alienum esse, vel nostrum,"
End of proem to his Commentary on the Epistle to Ephesians,
§ " Quis angulus divinae Scripturae, quid tam abditum, quid tam varium, quod ille

128 HISTORY OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
numerous absurdities found in his works, he must be characterised
as an author possessing great attainments, considerable skill in
Scripture exegesis, and no mean judgment. WhUst, on the one
hand, he has been unduly praised, he has been unjustly decried
on the other.*
In various places he gives utterance to sentiments respecting
the Holy Scriptures, which shew that he had a right apprehen
sion of their value, unity, and entire consistency. Nor did he
fail to reprehend, with merited severity, the practice of many who
proceeded to expound them without previous preparation — who
thought it an easy and obvious thing to elicit their meaning,
without learning, science, or any qualification, except a presump
tion too proud to learn, too ignorant to stoop to instruction.f His
own life formed a remarkable contrast to the practice of these con
ceited and self-sufficient interpreters, whose perversions of Scrip
ture were necessarily numerous in proportion to the amount of
careless freedom with which they approached its pages. He tra
velled in quest of knowledge to distant places, perused numerous
volumes, neglected no source of information that came within his
reach, and freely drew from the springs already opened in the
Greek and Latin churches. X
non velut in numerate habuerit ? Quis sic universam divinam Scripturam edidicit,
imbibit, concoxit, versavit, meditatus est," &c, Erasmus, in his preface to the Works
of Jerome, printed at Basil,
* " Jerome," says Luther, " should not be reckoned or numbered among the doctors
of the church, for he was a heretic ; yet I believe that he is now in the state of the
blessed through faith in Christ, He says nothing more about Christ than the mere
name, I know none among the doctors to whom I am such an enemy as Jerome, for
he writes only of fasting, meats, and virginity." Translated from Luther's Sammt
liche Schriften. Th. xxii. p. 2070 et seq. ed. Walch.
•f* See his epistle to Paulinus.
--X " Imbeeillitatem virium mearum sentiens, Origenis commentaries sum secutus.
Scripsit enim ille vir in epistolam Pauli ad Galatas quinque propria volumina, et de-
cimum Stromatum suorum librum, commatico super explanatione ejus sermone com-
plevit : tractatus quoque varies, et excerpta quae vel sola possint sufficere, composuit.
Praetermitto Didymum videntem meum, et Laodicenum (i. e. ApoUinarem), de eccle
sia nuper egressum, et Alexandrum veterem haereticum ; Eusebium quoque Emesenum,
et Theodorum Heracliotem, qui et ipsi nonnuUos super hac re commentariolos reli-
querunt. E quibus si vel pauca decerperem, fieret aliquid, quod non penitus contem-
neretur. Itaque ut simplieiter fatear, legi haec omnia, et in mente mea plurima
coacervans, accito notario, vel mea, vel aliena notavi, nee ordinis, nee verborum inter
dum, nee sensuum memoriam retentans." Proem to Commentary on the Epistle to
the Galatians.  " Legisse me fateor ante annos plurimos in Matthaeum Origenis
viginti quinque volumina, et totidem ejus homilias, commatieumque interpretationis
genus ; et TheophiH Antiochenae urbis episcopi commentarios : Hippolyti quoque
martyris, et Theodori Heracleotae, ApoUinariique Laodiceni, ac Didymi Alexandrini ;

JEROME.

129

The following extracts shew his opinions respecting the in
terpretation of Scripture.
The necessity of abiding by the literal, historic sense, is im
plied in the language used of the allegorist, " The allegorical
interpreter is insane." * " The Jews transfer a spiritual meaning
into the flesh of the Idumsean king. They thus enervate, en
feeble, and reduce to powder, by certain genealogies and super
fluous traditions, the royal sense found in the letter, which sense
is most substantial and firm."t His very next words, however,
shew, that the grossly literal, and wholly unfigurative sense, is
no less to be avoided. " Not only are the Jews guilty of this,
but all the heretics who represent God as sitting on a high and
elevated throne, after the manner of a human figure, and piitting
his feet on the earth, lest they might be suspended," &c. % In
accordance with this latter sentiment, viz. that the naked letter
should not be insisted on so much as the spirit, and that the fi
gurative sense should not be neglected, he says, " Let us not
think that the gospel is in the words of Scripture, but in the
sense — not in the surface, but the marroio — not in the leaves
of the words, but in the root of the thought." ||
In answer to an objection, that this would be diverging into
the entanglements of allegory, he says, " The figurative inter
pretation of a history is not always equivalent to allegory ; for
frequently history itself is metaphorically expressed." §
His ideas, however, of spiritual interpretation, as distinct from
the literal, were by no means definite ; for we find him running
et Latinorum Hilarii, Victorini, Fortunatiani opuscula, e quibus etiam si parva cape-
rem, dignum aliquid memoria scriberetur." Proem to his Commentary on Matthew's
Gospel. * " Delirat allegoricus interpres." Comment, in Jerem. cap, 27, sub init,
"j- Judsei transferunt intelligentiam spiritalem in carnes Idumaaas ; sensumque re-
gium qui versatur in littera, et est solidissimus atque firmissimus, genealogiis quibus
dam et traditionibus superfluis enervant atque comminuunt, et in pulverem redigunt.
Comment, in Amos, cap, ii, v, 1, vol, vi,
X Et non solum illi hoc faciunt, sed omnes haeretici, qui volunt in modum humance
similitudinis sedere Deum in solio excelso et elevato, et pedes ponere super terram,
ne scilicet pendeant. Do,
II Nee putemus in verbis Scripturarum esse evangelium, sed in sensu, non in super-
ficie, sed in medulla, non in sermonum foliis, sed in radice rationis. Comment, in ep,
ad Galat. o. 1, v. 11,
§ " Quod si quis dixerit ; ecce, in historiae expositione, dum nescis, iiUegoriae elausus
es retibus ; et tropologiam historiae miscuisti, Audiat, non semper metaphoram historias
allegoriam sonare : quia frequenter historia ipsa metaphorice texitur, etc.*^ Comm, in
Habacuc. cap. 3, v. 14. B

130 HISTORY OF BIBLICAL IXTERPRETATION.
into allegorising, especially in the exposition of the New Testa
ment. In several parts of his Commentaries on the prophets, he
gives both the historical, and metaphorical (tropological) senses
of the same passage ; but in others, he has recourse to the usual >
threefold division, viz. the literal, the spiritual or tropological,
and the mystic or allegorical.* Occasionally he seems to pre
scribe limits to allegorical interpretation. Thus, he says, " in
precepts that belong to the life, and are perspicuous, we should
not seek for allegory, for this would be like the proverb, seek
ing a knot on a bulrush." | Again, his own practice has no
bounds. Thus, " those who follow the spiritual sense are in
deed in the flesh, for they have the same letter as the Jews ;
but they do not war after the flesh, when they proceed from
the flesh to the spirit. When you see one of the Gentiles who
believes and puts his hand to the plough of Christ, proceed, in
consequence of some former teacher, through the passage of the
law to the gospel, in such a manner as to understand all things
written in the law concerning the Sabbath, unleavened bread,
circumcision, sacrifices, &c. in a sense worthy of God ; should
the same person, after reading the gospel, be subsequently per
suaded by some Jew, or associate of the Jews, to forsake the
shadows and clouds of allegory, and interpret the Scriptures just
as they are written, it might be well said of him, ' having' be
gun in the spirit, are you now making an end in the flesh ?'":j:
" The whole body (of Canticles) is made up of mystical utter
ances  things invisible and eternal, are taught to
the spiritual senses, in certain concealed figures borrowed from
* Debemus Scripturam sanctam, primum, secundum litteram intelligere, facientes in
ethica quaecunque praecepta sunt. Secundo, juxta allegoriam, id est, intelligentiam
spiritualem. Tertio, secundum futurorum beatitudinem. Comment, in Amos, cap. 4.
(Opera, Benedictine edition, Paris, 169.3, 5 vols, fol, vol. iii. p. 1400.)
+ In praeceptis quae ad vitam pertinent, et sunt perspicua, non debemus quaerere
allegoriam ; juxta Comicum, nodum quajramus in scirpo. Comment, in Zech. cap.
8, 17. Compare Zechar. 13, 1.
X Qui vero sequuntur intelligentiam spiritualem, sint quidem in carne, quia eandem
habeant litteram quam Judaei : sed uon juxta carnem militent, a carne ad spiritum
transcendentes. Quando videritis eum qui primum credit ex gentibus ; et ad Christi
aratrum mittit manum, praevio aliquo doetore prndente, sic per legis iter ad evange
lium pergere : ut omnia ilia quae ibi scripta sunt de sabbato, de azymis, de circumci-
sione, de victimis, digne Deo intelligat : et deinceps post evangelii lectionem a Judaeo
aliquo, aut Judaeorum socio persuaderi : ut umbras et allegoriae nubila derelinquens,
sic Scripturas interpretaretur, ut scriptse sunt : de hoc potestis dicere : sic stultus es,
ut cum spiritu coeperis, nunc carne consummaris. Comment, in Gal. iii. 3, vol. iv.
Bened. ed. pp. 250-1.

JEROME. 131
loves." * Alluding to the history of Judah and Tamar, he speaks
of " the offensive indecency of the letter, when the expositor
does not ascend to a becoming spiritual sense." j In the New
Testament, he frequently allegorises. Thus in commenting upon
the gospel of St. Matthew, chap. xvii. 27, he understands by the
fish which was first caught by Peter, the liberation of the first
Adam by the second; and the piece found in its mouth to be the
confession of Christ.t In the same artificial manner is Matthew
xxi. 7 commented upon. " When, therefore, the sacred history
has either an impossibility, or an indecency in itself, we have
recourse to higher sentiments. The ass which had been tamed
and taught to bear the yoke of the law, must be understood to
mean the synagogue ; — the wanton and free colt denotes the
Gentiles ; upon whom Christ sat, when he sent to them two of
his disciples, one to the circumcision, the other to the Gentiles." ||
When expounding Ephesians iv. 24, he argues against the literal
meaning of the apostle's words, and gives the following sense :
" Let us not, overcome by anger, do such things as might cause
our sun to set, and the soul to be enwrapped in darkness." §
From the above passages it is obvious, that Jerome was guided
by no fixed principles of interpretation. Sometimes he appears
in the light of a grammatical interpreter, seeking out . the sense
by the words of Scripture ; again, he runs into allegories and
fanciful senses, to which the letter gives no countenance or sup
port. He blames the allegorisers, such as Origen, Hippolytus,
and Didymus ; and yet frequently follows Origen in the artificial
meaning imposed upon the text. As on many occasions he wrote
* Totum corpus ejus mysticis formatm- eloquiis .... Invisibilia et seterna
spiritualibus quidem sensibus, sed adopertis amorum quibusdam figuris docentm',
Praefat. in Cant. Cantic. vol. v. pp. 603-16.
+ Qui legit introisse Judam ad Thamar meretricem, et ex ea duos Alios procreasse ;
si turpitudinem sequatur litterae, et non ascendat ad decorem intelligentiae spiritualis,
&c. Comment, in Amos, cap. 2, vol. iii. p. 1380.
X Videtur autem mihi secundum mysticos intellectus, iste esse piscis qui primus cap-
tus est . . . ut per secundum Adam liberaretur primus Adam : et id quod in ore
«jus, hoc est, in confessione fuerat inventum, pro Petro et Domino redderetur. Vol.
iv. p. 81.
II Ergo quum historia vel impossibilitatem habeat vel turpitudinem, ad altiora
transmittimur ; ut asina ista quae subjugalis fuit et edomita et jugum legis traxerat,
synagoga intelligatur : pullus asinae lascivus et liber, gentium populus, quibus sederit
.lesus, missis ad eos duobus discipulis suis, uno in circumcisionem, et altero in gentes.
Vol. iv. p, 96.
§ Praecipit apostolus ne talia faciamus furore superati, per quae nobis sol occidat, et
pvincipalc cordis tenebris involvatur. Vol. iv. p. 373.

132 HISTORY 01" HIHLICAL INTERPRETATION.
hastily, so he forgot particular sentiments which he had already
uttered. One excess of allegorising he seems to have avoided,
viz. that of subverting the literal history whilst spirituaUsing it.
For this he should be commended. " We should expound," says
he " the figures of the Old Testament, preserving the truth of
the history."*
Jerome could not draw the proper distinction between spiritual
and grammatical interpretation in those parts of the Scripture to
which they are applicable, viz. the typical, and the prophetic. He
had not sufiicient judgment to rest satisfied with the simple, Uteral
sense, without seeking another. Hence he diverges into subtle
ties and refinements highly artificial, and which have no founda
tion in the word of God. Had he written less, and reflected much
more upon what he wrote, he would doubtless have appeared to
greater advantage in his exegetical works ; but his learning and
talents were frequently sacrificed to the importunity of injudi
cious friends. He had not the comprehensive mind which would
have enabled him to form or grasp a doctrinal system ; nor had
he a propensity like Augustine to system-making. His view was
directed rather to single topics separately, than to the broad
features of a system in their mutual bearings and legitimate con
sequences. Besides, there were great defects m his religious
character. In self-knowledge and self-government he was certain
ly wanting. Little passions, vanity, love of power and conten
tion, and hidden pride beneath the appearance of humility tarnish
his theological creed, and lessen his Biblical merits. Perhaps his
allegorising propensities ought to be put to the account of the
writers whom he followed rather than his own ; for although he
disclaimed in some of his epistles attachment to Origen, it is
certain that he was not a little influenced by the perusal of his
writings. When the current of opinion ran against Origen, he
thought it prudent to renounce the name of an Origenist.]
On the whole, Jerome should not be placed among the alle
gorising, but the historico-theological interpreters. His commen
taries are of considerable use to the accomplished expounder of
the Bible even now ; though they are interspersed with trifling,
erroneous, visionary statements, in the form of exegetical eluci
dations. X
* Manente historiae veritate, figuras Veteris Testamenti exponamus,
'J- Sec his epistle to Tranquillus ; ep, 1 25, ad Damas. ; ep. i^o.
X For a copious examination of Jerome's merits arid labours, we refer the reader to

AUGUSTINE.

133

Augustine (t430.) — Augustine's authority in the Latin church
is superior to Jerome's. He was born at Tagesta in Numidia,
A. D. 354, and died 430. The variety of his attainments, the
depth of his piety, the extent of Christian experience embodied
in his Confessions, and the dogmas of his religious creed, are pro
minently exhibited in his writings, and have exerted much influ
ence on the theology of the Christian church down to the present
time. It does not belong to us, however, to notice his history,
or to describe his theological opinions ; we have simply to depict
his mode of BibUcal interpretation. Although he was not the
first to lay down rules of exposition, yet the attempt which he
made to establish Hermeneutics on a sure and systematic basis,
was far more important than any that had previously appeared.
It forms indeed a remarkable sera in the history of Hermeneu
tics ; and must ever claim special notice. His four books " of
Christian doctrine" contain precepts for the interpretation of
Scripture embodying much that is still valuable. Throughout
most of his writings, there are scattered remarks bearing upon
exegesis, which commend themselves to universal approbation as
sound and judicious ; but the treatise de Doctrina Christiana is
especially occupied with rules relating to the interpretation of
Scripture. The following is a condensed statement of Hermeneutical prin
ciples found in his writings as given by Klausen,* who has ex
tracted them chiefly from the work on " Christian Doctrine," and
arranged them in the present form. It must be remembered,
however, that they are presented by the Danish Professor in a
manner adapted to leave a very favourable impression of Augus
tine's perspicacity and comprehensiveness of intellect — more fa
vourable, we conceive, than the perusal of the original passages
fully justifies.
1*^ The object of all interpretation is to express as accurately
as possible the thoughts and meaning of an author. The con
trary is doing strange violence to words, by attributing to them
a sense quite foreign.f
2d. In the case of the Holy Scriptures, this is not attained by
strictly insisting on each single expression by itself; for much
L. Engelstoffs work, Hieronymus Stridoniensis, Interpres, Criticus, Exegeta, Apo-
logeta, Historicus, Doctor, Monachus, Sfc, Havnim, 1797, 8vo.
* Hermeneutik, pp. 162-5.
f Quisquis in Scripturis aliud sentit quam ille qui scripsit, illis non mentientihus
fallitur. De Doct. Christ, lib. ii. cap. xxxvi. vol. iii. p. 9 ; ii. 6 ; Confess, xii. 32.

134 HISTORY OE BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
that is expressed in the same words has a different signification in
different places ; much is dark and indefinitely expressed ; and
much is brought by the literal acceptation into a state of opposi
tion to other expressions.*
3d. On the contrary, we should endeavour to clear up the ob
scurity of such passages, and to remove their ambiguity — first,
by close attention to the connexion before and after ; next, by
comparison with kindred places where the sense is more clearly
and definitely given ; and lastly, by a reference to the essential
contents of Christian doctrine, -f
4th. The interpreter of Holy Scripture must bring with him a
Christian reverence for the divine word, and an humble disposition
which subordinates preconceived opinions to whatever it perceives
to be contained in the Word of God. | This presupposes the
belief, that the Holy Scripture consists of truth raised above hu
man error, || that it contains Christian doctrine so perfectly § and
plainly exhibited, that the knowledge of every thing necessary to
the happiness of man is attainable by all, in the proper applica
tion of their reason. ^
5 th. Where the interpretation is insecure, notwithstanding the
preceding measures, it must be assumed, that the matter lies be
yond the circle of the essential truths belonging to the Christian
faith. **
6th. It is irrational and dangerous for any one, whilst trusting
in faith, and in the promises respecting the operations of the Holy
Spirit on the mind, to despise the guidance and aid of science in
the interpretation of Scripture. jt Rather does Biblical interpre
tation presuppose a knowledge of the original languages of the
Old and New Testaments ; J J an acquaintance with the objects of
nature, of historical relations, and civil institutions ; || || in short, a
* Contra Adimantum, xiv. 2 ; De Fide et Operibus, n. 5 ; De Doctrina Christ, iii.
25, 35 ; De Cons. Evv. u. 72 ; Ser. 32, n. 6 ; Enarr. in Psalm. 45, 8.
f De Doctr. Christ, iii. 4 ; ii. 14 ; De Fide, Spe, et Charit. n, 67, 68 ; De Unit,
Eccl. n, 8, 9 ; De Civ, Dei, xx. 5, 4 ; De Peccatorum Meritis et Remissione, iii, 7, 8,
Ep. 147 ; De Quaest. Dulcitii, ii. 5, 11 ; De Doctr. Christ, iii. 38 ; Contra Faustum,
xxxiii. 3.
X Scr. 61, IJ. 6 ; Ep. 147, n. 4.
II De Consensu Evan. ii. 9 ; Ep. 83, n. 3 ; In Evang. Job, tract, 112, n. 1.
§ De Civitate Dei, xi. 3 ; De Genesi ad Literam, v, 23.
"H De Doctr, Christ, ii, 7, 8, n, 14.
** De Pecc, Mer. et Rem, ii, 69 ; Ad Orosium contra Priscillianistas, &c, n. 14,
ft De Doctr, Christ, Prolog, n. 4-8.
XX Do. ii. 14, 16, 17, 19, 21 ; De Civ, Dei, xv, 14, 2.
llllDe Doctr, Christ, ii. 24, 28, 40, 42,

AUGUSTINE.

135

philosophical power of analysing and combining, so as to pierce,
by this means, through the shell into the kerneL*
The following beautiful and comprehensive, yet brief descrip
tion of the accomplished interpreter, is given by Augustine. It
would be difficult to find a better portraiture. " He should not
be a lover of contention, but possess meekness in his piety ; he
should be furnished beforehand with a knowledge of the original
languages, lest he be at a loss in unknown words and expressions.
He should possess a knowledge of certain necessary things (Bib
lical archasology), lest he be ignorant of the efficacy and nature of
objects used in the way of similitude. He should hkewise be
aided by the truth of MSS., which a skUful and diligent emenda
tion has effected. Thus equipped, let him come to discuss and
solve the ambiguities of Scripture."!
The exegesis of Augustine is far from being conformable to the
precepts he laid down. There is a wide distinction between the
mode of interpretation which he followed, and the excellent rules
propounded in his " Christian Doctrine." On the contrary, he
was a most zealous allegorist. All his exegetical works contain
numerous specimens of allegorising. He has endeavoured to re
commend it by imparting to it a kind of scientific basis ; so that
it might be employed with effect against various heretics, parti
cularly the Manicheans. We find the following rule propounded
regarding figurative senses in general. " Whatever in the divine
word cannot be referred either to propriety of morality, or to the
truth of faith, is figuratively expressed ;" i. e. we must have re
course to a figurative sense of the words of Scripture, where the
literal is opposed either to the true faith, or moral propriety. | It
* De Doctr. Christ, ii. 48 (35, 36, 37.) These references are taken from Klausen,
by whom some of them are quoted fully. They form the basis and the ground of the
rules given in the text. I have corrected those under i*, p. 133, according to the edi
tion before me ; and I suspect that many others are incorrect, at least according to the
Paris edition of 1616. Perhaps the chapters are different in different editions. Thus
the reference under *, p. 136, is not to be found in the edition before me, since the
second book has only 41 chapters. The words quoted by Klausen as contained in tlie
treatise Contra Adimantum, xiv, 2 (see *, p, 134), I cannot find, though I have read
over the whole of it.
¦f- Ne amet certamina, pietate mansuetus ; praemunitus etiam scientia linguarum, ne
in verbis locutionibusque ignotus haereat ; praemunitus etiam eognitione quarundam
rerum necessariarum, ne vim naturamve earum, quae propter similitudinem adhibentur,
ignoret; adjuvante etiam codicum veritate, quam sellers emendationis diligentia procu-
ravit ; veniat ita instructus ad ambigua Scripturarum discutienda atque solvenda. De
Doctrina Christiana, lib, iii. cap. i, vol. 3, p. 18,
X " Demonstrandus est igitur prius modus inveniendae locutionis, propriane an figu-

136 HISTORY OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION,
is easy, however, to perceive the utter inutility of such a canon,
even though Augustine cautions his readers against transferring
later ideas respecting truth and morality to distant times, and
substituting them for the things themselves. The judgment of
the interpreter must finally determine what is true and moral,
and so infer the grammatical or figurative sense. Scripture it
self is not appealed to as a criterion to determine truth and mo
rality, according to their intrinsic nature. We are not directed
to seek out intimations in it, by which our judgments should be
guided ; nor are the principles and practices of the Old and New
Testaments, different as they are in themselves, mentioned by
this father as diverse in their nature. The rule in question is by
no means definite. It ultimately resolves itself into the setting
up of our own reason as the final arbiter of the application of
literal or figurative exposition ; and forms no safeguard against
the utmost license of figure, metaphor, enigma, or allegory. On
the contrary, it leads to a disregard of the historic sense, and a
consequent neglect of historic interpretation. Accordingly we
find that the precept in question had no salutary influence on
Augustine's own practice, for in commenting upon the Old Tes
tament, he gives the chief place to spiritual interpretation. The
latter is with him the first object, whilst the primary sense is
little regarded. We deny not, that in some of the historic facts
narrated in the Old Testament, there was couched a higher sig
nificancy than that which meets the eye — an ulterior reference to
the kingdom and cause of Christ ; but we hold, that the Old Tes
tament is not a continued series of allegories expressed partly in
words, partly in historic events. We must have the authority
of Scripture itself for assuming another sense than the gram
matical and obvious one. All occurrences in the history of the
Israelites may be spiritualised ; but we need a divine warrant for
affirming, that in each of them was shadowed forth a spiritual
event connected with Christianity or with the life of the believer.
In allegorising, therefore, the whole of the Old Testament, Au-
rata sit. Et iste omnino modus est ut quicquid in sermone divino neque ad morum
honestatem neque ad fidei veritatem refen'i possit, figurate dictum esse." De Doctr.
Christ, lib. iii. cap, x, vol, iii, p. 20. So also in his work De Genesi contra Mani-
chaeos, lib. ii. cap. 2, " Si autem nuUus exitus datur ut pie et digne de Deo quae
scripta sunt, intelligantur, nisi figurate atque in eenigmate proposita ista credamus,
habentes auctoritatem apostolicam, a quibus tam multa de libris Veteris Testamenti
solvuntur aenigmata : modum quem intendimus, teneamus, . , . . ut omnes istais
figuras rerum secundum catholicam fidem explicemus. Opera ed. Coloniie Agrippinae,
10 vols, fol., vol, i, p, 316.

AUGUSTINE. 137
gustine is neither judicious nor correct, for he has thrown the
historic sense into the background, as a thing comparatively
worthless. In his estimation it is the shell that encircles the
kernel. But the supposed kernel is frequently a fiction, without
foundation in the text, and never intended by the inspired writer
himself, or by the Holy Spirit who superintended the diction.
Augustine divides interpretation into four distinct kinds, viz.
historical, (Etiological, analogical, and allegorical.* The se
cond of these examines the cause of a fact or expression ; the
third demonstrates the agreement of the Old and New Testa
ment. These four, however, may be reduced to two, viz. the
first and the last, which he generally follows, without mention
of the others. It is only in his imperfect work entitled " De
Genesi ad Literam," which he left off because he found himself
unequal to the task, that he attempts to carry out the four me
thods. In the finished treatise upon Genesis, in twelve books,
" De Genesi ad Literam," he usuaUy investigates the literal and
allegorical senses alone. f
Of Augustine's exegetical writings on the Old Testament it
may be said in general, that their value is not great. His com
mentaries on Genesis are full of trifling disquisitions and curious
questions ; whilst artificial allegorising every where appears. His
annotations on Job are of little use, himself being judge. X His
commentary on the Psalms contains many sound and sensible re
marks, in the midst of much mysticism. In short, he was not
competent to the exposition of the Old Testament. He possessed
neither the attainments, nor the learning, sufficient to open up
its true meaning. He had no acquaintance with the Hebrew lan
guage. As an interpreter of the Old Testament he cannot once
be put in comparison with Jerome. But in the New he appears
to much greater advantage ; although the same spirit of allego-
* " Omnis igitur Scriptura quae Testamentum Vetus vocatur diligenter eam nosse
cupientibus, quadrifaria traditur secundum historiam, secundum aetiologiam, secundum
analogiam, secundum allegoriam." De Utilitate Credendi, capp. 2, 3, vol. 6, p. 32.
After explaining the meaning of the terms, he expressly extends the four methods to
the New Testament. " His omnibus modis Dominus noster Jesus Christus et Apos
toli usi sunt. " In his " De Genesi ad Literam liber imperfectus," the same fourfold
division is propounded. It is quite plain that he adopted it from others, for he
affirms that these " quatuor modi a quibusdam Scripturarum tractatoribus traduntur."
De Gen. ad Lit. lib. imperf, vol, 3, p. 166.
-|- " Si ergo utroque modo ilia Scriptura scrutanda est, quaeramus quomodo dictum
est per allegoricam significationem," &c. De Gen, ad Lit. lib, i. cap. i, vol. 6, p. 174.
X See his Retractation um, lib. secund. cap. xiii. vol. i, p. 19. S

138 HISTORY OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
rising is conspicuous there also. It was the fashion of the age ;
and he was not the interpreter to resist it. We shall give one
example only from his " Quaestiones Evangelicse," founded upon
Luke X. 30. " By the man that went down from Jerusalem to
Jericho is understood Adam himself in the human race. Jerusa
lem is that heavenly city of peace, from whose happiness he has
fallen. Jericho is, being interpreted, the moon; and signifies our
mortality, on which account it rises, increases, waxes old, and
sets. The" robbers signify the devil and his angels, who robbed
him of immortaUty, and after inflicting stripes by persuading to
sin, left him half dead; for man is alive in as far as he is capable
of apprehending and knowing God ; but in as far as he pines and
is oppressed by sins, he is dead. Hence he is said to be half
alive. The priest and the Levite, who when they saw him, passed
by, signify the priesthood and ministry of the Old Testament,
which could not effect salvation. The term Samaritan is by in
terpretation guardian ; wherefore the Lord himself is represented
under that name. The binding up of the wounds, is the restrain
ing of sins. The oil, is the consolation of good hope on account
of the pardon and reconciliation granted. The wine, is the ex
horting to work with fervent spirit. The beast is his flesh, in
which he condescended to come to us. To be set upon the beast,
is to believe in the incarnation of Christ. The inn is the church,
where travellers are refreshed on their pilgrimage as they return
to an eternal country. The morrow, is after the resurrection of
our Lord. The two pence, are either the two precepts of love,
or the promise of the present and of the future life," &c.* This
is worse than trifling, and proves beyond all doubt, that he ex-
* " Homo quidam descendebat ab Hiefrusalem in Hiericho; ipse Adam intelligitur
in genere humane. Hierusalem civitais pacis ilia coelestis, a cujus beatitudine lapsus
est. Hiericho Luna interpretatur, et significat mortalitatem nostram, propter quod
nascitur, crescit, senescit, et occidit. Et incidit in latrones, diabolum et angelos ejus
qui eum spoliaverunt immortalitate, et plagis impositis peocata suadendo, reliquerunt
semivivum : quia ex parte qua potest intelligere et cognoscere Deum, vivus est homo •
ex pairte qua peccatis contabescit et premitur, mortuus est, et ideo semivivus dicitur.
Sacerdos autem et Levita, qui eo viso pr^terierunt, sacerdotium et ministerium Veteris
Testamenti significant, quae non poterant prodesse ad salutem. Samaritanus custos
interpretatur, et ideo ipse Dominus significatur hoc nomine. AUigatio vulnerum est
cohibitio peccatorum. Oleum, consolatio spei bonae, propter indulgentiam datam ad
reconciliationem pacis. Vinum, exhortatio ad operandum ferventissimo spiritu. Ju-
mentum ejus est caro, in qua ad nos venire dignatus est. Imponi jumento, est in ipsam
incarnationem Christi credere. Stabulum est ecclesia ubi reficiuntur viatores de pere-
grinatione redeuntes in seternam patriam. Altera dies est post resurrectionem Do
mini. Duo denarii sunt vel duo praecepta caritatis, vel promissio vit« praesentis et
futurae." Quaest. Evangel, lib. ii, quasst xix, vol. iv, p, 132.

AUGUSTINE. 139
ercised his imagination more than his judgment. In expounding
the didactic portions of the New Testament he succeeded best.
This was owing in no small degree to a profound acquaintance
with the workings of his own heart, an habitual experience of its
deceitfulness and weakness, and the ever-felt necessity of divine
grace to renew, sustain, and strengthen. He brought to the
exposition of the New Testament a mind prepared by the Holy
Spirit to enter into the portrait there given of human depravity.
The feelings of the Christian, as described by inspiration, he re
cognised in his own ; whilst his reverence for the word, and pro
found submission to its declarations, brought him to acquiesce
with faith in the electing, sovereign mercy of God. Out of the
depths of his reUgious experience, he drew an invaluable appa
ratus for the elucidation of divine truth. It was not by the power
of a scientific or learned, furniture that he seized upon the Chris
tian verities, and drew them forth from the written page ; but by
the apprehension of a spirit enlightened from above.
His four books " De Consensu Evangelistarum" shew sagacity
and talent in unravelling difficulties and solving apparent con
tradictions in the gospels. His polemic writings against the Ma-
nichseans, Donatists, and Pelagians, exhibit a superior acquaint
ance with the doctrines of grace, and a laudable desire to defend
them against perversion. It cannot, however, be denied, that his
doctrinal system had a prejudicial influence on his general mode of
interpretation ; or that he has often missed the true sense, in con
sequence of his partial speculations and deficiency in linguistic
knowledge. He wanted a learned education. His dialectic, sys
tematic, speculative spirit — the striving after strict unity and con
sistency of thought, — sometimes gave a partial direction to his
theological dogmas, and Christian feeling. He looked at one side
of a doctrine ; and, by the power of speculation, carried certain pe
culiarities of his creed on which he dwelt most, to a revolting exag
geration. His life was spent amid frequent agitations and disputes,
whence his writings occasionally exhibit a tincture of violence
unfavourable to sound exegesis. Above all, his excessive alle
gorising must ever detract from his merits as an interpreter. It
has tarnished and defiled all his works. Had he possessed less
depth and acuteness of understanding, or a spirit less impregnated
with Christian feeling, he would have been an indifferent inter
preter ; but in consequence of his great sagacity, he has pene
trated into the meaning of Scripture, by the energy of a sanctified

140 HISTORY OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
mind. He has laid down too the best maxims of Hermeneutics,
without adhering to them himself.*
Tichonius  Tichonius, a contemporary of Jerome and Augus
tine, lived about a. d. 370. According to Augustine, he wrote
violent invectives against the Donatists, although he himself be
longed to that sect.t He is known as the author of a book con
taining seven rules for the elucidation of Scripture. The full
title of it is, " Regulse ad investigandam et inveniendam intelli
gentiam Scripturarum septem." The author says, " I thought
it necessary above every other thing, for me to write a little book
of rules ; to make as it were the keys to unlock, and the lamps
to enlighten, the secrets of the law. For there are certain mystic
rules, which pervade the recesses of the entire law, making visible
the treasures of truth which are to some invisible. Now, if re
gard be had to these rules, without envy, as we communicate
them, whatever is shut will be opened, and the obscure will be
elucidated, so that any one passing through the immense forest
of prophecy, and guided by the following canons as by vistas of
light, may be preserved from error." |
The first rule, De domino et corpore ejus, inculcates the prin
ciple, that many things applied to Christ in the Scriptures may
also be referred to the members of his spiritual body ; and vice
versa, what is said of the church, is true of her head.
The second rule is entitled, De domini corpore bipartito, i.e.
what is spoken of the Christian church in general, is often to be
understood only of a part of it ; sometimes of the believing, at
other times of the unbelieving section. ||
' For a copious and able account of Augustine as an interpeter, the reader is re
ferred to Klausen's treatise, " Aurelius Augustinus Hipponensis, Sacrae Scripturae
Interpres," Hauniae, 1827, 8vo. I cannot but think, that the learned Professor over
rates the merits of this father. See also Wiggers' Augustinism and Pelagianism,
translated by Professor Emerson of Andover, 8vo, 1840, a book of fundamental re
search, which the able translator has enriched with valuable notes ; and Neander,
Band ii. Abtheil. 2, pp. 753-767 ; Abtheil. 3, pp. 1205-14.
f " Tichonius quidam qui contra Donatistas invectissime scripsit, cum fuerit Dona-
tista," De Doctr, Christ, lib, iii. cap. 30, vol. iii, p. 23,
X " Nccessarium duxi ante omnia, quae mihi videntur, libellum regularum scribere,
et secretorum legis velut claves et luminaria fabricare. Sunt enim quaedam regulae
mystieae, quffi universae legis recessus obtinent, et veritatis thesauros, aliquibus invisi-
biles, visibiles faciunt, Quarum si ratio regularum sine invidia, ut communicamus,
accepta fuerit, clausa quaeque patefient, et obscura dilucidabuntur, ut quis prophetiae
immensam silvam perambulans, his regulis quodammodo lucis tramitibus deductus, ab
errore defendatur." From the edition of Tichonius in the Bibliotheca Veterum Pa-
trum, vol, vi, pp, 49-67, Lugduni, 1677, 28 vols, fol,
II See Neander, ii. 1, p. 447.

TICHONIUS  THEODORET. 141
The third rule, De promissis et lege, treats of the apparent
discrepancy between portions of the New Testament in which
justification is attributed solely to grace through faith, and those
in which a righteousness is assigned to men in the sight of God.
Here the writer expounds the great argument of the Epistles to
the Romans and Galatians, and also the 48th chapter of Isaiah.
In the fourth rule, De specie et genere, attention is directed to
the fact, that Scripture often silently passes from a general to a
particular, and vice versa. Hence the relation of the subject to
the predicate must be observed. This rule throws light on Eze
kiel, chapters 27, 32, 36, 37 ; Isaiah, 13th and 24th chapters;
and on Jeremiah, chapter 25 th ; as Tichonius points out.
The_^^^ rule begins thus : " Temporum quantitas in Scrip
turis frequenter mystica est tropo synecdoche ; aut legitimis nu-
meris qui multis modis positi sunt, et pro loco intelligendi," &c.
The sixth rule, De recapitulatione, refers to the manner in
which Scripture puts together that which belongs to a different
time and place, thus connecting with the present sometimes the
past, and at other times the future.
The seventh rule, De diabolo et corpore ejus, teaches, that
what is applied to the Devil, must often be referred to his sub
jects also, and vice versa.
These rules are miscellaneous observations on several pecuUa-
rities of Scripture, possessed of little value in themselves, and
devoid of scientific form. The mode in which they are applied
by Tichonius to particular passages is not the best ; and in their
development he occasionally betrays an allegorising propen
sity. They present, however, the first attempt at laying down
a number of hermeneutical principles to guide the sacred inter
preter.* Theodoret (+458.) — Having considered the modes of biblical
interpretation pursued by the Greek and Latin fathers of the
fourth century, we come to the fifth, the names belonging to
which, are neither so numerous nor so distinguished. Theodoret,
bishop of Cyrus in Syria, was of kindred spirit with Chrysostom.
He had studied under him and Theodore of Mopsuestia, and was
the intimate friend of Nestorius. His works are chiefly exege
tical, consisting of questions and interpretations explanatory of
most books in the Old Testament, with commentaries on St.
* For some remarks upon them, see Augustine's third book " of Christian doctrine,
from chapter xxx. p, 24, vol, iii,, and Retract, lib. ii, cap, 18, vol, i, p. 20.

142 HISTORY OP BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
Paul's epistles. In the preface to his commentary upon the
Psalms, he thus speaks of his manner of interpretation.
" When I happened upon various commentaries, and found
some expositors pursuing allegories with great superabundance ;
others, adapting prophecy to certain histories, so as to produce
an interpretation accommodated to the Jews rather than to the
nurseUngs of faith ; I considered it the part of a wise man to
avoid the excess of both ; to connect even now with ancient his
tories, whatever things belonged to them  We
shall study to avoid, as much as we can, prolixity of expression,
and to exhibit the useful, in a compendious form, to such as wish
for it." *
To this plan he seems to have generally adhered. The literal,
historic sense is clearly set forth, without allegorical fancies or
digressions. The latter, indeed, he seldom takes occasion to
censure or refute ; although he knew them to be exceedingly pre
valent. The following sentiments exhibit him in the light of a
sound interpreter.
" Some allegorists say, that the skins denote mortal flesh;
others, that they were prepared from the barks of trees. I ap
prove of neither opinion. The one is curious, the other exceed
ingly fabulous."! " Divine Scripture speaks in a manner suited
to men, and has various forms of address, as men are able to
hear." I
Theodoret has been accused of inconsistency in becoming an
allegorist himself on various occasions; but many passages on
which this charge is grounded, are not such as to substantiate it.
He is not, in our view, an allegoriser, because he aUudes to a
deeper sense lying under the letter ; or because he finds in many
parts of the Old Testament a twofold reference. In the book of
Psalms, he has generally assumed a double form of exegesis ; and
* Ataipo^ots yaQ ivTvxuv ifTTOfivnfiXffi, xx) tovs fjoiv lis xXXnyooiav filTa oroXXns X'"'
pnffxvTxs xorXnffTias iv^uv, tous Ti nfftv IffTo^tats Tnv rr^oipnTitxv d^fioffxvTxs, us lovSxi-
ois f,oxXXov Tnv 'i^finviixv ffvvnyo^iiv, n to7s T^o^tf/.ots Tns ortffTius. ,rxvov^yov vivo/.otxa xx)
TOUTUV xaxiivuv Tnv dfAiT^tav i^vyuv' 'offx f^iv Ta7s vrxXxia7s or^offnxiv IffToptxis, TavTais
TOUTX ffr^offx^ft'offxt xx) vTiv  fforouSxffofulv Ti US olx Tfi {puyi7v fjOiV TOV
Xoyov TO finxos, ffuvTof/,ov Tl or^oSitvxi To7s PtovXofjo'ivots Tnv u<p'iXitxv, X. T. X. Praefatio
in Psalmos. Theodoreti Opera, ed. Sirmond, Paris, 1642, 4 vols, fol, vol. i, pp. 394, 5.
¦(- Ol fiiv xXXnyo^nTx) Tnv S-mrnv ffd^xx ipxa) tx Ti^foxTx- JixXoi Tt nvts xoro ifXoiuv
'i'lv'Spuv TXUTX xxTlffxluxffSxi il^nxxffiV 'tyu Ti yi oi/S'lTi^ov TOUTUV or^OfftifAxt. TO fAiv yxp
•Tt^li^yov, TO Tl oiyxv fcvS-ZSis. Qussst. in Genesin xxxix. p. 34, vol. i,
X orpoff^o^us To7s dvS^uorots n hix ypxtpn OixXiyiTat' xx) us xxovitv SvvxVTUt fllTaffYn-
fixTtZii TOUS x'oyovs- Quaest. in Gen, Iii. p, 43, vol. i.

THEODORET. 143
by this means enhanced the value of his comments. To use the
ill-chosen phraseology of some, he has given a double sense to a
passage ; when it should rather be said, that he has found an al
lusion to two persons or events intimately connected in the divine
arrangements. He has certainly pushed typical interpretation to
excess. He has arbitrarUy set forth as types, objects in the Old
Testament which have no Scripture warrant to be so reckoned.
In this respect alone is he an allegorist. Thus, in explaining the
29th chapter of Exodus, where it is enjoined that the fat upon cer
tain parts of the victim shall be brarnt upon the altar, " these are
emblems or figures," says he, " of passions within us," The fat
signifies the disease of the palate (gluttony) ; the reins, carnal
voluptuous desires ; and the lobe of the liver, anger. * Again,
when Isaac prays that Esau may have the dew of heaven from
above and the fatness of the earth (Gen. xxvii. 39), Theodoret
says, " These things according to the obvious superficial sense of
the letter denote grace from above and abundance of blessings
from the earth ; but according to the higher interpretation they
depict the divinity of the Lord Christ by means of the expression
dew; and by the fatness of the earth, his humanity received from
us."t In another place, he thinks that the Scripture denominates
such as have been thought worthy of divine grace, " clouds." J
In expounding the 110th Psalm, he calls the Jews, the brook in
the way " who had obtained divine grace, but were not always
to enjoy it." || These are exceptions to his general method of
interpretation, and must not be taken as a fair representation of
his usual exegesis.
Ernesti set so high a value upon Theodoret's writings, as to
prefer his commentaries on the Psalms to all other remains of the
ancient church, and to recommend them in the strongest terms
to those concerned in sacred exegesis. Nor do we believe his
opinion to be unfounded or erroneous. The comments of Theo
doret are brief, clear, concise, characterised by good judgment,
general sobriety, and enlightened piety. No intricacy pervades
* xiviyfiXTx 'Si TXUTX TUV iv hfjoiv ora^nfJoxTuv, x. T. X. Quaest, in Exod. Ixi. p. 109,
vol. i.'
-f* X XXTX ffXv TO OTQOXlt^ov xx) 'l^ioroXaiov TOU y^dfjofjoxTOS vonfix, SnXo7 Tnv civuhv
Xdpiv, xx) TUV aoro yns dya^uv Tnv eotp^ovixv. xxtx oi Tjji' tou xy^ov 't^finvlixv, xIvItti-
Tat TOV SlffOrOTOU yipiffTOV, StX TVJS SpOffOV fllV TttV 6lOTnTX, OtX 06 TnS OTlOTHTOS TiJS ynSt
Tnv i^ nftcov dvS^uoroTnTx. Quaest, Ixxxii. in Gen, p, 60, vol, i.
X vtip'tXxs S\ TOVS Tns hixs x°^Q'Toi n^tufnivovs n hta xxXiiy^x^n. Interpret, in Psalm.
66, p. 617, vol. i. II P- 863, vol, i.

144

HLSTORY OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION,

his statements ; nor do tedious digressions interrupt the thread of
exposition. It is true that he had the advantage of Chrysostom's
homilies, of which he has made considerable use ; but he exhibits
his usual excellence even where the illustrious Archbishop of Con
stantinople had not led the way. No exegetical works of anti
quity may be read with greater advantage than those of Theodoret.
He displays the chief qualities of an accomplished interpreter.
His learning, perhaps, was not great, nor his acquirements ex
tensive ; yet, in following the path of his preceptor, he has pro
duced specimens of commentary which place him among the best
patristic divines. At the risk of being thought tedious, we shall
give a few examples of his exegesis, taken from the historical,
devotional, and prophetic books of the Old Testament, and also
from the New.
" Benjamin is called a ravening wolf, on account of the dis
aster that happened to his tribe ; wherefore it is subjoined, ' in
the morning he shall devour the prey, and at night he shall di
vide the spoil,' because those who had been victorious in the first
and second conflict, were afterwards utterly destroyed, with the
exception of a very few whom the conquerors compassionated ;
and to whom they were afraid to give wives because of the oath.
They prepared nuptials for them, however, in a different manner.
It should be known, that some have applied this prediction to
the apostle Paul ; for he wasted the church like a wolf, entering
into men's houses; and afterwards distributed spiritual food to
the world." Gen. xlix. 27.*
" If David, the pious king, who was also gifted with the grace
of prophecy, calls Christ his Lord, Christ is not only man, as
the Jews madly affirm, but also God, as being the creator and
Lord of David. The community of names denotes sameness of
substance ; for the Lord speaks to the Lord, and not to a crea
ture, or to a thing made, ' Sit thou on my right hand.' This
also is an exalted prerogative, not only above human nature, but
above every creature. The language is conformed to the custom
of men, for the Son of God has an eternal throne," &c.t Psalm
cix. (110) V. L
After quoting Jeremiah viii. 22, he thus comments upon the
verse. " The prophet calls the priests physicians; and spiritual
doctrine he expresses tropically by balm. GUead was a city be-
* Translated from the 110th question upon Genesis, vol, i. p. 77,
¦|- Interpr, in Psalmos, p, 849, vol. i.

CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA. 145
longing to the priests. He complains, therefore, that the city
persevered in wickedness, and did not repent ; although there
were in it priests, and the precepts of the law." *
In his exposition of the epistle to the Ephesians, chapter ii.
verses 4 and 5, he has the following. " Even when we were
thus affected, the Lord God, who has an abyss of goodness, has
made us partakers of the immortal Ufe of our Lord. Hence the
apostle says, ' quickened us together with Christ.' For since
he rose, we also hope to rise again. In him our condition is rec
tified. The writer then teaches more clearly the greatness of the
gift, ' by grace ye are saved.' We are not called on account of
our excellent life, but on account of the love of him who has
saved us." t
Cyril of Alexandria (+444.) — The patriarch Cyril, of Alex
andria, was an ambitious, haughty, and cunning man, whose fiery
zeal against others, proceeding, not from a sincere love for truth,
but an innate and unchristian turbulence of spirit, led him to the
adoption of perverse and persecuting measures. To Theodoret
and Nestorius, he was a great enemy. His exegetical works are
numerous. Commentaries upon the Pentateuch, Isaiah, the twelve
minor prophets, and the gospel according to St. John, have sur
vived the lapse of ages. His method of interpretation is to give
the grammatico-historical sense in the first instance, and then the
higher or spiritual. In his commentary on Isaiah, he mentions
with disapprobation such as neglect " the history contained in the
sacred books as though it were insipid ; for although the spiri
tual sense J be good and fruitful,! yet what is historical, should
be taken as history." §
The following passage contains his sentiments regarding Bib
lical interpretation. In his introduction to the commentary on
John's gospel, after quoting Ecclesiastes x. 9, it is added, " The
preacher tropically calls the sentiments contained in the inspired
Scripture woodf'l thus making the books into which they are
put, a certain spiritual paradise bringing forth the fruit of the
Holy Spirit. He, therefore, who endeavours to explain the spiri
tual word, i. e. the divine and mystical contemplations of the in-
* Interpr. in Jeremiam, p. 176, vol, ii. "f* Vol, iii. p. 299.
X &iu^ta orvtvfjoxTixn. II KaXn xx) ovnfft^o^os.
§ Comment, in Esaiiam, lib. i. oratio 4, vol. ii, pp. 113, 14. (Cyrilli Opera, ed.
Aubert. 7 vols, fol. Paris, 1638,)
^ ^vXx ?6 T^osrixeoTi^ov x^oxaXu Td 'iv T^ _^loorvlvffTc^ yQX(fiy hu^nfJOXTX, ». t, X.
Vol. iv. p. 2. T

146 HISTORY OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
spired Scripture by searching, and by the most earnest application
of mind, will be most in danger when the iron falls, viz. when
the mind is not brought to a right perception of the things wnt-
ten ; but, leaving as it were the right way, turns aside to another
oblique path of doctrine." *
In conformity with the position, that " the law is useless if it
be not spiritually understood,"! he affirms, that " through aU
the writings of Moses, the mystery of Christ is enigmatically
described ;"t and that the entire Old Testament is a connected
series of mysteries relating to Christ, who " though one, is re
presented by various types and emblems." ||
After such declarations, we need not be surprised at Cyril
looking upon the minutest objects connected with the temple and
its service to be typical of Christ, or of something connected with
his kingdom. It is true, that the Old Testament dispensation
was designed to lead us to Christ, and to prefigure the better eco
nomy; — that the temple service shadowed forth a spiritual service
where there should be an absence of external rites and ceremo
nies; — but it is worse than trifling, to seek out a counterpart to
the several appurtenances and vessels of the temple in specific
objects connected with the gospel dispensation.
In his exposition of John's gospel, 6th chapter, where the
miraculous feeding of five thousand people with five barley loaves
and two fishes is related, he says, that by the five loaves are sig
nified " the five books of the most wise Moses, i. e. the whole
law, which brings a coarser nourishment as it were, by the letter,
and the history. § .... for the circumstance of their being
made of barley refers to this." By the fishes is denoted " the
finer and more luxurious nutriment contained in the Saviour's
teachings."^ The number two, refers to the apostolic and evan
gelical preaching.** The twelve baskets filled with the frag
ments remaining, represent the honour which should be given
to the apostles and bishops of the church after their work was
Vol. iv. p. 2. "f" xvuiptXns 0 vofAos tl fjon voo7to orvivfianxus. De
Ador. et Cultu in Spirit, et Veritat, p. 459, vol, i.
X Old orxffns Tns Muoius y^xtpns to tov Xgio-roy fjovffTn^iov xlviyfixTuSus enfox'tviTxi,
X. T. X. from his yXxipv^x, i, e, polished or highly-wrought commentary upon select
portions of Genesis, Lib. i. sub, init, vol, i.
II lis fjoiv XXTX ipvffiv uord^x^^t xlvlypoxffi 7roXXo7s xx) Six^o^ois vooufilvos. P, 316,
vol, i, De Ador. et Cultu in Spir. et Ver.
§ ^axuTl^av uffori^ llfftp'l^uv Tnv Sid tov y^dfifoaTos xa) Trjf IffToplas TPoSlnv, x. T. X.
^ TX TpUtpi^UTXTX TUV TOU ffUTn^OS flxdnf^XTUV ffuyypxfj.fiaTa, X, T. X.
** p. 283, vol. iv.

ISIDORE OF PELUSIUM. 147
finished."* In commenting upon John xviii. 10, where it is
related, that Peter cuts off the right ear of Malchus, Cyril
says, " By this as a type, is signified, that the people of the
Jews should be deprived of right hearing,^ for they would not
understand the things of Christ, but loved sinister (left) obe-
dience" &c.t
These extracts shew, that this father was addicted to allego
rical interpretation. He had a faint perception of the true ex
position in various parts of the Old Testament ; but he carried
typical interpretation to excess. In the New, he erred much
more from allegorising, for there it has much less semblance of
truth in its favour. He had neither judgment nor acumen to dis
cern the proper limits of secondary interpretation. Hence he
diverged on all occasions into fanciful senses. In one respect,
however, he is to be commended more than some belonging to
the Alexandrian school, because he did not throw aside the literal
sense, though he certainly valued it less than the other. His
chief object was to find and set forth the latter. In conclusion,
we cannot characterise Cyril of Alexandria as a judicious or able
interpreter. Prone to the prevailing exegesis of the school to
which he belonged, || he is neither to be commended for his cau
tion, nor followed as a guide. Perpetually intent upon mystical
meanings, he is rightly numbered among the allegorisers of an
tiquity. Isidore of Pelusium (+449 or 450.) — Isidore was born at
Alexandria, and lived a monk in the neighbourhood of Pelu
sium. According to Nicephorus, he was a disciple of Chrysos
tom. His works consist of epistles, which are chiefly occupied
with the interpretation of the Scriptures. In consequence of his
great reputation and influence, acquired no less by erudition than
piety, numerous letters were addressed to him, desiring his sen
timents on a variety of points ; and among others, upon difficult
passages of Scripture. To these he replied in the epistles that
still remain. We need not quote his expressions respecting the
value and sublimity of the Holy Scriptures themselves. They
shew an enlightened intellect and sanctified heart.
• Vol. iv, p. 285,
+ Tns Si^ixs axons. Vol, iv, p, 1018. X vorxxonv Tnv luuvvfiov. Do,
II We refer the reader to Guerihe's treatise de Schola, quae Alexandria floruit
catechetica, comment, hisfor. et theolog. 8vo, Halae, 1824, for a development of the
principles maintained in the Alexandrian school ; and to Neander, B. ii. Abtheil 2, pp.
734-53.

148 HISTORY' OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
Concerning the preparation of a sacred interpreter, he saysy
" setting out with pains and prayers, proceed to the investigation
of the sense of the sacred Scriptures," &c.*
His exegesis is similar to that of his master Chrysostom. He
adopts the grammatical, and rejects allegorical interpretation.
The sound principles which characterised the Antiochian school f
are prominent in him. The following extracts will shew his ideas
of Scriptural exegesis. " You seem to me not to approve of
those who exhort the readers of Scripture to search for the spi
ritual sense ; for they think themselves wiser, as you said, than
the Scriptures, whUst they transform the divine oracles into what
ever they wish, and deceive the hearers very much. But I would
neither blame those, if they profess to find out any thing wise ;
nor would I compel you to allegorise, against your own wish,"
&c.! " I have frequently wondered at those who falsely inter
pret the divine Scriptures, and try to set forth their own opinion,
rather than what is really contained in the text ; for, whilst they
mingle the bad and sluggish water of their own dogmas, with
the pure, sincere, and soul-delighting sense of Scripture," &c.||
" Whosoever attempts to expound the sense of the Holy Scrip
tures, should have a serious and clear tongue, with a soul devout
and pure : he ought to follow, and not to go before them ; — nor
force them to speak according to his own pleasure." § " Do not
tear asunder and divide Scripture by adducing separately cer
tain expressions found in the holy oracles ; (for thus you will be
laughed at as uninstructed, and foolish) . . . but you will find the
true solution by diligently inquiring into the subject-matter," &c.^
* aXX' ix orovuv xx) or^offtuxuv or^offotfji,txffxft,ivos lori Tnv Pn^av Tuv vo^ftxTuv Tns tlpds
XU(ii y^xipTis, X. T. X. Lib, ii, ep. 106. (Opera, Paris, 1638, 1 vol. fol.) p. 169.
t See Neander, B. ii. Abth. 2, pp. 749-52.
X 'iotxas oux xoroSixiff^ai tovs 'lor) Tds hu^ixs TOUS xvxyivuffxovTxs orapaxaXouvTXs'
ffOipUTi^OVS yX^, as i<PnS, TUV y^XtpuV ixVTOUS hyOUfitVOI, lis XOri^ flouXoVTXl f,t,lTXXOfiOlt,OV-
Tis TX Siix Xoytx, oroXXx fftpdXXoVffl TOUS dxouovTxs. iyu di out ixtivovs xlTixffxlftnv, ll
ffo^ov t) 'l^iu^uv 'i^ayyiXXovTXi, ovts ffl f/,n (hovXofoivov, dXXnyopitv xvxyxdffatf/,1, x. t. X.
Lib, iv, ep, 117, p, 477.
j[ ^oXXdxis 'i^xvfjiaffx tuv Ta? 6tia.s orx^t^fjinvtvovTuv ypx^xs, xa) to olxi7ov lodXXov
liovXnfix n TO iv xuTxis xsif.t,ivov orx^lffTxv Vlt^ufiivuv TO ydp dxparov XUTUV, xa) ilXt-
x^tvls, xx) luip^dvxt ^vxnv Suvxfoivov fiovXnfix, tu (pxuXu, o^iTnXu TUV olxiiuv SoyicxTUV
TTx^axt^vuvTSs vSaTi, x. t. X. P. 306, lib. iii, ep, 125.
§ t'ov vouv tuv ll^uv y^xtpuv 'i^f/.nvtuffxi orii^ufiivov x^^j Tnv foiv yXuTTxv 'ixltv fflftvnv
Tl xa) T^xvnVf Tnv T£ yvufi^v lufflfhn TE xa) litayn, dxoXouSt7v ti xutx)s xx) f,ih hyuffSai,
fjiriSi or^os TO olxt7ov liouXnf/-x TOV ixitvuv vouv 'ix(iidZ,iff6at. Lib. iii. ep. 292, p, 374.
^ fin dffrXus or^offtp'i^uv Ttvds ^nffits tuv ti^uv x^^fff^uv Std ffTofiaTos fforxpxTTi. (^dorxt-
Sivffias yd^ 'oipXnfflts xa) xvoixs y'lXuTx') . . . dXXa txs vToS'ifftis dxpi[ius ^nTnffxs
'i^tis TXS Xutus. Lib, iii. ep. 136, pp. 310, 11.

ISIDORE OF PELUSIUM. 149
In another place he justly blames such as " transfer the whole
of the Old Testament to Christ, since they give an advantage
to the Gentiles and the heretics who are not able to make the
right distinctions, in their controversy with us ; for whilst they
violently apply to him what has no such reference, they render
suspected such expressions as plainly allude to the Saviour. My
own decided opinion is, that both are true; all should not be
transferred to him ; and on the other hand, there is not a total
silence regarding him." *
Ernestit has directed attention to the 203d epistle of the 4th
book as containing an excellent rule for the interpretation of
prophecy. " The pure and divine mind purposing to signify be
forehand any thing future, did not fling forward the prediction
in plain terms  but, mingling the knowledge of
the future with things present, it embellished the prophecy in
such a manner, that even the hearers who then lived, reaped
some utility ; and posterity acquired an accurate knowledge of
the events after their completion." X
This principle, Isidore illustrates by the seventy-second Psalm,
the obvious sense of which pertains to Solomon, though not ex
clusively ; for Christ, prefigured by Solomon, is also set forth.
He attributes the less exalted expressions — all such as belong to
men, to the son of David, whilst those exceeding humanity are
assigned to David's greater Son. This comes near the truth,
though it is not, perhaps, strictly accurate, or well expressed.
The hermeneutical observation in question discovers the perspi
cacity and judgment of Isidore ; and Ernesti has done well to
notice it with approbation.
But although the writings of this learned monk generally evince
an attachment to historico-theological interpretation, and contain
explications worthy of attention, he has not always abstained
from allegorising. Like Theodoret, he did not understand the
* Ol ordffxv Tnv orxXxtOiV StxHxnv tls tov X^tffTov filTXtpi^llv ffrii^ufAlvoi, ovx 'i^u aln-
xffius ilfflv, 'lortlori^ xx) "EXXnfft xa) To7s fjon ''lyx^Uovffiv xvTnv x1^itixo7s Uxvuv iv Tn
xxf nfouv StSoaffi fjoxxn. tx yx^ fjon lls xvtov ll^nfjoivx ix(iix^ofiivoi, xa) Td x^iuffTus
llpnftivx voroffTTiviffSxi srx^xffxivd^ouffi  'tyu 51 xvayxaius tpnfc) xfttpo-
Tipx ytyivvnffSxi, to, tI fjon ffTxvTX XlXix^xi m^) xutov, xxi to fin oroXvTiXus tx xxt
uuTov ffifftynffSxi. Lib. ii. ep. 19^, p- 215,
¦^ Opuscula Theologica, 8vo, Lipsise, 1792, pp. 465, 6.
i 'O duos xx) xxngxTos vous tl oroTi Tt TUV fJilXXovTuv or^ofinvuffxt nfiouXlTO, oux xorXus
ippioTTi Tnv oroo(pnTtlxv . . . xXXx xs^dffxs To7s ffrx^ouffi Tnv tuv fiiXX'ovTuv yvufftv,
OUTU Tnv ofpoipnTilxv iffifovvvlv, oVaij xx) ol TOTl xx^oufilvot xoToXxvffuffi Ttvos u^tXitas,
xx) ol fAlTX TXVTX ix Tvjs oTl^ifioXris TUV ffT^xyfiXTUv Tfl xx^tfiis yvo7lv.

150 HISTORY OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
limits of typical interpretation. He sought after allegories and
types where they do not exist. Hence his epistles sometimes
contain visionary and fanciful explanations, inconsistent with the
true principles of a grammatical interpreter. This, however, is a
fault, from which the best writings of antiquity are not free. It
is found in Chrysostom and Theodoret, with whom the able and
sagacious Isidore may be fitly classed. We subjoin a few speci
mens of his allegorising. When Jacob is said to have caught the
heel of his brother Esau (Gen. xxv. 26), he represented " the
soul that sees God by its purity, and spurns sensual desires." *
Jacob covered with the skins of kids, signifies our Lord and
Saviour, &c.t
The piece of money in the fish's mouth denotes human nature
covered with vicious passions, &c. X
They that are pregnant, and such as give suck (Matth. xxiv.
19), are souls that bear the divine love, as it were, in the uterus;
without having the confidence and courage to make an open con
fession, and earnestly to contend for it.||
The two thieves crucified with our Lord, denote the Jewish
and Gentile nations.§
These are not examples of his usual method, but deviations
from it. Notwithstanding their manifest absurdity, they form no
equivalent counterpoise to the numerous specimens of sound and
satisfactory exegesis conducted agreeably to right hermeneutical
maxims. T[
Pelagius. — Pelagius wrote commentaries on all the epistles of
St. Paul except that to the Hebrews. These are still extant, in
the form of scholia or short notes. Formerly they were attri
buted to Jerome, and inserted in his works ; until Vossius proved
to the satisfaction of all, that they did not proceed from Jerome,
but Pelagius. It is matter of regret that they were revised and
altered by Cassiodorus. His exposition of the epistle to the Ro
mans has been most interpolated. Cassiodorus admits, that he
purged it from the Pelagian poison. Pelagius took for the basis
of his annotations the Italic version, because the Greek language
• 0 vovs 0 fiX'lffruv hov xxtx^'oTviTi orri^vlZii tx orxinTx yxffT^tfiou^yx. Lib, i.ep, 192,
This is founded upon an erroneous derivation of the word Israel, which he makes to
be compounded of bx T\K^,to see God.
+ Lib. i. ep, 193, p, 67, J Lib. i. ep, 206, pp. CO, 1.
II Lib. i. ep. 211, p, 62, § Lib, i. ep. 265, p, 70.
•J See the treatise of H. A. Niemeyer, de Isidori Pelusiotic vit,n, scriijtis, c( doctrina,
comment. &c. Halse, 1825, 8vo.

PELAGIUS. 151
was not generaUy known. But there is little doubt of his being
acquainted with the original, since he sometimes, though rarely,
quotes it. The commentaries in question furnish a specimen of
short, simple exposition, unentangled by allegorising, or by di
gressions. The literal sense is uniformly investigated without
parade, and presented without ostentation. The writer calmly
and carefully inquires into the meaning of the written words,
avoiding divergence into extraneous matters.
The doctrinal system of Pelagius is closely connected with his
mode of interpretation ; and it is interesting to trace the different
results to which the Augustinian and Pelagian interpretation,
under the influence of particular theological creeds, conducted
these opponents. Pelagius wanted the speculative, systematic,
logical ability of Augustine. He wanted, too, the deep-toned
piety of the latter, and hence he frequently missed the true sense.
The experience of the Christian recorded and described by the
great apostle of the Gentiles, found not the same response in his
bosom, as in that of his adversary. He attributed, therefore, to
the working of man, what the other ascribed to the sovereign
grace of God. His mind was directed to the practical utiUty of
Scripture, with a partial view ; for he sought to remove many
things which might give offence. He wished to give prominence
to a truth as useful and edifying in its application to the life,
more than in its relation to the glory of God, and the demerit of
man. Sometimes we can detect an endeavour to escape, as it
were, from the full sense of Scripture, and to soften down ex
pressions apparently harsh and strong.*
The following specimens have been selected for the purpose of
shewing the nature of his exegesis.
In his commentary on the epistle to the Romans, v. 18, " There
fore as by the offence of one, upon all men to condemnation; so
also by the justice of one, upon all men to justification of life.
' Death reigned,' is understood to the former clause ; to the lat
ter, ' grace reigned.' The apostle asks above. Is God unright
eous who taketh vengeance 9 and he adds, God forbid (iii. 5, 6 :)
how can he condemn all men on account of the sin of one man,
viz. Adam, when all are not justified even by the righteousness
of one, viz. Christ ? By all, the writer does not mean all gene-
* The prominent mental traits of Pelagius and Augustine, which were closely
united with their different creeds, are touched with u, masterly hand by Neander,
Band ii. 3, pp. 1194-1216.

152 HISTORY OP BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
rally, but a multitude of every part. If this be not the sense,
then all are found to be justified in Christ, just as they are con
demned in Adam ; and there will be no need of punishing them
farther. For as by the disobedience of one man, many were con
stituted sinners: so also by the obedience of one, many shall be
constituted just. As, after the example of Adam's disobedience,
many sinned : so also by the obedience of Christ, are many jus
tified; for great is the crime of disobedience which kills so many."*
The reader will perceive that Pelagius had obscure, imperfect,
and erroneous views of the apostle's meaning in these two verses.
It is necessary, however, to read the exposition given of the whole
section, chap. v. 12-21.-|-
In commenting upon 1 Cor. ii. 14, we find these words. "But
the animal man does not perceive the things that belong to the
Spirit of God. He who has not the Spirit of God is an animal
man ; because he lives after the fashion of animals, thinking that
there is nothing after death. As an animal, therefore, he gives
himself up to the indulgence of his carnal desires. Such an one
will perish everlastingly. For it is foolishness to him, and he
cannot understand : because it is spiritually examined. It ap
pears foolishness to him, first, that he who suffered, died, and
rose again, is now preached as the Lord of the whole creation.
Secondly, it appears folly in his eyes to despise his own posses
sions, to give the cheek to him that smites, and to obey other
like commands of Christ." $
* Igitur sicut per unius delictum, in omnes homines in condemnationem ; sic et per
uniusjustitiam in omnes homines in justificationem vitse.) Mors regnavit; subauditur,
ita et per justificationem gratia regnavit. Itemque superius dicit ; numquid iniquus
deus qui infert iram ; et adjecit: absit : quomodo potest unius delicto Adae, omnes ,
homines condemnare, cum nee unius Christi justitia, omnes homines justificati sunt?
Omnes autem dicens, non generaliter dicit, sed uniuscujusque partis significat multi-
tudinem. Alioquin inveniuntur omnes homines justificati in Christo, sicut et in Adam
condemnati ; et non erit ultra qui puniatur  Sicut enim per inobedientiam unius
hominis, peccatores constituti sunt multi; ita et per unius obedientiamjusti consti-
tuentur multi.) Sicut exemplo inobedientiae Ad^, peccaverunt multi ; ita et Christi
obedientia justificantur multi. Grande enim crimen inobedientiae est, quod tantos oc
cidit. (Printed in the Paris edition of Jerome's works, 1633, vol. ix. p. 122.)
f See Wiggers's Historical Presentation of Augustinism and Pelagianism ; trans
lated from the German, with notes and additions by Kev. E. Emerson, Prof, of Eccl.
Hist. Andover, 8vo, 1840, pp. 299-301. Whoever desires to enter deeply into the na
ture of these opposing systems, should by all means read this treatise, which almost
exhausts the subject. The writer has a Pelagian leaning.
X Animalis autem homo non percipit ea quas sunt spiritus Dei.) Qui spiritum Dei
non habet, animalis est ; quia animalium ritu versatur, qui putat niliil esse post mor
tem. Et ideo ut animal, ventri libidinique committit se, sterna morte periturus.

JULIAN  VINCENTIUS LIRINENSIS. 153
Julian — Julian was bishop of Eclanum in Apulia ; but when
the Pelagians were condemned by Pope Zosimus, a. d. 418, he
was deprived of his episcopal dignity, and expelled Italy. His
theological system was the same as that of Pelagius ; his mode
of interpretation the grammatico-historical. Very copious frag
ments of his controversial treatises against Augustine are pre
served in the unfinished work of the latter against Julian.* He
has been censured for loquacity.] His verbosity and tediousness
present, indeed, a remarkable contrast to the condensation and
brevity of Pelagius. Still he was no mean interpreter.^ Gen-
nadius || mentions him as one of the chief expositors of Scripture;
and were his writings in a complete state, they would be found
to contain much that is sound and valuable. His doctrinal sys
tem, as in the case of Pelagius, had a prejudicial influence on the
character of his exegesis. His theology was often erroneous ;
and his hermeneutical procedure proportionately perverse.
Vincentius Lirinensis (t450.) — Vincentius Lirinensis, so
called from his having belonged to a monastery in the isle of
Lerins, is the well-known writer of a treatise entitled Commoni-
torium. " The design of this little treatise," says Mr. Reeves,
Stultitia est enim illi et non potest intelligere, quia sjjiritualiter examinatur.) Stul-
titia illi videtur, primo, quod ille qui et passus et mortuus est et resuri-exit, totius
creaturae nunc dominus praedicetur. Secundo, contemnere propria bona, alteri prae-
bere maxillam ; et caetera his similia Christi mandata. (Jerome's Works, Paris edition,
vol. ix, p. 133.)
* Julian wrote four books against Augustine's first book De NupHis'et Concvpis-
centia. These Augustine undertook to refute in six boohs against Julian the Pela
gian, printed in the 7th vol. of the Paris edition (1616) of Augustine's works. Julian
again wrote eight hooks against Augustine's second book on marriage and concupis
cence, which the latter undertook to refute, but death put a stop to the refutation
before it was finished. Hence it is called opus im.perfectum. This unfinished treatise
against Julian, consisting of two boohs, is printed at the end of the 10th vol. of the
Paris edition already referred to. It is somewhat in the form of a dialogue. First,
Julian's words are given; next Augustine's reply. "His" (octo libris Juliani), says
Augustine, " nunc respondeo, ejus verba proponens, eisque subjimgens responsionem
meam ad loca singula," &c. Free will, original sin, predestination, &c. &c. are the
topics chiefly discussed. Rosenmiiller (Hist. Interpret, pars, iii, p, 637 et seq,) has
given copious extracts,
+ Julianus alios octo (libros) nimia loquacitate conscripsit, August, adversus Julia-
num, lib, i, sub, init.
X " Julian was an acute, philosophic genius, an adroit dialectician, and therefore by
far the most formidable antagonist of Augustine, In the knowledge of languages and
in classical cultivation, he far surpassed the bishop of Hippo, Besides this, he was
not destitute of eloquence, but was also just as often a sophist," Wiggers's Augus
tinism and Pelagianism, translated by Emerson, p. 50. Compare also Neander, Band
ii. Abtheil 3, p, 1245,
II De Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis, cap, xlv, U

154 HISTORY OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION,
"is to deliver well-disposed Christians from the false and per
plexing glosses of Heretics ; and to shew them how, and when,
they may rest satisfied in their Creed, without any farther doubt
or scruple about it ; notwithstanding all the loud and dazzling
pretences to Infallibility, or such as set up for a discovery of
New matters of faith. The rules he prescribes for coming to
this indubitable certainty, are these two, — First, that we settle
our faith upon the authority of Scripture. Secondly, upon the
tradition of the Catholic church. But since men will be putting
the question — If the canon of Scripture be perfect, and abun
dantly sufficient in all respects, ivhat need can there be of eccle
siastical tradition? he answers — For finding out the true sense
of Scripture, which is differently interpreted by Novatianus,
Photinus, Sabellius, and other heretics. After which he tells us
what he means by ecclesiastical tradition: Quod ubique, quod
semper, quod ab omnibus creditwn est. That which hath anti
quity, universality, and the consent of all joining in the belief
of it." * The object of the treatise is briefly to shew, how the
true Catholic faith, which has been preserved by the Bible and '
by tradition, is to be distinguished from the doctrine of heretics.
In it is embodied the prevailing belief of the Latin church from
Irenseus and TertuUian downward, respecting the relation which
tradition bears to the holy Scriptures. It may be regarded as
the text-book of ecclesiastico-traditional interpretation. Hence
it has ever been highly prized by those who attribute great au
thority to the church, or rather to its bishops and presbyters.!
The foUowing extracts shew the sentiments advanced by this
writer. " I have been at great pains, and often made it my par
ticular business to consult very many persons of the highest rank
for piety and learning, about a certain general rule to distinguish
the true Catholic faith from the depravations of heresy ; and
after repeated inquiries, the sum of all their answers amounted to
this, that if I, or any other Christian would discover the artifice
of growing heretics, and keep out of their snares, and continue
perfectly sound in the right faith ; the way by God's grace is to
* The Apologies of Justin Martyr, TertuUian, and Minucius Felix, in defence of
the Christian religion, with the Commonitory of Vincentius Lerinensis, concerning
the primitive rule of faith, translated from their originals, &c. &c. by William Reeves,
M.A. Rector of Craneford, in Middlesex, 2 vols, 8vo, London, 1709, See the pre
liminary discourse to Vincentius, vol. ii. p. 182.
f It was called forth by the Semipelagian controversy. Compare Neander, ii, 3,
pp, 1326, 7.

VINCENTIUS LIRINENSIS. 155
secure it upon these two foundations. First, Upon the authority
of the Holy Scripture ; and after that, upon the tradition of the
Catholic church."* " Not as if the canon of Scripture was not
in itself a sufficient and adequate rule in all things ; but because
so many have made bold to interpret the sacred text according to
their own caprice, and thereby have pestered the world with such
swarms of opinions that men hardly know what to believe. For
this reason, therefore, it is necessary, that we should make the
sense of the church our only rule to go by, for understanding the
sense of divine Scripture."!
" And for us who are in the bosom of the Catholic church, it
ought to be our principal care to choose such doctrines as we find
to have been believed in all places, at all times, and by all the
faithful ;"X " First, whatever was anciently decreed by the au
thority of all the bishops of the Catholic church met together in
a general council. Secondly, in case any new question arise not
determined by such a council, there we are to have recourse to
the opinions of the holy fathers ; of those only I mean, who at
different times, and in different places, have continued stedfast in
the unity of the faith and in the communion of the church, and were
looked upon as the most approved doctors of their age." ||
Before proceeding to the history of Biblical interpretation in
the sixth century, we shall refer to a practice which took its rise
* Saspe igitur magno studio et summa attentione perquirens a quamplurimis sanc-
titate et doctrina praestantibus viris, quonam modo possim certa quadam et quasi ge-
nerali et regular! via Catholicie fidei veritatem ab haereticae pravitatis falsitate discer
nere, hujusmodi semper responsum ab omnibus fere retuli, quod sive ego, sive quis
vellet exsurgentium haereticorum fraudes deprehendere, laqueosque vitare, et in fide
Sana sanus atque integer permanere, duplici modo munire fidem suam Domino adju
vante debere : primum, scilicet, divinae legis auctoritate, tum deinde ecclesiae Catho-
lica; traditione. Cap. i, p, 250, (From the edition printed in the Biblioth, Vet, patr,
Lugduni, 1677, voL vii,) The English translations are from Reeves, with a very few
verbal omissions.
•Y Non quia canon solus non sibi ad universa sufiiciat, sed quia verba divina pro suo
plerique arbitatru interpretantes, variais opiniones erroresque concipiant, Atque ideo
necesse sit, ut ad unam ecclesiastici sensus regulam Scripturae coslestis intelligentia
dirigatur. Cap, 41, p. 262.
X In ipsa item Catholica ecclesia magnopere curandum est, ut id teneamus quod
ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus, creditum est. Cap. 3, p, 250,
II Primum, si quid esset antiquitus ab omnibus ecclesia; Catholicae sacerdotibus uni
versalis concilii auctoritate decretum. Deinde, si qua nova exsurgeret quaestio ubi id
miuime reperiretur, recurrendum ad sanctorum patruni sententias, eorum duntaxat qui
suis quique temporibus et locis, in imitate communionis, et fidei permauentes, magistri
probabiles extitissent. Cap. 41, p. 262.

15G HISTORY OP BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
about this time in the Greek church, viz. that of making extracts
from the commentaries of preceding fathers. These were called
gii^ai, and in Latin catena, chains. When the annotations of
several writers upon one book of Scripture were collected and
arranged in succession, all of them together received the appel
lation of a chain upon that book. The annotators taken sepa
rately, were the links ; as an entire connected series, they were
the chain itself. The catenae are of various kinds. In some,
the words of the fathers from whom they were compiled are
presented in a mutUated state, and not as they were originally
written. Sometimes the bare exposition is given, without the
reasons by which it is supported. Sometimes we find that the
opinions of different writers are confounded ; that being assigned
to one, which properly belongs to another. By far the greater
number appear to have been hastily and negligently made, with
so many omissions, corruptions, and errors, that they cannot be
relied upon. Still they are not without utility. They have pre
served many remarks which would otherwise have been lost ; and
have assisted the critic by supplying him with various readings.
Their relation to the history of Biblical interpretation is obvious.
The compilers, intent upon the sole business of making excerpts,
have seldom given their own sentiments or judgment, but contented
themselves with the mechanical labour of arrangement. And had
they performed even this with care and accuracy, they had de
served commendation. Had they exhibited the words of the
fathers fairly and fully, without corruption or depravation, giving
to each his own, their labours would have been valuable. But
such a course they did not follow. Ignorant as they frequently
were, they added negligence to their ignorance.
The first individual who adopted the practice of making ca-
tence is supposed by some to have been Olympiodorus in the
sixth century ; but the basis of this opinion is certainly unsound.
Others make Procopius of Gaza to have been the first compiler,
although Andreas of Ceesarea preceded him.
The custom soon became general, especially as sacred lite
rature rapidly declined in the sixth century. When the thick
darkness which afterwards enveloped the western church set in,
the study of the Bible was discouraged by the bishops of Rome.
Knowledge was withdrawn from the people, that they might learn
to look up to the spiritual lords of their consciences with super
stitious admiration ; and to be entirely submissive beneath their

ANDREAS  CASSIODORUS. 157
ghostly thraldom. The very compilation of catenae shews the
degeneracy of the age. Every thing connected with the inter
pretation of the Scriptures was supposed to be anticipated and
exhausted. The preceding fathers were thought to leave little
or nothing for their successors to do in the same department.
It was enough to read and digest their comments. The source
of the catenae was, for the most part, either Origen or Chrysos
tom ; and each was named after the original writer. Of these
works many are still in manuscript ; some have been printed.*
Andreas  Andreas, bishop of Csesarea in Cappadocia, be
longed to the latter part of the fifth century and the beginning
of the sixth. He is known as the author of a commentary on
the Apocalypse. In the preface he states, that he made use
of the writings of Cyril of Alexandria, Gregory the theologian,
Hippolytus, Irenseus, Methodius, and Papias ; so that it is rather
a catena than an original work. According to Andreas, the sense
of Scripture is threefold, viz. literal, tropological, and mystical
or anagogical. In explaining the Apocalypse, he chiefly insists
upon the last. He is therefore to be classed among the allego
rising interpreters. Rosenmiiller has justly remarked, that the
chief use of this commentary is in the criticism of the text, be
cause the original Greek is given. It may be regarded as equal
in value to a MS. of the same age.
Cassiodorus or Cassiodorius (t562.) — Magnus Aurelius Cas
siodorus, usually called the Senator, was born at Syllacium, a
city of Lower Italy, about the year 470 a. d., and lived to a great
age. In the preface to his work De Institutione Divinarum
Scripturarum, he mentions his desire to establish a school at
Rome similar to those of Alexandria and Nisibis, where there
should be masters to give instructions in the Christian religion.
In consequence, however, of the wars and contentions in Italy,
he was unable to carry his purpose into execution. To supply in
some measure the place of a master, he wrote " those introduc
tory books," as he calls them. ! The work so styled consists of
two parts, in the first of which, he enumerates the books of the
Bible, and the principal commentators on each. The fathers are
recommended as the chief helps to the understanding of the Scrip
tures ; and whilst he praises those belonging to both the Greek
* See a copious list of catencc upon the books of Scripture, in Fabricii Bibliotheca
Graeca, ed Harles, vol, viii. pp. 637-700.
+ See the preface to his Institutio Divinarum Scripturarum, pp. 847-854. (Opera,
Aurcliio AUobrogoriun, 1622, 8vo.)

158 HISTORY OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
and Latin church, he professes his intention to follow the latter.
As far as we can judge, he was an advocate for the literal method
of interpretation. He refers particularly to the criticism of the
text, recommending a careful collation of MSS. for the purpose
of emendation. On the whole it would appear, that he was not
addicted to allegorising. Hence he does not recommend allego
rical interpreters, but rather such as evinced attachment to the
plain, obvious sense. Thus he prefers Jerome as " planus, doc-
tus, dulcis," as also Augustine.* Hilary, though commended,
is characterised as " nimia profunditate subtilis et cautissimus
disputator ;" ! whilst " Origen must be read cautiously and pru
dently, lest we take in the poison as well as the wholesome juice." J
In his commentary on the Psalms, he usually foUows Augustine.
His " complexions" on the Epistles, Acts, and Apocalypse, are
the best of his works. They are a sort of paraphrase, giving
the meaning of the text without a close adherence to the words.
Without exhibiting acuteness or power of intellect, they shew
good sense and piety. Their chief defect is jejuneness.
Gregory  Gregory the Great, who fiUed the see of Rome at
the commencement of the sixth century, obtained great reputa
tion as an expositor, and had many imitators in the Latin church.
Extracts were made from his works ; translations of them into
various languages, such as the German and Swedish, are even
said to have appeared. In the increasing darkness of the west,
he was admired as an oracle. And yet he was not possessed
either of erudition, or acuteness. His skill as an interpreter was
not great ; nor was he peculiarly fitted for the work of a com
mentator. His piety, however, seems to have been sincere, and
his modesty in expounding remarkable, when we consider the
high station he occupied, and the ambition of his public character.
Thus he confesses, that at first he despaired of his competency
to open up the meaning of Job.
His chief exegetical works are his Moralia on Job ; his homi
lies on the prophet Ezekiel ; and forty homilies on the gospels.
In these we meet with several just and beautiful sentiments re
specting the Holy Scriptures, which shew a right perception of
their nature, consistency, and value. The method of interpreta
tion which he followed is thus stated by himself.
" It is to be observed, that we survey some things in the way
* Cap. 22. + Cap, 18.
X Caute sapienterque legendus est, ut sic inde succos saluberrimos assumamus, nee
pariter ejus venena perfidise vitse nostras contraria sorbcamus. Cap. 1.

GREGORY.

159

of historical exposition ; others we examine allegorically, by ty
pical investigation ; others we discuss by the sole instruments of
allegorical morality ; whilst we anxiously search out some in the
three methods together. First we lay the foundations of the
history ; then by a typical signification we raise up the fabric of
the mind into the citadel of faith ; and lastly, by the grace of
morality we cover the edifice, superinducing as it were a colour
over it." *
Although Gregory follows the example of his predecessors in
this threefold division, other statements would lead us to expect
less extravagance in its application. He did not cast aside the
truth of the history, or the literal sense. Thus we find him as
sert, " In the words of Scripture the truth of the history must
first be preserved, and afterwards the spiritual sense of allegory
must be sought. For the fruit of allegory is sweetly plucked,
when it is previously made firm by history in the root of truth."!
" The interpretation of holy Scripture must be so carefully
balanced between the text and mystery, that, by adjusting the
scales equally on both sides, it be neither weighed down by a
load of too much discussion, nor lose its significancy and become
empty by indolent torpor." J " We especially desire that the
person who raises his mind to the spiritual sense of Scripture
should not cease to respect the history." ||
But notwithstanding the valuable remarks interspersed through
out the works of Gregory, and the just principles of exposition of
which he had an occasional though faint perception, his exegesis
is essentially allegorical. He did not follow sound hermeneutical
* Sciendum vero est, quod quaedam historica expositione transcurrimus ; et per
allegoriam quaedam typica investigatione perscrutamur, quaedam per sola allegoricae
moralitatis instrumenta discutimus, nonnulla autem per cuncta siraul sollicitius exqui-
rentes tripliciter indagamus. Nam primum quidem, fundamenta historias ponimus :
deinde per significationem typicam, in arcem fidei fabricam mentis erigimus ; ad ex-
tremum quoque, per moralitatis gratiam quasi superducto aedificium colore vestimus.
Epistola in expositionem beati Job aid Leandrum episcopum, caput iii. vol. i. (Opera
Omnia, Lugduni, 1561, 2 vols, fol.)
f In verbis sacri eloquii prius servanda est Veritas historiae, et postmodum requi-
renda spiritalis intelligentia allegorise. Tunc namque allegoriae fructus suaviter car-
pitur, cum prius per historiam in veritatis radice solidatur. In Evangelia hom, xl,
vol. ii. p. 133.
X Intellectus sacri eloquii inter textum et mysterium tanta est libratione pensandus,
ut utriusque partes lance moderata, hunc neque nimiae discussionis pondus deprimat,
neque rursus torpor incuriae vacuum relinquat. Moralia in Job, lib. xxi. cap. i. vol. i.
p. 124.
11 Hoc tamen magnopere petimus, ut qui ad spiritalem intelligentiam mentem suble-
vat, a veneratione historiae non recedat, Moralia, lib. i. 56.

160

HISTORY OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.

maxims, but mistook the very nature of interpretation. This is
manifest from such specimens as these. In explaining Job i. 2
allegorically, the seven sons of Job denote the apostles, endowed
with the perfection of grace by the Holy Spirit. The three
daughters of Job signify the body of believers, who, though some
what weak, do yet hold the faith of the holy Trinity. By the
seven sons, therefore, the order of preachers is designated ; by
the three daughters the multitude of hearers.* According to the
moral interpretation, the seven sons are the gifts of the Holy
Spirit ; the three daughters, faith, hope, and charity, ! The
sheep, camels, and oxen mentioned in the third verse of the first
chapter, are allegorically interpreted in the following manner.
The sheep represent " the perfect innocence of some, which
comes to the perception of grace from the pastures of the law ;" J
the camels are the vicious Gentiles, or the Samaritans ; || the asses
are the foolish, stupid Gentiles. § By the three friends of Job
are signified " heretics who under the appearance of giving good
advice, lead astray." ^
His homiUes on Ezekiel have little intrinsic value, for although
he endeavours to set forth the historic sense, he seeks out the
mystical and moral with allegorising propensity.
The homilies on the gospels have more of a practical and hor
tatory, than of a strictly exegetical aspect. They exhibit less
fancy than those upon the Old Testament.
The preceding observations and excerpts will shew, that Gre
gory cannot claim a high place among the expounders of Scrip
ture. He was deficient in learning, judgment, and perspicacity.
If is true that he appears before us as a pious prelate ; but his
piety was of that superstitious cast which marked the early age
of the Christian church. It was neither enlightened, nor com
prehensive. Having glanced at the chief of the fathers separately, we are
now prepared to take a general survey of their merits and defects.
We have alluded to them as Biblical interpreters, and examined
the nature of their exegesis. That they were laborious, zealous,
and diligent, cannot be denied. Their feelings were warm on
* Moralia, lib. i, capp, xi, xii, vol, i. p, 2. f Ibid. cap. xxviii. pp. 3, 4,
X . . . perfectam quorundam innocentiam exprimit, quae ad perceptionem gratiae ex
legis pascuis venit. Id, cap, xiii, p, 2,
II Capp, xiv. XV, p, 2. § Cap, xvi. p. 2.
TJ "... qui sub specie consulendi, agunt negotium seducendi." Praef. in Expos.
Job. cap, xii.

GENERAL ESTIMATE OF THE FATHERS. 161
behalf of the religion they professed ; their eagerness to maintain
its principles, prominent and praiseworthy. If we judge of their
learning by the standard of the present times, it was by no means
great ; nor do their attainments appear remarkable, when tried
by the same test. It were unfair, however, to take such a posi
tion from which to survey their intellectual character. They had
acuteness, penetration, logical subtilty ; and a few were unques
tionably learned. But as a body, they were deficient in know
ledge of the original languages of the Bible. They followed no
definite maxims of interpretation. They were too prone to alle
gorising. Influenced doubtless by the example of the Jews, and
the prevailing philosophy of the times, they carried typical inter^
pretation to excess. Hence their acquaintance with the Scrip
tures was neither scientific nor systematic. They did not possess
the accomplishments or apparatus necessary to constitute able
or skilful interpreters. Besides, their superstition, credulity, and
folly, were notorious. Monkish notions and mystical pietism
formed an essential part of their religious creed. Not only did
they believe, but sanction, the working of miracles. In truth,
many of the fathers present a marvellous compound of evange
lical opinions and bUnd devotion. We would therefore neither
extol them without discrimination, nor depreciate their true ex
cellencies. Their attachment to Christianity was strong, and
nobly did they stand up in defence of their religion ; but with it
they mingled heathen philosophy, and tarnished the lustre of its
purity. As guides, they cannot be followed by the independent
inquirer. We possess means and advantages incomparably supe
rior to theirs, and have consequently arrived at results, which
they either did not see, or at least saw but afar off. When we
have better helps at hand, why should it be thought necessary to
rely upon them ? Their voluminous works scarcely repay the
time and toil required to peruse them. He who is prepared to
investigate the Holy Scriptures, need not expect, in patristic lite
rature, such expositions as shall stand the test of enlightened cri
ticism. In some cases, it is useful to know the fathers' senti
ments — to be acquainted with their lives and writings — with the
spirit by which they are pervaded, and the utility they are likely
to afford ; but as Biblical interpreters, they are far surpassed by
the moderns. With the Scriptures themselves in our hands, we
should not confine ourselves to the comments of the fathers, nor
suppose that they were placed in more favourable circumstances

162 HISTORY OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
for ascertaining the true sense of the Word of God. Whilst we
fully aUow the inteUectual acumen and logical subtilty by which
many of them were distinguished, their knowledge of philosophy,
their ingenuity, their skill in disputation, we must at the same
time recollect their extravagant and fanciful opinions, their asce
ticism, their unscriptural notions of ceUbacy, and their trifling dis
putes respecting baptism.* They possessed many excellencies
and virtues ; but their errors were neither few nor trivial. We
cannot venerate them as spiritual guides, nor implicitly adopt
their sentiments. It is pleasant and profitable to peruse the beau
tiful homilies of Chrysostom ; but even in them, many things
are offensive to an enlightened mind. The Philocalia of Origen,
with his treatise against Celsus, and several of his homilies, are
the productions of a highly cultivated mind imbued with the
varied science and subtle philosophy of the times ; but much alle
gorising is interspersed throughout. Jerome had a knowledge of
the original languages uncommon at the period in which he lived;
but his judgment was far inferior to his linguistic attainments,
and his skill in interpretation was not great. Thousands of pas
sages might be readily selected in which he has missed the true
sense whilst pursuing a devious path. Augustine, too, was well
acquainted with Greek, and in logical ability stood preeminent
among his contemporaries ; but the hermeneutical maxims which
he himself laid down he did not follow. He was both mystical
and sensuous — profound and fanciful ; and it may be questioned,
whether the vast influence his theological system has had upon
the creeds of the West, has not tended to repress independent
investigation, and by the darkness of its unscriptural shades
to give plausibility to a superficial Arminianism. Theodoret,
again, is a judicious, sober, calm writer, without unusual perspi
cacity or uncommon skill in developing the meaning of the Spirit.
In short, the fathers were not interpreters who exhausted the
sense. They left much to be investigated by succeeding writers.
They did not pour a flood of light upon any book of Scripture.
We have to begin afresh the study of the word, as if they had
never written ; and investigate the pages of inspiration by all
legitimate appliances. The reign of their influence over modern
exegesis has been long and unpropitious ; — let us trust and hope,
that it is approaching a termination.
, * On this subject the reader is referred to the masterly work of Mr. Taylor —
" Ancient Christianity," — where he will find abundant evidence of the weakness and
false notions of the fathers.

( 163)

CHAPTER VI,
HISTORY OP BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION IN THE HIERARCHICAL PE
RIOD, OR FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE SEVENTH CENTURY TO THE
REFORMATION.
In the seventh century no writer of note appears in the church.
The names of Maximus the Confessor, Sophronius of Damascus,
and John Philoponus, do not deserve particular mention in a
history of Biblical interpretation.
In the eighth century the names of Bede and Alcuin present
themselves to our view.
Bede (t735.) — Bede, usually styled the venerable, was a na
tive of Wearmouth in Durham, and received his education in a
monastery of St. Peter at that place. He was born in the year
673. His exegetical works are numerous, extending over a great
part of the Old Testament, some of the Apocryphal books, and
the entire New Testament. Although succeeding compilers re
gard him as one of the fathers, and put his expositions in catenae,
yet as his commentaries are chiefly extracted from preceding in
terpreters, he should rather be reckoned among the catense-writers
themselves than the true fathers. His book on the Hexaeme
ron is professedly taken from Basil, Ambrose, and Augustine.
His exposition of the books of Samuel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and
Tobit, is called an allegorical exposition. In the prologue to
Samuel, after referring to Rom. xv. 4, and 1 Cor. x. 6, he asks,
of what use is the Jewish mode of interpretation, " if we cannot
bring forth the allegorical sense also, which, by reproving, in
structing, and comforting the soul, refreshes and revives it," * In
the preface to Ezra he has the following : " Trusting in the Lord
Jesus Christ as helper and comforter, that he would propitiously
grant us to find something higher and more sacred in the marrow
of the spiritual sense, by removing the outward rind of the letter." !
To the same purport is the affirmation in the prologue to Tobit.
* Si non etiam allegoricum noverimus exsculpere sensum qui vivaciter interius cas-
tigando, erudiendo, consolando, reficit. Prolog, in AUegor, Expos, Sam, p. 160,
vol.iv. (Opera, Colonae Agrippinae, 1612, 8 vols, fol.)
^ Retecto cortice literae, altius aliud et sacratius in medulla sensus spiritalis inve-
nire. Praef. in Esram, p. 348, vol. iv.

164 HISTORY OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
" And if any one can also interpret the same book allegorically,
he sees that its internal sense excels the simplicity of the letter
as much as apples do the leaves of the trees on which they
grow." * All his expositions of the Old Testament books are
highly allegorical. This was doubtless owing to the writers whom
he followed, and whose excesses he was not careful to avoid. He
took their comments just as he found them, with all their fanciftil
aspects. Hence, Notker justly affirms, " he wrote things more
pleasant than necessary, inasmuch as he endeavoured to convert
simple history into allegory."!
In the New Testament he chiefly confined himself to extracts
from Augustine, as is stated in the prefaces to the Acts of the
Apostles, and the Epistle to the Romans. Here he followed the
grammatical method. The sources from which he drew his com
ments were not so allegorical as those in the Old Testament, and
hence he produced better expUcations. As an interpreter of sacred
Scripture, Bede cannot be placed in a high rank, although he
possessed talents and learning remarkable in the age to which he
belonged. It was the fashion to be a compiler ; and he aspired to
no higher employment, although his abilities were probably equal
to some of the writers from whom he laboriously gleaned.
Alcuin (t804.) — Flaccus Alcuin was a native of Yorkshire,
and was borp about the year of Bede's death. In his native
country he was held in so high esteem as to be intrusted with
an embassy to Charlemagne, by Offa king of Mercia. The em
peror persuaded him to take up his abode at the court. He died
in the monastery of St. Martin at Tours, a. d. 804.
Alcuin, like Bede, was a writer of catense. His learning was
equal or even superior to that of his countryman; and in an age
of general ignorance his attainments were extraordinary. But
the practice which he adopted, of making extracts from preceding
commentaries, puts him in the same position as his distinguished
predecessor. The true interpretation of Scripture cannot be ad
vanced by this compilation-system. His knowledge of the Greek
language, an attainment exceedingly rare in the eighth or ninth
centuries, was probably inferior to that of Bede; but as a general
scholar he seems to have been his superior.
* Et si quis eundem (librum Tobiae) etiam allegorice novit interpretari, quantum
poma foliis, tantum interiorem ejus sensum videt simplicitati literae praostarc. Praef.
in AUegor. Expos, in Tobiam, pp, 347, 8, vol, iv.
•j- Scripsit magis jucunda quam nocessaria, quippe qui simplicem historiam vertere
conatus est in allegoriam.

RHABANUS MAURUS. 165
The " interrogationes et responsiones" on the book of Gene
sis are a compendium of Jerome's questions and the Moralia of
Gregory. In Ecclesiastes he follows Jerome.* His seven books
of Commentaries on John's gospel are compiled from Augustine,
Ambrose, Gregory, and Bede.! In commenting on the epistles
to Titus and Philemon, he took Jerome for his guide ; in that to
the Hebrews, Chrysostom.
Rhabanus Maurus (+856.) — Rhabanus Maurus was born at
Maintz in 776. He was a pupil of Alcuin, and afterwards rose
to be archbishop of Maintz. His learning was far superior to
that of any commentator in the eighth or ninth century. He was
acquainted not only with the Latin and Greek languages, but
with the Hebrew and Chaldee. In consequence of his uncommon
erudition and attainments, his works obtained greater popularity,
and exerted much more influence than those of Bede or Alcuin.
The chief exegetical production by which he is known is his
Allegoriae in Universam Sacram Scripturam. The following
extract will shew the hermeneutical principles adopted in it.
" Whoever desires to arrive at a knowledge of sacred Scrip
ture, should previously consider with attention when the narrative
is to be understood historically, when allegorically, when ana-
gogically, when tropologically. These four modes of understand
ing it, we call the four daughters of one mother wisdom ; and we
cannot obtain a full acquaintance with all the secrets of wisdom,
without previously knowing the four. By these, the mother wis
dom feeds the sons of her adoption, bestowing upon youth and
such as are of tender age, drink, in the milk of history ; on such
as have made proficiency in faith, food in the bread of allegory.
To the good, such as strenuously strive and labour in good works,
she gives a satisfying portion in the savoury nourishment of tro
pology. To those, in fine, who have raised themselves above
the common level of humanity by a contempt of earthly things,
* In quem Ubrum ex Sanctorum opusculis Patrum, ac maxime de Beati Hieronymi
Commentario, parvum composui breviarium. Praef. in Ecelesiast.
¦|- "Primo omnium, Augustini suffragia quaerens qui majore studio hujus sancti
Evangelii exponere nisus est sacratissima verba. Deinde ex opusculis Sancti Am-
brosii sanctissimi Doctoris aliqua trahens, nee non ex Homeliis prajcipui Patris Gre-
gorii Papae, vel ex Homeliis beati Bedae Presbyteri multa assumens, ailiorumque
Sanctorum Patrum, sicut invenire potui, interpretationes posui, magis horum omnium
sensibus et verbis utens quam meae quicquam praesumptioni committens, ....
cautissimo plane stilo praevidens, divina opitulante gratia, ne quid contrarium Sanc
torum Patrum sensibus ponorem.'' Epist, ad Gislam et Richtrudam, prefixed to the
Commentary.

166

HISTORY OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.

and advanced to the highest by heavenly desires, she gives the
sober intoxication of theoretic contemplation in the wine of ana
gogy  History, which narrates examples of per
fect men, excites the reader to imitate their sanctity ; allegory
excites him to know the truth in the revelation of faith ; tropo
logy encourages him to the love of virtue by improving the mo
rals; and anagogy promotes the longing after eternal happiness
by revealing everlasting joys  Since then it
appears, that these four modes of understanding the Holy Scrip
tures unveil all the secret things in them, we should consider
when they are to be understood according to one of them only,
when according to two, when according to three, and when ac
cording to all the four together." *
After reading this passage we need not be surprised, that the
historical sense is frequently neglected and undervalued. The
writer in quest of a mystical meaning overlooked the obvious.!
His commentary on the gospel by Matthew was taken, accord
ing to his own statement, from fourteen of the fathers — eleven
Latin, and three Greek. Their names are affixed to the extracts
made from their works. What is added by himself he has marked
with his own name. His compilations contain much that is ex
cellent belonging to a former period. Above all, they served to
diffuse a practical, Chris^an spirit.
Walafrid Strabo (t849). — Strabo was a pupil of Rhaban
* Quisquis ad sacrae Scripturae notitiam desiderat pervenire, prius dUigenter consi-
deret, quando historice, quando allegorice, quando anagogice, quando tropologice suam
narrationem contexat. Has namque quatuor intelUgentias, viz. historiam, allegoriam,
tropologiam, anagogiam, quatuor matris sapientise fiUas vocamus, ad cujus inquisitio-
nem plena ipsarum agnitio, totius quod ei inest seoreti sic manifestatio, nisi iUarum
prius inquisita eognitione, pertingere nequimus. Mater quippe sapientia per has,
adoptionis filios pascit, conferens incipientibus atque teneris, potum in lacte historiae ;
in fide autem proficientibus, cibum in pane allegoriae ; bonis vero et strenue operanti-
bus et operibus bonis insudantibus, satietatem in sapida refectione tropologiae ; Ulis
denique, qui et ab imis per contemptum terrenorum suspensi, et ad summa per cce-
leste desiderium sunt provecti, sobriam theoricae contemplationis ebrietatem in vino
anagogiae  Historia namque perfectorum exempla quae narrat, legentem
ad imitationem sanctitatis excitat : aUegoria in fidei revelatione ad cognitionem veri
tatis : tropologia in instructione morum ad amorem virtutis : anagogia in manifesta-
tione sempiternorum gaudiorum ad desiderium aeternae felieitatis  Cum
igitur constet has quatuor sacra3 Scripturae inteUigentias, omne quod et inest secre-
tum revelare ; nobis considerandum est, quando secundum unam solam, quando secun
dum duas, quando secundum tres, quando etiam secundum omnes simul quatuor, intel
ligi velit. Tom. 5, p, 749 (Opera, Coloniae Agrippinae, 1626, 6 vols, fol.)
•j* Saepe enim in quibusdam locis et historia servanda est et allegoria, et saepe in
quibusdam, sola exquirenda est aUegoria, &c.

WALAFRID STRABO  DRUTHMAR. 167
Maurus, and afterwards abbot of Reichenau near Constance.
He obtained great fame from a commentary on the Bible called
Glossa Ordinaria, which was compiled from the writings of the
fathers, especiaUy the commentaries of his preceptor. The epithet
ordinaria shews its popularity. It was, says Neander, " the
ordinary exegetical hand-book of the mediseval age.'' So great
was the value attached to it, that Peter Lombard was wont to call
it, by way of eminence, auctoritas. Thomas Aquinas explains
its text, as if it were the text of Scripture itself. For the period
of six centuries it was regarded as nothing less than an oracle.
It has been thought, however, not without reason, that the work
proceeded in its present form from several persons, by whom it
was successively enlarged. Its value is small. Unlike a true
glossary, it is not Umited to an explanation of the letter of the
text, but contains distinctions and subtilties of no utility. The
origin of these glossa is a proof of the increasing ignorance, de
generacy, and indolence of the age. When the catenae began to
be too copious, a demand was made for their abridgment, that
they might be more easily used. Thus the glosses were compiled
from compilations. They were extracts from extracts. The
glossa ordinaria of Strabo was a marginal gloss distinguished
from the interlineary by its position in regard to the text. The
former was written at the side of the text ; the latter, between
the lines. The first interlineary gloss was made by Anselm, at
the beginning of the 12th century.
Druthmar (t850.) — Christian Druthmar, surnamed the gram
marian, was a Benedictine monk belonging to Corbie in Aqui-
tania, and flourished about the middle of the ninth century.
As an interpreter of Scripture he forms a rare exception to the
times in which he lived. He followed the grammatical method.
Not contented, too, with the mechanical task of compilation, he
exercised his own independent judgment, and produced a spe
cimen of commentary equalled by none of the Latins in the
middle ages. His knowledge of the Greek language was fun
damental, as is seen by the frequent adduction and explanation
of the original words. When asked why he undertook a com
mentary on the four gospels after Jerome, he replied, that the
latter had omitted many words as unimportant. The following
extract from the Prologue gives his reason for following the his
toric, rather than the spiritual sense. " I have studied to follow
the historic more than the spiritual sense, because it seems to me

168 HISTORY OP BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
irrational to seek for spiritual knowledge in any book, and to
be utterly ignorant of the historical ; since history is the founda
tion of all knowledge. The latter, therefore, should be first
investigated and embraced ; for without it, one cannot pass with
security to any other explication."*
His exposition of Matthew xxvi. 26, &c., opposed as it is to
the dogma of transubstantiation, gave great offence to the adhe
rents of the Romish church ; and they charged the editor Sece-
rius with corrupting the place. It was abundantly proved, how
ever,! that Druthmar's words were fairly given.J
Claudius  The celebrated Claudius bishop of Turin, by birth
a Spaniard, is known as the author of a commentary on the epistle
to the Galatians. It is chiefly extracted from Jerome and Au
gustine. A few remarks of his own are subjoined.
It is not necessary to mention the mere writers of catense in
this century, such as Smaragdus, Floras Magister, Haimo,
Remigius, Sedulius, and Paschasius Radbert, the last of whom,
though objecting to the name of a compiler, is nothing more ; as
his commentary on Matthew is taken from Chrysostom, Jerome,
Ambrose, Augustine, Gregory, and Bede.
(Ecumenius. — To the tenth century belongs CEcumenius,
bishop of Tricca in Thessaly, whose compilation from the exe
getical works of the earlier fathers is among the most copious
extant. That it proceeded from one author, is proved by the
similarity of method and expression apparent throughout. The
writer has occasionally given his own opinion. In doing so he
has such phrases as, " I think," " with all these expositions take
the following also if you wish." || The commentaries in question
embrace the Acts of the Apostles, the Pauline and all the Ca-
. tholic epistles. The names of the original writers are not always
given, and their words are often epitomised. The commentaries
of Chrysostom are the principal source from which the extracts
are taken. Cyril of Jerusalem, Basil, the two Gregorys, Isidore,
Methodius, Photius, Athanasius, and Theodoret have also been
* Studui plus historicum sensum sequi quam spiritalem, quia irrationabile mihi vi
detur, spiritalem intelligentiam in libro aliquo quaerere, et historicam penitus ignorare,
quum historia fundamentum omnis intelligentiae sit, et ipsa primitus quaerenda et
amplexanda, et sine ipsa, perfecte ad aliam non posse transii*i. Prolog, in Commen
tar, in Evang. Matthaei, Bibliotheca Vet. Patrum. torn, xv, p. 86.
¦)¦ By Edmund Albertinus, who published an edition at Strasburg, a. d. 1514,
X See RosenmuUer's Historia Interpret, part v, p, 161 et seq,
II 'lyai vofjotZ,u — fjiiTX '^rdvTuv xa) txutx Si^ai ll (iovXii.

ARETHAS  THEOPHYLACT. 169
Used. The various explanations are linked together without re
gard to their agreement or contrariety, by such words as " an
other," "otherwise," " and otherwise;"* and sometimes they
amount to ten in one place. The reader is generally left to choose
for himself; for CEcumenius seldom prefers one to another. The
method of interpretation is grammatical, as might be inferred
from the chief source from which the compilation is drawn. Al
though we have little means of ascertaining the independent exe
gesis of the compiler himself, yet we may reasonably infer that
it coincided with Chrysostom's. To the industry of CEcumenius
we are indebted for a valuable and useful series of commentaries
upon the New Testament epistles, forming the fullest catena
extant. Arethas. — To the same century belongs Arethas, bishop of
Csesarea in Cappadocia, author of a commentary on the Apoca
lypse, which, in printed editions, is generally subjoined to the com
mentaries of CEcumenius in order to complete them. It consists
of extracts put together in the same manner as those of the bishop
of Tricca, but drawn from a different source. The commentary
of Andreas, who was bishop of the same place in the end of the
fifth or beginning of the sixth century, forms the basis of this.
The other fathers from whom excerpts are taken are Basil, Cyril,
Gregory Nazianzen, Hippolytus, &c. The work contains many
annotations worthy of attention, and is superior to that of Aris-
teas. In the tenth century we also meet with Notker, surnamed
Balbulus, a Benedictine monk of St. Gallen, and afterwards
bishop of Luttich, who died a. d. 912. His book entitled, No-
tatio de illustribus viris, qui ex intentione Sacras scripturas
exponebant, aut ex occasione quasdam sententias divinm auc-
toritatis explanabant, contains, among other topics, a list of
writers from Origen to Rhaban Maurus, with notices of their
merits. Theophylact  Theophylact, archbishop of Achrida in Bul
garia, whence he is frequently styled Vulgarius, is generally said
to be the last of the fathers. He is the author of commentaries
on Hosea, Habakkuk, Jonah, Nahum, and Micah in the Old
Testament ; and on the four gospels, the Acts of the Apostles,
the Pauline and other epistles in the New. These are extracted
from the earlier fathers, especially Chrysostom, and are so ar-
* " AXXo — "AAXws — xa) xXXus.

170 HISTORY OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
ranged as to form a continuous exposition. The author has occa
sionally given his own sentiments, and exercised more independent
thought than the generality of catense-writers. On several oc
casions he ventures to differ from Chrysostom. The commentaries
on the five minor prophets are of little use. Those on the New
Testament are valuable and important. Here the grammatical
method of interpretation is chiefly followed, although some speci
mens of allegorising occur in the gospels. In expounding the
Pauline epistles he seldom deviates from his general method;
and there his skill in exegesis is most apparent. His explana
tions are concise, clear, and apposite, amply deserving of perusal.
The circumstance of the extracts being taken from Chrysostom,
is rather a commendation than otherwise ; for thus the time of the
student who desires to know the sentiments of the Constantino-
politan archbishop is saved. The interpretations are here exhi
bited in shorter compass, than in the voluminous works of the
original author. We would therefore recommend the commen
taries of Theophylact to the Biblical student. They may be
fairly classed with those of CEcumenius. Both follow the gram
matical method of exposition ; both are founded upon Chrysostom
more than any or all of the other fathers. We prefer the sim
plicity and brevity of Theophylact to the profuseness of CEcu
menius. Lanfranc. — Lanfranc, archbishop of Canterbury, is the author
of a commentary on Paul's epistles. It is in the form of a gloss,
consisting of excerpts from Ambrose and Augustine, occasionally
also from Jerome and Gregory, with remarks of his own appended.
The citations from Ambrose are not found in the extant works of
that father, but are taken from a commentary either lost or un
known. Lanfranc appears to have expended great care in emend
ing, no less than elucidating the text.
Nicetas  Nicetas, archbishop of Heraclea in Thrace, was the
author of a catena on Job, formerly attributed to Olympiodorus;
as also of similar commentaries on the gospel by Matthew and
the first epistle to the Corinthians. The commentary on Job is
chiefly taken from Olympiodorus, though Chrysostom and Poly-
chronius are also used. It is of considerable value. Rosenmiiller
the younger, in his scholia on Job, has given extracts from it.
We pass over Michael Psellius of Constantinople, who lived in
this century.
Peter Lombard (tll64.) — In the twelfth century, Peter

EUTHYMIUS ZIGABENUS  THOMAS AftUINAS. 171
Lombard, usually called magister sententiarum from the work
he composed, wrote a commentary in the gloss form on the
Psalms ; and collectanea on Paul's epistles, extracted from Am
brose, Jerome, Augustine and others. He belongs to the sclio-
lastic divines,
Euthymius Zigabenus. — Euthymius Zigabenus was a Greek
monk of Constantinople, and commented on the Psalms, the four
gospels, the Pauline and Catholic epistles. His catena on the
gospels is the best. Matthsei, editor of the Greek Testament,
has lavished many praises upon it, and although it scarcely de
serves so unqualified commendation, it possesses real value. The
meaning is briefly educed in the grammatical method, and the
connexion of the various narratives carefully indicated. Obscure
words are explained by such as are unambiguous, and the dis
crepancies of the evangelists removed. A considerable number of
allegorical and mystic interpretations are interspersed ; but this
was the fashion of the age. Matthsei prefers Euthymius to CEcu
menius, for acuteness, order, a knowledge of Greek, &c. ; and
his opinion seems to be just. Chrysostom was the chief source
of this excellent compilation. *
Rupertus (+1135.) — Rupertus was a Benedictine monk in the
monastery of Duyts at Cologne. He is the author of numerous
commentaries on the Old and New Testament, and also of vari
ous theological works. His expositions of the twelve prophets.
Canticles, Job, Ecclesiastes, the gospel according to St. John,
and the Apocalypse, are still extant. Although he was a mystic
divine, yet his method of interpretation is distinguished by its
opposition to the prevailing system of allegorising. In the vari
ous prefaces he expresses himself freely with respect to the duties
of an interpreter and the authority of the fathers. He was not a
blind devotee of antiquity. He exercised an independent judg
ment in departing from the current of ecclesiastical tradition.
Passing over Anselm, author of the glossa interlinearis, we
proceed to the thirteenth century.
Thomas Aquinas (^\21 A.) — Thomas Aquinas was an Italian
by birth, and taught theology publicly in several academies. He
is usually called the Angelic Doctor. He wrote various exege
tical works on the Old and New Testaments. The best known
are his catena aurea on the four gospels, and his exposition of
* Rosenmiiller has given copious extracts from Euthymius, in his Historia Inttr-
p ret, part iv, pp, 328-362.

172 HISTORY OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
St. Paul's episties. The learning of the AngeUc Doctor was not
great, nor was he much skilled in exegesis. The extracts of
which his commentaries are composed are generally taken from
Augustine, of whom he was a superstitious admirer, Bede, Al
cuin, Haimo, Rhaban, Remigius, &c. ; and the name of every
father is carefully added to his own words. In order to avoid
prolixity he has epitomised their comments. Yet the catena
is exceedingly tedious, because numerous digressions, doctrinal,
moral, polemic, and philosophical, are introduced. The dialectic
peculiarities and metaphysical distinctions of the schoolmen inter
woven with the text throughout, render it prolix. Hence there
is little interpretation properly so called, in the works of Aquinas.
Intent on e-xcerpting from the fathers, and introducing into the
text such a sense as they sanctioned, he pursued no independent
investigation for himself. He was too firmly wedded to patristic
authority ever to dispute or question its validity. An excessive
veneration of antiquity, and a blind submission to the Romish
church in all her canons, characterised the literature of the age.
Thomas seldom indulges in mystic dreams.* The following ex
tract from the preface to the exposition of Paul's epistles will
shew the general character of his exegesis. " Possumus accipere
quatuor causas hujus operis sc. epistolarum Pauli, quas prse ma-
nibus habemus. Primo quidem, auctorem in vase. Secundo,
materiam in nomine Christi quse est plenitudo vasis ; quia tota
doctrina haec, est de doctrina Christi. Tertio, modum in usu
portationis ; traditur enim hsec doctrina per modum epistolarum.
 Quarto, distinctionem operis in utilitate prse-
dicta. Scripsit enim 14 epistolas, quarum novem instruunt ec
clesiam gentium; quatuor prselatos et principes ecclesise, id est,
reges ; una populum Israel, viz. quse est ad Heb. i. Est enim
hsec doctrina tota de gratia Christi quse quidem potest tripliciter
considerari. Uno modo, secundum quod est in ipso capite, scil.
Christo, et sic commendatur in epist. ad Heb. Alio modo, se
cundum quod est in membris principalibus corporis mystici, et sic
commendatur in epistolis quse sunt ad prselatos. Tertio modo,
secundum quod in ipso corpore mystico, quod est ecclesia, et sic
commendatur in epistolis quse mittuntur ad gentiles ; quarum hsec
est distinctio. Nam ipsa gratia Christi tripliciter potest conside
rari. Uno modo secundum se, et sic commendatur in epist. ad
Rom. Alio modo secundum quod est in sacramentis gratise, et
* See RosenmuUer's Hist. Interpret, part v, p, 27'J.

HUGO DE ST. CARO.

173

sic commendatur in duabus epistolis ad Cor. In quarum prima,
agitur de ipsis sacramentis, in secunda de dignitate ministrorum.
Et in epist. ad Gak in qua excluduntur superflua sacramenta con
tra illos qui volebant Vetera sacramenta novis adjungere. Tertio
consideratur gratia Christi secundum effectum unitatis quam in ec
clesia fecit. Agit ergo Apostolus, primo quidem, de institutione
ecclesiasticse unitatis in Epist. ad Ephes. Secundo de ejus con-
firmatione et profectu in ep. ad PhiL Tertio de ejus defensione,
contra errores quidem in ep. ad Coloss., contra persecutores vero
prsesentes in 1 ad Thessal. contra futuros vero, et prsecipue tem
pore Antichristi, in secunda. Prselatos vero ecclesiarum instruit
et spirituales et temporales. Spirituales quidem de institutione,
instructione, et gubernatione ecclesiasticse unitatis, in prima ad
Tim. de firmitate contra persecutores in secunda. Tertio, de
defensione contra hsereticos in ep. ad Titum. Dominos vero tem
porales instruit in ep. ad Philemonem. Et sic patet ratio distinc-
tionis et ordinis omnium epistolarum." *
Hugo de St. Caro (+1260.) — Hugo de St. Caro was a car
dinal belonging to the order of Dominicans. He is well known
as the author of a correctorium Biblicum; and is said also to have
first divided the Vulgate into chapters when making a concord
ance. His PostillcB belong to our present purpose. In them
the fourfold sense is followed, viz, the literal, allegorical, moral,
and anagogical. The subjoined extracts relate to his mode of
interpretation. " History relates what is done ; allegory teaches what is to
be understood ; anagogy what is to be sought ; tropology what
is to be done."!
In allusion to the colours of the vail of the tabernacle (Exodus
xxvi. 21, 36), he says, " By the white linen, which is as it were
the covering of the oracle, the truth of history is denoted. By
the hyacinth of a brazen colour is shadowed forth the fineness of
allegory. By the scarlet twice dyed, which is of flame colour,
is signified anagogy, which raises to heaven where the fiery
Zion becomes a furnace. By the purple is designated tropology,
which, treating of morals, leads to love. These are the four
wheels of Ezekiel; the four wings of the two cherubim; the four
* Prologus in Expositionem Omnium Epp, D, Pauli (Opera, Venetiis, 1593, 17 vols,
fol., vol. xvi. init.)
+ Historia narrat quid factum, allegoria docet quid intcUigendum, anagoge quid
appetendum, tropologia quid faciendum, Prologus in Postillam super Genes, vol, i.
p, 2 (Opera, Venetiis, 1703, 8 vols, fol.)

174 HISTORY OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
rivers of Paradise ; the four coverings of the tabernacle ; the four
winds."* His commentary on the New Testament contains
similar artificial exposition.! Here he represents the three patri
archs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as the three cardinal virtues.
Jacob also stands for Christ, \9hose twelve apostles are, as it
were, his twelve spiritual sons. As Jacob went down to Egypt,
so Christ descended to the earth ; and as the exodus of the Is
raelites from Egypt brought ruin upon the land, so shall the world
be destroyed when the saints leave it.
In the prologue to Paul's epistles, X a parallel is drawn between
the Apostle and Benjamin in several particulars.
Albert (+1280.) — Albert, surnamed the Great, was a Domi
nican, and for some time bishop or archbishop of Ratisbon. His
exegetical works consist of commentaries on the Psalms, the
Lamentations of Jeremiah, Baruch, the twelve minor prophets,
a postilla on the four gospels, and a commentary on the Apoca
lypse. He was one of the most celebrated scholastics, interweav
ing the Aristotelian philosophy with the interpretation of the text,
and finding mystical, moral, allegorical senses in every part of
the Bible. He scarcely deserves the name of an interpreter.
Bonaventura (+1274.) — Bonaventura was a Tuscan by birth,
and was made both a cardinal and bishop of Alba. He is called
the Seraphic Doctor. His exegetical works are numerous, com
prising discourses on the Hexaemeron or six days' work, an
exposition of the Psalter, of Ecclesiastes, the Lamentations of
Jeremiah, Wisdom, &c., and the four gospels. In the Old Tes
tament his expositions are worthless. Instead of meeting with
an investigation of the true sense, we find philosophical subtilties
mixed with mystic contemplations. He follows the four usual
senses, of which he supposes the four feet of the table mentioned
in the 23d Psalm to be emblematical. In some places he enu
merates three additional senses, i. e. the symbolical, synecdochi-
cal, and hyperbolical; thus making seven in aU, according to the
seven seals in the Apocalypse.
* Per byssum candidam quae est quasi tegimen cortinae, historiae Veritas designatur.
Per hyacinthum coloris aerei, aUegoriae subtiUtas figuratur. Per coccum bis tinctum,
qui flammei est coloris, anagoge quae ad ccelum sublevat, ubi igniculus Sion fit cami-
nus, insinuatur. Per purpuram, tropologia designatur, quae de moribus agens, pro-
movet ad amorem. Hae sunt quatuor rotae Ezechielis ; quatuor alae duorum cheru
bim ; quatuor flumina Paradisi ; quatuor operimenta tabernacuU ; quatuor venti."
Prologus in PostUlaun super Genes, vol, i. p. 2,
+ At the commencement of vol, 6th. J See the beginning of the 7th vol.

BONAVENTURA  NICOLAUS DE LYRA. 175
In the gospels, he appears to much greater advantage. Here
he endeavours to explain Scripture by comparing it with itself.
The extracts from the Fathers are digested into a continuous
commentary, and there are no scholastic digressions. It is the
best specimen of exegesis belonging to the century in which he
lived, and unique as a production proceeding from any of the
scholastic or mystic divines. That his method in the Old and
New Testaments should differ so widely is somewhat remarkable,
although the gospels afford less occasion for the usual four senses
than the ancient Jewish Scriptures.
Nicolaus de Lyra (+1341.) — Nicolaus Lyranus was a native
of Lire in Normandy. It is generally believed that he was of
Jewish extraction. His learning was extraordinary at the time
he lived. He was acquainted with the Hebrew language, a cir
cumstance so rare as to make him the wonder of his contempo
raries and of posterity. His great exegetical work is entitled
PostillcB perpetucB, seu hrevia commentaria in Universa Biblia,
in 85 books. Lyra will ever hold a distinguished place as an
expositor, whether we consider the times in which he flourished,
or the character of his exegesis. That Luther and the other
Reformers were indebted to him is well known from the verse.
Si Lyra non lyrasset ;
Lutherus non saltasset.
His method of interpretation may be learned from the several
prologues prefixed to the Commentary. In the first, he mentions
the fourfold sense of Scripture, viz. the literal or historical, the
mystical or spiritual, the allegorical, and the moral or tropolo
gical, and aUudes to the verse,
Litera gesta docet ; quid credas, Allegoria ;
Moralis, quid agas ; quo tendais, Anagogia.
From the language he employs, the distinction is seemingly ap
proved. But in the second prologue, he gives the preference to
the literal sense, and seems to rest Uttle on any other. " All of
them," says he, " presuppose the literal sense as the foundation.
As a building declining from the foundation is likely to fall, so
the mystic exposition, which deviates from the Uteral sense, must
be reckoned unbecoming and unsuitable. Those, therefore, who
wish to make proficiency in the study of the sacred Scriptures,
must begin with the literal sense ; especially because from it alone
any argument can be brought to prove or declare what is doubt
ful  It must be observed likewise, that the

176 HISTORY OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
literal sense has been much obscured by the method of exposition
traditionaUy recommended and practised by others who, though
they may have said many things well, have yet touched on the
Uteral but sparingly, and have so multiplied the mystical senses
as nearly to intercept and choke it. Proposing, therefore, to
avoid these and similar practices, I intend, with God's assistance,
to insist upon the literal sense, and to insert occasionally a very
few brief mystical expositions. I shall do so, however, but sel
dom." * Here he spoke as plainly perhaps, in favour of the gram
matical sense, as the ignorant prejudices of the age would allow.
It is probable that he looked upon the mystical sense as a moral
or doctrinal application of the inspired words, rather than a sense
properly so called. But he deemed it prudent to retain current
phrases, lest he should offend the notions of the age, and draw
down ecclesiastical vengeance on his head. That he saw the
matter in its correct and clear view is hardly credible ; but that
he had some perception of its true bearing is highly probable.
After declaring his intention to attend chiefly to the literal sense,
he adds, by way of removing all suspicion of his orthodoxy, " Be
cause I am not so well skilled in the Hebrew or Latin language,
as to prevent me from failing in many particulars, I protest, that
I intend to say nothing either in the way of assertion or determi
nation, except in relation to such things as have been clearly
settled by holy Scripture or the authority of the church. All
besides must be taken as spoken scholastically and by way of
exercise; for which reason I submit all I have said and am to
say, to the correction of our holy mother the church."!
* Omnes praesupponunt sensum literalem tanquam fundamentum. Undo sicut ajdi-
ficium declinans a fundamento, disponitur ad ruinam ; ita expositio mystica, discrepans
a sensu Uterali reputanda est indecens et inepta, vel saltem minus decens, et minus
apta ; et ideo volentibus proficere in studio sacrae Scriptura;, necessarium est incipere
a sensu Uterali; tum maxime quum ex solo sensu Uterali, et non ex mystico possit
argumentum fieri ad probationem vel declarationem alieujus dubii 
Sciendum est etiam, quod sensus Uteralis multum est obumbratus, propter modum
exponendi communiter traditum ab aliis ; qui licet multa bona dixerint, tamen parum
tetigerunt Uteralem sensum, et sensus mysticos in tantum multiplicaverunt, quod sen
sus Uteralis inter tot expositiones mysticas interceptus, partim suffocatur 
Haec igitur et similia vitare proponens, cum Dei adjutorio intendo circa Uteralem
sensum insistere, et paucas valde et breves expositiones mysticas aliquando interpon-
ere ; Ucet raro. See the beginning of vol. i. His works are printed in six parts or
volumes folio.
¦|- Quia non sum ita peritus in Ungua Hebradca vel Latina, quin in multis possim
deflcere, ideo protestor, quod nihil intendo dicere assertive seu determinative, nisi
quantum ad ea, quae manifeste determinata sunt per sacram Scripturam vel ecclesiae

NICOLAUS DE LYRA.

177

In the third prologue, he states most justly, according to the
meaning he intended, that the Scriptures have not a fourfold sense
in every passage. Sometimes they have the literal sense only,
at other times they have not a literal sense. Again, they have
both a literal and mystical sense ; as when Abraham is said in
Genesis to have had two sons (see Gal. iv. 21, &c.) In his
postiUse on the Old Testament, he followed R. Salomon Jarchi ;
in the New, Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. The latter are
of much less value than the former, chiefly because he was ig
norant of the Greek language. He comments on the text of
the Vulgate without alluding to the original Greek. On the
contrary, his acquaintance with Hebrew is evinced, not only in
his exposition of the Old Testament, but in illustrating the New
by means of Jewish antiquities. It is impossible for us to cal
culate the effects of De Lyra's method of exposition upon the
subsequent age. He assisted to prepare the way for a better
understanding of the Scriptures, by casting aside the trammels
of allegorising tradition.*
The fifteenth century is marked by the revival of learning and
the dawn of a better day. The Bible began to be studied in
the original languages instead of the Latin version. After having
been long neglected, the Greek and Latin classics were sought
for and read again. Even in the fourteenth century Italy shewed
favourable symptoms of returning taste. From thence it spread
into other countries. When the eastern empire fell under the
Turkish yoke, a number of learned Greeks fled to the west of
Europe, where they diffused a taste for ancient literature. The
most conspicuous of these scholars were Theodore Gaza, George
of Trebizond, Bessarion, Demetrius Chalcondylas, Constantine
Lascaris, Gemistius Pletho, John Argyropulus, Andronicus of
Thessalonica, and others, men extensively imbued with the Greek
language, and devoted to grammatical studies. The desire of
knowledge, which they excited and fostered in various countries,
led to the study of the Greek Testament. Thus Providence
prepared the way for unlocking the Holy Scriptures, so long
auctoritatem, cetera vero omnia accipiantur tanquam scholastice, et per modum exer-
citii dicta ; propter quod omnia dicta et dicenda suppono correctioni sanctae matris
ecclesise." * Luther, in his Commentary on Genesis i. 9, thus speaks of De Lyra : " Ego Ly-
ranum ideo amo, et inter optimos pono : quod ubique diligenter retinet et persequi-
tur historiam, quanquam auctoritate patrum se vinci patitur, et nonnunquam eorum
exemplo dcflectit a proprictate sententiae ad ineptas aUegorias." Z

178 HISTORY OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
shut from the view of the people. The invention of printing
also hastened on the Reformation, while by the zeal of the Jews,
various editions of the Hebrew Bible were issued, and a knowledge
of the Hebrew language diffused through Italy, France, and
Germany. Gerson (+1429.) — John Charlier Gerson, so called from the
place of his birth in the diocese of Rheims, was a prominent
ecclesiastic of his day. He was chancellor of the University of
Paris, and a leader in the council of Constance against Huss
and Jerome. A devoted and superstitious advocate of the Ro
mish church, ignorant of all that contributes to the right in
terpretation of Scripture, cannot be expected to promote its
enlightened study. His propositiones, de sensu Uterali Sacrae
Scripturae et de caussis errantium, evince the prevailing preju
dices of the day — a bigoted attachment to the decrees of councUs
and the decisions of the church. In his first proposition he
says, " The literal sense of holy Scripture is always true;"* but
in the third, the statement is so limited and neutralised as to be
of no use. " The literal sense of Scripture is to be judged of
as the church, inspired and governed by the Holy Spirit, has
determined, and not according to the pleasure or interpretation
of each individual." ! To his exegetical works belong, his doc-
trinalis expositio super septem Psalmos poenitentiales, and the
Tractatus super Cantica Canticorum, containing devout medi
tations addressed to Christ. His Monotessaron, an attempted
continuation of Augustine's book de consensu Evangelistarum,
is of little use.
John JFes«e^ (+1489.) — John Wessel, styled "lux mundi,"
was born at Groningen. In expounding some parts of the New
Testament he shewed his determination to abide by the plain
sense of the text. As a Biblical theologian, therefore, he pro
ceeded in the proper method, aiid should be classed among the few
historico-theological interpreters of the fourteenth and fifteenth
centuries.! John Huss (+1414.) — John Huss, one of the glorious pre
cursors of the Reformation, was the author of various exegetical
works, viz. an exposition of the gospels treated synoptically, of
* Sensus Uteralis sacrae Scripturae semper est verus.
¦t- Sensus Scripturae Uteralis judicandus est, prout ecclesia spiritu sancto inspirata
et gubernata determinavit, et non ad cujuslibet arbitrium vel interpretationem.
X See Ullmann's Johann Wessel, ein Vorganger Luther's, 8vo, Hamburg., 1834.

JOHN HUSS  LAURENTIUS VALLA. 179
the Catholic epistles, and the first seven chapters of the first
epistle to the Corinthians. His commentary on the gospels is
chiefly a compilation in the gloss form, taken from a series of the
Latin fathers. That on the epistles, is not so much a compila
tion, as the product of his own mind. Its character is less of a
philological, than of a doctrinal and moral cast. Luther* cha
racterises him as " vir in explicanda ac tractandA Scriptura dex
ter et gravis." But his opposition to the tradition of the Romish
church did more for the cause of truth than these few specimens
of interpretation. Wycliffe indeed had gone before ; but Huss
nobly dared to follow. Both saw the necessity of adhering to
the grammatical or literal sense, apart from the manifold senses
by which the church proved whatever she wished.
Paulus Burgensis (+1436.) — Paulus de Sancta Maria, or as
he is more commonly called Burgensis, was by birth a Jew. The
epithet Burgensis marks his country and the place of which he
was bishop (Burgos.) In a somewhat polemic spirit he wrote
additions to the postils of Nicolaus de Lyra. He detected and
refuted various errors in the postils. De Lyra had chiefly oc
cupied himself with the literal sense ; and Paulus consequently
thought, that he had not attached sufficient importance to the
other three. He blamed Nicolaus also for opposing in some cases
his own explanations to those of the holy fathers.! The chief
text insisted on by Paulus is 2 Cor. iii. 6, " The letter killeth,
but the spirit giveth life." This was the great motto of the mys
tics ; but they misunderstood its meaning.
Matthias Doring, a Franciscan monk, undertook a defence of
Nicolaus against Paulus Burgensis, called, replica defensivae
advers. Paulum Burg., in which he styles the additions of the
latter, corruptorium. The defence contains nothing worthy- of
special notice.
Laurentius Valla (+1465.) — Laurentius Valla, descended
from a noble Roman family, and a canon in the Lateran church
* In the appendix to an edition of Huss' Letters, published in 1637.
¦|- After stating three reasons for commending de Lyra's postilla, he mentions three
defects: — " Sunt tamen alia tria quibus videtur saltem in aliquibus locis non sufficere.
Primum, quod expositiones Sanctorum in pluribus locis videtur postponere propriae
expositioni. .... Secundum, quod in Utera Hebraica, ad quam pluries recur-
rit, non videtur sufificienter eruditus  Tertium, quod, ut ipse dicit in
secundo prologo, inter doctores Hebraicos maxime inducit Rabbi Salomonem, qui in
ter eos rationabilius ad declarationem sensus Uteralis, ut aisserit, sit locutus ; cujus
oppositum est manifestum inter Hebrseos," &c.

180 HISTORY OP BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
at Rome, was by far the best Biblical interpreter of the fifteenth
century. As a philologist, he applied the learning which began
to prevail, to the sacred Scriptures. By this he did important
service to the cause of truth. His " annotations" on the New
Testament, first edited by Erasmus, are grammatical, not alle
gorical. They are brief, sententious, and appropriate, relating
to the signification and construction of words more than to the
connected sense of paragraphs, and the sequence of the reasoning.
He saw clearly the mischief which philosophy had introduced
into theology, and expressed his disapprobation of calling it the
sister or guide of the latter. Besides, he opposed the traditional
fabrications of the church respecting the apostolic composition of
the Romish creed, and clearly shewed the necessity of emend
ing the Vulgate. Nor did he fail to inculcate the importance of
knowing the original language of the New Testament, in order
that all versions might be compared with the inspired word, and
corrected accordingly. These sentiments were very uncommon
in the fifteenth century. It required no little courage and mental
independence to give full expression to them, in the face of a
dominant church with her bigoted ecclesiastics. The peculiarity
of his annotations is their bare, grammatical character. As far
as can be gathered from them, the holy truths seem to have had
little influence upon his mind. No interest is evinced in the theo
logical contents of the New Testament. Valla was a mere critic
and grammarian, occupying himself more with words than things
— with the construction of sentences, more than the spiritual doc
trines of revelation. Yet his labours were productive of great
benefit, by opening up the way for philological interpretation and
the fundamental study of the original. The minds of men had
long been withdrawn from the letter ; he turned them again to it
as the true basis of theological knowledge.
James Faber Stapulensis (+1537.)" — James Faber Stapulensis
(or according to his French name, le Fevre d' Etaples) was a
learned Frenchman at the commencement of the sixteenth cen
tury. He wrote a French translation of the gospels, a Latin
version of St. Paul's episties, and a commentary on the New
Testament. In the preface to his commentary on the gospels,
we find his sentiments relative to the Holy Scriptures and their
interpretation. " The word of God is sufficient. It is the only rule and guide
to eternal life  But some one will say, I

JAMES FABER STAPULENSIS. 181
wish to understand the gospel that I may beUeve it and attain to
the pure worship of God. Christ the captain and bestower of
eternal Ufe does not set forth the gospel to be understood, but
believed, since it contains many things which exceed not only our
intelUgence, but also that of every creature 
Come now, since the Lord enjoins us, as I have just said, to be
lieve the gospel, not to understand it, should we not aspire to the
understanding of it ? Why not ? We ought to do so however in
such a manner, as that a proneness to believe should have the first
place, and understanding the next ; for he who believes nothing
except what he understands, does not yet believe well and suf
ficiently  We have therefore laboured in
dustriously in preparing a new commentary on the gospels which
should dissipate the darkness of the mind, and cleanse it as it were
from ignorance, in dependence upon that grace alone which we
have expected of God. Where we have been left to ourselves,
we have inserted something of our own. What is our own we
acknowledge to be of no great value ; what is not our own, we
gratefully owe to God. We have not followed other men's labours,
that in our poverty we might be more dependent on God." *
Faber was not wedded to the authority of his predecessors. He
followed his own independent judgment. Erasmus praises his
zeal in the restoration of useful learning, and his various erudition
which was of no common order.! In consequence, however, of
the great freedom~"with which he expresses himself respecting the
pillars of the church, many found fault with him ; and even Eras-
* " Verbum Dei sufficit. Haec unica regula vitse aeternae magistra est 
At dioet quispiam, cupio ergo inteUigere evajigelium ut credam evangeUo, et purum
Dei cultum cemuler. Non proponit Christus dux vitae et ejusdem largitor aeternae
intelUgendum evangeUum, sed credendum : cum pleraque contineat et haec non pauca,
quse transcendunt intelligentiae non modo nostrae, sed et omnis (ut arbitror) creatae,
&c. , . . Sed age, cum Dominus jubeat ut dictum est, evangeUo credere, non autem
inteUigere ; aspirandum ne erit ad ipsum intelUgendum ? Quidni ? sed ita tamen ut
credulitas priores partes obtineat : intelUgentia posteriores ; nam qui non credit, nisi
quod intelligit, nondum bene ac sufficienter credit. . . . Idcirco operam navavimus
parandis novis in evangelia commentariis, qui tenebras meiitis discuterent, et in eadem
quanclam veluti purgationem efficerent ; solum eam quam a Deo expectavimus gra
tiam seeuti ; nisi sicubi nos, nobisipsis relicti, nostri nonnihil admiscuimus : quod nos
trum fatemur et nequaquam magnifaoiendum ; quod autem tale non est, Deo acceptum
referimus. Neque aliorum laboribus incubuimus, ut inopes magis a Deo penderemus."
Praefat. in Comment. Evang. (dated by Faber, 1521.)
¦j- . . - " ardentissimum in restituendis bonis Uteris studium magnopere comprobo,
eruditionem tam variam minimeque vulgarem admirer." Annotatt, in ep. ad Rom.
cap. 1, 5.

182 HISTORY OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
mus thought, that his language was hardly becoming.* Fearless
as he was, he hesitated not to propound expositions contrary to
those of the church. Erasmus frequently refers to his exegetical
work on the New Testament, pointing out in it numerous critical,
and philological defects. Yet with all its faults it contains right
principles of interpretation, although several mistakes are made
in their application. It was put into the index of prohibited
books under the pontificate of Clement 8 th.
Desiderius Erasmus (tl536.) — The name of Erasmus is so
well known, that it is altogether superfluous to dwell upon the
events of his life, or the features of his mind. By the exertions
of such men as Valla and Le Fevre, who entered upon a sub
stantial examination of Scripture unfettered by the authority of
fathers and councils, the study of the word had revived. What
they began, the exegetical works of Erasmus developed and com
pleted. His paraphrases and annotations on the books of the
New Testament, form a prominent era in the history of Biblical
interpretation. The method pursued in them far surpasses any
that preceded. Here a judicious use of the older writings con
tributed to the union of philological and theological interpre
tation. The grammatical annotations of Valla are exchanged
for notes less arid and jejune, in which the savour of theology is
at least seen, though still in defective measure. A knowledge of
the Greek language unequalled by that of any contemporary
except Budseus, a remarkable calmness of inquiry, an acute ap
prehension and sound judgment, and a wide range of learning,
unite to assign him a conspicuous place among the learned men
of his age, and to preserve his name in everlasting remembrance.
His exegesis was in a great degree the guide of the Reformers,
who, enlightened by the Spirit of God, had the good sense to
perceive its general correctness, and the boldness to follow out its
legitimate consequences. What Erasmus wanted was profundity,
and the deep-rooted fervour of simple piety, to the last of which
we mainly attribute the defects of his theological creed. The
general principles of interpretation which he adopted, may be
gathered from his Annotations to the New Testament, and the
various prefaces to his Paraphrases.
It may be readily conceived, that he was far from being averse
to the general reading and circulation of the Bible. In the pre-
* " Mallem, ilium de tantis ecclesiae columnis paulo civilius fuisse locutum." Anno
tatt, in ep. ad Hebr. cap. 2,

DESIDERIUS ERASMUS. 183
face to the paraphrase on the gospels, he has uttered just and
proper sentiments in regard to the advancement of Christian
knowledge by the universal diffusion of God's holy word among
the people. He approves of its being translated into various
languages, and its free circulation among all ranks. Even the
books of the Old Testament he did not forbid ; although he ad
mits there is some reason for keeping back Ezekiel and Solomon's
Song from the unlearned.
In conformity with such ideas, are those of the independent
position which the sacred interpreter should assume. He should
be untrammelled by the ancient commentators, as though they
had said all that is sufficient, or by the laborious compilers of
the mediseval age. Of the former he speaks with respect and
reverence, although he frequently dissents from their views. Upon
the latter he animadverts more freely, not concealing their faults
or forbearing to mention the glaring mistakes into which they fell.
In this way Erasmus put himself in a right position for discover
ing truth. He opened his eyes to the fallibiUty of the sources
to which a slavish attachment had for ages been given, and al
lowed his strong intellect to put forth independent decisions upon
the meaning of the written word.
" Should I dissent from Thomas (Aquinas) alone, I might
seem too severe and unjust towards him. But now, I dissent,
not seldom, from Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, though with be
coming respect, and I am even more candid towards Thomas
than is pleasing to many good and learned men. Yet I do not
think I owe the same reverence to all the Hugos and the de
Lyras, although I owe something to Nicolaus." *
We need not refer to the keen satire which he occasionally
uttered against his contemporaries, wedded as they were to a tra
ditional faith, and opposed to every attempt to explain the Bible
on surer and better principles. Such were the Dominicans, Fran
ciscans, and Augustinians, who had their favourite masters, from
whom they could allow of no deviation. In reference to these
he thus speaks. " He who is in pursuit of truth should be ad
dicted to the authority of no man ; nor is it right to attribute
* Si a solo Thoma dissentirem, videri possum in iUum iniquior. Nunc et Ambrosio,
et ab Hieronymo et ab Augustine non raro dissentio, sed reverenter, in Thomam
etiam candidior quam ut multis bonis et eruditis viris gratum sit ; sed hanc reveren-
tiam non opinor me debere Hugonibus aut Lyranis omnibus, ctiamsi Lyrano nonnihil
debemus. Dedication to the Paraphrase on James (Opera, Lugd, Bat, 1706, 10 vols.
fol.) vol. vu, p. 1116.

184 HISTORY OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
to any individuals what they do not ask themselves, and what if
they should ask, ought to be all the more refused." *
Erasmus did not believe in the infallibility of the pope or the
church, although he speaks timidly on these points.!
As might have been expected from the preceding sentiments,
he adopted the literal method of interpretation. It was his great
object to ascertain what the words of the Spirit were designed to
express, without pursuing the far-fetched senses among which the
schoolmen and mystics loved to lose themselves. He was a de
cided opponent of allegorising, as will be manifest from the fol
lowing quotations.
" The ancient writers, in explaining allegories, partly differ,
and partly proceed in such a manner as appears to be sometimes
ludicrous."! " I have touched upon allegories but sparingly,
and not farther than I judged to be sufficient ; although I see
that some of the ancients diligently followed them even to a su
perstitious excess." ||
In his Ecclesiastes, he has explained his sentiments more fully
respecting allegorical interpretation, and censured the earlier fa
thers for their faultiness in this particular. Here he has ventured
to name even Augustine as blameable. But yet he does not re
ject the system altogether. His strong sense and acuteness of
apprehension led him to see, that many places of Scripture refer
to more than one transaction. He thinks that many passages,
besides those which Scripture itself expressly authorises to be ac
cepted in a twofold manner, may be similarly treated. But he
had not a right perception of the Umit, beyond which, spiritual
interpretation is censurable. We cannot approve of his opinion
respecting the extension of secondary exposition beyond the war
rant of the word itself. Typical interpretation ^ould not be
stretched farther than the line prescribed in the record of revela
tion itself. If this is done, the typical is metamorphosed into
* " NulUus auctoritati debet esse addictus qui veritatis agit negotium, neque par est,
hoc cuiquam hominum tribuere quod neque ipsi sibi postulant, et, si postulau'cnt, tanto
-minus esset tribuendum," Annotatt. in Luc. ii, 36 ; 1 Tim, i, 7.
+ See Annotatt. in 1 Cor, vii. 39; 2 Cor, x, 8; 1 Tim, i. 7 ; 1 John v, 7,
X Jam cum veteres in allegoriis explicandis, partim varient, partim sic agant, ut
mihi nonnunquam ludere videantur. Dedication to Par. on Gospels, vol. vii. at the
beginning. II AUegorias, in quibus video veterum quosdam ad superstitionem usque fuisse diU-
gentes, parcius, nee ultra quam satis esse judicabam, attigi. End of Dedication to
John's Gospel, vol. vii. p. 406.

DESIDERIUS ERASMUS. 185
the allegorical. It is true, that allegorical senses or applications
may promote edification and impress reUgious truth on the mind ;
but they ought never to be put forward as divinely intended.
They are the offspring of imagination or of pious ingenuity, and
cannot be propounded as emanating from the great Author of
Scripture. But although Erasmus must be regarded as an opponent of
allegorising, notwithstanding his indistinct notions of its unscrip
tural character and occasional approbation of its moderate use, he
did not sympathise with those who neglected the Holy character
of revelation amid the grammatical annotations by which they
thought to exhaust its entire significancy.
" Let there be a, pious curiosity and a curious piety ; but let
there.be no rashness, or precipitate and headstrong persuasion of
the interpreter's own knowledge. What you read and understand,
embrace with the firmest faith. Banish frivolous or impiously
curious questions, should they chance to be presented to the mind.
Say, that we have nothing to do with what is above us. . . .
Above all, guard against attempting to turn Scripture aside to
your own desires and resolves. Rather let your own opinions and
manner of life be regulated according to its standard." *
In regard to the extent of inspiration and the slight inaccuracies
of the sacred writers, the following passage may not commend
itself to many. " That divine Spirit who guided the minds of
the apostles, suffered them tp be ignorant of some things, and oc
casionally to slip or make mistakes in judgment or feeling. This
error, TO far from being a disadvantage to the gospel, has been
even converted by the Spirit into a support of our faith. . .
. . Christ alone was styled the truth; he alone was free
from all error  But should it be thought that the
authority of all Scripture is entirely weakened by a discovery of
the -slightest error in it, it is "at least more~thsm pro!>a!)le','~tlrat'
among all the copies which the Catholic church now uses, there
is none so perfect as to be free from a few mistakes, the result of
accident or design."!
* Adsit quidem pia curiositas et curiosa pietas, set absit temeritas, absit praeceps et
pervicax scientiae persuasio. Quod legis et intelUgis, summa fide complectere. Fri-
volas quaestiunculas aut impie curiosas dispelle, si fors oboriantur animo. Die ; quae
supra nos, nihil ad nos, . , . Sed iUud in primis cavendum, ne Scripturam tentes
ad tuas cupiditates, tuaque decreta detorquere : sed ad hujus regulam potius tuas
opiniones ac vita! rationem attempora. Pref, to Paraphr. on Gospels, vol. vii.
+ Spiritus iUe divinus mentium apostoUcarum moderator passus est suos ignorare
A a

186 HISTORY OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
Of the obscurities of Scripture we find him speaking in such
terms as these. " Christ spoke some things in such a way as to
shew that he did not wish them to be understood at the time ; of
which nature are Luke xxn. 36 ; John ii. 19. Besides, in that
discourse in which he predicts the destruction of Jerusalem, the
end of this world, and the afflictions that were about to befal the
apostles, Jesus so mixes and adapts his discourse, that he appears
to me to have designed it to be obscure not only to the apostles,
but also to us. Again, there are some places in my opinion in
explicable, of which kind is the sin against the Holy Ghost never
to be forgiven ; the passage concerning the last day, which the
Father alone knows, and which even the Son is ignorant of. Here
in our commentaries, we may without danger give the different
sentiments of different expositors." *
The leading reformers, familiar as they were with the para
phrase and annotations of Erasmus, followed the same mode of
interpretation. Luther, Melancthon, Zwingle, Calvin, and their
noble fellow-labourers, trod in the same exegetical steps, with
more scriptural knowledge than Erasmus, and in some instances
with Hebraistic attainments which he did not possess. All of
them adopted the grammatical or Uteral system, discarding the
numerous senses which antiquity and the church had sanctioned ;
and all of them cast a welcome light upon the Word of God,
which had been long obscured by the traditions of men. Their gi
gantic minds and extensive learning grasped the system of truth
contained in the one sufficient rule of faith; and expounded it with
an acuteness and vigour of intellect seldom equalled by their more
favoured successors. From this time to the present, similar her-
qusedam, et labi errareque alieubi, judicio sive aifectu, non solum nuUo incommode
evangelii, sed hunc etiam ipsum errorem vertit in adjumentum nostrae fidei 
Solus Christus dictus est Veritas, unus ille caruit omni errore  Quod si
prorsus existimemus labefactari Scripturae totius auctoritatem, si vel levissimus error
usquam insit, certe plusquam probabile est, in omnibus exemplaribus quibus nunc uti-
tur ecclesia Catholica nullum esse tam emendatum cui non vel casus vel studium ali
eujus, mendi nonnihil adsperserit, Annotatt. in Matth. ii. 6, vol. vi. p. 12.
* Christus quaedam ita locutus est, ut tum quum diceret, inteUigi noluerit, quod
genus est iUud (quoting Luke xxii. 36 ; John ii. 19.) Porro in eo sermone quo praedieit
excidium urbis Hierosolymitanae, finem hujus mundi, et aiBictiones olim apostolis even-
turas, ita miscet et temperat sermonem Jesus, ut mihi videatur non solum apostoUs
sed nobis etiam obscurus esse voluisse. Sunt rursus loca quaedam mea sententia in ex-
pUcabilia, quorum est de peccato in Spiritum Sanctum nunquam remittendo : de die
supremo quem solus Pater novit, etiam filio incognitum. Hic in commentariis Ucet,
absque periculo, referre sententias diversorum diversas. Dedication of Paraphr. on
the Gospels, vol. vii.

REVIEW OP SECOND PERIOD. 187
meneutical maxims have prevailed in the various divisions of the
Protestant church, although allegorising tendencies occasionally
exhibit themselves to a much greater extent than judgment or
sobriety allow. Historico-theological interpretation has main
tained its ascendancy, wherever the imagination has not overborne
the judgment, or sound philological knowledge existed, or right
notions of the dignity of Scripture occupied the mind ; or where
undue attachment to antiquity has not cramped the free exercise
of the faculties. But when we find ignorance of the Original
languages, deference to preceding commentators, an ill-regulated
fancy, a weak judgment, a sickly piety or a bUnd devotion, we
may also observe an erroneous method of exposition, devoid of
consistency, and deviating into allegory while vainly seeking to
magnify Scripture and promote edification. Divine truth must
never be sacrificed to mystic folly. Scripture is dishonoured by
the praises and practices of its ignorant expounders.
Having thus briefly surveyed the second period in the history
of Biblical interpretation, extending from the commencement of
the seventh century to the close of the fourteenth, we may be
permitted to look back upon its general features. These are pro
verbially dark and cheerless. In the fifth and sixth centuries
learning had rapidly sunk ; in the seventh, it continued to de
crease. Theological knowledge calling forth independent thought
and scientific investigation stagnated amid the increasing barbarity
of the times. The great characteristic of eight hundred years
is the absence of free examination, and a slavish dependence on
preceding writers. Deference to names and authorities, which be-
' comes greater and more blind in proportion as ignorance prevails,
cannot be more vividly exemplified than in the ages through which
we have travelled. Independent mental activity in theology
was exceedingly rare. Compilation took the place of historico-
philological interpretation, and became the fashion of the times,
A growing submission to tradition held the minds of men in
bondage ; and as the church rose to the height of her supremacy,
less desire was manifested to break the yoke. Whatever symp
toms of independent intellect appeared, were chiefly caused by
polemics ; but from disputes on points of trivial moment little
fruit resulted. Thus, in the seventh century, the monothelite
controversy in the Eastern church called forth numerous writings.
The eighth century was also productive of some literature in the

188 HISTORY OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
discussions respecting images. The ninth witnessed in the West
two contemporaneous controversies, the one respecting the Lord's
supper; the other, the Augustinian doctrine oi predestination. The
former originated with Paschasius Radbert, a. d. 831, in con
sequence of a treatise written for his scholar Placidius, and stirred
up Ratramnus, Johannes Scotus, Ratherius of Verona, Herigar,
and Gerbert. The latter, begun by the monk Gottschalk, was
continued by Rhaban Maurus, Prudentius of Troyes, Ratramnus,
Servatus Lupus, Johannes Scotus, Floras of Lyons, Hincmar,
Amnio, Pardulus, Remigius, and others. But a controversy,
still more important in its consequences, respected the procession
of the Holy Ghost. In it lay the germ of that difference between
the two great parts of the church, which finally issued in their
complete separation. It had begun so early as the end of the
fourth century, from which time the points of difference gradually
increased, until it became manifest that the widening breach could
not be healed. After the middle of the eleventh century, the
schism was rendered incurable, chiefly by the narrow zeal of
Michael Cerularius, patriarch of Constantinople, These dis
putes, continued as they were for a considerable period, gave
rise to a vast number of treatises extensively influencing the li
terature of the times, without effecting much positive good in
the sphere of theological advancement or Biblical exegesis. The
Berengarian controversy, about the period of the schism, excited
great attention, and led to important results ; although it was
nothing more than a continuation or renewal of that which began
with Radbert. The zeal of the church ran in opposition to Be-
rengarius and his followers ; the absurd doctrine of transubstan
tiation sicquired the ascendancy ; and the Bible was virtually im
pugned by the aid of dialectics.*
These disputes brought into the field a number of writers, but
no genius or extensive erudition. They roused for a time the
energies of various ecclesiastics, without advancing the true know
ledge of the Bible. The temper in which they were managed,
the appeals to tradition, the ignorance of philology, and the sub
stitution of the Latin version for the original, combined to pre
clude a cooperating and comprehensive influence for the progres
sion of sound theology. Trifling distinctions were insisted on
where the Bible is silent in regard to them ; and violent decla
mation took the place of good argument. If, however, they did
* See Neander's AUgem, Geschichte, Band iv. vierter Abschnitt. pp. 412-649.

REVIEW OF SECOND PERIOD. 189
not serve to promote the progress of theology, they shewed at
least, that the human mind was not wholly sunk in barbarism.
Some solitary spirits still perceived the truth, unable though they
were to defend it against an overwhelming tide of superstition
which soon covered it with an impenetrable incrustation.
The merits of Charlemagne as a patron of Uterature render
his name more conspicuous than the vast political power he pos
sessed. It is well known, that he established or restored schools
which preserved the little learning before existing, and exerted a
beneficial influence in dispelling the gross ignorance of the people.
His court was a centre of attraction for the chief literati of the
day, whose names shed a lustre around the imperial palace with
which they were connected. England, Ireland, Spain, and Italy,
contributed to it their ablest scholars. The zeal of Charles for
the advancement of scientific studies was as untiring, as it was
laudable. He frequently exhorted the bishops to activity in the
cause of education. When he saw by their letters that they were
deficient in the ability to express their ideas with propriety, he
issued to them a circular epistle, urging the cultivation of know
ledge, that they might be better fitted to understand the mys
teries of Scripture. He even took great pains in correcting with
his own hand the text of the Holy Bible which had been greatly
corrupted ; thus setting an example of Biblical study to the spi
ritual, and at the same time facilitating their path. The cathedral
and conventual academies which he established, produced visible
effects under his successors Louis the Debonair, Lothaire, and
Charles the Bald. They were superintended by the most learned
men of the day, who had still some zeal for sacred literature, and
who sometimes founded libraries in connexion with the institu
tions over which they presided. Here theological science found
an abode. Here we can trace a line of ecclesiastics the most con
spicuous which the history of their time has preserved. To the
Carlovingian schools, monastic or cathedral, we find attached such
men as Rhaban Maurus, Walafrid Strabo, Paschasius Radbert,
Haimo, Druthmar, Hincmar, Otfrid, whose labours were gene
raUy directed to the exposition of the Holy Scriptures. These,
and others that might be mentioned, must ever be associated with
the reign of Charlemagne and his successors, upon which they
shed rays of light that pierce but faintly the surrounding gloom.
In the eleventh and twelfth centuries, whilst Italy and Eng
land were sunk in the lowest barbarism, Spain was the abode of

190 HISTORY OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
several learned Jews engaged in the study of the Old Testament.
When the persecuted posterity of Abraham were driven out of
Africa, they settled in Europe, and exhibited their hereditary
zeal in illustrating their Scriptures. The names of R. Jona Ben
Ginnach, Aben Esra, David Kimchi, and Moses Maimonides,
are illustrious in the annals of Jewish literature. R. Jona was a
physician eminently skilled in grammatical lore. Aben Esra was
called the wise by way of eminence. He commented on the
entire Old Testament with much learning and judgment, so
that Simon assigns him the first place among Hebrew commen
tators. Kimchi was the author of several books on Hebrew
grammar, and of annotations on Scripture. The fame of Mai
monides stands so high among the Jews, that he is reckoned the
next to Moses their lawgiver. His great work, the " Teacher of
the perplexed," is a sort of introduction to the interpretation of
the Hebrew Scriptures. Amid the ignorance of the world, these
scholars were occupied with the study of the Old Testament and
its language, although their midrashim and such like allegorical
fancies threw the literal sense into the shade. It is gratifying to
contemplate the abode of men who silently endeavoured to unfold
the meaning of the law and the prophets, and to facilitate the
study of the language in which they are written.
But the most important development of an inquiring spirit
during the middle ages is presented by the scholastic divines,
who applied the Aristotelian philosophy to Christian doctrines.
The disputes between the Nominalists and Realists, at first
purely metaphysical, soon took a theological direction, each
party charging the other with error, from the supposed bearing
of their logical opinions on the nature of theological belief.
The schoolmen had the merit of giving a scientific form to the
doctrines of the church ; of fiUing up such chasms in the current
ecclesiastical system as metaphysics detected ; and of consolidating
the whole into one compact mass. It is, true, that their design
was merely to confirm by philosophy the positions found in the
fathers ; yet the prosecution of this object gave rise to a scientific
treatment of theology, and a more fundamental investigation of
its contents. The scholastic divines brought some independent
reflection into the province of didactic theology, and possessed
much acuteness. Yet the custom of uniting the logic of Aristotle
with the doctrines of revelation, tended to retard the progress of
true investigation. An undue influence was assigned to dialec-

REVIEW OF SECOND PERIOD, 191
tics. By them, not by Scripture, ecclesiastical principles were
proved and defended. Hence the Bible was neglected. Sum
maries of doctrine were compiled from the fathers, and then sys
tematically arranged by the aid of the ancient philosophy ; but
in the meantime, the Bible itself was pushed aside from its legiti
mate place. Anselm of Canterbury, who may be reckoned the
founder of the schoolmen, has left no system, but merely separate
and subtle arguments on particular points of religion. He was
followed by Abelard, Peter Lombard, and Thomas Aquinas, the
great masters of scholastic learning.* But the disputations of
scholasticism degenerated into highly artificial and useless dis
tinctions in which the true interpretation of the Scriptures had
no place ; for, in proportion to the progress of this subtle reason
ing, the Bible was gradually forgotten. In consequence of the
decline of scholasticism and its neglect of the letter of Scripture,
the mystics arose, who set themselves to oppose the superabun
dance of theological subtilties which had accumulated in the
course of two centuries, and to recal attention to the Scriptures
themselves. ! But they discarded the literal, and had recourse to
a mystic sense. Hence they contributed nothing to Biblical in
terpretation. Scriptural Hermeneutics were equally unknown by
the scholastics and mystics. Neither exhibited acquaintance with
the general principles with which the interpreter needs to be
fiirnished, and in whose application consummate skill is required.
Doubtless there are to be found in the writings of the schoolmen
specimens of the subtlest reasoning, and a logical method often
desirable in the development of doctrines ; but in them we look
in vain for a separation from the writings of fathers and the de
crees of councils. The authority of ecclesiastical tradition is still
apparent ; and the Bible itself in its sole supremacy recedes from
our view, amid the arid speculations to which theology was linked
by the presiding spirits of the day. It is only in one aspect that
the schoolmen present a pleasing phenomenon in the latter period
of the mediseval age, we mean that of mental activity. In this they
form a remarkable contrast to the dull and sluggish dependence
* Other schoolmen were RosceUn, Duns Scotus, William Ockham, William of
Champeaux, and Hales, For a full and able account of the scholastic philosophy, I
must refer the reader to Tennemann's Manual of Philosophy, translated by Johnson ;
and to the Life of Thomas Aquinas, and View of the Scholastic Philosophy, pubUshed
in the Encyclopaedia Metropolitana, by Dr, Hampden of Oxford.
t Among the mystics we find Bernhard of Clairvaux, Hugo de St, Victor, Bona
ventura, Gerson, Tauler, and Thomas a Kempis.

192 HISTORY OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.
which marked a number of centuries. It is somewhat cheering
to observe symptoms of mental sagacity, although they were in
dicative of Uttle positive good. A line of spirits worked contem
poraneously in the field of knowledge ; and although their specu
lations were frequently trifling and tedious, they imparted a form
to theology which it had not before attained. As we survey the
later middle ages, from the twelfth to the sixteenth century, we
may observe " a line of men conspicuous according to the stan
dard of their times, in different walks of intellectual pursuit." *
Learning revived, especially in Italy ; men of bold and inde
pendent minds began here and there to question the unlimited
authority hitherto attached to the holy fathers ; a few understood
the Greek language, and ventured occasionally to depart from
the trodden path. Among these Wycliffe and Huss, to whom may
be added Laurentius Valla, stand preeminent. Others expressed
themselves more timidly, lest they should awaken the suspicions
of the church, but followed the grammatical system of interpre
tation, and thus contributed to weaken the ghostly domination of
Romish ignorance. As we approach the sixteenth century, the
human mind exhibits greater activity ; books multiply and scatter
the seeds of knowledge through various lands ; the Scriptures
are drawn forth from their monastic prisons, and once more ex
posed to the eager curiosity and awakening attention of men.
Forthwith the immortal Luther casts off the fetters of a church
notoriously corrupt, emboldens by his powerful example other
reformers, who simultaneously perceive the truth in Jesus, and
arouses a spirit which flies through all ranks of society, till it
takes its unalterable stand upon the memorable protest, the start
ing-point of modern Protestantism.
* Hallam's Introduction to the Literature of Europe in the fifteenth, sixteenth, and
seventeenth centuries, 4 vols. 8vo, London, 1837, &c., vol. i. p, 16.

( 193 )

CHAPTER VII.

SYSTEMS OF INTERPRETATION.

The Moral Interpretation.
The moral interpretation is akin to the mythic, and owes its
origin to the celebrated Immanuel Kant, Professor of Logic and
Metaphysics in the University of Konigsberg. Instead of select
ing the objectionable parts of revelation, and disposing of them
as accommodations to current prejudices, he endeavoured to bring
them into harmony with his philosophy by imposing upon them
pecuUar constructions and senses.* Such a combination was
effected by means of the so-called moral interpretation. The
philosophy of Kant led to the renouncement of objective know
ledge, maintaining that nothing except practical reason and its
decisions can have full certainty. It is not difficult to perceive
how this prepared the way for the idealism of Fichte, Schelling,
Hegel, and Schleiermacher. The moral interpretation consists
in educing from the sacred Scriptures such ideas alone as are
conformable to the pure principles of practical morality implanted
in the bosoms of men. Nothing but the most perfect notions
should be found in the written word, since it proceeds from God,
with whom all is perfect. The literal exposition is thought to
furnish notions less perfect and less worthy of God than the dic
tates of practical reason allow. Hence, other ideas, more suited
to the advancement of morality, are attached to the words of in
spiration, although violence is thus done to the historical and
literal sense. The only value and object of the Bible is to in
troduce, illustrate, and confirm the reUgion of reason, which is
supposed to be alone true, and sufficient. Thus a system of phi
losophy exercises an undue influence on the exegesis of Scripture,
moulding and fashioning it in a peculiar manner.
The following extracts will serve to shew what view the cri
tical philosophy of Kant took of the nature of true religion.
* " Sensum inferens, non effercns" Wegscheidir. Institutiones, § 25, p, 91,
Bb

194 SYSTEMS OP INTERPRETATION.
" Pure religious faith is that alone which can found a univer
sal church, because it is a mere faith of reason, which every man
can communicate to himself convincingly ; whereas a historical
faith, founded only on facts, can diffuse its influence no farther
than the accounts which refer to the capacity of judging of its
credibility can reach, Umited as they must be by circumstances
of time and place." *
" We have remarked, that whether or no a church wants the
most important mark of its truth, viz. that of a legitimate claim
to universality when it establishes itself upon a faith in revelation,
which faith, as being historical, is susceptible of no universal con
vincing communication of itself, though spread far and wide by
writing, and guaranteed to the latest posterity ; it is notwith
standing necessary on account of the natural wants of all men,
who ever desire for the highest ideas and grounds of reason
something perceptible by the senses, some confirmation from
experience; it is necessary, I say, to make use of some historico-
ecclesiastical faith from among those already existing.
But in order to connect with such an empiric faith, which
chance apparently has played into our hands, the basis of a moral
faith, it is necessary that the revelation which has come into our
hands should receive a particular interpretation, i. e. a uniform
explanation in such a sense as shall coincide with the general
practical rules of the pure religion of reason. For that which is
theoretic in the faith of a church, cannot interest us in a moral
view, unless it prompt to the fulfilment of all human duties as if
they were divine commands (this being the essence of all reli
gion.) This interpretation may often appear to ourselves to be
forced, as far as regards the text of revelation ; and it may often
be really so ; and yet, if it be only possible for the text to admit
of it, it must be preferred to such a Uteral interpretation as either
contains in itself nothing conducive to morality, or perhaps even
operates against our moral springs."!
" The historical part of the Scriptures, which contributes no
thing to make men better, is purely indifferent, and may be dis
posed of as we please.
The moral amendment of mankind is the proper object of the
* Die ReUgion innerhalb der Grenzen der blossen Vemunft, Zweite vermehrte Au-
flage. Konigsberg, 1794, 8vo, p. 145 ; or p. 130, of Mr, Scrapie's translation, I have
endeavoured to give a closer and more accurate version of the passages than that fur
nished by this talented advocate, -^ Do. pp. 157, 158.

THS MORAL INTERPRETATION. 195
entire religion of reason ; and therefore the religion of reason
contains the supreme principle of all Scriptural exegesis." *
This method of interpretation Kant applies in all its fruitful-
ness of result to the gospel history and the doctrines of the New
Testament, by setting forth the personified idea of the good
principle, " That which alone can make a world the object of a divine
decree, and be the end of its creation is, mankind (intelligent
agents generally) in his entire moral completeness. This man,
the only beloved of God, ' is in him from eternity.' The idea of
such an one emanates from God's- own essence, and so far he is
no created thing but his only begotten son ' the word (the fiat)
by which all other things are, and without which nothing exists
that was made.' For his sake, i. e. for the sake of rational beings
in the world as far as they can be considered in relation to their
moral destiny, all things were created. ' He is the brightness of
the Father's glory.' ' In him God has loved the world,' and only
through him, and by adopting his sentiments, can we hope to be
' the children of God.'
It is the duty of all men to elevate themselves to this ideal of
moral perfection, i. e. to the archetype of moral sentiments in their
entire purity, to which ascension, the idea itself which is presented
to us by reason for imitation, may give power. But because we
are not the authors of such an ideal, but on the contrary, it has
taken up its abode in men without our being able to comprehend
how human nature can have a susceptibility for its reception ; it
is better to say, that that archetype has come down to us from
heaven, and assumed humanity  This union with us
may therefore be looked upon as a state of the humiliation of the
Son of God, when we represent to ourselves a divine-minded man
as our pattern, as enduring sufferings in the highest degree, though
holy himself and therefore exempt from them, with the view of
promoting the best interests of the world." !
" Although the renewed man physically considered (according
to his empiric character as a being of sense), is just the same cul
pable person as before, and must, as such, be condemned by an
ethic court of justice and consequently by his own conscience,
yet he is in his new character, in the eye of a divine judge with
whom such a character comes in room of defective deeds, to be
looked upon as morally another ; and this new disposition doe^
*Do, p. 161, t Pp, 73, 74, 76.

196 SYSTEMS OF INTERPRETATION.
in its purity, as a transcript of the Son of God which he has
adopted into his sentiments, bear, — or by personifying the idea,
— the Son of God himself, as vicarious substitute, bears for the
guilty and likewise for all who practically believe in him, the
guilt of sin, makes satisfaction as Redeemer by his sufferings and
death to the highest justice ; and as advocate leads them to hope
that they may appear in a justified state before their judge. It
must, however, be observed, that in this figurative representation
that suffering which the new man continually undergoes in life
whilst he is dying to the old, is depicted as a death endured once
for all by the representative of mankind." *
The place due to such a method of exposition is pointed out by
Kant himself when he refers to the example of the Greek and
Roman ethical philosophers, as also to that of the later Jews.
" Rational reflecting teachers had long continued to comment
and refine upon the holy Scriptures, until they brought them very
nearly to agree with the general precepts of morality." !
The claims of the Kantian method to be regarded as interpre
tation properly so caUed, are virtually abandoned in the follow
ing passage.
" Such expositions cannot be charged with insincerity, pro
vided we do not assert that the sense given by us to the holy
books was that intended by the authors ; but, leaving this point
out of consideration, assume only the possibility of the authors
so intending."!
Thus the text is perverted for the sake of extracting from it a
meaning neither obvious nor natural, but supposed to conduce to
the pure precepts of morality as they appear in the philosophy of
Kant. Besides, there can be no limit to the number of inter
pretations which the words of inspiration wiU be forced to bear.
Ingenuity may bring into Scripture whatever it pleases, if it can
be shewn, that its interpretations have a connexion with the dis
charge of human duty and the advancement of morality. Pas
sages are compelled to inculcate what they were never designed
to teach ; religion is entirely subjected to pure reason ; and the
necessity of a divine revelation weakened, if not set aside. The
pervading principle of Kant's philosophy is Deism ; for the pure
reUgion of reason was meant to subvert Christianity. As long
as a divine revelation exists, and is generally acknowledged, it is
subjected to a forced moral exegesis ; but Kant looked forward
* Do, pp. 98, 99, 100, t Pp. ISO, 160, $ P, 161.

PSYCHOLOGICO-HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION. 197
to a period, when the religion of reason should be universally
diffused, and the " leadmg-strings of holy tradition," i. e. the
holy Scriptures, be no longer necessary. The system of Kant
has lost its currency even in Germany, although it led to the
philosophy of Hegel, of which it is the germ. It cannot be
too much reprobated ; and it is presumed, that very few in this
country are careful to know, or solicitous to adopt it. The piety
and practical character of our evangelism must ever repudiate it
with deserved horror.
Psychologico-historical Interpretation.
This mode of interpretation arose out of the treatment which
the gospels received in the Wolfenbiittel fragments. The daring
writer of the work so denominated converted the gospel history
into an intricate train of events ; the chief agents appearing as
designing mischievous deceivers, urged on in consequence of dis
appointed hopes and unsuccessful plans. It seemed, therefore, a
meritorious task to defend the character of the men thus wan
tonly attacked, even though it were at the expense of giving up
everything supernatural in the person and life of Jesus.
The psychological system is developed chiefly by Paulus and
Eichhorn, and is characterised by such general principles as these.
The contents of the gospels cannot justify the notion of any
dishonesty or illusion in their composition, neither can they be
resolved into mythi, fictions, or legends. They must be viewed
as actual facts, worthy of credit when they can be referred to
probable causes ; and even when such causes are wanting in the
New Testament history, it cannot be concluded that none existed.
Now it is the province of interpretation to present what is related,
in a manner as full as possible, embracing all the modifying or
accompanying circumstances, such as time, place, manners, cus
toms, preconceived opinions, and the entire range of influences
within which the narrative was composed. Thus a fact, internal
or external, may be separated with greater or less probability
from the view of it taken by the narrator, and restored to its
purity. It may be disentangled from later refinements which
attached themselves to it partly as ornaments, and partly as mis
conceptions unavoidably adhering to the spiritual characteristics
of the age. " This view," says Paulus, " draws us back from
the province of the unbeliever to that of psychology, without
doing violence to the incUnation for exhibiting that as a fact.

198 SYSTEMS OF INTERPRETATION.
which is circumstantially related as such. The greater part, how
ever, of what men call realities, are internal facts." * Thus the
true character of interpretation is preserved, as far as its external
form is concerned, while the soul and life of it are wanting. The
text is carefully examined ; philological and historical appliances
are employed ; higher reflexion and shrewd tact merely supply
ing what they leave imperfect. Yet the causes of all the facts
narrated in the New Testament are still sought within the limits
of the general laws of nature, and the relations of every-day life.
Historical truth and probabiUty in the gospels, are judged by the
things we see, know, and experience. The more clearly, there
fore, the gospel history presents the mysterious character of an
event ; the more obvious is the lowering of the narrative to the
common circumstances of our own lives. Hence the words of
Scripture must either be perverted, so as to bear another than
their natural sense ; or it must be assumed, that historical truth
was misunderstood by the narrators. In the latter case, shrewd
ness is employed to combine and supply the fragmentary glimpses
of the entire truth which the account still preserves. Here then
scope is allowed for introducing the greatest errors which the hu
man mind may entertain. The system is based on the assump
tion, that every thing miraculous is contrary to reason. It uses
the most arbitrary means to bring the evangelical narratives into
coincidence with what is supposed to be alone rational. Scripture
is subjected to something assumed as pure reason, to whose im
perious dictates, its plain announcements of extraordinary facts
are accommodated and levelled. The following example will shew
the nature of the system. It exhibits Paulus's exposition of John
vi. 19. " When they had rowed about five and twenty or thirty
stadia (about two hours space) they see Jesus walking about over
the sea (John xxi. 1, on the bank or shore, which is higher than
the sea) and near the ship (which kept near the shore.) " ! In a
similar way all miraculous occurrences in the gospels are reduced
to ordinary events.
Whilst tjie inspired writers are viewed as honestly relating events
according to their belief, truth and reality are carefully separated
from their impressions. The sacred penmen are credulous simple
tons, who exalted into supernatural events what more enlightened
men would have explained in a natural way. They recorded facts
* Commentar iiber die drei ersten Evangelien. Heidelberg, 1800, Ir. Th. p. 20.
t Das Leben Jesu, Zweiter Theil. erste Abtheilung. Heidelberg, 1828, p. 165, 19.

THE ACCOMMODATION SYSTEM. 199
agreeably to their own imperfect notions, and magnified the
ordinary into the marvellous. The system assumes without proof,
that miracles were such merely in the view of the narrators and
those who witnessed them. And when it recommends us to divest
them of their divine features, or to bring them down to the level
of our own subjective views ; it enjoins each interpreter to explain
them in whatever way he chooses, provided he take care to shut
out the direct interference of the Deity. Surely such a method
of interpretation needs only to be mentioned, to be abhorred. It
is essentially deistical, though its infidelity is more disguised than
that of some other systems.
The psychologico-historical and mythical modes in some mea
sure harmonise. Both proceed on the ground, that the miraculous
is contrary to reason. The former employs the most arbitrary
means to rationalise the gospel accounts according to a precon
ceived view of the nature of what is rational. The latter endea
vours to make the narratives of Scripture as irrational as possible
in order that the necessity of expounding them mythically may
be more apparent. But the former is virtually more tenacious of
the historical truth of the miraculous account, and attaches more
importance to it than the latter ; although in the mythic system,
the historical is neither abandoned nor lightly regarded. It forms
a necessary objective envelope for subjective ideas. *
The Accommodation- System.
This mode of interpretation, according to which, Jesus and his
apostles are irreverently said to have adapted themselves to the
ignorance and prejudices of the Jews, has been usually attributed
to Semler, who revived it in modern times, and carried it to such
a length as to alarm the friends of evangelical truth. It is true
that the Rationalists belonging to the 17th century, and the for
mer half of the 18 th, maintained the same ; but they had not the
genius of Semler to recommend their sentiments, nor did their
writings exercise any influence upon their successors in compari
son with the productions of this distinguished but sceptical scho
lar. The Cartesian philosophy applied to theology had led
some to affirm, that the New Testament writers " may have ac
commodated themselves to the false and erroneous conception of
the populace."!
* See Klausen's Hermeneutik des Neuen Testaments, &c, p. 333.
+ See Halm's Lehrbuch des ChristUchen Glaiibens, Leipzig, 8vo, 1828, p. 66.

200 SYSTEMS OF INTERPRETATION.
The ancient fathers acknowledged it under the names of guy-
KaTdj3agig, olxovo/iia, dispensatio ; although it may be questioned
whether they went so far as to intend by it an adaptation of
their doctrines to those with whom they came into contact. Jahn,
however, asserts, that Clement of Alexandria, Origen, TertulUan,
Athanasius, Chrysostom, and Jerome, extended it to formal dis
simulation, fraud, and falsehood.* But it would appear, that
they rather used it, in reference to the apostles, of the mode of
their argumentation, and the wise shaping of their conduct to
circumstances, where no principle was involved. The fathers
thought that the apostles plied the argumentum ad hominem,
and became as Jews to the Jews. Hence the apostle Paul
declares (1 Cor. ix. 20), " And unto the Jews I became as a
Jew, that I might gain the Jews." It is certain, that Ori
gen denies accommodation in the matter of instruction, in his
commentary on John viii. 48.! It is not necessary to allude
here to accommodation in the form of teaching, or to the man
ner in which doctrines were propounded by the apostles so as
to suit the tastes of their hearers. We may safely maintain,
that the use of parables, proverbs, and allegories, was a pru
dent adaptation to the state of knowledge among the people,
just as every discreet instructor suits his lessons to the capa
cities of his hearers; not giving milk to full grown men, or
strong meat to babes. This has been cdWeA formal accommoda
tion. Neither are we required to notice particularly what has
been styled negative accommodation (John xvi. 12), which is in
cluded in the formal. What we are at present concerned with
is, the positive, i. e. such a condescension to the erroneous opi
nions of the Jews, as was thought necessary or useful to procure
reception for the doctrines inculcated. Instead of shocking the
prejudices of men, by advancing universal, positive, absolute
truth on all occasions, the inspired writers are said to have let
themselves down to the weakness and ignorance of their age,
retaining many current notions which they believed to be erro
neous, in order to prepare the way for a purer system,! The
divine founder of Christianity came, it is alleged, to restore the
pure religion of nature. But in order to effect this gradually
and prudently, he retained the existing elements of the Mosaic
religion, sanctioning the prevailing ideas of the people though
* Nachtrage zu seinen Theol. Werken, nach s, Tode herausgeg. ii, p. 15, &c.
+ § 23. X See Wegscheider's Institutiones Theologia, § 26.

