PRIl^CETON, N. J. 
 
 .^/^L^^^S.e'C^^ 
 
 ^.-zt/^V^'^-'^^^^^^^^ -/^^ 
 
 Shelf Number 
 
 ,p.ai 
 
• ^* 
 
 -^f 'Sue 
 
 r 
 
^^-- « 
 
 '^ •s. A^ 
 
 '^%^ X -^^^ 
 
SACRED PHILOLOGY 
 
 INTERPRETATION. 
 
West & Teow, Pbintebs. 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
 SACRED PHILOLOGY 
 
 INTERPRETATION, 
 
 DR. G. J. PLANCK; 
 
 TRANSLATED FROM THE ORIGINAL GERMAN, 
 
 ENLARGED WITH NOTES, 
 
 SAMUEL H. TURNER, D. D. 
 
 Prof, of Bib. Lit. aud Interp. of Scrip, in the Theol. Sem. of the Prot. Epia. Church, »nd of the 
 Heb. Lan. aud Lit. in Colum. Col., New-Vork. 
 
 NEW-YORK: 
 
 LEAVITT, LORD & CO., 182 BROADWAY. 
 BOSTON :-CROCKER & BREWSTER. 
 
 1834. 
 
Entered according to the act of Congress, in the year 1834, by 
 Samuel H. Tukner, in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the 
 Southern District of New- York. 
 

 Of 
 
 PREFACE. "^^^^^9^^<* 
 
 The author of the work now presented to 
 the American public, is principally distin- 
 guished in his native country for his numerous 
 writings on Ecclesiastical History. The fol- 
 lowing translation is a small part of his large 
 and valuable introduction to theological lite- 
 rature in general. The subject of it is sacred 
 PHILOLOGY and interpretation. The transla- 
 tor is induced to publish it, in the hope that 
 it may facilitate the pursuit of these studies 
 to young men preparing for the ministry, and 
 may also be acceptable to men of intelligence 
 generally, who comprise within the circle of 
 their literary reading those topics which are 
 connected with a fundamental knowledge of 
 the Bible. The want of some general work 
 on these two points has often been felt by 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 him, while endeavoring to direct the Biblical 
 studies of candidates for the ministry ; and, 
 upon reading the introduction of Dr. Planck 
 he resolved to translate those sections which 
 relate to philology and interpretation, and to 
 add such notes as the nature of the subject 
 appeared to require. Young men, just enter- 
 ing on a course of critical and exegetical 
 study, feel the want of some small work, 
 which shall lay before them a general view 
 of these subjects, presenting in a clear light 
 fundamental principles, directing their atten- 
 tion to the more important topics, and point- 
 ing out the sources from which more extended 
 information may be derived. The manual 
 now offered to the reader is not, in all re- 
 spects, such an one as the writer could wish. 
 Composed forty years ago, and with particu- 
 lar reference to the state of learning then 
 subsisting in the author's native land, it 
 might reasonably be expected that additions 
 would occasionally be necessary, in order to 
 adapt the book in some degree to our own 
 
PREFACE. J 
 
 age and country. The reader will find some 
 additions of this kind in the accompanying 
 notes. 
 
 In adding to the literary notices of the 
 several subjects presented in the course of the 
 work, the intention was, to select such books 
 as a student may read or refer to with most 
 advantage. To append a list of all the publi- 
 cations which have appeared since the au- 
 thor's age, would have required a volume. 
 The effect also Avould be to disgust the reader 
 by a display of literature, rather than to 
 allure him to the study of philology and inter- 
 pretation, by introducing him to a few able 
 and attractive guides. 
 
 When books in German are mentioned, I 
 have endeavored to put the English reader in 
 possession of the subject of them, by a trans- 
 lation. 
 
 The duty of studying the Bible in the 
 Hebrew and Greek originals is now more 
 generally recognized by students of theology 
 than it was a few years since. The Protes- 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 tant principle, which subjects every theologi- 
 cal opinion to the test of scripture, evidently 
 requires the candidate for the ministry to 
 prepare himself for the office of a religious 
 instructor by such a method of study, unless 
 peculiar circumstances should make it im- 
 practicable for him to do so. The policy of 
 such a course is also equally evident. For, 
 although in the outset, the advancement of 
 the student may be slow, yet in the end the 
 acquisitions which he will make are not only 
 more solid, but more extensive, than can be 
 gained by pursuing any other method. If 
 this little work shall contribute to aid the 
 student in his progress, or excite him to in- 
 dustry in the pursuit, the translator will feel 
 that the time which he has devoted to it has 
 not been uselessly spent. 
 
INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER, 
 
 BV THE TRAN8LAT0K. 
 
 With the view of giving the reader a clear im- 
 pression of the design and plan of the author, I prefix 
 this prehniinary chapter, which contains an outhne of 
 those parts of Dr. Planck's introduction which precede 
 the translated chapters. 
 
 The author begins by remarking, that the changes 
 which have affected theological literature, in common 
 with other branches of knowledge, require a correspon- 
 dent change in the method of pursuing it, and conse- 
 quently new and additional directions in order to study 
 It to the best advantage. To furnish such directions, 
 adapted to the improved state of science and literature 
 of his own age, is the design of his work. 
 
 But from the very nature of an introduction it must 
 be evident, that it does not profess to instruct the reader 
 in the whole science of theology. It can only present 
 to his mind a view of its outlines, assist him in filling 
 up the picture, and present it to his eye in attractive 
 colors. It must give him clear ideas of its object, and 
 design, and also of its general form and character, so far 
 as these can be determined by means of the others. It 
 must show the mutual connexion of the different parts 
 
b INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER. 
 
 of each branch, and also that in which the whole sub- 
 ject stands to learning in general. It must point out 
 the most direct and the best method for a successful pro- 
 secution of the study, develop the sources of informa- 
 tion relating to it, and give a history of its literature. 
 
 Here it is to be particularly observed, that an intro- 
 duction to theology is not to be an introduction to any 
 one particular system. It is not its object to place the 
 student in a situation, from which he will be able to 
 take only a partial view of the truths to which he 
 is to be conducted, or, to see them only in one particular 
 direction. The impropriety and dishonesty of such a 
 course are evident. Its object is — and this is the only 
 method by which the cause of truth and learning can 
 be advanced — to place him in a condition to exarmne 
 every thing for himself with unprejudiced impartiality ; 
 to teach him how to form a judgment respecting the 
 materials which the subject presents to him, a judgment 
 founded upon a faithful and complete representation of 
 whatever ought in reason to have influence. Nothing 
 but this can form the theologian who thinks for himself, 
 and any other kind it is not desirable to form. 
 
 A.n introduction to theology must carefully avoid 
 whatever may be regarded as mere learned form. What- 
 ever information it has to communicate, it must endea- 
 vor to lay before the reader in such a manner, that a 
 sound understanding can readily comprehend it without 
 the aid of a learned apparatus. Otherwise it will be of 
 little utility to one who is entering upon the study of 
 divinity, for whom it is principally intended, or to gene- 
 ral readers. For the same reason, it should avoid a 
 show of literature. This is undoubtedly one of th 
 
INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER. 7 
 
 worst errors, into which an introduction to any depart- 
 ment of learning can fall. Nothing is more alarming 
 to a beginner than a long catalogue of hterary works, 
 with which he is to become acquainted ; and if it should 
 not alarm him, it will certainly discourage him from 
 attempting to use them, through despair of being able 
 to master the whole. An introduction should limit 
 Itself to such works as are of most utility and impor- 
 tance, and to such as have constituted epochs in the 
 history of the literature belonging to the subject. 
 
 With these views the author proceeds to state the 
 plan of his work. It consists of three sections. The 
 first is devoted to a development and illustration of the 
 general ideas by which the object, design and compass 
 of the whole science are marked out. The second 
 exammes the connexion of theology with those other 
 branches of literature, from which it must derive 
 preliminary laiowledge, or is able to borrow assistance. 
 The third and last, which is unavoidably the most com- 
 prehensive, relates to theology itself in its various 
 departments. 
 
 In pursuing the outline, I shall be as brief as possi- 
 ble, marking out the divisions of the original into 
 sections and chapters. 
 
 SECTION I. 
 
 Chap. I. 11. Theology is the science of religion ; 
 the learned knowledge of those doctrines and truths, 
 which instruct us in our relations to God, in the duties 
 which we owe him resulting from those relations, and 
 in the hopes which we may venture to build thereon. 
 Christian theology is founded upon a divine revelation. 
 
8 INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER. 
 
 It has for its object those doctrines which have been com- 
 municated from God, by Christ and through his mstruc- 
 tion, and which, consequently, were not discoverable 
 merely by the usual methods of ascertaining truth m all 
 other departments of knowledge, but by means of a 
 divine arrangement altogether extraordinary. The in- 
 ternal character of the truths themselves, and the exter- 
 nal importance attached to them in consequence of their 
 origin, demand the conclusion that they are far superior 
 to the objects of all other sciences. 
 
 III. IV. If now it be allowed that these truths 
 are the most weighty, and the design in reference to 
 which they are to be studied, the greatest, the most 
 interesting, and the most worthy of exertion, it evi- 
 dently follows that they are deserving of the utmost 
 degree of attention. They are the foundation of our 
 happiness, the security of our hopes, and consequently 
 must be settled upon the firmest basis, upon grounds on 
 which we may rely with confidence. And how is this 
 to be done ? Only by placing ourselves in a condition 
 to examine those grounds and to try their character, 
 and thus to arrive at conviction in our own minds ; in 
 other words, by making our knowledge of these sub- 
 jects a learned knowledge. This point the author pro- 
 ceeds to discuss, obviating the usual objections brought 
 against learning in connexion with theology, and 
 remarking that all the errors and heresies which have 
 distracted the church, may be traced to causes very dif- 
 ferent from learning. In a multitude of instances they 
 have arisen and spread, not because their authors and 
 abettors were learned, but because they were not 
 
 LEARNED ENOUGH. 
 
INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER. V 
 
 V. VI. VII. The next point examined relates to 
 the qualifications which are necessary for the study of 
 theology. It requires the same mental endowments 
 which are called for in cultivating any other science , 
 an ability to comprehend, connect and compare abstract 
 ideas — such a degree of discrimination as is sufficient 
 to enable a man to judge of the characteristics of truth 
 and falsehood, and to separate the one fi-om the other — 
 a perception of truth, not innate, but acquired by men- 
 tal discipline—and a memory sufficiently clear to call 
 up the knowledge required for daily use, without con- 
 fijsion or error. It is true indeed, that the want of 
 these qualifications in a considerable degree cannot be 
 regarded as a suflicient reason for deterring a man 
 from the study of theology, provided he have no other 
 view but to examine the subject for his own satisfac- 
 tion, although the knowledge he may be able to acquire 
 must be proportionably weak, obscure, and destitute of 
 proper arrangement. But the case is different when 
 his object is to prepare himself for communicating 
 mstruction and satisfaction to others. It is but too 
 probable that rehgion may be injured by means of the 
 niadequacy of such men ; while, on the other hand, it 
 IS impossible to say what benefits may result, by the 
 direction of Providence, from their efforts, if their 
 imperfect knowledge be accompanied by pious zeal. 
 How far it may be right and expedient to encourage 
 such persons to pursue a course of theological study, 
 with the view of becoming ministers of the Gospel, is 
 a question which requires the exercise of prudence, 
 piety and good sense. General regulations on points 
 
 of this kind, established by legitimate ecclesiastical 
 1* 
 
10 INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER. 
 
 authority, are not to be disregarded, in the hope that 
 divine Providence will counteract the injurious effects 
 which might otherwise result. 
 
 But in addition to mental endowments, moral quali- 
 fications are necessary. It is too plain to require evi- 
 dence, that the object in view can never be attained, 
 unless the soul be animated by a deeply felt principle 
 of piety. The inquirer must be guided by religious 
 reverence, by humble distrust of his own views, and by 
 habitual recollection of the narrow limits to which the 
 powers of his understanding are confined. These 
 points it is unnecessary to illustrate. They must 
 force themselves upon every one's observation. But 
 there are other moral properties, which must be pos- 
 sessed and cultivated, in order that the study of theology 
 may be pursued with the greatest prospect of success. 
 The author proceeds to state the following. 
 
 In the first place, the student must possess a 
 supreme love of truth, free, as far as possible, from 
 prejudices, or at least sufficiently influential to enable 
 him to sacrifice every prejudice to truth, when dis- 
 covered. This will propel him to exertion, and he will 
 take all necessary pains to make himself acquainted 
 with what God hath revealed, simply for the reason 
 that God hath revealed it. 
 
 A second requisition, intimately connected with 
 t?ie former, consists of a settled resolution of mind 
 not to be terrified by doubts, and in the search after 
 truth, not to leave any doubt unexamined. No dowbts 
 that can be suggested need produce alarm. Either 
 they are of such a nature, that a competent and care- 
 ful inquirer — and none other is here contemplated — 
 
INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER. 11 
 
 may be able to meet them, and satisfy hmiself of tlieir 
 fallacy ; or else, they are too powerful to be resisted by 
 learnmg and argument, and should therefore be gladly 
 admitted as beneficial to the interests of progressive 
 truth. 
 
 Lastly, there must be conscientious fidelity in 
 adhering to the convictions which the mind has 
 received. I do not mean an obstinate stubbornness, 
 which will listen to no further arguments, and is 
 determined to adhere to principles once adopted, not 
 withstanding the strongest impressions produced by 
 more correct views : this is nothing less than bigotry. 
 1 mean, that the sentiments once embraced, after suffi 
 cient investigation to satisfy the inquirer of their truth, 
 ought not to be relinquished until he is satisfied, by 
 equally strong and clear evidence, that they are erro- 
 neous, and have consequently been hastily or incau 
 tiously adopted. 
 
 VIII — XV. In continuation, the author takes a 
 view of the whole study and of the general subjects 
 which It comprises. He distributes it into four principal 
 departments. First; exegetical theology, com 
 preliending apologetic divinity or defence of revealed 
 religion, the history and establishment of the canon 
 of scripture, and sacred philology with interpretation. 
 Second; historic theology, the various divisions 
 of whicii he lays before the reader together with a 
 view of its utility. Third; systematic theology, 
 (founded in all its parts upon tlie Bible.) comprehend 
 mg doctrinal, moral, and symbolic* divinity. The first 
 
 * From orUfi/JuX)',, the symbol or creed of eacli particu!;ir church. 
 
12 
 
 INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER. 
 
 of these three epithets is intended to mark out the general 
 system of Christian doctrine, and the last those particu- 
 lar systems which have been embraced by different 
 Christian churches respectively. The nature of the 
 intermediate is plainly determined by its name. Fourth ; 
 APPLIED or PRACTICAL THEOLOGY, that IS, whatcver 
 is comprised under the terms, homiletic, catechetical, 
 and pastoral theology^ He then proceeds to discuss 
 the questions, whether the sUidy of all these branches 
 is necessary tor instructors in religion ; and if so, in 
 what measure. He lays down four general directions 
 for a proper study of theology, and concludes the sec- 
 tion by giving some of the principal works in which 
 those of a more particular and definite nature may be 
 found. 
 
 SECTION 11. 
 
 1. n. This section is devoted to a consideration 
 of those branches of knowledge, which are preparatory 
 and subsidiary to theology. 
 
 The author begins with a knowledge of languages, 
 In order to perceive the bearing of this study on the 
 ology, it may be proper first, to take a view of its 
 necessity in general. This arises from the three fol- 
 lowing considerations. It aids our progress in think- 
 ing ; — it is necessary in order to enable us to impart 
 our thoughts and sentiments to others, — and to make 
 their thoughts and opinions useful to ourselves. The 
 iwo last are self evident, and of course require no illus- 
 tration. The first may at first view appear to some to 
 be paradoxical : but a close examination of the subject 
 
IXTKODUCTORY CHAPTER. 13 
 
 Will show the truth of this position, that we improve in 
 learning to think, ni proportion as we improve in learn- 
 ing to speak, and therefore that an acquaintance with 
 langiiao-e is as necessary to our own clear and 
 comprehensive thinking, as it is to communicate oui 
 thoughts to others.* Hence, then, it evidently fol- 
 lows, that in the study of theologj'-, as in every other 
 study, a man who possesses an extensive knowledge of 
 languages, will be able to advance with the more 
 facility and speed, and will generally attain the most 
 secure and complete possession of his object. If a 
 certain degree of mental formation and power of judg- 
 ment, in other words, of acquired ability to compre 
 hend ideas, to work them up, and connect them 
 together, be necessary ; if the total want of this totally 
 unfits us for the object in view, th&<icquisition of it in 
 a considerable degree must proportionably qualify us ; 
 and if the study of languages promotes this acquisition, 
 its utility in the study of theology is not to be ques- 
 tioned. The more languages a man understands, the 
 better will he be able to pursue this study with success : 
 not merely because he has thereby collected more ideas, 
 or put himself in a condition to use the ideas of others ; 
 but also, because by studying several languages, he 
 has enlarged his capacity for receiving ideas and form- 
 ing an accurate judgment of them. This is an unde- 
 niable truth, founded in the very nature of the soul. 
 
 In addition to the vernacular tongue, the Greek and 
 Latin are absolutely necessary in preparing for the 
 study of divinity, and some living languages, especially 
 
 * See Note I, at the end. 
 
14 INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER. 
 
 the French and English, [German.] highly useful. The 
 Hebrew and oriental languages, in general, are not 
 properly comprehended within the range of prelimmary 
 studies ; they constitute a part of the subject itself, and 
 shall afterwards be brought into view under the 
 head of sacred philology. 
 
 Ill — V. The importance of acquiring an accurate 
 and extensive knowledge of our own language, and of 
 cultivating the Latin and Greek, as those which con- 
 tain the best specimens of composition, and present the 
 powers of the human mind in the strongest light, is 
 examined and vindicated against some modern objec- 
 tions ; and this part of the subject is closed by exhibit- 
 ing the claims of the French and English. The 
 author then proceeds (VI — XII,) to other preliminary 
 and auxiliary branches of knowledge, such as logic, 
 metaphysics, natural theology, morals, and history ; 
 pointing out the utility and importance of each depart- 
 ment. 
 
 SECTION III. 
 
 We now enter upon the third section, which 
 includes the largest portion of the work, and is an 
 introduction to theology itself It is divided into three 
 parts, exegetical, historical, and systematic theology. 
 The first comprehends apologetic divinity, or defence 
 of revealed religion and of the scriptures, the history 
 of the canon, sacred philology, and interpretation. 
 Dr. Planck's observations on the two latter subjects 
 are given to the reader in full in the subsequent trans- 
 lation; those on the former may be found in the 
 following abstract. 
 
INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER. It 
 
 APOLOGETIC DIVINITY. 
 
 I. The design of apologetic divinity is evident 
 from the very name. In the nature of things, theology 
 must, in the first place, establish its claims to divine 
 authority. 
 
 Since this department may very easily be confounded 
 with another, it becomes necessary to define with some 
 degree of accuracy the great object which it has in 
 view. Its attention is directed to the proofs of the 
 divinity of our religion, that is to say, of the divine 
 origin and divine authority of the doctrine of our 
 Lord and his apostles. This is a very diflerent point 
 from the inspiration and divinity of the writings in 
 which that doctrine is contained, although the differ- 
 ence has often been overlooked, and thereby a contu- 
 sion of ideas has arisen, which has not been without an 
 injurious tendency. The proof of the one is of a very 
 dift'erent kind from that of the other, and the argu- 
 ments whicli support the divinity of the doctrines 
 are alone incompetent to establish that of the wri- 
 tings. It must consequently be maintained on other 
 grounds. 
 
 II. The next point relates to the manner in which 
 apologetic divinity must suitably accomplish its object. 
 The first rule is, to conduct the defence with a view 
 to the attacks to which the divine truth of Christi- 
 anity has, in the greatest degree, been exposed. It 
 has very often been forgotten, that it is not merely 
 the object of this branch of theology to remove 
 objections, to solve doubts, and to lessen the force of 
 discrepances ; but it is also bound to advance positive 
 
i«l 
 
 16 INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER. 
 
 proof. Many, who have attempted to defend the cause 
 of Christianity, have supposed that they have accom- 
 pUshed the latter, when they have done nothing more 
 than a part of the former. 
 
 III. Two principal methods of argument have 
 been employed ; that which defends the truth of 
 revelation on internal evidence, and that which 
 considers the whole subject in the light of a his- 
 torical fact, and derives its conclusion from external 
 proof. 
 
 In the former class of argument, three points have 
 been urged as of principal importance. The first con- 
 sists ill that eminent superiority which revealed religion 
 possesses over what is called natural, in imparting to 
 us so much knowledge which this cannot possibly 
 coirmiunicate, and whicli nevertheless is necessary, 
 because indispensable to our happiness. Revelation 
 fills up the void which nature is incompetent to satisfy. 
 It must therefore be divine, as none but God can make 
 such disclosures. The second point is, the correspon- 
 dence of the instructions imparted by revelation with 
 what our own reason recognizes as true and noble and 
 suited to our destination ; and hence the inference is 
 drawn, that these instructions must have been commu- 
 nicated from al30ve, since the men who first published 
 them to the world could not possibly have derived 
 them from any other source. The third and last point 
 which has been adduced in this argument is, the influ- 
 ence which the doctrines of revealed religion exercise 
 in the soul. Here experience has been appealed to in 
 order to show, that its truths produce a stronger im- 
 pression upon man than all other known moral doc- 
 
INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER. 17 
 
 triiies : that thereby his will is more powerflilly direct- 
 ed, his heart more powerfully moved, and his whole 
 nature more steadily excited to attain excellence, than 
 by the operation of all others. Hence it has been con- 
 cluded, that some higher power than that which ordi- 
 narily accompanies truth, must be connected with the 
 truths of Christianity, and from this it has been inferred 
 that the origin of these truths is divine. 
 
 In the latter method of argument, that which main- 
 tains the truth of revealed religion on external evidence, 
 there are also three prominent points, which have been 
 regarded as sources of proof Unlike the former class, 
 these three are the only external sources of argument. 
 
 The first, and that which has been principally em- 
 ployed, is the proof from miracles, to which the greatest 
 force has been attributed. Its validity depends upon 
 the supposition, not to be denied, that the Almighty 
 would not permit an impostor to exert a supernatural 
 power, by means of which all mankind might be 
 deceived in a matter relating to their highest interest. 
 This being granted, nothing more is necessary than to 
 establish the historical truth of the miracles of our 
 Lord and his apostles, and it follows that their doctrine 
 is from God. — In a manner very similar is the same 
 conclusion drawn from the prophecies which are con- 
 tained in the scriptures. If some of those prophecies 
 can be proved to be real predictions of future contin- 
 gencies, that is, of such events as no human prudence 
 and sagacity could foresee, it is unquestionable, that a 
 divine power co-operated in producing them ; as none 
 but that being whose understanding is infinite, could 
 possess a previous knowledge of such events. — Jn 
 
18 INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER. 
 
 modern times a third source of external proof has been 
 employed, derived from the human credibihty of the 
 founder of our rehgion and of his apostles. The inter- 
 mediate steps necessary to establish this argument, are 
 easily supported. That Christ and his apostles are 
 worthy of the highest degree of credit, which can 
 possibly be given to mcii, is evinced from their charac- 
 ter ; from their personal circumstances ; from the cir- 
 cumstances of the time and nation in which they 
 appeared ; from the object which they had, and which 
 alone they could have, in view ; from the internal 
 marks of truth, not to be mistaken, which are discove- 
 rable in their writings ; from the whole spirit of their 
 instructions ; and even from the declarations of their 
 most inveterate enemies. And when this previous 
 question, the credibility of our Lord and his apostles, 
 is settled in opposition to all doubts, we may infer the 
 divinity of their doctrine either immediately, or by aid of 
 the argument derived from the performance of miracles. 
 
 That all the proofs above stated are not equally 
 satisfactory and conclusive, will be evident to every 
 thinking mind ; and consequently, it must be equally 
 evident, that apologetic divinity requires very critical 
 investigation, much impartiality in examination, and 
 great logical precision in argument. 
 
 IV. V. The author now proceeds to a literary 
 history of the subject, and gives a brief account of the 
 principal works which have appeared in defence of 
 revealed religion, from the apology of Justin Martyr to 
 the productions of his own day. He then adds (VI ;) 
 some directions for the best method of studying it with 
 most success. 
 
INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER. 19 
 
 In the first place, he earnestly advises all who enter 
 upon the study of theology, not to investigate the 
 proofs of the divine authority of revealed religion 
 without bringing themselves to feel, that the subject is 
 not destitute of difficulties. Thus they will not satisfy 
 themselves too easily with the strongest proof that may 
 be most accessible; nor will they want a sufficient 
 interest in the examination, to induce them to take 
 pams in removing difficulties, the weight of which they 
 nave felt. 
 
 In the second place, a man must study the proofs 
 of divine revelation for himself, he must himself inves- 
 tigate and examine, he must see with his own eyes, in 
 order to form conclusions of his own reasoning. Let 
 him analyze every proof presented to him, let him con- 
 sider whether the consequences deduced are really 
 legitimate, or whether they are m any degree unfound- 
 ed. Thus, let him establish his positions on incontro- 
 vertible ground, and draw his conclusions in a logical 
 manner, and then only can he feel conscious of pos- 
 sessing a true, usefiil and satisfactory proof of the divine 
 origm of Christianity. 
 
 Lastly, when a man has examined a proof, and 
 satisfied himself that it is one on which he may safely 
 rely ; he should then subject it to the test of the doubts 
 and the thorough mvestigation of others. Let him pro- 
 cure some work, which attempts to overturn the proofs 
 of revelation, and is especially directed against that in 
 favor of which his judgment has decided. Let him 
 remove all the objections which it contains. Let him 
 ask himself whether his argument can be defended 
 against them : and if so. in what manner, — what reply 
 
20 INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER. 
 
 can be urged on the other side. The result of such a 
 trial of the strength of an argument, can never be pre- 
 judicial to the cause of truth. 
 
 HISTORY OF THE CANON. 
 
 I. By the very significant word Canon is under- 
 stood, in the theology of the present day, the collection 
 of those writings, which, on the testimony of the church 
 m the earliest age, are attributed to inspired authors: 
 in other words, the aggregate of those books which we 
 c£)nsider as divine, because we believe in the inspiration 
 of their authors, and which, for this reason we distin- 
 guish fi-om other books, the writers of which cannot be 
 proved to have been inspired. In a proper history of 
 this subject, therefore, it is necessary to show, why each 
 individual book contained in the sacred collection of the 
 Old and New Testaments is regarded as canonical, or 
 how it acquired its canonical authority ; that is to say, 
 on what grounds the certainty or credibiUty rests, that 
 Its author was inspired. 
 
 II. The first point in this discussion is, to deter- 
 mine the authenticity of each book asserted to be 
 canonical ; and after this, the genuineness of each 
 must be proved. To both these it is important to add, 
 a knowledge of the period in which they were com- 
 |X)sed, of the circumstances connected with their origin, 
 of the object for which they were written, and of the 
 persons for whose use they were principally prepared 
 and to whom they were originally directed. The 
 nearer we can arrive at certainty on all these pomts, 
 the stronger must be our conviction of the truth of the 
 others. 
 
INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER 21 
 
 III — X. The author proceeds to suggest some con- 
 siderations on the best way of meeting the requisitions, 
 and on the materials on which the proof of the above 
 particulars can be founded. He then discusses the 
 methods in which the inspiration of the scriptures may 
 be thought to be satisfactorily argued, and after esta- 
 blishmg this most important principle upon divine 
 ATTESTATION, the testimony of Christ, and making 
 some useful observations with respect to its apphcation, 
 he gives a literary history of the subject from the first 
 century to our own. This account comprehends a 
 brief notice of the most important works on the 
 subjects above stated, which have appeared since the 
 reformation, together with a sketch of the controver- 
 sies and discussions which have arisen, either on the 
 subjects themselves, or on points connected with them. 
 As a minute detail would be inconsistent with the 
 design of this introductory chapter, the reader is 
 unavoidably referred to the learned author himself for 
 
 particular information. 
 
 2* 
 
EXEGETICAL THEOLOGY 
 
 PART I 
 
 SACRED PHILOLOGY. 
 
 CHAPTER I . 
 
 The third of those different branches of litera- 
 ture which belong to exegetical theology,* is what is 
 called SACRED philology. It may readily be sup- 
 posed, that this term must comprehend at least, more 
 kinds of knowledge than one, each of which again 
 must bear its own appropriate appellation. For this 
 reason the extent of sacred philology may be very 
 variously determined, and this has frequently been the 
 case, as at different periods a greater or less degree of 
 knowledge has been assigned to it ; but this variable- 
 ness is of no more importance than the names that 
 may be given to the particular parts of which the 
 subject IS composed. It is quite a matter of indiffer- 
 ence to what these names are applied, and in what 
 manner, provided they are applied, so as to compre- 
 hend the whole. No apology therefore can be necessa- 
 ry, if, in this work, whatever belongs on the one side, 
 
 * The two former arc apologetic divinity, and historj of the 
 canon, as stated in the introductory chapter. Tr 
 
24 SACRED PHILOLOGY 
 
 to an acquaintance with language, and on the other, to 
 the knowledge of criticism required to settle and 
 explain the true sense of our holy scriptures, is appro- 
 priated to the department of sacred philology. Criti- 
 cism, It is true, might be represented as a distinct branch 
 of knowledge, and philology be confined to acquaint- 
 ance with language, yet it can produce no incon- 
 venience if the application of the term be so extended 
 as to comprehend both. 
 
 By the view already suggested, a three-fold object is 
 proposed with which sacred philology'- is to be employed, 
 or to which its labors must be directed. The know- 
 ledge of languages, to be given or collected, by its aid, 
 forms two divisions, for it is well known that our 
 sacred books were written in two different languages ; 
 criticism constitutes its third part. What learnmg is 
 required in order thoroughly to investigate this subject, 
 why a laborious investigation of it is necessary, and 
 what assistance is offered for the purpose, are the points 
 which it IS my intention to exarmne, and to place in a 
 clear light. 
 
 If we commence with considering the knowledge 
 of languages necessary to explain the New Testament, 
 it is known to all, that it is the Greek in which the 
 writings belonging to this book were composed. Yet 
 it is also equally known, that this Greek language of 
 the New Testament is very widely different from the 
 actual language of ancient Greece and its national 
 writers. There was formerly indeed a class of theolo- 
 gians, who were ready to charge a man with heresy, if 
 he only intimated that the apostles had not written pure 
 Greek ; but they are now entirely extinct, and at pre- 
 
NEW TESTAMENT GREEK. 25 
 
 sent It is universally acknowledged, that the dialect of 
 the New Testament contains a multitude of peculiari- 
 ties, which are as foreign to the true Greek idiom as 
 their occurrence in the language of the apostles is na- 
 tural* 
 
 Of the truth of this, a man may convince himself 
 at any moment by an experience which is incontro- 
 vertible. Whoever has learned Greek merely from the 
 New Testament, or in other words, whoever, according 
 to the method which not a very long time since pre- 
 vailed in almost all our schools, has learned only the 
 Greek of the New Testament, will undoubtedly find 
 the Greek of Demosthenes, of iEschines, and of Thucy- 
 dides, as strange and unintelligible as Arabic. He may 
 be able to translate the whole of the New Testament, 
 but he will not be able to translate a single sentence 
 from the works of those authors ; and, on the other 
 hand, if he understand these, the language of the New 
 Testament will no longer be altogether strange to him, 
 although still not altogether familiar. This betrays too 
 plainly to be mistaken an intermixture of the peculiari- 
 ties of a foreign dialect, or rather of an entirely foreign 
 tongue, which must be found therein ; and indeed, if 
 the reader is not altogether unacquainted with the in- 
 termingled language, it will strike his eye at the first 
 look. 
 
 He immediately meets, for instance, with idioms of 
 the national language, which was vernacular in the 
 provinces in which the authors of those writings lived, 
 and among the people from whom they descended. He 
 
 • Note II 
 
26 
 
 NEW TESTAMENT GREEK. 
 
 observes whole phrases, Uterally translated from the 
 Syro-Chaldaic, the language in common use m those 
 countries. In very many turns of expression, m the 
 peculiar use of several particles, in the manner of con- 
 nectmg particular phrases and words, in the frequent 
 repetition of certain figures of speech, he immediately 
 recognizes men, accustomed from childhood to think in 
 an oriental tongue ; and from these indications he is 
 ied to conjecture independently of much examination, 
 that many of their expressions must not be understood 
 in the signification which they bore in pure Greek, but 
 m that which the correspondent expression in the na- 
 tional language conveyed, and which is merely thereby 
 translated. 
 
 And if he have no previous acquaintance with this 
 intermingled language, the result will still be the same. 
 Every foreign language, which a people receive merely 
 as adventitious and which they are forced to receive 
 by outward circumstances, must unavoidably be com- 
 mingled with the more ancient native tongue, if it can- 
 not fully supplant this tongue : and it must be com- 
 mingled most unavoidably by the lower classes, who 
 have not acquired either language according to the 
 rules of grammar, but merely by intercourse with 
 others and through necessity. But, as certainly as the 
 former observation expresses the fact with regard to the 
 Greek language, which was employed by the Jews in 
 the time of the Apostles merely in their intercourse 
 with foreigners and strangers ; so is the latter applica- 
 ble to most of the writers of the New Testament, who, 
 with the exception probably of St. Paul and St. Luke 
 merely, had undoubtedly no other facility m the use of 
 
NEW TESTAMENT GREEK. 2T 
 
 language, than that mechanical ability which inter- 
 course, hearing and exercise can supply. 
 
 It IS evident, then, that nothing but a miracle 
 could have enabled the apostles to speak and write 
 pure Greek, and this miracle would have been not 
 only without an object, but in direct opposition to the 
 object m view, since it would have made them less 
 intelligible to the very men, to whom they were imme- 
 diately to announce the doctrine of Christ, and among 
 whom they were first to brmg in circulation the senti- 
 ments of his new religion. It was therefore not only 
 a groundless notion, but m fact somewhat irrational, 
 which, from reverence to the Holy Spirit, by whom the 
 scriptures were inspired, was maintained in former 
 times and supposed to be obligatory, that they are 
 written in the very purest dialect. On the contrary, 
 their allowed inspiration would rather justify the pre- 
 vious conjecture, that their language cannot be pure 
 Greek. For, undoubtedly, the reasoning is clear and 
 satisfactory, that if these writings are inspired, they 
 are probably composed in the popular language of the 
 men for whom they were immediately intended, and 
 consequently in the corrupt dialect intermingled with 
 Hebraisms and Chaldaisms, into wliich the genuine 
 Greek must unavoidably have degenerated among the 
 Jews in Palestine. Yet these conjectures and supposi- 
 tions are by no means necessary, for the evidence is 
 conspicuous and incontrovertible, and they are the less 
 necessary, as at present a divine is scarcely to be found 
 who doubts the fact. 
 
NEW TESTAMENT GEEEK. 
 
 CHAPTER II 
 
 If now this is the case with the language of the 
 New Testament, which is at present distinguished by 
 the name of Hellenistic, it becomes of itself abundantly 
 evident, that a particular study of this language is 
 uecessary, and also why it is so. This necessity is the 
 stronger, as the want of an accurate acquaintance with 
 it may, and inevitably must give rise to proportionably 
 erroneous interpretations, and to misconceptions of the 
 meaning. 
 
 This acquaintance is necessary in order to under- 
 stand a multitude of phrases in the New Testament, 
 which are transferred immediately from the Hebrew, 
 and translated not at all in the spirit, not at all in the 
 form of thought, but merely into the words of the 
 Greek language. To the expressions, "kingdom of 
 heaven, Spirit of God — visitation," and many others, 
 which occur so frequently in the Hellenistic dialect, 
 the pure Greelc idiom attaches no clear sense, because 
 they were either never used by real Greeks, or never 
 in the sense of the sacred writers. And as little does: 
 it know of the significations which the former so often 
 gave to Its connecting words and particles, of which it 
 will be sufficient merely to refer, as examples, to the 
 two prepositions h? and h, which in the New Tes- 
 tament are so very often employed, contrary to all 
 Greek usage, merely in the signification of the Hebrew 
 prefix 3. 
 
 But, without accurate acquaintance with this dia- 
 lect, the reader is m the most difficult situation, when 
 he meets with words, in themselves pure Greek, and 
 
NEW TESTAMENT GREEK. 29 
 
 I 'so in the sense in which they are in part taken pure 
 Greek, but which, by the intermixture of a Hebrew 
 idea, may have acquired some modification, either 
 extending or hmiting their appUcation. Cases of this 
 kind occur not only very often, but probably muoh 
 ofiener than is supposed, or has yet been ascertained- 
 When the apostles endeavored to express in Greek the 
 ideas which they had formed for the most part in 
 Hebrew or Syro Chaldaic,* they could not always find 
 words altogether adequate to convey the entire thought 
 with all its intended bearings, as it was|. connected in 
 their minds with the Hebrew word. They selected 
 therefore the term which expressed their conceptions 
 the most fully, and in its customary acceptation came 
 nearest their whole idea, or else that which was a 
 literal translation of the Hebrew word, although in its 
 usuaJ signification designating something else : but still 
 it was their intention to express thereby the very same 
 idea, which the Hebrew word usually suggested to 
 their minds. 
 
 With regard to many words, very frequently occur- 
 rmg m the New Testament, this case undoubtedly 
 apphes. When, for example, the apostle wished to 
 
 express the idea of the Hebrew word U^l^, simply 
 the Greek apfivr, presented itself to his mind ; but as 
 the Hebrew term conveyed to a Jew much more than 
 the other did to a Greek, we may certainly suppose, 
 that the apostle also intended the surplus idea to lie 
 attached to the word, and therefore in interpreting, the 
 Greek idea connected with lipvvr, must be amplified &r 
 
 * Or, at least, according to the Hebrew or Syro-Chaldaic 
 idiom. — Tr. 
 
 3 
 
30 NEW TESTAMENT GREEK. 
 
 elevated, according to the Hebrew suggested by Dl /tJ'. 
 The same is undoubtedly true of the words iuatoi, Syios, 
 S6ia, hMdcia, the meaning of which, in the language of the 
 New Testament, is certainly much less frequently 
 that of the pure Greek usage, than of the Hebrew 
 words with which they correspond, and of which 
 they are a translation. 
 
 If, then, a person is not acquainted with this pecu- 
 liarity of the language, he will be the less able to avoid 
 the danger of an error in explaining the writings com- 
 posed in it, because he may the more readily commit 
 one unconsciously and without observing it. If such 
 expressions are interpreted according to the ordinary 
 and incorrupt Greek usage, a meaning is certainly 
 gained, and indeed in very many cases, a meaning 
 which appears to be sufficiently appropriate. The 
 older divines, who formerly applied to the word suaioi, 
 wherever it occurred in the New Testament, only the 
 Greek forensic meaning of righteous, were always able 
 to give sense and connexion to the places where they 
 thus explained it; and yet the interpretation which 
 this led them to give it in some places was very 
 unsound, since with respect to many it can be incon- 
 trovertibly proved, by a more accurate acquaintance 
 with the usage of the New Testament, that the sense 
 which should be expressed is not that more limited one, 
 but rather the more comprehensive signification of the 
 Hebrew p^lV- Without this acquaintance then, it 
 is, in such cases, very possible indeed to miss the sense 
 of the sacred writer, at the very time when we suppose 
 that it can be found with the greatest ease, and that we 
 have found it with the greatest certainty ; and princi- 
 
NEW TESTAMENT GREEK. 31 
 
 pally on this account is the study of this language 
 altogether indispensable, to enable us to interpret with 
 security and confidence. 
 
 These remarks on the peculiar characteristic of the 
 New Testament language, are sufficient to show the 
 importance of studying it. But it is not so easy to 
 perceive what helps can be obtained in pursuing this 
 study ; and, in fact, we are restricted to an extremely 
 small number. 
 
 The most natural and usefi.il must immediately 
 occur to every one. Since the peculiarity of this 
 "Hellenistic dialect consists in the intermingling of the 
 Hebrew and Syro-Chaldaic idioms with the pure Greek, 
 an acquaintance with the two former languages must 
 of course throw the most light on it. But notwith- 
 standing this, it is very evident, that we could succeed 
 much better, particularly, we could distinguish the inter- 
 mixture with far more accuracy, observe it probably 
 much more frequently, and note its characteristic marks 
 with much more certainty, if we were in possession 
 of many works of this period, written in the same 
 dialect. But here we are completely at a loss ; for even 
 the writings of the almost contemporaneous Philo, m 
 which something illustrative might be looked for, are 
 m language so entirely different in its construction, that 
 they can afford but little aid to interpretation, in the 
 comparison in which we would willingly employ them, 
 however important may be the assistance they can 
 offer it in other respects. 
 
 We have yet another source fi-om which we may 
 derive assistance in cultivating a knowledge of this 
 dialect, a source, which, although not contemporaneous. 
 
aZ NEW TESTAMENT GREEK. 
 
 is, on that account, in other respects the more useful. 
 I mean, the Greek version of the Old Testament, which 
 is known by the name of the Septuagint, This is not 
 only for the most part composed in the Hellenistic 
 language, but it may be considered in a certain view as 
 its onginal source. 
 
 As to the precise time when this version came 
 into circulation, we are quite as much in the dark as 
 we are concerning the causes that originated it, and the 
 persons by whom it was brought to a termination. 
 The old legend of Aristeas respecting the seventy 
 interpreters, who at the wish of Ptolemy Philadelphus 
 were dispatched from Jerusalem to Alexandria, there 
 inclosed m as many separate cells, but so inspired by 
 the Holy Spirit that each produced a translation cor- 
 responding word for word with those of the others, is 
 now universally held to be, what it certainly is, a fable. 
 From internal evidence however it is demonstrabicv 
 that this version cannot be the work of one translator ; 
 for a comparison of particular books display such 
 a difference m respect to the style, the knowledge of 
 language, and the attention paid to the translation, that 
 It must be considered as the production of many per- 
 sons, very unequal in diligence and ability. Hence 
 we have also sufficient grounds for the supposition, that 
 the translation was probably not occasioned by one 
 external cause originating in some coalition, neither 
 did It arise at one time, or was even completed in one 
 place, but that, in it§ present state, it may have grown 
 out of a selection from different translations of the seve- 
 ral books already extant after they had been collected. 
 But who caused this collection to be made, and brought 
 
NEW TESTAMENT GREEK. 33 
 
 together the separate translations into one whole, are 
 points of which we know nothing ; only it is probable, 
 that this was done originally in Egypt and at Alexan- 
 dria ; and it is certain, that in the time of Christ and 
 his apostles, this version was in general use even among 
 the Jews in Palestine.* 
 
 This last circumstance, the truth of which is 
 unquestionable, is principally important in showing its 
 utility in illustrathig the language of the New Testa- 
 ment. In this version the Hellenistic language must 
 originally have been formed, for in it the Greek was 
 employed probably for the first time to express the 
 sentiments of the Jews on national and religious sub- 
 jects, which had always before been conceived exclu- 
 sively in Hebrew. In part the character of these 
 sentiments, and probably in part also the character of 
 the translators, made it unavoidable, that the Greek of 
 the version should receive a considerable accession of 
 oriental forms ; and to this the desire of the latter to 
 leave a translation as literal as possible may perhaps 
 liare contributed. This peculiarity of the version 
 would in the greatest degree favor the general estima- 
 tion in which it was held by the Jews, as this estima- 
 tion also must necessarily in course of time have made 
 the Greek of the version the common dialect of the 
 people. Men who belonged to the lower classes of the 
 nation, as the apostles undoubtedly did, probably derived 
 from it all their knowledge of the Greek tongue.t The 
 religious sentiments of the whole nation were moulded 
 in no other Greek form but that in which they had 
 
 • Note III. t Note IV. 
 
 3* 
 
34 NEW TESTAMENT GREEK. 
 
 been received in this translation, for the people were 
 accustomed from childhood to think of them in no 
 other. It was therefore more than merely natural, that 
 this form should show itself also in the language of 
 the apostles. 
 
 From this statement it becomes exceedingly evi- 
 dent of what use this version is, in aiding the student 
 to acquire a more correct acquaintance with the 
 language of the New Testament. It is evident to every 
 one who looks into the subject, that a multitude of 
 turns of expression and other peculiarities by which 
 the Greek of the New Testament is distinguished, are 
 derived immediately from the Septuagint, where they 
 had before been used. It is impossible therefore to 
 doubt that these idioms are of oriental extraction, and 
 that the sense to be given to those expressions must be 
 Hebraistic, smce a comparison of them with the origi- 
 nal mfalhbly shows what tlie translators intended to 
 denote by them. And even with regard to those 
 oriental forms connected with Greek expressions of 
 which the Septuagint affords no examples, at least none 
 precisely verbal, it can very often be shown tliat they 
 were framed by the authors of the New Testament, 
 only in accordance with the spirit, and according to 
 the analogy, of similar expressions, which the)'' had 
 found in that version. 
 
 This translation therefore is of the veiy highest 
 importance ; it is an aid in acquiring a correct know- 
 ledge of the language of the New Testament which is 
 altogether indispensable, and the more especially as it 
 is almost the only one that we possess.* Yet it is quite 
 •Note V. 
 
STUDY OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGE- 35 
 
 clear, that a pan of its utility must arise from an 
 acquaintance with the original language of the Old 
 Testament. This also becomes therefore important in 
 a variety of views, for in many respects it becomes 
 immediately necessary in order to understand the 
 New Testament. But in reference to this language 
 nothing need be said in the present chapter, since, from 
 its own importance, or on account of those books of 
 our holy scriptures which the Old Testament compre- 
 hends, it constitutes the second leading topic of sacred 
 phllolog5^ 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 That, in order to attain a knowledge of the Hel)rew 
 language, a particular and appropriate study is re- 
 quired, and why this is the case, it is certainly unne- 
 cessary to show. We see, at the fii'st look, that it has 
 so much that is peculiar, characteristic, and, especially 
 in comparison with our modern and western languages, 
 remarkable, that its acquisition cannot be facilitated by 
 an acquaintance with most others : and yet. in another 
 view, and in consequence of other circumstances, we 
 might almost as easily be led to suppose, that, notwith- 
 standing this, the particular study of it need not demand 
 extraordinary exertions. 
 
 Although in forming an acquaintance with tin? 
 language, we are forcibly struck with its peculiarities, 
 yet we soon perceive also, tliat they are few in number 
 and have little variety. The characteristic j)roperties 
 which mark its formation, its connexions, its inversione. 
 must undoulAedlv bo altojjether new to one. who froni 
 
«6 STUDY OP THE HEBREW LANGUAGE. 
 
 his youth has always been accustomed to a western 
 language ; but on the other liand, it remains the more 
 constant, it is subject to fewer changes, it has always 
 the same forms, which the reader meets with the 
 oftener, and, which is of the greatest importance, the 
 whole language is poorer in words and expressions 
 than any other with which we are acquainted. This 
 circumstance, together with that first adverted to, must 
 very considerably diminish the difficulty of acquiring 
 it. For if the last only be considered, it will appear 
 very natural, that a language containing only about 
 seven thousand words, which is the number assigned 
 to the Hebrew, should be learned much sooner than 
 another which possesses a richer vocabulary. 
 
 This mode of estimating degrees of difficulty is 
 certainly in itself quite correct, and it would undoubt- 
 edly follow from it, that the study of the Hebrew lan- 
 guage must be easier than that of any other, were it 
 not for one particular circumstance, which again coni- 
 pletely destroys the facility that might otherwise arise- 
 from the causes above stated. In a language which 
 has only seven thousand words, we may without doubt 
 soon acquire a readiness, if we have only sufficient 
 assistance, to enable us to ascertain with ease and 
 certainty the significations in which the words are 
 used. The facility of doing this, is in proportion to the 
 number of works which are extant in a language, for 
 the oftener we find a word employed, and employed by 
 various authors and in various connexions, the more 
 certain we become as to its meaning, while, on the 
 contrary, the more we are destitute of helps of this 
 nature, the more difficult it must be to arrive at cer- 
 
Sf UDY OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGE. 37 
 
 tainty ; and this may make the acquisition of an ex- 
 ceedingly poor language often more difficult than that 
 of the richest. This is unhappily the case with the 
 Hebrew, 
 
 It were easy indeed to retain its seven thousand 
 words ; but to fix the signification of these words with 
 some degree of certainty costs the more labor, because 
 we have no other Hebrew work but those which are 
 comprised in the Old Testament ; at least none in the 
 dialect of those writings, and of that age to which they 
 belong. Hence it is, that of these seven thousand words 
 there are many which occur scarcely six or eight times, 
 others which are hardly found three or four times, and 
 there are even some which in all those writings are 
 only used once. How is it possible then, to arrive at 
 xutficient certainty respecting the meaning of these last, 
 by any method, and respecting the meaning of the 
 others, from the few instances in which they are to be 
 met with ? 
 
 <)n the one hand there are merely some kindred 
 languages, and on the other some versions, whereby 
 alone wc can be properly guided. The former 
 are the Syriac, Chaldee and Arabic, from which tlie 
 Hebrew partly originated,* and in which it has partly 
 lost itself. Those versions in particular are there 
 fore the most usefiil, which we have of the Old 
 Testament in these three languages, although the 
 Samaritan Pentateuch also, and the different Greek 
 translations, some fragments of which we still possess, 
 may be used with much advantage. In addition to 
 
 • Note VI. 
 
38 STUDY OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGE. 
 
 the Septuagint, we know that six other Greek versions 
 of the Old Testament were composed ; for Origen in 
 his Hexapla, besides that and the translations of Theo- 
 dotion, Aquila and Symmachus, collated a fifth, sixth 
 and seventh, which were extant in his time, although 
 they did not comprehend all the books of the Old Tes- 
 tament. Since it is now certain, that they were all 
 made from the Hebrew text, it is easy to be perceived 
 that they might be as useflil for understanding it, as 
 those which we have in the kindred languages. 
 
 From these we are not only able to determine with 
 confidence the meaning of the Hebrew words, but we 
 receive also through them, especially through the 
 Arabic and Syriac versions, some light respecting the 
 derivation of many words. From the same source we 
 receive further disclosures relating to the use of proper 
 and figurative language in Hebrew; we find its sense 
 and spirit more clearly expressed in the forms, which 
 are similar although somewhat differently turned, by 
 which they represent them ; we become more familiar 
 with those forms of the oriental mode of thinking ; 
 and, lastly, we are able to arrive at more perfect con- 
 viction of the correctness of whatever is brought to 
 bear upon the Hebrew text from this source, because 
 we have many works still extant in these languages. 
 
 By means of these helps, it is certainly possible to 
 acquire a knowledge of the language of the Old Tes- 
 tament, but only by their means. No one therefore 
 will continue to suppose that its acquisition is a very 
 light matter. The application of these helps presumes 
 tlie study of those kindred languages, and however 
 easy this mav be as to the Chaldee and Svriac, it is 
 
SACRED CRITICISM. 39 
 
 quite the contrary with the others. In the Arabic, the 
 difficulty arises from its richness, and in the Samaritan, 
 Irom the total want of documents remaining in it ; for 
 It is only in the Samaritan Pentateuch, and in some 
 coins with Samaritan inscriptions, that the language is 
 preserved. 
 
 What has been said is undoubtedly sufficient, to 
 give in general a just idea of the most important points 
 connected with the study of sacred philology, so far as 
 relates immediately to the knowledge of the languages, 
 wiiich is indispensably necessary to interpret the holy 
 scriptures. It is proper now to treat of the third 
 branch of literature belonging to this subject, namely, 
 sacred criticism. The nature of this department, and 
 the subjects in which it is occupied, will show in the 
 clearest manner, why it is very properly considered as 
 a part of sacred philology. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 The immediate object of sacred criticism is, not 
 to understand and interpret the holy scriptures, but to 
 examine their genuineness and incorruptness, and that 
 not only in general but also in particular places. 
 But even this does not constitute the whole of what 
 this subject comprehends. Criticism must determint', 
 whether the text of our sacred scriptures, in its present 
 state, is in all its parts in the same condition, in which 
 it originally came from the hands of its authors. In 
 other words, for every separate passage it must give 
 reasons, and satisfactory reasons too, why it should be 
 considered as entirely unaltered, or else as having 
 
40 SACRED CRITICISM. 
 
 sustained some change. And, in the latter case, when 
 it has reasons to conjecture that an alteration has taken 
 place, Its province is, to propose the surest means, by 
 which the place may be restored, with the greatest 
 certainty or probability, to its original condition. 
 
 The duty of criticism is, therefore, two-fold : in the 
 first place, to discover the changes which have taken 
 place in the original text; and then, to restore tire 
 genuine readings which have been excluded by theiii. 
 We do not therefore include all that this department 
 comprehends, if we limit our ideas of it to an acquamt- 
 ance, in all their extent, with those principles, by which 
 the genuineness of a writing may be examined, judged 
 of and proved. Undoubtedly criticism is required for 
 these purposes ; but it is required also for more than 
 these ; its application is necessary even in those writ- 
 mgs, the integrity of which has already in general 
 been examined and proved. 
 
 The integrity of a writing is not necessarily iniured 
 by every change which its text may have undergone ; 
 but for this reason, it may be useful, and important m 
 many respects, to know those changes also which have 
 not directly corrupted a writing. This can afford 
 criticism sufficient employment, even in those writings 
 the integrity of which is already attested, as criticism 
 can here perform sufficient service. It is this especr 
 ally, which makes it a study of its own, and necessary 
 in relation to our sacred scriptures. That criticism 
 which IS only required to prove their integrity in gene- 
 ral, is satisfied with very few principles and helps ; 
 but to discover and correct all isolated alterations, m 
 the smallest points, very many more and in part entirely- 
 
SACRED CRITICISM. 41 
 
 different are riecessary, the application of which is 
 more difficult, even in the proportion in which it often 
 becomes necessary. 
 
 Previously to any examination of the subject, it 
 may readily be imagined, that there are none of our 
 sacred books, which have not experienced such changes 
 in particular places, and even in a multitude of instan- 
 ces. It is altogether inconceivable that writings, some 
 of which were to be preserved several thousand years 
 merely by means of transcribed copies, and which were 
 in fact preserved by those means, under the hands of a 
 vast variety of men, whose opinions respecting their 
 contents were equally various, should have remained, 
 without any alteration, in the state in which they 
 originally proceeded from their authors. It would be 
 necessary, as has been before remarked, to suppose a 
 perpetual miracle through all that period, merely to 
 make this possible; but since nothing in the world 
 justifies such a supposition, we certainly cannot be 
 surprised, if each of those writings discloses innumera- 
 ble traces of some foreign hand. 
 
 Still, however, it is by no means necessary to sup- 
 pose, that these traces must always have arisen from 
 the hand of a corruptor. It may very well be thought, 
 that in all these changes the text has really not been 
 interpolated or corrupted in its essential contents : but 
 yet we perceive why it may still be very proper, indeed 
 often very important, to trace out these changes by tlie 
 aid of criticism, althoug^h wc are previously convinced 
 that essentially no corruption has thereby been pro- 
 duced. Something, nevertheless, has the scripture 
 
 thereby lost. The sense of the author mav at least 
 
 4 
 
42 SACRED CRITICISM. 
 
 thereby be occasionally obscured. A misconception 
 of it becomes now the easier, and, which is of chief 
 importance, we never know with entire certainty, 
 whether changes have not taken place also in mat- 
 ters of importance, and the contents essentially suf- 
 fered, until we have availed ourselves of all those 
 means by which we can receive certainty on this 
 subject. 
 
 It cannot therefore be doubted, that the application 
 of criticism to the treatment of the Bible is quite as 
 necessaiy and useful, as to that of any ancient writer. 
 Indeed, with regard to the former, it must be more 
 useful and more necessary, in the same proportion in 
 which Its contents are to us more important and inter- 
 esting. But now the principal inquiry is : — ^what are 
 the means, by the assistance of which, it may hope to 
 pursue the two objects that belong to it, with some 
 degree of success. 
 
 It is certainly not unnatural to anticipate the judg- 
 ment, that neither the one nor the other can be easy, 
 for it may readily be pre-supposed that in neither may 
 criticism venture to derive aid or satisfaction from 
 empty conjectures. Merely to suppose that interpola- 
 tions might be in the text, could be of no more service 
 to us than to frame conjectures respecting the original 
 reading ; but even to make such suppositions certain 
 signs and marks are necessary, for these are not mat- 
 ters to be blindly guessed at. 
 
 Happily, there are many of those signs and marks, 
 from which more than bare conjectures can be drawn. 
 The knowledge and application of them constitute the 
 essentials of criticism ; but the knowledge is as compli- 
 
SACRED CRITICISM. 43 
 
 caled as the application is difficult, and also in but too 
 many cases uncertain. 
 
 Four principal sources are usually admitted, from 
 which criticism may draw those indications and helps 
 on which it is principally to rely, partly to ascertain 
 what changes have taken place, and partly to restore 
 the orio-inal readings; and from these sources, they 
 must, from the very nature of the subject, be drawn. 
 
 The first is, an accurate acquaintance with the 
 pecuharities of the language, wherem not merely the 
 sacred scriptures in general, but each particular book 
 was composed. 
 
 The second is, a comparison of the various manu- 
 scripts or copies which we have of them, originating 
 at various periods. 
 
 The third consists of the various translations which 
 have been made of them into foreign languages. 
 
 The fourth and last, which must be employed but 
 seldom, springs from the writings and remains of the 
 earlier fathers, and generally of the earlier ecclesiastical 
 writers, who have made some use of the Bible. 
 
 It is in general easy to perceive in what manner 
 criticism can avail itself of these four sources, and even 
 what materials, useful for the object it has in view, it 
 may draw from each of them. But to make use of 
 any one of them some skill is necessary, and also some 
 directions to enforce caution, because of the number of 
 mmor circumstances, by which the nature and import 
 of what is drawn from each may so easily be altered. 
 In forming an estimate of this, such a variety of points 
 must be considered, that it becomes necessary to take 
 some notice of each in particular. 
 
44 PECULIARITIES OF LANGUAGE. 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 The first of those sources of assistance in criticism 
 which have been mentioned — that namely wliich is 
 afforded by an accurate knowledge of the language of 
 the sacred scriptures — is undoubtedly the most natural, 
 and on tliis account also it is principally to be relied 
 on ; and indeed in most cases it is easiest to be applied. 
 The greatest part of those interpolations, which have 
 arisen merely from incidental errors of copyists, inter- 
 change of particular letters, transpositions and omis- 
 sions, must generally be discovered by this ; and often 
 they ai'e thus infallibly discovered ; for in the greatest 
 number of such cases the transcriber must have com- 
 mitted an error, as the altered word must almost always 
 receive a form or termination not analogous to the 
 grammar of the language. 
 
 Whenever therefore we meet with a passage or a 
 word, the grammatical construction of which is in- 
 correct, or which is connected with another, contrary 
 to the principles and usage of the language, we have 
 just ground for suspecting, that in this place the text 
 has suffered a change ; and this suspicion rises to cer- 
 tainty, when, as is generally the case, the reading which 
 is gi'ammatically correct may be restored by a slight 
 alteration. If, for instance, we find in one place the 
 article « in the nominative, where the rules of gram- 
 mai" reciuire the accusative, we may believe with the 
 greater certainty that bv is the genuine original reading, 
 in proportion as it is easy to conceive how readily the 
 error may have arisen, merely through the interchange 
 of the two letters, from a transcriber acquainted with the 
 
PECULIARITIES OF LANGUAGE. 45 
 
 language, and much more from one who was ignorant 
 of It." 
 
 In this way a multitude of errors may not only be 
 exposed, but immediately corrected, by grammatical 
 acquaintance with the language. Only, with respect 
 to the writmgs of the New Testament, it must be re- 
 membered, that a judgment is to be formed, not accord- 
 ing to the grammatical principles of the pure Greek, 
 but of the Hellenistic dialect, with which therefore it 
 is necessary to be particularly acquainted. If all were 
 to be considered as interpolated which is not pure 
 Greek, or if among a large collection of various read- 
 ings the pure Greek sliould always be preferred, more 
 interpolations would undoubtedly be made than re- 
 moved ; and therefore, we should lay it down as a 
 principle, that when a choice is to be made between 
 two readings, one of which is Hellenistic and the 
 other pure Greek, if in other respects they are of equal 
 authority, the former is to be preferred. Thus, for 
 example, the preposition ds is used in a multitude of 
 places in the New Testament, where every pure Greek 
 dialect would have employed h , and this has occasion- 
 ally induced a transcriber to change the former, which 
 lie supposed to be erroneous, into the latter, which in 
 his judgment was more correct. In many of these 
 places therefore we find various readings, of which 
 one has £k and the other t-v, and we may almost infalli- 
 bly conclude the latter to be interpolated, as the use of 
 cis lor iv is one of the most remarkable peculiarities of 
 the Hellenistic language, m which and not in pure 
 Greek the apostles wrote. 
 
 * Note VII. 
 4* 
 
46 PECULIARITIES OF LANGUAGE. 
 
 But this knowledge of the grammar and general 
 peculiarities of the languages of scripture, is not in all 
 cases sufficient : criticism frequently requires a know- 
 ledge of those nicer peculiarities, which distinguished 
 various writings composed in the same dialect. In 
 other words it is necessary not only to possess a gene- 
 ral acquaintance with the idioms of the Hellenistic 
 and Hebrew languages, but with those also which are 
 peculiar to each particular author, and form the cha- 
 racteristics of his style. 
 
 The variety of these peculiarities in the sacred 
 writers is quite as striking in those who wrote in 
 Hebrew, as it is in those who wrote in Greek. With 
 respect to the former, the length of time wliich sepa- 
 rated some from others must undoubtedly have a 
 bearing on this remarkable variety ; for it is incon- 
 ceivable, that tlie language of the more modern pro- 
 phets should entirely correspond with that of Moses, 
 who preceded them about a thousand years. In those 
 writers also, who were much more nearly coeval the 
 varieties with which the difference of personal cha- 
 racter, of the education and discipline by which each 
 individual was formed, and of the course of thought 
 peculiar to each, must mark their language, are as 
 cleaj-ly exhibited, as in the works of the contemporane- 
 ous authors of the New Testament, in which they force 
 themselves on the attention of the reader. 
 