THE ACCOMMODATION SYSTEM. 201
frequently erroneous, that he might insinuate among them his own
elevated views, until a time should come when mankind, and
especially the teachers of religion, should be so far advanced in
knowledge, as to be able to strip off the outward shell, and bring
forth the kernel. Our Saviour and his apostles, though believing
and knowing many things to be unfounded, permitted them to
remain for a time in the Christian system, because the age was
too rude and barbarous to admit of a thorough purification. But
it was maintained by Semler and others that the time had arrived
when the dross should be separated from the silver ; when the
heterogeneous mass of materials should be cleansed from all false
colourings or insertions, that it might be brought forth in the state
which Jesus and his apostles intended. Such are the character
istic features of the accommodation-system as held by Semler and
more fully developed by his followers ; — a system, which has
produced the most disastrous consequences in Germany. *
In conformity with this mode of interpretation, the notions of
the Jews respecting demons and angels, the Holy Spirit, recon-
ciUation to God by sacrifice, the person and kingdom of the Mes
siah, the resurrection, and the judgment, are supposed to have
been retained by the Saviour and his apostles in condescension to
the current belief, their own teachings being annexed and adapted
to them.
The system is properly a consequence and a form of the so-
called historical interpretation, according to which, the chief
business of an interpreter is to collect the opinions, and the phrases
descriptive of the views entertained by the Jews and the contem
poraries of the apostles, regarding natural objects, the causes and
grounds of things, angels, &c., and to take them as guides in the
exegesis of the New Testament.! The history of opinions cur-
* The principal advocates of it are, Behn, W. A. Teller, Corodi, Eckermann, Vo-
gel, Nachtigall, Kirsten, P, Van Hemert, StaudUn, and Niemeyer.
¦}• " In rebus iis quae sensibus subjacent, quarumque in Ubris s, mentio aliquae inji-
citur, quales sunt v. u. hominum quorum res gestae narrantur, mores et ritus, regio-
numque in quibus illi vixerunt situs et indoles, hoc curandum erit interpreti, ut earum
omnium eam conditionem cognitam sibi reddat, quam scriptor quisque, ejusque lectores
illo ipso tempore oculis suis usurparunt, quo liber ejus est exaratus. Multo magis
vero in iis rebus, quae animo tantum comprehenduntur, in eo ipsi erit elaborandum, ut
omnium quas ipsi sibi formavit, aut ab aliis accepit, harum rerum notionum penitus
obUviscatur et in ejus potius qui Ubrum quemque scripsit, eorumque quibus destinatus
est, notiones his de rebus conceptas inquirat. Quod ubi factum fuerit tum has istorum
hominum notiones ita animo debet impleeti, ut omnem quasi eorum personam induat,
et quffinam ipsis haec scribentibus aut legentibus ideae necessario debuerint obversari,
diligenter cogitet." Keil's Commentatio de Historica Librorum Sacrorum Interpre-
c c

'202 SYSTEMS OF INTEIIPBETATION.
rent in the time of our Lord, determines and regulates the manner
in which the holy doctrines of Christianity ought to be under
stood. The historical interpreter who admits with Semler the^o-
sitive accommodation, becomes a most dangerous expositor. The
idea broadly propounded by this distinguished theologian of Halle
was eagerly caught by many of his countrymen, who insisted upon
it with greater earnestness and copiousness than their leader.
Hence even the proper, primary meaning of historical interpreta
tion, viz. that which makes it synonymous with the grammati
cal, * began to be forgotten. Those who make a disthiction be
tween them, as Bretschneider and others, attach too much conse
quence to historical investigation, giving it a direct and primary
rather than an indirect and subsidiary influence. They make it
the judge and guide instead of an inferior auxiUary in discovering
the meaning. They exalt it so as to include positive accommo
dation, and occasionally fabricate it in the mould of such a prin
ciple. Thus accommodation becomes a prominent feature of his
torical in terpretation .-]-
It is unnecessary to go into the farther details of such a system.
Happily, to most English theologians, it appears at once in its
odious colours. Nor is it apposite at present to inquire, whether
and how far, the argumentum ad hominem was employed by
Christ and the apostles ; or in other words, whether the New
Testament presents passages, in which the argumentation is con
ducted upon the basis of certain acknowledged principles, even
though they may be erroneous in themselves, rather than on their
real nature and essential truth. When the apostle of the Gen
tiles says, that, to the weak, he became as weak ; and that he
was made all things to all men (1 Cor. ix. 22), the meaning of
his declaration is, not that he adopted an erroneous procedure in
his converse with the Jews and Gentiles, or that he gave any
countenance to their false opinions, but that he made every legi
timate endeavour to bring all to salvation, while he prudently
abstained from giving offence to his countrymen, or throwing a
tatione ejusque Necessitate, Lips. 1788, p. 9 et seq. See also Bretschneider's Die
Historisch-dogmatische Auslegung des Neuen Testaments. Leipzig, 1806, §§ 5, 6, 7.
* " The literal sense is the grammatical sense, and indeed the two terms ai'e de
rivatively the same : it is also called the historical sense, which, like other matters
of fact, rests upon testimony and authority." Ernesti's Principles of Biblical Inter
pretation, translated by Terrot, vol. i. p. 28.
¦f- See a Refutation of Historical Interpretation, by Tittmann, in his Prolegomena
to the Meletemata on John's Gospel, or a translation of it by Dr. Pye Smith, in his
Discourses on the sacrifice and priesthood of Christ, 2d edition, pp. 165-172.

THE ACCOMMODATION SYSTEM. 203
Stumbling-block in their way, so far as fideUty to his great master
enjoined and allowed. His conduct was the very reverse of a time
serving policy; his spirit abhorrent from the compromise of any
principle. The system is derogatory to the Son of God. Few have ven
tured to question the purity of his motives, the rectitude of his
character, or the impeccabiUty of his nature. InfideUty, how
ever, has prompted some even to such a height of impiety. His
life was so remarkable, — so far removed from the appearance of
evil, that it has always been reckoned the embodied quintessence
of absolute perfection. His doctrines again, were so simple, yet
withal so sublime; his teaching, so authoritative and elevated in its
tone, that he has been justly looked upon as an extraordinary
personage, as far beyond common humanity in spotless virtue, as
the heavens are above the earth. What then shall we say of the
system which describes him as guilty of dissimulation ? He came
to preach peace to them that were afar off, and to them that were
nigh, to offer himself a sacrifice for sin, and to bring in an ever
lasting righteousness. He was the way, the truth, and the life.
But if he stooped to the prejudices of those by whom he was
surrounded in the days of his flesh, his character was deficient in
candour and honesty. If he came to promulgate eternal truth,
it would have been inconsistent with his mission to lower the
holy features of his own doctrines by an adaptation of them to
crudities and follies ; or to link his teachings to the false systems
current at the time he appeared. The gospels present no traces
of such timidity or culpable negligence on his part. On the con
trary, he openly reproves the Scribes and Pharisees; — refutes
their erroneous opinions, silences their cavils, and charges them
with making the word of God of none effect by their traditions.
Such conduct and admonitions exhibit the Redeemer in a far
different light from that of the accommodation-system. They
shew that he was not wont to amalgamate his doctrines with the
carnal notions of the Jewish people, or to propound truth in the
cunning mode ascribed to him. Let any one read the gospels
with impartiality, and then say, whether the blessed Jesus could
have been guilty of so great prevarication. The principle, to
which we have been adverting, is so hideous and horrifying to our
ideas of the holy Redeemer, whom it degrades to the lowest rank
as a moral teacher, that we cannot dwell upon it. It is unworthy
of sober attention, or formal refutation.

204 SYsTEilS OF INTERPRETATION.
But this accommodation, advocated by Semler and his adhe
rents, contradicts the inspiration of the New Testament writers.
If they spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost (as the
Scripture expressly asserts), how can we impute to them conni
vance at error ? Enlightened by an extraordinary influence from
above, their minds must have revolted from such dissimulation.
It is the policy of earthly and cunning men, not the policy of
heavenly ambassadors. God is a God of truth ; and it is con
trary to his essential perfections to give countenance to unsound
opinions. But the principle in question goes to charge him with
so doing ; for it assumes, that the commissioned instructors of
mankind were suffered to adapt their lessons to the ignorance of
a barbarous age, and thus to perpetuate, instead of removing
error. If the great object of Christianity be, to lead men to the
true knowledge of God in Christ, how can it be affirmed of such
as were employed to propagate it, that they allowed many false
notions to remain, lest prevailing prejudices should be shocked.
The inspiration of the apostles refuses to harmonise with the ac
commodation-system. But why insist upon the inspiration of the New Testament
writers ? The men whose exegetical conduct we condemn, vir
tually deny all inspiration. Rejecting that divine illumination
which secures infallibility, they look upon the sacred penmen in the
light of ordinary authors liable to err, and even in several respects
inconsistent with themselves. But we are willing to descend from
the high ground of inspiration to meet our opponents, contented
as we are to rest the weight and worth of the argument upon
the characters of the writers as intelligent men. Would wise
men have adopted the alleged course of action or writing ? When
they began to diffuse religious truth among all nations, and for
the benefit of all times, is it probable that they would choose as
the basis of their positions, the prevailing sentiments of the day,
however erroneous ? A mixture so incongruous had destroyed
the force, and annihilated the influence of the truth. Instead of
allowing the tenets of Christianity to be thus amalgamated with
crude and coarse ideas, it was needful to set it forth in such a
manner as to overwhelm and remove them. By lowering their
standard to the ignorance of the Jewish people, the apostles
must have seen, that the pure sentiments they inculcated would
be materially tarnished, and lose their distinctive character, or else
become incapable of separation from the mass of amalgamated

THE ACCOMMODATION SYSTEM. 205
«rror. If they really designed to promulgate a system contain
ing within itself the elements and essence of eternal truth, they
must have perceived, that it could not be linked to popular pre
judices and misconceptions, without material detriment to its spi
ritual genius. Had they been desirous to sink their character
and influence, they could not have chosen a more direct method
than that assumed by the accommodation-system. Nor is it easy
to perceive how this dissimulation tallies with the honesty which
cannot be denied to the original promulgators of our holy re
ligion. They were fearless in the cause of their Lord, whilst
exposed to perils and persecutions ; — having forsaken all world
ly prospects, attachment to friends, country, and kindred, they
hazarded their lives for the sake of a new religion. But had
they been so very prudent or accommodating, they would not
have jeoparded their persons, or exposed them to the rage of the
Jews. Yet they honestly told the truth ; — they boldly avowed
their determination to obey God rather than men. The policy
ascribed to them would have prompted a smoother course ; but
they chose it not. The counsel of God they durst not disguise ;
for, apart from the frown of Heaven, dissimulation must neces
sarily have stamped their characters with dishonesty, and their
doctrines with lasting reproach. We argue, therefore, that, as
intelligent, honest men, apart from all idea of their inspiration,
they could not have adapted the great truths of the gospel to
prevalent superstitions, for the sake of procuring them a fa
vourable reception, and obviating the offence they might create.
To demand our assent to the opinion, that the proper character
of the records so generally received as the depository of unalter
able truths was not understood for ages ; or that the design of
Jesus and his apostles remained unknown for seventeen hundred
years, is to demand belief in a moral impossibility. Not a hint
is given in the holy Scriptures themselves, that the Christian
teachers of after times were to break the shell which the weak
ness of an ilUterate age could not penetrate, and draw forth the
kernel from its place of concealment. Tradition itself affords no
trace of such a purpose on the part of Christ and his apostles.
It was no part of their procedure to lead men to truth through
the medium of error ; or to allow them to walk so long in dark
ness. Every view of the subject leads us to reject with indig
nation this exegetical canon. It introduces ambiguity into the
whole science of theology, because all the parts are so intimately

206 SYSTEMS OF INTERPRETATION.
connected, that when one is assailed or denied, others suffer with
it. It brings into revelation a universal scepticism, whose dark
and dreary mantle overshadows the entire region, annihilating
every thing positive, and extinguishing the dearest hopes of the
Christian. It is an irrational, anti-scriptural system, whose ten
dency and results are highly dangerous. Jesus and his apostles,
in establishing Christianity, never proceeded upon the principle
of retaining national superstitions and prejudices, as the founda
tions or accompaniments of its holy doctrines.
The Mythic Interpretation.
This system proceeds on the assumption, that the historical
facts of the Old and New Testaments were not actual occur
rences, but the dress which covers truths lying beyond the physi
cal world. Whatever appears strange or miraculous, such as the
appearances of angels, the history of creation, the account of
man's temptation and fall, &c., is regarded as a mythus, i. e. a
peculiar dress suited to the rude notions of the times in which the
writers lived. The ancient philosophers were accustomed to ex
plain the Homeric and other poems by assuming, that their nar
ratives were only the outward envelope in which doctrines and
truths were enwrapped. What the mind of the vulgar could not
have comprehended without simple narration, was made palpable
to its sensuousness in such a form. The following account of
mythi is given by Wegscheider. " Mythos sacros inteUigimus
narrationes in antiquissimis monumentis instituti alieujus religiosi
traditas, in quibus, ut est captus rudiorum ingeniorum, naturse
quajdam supra humanae naturse fastigium positse sic inducuntur
agentes, ut modo legibus naturse contrario nonnulla moliantur et
efficiant. Ejusmodi mythos, in religionibus paganorum, seque at
que in monumentis Judaicse et Christianse religionis antiquissimis
re ipsa reperiri, ab iis negari nequit, qui progressus disciplinarum
historicarum, philologicarum et philosophicarum non ignorant,
nee mentis quadam imbecillitate ducti easdem res iisdem nomini-
bus appellare dubitant. Deinde negari nequit, menti humanse
necessariam hanc legem esse propositam, ut omnia quse in orbe
terrarum sensibus subjiciuntur, referat ad nexum causarum et
temporis successu et in spatio agentium. Itaque omnes ejusmodi
mythi ad normam artis criticse atque historicse exigantur necesse
est ; etsi homines ii religionisque sensu imbuti, in iis non possunt
non divinam providentiam, naturalibus tamen prsesidiis ac causis

THE MYTHIC INTERPRETATION. 207
utentem, venerari et tacito quodam sensu agnoscere. Absque illo
autem examine fieri non posset, ut in antiquissimis libris super-
stitiosse narrationes a veris rerum eventibus dignoscerentur. Ac
nisi ejusmodi mythos in scriptura s. reperiri statuimus et veritatem
ipsam divinam in iis latentem ab externa narrationum forma et in-
volucro probe discernimus, librorum scripturse s. auctoritas contra
adversariorum calumnias et opprobria baud satis defendi potest.
In explicandis autem mythis biblicis hoc potissimum consider
andum est, librorum ss. auctoribus obversatam esse opinionem
theocratise cujusdam immediatse, vel potestatis divinse sive a Deo
ipso, sive per angelos administrates, et si quse inciderant mala
majora, sive physica sive moralia, ea in libris N. T. prsesertim,
ex opinione tunc temporis vulgari ad Satanam ejusque socios,
tanquam horum malorum primes quasi architectos et antistites,
referri. Accedit quod primse religionis Christianae origines in ista
tempora incidunt, quibus hominum animi htigihai/Mvla et miracu-
lorum opinione imbuti essent, ita, ut eventus prsesertim extraor-
dinarii, sed cum naturse legibus facile conciliandi, causas habere
extra rerum naturam constitutas (immediatas) comminiscerentur,
eumque errorem in ipsa rerum gestarum narratione proderent.
Neque ignorare licet, res memorabiles de Jesu atque apostolis in
libris N. T. narratas non nisi aliquot decenniis post illas gestas
litteris mandatas esse, ut mirum nemini videre debeat, interdum
angustiorem rerum speciem animis informatam narratoribus illu-
sisse." *
Agreeably to this representation, historical, philosophical,
etymological and poetical mythi have been discovered in the Old
Testament. According to Gabler, in his edition of Eichhorn's
Urgeschichte, the historical mythus relates an occurrence not as
it actually took place, but only in such a manner as it must have
appeared to a rude age, with its sensuous modes of thinking and
judging. Bauer, in his Hebrew mythology, gives as an example
the account of Abraham's offering up his son Isaac, and under
takes to strip off the marveUous.!
The philosophical mythus, in the opinion of Gabler, is of a
twofold kind. It was either derived from pure speculation ; or a
true history lay at the foundation, which some phUosopher of
antiquity had enlarged and dressed out with the fragments of
tradition into a consistent whole, agreeably to his own views and
* Institutiones, pars i. cap. ii, § 42 (a), pp. 156, 157, 5th edition, HaUe, 1826.
+ Hebraische jVIythologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments, vol, i. p. 245 et seq.

208 SY.STEMS OP INTERPRETATION.
purpose. Such is the account of the fall in the book of Genesis,
as explained by this sceptical writer, though Bauer, in conformity
with his account of philosophical mythi in general, classes the
same narrative among the purely fictitious.
Etymological mythi are compounded of the historical and phi
losophical, and belong to such as are called mixed.* They con
tain some historical truth with a measure of philosophical specu
lation. When this was founded on the etymological signification
of a word, it was denominated an etymological mythus. Bauer
gives as an example the narrative of the confusion of tongues at
Babel. Poetic mythi are fictions framed by the Hebrew poets to am
plify and adorn their writings. Jeremiah x. 13, and Ii. 16, are
said to be examples, where the winds are represented as shut up
in cells, from which Jehovah brings them forth at his sovereign
pleasure. These distinctions are not always the same in different au
thors ; nor have they been universally adopted. The boundaries
by which they are separated are arbitrary, one author explaining
as a historical, what another takes to be a philosophical mythus.
Since the prevalence of the Hegelian philosophy and its appli
cation to Scripture interpretation, but especially since the daring
work of Strauss! on the gospels, some of these divisions have
ceased. A subjective truth is generally regarded as forming
the essence of a mythus. Historical truth appears to be now
abandoned. No outward occurrence is sought as the basis ; but
a purely subjective idea is made to develope itself in the external
form which a mythus assumes.
The following explanation of the fall, narrated in Genesis, chap,
ii. 5-iii. 24, is given by B. Bauer. After alluding to the superflu
ous view of Von Bohlen, who finds the origin of the mythus in the
Persian document Bundehesch, he fixes the origin of the account
of the fall before the revelation of the Old Testament religion.
" The mythus is the expression of the self- consciousness of huma
nity in its state of transition into history. At this point, when it
quitted the primitive period of its consciousless condition, attained
to an anticipation of its delivery, and passed over into the historical
* Bauer's Heb. Mythol. i. p. 219 et seq.
f To this writer is attributed the merit of going deeper than his predecessors into
the essence of mythus, and of drawing a strict boundary Une between the proper or
philosophical, and the so-called historical mythus.

THE MYTHIC INTERPRETATION. . 209
age, it must have seen itself in a state of opposition to its own
emancipation. Its deliverance, determination, and leading desire
were not yet brought to maturity, being stUl opposed to the natu
ral, immediate state. The first anticipation of its own conscious
ness which humanity brought into the reign of history, must have
been followed, not only by an internal burst of consciousness,
but have itself appeared as that very outbreak. The origin of
the mythus regarding the fall is therefore founded on this — that
humanity represented this internal burst as a thing which took
place externally, in time. The mythus is the original form in
which the internal apprehension of the mind is objectively pre
sented as external history. Thus humanity took the outburst
between its leading volition and its actual, immediate, natural
condition in the past, as a longing after the state in which it
lived in undisturbed unity with its volitions; whilst in the strength
of its present decision, it saw the possibility of arriving at its de
sire, and in the future contemplated as its aim the carrying out
of its deliverance from and victory over the hostile power, which
was the first occasion of its bursting forth." * This is a specimen
of the refined, mythical interpretation adopted in the Hegelian
school. The Mosaic account of creation is also converted into a
mythus resembling the cosmogonies of ancient heathen nations,
in which ingenious men attempt to account for the origin of the
mundane system. So also the exaggerated memorials of the
founders of states, of benefactors, and of heroes, find their coun
terpart in the historic mythi introduced into the simple biogra
phies of the patriarchs and eminent saints under the Old Tes
tament. It is apparent, that the mythic treatment of Scripture was ori
ginally transferred from profane writings to the sacred books of
the Old Testament. " As gradual progress," says Meyer, him
self an advocate of mythi, " was made in the sciences ; as a more
complete theory of interpretation was gradually projected from a
careful and substantial treatment of other ancient writers, and it
became an object of increasing inquiry, how far such a theory
might be applicable to the sacred books ; as men, from a compa
rison of several other ancient nations, gradually attained to a more
intimate acquaintance with the spirit of antiquity and the charac
teristics of the people of former times ; in short, as the idea of
mythi and mythology was more closely examined, after all these
* Zeitschrift f lir Spokulativc Theologie, Dritten Bandes erste Heft, 1837, pp. 175, 0.
Dd

210 ¦ SYSTlO.MtJ OF INTERPRETATION.
previous labours, scholars began by degrees to rise to a more libe
ral view of the Old Testament writings, to consider them more
in the spirit of antiquity than hitherto, and no longer to reject
without examination, the question whether the Hebrews too had
a mythology, but to subject it to a more rigorous investigation." *
This mode of viewing the Old Testament may be referred to the
illustrious Heyne as its author,! who, though he did not occupy
himself with the application of mythi to the Old Testament, gave
several intelligible intimations that mythology should not be con
fined to profane literature. The idea was soon taken up, and mythi
were introduced into the inspired accounts of the origin of man and
the ancient histories of the Hebrew nation, by Eichhorn, Bauer,
Gabler, Schelling, Kanne, Meyer, Vater, De Wette, and the
Rationalists in general. In his Commentatio de ApoUodori Bib
liotheca, Heyne had laid down the position, that all the history,
as well as the philosophy of ancient times, arises out of mythi.
" A mythis omnis priscorum hominum cum historia tum philoso-
phia procedit, neque adeo is, qui aut historias antiquiorum seta-
tum tractat, aut philosophise origines et religionum caussas inves-
tigat, cursum recte suum instituere potest, nisi a mythis, tanquam
carceribus, progressus sit. Ita ad omne animi judicium gravis-
sima res est, ut de mythis ipsis notiones insideant mentibus verse
et explicatse."! Hence in order to arrive at the purely historic
element, the ancient narratives must be divested of their external
form, and the sentiments of their authors searched out. When
such a principle was carried into the Scriptures, all miraculous
phenomena were cleared away, and the sacred record reduced to
a level with the heterogeneous mythologies of heathen nations.
The book of Genesis, in particular, has suffered most from the
hands of the mythic expositors. The account of creation in the
first and second chapters, as also that of the fall in the second
and third, are affirmed to be mythi. The temptation of our first
parents by the serpent is nothing more than an attempt to ex
plain the moral corruption of human nature ; or something ana
logous to the unnatural view of it given by B. Bauer. In like
manner the deluge of Noah, and the destruction of the cities of
* Versuch einer Hermeneutik des Alten Testaments, vol. ii. § 216, pp. 552, 553.
f Before the time of Heyne, Semler spoke of a kind of Jewish mythology, and ex
pressly designated the accounts of Samson and Esther as mythi. Sec Ausfulirliche
Erklarung iiber Theol, Ccnsuren, Vorrede, Von freicr Untersuchung des Kanon, 2,
p, 2b2,
X F. iii. p. 923 et seq., Gottuigcn, 1783.

THE MYTHIC INTERPRETATION. 211
the plain, are merely designed to represent the judgments of God.
All difficulties vanish before such treatment. The appearances
of angels, the gracious converse of Jehovah with our first parents
and the patriarchs, and all events removed from the sphere of
daily experience, are thrust aside with irreverence, and certain
refined ideas dictated by philosophical systems substituted in their
room. By consulting the most complete treatise on mythus and
tradition which has perhaps appeared in Germany, viz. that of
George,* as also the late commentaries of Von Bohlen and Tuch
on Genesis, it will be readily perceived, that no little violence is
done to truth. Above all, the writings of Strauss,! and B. Bauer,!
will shew the essence of mythical interpretation as it is maintained
in modern Germany. Great advances are supposed to have been
made in the investigation of mythi since the researches of Eich
horn, Gabler, Paulus, and G. L. Bauer in the same field. The
earlier divisions have disappeared; and a much deeper insight
into the mysteries of the whole subject is thought to characterise
the present time. The cause of such advancement is justly at
tributed to philosophers more than to theologians — to Kant,
Schelling, Fichte, and Hegel, particularly the last. " The my
thus," says Tuch, " generally owes its deeper apprehension less
to theologians than to philosophers ;" and again, " the philosophy
of our time first gave a better and more satisfactory position for
the explanation of the mythus," |1
Nor has it been applied to the Old Testament alone. It has
also been brought into the New. In the year 1799, an anony
mous writer in a work on revelation and mythology, made an
extended application of the philosophical mythus to the life of
Jesus ; and G. L. Bauer, in 1802, wrote upon the mythology of
the New Testament. Liberal, however, as he was, others more
liberal still soon arose to prosecute the destructive work, so that
a reviewer of Paulus' commentary in Gabler's theological journal
(Gabler himself,) wonders that Bauer did not refer more of tlie
New Testament narratives to the head of mythi. §
The mythical treatment of the gospels has recently produced
in Germany two remarkable lives of Christ from the pens of
* Mythus und Sage ; Versuch einer wissenschaftl. Entvvickelung dieser Begriffe
und ihres Verhiiltnisses zum christi, Glauben, von J. F. L. George, Berlin, 1837.
\ Das Leben Jesu, Einleitung, 3d edition, § 8 - § 15,
X Zeitschrift fur Spekulative Theologie, dritten Bandes erstes Heft, pp, 12.5-210,
Berlin, 1837. || Commentar iiber die Genesis, HaUe, 1,^38, p. Cl.
§ See Gahlei's Journal fiir auserlesene Tlieol. Literatur. t. ii. p. i, pp, 40-59,

212 SYSTEMS OF INTERPRETATION,
Strauss and Weisse. The gospel narrative is represented as the
form, necessarily given to a religious idea universally prevalent,
from which form historical reality must be carefully separated.
The primitive age of Christianity is regarded as subject to the
law which characterises the infancy of the world's history, by
which the inward life is viewed as an external thing, and the
different aspects, so to speak, of the one great idea pervading
the entire period, appear as different historical facts. Thus the
historical form is necessary to every mythus ; but how far it is
founded in matters of fact, cannot now be determined, nor is it
of any importance, since matters of history cannot be preserved
in their purity. The reason why historical circumstances have
been used is, because they appeared to be a fit medium for sym
bolising an inivard history. According to this mode of reason
ing it is imagined, that the representation of the idea of the
absolute unity of God and man is promoted and facilitated by
what is recorded in the life and person of Jesus in the form of
facts. There was, however, no indispensable necessity for these
facts, for had there been none such, the spiritual idea would
have given rise to the entire form in which it should be set forth.
Hence it is inferred, that the historical reality of the facts re
lated cannot be proved.
In the life of Jesus by Strauss,* the foundation of the gospel
narrative is said to be the Jewish idea of the Messiah as ex
pressed and formed in its different aspects by the Old Testament
oracles. The history contained in the gospels is the strongest
proof of the power with which this idea pervaded the minds of
the Jews — an idea forming the centre of their political as well
as their religious life. The same idea, it is affirmed, moulded
and dressed out the historical points of Jesus' life, until they
formed themselves into a finished and complete copy of former
types and analogies. Thus, the account of the birth of Jesus at
Bethlehem is said to have had its basis in the prophetic notifi
cation of the city of David (Micah v. 2); — the narrative of the
magi coming from the East, originated in Numbers xxiv. 17,
where Balaam prophesies of a star out of Jacob ; in Isaiah 60th
chapter, where the remotest kings and people are depicted as
coming at a future period of the church to worship Jehovah at
Jerusalem, and present to him gold, frankincense, and all manner
* Das Leben Jesu, kritisoli bearbeitet von Dr. David Friedrich Strauss, 2 vols. 8vo,
3d edition, Tlibingen, 1838.

THE MYTHIC INTERPRETATION. 213
of gifts ; and in Psalm Ixxii., where a glorious king is described.
The account of the flight of Joseph and Mary with the child
Jesus into Egypt, and his escaping the cruelty of Herod, is re
ferred to Exodus U. 15, where the flight of Moses out of Egypt
is related. The murder of the infants in Bethlehem is supposed
to have its ground-form in Exodus i. 22, where Pharaoh com
mands all the male children of the Hebrews to be put to death ; "
and the narrative of the appearance of Jesus, when twelve years
old, in the temple, is referred to similar records of Samuel (1
Samuel, chap, iu.); Solomon (1 Kings iii. 23) ; and Daniel (Su
sanna, xlv., &c.)! From this representation it may be perceived,
that what constitutes both the key and essence of the New Tes
tament Christology is, in Strauss' own words — " an idea instead
of an individual is set forth as the subject of the predicates which
the church attributes to Christ."!
In the life of Jesus by Weisse, || the mythical system is some
what different. The religious idea is presented in its bare uni
versality, without any limitation of external form, or an incor
poration into itself of the local and national. In the work of
Strauss, the idea is attached to historical circumstances, its uni
versality being thus as it were contracted and concentrated into
a definite time and place ; whereas a higher position is assumed
by Weisse, who presents it in its pure universality, apart from
historical conditions or circumscriptions. According to the latter,
the idea of that divine process — the revelation of God in man,
which extends through all epochs of the world's history, attains
its height and completion in Christ. Hence it is said, that the
genealogies in Matthew and Luke do not afford any evidence of
the actual descent of Jesus from David, but merely represent the
worldly, historical connexion between the old dominion of Israel
and the salvation which had just appeared. § Joseph is neither
the real father nor the stepfather of Jesus, but in his person is
symbolically represented the relation which Judaism bore to Chris
tianity — analogous to that of a stepfather to his son.^ The my
thus respecting the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit and of the
virgin- birth, is the symbol of the incorporation of the divine with
* See sections 34, 36, 36, pp. 279-314, vol. i. 3d edition.
t § 40, p- 361 etc. X Vol. ii. § 149, p. 707.
II Die Evangelische Geschichte, kritisch und philosophisch bearbeitet, von Ch,
Hermann Weisse, 2 vols. 8vo, Leipzig, 1838.
§ Pp. 168, 172, vol. i. H Pp. 172, 173,

214 SY'STEMS OP INTERPRETATION,
humanity. * John the Baptist is only a mythic representative
of the idea of the collective body of the Jewish prophets in
their relation and alliance, as also in their essential opposition, to
Christ.! His late birth merely denotes how new ideas are wont
to appear only after those which may be called their ancestors be
gin to be old and powerless.! The dumbness of Zacharias sym
bolises the dumbness of the priestly wisdom of the Israelites in
consequence of their unbelief in the promises of God, which
dumbness ceased, when the old prophecies began to be fulfilled.!
The consanguinity of Elizabeth and Mary is merely a symbo
lical representation of what is spiritually allied. § The leaping of
the child in the womb of Elizabeth vehen the two mothers met,
represents the truth, that when touched by a higher spirit the
ideas which lie yet unborn in the spiritual womb of a people or
world begin to shew themselves active, and to exhibit the first
signs of life. ^ The narrative respecting the night, the manger,
the shepherds, the angels, &c. at the birth of Jesus, symbolises
" the birth of the divine in simple and ecclesiastical humanity,
the consciousness which throws its dawning light over the in
born spirit of God in the spirit of man, as the latter turns back
from the knowledge of the culture-life and the world's history,
into its primitive pure nature- form." **
The mythical treatment of the gospels may be considered as a
result of the application of Hegel's philosophy to the interpreta
tion of Scripture. There the subjective and objective — the ideal
and the a posteriori flow together in indissoluble union ; every
idea presents itself in a historical form, and developes itself in
a variety of historical points. The fundamental position of the
mythic interpretation is, in the words of Strauss, either " the di
vine cannot have taken place in such a way — or that which has
so taken place, cannot have been divine."!! It is therefore ne
cessary to deviate from the historic sense, in order, as is sup
posed, to maintain the dignity and divine origin of Scripture.
Here it coincides with allegorical exegesis. That the absolute
truth of Scripture narratives be retained, it is deemed indispen
sable to renounce their historic truth. The representation of
objects and events given in the word of God is separated from
actual reality. Although, therefore, an interpretation of the lan
guage is useful for determining how far the text is to be treated
* P, 180. t P. 189. X P. 191. II P, 196. § P. 200.
•il P. 201. ** P. 208. +t Vol. i. p. 2,

THE MYTHIC INTERPRETATION, 215
as history or mythus, this is regarded as a mere preliminary pro
cedure of subordinate and historical interest, preparing the way
for the higher investigation of truth. When an examination of
the text shews that the sacred writer was under a spiritual illu
sion which prevented him from keeping apart object and subject,
the inquirer must proceed to a higher step, where critical inves
tigation begins to separate from the author's representation that
objective truth which is more or less remotely allied to it.
To all who entertain a true regard for revelation considered as
a divine system, it is superfluous to say, that the mythical in
terpretation is untenable, erroneous, and impious. With infernal
zeal it sets itself to destroy the sacred character and truth of the
books of Scripture. But the Bible is historical to such a degree
as not to submit to this treatment, without losing its essential
characteristics. It is true that mythi are interwoven with the
histories of all heathen nations. They originated at a time when
there was no authentic or true history. But the Scripture con
tains a system of doctrine based upon history, available for the
instruction and moral renovation of men. If we strip it of its
history, we takeaway the doctrine also ; or reduce it at least to a
meagre skeleton, without flesh and blood and vitality. We fritter
away its contents to a shadow devoid of substance or solidity,
where nothing is left but the few moral truths which each inter
preter is pleased to deduce from the record. The Jewish religion
as developed in the Old Testament was unfavourable to mythi.
They could not have been introduced into the sacred books unless
it be affirmed that prophets and inspired men wrote at random,
without the superintendence of the Spirit. To intersperse their
compositions with such legends is contrary to all our ideas of in
spiration ; and can only be attributed to them by such as deny
their spiritual illumination. Nor is there any similarity between
the Grecian mythi and those alleged to exist in the Old Testa
ment. The former have no natural connexion with one another;
they stand separate and isolated; whilst the narratives of the
latter, from Moses to the latest prophet, form a continuous, con
nected series without a parallel in the mythology of any nation.
It is also observable, that the sacred records are briefer in pro
portion to their antiquity; thus furnishing a presumption, that
they were not ornamented at a later period with a fabulous dress,
or enlarged in adaptation to the rude notions of a vulgar people.
Such conciseness as is found at the commencement of the Mosaic

216

SYSTEMS OF INTERPRETATION.

writings would not have appeared, had mythi constituted the en
tire history. The more barljarous the times, the more diffuse and
gaudy should the mythi have been to suit the prevaiUng taste.
There is therefore no similarity between profane mythology and
that which has been attributed to the Bible.
The introduction of mythi into the New Testament, is still
more unscientific, improbable, and pernicious. The time at which
Jesus appeared on earth was not a time of ignorance in the his
tory of the world. It stands historicaUy defined, distinct from
the fabulous periods that belong to the origin of nations. The
Augustan era of literature was one of light and knowledge, un
favourable to the composition of mythi. Authentic history had
long before commenced her career of sober investigation, and
shaken off the rubbish of superstition accumulated amid the dark
ness of barbarous times. Her vision had been purified ; she no
longer saw men, as trees, walking. The cradle of Christianity,
as has been well said, was watched and guarded by so many his
torically authenticated persons, that it furnishes no similarity to a
mythic age. In the New Testament, every thing connected with
the history of Jesus is so simple and unadorned — so artlessly re
lated — so remote from strained effort, that it were preposterous
to suppose the existence of myths. The writers are plain men
in humble circumstances, the purity of whose motives cannot be
questioned. Their great object is simply to set forth to the
world the divine founder of Christianity just as he spoke and
acted. There is no mythical dress thrown around occurrences ;
fictitious ornaments beseemed neither the majesty of the master
whom the writers followed, nor their own artless habits of life
and cogitation. They did not belong to the philosophers of their
day, but to the humblest ranks of uneducated life ; nor did they
know the favourite decorations in which mythological writers
wrapped up unpalatable truths. We need not stop to point out
the numberless hypotheses introduced into the domain of true
history by such a system ; or the spirit of universal scepticism
it has unhappily engendered. The most important parts of the
world's history are unsettled ; for where shall we look for credible
accounts of the nations of antiquity except in the Bible ? His
torical truth disappears before such treatment, and leaves nought
but disorder behind.
As the work of Strauss has excited a great sensation on the
continent, it may be useful to mention the chief replies to it that

THE RATIONALLSTIC MODE OF INTERPRETATION, 217
have appeared. The Ufe of Jesus* by the pious, profound, and
truly learned Neander, may be considered as furnishing the most
powerful antidote to the pernicious views of Strauss and Weisse,
although the references to the latter are but few.! Tholuck! and
Krabbe, || have also triumphantly vindicated the credibility of the
gospel history, by exposing the bold and blasphemous assertions
of the sceptical Strauss, in a manner well adapted to promote the
righteous cause of truth.
The Rationalistic Mode of Interpretation.
Rationalism has so many varieties that it is difficult to define
it, or to describe its prominent features. According to Bretsch
neider and others, it should not be confounded with naturalism,
although they were so far identical that the same appellation was
given to both. Thus Fritzsche defines Rationalists to be " those,
who even in matters belonging to religion, refer every thing to
reason and its law alone;" and adds, that " they were formerly
caUed Naturalists.'' Knapp has followed this phraseology when
he says, " Human reason is not, according to the doctrine of the
Bible, the sole source of the truths of religion, as if man were
to deduce them from nature alone. He who maintains this is a
Naturalist, i. e. he will recognise only nature, partly that within
himself, and partly that external nature by which he is surrounded,
as the source of reUgious truth." § It would appear that Na
turalism, according to the present use of the term, is either Pan
theism, as Rohr understands it, or materialism, according to
Wegscheider. It recognises nothing but the religion of nature,
or pure Deism, as found in the works of the English free-thinkers.
But Rationalism acknowledges the doctrine of Scripture as a di
vine revelation, and brings it to the standard of human reason,
or a system of philosophy supposed to exhibit the results of pure
reason. Wegscheider, in his Institutiones Theologicce, a work
reckoned the text-book of Rationalism, describes it thus: " Doc-
* Das Leben Jesu Christi in seinem gesehichtlichen Zusammenhange und seiner
gesehichtlichen Entwickelung, dargestellt von Dr. August. Neander. Dritte und
Verbesserte Auflage, Hamburg, 1839, 8vo.
+ See pp. 14, 21, 41, 636.
X Die Glaubwiirdigkeit der evangelischen Geschichte, 2d ed. 8vo, Hamburg, 1839.
II Vorlesungen iiber das Leben Jesu, fur Theologen und Nichttheologen, von Dr.
Otto ICrabbe, Hamburg, 1839, 8vo.
§ Vorlesungen iiber die Christi. Glaubenslehre, part i. p. 31, Halle, 1837. Rose
on the State of Protestantism in Germany, 2d edition, pp. 21, 22 (Advertisement.)
E e

218 SYSTEMS OP INTERPRETATION.
trina de necessitate religionis ideis, per rectain rationem homini
a Deo manifestatis, unice fidem habendi et, summa rationi aucto
ritate vindicata, revelationis cujusque opinatse supernaturalis ar
gumentum, non nisi ad leges cogitandi agendique a Deo insitas
exactum probandi."* " Philosophical criticism," says Bretsch
neider, " is an investigation of doctrinal teachings, according to
the system of universal rational truths, or according to the re
lation of these teachings to the religious ideas given to human
reason by the Creator. Its office is to compare the doctrines of
dogmatic theology with these ideas, and the subordinate positions
arising out of them, and to point out their agreement or opposi
tion. It regards either the philosophical possibility of doctrines,
satisfied with shewing that the doctrines may be true, because
they do not clash with the truths of reason, without at the same
time finding a ground for holding them to be true (negative cri
ticism :) Or, again, it has to do with the philosophical truth of
these doctrines, proving that even from the principles of reason,
they may be assumed as true on the one hand, or rejected as
false on the other (positive criticism.) Opinions are greatly di
vided with regard to the admissibility of this criticism. Some
pronounce it untenable, because the doctrine of Scripture is a
divine revelation, and as such raised above the decisions of hu
man reason, which is the assertion of Supranaturalism ; others
look upon such criticism as tenable, though the doctrine of Scrip
ture be a revelation from God. The latter is the allegation of
Rationalism, which must not be confounded with Natural
ism." X The Rationalists generally take a system of philosophy
to which, as a touchstone, they bring the doctrines of revelation.
Whatever parts of the Bible appear to be inconsistent with this
standard, are discarded from their creed. It does not seek in the
Bible the ideas of the sacred writers, but those of a favourite
philosopher viewed as the products of pure reason. This ac
counts for the varying aspects of rationaUsm according to the
current of the prevailing philosophy. The Wolfian philosophy,
which aimed at demonstrating the reality of religious ideas from
the conceptions of reason, had its advocates for a considerable
time, among whom were Canz, J. S. Baumgarten, Reinbeck, and
Carpov.t The Kantian philosophy, which represented belief in
' Caput, i. § 11, pp. 39, 40.
f Handbuch der Dogmatik, Vierte Aufgabe, Leipzig, 1838, 2 vols. 8vo, pp. 71, 72.
X For the influence of the Woltian philosophy upon theology, see Pusey's Histori-

THE RATIONALISTIC MODE OF INTERPRETATION. 219
the reality of religious ideas as the postulate of practical reason,
and gave rise to the so-called moral interpretation, was followed
by Tieftrunk, Schmid, and Schmidt. The Fichtian philosophy,
which was idealism, regarding all objective being as real only
in our subjective ideas, and thus denying the existence of a Su
preme Being, which Fichte resolved into the notion of a sub
jective moral arrangement of the world, was not expressly made
the foundation of any system of theology. The phUosophy of
Schelling* has been appUed to Christian theology by Daub and
Schwarz. Schleiermacher had a peculiar philosophy of his own,
formed out of Plato and Schelling,! but he can scarcely be classed
among the Rationalists, though he was far from being evange
lical. He may be said to have occupied middle ground between
true Biblical theologians on the one hand, and the prevailing
aspect of Rationalism on the other. Even sound and able di
vines lean too much to philosophy. So Twesten and Nitzsch
follow Schleiermacher. The philosophy of Hegel! is now the
prevailing and fashionable system in Germany, commanding the
assent, and calling forth the energies of the highest minds. ||
What havoc has been made in the interpretation of the Scrip
tures may be readily conceived, when we consider, that philo
sophical systems essentially atheistical have been applied to
theology. We instinctively shudder at the daring impiety which
has no regard for God and his word.
The system of interpretation followed by the Rationalists may
be briefly described as exhibiting the same treatment of the sa
cred books as of the Greek and Latin classics. It proceeds on
the assumption, that both should be subjected to a like analysis.
Whatever is supposed to contradict reason, is summarily dis
carded. All that squares not with a preconceived system of phi
losophy is pronounced erroneous. An external standard is set
up to which Scripture must bend. The positive parts of theology
in particular are cast into the shade, or put entirely out of view ;
cal Enquiry into the probable causes of the Rationalist character lately predominant
in the Theology of Germany, p. 114 et seq., but especially Tholuck's A'oriss einer
Geschichte der Umw'alzung, welche seit 1750 aufdem Gebiete der Theologie in Deutsch-
land statt gefunden, in his vermischte ScnniFTEN, Zweiter Theil. pp. 10-23.
* See Baur's Gnosis, pp. 611-26. f Do. pp. 626-668.
X Compare Baur's Gnosis, pp. 668-740, for a copious and accurate survey of this
philosophy. II Bretschneider not inaptly denominates Spinoza's system spiritual Pantheism ;
EchelUng'^i, natural Pantheism ; and Hegel's, ideal Pantheism.

220 SYSTEMS OF INTERPRETATION.
— the higher and more sublime discourses are not infrequently
handled with little ceremony, as though they were the offspring of
heated imaginations ; the mysterious is rejected as overstrained ;
and the marvellous explained on natural principles, or agreeably
to the genius of Eastern allegory which delights to throw a pe
culiar garb around ordinary events. Thus a warfare is carried
on against every thing peculiar in revelation, especially against
miracles and prophecy, until little of a positive character is left,
or till it has been rifled of its most precious jewels. Possessed
of no real reverence for the sacred documents, and destitute of
humility in its approaches to the fountains of heavenly truth.
Rationalism comes not to drink of the pure waters and be satis
fied, but to disturb their placidity and to lessen the enjoyment of
such as drink at the same hallowed source. It suffers little of a
purely religious nature to stand in the Bible; and even that
which it leaves untouched, is so affected by the breath of its scep
ticism, as to yield no salutary or solid nutriment to the hungry
spirit. It levels the mountains of God into plains, and removes
the ancient land-marks which ages have justly venerated. Nor
does it spare the holiest discourses of Jesus, but reduces even
these to barrenness by the withering blight of its presence.
A few specimens of exposition, according to the Rationalistic
mode, will serve to place it in a clearer light. The 52d and
53d chapters of Isaiah refer to the sufferings and vicarious death
of the Messiah, as is proved by various quotations and unques
tionable allusions. To say nothing of the obviousness of this
fact to the readers of the Old Testament, it is sufficiently con
firmed by the writers of the New. But the Rationalists of Ger
many do not adopt it. They refer the chapters in question to
another than the Messiah. Thus StaudUn thinks that Isaiah
himself is the subject ; Eckermann, Paulus, and Schuster, the
Jewish people, or at least, the better portion of them ; Augusti,
Iving Uzziah ; Gabler, De Wette, Gesenius, and Bretschneider,
the collective body of the prophets. Such is the respect paid to
the sacred writers by Rationalism.
In the New Testament it is recorded that Christ's ascension to
heaven took place in a visible manner. But according to the
Rationalist exegesis it did not happen visibly. How then, it may
be asked, are Mark xvi. 29, and Acts i. 9-12, explained? Do
they not teach the manner in which the ascension took place ? It
is admitted that they do teach it, but because the other New

THE RATIONALISTIC MODE OF INTERPRETATION. 221
Testament writers, especiaUy Paul and John, do not relate it in
the same words, and from previous conceptions of the impossibi
lity of Christ's glorified body being restored to Ufe, it is concluded,
that Mark and Luke followed a later tradition, or a historic my
thus. So Ammon, Gabler, Wegscheider, De Wette, and Bret
schneider expound the narrative, and unceremoniously set aside
the testimony of two inspired writers. Other examples of analo
gous explanation might be selected, but these wiU suffice to shew
the nature of Rationalistic exegesis. We have chosen two of the
most moderate. According to Eichhorn and others, the prophecies
of the Old Testament are nothing but shrewd guesses — the
miracles performed by Jesus and his apostles natural occurrences.
In this way inspiration vanishes before the wand of a reckless
system, and the Bible is reduced to the level of human composi
tions. Reason is enthroned in the seat of supremacy, whence its
mandates issue with authoritative voice, whUe the voice of heaven
is unheeded amid its capricious decisions. The divine fabric of
revealed truth is brought down to the ground; — its fair propor
tions are all destroyed ; but none other like to it is reared. Such
a mode of interpretation must be wholly reprobated. We must
place ourselves in determined opposition to its infidelity, else we
shall have " no word of God" left us. Surely it is the offspring
of the evil one — a lying vanity, by which he has unhappily de
ceived many.*
Having thus briefly described the different methods of inter
pretation which have obtained in Germany, it is proper to state,
* "Rationalism — the over- weening eclectic, which, because it wishes to hold the
proper balance between naturalism and the faith of the gospel, takes out of this or
that philosophical system as much as appears to it a sufficient preservative against
losing the credit of sound understanding with reference to the reading of the holy
Scriptures. It may not deny that the Bible should be called a revelation in a certain
sense, and be reckoned a source of intellectual and moral truth in so far as these aire
apparent in the/brm of Christianity, But reason (it remains indefinite whether it be
individual or collective reason which is a mere ideal thing) reason, it cries, is of itself
a competent expounder of Scripture, and every thing in revelation not accordant with
it, must be rejected or set aside. Yes, truly — reason is the interpreter of Scripture
— we too who believe do not expound it by our hands and bones — but not reason
by itself, but when it is under the guidance of the Holy Spirit — enlightened rea
son — not the blind principle which would prefer its native darkness to the light —
which will not learn but be always teaching — which measures things divine by its
short and deceitful measuring-reed — this bond-slave of unbelief will never perceive
that the wheel of its cogitations and sentiments is driven round by pride and hatred
against God." Unglaube, Glaube, Neuglaube, von Franz Delitzsch, in Rudelbach and
Guerike's Zeitschrift fur die gesammte Lutherische Theologie und Kirche — Erstes
Quartidheft for 1840, pp. 82, S3.

222 SYSTEMS OF INTERPRETATION.
that the Rationalistic mode is often spoken of as including the
accommodation-system, the psychological, and the mythical.
Rationalism is thus used as a comprehensive appellation embra
cing every system of theology which is based upon philosophy.
For general purposes this representation may be allowed, though
it is scarcely possessed of sufficient definiteness, and would be ob
jected to by those who are best acquainted with the system in the
land of its growth.
The accommodation-system succeeded the revolutionary wri
tings of Bahrdt, Basedow, Cannabic, and others, which arose
under the combined influence of the Wolfian philosophy and
French infidelity. When it was found, that eclecticism and
eudaemonism,* the fruits of the Wolfian philosophy, could not
be reconciled with dogmatic theology, recourse was had to the
accommodation-system which removed from the field of reve
lation whatever appeared untenable on philosophical grounds.
But the arbitrary, unnatural explanations of the latter, incon
sistent as they were seen to be with right principles of inter
pretation, soon led to Rationalism properly so called, which
claims to be a consistent system. At this time it based itself on
the Kantian philosophy. But the form it then assumed is now
fallen into disrepute with the learned, being styled the Vulgar
Rationalism, because it is chiefly confined to the common people.
The present prevaiUng form in Germany rests on the philosophy
of Hegel. The majority of theologians, who do not follow the
Bible as their only standard, embrace and zealously promote Ra
tionalism as thus moulded. Still it has recourse in all its aspects
to positive accommodation, mythi, and even naturalism, when
they appear to offer a welcome solution of any problem. It is
therefore a compound made up of different parts of these systems,
rather than a consistent development of any one. It appears
somewhat variously in the writings of different advocates, ex. gr,
Wegscheider, Bretschneider, De Wette, according to the particu
lar philosophy adopted ; though it professes all the while to lie
a compacted whole. The Pietist System of Interpretation.
According to this system the sacred text is in a great measure
* The views of those who believe, that God's end in creation was, that all sentient
beings should enjoy as much happiness as they are capable of, according to their sub
jective capacity and the relations they sustain.

THE PIETIST SYSTEM OP INTERPRETATION. 223
overlooked, and estabUshed rules of interpretation neglected, ^^'ith
it the inward light (lumen internum) is the regulating prin
ciple. This alleged internal inspiration furnishes explanations
independently of scientific investigation. The written word is
tacitly supplanted, and the necessity of learning virtually denied.
Impulses of feeling and subjective views are raised above the
literal sense. The right understanding of the holy oracles is sub
ordinated to individual impressions. Thus the Quakers, and some
of the Pietists in Germany regard the external words of Scripture
as incomplete and inefficient, referring everything to that internal
light which guides to true faith and a pure morality. Hence the
feelings, rather than the understanding, are consulted and fol
lowed. The mode of interpretation to which we refer has been
chiefly based upon a mistaken application of 1 John ii. 20, 27.
"But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all
things. But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth
in you : and ye need not that any man teach you : but as the
same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no
lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him."
The objections to which this method of exegesis is exposed are
obvious. It affords an open door to vague and arbitrary mean
ings in the words of Scripture, according to the fancies of indi
vidual expositors. Without certainty or definiteness, it contains
within itself no settled principle. Fanatical opinions of the wild
est nature may spring up and grow luxuriantly in such a soil.
Dreams, engendered in the imagination, are at once referred to
the Holy Spirit, though they may have no support in the Uteral
record. It is natural to infer that the inward illumination pro
ceeding from God should furnish the same explanation to all. If
it really come from above, it ought to yield uniform and infalli
ble instructions. But experience testifies, that the most opposite
interpretations have been given by such as advocate the principle
in question. It is in reality an uncertain guide, and cannot be
supposed to emanate from the Spirit, merely because the pietist
refers it to such a source. It amounts to nothing more than the
subjective ideas of each individual. Hence arise the varying re
sults to which it leads. God does not grant inward revelations
apart from the written word ; or bestow another revelation
which supersedes the necessity of diligent inquiry into the mean
ing of the one already committed to writing.
The system is a defection from the truth. A great and im-

224 SYSTEMS OP INTERPRETATION.
portant idea lies at the foundation of it, obscured, however, and
distorted, so as to lose all prominence. Conversion is necessary
to the attainment of a right knowledge of the word of God. The
light of God's spirit within, casts its welcome rays on the pages of
the Bible, enabling the beUever to see the truth as it is in Jesus.
In so far as this idea is recognised and insisted on by the Pietists,
they uphold an indubitable and invaluable fact. If, however,
it gave birth to the system, it soon lost its native character amid
the errors engrafted upon it. The first Pietists of Germany were
men of God, whose names we revere and honour. Spener and
Francke were able as well as practical men. They laboured ar
dently and earnestly to give a practical tone to theology. But
the system they pursued was afterwards altered — it became as
sociated, and at last almost identified with fanaticism. In its
present form it has lost all scientific character, and pursues an
eccentric path of its own.*
* For the allegorical system of interpretation, see above, p. 67 et seq.

( 225 )

CHAPTER VIII.
THE PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION STATED AND EXEMPLIFIED.

The question now arises, what mode of interpretation do we pro
fess to adopt ? Among numerous systems, how are we to choose
that which is right ? We follow the method which has been
called grammatico-historical. This alone we conceive to be
founded in truth, and sanctioned by the Scriptures themselves.
The grammatico-historical sense is made out by the application
of gramrnatical and historical considerations. Hence it has re
ceived the compound appellation, first given it, we believe, by
Keil. The great object to be ascertained is the usus loquendi,
embracing the laws or principles of universal grammar which form
the basis of every language. These are nothing but the logic of
the mind, comprising the modes in which ideas are formed, com
bined, and associated, agreeably to the original susceptibilities of
the intellectual constitution. They are the physiology of the
human mind as exemplified practically by every individual. Ge
neral grammar is wont to be occupied however with the usage of
the best writers ; whereas the laws of language as observed by
the writers of Scripture should be mainly attended to by the
sacred interpreter, even though the phUosophical grammarian may
not admit them all to be correct. It is the usu,s loquendi of the
inspired authors which forms the subject of the grammatical prin
ciples recognised and foUowed by the expositor. The grammar
he adopts is deduced from the use of the language employed in
the Bible. This may not be conformed to the practice of the
best writers — it may not be philosophically just ; but he must
not therefore pronounce it erroneous.
The modes of expression used by each writer — the utterances
of his mental associations, constitute his usus loquendi. These
form his grammatical principles ; and the interpreter takes them
as his own in the business of exegesis. Hence too there arises a
special, ds well as a universal grammar.
Now we attain to a knowledge of the peculiar usus loquendi
rf

226

THE PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION

in the way of historical investigation. The religious, moral,
and psychological ideas, under whose influence a language has
been formed and moulded, — all the objects with which the wri
ters were conversant, and the relations in which they were placed,
are traced out historically. The costume of the ideas in the
minds of the BibUcal authors, originated from the character of
the times, country, place, and education under which they acted.
Hence, in order to ascertain their peculiar usus loquendi, we should
know all those institutions and influences whereby it was formed
or affected.
Grammatical and historical interpretation when rightly under
stood are synonymous. The special laws of grammar, agreeably
to which the sacred writers employed language, were the result of
their peculiar circumstances ; and history alone throws us back
into these circumstances. A new language was not made for the
authors of Scripture ; — they conformed to the current language
of the country and time. Their compositions would not have
been otherwise inteUigible. They took up the usus loquendi as
they found it, modifying it, as is quite natural, by the relations
internal and external amid which they thought and wrote.
Many writers in Germany take the phrase historical interpre
tation in a lax and dangerous application. They think it suffi
cient to inquire into the genius or character of each writer, — the
prevailing opinions of his time, especially those concerning reli
gious subjects, — the nature of the things themselves about which
he wrote, &c. &c., — and interpret accordingly. But the authors
of Scripture indited divine communications for the use of all
men and all times. They received them from the Holy Ghost,
not as the mere echo of current notions, but as high and holy
revelations of God. Their doctrines regulated the right theo
logy of the times and places to which they belonged ; and the
national sentiments may have been wholly erroneous. It is true,
that in ascertaining the mode of their statements, historical cir
cumstances are of essential benefit ; but historical interpretation,
as understood by Neologists, localises reUgion by making it a
thing of one age, and one country. It should never be for
gotten, that it is the express communication of Heaven, intended
for all times, places, and human beings. We shall have very im
perfect ideas of its nature, by limiting the sense of certain pas
sages to that deduced from them by the persons to whom the
writings were originally addressed . They frequently misunderstood

STATED AND EXEMPLIFIED. 227
the real meaning ; and it is therefore absurd to make their minds
the standard of our interpretations. Because they attached a cer
tain idea to a word, we should not forthwith conclude, that it is
the proper idea intended by the Spirit. The student of Scrip
ture must beware of this abuse of historico-grammatical inter
pretation, and guard against the dangerous supposition, that be
cause a term had already a certain signification when it was used
by the New Testament writers, it must have retained the same
signification, when applied to express the doctrines of revelation.
Though they generally employed current terms, to designate
the doctrines of which they wrote, yet they made a new appli
cation of them, — an application to new subjects to which the
words had not been subjected before. In this way the terms ac
quired a new sense, though their generic signification may have
remained unchanged.
In connection with this point we observe, that each word has
but one signification in a particular place. No one term has two
senses at the same time. It is contrary to all analogy to assume,
that any other meaning than one, was really intended. If this
remark be just, two different modes of exposition cannot be
adopted. One mode only must be applied, viz. the historico-
grammatical. The historical interpreter and the grammatical
interpreter do not pursue separate, distinct methods of procedure ;
— they follow the same path, and are occupied with the same
thing. It is quite erroneous to make historical and grammati
cal exposition different things. The grammatical meaning is the
same with the historical ; and both constitute all the meaning in
tended by the Holy Spirit. When the grammatical or histori
cal meaning of a passage is ascertained, all the theology of the
passage is also known.
We come now to speak more particularly of the manner in
which the sense of the sacred text is discovered. The basis of
all interpretation is a thorough knowledge of the usus loquendi
of the languages employed in the expression of ideas. How then
is the usus loquendi of a dead language ascertained ?
\st. From the works of those who lived when it was current,
and to whom it was vernacular. Thus, in investigating the
meaning of a term, we naturally consult the writer himself by
whom it was used. He may give a definition of the word in
question. Or, its connexion may probably explain it; or again,
parallel passages point out its signification with sufficient clear-

228 THE PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION
ness. If we do not find its signification in the author himself,
we have recourse to some other writer who employed the same
language. 2dly, From the traditional knowledge of the usus loquendi,
retained partly in ancient versions, partly in commentaries and
lexicons. Zdly, From writers who employed a cognate dialect.
These are general principles applicable to all languages. They
are the true means of discovering the legitimate usage of every
tongue which has ceased to be spoken.
We shall now speak of them in their connexion with the ori
ginal languages of Scripture.
In regard to the first, it is well known, that a writer in the
Old or New Testament occasionally furnishes a definition or
explanation of the words he employs, either at the place where
they first occur, or in some other position. Thus Moses, in Gene
sis xiv. 14, interprets T'S'^Jn by "iriO ''~}f>\ domestics ov servants
born in his house. So also St. Matthew explains Immanuel,
God with us. Again, a parallel passage in the work of the same
writer may serve to give the proper signification of a term, or
the meaning of a phrase.
2dly, In relation to the Hebrew, we have the Septuagint, the
Chaldee versions or Targums, the Peshito or old Syriac, the
Latin and the Arabic versions, with several others ; as also the
Greek translations of Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, and the
Venetian version ; and the works of the Jewish Rabbins, Jarchi,
Aben Ezra, Kimchi, and Tanchum of Jerusalem.
In the New Testament, we have the two Syriac versions, the
Latin, the Arabic, and some others ; the profane writers, Poly-
bius, Diodorus Siculus, Arrian, Herodian, &c., embracing gene
rally such as wrote in the xoivri didXsxTog ; the writings of Josephus
and Philo; the works of the scholiasts and early lexicographers;
the catense and commentaries of the Greek fathers.
3dly, A knowledge of the usus loquendi of the Hebrew language
is to be derived in part from authors who wrote in cognate dia
lects, such as the Chaldee, Syriac, and Arabic.
Of these three sources, the first is obviously the most im
portant and satisfactory. It ought, therefore, to be most relied
on. The others are rather confirmatory of the meaning when
partially ascertained, than original helps to the first discovery
of it.

STATED AND EXEMPLIFIED. 229
After ascertaining the usus loquendi of the Hebrew language,
chiefly from the various writers of the Old Testament, and after
noting its features, constructions, and laws, we should next ob
serve the particular usus loquendi belonging to different periods
of its history. Descending still farther to minuteness, the usage
of each writer ought to be marked. The style and diction of
the various authors present instructive diversities, such as require
nice discrimination on the part of an interpreter.
In the New Testament the writers are also characterised by
peculiarities of diction, which an attentive reader will not fail to
perceive. And here there is one feature of the Bible which distinguishes
it from all uninspired compositions, viz, that its different parts,
though proceeding from different authors, at various times, must
all be regarded as one connected, harmonious whole. They are
virtually the work of one. Communicated by the Spirit to men,
they must strictly coincide in meaning. Hence, in case of the
Scriptures, we give an extension to the first source which offers
no violence to its true import. Though it might be thought im
proper to class the Old and New Testaments together, from the
distances of time between the inspired penmen, and the two lan
guages, yet they approach the character of works written in one
and the same tongue. They thus assist in explaining the terms
occurring in one another, because it was the design of the Holy
Spirit that they should be mutually illustrative. In accordance
with this peculiarity, we class the Old Testament with the New,
as if both were written in the same language. The usus loquendi
of the Hebrew and the Greek unitedly serves to ascertain that of
each in its separate capacity.
Such are the means employed in acquiring a knowledge of the
two languages in which the Bible was originally written. It is
not necessary, in most cases, to investigate the meaning of a single
term by them all. Men have come to acquiesce in certain sig
nifications belonging to words ; knowing that they have been
already verified by every legitimate method. It would ordinarily
be a superfluous task to reiterate the process which independent
lexicographers, especially the earliest, must have laboriously pur
sued. It were superfluous, for example, to prove, that the Greek
word v\iiu/jM signifies wind; because all agree in assigning to it
such a meaning. The mode by which men came first to know
that wind was one signification of 'Trviv/^a, need not now be parti-

230 THE PRINCIPLES OP INTERPRETATION
cularised or repeated by interpreters. This were a work of super
erogation. What is especially incumbent on the expositor is, to
discover, amid the various significations of a term, that one which
ought to be adopted in a particular passage. His great object is
to ascertain the sense attached to it by the writer in a given place.
When it is once acknowledged as indisputable that it has different
meanings, he does not seek to prove again that which is already
demonstrable. So also with respect to clauses. As soon as the
expositor sees that they are susceptible of various senses, his busi
ness is to select the one sense designed by the Holy Spirit. But
there are cases, in which it is desirable to investigate the original
languages of the Bible with fundamental care. The results of
other men's labours may not always satisfy. Doubts may arise
whether a verb have such a signification at all ; or whether a
meaning quite different should not be assigned to it. The com
mon interpretation of phrases may be questioned. The professed
interpreter should therefore have the power of verifying or cor
recting the conclusions of others, by inquiring independently for
himself. To affirm that he should never institute the process
which Hebrew and Greek lexicographers undertook, is tantamount
to the assertion, that he ought, in every case, to adopt implicitly
the opinions of others. The great majority of men must indeed
acquiesce in conclusions to which they have not attained by their
own research or reflection ; but the few who regulate the faith of
the multitude, must pursue another course. It is highly expe
dient and even necessary, that all accomplished interpreters should
be able to review the grounds of their theological sentiments.
Whilst, therefore, we desire to urge upon all the necessity of abi
lity to examine the reasons for assigning a certain sense to a word,
and to take nothing for granted which they cannot verify ; it is
the chief business of an interpreter in the present day, to apply
the proper meaning in a particular locaUty, and to explain com
binations of terms in a given period or paragraph, as the author
himself intended. The acquirements presupposed by the latter,
are generally the same as those required for the former. Both
demand the same apparatus, and employ the same resources. In
selecting the right sense of a word in a given place, it is supposed
that the primary as distinguished from the secondary signification
is already known. It is implied, that the etymological meaning
has been discovered, and placed at the head of others merely se
condary or derivative. The significations should be genealogi-

STATED AND EXEMPLIFIED. 231
cally disposed and arranged, agreeably to the laws of association,
before they be skilfully applied in a certain locality. In this we
are materiaUy assisted by the labours of Gesenius in the Old
Testament, and Robinson in the New, both of whom have paid
much attention to the true principles on which Lexicons should
be based, — to the genealogical arrangement of significations.
The foUowing are the various helps and means for enabling
us both to ascertain the significations of a word, and to select that
one which alone is applicable in a certain passage. We should
consult, I. The immediate context.
{a) Sometimes the writer himself subjoins an explanation by
an equivalent expression.
(h) The subject and predicate of a proposition mutually ex
plain one another.
(c) Antithesis, contrast, opposition, or parallelism illustrates
the signification.
(ft) The adjuncts of a term — such as stand to it in the rela
tion of secondary to primary, ex. gr. oblique cases, adjectives,
adverbs, prepositions, conjunctions, and other nouns with which it
is connected. (e) Examples subjoined, or the outward manifestation of prin
ciples in action, discover the ideas attached to words.
II. The more remote context, viz. that which embraces a
period, paragraph, or section.
III. Parallels. These may occur,
(a) In the same book or writing.
(6) In different writings of the same author,
(c) In any part of Scripture.
Parallels include parallel terms and parallel passages.
We shall exemplify each of these sources in order.
I. The immediate context.
Before speaking of the several particulars included under this
head, it will be requisite to refer to the manner in which the sub
ject and predicate of a proposition are known. In general they
are easily distinguished. The arrangement of words and other
grammatical indications sufficiently mark them. The subject more
usually precedes the predicate in respect to position. The former
has the article in Greek, the latter wants it. So I Tim. vi. 5,
vofiiZ,6vTt>iv vo^igfi^h thai rnv ihgi^imv, supposing that godliness is gain.
These positions, however, are not invariable, for the predicate

232 THE PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION
also comes before the subject ; as in John iv. 24 ; Matth. v. 3 ,*
Romans in. 13 ; x. 4 ; xiii. 10. Besides, the subject and predi
cate may both have the article, as in 2 Cor, iii. 17 ; 1 John iii.
4 ; or both may be anarthrous, as in Matth. xx. 16 ; xxii. 14.
It is useful to examine the connexion, especially that which pre
cedes. This is particularly required when the subject is a pro
noun relative or demonstrative. If the subject be not expressed,
it may be discovered from the continuation of the discourse, or
other circumstances. Thus in 1 John v. 20, oZrog refers to 'l^goZ
X^igTou, which is the nearest antecedent, and therefore the most
natural. There is nothing in the passage which at all favours a
departure from the usual construction. In Mark iii. 21, the no
minative to s^igTn is not 'o%Xos, as some have supposed, but 'Ir}govg.
In the Hebrew language, when a substantive is the predicate, it
follows the subject, which again is preceded by the verb ; but
when an adjective is the predicate, it stands first, and wants the
article. Such is the general usage, though there are exceptions.
An emphatic or antithetic word, which naturally requires promi
nence, is put first, whether it be object or subject ; and then the
verb is removed from its ordinary place at the commencement, to
the middle position.
In introducing the subject of context, the question naturally
arises, how are we to ascertain the limits within which it lies ?
Has it any definite boundaries ? By what marks is it charac
terised ? Here such as look for mathematical exactness will
doubtless be disappointed, as they will be in other parts of our
hermeneutical apparatus. It is obvious, that the limits and
pauses implied by context, — the range it takes in — and the in
dications of its cessation — depend on the subjective views of an
expositor. Different writers divide it into various compartments, without
possessing fixed data for splitting it into minute portions. It is
sufficient for all purposes to speak of the nearer or immediate,
and the remote context ; according as we take in a smaller, or
wider range. It is by no means desirable to confine ourselves
to one of these without the other ; to look into the close vicinity
of ai term or phrase, without consulting its remoter connexions ;
or to attend to the latter apart from the former.
(a) Sometimes the writer himself subjoins an explanation.
Thus, in Genesis xxiv. 2, ijl"!^ ^j^T is explained by
sb ntyi<c'733 ^tt^arr, " that ruled over aU that he had."

STATED AND EXEMPLIFIED. 233
In Heb. xi. 1, Ti'gng, faith, is explained by " the conf dence of
things hoped for, the manifestation or evidence of things not seen,"
So also Heb. v. 14, the nXiloi are " such as by reason of use have
their senses exercised to discern both good and evU." Heb. x. 20,
¦/,ctrairiroi,g//,a is interpreted by the writer to mean "his flesh." Heb.
vii. 2, jSagiXeCg 2oi,Xr)//,, (o Igri, ^agiXiug ii^fivr)?,) " King of Salem,
(which is, king of peace.") See likewise Gen. xiv. 14.
(b) The subject and predicate of a proposition mutually ex-
plam each other. Thus, John i. 1 0, lyivsro should be taken in
its Uteral sense of existing or being made, to correspond with
¦/.6g//,og, " the world," to which it refers. K6g//.og must therefore
include the material creation or world. In Matthew v. 13,
lji,(>i^a,vdfi means to be insipid or tasteless, for thus it corresponds
to the subject dXag.
(c) Antithesis, contrast, opposition, or parallelism, illustrates
the signification.
The distinguishing characteristic of Hebrew poetry is paral
lelism, i. e. a certain equality or resemblance between the mem
bers of each period in a sentence ; so that in two lines or members
of the same period, things shall answer to things, and words to
words, as if fitted to each other by a kind of rule or measure.*
Different kinds of parallelism have been specified, such as the
synonymous, or, as Jebb prefers, cognate parallelism, the anti
thetic, and the synthetic or constructive.
The first duty of the interpreter, in reference to the exegetical
use of parallelism, is to ascertain the fundamental idea of the sen
tence in which that feature appears. In the next place, the parts
or members should be minutely examined. There are two ex
tremes into which expositors may fall. The first was exemplified
by the older interpreters, who proceeded on the assumption, that
each hemistich had its peculiar meaning distinct from the other,
because numerous repetitions of the same sentiment in corre
sponding terms, were thought to be uhbecoming the wisdom of
the Spirit. Hence various artificial and arbitrary devices, such
as emphases and the like, were adopted, in order to carry out the
idea of diversity and distinctness of sense. It is unnecessary to
enter into any refutation of this error, as it is generally aban
doned in modern times. The other extreme lies in supposing,
that there is a mere tautology, the same idea being contained in
two or more parallel members, without perceptible variation in
* See Lowth's Prael, p. 208, ed, KosenmiiUer,

234 THE PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION
strength or application. It is a mistake, however, to imagine,
that there is an actual or complete identity in the meaning of
two hemistichs ; or that an expression in one, is just the same as
its counterpart in the other. There is no useless tautology even
in those parallel members that have been denominated synony
mous. The same idea indeed lies at the foundation of both; but
some variety will be found in its expansion. Sometimes the one
member expresses universally, what the other announces par
ticularly, or vice versa ; in the one there may be the genus, in
the other the species ; the one expresses a thing affirmatively,
the other the same negatively ; the one figuratively, the other
literally ; the one has a comparison, the other its application ;
the one contains a fact, the other, the manner in which it took
place, " The two members confirm, elevate, and strengthen
each other in their convictions or rejoicings. In the songs of
jubilee this is obvious, and in those of lamentation it results from
the very nature of the feelings that occasion them. The drawing
of the breath confirms, as it were, and comforts the soul, while
the other division of the chorus takes part in our afflictions, and
its response is the echo, or as the Hebrews would say, ' the
daughter of the voice' of our sorrow. In didactic poetry, one pre
cept confirms the other, as if the father were giving instruction to
his son, and the mother repeated it. The discourse by this means
acquires the semblance of truth, cordiality, and confidence. In
alternate songs of love, the subject itself determines the form."*
But whilst this mode of expression appears to be the language
of nature, we should not urge every term or vocable as if it were
the symbol of a distinct conception. In the illustration of an
idea, we must look for ornament, repetition, and amplification,
whether arising from the state of the emotions, or from the cus
toms of ordinary speech. Poetry, in particular, delights to set
forth the same images in language diffuse and reiterative. It
presents the same idea in separate, but essentially similar cos
tume. Thus, while pleasure is imparted by the exhibition of
uniformity amid variety, the mind is more vividly impressed.
The exegetical use of parallelism consists in its giving a general
apprehension of the meaning of a word or clause, rather than a
precise or minute specification. It is helpful in leading the in
terpreter to choose one signification among several, or in confirm
ing one which possessed previous probability. By the antithesis
* Herder's Spirit of Hebrew Poetry, translated by Harsh, Burlington, 1833, 12mo,
2 vols, vol. i. p. 40.

STATED AND EXEMPLIFIED. 235
existing between the members, or the gradation observable in
them, or their homogeneous structure, it is easy to perceive the
general sentiment contained in a passage. But it can scarcely
furnish to the interpreter the exact modification of idea which
the writer meant to convey by a particular hemistich, or by its
leading term. It gives an indeterminate apprehension of the
sense, but not an accurate conception of the particular aspects in
which it is presented. It tells with sufficient clearness what the
meaning cannot be, or what it probably is ; not what it is speci
fically. We should farther see which of the two members be the more
obvious, lest we fall into the error of attempting to throw light
upon the less obscure from the darker or more difficult. Thus,
when one member is figurative, and the other Uteral, the latter
may be employed to elucidate the former ; and when a word is
well known, the sense of its opposite will not remain in ob
scurity. Parallelism chiefly belongs to the poetic and prophetical wri
tings of the Old Testament. But it is not unknown to the New.
In the Apocalypse, which is clearly prophetic, it is frequently
found ; as also in odes occasionally introduced into other parts,
and composed in the manner and spirit of Hebrew poetry, as in
Luke i. 42, 46, 47, 51-53 ; U. 14. The language of the New
Testament being Hebraistic, might have been expected a priori
to be strongly influenced by the language of Hebrew poetry.
Even the historical and epistolary portions of the New Testa
ment are not without examples of parallelism. This does not
arise so much from the influence of Hebrew poetry indirectly
exerted upon the New Testament diction, as from the great law
of association, and its usual effect on all writings. Examples of
the poetic parallelism are of frequent occurrence in the writings
of St. John. The same idea is stated negatively and positively.
Thus, John i. 20, " he confessed and denied not." So 1 John iii.
14. Two opposites are contrasted in 1 John v. 12, " He that
hath the Son hath life ; and he that hath not the Son of God
hath not life." See also 1 John iu. 5,& ; 2d epistle of John, 9 th
verse. A like affirmation and negation expressive of the same
idea is also exemplified in 2 Tim. ii. 13, " he abideth faithful, he
cannot deny himself." -gigrhg //.hii illustrates a^muf/,ai 'eaurhv, and
shews that it imports, to be inconsistent with his own character;
although the same phrase elsewhere (Luke ix. 23), means, to sa
crifice personal interests and gratifications.

236 THE PlilXOIPLES OF INTERPRETATION
In Isaiah xxvi. 14, D''^4^"^ corresponds to D''J1D; and as the
latter manifestly signifies the dead, the former denotes something
similar. We perceive at once that it cannot mean /argo;, as the
Seventy render it. Still it were wrong to conclude that it is
identical with D'/IO. It has the accessory idea of debility and
incorporeity. Isaiah xlvi. 11. " Calling from the east, the eagle; from a
distant land, the man of my purpose." Here the eagle in the
former member, a term figuratively applied to Cyrus, is explained
in the latter by, the man of my purpose.
Luke i. 35. " The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the
power of the Highest shall overshadow thee." Here the former
clause is more perspicuous than the latter, though there is a ge
neral similarity between them. They are not, however, wholly
tautological, as Morus asserts. " Judicamus propter morem lin-
guse, parallelismum membrorum usurpantis, quse sit in uno
membro iumfLig u-^lgTov, eam esse in altero irnxJi/jot ayiov, et quod in
uno sit, veniet super te, id in altero etiam esse ; te obumbrabit.
Unde concluditur, did hic simplieiter, divinam potentiam id esse
effecturam, dicique id bis, et per synonyma."* The power of the
Highest is not the same as the Holy Ghost, but the influence
or effect of his presence ; nor is overshadow identical with co7ne
upon. The latter represents the putting forth of his mysterious
and almighty power consequent upon his marvellous visit to the
Virgin. Matthew xi. 29. " Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me."
Here the former member is tropical, the latter literal. They are
not strictly identical, neither does the latter specifically explain
the other. Take my yoke upon you, does not mean " sumite a
me vobis imponi institutionem et discipUnam," as Morus affirms,!
but submit yourselves to me, put yourselves entirely under my
authority and guidance, take me for your master. " and learn
of me," this is the evidence of their desire to take the yoke, and
of their actually putting it on. As soon as the followers of
Christ are willing to submit to his commands, they desire to
learn of him. Thus there is a perceptible difference in the two
clauses of the sentence.
Syntactic parallelism cannot be properly said to illustrate ob
scure expressions, except in so far as it assists in the right adjust
ment or division of members.
In all cases it is desirable to compare the sense which the pa-
* Hermeneutica. ed. Eichstadt. vol. i. p. 102. ^ f Vol. i. p. 105.

STATED AND EXEMPLIFIED. 237
raUelism is supposed to furnish, with the connexion, the object of
the writer, and his pecuUar style. To these may be added in the
Old Testament, a comparison with cognate dialects. Thus will
its exegetical suggestions be frequently confirmed, and certainty
of interpretation produced.
We see no good reason for treating parallelism of members
under the head oi parallel passages, as if it were a subdivision of
that topic. So Bauer, Morus, Unterkircher, and others, arrange
it. But it belongs to context. The idea commonly attached to
parallel passages suggests some remoteness from the locality we
expound ; whereas parallelism belongs to the immediate context.
In the case of words and phrases, we have said that parallelism
is helpful, \st. In leading to the choice of one among several significations.
2dly, In confirming what other considerations had rendered
probable. This will appear from the following examples.
Psalm vu. 14. ni'0"'*73 the instruments of death, in one mem
ber, is explained by '^'^^T} his arrows, in the next.
Psalm xviii. 15. The channels of the waters were seen ; the
foundations of the world were discovered : at thy rebuke; at the
blast of the breath of thy nostrils.
In Proverbs viii. 36, »S!Dn signifies, he that misses me, op
posed to '2<2iQ he that finds me, in the preceding verse. This is
the radical, primary signification of the verb ^'^^> to miss (the
mark.) Prov. xxix. 8, WS)^ must mean, set on fire or kindle
sedition(\n a city), for it is contrasted with i^N ')2''U?^ cause wrath
to cease. The Septuagint and Syriac versions render the word
correctly ; but the Vulgate which has " dissipant civitatem," and
the Venetian which has ntayihoiigi ntoKiv, bring a city into a snare,
are both aside from the true sense. Ezekiel xxi. 3, n^ signifies
green and/resA, as is shewn by its opposite ti'n^ dry. So also
in Ezek. xvii. 24. Isaiah xlv. 2, DnnQ must signify rough, or
elevated places from the opposition implied in the verb "IK/IJ^. /
will make plain or level. The Septuagint properly translates it
by 'og»i. Psalm cxix. 29, 163, Tpti^ '^"IT is opposed to nnifl. It
signifies accordingly, a false religion, as iTlin the law, means
true religion. In Psalm xvi. 9, ' IU 3 signifies my soul or spirit,
as is seen from '^'^ib ' my heart' preceding. See also Gen. xlix.
6. De Wette rightly translates it mein Geist (my spirit.) In

238 THE PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION
2 Cor. V. 21, aiMagTioi. does not mean a ' sin-oft'ering' as some
render it, but sin. It is contrasted with dixaiosuvri ' righteousness.'
Christ was made sin, that we might be made righteousness. The
abstract is much more forcible than the concrete.
John vi. 35. "He that cometh to me (o ^¦^o/jtivog itgog ftiti) shall
never hunger; and he that believeth on me (6 mgnvav elg sfii),"
&c. Cometh in the one clause, is explained by believeth, in the
next. Romans v. 18. "As by one offence judgment came upon all
men to condemnation ; even so by one righteousness the free gift
came upon all men to justification of life." The former phrase
ntdwag avS^uimug signifies all mankind without exception ; the latter,
therefore, must denote the same thing.
1 Cor. iv. 5. " Who both will bring to light the hidden things
of darkness (to, x^wTfra rou gxorovg'), and will make manifest the
counsels of the hearts (rocg jSovXctg run na^SiSiv.')" The former
phrase expresses generally what is more specifically taught in
the latter.
1 Cor. XV. 50. " Flesh and blood cannot inherit the king
dom of God ; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption." iragf
Ka! aiij,a do not mean carnal passions, but our corruptible body
consisting of flesh and blood, as is proved by ri <pkgd,. Before this
corruptible body be translated into heaven, it must undergo some
mysterious change.
Hebrews ii. 2, 3. The word spoken by angels is contrasted
with so great salvation, the latter manifestly referring to the
gospel with its authoritative sanctions and comminations. The
former means, therefore, the law of Moses, and not the different
messages delivered by angels under the Old Testament economy.
(d) The adjuncts of a term or phrase.
Most words are generic in signification, but by means of the
oblique cases of nouns, and other adjuncts, they are restricted.
Thus dixoiiaifiot, signifies justification ; but dixaiai/ntcc gd^xog, a jus
tification of the flesh, i. e. an ordinance which makes the out
ward, in opposition to the inward man, perfect or just. In such
examples as this, words have not properly speaking a new signi
fication, but that particular sense which the writer meant to con
vey in a certain passage. They have the same signification, but
a different sense. Some one of the particulars included under
them is expressed ; but the general meaning remains the same.
It is useful to bear this in mind, lest we follow the example of

STATED AND EXEMPLIFIED, 239
those who assign a new signification to the same term wherever
it is associated with different adjuncts. The latter modify, with
out altering the generic signification.*
1 Timothy iii. 15, olaog signifies house ; ol-Mg GsoD the house of
God, that is, the church; and in 1 Peter ii. 5, ol-Mg •jrHu/j.aTi-Ag, a
spiritual house. In 1 Peter ii. 2, rJ Xoyr/.h yaXa, the milk of the
word. Hebrews xiii. 15, ^ug'mv amgiotg, sacrifice of praise, shew
ing what kind of a sacrifice is meant. Coloss. iu. 1, If ye then
be risen with Christ. Tw XgigrS), joined with the verb gw/iyB^^nn,
points out the nature of the resurrection. It is a resurrection of
the soul, a spiritual rising. 2 Tim. i. 9, xX^jgei aylcf, a holy call
ing. 2 Peter iii, 1 8, in the grace and knowledge of our Lord
and Saviour Jesus Christ. Matthew v. 3, o'l itTosyo] rSi rrvedfLari ;
TU <!rvi-jfj,ari specifies wherein the poverty consists : it is in spirit.
Olearius, Wetstein, and Paulus erroneously refer rw m-ndfLaTi to
ILa.y.ds^ioi. Gal. vi. 16, The Israel of God (tou GeoD) shews that
the true worshippers of God, or the spiritual posterity of Jacob
are designated. Coloss. ii, 9, to wXriPUf/.a Tng hoTnrog. Here ?rX^gw-
fia, on account of the genitive horriTog, does not signify the church,
but the divine perfections belonging to Jesus. 1 Tim. v. 3, rag
'ovTCiig yjii^ag, those who are widows indeed. Here the adverb 'irnug
designates a peculiarity belonging to the widows. 1 Tim. iv. 10,
and V. 7, the adverb fhoXigra. indicates a special distinction. Psalm
xxiii. 6, nin'~n''3;3, in the house of the Lord, i. e. his temple
or church.
(e) Examples subjoined, or the outward manifestation of prin
ciples in action. Thus in Galatians v. 21, 22, the works of the
flesh are specified in their active manifestations ; from which we
learn the comprehensive meaning of the phrase 'ie^ya gagxog. See
also ep. to Hebrews chap. xi. ; from which we learn, that true
vigTig or faith is a practical principle pervading and influencing
every part of the life.
II. The remote context must be consulted. This is merely
an extension of the preceding, from which too, as we have already
said, it cannot always be distinguished. Both might have been
classed under the same head. There is no good dividing line be-
* Cavendum est, ne significatum et sensum verborum in quoque loco confunda-
mus. Beck, Monogrammata, Lipsia?, 8vo, 1803, p. 136, Morus was the first who
clearly poin ted out the distinction, in his dissertation, De Discrimine Sensus et Signijica-
iionis, translated by Professor Torrey in the American Biblical Repository for 1834.
See also his Hermeneutica, ed. Eichstadt, p, 56,

240

THE PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION'

tween the immediate and remote context. The foUowing obser
vations are applicable to both ; and as such, we wish them to be
read and pondered. They concern the entire subject of context,
whether it be viewed in smaller or larger compartments.
In considering the connexion of parts in a section, and the
amount of meaning they express, acuteness and critical tact are
much needed. We may be able to tell the significations of single
terms, and yet be utterly inadequate to unfold a continuous ar
gument. A capacity for verbal analysis does not impart the
talent of expounding an entire paragraph. Ability to discover
the proper pauses, the natural sequence, the pertinency of expres
sions to the subject discussed, and the delicate distinctions of
thought which characterise particular kinds of composition, is
distinct from the habit of carefully tracing out the various senses
of separate terms. It is a higher faculty; not the child of dUi-
gence, but rather of original, intellectual ability. Attention may
sharpen and improve, but cannot create it. All men are not en
dowed with equal acuteness, nor fitted to detect the latent links
of associated ideas by their outward symbols. They cannot alike
discern the idiosyncracies of various writers as exhibited in their
composition. But the verbal philologist is not necessarily inca
pacitated by converse with separate signs of ideas from unfolding
the mutual bearings of an entire paragraph. Imbued with a phi
losophic spirit, he may successfully trace the connexion subsisting
between the various parts of a book, while he notes the commence
ment of new topics, the propriety of their position, the interweav
ing of argumentation, interruptions and digressions, and all the
characteristic peculiarities exhibited in a particular composition.
In this, he may be mightily assisted by a just perception of those
particles which have been designated sTsa "s-rsjoEVT-a, not less than
by sympathy with the spirit of the author whom he seeks to
understand. By placing himself as much as possible in the cir
cumstances of the writer, and contemplating from the same eleva
tion the important phenomena to which his rapt mind was directed,
he will be in a favourable position for understanding the parts
and proportions of a connected discourse.
The subsequent remarks may possibly assist the sacred interpre
ter in separating a writing into sections or paragraphs. The in
tuitive sagacity of some will scarcely require them ; but they
may be serviceable to such as are not habituated to hermeneuti
cal investigations.

STATED AND EXEMPLIFIED. 241
Let the vicinity of a passage be enlarged untU a different ar
gument be introduced, or a new topic presented.
If, in the treatment of a subject, a Une of proofs or a series
of illustrations be adduced, each proof or illustration should be
separated, so as to form of itself a distinct section. The divi
sions should be as small as the nature of the case will allow,
without infringing upon the essential unity of the writing. Thus
may each one form the context of a particular word or proposi
tion. The interpreter must be guided in a great measure by his
own judgment and acumen. Sometimes he will find a proper
pause without difficulty ; the subject or speaker being obviously
changed ; at others, the transitions and interweaving of kindred
topics elude the closest observation. The prophets especially,
frequently pass from one theme to another, sliding imperceptibly
into topics suggested by those they are describing. Hence there
is no definite boundary between their statements — no clear line of
demarcation, — but a sort oi fusion by which their declarations are
melted as it were into a single mass. Diversity of matter must
guide the expositor in distinguishing sections, though the begin
ning and end of a subject escape notice. We have alluded to the
writings of the prophets, as presenting this indefinite feature ; but
the epistles of St. Paul may be also mentioned as examples. The
thoughts of this writer appear to have flowed on in a continuous
stream, without formal intimations of the introduction of different
arguments. It is, therefore, hardly possible in some cases to
separate the discourse, without breaking in upon the connexion
of the language ; or to partition his arguments into distinct sec
tions, without doing violence to the terms by which the parts of
an argumentation are intertwined. More intent on matter than
method, he disregarded those artificial distinctions which writers
of a less animated temperament usually observe.. These remarks
are not intended to convey the idea, that the sacred writers, and
especiaUy the prophets and St. Paul, are confused, irregular, and
rambUng, without clearness of conception or coherence of thought.
Their discourses and statements are pervaded neither by inex
tricable confusion nor incoherent digressions. On the contrary,
they prosecute the purposes which they had in writing, by per
tinent steps and arguments. But they were not educated in the
schools of rhetoricians ; nor did they confine themselves to exact
ness of method. They wrote for the instruction of mankind at
large, not for philosophers. Hence they should not be judged
H h

242 THE PRINCIPLES OF INTERPUfrTATIOW
by artificial or formal rules. They were popular writers, and as
such are not to be tried by the technicalities of art. Filled with
their great subjects, it was natural for them to neglect those
partitions and pauses, which uninspired men, brought up in the
schools of learning, are careful to watch.
Bearing these observations in mind, the interpreter must fre
quently separate into its successive steps a discourse closely con
nected in language. He must carefully observe the purpose of
the writer, and the mode in which it is prosecuted. Particular
attention must be given to the conjunctions, whose office is to
connect predications. The suppositive, the causal, and the illa
tive, all of which mark connexions of different kinds, must be
noted. But where the same particle is used to point out very
various sequences, as happens in the Hebrew language from the
paucity of such vocables, the thoughts, rather than the precise
nature of the terms in which they are expressed, should chiefly
engage attention. Yet, after every abatement, the connective
particles are most useful in leading to a knowledge of the parti
tions into which a discourse should be resolved. In setting out
from the primary word in a sentence, and enlarging the circuit
of exposition, we are not aware of any definite rule that can
be given for knowing the proper boundaries that separate argu
ment from argument, or one context from another. The Scrip
tures present a great variety in the clearness with which these
transitions are marked. Sometimes the transition is patent to
universal observation; — at other times it is almost imperceptible.
Sometimes it is discerned by means of a particle ; and again,
the same vocable fails to indicate it.
But the student ought not to be confined to this one me
thod. It is impossible indeed, strictly speaking, to adjust the
context in the manner of which we have been speaking, without
taking in a wider range than that which a distinct section will be
found to occupy. What precedes and follows must be examined.
How far a paragraph extends cannot be seen, without marking
the relation it bears to its surrounding locality. A real pause in
the discourse does not always announce itself, so as to preclude
farther reading and searching to discover it. To assist, therefore,
in this matter of allotment, and for the purpose either of verify
ing the results obtained by a different mode of procedure, or of
contributing to their actual educement, we would recommend
another way of proceeding, the counterpart of that just stated.
In some instances, perhaps, it may be unnecessary to institute

STATED AND EXEMPLIFIED.

243

hath for the one purpose of which we now speak, viz. to discover
the boundaries of a particular context ; but the numerous cases
of doubt and obscurity necessitate frequent recourse to them.
The latter method we regard as much more important than the
former ; and as it must be adopted at some stage of the exegesis
of a book, else no comprehensive survey can be obtained, it is
desirable that it be instituted towards the commencement. Thus
will it facilitate the future progress of the interpreter, imparting
light at every step, until he sliall have arrived at the full under
standing of the whole. It cannot be neglected or deferred, with
out essential detriment. If it do not occupy the present place,
the interpreter will remain a mere verbalist, or sink into a trifling
philologists Agreeably then to the latter method, let the student of Scrip
ture read over a whole book at once ; disregarding the arbitrary
distinctions of chapters and verses which so often impede the con
tinuity of a discourse. Nor will it be enough to read it once in
this manner, but several times. A single cursory perusal will not
contribute much towards the present object. Some books indeed
are much easier than others. Thus the historical writings are
readily distinguished into larger or smaller sections, according to
the events narrated, or the biographies presented to view. In the
life of our Lord, as related by the different evangelists, it is not
difficult to mark convenient pauses where he proceeded to a dif
ferent place, commenced another sermon, or performed a different
miracle. In the historical books of the Old Testament, the tran
sits from one occurrence to another are far from obscure. But
the same facility of resolving the prophetic books into distinct
portions is not felt. This holds good of the whole poetic de
partment ; and in the epistolary writings of the New Testament,
considerable labour is necessary to determine the interfacings.
The commencement of a new section may be known,
1st, From inscriptions, ex. gr. in the Psalms ; as iii. 1 ; vi. 1 ;
in Isaiah ii. vi. vii. ; and in Prov. x. 1. But it must be remem
bered, that the inscriptions of the Psalms are not of canonical
authority ; and we should beware of relying solely or implicitly
upon them. They have been frequently disturbed by transcribers,
and erroneously added in recent times.*
2dly, From particles, or formulae, which point out the com
mencement of a new discourse.
* See the Introduction to De Wette's Commentary on the Psaiims, translated in
the American Biblical Repository for 1 833, by Professor Torrey.

244

THE PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION

3dly, From a change of place, or of persons, whether speakers
or those addressed ; denoting that the same discourse is not con
tinued. Athly, In the prophetic books it generally happens, that a section
terminates with an announcement of prosperous and happy times,
in which the Lord promises to visit his people with tokens of his
favour, and to bless them with the light of his presence. Hence
a new paragraph is distinguished by promises of good preceding.
The divine oracles have a generic conformation. They begin with
the declaration of punishment, are continued in tones of threat
ening, and terminate in joyous strains. Such is the usual order
of proceeding. Jehovah mingles mercy with judgment. Even
when his inspired servants were charged with messages of mourn
ful mood, they were commissioned to append pictures of peaceful
and prosperous events, that his people might not sink into despair,
liut be still cheered amid the gloom, by glimpses of the distant
future. Compare Hosea, chapters v.-xi ; xii.-xiv. Amosi.-ix. 10
contains threatenings ; ix. 11-15 promises.
After distributing a book into larger sections, a subdivision
may be conveniently effected. In the epistles of the New Tes
tament there is generally an introduction, a conclusion, and a body
consisting of two parts, the doctrinal and the practical. The
introduction and conclusion are generally short and indivisible ;
but the body or trunk of the epistle exhibits various pauses and
partitions. It is to the latter that we wish to direct attention at
present ; the former scarcely coming under the name of context
by reason of their extent. Thus in the epistle to the Galatians
the first five verses contain the preface; vi. 6-10, the conclusion
apparently intended, but in reality vi. 1 1 — to the end. There is
something like a double conclusion ; for after speaking of the large
letter written with the apostle's own hand, his subject comes upon
him again, and he reverts to the views of such as endeavoured to
bring the Galatians under circumcision, contrasted with his own
aim in preaching the pure gospel of Christ. The intervening
portion constitutes the main body of the letter, exhibiting the ar
guments and exhortations of the apostle. The argumentative
or doctrinal part ends with chap. v. ver. 13 ; then follow the
practical admonitions. The following sections are contained in
the doctrinal division. Section I. chap. i. 6-ii. 21 ; II. iii. 1-5 ;
III. iii. 6-17; IV. iii. 18-25; V. iii. 26-29 ; VI. iv. l-ll;
VII. iv. 12-20; VIII. iv. 21-v. 1; IX. v. 2-12. The ad-

STATED AND EXEMPLIFIED.

245

monitory or practical part reaches from chap. v. 13 to chap. vi. 11,
and may be distributed into the following sections. I. v. 13-26 ;
II. vi. 1-5 ; III. vi. 6-10. These sections come especially under
the head of context. They contain statements brought to bear
upon a general subject, which, though closely allied, may yet be
distinguished. The attentive reader of the epistles of the New Testament may
find in most of them a similar plan, by proceeding in the same
way. With respect to the prophetic books of the Old Testa
ment, some are simple in arrangement, and regular in plan. Those
relating to one nation, people, or city, are most perspicuous, and
most easily resolved into their separate paragraphs. Those again
which describe the destiny, and foretell the downfal of various
nations in connexion with the fortunes of Judah and Israel, are
more complicated in their structure, and more difficult of analy
sis. The separate predictions relating to individual nations must
obviously be considered by themselves, and resolved into their
component portions. As an example of the former may be quoted
Nahum, who predicted the divine judgments against Assyria.
His prophecy is an entire and regular poem, consisting of
\st, A magnificent and sublime exordium contained in the first
chapter. 2dly, The preparation for the destruction of Nineveh.
'idly. The destruction itself. The minuter divisions are the fol
lowing. Chapter i. verses 2-8, contain a description of Jehovah as
severely punishing his enemies, while he is good to his people.
Verses 8-14 contain threatenings against the Ninevites ; the
12th and 13th being thrown in parenthetically to console the
Israelites with promises of future rest. Verse 15 is an apostrophe
to the Jews, announcing peace and glad tidings to them. Chap
ter ii. 1-9, depict the siege and taking of the city, with the
fearful consternation of the inhabitants. Verses 10-12 exhibit
a sarcastic exclamation of the prophet over the fallen city. Verse
13 introduces Jehovah speaking and declaring himself to be the
author of the calamities inflicted upon the Assyrians. Chapter
iii. 1-8, describe the utter ruin of Nineveh, and the various
causes which contributed to it. In verses 8-11, the prophet
introduces the example of No-Ammon, a city of Egypt, as a
witness and confirmation to the Assyrians of the truth of his pre
dictions concerning them. No-Ammon was stronger than Nine
veh, yet was it destroyed. In verses 11-19 it is predicted, that

246 THE PRINCIPLES OP INTERPRETATION
Nineveh should likewise be cut off notwithstanding all her war
like preparations and the multitude of her citizens.
Take Joel as another example. The most general division of
his prophecies is,
1*^, The devastation of the country by locusts, which some
regard as symbolically descriptive of the invasions of the Assyri
ans, chaps, i.-ii. 27.
2dly, He predicts the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in the
time of Messiah, U. 28-32.
Zdly, He pronounces the judgments which God, after the effu
sion of the Spirit of grace, would successively, and more particu
larly at the last great overthrow of Satan, inflict upon the enemies
of the church, iii. 1-21. The last part may be subdivided thus.
iii. 1-17. The former enemies of Judah, viz. the Tyrians, Si-
donians, and Philistines, are introduced as representatives of the
enemies of the Christian church, and God assembles them all
into the valley of Jehoshaphat to pronounce sentence upon them.
The idea here set forth in theocratic language is, that at the con
version of the Jews and the ingathering of the Gentiles, God
shall terribly punish the enemies of his church, and gloriously
build up his people for ever. Verses 18-21 depict the millen
nial state of the church.
Such are the ways of arriving at a knowledge of the points of
transition from one subject to another, as indicative of the con
nexions subsisting between the various portions of an entire book,
whether logical or arbitrary, close or discursive. By their means
we ascertain the proper context of a verse or sentence, and can
conveniently consult it for elucidating the sense of a phrase. On
the continent, Baumgarten has particularly recommended this pro
cess of dismemberment (zergliederung), but it has been abused
by the endeavours of his followers to reduce to logical order dis
courses and writings which were not methodically composed. In
short, too much system and sameness have been followed by the
Baumgarten-school, in splitting down into sections, subsections,
and propositions, the productions of poets and prophets who soared
far above such trammels. The inspired penmen aimed neither
at studied transitions, nor rhetorical periods. Their spirit and
vigour evaporate under this artificial dismemberment. Tortured
by nice and measured rules, their sublimity and strength sink into
tameness. III. Parallels. These have been usuaUy divided into two

STATED AND EXEMPLIFIED. 247
kinds, verbal and real;* the former referring to words and
phrases, the latter to facts or doctrines. When the same or sy
nonymous words and phrases occur in different places relating to
the same subject, and are clearly defined in sense by the scope, the
connexion, or the adjuncts, they are verbal parallels. It is of no
importance whether their signification be the same or different,
provided the places in which the terms occur describe the same
thing. Hence, the definition of Meyer is defective, who repre
sents verbal parallels to be such as contain the same word either
in the same or in a different signification ; as also that of Bauer
and others, who make the same term or mode of expression to be
used in the same sense, in order to constitute two places parallel.
But the passages must relate to the same fact, history, doctrine,
or event, and contain the same or synonymous words, whether
their significations be identical or not. It is not the mere occur
rence of the same phrases which constitutes the parallelism of the
places to which they belong ; nor yet the exact coincidence of
their meaning, but their relation to the same subject, — their
description of the same thing. Real parallelism is found when
the same topic is treated in several locaUties, and the more per
spicuous is brought to bear upon the ambiguous or obscure. In
the latter case, the object of inquiry is the knowledge of things,
rather than the meaning of controverted words. Real parallelism
has been subdivided into the historic and didactic, according as
the same events are related, or the same doctrines set forth.
Hence the former is very frequently exemplified in the books of
Kings and Chronicles in the Old Testament, and the gospels in
the New ; the latter, in the epistles. As this subdivision, how
ever, is of Uttle utility, we shall merely consider parallelism as
divided into verbal and real. At present we are concerned with
the former alone.
The first thing to be noted is, that the passages employed for
mutual explanation be in reality parallel. There are instances
in which they are apparently, not really so, as a nearer inspec
tion shews. It is not enough that the same term or phrase be
found in both ; there must be a similarity of sentiment. Thus
Jonah iv. 10, and 1 Thess. v. 5, are not parallel, though the cor
responding expressions TV'O T?, and -j'lol nxThg appear in them.
The writers are treating of very different subjects. In the next
* Ein wortlicher und ein Sachparallelismus, Bauer, Entwurf einer Hermeneutik,
8vo, Leipzig, 1799, § 53, p, 48.

248 THE PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION
place, it is necessary that the phrase or expression be less ob
scure in one of the parallels than in another. This may arise
from the addition of a synonymous term to that which is doubt
ful, or from some explanatory adjunct, or the occurrence of a con
jugate surrounded by a similar context and unambiguous attributes.
What is obscure cannot be explained by what is equally dark.
The briefer and less perspicuous should be illustrated by means
of the clearer and more extended passage, not vice versa. This
is so manifest, that it need scarcely be repeated. And yet expe
rience shews that the power of prejudice is so great as to disregard
it. It is customary with many to look upon a passage contain
ing some unwelcome sentiment as obscure, and to endeavour to
evade its force by bringing another apparently less disagreeable
to bear upon it. In this way they have tried to subvert the true
faith, taking away from it whatever is of a positive character.
Examples in the writings of the Rationalists of Germany and the
Unitarians of Britain are so abundant, that it is superfluous to
adduce any. In connexion with this observation, there is another
circumstance that ought to be attended to. One parallel passage
should not be subordinated to another. The meaning of some
should not be held forth as a kind of test by which to try the
truth or correctness of the sentiments contained in others. They
should be brought into connexion, but not into subordination —
into harmonious adjustment, rather than one-sided subjection.
The Socinians subordinate such texts as speak of Christ's divinity
to those that mention his humanity.
Again, passages really parallel should not be pressed beyond
their due force, else violence is done to the text. More should
not be deduced from them than what they legitimately contain.
Thus some infer certainty On a particular point, where there is
simple probability.
But in what cases is the comparison of parallels to be em
ployed ? Where terms and phrases occur often, and are unam
biguous in their significations, it is unnecessary to have recourse
to them. It savours of learned ostentation. But words which
are rare, and at the same time obscure — those whose signification
is uncertain, or which bear a great variety of senses, leaving it
difficult to decide upon the correct one in a particular case — may
receive elucidation from a comparison of parallels. Although,
therefore, we may not expect any thing new from this source, it
has various important uses.

STATED AND EXEMPLIFIED, 249
1st, It serves to confirm such significations as have been par
tially ascertained from other sources. It happens not infrequent
ly, that etymology favours a certain signification without putting-
it beyond the limits of uncertainty ; and that the connexion is
not so decisive, as to prevent another signification from being as
signed. When all other helps furnish a plausible, rather than a
completely satisfactory sense, there may be one or more places in
which an obscure term is found bearing that signification alone,
to which the other means of ascertaining the usus loquendi point
as probable. In such a case we are justified in assuming, that
the sense which was previously liable to some uncertainty, is
agreeable to the usus loquendi, and may be applied without
hesitation. 2dly, Parallel passages are aptly employed, in deciding between
the numerous significations of a word in a particular locality ; or
in attaching definiteness to what is vague and indeterminate. It
is well known, that in proportion to the numerous ideas which
words symbolise, is the difficulty of fixing upon the right sense
in a certain place. Etymology may refuse its assistance ; — the
context may leave room for doubt ; — but when there are one or
more places, in which the signification that appeared a priori
preferable, is indubitably found, there is sufficient ground for
fixing upon the one recommended by external means, and for
banishing all doubt as to its entire appUcability.
Thus we have seen, that parallel passages may be employed to
confirm significations already found, but not beyond the reach of
uncertainty ; and in assisting to discover the proper meaning of
terms which are obscure, because of their rare occurrence, or the
variety of senses they bear.
These remarks are applicable to both languages of Scripture,
but more perhaps to the Hebrew than the Greek, from the few
remains of the former which have come down to our time.
(a) Parallels in the same book.
(b) Parallels in compositions proceeding from the same writer.
(c) Parallels in any part of Scripture.
(a) Isaiah ix. 6. " For 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 called, Wonderful, Counsellor, The Mighty God,
The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace." Here the Messiah
is styled the mighty God, li^a ^N. Gesenius, however, renders
it, the strong hero (starker Held) ; and De Wette adopts the same

250

THE PRINCIPLES OP INTERPRETATION

version. But in Isaiah x. 2 1 , the same phrase is applied to the
Deity, and the context will bear no other sense. " The remnant
of Jacob shall return unto the mighty God," "11211 b'^. In the
20th verse it is stated, that " the remnant of Israel, and such as
are escaped of the house of Jacob, shall stay upon the Lord, the
holy One of Israel in truth ;" and in the very next verse, the
same sentiment is expressed in " the remnant returning to the
mighty God."
Hebrews i. 3. bi' lauroD ¦/.aSa.^igft.h 'jToingdiJjivog, " when he had
purged our sins by himself." A/' 'iolmtov is an elliptical form of ex
pression. In Hebrews ix. 26, we find the same phrase in its full
form, hid Trig ^ugiag aiirov, " by the sacrifice of himself." It would
therefore be quite proper to translate i. 3, " when he had by the
sacrifice of himself, purged our sins," &c.
(b) Colossians i. 16, " For by him were aU things created," &c.
h auToj UrigSri rd 'rrdma. Some assert that Ta -xavTo. signifies all
the new creation, or " the whole multitude of the regenerated."
But in 1 Corinthians viiL 6, the same phrase is used of all created
things or the universe, applied both to the Father and the Son.
In the latter passage, creation is ascribed to the one, equally as
to the other. We explain therefore rd 'n-dvra in Coloss. i. 16, the
universe, all created things, especially as the immediate vicinity
absolutely forbids any other sense. Nothing, says Dr. Samuel
Clarke, is more forced and unnatural, than to expound all things
in Coloss. i. 16, of the gospel dispensation.
(c) 2 Samuel vui. 18. " And David's sons were D^JriS." The
radical signification of this term is priest; and it is usually so un
derstood throughout the Old Testament. But from the parallel
word in 1 Chron. xviii. 17, D"'iWt<'1 princes, D''3rl3 must be
taken in the same signification, Gesenius indeed contends against
this signification, but in so doing, he disregards the divine inspi
ration of the writer in Chronicles.*
Matthew viii. 24. " And behold there was a great gugfhhg"
&c. The term gugfjM properly signifies earthquake ; but it de
notes a commotion of the sea, or a tempest, in this place. Accord
ingly, Luke and Mark have for it, XaiXa.-^. (Mark iv. 37 ; Luke
viii. 23.)
Luke xvii. 1. ' Kvhhinrov signifies impossible, for in Matthew
* See Dr. Pye Smith's " Four Discourses on the Sacrifice and Priesthood of Christ,"
2d edition, 12mo, 1842, pp. 83, 84.

STATED AND EXEMPLIFIED. 251
XVIII. 7, ddvvarov is put as its synonyme. Its conjugate, 'iihiyiTa.1
with oux, in Luke xui. 33, proves the same thing.
John i. 3, 'iy'inTo signifies were created; for the synonymous
term xr/^w is employed in the parallel passage, Coloss. i. 16.
In comparing parallels it is proper to observe a certain order.
In the first place we should seek for parallels in the writings of
the same author, as the same peculiarities of conception and modes
of expression are liable to return in different works proceeding
from one person. There is a certain configuration of mind which
manifests itself in the productions of one man. Each writer is
distinguished by a style more or less his own ; — by character
istics which would serve to identify him with the emanations of
his intellect, even were his name withheld. Hence the reason
ableness of expecting parallel passages in the writings of one
author to throw most light upon each other. But, in the next
place, it is desirable that the interpreter should not exclude time
from the account. The works of contemporary writers should be
consulted before those of others. In the Old Testament, it is of
much importance to attend to this mode of conducting parallel
investigation, because the nature of the Hebrew language varied
remarkably at different periods. The later Hebrew of Kings and
Chronicles is very different from the earlier of the Pentateuch.
The books written about the time of the Babylonish captivity
approach in style the Chaldee dialect. Accordingly, the golden
and silver age of the Hebrew have been distinguished by Gesenius,
although the division might be carried out into greater minuteness.
Hence such books of the Old Testament as belong to the same age
of the Hebrew language, should be consulted for parallel passages,
sooner than those written at different and remote periods. Isaiah,
Hosea, Micah, and Amos may be examined together, previously
to Isaiah and Haggai ; whilst Jeremiah and Ezekiel may be aptly
compared. But the component parts of the New Testament
canon were written almost contemporaneously. Again, it is ob
viously the dictate of common sense, that writings of the same
kind should be brought together for mutual illustration, rather
than such as belong to different classes. Hence, prophetic pas
sages may be brought into juxtaposition with prophetic ; — and
historical with historical, previously to our looldng out among
historical books, for parallels to passages occurring in the poetic.
Thus Isaiah and Hosea come together ; whereas Isaiah and
Joshua are unlike. Proverbs and Ecclesiastes are similar, both

252

THE PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION

belonging to the philosophical class ; and therefore they abound
in parallel passages. The epistles to the Romans and Galatians
may be ranked together ; as their sentiments and expressions re
markably harmonise.
Having thus proceeded, it may be afterwards necessary to have
recourse to books proceeding from different writers, belonging to
different periods, and of various contents, in order that parallels
drawn from them may mutually illustrate each other.
Although passages quoted in the New Testament cannot be
properly styled parallel to their originals in the Old, but rather
identical, yet the mutual relation of both bears great resemblance
to that of parallels. It is therefore helpful to the exegetical in
quirer to compare words occurring in the two parts and two lan
guages of the Bible. A sentiment in the Old Testament would
frequently be obscure, apart from its recurrence hi the New. In
the latter, we see the fulfilment of many predictions which must
have been comparatively dark to the Jewish church. It presents
the substantial verities shadowed forth in the ancient dispensation.
Should any one, therefore, object to place passages quoted in
the New Testament with their originals, in the category of pa
rallels, they may be introduced by way of appendix to this topic,
since they constitute a valuable help in the right interpretation of
Scripture. Parallels are discovered from an attentive perusal of the Bible,
or of separate books read over at short intervals of time. In the
course of examination, they may be marked on the margin of the
copy employed. But there is a shorter way of arriving at paral
lels, viz. by concordances, such as Fiirst's to the Hebrew Bible,
and Schmid's by Bruder, to the Greek Testament. For the He
brew particles, Noldius will be found complete. And yet it is
obvious, that these works are better adapted for supplying verbal
than real parallels. The best modern lexicons will also serve as
concordances, such as those of Gesenius, Schleusner, Wahl, and
Robinson. There are also printed copies of the Scriptures with
marginal references. But parallels taken from the margins of
translations should not be relied on. The originals themselves
are the only sure source.
From the consideration of single terms we naturally pass to
that of sentences. Having ascertained the signification of the
former, we next inquire into the sense of several joined together,
composing a proposition or period.

STATED AND EXEMPLIFIED. 253
We should first ascertain the right construction of a sentence.
This includes the right punctuation and division of the separate
clauses, the supplying of necessary ellipses, and the adjustment
of all the parts in connexion with the subject and predicate of
the proposition. The subordinate clauses attached to these must
be carefully noted, and the whole arranged in proper order for
finding the meaning conveyed by the writer.
In thus preparing a sentence for being rightly understood, we
should recollect, that punctuation is no part of Scripture, the
oldest MSS. being without it ; that some word or words are fre
quently left to be supplied, which are necessary to complete the
sense ; and that minor clauses, forming of themselves short pro
positions, are often subjoined to the body or trunk of a sentence.
But there is a punctuation ready to our hand which may be re
garded as the result of the combined judgment of many able,
pious, and learned men, and therefore it should not be abandoned
for light or trivial causes. We must have important and impe
rious reasons for departing from it. To leave it hastily and fre
quently, betrays a rashness that can neither be commended, nor
beneficially imitated. Those who seek to pervert the statements
of Scripture, and to educe another system of religion than that
propounded by Heaven, have frequently recourse to this expedi
ent. Men who have concocted an ingenious theory or curious
tenet, will try to alter the punctuation and division, with the
view of neutralising opposing evidence, and of gaining support to
their views.
In the case of ellipses too, it is needful to bear in mind, that
they have been multiplied beyond reasonable measure. The plain
language of the Bible, pregnant with meaning though it be, does
not demand many supplementary words ; and the circumstances
in which they are required, are usuaUy obvious. Here we must
use caution, and be well assured, that an ellipsis is necessary to
complete the sense. If there be chasms in the construction or
meaning, so apparent as to arrest ordinary observation, we should
not hesitate to fill up the deficiency ; but the frequent and arbi
trary assumption of their existence, all sober expositors unite to
discountenance. After these preliminary remarks, by way of caution, we come
to point out the manner of proceeding by several examples.
Psalm Ixxiii, 4. It is better to divide Qnio"? into DPi ID"?.
T ; T T
and then the sense will be, " I saw the prosperity of the wicked,

254 THE PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION
that they have no torments ; firm and fat is their body," &c. Df)
is thus taken in a physical sense. So j^Jl i" Job xxi. 23, De
Wette renders it, " For there are no torments until their death,
and plump is their body." But thus, ID*? is wanting; and the
introduction of death here is inappropriate, as the poet begins to
speak of it at the 19th verse.*
Hosea vi. 5. The sense of the common reading is not ap
parent, for literally it means, " and thy judgments, the light go-
eth forth." By dividing it, however, thus, ii^J_ ~I1N3 'EOBli^ai
" and my judgment shall go forth as the light," an appropriate
and natural sense is presented. So all the ancient versions ex
cept the Vulgate. According to the common reading, the sense
will be " each of thy judgments shall go forth as light," i. e. they
shall be open, clear, and obvious to all.f
John vu. 21, 22. In the received text, did tovto is put in a
different verse from Sau/ia^srs, thus ; "Ev 'i^yov Ivolriga, xai vdv-
Tig '^aiijhd'CiTi' did tovto MwuV^s didoixsv v/j,~v rriv -Tn^iroiiriv' %. t. X.
" I have done one work, and ye all marvel. Moses therefore
gave unto you circumcision," &c. But according to this division
there is nothing to which hd tovto can well be referred : " there
fore Moses gave you circumcision ;" — the reason is not apparent.
Hence it is preferable to connect ha tovto with &ai//ia^£7-£. " I
did one work, and ye all marvel on account of it. Moses gave
you," &c. So Theophylact, Knapp, De Wette, Lachmann, and
almost all modern editors and interpreters. The old punctuation
might be defended, but it is most probably erroneous.
In Romans viii. 20, 21, the present punctuation is dXXd hid rh
v-joTa^avTa lor' eX'jrihr on xai avTri, &c. The passage is confessedly
difficult of exposition, in whatever mode it be divided. We are in
clined, however, to believe, that the separation of 6V; from iX'Tridi
obscures the sense. The comma should be removed from its place
after iXmhi, and the conjunction closely connected with the noun,
so as to yield the meaning, " in hope that," &c. This division
has been adopted by Lachmann, De Wette, Stuart, Wardlaw, and
others. Romans ix. 5. t3v o; vaTi^eg, %al 1^ S)v 6 Xg/srJs, Th xaTd gdpxa, o
uv liti rrdvruv '^ihg ivXoyrjTbg i'lg rovg aiuvag I 'A/x,riv.
* See Ewald on the Psalms, 2d edition, p, 328.
¦(¦ See Kennicott's Dissertat. general, § 28, p. 55, ed, Bruns ; and Michaelis's Bib
liothek, Orient. T. xi.\. p. 172.

STATED AND EXEMPLIFIED. 255
There are three modes of punctuating this important sentence.
1st, That found in the received text.
2dly, rh xara gd^xa. 'O uv, &c. This was mentioned by Eras
mus, and has been adopted chiefly by Unitarian writers.
3dly, 0 sDv i'tI vdvruv. &shg, &c.
In the second and third methods, a doxology to the father is
contained in the latter clause. But to this there are insuperable
objections. In all doxologies, the adjective I'vXoynrhg ^taxiAs first
in order. This position is invariably observed. So 2 Cor. i. 3 ;
Ephes, i. 3 ; Luke i. 68. The same usage in regard to this ad
jective is observed in the LXX where it occurs about 40 times.
The opposite formula of cursing requires, in like manner, Imxard-
^ocTog in the beginning of a sentence; see Gal. ui. 10-13.
Besides, the position of &dg should be different according to this
proposed punctuation. In other doxologies, where &tbg occurs, it
follows luXoyriTig immediately. Thus 2 Cor. i. 3 ; Ephes. i. 3 ;
1 Peter i. 3. To justify, therefore, the doxological form, the
word should occupy a place prior to what it now has. Farther,
Bihg should have the article prefixed. In the passages already
referred to, and all others of the same kind, Qihg has the article ;
and had a doxology been intended, the noun should have had the
same prefix in this place. Hence the punctuation which con
verts the sentence into a doxology cannot be admitted, as it re
quires luXoyrirhg 6 &ihg 6 i-rrl 'TTavrm. These objections, with others
that might be drawn from the context, are quite sufficient to
set aside the proposed division. They lie equally against both
methods of dividing the words. The terms must therefore be
separated in some other way, not exposed to such weighty and
well-founded arguments derived from established usage. The
usual method alone remains, as natural, simple, and correct We
are unavoidably led to adopt it.
1 Cor. vii. 17. E/ |U.j) 'sxdgTu oig ifLB^iesv 6 xv^iog, 'ixagTov ag xixXrixiii
6 SsJs, ovToi 'jri^ivaTiho' x. t. X. It is usual to take ii f^ri in con
nexion with 'ixdsTui i>g i//,i^igiv. So our authorised version. " But
as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called
every one, so let him walk." Others render e'l //.ri only. Both
meanings assigned to e! /j,^ are unusual. It is better to put a point
after s/ ju^ri, and to supply from the preceding portion, the verb
oJhag. The sense of the passage will then be the following. " If
thou dost not know, then let each walk in such a manner as God
has distributed to him, as God has called him." Instead of the

256 THK PUrNClPLES OF INTERPRETATION
believing husband separating from the wife who is not a Christian,
and the wife who has an unbelieving husband separating from
him, the apostle recommends, that they should continue to live to
gether, and employ the measure of grace assigned to each by
the sovereign dispenser of all gifts, in endeavouring to gain over
the unbeliever to the faith of the gospel.
1 Tim. in. 15, 16. " But if I tarry long, that thou mayest
know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God,
which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of
the truth. And without controversy great is the mystery of god
liness : God was manifest in the flesh," &c. Instead of denomi
nating the church of the living God the pillar and foundation of
truth, whilst it is called the house of God (images that do not
exactly correspond in the connexion), we prefer joining the pillar
and ground of truth to the following words, and taking them as
characteristic of the mystery of godliness, God manifest in the
flesh. So Griesbach, De Wette, Jahn, Knapp, Pye Smith, and
many others.
In the following examples, the punctuation seems to be unne
cessarily disturbed, and another proposed, which is both unsuit
able, and devoid of plausibility.
Psalms xvn. 4. ri'hv^b ¦ ¦'3— I3yi"'?il "'hDl ^^pri-"??
^''riSii' T51? 07^ " I am purposed that my mouth shall not
transgress. Concerning the works of men, by the word of thy
lips I have kept me," &c. Bauer recommends, that the distinc
tion of accents and verses should be neglected, and translates thus,
" Thou has not found crimes against me : my mouth passes not
to the evil deeds of men, i. e. I do not approve of the crimes of
others." * The usus loquendi, however, of b "l^y does not sanc
tion this sense. D"1Nt irh'^'zb signify literally, as to the deeds of
men, i. e. men such as they exist, or corrupt humanity.
Canticles vii, 6. 103-1K3 '^t\^-\ n^ll "ppTa^ ¦;j;'^i7 :.'?Tt:>N"1
: D'an-^n IID.v} "=1^0 « Thine head upon thee is like Carmel, and
the hair of thine head like purple ; the king is held in the gal
leries." Others divide and translate thus. " Thy head is like
Carmel, and the hair of thy head like the purple of kings bound
in rings," It is better, however, to abide by the common punc
tuation, and to translate, " the king is fettered by thy locks."
Micah V. i. ""^bvill nvn"? "CV^f 7]^-^^^ onV-jT'^ nriNi
* Critica Sacra, p. 460.

STATED AND EXEMPLIFIED. 257
" But thou Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be Uttle among
the thousands of Judah, yet," &c. By comparing these words
with their translation in the gospel of St, Matthew, it will be
seen that some discrepancy exists between the prophet and the
evangelist. It is easily removed by reading the words interroga
tively, thus, " And art thou Bethlehem Ephratah little among,"
&c. Mark ix. 23. 'O hi 'Irjgovg imiv auToJ' Tb, il hvvagai trigTivgaf
irdvra iward roj irigrivovTi. " Jesus said unto him, if thou canst
believe, all things are possible to him that believeth." Knatch-
buU has proposed to separate hvmgai from mgTiugai, and to render
it thus — " If thou canst ? BeUeve," &c. The article rb in this
example is put before a phrase which is employed as a mere ob
ject in the sentence, and is equivalent to videlicet.
John xii. 27. Nuk ^j -^uy^ri fnov Tird^axrar xai ti e/V&i ; IlarEg, gugov
/i,i ix Trig ili^ag Tavrr^g' dXXd hid tovto riX6ov iig rriv u^av ravrriv. " Now
is my soul troubled ; and what shall I say ? Father, save me from
this hour : but for this cause came I unto this hour." Here
also we believe that there ought to be a point of interrogation.
" Father, deliver me from this hour ? Nay. For this cause," &c.
So Knapp and Lachmann punctuate, according to the sentiments
of Grotius. The common rendering is inconsistent with the cha
racter of Jesus as elsewhere delineated.*
Romans viii. 33, 34. " Who shall lay any thing to the charge
of God's elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is he that con
demneth ? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again,
who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh interces
sion for us." We prefer a point of interrogation after these verses,
to preserve their uniformity with the preceding. " Who shall lay
any thing to the charge of God's elect ? God that justifieth? Who
is he that condemneth ? Christ that died, yea rather that is risen
again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh
intercession for us ?" So Griesbach, Knapp, Erasmus, Locke,
Schoettgen, Koppe, Lachmann, &c.
1 Cor. V. 12, 13. T/ ydg jj^oi xai roug b^cd x^lviiv ; Ou^t roiig 'igot
u/Mig x^hiTi ; Toiig hi t^w 6 Seoj x^iviT.- Kal i^agiTrs tov vovri^hv 6§ ii/iSii/
auTuv. " For what have I to do to judge them also that are with-
* " I understand," says Dr, Campbell, " the question as ending, not at liru, but at
TxvTtis, at which place there should be a point of interrogation ; or rather, that tha
words should be considered as two questions," On the Gospels, vol, ii. p. 514, 8vo,
London, 1834.
Kk

258 THE PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION
out? do not ye judge them that are within ? But them that are
without, God judgeth. Therefore put away from among your
selves that wicked person." Knatchbull has proposed to divide
the passage thus : ov^l- Tovg 'igoi 'v/j,i7g x^inn. " Not at all. Judge
ye them that are within ; but those that are without, God judg
eth; and put away from among yourselves that wicked person."
According to this punctuation, ov^l is made the answer to a ques
tion, which is at least unusual. The adverb is generally found
in interrogatories ; and when a negative answer is given, ei is
employed. Sometimes it has been proposed to put an interrogation, where
there is neither necessity nor propriety to recommend it. An in
stance of this may be seen in Gen. iv. 13, where some propose to
render the words, " Is mine iniquity greater than that it can be
forgiven ?" The common rendering is much better; " Mine ini
quity is greater than I can bear."
Gen. iv. 23. " I have slain a man to my wounding, and a young
man to my hurt." Onkelos followed by a few others would ren
der, " Have I slain a man to my wounding and a young man to
my hurt ? I have not ;" but this is a refinement evidently devised
for the purpose of clearing Lamech of murder.
But besides adjusting the divisions of a sentence, we should also
at the same time supply the ellipses. Thus in 1 Sam, xxix. 1 1 ,
^vi? Dn/11, " Looked with compassion upon thee." Here "'3''y
my eye is understood. Isaiah xlviii. 11, 7n^, "^'X'^S, " for how
should it be polluted ?" Here ""T*)^!), my glory, is to be supplied
from the words immediately succeeding.
Job xxxix. 24. " And he does not understand, that the voice of
the trumpet resounds."
Isaiah Ixvi. 6. "A voice of tumult echoes from the city," &c.
Romans vi. 17. " But God be thanked, that ye were the
servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of
doctrine which was delivered you." Here we must supply the
conjunction although. If the construction were regular, the
words shoiiid stand thus : *g(V //,h 'wTig hovXoi, ])v\i hi v'jrrixovgaTi,
X. T. X.
1 Tim. iv. 1-3. " Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that
in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed
to seducing spirits, and the doctrines of devils; speaking lies in
hypocrisy ; having their conscience seared with a hot iron ; forbid
ding to marry, to abstain from meats, which God hath created,"

STATED AND EXEMPLIFIED. 259
&c. Here the sense evidently requires the opposite of xaXv6vTta\/
to be understood; commanding to abstain, &c.
As instances of wrong ellipses, the following may be taken.
Psalm X. 3. " For the wicked boasteth of his heart's desire,
and blesseth the covetous, whom the Lord abhorreth." There
is no reason for supplying whom, as is done in our version. The
proper translation is, " And the covetous man curses, contemns
Jehovah." So Ewald, De Wette, Stuart, &c.
Proverbsxiii. 11.- Some understand ^o^^ew or (zcg'MiVetf. So
our translation. But this is aside from the true sense, which is,
" wealth is lessened by vanity, but whosoever gathers into the
hand increases it." So De Wette, C. B. Michaelis, and others.
Proverbs xxx, 15. The term saying has been improperly
supplied in this place by our English translators. The sense is
complete without it — for the two daughters are, give, give.
Isaiah xUi. 19. Here some would have the full form to be
n^l^N* O^'pa "1^1*^0, " as he to whom I have sent my mes
senger." So the Vulgate, Chaldee, Saadias, Lowth. The com
mon translation is right, and alone agreeable to the parallelism.
Matthew xiv. 25. In order to remove the miracle from this
place, Paulus supplies aiyiaXu before ^aXdggrig. This is contrary
to the context. So also in xvU, 27, he would understand 'iroXri-
gag before Bv^^gng — as if the meaning were, " when you have
sold it, you will get a piece of money." In these unnatural
ellipses Bahrdt also indulged, as might have been expected from
an unbeliever.
John i. 10, 'El/ Ttu xogf/yU) rjV, xai o xog/JLog hi' auTov eyeviTO' xai 6
xogjMog a'vTh oux 'eym. " He was in the world, and the world was
made by him, and the world knew him not." Dr, Carpenter,
and others of the same school in theology, would understand
mpciTig/xtsvog after syeviro, as if the meaning were, " the world by
him was enlightened." The preceding verse describes Christ as
the light which lighteneth every man ; and it is therefore con
ceived, that a passive participle may be borrowed from this active
verb (pur/^iw), and supplied in the present verse. In justification
of this construction, we are referred to supposed parallel cases,
one of which is Acts xxii. 28. The tribune who apprehended
Paul was surprised at the prisoner claiming the privileges of a
Roman citizen, and observed, " for a great sum obtained I this
freedom," to which the apostle replied, iyii hi xai yiyimriihai, " but
I was even so born." This is not an analogous example. We

260 THE PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION
do not deny, that when the verb y/vo/ia; is used, the predicate Of
the preceding clause may be supplied after it. The context may
plainly indicate such reference. But the predicate of the pre
ceding clause is never so understood, except when it might be
aptly expressed in English by so. In the passage from Acts,
this particle is all that is required in English to supply the
full sense. It is easy to see that the supplying of so in John
i. 10, does not convey the sense, " the world was enlightened by
him."* John viii. 58, " Before Abraham was, I am." Many have
here supplied the pronoun he. " Before Abraham was, I am
he." This ellipsis, however, is neither required by the context,
nor justified by parallel cases ; whilst the ancient versions know
nothing of it. The sense appears to be complete without it ;
and so far from making the passage better understood, it obliges
the advocates of it to have recourse to far-fetched interpretations
and strange paraphrases.
Hebrews ix. 10. " Which stood only in meats and drinks,
and diverse washings," &c. Here the words which stood are
unnecessary, for there is no ellipsis whatever. The right trans
lation of the passage is, " During which (time) were offered both
gifts and sacrifices that were not able to make the worshipper
perfect with respect to conscience, being imposed (in addition to
meats, and drinks, and divers ablutions — ordinances of the flesh)
only until the time of reformation."
In punctuation and ellipses, we are to be guided by the con
nexion of the place, grammatical considerations, parallel passages,
quotations in the New Testament, and by ancient versions. The
first two particulars are especially useful. The context may ob
viously demand a certain division, without which, violence would
be done to the plain sense of the passage. The syntax of the
language may also prefer one punctuation to another, or the usage
of words and phrases recommend one eUipsis. These should
certainly weigh more with the interpreter than a predominant
desire to support sentiments previously entertained, or fondly
cherished. Could we bring ourselves to learn, with all submis
sion, the will of God, and to endeavour with unfeigned sincerity
to know nothing else, prejudices would cease to bias inquiry, and
innumerable expedients, now followed for escaping from the true
* See " An Elementary Course of Theological Lectures, by the Rev. ^^^ D. Cony
beare, M.A,, I'.R.S,," &c, 2d edition, 12mo, London, 1836, pp, 427-4.30,

STATED AND EXEMPLIFIED.

261

meaning, be abandoned for ever. The two processes we have
just explained, and which we regard as rather preparatory to the
actual interpretation of a sentence or passage, involve a certain
amount of exposition. It is impossible to ascertain the right
punctuation, or the proper ellipsis, without assigning some mean
ing to a passage. The process by which we arrive at a know
ledge of them, is not extraneous to the passage itself ; but the
general sense of the very place which we propose to interpret, is
brought to bear upon their discovery. It is impossible that it
should be otherwise. Considerations which we might wish for a
time to keep in abeyance, are closely interwoven with others.
They mutually modify and affect the whole process of interpre
tation. The principles and powers of man are such, that he can
not reasonably divest himself of a part of these considerations,
especially since he has been practically and continuously habi
tuated to them from the earUest use of language as a medium of
intercourse. Having thus adjusted the punctuation, both as to its nature
and position, we should next ascertain the proper construction of
a period — the subject and predicate with their adjuncts — the
clauses attached to the main part of the sentence — and the syn
tactical principles it presents. We have already spoken of the
mode of ascertaining the subject and predicate ; and need not
repeat former observations. Here a knowledge of the grammar
of the Hebrew and Greek languages is especially required, not
merely acquaintance with the general outlines, but with the cha
racteristic peculiarities, and all the irregular phenomena which
it is its province to record.
Psalm ix. 6. " O thou enemy, destructions are come to a
perpetual end : and thou hast destroyed cities ; their memorial
is perished with them."
The passage literaUy translated stands thus : —
The enemy ! they are gone — desolations for ever !
And the cities thou destroyest — their very memory has
perished.
The sentiment of the verse is, that Jehovah utterly and for ever
cuts off his enemies. ^.''INri is a nominative absolute, not a vo-
cative as our translators took it.* Ewald, with less precision, un
derstands it as the direct nominative case to the verb IDP, against
* Gesenius's Lehrgeb, pp. 723, 4,

262

THE PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION

which there is no syntactical objection.* D'l3"in is put in appo
sition with n 1 1 N ll. The meaning is not, that the desolations caused
by the enemy are ceased, but rather, that the enemy themselves,
or all that remains of them, consists of utter, eternal ruins.
Psalm Ixxxiv. 5, 6, 7. " Blessed is the man whose strength
is in thee ; whose heart are the ways of them. Who passing
through the valley of Baca, make it a well ; the rain also fiUeth
the pools. They go from strength to strength, every one of
them in Zion appeareth before God."
After the Psalmist has spoken of the happiness belonging to
those who are privileged to dwell perpetually in Jerusalem, and to
be constantly worshipping Jehovah in his temple there, he passes,
by the law of contrariety, to the state of such as lived among
strangers, and pronounces them also blessed in the possession of
a sure trust in the Almighty. The body of the sentence con
sists simply of the proposition. Blessed is the man whose strength
is in thee ; and with it is closely connected the description of
his consummated desires, " in Zion he appeareth before God,"
" Blessed is the man whose strength is in thee; in Zion he ap
peareth before God." His appearing before God in Zion is
the essence and the evidence of his blessedness. Though not
an inhabitant of Jerusalem, yet if his strength be placed in
God, he enjoys the happiness belonging to the constant dwel
lers in the holy city of appearing before Jehovah in his temple.
The intervening words, " in whose heart are the ways, pass
ing through the valley of tears, they make it a well, and a
mild rain covers it with blessings ; they go from strength to
strength," are descriptive of the feelings and hopes by which
the pilgrims to Jerusalem are animated ; and were suggested
by the general mention of an individual whose strength is in
the Lord, though he reside at a distance from the city of the
great King. They carry the individual through his journey till
he arrives at the temple. Nothing can be more beautiful than the
deUneation of the " pilgrim's progress" here presented. Though
separated from the habitation of Jehovah, and exposed to dangers,
he places his strength and confidence in the most High, assured
that he shall yet behold His beauty, and inquire in His holy
temple. Accordingly, he loves the ways that lead to Jerusalem,
along which pilgrims troop; they are in his heart; he thinks of
* Die poetischen BUcher des alten Bundes erklart, Zweiter Theil. Die Psalmen,
Zweite Ausagabe, Gottingen, 1840, p. 320,

STATED AND EXEMPLIFIED.

263

them with delight. The dry and dreary valleys through which
he passes, are converted by hope and joy into a region abound
ing with water, and covered with the blessings of the latter rain.
Instead of being weakened or discouraged by the valley of tears,
he increases in strength, until at last he attains the summit of
his desires. Such is the general construction and meaning of the
sentence. Between the first and last clauses of it, a number of
particulars are interposed, descriptive of the advancing pilgrim.
Romans xi. 33-35. " O the depth of the riches both of the
wisdom and knowledge of God ! how unsearchable are his judg
ments, and his ways past finding out ! For who hath known the
mind of the Lord ? or who hath been his counsellor ? Or who
hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him
again." The exclamation of the apostle, astonished at the greatness of
the themes on which he had been meditating, regards three par
ticulars. 1st, The depth of Jehovah's riches or rich mercy; 2dly,
The depth of his wisdom ; 3dly, The depth of his knowledge.
The latter part of the 33d verse contains an additional exclama
tion not essentially different from the preceding, but embodying
the same idea. The next verse illustrates the same particulars
by way of interrogative negation, in language borrowed from the
Old Testament. The first question, " who hath known the mind
of the Lord," refers to the knowledge ; the second question,
" who hath been his counsellor," applies to the wisdom ; and the
third, " who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed
to him again," enlarges upon the riches oi God. Thus the
order is inverted. The first two interrogatories are taken from
Isaiah ; the last from Job. In the whole passage there is a re
gularity of structure and symmetry of parts which the superficial
reader may not perceive.*
Galatians ii. 3, 4, 5. 'AXX' ovhi Tlrog 6 guv ifnol "jiXXriv uv, rivay-
xdgSti 'jrsg/r^jj^^va/. Aid h'l Toiig va^iigdxTovg ¦^ivhahiXtpoug, o'irivig nta^
giig'r{X6ov xaTagxo'jrjgai r?])' iXivh^iav rtfiuv, ijv 'I'^o/jiiv iv XgigTul 'Irjaov,
'Iva ri/jtdg xaTahovXugoivTai' O/j oiihi Tt^hg oigav I'l^afkiv ttj V'TTOTayfi, 'ha
ri dXijhia tou ivayyiXiou hiafiiivfl 9^hg v/jjdg. " But neither Titus
who was with me being a Greek, was compelled to be circum
cised : and that because of false brethren unawares brought in,
who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in
Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage : to whom
* See Jebb's Sacred Literature, 2d edition, London, 1828, 8vo, p. 117 et seq.

264 THE PRINCIPLES OP INTERPRETATION
we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour ; that the truth
of the gospel might continue with you."
We take it for granted, that the received reading is correct,
though the words olg ouhe were suspected by Jerome, Theodoret,
and Theophylact, in ancient times ; and afterwards by Mill,
Semler, Koppe, and Griesbach. All critical authorities except
D. and TertuUian have them. The passage also clearly shews
that Titus was not circumcised, for the apostle would not have
yielded to the false brethren in a matter where principle was con
cerned. St. Paul combats the insinuations of judaising teachers
against himself. They alleged, that the gospel he preached
among the Gentiles was not the same as that preached by the
other apostles, because he insisted on faith alone without the
works of the law, or the necessity of ceremonial observances. In
answer to this objection, he states, that he went up to Jerusalem
along with Barnabas and Titus ; that he made known to the chief
apostles the nature of the gospel which he preached ; and that
they coincided in the justness of his views. They did not find
fault with his principles or conduct in the least particular ; but
recognised him as a genuine apostle, who had derived his com
mission from the same source as themselves. The central state
ment of the entire passage is, " I went up to Jerusalem by
revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I
preach among the Gentiles." In the fourth verse the reason of
this step is assigned. It was on account of the false brethren that
he laid his mode of preaching before the apostles. The third
verse is parenthetic, and contains a testimony to the correctness
of his doctrine and conduct among the heathen. Though it was
known that Titus was a Greek, yet the apostles did not insist
upon the necessity of his undergoing circumcision. So fully did
they approve of Paul's gospel, that they did not once require his
Greek companion to be circumcised. Had Peter, James, and
John, compelled him to submit to this ceremony, the calumnia
tors of the great apostle would have had some ground for their
insinuations ; but their acquiescence in his conduct shews that
their sentiments were in harmony with his own. The hi at the
commencement of the fourth verse is connective or continuative ;
and is to be joined with dvi^nv or dve6ifi,r}v, either of which should
be repeated for the sake of greater perspicuity. The third verse
being thrown in by way of parenthesis, turns aside in construc
tion from the second, and occasions an irregularity.

STATED AND EXEMPLIFIED, 265
Hebrews v. 7, 8, 9. " Who in the days of his flesh, when fie
had offered up prayers and supplications, with strong crying and
tears, unto him that was able to save him from death, and was
heard in that he feared ; though he were a son, yet learned he
obedience by the things which he suffered ; and being made per
fect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that
obey him."
The body of this long sentence is composed of two closely con
nected statements. First, " Christ learned obedience." 2dly,
" He became the author of eternal salvation."
The former of these general propositions is modified by the
following statements. Christ learned obedience in the day of his
flesh ; he learned obedience though he were a son ; he learned
obedience by the things which he suffered. The qualifying state
ment of the second general proposition is simple ; he became the
author of eternal salvation to all them that obey him. There
is also a minor clause accompanying the first modifying statement
of the former general proposition, when he had offered up prayers
and supplications, with strong crying and tears, unto him that
was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared.
This should be put in a parenthesis.
Hebrews xiii. 7, 8. " Remember them which have the rule
over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God : whose
faith follow, considering the end of their conversation : Jesus
Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever."
This passage is greatly obscured by the rendering just quoted
from the received version. " Remember your leaders," says the
apostle " who have spoken unto you the word of God, and atten
tively considering the end of their life, imitate their faith." These
spiritual guides or teachers were now dead. They had borne a
triumphant testimony to the truth and power of Christianity ; and
the apostle exhorts his readers to follow their example. From the
common version it might be inferred, that " Jesus Christ" is put
in apposition with " the end of their conversation ;" but a cursory
inspection of the original dissipates such an idea.
After ascertaining the right construction of a sentence, it will
be proper to examine more minutely the sentence or passage it
self, for
I, It may contain within itself the means of its explanation.
Parallelism, antithesis, contrast, opposition, &c., may furnish
the necessary elucidation, l1

2G6 THE PRINCIPLES OF IXTERPRETATIO.V
Here parallelism of members is of the same importance as in
the case of single terms or phrases, confirming what was already
probable, removing obscurity, or leading to a right choice among
various senses which the passage is capable of bearing.
Take the first Psalm. The first three verses contain a descrip
tion of one character; the last three a delineation of its opposite.
Two characters are contrasted in the Psalm. Blessedness is pre
dicated of the one ; destruction and misery of the other. Many
expositors take the first three verses to belong immediately to
Christ. So Hawker, Fry, and others, understanding the man to
mean, the Son of man. But the fourth verse, by mentioning the
ungodly, points to the whole class of the righteous in the first
division, as those with whom the ungodly are contrasted. The
sixth verse leads to the same conclusion, " For the Lord knoweth
the way of the righteous ; but the way of the ungodly shall
perish." It is quite uncommon to put the character of the Sa
viour and that of the wicked in opposition. Hence the Psalm
contains a description of the righteous and the ungodly.
John iii. 6. " That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and
that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit." That which is born of
man with his fleshly, carnal, unrenewed nature, possesses the same
carnality and sinfulness. In contrast with this it is stated, " that
which is born of the Spirit is Spirit ;" i. e. the subjects of the Holy
Spirit's regenerating power are spiritual in their nature, or inward
ly holy. Two births are opposed to each other. The Holy Spirit
is the author of the one ; — man is the instrumental cause of the
other. There is a supernatural and a natural generation. The
children born in the one are holy, because the Spirit of whom they
are born is holy ; — the children born in the other are carnal and
polluted, because those from whom they spring, possess an im
perfect and sinful nature.
II. Its meaning may be perceived from the connexion in which
it stands. In examining the connexion observe,
(a) The leading design of the writer, or the object he has in
view in the passage. This has been technically called the special
scope, (b) The nature of the union subsisting between a passage
and its vicinity, whether intimate or loose, interrupted or other
wise, (a) The special scope of the writer. By this is meant the ob
ject he had in view in the particular portion under examination.

STATED AND EXEMPLIFIED. 267
It were equally improbable as impious to suppose, that the
sacred authors had no definite purpose in the various compart
ments of their writings ; or that the phrases they employ were
not specially adapted to develope a consistent meaning. Each
expression has its proper local! ty ; — each contributes to educe the
steps of an argument or illustration, and to forward the general
conclusion of the whole book. This is the method pursued by
every author. In treating of a certain topic, he naturally selects
such phraseology as appears most suitable and subservient to his
purpose. Different arguments are advanced ; — separate modes
of illustration are followed ; — and the minor parts are made to
bear upon and prepare the way for the general inference. The
special scope may be discovered from the preceding and succeed
ing context, comprehending a larger or less extended range as
circumstances may require. It will be necessary, however, to
examine the general scope, of which the special is merely a sub
division. The author of a book must have undertaken it with
some fixed design, and kept in view a certain object throughout.
To write without this, were to write uninteUigibly and confusedly.
The sacred penmen, under the superintendence of the Spirit, were
led to treat of holy themes regarding the church of God ; and in
their discussion, to adopt such modes of conveying their senti
ments as were best fitted to the nature of the topics. When,
therefore, we perceive the scope of a writer — the object at which
he aims — the grand point which he wishes to attain — we are in
the right way of arriving at a knowledge of his work. By the
general scope is meant, the design which the author had in writing
his book, — the object he proposed to himself in the whole work.
It may be known in various ways. Ist, From the specification
of the writer himself notifying the principal end he had in view ;
2dly, From a careful perusal of the book itself; idly. From the
occasion to which its origin must be attributed.
\st. Sometimes the author has told us, more or less plainly, in
the book itself, his design in writing. This is ordinarily done at
the beginning or end. Thus Solomon, or the author of Eccle
siastes, has explained at the commencement, the argument he
undertook to illustrate (i. 2), viz. the insufficiency of earthly en
joyments to render men happy. So also at the commencement
of Proverbs, the object of the writer is thus set forth : " The
Proverbs of Solomon the son of David, King of Israel ; to know

268 THE PIUNWPLES OF INTERPRETATION
wisdom and instruction ; to perceive the words of understanding ;
to receive the instruction of wisdom, justice, and judgment, and
equity ; to give subtilty to the simple, to the young man know
ledge and discretion," i. 1, 2, 3, 4. In the Acts of the Aposties,
the design of Luke's Gospel is stated in these words : " The for
mer treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began
both to do and teach, until the day in which he was taken up,
after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandment
unto the apostles whom he had chosen ;" and in the Apocalypse
is contained the following announcement : " The revelation of
Jesus Christ which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants
things which must shortly come to pass." Many of the prophets
announce the subject of their predictions at their commencement,
as Jonah, Nahum, &c. At the end of his first epistle, Peter
thus declares its scope : " By Silvanus, a faithful brother unto
you, as I suppose, I have written briefly, exhorting, and testify
ing that this is the true grace of God wherein ye stand," v. 12.
In like manner, John announces the leading design of his gospel
near its termination : " But these are written, that ye might be
lieve that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God ; and that believing
ye might have Ufe through his name," xx. 3 1 .
2dly, Where the general scope of a book is not thus pro
pounded, we should peruse it again and again, comparing the
different parts till the design of the writer be discovered. This
is often derived from reflections of the same kind recurring in
the book itself. Unless some prevailing sentiment had pervaded
the mind of the writer, and been kept continually before his
view, such reflections would either have been wanting, or ceased
to return frequently and at stated intervals ; or they would have
materially differed from one another. That they are to be taken
as an index of the leading design which the author of a book had
in view, is pretty evident from the fact, that when there is an
express declaration of the scope in addition to them, both are
seen strictly to harmonise. Thus reflections interspersed through
out the gospel of John, declaring that these things were written
to establish the faith of christians in Jesus as the Son of God,
(see n. 11 ; xxn. 24, &c. ; vi. 64, 71 ; vn. 30 ; xu. 16 ; xxxvii.
41; xvui. 9, 32; xix. 36), agree with what is openly announced
in XX. 31. So also the scope of the writers of the books of Kings
and Chronicles was to show, from the history of the chosen

STATED AND EXEMPLIFIED. 269
people, that every thing happened according to the genius of a
theocracy ; God himself inflicting punishments and bestowing
rewards immediately after the commission of crime, or the prac
tice of virtue. This is apparent, because at the end of the history
of each king, an observation is made respecting the prosperity or
adversity of the Israelites, just as they were obedient or otherwise
to the divine commands. In attending to such reflections, how
ever, the interpreter should see that they be scattered over the
entire book ; and that they be such as to exhibit the leading de
sign of the writer. Thus those who affirm, that the general scope
of the Acts of the Apostles is to defend Paul from the accusa
tion of the Jews that he was a despiser of the law, are in error.
This conclusion cannot be maintained from statements setting
forth that the apostle preached first to the Jews, and when re
jected by his countrymen, to the Gentiles ; because observations
of this purport are not found repeatedly in the book.
idly. Sometimes the general scope is not discoverable by either
of the two methods referred to. In such cases, we must endea
vour to ascertain the immediate occasion which gave rise to the
book or epistle, and thence learn the leading design. Thus their
subjects are sometimes prefixed to the Psalms, indicating at the
same time the historical circumstances in which these composi
tions originated. It cannot be denied, however, that the genuine
ness of the titles is matter of great doubt. We are inclined to
subscribe to the opinion of Eichhorn, Stark, Rosenmiiller, and
others, who think that there have been additions to the ancient
genuine titles; and that the more recent are often incorrect. The
predictions of the prophets, again, received a distinct colouring
from the historical circumstances out of which they arose. When,
therefore, we know the occasions on which they were composed,
and the direction they naturally took, we ascertain their general
scope. Thus much for the general scope which the authors of the
different books had in view when commencing to write under the
direction of the Spirit.
In endeavouring to ascertain the object of any writer in a par
ticular place, it will be requisite, not only to examine and ana
lyse the parts which precede and follow, but also to bring the
general scope to bear upon it. The special scope is intimately
connected with the general, and the general with the special.
When we perceive the one, it assists in discovering the other.

270 THE PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION
The entire book must usuaUy be perused, that the design of an
author in a given place may be correctly apprehended in its sub
servience to his chief object.
The special scope being merely a subdivision of the general,
may be discovered in the same way. The preceding and suc
ceeding context ought to be attentively weighed, in connexion
with the general scope of the whole. Thus the particular de
sign of the portion to be explained will appear. This is a matter
which may require no small discernment and acuteness. It is
proper first, to acquire a general idea of the contents of a book,
or the leading subject treated by the author. This process pre
pares us for going into detail by examining minute portions, and
descending from a survey of the outline, to the smaller parts
and connexions. Having a comprehensive view of the whole,
we are better able to survey the pieces of which it consists.
Thus we take the passage Romans vi. 21-23, and in order to
understand it fully, we endeavour to ascertain the special scope
of the writer. The general scope of the whole epistle is to estab
lish the doctrine of justification by the righteousness of Christ.
The design of the 6th chapter is seen from its commencement.
It is to show, that the doctrine of justification by the free grace
of God, so far from being an encouragement to live in sin, has
an opposite tendency to destroy the power of sin in beUevers.
To illustrate and confirm this statement the apostle asserts,
Ist, That Christians are buried with Christ in baptism, so that
being united to him as members of his mystical body, they should
necessarily die and rise with Him ; — die to sin and rise to a new
life of righteousness ; verses 2-11.
2dly, He reminds them of the fact, that the profession of the
gospel obliges them no longer to be the slaves and vassals of sin ;
for, in adopting it they devoted their entire persons to the ser
vice of God. In becoming Christians they were set free from
the vassalage of sin ; verses 12-20.
idly, He depicts the consequences of sin, particularising eternal
death as the wages paid to its servants ; verses 21-23.
Thus the passage forms part of an illustration used by the
apostle to show, that the superabounding grace of God in justi
fying sinners discourages continuance in sin. The wages of sin
is eternal death, which professing Christians shall certainly re
ceive, if they be its servants — but grace reigns unto eternal life
through righteousness. Obedience to sin unavoidably leads to

STATED AND EXEMPLIFIED,

271

death — grace implies and produces freedom from its dominion.
How then can the doctrine of free grace encourage licentious
ness ?
(b) The connexion subsisting between the parts of a continued
discourse has been denominated logical, in reference to the
thoughts expressed ; psychological, as far as it depends on the
laws of the association of ideas ; historical, when events are re
lated in chronological order; historico-dogmatic, when trans
actions occur in conjunction with the teaching of doctrines.
There is also the optical connexion, in which the order of time is
neglected, as in prophetic utterances. It is unnecessary to speak
at any length of these subdivisions.* The nature of the con
nexion, whatever it be, should be diligently consulted. Whether
the parts of a period or passage express genus or species, the
whole or a part, cause or effect, antecedents or consequents,
things similar or their contraries, by knowing them the interpre
ter will be benefited in his inquiries. Again, the laws of the
association of ideas, which are, contiguity in time and place, cau
sation, resemblance, contrast, will also promote a right percep
tion of the meaning of Scripture. The manner in which ideas
were suggested to the writers will be found in unison with the
usual operations of the human mind, and may lead us to sympa
thise with their feelings, and to enter into their experiences, as
they pour forth their inspired strains, and depict, in lively images,
the fortunes of the people of God. In poetry especially, an ac
quaintance with the train of thought, and the circumstances by
which it is incessantly influenced, will contribute much to the
explication of the tropical language employed. It is useful also
to attend to the succession of events, particularly when doctrines
are related at the same time. The order in the gospels is not
chronological. Circumstances and discourses are interwoven or
put in juxtaposition, that require to be separated. It is highly
probable, that our Lord uttered the same sentiments on different
occasions, and before different persons ; — that some at least of
his parables were repeated ; and that his discourses having been
delivered in various circumstances, present a variety of form and
length in the different gospels.f
* See Unterkircher' s Hermeneutica Biblica generalis, ed, sec, CEniponti, 8vo, 1834,
sections 106-114, pp, 164-181,
f " Attamen conatus definiendi singulorum ordinem et occasiones prsesertim in
EvangeUis frustraneus videtur, prsesertim si consideremus, Jesum diversis temporibus,
diversis in locis, coram diversis auditoribus prsedicasse, ex quo plane ridicula est

272

THE PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION

It is necessary to observe, that the connexion may be inter
rupted or externally severed by parentheses. These need to be
attended to, as they may occasion some difficulty. Remarks re
lating to time and place, or brief secondary circumstances are in
tercalated ; after which a paragraph or sentence is continued, as
if no interruption had taken place. So
Genesis xxiii. 2, " And Sarah died in Kirjath-arba; (the same
is Hebron in the land of Canaan) : and Abraham came to mourn
for Sarah, and to weep for her."
Exodus xii. 15. " Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread;
even the first day ye shall put away leaven out of your houses ;
for whosoever eateth leavened bread from the first day until the
seventh day, that soul shall be cut off from Israel."
In this version the parenthesis cannot be marked, because the
original words are unnaturally transposed. The following is a
literal translation of the verse.
" Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread, even the first day
ye shall put away leaven out of your houses : (for whosoever eateth
leavened bread, that soul shall be cut off from Israel), from the
first day until the seventh."
Isaiah Ui. 14, 15. "As many were astonished at thee; (his vis
age was so marred more than any man, and his form more than
the sons of men) ; so shall he sprinkle many nations."
Isaiah liii. 9. " And they had assigned him his grave with the
wicked,
(But he was with the rich after his death);
Though he had done no violence,
And deceit was not in his mouth."
The parenthetical remark is thrown in to shew how easily God
defeated the designs of the Messiah's enemies ; and how the dis
grace they intended to cast upon him was turned to his honour.
Daniel viii. 2. " And I saw in a vision (and it came to pass,
when I saw, that I was at Shushan in the palace, which is in the
province of Elam) ; and I saw in a vision, (and I was by the river
of Ulai)."
Acts i. 15. " And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of
the disciples, and said, (the number of the names together were
about an hundred and twenty)."
opinio, ac si unam eandemque doctrinam, imo et parabolam semel tantum et non sse-
pius verbis, ut fieri solet, plus minusve diversis exposuerit, cum contra singuli Evan-
gelistse doctrinam aliquam Domini semel tradidisse content! fuisse videntur." Unter-
terkircher's Hermeneutica, p, 173.

STATED AND EXEMPLIFIED. 273
Romans L 3-7. " Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord,
(which was made of the seed of David, according to the flesh ;
and declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the
spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead ; by whom we
have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith
among all nations, for his name : among whom are ye also the
caUed of Jesus Christ ;) to aU," &c.
In the original the long parenthesis is interrupted, and broken
into two by the phrase, " Jesus Christ our Lord ;" but this dis
appears in the received version.
1 Cor. viii. 1-4. " Now as touching things offered unto idols,
we know that we all have knowledge (knowledge puffeth up but
charity edifieth. And if any man think that he knoweth anything,
he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know. But if any man
love God, the same is known of him) ; as concerning therefore
the eating of those things," &c.
2 Cor. xiiL 2. " I have already said and do say beforehand
(as if I were present a second time, though now absent) to them
that heretofore have sinned," &c._
Coloss, ui. 13 is wholly a parenthetic verse, exegetical of
•ygaorjjs and fiax^o6v//jia just mentioned.
We are also of opinion that a parenthetic clause is to be found
in Heb. vi. 2, viz. (Ba'TrTig/Loiv hiha,^rig, iviSigstig Tl yii^Zv.^ To this
assumption we are led by the want of the particle xai before ^aimg-
(iZiv, intimating a slight change in the flow of the words, as also
\yy 'ini&igiig ti immediately following ^amngjiMv hiha^rig. Placing the
words in a parenthesis, the sentence stands thus, " Not laying
again the foundation of repentance from dead works and faith in
God, (the doctrine of baptisms, and the laying on of hands), and
the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment." The four
great doctrines of the gospel are thus mentioned, viz. repentance,
faith, the resurrection, and the judgment. In order to shew the
connexion of the Old Testament with the New, the parenthetic
clause is thrown in, as explanatory of repentance from dead works
and faith in Christ. The former was symbolised by the various
baptisms or ablutions under the Mosaic dispensation, pointing
to the necessity of repentance ; whilst faith in God was signifi
cantly taught by the imposition of hands on the head of the
sacrificial victim. These observances of the Levitical law pre
figured repentance and faith, more clearly revealed under the new
economy.
M m

274

THE PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION

The following have been considered as parentheses without
sufficient reason.
Psalm xlv. 5. " Thy sharp arrows ( — the people fall at thy
feet — ) pierce into the heart of the king's enemies."
The clause inserted in parenthesis is merely exegetical of the
adjective sharp, and should not be in brackets.
2 Cor. i. 12. " For our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our
conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity (not with fleshly
wisdom but by the grace of God), we have had our conversation
in the world," &c. Even Knapp, whose judgment in these mat
ters was excellent, has retained the parenthetical brackets in this
place, when they should be removed. This has been rightly seen
by Winer and Lachmann.
Digressions are somewhat different from parentheses. They
consist of deviations from the Une of argument pursued, into col
lateral topics; — or turnings from the direct course of thought
into another somewhat allied to it. They are longer than pa
rentheses. The latter interrupt the construction of a sentence,
— the former slide into or suggest another train of ideas. The
former intercalate a few words — the latter introduce subordinate
or correlative sentiments, expressing them more fuUy than by pa
renthesis. The writings of the apostle Paul abound most in such
digressions. There the stream of thought is frequently interrupt
ed. His soul, filled with holy zeal, and intent upon the highest
themes, neglected to observe those laws of style and grammar
which the less ardent are wont to follow. Hence he gave ex
pression to sudden ejaculations, and intercalary bursts of feeling.
Frequently did he digress from one train of thought to another,
returning again to the former. " He was, as it is visible, a man
of quick thought and warm temper, mighty well versed in the
writings of the Old Testament, and full of the doctrines of the
New. All this put together, suggested matter to him in abun
dance on those subjects which came in his way : so that one may
consider him, when he was writing, as beset with a crowd of
thoughts, all striving for utterance. In this posture of mind it
was almost impossible for him to keep that slow pace, and ob
serve minutely that order and method of ranging all he said, from
which results an easy and obvious perspicuity. To this plenty
and vehemence of his may be imputed those many large paren
theses, which a careful reader may observe in his epistles. Upon
this account also it is, that he often breaks off in the middle of an

STATED. AND EXEMPLIFIED. 275
an argument, to let in some new thought suggested by his own
words ; which having pursued and explained, as far as conduced
to his present purpose, he reassumes again the thread of his dis
course, and goes on with it without taking any notice that he
returns again to what he had been before saying ; though some
times it be so far off, that it may well have sUpped out of his
mind, and requires a very attentive reader to observe, and so
bring the disjointed members together, as to make up the con
nexion, and see how the scattered parts of the discourse hang to
gether in a coherent, well-agreeing sense, that makes it all of a
piece."* A remarkable example occurs in the epistle to the
Ephesians ui. 2-iv. I, where the awkward division of chapters
greatly obscures the connection. " For this cause I Paul, the
prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles" (iii. 1), repeated in
iv. 1, "I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you," &c.
From not perceiving this digression many have supplied the sub
stantive verb to the pronoun iytii. So Rosenmiiller.
Another example occurs in the epistle to the Philippians i. 27—
ii. 16. After the apostle had expressed his joy at the advance
ment of the Philippian Christians in reUgion, and communicated
to them the strait in which he was, he turns aside to exhort them
to stedfastness in the faith, to unity and humbleness of mind.
The sixteenth verse of the second chapter is closely connected
with the twenty-seventh of the preceding.
2 Cor. iii. 14-17. Some-make a parenthesis in this place, but
there is properly a digression.
Hebrews v. 10— vii. Here the apostle having introduced Mel-
chisedek as a remarkable type of Christ in his kingly and priestly
offices, breaks off the subject, in order to reprove the Hebrew
Christians for the comparatively slow advancement they had made
in the divine Ufe. At the seventh chapter, he resumes the topic
of Messiah's priesthood, and proceeds to discuss its permanency,
as compared with that of Melchisedek.
Zechariah vu. 8-viu. 18. The captives inquire of the priests
and prophets, whether they should continue to observe days of
fasting, now that the temple was restored. Instead of answering
immediately this question, the prophet turns aside (vu. 8) to speak
of the causes which brought misfortunes upon the people, and
the conduct God required of them in prosperity. It is not till
* Locke's preface to a " Paraphrase and Notes on the Epistles of St.Faul to the
Galatians, Corinthians, Romans, Ephesians." ^

276 THE PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION
verse 18 of chap. viii. that a special answer is given to the ques
tion proposed.
2 Cor. xii. 14-xiu. 1. " AU from ' Behold, this third time I am
ready to come to you,' ver. 14, to ' this third time I am coming
to you,' chap. xiii. 1, must be looked on as an incident discourse,
that fell in occasionally, though tending to the same purpose with
the rest ; a way of writing very usual with our apostle and with
other writers who abound in quickness and variety of thoughts as
he did. Such men are often, by new matter rising in their way,
put by from what they were going, and had begun to say ; which,
therefore, they are fain to take up again, and continue at a dis
tance ; which St. Paul does here, after the interposition of eight
verses." *
In conducting these two processes, we have been virtually ex
amining the context, and preparing the way for bringing it fully
to bear upon the sentence which we purpose to expound. When
the scope of a writer has been discovered, and the nexus of a
passage with its vicinity, we readily perceive the assistance af
forded by the context. However simple the rule which teaches
us to consult and examine the context, it is of great importance.
The neglect of its observance has led to the greatest errors in
doctrine. Men have often selected passages, severing them by
violence from the connexion in which they stand, and endea
vouring to graft the most erroneous sentiments upon the words
of Scripture. ControversaUsts are liable to fall into this error.
Those who are more actuated by a love of victory than of truth,
have frequently recourse to an expedient so reprehensible. But
it is unworthy of the Christian. It is inconsistent with his
character, as it indicates a spirit far from that which the gospel
inculcates. It is therefore of the utmost importance to attend to
this canon, and to explore the locality of the passage itself.
Ecclesiastes x. 1. " Dead fUes cause the apothecary's ointment
to send forth an offensive smell ; more powerful than wisdom and
honour is a little folly."
Here the latter part of the verse explains the introduction of
the former, and the appUcation it was intended to serve.
Micah ii. 7. " O thou that art named the house of Jacob, is
the spirit of the Lord straitened ? are these his doings ? do not
my words do good to him that walketh uprightly ?" This verse
* Locke's Notes on the Second Epistle to Corinthians. Works, 10 to;s. London,
1823, vol. viu. pp. 238, 9.

STATED AND EXEMPLIFIED. 277
reprehends the ungodly by asking them, did they think the power
of the Lord was lessened, so that he could not authorise his pro
phets to threaten them with sore punishment, because of their
iniquities. " Is the spirit which inspires the prophets become
impotent?" In the preceding verse, they had interdicted the true
prophets of Jehovah from prophesying; and therefore these words,
taken in their connexion, contain a minatory interrogative ad
dressed to them, " Are ye so infatuated as not to know, that the
Lord's true prophets cannot be interdicted from declaring His
judgments, although you like them not ?"
John vi. 53. " Then said Jesus unto them. Verily, verily, I
say unto you ; except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and
drink his blood, ye have no life in you."
Some interpreters maintain, that the Saviour here speaks of the
Eucharist, which topic they make to commence with the 51st
verse. But the occasion on which the discourse was delivered is
opposed to this. We allow that he might have spoken before
hand of the holy supper ; but it does not appear that he did so
here. That the words are figurative, our Saviour himself leads
us to conclude ; for he corrects the carnal notions of the Jews
who took them in their gross or literal sense : verse 63, " It is
the spirit that quickeneth ; the flesh profiteth nothing : the words
that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are Ufe." The
context thus proves that the words are figurative. In the 51st
verse Christ declares, " I am the living bread which came down
from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall Uve for ever:
and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for
the Ufe of the world ;" and in the 47th verse, " he that believeth
on me hath everlasting life." Eating, therefore, of the heavenly
bread or true manna, is the same as believing on Christ. Our
Lord speaks of the gospel, which, when a man believingly and
cordially receives, he eats the flesh and drinks the blood of the
Son of man.*
* Mortis commemorationem quam v, 51 fecit, jam nunc supprimebat, quum Judsei
eam tam male intellexissent, De sacra ccena igitur non potest esse sermo, Jesus
enim bortatur auditores suos, ut edant ejus carnem, et bibant ejus sanguinem ; lioc
autem non poterant intelUgere, si de sacra ccena sermo esset ; nam hujus ritus ne
ideam quidem habebant, Accedit, quod res ilia ipsa, de qua Jesus nunc verba facit,
necessaria esse dicitur ad consequendam Tm Z,ur,v. Jam vero talis necessitas nusquam
tribuitur sacrse coena; usui, sed fidem in Jesum Christum et nominatim in ejus mortem
piaoularem ubique necessariam esse, dicit Scriptura, a<J aoteriiam vitam salutemque
obtincndam, Tropus in hac orationo manifeste nititur eo, quod in superioribus sermo
fuit de cibo corporeo (manna,) Et quum supra v, 40, dixissct : Trds vistiuuv '^xV

278 THE PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION
Colossians iii. 1, 2. " Seek those things which are above ; set
your affection on things above, not on things on the earth." This
is a general admonition. In the fifth and following verses the
various particulars included in it are mentioned. It is specially
applied to individual acts ; from which we may observe the ful
ness and extent of meaning comprehended in the exhortation.
III. Parallel passages.
We have before spoken of verbal parallels ; now we are chiefly
concerned with real. Examples of the latter are to be had in
abundance ; for the same things are frequently repeated in various
places of Scripture. Thus the books of Samuel and Kings may
be placed in juxtaposition with Chronicles ; Ezra with Nehe
miah; and the first three gospels with one another; the 2d and
3d chapters of the 2d epistle of Peter with the epistle of Jude.
The following examples are taken fromDe Wette's Introduction.
1 Chron. i. 1-4  Gen. v.
11 i. 5-23  II X. 2-29.
,1 i. 24-27  " xi. 10.
11 i. 29-31  11 xxv. 13-15.
11 i. 32, 33  II xxv. 2-4.
II i. 35-54  M xxxvi. 10-43.
11 ii. 3, 4  II xxxviii, 3-30.
11 ii. 5  II xlvi. 12.
II ii. 6-8  Joshua vu. 1, 17, 18.
11 ii. 10-12  Ruth iv. 19.
II ii. 13-17  1 Samuel xvi. 6, &c.
II iii. 1-9  2 Samuel iii. 3-6 ; v. 14.
11 iu. 10-19  Books of Kings.
11 iv. 24  Numbers xxvi. 12.
" iv. 28-31  Joshua xix. 2-5.
11 V. 1-10  Genesis xlvi. 9 ; Numb.xxvi.5;
Joshua xiii. 16, 17.
11 V. 30-41  Esra vu. 1-5.
M vi. 39-66  Joshua xxi. 10-39.
" vU. 1-5  Gen. xlvi. 13 ; Numb. xxvi. 23.
,1 vu. 6-12  Gen. xlvi. 21; Numb. xxvi. 38-40;
1 Chron. viu. 1, &c.
11 vu. 13  Gen. xlvi. 24.
11 vu. 14-19  Numb. xxvi. 29 ; xxvii. 1.
Z,uvtv xluvtov, coU. v. 47; et v. 51, 'tyu ilfii o x'^Tas — txv tis tpdyr,  ^^iriTat ils
TOV xluvx, nunc vero v, 53 ; idv f>.vi ipdy/iTi tyiv ad^xx — xxi •jtlnTi x'vt. t. xifoa, oux
'ix,iTi 'iuiiv X. T. X. : sponte inteUigitur, has omnes loquendi formulas eodem sensu
specta,re, veram fidem Christo tanquam Messia; habendam." RosenmUUeri Scholia,
vol, ii. editio sexta, pp, 479, 80.

STATED AND EXEMPLIFIED. 279
1 Chron. vii. 20-29  Numbers xxvi. 34-38; Joshua
xvi. 5, &c.
M vn. 30-40  Numb. xxvi. 44-47.
" viu. 1-28  Numb. xxvi. 38-40; I Chron.
vu, 6, &c.
11 viii. 29-401 , „ . , .
„ ix. 35-44 I  ^ ^^^- '"'• 1 ' ^1^- 49-51.
" ix. 2-34  Nehemiah xi. 3-24.
Similar examples are given by De Wette from the books of
Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles.*
Real, like verbal parallels, are naturally divided in the fol
lowing manner.
(a) Parallels in the same book or composition.
(b) In the writings of the same author.
(c) In any part of Scripture.
(a) Proverbs xxix. 13. " The poor and the oppressor meet to
gether ; Jehovah enUghtens the eyes of both." ParaUel to this
verse is Prov. xxn. 2, where instead of DODri U^'i* (a man of
vexations or oppressions, dvn^ guvT^if^/j^uv, as the Venetian version
rightly renders the phrase) the simpler T't^i? (rich man) is found.
The clause " lighteneth both their eyes" is synonymous with
" the maker of them all." To give light to the eyes is to make
or create.X
Isaiah xlix, 7. This verse is an abbreviated expression of
the ideas which are spread out in chapter Ui. 13-liii. ; but it is
especially parallel with verses 14 and 15. " The Messiah who
is now despised and rejected will shortly afterwards be gloriously
exalted and honoured." Such is the sentiment of both passages.
The latter tends to illustrate the former, especially in the expres
sions applied to the feeUngs and attitude of the kings introduced
into the prophetic description.
Isaiah Ixv. 25. This is exactly parallel with Isaiah xi. 6-9.
The latter passage is evidently figurative, as may be seen from the
conclusion of the ninth verse ; and this circumstance determines
the 25 th verse of chapter Ixv. to be figurative also. In the new
Jerusalem, or the glorious church of the latter day, vice shall
come to an end, wars shall cease, and men live together under the
efficacious influence of the gospel in peace, harmony, and love.
* Lehrbuch der Historisch-Kritischen Einleitung in die BUcher des Alten Testa-
mentes, Vierte Auflage, BerUn, 1833, pp, 236, 7, 8,
¦j- See Umbreit's PhUologisch-Kritischer und Philosophischer Commentar iiber die
SprUche Salome's, 8vo, Heidelberg, 1826, pp, 389, 90,

280 THE PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION
Acts H. 4. " And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost,
and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them
utterance." In this verse it is stated, that the apostles were en
abled to speak with other tongues. Some of the later Rational
ists have attempted to shew, that there was nothing uncommon
or miraculous in it, but that the tongues had been acquired by
the apostles in the usual way. This opinion is refuted by all the
passages that speak of such an endowment. Acts x, 44, 45, 46 ;
xix. 6. Compare also viu. 14-20.
Romans vii. 5. " For when we were in the flesh, the motions
of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring
forth fruit unto death ;" i. e. when we were in a carnal unrenewed
state, the sinful passions which were excited by the law were ac
tively alive and efficacious in our sensual part, causing us to com
mit such transgressions as tended to everlasting death. That this
is the sense of the first clause is apparent from Romans viii, 8,
where the same mode of expression occurs. " So then they that are
in the flesh cannot please God," i. e. they who are in their carnal
unconverted condition; as the context shews, especially the sixth
and seventh verses. Here the same phraseology must be taken
in the same manner, especially as the connexion is altogether in
favour of it. Mr. Locke takes " being in the flesh" to mean, the
understanding and observance of the law in a bare literal sense,
without looking any further for a more spiritual intention in it;
but this obscures the true sense of both verses.
(b) Numbers xiii. 1, 2, 3 -Deuteron. i. 22. In the former pas
sage, Moses is said to have sent spies to search out the land of Ca
naan by the express commandment of God ; but in the latter, the
people themselves came near unto Moses every one of them, and
said, " we will send men before us, and they shall search us out
the land," &c. It is added, " the saying pleased Moses well," and
he sent twelve men accordingly. Taking both places together,
it is manifest, that the people wished Moses to send spies, and
that God also expressly commtmded it. It was not solely because
the people requested Moses, that he selected twelve men to go
into the promised country ; he had a higher warrant for taking
such a step. God commanded it, and the people's wish agreed.
There is no contradiction between the passages, as De Wette
and others suppose, A particular circumstance is stated in each
which is not recorded in the other.
Deuteron. xix. 12-18 is parallel with Numbers xxxv. 24-30.
Deuteron. in. 26 with Numbers xxvu. 14.

STATED AND EXEMPLIFIED. 281
Romans xiv, 16, is parallel with 1 Cor. x. 29, 30.
Colossians ii. 13, 14, 15, is parallel to Ephesians ii. 14, 15, 16,
and receives some Ught from the latter.
Colossians iii. 16, is parallel with Ephes. v. 18, 19. The
phrase, " in all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another,"
is more full than the corresponding clause in Ephesians, " speak
ing to yourselves," which must be joined with, " be filled with
the Spirit," The conclusion of the two passages nearly agrees.
In Ephesians we have, " in psalms, and hymns, and spiritual
songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord ;"
in Colossians, " in psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs, sing
ing with grace in your hearts to the Lord." The latter passage
is correctly pointed by Knapp ; the former, incorrectly.
(c) Genesis xxxii. 24-30 — Hosea xii. 3-5. These two pas
sages refer to the same transaction ; but the latter, although much
briefer, throws considerable light upon the former.
In Genesis, the nature of the person with whom Jacob had
this remarkable conflict is not so clearly defined, as in Hosea.
Jacob indeed believed, that this person had the power of blessing
him, and after he had been blessed " he called the name of the
place Peniel, for I have seen God face to face and my life is
preserved." Jacob's name was also changed by him ; but still he
is called a man. The prophet Hosea puts it beyond a doubt,
that he was a divine person, by styling him not only an angel
and God (elohim), but Jehovah, God of hosts ; Jehovah is his
memorial. Whilst, therefore, he was a man, and an angel, or the
angel of the covenant ; he was also the supreme Jehovah. These
titles and attributes belong to none other than the second person
of the blessed Trinity, Christ the Saviour.
Compare also the foUov/ing, which contain a prophecy and the
account of its fulfilment, the latter illustrating the former.
Genesis xlix. 7. "I will divide them (Simeon and Levi) in
Jacob, and scatter them in Israel." Joshua xix. 1 ; 1 Chron.
iv. 24, 39; Joshua xxi. ; 1 Chron. vi. shew the meaning to be,
that they were to have no distinct portion for themselves, but
that their possessions were to be scattered throughout the land.
Thus Simeon had only a part of the land of Judah, and went
elsewhere for accommodation ; while Levi had some cities in
every tribe.
Isaiah in. 2, 3, with 2 Kings xxiv. 14.
John L 3 — Colossians L 16. Some render the words of John,
N n

282 THE PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION
" All things were done by him," i. e. all things connected with
the gospel dispensation. But the sentiment in Coloss. i. 16 is
quite similar, and the phraseology analogous. The vavra hi' aurou
iyiviTo of the one, closely correspond to the mdvra h! auTou 'ixTigrai
of the other. The verb employed in the latter is appropriated
to creation (although Schleiermacher hastily states the reverse) ;
and both places clearly demonstrate, that all created things were
brought into existence by Christ.
The passage in Colossians is more full and explicit than that
of John.*We proceed to give a few examples of interpretation in which
errors are committed by those who mistake or pervert parallel
passages. John xxi. 17. Some have attempted to prove that the words
contained in this verse, " Lord thou knowest all things ; thou
knowest that I love thee," do not assert or imply omniscience,
by referring to 1 John ii. 20, " Ye have an unction from the
Holy One, and ye know all things " But the two places are
not parallel. In the latter, the apostle refers to the knowledge
of doctrines. Peter, in his reply to Christ, aUudes to the know
ledge of the heart. He appeals to Jesus to witness his sincerity,
affirming, that nothing is unknown to him, not even the secrets
of the heart. That the apostle in his first epistle is speaking of
an acquaintance with doctrine, is shewn by the context. He
mentions Antichrists or false teachers, who endeavoured to seduce
the brethren from the faith ; and comforts those to whom he wrote
by the assurance, that they had received the influences of the
Holy Ghost, by which they would be enabled to know all the sub
jects in dispute, — all evangelical truth. The writer thus speaks
of different topics in the two places. They are not parallel.
1 Cor. X. 2 — Matthew xxviu. 20. Trinitarians are wont to
contend, that the form of Christian baptism contained in the latter
passage is a proof of the equality of the persons associated ; es
pecially as the one name belongs to all. It were absurd to dedi
cate individuals in baptism to the service of a creature ; or to
baptise them by the authority of a creature, in connexion with
the Supreme Creator. It is true, that the Israelites " were all
baptised unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea," but because
* See Liicke's Commentar uber das Evangelium des Johannes, Dritte Auflage.
Bonn, 1840, 8vo, pp. 302, 3 ; and Olshausen's Biblischer Commentar Vierter Band.
Koenigsberg, 8vo, 1840, p. 337.

STATED AND EXEMPLIFIED. 283
the same term baptise is used in the two passages, we must not
hastily conclude that the sentiment is similar. The Israelites, by
passing through the Red Sea, were set apart to the service of
God in the religion which Moses was commissioned to deliver.
They took upon them the obligations of that religion which
Moses enjoined. The one passage throws no light upon the
other. It is not written that the Israelites were baptised in the
name of Moses, associated with the Father and the Holy Spirit.
Connected with the topic of parallel passages is the analogy
of faith or doctrine. The expression is derived from Romans
xii. 6. " Having then gifts differing according to the grace that
is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to
the proportion of faith," xard ri^v dvaXoylav rng 'xigrioig, according
to the analogy of faith. The meaning of the verse is not, " pro
phesy in such a manner as that what you utter will accord with
the doctrine of faith contained in Scripture;" but rather, let each
individual prophesy according to the measure of faith or know
ledge which he actually possesses. Let him not attempt to
exceed his gifts, but wisely confine himself to the degree of
knowledge which he has actually attained. Thus, the passage
furnishes no foundation for what is termed the analogy of faith.
The phrase in question means, the general tenor of Scripture
doctrine, or the clear and unambiguous consent of many passages
brought to bear upon such as appear to be dark, difficult, or con
tradictory. When an interpreter carefully examines the funda
mental, clearly revealed doctrines of Scripture, and, with complete
conviction of their truth, combines them into a harmonious sys
tem, he should not put such a construction on a particular place
as would clash with their testimony. Here it is implied, that
the Bible has been attentively read, and that its evidence in re
gard to leading doctrines and duties has been well ascertained.
The analogy of faith is a rule to the expositor himself. If
others dispute what he believes to be taught in the word, by the
help of which he discards one meaning at least from a passage,
the principle will be useful only to himself. Should they agree
with him in acknowledging the inculcations of revelation, this
analogy becomes a rule not only to the individual himself, but
to those who coincide with him in sentiment.
The analogy of faith does not lead to the discovery of the
meaning of a passage which is ambiguous or obscure. If we are
at a loss to know the precise import of a period, it wiU not be

284 THE PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION STATED, &C.
opened up by means of this rule. It will prevent us from im
posing such a sense as would contradict other places, of whose
meaning we are assured ; but it cannot furnish more valuable
assistance. It is negative in its operation, not positive. It
constrains the expositor to adhere to the consistency of Scrip
ture with itself, and to self-consistency of interpretation ; but
where a passage admits of various senses, it cannot point out the
one which is true and proper.
Thus, if an interpreter be satisfied, that the doctrine of the
saints' perseverance is inculcated or implied in the Bible, he will
conclude, that Hebrews vi. 4-6 cannot be explained so as to
violate or contradict this important truth. The other passages
which teach directly or by legitimate inference the final perse
verance of beUevers, do not explain this place. They shew what it
cannot mean; — but they are far from affirming what it does mean.
Again, if we be satisfied that the doctrine of justification by
faith alone is inculcated in the epistle to the Romans, we are sure
that in the 2d chapter of the epistle of James, nothing is taught
which is opposed to that fundamental doctrine.
In applying the analogy of faith to actual exegesis, it is highly
incumbent on the interpreter to see, that what he so desig
nates be composed of fundamental doctrines, and such as are
clearly taught. It is of little avail to take for granted, without
thorough examination, a large system or creed, and hastily to
reject every interpretation which does not harmonise with all its
minutise. Let the constituents of the principle be the great ve
rities of revealed truth — the chief articles of Christianity — and
the probabiUty will be greater, that it may be extensively useful.
But if it be lengthened so as to embrace the peculiar dogmas of
a sect, there is less probability of its useful application, except
to the narrow adherent of a particular creed. Such an one it
may keep from falling into inconsistency, but he will be allowed
the use of, what he calls, the analogy of faith, without the co
operation or concurrence of other expositors.*
* See Gerard's Institutes of Biblical Criticism, 8vo, Edinburgh, 1808, pp. 159-164;
and CarapbeU's Preliminary Dissertations to the Gospels, Dissertation iv., but espe
cially the acute remarks of Dr. Carson, in his " Examination of the Principles of
Biblical Interpretation of Ernesti, Ammon, Stuart, and other philologists," Edin
burgh, 12mo, 1836, pp. 103-112,

( 285 )

CHAPTER IX.
THE PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION APPLIED TO FIGURATIVE
LANGUAGE.
When a word which usage has appropriated to one thing is
transferred to another, there is a -rrgi^og or turning of it. This
new application is called a trope ; and the term is said to be
used in a tropical or improper sense, in opposition to the proper,
ox figurative as opposed to literal. Thus the verb irgotfxoVrw,
which Uterally signifies to strike one substance against another,
as in Matthew iv. 6, is transferred from material to spiritual ob
jects ; Romans ix. 32, v^og'exo-^av, " they were offended at." So
also the Hebrew bsj, to fall, is applied to promises unperformed,
Joshua xxiii. 14. The proper sometimes coincides with the p)'i-
mitive or original signification, and therefore literal has been
understood by some as equivalent to primitive. The literal, how
ever, does not always coincide with the original signification, for
the latter may have become obsolete, and then the literal assumes
the place of the primary, as far as usage is concerned. When
the primary signification is still in use, the tropical ordinarily
belongs to the secondary senses.
The foundation of tropes is similitude or conjunction — a re
semblance real or supposed between two objects. As an example
of the former, we may take that given by Morus, " a plant creeps."
This is called metaphor. The conjunction or mutual relation
subsisting between two things, and lying at the basis of trope,
is divided by Morus into physical and intellectual. Among things
physically conjoined are, the container and the contained — a
part and the whole. Thus the cup for that which it contains;
and Psalm xvi. 9, my flesh for my body, a part for the whole.
This is synecdoche. Intellectual or supposed conjunction is,
when the cause is put for the effect, the effect for the cause, the
sign for the thing signified, &c. &c. This is metonymy.
According to Ernesti, tropes became necessary because of the
poverty of languages in their early stages. But necessity was

286 THE PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION APPLIED TO
not the sole cause of their introduction. They were added for
the sake of variety and ornament, especially by poets and ora
tors. In works on hermeneutics it is frequently laid down as a
rule, that the literal signification of a word should not be for
saken unless from necessity. Such necessity, however, needs to
be defined and specified. Unless the evident cause which enjoins
a departure from the proper sense be clearly noted, the canon is
vague and useless. Every interpreter must not create a neces
sity for himself, else the varying opinions of expositors will be
the standard in discovering when an expression is to be under
stood tropically.
The usual means of ascertaining the signification of a term, are
sufficient to guide the expositor in this particular also. Wherever
the context, the scope of the writer, the nature of the book, or
parallel passages oppose the literal sense, we should have re
course to the figurative. There is no separate process by which
tropical diction is to be discovered and judged, apart from what is
generaUy employed in the whole business of exegesis. The same
principles regulate the entire process, whether it relate to the use
of tropical diction, or to the sense of particular passages. We
have therefore given examples of the figurative sense in the pre
ceding part of the work. By separating this topic, and assign
ing to it an independent investigation, some may think it pecu
liar and unique ; whereas the common sources of interpreting all
words and passages, are also the means, by which a figurative
sense rather than a Uteral is properly applied in a given place.
In examining whether language be tropical or not, we neces
sarily carry along with us those ideas which spring out of innate
tendencies in the mind. Thus in reading the Scripture language
concerning the nature of Deity, we instinctively separate from it
whatever is material, or appropriated to humanity. The spiritu
ality of his character leads us at once to understand tropically
the descriptions given of his nature. We read of anger, hatred,
repentance, wrath, vengeance, attributed to him, which are all
metaphorical. So also the invisible realities of futurity, as hea
ven and hell, the state of the righteous and that of the miserable,
are delineated in tropical diction. " One of the things," says
Professor Stuart, " which the human mind learns very slowly, is
to detach itself from conceptions that arise from material objects,
and to perceive that in all the descriptions of a future state,
words are of absolute necessity employed which originally have a

FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE, 287
Uteral sense, because language affords no other. Even the inter
nal operations of our own mind, we are obliged, for the same
reason, to describe in language that of necessity must be tropi
cally understood. Almost all men indeed now allow, that most
of the language employed to describe God and his operations is
necessarily to be understood as tropical. Most men will allow
that the language which respects the heavenly world may be so
considered ; but what regards the day of judgment or the world
of woe, they would strenuously contend must be literally under
stood. There is, indeed, sufficient inconsistency in this, and it
betrays no small degree of unacquaintance with the nature and
principles of interpretation ; but as it is productive of no conse
quences especially bad, the error is hardly worth combating.
The motive no doubt may be good which leads to the adoption
of this error. The apprehension is, that if you construe the lan
guage that respects the day of judgment or the world of woe
figuratively, you take away the reality of them. Just as if reality
did not, of course, lie at the basis of all figurative language, which
would be wholly devoid of meaning without it. But how incon
sistent too is this objection I The very person who makes it
admits, that the language employed to describe God and his
operations, and also to describe the heavenly world, is tropical;
that it must of necessity be construed so. But does this destroy
the reality of a God and of his operations, and of the heavenly
world?"* Such things could not have been described otherwise than in
language borrowed from sensible, material things, else they would
have been unintelligible. Had abstract phraseology been em
ployed, we should not have been able to attach to it definite
conceptions. A spiritual vocabulary of this sort is not in use
among us. We are accustomed to borrow the language of ex
ternal nature, and to adapt it to incorporeal agents with their acts
and operations. The wisdom of God is quite apparent in describ
ing his own nature, as also the heavenly and infernal worlds, in
tropical diction. Hence we explain such expressions as their
worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched, everlasting fire,
&c., metaphorically to denote intense torment. The imagery is
taken from the death and corruption of the body. Carcases were
* Elements of BibUcal Criticism and Interpretation, translated from the Latin of
Ernesti, Keil, Beck, and Morus ; and accompanied with notes by Moses Stuart, &c.,
edited by Rev. Dr. Henderson, London, 1827, 12mo, p. 109.