 The difference between the style of Jeremiah and 
 that of Ezeldel is as remarkable as that between the 
 mode of writing of the apostle Paul and St. John. 
 But still, however often and plainly these varieties 
 present themselves on the whole and in general, it 
 
PECULIARITIES OF LANGUAGE. 47 
 
 requires nmcli more than a grammatical; it requires a 
 very philosophical knowledge of language, to appre- 
 hend tliem in particular cases. 
 
 It is very easy to observe, that one writer has used 
 certain expressions in a different sense from another, 
 or has employed certain expressions oftener than the 
 other ; that the connexions of his own ideas are desig- 
 nated by his own connecting words ; that he has ac- 
 customed himself to certain constructions, inversions, 
 parallehsms, metaphors or other figures of speech ; that 
 he has taken more or less pains with respect to gram- 
 matical correctness, force, brevity, or the harmony and 
 euphony of his style ; and that, consequently, his lan- 
 guage assumes a definite character, which it is impos- 
 sible to mistake. But all these general observations 
 are not sufficient for the use of criticism. It must 
 trace out the reasons of these peculiarities in the parti- 
 cular character of the writer. It must examine, how 
 he has acquired or can have acquired them. It must 
 laboriously apply itself to learn how his language was 
 formed ; and not until then can it draw any sure 
 opinions from these peculiarities, for not until then 
 can It be satisfied, that what it has remarked are not 
 merely incidental varieties of style. 
 
 No other knowledge of language than this deserves 
 the name of critical, and we are fully justified in 
 distinguishing it from that which is merely philo- 
 logical or grammatical, for it must be drawn from 
 sources entirely different from this. But it is self- 
 evident, how much it can and must be employed in 
 the criticism of the sacred scriptures, and how neces- 
 sary it is in that principal subject, the restoration ol 
 
48 COMPARISON OF MANUSCRIPTS. 
 
 the original and genuine readings in interpolated 
 places. 
 
 It IS very often, for instance, the case in those 
 writings, that transcribers, who possessed no such cri- 
 tical knowledge of the characteristic style ol' each 
 autlior. either considered some peculiarity of tlus kind 
 that occurred as an error, and introduced an arbitrary 
 alteration, or undertook to alter the copy, in order to 
 make the place correspond better with another of simi- 
 lar contents, ^vllich dwelt in their recollection, from some 
 other writing. In all such cases, it is evident that 
 nothing can remove the error, but that knowledge of 
 language to the want of which it is alone to be attri- 
 buted. 
 
 But it cannot be denied, that there are innumerable 
 other cases, in which this help is not of itself sufficient. 
 In by far the greatest number, it becomes necessary to 
 connect with it a second, that namely which is offered 
 to criticism by the collation of the different copies of 
 our sacred books which can be procured. This is un- 
 doubtedly the resource in which it is necessary for it 
 most frequently to take refuge : and, in the one depart- 
 ment of its duty, tliis can also with the greatest ease 
 and certainly afford assistance ; but it is necessary to 
 add, that in the second and more important, the aid 
 that must be expected from it, is neither so great nor 
 so much to be relied on as might certainly be wished. 
 
 This comparison of various manuscripts may be 
 employed in the detection of interpolated places, with 
 far more advantage than any other means. So soon 
 as various readings are discovered to exist in various 
 manuscripts, it is decided, that in one or more the text 
 
 A 
 
COMPARISON OF MANUSCRIPTS. 49 
 
 must necessarily have undergone a change. And 
 a^ain, when all agree, an interpolation can hardly 
 be supposed, unless in some word a striking gram- 
 matical error occurs, which is not to be explained 
 by any peculiarity, elsewhere made known to us, of 
 the sacred writer's style. Indeed, in cases of this kind. 
 It is always somewhat doubtful, when no result is pro- 
 duced by the collation of manuscripts ; so that we 
 may almost venture to maintain, that this should never 
 be omitted, if complete certainty is required with respect 
 to an interpolation. 
 
 On the other hand, however, in the correction of 
 mterpolated places, we may very easily promise our- 
 selves more aid from this means of assistance than it 
 is able to afford. 
 
 This inconvenience is principally to be ascribed to 
 the condition, or rather the uncertainty we are in 
 respecting the condition, of most of the manuscripts 
 which we are able to collate. Still, however, notwith- 
 standing all this uncertainty, they are not entirely use- 
 less for that purpose : but to make use of them very 
 many cautions and rules are necessary, which criticism 
 must observe, and conditions, which it must prescribe 
 to itself These rules and conditions cannot always be 
 fully complied with ; and even where this is practica- 
 ble, they do not always at first afford full and sufficient 
 certainty. 
 
 For example : it may be thought, that the genuine 
 reading of a corrupted passage can with sufficient ease 
 and certainty be determined by those which arc found 
 in the most ancient manuscripts, and also in the great- 
 est number. Criticism therefore really assumes it as a 
 
 i 
 
50 COMPARISON OF MANUSCRIPTS. 
 
 principle, that the reading of an older manuscript is 
 generally preferable to that of one which is more 
 modern, and is with greater probability to be regarded 
 as thie original reading ; for- it concludes, and not with- 
 out reason, that the copy which approaches the nearer 
 to the age of the original must contain fewer aberra- 
 tions from it than one more remote, or that the writmg 
 which has passed through fewer hands must have been 
 subjected to fewer changes. And in general this may 
 be perfectly correct. But sometimes this reasoning 
 gives no great satisfaction, for it is only from a certaiti 
 and definite age of a manuscript that this inference can 
 be rightly drawn ; and then, how many exceptions 
 must be allowed ? how many cases must be granted to 
 be possible at least, which again may cast some doubt 
 on the authority of the oldest copy ? 
 
 The most ancient manuscript that we possess can 
 hardly be placed as high as the fifth century,* for many 
 critics would make it still more modern. But if it be 
 as old as that century, and if we have many of equal 
 antiquity, they are still four hundred years removed 
 from the autographs. In this course of time numer- 
 ous corruptions may have taken place, and thus it may 
 even be doubtful, whether, in comparing them with 
 more modern manuscripts, a very great degree of im- 
 portance should be attached to their antiquity. 
 
 It is possible that a manuscript, which is two or 
 three centuries later, one for instance of the seventh 
 or eighth century, might be copied from another of 
 still higher antiquity than the Alexandrine ; for it may 
 certainly be conceived, that in the seventh or eighth 
 • Note VIII. 
 
 I 
 
COMPARISON OF MANUSCRIPTS. 51. 
 
 century a manuscript of the third may have been 
 somewhere concealed. In this case then the regard 
 due to antiquity must not be determined in favor of 
 the manuscript written in the fifth century, but of that 
 which belongs to the seventh. 
 
 But should it even be supposed, that we are in 
 possession of a manuscript written in the third or 
 indeed in the second century ; can criticism venture to 
 consider its age alone as a sufficient reason for conclud- 
 uig with confidence that all its readings correspond with 
 the original ? If the copy were made by an ignorant, 
 inattentive, negligent transcriber, and certainly there 
 were such in the second and third centuries as well as 
 in tlie seventh and eighth, its high antiquity would not 
 benefit us. Other remarks, therefore, to prove the accu- 
 racy of a manuscript, must certainly be added to those, 
 l^fore we can decide upon its genuineness from its 
 antiquity. 
 
 More easily still may we deceive ourselves, and to 
 much greater danger of error shall we be exposed, if we 
 determine the genuineness of a reading by the greater 
 or less number of the manuscripts which contain it, 
 and consequently found our decisions upon the agree- 
 ment of many against a few. 
 
 The reason why the same reading is found in 
 many manuscripts may be this, that they were copied 
 from each other, or that they are all copies of some 
 more ancient manuscript used in common. In this 
 case, they can have altogetlier no more than one voice, 
 for altogether they prove nothing more than this ; that 
 the one manuscript from which they were all copied 
 contained the reading in question. 
 
52 CLASSIFICATION OF MANUSCRIPTS. 
 
 But frequently a reading may also have been in- 
 troduced into many copies, on this account, because its 
 very character recommended it in the same way to 
 mauy transcribers. 
 
 Thus a suspicion of its genuineness may often be 
 excited ; for it was frequently the case, that they suf- 
 fered themselves to be led astray, by plausible reasons, 
 to regard the genuine reading as interpolated, and to 
 introduce in its place another which they supposed to 
 be preferable. 
 
 In consequence of these circumstances, criticism, 
 very pmdently, has always subjoined limitations to the 
 law, which determines the correctness of a reading by 
 the majority of the manuscripts in wliich it is contained- 
 It grants no more than this, that a majority of those 
 manuscripts, which can be fully proved to have arisen 
 from different original sources, or, in the language of 
 modern criticism, that are of different recensions, can 
 determine any thing on this subject. If it can be 
 shown, for instance, that a manuscript, which was 
 copied at Constantinople, agrees, as to a particular 
 reading, with another made in Egypt, and also with a 
 third derived from the west, then surely a probable 
 conclusion may be drawn in favor of the genuineness 
 of that reading ; for all the presumptions for this conclu- 
 sion are, that the manuscripts belong to different families, 
 and all against it, that, in manuscripts altogether dis- 
 tinct from each other, a passage might be interpolated 
 in exactly the same way. 
 
 Yet, however iiscfi.il to criticism this view of the 
 derivation of manuscripts may be, and this distribution 
 of them into certain classes, which is undoubtedly 
 
RECENSION OF MANUSCRIPTS. 53 
 
 necessary, it will always involve a multitude of diffi- 
 culties, which must naturally modify in a great degree 
 its utility. By means of the most laborious researches, 
 the latest efforts of criticism have resulted in the conclu- 
 sion, that most of the manuscripts which we possess 
 belong to three families, or may be traced to three 
 recensions, the diversity of which cannot be doubted. 
 An Alexandrine, a Constantinopolitan, and a Western 
 copy, may have been the originals of all the manu- 
 scripts, amounting to some hundreds, which we have 
 of the writings of the New Testament. Another re- 
 cension, arising from Asia, may perhaps be added, to 
 these ; but here, in too many individual manuscripts, it 
 is exceedingly difficult to determine to what class they 
 belong, since very frequently they bear the family marks 
 of several* 
 
 But while this subject is unsettled, our conclusions 
 must be proportionably insecure, since, as was before 
 said, we have scarcely any manuscript more ancient 
 than the sixth century ; and consequently, it is upon 
 the whole quite certain, that the collation of manu- 
 scripts can render criticism a service much more to be 
 relied on, in the discovery of interpolations, than in re- 
 storing the genuine readings. 
 
 Sometimes indeed it is happily the case, that these 
 may be ascertained, with the highest degree of proba- 
 bility, from the others. When the manner of a tran- 
 scriber is thoroughly known, it occasionally and indeed 
 often happens, that the mere shape of a letter, the position 
 of a line, the form of a mark of abbreviation, the similar 
 
 * This subject of recensions will come under consideration sub- 
 sequently in a note. Tr. 
 
 5 
 
54 USE OP THE VERSIONS. 
 
 sounds of some words, the necessity of a division of 
 a word, and several minor circumstances of this kind, 
 enable us to conjecture with confidence, how the 
 genuine reading became changed in the hand of a 
 copyist. In this way, many discoveries, which are 
 certainly not unimportant, have already been made ; 
 but it must freely be confessed that, in this way, all 
 has not been gained that could be wished, and which, 
 considering the prodigious degree of learning and 
 labor which has already been exhausted, we are doubly 
 tempted to wish for. 
 
 Yet this learning and labor are not to be regretted, 
 since assistance of this kind is absolutely necessary for 
 criticism. And, on the other hand, it cannot be doubted, 
 that the advantage, in correcting the sacred text, which 
 criticism might draw from the collation of manuscripts, 
 would be still more equivocal, unless it were able to 
 add also a third means, which is particularly well 
 adapted to try the genuineness of the benefit, which 
 may be derived from the collation of the manuscripts. 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 The third means just referred to is afforded by the 
 versions of the sacred scriptures. These, as we have 
 seen, are very important in reference to an acquaint- 
 ance with the languages in which they were written, 
 but they may almost be said to be even more so in 
 reference to criticism. There is one circumstance, 
 especially, which makes them so highly useful, although 
 it must be allowed that it is applicable exclusively to 
 the New Testament. 
 
USE OF THE VERSIONS. 55 
 
 Some of the versions which we have of it are con- 
 siderably older than all our manuscripts. The Syriac, 
 for example, belongs most probably to the second cen- 
 tury. The fragments of the old Latin versions, which 
 are frequently comprehended under the name of Italic, 
 cannot be much later. The Gothic of Ulphilas was 
 made in the fourth century, and of course what remains 
 of it is of the same age ; and of the Arabic versions in 
 our possession, one at least is certainly of very high 
 antiquity. 
 
 The importance of this circumstance is extremely 
 evident. In all cases it may be presumed, that these 
 translations were made from manuscripts, which at the 
 time were not entirely new ; and therefore the £ige of 
 some may have almost reached that of the autographs. 
 Consequently, whenever it can be determined, from one 
 of these versions, what was the reading of the manu- 
 script from which the version was made, its antiquity 
 gives it an authority vastly superior to that which any 
 manuscript now existing can claim. 
 
 That the readings of those manuscripts may often 
 be learned from the versions with the greatest certainty, 
 and how this information may be obtained from them, 
 is self-evident ; but it may also be remarked, that the 
 advantage afforded in such cases is the more important, 
 since, in the nature of the thing, it can scarcely ever 
 exist except in weighty and important variations. 
 
 In most of those insignificant changes of reading, 
 where the whole difference often lies merely in the 
 omission of an article, the transposition of a word, or 
 the alteration of the tense of a verb, it is certainly not 
 easy to conjecture from the versions what the reading 
 
56 dUOTATlONS IN THE FATHERS. 
 
 may have been iii the manuscript used by the trans- 
 lator. But in such cases as affect whole words com- 
 muted, phrases omitted or interpolated, or even sen- 
 tences and whole periods rejected, the conclusions to be 
 drawn from the versions are necessarily as determmate 
 as they are certain. In such cases, the reading given 
 in the version, may with confidence be regarded as the 
 reading of the manuscript, and the authority of this 
 manuscript may often with sufficient certainty be con- 
 sidered as decisive, if it can only be strengthened by 
 some evidence of probability of an internal kind. 
 
 Nevertheless, we see very plainly, that even in 
 applying this means, and in drawing conclusions from 
 the versions, very great caution is required ; that it is 
 necessary to have formed a previous acquamtance with 
 the spirit of each version ; that we must be thoroughly 
 satisfied on tliis most important point, whether it were 
 made from some other version or from the original ; 
 and then, that we also make all possible allowance for 
 errors of the translator. It is quite evident, that by 
 proceeding in this manner, bringing out these errors 
 and applying these cautions, we may promise ourselves 
 the more advantage from the use of this help in criti- 
 cism. 
 
 This is undoubtedly not the case with the fourth and 
 last means, which criticism may employ. This is to 
 be found in the works of the early fathers, and in gen- 
 eral of all the older ecclesiastical writers who made 
 some use of the Bible. 
 
 It is by no means necessary in this work to explain 
 m what manner, and to what purpose, and under what 
 circumstances, criticism can avail itself of those works. 
 
aUOTATIONS IN THE FATHERS. 57 
 
 They contain a multitude of literal quotations from 
 the scriptures. When cases occur, in which the cita- 
 tions differ from the passages as tliey stand in our 
 present text and in some manuscripts, a conjecture 
 arises, that the copy used by the author may have con- 
 tained a different reading, and thus the suspicion of an 
 interpolation is produced. But certainty can never 
 result from this source ; indeed it will scarcely justify 
 conjecture and suspicion. We are never certain 
 whether the ancient author transcribed the quoted pas- 
 sage literally from his copy, or, as was very possible 
 and in fact was very often done, trusted merely to 
 his memory ; and consequently we are never certain 
 whether the alteration, from which we might conjec- 
 ture a various reading to have existed, had taken place 
 in his copy or in his memory. 
 
 Yet there are particular cases or interpolations 
 which by means of this assistance, can be discovered 
 with sufficient certainty. When, for instance, a place 
 is interpolated by the introduction of a supposititious 
 clause, the works of the ancient fathers will sometimes 
 enable us to infer with tolerable correctness, not only 
 the spuriousness of the clause, but also the time when 
 it may have been casually introduced into the text. 
 If the place is quoted by many and various writers 
 uniformly without the addition, this is a certain proof 
 that it was added by some later hand. The hist quota- 
 tion, therefore, in which it occurs, affords grounds for 
 conjecturing when and where the interpolation was first 
 casually made. 
 
 Thus, for example, it may be considered as one of 
 
 the most important collateral proofs of the spurious- 
 
 5* 
 
58 QUOTATIONS IN THE FATHERS. 
 
 ness of 1 John v. 7, that no Greek father even to the 
 fourth centuiy seems to have been acquainted with it, 
 as It is cited by none for a considerable time after the 
 breaking out of the Arian controversies ; while, on the 
 other hand, the earlier use which was made of it by 
 Latin fathers places it almost beyond doubt, that the 
 interpolation was first made in Latin copies, and from 
 these introduced into Greek.* 
 
 From this example it is also exceedingly evident, 
 that the conjectures which by these means are afforded 
 to criticism, it may expect for the most part to be able 
 to strenffthen on other grounds both external and in- 
 ternal ; for in the text just referred to, both the contents 
 of the supposititious passage, and the circumstance 
 that it is not to be found in any ancient Greek manu- 
 script, afford more than one weighty reason to confirm 
 the conjecture, that it may have been first introduced 
 into the Latin copies. Hence then the degree of util- 
 ity which can be afibrdcd by this help to criticism, 
 may also be determined with sufficient accuracy. In 
 connexion with the others it can supply criticism with 
 many very valuable results, but independently the data 
 which it aftbrds are exceedingly uncertain. 
 
 What liEis been said may be sufficient to give a 
 clear idea of what the object and application of sacred 
 criticism particularly are ; for along with the sketch of 
 tbe means which alone, from its nature it can employ 
 in attaining its objects, must the character of these 
 objects be most perspicuously exhibited. 
 
 • Note IX. 
 
HISTORY OF SACRED PHILOLOGY. 59 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 In giving an account of the literary helps which 
 may be used in the study of criticism and of sacred 
 philology in general, in proportion as it might be neces- 
 sary to go into particulars, would it be easy to antici- 
 pate the great advantages that we might expect to 
 derive from them. It will be useful, however, first to 
 give a brief general view of the history of this branch 
 of theological literature, in order the better to prepare 
 the reader for marking, from the succession of ages in 
 which the principal works on the subject have ap- 
 peared, the particular periods of its progress, and its 
 gradually improved condition. 
 
 With tlie exception of the labors wliich Origen, 
 in his Hexapla bestowed on the philology and criticism 
 of the Old Testament, and those which Jerome 
 applied to the latter, in his Latin version of the Bible, 
 the works of the ancient fathers, scarcely furnish any 
 thing, by which the one or the other had been inten- 
 tionally and directly advanced by them.* 
 
 Except a few individuals, as Theodore of Mopsu- 
 estia, Isidore of Pelusium, Theodoret and some 
 others, they were not only exceedingly destitute of a 
 learned acquaintance with language, particularly the 
 Hebrew; but, which was still more to be lamented, 
 they had no conception of the necessity of accurate 
 acquaintance with this subject, for the purposes of 
 correct interpretation. 
 
 In the middle ages all learned acquaintance with 
 languages was entirely lost. In consequence of the total 
 
 * Note X. 
 
60 HISTORY OF SACRED PHILOLOGY. 
 
 ig:norance which prevailed on this subject, a great 
 number of the orrossest philological errors, which had 
 gradually crept into what was called the Vulgate, that 
 IS, the Latin version which was exclusively used in the 
 church, were not observed. Yet afterwards, at the 
 revival of learning in the sixteenth century, this very 
 state of things afforded the immediate occasion for 
 some of its most distinguished restorers to apply their 
 industry to this altogether uncultivated field, and to 
 endeavor to excite a renewed attention to the study 
 of tlie orimnal languages of the Bible. 
 
 This was first done with respect to the Hebrew 
 by the celebrated John Reuchlin, and by the more 
 celebrated Erasmus of Rotterdam with respect to the 
 Greek, and with a zeal and success, which alone must 
 have made their names immortal, if they had per- 
 formed no other services in the cause of literature. 
 
 Erasmus felt the necessity of treating the text of 
 the Bible in a critical manner ; he had even come to 
 the conclusion that for this purpose different manu- 
 scripts must be compared, and their various readings 
 collected ; he did this himself in relation to the New 
 Testament as far as he could in his time ; and thus he 
 opened the way to criticism which was soon afterwards 
 pursued still farther by Beza, the two learned brothers, 
 Robert and Henry Stephens, and some other 
 scholars. 
 
 This last discovery was almost too great for the age 
 of Erasmus. On account of the zeal with which he 
 recommended to divines the knowledge and study of 
 the original languages of the Bible, he met with abund- 
 ance of hostile treatment. Neither he, nor the two 
 
HISTORY OF SACRED PHILOLOGY. 61 
 
 Stephenses, nor even the example of the great promoter 
 of the Complutensian Polyglot, was able to awaken a 
 feeling only somewhat general in favor of criticism. 
 But still, learning in languages flourished again in full 
 bloom from their age ; although some time was allowed 
 to elapse before sacred philology derived from it a real 
 advantage. 
 
 Very much on this subject was effected by the ex- 
 ample of Melancthon and Luther, who applied them- 
 selves to it with the most ardent zeal, and consequently 
 became qualified to offer to the German nation the 
 most beneficial of all presents, in Luther's translation 
 of the Bible. But more efficacious than the example 
 and the exhortations of Luther and Melancthon, was 
 the necessity, wliich soon pressed upon the divines 
 of the newly established church, to defend themselves 
 against the supporters of the old system, or the desire 
 of being distinguished in all respects from them ; 
 so that by their means an acquaintance with the 
 original languag'es was soon considered as an indis- 
 pensable requisite of a learned divine. 
 
 Greek and Hebrew studies were now pursued with 
 great ardor by the Protestants, and were also employed 
 with peculiar zeal in making known to the Roman 
 Catholics numerous errors in their Vulgate. But for 
 the more accurate study of the Hebrew their helps 
 were too limited ; and with respect to the Greek, they 
 lost but too soon the proper track which had been first 
 pursued, and consequently missed entirely the right path, 
 which had otherwise been found with so much facility. 
 
 Erasmus and Melancthon had proceeded with the 
 study of the pure Greek, of the genuine ancient Greek 
 
OB HISTORY OF SACRED PHILOLOGY. 
 
 classics, and this they had earnestly recommended to 
 their contemporaries. Had this course been persisted 
 in, it would soon have been discovered, that the lan- 
 guage of the New Testament has peculiarities which 
 must have been introduced from another source than 
 that, and also that another was required for its illustra- 
 tion. But the whole direction which the spirit of the- 
 ology had taken at the end of the sixteenth century, 
 and which was introduced in the following, was neces- 
 sarily unfavorable in the highest degree to this disco- 
 very. Exegetical theology was unhappily altogether 
 subjected to the yoke of doctrinal and polemic divinity. 
 It did not venture to look any farther than within 
 the bounds which these prescribed to it ; and there- 
 fore even the grammar of the languages of scripture 
 was studied with constant reference to them. The 
 prevailing system of divinity imposed laws on sacred 
 philology which it was obliged to respect, and which 
 in fact were respected with such obsequious timidity, 
 that it allowed itself even to imagine the Greek style, 
 defended by the advocates of pure doctrinal theology, to 
 be the only ancient and genuine idiom, and it even de- 
 clared it impious merely to doubt whether the Apos- 
 tles had always written in pure Greek. 
 
 This was attended with an unfortunate conse- 
 quence. It soon became the prevailing disposition to 
 learn Greek from their writings alone ; and it was 
 said to be learned, when, in determining the significa- 
 tion of their expressions, nothing more was regarded 
 than the convenience which might thereby result, or 
 which had long ago resulted to doctrinal theology. 
 The unavoidable consequences of such a course are 
 
HISTORY OF SACRED PHILOLOGY. 63 
 
 shown, even in a stronger light than was absolutely 
 necessary, by the whole state of theological literature 
 in the preceding century. 
 
 Iq order gradually to bring the subject into its right 
 course, it was therefore very suitable and proper, that 
 in our own age a commencement should again be 
 made to illustrate the Greek of the New Testament 
 from the Greek of the old profane writers, and to ob- 
 serve the advantages which the study of these can af- 
 ^* ford : for this most immediately prepared the way for the 
 direction, which the philological study of the New Tes- 
 tament has taken among us during the last thirty years. 
 
 The new acquaintance with the genuine Greek 
 idiom at last produced the conviction, that the lan- 
 guage of the New Testament is not entirely classical, 
 and therefore, that other sources besides the pure Greek 
 writers must be required to explain it. More readily 
 still were these sources found in the Septuagint transla- 
 lion, in the writings of Philo, and in the oriental lan- 
 guages ; and as these sources were made purer and 
 more useful, by the industry of many learned men who 
 successively applied their labors to them, and at the 
 same time also the study of oriental literature was 
 carried incomparably farther than it had ever been 
 before, by the application of Erpenius, Schultens, 
 Reiske, Michaelis and others, it was very natural that 
 sacred philology should soon assume among us a per- 
 fectly new form. 
 
 With still greater reason may sacred criticism be 
 considered as literature of our age and altos:ether new. 
 Richard Simon indeed,* the great man who may be 
 
 • Note XI. 
 
64* HISTORY OF SACRED PHILOLOGY. 
 
 allowed to occupy a most distinguished place among 
 those who brought it to light, had previously made his 
 appearance. Capel also had preceded him. But the 
 treatment to which these men were subjected, the al- 
 most universal cry of heresy with which they were 
 received, and the real persecution which rewarded their 
 labors, too clearly prove the incompetency of their age 
 even to judge of their discoveries, to say nothing of 
 making use of them. 
 
 What they had said of the necessity of a critical 
 examination of the original Greek and Hebrew 
 texts was almost considered as blasphemy, since in- 
 deed this was to question their genuineness. Thus, 
 instead of applying themselves carefully to ascertain 
 the means by which criticism could be placed in a 
 condition to discover and correct the errors that had 
 crept into the text, the object almost universally 
 aimed at was, to prove that no correction was ne- 
 cessary. 
 
 The lisfht against which men had hitherto closed 
 their eyes was first in our age admitted, in succession 
 by Mill. Wetstein and Bengel. They investigated the 
 sources, some of which had already been opened by 
 Simon, and by the use which they made of them they 
 proved, not only that criticism was harmless, but that it 
 can be made beneficial in proportion as it is necessary : 
 although the pious Bengel himself was forced to listen 
 to many a bitter reproach or account of the bold auda- 
 city with which, as it was thought, he treated the Bible.* 
 The labors, in our own age, of Michaelis, Griesbach, 
 Matthsei, in the criticism of the New Testament, and 
 
 * Note XII. 
 
HELLENISTIC CONTROVERSY. 65 
 
 of Hoiibigant, Kennicott, De Rossi, in that of the Old, 
 are well known. 
 
 This brief outline of the history of tlie different 
 treatment which the several branches of literature that 
 belong to sacred philology met with, will enable the 
 reader to form some judgment respecting the different 
 value and utility of the principal literary works relating 
 to the subject. These I shall now proceed to state, in 
 the order of time in which they appeared, confining tlie 
 .selection however to the more important and remark- 
 able. It will also be necessary to separate from each 
 other, those which belong to the knowledge of the 
 Greek and Hebrew languages, and also those in which 
 the labors of criticism in relation to the Old and New 
 Testaments are contained. Thus the valuable helps 
 in each of these departments, afforded by the collec- 
 tions of the learned, can the more easily be perceived, 
 from the improved order in which they are arranged. 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 With respect to the philological knowledge of our 
 Greek text, it is proper, in the lii'st place, to give some 
 account of the discussions and controversies, which 
 were carried on in the last century and ])artly also in 
 our own, respecting this important question : Is the 
 language of the New Testament pure Greek or Helle- 
 nistic — a pure Greek dialect or one corrupted with 
 Hebraisms and Chaldaisms ? 
 
 In the sixteenth century Erasmus and Laurenlins 
 Valla had not only intimated, but plainly enough 
 asserted and also proved the latter opinion by variour 
 
 6 
 
66 
 
 HELLENISTIC CONTROVERSY. 
 
 arguments. Many of the best scholars of their time 
 had also very willingly embraced their opinion on the 
 subject, when Henry Stephens, in the preface to his 
 edition of the New Testament printed in 1576, under- 
 took to oppose them, and to prove that the Greek of the 
 New Testament was pure. This first induced divines 
 to pay attention to the different opinions held on this 
 subject ; yet it never assumed the form of a controversy, 
 until the signal was given by Sebastian Pfochen 
 in the following work. 
 
 Diatribe de linguae Grsecae Novi Testamenti puri- 
 tate, ubi quam plurimis, qui vulgo finguntur. Ebraismis 
 larva detrahitur, et profanes quoque ductores ita esse 
 locutos ad oculum demonstratur, Amstel. 1629. 
 
 The warmth, evident from the very title, with 
 which Pfochen defended in this work the pure Greek 
 idiom of the New Testament, excited in Holland as 
 well as in Germany many learned men to espouse the 
 opposite side of the question. But again this roused the 
 disposition of others to maintain what they conceived 
 to be the truth, or else confirmed their obstinacy, so 
 that they defended with equal earnestness the positions 
 of Pfochen. Hence a literary war arose which con- 
 tinued even in our own century. 
 
 In 1639, Joachim Jung pubUshed in Germany his 
 SententisB doctissimorum quorundam virorum — de 
 Hellenistis et Hellenistica dialecto, in which he proved 
 against Pfochen, that the Greek of the New Testa- 
 ment is Hellenistic. But in the very next year he 
 was opposed by Jacob Grosse at Jena with a Trias 
 propositionum theologorum stilum Novi Testamenti a 
 barbaris criminationibus vindicantium, where he 
 
HELLENISTIC CONTROVERSY. 67 
 
 represented all defenders of the Hellenistic idiom as 
 hateful heretics. 
 
 In the same year therefore, Daniel Wulfer wrote 
 a vindication of them : Innocentia Hellenistarum 
 vnidicata. But now Grosse directed against him his 
 Observationes pro triade observationum — apologeticae ; 
 and as the amiable and learned John Mus^us, in a 
 Disquisitio de Stilo Novi Testamenti, which he pub- 
 lished in 1641, did not altogether declare himself in 
 his favor, he attacked this good man so severely in a 
 Tertia defensio triados, which came out at Hamburg, 
 in 1641, that Musaeus found himself compelled to pub- 
 lish in 1642, Vindiciae disquisitionis de stilo Novi Testa- 
 menti, Even this did not impose silence on Grosse, 
 who sent into the world a fourth defence of his Trias, 
 which was published at Hamburg in 1642. 
 
 At this time also the controversy was first agitated 
 in Holland. Here the celebrated Daniel Heinsius had 
 already, on several occasions, (as in his Aristarchus 
 sacer. and in the preface to his Exercitationes sacrae in 
 Novum Testamentum,) opposed the sentiments of 
 Pfochen respecting the purity of the Greek in the New 
 Testament ; but now he did so at large and intention- 
 ally in an express Exercitatio de lingua Hellenistica, 
 which in 1643 he published at Leyden. On the other 
 hand, the no less celebrated Salmasius published, in 
 reply to him, not less than three controversial works 
 that same year, the contents and character of which 
 are easily recognized from their titles. That of the first 
 is: Salmasii Hellenistica — sive commentarius con- 
 troversiam de lingua Hellenistica decidens ; of the 
 second : Funus linguae Hellenisticae, sive Confutatio 
 
W HELLENISTIC CONTROVERSY. 
 
 exercitationis de lingua Hellenistica : and of the third : 
 Ossilegium hngiise Hellenisticae, sive Appendix ad 
 confutationem, (fee. 
 
 In a short time many scholars of other countries 
 took part in the controversy. Thomas Gataker of 
 England, in a Dissertatio de stilo Novi Instrumenti. 
 Lond. 1648, defended witli much warmth the party 
 and opinion of the Hellenists. In Switzerland this was 
 done principally by Samuel Werenfels, in a treatise 
 de stilo scriptorum Novi Testamenti, and among our 
 own divines by John Olearius in a work de stilo 
 Novi Testamenti, and by Henry Boeckler in a 
 treatise : de lingua Novi Testamenti originali. But 
 even in Holland, after the first combatants had left the 
 arena, the controversy was carried on by John Vors- 
 Tins as its principal conductor, in his Philologia sacra 
 — de Hebraismis Novi Testamenti, Leyden, 1658, to 
 which in 1665 he published a second part, under the 
 title : Commentarius de Hebraismis Novi Testamenti,* 
 after Horace Vitringa had attacked the first in a 
 publication entitled : Specimen annotationum ad philo- 
 logiam sacram Vorstii. 
 
 In order to give posterity a correct view of the 
 proceedings of this memorable controversy, two learned 
 men, in the beginning of the present century, made 
 with great care a collection of the most important 
 works already cited, and of others also which had 
 appeared on the subject : namely, Jacob Rheinferd. 
 in his Syntagma dissertationum philologico theologi- 
 carum de stilo Novi Testamenti, Loewarden, 1703, and 
 
 * The best edition of this work is that of Fischer, published at 
 Leipzig, in 8vo, 1778. Tr. 
 
HELLENISTIC CONTROVERSY. 69 
 
 Van uer Honert, in another work, which under the 
 same title he pubhshed in the same year at Amsterdam. 
 Some other learned men, as John Henry Michaelis, 
 and Blackwall of England, the latter in his Sacred 
 classics defended and illustrated, Lond. 1727, and the 
 former in a treatise de textu Novi Testament! Graeco, 
 Halas, 1707, endeavored to f)roduce an accommodation » 
 by proposing to the contending parties, that the one 
 should acknowledge the Hebraisms by which the Greek 
 of the New Testament was designated, and the other, 
 notwithstanding its Hebraisms, should allow the style 
 of it to be considered as pure. And in this way they 
 would gradually have approached each other, had not 
 Christian SicxIsmond Georgi at Wittemberg given 
 new life to the controversy. 
 
 This zealot for the purity of the style of scripture 
 published in 1732, Vindiciae Novi Testament! ab Ebra- 
 ismis in three books, against which some Leipzig 
 scholars, as Drs. Knapp and Dressing, maintained 
 the opinion of the Hellenists. Immediately ' in 1733 
 a new work of Georgi made its appearance under the 
 title : Hierocriticus sacer — sive de stilo Novi Testa- 
 men ti. This also was in three books, and in the end 
 of the year a second part, comprehending as many 
 more, came out. They were answered again by the 
 Leipzig critics. After this no one took up the contro- 
 versy. The Hellenists maintained the superiority ; 
 and as the further cultivation which the philology of 
 the New Testament received, proceeded in general 
 upon the supposition which they had contended for, 
 their opinion made far greater progress in a short time 
 than it had previously made for ages. 
 
70 SOURCES TO ILLUSTRATE THE 
 
 Attention was now paid to the chief source from 
 which the lano^uag-e of the New Testament could 
 receive the greatest degree of illustration, the Septua- 
 gint version. As early as the year 1715, John Henry 
 Michael IS had published a treatise de usu Septua- 
 ginta interpretum in Novo Testamento, containing for 
 its age a number of most valuable hints. Soon after- 
 wards, many of the learned began to make this version 
 more serviceable, by publishing critical and improved 
 editions of it. In 1707 — 1720, John Ernest Grabe 
 printed at Oxford an edition corrected according to the 
 most ancient manuscripts, and this was again published 
 at Zurich in 1730 — 1732 in four volumes 4to, by 
 John Jacob Breitinger. This is justly preferred 
 to all others ; only, with the translation which it 
 contains of the prophet Daniel, which is not the 
 version of the Septuagint but of Theodotion, it is 
 necessary to compare that which was first made 
 public at Rome in 1772, folio, under the title: 
 Daniel, secundum Septuaginta, and in 1773 was 
 reprinted at Goettingen according to the Roman 
 edition. 
 
 From this period even to our own times, many 
 learned nien applied themselves, with the more earnest- 
 ness, to facilitate the use of this translation, and to 
 make it more general and extensive, by means of 
 historical, literary and philological explanations; al- 
 though in fact this had been done, not without success, 
 by some older writers of the preceding century. 
 Among the earlier and among the more modern works 
 of this kind, the following may perhaps be pointed out 
 as of most utility. 
 
LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. /I 
 
 Jac. Usserii Syntagma de Graeca Septuaginta in- 
 terpretiim versione. Lips. 1695. 
 
 Isaac. Vossii Dissertationesde LXX interpretibus, 
 eorumque translatione et chronologia. Hag. Com. 1661. 
 
 Ant. Van Dale, Commentatio super Aristeam 
 de LXX interpretibus. Amstelod. 1705. 
 
 Jo. Ernest Grabe, Dissertatio de vitiis versioni 
 LXX ante Originis aevum illatis. Oxon. 1710. 
 
 J. M. Hassencamp, Dissertatio de Pentateucho 
 LXX interpretum Graeco non ex Ebraeo sed ex Sama- 
 ritano textu converso. Marpurg. 1765. 
 
 John David Michaelis, Program of his course 
 of college lectures on the seventy interpreters. Goetting. 
 1767. 
 
 Claud. Hornemann, Specimen exercitationum cri- 
 ticarum in versionem LXX ex Philone. HafiiiaB, 
 1776. 
 
 But the actual application of this version in the 
 philology of the New Testament was principally faci- 
 htated by means of two works, about half a century 
 removed from each other, both of which are very ex- 
 cellent of their kind, and foT the learned interpreter al- 
 together indispensable. The older of the two is : Abra- 
 ham Tromii Concordantiae Grseca3 versionis LXX 
 intei-pretum, Amstel. 1718, folio ; and the more mo- 
 dem : Jo. Christ. Biel Novus thesaurus philologicus, 
 sive lexicon in LXX et alios interpretes et scriptores 
 apocryphos Veteris Testamcnti. Ex auctoris manu- 
 cripto edidit et prsefatus est E. H. Mutzenbecher. 
 Vol. iii. Hag. Com. 1779—1781, 8vo. To this last 
 work Dr. J. F. Schleusner has made very valuable 
 additions, in two collections which he has published 
 
72 SOURCES TO ILLUSTRATE THE 
 
 With the title : Spicilegia lexici in Septuaginta post 
 BieUiim. Lips. 1784, 1786.* 
 
 In addition to these principal sources of assistance 
 ni acquiring an easier and more correct acquaintance 
 with the language of the New Testament, there are 
 also other works, which contain collections of what is 
 useful for this purpose, derived from the sources already 
 mentioned, on the one side from pure Greek, and on 
 the other from oriental. 
 
 As the characteristic of this language consists in its 
 intermixture with Hebraisms, Chaldaisms, and such 
 modes of speech as the Jews had long been in the habit 
 of using to express certain religious ideas, very much 
 depends of course upon acquiring a knowledge of these, 
 for which purpose the most ample collections are to be 
 found in the following works. 
 
 JoHAN. LiGHTFOoT, HorsB HebraicgB et Chaldaicae 
 in quatuor Evangelistas, Acta Apostol. — separat. ed. a 
 Bened. Carpzov. Lips. 1684.t 
 
 Christ. Schoettgenii Horae Hebraicae et Tal- 
 mudicae in universum Novum Testamentum. Vol. ii. 
 Dresd. 1733, 1744. 4to. 
 
 Gerh. Meuschenii Novum Testamentum ex Tal- 
 mude et Antiquitatibus Hebraicis illustratum. Lips. 
 1736. 
 
 John Gill's Exposition of the New Testament, 
 with notes taken from the most ancient Jewish wri- 
 tings. Lond. 1746 — 1748. Vol. iii. folio. 
 
 * Note XIII. 
 t All the works of Lightfoot, comprehending of course his Ho- 
 riE, were published in English in two large folio volumes, in London 
 in 1684. A new edition in several volumes 8vo, has recently ap- 
 peared. Tr. 
 
 I 
 
LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 73 
 
 JoHAN. Bened. Carpzovii Exercitationes sacrae 
 in epistolam Pauli ad Hebraeos ex Philone Alexan- 
 drino Helmstad. 1750. 
 
 JoHAN. ToB. Krebs, Observationcs in Novum 
 Testamentum ex Flavio Josepho. Lips. 1755. 
 
 Those illustrations which are drawn from pure 
 Greek writers to illustrate the dialect of the New 
 Testament, are brought together principally in the fol- 
 io wma: works. 
 
 Georg. Raphelii Annotationes in Novum Testa- 
 mentum ex Xenophonte coUectae. Hamb. 1720, ed. 
 secund. — By the same author : Annotationes in Novum 
 Testamentum ex Polybio et Arriano coUectee, ib. 
 1715 ; — and Annotationes philologicas in Novum 
 Testamentum ex Herodoto collecta3. Luenenburg, 
 1731. 
 
 JoHAN. Henr. Von Seelen, Specimen observa- 
 tionum ad loca Novi Testamenti — ex Pliitarchi libro 
 de institutione puerorum. Lubec. 1719. 
 
 Lamb. Bos, DiatribaB, sive exercitationes philolo- 
 giccB, in quibus Novi Testamenti loca qua?dam ex 
 profanis auctoribus illustrantur. Franecker, 1700. 
 
 Ge. Guil. Kirchmeyer, Dissertatio de parallelis- 
 mo Polybii et Novi Testamenti ratione dictionis. Wit- 
 teberg. 1725. 
 
 JoHAN. Alberti, Observationes philologicas in No- 
 vum Testamentum. Lugd. Batav. 1725. 
 
 Jac. Elsneri, Observationes sacraB in Novi Testa- 
 menti libros, quibus plurima illorum loca ex auctoribus 
 Graecis et antiquitate exponuntur et illustrantur. Tra- 
 jecti, 1728. 
 
 Car. Henr. Langii Observationes philologicse in 
 
,74 SOURCES TO ILLUSTRATE THE 
 
 Novum Testa meutum ex Luciano potissimum et Dio- 
 nysio Halicarn. Lubec. 1732; — also, by the same 
 author : Observationes in Novum Testamentum ex 
 Euripide. lb. 1734. 
 
 Ge. Dav. Kypke, Observationes sacrae in hbros 
 Novi Testamenti, ex auctoribus potissimum Graecis et 
 antiquitate. Wratisl. 1 7.52. 
 
 Eli AS Palairet, Observationes philologico-criticaR 
 m sacros Novi Testamenti Ubros, quorum phirima loca 
 ex auctoribus Graecis illustrantur, vindicantur et expo- 
 nuntur. Lugd. Batav. 1752. 
 
 Casp. Frid. Munthe, Observationes philologicae 
 in sacros Novi Testamenti Ubros ex Diodoro Siculo 
 collectae. Havniae, 1755. 
 
 Frid. Lud. Abresch, Dilucidationes Thucydideae, 
 in quibus passim Novi Testamenti loca illustrantur. 
 Trajecti, 1755.* 
 
 But all illustrations of the language of the New 
 Testament, collected together from all the sources, may 
 be found in the greatest completeness in the most recent 
 work of this kind : J. F. Schleusneri Lexicon Graeco- 
 Latinum in Novum Testamentum. Tom. li. Lips. 
 1792. Svo.t 
 
 chapter IX. 
 
 The helps to facilitate an acquaintance with the 
 original language of the Old Testament, may very 
 properly be comprised in three classes. 
 
 First, sources from which the original knowledge 
 of the language of the Hebrew Bible must be drawn, 
 
 • Note XIV. t Note XV. 
 
LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 75 
 
 including also such works as contain directions for the 
 use of those sources. 
 
 Secondly, writings wherein the knowledge drawn 
 from those sources is collected together and arranged, 
 as Grammars, Lexicons, Concordances, and Collections 
 of idioms of the language. 
 
 Thirdly, we may add, those particular works, which 
 illustrate by philological observations the language of 
 separate books or single passages of the Old Testament. 
 
 I. With respect to the first class of these works, it has 
 already been shown, that the versions which we possess 
 of the Old Testament, in the Greek and oriental lan- 
 guages, are the principal sources, and almost the only 
 sources, for understanding the Hebrew, which as a 
 living language exists only in these writings. It is 
 necessary therefore, in the first place, to take some 
 literary notice of these versions. 
 
 Here again tlie preference must be given to tlie 
 Greek, from which undoubtedly the greatest degree 
 of light may be obtained, as is completely proved 
 by John Frederic Fischer, in a treatise de versioni- 
 bus Graecis librorum Veteris Testamenti literarum 
 Hebraicarum magistros. Lips. 1772. The superiority 
 of the Greek versions in this respect arises from their 
 number : for in addition to the Septuagint, there existed 
 in the time of Origen, three by authors well known, 
 those namely of Theodotion, Aquila and Symmachus ; 
 and also, three others by unknown translators. There 
 were consequently not less than seven collated by him 
 in his Tetrapla and Hexapla. It is true that none of 
 these versions, if we except the Septuagint, is preserved 
 complete ; indeed even the Hexapla of Origen has come 
 
f9 SOURCES TO ILLUSTRATE THE 
 
 down to us in a most lamentably imperfect state : still, 
 some fragments of it remain, which can always be 
 used, and which have been used, with much advantage. 
 These were collected as early as the last century by 
 John Drusius, in his Fragmenta veterum interpretum 
 Graecorum in totum vetus Testaraentum. Arnhein. 
 1622. But the most meritorious service in this depart- 
 ment has been performed by Bernard Montfaucon. 
 who prepared with great care, and in 1714, published 
 at Paris a new edition of the Hexapla of Origen, in 
 two folios, which, abridged in certain places, and provi- 
 ded with some additional matter, was afterwards, m 
 tlie years 1768 — 9, printed at Leipsig, in two octavo 
 volumes, by Dr. C. F. Bahrdt.* 
 
 The character of some of these versions, of which 
 fragments still remain, has first been in our own time a 
 subject for critical disquisitions, by means of which 
 their utility is not only more accurately and correctly 
 estimated, but their application also greatly facilitated. 
 
 The latter is done in the work of John Fred. 
 Fischer, entitled : Clavis reliquarum versionum Grae- 
 carum veteris Testamenti. Lips. 1758, and in John 
 Aug. Scharfenberg's Animadversiones, quibus frag- 
 menta versionum Graecarum Veteris Testamenti illus- 
 trantur. Specim. I. Lips. 1776. 
 
 On the former the following writings, aUhough in 
 part somewhat small, contain many very valuable and 
 very necessary observations. 
 
 JoH. Sal. Semleri epistola ad Job. Jac. Griesba- 
 chium de emendandis Grsecis Veteris Testamenti inter- 
 pretibus. Halse. 1770. 
 
 * Note XVI. 
 
LANGUAGE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. // 
 
 JoH. Aug. Dathe, Dissertatio in Aquilae reliquias 
 mterpretationis Hoseae. Lips. 1757. 
 
 Car. Aug. Thieme — pro puritate Symmachi. Lips. 
 1755. 
 
 John Matt. Hassencamp'.s true origin of the ver- 
 sions of the Bible disclosed, Minden, 1755, compared 
 with Olav Gerh. Tychsen's Tentamen de variis 
 (*'odd. Hebraeorum Vet. Test. MSS. ijeneribns a Judceis 
 et iion-Judasis descriptis. Rostoch. 1772. But in oppo- 
 sition to this work several publications appeared, whicli 
 were answered by Tychsen in his Tentamen vindi- 
 cated, and in his appendix to this work, both published 
 at Rostock, the former in 1774, and tlie latter in 1776.* 
 
 Among the other versions of the Old Testament, 
 the principal are the Chaldee or the Targ-ums. the 
 Samaritan, the Syriac and Arabic. The fragments of 
 the Ethiopic which are extant are not of so much 
 utility, and the more modern Armenian of still less. 
 
 Of the Targums or Chaldee paraphra.ses there are 
 several on particular books, for instance, one on the 
 Pentateuch by Onkelos, another by the pseudo Jo- 
 nathan, and one called the Jerusalem. There is also 
 a TargLUii of Jonathan Ben Uzziel on what are 
 called the former and later prophets, and another on 
 the Haeioo^rapha and the five Megilloth. 
 
 The Samaritan version is limited, as is well known, 
 to the Pentateuch. It is usually printed entire in 
 what are called Polyglots, of which there are four that 
 particularly deserve the name. The first rank anions: 
 them as to age is claimed by the Complutensian Poly- 
 glot, which was printed at Alcala, or Complutum, in 
 
 • Note XVII. 
 
78 SOURCES TO ILLUSTRATE THE 
 
 1514 — 1517, in six folios, under the auspices of caraiua! 
 XiMENEs. The second is the Antwerp, which ap- 
 peared in 1569 — 1571, in eight fohos, and is often refer- 
 red to under the title : Biblia regia Philippi II. The 
 Paris Polyglot is the third, in ten folios, printed in 1645 
 at the expense of Michel Le Jay; and the fourth, 
 which as it respects real value merits the first place, 
 is the London, edited by Brian Walton in six vo- 
 lumes foho, in 1657. The most complete accounts of 
 these Polyglots may be found in Le Long's Discours 
 historique sur les principaux editions de Polygloites. 
 Paris, 1713.* 
 
 Some of the above mentioned versions have also 
 been printed separately, as for example the Arabic of 
 the whole Bible at Rome in 1671, in three folios, al- 
 tered by the editors according to the Vulgate. Also 
 some fragments which we have of an Ethiopic version, 
 the Psalter namely and the book of Ruth, were pub- 
 hshed at Frankfort in 1700 by Job Ludolf and Nis- 
 sel. Still it may easily be supposed, that very labori- 
 ous investigations, partly historical and partly philolo- 
 gical and critical, were necessary, before these versions 
 could be made useful in illustrating the Hebrew text. 
 We must therefore, by all means, make ourselves ac- 
 quainted with the results of those investigations. 
 
 These are to be found most fully in Richard 
 Simon's Histoire critique des versions ; in the Appara- 
 tus Biblicus of Brian Walton, Zurich, 1670, or, as 
 it is entitled in the latest edition published by Dathe 
 at Leipzig, 1777, the Prolegomena in Biblia Polyglotta ; 
 in Kennicott'3 two dissertations on the state of the 
 • Note XVIII. 
 
LANGUAGE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 79 
 
 printed Hebrew text, Oxford, 1753, 1759 ; in Houbi- 
 o A NT's Prolegomena to his Hebrew Bible, the whole 
 work published at Paris in four volumes folio 1773, 
 and the Prolegomena alone at Frankfort in 1777; and in 
 De Rossi's Apparatus Hebrseo-Biblicus, Parma, 1782. 
 
 On the Samaritan Pentateuch in particular, which 
 gave rise to the most laborious and also the most con- 
 tested discussions, the greatest mass of information 
 may be found in Morini Exercitationes in utrurnque 
 Samaritanum Pentateuchum, Paris. 1631, in opposi- 
 tion to which Henry Hottinger published his Exer- 
 citationes antimorinianse de Samaritano Pentateucho, 
 Tigur. 1644. whereupon Morin gave to the world his 
 Opuscula Hebraeo-Samaritana, Paris. 1657. Later 
 discussions on the controverted questions connected 
 with these works are contained principally in Frid. 
 Imman. Schwartz Exercitationes historico-criticae 
 in utrurnque Samaritanum Pentateuchum, Witteb. 
 1756. and in Nouveaux eclaircissemens sur Torigfine 
 et le Pentateuque des Samaritains, par un religieux de 
 la congregation de S. Maur, (P. Poncet,) Paris", 1760, 
 and also in the controversial works before mentioned 
 of Tychsen and Hassencamp. 
 
 Lastly, respecting the way and manner uf deriving 
 from these sources an acquaintance with the language 
 of the Hebrew Bible, and also respecting the use and 
 application of the means which are most serviceable for 
 this purpose, the best directions may be found in 
 Albert Schultens' Origines Hebraese, edit. sec. 
 Lugd. 1761, and in John David Michaelis' Beur- 
 theilung der Mittel, welche man anwenden kann, die 
 ausg estorbene Hebraeische Sprache zu erlernen und 
 
 ' 
 
80 SOURCES TO ILLUSTRATE THE 
 
 zu versteheii; view of the means to be used, in order 
 to acquire a knowledge of the dead Hebrew language, 
 Goettingen, 1757. 
 
 II. Of the second class of literary helps for acqui- 
 ring a knowledge of the language of the Hebrew Bible, 
 among which may be placed lexicons and concord- 
 ances, works on grammar, and such as contain and 
 illustrate the idioms of the language, only the principal 
 and most distinguished need be mentioned. These 
 are as follows. 
 
 Castelli Lexicon Hebraicum cum annot. J. D. 
 MicHAELis. Gotting. 1790, 4to. 
 
 J. D. MicHAELisSupplementumadLexica Hebra- 
 ica. P. 1 — vi. Gotting. 1792. 
 
 JoH. Simon IS Lexicon manuale Hebraicum et 
 Chaldaicum. Halae, 1756. Also the author's Observa- 
 tiones liCxic. in Supplementum Lexici manualis, Halae 
 1762, edit. tert. auct. Joh. Godfr. Eichhorn, 
 1793. 
 
 Joh. Cocceii Lexicon Hebraic, et Chaldaic. auct. 
 ed. a J. C. F. Schultz. T. ii. Lips. 1777. 
 
 Joh. Buxtorfii Concordantiae Bib. Heb. Basil. 
 1632.* 
 
 Among the Hebrew and Chaldee grammars that 
 have been published, the following comprise those in 
 most oreneral use. and also such as are most useful. 
 
 Joh. Buxtorfii Thesaurus linguae Hebraicae. 
 Edit, quint. Basil. 1651. 
 
 Joh. Adr. Danzii Literator Hebraeo-Chaldaeus. 
 Jenae, 1745. 
 
 • Note XIX. 
 
LANGUAGE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 81 
 
 John Henry Michaelis' erleichterte Hebraeis- 
 che Grammatik, Hebrew srrammar made easy, Halle, 
 1745. 
 
 ScHULTENs' Institiitiones ad fiindamenta linguae 
 Hebraeae. Liidif. Bat. 1745. 
 
 Institutiones ad fiindamenta linguae Hebraeae edit. 
 Nic. GuiL. ScHROEDER. Groening. 1766. and Frannof. 
 177S. 
 
 J. D. MiCHAELis HebraeischeG rammatik nebst 
 einem Anhang von gruendlicher Erkenntniss dersel- 
 ben. Hebrew grammar with an appendix on a funda- 
 mental acquaintance with it. Third edition, Halle. 
 177S. 
 
 "William Fred. Hezel's aiisfiiehrliclie Hebrae- 
 i-sche Sprachlehre. Complete Hebrew grammar, Halle, 
 1777. 
 
 To these must be added, on account of the Chaldee, 
 which is to be considered as one of the languages of 
 the Bible, and not merely as a kindred dialect intended 
 to aid in acquiring the Hebrew : 
 
 Jac. Altingii Synopsis institutioniim Chaldaic. 
 cum adnot. Joh. Simonis. Halae, 1749. 
 
 JoH. Frid. Hirtii Bibliorum analyticorum pars 
 Chaldaica, praemissa introductione ad Chaldaismum 
 biblicum. Jenae, 1757. 
 
 J. D. Michaelis Grammatica Chaldaica. Goettin- 
 o^en, 1771. 
 
 Some idioms and peculiarities of the biblical 
 Hebrew are collected and explained in the following 
 works : 
 
 Jon. Jac. Breitinger. brevis de idiotismis lin- 
 guae HebraiccTB commentarius. Tigur. 1737. 
 
 7* 
 
82 SOURCES TO ILLUSTRATE THE 
 
 Christoph. Theodos. Walter, Ellipses He- 
 braeae. Dresd. et Lips. 1740 ; another edition with notes 
 by JoH. Frid. Chr. Schultz. Halle, 1782. 
 
 JoH. MicHAELis, Lexicon particularum Hebraica- 
 rnm. Francof. 1689. 
 
 Christ. Noldii Concordantia particularum He- 
 brsBO-Chaldaicarum. Jenee, 1734. 
 
 JoH. Christ. Storr, Observationes ad ana- 
 logiam et Syntaxin Hebrseam pertinentes. Tubing. 
 1779.* 
 
 III. It now remains only to mention some writings 
 of the third class, in which the language of particular 
 books or of particular places of the Old Testa- 
 ment is in some measure illustrated by philological 
 remarks. 
 
 We have some philological commentaries on the 
 book of Job, and on the Proverbs of Solomon, by the 
 great Albert Schultens. 
 
 By N. W. Schroeder we have a commentary of 
 the same kind on the tenth Psalm, published at Groe- 
 ningen in 1754, and in the Sylloge dissertationum 
 philologico-exegeticarum of both these scholars. Ley- 
 den, 1772, as also in a later collection by Schnurrer, 
 there are philological illustrations of several separate 
 portions of the Hebrew text. 
 
 In this division those works may be introduced in 
 which the Hebrew names occurring in the Bible are 
 philologically explained, as : 
 
 Matt. Hilleri Onomasticon sacrum. Tubingae, 
 1706. 
 
 • Note XX. 
 
LANGUAGE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 83 
 
 Christ. Bened. Michaelis Observationes philo- 
 gicae denominibus propriis Hebraeorum. Halae, 1729. 
 
 Jo. Simonis Onomasticon Vet. Test. Halae. 1741 ; 
 also, the same author's arcanum formarum nominum 
 linofuae Hebraeae, Halae, 1753. 
 
 But especially worthy of notice are those works 
 in which the poetical lansruage of the Old Testament, 
 and the characteristics of the Hebrew poetry, are 
 .seized on and developed, although only two modern 
 publications in this department can be introduced. 
 These however make all the older works more than 
 unnecessary. 1 refer to : Robert Lowth de sacra 
 poesi Heb'raBorum praelectiones academicae, Oxon. 
 1753, and afterwards published at Goettingen 1758 and 
 1761, with the notes of John David Michaelis ;* 
 and J. G. Herder vom Geist der Hebraeischen 
 Poe.sie, on the spirit of Hebrew poetry, Dessau, 1782. 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 After what has been said, nothing' more is neces- 
 sary than to give an account of the literary helps to 
 biblical criticism ; and these may be almost entirely 
 limited to some great productions of modern times. 
 Li doing this, it will be proper to distmguish those 
 works which belong to the criticism of the Old Testa- 
 ment from those in which the criticism of the New. or 
 the helps and sources of it, are the object of the 
 authors' labors. 
 
 • Note XXI. 
 
S4 
 
 LITERARY HELPS TO 
 
 The controversy which arose in the last century, 
 respecting the necessity of a critical treatment of the 
 Old Testament and the manner of conducting it, was 
 noticed in a former chapter, because it originated in 
 erroneous views of inspiration, and also of a pre- 
 tended incorruptibility of the text, derived from those 
 views or connected with them. The principal works 
 therefore of Capel, Buxtorf, Richard Simon, 
 Carpzov and others, who were chiefly conspicuous in 
 the controversy, were there mentioned. These wtI- 
 tings of Capel and Simon, and particularly of the 
 latter, contain not only the reasons which make a cri- 
 tical treatment of the Hebrew text necessary, but also 
 such an admirable development of the means which 
 can and must be employed for that purpose, the man- 
 ner in which they should be used, the caution to be 
 applied and the method to be pursued, that the princi- 
 pal work of this learned man, his critical history of 
 the text of the Old and New Testaments, will always 
 retain its rank among the works most important for 
 the study of criticism. 
 
 In addition to these publications there are others 
 which deserve notice, such as : Louis De Dieu, Cri- 
 tica sacra. Amstel. 1693 ; Humfrey Hody, de Biblio- 
 rum textibus originalibus, Oxon. 1705. There are 
 also certain learned works still older, which, on the 
 various readings of what are called the Keri and Ce- 
 thib, and on the old Jewish criticism of the text or 
 Masora, contain some strange explanations, and sanc- 
 tion very uncritical opinions. To this class belongs : 
 
 Matt. Hilleri Arcanum Keri et Cethib, Tubing. 
 1692, in which he maintains the opinion, that the Keri 
 
BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 85 
 
 and Cethib are to be ascribed to Ezra, who thus desig- 
 nated on the margin of his copy the various readings 
 which he discovered in some manuscripts. 
 
 Also : JoH. Reinhardi Commentar. de notis 
 marginalibus sacri codicis Masorethicis, Witteb. 1674 ; 
 Aug. Pfeiffer de Masorah, ejus nomine, materia, 
 forma, auctoribus, auctoritate et usu, Witteb. 1670 ; 
 and JoH. Frid. Cotta, Exercitatio historico-critica 
 de origine Masorae, Tub. 1726. 
 
 On the method by which many additional various 
 readings of the Hebrew Bible may be collected, very 
 useful hints were given by Jablonsky, in the preface 
 to his Hebrew Bible, printed at Berlin, 1699. But Le 
 Long pointed out a far greater number of sources for 
 this purpose in his Bibliotheca sacra, the best edition 
 of which, printed at Paris in 1723 in two folios, was 
 republished, enriched with very large additions, by 
 Andrew Gottlieb Ma.sch, at Halle in 1778--1785, 
 in five volumes, quarto.* Yet on these sources and the 
 use of them generally, very much may be learned from 
 the above mentioned Apparatus Biblicus or Prolego- 
 mena of Brian Walton, and still more in the two 
 dissertations of Kennicott on the state of the Hebrew 
 text, a translation of which from the English into 
 Latin was published at Leipzig in 1756 and 1765 
 by Teller, counsellor of the superior consis- 
 tory. 
 
 The following later works also, although in part 
 but small, contain very valuable additional matter for 
 this purpose, and for Hebrew criticism in general. 
 
 • Note XXII. 
 
86 LITERARY HELPS TO 
 
 Erh. Andr. Frommanx, Gluaestio philologica, an 
 variae lectiones ad Codicem V. T. ex Mishna coUigi 
 possint. Coburg. 1761. — Joh. Aug. Dathe, Prolusio 
 de difficultate rei criticae, in V. T. caute dijudicanda. 
 Lips. 1762. — Gottfr. Le.s.s. de cura, quam praesens 
 textus Hebraei conditio reqiiirit. Halse. 1763. — And in 
 addition to these the above mentioned Tentamen of 
 Tychsen, together with the pubhcations which ap- 
 peared in rep]y to it by Dathe, Bruns, Michaelis 
 and Ha.ssencamp : and lastly, J. G. C. Adler, Judae- 
 orum codicis sacri rite scribendi leges ad recte sestiman- 
 dos codices manuscriptos antiqitos perutiles. Hamb. 
 1779. 
 