288 THE PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION APPLIED TO
destroyed by fire, or eaten by worms. Now this is transferred to
the soul, with the superadded idea of perpetuity. The state of
the miserable, who shall be excluded from the presence of God,
is one of active, intense, and corroding torment for ever and ever.
The " lake of fire" (Rev. xx. 15), and "furnace of fire" (Matt.
xiU. 42, 50), express the same idea, viz. intensity of suffering.
Of the same nature is the phraseology employed respecting the
judgment-seat of Christ, before which assembled millions of hu
man beings stand. The opening of the books out of which they
are judged, the right and left hand of the judge, are tropical also.
Thus attention must always be given to the nature of the
subject, in regard to which it is inquired whether language be
figurative or otherwise. The ideas which natural reUgion incul
cates, and the exercise of sound reason sanctions, are brought to
bear upon it. This is no more than what is done in every part
of exegesis. What is manifestly absurd, or contrary to the uni
versal experience of men if taken literally, must be tropical. Here
some caution and sobriety are needful, lest preconceived notions —
philosophical or theological — recommend the acceptation of certain
passages in an aUegorical sense, when they are rightly expressed
in proper diction. The limited conceptions of a few must not
be allowed to stamp the seal of figure on every passage at which
they stumble — or to set aside real narratives, by metamorpho
sing them into mythi. Let it be demonstrated, that the broad
fundamental principles of human belief are truly contradicted by
a fact or a history taken in its literal sense ; and then it will be
necessary to have recourse to the figurative. When a narrative
in its proper acceptation contains a veritable absurdity, or im
possibility, opposed alike to the senses and experience of man
kind, it is time to have recourse to the improper sense ; but let
not the confined prejudices of a sect, or the predispositions of
infidelity, be substituted for the unalterable principles of common
sense which the Deity has implanted in the bosoms of all, though
their unvarying testimony be perverted or stifled.
Two things are to be considered in regard to tropical language.
The first is to distinguish it from literal; the second, to in
terpret it aright. The figurative should be separated from the
unfigurative before we can understand it. How then is the tro
pical to be distinguished ? In the very way by which the usus
loquendi is ascertained. In determining what is tropical or other
wise, the general aids already described are sufficient. When

FUJURAnVK LANGUAGE. 2'8'9
figures too are discovered, we expound them by the principles and
helps which served to render them apparent. The materials em
ployed in ascertaining the ?/.«m.v loquendi, coincide with those ap
plied to determine and expound tropical language. We cannot
in fact know the usage of a language, without an acquaintance
with the tropes it employs. Tropical senses form a large pro
portion of those actually borne by words.
Whether a term be tropical or not, is determined,
1. By the adjuncts associated with it. If it be the subject of
a proposition the predicate may determine its application. When
the subject and predicate are heterogeneous or opposite in their
nature, it is manifest that a trope exists. Thus, " the valleys
shout for joy, they also sing" (Psalm Ixv. 13.) Here the sub
ject is an inanimate thing ; the predicate expresses the action of
a living being. So also Habakkuk ii. 11, " For the stone shall
cry out of the wall, and the beam out of the timbers shall answer
it." Amos iv. 1, " Hear this word ye kine of Bashan that are
in the mountain of Samaria," &c.* Psalm xviii. " The Lord
is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer ; my God, my
strength, in whom I will trust; my buckler, and the horn of my
salvation, and my high tower." The adverbs, epithets, &c. which
limit and determine the nature of things, serve the same purpose,
as " circumcision of the heart," Romans ii. 29 ; " born again"
(avmkv), John iii. 3. In Uke manner, Colossians iii. 1, " If ye
then be risen with Christ;" Esther viu. 16, " The Jews had light,
and gladness, and joy, and honour "
II. The general context determines words and phrases to be
tropical. Thus Jeremiah ix. 7, " Behold I will melt them and
try them." Here the latter verb determines the former to be
figurative in its signification. Psalm xlii. 7, "Deep calleth unto
deep at the noise of thy water-spouts, all thy waves and thy bil
lows are gone over me." This language is seen to be tropical
from the 6th and 8th verses.
III. Parallels. Different terms are employed in different pas
sages to express the same ideas. This facilitates the distinction
between tropical and proper. In one or more places the language
may be so plain as to leave no room for doubt.
* " Loquitur autem ad principes Israel, et optimates quosque decem tribuum, que de-
iiciis ac rapinis vacabant. ut audiant sermonem Dei, et non oratores boves, sed vaccas
pingues de armento se esse noverint, sive quae nutriantur in pascuis Basan quae sunt
loca herbarum fertilissima ; ac per hoc signiticat, eos non agriculturse, sed immolationi
et esui prseparatos." Hieronymus,
O O

290 THE PIUNCIPLES OF I \l'ERPREI'ATION APPLIED TO
Matthew x, 34. " I came not to send peace, but a sword."
Here i^dy^ai^a is determined to be tropical by the parallel place,
Luke xii. 51, " Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on
earth? I tell you. Nay; but rather division." A;a/i£g/<r/ios ex
plains fj^dyai^a.
From single terms or phrases we pass to sentences, sections,
or paragraphs. The means by which they are known to be tro
pical are the same as those just specified for words.
I. The context, whether immediate or remote.
II. Parallels.
I. Context. Thus Isaiah i. 5, 6, where the Jewish people
are represented as smitten, wounded, and covered with sores,
without healing medicines, or emollient ointment, it is apparent
from the vicinity of the description, that the language is tropical.
Isaiah xi. 6-8. The context shews, that the description is
tropical, and ought not to be literally understood. The 4th and
5 th verses are manifestly unfigurative ; as also verse 9 th, where
it is said, " they shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy moun
tain : for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord,
as the waters cover the sea." Thus the extension of the know
ledge of Jehovah is declared to be the cause of the marvellous
occurrences which had just been mentioned. The changes are
moral, not physical — the subjects being men, and not the irra
tional creation. Men alone are capable of knowing the Lord —
and therefore they are described in terms borrowed from the in
ferior animals.
II. Parallels. Thus Acts xv. 14-17 ; " Simeon hath declared
how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them
a people for his name. And to this agree the words of the pro
phets ; as it is written. After this I will return, I will build
again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down ; and I will
build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up : that the resi
due of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles upon
whom my name is caUed, saith the Lord, who doeth all these
things." These words, which are taken from Amos ix. 11, 12,
shew, that the passage in the Old Testament is figurative not
literal in its application — that it is not the literal restoration of
the family of David to the throne of Judea, which is here spoken
of, but the spiritual dominion of Christ over his church, with
reference to the conversion of the Gentiles. Similar explana
tions 01 ancient prophecies are to be found in the New Testament,

PIGURAllVE LANGUAGE. 291
shewing in general the spiritual character of passages erroneously
taken by some in their unfigurative and literal acceptation..
After distinguishing tropical diction, we come in the next place
to interpret it. This is effected by a consideration of the nature
of the subject, the context, and parallel passages.
It is necessary to inquire, in the first place, into the point or
points of agreement between the subject from which a compari
son is taken, and the thing described. These have been called
the lertium comparationis, or the corresponding features of that
which forms the basis of a trope and the object depicted. Where
there is a real or supposed simUitude, as in the metaphor, it is
proper to search out the common qualities or attributes. But
here a knowledge of the thing which lies at the foundation of
the figure is presupposed.
So spiritual idolatry is frequently called adultery in the Old
Testament, to denote the treacherous and unfaithful manner in
which the Jewish nation forsook the true Jehovah, and went
after the gods of the heathen. When they ceased to trust in
him, to believe his promises, and to worship him in faith, they be
came adulterofus, in the metaphorical sense of the term. Hence
they are so designated in the language of inspiration.
But not only is it necessary to be acquainted with the objects
from which metaphors are drawn, but also with the ideas attached
to them by Orientals. The eastern modes of thought differed
widely from ours. We should not transfer our ideas to things
which they viewed according to the genius of a remote age, and
the circumstances in which they were placed. Their mental ha
bitudes were exceedingly diverse from those of western nations.
Things which we regard as mean and contemptible, were highly
esteemed among them. Hence Biblical tropes taken from cer
tain animals, however unworthy and degrading they may appear
when viewed through our conceptions, are truly dignified and
honourable. They are adapted to the language and sentiments
of those for whose benefit they were primarily written. Issachar
is compared to a strong ass. Joseph's beauty is celebrated as
that of a first-born bullock. Judah is styled a lion's whelp.
These and similar comparisons are all honourable and excellent,
as viewed in the light of Oriental modes and customs. So far
from being mean, they are truly expressive of dignity.
It will therefore be proper to carry along with us an acquaint
ance with the objects from which the Biblical writers derive

292 THE PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION APPLIED TO
metaphors, and also the peculiar ideas which prevailed among the
people to whom the Scriptures were originally addressed. Diver
sities of sentiment and feeling between them and us need to be
remembered, lest we engraft our own notions upon theirs, and
instead of contemplating from their mental position the things
that passed before them, take another stand-point from which
they appear in a new attitude.
We shall now exhibit the manner in which the means for in
terpreting tropical diction contribute to that point.
I. Context.
It is not uncommon in the writers to subjoin to tropical expres
sions proper ones Of synonymous signification, so as to explain
the imagery they had just employed. Thus Psalm xcvii, 11>
" Light is sown for the righteous, and gladness for the upright
in heart." Here the former part of the verse is tropical ; the lat
ter explains it. In the poetic writings, paralleln^m often serves
to interpret a figurative expression, the one member exhibiting
properly, what the other propounds tropically. The example
just given belongs to this head ; and when formerly treating of
parallelism under the bead of context, other instances were ad
duced. The context is of especial utility where tropes occur which in
actual usage express ideas somewhat different. Thus "lii^ (light)
and '^tt'n (darkness), denote not merely knowledge and ignor
ance, but also prosperity and misfortune. The reason of this is
apparent, — the latter being the usual concomitants of the former.
A writer intends to render the one idea prominent in a particular
place, rather than the other ; and the connexion leads us espe
cially to observe the thought be meant to express. Thus Pro
verbs vi. 23, " I'he commandment is a lamp, and the law is
light." Here understanding or wisdom is meant. In some
places it is fruitless to enquire which of the two ideas predomi
nated in the mind of the inspired author, for their close connexion
shows, that in exegesis they need not be disjoined. It is the
knowledge which brings peace and happiness that is insisted on in
the Bible ; and not a mere speculative acquaintance with things.
But the sacred writers not only expound in proper language
what they had before uttered in tropical, but also mix up the
one with the other. Hence the sense is easily elicited. The one
serves as a brief commentary on the other.
Jeremiah iii. 1. " They say, if a roan put away his wife, and

FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE. 293
she go from him and become another man's, shall he return unto
her again ? shaU not that land be greatiy poUuted ? but thou
hast played the harlot with many lovers ; yet return again to me,
saith the Lord." Here in the midst of figurative language, de
scriptive of the idolatry of the people, that land is introduced ;
whereas, were the metaphor preserved, it should be that wife.
This shews that the people are meant ; and that spiritual adul
tery is brought home to Judah.
In every case the tertium comparationis should be exactly
suitable to the connexion. A tropical expression may have seve
ral meanings and suggest various comparisons, but one only is
pertinent in a particular locality, viz. such as harmonises with the
context. II. Parallel passages help to explain tropical diction.
Thus Isaiah xxxv. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, &c. " The wilderness and
the solitary place shall be glad for them ; and the desert shall re
joice and blossom as the rose. It shall blossom abundantly, and
rejoice even with joy and singing : the glory of Lebanon shall be
given unto it, the excellency of Carmel and Sharon, they shall
see the glory of the Lord and the excellency of our God. Then
the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf
shall be unstopped. Then shall the lame man leap as an hart,
and the tongue of the dumb sing : for in the wilderness shall
waters break out, and streams in the desert," &c.
There is little doubt that this language is figurative. The
main circumstance is, what state or what blessings does it depict ?
to what period does it refer ? Some think that it refers to the
land of Judea which had been laid waste by its enemies, but
should again flourish when the Jews should return from their
captivity at Babylon — that their joy at that unexpected event
would be great and be shared even by persons the most unlikely
to exult, because the change in their circumstances would break
forth most refreshingly upon their spirits long dried up beneath a
foreign yoke. But from the circumstance of the evangelist re
cording that Christ answered the disciples of John by an appeal
to facts, saying, in the language of the prophet, " The blind re
ceive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and
the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel
preached to them," Matt, xi, 5, it appears to us, that the words
of the prophet were designed to refer to the gospel dispensation,
The whole chapter embraces the era of Christianity, the figures

294 THE PRINCIPLES OP INTERPRETATION APPLIED TO
becoming bolder and more sublime as the gospel spreads its glad
dening and sanctifying influences among men until, at the Milen
nial period, Israel, as a nation, shall be incorporated into the true
church, and rejoice in the fulness of spiritual blessings, " And
the ransomed of the Lord shall return, and come to Zion with
songs and everlasting joy upon their heads : they shall obtain joy
and gladness, and sorrow and sighing shall flee away." To con
fine this language to the Uberation from the captivity is to reduce
it to a tameness unparalleled in the style of eastern poetry. The
theocratic basis of the diction is indeed the deliverance of the Is
raelites from thraldom ; but the language takes a higher flight,
and has reference to the return of the Jews to the true God and
Messiah the prince. We conceive that the whole chapter was
chiefly designed to pourtray the conversion of the Jews, not ex
cluding however reference to the Gentiles. Edom, the repre
sentative of the church's enemies, had been destroyed, and now
consolations succeed: a mighty change takes place in the moral
condition of God's people, as great, as if the wilderness were to
become one vast garden, blooming in loveliness and fertility. The
fifth verse and former part of the sixth were literally fulfilled by
the miracles of our Lord— but his miracles were merely external
manifestations and faint emblems of the blessings of his reign.
Although, therefore, our Lord appealed to the miracles which he
wrought as a demonstration that he was the Messiah, we are not
to suppose that the figurative acceptation of the fifth and sixth
verses, was thereby set aside. The literal performance of the
things specified in Isaiah was but an incipient fulfilment of the
greater benefits which Christ should confer. (Compare the quota
tion of Isaiah liii. 4 in Matthew viii. 17.) We believe, therefore,
that the subject of Matthew xi. 5, and of Isaiah xxxv. 5, 6, is
the same — that the former throws Ught upon the latter, showing,
that the prediction pointed to the times of the Messiah, to the bless
ings of his reign, the holiness, peace, security, and joy, which the
redeemed shall enjoy beneath the immediate protection of the
Prince of peace. That the theocratic language has a primary and
especial reference to the conversion of the Jews — to a period still
future, when at the commencement of the Millennium they shall
all be converted — there can be no doubt ; but the consolations and
joys experienced by all wlio truly embrace the gospel are alike,
and therefore the whole heathen world which shall yet be made
glad by the predicted blessings, should not be formally banished

FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE. 295
from the chapter in question. Had there been no such passage
as Matthew xi. 5, the chapter would of itself have suggested the
times of the gospel ; for the eighth and tenth verses cannot be flat
tened down with the Chaldee paraphrast to the return from the
captivity at Babylon ; but the passage in Matthew's gospel, which
is not merely similar in language but parallel in sentiment, as al
luding to the same subject, affords a key to the proper explanation
of the rich and glowing language of the enraptured prophet.*
In order to determine whether figurative language be ade
quately understood, some have suggested, that for tropical we
should substitute proper words. The very attempt to do so may
lead to greater discrimination in our ideas. If we be unable to
make the exchange, it may be inferred that the particular concep
tions intended to be suggested by the language are not attached
to it. Thus, when Christ says, " I am the light of the world,"
we may reduce it to unfigurative diction, " I am [the author and
source of] the true knowledge of God among men." Job iv. 8,
" They that plough iniquity and sow wickedness reap the same,"
literally, " they that open up the way and lay the beginnings of
future mischief, experience the consquences of such conduct."
Yet it is scarcely possible to exhibit the force and fire of figu
rative language by substituting unfigurative in its place. The
latter flattens down the vivacity inherent in the rich imagery of
Scripture, by reducing it to the tameness and tenuity of prosaic
discourse. We may not therefore be able to translate into proper
diction that which is tropical, because there are no equivalent
representatives. But we may, by means of the former, approxi
mate the life and vigour of the latter, though unable to attain to
an equality of exhibition. One thing is certain, and by it the
interpreter may test his knowledge of figurative language, that
each word and phrase symbolises certain ideas with their shades
and colourings; — that each proposition sets forth a definite sen
timent with- precision and certainty. No tropical word is desti
tute of meaning, or serves as a mere expletive. This is true of
every Scripture-term ; and it is no less true of every tropical one.
Each has its use, though the expositor may not always discover
it. * For a sensible, judicious, and in the main correct exposition of Isaiah xxxv, chap
ter, the reader is referred to " Notes, Critical, Explanatory, and Practical, on the Book
of the Prophet Isaiah ; with a new translation hv Albert Barnes," 3 vols, 8vo, Boston,
1840, vol, ii. pp, 342-357,

29G 'IHR PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION APPLIED TO
Where there is a number of tropes, or a succession of meta
phors, we arrive at their true meaning by the same process as that
which is applied to any part of Scripture, whether expressed in
figurative or unfigured diction.
I. By means of the context, immediate or remote.
II. By parallels.
Morus adds as a third auxiliary, historical circumstances;
and as a, fourth, the nature of the thing.
I. Context.
(a) The context shows the occasion on which the metaphorical
diction is introduced.
Thus in John iv. 10-14, the resting of Jesus on the well, and
the coming of the Samaritan woman to draw water, furnished the
Saviour with a suitable opportunity of comparing his doctrine to
a spring of living water.
(b) The context also shows the leading design oi the writer
in the section where tropical diction is employed. Hence it
serves as a guide to the particular object for which such phrase
ology is employed.
Thus Jeremiah ii. 13. " For my people have committed two
evils ; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and
hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water."
The prophet had been reproaching the people with the folly of
changing Jehovah, the living and true God, for such gods as had
no existence. Compare the eleventh verse.
1 Cor. V. 7, 8, " Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye
may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. Therefore let us
keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of
malice and wickedness ; but with the unleavened bread of sin
cerity and truth." It is plain, from verses 5 and 6, that the for
nicator is the subject of discourse in this place ; and that when
the apostle says, purge out, &c. he means, put out from among
you that fornicator, lest the church be defiled by him, The Co
rinthians are enjoined to excommunicate the unworthy member,
that their society might be pure. " Christ our passover was slain
for us," — let us therefore commemorate his death in holy since
rity, and consecrate ourselves to his glory with renewed hearts
and lives. The leaven, from which the Jews cleansed their houses
at the feast of the passover, was a symbol of corruption and ma-
Uce. Hence the apostie employs it on this occasion to denote
the wickedness and impurity from which Christians, both in their

FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE. 297
individual and social capacity, are enjoined to separate and sanc
tify themselves.
(c) Sometimes the writer himself may be regarded as giving
an explanation by means of one or more proper terms at the
commencement, by certain expressions in the middle of the tropes,
or by subjoining what is sufficient to elucidate the preceding
diction. Thus Ezekiel xxix. 2, 3, 4. " Son of man, set thy face against
Pharaoh, king of Egypt, and prophesy against him, and against
all Egypt : speak, and say. Thus saith the Lord God ; Behold,
I am against thee, Pharaoh, king of Egypt, the great dragon
that Ueth in the midst of his rivers, which hath said, my river is
mine own, and I have made it for myself. But I will put hooks
in thy jaws, and I will cause the fish of thy rivers to stick unto
thy scales, and I will bring thee up out of the midst of thy rivers,
and all the fish of thy rivers shall stick unto thy scales." Here
the introduction shews, that by the great dragon or fish, Pharaoh
king of Egypt is designated.
In Ephesians vi. 14-18, proper expressions are interwoven
with the tropical.
Proper terms are subjoined, in Proverbs v. 15-18. " Drink
waters out of thine own cistern, and running waters out of thine
own well. Let thy fountains be dispersed abroad, and rivers of
waters in the streets. Let them be only thine own, and not
strangers' with thee. Let thy fountain be blessed." The latter
part of the 18th verse, with the 19th and 20th, explains the
figures. " And rejoice with the wife of thy youth. Let her be
as the loving hind and pleasant roe ; let her breasts satisfy thee
at all times ; and be thou ravished always with her love. And
why wilt thou, my sOn, be ravished with a strange woman, and
embrace the bosom of a stranger ?"
Ecclesiastes xii. 5-6. Here there is a collection of metaphors
in combination with several unfigured expressions, the latter
serving to point out the nature of the subject which the tropes
are intended to illustrate. In the 1st and 7th verses it is indi
cated that there is a description of old age. " Remember now
thy Creator in the days of thy youth, while the evil days come
not, nor the years draw nigh, when thou shalt say, I have no
pleasure in them. . . . Then shall the dust return to the earth
as it was : and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it."
An explanation of tropes is also given at the termination of a
pp

298 THE PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION APPLIED TO
passage, in John vii. 38, 39 ; John n. 19, 21. Ezekiel xx. 45-49
is interpreted in xxi. 1-4 ; and xv. 1-5 in 6-8.
II. Parallels.
A well known trope may be extended on some occasions to a
greater length and minuteness. We infer, therefore, that it has
the same meaning in its abbreviated, as in its lengthened form.
Thus in the sixteenth chapter of Ezekiel, Israel is described
under the figure of an unfaithful and adulterous woman, adultery
being a usual expression to denote idolatry.
Frequently also the Hebrew poets represent God as holding
in his hand a cup, and giving it to men that they may drink it
to the dregs. Intoxicated with the draught, they reel to and fro,
fall to the ground, and cast forth the wine. See Obadiah, verse
16 ; Nahum in. 11; Habakkuk n. 16 ; Psalm Ixxv. 8 ; Jeremiah
xxv. 15, 16 ; Ezekiel xxiu. 33, 34. The meaning of such me
taphorical language is illustrated by comparing it with Isaiah
Ii. 17-23, where the same figure is used, but with the admixture
of words and phrases intended to be explanatory, and mostly un
figured. III. Historical circumstances may confirm an interpretation,
but cannot be said with propriety to furnish it. If the passage
do not contain within itself, or in its vicinity, the means of its
own exposition; — if other portions of Scripture do not serve to
make it known, it is not possible to arrive at the true meaning
under the guidance of historical circumstances, unless the Scrip
tures themselves have previously furnished the particular history
which is applicable. This, then, cannot be given as a rule for
the interpretation of extended metaphors, or of a succession of
metaphors (improperly called allegories), though Morus appears
to attach considerable importance to it. Let us glance at one
of his examples.
John xxi. 18, 19. " Verily, verily, I say unto thee. When
thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither
thou wouldest : but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch
forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee
whither thou wouldest not. This spake he, signifying by what
death he should glorify God." " Scriptor ipse," says Morus,
" digito monstrat, historiam adeundam esse. Sermo est de Pe
tro : Dico tibi, te juniorem cinxisse temet ipsum, et ambulavisse,
quocunque velles ; sed ubi ad senectutem perveneris, extendes
manus, et alius te ducet, et invitum te ducet eo, ubi non voles.

FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE. 290
Additur v. 19, Haec dixit Christus, significans quo mortis ge
nere Petrus obiturus esset. Historia vero indicat, Petrum vio-
lenta morte sublatum esse."* There is a tradition that Peter
was crucified with his head downwards for the gospel's sake ; and
it is certain that he suffered martyrdom. But the language of
John denotes as plainly in itself, that Peter should be bound and
put to death for his religion, as the tradition teaches.
IV. Morus has also given prominence to another observation
which he regards as a precept, viz. that the nature of the thing
should be consulted, " that it may thence appear what is the
tendency of every comparison, and what properly lies under the
images employed." t This is no rule. It is tantamount to say
ing that in discovering the sense of a passage, whether tropical
or Uteral, we should not divest ourselves of common sense, rea
son, or the knowledge previously derived from experience and
reflection. The nature of every object must certainly be con
sidered, so far as the Scriptures reveal it, or the circumstances of
Ufe render it apparent ; but it is somewhat preposterous to pro
pound this as a formal precept for ascertaining the true meaning
of a metaphorical paragraph, or of an allegory. The passages
adduced by Morus under this precept,X as he styles it, are
such as, Matthew v. 13, " Ye are the salt of the earth : but if
the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted ? it is
thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trod
den under foot of men." " Christus hoc dicit discipulis, monendi
consilio. Sed quid sibi vult haec admonitio ? quod est verbum
primarium ? Verbum primarium est sal. Id quo verbo proprio
possum interpretari ? Hic natura rei consulenda est, quse intelU
gere me jubet sal corrigens saporem, sapidos cibos reddens. Jam
patet, quo sensu discipuli dicantur sapidum reddere, corrigere :
fuerunt enim doctores, a quibus alii correcti sunt et meliores red-
diti. Prodibit ex his tandem haec paraphrasis : vos estis ilU, per
quos alii meliores reddi debeant, et tanquam sapor humani ge
neris injucundus corrigendus sit." ||
This exposition is sufficiently tame. There is in salt a quality
which keeps away corruption and imparts soundness. So the
* Hermeneutica, ed. Eichstadt, vol. i. p, 312,
f Deinde aio, consulendam quoque esse rei naturam, ut ex hac appareat, quo tendat
omnis comparatio, et quid proprie subsit imaginibus. Pp. 312, 3.
X Quae, Ernostio praeeunte, illustravi duo preecepta, quia non sufficere videntur ad
omnia loca allegorica explananda, duo alia subjungam. Pp, 311, 2, |1 P. 313,

300 THE PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION APPLIED TO
disciples of Christ must have in them a spiritual principle that in
time of persecution * will guard them against falUng away, losing
all vitaUty, and becoming unsound. This living principle will
also exercise an influence in its forthgoing upon others, by guard
ing them against corruption and decay, t What need is there in
the case of such a passage, of a formal rule, enjoining us to resort
to the nature of the thing 9
The language of prophecy is chiefly tropical ; and in no part
of holy writ is it so requisite to understand the nature, compass,
variety, and significancy of the various figures it employs. When
prophecies have been fulfilled, history serves to guide the inter
preter in educing the import of the imagery in which events are
presented. But in unfulfilled prophecy, this assistance is want
ing. Hence the great difficulty of expounding it, because the
predictions cannot be compared with their accomplishment. In
this case it will facilitate the work of exegesis, if the sacred inter
preter familiarise himself with the varied metaphors and tropes
which are used in depicting characters and facts. He must en
deavour to ascertain their import as evinced by the actual exhi
bition of such characters on the theatre of life ; and by the mode
in which facts have fallen out. Unless there be such a prepara
tion, the success of an expositor, in the department of unfulfilled
prophecy, will probably be small. If consummate ability, strong
judgment, long study of the vocabulary belonging to fialfiUed
prophecy, great caution, and nice taste be required in the inter
pretation of any passage ; they are emphatically needful in the
obscure subject of unfulfilled predictions. Here many wander
long and fruitlessly. Not contented with discovering the gene
ral features of the region where they delight to Unger — which
alone can be descried with any degree of probability — they
would seek out the minute points and "circumstances by which
Jehovah, instead of fostering our curiosity, purposes to impress us
with a sense of our own ignorance, the necessity of faith in His
words, and of patient waiting till the time of their fulfilment. The
spiritual Ufe of his ancient people was preserved and nourished
by future realities ; and although it is our high privilege to con
template the Redeemer as having already suffered for us in the
* See the preceding verse,
f See Olshausen's Biblischer Commentar. vol. i. p. 209, 3'"-' Auflage; and De Wette's
Ifurze Erkliirung des Evangcliums Matthai pp. 57, 8, Zweite Ausgabe, 8vo, Leipzig
1838,

FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE.

301

flesh, and as now exalted a prince and a Saviour ; yet God has
not, wholly abandoned the former mode of leading his people on
ward by faith in future facts. Their spiritual life is sustained by
glorious promises yet unaccomplished. They are animated thus
for trial and complete victory. Of true Christians now, it may
be said after their decease, " These all died in faith, not having
received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were
persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they
were strangers and pilgrims on the earth."*
We shall now refer to a few examples of prophetic diction.
Psalm ex. The New Testament, by repeated quotations and
allusions, proves that this Psalm is descriptive of Messiah. He is
pourtrayed as a king, verses 1, 2, 3 ; as a priest, verse 4 ; and then
he appears as a mighty warrior subduing nations and kings under
him. The language of verses 5, 6, is bold and sublime, borrowed
from the conduct of a victorious general. The fancy of the poet
contemplates a battle-field covered with the bodies of the slain.
A conquering hero dashes heads in pieces upon the broad plain ;
and, instead of being weakened, or sinking with fatigue in the
pursuit of his enemies, as the leaders of armies often are — in
stead of seeking out places of entertainment and so losing the
full fruits of victory — stoops down to drink of a brook in the
way, and immediately follows on with unabated ardour and re
newed strength till his foes be utterly extirpated.
What is the idea contained in this tropical language ? The
Messiah shall utterly and for ever subdue all his enemies. None
shall be able to resist his Almighty power in the day of his wrath.
The judge and ruler of the nations, he shaU destroy the most
powerful of his adversaries, and none shall escape his vengeance.
This king shall never become weak or fatigued, so as to allow the
possibility of any evading the reach of his arm. He shall not
desist from conquest. Strengthened and revived by the Holy
Spirit (compared to Uving or running water, John vii. 38, &c.),
he shall execute his glorious purposes, triumphing over the powers
of sin and darkness.
Isaiah xi. 11-16.
This is a figurative description of the conversion of the Jews
as a people, their incorporation into the church of God, and the
removal of all the obstacles that prevented these effects from
taking place before. The imagery is chiefly drawn from two
* Hebrews xi, 13.

302

THE PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION APPLIED TO

deliverances in the history of the IsraeUtes, viz. freedom from
Egyptian bondage, and from the Babylonish exile. The basis
of the picture is thus theocratic.
Verse W. In that day, i. e. in the time of the Messiah or the
gospel dispensation, of which the prophet had just been speaking.
To assume with Jahn and Henderson that the poet suddenly
turns aside from the Messiah's reign to speak of the return from
the Babylonian captivity, is arbitrary and unnatural. The figures
indeed are partly borrowed from this event, but they are employed
to describe another.
" The Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover
the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria, and
from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam,
and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the
sea." " Why does the prophet here, Uke Micah iv. 6, 7, represent
the reception of the dispersed Israelites into the kingdom of the
Messiah, under the image of their restoration to their native land?
The answer is, that as the kingdom of God must of necessity
have a substratum in the vision of the prophet, because images
only, and not abstract ideas, can be exhibited in vision, so the
seat of the ancient theocracy appears to him as the central point
and capital of the Messiah's kingdom, whence also this kingdom
takes its rise. As now, chap, xi., he represents the reception of
the heathen nations into the kingdom of the Messiah as their
journeying to Mount Zion, so here the reception of the dispersed
Jews is described as a return to their native land. We are not
here to have respect to the locality, since this belongs merely to
the form of the vision, but to the fundamental idea, the sin and
apostacy of the Jews, for which they were expelled from the old
theocracy and its blessings, to which the possession of the land
of Canaan especially belonged, and repentance and conversion,
whereby they gain admission into the Messiah's kingdom, and
participate in its blessings." *
Verse 12. "And he shall set up an ensign for the nations,
and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the
dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth." The na
tions or Gentiles, in consequence of a marked intimation of the will
of God, will afford every facility for the reception of the dispersed
* Hengstenberg's Christology of the Old Testament, translated by Dr, Keith,
Alexandria, vol, i. p. 390 ; or in the original, Ersten Theiles, Zweite Abtheil. pp,
160, 1,

FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE. 303
Jews into the Messiah's kingdom. God wiU cause them to re
turn to himself.
Verse 13. " The envy also of Ephraim shall depart, and the
adversaries of Judah shall be cut off: Ephraim shall not envy
Judah, and Judah shall not vex Ephraim." Here the enmity
that once existed between Ephraim and Judah is selected in poetic
phrase to denote all jealousy and envy between the tribes. All
division, whether external or internal, shall cease, when the Jews
united in harmonious and happy society will become true subjects
of King Messiah.
Verse 14. The Hebrews will effect the conversion of the enemies
of the true church — spiritual victories will be obtained — and in
consequence of their return to God, the church will be enlarged
by the addition of those who were before the most persevering
idolaters. Verses 15, 16. Jehovah will remove all obstacles to the re
demption of the Israelites, however great or formidable. As he
formerly took out of their way, by his almighty power, the phy
sical hindrances which obstructed their removal from Egypt, so
will he in the time to come take away their blindness and un
belief — every thing opposed to their spiritual freedom — and glo
riously bring them into the bosom of the church of Christ.
Zechariah, chapter xiv.
This chapter forms a distinct section in the writings of the
prophet, and contains a remarkable prophecy yet to be accom
plished. That the description is highly figurative may be seen.
First, From all nations being gathered together against Jeru
salem to battle. This is locally impossible.
Secondly, From the circumstance of the Lord going forth and
fighting against the associated nations. These two intimations
at the commencement, plainly indicate the figurative character of
the prophecy.
Again, it is stated towards the conclusion, that those who are
left of the nations shall yearly go up to Jerusalem to keep the
feast of tabernacles. This would be impossible, literally considered.
The whole, therefore, must be understood as a highly poetic de
scription of events yet future in the history of the church.
Jerusalem denotes the church ; upon which the nations of the
earth make a great and successful attack. After overcoming
it, they think themselves so secure of victory as to divide the
spoil in the very midst of it. But only half of the people go

304 THE PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION APPLIED TO
into captivity. The other half is left. The church is tried and
sifted, and one half of her members, discovered to be without
spirituality or faithfulness, are given up to the power of their ene
mies. When severe persecution comes, they are separated from
the true followers of the Lamb, and their hypocritical reUgion is
exposed. We think it probable, that the great army of Gog de
scribed in Ezekiel xxxviii,, xxxix., is identical with the present
legion, though there is considerable diversity in the two accounts.
The language employed is borrowed from that which is applied
to the taking of Jerusalem, and the carrying away of the inhabi
tants into captivity.
After the church has been purified, Jehovah is represented as
interposing in a very remarkable manner on her behalf, as he for
merly interfered and slew the Egyptians.
The 4th and 5th verses simply depict the deliverance of the
saints and the destruction of their enemies. God makes a way
for the escape and safety of the former — formidable obstacles are
removed from before them, and they obtain security. An earth
quake, in the language of prophecy, is a sudden revolution or
alteration in the existing state of things. Such an event is. here
said to happen. Then the Lord comes with all his saints, and
sets up his glorious kingdom on earth.
Verses 5, 6, 7. Thick darkness succeeds — then light and dark
ness are intermingled for a short period, so as to form an inter
mediate condition between day and night ; lastly, the full day
breaks forth towards evening, when the people of God least ex
pect it. The powers of heaven are darkened, when God inflicts
judgments, as he is here said to do upon his enemies ; the full
day breaks forth — denoting prosperity, happiness, and peace to
the church.
Verse 8. Divine blessings and rich supplies of grace flow forth
out of the church in which Jehovah resides, in remarkable abun
dance and diffusion. (See the parallel prophecies in Ezekiel
xlvii. 1, &c., and Joel iii. 18.)
These divine communications will extend over the earth — 1
among all nations — for " the Lord shall be a King over all the
earth : in that day shall there be one Lord, and his name one,"
verse 9.
Verse 10. God shall now be gloriously exalted amid his church;
all worldly greatness shall be brought low, and all people ac
knowledge him as their King and Saviour.

FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE. 305
Ver. 11. God wUl no longer visit his purified church with
judgments ; for the hypocritical professors have been purged out
from her midst, and she shall enjoy security and peace.
Ver. 12. The prophet having broken off his description of the
punishment of the church's enemies at verse 3, returns to it, and
clothes the idea of punishment with flesh and blood, by borrow
ing language from the Jewish theocracy.
Vers. 13, 14. Confusion from the Lord shall seize them, and
every one will be eager to destroy his neighbour. Even those
who had been Jews will join with the true church, and partici
pate in her victories.
Ver, 15. So grievously has the sin of the church's enemies
risen up against them, that their very possessions are exposed
to the divine anger.
Ver. 16. Those who joined with the adversaries of the saints
and were not cut off, shall join themselves to the worship of Je
hovah, and render grateful thanks for the mercies bestowed.
Vers. 17, 18, 19. The seventeenth verse does not imply that
such rebels would actually exist at this time, but the hypothesis
serves to present the idea, that the nations instructed in their
duty would diUgently perform it.
Vers. 20, 21. All distinction between the holy and profane
will disappear ; every thing connected with God's worship will be
sacred ; and nothing profane shall defile it. The whole descrip
tion points to the millennial period of the church, when Jehovah
shaU pour out his copious blessings upon her, iniquity cease to
pollute the earth, and holiness universally prevail.
Before proceeding to the interpretation of allegory, it will be
expedient to inquire into the nature of the figure so termed. The
word has been used in various senses, and with great vagueness.
Sometimes it is said to denote a continued metaphor. Thus Ci
cero says, " When several kindred metaphors succeed one another,
they alter the form of a composition ; for which reason a succes
sion of this kind is called by the Greeks an Allegory ; and pro
perly, in respect to the etymology of the word ; but Aristotle,
instead of considering it as a new species of figure, has more ju
diciously comprised such modes of expression under the general
appellation. of metaphors."* In like manner Dr. Blair writes —
" An allegory may be regarded as a continued metaphor." Those
who take this view of it, find it difficult, or rather impossible to
* Dc Oratore, Q q

306 THE PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION APPLIED TO
define where the one terminates and the other begins. Some
confine metaphor to a word, and refer whatever exceeds this to
the head of allegory. This makes the latter include one or more
sentiments.* Sometimes the allegory is made a distinct species,
having within itself a congruity and completeness unlike a num
ber of tropes put together. Lowth enumerates three forms of
allegory,t but their limits are not well marked. It appears to
us, that some confusion would be avoided by attaching the same
meaning to the term allegory wherever it occurs, and thus se
parating it more exactly from other figures. In allegory, as in
metaphor, two things are presented to view ; but yet there is
considerable difference between both tropes. " The term ' Alle
gory,' according to its original and proper meaning, denotes —
a representation of one thing, which is intended to excite the
representation of another thing. Every allegory therefore must
be subjected to a two-fold examination : we must first examine
the immediate representation, and then consider what other re
presentation it was intended to excite. Now, in most allegories,
the immediate representation is made in the form of a narra
tive : and since it is the object of an allegory to convey a moral,
not an historic truth, the narrative itself is coramonXY fictitious.
The immediate representation is of no farther value, than as it
leads to the ultimate representation. It is the application, or
the moral, of the allegory, which constitutes its worth.
Since, then, an allegory comprehends two distinct representa
tions, the interpretation of an allegory must comprehend two
distinct operations. The first of them relates to the immediate
representation ; the second to the ultimate representation."!
From this excellent description of allegory it may be seen,
that a continuation of metaphors, or a metaphor prolonged, never
becomes an allegory. In the metaphor there is but one mean
ing — in the allegory there are two, a literal and a figurative.
In the former, the principal object is prominently presented; —
in the latter, it is concealed, and the secondary exhibited.
The metaphor always asserts or imagines that one object is
* AUegoria est modus exprimendi integram sententiam ita, ut loco rei, quse ipsa
dicenda erat, ponatur res illi similis. Integra sententia indicat id, quod nobis est ein
ganzer Gedanke, ideoque vel propositio Integra, vel explicatio uberior rei alieujus
integrae. Urgeo hoc, ne tantum intelligatur unum vocabulum, ut in quo metaphora
esse potest, allegoria non potest, Mori Hermeneutica, vol, i. p. 301.
f Lecture X , on the Sacred Poetry of the Hebrews.
X Marsli's Lectures on the Interpretation of the Bible, pp. ,yia, -1.

FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE. 307
another. Thus " Judah is a lion's whelp" (Gen. xlix. 9 ;) "I
am the true vine" (John xv. 1.) On the contrary, allegory
never affirms that one thing is another, which is in truth an ab
surdity.* The examples of allegory usually given in works on Herme
neutics and Rhetoric, are unquestionably a succession of compa
risons or metaphors, or even a single comparison. Thus Morus
makes 2 Tim. n. 20 an allegory; as also Matthew xxi. 43; John
vi. 21; 1 Peter V. 8.
In the interpretation of an allegory, we must be chiefly guided
by the preceding or subsequent context. The purpose for which
it was introduced, or intimations of its import subjoined, generally
lead to its right understanding. In addition to these, parallels
are not to be neglected.
The 80th Psalm has been always quoted as a fine instance of
allegory. " Thou hast brought a vine out of Egypt : thou hast cast out
the heathen, and planted it. Thou preparedst room before 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 then broken
down her hedges, so that all 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. Return, we beseech thee, O God
of hosts : look down from heaven, and behold, and visit this vine ;
and the vineyard which thy right hand hath planted, and the
branch that thou madest strong for thyself. It is burned with
fire, it is cut down : they perish at the rebuke of thy counte
nance." At the conclusion, the tropical slides into proper diction, and
the whole is explained. So verse 15 — " Protect what thy right
hand hath planted," which is explained in the corresponding par
allelism, " the son whom thou madest strong for thyself." By the
Son, is meant the Hebrew nation, elsewhere called God's son
(Exodus iv. 22 ; Hosea xi.l.) The seventeenth verse is similar.
" Hold thy hand over the man of thy right hand — the son of
man whom thou madest strong for thyself." The Hebrew na-
* See " A Treatise on the Figures of Speech, by Alexander Carson, A, M," Dublin,
1826, 12mo, pp. 51, 2. This acute writer has expounded the nature of an allegory
much more correctly than Lord Kames, Dr, Blair, or Dr, Campbell,

308 THE PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION APPLIED TO
tion is individualized, and called the man of God's right hand,
because God had delivered it by his power from Egyptian
bondage. De Wette correctly translates the 15th verse — " Be-
schiitze, was deine Hand gepflanzet, und den Sohn, den du dir
erkoren !" *
It will be observed, that this narrative respecting a vine is
complete in itself, and bears a consistent sense throughout, even
had the writer not designed to use it as a veil for concealing a
secondary and higher sense. The primary sense is useful, only
in so far as it serves to cover the secondary.
The precepts given by Morus respecting the interpretation of
an allegory, viz. that historical circumstances and the nature of
the thing should be attended to, are of no use, as may be seen
from his examples. Thus Matthew xin. 31 (which, however, is
a parable), is not illustrated, as he says, by the history of the
church ; nor is Luke v. 36 elucidated by the nature of the
thing. The entire book of Canticles is a specimen of extended alle
gory. Nuptial love is described ; — and under this veil the spiri
tual love existing between Christ and his church is also shadowed
forth. In the explanation of the book, there is great danger of
arbitrary, unnatural, and fanciful procedure ; especially as the
commencement and conclusion furnish no assistance. We must
have recourse to other places of Scripture, where the relation
of God to his church is described under the figure of connubial
affection. Ecclesiastes xii. 2-6 is not an example of allegory. Differ
ent images are employed to describe old age, and to denote
different parts of the human body ; but the regularity and com
pactness which characterise the allegory are wanting. The
poet draws his imagery from very various objects, such as the
sun, moon, stars, the grasshopper, the almond tree, &c. This
diversity is foreign to the unity of allegory.
Again, Isaiah xxvin. 23-29 is not an instance of allegory;
the language is metaphorical. The husbandman wisely adapts
his mode of treatment to the nature of the soil with which he has
to do, sowing in particular localities such seeds as exactly suit
them, and employing those instruments for separating the grain
from the straw and chaff, which are best adapted to accomplish
* Sne also Lowtli's Lectures, edited by the Rev. Prof. Stowe, 8vo. 1829, Andover,
p. 369, where tlie learned editor adopts the same rendering.

FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE. 309
the end intended. This is the immediate representation. Yet
the ultimate is not concealed, as it is in allegory. It is likewise
brought into view, not indeed so prominently as the immediate,
but still not obscurely. The prophet designs to inculcate the
principle that God in his dealings toward men adopts such modes
of acting as perfect wisdom dictates. He knows the character
and minutest circumstances of each individual ; he punishes some
times severely, sometimes gently ; sometimes soon, and again
late. The scope and general purport of the figurative language
are seen from the verses which precede, particularly 1 7 and 22 ;
and from the concluding verse, " This also cometh forth from
the Lord of Hosts, which is wonderful in counsel, and excellent
in working." (verse 29.)
Allegory has been divided into the pure and impure, or per
fect and mixed. A pure allegory does not mention any part of
the principal object, but carefully and entirely keeps it concealed.
Such a kind occurs but seldom in the Scriptures. Most of the
Biblical allegories are mixed; and in this case their application is
more easily seen, because unfigured expressions are introduced
by which the principal object is indicated. The parable of the
prodigal son, in Luke (15th chapter) is an instance of a pure or
perfect allegory; — the 80th Psalm presents an example of the
mixed- or impure.
When the several adjuncts and circumstances connected with
the allegory in a particular place have been diligently consulted,
and other parts of the Bible collated for the purpose of throwing
light upon it, a most important inquiry still remains, viz. how far
should the expositor run a parallel between the circumstances
mentioned in the figure, and the object or objects they were in
tended to describe. It is very properly laid down as a precept,
that comparison should not be extended to all the circumstances
of the allegory. " Nulla allegoria" (says Morus) " est ex omni
parte spectanda."* The judicious interpreter will readily concur
in the truth of this negative rule. The figure holds good only
to a certain extent. It should neither be carried through every
part, nor urged too far. A minute and systematic parallel seems
not to have been designed by the sacred writers. Each feature
of the picture should not be insisted on, as though it had a cor
responding and literal counterpart. It will be generally found,
* Acroases Academicse, vol. i. p. 305.

310 THE PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION APPLIED TO
that some one point or principle is illustrated by a lengthened
comparison, and that several traits are added to fill up the picture.
Were the object for which the similitude is introduced, stated in
naked individuality, there would be a rugged abruptness. Other
particulars impart variety and ornament to the delineation, with
out farther significancy. They are merely secondary and subor
dinate, communicating animation and vivacity to the whole de
scription. " Permulta hujusmodi tropicis sermonibus admixta
sunt," says Jahn, " non ad rem significatam, sed ad perfectionem
imaginis spectantia, fere ut in tabulis seu picturis symbolicis, in
quibus ipsa duntaxat Integra figura est symbolum rei, et significat
id, quod pictor indicare voluit, nequaquam autem omnia singu-
laria, quse ad integritatem et perfectionem figurse necessaria erant;
e. g. si in tabula coloribus sistitur matrona, ut symbolum justitise
vel fortitudinis, integra figura cum principalibus adjunctis signi
ficat justitiam vel fortitudinem ; ast capilli, digiti, ungues, etc.
prorsus nihil significant, sed ad perfectionem figurse humanse ne
cessaria erant ; qui nihilominus in his significationem quaesiverit,
ridebitur ab ipso pictore."* Those interpreters have greatly
erred who urge all the circumstances of the allegory. They have
given scope to an unbridled imagination, and adduced a multitude
of points which were never intended by the Holy Spirit. " In
terpreters have, without any fixed principles, attempted to explain
every single figure, and have found in every one an allusion to
some real circumstance, either of history or of the internal spiri
tual life. This method stands in direct opposition to the whole
character of the Canticles, in which there is so much of ornament
and mere costume. One must not expect to find something cor
responding to each single figure in this book ; but he must first
unite all the single figures into one general image, and then the
corresponding reality will be easily found. Thus, e. g. in the de
scriptions of the beauty and gracefulness of the Bride, we should
look for nothing further than the expressions of the love and com
placency of Jehovah towards the people of Israel." t By this
unwarrantable mode of explanation. Holy Writ has been brought
into disrepute, and the enemies of truth have been strengthened.
But the blame attaches to the expositor, not to the word.
* Enchiridion Hermeneuticae generalis tabularum Veteris et Novi Fcederis. Vi
enna, 1812, 8vo, pp. 120, 1.
f Dr. Robinson, in his edition of Calmet's Dictionary, under the Article Canti
cles, 8th edition, 1837, Boston, p, 249.

FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE. 311
The question still recurs, how far should the comparison be
made to extend ? We answer, just as far as the inspired writer
indicates. The main circumstance by which the interpretation
should be regulated and restrained is, the design of the allegory.
What is the sentiment or principle illustrated ? What is the fact
described ? These are ordinarily seen from the vicinity ; — and
the comparison must be understood in accordance with them. But
when points of resemblance are multiplied along with separate
phrases, much more is attributed to the passage than what com
ports with its scope. The writer is thus compelled to elucidate
more than he intended, and to diverge into a number of minute
circumstances which are superfluous on the occasion. If all are
supposed to have a separate significancy, they are neither neces
sary nor apposite in their connexion. They are so many points of
supererogation, going beyond the writer's own purpose, and dis
sipating the reader's attention, instead of confining it to that one
which the context indicates and approves. But if they be looked
upon as garniture to the allegorical portrait ; — as accessory, not
essential, they comport with the scope of the discourse, and im
part to the picture a lively colouring.
It is necessary to observe, that we do not thus consider the
greater part of an allegory to be superfluous. None of it is re
dundant. All is apposite. Neither do we affirm, that various
particulars may not be designated by its different portions. Our
meaning is, that some general principle, sentiment, or fact, is
illustrated under the veil of an interesting representation ; and that
we should not look for counterparts to each feature of the repre
sentation in the principal object. Though every thing asserted
in the allegory applies to the secondary object, the primary does
not necessarily present a parallel to each of these assertions.
Parables. Parables may be called historical allegories, as they
usually differ from the latter only in form. It is easy to know
when parables are allegorical or not, by the two representations
they contain, the one concealing the other. The term va^ajSoXri
means comparison. In the parable as in the allegory three things
demand attention.
\st. The thing to be illustrated.
2dly, The example illustrating.
idly. The tertium comparationis, or the simUitude existing
between them.

312 THE PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION APPLIED TO
\st. The object to be illustrated (called avra-rShogig by Vossius,
and redditio contraria by Quinctilian) must be sought in,
I. The context.
(a) At the commencement of the parable, by such phrases as
— ofj^oia iarl or iifj^oiuiSri n ^agiXiia, etc. as in Matthew xiii. 24, 31,
33, 44, 45, 47 ; Luke xin. 18. The object of the parable may
be expressly stated in the introduction, as in Luke xviii. 1.
(b) The occasion on which it was introduced may serve to
illustrate its bearing and nature.
Thus Luke vii. 41 ; x. 30; xv. 1, 2; xix. 10, 11. Matthew
XX. 1, &c. is explained by xix. 27, &c. ; Matthew xxv. 14, by
verse 13 ; Luke xvi. 19-31, by the 14th verse of the same chap
ter. (c) A knowledge of the person or persons to whom the parable
was originally addressed assists in its exposition. This is closely
connected with the preceding.
Thus Nathan's parable of the ewe-lamb was addressed to David
himself; — and the parable of the compassionate Samaritan to the
lawyer "willing to justify himself." See 2d Samuel xii. 1-7 ;
Luke X. 29-37.
(d) At the end, by such phrases as, so is (o'uroig 'igri), or so shall
be (ouTcag 'igrai), Matthew xiii. 49 ; Luke xi. 9 ; xii. 21.
(e) When a full explanation is given we need no other help ;
as in Matthew xiii. 19, &c. ; 2d Samuel xii. 7, &c.
II. Another parable of parallel import may point out the thing
to be illustrated. So Luke xv. 3, compared with Matthew xviii.
12, &c.
Secondly. The illustrative example or immediate represen
tation. This serves as the veil partially to conceal from the view
the secondary representation or principal object. Where it is of
a local kind, it is useful to know antiquities.
Thirdly. The tertium comparationis, or the relation between
the primary and ultimate representation. The same observations
which were made in reference to allegory, are strictly applicable
here. That all the circumstances mentioned in the immediate
representation, do not find their corresponding features in the ul
timate, is a truth that cannot be too often inculcated.* The ex-
* The Fathers saw this, and frequently refer to it. Basil the Great writes thus : ai
rTapajioXat ovx ivrl il^ous tx hu^riftxTX rrXvi^oucrt, ^^os oi tyiv ii^o^ia-tv tov vovv ot'/iyoijfft.
Chrvsostom in like manner has tlie following; Aio^-sj oJSt xi'" '^xvtx tx iv traja-

FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE, 313
positions of his parables occasionally given by Christ himself,
prove its correctness. Thus in the parable of the tares, he does
not compare the circumstance, " whilst men slept" (Matthew
xiii. 25), or that in the 27th verse, " so the servants of the house
holder came and said unto him." In like manner, in the parable
of the unjust steward (Luke xvi. 1, &c.), he does not compare
the last part of the third verse, " I cannot dig ; to beg I am
ashamed." There was nothing in the secondary representation
which corresponded to these particulars. But whilst such exam
ples demonstrate, that every word and phrase of the primary re
presentation ought not to be urged or insisted on, they also teach
avoidance of the opposite extreme. We see, that the greater part
of the circumstances mentioned in the parable are not for mere
ornament, or for increasing the power of the description. On the
contrary, they belong to the essence, rather than the form, and
thus contribute to the comparison. The more finished the para
ble, the more probable is it, that fewer points belonging to it
serve as simple garniture.
To enable us to separate the particulars that are essential, and
those added to impart beauty or vivacity to the description, no
other precept can be given than to attend to all the circum
stances of the context, and also to parallel places. Among the
latter, doctrinal statements should be diligently brought to bear
upon the principal object. Unterkircher gives the following
rule, in connexion with which the circumstances already stated
for the interpretation of the allegory are to be taken : " Quse
salvo consilio orationis aut actionis adesse vel abesse possunt, ac-
cidentalia : quse autem salvo illo consilio abesse non possunt,
recte essentialia censentur."*
We shall illustrate Lukexv. 11-32, and separate the inci
dental from the essential circumstances of the parable.
There is a connection between the three parables of the
fifteenth chapter, which cannot fail to strike the reflecting reader.
(ioXais xxToi Xi^iv vl^tl^yd^ttrBxi, xXXd tov irxoTTov flxS'ovTXs h' 'ov ffwlTlSn, tovtov o^i-
.jritrdxt xx) fjiviSiv voXvT^xyfjioviiv -jri^atT't^u; Hom. 65, on Matthew xx, Isidore of
Pelusium has the following : ipvifii, 'oti ficdXttrrx f^iv 'ixxirTvtv ^vra^a^oXriv v^os to ^^off-
xiifttvov xvxl^uy^x<priTiov, xai ov 'jrxvTX xxTx ^exvTx XvivrTiov. Lib. iii. ep. 107. Theo
phylact writes : ov Ss? ,ffxvTx tx 'tv vrx^a^oXxTs Xiyofjctva us vot,cevs xai xxvovxs vx^x-
Xxfifidmv. In Johan, 3. The same sentiment is advanced by Luther, Bucer, Glassius,
WoUius, Flacius, Werenfels, Rambach, Ernesti, Ammon, Bauer, Storr, Morus, Keil,
Kuinoel, Schott, Brouwer, Scholten, Unger, and indeed by almost all writers on Her
meneutics, or on the Parables. See Unger, pp. 96-102.
* Hermeneutica Biblica generalis, p. 211. R r

314 THE PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION APPLIED TO
The introduction of the chapter serves in some measure to point
out the object of them all. " Then drew near unto him all the
publicans and sinners for to hear him. And the Pharisees and
Scribes murmured, saying, this man receiveth sinners, and eateth
with them" (verses 1-2.) In the first two parables of the chap
ter, God appears as a merciful and compassionate Father, gra
ciously receiving into the bosom of his love the lost sinner; in
opposition to the cold, condemnatory, hard-hearted character of
the Pharisees. In the third, which forms the immediate subject
of inquiry, the contrast between the love of God, who tenderly
welcomes the vilest of his children when they return, and the
unfeeling conduct of the Scribes and Pharisees, is prominently
exhibited. The parable is comprehensive in its aspect. It shews
the great mercy of our God in compassionating the poor, wan
dering penitent — the movements of the sinner touched with a
sense of his past folly and ingratitude, and alive to the real
misery of his condition. God's ways are not as man's ways.
Men are severe towards poor and prodigal transgressors; — but
so is not their heavenly Parent. The description points out the
relation which men sustain to God, and the gracious treatment
they receive at his hand. The two sons may denote the Jews
and the Gentiles, and also those who are seeking to be justified
by their own works, and those who, heedless of salvation, run
into sin and folly. The two parties stand in the same relative
position to Jehovah who is their common Father.
Ver. 12. " And the younger of them said to his father, Father,
give me the portion of goods that falleth to me. And he divided
unto them his living." Here the levity and arrogance of the
younger son are apparent. There is no strict counterpart to this
circumstance in the ultimate representation. It is merely in
tended to depict the thoughtless folly and arrogant demand of sin
ners, with the Lord's consequent abandonment of them. They
are left to themselves, that they may know themselves.
Ver. 13. " And not many days after, the younger son gathered
all together, and took his journey into a far country." When
sinners obtain what their carnal hearts desire, they apostatise
from their Maker, and bring swift misery upon themselves.
The last clause of the thirteenth verse, together with the 14th,
15th, and 16th, shows the misery and degradation to which sin
reduces its votaries.
Vers. 17 and 18 pourtray the movements of repentance in the

FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE. 315
soul, and the consequent return of the prodigal to his father
whom he had forsaken. The words of the son in the 18 th and
19th verses depict the humble opinion he has of himself, and the
right view he takes of his past conduct. He abhors himself, and
begs the lowest place in the regards of his Heavenly Parent. So
unworthy and vile does he appear in his own eyes, that he will
be contented with the least token of God's kindness towards
him. Ver. 20 is intended to exhibit the tender love of God, who
graciously witnesses the feelings of the penitent, and welcomes
him into the bosom of his family.
Vers. 22, 23, 24, describe the joyful reception which the re
turning prodigal receives (for there is joy in heaven over one sin
ner that repenteth), and the peace infused into the heart of him
who in sin had found nought but bitterness.
Vers. 25-30 represent the conduct of the elder brother, who
was one righteous according to the laiu.* His coldness and
envy form a remarkable contrast to the Father's love. He boasts
of his not leaving the Father, and of his legal righteousness.
While all around was joy, pride and envy reign in his heart.
How correct a picture of the feeUngs entertained by the Jews to
wards the publicans ! This self-righteous character even ventures
to find fault with the institutions of his father, while he unmerci-
fuUy condemns and exaggerates the conduct of his brother.
Ver. 31. God's mercy is the same to the self-righteous as to
the sinner. The way to repentance is open to both. The father
represents the elder son as the joint-possessor of his goods; but
the latter with slavish spirit does not look upon them as his —
he stands back, demanding and desiring that the father should
bestow blessings on him because of his righteousness — that he
should press them upon his acceptance as though he deserved
them for his long services. Had he come with a child-like
spirit, and asked all the blessings the Father has to bestow, they
would have been fully granted, for they are offered without
money and without price.
Ver. 32. It was meet that the Jew should rejoice at the con
version of his brethren of mankind, instead of being sullen and
discontented. Those who are labouring hard for eternal life,
may pride themselves on their pretended obedience, and boldly
¦ Sec Olshausen's Biblischer Commentar, vol, i, p. 665, 3d edition.

316

THE PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION APPLIED TO

venture to arraign the merciful dealings of God in receiving the
vilest of sinners; — but while there is joy in the presence of
the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth, there should
also be joy among the family of God on earth, when the dead in
trespasses and sins are restored to the favour of their heavenly
Father. Such seem to be the sentiments inculcated in the parable. It
is manifest that there are a number of traits intended only to
heighten the beauty and increase the vivacity of the picture.
These ought not to be urged as if they expressed particular
ideas. They are necessary to the full and finished form, but not
to the essence of the immediate representation. Of this nature
are verses 13, 14, 15, 16, verse 22, and 23 in part.
The following exposition by Dr. Gill will serve as an example
of injudiciously insisting upon each and every feature. Even
Olshausen is not wholly free from excess.
Ver. 12. " God's chosen ones among the publicans and sin
ners are fitly signified by the younger son, since man, as a sinner,
is younger than man as righteous ; and since there are instances
of God's choice of the younger before the elder, as Jacob before
Esau, &c. ; and the characters and conduct of young men agree
with God's elect in a state of nature."
Father, give me the portion of goods that falleth to me.
" This portion may be considered either as internal or external;
as internal, it may intend natural knowledge in general, to which
there is in man a natural desire, and in which he is self-sufficient :
or rather as external, such as the outward blessings of Ufe, food,
raiment, health, &c., the honours, pleasures, and riches of this
world." Ver. 15. A citizen of that country. " An unregenerate, phari-
saical, legal preacher is designed; a man may be a preacher, and
yet in the far country of sin and unregeneracy. It is common
for persons under legal convictions, to seek after such a preacher,
and such a ministry, and to such an one this man went, and he
joined himself to him ; he sat under his ministry and became a
member with him, and stuck close to him, as the word signifies;
and was a stickler for him and his principles."
He sent him into his fields to feed swine. " He sent him to
converse with self-righteous persons, who may be compared to
swine, because of their selfishness ; doing all they do for them
selves, and not for God and his glory ; because they prefer dung

FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE. 317
before pearls, their own righteousness before Christ, the pearl of
great price ; and live upon the husks of their own duties."
Ver. 16. "By these husks are meant works of righteousness
done by men ; which are like husks, external things, done only
before men ; empty things that have nothing within them ; mere
trash, and not food ; and which can give no satisfaction ; mere
sordid food, fit only to be cast to dogs or swine ; of an ill savour,
hard to eat, and difficult of digestion, and which affords no real
nourishment." " He laboured hard to make his own righteous
ness do, which was but striving to fiU his belly with the east
wind." Ver. 22. But the father said to his servants. These are
" the ministers of the gospel." The best robe is " the righteous
ness of Christ, which is often compared to a robe or garment,
because it is not any thing in believers, but what is unto them,
and upon them, and is put there by an act of God's grace in im
putation." And put it on him. " This is done by a decimation
of it, setting it forth in a ministerial way before them." And
put a ring on his hand. " By the ring is meant the everlasting
love of God ; and which, as a ring, is round, and has neither be
ginning nor end." And shoes on his feet. " By /ee^ are meant
the outward walk and conversation ; which in persons called by
grace should be different from what it was before, and from
others : it should not be loose and naked, as those that walk
barefoot, but should be upright, straight, and regular." " The
gospel is as shoes to the feet ; it beautifies and adorns, it keeps
the feet tight and straight, the conversation regular and upright;
preserves from sUpping and falUng ; strengthens and makes more
fit for walking ; directs, guides, and influences in walking, and
protects from the stones, thorns, and scorpions of the world's re
proaches ; and the doctrines of it are shoes that will never wear
out : and to walk according to the gospel of Christ, is what
gospel-ministers direct and exhort unto, and may be meant by
their putting on those shoes."
Ver. 23. " By ^Ae^^^ec? caZ^ Christ is designed. 'Bj bring- ¦
ing it hither, is meant preaching Christ ; and killing him de
signs the setting him forth in the gospel in a ministerial way, as
crucified and slain, for saints by faith to feed and live upon."
And let us eat, and be merry. " This is a mutual invitation
or encouragement to eat of the fatted calf : the parties called up
on to eat of it are the father, the servants, and the returned son."

318 THE PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION APPLIED TO
Ver. 25. " The elder son was in the field at work, working for
life : to work is right, when men work from a principle of grace,
in the name, faith, and strength of Christ, to the glory of God
and religion, and their own and others' good ; but to work in
order to obtain righteousness, life, and salvation, proceeds from
wretched ignorance, and is an instance of the pride and vanity of
human nature."
And as he came and drew nigh to the house. " He only
made some advances to it, and took some steps toward entrance
into it ; namely, into a visible church ; he came to hear the word
as the Scribes and Pharisees did," &c.
He heard music and dancing. " By music is meant the
preaching of the gospel by the ministers of it. Dancing may
design those expressions of joy which are delivered by young
converts at hearing the gospel."
Verse 26. " He called one of the ministers of the word, one
of the disciples of Christ, as the Scribes and Pharisees sometimes
did; choosing rather to speak to one of the disciples, than to
Christ himself, when they were offended."
How unlike that simplicity of interpretation which naturally
belongs to the parables this exposition is, needs not to be pointed
out ! The Scriptures may mean any thing which fancy may put
into them according to such curious excess.*
Unger contends,! tlia^t the interpretation of each parable is
one, by which he seems to mean, that Christ, while openly in
culcating important truths, never tacitly condemned the opinions
or conduct of those who lived at the time he appeared on earth.
In this he does not seem to be correct. Such a parable as that
which we have now considered, representing, as it does, the essen
tial points of the relation which men sustain to God, admits of
various references. Wherever the points of relation appear, there
the parable is suitable. It bears a general aspect, and is adapted
to the character of men in various circumstances. Hence, al
though the connexion does not lead to it, the description may be
¦ aptly applied to the Jews and Gentiles, no less than to the Scribes
and Pharisees — the self-righteous among the Jews and the pub
licans and sinners of the same people. Unger insists upon one
* Euthymius (Schol. vi. p. 97), is chargeable with the same fault. He interprets
voXiTns by iatfiovis' x'h" ^^ Xoyiirfi,oi- xi^xTix by al '^liovxl' fj,t(riioi by 'Iti xxTi^oi-
ulvot' x^TOUs by TXS ^^iTTixds TUV ^pv^uv ^t^xirxxXias .
t De Parabolarum Jesu Natura, Interpretatione, Usu, Lipsise 1828, 8vo, pp. 87-89.

FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE. 319
interpretation ; but though this be indubitably true, a parable
may be descriptive of a general fact, or a comprehensive prin
ciple capable of various applications.
It is not difficult to ascertain when a parable is aUegorical or
not. Most of the parables indeed are so, but not all. That of
the prodigal son is the finest example of allegory which the Scrip
ture furnishes.
Fables differ from parables only in one particular. They are
narratives of things which neither happened, nor could happen.
Like parables, they are fictitious ; — but the lower animals, and
even inanimate objects, are introduced in them as speaking and
acting. Examples may be found in Judges ix. 6-21 ; 2 Kings
xiv. 9 ; and 2 Chron. xxv. 18. They are interpreted in the same
manner as parables.
Riddles or enigmas, for which the Hebrews had a peculiar
term /IITn, are properly an expression of wit. Few of the He
brew riddles are preserved. See Judges xiv. 14; Proverbs xxx.
15-31. The explanation of them is always subjoined, and there
fore no rules are required for their solution.

( 320 )

CHAPTER X.

HISTORICAL CIRCUMSTANCES.

Among the means employed for discovering the sense of a pas
sage, or at least for assisting interpretation by giving confirma
tion to that which is already probable, historical circumstances
should be enumerated. The following hexameter line compre
hends the particulars included under the appellation, historical
circumstances. Quis, quid, ubi, quibus auxiliis, cur, quomodo, quando.
A knowledge of these will be found materially to benefit the
expositor. We shall consider them in the order mentioned.
Qmw, who ? This term may be viewed in three aspects.
\st, Who is the writer of a canonical book ?
2dly, Who is the speaker?
idly. What party is addressed ?
\st. The author of a canonical book is known either by ex
ternal or internal evidence. Thus the testimony of ancient and
credible witnesses may uniformly refer a writing to a certain in
dividual, as in the 6/LoXoyov/j,iva oi the New Testament.
But there are express indications to the same effect in a book
itself, either at the commencement, as Romans i. 1 ; or at the
end, 1 Cor. xvi. 21. Other portions of sacred Scripture may
also assign certain books to their proper authors. Thus the
writings of Moses are mentioned in the epistle to the Romans,
X. 5 ; and the 16th Psalm is attributed to David.
Besides, the style, views, sentiments, and other circumstances
in a book itself, may point out the author with sufficient clear
ness. Thus the Gospel of John is said to have been written by
the disciple whom Jesus loved; and the book of Ezra exhibits
marks of its proceeding from Ezra himself. The same test ap
plied to the Psalms throws much light on the poetic composers.
As to inscriptions, they are not always to be depended on, be
cause they are not inspired. There is good reason for con
cluding, that several of them belong to a much later age than

USE OF HISTORICAL CIRCUMSTANCES IN INTERPRETATION. 321
the pieces to which they are prefixed. They must therefore be
subjected to the test of an enlightened criticism, but not to such
perverse criticism as that of the German rationalists, who, ac
tuated by an uncommon love of innovation, pronounce such in
scriptions as are found in Isaiah i. 1, xiii. 1, to be later than
the prophet himself. Even apart from inspiration, the ancient
testimony that assigns them to the prophet himself, is of greater
weight than the arguments advanced by such speculative theo
logians. The origin of subscriptions annexed to the books of the New
Testament was manifestly subsequent to apostolic times. Hence
they must be examined, before they can be relied on as indu
bitable proofs. Sometimes they are incorrect, as the writings
themselves to which they are subjoined clearly show.* They be
long, however, to an early age, and show the traditional belief.
The same may be said of the inscriptions or titles. The evan-
geUsts themselves may have given the title ivayy'iXiov ; but xard
Mar6aTov, &c. were added.f
Books do not necessarily belong to the authors whose names
they bear. Thus Job may not have been the writer of the com
position which bears his name,| nor Samuel of the books of Sa
muel. Internal circumstances may set aside the probabilities
existing in favour of such a coincidence.
But how does acquaintance with the writer of a book contri
bute to the right understanding of it? If we be satisfied that it
forms a part of the inspired canon, is it not a matter of indiffer
ence to us who is the writer? It is certain, that inspiration did
not deprive the sacred penmen of liberty to follow their peculiar
bent of mind in the treatment of a subject, though it infallibly
preserved them from error. The complexion of their intellectual
temperament remained substantially the same as before. So also
their mode of expression. Hence their great diversity of style
and manner. Some are concise and energetic — others diffuse and
irregular. The manner, in short, varies with the author and the
subject ; no two writers being exactly alike. Each conceives and
* The subscriptions to the Epistles to the Romans, Thessalonians, and First Epistle
to the Corinthians, are erroneous. See Paley's " Horse Paulinse."
+ See De Wette's Einleitung, dritte Auflage, § 32, p. 31,
X Professor Lee, in his learned work on Job, thinks that Job himself committed
the middle portion of it to writing. To this opinion we have very strong objections,
derived from the nature of the language employed. See liis Introduction, p. 43, and
my Lectures on Biblical Criticism, pp, 276-7. S S

322 USE OF HISTORICAL CIECUMSTANCRs
expresses ideas after his own fashion, modified and moulded hy
his personal history, situation, character, feelings, and education.
When we know, therefore, the history of the individual writer,
we are prepared to look for certain characteristics in his mode of
writing. The latter will be necessarily fashioned according to
his views. Thus the manner of the apostle Paul is marked with
an emphasis all his own. His ardent and impetuous mind, full
of zeal and animation, breathes forth in his writings. His views
are not only profound but comprehensive. Large and elevated
conceptions, rapidity of thought, and energy of determination,
are strikingly imprinted on his recorded discourses and epistles.
The style and manner of each writer should be collected from
his own works, so as to be known at once. The scattered traits
of his mental character need to be brought together and care
fully adjusted, in order to form a portrait as complete as the data
will afford. The features of his imagination, intellect, diction,
style, &c. should be contemplated in their combined force. An
interpreter might thus survey the author's image, comparing it
with the separate and frequently incidental circumstances pre
sented in his compositions ; and avoiding such an exegesis as
clashes with the author's acknowledged manner.
Thus, Hebrews xiii. 21, a doxology is introduced towards the
conclusion of the epistle, and not at the very termination. Such
a circumstance is common in the undisputed writings of the
apostle Paul, and forms a presumption in favour of the Pauline
origin. Verse 23. The meaning of ditoXiXviJ.ivov has been much dis
puted. Some render it set at liberty, i. e. from imprisonment ;
others, sent away on some errand or embassy by the writer. In
the 19 th verse the author beseeches those to whom the epistle is
addressed to pray for his restoration to them the sooner. This
implies, that he was prevented from visiting them, and leads to
the idea of imprisonment. In accordance with such an inference,
we find Paul writing to Philemon, ver. 22, " But withal prepare
me also a lodging : for I trust that through your prayers I shall
be given unto you ;" and in the epistle to the Philippians, u. 24,
" But I trust in the Lord that I also myself shall come shortly."
Both these passages confirm the supposition that the present epistle
was written by Paul during his imprisonment at Rome. In the
23d verse he styles Timothy " our brother," an epithet which he
elsewhere applies to him ; for a close friendship existed between

IN INTERPRETATION. 323
them. These and other circumstances render it probable that
the writer was Paul ; and if so, the signification of dfroXiXutiJivov
must be sent away, rather than set at liberty. Those who ren
der it liberated, affirm that there is no account of Timothy's
imprisonment during Paul's life ; and that consequently it must
have occurred after the apostle's death, and the epistle have pro
ceeded from some other friend of Timothy. The usage of the
verb diroXvii itself favours the signification send away, as much
as that of set free; and since there are many indications of a
Pauline origin through the entire letter, and even in the verse
where drnXvu occurs, it is better to translate, in conformity with
such authorship, sent away. Thus the interpretation of the verb
is intimately connected with the authorship.
Again, from a peculiar usage assigned by Gesenius to the phrase
nin^ l^y in various places of Isaiah, such as xUi. 1 ; xliv. 26 ;
xlix. 3, 5; Iu. 13 ; liii. 11, in addition to other characteristics of
style, he argues, that the prophet himself was not the author of
the latter portion of the book which bears his name ; chap, xl.—
Ixvi. Among other meanings assigned by him to the phrase in
question, is that of, the collective body of the prophets (der Pro-
phetenthum), and upon this ground he argues, that the portion
did not proceed from Isaiah.* But the phrase never signifies the
collective body of the prophets. In chapters xlii. xlix. 1. Iii.
liii. it denotes the Messiah, and him only. Thus the question
of the authorship of a portion of Isaiah is connected with the
explanation of the phrase Hiri]' 1.3 y, since upon an arbitrary
meaning assigned to the latter, one argument has been advanced
against the authenticity of no less than twenty-seven chapters.
2dly. Who is the speaker?
A negative rule has been propounded, viz. that the writer of a
book should be considered the speaker until some express evidence
to the contrary appear. " Auctor libri tamdiu habeatur loquens,
donee contrarium eluceat vel ex eo, quia disserte alius loquens
inducitur, vel ex materia aut forma orationis." t Sometimes the
name of the speaker is expressly mentioned, preventing all am
biguity. Thus in the book of Job, the speeches of his three
friends are regularly prefaced by their respective names ; and as
they are afterwards censured by Jehovah, we should not look up
on all their statements as true or correct. Jehovah is introduced
* See Zweiter Theil of his Commentar; Einleitung, p. 10.
+ Unterkircher. Hermeneutica Generalis, p. 149.

324 T:sE of HISTORICAL CIRlJUMSl'ANfES
on many occasions by name, particularly in the prophetic wri
tings, and gives utterance to his unalterable purposes and counsels.
So Isaiah x. 24. Where he is not named, it is not difficult to per
ceive when he is the speaker, from the majesty of his language
and the sublimity of his sentiments. So in Jeremiah Ii. 47.
In the New Testament, the questions and replies of those with
whom Christ holds intercourse, the objections of the Pharisees
and Scribes, with a correction or refutation of them, are usually
adduced with great plainness : to all these it is necessary that the
interpreter attend, lest he fall into error. The sentiments and
expressions of each must be assigned to their proper source, else
the expositor will confound things that differ, and mistake the true
sense. If the statements of an implied objector be looked upon
as proceeding from the inspired writer himself; or if the speaker
be not distinguished, the meaning of the Spirit will be assuredly
mistaken. Thus in the 3d chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, the ob
jections of a Jew are brought forward, and replies given by the
apostle. Chap. in. 1 contains the words of the Jew.
Ver. 2, those of the apostle in answer.
Ver, 3, the language of the Jew again.
Ver. 4, the apostle's reply. Mr. Locke takes the second,
third, and fourth verses to belong to the apostle ; but it is better
to assign the third to the Jew.
Ver. 5, the Jew is supposed to speak.
Ver. 6, the apostle.
Ver. 7, the Jew in continuation of the objection in the fifth
verse, the apostle having crowded in the sixth verse by way of
interruption, in order to stop the mouth of the Jew with Abra
ham's words.
Ver. 8, the apostle. Here again Mr. Locke makes part of
the eighth verse a continuation of the Jew's objections, and the
parenthetic part to be Paul's reply; but this creates confusion.
Ver. 9, the Jew.
Ver. 10, the apostle continues from this verse to the end of
the chapter.
In the 22d chapter of the Apocalypse, the true interpretation
of 6-13 verses will be materially affected by assigning the words
to incorrect sources.
Some affirm, that the angel says, in the 7th verse, " Behold,

IN INTERPRETATION, 325
I come quickly : blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the
prophecy of this book," upon which John fell down to worship,
and was prohibited, verse 8, " See thou do not." If, then, the
speaker in the 7th verse be Christ, it is contended that he plainly
disallows of worship offered to himself.
In the 6th verse it is written, " And he said unto me." The
person here introduced is manifestly an angel, viz. that one of
the seven angels who is represented as coming to John (xxi. 9),
and talking with him, (sent his angel, i. e. sent himself, the per
son speaking.) The next verse proceeds, " Behold, I come
quickly." Here the speaker is changed, though the change is
not notified. It is Christ who says, " Behold, I come quickly,
&c." This will appear from comparing Revelation iii. 1 1 ; xx.
12, 13, 16, 20. ' Thus the 7th verse contains some of the things
which the angel was commissioned to announce as soon to hap
pen, Christ himself being the speaker. The angel mentioned in
the 8th verse is evidently the same as the angel in the 6th. In
the 9th he refuses the worship proffered by John; and in the
10th the same angel says, " Seal not the sayings of the pro
phecy of this book : for the time is at hand." So Daniel (vui.
26) was commissioned by an angel to shut up the vision, " for it
shall be for many days." In the 12th, 13th, and subsequent
verses, Christ is again introduced speaking, as the words em
ployed show of themselves.
In this way, by separating the several verses, and assigning
them to their respective speakers, we perceive that Jesus does
not forbid worship to himself in the 9th verse.
In the 2d Psalm the speakers are,
\st. The psalmist, verses 1-5.
2dly, Jehovah, verse 6.
idly, Messiah, verses 7, 8, 9.
4thly, The psalmist, verses 10, 11, 12.
According to the Septuagint, the words of the 6th verse are
assigned to the Son. If we follow this rendering, the Hebrew
text must be slightly changed, which is both unnecessary and
unwarranted by authority.
Isaiah xvi. 3-5. These words must be taken as the language
of the Moabites supplicating the aid of the Jews. The women
stand by the fords of Arnon, entreating protection. According
to this view, the passage, verse 6, contains the answer of the
Jews refusing assistance because of the pride and arrogance of
the Moabites.

326 USE of HISTORICAL CIRCUMSTANCES
By another exposition, verses 3-5 are an admonition of the
poet himself to Moab to avert the impending evil, by showing
kindness to the Jews in their calamities. The translation will
then be the following :
3. Apply understanding, exercise discretion.
Give a cool shade at mid-day.
Conceal the outcasts.
Betray not the fugitives.
4. Let my fugitives dwell with thee, Moab,
Be to them a refuge from the destroyer;
Then will the oppression cease.
The destruction come to an end ;
The oppressors cease from the land.
But (our) throne, &c.
An objection may be frequently perceived from the reply given
to it, as in Romans ix. 19 ; or when there is a contradiction be
tween the author's sentiments and those subsequently advanced.
But on many occasions it is difficult to distinguish the speaker
or speakers ; and no direction can be given to enable us to de
cide between the writer's language and that of others. Here it
is necessary to proceed with great circumspection. Thus, in
Ecclesiastes, interpreters are not agreed whether a scholar and
his teacher speak alternately ; the one bringing forward doubts,
the other resolving them.
We should beware of taking the speaker's words as appro
priately belonging to himself alone, or as merely expressive of
his own sentiments and character. There are examples of the
use of the first person merely for illustration, or in order to
establish a general principle. This is often done by the apostle
Paul. So also the apostle James, in the third chapter of his
epistle. In such instances, the writer supposes a case, and na
turally employs the first person rather than the third.
idly. The interpreter should be acquainted with the person
or persons to whom a writing, an expostulation, or an oracle
was directed. The character, circumstances, history, religious
opinions, and political or ecclesiastical position of the persons,
rightly understood, wUl tend to the elucidation of a book of
Scripture. Thus, it should be known who were the Pharisees
and Sadducees, with their distinguishing principles  who were
the Rechabites mentioned in the 35 th chapter of Jeremiah —

IN INTERPRETATION, 327
who were the Colossians, Ephesians, Thessalonians, Corinthians,
&c. These, and other circumstances of the same kind, will rea
dily occur to every inquiring reader ; and if he be ignorant of
them, he will fail to understand various allusions contained in
the sacred writings.
Sometimes the prophets name the person or people to whom
their predictions refer. Thus there are predictions concerning
Moab, Babylon, Edom, &c. Hosea iv. 1 is addressed to the
children of Israel ; Jeremiah, chapter xlviii. is against Moab ;
chapter xlix. against the Ammonites. Again, Romans i. 7
shows to whom the epistle is addressed ; ' 1 Corinthians i. 2 to
whom that epistle was specially directed. Occasionally, the
people described are characterised by certain traits, political,
religious,' or civil, without being named. So Isaiah xviii. 1 , 2,
where Ethiopia is unquestionably meant, since it alone corre
sponds to the description.
The connexion again may show who are the persons addressed,
as Matthew v. 1, compared with chapter viii. 28. Jesus taught
the multitudes, not merely the disciples.
There are also books addressed to no particular community,
as Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles.
On this head nothing certain can be relied on, apart from
Scripture itself. Little positive can be gleaned from other
sources ; and what is gleaned, carries with it some indetermi-
nateness. As to the belief of the persons or sects mentioned in
the Bible, the Bible itself gives the only infallible intelligence.
If a mistake be made in regard to the character of the persons
addressed, the right exegesis of a passage will usually suffer.
Thus Taylor supposes that the apostle Paul speaks to the un
believing Gentiles in 2 Corinthians v. 20-21, whereas believers
are meant. To such the epistle is inscribed — and such are the
very individuals spoken of in the verses. The saints sin daily,
and therefore daily need remission of sin. The blood of Christ,
which cleanses from all sin, must be again and again sprinkled
on the heart and conscience. There is not the slightest ground
for supposing that any other class is spoken to than those ad
dressed in the 6th chapter, 1st, 2d, and 3d verses, who are ad
mitted by Taylor himself to have been the Corinthian Christians.
Our translators have rightly supplied the pronoun you, as the
verb xaraXXdyriTi clearly proves.
The persons introduced into the Acts of the Apostles are also

328 ¦ USE OF HLSTORICAL CIRCUMSTANCF.'^
introduced into Paul's epistles. Hence it is necessary to compare
the various books. Some kings, whose reign is introduced into
the book of Kings, are again noticed in the Chronicles, with ad
ditional particulars of their history ; and vice versa.
In studying the prophecies, it is useful to consult the accounts
left by profane writers. Herodotus, Diodorus Siculus, Xeno-
phon, and others, have recorded many things of the Egyptians,
Assyrians, Babylonians, &c. Josephus, again, has explained the
tenets of the chief Jewish sects. Not that the statements of these
writers are to be implicitly adopted, but that they must first be
subjected to historical criticism. At present we design to notice,
under the head of quis, only such information as the Bible itself
furnishes. Quid, what ? The interpreter should farther inquire into the
nature of a book or writing. Is it written in poetry or prose ?
Is the subject historical, devotional, didactic, argumentative, or
predictive ?
An example will show the bearing of this particular on expo
sition. The address of Lamech to his wives. Genesis iv. 23, 24,
is poetic in its form. The object of the brief poem is to show
the immediate consequences of the invention of arms. No sooner
had they been forged, than Lamech, Tubal-Cain's father, tri
umphs in the manner of his revenging an injury. A young man
had wounded him, and had been slain. If Cain, he boasts, be
avenged sevenfold ; Lamech will be avenged seventy and seven
times. Only one murder is mentioned as committed by Lamech.
From mistaking the parallelism, which is a leading feature in
Hebrew poetry, some have thought that allusion is made to two
murders. In general there is little difficulty in determining whether a
book or section be historical, didactic, or poetical.
Ubi, where? The place in which the writer was, had an ob
vious influence on his language, and contributes to a right per
ception of it. By its means we can assign a reason why some
particulars rather than others are mentioned, and account for the
manner in which they are adduced. Certain figures are highly ap
propriate, as having been suggested to the writer's mind from the
natural scenery of the place where he wrote, or the customs pre
valent among the people. Thus many images in the poetical
books of the Old Testament are derived from the state of Judea,
its mountains, rains, torrents, &c. An acquaintance with these

IN INTERPRETATION. 329
enable us to perceive great propriety and beauty in various por
tions of the Scriptures. The place may be ascertained,
1st, From express mention, as Matthew v. 1 ; John i. 29 ; Acts
xvii. 22. Here again it is necessary to bear in mind, that sub
scriptions to the New Testament books are neither always correct
nor consistent with one another.
2dly, From internal circumstances taken in connexion with
other accounts. Thus in the Pauline epistles we may learn from
the salutation and names of persons, from mention of his bonds,
&c. &c., where the apostle was. The epistle to the Romans was
written from Corinth during Paul's third journey, as may be in
ferred from comparing Romans xv. 17-32; xvi. 1, 23, with 2d
Cor. X. 15, 16; Acts xix, 21 ; 1st Cor. xvi. 1, &c.; 2d Cor. viU.
9 ; Acts XX. 22 ; and 1st Cor. i. 14.* The epistles to Philemon,
Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians, were written at Rome
during Paul's first captivity, as the following passages in them
appear to prove — Ephes. iii. 1; iv. 1; vi. 20; Philemon 9; Colos.
iv. 3, 10, 19. Hence we find in the epistle to the Philippians
mention made of Caesar's house, iv. 22; and in i. 13, the open
chains show, that he had not been kept a close prisoner at Rome,
but allowed some liberty in his bonds. This forms a contrast
with his captivity at Csesarea, where, persecuted by Palestinian
Jews, he had been kept in close confinement. Thus also the ob
scure word •yga/i-wj/oK, i. 1 3, must be referred to Rome ; although
Bottger ingeniously endeavours to turn aside the evidence.!
David was in the wilderness remote from the worship of God
when he composed the sixty-third Psalm. Hence the expressions
were suggested to him — " My soul thirsteth for thee'' — " in a dry
and thirsty land, where no water is."
With regard to the book of Job, it is impossible to discover
with certainty, whether it was written in Arabia ; although this
is connected with another question, whether the composition may
receive much illustration from the Arabic language. Some have
even conjectured, that it was originally written in Arabic, and
afterwards rendered into Hebrew.
Quibus auxiliis, with what helps? This includes the cir
cumstances which conspired to bring about an event ; the means
* See Credner's Einleitung in das Neue Testament, Halle, 8vo, 1836, § 139, p 377 ;
and Stuart's Introduction to the Ep, to the Romans, § 3.
+ Compare Olshausen's Biblischer Commentar. Vierter Band, p, 131, et seq.;
Credner, § 144, p, 389. T t

330 USE OF HISTORICAL CIRCUMSTANCES
by which impediments were removed and obstacles overcome;
the mental and physical resources possessed by the individuals
described. The weapons of our warfare, says an apostle, are
mighty through God. They are spiritual not carnal. " I will
pray the Father," said the blessed Redeemer, " and he shall
give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for
ever." * To show the opposition the apostles had to encounter,
Jesus informs them, " I send you forth amOng wolves." Such
were the gracious promises which the primitive teachers of Chris
tianity received. Encouraged by divine aid, they went forth to
evangelise the world. Warring with spiritual weapons, they came
off victorious. If then their resources were such, we should in
terpret their language accordingly. The genius of Christianity
is pacific, except in so far as vice and sin are to be contended
with. The Rationalists of Germany, disbelieving the inspiration
of the sacred writers and the nature of the promises made to the
commissioned servants of God under the old and new covenants,
have made woful havoc of divine truth.
Cur, why? This coincides with scope, and has been already
treated.\ Quomodo, how? In historic yac^s, the mode in which a thing
has been brought about, or still takes place, should be attended
to. Thus the manner in which Sennacherib's army was de
stroyed before Jerusalem, has been said by some interpreters
to have happened by the Simoom. This is questionable. The
poisonous and fatal effects attributed to this wind in the East
have been manifestly exaggerated. So recent scientific travel
lers assert. Unless it had been supernaturally charged with
noxious properties, it could not have been employed to de
stroy the Assyrian army. It is simply said, that an angel of
Jehovah went forth and smote in the Assyrian camp 185,000
men. One of the spiritual messengers, who are constantly em
ployed in ministering to Jehovah, effected the total overthrow
of the army. As far as the Scripture account goes, the agent
is mentioned, but not the mode in which he accomplished his
fatal embassy. In Isaiah xxxvii. 7, our translators, probably
supposing that the destruction was caused by the Simoom of
the desert, have, " Behold, I will send a blast upon him." But
T^'T\ denotes disposition, spirit, resolution. " I will give him
spirit or determination." The Neologians of Germany have
* John xiv, 16, -f See page 267, &c.

IN INTERPRETATION. 331
sadly misinterpreted Scripture, by inventing modes in which
occurrences are supposed to have taken place, even when there
is nothing revealed concerning the quomodo of a transaction.
They first invent a quomodo, and then compel Scripture to
agree with it. This is not to explain, but to burlesque the word
of God. Whenever the how is not revealed, we need not look
out for a method in which a historical fact took place. If it has
been miraculous, why should we needlessly inquire after means
employed, and then force the exegesis into accordance with our
fancied quomodo ?
For example, Eichhorn and Bauer attempt to account for the
extraordinary occurrences that took place at the promulgation of
the law by natural means, affirming that when a violent thunder
storm, such as are frequent about Sinai, happened, Moses seized
upon the phenomenon to give sanction to his laws. This is
opposed to the whole narrative as far as it contains within itself
the elements of its own interpretation, no less than to all other
portions of the Bible that touch upon the same thing.*
Thus also Ammon, Eichhorn, and others, have sought to ac
count for the conversion of the Apostle Paul on natural grounds,
supposing that the entire occurrence was pictured in his imagi
nation, or represented in a dream. This is the psychological
interpretation, which cannot be true.t
Quando, when ? At what time, and on what occasion ? —
The time when a book was written must be attended to by
the interpreter. The books of the Old Testament were com
posed at very different periods, and partake, in some measure,
of the characteristics of the age in which they appeared. In re
gard to the greater number of them, it can be determined with
tolerable certainty when they were written ; though the precise
date is often obscure.
The gospels are placed in very different years by different com
mentators ; although, at the greatest interval that can possibly
exist between all the times assigned to their composition, the ori
gin of one could not have been far remote frOm that of ainother.
The time may be known,
\st. From express mention, as Hosea i. 1 ; Isaiah vi. 1.
* ''Efn.o'i dvxyxn Tayra IffTo^liv xuSavrt^ 'iv txTs ll^xTs' ^l^Xots xvayiy^a^TXt. Joseph*
Antiquit. Judaic, lib. tert, cap. 4, p. 77, (Coloniae, 1691. fol.)
f See Neander's History of the Planting and Training of the Christian Church, by
the Apostles, translated by J. E, Kyland, vol. i. p. 100. (Biblical Cabinet, vol. 35, 36. )

332 USE OF HISTORICAL CIRCUMSTANCES.
2dly, From expressions containing in themselves indications of
the time of writing. Thus, from Romans xv. 19, it is apparent
that the epistle was written subsequently to the occurrences
in Acts XX. 3, and the first letter to the Corinthian church.
(Compare 1 Cor. xvi. 4, 9; xii. 2.) Persons or occurrences
which are only mentioned incidentally, may serve as guides to
the time of composition.
Again, the occasion of Paul's writing to the Galatians, was
their having been led astray by certain Judaising teachers, who
had endeavoured to undermine the authority of the apostle, by
affirming that he believed circumcision to be necessary, and that
it was incumbent on Christians to observe the Mosaic law. The
apostle, therefore, wrote to the churches in Galatia, to vindicate
his apostolic dignity, and to show that the ceremonial law was
not obligatory on Christians. The great body of the Galatians
had been heathens ; and to account for their acquaintance with
the Jewish Scriptures, we may suppose that the Jews had gained
numerous proselytes among them. Hence it is easy to see the
propriety of the minute narrative respecting himself, given in
the first and second chapters, in which he vindicates his apostle
ship, proves that his calling was immediately from God, and
shows, that so far from being inferior to Peter, Peter was even
censured by him.
The occasion on which he wrote will also cast light upon Ga
latians ni. 3. " Having begun in the spirit, are ye now making an
end in the flesh ?" They had set out with an attachment to the
spiritual doctrines of the gospel, especially justification by faith
alone without the deeds of the law, as Paul had taught it, and
sanctification by the Holy Spirit ; but now, they were making an
end, by returning to circumcision and other fleshly ordinances.
The words of our Lord, John iu. 20, 21, receive a peculiar em
phasis and beauty from the occasion on which they were uttered.
It was when Nicodemus had come to him by night to inquire of
his doctrine, that Christ said, " For every one that doeth evU
hateth the light, neither cometh he to the Ught, lest his deeds
should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the
Ught, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought
in God."
The time when a book was written has come to exercise a most
important influence on its exegesis. This is particularly the case
with the Old Testament Scriptures. By bringing down the date

IN INTERPRETATION,

333

of their composition to a much later period than that which is
commonly assigned, prophetic inspiration has been done away,
and the knowledge of future events, instead of being viewed as
the express communication of heaven coming through human
agents, is said to have been obtained after the events themselves
happened. Hence numerous perversions, alike repugnant to the
fact of inspiration and derogatory to the honour of God, have
been introduced into the exegesis of the text. Such as are ac
quainted with the theological literature of Germany will at once
see the justice of these remarks, and lament the infatuation of the
men whose conduct is so justly censurable.

(334)

CHAPTER XI.
QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.
In the examination of this subject three things naturally pre
sent themselves to notice.
I. The source or sources whence quotations in the New Testa
ment were taken.
II. The various modes in which they are made, comprehending,
(a) Their introductory formulas ;
(6) The degree of accuracy with which they adhere to the ori
ginals. III. The purposes for which passages in the Old Testament
were cited by the New Testament writers.
I. There are two principal sources from which the quotations
in the New Testament were derived, viz. the Hebrew text and
the Septuagint version. Many, indeed, have strenuously advo
cated the claims of one or other of these, as exclusively furnish
ing such citations. Accordingly, some have maintained that the
apostles never quoted from the Seventy ; affirming that where
their words agree with this version, there has been an alteration
either in one text or the other to produce mutual conformity.
This opinion is too improbable and gratuitous to be entertained
for a moment, though Jerome, in different parts of his writings,
Surenhusius, and others, have contended for it.* On the con
trary, Irenseus, Olympiodorus, Vossius, &c. affirm that the evan
gelists quoted solely from the Greek version. In opposition to
both extremes, it has been ascertained that the New Testament
writers uniformly adhere to neither. Sometimes they coincide
with the one, and again with the other, as St. Augustine long
since clearly saw.f Perhaps the changes which the texts of the
Hebrew and Septuagint have undergone may not allow us to
* Compare Walchii Bibliotheca, tom. iv, ; and Eichhorn's AUgemeine Bibliothek,
vol. ii.
+ Quia et ipsi (Apostoli) ex utrisque, i. e. ex Hebrseis, et ex Septuaginta testi-
monia prophetica posueruut. De Civ, Dei, lib, xviii, cap, 44, vol. 6, p, 220. (ed.
Colon, 1616.)

QUOTATIONS PROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW. 335
determine this matter as decisively as is desirable ; but the most
careful examination of both, as edited from the best authorities,
leads to the result, that the quotations of the New Testament
coincide throughout with neither. The evangelists, and other
inspired writers, followed the one or the other, as they were
directed by the Holy Spirit. In the majority of instances the
Septuagint was the source of the passages quoted; because
those to whom the Christian Scriptures were first addressed were
acquainted with the Greek but not with the Hebrew language.
The primitive churches had in their hands the Greek version of
the Old Testament. It was universally received and read both
by Jews and Christians. To have departed from it, therefore,
without a valid reason, would have failed to promote the pur
poses of a divine revelation. We may safely affirm that the
evangelists and apostles quoted from it in every case, as often
as they beUeved it to be conformable to the Hebrew original.
Wherever it was a true and faithful representative of the He
brew, there was a decided advantage in following it. It was
widely circulated and best known ; and there was no necessity,
so far as we can perceive, for departing from it, except where it
was liable to the charge of incorrectness, or of defectiveness, in
expressing the genuine meaning of the Spirit. We admit that
this reasoning is no more than probable : but the circumstances
forbid demonstration, and we must be content with such pre
sumptive evidence as the case furnishes.
In addition to the Hebrew Septuagint, it is not unusual to
affirm, that some quotations were taken from a translation or par
raphrase now lost. Thus the words of John xii. 15 ; Acts xiii.
41, were borrowed, according to some, from ancient versions,
rather than the Septuagint or Hebrew. For this opinion there is
no proper foundation. Besides, it is quite superfluous. Where
the New Testament writers disagree in words with the Hebrew
or Septuagint, they were led to quote merely ad sensum. It
was sometimes sufficient for their purpose to give the substance
of the meaning in different terms.
In regard to apocryphal quotations, as they have been de
nominated, i. e. such as are taken from uninspired writings, the
question whether they are to be found in the New Testament,
was raised so early as the time of Jerome, who opposed the idea
with great vehemence.* * Jerome on Isaiah ixiv. 4.

336 QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW,
Several examples have been adduced, in which passages from
apocryphal and spurious books are said to be found. The first
is 2 Tim. iii. 8, where the names of the two magicians that with
stood Moses are recorded. Some have supposed that Paul de
rived this knowledge from an apocryphal book concerning these
magicians, which Origen says was extant in his time, entitled
" Jannes et Jambres." But it is much more probable that such
a work appeared subsequently to the time of the New Testament
writers. Others conjecture, that the apostle took the names
from the Targum of Jonathan on Exodus vii. 1 1 . On the con
trary, it is certain that this paraphrase did not exist till several
centuries after the apostle.*
The names in question were probably taken from the histo
rical accounts of the Jews, who had many traditions respecting
their sacred literature. Jannes and Jambres are said to have been
the two leaders or princes of the magicians who opposed Moses.
Their names are found in the Gemara, and are mentioned by
Numenius a Pythagorean philosopher, and by the historian Ar-
tabanus. Again, in the epistle of Jude two instances are said to be
found of quotations from apocryphal books. The first is in the
9 th verse, where Michael the archangel is represented as having
disputed with Satan about the body of Moses. According to some,
this was derived from an apocryphal book called the " Ascension
of Moses" (dvd^agig tou Moiugioig), mentioned by Origen in his
treatise m^l a^x'^v.X Perhaps, however, the apostle rather refers
to traditional accounts of the Jews concerning the dispute.
The 14th verse of Jude relates to a prophecy of Enoch con
tained in the " Book of Enoch," which has been translated from
the Ethiopic into English by the late Dr. Laurence. According
to this learned prelate, the book of Enoch was composed by a
Jew living in the time of Herod, and afterwards translated from
Hebrew, first into Greek, and next into Ethiopic. Much more
probable is the opinion of Liicke,| and Nitzsch, || that it belongs
to the latter part of the first century, or the beginning of the
second. Origen cites it several times. It is also mentioned by
TertulUan, Jerome, Augustine, and others of the fathers. We
see no good reason for refusing to admit, that the apostle probably
* See my Lectures on Biblical Criticism, p, 93. + Lib. iii. cap, 2.
X Einleitung in die Offenbarung Johannis, p, 60 et seq.
II De Testamento Duodecim Patriarcharum, pp. 17, 31.

QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW. 337
quoted from this very document.* He may indeed have derived
his knowledge from a tradition current among the Jews ; but this
tradition was embodied in the book of Enoch. Some are incUned
to believe, that the book of Enoch was fabricated, partly with the
design of exhibiting the passage in Jude ; but this is improbable.
The authority of the epistle is not lessened, although an apocry
phal writing be really cited. Why should its inspiration and au
thenticity be rejected on such a ground ?t
In a few instances, quotations from profane authors are found
in the New Testament. Thus St. Paul quotes from the heathen
poets Aratus, Menander, and Epimenides. In Acts xvii. 28 are
words borrowed from the ^aivofLiva of Aratus, which were origi
nally spoken of Jupiter the supreme god of the heathen. In
1st Cor. XV. 33, the words "evil communications corrupt good
manners," are taken from Menander's Thais; and in Titus i. 12
Paul alludes either to Callimachus or Epimenides, perhaps the
latter. This circumstance, however, does not lessen the authority
of the writings in which these citations occur, as they are adduced
from acknowledged and known works, to which the persons ad
dressed were wont to appeal. The apostle, in the application of
his acquired learning, argues with men upon their own principles.
II. Before directly proceeding to consider the various modes in
which quotations are made, we shall give a full table of all the
citations from the Old Testament in the New, accompanied by
the original Hebrew, and the Septuagint version.
The text from which the selections are made is that of Van
der Hooght, as edited by Dr. Hahn (editio stereotypa denuo re-
cognita et emendata, Lipsise et Londini, 1832); that of the Vati
can exemplar, as edited by Leander Van Ess (Lipsise, 1835),
for the Septuagint ; and in the New Testament is exhibited the
Greek text of Lachmann (Londini, 1831.)
* The passage in the book of Enoch as translated by Laurence is this : " Behold
he comes with ten thousands of his saints, to execute judgment upon them, and destroy
the wicked, and reprove all the carnal, for every thing which the sinful and ungodly
have done and committed against him," 3d Edition, Oxford, 1838, chap, ii, p. 2.
+ See a very able article by Professor Stuart on the Book of Enoch, in the Ame
rican Biblical Repository for January 1840, pp, 86-137.

U U

338 QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.
(!•) Is- vii. 14. Matt, i, 23.
'ISoi> ^ Trap6evo9 ev •yacTTp'i |"Ii/a irXripwOri ro prjdev
Xi^y^erat, kuI ri^erai vlov, /cat vTro Kvpiov Sia tov Trpotp^rov
KaXeaeii to ovo/xa avTOv 'EfJL- XeyovTOi'J 'ISov fj irapQevoi
""""""^ ev yaa-Tpl e^ei /cat Te^eTui vlov,
Kai KaXeaovcriv to 'ovofxa avTOu
'E/j./jiavovtjX.

fjtavov^X.

(2.) Micah, V, 2,
Kat (TV Brj8Xee/x oTkos 'EA-
pada, oXiyocTToi ei tov elvai iv
¦)(iXia(Ttv 'lovSa' e/c croi) fjLoi i^e-
XevacTai, tov etvai et? apvovTa
TOV 'lupa^X.

(3,) Hosea, xi. 1.
'E^ Ai-yi/TTToy fxereKciXeaa
Ta TeKva avTOv.

Matt, ii, 6,
^i'ypa'KTai §ta tov "Trpocpij-
TOii-Jl Kat (TV H}]6Xeefj, y^
'lovoa, ovSafJ.(ios iXef)^la-T}] ei iv
Tots ^yefioa-iv 'lovSa' ex (rov
"yap i^eXev(TeTai ^•yovfievos, o-
(TTCS Tfoifiavec tov Xaov fxov tov
'IcrpaijX. Matt. ii. 15,
[[*Iva TrXtjpwOrj TO pijOev xnro
Kvpiov oia TOV TrpocpijTOV, Xe-
'yoi'TO?"! 'Ef AlyviTTOv iica-
Xerra tov vlov fxov.

EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
Matt. i. 23. — This is taken from the Seventy, with two slight
alterations. Matt. ii. 6. — This citation does not exactly agree either with
the Seventy or the Hebrew. The apostle has given the sense of
the original in a free paraphrase. The Septuagint version coin
cides more nearly with the Hebrew, than with the words of Mat
thew. The negative is wanting in the Old Testament and in
the Seventy. Some think that the negative particle /j^ri originally
belonged to the Greek version, and they adduce in favour of this
position, the Arabic version, the authority of Jerome, and the
Barberinian MS., with a few others. This assumption prepares
the way for another, viz. that the particle nb originally belonged
to the Hebrew, and when it was dropped the Greek was altered
accordmgly. It is quite arbitrary to assume that the negative
originally belonged either to the Hebrew or the Greek. Others
think, that the adjective T';!^^ means great as weU as little. So
Pococke. This is quite improbable. We read the passage in
terrogatively after the Syriac version. The Hebrew wUl then be

QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.

339

Is. vii. 14. Is. vii. 14.
^'tr) "T^? ^^'?y'l ^il Behold, a virgin shaU con-
"ibm toli^ mipill «=eive and bear a son, and ShaU
¦• ¦' ¦ : T 't; ' .. call his name Immanuel.

Micah, V. 1.
mm'' ''3'7N3 rh'^r^b t-x'^j
bin]D''2.

Micah, V. 2.
But thou, Beth-lehem Eph-
rata, thoughthou be little among
the thousands of Judah, yet out
of thee shall he come forth unto
me, that is to be ruler in Israel.

Hosea, xi. 1.

Hosea, xi, 1.
When Israel was a child, then
I loved him, and called my son
out of Egypt.

EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
translated, " And art thou, Bethlehem-Ephratah, little among
the thousands of Judah ? out of thee shall come forth to me one
who is to be ruler in Israel." The question proposed by the pro
phet is answered by the evangeUst in the negative. The word
5)7X has the secondary signification oi family. So in Judges
vi. 15, where Gideon says to the Lord, " My family ("'3??<) is
poor in Manasseh." Hence it signifies a town, as being the seat
or abode of a family. "Among the thousands of Judah" means,
therefore, " among the towns of Judah ;" and the corresponding
expression of the apostle iiyifiogiv is explained by Schleusner,
praecipuae civitates.
Matt. u. 15. — This citation is made from the Hebrew, with
which it exactly accords. The translation of the Seventy differs
widely from that of the evangeUst, and would have been quite in-
appUcable to his purpose. Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion,
follow the present Hebrew text, and thus confirm the accuracy
of the quotation made by Matthew. The Seventy must have read
the Hebrew word ''Jl? in the plural, as if it were pointed ''JIlJ? .

340 QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW,
(4,) Jer. xxxi, 15, Matt, ii, 18,
$ft)f^ iv 'PafjLa rjKOiKrQr) Bpri- WToTe eTrXripwQri to ptjOev
vov, Kal KXavOfiov, Kal oSvp/noii' Sia 'lepe/tiiou tov -Trpoclj^Tov
'Pa'^^tfX aTTOKXatOfievi] ovK 'i^OeXe XeyovTOfl ^wvri iv 'Pafita,
TravcraaOat iwl roty vlois avT^s, i^KOvcrOtj, KXavOfjLOi Kal oSvp/ULOS
OTi ovK eialv. ttoXw, 'Pa-^r]X KXaiovtra Ta
TSKva axrrrj^, kol ovk ^deXt^aev
TrapaKXrjOrjvai, oti ovk eialv.
(5,) Is. xl. 3, &c. Matt. iii. 3.
^oovrj jSowvTOi iv Trj ipi^/xai, |'0 prjOels Sia 'Hcrai'oK tov
eTOtfudcraTe Ttjv oSov Kvplov, ev- 7rpo(p^TOv XeyovTOf^ ^oovri
6elai TTOietTe ra? Tplfiovs tov ^owvto^ iv Trj ip^/J-w, eroifxa-
6eov ri/mwv. crare ttjv oSov Kvplov, evQeiai

TToieire tus Tpipovs avTov

¦jOi/3o

(6.) Deut. viii. 3. Matt. iv. 4.
OvK eV aprw fiovui ^lyo-erat ire'yioaTrTafl Qvk iir ap-
6 avOpooTTOi, aXX' iyrl ttuvtI tw /novo) i^>ja-6Tat 6 avOpunros,
p^fiari T(S iKTropevofievo) Sta aXX' iv ttuvti pijfiaTi iKTropev-
crro/uaTO^ 6eov l^^creTat 6 av- o/mivcf) Sia aTO/uaTO^ deov.
OpooTTOi.(7.) Ps. xc. 11, 12. Matt. iv. 6.
'Oti TOt? ayyeXots avTov IPe'^ioa'TrTat •yajO.]] oti Toii
ivTeXeiTai Trepl aov, tov Sta- ayyeXoii avTOv ivTeXeiTai ire-
(pvXd^ai ere iv Tratrat? rat? oSoi^ pi (tov, Kal iwl -^eipihv apov-
<Tov. eTTi yetpwv apovcrl ae, alv ere, /ui? Trore 7r/0ocr/co\p^/jj
fxrjTTOTe Trpoa-KO^rji vpoi XlGov irpw XlOov tov ttoSu crov.
TOV TToSa (TOV. EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
Matt. u. 18  Here the evangelist appears to have had re
course both to the Septuagint and Hebrew, although he is nearer
the latter. The ou;i ri^iXjigiv shews, that the Greek was followed
in part ; whilst the putting of xXau6/jbhg and ohv^/nhg in apposition
with (pmvri evinces a regard to the Hebrew construction. JloXiig is
added by the evangelist himself. The Seventy give ¦!ravgag6ai as
the translation of DHan?, for although -jra^axXrjSijmi be found in
the Alexandrine MS., the reading of the Vatican is preferable.
Matt. in. 3 ; Mark i. 3 ; Luke in. 4 — This quotation is taken
verbatim from the Seventy, except that instead of rdc T^lZovg tou
hou r,ij.u'), the three evangelists have rdg T^iZoug ahrov.

QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW,

341

Jer. xxxi. 16. Jer. xxxi. 15.
¦•D^ Tia i'DIi'J ^^1^. ^'^P A voice was heard in Ramah,
-L,. Tn-^w ^ni nninr^n lamentation, and bitter weep-
^~ '¦ " '' '¦ ' ing : Rachel weeping for her
n^J2"b;i; Oran"? nj«D n''33 children, refused to be comforted
.,,.^j. ,-. for her children, because they
¦•¦ ¦¦ were not.

Is. xl, 3, &c.
nVoa naiyi nt^'' nin''
Deut. viii. 3,
r^^:n' i-^a'p urhrrb:^ ^b
• X T - XXX
iDixrr n'-n'' nin''

Is, xl, 3, &c.
The voice of him that crieth
in the wilderness, Prepare ye the
way of the Lord, make straight
in the desert a high-way for our
God.
Deut, viii. 3.
Man doth not live by bread
only, but by every word that
proceedeth out of the mouth of
the Lord doth man live.

Ps. xci. 11, 12,
-b}i : n^-yrrb'^^ TV^\
pi*3 e)iHn-)S T]31i*fe?> D''33
: r\by\

Ps. xci. U, 12,
He shall give his angels charge
over thee, to keep thee in all thiy
ways. They shall bear thee up
in their hands, lest thou dash
thy foot against a stone.

EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
Matt. iv. 4; Luke iv. 4  This is taken from the Seventy, and,
as given by Matthew, agrees verbatim with their version, except
that ZijgiTai 0 avO^uvog is not repeated at the conclusion, and iv is
substituted for iiri. Luke is less exact than Matthew, and abridges
one expression.
Matt. iv. 6 ; Luke iv. 10. — This passage in both evangelists
closely agrees with the Septuagint. Matthew however has omit
ted the words roD hia<f>uXd^ai gi iv wdgaig TaTg ohoTg gov ; while
Luke has inserted part of them. The latter frequently quotes
passages more fully than the other evangelists.

342

QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.

(8,; Deut, vi. 16. Matt. iv. 7.
Ovk iKireipacreis Kvpiov tov ^HaXiv •ye'yjOa'7rTaf| Ovk
6eov TOV. iKTreipaaei^ Kvptov tov 6e6v crov.
(9.) Deut, vi. 13, Matth, iv, 10.
KvjOtoi/ TOV Oeov aov (po^tj- [[reYjOaTTTat 'ya|0"J K.vpiov
Q^arj, Kal auTw ixovui Xarpev- tov Oeov crov TrpoaKw^aeis Kal
aeis' avTM juovu) XuTpeva-eii.

(10.) Is, ix, 1, 2,
Ta^t; TTolei 'Xy'pa Za^ovXwv
Tl 'yTj NecbOaXliJ., kui ol Xonrol
ol Trjv irapaXtav, Kai irepav tov
'lopSavov YaXiXata tHov iQvwv.
6 Xaoi 6 TTopevo/j-evos ev itko-
T€i, 'ISeTe ^ft)? fiiya- ol kutol-
Kovvres ev X'^Pf '^'^^9 OavuTOV,
Cpcos XafJL-^ei i(p' v/j.a.'S.

(11,; Is. liii. 4,
OSto? Ta? dfj-apTias fjixSiv
(pepei, Kal wepl rjixSiv oSwaTaf

(12.) Hosea, vi. 6.
"EXeo? deXco 'rj OvcTiav

Matt, iv, 15, 16.
^Iva -TrXtjpcodri TO ptjOev Sid
'rlcTa'iov TOV Trpocpi^TOV Xeyov-
Toy| r^ ZajSovXuiv Kal yrj
NecpdaXelfj., oSov OaXdaa-tji
Trepav tov 'lopSdvov, FaXtXaia
Twv iOvSiv, 6 Xaos 6 KaO^fievos
iv (TKOrla (piJci eiSev fxeya, Kal
Tois KaO>jfA,£voii iv X^P9- '^'*'
cr/cta Oavdrov, (pw dveTeiXev
avTOii. Matt, viii. 17.
[[''O'TrcoS' 'TrXtipwO^ TO pr^Qev
oia 'Hcrat'ou tov vpo(p^TOV
XiyovTOi-^ AvTos Ta? acr6e-
veias ^/J-Siv eXal3ev Kal Ta? v6-
aovs i^aaTacrev.
Matt, ix. 13, (Comp. No, 14.)
[[Ma0eTe ti e(rTii'"| "EXeo?
6eX(0 Kai ov Ovcrlav.

EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
Matt. iv. 1 ; Luke iv. 12. — This is an exact citation from the
Seventy. The Hebrew reads pluraUy, " ye shall not tempt." So
also the versions.
Matt. iv. 10; Luke iv. 8 — Here the Septuagint has ^oQrii^gri;
but the reading of the Codex Alexandrinus is <!fiogxvv^gtig, evi
dently altered after the New Testament. The quotation seems
to have been derived from the Seventy rather than the Hebrew
by both evangelists, though they do not adhere to it verbatim.

QUOTATIONS PROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.

343

Deut. vi. 16.
Dp''.i1'?>* n)n;-ni* ^iDin ab
Deut. vi. 13.

Deut. vi. 16.
Ye shall not tempt the Lord
your God. Deut, vi. 13.
Thou shalt fear the Lord thy
God, and serve him.

Is. viii. 23 ; ix. 1.
n^ij* bpn lii^N-in Jiya
rj-m -iiv D"n T]-i^ T'33n
D''D'7hn D;>n '.a^Ssn ^•'^i)
¦-na*^ '?in3 -liK int nit^n^
Is. liii. 4.
XX "xx; •• X

Is, ix, 1, 2.
When at the first he lightly
afflicted the land of Zebulun and
the land of Naphtali, and after
ward did more grievously afflict
her by the way of the sea, be
yond Jordan, in Galilee of the
nations. The people that walked
in darkness have seen a great
light : they that dwell in the land
of the shadow of death, upon
them hath the light shined.
Is. liii. 4.
He hath borne our griefs, and
carried our sorrows.

Hosea, vi. 6.
n^mb-) '•riuBn ion

Hosea, vi, 6,
»r) I desired mercy, and not sa
crifice.

EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
Matt. iv. 15, 16. — Matthew evidently paraphrases the Hebrew
text, for he could not have quoted the Septuagint.
Matt. viii. 17. — r Here Matthew seems to have followed the
Hebrew rather than the Septuagint. His translation is more
literal and correct.
Matt. ix. 13, and xii, 7. — This citation is from the Seventy.
Had the Hebrew text been independently translated, i-lhoxSi would
probably have been chosen, rather than SiXu.

344

QUOTATIONS PROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.

(13.) Mai. iii. 1, Matt xi. 10.
'ISov i^aTrotTTeXXio tov ay- ire'yioaTrTafl ^ISov [iyajl
yeXov fxov, Kal iiri^Xe^eTai aTroo-Te'XXco tov ayyeXov /xov
ooov irpo TrptTunrov fxov irpo irpoadcnrov aov, Kal kutu-
(TKvaaei Trjv oSov aov efAvpoa-
Qev aov.

efAvpo

(14.) Hosea, vi. 6.
"EXeo? 0eXcd 'rj Ovaiav
(15.) Is. xlii. 1, &c.
'Ia/ca);8 6 Trai? /uov, dvTiXi^-
YO/uat avTOv- 'laparfX 6 e/cXe/c-
To'? fjiov, TrpoaeSe^aro avTOv t)
¦vp-i/)^!? fxav, eSooKa to irvev/xd
fiov eir avTOv, Kpiaiv tois eO-
veaiv i^olaei, ov KeKpdceTai,
ovSe dvrjaei, ovSe OLKOvaOrjaeTai
e^io ri (poovrj avTov. KoXafxav
TeOXaanevov ov avvTpl'^ei, /cat
Xlvov KaTrviCoixevov ov a/Seaet,
dXXd ei'j dXijOeiav e^oiaei Kpi
aiv. dvaXdfjL'^ei, Kal ov dpav-
aQriaeTUi, eto? av Orj iirl Ttji yrj^
Kplaiv, Kal iirl tS ovo/xaTi av-
Tov edvrj eXiriovaiv.

Matt, xii. 7. (See No. 12.)
"EXeo? OeXd), Kal ov Ovaiav.
Matt, xii, 18, &c.
I[*lva -TrXtjpwOrj TO priOev Sid
'Raal'ov TOV wpocp^TOv Xeyov-
T0?"| ISov, 6 Trat? fxov ov
ripeTiaa, 6 a'yaxijTo'? /xov ov
evSoKtjaev rj "^vyfi (xov Or\aw
TO TTvevfJta fJLOv iir avTOv, Kal
Kpiaiv Toif eOveaiv UTrayyeXei.
OVK iplaei ovSe Kpavydaei, ov
Se uKOvaet Tii iv Tali -rrXaTel-
ais Trjv (pwvrjv avTov- KaXafxov
avvTeTpifXfievov ov Kared^ei Kal
Xlvov Tvcpofievov ov a/3eaei, eoof
av eKJBaX^ et? viKOi Trjv Kpiaiv.
Kai TU) ovofxaTi avrov eOvt] eX-
Trlovaiv.

EXPLANATORY REMARKS,
Matt. xi. 10 ; Luke vii. 27 ; Mark i. 2  Here the three evan
gelists agree in opposition to the Seventy, with whose version
they have little in common. We are of opinion that the Hebrew
text was followed, though not implicitly. The chief di9"erence
between the citation and its original in the Old Testament is the
change of person from the first to the second. In this respect
it is at variance both with the Hebrew and the Septuagint.
Matt. xii. 18, &c  Here Matthew deviates entirely from the
Septuagint. According to the latter, the whole description ap
plies to Jacob and Israel, not to the Messiah. It is probable,
therefore, that these names were purposely inserted, that the text
might not speak of the Redeemer. In Eusebius, Justin, and
others, the text of the Seventy is altered in conformity with that
of Matthew, Eusebius, in his Praeparatio Evangelica, ix. says,

QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.

343

Mai. iii. 1. Mai. iii. I.
"nasi ''D^*'?a n^t> ''Jjn Behold, I wlU send my mes-
'^ ' - ' ^ '¦ ¦ '" ^= ¦ senger, and he shall prepare the
4, ?? 1 .^ way before me.

Hosea, vi. 6.
^n^^i'?1 '<mB'n ion

Is. xlii. 1, &c.
''TPii i2i-:yDns«i '''in^; in
vbv Ti'n ''rino ''ttr33 nnisn
-r x • . -X * : ~ T ;|x
PVT ab :>*''2Ji'' D''!-)'? tastt^a
nno'' ab nn:) nDv}^^
TV-; T « "»¦ : .
ab : DBii^D K^2ii'' n»|«|^
D^toriy yn''- abi nn^''
• X — ' X ; V • •
D'«'^* imi/iV') toBtira 'v'-ixa
- - T ; ¦*¦ ; * ' V X X
ti'^n''^

Hosea, vi. 6.
I desired mercy, and not sa
crifice. Is. xlii. 1, &c.
Behold my servant whom I
uphold, mine elect in whom my
soul deUghteth : I have put my
spirit upon him, he shall bring
forth judgment to the Gentiles.
He shall not cry, nor Uft up, nor
cause his voice to be heard in the
street. A bruised reed shall he
not break : and the smoking flax
shall he not quench : he shall
bring forth judgment unto truth.
He shall not fail, nor be discou
raged, till he have set judgment
in the earth : and the isles shall
wait for his law.

EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
" The names Jacob and Israel are marked with an obelus in the
Seventy, and in other interpreters they are not found, since even
in the Hebrew they do not appear." * Neither does the evange
list exactly agree with the Hebrew. Yet there is no discrepance
in sense between the clause 'iug dv ixQdXr) iig vtxog t7\v xgigiv, and
a3l£;p K'SV npN^?- The Hebrew t03t£^D and Greek x^igiv coin
cide ; and between Dp|^ truth, and v7xog victory, there is no dis
agreement. The progress of truth is a continued victory over
error. The last clause coincides with the Septuagint, but the
Hebrew has " the isles shall wait for his law." The general
meaning of both is the same.
* Ti.xpx Tots 0 uSiXitrTat to Tao 'laxuS xa) to tou 'lir^xnX ovofox' xxt jru^x To7s Xoi^oTs
'ipfjLvjviVTxts oFx^xfftiriu^yiTXf 'i^ii f/,nhi 'iv t^ 'e€^. (p't^irai.
X X

346

QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.

(16.) Is. vi. 9, &C.
'Ajcofj uKovaeTe Kal ov fxi]
avvtJTe, Kal ^Xe^rovTei /3Xe'\ffe-
Te Kai ov fx!] 'iSrjTe. eTravvvOi]
ydp Tj KapSla TOV Xaov tovtov,
Kai Tois waiv avTwv (Bapecos
^Kovaav, Kal tovs ocpOaXfxovs
eKafXfxvaav, fx^TTOTe 'iSaiai TOt?
ScpOaXfxoi?, Kal tois uial aKOv-
aioai, Kal Ttj KapSla avvwai /cat
iiriaTpe'^wai, Kal idaofxai av-
TOVS.

Matt. xiii. 14, &c.
[['Ai/a7rXi;|0ouTat ^ -Trpoipri.
Tela 'Haai'ov rj Xeyovaa-'^ 'A-
Korj uKovaeTe Kal ov jxri avvrJTe-
Kal /SXeVoi'Te? ^Xe'\|/-eTe /cat
OV (XYj lOrjTe. eiraxyvurj yap ij
KapSla TOV Xaov tovtov, /cat
Tor? ojcrti' [^ai/Ttof] ^apews ?-
Kovaav, Kal tovs o<pOaXfxovs
avToov iKdfXfxvaav, /xrj ttots 'iSw-
aiv TOis ocpOaXfxois /cat Tot?
walv aKovaooaiv Kal Trj KapSla
avvwaiv /cat iiriaTpe'^waiv, Kal
laaofxai avTOvs.

(17.) Ps. Ixxvii, 2.
'Avol^w iv irapa^oXais to
aTOjxa fxov, (pOey^ofxai ¦wpo-
^X^fxaTU d-rr dp^n^.

Matt, xiii. 35.
[["OTTCt)? TrXtjpuiO^ TO prjOev
Sid TOV "TTpOCplJTOV XeyovTOS'l
'A.vol^(o iv Trapa^oXais to ctto-
/ua fxov, ipevtpfxai KeKpv/x/xiva
airo KaTa^oXtjs.

(18.) Ex. XX. 12, & xxi. 16. Matt. xv. 4.
Tl/xa TOV iraTepa aov, /cat WO ydp Oeos eiirev\ Tl/xa
Trjv /xtjTepa aov 'O KOKoXoyiJov tov iraTepa Kal Trjv /xrjTepa,
TraTepa avTOv ^ fxrjTepa avTOv, Kal- 'O KaKoXoywv iraTepa >j
TeXevTTjaei OavaTW. fXtjTepa OavaTca TeXevTaTO).

EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
Matthew xiii. 14, &c. ; Mark iv. 12; Luke viu. 10; John
xii. 40; Acts xxviii. 26, 27. — Here Matthew agrees verbatim
with the Septuagint, except that he puts auTuv after ip6aX/iovg,
instead of after uglv. In the Acts, the position of auTuv is the very
same as in Matthew ; and there Luke has the introduction wogsu-
6nri 'nghg tov Xah toutov xai ii-jrov. The words of John (xii. 40.)
appear to have been modelled after the Hebrew, as well as the
Seventy. He represents this language of God addressed to the
prophet not as a command, but as a description of an act per
formed by Him. The first part of the passage as given by him,
is a free paraphrase of the Hebrew; the last follows the Seventy.
In Luke viu. 10, the words 'Iva ^XWovrig //,ri ^Xk^tiagiv xai dxouovTig
jxri euviZgiv are introduced, for which there is, strictly speaking,

QUOTATIONS PROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW. 347
Is. vi. 9, &c. Is. vi. 9, &c.
yifl " ^X1 y')'a\i} li^aji? Hear ye indeed, but under-
...-..•_ / JL ^ . '' standnot; and see ye indeed, but
ppn l^inrsM] 1N-J .1N"11 perceive not. Make the heart of
"I33n VjrKI n^p Q^^rr^b *^is people fat, and make their
.,„¦_ ^'^' ' . '' '' " ears heavy, and shut their eyes :
VJ>i^4 na^^ y^^n vm lest they see with their eyes, and
yy S^dh'i }}bv}'' vy^ay) ^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^ ®^'^' ^"*^ under-
^ ¦ ^ ' ' ^' ^ '• stand with their heart, and con-
: ^b ^i3-n. 2^) vert, and be healed.

Ps. Ixxviii. 2. Ps, Ixxviii. 2.
n;^''2H "s b^Q2 nnnza ^ ^"'"^^ "P^" ™y ™°"th i» «¦
^ ^ ¦ ^ ¦¦ ¦¦ ¦¦¦ parable ; I will utter dark say-
:D^p-^•!a niTn ingsofold.
Ex. XX. 12, and xxi. 17. Ex. xx. 12, & xxi. 17.
^;i<-JlK1 ?fOS-nN "723 Honour thy father and thy
'"' ' ¦¦ '^ ¦ "" mother. He that curseth his

nia iaxi v:!** bbpo)

father or his mother, shall surely

; jy2V be put to death.

IT-

EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
nothing correspondent either in the Hebrew or Greek. Mark
iv. 12 agrees with Luke viii. 10, except that he inserts dxouugiv xai
after dxouovrig. But he departs from all tlie rest in presenting f^^
Tore irngT^i-^ugiv xai a<pi6jj avroTg [jd afia^r^/iaTa^. It is difficult
to determine whether he resolved the figure of the Greek version
in this clause, or translated paraphrastically the Hebrew text.
Matthew xiii. 35 — The first member of this sentence coin
cides with and follows the Seventy. The second is a translation
of the Hebrew. D'1p'""'3a is translated by avh xara^oXrig. Kog/i^ou
which appears in the editions of Griesbach, Scholz, and Knapp,
is omitted by Lachmann.
Matthew xv. 4, Mark vii. 10. — In Matthew this citation fol
lows the Greek, simply leaving out the genitives gov and airou.
Mark retains <»u, but agrees with Matthew in reading nXivrdn
for TiXeur^gii.

•348

QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.

(19.) Is. xxix. 13.
^Eyyl^ei fxoi 6 Xaos ovtos
ev Tip aTOfxaTi avTOv, /cat iv
TOIS )(etXecrti/ avTwv Tifxwal fxe,
Tl Se KapSla avTWv Troppw d-rre-
Xei av e/xov' fxaTiv Se ai^ov-
Tal fxe, SiSdaKovTes ivrdXfxaTa
avOpwirwv Kai SiSaaKoXlas.
(20.) Gen. ii. 24.
"E)/e/cei/ TOVTOV KaTaXel^ei
avOpwiros TOV iraTepa avTOv
Kal Ttjv fxijTepa, Kal irpoaKoX-
XrjdriaeTai irpos Trjv yvvaiKa
avTOV- Kal eaovTUi oi Svo eis
aapKa fxlav.
(21.) Ex, XX. 12, &c.
Tifxa TOV TvaTepa aov, Kal
Tfjv fxtjTepa aov-—Ov ixoi^ev-
aeis' ov KXe-y^eis' ov cboveuaeiS'
ov "^evSofxapTvp^aeiS"

Matt. XV. 8, 9.
[['ETrjOO<|))}Tei'(re)' Trept v/hlHov
'Hcrata? X6'7wi''| 'O Xaos ov
tos Tois ^eiXeo-t'i/ fxe Tifxa, ij Se
KapSla avTiiov -Troppa) aTrei^et OTr'
eyuoi;* fxaTtjv Se ae/3ovTal fxe Si-
SdaKOVTes SiSaaKaXlas, ivToX-
fxaTa dvOpaiTTOOv. Matt. xix. 5.
|[E?7rei/"| "Ei/e/ca tovtov /ca-
TaXet'v|'et dvOpwiros tov iraTepa
Kal Ttjv fxtjTepa kui KoXXrjO^ae-
Tai Trj yvvaiKl avTOv, Kai 'eaov-
Tai 01 Svo ets aapKa fxiav.

Matt. xix. 18.
l[To-| Ov (povevaeis, ov fxoi-
Xevaeis, ov KXe'^eis, ov ¦^ev-
Sofxaprvp^aeis, Tifxa tov ira
Tepa Kal TrjV fxrjTepa.

(22.) Lev. xix. 18.
Kat dyairrjaeis tov irXtjalov
aov ft)? aeavTov.

Matt, xix, 19.
|[Kai*| ' Ajyair^aeis tov ttXjj-
aiov aov ws aeavTOv.

EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
Matthew xv. 8, 9 ; Mark vii. 6. — Both evangelists follow the
Greek, abridging the commencing words. The last clause of the
Hebrew should be rendered, " and their fear toward me is an
enjoined ordinance of men." The Seventy mistook ^^jp)], for
liini, and translated it (naTriv he.
Matthew xix. 5 ; Mark x. 7 — This quotation accords with the
Greek rather than the Hebrew. Matthew omits aurov after •ra-
Tsga ; and instead of 'jr^hg t^v yuvaTxa with a compound verb, puts
merely the dative rfi ywaixl with the simple verb. It has been
observed that oi hvo has nothing corresponding to it in the He-
,brew text, though the word two is found in the Samaritan Pen-

QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW
Is. xxix. 13.
n-tn Djyn I'Si

349

V32 n-Tn Djyn mi •<2
• : V - XX T ¦

Is. xxix. 13.
This people draw near me
with their mouth, and with their
lips do honour me, but have re
moved their heart far from me,
and their fear towards me is
taught by the precept of men.

Gen. ii. 24.
•TV "^ l"

Gen. ii. 24.
Therefore shall a man leave
his father and his mother, and
shall cleave unto his wife : and
they shall be one flesh.

Ex. XX. 12, &c.
ab \ai*"Di<i. T^^<"J^^5 "i33
:3jjjn ^*'? i^air) lib :ninri
Lev. xix. 18.
' A T r;'-.v : f : - f :

Ex. XX. 12, &c.
Honour thy father and thy
mother  Thou shalt not kill.
Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Thou shalt not steal. Thou
shalt not bear false witness.
Lev. xix. 18.
Thou shalt love thy neigh
bour as thyself.

EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
tateuch, and in the Syriac, Arabic, old Italic, and Vulgate ver
sions, in addition to the Septuagint. But we are not therefore
to suppose, that the Hebrew originally had the term two. All
these authorities must be resolved either into the Septuagint or
the Samaritan. They are not independent witnesses, nor are they
sufficient to estabUsh the fact that the word was originally in the
Hebrew text. Mark agrees almost verbatim with the Seventy.
Matthew xix. 18. — This is taken from the Septuagint. The
evangelist puts the clauses in a diflerent order.
Matthew xix. 19; xxii. 39; Mark xii. 31; Luke x. 27  This
command foUows the Greek version in its phraseology.

350

QUOTATIONS PROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.

(23.) Zech. ix. 9.
Xaipe a(^6Spa OvyaTep^iwv,
K-^pvaae QvyaTep 'lepovaaX^/x-
iSov 6 jSaaiXevs epx^Tal aoi
SIkuios Kal awCuiv, avTOS irpav9.
Kai iirij3e^)]Ka}s iirl viro'Cvyiov
Kai irwXov veov.

Matt. xxi. 5.
I'lva irXtjpwO^ TO prjOev Sid
TOV irpodtrjTov Xe'yoj'Toy| Et-
TTttTe T^ OvyaTpl ^iwv 'ISov
6 ^aaiXevs aov epxerai aoi,
irpavs /cat iiri/3e/3rjKa)S iirl ovov
/cat CTft irwXov vlov viro'Qjylov.

(24.) Is. Ivi. 7, & Jer. vii, U. Matt. xxi. 13.
'O ydp oiKos fxov oTkos irpoa- [[Fe'/jOaTrTafl 'O oTkos fxov
evx^S KXrjOi^aeTai irdai tois oikos irpoaev^^i KXtjO^aerar v-
kOveaiv. M^ cTTriyXatoi' XrjaTwv fxels Si avTOv Trotetre (TTTiJXatoi'
o oiKOS fxov, ov iiriKeKXtjTai to XriaToiv.
ovofxa fxov iir avTiS e/cet ivM-
iriov vfxwv ;

(25.) Ps. viii. 2,
'E/c aTOfxuTos VTjirlasv /cat
OrfXaX^ovTwv KaTripTiaw alvov
(26.) Ps, cxvii, 22, 23.
A.IO0V ov direSoKifxaaav 01
oiKoSofxovvTes, OVTOS iyevrjOrj
els KeipaXrjv ywvlas. irapa kv-
plov iyivBTO avTt], Kai eaTi Oav
fxaaTrj iv 6(pOaXfxois rjft-wv.

Matt. xxi. 16.
[[OtJ(?e'7roTe dveyvwTe'^ "Oti
iK aTOfxaTOS vtjiriwv Kal OtjXa-
^ovTwv KaTrjpTlaw alvov ',
Matt. xxi. 42.
fOu^eTTOTe dveyvoyre iv Tais
•yjoa^ar?']] AliOov ov direSoKi-
fxaaav 01 oiKoSofiovvTes, oZtos
iyevijOrj els KetpaXrjv ywvlas'
irapd Kvplov iyevero avTtj, /cat
eaTiv QavfxaaTrj iv oipOaXfxois
rjfXOOV.

EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
Matthew xxi. 5; John xii. 15  The introduction to this pro
phecy, il^ari Tfi Svyargl 2ii>v, is taken from Isaiah Ixii. 1 1 ; but
the prediction itself from Zechariah ix. 9. Two passages being
thus put together from different writings, as was usual with
Jewish authors, no particular prophet is mentioned. John has a
very different introduction from Matthew, viz. /iij po/Sou, duyArri^
S/wK. Matthew does not appear to have exclusively followed
either the Hebrew or the Septuagint. In several expressions He
coincides with the Hebrew rather than the Greek ; in most with
the latter. The apostle John gives a paraphrase agreeing neither
with the Hebrew nor Septuagint.
Matthew xxi. 13; Mark xi. 17; Luke xix. 46. — The begin-

QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW. 351
Zeeh. ix. 9. Zech. ix. 9.
-^y'ln '^>'TT)2. nto '<b'<!\ Rejoice greatly, O daughter
' ''' ¦ ~ = ¦ of Zion ; shout, O daughter of
Kin* ^127^ nXl D^tt^-IT-m Jerusalem : Behold, thy king
. cometh unto thee : he is just,
inT) *J^ Kin ^ttnjl p'n^i i? and having salvation ;lowly, and

Is. Ivi. 7, and Jer. vii. 11.
?*2{-i3 n^jj^an : a-'a^^n-bn^,
KnpriK^ mn n*an n*n

Is. Ivi. 7, Ss Jer. vii. 11.
Mine house shall be caUed an
house of prayer for all people.
Is this house, which is called
by my name, become a den of
robbers in your eyes ?

Ps. viii. 3. Ps. viii. 2.
r\-IB^ D*pJ*1 D*bbiy >sa ?*"* ?l the mouth of babes
^ •¦ " • '• : : • ! '^ ¦ • and sucklings hast thou ordam-
^y ed strength.

nn*n

Ps. cxviii. 22, 23.
D''3i3n •')p>^a

Ps. cxwii. 22, 23.
The stone which the build
ers refused, is become the head
TUnTt nin* J^Ka ! naa ti/Knl? s^owe of the comer. This is the
^¦'^ ^ ¦ "" ^' •¦ Lord's doing, it is marvellous
MJWn TMOQi K*n DW in our eyes.

EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
ning of this passage is derived from Isaiah Ivi. 7, and the con
clusion from Jeremiah vii, 11. The former in Matthew and Luke
is abridged from the Seventy, while Mark has additional words
from this version.
Matthew xxi. 16.: — This is in complete accordance with the
Greek version. The Hebrew phraseology is the same, tJ7 mean
ing praise, not strength,
Matthew xxi. 42 ; Mark xii. 10, 11; Luke xx. 17; Acts iv,
11; 1 Peter ii. 7. — This passage is taken verbatim from the
Seventy by Matthew and Mark. Luke has only the first part,
and agrees with the Septuagint also. In 1 Peter ii. 7, Xihg 'ov
a/iriSonifiagav ol olxahofiquvTeg, olrog iytvijdn iii xefaXfiv yavia^ coincid^
with the Septuagint.

352

QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.

(27.) Deut. xxv, 5.
'Eai' ^6 KaTOiKwaiv dSeX<pol
ext TO avTO, Kai airooavrj et? e^
avTwv, airepfxa Se fxrj rj avTu,
OVK eaTai rj yvvrj tov TeOvtjKO-
3/y- , n \ \ , lY »
TOS etui avopi fxtj eyyi^ovTi, o
dSe\(pos TOt? dvSpos dvT^s ei-
aeXevaeTai irpos avrrjv, Kai Xi;-
\|/-eTai avTijV eavTw yvvaiKa,
Kal avvoiKrjaei avTy.

Matt. xxii. 24.
[[Mtouor^S etWef.! 'Eai/ Tt?
aTTO^ai'j; fxt] ej^wv TeKva, iirt-
yafx^pevaei 6 dSeX(f)6s aurov
Ttjv yvvaiKa avrov Kal dvaa-
TTjaei airepfxa tw' dSeX(f)M av-
TOV.

(28,) Ex, iii. 6, Matt, xxii. 32.
'E'yco eiut o Oeos TOV iraTpos \Ovk dviyvooTe to prjOev vfxiv
aov, Oeos 'A.^padfx, Kal Oeos viro tov Oeov XeyovTOS"^ 'Efyco
'laaaK, Kal Oeos 'Ia/cw/3' eifxi 6 Oeos 'A^padfx Kal 6 Oeos
'laaaK Kal 6 Oeos 'Ia/cw/3 ;

(29.) Deut. vi. 5. Matt. xxii. 37.
Kat dyairrjaeis Kvpiov tov 'Ajyair^aeis Kvpiov tov Oeov
Oeov aov i^ oXtjS tijS Siavolas aov iv oXij Trj KapSla aov Kai
aov, Kal i^ oXrjS t^S ¦^v^'j'! a-ov, iv oXrj tTj ¦vf/'i/xi? a-ov Kal iv
Kal i^ oXtjs Ttjs Svvdfxews aov. oXrj Trj Siavola aov.

(30.) Lev. xix. 18.
Kat dyairrjaeis tov irXtjaiov
aov ws aeavTov

Matt. xxii. 39.
^ Ajyairrjaeis tov irXtjaiov aov
ws aeavTOv.

EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
Matthew xxii. 24; Mark xii. 19; Luke xx. 28, — This passage
is cited differently by the three evangelists, none of whom agrees
verbatim with the Greek or Hebrew. They give the sense, not
the letter.
Matthew xxu. 32; Mark xii. 26; Luke xx. 37; Acts vii.
32. — The words of Matthew seem to be abridged from the
Greek. Mark omits ilfil, but in other respects agrees with
Matthew. Luke incorporates the words into a discourse of
Christ, without adducing them as a regular quotation. In Acts

QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.

353

Deut, xxv. 5.
r\Ty\ nni wuii int£^*73
"k"? i'?"]*^? p;i DH'? inji
nmn nQn-nm r\r\n
n^bi' Ki'' nan'' it t:?''^*'7

Deut. xxv, 5.
If brethren dwell together,
and one of them die and have no
child, the wife of the dead shall
not marry without unto a stran
ger : her husband's brother shall
go in unto her, and take her to
. ........ _ ...L iL _—!.,. him to wife, and perform the
: nai'') n^ab ^b nnpb^ , ^ - V i. j. u .u
''¦¦¦: T ¦: T'^: duty ot an husbands brother
unto her.

Ex.

iii. 6.

...

T-?^

'riba

^r^ba^

pn:i*

''hba

Ex. iii. 6.

''ym ^ ^^ ^^® ^'^^ of t^y father,
the God of Abraham, the God
^rj'^r^'i of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.
:ipi!l

Deut. vi, 5. Deut. vi, 5.
^\"t'?K nin'' na ninxi ^'^^ ^^°^ ^^^^^ ^°^'^ *^^ ^°^^
"" '¦'¦ ^ ' ^ li Y *^y ^°^ ^'^^^ ^^^ thine heart,
^t'B^ - b^y •?jna'? - b22 and with all thy soul, and with
: ^ao - b^y all thy might.

Lev. xix. 18.

-lias -ip'^b nnn^*1
AT <;.¦¦¦¦ T : - T :

Lev. xix. 18.
Thou shalt love thy neigh
bour as thyself.

EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
vii. 32, the Septuagint is more nearly followed. Ei/j,i is omitted;
and for tou •xar^hg, tZv vaTi^uv are substituted.
Matthew xxii. 37. — The evangelist adheres to the Hebrew
rather than the Greek. It has been thought strange, that he
translates ni^a by htavoia; and Doepke affirms, that it never has
such a signification. The Hebrew term, however, signifies
strength; and in rendering it hiavola, the apostle referred it to
strength of mind.
Matthew xxn. 39. — Verbatim from the Seventy. Yy

354

QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TUSTAMENT IN THE NEW.

(31,) Ps. cix, 1, Matt, xxii. 44.
Eiirev 6 Kvpios tw Kvplw fxov, lAauei^ iv irvevfxaTi KoXei
KaOov e/c Se^icJov fxov, eo;? av auToi/ Kvpiov, Xeywv'^ ETirev
Oco TOUS e^Opovs aov viroiroSiov Kvpios Tip Kvplca fxov KaOou e'/c
Tcev iroSwv aov. Se^iwv fi.ov 'iws av OSi tovs e^-
Opovs aov viroKaTus twv ttoSwv
aov.
(32.) Zech. xiii. 7. Matt. xxvi. 31,
riaTct^aTe tovs iroifKevas, IFe'iypaTTTat 'ya'jO-| JlaTa'^co
Kui eKairdaaTe Ta irpo/SaTU' tov iroifxeva, Kal SiaaKopiria-
OrjaovTai Ta irpo/SuTa Trjs irol-
fxvrjs.

(33,) Zech. xi, 13.
Ka0e? avTovs els to ycovev-
Trjpiov, Kal aKeylrofxai ei SoKifHOv
iaTiv, ov Tpoirov iSoKifxaaOtjv
virep avTcov. Kai eXa/3ov tovs
TpiaKovra dpyvpovs, /cat ei'e'-
/BaXov avTOvs els tov olkov kv-
piov els TO ^(oi/euTJ^jOioc.

Matt, xxvii. 9, 10,
[[ToVe iirXrjpwOrj to prjOev
Std 'lepefxlov tov irpoCp^TOv
XeyovTOS'^ Kat eXa^ov to
TpiuKOVTa apyvpia, Trjv Tifxijv
TOV Terifxrifxevov, ov iTifxijaavTO
dird vlSiv 'lapaijX, kuI eSwKav
avTa et? tov aypov tov Kepafxe-
(tis, KaOd avveTa^ev fxoi Kvpios.

(34.) Ps. xxi. 1, Matt, xxvii, 46,
'O Qeds 6 Oeos fxov irpoa- 'HXi ^Xi Xrjfxd aa^uKOavl ',
Xes fxoi, IvutI iyKaTeXnres fxe', TOVTeaTiv, Gee' fxov Oee fxov,
'Iva Tt fxe eyKUTeXiires ',

EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
Matthew xxii. 44; Mark xii. 36; Luke xx. 42; Acts ii. 35;
Heb, i, 13, — In all these passages the citation harmonises with
the Septuagint, which again agrees closely with the original.
Matthew xxvi. 31; Mark xiv. 27. — This citation follows nei
ther the Seventy nor the Hebrew. The verb smite is in the
imperative mode in the original and the Greek version. Hence
some have thought that ^n was originally nDN. For this, how
ever, there is no evidence. It is well known that the imperative

QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW, 355
Ps, C.X, 1. ¦ Ps, ex. 1.
'^y^iyh nty '•ynx'? nin' DW The Lord said unto my Lord,
Sit thou at mv right hand, un-
Dirr ?[*n*^i n^^a - iy_ til I make thine enemies thy
• fli'?;n';) footstool.

Zech. xiii. 7. Zech. xiii. 7.
ny^n " JIK "Ttn Smite the shepherd, and the
¦ ' ^ ' sheep shall be scattered.
l^-sin

Zech. xi. 1.3. Zech. xi. 13.
"n^ "ISJi'n"'?}* in3'''7tt'n Castlt unto the potter: a good-
¦ ! " '¦ ly price that I was prised at of
DH^^^^ ^^1^: -^m. ¦'P;n them. And I took the thh-ty
Tl'i^I^J*') SjD3n Wpbp i^r\piii'* pieces of silver, and cast them
¦ ^ ',' ' ^''^ to the potter in the house of the
: nirvT^K mn* n*n tpa Lqj.^_

Ps. xxii. 1. Ps. xxii. 1.
*jmt^ na'7 ¦^ba *^k ^y ^°^' '"y ^°'^' '^^'^y l^^st
¦at;--: tt  thou forsaken me ?

EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
and future are nearly allied. (Compare Gesenius's Lehrgeb.
§ 208.) The rest of the words agree pretty nearly with the
Hebrew. Mark differs from Matthew only in the omission of
Trig 'TTol/xvrig, for which there is no counterpart in the original.
Matthew xxvu, 9, 10. — This passage will be considered here
after. Matthew xxvu. 46; Mark xv. 34  Both the Hebrew and
Greek appear to be followed.

356

QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.

(35&36,) Mai, iii, 1, and Is. xl, 3. Mark i, 2, 3.
'ISov iEairoaTeXXoo tov a^- [['^S yey pairTai ev tw 'Hcraibt
yeXov fxov, Kal iiri^Xe^eTai t(S irpo(p^T^'l 'ISoii diroa-
oSov TTyOo irpoacoirov fxov TeXXw tov ayyeXov fxov irpo
9wv>] /SoiJuvTos iv Trj ip^fxip, irpoawirov aov,os KaTaaKevdaei
eTOifxaaaTe Trjv oSov Kvplov, Trjv oSov aov ^(cvrj ^ooovtos ev
evOeias iroieiTe to? Tpl/3ovs tov tTj iprjfxw, eTOifxdaaTe Trjv oSov
Oeov rifxHv. Kvplov, evOelas xoieireTa? TjOi'-
jSof? avTOv.
(37.) Is, vi, 9, &c. Mark iv. 12,
A.Ko'rj aKoxiaeTe Kai ov fxrj ^Iva^ ^XiirovTes ^Xiwcoaiv
avvrJTe, Kal ^XeirovTes ;8Xe'\|/-e- koI fxrj 'iSwaiv, /cat d/coiJoj/Te?
Te Kai ov fxrj 'iSrjTe. eiraxyvOrj dKovwaiv Kal fxrj avviwaiv, fxrj
yap rj KapSla tov Xaov tovtov, itots iiriaTpe-^aiaiv Kal dipeO^
Kai TOIS oiaiv avTwv ^apeccs avTois [^Ta afxapT^f^aTa.^
rjKovaav, Kal tovs ocpOaXfxovs
BKUfxfxvaav, fxrjiroTe 'iSwai tois
ocpOaXfxoig, Kai tois uial aKOv-
acoai, Kal Trj KapSla avvwai Kal
iiriaTpi^wai, Kal idaofxai av-
TOVS- (38,) Is, xxix. 13. Mark vii. 6, 7.
'E'Y'yi^et fxoi 6 Xaos ovtos iv T^^ yeypaiTTar'^ 'O Xaos
Tip aTOfxaTi avTOv, Kai ev tois oSto? tois ^(etXecrti' fxe Tifxa,
XeiXeaiv avToov Tifxwal fxe, rj Se rj Se KapSla avTuiv iroppw dire-
KapSia avToov iroppo) direyei dir ^et a7r' ifxov. fxaTrjv Se ae^ov-
ifxov' fxdrrjv Se aejSovTal fie, Tal fxe, SiSdaKOVTes SiSaaKa-
SiSdaKovTes ivToXfiaTa dvOpw- Xlas, ivTaXfxaTa dvOpooirwv.
TTwv Kal SiSaaKaXlas.
(39.) Ex. XX. 12, and xxi. 16, Mark vii, 10.
Tlfxa TOV iraTepa aov Kal [[Miwi'tr^? ydp eiirevl Tlfxa
TrjV fxrjTepa aov 'O KaKoXoySv tov iraTepa aov Kai Trjv .fxrjTepa
iraTepa avTov rj fxrjTepa avTOv, aov, Kai 'O KaKoXoySiv iraTepa
TeXevrrjaei OavaTw. rj firjTepa OavaTip TeXevTaTW.
EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
Mark i, 2, 3. — Here we have an example of the mode in
which several passages are joined together in one quotation.
Two places, from different prophets, are cited as one prophetic
expression, witi; the formula ug ysygaTrrcw, &c. &c. The former

QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.

3.-57

Mai. iii. 1, and Is. xl, 3.
'nm *Di*'7a ribp *jjn
*J3^ ni'i
AT X ;
Tjn'i ias n^ias Kiip ^ip
n-ioa nmi^s na** nin*
X • J X X"; X ; - X ;
: ^TT^bab

Is. vi. 9, &c.
lai^n n;?nn-'7«i ^^<-l iiKni
nsDn V3mi nrn avn-^b
... - T ; X : V ~ XX
V3*;|;n nKn*-]? ;;ii>n I'rifi
]*n* inn"?!) ji^ati;* I'^rj^ni
' . T X ; T ; • t; X ;-
ti"? K3TI 2\V')

Mai. iii. 1, and Is, xl. 3.
Behold, I will send my mes
senger, and he shall prepare the
way before me.
The voice of him that crieth
in the wilderness. Prepare ye the
way of the Lord, make straight
in the desert a highway for our
God.
Is. vi. 9, &c.
Hear ye indeed, but under
stand not; and see ye indeed, but
perceive not. Make the heart of
this people fat, and make their
ears heavy, and shut their eyes :
lest they see with their eyes, and
hear with their ears, and under
stand with their heart, and con
vert, and be healed.

Is. xxix. 13.
V33 mn Dijrn mi *3
p^!'^ ia"?-) *:m3 "I'^sii'^i
n^\^Q T}a onay *n;ni *-]aa
:ma'?a o'^a
XX'..; ¦ T -;
Ex. XX. 12, and xxi. 17.
na«-Jl«1 T-]UK-J1K 123
nia ia«") vnx b'i'pai :na!)* Il

ls, xxix. 13.
This people draw near me with
their mouth, and with their Ups
do honour me, but have removed
their heart far from me, and their
fear toward me is taught by the
precept of men.
Ex, XX. 12, and xxi, 17.
Honour thy father and thy
mother. And he that curseth his
father or his mother, shall sure
ly be put to death.

EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
is taken from Malachi iu, 1, the latter from Isaiah xl. 3,
above on Matthew iii. 3, and xi. 10.
Mark iv. 12. — See on Matthew xiii. 14.
Mark vii, 6, 7  This agrees with Matthew xv. 8, 9,
Mark vii. 10  See on Matthew xv. 4.

See

358

QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.

(40,) Gen, i, 27.
" A-paev Kal O^Xv iiroitjaev
avTovs. (41,) Gen, ii. 24,
"EvcKev TOVTOV KaTaXelyp^ei
avOptoiros tov iraTepa avTov
Kai TrjV fxrjTepa, Kai irpoaKoX-
XrjOrjaeTai irpos Trjv yvvaiKa
avTOv- Kal eaovTUi ol Svo els
aapKa fxlav.
(42,) Ex. XX. 12, &c.
Tlfxa TOV iraTepa aov Kai
TrjV fxrjTepa aov  Ov fioix^v-
aeis' ov KXe-^eis- ov (povevaeis'
ov '^evSofxapTvprjaeis'

(43,) Is. Ivi, 7, and Jer. vii. 11.
'O ydp oIkos fxov oiKos irpos-
evvrjs KXrjQrjaeTai irdai tois eO-
veaiv. M^ air^Xaiov XrjaTwv o
oiKos fxov, ov eiriKBKXrjTai to
ovofxa fxov eir avTip e/cei evoo-
iriov vfxthv ',
(44.) Ps. cxvii. 22, 23.
A.IO0V 'ov direSoKifxaaav ol
oiKoSofxovvTes, OVTOS iyev^Orj
eis KediaXrjv ywvias. irapa kv-
piov iyiveTO avTt], kui eaTi Oav-
fxaaTrj iv ocpOaXfiois rjfxHv.

Mark x. 6,
" A.paev Kal OrjXv iiroirjaev
avTOvs [6 0eo?.J
Mark x. 7.
evBKev TOVTOV KaTaXel^^ei av-
Opioiros TOV iraTepa avTOv Kal
TrjV fxrjTepa Kai irpoaKoXXrjOrj-
aeTai tTi yvvaiKi avTov, Kal e-
aovTUi 01 Svo et? adpKa fxlav.

Mark x, 19.
|[Ta? ivToXds oiSas'J M^
(povevarjS, fXrj fXOlX^varjS, fxrj
KXe-^rjS, fxij- -^evSofxapTvptjaris,
fxrj diroaTeprjarjS, Tlfxa tov ira
Tepa aov Kai TrjV fxijTepa aov.
Mark xi. 17.
[[Ot 7e''yj0a7rTaf| 'O oTkos
fxov oTkos irpoaev^rjs KXrjOrjae-
Tai irdaiv tois eOveaiv ', vfieis
Se iiroirjaaTe avTov airrjXaiov
XrjaTwv.

Mark xii. 10, 11,
|[0i5& TrjV ypacprjv TavTtjv
dveyvccTe ;]| A.IO0V ov direSo
Kifxaaav ol OlKoSofXOVVTeS, OVTOS
eyevrjOrj eis KeipaXrjv yoivlas'
irapd Kvpiov iyeveTO ovTtj /cat
eaTiv OavfxaaTrj iv oipOaXfxois
rjfxwv.

EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
Mark x 6 — This exactly harmonises with the Seventy, 0 hog
being probably spurious.
Mark x, 7  See the remarks on Matthew xix. 5.
Mark x, 19 — The order of the commands here is the same
as Luke's. As compared with Matthew and Luke, fxri airogn-
^rigr,g is added. The order of the commandments in Matthew

QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.

359

Gen. i. 27.
X XX 1.x'" ; XT
Gen. ii. 24.
.-TV • X -;~ ' ¦• -
!)*ni intir^<2 pyT\ iai*-nh*i

Gen. i. 27.
Male and female created he
them. Gen. ii. 24.
Therefore shall a man leave
his father and his mother, and
shall cleave unto his wife : and

; fna liy^b they shall be one flesh.

Ex. XX. 12, &c, Ex. XX, 12, &c,
ab '.^Qa-na^ '^*n>rn«nn3 Honour thy father and thy
'"'¦" '"¦ ' ¦" J ¦•¦¦ mother. — Thou shalt not kUl.
'.2im ab :«lWri X"? '.m")!^ Thou shalt not commit adultery.
:-)pty ly ^i;-ii rayjn x^ ^^"""^ ^^^^' "°* ®*^?^' "^^"^
¦•¦"¦ " '":¦¦•" ¦•¦":" shalt not bear false witness.
Is. ivi, 7, and Jer. vii. 11. Is, Ivi. 7, and Jer. vii. 11.
i<"lp* n'?3iTJl"'2 *h*l *3 ^°'' loine house shall be called
, an house of prayer for all people.
D*iJ13 m^OT ', Q'Q}?r^-b^2b is this house, which is called by
mv name, become a den of rob-
snpj--»i^« mn n*3n rf'r^ , ¦ o
t';- V -: ¦.• - - - TT bers in your eyes .-^
;D3*j*.y2 rbv"'t2Zf

ilPi'Tf T:|T

Ps. cxviii. 22, 23. Ps. cxviii, 22, 23.
D*Ji3n IDXa nSJ ^^^ stone which the build-
'¦¦ ^ •¦ ¦•" ers refused, is become the head
nnTf mn* PiiiQ : nJD taib stone of the corner. This is the
^¦''' ^ '¦ "" ^ ¦' '¦ Lord's doing; it is marvellous
: ^T1'>V3. n>*'73J ^<*n DNT in our eyes.
 X : • ¦'

EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
is different. " Honour thy father and mother" is omitted by
Matthew. Mark xi. 17  Tragiv roTg 'Uvigiv is here according to the Seventy.
Matthew and Luke abridge the Greek version ; Mark follows it
more fully. (See on Matthew xxi. 13.)
Mark XU. 10, 11.— See on Matthew xxi. 42.

360

QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.

(45.) Deut. xxv. 5.
'Eai' Se KaTOiKwaiv dSeX<pol
iirl TO avTO, Kal diroOdvrj ef? e^
avTwv, airepfxa Se fxrj rj avTip,
avK 'eaTai rj yvvrj tov TeOvrjKO-
TOS e^w avopi fxrj eyyiCovTi, o
dSeX(f)ds TOV dvSpos dvTrjs ela-
eXevaeTai irpos avTrjv, Kal X/?-
"YSTai avTtjv eavTip yvvaiKa,
Kai avvoiKrjaei avTrj.
(46.) Ex. iii. 6.
'IStyw elfxi 6 Oeos tov iraTpos
aov, Oeos ' A.j3padfji, Kal Oeos
'Icraa/c, Kal Oeds 'laKwfB'

Mark xii, 19,
[[Ma)i/c7^? eypa^ev rjfxiv,!
OTI eav Tivos dSeXapos diroOa-
VI] Kai KaTaXlirrj yvvaiKa Kai
TeKva fxrj aiprj, 'Iva XdjSrj 6 d-
SeXipds avTOv t^v yvvaiKa av
rov Kal et^avaaTrjarj airepfxa
Tip dSeX(p<p avTOv.

Mark xii, 26.
[[Oi)/c dveyvcoTe iv Trj /3t'/3Xi>)
Mwycreto? eTTi tov /3aT0i'.TE'ya)
6 Oeds 'A^padfx /cat Oeos 'la-
adK Kal Oeds 'Ia/cw/3 ;

(47.) Deut. vi. 4, 5.
'' A.KOve'IaparjX,Kvpios 6 Oeds
rjfxwv Kvpios eis iari' /cat d-
yairijaeis Kvpiov tov Oeov aov
i^ oXrjS T^? Siavolas aov, Kal i^
oXrjs Trjs "^v^ds aov, Kal i^
oXrjs T^? Svvafxecis aov.

(48.) Lev. xix. 18,
Ka! dyairrjaeis tov irXrjalov
aov CO? aeavTov.

Mark xii. 29, 30,
[[II|Oft)T)? Tra'i'Twi' [ei'ToXi?
ecTTti/,] ]] "A.KOve 'laparjX, Kvpios
o Oeos rjfxSiv Kvpios ets earlv, Kal
ayairrjaeis Kvpiov tov Oeov aov
i^ oXrjS Tijs KapSlas aov Kal i^
oXrjS Trjs \f'i')(^? aov Kal e^ oXrjs
Trjs Siavolas aov Kal i^ oXijs
Trjs la^vos aov.
Mark xii, 31,
^AevTepa Ofxola avTrj.J 'A-
yairrjaeis tov irXrjaiov aov ws
aeavTov.

Mark xii. 36.
\aveiS eiirev iv tw irvev-

(49.) Ps. cix, 1.
Eiirev 6 KvpioSTtp Kvplw fxov, |[Ao
KaOov e/c Se^iiov fxov, eo)? av fxaTi tw dyiw."^ Fairev Kvpios
Oiv TOVS ixPpovs aov viroiroSiov Tip Kvplw fxov. ILdOov iK Se^iHv
TWJ/ iroSiov aov. fxov eco? av Ow tovs i^Opovs aov
ViroiroSiov tSiv iroSwv aov.

EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
Mark xii. 19._ — This is a reference to a passage rather than
an actual quotation.
Mark xii. 26 — See on Matthew xxn. 32,
Mark xii. 29, 30 — This is taken from the Seventy, but not

QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.

361

Deut. xxv. 5.
nai nm D*nN inti^*-*:)
-ab i'?-r« 13i ana im
n::iinn nan - npa mnri
n*^y Ni; nan* it 1^*^'?
:na3*i r]v^ab '-b nnp"?--)

*D2^*

Ex.

iii. 6.

- ¦.¦: I • T

v'^^

-'Tiba')^ pn^*

'[^f^^.

Deut.

vi, 4, 5.

>\Tnba nin*

"PN-Ito*

Dninb* T T ; -

Deut. xxv, 5.
If brethren dwell together,
and one of them die and have no
child, the wife of the dead shall
not marry without unto a stran
ger : her husband's brother shall
go in unto her, and take her to
him to wife, and perform the
duty of an husband's brother un
to her. Ex, iii. 6,
I am the God of thy father,
the God of Abraham, the God
of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.

yaty

Deut. vi. 4, 5.
Hear, O Israel, The Lord our
God is one Lord. And thou
nim na mnxi ',ina mm shalt We the Lord thy God with
- ^32i ^2^ ~ "733 ^*n'7K ^'^ thine heart, and with all thy
^ ' I ¦¦ " ¦¦ ¦' ¦ A-- soul, and with all thv might.

Lev. xix. 18.
' A T ql-: .. : x ; - x ;
Ps. ex. 1.
*a*a*^ 2p *:in'7 nin* oa)
'^''ya n''pa - ny

nnn

Lev, xix. 18.
Thou shalt love thy neigh
bour as thyself. Ps, ex. 1.
The Lord said unto my Lord,
Sit thou at my right hand, un
til I make thine enemies thy
footstool.

EXPLANATORY REMARKS. •
literaUy. Mark adds, Ig 'iXng rrjg xa^hlag gov, which is not in the
Greek; changes huvdfMiojg into igx^oif and inverts the order of
the clauses.
Mark xU. 31  Exactiy from the Seventy.
Mark xii. 36.— This agrees with Matthew xxii. 44.

z z

362

QUOTATIONS FKOM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.

(50.) Zech. xiii. 7.
IlaTct^aTe tovs iroifxevas, /cat
eKairaaare tu irpo^uTa.

(51.) Is. liii. 12,
Kat ev Tois dvofxois eXoylaOtj-

(52,) Ps. xxi, 1.
'O Oeos d Oeos fxov irpoa^es
fxoi, Ivarl iyKaTeXiires fxe ',

(53.) Mai. iv. 5, 6.
Kat iSov iyw diroaTeXw vfxiv
'HXt'ai/ TOV Qea^lrrjv, irplv
iXOeiv TrjV rjfxepav Kvplov TrjV
fxeydXrjv Kal iiri(f)avrj, bs airo-
KaraaTrjaei KapSlav iraTpos
irpos vlov, Kal KapSlav dvOpw-
irov irpos TOV irXrjaiov avrov-

(54.) Ex. xiii. 2.
'Aylaaov fioi irdv irpurroTO-
Kov irpwToyeves Siavoiyov ird-
aav fxijTpaV
(55.) Lev, xii, 8,
AJo Tpvyovas rj Svo voaaovs
irepiaTepwv

Mark xiv, 27.
|re'7 jOaTTTat 'I UaTo^oi toj-
iroifxiva, Kal SiaaKopirtaOrjaov-
Tai TU irpo^aTU. Mark xv, 28,
T¥jirXrjpwOtj fj ypa(prj fj Xe-
'yoi'O-a'J Kat fxerd dvofxwv iX-
oylaOrj. Mark xv, 34.
'EXwt' eXtot' Xefxa aa^ay-
Oavl ; o iaTiv fxeOepfirjvevofxe-
vov 'O Oeos fxov 6 Oeos fxov,
els Tl iyKaTeXiires fxe ',
Luke i. 17.
Kat dvTos irpoeXevaeTai
ivwiriov avTov iv irvevfxuTi kui
Svvdfxei 'HXlov, iiriaTpey^ai
KapSlas iraTepwv eirl TeKva, Kat
direiOeis iv (ppovrjaei SiKalwv'

Luke ii. 23.
|[Ka0w? yiypaiTTai ev tw
vofxip Kvplov^ OTI irdv dpaev
Siavoiyov fxrjrpav dyiov Tip kv-
piw KXrjOrjaeTai. Luke ii. 24.
|[KaTa TO elprjfxevov iv rip
vofxw Kvplov\ "Cevyos Tpvyo-
vwv rj Suo veoaaovs irepiaTepwv.

EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
Mark xiv. 27. — This agrees with Matthew xxvi. 31, in oppo
sition to the Hebrew text and the Seventy, but leaves out an
addition made by Matthew, viz. rijg mifxvrig.
Mark xv. 28. — From the Seventy, with a slight alteration.
Mark XV. 34. — See on Matthew xxvii. 46.
Luke i. 17. — This quotation departs both from the Seventy
and the Hebrew. The evangelist merely gives the general sense.

QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW. 363
Zech. xiii, 7. Zech. xiii. 7.
V2J13rii ny'^n"n^i "Tin Smite the shepherd, and the
' . sheep shall be scattered.
ya^iT]
Is. liii. 12. Is, liii, 12,
n3a3 D*ytt>3 " JHKI And he was numbered with
the transgressors.
Ps. xxii, 2. Ps. xxii. 1.
*jnaty ni^b *'pX *'p!^ My God, my God, why hast
thou forsaken me ?
Mai, iii. 23, Mai. iv. 5, 6.
na dd"? nb\£^ ^±a mn . Behold, I wiU send you Eli-
¦ ' ¦¦ ¦ j ah the prophet, before the com-
Di* Kia *i3'? N*3|n n")}* ing of the great and dreadful
i*ti^ni. : Nii-ini ^iijin nin* ^^f ^^ *^« ^°^^- ^""^ ^^ ^^^^^
' ' '" '' ' turn the heart of the fathers to
D*J3 3^1 D*J|-t'y ninsj-a'? the children, and the heart of
DJli3i* " "^y *^^ children to their fathers.
AT-;
E.'ci xiii. 2. Ex. xiii. 2.
niOD niD3 'bD *"? " tt^lp Sanctify unto me all the first-
' y ) born, whatsoever openeth the
Dnn" 73 womb among the children of Is
rael, both of man and of beast :
it is mine.
Lev, xii. 8, Lev, xii, 8,
ni)i* *J3 hp. ii< a*-lh - *nttl Then she shall bring two tur-
" ¦ '¦ ' ¦ ¦¦ ' ties, or two young pigeons.

EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
Luke ii. 23. — This does not accord with the Hebrew so closely
as with the Greek version.
Luke ii. 24  This citation seems to have been taken from the
Greek. Both versions give the sense of the Hebrew, though
neither renders it exactly. " Two female turtle-doves, or two
sons of a pigeon." The gender in Hebrew differs from that in
Luke.

364 QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.
(56.) Is. xl. 3, 4, 5. Luke iii. 4, 5, 6.
^wvi] IBowvTos iv Trj eprjfxw, r^^? yeypairTUi iv /3i/3Xw
eroifxdaaTe Trjv oSdv Kvplov, X6ywv'IJ.aaiovTovirpo<p^Tov]l
evOelas iroieiTe Tas Tpipovs tov ^wvrj ^owvtos iv Trj eprjfxw-
Oeov rjfxiuv, irdaa (papayt, irXrj. cTOifxaaaTe Trjv oSov Kvplou,
pwQ^aeTai, Kai irdv 'opos Kai evOeias iroieire Tas Tpi/3ovs
/3ovvos TaireivwOijaeTui. Kal ea- avTov irdaa (papay^ irXrjpw-
Tai irdvra rd aKoXtd ets evSei- Orjaerai Kai irdv opos /cat /3ov-
av, /cat rj rpax^ia et? ireSla, /cat vos rairetvwQrjaerai, Kal 'earai
ddiOrjaerai rj Sota Kvplov, Kal rd aKoXia ets evOelas Kal al
o'^erai irdaa adp^ rd awrrj. Tpayeiai els dSovs Xelas /cat
ptov rov Oeov. o-^erai irdaa aap^ rd awrrj.
ptov TOU Oeov.
(57.) Deut. viii. 3. Luke iv. 4.
Ovk iir dprw fxovip Xfjaerai [[re'7joa7rTaf]] 'on o^k iir
6 dvOpwiros, aXX' e-TrJ iravrl prj- dprw fxovw "(rjaerat d dvOpw.
fxari TW iKiropevofxevip Std aro- "^o^, ^^^' «""' •jrai'Tt p^fxari
fxaros Oeov ^^aerat d avOpw- Oeov.
iros. (58.) Deut. vi. 13. Luke iv, 8,
Kvpiov TOV Oeov aov (po^rj- [[Fe'yjOaTrTaf]] Kuptoi' toi'
Oijaij, Kat avrw fxovip Xarpev- Oeov aov irpoaKvVrjaets, Kat av-
aeis' rip fiovw Xarpeuaeis.
EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
Luke iii. 4, 6, 6, — This is taken from the Seventy. Matthew
and Mark cite onlv Isaiah xl. 3; but Luke adds the fourth and
fifth verses also. In co/nmon with Matthew and Mark, he has
ttuTou for TOV Qlou '/j/jMv. In the fourth and fifth he manifestly fol
lows the Seventy, leaving out the words (-rravTu), (xai o<pSrigiTai n
ho^a xv^iou), (or/ xu^iog iXdXrjge), and changing ffeS/a into ohoug Xiiag.
The Alexandrine codex of the Septuagint has ohoug Xiiag like the
evangelist. It is not easy to know the reason why the Seventy
have Th gurri^iov TOU hov for ')'fm. " We render," says Dr. H.
Owen, " the Heb. pariter, together ; but they might render it
giarriPiov auTou, and, for the sake of perspicuity, Qiou ; for whom we
would SAVE from imminent danger, we lay hold of, embrace, and
unite to ourselves ; which is the idea conveyed by the root nn*.
If this be nol aUowed, would it be too much to suppose that the

QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.

365

Is. xl. 3, 4, 5.
'rpi i-13 naiaa aisp b^p
nbm ni'nyi hp]- nin*
¦^31 aw N*2|-'73 ; •')3*rt'?K'7
2pyn n*m iVstt^* nynji nn
' T V T T : T : ' T : • :
nb:?:! ; nypn"? D*p3"}ni -^W'l^b
mn* •ito!i"'73 ism nim -Ti33

Deut. viii, 3.

mm

i^n"? on^n-'^y

ab

-*3

i<::jia-^3-^y *3
T T - •

mxn TXT

;D^^<n mm
X T T V :

' nin* T :

Deut. vi, 13.
a-^T) X
'^''iiba nin*-
^>»
"^^^^
inMi
Is, xl,- 3, 4, 5.
The voice of him that crieth
in the wilderness. Prepare ye the
way of the Lord, make straight
in the desert a high- way for our
God. Every valley shall be ex
alted, and every mountain and
hill shall be made low : and the
crooked shall be made straight,
and the rough places plain. And
the glory of the Lord shall be
revealed, and all flesh shall see
it together. Deut, viii. 3.
Man doth not live by bread
only, but by every word that
proceedeth out of the mouth of
the Lord doth man live.
Deut, vi, 13.
Thou shalt fear the Lord thy
God, and serve him.
EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
word should be read Tim, jechido, unigenitum ejus, his only
begotten ? The whole verse would then run in this manner :
' The glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall
see His only begotten.' And may not St. John be supposed to
refer to it, when he says, ' We beheld His glory, the glory as
of the only begotten of tiie Father,' i. 14. But, after all, I rather
suspect that the Hebrew copy, which the Seventy used, had IVi'',
and not lin'*. See Isaiah, chap. Ui. 10, where the same pro
phecy occurs." (The modes of quotation used by the evange
lical writers explained and vindicated. London 1789, 4to., pp.
22, 23.)
Luke iv. 4. — This is according to the Seventy, whose words
Luke abridges. See on Matthew iv. 4.
Luke iv. 8. — See Matthew iv. 10, with which citation the pre-
366

QUOTATION'S FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.

(59.) Ps. xc. 11, 12.
"OTt TOt? dyyeXois avrov
ivreXeirai irepi aov, rov Sia-
(pvXa^ai ae iv irdaais rais d-
Sois aov. iirl ^et^oji^ dpoval
ae, fxrjirore irpoaKO'^rjS irpos
XiQov rov iroSa aov.

Luke iv. 10, 11.
ire'^y/oaTrTat "yajO"! OTt toT?
ayyeXois avrov ivreXeirai ire-
pi aov, rov Sia(pvXa^ai ae, Kal
OTt eTTt )(etjO(oc apovaiv ae, fxrj
irore irpoaKoyp-rjS irpds XlQov
TOV iroSa aov.

(60.) Deut. vi, 16.
Ovk iKireipaaeis Kvpiov rov
Oeov aov
(61.) Is, Ixi. 1,2.
Ylvevfxa Kvplov eir' ifxe, ou e'l-
veKcv 'e'xpii^i f^e, evayyeXlaaa-
Oai irrw^ois direaraXKe fxe, la-
aaaOai rous avvrerpifxfxevovs
rrjv KapSlav, Kripu^ai aixfJi-aXw-
rois dcpeaiv, Kal TV(pXois ava-
(3Xe^tv, KaXeaai iviavrdv Kv
plov SeKTOV

Luke iv, 12, (Comp, No. 8.)
|[Et'^»;TafJ Ovk iKiretpdaets
Kvpiov rov Oeov aov.
Luke iv. 18, 19.
I^Hj/ 'ye'YiOa/U/xe'i/oi/'l Tlvevfxa
Kvpiov eir efxe' ov e'lveKev 'eypiaev
fxe evayyeXlaaaOai irrw^ois,
direaraXKev fxe [laaaaOai tovs
avvrerpifXfxevovs rrjv KapSlav, "^
Krjpv^ai aixP-aXwrois dipeatv
Kat rvipXois ava/3Xe'^iv, diro-
areiXai reOpavafxevovs iv d(pe-
aet, Kripv^ai iviavrdv Kvplov
SeKTOV.

(62.) Mai. iii. 1. Luke vii, 27.
'I^oy i^airoareXXw rov dy- IFe^paTTTat.]! 'ISov diroa-
yeXov fxov, /cat e7ri/3Xe'>|/eTai Te'XXw rov ayyeXov fxov irpo
dSdv irpo irpoawirov fxov irpoawirov aov,os KaraaKevdaei
rrjv dSov aov e'fxirpoaOev aov.

EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
Luke iv. 10, 11  Compare with this passage Matt. iv. 6.
Luke coincides with the Seventy more nearly than Matthew.
Luke iv. 12 — This agrees exactly with the Greek version.
Luke iv. 18, 19 — Here Luke follows the Seventy exactiy as
far as the words xai TV(pXoTg avd^Xt-^^iv. ' AvogTiTXai Tii^avgfiivoug Iv
afigii (to set at liberty them that are bruised), are not in the Sep
tuagint ; but are added by the evangeUst probably from Isaiah
Iviii. 6, where we read, dnrognXXi Ts6§avgfiivoug iv dfigu. The last
clause of the citation agrees with the Seventy, except that xa-

y.igai is changed into

xrifi^ai.

The deviation from the Hebrew

QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.

367

13N3

Ps. xci, 11, 12.

•Tjia^

:^*3"n-'?33 I ••" T : X :
>iiiri - ]B ^:wty; D*33

Deut. vi. 16.
uyriba nim-/ix iDjn ab

Is. Ixi. 1, 2,
]yi "by nin* *jnN mi
AT X • v: T -• -
D*'u:i; iW2b *r)x nin* ntt^a
- X -. ¦• * : • X ; - T
3^-*^3tt>j^ tt^an"? *jn'7K(
D*-liDK^1 -)i-)7 D*i3iy^ a-)pb
]S)n-nyt} a•^pb :nip-np3 nin*"?