 Besides the works already noticed, it merely re- 
 mains to mention those, in which the Hebrew text of 
 the Old Testament is in fact critically treated accord- 
 ing to those directions and by means of these helps, or 
 at least the various readmgs, the value of wliich must 
 be determined by criticism, are collected and properly 
 arranged. Of such works we have only four, or only 
 three which extend over the whole of the Old Testa- 
 ment. They are as follows : 
 
 Joh. Bened. Michaelis Biblia Hebraica. Halae, 
 1720, Tom. ii. 4to.* 
 
 Biblia Hebraica cum notis criticis — Car. Franc. 
 HouBiGANT. Paris. 1753. Tom. iv. fol. 
 
 Vetus Testamentum Hebraicum cum variis lec- 
 tionibus ed. Benjam. Kennicott. Oxon. Tom. i. 1776. 
 Tom. ii. 1780, fol. 
 
 De Rossi, Apparatus Hebraeo-biblicus, Parmae, 
 
 • Note XXIII. 
 
BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 67 
 
 1782; also, by the same author: VariaB lectiones V. 
 T. Parmae, 1784, vol. ii. fol. 
 
 There are again some works, which in part con- 
 tain, among other matter, separate portions of the 
 Hebrew text, in part critically collated from particular 
 manuscripts, which may be considered as a sort of 
 supplement to the collection of Kennicott. Of these 
 the following are the principal. 
 
 Kritisches Collegium ueber die drey wichtigste Psal- 
 men von Christo, den 16, 40, und 110: A course of 
 collegiate lectures on the three most important Psalms 
 relating to the Messiah, the 16th, the 40th, and the 
 110th, by J. D. MicHAELis. Frank. 1756. 
 
 Theod. Chrlst. Lilienthal, Commentatio 
 critica, sistens duorum manuscriptorum, Biblia He- 
 braica continentium notitiam, cum Sylloge variarum 
 lectionum ex utroque excerptarum. Regiomont. 1770. 
 
 But for the further, and in general, for the com- 
 plete survey of what has been done until the present 
 time for the criticism of the Hebrew text, reference may 
 here be made with great propriety to William Fred- 
 eric Hezel's Versuch einer Geschichte der biblis- 
 chen Kritik des A. T. : Essay towards a history of the 
 Biblical criticism of the Old Testament ; which made 
 its appearance at Halle in 1780, 8vo. 
 
 The criticism of the New Testament was an object 
 of attention earlier than that of the Old. This was no 
 doubt in a great measure owing to the fact, that the fa- 
 cilities to be relied on for investigating this department 
 were much more numerous, and much more accessible, 
 than those relating to the other. Every library of 
 some respectability could enumerate many Greek ma- 
 
o6 
 
 LITERARY HELPS TO 
 
 nuscripts. They must therefore have fallen into the 
 hands of the learned almost without being sought, they 
 must have invited scholars to compare many of them 
 with each other, and from the result of these compari- 
 sons criticism must necessarily have advanced to a 
 greater degree of perfection. These comparisons dis- 
 closed, as soon as tliey were instituted, many differences 
 or various readings. As early as the 16th century, 
 Erasmus and the two Stephenses drew the conclusion, 
 that the most important consequences must result from 
 collecting these various readings, and they immediately 
 began the work, which afterwards in the following age 
 and in our own might be carried further, and which 
 in fact has thus been carried. Along with this they 
 beo^an to philosophize on the principles by which, 
 amidst such a multiplicity of various readings, the ge- 
 nuine might be ascertained and the original restored. 
 Their principles also were constantly improving, as 
 additional caution in the application or use of them 
 was found to be necessary, and a more correct standard 
 established whereby to estimate the results which they 
 afforded. 
 
 Beside some important works of the preceding cen- 
 tury already mentioned, in which these principles and 
 the helps for the criticism of the New Testament are 
 laboriously investigated, among which those of Simon 
 are again distinguished as the most important, the fol- 
 lowing, partly of that century and partly of our own, 
 are deserving of particular notice. 
 
 Jo. Sauberti variae lectiones textus Graeci Evang. 
 Matthiae — cum epicrisi de origine, usu, auctoritate va- 
 riarum N. T. lectionum in srenere. Helmstad. 1672. 
 
BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 89 
 
 Ad. Rechenberg Comment.de variis N. T. lectio- 
 nibus. Lips. 1690. 
 
 Christoph. Matth. Pfaff Commentatio critica 
 de gemiiiiis libromm N. T. lectionibiis ope canonum 
 ciuorundam criticorum feliciter indagaiidis, et a spu- 
 riis separandis. Amstelod. 1709. 
 
 John Mill's Prolegomena to his New Testament, 
 afterwards to be noticed, and Daniel Whitby's Exa- 
 men variarum lectionum Jo. Millii in N. T. Lond. 1710. 
 
 JoH. GuiL. Baier, Dissertatio de variantium lec- 
 tionum nsu et abusu. Altorf. 1712. 
 
 JoH. LuD. FREvde variis lectionibus N. T. Basil. 
 1713. 
 
 JoH. Bened. Michaelis de variis lectionibus N. T. 
 caute colligendis et dijudicandis. Halae. 1749. 
 
 JoH. Christ. Klemmii Principia sacrae criticae 
 N. T. Tubing. 174(5. 
 
 Anthonv Blackwall's sacred classics defended 
 and illustrated, (Critica Sacra N. T. a Christ. Wollio 
 Latine versa. Lips. 1736.) 
 
 Wetstein's Prolegomena to his New Testament.* 
 
 JoH. Alb. Bengelii Introductio in crisin N. T., in 
 the preface to his edition. 
 
 The same author's Apparatus criticus — ed. secund. 
 Tub. 1763. 
 
 JoH. Jac. Griesbachii curae in historiam textus 
 Grseci epislolarum Pauli. Jense, 1777. 
 
 Since, in the criticism of the New Testament, very- 
 much depends upon the ancient versions that we have 
 of it, the most important of these must be here no- 
 
 • Note XXIV. 
 8 
 
90 LITERARY HELPS TO 
 
 ticed, together with the labors whicli have been apphed 
 to them by various learned men, in order to make them 
 still more useful. 
 
 Among all the versions the principal place is un- 
 doubtedly to be assigned to the ancient Syriac, (for 
 there are several of more modern origin,) which may 
 probably be considered as the oldest extant. A critical 
 edition of this version was prepared by John Albert 
 WiDMANSTADT at Vienna in 1555, which was re- 
 printed in the Antwerp Polyglot in 1575 with an ap- 
 pendix of various readings. It first appeared complete 
 in the Paris Polyglot and then in the London, after the 
 Apocalypse of St. John, and the second epistle of St. 
 Peter and third of St. John with that of St. Jude, which 
 had hitherto remained unknown, had been discovered 
 and published, the first by Louis de Dieu in 1627,* 
 and the others by Edward Pococke in 1630. The 
 whole was afterwards published by Charles Schaaf 
 in 1717 at Leyden in 4to, accompanied by a Syriac 
 lexicon of the New Testament in an additional 
 volume.! 
 
 The most extensive and complete accounts of these 
 Syriac versions have been given by Glocester Rid- 
 ley, in his dissertatio de Syriacarum versionum indole 
 ac usu, which is appended to Wetstein's Libelli ad cri- 
 sin Novi Testamenti, which Semler in 1768 published 
 separately ; also in the preface to Dathe's Syriac 
 Psalter, Halle, 1768, and in Gottlob Christian 
 Storr's Observationes super Novi Testamenti versio- 
 
 • Apocalypsis ex MS. Scaligeri — Syrlacc, op. Lcrov, de Dieu. 
 1G27. 
 
 t Note XXV. 
 
BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 91 
 
 nibiis Syriacis. Stuttgardt. 1772.* These versions 
 have often been particularly applied to the criticism of 
 the New Testament, and to the correction of particular 
 places, as, for instance, in the Cura3 in versionem Sy- 
 riacam Actuum Apostolorum, of J. D. Michaelis, 
 published at Goettingen in 1775. 
 
 There are also several Arabic versions of the New 
 Testament. At least, the impressions in the London 
 and Paris Polyglots, the version of the four Gospels 
 printed at Rome in 1619, and the edition of Thomas 
 Erpenius published at Leyden in 1(516, differ much 
 from each other. See Gottl. Christ. Storr, dis- 
 sertatio do Evangeliis Arabicis. Tubing. 1777. 
 
 The Ethiopic version, which appeared at Rome in 
 two parts in 1548 — 9, is in the London Polyglot, but 
 very incorrectly printed. 
 
 The Persian versions are confined to the four Gos- 
 pels, and are two in number, an older with notes by 
 Thoinias Gr.'EVius, and a more modern by Abraham 
 Wehloc, London, 1657. 
 
 An Armenian version was printed at Amsterdam 
 in 1668 by Bishop Use an, and the Coptic by David 
 WiLKiNs in 1716. 
 
 But among all these last named versions, the 
 Ethiopic is almost the only one which is in some 
 measure useful for criticism. Most of the information 
 
 * The following publications deserve to be particularly mentioned : 
 Versio Syriaca Philoxeniana Sacrorum Evangeliorum, Joseph 
 White, cum vers. Lat. Oxon. Vol. II. 1778. 4to. 
 
 Novi Testamenti vcrsiones Syriacoe, Simplex, Philoxeniana et 
 Hierosolymitana. cum observatt. et tabb. sen. ab J. G. C. Atler : 
 Hafnitc. 1789. 4to. 
 
98 LITERARY HELPS TO 
 
 relating to it is collected in the preface by Christ. 
 Bened. Michaelis to the Evangelium secundum 
 Matthaeum ex versione Ethiop. interpretis — Christ. 
 Aug. Bode. Halae, 1749. The last named scholar pub- 
 lished also the first four chapters of St. Matthew from the 
 Armenian version, translated into Latin, Helmst. 1757, 
 and introduced in the preface the necessary accounts 
 of this version. Respecting the Coptic the greatest 
 decree of information is to be found in the Thesaurus 
 epistolicus la Crozianus, which was published at 
 Leipzig in 1742. 
 
 Far more important however for the criticism of 
 the Greek text than all these versions just mentioned, 
 are the old Latin versions or rather the fragments of 
 them, which are generally referred to by the names 
 'antiqua TiRtina' and 'Ttala,' and which in part may he 
 far more ancient than the time of Jerome's version 
 and of the Vulgate. Of these we have only some 
 fragments, and on this account it becomes the more 
 difficult, and must occupy the most careful attention of 
 the greater number of scholars, to collect them to- 
 gether, to prepare them for publication, and to decide 
 upon their merits. 
 
 The principal works in which this is done, and 
 where these fragments are collected, are as follows : 
 
 Vulgata antiqua Latina et Itala versio Evangelii 
 secundum Matthaeum. Ed. studio Johan. Marti anay. 
 Paris. 1698. 
 
 Acta Apostolorum Graeco-Latine e cod ice Laudiano. 
 Ed. Thomas Hearnius. Oxon. 1715. 
 
 Biblia Sacra Latinae versionis, seu Vetus Itala, 
 opera Pet. Sabatier. Remis. 1743. iii. fol. 
 
BIBLICAL CRITICISM 93 
 
 Evangeliarium qiiadruplex Latina) versionis an- 
 U({ua3 — in lucem edit, a Josepho Blanchinio, Rom. 
 1749, ii. fol. 
 
 To these may be added the old Latin text of the 
 Gos])el of St. John from the Cambridge manuscript, 
 which Semler printed at the end of his paraphrase of 
 this Gospel, Halle, 1771. 
 
 Respecting these Latin versions, see, in addition to 
 the above works, particularly the third dissertation of 
 Natalis Alexander in his Trias dissertationum 
 ecclesiasticarum. Paris. 1678 ; also Blanchini's Vindi- 
 ciae canonicaruin scripturarum Yulgatse Latinae, Ro- 
 mac, 1740, with the observations and treatises contained 
 in his Evangeliarum quadruplex : and J. S. Semler's 
 appendix to Wetstein"s Prolegomena, published by him 
 at Halle in 1764. 
 
 Lastly : — in our age the first effort of much import- 
 ance has been made to employ the old Gothic version 
 of Ulphilas to the criticism of the New Testament. 
 As early as the year 1670 indeed, George Stiern- 
 iiiELM published at Stockholm Evangelia Gothice 
 translata ab Ulphila, with parallel northern versions 
 and a Glossarium Ulphilo-Gothicum ; but a far better 
 edition appeared at Oxford under the following title : 
 Sacrorum Evangeliorum Versio Gothica cum interpre- 
 tatione Latina ct notis Erici Benzelii ed. Edw. 
 IjYE. 1750. John Ihre, in his Ulphilas illustratus, 
 threw much additional lia^ht on this version ; but in 
 the year 1763. superintendent Francis Ant. Knittel 
 made public a Versio Gothica Ulphilae nonnullorum 
 capitum epistolfc ad Romanos, which he had found in 
 
 a manuscript of the Wulfenbuttel library. Many 
 
 8* 
 
94 LITERARY HELPS TO 
 
 writings relating to this Gothic version, by Ihre, Hup- 
 PEL, EsBERG, Gordon and Wachter, may be found 
 in a collection of Ihre, with the title : Scripta versio- 
 nem Ulphilanam illustrantia, edited by Buesching. 
 Berl. 1773. 
 
 Respecting the last source from which criticism 
 may derive assistance, namely, the works of the an- 
 cient ecclesiastical writers, it is not necessary to say 
 much. It is but little of which it can avail itself from 
 these works, and even this must first be sought for 
 with great labor and brought together : although there 
 are some collections from writings of the fathers, 
 which appear to have been made, principally with the 
 view of bringing together more closely what they con- 
 tain that is useful in criticism and interpretation. 
 
 The collections referred to are those in which the 
 commentaries of many of the fathers on separate books 
 of the Bible are arranged and placed together, and for 
 these the particular name of Catenae Patrum has been 
 invented. Thus, for example, we have a catena of 
 twenty-one Greek fathers on the Gospel of St. Mat- 
 • thew, pubhshed by Peter PossiN,at Toulouse in 1646; 
 and in the following year a second came out of thirty 
 others. The same learned man published also a catena 
 on the Gospel of St. Mark at Rome in 1673 ; Baltha- 
 SAR Corderius a catena Patrum on St. John, Ant- 
 werp, 1630 ; and John Hentenius with Morellus 
 another, on the Acts, the epistles of St. John and the 
 catholic epistles, Paris, 1631. The literary and his- 
 torical notices of the Catenae have been collected by 
 Thomas Ittig in a separate work : de bibliothecis ei 
 catenis patrum. Lips. 1707 ; but on the use that can be 
 
BIBLICAL CRITICISM. \tO 
 
 made of them in the criticism and interpretation of the 
 New Testament, and the advantages that may be ex- 
 pected to result, Dr. Noesselt has pubhshed a work en- 
 titled : Observationes de catenis patrum Grsecorum in 
 N. T. Hallee, 1762. 
 
 All that now remains on this part of my subject is, 
 to mention those works in which, from the sources 
 stated and by the means within reach, the Greek text 
 has in fact been critically examined and prepared ; in 
 other words, to state those editions of the New Testa- 
 ment, in which the various readings are collected, esti- 
 mated according to their value, and judged according 
 to the degree in which their genuineness is more or less 
 probable. 
 
 Among the olde ditions, it is proper to mention in 
 the first place, the Greek text in the Compluten- 
 sian Polyglot, which was taken from a very ancient 
 A'^atican manuscript,* and before printing compared 
 with others, the various readings of which are noted in 
 the margin. This text therefore continued in very 
 great repute until our own time, when Semler in 1766 
 published at Halle his Genauere Untersuchung der 
 schlechten Beschaffenheit des zu Alcala gedruckten 
 Neuen Testaments ; Critical Examination of the incor- 
 rect character of the New Testament printed at Alcala : 
 in reply to which John Melch. Goetze printed at 
 Hamburg in the same year, Ausfuehrliche Vertheidi- 
 gung des Complutensischen Neuen Testaments mit 
 beygefuegten kritischen Anmerkungen gegen Semler; 
 The Complutensian New Testament defended at length 
 against Semler, with accompanying critical remarks.! 
 • Note XXVI. t Note XXVII. 
 
96 LITERARY HELPS TO 
 
 After the Complutensian edition of the New Testa- 
 ment follow, in order of time, those of Erasmus. In 
 preparing these also various manuscripts were critically 
 collated ; and therefore at least the three editions of 
 1510, 1519 and 1522 frequently diifer from each other, 
 because in each of them the editor endeavored to im- 
 prove the text, by numerous manuscripts which had 
 not before been used. 
 
 These publications of Erasmus were succeeded by 
 the critical editions of the elder Robert Stephens, 
 which he published at Paris in 1546, 1549 and 1550. 
 
 Among the critical editions of Theodore Beza, 
 that of 1582, printed by Henry Stephens, deserves 
 to be particularly mentioned, because two manu- 
 scripts which have become of great importance, one 
 known by the name of the Cambridge manuscript, 
 and the other the Clermont, were used in its compila- 
 tion. 
 
 In the seventeenth century, Stephen Curcell^- 
 us, and John Fell of England, meritoriously aided the 
 cause of criticism, the former in his edition published 
 at Amsterdam in 1658, and the latter in his which came 
 from the Oxford press in 1657. 
 
 None of these editions however will bear a com- 
 parison with those great critical works which our 
 own age has produced. Among these the first is that 
 of John Mill : Novum Testamentum Graecum cum 
 variantibus lectionibus. Oxon. 1707, fol. It was re- 
 published in 1710 at Amsterdam by Louis Kuster, 
 with a larger and better arransred collection of various 
 readings. 
 
 Bengel followed Mill. His critical edition of the 
 
BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 97 
 
 New Testament, with his Apparatus Criticus, first ap- 
 peared at Tuebingen in 1734. 
 
 A greater treasure than even that of Bengel was af- 
 terwards collected by John James Wetstein, whose 
 Novum Testamentum Graven m, cum variantibus lec- 
 tionibus codicum manuscriptorum, editionum aliarum, 
 versionum et patrum, made its appearance at Amster- 
 dam, in two folio volumes in the years 1751, 1752. 
 
 In 1774, 1775, John James Griesbach published 
 his Novum Testamentum Graecum cum textu ad fidem 
 codicum, versionum et patrum emendato. Vol. i. ii. 8vo.* 
 
 Another service for the criticism of the New Testa- 
 ment has been accomplished still more recently by the 
 same learned man, in his Symbola3 criticae ad supplen- 
 das et corrigendas variarum Novi Testamenti lection um 
 coUectioTiRs- -cum dRscriptione pt examine mnltonim 
 codicum Graecorum Novi Testamenti. Hal. T.I. 1785. 
 T. II. 1793, Svo. 
 
 In 1788, the new critical edition of the New Testa- 
 ment by Professor Matth^ei in Wittenberg was 
 completed in twelve volumes, in which many Moscow 
 manuscripts, which had not previously been collated, 
 are employed. 
 
 Earlier in the same year appeared at Copenhagen : 
 Birch 1 1 quatuor Evangelia Graeca cum variantibus 
 lectionibus codd. manuscript. Bibliothecae Vaticanae 
 Barberinae et cet. 1784, 4to, and a year earlier : Novum 
 Testamentum ad codicem Vindobonensem Graece ex- 
 pressum. Varietatem lectionum addidit Franc. Car. 
 Alter. Prof Gymnas. Vindob. vol. ii. Viennap, 1787, 
 in royal octavo. 
 
 • Note XXVIII. 
 
98 
 
 METHOD OF STUDY. 
 
 Lastly, it is proper to mention the fac-similes lately 
 published of two manuscripts, which have always been 
 considered as of the highest importance for criticism, 
 namely the Alexandrine and the Cambridge. The for- 
 mer, given to the world in 1789,* was the result of the 
 application of Woide, and for the latter, published in 
 1 793, at the cost of the university of Cambridge, we are 
 indebted to the labors of Thomas Kipling. Codex 
 Theod. Bezae Cantabrigiensis, Evangelia etActa Apos- 
 tolorum complectens, quadratis literis Grseco-Latinus — 
 Academia aspirante venerandas has vetustatis reliquias 
 summa fide adumbravit — expressit, edidit — codicis his- 
 toriam — notasque adjecit Thomas Kipling, S. T. P. 
 Cantabrig. 1793. Vol. ii. fol. Thus they have been 
 brought within the reach of the learned, and can be 
 more generally and more easily vised. 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 
 After giving this account of the literary helps for 
 the study of sacred philology and criticism, it is neces- 
 sary to point out the most direct method, in which 
 the study of each can most easily and successfully be 
 pursued. Only with respect to this kind of literature, 
 there is one circumstance, which must give to the dis- 
 cussions which it involves a particular direction, if 
 they lead to an useful and applicable result. 
 
 The particular circumstance referred to is this. It 
 is not only a doubtful point, whether an especial study 
 of this branch of literature is necessary for every 
 
 * HoRNE says, ITf'G. Introduction, Vol. II. Part II. Appendix 
 p. 19. 
 
METHOD OF STUDY. 99 
 
 divine, but it may actually admit of doubt whether it 
 IS possible for every oue. The inquiry deserves atten- 
 tion ; for should these doubts in the end really prove 
 to be well founded, it will certainly be more corres- 
 pondent to the object in view and more useful, here to 
 direct our attention rather to the means to be employed 
 in order with the least disadvantage to avoid these 
 studies, and the conditions under which this indulgence 
 is admissible, than to spend our time on the method of 
 pursuing them with the most success. But it may be 
 almost anticipated, that these doubts will appear en- 
 tirely groundless, in proportion as they are the more 
 closely and distinctly viewed. 
 
 The least that can be required for the proper study 
 of these branches of literature, or at least that which 
 becomes the first requsite is undoubtedly this : that the 
 knowledge necessary, and pertaining to it, must itself be 
 drawn from those sources from which alone it can be 
 drawn with certainty. Whoever, for exam])le, deter- 
 mines to study the philology of the Hebrew language 
 for himself, must himself discover by means of the 
 helps tliat can be employed, its spirit, its character, its 
 peculiarities, the significations of its words, the very 
 characteristics of its figures ; thus he must draw out 
 its character from the analogy of the other oriental 
 languages which have sprung from it or are connected 
 with it, and the meanings of its words and phrases from 
 a comparison of die various versions which we have 
 of the Hebrew scriptures, since these are the only 
 sources which can supply such knowledge respecting 
 them as may be confidently relied on. 
 
 It is indeed true, that this knowledge has frequently 
 been collected and broujjht too^ether from those scat- 
 
100 METHOD OF STUDY. 
 
 tered sources, in many works appropriated to such 
 subjects, as in grammars and lexicons of the Hebrew 
 language; and therefore it might at first be thought, 
 that it can now be derived entirely from these works. 
 Such a course would undoubtedly save an immense 
 expense of time and trouble : but then who does not 
 perceive, that it is not a man's own study which is 
 bestowed on these languages, but that he merely avails 
 himself of the studies of others? 
 
 In this case, it is not our own inquiries which we 
 institute into the spirit of the language and the signifi- 
 cations of its words; it is nothing more than the results 
 of the inquiries of others, which we thereby assume as 
 true, without having examined into their truth for our- 
 selves, or being able to conduct such an examination. 
 From this last circumstance principally, the study, 
 when thus pursued, cannot properly be considered as 
 an investigation of the subject for one's self, for this 
 shows most clearly, that in this way we can only see 
 with the eyes of others. 
 
 Thus, for example, we may find in every Hebrew 
 lexicon a great number of words given, which are 
 derived from Arabic roots, or from primitive words 
 preserved in the Arabic language, the significations of 
 which are principally determined by it. They may 
 indeed in the lexicons be taken from this source with 
 perfect correctness : but if the student has no know- 
 ledge of Arabic, it is evident that he must depend 
 upon the truth and fidelity of the compiler of the lexi- 
 con, or of the first scholar who discovered the Arabic 
 roots, and assume it as true, that the signification of 
 the Hebrew words is correctly given. Whatever 
 reasons or whatever presumptions we may have in 
 
METHOD OF STUDY. 101 
 
 favor of this, still we do not obtain views of our own, 
 we are merely trusting to those of others ; we must 
 therefore always be without that substantial know- 
 ledge which our own study and nothing else can give. 
 
 The case is the same with the particular philology 
 of the Greek text. With regard to the criticism of 
 both the Old and New Testaments, the remarks are 
 still more applicable. Here also we find in particular 
 works most of the materials, which the industry of 
 individual scholars has collected with unwearied pains 
 on the various ways which criticism can pursue in 
 making her discoveries. The different readings of 
 several hundreds of manuscripts, the flill harvest of 
 variations to be gathered from the old versions and the 
 writings of the fathers, are contained in the collections 
 of Kemiicott and De Rossi relating to the Old Testa- 
 ment, and in the works of Wetstein, Bengel, and 
 Griesbach on the New. The student therefore has 
 nothing further to do but to form his own judgment on 
 the value of the various readings, and to estimate the 
 degree of their probable genuineness or spuriousness. 
 But what must be the foundation of this judgment I 
 and from what must this estimate proceed / 
 
 Is it not evident that this must be historical infor- 
 mation respecting the ap^e, tiie character, and, what is 
 drawn from these points, the value of the manuscripts, 
 from which the collection of various readings has 
 been made ? Is it not conjectures on the derivation of 
 0!ie from another, on the family-likeness of one with 
 another, on the interpolation of one from another, on 
 a hundred other circumstances relating to the country 
 to which they owe their origin, to their transcribers, 
 
 9 
 
102 METHOD OF STUDY. 
 
 to the fate they have undergone, which must all be 
 considered in forming this judgment ? This informa- 
 tion and these conjectures, — on the correctness of 
 which the most, or properly speaking the whole de- 
 pends, — we must believe on the word of the collector, 
 who collated and described the manuscripts. Yet this 
 cannot possibly be called a man's own study of this 
 branch of knowledge ; it is or it results in nothing more 
 than a historical acquaintance with what others have 
 communicated respecting it : and that the acquaint- 
 ance thus obtained neither does nor can always satisfy 
 every wish, became particularly observable among 
 our scholars on the appearance of Kennicott's edition 
 of the Bible. 
 
 It is as evident then as anything can possibly be, 
 that in this department of learning, sacred criticism, 
 we must frequently yield to the pressure of necessity, 
 and satisfy ourselves merely with this compendious 
 historical study of the subject, because the real study of 
 it for one's self is with thousands absolutely impossible. 
 
 The helps which must necessarily be used in study- 
 ing it in this manner, are of such a nature, that thou- 
 sands can no more employ them than if they had no 
 existence. The principal sources from which criti- 
 cism must draw, the old manuscripts still remaining, 
 are dispersed in all the libraries of Europe ; they can 
 only be consulted in the places where they are kept ; 
 and thus to make use of them not only requires an 
 expense of time and trouble, but also of money, which 
 can be afforded by very few scholars. Nothing less 
 than the public support of the English nation placed 
 Kennicott in a condition to accomplish his undertaking. 
 
METHOD OF STUDY. 103 
 
 It is preposterous therefore to suppose that sacred 
 criticism could ever be a subject to be studied by all, 
 or even by many in the manner above stated. 
 
 With the sacred philology of our Hebrew and 
 Greek texts, the case is almost the same, although 
 there are some other circumstances which have an 
 influence on this subject. If in this department the 
 helps are not so expensive and rare as in criticism — 
 although they also are sufficiently so, especially in 
 Hebrew philology — yet the greater part of students, 
 who would pursue this branch of knowledge as a 
 distinct part of exegetical theology, could not devote 
 that time which would be required by such a course 
 of study, as an examination of every point for one's 
 self would demand. 
 
 For example : — a fundamental and learned know- 
 ledge of Hebrew necessarily comprehends an acquaint- 
 ance with the other oriental languages, particularly 
 with those which contain the most ancient and impor- 
 tant versions of the Hebrew text. The greater pro- 
 portion of these versions are only to be found in the 
 Polyglots, which are costly. The other literary helps 
 for acquiring these languages, those for instance to be 
 used in learning the Arabic, Samaritan and Ethiopic, 
 cannot be brought together without considerable ex- 
 pense, and even then it is frequently difficult to secure 
 them. But after this is done, how will a student, who 
 in a period of three or four years must traverse the 
 whole field of theology, find time to devote to each of 
 these languages in particular ? 
 
 A merely general and superficial acquaintance with 
 these languages is of little or no use ; for the very fact 
 
104 METHOD OF STUDY. 
 
 that they are to be used in order to illustrate another, 
 shows that a mere ijrammatical knowledge of their let- 
 ters, their forms and some of their words, cannot be 
 very extensively applied. For this purpose a philoso- 
 phical study of the spirit of them is necessary : a 
 study which requires not months only, but years. 
 
 Thus it becomes necessary for most persons to 
 abandon all expectation of attaining this object. Hap- 
 pily, however, this necessity does not involve an irrepa- 
 rable loss ; for it may in fact be shown, that to study 
 those branches of learning- for one's self from orig-inal 
 sources is, in general, to be considered as much unne- 
 cessary as it is impossible. 
 
 We have certainly every reasonable motive to place 
 sufficient confidence in the results of the investigations 
 which have been pursued on these subjects by scholars^ 
 who were able to devote their particular attention to 
 this kind of learning. With respect to the probity 
 with which they have given these results to the world, 
 we have no reason to doubt ; although in critical dis- 
 closures this is a point which must come into serious 
 consideration, of which the deceit that was practised 
 in relation to the famous codex Ravianus, by which so 
 many critics were imposed upon, affords a very re- 
 markable illustration. 
 
 But that their investigations are accurate, that the 
 way in which they have proceeded is right, and that 
 the discoveries which they have made therein are re- 
 ally true and worthy of credit, is proved from the fact, 
 that although many persons have pursued these inves- 
 tigations, and in some cases by methods of their own. 
 yet in general the same results have been produced. 
 
METHOD OF STUDY. 105 
 
 When Schulten, for example, determines the mean- 
 ing of a Hebrew word from the Arabic, or when Mill, in 
 defending a reading, appeals to the fact, that it is sanc- 
 tioned by the Alexandrine manuscript, the student who 
 has no knowledge of Arabic may confidently regard the 
 signification of the Hebrew word given by Schultens 
 as the true one, and he who has never seen the Alex- 
 andrme manuscript may still be secure of having the 
 reading contained in it; for Schultens was not the only 
 man who found the signification referred to in the Ara- 
 bic, and many besides Mill have examined the Alexan- 
 drine manuscript, and found there the same reading. 
 
 If therefore, in literature of tiiis kind, we are often 
 obliged to believe merely what has been discovered by 
 others, without being able ourselves to ascertain the 
 correctness of the discovery, it is still exceedingly rare 
 that we are obliged to trust a single witness : there are 
 always many, who pledge themselves for the truth of 
 the discovery, and consequently make it the more cre- 
 dible. Indeed we must rest satisfied with such evi- 
 dence in a hundred other cases ; and we do satisfy our- 
 selves with it even in a multitude of cases whore we 
 are not necessarily obliged to do so, No reason there- 
 fore can be assigned, why we cannot and may not do the 
 same, in relation to the knowledge under consideration. 
 