Mai. iii. 1.
¦ni!3i *3x'7a nb\o *jun

*J3'? -rt'n
AT T :

Ps. xci. 11, 12.
For he shall give his angels
charge over thee, to keep thee in
all thy ways. They shall bear
thee up in their hands, lest thou
dash thy foot against a stone.

Deut. vi. 16.
Ye shall not tempt the Lord
your God. Is. ixi. 1, 2.
The Spirit of the Lord God
is upon me ; because the Lord
hath anointed me to preach good
tidings unto the meek ; he hath
sent me to bind up the broken
hearted, to proclaim Uberty to
the captives, and the opening
of the prison to thetn that are
bound ; to proclaim the accept
able year of the Lord.
Mai. iii, 1,
Behold, I will send my mes
senger, and he shall prepare the
way before me.

EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
text is considerable. Instead of " the opening of the prison to
them that are bound," the Septuagint has, " recovering of sight
to the blind," but the sense of these two clauses, being figu
rative, does not much differ. Griesbach excludes from the text
the words IdgagSai roiig guvriT^ifXfi/evovg rr]V xa^hiav, and thus renders
the citation less unUke the original ; Knapp and Lachmann have
put them in hooks as not genuine. The Syriac and Vulgate
versions have the supposititious words.
Luke vii. 27. This agrees with Matthew xi. 10. Both differ
from the original and Greek version.

368

QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW,

(63,) Is, vi, 9, &C,
'A.Korj aKOvaere Kal ov fxrj
avvrjre, Kal ^Xeirovres ^Xe'^e-
re Kal ov fxrj 'ISrjre. iira^vvOrj
yap rj KapSla rov Xaov rovrov,
Kai rois waiv avrwv /Bapews
iJKOvaav, Kal rovs oipOaXfxovs
eKUfXfxvaav, fxrjirore 'iSwai rois
ocpOaXfxois, Kal rois wal dKov-
awai, Kal rrj KapSla avvwai Kal
iirtarpi'^wai, Kal tdaofxai av-
rovs. (64.) Deut. vi, 5 ; Lev, xix. 18,
Kat ayairrjaeis Kvpiov rov
Oeov aov i^ oXrjS rrjs Siavolas
aov, Kal e^ oXrjS r^s '^v^'js aov,
Kat i^ oXrjS rrjs Svvdfxews aov.
Kat dyairrjaeis rov irXrjalov
aov ws aeavrov
(65,) Exod. XX. 12, &c,
Tlfxa TOV irarepa aov Kal
rrjv fxrjrepa aov' — Ou fxoi^ev-
aets' ov KXe^^ets- ov (povev
aeis' ov •^evSofxaprvp^aeis'

Luke viii. 10.
'lea jSXeirovres f-h j3XeTrwatv
Kai aKovovres fxrj avvtwaiv.

Luke X. 27-
'Ayairrjaeis Kvpiov rov Oeov
aov i^ oXrjS rijs KapSlas aov
Kal iv oXrj rrj "^vyrj aov /cat
ev oXrj rrj laxy'i aov /cat iv oXj)
T^ Siavola aov, Kal rov irXrj
aiov aov CO? aeavrov.
Lulce xviii, 20,
|[Ta? ivToXds olSas'^ M^
fioixevarjS, fxrj (poveuarjS, fxr]
/cXe'vl/-)}?, fitj y^evSofxaprvp^arjS,
rlfxa TOV irarepa aov Kal rrjv
fxrjTepa.

(66.) Is. Ivi. 7, and Jer, vii. 11. Luke xix, 46.
'O ydp o?k6s fxov oTkos irpoa- [[re'^yjOaTrTafl on d oikos
evxrjs KXrjOrjaerai irdai rois eO- fxov oikos irpoaevvrjs eariv v-
veaiv. Ml? airrjXaiov Xrjarwv d fxeis Se avrov iiroirjaare airrj.
oiKOS fxov, ov eiriKeKXrjTai ro Xaiov XrjarSiv.
'ovofxa fxov iir avrip iKei ivw
iriov vfxwv ; EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
Luke viu. 10 — See Matthew xiu. 14, &c.
Luke X. 27. — This is from the Greek, with some variation.
Luke adds,Jg oX»js r?; xa^hlag gou; instead of huvdftbicog he has /tf^is;
and the order of the clauses is changed. He has also omitted
the second dya'^^giig. According to our text also, the last three
clauses have 'iv with the dative, instead of Ig with the genitive.
Knapp retains the common reading.

QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW, 369
Is. vi. 9. Is. vi. 9.
'U*!!^ "^Xl J^iaii/ li^au; Hear ye indeed, but under-
, , stand not ; and see ye indeed, but
n;rnr}-^i*1 ^^1 ^**1^ perceive not.

Deut. vi. 5. — Lev. xix. 18.
'^"r^ba nim na rianxi
I A-.' ••¦; X : .. X ; - T:
:'?Tnto-'?3ii) I IV : X ;
?fia3 ^}nb nanxi
Ex. XX. 12, &c.
N'?-!fa^«"n^{^ 'i*3«"nx n33

Deut. vi. 5. — Lev, xix, 18.
And thou shalt love the Lord
thy God with all thine heart,
and with aU thy soul, and with
all thy might.
Thou shalt love thy neigh
bour as thyself. Ex. XX. 12, &c.
Honour thy father and thy
mother. — Thou shalt not kill.
Thou shalt not commit adulte
ry. Thou shalt not steal. Thou
shalt not bear false witness.

Is, Ivi, 7, and Jer. vii. 11.
For mine house shall be called

Is. Ivi. 7, and Jer. vii. 11.
Nnjs* n^3n-n*a *r)*a *3
-^ t, an house of prayer for all people.
¦ T -"^ : !- * ¦ - 't t : Is this house, which is called by
a'lp^ - Ipa mn man mn my name, become a den of rob-
':D3*J*;^3 V^jr-*ai:i bers in your eyes ?

EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
Luke xvui. 20 — This is taken from the Seventy. The evan
geUst puts the clauses in a different order, and uses firi with the
subjunctive, for ou with the fiiture.
Luke xix. 46 — See on Matthew xxi. 13. 3 A

370

QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAHrENT IN THE NEW.

(fi7 ) Ps, cxvii. 22, 23, Luke xx. 17-
A-lOov 'dv direSoKlfxaaav ol [[Tt ovv iarlv rd yeypafxfxi'
oiKoSofxouvres, otros iyevrjOrj vov rovro ;| A.lOov ov direSo-
et? Ke(paXr]v ywvlas. Kifxaaav ol oiKoSofxovvres, ov
tos iyevrjOrj els KecpdXrjv ywvlas-

(68,) Deut. xxv. 5.
'Eai' Se KaroiKwaiv dSeXcpol
iiri ro avro, Kal diroOdvrj et? e^
avrwv, airepfxa Se fxrj ^ avrw,
OVK earai rj yvvrj rov reOvrjKO-
3fV^ 1 « ^ \ V 1^ «
TO? e^co avopi fxrj eyytCovn, o
dSeXcpds TOV dvSpds avrijs ei-
aeXevaerai irpos avrrjv, koI
Xrjy^erai avrrjv eavrw yvvaiKa,
Kal avvoiKrjaei avrrj.

Lvike xx. 28.
[[Mwvo-^? 'eypa^ev fjfxiv!^
idv nvos dSeXcpos airoOavrj e^-
wv yvvaiKa, Kai ovros areKvos
^, 'Iva Xd^rj d dSeX(pds avrov
rrjv yvvaiKa Kal i^avaarrjari
airepfxa rw dSeXcpip avrov.

(69,;

Ps, cix. 1.

Luke XX, 42, 43,
EtTref o Kvptos TW Kvpiip fxov, ^AavelS Xeyei ev ^l^Xip rwv
KaOov iK Se^iwv fxov, ew? av '^aXfxwv.'^ ETirev Kvpios rip
0S> TOVS ix^povs aov viroiroSiov Kvplw fxov. KaSon e/c Se^iwv
rwv iroSoov aov. fxov ews av Ow tovs ixOpovs aov
ViroiroSiov rwv iroSwv aov ',

(70,) Is. liii. 12.
Kat iv TOIS dvofxois eXoylaOrj-

(71.) Ps. xxx, 6,
Et? )^etjOa? aov irapaOrjao-
fxai rd irvevfxd fxov.

Luke xxii. 37.
[[Toin-o TO yeypafxfxevov Set
reXeaO^vai.'^ on /cat fxerd
dvofxwv iXoylaOrj. Luke xxiii. 46.
El? xeipas aov iraparlOefxai
TO irvevfxd fxov.

EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
Luke XX. 17 — This coincides verbatim with the Greek.
Luke XX. 28. — See on Matthew xxii. 24.
Luke XX. 42, 43 .-This citation closely agrees with the Seventy.
Luke xxii. 37. This agrees with Mark xv. 28.
Luke xxiii. 46. Verbatim from the Seventy, according to
the received text, which is followed by Knapp ; but Lachmann
puts the present tense of the verb.
The three evangelists, over whose citations we have now gone.

r\jrh

QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD" TESTAMENT IN THE NEW
Ps. cxviii. 22, Ps. cxviii. 22.
D*Ji3n iD^a in«
:n33 ]i}a-]b

371

The stone which the build
ers refused is become the head
stone of the corner.

Jiai

Deut. xxv. 6.
I'^m D*n>* !)3tt>*-

"n"? "b'Va ini Dna im
rffnn nan ¦ ma mnn
m'?y Ni* nai* it ty*^'?
T V T X X X : X
:na3*i ntt?^*'7 Sb nnpbi
T . . . X . - X'X ;

Deut. XXV. 5.
If brethren dwell together,
and one of them die and have
no child, the wife of the dead
shaU not marry without unto a
stranger : her husband's brother
shall go in unto her, and take
her to him to wife, and perform
the duty of an husband's bro
ther unto her.

Ps. ex. 1.
*:*a*'? ai^ ¦'yiab nin* d«3

onn

n^a - ny
X ~

Ps, ex, 1,
The Lord said unto my Lord,
Sit thou at my right hand, un
til I make thine enemies thy
footstool.

Is. liii. 12.
n3a3 D*ytt>3-nN'i

Is, liii, 12,
And he was numbered with
the transgressors.

Ps. xxxi. 6.
*nin n*p3i* ^1*2

Ps. xxxi. 5.
Into thine hand I commit my
spirit.

EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
have so much in common, that it may be useful to compare them.
The general character of Matthew's quotations from the Old
Testament is freeness, an absence of literal adherence to the
words of the original. He follows the Greek in preference to
the Hebrew. Indeed in all passages, except the Messianic, there
is an uniform accordance with this translation. In the Messianic,
the original is more closely followed. We do not feel inclined
to adopt the theory of Credner, who, in his Beitrage, has ex
amined at great length the quotations occurring in Matthew's
gospel, with a view to ascertain their bearing on the original

372 QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.
(72,) Is. xl, 3. John i, 23.
^wvrj ^owvTOS iv rrj iprjfxw, |[Ka0a)? e?7rei/ 'Ho-a'i'a? o 7r|00-
kroifxaaare rrjv dSdv Kvpiov, d)^T>;?']| ^wvrj ^owvros iv rrj
evOelas iroieire Ta? rpl/Bovs rov iprjfxw, evOvvare rrjv oSdv kv-
OeoO rjfxSiv. plov.
(73.) Ps, Ixviii, 10. John ii. 17.
'O ^^Xo? Toy o'lKov aov Ka- '^eypafXfxevov iarlv-^ 'O
reipaye fxe' T^Xo? rov o'Ikov aov Kara(hd-
yeral fxe.
(74.) Ps. Ixxvii. 24. John vi. 31,;
Kat dprov ovpavov eSwKev fKaOivs iariv yeypafxfxevovj
avrois. "Aprov iK rov oupavou eSwKev
avrois (payeiv.
(75.; Is. Uv. 13. John vi. 45.
Kat Trai'Ta? rovs vlous aov l[ EiTTtv yey pafxfxevov iv rots
SiSaKTOvs Oeov' irpoiprjraiS'^ Kat eaovrai irdv-
res SiSaKTOi Oeov.
EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
language of the work. The conclusion at which he arrives is,
that the apostle every where follows the Greek version, but, ac
cording to a text, which, in Messianic passages, and in them
only, had been collated with the Hebrew, and also in some places,
according to Gesenius, with an ancient Targum, and altered in
conformity to such documents. The assumption of an alteration
so systematic in the text of the Septuagint, and existing solely in
a certain class of passages, rests on no good foundation. It has
too much the appearance of an expedient for the purpose of helping
out a particular hypothesis. It is better to say, that, in Messianic
places, the Hebrew is followed in preference to the Greek.
Mark seems to have usually taken his quotations from the Old
Testament, not independently, but with regard to Matthew.
Whether he followed Luke in various instances, is liable to
doubt, because it is probable that he wrote after Luke. One
thing is obvious, that he occasionally supplies from the Seventy
clauses and words which are wanting in the other gospels, and
thus makes the citation to correspond more exactly with the
Greek version. The most remarkable thing in his quotations, is
the omission, in one instance, of an addition found in Matthew
xxvi. 31 ; though in the rest of the passage he agrees with the
apostle in opposition to the Hebrew and Greek.
Luke appears to quote invariably from the Seventy. In doing
so, he frequently gives the general meaning of a passage, without
abiding by the words. Often too, he presents the citation in its

QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW. 373
Is. xl. 3. Is. xl. 3.
'^'Tl !133 "l^naS aj\p bSp _ The voice of him that crieth
' ' ¦ 3 in the wilderness. Prepare ye the
n?Da n^'iys "inti?* nin* way of the Lord, make straight
.»v-.iL L i" the desert a high-way for our
•''^^V^ii'?. God.
Ps. Ixix. 10. Ps. Ixix. 10.
*Jrl^3^< 'T|n*5 nj<Jp~*3 For the zeal of thine house
hath eaten me up.
Ps. Ixxviii. 24, Ps, Ixxviii. 24,
5 ia"? 1in3 D*aiJ^ " P"I1 And had given them of the
corn of heaven.
Is. liv. 13. Is. liv. 13,
nin* *lia'7 'n'iS " "731 ^.nd all thy children shall be
taught of the Lord.

EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
full extent, where the others have only a part. Sometimes he
mixes together different passages.
It is observable, that the citations of the evangelists harmonise
with one another, not only when they are made directly from
the Seventy, but also where they have regard to the Hebrew
and Greek together, and where there has been abridgment, addi
tion, or omission, according to the purposes of the writers. It
is pretty evident, that Matthew wrote first ; and that he had not
seen the inspired narratives of Mark and Luke. On the other
hand, it is equally apparent, that the two latter had regard to
Matthew's citations. Thus they supply clauses which he had
omitted ; and Luke even adds several verses to a citation made
by Matthew. Both the agreement of their quotations with those
of Matthew, and the nature of the deviations show, that they
had an eye to his gospel. In the Acts of the Apostles, written
by Luke, there is a much more copious use of the Old Testa-.
ment than in his gospel.
John i. 23 — Here the apostle follows the Seventy, but changes
iTOifxdgan into luSuvaTi.
John ii. 17. — This is from the Seventy, who have xaTKpayi
for xarafdyirai.
John vi. 31. — Doepke affirms that this quotation is from Exo
dus xvi. 15. More probably, however, it is taken from Psalm
Ixxvii. 24. The words nearly agree with the Greek.
John vi. 45 — The Septuagint connects this clause with the
preceding verses, in the accusative. The apostle, however, rather

374

QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.

(76.)

(77.) Deut. xix. 15.
'ETTt arofxaros Svo fxaprv-
pwv, Kai eiri arofxaros rpiwv
fxaprupwv, arrjaerai irdv prjfxa.
(78.) . Ps, Ixxxi. 6.
'E-yob e?7ra, Oeol iare'

(79.; Zech. ix. 9.
X.aipe aipdSpa Ovyarep ^iwv,
Krjpvaae Ovyarep 'lepovaaXrjfx-
ISov 6 ^aaiXevs eoYeTat crot
SIkuios /cat awXwv, avrds irpavs,
Kat eiri^e^rjKws iirl viroXvyiov
Kat irwXov veov.

John vii. 38.
'O TTto-Tei/toi/ et? e^ie, |/ca0wj
eiirev rj ypaiprj^irorafioi iK rrjs
KoiXias avrov pevaovaiv vSaros
^WVTOS. John viii. 17.
I'Ek Tfti vdfxtp Se TW vfxerepw
yeypairrar'^ on Svo dvOpw-
irwv rj fxaprupla dXrjOrjS iariv.
John X. 34.
|[0i5/c eariv yeypafxfxivov iv
rip vofxcp vfxwvl on iyw el-
irov Oeol iare;
John xii, 14, 15.
[[Ka0co? iariv yey pafxfi.evov-\
M^ (po^ou, Ovyarrjp "Ziiwv ISov
o /3aaiXevs aov epxerai KaOrj-
fxevos eiri irwXov ovov.

EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
follows the Hebrew, which has, " all thy children shall be the
taught of Jehovah."
John vii. .38  These words are not found in the Old Testa
ment, and therefore some have connected xa^clig ihiv ri ygafii with
0 vigrivtiiv iig ifx'i. In this Way, Erasmus seems to have construed
the place : qui in me credit ut Scriptura monet. Thus the
phrase vorafxol /,. r. X. is not referred to the Old Testament Scrip
tures. Others think, that the passage in question was taken
from an apocryphal book now lost. Rejecting both opinions,
most commentators suppose, that the original should be sought
in various places, such as, Isaiah xliv. 3 ; Iv. 1 ; Iviii. 1 1 ; Zech.
xiv. 8 ; xiii. 1 . These texts contain expressions somewhat si
milar, but yet partly unlike the words of the apostle. The
formula xatos if-jriv n y^apn does not necessarily imply that one
passage h, formally cited. The general tenor of various places
may be prefaced by such a formula. The circumstance to which
the passage alludes is the influences of the Holy Spirit, which
they who believe in Christ should receive. These influences
are compared to water, inasmuch as they are refreshing, satisfy
ing, salutary, cleansing, and diffusive. The beUever has in him
an abundant supply, that pervades and fills the whole man.

QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW. 375

Deut. xix, 16.
*3-^i' i>< D*7y *ji^ *3'r'?y
:-)3'i Dip; w-jy-mbp

Ps, Ixxxii. 6.
ur\a U'liba *ma>*

*J^*

Deut, xix. 15.
At the mouth of two witness
es, or at the mouth of three wit
nesses, shall the matter be esta
blished. Ps. Ixxxii. 6.
I Jiave said, Ye are gods.

Zech. ix. 9.
*y*ni7 ^''^¦ni nto *b*^
asyi '^3'7a ran D^tt>!n*-/i3
33*11 *a^ Kin y^^iji p^'i^ tj^
:nijh>fi2 mjp-^y'i niam^j;?

Zech. ix, 9.
Rejoice greatly, O daughter
of Zion ; shout, O daughter of
Jerusalem : behold, thy King
cometh unto thee : he is just,
and having salvation ; lowly, and
riding upon an ass, and upon a
colt the foal of an ass.

EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
There are various parts of the Old Testament which speak in
similar language of the Spirit applying to the soul the truth con
cerning the Messiah, and thus relieving its anxious cravings
after happiness. The prophets, in predicting under a former
economy the Saviour's advent and reign, alluded to the peace of
his true subjects — their abundant comfort — and the never-fail
ing spring of eternal life which should be in them, and abound.
From Messiah come all the blessings which satisfy the thirsty
souls of his people ; while the living streams of His grace, drawn
from the Living Fountain, flow forth from them again in fructi
fying plenty upon the barren world. They contribute not only
to their own comfort and edification, but to the true benefit of
others. Our Lord, therefore, may be supposed to allude, in ge
neral and metaphorical language, to such places as Isaiah Iv. 1 ;
Ivin. 11 ; xliv. 3 ; Joel u. 28, &c.
John viii. 17. — Here the general meaning is given, not the
words. John John

passage, xxi. 5.

vm.
X. 34. — This is obviously from the Seventy.
xii. 15 — This citation gives the sense of the original
but deviates widely from the Septuagint. See on Matth.

376 QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.
(80.) Is, hii. 1, John xii. 38.
Kvpte TI? iirlarevae rrj dKorj [[ "!''« d Xoyos 'Haa'iov rov
Yjfxwv', Kai o ^paxiwv Kvpiov rivi irpoiprjrov irXrjpwOrj, ov eiirev'Jl
direKaXvcpOrj ; KvjOte, Tt? iirlarevaev rrj dKorj
rjfxwv ', /cat o ^paxj-wv Kvplou
rivi aireKaXvtpOrj ',

(81,) Is, vi, 10.
'Eirax^vOrj ydp rj KapSla rov
Xaov TOVTOV, /cat Tot? waiv au-
rSiv ^apews '^KOvaav, Kai rovs
ocpOaXfxovs iKafXfxvaav, fxrjirore
'iSwai rois ocpOaXfxois, Kal rois
wal dKOvawai, Kal t/J KapSia
auvwai KOI iiriarpeMrwai, Kai
Idaofxai avrovs.
(82.) Ps. xl. 10.
'O iaOlwv dprovs fxov ifxeyd-
Xvvev eir ifxe irrepvtafxov.

John xii, 40.
[[E^Trec 'H(rai'a?'| TeTv(pXw-
Kev avrwv rovs ocpOaXfiovs, Kal
ireirwpwKev avrwv rrjv KapSlav,
'Iva fxi] 'iSwaiv rois dcpOaXfxois
Kal vorjawaiv rrj KapSla /cat
arpa(pwaiv Kal laaofxai avrovs.

John xiii. 18.
[['''Il^a rj ypacprj irXrjpwOri'\
O rpwywv fxer ifxov rov dp
rov, eirrjpev eir efxe rrjv irrep-
vav avrov.

(83.) Ps. cviii. 3. John xv. 25.
Kat iiroXifxrjadv fxe Swpedv. J*!"" irXrjpwOrj 6 Xo'yo? 6 iv
rip vofxw avrwv yey pafXfxevoS'\
on ifxlarjadv fxe Swpedv.

EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
John xii. 38  This is exactiy agreeable to the Septuagint,
which inserts xv^n, where there is no correspondent word in He
brew. John XU. 40. — This passage is quoted in other parts of the
New Testament, but not in the same way as here. It is not
easy to say whether the apostle followed the Septuagint or He
brew ; rather does he seem to have followed neither. His words
differ from both. They present the sense of the original passage
in a form somewhat abridged, but very energetic.
John xiu. 18. — This citation is from the Hebrew, rather than
the Septuagint.

QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.

377

Is. liii. 1.
yinti iOnyattt"? v^an *a
4nji'?ja *a -¦?;;; nim

Is. liii. 1.
Who hath believed our re
port ? and to whom is the arm
of the Lord revealed ?

Is. vi. 10.
X : X : ¦¦• - T T " ¦• : ~
nKm-^s ytt^n ri*yi n33n
'•)22b^ V^^\ '1''?'^^^ i''?'A!^
:i"? N3m 3!i^i i*3*

Is. vi. 10.
Make the heart of this people
fat, and make their ears heavy,
and shut their eyes ; lest they
see with their eyes, and hear
with their ears, and understand
with their heart, and convert,
and be healed.

Ps. xii, 10.
;3p,^ •'bj; b*'7Jn *anb "^six

Ps. xii. 9.
Mine own famiUar friend which
did eat of my bread, hath lifted
up his heel against me.

Ps. cix. 3. (Comp, Ps. xxxv. 19.)
jD-in *i')anV''')

Ps, cix. 3,
And fought against me with
out a cause.

EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
John XV. 25  It is difficult to determine whether this be from
Psalm cviii. 3, where we find iiroXifxrigdv fxi bu^idv ; or from Psalm
xxxiv. 19, where we have ol fiigovvrig fxi hoigidv; or from Psalm
bcvui. 4, where the same words occur. Surenhusius regards the
citation as made up of the two last passages. Doepke refers it
to Psalm xxxiv. 19 ; Knapp to Psalm Ixviii. 4. It matters Uttle
whether it be referred to either or to both. Perhaps it is better
to look for the original in Psalm cviii. 3. 3 B

378 QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW,
(84.) Ps, xxi, 19. John xix. 24.
Aiefxeplaavro rd Ifxdrid fxov V'lva fj ypacpr/ irXr/pwO^'J
eavrois, Kai eiri rov ifxanafxov Aiefxeplaavro rd Ifxarid fxov
fxov 'e^aXov KXrjpov. eavrois, /cat eTrt rov Ifxariafxov
fxov 'e/3aXov KXrjpov.
(85.) Ex. xii. 46, John xix, 36.
Kat oarouv ov avvrpl-^ere ^"Iva rj ypaiprj irXrjpwO^-\ 'Ocr-
dir avrov. rovv ov avvrpi^fjaerai avrov.
(86.) Zech. xii. 10. John xix. 37.
Kat iiri/SXey^ovrai irpos fxe, |'ETe'jOa ypacprj Xeyef\ "O-
dvO' (Sv Karwpxfjaavro- -^ovrai els ov i^eKevrrjaav.
(87.) Ps. Ixviii. 26, Acts i. 20,
Vevi^Oijrw fj eiravXis avrwv [[re'^jOaTrTai "yajO iv ^IfSXtp
fjprjfxwfxevrj, Kal iv rois aKrjvw- '<\raXfxiov''^ VevrjOfjTW fj eirav.
fxaaiv avrS>v fxrj 'earw d Karoi- Xis avrov eprjfios, Kal fxij 'earw
Kwv. 0 KaroiKwv ev avrrj-
(88,) Ps, cviii. 8, Acts i, 20,
Kat rijv iiriaKOirrjv avrov [[Kat*]] Trjv iiriaKOirrjv av-
Xa/3ot 'erepos. rov Xa/Bero 'erepos.
EXPLANATORY REMARKS,
John xix. 24  This is exactly from the Septuagint, which
translates the Hebrew literally.
John xix. 36  This is from Exodus xii. 46, or from Num
bers ix. 12, both of which refer to the same thing. The words
agree more nearly with the latter. Others, with less probability,
refer the passage to Psalm xxxiii. 21. So Dr. H. Owen. If
Exodus xii. 46 be the original, the apostle follows the Hebrew
more closely than the Septuagint.
John xix. 37  It is certain that the citation before us was not
taken from the Greek, because the difference is marked. It ex
actly agrees with the Hebrew, except that it has the third person
instead of the first (upon him, instead of upofi me.) Some have
supposed, therefore, that the original reading of the Hebrew text
was V^N not "'ba, especially as a number of MSS. actually ex
hibit the former. Hence Newcome, in his translation of Zech
ariah, adopting "vpa, reads him. So also Owen and others. But
we are inclined to regard the present reading as correct ; espe-
peciaUy since Aquila and Theodotion agree with it. Besides,

QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW. 379
Ps. xxii. 19, Ps. xxii. 18.
'^yi Dn"? *^J1 Ip^m They part my garments a-
, ^ ' , ¦ ¦ , mong them, and cast lots upon
: ''ni:! i^s* p^2b ^y ^^.ture.

Ex, xii, 46. Ex, xii, 46,
! i3 " in3l£^n " ab DiSyi Neither shall ye break a bone
¦ • ¦ '¦ thereof.
Zech. xii. JO. Zech. xii, 10.
inpT -Iiy« na "ba 1ia*3m And they shaU look upon me
'^^'^ ¦•¦ "¦ "" ' '¦ whom they have pierced.
Ps. Ixix, 26. Ps. Ixix, 25.
OmbinKn rTBti Dm*:3-*n,n Let their habitation be deso
late; and let none dwell in their
tents.

in^y* "rf-ba

Ps. cix. 8, Ps, cix, 8,
; nnx njp* iJinpQ Let another take his office.
EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
there is no discrepancy between the use of the first and third
persons in the present case, if we attend to the speaker. In the
prophet, the Messiah himself speaks ; whereas the apostle speaks
of him. It is not easy to make sense of the Septuagint render
ing. The literal meaning of it is, " they shall look at me, in
stead of the things concerning which (or against which) they
have contemptuously danced (or rejoiced.)" Dopke conjectures
that the translator reads T^p") instead of ^1p'l.
The apostle John, in his quotations, differs considerably from
the other evangelists. He has fewer passages ; and such as are
usually different from those found in the rest. Had he used
the so-called Urevangelium or Protevangelium of his time, in
which the texts of the Hebrew original and the Septuagint ver
sion had been already blended together, as Credner assumes of
him and Matthew, the citations of both must have resembled one
another, whereas they are not a little unlike. (See Credner's
Beitrage zur Einleitung in das Neue Testament, p. 312 et seq.)
Acts i. 20. — This passage, as here exhibited, accords more

380

QUOTATIONS PROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW,

(89.) Joel ii. 28, &c.
Kat earai fxera ravra, Kal
iKX^i^ dird rov irvevfiaros fxov
iirl irdaav aapKa, Kal irpocprj-
revaovaiv ol viol vfxwv, /cat al
Ovyarepes vfxwv, Kal ol irpea-
^vrepoi vfxwv ivvirvia ivvirviaa-
O^aovrai, Kai ot veaviaKoi vfxwv
dpaaeis '6-<\rovTat. Kal iirl rovs
SovXovs fxov /cat iirl rds SovXas
ev rats fjfxepais iKeivais iKX^io
airo TOV irveufxaros fiov. Kal
Swaw ripara iv ovpavw, /cat
cTTt TJ?? y'rjs aifxa Kal irvp Kal
arfxlSa Kairvov. d rjXios fxe-
raarpaipfjaerai els aKoros, Kal
tj aeXfjvrj ets aifxa, irpiv eXOeiv
rrjv fjfxepav Kvptov rfjv fxeyaXrjv,
Kai eiricpavrj. Kai 'eajai irds,
OS av iiriKaXearjrai to 'ovofxa
Kvpiov, awOfjaerai-

ITd

(90.) Ps, XV, 8, &c.
llpowpwfxrjv rov Kvptov ivw
iriov fxov Siairavrds, on iK Se-
^iwv fxov iarlv iva fxfj aaXevOw.
Std rovro fjvappdvOrj fj KapSla

Acts ii, 17, &c.
.0 elprjfxevov Sid rov irpo'
(pfjTOv 'IcoiJX']] Kat 'earai ev
rais iaxdrais fjfxepats, Xeyei
6 Oeds, eKxew dird rov irvevfxa-
ros fxov iirl irdaav aapKa, /cat
irpocprjrevaovaiv ol viol vfxwv
Kal al Ovyarepes vfxwv, /cat oi
veaviaKOi vfxwv dpaaeis 'o-^ov-
rai, Kal oi irpea^urepoi vfxwv
ivvirvlois ivvirviaaOfjaovrai- Kal
ye iirl rovs SovXovs fxov Kal iirl
rds SovXas fxov iv rais fjfxepais
iKelvais e/c^ew dird rod irvevfxa-
Tos fxov, Kal irpoaprjrevaovaiv.
Kat Swaw repara iv rip ovpavw
ai/co, Kal arjfxeia iirl rrjs yrjs
Karw, atfxa Kal irvp Kal drfxlSa
Kairvov. d rjXios fxeraarpa-
(pfjaerai els aKoros, /cat fj ae
Xfjvrj ets aifia, irpiv eXOeiv rrjv
tjfxepav Kvpiov rrjv fxeyaXrjv Kai
iirKpavrj. Kal 'earai, irds os
dv iiriKoXearjTai rd 'ovofxa Kv
ptov awO^aerai. Acts ii. 25, &c.
[[Aauet^ ydp Xeyei et? av-
rovj YIpoopwfxrjv rov Kvpiov
ivwiriov fxou Std iravros' on e/c
Se^iwv fxov iarlv, Iva fxrj aaXev-

EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
nearly with the Hebrew than the Septuagint, although that ver
sion has given the sense correctly. Luke differs from both in
applying to an individual what is expressed in the plural. The
last clause is from the Seventy (Psabn cviU. 8), who agree with
the Hebrew.
Acts n. 17, &c  In this long citation, there are few de
viations from the words of the Septuagint, and those unim
portant. The Greek version is an exact translation of the He-

QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.

381

Joel iii. 1, &c.
-na 'T]i3l^^4 i3"*nn>* mm
')^<331 -)rt!3. -b:i-b)f *m-i
c : ¦ : T X X "
nia^n D3*;.pt D3*rib3i D3*j3
nirtn D3*')in3 ^la'pm
- bvj] D*"J5yn - b)^ DJ") : ixn^
nann a*a*3 nin3t£rn
X •• X -T - T ; ~
*r)J^3'l pmn-nj* "^iBi^J^
on vni^ni D*attfn D*n3ia
X ' V X X . - X ~ • ;
tt^aiyn : iir^y ninam m)
o'j'? ^X^?'! '^^'n'? if3m
^injin mn* oi* Ni3 *J3'?
T - X ; " ; *
Knp*-ntt;i< ^3 mm jxni-im
ta^a* nim Dii?3

Joel ii. 28, &c.
And it shall come to pass af
terward, that I will pour out my
spirit upon all flesh ; and your
sons and your daughters shall
prophesy, your old men shall
dream dreams, your young men
shall see visions : And also upon
the servants and upon the hand
maids in those days will I pour
out my spirit. And I will shew
wonders in the heavens and in
the earth, blood, and fire, and
pillars of smoke. The sun shall
be turned into darkness, and the
moon into blood, before the great
and the terrible day of the Lord
come. And it shall come to pass,
that whosoever shall call on the
name of the Lord shall be de
livered.

Ps. xvi. 8, &c.
n*an *'7Jj'7 mn* *Ji*it^
• X ¦;*-'; X ; . • .
13^ : raiax - b3. *J*a*a

Ps. xvi, 8, &c,
I have set the Lord always
before me : because he is at my
right hand, I shall not be mov-

, EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
brew, and the departures of the evangelist from the Septuagint,
are therefore departures from the Hebrew "also. For the fxiTd
raura of the Septuagint, Luke has iv Tatg igyuraig rjfiA^aig. In
the latter part of the 17th verse the order is reversed. At the
conclusion of the 18th verse, xai fr^ofrinvgougiv is added. For iv
ovgavip of the Septuagint, Luke has iv np ovgavw dvoi. For xai
'ivl Trig yrjg (Septuagint), Luke has xai grifxita inrl rrtg y^g xdrcii.
Acts ii. 25-28  This agrees verbatim with the Septuagint. -

382

QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.

fxov, Kal ijyaXXiaaaro fj yXwa-
ad fxov, en Se Kal fj aap^ fxov
KaraaKrjvwaei iir iXiriSi- on
OVK iyKaraXel-^ets rijv -^vxi^v
fxov et? aorjv, ovoe owaeis rov
oatov aoviSeiv StacpOopav. iy
vwpiaas fxoi dSovS ywrjs, irXrj.
pwaeis fxe evCppoavvrjS fxera rov
irpoawirov aov-

(91,) Ps, cix. 1.
Eiirev 0 Kvpios rip Kvplw fxov,
KaOov iK Se^iwv fxov, 'ews dv Ow
rovs ixOpovs aov viroiroSiov
TtSv iroSwv aov.
(92,) Deut, xviii. 15, 19,
TIpoipT^rrjv iK rSiv aSeXcpwv
aov, ws efxe, avaarijaei aoi Kv
pios d Oeos aov avrov aKOvaea.
Oe.  Kat 6 dvOpwiros os idv
fxrj dKOvarj oaa av XaXfjarj o
irpocpfjrrjs e/ceti/o? eTTt Tfti ovo.
fxarl fxov, iyw iKSiK^aw it, av
rov.

Oih. Sid TOVTO rjvippavOt] fi
KapSla fxov Kal ^yaXXtaaaro
fj yXwaad fxov, en Se Kal fj
adp^ fxov KaraaKrjvwaei iir eX-
irlSt, on ovK eyKaraXeiy^eis rr;v
¦^VXV>' f^ov et? "A.iSr]v ovSe Sw-
aeis rov oaiov aov iSeiv Sia(p-
Oopdv. iyvwpiads fxoi dSovS
"Cwfjs, irXrjpwaeis fxe evcppoavvrjs
fxerd rov irpoawirov aov.
Acts ii, 34, 35.
[[Aai/et5 Xe'iyei.! Eiirev d kv-
pios TW Kvplw fXOV- l^aOov e/c
Se^itav fxov 'ews dv Ow rovs e^-
Opous aov ViroiroSiov rwv iroSwv
aov. Acts iii. 22, 23.
([MftJucT^? fxev e?irev-^ on
irpocpijrrjv vfxiv dvaarfjaei kv-
pios d Oeos vfiwv iK riav dSeX-
(pwv vfxwv, ws efxe' avrov aKOv-
aeaOe Kara irdvra baa av
XaX^ar] irpds vfids. earai Se,
irdaa '^vxh hris av fxrj aKovarj
TOV irpodifjTOV eKelvov, e^oXe-
OpevO^aerai e'/c rov Xaov.

(93.) Gen. xxii, 18. Acts iii. 25,
Kat ivevXoyrjOfjaovrai iv rip [[Ae'ytoj' irpds ' A^paafX'^
airepfxarl aov irdvra ra 'eOvrj Kat ev rw airepfxan aov eveu-
rijs yrjS' XoyrjOfjaovrai irdaai ai ira-
rpiai rijs yrjs.

EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
Acts U. 34, 35  See Matthew xxii. 44.
Acts iii. 22, 23. — The first part of this citation seems to be
taken from the Greek version, though not verbatim. Instead
of goi, Luke has u/iTv — a change necessary in the circumstances
in which the words were spoken by Peter. So also ufiZv for gou.
The words xard irdvra offa dv XaXrig-fi irgog 'ufxdg, are neither in the
Hebrew nor the Seventy. It is probable that the historian or

QUOTATIONS PROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.

383

-f]a *ni33 bv'-) "2.b
-iib *3 :nan'? f3ii>*
inri-N"? "^iKtt?^ *t:'3J
~ IX ; -
V2\if D**!! D-\a *^y*'7i;^

nato
*-i^:i
ityn

^*33-m mnato fulness of joy.

ed. Therefore my heart is glad,
and my glory rejoiceth : my
flesh also shall rest in hope. For
thou wilt not leave my soul in
hell; neither wilt thou suffer
thine Holy One to see corrup
tion. Thou wilt shew me the
path of Ufe : in thy presence is

Ps. ex. 1,
*3*a*b 3itf ":nab nin* Di*3
n"\i:a - ny

Din

T^-^

: T^^-"?

Deut. xviii. 15, 19.
*ja3 "^*nKa '^3npa N*3i
v^i< Tj*)-!"?}* nin* "^b D*p*
— : y\i?apr}
yr2U;"-ii:b -\\ija ^"an n*m
-" : • V -; • X T X .
"m2 iT!"_ ii^a "lyi'^a
:iaya u}iia *3iJ*

Gen. xxii. 18.

**i3 ^3 'Tl

!)3")3nni

vian
' .ATX

Ps. ex. 1.
The Lord said unto my Lord,
Sit thou at my right hand, un
til I make thine enemies thy
footstool. Deut. xviii. 15, 19.
The Lord thy God will raise
up unto thee a Prophet from the
midst of thee, of thy brethren,
like unto me; unto him ye shall
hearken. And it shall come to
pass, that whosoevfer shall not
hearken unto my words which
he shall speak in my name, I
will require it oi him.
Gen. xxii. 18.
And in thy seed shall all the
nations of the earth be blessed.

EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
apostle took the first words of Deuteronomy xviu. 16, viz. ^cara
irdvTa 'oga, and connected them with '6ga dv XaXrjgri in the middle
of the 19th verse of Deuteronomy xviii,, and then added ir^hg
ufxdg. In the citation of the 19th verse, Luke wholly departs
from the Greek, nor does he adhere to the Hebrew. He has
given the meaning in an abbreviated form.
Acts iii. 25. — "This accords with the Septuagint.

384

QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.

(94) Ps. cxvii. 22, 23.
A.IO0V ov direSoKifxaaav ol
oiKoSofxovvres, ovros eyevijOrj
els KecpaXrjv ywvias. irapd Kv
plov iyevero avrrj, /cat eiXTt Oav-
fxaartj ev d<pOaXfxois fjfxwv.
(95.) Ps. ii. 1, 2.
'Ivarl icppva^av eOvrj, Kal
Xaol ifxeXerrjaav Keva ', irapia-
Trjaav ol ^aaiXeis rrjs yrjs, Kai
' ov dpxovres avvfj-xOrjaav eiriro-
avrd Kara rov Kvplov, Kai Ka-
rd TOV Xpiarov avrov-

(96.) Gen. xii. 1 .
"E^eX0e e/c rijs yrjS aov, Kal
iK rrjs avyyeveias aov, Kai e/c
TOU o'Ikov tov irarpos aov Kal
Sevpo ets rrjv yrjv, ijv dv aoi
Sel^fni. (97.) Gen. xv. 13, 14.
TldpoiKOv earai ro airepfxa
aov iv yrj OVK iSla- Kal SovXw-
aovaiv avrovs, Kai KaKwaovaiv
avrovs, Kai raireivwaovaiv av
rovs rerpaKoata err], rd Se
eOvos, w dv SovXevawai, Kpivw
iyw- fxerd Se ravra, i^eXevaov-
rai SSe fxera airoaKevrjs iroX-
Xfjs.

Acts iv. 11.
OuTO? eanv 6 XlOos 6 e^ov-
OevijOels v(p^ vfxwv rwv .01K0S6-
fxwv, d yevofxevos els KecpdXrjv
ywvlas.

Acts iv. 25, 26.
I'O TOV irarpdsfjfxwvSla irvev.
fxaros dylov arofxaros AavelS
iraiSos aov et'7rcoi''| "Iva rl i<pm
pva^av eOvtj Kal Xaol ifieXerrj-
aav Keva ', irapeartjaav ol /3a.
aiXeis rrjs yrjs, /cat ot dpxovres
avv^X^I'^^v eTTt TO avro Kara
rod Kvplov Kal Kara rov Xoto--
rov avrov. Acts vii. 3.
[[Kat eiirev irpds avrov-J "E^-
eXOe e/c t^? "y^? aov Kai [«]
T^? avyyeveias aov, Kal Sevpo
eis rrjv yrjv 'rjv dv aoi Sel^w.
Acts vii. 6, 7.
I'EXcJXjjcrei' ^e ovrws 6 0eo'?'|
OTt earai ro airepfxa avrov
irdpoiKov iv yrj dXXorpia, Kal
SovXwaovaiv avro Kal KaKwaov
aiv errj rerpaKoaia. Kal rd
eOvos Si dv SovXevawaiv Kpivw
iyw, d Oeds eiirev, Kal fxerd rav
ra i^eXevaovrai, /cat Xarpev.
aovaiv fxoi iv rw roirw rovrw.

EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
Acts iv. 11. — See Matthew xxi. 42.
Acts iv. 25, 26  This agrees UteraUy with the Seventy, who
again translate the Hebrew closely.
Acts vii. 3. — This is according to the Septuagint, omitting
the clause xai ix tov o'Ixou tov vrar^og gou.
Acts vu. 6, 7. — This citation appears to be derivedirom the

QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW. 385

r\n"ii T:|x

Ps. cxviii. 22, 23.
D*ii3n TO>*a

m

nn"n nim r\aQ tras \L^a-)b
x; IX X ; •¦ '• T • :
',M"i'>r3. ptabzi a"n ria-f

Ps. ii. 1, 2.
D*i3 !)i:^n

D*ah>'?i-'^ba !)3!s:r)*
-^y nm-noij

na^
T T
: P*n"iiim
D*Jti"i') ' f^a

:imtt>a-'?yi nim

Ps. cxviii. 22, 23.
The Stone which the build-
ere refused, is become the head
stone of the corner. This is the
Lord's doing; it is marvellous
in our eyes. Ps. ii. 1,2.
Why do the heathen rage, and
the people imagine a vain thing?
The kings of the earth set them
selves, and the rulers take coun
sel together, against the Lord,
and against his anointed.

Gen. xii. 1.
V -; • •.* X X ..* ' . X .. •

Gen. xii. 1.
Get thee out of thy country,
and from thy kindred, and from
thy father's house, unto a land
that I wiU shew thee.

Gen. XV. 13, 14.
ona W) onayi nnb ab
T ¦ ; T-;- V X
-na DJ1 :nJtt> rhao V3.ia
X : T X •• ,- : -
*3J» n I'i^^'' "itt'J* *i3n
¦ X ' X q ¦=:-
X \ : • c ; " ' ¦¦ " -I -:

Gen. XV. 13, 14.
Know of a surety, that thy
seed shall be a stranger in a land
that is not theirs, and shall serve
them; and they shall aflSict them
four hundred years. And also that
nation whom they shall serve,
will I judge: and afterward shall
they come out with great sub
stance.

EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
Greek. There are, however, deviations from that version. Thus,
yfl OVX Ihicc Septuagint ; dXXoTgia, Luke ; aurovg Septuagint ; a'urh,
Luke ; xai rairuvuigougiv auToug riT^axogia 'irri Septuagint ; xai xaxu-
gdvgiv 'iTri TiT^axogia, Luke. The clause Sihi fxird dirogxiurjg iroXX^g
is omitted by Luke, but instead of it he has, xai Xar^iugovgi fxoi h
tSi Tonriii TouTui. 3 c

386 QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.
(98.) Ex. ii. 13, 14. Acts vii. 26, &c.
'E^eXOwv Se r^ fff-epa r^ l[Tp Te eTTtovo-jj fifxepa wcpOrj
Sevrepa,dpaSvo dvSpas'E^pal- avrois fxaxofxevots, Kal avv^X-
ou? AaTrX>;/CTt^O/(*eVoi'?' /cat Xe- Xaaaev avrovs els eip^vrjv, et-
yei rip dSiKovvri, Sid rl au irwv-'i "A.vSpes, dSeX(pol iare-
rvirreis rov irXrjalov ', 6 Se eiire, 'Iva rl dSiKeire aXXiJXov? ; TO
rls ae Karearrjaev dpxovra Kal Se dSiKwv rov irXrjalov dird-
SiKaarrjv icp' fjfxwv ', fxrj dveXeiv aaro avrov, etVcoyl Tt'? ere Ka-
fxe av OeXeis, ov rpoirov dveiXes rearrjaev apxovra /cat SiKaa-
X^es rov Alyvirrtov ', rrjv icp' fjfxihv ', fxrj dveXeiv fxe
av OeXeis 'ov rpoirov dvelXes
ixOes rov Aiyvirrtov ',
(99.) Ex. iii. 6. Acts vii. 32.
'E'ya! eifxi d Oeds rod irarpos ^Eyevero cpwvrj Kvplov-1 'E.
aov, Oeos 'A.^paafXf Kal Oeos "ya) 6 Oeos rwv irarepwv aov, d
'laadK, Kal Oeds ^laKWjS' Oeds 'A^padfx Kal Itraa/c /cat
'Ia/cto/3.
(100.) Ex. iii, 5, 7, 8, 10. Acts vii. 33, 34.
'O ^e er7re,^Ai/o-at to viro- TEiirev Se avrw d Kvpios-1
Srjfxa iK rwv iroSHov aov o yap A.vaov ro viroSrjfxa rwv iroSwv
roiros, ev w av earr/Kas, yrj a- aov o yap roiros ed) w eartj-
"yta eo-Tt. — Idwv etoov rrjv Ka- tea? yrj ayia eartv. lowv eioov
Kwaiv TOV Xaov fxov rov iv At- rijv KaKwaiv rod Xaov fxov rod
yvirrip, Kal rrjs Kpavyijs avrSiv iv Alyvirrw, /cat toi; arevay-
aKrjKoa, — Kal Kare^rjv e^eXea- fxov avrov ijKOvaa, /cot Kare^rjv
Oai avrovs' — Kal vvv Sevpo, i^eXeaOai avrovS' Kal vvv Sev-
diroarelXw ae irpos ^apaw po airoareiXw ae els A'lyvir-
/BaaiXea Alyvirrov. rov.
(101,) Ex. ii. 14. Acts vii. 35.
Tt'? ae Karearrjaev dpxovra Tls ae Karearrjaev apxovra
Kal SiKaarrjv i<p' fjfxwv ', Kal SiKaanjv ',
EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
Acts vii. 26, 27, 28 — The 26th verse is a paraphrase rather
than a quotation ; the 27th and 28th agree verbatim with the
Seventy. Acts vu. 32 — A quotation from the Septuagint. The sub
stantive verb iifii is omitted ; tov -ffaT^lg is changed into tuv ira/i-
^m, and kog is not repeated before the last two names.

QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.

387

Ex. ii. 13, 14.
~"ip rani *it^i7 Di»5 Kij'i
laai D*s3 a*"!3y a"tia
:"?iy-i n3n na"? ytyn^
ft" •• ¦-• - X XXT
-)p tt>*N^ Tjajy *a -laN"!
nr\a "^yinbn ^^"bj? to3t^
*')2{an'"nj< njnn -itfX3 ¦nai*

Ex, ii, 13, 14.
And when he went out the
second, day, behold two men of
the Hebrews strove together :
and he said to him that did the
wrong, Wherefore smitest thou
thy fellow? And he said, Who
made thee a prince and a judge
over us ? intendest thou to kill
me, as thou killedst the Egyp
tian?

Ex. iii. 6.
"?l*3^* "r^ba "2ia ¦^a^i*1
I ¦ X .. •.¦; .X ... -
pm" "rba D^•^3^* "ji^a
2py" "Piba)
7.-;-
Ex. iii, 6, 7, 8, 10.
Tl'Vjn b^D "^"b^^-bp -)om
naiy nm im oipan *3
n>4") :i<in i:^-Tp-nanx v^y
X v' ~ ; - X T
'ni:^}* "m *Jj'"n>* *n*Nn
"r\)?Qw anpif^ - riKi D*"i2ja2
¦: - T r'x-:- ..•: -at : • :
n3'7 n.ry^i '\b">iib tini
X ; T ~ ; • " : •• "X
rtyn3-^N ?rn'?i:>xi
Ex. ii. 14.
Z33W1 niy tt>*N'? Tjato *a

Ex. iii, 6.
Moreover he said, I am the
God of thy father, the God of
Abraham, the God of Isaac, and
the God of Jacob.
Ex. iii. 5, 7, 8, 10.
And he said. Put off thy shoes
from off thy feet, for the place
whereon thou standest is holy
ground. I have surely seen the
affliction of my people which
are in Egypt, and have heard
their cry. And I am come down
to deliver them. Come now
therefore, I will send thee unto
Pharaoh. Ex. ii. 14.
Who made thee a prince and
a judge over us ?

EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
Acts VU. 33, 34. — The 33d verse agrees exactly with the Se
venty, except in the unimportant omission of ix and gv, and the
change of Iv into Iw/. The 34th verse is also derived from the
same source, with a few trifling deviations, such as, tou gnvayfxov
for r?s x^avy'r\g ; and ijxoutfa for axrixoa.
Acts vii. 35  See vii 27, 28.

388

QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW,

(102.) Deut. xviii. 15. Acts vii. 37.
Upocp^rrjv e/c rwv dSeXcpSiv Tlpocp^rrjv vfxiv dvaarfjaei o
aov, w? ei«e, ai/a(7T)?iTet aoi kv- Oeds e'/c rwv dSeXcpwv vfxwv ws
|0io? 6 Oeos aov ifxi.
(103.) Ex. xxxii. 1. Acts vii. 40.
Tlolrjaov fjfxiv Oeovs, oi irpo- Tloitjaov fjfxiv Oeovs o^i irpo.
iropevaovrai fjfxwv- d ydp Mwi/- iropevaovrai fjfxihv- d ydp Mojir-
arjs ovros d dvOpwiros os i^fj. arjs ovros, os e^fjyayev fjfxds e/c
'yw'yei' fjfxdt iK yrjs Aiyvirrov, yrjs Aiyvirrov, ovk o'lSafxev rl
OVK o'lSafxev rl yeyovev avrw. iyevero avrip.

(104.) Amos V. 25, &c.
M^ atpdyia Kal Ovalas irpo-
atjveyKare fxoi oikos 'lapaijX
TeaaapaKOvra errj ev rrj ipfjfxw ;
/cat dveXd^ere rfjv aKtjvrjv rod
MoXo^, Kal rd darpov rod
Oeov vfxwv 'Faicpdv, rovs rvirovs
avrwv ovs eiroirjaare eavrois'
Kal fxeroiKtS) vfxds iireKeiva Aa.
fxaaKov

Acts vii. 42, 43.
[[Ka0w? yey pairrai iv ^i^Xip
tSiv irpoiprjriilivj M^ acpdyia
Kal Ovalas irpoatjveyKare fxoi
'errj reaaapaKovra iv r^ epfj-
fxw, OIKOS ^lapafjX, /cat dveXa-
jSere rrjv aKrjvrjv rod MoXo^
Kal TO darpov rod Oeov 'Peipdv,
TOVS rvirovs ob? iiroifjaare irpo-
aKvveiv avrois ', /cat fxeroiKiiii v-
fxds eireneiva Ba^uXwi/o?.

(105,) Is. Ixvi. 1, 2.
O'vrws Xeyei Kvpios- d ov-
pavos fxov Opovos, Kal fj yrj v-
iroiroSiov rwv iroSwv fxov iroiov
oIkov oiKoSofifjaeTe fxoi ', /cat
iroios roiros r^s Karairavaetis
fxov ; iravra ydp ravra iiroi
tjaev fj x^'^P MOf

Acts vii. 49, 50.
ro irpo<pfjrrjS Xe^efl 'O ov-
pavos fxoi Opovos, fj Se yrj viro
iroSiov rwv iroSwv fxov- iroiov
oTkov oiKoSofxfjaere fxoi (Xe'yei
Kvpios), tj rls roiros rrjs Kara-
iravaews fiov ; ovxj. fj xelp fxou
iiroitjaev irdvra ravra ;

EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
Acts vii. 37. — This has been already mentioned. See iu. 22.
Acts vii. 40. — This is taken from the Seventy, with whom it
very nearly accords.
Acts vii. 42, 43. — This is taken from the Septuagint, with
some alteration and addition.

QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.

389

Deut. xviii. 16.
"^3 "^*nNa '?[3npa n*3j

Deut. xviii. 15.
The Lord thy God will raise
up unto thee a Prophet from the
"^"ipa nim '^b D*p* midst of thee, of thy brethren,
Uke unto me.

Ex. xxxii. 1.
o"?* niJ^K D*il'?« •li^-niyy
TD"ari n^Q nT-*3 !)i*33'7
Nb vrm jjnxa ijbyn -iir^N
ti"? mn-na ^iin"
X X ... ; -X
Amos V. 25, &c.
*b-Dritt?an nmai D*n3-tn
n"2. n^it) a"y2.ia nman
jn-')3p nx Drixtyj!) '.bai'iD\
?3*a^^ )i*3 nxi D33^a
an"\ij:^_ i^a ayrha 33i3
nx'^na a^m "nb:\rr) d?"?
piyan"? ' •••AT- :

Ex. xxxii. 1.
Make us gods, which shall go
before us : for as for this Moses,
the man that brought us up out
of the land of Egypt, we wot
not what is become of him.
Amos V. 25, &c.
Have ye offered unto me sa
crifices and offerings in the wil
derness forty years, O house of
Israel ? But ye have borne the
tabernacle of your Moloch and
Chiun your images, the star of
your god, which ye made to
yourselves. Therefore wUl I
cause you to go into captivity
beyond Damascus.

Is. Ixvi. 1 , 2.
,-i3 Thus saith the Lord, The
,j.__ heaven is my throne, and the
¦ •¦ ¦ earth is my footstool : where is
•^.t " ""^ the house that ye build unto
-n^*1 ' : *jnnija Dipa nt-*N'i '^^^ ^""t "t^'^i' ?^ P^f ^ °^
•: • T : ' ¦' ¦.•••: my rest ? If OT all those things
nri^y *m n^N-'?3 hath mine hand made.

Is. Ixvi. 1, 2.
D*attrn rfin* -lax
- — T - X ; - X
*^j'i dnn Y-)^4m
AX : - -; ' ... X T :
'¦^-unn itt^i* n"2

EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
Acts vii. 49, 50. This citation is also made from the Septua
gint, with a few trifling deviations, such as ij yrj, Septuagint ; jj
h'l y'r\, Luke ; irotog, Septuagint ; Tig, Luke ; iravra ydg TOVTa iiroir\-
giv r\ •yii^ fXou, Septuagint ; ou-)(l fi ^iig fxou iirolrjgiv irdvra ravra, Luke.

390

QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.

(106.) Is. liii. 7, 8.
'O? irpo^arov iiri acpayrjv
'ijX^lf Kal <!)? dfxvds evavrlov rod
Kelpovros dcpwvos, ovrws ovk d-
voiyet ro arofxa. ev rrj ra
iretvwaei fj Kplats avrov 'fjpOrj-
rrjv yeveav avrod rls Siriyfjae-
rai ; on a'lperai dird rrjs yrjs
fj Xwtj avTOv-

(107.) 1 Kings xiii. 14; Ps.lxxxviii.21.
TirjT^aet Kvptos eavrw dvOpw-
irov Kara rrjv KapSlav avrod- —
Evpov AavlS rov SodXov fxov,
iv eXeet dyiw e'xptaa avrov.

Acts viii. 32, 33.
I'H Se irepioxv rrjs ypacpijs,
^v aveylvwaKev, ^v avrrj-"^ '0?
irpo/Sarov eirl acpayrjv '^X^l'
Kal ws dfxvds evavrlov rod Kel
povros avrov dcpwvos, ovrws
OVK avolyei ro arofxa avrov. iv
rrj rairetvwaei fj Kpiais avrod
tjpOrj- rrjv yevedv avrov rls Siij-
yijaerai ', on a'lperai airo rrjs
yrjs fj Xwij avrod.
Acts xiii, 82.
[[E?'7rei' ,aa|OTi'|0>J(ra?'| EZpov
AavelS rov rod 'leaaai, dvSpa
Kara rrjv KapSlav fxov, os irotfj-
aei iravra ra OeXijfxara fxov.

(108,) Ps, ii. 7. Acts xiii. 33.
Yto? fxov ei au, iyw a^fxepov [['i2? /cat iv rip ¦<]raXfxw yeypair.
yeyevvrjKa ae. rat rw irpwr(p-% Yios fxov ei
av, iyw arjfxepov yeyevvrjKa ae.
EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
Acts viii. 32, 33  Here we have a quotation which follows
the words of the Septuagint very closely. The departure from
the Hebrew is considerable ; and it has been affirmed, that the
New Testament writer does not give the sense of the original
words. Among the multitudinous interpretations of the Hebrew
words, that given by Dr. Henderson is the best. " Without re
straint and without a sentence he was taken away," i. e. he had
not even the benefit of a formal trial, in which his innocence
might have appeared ; neither was there the semblance of a fair
hearing of his case before a judge and his accusers. On the con
trary, Pilate offered no restraint to the violent procedure of the
Jews ; nor did he pronounce a legal sentence upon the Saviour,
but simply delivered him up to them to be treated as they pleased.
In conformity with this interpretation, is the rendering of the
Septuagint version, which Luke follows. " In humiliation his
judgment was taken away," i. e. in the midst of oppressive treat
ment, he was deprived of a fair trial — his right was taken away
— no equity was shown him. That x^lgig has this signification

QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.

391

Is. liii. 7, 8.
•• T : X V ~
nns* ab'i na"?X3
ripj iast:>aai i^yo
^ 'x .., X : . ¦ ... " ..
np3 *3 nnito* *a iniTn^i

Is. liii. 7, 8.
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 shaU de
clare his generation ? for he was
D**n '^'laa cut off out of the land of the
Uving.

nty3
mtb ":Bb 1*3

1 Sam. xiii. 14 ; Ps. Ixxxix. 21.
i3n'73 ^"a i"? nin* v:;p2.

v^p.^

1--^^

i-n *nx2ja —
• T XTC

: mmq

'py.

Ps.

ii. 7.

: ?*jmb^
' Di"n
*jj< njia
*n
1 Sam. xiii. 14 ; Ps. IxxxLx. 20.
The Lord hath sought him a
man after his own heart. — I
have found David my servant ;
with my holy oil have I anoint
ed him. Ps. ii. 7.
Thou art my Son, this day
have I begotten thee.
EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
may be proved from Matthew xxiu. 23 ; Luke xi. 42. tOBIi^a
has the same meaning : see Deut. xxxii. 4 ; Gen. xviu. 25 ; Jer.
xxii. 15. Thus the sense of the Hebrew and the Greek is the
same, although the words do not correspond. The next clause
is, " who shall describe his generation," which means, " who
shall declare the extent of wickedness which his contemporaries
exhibited in their conduct towards him."
Acts xui. 22. — This passage presents a singular compound of
several places in the Old Testament. It is derived from 1 Kings
xiu. 14, and Psalm Ixxxviii. 20, of which it gives the general
sense. Acts xiu. 33. — This is an exact quotation from the Seventy,
who agree with the Hebrew. Paul states, that the words belong
to the frst Psalm, whereas they now appear in the second. It
is probable, that what is at present the first Psalm, was regarded
only as an introduction to the entire collection, and not counted ;
or, the second may have been closely joined with the first, with
out a title, as is asserted by the Rabbins. (Berachoth, fol. 9,
col. 2; fol. 10, col. 1.)
392

QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.

(109.) Is. Iv. 3.
Kat SiaO^aofxai vfxiv SiaO^-
Ktjv aiwviov, ra oaia AavlS rd

Acts xiii. 34.
lOuTW? eiprjKev^ on Swaw
vfxiv rd oaia Aaveio rd irtard.

(110.) Ps. XV. 10.
voe owaeis rov oaiov aov
ISeiv SiacpOopdv.
(111.) Hab. i;5.
' I^eTc 01 Karacppovrjral, Kal
iiri/SXeylrare, Kal Oavfxdaare
Oavfxaaia, Kal dcpavlaOtjre- Sto-
n k'pyov iyw ipyd'Cpfxai ev rais
fjfxepais vfxSiv, o ov fxrj iriarev-
crtjre, idv ns eKSitjyijrai.
(112.) Is. xlix. 6.
AeSwKa ae els SiaO^Ktjv yi-
vovs els <pws iOvcov, rod eivai
ae els awrtjplav ew? eo-^ctTOU
T^? yrjs.
(113.) Amos ix. 11, 12.
'Ev Ttj fjfxepa eKelvtj dvaar^-
aw rijv aKtjvijv AavlS rrjv ireir-
TWKviav, Kal dvoiKoSofx^aw to

Acts xiii. 35.
l[Ae7efJ Ov Swaeis rov o-
aiov aov loeiv SiaipOopdv.
Acts xiii. 41.
[[To elprjfxevov iv rois irpo-
(p^rais-J "ISere, oi Karacppovtj-
rai, Kai Oavfxdaare /cat d(pa.
viaOrjre, on epyov ipydXpfxai
e'ya) ev rais fjfxepais vfxwv, ep.
yov o ov fxt] iriaTevatjTe idv
ns iKSiriy^rai vfxlv.
Acts xiii. 47.
[['Ei/TeraXTat fjfxlv d Kvpios-lt
JL eoeiKa ae eis (pws evvwv, rov
eivai ae els awrijplav ews iaxd-
Tov rijs yijs. Acts XV. 16, 17.
[[Ka0o)? 'ye'YjOaTrTaf]] MeTa
ravra avaarpe<\rw Kai dvoiKO-
Sofxfjaw rijv aKtjvijv AavelS rijv

EXPLANATORY REMARKS.

Acts xiii. 34. — This is derived exactly from the Septuagint,
with the addition of hiiigoi, which was necessary to complete the
sense, because the former part of the verse is omitted.
Acts xiii. 35. — Also from the Septuagint.
Acts xiii. 41. — From the Greek, with a few variations. The
formula of introduction is iv rotg irgo<f>riTaig, although the passage
is taken from Habakkuk alone. Surenhusius, however, thinks,
that Isaiah, as well as Habakkuk, is referred to (xxviii. 14.)
Some take iv roTg ir^offiraig to mean, in one of the prophets ;
others, in the book of the prophets (iv^i^Xip tuv irgo^fiTuv), to dis
tinguish it from the Law and the Hagiographa.
There is one material deviation from the Hebrew. D*iil5
among the heathen, is rendered by, o; -^laTafigovriTal, ye despisers.

QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.

393

Is. Iv. 3. Is. Iv. 3.
D^ii^ ]1"12 Dpb ilDI^O) And I will make an everlasting
•'n^TOJiin mn^DT covenant with you, ei;eM the sure
* • T .,¦:¦..- x .. ,'- mercies of David.Ps, xvi. 10,
Neither wilt thou suffer thine
Holy One to see corruption.
Hab. i. 5.
Behold ye among the hea
then, and regard, and wonder
marvellously : for I will work a
work in your days, which ye
will not believe, though it be
told you.

Ps. xvi. 10.
ivaib "^"ivn ]Pin - ab
Hab. i. 5.
inarim !)Q*am U"Sn iK-i
a3*a*3 b'i3 '?y3-*3 man
:n3D*-*3 ^yaan ab

Is. xlix. 6.
Ji)"nb DjiJi niN^ '^"i^A^!\

Amos ix. 11, 12.
na D"pa xinn oi^a
n^s-in i""n

r)3.D-na "irrii)

Is. xlix, 6.
I will also give thee for a
light to the Gentiles, that thou
mayest be my salvation unto
the end of the earth.

Amos, ix, 11, 12.
In that day will I raise up
the tabernacle of David that is
i fallen, and close up the breaches

EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
Hence Capellus conjectured, that the Greek translator found
either, DHJiS, or D*fi3, in his Hebrew copy. It is highly pro
bable, that the former word stood in the Hebrew, because the
same Greek translator renders the verb '7J3 by xaratp^oviu in the
13th verse of this same first chapter of Habakkuk ; and in the
2d chapter, 5th verse. The same translation is also found in
Prov. xiii. 15 ; Hosea vi. T; Zephan. iii. 4.
Acts xiu. 47. — This is abridged from the Seventy. Accord
ing to the reading of the Alexandrine MS., the words agree ex
actly with the Greek. The Hebrew has the pronoun my. Two
Hebrew MSS., with the Arabic version, drop the pronoun also.
Acts XV. 16, 17. — Some observations on this text will be made
hereafter.
3 D

394

QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.

ireirrwKora avrrjS, Kai to Kare-
aKafXfxeva avrijs avaarfjaw, Kal
dvoiKoSofxfjaw avTtjv KaOws al
fjfxepai rod alwvos' oirws iK^ti-
rfjawaiv ol KaraXoiiroi rwv dv.
Qpwirwv Kal iravra to 'eOvtj, icp'
ovs iiriKeKXijrai rd ovofxa fxov
iir avrovs, Xeyei Kvpios, d iroi-
wv iravra ravra.

ireirrwKviav Kai ra KareaKafx-
fxeva avrijs dvoiKoSofx^aw /cat
avopOwaw avrfjv, oirws dv e/c-
^rjrfjawaiv ol KaraXoiiroi rHov
avOpwirwv rov Kvpiov, Kat irdvra
ra 'eOvtj, i(p' ovs iiriKeKXrjrat rd
dvofxa fxov eir' avrovs, Xiyei kv-
pios iroiwv ravra.

(114,) Ex. xxii. 28. Acts xxiii, 5.
''Apxovra rod Xaod aov ov [[re''yjOa7rTaf| on dpxovra
KaKws ipeis. rod Xaov aov ovk ipeis /ca/cwy.

(113.) Is, vi. 9, 10.
HopevOtjTi, Kal eiirov rw Xaw
rovrw. 'AkoTj uKOvaere Kal ov
fxtj avvrjre, Kal fiXeirovres /3Xe-
ypere Kal ov fxrj "Stjre. iira.
XvvOtj ydp f] KapSla rod Xaov
TOVTOV, /cat TOI? walv avrwv (8a-
joew? '^KOvaav, Kai rovs ocpOaX
fxovs iKafXfxvaav, fxfjirore 'iSwei
rois ocpOaXfiots, Kal rois wal
UKOvawai, /cat t^ KapSla avvwai
Kal eiriarpi^wai, /cat idaofxai
avrovs.

(116.) Hab, ii, 4.
'O Se SIkuios e/c irlarews fJ-ov
"C^^aerat.
(117.) Is. Iii, 5.
At vfxds Siairavrds rd 'ovofxa
fxov ^Xaacptjfxeirai iv rois eO-
veai.

Acts xxviii. 26, 27.
[[To irvedfxa to ayiov iXd-
Xrjae Sid 'H<7at'ou Toi5 irpocpfj.
TOV Xe'^oc'l TIopevOrjTi irpds
rov Xaov rodrov Kal elirov
'AkoTj uKOvaere kui ov fxtj av.
vijre, Kal jSXeirovres /SXe'vfreTe
/cat ov fxtj 'IStjre- iira-xyvOt] ydp
fj KupSla rov Xaod rovrov, /cat
TOt? walv j3apews 'i^KOvaav /cat
TOV? ocpOaXfiovs avrdiv iKOfXfxv-
aav, fxfj irore 'iSwaiv rots 6(p.
OaXfxois Kal tois walv dKovawaiv
Kal rij KapSla avvwaiv Kal eiria-
rpey^waiv Kal laawfxai avrovs.
Rom. i. 17.
|[Ka0a)? 'ye'yjOaTrTafl 'O ^e
SIkuios iK irlarews ^¦^aerai.
Rom. ii. 24.
To "yojO ovofxa rod Oeod Si
vfxds ^XaacptjfxeiruL iv rois eO
veaiv, |[Ko9«)? 'ye'yjOa'TrTaf])

EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
Acts xxiii. 5  Exactly quoted from the Seventy.
Acts xxviii. 26, 27.— See on Matthew xiii. 14.

QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.

395

n*m33!) u"pa 1*J^D¦^m in*2j-i3
-na ')v)i"\ ]Vob :D^iy *a*3
-im D*iiin-'?3i Di^^< n"iap
nin*-DN3 am^y "ap ^*"^pJ
:n»4t nwy

thereof; and I will raise up his
ruins, and I will build it as in
the days of old : that they may
possess the remnant of Edom,
and of all the heathen, which
are called by my name, saith
the Lord that doeth this.

Ex. xxii. 27.
nan «¦? "?|ay3 a"\i};)
Is. vi. 9, 10.
!)yai£> n-tn ny^ ^ip^i) "^^
iK") wm •')3*3jt'?si ySa^
T • T - ; - T
Dyn-3^ iaii;n : -lynri-^Ki
Vv}n i*:*:pi n33n vatxi n-tn
- T T "•: " : - t: T : v -
1*311*3!) r2"V2 nip;<_—]B
N3-I"l 31^1 1*3* i33'71 yatt>*
tt: tt '-t t; t:- iV

Ex. xxii. 28.
Thou shalt not curse the ruler
of thy people. Is. vi, 9, 10.
Go and tell this people, Hear
ye indeed, but understand not;
and see ye indeed, but perceive
not. Make the heart of this
people fat, and make their ears
heavy, and shut their eyes; lest
they see with their eyes, and
hear with their ears, and under
stand with their heart, and con
vert, and be healed.

Hab, ii. 4.
:mn* irurasa p"i^'\
•: ; ¦ _T v: V ' • " :
Is. Hi. 5.
'.^anq "Up Di»n-'?3 mam

Hab. ii. 4.
But the just shall live by his
faith. Is. Iii, 5.
And my name continually
every day is blasphemed.

EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
Romans i, 17  The same passage is cited in Gal. ui. 11;
Heb. X. 38. Neither the Hebrew nor the Greek is followed.
Romans u. 24  This quotation is made from the Seventy,
with a trifling variation.

396

QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.

/ .

>)

(118,) Ps, 1, 6,
"Oirws dv SiKUiwOrjs iv rois
Xdyots aov, /cat viK^arjS iv rip
KplveaOal ae.
(119.) Ps. xiii. 1, &c,
Ovk eari iroiiav xpia'rortjra
OVK eanv 'ews evos. Kvpios e/c
rod ovpavov SieKV-yp^ev iirl rovs
vlovs rwv avOpwirwv, rod ISeiv
et ecTTt auviwv 'fj eK^rjriJov rov
Oeov. iravres i^eKXivuv, afxa
tjXpeiwOrjauv, ovk can iroiwv
XprjarorrjTU, ovk 'eanv ew? evos.
(120.) Ps. V, 10.
Ta<pos dvewyfxevos d Xdpvy^
avrwv, rais yXwaaais avrlJov
eSoXiodaav.

Rom, iii, 4.
|[Ka0a)? 7e'7pa'7rTaf]] "Oirws
dv SiKuiwOrjs iv rois Xoyois aov
Kul viKrjarjS iv rw KptveaOai ae.
Rom. iii, 10, 11, 12,
|[Ka0aj? yeypairrai-J on
OVK eanv SIkuios ovSe eis, ovk
eanv avvlwv, ovk eariv [6] e/c-
r»;Tft)j' TW Oeov iravres e^e'/cXt-
vuv, Ufxu rjXpeiwOrjauv ovk eanv
iroiwv )^p»/(rTOT»?Ta, ovk 'eanv
ews evos.

Rom, iii, 13,
Tdcpos dvewyfxevos d Xdpvy^
avrwv, rais yXwaaats avrSiv
iSoXiovaav.

(121.) Ps. cxxxix, 4, Rom, iii. 13.
ios uairiowv viro ru )(etA); los aairiowv viro ra vetA/?
avrHv. avrwv.

(122.) Ps. ix. 28 (x. 7.)
Ov dpus TO ardfxa axJrov
yifxei Kul iriKplus'

Rom. iii, 14.
'^Qv TO arofxu Tavriuv^ dpds
KUl irtKpias yefxei.

EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
Romans iii. 4  This is precisely agreeable to the Seventy.
Some think that the words itdg hi dvdguirog -^ivgrrig are taken from
Psalm (cxv. ii.) cxvi. 11. So Dopke.
Romans iii. 10, 11, 12  It is doubtful whether the clause 'iu
ovx 'igTiv hi-xaiog ovh'i ifg be a quotation or not. It does not occur
in the Old Testament, though there are several passages which
contain the same sentiment, as 1 Kings vui. 46 ; Job. iv. 18 ;
Ecclesiastes vn. 21. Probably it is not to be reckoned a quo
tation. The next words are derived from Psalm xiu. 1, &c.,
though they do not verbally coincide with the Seventy.
Romans iii. 13. — The former part of this verse is thought by
many to exhibit a continuation of the quotation in the preceding
verses, from Psalm xui. 3. But although it is generally found
in editions of the Septuagint attached to the 13 th Psalm, yet it is

QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.

397

Ps. Ii. 6.
n2m "'J'lnna pij^n ¦])^b

Ps. xiv. 1, &c.
D*aKra nim ;3it3"n^:i? VJ*
niKn"? DnN-*j3-^r f]"pm
iQ"riba-na ^ii '?*3^a ty*n
r^< ^^'7^4i inn* id bbn
:nn«-Da !*>* 3ii3-n)i>i>

Ps. Ii. 4.
That thou mightest be justi
fied when thou speakest, and be
clear when thou judgest.
Ps. xiv. 1, &c.
They are corrupt, they have
done abominable works, there is
none that doeth good. "The Lord
looked down from heaven upon
the children of men, to see if
there were any that did under-
- stand, and seek God. They are
all gone aside, they are all to
gether become filthy : there is
none that doeth good, no, not one.

Ps. v, 10.
Djii^'? ainj mn3 - i2p
T ; T : - T •.-'•-¦
: ]^p"bn"_
Ps. cxl. 4.
ia*n3to nnn y\^p:^ nan
Ps. x. 7.
nianai Nba in*3 nba

Ps, V. 9.
Their throat is an open se
pulchre ; they flatter with their
tongue. Ps. cxl. 3.
Adder's poison is under their
lips. Ps. X. 7.
His mouth is full of cursing
and deceit.

EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
wanting in most MSS. Accordingly, one SchoUast has the re
mark, " these words are no where found in the Psalms. It ought
to be inquired whence the apostle took them." Another says,
Diodorus, Theodore, Cyril, and Didymus, have Td^og dviuiyfxivog
— iv TaTg ohoTg avTuv, but they are not found in the Hexapla. In
Justin, however, as also in the Roman Psalter, the Arabic, and
the Ethiopic, the words in question appear. It is certain that
the Septuagint has been here interpolated from the Epistle to
Romans. The passage is taken verbatim from the Septuagint,
Psalm V. 9. The termination of the verse is exactly from the
Seventy. Romans iii. 14. — From Psalm ix. 28, or, according to another
division, x. 7. The words are somewhat altered from the Se
venty, nor do they strictly agree with the Hebrew.

398

QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.

(123.) Is. lix, 7, 8.
Ot Se iroSes avrwv iirl iro-
vrjpiav rpexovai, raxivoi €/c)^eai
aTfxa, auvrpifxfxu kuI raXaiirw.
pia iv rais dSois uvriiov — /cat

ooov et

ptivrjs

OVK oioaai-

(124,) Ps. xxxv, 1.
Ovk ean cpo^os Oeod diri-
vavri rwv ocpOaXfxicv avrov.
(125.) Gen. xv. 6.
Kat iirlarevaev' A^pufx rip
Oew, Kul eXoylaOtj avrw els Si-
KUioavvtjv. (126.) Ps. xxxi. 1, 2.
M-UKapioi Sv d(peO>]auv al
dvofxlai, Kal wv eireKaXvcpOtjaav
al ufxapnar fxuKupios avrjp <p
ov fxr] Xoyiatjrai Kvpios dfxap-
rlav. (127-) Gen, xvii. 5.
"OTt irarepa iroJCXSov iOvwv
riOeiKU ae.
(128.) Gen. xv. 5,
Ovrws earai ro airepfxa aov.

(129.) Ex. XX. 17.
Ovk iiriOvfxfjaeis rhv yvvaiKU
rod irXrjaiov aov, k. t. X.

Rom. iii. 15, &c.
'O^et? ol iroSes avrwv iKxiai
atfxa, avvrpifxfxa /cat TaXatTTto-
pla iv rals dSois avrwv, Kal
dSdv elp^vtjs OVK eyvooaav.
Rom. iii. 18.
Ovk eanv (po^os Oeod dire-
vuvn rwv SipOaXfxwv avroSv.
Rom. iv. 3.
[[Tt 7aj0 ^ ypacptj Xeyei ;|
'ETTt'cTTei/crei' ^e ^A^paafx rw
Oeip, Kul iXoylaOrj avrip ets Si-
Kuioavvtjv. Rom. iv. 6, 7 •
^JK.aOdirep kuI AavelS Xeiyet"!
^UKupioi wv dcpeOtjaav al avo-
fxlui Kul &v iireKaXiKpOtjaav al
dfxaprlai- fxuKaptos dvtjp w ov
fxtj XoylatjTui Kvpios dfxaprlav.
Rom. iv. 17.
|Ka0ws 'ye'ypaTrTaf]] OTt
irarepa •TroXXtSi' iOvwv reOeiKa
ae. Rom. iv. 18.
|KaTa TO elprjfxevov'^ Ov
rws earai ro airepfxu aov.

Rom, vii, 7.
TO vdfxos 'eXeyev-\
iiriOvfX^aeis.

OdK

EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
Romans iii. 15, &c. — The first clause of the 7th verse (of
Isaiah 59th chapter) is not followed verbatim ; but from gw-
Tpifxf/ta to o'lhagi is quoted verbatim.
Romans iu. 18  Verbatim from the Seventy, except that au
rov is changed into avruv.
Romans iv. 3. — From the Seventy. So also Galatians iii. 6.

QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW,

399

Is. lix. 7, 8.
nna*i .iijm )3ib urvbyi

nntyi itt? — *p3 D^
V V T ' - T T
Ps. xxxvi. 2.
n*3*r -\^p u"r^ba im-\"ii
Gen. XV. 6.
i"? n3i:?mi nin*3 la^m

Is. lix. 7, 8.
Their feet run to evil, and
they make haste to shed inno
cent blood. The way of peace
they know not; and there is no
judgment in their goings.
Ps. xxxvi. 1.
There is no fear of God be
fore his eyes. Gen. XV. 6,
And he believed in the Lord,
and he counted it to him for
righteousness.

Ps. xxxii. 1, 2. Ps. xxxii, 1, 2.
*-1D3 yp5 - "fli!i "'Ipa Blessed is he whose trans-
., ' ' ¦ gression is forgiven, whose sin
3t;m N^ Dn« *ltyX : n^aq is covered. Blessed is the man
,1,, it, — i_H unto whom the Lord imputeth
\W 17 mm J. • - -J. 1 • 1 ...
A ^ -^ : not iniqmty, and in whose spirit
there is no guUe.
Gen. xvii. 5,
For a father of many nations
have I made thee.

Gen. xvii. 5.
'^"nni D*i]i lian-3» *3

Gen. XV. 5.

n*n* n3

Gen. XV. 5.
So shall thy seed be.

Ex. XX. 17.
"'in ^^^ "ianri-N^

Ex. XX. 14,
Thou shalt not covet thy
neighbour's wife.

EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
Romans iv. 6, 7 — From the Seventy,
Romans iv. 17 — Do.
Romans iv. 18. — Do.
Romans vu. 7 — The apostle omits the enumeration of the
things not to be coveted.

400

QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.

(130.) Ps, xliii. 23. Rom. viii. 36.
"On 'eveKU aov OuvarovfieOa [[KaSw? "ye'yjOa'TrTaf 'J OTt
bXtjv Ttjv fjfxepav, eXoytaOtjfxev 'eveKev aov OuvarovfxeQa oXtjv

<w? irpo^ara acpayijs,
(131.) Gen. xxi. 12.
"OTt e'l' 'Icraa/c KXtjOijaerul
aoi airepfxu.
(132.) Gen, xviii. 10,
'Eiruvuarpecpwv tj^w irpds
ae Kurd rov Kuipdv rodrov els
wpas, Kai e^et viov Ztappa tj
yvvfj aov.
(133.) Gen. xxv. 23,
Kat o fxeiQav SovXevaei rw
iXdaaovi.
(134.) Mai. i. 2, 3.
Kat fjyairtjaa rov 'IaKw/3,
rov Se 'Haav ifxlatjaa ;
(135.) Exod. xxxiii, 19.
Kat eXe^aw ov dv iXew, kui
olKreipfjaw, ov dv oiKreipSi.
(136.) Exod, ix. 16.
Kat 'eveKev rovrov Sterrjpfj-
OrjS, 'ivu ivSel^wfxui iv aoi rijv
laxyv fxov, Kul oirws SiayyeXij
TO ovofid fxov iv iraarj rrj yrj.

rrjv fjfxepuv, eXoyiaOrjfxev ws
irpo^ura a(payijs. Rom. ix. 7.
[["AXX'-]] 'Ev 'Icraa/c KXtjOfj-
aeral aoi airepfxa.Rom. ix, 9.
[['ETra'y'yeXia? ydp d Xoyos
ouTO?'| Koto tov KUipov rod.
rov iXevaofxai /cat etrTOt rij
Sf V 9 t r
appa vios. Rom. ix. 12.
^EppeOrj airr^^'J on d fxel-
l^wv SovXevaei rip iXdaaovi.
Rom, ix. 13.
[[Ka0w? "ye'^/jaTrTafl Tov
'luKW^ fjyuirrjaa, rov Se 'Haav
ifxlatjaa. Rom. ix. 15.
[[T5 Mwucret ydp Xiyet-l
JliAe/ycrco ov av eAeoj, kui OlK
reipfjaw "ov dv oiKretpw.
Rom, ix. 17.
[[Ae''yet yap fj ypacptj rw
$ajoaw"| OTt eis avro rovro
i^fjyeipa ae, oirws ivSel^wfxai
iv aoi rfjv Svvafxlv fxov /cat
oTTCo? SiayyeX^ rd dvofxd fxov
iv iraatj r^ yrj.

EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
Romans viii. 36. — From the Seventy.
Romans ix. 7 — Do.
Romans ix. 9. — The words differ from the Greek version, but
give the same meaning.
Romans ix. 12. — From the Seventy verbatim.

QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEAV,

401

Ps. xliv. 22.
Di»n-'?3 •133'nin "?i*'?i;-*3
T : - I VT

Ps. xliv. 22,
For thy sake are we killed all
the day long ; we are counted
• nnrira. IKIJS U3li>ra ^, .^eep for the slaughter.

Gen. xxi. 12.
:y)r "Tj^ i<n|5* pns*3 *3
Gen. xviii. 10.
mn ny3 ^*'?j* 2Wa 3i!i;
'^ppa rnth I3"n3m
Gen. xxv. 23.
;-i*y^ -t3y* 3m
Mai. i. 2, 3.
itoiT-ji}*') ;npv*"nN 2r^a^
^naiv
Ex. xxxiii, 19.
"narnn ina ipa-na *ri3m
iDnia I'pa-na
Ex. ix. 16.
*rT3 - na ''JJii^in "ii^^l

Gen. xxi, 12.
For in Isaac shall thy seed
be called. Gen. xviii, 10.
I will certainly return untO
thee according to the time of
life ; and lo, Sarah thy wife shall
have a son. Gen, XXV, 23,
And the elder shall serve the
younger. Mai. i. 2, 3,
Yet I loved Jacob, and I
hated Esau. Ex. xxxiii. 19.
And I will be gracious to whom
I will be gracious, and will shew
mercy on whom I will shew
mercy. Ex. ix. 16.
And in very deed for this cause
have I raised thee up, for to
shew in thee my power ; and that
my name be declared through
out all the earth.

EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
Romans ix. 13 — From the Seventy verbatim.
Romans ix. 15. — Do.
Romans ix. 17. — This citation seems to have been taken froiri
the Hebrew in preference to the Septuagint. It agrees at least
more closely with the former. 3 E

402 QUOTATIONS PROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.
(137.) Hos, ii. 23. Rom. ix. 25.
Kat dyairfjaw rrjv ovk ^ya- [['^? kuI iv rip 'Hatje Xe'yei "J
irtjfxevtjv, KUl ipw rip ov Xaip KaXeVco rov ov Xaov fxov Xaov
fxov, Xaos fxov eT av. fxov /cat r^v ovk fiyuirtjfxevrjv
^yairtjfxevrjv.
(138.) Hos. i. 10. Rom. ix, 26,
Kat ecTTOt, iv rw rdirip ot Kat 'earai ev rS roirip dt
ippeOtj avrois, ov Xaos fxov ippeOtj avrois Ov Xaos fxov
Vfxeis, KXtjOfjaovrui /cat ai^TOt vfxeis, iKei KXrjOfjaovrai vioi
viol Oeod ^Sivros. Oeov l^Hovros.
(139,) Is. X. 22, 23. Rom. ix, 27, 28.
Kat idv yevtjTui d Xaos 'la- [['Hcrata? Se Kpu'Cei virep rod
patjX w? ^ dfxfxos rrjs OaXdaatjs, 'lapufjX'^ 'Eav ^ 6 dpiOfxos rwv
TO KuraXeifXfxa avrwv awO^ae- vlwv 'lapaijX ws fj afxfxos rijs
rui. Xoyov avvreXiiov kuI aw- OuXuaarjs, ro virdXeifXfxa aw-
refivwv iv SiKatoavvr;, on Xoyov Ofjaerai. Xoyov ydp avvreXtev
avvrerfxrjfxevov Kvptos iroi^aeiiv kui avvrifxvwv iroi^aei Kvpios
Ttj oiKovfxevtj oXrj. iiri rijs yrjs.
(140,) Is. i, 9. Rom, ix. 29.
Kat el fxrj Kvpios au^awO [[Ka0ft)?7r^oefjO);/cev 'Ho'aia?"]]
iyKureXiirev fjfxiv airepfxa, ws Et fxrj Kvptos aa^awO iyKare-
^dSofxa dv iyevfjOrifxev, /cat to? Xiirev fjfuv airepfxa, ws 'ZtdSofxa
Vdfxoppa av wfxoiwOrjfxev. dv iyevfjOtjfxev, kui ws Yofxoppa
dv wfxotwOrjfxev.
(141.) Is. viii. 14, & xxviii. 16. Rom. ix. 33.
Kat ovx t*)? XlOov irpoaKOfx- [[KaOw? 'ye'iyjOaxTat'l 'I^ou
fxari avvavrfjaeaOe, ovSe ws riOrjfxi iv ^iwv XlOov irpoaKOfx-
irerpas irrwfxari.—'ISov iyw fxaros kuI ireTpav aKuvSdXov,
ifx/3dXXw els rd OefxeXia Stcoj/ Kal d irtarevwv iir avru ov
XlOov iroXvreXij, e'/cXe/cToi', a- KurataxwOi^aerat.
Kpoywviaiov, evrtfxov, et? to
OefxeXia uvrijs, kuI d irtarevwv
ov fxtj KarataxwOij. EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
Romans ix. 25  This quotation is paraphrastic. The Septua
gint renders the Hebrew literally; but the apostle does not adopt it.
Romans ix. 26. — From the Septuagint, with a sUght variation.
Romans ix. 27, 28. — This quotation is abbreviated from the
Seventy. Romans ix. 29. — Verbatim from the Septuagint.

QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.

403

Hos. ii. 25.
nann ^b-na *rianm
nrik-*ay "isv-abb "nn^ai

p
n*m

Hos. ii. 1.
-)a«*-"ii;^i< Dipas
arfi na«* Dm *ay-N'7 bn^
'."n-ba *33
Is. X. 22, 23.
i:a y\^" im D*n '?in3
'.nj^nii f]'!2W XMT] ii*^3
nim "pa n^nnji. n^3 *3
-b2 3-)p3 nw;? J-li^*3X
Is. i. 9.
n*nin ni«32{ nin* *':>i^
^j**n DiDS Dya3 n*'nB' !):"?
. T : - T ; • • T T
n:*a'^ n"ia;y^
Is. viii. 14, and xxviii. 16.

bStpD
*3jn —

m^ibi epj pkV')

ID*

inn 13>* ]3M ivi:4
IDia npia rrnp* r)33
',]irr\"^ k"? radian

Hos. ii, 23.
And I will have mercy upon
her that had not obtained mercy,
and I will say to them which
were not my people, Thou art
my people. Hos. i. 10.
And it shall come to pass, that
in the place where it was said un
to them. Ye are not my people,
there it shall be said unto them.
Ye are the sons of the living God.
Is. X. 22, 23.
For though thy people Israel
be as the sand of the sea, yet a
remnant of them shall return.
For the Lord God of hosts shall
make a consumption, even de
termined in the midst of all the
land. Is. i. 9.
Except the Lord of hosts had
left unto us a very small rem
nant, we should have been as
Sodom, andvfe should have been
like unto Gomori-ah.
Is. viii. 14, & xxviii. 16.
And he shall be for a stone
of stumbling, and for a rock of
offence. Behold I lay in Zion
for a foundation a stone, a tried
stone, a precious corner stone,
a sure foundation : he that be
lieveth, shall not make haste.

EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
Romans ix. 33 — Here the apostle departs from the Septua
gint. Instead of giving to the stone the laudatory epithets ap
pUed in Isaiah xxviu. 16, he gives out of Isaiah viu. 14 the
well-known adjuncts of irgogxofxfxarog and gxavhdXou. He then re
turns to xxviii. 16, adding eV a'vrtp, and for ou fin xaraigxw^fi put
ting ou ¦xuTaig^uvSrigiTai.

404

QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.

(142.) Lev, xviii. 5, Rom, x. 5,
^ A iroifjaas avrd dvOpwiros ^SHwvaijS ydp ypdcpef'^ on
Xfjaerai iv avrois. d irotfjaas avrd dvOpwiros ^>7-
aerai iv avrrj.

(143.) Deut. xxx, 12, &c,
OuK iv rw ovpavw dvw iari,
Xiywv. rls dvajS^aerai fjfxiv
els TOV ovpavov, /cat Xi^'^erai
fjfxiv avrtjv, /cat d/covo-aj/Te? av-
Ttjv iroifjaofxev ', ovSe irepav rijs
OaXdaatjs iarl, Xeywv. rls Sta-
irepuaei fjfiiv els rd irepuv rrjs
OaXdaatjs, kuI Xd^rj fjfxiv axjrtjv,
Kal aKovarrjv fjfxlv iroi^arj av-
rijv, Kal iroi^aofxev; iyyvs aov
iarl rd pTjfxa acpdSpu iv rip
arofxarl aov, Kal iv rij KupSla
aov, Kal iv rais X^/"""' "''"^ "''""
eiv avro.
(144,) Is. xxviii. 16,
'O irtarevwv ov fxij Kurata-
XwOij. (145.) Joel ii. 32.
Kat eWat ¦Tra?, o? dv iiri-
iraXiatjTUi to dvofxa Kvplov,
awO^aerai.(146.) Isa, Iii. 7.
'Qs wpa iirl rwv opewv, ws
iroSes ivayyeXi^ofxevov dKoijv
elpnvtjs, ws ivayyeXiC,dfxevos
dyaOd.

Rom. X. 6, &c.
[['H ^6 e'/c irlarews SiKaioavvtj
ovrws Xeyei"! M^ etVj;? iv r^
KupSlu aov Tls avapfjaerai els
rov ovpavov ', rovr eanvXpta-
Tov Karayayeiv. tj Tls Kura-
^fjaerat et? rijv dpvaaov ', rovr
eanv Xptardv e/c veKpwv dva-
yayelv- — ^'E'y'yi!? aov ro pijfia
ianv, iv^ rip arofxarl aov /cat
iv rrj KapSla aov.

Rom. X. 11.
|Ae7et ydp fj "yjoac^^.l lias
6 irtarevwv eir' avrS) ov Karata-
XwOrjaerat. Rom. X. 13.
Ila? ydp OS dv iiriKaXiatjrai
TO 'ovofxa Kvplov, awO^aerai.

Rom. X. 15.
[[Ka0to? 7e'7|0a7rTaf| '0?
wpaioi ol irdSes rwv evayyeXi-
"Cpfxevwv ayaOa.

EXPLANATORY REMARKS.

Romans x. 5. — From the Seventy.
Romans x. 6, &c. — This is a free citation from Deuteronomy
xxx. 12, &c., and is evidently borrowed from the Seventy.
Romans x. 11.— See on Romans ix. 33.

QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW
Lev. xviii. 5.
*m DTNn nna ne^y* itDa
~T T T T T V --— V — ¦
Dn3

405

Lev. xviii. 5.
Which if a man do, he shall
live in them.

Deut. xxx. 12, &c.
*a inab Nin n"jy^2 x"?
nnp"^ na*ajj'n li^-n'py*
jrajj'yii tina ijyat'*! ^la^
nbN^. a)n wb nnya-x"?!
D»n n3y-'7N ii'?-n3y* *a
nriN !)j;pat:r>") ii"? nnp*i
T " • : ~ 1 T X v'x* •
•^"ba 3inp/-*3 ' n^^v^i
'^33'?3i "^*33 nto ni-rn
: '-^n^yb

Deut. xxx. 12, &c.
It is not in heaven, that thou
shouldest say. Who shall go up
for us to heaven, and bring it
unto us, that we may hear it,
and do it ? Neither is it beyond
the sea, that thou shouldest say.
Who shaU go over the sea for
us, and bring it unto us, that
we may hear it, and do it ? But
the word is very nigh unto thee,
in thy mouth, and in thy heart,
that thou mayest do it.

Is. xxviii. 16.
;i:^*n* iib raxan

Is. xxviii. 16.
He that beUeveth, shall not
make haste.

Joel iii. 5,
Di|;?3 N"ip*-nu?N b2 mm

Joel ii, 32.
And it shall come to pass, that
whosoever shall call on the name
^M ^^''. of the Lord shall be deUvered.

Is. Iii. 7.
*'?jn D*-inn-'?y ^ix^-na
niy3a Dibtt? y»ati;a niy3a nia

Is. Iii. 7.
How beautiful upon the moun
tains are the feet of him that
bringeth good tidings, that pubr
lisheth peace, that bringeth good
tidings of good.

EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
Romans x. 13. — This is from the Seventy.
Romans x. 15. — This citation seems not to have been taken
from the Seventy. The apostle omits the words " upon the
mountains," which did not suit his purpose, as also other words.

406

QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.

(147.) Is. liii, I.
Ki/jOte Tl? iiriarevae rij OKoij
fjflWV ',
(148,) Ps, xviii, 5.
Et'? irdauv rijv yrjv i^ijXOev

Rom. X. 16.
[['Ho-ata? ydp Xe^et"! Kiy|Ote,
Tl? eirlarevaev rrj uko^ fjfxwv ',
Rom. X. 18.
[[Mei'oi/j' 7e']| El? irdaav rrjv

d (pOdyyos avrSiv, kuI els rd yijv i^ijXOev d cpOoyyos avrwv,
irepara rijs o'lKOVfxevtjs rd pfj- /cat et? Ta irepara rijs oiKOVfxi.
fxara avrwv. vrjs ra pi^fiara avrwv.

(149.) Deut. xxxii. 21.
I^ayw irapaXrjXwaw avrovs
1 , , srf\ > \ sir, 1 f
eir OVK euvei' eiri eovei aavvertp
irapopyiHii avrovs.
(150) Is. Ixv, 1, 2.
'Eficpavijs iyevfjQtjv rois ifxe
fxij iirepwrooaiv, evpeOtjv rois
ifie fxij IQjrovaiv, — ^"E^e'TreVacra
Ta? x^'P'^^ Moi* dXtjv rijv fjfxepav
irpds Xaov direiOovvra Kal dv-
nXeyovra. (151.) 3 Kings xix. 14.
Ta Ovaiaarfjpid aov KuOei-
Xav, Kal rovs irpocpfjras aov
direKreivav iv pofxcpala, Kal v-
iroXiXeifXfxai iyw fxovwraros,
Kal IQjTovai rijv ->^vxvv fiov Xa-
/3eiv avr^v.
(152.) 3 Kings xix. 18.
Kat KaraXel-^eis iv 'lapaijX
eirrd ^tXict^a? dvSpSsv, irdvra
ydvara a ovk wKXaaav yovv rip
BctaX.

Rom. X. 19.
|Mwi/(7^? X€'7ef| 'E7to ¦Tra-
pu^rjXwaw virds iir ovk eOvei,
eiri eOvei aavvertp irapopyiHo
vfxds. Rom, A. 20, 21.
[['Hcrata? ^e diroroXfx^ /cat
X67ef| EvpeOtjv [e'l/] TOt? e^ie
fiij ^rjrovaiv, ifxcpavijS iyevdfxrjv
rois efxe fxij iirepwrwaiv. — -"O-
Xrjv rijv fjfiipav i^eireraaa rds
Xeipds fxov irpds Xaov direiOovv
ra Kai avriXeyovra. Rom. xi. 3.
|['Ej/ 'HXt'a Xe7et ^ ypacp^-'^
Ki/joie, TOW irpocpfjras aov d-
ireKTeivav, rd Ovaiaarfjpid aov
KureaKU-^uv, Kayw vireXelcpOtjv
fxovos, Kul ^ijTOvaiv rijv y^rvx^v
fxov.

Rom. xi. 4.
:'7ei avrw d j^jO/j/iaTtc-
MO?"J| KaTeXtTTOi/ ifxavrip eir-
ruKiaxiXiovs uvSpas, o'lnves ovk
eKafxy\rav yovv rrj BciaX.

s\ K

EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
Romans x. 16. — Exactly from the Seventy.
Romans x. 18. — Do.
Romans x. 19. — From the same source.
Romans x. 20, 21. — This is from the Greek version.
order of the clauses in the 20 th verse is reversed.

The

QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.

407

Is. liii. 1.
ijniyatt^'? 'i*aNn *a
Ps. xix. 6.
n)ipy\ ap njj* v'iNn-^33
... '• . t'~ XT 'jv T X X ;
Dm^a b2n

Is. liii. 1.
Who h^th believed our re
port ? Ps. xix. 4.
Their line is gone out through
all the earth, and their words to
the end of the world.

Deut. xxxii. 21.
*iJ13 Dy-N'?3 DN*3pJ* *3«1
•.DD*i?3» '?33
.... - XT
Is. Ixv. 1, 2.
*n«iia3 ^'^av) arhb "n'iiim
"npi3 — *Jtt^pn abb
¦niD D:lr-'?^* Di»n-'?3
A •• - •.• - T

*n*

Deut. xxxii. 21,
And I will move them to jea
lousy with those which are not
a people ; I will provoke them
to anger with a foolish nation.
Is, Ixv, 1, 2.
I am sought of them that
asked not for me; I am found
of them that sought me not 
I have spread out my hands all
the day unto a rebellious people.

1 Kings xix. 14.
-J^^«1 iD'nn ?T*rin:ita-ni<
1n^a^ mm ^nn '?I?^**33
"X . T VAT V : IX I V • :
*^i^33-n^< ^iti^pn*! *nn^ *:«
: nnnpb
1 Kings xix. 18.
n^2p '7Nni:;*n *r)ni*ts^m
nu^K D*3-)3n-'?3 p*S)^X
'pyii'? •lyns-i*'?

1 Kings xix, 14.
They have thrown down thine
altars, and slain thy prophets
with the sword ; and I, even I
only am left, and they seek my
life, to take it away.
1 Kings xix. 18.
Yet I have left me seven thou-
sandin Israel, all the knees which
have not bowed unto Baal.

EXPLANATORY REMARKS.

Romans xi, 3 — From the Septuagint, with a slight deviation.
The first two clauses are transposed, iv 'gofxfdla omitted, and the
last words changed.
Romans xi. 4. — Here the apostle leaves the Greek, and trans
lates the Hebrew more correctly.

408

QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW,

(153.) Is, xxix, 10, Rom. xi. 8.
"^Oti ireiroTiKev vfxds Kvpios [[Ka0M? 76'7j0a'7rTaf| "E^to-
irveufiari Kuravv^ews, kuI KUfi- Kev uvrois d Oeds irvevfxa Kura-
fxvaei rovs ocpOuXfxovs avrHiiv. vy^ew?, dcpOaXfxovs rod fiij /3Xe-
ireiv Kul (Sra rod fxrj uKOvetv.

rjrw fj rpdireCa avrwv

(154.) Ps. Ixviii. 23, 24.
YevrjOfj'
evwiriov avrwv eis iruyidu, Kai
ets uvruiroSoaiv kuI ets aKav-
SaXov. aKonaOfjTWauv ol dcp-
OaXfxol avrwv rod fxij ^Xeireiv,
KUl rov vwrov aijriiciv Siairavrds
avyKUfxy^ov.
(155.) Is. lix. 20, 21.
at j;^et eveKev Zjiwv o pvo-
fxevos, Kul diroarpi-^ei dae^el-
as diro 'Ia/ca5/3. kuI avrtj av
rois fj Trap' ifiov StuOijKtj.

(156.) Is. xl. 13.
Tt? eyvw vodv Kvplov, kuI rls
avrod avfx^ovXos iyevero ',

Rom. xi, 9, 10.
[[Aai/eiiS Xe'7ef| TevtjO^rw
fj rpdireXu uvrwv els iraylSa
Kul els Oijpav Kal els aKavSaXov
Kal els dvrairoSofxa uvrois, aKO-
riaOfjTwaav ol dcpOuXfxoi av-
rwv rod fiij ^Xeireiv, /cat rov
vwrov avrwv Sta iravros avy-
KUfX^OV. Rom. xi. 26, 27.
[[Ka^w? 7e7j0a7rTttf| "H^ei
e'/c Stojj' o pvdfxevos, diroarpi'^ei
uaepeius uiro luKwp. kui uv-
rtj uvrois fj irup' ifxod SiaO^Ktj,
oTUv dcpeXwfiai ras dfxaprius
avrwv. Rom. xi. 34.
Tt? 7ap 671/01 vodv Kvpiov, 'rj
rls avfx^ovXos avrod iyevero ;

(157.) 'Ev

Deut. xxxii. 35.
e/c^i

jScoo

tjfxepa eKdiKtjaews avra-

Rom. xii. 19.
|re7jOa'7rTai 7ajO.| 'Efxol iK-
SlKtjais, iyw dvrairoSwaw, Xe
yei Kvpios.

EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
Romans xi. 8. — This citation seems to have been taken from
two parallel passages, viz. Isaiah xxix. 10, and Deuteronomy
xxix, 4, Some words are taken from the one, and some from the
other, though, properly speaking, the latter of the two passages
should be quoted. In consequence of this confusion, the ancients
were accustomed to affirm, that the passage is not a citation from
the Old Testament, So Origen and many others. Compare
Stuart's Commentary on the place.

QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW. 409
Is. xxix. 10. Is. xxix. 10,
mn nin* Q3*'?y "^03 ¦ *3 For the Lord hath poured out
upon you the spirit of deep sleep,

Oy^r^ Om nai"?^ and hath closed your eyes.

Ps. Ixix. 23, 24. Ps. Ixix. 23, 24.
13^ Dn* ^3^? OT]b]t) - *n* Let their table become a snare
¦ ' "¦ , ¦ , before them : and that which
ni:>tnn :tt^pia^ D*aibty^.-1 ,j,onld have been iov their ^el-
1"^n Dn*Jnai ni^na Dn*J*;r fare, let it become a trap. Let
their eyes be darkened that they
- : - see not; and make their loins
continually to shake.
Is. lix. 20, 21. Is, lix, 20, 21.
"2'i}b't ^Kii! '\^'^b 1*3') -A-ud the Redeemer shall come
to Zion, and unto them that
*J^^^ : nin* aai 3py*a i?p^, turn from transgression in Ja-
hnSa "n"13. nNT ^°^' saith the Lord. As for me,
¦ ¦ = this is my covenant with them.
Is. xl. 13. Is. xl. 13,
tt>*N1 mn* mn " na ]2n - *Q Who hath directed the Spirit
'¦ '' '¦ of the Lord, or, being his coun-
• ''^^'l''' '^^W. seller, hath taught him ?
Deut. xxxii, 36. Deut, xxxii. 35.
. To me belongeth vengeance
^<P] ^Kr ¦ and recompence.

EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
Romans xi. 9, 10. — The apostle here follows the Seventy, with
some variations. He makes four particulars out of three.
Romans xi. 26, 27. — This is from the Seventy, putting ix
"Stiiiv, instead of ivixiv 'Siuv. The Hebrew is somewhat different,
though the meaning is the same. The apostle takes the words
orav afiXufxai rdg dfxagTiag atiruv from Isaiah xxvii. 9, Septuagint.
Romans xi. 34 — From the Seventy.
Romans xii. 19. — This follows the Hebrew in preference to
the Septuagint, although it is closely conformed to neither. Some
3 r

410

QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.

(158.) Prov. xxv, 21 , 22.
'Eai/ ireiva 6 ixPpos aov,
->^wfxiCe avrov, idv Si^a, ird-
TiCe avrov- rovro yap iroiwv
avOpuKus irvpos awpeuaets eiri
rijv KecpaXtjv avrov'

Rom, xii. 20.
'AXXa idv ireiva d eyOpos
aov, •^wfiiXe avrov idv Sf^a,
TTOTtCe avrov. rovro ydp iroi
wv, dvOpuKus irvpds awpevaets
eiri Ttjv KecpaXrjv avrov.

(159,) Ex. XX, 13-17; Lev, xix, 18. Rom. xiii. 9.
Ov fioixevaeis. ov KXi^eis. Ov fxoix^vaeis, ov Cpoveuaeis,
ov Cpovevaeis. ov ^evSofxuprv- ov KXe^ets, ovk iirtOvfxfjaets.
pfjaeis. OVK iirtOvfxi'jaeis. 'A- 'Ayairrjaeis rov irXrjalov aov
yairfjaets rov irXrjaiov aov to? to? aeavrov.
aeavrov.

(160.) Is, xlv. 23. Rom. xiv, 11,
KaT ifiavTOv ofxvvw, el fxij [[re'7j0a7rTat 70'^ "I Zw iyw,
i^eXevaerut iK rod ardfxards Xeyei Kvpios, on ifxol KUfx-^ei
fiov SiKutoauvrj, ol Xdyoi fxov irdv yovv, Kal i^ofioXoy^aerat
OVK diroarpacpfjaovrat- on irdaa yXwaau rip Oew.
ifxol KUfx^p-et irdv yovv, kuI o-
fxeirai irdaa yXOoaaa rov Oeov.

(161,) Ps, Ixviii, 10,
Ol dveiStafiol rwv dvetStXpv-
rwv ae iireireaov iir ifxe.

Rom, XV, 3.
[[KaOw? 7e7joa'7rTaf]| Ot
dvelStafiol nSv dveiStlCdvrwv ae
iireireaav eir efxe.

EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
have supposed that the Hebrew formerly was Q71i>J<1 Dp3 ''7'
but this is a mere conjecture, for which there is neither founda
tion nor necessity. The passage is similarly quoted in Hebrews
X. 30 ; and the addition Xiyu -xugiog, which occurs there also,
manifestly points to the Pauline origin of that epistle. The
opponents of the PauUne origin are perplexed by the agreement
of the two quotations, as also by the appended Xiyu xu^iog, and
assume, that the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews got the
latter from Paul, whose disciple he was.
Romans xn. 20. — Closely from the Seventy.
Romans xiii. 9. — From the Seventy, transposing the two clauses

QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW. 411
Prov. XXV. 21, 22. Prov. xxv, 21, 22.
^n'?*3«n '^a^iU 2)31-Da _ if thine enemy be hungry,
" "¦ ' • " " '' ' give him bread to eat ; and if
: D*a ¦¦inpm aa)i - am anb he be thirsty, give him water to
- b^ nnh T\na 0"bm *3 *^"°^ '¦ ^°^ ^^°^ ^^^^^ ^^^P ^°^^^
'¦ " "' '¦¦ ¦ of fire upon his head.
s^ai A
Ex. XX. 13, 14; Lev. xix. 18. Ex. xx, 13-17; Lev. xix. 18.
ab : «^^<3n i<b : n^inn i*"? Thou shalt not kiU. Thou
'''"¦' •li • shalt not commit adultery. Thou
"ly '^^1^ ^^Vn_ ^?'7 :±Jn shaU not steal. Thou shalt not
D3nX1 ', "iann " i^b ; Ipfi) ^^^^ false witness. Thou shalt
^ '' ^- '¦ ' '^ not covet. Thou shalt love thy
TP? '^^"?--': neighbour as thyself.
Is. xlv. 23. Is. xlv. 23.
npDi *3a K^* *ni'3E?J *3 I ^^.ve swom by myseU", the
^''^ ¦¦ ^' " ¦: :¦ ¦ word is gone out of my mouth
J^l^n "b-"2 2Wl ab] lyi m righteousness, and sliaU not
, .i,^L _ L^ y^»*;n ^-\r\ - ^r\ return, That unto me every knee
'" ' ' •' ¦•" '' shall bow, every tongue shall
swear.
Ps. Ixix, 10. Ps. IxLx, 9. '
: "bv •')'?33 ''|*3nin ni3"in) ^"^ t^^ reproaches of them
"' '¦" ' " ' that reproached thee are fallen
on me.

EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
oi (poviugiig and o'u -KXi-^iig ; and omitting, according to Lachmann's
text, ou ¦^ivhofxagTvgfigsig.
Romans xiv. 1 1 . — The apostle only gives a part of the original
sentence. His words strictly agree neither with the Hebrew nor
the Seventy, though he seems to have followed the latter more
than the former. The addition of tS) ha, for which there is no
corresponding term in the Hebrew, shews, that the Septuagint
is the chief source of the citation. The apostle also inserts a
customary phrase, xiyu 6 xu'g/oj ; and alters bfxiTrai into 'i^ofxoXoyt]-
giTai. Romans xv. 3. — Verbatim from the Greek.

412

QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.

(162.) Ps, xvii. 50.
Ata rovro i^ofxoXoyfjaofial
aoi iv eOveai Kvpie, /cat rw d-
vofxarl aov •vp-aXw.
(163.) Deut. xxxii. 43.
EucppuvOrjTe oupavol dfxa
avrw.
(164.) Ps, cxvi, 1,
'Aiveire rov Kupiov iravra rd
eOvtj, eiratveaure avrov iravres
ol Xaol.
(165.) Is, xi. 10.
Kat 'earai iv r^ flfJ-ipci iKel-
vrj fj piC,a rod 'leaaal, kuI d
dviarafxevos dpxetv iOvcvv, iir
adrip eOvtj iXirtovai-
(166,) Is, Iii. 15.
"Oti oTs ovk dvrjyyeXrj irept
avTod, 'd'<\rovrai, /cat ol ovk d-
KrjKoaai, avvfjaovai.
(167.) Is. xxix. 14.
Kat diroXw rrjv aocpiav rwv
aocpwv, KUl rijv avveaiv rwv av-
verwv Kpvyp-w.

Rom. XV. 9.
|Ka0«)? 7e'7j0a7rTaf| Ata
rovro i^ofxoXoyfjaofxui aoi ev
eOveaiv, /cat Tfti ovofxan aov
yp-aXw. Rom. XV, 10.
[[Ila'Xti/ Xe'7ef| EijcppdvOtjre
eOvtj fierd rod Xaov a'urod.
Rom, XV. 11.
|[Kai irdXiv Xe'7ef]| Aiveire
irdvru Tct eOvtj rov Kvptov, kui
iiraiveaarwaav avrov iravres
ol Xaol. Rom. XV. 12,
THaul'us Xe'7ef| "Earui fj
pi(^u rod 'leaaul, kuI d dviara
fxevos apx^iv eOvwv, eir avrw
'eOvrj iXiriovaiv.

pil^u

Rom, XV, 21,
[[Ka0i»? 7e'7|0a7rTaf]| Ot'?
OVK uvtjyyeXrj irepi avrod, o-
-^ovrui, Kal ol ovk dKtjKoaaiv,
avvfjaovatv. ICor, i. 19.
|re'7j0a'7rTat 7aj0'| 'ATroXtS
rrjv aocpiav tcoi/ aocpwv, /cat rijv
avveaiv rwv avverwv uOerfjaw.

EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
Romans xv. 9. — Verbatim from the Greek, with the omission
of XUgll.
Romans xv. 10 — This quotation corresponds more nearly with
the Hebrew. The Seventy read the Hebrew word iay as if it
were pointed, iay, with him, but the apostle follows the present
Hebrew punctuation, supplying with.
Romans xv. 1 1 . — From the Seventy.
Romans xv. 12 — This is taken from the Septuagint, with the
single omission of iv rfj rifiiga ixiivr). Both give the sense of the
Hebrew. According to Dopke, the Seventy and the apostle
give an incorrect version of the Hebrew original. The latter part

mn*

QUOTATIONS FKOM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW
Ps. xviii. 50.
D';i-i3 Tj-rix ]2-bi;

413

Ps. xviii, 49,
Therefore will I give thanks
unto thee, O Lord, among the
: nnatX 'Tjatt*?^ heathen, and sing praises unto
thy name.

Deut. xxxii. 43.
• iajr D*iJ min
Ps. cxvii. 1.
a*i:i - b2 nin* - na 'bbn
:D*a«n-b3 imnii:?

Deut. xxxii. 43.
Rejoice, O ye nations, with
his people. Ps. cxvii. 1.
Praise the Lord, all ye na
tions : praise him, all ye people.

mm

Is, xi. 10.
^ip a'^in Di^a
a"m Dj"? nay im *ii>*
•ii^-n* D*iii vba

Is. xi. 10.
And in that day there shall be
a root of Jesse, which shall stand
for an ensign of the people ; to
it shall the Gentiles seek.

Is. Hi. 15.
ixn anb n3p-N^ im "3
IT ; . ; iT ... ";-
Is. xxix. 14.
nj*3i va3n na3n m3i*i
- . X X "; — . T X : IX ;
•,innvn mj

Is, Iii, 15,
For that which had not been
told them shall they see; and
that which they had not heard
shall they consider.
Is. xxix, 14,
For the wisdom of their wise
inen shall perish, and the under
standing of their prudent men
shall be hid.

EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
of the passage is indeed not literal, yet it contains the sense of
the words in the Old Testament. Standing as a banner of the
Gentiles, is the same as, arising to be a leader of the Gentiles;
the banner, by a common figure, representing the standard-
bearer. Seeking after him, and trusting in him, are expressive
of coexistent or identical states of mind. The former leads to
and implies the latter. Thus there is no error in the quotation.
The apostle, as in many other places, gives the sense, without
the exact words.
Romans xv. 21. — Verbatim from the Seventy.
1 Cor. i. 19. — This citation is made from the Seventy. In-

414

QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.

(168.) Jer, ix. 24.
'Ev rovrw KavxuaOw o Kau-
XWfxevos, avvieiv Kal yivwaKetv,
on e7<o elfii Kvpios o iroiSv e-
Xeos Kul Kplfxa Kul SiKaioavvrjv
eirt rijs yrjs.

1 Cor, i, 31.
[[Kate? 7e'7j0a7rTaf| 'O
Kavxwfxevos iv Kvplw KavxuaOw.

(169.) Is. Ixiv. 4, 1 Cor. ii. 9.
'A'Tfo Toi; alcSvos ovk fjKov- [[Ka^w? 7e7j0a'7rTaf| *A
aafxev, ovSe ol dcpOdXfxol ^fxwv dcpOaXfios ovk eiSev Kal ovs ovk
eiSov Oeov irXfjv aov, Kul rd '^Kovaev kui iiri KapSiuv dvOpw-
epya aov, a ironjaets rois viro- irov ovk ave^rj, "oaa fjrolfxuaev
fxevovaiv eXeov. o Oeos rois uyairwatv aijrdv.
(170,) Is. xl. 13. 1 Cor, ii. 16.
Tt? e7i'ft) vodv Kvplov, Kal Tls yap 671/0) vodv Kvptov,
rls avrod avfi^ovXos iyevero, 'os avfi^t/Saaei avrov ;
OS avfi^ijSa avrov ',
(171.) Job V. 13, 1 Cor, iii. 19.
'O KurdXufi^dvwv aocpovs ev [[re'7joa7rTat 7a|0*]| 'O Spaa-
rrj cppovfjaei- aofxevos rovs aocpovs ev rrj
iravovpytu avrwv.
(172,) Ps. xciii. 11. 1 Cor. iii. 20.
Ki/jOto? yivwaKet rovs StaXo- [[Kat 7raXti/']| KvjOio? yivw-
yiafiovs roov dvOpwirwv, on elal aKei rovs SiaXoyiafiovs riov
fidratoi. aocpwv, on elaiv fxaraiot.
(173.) Gen. ii. 24. 1 Cor. vi. 16.
Kat 'eaovrat 01 Svo els aup- "Eaovrai ydp \cprjaiv\ ot
Ka filav. Svo els aapKU fxiav.

EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
stead of -a^v-^u, the apostle has d'^ir^goi. The Hebrew is con
siderably different. The Septuagint and New Testament bring
out prominently the cause why wisdom perishes and the counsel
of the prudent is concealed, viz. the Lord himself.
1 Cor. i. 31. — This gives the general sense, while it verbally
agrees neither with the Hebrew nor Septuagint. It abridges
their words.

QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW,

415

Jer, ix. 23.
bbpn" n^n - aa *3
*r)i« ini b2pii bbnrpn
mpQ non m:? nin* -:« *3
v-i«3 npniii
' ... AT T ' T T :
C
Is. Ixiv. 3.
Hb iyaiy - ab DVi;;a!i
D*n'?>< nn><n-«'7 ]"y ¦'ij*mn
X T X '¦ - . v; V
tib-nsnab niyy* tr

nin*

Is. xl. 13,
mn"m 13/) ¦*a
; !)-34;*'-!i* iji^;^ i:>w
Job. V. 13.
Danys D*a3n ni"?
AT ; T ; . T -;

Jer. ix. 24.
Let him that glorieth glory
in this, that he understandeth
and knoweth me, that I am the
Lord, which exercise loving-
kindness, judgment, and right
eousness, in the earth.
Is, Ixiv, 4,
Since the beginning of the
world men have not heard, nor
perceived by the ear, neither
hath the eye seen, O God, be
side thee, what he hath pre
pared for him that waiteth for
him. Is, xl, 13,
Who hath directed the Spirit
of the Lord, or, being his coun
sellor hath taught him ?
Job V. 13,
He taketh the wise in their
own craftiness.

Ps. xciv. 11.
Qia ninttria yi" nin*
XX :;~~" t;
',b2n nan-*3

Ps. xciv. 11.
The Lord knoweth the thoughts
of man, that they are vanity.

Gen. ii. 24.
una -)iy3b i*m

Gen. ii. 24.
And they shall be one flesh.

EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
1 Cor. ii. 9. — This passage will be considered afterwards.
1 Cor. ii. 16 — From the Seventy, with some alterations.
1 Cor. iu. 19  This is from the Seventy. The apostle, how
ever, according to his usual manner, alters several words, and
substitutes others which express the sense more forcibly.
1 Cor. iii. 20. — From the Seventy.
1 Cor, vi, 16 — Do,

416

QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.

(174.) Deut. xxv. 4. 1 Cor. ix. 9.
Ov cpifxwaeis ^odv dXowvra. [['Ef 7a|0 tm M.wvaews vdfxw
7e7j0a7rTaf]] Oiy cptfxwaets /3ovv
aXowvra.
(175.) Ex. xxxii. 6, 1 Cor. a, 7.
Kat iKuOiaev d Xaos cpayeiv ^Qairep yeypairrat-J 'E-
Kai irieiv, kui avearrjaav irat- KaOiaev o Xaos cpayeiv kuI irteiv,
^eiv. Kal avearrjaav irall^eiv.
(176.) Deut. xxxii, 17. 1 Cor. x. 20,
"EOvaav Saifxovlots, /cat ov |['AXX'| on a Ovovaiv Sai-
Oew. fiovlots KUl Ov Oeip Ouovaiv.

(177.) Ps, xxiii, 1.
Tod Kvplov fj yrj Kal TO irXfj-
pwfxu avrrjs.
(178,) Is. xxviii. 11, 12.
Ata cpavXiafxdv p^eiXe'toj/, Std
yXwaarjs erepas, on XuXi^aov-
ai rip Xuip rovrw' — /cat ovk fj.
OeXijauv dKoveiv.

1 Cor. X. 26.
Tod Kvplov ydp fj yrj kuI rd
irXfjpwfxa uvrijs.
1 Cor. xiv. 21.
I'Ei/ rip vdfxip 7e'7|0a7rTafJ
OTt ev erepoyXwaaois kui ev
XetXeaiv erepwv XaXfjaw rip
Xaip rovnp, kuI ovS' ovrws el-
auKovaovrai fiov, Xeyei Kvptos.

(179.) Ps. cix. 1. 1 Cor. XV. 25.
"Ew? uv Ow rovs ixPpovs aov "AxpiS ov 0^ iruvras rovs
ViroiroSiov row iroSHv aov. ixOpovs [avrov^ viro rovs iro-
Sas avrov.

(180.) Ps. viii. 7,
Hdvru virera^as
rwv iroSwv avrov.

1 Cor. XV. 27,
viroKarw Yldvra ydp virera^ev viro
rovs irdSas avrov.

EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
1 Cor. ix. 9. — Verbatim from the Seventy.
1 Cor. X. 7  Do.
1 Cor. X. 20. — This citation is not conformable to the Hebrew
or the Greek, since, in either case, it would have been inappro
priate. The apostle makes a slight change, in order to adapt
it to the connexion in which it is introduced.
1 Cor. X. 26. — Verbatim from the Seventy.

QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.

417

Deut. xxv. 4.
:iii>*n3 iW Dvr\n-ab

Deut, xxv, 4.
Thou shalt not muzzle the ox
when he treadeth out the corn.

Ex. xxxii. 6.
iritt'i '?3n'? Dyn :is}i

Ex. xxxii. 6.
And the people sat down to
eat and to drink, and rose up to
'.pmb •iapn piay.

Deut. xxxii. 17.

Deut. xxxii. 17.
They sacrificed unto devils,
not to God.

Ps. xxiv. 1.
na'bo) \iar\ mm"?

Ps. xxiv. 1.
The earth is the Lord's, and
the fulness thereof.

Is. xxviii. 11, 12.

Is. xxviii. II, 12.

'\\ii}by\ n&V *jy'72 *3 ^°^ ^^*^ stammering lips and
^'' ^'^ •¦-¦-: another tongue wiU he speak to
:mn O^n-bi;* ITl] nina this people:— yet they would
'.yiai:? N-13>* N^l— not hear.

Ps. ex. 1.

Ps. ex. 1.

'?l*3*i< n"1t}a-1)i *3*a*^ 3iy ^^' *^°^ ^* my right hand,
' '¦¦ • "' ' ' ' " until I make thine enemies thy
:T?P? D"^'! footstool.

Ps. viii. 7.
:i*'7JTnnjn nn'\t) bb

Ps. viii. 7.
Thou hast put all things un
der his feet.

EXPLANATORY REMARKS,
1 Cor, xiv. 21. — This citation verbally coincides neither with
the Septuagint nor the Hebrew, though the sentiment corres
ponds to both  It comes nearer the latter, the Greek being
somewhat incorrect.
1 Cor. XV. 25. — The meaning is given, without verbal adhe
rence to the Hebrew original, or the Greek version.
1 Cor. XV. 27. — This is taken from the Seventy, with a slight
variation. 3 G

418

QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.

(181.) Is, xxii. 13,
^dywfxev kui irlwfxev, a'vpiov
ydp diroOv^aKOfxev.
(182,) Gen. ii, 7.
Kat iyevero d dvOpwiros els
ypvxrjv ^Siauv.
(183,) Is, xxv, 8.
KaTeVtei/ o Odvaros lax^-
aas' (184.) Hos. xiii. 14.
Hod fj SlKrj aov Odvure ', irou
TO Kevrpov aov aSrj ;
(185.) Ps, cxv. 1.
'Eirlarevau, Std iXdXrjaw
(186.) Is. xlix. 8.
Kaipip SeKTW iirfiKOvau aov,
KUl iv fjfxipcx awrtjplas i^ofjOtj-
aa aoi-
(187) Lev. xxvi. 11, 12.
Kat O^aw rrjv aKrjvfjv fxov iv
vfxtv- — /cat ifxirepiirarfjaw ev
vfxiv- Kal eaofxui vfxwv Oeos, kui
vfieis eaeaOe fioi Xoo?.

1 Cor. XV. 32.
^dywfxev /cat irlwfiev avpiov
yap airoQvfjaKOfxev. 1 Cor. XV. 45.
[[Oi/Tto? Kul yeypairTaf\
'Eyevero d irpwros {uvOpw-
TTo?] 'ASdfx et? ypvxtjv tSiaav.
1 Cor. XV. 54.
[[ToVe yev^aerai d Xoyos d
yeypufifievos-^ K.areirdOrj d
Oavuros els vikos.
1 Cor, XV, 55.
Tlod aov, Odvure, rd vikos ',
irov aov, Ouvare, ro Kevrpov ',
2 Cor. iv. 13.
[[KaTa rd yeypafXfxevov-^
'Eirlarevaa, Sid iXdXrjau.
2 Cor. vi, 2.
|Ae7et 7a/)*| Kuipip SeKTw
eirfjKOvau aov, kui ev fjfiepa aw-
rrjplas i^ofjOrjaa aoi.
2 Cor. vi, 16.
[[KaQib? eiirev d 0eo?-| on
ivoiKrjaw iv avrois Kal ifiirepi-
irarfjaw, /cat eaofiai avriav Oeds,
KUl avrol eaovrai fxov Xaos.

EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
1 Cor. XV. 32. — From the Seventy verbatim.
1 Cor. XV. 45. — This is from the same source, but a little
enlarged. 1 Cor. XV. 54. — Here the apostle follows the Hebrew. As the
words are pointed in our common text, they must be literally
translated, " he (Jehovah) destroys death for ever ;" but perhaps
the verb should be pointed as Pual, and then the sense will be,
" death shall be destroyed for ever." Theodotion translates as
the apostle does ; Aquila renders, xaTairovrigu rhv '^dvaTov ilg vTxog.
According to its Aramaean usage, n^Jl signifies victory, which
the apostle follows in ilg vTxog. Whether it be rendered " unto
victory," or " forever," or " utterly," the meaning is not altered.

QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.

419

Is. xxii. 13.
:niaj nna *3 inWi ^i3K
T XT' T : T
Gen. ii, 7.
:mn u^si"? man *n*')

Is. xxii. 13.
Let us eat and drink ; for to
morrow we shall die.
Gen, ii. 7.
And man became a living
soul.

Is. xxv. 8.
nsi'? rrian y^n
Hos. xiii. 14.

Is. xxv. 8.
He will swallow up death in
victory.

Hos. xiii, 14.
"?|3ap *ni«| rm ''|*'^3n "na O death, IwiU be thy plagues;
, SSsiwi ^ grave, I will be thy destruc-
. 7iNiy tjQjj_ Ps. cxvi. 10.
I believed, therefore have I
spoken.

Ps. cxvi. 10.
n^nx *3 "n^oan

Is. xlix. 8,

Is. xlix. 8.
In an acceptable time have I
heard thee, and in a day of sal-
^nnry^ n:)W" vation have I helped thee.

Lev. xxvi. 11, 12.

Lev. xxvi, 11, 12.

— DSSina *J3ti'a "nm And I will set my tabernacle
*m*m^ D33in3 *TO^nr,m among you: -and I mU walk
¦ ¦^¦. ¦•¦ : = •:--:•: among you, and will be your
"b-Vnn Dmi Q"nbab 03"? God, and ye shaU be my peo-
:Dy^ pie.

EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
1 Cor. XV. 55. — Here the apostle follows exactly neither the
Seventy nor the Hebrew. The sense is the same in all, though
the words are different, Lachmann's text differs from the com
mon text in a manner somewhat singular.
2 Cor. iv. 13. — Verbatim from the Seventy.
2 Cor, vi. 2 — Do.
2 Cor. vi. 16. — This is also from the Seventy. For S^a-w rijv
gxrjvriv fiou, the apostle has IvorAijga -, he omits iv ufxTv, and changes
the pronouns, to make them coincide with the oratio obliqua.

420

QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.

(188,) Is. Iii. 11, 12; 2 Kings vii. 14.
'Airdarrjre, airoartjre, e^e'X-
0aTe iKeiOev, kuI dKuOuprov
fxij d-^rjaOe, i^eXOeTe iK fxeaov
avrijs- — irpoiropevaerat yap
irpdrepos vfiiJov Kvpios- — 'E7ft)
eaofxui avrip et? irurepu, kuI
uxrros earai fxoi ets vtov

(189.) Ex. xvi, 18.
Ovk iirXeovaaev d ro iroXv,
Kal d ro kXarrov ovk i^Xurrd-
vrjaev.(190.) Prov. xxii. 8.
"AvSpu IXapdv Kul Sdrtjv ev-
Xoyei d Oeds'

2 Cor. vi. 17, 18.
Ato i^eXOare iK fxeaov ai)-
rOov Kal dcpoplaOrjre, ^eyei
Kvpios^ Kul dKuOaprov fxrj dir-
reaOe- Kdyw elaSe^ofxai vfxds,
Kal eaofiai vfiiv et? irarepa, Kal
Vfieis eaeaOe fioi els vlovs Kal
Ovyarepas, ^eyei Kvpios irav-
TOKparwp.'^ 2 Cor, viii. 15,
[[Ka0a)? 7e'7|0a7rTaf| 'O
TO 'TroXu OVK iirXeovaaev, Kal d
ro oXiyov ovk fjXurrovrjaev.
2 Cor, ix. 7.
'IXapdv ydp Sortjv dyuird d
Oeos.

(191.)

Ps. cxi. 9.

2 Cor. ix. 9.
'EaKopiriaev, eSwKe rois ire- ^K.aOws yeypairrat-'^ 'E-
vtjatv, fj SiKUioavvrj uvrov fievei aKopiriaev, eSwKev rots irevtjaiv,
et? rov a'lwva rod alwvos' fj SiKuioavvrj avrov fxevet et? rov
, a'lSiva.
(192.) Deut, xix. 15. 2 Cor. xiii, 1,
'Etti cTTo'^iaTO? Svo fxaprv- 'Eirl ardfiaros Svo fxaprv-
pHov, Kul iirl arofxaros rpiSiv pwv kui rpiSiv araOfjaerai irdv
fxaprvpwv, arfjaerai irdv pijfia. pijfia.
EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
2 Cor. vi. 17, 18. — In this passage, the inspired writer departs
from the Greek no less than the Hebrew. The 17th verse is
founded on Isaiah Ui. 11, 12. The words of the prophet are
addressed particularly to the Levites who went before the people
in their return from the captivity at Babylon, charging them to
keep themselves separate from all uncleanness and impurity. The
apostle generaUses the admonition, and applies it to Christians,
warning them against communion with idolaters. It was neces
sary, therefore, to depart from the words of the Old Testament ;
although he subjoins his favourite expression, Xiyu xu^iog. The
18th verse has been referred to various passages in the Old Tes-

QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.

421

Is. Iii. 11, 12 ; 2 Sam, vii. 14.
«ai3 Di^a !)i<2 niD nio

— n3"ina ixij
T • ;
*jK — mb Qyysb
-mn* ^<!)m 3n'7

Is, Hi, n, 12; 2 Sam. vii. 14.
Depart ye, depart ye, go ye
, out from thence, touch no un-
'"at ¦ - clean thing ; go ye out of the
midst of her : for the Lord will
go before you  I will be his
Father, and he shall be my

i^-n*n«

]2b "b son-
'a— ; *

Ex. xvi. 18.

Ex, xvi, 18.

D*;;aam nanan ^""^n ab\

He that gathered much, had
nothing over, and he that ga-
"•''Pin i^"^ thered little had no lack.

Prov. xxii. 9.
•^^3* a'\n i*y-3iza
Ps. cxii. 9.

Snpi)i D*:i*3«'7 ]n: mss

Prov. xxii. 9.
He that hath a bountiful eye
shall be blessed. Ps. cxii. 9,
He hath dispersed, he hath
given to the poor; his righte-
"[¦^C ^~}py ousness endureth for ever.

Deut. xix, 15.
At the mouth of two witnesses,
or at the mouth of three wit-
; 121 Dip* D*ny - niDbp nesses, shall the matter be esta
bUshed.

Deut. xix. 15.
"B-bv ix D*ny "ip *3-'?y

EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
tament, such as, Jeremiah xxxi. 1, 9, 33 ; Ezekiel xxxvi. 28;
2 Samuel vu. 14. We refer it to 2 Samuel vii. 14.
2 Cor. viii. 15. — From the Seventy, with a slight alteration.
2 Cor. ix, 7. — From the same source as the last, with an un
important deviation. It is remarkable that these words are want
ing in the Hebrew. They seem to be a paraphrastic quotation
of Proverbs xxii. 8 in the Septuagint, with which the Vulgate
agrees. 2 Cor. ix. 9  This is taken from thg Seventy, with the sin
gle omission ot tou aiuvog.
2 Cor. xiii. 1. — This is abbreviated from the Greek.

422

QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.

(193,) Gen, xii, 3.
Kat ivevXoyrjOfjaovrai iv aol
iraaai at cpvXai rijs yijs.

Gal. iii. 8.
[[Iliooi'^oi/cra ^e ^ ypucpij. . . .
irpoevtjyyeXlauro rw 'A^pa-
dfx-'^ OTt ivevXoyrjO^aovrat iv
aol iravra ra eOvtj.

(194.) Deut. xxvii. 26. Gal. iii, 10.
'ETrt/caTaoaTO? tto? dvOpw- [[re'7|Oa'7rTat 7aj0'| OTt iiri-
iros OS OVK efifxevet ev iraai rots Kurupuros iras os ovk efxfxe-
oyois rov vofxov rourou irot- vei ev iraaiv rots yey pufxfxevois
ijaui avrovs' iv rip ^t^Xtip rod vdfxov, rod
irotijaai uvru.

(195.) Hab. ii, 4; Lev, xviii, 5.
'O oe SIkuios iK irlarews fiov
y r rl \ t , \ if
irjaerai. — J\. iroitjaus uvru av-
OpwTTOS ^i^aerai iv avrois.
(196.) Deut. xxi, 23,
I^eKartjpafievos viro Oeov irds
Kpefxdfievos iirl ^vXov.
(197.) Gen. xxii, 18,
Kat ivevXoyrjQfjaovrai iv rw
airepfxarl aov iravra rd eOvtj
rijs yijs.

(198,) Is, liv. 1.
EvcppdvOtjTi areipu fj ov ti'/c-
rovau, pij^ov /cat jBdrjaov fj ovk
wSivovaa, on •TroXXa rd reKva
rijs ipfjfiov fxdXXov, rj rijs ixov-
atjs TOV avS pa-

Gal, iii. 11, 12.
el/~\ ^ f ft/ , r
(Jri o oiKuios e/c iriarews
Zvo'erai. — 'O iroifjaus avra
^j^aerai iv avrois.
Gal. iii, 13,
[[''Oti 76'7^a7rTaf| 'EiriKu-
raparos irds d Kpefxafxevos iirl
^vXov. Gal, iii. 16,
[[Ow Xe7ef]| Kat toi? airep-
fiuatv, [[(I)? eTTt iroXXoov, dXX'
ws icp' ei/o?]| Kai tw airep
fxarl aov, [[o? ianv ^to-To'?.J
Gal. iv. 27.
|[re'7j0a7rTat 7aj0*| Evcppdv-
Orjri areipa fj ov riKTOvaa,
prjcpv Kcxi ^dtjaov fj OVK wSi
vovaa, on iroXXd rd reKva riji
ipfjfiov fiuXXov tj T?? ixovarjs
TOV avopa.

EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
Gal. iii. 8. — From the Seventy, with a slight change.
Gal. Ui. 10 — This is from the same source as the last, with
the alteration of roTg Xoyoig into ro'ig yey^afxfiivoig, and the omission
of a few words.
Gal. in. 11, 12. — This is altered from the Greek.

QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.

423

Gen. xii. 3. (See xviii. 18.)
nn3i£>a bb "rjn i3-)33i
: nanxn

Gen. xii. 3.
And in thee shall all famiUes
of the earth be blessed.

Deut. xxvii. 26.
-na Q"p"-ab im nnx
n'fif^b /itirn-nnirin *n3"7
DniK

Deut. xxvii. 26.
Cursed be he that confirmeth
not all the words of this law to
do them.

Hab. ii. 4 ; Lev. xviii. 6.
— : mn* inaiaj^a p"ir\
*ni cnan ana nitrj?* im
- T X T T r V -; - V -;
Dn3
A^.* T
Deut. xxi. 23.
"'ibn u"nba nbbp
Gen. xxii. 18.
**i:i b2 ^Vin •I3n3nn'! 5{-i>*n

Hab. ii. 4 ; Lev. xviii. 5.
The just shall Uve by his
faith  Which if a man do, he
shall live in them.
Deut. xxi. 23,
He that is hanged is accur
sed of God. Gen, xxii. 18.
And in thy seed shall all the
nations of the earth be blessed.

Is. liv, 1.
*n23 mb" ab mpy *3n
-*3 ri?n- iib "bn^')

*33a

naaitt? ¦

*J3

nan X •
a"T]
n'pnyn

Is. liv. 1.
Sing, O barren, thou that
didst not bear ; break forth into
singing, and cry aloud, thou
that didst not travail with child :
for more are the children of the
desolate, than the children of
the married wife.

EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
Gal iu. 13 — This is abridged from the Greek version.
Gal. iii. 16 — This is properly the citation of a single word for
the purpose of commenting upon it.
Gal. iv. 27. — Verbatim from the Seventy.

424

QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.

(199,) Gen, xxi. 10,
"E/c/3aXe rijv iraiSlaKtjv rav-
rrjv, KUl rov vtov uvrijs- ov ydp
firj KXrjpovofxrjaei o vios rrjs irai-
SlaKrjs ravrijS fxerd rod vlov fxov
Icraa/c.
(200,) Lev, xix, 18.
Kat dyairrjaeis rov irXrjalov
aov ws aeavrov-

Gal. iv. 30.
[[Tt Xe'7et ^ ypucpij ;| "E/c-
j8aXe r^v iratSlaKrjv Kul rov
vlov avrrjS' ov ydp fxtj KXtjpo-
vofifjaei d vios rijs iraiSlaKijs
fiera rod vlov rijs iXevOepas.
Gal. V. 14.
TEv Tw-I ' Ay airfjaets rov
irXrjalov aov ws aeavrov.

(201,) Ps. Ixvii, 19. Eph. iv, 8,
'Avu^ds els v-ypos, rJxfiaXw- [[¦'^'o Xe7ef| 'Avuj3ds els
revaus ulxfiuXwalav- eXa/3e? 'vypos rjxfxaXwrevaev alxf-aXw-
Sdfxara iv dvOpwirw- alav, eSwKev Sdfxara rois dv-
Opwirots.
(202,) Eph, V. 14.
[[Ato Xe'7ef][ "Eyeipai d
KaOevSwv Kul dvdara iK rwv
veKpwv, Kai eiricpavaei aoi o
Xpiaros.
(203.) Gen. ii, 24. Eph, v, 31,
"EveKev rovrov KaraXel-^ei 'Avrl rovrov KuraXelypei
dvOpwiros rov irarepa avrod dvOpwiros irarepa kui fxrjrepa
Kal rijv fxrjrepa, /cat irpoaKoX- /cot irpoaKoXXtjOfjaerai t^ yv-
XrjOfjaerai irpds rrjv yvvaiKU i/at/ct avToi;, /cat eaovrai ol Svo
avrov, Kul eaovrai ol Svo ets els aapKU fxiav.
adpKU fxluv. EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
Gal. iv. 30. — From the same source, with a small alteration.
TavTTjV is omitted ; and for fiou 'igad-x, rrig iXiuSigag is put.
Gal. V. 14. — ^ Verbatim from the Seventy.
Eph. iv. 8  This is from the Seventy. The apostle changes
the person, in order to incorporate the quotation with his subject.
Eph. V. 14  No passage in the Old Testament corresponds
to this. Some have referred it to Isaiah Ix. 1, or to xxvi. 19; but
to the latter it has little similarity. Epiphanius thought that it
was derived from an apocryphal writing of Elias : Syncellus of
Byzantium, and Euthalius, from a similar composition of Jere
miah. Dopke, after Theodoret and Heumann, supposes that it
was borrowed from a Christian hymn. Michaelis, Storr, and

QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW. 425
Gen. xxi. 10. Gen, xxi. 10,
-na^ nain naj^n t^nii ^^^^ o^* *^^^ bondwoman
•¦' " ^ ''" '"" and her son : for the son of this
nahjn-i^ t1"\ ab *3 n}^ bondwoman shall not be heir
: pn2i* 'Dy *J2"Dy riN-rn ^^^h my son, even with Isaac.
Lev. xix. 18. Lev. xix. 18.
'TIia3 "^ly-)'? n2na> But thou shalt love thy neigh-
I A T c I -: •• : T : - T : ijQyp j^g thyself.
Ps. Ixviii. 19. Ps. Ixviii. 18.
*3E? n'3tt> ainab n"bv ^^^^ ^^^*' ^^'=^"'^^'1 ^^ ^is^>
^ "^ ¦^ " '¦ ¦ '^ thou hast led captivity captive :
Dns3 nijria rjnp'? thou hast received gifts for men.

Gen. ii. 24. Gen, ii, 24.
V3^*"D^* tt>*N~3ty* P"'7y Therefore shall a. man leave

vm '\n^a2. pnm ia^<i-nsi

his father and his mother, and
shall cleave unto his wife ; and
: nnj< -Ito3b they shall be one flesh.

EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
Flatt, approve of the same sentiment. The three lines of the
hymn are thus presented by Heumann : —
"Eys/ja; 6 -xahuhuv
Kal dvdgra Ix tuv vix^uv
'iStirKpavgu goi 6 Xg/iTrdf.
Olshausen aptly remarks, that the formula 8ih xiyu would scarcely
be applied to uncanonical writings. Notwithstanding the differ
ence of the words, and the form in which they are presented, we
beUeve, with Harless and Olshausen, that the ideas contained in
Isaiah Ix. 1 are here presented. The apostle gives a free citation,
and incorporates the passage into the thread of his discourse.
Eph. V. 31. — Abridged from the Seventy. 3 H

426

QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.

(204.) Ex. XX. 12; (Deut. v. 16.) Eph. vi, 2, 3.
Tifxa rov irarepa aov kui Tlfxu rov iruripu aov Kai
rrjv fitjTepa aov, 'iva ev aoi ye- rijv fxrjrepa, ^ijris ianv ivro-
vtjrai, Kal "va fxuKpoxpovios Xij irpwrrj iv e7ra77eXia,]| "va
yevrj iiri rijs yijs' ei) crot yevrjrai Kal eatj fxuKpo-
Xpdvios iirl rijs yijs.
(205,) Deut. xxv. 4. 1 Tim. v. 18.
Ov cpifxwaeis ^ovv dXowvra. ^Aeyei ydp fj ypacpfj-'^ Ou
cptfxwaeis l3ovv dXowvra.

(206.) Num. xvi. 5.
at e7»/ct) o veos rovs ovras
avrov' (207.) Ps. ii. 7, and 2 Kings vii. 14.
''^los fxov ei av, iyw a^fiepov
yeyevvrjKa ae. — '£70) eaofiui
avrip els irurepu, Kat uvros ea
rai fxoi els vlov.
(208.) Ps. xcvi. 7,
njOOcr/ci;i/);craTe avrip iravres
dyyeXoi avrov.
(209,) Ps, ciii. 4.
'O iroiwv TOVS ayyiXovs av
rov irvevfxura, kui tovs Xeirovp-
yovs avrod irvp cpXeyov.

2 Tim, ii, 19.
"Eyvw Kvpios rovs dvras ad-
rod. Heb, i. 5,
[[TtVt ydp eiirev — "I Yto'?
T^'^ f I
fiov et av, eyw aijfiepov 7e7e)/-
vtjKa ae ', [[/cat TraXti/]! 'E7W
eaofiai avrw els irarepa, /cat
uvros earai fxoi els vlov ;
Heb, i, 6.
[[Ae'7er| Kat irpoaKVvtjad-
rwauv avrip iravres dyyeXoi
Oeov. Heb, i. 7.
[[Ae'7ef][ 'O irotiav rovs 07-
yeXovs avrod irvevfxura /cat
rovs XeiTovpyovs avrov irvpds
cpXdyu.

EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
Eph. vi. 2, 3  This is freely quoted from the Seventy.
1 Tim. V. 18. — Verbatim from the Seventy.
2 Tim. ii. 19. — From the Seventy, with a slight alteration.
Heb. i. 5. — Verbatim from the Seventy.
Heb, i. 6. — This is taken from Psalm xcvi. 7, according to
the Septuagint. Others think that it is derived from Deuteron.
xxxii. 43, Septuagint. But to this it may be objected, that there
are no corresponding words in the Hebrew ; that the Messiah is
not there spoken of or alluded to ; that none of the ancient ver
sions exhibit the clause ; and that the codex Alexandrinus has

QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.

427

Ex. XX. 12. (Deut. v. 16.) Ex, xx. 12; (Deut. v. 16.)
"?ia><-nKl '?J*3^*"n^* nil3 Honour thy father and thy
'' ' ¦ • L '"Other ; that thy days may be
nanN*n '?y '?)*a* 113-!«* lyatj long ^^^n the land which the
Lord thy God giveth thee,

Deut. xxv. 4.
:it£>*'i3 iSii) Qvnn-ab
Num. xvi. 5.
i'7-ntt;j:*-n« nim yi*'i

Deut, xxv. 4.
Thou shalt not muzzle the ox
when he treadeth out the corn.
Num. xvi, 5,
The Lord will shew who are
his.

Ps, ii. 7, and 2 Sam. vii. 14.
: ^*rin'?* Di*n *jh« nna "n
a^n") 3K^ '\b-n"na *j«

Ps, ii, 7, and 2 Sam. vii. 14.
Thou art my son ; this day
have I begotten thee  I will
be his father, and he shall be
]2b "b-n"n] my son.

Ps. xcvii. 7.
:D*n'?i<-'?3 i"?"- iinrii^n

Ps. xcvii. 7.
Worship him, all ye gods.

Ps. civ. 4.
rmt^^a nin-n v^abo nwy
T : IX ; XX.- iionb m fire.

Ps, civ, 4.
Who maketh his angels spi
rits ; his ministers a flaming

EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
viol kou, whilst in one MS. at least of the Septuagint, viz. the
Oxford, the whole clause is omitted. These considerations lead
to the conclusion, that Deuteron. xxxii. is not here cited, but
another place, which can be no other than Psalm xcvi. 7. This
psalm was applied by the Jews themselves to the Messiah. Ge
senius, in his Thesaurus (p. 95), as also in his smaller Lexicon,
denies that D*ii7i< signifies angels; but the authority of an in
spired writer is directly opposed to this sentiment.
Heb. i. 7 — This citation is from the Seventy, with the single
change of ?rDg fXiyov into lev^hg ipXoya.

428

QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.

(210,) Ps, xliv. 7,8.
'O Opovos aov 6 0eo? eis al-
Ijuvu alwvos, pdlBSos evOvrrjTOS
fj pa/3Sos rijs (3aaiXelas aov.
fjyairrjaus SiKatoavvtjv, kui i-
filatjaas dvofxlav, Std rovro e.
XP'-O'i ere d Oeds d Oeds aov
eXaiov dyaXXtaaews irapd rovs
fxeroxovs aov
(211.) Ps. ci. 26, &c.
Kot' dpxas rijv yrjv av kv-
pie eOefxeXiwaas, kui epya roov
Xeipoiv aov eiatv ol ovpuvoi.
avroi airoXodvrai, av Se Siufxe-
vets. KUl iravres ws Ifxdriov ira.
XatwOfjaovrai, kui waei irepi-
^dXutov eXl^eis avrovs kui dX-
XayfjaovTut. av Se d avros ei,
KUl ra 'errj aov ovk e/cXet'vp-oi'-
aiv(212.) Ps. cix, 1,
K.dOov iK Se^iwv fxov, 'ews dv
Oai rovs ix^povs aov viroiroSiov
rcov iroSccv aov.
(213,) Ps, viii. 5,
Tt ianv dvOpwiros, on fxifx-
vfjaKrj avrov ; 'ij vios avOpwirov,
on eiriaKeirrrj avrov ', fjXarrw-
aas avrov (Bpax^ ri irup' dy-
yeXovs, Sd^ri kuI rifxrj iarecpd-
vwaas avrov, kui Karearrjaas
uvrov iirl ra epya rijiiv j^etjOtoi/
aov- iravra vireratas viroKurw
Ttoi/ iroSHov avrov.

Heb, i. 8, 9,
[[Ilioo? Se TOV vi'oi/"]] 'O Opd-
vos aov d Oeds els rov uHJiva
rod alwvos, kuI fj pa^Sos evOv-
rrjros pdlBSos rijs jSuatXelas
aov. fjydirrjaas SiKaioavvrjv
Kal ifxlatjaas dvofituv Siu rov
ro expicrev ae o Oeos o Oeos
aov eXaiov ayuXXiuaews irapa
rovs fxeroxovs aov.
Heb, i. 10, &c.
[[Karl 'Ziv Kur dpxds, kv-
pie, rijv yrjv iOefieXiwaas, Kal
epya rHv i^etjowi/ trov elaiv ol
oupavol. auroi diroXodvrai, av
Se Siufievets- Kal iravres ws ifia-
riov iraXaiwOfjaovrdi, kui waei
irept^dXatov eXl^eis avrovs, ws
ifxanov, KUl aXXayi^aovrai- av
Se d avrds ei, Kul rd errj aov
OVK iKXel^ovaiv. Heb, i. 13.
TE'lprjKev 7rOTe"][ KciSou e/c Set,-
iwv fiov eo)? av QOi rovs e-^Opovs
aov ViroiroSiov twi/ iroSwv aov',
Heb. ii. 6, &c.
[[AieiaajOTVjOaTO ^e irov ti?,
Xe'7ft)i/*| Tt? ianv dvOpwiros,
on fxifxvfjaKrj avrov', rj vtos av
Opwirov, on eiriaKeirrrj avrov',
fjXurrwaus uvrov ^puxy n irap
dyyeXovs, Sd^rj kuI rtfx^ iare-
cpavwaas avrov, [/cat Karearrj
aas avrov eiri ra epya rwv vet-
pSiv croii,] irdvru viriru^us viro
Karw rwv iroSHov avrov.

EXPLANATORY REMARKS.

Heb. i. 8, 9  This is from the Seventy nearly verbatim. The
apostle prefixes the article to aiuvog and aluva.
Heb. i. 10, &c. — Almost verbatim from the Seventy. The
apostle repeats ug Ifidnov.

QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW, 429

Ps. xlv. 7, 8.
IVI °'75? °''^^^.. "^^^P.
tTjnoba I03ti; "it>*a J33ty
-b;^ Vpi apr)\ pns n^rra
"^"nba a"nba Tjnt^a 13
;?[*n3na ]W^ v^p
Ps, cii, 26, &c.
niypa_^ mo* '\'nKl^ 0*39'?
•')n3N* nan :a*ati? 'Ti*n*
T .. ¦ IT T I ..-T
nj33 n^3i iayri r\na)
I'^sbni ov'^nn \£}^2b2 1^3*
: ian* ab '^"n')y\^ a^n nno]
Ps. ex. 1.
'T[*3*>* n*tt'S-n^ ''j*a*'? 2ii>
J"?!*"?;-]"? D'nn
Ps. viii. 6, &c.
-13!) ;|.)n3m-*3 urijK-na
innDnm Miilpsri *3 on^
nnni nia^i d^'?'^^,'?, ^A?'^
*Wa2 in'7*t^aj;T_ : ^nij3)in
T , - - - T - P,^ ..T

Ps. xlv. 6, 7.
Thy throne, O God, is for
ever and ever : the sceptre of
thy kingdom is a right sceptre.
Thou lovest righteousness, and
hatest wickedness : therefore
God, thy God, hath anointed
thee with the oil of gladness
above thy fellows.
Ps. cii. 25, &c.
Of old hast thou laid the
foundation of the earth; and the
heavens are the work of thy
hands. They shall perish, but
thou shalt endure ; yea, all of
them shall wax old like a gar
ment : as a vesture shalt thou
change them, and they shall be
changed : But thou art the
same, and thy years shall have
no end. Ps, ex. 1,
Sit thou at my right hand,
until I make thine enemies thy
footstool. Ps, viii, 4, &c.
What is man, that thou art
mindful of him ? and the son of
man, that thou visitest him?
For thou hast made him a little
lower than the angels, and hast
crowned him with glory and
honour. Thou madest him to
have dominion over the works
of thy hands ; thou hast put all
things under his feet.

EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
Heb. i. 13. — Exactly according to the Greek.
Heb. ii. 6, &c — Verbatim from the Seventy. Griesbach and
Scholz omits the clause xat xarigTrjgag aurh 'iirl rd 'igya ruv %£/§£>'
gou; Knapp and Lachmann put it in brackets, as most probably
spurious. It seems tp have been interpolated from the Seventy.

430

QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW,

(214.) Ps, xxi. 23.
Airjyfjaofiai ro dvofxd aov
rois dSeXcpois fiov, iv fxeaw iK-
KXrjatas vfxvfjaw ae.
(215.) Is. viii. 17, 18,
ll ireiroiOws eaofiat iir
avrw, tSov e7(o /cat Ta irutSlu

Kal
rip. i
a fioi eowKev o ueos.

(216.) Ps. xciv. 7, &c.
Zifjfiepov iav rijs cpwvijs av
rov uKovarjre, firj aKXtjpvvtjre
rds KupSlas vfxiav, w? iv rw ira.
puiriKpuafxcp. Kara rijv fjfxepav
rod iriKpuafiod iv t/j epfjfxw, ov
eireipuaav fie ol irarepes vfxwv
iSoKifiaaav, Kal eiSov rd epya
fxov. TeaaapaKOvra errj irpo-
awxOiau rij yeved eKelvrj, kuI
eiira, ael irXaviovrat rij KapSla,
Kat avroi ovk eyvwaav ras d-
Sovs fxov- o)? wfxoaa ev rij dpyTj
fiov, el elaeXevaovrai els rrjv
Karairavaiv fxov.
(217.) Ps. xciv. 8.
^^fxepov idv rijs Cpwvijs uv
rov UKOvatjre, firj aKXrjpvvrjre
rds KupSlus vfiwv, ws iv rip
irapairiKpaafxw' (218.) Ps, xciv. 11.
'Qs Wfxoaa iv rrj opyij fiov,
et eto-eXei>(70i/Tat et? rijv kutu-
iravalv fiov.

Heb. ii. 12.
[[Ae'7(oi/-]| ' AirayyeXd) rd
'ovo fid aov rois dSeXcpots fiov,
ev fieaw e/c/cXijcria? vfivrjaw ae.
Heb, ii, 12, 13,
JKai 7rctXti/"][ 'E7()D eaofxat
ireiroiOws iir avrai. ^Kal ird-
Xti/'l 'ISov iyw Kal rd iraiSla
a fxoi eSwKev d Oeds.
Heb, iii, 7, &o,
[[Ka0«)? Xeyei rd irvedfxa rd
a7ioi/'| "Sifjfxepov, idv rijs cpwvijs
avrod aKovarjre, fxrj aKXtjpvvtjre
ras KupSlas vfxSiv ws iv rip ira
pairiKpaafxw KUTU rrjv fjfxepav
rod ireipuafxod iv rij ipfjfxip, ov
iireipuaav ol irarepes vfxOov iv
SoKifiaala kuI eiSov rd epya
fiov TeaaapaKOvra ertj. Sid
irpoawxOiaa rij yevea ravrrj
Kal eiira- 'Ael irXaviiovrut rrj
KupSlu- auTOt Se ovk eyvwauv
rds dSovs fiov, <«? wfioaa iv Tp
dpytj fiov El e'taeXevaovrat et?
rrjv Karairavaiv fiov.
Heb. iii. 15.
TEv rip Xe7eo-0af| 'Etjfiepov,
iav rijs cpwvijs avrod dKOvarjre,
fxij aKXrjpvvtjre rds KapSlas v-
fxwv d)? eV TM irapairiKpaafiw.
Heb. iv. 3.
[[Ka^w? e'lptjKev-l 'Qs wfioaa
iv rrj opyij fiov El elaeXev
aovrai et? rijv Karairavaiv fxov.

EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
Heb. u. 12  This is from the Seventy, with the single change
of hiriyrjgofxai into ditayyiXu.
Heb. ii. 12, 13. — Verbatim from the Seventy.
Heb. ui. 7, &c — This long passage is from the Greek also.
The apostle joins Tiggagdxovra sV») to the preceding xai iJhov rA

QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.

431

Ps. xxii. 23. Ps. xxii. 22.
"^liDB *nN'? '?|aiy niDpS^ I will declare thy name unto
''^ ' ' ¦ ^llI.', L ^ my brethren : in the midst of the
i., . . .. ,\^ conffreffation will 1 praise thee.

Is. viii. 17, 18.
*3Jj^. n2n '.sb "n"^p')
riim *'?-]nj ^^y^* D*n'?*m
T . . ' - T ... -; • T ; - ;
Ps. xcv. 7, &c.
nyai^n i'7p3-D« Di^n
IT ; • ' : > -
ni*na3 D333'7 ••)1^pJ^-'?^<
AT • : • •¦ : - : ': -
-it^j< : n3ia4 nbh Di*3
"DJ *Jiirii D3*Jii3X *J!id3
nu) D*y3nK :"bif5 •ixn
XX *¦'';" •t;x X
*yh a:^ laai linn :o)pa
:*3-n lyrn-^'? am on 33b
IX X ; ;ix •¦ ; •• x ••
- aa *si*3 "nV2.p:\ - im
'."nrr):r2-ba ]^a2]
Ps. xcv. 7, 8.
: ii>nii;n i'?p3 " ox Di^n
n3*na3 0333'? itt^pri - '?^*
Di*3

nDa

Ps. xcv. 11.
-D«»Si*3 *rij;3iir3--)ti?K

Is. viii. 17, 18.
And I will look for him. Be
hold I and the children whom
the Lord hath given me.
Ps. xcv. 7, &c.
To-day if ye will hear his
voice, harden not your heart, as
in the provocation, and as in
the day of temptation in the
wilderness; when your fathers
tempted me, proved me, and
saw my work. Forty years long
was I grieved with this genera
tion, and said. It is a people
that do err in their heart, and
they have not known my ways.
Unto whom I sware in my wrath
that they should not enter into
my rest. Ps. xcv, 7, 8.
To-day if ye will hear his
voice, harden not your heart, as
in the provocation. Ps. xcv, 11,
Unto whom I sware in my

- x : V ' • ¦for inff* TviTr -roof

ter into my rest.

EXPLANATORY REMARKS.

'i^ya, /xov, which renders the sentiment more emphatic than the
Greek version, or the Hebrew, as they are at present divided.
" Though they saw my works forty years."
Heb. iii. 15  This is part of the same passage repeated.
Heb. iv. 3. — Verbatim from the Seventy.

432

QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.

(219.) Gen. ii. 3. Heb. iv. 4.
Kat evXdytjaev d Oeds rijv fj- ^E'lprjKev ydp irov — "J Kat
fxepuv rijV e^Sdfxijv, kuI fjylaaev Kareiruvaev 6 Oeds iv r^ fjfiepcx
avr^v on iv avr^ Kareiruvaev rij e/SSofxtj dird iruvrwv roov ep.
dird iruvrwv rwv epywv uvrov, ywv avrod.
wv '^p^aro d Oeds iroirjaui.

(220.) Ps. xciv. 8.
"^fjfxepov iav rrjs cpwvijs av
rov aKOvatjTe, fxij aKXtjpvvtjre
rds KapSlas vfxwv-
(221.) Ps. ii. 7.
Yto? fxov et av, iyw afjfxepov
yeyevvtjKU ae.

(222,) Ps, cix, 4.
2y lepevs et? tov alOova, Kara
rijv rd^tv MeX)^tcre^e'/c.

(223.) Gen. xxii, 16, 17,
Aeywv, KUT ifxuvrod wfioaa
Xeyei Kvpios- ? fxrjv evXoyiJiiv
evXoyfjaw ae, kui irXrjOvvwv
irXrjOvvw ro airepfxu aov.

Heb, iv. 7,
[[Ka0w? ¦7r|Ooet'jO>;Taf]| 'Zifjfxe-
pov, euv rijs cpwvijs avrod dKov-
arjre, fxij aKXrjpvvrjre rds Kap
Slas VfXWV. Heb. V. 5.
[['O XaX^aus irpds uvrdvj
Ylds fxov e? av, iyw afjfxepov
yeyevvrjKa ae.
Heb, V, 6,
[[Ka0co? Kul iv erepw Xe'7ef|
2y lepevs els rov alSiva Kara
rijv rd^iv MeXxiaeSeK.
Heb, vi. 14.
[['O Oeds wfxoaev KaO' eavrod,
X67tO)/"]| Et fxijv evXoywv evXo-
yfjaw ae kui irXrjOvvwv rrXrjOv-
vw ae.

(224.) Ps, cix, 4. Heb. vii. 17, 21,
"Qfxoae Kvpios kuI ov fxera- IMa^Ti/jOeirat 7aj0"| "OTt
fxeXrjOfjaerai- av lepevs els rov av lepevs els rov aliJova Kara
alwva, Kurd rijv rd^iv MeXj^t- rijv rd^tv MeX^^to-e^e/c. — |Atd

SeK

aeoeK.

rod Xeyovros irpds avrdv"^ "Q-
fioaev Kvpios, /cat od fxerafxeXtj-
Oijaerai, av lepevs els rov ulwva
Kurd rijv rd^iv MeX^tcre^e/c.

EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
Heb. iv. 4. — This quotation is abridged from the Greek.
Heb. iv. 7  Verbatim from the Seventy.
Heb. V. 5.— Do.
Heb. V. 6.— Do.

QUOTATIONS PROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.

433

Gen. ii. 3. Gen. ii. 3.
Di*-n« a"ilba '3-13*1 And God blessed the seventh
v: J :¦ X ;-
in *3 ^na tt^np*! *y*3ttrn day, and sanctified it; because
* L l! ¦ ¦ : " that in it he had rested from all
-im ')n^abf2-b2t2 nitt' his work which God created and
:niiyy'7 D"nba an made.
Ps. xcv. 7, 8. Ps, xcv, 7, 8,
: iyatt^n iVpn " DJ^ Di^n To-day if ye wUl hear his
1 , L voice, harden not your heart as
n3na3 0333^ Wpn-ba j^ th; provocation.

Ps. ii. 7.

Ps, ii, 7,
Thou art my Son, this day
have I begotten thee.

^4^

Ps. ex. 4,
absyb ]n3 '

nna

:p-T:a-*3'7a "niT]

Gen. xxii. 16, 17.
— nin*-D><j *nynti73 "2.
nans ninm "^^ina tj-ii-*3
Ps. ex. 4.
Dna* n"?! nim yatyj
*m3"=T-'7:ir D'piy'? iii3-nnM
:pn:!i-*3'?a

Ps. ex, 4.
Thou art a priest for ever
after the order of Melchizedek.

Gen, xxii. 16, 17.
By myself have I sworn, saith
the Lord — That in blessing I
wUl bless thee, and in multiply
ing I will multiply thy seed.
Ps. ex. 4,
The Lord hath sworn, and will
not repent. Thou art a priest for
ever' after the order of Melchi
zedek.

EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
Heb. vi. 14 — This is taken from the Greek, with the single
alteration of ri giri^jia gov into gi.
Heb. vu. 17, 21. — Verbatim from the Seventy. 3 I

434 QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW,
(225,) Ex, xxv. 40, Heb, viii. 5.
"Opa irotfjaets Kurd rov rv- TKaOws Kexp^lf'^anarai Mftii/-
irov TOV SeSeiyfxevov aot iv rw (r??"| '''Oioa 700 |[(f)»;crt)/]| Trot-
Opel. rjaeis iravra Kara rov rvirov
rov SetxOivra aoi iv rw opet.
(226,) Jer. xx.\viii, 31, &c, Heb. viii, 8, &c.
'I^oy fjfxepui epxovrai, cptjal |Ae'7ef| 'I^oy fjfiipai ep.
Kvptos, Kul SiaOfjaofxai rip o'ikw x^vrai, Xeyei Kvpios, Kal avv-
'laparjX KUl rip o'ikw 'lovSa Sia- reXeaw iirl rov oikov 'lapaijX
OfjKrjv Kaivfjv, ov Kurd rijv Siu- kuI iirl rov oikov 'IovSu SiaOfj-
OfjKtjv Pjv SieOefitjv rois irarpd- Ktjv Katvfjv, ov kutu rijv SiaOfj-
atv uvrOiv, iv fifxepci iirtXu^o- Ktjv '^v iiroltjau rois irarpaaiv
fxevov fxov r^s x^'^P^^ avriiov, avrSiv iv fjfiepa iiriXa^ofievov
i^uyayeiv avrovs iK yijs At- fxov rijS x^'pos avrwv, i^aya-
yvirrov, on avroi ovk ivifxei- yeiv avrovs iK yijs Aiyvirrov,
vav iv rrj SiaOijKrj fxov, Kal iyw on avrol ovk ivefxeivav iv rii
fjfieXrjaa avrwv, cprjai Kvptos' SiaOfjKtj fxov, Kdyw ^fxeXtjaa
on avrrj fj SiaOfjKrj fiov, tjv Siu- avriiov, Xeyei Kvpios. on av-
Oijaofxui rip o'ikw 'lapuijX. fierd rrj fj SiaOfjKrj ^fxov~^ rjv SiaOfj-
rds fjfxepas iKelvus, cprjal Kvpios, aofxui rw o'Ikw 'lapurjX fxerd
SiSovs Swaw vdfiovs fiov et? rijv ras fjfiepus iKelvus, Xeyei kv-
Sidvotav avrwv, kuI iirl KupSlas pios, SiSovs vdfiovs fxov els rijv
avrwv ypd'^w uijtovs, kuI eao- Siuvoiav avrwv, /cat iirl KapSlas
fxai atjTois els Oeov, kuI ayToi avriiov iiriypd>\rw avrovs, kuI
eaovrai fxoi els Xaov. /cat ov fxrj eaofiai avrois els Oeov, /cat uv-
StSd^waiv 'eKuaros rov iroXlrrjv roi eaovrui fioi ets Xuov. kui
avrod, Kal eKuaros rdv dSeX- ov firj SiSu^waiv 'eKuaros rov
cpdv avrov, Xe'7ft)j/, yvSiOi rdv iroXlrrjv avrod kui 'eKuaros rov
Kvpiov- on iravres elS^aoval dSeXcpdv avrov, Xe7ft)v Tvicdi
fie dird fxiKpod avrwv 'ews fie- rdv Kvptov, on iravres elSfjaov-
yuXov uvrihv, on 'IXews eaofiui atv fie diro fiiKpov eft)? fieya-
rais uSikIuis uvrwv, kuI roov Xov avrCov, on 'IXews eaofiai
dfiapnwv avrwv ov fxij fxvtjaOS) rais dSiKlais avriiov, Kul rcov
en. afxapnwv avriiov /cat rcov avo-
fxiHov avrwv ov fiij fivrjaOio 'en.

EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
Heb. viii. 5. — This is also from the Greek. The apostle adds
iravra, and substitutes hux^ivra for hihiiyfiivov.
Heb. viu. 8, &c. — This long citation is from the Seventy, with

QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW. 435
Ex. XXV. 40.

am33n3 n\i}y) nai^
X . : - : A " . ' ¦' :
tnna naitz nna-im

Ex. xxv. 40.
And look that thou make them
after. their pattern, which was
shewed thee in the mount.

Jer. xxxi. 31, &c.
"DW D*^*^ ?*a* n-in
\ 2 • X -X ¦• •
n*3-n« *m3'i nim
.. • ¦¦ X ; X :
m!)n* n"2 " na^ bai'io"
CT : .. T ; ¦
mn33 ab '.nufin n*-i3.
dniiN - na *nn3 luyN
DK**iinV m*3 *p*tnn Di*3
T • : XX ; ' • I v: V
nan-itt^H ^"i^'Q V"?^^
*3ixi "n"i3. - na nsn
•>• t: • ¦ :
: nin* - dnj D3 *,n'7y3
T ; •. : T • ; - X
im n"i2.'n nKr *3
ba'jif': n*3 - na niiDa
'aa: ann D*a*n *nnN
*min - n^< ¦<nn:i nin*
* T V . - T T :
na3n3i* aa"? - '^I'l a3np3
X V x; : V T • - : ¦•¦;'•;
nam a"nbab anb *ri**ni
niji; na"?* ^*^^ :Dy^ '^'-vm
-j-ix h"a'\_ inyn-'nx ti;'k
*3 nin*-™ •ij^n iai<b ^*n^*
aaajsa^ *nih> iji^t D^i3
*3 rtin* - aa: D^inii - nyi
iib ana^nb^ ojiy^ nboa
X X - ; T "^ - - • V
:nij^-n3m

Jer. xxxi, 31, &c.
Behold, the days come, saith
the Lord, that I will make a
new covenant with the house of
Israel, and with the house of
Judah ; not according to the co
venant that I made with their
fathers in the day that I took
them by the hand to bring them
out of the land of Egypt ; which
my covenant they brake, al
though I was an husband unto
them, saith the Lord. But this
s/iall be the covenant that I will
make with the house of Israel ;
After those days, saith the Lord,
I will put my law in their inward
parts, and write it in their hearts ;
and will be their God, and they
shall be my people. And they
shall teach no more every man
his neighbour, and every man
his brother, saying. Know the
Lord : for they shall all know
me, from the least of them unto
the greatest of them, saith the
Lord : for I will forgive their
iniquity, and I will remember
their sin no more.

EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
a few unimportant deviations, in which synonymous terms are
substituted for those of the Septuagint, such as, Xiyu for p»<r; ;
guvreXieu iirl rhv oTxov for hiaSrigofiai tm o'ixu; hiaSiixriv 'tiroirtga for hisSi-

436

QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.

(227.) Ex, xxiv, 8.
Tooy rd aifxu rijs SiaOfjKrjs,
?? SiiOero Kvpios irpds vfxds,
(228.) Ps. xxxix. 7, &c.
Ovaiav Kul irpoacpopdv ovk
^OeXtjaus, awfxu Se Kurtjprlaw
fior oXoKavTWfxa kuI irepi d-
fxapnas ovk 'rjrtjaus- rdre eiirov,
iSov ijKw. iv KecpuXlSi (ii^Xlov
yeypairrai irepi ifxou, rod irot-
^aai TO OeXtjfxd aov d Oeds fiou
^^ovXfjOtjv, Kul rdv vdfxov aov
ev fxeaw rijs KupSlas fiov.
(229.) Jer, xxxviii, 33, 34,
Avrtj fj SiaOfjKrj fiov, rjv Siu-
Ofjaofxui TW o'ikw 'lapuijX. fiera
rds fjfxepas iKelvus, cprjai Kv
ptos, SiSovs Swaw vdfxovs fiov
els rrjv Stavoiav avrwv, /cat eTrt
KapSlas avrSiv ypd-ypw avrovs,
— Kat roov dfxapnwv avrwv ov
fxij fivrjaOw en.

(230.) Deut. xxxii. 35, 36.
'Ev fjfiepcx iKSiK^aews avra-
iroSwaw- "Oti Kptvei Kvpios
rdv Xaov avrov.

Heb. ix. 20.
[[A6'7a)i/']( Todro ro a'lfxa
rrjs StaOfjKrjs ?? ei/6TetXaT0
TTjOo? vfxds d Oeds.
Heb. X. 5, &c.
[[Ae'7ef| Qvaiuv kuI irpoa
cpopdv OVK fjOeXrjaas, awfxa Se
Kartjprlaw fioi, dXoKavrwfxara
/cat 7re|0i dfxuprlas ovk rjvSoKrj.
aas. rdre eiirov 'ISov '^kw (iv
KecpaXlSi ^i/3Xlov yeypairrai
irepi ifxov^ rod irotijaai, d Oe
os, ro OeXtjfxa aov.

Heb. X, 16, 17.
[[MeTa 7aj0 to elptjKevui.^
Avrtj fj StuOfjKtj rjv SiuOfjaofxai
irpos uvrovs fxera ras fjfxepas
iKelvus, [[Xe'7et Kvpios\ AiSovs
vdfiovs fxov eirl KupSlas avrwv,
Kal iirl Ttjv Stavoiav avrwv iiri.
ypw^rw avrovs, /cat riiiv dfxap-
riiJov avriiov kuI tiSi/ avofitwv av
rwv ov fitj fivrjaOfjaofiai en.

Heb. X, 30.
^iO'lSufxev ydp rdv elirovTa-\
'Efiol iKSUtjats, iyw dvrairo
Swaw, Xeyet Kvptos- fical TraXii/J
KjOij/ei Kvptos rdv Xaov avrov.

EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
fxnv. The Hebrew agrees with the Septuagint, except in one
clause, which appears to be widely different, viz. D2 *n^^3,
which is rendered xdyHi f\ixiXriga avri^v. In our received version,
the Hebrew is translated, " and I was an husband unto them,"
but the correctness of this may be questioned. In the Arabic

language, ^ '^

signifies, to despise or reject ; which trans

lation the Syriac interpreter, as also Abul Walid, Joseph Kim
chi Pococke, and others adopt. The fj/xixnga of the Seventy is

QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.

437

Ex. xxiv. 8,
n-)3 Ita n"i2n-Qi n^n
Dbay mm
V X ¦ X .
Ps. xl. 7, &c.
niJBri ab nnjai n3f
T ; - X X : •
nNiam n'^iy "b n"i2 u"2\a
TX-;- X • T-T •-; X
"n-in "nioa ^a '.nbat iib
'• • • : ~ X X X . IX X'
',"bi^ 3in3 n3D-n'paa3 *j-ik3
T T T ..¦ •• - • : • -AT
"m^n *n'?i< "TiJi2i-i-nityv'7
• : AT T - ¦.•; I : : -: -
:*:!;a Tjina ^Jinim
Jer. xxxi, 33, 34,
-na n-i^a -IK^^» n"i3.n nar
?nn D*a''n *nnN '?xnto* n"2.
•¦X • X ~ .. -. - .. T ; .
- nK "nm nin* - d>*3
• - X X : \ ;
?s"? - "^ji^i a3.ip3. *min
X • - : X :' * : * T
Diiji?'? n'7QX *3 — n33n3x
:niy--i3m ^^'? DDNtanVi

Ex. xxiv. 8.
Behold the blood of the' co
venant, which the Lord hath
made with you.
Ps. xl. 7, &c.
Sacrifice and offering thou
didst not desire; mine ears hast
thou opened : burnt offering and
sin offering hast thou not re
quired. Then said I, Lo, I
come : in the volume of the book
it is written of me : I delight to
do thy will, O my God : yea,
thy law is within my heart.
Jer. xxxi. 33, 34,
This shall be the covenant
that I will make with the house
of Israel; After those days, saith
the Lord, I will put my law in
their inward parts, and write it
in their hearts : — For I will for
give their iniquity, and I will
remember their sin no more.

VZ

Deut. xxxii. 35, 36
¦*3 abw') api

Deut. xxxii, 35, 36,
To me belongeth vengeance
and recompense. For the Lord
ia;r mm shaU judge his people.

EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
a mild form of expressing the same thing. Others, as Cappellus,
think that the Hebrew was once ^nbV^; but the conjecture is
quite gratuitous.
Heb. ix. 20. — From the Seventy, with a slight verbal alteration.
Heb. X. 5, &c — This will be explained afterwards. It is de
rived from the Seventy.
Heb. X. 16, 17  From the Greek, with some alterations.
Heb. X. 30. — See on Romans xu. 19.

438

QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.

(231.) Hab. ii, 3, 4.
C.//~V ' ' ?/>- VI
<jTt epxofxevos tj^ei, Kat ov
firj xpovtatj. iav viroarelXijrai,
OVK evSoKei fj y'l'Y'J fxov iv av
rip- o Se SiKUios iK irlarews fxov
^^aerai.(232.) Gen. xlvii. 31.
Kat irpoaeKvvrjaev 'lapaijX
eiri ro aKpov rijs pd^Sov avrod.

Heb. X. 37, 38,
'O ipxdfievos ij^ei Kul ov XjOo-
vtei. d Se SIkuios fxov e/c ttio--
Teco? Tnaeruf kui iav viroaret-
XrjTat, OVK evSoKei fj 'y'^X^ '"'"'
iv avrip. Heb. xi. 21.
Kat irpoaeKvvrjaev iirl rd aK
pov rijs pa/SSov avrov.

(233.) Prov. iii. 11, 12.
te firj oAiywpei iraioeias
Kvplov, fitjSe e/cXvou vir avrod
eXeyxofievos. ov ydp dyaira
Kvpios iXiyxei, fxaariyoi Se
iravra vlov ov irapuSexerai.

(234.) Ex. xix. 12, 13.
Ila? dd '^dfxevos rod dpovs
Oavarip reXevrfjaei, — 'Ev ydp
XiOois XiOo^oXrjQfjaerai, fj /3o-
Xiot /caTaTO^ei/0)?creTaf idv re
KT^vos euv re dvOpwiros, ov
l^i^aerui-(235.) Deut. ix. 19.
Kat eKCpojSos elfxi Sid rdv
Oufxov Kal rijv opyijv.

Heb. xii. 5, 6.
|AtaXe'7eTaf| Yte fxov, fxij
dXiywpei iraiSelas Kvplov, fxtjSe
eKXvov vir uvrov iXeyxdfievos.
dv yap ay air u Kupios irai-
Sevei, fiaanyoi Se iravra vlov
dv irapaSixerut. Heb, xii. 20,
[[To ^tao-TeXXoVeJ/oi/"! Kai/
Orjpiov Olyrj rod 'dpovs, XiOo-
^oXrjOfjaeTat.

Heb. xii. 21,
[[Mft)ii(7^? eirrei/l "E/c^o/3o?
elfxi /cat evrpofios.

EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
Heb. X. 37, 38 — This citation differs considerably from the
Hebrew. It is taken from the Greek, with some alterations. The
apostle has changed the order of the last two clauses, and put
f/.ou after hlxaiog instead of irlgnug. The Seventy seem to have
read ^713iaN3 instead of iDiiaX3.. There is, however, no op
position between the Hebrew and the Greek as they stand at
present.

QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.

439

Hab. ii. 3, 4.
ran :•^^^«;' ab a^i K3-*3
i3 ii:^33 nit"-ab nbzy
C : - T . IT T jl.
:n*n* iraJ^NS p"i^')^
Gen. xlvii. 31.
ti'j<{n -¦?;;; '?^into* '\nnm
:naan
Prov. iii. 11, 12.
D«an-b^* *n nim noia
T : • - •«: ' :
:inn3im vprt'^^ii'!
nim 3n>**.¦nu^^» na *3
:n:s-)* 13 -nx 3K(3i n*3i*
Ex. xix. 12, 13.
:nai* /iia nn3 yjiin-'?3
IT T X - •¦ - T
nm* nm-i^< bpB" '7ipD-''3
VX' T r.. T • • X
^b \i}"a - Da nana - dj*
• X •• ; n"n"

Hab, ii. 3, 4.
Because it will surely come,
it will not tarry. Behold, his soul
which is lifted up is not upright
in him : but the just shall live
by his faith. Gen. xlvii. 31.
And Israel bowed himself
upon the bed's head.
Prov. iii. 11, 12.
My son, despise not the chas
tening of the Lord ; neither be
weary of his correction. For
whom the Lord loveth he cor-
recteth, even as a father the son
in whom he delighteth.
Ex. xix. 12, 13.
Whosoever toucheth the mount
shall be surely put to death.
There shall not an hand touch
it, but he shall surely be stoned
or shot through ; whether it be
beast or man, it shall not live.

Deut. ix. 19.
nanm f]an *jDa *mj* *3
T •• - • ' - T ¦¦ : • * ; X

Deut. ix, 19.
For I was afraid of the anger
and hot displeasure wherewith
mm n^^ im the Lord was wroth.

EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
Heb. xi. 21 — This is exactly from the Seventy. The Hebrew
should therefore be pointed, n^a, not n^a.
Heb. xii. 5, 6. — According to the Greek, with a slight altera
tion. The apostle puts iraihivu for ixiy^u.
Heb. xii. 20. — This accords neither with the Hebrew nor the
Greek. The sense is given in a very abridged form.
Heb. XU. 21  This citation does not follow the Hebrew or
the Greek. It is abbreviated from the original.

440

QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW,

(236.) Hag. ii. 6.
xLiTt uirai^ e7(ji) aeiaw rov
ovpavov KUl rrjv yijv.

Heb. xii. 26,
|[Ae'7ft)i/| "Eti aira^, iyw
aelaw ov fxdvov rrjv yijv, aXXa
Kat rov ovpavov.

(237,) Deut. xxxi, 8 ; (Josh, i, 5.)
Ovk dvfjaei ae, ovSe fxfj ae
iyKuraXiirrj- (238.) Ps, cxvii, 6,
Ki//)to? ifxol ^orjOds, Kal ov
cpo^rjOfjaofiat rl irotfjaet fiot
dvOpwiros. (239,) ' Lev. xix. 18.
Kai dyair^aeis rdv irXrjaiov
aov d>s aeavrov.
(240.) Ex, XX, 13, 15.
O^ fioix^vaeis. — Ov cpovev
aeis.(241.) Gen. xv. 6,
Kai iirlarevaev" A^pufi rw

Heb, xiii, 5,
[[AOto? 7a|0 e'lprjKev\ Ov
fxfj ae dvw ovS' ov fxfj ae eyKa-
raXiirw- Heb, xiii. 6,
Ki;|Oio? ifxol ^otjOds, Kal ov
cpo^rjOfjaofxaf rl iroi^aei fxoi
avOpwiros ', James ii, 8.
' Ay o.irfja ets rdv irXrjalov aov
to? aeavrov. James ii. 11,
TO ydp eiVtoi/Jl M^ fxoi-
XevarjS, [[etTrei/ /cat "I M^ cpo-
vevarjs. James ii, 23,
TYtirXrjpwOrj fj ypacprj fj Xe-

Oe&, Kal iXoylaOrj avrip els Si- 70vcra*| 'ETrt'o-Teuaei/ Se 'A.
' ^pudfx rip Oew, kui iXoylaOrj

KUioavvrjv.

(242,)

avrw et? diKaioavvrjv. James iv. 5.
[['H ypacprj Xe7et| IIjOo?
cpOdvov iiriiroOei rd irvedfia o
KurcpKiaev iv fjfxiv.
EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
Heb. xii. 26. — From the Seventy, with some variation.
Heb. xiu. 5. — This agrees more nearly with the Hebrew than
the Greek. The deviation from the Septuagint is somewhat
remarkable in this place, because the writer of the epistle seldom,
if ever, employs the original. Even when the Septuagint de
parts from the Hebrew, the inspired writer follows it. It may
he doubted if there be a single citation in the whole letter in
which the original is closely cited in preference to the Greek.

QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW. 441

Hag. ii. 6.
*3S!i N*n toya nna_ "vy
- na) D*at£fn - na vi"vip.
Joshua i. 6. (Deut. xxxi. 8.)
:rf3T;yx-N^i fsni* n"?
Ps. cxviii. 6.
"na ^^^*« ab "b nin*
- T • • X ;
:Dni« "b nw
T T . ¦.. — ;-
Lev. xix. 18.
Ex. XX. 13, 14.
:eiwn ab '.n)iin iib
'ax : • - . .

Hag. ii. 6.
Yet once, it is a little while,
and I wiU shake the heavens,
and the earth.

Josh. i. 5 ; (Deut. xxxi. 8.)
I will not fail thee, nor for
sake thee. Ps. cxviii. 6.
The Lord is on my side ; I
will not fear : what can man do
unto me ? Lev. xix, 18.
Thou shalt love thy neigh
bour as thyself. Ex. XX. 13,
Thou shalt not kill. — Thou
shalt not commit adultery.

Gen. XV. 6. Gen, xv. 6.
'\b nypni nin*2 ]0an\ And he believed in the Lord;
^ • ¦"' ^ ' ""'"¦ and he counted it to him for
• '^i^l^ righteousness.

EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
Heb. xiii. 6. — Exactly according to the Seventy.
James ii. 8.— ^Do.
James ii. 11. — From the Hebrew rather than the Greek.
James ii. 23. — Exactly from the Seventy.
James iv. 5. — Many attempts have been piade to identify this
quotation with its original in the Old Testament. It has been
compared with Gen. vi. 5, 11, with Numbers xi. 29, Ezekiel
xxiii. 25, Proverbs xxi. 10, Canticles viu. 6, and Ecclesiastes
3 K

442 QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.
(243.) Prov. iii, 34. James iv. 6.
KujOio? vireprjcpdvois dvn- \Aeyei'% 'O Oeds vireprjcpd-
ruaaerut, raireivois Se SiSwat vois dvrirdaaerai, raireivois
Xapiv. Se SlSwaiv x^P'-^-
(244,) Lev. xi. 44, 1 Pet. i, 16.
Kat 07101 eae&Oe, on dyids [[re7/)a7rTaf| "Ayioi eaea-
etfii iy^ Kvpios 0 Oeos vfxwv. Oe, on iyw dyios.
EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
iv. 4, all which have little or no similarity to it. Others think,
that Gal. V. 17, 21 is referred to, but this is improbable. Wet
stein supposes, that the allusion is to Wisdom vi. 11, 23, and
other passages ; and that irviufxa is the same as go<i>ia, making the
sentiment to be, the spirit of wisdom is desirable. The intro
ductory formula, however, is against this supposition. Semler
and others think, that James quotes some apocryphal book. The
right interpretation of the passage is by no means easy. We
shall not examine the expositions of Semler, Heinsius, Pott, and
others, but simply state that one which appears to be most ac
cordant with the connexion, and agreeable to the usus loquendi.
The apostle is speaking of lust as the cause of wars and murder,
and addresses, in the fourth verse, spiritual adulterers and adul
teresses, telling them, that such a fondness for the world as they
exhibit, is opposed to the will of God. In the fifth verse, he adds,
" or think you that the Scripture saith in vain, the spirit which
dwells in us lusts to envy ?" By cp^ivog is here meant covetous-
ness, — an excessive attachment to earthly things, producing
envy towards all who have more than the covetous themselves.
The writer then subjoins, " but it (the Scripture) gives a greater
favour" in the promise, " God resisteth the proud, but giveth
grace to the humble." So far from the Scripture remonstrating
in vain against covetousness, pride, and envy, without presenting
any effectual means for their eradication, it contains a direct pro
mise, in the beUeving reception of which, will be found grace
superior to inward corruption, viz. that although God opposes
the ambitious and haughty, he imparts grace to such as have no
confidence in themselves, but place their whole happiness in God,
witliOut adulterously admitting any rival into their hearts : " God
resisteth the proud, but giveth grace to the humble." If, there
fore, says the sacred writer, you be conscious of your inability to
overcome such corrupt desires, and pray to God, he will give

QUOTATIONS FROM 'THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW. 443
Prov. iii. 34. Prov. iii, 34,
\"b" a^n a"^b - D^< Surely he scorneth the scorn-
' , ers : but he ffiveth grace unto
:in-im D*:jy>i the lowly.
Lev. xi. 44. Lev, xi, 44,
*J^4 l^inp *3 Q"U}ip Dn*>m ^'^^ Y® ^^^^^ be holy ; for I
¦¦"^ ^ ' ¦ •' ¦" ¦ •'¦ am holy.
EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
you grace and.strength to resigt them. The seventh and eighth
verses agree with this exposition. If it be correct, then the words
in question are nothing but a paraphrastic application of the tenth
commandment. The prohibition against covetousness evidently
presupposes its existence. The only plausible objection urged
against this interpretation is, that irviufia is seldom or ever used in
the New Testament to designate the seat of evil lusts and propen
sities in man ; and that if it denoted the human spirit, the proper
word should have been -vl/u^ij or xa^hia. But nvivfia signifies dis
position, feeling, temper of mind, which disposition may have
a bad tendency. Comp. Robinson's Lex. s. v. 2 b. (y.)
We prefer the division on which the above interpretation is
founded to that adopted by Wetstein, Griesbach, and others, who
read, " Do ye think that the Scripture speaketh in vain ? Doth
the spirit that dwelleth in us lust to envy ?" Others join it^og
<f)66vov with n y^apn xiyu, and render, the Scripture says against
envy, &c.
The verb iitiiroSiu denotes intense longing or desire, and, when
followed by ir^hg with the accusative of a person or object, the
direction of the desire towards the particular person or <>bject
specified. " The spirit lusteth, or tends to envy." The saijgie
construction is found in the Septuagint (Psalm xii. 2), iirm.oki'ri
•v|/iij^!j fxou ir^hg gi 6 hog, " the tendency of my soul's vehement de
sire is towards thee." Winer (Grammatik, p. 401), takes ir^hg
pgynv adverbially, invidiose, comparing ir^hg 'o^yyjv in Soph- El.
372, as if the phrase were properly, according to envy, ac
cording to wrath, but although this is agreeable to Greek usage,
we prefer the other method.
James iv. 6. — This is from the Seventy, with the single alter
ation of Ku.^iog into kig.
1 Peter i. 16  Abridged from the Greek.

444

QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.

(245.) Is. xl, 6, &c, ] Pet. i. 24, 25.
IIa<7a adp^ )^()jOto?, kuI ird. Ilacra adp^ x^P"^*^^' "^"^ '''"^"
aa So^a dvOpwirov ro? dvOos aa Sd^a uvr^s ws dvOos X^P~
Xdprov. i^tjpdvOtj 6 j^OjOto?, rov. i^tjpdvOij 6 xopTOS, kuI rd
/cat ro avOos eteireae, ro oe avOos eteireaev ro oe prjfxa
pijfxa rod Oeov fjfxSiv fxevei els Kvplov fxevei els rdv alwva.

rov aiwva.

(246.) Is. xxviii. 16. 1 Pet. ii. 6.
'ISov iyw ifx^dXXw els rd [[IlejOtej^et ^ ypacprj-'^ 'ISov
OefxiXia iEiwv XlOov iroXvreX^, rlOrjfii iv 2/wi/ XlOov uKpoyw-
e/cXe/CTO(/, UKpoywvtaiov, evn- viuiov e/cXe/CTOV evrifiov, kui o
fiov, els ra OefieXia avr^s, kuI irtarevwv iir avrw ov fxrj Karat-
6 irtarevwv ov fxrj Kurutax'JvO'^. axyvOij.

(247.) Ps. cxvii. 22, 23.
AiOov ov direSoKifxaaav ol
oiKoSofxovvres, ovros iyevfjOtj
els KecpaXrjv ywvlas.
(248,) Ex. xix. 6,
'Y^iet? ^e eaeaOe fxoi ^ual-
Xeiov lepdrevfia kuI eOvos a-
yiov.(249.) Is, liii. 9.
'Avofxlav OVK iiroitjaev, ovSe
SoXov iv rw ardfxan avrod.
(250.) Is. liii. 5.
Tro fxwXwiri avrod Vfieis la-
Otjfxev. (251.) Ps. xxxiii. 13, &c.
Tl? ianv uvOpwiros d OeXo)v
twijv, dyairoiiv fifiepas ISeiv a-
yaOds ; iravaov rijv yXwaaav

I Pet, ii. 7.
AlOos ov direSoKifxaauv ol
OiKoSofxovvres, ovros iyevfjOtj
els KecpuXijV ywvlas.
1 Pet, ii, 9.
'Yfxeis Se — ^ualXeiov lepd
revfia, eOvos dyiov,
1 Pet, ii, 22.
''O? dfxaprluv ovk eirolrjaev,
ovSe evpeOrj SdXos iv rip aro.
fxun avrov. 1 Pet, ii, 24.
OS rw fxwXwiri avrod la-
Otjre. 1 Pet. iii. 10,
'O 7ajO OeXwv ^wijv 070x01/
Kul ISeiv fjfxepas dyaOds irav-
aarw rrjv yXwaaav diro KUKod

EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
1 Peter i. 24, 25. — From the Seventy, with Uttle alteration.
1 Peter ii. 6. — This is also from the Greek, though the words
are not the same as those of that version. See Matt. xxi. 42.
1 Peter ii. 7. — According to the Seventy.

QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.

445

Is. xl. 6, &c. Is. xl, 6, &o.
i'^On - '731 ")*2Jn n^3n - b2 ^^^ ^^^^ ** grass, and all the
/•" ''• ' '' ^ ^ ' '' goodliness thereof is as the
b2i n*2£rr t£>4* ; nntyn r^2^ lower of the field. The grass
Dip* •'U*n^>} n^m  V*2{ withereth, the flower fadeth :
¦ : • but the word of our God shall
! D7i)77 stand for ever.

Is. xxviii. 16. Is. xxviii. 16.
13>* ]2a li^sn nD* *3Jn Behold, I lay in Zion for a
'¦'''' " ' '¦ ¦" ¦ foundation a stone, a tried stone,
nDia nwa /inp* nap ins a precious corner stone, a sure
*. l^*n* ab l*ai*an foundation : he that beUeveth
¦^ .-: - - gjjai] jjQj. uiake haste.
Ps. cxviii. 22, 23. Ps. cxviii. 22, 23.
nn"n D*Ji3n -IDJ^a '12a ^^^ stone which the builders
^''" ' '' '^ refused is become the head stone
:n33 mib of the corner.

Ex. xix. 6.
n3^aa "b - ^"nn ana')
tt>inp *ij") D*jn3
A ' : • -:
Is. liii. 9.
nana n^i ntojir oan-N^
<;x ; * : XT XT :i*3:a
Is. liii. B.
:i3'?-K3nj im3nni
T T ; - ^ •.. ~: ~
Ps. xxxiv. 13, &c.
in>i 0**0 'VEinn t£^*xn-*a
n'jsj : 3iD nSaib D*a*

Ex. xix. 6,
And ye shall be unto me a
kingdom of priests, and an holy
nation. Is. liii, 9.
Because he had done no vio
lence, neither was any deceit in
his mouth. Is. liii, 5.
With his stripes we are healed.
Ps. xxxiv. 12, &c.
What man is he that desireth
life, and loveth many days, that
he may see good ? Keep thy

EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
1 Peter u. 9 — Abridged from the same source.
1 Peter ii. 22. — From the Seventy, with a sUght change.
1 Peter u. 24 — Do.
1 Peter iu. 10. — Altered from the Greek.

446

QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.

aov dird kukov, kui )(etX>; aov
rod fxrj XaXijaai SdXov e/c/cXi-
vov diro KUKOV, Kai iroirjaov a-
yaOdv, Xfjrrjaov elpfjvrjv, kuI
Slw^ov avrijv. dcpOaXfxol Kvplov
iirl SiKulovs, Kul wra avrod els
Serjaiv uvrwv irpoawirov Se Kv
plov iirl iroiovvras kuku.

Kal X^'^^1 '^'^^ f^^ XuXijaui Sd
Xov, iKKXivdrw Se diro kukov
Kul irottjadrw dyaOdv, Xrirtj-
adrw elpfjvrjv Kul Siwcarw av-
rfjv, dn dcpOaXfxot Kvpiov eiri
SiKulovs, Kul Situ avrod eis
Setjaiv avrwv, irpoawirov Se kv-
plov iirl iroiovvras KUKa.

(252.) Is. viii. 12, 13, 1 Pet, iii. 14, 15,
Tw Se cpd^ov avrod ov fxij Tov Se cpd^ov avrwv fiij cpo-
cpojStjOijre ovSe fiij rapaxOijre. (StjOijre, fxrjSe rapaxOrjre, kv.
Kvpiov avrov dyidaare. ptov Se rdv ;)(jOi(rToi/ a'7tacraTe.

(253.) Prov. x. 12.
TIdvras Se rovs fiij cpiXovei-
Kovvrus KaXvirrei (piXlu.
(254.) Prov, xxvi. 11.
"Qairep kvwv bruv iireXOrj
iirl rov eavrod 'efierov

1 Pet, iv, 8.
[["OTf][ 'Ayuirrj KaXvirrei
irXijOos afxapnUv. 2 Pet. ii, 22.
^Ivfi^efirjKev avrois rd rijs
dXtjOovs 7raj00t/Ui'a?-| kvwv iiri-

crT|Oe\|/'i

as eiri ro toiov e,

^epufxu,

Kul vs Xovaafievrj els KvXtafia
l3opl3dpov. Rev. ii. 27.
[[Kai-]| Tlotfiavei aijrovs iv
aiSrjpa, ro? aKevos Kepufiews aw- pd^Sw aiSrjpa, <«? Ta aKevrj Ta
rpl~>p-eis avrovs. Kepafimd avvrpl^erat.

(255.) Ps. ii. 9,
Tlotfxaveis avrovs iv pa^Sw

EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
1 Peter iii. 14, 15. — Altered from the Greek.
1 Peter iv. 8. — This is rather from the Hebrew than the
Greek.

QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.

447

nia-ntos?! yna mo :na-ia
"T)f : -insTii Di'pu; ^p^
-¦?>« vjr^i D*p*nlr-'?^* nin*
T : T : I . . - V T :
yn *wiy3 nim *33 : ddpii:;
Is. viii. 12, 13.
iib") >\ai"n - ab ixnia - na}
n'\ay:i nin* ¦ na : ^'s."i'gn
•.•ity*npri Sna
Prov. X. 12.
; n3nx nD3n Q"yu}5-b2 '?i>i

tongue from evil, and thy lips
from speaking guile. Depart
from evU, and do good; seek
peace, and pursue it. The eyes
of the Lord are upon the right
eous, and his ears are open unto
their cry. The face of the Lord
is against them that do evil.
Is, viii. 12, 13.
Neither fear ye their fear, nor
be afraid. Sanctify the Lord of
hosts himself. Prov. X. 12.
Love covereth all sins.

Prov. xxvi. 11.
^ap-bv 2t} 3'?33

Prov. xxvi. 11.
As a dog returneth to his vo
mit ; so a fool returneth to his
folly.

Ps. ii. 9.
*'?33 bn2. Joy:}3.

Win

Ps. ii. 9.
Thou shalt break them with
a rod of iron ; thou shalt dash
! O^B^n n2ii* them in pieces like a potter's
vessel.

EXPLANATORY REMARKS.
2 Peter ii. 22. — This agrees neither with the Hebrew nor the
Seventy, but gives the sense.
Rev. ii. 27. — From the Seventy, with a sUght variation.

448 QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.
(a.) We shall now advert to the introductory formulas of the
quotations given in the table. Their variety is suiBciently re
markable, and the question is natural, can any reason be assigned
for their great diversity ? Are we able to discover the cause or
causes of such variety ; or is it to be attributed to the mere caprice
of the writers themselves ? Did their own taste simply, or a de
sire to diversify their style, lead to the employment of thes? nu
merous formulas ?
In order to prepare the way for an answer to such questions,
we must attend to the actual usage of such prefatory terms. A
comprehensive survey of them may perhaps lead to some general
conclusion .
1st, It is to be observed, that they rarely contain a specific
indication of the books or places of the Old Testament. The
name of the writer is indeed sometirnes given, but the book is
seldom specified, and the section much seldomer. The obvious
reason of this is, that the persons addressed in the New Testa
ment writings were supposed to be familiar with the Jewish Scrip
tures, chiefly through the medium of the Alexandrine version.
Besides, they had not the convenience of chapters and verses,
their MSS. being written continuously. Yet they could hardly
mistake a citation, or fail to assign it its appropriate position in
the Old Testament. Their general acquaintance with Scripture
removed or lessened the inconvenience of indefinite reference.
In the few cases where the section is marked, some principal
word is selected, and applied to designate the entire paragraph.
Examples occur in Mark xii. 26 and Romans xi. 2. The Rab
bins followed a similar practice.
2dly, From a bare consideration of the introductory formula,
it is impossible to predict, as it were, the degree of verbal accu
racy with which the words of the Old Testament will be stated.
We find different formulas prefixed to the very same quotations,
in the same words, in different books, as in Mark xv. 28 ; Luke
xxii. 37 ; a circumstance sufiicient to overthrow the notions of
those who believe them to be infallible indices of the modes in
which quotations are made. " Videndum est prius quA allegandi
formula utantur apostoU, ex qua statim dignoscere lipet, quare
sequentia verba hoc, et non alio modo allegaverint, atque ad ve
terem Scripturam Hebrseam plus minusve attenderint ; sic aUum
sensum involvit ilia allegandi formula 'Eg^jj^jj ; alium TiyoairTai,

INTRODUCTORY FORMULAS. 449
&c."* Even the advocates of such rigid distinctions are com
pelled to admit, that different formulas are occasionally used
synonymously. Mly, The similarity between the formulas most frequently
employed by the Rabbins and those of the New Testament,
cannot fail to attract the notice of those who investigate the
present subject. Surenhusius, in particular, has collected a mul
titude of Jewish phrases similar to the Scripture-formulas. But
his object was only to shew, that if blame be attached to the
New Testament writers for their methods of quotation, it must
equally belong to the Talmudical doctors. Desiring to refute
the cavils of the Jews against Christianity, he has produced a
book which exhibits the argumentum ad hominem, rather than
a philosophical investigation of the subject. It may be true,
that the inspired penmen employ formulas similar to those found
in Rabbinical writings, and yet be incorrect to affirm, that the
former expressly imitated the latter. The extent of the resem
blance between both will be best seen from the following parallel

New Testament. Rabbinical.
KuOws yeypairrai, o'vrw yi- STlil^ 3in5n, STl^nS.
ypairrut, yeypairrai, ye-
ypufifxevov ean, Kara ro
yey pafxfxevov.
KuOws e'lprjrai, Kara rd elptj. "IDNJSl'*.
fxevov.
ip^iOtj. ncniN,
eppeOrj rots apxaiots. | naN [Wmp, &c.
Xeyei fj ypacpij, elire fj ypacpfj. 'i^*iT\'H nsN, or Nnp IDN,
Tt 7ajO Xiyet fj ypacpfj ; ti ouv '
iari to yey pafXfxevov', irws 1 ^^j^^-, ^^^ ^^
yeypairrai ; ovk ean ye- '
ypufifievov ', J
Sid Xeyei. 3"in5n llSj? n^/JJD.
Store ireptixei iv rij ypacpij. iy"''>Da J^lptt, or 3"in5n.
¦» tjiirenhusius, Prfef. ad Bi'^Xn,- KaTaX;.ay!;f. Amstel, Ito 1713,
3 L

450

QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.

New Testament.
(3Xeirere rd elprjfxevov.
irSis dvaytvwaKeis ',
irpo'iSodau Se fj ypucpfj.
/cat irdXtv Xiyei, kui iraXtv,
iraXiv yeypairrai, kui ev
Tovnp iraXiv, /cat iv erepw
Xeyet, kui iruXtv eripa ypa
cprj Xeyei.
d Xoyos yeypafifxevos iv rip
vofiip avriiov.
d vdfxos eXeyev.
avros yap Aa^lS eiirev.
'iva irXtjpwOij fj ypacpij, or to
prjOev Sta rod irpocpfjrov.
eirXtjpwOrj fj ypacpfj.

Rabbinical.
n^ns na nai.
sinsn nai na, &c.
S'^nir stni, atnsi ksm a">ni
ann, ninnn stnirncNJiy',
Tiyi naix, &c.

min nan, or nmna aini.

n-iDN nmnn.
mn "iDN p.
I'Qi^w na o'»''p'?.
sinia? na o'>'>p n?.

It is impossible for any unprejudiced reader to observe the co
incidence between the New Testament and Rabbinical formulas
just given,* without believing that the one class was influenced
and modified by the other. When we recollect that the writers
were Jews, and that their modes of conception and speech were
essentially Jewish, we are led to expect in their compositions a
large assimilation to current phraseology. Inspiration did not
work in them such a change as to alter the constitution of their
minds ; nor did it eradicate the habits of thought which country
and circumstances combined to produce. It preserved them from
error, and turned their ideas into new channels ; but it did not
alter the essential character of their intellectual temperament.
Even after they became the followers of Christ, many of their
former peculiarities still adhered to them. Having been enlight
ened by the Holy Spirit to record the history and doctrine of
Jesus, they were not required to divest themselves of estabUshed
and blameless usages in which they had grown up. We believe,
then, that there is an obvious conformity in the formulas of quo
tation employed by the New Testament writers, to such as the
* Many other examples are given by Surenhusius, pp, 1-36 ; and by Dopke, pp,
CO-69,

INTRODUCTORY FORMULAS. 451
Rabbins used in their citations, except where the latter gave an
erroneous interpretation of the Old Testament different from that
which the Holy Spirit intended.
Athly, In surveying the introductory formulas, the following
characteristic peculiarities are observable in each book : —
In quoting Messianic passages, Matthew has the formula,
'iva iTXri^u6fj Th ^riSiv virh xvgiov hid tou irgop^Tov, i. 23 ; ii. 15. This
form is abbreviated in ii. 17; iu. 3; iv. 14; viii, 17; xii. 17;
xiii. 14, 35 ; xxi. 4 ; xxvi. 56 ; xxvii. 9. The formula touto hi iiXov
yiyoviv I'va, x. t. X. (i. 22 ; xxi. 4 ; xxvi. 56), is worthy of atten
tion, as it does not occur elsewhere in the New Testament. In
addition to these introductory phrases, we find yiy^aitrai, or a
simUar term, employed by St. Matthew.
In Mark, the customary formula is yiy^airTai, ug yiy^airrai, or
some parallel expression.
Luke has almost always yiy^airrai, riv yiy^afhfiAvov, or y^dfiii
joined to other words.
In John, the customary formula is yiygafxfxivov, xa6iig ign yiy-
gafj^fiivov, or words similar to these.
In the Acts of the Apostles, all the introductory clauses differ
from one another. No two are alike.
In the epistle to the Romans, xaiiig yiygairrai occurs much
oftener than any other preface, so that it may be regarded as
the characteristic formula. The chief departures from it are in
the ninth, tenth, and eleventh chapters, which primarily refer to
the Jews, and where there are such expressions as, 'Hgatag Xiyu,
Muugijg xiyu, &C,
The two letters to the Corinthians have, as their usual for
mula, xaOiig yiygairrai, yiy^airrai, &c. There are but three in
stances in which the verb yjapw is not employed, viz, 2 Cor.
vi. 2 ; vi. 16 ; vi. 17, 18.
In the epistle to the Galatians, yiy^airrai ydg is the ordinary
prefix. The epistle to the Ephesians has only three citations, two of
which are prefaced with hii Xiyu.
The epistle to Timothy has only two quotations, one of which
has a preface.
The letter to the Hebrews contains numerous passages from
the Old Testament. The formulas are generally such as xiyu,
fia^Tu^iT, t\rixi, (prigi. Tga^w is never used. The manner of cita
tion here, is very usual in Philo.

452 QUOTATIONS FKOM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW,
The epistle of James has only five quotations, three of which
are introduced by the verb Xiyu, another by 6 eliruv.
Peter's manner is to have no formula. ' From this he departs
only in three instances, in one of which he has yiy^airrai, in
another, iri^iixn iv rfi y^apfi or rather, as Lachmann reads, iri^ii^u
ri y^a<pri. bthly. We are now prepared to assign several reasons for so
great diversity.
5 (a) The circumstances of the persons to whom the gospels
or epistles were originally addressed, may serve to account for a
particular formula. This will appear from a comparison of the
same passage, as cited from the Old Testament in various places,
and introduced by different formulas. Thus Matthew xxii. 43 ;
Mark xii. 36 ; Luke xx. 42, 43. As the first wrote to Jewish
rather than Gentile converts, he simply mentions the Old Tes-
ment writer, presuming that his readers were famiUar with the
inspired records of their own nation. Mark, having Gentile or
Roman converts prominently in view, but not to the exclusion
of Jews, is more explicit ; " for David himself said by the Holy
Ghost." All whom he addressed might not have admitted Da
vid's authority, from ignorance of the divine source whence his
inspirations came. Luke, again, is more minute, because he de
signed his gospel almost wholly for Gentile converts, who were
less acquainted with the Jewish Scriptures. He specifies, there
fore, not only the writer, but the book ; " and David himself
saith in the book of Psalms."
The same truth is verified and confirmed by Matthew xxii.
24; Mark xii, 19; Luke xx. 28. The phraseology of Matthew
in the formula Mmuo-jjs uiriv, was perfectly intelligible to the Jews;
whereas that of Mark and Luke was more suited to Gentile con
ceptions. The former frequently refers to what " Moses said,"*
while Luke speaks more of what is " written," or what is " writ
ten in the book."t Compare also Matthew in. 3 ; Mark i, 2, 3 ;
Luke in. 4, &c.
Thus the attainments of the persons, to whom in the first in
stance the various parts of the New Testament were directed, in
fluenced the nature and form of the prefixes under consideration.
'* " Matthew, writing to a people well versed in it (the Old Testament), introduces
tlie words of it as spoken, often when Christ alleges it, but always when ho does it
himself. Of which there are a dozen instances," Discourses on the Four Gospels,
by Thomas Townson, D. D., 4th edition, Svo, 1831, Dublin, pp. 95-G.
¦I- " Thus St. Luke signifies to the unlearned Gentile, that the law of Moses is tlie
written law of God." Do. p. 9fc'.

INTRODUCTOKY FORMULAS. 453
When the gospels or epistles were addressed to those who were
familiar with the Hebrew Scriptures, or in other words to He
brew Christians, the formula " God says," or " says by the pro
phet," or " it is said," was generally adopted ; while to heathen
converts, another introduction was better suited, and was therefore
applied, viz. " it is written." Had the instances in which these
phrases are appended to cited passages been intermingled ; had
they been nearly equal in number in the same epistle, or in writ
ings addressed to churches composed of individuals similarly edu
cated, we might have hesitated to insist on such a distinction ;
but when the distinction is uniformly observed, according to the
circumstances of the people originally addressed, we are justified
in looking out for the reason of so marked a change. Nor is it
difficult to discover it in the degree of acquaintance with the Old
Testament possessed by the communities or individuals to whom
separate portions of the New Testament were sent. Hebrew
Christians were reminded of the authority attaching to the words
cited, by the expression " God says," or " speaks so and so ;"
while heathen converts were referred to certain written documents
where they might find the passages adduced. They were taught
to believe in the existence of inspired records once given to the
chosen people of God, and were naturally prompted to peruse them.
It must indeed be admitted, that there are exceptions to this
general rule ; but they do not invalidate its truth. Those who
are solicitous for the establishment of its universality, may endea
vour to find particular reasons even for the exceptions ; but our
belief is, that in a few instances different formulas are used syno
nymously, as, for example, in Romans iv. 3, compared with James
ii. 23. The propriety of the usual formula of quotation in the
epistle to the Hebrews will be obvious from the preceding remarks.
They to whom it was addressed were Hebrews, and accus
tomed to the use of the term said prefixed to a quotation ; just
as Matthew, who wrote chiefly but not solely for Jewish converts,
has ordinarily said or spoke for the same reason. The epistle of
James also, addressed to the twelve tribes scattered abroad, has
saith. On the other hand, the epistles to the Romans, Gala
tians, and Corinthians, are characterised by the prefix, it is writ
ten. The converts belonging to the churches of Rome, Galatia,
and Corinth, were less acquainted with the Old Testament, and
consequently liable to be misled by Judaising and false teachers.
In referring them to the Old Testament the apostle thought it

454 QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.
right to employ the word y^d<pu. The epistle to the Ephesians
may appear to some to militate against the idea that the apostle
Paul generally employed the verb Xiyu in writing to the Jews.
But the main circumstance is, that the individuals addressed
were acquainted with the Old Testament, rather than the mere
fact of their being Jews by birth. If they were instructed in the
Jewish Scriptures, it was sufficient to refer to God as saying
such and such things, or to the Scripture («'. e. the author of it^
as speaking after a certain manner.*
5 (b) Another cause by which the form of these prefatory
phrases was influenced, is to be sought in the purposes for which
citations were introduced. We have seen, that the educational
circumstances of those to whom the various portions of the New
Testament were primarily addressed, produced a diversity in for
mulas. But we should not forget at the same time, the design
with which different passages from the Old Testament were ad
duced. If a writer meant to shew the fulfilment of a prophecy,
we expect some such preface as, 'iva irXri^uS^ to ^>i6iv x. t. X., t6ti
iirXr)^u6ri rh ^rjkv, oirug irXri^u6fj a. -r. X. These and similar phrases,
of which the verb irX^ou is the essential element, are chiefly found
in Matthew's gospel.
If a New Testament writer intended to derive support from
the Jewish Scriptures in favour of some position or argument ad
vanced, he would obviously employ a different formula from that
which has just been mentioned. He would use ygapw, {lirov, Xiyoi,
with certain accompanying terms. He would probably prefer,
unless other circumstances interposed to prevent it, ug yiygaitrai,
or -xa^dig ieri yiy^afxfxivov, which are usually prefixed to passages
quoted in the precise words of the original, or but slightly altered.
Thus in the temptation of our Saviour as recorded by St. Mat-
* " St, Paul has one mode of citing the Old Testament to the Hebrews, and ano
ther to the churches of which the Gentiles were members ; in the former case he
agrees with St. Matthew, in the latter with St. Mark and St. Luke. And in this
respect, there is so much uniformity of the apostle and two evangelists, that we may
justly conclude, it was not accidental, but designed by him and them, for the same
purpose of suiting their style to the small measure of Scriptural knpwledge which
they might well suppose many of their readers to possess. By which means the un
learned or new-converted Gentiles were instructed, that what was offered to them as
the Word of God ' which came in old time,' was to be found in the books of Scrip
ture ; and, if Judaizers crept in and perplexed them with doctrines of an oral or tra
ditionary law, were furnished with this reply to such teachers : when the apostles
and evangelists, who have been our more immediate guides, propose to us any part of
the Mosaic economy, they allege only what is lorilten, and what they cai-efuUy inform
us to be so." Townson on the Gospels, pp, 98, ^9.

CONFORMITY WITH THE ORIGINAL.'^, 455
thew, various portions of the Old Testament, introduced into the
dialogue between the Lord and Satan, are prefaced by yiyganTai,
An introduction is usually wanting before a passage inserted
a second time. So Hebrews iii. 15. It is also absent when a
number of texts follow in immediate succession, as in Romans iii.
10-18. (6.) We have now to consider the degree of accuracy with
which quotations adhere to their originals.
This topic has afforded a fertile argument to the Jews who at
tempt to magnify the disagreement between citations and the Old
Testament originals, with the view of invalidating the authority
of the New Testament. They have represented the apostles and
evangelists as falsifying the Jewish records, by perverting them
from their original meaning. Nothing has afforded more scope
to their hostility against Christianity. This is the great bulwark
from which they have discharged their arrows in imagined security
against the divine origin of our holy religion. Accordingly,
many able writers, solicitous for the high evidence of the New
Testament, have undertaken to refute their objections by shew
ing, that quotations are always made correctly, — that neither
has the meaning of the Old Testament been perverted, nor its
original design falsified. Infidels too have joined with the Jews
in opposing Christianity on the same ground. Contented to bor
row their weapons, they have endeavoured to disparage the New
Testament, as though it were fabulous, or at least contradictory
to that dispensation of which it is a fuller and more perfect de
velopment. Learning and ingenuity have not been wanting to
shake the foundations of our most holy faith by the variations of
the New Testament from the Old. But there is abundant reason
to believe, that the discrepancies alleged to exist have been much
exaggerated. Instead of being impartially considered, they
have been studied in the light of prejudice for polemic purposes.
Viewed through the medium of strong prepossessions, they have
not been seen aright.
Several circumstances should be taken into account by such as
propose to investigate the measure of agreement existing between
quotations and their origiuals.
b (1.) The probable variations between the ancient and modern
texts of the Hebrew and Septuagint must not be forgotten. It
was an unavoidable circumstance that errors should gradually
creep into both. We know that the Septuagint has not come

456 QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW,
*
down to us in a pure state. MSS. of it differ among themselves.
The discrepancies of the two leading codices, the Alexandrine
and Vatican, are frequently important. In the days of the early
fathers, some readings existed which cannot be discovered now.
This fact is apparent from the writings of Justin Martyr, in which
many citations from it occur.* It is therefore a duty to consult
different MSS. of the Septuagint version, that we may be in a
condition to judge impartially respecting the agreement of quota
tions in the New Testament with this ancient work. It is not
sufficient to look at one copy ; and, if a material discrepancy exist
between the citation and its original source, to conclude hastily,
that the New Testament writer has erred. And should all the
codices of the Septuagint hitherto collated fail to exhibit the same
words as an inspired apostle, or the like sense in other phraseology,
we should be slow to infer that the fault lies with the latter. His
copy of the Alexandrine version may, for aught we know, have
coincided with the form of a quotation as it is given. We are
happy to refer here to the edition begun by Holmes, and comple
ted by Parsons, with its important text and copious materials, as
furnishing very valuable assistance in this comparison. It shews,
at least, that some quotations are not so unlike their originals as
inconsiderate reasoners are prone to imagine.
Similar remarks apply to the Hebrew text, with this limitation,
that it has not suffered so many changes as that of the Seventy.
Besides, we should not forget to attend to the text of the cited
passage itself in the New Testament. Here also different codices
should be examined. It is not proper to rest absolutely on the
Elzevir text, or that of any one edition, but to consult different
texts of the same passage. The collections of various readings
by Wetstein, Griesbach, Matthsei, and Scholz, are in this respect
of great service. When, therefore, a quotation is compared with
its original source, whether the Seventy or the Hebrew, the text
of the former, no less than those of the latter, cannot be neglected
by the true interpreter. And if an irreconcilable difference be
tween a citation and its original be found to exist — if no verbal
or substantial agreement between them be discovered, might it
not be well to remember, that we do not possess all the MSS. of
the New Testament, Septuagint, and Hebrew ? Might it not
be well patiently to wait, and to pray for farther illumination ?
* The reader is referred on this topic to an able note (E) by Mr. Norton, in his
" Evidences of the Genuineness of the Gospels." Vol. i. pp. 207-2.32, Svo, Boston,
18.37.

CONFORMITY WITH THE ORIOINALS. 457
We shall exemplify these remarks by an examination of Matthew
xi. 1 0 ; Mark i. 2 ; and Luke vn. 27, quoted from Malachi ui. 1 .
The present Hebrew and Septuagint are here conformable to
each other, while they differ from the evangelists. Some have
therefore concluded, that the Hebrew was early corrupted, and
the Greek adjusted to it. So Drs. Randolph and H. Owen.
There is no good ground for believing, that the text of the He
brew or that of the Greek was ever different from what it is
now. And although there are various readings of the passage
in the gospels, yet the common form of it is indubitably correct.
How shall we then reconcile the corresponding phrases, before
thee, in the gospels, and before my face in the Hebrew and
the Greek version. Is it not probable, that "'337 was once
1*337, and ir^oguirou fiov in the Seventy, n^ogiiiirov gou ? We think
not. The messenger referred to is John the Baptist. In Ma
lachi, God declares to the Jews, " he shall prepare the way
before me," or in other words, " before the Messiah acting in my
name," as it is written in Exodus xxiu. 21. In the New Tes
tament, Jehovah, speaking to the Messiah, declares, he " shall
prepare the way before thee." Thus the two expressions are not
inconsistent. They amount in meaning to the same thing.

The following are the cited passages in which the Hebrew
has been considered corrupt.
Isaiah Ixiv. 4, quoted in 1 Cor. ii. 9.
" For since the beginning of the world men have not heard
nor perceived by the ear, neither hath the eye seen, O God,
beside thee, what he hath prepared for him that waiteth for
him." (Isaiah Ixiv. 4.)
" Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into
the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them
that love him." (1 Cor. u. 9.)
The words of the apostle in this place agree neither with the
Hebrew nor the Septuagint, nor any ancient version at present
known. It is difficult to make sense of the Hebrew, as it stands
in the Masoretic text ; but in the New Testament, the sense is
plain and agreeable to the connexion. Bishop Lowth renders
the passage in Isaiah thus : —
" For never have men heard nor perceived by the ear, nor
hath eye seen a God beside thee, who doeth such things for
those that trust in him." 3 M

458 QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEM'.
In a note he says, " The citation is so very different both
from the Hebrew text and the version of the Seventy, that it
seems very difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile them by any
literal emendation, without going beyond the bounds of tem
perate criticism. One clause, ' neither hath it entered into the
heart of man' (which, by the way, is a phrase purely Hebrew,
and should seem to belong to the prophet) is wholly left out ;
and another is repeated without force or propriety, viz. ' nor
perceived by the ear,' after, ' never have heard ;' and the sense
and expression of the apostle is far preferable to that of the He
brew text. Under these difficulties, I am at a loss what to do
better, than to offer to the reader this perhaps disagreeable alter
native, either to consider the Hebrew text and Seventy in this
place as wilfully disguised and corrupted by the Jews ; of which
practice, in regard to other quotations in the New Testament
from the Old, they lie under strong suspicions ; or to look upon
St. Paul's quotation as not made from Isaiah, but from one
or other of the two apocryphal books entitled the Ascension of
Isaiah and the Apocalypse of Elias, in both of which this pas
sage was found ; and the apostle is by some supposed in other
places to have quoted such apocryphal writings. As the first of
these conclusions will perhaps not easily be admitted by many,
so I must fairly warn my readers, that the second is treated by
Jerome as little better than heresy."*
For the elucidation of this passage, we observe, that the apostk^
has made a transposition of words. nnj^TJ^? yV, which stand
in the middle of the original, are put in their corresponding Greek
* In ancient times, Origen, Theodoret, the Greek chronicler Syncellus, and Zacha
rias bishop of Chrysopolis, thought that the passage was taken from an apocryphal
writing of Elias. The Ascension of Isaiah has been published in the Ethiopic lan
guage, with a Latin and English translation by Dr. Laurence (Oxford, 1819, Svo.)
The part of this apocryphal writing, supposed to be referred to by the apostle, is in
chapter viii. Nos. 11 and 12, p. 122 : " Wherefore I say unto thee, Isaiah ; because
into thy mortal body that which is human must return, that which has neither per
ceived, nor ascended, nor understood the things which thou hast understood. That
which thou shalt be, thou shalt behold, for thou shalt participate in the lot of the
Lord," &c. It may be questioned whether the work existed so early as the time of
the apostle. Dr. Laurence, after an examination of its antiquity, both from internal
and external evidences, concludes, that it was written after June 9th, a, d, 68, and
before the close of A, D. 69 (see page 158), whereas, according to De Wette, the
first epistle to the Corinthians was written late in the year 68, or in 59. Schott
and Schrader refer it to A. D. 66. Besides, the passage in Isaiah was in common
use among the Rabbins to denote the happiness of the pious (Sanhedrin, fol. 99, eol.
1. Shabbath, fol. 63, col. J. Midr. Esther, fol. 102, col. 2 ;) and it is therefore
most natural to consider the words of the apostle as a free quotation from it.

CONFORMITY WITH THE ORIGINALS. 459
at the commencement of the quotation, viz. d bip^aXfihg ovx iJhiv.
For ab D^iyo, the apostle has simply put the negative particle
oiix, which expresses the sense, though dir aiuvog oux would have
been more literal. The Greek clause xai iirl xa^hiav dvi^uieov ovx dvi^r)
has nothing corresponding to it in Hebrew, but was probably
inserted for greater emphasis. On the contrary, for the Hebrew
^n^H, beside thee, there is nothing in the Greek. In Hebrew,
the person is then changed from the second to the third, and we
read 'h'n'pn'dp nW^, i. e. yet he ivill perform (such things) to
him that umiteth for Him. In the Greek, there is no sudden
change of person, but the general sense is given, oga ijToifiagiv 6
6iog Toig dyairagiv avTov. Waiting for Jehovah implies or leads to
loving Him, and the Hebrew n^V, to do, signifies also to pre
pare or arrange. By this minute comparison of the two places,
we find that the sense is substantially the same, though in the
Greek it is much more obvious. There is no ground for supposing
the Hebrew to be corrupt ; neither is there manuscript evidence
for such an opinion. The apostle quotes here, as in other cases,
the sense, not the letter.
Zechariah xii. 10, and John xix. 37.
Instead of iig 'ov, the Hebrew here reads "b'O, ; but we have al
ready shewn that the present reading of the Hebrew text is
correct. Isaiah xxviii. 16, and Romans ix. 33.
There is one word in the Hebrew which is supposed to have
been different at the time the Septuagint version was made, viz.
lyn', rendered by xaraig^uv6fi, to be ashamed. According to
some, it was once l^l'', from 1^13, to be ashamed. This con
jecture is utterly groundless. The present Hebrew word bears
the same sense as the one into which it has been rendered.. Pri
marily, Tihn signifies to hasten, Arab, jili., to fly with trepi
dation. The meaning of the passage is, " he that dwelleth in
Christ shall be so confident of security, as not to be ashamed of
the foundation on which he has built, nor to fly to another. In
the time of need, neither shame, nor fear as to the stability of
his hope, shall take possession of his mind." The sense of both
words is substantially the same.
Psalm xix. 4, and Romans x. 18.
For Ofp, we find in the latter passage, and also in the Sep
tuagint, 6 <pMyyog, Instead of U^p, many have thought that the

460

QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW,

word was originally Ob'lp, their voice. So Drs. Randolph and
Dopke. The conjecture is superfluous. The Hebrew term de
notes primarily a line or chord, the chord of an instrument, and
by an easy transition, sound. Thus <p66yyog is a correct render
ing of it.
Jeremiah xxxi. 31-34, and Hebrews viii. 9.
We have already seen, that there is no reason for supposing
the Hebrew to be corrupt, as Mede, Capellus, and others have
imagined. By translating the Hebrew clause ?! ""JipP^ ''^iW,
and I rejected the7n, we obtain a meaning the same as that of
the Septuagint, with this slight difference, that the former is
stronger than f}/xiXrjga. That such is the correct rendering of
the clause in Jeremiah, is now admitted by the best interpreters,
among others, by Gesenius and Stuart. No change has been
made upon the Hebrew.
Hosea xiv. 3, quoted or rather alluded to in Hebrews xiii. 15.
The words of the apostle here agree with the Septuagint. In
the Hebrew we have " the calves of our lips ;" in the New Tes
tament and Seventy " the fruit of our lips." Hence, the con
jecture has been formed that the Seventy found the Hebrew
different from what it now is — that it was """IS, fruit, not D"''1D-
We hold this assumption to be perfectly gratuitous. Calves of
the lips is a metaphorical expression denoting sacrifices offered
by the lips, such as prayer and praise. This is equivalent to
fruit of the lips. There is no difference between the meaning
of the two expressions, Tholuck's assertion, that the apostle fol
lowed in this case an erroneous translation given by the Seventy,
is hasty. Psalm xl. 7-9, and Hebrews x. 5-7.
The words of this quotation follow the Septuagint. The He-
brew"is widely different, and therefore no small labour has been
expended by critics and commentators in endeavouring to recon
cile them. It must be freely admitted, that there is considerable
difficulty connected with the matter. As the Septuagint accords
with the Greek text of the New Testament, the apostle appears
to have quoted from it, and applied it to his purpose. Either
the Hebrew copy, from which the Greek version was taken, dif
fered from our present copies, or the words are a loose paraphrase,
not an exact translation. Some critics maintain, that the Sep
tuagint reading was once a Uteral rendering of the Hebrew as
now found in our Bibles, but that it was afterwards changed

CONFORMITY WITH THE ORIGINALS. 461
and adapted to the text of the epistle to the Hebrews. This
conjecture rests on no foundation. Others have indulged in va
rious hypotheses relative to the original reading of the Hebrew
text, which it would be unnecessary to detail. Among such hy
potheses that of Dr. Kennicott is most ingenious. He supposes
that the Hebrew text is corrupt in the word D^Jti*, ears, which
was originally two words, viz. tN, then, and mj, a body. The
first syllable TN is the same in both ; and the latter, i. e. D''3,
might have been mistaken for mj, a body, nun being like gimel,
yod like vau, and he like mem final. According to this conjec
ture, the Hebrew was, "h /T'")3 niJ ?St, translated by the Se
venty, gufia hi xarnerlgu fxoi. But we are inclined to beUeve,
that the Hebrew text, as it now stands, is correct^ because in all
the MSS. collated by Kennicott and De Rossi, there is not a
single variation. How then are we to interpret the phrase ?
The common opinion is, that it alludes to a custom among the
Hebrews, mentioned in Exodus xxi. 6 ; Deut. xv. 1 7, viz. the
custom of boring through with an awl the ear of a servant, who,
at the expiration of six years' service, chose to continue with his
master, and be subject to him for life. Hence the words are
translated, " mine ears hast thou bored," and the phrase is ex
plained, "thou hast made me thy servant for life," or, " I am
willing to be always obedient to thee." To this mode of expo
sition, there are several objections which fender it inadmissible.
For, in the first place, the verb used in Exodus is not nn3, as
in the Psalm, but V^l, i. e. the Hebrew word applied in the
Old Testament to the boring of the ear, is not mS, but V^l >
and, secondly, only one ear was pierced, as appears from the
passages of the Pentateuch, in which the rite is described. But
in the Psalm, the dual number, denoting both ears, is employed.
From these two considerations it follows, that there is no allu
sion to such a custom. Let us, therefore, examine the Hebrew.
The verb nn3 signifies to dig, as it does also in the Chaldee and
Arabic languages, h?nO and L ^, It is applied to the digging
of a well (Gen. xxvi. 25), and of a pit (Gen. \. 5) ; see Gesen.
s. V. But there is another verb of the same radical letters, which
means to purchase or provide.* The Seventy took the latter
* Dr. Lee thinks that it is the same verb which signifies to dig and to purchase;
and accounts for the latter meaning by the laborious method of making bargains in
Oriental countries. There is no philosophy in this connexion ; and we prefer, with

462

QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.

rather than the former, because they have rendered it by marn^-
Tigu. To open or uncover the ear appears to have been a cus
tomary expression among the Hebrews, to signify a revealing of
something to any one, including the idea of listening to the com
munication, followed by prompt obedience. Gesenius compares
Isaiah 1. 5 with the phrase in question. " The Lord God hath
opened mine ear, and I was not rebellious." In 1 Samuel xx. 2,
we also find, " Behold my father will do nothing either great
or small, but that he will shew it me ;" or, as it is in the original,
but that he will uncover mine ear. Taking these as our guide,
the clause before us will mean, " thou hast made me obedient."
The sense is the same as that derived from the former method of
exposition, but the grounds on which they rest are different.
Stuart has well remarked, that nothing is dependent on the clause
in question, " a body hast thou prepared me" — no substantial
part of the argument is built on it — and there was therefore no
need of literal quotation, the phrase being rather incidental than
essential to the writer's purpose. The apostle's object in the
whole passage is to shew, that the ritual sacrifices were insuffi
cient for spiritual purposes, and to establish the fact, that this
very thing is expressed in the Old Testament. In the 8th and
9 th verses the argument is stated for which the quotation was
made. " Above when he said, sacrifice and offering and burnt-
offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither^ hadst
pleasure therein ; which are offered by the law ; then said he, Lo,
I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that
he may establish the second." Doing the will of God, in the
ninth verse, is contrasted with the sacrifices under the law ; and
the clause, " a body hast thou prepared me," mentions inciden
tally the manner in which the will of God was done, viz. by
offering up the Saviour's body unto death. Obedience to the
will of God is opposed to the sacrifices of the Mosaic law. The
manner of the obedience is not insisted on, but the obedience
itself. It was not necessary to the writer's purpose to mention
in what the obedience consisted. But in the phrase " a body
hast thou prepared me," the attention is turned in passing to the
great sacrificial death of Jesus.
Amos ix. 11, 12, and Acts xv. 15, 16.
This passage is quoted by Luke from the Septuagint rather
Gesenius, to make two distinct verbs with the same radical letters. See Lee's Heb.
Lex, o, /.

CONFORMITY WITH THE ORIGINALS. 463
than the Hebrew. Comparing, however, the citation with the ori
ginal, we find one clause essentially different, viz. 'oirug dv ixlriTrj-
gugiv oi xardXoiiroi tuv dv6guiruv, for which the Masoretic text has,
DilN nnNl^-J-)« ll^-)-'": Ti^ab. The Septuagint and New Tes
tament coincide. We are of opinion that the Hebrew has been
altered in this place since the time of the Greek version, there
being no evidence that the latter was changed in conformity with
the Greek of Luke. The translators seem to have had in their
copies W11" not WT'"' ; and Dnf< not QMa. For na they read
^na, me, or perhaps "na, the yod being an abbreviation of
nin*. According to Mede, for na they read "?>*, and translated
it by xv^iog, as elsewhere. From the citation of the clause accord
ing to the Septuagint, infallible authority sanctions the Hebrew
reading just stated. There is, therefore, no alternative but to
suppose, that the Hebrew text, as it now stands, is corrupt. If
it be objected that this is a gratuitous conjecture, we reply, that
the New Testament is a sufficient warrant, even though no MS.
hitherto collated should concur. We are exceedingly slow to ad
duce the charge of wilful corruption against the Jews, yet, in the
present case, there is ground for suspecting that the alteration
was made in favour of themselves, and against the Gentiles.
TVe have now to mention the passages in which the present
reading of the Greek Testament has been considered incorrect.
Matthew xxvii. 9, 10, from Zechariah xi. 13.
This passage is cited as belonging to Jeremiah, though it does
not appear in any part of his writings. According to Scholz,
cod. 22 reads Za%aj/ou, which is also in the margin of the Har-
clean Syriac. But there is too much reason to suspect, that this
reading arose from the difficulty involved in the common text.
In some MSS. and versions 'Ji^sfxlou is wanting, though it is
found in the majority of authorities, and appears tO belong to
the text. The best critical editions, as Griesbach's and Scholz's,
do not exclude it. As for the dream of Rationalist interpreters
respecting the evangelist quoting from memory, and making a
mistake, we leave it to its advocates, — to Paulus, Griesbach,
and Fritzsche, who thus deny the apostle's inspiration, Dopke
supposes, that Matthew cited from an apocryphal addition to
Jeremiah, of which some traces have been found in modern times.
Beza conjectured, that the transcribers fell into a mistake by. the

464 QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.
likeness of the abbreviations of each name. Some commentators,
maintaining the truth of the received reading, inform us, that
the Jews were accustomed to divide the Old Testament into three
parts, the first of which was called the Law, as beginning with
the law of Moses ; the second the Psalms, as commencing with
that book ; and the third Jeremiah, as opening with his prophe
cies. This last portion included Zechariah, and therefore any
quotation from it might be regarded as taken from Jeremiah. Je
remiah standing at the head of one division, gave its name to all
the writings which that division embraced. This solution, which
was proposed by Lightfoot, is unsatisfactory. Evidence is want
ing to shew, that Jeremiah ever stood at the head of one division,
in preference to Isaiah. What has been adduced from the Tal-
mudic codex Bava Bathra, fol. 14, col. 2, is not sufficient to
prove the point. Besides, the formula rh '^n^iv hid 'li^ifxlou tov ir^o-
ipfiTou XiyovTog, is unsuitable, if Lightfoot's solution be true.
We believe that the ninth, tenth, and eleventh chapters now
put among the prophecies of Zechariah, were written by Jeremiah.
The arguments in support of this opinion are in our view satisfac
tory.* There is no good reason for altering 'ehuxav into 'ihuTia,
* The learned Mede was the first who ascribed chapters ix.-xiv. to an earlier pro
phet than Zechariah. He was followed by Hammond, Kidder, Whiston, and New-
come. So also Dr. Pye Smith. On the Continent, the idea was taken up by Fliigge
and very commonly adopted, that the portion in question is not authentic. So J. D.
Michaelis, Bauer, Eichhorn, Corrodi, Augusti, Bertholdt, Forberg, Rosenmiiller, Hit-
zig, Credner, and Knobel. These writers differ on minor pomts among themselves, n
good number of them subdividing the portion into different compartments, and assign
ing them to different writers and times. Fl'iigge makes so many as nine sections pro
ceeding from various authors. The authenticity of the chapters has been defended by
Carpzov, Beckhaus, Jahn, Hengstenberg, and Koester, particulai-ly the last, whose
arguments have wrought a change of opinion in De Wette. It would be out of place
here to enter into the question. We shall merely state the heads of such arguments
as appear convincing to us. We agree with those who divide the chapters in question
and ascribe them to different writers. There is a marked distinction between chapters
ix.-xi, and xii.-xiv,, sufficient to refer them to separate times and authors. The
grounds on which this opinion rests are ably given by Knobel (Der ProphetismuB der
Hebr'aer voUstandig dargestellt, zweiter Theil u. s. w., pp. 284-287.) At present we
are concerned with the former portion, chapters ix.-xi,
1st, The strongest argument for ascribing ix.-xi. to another prophet than Zechariah
is, that a passage in the eleventh chapter is expressly assigned by an inspired evange
list to Jeremiah. There is no reason for concluding, that the words actually quoted
and none other, were written by the earlier prophet; — on the contrary, they must be
taken along with the three chapters, all of which they refer by implication to Jere
miah. Let it be remembered, that, in the language of Mede, " there is no Scripture
saith they are Zacharie's, but there is Scripture saith they are Jeremie's." (Works,
London 1672, fol. p. 786.)

CONFORMITY WITH THE ORIGINALS. 465
which latter is contained in some MSS. and the two Syriac
versions, and then supposing 'iXa^ov to be the first person singular,
instead of the third plural.
Hebrews i. 12. This quotation, which is taken from the Sep
tuagint, has been pronounced corrupt in a single word. Because
the Hebrew reads DB'/nj^ " thou shalt change them," it has
been imagined, that 'iXi^ug is altered from dXXd^ug. So Grotius,
Randolph, and others. The few MSS., however, which read
dXXd^ug, are as nothing, compared with the overwhelming evi
dence in favour of 'iXi^ug. The sense of both words is evidently
the same, and there is^ no necessity for supposing a corruption in
the text. A garment is folded and laid aside when no longer fit
for use. Another is then taken in its stead. The folding of it
up is equivalent to the changing of it for another.
(6) 2. The degree of accuracy with which passages are quoted
depends, in a good measure, on the persons addressed by the New
2dly, The contents of the portion before us do not suit Zechariah's time, or the na
ture of his commission. He was sent to encourage the people, who had returned from
their captivity, to rebuild the temple and re-establish the worship of Jehovah. The
eleventh chapter contains (it is said) a prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem by
Titus, and of the slaying of its inhabitants. Was not such an announcement calcu
lated to discourage? While the temple and city were just rising out of their ruins,
it was scarcely accordant with the commission of Zechariah to foretell the destruction
of both. Rather does the prediction suit an earlier period, in which desolation was
brought upon the city and temple by Nebuchadnezzar. Besides, the prophecies against
Damascus, Tyre, the Philistines, &c, are not appropriate to the circumstances in which
Zechariah lived. No destruction which befel Damascus and the Philistines between
Zechariah's time and the coming of our Saviour corresponds to the description. On
the contrary, their overthrow by Nebuchadnezzar is more consonant with the scope
of the prophecies (compare Jeremiah xlix, 23 ; xlvii, 2 ; and Ezekiel xxv, 15,) Of
Tyre, though it had been lately destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar, if Zechariah be the
author of these chapters, it is written chap. ix. ver. 3, " And Tyrus did build herself
a strong hold, and heaped up silver as the dust, and fine gold as the mire of the streets."
This language agrees with her state in the time of Jeremiah, before Nebuchadnezzar
came against her. Other historical circumstances seem not to belong to Zechariah's
age. Sdly, Such introductory notices as are found in chapters i, 1, 7 ; iv, 8 ; vi, 9 ; vii. 1,
8 ; viii, I, 18, are wanting in the portion ix.-xi. The prefaces in the latter are quite
different (see ix, 1 ; xi, 4), and Zechariah is not once named in them, as he is in the
former. Other arguments may be found in the work of Knobel already mentioned ; and in
Dr. Pye Smith's treatise " On the Principles of Interpretation as applied to the Pro
phecies of Holy Scripture," note D, pp. 65, 6.
" As for these chapters being joined to the prophecies of Zachary, that proves no
more they are his, than the like adjoyning of Agur's Proverbs to Solomon's proves
they are therefore Solomon's ; or that all the Psalms are David's because joyned in
one volume with David's Psalms." (Mede, p. 786,)
3 N

466 Q0OTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW,
Testament writers. Thus were the evangeUsts and apostles in
fluenced. It is generally believed, that Matthew wrote the gospel
that bears his name principally for the use of the Jews, though
he could not have meant it exclusively or solely for them. Mark,
on the other hand, wrote his narrative with a view to the instruc
tion of Gentiles as well as Jews. The design of Luke embraced
chiefly the former. In conformity with this opinion respecting
the purposes which the three evangeUsts had in view, we find the
same passage of the Old Testament differently quoted.
Thus Matthew xix. 18, 19 ; Mark x. 19 ; Luke xviu. 20.
The clause " and thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself,"
is only in Matthew. We do not concur with Origen's conjec
ture that it is spurious. On the. contrary, there is a striking fit
ness in its insertion. The contracted notions of the Jewish people
are proverbial. Priding themselves on the national privileges and
favours they enjoyed as the chosen people of God, they despised
and hated others. Hence our blessed Redeemer inculcated on
them not merely the refraining from injury to their fellow men,
but positive love and good-will. In Mark, there is a clause which
Matthew and Luke want, viz. " defraud not." In other places
of Mark's gospel there are additions to Matthew. He seems in
the present instance to have annexed another precept, because
those to whom he wrote were prone to fall into the vice it con
demns. The Romans were addicted to the practice of injustice ;
and therefore the divine prohibition of it is adduced from Levi
ticus xix. 13.
In like manner in the diiferent epistles, the same passage is
quoted from the Old Testament in a different manner even by the
same writer.
Ephes, vi. 1-3 ; Coloss. iii. 20.
As a motive to the performance of this precept the apostle sets
before the Ephesians the promise annexed to its observance.
They were well acquainted with the Mosaic law, for the apostle
himself had instructed them. But in writing to the Colossians,
he makes no reference to the law, whence it has been reasonably
inferred, that they were not so well acquainted with the Old Tes
tament as the Ephesian Christians.
Romans ix.33 ; 1 Peter u. 6.
These two passages present a general coincidence and also a
diversity. Agreeably to the argument of the writer and the pre
ceding words, the former text exhibits the character of the stone

CONFORMITY WITH THE ORIGINALS. 467
laid in Zion in reference to such as seek salvation by works and
not by faith. In the latter, the apostle Peter, addressing such
as were built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, &c. &c.,
adduces those peculiar qualities of the stone laid in Zion which
were adapted to the state of beUevers, Hence he styles Christ a
chief corner-stone, elect, precious.
(b) 3. Not only did the character of the persons addressed ex
ercise an influence on the degree of accuracy with which quota
tions adhere to their originals, but also the different objects the
writers had in view. It is instructive to observe the manner in
which the same writer cites the same passage, diversifying it ac
cording to the argument or illustration with which it had to be
connected. If the design were to make a comment or criticism
on the language of the original, the author's name was usually
mentioned, or, at least, a specific reference was made to the work
in which the passage was contained. In this case, too, the words
were closely adhered to. But if the writer wished to introduce
variety into a train of argument, he cited the original less exactly.
Thus in Heb. iv. 7, taken from Psalm xcv. 7, 8, the name of the
Old Testament author is specified, and the words exactly quoted,
because the apostle's object was to prove, by express declarations
of the Hebrew Scriptures, that the rest offered to believers is of
a spiritual nature. Again, in Hebrews xii. 20, 21, neither the
place is mentioned, nor the author, nor are any of the usual for
mulas employed, but the inspired writer, for the sake of fulness,
gives the sense of the passages referred to in the Old Testament.
Nothing essential depends upon the two verses thus cited ; they
form the foundation of no argument ; they are rather parenthetic
and incidental, than essential to the admonitory discourse of the
apostle. There was therefore no need of literal quotation, nor of
alluding with exactness to the writer or books in which they ap
pear. So also in 2 Peter ii. 22, where a proverbial saying from
the Scriptures is introduced into an illustration for the sake of
variety, the meaning is given, without specification or express re
ference to the Hebrew Scriptures. As far indeed, as the intro
ductory terms are concerned, the passage might have been foreign
to Scripture.
Propositions of a general nature, or such as express abstract
truths, are employed in different connexions, and incorporated
into various trains of reasoning. On such, it is easy to perceive,
that very little change can be made, although their application

468 QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.
is as variable as the connexion in which they occur. A slight
verbal alteration may be made to adapt them to the writer's pur
pose in a particular locality ; yet their adjustment to it depends
more on the mode in which they are introduced, than on the only
change which they can fairly allow. Thus Habakkuk u. 4 is
cited three times, and always incorporated in a different train of
argument. Yet it is quoted in the same manner ; and the sole
alteration made on the text of the Greek version whence it is
derived, is the omission of the pronoun fiou.
In quoting passages to shew the fulfilment of prophecy respec
ting our Saviour, it was not requisite to adhere verbatim to the
Old Testament. It was suiBcient to represent the meaning fairly
and fully. In such cases, the apostles did not reckon it essential
to abide by the very words of the original, knowing that the
application of Messianic passages to New Testament times was
apparent to unbiased minds, and needed not to be bolstered up by
minute circumstances. Hence some latitude is taken, although
the true meaning is always presented, and the Greek version
forsaken where it is incorrect. Even the books and authors are
ordinarily omitted, and such a thing is said to have been spoken
of the Lord by the prophet, &c. &c.*
In order still farther to exemplify the influence which the dif
ferent purposes of the writers had upon their manner of quotation,
we may refer to John viii. 17, and Matthew xviii. 16, both taken
from Deuteronomy xix. 15. The words were uttered by our Sa-
* In Matthew's gospel, ii. 23, where the fulfilment of a prediction is noticed and
introduced by the words " That it might be fulfilled which wa? spoken by the pro
phets," no corresponding passage has been found in the Old Testament. The plural
3ia Toisi v^o((>viruv shews that one place cannot be meant. The evangelist alludes to
the prophets generally, or at least a definite number of them, else he would scarcely
have employed the article before ^^o^vituiv. The contempt attaching to Nazai'eth,
Nazarene being another name for a despised one, is what justifies the propriety of
the quotation. Jesus dwelt in Nazareth, a mean place belonging to Galilee; he in
curred all the reproach affixed to a habitation proverbially despised ; and by so doing
fulfilled those declarations of the prophets which marked him out as one despised of
men. Hence the evangelist had in view such passages as Psalm xxii. and Isaiah liii.
The same explanation is given by Paulus, Kuinoel, Bretschneider, and Olshausen.
Those who wish to see other interpretations, may consult De Wette on the text.
Mr, Alexander (Connexion and Harmony of the Old and New Testaments, pp, 487
8) has a novel mode of accounting for this and another citation. Besting, it would
seem, on the expression of Matthew to fnfiy, he thinks that the evangelist had none of
the written prophecies in his eye, but traditionary prophecies alone. We greatly
doubt the correctness of this solution. To pvifit as employed in other cases alludes
to predictions not merely uttered but written; and there is no reason for departing
from the ordiiiai'y usage of the formula in two instances.

CONFORMITY WITH THE ORIGINALS. 469
viour on a different occasion, and with a different design, as nar
rated in the two passages. In John's gospel, they were introduced
to shew to the Scribes and Pharisees, from their own law, that
Jesus had sufficient testimony to his divine mission, since the wit
ness of two persons was valid. But in Matthew's gospel, our
Saviour teaches his hearers how to deal with offending brethren.
In the latter we should expect his instructions to be specific, and
the phraseology of any passage quoted from the Old Testament
to be Uttle altered. In the former, it was enough to state the sen
timent or fact, without necessarily employing the express terms
in which the Jewish Scriptures delivered it. Our Saviour was
not propounding precepts for the regulation of conduct, and con
firming thereby the authority of the Hebrew records, but alluding
to a fact or truth respecting testimony which the Old Testament
admitted. Thus the different objects the Saviour had in view on
these two occasions, aUowed and justified a freer and a more
exact citation of the same place.
In examining cited passages we perceive, that every mode of
quotation has been employed, from the exactest to the most loose,
— from the strictly verbal method to the widest paraphrase.
But in no case is violence done to the meaning of the original.
It is true, that a sentiment expressed in one connexion in the
Old Testament, is frequently in the New interwoven with an
other train of argument ; but this is allowable and natural. The
same words are thus made to have a different bearing on the sur
rounding context, while the sense continues the same. They are
equally appropriate in dissimilar arguments. Thus the phrase
" the just shall live by faith," is thrice quoted by Paul, viz. in
his epistles to the Romans (i. 17), Galatians (Ui. 11), and He
brews (x. 38). The proposition, " but the just shall live by his
faith" (Habakk. ii. 4), enunciates a truth of universal extent.
The terms are general, and capable of a variety of applications.
Both the prophet and apostle speak of faith as a means of pre
serving natural and spiritual life. The righteous man shall save
his life by maintaining his faith in the promises and threatenings
of God. In the prophet, the prominent idea is natural life, since
his words refer to the Babylonish captivity. In the epistles to
the Romans and Galatians, spiritual life is chiefly set forth by
Xf\girai — but in that to the Hebrews, natural life. The writer
of the latter represents faith as the means of preservation from
the judgments impending over Jerusalem.

470 QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.
Let it be remembered, then, that the sacred writers were not
bound in all cases to cite the very words of the originals ; it was
usually sufficient for them to exhibit the sense perspicuously.
The same meaning may be conveyed by different terms. It is
unreasonable to expect, that the apostles should scrupulously
abide by the precise words of the passages they quote. By a
slight deviation from the Greek, they sometimes rendered the
sense clearer and more explicit ; at other times they paraphrased,
rather than translated, the original Hebrew. In every instance,
we suppose them tohave been directed by the superintending
Spirit, who infallibly kept them from error, and guided them in
selecting the most appropriate terms where their own judgments
would have failed. But a change in the words does not neces
sarily imply, as we have seen, an alteration in the sense.
III. We come now to state the purposes for which citations
were made.
(«.) The chief design of the inspired authors in introducing
passages from the Old Testament was, to exhibit the evidence
of prophecy in favour of the truth of Christianity. Events pre
dicted under a former dispensation were thus brought into juxta
position with later occurrences, rendering their perfect coincidence
palpable to common observation. It was impossible to mistake
the powerful evidence which Christianity carried in itself, when
it pointed directly to numerous passages in the Jewish Scriptures,
and demonstrated their fulfilment in the birth, life, and death of
Jesus ; or in the establishment and extension of his spiritual king
dom, Examples of this kind are frequent. See Matthew ii. 6 ;
iv. 15, 16; xxvii. 9, 10; Heb. x. 5, 7.
(b.) Another object was to derive support from the Old Tes
tament in favour of some position or argument advanced by the
New Testament writers ; or in other words, to prove a doctrinal
point. In reasoning with Jews, and such as held the non-abro-
gation of the Mosaic rites even after the Messiah's advent, this
procedure was peculiarly appropriate. If books so long reckoned
sacred and infallible were adduced to verify an assertion made
by any of the apostles, the circumstance was sufficient to sUence
the opposition of unbelievers, or to satisfy them of the truth
affirmed. Thus Paul frequently appeals to the Hebrew Scrip
tures, particularly in the epistle to the Hebrews, as establishing
his positions respecting the pre-eminence of Christ, and his su
periority to the Levitical priests. See Hebrews iv. 7 ; as also,
Rom, iii. 4, 10-18; Gal. iii. 6.

THEIR USE.

471

(c.) A third object for which quotations were introduced was to
explain some doctrinal point which the sacred writers believed to
be obscure, or imperfectly understood by the persons addressed.
In order to illustrate their positions, and to render them obvious
to the minds of the readers, passages were adduced from the Old
Testament. Such citations are explanatory of a doctrine or duty,
in contradistinction to the preceding, which are demonstrative or
confirmatory of the same. See Romans i. 17 ; iv. 7, 8, 18-21 ;
ix. 20, 21; X. 15; xv. 3.
(rf.) A fourth design of the New Testament writers in making-
citations was, to introduce strength, elegance, beauty, or variety
into a discourse, by applying the phraseology of the Old Testa
ment to the illustration of a sentiment which it happily expresses.
As a Greek readily speaks in the words of Homer, as one wri
ting in the Latin language makes use of Cicero's phraseology,
or as Milton is cited by an English author, so a Jew naturally
adopts the terms of those sacred oracles to which he has been
accustomed. It appears to him, that an idea which he wishes
to present, cannot be better exhibited than in the beautiful lan
guage of the Hebrew writers. He remembers that certain pas
sages in their works may be appropriately used in giving utter
ance to a sentiment, and applies them accordingly.
We find a clear example of such quotations in Romans x. 18,
where the apostle of the Gentiles, in describing the wide ex
tension of the gospel among the Heathen, applies to those who
preached it language, which the Psalmist employed in reference
to the heavenly bodies. So also in the same epistle, phraseology
originally used by Moses to express the way of justification con
tained in the law, is adapted to the gospel as properly descrip
tive of the salvation propounded in it.
Here it should be remembered, that the words are the main
circumstance to which the writer had respect rather than the sen
timent; for he did not suppose that the original author treated
of the same subject with himself, or that he intended to promul
gate the same sentiments.
" The writers of the New Testament," says Dr. Woods, "make
quotations in the same way with us in another respect ; that is,
they frequently apply texts of Scripture in a very different man
ner from that in which they were originally applied. If the texts
quoted are well adapted to the particular truth which we would
illustrate by them, or if they are suited to' express the general

472 QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.
truth originally expressed, in the particular form now intended,
we deem it sufficient. For example: in our confessions to God,
we use the words of David, in the fifty-first Psalm — ' Against
thee, thee only have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight.'
David made this confession to God on a particular occasion, and
with reference to a particular sin, namely, his sin in the matter
of Uriah ; which was in a peculiar sense committed against God.
But as every sin is committed against God, and as it is this op
position to God which is the highest aggravation of sin, we con
sider it proper generally to confess our sins in the words of David.
We borrow the language of Scripture when we speak of offering
up our ' evening sacrifice.' And yet no such thing as a real sa
crifice is intended. But as sacrifice was formerly one mode of
religious worship, and indeed an essential part of it, and as the
language which was used in relation to it is invested with a high
degree of sacredness, we consider it suitable to use the same lan
guage to represent religious worship at the present day. In such
cases we quote sentences, or part of sentences, from the Old
Testament, for the purpose of expressing something very diffe
rent, in certain respects, from that to which they were originally
applied. In the same manner, the language which described the
attendance of the people upon the temple worship, their watching
at Wisdom's gates, and waiting at the posts of her doors, the re.
sidence of God in the sanctuary, the sacred fire, the incense, etc".
is familiarly borrowed by Christians to express the different parts
of their religious services. And we might very properly say, in
a time of earnest attention to religion, that is fulfilled which was
spoken by Wisdom in the Proverbs, ' Blessed is the man that
heareth me, watching at my gates, and waiting at the posts of
my doors.' And if we would describe the happiness which Chris
tians enjoy in the work of religion, we might properly say, that
Scripture is fulfilled which declares, ' Her ways are ways of plea
santness, and all her paths are peace.' "*
These remarks are judicious and just, in so far as some quota
tions are concerned ; but we conceive Dr. Woods to be in error
in applying them to such as are introduced by the formulas, this
was fulfilled, or then was fulfilled. Passages introduced for the
purpose to which we have adverted may either want a formula,
* "Lectures on the Inspiration of the Scriptures, by Leonard Woods, D.D." Glas
gow edition, 12mo, 1838, pp. 33-35.

IMPORTANT FORMULAS. 473
or they may have various prefaces — but that they have such a
prefix as irXrigou or dvairXtigou, remains to be proved. The able
author has carried out the remark, that the sacred writers quote
agreeably to our usual modes of speaking and writing, to an un
due length. There is a limit beyond which they will not con
form to the language of men.
As we had occasion before to notice the influence which modes
of speaking currently used at the appearance of Christianity had
upon introductory formulas, so it is natural to expect that a Uke
similarity should exist between the external form of the citations
themselves and such as were customary among Jewish writers.
The Rabbins were wont to adduce passages from the Old Tes
tament in order to explain or comment upon them ; and on com
paring the variety of methods they adopted, according to the
various objects they had in view, with the different forms as
sumed by citations in the hands of the apostles, the similarity is
found to be striking and instructive. We need not repeat the
observations already made to solve the fact. The education,
habits, intercourse, and country of the writers, serve to account
for such a resemblance. It is by no means necessary to assume
that there should have been a systematic imitation oi Rabbi
nical writers in this particular ; but the coincidence could hardly
have been accidental. Doubtless the evangelists and apostles
were influenced by phraseology in common use. They thought
and spake as Jews. It was in accordance with the wisdom of
God, by whom they were inspired, that they should retain those
peculiarities of their individual and national character, which,
so far from involving error, served to promote the great cause of
truth.* We have purposely reserved the examination of a few formulas
for the present place, because they are connected with a question
of no ordinary importance and difficulty, viz. the principle of ac
commodation. In Matthew i. 22 we find as a preface to a citation, touto hi
oXov yiyoviv, 'iva irXri^u6f] rb §ri6iv, x. t. X., and in other places the
abbreviated form, i'va irXnguSfj, x. t. X.
The proper signification of the conjunction "va is a matter of
some moment, though to the view of the unpractised critic it may
* For a copious and excellent representation of the similarity between Kabbinical
and New Testament modes of employing cited passages, the reader is referred to
Dopke's Hermeneutik, dritter Abschnitt, pp. 70-87.
3 o

4 74 QUOTATION.? FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.
appear to be trivial. Great and grave questions hang upon its
import, and we must therefore inquire minutely regarding it.
The chief point to be considered is, whether i'va always denotes
final cause, purpose, or end; or whether it also designates event
or effect. The former is named the telic (TiXr^n), the latter, the
ecbatic Qxi^aTixri) usage. Many writers have denied that it ever
bears the latter signification ; in other words, they are averse to
regard it as indicative of the event itself, instead of the design
with which it took place, or the object to be attained by its oc
currence. So Lehmann, Fritzsche, Beyer, De Wette, and Ol
shausen, to whom Winer may be added. On the other side,
Steudel and Tittmann endeavour to justify the ecbatic sense.
The latter especially has appealed both to classical and Hellenis
tic usage to shew, that in many cases the telic force is wanting.
According to him, it is sometimes equivalent to ugn, and ought
to be translated so that. In connexion with irXri^uSfj we should
thus be led to translate the phrase, so that it was fulfilled. Pro
fessor Stuart adopts Tittmann's views, conceiving that they are
fully made out in his dissertation ; and both appeal to Matthew
i. 22 for a clear instance of the ecbatic usage of JW. " The
evangelist Matthew," says Mr. Stuart, " in chap. i. 18-21, gives
an account of an angel's prediction in respect to the supernatural
conception and the birth of Jesus, and also of the reason assigned
by the angel why the Saviour's name should be called Jesus.
At the close of this account the evangelist adds : 'Now all this
was done, 'Iva irXri^uSfi ri ^ri6iv, -x. t. X, that it might be fulfilled
which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold,
a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son,' etc. This is one form
in which "va irXri^uSfj may be translated, and is translated in our
common version. But here, and in many other of the like pas
sages, a serious and very important question arises, viz. whether
the phrase 'iva irXri^uSfj, -x. r. X., is not susceptible of another trans
lation, and one which is justified both by the nature of the case
and by the signification of the particle i'va. On this question de
pends the whole tenor or aspect of the evangelist's assertion. As
it stands translated above (which is the form of our common ver
sion), the meaning seems to be, that the greatest events which
ever happened in our lower world, viz. the birth of Christ and
also the occurrences connected with it, all took place in order
that, or for the purpose that, the prophecy of Isaiah (vii. 14)
might be fulfilled. But here the reflecting reader will be con-

IMPORTANT FORMULAS. 475
Strained to pause and ask : What, then ? Was it not to redeem a
world in ruin, that the Saviour's miraculous birth and the events
accompanying it took place, rather than merely to accomplish the
prediction of Isaiah ? The proper answer to this question may
undoubtedly be, that both of the purposes named were to be ac
complished by the birth of Jesus. The world was to be redeemed,
and prophecy was also to be fulfilled. But the great and ulti
mate end must be, the redemption of mankind. The other,
viz. the fulfilment of the particular prophecy in question, was
altogether subordinate and merely preparatory. It was indeed
the design of Heaven, that when a prediction had been uttered
respecting the birth of a Saviour and the manner of it, [that]
nothing should be lacking in respect to the accomplishment of
this prediction. But to suppose, that the great, the unspeakably
important event of the incarnation of Jesus, was simply a fulfil
ment of a prophecy which designated the manner of his birth —
would be a supposition which seems to cover with darkness the
wise and benevolent purposes of Heaven in the redemption of
man, and to limit them to the production of an event, which (al
though of high interest as a display of miraculous power) would
be, or rather would thus be represented as being, of but Uttle im
portance in other respects."*
This reasoning is plausible, and the whole essay of Tittmann,
with the introductory remarks of the translator, worthy of care
ful perusal. Still there is room for doubt, whether the idea of
design be at any time absent from the conjunction. But of whom
is the design to be predicated ? Not of men in most cases, since
they do not enter upon a course of action or perform certain
things with the idea of fulfilling divine predictions. The design
is with Jehovah ; the end or intention is his. We should also
bear in mind, that He has various purposes to accomplish by the
same train of events. One end, however great, does not neces
sarily or naturally exclude a subordinate one. In his moral ad
ministration he arranges circumstances so as to subserve and
promote different objects. Thus in Matthew i. 22, the telic use
of "va does not make the evangelist declare that all the circum
stances connected with the birth of Jesus were brought about
o
* Introductory remarks prefixed by the translator to a dissertation on the use of
the particle 'Isx in the New Testament, by J. A. H. Tittmann, late Professor of The
ology in the University of Leipsie ; in the Biblical Repository for 1835, p. 84.

476 QUOTATIONS PROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN TIIE NEW'.
merely to fulfil the prophecy in Isaiah ; but it shews, that the
whole train of miraculous events which preceded and accom
panied his birth, was so arranged by infinite wisdom as Uterally
to fulfil the prophecy. The great end of his birth and death
was indeed to save men from their sins. This was the express
purpose of his mission into the world ; but God at the same time
intended, that all the prophecies concerning him should be ac
complished, and provided that circumstances should happen in
a determinate manner. While the salvation of men was chiefly
in His view. He had also respect to His own word. Those who
contend for the ecbatic sense appear to found their arguments on
an aspect of the telic, which the judicious advocates of the latter
would disallow. Those who take the telic sense do not urge,
that in every case the ultimate design or sole purpose is implied.
The chief end, the great object, is not always made prominent.
It is sufficient for the telic usage, that there be a purpose, though
it be not the highest— that in addition to sequence, there be de
sign in the arrangement, so that one or more events are expressly
adapted by divine wisdom to produce certain consequences. Thus
the ecbatic signification of 'iva is said to be contained in John xii.
37, 38 — "But though he had done so many miracles before them,
yet they believed not on him : that the saying of Esaias the pro
phet might be fulfilled, which he spake. Lord, who hath believed
our report ? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been reveal
ed?" It is not here meant, that they did not believe for the
express purpose of fulfilling by their want of faith a prediction
uttered by Esaias the prophet. To affirm that this is the right
view of the telic usage of 'Iva in the passage, were to distort it.
The purpose of God was fulfilled in their unbelief, for they had
become so blind and obdurate, that they had been given over to
judicial hardness in consequence of their resistance to his will.
God foresaw that they would not believe — his predictions to men
were to be accomplished by their disobedience ; and although they
were unconscious all the while of their subserviency in executing
the designs of the sovereign Disposer of all, yet by their very
unbelief they filled up his determinate counsel. Thus design is
indicated by Iva. It were superfluous to allude to the various
places in which "va occurs in the New Testament for the purpose
of shewing, that it implies some purpose of God — an overruling
providence, by which he brings events to pass so as to fulfil a

IMPORTANT FORMULAS.

477

particular design.* Something more than bare sequence is de
noted — something higher than manner or mode. It refers us
to Jehovah's sovereign designs as being continually fulfilled by
the minutest as well as the most prominent actions of his intelli
gent creatures, whether these actions be good or bad. Winer
justly remarks, that 'iva is " frequently to be judged of after the
Hebrew teleology, which confounds worldly consequences with
divine designs and counsels, or rather represents each important
result as ordered and intended by God, and that therefore, in the
language of the Scriptures, 'iva can be frequently used, when,
according to our view of the divine government, we should have
used ugTi."\ The sacred writers, under the influence of the
Holy Spirit, viewed events and circumstances with constant refe
rence to the divine arrangements. God appeared to them in all
things as ordering, according to his own wise purposes, the affairs
of men, and the destinies of nations. Hence they frequently
use 'iva, where man, short-sighted man, looking only at the sur
face, and beholding but secondary causes, would have perceived
no overruling purpose, and have employed ugn. Those there
fore who contend for the ecbatic usage of 'iva, seem not to be suf
ficiently attentive to the fact, that the authors of Scripture, as
inspired, were accustomed to behold the fulfilment of the divine
purposes in events which to an ordinary mind might readily ap
pear in the simple light of antecedents and consequents.
But the Hebrew ^ya? to which ha and 'oitug correspond, is ap
pealed to. According to many, it occasionally at least denotes
an accidental consequence or a sequent event, of which the pre
ceding was only the occasion, not the intended effect-X In proof
of this, Exodus xi. 9 is quoted — "And the Lord said unto Moses,
Pharaoh shall not hearken unto you, that my wonders may be
multiplied in the land of Egypt." Here the design is not to be
referred to Pharaoh, but to God himself. The Almighty had a
purpose to fulfil. He predicted to Moses, that Pharaoh, by not
* We gladly refer to the masterly analysis of the chief passages in which htc is found
given by Winer, pp, 355-358 of Agnew and Ebbeke's translation ; or pp, 427-432 of
the original.
•f- Grammar of the Idioms of the Greek Language of the New Testament, trans
lated by J, H, Agnew and O. G. Ebbeke, p. 365, Philadelphia, 1840, The senti
ment quoted from Winer is repeated by De Wette on Matt. i. 22, p. 17, second edition.
J " It is used occasionally both with nouns and verbs to point out the result of an
action, without including the idea of design." — Nordheimer, Critical Grammar of the
Hebrew Language, vol. ii, § 1082, 3, p. 276,

478 QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.
hearkening to his words, should give rise to a display of the
divine judgments against the obdurate tyrant. The connexion
between the multiplication of Jehovah's wonders and Pharaoh's
unbelief, was that the former could not take place without the
latter. The existence of the latter was necessary to that of the
former, and prepared the way for the design of God in shewing
his power. There was thus a designed sequence, a necessary
connexion, in Jehovah's purpose, between both. In the nature
of the things themselves, there was no necessary connexion be
tween them, else it would have been also invariable ; but the
Almighty placed them in such a relation at that time, as that the
one preceded, the other followed, according to his divine arrange
ment, for the accomplishment of a certain end. In the same
manner the three examples quoted by Dr. Nordheimer, viz. Jer.
vii. 19, Hosea viii. 4, and Amos ii. 7, should be viewed.*
We proceed to consider the verb irXn^ou annexed to i'va or 'oirug.
Much depends on a right view of this word, as will be apparent
in the sequel. The subjunctive mood favours the view just given
of the conjunction IVa. By it is required the rendering might or
should be, referring to something future. The indicative would
be more appropriate to denote an event or matter of fact. The
verb irXrj^ou properly and primarily signifies to fill, fulfil, com
plete, ratify, &c. Dr. Sykes thinks, that it also denotes such
a resemblance of circumstances that the words of a former writer
may be literally and exactly applied to another case ; or that
they suit as exactly, as if the writer had had the latter point
particularly in view. In support of this he appeals to heathen
writers. But such an appeal, even if sustained, can scarcely be
considered as extending to the New Testament diction. Classi
cal and Jevrish Greek differ, not only in various forms and in
flexions of words, but also in the significations attached to them.
Hence the following appeal to .^lian does not decide the ques
tion — " Diogenes Sinopensis used continually to say concerning
himself, that he fulfilled and underwent all the curses of
Tragedy : For he was a vagabond, and had no home. ""Or/ ah-
Tog ixirXij^oi xai virofiivii ras ix r'fig T^ayuhiag d^ag. vid. Le Clerc's
supplement to Hammond, ch. iv. 14." j
* Gesenius maintains the telic usage of ]i>nb, and says, " Ubique enim consilii
propositi actio subest." See his Lexicon Manuale, 1833, p, 602, where he examines
a number of places in which the word occurs, and vindicates its telic signification in
them all.
•|- Sykes's Essay upon the Truth of the Christian Religion, 8yo, London, 1725. p. 221.

IMPORTANT FORMULAS.

479

Many have thought that the writers of the New Testament
adapted the words of the Old to their own purpose, accommo
dating the descriptions of persons and events there given, to other
persons and events to which they were not meant to relate.
We have already seen, that for the sake of illustration, or in
order to express a sentiment with beauty and force, the New
Testament writers sometimes employed expressions which were
originally descriptive of other subjects. This is common to all
writers. It " is no other than doing what speakers and writers
in all ages and countries have done ; borrowing a line of poetry
or a striking passage of any esteemed author, which conveys
in peculiarly impressive language a sentiment, which is, in a
pleasing or instructive manner, applicable to the new occasion.
Such felicitous citations from admired authors are made every
day, and with excellent effect ; while neither the speaker nor
the hearer- ever once imagines, that the original writer con
templated this new application."* In so far as such quotations
are concerned, we should have no objection to designate them by
the term accommodations. But the word has come to be em
ployed in a wider sense — to express a principle of dangerous
latitude and infidel tendency. Thus CoUins endeavours to prove,
that the New Testament authors based Christianity wholly upon
Jewish prophecies applied in a sense directly contrary to their
original and obvious meaning, and that the prophecies cited by
them in proof of the divine origin of the Christian religion are
only allegorical and nugatory. In like manner, the Neologists
of Germany maintain, that the first publishers of the gospel let
themselves down, if we may so speak, to popular opinions and
prejudices however erroneous, citing passages to prove and es
tabUsh principles to which they could not truly apply. Such is
the extent of the principle as advocated by men unfriendly to
revelation, or imbued at least with unhappy prejudices against
its holy character and plenary inspiration. In consequence of this
Other examples in support of this principle have been quoted from Epiphanius and
Olympiodorus ; but, as Michaelis well remarks, " they are very far from being equal
in strength to the expression, ' that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the
prophet.' " Introduction to New Testament by Marsh, Cambridge, 1793, vol. i, pp,
214, 15.
* Dr. Pye Smith on the Principles of Prophetic Interpretation, p, 51, See also
Michaelis's Introduction to the New Testament, translated by Marsh, pp. 202, 3.
The learned German designates such passages simply borrowed passages, in opposi
tion to quotations in the proper sense of the word, either in proof of a doctrine, or
the completion of a prophecy.

480 QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.
loose and latitudinarian usage of the term, the friends of evange
lical truth are averse to employ it, lest they should be thought to
sanction the unwarrantable excess to which it has been carried.
It will be found that, when the inspired authors of the New
Testament cite passages, taking them out of their natural order
and applying them to other purposes, they intended merely to
iUustrate a sentiment, or pertinently to enforce a truth. They
do not adduce them as proofs or arguments. In affirming the
latter, Neologists virtually undermine the Christian system. The
reasonings exhibited in the writings of the first promulgators of
the gospel would be as valid and conclusive, were such citations
wanting. No important principle — no fact or argument is built
upon them as a foundation. Rather do they appear as suitable
vehicles of divine sentiments — as famiUar and felicitous costume
for clothing ideas.
We are now better prepared to enter into the question, whe
ther 'iva irXrigu^fi be used by the New Testament writers in cases
where passages are cited for mere illustration. Dr. Leonard
Woods expressly affirms, that it is so. " They (the phrase i'va
irXri^u^fj, and others of the like kind), are often used to denote a
mere comparison of similar events, to signify that the thing spo
ken of answers to the words of a prophet, or that his words may
justly be applied to it ; and so may relate to what was said by an
inspired writer in describing a character which formerly appeared,
or in relating an event which formerly took place, as well as to
a real prediction. Accordingly, we might take a passage, when
it is said, such a thing was done ' that it might be fulfilled
which was spoken by the prophet,' or that what was spoken by
the prophet was fulfilled, and, in many instances, might express
the same thing by such phrases as these — the declaration of the
prophet had an accomplishment in what took place ; or, his
words may be aptly applied to it ; or, they very properly ex
press it ; or, his observation is true in reference to the present
case ; or, this thing is Uke what the prophet describes."* Thus
it is conceived that 'iva irXn^uSfi, and like formulas, may denote
only a comparison of similar events, as if an apostle were to
say, " this is like what is described in the Old Testament." But
where there is not a real prediction, and where two things are
brought into juxtaposition, the likeness to which Dr. Woods
refers, but whose nature he does not rightly discern, is a thing
' Lectures on Inspiration, pp, 26-27,

IMPORTANT FORMULAS, 481
established or preordained. God constituted their resemblance,
so that the one should suggest and foreshew the other. The one
was, in fact, the type of the other. They should be viewed as
mutually and closely related, not as ordinary circumstances, God
designed that they should be connected and similar. The for
mer was intended to prefigure the latter.
The verb irXn^ou in the New Testament diction, connected with
quotations, refers — \st, either to a prediction or a type — to a pro
phetic description, or to a typical event. The latter is essentially
a visible prediction, the previous sign and assurance of a future
thing. A prophecy foretels by supernatural emanation that which
is about to occur — a type foreshews by its supernatural conforma
tion a greater person or thing after which it has been modelled.
The import of the language in which both the prophecy and the
type are expressed is filled up, only when the accomplishment of
the one, and the actual manifestation of the other attest the reality
and the divine appointment of their respective harbingers.* The
fulfilment takes place when the events foretold actually happen ;
or when the antitype exhibits in living, substantial embodiment,
the shadowy representation of the type, ^dly, irXngou is used to
denote the exemplification of a general principle. General pro
positions include a variety of particulars under them, and are
susceptible of a variety of-applications. When, therefore, a case
occurs, in which the truth enunciated by them is exemplified,
they are said to be irXn^oug6ai. In this latter sense, equally with
the former, the verb is used in the way of demonstration or ar
gument. An inspired writer in the New Testament wishes to
shew, that a certain fact proves the truth of a certain principle
inculcated in the sacred records. He brings forward to view the
intimate connexion between a comprehensive declaration and
some case that properly falls within its range. The indissoluble
relation subsisting between them might probably have escaped
the notice of men, had not the servant of God exhibited it, by
referring the case of which he speaks to the position where the
providence and word of Jehovah combined to fix it. Here there

* " Porro, quando dicitur iW vXv^uK to pufiv,' lectori indicatur, locum Veteris
Testamenti haetenus fuisse defectuosum, quia sub umbra et figura illius aliquid late-
bat, ita ut antea non recte pereipi posset, sed quod umbra rejecta sese oculo ofFert,
atque in conspectum venit, ut defeetus possit suppleri ; atque hinc est quod abundans
ilia Christi gratia in epistola Pauli ad Galat, iv. et Ephes. i. dicatur irXri^aii'-a,.'
Surenhusius, pp. 182, 3.
3 p

482 QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.
is something more than mere similarity. One thing is cited as
verifying another. The two are not simply brought together as
though they were incidentally alike, but the object of the writer
is to exemplify, by means of the latter, the reality and efficacy
of the former. Thus, one of the particulars which go to make
up the full import of a general declaration is brought to bear
upon its specific and divinely intended application.
When quotations are introduced by such a preface as 'iva irXn-
gu6fi, the writers considered them to have a necessary reference
to the things recorded. We are not aware of any instance in
which this formula is applied, except in allusion to a prediction
or a type. For the meaning, therefore, of irXr}§u6fi, combined
with i'va, we refer to the first signification given under irXrigou.
But it is said by Sykes, that " the evangelists were Hebrews,
and wrote as other Hebrew writers did. They did not make a
language of their own, or use a phraseology peculiar to them
selves ; but did as other Hebrew writers did, and followed their
method. To understand them, therefore, we are not to judge
of the sense and meaning of the evangelists, from the common
and ordinary sounds of words amongst ourselves ; but we must
enter into the Jewish phraseology and see what the Jews meant
by such and such expressions, and upon what principles they
reasoned. Their ways of speaking and of quoting, which can
be learned from Jewish writers only, must be looked into ; and
how unnatural soever they may seem to us, yet we must be de
termined by them, and only by them. Now, 'tis evident from
numberless examples, that the Jewish way of writing is exactly
agreeable to that of the evangelists ; and the masters of the sy
nagogue applied passages of the Old Testament in senses very
remote from that of the original author. Every page of every
Rabbi almost will supply us with instances of this kind : and as
for the particular term fulfilled, they very often meant no more
by that, than the happening of a similar event ; or an exact agree
ment in particular circumstances of later things with former."*
This writer has not produced any examples from the Talmud
or Jewish commentators to sustain his assertion. Surenhusius in
his Bil3Xog xaray.Xayrig (Thesis ii. p. 2), has fully investigated the
point, and found the corresponding Hebrew expression cited by
the Rabbinical doctors to be IDNJiy HQ a''"pb. The result is
thus stated : " Jam vero ex locis hisco allegatis satis superque
demonstratum est, veteres Hebrseorum Doctores uses fuisse ista
* Essay on the Truth of the Christian Religion, pp. 213, 4,

IMPORTANT FORMULAS. 483
allegandi formula nDNJiy no D'^"pb ut confirmaretur, sive adim-
pleretur id quod dictum est : quando id quod probandum est tDT
allusionem, vel an'212'Oa fulcimentum suum habet in lege Mosis,
et in reliquis sacris Scripturis, et non solum quando rei probatio
expressis verbis exprimitur."*
The argument founded upon Surenhusius' investigation is,
that because the phrase "1D>*3ty HD D^p"? was applied by the
Jews to events different from such as are obviously described in
the passages to which it alludes, ;Va irXrj^u6ri should be similarly
employed. But to this it may be objected: —
1st, That the Hebrew formula may not bear an exact resem
blance to the Greek. The verb Dip is scarcely the proper re
presentative of irXn^ou, but rather ^*'?D.
2dly, It should not be supposed, that the Rabbinical practice
was implicitly followed by the evangelists. It may have been
occasionally vague, defective, and erroneous. The probability is,
that in many cases it was so. Perhaps it was so in the present.
The influence of the Holy Spirit conducted the New Testament
writers beyond and away from systematic imitation in formulas
of quotation, except where Jewish writers had fallen upon the
true method of employing them. The usage of the evangelists
themselves constitutes a right rule. In the case of uninspired
men we should always inquire, have they prefaced their quota
tions from Scripture agreeably to the Bible itself? These re
marks apply no less to Jewish than to other authors, the practice
of whom cannot be said to justify or sanction a fulfilment by
mere similarity. Two examples from the Syriac have been
adduced by Dr. Wiseman for the same purpose as the Rabbinic
phrase just referred to. The first is taken from a life of St.
Ephrem : " And in him (Ephrem) was fulfilled the word which
was spoken concerning Paul to Ananias : he is a vessel of election
to me." The other example is from the writings of St. Ephrem
himself, where he is speaking of Aristotle. " In him (Aristotle)
was fulfilled that which was written concerning Solomon the
wise : that of those who were before or after, there has not
been one equal to him in wisdom."t " These examples," says
a writer in the Quarterly Christian Spectator (New Haven,
vol. X. No. 1. Feb. 1838), " are the more important, as it is
* De Formulis Allegandi, pp. 2, 3. Compai-e also p. 151.
+ Lectures on the Connexion between Science and Revealed Religion, vol. ii, pp.
224, 5,

484 QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.
directly said in them, that the passages quoted were spoken of
other persons than those to whom they are applied by the writers
making the quotations."
This is reversing the right order of proceeding. . The usage
of uninspired men is affirmed to be a proof that the same usage
is found in the New Testament. And yet there is no essential
connexion between the modes in which formulas are employed
by both classes of writers. The one must be right — the other
may be wrong; the one must be proper — the other, when judged
by a Scripture standard, may be improper.
Very nearly allied to the preceding formula is 'ovug irXij^aSfj.
The causal conjunction 'oirug is also telic. Like i'va it primarily
denotes the final cause or purpose for which a thing is said or
done. But some affirm that it is ecbatically used, denoting sim
ple event or effect. Thus Matthew xu. 16, 17, 18 — " And he
charged them that they should not make him known : that it
might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, say
ing, Behold my servant whom I have- chosen : my beloved in
whom my soul is well pleased : I will put my Spirit upon him,
and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles.'' We do not affirm
that the Saviour charged the people not to make him known with
the express purpose or design of fulfilling a prophecy uttered by
Isaiah. But while our Lord enjoined the people not to spread
abroad the fame of his miracles, in accordance with the character
of his divine mission, he knew that a certain prediction respect
ing himself was to be accomplished in this very way. This im
plied a purpose on his part that it should be fulfilled in no other
manner. His conduct on the particular occasion referred to, was,
amid other purposes, subservient to the fulfilment of such a pre
diction. The same remarks apply to 'oirug irXri^u6fj as to iVa irXri^uSfj. Both
may be regarded as synonymous, at least there is no perceptible
difference between them. Accordingly Surenhusius refers the
latter formula to the same Jewish phrase as the former. " It can
not be doubted," says Winer, " that the formula i'va ('oirug) irXrjiuifi,
etc. which was for some time translated by ita ut, has the stronger
meaning, in order that might be fulfilled, in the mouth (as of
the Jewish teachers, so) of Jesus and of the apostles (having re
ference to an event which had already occurred), comp, Olshau
sen on Matthew i. 22. They did not indeed mean by it, that
God had permitted an event to occur, or had incited men to an

IMPORTANT FORMULA.S. 485
unavoidable course of action, with the design, in order that, the
promises might be fulfilled (Tittmann, Synon. II. 44); but the
meaning was: God has predicted that this should be done;
therefore, as the divine prophecies are true, it could not but occur.
As to what intervenes, God foreknew that men would so act,
and on this foreknowledge, which however did not make men
machines, these prophecies were founded; but the Jews, from
whom this formula is derived did not apprehend this with scien
tific accuracy." *
Akin to the preceding formula is iirXri^iiSn h ye,a<pr\, which oc
curs in Mark xv. 28, James ii. 23, and other places.
Some authors have insisted much on the distinction between
this formula and 'iva or 'oitug irXri^u6fi, conceiving that the former
denotes nothing more than likeness or a fulfilment by accommoda
tion, while the latter cannot be so applied. In this they are
certainly more judicious than those, who, with less caution, are
wont to class both under the same head. We have just seen that
i'va or 'oirug irXri^u^^ implies more than some are willing to allow.
Is it then correct to affirm that t6ti iirXri^uSri is prefixed to quota
tions which are bare applications of passages to corresponding
descriptions in the Old Testament. It is certainly less objec
tionable to permit the principle of accommodation in toti iirXr}^u67}
than /Va irXti^u6fj. The one appears to be much stronger than
the other. Reference has been made here also to the practice of
Jewish writers. According to Surenhusius the corresponding
Rabbinical phrase is ^D^?3^y HD ?¦'''P7, i. e. the same as that
which he makes to correspond with i'va or 'oirug irXr]gu6fi. Thus,
in Surenhusius' opinion, there is but one equivalent Jewish
phrase for both formulas.
It will be found on examination, that toti iirXri^u^n is prefixed
to citations of prophecies or descriptions of typical things. So
far it harmonises with 'iva or 'oirug irXri^u^fj. But it is also applied
to quotations which are introduced as exemplifying the truth of
a general principle, agreeably to the second signification assigned
above to the verb nXn^ou. It does not occur as a preface to a
fulfilment by accommodation, i. e. an illustration or comparison
* Grammar of the New Testament Idioms, translated by Agnew and Ebbeke, p. 357 ;
or pp. 430, 431 of the original.
Bengel, Matth. i. 22, says of the formula 'rix or aV/y; crXjjgw^iJ: " ubicunque haec
locutio occurrit, gravitatem evangelistarum tueri debemus, et quamvis hebeti visu
nostro, credere, ab illis notari eventum non modo talem, qui formulae cuipiam veteri re
spondeat, sed plane talem, qui propter veritatem divinam non potuerit non subsequi
ineunte N. T." — Gnomon, p. 18, 4to. Tubingen, 1742.

486 QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW,
of similar events. Thus in Mark xv. 28, there is no room for
affirming, that the fact of the Saviour's crucifixion between two
thieves was merely an event which Isaiah's words might be aptly
employed to describe, though not meant so by the prophet him
self, or the Spirit who inspired him. In Isaiah they refer to no
other than Christ, and the evangelist merely points out the exact
fulfilment of the ancient prediction that He should be numbered
with transgressors. Neither in James ii. 9, is accommodation
allowable. It shews the exemplification of a Scripture declara
tion. " And the Scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham
believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness."
We shall now examine several citations that have been adduced
as examples of accommodation in the worst sense of the term, by
the enemies of Christianity; or as instances of a comparison of
similar events in the way of illustration, without any higher or
ulterior significancy. They are supposed by the friends of truth
to present great difficulty when not viewed in the latter aspect.
It is of great importance to understand them aright ; and they
are the strongest that can be given in favour of an accommodated
fulfilment. Before proceeding to their immediate consideration, it will be
necessary to premise the following observations respecting types
and typical prophecies. By attending to the nature of a type,
and the inseparable connexion which it has with the antitype,
some of the obscurity resting on the subject will vanish. There
is a designed and definite union between the type and antitype.
The one was expressly moulded and fashioned to suit the other.
Their mutual correspondence is a divine arrangement. The type
was suited to the circumstances of the people to whom it was
addressed. By means of such instruction, they were tutored
in the knowledge of the divine will. By it they were taught
to look to futurity — to remove as it were the external veil be
hind which the spiritual essence was concealed from the sight of
the sensuous. The type, by its very nature led them forward to
that which it foreshadowed ; for, if they reflected at all, they
must have felt, that it was not complete of itself. The antitype
and type were inseparably bound together — the mind could not
dwell upon the one without at the same time adverting to the
other. That there are typical prophecies in the Old Testament
is abundantly plain from the Bible itself.* Most of the Old
* See Tholuck on the Use of the Old Testament in the New, translated in Biblical
Cabinet, xxxix, p, 193 et seq.

SUPPOSED INSTANCES OF ACCOMMODATION. 487
Testament predictions are of the same nature. Circumstances
relating to the Jewish hierarchy, and to the diversified history of
the IsraeUtes, are at the same time bound up with the kingdom
of Christ. Events which befel the ancient people of God are
made to bear upon the nature and subjects of the new dispensa
tion of which Christ was mediator. "Temporal deliverances are
described as if they were meant to have a higher reference than
to external safety ; and national prosperity is pourtrayed in co
lours so glowing, as to carry the mind far beyond the Mosaic
economy. The benefits of a future redemption — the character
of Him by whom it was effected — the extension and future glo
ries of his kingdom, are frequently adumbrated in diction ob
viously and directly referring to the Jewish nation. Hence it
could not be said of the utterances of the prophets that they were
fulfilled until their full meaning was brought out to view by the
visible reaUty of the spiritual transaction which they were de
signed to adumbrate. The Jewish economy was not only pre
paratory to, but symbolical of its spiritual successor.*
Thus typical prophecies record such transactions as were meant
to prefigure events under the new dispensation. In explaining
them we take the words to apply directly and primarily to the
affairs they describe, recollecting that such transactions were in
tended to foreshew future spiritualities relative to Christ and his
kingdom, and were so far prophetic symbols. We readily admit
that the New Testament is needed, in order to point out the par
ticular events adumbrated by such symbols. That their ulterior
reference must have been obscure to the Jews we are free to con
cede. But with the more full revelation of the will of God in our
hands, there is no difficulty in perceiving, that they were intended
to have such a range. If this reasoning be correct, we are prepared
to admit that the term fulfilled could only have been used, when,
under the New Testament, the events symbolically set forth really
* " The New Testament teaches us to consider the Old Testament as a a-xtd tuv
fjt^iXKiivTuv oLya^Bdv, and this constitutes the justification of typical things as well as
typical words. Not only in outward appearance is the man preformed in the child,
but also the expressions of the child are, in manifold ways, prophecies of what the
man will become. If the Psyche of the New Covenant lives in the chrysalis of the
Old Testament, it will now and then give signs of its vitality. If Old Testament
circumstances and events are outward prefigurations of what must be fulfilled in a
spiritual sense, the men placed in those relations would use expressions which, in a
higher sense, would be fulfilled in the representations of the New Covenant," — Tho
luck, Dissertation I. on the Use of the Old Testament in the New, translated by J, E.
Ryland, Esq. in Biblical Cabinet, vol. xxxix. p. 193.

488 QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN TIIE NEW.
took place. THhefull import was not educed, till, in the arrange
ment of providence, the transactions happened. The words cha
racterising the earlier events exhibit their completeness of mean
ing only when they are viewed in the later, just as types bear
nothing but a carnal and outward significancy, defective of spi
ritual instruction, apart from the antitype, in which alone the
significancy becomes complete for all the purposes of spiritual
salvation. By keeping in mind the close relation of the type and antitype,
whether the former be a person, as David, or an event, as the
birth of a child, we shall not stumble at the manner in which
certain quotations in the New Testament are introduced, nor have
recourse to other modes of explanation which seem to be objec
tionable. We do not adopt, with some, the hypothesis of a double
sense, to which there are weighty objections. Neither do we
conceive that the principle of accommodation, in its mildest form,
comes up to the truth. The passages containing typical prophe
cies have always a direct reference to facts or things in the his
tory of the persons or people obviously spoken of in the context.
But these facts or circumstances were typical of spiritual trans
actions in the history of the Saviour and his kingdom. Hence
the announcements in the Old Testament are prophetic. As
such they have one simple meaning, exhibiting, it is true, two
phases or aspects, a temporal and a spiritual. Accordingly, they
are introduced in the New Testament by the formulas, this was
done that it might be fulfilled which ivas spoken by the prophet;
then was fulfilled, &c. &c.
Whoever reads with attention the seventh and eighth chapters
of Isaiah, comparing them with quotations in the New Testa
ment, and particularly with the 2d chapter 13 th verse of the
epistle to the Hebrews, will scarcely hesitate to accord with these
sentiments. Matthew u. 14, 15 : " When he arose, he took the young
child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt : and
was there until the death of Herod : that it might be fulfiUed
which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of
Egypt have I called my son," The original is in Hosea xi. 1 .
It is evident that the prophet speaks of the children of Israel,
whose ingratitude he forcibly depicts. Though the Lord had
delivered them from Egyptian oppression, and loved them as a
father, yet they forgot his kindness, and turned aside to worship

SUPPOSED INSTANCES OF ACCOMMODATION. 489
Other gods. Some have asserted by way of solution, that Israel,
i. e. the nation viewed as an individual, was a type of Christ.
A passage in Isaiah xlix. 3 has been quoted to illustrate and
confirm this opinion : " Thou art my servant, O Israel, in whom
I wiU be glorified."* It is, however, by no means certain, that
Israel means the Messiah in this place. We believe that it re
fers to his people rather than to himself, and especially to the
first converts to Christianity, in whose salvation he was glorified.
Whatever the signification of the term Israel be in Isaiah xlix. 3,
it is obviously an uncertain foundation on which to build the opi
nion, that the Israelites as a nation were a type of the Messiah,
There is no Scripture warrant for this idea. But while hesi
tating to admit the point just stated, we believe that certain
events in the history of the Hebrews were symbolical. Occurrences
befel them which were typical of future transactions. The for
mer were designed by Jehovah to prefigure and point to the latter.
The resemblance between them is not accidental, but the result
of a disposing providence.f Of this kind was the occurrence
* This was the opinion of Bishop Kidder. See his " Demonstration of the
Messias," Part II, p, 208, Svo, London, 1699.
+ The following remarks of Beck in relation to Paul's quotation in Komans ix.
25-29, but which equally apply to the passage in the text and others afterwai'ds
considered, are too valuable to be omitted, " At first glance, it might indeed appear
sufficient to consider the use which the apostle makes of prophetic passages as not
more than a historical parallel, according to which he transfers expressions which
had an unquestionable value, and befitted events of an earlier period of the theocratic
standing-point, to analogous events of his own times taking place on the same na
tional soil. But though this method of citation, as a successful accommodation, will
always retain a pragmatical value, yet enough is not thus granted to the higher spirit
of the apostolic writings, and, in our connexion especially, the internal thread is
broken in the whole of the apostle's argumentation. For if, from the beginning a
merely outward or accommodative parallel between the Jewish and Christian ix-
Xcyh lies at the basis of this, so would not the conflict between the two have arisen,
and the earnest heart-gush of the apostle, ver, 1—5, with all his quotations, would
have been a farce ; but rather everything rests on an organic adherence, by virtue of
which the old covenant is related to the new, as the preformant germ to the perfect
development. In this connection, we venture to contemplate the citations not merely
as historical analogies, to which an internal reference is only given by the meaning
attached to them by the reflective writer, and the force of which lies in the completed
parallel, — but as vital portions of the plan of providential instruction and theocratic
history carried on in organic development through the sacred writings, so that they
bear in themselves the plastic germ of fulfilment which developes itself in regular
progression through various transitionary periods. By this means the cited passages
are not deprived of their historical basis and their primary significancy, but are incor
porated in the theocratic character of the whole Scriptures, in the system of the
divine economy ; and thus their gcrminant quality is extended to its complete un
folding, which will take place in the maturity of the Messianic dispensation. The
3 Q

490 QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW,
related in Hosea xi. 1 . It was symboUcal of a corresponding one
about to happen at the birth of Christ. It is a sufficient proof
of this, to find the words of the prophet quoted by an apostle,
and prefaced with the formula, that it might be fulfilled. They
are thus shewn to refer to Christ. We need no other warrant
for assuming, that the deliverance of the Israelites from Egypt,
was symboUcal of the bringing of Messiah out of the same
country. The full meaning of Hosea's words was not embodied
in Israel's deliverance from the thraldom of Egypt. All their
import was not then evolved. The inseparable connexion be
tween the symbol and its counterpart forbids the supposition
that the former realised their entire significancy. Unless the
divinely instituted correspondence between both be severed, or.
regarded as accidental, it is impossible not to believe, that some
passages in the Old Testament have a twofold reference.
In thus expounding the citation we are not justly obnoxious
to the arguments commonly urged against a double sense. For
this phrase we have no peculiar liking. The words of Hosea
have one legitimate sense. They primarily and directly refer to
the deliverance of the Israelites from Egyptian bondage ; but
they have a higher and spiritual reference to the child Jesus.
These are not two separate distinct senses, but one sense rea
lised by two events. In the one case, only a part of the mean
ing is developed. The whole is visibly and fully educed, only
when the latter has occurred. The shadow is nothing without
the substance. It is true that the events are distinct, but the
sacred writers regarded both under one aspect. Their thoughts
seem not to have dwelt upon the one apart from the other. The
bond of union between them was so close, and the transitions to
each so quick, as almost to annihilate their individuality. Hence
it is written in 1 Cor. x. 4 : " And did all drink the same spiri
tual drink : for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed
them : and that Rock was Christ." Here the apostle's thoughts
were transferred from the type to the antitype — from the water
that gushed out of the flinty rock, to the spiritual water it pre
figured, and of which the people in the wilderness partook. Such
prophecies, as they carry on their original form, determined by place and time, ge
netically, from the past into the historical present, form a link in the chain of de
velopment which advances in the succession of historical epochs, through the neai^er
and more remote sections of the future, from the irmii to the ¦!rXri^wi,i,a'' P, 105, &c.
The above passage is quoted by Tholuck on the Hermeneutics of the Apostle Paul,
See Bib, Cab. vol. xx.xix. pp. 243, 4.

SUPPOSED INSTANCES OP ACCOMMODATION. 491
a passage may serve to shew the rapidity with which the ideas
of the inspired authors passed from the one to the other, reck
oning what was spoken of the former to be equally applicable,
but in a higher view, to the other.
Matthew U. 17, 18 : " Then was fulfiUed that which was spoken
by Jeremiah the prophet, saying. In Rama was there a voice heard,
lamentation and weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping
for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are
not." This is taken from Jeremiah xxxi. 15, 16. The formula
introducing the citation is considered by some as quite compatible
with the principle of accommodation, while the same individuals .
refuse to allow its application in the case of the stronger expres
sion by which the preceding passage is prefaced. The words of
the prophet evidently refer to the captivity of the ten tribes, de
nominated Ephraim. He relates, therefore, a different event
from the slaying of the children at Bethlehem. To fulfil this
prophecy, it is remarked by Sykes, that children were not to be
murdered but to be kept alive and brought back to their own
country or border. Hence he infers, that it cannot be a pro
phecy of a future event relating to the murder of the infants by
Herod ; but that it is only the application of a passage in the
prophet where the words exactly suit the occasion.
Different opinions have been entertained respecting the event
mentioned in the Old Testament. Some think that Jeremiah
alludes to the deportation of himself and the people by Nebuza-
radan, captain of the guard, as described in the 39th and 40th
chapters of his book ; others, that the captivity of the Jews by
Shalmaneser is meant. The latter event, however, had happened
at least nine years before the prophet uttered the present words.
The former opinion is the most probable. We cannot at all ac
cord with Surenhusius denying that Jeremiah's words refer to any
other occurrence than the massacre by Herod.* The 16th verse
clearly shews, that the return of those who were not, would yet
take place. Rachel is introduced into the narrative by the figure
prosopopoeia, appearing as a Uving person weeping for such as
had been removed. There is a peculiar propriety also in making
her the representative of the living mothers, who were deprived
of their offspring by the merciless sword of Herod, because she
was exceedingly fond of children.
The event spoken of by Jeremiah is symbolical. It was veri-
«• P. 171.

492 QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.
fied in the captivity of the ten tribes, and the sorrow occasioned
by their dispersion ; but as it foreshadowed another connected
with the early history of our Lord, the prophecy was first ful
filled in the mournful scene at Bethlehem, when so many in
fants were cut off by the command of the cruel Herod. The ori
ginal words in Jeremiah recorded a typical event, and had thus
a twofold bearing. They had a double allusion according to the
two transactions so closely associated. Such typical occurrences
were eminently calculated to carry the minds of the Jews forward
to the period of the Messiah, when the full meaning of the terms
till then unexhausted should be developed. The type continued
to point to the corresponding antitype until the latter appeared,
when the full instruction bodied forth by the former was first seen.
By regarding the captivity of the tribes as a typical transaction,
much of the difficulty supposed to belong to the quotation will be
removed. Now in order to constitute one thing a type of an
other, whether a person or event, it is not necessary that their
mutual resemblance extend to every minute circumstance. All
that is required is a general correspondence. Those saints under
the Old Testament who were types of the Messiah, resembled
him only in some prominent features of character. Their mi
nuter traits were not similar. The likeness was not close. Hence
in a typical prophecy, it is not necessary that the symbolical oc
currence bear an extensive or minute resemblance to the future
transaction to which it was designed to refer. This fact may serve
to shew the groundlessness of the observation that, to fulfil the
prophecy, the children were not to be murdered but to be kept
alive and brought back to their own country. The words of the
prophet are general, equally applicable to captives and to the
dead. The texts of the prophet and evangelist merely affirm,
that they are not. In the one case, the persons spoken of are
not in their own land ; in the other, they are not in the land of
the living. Hence we may supply as a common ellipsis, they
are not what they were before.
But here the Jews object and say, why should Rachel be said
to weep for her children when the children of Bethlehem were
not hers but Leah's, forgetting that as the Bethlehemites were
descended from her husband and her own sister, Rachel might as
truly be styled their mother as Leah is called in their own Scrip
tures the mother of Joseph. (Gen. xxxvii. 10. Compare Gen.
xxxv. 18, 19, &c.) The chief reason for introducing Rachel

SUPPOSED INSTANCES OF ACCOMMODATION. 493
rather than Leah is to be sought partly in the former's charac
teristic fondness for children, and especially in the circumstance
of her burial at Bethlehem, the scene of slaughter. Leah on the
contrary was interred in the cave of Machpelah far from Beth
lehem, where the lamentation could not be said to have reached
her ears except in the inadmissible exaggeration of figure.
But why was Rama mentioned as the place where the mourn
ing was heard, rather than Bethlehem ? To shew the exceeding
greatness of the sorrow. The slaughter was not confined to Beth
lehem, but extended to all the coasts thereof, as it is written in
Matthew ii. 16. It is true that Bethlehem was in the tribe of
Judah, Rama in Benjamin ; but these two tribes bordered on each
other, and were even viewed as one, Benjamin being compre
hended in the name of Judah (1 Kings xi.36, xii. 20.) The voice,
therefore, in the language of poetry, might be said to reach even
to Rama.
This passage has been generally quoted as a clear example of
accommodation. " The sorrow and the mourning," says Bishop
Kidder, " that now fell upon the coasts of Bethlehem and Rama
was very bitter and grievous; and like that which is reported to
have befallen those places, by Jeremy, upon another occasion ;
and then those words are made use of by way of allusion to ex
press their sorrow by. The evangelist does not say, that it might
be fulfilled; but then was fulfilled; q. d. Such another scene of
sorrow appeared then, upon the murder of the innocents, as was
that which Jeremy mentions upon another sad occasion." * In
like manner Calvin declares : Quum tunc completum fuerit Pro-
phetse vaticinium, non intelligit Matthseus illic prsedictum fuisse
quid facturus esset Herodes, sed Christi adventu renovatum fuisse
luctum ilium quem multis ante seculis pertulerunt Benjamitse.
These remarks express the common sentiments of the learned
that the evangeUst appUed the words of the prophet because they
suited his purpose, or illustrated his narrative, not because
they were designed to have any relation to the birth of Christ.
Yet we still look upon them as the completion of a typical occur
rence. It is not enough to say, that there was a similarity in the
two cases which justified the quotation of the evangelist. There
was an original intention to refer to another event in addition to
that first described. Nor should we have recourse with Jortin to
* Demonstration of the Messias, Part II. p. 215.

494 QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.
the hypothesis, that the prophet meant one thing, and the Spirit
of God who spake by him, another. Such an idea has no foun
dation in the Scriptures. It does not follow, that because the
prophet was manifestly speaking of another event than the evan
gelist, he had no reference to the future transaction recorded by
the latter. The typical character of the one presupposes its
relation to the other. The seer was instructed to know, that
his words were to be fulfilled at a future period. He may have
been aware of this application, though he did not express it.
To conclude from his silence that he was ignorant of the far
ther and higher reference is illogical. Even if the prophets
themselves were strangers to the relation of their predictions
to events in the times of the Messiah (a thing which can never
be proved), it is not a necessary consequence, that no such
relation exists. They were so directed and overruled by the
Spirit, as to employ expressions most suitable to the high themes
of which they discoursed. If the Holy Ghost intimates to us
through an evangelist that the words which he had before com
municated to a prophet were realised in more than one case, we
should not endeavour to set aside his intimation. He is the best,
nay the only infallible interpreter of his own revelations. When,
therefore, we are informed by himself in the New Testament,
that what was spoken by an ancient prophet was fulfilled by some
circumstances in our Lord's history, there is no solid ground for
denying a type.
In the present case, and all such as resemble it, we lay great
stress upon the words of the New Testament themselves, con
ceiving that they reveal the character of the event described in
the Old. We transfer the light which the quotation, with its
accompanying context, is adapted to cast upon the original pas
sage, to the passage itself, and thus obtain a clearer insight into
the circumstances recorded in the Jewish Scriptures. But those
who take it as an accommodation, appear to illustrate the New
Testament citation by the original, refusing to give full force to
the evangelist's words because they are apparently so naked of
reference to the passage in the Old Testament.
On the same principle we explain Matthew i. 22, 23, quoted
from Isaiah vii. 14. The original of the quotation is : " There
fore the Lord himself shall give you a sign ; Behold, a virgin
shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the

SUPPOSED INSTANCES OF ACCOMMODATION. 495
evil, and choose the good. For before the child shall know to
refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest
shall be forsaken of both her kings." In this prediction, the fol-*
lowing particulars are to be considered.
1st, The term na'py.
2dly, The n')a, or sign.
Sdly, The mode in which those who refer the whole passage
to Christ usually expound it.
4thly, The interpretations adopted by those who deny all re
ference to the Messiah.
5thly, The view of those who take it to be descriptive of some
child born in the time of Ahaz, and also of the Messiah.
6thly, An inquiry respecting the person meant by the ilD^y.
First. Much anxiety has been evinced respecting the proper
signification of the term almah by the advocates of the exclusively
Messianic exposition. Some of them affirm that it necessarily
involves the idea of virgo illibata. According to Jerome, it is
derived from a root signifying to conceal, i. e. D^y. " Alma
non solum puella, vel virgo, sed cum liriTdgu, virgo abscondita
dicitur et secreta, quse nunquam virorum patuerit aspectibus, sed
magna parentum diUgentia custodita sit." But a better etymo-
logy is found in the Arabic -Xi to grow up, whose derivations
are -Ui a young man; fem. SUoUj « young woman. The
proper signification of almah is a young woman, with an implied
though indirect reference to chastity of person. That the idea of
purity is not necessarily involved in the term follows from Pro
verbs xxx. 19. The Hebrews had another word for virgo illi
bata, viz. n^lJIB, directly and necessarily involving the idea of
purity of person ; but almah, though generaUy implying the same
thing, does not directly assert it. It may be translated by maid
in its general, but not in its restricted application.
If this account be correct, it is obvious that it may here de
note the wife of the prophet or of Ahaz, without any violation of
its right meaning ; and the over zealous soUcitude of those who
deny that it may be so used is not to be commended. Hence the
development of its signification by Hengstenberg in his Chris-
tologie, though correct in the main, errs in some of its minor
details, especially in necessarily containing the idea of «« un
married young woman. The article before almah should be ren-

496 QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.
dered the virgin, implying an actually existing young woman,
and not an ideal one, as Eichhorn supposed.*
Secondly, The sign.
Those who deny all reference of the passage to the Messiah,
equally with such as deem the reference to him not exclusive,
are accustomed to urge a difficulty which lies against its sole
application to Messiah. How could the birth of the Messiah,
which was to take place 740 years afterwards, be a sign to Ahaz
that the kingdom should be delivered from the fear of its ene
mies ? In answer to this it has been remarked, that the prophet
directs his discourse not so much to Ahaz as to the house of
David, or the pious portion of the people ; because the king had
impiously refused the sign offered him by Jehovah. The pious
part of the people feared the total destruction of the state, and
therefore the prophet reminds them of their belief in the future
appearance of the Messiah, and his descent from the tribe of
Judah (Gen. Ixix. 10.) Their civil and ecclesiastical polity was
to continue undestroyed, till Shiloh should come. If then they
truly believsd in the reality of Messiah, until whose advent their
polity was to remain unimpaired, the destruction of their state
could not happen at that time.
With regard to this solution it may be observed, that it makes
an unnecessary distinction between Ahaz and the house of David,
as though the one were not the representative of the other. Surely
Ahaz was not excluded from the number of those to whom the
sign was given ; though he had before refused what had been
offered through the prophet. But this is a refined mode of allay
ing their consternation, which would scarcely have been adapted
to the circumstances of the people and the carnal ordinances in
which they were accustomed to repose. These spiritual views they
were not wont to entertain. On such an emergency especially,
when their fears were great, their minds were hardly fitted to en
tertain and rest upon these conceptions alone as a sign of present
deliverance. Something palpable and obvious to the senses com
ported with their state of mind at the time, not to mention their
ordinary habits of thought and the genius of the dispensation
under which they lived. We beUeve, therefore, that something
visible was best suited to the views and feelings of the people
amid the fears which they then experienced — the fittest mode of
* Dr. Nordheimer, in his excellent Hebrew Grammar, designates the article in such
instances, the article of preeminence. See his Hebrew Grammar, vol, ii. p. 17.

SUPPOSED INSTANCES OF ACCOMMODATION, 497
convincing them that, so far from being cut off within three years,
they should be entirely freed from their enemies. This does not
exclude the spiritual but more remote sign, which Hengstenberg
and others adopt. While advocating its externality, as most per
tinent to the circumstances of the people, we would not remove
from the passage the distant sign, of which the former was but
the precursor and the guaranty.
This idea is also favoured by the usage of the word n^^*, al
though it cannot be denied that it may refer to a future event,
as Hengstenberg has shewn by adducing its application in Ex
odus iii. 12, and Jeremiah xliv. 29, 30. It may also denote a
miracle, as in Deut. iv. 34 ; vi. 22, and elsewhere. , As far as
the view of the house of David was confined to present circum
stances, or to some outward event which was to befal them, the
sign was a ruirog TOV fiiXXovTog (Romans v. 14) ; but in so far as
any spiritual, reflecting mind was turned towards a greater and
miraculous event foreshadowed by the former, the sign was a re
markable miracle.
Thirdly, Those who explain the entire passage of the Messiah
alone find some difficulty in the 15th and 16th verses, especially
the latter. They expound them in this manner. This child, the
Messiah, shall be brought up like other children, and like
them unfold his powers by degrees. In answer to the question,
how could the prophet place the unfolding of the faculties of a
child who was to be born 700 years after, as contemporaneous
with the country's deliverance from its enemies, which took place
very soon, it is said, that the prophet assumes the interval be
tween the birth of the child Jesus and the development of his
faculties as a measure of the time about to elapse before the
state should be freed from its foes. The prophet beholding the
future in vision, sees it spread out before him as present. Ac
cordingly, in announcing to the pious portion of the people the
approaching deliverance he says, that in an interval not longer
than between the birth of this child and its abiUty to distinguish
good and evil, the emancipation of the land will take place.
Thus he expresses the fact, that in the space of three or
four years, both the hostile kingdoms would be destroyed. This
is the substance of the solution given by Hengstenberg, who,
with many others, regards the passage as wholly prophetic of
the Messiah. It is difficult, however, to accede to the inge
nious exposition. There is something about it too refined and
3 R

498 QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW,
subtle. That the words refer to the Messiah, is plain, but that
they refer to him exclusively, is doubtful. The 15th and 16th
verses seem to introduce to the reader a child in the time of Ahaz.
The birth of the one child was symbolical or typical of that of
the latter. The symbolical name Immanuel pointed out to his
contemporaries the divine assistance which should be granted to
them in their adversity, in some such way as Shear-Jashub was
emblematical of the remnant's return.
Fourthly, It was an ancient opinion of the Jews, that the pas
sage refers to Hezekiah the son of Ahaz. Accordingly we read
in Justin's Dialogue with Trypho, " Trypho replied: the Scrip
ture does not say, lo the virgin shall conceive and bear a son ;
but, lo the young woman [fj vidvig) shall conceive and bear a son,
&c. The entire prophecy was spoken of Hezekiah." * To this
it was objected by Jerome, that Hezekiah must have been at
least nine years of age at the time when the prophecy was uttered.
Ahaz was twenty years old when he began to reign, and he
reigned but sixteen years (2 Kings xvi. 2.) Hezekiah his son
and successor was twenty-five years old (2 Kings xviii. 2) when
he began to reign; and therefore he must have been born several
years before these words were spoken. Agreeably to this sup
position, the almah was the spouse of Ahaz. To turn aside the
force of the objection urged by Jerome, Kimchi and Abarbanel
assumed a second spouse of Ahaz. Others again, who advocate
the non-Messianic exposition, take the almah to mean the wife
of the prophet himself. So the Jewish writers Abenesra and
Jarchi, with whom in modern times Grotius and Gesenius agree.
Who this son of the prophet was, they are not unanimous. Shear-
Jashub cannot be meant, because he was so old as to accompany
his father. Hence Gesenius assumes, that the earlier wife of
the prophet had died, and he had betrothed another. Maher-
Shalal-hashbaz, it is affirmed, cannot be intended, because he
had not the name Immanuel, which the child should bear agree
ably to the prophecy. Yet in answer to this it has been ad
duced as a parallel case, that, although the Messiah should be
caUed Immanuel, it is written, Matthew i. 21, " and she shall
bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus." Besides,
this objection to Maher-Shalal-hashbaz or Shear-Jashub drawn
from the name Immanuel, is based on the supposition, that Im
manuel is a proper name, which may weU be doubted.
* Dialog, cum Tryphone Juda;o, p. 291, ed. Colon, 1686.

SUPPOSED INSTANCES OF ACCOMMODATION. 499
Fifthly, The exceedingly forcible formula, with which the
words are introduced in the gospel by Matthew, lead us to regard
the original passage in Isaiah as a prophecy relating to the birth
of Christ. To exclude the Messiah is to make light of the evan
gelist's inspiration, and to fritter down the full meaning of the
prophet by limiting his language to some transaction in the time
of Ahaz. There is no room for the principle of accommodation
in the present passage. The language of Matthew is too strong
and unequivocal to admit of such dilution.
That the prediction of Isaiah is not primarily applicable to the
Messiah but to the child Immanuel, not only the 15th and 16th
verses but the whole passage testifies. It is quite arbitrary to
assume a change of subject — to suppose that the prophet speaks
of one person in the 14th verse, and in the 15th of another; or,
in the 14th and 15th of the Messiah exclusively, and in the 16th
of quite another subject. The words have one simple meaning.
The circumstance of the particular worrlan specified bearing a son,
is typical of the Virgin Mary bearing the Saviour; and while
the symbolical name given to the child was a pledge and as
surance of the divine aid which should be given to the people at
that time, it pointed the minds of the pious to the great Im
manuel. The whole transaction was typical of the miraculous
birth of the Messiah, who was to bring to his people a higher
deliverance than that which the name of the child portended.
The one was a temporal deliverance, but it was prefigurative of
a greater ; — the one was a temporal salvation, but it pointed to
a spiritual salvation to be effected 700 years after. The name
Immanuel, by which the child born during the prophet's life was
characterised, foreshewed the greater Immanuel, who came to
effect the redemption of man, and merited the appellation in a far
more emphatic sense.
We hold, therefore, that the full meaning of the words is not
developed by those who confine them to a child born in the time
of the prophet. The completion was first brought out in the
history of our Saviour. 'Then only were they strictly and li
teraUy /M{/i/Ze</.
/Sixthly, Stich being our view of the entire passage, we can
not suppose that the name Immanuel, as given to the child born
in the time of Ahaz, is a proper name. It is only a commemo.
rative title sigfiificant of the protection which God declared by
his servant he should afford his people, and especially of the de-

500 QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.
liverance which he was about to vouchsafe to the nation in the
time of the prophet. As applied to Christ, it is descriptive both of
his divine dignity and his humanity. But it is scarcely a direct
proof of them — such as it would be, were it a primary prophecy
applicable to Him and none other. As long as we maintain the
direct and primary reference of the passage to another child, the
name Immanuel as quoted in the Old Testament and applied to
Christ, cannot be adduced as an independent proof of his Deity.
To such as already believe the doctrine, it serves to confirm and
establish their faith. To them the title is pregnant with the
Deity and humanity of the Saviour.
It is perhaps unnecessary to state all the reasons by which we
have been induced to reject the exclusively Messianic application.
The exposition given of the 15th and 16th verses, on the ground
of their sole reference to Messiah, is far-fetched. It educes a
meaning not apparent to the reader, and one which would have
been still less apparent to the prophet's hearers. Besides, the
announcement in the 15th verse of the true humanity of the Sa
viour, denoted by the eating of milk and honey, is not thus ap
propriate. The 14th verse includes the idea of his humanity.
Had the prophet addressed those who believed that Messiah was
to appear merely with the form of a body, the addition of the
15 th verse would have been highly suitable ; but for this there is
not the shadow of proof. Nor does the exposition of the 15 th
verse given by Hengstenberg recommend itself by simplicity.
" The contemporaries, represented by the child whose birth is
viewed as present by the prophet, will not for some years attain
to the peaceful possession of the land, but must support them
selves by the produce of their flocks, which will find rich pastu
rage in the devastated country." The unnatural character of this
exegesis must be apparent to all. When we see, too, that the diffi
culty of the exclusively Messianic exposition has led some to
refer the 16th verse to another subject than Messiah, as it did
Calvin, we are deterred from its adoption.
Who then are to be understood by the almah and the chUd
that act a symbolical part ? This is a question of great difficulty,
and we approach it with diffidence. Dathe, with whom Pro
fessor Stuart seems to agree, thinks that the prophet speaks of
a virgin of his own times who, to confirm his prediction, should
bear a son as a real virgin in a miraculous manner. This would
be a strict parallel to the birth of Christ. As the one was an

SUPPOSED INSTANCES OF ACCOMMODATION. 501
extraordinary event, so was the other. This child was called
Immanuel — the name of his virgin-mother is not given. But the
assumption is arbitrary. It introduces a miracle where it is not
necessary. The multiplication of miracles on occasions of diffi
culty has done much injury to the advancement of sound theo
logy. Nee Deus intersit, nisi dignus vindice nodus inciderit ; is
a counsel as applicable to the divine as to the tragedian. Some
think that by the almah is meant the wife of the prophet, and
by the child Shear-Jashub ; but this is liable to the objection
that Shear-Jashub accompanied his father when he uttered the
prophecy. The child must have been still unborn.
On a careful comparison of the passage with the third and fourth
verses of the eighth chapter, it seems probable, that Maher-Shalal-
' hashbaz is meant. It is true that the latter name equally with the
former is commemorative, but they are not significant of different
events. The same occurrence, viz. the overthrow of Syria and
Israel, is pointed out by both. In the one, the Assyrian king is ad
dressed in the encouraging language " haste to the prey ; speed to
the spoil, for the confederate kings shall not withstand thine arms."
In the other, Ahaz and the house of David are told to banish their
fears, because Jehovah was their protector, and would bring de
struction on their enemies by means of the Assyrians. The words
of the 16th verse, 7th chapter, are nearly allied to those of the 8 th
chapter, 4th verse. In the former, " before the child shall know
to refuse the evil and choose the good," corresponds to " before
the child shall have knowledge to cry my father and my mother,"
in the latter ; while the remainder of the verses, " the land of
whose two kings thou art afraid will be wasted," and " the riches
of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria will be taken away before
the king of Assyria," predicts a like destruction of the king's
enemies. This opinion is confirmed by the words of Isaiah vui.
18 : " Behold, I and the children whom the Lord hath given
me are for signs and for wonders in Israel from the Lord of
hosts, which dweUeth in Mount Zion."
But it has been objected, that the wife of the prophet is called
n>i}''3J (chap vui. 3) whereas she is here styled HO?^- There
may he good reason for this. In chapter viii. 3, she is not di
rectly adduced as the mother of a son who was to bear a symbo
lical name prefigurative of the Messiah. In the present passage,
on the contrary, she is represented as the mother of a child to be
called Immanuel. Hence the propriety of changing the appella-

502 QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.
tion, that it may with the strictest significancy apply to the
blessed Virgin also.
We might assume with Gesenius, that, the former wife of the
prophet having died, he had betrothed another, a conjecture not
improbable. The prophetess and the almah would then be dif
ferent persons.
Another quotation usually referred to the accommodated class
is found in Matthew xiu. 13, 14, 15, taken from Isaiah vi.
9, 10. The words are borrowed almost verbatim from the Se
venty, but the Hebrew is a little different. The same cita
tion occurs in Acts xxviii. 26, 27. In Mark and Luke, it
is given in part. We shall first attend to the translation of
the words in Isaiah. " And hesaid. Go, and tell this people.
Hear ye indeed, but understand not ; and see ye indeed, but
perceive not. Make the heart of this people fat, and make
their ears heavy, and shut their eyes ; lest they see with their
eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart,
and convert, and be healed." What meaning belongs to the
verbs in the imperative mood? To understand this, we must
have recourse to the idiom of the Hebrew language, agreeably to
which predictions are often made in the language of command.
This peculiarity is not confined to the Hebrew, but extends to
the Oriental languages generally. Here there is a prediction
delivered in the form of command, according to the genius of the
Hebrew tongue, equivalent to : "ye shall surely hear, but will
not understand ; and ye shall surely see, but will not perceive."
The force of the imperatives is : " consider the thing as already
done; look upon it as fulfilled." So in the 10th verse, " make
the heart of this people fat," &c., the meaning is, " pronounce
their hearts such : declare their characters to be such ;" for when
the Orientals intend strongly to mark the character of any one,
their expression is, that they make him such.* By the aid of
the same principles we can also explain many passages that have
created difficulty to some who are ignorant of the Eastern lan
guages. Hence also the error of such as convert the imperatives
into indicatives by a different pointing.f Having thus cleared
the way for a proper consideration of the quotation before us,
we come to notice the manner in which it is applied.
* See Lee's Sermons on the Study of the Holy Scriptures, &c. pp. 48, 49. Svo,
London 1830.
f Compare Gesenius's Lehrgeb. §§ 208, 206.

SUPPOSED INSTANCES OF ACCOMMODATION. 503
Some say, that as our Saviour here applied to the Jews of his
own time, what the prophet Isaiah had alleged against his coun
trymen above 700 years before, it could only be by way of accom
modation. But the 11th verse of the 6th chapter of Isaiah leads
to the right understanding of the passage. When the prophet
asks, " Lord, how long," i. e. shall this judicial bUndness con
tinue, Jehovah answers, " Until the cities be wasted without in
habitant, and the houses without man, and the land be utterly
desolate." Thus it is foretold that they should remain perverse
and obstinate till they would be totally enslaved and destroyed —
till their city should be utterly desolate. Hence, the Saviour
and his apostles justly applied the words of the prophet to the
Jewsliving in their time, because they were meant to be de
scriptive of their invincible obstinacy. When the Redeemer ap
peared on earth, the measure of their iniquity was not filled up ;
the time embraced by the prophecy was not completed; they
were as strongly prejudiced against his doctrines as they had
been formerly opposed to the messages of the Lord delivered by
his prophets. Thus the passage yields a clear, consistent sense,
without the hypothesis of an accommodation.
Another quotation which the Jews consider a perversion of
the original passage, and which is explained by many Chris
tians on the principle of accommodation, is found in the Gospel
by Matthew viu. 17, taken from Isaiah liii. 4. It is also cited
in I Peter U. 24. It is not denied that Peter, in referring
the words to the sufferings of Christ as expiatory of sin, under
stood them according to the design of the prophet ; but some
have not hesitated to affirm, that the evangelist attaches to
them a meaning quite different from that of Isaiah. The ori
ginal passage is expressed in general terms — he hath borne our
griefs and carried our sorrows, and is appUed by the two in
spired writers in two ways, thus shewing its twofold reference.
When Christ made an atonement for sin, the prediction was
venfiedy but not exhausted. But when, in addition to his
making an expiation, he cast out spirits and healed the sick,
we conclude that these are all the ideas included in the words.
Our sins ought not to be viewed apart from their consequences.
When our blessed Lord took away sin by the sacrifice of him
self, he at the same time took away its consequences. Bodily
disease is the effect of sin. In removing the cause, the effect
is also taken away. It is true that believers are stiU subject to

504 QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.
disease in this life — bodily infirmities surround them here ; but, in
the world to come, every malady will be wholly unknown. In
the days of his incarnation, he cured many diseases as a speci
men and earnest of their future and entire abolishment, that, in
doing good to the souls, it might be seen, he profited the bodies
of men. The infiuence of his expiatory work is felt in the whole
man. It could hardly be otherwise, considering the mysterious
union of soul and body. When, therefore, Isaiah was prompted
to speak of the Saviour, and to announce the general proposition,
" he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows ;" he gave
utterance to terms of pregnant import bearing one sense, but
capable of a double reference, such as is made by Peter and
Matthew. The close connexion between sin and bodily disease,
rendered it impossible to take away the one without the other.
The solution is thus natural and easy. The quotation made
by Matthew, with its introductory formula, seems clearly to
prove, that he considered the original prophecy as applicable to
the diseases of men. Here, as in other cases, the New Testament
illustrates the Old, explaining what might otherwise have escaped
observation. We shall next allude to Matthew xiii, 34, 35, quoted from
Psahn Ixxvui. 2. " All these things spake Jesus unto the mul
titude in parables ; and without a parable spake he not unto
them : that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the pro
phet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables ; I will utter
things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the
world." The prophet here referred to is probably Asaph, In
order to understand the passage, it is necessary to remember, that
the prophets under the Old Testament were types of Christ,
The prophet Asaph speaking in similitudes was a type of Christ,
who, in the days of his flesh, employed the parabolic mode of in
struction. The words as they stand in the Old Testament pri
marily and directly refer to Asaph ; but the seer in uttering them
symboUsed the Messiah, who spoke in parables to the Jewish
people. Thus, what was spoken by the prophet was fulfilled in
the history of our Saviour.
Acts i. 20 : " For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his
habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein : and his
bishoprick let another take." This is taken from Psalm Ixix. 25.
The quotation has occasioned some difficulty to interpreters, and
is supposed to present a clear instance of accommodation. So

SUPPOSED INSTANCES OF ACCOMMODATION. 505
Sykes : " Notwithstanding the introduction made by Peter in
this discourse, yet he seems to mean no more than the resem
blance of things, or an accommodation of the Psalmist's words
to the occasion ; and not that the Spirit actually had Judas in
his view."* It is plain to any one who reads the Psalm with
impartiality, that it alludes to the treatment which David re
ceived from his enemies. But it should not be referred wholly
and exclusively to the Psalmist, because various parts of it are
applied to Christ in the New Testament. So verses 9, 21, and
following. This is a presumption in favour of assigning the pre
sent verse to the Messiah. But the difficulty is, that several
persons are spoken of by the Psalmist ; whereas the same words
are applied to Judas Iscariot alone, in the Acts of the Apostles.
Let it be considered, that David and his enemies were symboli
cal of the Messiah and his enemies. In the spirit of prophecy
the Psalmist was enabled to predict the downfal of his persecutors.
In so doing he predicted at the same time the destruction of those
who opposed and persecuted the Messiah. The psalm describes
directly and explicitly the treatment which David received from
his enemies. But as he was a typical person, the same language
which, in the spirit of prophecy, he applied to his persecutors, had
a higher reference to the life and death of Christ. His enemies,
being the enemies of the theocracy, were the enemies of God him
self, and symbolised the Redeemer's foes. The full meaning of the
psalm was not manifested until the new dispensation was found
ed by its great Head. Then the prophecy was fulfilled. The
circumstance that several are mentioned in the Old Testament,
and that Judas alone is specified in the New, can create no dif
ficulty, when we recollect, that he is singled out as the chief oi
the traitors. He was the guide oi them that took Jesus, and in
connexion with the rest of the Jews, he is selected as the person
in whom the prophecy was remarkably fulfilled. But the same
fate befel those who acted along with him in his nefarious design.
Had Judas been characterised as the only traitor, there would
have been real perplexity in the passage ; but as he was the chief,
we see nothing unnatural in speaking of him alone, especially as
the object of Peter was to describe his conduct.
Another quotation commonly assigned to the same class is in
the epistle to the Hebrews, ii. 6, 7, 8 : " But one in a certain
place testified, saying. What is man that thou art mindful of him?
* Page 271. 3 s

506 QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.
or the son of man that thou visitest him ? Thou madest him a
little lower than the angels ; thou crownedst him with glory and
honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands ; thou
hast put all things in subjection under his feet." This is bor
rowed from Psalm viu. 4, 5, 6. It has been asked, how the
passage in the psalm can refer to Christ in particular as the
apostle Paul interprets it, when the Psalmist speaks of man in
general ? With what propriety does the inspired writer apply to
the Redeemer language descriptive of mankind ? Some answer
by accommodation ; but this is not satisfactory, because the apos
tle has introduced the citation into a train of argument by way of
proof. Macknight thinks that the psalm refers wholly to the
Messiah — an untenable opinion, because the Psalmist is then
represented to exclaim with admiration, what is the Messiah that
thou art mindful of him ? Others again take the psalm to de
scribe human nature in the first instance, and the Messiah indi
rectly. Yet the one is not symbolical of the other, and there
fore this solution cannot be allowed. The words of David apply
to the human nature of the Messiah and his people viewed in
connection. His people are said to be members of his body, of
his flesh, and of his bones. The union is close, mysterious, and
inseparable. Hence there is a reference to redeemed humanity
in association with the Messiah — or the Messiah at the head of
redeemed humanity. The humanity of Messiah joined to re
deemed humanity is a glorious representation of the dignity be
longing to man.*
Thus might we take up singly all the passages which are quoted
in proof of a doctrine, or completion of a prophecy, and said to
be accommodations. All such have a double allusion. From the
associated nature of the events or circumstances to which they
refer, they must of necessity be so constructed.
Citations from the Old Testament in the New may be referred
to the following classes : —
I. Citations of primary prophecies, in which the things pre
dicted are said to be literally accompUshed. These have but one,
exclusive reference to the gospel age.
II. Citations of passages descriptive of symbolical persons or
events. * " AU typical references of this kind arc taken in their full significance only when
the Old Testament saints, as well as those of the New, are considered as members of
one and the same mystical Christ who is described in history." Tholuck.

CLA.SSIFIED.

507

III. Quotations made in order to establish a doctrinal position
or argument, by the authority of the Old Testament.
IV. Citations made for the purpose of illustrating, beautify
ing, or adorning a discourse.
V. Those in which the New Testament writers have referred
to the Old without formally quoting it.
I. Citations in which the things predicted are said to be Uterally
accomplished. These are called direct prophecies, because they relate to
Christ and his gospel only. They have one plain obvious mean
ing which cannot be mistaken by the intelligent reader. They
afford an irrefragable argument for the truth of the Christian re
ligion. Thus the UOth Psalm is a prophecy of Christ and of
him alone. It is explained of him in Heb. i. 13 and x. 13, and
therefore belongs with propriety to this class. In the same light
we regard the second Psalm, which contains an illustrious pro
phecy of the Messiah's kingdom. To affirm that its primary or
literal appUcation belongs to David, and its secondary or spi
ritual to the Messiah, is not founded on a careful examination of
the oracle itself. That it belongs to the Saviour is proved by
Acts iv. 25, 26 ; where, after citing the first two verses, the
apostles expounded them.*
Of the same nature is Matthew iv. 15, 16 from Isaiah ix. 1, 2.
" The land of Zabulon and the land of Nepthalim, by the way
of the sea beyond Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles. The people
which sat in darkness saw great Ught; and to them which sat in
the region and shadow of death light is sprung up." The ori
ginal passage should be rendered thus: " As in the former time
[Jehovah] brought into contempt the land of Zebulon and the
land of Naphtali, so shall he afterwards honour the tract about
the sea, the district beyond Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles."
The evangelist merely gives the substance of the first verse and
the second slightly varied. The lands of Naphtali and of Zebu
lon were debased and brought into contempt when they were
ravaged by the Assyrians, and their inhabitants carried into cap
tivity under Tiglath-Pileser, as recorded in 2 Kings xv. 29 ; 1
Chron. v. 26. The same district was blessed with the Ught of
the gospel and the Saviour's presence, which shed upon it an un
earthly glory.
* We cannot agree with Bleek, who understands these two Psalms typically. Com
pare Tholuck on the Use of the Old Testament in the New (Bib. Cab. xxxix.) pp.
189-192,

508 QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.
II. Quotations of passages symbolically or typically descriptive.
Many prophecies are of this nature. They refer to two per
sons or events connected as type and antitype, symbol and thing
symbolised. But all prophecies are not typical, and belong not
therefore to this head. On the other hand there are passages not
prophetic which fall under the present class. These record things
done in ancient times, while they also represent circumstances in
the history of our Lord and the propagation of his gospel. Thus
under the law, a lamb was offered up as an atonement for trans
gression. The lamb under the law was a type of Christ. Hence
it is said in John xix. 36 : " For these things were done that the
Scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken."
This is cited from Exodus xii. 46 : " Neither shall ye break a
bone thereof." David also says. Psalm xxxiv. 19, 20 : " Many
are the afflictions of the righteous [one] : but the Lord deliver-
eth him out of them all. He keepeth all his bones : not one of
them is broken." The full meaning was exhibited in the antitype.
Another example belonging to this class is John xv. 25, cited
from Psalm xxxv. 19 : " But this cometh to pass that the word
might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me
without a cause." These words were uttered by David, who,
in his official capacity, was a type of Christ. The New Testa
ment warrants us to regard them not only as applicable to him
self, but to the spiritual David his greater son.
Under this head Matthew ii. 15 and n. 17, 18, which have been
already considered, should be classed.*
III. Passages cited for the purpose of proving a doctrine or
establishing a position by the authority of the Jewish Scriptures.
Examples of this are abundant, such as Heb. iv. 7, &c. taken
from Psalm xcv. 7. In order to prove that the rest of God is of
a spiritual and not merely an earthly nature, the writer of the
epistle adduces the Lord as saying by David, long after unbe
lievers in the wilderness had been threatened with exclusion from
the promised land : " to-day if ye will hear his voice harden not
your hearts." By this means he establishes the fact, that the
rest was spiritual.
* See Tholuck's valuable remarks on typical prophecies in his Dissertation on the
Use of the OldTestament in the New, translated in the Biblical Cabinet, vol, xxxix. ;
Sack's Apologetih ; but especially Beck's admirable treatise, Bemerkung iiber Mes-
sianische Weissagung, &c. "On the Messianic Prophecies, and the Spiritual Interpreta
tion of Scripture," in the Tiibingen Zeitschrift for 1831 ; and the Appendix to an
Essay on the 9th chapter of the Epistle to the Romans entitled, Versuch einer pneu-
tnatisch -hermeneutischen Entwickelung des 9 Kapitels im Br. an die Romer, 1833.

CLASSIFIED. 509
IV. Citations made for the sake of felicitously illustrating or
embellishing a discourse.* These might be called accommoda
tions, had not the term been abused by unwarrantable applica
tions. So Romans x. 6-8 from Deuteron. xxx. 12-14 : " But the
righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise. Say not in
thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven ? (that is, to bring Christ
down from above :) Or, who shall descend into the deep ? (that
is, to bring up Christ from the dead.) But what saith it ? The
word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart." Here
the apostle adapts to his purpose the language of Moses in the
book of Deuteronomy. Moses employs certain phrases in order
to describe the plain and accessible nature of the commandments
which God enjoined upon the Israelites. These are repeated in
the epistle to the Romans to shew the nature of the righteousness
which is by faith. Justification by faith is an intelligible doctrine
and easy of access.f See also Romans viii. 36 from Psalm xliii. 22
Septuagint, where the apostle applies to suffering Christians in
his times what the Psalmist said of others long before. In 1 Tim.
V. 18 the apostle, says Tholuck, " quotes the Old Testament
precept merely as an instructive parallel, and leaves it to the rea
der by an inference a majori ad majus to deduce the lesson that
the human labourer is still more worthy of his reward."
V. Passages in which the New Testament writers have re
ferred to the Old Testament without formally quoting it. The
following is a list of such places : — %
* " The difference,'' says Tholuck, in the very able Appendix to his Commentary
on the Epistle to the Hebrews, " between this class and that of typical prophecy,
consists in this, that in accommodating the passages of Scripture, the notion of a
iivovoia, intended by God is altogether abandoned, and the parallel is rather taken by
the author than given by God."
"f- Calvin, who was possessed of singular acuteness and fine exegetical talent, took
the right view of this quotation : Moses ccelum et mare nominat tanquam loca remo-
tiora, et homini aditu difficilia. Paulus autem perinde ac si aliquid spiritualis mysterii
lateret sub his vocibus, ad mortem et resurrectionem trahit. Siquis istam interpreta
tionem nimis coactam et argutam esse censetur, intelligat non fuisse Apostolo propo
situm, Mosis locum anxie tractare : sed ad praesentis causae tractationem duntaxat ap-
plicare. Non ergo syllabatim recenset, quid sit aj>ud Mosem : sed expolitione utitur,
qua instituto suo testimonium l^Iosis propius aecommodat, IUe de locis inaccessis lo-
quutus erat : Paulus ea loca expressit, quse et ab aspectu nostro maxime omnium sunt
abscondita, et fidei tamen nostree respicienda sunt. Quare si per amplificationem vel
expolitionem haec dicta accipias, non poteris dicere quod Paulus violenter aut impor
tune detorserit Mosis verba : sed potius fateberis citra uUam sensus jacturam eleganter
ad vocabula Coali et Maris allusisse.
± The large Roman numerals refer to chapters in the books of the New Testament
only. The figures before which vs is placed, denote verses of the chapter in the

510 QUOTATIONS PROM THE OLD TE.STAMENT IN THE NEW.
Matt. V. 5 ; Ps. xxxvii. 11. vs. 21 ; Ex. xx. 13. vs. 27 ; Ex. xx.
14. vs. 31 ; Deut. xxiv. 1. vs. 33 ; Ex. xx. 7. vs. 38 ; Ex. xxi. 24.
Lev. xxiv. 20. vs. 43 ; Lev. xix. 18. VIII. 4 ; Lev. xiv. 2. X. 35,
36 ; Mic. vii. 6. XI. 5 ; Is. xxxv. 5. xxix. 18. vs. 14 ; Mai. iv. 5.
XII. 3 ; 1 Sam. xxi. 6. vs. 5 ; Num. xxviii. 9, 10. vs. 40 ; Jon. ii. 1.
vs, 42 ; 1 Kings x. 1. XVIII. 15 ; Lev. xix. 17. XXI. 44 ; Is. viii.
14. Zech. xii. 3. Dan. ii. 34, 35, 44. XXIII. 35 ; Gen. iv. 8. 2 Chron,
xxiv. 21, 22. vs. 38; Ps, ixix. 26. Jer. xii, 7. xxii. 5. vs. 39; Ps.
cxviii. 26. XXIV. 15 ; Dan. ix. 27. vs. 29 ; Is. xiii. 9, 10. Joel iii. 15.
vs. 37 ; Gen. vii, 4. XXVII. 43 ; Ps. xxii. 7, 8, 9.
Mark I. 44 ; Lev, xiv. 2. II. 25, 26 ; 1 Sam. xxi. 6, IX. 44 ;
Is. ixvi. 24. X. 4 ; Deut. xxiv. 1. XIII. 14 ; Dan. ix. 27. vs. 24 ;
Is. xiii. 9, 10. Joel iii. 15.
Luke I. 10; Lev. xvi. 17. vs. 33; Mic. iv. 7. vs. 55 ; Gen. xxii.
16. vs. 73; Gen. xxii. 16. IL 21, 22 ; Lev. xii. 3, 4. vs. 34 ; Is.
viii. 14, 15. IV. 25, 26 ; 1 Kings xvii. 1, 9. xviii. 44. vs. 27 ;
2 Kings V. 14. V. 14 ; Lev. xiv. 2. VL 3, 4 ; 1 Sara, xxi. 6. X. 4 ;
2 Kings iv. 29. vs. 28; Lev. xviii. 5. XL 31 ; 1 Kings x, 1. vs.
51 ; Gen. iv. 8. 2 Chron. xxiv. 21, 22. XIII. 35; Ps. Ixix. 26. Jer.
xii. 7. xxii. 5. XIV. 8 ; Prov. xxv. 6. XVIL 3 ; Lev, xix. 17. vs.
27; Gen. vii. 7. vs. 29; Gen. xix, 15, vs. 32; Gen. xix. 26. XX.
18 ; Is, viii. 14. Zech. xii. 3. Dan, ii, 44. vs. 37 ; Exod. iii. 6. XXIIL
29 ; Is. liv. 1. vs. 30 ; Hos. x, 8.
John L 52 ; Gen. xxviii. 12. IIL 14 ; Num. xxi. 8, 9. VI. 49 ;
Ex. xvi. 15. VII. 22; Lev. xii. 3. vs. 38 ; Is. Iv. 1. Iviii. 11, xliv. 3,
Zech. xiii. 1 . xiv. 8. vs. 42; Ps. Ixxxix. 4, cxxxli. 11. Mic. v. 1.
VIIL 5 ; Lev. xx. 10. Deut. xxii. 21. IX. 31 ; Prov. xxviii. 9. XIL
13; Ps. cxviii. 26. vs. 34; 2 Sam. vii. 13; Ps. Ixxxix. 30, 37. ex,
4. XVII. 12 ; Ps, xli. 10. cix. 8, 17. XIX, 28 ; [Ps. Ixix. 22.]
Acts IL 30 ; 2 Sam. vii. 12. Ps. Ixxxix. 4. VIL 8 ; Gen. xvii. 10,
vs. 9 ; Gen. xxxvii. 28. xxxix. 1. vs. 17 ; Ex. i. 7. vs. 20 ; Ex. ii. 2.
vs. 24 ; Ex. ii. 11. vs. 30 ; Ex. iii. 2. vs. 38 ; Ex. xix. 3. vs. 45 ;
Josh. iii. 14. vs. 46 ; 2 Sam. vii. 2. Ps. cxxxii. 5. X. 34 ; Deut. x. 17.
Job xxxiv. 19. XIIL 17; Is. i. 2. Ex. xii. 37. vs. 18; Deut. i. 31.
vs. 36 ; 1 Kings ii. 10. XVIL 31 ; Ps. ix. 9. xcvi. 13. xcviii. 9.
RoM. L 22; Jer. x. 14. IL 6 ; Prov. xxiv. 12. vs. 11 ; Deut. .<.
17. Job xxxiv. 19. IIL 8 ; Jer. xvii. 6. IV. 11 ; Gen. xvii. 10. IX.
20 ; Is. xlv. 9. Jer. xviii. 6. XI. 1 ; Ps. xciv. 14. vs. 35 ; Job. xli. 11.
XIL 9 ; Amos v. 15. vs. 16 ; Is. v. 21.
1 Cor. L 20; Is. xliv. 25. V. 13 ; Deut. xvii. 7. xix. 19. xxiv. 7.
IX. 13; Deut. xviii. 1. X. 1 ; Ex. xiii. 21. xiv. 22. Num. ix. 18.
vs. 3-6 ; Ex. xvi. 15. xvii. 6. Num. xi. 4, xx. 11. xxvi. 64, 65. vs. 8,
New Testament designated by the large Soman numerals immediately preceding. In
cases where several successive verses are referred to, the first only is named.

CLASSIFIED.

511

9, 10 ; Num. xxv. 1, 9. xxi. 4. xiv. 2, 36. Ps. cvi. 14, 19. XIV. 34 ;
Gen. iii. 16. XV. 3 ; Is. liii. 8, 9. Ps. xxii. Ps. xl. vs. 4 ; Ps. xvi. 10.
2 Cor. V. 17 ; Is. xliii. 18, 19.
Gal. II. 16 ; Ps. cxliii. 2. HI. 6 ; Gen. xv. 6. vs. 17 ; Ex. xii.
40. IV. xxii. ; Gen. xxi. 2, 9. xvi. 15.
Eph. IL 17 ; [Is. Ivii. 19.] VI. 9 ; Deut. x. 17. Job xxxiv. 19.
Phil. IL 10 ; Is. xlv. 23. IV. 5 ; Ps. cxix. cii. cxlv. 18.
Col. IL 1 1 ; Deut. x. 16. IIL 25 ; Deut. x. 17. Job. xxxiv. 19.
2 Thess. IL 4 ; Dan. xi. 36. vs. 8 ; Is. xi. 4.
1 Tim. IL 13 ; Gen. i. 17. vs. 14 ; Gen. iii. 6. VI. 7 ; Job. i. 21.
Eccl. V. 14. Ps. xlix. 18.
2 Tim. IIL 8; Ex. vii. 11, 22.
Heb. IIL 2 ; Num. xii. 7. vs.' 17 ; Num. xiv. 35, 36. V. 4 ;
1 Chron. xxiii. 13. VII. 1 ; Gen. xiv. 18. IX. 2 ; Ex. xxv. xxvi. 36.
xl. 3. vs. 13; Lev. xvi. 14. vs. 14; Num. xiv. 36. X. 12, 13; Ps.
ex. 1. vs. 27 ; Is. Ixiv. 1. vs. 28 ; Deut. xvii. 6. XL 3 ; Gen. i. 1.
vs. 4 ; Gen. iv. 4 ; vs. 5 ; Gen. v. 24. vs. 7 ; Gen. vi. 8, 14. vs. 8 ;
Gen. xii. 1, 4. vs. 13; Gen. xlvii. 9. Ps. xxxix. 13. vs. 14; Hos.
xiv. 2. vs. 17; Gen. xxii. 1. vs. 18; Gen. xxi. 12. vs. 20; Gen.
xxvii. 28. vs. 22 ; Gen. 1. 24. vs. 23 ; Ex. ii. 2. vs. 28 ; Ex. xii.
11, 18. vs. 29 ; Ex, xiv. 22. vs. 30 ; Josh. vi. 20. vs. 31 ; Josh. ii.
1. vi. 17, 23. vs. 32 ; Jud. vi. 4, 15, 11. 1 Sam. vii. 2 Sam. ii. vs.
33 ; 2 Sam. viii. Jud. xiv. Dan. vi. vs. 34 ; Dan. iii. vs. 35 ; 2 Kings
iv. 20. 2 Mace. vi. and vii. XII. 9 ; Num xxvii. 16. vs. 12, 13 ; Is.
xxxv. 3. Prov. iv. 26. vs. 15 ; Deut. xxix. 18. vs. 16 ; Gen. xxv. 31.
vs. 18; Ex. xix. 16. vs. 29; Deut. iv. 24. XIIL 11 ; Lev. iv. 12,
21. xvi. 27. Num. xix. 3. vs. 14; Mic. ii. 10.
James I. 19; Prov. xvii. 27. II. 1; Lev. xix. 15. Prov. xxiv. 23.
vs. 21 ; Gen. xxii. 9. vs. 25 ; Josh. ii. 1. vi. 17, 23. V. 3 ; Prov. xvi. 27.
vs. 11 ; Job i. 21, 22. xlii. 1-17. vs. 17, 18; 1 Kings xvii. 1. xviii. 41.
1 Peter II. 3; Ps. xxxiv. 9. vs. 4; Ps. cxviii. 22. vs. 10; Hos.
ii. 23. vs. 17 ; Prov. xxiv. 21. IIL 6 ; Gen. xviii. 12. vs. 20 ; Gen.
vi.3, 12. IV. 18; Prov. xi. 31. V. 5 ; Prov. iii. 34. vs. 7 ; Ps. Iv. 23.
2 Pet. II. 5 ; Gen. vii. 23. viii. vs. 6 ; Gen. xix. vs. 15, 16 ; Num.
xxii. IIL 4 ; Ez. xii. 21. vs. 5, 6 ; Gen. i. 1, 2, 6. vii. 21. vs. 8 ;
Ps. xc. 4. vs. 10 ; Ps. cii. 26, 27. vs. 13 ; Is. Ixv. 17. Ixvi. 22.
1 John I. 8 ; Prov. xx. 9. HI. 5 ; Is. liii. 4. vs. 12 ; Gen. iv. 8.
Jude, vs. 5 ; Num. xiv. 35. vs. 7 ; Gen. xix. vs. 11; Gen. iv. 8.
Num. xxii., and xvi. 1, 31.
Rev. L 6 ; Ex. xix. 6. vs. 7 ; Zech. xii. 10-24. vs. 14, 15 ; Dan.
X. 5, 6. vii. 9. Ez. i. 27- viii. 2. II. 14 ; Num. xxv. 2. xxxi. 16. vs.
20; 1 Kings xvi. 31. xxxi. 23. 2 Kings ix. 33. IIL 7; Is. xxii. 22.
Job xii. 14. vs. 9 ; Is. xlv. 14. vs. 19 ; Prov. iii. 11, 12. IV. 5 ;
Ez. i, and ii. Is. vi. IV. 6 ; Ez. i. and x. V. 11 ; Dan. vii. 10. VI. 8 ;
Ez, xiv. 21. vs. 12; Is. xxiv. 18-23. xxxiv. 4. vs. 14; Ps. cii. 27.

512 QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.
Is. xxxiv. 4. VS. 15, 16; Hos. x. 8. Is. ii. 10, 19-21. VIL 3; Ez.
ix. 4. VIIL 3 ; Lev. x. 1. xvi. 12, IX. 3 ; Joel i. 6. ii. 4. vs. 14 ;
Dan. X. 13, 20. vs. 20 ; Ps. cxv. 4. cxxxv. 15. X. 2 ; Ez. ii. 9, 10.
vs. 3; Jer. xxv. 30. vs. 4; Dan. viii. 26. xii. 4, 7, 9- vs. 9-11 ;
Ez. ii. 8-iii. 4. XI. 4 ; Zech. iv. 2, 3, 1 1, 14. vs. 5 ; 2 Kings i. 9-1 2.
vs. 6 ; 1 Kings xvii. 1. Ex. xvii. 19, 20. vs. 7 ; Dan. vii. 7, 8. vs. 10 ;
Est. ix. 22. vs. 15 ; Dan. ii. 44. vii. 27. Ps. ii. 2. XII. 1 ; Mic. iv.
9, 10. V. 2. Gen. xxxvii. 9, 10. vs. 5 ; Ps. ii. 9. vs. 7; Dan. x. 13,
21. xi. 1. xii. 1. vs. 14; Dan. vii. 25. xii. 7. XIIL 1 ; Dan. vii. 3.
vs. 10 ; Gen. ix. 6. vs. 14 ; Dan. iii. XIV. 8 ; Is. xxi. 9- Jer. li. 8.
Dan. iv. 27. vs. 10 ; Ps. Ixxv. 9. Is. li. 22. Jer. xxv. 15. vs. 14 ; Dan.
vii. 13 ; Is. xix. 1. vs. 15 ; Joel iii. 18. vs. 19, 20; Is. Ixiii. Lam. i.
15. XV. 3 ; Ex. xv. 1. vs. 4 ; Jer. x. 7. vs. 8 ; Ex. xl. 35. 1 Kings
viii. 11. Is. vi. 4. XVL 2 ; Ex. ix. 8-12. c. 7-10. vs. 12 ; Is, xi. 15,
16. XVIL 1 ; Jer. li. 13. vs. 3 ; Is. xxi. 1. vs. 4 ; Jer. li. 7. vs. 12;
Dan. vii. 20, 24. vs. 15 ; Is, viii. 7. Jer. xlvii. 2. XVIIL 2 ; Is. xxi.
1-10. Jer. li. Is. xiii. and xiv. xxiv. 11, 13. Jer. I. 3, 39, 40. vs. 3 ;
Jer. li. 7. Nah. iii. 4. vs. 4 ; Is. xlviii. 20. Iii, 11. Jer. 1. 8. Ii. 6, 45.
vs. 6 ; Jer, 1. 15, 29. Ps. cxxxvii. 8. vs. 7, 8 ; Is. xlvii. 7-9- Jer. 1. 31.
vs. 11 ; Ez. xxvii. Is. xxiii. ver. 18; Is. xxxiv. 10. vs. 20; Is. xliv.
23. xlix. 13. Jer. li. 48. Dan. iv. 14. vs. 21 ; Jer. li. 63, 64. vs. 22 ;
Is. xxiv. 8. Jer. vii. 34. xxv. 10. vs. 23 ; Is. xxiii. 8. XIX. 2 ; Deut.
xxxii. 43. vs. 3 ; Is. xxxiv. 10. vs, 4 ; Ps. cvi. 48. vs. 6 ; Ps. ii. 2.
Dan. ii. 44. vii. 27. vs. 13 ; Is. Ixiii. 1. vs. 15 ; Ps. ii. 9. Is. Ixiii. 3.
Lam. i. 15. vs. 17, 18; Is. xxxiv. 6. Ez. xxxix. 17-20. vs. 20; Is.
xxx. 33. Dan. vii. 11, 26. XX. 4; Dan. vii. 9, 22, 27. vs. 7 ; Ez,
xxxix. 2. vs. 8, 9 ; Ez. xxxviii. and xxxix. vs. 11, 12 ; Dan, vii. 9,
10. Dan. xii. 1, 2. Ez. xxxvii. Is. xxvi. 19, 20. XXI. 1 ; Is. Ixv. 17.
Ixvi. 22. vs. 2 ; Ez. xl. and xlviii. vs. iii ; Ez. xxxvii. 27. vs. 4 ; Is.
xxxv. 10. vs. 5 ; Is. xliii. 19" vs. 10 ; Ez. xl. 2. vs. 11; Ez. xlviii.
31. vs. 15 ; Ez. xl. 3. vs. 19 ; Is. liv. 11, 12. Ex. xxviii. 17. vs. 23;
Is. Ix. 19. Ez. xlviii. 35. vs. 24, 25 ; Is. Ix. 3, 11, 20. XXIL 1 ; Ez.
xlvii. 1, 12. Zech. xiv. 8. vs. 3 ; Zech. xiv. 11. vs. 5 ; Is. Ix. 19. Ez.
xlviii. 35. vs. 10 ; Dan. viii. 26. xii. 4. vs. 16 ; Is. xi. 1,10. vs. 17 ;
Is. Iv. 1.- vs. 19 ; Deut. iv. 2 ; xii. 32.*
* This enumeration has been taken from Knapp's " Recensus locorum Veteris Tes
tamenti in Novo," appended to the 2d vol. of his edition of the Greek Testament, in
conjunction with the concluding part of a beautifully printed pamphlet, entitled,
" Passages cited from the Old Testament by the writers of the New Testament,
compared with the original Hebrew and the Septuagint version. Arranged by the
Junior Class in the Theological Seminary, Andover, and published at their request,
under the superintendence of M. Stuart, Assoc. Prof, of Sac. Literature." Andover,
1827, 410. We have been materially aided by the fine arrangement of the quotations
exhibited in this treatise, and have generally followed its copious list, except in a few
instances, where we trust that some improvement has been effected. It rests upon
Knapp.

THEIR CONNEXION WITH VERBAL INSPIRATION. 513
Having finished our observations on the citations of the New
Testament, it remains to consider their bearing on the question
of inspiration. It is well known, that some have attempted to
uphold the ancient doctrine of verbal inspiration, meaning by
such a phrase the emanation of the very words, as well as the
subject-matter, from the Holy Spirit. Our present object is not
to examine the entire question, but merely to notice the con
nexion between the theory of verbal inspiration and the quota
tions made by the New Testament writers. The circumstance
that the latter cite the Septuagint translation much more frequently
than the Old Testament original itself, is a presumption against
the theory. We are to remember, that the Septuagint is by no
means one of the best versions ; that it is remarkable neither for
literality nor accuracy. If the ipsissima verba had been con
sidered of so great importance as their direct emission from the
Spirit would imply, we should have expected in the New Testa
ment Scripture all avoidance of such a version, and an undeviating
adherence to the original words. This, however, has not been
done. Besides, in looking attentively at those quotations which
have been taken from the Hebrew text rather than the Greek ver
sion, they are found to vary from their originals. There is an agree
ment in sense, but not in words. Nay, it is frequently difficult
to harmonise them in respect to meaning. The terms and phrases
of the Old Testament, if Uterally inspired, were the best that
could have been adopted. Why then did not the writers of the
New Testament give as nearly as possible these best terms and
phrases. They should have adhered to the ipsissima verba qf
the Holy Spirit (seeing they were the best), as closely as the
genius of the Hebrew and Greek languages allowed. But in
stead of this, they have widely departed from them. The very
ideas exhibited in the New Testament do not present an exact
resemblance to those in the Old, much less do the words them
selves. To this it has been replied, that two phrases or two modes
of expression may both be the best in separate places, for diffe
rent purposes. Although, therefore, the original words of the
Old Testament were the best in the circumstances in which they
were employed, they might not have been the best in other and
different circumstances. And if they themselves might not have
been the best in various localities, it follows that their exact co
pies might not have been the best also. Thus a departure from
3 T

514 QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.
the precise words of the Old Testament in the New is justified
by the advocates of this narrow hypothesis.
The nature of the case puts it beyond all controversy, that
the very same terms could not have been employed in both cases,
because the languages are different. Hence we are obliged to
restrict ourselves to the point, whether a rigid adherence to the
Hebrew terms, as far as the Greek would admit, was the very
best mode of conveying their meaning, and consequently the one
most likely to be adopted by the sacred writers. We are inclined
to think, that such an exact imitation would have been exhibited,
had the words of the Old Testament been inspired. They were
the best that could have been used in every case, and the nearer
a quotation of them comes to the original, the better suited would
they have been to all purposes. If the sense was always one and
the same, we do not see how the words expressing it, when lite
rally inspired, could have varied more than the differing idioms
of the two languages imperatively demanded. But if the same
words were designed to convey several senses at the same time,
as some incorrectly maintain, there is in that case a presumption
in favour of very different words being employed in the New Tes
tament. The sense of Scripture being always one — the meaning
being unalterable, we cannot think of the Spirit suggesting to
the writers the use of single terms bearing little similarity to
the original Hebrew, without attributing to Him a measure of
inconsistency. We make him vary from himself, in order to at
tain an object, which, for ought we can see, would be equally,
if not better accompUshed, by closely copying the best words
presented in the Old Testament. If it be asserted, that a strict
adherence to the Hebrew words was not best for the purpose of
instructing the persons to whom the New Testament was ad
dressed, the fact is admitted : but we maintain that it sufficiently
refutes the sentiment that the original passages were inspired
even to the very words, because, on such a supposition, the Holy
Spirit would not have so far deviated from himself. The fact of
the authors using such latitude as merely to convey the general
sense of cited passages, is surely against the notion of an uni
form suggestion of the Old Testament phrases to the minds of
the Jewish writers. The argument which alleges, that the same
words may not be the best in two separate places, and that there
fore a cited passage may vary considerably in expression from the

THEIR CONNEXION WITH VERBAL INSPIRATION. 515
original, seems to take for granted what ought to be proved. It
is not sufficient merely to affirm, that the New Testament words,
though differing from the Old, are inspired, and therefore the
best in the circumstances, while the originals whence they are
taken are also inspired, and consequently the best in the circum
stances in which they were written. We admit, that two pas
sages varying from one another in expression while agreeing in
sense, may be the best for diverse purposes ; but stiU it remains
to be shewn, that the circumstance of their being the very best
in both cases, proves them to have been directly imparted to the
respective writers by the Holy Spirit. It will ever remain in
explicable by the supporters of verbal inspiration, that the words
of the Septuagint became Uterally inspired as soon as they were
taken from that version and transferred to the New Testament
pages. The authors must have been deprived of self-conscious
ness, if in every instance they needed to be prompted to the use
of the Greek version in citing from the Jewish scriptures. If
they be robbed of that knowledge and discernment of the an
cient canonical books implied in the various circumstances of their
lives, they are degraded to automata acted upon by the Spirit in
some such way as a musical instrument is touched by the hand
of the performer. But we cannot deprive them of free-will, or
the use of their reasoning powers, for the sake of a hypothesis.
This were to purchase it at too dear a price. Whatever previous
knowledge they possessed was employed by them as writers, and
exerted its influence on their compositions. And had the very
words of the Old Testament been in all cases inspired, we should
have always expected literal quotation. No paraphrasing or
looseness in citing should then have been seen. The sacred
writers would have been penetrated with too much reverence for
the ipsissima verba to have forsaken them frequently. To aver
that the same general meaning may be conveyed in two different
modes of diction, each of them the very best in its own place,
and thence to infer the inspiration of these respective costumes
in the minutest parts and particles, is unnecessary, gratuitous,
and illogical.

(516 )

CHAPTER XII
ALLEGED CONTRADICTIONS OF SCRIPTURE,
This subject demands attention, not only on account of the dif
ficulty it presents to the Biblical inquirer, but its important
bearings on the character of Revelation in general. It has ever
been a primary topic with the infidel, who endeavours by its aid
to shake the whole system of revealed truth. To the plain and
serious Christian it has occasioned distressing perplexity. If it
be true that the Bible comes from God, and that he merely em
ployed the writers in promulgating his will to man, it must be
admitted, that the divine production cannot but be consistent
vifith itself. If we believe in the perfect omniscience of Jehovah,
it is not possible that he should prompt one writer to put forth a
statement contrary to that of some other writer whom he had
equally commissioned to communicate his purposes to men. AU
the ideas which we can rationally entertain of the Almighty ruler
of Heaven and earth, forbid us to ascribe to Him imperfection
of knowledge, or change of will. To suppose him subject to
mutation is averse to the unbiassed decision of the judgment,
and to every feeling of the heart. Increase of knowledge cannot
be predicated of Jehovah. He who could call a world into ex
istence by the word of his mouth, and beautify it with the richest
costume, unquestionably knows the beginning from the end. He
must be possessed of all wisdom. To conceive of him in any
other character, is to undeify him, by denying those glorious
perfections which man can so imperfectly scan. The feeble Ught
which mortals enjoy, is indeed sufficient to point the mental eye
to the throne of Him who is invisible ; but it is wholly unable to
pierce that vail of glory which encircles the pavilion of his pre
sence. The theist must admit that God is consistent with him
self. When, therefore, we come to consider a written communica
tion of his wiU, we expect perfect uniformity to prevail through
out aU its parts. Human compositions bear upon them the marks

ALLEGED CONTRADICTIONS OF SCRIPTURE.