 In this view of the subject, it might be inferred, and 
 not without very plausible reasons, that it is a very un- 
 necessary expense of labor and time to study these 
 subjects for ourselves, were it not that we have .so many 
 grounds for believing, that a further use of the original 
 sources will supply a vast deal more than has hitherto 
 been drawn from them. Yet even this suggests ano- 
 
106 METHOD OF STUDY. 
 
 ther circumstance, which makes it still more evident, 
 that a personal examination of the original sources of 
 this learning cannot be necessary in general or for all, 
 and why this is the case. 
 
 It is a decided point, that the nicer and more inti- 
 mate knowledge of the language of our Hebrew Scrip- 
 tures is still susceptible of very great improvement, by 
 a fiirther cultivation of oriental literature in general, en- 
 riching ourselves with its abundance : and it is also as 
 certain, that the criticism both of the Old and New 
 Testaments may yet anticipate many very valuable dis- 
 coveries, by still further pursuing its investigations in 
 the road which has been opened for it with so much 
 trouble. There is therefore great reason to wish that 
 many more scholars would devote themselves entirely or 
 principally to this kind of literature, from which so 
 much may be derived. Yet we may confidently be- 
 lieve, that the most important, the most useful, and the 
 most necessary matter, which it contains, has already 
 been brought to light. 
 
 So far indeed has our sacred philology been already 
 cultivated in respect to the languages of the Bible, that 
 it can supply sufficient exegetical materials for a gene- 
 rally correct explanation of the true sense of the sacred 
 Scriptures ; and criticism has also already thrown so 
 much light upon it, that it may with sufficient certainty 
 be considered as secured in all important and principal 
 places against interpolations not yet discovered, and 
 also may always come to a probable conclusion as to 
 the genuine reading. It was this that was necessary 
 to be done, since otherwise interpretation could not 
 have taken one step with security. It is this therefore, 
 
METHOD OF STUDY. 107 
 
 which every one who intends to make theology his 
 study necessarily requires ; but he requires nothing 
 more. Since now he can secure this merely by an in- 
 dustrious attention to the histoiy of sacred philology 
 and sacred criticism, the study of their original 
 sources becomes superfluous to him, as soon as he is 
 obliged to confine himself to what is necessary. 
 
 By prosecuting this study, verj'^ much light may 
 undoubtedly be thrown on separate and particular 
 places ; but it is not either intended or allowable, that 
 every one who finds no difficulty in the general, 
 should immediately attempt to illustrate such places. 
 Persons moreover will always be found, who are able 
 to do this, and who may do it with propriety. At 
 the same time, however, every one who is obliged to 
 examine the whole subject of tlieology within a limited 
 period, and who would not confine his attention to this 
 particular department ; in other words, every one who 
 must run through his whole theological course in the 
 usual space of three or four years, not only may with- 
 out hesitation disjicnse witli studying the subjects un- 
 der consideration from their proper original sources, 
 but he may do so without disadvantage. But to guard 
 against the possibility of being misunderstood, I would 
 remark, that this assertion is liy no means equivaU'iit 
 to saying, that the student may continue utterly igno- 
 rant of this knowledge, and altogether disregard these 
 subjects. It may even scarcely be necessary to give in 
 detail a different plan of study that may, and in this 
 case must be adopted ; and yet some remarks may be 
 added on this point, chiefly in order to make it the more 
 evident, that such a plan requires comparatively but 
 
108 METHOD OF STUDY. 
 
 little labor, and consequently to make it the more pal- 
 pable, that an indisposition to undertake this little is 
 utterly unpardonable. 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 In the first place, with regard to the philology of 
 our Hebrew Scriptures : if our acquaintance with it is 
 not to be drawn from the original sources themselves, 
 scarcely anything further is really necessary but a lexi- 
 con and a grammar, in order in the shortest possible 
 time to make sucli progress, as to be able to read and 
 understand the text with facility. 
 
 The language has in comparison with others so few 
 rules, and these again so few exceptions, that any me- 
 mory can retain them without great effort. Although 
 indeed this cannot be accomplished in so short a time 
 as the old writer William Schickardt assigned to 
 it, who offered to teach Hebrew in four and twenty 
 hours, and therefore called his grammar, which he had 
 divided into as many parts or homs. a horologium ; 
 yet in fact a vast deal more time is not required for 
 this purpose. These rules are subsequently the more 
 readily impressed upon the memory in the business of 
 analyzing, which must immediately afterwards be un- 
 dertaken ; and by a moderate degree of practice for a 
 space of time not much longer than that occupied in 
 committing the rules, this becomes easy.* 
 
 The exercise of analyzing is generally supposed to 
 be the most difficult, and therefore undertaken with the 
 
 • Note XXIX. 
 
METHOD OF STUDY. 109 
 
 greatest reluctance ; in fact it is often entirely neglect- 
 ed. But it is clearly impossible, ever to acquire a fun- 
 damental knowledge of a dead language, without much 
 practice in analysis. It consists simply in examining 
 tlie forms of all words occurring in the language, by 
 the rules of formation given in the grammar, and of 
 discovering the origin of each of these rules. It affords 
 a two-fold advantage : for while in this way the rules 
 become more familiar, and their application easier, 
 their correctness is at the same time more evident, since 
 every form of a word which can be analyzed according 
 to a rule, is in fact a confirmation of the rule. 
 
 After the student has thus analysed a small part of 
 any one of our Hebrew books, the first four or five 
 chapters only of Genesis, for example, carefiilly exa- 
 mining every word that they contain ; if he should 
 read through the whole book, and perhaps a couple of 
 books, or the Pentateuch, with the aid of a lexicon, 
 drawing from this source the signification of every* 
 word with which he was unacquainted, and at the same 
 time impressing it upon his memory ; he will have ac- 
 quired almost all that is necessary, and all that can be 
 obtained in this shorter method of study, for he will 
 thus be almost in a situation to read all the other 
 books of the Old Testament without a grammar or 
 lexicon.* 
 
 He also who studies Hebrew from its original 
 sources, does not properly speaking acquire more know- 
 ledge ; his knowledge is only of another kind. He can 
 state the reasons for the rules of the language, from the 
 analogy of the other oriental languages, on the ground 
 * Or rather by the occasional use of them. Tr. 
 
110 METHOD OF STUDY. 
 
 of his personal examination ; but still the rules which 
 he also has acquired are identically the same as in the 
 other case. He can satisfy himself, moreover, from the 
 usa^e of the cognate languages, that a Hebrew word 
 must have a certain definite meaning ; but it is the 
 same meaning which has already been introduced from 
 these sources in the better class of lexicons of the lan- 
 guage. The difference therefore, as I have already 
 shown, consists in this, that the latter method enables 
 us to make the \'ery same discoveries which have al- 
 ready been made by grammarians and lexicographers, 
 and also to try the correctness of their discoveries, 
 while in the former we must altogether depend upon 
 these for our information. But this difference is not of 
 very great importance, since there is sufficient reason, 
 as already stated, on the whole to depend upon 
 them. 
 
 But if indeed the examination and learning of 
 others are after all to be relied on, so soon as the ori- 
 ginal sources themselves are abandoned, it may be 
 said that, in this case, we may spare ourselves even 
 this shorter course of study of the original languages 
 of the Bible, and as well depend entirely upon the 
 examination and learning of the translators. 
 
 It would seem indeed to be a matter of indifference, 
 whether we trust the word of a lexicogi'apher or of a 
 translator, that a Hebrew expression has the meaning 
 attached to it by the one or the other ; for that the 
 language has been studied from its original sources, 
 may as well be supposed of the latter as of the for- 
 mer. If therefore only one such translation is at 
 hand, it would seem capable of affording us as much 
 
METHOD OF STUDY. Ill 
 
 service, and at least as much certainty, as may be 
 derived from our own knowledge of the langiiage 
 drawn merely from the grammar and a lexicon. 
 
 It must be confessed, that this is not altogether 
 idle. And yet this very objection tends to show, that 
 such a knowledge of the language as may be acquired 
 in the compendious method laid down, must not be 
 represented as superfluous. 
 
 In the translation of Luther which is in most gen- 
 eral use among us, it is by no means the case that we 
 may always depend upon the fidelity of the translator ; 
 for although the service performed by Luther was 
 exceedingly great for the time in which he lived, yet 
 at present, the aid afforded by such a knowledge of 
 the language as may be attained from our later He- 
 brew lexicons, supplies us in many places with a sense 
 quite different from his ; and therefore we may still 
 expect no small advantages from the use of them.* 
 
 With respect to more recent translations, as for 
 instance, that of the Old Testament by Michaelis, it 
 may be granted that this difficulty may be removed. 
 But here applies the observation which has been made 
 in reference to profane philology, that the spirit of a 
 work can never be represented in so clear and lively a 
 manner, even in the best and most faithful translation, 
 as it is displayed in the original language. 
 
 The sense of a writer may be transferred into a 
 foreign tongue ; but of his spirit, of the form in which 
 he represents his view, and of the nicer adaptation 
 of his ideas to this form, and even to each other, some- 
 
 * The remarks of the author respecting Luther's translation are 
 applicable also to tlie standard version in English. Tr, 
 
112 METHOD OF STUDY. 
 
 thing must unavoidably be lost, because something of 
 all tliese is inseparably connected merely with his 
 lanofuaffe. Whoever then can read him in his own 
 language always possesses some advantage, and in- 
 deed not a small one, over the reader to whom he is 
 intelligible only by means of a translation, even the 
 most faithful that can be made. This consideration 
 alone ought to have weight enough to induce every 
 theologian to obtain at least as much knowledge of 
 Hebrew, as is required for that purpose ; and it should 
 have the more weight in proportion to the facility with 
 which this knowledge may be gained, and the small 
 degree of time and effort that it requires. 
 
 In the second place. The necessity of studying 
 the original language applies to the Greek text of the 
 New Testament for reasons which I might almost say 
 are more numerous and weighty ; and it applies here in 
 proportion as the interpretation of the New Testament 
 is more important for the divine than that of tlie Old. 
 In this case too, it is easier to draw our knowledge of 
 the language of the New Testament immediately from 
 one of the original sources, by which it may be sup- 
 plied with the greatest certainty. 
 
 This is, as was before shown, the Septuagint ver- 
 sion of the Old Testament. For, as it is certain that 
 the Hellenistic language is susceptible of much illus- 
 tration from the oriental tongues, by the intermixture 
 of which with the pure Greek it arose ; so is it equally 
 certain that more light, which may be confidently 
 trusted, is thrown upon it by that version alone, than 
 can be introduced from all other sources. But this ver- 
 sion is not so difficult of acquisition, nor so costly, nor 
 
METHOD OF STUDY. 113 
 
 SO hard to use, that it may not be employed by every 
 one, whose object is to learn the true spirit of the lan- 
 guage, in which are comprehended the most important 
 of our religious writings. 
 
 It may therefore, without hesitation perhaps, be 
 considered as the duty of every one, to acquire at least 
 as much acquaintance with this version as with the 
 text of the Old Testament, since the advantages to be 
 derived from it are so abundant, and at the same time 
 so easily obtained. A mere grammatical knowledge 
 of the Hebrew text is sufficient, in order to make most 
 of the idioms that distino^uish the languajje of this ver- 
 sion clear and observable. And merely to have caught 
 as much of the spirit of the Hebrew language as al- 
 ways communicates itself by such a grammatical know- 
 ledge and depends upon it, is sufficient almost to show, 
 how such a Greek language must originate among 
 men accustomed to think only in Hebrew, when they 
 would express in the former language those concep- 
 tions which they had always formed in the latter. In 
 this way a preliminary acquaintance with the language 
 of the New Testament and of the Apostles will become 
 so familiar, that it must afterwards as soon as uttered 
 be recognized as the same with the other. 
 
 A method of studying this subject thus offers itself 
 to our attention, as natural as it is easy and brief; 
 which although indeed it cannot be altogether called a 
 study of the sources for ourselves, is still by no means 
 to be considered as merely historical and dependent on 
 compendious abridgments. 
 
 Before the student begins his philological exami- 
 nation of the New Testament, let him first read 
 
 10 
 
114 METHOD OF STUDY. 
 
 the Septiiagint version, but in constant connexion with • 
 the Hebrew text. In this reading, as often as a pecu- 
 har idiom of the Hebrew language occurs, his atten- 
 tion should be particularly directed to the manner in 
 which the translator has expressed it. He should espe- 
 cially impress upon his mind the form and the expres- 
 sions, in which national and religious ideas of the Jews 
 have been translated. In order to fix them the more 
 firmly in his memory, it would be well for him to make 
 a short list of them ; and with this preparation let him 
 then read the New Testament.* 
 
 This preparation will not only be attended with the 
 result, that the student will not for a moment doubt re- 
 specting the kind of dialect that he finds in these wri- 
 tings, but it will have the still more important effect, 
 that at the very first reading he will receive correct 
 impressions respecting many important views, and this 
 must have the most beneficial influence on his subse- 
 quent proper study of interpretation. 
 
 At the same time, it is also self-evident, that by con- 
 tinued and repeated reading of the New Testament 
 and of that translation, in part connected, in part al- 
 ternately, the language of both m?y and must become 
 more familiar, even their minute peculiarities more ob- 
 servable, and the whole structure of the phraseolog}' 
 which prevails in them, better known. But as soon as 
 this course has been pursued to a certain degree, the 
 Concordance of the Septuagint by Trommius, and the 
 Thesauirus of Biel, [or Schleusner,] may be used with 
 the greatest advantage, as the principal and most ex- 
 
 *Note XXX. 
 
METHOD OP STUDY. 115 
 
 cellent works to aid in stiidyina^ the philology of the 
 New Testament, in almost every particular case, and 
 in every individual word. 
 
 When, by such a course, the student is in a situa- 
 tion to draw for himself, from the richest sources, for a 
 knowledo^e of the New Testament language, he may, 
 with the less hesitation, make use of the illustrations 
 within reach, which have already been drawn from 
 other sources and collected together in particular works, 
 with perfect confidence in the integrity of the collect- 
 ors, and with the least possible difficulty. 
 
 The illustrations referred to may be comprehended 
 under two classes : those on the one hand, which have 
 been drawn from eastern sources, and also from Jew- 
 ish of a more recent date, as from the Talmud and the 
 Rabbins ; and on the other, those which are derived 
 from classic Greek writers, in order to explain the New 
 Testament usage. The principal works of the most 
 celebrated scholars, who have taken the trouble to col- 
 lect them, have already been mentioned. These works 
 are not very numerous, nor are they very difficult 
 to obtain ; and moreover, the advantages which they 
 afford, if a degree of accurate and mechanical arrange- 
 ment be employed in the use of them, may be secured 
 with an extremely trifling expense both of time and 
 labor. 
 
 It will not require the private industry of a year, in 
 order to extract, as far as maybe necessary, all that has 
 been collected to illustrate the New Testament, by 
 Lightfoot and Schoettgen, from Hebrew and Rabbini- 
 cal writers, by Eisner, Raphelius, Kypke and others, 
 from the Greek classics, and by Krebs and others, from 
 
116 METHOD OF STUDY. 
 
 Josephus and Philo.* And since in the arrangement 
 of what is extracted, it is evidently most natural and 
 convenient to introduce every thing under the passages 
 of the New Testament, which are thereby illustrated 
 or explained, (for which purpose an interleaved edition 
 may be used,) in a short time a treasure of philological 
 notes may easily be laid up. When this is done, they 
 naturally retain their useful arrangement, are suscepti- 
 ble of continued augmentation with scarcely any addi- 
 tional trouble, and even in interpretation they are un- 
 doubtedly the most serviceable of all helps, and very 
 frerjuently render all others superfluous. 
 
 The facility with which this method of studying 
 the philology of the Greek Testament can be pursued 
 may readily be urged as the strongest incentive to re- 
 commend it to every one, especially as it is the only 
 method in which a fundamental knowledge of the sub- 
 ject is to be attained. It cannot be objected, that the 
 acquisition of such a knowledge requires too much 
 time, which ought to be devoted to other branches of 
 theology ; on the contrary it is evident, that in the 
 other branches of theology, even in the most important, 
 the advantages of such a thorough knowledoe of the 
 language of the apostles are incalculable, and that a 
 vast deal more depends upon it than upon the language 
 of the Old Testament. 
 
 Lastly ; with respect tothie limits, within which the 
 study of sacred criticism may be restricted without in- 
 jury, the following may be defined as almost self-evi- 
 dent. 
 
 It is exceedingly clear, that personal application and 
 
 • Note XXXI. 
 
METHOD OP STUDY. 117 
 
 practice of criticism are only possible in the case of a 
 few, because the helps which are necessary for this 
 purpose can, in their very nature, be employed only by 
 a few. We must consequently be satisfied with using 
 the discoveries of others, which, by the aid of some late 
 works, can now be done with considerable facility. 
 
 So far as attention to this subject is required for in- 
 terpretation, we may begin with one of the smaller 
 critical editions of the Bible, in which only the most 
 important various readings, or those of the most im- 
 portant places, are collected, without considering the 
 larger works of Kennicott and De Rossi, or Mill and 
 Wetstein, to be necessary. All that is essential for this 
 purpose is, simply to obtain certain conviction respect- 
 ing the genuine reading of those places which are ad- 
 duced in support of doctrine. Here then it becomes 
 necessary to acquire a knowledge of the various read- 
 ings which are extant of such places, to draw them 
 therefore from those works in which they are brought 
 together, at the same time observing the grounds on 
 which the value of each is determined. These may 
 be found in such works, for instance, as Griesbach's 
 New Testament. But those various readings of less 
 moment, which relate to places of no great consequence, 
 or do not at all affect the sense of a text, may without 
 disadvantage be passed over in interpretation, however 
 important they may frequently be for the critic properly 
 so called, who often finds in them most valuable dis- 
 closures respecting the character, the age, the derivation, 
 and the family likeness of his manuscripts. It was there 
 fore very necessary to form a collection of these ; but, 
 
 10* 
 
118 
 
 METHOD OF STUDY. 
 
 by one who merely intends to make use of criticism in 
 order to pave the way for the more sohd interpretation, 
 they may be regarded as quite indifferent, and there- 
 fore he may without loss omit the study of those larger 
 works, the greatest part of which is occupied merely 
 in discoveries of this nature. 
 
 Although, from the nature of the subject, the student 
 IS thus far exonerated from the obligation of a personal 
 application to criticism, and is allowed to limit his exa- 
 mination to the most important of those critical trea- 
 sures which have been brought to light by others ; yet 
 there is one point from which no one should withhold 
 his attention. 
 
 It is at least necessary for every one to acquire some 
 personal knowledge of the way in which criticism can 
 proceed in making its discoveries, of the materials with 
 which it is employed, and then also of the principles 
 by which it must be governed, of the caution that must 
 be used, and of the errors that are to be avoided. For 
 this purpose, a foundation must by all means be laid in 
 some historical information respecting the character of 
 the sources which must be resorted to, the age, the man- 
 ner of origin, and the characteristic properties of the ma- 
 nuscripts, in which confidence is chiefly to be placed, 
 the most remarkable varieties which tend to show their 
 derivation from different families or recensions, and 
 also respecting what determines the value and the uti- 
 lity of the most ancient translations of the Greek text. 
 This previous knowledge will enable the student to 
 deduce for himself most of those rules of criticism 
 which must regulate in the detection of interpo- 
 
METHOD OF STUDY. 119 
 
 lations, and in the restoration of the genuine readings ; 
 or certainly to form a judgment of his own with regard 
 to their correctness. 
 
 Such a course as that now suggested will at least 
 place the student in a situation, to examine in some 
 measure for himself the grounds on which, among the 
 various readings of a passage, a critic gives the pre- 
 ference to any particular one ; for although he is 
 obliged to rely upon the historical accounts which he 
 receives from the critic, although he must believe on 
 his word that the reading is to be found in this or that 
 manuscript, or is confirmed by the authority of this or 
 that version ; yet he can now form his own judgment 
 respecting the correctness or incorrectness of the opi- 
 nion which had been drawn from the data. 
 
 These remarks are sufficient to show, that every 
 theologian should endeavor to obtain at least as much 
 knowledge of criticism as is necessary for this purpose ; 
 and the ^reat ease with which this can be done adds 
 weight to the obligation. In almost every introduction 
 to the New or to the Old Testament, the most of what 
 is required on this subject may be found. If a person 
 wishes to go somewhat further into detail, he need only 
 abstract one or two of the treatises on the principles of 
 .(criticism which are introductory to Bengel's Apparatus 
 Criticus, or Griesbach's works, and then it will scarcely 
 give him any trouble, to add whatever may from time 
 to time be altered — or perhaps only differently modi- 
 fied — in the old principles by the discovery of new, or 
 the improvement which such discoveries may have actu- 
 cilly made. 
 
120 METHOD OF STUDY. 
 
 The subjects which have been stated constitute 
 those branches of learning which are comprehended 
 in this work under the name of sacred philology ; and 
 they should be studied in the manner above mentioned 
 by every one during his theological course of three 
 years, and in this manner every one can certainly 
 study them with advantage. It is evident that in such 
 a course, success depends chiefly upon a student's own 
 industry, and that even the direction of a teacher is at 
 most necessary only to give information respecting the 
 literary helps, that is, the works which must be used. 
 But experience gives still more certainty than antici- 
 pation would justify us in assuming, that nothing but 
 
 PERSONAL INDUSTRY, DIRECTED BY SOME WELL AR- 
 RANGED SYSTEM, can accomplish a vast deal in this 
 department in a short space of time. 
 
EXEGETICAL THEOLOGY. 
 
 PART II. 
 
 HERMENEUTICS. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 The last branch of knowledge which belongs to 
 the study of exegetical theology, may very suitably be 
 distinguished by the appropriate name of hermeneu- 
 Tics.* The term exegesis,! taken in a limited sense, 
 has been applied to it, and such an application of the 
 word may easily be justified, since, according to the 
 use of language, the very same thing may be signified 
 both by hermeneutics and exegesis. It may, however, 
 still more easily be shown, that, in the distribution of 
 the various parts of theology, a distinction between 
 these two should be observed ; or that there are rea- 
 sons for considering hermeneutics as one species ot 
 learning, which indeed belongs to a course of exegetical 
 study, and is subordinate to exegesis. 
 
 In order to place this beyond the reach of doubt, it 
 is only necessary to develop with accuracy the idea 
 which the term expresses, and to set in a clear light 
 the object to which it is particularly devoted. 
 
 • From ^/iJiwu, to interpret. Tr. t From £,;'(;y£o/(a(, to explain. Tr. 
 
122 HERMENEUTICS. 
 
 The general design of exegetical study, it is plain, 
 is simply this ; to place us in such a situation, that we 
 may be able to use the sacred Scriptures, wherein the 
 divine truths of our religion must be contained, as the 
 very sources of those truths, and from them derive our 
 knowledge. Now, after satisfying ourselves, first of 
 all, respecting their genuineness, their incorruptness, 
 and their origin, the very next condition which is re- 
 quired to understand and properly to use those writings 
 is, to become acquainted with the languages in which 
 they were composed. A previous study of sacred phi- 
 lology is therefore necessary, although it is easy to see 
 and still more so to experience, that this alone is not 
 enough to enable us thoroughly to attain the design in 
 view. Knowledge of the languages does indeed ap- 
 pear to lead to it more nearly than any other. In fact, 
 it is of itself sufficient, in many cases, to make us ac- 
 quainted with the true sense of those writings, but 
 not so in all, for there are veiy many in which some- 
 thing else is required. 
 
 It is possible, whatever writing we may be exami- 
 ning, very often to understand all the words by which 
 a sentiment is expressed, while at the same time we are 
 unable to discover any intelligible sense in them. And 
 yet oftener may we understand all the words of a sen- 
 tence, and still not be certain of the writer's meaning, 
 because his words may admit of various significations, 
 and when taken together may give several different 
 senses. Consequently, certain rules, directions and 
 marks are necessary, to enable us to ascertain and de- 
 fine what sense the author of a writing connected with 
 
LAWS OF INTERPRETATION NECESSARY. 123 
 
 the expressions which he selected, for this alone can 
 be the true sense of the writing. 
 
 It is this which makes hermeneiitics a distinct 
 branch of learning, and thus a particular part of exe- 
 getical study ; for it is this which makes it obligatory 
 to find out, examine and apply those rules, aids and di- 
 rections of a higher character, by means of which the 
 true sense of our sacred scriptures can without error 
 be investigated and perceived. 
 
 But before entering into the actual discussion of the 
 question, whence herrneneutics must derive these rules 
 and directions, and obtain these aids and marks to guide 
 the inquirer, it may not be useless to dwell for a mo- 
 ment on a preliminary observation, the immediate pur- 
 port of which is indeed only to place the necessity of 
 this particular science in a clearer light, but which at 
 the same time may give most of the results in reference 
 to that question. 
 
 The necessity of hermeneutics is undoubtedly 
 shown in the strongest light from the fact which expe- 
 rience attests, that our sacred scriptures not only can 
 be mterpreied in the greatest variety of manner, but 
 also that from time immemorial they have been so in- 
 terpreted. All Christian sects, both those of ancient 
 and those of modern times, have always known how 
 to explain scripture in such a way as to elicit their own 
 particular opinions ; and since their opinions are often 
 contradictory, some of them must therefore find there 
 the very opposite views to those which meet the eyes 
 of others. 
 
 Let it be supposed now, that each of these sects 
 
124 LAWS OF INTERPRETATION NECESSARY. 
 
 announces its determination to proceed according to 
 certain hermeneutical rules. Although indeed this 
 would afford no favorable presentiment respecting the 
 confident reliance which ought to be placed in them, 
 yet it would be a strong proof of the absolute necessity 
 of establishing such rules as a foundation to act upon. 
 For whoever is not conscious of having conducted his 
 interpretations according to such rules, cannot certain- 
 ly think of attempting to defend or to oppose the cor- 
 rectness of an exposition. Now, there is not a single 
 one of those sects willing to confess, that they have 
 interpreted in a merely arbitrary manner, and conse- 
 quently every one of them does, by this very circum- 
 stance, allow the necessity of hermeneutics, but at the 
 same time also every one of them shows very plainly 
 what sort of hermeneutics is necessary, or what kind 
 of rules ought to be established, in order to be useful. 
 
 We ought, in one word, to have such rules as both 
 can and must be regarded generally, as true and bind- 
 ing. So long as such principles are applied as are ad- 
 mitted by one party only and rejected by others, it is 
 impossible to unite in the true meaning of scripture, 
 because it is impossible for the one party to convince 
 the other of the truth of their interpretations, or to 
 show the falsehood of the opposite. But while this 
 has always been attempted by each, even from the ear- 
 liest periods, each has also maintained, that its own 
 laws of interpretation are of such a nature, that they 
 ought to be admitted by every one, for on no other 
 supposition could a wish to make the attempt occur to 
 any one's mind. On other grounds also we know that 
 
LAWS OF INTERPRETATION NECESSARY. 125 
 
 each party is satisfied of this. Each therefore does 
 certainly receive it as an axiom, that there are rules of 
 interpretation, which are to be generally admitted as 
 true, and that merely these and none others ought to 
 be prescribed to hermeneutics. 
 
 It might be foreseen also, that it must be very pos- 
 sible to deceive one's self, either in ascertaining these 
 rules, or in trusting too much to their generally con- 
 necting power, or even in the application of them ; for 
 if this were not the case, inquirers would not have 
 been able to discover such various and conflicting 
 views in the Bible. The true reason of this is imme- 
 diately perceived, as soon as the source is named from 
 which these rules must be drawn, and from which 
 alone they can be drawn. This source need no longer 
 be sought for ; for as soon as it is admitted, that the 
 rules must be so framed, that they can be regarded as 
 generally true and bhiding, only one can possibly be 
 recognized. 
 
 In a Word, that which alone must be generally re- 
 spected, and the authority of which must be generally 
 acknowledged, is pure reason ; so that it is this alone 
 from which hermeneutics can receive its directions, and 
 borrow the respect which it requires. This principle 
 must the more necessarily be allowed, as soon as we 
 come to explain what God's revelation, or what the 
 meaning of his declarations, must be. The man whom 
 reason cannot tell, that such a sense and none other 
 lies in a revelation, is not bound to take it in this sense. 
 If then it cannot be proved that an interpretation of a 
 passage in the Bible is agreeable to reason, or, in other 
 words, that sound reason can find no other sense in it 
 
 U 
 
126 LAWS OF INTERPRETATION 
 
 tlian this, it ought not to be expected, that a man 
 should acquiesce in the interpretation.* 
 
 The whole art then, and the whole duty of herme- 
 neutics must consist simply in this, to explain with 
 reason, that is, to explain in such a manner as is agree- 
 able to those general laws of nature, according to which 
 the soul of man must always govern itself in fonning 
 its thoughts and conceptions, in conveying its concep- 
 tions to others, and in receiving those which others 
 communicate : or, in other words, all hermeneutics can 
 be nothing else than unsophisticated logic applied to 
 the explanation of scripture. 
 
 It is unnecessary now to prove this. But the clear- 
 er it is placed before our eyes and placed before them 
 as incontrovertibly true, the more natural does the 
 question become, — whether such laws of interpretation, 
 agreeable to reason, do really offer themselves, and 
 whether from the general natural laws of thinking 
 such principles can be drawn, the truth, correctness 
 and applicability of which can generally be perceived. 
 
 Judging from experience, as already suggested, it 
 would seem scarcely possible that such principles can 
 exist, or else extremely difficult to discover them ; for 
 othervv^ise, how could opinions, so numerous, so diver- 
 sified, and even in part so contradictory, be deduced 
 by interpretation from the Scriptures ? If true herme- 
 neutics must derive its principles only from the general 
 laws of thinking, or, in a word, from logic, hermeneu- 
 tics can be but one for all persons, as is the case with 
 logic and reason. But then all persons, by applying 
 this one hermeneutics, would necessarily find only one 
 ♦ Note XXXII. 
 
FOUNDED ON REASON. 127 
 
 and the same sense in the Scripture, or it is clear that 
 they could not conduct their operations according to 
 the same laws. This appears to be undeniable, and 
 therefore it is at least no less so, that these rules of a 
 reasonable hcrnieneutics, which are universally recog- 
 nized as the true and only correct rules, are not very 
 readily discoverable ; else, they would not have been so 
 various as they must have been, if we may judge from 
 the variety of interpretations which have resulted. 
 Yet the phenomena, on which this conclusion has been 
 founded, undoubtedly do often arise from a cause al- 
 together dirterent from this difficulty. 
 
 The variety of interpretations and methods of in- 
 terpreting v/liich in various ages have gratified the 
 fancy, originated much less frequently from variety in 
 the principles of interpretation themselves, than from 
 the various application which was made of them. 
 There have, undoubtedly, been interpreters, who were 
 giiided by principles entirely false and unreasonable, 
 and therefore their expositions bear in the very face of 
 them the character of falsehood so remarkably, that 
 the sound understanding perceives it at the first look; 
 but still, most interpreters, or certainly the greater 
 number, proceeded upon principles altogether correct, 
 and ditlered from each other only in the application of 
 them, for which many qualifications are re^ui^ite. which 
 are not so easily found in connexion, because they can- 
 not be brought together without difiiculty. 
 