517

of fallibility. The same work 'may exhibit opposite sentiments.
The productions of one individual are impressed with the stamp
oi progressive intellect; but the emanations of the Divine mind
are totally free from all variableness. Hence, if we beUeve that
the Deity has communicated a revelation to man, the absolute
perfection of his nature warrants us to expect, that it will be not
only worthy of himself, but consistent throughout. And here
we are brought to another point of consideration, the inspiration
of the persons whom he has thought fit to employ in making
known his will to mankind. With the nature of the influence
exerted on their minds, we need not concern ourselves. It is
impossible to tell precisely what it was. It is sufficient to be
well assured of the simple fact, that they were supernaturally
and mysteriously enlightened, yet so as to be conscious of the
animating energy, and of the source whence it came. Jehovah
employed them as his servants to execute lofty purposes in
the administration of his moral government, and thus to form a
connecting link between heaven and earth. When we advance
a step farther, and advert to their inspiration as writers, we
are launched into the disputations of polemic theology. In oppo
sition to Priestley, we believe that they were inspired as ivriters
not less than witnesses. Some superintending care must have
been exercised over them to prevent them falling into error.
What may have been the degree of this inspiration, it belongs
not to us to inquire at present. One thing is certain, that truth
must have been directly communicated. The sublime songs of
ancient prophets carried them far beyond the ages of a former
dispensation, into the womb of futurity, where they beheld scenes
of transcendent grandeur. Their spirits, transported into regions
of light, saw things impossible for human intellect to discover.
We take it for granted, that the sacred penmen were kept from
falling into any inconsistency in their compositions, else their in
spiration was absolutely valueless. The contents of each book
which they wrote, form in themselves a harmonious whole. False
statements, incorrect reasonings, absurd metaphors, unnatural
images, can be attributed to them only Jay unbelievers.
Still farther, not only must the composition of each individual
author be perfectly conformable to itself, but all the writings that
constitute the one collection should be looked upon as agreeing.
What is written by one prophet, will not clash with the utter
ances of another. The statements of one historian, will corro-

518 ALLEGED CONTRADICTIONS OF SCRIPTURE.
borate those of another. The doctrines contained in the epistles
of Paul, will correspond with the holy inculcations of John; —
and the lessons delivered by Peter, advance nothing contrary to
the teachings of James. If one holy man spake as he was moved
by the Holy Ghost, all must have spoken under the same in
fluence. If the writers of all the books were inspired, they re
ceived their communications from the same source. If any one
of them have clearly contradicted another, the fault must be
charged on the Deity, by whom they were supernaturally en
lightened, and from whom they received authority to publish a
message for the edification of men. God is true. In him are
hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. Since his perfect
omniscience comprehends all things, he cannot but exercise a
harmonising influence on the minds of his servants. Whatever
he thus reveals, bears on it the impress of his own seal. The
finger of the Almighty cannot be mistaken. It matters not
whether he employ one individual or many to commit to writing
what he is pleased to make known — whether the different parts
of one great system of truth be assigned to one or a thousand —
whether he speak to his creatures at sundry times and in diverse
manners, or by one messenger, he is equally the author of each
and every feature of the spiritual structure. Its magnificence is
all his own. If it can be shewn that one stone in the edifice is
misplaced or unseemly, weakening and disfiguring the fair pro
portions of truth, then must it be regarded as unworthy of the
great Architect by whom it was designed. But this has never
been demonstrated. Men of erudition and intellect have indeed
attempted it, but they have miserably failed. Professing them
selves wise they became fools.
Should irreconcilable and contradictory assertions be found in
different parts of Scripture, it would not be philosophical at once
to reject the books containing them. It should be previously as
certained, whether such things were really spoken or written by
the authors themselves, or whether other hands have not corrupted
the records. And should it even be ascertained, that they did
come in that condition and form from the inspired penmen, we
should not be justified by our puny and weak mi derstan dings in
pronouncing an unfavourable verdict on the writers. It should
be first investigated, whether our own ignorance may not stand
in the way of reconciling certain passages. Our short-sighted
vision may not have been sufficiently purified to discern the ut-

ALLEGED CONTRADICTIONS OP SCEIPTURE, 519
terings of the Divine Mind through the medium of his messen
gers. May not prejudice so blind the understanding, that it can
not comprehend the details of the marvellous record which God
has given ? In a word, our ignorance may be the very reason
why portions of the written word appear to stand in opposition
to one another. We know that there are some whose eyes are
blind and hearts hard, that they should not see with their eyes,
nor understand with their heart — some who have never prayed
with our great English poet, " Thou, celestial light,
Shine inward, and the mind through all her powers
Irradiate ; there plant eyes ; all mist from thence
Purge and disperse :"
or, in the words of a still greater bard, " Open thou mine eyes,
that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law.'' Some do
not inquire ; others inquire not in a right spirit. Hence they do
not behold the beauty of the divine system. We should not,
therefore, be justified in refusing the claims of a divine revela
tion, though we might not be able to reconcile satisfactorily a
few portions. But we take our stand on higher ground, and
challenge the opponents of Christianity to produce real contra
dictions. The discrepancies are only apparent. Not one contra
diction is to be found in the whole range of Scripture. On this
subject, hasty assertions have been put forth by ill-informed men
venturing to impugn the divine word without fair and candid ex
amination. When brought to the touchstone, their impious ac
cusations appear in true colours. Like the darkness of night,
they are scattered by the Ught of heaven. It is impossible but
that offences will come ; but woe unto him through whom they
come. Here we have to contend with a host of enemies. Deists,
Unitarians, Neologians, and others, concur in stigmatising the
book of God. From the Deists, much need not be feared in the
present day. Ridicule and sarcasm form their chief arguments.
From the Unitarian, we dread no harm. The Neologians of
Germany, too, have put forth all their powers on this subject.
Their writings abound with chapters on the real discrepancies
of Scripture.* But their proofs have failed. And when all their
* As a specimen of real contradictions adduced by Neologists, take the following
from Bertholdt's Introduction to the New Testament,
Matthew v, 3, , . Luke vi, 20,
 viii, 28-34, . — viii. 26-39.
 ix. 16. . . — V. 36.

520 ALLEGED CONTRADICTIONS OF SCRIPTURE.
learning and philology brought to bear on the battlements of
truth are unsuccessful, it may be safely affirmed that success is
utterly hopeless. Si Pergama dextra
Defendi possent, etiam hac defensa fuissent.
In the examination of the present subject, different modes of
division have been adopted. Jahn, for instance, has classed them
into inconsistencies in doctrinal, prophetic, and historical passages.
So also Sandbichler his abridger. Bauer has made two classes,
viz. historic and doctrinal. Gerard divides them into seeming
contradictions in quotations, — in historical passages, — between
predictions and their accomplishment, and in points of doctrine.
It is impossible, however, to carry out these divisions into actual
practice, because historic passages are also doctrinal, and again,
prophetic are historical. The doctrines of Scripture are inter
woven with its history ; while prophecy announces important
truths and future events, respectively belonging to the doctrinal
and historic.
We should prefer the following divisions to those just men
tioned : —
(a) Contradictions between statements made by the same
writer. (Ij) Between the statements of different writers. Or,
(a) Contradictions said to exist in the historic books of Scrip
ture. (6) In the poetic.
(c) In the didactic books.
The subjoined appears to be the most plain and practicable
division : —
\st, Contradictions alleged to exist between one Old Testa
ment writer and another.
2dly, Contradictions said to exist between the New Testa
ment writers.
Zdly, Between the Old and New Testament writers.
Matthew x. 32. . . Luke xii. 8.
Mark ii. 23-28. , , — vi. 1-5.
— iii. 20-35, . . — xi. 14-23 ; xii. 10.
— viii. 27; ix. 1. . — ix, 13-27,
— ix, 30-38, . . — ix, 43-45 ,
Not one of these is a contradiction. They are simply different, but not contradictory
accounts. Strauss' list of contradictions is greater than Bertholdt's, but it is of the
same nature. Differences are not contradictions. See Tholuck's Die Glaubwiirdig-
keit der evangeUschen Geschichte, u. s. w., Svo, Hamburg, 1837, pp. 429-163.^

DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE OLD TESTAMENT WRITERS. 521
In adducing the passages belonging to each head, we shall
follow the usual order of the books. But there are some preli
minary considerations which it is necessary to keep before the
mind. (a) We should examine the state of the text, lest an incorrect
reading give rise to a discrepancy that cannot be removed. The
intentional or designed alterations of transcribers must not be put
to the account of the Holy Spirit. All corruptions of the text
should be carefully rectified. The books of Samuel, Kings, and
Chronicles, especially fall under this remark. It is certain that
textual errors exist in them, which ought to be rectified. An
actual comparison of Samuel and Kings with the books of Chro
nicles, will prove the truth of this assertion.
{b) Every doctrine or principle is not fully revealed in every
place. One part of a subject is treated on one occasion, and
another part on another. Sometimes one aspect of it is rendered
prominent, and again another. Sometimes it is stated absolutely,
at other times relatively, — sometimes with necessary limitations,
and again without any. Hence discrepancies have arisen to the
view of the superficial reader from not comparing all the passages
that speak of the same thing, and placing its separate features in
their relative position. It is of great importance to understand
every doctrine or duty in its fullest comprehension — in the true
bearing of its various phases and particulars.
(c) It is necessary to ascertain, whether the same topic be
treated, or the same event described, in two places which seem
to disagree. Two separate occurrences may be described in si
milar expressions, or they may have such a likeness as to lead
the hasty reader to suppose that they are one and the same.
Let it, therefore, be marked, that the facts narrated are the
same. (d) The different purposes for which a writer adduces or touches
on a topic, prompt him to notice particulars on one occasion which
he omits on another. We must attend to the object he has in
view — to the drift or scope of his discourse, — since he presents a
given theme more or less fully, according to the particular end
he proposes. So two or more authors treat the same topics diffe
rently, because they write with different views.
(e) Variations are not contradictions. Obvious as this truth
is, many seem to have lost sight of it. One historian relates less
than another in narrating the same series of facts. It is not ne-
3 u

522 ALLEGED CONTRADICTIONS OF SCRIPTURE.
cessary that each should exhibit all the particulars connected with
an event. One may dwell on points which another totally omits.
Even eye-witnesses are struck with different circumstances, and
their accounts vary accordingly.
(f) Truth was revealed graduaUy to the world. In comparing
the Old Testament with the New, we should not expect the
same degree of light or knowledge in both. In several important
particulars, the two dispensations are unlike. Things simply per
mitted under the one, are absolutely forbidden under the other — ¦
laws are repealed, statutes abrogated, and ordinances abolished.
In condescension to the weakness of mankind, God has been
pleased to adapt the matter and manner of his communications
to their circumstances. Because the New Testament differs in
various respects from the Old, in regard to the spirituaUty, ful
ness, and perfection of its revelations, we should not hastily con
clude, that the one is contradictory to the other. The genius of
the two dispensations is dissimilar.
(gr) Sometimes the speaker is insensibly changed. Hence the
sentiments of an objector may justly appear to be at variance
with an adjoining statement. Contradictions exist in the divine
communications, because we are not careful to discover the true
meaning. (li) The order of time is not observed by the sacred writers.
An occurrence is frequently related after another which happened
before it. A biography, for instance, may be concluded, without
the insertion of some contemporaneous events, which are not
noticed till after the history. Or again, events are introduced
into a history, and narrated prior to a subject which contains in
cidents anterior in time to those already adduced. Thus events
are introduced both by prolepsis and hysterosis. Many exposi
tors perplex themselves with fruitless endeavours to discover the
order of time, when no key to it is given.
(?) Contradictions may be thought to arise from ignorance of
the fact, that a definite number is frequently put for an indefi
nite. Where a whole number and a part are both to be expressed,
and the latter is small or insignificant in comparison of the whole,
the fraction is frequently omitted, and the whole number put in
round terms for both.
(k) Apparent chronological contradictions arise from the cir
cumstance, that the same period is variously dated by the inspired
historians.

DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE OLD TESTAMENT WRITERS. 523
(Z) The Jewish modes of computation differ in several of their
characteristics from ours. From inattention to this, seeming dis
crepancies may present themselves.
(m) It is not unusual to find, that the same place had different
names. In the progress of time the ancient appellation was
dropped, and another substituted. Even at the same time, va
rious appellations were given.*
(w) The same individuals had different names. One of these
is used by one writer ; another, by another.!
* Thus in Gen. xxxi. 47, the name of the heap of stones gathered together by Ja
cob, was called Jegar-sahadutha (the heap of stones)jby Laban ; but by Jacob, Galeed.
The same place is styled Mizpeh of Gilead (Judges xi, 29,) In Deuteronomy iii. 9,
Mount Hermon is said to have been called Sirion by the Sidonians, but by the Amo-
rites, Shenir. The same place is also called Sion in Deuteronomy iv. 48, which diifers
from the holy mount in orthography, though in English they are confounded. K.ir-
jath-jearim (1 Samuel vii. 1) is also called Baalah (1 Chron. xiii, 6,) The same is
named Yahar (Psalm cxxxii. 6), that is, the wood; for Kirjath-jearim means, the city
of woods, being situated in a woody region, Egypt is called Ham (Psalm Ixxviii, 51),
and the land of Ham (Psalm cv. 23), Baiith, a town of the Moabites, mentioned in
Isaiah xv. 2, is called Beon, contracted from Baal-meon in the book of Numbers
xxxii. 3, 38, and also Beth-baal-meon in Joshua xiii, 17. Gesenius, De Wette, and
Henderson take the word as an appellative in Isaiah xv. 2, meaning idolatrous temple
Jerusalem is called Ariel (Isaiah xxix. 1), denoting the lion of God, in allusion to the
impregnable character of the Jewish metropolis. Egypt is styled Rahab for her in
solence or pride, in Isaiah li, 9 ; Psalm Ixxxvii. 4 ; Ixxxix, 10. Babylon is called
Sheshach (Jeremiah xxv, 26.) The origin of this appellation is difficult, and many
explanations of it have been given. Blayney thinks it may come from the verb 'T\^'\l}
to subside or sink down, in allusion to its low situation, for it was not, like most other
cities, built on a rock or high place,'but on a flat plain, cowering as it were amid the
waters that surrounded it. It should probably, however, be traced to the Persian, as
Von Bohlen thinks, conjecturing that it is the same as Shih-Shah or Shah-Shah,
house or court of the prince. (See Symbol, ad Interpret. Sao. Cod. e Ling. Pers, p.
22.) See Glassius' Philologia Sacra, ed. Dathe, p. 645 et seq.
+ Thus in Genesis xxxvi. 2, among the wives of Esau is mentioned Adah, the
daughter of Elon the Hittite. In 26th chapter of the same book, 34th verse, the
same is called Bashemath. Aholibamah, the daughter of Anah, is also numbered
among the wives of Esau, but she is never mentioned in the preceding part of the
history. It is probable, therefore, that she is the same with Judith, the daughter of
Beeri the Hittite (xxvi. 34,) We see no reason for imagining with some, that the
father had also several names. Glassius thinks he had three, viz, Anah, Zibeon, and
Beeri. When Aliolibamah is said to be daughter of Anah, may not Anah be the
mother's name ? " The daughter of Zibeon the Hittite," is put, not in apposition
with Aholibamah, but Anah, Aholibamah was the daughter of Anah ; Anah was the
daughter of Zibeon the Hittite. According to this, Zibeon was not another appella
tion for Beeri, but the name of Aholibamah's grandfather, Bashemath (Genesis
xxxvi. 3) is styled Mahalath in xxviii. 9. Chileab (2 Samuel iii. 3), son of David and
Abigail, is called Daniel, I Chron, iii. 1. In 2 liings viii, 29 one of the kings of
Judah is called Ahaziah, the son of Jehoram ; in 2 Chron, xxii, 6 he is named Aza-
riah. In 2 Chron, xxi, 17 he is named Jehoahaz, an inversion of Ahaziah. Josiah
was succeeded by his son Jehoahaz (2 Kings xxiii. 30) ; in 1 Chron, iii, 15 he is called

524

ALLEGED CONTRADICTIONS OF SCRIPTURE.

(o) The orthography of places and persons is not uniform, and
our English version has even abridged such uniformity, where it
exists in the original.*

Johanan. In Jeremiah xxii, 11 he is called Shallum, In 1 Chron, ix. 39 Ner is
said to have been the grandfather of Saul ; in I Samuel ix. 1 he is called Abiel.
Abinadab, son of Saul (1 Chron. x. 2), is called Ishui, 1 Samuel xiv. 49. In 2 Chron.
xi. 20 mention is made of Maachah, the daughter of Absalom, but in xiii. 2 she is
called Miehaiah, the daughter of Uriel. It appears, then, that both the father and
daughter had two different names. The Absalom here mentioned was not David's
son, as may be inferred from 2 Samuel xiv. 27, where he is said to have had but one
daughter, Tamar. Thus, he who is called Absalom in 2 Chron, xi, 20, was a difPerent
person from David's son. In 1 Kings xv. 2 he is called Abishalom, Azariah, the
son of Oded (2 Chron, xv. 1), is named in the 8th verse Oded, after his father. In
2 Chron. xxiv, 20 mention is made of Jehoida the priest. The same person is called
Barachias (Matthew xxiii. 35), and Johanan, 1 Chron. vi, 9. Uzziah, king of Judah
(2 Chron. xxvi, 1), is named Azariah, 2 Kings xiv, 21. Both appellations are of
kindred signification. Uzziah signifies strength of the Lord — Azariah, assistance or
help of the Lord. Reuel, priest of Midian, and father-in-law of Moses (Exodus
ii, 18), is also called Jethro in Scripture, Exodus iii, 1 ; xviii, I. The same person
appears also to be denominated Hobab, Numbers x. 29, Hobab is expressly said to
be the father-in-law of Moses, Judges iv, 11, Jethro is also said to be the same,
Exodus iii. 1, Hohab and Jethro were, therefore, the same individual. Reuel or
Baguel would appear to have been the father of Moses' father-in-law. In Numbers
X. 29, Hohab is called the son of Raguel. When Reuel is said to be the father of
Zipporah, whom Moses married, (Exodus ii, 18, cfee,) the name of the father is put
for that of the grandfather, and that of the daughter for the granddaughter. Such
latitude is not uncommon in Scripture. Similar instances of the same persons having
different names occur in the New Testament. Judas, one of Christ's apostles, is
also called Thaddeus and Lebbeus, Matthew x. 3, Matthew was caUed Levi, and
Saul, Paul, Thomas was styled Didymus, and Nathaniel, Bartholomew. See Glas
sius' Philologia Sacra, ed, Dathe, p, 735 et seq.
* The following list of the same names differing in the Hebrew is taken from
Kennicott.

Genesis iv, 18,
ri A. 3.
II X, 4,
II II
11 X, 23.
11 X. 28.
II xxxii. 30.
II xxxvi. 11.
II xxxvi, 23,
II xxxvi. 39.
It x,xxvi. 40.
II xlvi. 10.

II xlvi. 11.
II xlvi. 13,
II xlvi. 16,

Mehujael.
Rip hath,
Tarshish.
Dpdanim, Mash, Obal,
Peniel. Zepho.
Shepho,Pau, Alvah.
Jemuel.Jachin.
Zohai'. Gershon.Job,
Ezbon

Do, , , .
1 Chron, i, 6.
11 i, 7,
II II
II i, 17,
11 i, 22,
Genesis xxx. 31,
II i, 36.
II i. 40.
11 i. 50.
II i. 51.
Numbers xxvi. 12.
1 Chron. iv. 24.
f Numb, xxvi, 13; 7
( 1 Chron. iv. 24. j'
1 Chron. vi. 1,
Numbers xxvi, 24,
II xxvi, 16,

Mehijjael, Diphath.
Tarshishah.
Rodanim. Mesheeh. Ebal. Penuel.
Zephi.
Shephi. Pai. Aliah,
Nemuel,
Jarib. Zerah.Gershom.
Jashub, Ozni.

DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE OLD TESTAMENT WITTERS. 325
(p) The same action or effect may be ascribed, in different
texts, to different persons or causes. This is not a real contra
diction, because all contributed to it, though not in the same
manner. (q) It happens not unfrequently, that what was spoken is re
lated in different terms by different historians. In this case they
give the sentiments, not the precise words in which they were
uttered. Or, they may give different parts of the same dis
course ; or both these may be combined.
(/•) General terms are employed, where, if minute accuracy be
required, others would be more appropriate. Thus a fact may
be related in a general way by one historian, which another may
describe particularly. This is usual in every language, no less
than in the language of the Scriptures.
Attention to these plain, axiomatic principles, will serve to
clear away from the Holy Bible the contradictory aspect which
many passages have been said to present. One or more of them
may be applied, just as the case requires.

Gen. i. 8, 9, 10. " And God called the firmament heaven.
And the evening and the morning were the second day. And
God said. Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together
unto one place, and let the dry land appear : and it was so. And
God called the dry land earth  v. 13. And the
evening and the morning were the third day."
Gen. ii. 4. " These are the generations of the heavens and
of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord
God made the earth and the heavens."
This discrepancy rests on the supposition, that the term day
is used in both passages for the same length of time, i. e. twenty-
four hours. There is ample reason for believing, that the six
days of creation were not periods or ages of indefinite length, but

Genesis xlvi, 21,

Huppim,

1 Chron, viii, 5,

Huram,

II 11 11

Aid.

11 viii, 3,

Addar.

11 xlvi, 23.

Hushim,

Numbers xxvi, 42,

Shuham.

Exodus iv. 18,

Jether,

Exodus iv, 18,

Jethro,

Numbers i. 14.

Deuel,

Numbers ii. 14.

Reuel,

Deut. xxxii, 44.

Hoshea,

Deut, xxxiv, 9.

Joshua,

It is quite evident that some of these have arisen from mistakes made by transcri
bers, Dr, Kennicott also gives a list of names the same in Hebrew, but different in
our English Bibles. Surely in this case uniformity is highly desirable.

526 ALLEGED CONTRADICTIONS OF SCRIPTURE.
twenty-four hours each. In verses 8th and 9th of the first chap
ter, it is related, that God made the firmament or heaven on one
day (the second), but the earth on the third. In the 2d chapter
4th verse, day means time generally, including a longer space
than twenty-four hours. This is shown by the connexion, for it
is immediately added, " and every plant of the field before it
was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew," &c.
Hence the second day, of twenty-four hours, was meant to be
included. Gen. i. 27. " So God created man in his own image, in the
image of God created he him ; male and female created he them."
Gen. ii. 5. " For the Lord God had not caused it to rain
upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground."
Man had already been created, as stated in the former pas
sage ; and yet in the latter it is said, that there was not a man
to till the ground.
Here there is no opposition. The writer gives, in the first
place, a general account of the six days' work, and returns at
chapter ii. 4 to enter more fully into various particulars respect
ing Adam and Eve. He resumes the narrative, in order to give
several details.
Gen. vi. 19, 20. " And of every living thing of all flesh, two
of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive
with thee ; they shall be male and female. Of fowls after their
kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of
the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee,
to keep them aUve."
Gen vii. 2, 3. "Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee
by sevens, the male and his female : and of beasts that are not
clean by two, the male and his female. Of fowls also of the air
by sevens, the male and the female ; to keep seed alive upon the
face of all the earth." See also verses 8, 9, 15.
In the former place, general directions are given to Noah by
the Lord to take with him into the ark pairs of animals of every
kind. In the latter, the number of the pairs is specified, and
limited to seven pairs of clean, and two pairs of unclean, together
with seven pairs of fowls. In the 8th, 9th, and 15th verses of
chapter vii., where the execution of the command is related,
Moses mentions pairs generally, without noticing the precise
number that had been prescribed. Thus there is no disagree
ment between the chapters. They are perfectly consistent.

DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE OLD TESTAMENT WRITERS, 527
Gen. vii 12. " And the rain was upon the earth forty days
and forty nights."
Gen. vii. 17. " And the flood was forty days upon the earth ;
and the waters increased," &c.
Some suppose that the words " and forty nights," have been
lost from the Hebrew copies at the latter place, because they are
found in the Septuagint, and in many MSS. of the Vulgate.
But they seem rather to have been inserted in these versions
from the 12 th verse.
The one place states generally, what the other announces in
more exact terms. The one is simply more specific than the
other. It is usual in all languages to affirm in a general way,
what may be related particularly in other circumstances.
It is not a good solution of this apparent disagreement to say,
that in the former case natural days and nights are meant, con
sisting of twelve hours each ; and in the latter, civil days are in
tended, which consisted of twenty-four hours. The same word
day is thus made to assume very different significations in the
same chapter, which is at least superfluous.
Gen. vi. 6. " And it repented the Lord that he had made
man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart."
1 Samuel xv. 29. " And also the Strength of Israel will not
lie nor repent : for he is not a man, that he should repent."
Although the term repent is used in both passages, and ap
plied to the Supreme Being, we should not therefore conclude
that the sense of it is the same. Repentance can only be ascribed
to God metaphorically not literally. In consequence of the im
perfection of language, and the purely spiritual nature of Jehovah,
all descriptions of his character must, in order to be intelligible
to us, be conveyed in phraseology borrowed from the operations
of our own minds. In this way we feebly approximate to right
ideas of His perfections. When repentance is attributed to God,
it implies a change in his mode of dealing with men, such as
would indicate on their part a change of purpose. In 1 Samuel
XV. 29, the language is literal, not figurative. It is Uterally true
that repentance is not predicable of the infinite and immutable
Jehovah. Gen. vii. 24. " And the waters prevailed upon the earth an
hundred and fifty days."
Gen. viii. 3. " And the waters returned from off the earth
continually : and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the
waters were abated."

528 .\.Lr,F.GED CONTRADICTIONS OF SCRIPTURE,
In Gen. vii. 24, the waters are said to have been strong on
the earth for an hundred and fifty days — in Gen. viii. 3, it is
stated that the veaters left the earth gradually, and were abated
at the end of the hundred and fifty days. They were strong
upon the earth for so long a time, but afterwards they were
abated, because they had been graduaUy decreasing before.
Gen. xi. 26. " And Terah lived seventy years, and begat
Abram, Nahor, and Haran."
Gen. xi. 32. " And the days of Terah were two hundred
and five years."
From Gen. xii. 4 we find, that Abram was 75 years old when
he left Charran, according to which we should have expected his
father to be 145 years old at his death.
We are not to suppose, that Abram's birth happened in the
70th year of Terah, because it is said, that " Terah lived 70
years and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran." This seems rather
to be the date of Haran's birth. That he was the eldest son is
evident from the circumstance of his two daughters, Milcah and
Iscah,* being married to their uncles Nahor and Abram respec
tively. Abram seems to have been the youngest son of Terah,
and was born in his father's one hundred and thirtieth year. Te
rah was 205 when he died (Gen. xi. 32) ; Abram was then 75
years old (Gen. xu. 4), and subtracting 75 from 205, we have
130. It does not militate against this interpretation that Abram
is named first. His preeminence entitled him to this. On the
same principle Isaac is put before Ishmael, though 14 years
younger (1 Chron. i. 28.) So also Solomon, the eldest, is reck
oned the last of Bathsheba's children (1 Chron. in. 5.) Japheth,
the eldest of Noah's sons, is placed last.
But another solution has been offered. In Gen. xi. 32 the
Samaritan Pentateuch reads 145 years instead of 205. This
renders all plain and intelligible. There is, however, good rea
son for supposing, that this reading arose from the difficulty of
conciliation. The Hebrew text is not corrupt; and the mode
of solution first proposed is the best.
Gen. XV, 13. " Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a
stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them ; and
they shall afflict them four hundred years."
* Iscah was another name for Sarah. Such is the opinion of Josephus and the
best commentators. Others, as Calmet, think that Sarah was the daughter of Terah,
Thus she had not the same mother as Abraham, but the same father, Terah might
have had several wives at once ; or, after Abram's mother died, he might have married
again.

DiaCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE OLD TESTAMENT WRITERS. 529
Exodus xii. 40. " Now the sojourning of the children of
Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years."
These texts are usually harmonised by aid of the principle,
that the Scriptures speak in whole or round numbers, when an
odd or imperfect number would be more exact. In the present
instance, there is no need of this resource. In Gen. xv. 13 we
should mark the time when the words were delivered. It was
when Isaac was promised. It may therefore be dated from his
birth. Hence, from his birth to the exodus was to be 400 years.
But in Exodus xii. 40, the 430 years should be dated from
Abram's departure out of Ur of the Chaldees. This event took
place before Isaac's birth. Compare Acts vii. 6 ; Gal. iii, 17.
Gen. xxix. 35. " Therefore she [Leah] called his name
Judah ; and left bearing."
Gen. xxx. 17. " And God hearkened unto Leah, and she
conceived, and bare Jacob the fifth son."
To a superficial reader only, will any disagreement between
these two places be apparent. The former states, that Leah left
off bearing, but not altogether . It was only for a time, as the
latter place shews.
Gen. xxxii. 30. " And Jacob called the name of the place
Peniel : for I have seen God face to face, and my life is pre
served." Exodus xxxiii. 20. " And he said, thou canst not see my
face : for there shall no man see me, and live.'"
The being whom Jacob saw was indeed a divine person, but
in human form. He condescended to assume humanity at times
under the old dispensation, as a foretaste of his future incarnation.
Hence the patriarch beheld only a human face, beneath which
the glory of deity, too dazzling to the gaze of feeble man, was
shrouded. Thus the second person of the Trinity granted his
servant a familiarity with himself, adapted to inspire him with
confidence, and to strengthen his trust in the graciousness of the
God whom he served.
In Exodus xxxui. 20, the face of God denotes the glory and
majesty of Jehovah in full brightness, such as no mortal ean
look upon without being crushed into the earth before it. Moses
was very bold, and besought the Lord that he might be favoured
with a vision of the divine effulgence ; but Jehovah, in gracious
condescension to the frailty of the creature, withheld it, knowing
that such a manifestation of himself should at once overpower
3 X

530 ALLEGED CONTRADICTI0N.S OF SCRIPTURE.
humanity. As the narrow capacity of the creature can never
form a lodgment for the divine perfections ; so a passing glance
of the inexpressible glory must reduce a worm of mortality into
nothingness. Gen. xlvu. 11. " And Joseph placed his father and his bre
thren, and gave them a possession in the land of Egypt, in the
best of the land, in the land of Rameses, as Pharaoh had com
manded." Exodus i. 11. " And they built for Pharaoh treasure cities
Pithom and Raamses."
The latter place exhibits the name of the city, which appears
to have also belonged to the whole province. The province, not
the city, is spoken of in Gen. xlvu. 11. The Masoretes, pro
bably to mark the difference, have pointed the word DDQi?T dif
ferently in the two texts. We have no means of determining
whether Goshen and Rameses were synonymous appellations for
the same district. Perhaps the former was more extensive than
the latter. The Seventy make Rameses and Goshen to be the
same, as we learn from their version of Gen. xlvi. 28.
Gen. xlviii. 8. " And Israel beheld Joseph's sons," &c.
Gen. xlviii. 10. " Now the eyes of Israel were dim for age,
so that he could not see."
Jacob was not wholly blind. His eyes were dim. He beheld,
but could not clearly see. He recognised and distinguished ob
jects, but his vision was imperfect.
Exodus iii. 2. " And the angel of the Lord appeared to him
in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush," &c.
Exodus iu. 4. " And when the Lord saw that he turned aside
to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush," &c.
In the former text, the angel of Jehovah is said to have ap
peared to Moses — in the latter, Jehovah himself. We are assured
by the apostle John, that no man hath seen the Father. The
appearances of a divine person under the Old Testament must
therefore be referred to the Son, the second person of the God
head, who is called an angel, the angel of his presence, the an
gel of the covenant, &c. &c. By his intervention, the Deity
spake and acted with men. That he was not a created angel, is
apparent from his language, from his claiming and accepting
worship, and from the title Jehovah applied to him.
Exodus vi. 3. " And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac,
and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name
Jehovah was I not known to them."

DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE OLD TESTAMENT WRITERS. 531
Gen. xiu. 4. " There Abram called on the name of the Lord
(Jehovah)." Gen. xxvi. 2. " And the Lord (Jehovah) appeared unto him
(Isaac)." Gen. xxvUi. 16. " Surely the Lord (Jehovah) is in this place."
The last three passages appear to disagree with the first.
Much has been written upon Exodus vi. 3. Bishop Warburton
tried to expound it, but did not succeed. The title of the Su
preme Being, here translated God Almighty, is "IJQ ba. "'1'^
has a plural termination,* and is from the singular Hf^ powerful
(comp. Arabic <Xi.X.i). The Seventy usually render it iravro-
x^aTu^ ; the Vulgate in the Pentateuch omnipotens.
The chief modes of solution are the following : —
\st. Some read the text Exodus vi. 3 interrogatively : " I ap
peared unto Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, by the name of God
Almighty ; and was I not also known to them by my name Je
hovah?" 2dly, It is said by others, that the name Jehovah was not re
vealed before the time here mentioned. It occurs indeed in the
book of Genesis, but that was written long after the name had
come into common use, as the peculiar appellation of the Su
preme Being. The name had become common in the time of
Moses ; and in narrating former events, he employed it by the
figure prolepsis.
Sdly, Though the name Jehovah was known from the begin
ning, yet the ancient Hebrews were ignorant of the fulness of
meaning contained in it. They knew God Almighty by the pro
tection he afforded them, and the bountiful works of his provi
dence ; but they did not know Jehovah by the accomplishment
of his promises. They were aware that he had power to fulfil
his promises ; but by the actual fulfilment of them he was not
known to them. It. was not till their deliverance from Egypt
and establishment in Canaan, that the name of Jehovah was fully
known. He was known as the Being who made promises to the
patriarchs ; but as the Mighty One who gave effect to them, he
was first revealed to their posterity when they were brought forth
from Egypt. The emphasis lies in the term know, which here
* Gesenius's Lehrgeb., § 124, 2. b. p. 523.

532 ALLEGED CONTRADICTIONS OF SCRIPTURE.
denotes a practical, experimental knowledge of the fulfilment of
promises. We prefer the last solution.*
Exodus vii. 20, 21. " And Moses lifted up the rod, and smote
the waters that were in the river, in the sight of Pharaoh, and in
the sight of his servants ; and aU the waters that were in the river
were turned to blood. And the fish that was in the river died ;
and the river stank, and the Egyptians could not drink of the
water of the river ; and there was blood throughout all the land
of Egypt."
Verse 22. " And the magicians did so with their enchant
ments : and Pharaoh's heart was hardened, neither did he hear
ken unto them ; as the Lord had said."
If the waters of Egypt — their streams, their rivers, their ponds,
and all their pools — became blood, it has been asked, where did
the magicians procure water for their enchantments ?
Some authors refer to the 24th verse for the solution of the
difficulty. In it it is stated, that " the Egyptians digged round
about the river for water to drink ; for they could not drink of
the water of the river." The water thus obtained is supposed to
have been operated upon by the magicians. But it is not asserted
that unbloody water was procured by digging about the river. It
is not related that the people found the object of their search.
They may or may not have procured it. The twentieth verse of
the chapter affords the true key to the solution. Moses smote
with his rod the waters that were in the river ; whence it appears
that the waters of the river alone, at least in the first instance,
were turned into blood. In this stage of the plague, the magi
cians could easily obtain water to imitate the miracles wrought
by Moses. From the command recorded in the 19th verse there
is reason to believe that the plague became general, so as to be
commensurate with the extent of the divine injunction.
Exodus ix. 6. " And all the cattle of Egypt died."
Exodus Lx. 20. " He that feared the word of the Lord among
the servants of Pharaoh, made his servants and his cattle flee into
the houses."
The term all in the former text should not be urged, as though
it meant all without exception. It is popularly used as in other
languages, t
* See the excellent note of RosenmUUer on the text, in which the same view is
given. Scholia in Compendium Redacta, vol, i, pp, 385, 6, Lipsia?, Svo, 1828.
¦)¦ " In omnibus gregibus JEgyptiorum pecora moriebantur, lues per omnes illorum

DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE OLD TESTAMENT WRITERS, 533
Exodus xviii. 17-26.
Deuteronomy i. 9—13,
It might be concluded from the latter place, that Moses him
self proposed the appointment of Judges, whereas it appears from
the former to have been the suggestion of Jethro. And yet Jethro
may have first suggested their appointment, while Moses, after
consulting the Lord and procuring His approval of the measure,
brought it before the people, and told them to choose the men
from among themselves. There is no inconsistency in the two
passages. In Exodus, the writer merely records the private con
versation that took place between Jethro and himself, thus allow
ing the honour of the arrangement to rest where it was due. In
Deuteronomy, on the other hand, he is addressing the people,
and merely relates what they knew as well as himself.
Exodus XX. 5. " For I the Lord thy God am a jealous God,
visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the
third and fourth generation of them that hate me."
Ezekiel xviii. 20. " The son shall not bear the iniquity of
the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son."
According to the unavoidable and necessary operation of those
general laws which regulate the course of the divine administra
tion, children suffer various evils and privations arising from the
vices of their parents. Such is the connexion subsisting between
them, that children ordinarily feel the effects of sins committed
by parents. Their bodies are liable to peculiar infirmities and
particular diseases, in consequence of the physical constitutions
from which they spring ; while misery and disgrace, resulting
from the profligacy or villainy of their progenitors, attend them
in society. The temporal punishment to which the sins of men
is gradually tending, falls with certain stroke on the heads of
their posterity. But the language of the commandment is, " of
them that hate me." It is only those who sin themselves, tread
ing in the footsteps of their wicked forefathers, that shall be vi
sited with merited chastisement. If the children, on the other
hand, repent, the wrath of God will be averted. The iniquities
greges saeviebat. Nam quum vs, 10, pecora uleeribus affecta dicantur, haec verba vel
de iis tantum pecoribus sunt intelligenda, quDe erant in agris, coll, vs, 3. et 20,, vel
J^JpXD 73 valet magna ejus pars, ad quem modum et intelUgendum esse quod vs. 25-
de grandine dicitur, cum omnem herbam agri omnesque arbores percussisse, inde ap
parel, quod 10, 15, coll, ibid, vs, 5. diserte dicitur, omnes herbas et fructus, quos reli-
quos fecerit grando, absumsisse locustas." RosenmiiUeri Scholia in Comp, Redacta,
vol, i. p. 326,

534 ALLEGED CONTRADICTIONS OF SCRIPTURE,
of the fathers are chiefly visited upon the bodies and temporal
condition of their vicious children ; though from the mysterious
union of body and soul, and the family propensities appearing
from generation to generation, the punishment is not wholly ex
ternal or corporal. The soul suffers shame and anguish. It is
deteriorated by the pecuUar circumstances amid which it exists
under the government of God.
The meaning of Ezekiel xviii. 28 is, that each one shall be
accountable for his own sins. God will not transfer the punish
ment due to the sins of one man to the head of another. Every
person must give account for the deeds done in his own body,
whether good or bad. It is true, that in the divine arrangements
the sins of parents may serve to embitter the punishment of im
penitent children — but the distinct responsibility of each con
tinues unaffected. None can redeem his brother, or roll away
the guilt of sin from a brother's head. The offending child will
be visited for his personal transgressions ; — and probably he may
feel in the present life that, had his parents feared God, he would
have inherited less infirmity — less misery and disgrace.
Thus the former passage respects men as members of society
in the present life. It relates to their social and national capa
city. The latter has regard to the personal responsibility and
future doom of each.
Exodus XX. 11. " For in six days the Lord made heaven and
earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh
day : wherefore the Lord blessed the seventh day, and hallowed
it." Deuteronomy v. 15. " And remember that thou wast a ser
vant in the land of Egypt, and that the Lord thy God brought
thee out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out
arm : therefore the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the
Sabbath day."
Jehovah enforces the observance of the Sabbath by different
motives. Different occasions require various modes of urging
particular duties. In Exodus xx. 11, the motive is drawn from
the creation — God having rested on the seventh day; — in Deu
teronomy, the motive to observe the Sabbath is founded on the
people's deliverance from Egyptian bondage. Thus they were
enjoined to remember and to keep the seventh day, because God
himself blessed and hallowed it ; and also, because they were
brought out of Egypt by that Being who reminded them of

DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN TIIE OLD TESTAMENT WRITERS, 535
their spiritual rest, now that they were deUvered from the galling
burdens of their oppressors.
Leviticus i. 1. " And the Lord caUed unto Moses, and spake
unto him out of the tabernacle of the congregation."
Leviticus xxvii, 34. " These are the commandments which
the Lord commanded Moses for the chUdren of Israel in Mount
Sinai." Both statements are true. The Levitical law was promulgated
from the tabernacle, and yet it was published in the neighbour
hood of Sinai.* The expression "^TV "IHS does not involve in
itself the idea, that the ordinances in question were delivered to
the people from the top of Sinai ; but, as the appellation em
braced the tract around, and as there is reason to believe that
the people were in the vicinity of the mountain itself, there is no
contradiction. The one text relates generally and indefinitely,
what the other specifies with exactness.
Leviticus xvii. 1-7.
Deut. xii, 15, 20, 21, 22.
The latter chapter contains a relaxation of the prohibition con
tained in the former. If the tabernacle of the congregation was
within a convenient distance, the Israelites were forbidden to eat
any clean animal which they had killed, without first bringing
it to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and offering
it unto the Lord. The priest was to sprinkle its blood and burn
its fat. This injunction must have been strictly observed in the
wilderness, where the people marched and encamped together.
But when the Lord " had enlarged their border as he had pro
mised" — when they had entered Palestine, they were permitted
to kill and eat flesh, whatever they wished for, provided the place
in which Jehovah had been pleased to put his name was too far
from them. That the latter law was intended to apply to the
people in Palestine, would appear from the 10th verse of the
chapter : " But when ye go over Jordan, and dwell in the land
which the Lord your God giveth you to inherit, and when he
giveth you rest from all your enemies round about, so that ye
dwell in safety ; then there shall be a place," &c. The book of
Deuteronomy was written by Moses shortly before his death,
when the Israelites were about to enter the land of promise,
* " Alterum genus eas complectitur significationum species, quae tum 2^ropinquita-
tem et viciniam, tum motum versus locum,'' &c, Gesenius, s, v, 3*

536 ALLEGED CONTRADICTION,? OF SCRIPTURE.
The ordinances, therefore, apply to different periods in the his
tory of the people, when altered circumstances seemed to call
for a corresponding change in several of the national statutes.
Numbers iv. 3. " From thirty years old and upward, even
until fifty years old, all that enter into the host, to do the work
in the tabernacle of the congregation."
Numbers vui. 24. "This is it that belongeth unto the Levites :
from twenty and five years old and upward, they shall go in to
wait, upon the service of the tabernacle of the congregation."
The Levites spent five years in probation, before they were
allowed to enter upon the full duties of their office. They began
to officiate, properly so called, at thirty. This applies to the
tabernacle service. After the temple was erected, they began at
twenty. (1 Chron. xxiii. 24.)*
Numbers xiii. 1,2. " And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying.
Send thou men, that they may search the land of Canaan, which
I give unto the children of Israel," &c.
Deut. i. 22. " And ye came near unto me every one of you,
and said. We will send men before us, and they shall search us
out the land, and bring us word again by what way we must go
up, and into what cities we shall come."
In the one case, Moses relates the authority which he had for
sending the spies ; but in Deuteronomy, as he is directing his
address to the people, he reminds them of their share in the mea
sure. They were responsible for it — they suggested it them
selves. God sanctioned the proposal they made. Thus it is true
both that the Lord directed Moses to send the spies, and that
the people earnestly urged the proposal.
Numbers xiv. 25. " (Now the Amalekites and the Canaan
ites dwelt in the valley.) To-morrow turn you, and get you in
to the wilderness by the way of the Red sea."
Numbers xiv. 45. " Then the Amalekites came down, and
the Canaanites which dwelt in that hill, and smote them, and
discomfited them, even unto Hormah."
The former passage should be literally rendered thus ; " But
the Amalekites and the Canaanites dwell in the valley. To-
morrow'turn you, and get you into the wilderness by the way of
the Red sea." The Lord thus warns them of the enemy's posi
tion, and exhorts them to take another direction in which they
* The Seventy have put in Numbers iv. 3, asro I'Uori xa! Trivrs iTiai', doubtless lest
the writer of the book should be inconsistent with himself.

DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE OLD TESTAMENT WRITERS. 537
should not fall into the hands of the Canaanites. Some are of
opinion that the term 2^^ in the 25th verse denotes only tem
porary dwelling or sitting in ambush, but that in the 45th verse
it signifies settled abode. This is questionable. We should re
collect that the vaUey lay on the other side of the hill from the
Hebrews, and that the enemy, resolved to obstruct their progress,
occupied, not only the valley, but the mountain. Whether they
had a settled habitation in both, or in either, we know not. They
may have extended themselves when they heard of the Hebrews
coming towards their territory, especially as the hill and valley
were connected. No strict line of demarcation can be drawn be
tween the hill country and the valley.
Numbers xiv. 30. " Doubtless ye shall not come into the
land concerning which I sware to make you dwell therein, save
Caleb the son of Jephunneh, and Joshua the son of Nun."
Joshua xiv. 1. " And these are the countries which the chil
dren of Israel inherited in the land of Canaan, which Eleazar the
priest, and Joshua the son of Nun, and the heads of the fathers
of the tribes of the children of Israel, distributed for inheritance
to them." See also Joshua xxu. 13.
It is evident that Eleazar and others entered Canaan along
with Joshua. Eleazar was the third son of Aaron, and succeeded
him as high priest. All the murmurers were excluded from the
promised land ; but it is not said that those who did not murmur,
among whom the priests may be reckoned, were prohibited from
entering. Joshua and Caleb, who brought back a good report
of the land, are singled out by name, because they encouraged
the people to go up and take possession ; whereas the multitude
rose up against them and refused. The Lord, therefore, to mark
his approbation of their conduct, selects them as destined to enter
the country of promise. They were afterwards the leaders ; and
it was natural to mention their names as the representatives of
those who should be privileged to go into Canaan.
Numbers xiv. 33. " And your children shall wander in the
wilderness forty years," &c.
Comparing this with Numbers, chap, xxxiii,, and Joshua iv.
19, we shall find that some days were wanting to complete the
exact number 40. There were no weeks wanting, as some as
sert. The true deficiency was five days. The Israelites left Egypt
on the fifteenth day of the first month ; and the passage of the
Jordan was performed on the 10th day of the first month. The
3 Y

538 ALLEGED CONTRADICTIONS OF SCRIPTURE.
round number 40 is put, as the fractional part is so inconsider
able. Numbers xxvi. 10. " And the earth opened her mouth, and
swallowed them up together with Korah, when that company
died, what time the fire devoured two hundred and fifty men :
and they became a sign."
This has been thought to contradict what is stated in the 16th
chapter of Numbers, and in Psalm cvi. 17, in the last of which
it is asserted, as some think, that Korah was consumed with the
Levites. Hence the Samaritan reading in Numb. xxvi. 10 is
different from the Hebrew. But nothing can be more express or
explicit than the words of this verse as they stand in all Hebrew
copies. It is stated that the earth swallowed up Dathan, Abi-
ram, and Korah. The 16th chapter of Numbers, and the I7th
verse of Psalm cvi., neither plainly declare, nor really imply, that
Korah was consumed with the Levites who offered incense.*
Deuteronomy x. 6, 7.
Numbers xx. 23-29, and xxxui. 30, 37, 38.
In the first passage, Aaron is said to have died at Mosera, but
in the others at mount Hor. The latter is more specific as to the
exact place where the saint died — the former more general. Mo
sera or Moseroth was the station adjacent to mount Hor, pro
bably pn the plain from which it rises. That he died on the
mountain seems to be certain.
Deut. X. 6-9. Dr. Kennicott supposes these verses to be an
interpolation, and would place them after Deuteronomy ii. 1 1. So
Townsend and others. But this is quite arbitrary. It is not
necessary to have recourse to means so violent, in order to re
concile the four verses (6-9) with Numbers xxxiii. 31 et seq. It
is true, that the order of the stations is different in Numbers
and in Deuteronomy. In the former the stations are, Moseroth,
Bene-jaakan, Hor-hagidgad, and Jotbathah; but in the latter they
stand thus ; Beeroth of the children of Jaakan, Mosera (i. e. Mo
seroth), Gudgodah, Jotbath. The names in both lists are the
same, though with a somewhat different orthography. The rea
son of the difference in their order is this : In Numbers, they re
fer to the first visit of the Hebrews as they wandered southwards
before coming a second time to Kadesh ; but in Deuteronomy
they refer to the second visit, when the Israelites went southward
to compass the land of Edom.
* Dr. Graves, in his Lectures on the Pentateuch, endeavours to shew that Korah
was burnt up with the Levites, but he is unsuccessful.

DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE OLD TESTAMENT WRITERS. 539
Joshua X. 15. *' And Joshua returned, and all Israel with him,
unto the camp to Gilgal."
Joshua X. 43. " And Joshua returned, and all Israel with him,
unto the camp to Gilgal."
It has been asserted by some, that the former verse is an in
terpolation, because Joshua did not return unto the camp to
Gilgal till the end of the entire expedition, as stated in the 43d
verse. Some think that there is no valid reason for asserting,
that . he did not return till the end of the whole expedition.
After smiting the confederate kings at Gibeon, and pursuing
them as far as Makkedah, the record seems plainly to relate,
that he returned to Gilgal. When it was told him that the
five kings were hid in a cave at Makkedah, he again set forth
after the enemy, and proceeded to capture cities. There is great
reason for doubt as to his having actually returned to Gilgal,
when we consider the distance. When, therefore, it is related
in the 15th verse that Joshua returned, the meaning appears
to be no more than this, that he resolved to return, or made pre
parations for doing so. The excellent Matthew Henry says,
that perhaps he held a council of war, in which the resolution of
returning to the camp was taken. Numbers xxiv. 25 has been
adduced as analogous, in which the record says, that Balaam " re
turned to his place," i. e. thought of returning, for he was soon
after slain in battle in the territory of Midian.
Joshua X. 23. " And they brought forth those five kings
unto him (Joshua) out of the cave, the king of Jerusalem, the
king of Hebron, the king of Jarmuth, the king of Lachish, and
the king of Eglon."
Joshua X. 37. " And they took it (Hebron), and smote it
with the edge of the sword, and the king thereof, and all the
cities thereof," &c.
There is no ground for believing that the king mentioned in
the former place was the same as the king in the latter. It is
implied, that when the one had been slain, the inhabitants chose
another. Joshua xi. 19. " There was not a city that made peace with
the children of Israel, save the Hivites the inhabitants of Gibeon :
all other they took in battle."
Joshua XV. 63. " As for the Jebusites, the inhabitants of
Jerusalem, the children of Judah could not drive them out : but
the Jebusites dwell with the children of Judah at Jerusalem unto
this day."

540 ALLEGED CONTRADICTIONS OF SCRIPTURE.
Notwithstanding their apparent opposition, these two passages
fully harmonise, Joshua took the town and put its king to death;
but he was not able to expel the Jebusites from the citadel or
castle which they had erected on Mount Zion. The Jews and
Jebusites continued to dwell together till the time of David, who
expelled the latter.
Judges vi. 1.
Numbers xxxi. 10.
In the former place it is related, that the Lord delivered the
Israelites into the hands of the Midianites seven years ; but in
the latter, that the Israelites utterly destroyed the Midianites.
Here there is no contradiction, for the Midianites were not de
stroyed to a man according to the account in Numbers xxxi.
They inhabited an extensive district, and appear to have spread
northward as far as the vicinity of the Moabites. We should
also remember, that 200 years intervened between their discom
fiture by the Israelites under Phinehas, and their oppression of
that people. Doubtless they increased in numbers and strength
during so long a period. The account in Judges evidently im-
pUes this much, shewing that they had not been utterly blotted
from the face of the land by Phinehas with his 12,000 men.
Judges XX. 35. " And the Lord smote Benjamin before
Israel : and the children of Israel destroyed of the Benjamites
that day twenty and five thousand and an hundred men : all these
drew the sword."
Judges XX. 46. " All which fell that day of Benjamin were
twenty and five thousand men that drew the sword ; all these
were men of valour."
In the latter text a round or whole number is given, without
the fraction specified in the former. On the same principle we
explain Judges ix. 5, 18, 56, where Abimelech is said to have
slain his 70 brethren, though Jotham the youngest escaped. So
also the period during which the Israelites sojourned in the land
of the Amorites (Judges xi. 26) is called 300 years, whereas,
according to the Hebrew chronology, it was only 293 years.
1 Samuel xu, 11. " And the Lord sent Jerubbaal, and Be-
dan, and Jepthah, and Samuel, &c."
There is no mention of Sedan among the Judges of Israel re
corded in the book of Judges. According to the Seventy, the
Syriac, and Arabic, we should read Barak. Others think Be-
dan to be Jair of Manasseh (Judges x. 3.) Jair was descended

DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE OLD TESTAMENT WRITERS. 541
from a daughter of Machir, and we read of a Bedan who was
great-grandson to Machir. We prefer taking Bedan to be an
other name for Samson, according to the Chaldee, the Rabbins,
and Luther. Bedan is then the same as n"l?j i- e. a Danite.
In 1 Samuel xvi. 18-22, there is an account of David's intro
duction to Saul — of Saul's loving him greatly, and making him
his armour-bearer, and of the king sending to Jesse his father,
saying, " Let David, I pray thee, stand before me ; for he hath
found favour in my sight."
But in the next chapter we read, that the king said, " Enquire
thou whose son the stripling is." When Abner brought him
before Saul, Saul said to him, " Whose son art thou, thou young
man?" (verses. 55, 56, 57, 58.)
In order to remove the difficulty, it has been supposed by
Bishops Hall, Warburton, and Horsley, that the encounter with
Goliath was prior to his playing before Saul. Hence the last ten
verses of the 16th chapter are thought to be misplaced. The
16th chapter is made to terminate with the 13th verse, and the
remainder is transferred to the 18th chapter, and inserted between
the 9th and 10th verses. " It appears, indeed," says Horsley,
" from many circumstances of the story, that David's combat
with Goliath was many years prior in order of time to Saul's
madness, and to David's introduction to him as a musician, (1.)
David was quite a youth when he engaged Goliath, xvU. 33-42 ;
when he was introduced to Saul as a musician, he was of full
age, xvi. 18. (2.) His combat with Goliath was his first ap
pearance in public Ufe (xvii. 5Q-^ when he was introduced as a
musician, he was a man of established character, xvi. 18. (3.)
His combat with Goliath was-his first military exploit (xvii. 38,
39). He was a man of war when he was introduced as a musi
cian (xvi. 18). He was unknown both to Saul and Abner at the
time he fought with Goliath. He had not, therefore, yet been in
the office of Saul's armour-bearer, or resident in any capacity at
the court. Now the just conclusion from these circumstances is,
not that these twenty verses (xviL 11-31) are an interpolation,
but that the last ten verses of the preceding chapter, which re
late Saul's madness and David's introduction to the court upon
that occasion, are misplaced. The true place for these ten verses
(xvi. 14-23) seems to be between the ninth and the tenth of
the eighteenth chapter. Let these ten verses be removed to that
place, and this seventeenth chapter be connected immediately with

542

ALLEGED CONTRADICTIONS OP SCRIPTURE.

the 13th verse of chapter xvi., and the whole disorder and incon
sistency that appear in the narrative in its present arrangement
will be removed."* This view has been very generally adopted;
and accordingly Townsend has so arranged the chapters. But
it does not appear to us to remove the difficulties of the narrative.
If the chapters be examined agreeably to the proposed arrange
ment, inconsistencies will still present themselves.
After David had slain Goliath, and had been taken by Saul
to the palace to reside with himself, " he behaved himself wisely,"
and " Saul set him over the men of war," &c., chap, xviii. 5,
&c. &c. Yet after these transactions, on the king's inquiring
for a man that could play well, one of the servants said, " I have
seen a son of Jesse the Bethlehemite, that is cunning in playing,
and a mighty valiant man, and a man of war, and prudent in
matters, and a comely person, and the Lord is with him," xvi. 18.
It is improbable that any servant should have spoken thus to
Saul of David, after the king entertained feelings of jealousy
towards him. He eyed him with suspicion and envy on account
of his rising reputation, and it would have been a certain means
of provoking the choleric king to have pronounced encomiums
on David before him. Nor can it be said with any degree of
probability, that Saul's feelings towards David were unknown to
his household, for it is written in the 18th verse of the 16th
chapter, " then answered one of the servants, and said, Behold,"
&c. The manner too in which the servant speaks of David
implies, that Saul had neither seen him before, nor had any
knowledge of him ; " I have seen a son of Jesse the Bethle
hemite." Again, the reception which the king gives to David
clearly intimates, that he was a stranger introduced for the first
time ; " and David came to Saul, and stood before him : and he
loved him greatly ; and he became his armour-bearer," xvi. 21.
Surely this is not consistent with what is said immediately be
fore, that he eyed him from that day and forward. Besides, ac
cording to the proposed arrangement, Saul is said to have made
David his armour-bearer, though he had previously set him over
the men of war, and feared his growing popularity. There is no
hint of his having been dismissed from the palace, and returned
to his father's house, after Saul became displeased with the de
monstrations made in his favour. Rather do the words of chapter
xviii. verse 9 imply that he still remained in the palace. And
* Biblical Criticism, vol. i. pp. 331, 2.

DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE OLD TESTAMENT WRITERS. 543
yet Saul sent for him, with the mandate to his father, " Send
me David, thy son, which is with the sheep," xvi. 29. The
words are not, " send me David who was with me before," or,
" who slew GoUath," but, " who is with the sheep." Surely
this language leads to the belief, that he had not been with the
king before, ox excited his jealousy so much as to be dismissed.
If so, his envy was speedily laid aside, and David became, after
all his popularity, a favourite with Saul.
But Horsley affirms, that the encounter with Goliath, and
the events which immediately succeeded, as narrated in chapter
xviii. 1-9, took place long before David's introduction to Saul
as a musician. The king, therefore, may have entirely forgotten
the youth. But that the time between the victory and his coming
to court in the character of a musician, could not have been long,
is shewn by an inspection of the entire narrative.
These are some of the considerations standing in the way of
that arrangement which has recommended itself to many expo
sitors as entirely satisfactory. In our view, they constitute as
serious a difficulty as that which they are intended to remove.
So far from annihilating the inconsistency, they introduce into
the narrative a still greater. This solution, therefore, cannot be
adopted. Others reject the entire passage, thinking it an interpolation.
So Houbigant, Kennicott, Dathe, Michaelis, and Boothroyd.
This cuts the knot without untying it.
Some writers, as Abarbanel, affect to find no inconsistency in
the narrative, and dismiss the difficulty with a cursory remark.
Regarding the present arrangement as right, they affirm, that
Saul merely inquired of David whose son he was, which, it is
said, does not imply that he was unacquainted with David him
self, or that he had not seen him before. But why the king
should have asked after his father's name at that particular time ;
or how Abner was ignorant of one who had formerly been the
king's armour-bearer, these writers do not inform us. The 55,
56, 57, and 58 verses of chapter 17th clearly imply, that Saul
was ignorant of the youth.
Calmet supposes, either that David's face, voice, and air, must
have been changed since the time he had played before Saul on
the harp, or that during his gloomy insanity, the king had ac
quired false ideas of David's person, or after his recovery had
forgotten him. These circumstances, taken together, seem to

544 ALLEGED CONTRADICTIONS OF SCRIPTURE.
touch the true point of difficulty. The state of the king's mind,
with the change in David's whole appearance and dress, pre
vented the former from recognising in the ruddy stripling whom
he had seen before, the manly form of the son of Jesse.
1 Samuel xxxi. 4. " Then said Saul unto his armour-bearer,
Draw thy sword, and thrust me through therewith ; lest these
uncircumcised come and thrust me through, and abuse me. But
his armour-bearer would not ; for he was sore afraid. Therefore
Saul took a sword, and fell upon it," &c.
2 Samuel i. 10. " So I stood upon him, and slew him, be
cause I was sure that he could not live after that he was fallen :
and I took the crown that was upon his head, and the bracelet
that was on his arm, .and have brought them hither unto my
lord," &c.
If we recollect who the speaker is, in the second account given
of Saul's death, and what is his character, we shall be at no loss
to perceive the false particulars it contains. The narrative in the
31st chapter is inspired, and may therefore be depended on as
strictly true ; whereas the Amalekite's story was evidently adapted
to please David and obtain his favour.
2 Samuel viii. 4. " And David took from him a thousand
chariots, and seven hundred horsemen, and twenty thousand foot
men," &c.
1 Chron. xviu. 4. " And David took from him a thousand
chariots, and seven thousand horsemen, and twenty thousand
footmen," &c.
In the former place David is said to have taken 700 horsemen
from Hadadezer; in the latter 7000. One of the two readings
is certainly corrupt. According to the Masoretic mode of mark
ing numbers, nun final denotes 700. Seven thousand is signified
by zayin, with two dots over it, thus t'. Zayin lengthened might
be easily taken for final nun. The error, therefore, seems to have
originated with a transcriber in confounding the two letters, and
neglecting to mark or observe the points over one of them. We
have no means of ascertaining whether 700 or 7000 be the right
number. Probably the former should be adopted.
2 Samuel x. 18. " And the Syrians fled before Israel; and
David slew the men of seven hundred chariots of the Syrians,
and forty thousand horsemen," &c.
1 Chron. xix. 18. " But the Syrians fled before Israel; and
David slew of the Syrians seven thousand men which fought in
chariots^ and forty thousand footmen," &c.

DISCREPANCIES EETW^EEN THE OLD TESTAMENT WRITERS. 545
Doubtless the reading of one of these places is corrupt.
2 Samuel xxiii. 8. " These be the names of the mighty men
whom David had : the Tachmonite that sat in the seat, chief
among the captains ; the same was Adino the Eznite : he lift up
his spear against eight hundred, whom he slew at one time."
1 Chron. xi. 11. " And this is the number of the mighty men
whom David had ; Jashobeam, an Hachmonite, the chief of the
captains : he lifted up his spear against three hundred slain by
him at one time."
According to Kennicott, there are three corruptions in the for
mer text. First, nill£^5 '^'^" instead of being translated sitting in
the seat, should be regarded as a proper name, viz. Josheb-bas-
sebet, or Jashobeam. Secondly, The words rendered the same was
Adino the Eznite, should be, he lifted up his spear. Thirdly,
The number eight hundred was probably at first three hundred,
as in Chronicles xi. 11. This mode of proceeding is precipitous,
and accompanied with hazard.
The verse in Samuel should be thus translated. " These are
the names of the mighty men whom David had : he who sits in
the seat of the Tachmonite (i. e. of Jashobeam the Hachmonite),
who was chief among the captains, the same is Adino the Eznite ;
he lift up his spear against eight hundred, whom he slew at one
time." Whether this be Adina, son of Shiza, mentioned in 1
Chron. xi. 42, is uncertain. Kennicott is right in supposing
that the number eight hundred should be three hundred. Ge
senius and Maurer agree with him in considering the place cor
rupt. 2 Samuel xxiv. 1. " And again the anger of the Lord was
kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say,
Go, number Israel and Judah."
( 1 Chron. xxi. 1. " And Satan stood up against Israel, and
provoked David to number Israel."
Some supply the ellipses in the former place, because one had
moved, &c. or, because Satan moved, &c., borrowing this from
1 Chron. xxi. 1. Others render pti' an adversary, i. e. an evil
counsellor. All these suppositions are improbable. The simple
and natural nominative to the verb moved is, the Lord. God is
sometimes said to do what he permits to be done by others. Thus
he hardened Pharoah's heart. This does not mean, that he in
fused positive wickedness or obstinacy into the mind, or that he
influenced it in any way inconsistent with His perfections, but
3 z

546 ALLEGED CONTRADICTIONS OF SCRIPTURE.
that he withdrew his grace, allowed the heart of Pharoah to take
its natural course, and thus to become harder and harder. He
permitted it to be hardened. So in the present case God per
mitted Satan to tempt David. Satan was the active agent in
the case. The Lord withdrew his supporting grace from the king,
and the great adversary prevailed against him.
2 Samuel xxiv. 9. " And Joab gave up the sum of the num
ber of the people unto the king : and there were in Israel eight
hundred thousand valiant men that drew the sword ; and the men
of Judah were five hundred thousand men;"
1 Chron. xxi. 5. " And Joab gave the sum of the number of
the people unto David. And all they of Israel were a thousand
thousand and an hundred thousand men that drew sword ; and
Judah was four hundred threescore and ten thousand men that
drew sword."
To reconcile this apparent discrepancy, Patrick, Lightfoot,
Hales, and Townsend think, that the returns, when sent in to
the king, were not completed ; and that the writer of the books
of Samuel mentions the number according to the list actually
given in ; while the author of the Chronicles gives the list not
laid before the king, nor inserted in the public records, but ge
nerally known among the people.
This solution is objectionable, because it takes for granted
that one writer follows authorised and public records — the other
unauthentic and private registers.
A writer in ' Critica Biblica,' whose explanation is now gene
rally followed, reconciles them thus. " It appears by 1 Chronicles
xxvii., that there were twelve divisions of generals, who commanded
monthly, and whose duty was to keep guard near the king's person,
each having a body of troops, consisting of twenty-four thousand
men, which jointly formed a grand army of two hundred and eighty-
eight thousand ; and as a separate body of twelve thousand men
naturally attended on the twelve princes of the twelve tribes,
mentioned in the same chapter, the whole will be three hundred
thousand; which is the difference between the two accounts of
eight hundred thousand, and of one million one hundred thou
sand. As to the men of Israel, the author of Samuel does not
take notice of the three hundred thousand, because they were in
the actual service of the king, as a standing army, and, there
fore, there was no need to number them ; but Chronicles joins
them to the rest, saying expressly (^KTli?' b'2) ' aU those of Is-

DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE OLD TESTAMENT WRITERS. 547
rael were one mUlion, one hundred thousand ;' whereas the author
of Samuel, who reckons only the eight hundred thousand, does
not say (pai'i}'' b^) ' aU those oi Israel,' but barely ("^Xlty* "nn^)
' and Israel were,' &c. It must also be observed, that, exclu
sive of the troops before mentioned, there was an army of obser
vation on the frontiers of the Philistines' country, composed of
thirty thousand men, as appears by 2 Sam. vi. 1, which, it seems,
were included in the number of five hundred thousand of the
people of Judah, by the author of Samuel; but the author of
Chronicles, who mentions only four hundred and seventy thou
sand, gives the number of that tribe, exclusive of those thirty
thousand men, because they were not all of the tribe of Judah,
and, therefore, he does not say (min' 73) ' all those of Judah,'
as he had said ("jNIi:?' b'3) ' all those of Israel,' but only (min'l)
' and those of Judah.' Thus both accounts may be reconciled,
by only having recourse to other parts of scripture, treating on
the same subject, which will ever be found the best method of
explaining difficult passages."
2 Samuel xxiv. 13. " So Gad came to David, and told him,
and said unto him. Shall seven years of famine come unto thee
in thy land? or wilt thou flee three months before thine enemies,
while they pursue thee ? or that there be three days' pestilence
in thy land?"
1 Chron. xxi. 11, 12. " So Gad came to David, and said unto
him. Thus saith the Lord, Choose thee either three years' famine ;
or three months to be destroyed before thy foes, while that the
sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee ; or else three days the
sword of the Lord, even the pestilence, in the land, and the an
gel of the Lord destroying throughout all the coasts of Israel "
From 2 Samuel xxi. 1 it appears, that there had been already
a famine of three years, and the prophet asks in the former place.
Shall seven years' famine (i. e. three in addition to the three that
have been already, with the present year included) come unto
thee in thy land ? Thus the time in both passages is the same,
though at first sight there appears a great discrepancy.
2 Samuel xxiv. 24. " And the king said unto Araunah, Nay;
but I will surely buy it of thee at a price : neither will I offer
burnt-offerings unto the Lord my God of that which doth cost
me nothing. So David bought the threshing-floor and the oxen
for fifty shekels of silver."
1 Chron. xxi. 25. " So David gave to Oman for the place
six hundred shekels of gold by weight."

548 ALLEGED CONTRADICTIONS OF SCRIPTURE,
In order to reconcile these places, some suggest that a comma
should be inserted after the word threshing-floor. The oxen alone
are then said to be bought for fifty shekels of silver, and the price
of the threshing-floor is omitted. But the author of Chronicles
states the price of the floor, viz. 600 shekels of gold, and omits
the price paid for the oxen. This solution is more ingenious than
probable. The true explanation is, that the former sum was for
the floor, oxen, and wooden instruments only ; — the latter was
afterwards paid for the whole hill, on which David made prepa
rations for building the temple.
1 Kings iv. 26. (Heb. v. 6.) " And Solomon had forty thou
sand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horse
men." 2 Chron. ix. 25. " And Solomon had four thousand staUs for
horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen," &c.
According to Gesenius, ^^'^^^ or n'Ha signifies not only stall
or stable, but a certain number of horses in the same division of
a stall. This would imply that there were ten horses put toge
ther in one place. Thus the author of Kings speaks of the horses ;
but the author of the Chronicles, of the stalls in which they were
kept. Others suppose that the text in Kings is corrupt, and that
we should xeaAfour thousand ior forty thousand.
1 Kings V. 11. " And Solomon gave Hiram twenty thousand
measures of wheat for food to his household, and twenty measures
of pure oil ; thus gave Solomon to Hiram year by year."
2 Chron. u. 10. " And, behold, I will give to thy servants,
the hewers that cut timber, twenty thousand measures of beaten
wheat, and twenty thousand measures of barley, and twenty
thousand baths of wine, and twenty thousand baths of oil."
The articles of food and drink mentioned in the former place
were intended for^Hiram's household, i. e. his family and domes
tic servants, while the quantities specified in 2 Chron. ii. 10 were
for the workmen, " thy servants the hewers that cut timber."
1 Kings vii. 15. " For he cast two pillars of brass, of eighteen
cubits high apiece : and a line of twelve cubits did compass ei
ther of them about."
2 Chron. iu. 15. " Also he made before the house two pillars
of thirty and five cubits high ; and the chapiter that was on the
top of each of them was five cubits."
The former text speaks of the length of the pillars separately,
the latter of their length together. Each was nearly eighteen

DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE OLD TESTAMENT WRITERS. 549
cubits long (stated in round numbers to be eighteen), and both
amounted to thirty-five cubits.
1 Kings ix. 23. " These were the chief of the officers that
were over Solomon's work, five hundred and fifty, which bare
rule over the people that wrought in the work."
2 Chron. viu. 10. " And these were the chief of king Solo
mon's officers, even two hundred and fifty, that bare rule over
the people."
There is a corruption in one of these places.
1 Kings ix. 28. " And they came to Ophir, and fetched from
thence gold, four hundred and twenty talents, and brought it to
king Solomon."
2 Chron. vui. 18. " And Huram sent him by the hands of his
servants ships, and servants that had knowledge of the sea ; and
they went with the servants of Solomon to Ophir, and took thence
four hundred and fifty talents of gold, and brought them to king
Solomon." One of these texts is corrupt.
1 Kings XV. 10. " And forty and one years reigned he in Je
rusalem. And his mother's name was Maachah, the daughter of
Abishalom." 2 Chron. xiii. 2. "He (Abijah) reigned three years in Jeru
salem. His mother's name also was Miehaiah, the daughter of
Uriel of Gibeah."
It is well known that the Hebrew term DX is used with con
siderable latitude. In the former passage it denotes grandmother;
in the latter, mother properly so called. See Gesen. s. v.
1 Kings xvi. 23. " In the thirty and first year of Asa king of
Judah, began Omri to reign over Israel, twelve years : six years
reigned he in Tirzah."
I Kings xvi. 10, 15. " And Zimri went in and smote him (Elah),
and killed him, in the twenty and seventh year of Asa king of
Judah, and reigned in his stead.  In the twenty and seventh
year of Asa king of Judah, did Zimri reign seven days in Tir
zah." Some may think that there is an error in the number thirty-
one in the former place, and that it should be twenty-seven. Omri
immediately succeeded Zimri, the latter reigned but seven days,
and yet Omri began to reign in the twenty-seventh year of Asa.
But we should recollect, that after the death of Zimri, half of
Israel acknowledged Omri, while the other half adhered to Tibni.
This division lasted four years. Omri therefore began to reign

550 ALLEGED CONTRADICTIONS OF SCRIPTURE.
alotie in the thirty-first of Asa ; he had a share in the kingdom
from the twenty-seventh of Asa.
2 Kings viU. 16. " And in the fifth year of Joram the son of
Ahab king of Israel, Jehoshaphat being then king of Judah,
Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat king of Judah began to reign,"
Compare 1 Kings xxu. 42 ; 2 Kings viii. 17 ; 2 Chron. xx. 31 ;
xxi. 5.
Jehoram, when thirty-two years old, was associated with his
father in the kingdom, and reigned with him eight years. He
afterwards succeeded his father, and reigned alone. Some would
exclude from the text in 2 Kings viii. 16 the three words trans
lated and Jehoshaphat king of Judah; but this is not necessary.
2 Kings xiii. I. " In the three and twentieth year of Joash
the son of Ahaziah king of Judah, Jehoahaz the son of Jehu be
gan to reign over Israel in Samaria, and reigned seventeen years."
2 Kings xiii. 10. " In the thirty and seventh year of Joash
king of Judah began Jehoash the son of Jehoahaz to reign over
Israel in Samaria, and reigned sixteen years."
By adding the seventeen years of Jehoahaz to the twenty-three
of Joash, we are brought to the 40th of Joash, when, on the
death of Jehoahaz, Jehoash may be supposed to have entered
upon his reign. Yet the latter passage says, that Jehoash began
to reign in the thirty-seventh year of Joash.
It would appear that he reigned conjointly with his father for
two or three years. This dates from the 37th of Joash. He be
gan to reign alone about the fortieth of Joash.
2 Kings XV. 1. "In the twenty and seventh year of Jeroboam
king of Israel, began Azariah son of Amaziah king of Judah to
reign." 2 Kings XV. 32, 34. " In the second year of Pekah the son
of Remaliah king of Israel, began Jotham the son of Uzziah king
of Judah to reign ;  he did according to all that his father
Uzziah had done."
Azariah and Uzziah are two names for the same person.
2 Kings XV. 30. " And Hoshea the son of Elah made a con
spiracy against Pekah the son of Remaliah, and smote him, and
slew him, and reigned in his stead, in the twentieth year of Jo
tham the son of Uzziah."
2 Kings XV. 33. " Five and twenty years old was he (Jotham)
when he began to reign, and he reigned sixteen years in Jerusa
lem." Jotham reigned sixteen years alone, but with his father, he
reigned twenty.

DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE OLD TESTAMENT WRITERS. 551
2 Kings XV. 30. " And Hoshea the son of Elah made a con
spiracy against Pekah the son of RemaUah, and smote him, and
slew him, and reigned in his stead, in the twentieth year of Jo
tham the son of Uzziah."
2 Kings XVU. 1. " In the twelfth year of Ahaz king of Judah,
began Hoshea the son of Elah to reign in Samaria over Israel
nine years."
In the former text it is stated that Hosea began to reign in
the twentieth year of Jotham son of Uzziah (which was the fourth
oi Ahaz) ; but in the latter, that he began to reign in the twelfth
oi Ahaz. Again in verse 27 it is related, that Pekah reigned
twenty years ; but the last year of Pekah and the first year of
Hosea concur with the twentieth of Jotham (verse 30.) Pekah
must therefore have reigned twenty-two years, for Jotham began
to reign in the second year of Pekah.
Calmet's solution, which appears to be satisfactory, is the fol
lowing. Hosea conspired against Pekah in the twentieth year
of the latter, which was the eighteenth of Jotham's reign. It
was two years before Hosea was acknowledged king of Israel, i. e.
in the fourth of Ahaz and twentieth of Jotham. In the twelfth
year of Ahaz he reigned peaceably over Israel, as stated in chap
ter xvii. 1.
2 Kings xxiu. 30. " And his servants carried him in a cha
riot dead from Megiddo, and brought him to Jerusalem, and
buried him in his own sepulchre."
2 Chron. xxxv. 24. " His servants therefore took him (Josiah)
out of that chariot, and put him in the second chariot that he
had ; and they brought him to Jerusalem, and he died, and was
buried," &c.
In the former place the word /ID should be rendered dying,
or in a dying state. Thus all appearance of discrepancy is re
moved. He was carried off the field in a dying state ; he ex
pired at Jerusalem.
2 Kings xxiv. 8. " Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when
he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months."
2 Chron. xxxvi. 9. " Jehoiachin was eight years old when
he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in
Jerusalem." When Jehoiachin was eight years of age, his father associated
him with himself in the government. He began to reign alone
at eighteen.

5-52 ALLEGED CONTRADICTIONS OF SCRIPTURE.
2 Kings xxiv. 13.
2 Kings xxv. 8-12.
The transactions related in these passages did not take place
at one and the same time. They are quite distinct. The latter
happened eleven years after the former.
1 Chron. xix. 7. "So they hired thirty and two thousand
chariots, and the king of Maachah and his people," &c.
2 Sam. X. 6. " And when the children of Ammon saw that
they stank before David, the children of Ammon sent and hired
the Syrians of Beth-rehob, and the Syrians of Zoba, twenty
thousand footmen, and of King Maacah a thousand men, and
of Ishtob twelve thousand men."
Mr. Brown of Haddington judiciously observes, that as the
word " used in the original (of the former place) denotes not
only a chariot but a rider, it probably ought to be rendered in a
collective sense, cavalry ; and then the number of troops will
exactly agree with the passage in Samuel. They were perhaps
a kind of auxiUary troops, who were used in general to fight on
horseback, or in chariots, but who on some occasions served as
foot soldiers."
2 Chron. iv. 3. " And under it (the molten sea) was the si
militude of oxen," &c.
1 Kings vu. 24, 25, 26.
In the latter we find hnops (pf'VP^\) in the former oxen,
CD'*")p2l.) Some have therefore proposed to alter the reading of
2 Chron. iv. 3 to make it correspond with that of Kings. There
is no necessity for this proceeding. What prevents us from sup
posing, that the architectural ornaments] called knops were in
the form of oxen ?
2 Chron. iv. 5. " And the thickness of it (the molten sea)
was an handbreadth, and the brim of it like the work of the brim
of a cup, with flowers of lilies ; and it received and held three
thousand baths.
1 Kings vii. 26. " And it was an handbreadth thick, and
the brim thereof was wrought like the brim of a cup, with flowers
of lilies ; it contained two thousand baths."
Various modes of reconciling these two texts have been pro
posed. Some think that the bath varied in quantity, so that
two thousand of the old baths might have been equal to three
thousand of those used after the captivity. Others conjecture
that the one writer meant dry-measure baths, and the other

DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE OLD TESTAMENT WRITERS, 553
liquid measure baths. Calmet says, that the cup or bowl con
tained two thousand baths, and the foot, which was hollow, a
thousand more. All these methods are objectionable or imagi
nary. Mr. Taylor suggests, that the writer of the Chronicles
not merely states the quantity of water which the basin held, but
that also which was necessary to work it, to keep it flowing as a
fountain ; that which was required to fill both it and its accom
paniments. In support of this, he adduces the circumstance,
that different words are employed, the one in Kings vii. 26, ren
dered contained ; the two in Chronicles iv. 5, rendered received
and held. He argues, therefore, that there was a difference be
tween receiving and holding. When the basin played as a foun
tain, and all its parts were filled for that purpose, the latter,
together with the sea itself, received 3000 baths ; but the sea ex
clusively held only 2000 baths, when its contents were restricted
to those of the circular basin. It received and held 3000 baths.*
2 Chron. xxii. 2. " Forty and two years old was Ahaziah
when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem."
2 Kings viii. 26. " Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah
when he began to reign ; and he reigned one year in Jeru
salem." He began to reign in the twenty-second year of his age, but
in the forty-second of the kingdom of his mother's family.
His mother's name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri. This
solution, proposed by Lightfoot, renders it unnecessary to suppose
that the letters caph and mem were interchanged, the numerical
power of the former being twenty, and that of the latter forty.
2 Chron. xxviii. 20, 21. " And Tiglath-pUneser, king of As
syria, came unto him, and distressed him, but strengthened him
not. For Ahaz took away a portion out of the house of the
Lord, and out of the house of the king, and of the princes, and
gave it unto the king of Assyria : but he helped him not."
2 Kings xvi. 9. " And the king of Assyria hearkened unto
him : for the king of Assyria went up against Damascus, and
took it, and carried the people of it captive to Kir, and slew
Rezin." Here also there is no contradiction. Tiglath-pileser weakened
rather than strengthened Ahaz by the presents he received, and
for which he rendered no equivalent service. We should ob
serve that the writer of the Chronicles does not speak of the
* Fragments to Calmet's Dictionary, No, 254.
4 A

554 ALLEGED CONTRADICTIONS OF SCP.IPTU HE.
same event as the writer of Kings. Tiglath-pileser helped
Ahaz against Rezin, for he took Damascus, and slew the king
of Ayssria. At another crisis, when Ahaz was distressed by the
Edomites and PhiUstines (2 Chron. xxviii. 17, 18), " Tiglath-
pileser came unto him, and distressed him (by taking the greater
part of his treasure), but strengthened him not."
2 Chron. xxxvi. 9, 10.
1 Chron. ui. 15. Jeremiah i. 2, 3, and xxxvu. 1.
Zedekiah is called the son of Josiah in the last three places ;
but in 2 Chron. the brother of Jehoiachin, who was the son of
Jehoiakim. The Hebrew word ^^4 signifies not only brother,
properly so called, but relative or kinsman. So Gen. xiv. 16;
xiii. 8 ; xxix. 12, 15. It is very common to use words of affinity
or kindred with considerable latitude in the Hebrew language,
and in the Hebrew-Greek of the New Testament. Thus dhiXfhg
signifies a near kinsman in Matthew xii. 46 ; John vii. 3; Acts
i. 14; Gal. i. 19.
Ezra ii. 64. " The whole congregation together was forty and
two thousand three hundred and threescore," A difference has
been noticed between this and the corresponding sum in Nehe
miah, not in the gross amount, but in the several particulars of
which it consists. Reckoning up the smaller numbers, we shall
find that they amount to 31,089 in Nehemiah, and 29,818 in
Ezra. Nehemiah also mentions 1766 persons not noticed by
Ezra ; and Ezra 494 omitted by Nehemiah. If, therefore, Ezra's
surplus be added to the sum in Nehemiah, and Nehemiah's sur
plus to the number in Ezra, they will both become 31,583. Sub
tracting this from 42,360, there wiU be a deficiency of 10,777.
These are omitted, because they did not belong to Judah and Ben
jamin, or to the priests, but to the other tribes. We owe this so
lution to Mr. Alting, and it seems to be altogether satisfactory.
Prov. xxvi. 4. " Answer not a fool according to his folly,
lest thou also be like unto him."
Prov. xxvi. 5. " Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he
be wise in his own conceit."
The fool is not to be answered according to his folly, i. e. in
his own foolish, impertinent manner, because, by so doing, we
should render ourselves Uke him. But he should be answered as
Ms folly requires — with such power and demonstration as to
silence his reproachful language. While we should not resemble
him in his foolishness, by giving him such an answer as he him-

DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE OLD TESTAMENT WRITERS. 555
self in the same circumstances would render, it is a duty tp check
his arrogance, and repel his injurious language. By this means,
he wUl be prevented from becoming wise in his own conceit. The
immediate vicinity of the two places shows, that such is the true
sense. Mr. Fuller pertinently remarks, that the answer of Moses
to the rebellious Israelites, was an example of the former pro
verb (Numbers xx. 10) ; the reply of Job to his wife an instance
of the latter (Job u. 10).
Jeremiah xxxii. 4. " And Zedekiah, king of Judah, shall not
escape out of the hand of the Chaldeans, but shall surely be de
Uvered into the hand of the king of Babylon, and shall speak
with him mouth to mouth, and his eyes shall behold his eyes."
Ezekiel xu. 13. " My net also wiU I spread upon him, and
he shall be taken in my snare ; and I will bring him to Babylon,
to the land of the Chaldeans, yet shall he not see it, though he
shall die there."
Though these two prophecies appear to be contradictory, both
were Uterally fulfilled. When Zedekiah was taken by Nebuchad
nezzar, the latter caused his eyes to be put out, and sent him
to Babylon. Thus he both saw and did not see Nebuchadnezzar
with his eyes — he did not see Babylon though he died there.
Daniel i. 1. "In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim,
king of Judah, came Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon unto
Jerusalem, and besieged it."
Jeremiah xxv. 1. " The word that came to Jeremiah concern
ing all the people of Judah, in the fourth year of Jehoiakim the
son of Josiah king of Judah, that was the first year of Nebu
chadrezzar king of Babylon."
In the latter passage, the commencement of Nebuchadnezzar's
reign appears to be placed in the fourth year of Jehoiakim ;
whereas in the former, Nebuchadnezzar is said to have come
against Jerusalem in the third year of Jehoiakim's reign. But
we should recollect, that the Chaldean king had been associated
with his father Nabopolassar. " The first year of Nebuchad
nezzar" means the first year of his joint not of his sole reign.
To this, indeed, it may be objected, that Daniel in another place
(ii. 1) reckons the second year of Nebuchadnezzar, the second
of his sole sovereignty ; but the difference arises from the locali
ties respectively referred to. The former method of computation
would naturaUy proceed from an author living in Judea, the
latter from an author Uving in Babylon.*
• See Hengstenberg's Beitrage zur Einleitung ins Alto Testament, erster Band, pp.
62,3.

556 ALLEGED CONTRADICTIONS OF SCRIPTURE.
II. Contradictions said to exist between the writers of the
New Testament,
Here the evangelists come first under notice. A full consider
ation of the differences between them must, however, be left to
the compilers of Harmonies. To unite the scattered parts of the
gospel history into a systematic whole, to arrange every occur
rence in its proper place, and assign every discourse of our Lord
to its true connexion, is a result which cannot with certainty
be now attained. It is obvious that the sacred writers did not
intend to relate the various particulars connected with the life
and death of Jesus in strict chronological order. Their notices
of time are few, and generally indefinite. To assume that one
of the gospels contains the proper sequence of events, and that
the others should be brought into accordance with it, is to in
dulge a vain supposition, and to proceed on a false hypothesis.
All attempts to bring the four narratives into scientific and com
pact unity — to settle the true period when a discourse was de
livered — the place where a miracle was wrought, must partake
of some uncertainty. In various instances indeed, these particulars
can be determined without perplexity ; — in others, there is no clue
to guide us, and we are obliged to content ourselves with bare
probability. Had the evangelists been uninspired men or impos
tors, we should have noticed a much greater uniformity in the
externals of their histories — an aiming at close resemblance in
the form and sequence of every portion ; — but they wrote under
the guidance of the Holy Spirit in popular language, for the use
of mankind, and neglected to observe minute accuracy in trivial
points. This is what we naturally expect from honest and faith
ful witnesses, who undertake, without previous collusion, to give
a biography of the same person. " The evangelists," says New-
come, "are more intent on representing the substance of what is
spoken, than the words of the speaker ; they neglect accurate
order in the detail of particular incidents, though they pursue a
good general method ; detached and distant events are sometimes
joined together on account of a sameness in the scene, the per
sons, the cause, or the consequences ; and in such concise histories
as the gospels, transitions are often made from one fact to another,
without any intimation that important matters intervened."*
Matthew iv. 1-11.
Luke iv. 2-12. * Preface to Harmony, p. 1 ,

DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE NEW TESTAMENT WRITERS. 557
The temptation of our Lord by the devil is recorded by Mat
thew in a different order from Luke. Matthew gives, first, the
temptation of appetite ; secondly, that of vanity ; thirdly, that of
ambition or worldly grandeur. Luke adopts the following order —
first, the temptation of appetite ; secondly, that of ambition ;
thirdly, that of vanity. Luke follows the order of place ; Mat
thew that of time. Luke brings together the two temptations
in the wilderness. Hence there is no necessity to have recourse,
with some writers, to the figure hysterologia.
Matthew v. 16. " Let your Ught so shine before men, that
they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which
is in heaven.
Matthew vi. 1 . " Take heed that ye do not your alms before
men, to be seen of them."
In the former case, where the motive is to glorify God, it is
the duty of the Christian, while not ostentatiously displaying his
good deeds, not to conceal them. The latter passage inculcates
the avoidance of ostentation. We should never allow our pious
and charitable actions to spring from a love of being seen by
others. If this be the end for which they are done, they cannot
be pleasing to Him who judges the secret purposes of the heart.
Matthew vu. 7, 8. " Ask, and it shall be given you ; seek,
and ye shall find ; knock, and it shall be opened unto you. For
every one that asketh receiveth ; and he that seeketh findeth ;
and to him that knocketh it shall be opened."
Luke xiu. 24. " Strive to enter in at the strait gate; for
many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be
able." The words of Matthew are intended to encourage the sinner
to seek for mercy through the atonement of Christ. Those in
Luke's gospel refer to the last day, when the door of mercy will
be shut for ever. This is apparent from their immediate con
nexion ; " when once the master of the house is risen up and hath
shut the door, and ye begin to stand without," &c. They point
to the agonising anxiety of many, when they find themselves
excluded from the kingdom of heaven. The ungodly shall cry
for mercy when it cannot be obtained ; they shall discover a pain
ful solicitude to be received into the presence of Jehovah, after
they have deferred sincere concern for their salvation until death.
Matthew viii. 5-10.
Luke vn, 1-10.

558 ALLEGED CONTRADICTIONS OF SCRIPTURE.
Matthew's account of the centurion is briefer than Luke's,
but not contradictory to it. Luke is minute and circumstantial.
According to Matthew the centurion sends the elders of the Jews
to Jesus ; — according to Luke he goes in person. Qui facit per
alterum, facit per se. This is a principle frequently recog
nised in the language employed by the sacred writers.
Matthew xvn. 1. " And after sis days Jesus taketh Peter,
James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high
mountain apart." See Mark ix. 2.
Luke ix. 28. " And it came to pass about an eight days after
these sayings, he took Peter, and John, and James, and went
up into a mountain to pray."
These statements are reconciled by supposing, that Luke
reckons inclusively ; Matthew, exclusively. So Hammond and
others. Matthew xx. 29-34.
Mark x. 46-52.
Luke xvui. 35-43.
Matthew speaks of two blind persons, Mark and Luke only
of one. Mark calls him Bartimeus. Luke represents the mi
racle as performed when Jesus was drawing nigh to Jericho,
before he entered it; — Matthew and Mark, after he had left
Jericho. Michaelis gives this as an instance of real contradiction in the
gospels, or at least as one which he could not possibly explain.
The conclusion to which he comes is, that Luke was here mis
taken, since Matthew and Mark agree in relating that the mi
racle was performed by Christ as he went out of Jericho, the
former being an eye-witness. It is utterly at variance with the
inspiration of Luke to suppose his testimony incorrect. It may
not be incompatible with the loose theology of Michaelis to throw
aside on some occasions the inspiration of the New Testament
writers, when their statements are not understood or relished;
but he who reverences the oracles of the living God will pause
ere he have recourse to such unhallowed assertions. In order to
reconcile these varying accounts it is needful to remember, that
some of the evangelists give a more brief and condensed account
of the very same event which others narrate more fully. On this
occasion two blind men received their sight. This is expressly
affirmed by Matthew. Only one is noticed by Mark and Luke.
Matthew also relates, that they were healed by Jesus on his de-

DLSCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE NEW TESTAMENT WRITERS. 559
parture from Jericho. The one mentioned by Mark was cured
by Christ as he left Jericho. His name was Bartimeus. Taking
the account of Matthew in connexion with Mark's, we believe
that there were in reality two blind men both restored to sight
by Christ as he passed from Jericho to Jerusalem. Let us now
attend to what Luke says. As Jesus drew nigh to Jericho, a
certain blind man sat by the wayside begging. There is no
ground for supposing that this blind man was the same as Bar
timeus mentioned by Mark. He is not so called. It is not said
that he was Bartimeus. We believe that he was a different per
son. The reason of this opinion is, that Bartimeus is said to have
been healed by Christ as he left Jericho ; whereas the blind beg
gar noticed in Luke's gospel received his sight from our Saviour
drawing nigh to the city. Thus there is no contradiction between
the narratives of the three evangelists. Matthew relates that
Christ performed the remarkable miracle of giving sight to two
blind men who sat begging by the wayside as he departed from
Jericho, and we believe him. Mark notices but one of these,
whose name he gives ; but he does not say that Christ on that
occasion healed no more than one. His account, therefore, is not
contradictory to Matthew's, though it is not so full. Luke again
informs us, that the Saviour, before entering Jericho, healed a
a poor blind man who cried unto him. This last individual
was wholly different from either of those mentioned by Matthew.
Taking, therefore, the narratives of the three evangeUsts toge
ther, we perceive from them, that three blind men received their
sight from Christ during his visit to Jericho — one before he en
tered it, and two others as he left it.
Newcome supposes, that Jesus remained several days at Jeri
cho, and during his stay made several excursions from the city,
and returned to it again. This conjecture removes the apparent
difficulty, though it is purely hypothetical.
Matt. xxi. 38. " But when the husbandmen saw the son,
they said among themselves. This is the heir ; come, let us kill
him, and let us seize on his inheritance."
Acts iii. 17. " And now, brethren, I wot that through igno
rance ye did it, as did also your rulers."
Acts xiu. 27. " For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their
rulers, because they knew him not," &c.
1 Cor, ii. 8. " Which none of the princes of this world knew :
for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord
of glory."

560 ALLEGED CONTRADICTIONS OF SCRIPTURE.
The last three passages appear to contradict the first. 1 Cor.
ii. 8, refers to the hidden wisdom so long concealed from the
world regarding the call of the Gentiles, and their incorporation
into the church of God. With this wisdom none of the Jewish
princes or wordly rulers were acquainted. They had no spiritual
discernment of its nature or effects. Their carnal minds were in
disposed to learn it. Had they known its connexion with the Re
deemer of the world, they would not have put him to death. It
would appear, that while some of the Jews crucified the Lord of
glory in their ignorance and unbelief, others acted against the
conviction of their understandings and the light of their con
sciences. They were not all ignorant of his true character ; nei
ther did they all sin so desperately, as to put him to death in the
face of their right belief. Some passages in the New Testament
allude to the Jewish rulers as acting in ignorance — others to them
as acting through malice and hatred, with the knowledge that
he was the Son of God. Both places quoted from the Acts of
the Apostles belong to the former; Matthew xxi. 38 to the
latter. Matthew xxvi. 8. " But when his disciples saw it, they had
indignation, saying. To what purpose is this waste?"
John xii. 4. " Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot,
Simon's son, which should betray him."
" The plural," says Winer, " is often used where the predi
cate relates only to one subject, although the writer designs to
express the thought in a general way." § xxvii. 2.
Matthew expresses indefinitely what the other states with ex
actness. Matthew xxvi. 21. " And as they did eat, he said. Verily I
say unto you, that one of you shall betray me." See also Mark
xiv. 18.
Luke xxii. 21. " But behold, the hand of him that betrayeth
me is with me on the table. And truly the Son of man goeth,
as it was determined : but woe unto that man by whom he is be
trayed!" Some think that there is a discrepancy between the testimony
of Matthew and Mark, as compared with that of Luke. Our
Saviour, they allege, is said to have indicated the disciple by
whom he was to be betrayed, while eating the passover ; whereas
in Luke, he did so after the institution of the Lord's supper.
Luke's order is thought to be the true one, and that followed

DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE NEW TESTAMENT WRITERS. 561
by the others not correct. This has arisen from want of attention
to the words of Luke. The 21st verse begins thus : " But be
hold, the hand," &c. It is not stated at what precise time this
language was uttered, whether after the institution of the supper
or not. It stands indeed after the account of that ordinance, but
it may not have been spoken after it was appointed. When, how
ever, we compare it with the accounts of Matthew and John, we
perceive the exact time at which it was uttered. It was during
the eating of the passover. Luke relates consecutively the par
taking of the passover and of the supper, without recording the
conversation of Jesus, except in so far as it related immediately
and directly to these ordinances themselves, reserving the notice
of Christ's other discourse till he had finished the narration of the
passover and supper. But Matthew and Mark insert the record of
his conversation at the very time when it took place, thus carry
ing on all the circumstances together, without reserving aught
till the account of the two institutions should be finished. Thus
the order observed by Luke does not imply, that the Saviour's
intimation of the traitor was made at a different time from that
which is contained in the gospels by Matthew and Mark.
Matt, xxvii. 34. " They gave him vinegar to drink mingled
with gall : and when he had tasted thereof, he would not drink."
Mark xv. 23. " And they gave him to drink wine mingled
with myrrh : but he received it not."
We have no need to have recourse to such improbable and la
boured solutions as those of Michaelis and his learned translator.
It is true that Matthew has vinegar mingled with gall, while
Mark, alluding to the same potion, calls it wine mingled with
myrrh. But Grotius has shewn, that 'o^og means poor or cheap
wine, such as was used by the very poorest class. Wine mingled
with myrrh and bitter herbs was given to criminals to stupify
them. Lachmann reads in Matthew ohov instead of '6^og, to
which De Wette objects, that it is borrowed from Mark.
Matthew xxvii. 44. " The thieves also, which were crucified
with him, cast the same in his teeth."
Luke xxiii. 39. " And one of the malefactors which were
hanged, railed on him, saying," &c.
This is solved in the same way as Matthew xxvi. 8 ; John
xii. 4. It is unphilosophical to suppose with some, that there
is an enallage of number, the plural for the singular.
Another mode of reconciling the two places is that adopted
4 B

562 ALLEGED CONTRADICTIONS OF SCRIPTURE.
by Chrysostom, Jerome, Theophylact, and others, viz. that at
first both reviled our Lord, but that afterwards one of them re
pented. Thus Matthew speaks of the conduct of the robbers at
a time prior to Luke. When first affixed to the cross, they gave
vent to reproaches against the Redeemer ; but a change passed
upon one, and he prayed. The period, therefore, to which the
language of Luke refers, was subsequent to that in which the
behaviour of the thieves is detailed by Matthew. While one of
the malefactors continued to rail, as is seen from Luke, the tone
and temper of the other had been entirely altered. From being
a reviler, he had become a penitent and a believer.
Matthew xxvii. 54. " Now when the centurion, and they that
were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those
things that were done, they feared greatly, saying. Truly this
was the Son of God."
Luke xxui. 47. " Now when the centurion saw what was
done, he glorified God, saying. Certainly this was a righteous
man." In the former text, the sentence uttered by the centurion, and
they that were with him, is given; in the latter, the sentence
uttered by the centurion alone. He gave expression to both ;
and each of the evangelists has only given one of them.
Mark xiv. 69. " And a maid saw him again, and began to
say to them that stood by. This is one of them."
Matthew xxvi. 71. " And when he was gone out into the
porch, another maid saw him, and said unto them that were there.
This fellow was also with Jesus of Nazareth."
The difficulty, as Greswell truly remarks, arises solely from
the conciseness of the narrations. By attending to John xvui. 25,
26, compared with Luke xxii, 58, 59, it will be seen, that several
persons challenged Peter before his second denial. According
to Matthew xxvi. 71, a maid seeing him said, " This fellow
was also with Jesus of Nazareth." The same evangelist after
wards relates, that another maid came up to him and addressed
him in similar terms. According to Mark, the same maiden who
had challenged him before, repeated the challenge. The diffi
culty has arisen from supposing, that Mark speaks of the same
two maids as Matthew, whereas he merely speaks of one twice
addressing the apostle. Matthew, however, distinctly mentions
two. It appears that several persons, both male and female,
charged Peter with being an attendant of Jesus, to whom he re-

DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE NEW TESTAMENT WRITERS. 563
plied in general terms at once. What is omitted by one evan
gelist is narrated by another, a circumstance which has created
obscurity in the minds of some. The difficulty inherent in Mark
xiv. 69, arises from the article before itaihigxn (ri iraihlgxri) seeming
to point out the maid recently mentioned ; whereas Matthew
has aXXri, another maid. This disappears in the received version,
which reads a maid, instead of, the maid.
Mark xv. 25. " And it was the third hour, and they crucified
him." John xix. 14, " And it was the preparation of the passover,
and about the sixth hour : and he saith unto the Jews, Behold
your king."
Here Mark expressly states, that the time of crucifixion was
the third hour, while John affirms that Christ was brought forth
about the sixth hour.
Some affirm, that the true reading of John xix. 14 is T^lrri.
Anciently numbers were not written at length, but with numeral
letters, and it is therefore said, that r and g representing 3 and
6 respectively, might have been easily exchanged. But the
letters are not similar, so as to lead a copyist to mistake them.
Besides, an overwhelming weight of evidence, consisting of MSS.
and versions is in favour of 'ixTri. None of the critical editors have
ventured to remove it froni the text, and read rg/rjj. It is easy
to account for the introduction of rg/Vjj into the few authorities
which have it. The difficulty suggested it ; and according to
Griesbach, the more difficult reading should be preferred to the
easier. On the other hand, it is impossible to explain satisfac
torily, how 'ixTri (supposing rg/r?) to have been the original) found
its way into the most ancient MSS. and versions. We believe
then that 'i-xtyi in John's gospel should not be disturbed.
Another solution proceeds on the principle, that the vuy^S^/x,e^ov,
or 24 hours, was divided among the Jews into eight parts, of
three hours each ; four parts making the day, and four the night.
Mark says it was the third hour ; from which we may conclude,
that it was fully come, or rather already past. But John is not
so exact ; he merely states it was about the sixth hour. It was
between the third and sixth hour, towards the conclusion of the
former, and the commencement of the latter. That the inter
mediate hours, four and five, are not alluded to, need not appear
strange, when we recollect, that the Jews regarded only the great
divisions at which prayer and sacrifice were offered in the Temple,

564 ALLEGED CONTRADICTIONS OF SCRIPTURE.
and preferred to speak of time by them, when great accuracy
was not required. Strictly speaking, it was past the fifth hour,
and verging towards the sixth ; but Mark thinks it sufficient to
say, that the third hour was come. The third gave its name to
all the space between the third and sixth.
Others think that Mark follows the Jewish computation, and
John the Roman ; but this is incorrect, because the Jewish and
Roman were in reality aUke.
Rejecting these solutions, we are inclined to agree with Town-
son, that John's computation of hours throughout his Gospel
agrees neither with the Jewish nor the Roman, but with the
modern. In this opinion, Greswell and Townsend concur. Agree
ably to it, the sixth hour is our six o'clock in the morning. It
suits all the circumstances of the history to assume, that Christ
was brought forth about six o'clock, and that the hour of cruci
fixion was about nine o'clock in the morning. This is shewn by
Dr. Townson with great minuteness and abiUty, in his Discourses
on the Four Gospels.*
Matthew xxvii. 37 ; Mark xv. 26 ; Luke xxui. 38 ; John xix.
19. The inscription said to have been put on the cross over the
head of our Saviour is differently given by the four Evangelists
— a circumstance perplexing to such as endeavour to harmonise
the Gospels, and affording an argument to the opponents of
Christianity, which they have not failed to employ. We are in
formed by John that the inscription was written in Hebrew,
Greek, and Latin. Had the words been recorded by no more
than three of the evangelists, it might have been concluded that
each exhibited the inscription in a different language from the
other ; though there would have been some difficulty in discover
ing the precise writer that gives the words in a particular lan
guage. But since four authors record the writing put on the
cross, the question is rendered more intricate.
It is natural to suppose, that as the inscription was in Greek,
some one should be moved to write the exact words, the ipsissi-
ma verba employed. We are inclined to beUeve, that John fur
nishes the very terms in question. This is probable from the
language he uses : " And PUate wrote a title, and put it on the
cross. And the writing was, Jesus of Nazareth the King of
THE Jews," xix. 19. If this opinion be correct, we should ex
pect to find the very same words in the other three writers. And
* Discourse viii, part 1, section 2, pp. 221-210.

discrepancies between THE NEW TESTAMENT WRITERS. 565
had the inscription been written only in Greek, we may suppose
it would have stood in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, as in John.
But it existed in Hebrew and Latin also. Perhaps Matthew
gives the Hebrew, or rather a Greek translation of the Hebrew,
and Mark the Latin. The object for which the respective gos
pels were written, and the persons to whom they were addressed,
justify this assumption. Luke again follows Mark, adding the
words, this is.
The circumstances of our Lord's resurrection next claim parti
cular attention. The truth of this fact forms the main pillar on
which the divine authority of Christianity rests. " If Christ be
not risen," says the great Apostle of the Gentiles, " then is our
preaching vain, and your faith is' also vain. Yea, and we are
found false witnesses of God ; because we have testified of God
that he raised up Christ : whom he raised not up, if so be that
the dead rise not. For if the . dead rise not, then is not Christ
raised. And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain ; ye are
yet in your sins." Hence infidels have directed their attacks
against this truth with the greatest virulence. There are indeed
perplexing circumstances in the accounts of the evangelists. To
harmonise, therefore, the chief particulars connected with the
event, is of great advantage to the serious inquirer.
1. Very early in the morning of the first day of the week,
before it was light, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James
and Joses, and Salome, set out to see the sepulchre of their Lord.
Matthew xxviii. 1 ; Mark xvi. 1, 2 ; Luke xxiv. 1 ; John xx. 1.
Matthew and Luke mention the act of their setting out, but
omit their coming to the place ; Mark and John omit the act of
their setting out, but mention their arrival at the sepulchre. They
brought with them spices to embalm the body, which they had
bought on Saturday evening after the Sabbath was past.
2. Soon after they had set out, about day-break, there was
a great earthquake, for the angel of the Lord descended from
heaven, and having rolled away the great stone from the door of
the tomb, sat upon it. For fear of him, the soldiers that watched
trembled, and became as dead men. At this time our Lord arose.
Matthew xxviu. 2, 3, 4.
3. As the women drew near the sepulchre, they said among
themselves, who shall roll away for us the stone from the door of
the sepulchre ; but when they looked, they saw that it had been

566 ALLEGED CONTRADICTIONS OF SCRIPTURE.
already rolled away. The time when they arrived at the sepul
chre was sunrise. Mark xvi. 2, 3, 4.
4. As soon as Mary Magdalene saw that the stone was re
moved, without staying or inquiring farther she left her compa
nions there, and hastily ran back to tell Peter and John that the
body had been taken away, John xx. 1, 2. John notices none
of the women except Mary Magdalene, but his language implies
that there were others — " We know not where they have laid him,"
XX. 2.
5. The two women now ventured into the sepulchre, where
they beheld the angel sitting at the door of the tomb on the stone,
and they were afraid. But the angel said unto them — " Be not
affrighted ; ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified : he
is risen ; he is not here : behold the place where they laid him.
But go your way, tell his disciples, and Peter, that he goeth
before you into Galilee : there shall ye see him, as he said unto
you," Mark xvi. 5, 6, 7, and Matthew xxviii. 5, 6, 7. The angel
spoken of in Matthew and Mark is the same.*
6. When the angel had uttered these words, the two women
fled from the sepulchre with fear and great joy to tell the disciples
of Christ (Matt, xxviu. 8) ; " neither said they any thing to any
man ; for they were afraid," Mark xvi. 8.
7. Mary Magdalene having come to Peter and John, says to
them, " They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre,
and we know not where they have laid him," John xx. 2.
8. In consequence of Mary Magdalene's report, Peter and John
came running to the sepulchre. John outran Peter, and arrived
first. He stooped down, looked into the tomb, and saw the
linen clothes lying, but did not go in. Peter entered into the
tomb, and saw the linen clothes lying in one place, and the nap
kin carefully folded in another. Encouraged by this, John en
tered also, and saw that he had not been taken away, but that
he had risen from the dead ; and he believed in the Scriptures.
Then the disciples returned to their home without seeing any
angel. John xx. 3-10.
9. Mary Magdalene returned to the sepulchre to mourn in
solitude over the removal of the body. As she stood without the
door of the tomb weeping, she stooped and looked into it. There
* The circumstances mentioned by Dr. Hales to shew ttiat they were different are
insufficient for that purpose. See his Clironology, \ o), iii, pp, 217, 8. 2d ed. Lond.
1830.

DISCBEPANCIE.S BETWEEN THE NEW TESTAMENT WRITERS.

567

she saw two angels in white sitting, one at the head, and the
other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain. " And they
say unto her. Woman, why weepest thou ? She saith unto them.
Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where
they have laid him." (John xx. 13.) On turning herself back,
she saw Jesus standing, but did not know that it was he. Mis
taking him for the gardener, she said, " Sir, if thou have borne
him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him
away." fv. 15.) But when the Saviour addressed her by name
in his well-known tone of voice, she recognised her Lord and
Master, and fell at his feet. This was the first appearance of
Jesus after his resurrection. He shewed himself first to Mary
Magdalene. John xx. 11-17.
10. After this she goes to tell the disciples that she had seen the
Lord, and that he had spoken these things unto her. John xx. 18.
1 1 . As the other Mary and Salome were returning from the
sepulchre to tell the disciples, Mary Magdalene joined them, and
" Jesus met them, saying, All hail ! And they came and held
him by the feet, and worshipped him. Then said Jesus unto
them. Be not afraid ; go tell my brethren that they go into Ga
lilee, and there shall they see me." Matt, xxviu. 9, 10.
12. While the three women were hastening to the apostles
with the joyful news of their Lord's resurrection, the soldiers
came unto the city, and told the chief priests all that had hap
pened. The elders then assembled, and after consulting together
gave a large bribe to the soldiers, that they might report, that
his disciples had come and stolen Jesus away by night while they
slept. So they took the money, and did as they were instructed;
and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this
day. Matt, xxviu. 11-15.
13. Another party of women, of whom the chief was Joanna
wife of Chuza Herod's steward, now visit the sepulchre. This
company appear to have set out about the same time with the
other. Their later coming to the tomb may be accounted for by
the delay naturally attending the collecting of a large company
through different quarters of the city. On their arrival, they
entered into the tomb, but found not the body of Jesus. During
their perplexity the two angels stood beside them, and addressed
them in language similar to that which they had already spoken
to the first party. And they returned and told the disciples, but
their testimony was not believed. Luke xxiv. 1-11.

568

ALLEGED CONTRADICTIONS OF SCRIPTURE.

14. The joint reports of all the women deUvered to the apos
tles are stated together in Luke xxiv. 10, though they were not
properly simultaneous.
15. On hearing the affirmations of so many witnesses, Peter
arose and ran again to the sepulchre, but he saw none of the
angels. Luke xxiv. 12.
16. It is probable that the first of the men to whom our Sa
viour appeared was Peter. Luke xxiv. 34, and 1 Cor. xv. 4, 5.
17. Our Lord next appeared to two of the disciples as they
journeyed to Emmaus, a village near Jerusalem. Luke xxiv.
13-27. Such is a connected and consecutive view of the principal cir
cumstances connected with the resurrection of our Saviour, formed
from a careful and repeated examination of the four evangelists.
Among the difficulties involved in the narratives, the greatest
appears to lie in the 23d chapter of Luke, 55th and 56th verses.
A number of our Lord's Galilean friends followed after and be
held the sepulchre, and how the body was laid. Matthew and
Mark specify only the two Marys (Matt, xxvii. 6 1 ; Mark xv.
47) ; but Luke's language includes others (xxiii. 55.) The 56th
verse of Luke, 23d chapter, shews that women returned to pre
pare spices and ointments, which they did before the Sabbath
came, and rested on that day according to the commandment.
It appears, however, from Mark xvi. 1, that the Sabbath was
past before Mary Magdalene and the other Mary and Salome had
bought their sweet spices. Matthew xxvii. 61 must consequently
imply, that the two Marys staid behind at the sepulchre, till it
was too late to procure spices before the Sabbath began. Look
ing at these several particulars, some have supposed that the
women alluded to in Luke xxiii. 55 and 5Q were distinct par
ties, and have paraphrased thus : " Some women [yuvatxig, not
a/ yuval'xtg] of those that had come with him from GaUlee fol
lowed after, &c. ; but others l&XXai understood] returning, pre
pared spices and ointments." Surely this is strained and unna
tural. It is not necessary to suppose that Luke meant to include
in his words Mary Magdalene, the other Mary, and Salome. In
deed the 56th verse shews that they were not reckoned. The
same persons that returned and prepared spices are also the wo
men that came with Jesus from Galilee.
Mark xv. 47 merely mentions that Mary Magdalene and Mary
the mother of Joses beheld where the body was laid ; Luke states,

DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE NEW TESTAMENT WRITERS. 569
that the GaUlean women did so. Matthew is more expUcit, and
mentions that Mary Magdalene and the other Mary sat over
against the sepulchre, even after Joseph had rolled a great stone
to the door of it and departed, xxvu. 61.
It need occasion no perplexity to observe, that Matthew and
Mark mention but one angel ; Luke and John two. The angel
mentioned by the first two evangelists was the angel that terri
fied the Roman guard, rolled away the stone from the door of
the tomb, sat on it, and addressed Mary the mother of James
and Salome. The two angels mentioned by Luke and John were
seen by Mary Magdalene on her return to the sepulchre ; and
after that by Joanna and the other women with her. The two
angels were seen in the Tdcpog or tomb, where the body had lain ;
the one angel was seen in the fivnfLiiov or sepulchre, at the door
of the rdfog. Probably the latter angel had removed from the
outside to the interior of the tomb between the visit of Mary and
Salome and the second visit of Mary Magdalene.*
In connexion with the resurrection of Christ, we shall notice
another point deserving attention. In Matthew xii. 40 it is
written : " For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the
whale's belly, so shall the son of man be three days and three
nights in the heart of the earth." But from the sacred narrative
it appears, that our Lord was in the grave only two nights, an en
tire day, and two parts of a day. He was crucified on Friday
about the third hour (nine o'clock, a. m.), and rose on Sunday
before sun-rise ; so that the interval did not amount in reality to
two entire days or 48 hours. How then can Matthew's words,
first quoted, be true? The enemies of Christianity have pro
duced the objection, and urged the inconsistency of the Scripture
account with itself. But they have shewn their ignorance of the
Hebrew computation, by transferring our mode of reckoning to
New Testament times.
The Hebrews began their civil day with the evening. Thus,
Gen. i. 5; Daniel viii. 14 ; Levit. xxiii. 32, " Evening and morn-
* The limits of the present work have permitted nothing more than the preceding
summary, unaccompanied by such arguments and grounds as are sufficient to justify
its truth and correctness. A refutation of the objections to which it is exposed, with
the reasons of all the particulars it includes, belongs to a harmony of the gospels, not
to a work on Hermeneutics. Let the reader consult Townson's " Discourse on the
Evangelical History, from the Interment to the Ascension of our Lord and Saviour
Jesus' Clirist," pp. 261-418 ; Greswell's Harmony, with the Dissertations ; West on
the Resurrection ; and Newcome's Harmony.
4 C

570

ALLEGED CONTRADICTIONS OF SCRIPTURE.

ing," was a phrase expressive of a civil or calendar day, because
it was made up of the two parts, or the kindred " day and night."
So Gen. vu. 4; 1 Sam. xxx. 12; Exodus xxiv. 18. The Greeks
expressed this by one compound term vux^rifiisov, but the Hebrews
had no such complex term in their language. The latter either
employed day simply, or which is more precise and unambigu
ous, the circumlocutory day and night. When, therefore, it is
said in Matthew's gospel, that the Son of man should be three
days and three nights in the heart of the earth, nothing more is
meant than three civil days.
It is also to be noted, that the concluding and commencing
days were not necessarily entire, but may have heen fractions of
days. Besides, as our Saviour was interred on Friday before the
evening or sun-set, the evening or night preceding must be reck
oned along with that day. He was in the grave all Friday night
and Saturday, Saturday night and part of the next morning,
which morning, with the preceding evening, makes up the third
day. Thus, in conformity with the usual Jewish reckoning, he
is said to have been three days and three nights in the bosom of
the earth.
But the words of Mark may be thought more difficult of con
ciliation with the facts of the case, viii. 31 — " and after three
days rise again." The phrase, after three days, requires expla
nation. It does not mean after the completion oi three days ;
for, according to the principle already developed, it was usual
for the Hebrews to reckon a whole day, although a part of it
might be strictly meant. Hence three days do not require us to
understand three entire days ; the third might be a fraction.
Agreeably to this mode of reckoning, it was common in the He
brew and Greek languages to say, that a thing was done after a
certain number of days, months, or years, although it was trans
acted on the last day, month, or year. So Deuteron. xiv. 28,
where the Septuagint has, f^ird rgia 'irn. When we compare this
with Deuteron. xxvi. 12, we see, that the tithing of all the tithes
of the increase was made in the third year. Again, in compa
ring Deuteron. xv. 1 with Levit. xxv. 4, we find that the year of
release began with the seventh year; but inDeuteron. xxxi. 10,
it is said to be " at the end of every seven years." In this re
spect t^iTa corresponds with the Hebrew prefix Q, as may be seen
irom. the use of the latter in Deuteron. xiv. 28 ; xxxi. 10.
In conformity with this method of computation, the Jews re-

DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE NEW TESTAMENT WRITERS. 571
quested Pilate to command, that a watch should be kept lug rrjg
T^iTng Tifjuigag, though they informed him, as stated in the pre
vious verse, of Christ's own saying, that he should rise after three
days (fhiTd Tgug ^f/y£gag.) Thus the expression after three days
was understood by the Jews to signify, on the third day.
StUl farther ; it is eleven times* stated in the New Testament,
that our Lord was to rise again, or had risen the third day.
This is the usual phrase. Hence it is natural to explain the
rarer mode of expression in accordance with that which is most
common and unambiguous.
Several learned translators have proposed to render the prepo
sition f/,iTd in such a connection by within. This conveys the
idea very clearly to an English reader. Dr. Hales prefers an
other rendering — " three days after." This contains an awkward
transposition, and has no advantage, in perspicuity, over the
rendering of our received version.
Luke i. 33. " And he shall reign over the house of Jacob
for ever ; and of his kingdom there shall be no end."
1 Cor. XV. 24. " Then cometh the end, when he shall have
delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father ; when he shall
have put down all rule and all authority and power."
The kingdom of Christ consists of two branches or depart
ments, one of which has respect to his enemies, the other to his
saints. At his ascension he was invested with dominion over all
principalities and powers for the benefit of the church, until all
its foes should be subdued, and the last great enemy, death, for
ever destroyed. But when he has put down all principality and
rule opposed to Himself and his people, the purposes of this
branch of his kingdom are accomplished. Accordingly he de
livers it up to the Father. He reigns no longer over the ene
mies of his church, because they are for ever subdued. His
people are freed from their last foe, death being swallowed up
in victory. But his dominion over the saints continues. He is
ever king of the redeemed. As regards them, his throne shall
endure for ever and ever. The passage in Luke has reference
to the one branch of his kingdom — to that dominion over the
saints, which is his peculiar prerogative. The words in the
epistle to the Corinthians regard the other branch of the king
dom. The expression the end seems solely to respect the king-
* Matthew xvi, 21 ; xvii. 23; xx, 19; Mark ix, 31 ; .v, 34; Luke ix. 22; xviii.
33 ; xxiv, 7, 46 ; Acts x, 40 ; 1 Cor, xv. 4.

572 ALLEGED CONTRADICTIONS OF SCRIPTURE,
dom which Christ wiU'deUver up at this time, — the termination
of that authority which he exercised over his and the church's
enemies. The kingdom will have an end when he delivers it up
to the Father. The translation of orav ira^ahu should be, " when
he delivers up," not, " when he shall have delivered up." " The
word ira^ah^," says Gipps, " which our translator renders shall
have delivered up, in the future past time, occurs, I beUeve, in
seventeen other passages in the New Testament, in the same
tense, in twelve of which the delivering is not past, but either
takes place at the time, or is future, viz. Matt. v. 25 twice, and
X. 4, and xxvi. 16 ; Mark xiv. 10, 11 ; Luke xu. 58, and xxii. 4
and 6 ; John xiu. 2 ; 1 Cor. v. 5 ; xiu. 3. In the five other pas
sages the delivering has taken place before the time therein sig
nified. Matt. xxvu. 4 ; Mark iv. 29 ; Luke i. 2 ; Acts xii. 4 ;
Gal. ii. 20. I cannot find one passage in which it is translated
shall have given up."
This view of the passage in Corinthians is consonant with the
context, which speaks of the enemies of Christ and his people.
Opposing rule, authority, and power are said to be put down,
and the last enemy subjugated. Those who expound it of the
mediatorial kingdom of Christ, appear to mistake the true aim
of the apostle. It is highly probable that the mediatorial reign
of the Saviour wUl never end. To limit the phrase for ever, or
for ever and ever, which is applied in various places to Christ
as priest and king, by the difficult passage before us, is some
what hazardous. We prefer expounding what is ambiguous in
another method, without assigning it such supremacy as to lower
the import and lessen the duration of terms expressing infinity.*
John i. 21. " And they asked him. What then? Art thou
EUas ? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet ? And
he answered. No."
Matthew xi. 14. " And if ye will receive it, this is EUas,
which was for to come."
John the Baptist was called Elias because he was endued with
the same " spirit and power" as the Old Testament prophet.
The character and temperament of both were remarkably similar.
Hence Malachi speaks of John under the title of Elias ; and our
Saviour, alluding to the prediction, says, that the Baptist was
the Elias foretold as the herald of Messiah. Yet it is self-evi-
* See Gipps' masterly treatise on the first resurrection (12mo, London, 1831),
notes Q and E, pp. 46- jl.

DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE NEW TESTAMENT WRITERS. 573
dent that John the Baptist was not literally EUas. When in
terrogated by the Jews as to his identity with that prophet, John
plainly denied he was such, lest they should take up a false opi
nion concerning him. He desired to give no occasion to miscon
ception on their part ; nor would he allow them to entertain an
incorrect idea of his person without seeking to remove it.
John V. 31. " If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not
true." John viii. 14. ""Jesus answered and said unto them. Though
I bear record of myself, yet my record is true."
The former passage is not incompatible with the latter. In
repelling the insinuations of the Jews, and demonstrating his di
vine commission, Christ reasoned with them on their own prin
ciples. " If I alone bear witness of myself, my witness is not
true." In ordinary cases a man's testimony concerning himself
is invalid. Hence Jesus, accommodating himself to a principle
sanctioned by the law and acted on by men, admits, that were
he to attest his own Messiahship, his evidence should not be re
ceived as true. In the latter text, the Saviour states absolutely,
that even though he did bear record of himself, his record was
true notwithstanding. He was not to be judged after the man
ner of a common man. His case was not analogous to that of
others. He was truth itself. Possessing all knowledge and
perfection, his attestation to his own character challenged the
impUcit credence of all. It needed no other confirmation ; the
nature of the Being from whom it proceeded evidenced its in
trinsic completeness, no less than its authority.
In the former case Christ was willing to allow for the time,
in order to convince the Jews, that if he alone bore testimony to
himself, the testimony would not be vaUd; in the latter, he
placed the matter on its own independent basis, affirming, that
though he did testify of himself he should be believed, because
his character was such as to warrant the immediate reception of
his statements by all intelUgent creatures in heaven and on earth.
John V. 37, 38. " And the Father himself, which hath sent
me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice
at any time, nor seen his shape. And ye have not his word
abiding in you : for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not."
On comparing this declaration of our Lord with Matthew's
gospel, it will be seen that it was uttered subsequently to the
baptism of Jesus. The account of our Saviour's baptism is not

574

ALLEGED CONTRADICTIONS OP SCRIPTURE.

narrated by John, but by the other three evangelists. In Mat
thew iU. 16, 17, it is related,' that " when Jesus went up out of
the water, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the
Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him,
and lo a voice from heaven, saying. This is my beloved Son, in
whom I am well pleased." This was the voice of the Father ;
and yet Jesus says afterwards to the Jews, " Ye have neither
heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape." Dr. Campbell
gives a different translation of the passage, and is followed by
Dr. Hill in his Lectures on Divinity. The proposed translation
is the following : — " Nay, the father who hath sent me, hath
himself attested me. Did ye never hear his voice, or see his
form ; or have ye forgotten his declaration that ye believe not
him whom he hath commissioned?" Here the two clauses, which
are interrogative in the received version, appear as declarative.
A great objection to this mode of translating the passage, is the
change of subject in udog avrov, which phrase Campbell is ob
liged to refer to the Holy Ghost who descended at Christ's bap
tism. But it should manifestly refer to the Father equally with
(poivnv; " Did ye never hear his voice or see his form .¦"' Both must
relate to the one person. By reading the text interrogatively,
the voice refers to the Father, and the form to the Holy Spirit.
Hence we understand the place in the manner sanctioned by the
authorised version : " Ye have neither heard his voice at any
time," i. e. ye have not attended to* so as to obey his voice at
any time, whether the time of the baptism, or any other. The
words should not be limited to the particular period when Christ
was baptized by John. It is true that the Father then spake
audibly from heaven, but he also spake by Jesus. " The only-
begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath
declared him." " The word which ye hear," said the Saviour
to his disciples, " is not mine, but the Father's which sent
me." " He whom God hath sent, speaketh the words of God,
for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him."t The se
cond clause of the text is, ' nor seen his shape,' or rather form,
i. e. ye have not seen the Father embodied in the Son. The
Son is called the express image of the Father. " He that seeth
me," says Christ, "seeth him that sent me." " He that hath seen
me, hath seen the Father.''^ This interpretation is agreeable to
the connexion, and appears to be the simplest^
* That this signification belongs to iKcvm is evident from Galatians iv, 21,
t John i. 18 ; xiv, 24 ; iii. 34. J John xii, 15 ; xiv, 9,

DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE NEW TESTAMENT WRITERS. 575
John xix. 17. " And he bearing his cross went forth into a
place called the place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew
Golgotha." Luke xxiii. 26. " And as they led him away, they laid hold
upon one Simon, a Cyrenian, coming out of the country, and
on him they laid the cross, that he might bear it after Jesus."
See also Matthew xxvii, 32 ; Mark xv. 21.
Jesus bore the cross part of the way, and Simon the other
part. The accounts are therefore quite consistent.
Acts i. 18. " Now this man purchased a field with the reward
of inquity ; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst,
and all his bowels gushed out."
Matthew xxvii. 5. " And he cast down the pieces of silver in
the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself."
Probably the rope by which he was suspended broke, and the
unhappy man fell down violently, the consequence of the fall
being what is mentioned in the book of the Acts, that his bowels
gushed out. The fact stated by Luke is not contradictory,
but additional to the circumstances related by Matthew. Mr.
Penn's opinion, that the verb Xaxiu or Xdg-xu, which we render
burst, coincides with the Latin verb laqueo, is too improbable
to deserve attention.
Acts ix. 7. " And the men which journeyed with him stood
speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man."
Acts xxii. 9. " And they that were with me saw indeed the
light, and were afraid ; but they heard not the voice of him that
spake to me,"
In the former passage, a voice should be the voice, as in the
latter. The meaning of dxovu in the latter, is to understand.
" They did not understand the voice of him that spake to me."
The companions of Saul heard a noise, but they did not dis
tinguish any articulate words, just as the people who stood by
and heard the voice from heaven, in answer to Jesus's prayer,
said, that it thundered, because a confused sound strucli upon
their ears.
Romans ii. 14. " For when the Gentiles which have not the
law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having
not the law, are a law unto themselves."
Ephesians u. 3. " And were by nature the children of wrath,
even as others."
When the Gentiles who are deprived of the written law per
form actions conformable to the perfect will of God, in cdnse-

576 ALLEGED CONTRADICTIONS OF SCRIPTURE.
quence of the Ught of nature within them, it shews that they have
still a remnant of original righteousness. The passage, however,
does not state that the Gentiles act up to this internal Ught. It
is the rule of their actions, though they may not perfectly follow
it. The phrase by nature, in the epistle to the Ephesians, ex
presses the natural disposition of the mind. We are incUned to
evil, and that continually. In the epistle to the Romans, the
same phrase denotes the laio of nature inscribed on the mental
constitution. Romans xiv. 5. " One man esteemeth one day above another;
another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully per
suaded in his own mind."
Galatians iv. 10, 11. " Ye observe days, and months, and
times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon
you labour in vain."
Had the persons addressed by the apostle in these two passages
belonged to the same class, the language he employs, varying as
it does in both, would be inexplicable. But the converts spoken
of are different. In the former he alludes to Jewish converts, in
reference to whom he writes, that their tenderness of conscience
should be regarded. Accustomed as they were to conformity with
the law of Moses, they were not brought at once to renounce the
observance of days, but still adhered to many of their former prac
tices from a jealous regard to the divine precepts. They were not
comprehensively enlightened to know, that Christianity abolished
such ordinances of the flesh ; though their scruples exhibited a
spirit truly commendable. The apostle, in writing to heathen
converts to the Christian religion, who, from their position, had
no such ideas respecting festivals or carnal observances, exhorts
them not to despise or condemn Jewish converts exhibiting these
religious scruples, but to deal tenderly with them. He reminds
them that their brethren did not set aside any command of Hea
ven ; but that in submitting to circumcision in conformity with
the law of Moses, they were doing what was lawful.
In the latter passage, the apostle addresses Gentile converts.
The Galatians, after their conversion, had been corrupted by Ju
daising teachers, who persuaded them to keep the Mosaic law,
and entangled them in a yoke of bondage. It was even incul
cated by the corrupt teachers, that the ordinances of a former
dispensation were necessary to justification. In this manner the
gospel was virtually undermined, — the works of the law being

DISCREPANCIES BETW^EEN THE NEW TESTAMENT WRITERS. 577
substituted for the faith which justifies. Hence the inspired wri
ter condemns their sinful adoption of the Mosaic law as danger
ous and delusive. '
1 Cor. viii. 8-13. " But meat commendeth us not to God :
for neither if we eat, are we the better ; neither, if we eat not, are
we the worse."
1 Cor. X. 20, 21. " But I say that the things which the Gen
tiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God : and I would
not that ye should have fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink
the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils : ye cannot be par
takers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils."
In the former passage, the apostle combats the arguments of
those who maintained that they were at liberty to eat any food,
because they were so far advanced in knowledge as to be fully
persuaded that an idol was nothing. Such Christians insisted on
the fact, that the kingdom of God does not consist in meat or
drink ; that it is a spiritual thing. The inspired writer does not
stop to contend with them respecting the correctness or truth of the
abstract principle. He concedes their assumptions in the mean
time, that he may prove the ftitility of their plea. He is con
tented to take lower ground. He shews the inexpediency of the
practice. The weaker brethren with whom they associated would
be seriously injured. The liberty which they claimed would affect
the consciences of the more ignorant.
In the latter, the same apostle takes the highest ground, and
asserts the absolute sinfulness of the practice of eating meat which
had been offered in sacrifice to idols. It implies, he argues, com
munion with idols. It dishonours the supreme God, and defiles
the consciences of his servants. It is a virtual attempt at serv
ing two masters, which is impossible. Accordingly the writer
declares, that it is contrary to the law of God.
The two places mutually illustrate one another. In the one,
Paul concedes, for the sake of argument, the allegation of the
better-informed among the Corinthians, and simply shews that
the principle they contended for could not be carried out without
doing injury to weak Christians. In the other, he asserts the
abstract impropriety of the thing.
1 Cor. X. 13. " God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be
tempted above that ye are able."
2 Cor. i. 8. " We were pressed out of measure, above strength,
insomuch that we despaired even of Ufe."
4 D

578 ALLEGED CONTRADICTIONS OF SCRIPTURE.
The faithfulness of God is pledged to the support of his
people. He will not suffer them to be tempted above what he
enables them to bear. He knows the strength of their faith, and
will not put it to a test too severe. When the apostle declares,
that he was exceedingly pressed with troubles above strength,
he means, above that strength which he possessed in himself
apart from the succours of the divine presence. He was sorely
tried, far beyond his natural strength ; but the Lord upheld him.
1 Cor. X. 33. " Even as I please aU men in aU things, not
seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may
be saved."
Gal. i. 10. " For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I
seek to please men ? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be
the servant of Christ."
The context of the former passage determines and limits the
nature of that compliance with the will of others which the apos
tle allowed himself to yield. It was such as tended to the profit
of many that they might be saved. He denied himself, that
the peace and salvation of others might be promoted. He nobly
sacrificed the interests of self, that God might be glorified in the
conversion of men. In the latter passage, the same writer is com
bating the calumnies of the false teachers directed against him
self. These Judaisers alleged that the apostle's aim was to in
gratiate himself with men — to seek their favour and approbation
rather than the favour of God. In opposing such accusations he
argues, that if he still endeavoured to promote the designs of men,
as he did before his conversion, he could not be the servant of
Christ. No man can serve two masters. He could not serve
God and man at the same time. It is manifest, therefore, that
while the apostle endeavoured to please men, as far as this could
be done without sin, he all the while opposed their corrupt in
clinations. His commission was from above, and could not be
subordinated to the caprices of mortals ; else instead of advancing
the interests of the gospel, he should have injured the great cause
of righteousness. " The former," says Mr. Fuller, " is that sweet
inoffensiveness of spirit which teaches us to lay aside all self-will
and self-importance, that charity which ' seeketh not her own,'
and ' is not easily provoked.' But the latter spirit referred to is
that sordid compUance with the corruptions of human nature, of
which flatterers and deceivers have always availed themselves.

DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE NEW TESTAMENT WRITERS. 579
not for the glory of God and the good of men, but for the pro
motion of their own selfish designs." *
1 Cor. xi. 5. " But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth
with her head uncovered," &c.
1 Cor. xiv. 34. " Let your women keep silence in the churches ;
for it is not permitted unto them to speak," &c.
" We must explain," says Neander, " this apparent contradic
tion by supposing, that Paul only refers in 1 Cor. xi. 5, for the
sake of example, to what was going on in the Corinthian church,
reserving his denunciation of it to the proper place."
Galatians vi. 2. " Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fiil-
fil the law of Christ."
Galatians. vL 5. " For every man shall bear his own burden."
The term burden in the two places is not expressive of the
same idea. In the former, it denotes the grievances and trials
which Christians meet with in the world, and of which their
feUow- Christians should relieve them, as far as their opportuni
ties permit. In the latter, it signifies responsibility connected
with the judicial procedure of God. Every one at the judgment
day must bear the sentence which his character warrants. The
Greek word in both places is not the same.
Heb. xi. 33. " Who through faith  obtained promises."
Heb. xi. 39. " And these all  received not the promise."
In the latter passage the term promise denotes the promised
blessing, viz. the Messiah. The patriarchs under the Old Tes
tament received many promises, both of a spiritual and temporal
nature ; but the glorious substance and fulfilment of all the spiri
tual promises, they were not permitted to see.
1 John i. 8. " If we say that we have no sin, we deceive our
selves, and the truth is not in us."
1 John iii. 9. " Whosoever is born of God doth not commit
sin ; for his seed remaineth in him : and he cannot sin, because
he is born of God."
There is an emphasis in the verb iroiiu occurring in the latter
text. It denotes the habitual working of sin. Whoever is re
generated by the Spirit of God does not work out sin, because
the incorruptible seed of grace remains within him. But it is
added in still stronger terms, " he cannot sin, because he is born
of God." Perhaps the words of the apostle Paul may serve to
throw some Ught on the meaning of this clause : " I am crucified
* Works, vol. iii. pp. 595, 6.

580 ALLEGED CONTRADICTIONS OF SCRIPTURE.
with Christ : nevertheless I Uve ; yet not I, but Christ liveth in
me ; and the life which I now live in the flesh, I live by the faith
of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me."
Here the renewed man is viewed in various aspects, and separated
as it were into different compartments. / am crucified, says the
writer ; the pronoun / representing the old man or the flesh.
Nevertheless I live. The same pronoun symbolises the spirit
or the renewed man. The apostle adds, apparently by way of
correction, yet not I, but Christ liveth in me ; i. e. it is not so
much any principle or element belonging to myself that lives, as
it is Christ who Uves in me, informing and actuating the whole
man by his almighty agency. If, then, Christ lives in the be
liever, the beUever cannot sin so far as he is thus influenced. In
so far forth as Christ, rather than the renewed nature, is the pre
siding activity within, the man cannot commit iniquity. But
the old man, the flesh, wars against the spirit, — and the flesh sins.
Man, however, with his complex constitution, may be popularly
and properly said to transgress. All his feeUngs are intermingled ;
— and although one part of his constitution be viewed separately
from another, he is possessed of an unity which constitutes a
single person. Others interpret, he cannot sin in the manner of
unregenerate men ; neither can he heartily persevere in sin.
III. Contradictions between the Old and New Testament
writers. Genesis xii. 1 . " Now the Lord had said unto Abram, Get
thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy
father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee."
Acts vii. 2. " The God of glory appeared unto our father
Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in
Charran," &c.
Dr. Hales supposes, that Abraham received two calls, the
former of which is omitted in the Old Testament, but preserved
in the New. The first call is supposed to be described in Acts
vu. 2-4 — the second in the book of Genesis xu. 1. He is sup
posed to have received the first at Ur of the Chaldees — the
second at Charran, on the death of Terah.
We greatly doubt the accuracy of this solution, notwithstand
ing Hales's ingenious attempt to support it. The similarity of
the phraseology appears to recommend the identity of the calls,
and other circumstances corroborate the same view.

DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT WRITERS. 58 1
In Genesis xi. 3 1 there is a very brief notice of Abraham's
departure out of his own country, with an account of Terah's
death. Moses then subjoins, at Genesis xii. 1, &c. a fuller ac
count of Abraham's movements. He resumes what he had just
touched upon before, and narrates it more in detail. We believe,
therefore, that the EngUsh version is correct in its rendering,
" the Lord had saicT (Gen. xii. 1.) The Lord had said to
Abraham when he was yet in Chaldea, " Get thee out of thy
country," &c. Thus the one call is spoken of in Gen. xu. and
in Acts vu. The fourth verse of the 1 2th chapter of Genesis
should stand thus : " So Abram departed, as the Lord had spoken
unto him ; and Lot went with him. And Abram was seventy
and five years old when he departed out of Haran." The nar
rative in Genesis xiL 1-4, is an expansion of what was briefly
noticed in Gen. xi. 31, 32 ; but at the last clause of the 4th verse
it is continued with new circumstances.
Genesis xv. 13. " Know of a surety that thy seed shall be
a stranger in a land that is not their's, and shall serve them ; and
they shall afflict them four hundred years."
Galatians iii. 17. "And this I say, that the covenant that
was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four
hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should
make the promise of none effect."
In Genesis, the time is dated from Isaac's birth — in Gala
tians, from the date of Abram's call.
Genesis xxu. 1. "It came to pass after these things, that
God did tempt Abraham."
James i. 13. " God cannot be tempted of evil, neither tempteth
he any man."
When God is said to tempt Abraham, the expression means
nothing more than he tried him. He put his virtue to the test.
He meant to bring his faith into contact with opposing circum
stances, that it might be seen in its genuine purity and strength.
So the Lord continues to prove his people. He brings out their
graces by the force of adversity ; he purges away their dross, and
teaches them their entire dependence on himself for all their
integrity of principle. But temptation also denotes enticement
to sin. Dangerous allurements are set before us, which draw
the soul into a snare. In this sense Jehovah tempts no man.
He does not draw him into sin. He presents to him no seduc
tions to lead him astray. On the contrary, he commands him

582 ALLEGED CONTRADICTIONS OF SCRIPTURE.
to guard against all such temptations. In the former case, God
acts upon the good which he himself has implanted. In the
other, evil acts upon the evil nature of man. In the one case,
the object of trial is to purify, refine, and strengthen; — in the
other, to betray, seduce, and destroy. The one comes from
Heaven, — the other from Satan.
Genesis xlvi. 26, 27. " All the souls that came with Jacob
into Egypt, which came out of his loins, besides Jacob's sons'
wives, all the souls were threescore and six. And the sons of
Joseph, which were born him in Egypt, were two souls : all the
souls of the house of Jacob, which came into Egypt, were three
score and ten."
Acts vii. 14. " Then sent Joseph, and called his father Jacob
to him, and all his kindred, threescore and fifteen souls."
The Septuagint has 75 in Genesis xlvi. 27 ; and some recon
cile the difference between the numbers in the Old and New
Testament by saying, that Stephen quoted from this version.
But still Stephen must have been correct, for it is written by in
spiration that the number of souls was 75. The Old Testament
text has only 70, and there is no reason to doubt its correctness.
The number 66 is thus made out : —
Jacob's children, eleven sons and one daughter, 12
Reuben's sons (verse 9), - - - 4
Simeon's sons (verse 10), - - - - 6
Levi's sons (verse 1 1), - - - - 3
Judah's sons (verse 12), three, and two grandsons, 5
Issachar's sons (verse 13), - . - 4
Zebulun's sons (verse 14), - - - - 3
Gad's sons (verse 16), - - - - 7
Asher's sons (verse 17), - - - - 4
Asher's one daughter and two grandsons, - 3
Dan's son (verse 23), . _ . . l
Naphtali's sons (verse 24), . - . 4
Benjamin's sons (verse 21), - - - 10
66
We collect the number 70, by adding to the 66 Jacob himself,
Joseph, and his two sons born in Egypt.
These threescore and ten are said by Moses " to have come
into Egypt," although Ephraim and Manasseh were born there.

DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT WRITERS. 583
The two sons of Joseph " came out of Jacob's loins," and really
belonged to Canaan while they Uved as strangers in the land of
Egypt. In this statement the wives of Jacob's sons are omitted.
They amounted to nitie. Judah's wife was dead ; so also was
Simeon s ; and Joseph's wife was already in Egypt. These nine,
added to 66, make 75, the number given in the Acts of the
Apostles. Such is the method of accounting for the difference proposed
by Dr. Hales. The number nine is added to make out the 75,
because Stephen specifies all the kindred (mdgav Tr\v guyyivuav) of
Jacob, and it is subjoined to 66, not 70, because Joseph's two
sons were not yet born, and Joseph could not be said to call him
self to Egypt, being already in the land. Jacob is not included
in the 75, because he is separately specified by Stephen. The
Greek should therefore be xai irdgav rriv guyyivuav aurov iv -^vyaig
'ifihofi-fixovTa irivTi, without a comma after aurou, lest Jacob him
self be numbered among the 75. Lachmann has rightly expun
ged the comma after airou, or, (as the pronoun is spurious)
after guyyivuav; Knapp has injudiciously retained it. De Dieu
long ago objected to the Ethiopic version for reckoning Jacob
among the 75 souls. See his Critica Sacra (Amstel. 1693, fol.)
p. 552. Hammond and Wetstein, followed by Dr. Bloomfield, adopt
another mode of conciliation. According to them, Luke quotes
from the Septuagint, which has 75, not 70, as in the Hebrew.
The additional five are supposed to be the sons of Manasseh and
Ephraim, which the translators took from 1 Chron. viL 14, though
they are not set down by Moses, because they were not then
born. To this solution the words of the 14th verse are adverse:
" Then sent Joseph and called his father Jacob to him, and all
his kindred, threescore and fifteen souls," i. e. Joseph sent for and
brought down into Egypt his father, and all his kindred. But
this could not apply to Joseph's own sons any more than to him
self. Besides, according to Hammond's view, Jacob's sons' wives
are excluded, although they should be properly comprehended
in the phrase, all his kindred.
Exodus xxx. 6. " And thou shalt put it (the altar of incense)
before the vaU that is by the ark of the testimony, before the
mercy-seat that is over the testimony, where I will meet with
thee."

584 ALLEGED CONTRADICTIONS OF SCRIPTURE.
Hebrews ix. 6, 7. " Now, when these things were thus or
dained, the priests went always into the first tabernacle, accom-
pUshing the service of God. But into the second went the high
priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered
for himself, and for the errors of the people."
Some have needlessly thought, that there is an opposition be
tween these two places. This arises from not properly under
standing verse 6 of Gen. xxx. Before the mercy-seat, or over
against the mercy-seat, does not mean in the holy of holies.
From erroneously assuming that the altar of incense was directed
to be placed, according to this language, within the holy of
holies, the text has been pronounced corrupt; and Dr. Kennicott
has suggested such alterations as he thinks necessary to render
the whole clear and consistent. His conjectures are altogether
superfluous. In the first place, the altar of incense is to be put
" over against the vail that overhangs the ark of testimony ;"
and then more specifically " over against the mercy-seat covering
the law." This does not imply that the altar of incense was to
be placed on the same side of the vail as the mercy-seat. We
know from other passages, that it was fixed without the vail.
It was opposite to the lid of the ark, but on the other side of the
vail. Exodus xxxiu. 11. " And the Lord spake unto Moses face
to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend."
John i. 18. " No man hath seen God at any time."
The personage who spake to Moses on this occasion was the
Son, who, as in other passages, is styled Jehovah. The apostle
speaks of Deity in the abstract, or the Godhead — of God the
Father, as distinguished from the Son who assumed huma
nity. Numbers xxii. 5. Here Balaam is said to be the son of Beor.
2 Peter ii. 15. Here he is called the son of Bosor.
The words the son, in the latter place, are not in the original.
Balaam belonged to the city Pethor in Mesopotamia. In pro
cess of time this city came to be called Bosor by the Syrians.
" Balaam of Bosor" signifies, therefore, belonging to Bosor.
Numbers xxv. 9. " And those that died in the plague were
twenty and four thousand."
1 Cor. X. 8. " And fell in one day three and twenty thou
sand." According to Grotius, the number given by the apostle is the

DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT WRITERS. 585
number of those who feU exclusively by the plague ; while Mo
ses includes in the 24,000, the thousand who feU by the sword
of Phinehas and the Judges. Yet the inspired narrative in Num
bers says, " And those that died in the plague were twenty and
four thousand ;" whereas according to this solution it should be,
" those that died in the plague and by the sword."
Moses and Paul seem both to give a round number instead of
the more exact. A multitude between 23,000 and 24,000 fell.
The Old Testament writer gives the approximative round num
ber above the specific one ; — the New Testament writer, the
proximate round number below it. So Calvin.
Deuteronomy x. 22.
Acts vii. 14.
See above, pp. 582, 583.
Mark u. 26. " How he went into the house of God in the
days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread,
which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to
them which were with him."
In 1 Samuel xxi. 1, &c., the fact is said to have happened in
the high priesthood of Ahimelech, not Abiathar.
The words of St. Mark do not mean in the priesthood of
Abiathar, which would unquestionably be their sense if the ar
ticle were wanting before d^-xji^iug. The presence of the article
corresponds with the idea, that Abiathar may not have been in
office at the period in question. The meaning of the phrase is, in
the time q/" Abiathar, who was subsequently distinguished for
the sacerdotal office. Similar is the phraseology, Jesse begat
David the king. So also in John xi. 2 we find Mag/a jj dXii-^aga,
Mary that anointed, though the act of anointing was subsequent.
The reference in the passage before us is to the days of Abiathar
the well-known high priest, without implying the actual exer
cise of the priestly office at the period mentioned.
Acts vn. 15, 16. " So Jacob went down into Egypt, and died,
he, and our fathers ; and were carried over into Sychem, and laid
in the sepulchre that Abraham bought for a sum of money of the
sons of Emmor the father of Sychem."
Gen. xxiu. 16, 17 ; 1. 13 ; Joshua xxiv. 32.
It appears from the Old Testament that Jacob was not buried
at Sychem, but in the cave of the field of Machpelah which Abra
ham bought of Ephron the Hittite. Besides, Abraham did not
purchase the parcel of ground in Sychem here mentioned ; but
4 E

586 ALLEGED CONTRADICTIONS OF SCRIPTURE.
Jacob bought it of the sons of Hamor the father of Shechem
(Joshua xxiv. 32.)
According to the Old Testament, the patriarchs had two bury-
ing-places, one at Machpelah, where Abraham, Isaac, and Ja
cob were interred — the other at Shechem, where Joseph's bones
were laid, and which became the inheritance of his children.
It is generally supposed, that 'AjS^ad/u, is an interpolation which
has crept into the text from the margin. Some MSS. have for
it 0 irar^o rj/jMv, shewing, that at an early period the common
reading was not universal. Accordingly, some hold that this
was the original reading, which an ignorant copyist explained
in the margin by 'Aj3^ad/j,. The erroneous gloss was afterwards
transferred to the text itself. Assuming that 'A/3ga(i,tt has been
inserted in the text, the verbs iJjiTiTi6r]gav and l7-£S>)ffac must be re
ferred to o'l irarigig fifiMv only, and not to 'Iaxw/3 also. The trans
lation of the passage will then be the foUowing : " So Jacob went
down into Egypt, and died, he, and our fathers; and our fa
thers were carried over into Sychem, and laid in the sepulchre
which he (Jacob) had bought of the sons of Emmor the father of
Sychem." With this mode of explanation we are not satisfied. It is easy
at once to pronounce the text corrupt ; but in opposition to the
testimony of almost all MSS. and versions, it is unwarrantable.
It is difficult to account for the fact of the present reading being
so general, on the supposition that it is corrupt.
Those who affirm that two transactions are here confounded,
viz. the purchasing of the field of Shechem and that of Hebron,
are not to be regarded. It is better to tax ourselves with igno
rance, than the Bible with confusion. Perhaps we may find in
the present text a sense agreeing with the Old Testament his
tory. Josephus relates, that the bodies of Joseph's brethren were
buried at Hebron ; and that the Hebrews at their departure from
Egypt carried Joseph's bones into Canaan.* Hence, some pro
pose as a solution, that the preposition ira^d may signify from
among, and that after 'S.u-)(ifh should be a point (sup^E/^-). The word
d^yv^iou should also be followed by a comma. The translation
then runs thus : " So Jacob went down into Egypt and died, he
and our fathers, and were carried over into Sychem ; and from
among the sons of Emmor the father of Sychem were laid in the
sepulchre that Abraham bought for a sum of money," i. e. in the
* Antiq. Lib, ii. c, 4, p. 54, ed. Colon, 1C91.

DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT WRITERS. 587
cave of the field of Machpelah. But the preposition ira^d never
bears this signification in the New Testament. For such an
acceptation of the preposition with a genitive we have sought in
vain in classical Greek also. Kiihner, in his grammar, makes
no mention of it; neither does Passow in his Lexicon. Accord
ing to the latter, it denotes with the genitive from beside, von
Seiten. Instead of connecting ira^d with uvfigaro, we join it to
Iri^risav, and translate the verse : " And were carried over into
Sychem, and then laid in the sepulchre which Abraham bought
for a sum of money, by the sons of Emmor the father of Sy
chem." It appears, then, that the sons of the patriarchs carried
the bodies of their fathers first to Sichem, to the sons of Emmor,
where they claimed the ground formerly purchased by Jacob.
From this place they were removed to Hebron, and put, by the
assistance of the Emmorites, in the sepulchre which Abraham had
bought. A strange people were still in possession of Canaan ;
and danger might have befallen the Hebrews when they wished
to inter their fathers. Hence they prudently repaired to Sichem,
asked the cooperation of the sons of Emmor, and even entrusted
them with the whole matter, that it might be managed the more
safely. All this took place before the exodus.
We are thus freed from the forced construction which must be
adopted, even supposing 'A/3gaa^ corrupt. The history, too,
agrees with Josephus' account, that the patriarchs were interred
in Hebron. Joseph's bones were buried at Sichem, but his
brethren were interred along with their father Jacob. Josephus
furnishes the tradition of the Jews themselves ; and although it
be not found in the Old Testament narrative, it may yet be true,
especially since it is capable of being harmonised with the New
Testament. Had Stephen ventured to utter expressions so con
tradictory to the Jewish Scriptures as those in the text are
usually represented to be, his enemies would have at once de
tected the error, and accused him of falsehood. They were too
much incensed against him to let slip an opportunity of entang
ling him in his words. There is no mention of his incurring any
such censure.
Acts xiii. 20. " And after that he gave unto them judges,
about the space of four hundred and fifty years, until Samuel the
prophet." 1 Kings vi. 1. "And it came to pass in the four hundred
and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of

588 ALLEGED CONTRADICTIONS OF SCRIPTURE.
the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over
Israel," &c.
Scaliger terms the former passage crux Chronologorum ; and
well may he do so, because it is impossible to reconcile it with
the chronology of the Old Testament. But the present reading
is incorrect. Lachmann has the true reading, which runs thus :
— " And when he had destroyed seven nations in the land of
Canaan, he divided their land to them by lot about the space of
four hundred and fifty years ; and after this gave them judges
until Samuel the prophet." In this there is no difficulty.
2 Tim. iii. 12. " Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ
Jesus shall suffer persecution."
Prov. xvi. 7. " When a man's ways please the Lord, he
maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him."
The former passage speaks of the godly in reference to their
enemies — to all that are opposed to the doctrine, cause, and
people of Christ. It is the unavoidable lot of such as will live
a holy and self-denying life for the gospel's sake, to suffer perse
cution in some of its forms. The enmity of the world to God
necessarily implies and manifests such a disposition towards those
who are his devoted servants.
Proverbs xvi. 7 speaks of the Christian surrounded by enemies,
ill relation to God. Jehovah causes the foes of his servant to
be at peace. He restrains their violence, subdues their animo
sity, and does not allow it to proceed so far as to injure the spi
rituality of his people, or to retard the glory of his own name.
2 Tim. iii. 12 regards the enmity which godUness usually raises
against itself. It generally happens that the pious are disliked
and despised by the worldly. But the Lord restrains the enmity
of the latter. He exercises over it a sovereign control.
The difficulty supposed to lie in both texts has arisen from
taking them in a universal sense, as if all the godly were invariably
persecuted, or as if their foes were always turned to become their
friends. Neither statement should be urged to this universality
of application.
Hebrews ix. 4. " Which had the golden censer, and the ark
of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the
golden pot that had manna, and Aaron's rod that budded, and
the tables of the covenant."
1 Kings viii. 9. " There was nothing in the ark save the
two tables of stone, which Moses put there at Horeb," &c.

DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT WRITERS. 589
To reconcile these places, some refer iv fi to gxnvn, and not to
xi^uriv the immediate antecedent ; in which tabernacle, not i}i
which ark. This is improbable.
An attentive reader of the epistle to the Hebrews will observe,
that the reasoning of the apostle throughout the whole of it is
founded on the tabernacle and its services — not on the temple
services as instituted by David and Solomon. In 1 Kings,
chapter 8th, the temple is spoken of; — whereas the writer of the
epistle to the Hebrews speaks of the tabernacle. The pot of
manna and the rod of Aaron seem not to have been in the first
temple. There is no account of their being laid up in it ; they
were lost before it was built. In regard to the tabernacle, the
account given by Paul in the epistle to the Hebrews is consonant
with the Old Testament. See Exodus xvi. 32-34, and Num
bers xvii. 10. The pot of manna and Aaron's rod were deposited
in the ark of the covenant, before the testimony, i. e. before the
two tables of the law ; and all were laid up in the holy of holies.

Connected with the present subject, is the genealogy of Jesus
Christ, as given by Matthew and Luke. There are apparent dis
crepancies between the two evangelists themselves, and also be
tween several of their statements and the Old Testament.
Various writers have examined the genealogical accounts in
question, with a patience of investigation and a minuteness of
toil truly surprising. We have met, however, with none who
has so well, or so successfully explored them as Dr. Barrett.*
We shall, therefore, content ourselves with giving an outline of
the argument conducted by him, referring our readers for minute
details to the dissertation itself.
Before proceeding to state his own hypothesis. Dr. Barrett
mentions that of Africanus, which was adopted for many centuries.
Julius Africanus, by whom it was proposed, was contemporary
with Origen, and professes to have received his explanation of
the genealogy from our Saviour's relatives according to the flesh.
Agreeably to it, both evangelists describe the descent of Joseph
from David. A double father is assigned to Joseph, i. e. a na
tural father from Solomon, a legal father from Nathan. The
one evangelist is said to give the natural, the other the legal
* Evangelium secundum Matthseum ex codice rescripto in Bibliotheca CoUegii
SS". Trinitatis juxta Dublin. Dublinii, 1801, 4to. The essay on the genealogy
forms part second of the prolegomena.

590 ALLEGED CONTRADICTIONS OP SCRIPTURE.
genealogy of Joseph. When one died leaving a widow, his
surviving brother was required, according to the law of levirate
(Deuteron. xxv. 5, 6), to marry his widow and raise up seed to
his brother.
The objections brought against the hypothesis of Africanus
are the following : — 1st, The seed of Solomon became extinct
with Jechoniah, according to the curse pronounced in Jeremiah
xxn. 30. This objection lies against every view of the genea
logy which derives Christ from David through Solomon.
A twofold reply has been given to it.
(a) From Jeremiah xxii. 28 it appears, that Jeconiah's seed
was cast into a strange land. Thus he was not absolutely chUd-
less, but deprived of prosperous children ; as when it is denied
to Joakim that his posterity should sit on David's throne (Jerem.
xxxvi. 30), although his son Jechoniah reigned some months.
(b) The threatenings of God should be understood condition
ally. Adversity and destruction are announced against indivi
duals if they do not repent.
A second objection is, that according to this hypothesis, the
genealogical lines of two brothers, one of whom raised up seed
to the other, coalesced immediately in a common grandfather ;
whereas very many generations intervene without such coalition,
Africanus attempts to obviate this difficulty, by borrowing
Melchi from another line, who having married Estha wife of
Matthan deceased, begat Hell, But since Melchi and Matthan
were descended from different families, he gives no reason why
this marriage should be contracted. Besides, Matthan did not
die without children ; and the law demanded a nearer degree of
consanguinity to justify marriage.
Sdly, It is objected, that Africanus puts Melchi third from
the end, although all the copies of Luke put him fifth, i. e. with
Matthat and Levi between Hell and Melchi.
4thly, The hypothesis of Africanus seems untenable, because,
if it be true, there can be no certainty of the descent of Christ
from David, The advocates of it reply indeed, that when the
tribe of the husband is clearly ascertained, the tribe of his spouse
is also indicated, according to Numbers xxxvi. 8 ; Tobit i. 9.
But this law only respects virgins that possess inheritances ; and
the tribe of Levi was exempted from it as having no inheritance.
The daughters of priests, therefore, as some suppose Mary to
have been, were permitted to marry in any tribe. Levit. xxu. 12.

DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT WRITERS. 591
It further appears from the example of David marrying Saul's
daughter, that marriages might be contracted between parties
of different tribes. Hence it is thought absurd to reckon the
genealogy of Joseph alone, and to pass by that of Mary, when
Christ did not really spring from Joseph. Thus, according to
the hypothesis of Africanus, neither of the evangeUsts has de
monstrated the point which is of the greatest importance, viz.
the descent of Christ from David by natural generation.
Dr. Barrett next proceeds to develop another hypothesis, viz.
that Matthew traces the descent of Joseph from David, and that
Luke describes Mary's origin from the same personage. This
hypothesis, which has been very generally adopted by recent
writers, is embraced by him as the most probable. By means
of it we can assign a reason why Luke gives a genealogical
table in addition to Matthew, that there might be no room for
doubt or cavil respecting the descent of Christ from David,
when a perfect genealogy of him is given both on the side of his
reputed father and his real mother.
The adherents of this hypothesis are divided into two classes.
Some believe that the families of Solomon and Nathan coalesced
in Salathiel and Zorobabel, whom, as mentioned by Matthew
and Luke, they consider to be the same persons ; and that
afterwards the two lines separated, until they coalesced in the
espousal of Mary to Joseph. Others again are of opinion, that
Salathiel and Zorobabel, in Matthew and Luke, are different
persons; and deny that any coalition of the family took place be
fore the marriage of Joseph and Mary. Both classes reconcile
the sacred writers, by observing, that it is not at all surprising
to find in them different persons, and a different number of them,
since the evangelists agree neither in the terminus a quo with
which they begin, nor in the terminus in quem with which they
conclude. According to Matthew, the terminus a quo is Solo
mon ; but according to Luke, Nathan. The terminus in quem
in the former is Joseph ; in the latter, Mary.
Dr. Barrett adopts the former opinion, viz. that Salathiel and
Zorobabel, in both evangelists, are the same ; and then proceeds
to remove the difficulties attendant upon it.
With regard to the number of generations given, it is mani
fest that Luke has 77 names, including the two extremities of
the genealogical line, viz. God and Christ. This number is men
tioned several times by Augustine and other ancient writers, as

592

ALLEGED CONTRADICTIONS OF SCRIPTURE.

the exact sum of the names given by Luke. According to the
same father, from Abraham to Joseph are 55 generations ; and
from our Lord to David he says that Luke enumerates 43 gene
rations. But the testimony of Irenseus, Africanus, and Ambrose, makes
the genealogy and number in Luke to be quite different ; for, ac
cording to them, Luke enumerates from Christ to Adam 72 gen
erations. Resting upon these three ancient writers who make
72 generations to Adam, or 73 names terminating in God, Dr.
Barrett proceeds to inquire into the names that have been inter
polated in Luke, since there are 77 in the received text. There
is no interpolation from God to Abraham, nor was there any in
terpolation from Abraham to David, as is manifest from Nazian
zen and Augustine. Some copies indeed have Joram between
Aram and Esrom in verse 33 ; but it is found in very few autho
rities. In this way we are brought to the two parts of the gene
alogy intervening between David and Christ, as containing the
four interpolated names. In the 24th verse, Matthat and Levi
are supposed to be iiiterpolations — Ist, From the silence of Afri
canus ; for whilst he endeavours to reconcile the evangelists, he
puts Melchi the third from the end and the father of Eli. Thus
no room is left for Matthat and Levi, 'idly, Ambrose, Jerome,
Nazianzen, and Augustine omit them. On the other hand, it
has been observed in opposition — \st. That the testimony of these
fathers is of little moment, because they are inconsistent with
themselves. 2dly, That it is only certain that Africanus omitted
some names, but that it is wholly unknown what they were. It
is by no means certain that he omitted Matthat and Levi. Sdly,
These two are omitted in no MS. or version. From a collation of
the various readings in the verses from iii. 24-31, Barrett derives
the following conclusions : —\st, That the testimony of cod. B is
to be rejected, which omits Melchi in opposition to all MSS.,
versions, and fathers. 2dly, That Maath, Mattathias in verse 26,
Melea, and Mainan, are the four interpolated names. Thus the
genealogy consists of 72 generations, which agrees with the tes
timony of Irenseus. These are: — 1. Jesus ; 2. Joseph, (or Mary,
the daughter tov 'HXl) ; 3. Heli, who was the grandfather of
Christ; 4. Matthat; 5. Levi; 6. Melchi; 7. Janna; 8. Joseph;
9. Mattathias; 10. Amos; 11. Naum ; 12. EsU; 13. Nagge ;
14. Semei; 15. Joseph; 16.Juda; 17. Joanna; 18. Rhesa; 19.
Zorobabel; 20. Salathiel; 21. Neri ; 22. Melchi; 23. Addi ; 24.

THE GENEALOGIES OF OUR LORD IN MATTHEW AND LUKE, 593
Cosam; 25. Elmodam; 26. Er; 27. Jose; 28. Eliezer; 29. Jo-
rim ; 30. Matthat ; 31. Levi ; 32. Simeon ; 33. Juda ; 34. Joseph;
35. Jonan ; 36. Eliakim ; 37. Matthata ; 38. Nathan ; 39. David ;
40. Jesse; 41. Obed; 42. Booz ; 43. Salmon ; 44. Naasson ;
45. Aminadab; 46. Aram; 47. Esrom; 48. Phares; 49. Judah;
50. Jacob ; 51. Isaac ; 52. Abraham ; 53. Terah ; 54. Nahor ;
55. Serug; 56. Ragau; 57. Peleg ; 58. Eber; 59. Sala; 60.
Cainan ; 61. Arphaxad; 62. Shem; 63. Noah ; 64. Lamech ;
65. Mathusala; 66. Enoch; 67. Jared; 68. Mahalaleel; 69. Cai
nan; 70. Enos; 71. Seth; 72. Adam — Thus there are 51 names
between Christ and Abraham (excluding the latter), which coin
cides with the statements of Africanus and Ambrose. Reckoning
30 years to each generation between Christ and David, Salathiel
was born about 570 b. c, which is not far from the true date.
Thus also David is made to have been born 1140 b. c. (which
is only 55 years from the real time of his birth, 1085 b.c);
whereas, according to the received text of Luke, Salathiel was
born 630 b. c, and David 1260, making an error of 175 years, or
the sixth part of the entire period between Christ and David.
In reference to the tessara-decads of Matthew, Grotius thinks
that this arrangement was adopted in order to assist the memory.
Hence the writer cut off three kings, viz. Ahaziah, Joaz, and
Amaziah, that he might preserve the same number in the second
series as in the first. Le Clerc again thought, that the omission
was not made designedly, but after some mutilated genealogical
book. Hilary proposed another solution to this effect, that Joram
having married the daughter of Ahab and begotten Ochoziah, it
was declared by Elijah, 1 Kings xxi. 21, that none of the poste
rity of Ahab should sit upon the throne of Israel unless in the
fourth generation. When, therefore, the house of Ahab was
purged, and three generations had passed away, the enumeration
is continued in the fourth generation which succeeded to the
throne. In the third part also, one generation seems to be want
ing ; for since Solomon is the first in the second tessara-decad,
Salathiel will be the first of the third, from whom to Christ are
only thirteen persons. This defect has been variously remedied.
Some insert Abner between Eliakim and Azor in verse 13. Some
say that Jechoniah was the first of the third tessara-decad, and
read, Josiah begat Jachim, and Jachim begat Jechoniah. Atha
nasius, again, supposed, that the evangelist reckoned the trans
portation as one person, Christ being the other. 4 F

594 ALLEGED CONTRADICTIONS OF SCRIPTURE.
Thus it would appear, that four names have been omitted in
Matthew, while four have been interpolated in Luke. After
commenting upon the genealogies given in Matthew and Luke,
Dr. Barrett proceeds to treat of the family of David as it is ex
hibited in the Old Testament, especially in the third chapter of
the first book of Chronicles. As far as Jechoniah, every thing
related there and in the books of Kings is plain ; but there is rea
son to suspect that some errors have crept into the subsequent
verses. The following considerations shew that there is good
cause for such a suspicion : —
1st, Verse 19 contradicts other places of Scripture. Pedaiah
is said to be the father of Zerubabel, although Salathiel was
his father, according to Ezra iii. 8 ; v. 2 ; Nehem. xii. 1 ; Haggai
i. 1, 12, 14 ; ii. 2, 23 ; I Esdras v. 5 ; Josephus' Antiq. xi. 4.
2c?, Although it be very evident, that the scope of the author
is to give the royal Une through Zerubabel, yet the persons men
tioned in verses 22, 23, 24 are not connected with Zerubabel by
the aid of the 21st verse; so that the genealogical stem cannot
be made out from Jechoniah downward.
3d, Several names occur in these verses, such as Delaiah, Pe-
laiah, Rephaiah, Pedaiah or Pheraiah, which have a great simi
larity to one another in pronunciation, and in the letters with
which they are written.
4th, The opinion of those Rabbins who affirm that Salathiel, the
son of Jeconiah, was the father of Pedaiah, and the grandfather
of Zerubabel, is not free from chronological difficulties. Jecho
niah, along with his queen, was carried away captive (Jeremiah
xxix. 2), and there is no mention of his children in the year 599
b. c. Salathiel, therefore, could not have been born before 598
B. c. Let us suppose that Salathiel was born at this time, and
thitt he begat Pedaiah when he was 20 years old ; and in like
manner that Pedaiah, when 20 years of age, begat Zerubabel.
Zerubabel, therefore, could not have been born before the year
558 B. c, and he was over the people when they returned 536
B. c, i. e. when he was 22 years old. It appears, however, from
1 Esdras v. 5, that he had a son called Joachim, who led the
people as they returned from captivity ; and this is impossible if
he himself were only 22 years old.
5th, Palpable errors are found in verses 18-22. Only five sons
of Shemaiah are enumerated, verse 22 ; yet these five are said to
be six.
6th, The enumeration of the children of Zerubabel, in verses

THE GENEALOGIES OF OUR LORD IN MATTHEW AND LUKE. 595
19, 20, is imperfect. It appears from 1 Esdras v. 5, that he had
a son called Joacim, of whom there is no mention in 1 Chron.
iii. 19, 20 ; although a name like his is found in the 18th verse,
viz, Jecamiah. Besides, neither Abiud nor Rhesa are enumerated
among his children ; though the former is mentioned by Matthew,
the latter by Luke.
1th, By resorting to the hypothesis of Jerome, that those men
tioned in 1 Chron. iii. 18 verse are the children of Jechoniah, that
Pedaiah, one of them, is the same as Salathiel, and thus that
Zorobabel was the grandfather of Jechoniah, and the son of Sa
lathiel or Pedaiah, we are exposed to the objection, that it is not
likely that he who is called Salathiel in the 17th verse should
have a different name in the 18tli.
Nor will the difficulty be removed by supposing, that Pedaiah
and Salathiel were brothers, and that Zorobabel was the natural
son of one, and the legal son of the other, according to the law
in Deuteronomy xxv. 6. If we suppose that Pedaiah, for ex
ample, died, and that his brother raised up seed to him, Zoro
babel and Shimei are mentioned as the sons of Pedaiah by this
marriage, although the first-begotten alone was called the son of
the deceased according to law. If, then, Zorobabel were the
first begotten, Shimei would not be the legal son of Pedaiah ;
consequently he must have been the natural son of Pedaiah, and
thus Pedaiah did not die without children, which is contrary to
hypothesis. Qth, The versions do not agree in the name of Zorobabel's
father. Some, in place of Pedaiah, have Nedabiah. Some copies
of the Seventy, in place of Pedaiah, read Salathiel. Those which
agree in regarding Pedaiah as the father of Zorobabel, read the
name very differently. Pheraiah is found in several authorities
for Pedaiah. It is to be observed, that in verse 2 1st,. Rephaiah
occurs, which, by a very slight alteration, becomes Pheraiah or
Pedaiah ; and the writer of Chronicles does not say whose son
that Rephaiah was. Perhaps Rephaiah (verse 21), was the son
of Zorobabel, for in the 21st verse, the names of the sons of Ha-
naniah, who was the son of Zorobabel, are given. When, there
fore, the names of Rephaiah and his posterity are given, there is
a presumption that he was the son of Zorobabel also. Among
the names of those who builded the walls of Jerusalem (Nehem.
iii. 9), we find Rephaiah, the son of Hur, the ruler of the half
part of Jerusalem. Perhaps this Hur was the same as Zerubabel.
In Nehem. iii. 12, Shallum, the son of Hallohesh (probably the

596

ALLEGED CONTRADICTIONS OF SCRIPTURE.

MeshuUam of 1 Chron iU. 19, the son of the eloquent one), i. e.
of Zorobabel, whose eloquence and learning are celebrated in 1
Esdras iii. 4, and Joseph. Antiq. xi. 4, is also mentioned.
From these remarks it will appear, that those mentioned in
the 18th verse cannot have been the sons of Jeconiah (observa
tion 7th), nor of Salathiel (observation 4J. It follows, there
fore, that they were the sons of Zorobabel. The name Pedaiah
or Pheraiah denotes the same person who, in verse 21, is called
Rephaiah, and who is mentioned in Nehem. iii. 9 ; and the name
Jecamiah is just Joacim, said to be the son of Zorobabel in 1 Esdras
V. 6. Both these names, Pedaiah or Pheraiah and Jecamiah, occur
in 1 Chron. iu. 18. Thus, there is a transposition of the verses.
The text in 1 Chron, iii. 18-22, should be arranged thus: —
Verse 18. And the sons of Salathiel; Zorobabel and Shimei.
And the sons of Zorobabel; MeshuUam, Hananiah, and
Shelomith their sister.
Verse 19. And Hashubah, and Ohel and Berechiah, and Ha-
sadiah, Jushab-hesed.
Verse 20. And Malchiram and Rephaiah and Shenazar, Jeca
miah, Hoshama and Nedabiah ; six.
Verse 21. The sons of Hananiah; Pelatiah and Jesiah: the
the sons of Rephaiah ; his son Arnan, his son Obadiah, his
his son Shecaniah.
Verse 22. The sons of Shecaniah ; Shemaiah. The sons of
Shemaiah ; Hattush, and Igeal, and Bariah, and Neariah,
and Shaphat ; five.
The genealogical stem of the royal family may be thus ar
ranged : — 1 Chron, iii.
Salathiel
Zorobabel Rephaiah
Arnan, or Onan
ObadiahSchecaniahShemaiah
No generation corre
sponding to 
Do. do. to 
NeariahAzrikam. EUoenai, or

Matthew, chap. i.
Salathiel
Zorobabel
1. A generation omitted.
2. A generation omitted.
Abiud Eliakim
3. A generation omitted.

4. A generation omitted
Azor, called also
From him sprang Jo
seph, to whom Ma
ry was espoused

lo--)la- V

Luke, chap. in.
Salathiel.
Zorobabel,Rhesa.
Joanna or Jonan.
Juda,Joseph or Josech.
Semei.

Joanan or Joanam

Mattathias.
Maath. Nagge.
EsU. From him
sprang Mary.
Naum or Anum.

THE GENEALOGIES OF OUR LORD IN MATTHEW AND LUKE. 597
With this stem made out from 1 Chron., we must compare the
genealogies of the evangelists, that their agreement with it and
with each other may be perceived.
Proposition I.
Salathiel in Matthew is the same as Salathiel in 1 Chron.
iu. 17. Both sprang from David through the same ancestors;
they Uved at the same time, and had the same father. They are
therefore identical. Proposition II.
Salathiel in Luke is the same as Salathiel in 1 Chron. iii.
17, and therefore the same as the Salathiel of Matthew. Hence
Mary the mother of Jesus descending from Salathiel in Lukis
genealogy, sprang from David through Solomon.
The truth of this proposition has been much disputed. Sup
posing, however, the Salathiel in Luke and the Salathiel in 1
Chron. to be the same, let us see what will follow. 1st, Zoro
babel in 1 Chron. will be the same as Zorobabel in Luke. They
agree in name and time, and have the same father. 2d, Rephaiah
in 1 Chron. will be the same as Rhesa in Luke, Here there is
a notable concurrence of names. Sd, Arnan in 1 Chron. will be
the same as Joanna in Luke. In one of Kennicott's MSS. Arnan
is written Onan, P'1^<, i. e. vau for resh. Among the MSS. of
Luke, some read 'Iwvai', between which and Onan there is little
difference. 4th, Obadiah in 1 Chron. will be the same as Juda
in Luke. In this name is found the Abiud mentioned by Matt.
i. 13, who will be the third from Zorobabel ; and hence Matthew
omitted two generations. Some MSS. of Luke read 'luaha, an
swering to the Hebrew Joiadah or nnV ; and this differs from
nn^y by one letter. 5th, Shecaniah in 1 Chron, will be the
same as Joseph or Josech, between which there is not much dis
similarity. 6th, Shemaiah in 1 Chron. will be the same as Semei
in Luke. Here both names perfectly coincide. Thus through
out six successive generations, in the same line, we have names
either perfectly agreeing, or approaching in similarity to each
other, the same order being preserved in both cases. Hence it is
highly probable that the hypothesis is right which lays it down
that Salathiel in Luke is the same as Salathiel in I Chron. iu.
It may be objected, that after Semei in Luke occur two gene
rations, viz, Mattathias and Maath, of which we find no trace in
1 Chron. iu. These have been interpolated, and are, therefore.

598

ALLEGED CONTRADICTIONS OF SCRIPTURE.

as already shewn, to be rejected. Immediately after Shemaiah,
the writer of 1 Chron. iii. subjoins Neariah, probably the same
whom Luke calls Nagge, iu, 25. The names are not very diffe
rent, and the 70 (whom Luke follows) often write ayin by gam
ma. In this very chapter, for IV"! is written, '^ayav. To this
Neariah the book of Chronicles assigns three children, in one of
whom, Azrikam, we discover him whom Matthew names Azor,
and calls the son of Eliakim. It is to be observed, that accord
ing to some, Matthew inserted Abner between Eliakim and Azor;
but according to others, Abner was put betwixt Abiud and Eli
akim, However this may be, in Elialiim we shall perhaps find
Shechaniah ; and in Abner, either Shemaiah or Neariah. An
other son of Neariah was EUoenai, whom Luke appears to call
Esli or Eslim. Since EUoenai and Azrikam are different, the
same thing is to be said of Esli and Azor. Thus the family of
Salathiel had been already divided into two lines, of which Mat
thew records one, Luke the other. It is not surprising that the
names are different from this point down to Joseph, since the
writers treat of different persons. Luke assigns to Esli a son
whose name was Naum or Anum : in like manner, in 1 Chron.,
Joanan or Joanam is reckoned among the sons of EUoenai, which
name differs little from Naum or Anum. Chronological circum
stances agree with the account just given, as is proved with suf
ficient minuteness by Barrett. The following table will shew the
posterity of Salathiel from the time they diverged into two dis
tinct branches, with the respective years of each generation be
fore Christ.

Matthew.

Luke.

Year bef. Christ.

Azor, born 380 b. c.

EUoenai, or EsU, born

380.

A generation omitted.

Naum, born

340.

A generation omitted.

Amos, born

290.

Sadoc.

Mattathias, born

260.

Achim.

Joseph, born

230.

Eliud.

Janna, born

200.

Eleazar.

Melchi, born

165.

Matthan.

Levi, born

130.

Jacob.

Matthat, born

100.

Joseph, to whom

Heli, born

65.

was espoused Mary.

Mary, born
the mother of Jesus.

25.

It is now to be inquired, whether the Salathiel in Luke and
the Salathiel in I Chron. in. be the same if we ascend to David,

THE GENEALOGIES OF OUR LORD IN MATTHEW AND LUKE, 599
a point exceedingly difficult, because there is little to be gleaned
from Scripture concerning it. It can only be shewn, that the
objections to it have no weight. Matthew says, that Jeconiah
was the father of Salathiel ; -Luke that Neri was the father of the
same. These statements are reconciled by the hypothesis, that
Neri was the maternal grandfather of Salathiel, and therefore he
is put for his father, after the custom of the Hebrews. So we
read, Ezra u. 61, " which took a wife of the daughters of Bar-
zillai, the GUeadite, and was called after their name." It was a
received opinion among the Jews, that the wife of Jeconiah and
the mother of Salathiel was Susanna. That she belonged to the
tribe of Judah, is affirmed by Daniel v. 57.* With respect to
Neri, from whom she sprang, he appears to be the same as Neriah
(who is often mentioned by Jeremiah xxxii. 12, 16 ; xxxvi, 4, 8,
14, 32 ; xliU. 3, 6 ; xlv. 1 ; U. 59), the father of Baruch and
Seraiah. Josephus testifies, that Baruch was of an illustrious
family, and calls him the son of Neri (Antiq. x. 1 1.) The same
is confirmed by the following arguments : — 1st, His brother Se
raiah is distinguished by the title of prince, Jeremiah li. 59.
2d, When the Jews were subdued, the management of the Jewish
affairs was consigned to this Baruch, with Gedaliah and Jere
miah. 3d, The words of Jeremiah xlv. plainly intimate, that
he had so nearly arrived at the throne, as to aim at the highest
dignity, even the kingdom itself. The great things to which
he aspired, and from the hope of which the prophet deterred
him, were nothing but the throne itself and the royal dig
nity. Besides, the Jews themselves object (Jerem. xliii. 3), that
he urged Jeremiah to prevent them from going into Egypt.
Hence, it is probable, that he preferred to exercise kingly power
over them, by the assistance of the Chaldeans, to their leaving
him and departing into Egypt. From these various particulars,
it is inferred, that Baruch, and consequently Neriah, sprang
from Nathan, the son of David.
The following objections to the above observations may be
adduced : —
1st, Chelciah is assigned as the father of Susanna, or, as the
Syrian interpreter has it, Elkanah ; but according to our hypo
thesis, Neriah was her father. To this it may be replied, that
Athaliah, who was the daughter of Ahab, is nevertheless called
in 2 Kings viu. 26, and 2 Chron. xxii. 2, the daughter of Omri,
viz. of her paternal grandfather. Why then should not Susanna,
* See the Septuagint version of Daniel published at Kome 1772,

600 ALLEGED CONTRADICTIONS OF SCRIPTURE.
by parity of reason, be styled the daughter of Chelciah, if Chel
ciah was the father of Neriah ?
2d, It is objected, that to this Baruch, who was the son of
Neriah, Maaseiah is assigned as the grandfather, who was the
father of Neriah ; Baruch i. 1 ; Jeremiah xxxii. 12 ; li. 59, whilst
Luke says, that Melchi was the father of Neri. The answer is,
that the name Melchi is probably the same as Chelciah or El
kanah, who was the grandfather of Susanna according to our
hypothesis. Chelciah is mentioned among the ancestors of Ba
ruch ; and it was the custom of the Jews, as we learn from Luke
i. 61, to give children the names of ancestors or relatives. In
some MSS. of Kennicott, the name is written iT'tyVD, not n'DriQ,
the root of which is nW, same as ¦^^<7 root of Melchi.
Sd, It is objected, that the history of Susanna is not canonical.
To this it may be answered, that it may nevertheless contain
much that is true. As to the ancestors of Neriah, nothing certain
is known concerning them. We must therefore have recourse to
such conjectures as these : — Maaseiah or Melchi, the father of
Neriah, was the same perhaps who, in the reign of Josiah, was
prefect of the city ; 2 Chron xxxiv. 8. Simeon, the son of Judah
(Luke iii. 30), is he who is called Maaseiah, the son of Adaiah ;
2 Chron. xxiii. 1. The names Simeon and Maaseiah differ only
in the position of the letters composing them ; and as to Adaiah
and Judah, there is much the same difference as between Oba
diah and Judah ; Luke iii. 26. From this hypothesis it follows,
that the family of Nathan lived almost unknown in a low ob
scure place, until Maaseiah or Simeon, the chief of this family,
after nearly the whole race of Solomon had been destroyed by
the wiles of Athaliah, afraid of his safety, and at the same time
from compassion towards his relative Joash, cut her off, by the
advice of Jehoiadah, and raised Joash to the throne ; 1 Chron.
xxiii. 1. From that time, the dignity and power of the family
of Nathan increased, until Jeconiah, the last heir of Solomon's
family took to wife Susanna, daughter of Neriah.
The generations, therefore, may be arranged in this manner,
omitting Melea and Mainan, for the reasons above stated : —

1. Solomon.

1. Nathan.

2. Rehoboam.

2. Mattatha.

3. Abiah. - - -

3. Eliakim.

4, Asa. - - -

4. Jonan.

5. Jehosaphat. -

5. Joseph.

THE GENEALOGIES OF OUR LORD IN MATTHEW AND LUKE. 601

6. Jehoram.

-

6. Judah or Adaiah.

7. Ahaziah. -

-

7. Simeon or Maaseiah

8. Joash. -

-

8. Levi.

9. Amaziah.

.