 This will show itself in the clearest liffht, when 
 some of these principles of interpretation themselves 
 are developed, which simple reason prescribes to her- 
 
i2d 
 
 FIRST LAW OF INTERPRETATION. 
 
 meneutics, or which this alone derives from unsophis- 
 ticated logic. Those only which are of the most ge- 
 neral kind can naturally be selected, and consequently 
 it will not be possible here to develop more than three 
 or four, bat these are of such a nature, that most of 
 those which are more particular in their character may 
 readily be drawn from them. But this development 
 will most evidently show with what ease, on the one 
 hand, these general rules can be formed, or at least be 
 proved to human understanding to be correct and obli- 
 gatory, — and at the same time also, on the other, how 
 much the application of them requires and presumes, 
 — how easily therefore they may be variously apphed, 
 — and how necessarily this must produce variety of 
 interpretation. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 I. The first of all the laws of interpretation is cer- 
 tainly this : to endeavor to investigate the sense of a 
 writing or passage which is to be interpreted, according* 
 to the signification which the general usage of the lan- 
 guage, or also the well known particular usage of the 
 writer, connects with the words which he employs. 
 The rule, in one word, amounts to this : we should 
 seek, in the first place, the literal sense of every pas" 
 sage to be interpreted, as it must be afforded either by 
 the general usage, or by one which is peculiar to the 
 writer. But why this must be sought first, is a point 
 which need not be made intelligible to any one, for 
 
FIRST LAW OF INTERPRETATION. 129 
 
 every man's natural sense will tell him, which will also 
 instinctively always bring him tirst to this means of 
 exposition. 
 
 It is indeed natural for every one to presume, that 
 a man who intends to make himself understood by 
 another, can use his words only in a sense which 
 others also attach to them, or, if he uses them in ano- 
 ther sense, can only use them in such an one as others 
 will immediately recognize to be his. The reader will 
 therefore take his expressions only in a signification in 
 which every other man takes them when they oc- 
 cur also elsewhere, or in that in which he is elsewhere, 
 as is well known, accustomed to employ them. Let a 
 man first investigate this with care, and in most 
 cases he will find very little more to be necessary in 
 order to determine the true sense of his author. 
 
 This no one has doubted, and no one can doubt, 
 who is possessed of a sound understanding. Still, 
 tliere have been expositors, as will be noticed hereafter 
 in the history of this subject, who have maintained, 
 that different principles may apply to the Bible ; who, 
 for this very reason, do not deserve to bo refuted. Yet 
 if all had agreed in this — if all inteipreters had pro- 
 ceeded on this first law of exposition, it would still be 
 very easy to explain how the greatest variety of inter- 
 pretations must, notwithstanding, be introduced, and 
 equally evident is it whence they must spring. 
 
 In the application of this principle all depends on 
 the correctness and accuracy of our knowledge of lan- 
 guage, and these can, must and will ever be exceed- 
 ingly various. When an interpreter understands an 
 
 expression merely according to the proper, and not also 
 11* 
 
130 FIRST LAW OF INTERPRETATION. 
 
 accordina^ to the figurative significations, which the 
 usage of language attaches to it, what widely difierent 
 expositions must he sometimes produce from the expo- 
 sition given by others ! Another may indeed have a 
 sufficiently full and correct acquaintance with the ge- 
 neral usage of language ; he may know with great ac- 
 curacy all the significations in which a word is gene- 
 rally taken, while, at the same time, the particular 
 usage of the writer is unknovv/-n to him : consequently, 
 he does not know the precise meaning in which the 
 writer is accustomed to use the word. How different 
 then must be the sense which he finds, from that which 
 another derives by means of a nicer knowledge of lan- 
 guage ! And if again another explains, according to 
 the pure Greek idiom, what a third perceives to be a 
 peculiarity of the Hellenistic dialect, how remarkably 
 must their interpretations vary, merely from this one 
 cause ! 
 
 Scarcely anything but this single consideration 
 founded on fact, that in difierent periods of Christianity 
 and among its different sects, the knowledge of lan- 
 guage has been exceedingly various, is necessary, in 
 order to show most plainly, how, in different ages and 
 among different sects, such vastly diversified and in 
 part contradictory materials could be found in the Bi- 
 ble. All, or at least much the greater number, (for 
 alas, the remark is not true of all,) had understanding 
 enough to discern, that in explaining Scripture it must 
 be the first care to vmderstand the sense in which the 
 expressions of the writers were in part generally em- 
 ployed in other places, and in part by themselves in 
 particular. They all perceived too, that, for this pur- 
 
FIRST LAW OP INTERPRETATION. 131 
 
 pose, it was necessary to become acquainted both with 
 the language in general, and witli the particular usage 
 of the writers. Most of them supposed that they had 
 formed such an acquaintance ; but how did this know- 
 ledge of language appear in certain periods? 
 
 Was there not a time, when it was thought that 
 everything in the Bible must be interpreted properly,* 
 because the figurative language of the east was utterly 
 unknown 'l Was there not another time, when expo- 
 sitors would see no Hebraisms in the langfuaore of the 
 New Testament, because it was taken for granted, that 
 all which the Holy Spirit communicated by inspiration 
 to the apostles must be pure Greek ? And was there 
 not again another, and a long period, when men could 
 find no other sense in the expressions of Scripture but 
 what the doctrinal usage of language belonging to 
 later centuries had connected with them, without a sus- 
 picion, that they themselves and their age could have 
 attached to them any other ideas ? 
 
 The result is evident. It is equally evident that 
 such a result could not but take place ; and moreover, 
 it is now evident, and the reason is also clear, that in- 
 terpretation could not make sure progress, until sacred 
 philology was cultivated with more zeal and with the as- 
 sistance of superior aids, with better taste and more 
 learning. Only the philologist can be an in- 
 terpreter. It is true, that the office of interpreta- 
 tion requires more than mere philology or an acquaint- 
 ance with language ; but all those other qualifications 
 that may belong to it are useless without this acquaint- 
 
 • Note XXXIII 
 
132 SECOND LAW OF INTERPRETATION. 
 
 ance, whilst, on the contrary, in very many cases no- 
 thing more than this is necessary, for correct interpr^ 
 tation. 
 
 The trnih of this observation will be shown by the 
 additional general laws of interpretation, which must 
 now be adduced, in reference to those cases, which 
 mere knowledge of language is not sufficient to explain. 
 
 II. The second general law of interpretation is this : 
 always to explain with a view to the spirit and mode of 
 thinking of the age for which a writing was immediately 
 intended ; or, to express this in clearer and more general 
 terms, — that may always be considered as the true 
 sense of the writer to be explained, which, either alone, 
 or at least as the most natural sense, could be suggested 
 by his expressions to the men, to whom and for whom 
 he wrote.* 
 
 When the rule is expressed in this form, the reason 
 of it also is so clearly recognized, that no development 
 can be necessary even to the most uneducated man. 
 Every writer wishes indeed to be understood naturally. 
 Consequently, he will not only always employ his ex- 
 pressions in the sense which his readers will connect 
 with them, but, in the ideas which he communicates 
 to them, he will always be governed by their ability to 
 comprehend, and will pay regard to their particular 
 manner of forming conceptions of subjects, and this 
 either intentionally, or because, as it is common to the 
 whole age, it is also his own. 
 
 When therefore a reader meets in a work with 
 ideas which he knows were in circulation among those 
 • Note XXXIV. 
 
SECOND LAW OF INTERPRETATION. 133 
 
 for whom the work was intended, and were circulated 
 in a certain definite form; when lie finds there not only 
 particular words and phrases, but entire representa- 
 tions and series of representations characteristic of the 
 age in which the work oriijinatcd : he may confidently 
 presume, that the writer whom he would explain con- 
 nected therewith the same sense which they must first 
 present to his readers, even if j^rammatical exposition 
 could discover in his expressions another sense. Other- 
 wise, he must undoubtedly have been misunderstood, 
 had he in this way expressed thoughts different from 
 those which his contemporaries would thus have com- 
 municated ; and certainly no rational writer will ex- 
 pose himself to unavoidable misconception. 
 
 We know, for example, what idea the Jews in the 
 time of Christ associated with the phrase, " kingdom of 
 heaven." If then we were to take this phrase in its 
 grammatical and verbal meaning, we should most as- 
 suredly explain it incorrectly ; for we may with the 
 strictest propriety, indeed we . must, assume it as indis- 
 putable, that Christ and his apostles employed it in the 
 same way as their nation,* for this plain reason, that 
 their nation would not have understood them, if by 
 this expression they had intended to convey to them a 
 difierent idea. 
 
 Yet there are several cases, where we are compel- 
 led to determine the sense of certain places of the Bi- 
 ble, solely from some local and temporary opinions, cir- 
 cumstances or prejudices of the men for whom they were 
 originally written ; or are compelled, first to examine 
 carefully what ideas these men could attach thereto ; 
 •Note XXXV. 
 
134 SECOND LAW OP INTERPRETATION. 
 
 since, by an interpretation merely grammatical, with- 
 out regard to tliose historical circumstances, no sense 
 can be discovered, or else one which, on other grounds, 
 is plainly perceived to be erroneous. There are in the 
 Gospels themselves several allusions to national Jev/- 
 ish opinions, or to particular sectarian views, especially 
 tiiose maintained by the Pharisees, — to traditions and 
 sayings of former times, preserved among the people, 
 —to particular historical facts, which at the time par- 
 ticularly engaged the attention of the people, — and 
 even to proverbs that were probably in most frequent 
 use.* 
 
 In the epistles of St. Paul, several places may be 
 found, where he argues as it were kuO' 'dvdputTrov, from 
 Jewish and Gentile ideas ; and again there are others, 
 where he draws conclusions entirely according to the 
 particular modes of reasoning pursued by those with 
 whom he had to do.t 
 
 If then we are wholly unacquainted with these 
 points, we shall find in most of these places either no 
 sense, or what they contain vv^ill be unintelligible to 
 us, or we shall elicit representations which are so 
 plainly at variance with each other, with the connex- 
 ion, with the views and sentiments of the writer as 
 known to us from other sources, that we must imme- 
 diately perceive them to be incorrect. 
 
 In such cases, it is a real pressure of necessity, 
 which imposes on us the law, to have regard in our in- 
 
 " Note XXXVI. 
 t The reader will find some observations on this point, and on the 
 doctrine of accommodation as connected with it in a subsequent 
 
SECOND LAW OF INTEKPRETATION. 135 
 
 terpretation to the mode of thinking of the first read- 
 ers, and to what they could and must have understood. 
 Even in the fact that such cases do exist, hes the 
 strongest proof that this must always be done naturally 
 and without any violence ; and hence will it at the 
 same time be most sensibly felt, how indispensable an 
 acquaintance with the spirit and witli the history of 
 tlie age in which our sacred writings arose, an ac- 
 quaintance with the mode of thinking of the men, and 
 hideed, in some respects, an acquaintance with the per- 
 sonal circumstances of the men, for whom they were 
 originally composed, must be, for a correct interpreta- 
 tion, and one in which we may repose implicit confii- 
 dence. 
 
 But here, who does not again see what endless va- 
 riety of interpretations must arise merely from variety 
 in the nature and compass of the historical knowledge^ 
 which the interpreter's resources enable him to apply 
 to exposition? If sound understanding tells every 
 man, that in interpreting he must place himself within 
 the sphere of the ideas and vievv'^s of the original read- 
 ers, — if moreover all had the intention to do thus, — and 
 indeed, if all had actually done so, it could not readily 
 have happened, that all should have done so in an 
 equal degree. One interpreter, wliose acquaintance 
 with these ideas was intimate, must find them in many 
 more places than another whose Imowledge of thera 
 was only of a general nature. And there have been 
 many interpreters who knew nothing at all of the lo- 
 cal and temporary meaning of certain phrases and ex- 
 pressions in the Bible ; to whom, in fact, it never once 
 occurred, that the early Jews could have attached 
 
136 THIRD LAW OF INTERPRETATION. 
 
 other ideas to certain forms of speech than those which 
 the Uteral sense of the terms expressed, and who conse- 
 quently found nothing further therein but what was 
 drawn out by this sense. 
 
 III. But, along with this general rule of hermenen- 
 tics, a third must necessarily be connected, by which the 
 application and the applicability of the second receive 
 some qualifications, without which indeed it ought to 
 be immediately rejected. The rule is this : in inter- 
 preting a writing, constant reference should be had to 
 the character, views and known principles of the wri- 
 ter, from whom it originates. 
 
 The palpable reason on which this rule is founded 
 is likewise very easy to be perceived by a mind of 
 plain, good .'^ense. The character of a writer is, in re- 
 ality, nothing else than a combination of all that must 
 mark out and modify his particular way of think- 
 ing, of treating subjects, and of expressing him- 
 self To explain the opinions and views of a writer 
 from his character, is therefore in fact nothing else than 
 always to go upon the supposition, that he has formed 
 such conceptions as, according to the entire situation 
 and all the circumstances in which he was placed, ac- 
 cording to his own particular education, according to 
 his personal relations, he could and must form most 
 naturally : and who will not always do this of his own 
 accord ? 
 
 It is also equally unnecessary to show, why parti- 
 cular respect must likewise be paid to his design, and to 
 his principles, as otherwise understood. This indeed 
 is nothing else than to suppose, that a man of under- 
 standing will not readily act in opposition to his own 
 
THIRD LAW OF INTERPRETATION. 137 
 
 design, will not, ordinarily, easily contradict himself — 
 will not without some evident cause alter his opinions: 
 — and who feels not of himself the reasonableness and 
 even the irresistible force of this demand? 
 
 Very readily, too, may it be anticipated, that the ap- 
 plication of these rules in interpreting the Bible in par- 
 ticular must often be necessary, and that very much 
 must depend upon it. Hence also it is, that no inter- 
 preter has ventured to abandon them ; only the appli- 
 cation of them must be of the most varied kind, and of 
 course the expositions resulting must unavoidably be 
 equally varied. One interpreter may have formed a 
 different view of the character of a sacred writer from 
 another, or may have ascribed to him a different de- 
 sign ; and thus he would find in him ideas altosfether 
 different from those which would be perceived by the 
 other, although both had been governed by the same 
 principles.* 
 
 Nothing can possibly prevent this, but as extensive 
 and accurate historical acquaintance as can be formed 
 with all the personal circumstances of a writer, and 
 with all the local and temporary circumstances con- 
 nected with his writing, united with a nice perception 
 of the nature and operations of the soul ; which, unhap- 
 pily, is not easily communicated, and is only to be com- 
 prehended by one who has a susceptibility of such im- 
 pressions. 
 
 * Note XXXVII. 
 
 12 
 
138 SCRIPTURE TO BE EXPLAINED ON THE 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 These three general laws comprise almost all that 
 can be prescribed to hermeneutics. Whatever particn- 
 lar rules may still further be imposed, may at least with 
 great propriety be drawn from them, or have their 
 foundation in them. But if this be really so, who 
 does not perceive, that sacred hermeneutics, or the art 
 of expounding the Bible, may well be said to have no 
 rules whatever, which are peculiar to itself? If these 
 are the three great principles, on which we must pro- 
 ceed in interpreting our sacred scriptures, it is evident 
 that we must act in relation to the Bible just as in re- 
 lation to every other writing, must bring out its true 
 meaning precisely by the same means as we would ap- 
 ply to any other book ; in a word, in explaining the 
 Bible, we must do the very same thing which sound 
 understanding and rational (which is also natural,) lo- 
 gic always require to be done, in explaining every 
 other book in the world. 
 
 This is most undoubtedly the fact, and the correct- 
 ness of this position may even be proved with irresisti- 
 ble evidence. It was the most extraordinary of all pre- 
 judices, which, in former ages, led to its denial, or at 
 least prevented it from being openly asserted ; for not 
 only is there no reason or circumstance that can be ad- 
 duced to show the possibility of the contrary, but it 
 may be proved on the strongest ground a priori, that 
 the fact could not possibly be otherwise. 
 
 Even the particular connexion which it may have 
 with the inspiration of our sacred scriptures, the very 
 
SAME PRINCIPLKS AS OTHER BOOKS. 139 
 
 l^jciiliarity wliich they may thereby receive, and the 
 characteristic features whereby this may distinguish 
 them, not only can cause no difference in interpreting 
 them, and in the principles or helps which must be ap- 
 plied in order to investigate and in general to ascertain 
 their meaning, but it binds us yet the firmer to those 
 principles, and secures to us with the more certainty 
 the result, which we may promise ourselves, from the 
 application of these natural means. 
 
 The more certain it is that these writings originated 
 from God. the more thoroughly we may be convinced 
 tliat it is he who has inspired the authors with their 
 contents, the more clear and definite our ideas respect- 
 ing the manner of this inspiration may become, the 
 stronger must be our obligation, or the stronger must 
 we feel it to be. to interpret them according to the rules 
 which we would apply to every other book intended 
 for man's use ; for God cannot have announced him- 
 self to men in any other way than that which is adapt- 
 ed to men. And the more certainly may we also ex- 
 pect, by the aid of these general rules correctly ap- 
 plied, to discover with satisfactory confidence the true 
 sense of scripture ; which is not always the case with 
 regard to a human writing. The ground of all those 
 rules, the ground of the wliole system of hermeneu- 
 tics, rests solely and entirely on the supposition, that 
 the author of a writing has thought according to the 
 same laws, according to the same mode of reasoning, 
 and also in the same order as other reasonable men. 
 In human writings this supposition may not unfre- 
 quently be erroneous ; for it is not every writer, who 
 has always thought according to a correct mode of 
 
140 
 
 DOCTRINE OF ACCOMMODATION. 
 
 reasoning, and in a natural order. But as it is impossi- 
 ble that tliis can be the case with inspired writings, it 
 is impossible that the principles of interpretation which 
 are founded thereon, should ever lead us astray when 
 applied to these writings. 
 
 But, it is difficult to determine the limits of inspi- 
 ration, and this difficulty is increased in proportion as 
 we run out into particulars. In our own time, there- 
 fore, the extraordinary apprehension, which once pre- 
 vailed, with regard to the principle, that it is necessary 
 to interpret the Bible like any human book, is almost 
 entirely abandoned. There is one particular point, 
 however, with respect to which an exception is consi- 
 dered as necessary, and this has arisen from the some- 
 what doubtful use which has been made of it by cer- 
 tain modern interpreters. It is necessary, therefore, to 
 add here a few remarks in relation to it, for the point 
 is one of gi'eat consequence, on which very much in- 
 deed depends ; and it is an important point, which, al- 
 though first agitated in our own day, has already in 
 many instances, and certainly in some not without de- 
 sign, been involved in confusion.* 
 
 In connexion with the second law of hermeneu- 
 tics above stated, by which every book should be ex- 
 plained according to the spirit, the mode of thinking, 
 and the views formed by those for whom it was imme- 
 diately written, the question occurs : does this extend 
 to erroneous, and incorrect representations of the age 
 which gave birth to our sacred scriptures ? or, in other 
 words, is it to be presumed, that the authors of our sa- 
 cred scriptures did themselves entertain the unfounded 
 t Note XXXVIII. 
 
DOCTRINE OF ACCOMMODATION. 141 
 
 prejudices of their contemporaries, or at least have oc- 
 casionally been governed thereby, have brought them- 
 selves down, and, to express myself in the usual phra- 
 seology, have accommodated themselves to these pre- 
 judices? 
 
 It is easy to perceive how much depends on this 
 question, for it were easy to anticipate, (and in our own 
 time this has been brought home to us by experience.) 
 what exceedingly diversified systems of doctrine may 
 thus be framed, as the one or the other principle in- 
 volved in the question is applied to interpretation. And 
 on this account, the opposers of this accommodation, 
 that is, of the opinion, that our Lord and his apostles 
 were occasionally influenced by the erroneous views 
 of their day, have been so earnest on the point, that 
 their zeal seems to have led them somewhat farther 
 than was necessary, and probably indeed somewhat 
 farther than wisdom would have dictated. They have 
 sometimes attempted to deny, what it is clear cannot 
 be denied ; while they should have satisfied themselves 
 with insisting on some limitations, which proceed so 
 evidently from the very nature of the case, that their 
 validity and correctness cannot possibly be doubted. 
 
 The following observations in relation to this mat- 
 ter may be sufiicient to set it in its true light. They 
 do not indeed by any means exhaust the subject, but 
 they touch upon the principal points, which it is im- 
 portant to notice in defining this question and in deci- 
 ding upon its merits ; and thus, inasmuch as this is not 
 the proper place for a full development, they may at 
 least obviate some part of the mischief which might 
 12* 
 
142 DOCTRINE OP ACCOMMODATION. 
 
 arise from a distorted, half true, or partial representa- 
 tion.* 
 
 I. In the first place, no one need be alarmed, if 
 he should hear it maintained, that in our holy scrip- 
 tures, as well those of the New as those of the Old 
 Testament, passages occasionally occur, in which the 
 authors, in which even our Lord and his apostles, ac- 
 commodate to the views of their contemporaries, and 
 in fact when those views are erroneous. The idea 
 from which, whether clearly or imperfectly conceived, 
 such alarm may originate, and in some instances 
 has originated, namely, that the sentiment is in the 
 highest degree unworthy of the Holy Spirit, by whom 
 those writings were inspired, can never in a general 
 point of view justify him, for in general it is incorrect. 
 If it be not unworthy of a wise instructor, to bring him- 
 self down to the childlike conceptions of his pupils ; it 
 cannot be unworthy of God, if, in the instructions 
 which he communicated to men, he should occasion- 
 ally have done the same thing, in order to make the 
 truths which, at the same time, he wished to convey to 
 them, the more easily intelligible. 
 
 Every shadow of indecorum is entirely removed, by 
 restricting the application of this principle to such 
 cases, as do not come within the sphere of those views, 
 which, according to the divine intention, are to be com- 
 municated only by a particular revelation, and thus, in 
 a word, merely to those things which, properly speak- 
 ing, do not belong to religious truths. For, in order 
 to find in it any thing objectionable and improper, we 
 must either assume, that God must have instructed 
 • Note XXXIX. 
 
DOCTRINE OF ACCOMMODATION. 
 
 143 
 
 men respecting everything without exception on which 
 they entertained incorrect sentiments ; or, that he must 
 at least have expressed himself correctly on all those 
 subjects respecting which their ideas were erroneous, 
 even with the danger of being unintelligible to them. 
 
 It is evident, for histance, that if the sacred wri- 
 ters, or the Holy Spirit who inspired them, had used 
 perfectly correct language in reference to some points 
 in their time generally misunderstood, for example, in 
 reference to some natural phenomena, the true causes of 
 which the Imowledge of philosophy then prevailing 
 was incompetent to explain ; either they could not 
 have been understood by their contemporaries, or else to 
 these a new system of natural philosophy must have 
 been revealed. But if the one would have been sense- 
 less and the other without an object, as every one will 
 immediately perceive, what remains but to allow that 
 God must have come down to the erroneous ideas of 
 these men, in order to make those correct views which 
 were to be communicated to them, in part more intel- 
 ligible, and in part more impressive. 
 
 It is certainly then not necessary to deny that the 
 sacred writers have done this, and that the prophets in 
 the Old Testament as the apostles in the New have 
 sometimes accommodated themselves to incorrect views 
 of the people, to opinions generally prevailing in their 
 time. What then should prevent us from acknowledg- 
 ing, that the prophets and apostles did not merely ac- 
 commodate to these views, but that they themselves 
 also, at least some among them, did participate in them 
 in common with their contemporaries ? 
 
144 DOCTRINE OF ACCOMMODATION. 
 
 Their inspiration, whatever ideas may be formed 
 respecting it, and how far soever it may be extended, 
 cannot possibly prove anything to the contrary, for it 
 can in no way be injured by it. We cannot surely 
 suppose, that the authors of the New Testament were 
 of themselves so far in advance of their own age. as to 
 have always possessed, on points not connected with 
 religion, sounder, clearer and more refined ideas than 
 their contemporaries ? In that case it would be neces- 
 sary to suppose, that the power of inspiration was gov- 
 erned in its operations by the ability of the men on whom 
 it acted to comprehend, as our Lord so evidently was 
 in the oral instruction which he imparted to his disci- 
 ples. They were not taught all things at once, they 
 were not at once freed from all their prejudices. Why 
 then, notwithstanding their inspiration, may not traces 
 of these be still found in their writings ? 
 
 But it is unnecessary to ask, whether this may be 
 supposed, since it is impossible not to see that the fact 
 is really so. It cannot, by any construction but the 
 most unnatural, be concealed, that our sacred writers, 
 and even Christ himself and his apostles, did occa- 
 sionally direct their instructions in reference to imper- 
 fect views current in their age, and even to views not 
 strictly correct ; and as little can it be concealed, 
 that the latter, the apostles, sometimes brought forward 
 these views as their own, which most probably they 
 held in common with their age. 
 
 To prove this it is not necessary to resort to exam- 
 ples taken from the Old Testament. Are there not in 
 the discourses of our Lord himself instances of the 
 first which are altogether irresistible, and with regard 
 
DOCTRINE OF ACCOMMODATION. 145 
 
 to tlie last, have we not the most definite testimonies of 
 tiie apostles themselves? 
 
 For example, when Jesus says to the Jews, in Matt, 
 xii. 27 : "if I, according to your charge, cast out the 
 demons through Beelzebub, through whom do your 
 sons cast them out ?" it is quite evident, that he rea- 
 sons from the common opinion entertained by the 
 Jews, as if the exorcists, who abounded among them, 
 did really possess and exercise the power of expelling 
 demons. But who supposes, that any real truth lies 
 at the bottom of this common conceit ? And in the 
 same conversation, when in v. 44, 45, he speaks of a 
 demon going out of a man, wandering in waste and 
 dry places, and afterwards taking along with him 
 seven others, and again returning to his old habitation, 
 it is abundantly evident, that he took all these particu- 
 lars from the Jewish doctrine respecting demons, 
 whicli, as we learn from the apocryphal book of To- 
 bit, ch. viii, had long been received among them : and 
 who can persuade himself to admit these particulars 
 as truths of the world of spirits authenticated and es- 
 tablished by him? And when in John iii. 8, he says 
 to Nicodemus, respecting the wind, "thou canst not 
 tell whence it cometh and whither it goeth," it cannot 
 be doubted, that the very inadequate, imperfect and er- 
 roneous acquaintance with the operations of nature 
 which then prevailed in his nation is assumed as the 
 standard. 
 
 It were easy to adduce more instances to the same 
 purpose, but these are quite sufficient to show (at least 
 in general) beyond all doubt, that there are places in 
 the New Testament, where our Lord accommodates 
 
146 DOCTRINE OF ACCOMMODATION. 
 
 his teaching or language to the prevalent erroneous 
 views. That the apostles themselves cherished some 
 of these errors, requires no further proof than what is 
 afforded by their history and education, as delineated 
 in their own writings. It is only necessary to consi- 
 der, who these men were, previously to their becoming 
 associated with Christ and under his particular direc- 
 tion. We may see even in their history, how much 
 national prepossession, how^ many opinions entertained 
 by the people generally, how many incorrect views, 
 were held by them, even after they had enjoyed his in- 
 structions during three years. We need only weigh 
 this fact, how long, even after the death of our Lord 
 and the eifusion of the Holy Ghost, they continued to 
 cling to their expectation of an earthly reign of the 
 Messiah, to their attachment to the ceremonies of the 
 Levitical law, to their Jewish peculiarities, and we 
 sliall find reason to believe, that, in other points, on 
 which their master, agreeably to his design, had im- 
 parted to them no particular information, their concep- 
 tions were not clearer than those of their age and na- 
 tion. We are not only authorized, but we are obliged 
 to suppose, that, in points which have no connex- 
 ion WITH RELIGION, the apostles thought for the 
 most part, with their age. Consequently, it follows, 
 as a fundamental rule of hermeneutics, that in inter- 
 preting their writings, careful attention must be paid 
 to this. 
 
LIMITATIONS OF ACCOMMODATION. 1^7 
 
 C II A P T E R. I V. 
 
 ToGETHEii With tliese fundanieiilal rules, it is ne- 
 cessary to connect two others, which spring immedi- 
 ately from them, and alone determine their applicabili- 
 ty, as they must always lead us in making use of them. 
 The first, their applicability, receives thereby some li- 
 mitations, which are sufficient to remove all solicitude 
 from the mind of the most anxious interpreter, while 
 they are so firmly settled in the nature of the subject, 
 that the most liberal cannot possibly avoid acknow- 
 ledging tVieir claims. 
 
 II. Whatever reasons there may be for supposing 
 that our sacred writers have occasionally expressed 
 themselves according to the views of their age, and 
 even when these views were unfounded, yet, in the 
 SECOND PLACE, this is ucvcr to be assumed in any par- 
 ticular instance, unless supported by clear and proper 
 signs that such is the fact. In other words, it is never 
 justifiable, on the principles of hermeneutics, to apply 
 the doctrine of accommodation to any passage, unless 
 it can be historically shown, tliat the passage does re- 
 ally contain an opinion prevalent at the time, and, far- 
 ther still, vuiless it can be proved from internal evi- 
 dence, that this prevalent opinion is erroneous. The 
 justice of these requisitions every man of sound un- 
 derstanding can easily be made to feel, if he has no in- 
 terested motive to induce him to avoid their force. 
 Whenever a writer's declaration is said to be accom- 
 modated, it is also necessarily implied, that nothing 
 really true is contained in it. But, in relation to every 
 
148 LIMITATIONS OF THE 
 
 writer, it is proper to require sufficient evidence of 
 this, and, in relation to our sacred writers, doubly suf- 
 ficient ; otherwise, truly, it would be very easy to ex- 
 plain away whatever a man finds in the Bible which 
 is disagreeable to him. Those persons who are not 
 satisfied with the doctrine of the divinity of Christ, 
 need only have said from the earliest ages, — 'it was a 
 national idea of the Jews, to conceive of their Messiah 
 as invested with the splendor of the Deity, as a person 
 in whom resided the whole fulness of the Godhead, 
 and according to this idea is he represented, by the 
 apostles.' The opposers of the doctrine of the atone- 
 ment might have spared themselves many very violent 
 operations, which, in former times, they directed 
 against several of those passages of scripture that treat 
 of this subject, if the discovery had been made at an 
 earlier period that all those passages must be illustrated 
 from Jewish views relative to sacrifice, from the 
 shackles of which the apostles or first Christians could 
 not at once free themselves. With the very same fa- 
 cility, all other positive doctrines of Christianity, which 
 may be regarded as ofiensive, may and must be re- 
 moved from the New Testament, as soon as a man al- 
 lows himself, without further proof, to consider every- 
 thing that shocks his prejudices as merely current opi- 
 nion of the Jews. But does not now every man's 
 common sense and feeling teach him that the very le- 
 vity and trifling of such a procedure afford the strong- 
 est ground for concluding, that, in cases of this kind, 
 it is an indispensable duty to allege proof? 
 
 Here it must be particularly borne in mind, that it 
 is by no means sufiicient to be able to show, that cer- 
 
DOCTRINE OF ACCOMMODATION, 149 
 
 tain representations found in the Bible, were views of 
 the age in which the authors hved, or of the people 
 among whom they had constant intercourse ; it is ne- 
 cessary also to be able to prove their incorrectness, be- 
 fore a man should allow himself to find an accommo- 
 dation in the passages in which they occur. 
 
 Will we, for example, represent the declarations of 
 the apostles respecting the atoning efficacy of the death 
 of Christ, as mere allusions to Jewish sacrificial views, 
 which are therefore not to be understood literally? It 
 is then incumbent on us, not only to show, that the 
 Jews really had such sacrificial views, but also to prove 
 that they are really puerile ideas, in which no truth 
 lies at the bottom. Will we — to adduce another illus- 
 tration — will we maintain, that from all those places 
 in which Christ and his apostles speak of demons, no- 
 thing at all can be inferred in favor of the real exist- 
 ence of such kind of spiritual beings, because, in such 
 cases, they have merely spoken according to the con- 
 ceit of their age 1 It is certainly then not enough to 
 have shown, that a general belief in demons did then 
 prevail, but it must also be shown, that this belief of 
 the age was a mere superstition, an erroneous, false, 
 and groundless conceit of the people. 
 