9. Matthat.

10. Uzziah

.

10. Jorim.

11. Jotham. -

_

11. Eliezer.

12. Ahaz. -

-

12. Jose.

13. Ezekias. -

-

13. Er.

14. Manasses.

_

14. Elmodam.

15. Amon. -

_

15. Cosam.

16. Josias. -

_

16. Addi.

17. Jehoiakim.

_

17. Melchi or Maaseiah.

18. Jehoiachin or Jechoniah.

18. Neri.

19. Susanna.

Dr. Barrett next proceeds to inquire into the parentage of
Mary, and the affinity between her and Joseph ; from which we
may be able the better to judge as to the truth of the hypothesis
that Luke gives the descent of Mary. It is an old opinion among
Christians, that Mary sprung from the tribe of Levi. Gre
gory Nazianzen infers this from the words of the angel at her
annunciation, calling her the cousin of Elisabeth, who was of the
daughters of Aaron. All the spurious gospels and apocryphal
writings speak of Mary as descended from Levi, with the ex
ception of the Gospel of the Infancy of Mary, where it is said
that she sprang from the royal line of David. But this opinion,
although adopted by many, has been rejected as false by the
majority of writers. Chrysostom, Cyril, and Isidore infer, that
Joseph and Mary were of the same tribe, viz. Judah, because it
was provided by law that matrimony should take place among
those of one tribe — that a person should not marry whomsoever
he pleased out of another tribe, or even out of another family.
Ambrose and TertulUan coincide in the same view. Different
reasons are assigned for calling Elisabeth the cousin of Mary.
Ambrose boldly affirms, that she was also of the tribe of Judah,
since she abode in a city of Judah, according to the law in Num
bers ii. 2. Basil gives another explanation. But Titus Bostrensis
and Athanasius are perhaps most successful in investigating the
point, by pointing to the fact, that Aaron married the sister of
Naasson (Exod. vi. 23), at which time they suppose that the royal
line of Judah, to which Mary belonged, united with the sacer
dotal stock. Thus much for the tribe from which Mary was de
scended. With respect to her parents, almost all agree that they
4 G

602 ALLEGED CONTRADICTIONS OF SCRIPTURE.
were Joachim and Anna, In Joachim we find the name Eli (Luke
ni. 23), or Eliakim (2 Chron. xxxvi, 4). In the writings of the
Jews also we find '"^y n2 Dnia, " Mary the daughter of Eli."
Eli then was the father of Mary, and the maternal grandfather
of Christ, and yet he is caUed by Luke the father of Christ ;
whilst Christ is denominated the reputed son of Joseph. Thus
Neri is said to be the father of Salathiel, when in reality he was
his maternal grandfather. The mother of the virgin Mary is said
to have been Anna, the daughter of Matthan. This is the uni
versal belief. Who Matthan was, is a question which has been
much debated. Andreas of Crete makes Anna the daughter of
Matthan who was the grandfather of Joseph. Thus she was
the sister of James, According to others she was of a sacerdo
tal father ; and since it was allowed the daughters of priests to
marry in any tribe (Levit. xxii, 12), it will easily be apparent
how Mary may have been the cousin of Elisabeth, who was of
the tribe of Levi, though her father Joachim or Eli was descended
from the tribe of Judah. Concerning the extraction of Joachim,
husband of Anna, and father of Mary, much has been written.
Dr. Barrett, after shewing the fabulous character of various tra
ditions respecting his origin, proceeds to inquire into the affinity
of those who are called the brethren of our Lord, viz. James,
Joses, Simon, and Judas; Matt. xiii. 55 ; Mark vi. 3. Hilary
of Poitou long since inferred, that they were not the sons of Jo
seph and Mary, from the words of our Lord to his mother and
John, in John xix. 26, 27. The first hypothesis is, that they
were the sons of Joseph by a former marriage. So Origen, Epi
phanius, Theophylact, and others say, that Joseph had children
in previous wedlock. Jerome, who vehemently opposes this hy
pothesis, proposes a second, according to which they were the
cousins of the Saviour, the children of Mary, the aunt of our
Lord, who was the mother of James the less and Joses. The
husband of this Mary was Alphseus, in reference to whom John
(xix. 25) says, fi rov KXuird, " Mary of Cleopas." Respecting
Cleopas there are various opinions. Some affirm that he was
the brother of Joseph. So Eusebius and Epiphanius. Others
think he Vas the brother of Joachim. So Chrysostom. Some are
of opinion that Cleopas and Alphseus were the same ; whilst
Grotius understands by fi tov KXuira, the daughter o/ Cleopas,
not the wife. Dr. Barrett endeavours to reconcile these varying
opinions by the following genealogical table : —

THE GENEALOGIES OF OUR LORD IN MATTHEW AND LUKE,

603

Matthat.

Jacob.

Cleopas, brother
of Joachim, dying
without issue,
his widow married
Joachim, from
which union
sprang Mary
71 TOU KAwira.

Joachim or Eli was
married the second
time to Anna,
from whom
sprang the Virgin Mary := Joseph.

Alpheus or Cleopas
married Mary
I w TOU KXwwa,
Jesus. from whom
sprang James,
Joses, Simon, and
Judas.
According to this hypothesis, there were two persons named
Cleopas, one the brother of Joachim, the other the brother of
Joseph ; the former the legal father of Mary, the latter her hus
band. Hence James, Joses, Simeon, and Judas are called the
brethren of Jesus, because they were related to him both by the
mother's side and by that of his reputed father.
The following table exhibits the genealogies as developed in
the preceding account.
The names which occupy the first paragraph are given by
Luke alone, who goes back in the genealogy of Jesus twenty
degrees higher than Matthew, viz, from Abraham to Adam.
God.

1. Adam.

11, Shem.

2. Seth.

12. Arphaxad.;

3. Enos.

13. Cainan.

4, Cainan.

14. Selah.

5. Mahaleel,

15. Heber.

6. Jared.

16. Peleg.

7. Enoch,

17. Reu.

8. Methuselah.

18. Serug.

9. Lamech,

19. Nahor.

0. Noah.

20. Terah,

In the next paragraph, Matthew and Luke give the natural
line of Jesus from Abraham to David.
Matthew. Luke.
1. Abraham. 21. Abraham.
2. Isaac. 22. Isaac.
3. Jacob. 23. Jacob.
4. Judah. 24. Judah.
5. Phares. 25. Phares.
6, Hesrom. 26. Hesrom.
6. Aram. -27. Aram.
8. Aminadab. 28. Aminadab.
9. Naasson. 29. Naasson.
10. Salmon. 30, Salmon.

604

ALLEGED CONTRADICTIONS OF SCRIPTURE.

JIatthew,

Luke,

11. Boaz.

31. Boaz.

12. Obed,

32, Obed.

13, Jesse,

33. Jesse.

14. David.

34. David.

14 Generations.

In this Line Matthew gives the

Luke in this Line gives tlie

Ancestors of Joseph,

Ancestors of Marv,

1. Solomon.

35. Nathan.

2. Rehoboam,

36. Mattatha.

3. Abijah.

37. Eliakim.

4. Asa,

38. Jonan.

5, Jehosaphat.

39. Joseph.

6. Jehoram.

40. Judah or Adaiah.

f Ahaziah.

41. Simeon or Maaseiah

Omitted < Joash.

42. Levi.

(. Amaziah.

43. Matthat.

7. Uzziah.

44. Jorim.

8. Jotham.

45. EUezer.

9. Ahaz.

46. Jose.

10. Hezekiah,

47. Er.

11. Manasseh.

48. Elmodam.

12. Amon,

49. Cosam.

13. Josiah.

50. Addi. _

14. Jehoiakim.

51. Melchi or Maaseias.

14 Generations.

52. Neri.

1. Jehoiachin or Jeconiah.

2. Salathiel.

53. Salathiel.

3. Zorobabel.

54. Zerubabel.

0™'" la^ton^.

55. Rhesa.
56. Joanna or Jonan,

4. Abiud.

57. Juda.

5. Eliakim.

58. Joseph or Josech.

r\ •.... J r Shemaiah or Semei.
Omitted 1^ Neariah or Nagge.

59. Semei.
60. Nagge.

6. Azor.

61. Esli.

Omitted { e^erations.

62. Naum or Anum.
63. Amos.

7. Sadoc.

64. Mattathiah.

8. Achim.

65. Joseph.

9. EUud.

66. Janna.

10. Eleazar.

67. Melchi.

11. Matthan.

68. Levi.

12. Jacob.

69. Matthat.

13. Joseph.

70, EU.

14. Jesus Christ.

71. Mary.

14 Generations.

72. Jesus.

DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN SACRED AND PROFANE WRITERS.

6 05

The preceding table shews very clearly the genealogy of our
Lord, as given by Matthew and Luke. Both reckon the natu
ral line together from Abraham to David, after which Matthew
gives the ancestors of Joseph, our Lord's reputed father, through
Solomon, one of David's sons, whilst Luke gives the ancestors
of Mary our Lord's mother, through Nathan, another of David's
sons. In this way the descent of Jesus Christ from David, from
whom, according to promise, he was to spring, is fully estab
lished. These two lines afterwards coalesced in Salathiel, son
of Jeconiah. But after Zorobabel, the two lines again diver
ged, Matthew reckoning the descent of Joseph from Abiud ;
Luke, that of Mary from Rhesa. The two lines then coalesced
in Joseph and Mary.
Since the publication of Dr. Barrett's essay, no explanation of
the entire genealogy has been offered which is on the whole so
satisfactory. To different parts of it objections may be made ;
but probably it is impossible to find any solution Uable to fewer.
One of the strongest points on which it is assailable, is the re
tention of the second Cainan in Luke, 3d chapter. Although
this name is found in the Septuagint, yet its exclusion from all
Hebrew copies, and other circumstances that might be mentioned,
go to prove, that it should be discarded from the text of Luke.
The reader who desires to investigate the subject, will do well
to consult Mr. Benham's reflections on the genealogy,* in which
the names are very carefully examined, and much light thrown
upon them. The learned author has laid the foundation for a
new investigation of the subject by his very valuable researches
into the orthography of the names connected with the pedigree
of Christ, and brought out many striking particulars hitherto
unobserved or unknown.
But not only have contradictions been supposed to exist be
tween different parts of Scripture, it has also been alleged, that
Scripture is inconsistent with the testimony of heathen authors.
Those who entertain profound reverence for the word of God
may be surprised to learn, that any weight should be attached to
the records of uninspired men when placed in comparison with
the infallible oracles of Jehovah, Yet some adduce any discre
pancy between authorities of so different a stamp as invalidating
* The title of this able treatise is, "Keflections on the Genealogy of our Lord and
Saviour Jesus Christ, as recorded by St, Matthew and St, Luke : by Daniel Benham,
London 1836, royal 4to,"

606 ALLEGED CONTRADICTIONS OF SCRIPTURE.
the testimony of an inspired historian. A heathen writer, it seems,
must be preferred to any of the sacred historians. A statement
proceeding from the former is sufficient to set aside any assertion
coming from the latter. In this case we have to deal with such
as deny inspiration, and imagine the writers of the Bible to have
been subject to error. Whenever any opposition arises between
Scripture and ordinary authors, the fallibility of the latter is left
entirely out of view. It recedes from the mind of the sceptical
objector, and all error is charged upon the sacred historians.
Setting aside the inspiration and consequent infallibility of the
holy men, and considering them in the light of credible, honest
witnesses, are they not entitled to a hearing ? Their means of
knowing a particular fact may have been occasionally better
than those of others ; they may have been placed in circum
stances more favourable for becoming acquainted with the truth.
They were frequently eye-witnesses of facts which did not fall
under the personal notice of other historians. These consi
derations should be taken into account by such as are incUned
to undervalue the authority and lessen the credit of the inspired
penmen. If such sceptics were candid, consistent, and impar
tial inquirers, they would not fail to give due weight to every
circumstance. But experience bears lamentable testimony, that
it is vain to expect candour from individuals of this stamp. They
are determined to oppose the Bible ; and employ accordingly any
weapons they may find. But their purposes have been frustrated.
In establishing the mistakes of the sacred writers they have ut
terly failed. The statements of the Bible have been found to
harmonise with the records of credible historians. Contemporary
writers, who had no bias except against the people of God, have
testified to the accuracy of Scripture history. Enemies no less
than friends have been made instrumental by divine providence
in helping forward the cause of religion,
Luke ii. 1, 2, 3. " And it came to pass in those days, that
there went out a decree from Csesar Augustus, that all the world
should be taxed. (And this taxing was first made when Cyre-
nius was governor of Syria.) And all went to be taxed, every
one into his own city."
It is alleged on the authority of Josephus, that Saturninus
was proconsul of Syria at the time of our Saviour's birth, not
Cyrenius or Quirinus, as here stated. Saturninus was succeeded
by Quintus Varus, who, being recalled, was foUowed by Quiri-

DLSCREPANCIES BETWEEN SACBED AND PROFANE WRITERS.

607

nus about a. d. 7 or 8, Our Saviour must, therefore, have been
10 or 11 years of age when Cyrenius became proconsul of Syria.
Quirinus was expressly sent by the Emperor Augustus to confis
cate the property of Archelaus, to take the census of the country,
and collect a tax. This tax is mentioned in Acts v. 37.
1st. It wUl be proper to inquire, in the first place, what is the
natural and legitimate construction of the verse ; as some solu
tions of the difficulty may be inconsistent with the original Greek.
It is argued by Middleton, that to take ir^uTn in immediate con
cord with airoy^apri, is to violate the usus loquendi. The phrase
ri diroy^a<pri ir^dJTri, he contends, is a form of speech without ex
ample either in the New Testament or Seventy. The usual
form would be ^ diroy^afri fi ir^uTTi, or, if the adjective come first,
ri TTouTri diroy^apn. Accordingly, he separates Tgwrji from diro-
ygapn, and takes it in an adverbial sense. If his reasoning from
the position of the article be valid, it will set aside various solu
tions that have been proposed. When a substantive and adjec
tive are placed in immediate concord, the regular usage is, cer
tainly, that both should have the article if the former precede ;
or that the adjective alone should have the article, if the substan
tive follow. This rule is not without exceptions. In Luke xii.
12 we find in Griesbach and Schott's editions to yd^ levivfia dyiov,
though Knapp, Schulz, Scholz, and Lachmann have rh yag dyiov
iTvivfia. Again, in 1 John v. 20 we find rj H^un aluviog. It is true
that in the latter example the codices vary ; but yet, as Winer
remarks, the vulgate is by no means to be disregarded, because
later writers began, in such cases, to omit the article. The
classics, too, exhibit the same construction. We do not there
fore consider it to be a violation of the Greek idiom to translate
" the first enrolment," as long as there are examples like these.
Till it be proved that they are unsupported by proper evidence,
or that they are errors of transcribers, all mere assertions of their
being such must go for nothing ; and the present verse may pre
sent an example of like construction where the noun precedes
and yet the article is wanting before the adjective.
2dly. Some take ir^urri the superlative for irgor'i^a the compa
rative, by which riyifijovivovTog is governed. But itgoTiga nyifj^oviv-
DVTog would scarcely be Greek. Yl^ongov tov iiyif^ovivuv, or r^s iiyi-
fioviag, would probably have been used in such a case. XigurSg
fLov riv (John i. 15), to which the adherents of this construction
appeal, does not justify so harsh a form. Hence the solution

608 ALLEGED CONTRADICTIONS OF SCRIPTURE.
adopted by Le Clerc, Perizonius, Usher, Petavius, Heumann,
Norisius, Storr, Siiskind, Michaeler, Ernesti, Schleusner, and
others cannot be admitted, viz. " This enrolment was made be
fore Cyrenius was governor of Syria."
Sdly. XuTn may either be pointed avrn, as is most common ;
or avrn, as some prefer. Ancient MSS. having been without
aspiration, we may freely exercise our judgment in respect to it.
4thly. The literal rendering of the original words, as they stand
in our received text is, " This was the first enrolment, Cyrenius
being governor of Syria." It thus appears from the passage, that
there was an enrolment at the time of Christ's birth. But neither
Josephus nor any other historian records it. Why then do we
beUeve in the occurrence ? Because it is asserted by the inspired
writer. There is no reason for impeaching his authority, or de
nying the fact here stated. His historical details are elsewhere
found to agree with those of authentic historians; why then should
we reject his account of a fact in the present instance, simply be
cause others make no mention of it ? His general veracity is a
warrant for supposing a first enrolment. " In regard to the en
rolment," says Dr. Robinson, " it may be said, that it was pro
bably not thought of sufficient importance by Roman historians
to deserve mention ; being confined to a remote and comparatively
unimportant province ; nor was it perhaps of such a nature as
would lead even Josephus to take notice of it. It would seem to
have been a mere enumeration of persons, capitum desci-iptio ;
since the Jews at this time were not a Roman province, but were
subject to Herod the Great, to whom they paid tribute. As
Herod, however, Uke the other allied kings, was under the domi
nion of the Romans, it was in the power of Augustus to require
an enumeration of his subjects ; to which, in this instance, the
Jews seem to have submitted willingly, since it involved no aug
mentation of their taxes, nor interference with their private af
fairs."* Having thus disposed of one part of the difficulty by taking
it for granted, on the sole authority of Luke, that there was an
enrolment at the birth of Christ preceding that mentioned in the
5th chapter of the Acts, we come to another point, viz. how it
can be said that Cyrenius was then governor of Syria. There
is unquestioned historical testimony for affirming, that he presided
over Syria ten or eleven years afterwards ; but there is none for
* Edition of Calmet's Dictionary, article Cyrenius.

DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN SACRED AND PROFANE WRITERS. 609
believing that he was governor of it at the time of our Saviour's
birth. 5thly, Various modes of solving this difficulty have been pro
posed. It is scarcely necessary to enumerate all conjectures, es
pecially such as infringe upon the inspired authority of the re
cord. That the writer made a mistake cannot be allowed by
any except RationaUsts. Ammon, Thiess, and Winer think that
he fell into error. That the verse is not a part of the text, but
a marginal gloss, is a position too arbitrary to be entertained
for a moment by any sober critic. And yet many have thus cut
the knot, such as Beza in the first three editions of his Testa
ment, Pfaff, Venema, Kuinoel, Olshausen, and others. Michaelis
conjectured that the true reading is, a'vrrt ri diroyga<pn ir^urn iyiviro
ir^o, X. T. X. ; but there is no MS. authority for this. Dr. Hales
understands the verses in question thus : "It came to pass in those
days that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all
the land should be enrolled. The taxing itself was first made when
Cyrenius was governor of Syria. And all went to be enrolled,
every one to his own city." He explains this to mean, that the
taxing itself, which had been suspended from the time of his pro-
curatorship, first took effect under the presidency of Cyrenius.
To this it may be objected, that in translating auTri )j dTroygapjj
the taxing itself, diroy^a<prt is taken differently from diroy^a<pigSai
in the preceding verse. The latter signifies here to be enrolled
preparatory to the census or taxing itself. Why should not
both terms be translated exactly in the same manner ?
Others render the second verse thus : " The enrolment itself
was first made when Cyrenius was president of Syria." Here the
census is supposed to have commenced under Saturninus' presi
dency, and to have been completed under Cyrenius ten years
after. It may have been continued ten years under three succes
sive proconsuls. Josephus, however, so far from sanctioning this
solution rather opposes it ; for he does not give a single hint of
the census having been begun before, but merely says that Qui
rinus was sent by the emperor for the express purpose of taking
.a census, and speaks of its progress without any intimation of
such a proceeding having previously commenced.
Dr. Lardner, who is followed by Paley, translates the second
verse, " This was the first enrolment of Cyrenius governor of
Syria," i. e. who was afterwards governor of Syria, and best
known by that title. When the account was written it was usual
4 H

610

ALLEGED CONTRADICTIONS OF SCRIPTURE,

to add the title to his name, but not at the time the transaction
took place. In this case, however, the original would have been,
TOU fiyifiovivovTog, or tov riyift,6vog, as in Matt. i. 6 compared with
Mark ii. 26.
According to others, fiyifx,ovivovTog should be taken in a wider
sense than that of president or governor, and refered to Cyre
nius as procurator. In this view Saturninus and Cyrenius were
joined in the management of the province, the former as chief-
governor, the latter as procurator. It has been stated in support
of it, that a few years before, Volumnius had been thus united
with Saturninus ; and Josephus, speaking of both together, calls
them governors of Syria. It is true that the recall of Volumnius
is not mentioned ; but it may yet have taken place, and Quiri
nus have been sent in his room. But why is Quirinus, who
held an inferior office, mentioned in preference to Saturninus the
chief governor ? Probably because he returned 1 0 years after,
and conducted another more important census in his capacity of
president. No objection to this view can be drawn from the verb
riyifj,ovivu, since Josephus applies the same word to Volumnius
and Pilate, both procurators. It is true that history makes no
mention of Quirinus having been procurator of Syria before he
became proconsul. But it is not improbable that he undertook
this first enrolment at the express command of Augustus, since
he stood high in the emperor's favour, and resided about that
time in the east as the emperor's commissariat.* It is also said,
in an inscription given by Muratori, that Quintus .^milius Pa-
licanus Secundus held a census in Apamea, by order of Quirinus ;
and by his command gave battle to the Itureans at Libanon.
If, then, Luke be a credible historian, we may rely on his testi
mony alone for the truth of the fact that Quirinus was procurator
of Syria at the time of our Saviour's birth, especially as profane
history, in its notices of Quirinus, is not adverse. On the whole,
we are inclined to adopt this solution as least encumbered with
difficulty. So Casaubon, Grotius, Magnani, Wernsdorf, Dey-
ling, Nahmmacher, Volborth, Birch, Muenter, and others. The
language of Justin Martyr, in his first apology to the emperor
and senate, is somewhat favourable to the same explanation.
Matthew xiv. 3 ; Mark vi. 17 ; Luke iu. 19. These passages
are said to be contradictory to profane history, in which the
brother of Herod the tetrarch is uniformly called Herod, not
* TiK-it, Annal, iii. 4S, Tom, i. ed. Brotier, p. 167, Edinb. et Lond. 1790.

DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN SACRED AND PROFANE WRITERS. 611
Philip. Some think, and with good reason, that OiXlirmv in
Luke iii. 19 is spurious. So Griesbach and Lachmann who
omit it ; and Knapp who puts it in double brackets. Yet it is
improbable that in Matt. xiv. 3, Mark vi. 17, Philip is spurious.
Josephus uniformly calls him Plerod, and says, that he was a son
of Herod the Great by Mariamne, daughter of a high-priest.
The name need occasion no difficulty. Herod was the family
title — Philip his own name. Herod the Great had two sons
called Antipater : why then should it be thought strange that he
had two Philips ? The other Philip was the son of Herod by
Cleopatra.* Acts V. 36. " For before these days rose up Theudas, boast
ing himself to be somebody ; to whom a number of men, about
four hundred, joined themselves : who was slain, &c.
The narrative given by Josephus f relates a transaction that oc
curred some years after Gamaliel's advice had been given. There
must, therefore, have been two persons of the same name living
at different times. It is most probable that the Theudas men
tioned in Acts V. 36 lived in the interregnum which followed the
death of Herod the Great, while Archelaus was at Rome. But
the Theudas of whom Josephus speaks, appeared in the reign of
Claudius, after the death of Herod Agrippa I., and was cut off
by Cuspius Fadus fourteen or fifteen years after Gamaliel's de
claration. There were two seditious ringleaders of the same
name ; the one spoken of by Josephus ; the other by Gamaliel,
as recorded in the Acts of the Apostles.
As for seeming contradictions to reason and morality, to phi
losophy, science, and the nature of things, they do not Ue within
our province. They belong to the subject of the evidences of a
divine revelation, not to the interpretation qi it. We have all
along proceeded on the supposition, that the Bible contains a
divine revelation, whence it necessarily follows, that it has real
contradictions neither to morality and reason, nor to physical
truth. * Winer's Kealwdrterbuch, Zweite Auflage, p. 297.
t Antiq. Lib, xx, c, 5, § 1,

(612)

CHAPTER XIII.
11.* ANCIENT VERSIONS, COMMENTARIES, AND LEXICONS, AS
SOURCES OF INTERPRETATION.
Numerous rules have been given for ascertaining the mean
ing of the Scriptures. But their multiplicity is apt to mislead.
A cumbersome apparatus of observations and exceptions, such
as is met with in hermeneutical treatises, is of no practical bene
fit. We may be well acquainted with the prineiples laid down,
and with the minute limitations to which they are subject, and
fancy ourselves possessed of such comprehensive information as
will assuredly lead to truth ; but when this multitude of canons and
corollaries is appUed in actual practice, the mind is found to be
overloaded and confused. Hence a suspicion arises, that in
the discovery of divine knowledge, some simpler and more prac
ticable way must be followed. It wiU often be perceived, that
numerous canons laid down by German writers are the result of
their own opinions concerning the Bible, instead of being founded
on the express or implied statements of the written word itself.
The great error of all hermeneutical writers with whom we are
acquainted is, that they do not give sufficient attention to the
practice recommended in the Scriptures themselves. In, many
instances they set their fancy to work that it may frame canons :
they tax their judgment to the utmost to devise such rules as may
be useful in discovering the sense, while they virtually disregard
the testimony of the Bible. They are not sufficiently aware of
its self-interpreting nature, a characteristic by which it is distin
guished from ordinary writings. Hence they proceed on defective
and erroneous principles. In seeking, therefore, to ascertain what
the Almighty has revealed, we are inclined to look more into the
sacred volume itself for the means of arriving at its true sense. It
is necessary to exhibit some general canons in the province of in
terpretation. And if any be contained within the Bible, or sanc
tioned by its declarations, they must be the best. In controversies
with reUgious opponents we must have some common prin
ciples which they acknowledge equally with ourselves; else
'" See page 228,

PREPARATORY OBSERVATIONS.

613

we shall never agree. Our rules should approach as nearly as
possible to the nature of axioms. All reasoning proceeds on cer
tain data that must be taken for granted as self-evident, or such
as the human mind is at once disposed to receive. This holds
good in mathematics ; it is the case in mental philosophy ; it is
true of all sciences. Canons of interpretation should nearly cor
respond to axioms. They should be equally obvious to the per
ception of all ; and equally agreeable to the constitution of the
mind. They ought not to be the result of speculation ; or the far
fetched deductions of reason. Rather should they be the axioms
lying at the foundation of religious truth. If there be much
room to question their reality, they will never serve important
and valuable purposes. When they are not at once recognised as
just and reasonable, they will not conduce to the development of
divine truth. The stamp and impress of common sense must be
on their forehead. With these sentiments, we have propounded
such axioms alone as are founded on Scripture itself, and must
be acknowledged by all who receive it as the word of God.
And yet there are many who will not heartily embrace and act
upon our maxims, however axiomatic their character may be.
When the paramount authority of Scripture is rejected, the clearest
rules for expounding it are of no avail.
It is not surprising, that different expositors put different con
structions on the same passages, and bring forth contradictory
systems, because all are not disposed to submit to the teachings
of God. Such perversity indicates something morally wrong.
It shews the necessity of the mind being first rectified, and dis
posed to receive the communications of heaven with profound re
verence. There is little hope of effecting greater unity of beUef
on religious subjects, while any refuse to allow that the word of
God is always and infallibly correct. It is scarcely possible to
lay down canons universally acceptable, when assent is withheld
from the statements of the Bible itself, whence we profess to de
rive them. Thus, Faustus Socinus avows, " were it not only
once, but often written in the sacred records, that satisfaction
for our sins was made to God by Christ, I would not therefore
believe that such was the case."*
* " Nam si vel unus saltem locus inveniretijr, in quo satisfactionis pro peccatis nos
tris Deo per Christum exhibitae mentio fieret : excusandi fortasse viderentur. Ego
quidem, etiamsi non semel, sed seepe id in sacris monimentis scriptum extaret : non
idcirco tamen ita rem prorsus se habere crederem," De Jesu Christo Servatore, pars
tertia, cap. vi. p, 204, Bibliothec, Polon. fratrum vol, 2, fol, Irenopoli, 1656.

614 ANCIENT VERSIONS, &C. AS SOURCES OF INTERPRETATION.
And again : " Certainly the contrary opinion" (that Paul in the
7 th chapter of Romans speaks of himself in his regenerate state)
" seems to me to be so absurd and pernicious, that any violence
whatever should be applied to the words of Paul rather than
admit it.'**
Wherever the prejudices of an individual are so strong as this
language demonstrates ; or rather, when the spirit of infidelity is
so powerful within, all hope of reasoning with him on common
ground must be abandoned. He has encased himself in triple
brass, and resists our moral suasion. The mighty power of God
alone can subdue such a heart, bringing it to submit to the divine
teaching of Jesus Christ.
We have given examples of two important canons which en
join an examination of the context and parallels, both founded on
Scripture, and so obvious as to be worthy of all acceptation.
Properly speaking, they are one and the same. The latter is
simply an expansion of the former ; and the former is the latter
in miniature. We begin with a given word or proposition, and
consult its vicinity or context. The examination is continued,
and the sphere of inquiry enlarged, till an entire section or para
graph be included. Proceeding thus gradually and surely, we em
brace a chapter or more, disregarding the while all mechanical
divisions. But we do not stop here. That the result may be the
more secure and satisfactory, the comparison is prolonged until
we go out of the book or epistle under examination. The gene
ral tenor of the Scriptures is seen only when their entire body has
been diUgently consulted. A universal collation is made; and
if a doctrine or sentiment be sanctioned by a wide induction, we
conclude that it is certainly true. The one rule is thus a more
" It seems, however," says Mr, Conybeare (Rev, W, D. ), " but candid to state,
that the objections of Socinus appear to have been excited, not so much by the simple
Scriptural doctrine, as by the injudicious and unauthorised explanations which some
writers have given of the idea, ot satisfaction, as implying that sin, as a debt, incurs
an exact equivalent of punishment as a payment ; and that the Deity, as a strict ac
countant, exacted this equivalent." This is the commercial view of the atonement,
which is decidedly contrary to the Scriptures, and cannot be too much discounte
nanced. It is ably refuted by Drs, Wardlaw and Jenkyn ; by the former, in his essay
on the extent of the atonement, and by the latter, in his comprehensive treatise on
the same subject. Still the term satisfaction is not improper as applied to the obe
dience and death of Christ, See Dr, Pye Smith's Discourses on the Sacrifice and
Priesthood of Christ, 2d edition, p. 301, note xvi.
* " Certe contraria sententia adeo mihi et absurda, ct perniciosa esse videtur, ut
quantacumquc vis potius Pauli verbis sit adhibcnda, quam ea admittenda." Ad D.
Johannem Balcerovicium epistola 2, vol i. p. 425.

PREPARATORY OBSERVATIONS. 615
extensive appUcation of the other. One grand and general canon
is all that has been hitherto considered. Yet it is useful to se
parate it into different compartments, and to view it in various
forms. The rule in question is derived from the Scriptures themselves.
In 1 Cor. ii. 13 it is written, " comparing spiritual things with
spiritual." The apostle endeavours to convince the Corinthians,
that they must not judge of his doctrine by the spirit of the world,
nor reduce it to the standard of man's wisdom ; but that they
should receive it as a supernatural communication. Whatever
difficulties presented themselves in detached parts of the system
were not to be obviated by anything independently of divine
revelation, but by the sacred word itself. He tells them that a
full and clear interpretation must be derived from Scripture itself,
and not from any other source. By faithfuUy comparing what
ever the word of God has made known concerning spiritual
things — things above the reach of man's natural faculties — the
inquirer arrives at a right apprehension of the divine system.
He must reason of spiritual things from the word of inspiration
itself. Thus we have applied a rule enjoined in the Bible for the un
derstanding of its high and sacred truths. An infallible guide
has been taken — a maxim proposed and recommended by the
highest authority. By its means the respective portions of truth
are rightly combined, and prepared for arrangement in systema
tic form. The doctrines and duties inculcated in the word are
gathered together, in order that a harmonious, connected sys
tem of theology may be fitly framed.
But while insisting on the indispensable and primary utility of
this rule, the business of interpretation is not exhausted. Other
appliances need to be called into action. We admit that all the
fundamental truths of religion may be discovered by the aid of
this canon. It is sufficient for the ordinary reader. The wisdom
of God is conspicuous in having given not only a revelation of His
will, but such a revelation as contains within itself the means of its
elucidation. A common reader of sincere piety and good judg
ment will attain to a general acquaintance with the doctrines of
the Bible, on which his salvation depends. But other things are
necessary for the professed interpreter. The canon is not suffi
cient in every instance for such as guide the reUgious faith of
others. Those who regulate the opinions of the great mass of

616 ANCIENT VERSIONS, &C. AS SOURCES OP INTERPRETATION.
mankind should not be satisfied with the adoption of it alone.
Other helps and appendages must be resorted to. Men pervert
the words of Scripture. They wrest the terms in which Deity
has thought fit to make known His will. Hence it is befitting
the friends of truth to follow them into their mazy retreats, and to
confute their opinions. The pride of man has created this neces
sity. Corrupt affections of the heart and deep-rooted prejudices
of the understanding strongly urge to such a course. Perni
cious heresies are educed from the Bible by an infernal che
mistry, and they must be analysed. In short, the claims of God,
the gratitude of a renewed heart, and the solemn responsibility
of an authoritative expositor, unite with the obstinate perverse
ness of false teachers in demanding, that all learning should be
brought to bear on the sacred Scriptures. They are worthy of
the highest homage. It is right to bring together the results of
the profoundest researches, and to lay them at the feet of divine
revelation. It deserves the tributary offering of the richest mind.
Never does true learning appear in loftier attitude or nobler posi
tion, than when it becomes the handmaid of religion. Here only
is it sanctified, being surrounded by the hallowed radiance of di
vine truth.
Thus we believe that an interpreter cannot arrive at the right
meaning of every part of the Bible by the Bible itself. Many
portions are dark and ambiguous. Even in discovering the cor
rect sense, no less than in defending the truth, other means are
needed. Numerous passages will be absolutely unintelligible
without such helps as lie out of the Scriptures. The usage of the
Hebrew and Hebrew- Greek languages cannot be fully known by
their existing remains.

ADVANTAGES OFFERED BY ANCIENT VERSIONS.
Although the Bible itself is the chief source of information,
yet several terms and phrases may still be obscure. It is there
fore desirable to look for other means, by which uncertain or am
biguous points may be elucidated. When books of Scripture
were early translated into languages with which we had been pre
viously familiar, or which we may learn more easily than the
original languages ; or when individuals living not long after the
sacred writers themselves have left on record explanations of many

ADVANTAGES OFFERED BY ANCIENT VERSIONS. 617
words which time has rendered obscure, we naturally turn to such
documents, and expect to obtain from them much important know
ledge. In applying ancient versions to elucidate the languages and
meaning of Scripture, it is necessary, in the first place, to exa
mine the character of the particular translation which we intend
to use. The time when it was made — the place of its composi
tion — the nature of the language employed — the purity of its
style — the fidelity with which it adheres to the original — the
state in which its text now is, whether corrupt or otherwise, are
points which should be ascertained previously to an actual appli
cation of the version to exegetical purposes. The older it is, the
more likely is it, ceteris paribus, to throw light on the languages
of the Bible. The nearer also the author of it Uved to the
country where the original was spoken, we may expect him to be
better acquainted with it. The more closely too the language of
the version approximates that of the original, the greater value
will it have in unfolding the sense of the latter. Besides, a
translator who has evidently infused the spirit of an author into
another tongue — who has been attentive to the turns of thought
and association of ideas observable in the original, endeavouring
to transfer them to his own work, should be preferred to another,
who has neither imbibed the spirit nor perceived the beauty of
the inspired archetype. Bald and bare literality in a version,
however valuable it be in a critical view, is hermeneutically of
less importance. Single terms, it is true, may be thus explained ;
but the obscure turns of a discourse — its connected phrases — in
short, the whole colour and complexion of a writer's ideas, will
be better represented by the translator who is more attentive to
the spirit and sense of the original than to separate words.
The benefits of consulting ancient versions consist in confirm
ing what is already known — in discovering unknown senses — and
when doubtful cases arise, in adducing testimony to bring about
a decision with greater ease and probability.
In the first place, they may be employed to confirm the signi
fication of a word which has been ascertained by other means.
When several agree in presenting the same idea, there is powerful
evidence of its truth. Yet in such cases it is generally unneces
sary to call in their aid. The signification is already clear ; and it
were superfluous to seek for farther evidence where all is plain.
Even when they assign another meaning than that of which we
4 I

618 ANCIENT VERSIONS, &C, AS SOURCES OF INTERPRETATION,
are sufficiently convinced, the circumstance should not be wholly
neglected though their testimony be incorrect.
Again, versions may exhibit such a sense as suits the connexion
of a passage, but not the only sense applicable in. the particular
place. Here the meaning assigned by them cannot be always
regarded as certain. The author of the translation may have
affixed it to the place, because it appeared to him at first sight
appropriate. A better reason he may not have had. It is not
easy indeed to discover when a translator proceeded on this
conjectural method in a given locality. But an examination of
his entire manner may go far to satisfy the inquirer on the point
in question. Let it be carefully investigated, whether he trans
lated mechanically, or exercised sound judgment in selecting the
best among several admissible meanings, or uniformly rendered
the same word in the same manner to the detriment of its correct
interpretation. Secondly, Versions are useful in resolving what is either un
known or little understood. Thus dira^ Xiyofiiva, which are found
in languages having few remains, are frequently illustrated, when
the context and all other helps are insufficient to remove ob
scurity. Again, an ancient version may give to a known word a rare
signification, by means of which much light is thrown on a dif
ficult passage. Many terms remain obscure, although the usual
method has been adopted to ascertain their signification. When,
therefore, an ancient version explains them satisfactorily, we
should not hesitate to adopt their solutions, if there be no reason
for suspecting that the author hazarded them by conjecture, in
stead of intelligent examination. Sometimes the primary or fun
damental signification of a term appears in a version, when it
could not be otherwise discovered. In all these cases it should
be inquired, on what grounds the interpretation furnished by a
version may be supposed to rest.
Thirdly, Versions may be consulted with advantage in order
to determine the sense of passages where one or more terms have
various significations. Here they shew the traditional knowledge
of the language, as it existed at the time they appeared.
Fourthly, They are also useful in pointing out the proper con
struction of sentences, the division of members and verses, and
the supplying of ellipses. These things are closely connected
with a perception of the right sense.

THE SEPTUAGINT APPLIEI) TO EXEGESIS. 619
In shewing by examples the exegetical use of ancient versions,
we must select a few of the most important, leaving such as are
of minor consequence to those who have leisure to glean the fruit
they may yield. It is enough for our present purpose to treat of
the choicest and best. Septuagint.
Having in another volume spoken of the Septuagint, of its
origin, history, importance, and value, we shall not now repeat
the remarks. In the interpretation as well as criticism of the
Old Testament, it is of considerable use. It presents a very an
cient specimen of translation. All the parts indeed are not alike
in excellence or merit — some are even indifferently executed —
but as the whole belongs to a time not very distant from the ex
tinction of the Hebrew as a living language ; since it originated
in a country, the scene of many events recorded in Scripture,
and attained to great authority among the Jews, we may expect
it to be valuable and faithful. Its antiquity must ever attach
importance to its character ; the traditionary knowledge of the
Hebrew being then comparatively pure. It carries us farther up
the stream towards the Uving fountain itself than any other ver
sion, and shews the sense attached to the Old Testament at an
early period. Considering, therefore, the high antiquity which
it claims, the reputation of the country Whence it emanated for
learning and arts, and the excessive regard once entertained for it
by the Jews, it cannot be overlooked by the professed interpreter
without essential detriment to his investigations. Accordingly,
it has always been an object of interesting study to the archseo-
logist, the grammarian, and the lexicographer. We know, too,
that the New Testament writers quoted from it very frequently ;
a sufficient proof of its general fidelity.
To the Christian interpreter it is peculiarly serviceable, since
it explains the Messianic passages so clearly of the Saviour, that
their proper reference cannot Be mistaken. Hence the early
Christians, in their controversies with the Jews, were accustomed
to appeal to this translation, and to refute their opponents by ir
resistible arguments derived from its text. So much were their
enemies confounded by these discussions, that they had recourse
to the study of the Hebrew original, neglecting the version they
once venerated, and detesting it as much as they had favourably
viewed it, until other Greek translations were made to which
they might appeal, especially that of Aquila.

620 ANCIENT VERSIONS, &C. AS SOURCES OF INTERPRETATION.
This version is useful in contributing to a right understanding
not only of the Old Testament but also the New. The style.
and diction of the latter nearly resemble it. Both are in the same
kind of Greek, which has been appropriately denominated He-
brew-Greek. Both present the same idioms. Words having
the same signification occur in both, that cannot be found else
where. Hence, in explaining the Greek Testament, it is usual
to consult the Septuagint, and to compare it with the Hebrew
original. The Hebrew again is often interpreted by aid of the
Greek ; and thus, by mutual collation, we arrive at the genuine
sense of Scripture.
But the Septuagint has other uses than those enumerated. It
is the parent of many other versions ; or if not their immediate
basis, it has had considerable influence on their character. Hence
it becomes a valuable help to the knowlege of them. They bear
manifest traces of the Seventy ; Arabian, Syrian, Egyptian, and
other translations, have either borrowed from the Septuagint ; or
it has been expressly taken as their foundation.
This is not the place to account for the deviations of the Greek
from the Hebrew original. The MSS. which the translators
followed were without vowel points;, — similar letters and words
have been interchanged, removed, and added ; and the original
is often misunderstood. In some instances, where it departs
from the Masoretic text, a suspicion may be entertained, not al
together groundless, that the original reading it retains has been
altered in the Hebrew copies. Sometimes where its renderings
of Hebrew words have been usually regarded as erroneous, they
may be found in the cognate dialects, and may thus be justified
by the Semitic languages, though not found in our lexicons.
The chief discrepancies between the Seventy and the original
relate to chronological accounts ; and in a few instances to entire
books, as Job and Jeremiah, where a different recension is ap
parently followed. In the Pentateuch, it generally agrees with
the Samaritan copy, and thus has additions to the Hebrew.
But there are also omissions. In short, the imperfections and
errors that belong to it must be carefully noted by the inter
preter, and due weight assigned to it as a whole.
The Septuagint is useful, —
1st, In correctly explaining dira^ Xiyofj^iva, words of unusual
occurrence, or those whose signification it is difficult to deter
mine.

THE SEPTUAGINT APPLIED TO EXEGESIS. 621
2dly, In assisting to elucidate passages which are obscure.
Gen. vi. 3. o'v fj^n xarafiuvri. " My Spirit shall not always re
main or continue." So also the Vulgate. Saadias and the Sy
riac give a similar meaning — my Spirit shall not always dwell.
The Targum of Onkelos, though paraphrastic, coincides sub
stantially with this version. Other translations, however, take
I'lT = yi^, and interpret, " My Spirit shall not always judge
men ;" agreeably to which, Rosenmiiller and others explain,
" My Spirit shall not always contend with men, but proceed im
mediately to punish them." But this is inadmissible, because it
takes for granted that VI is equivalent to ]Sl^ ; and according
to the same expression in the 110th Psalm, 6th verse, it ought
to be rather, " My Spirit will not judge among men," which
would be inappropriate. The verb has been compared with the
Arabic j,'.s (med.j) to be humble, depressed, inferior, and has
therefore been rendered in this place by Gesenius, Tuch, and
others, " shall not always be subjected to humiliation in man."
This is much the same as the rendering of the Septuagint and
Vulgate, and gives the correct meaning.
Cant. ii. 12. T'12t is an aira^ Xiyofi^ivov. The Septuagint render
it in connexion with n^, xaigttg rng nfini, " the time oi pruning"
(the vines.) So also the Vulgate, tempus putationis ; and Sym
machus, xaiglg T^g xXahiugiug. Our English version translates it,
the time of the singing of birds, which is contrary to the ety
mology of the word, and the analogy of its form.
Exodus viii. 9. (Hebrew viu. 5.) nj^SjTin is an ava^ Xiy6fj,ivov,
The Septuagint translates it with "b^, rd^ai ir^Sg ft,i. So also the
Vulgate, " Constitue mihi quando, etc., i. e. declare to me when,
or appoint me a time when, &c. The usual rendering is, " glory
over me ;" and the meaning attached to it is, that Moses, seeing
signs of relenting on the part of Pharaoh, was ready to humble
himself in his presence, foregoing the honours which naturally
accrued to him from the performance of his miracles, and laying
them at the feet of the king of Egypt, by allowing him to ap
point a time when he should entreat the Lord for the removal of
the plague. This is unnatural and arbitrary.
Deut. xxvii. 9. i^Sp!? is also a term which occurs but once,
and is rendered by the Seventy giiiiira, be silent. Arab. cS.Mt
the same.

622 ANCIENT VERSIONS, &C, AS SOURCES OF INTERPRETATION.
Isaiah v. 25. nniD3 is translated ug -xoir^ia. So also Vulgate,
quasi stercus, as dung. Hence the caph is not radical, as Kim
chi and others supposed, but the caph of similitude. Our Eng
lish translation, " torn in the midst of the streets," agrees with
Kimchi. Gen. XX. 16. The phrase DJJ'i' niD3 is difficult of interpre
tation. The Seventy render JTIDD by rif/^ii, i. e. price, mulct,
compensation, which serves to throw light upon the whole sen
tence. According to this translation, the expression is metapho
rical ; and the words of Abimelech bear the following meaning :
" Behold let this (i. e. the thousand pieces of silver) be a paci
ficatory gift for all that has been done to you and to all ; that
thou mayest be justified." The connexion shews, that besides
the presents of sheep, oxen, and servants given to Abraham,
Abimelech designed the thousand pieces of silver as an especial
gift for Sarah, in compensation for the wrong she had suffered at
his hand. That Abimelech, so far from blaming Sarah, rather
meant to do honour to her by publicly acknowledging that she
had been injured, is plain from what precedes. He wished to re
pair the injustice she had received, and to appease her by a gift.
It is quite consonant with BibUcal usage to speak of a fault, of
fence, or sin, as if it were before the eyes of the person against
whom it is committed, so that he sees it ; and on the other hand,
when it is forgotten and forgiven, to represent it as covered, or
cast behind the bach, so that it is no longer looked upon by the
party offended. Agreeably to such a mode of speech, to cover
the eyes by means of a gift is equivalent to appease, when the
injury done is not seen any more. So Jacob, chap, xxxii. 20, "/
will cover his face with a gift," i. e. propitiate his favour and
make him a friend. Abimelech, therefore, having been taught to
feel that Sarah had been unjustly treated, wishes by means of a
present to appease her displeasure, to make compensation, and
to restore her rights. He means to do her justice, in lieu of the
wrong she had been compelled to suffer. By making her a libe
ral present, she stood fully justified before all — free from blame,
and compensated for the wrong received. We have translated
the word nn^^ " that thou mayest be justified" or " receive thy
right," taking it as the second person singular of the perfect
niphal, which is the passive of hiphil. In Isaiah xi. 3, 4, n'Din
is equivalent to "["1 or tDSti>, to judge, to give or pronounce jus'

THE SEPTUAGINT APPLIED TO EXEGESIS.

623

tice to any one, so that niphal may signify to be done justice to,
to be justified. Should any object to the unusual form of the
second person singular feminine, which ought regularly to be
riTO^, we refer to Gen. chap. xxx. 15, where the same form oc
curs preceded by b in the same sense, " that thou shouldest take."
With Vater, Von Bohlen, and Tuch, we take nn3i as the se
cond person singular. Others consider it as the third pers. fem.
perf., comparing nn3!i?J1 Isaiah xxiu. 15 ; or as the participle,
which Gesenius prefers, and translate the clause, " and she was
convicted or censured." So Gesenius, " eonvicta erat : non ha-
bebat quo se excusaret." But as far as we can perceive, this in
terpretation does not suit the preceding context.
The more usual sense attached to the phrase D^^''^ •HIDS is a
veil. So Schroeter and Rosenmiiller. According to them, the
words of Abimelech to Sarah run thus : — " Purchase with this
sum a veil, that it may in future be manifest to all that thou art
married." This presupposes that married women alone wore
veils, but that virgins had their faces uncovered, which cannot
be proved to have been the custom. Comparing Gen. xii. 14;
xxiv. 16 ; xxix. 16, 17; and xxiv. 65, we are rather led to the
opposite conclusion.
Thus the Tifj^n of the Septuagint, equivalent to Tifjunf/^a, sug
gests and sanctions the figurative signification of the phrase
13"^)} niDS, which is accordingly adopted by Gesenius, Schu
mann, Tiele, and Tuch.
Proverbs xxx. 15. npV'^^ is translated by the Seventy jShiXXa,
leech. With this agree the Vulgate and the Grseco-Veneta.
?...'" . " "
The Arabic XJiXc and Syriac j"'^'-- are from the same root.
The term occurs but once.
Malachi i. 3. D'i^jR is an air. Xiydfij. The Septuagint renders
it hufiMTa, with which agrees the Syriac. " I have appointed his
inheritance for the divellings of the wilderness." According to
this rendering, it is the same as the Arabic jsVUj from the verb
IXl" to dwell. Our English version has dragons, as if it were
the same as D'il,n. The former, however, is preferable.
Ecclesiastes v. 5. The interrogative HQ? is rightly translated
by a negative 'iva fj^ri. So also the Vulgate, ne forte. The mean
ing of the clause is, " lest God be angry at thy voice," &c.
Numbers iv. 20. Vb^^ is admirably translated i^diriva, sud-

624 ANCIENT VERSIONS, &0, AS SOURCES OF INTERPRETATION.
denly: — " They shall not go in suddenly to see the holy place,
lest they die." The verb Vb2. properly denotes to swallow or de
vour, and with pi, to swalloiv one's spittle. Hence, in order
to signify a moment of time, the proverbial expression came to
be used, whilst I swallow down my spittle (see Job vii. 19), i. e.
for a moment. Literally, therefore, the words in Numbers should
be rendered, " they shall not go in to see the Sanctuary while
the spittle is swallowed down," meaning, not even for the short
est space oi time.
Job V. 7. ^'pl 03 is rendered vioggol yuirhg, the young of the
vulture. The literal translation is " sons of Ughtning," meaning
birds of prey. " Man is born to trouble, and the sons of Ught
ning fly aloft." Vau is here vau of comparison, vau adcequa-
tionis, as grammarians technically term it ; as the sons of Ught
ning. The rapidity of the flight of such birds is compared to
that of the lightning. ,
Gen. ii. 8, DlpD is translated -xard dvaroXdg, towards the east.
The same phrase is elsewhere used in relation to time. (Psalm
Ixxiv. 1 2 ; Ixxvii. 6,12.) Hence some would take it in this place as
designating time. Aquila has dir ag%^s, at first ; Theodotion,
iv ir^uroig. The opinion that paradise was created before the earth
has been founded upon the latter meaning of the word.
Gen. iv. 1. nin''"nii> Sid TOU hov, by the help of God. In
this way the particle' is equivalent to D^. (Compare W^nba-QV,
I Sam. xiv. 45. This is preferable to any of the other methods
of taking n«. The English version, following the majority of
the older interpreters, takes it as equivalent to nOO, from the
Jehovah ; but this is contrary to the usage of na in all other
places. It can only be elliptically used for nao where p occurs
immediately before, as in Gen. xlix. 25 ; but there the reading
ought more probably to be ^^^. Others have understood n^ as
the sign of the accusative ; and thus Eve is made to say / have
gotten a man, viz. Jehovah, supposing that she had borne the
promised seed. So the Syriac version. It may be questioned,
however, whether this be not a later refinement upon the lan
guage arising from doctrinal views, rather than the words them
selves. Gen. xlix. 6. "lilt^-llipy iviv^o-xoirngav rau^ov, they houghedoxen.
The verb IpV, occurs in this sense in other places. (See Joshua
xi. 6 9-2 Sam. viu. 4.) Not only did Simeon and Levi murder

THE SEPTUAGINT APPLIED TO EXEGESIS.

625

the inhabitants of Shechem, but they maimed and rendered use
less what they could not conveniently bring with them. Others,
as AquUa, Symmachus, and the Syriac version, translate, they
digged down the walls ; but this is quite arbitrary. The Seventy
have also rightly rendered ^"a by dvSiuiroug, men.
Proverbs xxvi. 28. 1''3'1 W^y\ Here the Seventy have /*/«?
kXrtkiav, hates truth. This gives the sense of the word, though
not Uterally. The adjective ought to be taken actively in this
place, chastising or reproving. " A lying tongue («. e. a Uar)
hates those that reprove him.'.' This is preferable to the English
version, with which Dathe agrees ; and is sanctioned by Luther
and Gesenius.
Isaiah xiv. 12. ^Til is translated in the Septuagint o 'lugcpi^oi^
Lucifer. It is a difficult form. According to the Seventy it
is a noun ; according to others, it is the imperative Hiphil of
^^^ to howl or lament. The former is much preferable. It is
a participial noun from the root bbn, to shine, with tsere and
ypd, instead of bbn. With the Seventy agree the Vulgate
Targum, Saadias, and the most eminent modern expositors.
Isaiah ii. 16. iT^Onn Di''3to"^D are translated irdgav iiav irXoiuv
xdXXoug, i. e. every appearance of vessels of beauty, meaning
all ships of beautifiil appearance.
Isaiah xxi. 10. " O my threshing, and the corn of my floor,"
&c. Though the Septuagint translates these words very freely,
yet it leads us at once to the persons meant. The Israelites,
not the Babylonians are meant ; oi xaraXiXufift/ivoi -xai ol ohuvuf/,evoi,
ye that have been left and are sorrowing (in Babylon.) They
had been trampled and trodden by their enemies, as corn under
the feet of oxen, untU the chaff had been separated, and their
principles, no less than their practices, were purified from idolatry.
It is the prophet who speaks in the verse, as the latter clause of
it shews. .Vulgate.
This translation has been highly esteemed by the most com
petent judges, although, in consequence of the excessive venera
tion in which Romanists have held it since the council of Trent,
some Protestants have injudiciously and unjustly underrated its
value. As a relic of antiquity, proceeding in the greater part of
it from Jerome, it is interesting; — and as giving a certain inter
pretation to the text, it deserves to be consulted by every student
4k

626 ANCIENT VERSIONS, &C. AS SOURCES OF INTERPRETATION.
of the Bible. In general it is very Uteral, so as even to express
Hebrew and Greek idioms in barbarous Latinity, from its close
adherence to the original words. As Jerome received his know
ledge of Hebrew from the Jews, we may expect to find their tra
ditional interpretations embodied in his version. Hence its ge
neral agreement with the Chaldee paraphrases. We are by no
means inclined to exalt it to the throne of authenticity, affirming
with the Romanists that it is the authentic version; neither
ought it to be set side by side with the sacred originals. Yet it
has many excellencies. It is highly useful in exegesis as well as
criticism. Very frequently it agrees with the Septuagint, even
where both differ from the Hebrew. A knowledge of its history
wUl serve in part to explain its deviations from the Hebrew and
Greek ; whUe the usual errors of transcribers are not to be over
looked. It is highly probable, too, that it has been intentionally
interpolated and corrupted, in order to support favourite dogmas.
Who can suppose for a moment, that Jerome, in revising the
Greek Testament, if indeed he revised all its parts, left " ado-
ravit fastigium virgse ejus" as the rendering of ir^oei-xuvngtv iirl rJ
ax^ov Trig ^afShou auTov ? It has been more employed in the inter
pretation of the Old than the New Testament, not only because
it is more required, the Hebrew being less known than the
Greek, but because it is more valuable in the former, as proceed
ing from Jerome himself. When Ltither happened upon an ob
scure place in making his German translation of the Bible, it is
well known that he had recourse to the Vulgate. The many ad
vantages which now exist were not available in his time.
Genesis viu. 1 1. The word ^"IQ is variously explained. Our
EngUsh version renders it pluckt off, passively ; with which agree
Onkelos and Saadias. This, however, is contrary to the form
TT. It signifies /rcsA or recent. So the Arabic < ^j]a. to be
fresh. The Vulgate expresses the sense correctly, " portans
ramum olivse virentibus foliis."
Daniel Ui. 8. li.Tl|"!i2 ^"^ax This phrase Uterally means,
to eat pieces of them, i. e; metaphorically, to calumniate or ac
cuse. So the Vulgate correctly renders, " accusaverunt Judseos."
So in Syriac j .^p Wa] , and the Arabians use ^^ ^^ ,y^'
to eat the flesh of persons, i. e. to calumniate them. The verb
J.^1 itself is used in Arabic in the same signification.

THE VULGATE APPLIED TO EXEGESIS. 627
Nehemiah v. 5. IJ"!^ ^k"? ]"a. This phrase is translated by
some " and our hands are not in place of God ;" non est pro
Deo manus nostra. So Bauer, comparing Job. xii. 6 ; Habakk.
i. 11, and VirgU, .Sneid x. 773, dextra mihi Deus, &c. These
passages are not parallel to the present. The noun "^St should
be taken in the signification of strength or power, and the pre
fix b denotes state or condition. The meaning is, it is not in
the power of our hands. The Vulgate, with which Luther
agrees,* has well rendered the whole clause " nee habemus unde
possint redimi." In the same manner Deuteron. xxviii. 32 must
be resolved, where the Vulgate reads, et non sit fortitudo in
manu tud.
Jeremiah li. 19. The Hebrew is Uterally, " and the rod of
his inheritance." The Vulgate supplies the necessary ellipsis ;
" et Israel sceptrum hsereditatis ejus."
1 Peter v. 13. Here there is manifestly an ellipsis which
must be filled up, in order to complete the sense. Accordingly
the Vulgate has, " salutat vos ecclesia quse est in Babylone," etc-
which is the correct meaning of the original. Schott translates
" salutem vobis dicit uxor una mecum electa," which is erro
neous. The term uxor is not the right supplement, nor is me
cum appropriate. Rather should it be vobiscum, referring to
the 'ixXixTol at the beginning of the epistle. In conformity with
the Vulgate, some MSS. have ixxXrjgla in the text, though it did
not proceed from the apostle himself, but from transcribers.
Coloss. ii. 9. This verse has been variously translated and
understood. Schott renders it " siquidem ei omnis bonorum nu-
minis divini copia revera inhseret." So also Pierce explains it :
" all those blessings which proceed from the Godhead, and
wherewith we are filled, dweU in Christ truly and substantially."
The Vulgate renders it literally, " quia in ipso inhabitat omnis
plenitudo divinitatis corporaliter," thus countenancing and sup
porting the true meaning, that all the fulness of perfection which
belongs to the Godhead dwelt in Christ corporeally. While he
was man he was at the same time God, possessing all divine per
fections and attributes.
Ecclesiastes iii. 17. In our EngUsh version Dti? is erroneously
rendered there, since there is no reference to place. The Vul-
• " Und ist kein Vermijgen in unsern Haenden,'' and there is no power in our
hands.

628 ANCIENT VERSIONS, &C. AS SOURCES OP INTERPRETATION.
gate has correctly, " et tempus omnis rei tunc erit"; then, i. e.
when God shall judge.
In Psalm Ixii. 4 we meet with the word iinniPIJ^ which is ob
scure. The Vulgate translate it irruitis, how long do ye rusk
wpon a man. The Septuagint coincides with this (liriTikah);
and we conceive it to be the proper signification.
Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion.
As we possess only fragments of the Greek versions of Aquila,
Symmachus, and Theodotion, they cannot be of the extensive use
or value that attaches to complete versions. From the very literal
character of Aquila's, it may be employed as a kind of diction
ary. The translator was anxious to abide by the terms of the
original, and to render word for word. Symmachus again de
signed to give a much freer version, to give his readers a perspi
cuous view of the sense without a rigid adherence to the words
and sentences found in the original. Thus Aquila is more use
ful in the interpretation of single words, Symmachus in the
interpretation of passages. The one assists in showing the par
ticular meaning attached to a word in a particular place; the
other in developing the general sense belonging to one or more
propositions. Theodotion again partfikes of the characteristics
of both, and deviates little from the manner of the Seventy.
Gen. i. 1. iri3J llln. These words have been variously inter
preted. The Septuagint renders them by do^arog xai dxara-
gxivagrog. So also Philo and Josephus understood them, with
whom agree several moderns, as Penn and Hitchcock. But such
a version is neither literal nor accurate. The Hebrew words
properly mean wasteness, emptiness, and are well translated by
Aquila, xivuf/,a xai ovhiv. So Stuart, Tuch, and others under
stand them.
Gen. u. 21. nD'inr). This word is supposed by Gesenius and
Hitzig to be derived from DTI, whilst Tuch considers it as
formed by onomatopoeia. The Septuagint translates it incor
rectly by 'i-xgragig. But Aquila appropriately renders it xaratpo^d;
and Symmachus equally well, xd^og.
Gen. iii. 8. DV'il ly^lb. The general meaning of this phrase
is towards evening ; ro huXivhv, as the Seventy translate it. In
Eastern countries, shortly before the setting of the sun, a refresh
ing wind arises, and cools the heated air. The version of Theo-

AQUILA, SYMMACHUS, AND THEODOTION APPLIED TO EXEGESIS. 629
dotion in this place is both full and accurate, iv Tip irviufj,ari irghg
xard-^u^iv Tr\g iifMi^ag, in the wind for cooling the day.
Gen, iii. 16. Hpll^i^. The Seventy have ij dirogrgotpri gov, which
is ambiguous. Symmachus correctly renders it, ^ o^/i^ gov. The
word occurs but seldom. According to its etymology from p'W,
Arab. <Jj!i;, there can be Uttle doubt that ri o^f^n is a proper trans
lation. Notwithstanding all the pains and sorrows of childbear-
ing, thou shalt have an ever-longing desire towards thy husband.
Psalm xvi. 2. " My goodness extendeth not to thee." This
phrase has given rise to a great variety of interpretation. The
common translation, with which several of the fathers agree, is
not sufficiently supported or clearly intelligible. Symmachus has
dyaiov fLoi oux 'igTiv aviv gov, I have no happiness without thee,
which is unquestionably the true sense, and most accordant with
the original words which literally denote, my happiness is no
thing in addition to (besides) thee, i. e. all my happiness de
pends on thee. The best versions, and ablest expositors, sanction
the same interpretation ; and it agrees well with the connexion.
Psalm xvi. 4. There are two modes of translating the first
clause of this verse : they shall multiply their sorrows, or their
idols. The best Hebrew lexicographers, such as Gesenius and
Winer, sanction the latter. Independently of other reasons that
might be advanced for the former, we find the majority of ver
sions in its favour, and among them that of AquUa.
Psalm xlv. 6. Instead of taking Elohim in the nominative, as
some do, we find that the ancient translators take it as the Vo
cative. So Aquila (^ii), with whom agree Symmachus, Theo
dotion, and the Seventy.
Isaiah iu. 3. D'^Ii^^n D3n, i. e. skilled in the arts ; not a
skilled artificer, as the Seventy, Syriac, Vulgate, and Saadias
understand it ; but skilled in magic arts. This is not only agree
able to what follows, ^nb ]^3p, but is supported by the versions
of Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotien. The first renders Wpl'H
by -^livgigfi^ip, whispering, denoting the muttering sounds which
enchanters use; the second by bfuXia f/,ugTix^, mystic intercourse;
the third by iiruhn, incantation, all of which give the general
sense of the phrase.
Isaiah xxvii. 8. ^^>p^lp3. This is a word of difficult expla
nation, and various modes of resolving it have been proposed.
According to Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, the meaning

630 ANCIENT VERSIONS, &C. AS SOURCES OF INTERPRETATION.
of it is, according to measure, i.e. moderately. The noun is
thus derived from ilXp, measure, and is probably contracted from
nap- nxp3, with dagesh forte conjunctive. Literally, therefore,
it means, in measure (and) measure. Saadias.
Saadias explains in his preface the principles on which he pro
ceeded in his translation. He wished to furnish such a version
as might be inteUigible to every reader without the help of a
commentary. Agreeably to this resolution, he is frequently
paraphrastic ; and even adds many things for which we do not
find corresponding terms in the Hebrew. Hence also, instead
of the older geographical names of countries and cities, he sub
stitutes such as were better known to his readers. Of this we
find examples in Gen. x. 30, where, in reference to the sons of
Joktan, it is said that " their dwelling was from Mesha, as thou
goest unto Sephar, a mount of the east." Saadias, instead of
this has, JsJuA^J! ts^scO' ^1 tsJ! »S~« (jj-<>, "from Mecca tiU
tiU you come to Medina." Again, in Genesis xxxv. 4, he puts
for Sichem the modern name y»LU, Nablos or Naplous. Isaiah
X. 9. piOW is translated S*1s*»a«, Sebaste. Isaiah xxvii. 12,
" the river of Egypt" is called lAj «5' , El-arish. In Isaiah
xxviu. 25, ppD is interpreted by Saadias, in the place marked
out, which agrees with the Targumist and Kimchi.
Numbers xxxi. 5. " And there were set apart of the thou
sands of the race of Israel, a thousand of every tribe."
Genesis xU. 40. " Thou shalt be over my house, and thy
word shaU all my people, and the whole of my nation, obey."
The Seventy, Onkelos, and Vulgate, a^ee with this. ,
Genesis xlix. 21. " And Naphtali, as a hind sent out, shall
give forth beautiful words."
In Isaiah xxvi. 21 and xxviii. 3, for Jehovah this version has
" the Word of God" siJ i -o j, i. e. the personal Word or Memra,
who is also called the angel of God.
These and other examples that might be given lead to the
conviction, that although very important assistance should not
be expected from this version, yet in many cases it affords wel-

SAADIAS AND OTHER ARABIC VERSIONS APPLIED TO EXEGESIS. 631
come aid, and should not be neglected in the interpretation
of the Old Testament, even if a great part of the information
it furnishes might be obtained in a different manner. Its tes
timony confirms at least what is otherwise discoverable, while
it streng'thens our confidence in the truth of certain expositions.
The version agrees in general with the Chaldee interpreters and
the later Rabbins, shewing that it exhibits the sense attached to
the Old Testament by Jewish expositors.
The Arabic version of the gospels, printed in the London Po
lyglott, is of comparatively little utility in the interpretation of
the New Testament. Its antiquity is not great; and besides, it
has been assimilated in many instances to the Syriac and Coptic
texts. As a specimen we may take its rendering of the difficult
word ivi^aXiiv in Mark xiv. 72, ifSikj jjisvi, and he turned him
self to weep.
The translation of the Acts, Pauline and Catholic epistles,
and Apocalypse printed in the Polyglott, proceeded from another
author. The following are examples of its manner of translation.
Romans ix. 5 : j^4.j^n J5 \^J\^ Lb^l JJ^' ^c ijj rJ tf<x!1,
who is immovably over all, God blessed for ever. In 2 Cor. xii.
7, dyyiXog laTav 'iva fii xoXaipl^rj is translated tS^CjJUi ^\hfM ^j/mj
a messenger of Satan to cut me, &c. shewing that the translator
did not take it, with Billroth, to be Satan the angel. In Acts
xvi. 13, ov lvof/,iJ^iTo ir^ogiu^Ti ihai is translated to a place which was
thought to be a place cf prayer, ir^ogiu^fi being taken to denote an
oratory.* Targums.
The Jewish paraphrases or translations usually called Targums
are now chiefly useful in the interpretation of Messianic passages.
The Jews are accustomed to deny that many parts of the Old
Testament which Christians necessarily and rightly refer to Mes
siah, ought to be understood of Him. In refutation of such an
opinion we can adduce their own Targums. Thus in Gen. xlix.
10, all the Targumists expound the Hebrew word n7"p, by King
Messiah. The Jerusalem Targum translates Gen. xlix. 18, thus:
*' Our father Jacob said : my soul waits not for the salvation of
* See a description of these Arabic versions in my Lectures on Biblicil Criticism,
pp. 71-73.

632 ANCIENT VERSIONS, &C. AS SOURCES OF INTERPRETATION.
Gideon the son of Joash which is temporal ; nor for the salvation
of Samson the son of Manoah which is transient ; but I wait for
the salvation which thou saidst by thy Word (Memra) should come
to thy people the sons of Israel," &c. We have also the autho
rity of the Chaldee paraphrast for interpreting the 45th Psalm of
Christ, not of Solomon or of any Persian king. The Targum
explains Isaiah ix. 6 of Messiah, not of Hezekiah, as the later
Jews assume.
But the Targums are also useful in explaining aira^ Xiy6fi,eva,
or unusual words. Ex. gr. in Jeremiah x. 17, the noun nVJS
occurs. This the Targum explains by '^''JJI'linp, i.e. merces,
wares, with which agrees the uitdgragig of the Seventy. The
Vulgate has confusionem, mistaking the sense.
Again, these versions frequently explain difficult words and
passages in a satisfactory manner. Thus in Gen. xv. 2, the dif
ficult term pt^^D is interpreted by the phrase, " The son of this
governor who is over my house." In Gen. x. 9, the Jerusa
lem Targum says of Nimrod, that he led men away from their
allegiance to God into idolatry ; and thus sanctions the opinion
that he was the principal instrument of the idolatry which after
wards prevailed in the family of Cush. Hence we are led to take
the word hunter metaphorically to mean a hunter or oppressor of
men. The Targums also throw light upon the use of the term Xoyos
applied to our Saviour by St. John, for in them we find frequent
mention of the Memrah of yah or Word of Jehovah as a per
son, to whom divine attributes and actions are attributed. They
ascribe to him, for instance, creation, the destruction of Sodom,
the removal of Enoch, &c. In one place the Jerusalem Targum
styles this Word " the only begotten in the highest heavens." It
would appear, therefore, that the apostle, in speaking of Christ,
employed an appellation with which the Jews were famUiar, as
being appropriated in their Targums to the Messiah the second
person of the Trinity.
In Exodus i. 11, Onkelos has ^<*^¦^^')>< n"'2, a house of trea
sures for niJSpa. In Exodus i. 16, D^J3^» is translated N")3rip
which, according to Buxtorf, means, sella parturientium. Psalm
cxiv. 1, ty^ DJ' is translated ''i<'13"}3 ii3j;, barbarous people.
1 Chron. xv. 20, n^J:hV-bv is rendered OH^'^ "1 VJ13'?p iT)D''D2
" with sweetness and the pleasant sound of song." This shews

TARGUMS APPLIED TO EXEGESIS. 633
that the paraphrast thought of the voice of maidens accompanying
the harps.
In Isaiah ix. 19 occurs the aita^ Xiyofj.. DW. The Chaldee
paraphrast renders it JHD^in, is consumed or burnt up, which is
probably the right signification. So also the Seventy, guyxixavTai.
Kimchi, Abenesra, and our translators render, it is darkened.
Gesenius compares the Arabic ^.'i^, a great and suffocating heat;
but we also find in the same language *,Xc, to be darkened, so
that no light in the present instance can be afforded by the Ara
bic. The preceding verse, too, rather favours the signification
given by the Chaldee and Seventy.
Although the ancient Jews attached a high value to the Tar
gums, especially the oldest, viz, those of Onkelos and Jonathan,
affirming, that if they had not existed, the text would have re
mained unknown, yet the Rabbins departed from them in many
places, especially those which are applied to the Messiah. It is
easy to see the reason of such aberration. The arguments of
Christians effected it.
The learned interpreter will not neglect to consult the Tar
gums on the Old Testament on important and difficult passages ;
since they give the traditional interpretation of the Jews, and
exert considerable influence on our Hebrew Lexicons. Rosen
miiller in his Scholia has made considerable use of them, though
he has not been always successful in interpreting passages by
their means. Peshito.
This version must be regarded as of great utility in the inter
pretation of the Scriptures.
First, It explains correctly a*ag XsySfuva ; or words whose sig
nification it is difficult to determine. Thus in Gen. xxii. 9, the
verb 1J2V is expressed by ;.D2i, to bind. In Hosea vi. 8, HSpy
is translated P°i.\a>o, sprinkled or soiled. In the 10th chapter
of the same book, 7th verse, ^l^p is rendered \] \ a branch.
Secondly, It resolves grammatical forms and constructions
which are obscure. Thus Isaiah xliv. 24, following the K'ri it
renders ';iN"'D by ..^> —lio, i. e. by myself, by my own power.
In Hosea xi. 3, Dftp, which is the infinitive absolute with the
suffix, is rightly explained by ^i Aliaoo, / took them up.
Thirdly, Difficult passages are not unfrequently explained in
4 L

634 ANCIENT VERSIONS, &C. AS SOURCES OF INTERPRETATION.

a satisfactory manner. Thus Jeremiah xxiii. 6 : " And this is
his name whereby he shall be called, the Lord our right
eousness." Dr. Blayney in his version of Jeremiah translates it :
" And this is the name by which Jehovah shall call him, our
righteousness." But the common version is much preferable to
this: "This is his name whereby he shall be called. The Lord
our righteousness." The latter is manifestly sanctioned by the
Syriac, n,;i |,po ou.o;^u> aiioM. ojoio-
Joel ii. 17. A translation differing from that which is com
monly received has been given by some modern philologists and
commentators to the Hebrew word 7iyD. So Credner : " Gib
— T
dein Erbe nicht Preis dem Spotten der Heiden iiber sie :" " Give
not thine inheritance a prey to the mocking of the Heathen over
it." In like manner Gesenius assigns to it in this place the sig
nification, carmen irrisorium cecinit, "to sing a song of re
proach." But the Syriac version among others understands it in
the sense of ruling or having dominion, as is manifest from the
following rendering: jv-W; Jr^o^^lo, " and to the dominion
of the nations." This is the true sense.
Psalm xxxiv. 10. " The young lions do lack and suffer hunger :
but they that seek the Lord shall not want any good thing."
There can be little doubt that D''"l''33, here translated young
lions, should be taken metaphorically to denote men. The con
trast between believers and the lower animals would be unusual
and inapposite. The Syriac has i:<Aii.j which signifies the rich,
shewing that the translator understood it of human beings. It
may be doubted indeed whether the Syriac interpreter did not
find another Hebrew word in his MS. ; but whether we refer it
to violent enemies, as is most natural, or to the rich, as is done
by this version, one thing is certain, that it ought to be under
stood of men. To take the Hebrew literally, is contrary to the
Syriac and to other versions.
Exodus xxi. 6. Some take Elohim in this place to mean God,
and assert that the ceremony was to be performed at the gate of
the temple. The received version however understands it of
judges. So also the Syriac, which has Ja*» judges. With this
agree Onkelos and the best interpreters.
Genesis xlvii. 31. " And Israel bowed himself upon the bed's
head." That the Hebrew word HtOD should have different vowels
from those given it by the Masoretes, is proved by Hebrews xi.

PESHITO APPLIED TO EXEGESIS. 635
21. The Syriac, too, sanctions another translation than what is
given in the received version. oi;^o*< *.;2^:i^ ^ipa»i .'>v£aOj " and
Israel worshipped on the head of his sceptre."
1 Thessalonians iv. 6. Some take these words to refer to the
negotiations carried on between man and man in daily life, in
which God prohibits all oppression and fraud. Thus there is a
new admonition different from the preceding one. So Beza. It
is much better, however, to connect this verse with the foregoing,
and to refer it to the same topic. The Syriac interpreter under
stood it in this way when he translates
.jZ.oa,^ iioio ,.oio*/.,Vl Aj] ..o\\Vi\o ;o\Vi\ ^A*,.*iD ^ooiZ \lo
and do not dare to transgress, and to injure, each one his brother,
in this matter, &c.
Romans ix. 5. The Syriac translation confirms the meaning
commonly attached to this verse. ;m'-.^ \m.,m^ '\mZ.] .oouiao
.,_AaI ^Vi-\>> >o,)i:^,ll ^!030 ^OaZ ou^> \!o \!Ci.> ioi^ ,.oioA.j;
And from them Christ appeared in the flesh, who is God over all;
to whom be praises and blessings for ever and ever, Amen.
Matthew vi, 11 . The word iiriovgiag occurs only in this place.
Among the various significations assigned to it, and which may
be seen in Tholuck's Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount,
that given by the Syriac interpreter seems to be the best : jlcx/2l
iDjom> , the bread of our necessity or indigence, the sustenance
which is necessary.
2 Corinthians vi. 13. The Syriac gives the sense excellently :
i. e. repay me my interest which is with you, and enlarge your
love towards me. The Corinthians owed the apostle a debt of
affection ; and he exhorts them to pay it by opening their hearts
to him. Romans ii. 18. 'K.al hoxif/^dZ,iis tu hiacpigovra. Various mean
ings have been assigned to ra hiafi^ovra. Beza translates, ea qua
discrepant, the things which differ from the law. De Dieu un
derstands the phrase to mean controversies ; " and approvest
of controversies." The Syriac gives the true sense, \L^o Ajj ,»^o
" and discernest the things that are proper," the things that ought
to be done. With this Tholuck agrees.
The utility and importance of ancient versions has diminished
in proportion to the advancement of sacred Uterature in modern
times. Biblical scholars have incorporated into Lexicons and
commentaries the valuable materials furnished by these docu-

636 ANCIENT VERSIONS, &C. AS SOURCES OF INTERPRETATION.
ments. But modern versions, also, should not be overlooked.
Those which proceed from authors conversant with the original
languages of Scripture, and competent to avail themselves of an
cient translations, must rank higher than the productions of a
less critical period. Unless the interpreter consult and use the
best modern translations of the Bible, he will fail in understand
ing many difficult portions. Why should we refuse to apply the
results of laborious study and patient investigation which learned
and pious men have put within our reach ? It is the part of the
intelUgent student gratefully to accept the mature fruits of re
search. Not that modern, any more than ancient versions, should
be implicitly followed — for the right-minded inquirer must always
exercise his own judgment, and prayerfully weigh discordant
opinions — but they should be examined and collated as valuable
helps in the exegesis of Scripture.
Among modern translations of the Scriptures, those pre-emi
nent in fidelity and value are our English authorised version,
Luther's German, De Sacy's French, and Diodati's Italian. In
a still higher rank do we place the German versions executed
by Scholz, Leander Van Ess, and De Wette. There is none
which equals that of De Wette in fidelity, accuracy, and ele
gance. The last edition of it (dritte verbesserte Ausgabe 1839),
presents the best specimen of an entire translation of the Scrip
tures which it has been our fortune to meet with.
In addition to ancient versions, the traditional knowledge of
the usus loquendi is retained in the earlier commentaries and
lexicons. The chief commentators on the Old Testament who
deserve to be consulted for this purpose, are Jarchi, Abenesra,
Kimchi, and Tanchum of Jerusalem. " For characterising the
three first," says Gesenius, " it may be sufficient to remark, that
Jarchi is almost wholly a tradition al-talmudic interpreter; Aben-
ezra, beyond comparison, more independent, more free from pre
judice, and of sounder judgment ; Kimchi, a more skilful gram
marian and compiler."* The first generally follows the Chaldee
version, giving historical elucidations which are frequently in
sipid and absurd. The second, while not rejecting exegetical
tradition, exercised his judgment, saw through the prejudices of
his nation, and, with a fundamental knowledge of the Hebrew
language, endeavoured to avoid them. Thus he appears as a
* Dissertation prefixed to his Manual Hebrew and Gorman Lexicon, 3d ed, Leipz.
1828 ; translated by Dr. Robinson in the American Biblical Repository for 1833.

EARLY COMMENTARIES AND LEXICONS. 637
grammatico-historical interpreter. Kimchi unites the qualities of
both. Along with grammatical interpretation he adduces various
opinions. The lexicons belonging to this topic are those of Rabbi Jonah
or Abulwalid, Judah ben Karish, R. David Kimchi, and Pagni-
nus. The first two wrote in Arabic.
" In order to read these Jewish interpreters with ease, whe
ther they wrote in Hebrew or Arabic, some practice is certainly
necessary; and especiaUy the latter, whose manuscripts are all
written with Hebrew characters, and contain many grammatical
expressions which are not found in the lexicons. But the labour
expended in this way does not often remain unrewarded. The
hermeneutical value of these writers depends, in general, on the
sources from which they draw, viz. tradition ; Talmudic, Chal-
daic, and Arabic usage; and the connection : and then, in par
ticular, it depends on the greater or less degree of sagacity
and sound judgment in the individual ; in which respect R. Jonah
or Abulwalid holds the first place, while the so renowned Jarchi
can properly claim only one of the lowest." *
It may be safely pronounced unnecessary for the interpreter of
the present day to consult these commentators and lexicogra
phers upon the usus loquendi oi the Old Testament, after the
judicious, use made of them by Gesenius in his Thesaurus and
Lexicons.! They are difficult of access, some being in MS.
Even those which have been published are almost equally inac
cessible, and difficult to be read. But the accomplished interpre
ter may dispense with them without reluctance, since the most
important explanations they are capable of affording, in addition
to our previous knowledge, have been given in the invaluable
works of Gesenius. It is not possible, however, that all the as
sistance they can render is there presented, because that writer
had nothing but extracts from some of them.
The commentaries of the fathers should also be noticed, as
pertaining to the present point. The chief of these are Origen
and Jerome, of whom we have already spoken.
In the New Testament, the chief sources, after versions (of
which we have already treated), are, the works of scholiasts and
* Dissertation prefixed to Gesenius' Manual Hebrew and German Lexicon.
¦)* Since this was written, the great Hebraist of Germany has died, leaving the
Thesaurus unfinished. Hebrew literature never suffered so severe a loss. His name
will be imperishably associated with its advancement as long as his works are read ;
and they will not soon be superseded. Brief, but full of honour, was the career of
the illustrious Professor. Halle has been deprived of her learned Coryphaeus.

638 ANCIENT VERSIONS, &C. AS SOURCES OP INTERPRETATION.
early glossographers, the catenae and the commentaries of the
Greek fathers ; those profane writers who used the xoiv^ hiaXm-
Tog, such as Polybius, Diodorus Siculus, Arrian, Herodian, &c.
&c.; the Septuagint, Josephus, and Philo.
By scholia are meant short notes, unfolding the signification
of words and phrases belonging to ancient writings. They are
of two kinds, grammatical and exegetical, the former illustrating
the force and significancy of terms by means of others better
known — the latter relating more to entire passages and things,
than to single expressions. Many scholiasts have written upon
the New Testament. Their notes are found in part on the mar
gin of MSS. There are also collections of them extracted from
the Greek fathers especially Origen and Chrysostom, which are
called catence. In Theodoret's commentaries on the fourteen
epistles of Paul, and in the exposition of Theophylact, Chrysos
tom is chiefly extracted. We owe the pubUcation of several
scholia and catense to Matthsei. The following is an example
of a scholium on Ephes. iv. 14, iv rfi xu^iicf, tuv dv6^uiruv-, iv rfi
agTarcij ire^Kpo^a, ug vuv fjjiv touto, vuv hi ixim hihdgxuv, " in an un
steady tossing about, so as to teach now this, and again that."
A glossary is a book containing yXuggag, i. e. all such words
as require some explanation because they are difficult or obscure.
They differ from lexicons in not giving all the words of the
Greek language, but merely those which seem to demand expli
cation. An example may shew the nature of such yXuggrifiara, or
explanations. 1 Tim. v. 10. u itavrl 'i^yt;! dyaiu iirrixoXov9rigiv: the
last word is transferred to the glossary with this explication of it,
ixoivuvr}giv, vTTigiTrigiv, i. e. has communicated to others, or minis
tered to their necessities.
The chief ancient glossaries are those of Hesychius, Suidas,
Phavorinus, Photius, Cyril of Alexandria ; and the Etymologi-
cum Magnum. The last work contains very few glosses be
longing to New Testament terms. Ernesti selected out of them
and edited such glosses as serve to explain the New Testament
in the following works, " Suidse et Phavorini glossse sacrse
Grsece, cum spicU. glossarum sacrarum Hesychii et Etym. Mag.
congressit, emend, et notis illust. I. C. G. Ernesti. Lips. 1786,
Svo ;" and, " Glossse Sacrse Hesychii Grsece. Excerpsit, emen-
davit, notisque iUustravit, I. C. G. Ernesti. Lips. 1785, 8vo."*
* See Ernesti's ".Prolusio de Glossariorum Grajcorum vera indole et recto usu in
interpretatione," inserted in his " Opuscula varii argumenti," Lipsise, 1791, Svo.

THE FATHERS, SCHOLIA,?!TS, GLOSSOGRAPHERS. 639
The testimony of such writers as the Greek fathers, scholiasts,
and glossographers to the usus loquendi oi the New Testament
diction, is not of great value. Their explanations of words are
generally loose and often inaccurate. The substitution of one
term for another cannot be called interpretation, especially when
there is a perceptible difference between the ideas expressed by
both. Their value is to be estimated —
1st, According to their age. The nearer a commentator was
to the apostolic times, the more competent was he, ceteris pari
bus, to unfold the usus loquendi, and to illustrate the customs
and rites referred to by the inspired writers.
2dly, According to their own internal goodness. This may
be ascertained by comparing their explanations with such as are
well known, and by attending to their general tenor. The Greek
fathers, ignorant of Hebrew, rested upon Greek usage alone, and
fell in consequence into much error. They gave the sense of
words and phrases not in its general, comprehensive, fundamen
tal aspect, but according to the context of single passages. Be
sides, their notes are often ascetic meditations.
The New Testament interpreter need scarcely have recourse
to these glossaries and scholia, since they have been incorporated
into the best modern lexicons, as those of Schleusner, Bretschnei
der, Wahl, and Robinson. On these valuable dictionaries, the
aid which patristic writings can furnish in ascertaining the usus
loquendi of the New Testament, has been brought to bear with
considerable skill.
After having so copiously alluded to the modes of interpreta
tion adopted by the fathers, it will not be necessary to repeat
what has been said, or to repronounce our opinion of their com
mentaries as sources of interpretation. It is in this view that
they come before us on the present occasion. In respect to
the early fathers, we quite coincide with the sentiments of Mr.
Osburn. " They were exactly in the situation of men translated
in a moment from total darkness to the unclouded blaze of noon.
That truth, in search of which they had groped in vain in every
corner of their prison-house, and which was still the subject of
their anxious enquiry, had been shot at once into their hearts
and understandings by the energy of Omnipotence. And we are
not surprised to find, that they were dazzled and confounded
with the intensity of the light it diffused : their overwhelming
astonishment being far more excited by the undoubted certainty

640 ANCIENT VERSION.?, &C, AS SOURCES OF INTERPRETATION.
and vast importance of the truths which Christianity revealed,
than by the miracles which had first called their attention to
them. The whole tenor of their works evidences this : and I
speak it to the shame, of modern infidelity. But we maintain
that persons so circumstanced were no more qualified for the
office of commentators and expositors of the doctrines of the
New Testament, than the just liberated prisoner to gaze upon
the noon-day sun. Their errors are exactly what might have
been anticipated, under the circumstances in which they were
placed. They were not able to endure the direct rays of the
divine truth; and, therefore, they endeavoured to shade their
aching eyes with the veil of their former prepossessions, and to
look upon Christianity through the medium of certain notions
which they drew from the ritual of Heathenism, and from the Pla
tonic philosophy  It is a grievous and dangerous
error to set them forth, either as infallible expositors of the
Christian faith, or as the authorised exemplars of Christian prac
tice  The tradition of the early fathers is pos
sessed of no power of prescription whatever over the Church of
Christ in succeeding ages. Like the opinions of authors of any
other period, it is to be received, ' so far as it is agreeable to
God's word,' and no further."* And with regard to the subse
quent fathers, they took much of their tone from the earlier.
Even the best expositors among them often pursued obliquitous
paths of exegesis, from which the judgment of the weakest mo
dern will keep him away. By degrees, the lengthening line of
these ancient writers became more and more corrupt, until their
works present few of the living truths of the gospel, which alone
are effectual for the salvation of the soul, or the conservation of
righteousness in a church. We trace feeble and faint allusions
to the free grace of God as working all good in the Christian's
acts and exercises; — the atonement of Christ becomes a vague
generality, until their writings present the lamentable spectacle
of a great apostasy from the pure faith of the apostles, no less
than a gross perversion of heavenly doctrine.
It is also superfluous for the expositor to consult the Greek
writers belonging to the period of the xoivri hidXtxrog, or the Sep-
* Doctrinal Errors of the Apostolical and Early Fathers, London 1835, Svo, pp,
328, 9, We take the present opportunity of recommending this very able book to
the perusal of our readers. It should be studied along with Mr. Taylor's Ancient
Christianity.

AXIOMATIC PRINCIPLES. 641
tuagint, Josephus, Philo, Apocryphal writings, &c., since modern
lexicographers have incorporated into their dictionaries whatever
materials of value these works afford.

The following axiomatic principles may be laid down for the
guidance of Biblical expositors. They are founded on the pre
ceding chapters, of which they are only a condensation. Per
haps in their present form they will be serviceable, if not in
conducting the interpreter to the correct sense in every case, at
least in preventing him from falling into error.
Leaving versions out of consideration, the usual, established
signification of a word should be followed in a given place except
there be some necessity for abandoning it. This necessity is un
folded in the succeeding rules.
1st, When the context obviously rejects such a signification.
2dly, When by adhering to the ordinary meaning, a sentiment
inconsistent with one or more parallel places would be elicited.
But when the vicinity of a term and parallel passages harmo
nize with its common usage, there arises the greatest certainty
that no other usage should be sought or created. The context,
when rightly understood, can never be opposed to the significa
tion which a word bears in a parallel place. Both agree in testi
mony, although it may not be equally definite or unambiguous.
Taking versions into account it may be safely affirmed —
1. The signification of a word, though found in no more than
one version, if agreeable to its general usage and to the context,
is to be admitted.
2. The signification of a word not given by any of the ancient
versions in a particular locaUty, provided it be the usual one and
recommended by the connexion, should be adopted.
3. A signification supported by all the versions, but contrary
to the usus loquendi and the context, is to be rejected.
4. The signification given to an aira^ XiyofLivov in all or in a
majority of versions, should be received as correct.
5. When parallel passages, context, and versions agree in re
stricting a term to a certain sense, that sense should be received.
6. When a signification attached to a word in all other places
of the Bible is opposed to the vicinity of a particular locality, it
cannot be admitted there, though sanctioned by the best ver
sions.
4 M

642 AXIOMATIC PRINCIPLES.
7. Where versions, parallels, and context appear to disagree
among themselves respecting the signification of a word in a cer
tain place, the context must be considered as of greater weight
than either of the others, provided it recommend explicitly and
clearly a certain sense. The next degree of authority is due to
parallel places, and a lower to ancient versions. The three, how
ever, are seldom found to disagree in one place ; and where two
unite against the third, they should be followed.
There is no instance in which the signification of a term sanc
tioned both by versions and parallels, is opposed to the context
of a passage. The testimony of versions may truly disagree
with that of the context and of parallels; — but the context rightly
understood cannot contradict the signification which parallels
manifestly require. When, therefore, versions and parallels agree
in affixing a certain sense in opposition to the context, the testi
mony of paraUels or of the context is misunderstood.
These rules, mutatis mutandis, apply to sentences and para
graphs. When the testimony of the context or of parallels is
ambiguous, the necessity for departing from the ordinary signi
fication of terms becomes less ; while external helps are more
needed. Too great caution cannot be appUed in determining
what are parallels, and what light they are capable of throwing
on a place under examination. The connexion also is very vari
ous. Its evidence is not always certain, nor even probable to
the inquirer. In every case, the judicious interpreter wiU prayer
fully avail himself of all the assistance which the researches of
others afford, and give to each circumstance its due value. Com
paring and combining all the testimony which he can procure,
he will arrive at such a conclusion as approves itself to his con
scientious and best judgment. . .

(643)
CHAPTER XIV.
III.* COGNATE LANGUAGES AS SOURCES OF INTERPRETATION.
When the preceding means of ascertaining the right significa
tion of a word, or the sense of a phrase, fail to afford satisfaction,
as they sometimes do ; when neither etymology, nor context, nor
parallel passages, nor versions, furnish a sufficiently clear expla
nation, we have recourse to other and cognate languages.
Various circumstances connected with them, suggest and sanc
tion the idea, that they are likely to prove valuable auxiliaries.
Some are more copious than the one which we are desirous to
illustrate. Presenting richer remains, they may be able tosupply
the deficiencies of their comparatively meagre cognate. Others
again have been longer preserved than that to which the atten
tion is chiefly directed ; — circumstances have contributed to
ward off their extinction for a greater period, and thus lying more
within reach of the philologist, they may afford valuable as
sistance towards the elucidation of the more ancient. Or, it may
happen, that although one cognate language does not surpass
another in richness, or in vernacular duration, it may be service
able in strengthening conclusions which the other does not esta
blish with complete satisfaction, or in bringing out with greater
fulness the import of an obscure phrase. Any or all of these rea
sons must prompt the interpreter to employ cognate languages
for mutual explanation. But how is their relationship ascer
tained ? By. what means may we know that one is closely allied
to another ? The testimony of history is an important index to
the reality of such an affinity. In addition to this, there are in
ternal evidences or marks no less decisive of the same conclusion.
Both may be employed mutually to strengthen and estabUsh the
fact of an existing alliance. History informs us, that several
tribes and nations sprung from the same race, and that their dia
lects are substantially the same as those of their progenitors. In
this case, the various dialects arising from the same source may
be regarded with much probabiUty as sister dialects, and there-
* See page 228.

644 COGNATE LANGUAGES AS SOURCES OF INTERPRETATION.
fore subservient to mutual elucidation. If the ancient remains of
the different dialects which in process of time have become se
parate languages, shew how they were gradually formed from
one common tongue, and how they gradually received new modi
fications, there is a powerful confirmation of the truth which his
tory had before presented.
But historical circumstances also teach us, that in course of
time, and by the intermingling of nations possessed of dissimilar
habits and speech, many foreign words and idioms were incorpo
rated with ancient tongues. In this case, care must be taken to
separate the parts — to distinguish between what originally be
longed to a language, and what was associated with it from
foreign sources. And, though it be difficult to make such a dis
crimination, we must still abide by the idea that, as they were
originally alike, the one may serve to explain the other.
The relationship of languages may be perceived and estab
lished, not merely by historical but internal proofs. Where
the former fail, the latter should be rested on. The history of
some may be buried in obscurity — it may Ue concealed in the
darkness of remote antiquity, eluding the notice of the inquirer;
whUe in their phenomena as actuaUy existing, there are manifest
traces of affinity. The similarity of words expressing the same
ideas may point out the cognate nature of individual lan
guages. "To this, however, there are several exceptions. Terms
formed by onomatopoeia, or by imitating sounds in nature, as
also those which give utterance to violent emotions, may arise
among various nations, and yet their similarity does not of ne
cessity lead to the conclusion, that the languages in which they
exist have an affinity of nature. Besides, the modes in which
numerous terms were formed are capricious, and so often ascrib-
able to accidental circumstances, as to render it quite possible
for such as express the same ideas and objects among independent
nations to bear a mutual resemblance, without affording ground
for believing, that the languages to which they belong were
spoken by kindred people. Mere similarity, therefore, of written
signs representing the same thoughts, is not sufficient to prove
the original identity of languages. But there are evidences which
appear in the entire structure of a dialect that cannot be re
garded as the result of chance. We must look to these rather
than to the coincidence of single terms. They can hardly de
ceive ; — but the latter is an uncertain guide. Gatterer has laid

COGNATE LANGUAGES AS SOURCES OF INTERPRETATION.

645

down five classes of characteristic words, from the identity or di
versity of which the relationship of languages may be determined.
These are, 1st, verbs ; 2dly, pronouns ; Sdly, the substantive
verb ; 4thly, the necessary terms of life, the parts of the hiiman
body, &c. &c. ; 5thly, radical words in general. But there are
other phenomena that mark with greater certainty the cognation
of languages. Such are, the first formation of the verb — the
prefixing or affixing of the pronoun for the purpose of marking
the different persons — and the attaching or not of the possessive
pronoun to its substantive. When the structure of several lan
guages presents these peculiarities, it is highly probable that they
had a common original, and are properly cognate. The closer
their resemblance in regard to them, the more certain will it be,
that the relationship is not accidental. The testimony of these
inherent criteria may also be confirmed by historical data point
ing to the common origin of the nations in which such languages
were spoken. In this instance, we have the highest probabiUty
of which the case admits ; for when languages are proved by his
tory and their own internal conformation to bear a close affinity,
there is all the evidence that can be desired. They may be
forthwith applied to the illustration of one another with profit
and success.
We come now to specify the manner in which comparison of
cognate dialects throws light upon their whole nature. Their
utility consists in elucidating single terms, phrases, syntactical
laws, and in the general complexion of the method in which ex
pression is given to ideas. When we begin to explain one language
by another, it is requisite to take, in the first place, what is well
known. We should select several terms whose signification is
certain ; and look for their fellows in one or more kindred dialects.
By this process it will be found, that many have not only the
same forms but significations also ; and the utility of comparison
will be more apparent to the philological interpreter as he per
ceives their close agreement. He will immediately form the
hope, that, as soon as he leaves introductory and famiUar ground,
obscure significations may receive Ught and fixedness from the
same source. Thus a term which occurs but seldom in Hebrew,
and whose meaning is therefore exposed to ambiguity, may be
satisfactorily explained by the help of its corresponding term, if
the latter be oftener employed. Again, the primitive signification
may be unknown ; while the secondary is apparent. A cognate

646 COGNATE LANGUAGES AS SOURCES OF INTERPRETATION.
dialect may retain the former, and enable the philologist to ac
count for several peculiarities. Or, again, a word occurs but
once in the remains of a language, and cannot be expounded.
Here it is absolutely necessary to bring a kindred dialect into
comparison, where the same word may probably appear in unam
biguous usage. By proceeding in this systematic mode, the
interpreter wiU find, that cognate dialects serve for mutual iUus-
tration ; and that he who neglects to compare them, is either ig
norant or unwise.
The languages most closely connected with Hebrew are the
Arabic, Syriac, Chaldee, and Samaritan. That these are strictly
cognate dialects is proved both by history and their own struc
ture. The former conducts us back to one primitive tongue from
which these dialects proceeded ; not indeed at once, but by gra
dual deviations ; while at the same time they were receiving ad
mixtures from foreign sources. It is observable also, that a great
harmony subsists between them, not only in respect to single
words, but likewise characteristic peculiarities. All of them have
three radical letters ; and in forming the persons of the verb the
pronouns are either added to the root, or prefixed to it, consti
tuting with the verb itself a single word. Besides, the possessive
pronouns are closely attached to the substantive in the form of
affixes. Nor are these the only features in which they agree.
Their idiomatic phrases and connected modes of expression are
frequently identical. Thus authentic history and their internal
phenomena unite in exhibiting a close relationship. In relation
to the Hebrew, the Arabic, Syriac, Chaldee, and Samaritan,
are rather to be considered as dialects than separate languages.
The Ethiopic is also kindred to the Hebrew, but in a more re
mote degree, as it sprung directly from the Arabic. The Tal-
mudico- Rabbinic stands in the same relation to the Hebrew ; but
still more remotely than the Ethiopic. Its late origin, rather
than its nature, places it in so distant a degree of affinity. Such
are the dialects commonly compared with the Hebrew to explain
what is not intelligible, or to confirm results which it educes
with feebleness. They are not all equally useful and important
for this purpose. Their utiUty depends on the degree of their
affinity to the Hebrew — the period of their duration as living
dialects — and the extent of their remains.
, In employing them to explain the Hebrew language, it is ne
cessary to proceed with caution, for in this department abuses

COGNATE LANGUAGES AS SOURCES OF INTERPRETATION. 647
have been committed of such a kind as to bring it into suspicion
or neglect. In their excessive solicitude to discover novelties
many have erred, by attributing new significations to words al
ready understood. The desire to escape from a doctrine or senti
ment obviously contained in Scripture, the affectation of acquaint
ance with Oriental languages, and the love of contradiction, have
caused grievous injury to truth. Examples may be found in
abundance in the writings of the leading Rationalists of Germany,
and in some of the Dutch philologists. Hence it is important to
guard against attributing to a word a new signification apparently
derived from cognate dialects, without obvious cause. It is only
when an urgent necessity exists, that it becomes imperative to
depart from common acceptations. The context of a passage,
the scope of a whole paragraph or book, and the usus loquendi
of the writer, must combine to suggest other than the ordinary
senses. Without these, it is not only superfluous to deduce un
usual meanings from cognate dialects, but violence is done to
the Hebrew language ; and an author may be forced to express
a sentiment finer or more artificial than what he intended. Un
wonted thoughts will be substituted for such as the Holy Spirit
meant to convey. Others again, in comparing the Semitic lan
guages, and applying them to the Hebrew, have proceeded with
great arbitrariness, bringing into juxtaposition terms consisting
of similar letters, or pronounced by the same organs, which are
in reality quite.different. The interpreter must therefore use great
caution, for there are certain letters in the Oriental languages
regularly corresponding to one another. So long as we abide by
the well-known relation of some letters to others there is safety ;
but as soon as this estabUshed order is ' forsaken, scope will be
given to the wanderings of caprice. It is unnecessary farther to
particularise abuses committed in the comparison of cognate dia
lects ; or to guard the learned interpreter against an undue at
tachment to it as a source of explanation. Rules on this point
are rather of a negative than a positive character, enjoining cau
tion, abstinence from arbitrary modes of procedure, and the not
insisting on such dialects too much, or urging them too far.
The various particulars comprehended in the preceding obser
vations respecting cognate dialects are these — 1st, They are often
useful in leading to greater certainty where we cannot pronounce
with confidence on the signification of a word, or the meaning of

648 COGNATE LANGUAGES AS SOURCES OF INTERPRETATION.
a phrase. 2dly, They throw Ught upon points otherwise dark
and unknown.
The interpreter may perhaps wish to know how he should pro
ceed, when he finds a number of senses belonging to a word in
one of the Semitic dialects. Which of all these should he take
and apply to the corresponding Hebrew term ? Amid a multi-
pUcity of meanings, it is not surprising that even the learned ex
positor should be occasionally perplexed. It will be advisable
to discover the primitive signification, and to place the rest in
the most natural order as derivatives. Oriental lexicographers
do not arrange them thus ; and therefore we should make some
approach to a philosophical adjustment for ourselves. When a
meaning has been discovered, which the term in question bears in
all the dialects ; and which appears to be fundamental by account
ing for the others as derivatives or modifications of it, we should
select it out of the mass, and apply it to the explanation of a
corresponding Hebrew term. It is possible, however, that the
original meaning may be lost ; and then the various significations
attached to the same term in the different cognate dialects can
not be arranged under one radical idea. Besides, even when the
primitive signification has been ascertained, it may not be suit
able to the passage in Hebrew. Amid the differing, and fre
quently contradictory secondary significations, which ought to
be preferred ? The context must, in a great measure, determine.
What is best adapted to it, is likely to be right.
Arabic.
Among the various dialects that contribute to a correct under
standing of the Hebrew language, the Arabic claims the first
place. Its great similarity and kindred conformation to the
Hebrew, warrant the hope, that the one may be illustrated by a
comparison with the other. It cannot escape the notice of any
one who has but a slight acquaintance with the Arabic, that it
bears a striking resemblance to the Hebrew, not merely in a few
terms and phrases, but in the body of which it is essentially com.
posed. We find in both a great number of radicals used in the
same signification and bearing the same forms. Numerous for
mulas coincide ; while the connexion of the verb and noun with
the pronoun, the construction of clauses, modes of expression,
metaphors, and the leading grammatical principles, exhibit a
marked and close agreement. Were the peculiarities which char-

THE ARABIC APPLIED TO EXEGESIS.

649

acterise it as a distinct dialect, and the artificial arrangements of
grammarians removed, the remainder would furnish the same lan
guage for substance as the Hebrew. Let but the costume it has
unavoidably received be stripped off; and the trunk will stand
forth identical with Hebrew. Hence the intimate harmony of
both establishes the necessity of comparing the Arabic, to facili
tate our acquaintance with its kindred tongue. But notwithstand
ing their close alliance, it would be of little avail to collate the
one for the purpose of elucidating the other, unless the former
were more copious than the latter. Our knowledge of the Arabic
is much more accurate and extended than what can possibly be
obtained of the Hebrew. Where comparatively few remains of a
language are preserved, our acquaintance with it must be imper
fect. With all the zeal and industry that have been expended on
Hebrew, the scanty remains of its Uterature must necessarily pre
vent an accurate and comprehensive knowledge of the whole lan
guage. But the Arabic is the richest of all the Semitic dialects.
The works of poets and philosophers abound in it. Natural his
tory, medicine, mathematics, astronomy, the history and geo
graphy of Oriental nations, have all occupied the attention of
native writers, Arabian productions so numerous and diversified,
might be profitably perused by the mere votary of literature,
apart from a comprehensive study of the language in which they
are written. It is true that many of them are still to be found
only in libraries where they are concealed from the pubUc eye ;
but numerous treatises have also been printed. The knowledge
of the Arabic dialect which may be acquired from the perusal
of books composed in it, far exceeds the amount of linguistic in
formation derivable from the remains of Hebrew literature in the
Old Testament. It is but reasonable, therefore, to employ the
richer language in explaining one of which so little has come
down to us, and that little often obscure. Connected with this
point, and in some measure arising out of it, may be mentioned
the greater certainty which characterises our knowledge of Arabic.
In proportion to the length of time that has elapsed since a lan
guage became extinct, is there less certainty as to the significat
tion of its words. The nearer it has advanced to our own time,
there wiU be the less liabiUty to err in determining the meaning
of words. So is it with the Plebrew and Arabic. The former
has long since ceased to be vernacular, while the latter continues
to be spoken. It is true, that the language of common life among
4n

650 COGNATE LANGUAGES AS SOURCES OF INTERPRETATION.
the Arabians differs considerably from that of the Koran, so that
this book needs to be studied even by native Arabs. Yet many
words, phrases, and forms stiU current among them, are found in
the Koran. Hence there is Uttie difficulty in discovering the
meaning of this sacred composition, and of other writings con
temporaneous or successive. Besides, in the dialect of the Koran
and other monuments of Arabic Uterature, there is a great simi
larity to the ancient Hebrew, so that the certainty we obtain in
perusing the former, enables us to ascertain with greater facility
the true sense of corresponding and kindred terms in the latter.
Thus we apply the Arabic as a valuable instrument for the better
understanding of a dialect which is substantially the same, but
less understood.
In illustrating the Hebrew language by means of the Arabic,
it will be proper to apply it, in the first instance, foi' the purpose
of confirming what is already known. This is the easiest part
of the process, and may serve as a preparatory exercise to other
particulars of greater difficulty. A multitude of terms may thus
be brought into comparison, and the signification they bear in
the less copious dialect verified by the riclier.
It may be also applied to sanction and confirm rare meanings
attached to familiar terms. In the business of exegesis it occa
sionally happens, that the ordinary signification of a word is in
applicable. Cases occur in which we must depart from it, and
look for another suited to the exigency of the place. Although
the two dialects were originally identical, the signification of a
word may have gradually fallen into disuse in the one, while it
remained fixed in the other. In Hebrew a term may have ceased
to bear a certain sense, and another may be employed to express
the same idea ; although in the kindred tongue, the correspond
ing term has experienced no such change.
When a term or phrase in the Hebrew Scriptures bears a sig
nification extremely rare, it is possible to conjecture from the
context what it means ; though there will be some doubt of its
true import. But when it is confirmed by the Arabic, there is
as much certainty as the nature of the case will admit. Thus the
unusual signification of comprimere, which belongs to nW in
Ezekiel xxiii. 3, 8, is confirmed by the Arabic Li>i tegere. In
other places it signifies to make or prepare. In 1 Samuel i. 18,
rrri, from the Arabic y>*} denotes is fallen, for the usual mean
ing is inapplicable.

THE ARABIC APPLIED TO EXEGESIS. 651
But there are words which occur but once in the Hebrew-
Scriptures, and whose signification we shall look for in vain in
the language itself. In such a case parallel passages render no
assistance. The context itself may be of little benefit, or if we
endeavour by its feeble aid to affix a certain meaning to such
ciira^ Xiyofjiiva, it is liable to the objection of arbitrary assumption.
Etymology, too, may refuse to lend its help — and the traditional
interpretation preserved in versions may be varying and contra
dictory. Here, then, the Arabic is especially useful in suggest
ing the true meaning, or in giving value to that which the con
text of a particular place slightly intimates. Thus in Genesis
xxviii. 12, Ubp signifies a ladder. So the Arabic *.X*w. Jonah
i. 5, n^'BD a ship; Arabic !sJUi«. Joel i. 17, ^2V to be
withered up; Arabic lj*..ac. The verb ^^^p^?, Job vi. 10, is
an dira^ Xiyof/,. It is the same as the Arabic <xXa«», which sig
nifies to be hard, firm, or strong ; roborabo me, says Castell
rightly. The verse should be translated, " Still shall my com
fort remain ; yea I shall strengthen myself in grief which does
not spare, for I have not refused the words of the Holy One,"
This is much preferable to the opinion of Saadias, Abulwalid,
Kimchi, and Rosenmiiller, who, comparing the Chaldee I^Pj ren
der, " though I be consumed with grief which does not spare," &c.
The Seventy render the word riXX6fj,^v and the Vulgate saliebam,
which give the meaning metaphorically but not literally.
Many German writers of the last century fell into error by
magnifying the importance of the Arabic language as an auxi
Uary to the interpretation of the Old Testament. In this they
seem to have been influenced by the Dutch school founded by
Schultens, which continued to send forth a race of critics quali
fied to make deep researche sin the Oriental languages. The ex
cessive use made by the latter of this ancient tongue, in tracing the
signification of words, infected the leading scholars of Germany,
such as Michaelis and Eichhorn. But Gesenius first set limits
to the spirit of excess. The cautious and sober application of
the Arabic which his lexicons exhibit, is a model for all future
lexicographers and philologists in their investigations of the ge
nuine meaning of Hebrew terms and phrases. In consequence
of the labours of this distinguished Hebraist, the study of the

652 COGNATE LANGUAGES AS SOURCES OF INTERPRETATION.
Arabic language has become a matter of less moment to the in
terpreter of the Old Testament. His Thesaurus especially is so
rich in Arabic illustration prudently employed, as to render it a
less imperative duty for the student of the Bible to spend a large
portion of his life in learning the language. Professor Lee also,
who is famUiar with the Oriental tongues, has availed himself of
Arabic in a valuable Hebrew lexicon lately published. These
indispensable books lessen the obligation of the Biblical inter
preter to betake himself to the Arabic language for the purpose
of becoming an accomplished Hebraist. We would not, there
fore, censure the scholar who contents himself with the study of
the Hebrew language as it is developed in the best grammars
and lexicons, such as those of Gesenius, Ewald, Nordheimer,
Stuart, and Lee, in the former department ; and Winer, Gese
nius, and Lee in the latter. These laborious men, through the
medium of their various works, have appUed the Arabic language
to the exposition of the Old Testament, The sober and discern
ing critic will not fail to perceive in what respects they should
not be implicitly followed. Besides, the student who Is familiar
with the German language, and has access to the commentaries
of continental writers, finds in their expositions of separate books
an extended application of the Oriental languages. It Is impos
sible to open any work of this nature published in Germany,
without finding numerous examples. Let the reader turn for
instance to Gesenius's Commentary on Isaiah, Umbreit on Job,
Ewald on the books of the Old Testament, or even E. F. C. Ro-
senmueller's Scholia, and the eye at once meets Arabic words and
phrases designed to cast light on various passages. Such commen
taries as these, in addition to the lexicographal and grammatical
helps already specified, furnish ample materials for elucidating
all the terms occurring in the Old Testament Scriptures — ma
terials elaborated and applied by learned Orientalists. Thus the
necessity of learning the Arabic tongue Is in a great degree re
moved. The time and patience required to master a language
so copious and difficult, may be spared or otherwise employed,
when resources have been furnished ready to our hand. We may
leave the pains-taking, indefatigable Germans to prosecute their
favourite studies, without imitating their zeal in the same depart
ment. They relieve us of years of research and assiduous appli
cation. They bring to our door treasures faithfuUy gathered
from depths where we fear to adventure ; and pour them into the

THE ARABIC APPLIED TO EXEGESIS.

653

expectant mind. They supply us with the results of investiga
tions upon which we have neither the disposition nor the abiUty
to enter. On the contrary, we are liable to recoil from them
with a degree of instinctive indolence. Let us therefore be grate
ful to such men ; and instead of pronouncing their researches
useless or pernicious, let us appreciate their value and extract
their excellence.
We would not be understood as wholly discouraging the stu
dent from attempting to learn the Arabic language. There are
advantages derivable from it, notwithstanding all that has been
done by others. To say nothing of the pleasure arising in the
mind of the independent inquirer, and the conscious satisfaction
he feels In pursuing his own way, there are doubtless many par
ticulars yet unexplored which are capable of illuminating the
genius of the Hebrew language. It Is probable that every one
who advances far into the Semitic languages will discover modes
of speech analogous to BibUcal expressions, and yet unnoticed by
preceding philologists. The field Is extensive and ample enough
to allow of numerous cultivators. The researches of one man may
be directed with so much skill and successful industry, as to
transcend the efforts of another. But It requires no small leisure
and mental determination to prosecute the Arabic language so
long, as to make It serve the purposes of independent criticism. A
large apparatus is necessary for this department ; and unless there
be a reasonable prospect of going beyond the attainments of the
best Hebrew lexicographers, it is almost preposterous to learn
Arabic otherwise than as a mere literary occupation.
We should be grieved to find these remarks so interpreted as
to deter any from attempting this rich and noble language,
closely allied as it is to the sacred original of the Old Testament.
It is worthy of cultivation by all who desire to be fundamental
interpreters of the Scriptures. But in this country it excites no
ambition. A good Arabic scholar is a curiosity. One who has
brought it to bear upon his knowledge of Hebrew is still rarer.
The days of the Waltons and Castells are gone, leaving us only
to look back on the departed giants of other times with melan
choly reflections.
We are quite persuaded, that the Bible will never be thoroughly
investigated, as long as a very few lexicographers, however able
or accomplished they be, are aUowed to determine the significa
tion of words, and to guide the theological world. It is proper

654 COGNATE LANGUAGES AS SOURCE."? OF INTERPRETATION.
to rely on them, but not Implicitly. To rest solely in the results
of their learning, savours of indolence or incapacity. As long as
they are suffered to command an entire subjection to their senti
ments, the Interpretation of the Bible will make no real advance
ment. If we desire to see it progressing, we should be able to
judge of the correctness of lexical statements, as well as to make
a sober and judicious use of them. If we cannot discern the
errors of such writers, or distinguish their faults from their excel
lencies, we shall either be their feeble-minded slaves, or their
incompetent critics. All who aspire to reach the laudable emi
nence of helping forward by their own exertions the exegesis of
the Bible, must at least ascend the heights which others have
reached, whence they may take a comprehensive survey ; undis
mayed by the arduousness of the way, they must needs mount up
on the same platform as their predecessors, or even a higher
elevation. Isaiah xix. 13. The term HilS properly signifies corner, or cor
ner-stone, as applied to a building, and metaphorically, the sup
port of a thing, because the corner-stone upholds and strengthens
a structure. In this passage It denotes those who were the chief
support of Egypt, i. e. Its rulers and princes. That this Is the
true meaning of the term. Is confirmed by the usage of the Ara-
5 O 5
bic language, according to which, (jTy a corner, is frequently
taken to mean counsellors or nobles. Thus in the Koran, Surat
li. 39, (p. 442, ed. Redslob, 8vo, Lipsia, 1837), *i^;J J^xi
and he turned back with his counsellors. Were farther confirma
tion of this sense necessary, we might refer to two other passages
where the Hebrew word has the same signification, viz. Judges
XX. 2; Zechar. x. 4. In the former, Dyri"73 DiilS mean, the
' T T T »
corners of all the people, i. e. the heads ; and in the latter, lilQQ
n!I3 from hitnself came the corner, i. e. the rulers and leaders of
the people. The parallelism plainly indicates the same sense in
the passage before us.
Isaiah xxii. 8. m^n'' "^DO na 7.V1. The sense of this clause
Is obscure. But the Arabic comes to our aid. To remove or
rend the veil Is used by the Arabians to express extreme ignominy
and wretchedness. The mode of speaking was borrowed from
virgins and modest matrons, to remove whose veil was reckoned

THE ARABIC APPLIED TO EXEGESIS.

655

an insult which none but the most wanton would dare to commit.
To tear off their veil betokened the greatest disgrace they could
suffer from the hands of men. Those who proceeded to such
excess did not scruple to violate their persons. Thus we find In
the history of Timur UsiJI tixiSCij /^? ^j^, ^^ before the veil be
taken off, and not a remnant left you." Here Tamerlane threatens
the Sultan of Egypt with extreme misery and disgrace, inform
ing him that every thing sacred would be violated, unless he
surrendered himself and his kingdom. In Abulfaragius' history
of the dynasties the same words occur, surrounded by such a
commentary as infalUbly leads to their right explanation. When,
therefore, it is said here, that the veil of Judah is renwved; the
meaning is, Judah is visited with the greatest ignominy and dis
tress. Judges V. 2. " Praise ye the Lord for the avenging of Israel,
when the people wilUngly offered themselves." In the first clause
of this verse, the two words niyiD ]fl^2. have always perplexed
commentators. Both are of the same signification, so that when
the meaning of one is determined, that of the other follows of
course. The verb yiQ must signify to lead, ior so the Arabic
^ ^ 1^
cji is taken. It Is explained by Freytag. 1) adscendit montem,
c. a. 6) superavit nobilitate, pulchritudine aliquem, c. a. p. et v r.
Castell gives the same explanation in nearly the same terms.
Hence the noun necessarily signifies leaders or rulers ; just as
the Arabic ^yi denotes the head of any thing, the head of a
family or people. According to this mode of eliciting the sense
of the words, to which Arabic usage points, the clause should be
translated, " that the leaders in Israel led the way." So the
Alexandrine codex of the Septuagint and Theodotion understand
it ; and the ablest modern critics, such as Schnurrer, Hollmann,
and Gesenius assent.
Isaiah Ix. 19. V^H] arm stands for helper or assistant. So the
Arabic .yihs. arm is frequently put for helper.
In Psalm xvi. 2 the word J^"lD^* has given much trouble to
interpreters. Supposing the present reading to be genuine, which
is altogether probable, and then that there is an eUipsis of '''p^l,
my soul, the question is, how can such an eUipsis be justified.
Here the practice of Arabian writers comes opportunely to our

656 COGNATp LANGUAGES AS SOURCES OF INTERPRETATION.
aid. An example like the present occurs in these two lines of
an ancient poet, Atnabita, which have been preserved by Abul-
feda In his Annales, and quoted by Rosenmiiller in his SchoUa : —
O M
I say [to my soul] as often It flutters with fear,
Be still ; thou shalt either be celebrated, or repose in death.
Syriac.
The Syriac language is substantially the same with Hebrew
and Chaldee, although they are distinct dialects with character
istic peculiarities. In consequence of the kindred nature which
the Syriac bears to the Hebrew, It is usefully applied in explain
ing the latter. A great number of words are the same in both ;
while the similarity In forms, constructions, and syntactical prin
ciples, cannot be mistaken. Besides, the Syriac is more copious
than the Hebrew — its remains are abundant, but those of the
Hebrew scanty. The one continued to be vernacular after the
other, and must consequently have preserved words and phrases
which throw light upon the older. It is true, that the majority
of the books written in Syriac are still concealed in libraries, yet
those already printed are important In their contents. The his
tory of the East, especially Its ecclesiastical history, together with
its geography, has been illustrated by Syrian writers. The books
already published In this language, though forming but a small
proportion of those actually existing In MS., furnish copious
means of attaining an accurate knowledge of the language, and
are sufficient to justify the assertion, that we are much better ac
quainted with the Syriac than the Hebrew. Hence we may
profitably bring our knowledge of that which is^better understood,
to bear upon the elucidation of a dialect possessing few literary
memorials. In proceeding to apply Syriac to the explanation of Hebrew,
the same method should be followed as has been already pointed
out in relation to Arabic. In the first place. It may be employed
to verify an unusual signification belonging to a term. Thus the
noun ^'113, derived from the verb ^1^, to pluck off, can create
no difficulty where it denotes prey, meat, or food, as In the 104 th
Psalm 21st verse. This signification, however, would be totally
inapplicable in Ezekiel xvii. 9, as the connexion shews. It means

CHALDEE APPLIED TO EXEGESIS. 657
leaves, as is proved by the Syriac fa;.^ which in Mark xi. 13
corresponds to the Greek fvXXa.
Again, words that occur but seldom, and aira^ Xiyofuva which
cannot be known from the Hebrew alone nor from other sources,
sometimes admit of satisfactory elucidation from this language.
An example of the latter is presented by 3^>i^ (Psalm cxix. 131),
which would be obscure If it were not compared with the Syriac
£1^}.. occurring in Luke xvi. 21.
Proverbs xi. 21. t"? T , " hand to hand, i. e. from generation
to generation the wicked shall not go unpunished." The Syriac
phrase \^\ci j.,-] one after another, confirms the sense of the
Hebrew. So Schultens, J. D. Michaelis, Muntlnghe, and Ge
senius. Chaldee.
A slight comparison of the Hebrew and Chaldee Is sufficient
to shew the great similarity existing between them. They differ
indeed from one another as two dialects belonging to one primi
tive stem ; but when we separate from the Chaldee Its dialetic
pecuUarltles, such as the terminations and forms of words, with
the pronunciation of single terms, its naked roots are the same as
many In the Hebrew tongue. In the Chaldee language the
Babylonian and Jerusalem dialects may be distinguished. The
former arose among the Jews at the time of their captivity, when
their language was incorporated with the Babylonian and brought
back thus corrupted to their own country. Notwithstanding the
mixed origin of this dialect, it Is comparatively pure. The Je
rusalem dialect was gradually created long after the Jews had
returned to Palestine, by the admixture of numerous Syriasms
and foreign terms, which were introduced under the oppression of
the Syrian kings. The latter Is much more impure than the
former, and bears less resemblance to the Hebrew.
In consequence of the affinity of Chaldee to Hebrew, Its utility
in elucidating it must be considerable. Were we as well acquainted
with it as with the Arabic and Syriac, it might be expected to
reflect more light than either on the object of our study. But
our knowledge of it Is partial and limited. The chief memorials
of the Babylonian dialect are the few chapters of Daniel and Ezra
written in Chaldee, which present its finest specimens. The Tar
gums of Onkelos and Jonathan belong to the same ; yet as they
4 o

658 COGNATE LANGUAGES AS SOURCES OP INTERPRETATION.
exhibit some deviations from the Babylonian by reason of the very
fact that they are paraphrases of the Hebrew, they do not afford
the same means of obtaining an accurate knowledge of Chaldee
as original memorials like those of Daniel and Ezra. By adding
the Babylonian Talmud to those already mentioned, the list of
remains belonging to the Babylonian dialect will be completed.
The Jerusalem Talmud is a specimen of the Jerusalem dialect ;
but It is necessary either to exclude the latter from application to
the Hebrew, or at least to employ it sparingly and with great
caution. Hence we are limited almost entirely to the existing
specimens of the Babylonian dialect. And here we must follow
the same method as has been already pointed out In reference to
Arabic and Syriac. We should begin with the familiar and well-
known, advancing afterwards to the more obscure. In both He
brew and Chaldee, a great number of terms are exactly the same,
consisting of nouns, pronouns, verbs, words denoting relationship,
or those descriptive of the parts of the body. Numerous Hebrew
terms have the same signification in Chaldee. Hence It is pro
bable that the latter has preserved rare meanings belonging to
terms In Its cognate, or that the primitive Idea attached to them
has remained in Chaldee, while it has been lost in Hebrew.
Again, words that occur but seldom, and aitaS, Xiyofijiva, may
be easUy illustrated by a comparison with this kindred dialect, if
they occur often and In such circumstances as fix their import.
Thus bai occurs but once inthe Hebrew Scriptures, viz. Eccle
siastes xu. 3. In Chaldee we meet with it once and again in the
signification of to cease, which we accordingly apply to it in this
place. So Gen. vui. 22, where Tlbl23^ corresponds to IDltt^.
The Syriac and Chaldee have contributed to the best modern
Lexicons equally with the Arabic. Accordingly the remarks al
ready made In regard to the study of Arabic are appropriate to
them. They are less difficult and copious, and consume less time
In their acquisition.
The Samaritan and Ethiopic are but remotely allied to the
Hebrew, and of little utility in explaining it. We shall there
fore omit them.

( 659 )

CHAPTER XV.
USE OF GENERAL INFORMATION IN SCRIPTURE INTERPRETATION.

General History.
An interpreter must be acquainted not only with sacred history
derived from the Bible itself, but with the general history of the
world. The people of God were brought Into contact with other
nations. With some they were enjoined to wage perpetual war.
By others they were frequently overcome, oppressed, and harassed,
God employing the heathen as instruments for accomplishing his
purposes towards his chosen. The history of the world can only
be viewed aright when it Is contemplated by the philosophical
believer as subservient to the history of the church. The Old
Testament especially, must be very obscure to him who Is unac
quainted with history. Its prophecies, whether fulfilled or not,
he will fail to perceive In their true character. A large and wide
survey of ancient nations, such as the Medes, Persians, Babylo
nians, Pheniclans, Egyptians, Assyrians, Romans, &c. &c. must
be highly conducive to the exposition and confirmation of the
Bible. This is self-evident, and therefore we need not insist on
it. One thing, however, should be borne In mind, that while the
historical relations of Scripture are infallibly correct, those of all
other writers are marked by occasional errors and imperfections.
We can rely with the greatest confidence on the sacred history
contained in the Word of God — but not on uninspired accounts.
Wherever the two sources are opposed, there can be no hesitation
in following the former. It should also be observed, that the
historic statements directly or Indirectly made in the Bible, are
of much more extensive use than has been ordinarily supposed.
Heathen testimonies are often consulted when they are superflu
ous. The Biblical history Is for the most part sufficient to eluci
date an historic passage without foreign aid. A broad and well-
defined line should be drawn between that which Is contained In
the Scriptures themselves, and what they do not furnish. At
present the latter alone is the subject before us.

660 GENERAL INFORMATION SUBSERVIENT TO INTERPRfiTATlON.
There are two purposes which a knowledge of profane history
serves ; first, to educe the sense of a passage or paragraph to
which nothing in the Bible Itself affords a clue : secondly, to
confirm a sense which is liable to some uncertainty or obscurity
— to place it in a clear unexceptionable light, so that all doubt
of its correctness Is removed. The number of passages that can
not be at all understood without this apparatus is small — those
only half-understood without it are numerous. The meaning
may be dimly not fully apprehended, unless there be an acquaint
ance with the history of nations in general. The following ex
amples will shew the use of history.
Judges V. 20. " They fought from heaven ; the stars in their
courses fought against Slsera." Josephus states (Antiq. v. 5. 4),
that a tempest of hail, wind, and rain discomfited the Canaanites.
Thus the host of heaven fought for Israel. God appeared on
behalf of his people ; he sent a storm of thunder and lightning,
accompanied by torrents of rain, which threw them into confusion,
and contributed to their destruction.
Revelation ix. 1-11. Here a swarm of locusts is employed
to depict the rise and progress of Mohammedism.
Verse 4. When Yezid marched to invade Syria, he was com
manded by Abu-Beker, " Destroy no palm-trees ; nor burn any
fields of corn : cut down no fruit trees ; nor do any mischief to
cattle, only such as you kill to eat."
The men that had not the seal of God in their foreheads re
present the apostate Christians of that period ; those who had
lost the purity of reUgion and worshipped saints and martyrs.
Accordingly, the Saracens overran the countries subject to the
man of sin, viz. the greater part of the Greek empire, the south
of Italy, the African provinces, and Spain.
Verse 5. They were not allowed to destroy the apostate em
pire. Though they made frequent attempts to take Constanti
nople, they never succeeded.
Verse 7. It is well known that the strength of the Saracens
depends on their cavalry.
The Arabs have always worn turbans, which are meant by
the expression crowns of gold on their heads. They also wore
their mustachlos as men, although (verse 8) their hair was flow
ing or plaited like that of women. Their teeth were as the teeth
of lions to denote their strength, cruelty, and rapacity.
Verse 10, The stings in their tails denotes the poisonous and

GENERAL HISTORY.

661

destructive nature of the superstition they propagated. The five
months or 150 years during which their ravages continued, may
be reckoned from 602 to 752. In the latter year, Almansor
founded Bagdad, and called it the city of peace. Henceforward
the Saracens became a settled people, and their power declined.
Verse 1 1 . The King called Abaddon or ApoUyon repre
sents the kingdom or dynasty of Mohammed and his CaUph
successors.* Nahum ii. 6. " The gates of the rivers shall be opened, and
the palace shall be dissolved." This is explained by the trans
actions that took place when Arbaces took Nineveh. Sarda-
napalus, finding that the rebels persisted In besieging the city,
and despairing of success, after a mighty inundation of the river
had broken in upon a part of the city, and thrown down twenty
stadia of the wall in length, shut himself up in his palace. In
which were collected his eunuchs, concubines, and all his trea-'
sures, and set fire to the whole. Thus the gates of the river
were opened, and the palace was dissolved by fire, according to the
words of the prophet ; and thus also with an overrunning flood,
the Lord made an utter end of the place thereof. (Nahum i. 8.)t
Jeremiah li. 30, 31, 32.
The Chaldeans, beUeving that Babylon was impregnable, re
mained at ease, and derided the besiegers from the walls. The
Persians entered the city by the channel of the river at the same
time from above and below, passed into the city through the
gates leading down to the river, which had not been closed, and
pressed forward to the royal palace. We are Informed that the
Persians burnt those houses from the roofs of which they had
been annoyed, by setting fire to the doors, which were covered
with bitumen. Hence it is said in the 30th verse, " they have
burned her dwelling-places ;" and in the 32d, when It Is affirmed,
" the reeds they have burned with fire," this is explained by
Cyrus having turned the course of the river along which they
went, and which was overgrown with reeds. These they burned
with fire.
That a good degree of historical knowledge is necessary for
understanding the Scriptures, above all, the prophetic and episto
lary portions, no IntelUgent student will deny. Especially should
* See Faber's " Sacred Calendar of Prophecy," vol, ii. pp. 393-411, where the
prophecy is admirably illustrated.
+ See Diodorus, Bibliotheca, lib. ii., and Herodotus, Hist, ii.

662

GENERAL INFORMATION SUBSERVIENT TO INTERPRETATION.

the religious views current at the time when Christ appeared —
the errors then beginning to be propagated — the different sects
that existed, be Investigated and known. Unless there be an
acquaintance with the political and religious aspect of the people
among whom prophets and apostles lived — the people of whom
and against whom they wrote, obscurity will attach to passages
and paragraphs; Let any one attempt to expound Colossians
ii. 16-19 who knows nothing of the Oriental or Maglan philoso
phy which the Gnostics engrafted on Christianity, and he will
be perplexed with phrases which bear a marked allusion to pecu
liar opinions entertained by Judaising Christians imbued with
such a theosophy. Several parts of the apostle John's writings
also point to the same philosophy as adopted by various sects.
Or, let him attempt to expound the Apocalypse who has no ac
quaintance with the history and spread of Christianity — the
persecutions to which it was exposed — the corruptions it gra
dually underwent, and the great Antichristian apostasy deve
loped in the book. Such an one will soon fall into grievous mis
takes, and grope his way amid ambiguity.
To furnish this historical knowledge Is the peculiar province
of introductions, which the interpreter should have studied be
fore attempting actual exegesis. A safe and systematic exposi
tion should succeed this introductional literature.
Chronology.
Chronology Is intimately connected with history. In study
ing the Scriptures it will be most useful to ascertain the chrono
logy of certain periods in the Biblical history, such as the flood
— the call of Abraham — the exodus from Egypt — the first ap
pointment of judges — the time at which Solomon built the tem
ple — the division of the twelve tribes — the downfal of Israel
and Judah as two separate kingdoms — the date of the seventy
years' captivity — the commencement of Daniel's seventy weeks
— the time when our Saviour died — when Paul was converted,
&c. &c. Such remarkable events should be assigned to their
respective dates, and indelibly fixed in the mind. The diffi
culties belonging to the subject are neither few nor small. It
presents inextricable labyrinths. Chronological systems are found
to "disagree. Those of the Hebrew Bible, the Septuagint, the
Samaritan Pentateuch, and Josephus, differ from one another.
It is, therefore, needless for the interpreter to perplex himself

ARCILEOLOGY,

663

with the conciliation of varying dates, when the Bible itself
affords no assistance in the solution, or when the knowledge of
a passage or paragraph does not depend on such an adjustment.
As the subject is unsettled in many of its details, so It has
little Infiuence on the exposition of Scripture. There are few
passages to the knowledge of which It is the sole guide, or which
cannot be understood apart from Its application. The chrono
logy contained in the pages of the Bible itself Is sufficient for
the elucidation of the sacred Book.
Archaeology.
God has imprinted on the constitution of society In eastern
countries IndeUble marks of the truth of those sacred records
which are given for the salvation of men. With a pen of iron he
has written on its frame-work a lasting memorial of events, the
greatest which the world has been privileged to witness. The
shifting aspect of migratory hordes has not swept away customs
and modes of Ufe once prevalent in Arabia and Palestine. The
same features and habits which characterised patriarchal times,
or the later days of our Saviour's incarnation, still continue in
unbroken succession. Wildness of scenery and the vagrancy of
lawless tribes have not served to efface the permanent lineaments
of antiquity ; but the overruling providence of God has preserved
in customs and ceremonies unvarying traces of His presence and
power. In this respect the nations of the west present a remark
able contrast to Oriental countries. Here, perpetual changes are
constantly taking place from discoveries in arts, the cultivation
of science, and the progression of the human mind towards the
full measure of its maturity. Were our simple ancestors to re
visit their descendants of the third or fourth generation, they
would marvel at habits of life so unlike their own ; and the rapid
effects of cIvUIsation around would fill them with no less wonder.
But In the east, centuries roll on, presenting the same unvarying
occupations and manners. Rural pictures and domestic scenes
appear to the eye in unchanging succession ; forms of salutation
descend from father to son, and are preserved as faithfully as the
parting counsels of pious parents in the bosoms of their dutiful
offspring. Thus the Bible is not left without a continued testi
mony to Its truth ; for wherever travellers have penetrated east
ward, especially in the localities mentioned in Scripture, they
have found distinct marks of Its faithful portraiture ; and how-

664 GENERAL INFORMATION SUB.SF.RVIENT TO INTERPRETATION.
ever carelessly they may have read Its inspired pages before, they
are compelled to admit, that the seal of truth Is visibly enstamped
on the unadorned simplicity of every narrative.
The interpretation of the Bible has not been so much ad
vanced by the collation of eastern antiquities as many believe.
Its Importance as an auxiliary to the right understanding of the
Word of God has been occasionally overrated. It serves, how
ever, to deepen our Impressions of Scripture scenes by enabling
us to transport ourselves more easily Into mountains and valleys
where the saints of God walked, and the Almighty himself de
scended in awful majesty, or spoke In approving accents. This
indeed falls far short of the vivid enjoyment of such as visit In
person the very spots where events of mightiest moment occurred.
To them the living associations are doubly present. It is their
enviable lot to behold with their own eyes places of which they
had often read, and around which so many of their holiest ideas
had gathered since the sunny hours of childhood. It is theirs to
traverse barren sands and rocky eminences, consecrated in the
memory of believers by the wanderings of God's faithful servants ;
to survey the resting-place where the chequered story of their
earthly pilgrimage ended ; and to indulge melancholy musings
amid the desolation of temples and cities once hallowed by the
presence of the excellent of the earth. They look upon the plains
where the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob tarried with
their flocks ; their feet stand within the gates of Jerusalem, " the
joy of the whole earth ;" they visit the wilderness where the son
of Jesse hid from the face of his persecutor ; or survey the bleak
mountains on which Saul and Jonathan fell together. But high
as is the satisfaction of treading mountains and plains where saints
celebrated in sacred record once lived, far higher must be the
thrilling interest excited by a survey of the land where a greater
than they sojourned. Jesus himself was born In Judea — in it he
performed his miracles — Its towns and villages were blessed with
the gracious words that proceeded from his lips — its lone places
witnessed the fervent prayers of the divine suppliant ; and chiefly,
the city of the great king was hallowed by his presence. Scrip
ture scenes of sadness and of joy, events of solemn grandeur or of
softer benevolence, the Christian traveller alone can adequately
realise, as he peruses the narrative on the spot to which it refers.
But for those whose eyes have never looked upon the rugged
mountains and glorious landscapes of Arabia or Judea, it is left to

AECHjEOLOGY.

665

follow the descriptions of Intelligent eye-witnesses, contented to
gaze upon the faint shadow which flits across the field of their
vision, even while suppressing an intense longing to survey for
themselves such sacred locaUtles as the Spirit of God has embalmed
In the living shrine of the heart. The stranger indeed has defiled
splendid monuments erected by the piety of kings and nobles,
treading down their glory in the dust ; but the wilderness and the
desert remain ; — temples and towers of which the Book of God
tells, have fallen beneath the ravages of time and the assaults of
fierce barbarians ; but the very spots on which prophets and
apostles stood, are dear to the bosom of the believer ; yea thrice
precious is the local remembrance of Immanuel, God with us.
Our wonder therefore is, that the number of travellers in Pales
tine and the adjacent countries is not greater. If men, actuated
by the mere love of gain, can cross the burning sands and endure
the inhospitable clime of India ; shall it be said of the Christian,
that he is touched by no enthusiasm of a higher cast to look upon
Nazareth, and Bethlehem, and Tiberias, and Jerusalem, from
which salvation has gone forth to gladden the mUlions of earth's
perishing population with a holy joy ?
To the enlightened theologian a wide field is opened up by the
antiquities of the Bible, in which he may throw himself back into
the circumstances of the persons who write and speak, discover
the allusions of their language, and ascertain the Import of their
diction. It unfolds to view a vast theatre of action, where he
may survey the most magnificent, equally with the minutest ac
tions which the Bible pourtrays, from the same position as eye
witnesses or contemporaries. Biblical antiquities have been made
to comprehend a greater or less extent in the judgment of dif
ferent writers. Jahn divides the subject into three parts, viz.
domestic, political, and sacred antiquities. It is much to be de
sired that the sources of Biblical archseology should be carefully
separated. The great source is the Scriptures themselves. In
addition to this there are the works of Josephus and Philo, the
Mishna, Greek and Latin authors, ancient monuments and coins,
and the journals of traveUers. It would be of great importance
to have the knowledge derived from the Bible itself reduced to a
system, and presented as a purely Biblical archceology. Let
there be also compiled from the other sources an archseology for
illustrating the manners, customs, and institutions of the people
mentioned in sacred writ. We are much mistaken If the only
4 p

666 GEOGRAPHY,
tangible and fixed portions of archseology be not such as are fur
nished by the Bible itself. The amount of instruction derivable
from all other sources Is small ; and as far as it partakes of cer
tainty. It contributes little towards the exposition of the divine
word. For eliciting the sense of the text, Its services are faint.
We want an archseology drawn from the Scriptures without the
admixture of foreign sources, that it may be seen how far the
Bible interprets itself, apart from the intervention of human com
positions. Antiquarian knowledge gathered from external and
human compositions imparts greater clearness, weight, and pre
cision to that which we have learned from an inspired source —
it confirms and expands our previous information, infixing it more
deeply into the mind — but It Imparts little oi positive knowledge
which is really useful in discovering the meaning of a passage
otherwise unknown. Geography.
Here again It is necessary to distinguish between the informa
tion conveyed in the Scriptures themselves, either expressly or
by implication, and that which is fiirnished by other writers.
Notwithstanding the numerous treatises that have been published,
much remains still unexplored.
In studying the geography of the Bible we should begin with
Palestine, the land where the occurrences narrated in the Bible
chiefly happened. Its boundaries at different times must be
marked — its cities larger and smaUer — its seas, rivers, moun
tains, and valleys, should be pictured on the mind. Spots in
significant in themselves were dear to the Hebrews, and attract
the notice of the Christian by the mention of them made in the
Bible, In studying localities the interpreter must always distin
guish times. Thus Palestine appears in a different aspect before
it was cantoned out among the twelve tribes, and after they had
gained a secure settlement in it. The early history of it Is ob
scure, and we can only form some probable conjectures respect
ing the localities of the various tribes by which it was occupied
previous to the Invasion of it by the Hebrews. But in the time
of Joshua, when it was divided into twelve cantons, there is
much greater definiteness respecting its geographical features.
When again the tribes were separated, and two kingdoms arose
out of one, a different view presents itself. At the destruction of
Israel there is another phase — another at the downfal of Judah 

GEOGRAPHY. 667
after the captivity the aspect is again shifted — and in the time of
our Saviour the land had undergone important changes. These
periods bear a relation more or less extensive to the geographical
features of the country ; and whoever leaves them out of view
will assuredly commit mistakes in exposition.
To an accurate and discriminating knowledge of Palestine
should be. added an acquaintance with all the neighbouring lands
with which the people of God had any connexion. Hence Egypt,
and the various places through which the IsraeUtes passed on
their way to the land of promise, come before the view of the
interpreter. Assyria, Arabia, Phenicia, Media, Persia, Chaldea,
Greece, Italy, Asia Minor, &c. &c., with the remote Tarshish
and Ophir, claim attention, and present a wide field of research
to the student of sacred literature.
Isaiah xxi. 1 . Here Babylon is called " the desert of the sea,"
in reference to its situation. It was built on the Euphrates, and
the whole country around was a level plain. Before mounds
and dikes were made by Semlramis, the surrounding region was
inundated by the Tigris and Euphrates, especially the latter.
Hence the flat country resembled a sea when it was so often
overflowed. Herodotus says — " The queen raised certain mounds,
which are indeed admirable works ; till then the whole plain was
subject to violent inundations from the river;" and Abydenus
(Euseb. prsep. Evang. ix.) — " It is said, that the whole region at
first was water, called a sea."
Psalm cxxxiii. 3. The Hebrew literally translated is, " As the
dew of Hermon which descends upon the mountains of Zion."
This, however, exhibits a sense which the situation of Hermon
and Zion contradicts. Hermon, now called Jebel-es- Sheikh, is
the southern extremity of Anti-Ubanus, far distant in the north
from Mount Zion. An eUipsis is therefore necessary : " As the
dew of Hermon, [as the dew that descends] upon the mountains
of Zion," or Jerusalem.
Psalm xiu. 6. " Therefore will I remember thee from the land
of Jordan and of the Hermonites, from the hill MIzar."
This should be translated " from the land of Jordan and of the
Hermons," or " even of the Hermons," the two expressions sig
nifying the same district. The plural is used because Hermon
consisted of several mountains, or a chain, as may be seen from
a good map of the country. The sources of the Jordan are in
the vicinity.

668 GEOGRAPHY.
Deuteronomy i. 1. " These be the words which Moses spake
unto all Israel on this side Jordan in the wilderness, in the plain
over against the Red Sea, between Paran, and Tophel, and La-
ban, and Hazeroth, and Dizahab."
This passage is confessedly difficult. The Israelites were at
this time in the plains of Moab opposite Jericho, and yet they
are said to be " in the plain over against the Red Sea." Rosen
miiller says, " Suph videtur locus esse in ilia reglone situs, ita dic
tus fortasse quod in finlbus reglonls situs esset ; nam ^'0 finer e et
finitionem, tevminum denotat." This is nothing else than ground
less conjecture. It is only by a knowledge of what is called
" the plain," or more properly the ''Arabah, that a satisfactory
solution of the difficulty can be obtained. This immense valley
properly extends from Banias, at the foot of Jebel-esh-Sheikh
(the Hermon of Scripture), to the Red Sea. It is divided into
two parts by the Dead Sea, which is situated about the middle
of it. The Israelites were at this time in the part of this 'Arabah
opposite the Red Sea, or towards the opposite end of it. The
'Arabah is farther said to be between Paran or Kadesh on the
west, and on the east Tophel (probably Tufileh), with Laban,
Hazeroth, and Dizahab on the west.*
Psalm cxxxii. 6. " Lo, we heard of it at Ephratah : we found
it In the fields of the wood." We see plainly from the preceding
verse, that the ark of the covenant is referred to ; but what is
meant by " the fields of the wood ?" "ly* is a proper noun, and
Is the same as Kirjath-jearim. The latter part of the compound
Is simply the plural of I'^l, The true rendering is therefore,
" we found it in the plains of Jahar." Ephratah is merely the
same as Ephraim. The ark seems to have been In this tribe for
a long time at Shiloh.
From the tenor of the Abrahamic covenant, as stated In Genesis
XV. 18, &c. and other parallel passages, it has been argued, that
the Jews must necessarily be restored to their own land because
the promise of God has not yet been fulfiUed. But by consider
ing the boundaries of the Holy Land accurately described in
Numbers xxxiv., and marking the situation of the places which
form the boundary Une, as also by an examination of 1 Kings
iv. 21-24, it wUl be seen, that in the time of Solomon, the cove
nant was fully realised.
" See Robinson's Biblical Researches in Palestine, vol. ii. p. 600.

NATURAL HISTORY.

669

Other examples would be superfluous. Let any one strive to
follow Israel's wanderings, from the exodus tiU they crossed the
Jordan ; or try to understand the locaUties and relative situation
of the tribes, as related in the book of Joshua ; — let him seek to
interpret the book of the Acts of the Apostles, and he will be con
vinced, that an extensive knowledge of geography is necessary
to prevent confusion, and to exhibit the various localities In their
right connexion and relative position. The expositor who thinks
that the Bible alone wiU be a sufficient guide in geographical In
formation is certainly mistaken ; for though It contain within itself
a large amount of Instruction, it does not furnish every thing re
quisite for a clear understanding of many portions.
Natural History.
Some knowledge of this very interesting department is neces
sary to enable us to apprehend the meaning and perceive the
propriety of various portions of Scripture. Thus the highly
poetical descriptions given in the book of Job of behemoth and
leviathan, i. e. the hippopotamus and crocodile, can only be feebly
apprehended by those who do not know the strength, structure,
habits, and fearlessness of these monsters. When it is said of the
former (Job xl. 19), " His Creator hath bestowed on him his
sword,'' the strong teeth of the animal are meant ; and in the 23d
verse it is indicated, that the swelling flood does not terrify -him,
because he is amphibious. " Lo the stream swells — he flees not !
He is of good courage, though the Jordan reaches to his mouth."
In chapter xli. 13, the question, " Who has uncovered the surface
of his garment?" refers to the scaly covering of the crocodile, which
even a musket-ball cannot pierce. Natural history has produced
various important changes in the Interpretation of the Bible, and
is probably destined to Influence exegesis in a still more beneficial
manner. Thus in the case of the animals collected in the ark, it
has taught us to reject the supposition of the older writers that
it was capacious enough to contain pairs and septuples of all the
animals existing on the earth. The number of distinct species
to which mammalia, reptiles. Insects, and animalcules can be re
duced by the most rigid system of condensation, renders It utterly
impossible for us to conceive, that all animals, in every part
of the globe, were shut up In the ark. Hence the necessity of
restricting the language of the narrative. The Hebrew word
bb, does not always denote a strict universality, which in this

670 GEOLOGY,
Instance seems to be out of the question, because the fishes of the
sea are not specified. It appears, therefore, that the newly-created
animals of the particular region where our first parents abode,
were alone brought into the ark and preserved.
The natural history of the east is but imperfectly known. Not
withstanding the researches of various scientific travellers and
other writers, much remains obscure. In many instances we are
left to conjecture what particular animal or plant is denoted by a
Hebrew term. Happily, however, the language of Scripture has
been so constructed as to obviate the necessity of having frequent
recourse to natural history for the interpretation of a passage-
Thus the comparison of one place with another, as of Lam, Iv. 3
with Job xxxix. 16, 17, will shew, that the allusion of the former
is to the ostrich's want of affection In deserting her offspring.
The great work of Bochart is still the best for explaining the
animals of Scripture ; and very little has been added to it since
its publication. With regard to plants, the Hierobotanlcon of
Celsius, with which Forskal's Flora should be joined. Is the chief
store-house. Serpents and insects are best explained by Sheuch-
zer. For minerals and precious stones, Lemnlus and Braunius
are most valuable. Dr. Harris's Natural History of the Bible
is a compendious dictionary extracted from these and many other
works. But however excellent its design and valuable its execu
tion, it would need to be rewritten. The fanciful, erroneous, and
conflicting conjectures with which it abounds, drawn from a great
variety of sources, tend rather to distract, than to satisfy or in
struct the reader. A great number of his extracts from com
mentators might have been spared ; and more judgment should
have been exercised in selecting the truly valuable and useful.
Geology.
Instead of attempting to shew the harmony subsisting between
this science and the Inspired records (a task which has fallen into
far abler hands, and which does not belong to our present pur
pose), we can only allude to the beneficial influence it has exerted
on the interpretation of Scripture, It has taught us to discon
nect the 2d verse of the first chapter of Genesis from the first,
and to suppose a long Interval of time between them : " And
afterwards the earth was without form," &c. Thus the first verse
is a general Introduction to the remaining portion of the narra
tive — an Independent sentence standing at the head of the de-

GEOLOGY.

671

scriptlon, to remind us, that the universe was brought into ex
istence out of nothing by the creative fiat of Almighty power.
The writer then passes to our earth and its various inhabitants,
especially the human race, whose moral history it was his chief
purpose to delineate.
Most of the older expositors were of opinion, that the sun,
moon, and stars were created on the fourth day. The common
English translation favours this Idea : " And God said. Let there
be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from
the night," &c. But such a meaning does not lie in the original
words. They did not then exist for the first time ; an account
of their offce and destination is given. They were then appointed
to be luminaries. The verb which Is employed in the fourteenth
verse is not i*13, to create, or make out of nothing, but simply
n'ri. In the same way it has been supposed, that the language
of the third verse, " let there be light, and there was light," im
plies, that Ught then existed for the first time upon the earth,
whereas all that is meant is, that light then arose upon our pre
sent earth.
Again, this science leads us to take the language of the fourth
commandment In a manner somewhat different from that In which
it has been usually understood. This is required by uniformity
and consistency. In order to 'prevent opposition to the narrative
in the first chapter of Genesis. We have seen that the phrase
" the heavens and the earth" commonly means, the universe of
dependent being, but it Is not always employed in this compre
hensive sense. When It is stated, " for in six days the Lord made
heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is," &c., the
phrase signifies " our present world with its firmament or atmos
phere." " The whole creation," as we say In popular language
— all that the Hebrews had any conception of — was arranged
and adapted to the use of man In six days. If we recollect that
the Jews of that age had no Idea of the universe in Its full ex
tent, but that their notions of creation were limited to the earth
and its near appendages, there will be no difficulty in acceding
to the Interpretation which limits the meaning of " the heavens
and the earth " as mentioned in the fourth commandment.
In short, the whole account of the Mosaic cosmogony has re
ceived important illustration from this interesting science. What
though geology has dissipated certain interpretations of particular
passages long current in the theological world? If they emanated

672 MEDICINE.
from superficial reading, and were handed down from race to race
without examination. It was high time that they should be aban
doned. It amounts to the same thing, whether the true, legiti
mate meaning of the words of Moses be ascertained prior to the
inferences of science, or whether the latter with Its facts and con
clusions have preceded, provided violence be done to neither. It
is all the same whether our geological or theological Investiga
tions have been prior, if we have not forced the one into accord
ance with the other. When the meaning of Moses' words has
been Investigated In the same way, and on the same principles as
the sense of other portions of Scripture, it matters little whether
such a process have been previous or otherwise, to our scientific
researches. When therefore it is said, that geologists have be
gun at the wrong end — that they ought first to have learned
what Moses means ; the assertion is of no weight, unless It can
be shewn that the Mosaic narrative has been forcibly accom
modated to the previous Inferences of geology. Such aver
ments usually imply, that established and correct interpretations
of Scripture are set aside by a slight movement of the magic
wand of science ; and their real tendency is to prejudice the hearer
or reader against the broad evidence presented by the works of
nature. It Is fair and proper that revelation should not bend to
the changing aspect of geology, or permit its authority to be
lessened by modern discoveries ; but it is wrong to speak of the
Bible under the aspect of a certain interpretation, as though
that interpretation were infallible ; and then to charge geology
with infidelity, because Its conclusions disagree with such an In
terpretation. The proper mode of procedure for all who accuse
geologists of heresy and Infidelity, because they affix certain
meanings to some parts of Scripture is, to convince them of their
error in exposition. When this is effected, something will have
been accompUshed. Until it be done, nothing is gained. Those
who are denounced as unbelievers admit the truth of the words
as well as their denouncers ; but they will not admit the Inter
pretation assigned to them. Medicine.
This science has also contributed to the elucidation of the
Bible. We shall only allude to one example of its utility In the
present department. Isaiah xxvi. 18. "We have been with child,
we have been in pain, ive have as it were brought forth wind,"
&c. Here there Is allusion to a disease called Physometra, or

MEDICINE.

673

Tympanitis uteri, of which Dr. Gooch says : — " Tympanitis of
the uterus has been described under two forms ; in the one, the
air is formed In the cavity of the uteriis. Is retained for several
months, distends It to a considerable magnitude, and Is then ex
pelled ; of this I have never seen one Instance : for the other
form, of which I have known several examples, a better name
would he flatus of the uterus. Air is formed in this organ ; but,
instead of being retained, so as to distend the uterus, it is ex
pelled with noise many times a-day." * The text refers to the
first of these forms. " Dans quelque eas, sans le concours d'
aucune des causes dont II vient d'etre question, il se fait pen a
peu dans I'uterus une accummulation de gaz qui en augmente le
volume au meme degre et quelquefols suivant le meme progres
sion que le feralt le prodult de la conception (graviditas Imaglna-
rla.) Delamotte en a rapporte un exemple ; tout le mond sup-
posalt une grossesse veritable ; mals, quand la femme fut parvenue
a son terme, un emission abondante de gaz par la valve fit dis-
paraltre tous les phenomenes de cette fausse grossesse." f The
meaning, therefore, of the prophet is, that notwithstanding the
painful attempts and apparently well-founded hopes of the Jews
In Babylon regarding their political prosperity, nothing real re
sulted — their expectations were entirely disappointed. The dis
ease upon which the figure is founded seems to have been more
common in the east than in western countries.
We might thus traverse the wide field of science and art for
the purpose of shewing, that every part of It should be carefully
brought to confirm and illustrate the divine record. Every de
partment of nature is laid under tribute by the sacred writers.
Their language is borrowed from the diversified kingdom around
us, which Is made to contribute the finest Imagery and richest
metaphors. It Is therefore incumbent on the interpreter to know
the sources from which poetry has borrowed its beautiful and
subEme costume — the objects of the eastern world so interesting
to the student of Scripture, because they afford so much Illustra
tion in rightly understanding its meaning. Especially Is it useful
to transport ourselves to the scenes of the east — where we shall
be surrounded with external features and objects differing from
* An Account of some of the most important Diseases peculiar to Women ; by K.
Gooch, M. D., pp. 241, 2. See also " A Practical Treatise on the Diseases of the
Uterus and its Appendages"; translated from the French of M"" Veuve Boivin, &c.
&c., by G. O, Homing, F. L. S." Svo, London 1834, p. 134,
f Dictionnaire de Medecine ; tome dix-septieme, A Paris. Svo, 1827,
4 Q

674

IMPORTANCE OF SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE.

those to which we are accustomed. Then shall we see the pro
priety and naturalness of figures which seem harsh or uncouth —
the perfect adaptation of the language employed to depict the
moral truths and reUgious doctrines which the Bible impressively
inculcates. If the sacred poets have ransacked the wide domain
of nature, and thence fetched their selectest descriptions, it is
plainly the dictate of sound reason to study the objects to which
they allude.*
It is indisputable also, that there can be no contradiction be
tween the words and the works of God : both are aUke true, because
both proceed from the great unerring cause of all. Though to
us they may occasionally appear discordant, we know that they
must completely harmonise in all their features. It may be owing
to our imperfect knowledge, or to some defect in our inferences,
that we are unable to perceive the complete agreement of the
one with the other ; or we may not have attained to an accurate
interpretation of such portions of the Scriptures as treat of na
tural objects. In such circumstances, it becomes a duty to ex
amine the word and works of God In the spirit of profound reve
rence for the former, and of a fair, comprehensive observation of
facts ; proceeding with that caution which should always charac
terise the devout and philosophical inquirer. Let science pursue
her noble path in exploring the wonderful works of God, unin
fluenced by external prejudices — let theology at the same time
interpret the will of God unbiassed by previous theories ; and we
doubt not that. In able and competent hands, their results will
not be Incompatible. They will shed mutual light upon each
other, and prove both their common origin and mutual adapta
tion. We advocate, not only the harmony between science and
revelation, but the assistance furnished by the former In under
standing the latter. To attain a comprehensive and fundamental
knowledge of the divine word, it is needful to call in the aid of
all science.
It must not be inferred from this, that the object of the Bible
is to inculcate other than religious truth. The perfections of
Deity and his gracious deaUngs towards man form the great
theme of inspiration. But in elevating and enlarging our view
of the glory of Jehovah and his condescension to us, there are
Incidental remarks — subordinate descriptions drawn from his
wondrous operations, which the investigations of philosophic
* See Lowth's Lectures on Hebrew Poetry, lecture vi.

NATURAL OBJECTS POPULARLY DESCRIBED. 675
minds unfold with a beauty and majesty unknown to the narrow
inquirer. But while we speak of natural objects, it is necessary to ob^
serve, that they are not described according to scientific accu
racy. They are popularly treated. Divine revelation was not
intended for the philosopher alone, but for the simple and the
illiterate. God has wisely condescended to adapt the vehicle of
communication to the state of natural knowledge possessed by
the people whom he addressed. According to the age in which
his messages were delivered, so Is the character of expression
employed in reference to scientific objects. They are clothed in
that popular garb which alone was intelligible, and adapted to
convey truth with the most Impressive effect. Hence the lan
guage of the Bible must be viewed In the light of that acquain
tance with nature's works which prevailed in former times. It is
of high Importance to carry this principle along with us in ex
amining certain sections of the divine word. To search In them
for a system of natural philosophy conformed to the present state
of that science. Is absurd. To look in them for the germs of
scientific truth, is equally preposterous. On the contrary, the
language is founded upon the actual ideas of primeval men, and
so constructed as to shew the rude notions formerly entertained —
the limited and erroneous conceptions current In the early ages
of the world. " It is the manner of the Scriptures," says Dr.
Pye Smith, " and most copiously In their earliest written parts,
to speak of the Deity, his nature, his perfections, his purposes,
and his operations, in language borrowed from the bodily and
mental constitution of man, and from those opinions, concern-
ning the works of God in the natural world, which were gene
rally received by the people to whom the blessing of revelation
was granted.
" That so the fact is cannot be denied : and will any dare to
find fault with It ? Is it not sufficient to satisfy any rational man,
that it has pleased Him who cannot err to make use of this me
thod ? We have no right to demand any more satisfaction. But
let it not be forgotten, what has already been stated, that, not only
Is this style that which alone would have been intelligible In the
early ages of the world ; but It is still the best adapted for univer
sal use. An observation now arises to our view, which must, I
cannot but think, force itself with irresistible conviction upon any
impartial mind. If It was not unworthy of the Adorable Majesty
of God to permit Himself to be described In terms infinitely

676 NATURAL OBJECTS POPULARLY DESCRIBED.
beneath him, and which require our watchfulness and pious care,
lest we take up with conceptions far remote from the spirituality
of the Divine Nature, and the purity of Christian worship; much
MORE may it be regarded as consonant with the honour of his
word, that its references to natural objects should be, in the cha
racter of thought and expression, such as comported with the
knowledge of the age in which they were delivered."*
The principle in question must commend itself to the reflect
ing and unbiassed reader of the Bible — to him who knows ought
of the splendid advancement of modern science, and of the phrase
ology employed by the inspired writers In reference to the works
of God in the natural world. It is a gracious condescension of
Heaven to the weakness of his rational creatures — an accommo
dation to their Infantine knowledge, without which certain por
tions of Scripture should neither have conveyed information, nor
awakened emotions of admiring gratitude.
Let it be remembered, that such an accommodation to imper
fect conceptions and Ideas does not Inculcate positive error. The
diction is Idiomatic ; and when converted into unfigurative, it de
picts in the best manner the truths it was meant to set forth.
Agreeably to this mode of representation, the clouds are called
the bottles or vessels of heaven, which are emptied when rain de
scends (Job xxxviii. 37.) In like manner we read of the foun
dations and corner-stone of the earth (Job xxxviu. 6), and of
its pillars (Job ix. 6), which tremble in the time of an earth
quake. The earth was reckoned an extended plane. In Psalm
civ. 3, God Is said to have laid the beams of his chambers in the
waters, language borrowed from and adapted to the primitive
ideas entertained of his habitation and creative agency. So also
Prov. ui. 20, " The clouds drop down the dew," although it is
now known, that clouds are altogether unfavourable to the for
mation of dew.
* " On the Relation between the Holy Scriptures and some parts of Geological
Science," 2d edition, pp, 2G6, 7. The learned author brings forward this rule in an
original manner, deducing it from Scripture with much skill, discrimination, and phi
losophic ability. Its application to the astral worlds, the human frame, and the phe
nomena of the atmosphere is given at some length. We must content ourselves with
referring the reader to the work itself of Dr. Smith. The principle in question is
clearly noticed by Dr, Lee (Commentary on Job, p. 497), in the following passage: —
" It is no objection that the Divine Being here makes use of language, perhaps not
strictly and philosophically true, as to the influences of these stars ; (Orion, Pleiades,
&c.) it is enough for Him to have uttered sentiments then generally considered
as true, and this in terms by which their force and bearing could be clearly under
stood and appreciated. Of this sort, language used by men, and to be used in ad
dressing them, must necessarily be."

(677 )

CHAPTER XVL
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ACCOUNT OF HERMENEUTICAL WRITERS.
The following is a list of Hermeneutical Treatises from the Re
formation to the present time. Those who wish to see the pro
gress of the science, to trace its history, and to mark its expansion,
will probably be desirous to know the successive works in which
it is developed. These we shall endeavour to enumerate without
giving in every instance a detailed account of their contents, or
an extended review of their merits and defects. Many of them
are scarcely entitled to consideration. Most of the older especi
ally, are now superseded, being objects of curiosity rather than
of enlightened attention. Our historical survey may be appro
priately divided into two periods — the first reaching to the year
1761, when Ernesti published his Institutio Interpretis ; the
second, embracing the Interval between 1761, and the present
time. The works marked thus j were written by Roman Catholics.
It wUl be seen that our hermeneutical list proceeds from Chris
tian authors. No Jewish writer has published a copious and
systematic work on the Interpretation of the Old Testament.
But several hermeneutical principles are handed down among the
learned Rabbins by tradition and commonly adopted, which we
shall briefly, notice.
I. The Hermeneutical principles of the older Talmudic doc
tors. These are 20 In number, relating to,
1. The varieties of explanation which arise from a difference in
the vowel points ; in what case the textual reading should be re
tained, or when the consonants should be furnished with other
vowels agreeably to ancient tradition.
2. Parallel passages.
3. The arrangement of sections, single words, and letters ; for
example, in the Pentateuch, a chronological order is not always
followed ; single words and letters sometimes do not stand in their
proper places, &c.
4. The connexion, the proper joining and separation of words
and sentences, with respect to what precedes and follows, &c.

678

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ACCOUNT.

5. The explanation of what precedes and follows, &c.
Rabbi Josua the Levite has collected these rules In his Intro
duction to the Talmud, called Helicoth Olam (eternal journeys),
fourth section, first chapter, which was translated Into Latin by
Constantin L'Empereur Ab Oppyck, Leyden, 1634, 4to.
II. The 32 hermeneutical principles of Rabbi Jose of Galilee
which relate to,
1 . The significations of certain words, especially particles.
2. Unusual laws of syntax.
3. Ellipses and pleonasms.
4. The arrangement and sequence of sections, sentences, and
words. 5. Comparisons, allegories, and enigmas.
6. Apparent contradictions, and the method of removing them.
7. Explanations derived from a comparison of other passages.
8. Cabbalistic Interpretations.
These principles are found in the 3d chapter of the 4th section
of Helicoth Olam.
III. Rabbi Ismael's 13 hermeneutical positions applicable to
every writer. These principles are so highly valued among the
learned Jews, that they are called the fundamental pillar of the
interpretation of the law. They are given in Helicoth Olam, 4th
section, 2d chapter, and were translated Into Latin by Philip of
Aquinum, Paris, 1620, 4to; 2d Edition, Paris, 1629, Svo.
In the work of Moses Maimonides entitled Moreh Nebocim,
" Instructor of the Perplexed," there are several portions re
lating to the Hermeneutics of the Old Testament.
" The argument and scope of the book" (says the younger
Buxtorf In the preface to his Latin translation) " render it a guide
and sort of key to the right understanding of the words, vocables,
phrases, metaphors, parables, allegories, and all those things In
sacred Scripture which, when taken in their literal sense, appear
to teach something foreign to the purpose, heterodox, paradoxical,
absurd, or to have little or no use. Hence the name given to the
book, ' The Teacher of the Perplexed,' because it was written for
the assistance of those who are perplexed about those words,
phrases, and things, so as to be in doubt whether they should be
taken In their literal sense, or figuratively and metaphorically."
Two prefaces are prefixed. In the former, Maimonides lays
down his object and plan. In the latter, he gives seven reasons
why contradictions are sometimes supposed to exist in Scripture.
The work itself is divided into three parts or books. Part of the

OP HERMENEUTICAL WORKS, 679
third book, containing the reasons of the laws of Moses, has been
translated into English by Dr. Townley.
It was originally written In Arabic, and translated into Hebrew
with the author's approbation by R. Samuel Aben Tybbon.
^Santes Pagninus. Isagoge ad sacras llteras. Isagoge ad
mysticos sacrse Scripturse sensus. Lugduni, 1536, fol.
This work recommends a kind of mystico-allegorical interpretation.
It contains a key (clavis) in which the principal words of Scripture are
given in alphabetical order, with an explanation of their mystical signi
fication. •fSixtus Senensis. Ars interpretandi Scripturas sacras abso-
lutlssima (published In the first Instance by itself, but afterwards
incorporated into his) Bibliotheca sancta, ex prseclpuls ecclesise
cathollcse auctoribus coUecta et in octo libros digesta. Venetus,
1566, fol., and often reprinted.*
The treatise in question forms the third liook of this Bibliotheca. The
author sets out with the position that there is a historical and a mystical
sense in the Scriptures. The discovery of the former he holds to be the
most important business of the interpreter : " Sola literalis expositio ad
veritatem fulciendam et falsitatem destruendam valida est, quia cum ex
prima vocum significatione, vel ex vocibus translatis primse significationi
conjunctissinds hauriatur, ceteris explanationibus patentior est et effica-
cior." He treats very copiously of the different cabbalistic modes of
interpretation, but gives no rules for ascertaining the sense of the text,
because they are found, he says, in many other works. The work be
longs to the same class as the preceding, and is now comparatively worth
less. f Joseph Acosta. De vera scripturas Interpretandi ratione libri
tres (inserted in the author's work) de Christo revelato, Romse,
1590, 4to.
This treatise is also found in the appendix of the edition of Menochius'
Commentary on the Bible superintended by Tournemine. Paris, 17 19,
fob, and Venetiis, 1771. Although superior to those of Pagninus and
Sixtus, it possesses little merit.
The first who endeavoured to place Scripture interpretation on a
truly scientific basis was Matthias Flacius in the following work : —
Clavis Scripturse sacrse, seu de sermone sacrarum literarum
authore Matthia Flacio, lUyrico, Pars prima; in qua singula-
* " Sixtus of Sienna was born a Jew, became a Franciscan, was accused of heresy,
joined the Dominicans, and died in 1569, His Bibliotheca Sancta, or Introduction to
Biblical Literature, is the chief foundation of his reputation," Dr, Murdock, Notes
to Mosheim, vol, iii. p. 99, second edition, New York, 1841.

680 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ACCOUNT.
rum vocum atque locutionum S. Scripturse usus ac ratio Alpha-
betlco ordine explicatur. Opus, et maximo annorum aliquot labore
ac studio, multisque viglllls, atque fide singulari confectum, et
maximam quoque S. Theologlse studiosis commoditatem, quicun
que candide ac dextre uti eodem voluerint, allaturum : ut simile,
in hoc quidem argumenti genere, nullum usquam esse editum, re
ipsa facile sint deprehensurl. Accessit vocum ac Phrasium, item
Locorum S. Scripturse obiter explicatorum, denique Rerum etc.
trigeminus Index. Basllese, 1567. Clavis Scripturse, seu de ser
mone sacrarum literarum, plurimas generales regulas contlnens.
Alterapars. Authore Matthia Flacio, Illyrico Albonense. Ac
cessit quoque rerum et verborum toto Opere prsecipue memorabi-
llum Index. Basllese, 1567, fol.
The first part, which is the larger, contains an explanation of the
principal words and phrases occurring in the Bible, according to the
Latin translation in place of the originals, with an exposition of passages
the sense of which rests upon a right apprehension of the terms so ex
plained. It is in fact a Biblical lexicon.
The second part, which is the proper hermeneutical portion, is divided
into seven tractates (tractatus,) 1. De ratione cognoscendi sacras Hteras.
2. Sententiae ac regulse Patrum de ratione discendi sacras literas. 3.
De partibus orationis. 4. De-tropis et schematibus sacrarum literarum.
5. De stylo sacrarum literarum. 6. Aliquot theologici libelli, etiam ex
sermone sacro pendentes, ad eum illustrandum non parum utiles. 7.
Norma seu regula coelestis veritatis.
The work is an extraordinary one, whether we consider the time at
which it appeared, the copiousness of its materials, the acuteness of
mind which it manifests, the learning it contains, or the amazing in
dustry of the author amid the violent restlessness of his turbulent spirit.
Succeeding writers have drawn largely from its pages ; yet its merits
are such as to recommend a thorough perusal even at the present day.
The edition of Musseus, published at Jena, 1674, at Lepzig in 1695,
and at Erfurdt, 1719, is the best.
Johannes Gerhard. Tractatus de legitima Scripturse Sacrae
Interpretatione. Jenae, 1610, 4to, and afterwards with the au
thor's posthumous annotations on Matthew's Gospel, at Jena,
1663, 4to.*
This is a work of no importance.
* " John Gerhard, born 1582, professor at Cobiirg and Jena, died 1637. His Loci
Communes enlarged by Cotta, are still in repute. His Confessio Catholica confutes
the Catholic theology, by the fathers, councils, and schoolmen." Dr. Murdock, trans
lator of Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History, vol. iii. p. 367 (n.) 17,

OP hermeneutical works. 681
t Basil Ponce de Leon. Qusestiones quatuor exposltivse, ut
vocant, id est, de Scriptura sacra exponenda selectse. Salman-
ticse, 1611. Printed also in the appendix of Tournemlne's edi
tion of Menochius already mentioned.
A production of inconsiderable value.
Wolfgang Franzius. Tractatus theologicus novus et perspi-
cuus de interpretatione sacrarum Scripturarum maxime legitima,
duabus constans regulis essentialibus et perspicuis illis, quae B.
Luthero ad feUcissimam Papatus RomanI destructionem in verslone
Blbllorum Germanica et In Scripturarum, prseter morem antea
sub papatu consuetum explicatione, unice usitatse et famillares
fuere, et clil. exemplis selectis et difiicilioribus elucidatus. Simul
in his pagelUs, Lutherani HoUandi et alii absolute decreto nervos
omnes omnlmodo Inclsos videbunt. Vitebergse, 1619, 4to, and
several times reprinted. The last edition, the sixth, was published
In 1708.
The two rules on which the author insists as fundamental and obvious
are, 1st, A knowledge of Scripture in its original languages ; 2d, An ac
quaintance with the entire coherence of the context made up of what
precedes and follows. But the greater part of the book is controversial.
The dogma of predestination proceeding from the school of Calvin as
Franz afiirms, was very obnoxious to him ; and accordingly he examines
the Scripture texts on which it is based. The hermeneutical apparatus
of our author is exceedingly deficient, and the entire work of little utility.
Salomon Glassius. Phllologise sacrse, qua totius sacrosanctse
Veteris et Novi Testamenti Scripturse tum stylus et literatura, tum
sensus et genulnse Interpretationis ratio expenditur, Libri quinque,
quorum I. ii. Generalla de Scripturse sacrse stylo et sensu, Iu.
iv. Grammatica Sacra, v. Rhetorica Sacra comprehensa. Jense,
1623, 4to. The most correct edition is said to be the third,
published at Frankfort and Hamburg in 1653, 4 to. The fullest
of the old editions is that which has Buddeus' preface, Leipzig,
1713 and 1725, coptalnlng the author's Logica Sacra.
The work, though divided into 5 books, consists in reality of 4 parts,
viz. Philology, Grammar, Sacred Rhetoric, and Logic. The first book
contains four treatises (tractatus). 1. De integritate et puritate Hebraei
V. Test. Codicis. 2. De integritate et puritate Graeci N. Test. Codicis.
3. De reliquis literaturae sanctse virtutibus in genere. (Concerning the
style of Scripture in general.) 4. De stylo seu literatura Scripturae S.
in specie. (Under this head are discussed the style of the prophets, and
that of the New Testament both generally and particularly.)
4 H

682 bibliographical account
The second book contains a system of Hermeneutics properly so called:
de Scripturae SS. sensu dignoscendo et eniendo. The first pai't of this
book, de sensu dignoscendo, treats of the sense of Scripture in general,
of the twofold sense, viz. the literal and spiritual, of allegories, types,
parables. The second part of the second book, de sensu eruendo, gives
some rules which are to be observed in the explanation of words, such as
attention to the context, the analogy of faith, translations and other helps.
This part, which in a hermeneutical view should be the most important
and elaborate, is brief and not altogether satisfactory. The third, fourth,
and fifth books, which are occupied with grammar and rhetoric, are by far
the best.
The work of Glass is too well known to be more minutely described
in this place. It surpassed all others of a similar nature that preceded
it, and obtained uncommon approbation in Germany, Holland, England,
and France. To the theologian and critic it is still useful. Indeed it
is generally regarded as an indispensable volume in the Hbrary of all who
desire to obtain accurate, comprehensive views of the literature and in
terpretation of the Bible. We only regret that the theological element
is kept so much in the background by the grammatical details with which
it abounds. The new edition of it by Dathe and Bauer will be after
wards noticed. All students should read the original work along with
the recent edition. The former is not wholly superseded by the latter.
It retains its usefulness in part, although its antiquity be considerable.
Dan. Chamier. Panstratlse cathoUcse, sive controversiarum
de rellgione adversus Pontlficios corpus. Genevse, J 626, 4 tom.
fol. This was a posthumous work. The first of the four sections which
it contains is properly hermeneutical, viz. de canone. Here he explains
what the canon is — its constituent parts — its condition — and its use.
Under the use of the canon he treats of the reading, understanding, and
interpretation of Scripture. The author's aim was polemic, and his ap
paratus very imperfect.
Andrew Rivet. Isagoge, seu Introductio generalis, ad Scrip
turam S. Veteris et Novi Testamenti. Lugduni Batavorum,
1627, 4to.*
Ten of the thirty chapters into which this work is divided (14-24)
belong to the department of Hermeneutics. These chapters are entitled
— XIV. De Sacrarum Scripturarum interpretatione exegetica, et earun-
dem sensu literali. XV. De sensu Scripturae quem mysticum vocant.
This is an admirable chapter. XVI. De accommodatitio, quem vocant,
* His Opera Theologica were published at Rotterdam A. D, 1C51-60, in three vo
lumes folio. His Isagoge was included in the second part.

OF HERMENEUTICAL WORKS. 683
Scripturee sensu. XVII. De contentis in Sacra Scriptura, et usu con-
sequentiarum. XVIII. De vera ratione investigandi sensum historicum
seu literalem Scripturse. XIX. Quibus competit Scripturarum inter-
pretatio, et quis veri sensus Scripturae judex esse debeat. XX. Nullum
esse hominum coetum, nuUum hominem quantacumque dignitate polleat,
qui sensus Scripturae, aut controversiarum fidei, sit judex supremus, et
judicii infallibilis. XXI. Expenduntur quaedam Scripturae loca, quibus
Pontificii probare conantur, necessarium esse ex hominibus, aliquem su-
premum controversiarum, et veri sensus Scripturae judicem. XXII. De
Sacrae Scripturae perspicuitate, et claritate ; vel de ejusdem difScultate et
obscuritate, quid sentiendum sit, et quomodo loquendum. XXIII. Ex
penduntur aliquot causae difficultatis Scripturarum a Pontificiis allatae, et
ostenditur eas tales non esse, quae in necessariis ad salutem, perspicui-
tatem scripturis toUant. The writer developes his sentiments in a sys
tematic and perspicuous form, with an enlargement of mind truly remark
able. He was no ordinary man. The book is able, excellent, and use
ful, far superior to many treatises by which it was succeeded.
John Conr. Dannhauer. Hermeneutica sacra, sive methodus
exponendarum sacrarum literarum. Argentorati, 1654, Svo.
This is an enlargement of his Idea boni interpretis et malitiosi calum-
niatoris. Argentor, 1642, Svo. The latter treatise consists of two parts,
a pathological, and a therapeutic, the former occupied with the diseases
that deform interpretation, and their causes ; the latter, with the reme
dies that should be applied. The larger work does not differ substantially
from the smaller ; and both are imperfect in their apparatus.
Aug. Pfeiffer. Hermeneutica sacra, sive tractatio luculenta
de legitima interpretatione Sacrarum Literarum. Dresdse, 1684,
12mo. The same treatise was afterwards enlarged and published
under the title of Thesaurus Hermeneuticus ; sive de legitima
Scripturse Sacrse Interpretatione tractatio luculenta, pridem edl-
tam Hermeneutlcam Sacram, quse et integra hic repetitur, notis,
qusestlonlbus, et canonibus, adjectisque praxeos exemplis illus-
trans, cum prsefatlone Samuelis Benedicti Carpzovii. Lipsise et
Francofurti, 1690, 4to.
This work is divided into fifteen sections, containing rules and obser
vations, theological and philological, j The following is the judgment of
John James Rambach (in his Erlauterung iiber seine eigene Institutiones
Hermeneuticae Sacrae, p. 37), concerning the production of Pfeiffer.
" The man abused the activity of his genius, and caused his book to be
put' to press at the commencement, when he had composed only the
first sheet of it. Most of his observations consist of collectanea which
he had drawn together. This remark aj^plies to his Hermeneutica,

684

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ACCOUNT

Sacra, which was succeeded by his Thesaurus Hermeneuticus, a name
implying that he had enlarged his materials, which S. B. Carpzov pub
lished after his death in 1689, with a preface. It has a splendid title ;
but it is deficient in many necessary matters, ex. gr. there is only one
page about scope, while many unnecessary and superfluous things are
put into the work."
While the preceding treatises contain many sound and valuable prin
ciples, it began to be felt by the more pious that they were not suflScient
to satisfy all the conditions which thorough hermeneutical works ought
to fulfil. The philological element was overvalued — a dry grammatical
interpretation, without depth or spiritual life was encouraged — polemics
and vague positions were commended, while all the while, a want of reli
gious sympathy with the holy writers manifested itself somewhat painfully
to enlightened faith. These particulars were pointed out by Francke,
who endeavoured to give a better direction to Hermeneutics. He pub
lished two works belonging to this department, viz. his Manuductio ad
lectionem Sacrae Scripturae, Halae, 8vo, 1693 ;* and afterwards his Praelec-
tiones Hermeneuticae, Halae, 1717, Svo. In them there is a spirit re
freshing, warm, and practical, in opposition to the cold speculativeness of
preceding treatises. They are pervaded by a stream of pious feeling
which comes home to the bosom of the believer, and causes him to take
a lively interest in hermeneutical writings. Heavenly truth, pure mo
rality, operative faith, a religious life, are sounds of hallowed import to
the sensibilities of the renewed nature. We fear, however, that what
was gained in a practical direction was almost counterbalanced by the
deficiency of scientific development. Exegesis became too much a matter
of feeling ; the dictates of the understanding were subordinated to the
emotions of the heart. The Prcelectiones are not, however, without
their merit — a merit all the greater at the time of their first publication,
because the speculative tendency then prevailed.
¦f- Jeaw Martianay. Traite methodlque, ou maniere d'expliquer
TEcriture par le secours de trols Syntaxes, la propre, la figuree,
I'harmonlque. A Paris, 1704, 12mo.
This work is divided into two parts. The first treats of the text
and the principal versions of the Bible. In the second part the writer
expounds his method of handling Scripture. After some preliminary
matters, he states, that there are three syntaxes, and endeavours to shew
that, by their aid, the greatest difficulties may be solved.
The proper and regular syntax teaches not to put a figurative and
* This has been translated into English by Mr, William Jaques, with the title,
¦' A Guide to the Beading and Study of the Holy Scriptures," London 1813, Svo.
The translator prefi,\ed a life of the author, and subjoined an appendix of notes.
The latter, being taken from inferior sources of information, are now of Uttle use.

OF HERMENEUTICAL WORKS. 685
metapiiorical sense into passages which should be understood literally.
This is the first rule belonging to this syntax. There are several other
rules belonging to the proper syntax, such as that which enjoins us to
observe the connexion.
The second syntax, which Martianay denominates the figurative, is
occupied with ascertaining the metaphorical sense.
The third, which he calls the harmonizing, gives rules reconciling
passages of the Old and New Testaments apparently contradictory.
The author then apphes his principles to several passages in the Psalms
which, as he thinks, are commonly misunderstood. The work is va
luable, notwithstanding its quaintness. It exhibits good sense.
The same author afterwards published, Methode Sacree pour appren-
dre et expliquer I'Ecriture sainte par I'ecriture meme. Paris, 1716, Svo.
This is a useful book.
tAugustin Calmet. BIbUotheque Sacree, ou Catalogue des
melUeurs livres, que I'on pent lire, pour acquerir I'intelUgence de
I'ecriture, prefixed, by way of introduction, to his Dictionary of
the Bible, first published at Paris In 1722, two volumes folio,
and afterwards in a new edition at Geneva, 1730, 4 volumes 4to.
In the preface of this work there are seven hermeneutical rules given
by the learned author which are neither new nor sufficient. The first
is, " that with regard to doctrines the sense of a passage held by the
church must be ever retained. The analogy of faith, tradition, the ex
planations of the fathers as long as they are unanimous, as well as those
which have been given by other orthodox and celebrated doctors, must
always be kept before the mind and never forsaken."
Christophor Wollius. Examen regularum Hermeneuticarum ab
Augustino Calmeto civitati Christianse commendatarum, cum
Commentatione de genuina locutionum sacrarum comparativarum
ac superlativarum explanatione. Lipsise, 1733, Svo.
This treatise contains a copious review of Calmet's rules, and espe
cially a refutation of the first. The writer manifests ability in combating
objectionable things.
Val. Em. Loescher. Breviarium Theologise Exegetlcse. Fran
cofurti, 1715, Svo.
According to the " Unschuldige Nachrichten" of the year 1715,
Frankfort should be Rostock on the title-page. According to the same
journal, p. 545, the work was published ^without the author's know
ledge or approbation, and contains numerous errors. In consequence of
this, Loescher was compelled, a few years afterward, to prepare his Her
meneutics for the press, which he published under the following title:—

686 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ACCOUNT
Breviarium Theologlse exegetlcse legitimam Scripturse Sacrse
Interpretationem, nee non studll BIblici rationem succlncte tra-
dens. Vitembergse, 1719, Svo.
The writer was chiefly bent on opposing Francke. The following ac
count of it is given in the " Unschuldige Nachrichten'' of the year 1719,
p. 916  "In this compendium are found not only hermeneutical rules
shewing how the Bible, and particularly its difficult passages, should be
explained, but also what serves as an introduction to the right use of
holy Scripture, and other things of a Uke nature. The quaUfications
and mistakes of interpreters are set forth along with the faults of Rab
binical, Papal, and Cocceian interpretations. The question also is dis
cussed whether and how piety is necessary and useful to attain a right
understanding of holy Scripture (p. 15 et seq.) The divinity of the Bible
is -sdndicated (p. 28 et seq.), and especially, the offences which many
find in it are removed. In the 77th and following pages, the integrity of
the sources is investigated. We find the history of Holy Scripture at
p. S5 et seq. and such parts of sacred philology as belong to that topic, p.
101 et seq. At the 138th and following pages, it is shewn how the Bible
must be treated as the Word of God. At page 160, we read concerning
the fulness of meaning belonging to it. At page 175 et seq,, the object,
division, peculiarities, and commentaries explanatory of every book in
the Bible are given. At the conclusion (p. 205 et seq.) are added coun
sels as to how theological studies, and the study of exegesis in particular,
should be conducted according to the different capacities of students."
The work is not of much utility.
John James Rambach. Institutiones Hermeneutlcse Sacrse,
varlls observationibus copiosisslmisque exemplis biblicis Illustratse
cum prsefatlone J. Francisci Buddei. Jense, 1723, Svo. The 8th
edition appeared In 1764.
This work deserves a much more extended notice than our space al
lows. It contains four books : — I. De fundamentis Hermeneuticae sacrae,
subdivided into four chapters — l.De legitima interpretis sacri dispositione,
i. e. the quaUfications of an interpreter. 2. De textu sacro ejusque ad-
fectionibus praecipuis, i. e. the original languages of the Bible, its divine
origin, integrity, and qualities of style. 3. De sensu textus sacri. Here
Rambach mentions a threefold sense, viz. the grammatical, the literal or
logical, and the spiritual or mystical. II. The second book is denomi
nated De mediis Hermeneuticae Sacrae domesticis, comprising the fol
lowing particulars: — 1. Analogia fidei. 2. Exegetica circumstantiarum
consideratio. 3. Indagatio affectum. 4. Investigatio scopi. 5. Collatio
cum antecedentibus et consequentibus. 6. Scrutinium ordinis, textuum-
que sacrorum analysis. 7. Consideratio vocum ac phrasium singularum.
8. Emphases. 9. Parallelismus. III. The third book, De mediis Her-

OF HERMENEUTICAL WORKS. 687
meneuticae sacrae externis et litterariis, has the following matters : — 1 .
De adminicufis grammaticis et criticis. 2. De adminiculis rhetoricis. 3.
De adminiculis logicis. 4. De adminiculis discipfinarum realium, theo-
logiae, philosophiae moralis, matheseos, physices, artis medicae et juris
prudentise. 5. De adminiculis historicis, chronologicis, geographicis, ge-
nealogicis. 6. De adminiculis scriptorum Rabbinicorum. 7. De admi
niculis profanorum autorum. S. De adminiculis versionum sacrarum.
9. De adminiculis Commentariorum. IV. The fourth book, De sensus
inventi legitima tractatione, has three chapters : — 1 . De sensus invent!
cum aliis communicatione. 2. De sensus demonstratione. 3. De sensus
applicatione porismatica et practica.
The excellence of this work could not fail to be soon perceived. It unites
the spirit of pietism which the school of Spener and Francke had created,
with a scientific comprehensive tendency, and constitutes an era in the his
tory of Hermeneutics. In the nature and richness of its materials, the
perspicuous method in which they are presented, and the judicious use of
ancient as well as modern literature, it leaves preceding works far be
hind. The author possessed those qualities of mind and heart which
rendered him competent for the task ; and he executed it with an ability
that could hardly have been expected at the time. In consequence of
the great applause with which it was received, it became a text-book in
universities, and was frequently republished. After Rambach's death,
his own lectures upon it were published by one of his pupils from-his
papers, with the following title : —
J. J. Rambach's Erlauterung iiber seine eigne Institutiones
Hermeneutlcse sacrse, darin nicht nur dieses ganze Werk erklart,
Imgleichen manches von ihm geaendert und verbessert, sondern
auch neue hermeneutische Regeln und Anmerkungen hlnzuge-
than, alles aber mit mehr als 1000 erklaerten Oertern der Schrift
erlautert worden ; mit einer Vorrede von der VortreflEIchkelt der
Rambachischen Hermeneutik, in zwei Theilen ans Licht gestellt
von D. Ernst Friederich Neubauer. Giessen, 1738, 4to.
The following work gives a compendious view of Rambach's treatise : —
Andreas Reiersen. Hermeneutica sacra per Tabulas, seu Ta
bulae synopticse in Institutiones Hermeneutlcse sacrse earumque
lUustrationem s. Erlauterung b. D. Joh, Jac. Rambachli. Hav-
nise (Copenhagen) et Lipsise, 1741, Svo.
Martin Chladenius. Institutiones exegetlcse, regulis et ob
servationibus luculentissimls instructse, largissimlsque exemplis
illustratse. Vitembergse, 1725, Svo.
This work consists of two parts, a general and special Hermeneutics.
The former treats of the subject, object, end, origin, and means of exe-

688 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ACCOUNT
getical theology. The latter presents an exegetical apparatus in three
chapters. The volume is not destitute of merit or ability, though some
what meagre in its principles and details.
John Alphons. Turretin. De Sacrse Scripturse Interpretandse
methodo Tractatus bipartitus, in quo falsse multorum interpretum
hypotheses refelluntur, veraque interpretandse sacrse scripturse
methodus adstrultur. Trajecti Thuriorum (Dort), 1728, Svo.
This book consists of two parts. The first is occupied with opposing
false principles of interpretation ; the second with laying down true. In
the first part, the Roman Catholic position, that ecclesiastical tradition,
the decrees of councils, the opinions of fathers and popes are a genuine
source of interpretation, is combated ; the notion that " the internal
light" is a sure guide, the Cocceian principle that the words of Scripture
have a manifold sense, and the assertion of Gussetius, that in ascertain
ing the significations of Hebrew words cognate dialects are unnecessary,
are refuted. The second part contains general and particular rules for
interpreting. The author then treats of the interpretation of the Bibfical
writers in classes, such as the historians, prophets, poets, &c. Copious
examples are next given by way of illustrating the rules. Turretin had
a liberal mind free from the prejudices of sect or party. Hence he did
not subordinate the principles of interpretation to a preconceived theo
logical system, as many of his contemporaries appeared to do, but applied
sound maxims to the books of the Bible. The treatise is accordingly
valuable. It has more respect to the Old Testament than the New. It
appeared without the author's knowledge while he was giving public
lectures at Geneva, of which several hearers took notes. From these
miserable extracts the book was printed. Hence Turretin openly declared
that the book was not his. This serves to account for the bad style, the
incompleteness, and the numerous typographical errors.* Yet notwith
standing the serious disadvantages under which it appeared, the book is
still useful. It was republished by W. A. Teller, under the following
title :—
Joh. Alph.Turretini de sacrse Scripturse interpretatione, Trac
tatus bipartitus restitutus varieque auctus per Gull. Abrah. Teller.
Francof. ad Vladr. 1776, Svo.
The editor, in this improved edition, corrected the text, improved tlie
style, inserted short remarks explanatory or corrective of the original,
added new observations, and finally gave several excursus combating se
veral prejudices which were then supposed to have an injurious influence
on the interpretation of the Bible. The first excursus treats of freedom in
Biblical exegesis among Protestants, The second discusses the question
* Sec the Eibliotheque raisonnon, tom. i. p. 121.

OF HteRME.VEUTICAL WORKS. 689"
whether freedom of interpretation should be limited or defined by the ana
logy qf faith. The third excursus discusses the use of common sense in
Biblical interpretation. The fourth is occupied with the marks of the
proper and parabolical sense, especially in the Old Testament. Here the
author refers to the book of Job as allegorical, to several of the Psalms
and of the prophetic poems as bearing the same character. He then comes
to inquire if there be not also in Moses, a historical writer, entire chap
ters which are aUegorical ? If such be the case, he asks how it is to be
known when allegory ceases and true history begins. Here there are
four points to be considered. 1. The genius of the people and age. 2.
The obvious testimony of the writer himself. 3. The usus loquendi,
proper or common, belonging to a language or a writer. 4. The entire
nature of a thing. These four points are illustrated by two examples,
the 45th Psalm, and the first two chapters of Genesis. The former he
asserts to be a poem celebrating Solomon's marriage, and not a prophecy
of Christ ; the latter he concludes to be poetic and allegorical for these
four reasons — 1 . All ancient nations have described the origin of the
world and of man mythically (f^viixug) ; the Hebrews therefore probably
did the same. 2. The mode of writing is manifestly poetic, the first
chapter having altogether the form of a poem. 3. There are many figu
rative expressions in the section. 4. The allegory obviously appears
from the circumstance, that a serpent is introduced speaking.
While the additions of Teller are in some respects useful, they are
detrimental in others. The germs of Neology appear in them — a flat,
cold, rational system, which explains away the vital truths of the Bible.
John Leonhard Reckenberger. Tractatus de studio S. Herme
neutlcse, In quo de ejus natura et Indole, absoluta in omnibus
Theologlse partibus necessitate, impedlmentis ac mediis agitur.
Jenae, 1732, Svo.
This work together with the same author's Nexus canonum exegeti-
corum naturalis, Jenae, 1736, Svo, is chiefly based on Rambach.
Sigismund James Baumgarten. Unterricht von Auslegung der
heiligen Schrift, fiir seine Zuhoerer ausgefertiget. Halle, 1742,
Svo. This work contains ten sections : — 1 . Of the sense of Scripture. 2.
Of the signification of words and phrases. 3. Of historical circumstances.
4. Of the connexion and analysis of passages. 5. Of scope. 6. Of the
explanation of such truths as are contained in Scripture. 7. Of emphasis.
8. Of the inferences and practical applications of passages. 9. Of the
chief hermeneutical methods of conveying the meaning. 10. Of herme
neutical exercises.
It was several times reprinted and finally published in an enlarged form
by Joachim Christoph. Bertram with the title,
4s

690 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ACCOUNT
D. Siegmund James Baumgarten's Ausfuehrllcher Vortrag
der biblischen Hermeneutik. Halle, 1769, 4to.
The character of this edition as compared with the first may be seen
from the following notice in the AUgemeine deutsche Biblioth. Band.
xvii. p. 46 : — " Baumgarten's short sketch appears to be more intelligible.
It Hes here concealed as it were beneath a number of explanations which
are sometimes good, sometimes erroneous, but such as are in every in
stance necessary only for beginners not for the learned public. We look
here in vain even for the good selection and copiousness of biblical ex
amples given by Baumgarten himself. Yet several observations meet
our eye which we did not suppose to be agreeable to Baumgarten's her
meneutical system, but which seem to be added by a more correct know
ledge." Baumgarten's work is distinguished for the depth and acuteness it
every where exhibits. The extent and comprehension of its materials
place it immeasurably above all former treatises of the same nature, even
that of Rambach. It manifests a great advance upon its predecessors.
It is pervaded by a free spirit of investigation, clear and accurate views
of the subject, and a particularity of investigation unlike the grammatical
micrology of Glass and others. In some respects it stands alone, with
out a rival. The influence of the Wolfian philosophy upon it was salu
tary on the whole, though the divisions and subdivisions to which that
philosophy gave rise are not to be commended. The writer evinces
much logical ability and an exquisite power of analysis. In short, it
should always be read, studied, and digested by the fundamental inter
preter as one of the best Hermeneutical productions that ever issued
from the Lutheran evangelical school.
Daniel Wyttenhach. Elementa Hermeneutlcse sacrae, eo quo in
scientUs fieri debet, modo proposita. Marburg, 1760, Svo.
This very able book contains general principles of Hermeneutics only,
the author having intended to publish afterwards special Hermeneutics.
It is therefore designated Part I.
The following are the contents : —
Prolegomena. Cap. I. De Hermeneutica in genere, et sacra in specie,
ac utriusque scopo generatim. Cap. II. De sensu Scripturae ; quid sit,
et quotuplex. Pars I. generalis, ad omnia, quae in Scripturis, sine dis
crimine materiarum, spectans. Sect. 1. De Hermeneuticae Sac. scopo:
tum primario, seu verbis locutionibusque intelligendis, cum emphasibus
ac affectibus ostendendis ; tum secundaria, seu Scriptura in aliam linguam
vertenda, et materiis dividendis. Cap. (a) De vocum significatu et lo
cutionum sensu extra contextum eruendo. Cap. (/3) De emphatico
vocum significatu locutionumque sensu eruendo. Cap. (y) De affecti
bus, ubi verbis ac sententiis insunt, cognoscendis. Cap. (3) De verbis

OP HERMENEUTICAL WORKSI. 691
in serie in alia Ungua reddendis, seu de textu originali bene vertendo.
Cap. (i) De textu dividendo atque disponendo.
Sect. II. De mediis ad ilium hermeneutices scopum varium perveni-
endi, et internis (e Scriptura), et externis (ex variis disciplinis.) Suh-
sect. ^4. De mediis, quae per Scripturam suppeditantur. Cap. (a) De
contextu, seu antecedentibus et consequentibus considerandis, tanquam
medio primario. Cap. ((3) De scopo Scriptorum sacrorum, ut medio
Scripturam interpretandi insigni. Cap. (y) De circumstantiis exegeticis
tanquam tertio medio ad scopum Hermeneutices primarium et secunda-
rium perveniendi. Cap. (h) De parallelismo Scripturae, tam quoad loca
in genere (ratione verborum et rerum), quam quoad loca classica, seu
fidei analogia, tanquam medio ad scopum Hermeneuticae. Subsect. ^.
De medns seu adminiculis ad Hermeneutices scopum perveniendi, quae
extra scripturam, seu externis. Cap. (a) De adminiculis disciplinarum,
quae verbales dici possunt : grammatices, critices, rhetorices, poetices.
Cap. (13) De adminiculis Hermeneuticae, quae tum disciplinae historicae
praebent, tum veteres Scripturse versiones. Cap. (y) De adminiculis
scientiarum : Philosophiae (ubi simul Histor. Natural.), et superiorum,
quae vocantur, facultatum.
In the preface to this work, the author surveys, and criticises the
hermeneutical introductions that had appeared, pointing out their defects,
and professing his determination to avoid the faults into which his pre
decessors had faUen.
The merits of the book are great when we consider the time at which
it appeared. None of the treatises before published can be put into
competition with it, except those of Baumgarten and Rambach. These
he had the advantag-e of consulting and making such use of as seemed
to him proper and judicious. In some respects he has surpassed them,
in others he has not.' He was possessed of acuteness, skill, and learning,
of sound judgment and comprehensive sagacity, as his work amply tes
tifies. His elements of sacred Hermeneutics may therefore be recom
mended to all as an excellent compendium. It is to be regretted that
the language of it is inelegant and barbarous. See a brief and favourable
estimate of Wyttenbach's work by Eichstadt in the preface to Morus's
Acroases, vol i. pp. 67, 8.
We have now arrived at the second period in the history of
Hermeneutical literature, the time of Ernesti. His Institutio
Interpretis Novi Testamenti ad usus lectionem, was first pub
lished at Leipzig In the year of our Lord 1761, in Svo. The
work is too well known to require any analysis of its contents in
this place. It has always obtained an extensive reputation, and
continues to be highly esteemed. The advance, however, which
it exhibits, as compared with those of Baumgarten and Wytten-

692 niBLIOGBAPHICAL ACCOUNT
bach, is neither great nor remarkable. Yet the classical form in
which it appeared, the omission of many useless topics, and the
perspicuity observable throughout, contributed to procure for it a
reception almost unexampled in the history of theological litera
ture. But though Its merit was great at the time it appeared,
and is still unquestionable. It cannot be denied that it has many
repetitions ; — -or that it Is meagre, dry, and tame. It is charac
terised by good sense and discriminating judgment ; but the pre
cepts, no less than the rules, partake of the coldness of a classical
commentator. They want the vigorous soul and practical direc
tion of Francke's Prelections. Ernesti was the first who formally
separated the Hermeneutics of the Old Testament from those of
the New, for which he has been highly commended by Bauer
and others. There are, however, disadvantages belonging to such
a method. It Is adapted for special Hermeneutics ; but in ge
neral Hermeneutics we greatly prefer the older practice. The
unity of the Bible slips from the memory amid the disquisitions
of such hermeneutical writers as Ernesti. The substantial same
ness of divine truth loses its hold upon the faculties. While there
are peculiarities connected with the two covenants, there Is yet
a much greater communion between them than the disjoining
Hermeneutics of German writers would lead us to suppose. A
second edition appeared in 1765 ; a third in 1775, with Improve
ments and additions by the author.* Ammon superintended the
fourth In 1792, and the fifth in 1809. The additions of this
writer are characterised by the sceptical, unphilosophical, and
pernicious spirit of rationalism. The work was translated Into
English by Bishop Terrot, from Ammon's edition of 1809, and
accompanied with excellent notes. This version forms volumes
one and four of the Edinburgh Biblical Cabinet. Professor
Stuart of Andover had previously translated the greater part of
it, which he published under the title, —
Elements of Biblical Criticism and Interpretation, translated
from the Latin of Ernesti, Keil, Beck, and Morus ; and accom-
panied with notes ; republished with additional observations by
Rev. Dr. Henderson of Highbury College. London, 1827, 12mo.
The notes of Stuart and Henderson are valuable and appropriate.
The celebrated John Salomon Semler, Professor of "Theology
* See Teller's Des Herrn Joh, Aug. Ernesti Verdienste um die Theologie und
Keligion ; ein Beytrag zur theologischen Literatur- Geschichte der neuern Zeit. Ber
lin, 178.3, Svo,

OF HERMENEUTICAL WORKS.

693

at Halle, contributed much more than Ernesti or any of his con
temporaries to diffuse a free spirit of Investigation, and to pro
mote a more liberal system of Interpretation than that which pre
vailed. The great merit of this divine, whose original genius
and acuteness cannot be denied, consisted In reviving historical
interpretation, and In the Impetus he gave to unshackled in
quiry. He saw the fetters in which theology had long been con
fined by the stiif, narrow systems it had been crushed into, and
he resolved to pursue a free path of Investigation. Yet it must
be allowed that he did not clearly perceive the consequences of
all his positions ; nor was he careful to guard them from abuse or
misapprehension by limiting them within just bounds. Some of
them were eagerly caught up by his admirers, and pushed to the
most extravagant length, until the substance of Christianity eva
porated under the Irreligious treatment to which it was subjected.
The abuse of the historical principle, and the following out of
what Semler harmlessly propounded, to an undue length, such
as he never contemplated, soon led to the development of ratio
nalism and the denial of every thing supernatural in revelation.
The hermeneutical writings of Semler belonging to our pre
sent purpose are his Vorbereitung zur theologischen Hermeneutik
i.-Iv. Halle, 1760-69, Svo; his Apparatus ad liberalem N. T.
interpretationem, Halle, 1767, Svo;* his corresponding Appa
ratus ad liberalem V. T. interpretationem, Halle, 1773, Svo;
his Neuer Versuch, die gemelnnuetzlge Auslegung und An-
wendung des Neuen Testaments zu befiirdern. Halle, 1786,
Svo.f The first of these works is properly an introduction to the
Bible ; the third, an introduction to the Old Testament. With
regard to the second, It consists of two books, the first of which
treats of hermeneutical preliminaries, viz. the correctness of the
original text, the historical circumstances of each book, and the
helps for discovering the sense, grammatical and scientific. The
second book is occupied with interpretation itself, first with the
different systems of interpretation and their origin; secondly,
* Bishop Blomfield (on the traditional knowledge of a promised Redeemer) has
quite mistaken the meaning of the titl6, and thence unjustly impugned the object of
this treatise. Mr. Home naturally enough follows the bishop. It is strange that
Mr. Conybeare (J, J.) should have fallen into alike error.
¦f- His Institutio brevier ad liberalem eruditionem theologicam, Halae, 1765, Svo, al
though belonging in part to dogmatic theology as well as Hermeneutics, should not
be neglected by those who desire to know the exegetical merits and defects of Semler.
It ought by aU means to be consulted.

694 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ACCOUNT
with the rules of interpretation. Here the writer, omitting such
rules as chiefly belong to grammar and rhetoric, brings forward
the most important of those which are of a logical and doctrinal
nature. The last of Semler's productions already mentioned is divided
into three sections. The first section contains general remarks
on the history of public and personal religion, so far as it rests
upon the New Testament record. The second treats of the in
terpretation and use of the New Testament, ancient versions,
quotations of the New Testament by the fathers, freedom of ex
position in ancient times, and since the 16th century in the Pro
testant and Romish Churches. The third section discusses the
difference and connexion between historical Interpretation and
practical application.
None of the above works was intended to exhibit a complete
system of hermeneutics, such as that of his preceptor Baumgart
en. They exerted, however, an uncommon influence on the theo
logical literature of Germany — an influence which was unhappily
perpetuated In numerous productions of a loose and dangerous
tendency. Although containing many sound principles, whose
prominence the ingenious author judged to be necessary in his
day, yet they also manifest crude and Incorrect notions thrown
out from the dimness of his own mind, and occasionally startling
from the mode of their exhibition. They show a strange mixture
of truth and error, of pernicious sentiments in feeble union with
clear views of hermeneutical propriety. They have done more
injury to the cause of Protestantism in Germany than can be well
estimated. Semler wanted the comprehensive ability to develop
an entire system, although he saw particular topics with great
sagacity, and expounded them with no small ability.*
John James Wetstein. Libelli ad crisin atque Interpretationem
Novi Testamenti pertlnentes. In academicorum usus edidit, et
pleraque observationibus IUustravit D. Joh, Sal. Semler. Halse,
1766, Svo.
The principles developed in this treatise harmonise with those of
Semler, by whom it was republished with a preface, in 1766. Wetstein
was a tame superficial interpreter, who scarcely penetrated beneath the
* See Eichhorn's Allgemeine Bibliothek, Band. v. pp. 25-88 ; Noesselt's Narratio
de Semlero ejusque ingenio imprimis ac meritis in interpretationem Sacrse Scripturae,
Rigse, 1792, Svo ; Pusey's Enquiry into the Kationalism of Germany ; and above all,
Clausen's masterly account of Semler's hermeneutical sentiments, founded on his va
rious writings, and exhibited in extracts (Hermeneutik, pp. 294-306,)

OP HERMENEUTICAL WORKS. 695
surface of revelation. The main point insisted on by him is the neces
sity of considering the New Testament as a historical, literary produc
tion, in so far as its human aspect is concerned, and the consequent duty
of theologians to discover its meaning by impartial study.
'\Hermann Goldhagen. Introductio in Sacram Scripturam.
Maintz, 1765, Svo.
This learned Jesuit strives to shew how the sense of the Bible may
be ascertained ; and combats the infidel writings which were current in
France about the middle of the eighteenth century. His introduction as
a work on Hermeneutics is defective, and in many cases erroneous.
Johann Gottl. Toellner. Grundriss einer erwiesenen Herme
neutik der heiligen Schrift. Ziilllchau, 1765, Svo.
The object of the writer in this work was to effect, if possible, a unity
of belief among the different sects of Christians with respect to rules of
interpretation, and the doctrines of the Bible. The book consists of
three divisions or sections. In the first the author treats of the sense
of holy Scripture within itself, thus laying a foundation for principles
of interpretation. The second section has eleven chapters — 1. Of a
lit-erary acquaintance with the sense. 2. Of the text. 3. Of words. 4.
Of historical circumstances. 5. Of the connexion. 6. Of genuine in
terpretation. 7. Of scope. 8. Of the immediate contents. 9- Of em
phasis. 10. Of the inferences, or the indirect contents. 1 1. Of the occult
sense. The third section is occupied with a discussion of translations,
paraphrases, and commentaries.
The volume displays ability and acuteness. Hermeneutics are handled
in a purely philosophical spirit, historical inquiries are subordinated to
doctrines, and a strictly demonstrative method is employed. Hence
single paragraphs follow one another as premises, conclusions, and corol
laries. The learned author abides by general rules, and gives no ex
amples. On the whole we have been much pleased with the work in
question: Although conceived and executed too much perhaps under the
influence of the Wolfian philosophy, yet it exhibits sound judgment,
great acumen, and a reverential regard for the inspired truth of God.
It amply deserves a thorough perusal, and is far superior to many similar
treatises of a recent date.
Joach. Ehren. Pfeiffer. Institutiones Hermeneutlcse sacrse,
veterum atque recentiorum et propria quaedam prsecepta com-
plexae. Erlangse, 1771, Svo.
This work is divided into fifteen chapters — 1. Of holy Scripture. 2.
Of the use of general principles of interpretation. 3. Of the properties
and means of a right interpretation of Scripture. 4. Of the order in
which the expositor must proceeed when explaining the Bible. 5. Of

696 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ACCOUNT
discovering the significations of single words, and the sense of entire
phrases. 6. Of examining sentences or positions, and their connexion
with one another. 7. Of determining the connexion. 8. Of examining
emphasis. 9. Of the different modes of handling different parts of the
Bible. 10. Of the interpretation of the commands and precepts found
in Scripture. 11. Of the interpretation of the historical portions of the
Bible, especially such as describe miracles. 12. Of the interpretation of
doctrinal passages. 13. Of the allegories, proverbs, and enigmas that
occur ;n the Bible, with their interpretation. 14. Of the passages con
taining typical representations. 15. Of the interpretation of prophecies.
The work exhibits a condensed systematic vieW of all that had been
accomplished in similar works. It is based more on Rambach than any
other book, although the results of preceding treatises are given in the
author's own manner. Its value is considerable. The comprehensive
brevity with which all the topics belonging to the science are treated —
the copious, and for the most part appropriate examples accompanying
the various rules — the respect for the sacred writers everywhere observ
able, render the volume both interesting and instructive to the student
of God's holy word. Although it contains nothing new, and cannot be
said to advance the science of Hermeneutics, yet it possesses most of the
good materials and qualities of the older systems.
Philosophia Scripturse interpres. Exercitatio paradoxa tertium
edita, et appendlce Joachlml Cameraril aucta ; cum notis variis
et prsefatlone D. Jo. Sal. Semleri. Halse, 1776, Svo.
This is a singular book, the first edition of which was published at
Eleutheropolis in 1666, 4to. The author was Lewis Meyer, a Dutch
physician, an intimate friend of Spinoza. The time at which it .ap
peared, and the peculiar character of the work itself, require a more
lengthened notice than is proportionate to its value. In the prologue,
the writer states, that the very title of his book will excite the anger
of theologians, but that he cares not for this. After referring to the
disputes and opposite opinions of divines, he refers to his own deli
berations about some sure method whereby they might be removed. As
the foundation of theology and the only basis on which it rests he reckons
the proposition, that the books of the Old and New Testament are the
infallible word of the most high God. After thus laying the foundation,
he proceeds to inquire what should first be built upon it which is, an in
fallible interpretation of Scripture. He then develops in the treatise
what the infallible rule of exposition is.
In the first chapter, § 2, he divides the whole into three parts — Pri
mum, quaedam de controversiae subjecto et praedicato praelibamina, ex
iisque proximam aTrohiKTMu; demonstratam sententiam, explicabit. Alte
rum, nostrae demonstrationis ab objectionibus, quae adversus illam fieri

OF HERMENEUTICAL WORKS.

797

possent, vindlcias exhibebit. Ultimum, discrepantium a nostra sententia
opinionum refutationem, ac argumentorum, quibus illae stabiliri solent,
solutionem ob oculos ponet.
The second chapter contains his definition of an interpreter, also, the
material object and formal object of such an one.
The third chapter treats of the sense belonging to a proposition, what
constitutes perspicuity and obscurity (which are but relative terms), how
many kinds of sense there are, the distinction between the truth of a dis
course and the true meaning, the three things which should be distin
guished, and the neglect of which has led theologians into numerous errors
and hallucinations, viz. sensus simplieiter sic dictus, sensus verus, and
Veritas, what obscurity is in single words, sentences, periods, paragraphs,
and entire compositions, and various other particulars respecting ambi
guity. The fourth chapter shews that the Scripture is obscure and ambigu
ous, who the real interpreter is (qui sensum verum, hoc est, auctoris
menti atque intention! congruentem ac respondentem eduxerit, ac talem
esse ostenderit, p. 49), and that all expositions of Scripture opposed to
truth are spurious.
The fifth chapter propounds the only and infallible norm which directs
all interpretation, viz, true philosophy, of which he gives this definition ;
" rerum vera ac indubitato certa notitia, quam ratio, ab omni prae-
judiciorum involucro libera, naturalique intellectus lumine, et acumine
suffulta ac studio, sedulitate, exercitatione, experimentis, rerumque usu
exculta atque adjuta, ex immotis ac per se cognitis principiis, per legiti
mes consequentias, apodictitasque demonstrationes, clare ac distincte per-
ceptas, eruit, ac in certissima veritatis luce coUocat," (p. 6 1 .) The origin
of this philosophy is attributed to God.
In the sixth chapter, the author endeavours to shew that philosophy
is the infallible rule of interpreting Scripture, which he proves — 1. Ar-
gumentis. 2. Continua theologorum praxi. 3. Exemplis.
In the seventh chapter, after pointing out the difference between true
and apparent wisdom or philosophy, he explains certain passages which
might be thought to condemn philosophy, viz. 1 Cor. chapters 1, 2, 3 ;
ii. 14 ; and Coloss. u. 8. Here he employs much learning in maintain
ing that the various sects of the Jews are referred to ; and that not true
hut false philosophy is the object of apostolic censure.
The eighth chapter shews, that no dogmas of true philosophy are con
trary to those of theology. What is true in the one, is also true in the
other, and vice versa. Here he endeavours to meet an objector ad
ducing such positions as these, ex nihilo nihil fit ; idem non potest re-
produci numerice ; mundus est eeternus, &c,, which are said to be true in
philosophy but false in theology. With regard to the first he asserts
4 T

698

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ACCOUNT

that the world was made of preexisting materials ; and in respect to the
second position, he is very unsuccessful and heterodox in his remarks,
(pp. 91, 2.)
The ninth chapter proves, in opposition to Romanists, that the church,
the fathers, councils, and the Roman pontiff, are not the infallible ex
positors of Scripture.
In the 10th- 15th chapters, he attacks the Reformed, and examines
several of their hermeneutical positions, such as, that Scripture is its
own interpreter, against which he adduces various difficulties, and ex
pounds Nehemiah viii. 9, 2 Peter i. 20, which the Reformed bring for
ward as proofs. In examining a position of the Reformed associated
with the former, viz. that the testimony of the Spirit within seals the
true interpretation on the minds of the faithful, and persuades them
most fully of its truth, he states, that the meaning of it is ambiguous.
If it be, that no sense attributed to the Scriptures can be fully certain
unless the truth of it be clearly and distinctly perceived by the natural
light of the intellect, then he declares that his own opinion coincides
with it ; but if a supernatural light of the Spirit be meant — a light in
fused and breathed into the mind, he styles it enthusiasm and Quakerism.
In the I6th chapter, the sentiments of the Socinians and Arminians
respecting the rule of interpretation are adduced. With these he com
pares the ojiinion of the Reformed. In so far as reason, not philosophy,
is made the norm of interpretation, he dissents from them all. In an
epilogus he enumerates three benefits resulting to interpretation from
his method, and three others which concern vario^is readings, and trans
lation. The notes of Semler correct, combat, expand, enlarge, and explain
the various sections of the work. They are nearly of the same extent
as itself. It is not necessary to review this curious volume. It is a true Ra
tionalist production. Scripture is made subservient to philosophy. And
what is philosophy ? Is it an immutable and eternal thing ? No. What
ever the writer may aSirm, it is a mutable, fickle, ever-varying rule. It
is just the subjective views of men brought to bear upon the word of
God. It is the pure reason of the Neologist — the right reason of the
Socinians and ancient Arminians. Hence the infallible guide of Meyer
exhibits itself as a capricious thing. The opinions of one age respecting
mind, matter, and spirit, differ from those of another. In some cases,
what the author calls philosophy is merely common sense, or the testi
mony of the fundamental laws of human belief.
There are very many positions in the book which are delusive and
dangerous. No ideas of the supremacy of Scripture, or the corruption
of human nature, or the necessity of divine illumination, are intipiated.

OP HERMENEUTICAL WORKS.

699

»nuch less propounded. The theological sentiments of the writer must
have been most erroneous. We have no sympathy with his cold state
ments regarding Bible-interpretation. The spirit of a proud, philoso
phical scepticism characterises them.
The annotations of Semler are by no means unobjectionable. While
we readily admit that some of them are valuable, it is also true that
more are not only useless, but injurious in their tendency.
In fine, both writer and annotator appear to have had very defective
views of divine truth — such as we believe to be contrary to the genius
of the gospel, and derogatory to the honour of the Saviour. It is quite
evident, that those who cannot find in the Bible the depravity and deep
corruption of human nature, with the necessity of regeneration by the
Holy Spirit, are very far from a right apprehension of the gospel.
The book was attacked by Wolzogen minister of the Walloon church
at Utrecht, in his De Scripturarum interprete, adversus Exercitato-
rem paradoxum, 1667. In consequence, however, of a very unguarded
statement respecting the Deity in this refutation, the author was as se
verely reprimanded by various theologians, in their publications, as Meyer
himself. (See Bayle's Dictionary, article Rimini or Arminius, note C,
tome xii, Paris, 1820, p. 536.)
Gotthilf Traugott Zachariae. Einleitung In die Auslegung-
skunst der heiligen Schrift. Gottingen, 1778, Svo.
In this treatise the principles propounded by Ernesti are given with
little improvement. The author died in 1778, and one of his pupils
published the book after his death. Had he lived to send forth the work
himself, it would doubtless have been much better.
Ii Joseph Julian Monsperger. Institutiones Hermeneutlcse sa
crse V. T. prselectlonlbus academicis accommodatse. Pars I. in
terna sacrse V. T. hermeneutlcse subsldia complectens. Vindo-
bonse, 1776, Svo. Pars II. externa subsldia exhibens. Ibid.,
1777, Svo. A second edition appeared in 1784.
In the first part there are ten chapters, generally occupied with the
usual topics. In the second part ten external helps (subsidia) are enu
merated. The writer manifests learning, taste, and sound judgment,
with an enlargement of mind that could scarcely have been expected from
a Romanist. f Sebastian Seemiller. Institutiones ad interpretationem sa
crse Scripturse, seu Hermeneutica sacra. Subnexse sunt posltlones
selectse ex Prolegomenis Theologise dogmatlcse et Hermeneutlcse
sacrse. Augustse VIndelicorum (Augsburg), 1779, Svo.
This work is divided into three parts. 1. Of the object of Herme-

700 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ACCOUNT
neutics. 2. Of the genuine sense of holy Scripture. 3. Of the internal
and external sources of Hermeneutics. The AUgem. Deutsche Biblio
thek (Band LII. p. 44) pronounces the following opinion of the book :
— " It shews on the whole a good exegetical knowledge on the part of the
author ; yet it is bound by the close fetters of the Catholic hierarchy."
^John Nepomuc Schaefer, Ichnographia Hermeneutices sa
crse. Mogunt, 1784, 4to.
The rules here laid down are very general, and such as are conformed
to the Roman Catholic system.
t G. Mayer. Institutio interpretis sacri. Vindobonse, 1789,
Svo. " This is a book very useful for the object for which it was intended,
based on Ernesti's Interpres, except that regard has been had to the
Old Testament, and the principles of the CathoUc church. Hence we
find in the first part a chapter de reperiundo usu loquendi V. T. ; as
also another de loquendi usu per auctoritatem constituendo, and an
other de citatis V. T. in N. T. obviis. In the second part there is a
greater difference in the arrangement and materials. The history of exe
gesis is quite pecufiar to the author, in which he has inserted what we
find in Ernesti in the chapter de usu versionum veterum. We rejoice at
the spirit and correctness of the principles by which this book is distin
guished above many Catholic hermeneutical systems."*
John Benedict Carpzov. Primse llnese Hermeneutlcse et Phl
lologise sacrse cum Veteris tum Novi Testamenti brevibus apho-
rlsmls comprehensse in usum lectionum academlcarum. Helm-
stadl, 1790, Svo.
This compend consists of five parts — 1. De requisitis interpretis scrip
turae sacrae. 2. De textu S. S. 3. De sensu textus biblici. 4. De norma
interpretationis bibUcae. 5. De adminiculis interpretationis biblicae phi-
lologicis, literariis et historicis. Good sense characterises the treatise
before us. It is imprinted with the spirit of the time at which it ap
peared, when the science had made great advances.
G. J. Planck. Einleitung in die theologischen WIssenschaften.
Leipzig, 1795, Svo, 2 vols.
The hermeneutical part of this work is brief, but judicious. It may
be found in the seventh volume of the Edinburgh Biblical Cabinet, trans
lated by Dr. Turner of New York. The author propounds three laws
of interpretation, which he lays down and illustrates with sobriety and
solidity. In the next place he shews that Scripture should be explained
on the same principles as other books, discusses the doctrine of accom-
" Eichhorn's AUgemeine Bibliothek, Band X. p. 100,

OF HERMENEUTICAL WORKS.

701

modation, with its limitations, and gives a succinct history of Hermeneu
tics. The statements propounded are well worthy of perusal, and gene
rally sound. The American translator has added several valuable notes.
Though written a considerable time ago, we regard Dr. Planck's work
as possessing considerable merit. The author does not shew the appli
cation of his laws by examples.
Sam. Frid. Nathan. Morus. Super Hermeneutica Novi Tes
tamenti Acroases Academicse. Editloni aptavit, prsefatlone et
additamentis instruxit Henr. Carol. Abr. Eichstadt. Volumen
prim., Lipsise, 1797, Svo ; secundum, Lipsise, 1802, Svo.
This is properly a commentary on Ernesti's Institutio Interpretis. The
rules given by the latter are illustrated by well-chosen examples — many
points merely touched upon, by the teacher are expanded by the disciple
— while several positions are added, and various statements of Ernesti
rectified. The work may therefore be characterised as an expansion and
improvement of Ernesti's. The disciple was thoroughly impregnated with
the spirit of his master, and supplied from his own resources numerous
remarks, which form both a suitable and necessary accompaniment to
those of his illustrious preceptor.* But his theology was cold and super
ficial. He had not the same intellectual strength or acumen as Ernesti.
Eichstadt has added to and amended Morus' prelections, making various
alterations in their form. His preface, containing a succinct history of
Biblical Hermeneutics, is perhaps the best of his pieces. He was infe
rior in sagacity even to Morus, and his doctrinal system was no better.
The book is not without its use, although it has often been overrated.
It merits the careful perusal of every hermeneutical inquirer.
Gear g. Laurent. Bauer. Hermeneutica Sacra. Lipsise, 1797,
Svo. This was published as a new edition of Glassius, with the title, Salo-
monis Glassii his temporibus accommodata. Post primum volumen
Dathii opera in lucem emissum nunc continuata et in novi plane operis
formam redacta. Tomi secundi sectio posterior.
The first part of this book contains the more general Hermeneutics
of the Old Testament ; the second, the more special. The former is sub
divided into four sections, in the first of which he inquires into the sense
of the sacred text, shewing that the literal is the only true sense, — that
a spiritual or mystical sense is not to be admitted. He then gives a
history of the mystical method of interpreting the Old Testament current
among Jews and Christians, taken from Eichhorn, Wahner, J. G. Rosen
miiUer, and Pfister. At the same time he treats of the moral sense re-
* See Hoepfncr's tract, Ueber das Leben und die Verdienste des Verewigten Sam,
Fr, Nath, Morus, Leipzig, Svo, 1793,

702 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ACCOUNT
commended by Kant. The second section gives the sources from which
the usus loquendi of Hebrew writings is to be ascertained, viz. cognate
dialects, ancient versions, and parallel places ; the means of discovering
the sense by context ; tropical diction ; emphasis ; and discrepancies be
tween the Hebrew writers. The third section treats of historical inter
pretation ; the fourth of the use of versions and commentaries. The
second part is subdivided into four sections also, although they are much
briefer than those of the first part. The first section treats of the Old
Testament myths, which he divides into philosophical, historical, poeti
cal, and mixed. Tlie second section treats of the historical books of the
Old Testament, the design of their authors, their style, and the rules to
be observed in interpreting them. The third section describes the poeti
cal books of the Old Testament according to the principles laid down by
Lowth, Herder, and Ilgen. The fourth treats of the prophetical books
of the Old Testament after Lowth, Eichhorn, and Stiiudlin.
The work is in fact a new production, not a republication of Glassius.
Making due allowance for the lax and latitudinarian positions advanced,
the daring neology interspersed throughout, and the illogical argumen
tation frequently exhibited, its value is considerable. No writer on
Hermeneutics can well dispense with it, although it is dull, dry, devoid
of freshness, and detrimental to piety. Purged of its offensive para
graphs, and remodelled according to the best Scriptural principles, it
would be an excellent work.
G. L. Bauer. Entwurf einer Hermeneutik des Alten und
Neuen Testaments. Leipzig, 1799, Svo.
After eight prehminary paragraphs, the author comes to the first part
of the book itself, which is occupied with the general hermeneutics of the
Old and New Testament. The second part discusses the special her
meneutics of the Old and New Testament. As far as regards the Old
Testament, the author has epitomised his own Hermeneutica Sacra; in
respect to the New, he follows Ernesti. There are in aU 221 paragraphs.
The volume is one of the best hermeneutical treatises which has fallen
in our way. It exhibits good arrangement, great perspicuity, an un
usual power of condensation, and no small acuteness. Unhappily, how
ever, the neologism of the author is apparent. This is a very serious
defect, tarnishing the merit that would otherwise attach to the book.
Gottlob Wilhelm Meyer. Versuch einer Hermeneutik des Al
ten Testaments. Erster Theil, Liibeck, 1799, Svo. Zweyter
TheU, Do. ISOO, Svo.
The edition lying before me has Leipzig 1812 on the title-page, but
this appears to be merely a new title-page prefixed to the old sheets,
for the preface of the first part bears date, Gottingen, March 1799, and

OE HERMENEUTICAL WORKS. 703
of the second, Gottingen, March 1800. There was only one edition.
This elaborate work is divided into two great parts, which are occupied
with the general and special Hermeneutics of the Old Testament. As
it is so little known we shall give the contents.
Introduction. — Section 1. Of Hermeneutics in general, their na
ture and treatment. 2. Of the Hermeneutics of the Old Testament in
particular. 3. Survey of what has been hitherto done in the province of
Old Testament Hermeneutics. 4. The previous knowledge necessary to
an interpreter of the Old Testament. 5. Short survey of the whole
work. First leading Division  General Hermeneutics of the Old Tes
tament. Of the knowledge of words. Of the proper signification of He
brew words. Of the knowledge of Hebrew words with regard to their
signification. Of the immediate helps in the language itself for under
standing Hebrew terms, viz. etymological analysis, context, parallel
passages. Of the immediate helps for understanding Hebrew terms,
existing in cognate dialects, embracing the Arabic, Syriac, Chaldee, Sa
maritan, Ethiopic, Talmudic and Rabbinical, Phenician and Palmyrene ;
rules for the comparison of dialects ; the Coptic, Persian, and Grecian
languages. Of the remote helps for acquiring a knowledge of Hebrew
words, existing in ancient versions, embracing, the Alexandrine version,
Chaldee paraphrases, the Syriac, Arabic, Samaritan, and Vulgate ver
sions, with those of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, and an appen
dix respecting other versions made from the Hebrew ; mediate versions ;
the certainty, collisions, and cautionary rules connected with the use of
versions. Of the remote helps for acquiring a knowledge of Hebrew
terms, existing in early elucidations of the Hebrew text or ancient ver
sions. Of the remotest helps for learning the signification of Hebrew
words, lexicons. Of the knowledge of Hebrew words with respect to
their form, and their connexion with one another. Of the different forms
of Hebrew words. Of the composition of the parts of speech in Hebrew.
Of Hebrew grammars as helps to the interpreter. Of the mode of as
certaining the sense of single sentences, and longer sections. Of the
figurative signification of Hebrew words. Of the explanation of things.
Of the historical knowledge necessary to explain the Old Testament.
Of the geographical knowledge requisite. Of the peculiarities of the east
and its inhabitants. Of the knowledge of ancient history and chron
ology required by the interpreter of the Old Testament. Of the philo
sophical knowledge required, especially an acquaintance with the genius
and languages of the ancient world.
Second leading Division. — Special Hermeneutics of the Old
Testament. What is embraced by this term. Of separate classes of
books in the Old Testament, so far as they differ on the whole in their
leading contents and the mode of their statements. Of the historical

704 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ACCOUNT
books of the Old Testament. Of the peculiar state of such books. Of
the right treatment of these books in interpretation. Of the poetic books
of the Old Testament. Of the peculiarities belonging to Hebrew poetry.
Of explaining these books. Of the prophetic books of the Old Testa
ment. Of their peculiarities. Of their explanation. Of the Messianic
prophecies in particular. Of the philosophical remains of the Hebrews
in a poetic dress. Of the peculiarities belonging to such remains. Of
their explanation. Of Hebrew mythi and mythology. Of parable among
the Hebrews. Of allegory among the same people. Of symbols xmd
symbolical transactions. Of visions. Of enigmatical poetry. Of trans
lations and commentaries of the Old Testament. A word respecting
moral exegesis.
Although the book proceeds from a Neologian, and contains several
things which should now belong, with propriety, to introductions and
grammars, yet it possesses great merit. Its method is systematic and
clear — its materials comprehensive and apposite. In the whole range
of German literature it would be difficult to point to a hermeneutical
treatise on the Old Testament more valuable or useful. It is strange
that it attracted so little notice on the continent, or that it was not re
published. In several parts of our work we have been greatly indebted
to it. The neological sentiments it exhibits prevailed at the time, espe
cially in Gottingen, under the sanction of the illustrious Eichhorn.
Due allowance should be made for them, and great care taken not to be
contaminated with their pernicious influence. It is gratifying to see that
the place where Michaelis, Eichhorn, and Meyer laboured, alas! with
great injury to evangelical truth, has now the pious Liicke, whose learn
ing sheds a lustre on the academic halls of Georgia Augusta.
Having arrived at the beginning of the 19th century, we shall omit
details of the contents of such hermeneutical volumes as will be noticed.
Their recent date makes them more accessible.
G. F. Seller. BIbUsche Hermeneutik ; oder Grundsatze und
Regeln zur Erlauterung der heiligen Schrift des A. und N. T.
Erlangen, 1800, Svo. Biblical Hermeneutics ; or the Art of
Scripture Interpretation. From the German of George Frederic
Seller, D. D., Prof. Theol. in the University of Erlangen, etc.
with notes, strictures, and supplements from the Dutch of J. He-
rlnga, D. D., Prof. Theol. In the University of Utrecht. Trans
lated from the originals, with additional notes and observations,
by Rev. Wm. Wright, LL.D., of Trinity College, Dublin. -Lon
don, 1835, Svo.
This is the production of an able and pious man. It is pervaded by
good sense, discrimination, and intellectual ability. The annotations of
Heringa are valuable, and enhance the worth of the volume, while those of

op HERMENEUTICAL WORKS. 705
the EngUsh translator are also appropriate. Its brevity, however, and
want of examples, with the long fists of books appended to each section,
render it of less value than it should otherwise have been. Like most
other German works, even those of orthodox men, it contains sentiments
by no means evangeUcal or sound. Rationalism was rampant when Seller
lived, and though his object was to unite the religious with the scientific
interest, he did not succeed in escaping from the contamination of error.
See particularly sections 262, 274, 299, where too great concessions are
made by the esteemed author.
Christian Daniel Beck. Monogrammata Hermeneutices libro
rum Novi Fcederis. Pars prima. Hermeneutice N. T. universa.
Lipsise, 1803, Svo.
The first part of this treatise is occupied with criticism, the second
with Hermeneutics. It exhibits a brief but masterly condensation of the
general principles of interpretation. The author has appended lists of
books, which are tedious and destitute of utility.
C. G. Bretschneider. Die historisch-dogmatische Auslegung
des N. Testaments, nach ihren Principlen, Quellen, und Hulfs-
mitteln dargestellt. Lipsise, 1806, 12mo.
This work is properly an exhibition of historical interpretation applied
to the doctrinal part of the New Testament books. Its object is to shew
that the New Testament must be every where understood in such a man
ner as the original readers understood it, according to their limited con
ceptions. The position is hazardous, especially as it is carried out by the
writer to a most unwarrantable extent. The whole book is full of error.
In refigious feeUng and right principles it is miserably defective. Histo
rical interpretation appears in its most objectionable form. We have been
disappointed, grieved, and disgusted, with the pernicious absurdities ad
vanced by this rationalist writer. He has done well not to republish it.
Car. Aug. Theoph. Keil. Elementa Hermeneutices Novi Tes
tamenti Latine reddita a Christ. Aug. Godofr. EmmerUng, &c.
Lipsise, 1811, 12mo.
This Uttle work of 205 pages is a specimen of masterly condensation
and precision. It is a valuable and able production, in which the rules
are accompanied by numerous and suitable examples. It is occupied
solely with the historical points of interpretation, or, as the writer
chooses to say, with grammatico-historical interpretation. The doctri
nal contents — the holy truths of the Bible, which are of universal and
authoritative obligation, do not seem to have engaged the mind of the
writer. Hence the cold flatness of the volume.
\J. Jahn. Enchiridion Hermeneutlcse Generalis Tabularum
Vet. et Nov. Fcederis. Viennse, 1812, Svo.
4 u

706 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ACCOUNT
This is one of the best treatises, within a small compass, which the
continent has produced. The author follows the principles of Ernesti,
and illustrates them by numerous examples. With a mind superior to the
fetters in which the Romish Church seeks to bind her adherents, he
propounds just sentiments respecting the Holy Scriptures. " If," says
he, " we would examine tradition, or the sentiments of the fathers as
diUgently as we do the Bible, there would be need of a new patristic
hermeneutics, for it is not so easy as is commonly supposed to under
stand and interpret aright those ancient ecclesiastical books  I am
afraid that greater diversity of opinion would arise in explaining tradi
tion than in the interpretation of Sacred Scripture, as Daille has ob
served. I reverence genuine tradition as much as any other man, since
it determines not a few ambiguous things, but I cannot expect from it
what I clearly perceive it cannot do, viz. an end of all controversies,"
(pp. 15, 16.) " We are far from appealing to the authority of the Ca
tholic church, which cannot be mentioned in a question of Hermeneu
tics," (p. 98.) In another place (p. 41), he is anxious to shew that the
Council of Trent did not forbid scientific interpretation, nor decree from
what sources the sense of Scripture should be drawn, or to what rules
the exposition of it should be conformed.
The work is characterised throughout by sound sense, and deserves to
be ranked among the chief compends of Hermeneutical science.
¦f Aloys Sandbichler. Darstellung der Regeln einer allgemel-
nen Auslegungskunst von den Buechern des n. und a. Bundes,
nach Jahn. Salzburg, 1813, Svo.
This tract is an abridgment of Jahn, with questions for examination
at the end.
¦fAltmann Arigler. Hermeneutica BibUca generalis usibus
academicis accommodata. Viennse, 1813, Svo.
We look upon this work as far inferior to that of Jahn. Its positions
are exceedingly vague — its rules very general. The author seems to
have had little acuteness or depth of mind. He exhibits no power of
condensation or systematising. Yet his spirit was independent, par-
takinc' of the free inquiry which was abroad in the Lutheran church.
Hence he drew upon himself the disapprobation of his own church.
There is an unsubstantial brevity in his book— ^a deficiency of logical
ability too marked to be mistaken.
John James Griesbach. Vorlesungen ueber die Hermeneutik
des N. T. herausgegeben von J. C. S. Steiner. Niirnberg, 1815,
Svo. The object of the writer in this treatise was to develop the principle
of historical interpretation, as applied to the New Testament. The

OF HERMENEUTICAL WORKS. 707
view, therefore, which it gives is one-sided. Over this and most of the
works in which Semler's great position was carried out without just li
mitation, the iciness of spiritual death is diffused.
John Henry Pareau. Institutio Interpretis Vet. Test. Trajecti,
1822, Svo. Principles of Interpretation of the Old Testament,
translated from the original by Patrick Forbes, D. D., Edin
burgh, 2 vols 12mo, (8 and 25 of the Biblical Cabinet.)
Pareau was an able and orthodox divine, as his writings abundantly
shew. The present treatise contains sound maxims, with apposite ex
amples, and is very valuable on the whole. The translator has sub
joined notes and additions, which enhance the merit of his version. It
has been said that Pareau wrote a similar work on the New Testament ;
but we believe this to be a mistake.
\Joh. Nepomuc Alber. Institutiones Hermeneutlcse Scrip
turse sacrse Novi Testamenti. Pestlnl, 1818, 3 vols. Svo.
Institutiones Hermeneutlcse Scripturse sacrse Veteris Testa
menti. Pestlnl, 1827, 3 vols. Svo.
Ttiii first volume of the former work and the third of the latter con
tain general principles of interpretation. The author appears to be very
deficient in logical ability, acuteness, and profundity. There is a loose
ness, a want of condensation in his works, by no means fitted to recom
mend them to the scholar. He puts together a number of common re
marks which, though good enough in themselves, are not presented in
a manner calculated to arrest the attention. To any serious reader they
might readily suggest themselves ; and such an one might exhibit them
as well as Dr. Alber. The author shews, besides, an attachment to the
dogmas of his own church much stronger, and consequently more pre
judicial to right investigation, than Jahn or Arigler. The works before
us will never occupy a prominent place in the estimation of good her
meneutical writers. Their utility is vastly disproportionate to their ex
tent. \Caspar Unterkircher. Hermeneutica Biblica generalis. Edi
tio sec. ffinlponti, 1834, Svo.
This volume is chiefly based on that of Arigler, whose defects it is
intended to supply. It is fuller and abler than its predecessor. The au
thor has diligently endeavoured to embrace all the particulars belonging
to a hermeneutical treatise. His arrangement, however, does not seem
to be the best, nor is his acuteness remarkable. Besides, he manifests
greater attachment to the peculiar dogmas of his own church than Jahn
or Arigler. The book is not without merit or utility. It is a favour
able specimen pf Romish Hermeneutics, adapted in a good degree to the
advanced state of the science.

708

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ACCOUNT

ti7. Ranolder. Hermeneutlcse BIbllcse generaUs principia ra-
tionaUa Christiana et CathoUca. Selectis exemplis Illustrata, &c.
Lipsise, 1839, Svo.
A Romish system of Hermeneutics, conceived and executed in the
narrow spirit of that corrupt church.
t V. Reichel. Introductio in Hermeneuticam Bibllcam. Vien
nse, 1839, Svo.
The same character belongs to this volume as to the last. Both are
similar. They rigidly adhere to the principle, that the interpreter must
abide by that sense which the church oflScially propounds. Great merit
is assigned to the decrees of the councils at Trent and Vienna in ad
vancing the science of Biblical exposition, while it is withheld from
Protestants. I Jonath. Mich. Athanas. Loehnis. Grundzuge der biblischen
Hermeneutik und Kritik. Giessen, 1839, Svo.
This work is of a much higher character and more liberal tone than
the two just mentioned. The infiuence of Protestant writers on the mind
of the author is sufficiently obvious, and he can even praise Rationalist
productions. The book contains sentiments somewhat free, as coming
from a Romanist writer. (See § 70, pp. 154-160). It is the best work
on Hermeneutics which has proceeded from the Romish church since the
time of Jahn. The author manifests judgment in the nature and selec
tion of his materials, although the same want of acuteness observable in
ah Roman Catholic hermeneutical writers with whom we are acquainted,
is seen here also. It is not our purpose to review the production in
question, but it is strange that Dr. Loehnis should not know the author
of the Wolfenbiittel fragments (p. 147.) It was long ago ascertained
that they proceeded from Reimarus.
H. N. Clausen. Hermeneutik des Neuen Testaments von D.
Henrik Nikolai Klausen ; aus dem Danlschen uebersetzt von C.
O. Schmidt- Phlseldek, Candidaten der Theologie zu Kopenhagen.
Leipzig, 1841, Svo.
The greater part of this work is occupied with the history of Biblical
interpretation, which is detailed with considerable minuteness and ad
mirable perspicuity. In this its great exceUence lies. Here it stands
alone in merit. Nothing that has ever appeared can be at all compared
with it in the historical department. The remainder of the volume is
worthy of the learned author, although it is much briefer than we could
have desired. We cannot recommend the entire production too highly.
The author, who is professor of theology in the University of Copen
hagen, manifests a most extensive range of reading, uniform sagacity.

OP HERMENEUTICAL WORKS. 709
great discrimination, and a comprehensive mind. He can review with
philosophic skill the merits of the fathers and of the reformers — the
systems of interpretation which have been current in Germany — the
basis on which they rest — the philosophy by which they are regulated.
We have been greatly indebted to the admirable performance.
N. B. In referring to the author throughout our work, we have written
his name Klausen, as it is in the German translation, which alone we
possess. In the Danish, however, it is Clausen. It would, therefore,
have been more correct to have written it in the latter mode.
English Works on Hermeneutics.
David Collyer. The Sacred Interpreter ; or a practical intro
duction towards a beneficial reading, and a thorough understand
ing of the Holy Bible. Carlisle, 1796, 2 vols Svo. ; the fifth
edition, with cuts. The book was first published In 1746, and
afterwards translated into German by Freder. Eberh. Rambach,
Rostock 1750, Svo.
The ninth section of the first volume is occupied with general rules
for the interpretation of Scripture. The writer lays down the three
following : —
1st, " The Holy Scripture speaks with the tongue of the sons of men,
as the ancient Jews expressed it, that is, in condescension to the com
mon usage and apprehensions of men, even of the vulgar as well as
the most learned, making use of popular expressions and forms of speech."
This is illustrated in 27 particulars.
2dly, " The second general rule for interpreting the Holy Scriptures
is that of Dr. Lightfoot, ' for the interpretation of the phrases, and
many histories of the New Testament, it is not so much what we think
of them, agreeably to notions derived from certain principles of ours, as
in what sense they could be understood by the persons who lived in those
times, according to their own usual custom and manner of speaking.' "
5dly, " The third general rule is, to inquire into the chief design and
scope of each book ; and as Bishop Stillingfleet directs, especially for the
understanding of the New Testament, ' to fix in our minds a true state
of the controversies of that time, which will give us more light in the
knowledge of the Scriptures, than large volumes of commentators, or the
best system of modern controversies.' "
It will be seen that the author's three rules are a very vague and de
fective apparatus for expounding the Bible. The greater part of the
work is occupied with historical, chronological, and geographical details,
and with general remarks on various books in the Old and New Testa
ments. Learning, soUdity, and depth are wanting, so that it is now of
Uttle use.

710

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ACCOUNT

Gilbert Gerard, D. D. Institutes of Biblical Criticism ; or,
heads of the course of lectures, on that subject, read In the Uni
versity and King's College of Aberdeen. Edinburgh, 1808, Svo,
second edition.
The work of Dr. Gerard displays learning, ability, reflection, and re
search. His positions are generally sound and judicious — the arrangement
good — the examples appropriate. It is a dry slieleton simply because it
consists of the heads of lectures. But were the skeleton clothed with
flesh and blood, expanded and adapted to modern advancement, it would
doubtless be a most valuable gift to the public. Such as it is, it shows a
reflective mind capable of comprehending a system of divine truth, and
of presenting it in a. compact form. We need scarcely say that there
are not a few observations in the volume with which we do not concur.
The author lived in the Church of Scotland's dead-orthodoxy age. Since
his day, God has favoured the northern Zion with a blessed revival.
Thomas Hartwell Home, B. D. An Introduction to the cri
tical study and knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, volume se
cond. London, Svo, 1839, Sth edition.
With this volume we have a very imperfect acquaintance, having ne
ver read the greater portion of it. The author's industry is unquestion
able — his reading extensive, and his judgment good. We believe it to
be in the main a valuable work, although it is much behind the latest
advances of the science.
William van Mildert, D.D. An Inquiry into the general prin
ciples of Scripture Interpretation, In eight sermons, preached be
fore the University of Oxford, in the year 1814. Oxford, 1831,
Svo, 3d edition.
This volume presents a great contrast to those continental works
which we have noticed. It is devoid of scientific form, and contains
almost none of the technicalities of other treatises. The style is perspi
cuous, and the sentiments promulgated level to the lowest intellect. It
should not, however, be concealed, that it displays little acumen or vigour
of mind. It contains a few plain ideas scattered over a wide surface
without condensation. As a Hermeneutical work it is defective, while
in some important instances the views of the amiable bishop are anti-
evangelical. Herbert Marsh, D.D. Lectures on the Criticism and Inter
pretation of the Bible. London, 1838, Svo.
This work affords a very favourable specimen of the abilities, learn
ing, and intellectual sagacity of the eminent prelate lately deceased.
His style is remarkable for its perspicuity Whatever he touches bears

OP HERMENEUTICAL WORKS.

711

the impress of his sagacious mind. Although the volume does not pro
fess to exhibit a hermeneutical system, yet it is of great value. Different
parts of the subjects are treated with much skill. It is to be regretted
that the author's notions of regeneration were so defective and unscrip
tural. Wm. Carpenter. The Biblical Companion. London, 1836, Svo.
The portion of this work relating to Hermeneutics is small compared
with the rest of the volume. There is much good sense in it. The au
thor has endeavoured to simplify the science, and to place it within the
reach of intelligent readers of the Bible. The sources from which he has
drawn are not the best ; but his views of the gospel harmonise more
with our own than such as are propounded in many learned productions.
L. A. Sawyer, A. M. The Elements of Biblical Intepretatlon,
containing a popular exposition of the fundamental principles and
rules of this science. Republished at Edinburgh by Thomas
Clark, 12mo, 1836.
This is a brief manual for the unlearned reader of the Bible, contain
ing a few plain rules with appropriate examples. It evinces good judg
ment, without ostentation or parade.
Prof. Alex. M' Clelland. Manual of Sacred Interpretation, for
the special benefit of Junior Theological Students ; but Intended
also for private Christians In general. New York, 1842, 12mo,
pp. 168.
The author compresses the whole business of interpretation into' four
maxims, and nine rules, which are simple and obvious enough. The little
work is generally characterised by good sense, but wit and sarcasm are
entirely out of place in it. It need scarcely be said that it will not ad
vance the science of Hermeneutics, or be very acceptable to theologians,
however useful it may be to private Christians. A great part of
sacred interpretation is untouched, and unexhausted by Prof. M' Clelland.
His " Manual," even considered as such, is defective.
We shall now notice a few programms (as they are called by
the Germans), relating to the interpretation of the Bible, that
deserve to be read and recorded. They do not exhibit Herme
neutical systems, but are rather dissertations more or less extended
on the right mode of exegesis. We deem It unnecessary to go
back to the older, which are now forgotten or useless. Only such
as are of some importance and of comparatively recent date will
be given.
While the historical principle and the accommodation system
recommended by Semler had been carried out to a most injurious

712 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ACCOUNT
extent by his Injudicious followers, it was soon felt by the pious
professors and teachers In the German universities that there was
something wrong in them. It was not dUEcult to see, that the
truth of Scripture as a divine revelation was impaired; — that the
living power of its doctrines was reduced to a sapless, uninteresting
influence ; in short, that the universal adaptation of the New Tes
tament, as an unchanging code of doctrines and duties, to human
nature in all its aspects, disappeared, amid the degrading views
entertained of Christ and the apostles. Hence the orthodox Storr
attempted to set proper limitations to the historical principle so
as to preserve the truth of God intact. In his treatise de sensu
historica, (Tubingen, 1788, 4to, afterwards inserted In his Opus
cula Academica, Tubingen, 1796, Svo, vol. i. p. 1, and translated
into English by Professor Gibbs of Yale CoUege, Boston, 1817,
12mo), he endeavoured to shew, that though the personal rela
tions amid which the apostles lived and wrote had an influence
on the form of their writings, yet Jewish notions or arguments
in themselves erroneous were not employed. Current phrases
were used without any intention of connecting with them those
incorrect ideas which they had ordinarily symbolised. Coincid
ing with Storr appeared Hauff, who published In 1788, " Be-
merkungen ueber die Lehrart Jesu In Riicksicht auf jiidische
Sprache und Denkungsart ;" Behn, In his " Ueber die Lehrart
Jesu und seiner Apostel, in wiefern sich dieselben nach den da-
mals herrschenden Volksmeinungen gerichtet haben," Lubeck,
1791 ; and StaudUn who, in his treatise, De interpretatione lib
rorum N. T. historica non unice vera, Gottingen, 1807,* under
took to show, that the historical theory was unsatisfactory and
incomplete because it did not take in the high, spiritual relation
in which the authors of the Biblical writings stood to the founder
of Christianity — a relation that ought both to limit and subli
mate their dependence on the spiritual defectiveness of the age to
which they belonged.
K. W. Stein. Ueber den Begriff und den obersten Grundsatz
der historischen Interpretation des N. Test., Leipzig, 1815, Svo.
This able dissertation was mainly directed to the same point as that
* The programm in question was directed against Keil's dissertation, De historica
librorum sacrorum interpretatione ejusque necessitate, first published at Leipzig in
the year 1788, afterwards translated into German by Hempcl, Leipzig, 1793, Svo,
and finally inserted in his Opuscula Academica, edited by Goldhorn, Lipsiae, 1821,
pp. 84-99

OP HERMENEUTICAL WORKS. 7 13
of Staudlin, viz. to point out how the historical and religious interests
should be united, and how the latter should regulate the former. Ac
cording to Stein, the inteUectual and moral individuality of Jesus and
his apostles, ascertained both from Scripture and ecclesiastical tradition,
should be always reckoned the highest ground of exposition, and the
New Testament should be explained by means of the prevaiUng senti
ments and the current events of that period, only in so far as such current
notions do not infringe upon the individuality of Christ and the apostles.
By virtue of their individuality they stood out from the common current
of the time at which they lived. Hence their character ought not to be
merged into the stream of popular opinions.
Friederich Liicke. Grundriss der neutestamentlichen Hermen
eutik und ihrer Geschichte. Gottingen, 1817, Svo.
The distinguished commentator on the writings of the apostle John
was a young man, a private teacher in Berlin when he published this
remarkable dissertation. The main point insisted on is the necessity of
spiritual sympathy on the part of an interpreter with the sacred writers.
Philological as well as historical inquiries should be referred to the
Christian revelation considered as an historical reality of universal obli
gation, and subordinated to it. In Christianity there is an immutable
truth which historical investigations should seek to bring out, not to
destroy. The treatise is much more scientific in form and character
than that of Stein. It proceeds from an abler man. The purport how
ever of both is somewhat similar.
The same author afterwards published in the Studien und Kritiken
for 1830, an article on Hermeneutics, in which his former opinions are
developed with greater minuteness, skiU, and caution. According to the
language of this paper, Bibhcal Hermeneutics consist in " construing
general hermeneutical principles in such a manner as that the peculiar
theological element may be united with them in a real organic mode, and
likewise in forming and establishing the theological element so that the
general principles of interpretation may have their full weight,'' p. 421.
G. P. Ch. Kaiser. Grundriss eines Systems der neutesta
mentlichen Hermeneutik. Erlangen, 1817, Svo.
According to this writer, Hermeneutics, though a science purely phi
lological and historical, must be " limitative," i. e. it must mould and
modify the result that has been attained, in accordance with the verdict
of the primitive faith, and the Christian church. See p. 3. The attempt
which he makes to unite the religious with the historical interest, is not
definite or altogether successful. He attaches too much importance to a
traditionary faith in the church, which should never be allowed to in
fringe on the absolute, exclusive standard of all truth, the Bible itself.
4 X

714

BIBLIOGRArillCAL ACCOUNT

Liicke himself is not wholly free from a like imputation. Kaiser avows
himself to be a Supernaturalist. We beheve he was- once a Rationalist.
Fr. Heinr. Germar. Die panharmonische Interpretation der
heUigen Schrift. Ein Versuch. Schleswig, 1821, Svo.
Beitrag zur allgemeinen Hermeneutik und zu deren Anwen-
dung auf die theologische. Altona, 1828, Svo.
Hermeneutischen Mangel der Sogenannt grammatisch-histori-
schen, eigentlich aber der Tact Interpretation. Halle, 1834, Svo.
Kritik der modernen Exegese. Halle, 1839, Svo.
These dissertations, proceeding from the same author at different
times, deserve to be read with attention. The learned and pious writer
shews that Scripture interpretation is inseparable from the formation of
the Christian system — that the position which many lay down, viz, that
the Bible should be explained throughout like any other book, when ex
pressed without limitation, is irreconcilable with beUef in Christianity
considered as a divine revelation and a complete system of truth. The
great fact on which he insists is, that we should regard that alone as
constituting the written revelation of God which completely harmonises
with the various expressions of Christ, and with such positions as are
decidedly true. Whoever, therefore, separates the divine system of
Christian truth from Bible-interpretation, takes asunder what is really
united. The last three treatises are mainly directed to an important ob
jection which might be supposed to he against the panharmonic system.
They point out that faith in Jesus is a comprehensive principle relating,
not merely to the words of Christ, but to the persons selected by him to
write all the circumstances and doctrines pertaining to Christianity.
The contents and the form are inseparable ; — faith requiring us to rely
upon the latter equally with the former, and to regard the origin of
both as supernatural.
J. G. Rdtze. Die hochsten Prinziplen der Schrlfterklarung,
Leipzig, 1824, Svo.
This work, like the preceding, was also written to show the insufiici-
ency of the grammatico-historical system of interpretation, as understood
ill Germany. The following extract may serve to exhibit the author's
sentiments respecting Hermeneutics. " Without the principle of the
absolute, moral deity of Christ, the interpreter wiU always bring a merely
rational sense into the higher, peculiar doctrines of Scripture — a sense,
which, amid all internal, moral, and rational truth, does not by any means
exhaust the peculiar, high sense of Scripture." The writer is perfectly cor
rect in affirming, that "the religious senseof a Scripture doctrine is included
in the grammatical and historical contents ; but when it is most definitely
presented to our view, by exegesis, in all its truth, the purely refigious in
quiry steps in for the first time as the highest and last element." p. 3.

OP HERMENEUTICAL WORKS,

715

H. Olshausen. Ein Wort ueber tiefern Schriftsinn. Koenigs
berg, 1824, Svo.
Die biblische Schriftauslegung. Sendschrelben an Steudel.
Hamburg, 1S25, Svo.
The former of these productions is of a most interesting and impor
tant character. It is true that it has been classed by Clausen, Hartmann,
and others among the allegorical, yet the pious and lamented author ex
presses himself in strong language against the unholy arbitrariness of the
ancient allegorists. He points out the distinction between a genuine and
false allegoricalness, and maintains on the highest authority, even the
New Testament itself, that a spiritual meaning should be extracted from
the shell in which it is enveloped. He justly objects to the phrase double
sense, and to the idea that allegorisers generally affix to it. According
to him, genuine aUegorical interpretation consists, not in assuming ano
ther sense besides the literal, but a deeper-lying sense (uirovoia) connected
by an internal, essential union with the verbal signification presented in
and with the latter — a sense which necessarily presents itself when the
contents of Scripture are viewed from a higher position, and which may
be discovered agreeably to uniform rules. The principles by which the
connexion between the deeper sense and its envelope may be discovered
lie in the law of universal harmony — a law according to which all things
in the world of sense and spirit constitute one great organism. Olshausen
lays great stress on the mode in which the Old Testament is explained
by the New, regarding it as the rule that should direct all exegesis.*
Steudel subjected the treatise of Olshausen to a close examination,')' which
called forth a reply from the latter. The distinguished commentator on
the New Testament repeats the position contained in his former work,
viz. that the law, with aU its ordinances, resembles a seed containing in
itself the whole plant (p. 23.)
There is much truth in these writings of the able Olshausen. We
are not indeed inclined to go so far — nor to use exactly the same
phraseology — nor to call the method of interpretation recommended,
allegorical ; but the sagacity of the Professor saw far into the nature of
prevaiUng systems of exposition, and the true method as contrasted with
their erroneousness. Perhaps he carried his analogies and typical re
presentations to an undue length, although his sentiments are in the
main correct. The uirovoia for which he contends is the one, true, spi
ritual sense uniformly conveyed by the language of the Bible. The dis
sertations before us, though not always guarded in their phraseology, or
strictly accordant with sound reason, are yet full of instruction. They
amply merit the serious perusal of all hermeneutical writers. We have
• See particularly pp, 68-75, and 89-161.
t In the Neues Archiv fur die Theologie, Band III,Tubingen,1825, p, 403 et seq.

716 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ACCOUNT
derived from them no small benefit. Should the reader wish to see some
of the criticisms made upon them in Germany, he may consult Steudel
already mentioned, Hahn,* Hartmann,'!" and Clausen,|
J. T. Beck. Versuch einer pneumatlsch-hermeneutischen Ent
wickelung des 9. Kapitels Im Br. an die Romer, 1833, Svo.
It is the appendix to this which belongs to our present purpose. Also
his Zur theologischen Auslegung der Schrift, appended to his " Einlei
tung in das System der christlichen Lehre," Stuttgard, 1838, Svo.
The pneumatic interpretation " proceeds from the organic connexion
of Scripture as a whole. It seeks for definite traits of the Messianic
theological character in the individual physiognomy brought to light by
pure Hermeneutics in single passages ; and thus discovers its essential
significance in the inward economy of the Spirit's divine work." It has
its root, according to this writer, in a theological comprehension of the
centre- point of revelation ; and its application consequently rests on the
fidelity, purity, and completeness with which the contents of revelation are
examined. In another place he says — " Scripture does not present a manifold
sense, but a full sense, whilst the general as well as the particular is
united with the specific, in living harmonious connection, and thus be
comes a full, spiritual sense. The one Spirit who spiritualises word,
matter, and ideas in order to express his own revelation, also unites them
into one sense, and makes of the Bible one context. ¦ In the unity of
this Spirit to comprehend all that is general and particular, and then to
point out that unity again in single parts, is the business of learned-
or hernieneutico-pneumatic interpretation." |1
Although there is considerable mysticism in the style of Beck, and
occasionally an obscure apprehension of truth, yet his treatises are most
valuable in a hermeneutical sense. They are the productions of no or
dinary mind, and contain very much sound theology, such as is needed
in Germany. In regard to the subject of prophecy, and the New Tes
tament quotations from the Old, he has entered with spirituality of con
ception into their essential features, and evolved comprehensive principles
unknown or forgotten. Our hope is, that the writings of this excellent
man may tend, along with other orthodox works, to produce good fruit
an hundredfold in Germany.
G. C. R. Matthai. Uebersicht der Fehler der neutestam.
Exegese, u. s. w. Gottingen, 1835, Svo.
* " Versuch fiir grammatisoh-historische Interpretation" u, s. w, inthe Theolo
gische Studien und Kritiken for 1830, Heft 2, p. 301 et seq,, translated by Dr.
Robinson in the Biblical Repository, January 1831,
+ Die enge Verbindung, p. 720 et seq. J Hermeneutik, p. 335.
II P. 279 (Einleit. in das Syst.)

OP HERMENEUTICAL WORKS.

717

This treatise is somewhat singular. The leading idea it exhibits seems
to be this, that usus loquendi and history furnish no good ground of
exegesis, because in expressions of a religious nature they present merely
that literal signification which lies on the surface, and in cases where
several senses are equally possible, afford no sure criterion for ascertain
ing that one which is alone correct. The writer makes the principle of
interpretation to he in a Biblical, believing consciousness, in the essence
and tenor of relig'ious ideas infaUibly true. Hermeneutical science can
not be much benefited by this dissertation, whose object is to reduce
exegesis to a matter of individual feefing rather than of accurate investi
gation. While the author points out mistakes committed in New Tes
tament exegesis, he has himself faUen into error.
He has meant well to the cause of evangelical truth, though we scarcely
think that he has advanced it by the present volume.
F. Schleiermacher. Hermeneutik und Kritik mit besonderer
Riicksicht auf das neue Testament. Berlin, 1838, Svo, forming
vol. vu. of his collected works, and published in them by Dr.
Liicke. This is properly a philosophical treatise. The general principles, how
ever, which it develops with all the depth and acutenesg of the remarkable
author, are applicable to Scripture, especially the New Testament.
There is a scientific character belonging to the production that must
render it valuable, in addition to its essential merits, in helping forward
the enlightened study of Hermeneutics. Still we should remember, that
it is based on a system of philosophy, and not on the Bible. Schleier
macher was a speculative man, possessed of a great but erratic genius,
and by no means a sound or safe expositor. Considered as outlines of a
philosophico-hermeneutical syfetem, the work is excellent ; but we cannot
refrain from saying, that the philosophy of Germany has ruined its theo
logy. It has equally robbed it of its essence and its simplicity.
George Campbell, D.D. Preliminary Dissertations to the Gos
pels. London, 1789, 4to.
These dissertations are twelve in number, and evince a philosophical
mind, capable of taking enlightened views of language. The first two
in particular are masterly specimens, which deserve the careful perusal
of the philosopher, the critic, and the expositor.
Prof. Moses Stuart. Hints on the Interpretation of Prophecy.
Andover, 1842, 12mo. pp. 146,
The accomplished writer of this valuable little book undertakes to prove
three things. 1st, That there is no double sense in prophecy. 2dly,
That it is inteUigible before it is fulfilled, and that the writers themselves
were acquainted with the meaning of what they uttered, Sdly, That the

718 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ACCOUNT
designations of time in the prophetic Scriptures are ordinary, not pecu
liar. The first two points are briefly treated, and to our mind not altogether
satisfactorily. In objection to the double sense he combats such a view
of it as is held by no intelligent writer with whom we are acquainted.
He contends against the spiritualising of Scripture, a practice, which,
if we mistake not, is reprobated by those who hold the double reference
of various portions in the Bible. In maintaining that the prophets un
derstood all that they were prompted to write, he appears to take a very
imperfect view of the state in which the prophets were when commis
sioned to utter predictions, and to reduce them too much to the condition
of ordinary men. We believe that in many cases they had very obscure
notions of the meaning of what they uttered ; and that sometimes at
least, they could scarcely be said .to understand their own predictions.
The third part is the longest and by far the ablest. Days are days,
and years years. So the writer maintains with no small skill and power
of argumentation. We do not see how his conclusions can be set aside.
It is true that they are contrary to prevailing sentiments, but if the
latter be unscriptural, the sooner they are abandoned the better. Let
those who object to the statements of the learned author reply to them
in the spirit of candour and impartiality. A writer in the American Bib
lical Repository endeavours to defend the old view against Mr. Stuart.

It has been suggested by the intelligent publisher, that the
brevity of the 15th chapter requires a list of books to be given,
which treat copiously of the different topics. In accordance with
this intimation, a very few of the best in each department to
which the text refers, are selected. Our space will not allow of
a long catalogue. Two or three, which may be considered to
stand at the head of all others, are suflScient for our present pur
pose. General History.
Here it is most advantageous to consult separate histories of
particular countries, always sIngUng out such as are best. At
present we cannot refer to such.
Of general histories which comprehend the entire range of
events from the creation to modern times, there is none to be
compared with that of Professor H. Leo, entitled, Lehrbuch der
Universalgeschlchte, Halle, 1838, &e. Svo, of which four vo
lumes have appeared.

OF VARIOUS WORKS.

719

C. Von Rotteck. Allgemeine Weltgeschichte, 14th Ausgabe,
9 Baende, Svo, Freiberg, 1840.
This work is much inferior to "the preceding, although its value is
considerable. The author's -views regarcfing religion are sceptical, though
not always openly expressed. He belongs nominaUy to the Roman Ca-
thofic Church. It has been translated into English in four volumes,
royal Svo, London, 1842.
J. Von Mailer. 24 Bucher AUgemeiner Geschichten. 4th
edition, Stuttgart, 1828, 3 vols. Svo. Also in one vol. Svo,
1838. This work was translated into English, and published at London in
1818, 3 vols. Svo. It is learned, accurate, and profound.
Johannes Cluverus. Historlarum totius mundi epitome, a pri
ma rerum origlne usque ad annum Christi 630. E sexcentis am-
plius Authoribus sacris profanisque, ad marglnem adscriptis, de-
ducta, et historia unaquseque ex suL secull scriptoribus, ubi ha-
beri potuerunt, fideliter asserta. Editio octava. Vratislavlse, 1673,
4to. An admirable and perspicuous compendium of the history of the world,
which deserves to be known and read. The author's opinion concerning
the history contained in the Apocalypse is erroneous.
A. F. Tytler (Lord Woodhouselee.) Elements of General
History, continued by Dr. Nares, 1801-22, 3 vols, Svo.
A brief but able sketch of universal history.
The three works of Shuckford, Prideaux, and Russell, which
form a connected series, carry the history of the Bible from the
creation to the time of Christ.
The second is by far the best. The first is of little utihty.
G. G. Bredow. Compendious view of Universal History and
Literature, in a series of tables ; from the fifth edition of the
German. 2d edition. London, 1824, fol.
In this beautifully printed work, there are 1 3 tables on history, and
5 on literature. They are simply constructed, presenting the leading
facts and various dates in a manner well adapted for reference.
Chronology.
Sir Isaac Newton. The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms
amended. In the 5th volume of his works, edited by Bishop
Horsley. This work is divided into six chapters. The references to Scripture
history are not numerous, although in the 2d, 3d, and 4th chapters, there

720

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ACCOUNT

are various notices of persons and events mentioned in the Old Testa
ment, in connexion with the history of such nations as came in contact with
the Jews. The Remarques critiques sur le nouveau system de chrono-
logie du chevalier Newton, by Gibbon (Miscellaneous Works, vol. iii.
London 1815, 4to, pp. 63 et seq.), should be read along with the book.
James Ussher, D.D. The annals of the world deduced from
the origin of time, and continued to the beginning of the Em-
perour's Vespasian's reign, and the totall destruction and aboli
tion of the temple and Common-wealth of the Jews. Containing
the historie of the Old and New Testament, with that of the
Macchabees, &c. &c. London, 1658, fol. Originally published
in Latin In 2 vols. fol. London 1650-54.
This book is indispensable to the student of sacred chronology. There
is none like it in the English language. Its value cannot be too highly
appreciated. William Hales, D.D. A new Analysis of Chronology, in
which an attempt is made to explain the history and antiquities
of the primitive nations of the world, and the prophecies relating
to them, on principles tending to remove the imperfection and
discordance of preceding systems. London, 1809-12, 3 vols,
4to. In this very learned work Dr. Hales rests chiefly on Josephus, and
departs from the chronology of the Masoretic text. Hence he makes
5411 years from the creation to the birth of Christ. The writer ap
pears to us not to have made out with success the truth of his system,
or the satisfactoriness of the foundation by which it is supported. The
chronology founded on the Masoretic text remains impregnable, as far
as the objections of Dr. Hales to it are concerned. In the first volume
a review of the leading systems of Chronology is given.
Arthur Bedford. The Scripture Chronology, demonstrated by
Astronomical Calculations, and also by the year of Jubilee, and
the Sabbatical year among the Jews : or an account of time from
the creation of the world to the destruction of Jerusalem ; as it
may be proved from the writings of the Old and New Testament.
London, 1730, fol.
This elaborate work is divided into 8 books, which carry the history
from the creation to the completion of the New Testament canon. It
has 50 chronological tables, and several maps. The writer vindicates
the authority of the Hebrew text, and opposes the Samaritan and the
Septuagint version. The research displayed in the volume is immense,
and the value of it i)roportionably great. Although its size ift unwieldy.

OP VARIOUS WORKS. 721
yet it abundantly deserves the careful perusal of such as study the Bible-
chronology. J. L. Ideler. Lehrbuch der Chronologic, Berlin, Svo, 1831.
 Handbuch d. Mathem. und Techn. Chronolo
gic, Berlin, 2 vols. Svo, 1826.
As a compendium of chronology the first is unrivalled. It is the best
extant. The second work, which is more extended, should be read along
with the first. He who has these scientific and able publications, need
not wish for any thing more on the subject,
Archceology.
J. Jahn. Biblische Archseologie, 5 vols. Svo, Second Edition,
Wien, 1807-25.
Archseologia Biblica In epitomen redacta. Editio sec. Svo,
Viennse, 1814.
The latter was afterwards (1 826), published by Ackermann with a
few unimportant expurgations and additions. It was also translated by
Mr. Upham, Andover, 1823, with various improvements.
The German work is by far the most extensive and the best that has
been published on the Antiquities of the Bible. Those who cannot af
ford to procure it, should by all means procure the Latin abridgment or
the English translation. The plates add to the value of the unabridged
edition. W. M. L. De Wette. Lehrbuch der Hebr.-jiidlschen Arch
seologie, nebst einem Grundriss der Hebr. jiidlschen Geschichte,
Leipzig, 1830, Svo. Second edition.
¦ftiis is an excellent and well-digested compend of Archseology. The
author adopts a different division from that of Jahn, a division which
appears to be preferable. He who has both works, needs nothing more
on the subject.
David Jennings, D.D. Jewish Antiquities, 2 vols. Svo,
London, 1766.
This book is not adapted to the present state of our knowledge, for
which the learned author is not to blame. At the time it appeared, there
was probably none like it. Various statements in it are not accurate.*
With regard to works which profess to Ulustrate Scripture from
travels, voyages, and antiquities, such as the Oriental Customs
and Oriental Literature of Burder, Harmefs Observations, Pax-
ton's Illustrations In part, Roberts's Oriental Illustrations, Tay
lor's Illustrations of the Bible, &c. &c. &c., we have never been
* See Gesenius's Article Biblische Archmologie in Ersch und Gruber's Encyclo-
ptedio.
4 Y

722 niBLIOGRAPHlOAL ACCOUNT
able to see mtich real a««? furnished by them to exposition. They
place many things In a more striking point of view, but seldom
suffice to elicit the sense of a place otherwise obscure. They are
interesting confirmations of the truth of Revelation, but as sources
of interpretation they have been unduly overrated. It is pleas
ing and not unprofitable to read them ; but the amount of positive
information directly bearing on exegesis, which can be collected
from them, is exceedingly small. The truth of our opinion may
be fairly tested by a perusal of Bush's " Scripture Illustrations,"
which professes to condense and present the substance of the best
treatises. Geography.
Hadrian Reland. Palaestina ex Monumentis veteribus illus
trata. Tajecti Batavorum, 1714, 4to.
This is a very valuable book on the Geography of Palestine, although
it does not include the results of modern researches.
E. F. K. Rosenmiiller. Biblische Geographic, 3 Baende,
Leipzig, 1823-28, Svo.
Of less value and accuracy than the reputation of the writer would
lead us to expect.
C. Von Raumer. Palaestina, Leipzig, 1838, Svo.
The best work on the geography of Palestine in a condensed form that
has been published.
Ed. Robinson, D.D. Biblical Researches in Palestine, Mount
Sinai, and Arabia Petrsea, 3 vols. Svo, London, 1841.
Although this is not a systematic work on the geography of Palestine,
yet it throws great light on the Bible, and contains very important geo
graphical details. Its learning, accuracy, and fulness, are above all praise,
and must secure it a place in the library of every Biblical student. The
description of Jerusalem is the best extant. It is even superior to that
given by Crome, in Ersch and Gruber's Encyclopaedie. A complete
work on sacred geography may be looked for from the author of these
Tolumes. In the meantime, their accurate, interesting, and in many cases
novel details, recommend them to all who wish to know the geography
of the Bible. See a chronological list of works on Palestine and Mount
Sinai, in the first appendix, vol. iii.
Ed. Wells, D.D. An Historical Geography of the Old and
New Testaments. Frequently printed in different forms.
This work is far behind the advanced state of geography, although it

OP VARIOUS WORKS. 723
was exceUent at the time when it appeared. It cannot be reUed on now,
either as accurate or satisfactory.
G. B. Winer. Biblisches Realworterbuch. Zweite ganz um-
gearbeitete Auflage, 2 vols. Svo, Leipzig,*1833-38.
The natural history, geography, antiquities, history, &c. of the Scrip
tures are described in this work with great learning. It is an immense
storehouse of information compiled with great labour, and containing a
vast number of references to the sources consulted. Its value cannot
well be estimated. The reader, however, should guard against the ne
ology of the writer.
Aug. Calmet. Calmet's Dictionary of the Holy Bible, as
pubUshed by the late Mr. Charles Taylor, with the fragments in
corporated. Revised, with large additions by Ed. Robinson, D.D.
Boston, 1837, royal octavo.
A great amount of information on the history, antiquities, geography,
natural history, &c. of the Bible is given in this work. The notes and
additions of Professor Robinson greatly enhance the value of the Ameri
can edition, rendering it superior even to the London edition by Mr.
Taylor, in 5 vols. 4to.
J. L. Burckhardt. Reisen in Syrlen, Palaestina, und der Ge-
gend des Berges Sinai. Aus dem EngUschen mit Anmerkungen
von W. Gesenius, 2 Baende, Svo, Weimar, 1823-4.
" As an Oriental traveller," says Dr. Robinson, " Burckhardt stands
in the very highest rank ; accurate, judicious, circumspect, persevering.
He accomplished very much.'' The notes of Gesenius form a valuable
addition, and throw considerable light on various passages in the Old
Testament.* Natural History.
Thaddeus Mason Harris, D. D. The Natural History of the
Bible, &c., Boston, 1820, Svo, and London, 1824, Svo.
This work has been already characterised in the text.
Samuel Bochart. Hierozoicon, sive de animalibus Scripturse
Sacrse, recensuit, suis notis adjectis, E. F. C. Rosenmiiller, 3 vols.
4to, Lipsse, 1793-95.
This is the best description of the animals of Scripture. Rosen
miiUer has greatly improved the work by his very valuable notes.
Olav. Celsius. Hierobotanlcon, sive de plantis Sacrse Scrip
turae, &c.» Upsal, 1745-7, 2 vols. Svo.
* See Gesenius's Article,' ShUsche QeograpMe, in Ersch und Gruber's Encyclo
paedie.

724 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ACCOUNT
Sam. Oedmann. Vermlschte Sammlungen aus der Natur-
kunde zur Erklarung der heiligen Schrift. Aus dem Schwedis-
chen iibersetzt von D. Groning. Rostock und Leipzig, 1786-95,
Svo, vi. Hefte.
Peter Forskal. Flora ^gyptiaco-Arablca. Havnise, 1775,
4 to. These three works contain together the best descriptions of the plants
of Scripture. The first contains a great mass of information ; but the
author usually heaps together a number of observations without coming
to a definite or decided conclusion for himself. The second, containing
remarks on animals as well as plants, is more scientific and accurate.
The third is a fragmentary work pubfished from the papers of the dis
tinguished naturalist by Niebuhr. (See the Life of Niebuhr by his son )
It is very valuable.
J. Eckhel. Doctrina Nummorum Veterum, 9 vols. 4to. Vi-
ennae, 1792-1826.
The best work on ancient moneys, including those of the Hebrews,
extant. E.F.K.Rosenmuller. Biblische Naturgeschichte. Leipzig, Svo.
Useful, but not always accurate.
Maria Callcott. A Scripture Herbal. London, 1842, Svo.
This is an interesting book, the best perhaps which the English lan
guage affords. It is not of a very scientific character, neither can it be
said to throw new light on the subject. Geology.
J. Pye Smith, D.D. On the Relation between the Holy
Scriptures and some parts of Geological Science. Second edi
tion, 12mo. 1840.
This is by far the best book on the subject. Every page bears the
impress of extensive information, philosophical reasoning, and a profound
reverence for the word of God.
Ed. Hitchcock, IL.D. Elementary Geology. Third edi
tion, revised and improved, with an introductory notice, by John
Pye Smith, D.D., F.R.S., and E.G. S. New York, 1842,
12mo. The ninth section of this exceUent and interesting work is on the
connexion between geology and natural and revealed reUgion. The re
marks are judicious, sound, and correct (pp. 274-291.)
Various papers were published by the same accomplished geologist in

OP VARIOUS WORKS. 725
the American BibUcal Repository, which should be read by the intelli
gent student of the Bible. They have been repubUshed by Mr. Clark
of Edinburgh, in his series of Tracts.
The " Christian Observer" for 1834 contains a number ot papers
by able writers, on the connexion between geology and revelation ; but
most of the information in them was embodied by Professor Hitchcock
in his articles inserted in the Repository.
The works of Fairholme, Penn, Nolan, and Bugg, respecting
the connexion of Scripture and geology shew a want of acquaint
ance with the subject.
W. S. Gibson, F. G. S. The Certainties of Geology. Lon
don 1840, Svo.
This book contains a clear, compendious, and correct development of
the positions which all good geologists look upon as indisputable.
For notices of the works of Lyell, Buckland, Phillips, &c. the
reader is referred to the appendix of Smith's Scripture and Geo
logy- Medicine.
Richard Mead, M. D. Medica Sacra. This treatise was
orlginaUy published in Latin, but Is in English in the edition of
Mead's medical works published at London In one volume 4to,
1762; p. 579 et seq.
The work does not treat of every disease mentioned in holy writ, but
only of such as the writer considered to be little known, or those for
which he had some particular medicine or cure. The diseases treated
of are 15.
James Copland, M. D. A Dictionary of practical Medicine.
London Svo.
This book, which has been in course of publication for several years,
contains a mass of information on the treatment of all diseases and its
history, not to be found in any other work. It is the result of immense
research and erudition.
J. Mailer. Physiologic der Menschen, 4th edition, 2 vols.
Svo. Carlsruhe, 1838-40.
Incomparably the best hook on human physiology that has ever been
published. It is of a scientific not a popular character. Some parts
of it seem to indicate that the author is a materialist. It has been trans
lated into English, with valuable notes, containing additions and correc
tions, by Baly. London, Svo. 1838-42.

726 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ACCOUNT OP VARIOUS WORKS.
W. B. Carpenter, M.D. General and Comparative Physiology.
London, 8vo, 1836.
This book is better adapted for the general reader than that of Miiller,
as being more popular.

INDEX OF TOPICS AND NAMES.

Abelard, one of the schoolmen, 191.
Abenesra, a Jewish commentator, 636.
Abdlparagius, History of the Dynasties
of Egypt, 656.
Abulwalid, his Lexicon, 637.
Accommodation system of interpretation,
199, Its principal advocates, 201. Sup
posed instances of, 487-606.
AcosTA,Joseph,hisHermeneuticalWorks, 679.
Africanus on the genealogy of Christ,
592,
Agnew, J. H., Translation of Winer on
ou the Greek Idioms of the New Tes
tament, 478.
Alber, Joh,Nepomuc,Institutlones "Her
meneuticae Scripturae Sacrae Novi Tes-
taraenti,707." Veteris Testamenti, 707.
Albert the Great, his Exegetical Works
— character as an interpreter, 174,
Alcuin, Flaccus, his Interrogationes et
Responsiones — his Commentaries, 164-
165.
Alexander, W. L., A. M,, Connexion
and Harmony of the Old and New Tes
taments, 468.
Alexandrian school of interpreters, 62.
Of theology,. 106. Their distinction ¦
between tricns and yfSris, 107. Tra
dition of the Alexandrian church, 107.
Allegorical Interpretation, 57. Its ori
gin, 68 and 67.
Allegory, 305, Specimens of, 308. Two
kinds of, 309.
Ambrose, character as an interpreter —
, quotations from, 126. On the genea
logy of Christ, 592. On the parentage
of Mary, 601.
Ammon on the Ascension of Christ, 221.
On the conversion of Paul, 331. On
Luke ii. 1, 2, 3, 609.
ANDREAS,of Csesarea, Commentary on the
Apocalypse — character as an interpre
ter — KJcisenmUUer's opinion of his Com
mentary, 157.
Andreas of Crete on the parentage of
Mary, 602.
Anselm, Archbp. of Canterbury, Glossa
Interlinearis, 171. The founder of the
Schoolmen, 191.
Antiquities, a knowledge of necessary to
the expositor of Scripture, 15,
Antithesis, a means of ascei-taining the
signification of a word, 233.

Aquila, his Greek Translation of tlio
Scriptures, 228, 339. Use of his trans
lation in interpretation, 628.
Aquinas, Thomas, his opinion of Chry
sostom's Homilies, 122. His Exegetical
Works, 171. A great master of scho
lastic learning, 191.
Arabic Versions of the New Testament,
228 — Language as a source of inter
pretation, 648.
Aratus, 337.
ARCH^fiOLOGT as subservient to interpre
tation, .663.
Arethas, his Commentary on the Apoca
lypse, 169.
Arigler, Altmann, Biblical Hermeneu
tics, 706.
Arrian, 228. The dialect in which he
wrote, 638.
Artabanus, the historian, 336.
Astronomy, a knowledge of necessary to
the interpreter of Scripture, 16.
Athanasius, 113, A historico-theologi
cal, and not an allegorical interpreter,
114.
Athenagoras carried typical interpreta
tion to excess, 76.
Augusti on Isaiah, 220.
Augustine, his mode of interpretation —
hermeneutical principles found in his
writings, 1 33, His description of an ac
complished interpreter, 136. His Exe
getical Works, 135-137. De Consensu
Evangelistarum — His polemic writings,
139. On the quotations from the Old
Testament in ttie New, 334.
Axiomatic principles of interpretation,
641, B
Bahrdt, 259.
Barberinian Manuscript, 338.
Barnabas, an allegorical interpreter, 73.
Epistle of, 71. Commentary on Levi
ticus xvi. (71.)'
Barnes, Albert," his Commentary on
Isaiah, 296.
Barrett, Dr., on the genealogy of Christ,
589-691. Ontheparentagedf Mary,60I.
Basil, the Great, his Philocalia Hexae
meron, lis. Quotations from him,
115-116.
Basnage on the authenticity of the Epistle
of Barnabas, 71.

728

INDEX OP TOPICS AND NAMES.

Bauer, G, L,, 69, Hebrew Mythology,
207. On Mythus, 211. On the Par
ables, 31 3, On the promulgation of the
Law, 331, His Hermeneutica Sacra,
701.
 B,, his Mythic Interpretation of
Genesis ii, 5— iii, 24, 208, 9.
Baumgarten,D, Siegmund James, "Aus
fuehrllcher Vortrag der biblischen
Hermeneutik," 690, His "Unterricht
von Auslegung der Herligen Schrift,"
689.
 J, S., an advocate of the Wolfian
philosophy, 218.
Baur, his " Christliche Gnosis'' recom
mended, 77.
Beck, Christian Daniel, his " Monogram
mata Hermeneutices," 705.
Beck, J, T,, his Hermeneutical Writings,
716.
Bede, his Exegetical Works, Extracts
from them, 163,
Bedford, Arthur, The Scripture Chro
nology demonstrated by Astronomical
Calculations, &c,, 720,
Bengel on Matt, i, 22, (486.)
Benham, Mr,, Reflections on the Gene
alogy of our Lord and Saviom* Jesus
Christ, 605,
Bertholdt on Zechariah ix,-xiv., (464,)
Beyer on Ivx, iTi.
Bible, character of, 1. Its claims to su
premacy in theological controversy, 14.
Principles on which it is to be inter
preted, 31.
Biblical Interpretation, history of, 70-
192.
,  Archaeology as a source of in
terpretation, 66,
Birch, Dr., on Luke ii, 1, 2, 3, 610,
Blair, Dr,, on Allegory, 305,
Bleek on Psalms ex. & ii., (507.)
Bloomfield, Dr., on Acts vii, 14, 583.
Bochart, Samuel, Hierozoicon, 723.
Bohlen, Von, 208. On Genesis, 211,
Bona VENTURA, his Exegetical Works, 174.
Boothroyd, Dr,, on David's introduction
to Saul, 543.
Bredow, G. G,, Compendious view of
Universal History and Literature, 719,
Bretschneider, CG,, Dr,, his distinction
between Rationalism and Naturalism,
217- On Isaiah Iii, liii., (220.) On
Matt.ii,23,(468,) His " Die Historisch-
dogmatische Auslegung des N. T„"705,
Brucker, liis view of the origin of Alle
gorical Interpretation, 66.
Bucer, on the Parables, (313.)
JBuLL, Bishop, his opinion of the authen
ticity of the Epistle of Barnabas, 71.
Burckhardt, J, L,, Reisen in Syrien,
Palestina, und der Gegend des Berges
Sinai, 723,
Bi'KGE.NSis, Paulus, ou2 Cor, iii, 6, 179,

Calcott, Maria, A Scripture Herbal, 721,
Calmet, his Dictionary, 553, 685.
Calvin on Rom. x. 6-8, (509.)
Campbell, George, D.D., Preliminary
Dissertations to the Gospels, 717,
Canz, an advocate of the Wolfian philo
sophy, 218,
Cappellus on Acts xiii, 41, 393, On Je
remiah xxxi. 31-34, 476,
Carlovingian Schools, those interpreters
who were attached io them, 189.
Carpenter, Dr. Lant, 269,
Carpenter, Wm,, his Biblical Compa
nion, 711.
Carpov, an advocate of tiie Wolfian phi
losophy, 218,
Carpzov, John Benedict, his " Primse
lineae Hermeneutica3 et PhilologiEe,
Sacrae," 697.
Carson, Alexander, A,M,, on Figures of
Speech, (307.) His " Examination of
the Principles of Biblical Interpreta
tion of Ernesti, Ammon," &c (284.)
Cartesian philosophy applied to theo
logy, 199.
Casaubon on Luke ii, 1, 2, 3, 610.
Cassiodorus, Magnus Aurelius, De In
stitutione Divinarum Scriptarum, 157,
His "Complexions" on the Epistles,
158,
Castell, his Lexicon to the Polyglott,
655.
CatenjE, their nature and origin, 156.
The writers of Catenae, 168.
Cave on the authenticity of the Epistle
of Barnabas, 71,
Celsius, his Hierobotanlcon, 670,
Cerularius, Michael, Patriarch of Con
stantinople' — his intemperate zeal, 188.
Chaldee Language as a source of inter
pretation, 667,
Chamier, Daniel, his Panstratiae Catho
licae, 682.
Charlemagne patronised Literature, 189.
Chevallier, Rev. Temple, his " Trans
lation of the Epistles of Clement, Poly
earp, Ignatius, &c. &c." 75,
Chladenius, Martin, his " Institutiones
Exegeticae," 687.
Chronology, b Imowledge of necessary
to the interpreter of Scripture, 15,
662. Works on, 719.
Chrysostom, 119, Character as an ex
positor — Homilies of — Quotations
irom, 120. Hermeneutical observa
tions from, 122. His great credulity
and superstition, 123, On Luke xxiii.
and xxxix,, 562. On the parentage of
Mary, 601,
Cicero on Allegory, 305.
Clarke, Dr. Samuel, 250,
Claudius, his Commentary on the Epistle
to the GalatiaiLS, ) G8,

If^DEX OF TOPICS AND NAMES.

729

Clausen, H. N., Dr, on. Allegorical In
terpretation, 57 > On allegorizing in the
Apocryphal books, 63. His division of
the history of Biblical Interpretation
into periods, 70. His " Hermeneutik
¦ des neuen Testaments," (199), 708.
Clemens, Romanus, his 'First Epistle to
tiie Corinthians, 73.
 Alexandrinus, his distinction
between v'lirvis and yvaiiris, 76. Ad
dicted to the Allegorizing System, 83.
Clementine Recognitions, 88.
Cleopas, various opinions respecting him,
602,
Cluverus, Johannes, History of thg
. World, 719.
Cocceius, his spiritualizing processes of
interpretation, 10.
Codex Alexandrinus, 342, 364,
Cognate Languages as sources of inter
pretation, 643-658.
Collyer, David, " The'^acred fnterpre- .
ter," 709, . }«.' .
Conybeare, J, J,, quoted, 91, •' "'
Conybeare, W. D., 260, ^^ ' '¦ '
Conjunctions, different kinds Qf-T-Im=
portance of attention to, 242.
Context a necessary means of ascertain
ing the meaning of a word, 231-240,
How to ascertain the boundaries of,
241-243, As a means of .explaining
tropical diction, 296.
Contradiction^, alleged, of Scripture,
516. Real, adduced by Neologists, 619.
Cotelerius questions the authenticity
of the Epistle. of Barnabas, 71.
Copland, J,, M,D., A Dictionary of Prac
tical Medicine, 725.
Credner, "Einleitung in das Neue Testa
ment," 329. His "Beitrage," 372, 379.
On Joel, 634,
Creuzer, Symbolik und Mythologie der
Alten Valker, 59.
Critica Biblica, 646,
Cyprian, as an interpreter, 105.
Cyrenius, Governor of Syria, 606,
Cyril of Alexandria, his Exegetical
Works — Quotations from him, 145,
146. Character as an interpreter, 147,
On the parentage of Mary, 601.
Cyrus, the deliverer oi' the Jews, 49.
D
Dannhauer, John Conr. " Hermeneutica
Sacra," 683,
Dathe on Isaiah vii, 14, 500. On Da-
. vid's introduction to Saul, 643.
Daub applied the philosophy of Schel
ling to theology, 219.
Davison, his Discourses on Prophecy, 63.
De Dieu, his Critica Sacra, 583. On Ro
mans ii, 18, 636.
Deists, 519.
Delitzsch, Franz, quoted, 221,

De Leon Basil Ponce, liis " Quaestiones
.quatuor exposltivse, &c," 681.
De Rossi, 477.
De Sacy, his Translation of the Scrip
tures, 636,
De Wette, W. M. L,, his rendering of
Psalm xlv, 7, 20, On Isaiah Iii., and
liii., (220,) On Mark xv, 23, (561.)
His German translation of the Scrip
tures, 636, His Jewish Antiquities,
721,
Deyling on Luke ii, 1, 2, 3, 610,
Digressions, different from parentheses,
274.
Diodati, his Italian translation of the
Scriptures, 636.
Diodorus, bishop of Ta,rsus, his Her-
' meneutical Treatises, 119.
Diodorus, Siculus, tjie dialect in which
he. wrote, 638. His Bibliotheca, 661,
Dopke, his cpiijectures as to the com
mencement of the allegorizing method
of interpretation, 61, Is of opinion
that .110 true instance of allegorizing
. can be fouiid iu the Apocryphal books,
, 63. Resolves it into the conflict of
philosophy with- the religion of the
Jews, 66, On John vii. 31 — Qn Rom.
XV. 12, (412,) On Matt, xxvii, 9, 10,
(463,) His Hermeneutik, 473.
Doring, Matthias, his defence of Nico
laus against Paulus Burgensis, 179.
Druthmar, Christian, his scholarship —
his character as an interpreter, 167.
Du Pin on the authenticity of the Epistle
of ]^arnabas, 71. E
Ebbeke, his translation of Winer on
the Greek Idioms of the New Testa
ment, 486.
Eckermann on Isaiah Iii. liii., (220.)
Eichhorn, AUg., Bibliothek, 61. His
views of the origin of Allegorical In
terpretation, 66. • His Urgeschichte,
207. His view of the prophecies, 221 ,
On the promulgation of the Law, 331.
On the conversion of Paul, 331.
Emerson, Professor, his Translation of
Wiggers on Augustinism and Pelagi
anism, 152.
Ephraem, the Syrian, on AUegorical In
terpretation, 114,
Epimenides, 337,
Epiphanius on Eph. v. 14, (424.)
Erasmus, Desiderius, his Paraphrase and
Annotations on the New Testament,
182, A guide to the Reformers, Cha
racter as an Expositor, 182, Did not
believe in the infallibility of the Pope,
184. Extracts from him, 186.
Ernesti, his opinion of Chrysostom's Ho-
miliesj 122, His view of the origin
of Tropes, 288, On Parables, 313.
4 Z

730

INDEX OP TOPICS AND NAMES.

His Opuscula Varii Ai'gumenti, 638.
Institutio Interpretis, 777, 691. Ele
ments of BibUcal Criticism and Inter
pretation, translated by Stuart, and by
Terrot, 692,
Esra, Aben, a learned Jewish Commen
tator, 190, 228,
Ess, Leander Van, his edition of the
Septuagint, 337.
EUD.EM0NISM, 222.
Eusebius, 17. His Ecclesiastical His
tory and other treatises, 1 12, Praepa-
paratio Evangelica, 344,
Euthalius on Eph. v. 14, (424.)
Euthymius, Zigabenus, his Commentary
on the Gospels and Epistles, 171.
Ewald, his rendering of Psalm xlv. 7,
(21.) His Hebrew Grammar, 26, His
Views of Isaiah hii, — On the book
of Psalms, 262,
Exegesis, meaning of the term, 1,
Expositor, necessary qualifications of —
moral, intellectual, and Uterary, 2-29.

Faber, his Sacred Calendar of Prophecy,
661.
Fathers, Apostolic, 70, General survey
of their merits and defects, 160-162.
Fichtian pliilosophy, 219.
Figurative language, principles of in
terpretation applied to, 286.
Flacius on the Parables, 313, His Clavis
Scripturae, 679,
Flatt on Eph, v. 14, 424, .
FLiJGQE on the origin of Allegorical In
terpretation, 66, On Zechariah ix,-
xiv,, (464.)
FoRBERQ on Zechariah ix.-xiv., (464.)
Formulae, introductory, examination of,
473.
ForskIl, his Flora, 670,
Freytag, his Arabic Lexicon, 665.
Fritzsche, his definition of " Rational
ists," 217. On Matt, xxvii, 9, 1 0, (463.)
On Matt, i, 22, (474,)
Franzius, Wolfgang, his " Tractatus
Theologicus, &c," 681,
Fuller, Andrew, on Prov. xxvi.S, (565.)
Furst, Dr., his concordance to the He
brew Bible, 252. G
Gabler, his Edition of Eichhorn's Ur
geschichte, 207, His Journal of Theo
logical Literature, 211, On the as
cension of Christ, 221,
Galatians, Epistle to, divisions of, 244.
Gatterer on the Relationship of Lan
guages, 644,
Gemara, 66,
Gennadius, De Scriptoribus Ecclesiasti
cus, 153,
Genealogy of Christ, 589,

Geography, a knowledge of necessary
to the expositor of Scripture, 15, 666.
Geology, a knowledge of necessary to
to the expositor of Scripture, 15,
670.
George, J, F, L., on Mythus, 211.
Gerard, Gilbert, D, D.,his Institutes of
BibUcal Criticism, 710.
Gerbert, 188,
Gerhard, Johannes, his " Tractatus de
legitima Scripturae Sacroe Interpreta
tione," 680.
German Interpretation, failm-e of, owing
to neglect of seeking Divine teaching,
and au undue confidence in human wis
dom, 8.
Germar, Fr, Heinr., on BibUcal Inter
pretation, 714,
Gerson, John Charlier, his Exegetical
Works, 178, His Monotessaron, 178,
Gesenius, Dr,, his remarlss on Isaiah
ix. 5, (21,) On Isaiah Iii. 13, 15, and
Isaiah Uii., (220.) Usage assigned by
him to the phrase n^T 12])^ 323.
On Jeremiah xxxi, 31-34, and Heb.
viii, 9, (460.) Ou Isaiah i, 6— His
Lehrgebaude, 20, His Commentary
on Isaiah, 21, On Prov, xi, 21, (657),
His deatli, 637.
Gfrorer, hiis " Philo und die Jiidisch-
Alexandrinische Theosophie" recom
mended, 66,
Gibson, W, S,, " The certainties of Geo
logy" recommended, 725.
Gill, Dr., his metaphorical system of
interpretation, 10, Specimen of his
inju(£ciou3 exposition of Parables,
316-318,
Ginnach, R, Jona Ben, a learned Jewish
commentator, 190,
Glassius, Philologia Sacra, 523, 524, 681.
On the Parables, 313.
Glossaries, principal ancient ones men-
tioried, 638,
Glossary, definition of, 638.
Gnostic Christian described, 82,
Gnostics, their aUegorizing method of
interpretation, 83,
Goldhagen, Hermann, " Introductio in
Sacram Scripturam," 695.
Graves, Dr., Lectm-es on the Penta
teuch, 538,
Greeks, who fled to the west of Europe
ou the fall of the Eastern Empire, 177,
Gregory, Thaumaturgus, his Panegyric
on Origen, 111,
 Nazianzum, his writings, 116.
On the parentage of Mary, 601,
 of Nyssa, his character as an
interpreter, 117-119, His apologetic
explanation of the six days' work — his
Proem to the Song of Solomon, 117,
 the Great, his character as an
expositor, 158, His Moralia On Job

INDEX OP TOPICS AND NAMES.

731

¦ — his HomiUes, 158. Extracts from
his works, 158, 159,
Greswell on Matt, xxvi, 71, as com
pared with Mark xvi. 69, (562,) On
John xix, 14, (564,) His Harmony.
of the Gospels, 569,
GpiESBACH, 347. His reading of Matt,
xxvii, 9, 10, (463.) His « Vorlesungen
iiber die Hermeneutik des N, T," 706,
Grotius on Heb. i. 12, (465,) On Mark
XV, 23,(661.) On Luke u. 1,2, 3,(610.)
H
Hahn, Dr., his edition of the Hebrew
Bible, 337, His Lehrbuch, 199.
Hales, Dr , on 1 Chron. xxi. 5, (646,)
His Chronology, 566-720. On Acts
vii. 2, (580,) Ou Acts vii, 14,(582,583,)
Hall, Bishop, on David's introduction
•to Saul, 541.
Hallam, introduction to the Literature
of Europe, 192,
Hammond, Dr,, on the authenticity of
tiie Epistle of Barnabas, 71. On Ze
chariah ix,-xiv, (464,) On Acts vii,
14, (583.)
Hampden, Dr., his Life of Thomas Aqui
nas and View of the Scholastic Philo
sophy in the Encyclopedia Metropoli
tana recommended, (191.)
Harris, Dr, Thaddeus Mason, Natural
History of the Bible, 670, 723,
Hartmann on Typical Interpretation, 68,
Hebrew Language, its changing aspects
at different periods, 16,
Hegel, his philosophy the result of that
of Kant, 197.
Hegelian philosophy, 208, 219, 222, ,
HENnERSON, Dr., on Isaiaih xi. 11-16,
(54.) On Isaiah Un. 7, 8, (390.) His
Edition of Ernesti's Elements of Bib
Ucal Criticism and Interpretation, 692,
HJengstenberg on Isaiah vii. 14, (500,)
His Beitrage zur Einleitung ins Alte
Test, 655,
Henry, Matthew, on Joshua x. 43, (539.)
Herder, Spirit of Hebrew Poetry, trans
lated by Marsh, 234,
Herigar, 188.
Hermas, 73.
Hermeneutical Writers, Bibliographi
cal Account of, 677-726, Prineiples of
the old Talmudic Doctors, 677.
Hermeneutics, their designation when
applied to Scripture — when appUed to
particular instances, 1,
Herodian, 228, The dialect in which he
wrote, 638.
Hesychius, 638.
Heumann on Luke ii. 1, 2, 3, (608.)
Heyne, Commentatio de ApoUodori Bi-
bUothec4, 210.
Hill, Dr., his " Lectures on divinity,
674.

Hincmar attached to the Carlovingian
schools, 189.
Hilary, his method of interpretation,
124, Quotations from, 124, 125,
Hippolytus, his Writings, 111.
Historical circumstances enumerated,
320,
History, general, a knowledge of neces
sary to the expositor of Scripture, 16,
659, Works on, 718,
 of BibUcal Interpretation,163-192.
 Natural, as a source of interpre
tation, 669,
Hitchcock on Genesis i. 1, (628,) Ele
mentary Geology, 724,
HiTZia on Zachariah ix.-xiv,, (464.) On
Genesisii, 21, (628.)
Hody, H,, 61.
Homer, whence the creations of his poetry
were drawn, 60.
HoRNE, Thomas HartweU, B. D , Intro
duction to the Critical Study and
Knowledge of the Scriptures, 710,
Horsley, Bishop, his Sermons, 50. On
David's inti'oduction to Saul, 541.
Houbigant on David's Introduction to
Saul, 543.
Hugo, de St, Caro, Correctorium BibU-
cum — His PostiUse — Extracts from
him, 173,
Humility, a necessary qualification of
the expositor of Scripture, 7,
Huss^ John, his Exegetical Works, 178,
179.
Hutchinson, his Philosophical Reveries,
10, r
Ideler, J, L,, Lehrbuch der Chronologie,
721, -
Ignatius, the Epistles ascribed to him, 73.
" Interpretation, BibUcal, history of, 70--
192, Moral interpretation, 1 93, Psy-
cologico-historical, 197, Accommoda
tion system of, 199. Mythic system of,
206, RafionaUstic system, 217. Pietist
system, 222, Principles of interpreta
tion, 226, AppUed to figurative lan
guage, 285, Axiomatic principles of,
641,
iREN-fius, his writings, 83. The class in
which he is to be placed as an inter
preter, 83. On the Quotations from the
Old Testament in tiie New, 334. On
the genealogy of Christ, 592.
Isidore, of Pelusium, his works, 147.
Character as an interpreter — Extracts
from him, 148-150, On the parentage
of Mary, 601, J
Jahn, J,, Biblical Antiquities, 665, 721.
Enchiridion Hermeneuticae Generalis
Tabularum Vet. et Nov. Foederis, 705,
Jarchi, a Jewish Rabbi, 228. As a com-
mentotor, 636.

732

INDEX OP TOPICS AND NAMES.

Jebb, Bishop, his " Sacred Literature,"
263,
Jenkyn, Dr., his work on the Extent of
the Atonement, 614,
Jennings, David, D.D,, Jewish Antiqui
ties, 721.
Jerome, character as an interpreter, 127.
Quotations from, 130-132. On Gal. u.
3, 4, 5, (264.) On Isaiah Ixiv, 6 — on
Luke xxiu, 39, (562,)
Jews, their interpretation of Ps. xlv, 7,
(20.)
Jones, Jeremiah, questions the authen-
tici^ of the Epistle to Barnabas, 71.
Josephus, Antiquities, 65. The dialect
in which he wrote, 638.
Judah, Ben Karish, his Lexicon, 637,
Julian, his system of interpretation — His
controversial treatises — His character
as an interpreter, 163,
Justin Martyr, his birth-place. The
PhUosophy he adopted, 73. His Dia
logue with Trypho, 498. On Luke ii.
1, 2, 3, 610, K
Kant, the influence of his phUosophy on
interpretation, 193. The prevaiUng
principle of his phUosophy is Deism,l 96.
Kantian phUosophy, 218. Its advocates,
219.
Kaiser, G. P, Ch,, on Hermeneutics, 71 S.
Kaye, Bishop, his account of the wri
tings and opinions of Clement of Alex
andria, 83.
Keach, his metaphorical system of inter
pretation, 10.
Keil, Car, Aug. Theoph., on Grammati
co-historical interpretation, 225, On
the parables, 313. His " Elementa
Hermeneutices Novi Testamenti," 705.
Kennicott, Dr., on Ps. xi. 9. ; Heb, x.
6-7 — His list of the same names differ
ing in Hebrew, 524. On Deut, x. 6-9,
(538.) On David's introduction to Saul,
543.
Kidder, Bishop, on Zechariah ix-xiv,
(464.) His demonstration of the Mes
sias, 489.
Kimchi, David, a learned Jewish Com
mentator, 190, 636, 637.
Knapp, his distinction between Rational
ism and Naturalism, 217. His Greek
Testament, 264, Recensus locorum
Veteris Testamenti in Novo, 512, His
punctuation of Acts vU, 14, (583,)
Knatchbull, 257.
Knowledge, scientific, important to the
interpreter, 674,
Knobel on Zech, ix,-xiv,, (464.)
Koester on Zech. ix.-xiv., (464.) Die
Propheten des Alten und Neuen Tes
taments, 48.
Koppe, 257,
Koran, the, quoted, 654,

Krabbe on the Life of Jesus, 217,
KuiNOELon Matt.u, 23, (468.) On Luke
U, 1, 2, 3, (609,) .
L
Lachmann, his reading of John vii. 21,
22. His division of the text in Rom.
viii. 20, 21, His punctuation of John
xii, 27. His Greek Test., 337. On
Mark xv. 23, (561 ) His punctuation
of Acts vii, 14,(583.)
Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury,
his Commentary on Paul's Episties, 170.
Language, figurative, principles of in
terpretation appUed to, 285.
Languages, cognate, as sources of inter
pretation, 643.
Lardner, on the authenticity'of the Epis
tle of Barnabas, 71. On Luke u, 1, 2,
3, (609,)
Laurence, Dr., translation of the Book
of Enoch out of the Ethiopic, 336 —
His translation of the " Ascension of
Isaiah," 458.
Le Clerc, his Supplement to Hammond,
478.
Lee, Dr., liis Heb. Lex., 462, Sermons
on the Study of the Holy Scriptures,
502. On Job, 321.
Lehmann, on 'Jvx, (474.)
Leo, Prof, H,, Universal History, 718.
Lightfoot, Dr., on the Division of the
Scriptures, 464. On Cliron. xxi, 6,
(646.)
Locke on the Human Understanding, 28,
" Paraphrase and Notes on the Epis
ties of St, Paul," 276.
Loehnis, Jonath. Mich. Athanas,, his
" Grundzuge der Biblischen Herme
neutik und Kritik," 708,
Loescher, VaL Em,, his " Breviarium
Theologiae exegeticae," 685,
Logos, 41.
Lombard, Peter, 167. Commentary on
the Psalms — CoUectanea on Paul's
Episties, 171,
Lowth, Bishop, on Hebrew Poetry, 233,
674, On Isaiah Ixiv. 4, (467.)
Luther, his translation of the Scrip
tures, 636. Trod in the steps of Eras
mus as an interpreter, 186. On the
Parables, 313,
LiJCKEjDr .jFriederich, on the reasons why
the Palestinian Jews were addicted to
allegorizing, 67. On the date of the
book of Enoch, 336. As a commen
tator, 713. M
Macknight, Dr., on Heb, u. 6, 7, 8, 506.
Magnani on Luke U, 1, 2, 3, (610,)
Maimonides, Moses, a learned Jewish
commentator, his works, 190, 678.
Marcion, 88.
Martianay, his " Traits Methodlque,
&c,," 684.

INDEX OP TOPICS AND NAMES,

733

Marsh, Bishop, his Lectures on the In
terpretation of the Bible, 306, 710.
Matthai, G, C, R,, his " Uebersicht der
Fehler der neutest. Exegese, &c," 716.
Matthai, published several Scholia and
Catenae, 638, 716.
Maurus, Rhaban, his Exegetical Works,
— Extracts fromj 166. Attached to the
Carlovingian Schools, 189.
Maximus, the Confessor, 163.
MAYER,G.,InstitutioInterpretisSacri,700.M'Clelland, Prof. Alex., Manual of In
terpretation, 711.
Mead, Richard, M.D., his Medica Sacra
725,
Mede on Heb, viii, 9, as quoted from
Jer. xxxi. 31-34, (460.) On Zechariah
ix,-xiv., (464,)
Medicine, a knowledge of useful to the
interpreter of Scripture, 672.
Menander, 337.
Messianic Psalms, 50.
Meteorology, a knowledge of necessary
to the interpreter of Scripture, 15.
Meyer, Lewis, " PhUosophia Scripturae
Interpres," 696,
 , Gottlob Wilhelm, " Versuch einer
Hermeneutik des Alten Testaments,"
702.
Michaelis, J.D,, on Eph,v, 14,(424,) On
David's introduction to Saul, 543; On
Matt, XX, 29-34, as compared with
Mark X. 46 and Luke xviii. 35-43,
(668.) On Mark xv. 23, (561.) On
Luke ii. 1-3, (609.)
Michaelis, C. B., 269.
Middleton, Bishop, on Luke u. 1, 2, 3,
(607.)
Milton, John, his imaginative style of
interpretation, 11.
Minucius, FeUx,his Apology, 154.
Mishna, 65.
Monsperger, Joseph Julian, "Institu
tiones Hermeneuticae Sacrae," 699.
Moral Interpretation, its origin and cha
racter, 193.
Morus, his Hermeneutica, 236, Rules
for explaining Tropical Diction, 296-
299. On Allegory, 308. On the Para
bles, 313. A commentator on Ernesti's
Institutio Interpretis, 701.
Mosheim, his Commentaries, 83.
Muenter on Luke il. 1, 2, 3, (610.)
MuLLER, J. Von, Bucher AUgemeiner
Geschichten, 719.
Muntinghe on Prov. xi, 21, (657,)
Muratori, an inscription given by him,
610.
Murdock, Dr., his translation of Mo
sheim, 680.
Mystics, their influence on Biblical In
terpretation, 191.
Mythi, etymological — poetic — phUoso
phical — historical, 208.

Mythic Interpretation, 206. Writers of
the Mythic School, 210, 211,
N
Nahmmacher on Luke ii, 1, 2, 3, 610,
Nahum, Prophet, analysis of liis Pro
phecy, 245.
Naturalism as distinguished from Ra
tionalism, 217.
Neander, Dr. Augustus, Life of Christ,
217. History of the planting and
training of the Christian Church, 331.
His Church History, translated by
Rose, 112.
Neologians of Germany, their mode of
misinterpreting Scripture, 330.
Newcome, Archbishop,, on Zech. ix.-xiv.
(464.) Harmony of the four Gospels,
566,
Newton, Sir Isaac, the Chronology of
Ancient Kingdoms amended, 719,
Nicetas, Catena on Job — ^Commentaries
on the Gospel of Matthew and the
Epistle to tiie Corinthians, 170.
Nicolaus, de Lyra, Exegetical Works,
175. Comments ou the text of the
Vulgate, 177, The assistance Luther
derived from his worlcs, 175. The
effect of his exposition on the subse
quent age, 177,
Nitzsch on the date of the book of
Enoch, 336.
Noldius on the Hebrew particles, 252.
NoRDHEiMER,his Hebrew Grammar,477.
Norisius on Luke ii, 1, 2, 3, (608,).'
Notker, Balbulus, a Benedictine Monk,
169.
Novatianus, 154.
Numenius, a Pythagorean philosopher,
336. 0
CEcumenius, his compilations from the
exegetical works of the earlier Fathers,
168.
Olshausen, H , Dr., an instance of allego-
cal representation given by him, 62.
His Biblischer Commentar,, 300, On
Eph, V, 14, (425.) On Matt, u. 23,
(468,) On Luke ii, 1, 2, 3, (609.) His
writings, 715.
Olympiodorus supposedby some to be the
first who adopted the practice of mak
ing Catenae, 166. On the Quotations
from the Old Test, in the New, 334.
Onkelos, 258.
Original languges of [the Bible — Neces
sity of an acquaintance with them,
18-20.
Origen, his allegorizing system of inter
pretation, 10, 97. The names by which
he distinguishes the writings of the
different books of the New Testament
¦ — Distinction he makes between xirns
and yvSeis, 76. His threefold sense

734

INDEX OP TOPICS AND NAMES.

of Scripture, 97. His treatise tri()
u^X,"', 336. On the parentage of Mary,
602.
Osburn, Mr., his opinion of the early
Fathers, 639, 40.
Owen, Dr, H,, his rendering of Isaiah
xi. 3. On the quotations from Ma
lachi iu. 1, (457,)

Pagninus, Sautes, his Lexicon, 637.
Other Works, 679,
Paley on Luke U, 1, 2, 3, (609.)
Pamphilus, his defence of Origen, 1 12,
Parables, 311.
Parallelism, 233, Different kinds of —
Exegetical use of, 233-236.
Parallels, verbal and real, 246, 278,
Pareau, John Henry, Principles of In
terpretation of the Old Testament, 707.
PATRiCK,Bishop,onlCliron, xxi, 6,(546,)
Paulus, his rendering of Ps, xlv, 8, (21,)
On John xxi. 1, (198.) On Isaiah In.
liii,, (220,) On Matt, xxvu. 9, 10,(463.)
On 2 Cor, ui, 6, (179.)
Pearson on the authenticity of the Epis
tle of Barnabas, 71.
Peculiarities in BibUcal Interpretation,
47.
Pelagius, Commentaries on the Epistles,
150, Character as an interpreter —
specimens of his Commentaries, 151.
Penn, GranvUle, on Gen, i, 1, (628,)
Pentateuch, its style, 1 7.
Perizonius, on Luke ii, 1, 2, 3. (608,)
Peshito version appUed to Exegesis, 633.
Petavius on Luke ii, 1, ^, 3, (608.)
Pfaff on Luke u, 1, 2, 3, (607.)
Pfeiffer, Aug., " Hermeneutica Sacra,"
683,
I  Joach. Ehren, " Institutiones
Hermeneuticae Sacrae," 696.
Phavorinus, 638,
Philo, his theory of allegorical interpre
tation, 63, 64,
Philoponus, John, 163.
Philosophy, Natural and Moral, a know
ledge of necessary to the expositor of
Scripture, 15.
Photinus, 154.
Photius on the origin of allegorical in
terpretation among Christian exposi
tors, 68.
Pietist system of interpretation, 222-224.
Placidius, a pupil of Radbert, 188.
Planck on the orign of AUegorical Inter
pretation, 66. Einleitung in die Theo
logischen WIssenschaften, 700,
Plato, his mode of allegorizing Homer,
60, 61,
PoLiTz on the origin of Allegorical Inter
pretation, GQ.
Polybius, 228. The dialect in which he
wrote, 638.

PoLYCARP, Epistle to the PhUippians, 73.
Procopids, of Gaza, 166.
Prophecy has often a double reference,
50. How this twofold reference is to be
known, 56.
Pusey, Dr., 218. Q
Quotations from the Old Testament in
the New, 334. Table of aUthe Quota
tions from the Old Testament in the
New, 338-447, Purposes for which
made, 470. Classified, 607-612,
R
Rabbi, Jonah, or AbulwaUd, his Lexi
con, 637.
 Josua, his Introduction to the
Talmud, 678,
Jose, of GaUlee, his 32 Hermen

eutical principles, 678.
¦ Ismael, his 13 Hermeneutical po

sitions, 678.
Radbert, Paschasius, 188.
Ratze, j. G., on Grammatico-historical
Interpretation, 714.
Rambach on the Parables, 313, His
" Institutiones Hermeneuticae Sacrae,"
687.
Randolph, Dr,, on the quotations from
Malachi iii. 1, (457.) On Heb, i, 12,
(465.)
Ranolder, J,, his " Hermeneuticae Bi
blicae generaUs principia, etc," 708.
Ratherius, of Verona, 188.
Rationalism distinguished from Natu
ralism, 217. Properly so called, on
what based, 222.
Rationalists, their interpretation of Ps.
xlv, 7, (200
Raumer, C, Von, Palaestina, 722,
Reason, its use in the interpretation of
Scripture, 30, 31.
Reckenberger, John Leonhard, his
" Tractatus de studio S. Hermeneu
ticae, &c.," 689.
Reeves, Mr,, his translation of Vincen
tius Lirinensis, 154,
Reichel,V.," Introductio in Hermeneu
ticam BibUcam," 708.
Reinbeck, an advocate of the Wolfian
phUosophy, 218.
Reiersen, Andreas, his " Hermeneutica
Sacra, &c." 687.
Reimarus, author of the Wolfenbiittel
Fragments, 708,
Reland, Hadrian, Palaestina ex Monu
mentis veteribus illustrata, 722,
Resurrection of Christ examined, 565.
Rhetoric, a Imowledge of, necessary to
the interpreter of Scripture, 16,
Rivet, Andrew, his " Isagoge ad Scrip
turam," 682.
Robinson, Dr., liis Lexicon to the New
Testament quoted, 443. His Edition

INDEX OP TOPICS AND NAMES.

735

of Calmet's Dictionary, 608. On Luke
ii. 1, 2, 3, (608,) Biblical Researches
in Palestine, 668,
Rohr, his View of Naturalism, 217,
Rose, Hugh James, 217.
Rosenmiiller, J, G., an[instance of alle
gorical interpretation given by, 62,
On the origin of Allegorical Interpre
tation, 66. His conjectures as to the
sUght regard paid by Justin Martyr
to the books of the New Testament, 74,
On John vi. 63, (277, 8.)
—  .  E, F: C, His SchoUa in
compendium redacta, 532. Ou Isaiah
Uii, 220.
RoTTEOK, C, Von, Allgemeine Weltges
chichte, 719.
Rupertus, Commentaries on the Old
and NewTestaraents — his Theological
Works — his Catena on the Gospels, 1 7 1 ,
Ryland, J. E,, Translation of Tholuck
on the use of the Old Testament in the
New, 487. S
Saadias, his Translation as a source of
interpretation, 630.
Sabellius, 154.
Sandbichler, Aloys, his Abridgment of
Jahn, 809.
Saturninus, Proconsul of Syria, 606.
Sawyer, L. A,, A, M., Elements of Bi
bUcal Interpretation, 711.
Scaliger on 1 Kings vi, 1, (688.)
Schaefer, John Nepomuc, " Ichnogra
phia Hermeneutices Sacrae," 700,
Schelling, his philosophy, 219.
Schleiermacher, F.,hisphilosophy,219,
His " HermeneutUc und Kritik," 717,
Schleusner, his Lexicon to the , New
Testoment, 639.
Schmid, a Kantian phUosopher, 219.
Schmid, his Concordance to the Greek
Testament, edited by Bruder, 252.
Schmidt, a Kantian phUosopher, 219.
Schoettgen, 257.
Scholia, what meant by, 638.
Scholz, his reading of Matt, xiii. 35 —
of Matt, xxvu. 9, 10, (463,) His Ger
man Translation of the Scriptures, 636.
Schoolmen, their infiuence ou Biblical
Literature, 190, 191,
ScHOU, his ExegeticalCommentary on the
passages respecting Christ's advent,50,
Schultens on Prov xi, 21, (657.)
Schuster on Isaiah 111, liii. (220.)
Schwarz applied the phUosophy of Schel
ling to theology, 219.
Sciences, natural, a knowledge of, ne
cessary to the expositor of Scripture, 1 5.
Scientific knowledge, importance of, to
the expositor, 674.
Scotus, Johannes, 188.
Sections, mode of separatmg a writing
into, 240-243,

Seemiller, Sebastian, his " Institutiones
Hermeneuticae Sacrae, V. T.," &c., 699.
Seiler. G.F.,BibUcalHermeneutics,704.
Semler, John Salomon, reputed author
of the Accommodation System of In
terpretation, 199, His Hermeneutical
Writings, 692-4,
Semple, Mr., his translation of Kant, 194.
Septuagint Version of Daniel, 699, Use
of Sept, in the interpretation of Scrip
ture, 619.
Simon, Richard, his account of Aristo
bulus, 61.
Sixtus, Senensis, his "Ars interpretandi
absoiutissima, &c.," 679,
Smith, Dr, J. Pye, on the Principles of
Interpretation as appUed to the Pro
phecies of Holy Scripture, 56,465,479.
Discourses on the Sacrifice and Priest
hood of Christ, 202, On Zech, ix,-xiv.,
(464,) Ou the Relation between the
Holy Scriptures and some parte of Ge
ological Science, 675-676,
Socinus, Faustus, 613, 14, »»
Socrates defends Eusebius, 112,
Sophronius of Damascus, 163,
Space more observed, than time in the
prophetic writings, 48.
Spectator, Quarterly Christian, 483,
Spencer on the origin of AUegorical In
terpretation, 66.
Staudlin on Isaiah Iii., liii., (220.)
Stapulensis, James Faber (Le Fevre
d' Etaples), his French translation of
the Gospels — Latin version of Paul's
Epistles — Commentary on the New
Testament, 180. Praised by Erasmus,
181.
Stark, 269.
Stein, K. W., on Historical Interpreta
tion, 712.
Storr on the Parables, 313. Ou Luke
U, 1, 2, 3, (608.)
Stowe, Professor, his edition of Lowth's
Lectures on Hebrew Poetry, 308.
Strabo, Walafrid, belonging to the Carlo
vingian school, 1 89,
Strauss on the Gospels, 208. On My
thus, 211. Life of Christ, 21 1, 212.
Stuart, Professor Moses, on Psalm xl.
— On the Epistle to the Hebrews, 55.
His division of the text in Rom. viii,
20, 21, His translation of Ernesti's
Elements of Biblical Criticism, 287.
On the book of Enoch, 337. On Jere
miah, xxxi. 31-34, (460). Hints on
the Interpretation of Prophecy, 717,
Subdivision of books, 244.
Subscriptions to the books of the New
Testament not always correct, 321,
Suidas, 638.
Surenhusius on the Quotations from the
Old Testament in the New, 334, On
• Acts xiu. 41, (392.)

736

INDEX OP TOPICS AND NAMES.

Sykes, Dr., Essay ou the Truth of the
Christian ReUgion, 478, 482, On Acts
i. 20, (505)
Symmachus, his Greek Translation, 228,
339 As a, source of interpretation,
628,
Syncellus, of Byzantium, on Eph. v, 14,
(264.)
Syriac Language as a source of inter
pretation, 656.

Table of - all the Quotations from Old
Testament in the New, 338-447.
Tanchum, of Jerusalem, as a commenta
tor, 636.
Targums, 65. Applied to exegesis, 631,
Tatian carried Typical Interpi-etation to
excess, 76,
Taylor, Jeremy, his fanciful modes of
interpretation the result of his yieldiiig
to the influence of his splendid imagi
nation, 11,
 Isaac, his Ancient Cliristianity,
162.
Tennemann, his Manual of Philosophy,
191.
Tertullian, his opposition to Gnosticism,
84. Held some of the errors of the
Montanists, 90, Follows the literal
sense in interpretation, 91.
TheoDoret, his Exegetical Works — On
Gal. u. 3, 4, 5, (264.) His Commen
taries, 638.
Theodotion, his Greek Translation, 228,
339.
Theophilus carried Typical Interpreta
tion to excess, 76.
Theophylact, last of the Fathers — His
Commentaries — their character, 170,
On Luke xxiu. 39, (562. )
THERAPEUT.E, a Jewish sect, 63,
Thesaurus of Gesenius, 637,
Thiess on Luke ii, 1-3, (609,)
Tholuck on the Credibility of Gospel
History, 217, On the use of the Old
Testament in the New, 486, 508. On
the Hermeneutics of the Apostle Paul,
Bib, Cabinet, 490. His Commentary
on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 609,
Tichonius, his rules for the elucidation
of Scripture, 140-143. Quotations from,
144,
Tieftrunk, a Kantian phUosopher, 218.
Time not observed in the prophetic parts
of Scripture, 48.
Tittmann on t^n, (474,)
Titus, Bostrensis, on the parentage of
Mary, 601.
Toellner, J, G., his " Grundriss einer
erwiesenen Hermeneutik," 695.
Townsend, his arrangement of 1 Samuel
xxi, 18-22, (540,) Ou 1 Chron. xxi, 6,
(546,) On John xix. 14, (564,) '

Townson, Dr, Thomas, his Discourses on
the four Gospels, 452. On John xix.
14, (564,)
Tropes, foundation of, 285.
Tropical terms, how determined, 289 —
sentences, how determined, 290 — dic
tion, how explained, 292,
Tuch on Genesis, 211,
Turretin, John Alphons., his " Tractatus
bipartitus," 688, Onthe origin of Al
legorical Interpretation, 66.
Twesten follows Schleiermacher's phi
losophy, 219.
Tytler, A. F,, (Lord Woodhouslee),
Elements of General'History, 719.
U
Umbreit on the book of Proverbs, 279.
On Job, 652.
Unger on the Parables, 318.
Unitarians, their interpretation of Ps.
xlv. 7, (20.) Theirmode of using reason
in the interpretation of Scripture, 42.
Unterkircher, Caspar, " Hermeneutica
Biblica Generalis," 707. On Parallel
ism, 337.
Usher, Archbishop, on Luke U, 1, 2, 3,
(608,) His Chronology, 720.
Usus loquendi, importance of ascertaining
it, 226, Manner of ascertaining it,
227-229, V
Valckenaer, Diatribe de Aristobulo
Judaeo, 161,
Valesius defends Eusebius, 112.
Valla, Laurentius, as a Biblical inter
preter, 179 — as a philologist, 180.
Van Mildert, Bishop, his " Inquiry in
to the general principles of Scripture
interpretation," 710.
Variations not contradictions, 621.
Venema on Luke ii, 1-3, 609,
Venetian Version of the Scriptures, 228,
Versions, Ancient, advantages of to the
interpreter, 616,
Vincentius, Lirinensis, His Commonito-
rium, 153, The design of this Trea
tise — His rules for coming to indubi
table certainty in matters of Faith —
Extracts from his work, 154.
Volborth on Luke U, 1, 2, 3, (610,)
Volumnius mentioned by Josephus as a
governor of Syria, 610,
Vossius on the authenticity of the Epistle
of Barnabas, 71. On the Quotations
from the Old Test, in the New, 334.
Vulgate, its use in interpretation, 626.
W
Wahl, his Lexicoa to the New Testa
ment, 639,
Wake, Archbishop, bn the authenticity
of-the Epistle of Barnabas, 71.
Walafrid, Strabo, his Glossa Ordina-

INDEX OP TOPICS AND NAMES,

737

ria — its authority with succeeding in
terpreters, 166-7.
Warburton, Bishop, on David's intro
duction to Saul, 541.
Wardlaw, Dr., his division of the text
in Rom. viu. 20, 21.
Wegscheider, " Institutiones Theologi-
cae," 193, 217. On Mythi, 206. On
the ascension of Christ, 221.
Weisse, his Life of Christ, 211, 212.
Wells, Ed,, D.D., An Historical Geo
graphy of the Old and New Testament,
722.
Werenfels on the Parables, 313.
Wernsdorf on Luke u, 1, 2, 3, (610,)
Wessel, John, his character as an inter
preter, 178.
Wetstein, his collection of various read
ings, 456. Ou Acta vu. 14, (583,)
Whiston on Zech, ix.-xiv, (464,)
Wiggers, his Historical Presentation of
Augustinism and Pelagianism, 162.
Winer, Dr., his Realworterbuch, 611.

His Grammatik, 443, 477. On Luke
a. 1, 2, 3, (609.)
Wiseman, Dr., 483. Lectures on the
Connexion between Science and Re
vealed ReUgion, 26.
Wyttenbach, Daniel, his " Elementa
Hermeneuticae Sacrse," 690.
Wolfian phUosophy, its advocates, 218.
WoLLiuson the Parables, 313, His Exa
mination of Calmet's Hermeneutical
Rules, 686.
Woods, Dr. Leonard, on the quotations
of the New Testament, 471. Lectures
on the Inspiration of the Scriptures,
472, 480,
Writers Hermeneutical, bibUographical
account of, 677,

ZACHARi.ji, GotthUf Traugott, his " Eiii-
lietung' in die Ausleguugs-Kunst der
Heiligen Schrift," 690.
Zoroaster, Sabaism of, 67.

5 A

738

INDEX OP GREEK AND HEBREW TERMS.

INDEX OF GREEK AND HEBREW TERMS.

Greek words, on which some remark or illustration is offered.

Page.

dxovu, .

574, 575

aXXnyogla,

103

dfia^Tia,

. 238

dvayuyrj, .

103

dvivdixrov,

. 250

aira^ Xiyofiiva, 618-620

diroyga(pri,

. 607-609

yiy^airrai,

448-451

yvugig,

. 76-85

di lavTou,

. 250

syiviTO,

233, 251

limroSia,

. 443

'igya gafxog,

239

ig^K

. 448

kugia,

119

'iva.

. 473-478

'Iva irXrigu6^,

(451,454,
\ 480, 482

xag&la,

. 443

¦xogf/jog,

233

x^igig.

. 345, 390

Xiyu,

451

Page,

fiasTvefi',

. ib.

fJiVrtfiiTov, , .

569

v7xog, .

. 345

oTxog,

239

'o^og, .

. 561

'oirug irXri^uSfl,

484

rd irdvra,

. 250

irdvrag dvSgiLiroug,

238

irigrig, . 76, 233, 239

irX'/igou,

. 478

irvBufha,

442

irviufLarixog,

. 102

giigfhog.

250

gufharixdg.

. 98

rd diafiigovra,

635

Td(pog,

. 569

rh '^ri6iv,

468

r^oiroXoyia,

. 103

<p96vog,

442

¦4^f%i

. 443

¦^"X'^og, •

102

INDEX OP GREEK AND HEBREW TERMS.

739

Hebrew loords, on which some remark or illustration is offered.

nSa na ni3ji ¦?»< ¦
n'irfya^a
nttr ba
aa'W- •
nrrya
T : \
vbl '.
— T
T T
"nriiL T T
'h'^n .
n ¦

Page. 292495554
249 427 339
531 549345548625
239
392393535 658624 ib.
671 20
237650625 621232655

atan T T
n^Tn .
Ti? ¦ •
1": ¦
• T
¦js ' ¦
Q']:i"V no2
ni2 "¦"Ja"? T

Page. 459
. 237319
. 228292
. 627 656
. 237621
. 657
459
. 20
668
. 237 669
. 237
622, 623
, 461 237
. ii.
623
24,26 253
477, 478 629
, 353

bm .
P^^ -
np
T \
np)bv -
ii?,V •
T T
Dny .
~ T
T *
V1B t'—
D"«X3T
V^l ?ty T T
T ¦• ; -¦
npwn

347
. 624634
345, 391 632
. 551418
. 651323
. 351 624
. 495 625
. 650633
. 654 26
. 655338
. 459
236
. 461 628
. 629
¦ ib.
. 629

740

TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE REFERRED TO.

Genesis.

Chapter.

Verse.

Page.

Chapter,

Ver?e.

Page

Chapter.

Verse,

Page.

XXIV.

2;

232

„.XVL

29, .

99

I.

1, .

65, 628

...

16, .

102

...

.32, 34,

. 689

,,,

5, .

569

XXV.

26,

150

XVIII.

17, .

533

..>

8^9,10, S2S|

XXVI,

2,

631

• ¦¦

20, .

533

• ¦•

20, .

101

XXVIII

12,

661

XX.

5, .

633

...

27, .

526

...

,16,

531

...

11, .

534

II.

5, .

208

XXIX.

36,

629

XXI.

6,

461, 634

...

8, .

624

XXX.

6,

584

XXIIL

21, .

'437

¦ •¦

U, ,

525

16, .

623

XXIV,

18; .

670

III.

>i

628, 526

...

17, .

529

xxx.

6, .

583

8, .

628

XXXII.

24, 30,

281

XXXIII,

11, .

684

...

16, .

629

...

80,

629

...

20, .

529

17, .
581
xxxv.
4, .
630
...
24, .
208
...
18, 19,
492
LeViticds
IV.
1, •
624
XLI.
40, .
630
I.
1, •
535
..•
23, .
258
XLII,
2, .
66
XI.
13, 14,
99
...
23, 24,
328
XLVI,
26, 27,
582
XVI.
71
VI.
5,11,
441
...
28, .
530
XVII.
1,7,
535
*..
3, .
621
XLVII.
11, ,
530
XX,
24,
71
*..
6, .
527
...
31, .
634
XXIL
12; ,
602
...
19, 20,
526
XLVIII.
8, ,
630
XXIII,
32, .
569
VII.
2,3,
526
10,
530
xxv.
4,
570
¦ ¦¦
4, .
570
XLIX.
6,
237, 624
XXVI.
42,
20
...
12, .
527
...'
7,
281
XXVII.
34,
635
• .*
17, .
627
..*
9,
307
...
24,
527, 528
...
10,
496, 631
NtlMBEliS
VIII.
3,
527
...
18,
631
II,
2,
601
...
11,
626
...
21,
630
IV,
3,
536
22,
658
...
25,
624
...
20,
623
"x.
9,
632
VIII,
24,
536
...
30,
630
Exodus
IX,
12,
378
XI.
26,
528
I.
11.
530, 632
XL
29,
441
,,.
31,
581
,.
16,
632
XIII.
1,2,
636
32,
628
. 22,
213
1,2,
3, 280
xii.
1,
580
ri
16,
ib.
XIV.
25,
636
...
4,
528
III
2,
530
30,
637
...
14,,
623
...
4,
503
...
33,
ih.
xm.
i.
531
12,
497
45,
636
XIV,
14,
228
iv.
22,
307
xvii.
10,
589
16,
654
VI.
3,
630, 631
XX.
10,
655
,xv.
2,
632
23,
601
23,29
538
...
13,
528, 681
vii.
11,
336
XXIL
6,
584
...
18,
668
...
20,21
532
XXIV.
26,
539
XVII.
14,
99
VIII.
9,
621
XXVI,
10;
538
XVIII.
25,
39]
IX.
6,
532
XXVII.
14,
280
XX.
16,
622
20,
632
XXXI.
6,
630
XXII.
1,
581
xii.
15,
272
10,
640
...
9,
633
...
40,
529
XXXIII
537
XXIII.
2,
272
.,,
46,
378, 608
3",
538
...
16,
685
XVI,
16,
373
xxxiv.
„
668
TEXTS OP SCRIPTURE REPERRED TO.

741

Chapter. Verse, Pag:e,
XXXV, 24, 30, 280
xxxvi, 8, , 690

Deu' I

II.
Ill, IV, V.
x.
xii.
XIV. XV.
xviii. XIX.
xxii. XXV.
XXVI,
xxvii,
XXVIII, XXIX, XXX,
xxxii.

TERONOMY, 1, . 668
9, 13, 633
22 280, 536638

11,
26, 34, 15, 6-9,
22, 15,22
28, 6,12, 1,
17,16,12-18, 15,
12, 5,6, 6,
12, 9,
32, 4,
12, 12, 14,
4,
43,

IX, X

Joshua.
IV. 19, 6,9,
16,
23,
37,
43,
XL 19,

1,
63. 1,

XIV, XV,
XIX. XXL
XXII, 13,
XXIIL 14,
XXIV. 32,

VI
IX

Judges.
V, 2,
20, 1,

280
497
534 538585
635 570 99
670461 383
280468690
590 696670 621
627408
404 609 391
426

637624639
539539639539
537539
281 281537
285
686, 586

X. 3,
XI. 26,
XIV, 14,
XX. 2,
35,
... 46,
1 Samuel,
I, 18,

666660
540
6, 18, 66, 640
6-21, 319

640 640 319654 540 ib.
650

Chapter. Verse.
IIL „
XIL 11,
XIV, 45,
XV. 29,
XVL 18-22,
XX, 2,
XXL 1,
XXIX, 11,
XXX, 12,
XXXI, 4,
2 Samuel,
L 10,
VIL 14,

VIIL X.
xii.
XXI.
XXIII. XXIV.

IIL IV. V.
VI.

VIIL "ix, XL
XIIL XV.
XVL
XXL
XXIL

VIIL

XIIL xiv. XV.

XVI,
XVII,
XVIII,
XXIIL XXIV.

4,
18, 6,
18, 1-7,1,

13,
24,
Kings. 23,21-24, 26,11, 1,
15,
24, 26,
9,
46,
23,28, 36,14,10,10, 16,
23,21,42,
I Kmgs. 16,
17,
26, 1,
10, 9, 1,
29,30,32, 34,
33, 2, 1,
2,
30,

Page, 213 540 624
527541462 586
268 570
.544

544
49, 421
544, 624
260 562 544 312647645 646546 547
647

213 668648 16.
587658
26, 662588 396
649649493 391549 ib.
ib.
593560

650
560
653, 559550 650 319560607
660, 551 560 ib.
498551
498 551 551

Chapter. Verse.
XXIV. 13,
,„ 14,

III

VII, XI,
XV,
XVIII, xix,XXI,

XXIII
xxvii,

1 Cheonicles.
I. 28, S,
,„ IS,
.,. 17,
.,. 18,
„. 19,
.,, 19, 20,
IV, 24, 39,
V, 26,
"" 14,11,
42, 20, 4,
17, 7,
18, 1,
5,
11, 12,
26, 1,
24,

Page. 562281

628S28
554697 695696695281607583545645 632 644
250 552
644646546 647
647600636546

2 Chronicles.
II. 10, ,
III, 15, .
IV. 3, 5,
VIII. 10, 18,
IX. 25, .
XIII. 2, .
XX, 31, .
XXII. 2,
XXIII, 1, ,
... 17, 18,
XXV. 18, .
XXVIIL 20,21,
XXXIV. 8, .
XXXV, 24, ,
XXXVI, 4, ,
9, ,
Ezra.
IL 61, .
„. 64, .
III. 8, .
Nehemiah.
IIL 9, .
V. 5, .
XII. 1, ,
Esther.
VIII. 16, .

648
548 662649
548 649
560
563, 599 600
554 319553600661602551

599554
594

I,
II,

Job. 2,
10,

595 627
594

289

160
555

742

TEXTS OP SCRIPTURE REPERRED TO.

Chapter. Verse.
IV. 8,
18, 7,
10,19, 6,6,
23,

V,
VI,
VII. IX.
XII,
XXL

XXVII, 23,
XXXVIII, 6, 37,
XXXIX, 7,
,„ 16, ,
.„ 24, ,
XL. 19, .
Psalms.
II. „ ,
,„ 1,2,
III. 1,
V. 9,
VI. 1,
VIL 14,
VIIL 4,6,
IX. 6,
... 28,
X. 3,
XI. 7,
XIIL 1, 3,
XVI, 2,4,
.,. 9,
XVII, 4,
XVIII. ... 16,
XIX. 4,
XXIII. 6,
XXXIII. 21,
XXXIV, 10,
... 19,
XXXV. 19,
XL, 7-9,
XLI, 2,
XLII, 6,
,.. 7,
XLIII. 22,
XLV. „
... 5,
.,. 6,
... 7,
... 13,
LXII. „
.,. 4,
LXV. 13,
LXVIII. 4,
LXIX. 25,
LXXIII, 4,
LXXIV. 12,
LXXV. 8,
LXXVII. 24,
LXXVIIL 2,
LXXX. „
LXXXIV. 5,6,
LXXXVIII. 20,
XCV. 7,

Page. 295 396
624651
624676
627
254 26
676 26
670
268 668

SO
326
243397243237506261 397
259 26
396
629, 665
237, 285
256
289
237 459
239 378634
377, 508508460443 667289 609 50
274 629 20
289 60
628
289 377
504253624
298 373504 307
', 262
. 391
467, 608

Psalm. XCVI.
XCVII, C.
CIV,
CVI,
CVIII. ex.
cxiv, cxv,
CXIX,

cxxx,
CXXXII,

Verse, 7,
11, 1,
21, 17, 3,
6, 1,
2,
29, ] 63.
131 3,6,

Proverbs,
III, 20,
V, 15, 18,
VI, 23,
VIII, 36,
X. 1,
XI, 21,
XIIL 11,
„. IS,
XVI, 7,
XIX, 8,
XXL 10,
XXII. 2, 8,
.„ 21,
XXVI, 4, 6,
28,
XXIX, 13,
XXX, 15,

Page. 426
292 26
666
538377
301, 607
621632396 144
237
667 667
668

16-31

676
297
292
237
243 657
259 393
588
237
441279421 98
554 ib.
626279
259, 623
319

Ecclesiastes.
IIL 17,
IV, 4,
V, 5,
VIL 21,
X, 1,

XII.

9,
2-6, 3,
6,6,

627
441 623 396
276 146308668
297

Song of Solomon,
II, 12, , 621
VIL 6, , 256
VIIL 6, , 441

Isaiah,
L 1,
5,
5,6,

II,
iii. v.

16, 2,3, 3,

.321
462 290243625281629622

Chapter. VL

VIL
viii, ix, X.
xi.

XIIL XIV,
XVI,
XVIIL XIX.
XXI,
xxii,
XXIIL XXIV,
XXVI.

XXVII,

XXVIII.

XXIX,
XXXIV, xxxv,
XXXVII, XL,
xiii.

XLIV,

XLV,

XLVI,
XLVIII. XLIX,

LL
LII,

Verse. Pago.
„ , 243
1, , 329
9, 10, 502
„ , 243
14, 474,494
14, 15, 16, 50
14, . 403
18, . 501
1, 2, 507
6, 47, 249, 632
6, 7, 48
19, 633, 655
630

9,
21,
24,

250
324 48
622
290 301 54
141
625 326
327
654667
626
654
623 141
236 672630629
9, . 409
12, . 630
16, 403, 459
23, 29, 308
25, . 630
10, . 408
8, 9, 10, 49
1,2,5,6,7,293

.3,4, 6-8, .
11-16,
13, ,
SJ
12, .
3-5,1,2,
13, 1,
10, 8,
IS,

14,18,
21,

5,6, 7,
» 3, 1,
6,
19, 3,
26, 34, 1,
2,
13, 11,
11, 3,
3,5,7,
17-23,13,
11, 12,

294 329323367
323 49
259 374323633 47
237 49
236 268489 323
279
298 323
420

TEXTS OP SCRIPTURE REFERRED TO.

743

Chapter.

Verse.

Page.

Chapter. Verse.

Page.

Chapter.

Verse. Page,

LII.

14,15,

272

XXXIV. 23,

48

Habakkuk,

LIIL

4,

294, 534

XXXVI. „

141

I,

11, . 627

...

9,

272

28,

421

IL

4, 468, 469

LV,

1,

374

XXXVII. „

141

11, , 289

LVI.

7,

351

XXXVIII, 39,

304

16, . 298

LVIII,

11,

374

XLVII. 1,

ib.

LIX.
7,
398
Zephaniah.
LX.
1,
424
Daniel,
III.
4, , 393
LXII,
11,
350
I. 1,
556
LXIV,
4,
457
IL i;
ib.
Haggai.
LXV,
25,
279
III, 8,
626
I.
1, 12, 14, 694
V, 57,
699
II,
2, 23, ib.
Jeremiah
VIIL 2,
272
"i "">
I,
2, 3,
564
14,
669
II,
13,
296
... i-ij
26,
325
Zechariah,
III,
1,
292
,,, .4\J,
VIL
8, . 275
VII,
11,
351
Hosea.
VIII,
18, , ib.
19,
478
I, 1,
329
IX,
9, , 350
viii.
22,
144
... 11,
64
,..
10, . 48
IX,
9,
289
IV, 1
327
X,
4, . 654
X.
13,
208
V. „
244
XI,
13, . 463
17,
632
• VI, 5,
254
XII,
10„ . 459
xxii!
15,
391
7,
393
XIIL
1, . 374
XXIIL
5,6,
48
1 3
8,
6,33
XIV,
„ , 303
...
6,
634
VIIL 4,
478
,,.
8, , 374
xxv.
)J
141
IX, 3,
633
...
1,
556
XI. „
244
Malachi,
...
15, 16,
298
,„ 1, 307,
488,490
I.
3, , 623
XXXI.
1,9,.
J3, 421
XII. „
244
Ill,
1, 357, 457
...
16, 16,
491
3-5,
281
...
31,
48
XIV. „
244
Matthew.
...
31-34,
460
3,
460
I,
6, . 610
XXXII.
4,
565
13, , 597
12,
600
Joel.
...
21, . 498
...
12, 16,
599
I, 17,
651
...
22, 51,473,
XXXIII
16, 16,
48
IL 17,
634
474, 476, 484
XXXV.
»
326
.. 28,
375
...
23, . 338
XLIII.
3,
599
III. „
50
ii.
5, , 339
XLIV.
»
ib.
... 18,
304
6, 338, 470
XLVIII.
99
327
...
14, 15, 488
...
29, 30,
497
Amos,
15, . 608
L,
61, .
48
I. 9,
244
...
15, 17, 61
LI.
16, .
208
II, 7,
478
,,,
17,18, 491
...
19, ,
627
IX, 11,12,290,462
...
18, , 340
...
30, 31,
661
... 16, .
244
iii'.
3, 36, 340, 452
...
59, .
699
Obadiah,
iv.
16, . 574
1-11, 556
Lamentaiio
NS,
,.. 16,
298
4, . 341
IV.
3, •
670
Jonah.
6, 285, 341
7, , 342
Ezekiel,
I, 5,
651
...
10, . ib.
XII,
13, ,
555
IV, 10,
247
...
15,16,343,507
XVII,
9, ,
656
V.
1, . 329
24, ,
237
Micah,
...
3, 232, 239
xviii.
28, .
534
II, 7,
276
...
13, 233, 299
XX.
45-49,
298
IV. 6, 7,
302
...
16, . 667
XXI,
3, .
237
v.. i;
266
...
25, , 572
XXIIL
3,8,
26, ,
650
441
,„ 2,
212
vi".
1, . 667
11, , 635
33, 34,
298
Nahum,
vii".
7, 8, 557
XXVII.
>9
141
I. 8,
661
VIIL
S-10 ib.
XXIX,
2,3,4
, 297
II, 6,
ib.
17,294,343,503
XXXII..
„
141
III.. 11,
298
...
24, , 250
744

TEXTS OP SCRIPTURE REPERRED TO.

Cliapter.

Verse.

Page

Chapter.

Verse. Page.

Chapter.

Verse. Page.

vin.

28,

327

xxvn.

34, . 561

I,

33, , 571

IX.

10,

344

37, . 564

35, . 236

13,

342

44, . 561
...
42, 46, 47,
'x.
34,
290
46, . 355
61-63, 236
XL
5,29c
,294,295
...
54, . 562
...
61, . 600
10,
467
61, . 568
68, , 265
14,
572
xxvin
, 1, , 565
li.
1, 2, 3, 606
29,
236
2-4, ib
,.
14, . 235
xii.
16-18
484
...
8, . 666
...
23, , 363
18,
344
...
6-7, . ib
24, . ib.
...
46,
554
9, 10, ^-iS 667
jii.
„ . 605
XIII,
13-15
502
...
11-15, ib
4, 340, 452
14,
346
...
20, , 282
...
4, 6, 6, 364
...
19,
312
...
19, 610, 611
24,31
312
Mark,
...
23, . 602
25,
313
I.
2, 344,467
...
26, . 698
...
31,
308
...
2, 3, 356, 452
...
26, . 600
34,35
504
• •.
3, , 340
...
30, . ib.
35,
347
IL
26, 685, 610
IV.
2-12, 556
...
42, SO,
288
IIL
21, . 232
4, 341, 365
... '
49,
312
IV.
12, 346, 367
...
8, 342, 365
&5,
602
...
37, , 250
10, 341, 366
xi'v.
3,
610, 611
VL
3, , 602
12, 342, 366
...
25,
259
17, 610,611
18, 19, 366
XV,
4,
347
...
29, . 572
V.
36, . 308
...
8,9,
348
VII,
6, , 348
VII,
1-10, 657
XVI,
27, 28,
SO
6, 7, 357
27, 344, 367
XVII,
1,
668
...
10, 347, 367
37, , 126
...
27,
131
IX,
23, . 257
41, . 312
XVIII,
7,
251
X,
6, , 358
viii.
10, 346, 368
...
12, ,
312
7, 348, 358
..,
23, , 260
16,
468
19, 358, 466
IX.
9, , 312
xix.
5,
348
45, , 23
23, , 235
18,
34,9, 466
46-62, 558
28, , 558
.,,
19,
349
xi.
13, . 657
"x.
27, 349, 368
XX,
1, •
312
17, 350, 369
...
29-37, 312
...
16,
232
xii
10,11,361,359
XI.
42, . 391
29-34,
568
19,352,360,452
XII.
12, , 607
xxi.
5,
360
...
26,362,360,448
...
51, . 290
7,
131
29, 30, 360
58, . 672
• •.
13, .
360
31, 349,361
xiii.
18, , 312
. • .
16, .
351
36,364,361,452
24, , 667
38,
659, 660
xiv.
10, 11, 572
XV.
309
42, ,
351
...
18, . 560
...
3, , 312
43, .
307
27, 354, 362
11-32, 313
xxii.
14, .
232
69, , 562
xvi.
1, . 313
...
24,
352, 462
...
72, , 631
19-31, 312
32,
352, 353
XV.
21, , 675
...
21, . 657
39, .
253
...
23, , 661
XVIL
1, , 250
...
43, ,
4S2
25, , 663
XVIII.
1, , 312
...
44, ,
364
26, . 664
. . .
20, 369, 466
XXIII.
23,' .
391
...
28, 362, 448
...
35-43, 558
XXIV.
5)
50
485, 486
XIX.
46, 350, 369
19, ,
150
...
34, 355, 362
XX.
17, 351, 370
XXV.
14, .
312
...
47, , 568
...
28,352,370,452
XXVI.
8,
560, 561
XVI.
1, 2, . 565
...
37, . 362
21, .
560
...
2-4, . 566
a..
42, , 354
...
31, .
354
6-7, . ib.
...
42, 43, 370,452
71, .
662
8, . ib.
XXII,
21, . 660
xxviL
4, .
672
...
36, . 36
.,,
5, ,
675
Luke.
...
37, 370, 448
...
9,10,
355, 463
I,
2, . 572
XXIII,
26, . 576
...
32, .
676
...
17, . 362
38, . 564
TEXTS OP SCRIPTURE REPERRED TO.

745

Chapter.

Verse,

Page

Chapter.

Verse.

Page

Chapter.

Verse, Page.

XXIII

. 39,

661

XIX

36, 378, 508

XX.

3, . 329

46,

370

37, .

378

...

22, . ib.

...

47,

662

XX.

1, •

665

XXII.

9, , 675

XXIV,

1,

565

1,2, .

666

28, . 269
...
1-11,
567
• ••
2,
ib.
xxiiL
5, , 394
...
10,
568
3-io, "
ib.
XXVIII
, 26,27,394,502
12,
ib.
...
11-17,
667
13, 17, ib.
13, .
ib.
Romans.
...
34,
ib.
...
18, .
ib.
I,
1, . 320
XXI,
17, .
282
...
3-7, 273
John,
18, 19,
298
...
6, , 22
I,
3,
281
7, -. 327
10,
259
Acts,
17,396,469,471
,,.
15,
607
I,
9-12,
220
ii".
14, , 676
...
18,
684
14, ,
554
18, , 635
20,
236
15, ,
272
24, . 395
21,
572
..,
18, .
676
29, , 289
...
23,
373
20, 37S
,504
iii!
1, 324
...
29,
329
ii".
4, .
280
...
4, . 396
II,
17,
373
...
17, .
380
...
4, 10, 18, 470
19,
186
25-28,
381
6, 6, 151
,,.
19,21
298
...
34, 35,
382
...
13, 232, 396
Ill,
6,
266
...
35, .
354
10, 11, 12, 39G
20,21
, 329
Ill,
17, .
559
...
14, , 396
IV.
10-14
, 296
22-23,
382
15, , 398
...
24,
232
26, .
383
...
18, . ib.
V.
31,
573
iv.
11, 361
,384
IV,
3, , ib.
.,,
37,38
ib.
25, 26, 384, 507
...
6, 7, 399
VL
6-16,
78
36, ,
71
17, , ib.
,,.
21,
307
"v.
36, ,
611
1 8, , ib.
31,
373
...
37, .
507
"v.
14, . 497
...
35,
238
VIL
2, .
680
18, 151, 238
45,
373
2-4, ,
ib.
vi".
17, . 258
...
63,
277
3, .
384
21-23, 270
VIL
3,
564
...
6,
629
vii
5, . 280
...
21 22
254
6,7, .
384
7, . 399
...
38,
374
14, 682
,686
viii.
8, . 280
...
38,39
298
15, 16,
685
33, 34, 257
VIIL
14,
573
27, 28,
386
36, 400, 509
...
17,
375, 468
,,.
32, 362
,386
i'x.
5, 254, 635
...
38,
301
33, 34,
387
7, . 400
...
48,
200
35, ,
ib.
9, , ib.
...
56,57
88
37, .
388
12, . ib.
.,.
58,
260
,,.
40,
ib.
13, . 401
X,
34,
375
42, 43,
ib.
• •.
15, . ib.
XL
2,
585
49, 50,
389
17, . ib.
XII,
4,
560, 561
viii.
32, 33,
390
19, . 326
...
15,336
,350,375
IX.
7, .
675
25, . 402
...
27,
257
XIL
4, .
572
...
26, , ib.
.,,
28,
376
XIII,
20, .
.587
...
27, 28, ib.
...
40,
346, 376
...
22, .
391
29, . ib.
XIIL
.2,
672
27, ,
659
...
32, . 285
18,
376
33, ,
ib.
...
33,403,459,466
XV.
1,
307
34, ,
392
33-36, 263
...
25,
377, 608
41, 335,
392
"x.
4, . 232
XVL
12,
200
47, ,
393
6, 320, 404
XVIII,
10,
147
XV.
14-17,
290
6, , 404
XIX,
14, .
563
15, 16,
293
6-8, 609
...
17, .
576
...
36, .
71
11, , 404
...
19, .
664
XVIL
22, .
329
1 3, . 405
...
24, .
378
28,
337
...
15, . ,7).
...
25, ,
602
xviii.
26, 27,
346
16, . 406
26, 27,
ib.
XIX,
21, .
329
...
18,406,459,471
5b
746

TEXTS OP SCRIPTURE REFERRED TO.

lapter.

Verse.

Page.

Chapter.

Verse,

Page.

Chapter.

Verse.

Page.

X,

19,

406

X.

11, .

98

IIL

16,

423

20, 21,

ih.

13,

677

..."

17, 529

,581

xi".

2,

448

...

20,

416

IV.

10, 11,

576

3,

407

...

20, 21,

577

...

21, 98

, 103

4,
ib.
...
21,
416
...
27, .
423
8,
408
...
29, 30,
281
30, .
424
...
9, 10,
409
33,
578
"v.
13, .
244
...
26, 27,
ib.
xi!
5,
579
...
14, ,
424
...
34,
ib.
XII.
2,
329
...
17, 21,
442
,, ,
36,
22
XIV.
21,
417
...
21, 22,
239
XII.
6,
283
...
34,
579
VI.
2, .
579
19,
409
XV.
4,6,
668
5, .
ib.
...
20,
410
24,
671
6-10,
244
XIIL
9,
ib.
25,
417
...
11, .
ib.
10,
232
27,
ib.
...
16, .
239
xiv.
11,
411
30,
87
16,
281
.. .
32,
418
Ephesians.
XV.
3,
411
...
33,
337
I.
3, .
255
...
4,
163
...
45,
418
...
4, .
39
...
' 9,
412
¦ ••
50,
238
...
7, .
ib.
...
10,
ib.
• • •
64,
418
IL
3, .
576
...
11,
ib.
...
55,
418
...
4,5,
145
...
12,
ib.
XVI.
1,
329
14, 15, 16,
28]
...
16,
39
14,
ib.
iii".
1, •
329
...
17-32,
329
...
21,
320
...
2, .
275
...
19,
ib.
IV.
1, 275
329
21,
413
2 CORINTHIA
NS.
...
8, .
424
XVI.
1,23,
329
I.
3,
8,
255577
•••
15, .
24, .
638 131
1 COEINTHIA
J)S.
12,
274
"v.
14, .
424
I,
9,
22
iii!
6,
179
18, 19,
281
12,
73
14-17,
275
...
31, .
425
...
14,
329
...
17,
232
VI.
1-3,
466
19,
413
IV.
13,
419
2,3, .
426
31,
414
V,
20, 21,
327
...
14-18,
297
ii".
6,7,
97
21,
238
...
20, .
329
...
6-10,
78
vi.
2,
419, 461
XIV.
6, .
676
8,
659, 560
13,
636
...
9,
415, 457
16,
419
Philippians.
13,
615
17, 18,
420
I.
27, .
276
14,
162
viii.
9,
329
IL
16, .
ib.
16,
114
15,
421
...
24, .
322
16,
416
"ix.
7,
421
iii!
19,
ib.
...
9,
ib.
Colossians.
20,
ib.
X.
15. 16,
329
I.
16,260,261,281
IV.
s.
238
XII.
14,
276
11.
9, 239
,627
V.
5,
572
xm.
1,
276, 421
.••
13, 14, 15,
281
...
7,8,
296
, >.
2,
273
...
16, 19,
662
...
12, 13,
257
17, .
117
vi".
16,
415
Galatians
,
iii!
1, 239
,289
VIL
17,
226
I.
1,
22
• ••
1,2,
278
VIII,
1-4
273
10,
578
...
13, .
273
8-13,
577
...
19,
554
...
16, .
281
18,
250
IL
3,4, 6
263
20, .
466
ix.
9,
416
20,
572
iv.
3, 10, 19,
329
9, 10,
98
iii!
3,
329
20,
200
...
6,
398, 470
1 Thessalonians
22,
202
8,
422
IV.
6, .
635
x.
2,4,
282490
10, 10-13,
ib.
256
V,
5, .
247
...
6,
163
.,,
11,
396, 469
1 Timothy,
7,
416
...
11, 12,
422
III.
15, .
239
8,
684
13,
423
15, 16,
266
<- i :<; B: :::: a :::::::: w„ m «« [ "I ¦' P^ »¦ I I <¦ <*^
. .. ........ ^ r,Q , t .... . .

to ^
CO en

S

Q » .. ..-»-. o ...-«.. .;-ws

1^ Cn^ (^ 1^ rf*. CiTrf..tOOt4^rf^ rf.- rf^ F^tO (WW Co OrOacorf^tO tOCnOb0.^t3 tO » 2
we^"8:"§:§:=Sf5e5^=S5=S2g:H>^Sa§;^o; m to tow mwptow w o w w g: co o;« g

tOCOOtOP^t— 'P^P^OtOCTTCOCO-^COCTtJ'^COt— "MP^CiO toco Ol-^ C»CJl^*01C?t l-'COCOtO-CDOSP o
: !Ti. . , HH : : : : K: i : ; 2: : : IX  w— ¦ = 5— ^^^ : ^. . ^1
fcO^ - i-ij> tOi-' tOtOtOtO toto tO« 0503Cts>-' tOIOi-' -i-Ji-j ^ n,
OlOtCO'— 'CDOSCoa i-JCrT-^JOCJiOli— -OOCnCOtO i—"^ 03 -M O Cl wt Cjt Ol O O 01t|^C0C0CJT*-Jrf^*'.l0o-^0lS

rfi. tP^ CO i-i 03 rfi* 03
OS •— ' C7t 1— ¦ Cl H- 1— ¦

H-ttOt-"^ l-'tOg ?--? Ch tOt-JH- Ch '-'^S^fr.'^ ^ t-'H-bObO tOl-'O
i-';jiOtoo^'-'"^E^ *^S coo O!0»f»-cocjtrf^coo co to^.y' h cocooorfi*o»)^tocD*-jcicjtbOrfi'OiS

i c ^  -""^  <J

t^3 - , ,_ —
^ OS .->. o

Crt ,-¦ ,

o

to CO rf.- to B
rf..,^.rf,-i^rfirf..CT COrfa-tOrf.- rf^rf^ip. rf^ CTTOSbSCOrf^ rf*-rf^rf-bOrf-t3CiTCnrf^,^C rf^-tObOtObOCrrp Sj
j^j^rt-^j,-,^j^^« tOO5O^l^grrf-COOi£.C«S£:-JC»COCDCO^05OiC0CRCOCnC0O3O>WtOS:C0O3-^*<ICS rf-W M
tOOCiTi— P^oto-<j?'^eo~co,^(ocnooi^--*o.-*o-^orfi.030i^i— F^COtt^CoOrOTOO?* S

¦<t

tow OSW*>- CO to Oi lOCTtOtOOT tOil^CTT 03W rf..rf..C,T rf..*..*.- bOrf^rf^M ^K^
enosto rf..oito»^ CO CO o^w-^cow*^ woicoto b0O5i.i^i^osi;rf^f^03g.wrf.- rf^tQ "r~
Cjt C3 Cri to O Or M <3> ZIr ^^ i^ 5,T CO Or CO CO Co ^ rf* Ol M ^-T F^ OJ Ol W . C" rf* Cfi ~ CO rf.- WP "^

The Author thinks it right to mention that this Work was put to
Press in March 1842.

ERRATA.
Page 132, note f, read. See his epistle to Tranquillinus 56; to Pam-
machius and Oceanus, Ep. 41.
„ 136, line 6, for the grammatical or figurative sense, read the
grammatical or the figurative sense.
„ 208, line 22, for develope read develop.
„ 237, line 38, for 11^ read "i^b-
„ 250, last line, for dvixdixrov read dvivhtxrov.
„ 345, sixth line from bottom, for DBU/a read aStt^D.
„ 460, line ?i,for Capellus read Cappellus.
„ 461, lines 27 and 33, for rT"13 read HIB-
T T XT
„ 496, line 17, for Gen. Ixix. read xlix.
Page 496 (Note.) I find from a letter of Dr, Nordheimer to Professor Stuart, in
the American Biblical Repository, that he refers the article prefixed to the noun
in this passage to the principle stated by him in these words : " The article is sub
jectively prefixed to a common noun by way of emphasis, and to point it out aa
one which, although neither previously nor subsequently described, is still viewed
as definite in the mind of the writer." — See American Bib. Sep. for Oct. 1841.
Page 668, lines 3 and 4, /or Matthew read Luke, and for Luke, Matthew.
„ 574, lines 14 and 15, read, Here the two clauses, which are declarative in the
received version, appear as interrogative.

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY W
llllllllillililllilillillllllilllllllll ^

3 9002 01303 7404