 The cause which makes it proper and necessary to 
 insist on this, is self-evident. An opinion is not al- 
 ways and necessarily erroneous because it is popular. 
 Among the views prevalent in an age and the stock of 
 ideas circulating in a nation, there may be some inter- 
 mingled that arc true. Our Lord therefore and his 
 apostles may have been governed by certain opinions 
 
 of their time, not merely because they were opinions 
 
 13 
 
150 LIMITATIONS OF THE 
 
 of their time, but because, according to their own con- 
 victions, the views which they afforded were true, cor- 
 rect and well founded. Thus, he may have spoken so 
 often of demons, not merely because the people be- 
 lieved in their existence, but because he believed in it 
 himself; and therefore it is possible, that he has not, in 
 this matter, accommodated to the popular ideas, and it 
 must therefore be allowed to be possible, that by his 
 declarations he has himself attested their existence, and 
 that it was his intention to attest it. 
 
 Undoubtedly there may be cases in which the proof 
 above spoken of may be dispensed with, because it 
 would be unnecessary and superfluous to adduce it ; 
 (of such cases I shall speak further presently,) but in 
 others again we can demand of the interpreter to bring 
 the proof from internal grounds. As it is often easy 
 to foresee the impossibility of satisfying this demand, 
 its severity is proportionably the more evident. Who 
 will undertake to show on internal grounds, that no 
 beino" can exist of such a nature as the Jews, in the 
 time of Christ and his apostles, formed in their mind 
 vinder the name of angels and demons ; or that the fu- 
 ture resurrection of the dead, which the Jews must 
 have expected from their Messiah, and the apostles 
 certainly did expect from Christ, can never take place? 
 Most undoubtedly, the fact, that the Jews believed the 
 one and the other, involves no reason why we should 
 also admit them. Nothing but the certainty that they 
 had been instructed in them by a divine revelation can 
 make them obligatory on us ; and hence it might ap- 
 pear to be sufficient, if, in relation to points of this 
 kind, it were barely stated, that respecting them we are 
 
DOCTRINE OF ACCOMMODATION. 151 
 
 destitute of certainty. Yet, when the theologian, who 
 intends to form a system the parts of which are pro- 
 perly connected insists upon this, that the testimony of 
 our Lord and his apostles must sufficiently supply 
 this want, or rather, give to us this certainty ; when he 
 urges this consideration, that these views of the Jewish 
 people, which it is freely granted no evidence either 
 external or internal could otherwise make credible to 
 us, have been established by the authority of Christ, 
 and on this accomit alone must be admitted by us eis 
 true, since we are as little able on internal grounds to 
 reject as to admit them ; what will the interpreter al- 
 lege on the other hand ? He will not venture to say 
 to him again, that Christ, by apparently establishing 
 this idea of the people, has merely come down to the 
 prejudices of his age, for this is the very point which 
 his opponent denies. And how can he oblige him to 
 concede it, but by proving to him, that in such decla- 
 rations of Christ an accommodation must necessarily 
 l>e admitted, because the opinions apparently establish- 
 ed by him are of such a kind, that it is impossible he 
 could have really intended to establish them ; that is in 
 one word, by showing him, on internal grounds, the 
 incorrectness of the opinions ? 
 
 Thus is it certain beyond all doubt, that, in some 
 cases at least, an accommodation never can with per- 
 fect security be admitted, since it cannot be previously 
 determined, that the representation, in reference to 
 which the accommodation is to be applied, was both 
 an opinion, really prevailing at the time, and also an er- 
 roneous opinion. But now it were easy to anticipate 
 from this, how much the principle of accommodation, by 
 
152 LIMITATIONS OF THE 
 
 this single demand, must lose of the dangerous charac- 
 ter which at first view it would seem to possess. It 
 may be confidently said, that there are not many cases 
 in relation to which those necessary previous proofs 
 can be brought with suitable point, unless a man will 
 help or rather deceive himself with mere conjectures. 
 This last has, in fact, already been done among us 
 often enough, since it has been regarded as the proper 
 business of a newly invented higher criticism, to 
 trace out, by the aid of the history and spirit of the 
 age from which our sacred scriptures have come down 
 to us, whatever may have been merely the common 
 sentiments of the times. Yet, as it is easy to see, that 
 this higher criticism, however good may be the inten- 
 tion of its advocates, but too often can produce nothing 
 better than conjectures, since so few historical monu- 
 ments of that age remain; so is it also easy to per- 
 ceive, that from the nature of the subject mere conjec- 
 ture can determine nothing in relation to it, or can only 
 determine with an interpreter, whose inclination to de- 
 termine has already been formed. Only let the prin- 
 ciple above stated be assumed and applied, and no one 
 need apprehend, that the method of interpretation un- 
 der review can easily be abused to the injury of reli- 
 gion. 
 
 III. Yet all the doubt, which would seem to attach 
 to this point, is removed by subjecting it, in the third 
 PLACE, to a farther limitation, the reasonableness of 
 which is also as evident to common sense as the pre- 
 ceding. 
 
 It may indeed be supposed, that our Lord and his 
 apostles were sometimes influenced by the erroneous 
 
DOCTRINE OF ACCOMMODATION. 
 
 153 
 
 views of their ao-e, but — this is the limitation — it must 
 not be supposed any farther than is consistent with 
 their character, their design, and also their views, 
 either as declared by themselves, or otherwise known 
 with certainty. It has already been stated, as one of 
 the fundamental rules of hermeneutics, that, in the in- 
 terpretation of eveiy writing, constant reference must 
 be had to the character and intention of the writer. 
 The present limitation can therefore in reality add no- 
 thing more than this, that in no case should these 
 rules be at all transgressed ; but the claim to this re- 
 quisition is certainly as evident in the cases where an 
 interpretation founded on accommodation, and one co- 
 incident with the design or character of the writer, 
 appear to come into collision, as it is in all others. 
 
 But we must suppose, and we are justiiied in sup- 
 posing, that an intelligent teacher or writer will never 
 come down to the erroneous views of the men for 
 whom he is laboring, below what is not derogatory to 
 his character and opposed to his design. As often 
 therefore as it can be shown, that by an assertion or 
 declaration he would have injured the one or the other, 
 if he had been governed in making it by a condescend- 
 ing adaptation to error, it is necessary to maintain, 
 that no accommodation, but a real declaration of his 
 own convictions is to be found there. 
 
 With respect to this fundamental limitation itself, 
 we shall not be required to contend with any one ; but 
 on the other hand, we must acknowledge, that it is not 
 very easy to lay down general fixed principles, accord- 
 ing to which it may always be infallibly determined, 
 whether such an economical method of interpretation is 
 13* 
 
154 LIMITATIONS OF THE 
 
 consistent or not with the character and design of a 
 writer. Probably indeed none can be given, whicVi do 
 not admit and require in particular cases some excep- 
 tions, limitations and modifications, arising from the 
 character of the particular case. It is necessary, there- 
 fore, almost in every individual instance, to form a 
 judgment for one's self : indeed, in some of those cases 
 which relate to determining the '1605, or the agreement 
 of an alleged accommodation with the character of the 
 writer, the moral feeling of the interpreter will always 
 claim an influence, which cannot be made uniform by 
 any rules.* These difficulties apply, in a full degree, 
 to our sacred writers, and even to the declarations of 
 our Lord and his apostles ; for the most natural rule to 
 decide by which is applicable to them, that which arises 
 from their entirely peculiar character, cannot itself be 
 actually applied half so easily as at first view might be 
 supposed. This rule seems to result from the most 
 natural supposition, that Christ and his apostles, at the 
 least in whatever belonged to the religious instruction 
 which they intended to impart to the world, never could 
 accommodate to the views of their age, because this 
 would have been in direct opposition to their design. 
 But who does not feel, that closer and more accurate 
 fiixed principles are necessary, respecting what must 
 belong to that religious instruction, and that a man 
 must, above all things, be thoroughly satisfied with 
 these principles, before he can with complete confi- 
 dence apply the rules which are founded on them. 
 
 What has been said may serve to mark out the chief 
 points at least, on the accurate determination and ad- 
 
 • Note XL. 
 
DOCTRINE OF ACCOMMODATION. 155 
 
 justment of which still depend the laws, by which her- 
 meneutics must be governed in such conflicting cases, in 
 fact, on which alone it can be governed with certainty.* 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 The history of this branch of knowledge, and of 
 the manner in which it has been treated from the ear- 
 liest ages, may very well be comprised in a short com- 
 pass. But this is not the case with its literature, which 
 is exceedingly rich. Still, a preliminary sketch of its 
 history, although short, will be of use in order to faci- 
 litate a choice among the principal literary works be- 
 longing to this department, which, in a treatise of this 
 kind, it is necessary to give. 
 
 The history of hermeneutics may most suitably be 
 divided into seven periods of time, which although 
 of very unequal lengths are yet distinguished by prin- 
 ciples of interpretation peculiar to each, or at least 
 by appropriate methods of exposition very observa- 
 bly varying from the others. The characteristic 
 traits of these methods and of these principles, impress 
 upon the exegetical works which we have of each of 
 these periods, such marks of discrimination not to be 
 misunderstood, that, with regard to most of theni, it is 
 unnecessary to inquire after any other marks in order 
 to ascertain the time to which they belong. 
 
 I. In the first two centuries it was hardly possible for 
 the church to have any other principles of exposition than 
 those which the early Christians had in part brought over 
 
 • Note XLI. 
 
156 HISTORY OF HERMENEUTICS. 
 
 with them from Judaism, and in part received from the 
 Jews. Those Christians who were properly Jewish 
 could have no other ; and those who were converted 
 to Christianity from Heathenism could not think of 
 originating others for themselves, for as along with the 
 Christian religion they received the holy scriptures of 
 the Jews, it was natural that they should consider it as 
 incumbent on them to receive also the principles, ac- 
 cording to which they had hitherto been explained by 
 the Jews and their teachers. These principles are 
 very well known. They amount to this : that although 
 the words of scripture are to be explained according 
 to the usage of language, yet frequently their gramma- 
 tical sense is the least important, and that almost all 
 that they contain is allegory, or type, or prophecy. 
 
 Many circumstances conspired to encourage the 
 early fathers, who were possessed of some learning, 
 to adopt this extraordinary method of interpretation. 
 They saw that even the apostle Paul, in some of his 
 epistles, where he was obliged to contend with Jewish 
 Christians, had availed himself of it, as, for instance, 
 in that to the Galatians, and thus they considered 
 themselves as sufficiently authorized, not attending to 
 the peculiar circumstances in which the apostle was 
 placed, and to the particular object which he had in 
 view. They were themselves incompetent to discover 
 a better method of interpretation, because the greatest 
 part of them were altogether unacquainted with the 
 Hebrew language. But what principally recommend- 
 ed this method to them was, that, in contending with 
 the opponents of Christianity among the Jews, they 
 were able to derive from it most important advantage 
 
HISTORY OF HERMENEUTICS. 157 
 
 for their opinions. By the aid which it afforded they 
 were able to point out to the Jews, a muhitude of pro- 
 phecies in the Old Testament relating to Christ, the 
 literal accomplishment of which could be shown with- 
 out any trouble, to illustrate a multitude of types in it, 
 the corresponding antitypes to which were to be found 
 without difficulty in his history. It was therefore no 
 wonder, that Justin Martyr, Irensus, and Clement of 
 Alexandria, were so much captivated by this mode of 
 exposition, as not only not to observe how insecure, 
 unsteady and deceptive it is, but to find in it their chief 
 advantages.* 
 
 II. But, in the commencement of the third century, 
 a happier period for hermeneutics was introduced by 
 Origen, not so much by giving his contemporaries rules 
 for an improved interpretation, as by exhibiting to them 
 an example of improvement. It was, of course, im- 
 possible even for Origen at once to break loose from 
 the old allegorizing method of interpretation. His 
 acuteness and perspicacity pointed out to him in the 
 Bible frequent allegories and types, which no man be- 
 fore him had discovered. He also sometimes inten- 
 tionally availed himself of this allegorical method of 
 mterpretation, in order to oppose with the more effect 
 certain crude opinions of liis age, founded on an inter- 
 pretation entirely literal ; as, for example, the gross re- 
 presentation of a resurrection of the flesh and an earthly 
 reign of Christ during a thousand years, which in the 
 second century was extensively prevalent.! Some of 
 his pupils and admirers afterwards carried this point 
 still further; and hence it was, that, subsequently, 
 •Note XLII. t NoteXLIII. 
 
158 HISTORY OP HERMENEUTICS. 
 
 when errors and heresies began to be discovered in 
 the writings of this most extraordinary man, he was 
 subjected to the reproach of having been the inventor, 
 or at least the greatest promoter of the allegorizing sys- 
 tem of interpretation. 
 
 But this reproach is in a high degree unmerited. 
 If even Origen could not altogether free himself from the 
 tendency of his age, yet it was this very man, who often 
 enough and pointedly enough insisted, that interpreta- 
 tion should always be founded on the grammatical sense 
 of the words ; that in ascertaining this sense, the usage 
 of language should always first be consulted ; and that, 
 until this can afford no suitable meaning, entirely cor- 
 responding with the connexion and views of the wri- 
 ter, or in unison with his declarations as elsewhere ex- 
 pressed, no allegorical, typical or spiritual signification 
 can properly be resorted to. He it was, who pointed 
 out to his contemporaries the method of correcting the 
 grammatical and historical sense of scripture with a 
 typical and allegorical one ; a method, which undoubt- 
 edly was afterwards much abused. By these means 
 he taught them most impressively, that acquaintance 
 with language and with history is necessary in every 
 case in order to secure a correct interpretation, and by 
 these means alone did he perform a service with regard 
 to hermeneutics, which entitled him to the thanks of 
 all succeeding ages.* 
 
 III. In the period immediately subsequent to that 
 of Origen, the effects of his example became ver^' evi- 
 dent ; for in the fourth century interpretation assumed 
 a form greatly improved. This state of things was 
 • Note XLIV. 
 
HISTORY OF HERMENEUTICS. 169 
 
 chiefly owing to the fact, that now there were more in- 
 terpreters, who had formed their taste by an acquaint- 
 ance with the works of the old Greek and Roman au- 
 thors, and the effect which the studies of them produced 
 on their mental character, they were not able entirely 
 to keep out of view, however willingly they would 
 often have done so, in commenting on the Bible. This 
 was the case with Eusebius, Chrysostom, Theodore of 
 Mopsuestia, Isidore of Pelusium, and Theodoret, among 
 the Greek interpreters of the fourth and fifth centuries, 
 and with Jerome, Augustin, Pelagius and Cassian 
 among the Latins. It is true, that in these authors we 
 do often enough meet with allegorical and mystical ex- 
 positions ; but it is at the same time impossible not to 
 perceive, that they were influenced by a feeling, which 
 always brought them back again to a more intelligent 
 method of interpretation. 
 
 Many of them, as Chrysostom, Theodore and Au- 
 gustin, felt also, that it was sometimes necessary to 
 lay down as the ground of grammatical interpre- 
 tation, a particular usage of language belonging to 
 the sacred writers ; they had even an indistinct im- 
 pression that the particular spirit of the age of these 
 writers must be regarded ; and they were not afraid 
 in many cases to proceed upon the supposition, that 
 by a judicious accommodation they had occasionally 
 come down even to the erroneous views of their own 
 time. 
 
 We not unfrequently find therefore in the exegeti- 
 cal works of these fathers interpretations of the most 
 excellent and striking character, and it is to be ascribed 
 to two causes only that they are not to be found there 
 
160 HISTORY OF HERMENEUTICS. 
 
 in greater abundance. The one is, their very great 
 want of acquaintance with the spirit of the old lan- 
 guages of the east, a defect, which must have a most 
 injurious influence on their interpretations not only of 
 the Old Testament, but also of the New. The other 
 cause is to be found in the unhappy controversies, 
 which were carried on during those periods, in such 
 vexatious number, and with such scandalous warmth. 
 In these cases, it became too much the practice, to al- 
 low themselves to modify their interpretation accord- 
 ing to the convenience of their polemics ; that is to 
 say, to explain the Bible in such a manner as was best 
 adapted to advance the interest of the various opinions 
 which they defended. Even the best and most acute 
 writers among the fathers of those times, as Theodore 
 of Mopsuestia, (for the polemic authors, Jerome and 
 Augustin, are quite out of the question,) could not 
 entirely guard against the fault of sometimes finding 
 in the Bible merely what would serve to support their 
 opinions, and of finding it there simply because they 
 required it for that purpose : an evil, which in the fol- 
 lowingr asfes became still worse. 
 
 IV. It may be said with truth, that the whole peri- 
 od from the seventh to the sixteenth century was des- 
 titute of hermeneutics, merely for this reason, that it 
 was by the polemics of the times completely subjected 
 to the yoke of doctrinal divinity. The truths, which 
 it was thought proper to find in the Bible, were now 
 brought into a system, which the church by her autho- 
 rity and influence had frequently declared to be the 
 only true one. No man therefore ventured to find any 
 thing further in the Bible, which was not adapted to 
 
HISTORY OF HERMENEUTICS 161 
 
 this system, and still less any thinp; which stood in op- 
 position to it. 
 
 In these circumstances, it mig-ht be considered the 
 wisest course that could be adopted, to abandon all idea 
 of originality, and be contented with collecting the in- 
 terpretations of the ancient fathers, on which the church 
 had impressed the stamp of orthodoxy ; and then it 
 could not be long-, until circumstances became such, 
 as to make this abandonment absolutely necessary, be- 
 cause all ability and all helps for original interpretation 
 were lost. 
 
 In the ninth century all knowledge of history and 
 languages had almost entirely vanished. The barba- 
 rous Vulgate gradually became elevated to the impor- 
 tance of the only text, and the glossa ordinaria to the 
 character of the only commentary on the Bible, which 
 was used and allowed to be used in the church ; be- 
 cause these were the only text and commentary that 
 could be used. And even in the use of the Vulofate, 
 not only was no oflfence taken at the prodigious multi- 
 tude of the grossest errors which had crept into it, but 
 it was appealed to in argument and interpretation, Mnth 
 as much confidence, as could ever have been placed in 
 the original text itself 
 
 Neither did the scholastic age, which immediately 
 followed this, introduce a more favoralile change for 
 hermeneutics ; on the contrary, it is rather to be said, 
 that its fate became thereby the more unfortunate. 
 The scholastics, indeed, were a class of men, who at 
 first gave themselves but little trouble on this point, for 
 to them it was not a matter of much consequence, 
 14 
 
162 
 
 HISTORY OP HERMENEUTICS. 
 
 whether they could prove their opinions from scripture 
 or not, since they were persuaded that the truth of them 
 could be demonstrated from the principles of their phi- 
 losophy. However, towards the end of the twelfth 
 century, some extraneous circumstances led them to 
 pay more attention to the scriptures than they had for- 
 merly done, and consequently they were obhged to go 
 farther into the subject of interpretation. 
 
 Hence there arose successively many sects, who 
 wished to draw the Bible from that total oblivion into 
 which it had sunk, and who were willing to find things 
 in it quite different from what had hitherto been usu- 
 ally dictated to the people, and what they had been ac- 
 customed to hear. Beside these, since the time of 
 saint Bernard, an important party had been formed in 
 opposition to the new scholastic divines, which, al- 
 though soon oppressed by them, were not completely 
 put down, but continued to maintain an influence prin- 
 cipally in the monasteries, and on many occasions 
 withstood them with great earnestness, which produced 
 a correspondent impression. These denominated them- 
 selves the party of the biblical divines. They assumed 
 a degree of importance, as if they were the more tena- 
 cious of adhering to the scriptures, in proportion as 
 the others seemed to disregard them. They were the 
 principal agents in bringing back again the mystical 
 method of interpretation, in order to make themselves 
 conspicuous in some way, and by these means they 
 frequently acquired a consideration, which threatened 
 to be dangerous to the scholastics. These theologians, 
 therefore, were themselves reduced to the necessity of 
 
HISTORY OF HERMENEUTICS. 163 
 
 comins: down to interpretation, which, at the same time, 
 was subjected to the most lamentable treatment it had 
 ever experienced. 
 
 Equally incompetent to discover as to apply the 
 simple and natural principles of an intelligent herme- 
 neutics, they returned to the allegorizing system, which 
 they pursued with far more extravagance than it had 
 ever been pursued by the Jews. Whatever the wildest 
 imagination and the most unnatural force could press 
 out of a word of scripture, was given as the genuine 
 meaning, witiiout the least regard to connexion, design, 
 character of the writer, and coherence of his ideas ; 
 and for the most part adopted the more willingly in 
 proportion as it was senseless and irrational. But in 
 truth they could not easily produce any other result, 
 whenever they attempted to expound for themselves ; 
 since they had no knowledge of languages, no appre- 
 hension of a historical sense of scripture, and not the 
 most distant idea of a spirit peculiar to the age in which 
 the scriptures originated. Still, in fact, this injurious 
 treatment did not affect the scripture itself, but only the 
 Vulgate ; for it was only to this version that they were 
 able to apply their efforts of interpretation, and there- 
 fore the mischief was not so particularly great. 
 
 V. Yet, before Luther made his appearance, some 
 minds of the higher order were desirous of putting a 
 stop to this confusion, and therefore occasional exam- 
 ples occur of a method of interpretation, less offensive 
 to sound understanding. But the influence of these 
 persons was not greatly efficacious until that impetu- 
 osity of character, by which this reformer was led to 
 
164 HISTORY OF HERMENEUTICS. 
 
 the improvement of so many other things, was also di- 
 rected to this subject, and broke through the obstacles 
 that opposed him. After Erasmus and some other men 
 of the same class, he and Melancthon were the resto- 
 rers of hermeneutics ; and this effect was produced 
 principally by again bringing forward the grammatical 
 system of interpretation, by re-establishing the literal 
 sense in its rights, by granting anew to the usage of 
 language its paramount importance, and by not grant- 
 ing, or at least not seeking, either mystical or allegori- 
 cal significations, whenever the other would aftbrd a 
 consistent sense, and one adapted to the views of the 
 writer. 
 
 Thus the way to a rational interpretation was re- 
 opened. But it was necessary to set out entirely afresh, 
 and therefore it became somewhat tedious, and the fatal 
 impediment, which in the fourth century had arrested 
 the progress of the understanding in pursuing this 
 course, again but too soon presented itself. Luther 
 was forced to form his new system of interpretation 
 amidst noisy controversies ; he became forced thereto 
 by the very controversies in which he was himself en- 
 gaged ; and therefore it was natural enough that he 
 should occasionally apply it in favor of them, although 
 in other circumstances he would have regarded tliis as 
 an abuse. This most excellent man did, in fact, very 
 often direct his interpretation merely with a view to his 
 polemics : but this was done by his immediate succeS' 
 sors ; it was done by those divines, who, after his death 
 and that of Melancthon, constituted the ruling party in 
 the Lutheran church, so much more frequently, that 
 
HISTORY OF HERMENEUTICS. 165 
 
 this may be given as the discriminating character of 
 our hermeneutics from the end of the sixteenth century 
 to the beginning of our own. 
 
 Amidst the hottest internal controversies, the Lu- 
 theran system of doctrine was fully completed in the 
 form of concord. This system necessarily possessed 
 its own interpretation ; and as, by the general union 
 in one symbol wherein it was contained, tlie system it- 
 self became firmly established as unalterable, so also 
 was of course that interpretation. Every dictimi pro- 
 bans by which a point in the form of concord had been 
 proved or was thought to have been proved, must now 
 always be so explained as to remain useful in reference 
 to this proof; otherwise the prevailing theology would 
 inmiediately complain of a departure from the system 
 of doctrine. 
 
 Along with this, however, ii must be said, that the 
 interpretation always proceeded on the correct princi- 
 ple, that the literal and grammatical sense must first 
 be investigated, and that this must be determined by 
 the usage of languaofe. This was the point to which 
 chief attention was always directed ; but this usage, 
 instead of being derived from the sources which alone 
 can afford it with any certainty, from other contempo- 
 raneous writers, from the spirit of the time or from the 
 spirit of the kindred languages, from the characteristic 
 formation of mind and mode of thinking of the different 
 sacred writers themselves, and from comparing their 
 works together, was derived merely from the uncertain, 
 second hand source of doctrinal divinity. That is, all 
 expressions were taken merely in the sense in which 
 this privileged divinity had taken them, tliis was pre- 
 14* 
 
166 HISTORY OF HERMENEUTICS. 
 
 sumed to be the only true sense, and then, as was natu- 
 ral, the same sense was always found m every place 
 which this divinity had found there. 
 
 The impropriety and mischief of this method could 
 certainly be the less observed, while so little refined 
 and accurate knowledge of languages was possessed, 
 with only here and there obscure impressions of a his- 
 toric sense ; in truth, attachment to the doctrinal the- 
 ology even prevented the exegetical from being able to 
 strengthen those impressions, and from using all its ef- 
 forts to advance such a nice and thorough knowledge. 
 When therefore, towards the middle of the last cen- 
 tury, Cocceius, among the reformed divines, again at- 
 tempted to find every where in the Bible allegories, 
 types, tropes and prophecies, many of our divines zea- 
 lously opposed the novelty ; but when, almost at the 
 same time, Grotius and some other men of refined taste 
 and more enlarged views attempted, by penetrating more 
 deeply into the spirit of the languages and history of the 
 times of our sacred writers, to withdraw interpretation 
 from the authority of doctrinal divinity, a violent outcry 
 was raised against them, and for more than half a cen- 
 tury laborious efforts were made to hinder the diffusion 
 of the light, which these men had thus enkindled.* 
 
 VI. Hermeneutics experienced yet another change, 
 which at one time gave it a new distinguishing feature, 
 but which happily it did not long retain. With the 
 commencement of our century, the newly rising party, 
 called pietists, began to devote themselves particularly 
 to the interpretation of the Bible, because they consi- 
 
 * The reader is requested to peruse, in connexion with these re- 
 marks of the author, the latter part of Note XI. Tr. 
 
HISTORY OF HERMENEUTICS. 167 
 
 dered it as necessary, and certainly not without reason, 
 to revive a zeal for the study of it, which had become 
 very greatly diminished. But, unhappily, this party 
 brought rather too much enthusiasm and too little 
 learning to this subject, and this would necessarily im- 
 part to their method of interpretation a peculiar charac- 
 ter. This consisted in pressing each word of the text, 
 until every idea, which by mere possibility it might 
 contain accorduig to its etymology, was forced out ; 
 for, by this operation, the 'prsBgnantes sensus scripturse,' 
 to use their own language, and the holy emphasis of 
 its expressions, which had heretofore been neglected, 
 could alone be received in all their fulness. 
 
 Had this been done according to a reasonable me- 
 thod, some real gain might perhaps have resulted ; but 
 from that which was generally pursued, any advantage 
 could, in the nature of things, but very seldom be ob- 
 tained : and, in truth, the effect must often have been 
 injurious. These expositors might have endeavored, 
 and sometimes with the hope of a very happy result, 
 to determine the whole extent and the full emphasis of 
 an idea involved in any word or turn of expression 
 from the general or particular usage of language in the 
 Bible, from which alone confident conclusions could be 
 drawn. But, instead of this, they generally adhered 
 merely to the etymological or grammatical connexion, 
 from which they deduced the strangest conclusions : 
 without reflecting, that, in a multitude of cases, the 
 conventional, and the particular usage of the sacred 
 writers, could not have been so accurately directed 
 either by etymology or grammar. 
 
 If, for example, the apostles, by a Hebraism, had 
 
168 HISTORY OF HERMENEUTICS. 
 
 used, iv insteadof^a, if they had written, "in the name 
 of Jesus," instead of, " throuafh the name of Jesus"; 
 a pecuhar emphasis was supposed to he in the particle 
 tv, expressly intended by the apostle, because if this 
 were not the case he could as well have employed the 
 word &ia. When St. Paul says of Christ that he is 
 UepixpwMi, (Phil. ii. 9,) the term must express much 
 more than the idea of Christ's exaltation in general, for 
 otherwise the apostle would not have added force to 
 the verb v^/ooi by compounding it with the preposition 
 i^tp. But that the first instance is nothing but a He- 
 braism, and that with respect to the other, it was a 
 very common usage with the Greeks, to employ such 
 compound words interchangeably with the simple, and 
 in the very same sense with them, these sticklers for 
 emphatic phraseology would by no means allow, be- 
 cause such a concession would completely demolish 
 the whole foundation of their emphasis. This extrava- 
 gant trifling could not long continue, and indeed it 
 would scarcely have lasted to the middle of our own 
 age, had it not been for a time assisted by the counte- 
 nance of some men, who in other respects were very 
 reasonable and deservedly esteemed, as, for instance, the 
 pious and learned Bengel. Yet this system was the 
 sooner dissipated, when some other divines of decided 
 reputation, as Ernesti, announced themselves in oppo- 
 sition to it.* 
 
 VII. Through the efforts of these men, and espe- 
 cially of the last named scholar, hermeneutics came in 
 the end to the form in which it is at present ; or rather, 
 it received the principal characteristics of which it 
 may now boast. 
 
 Note XLV. 
 
HISTORY OF HERMENEUTICS. 169 
 
 It may with propriety be said of it, that, in the 
 present day, by means of a nicer and more fundamen- 
 tal knowledo^e of language, it can acquire much greater 
 certainty respecting the grammatical sense of scripture, 
 and by means of more enlarged literary investigations, 
 can throw much clearer light on the historical sense 
 than formerly ; that, at the same time, it has laid aside 
 the prejudice, which liad previously restrained it from 
 paying sufficient attention to the spirit of the age for 
 which those writings were immediately intended ; and 
 that, in fine, it has seized and applied this same spirit 
 in a degree far beyond what could possibly have been 
 done in its earlier periods. 
 
 It may therefore be given as the distinguishing 
 characteristic of the interpretation of our own time, 
 that it proceeds on the principle that each sacred wri- 
 ter thinks and speaks according to the spirit of his age, 
 and consequently must be explained according to 
 that spirit.* This may also without hesitation be 
 given as its chief advantage ; although it cannot 
 at the same time be denied, that this principle has 
 been occasionally carried too far, and that conse- 
 quently injurious effects have now and then resulted. 
 Such effects are principally to be apprehended, from 
 the facility with which it might so often be erroneously 
 assumed, that the sacred writers, in many of their de- 
 clarations, in which the older theology found positive 
 doctrines have been governed merely by views of their 
 
 * C. A. G. Keil : de historica librorum sacrorum intcrpretatione 
 ejusque necessitate, Lips. 17H8,4to ; translated into German l)y C. A. 
 Wempel, Leipz. ITiKi, 8vo. — The reader is requested to keep in mind 
 the limitations already laid down, in order to qualify the application 
 of this principle. Tr. 
 
170 
 
 HISTORY OF HERMENEUTICS. 
 
 own age.* It may also be a more unfavorable cir- 
 cumstance, that no settled principles have yet been 
 agreed on, whereby to define the bounds of this accom- 
 modating method of interpretation, although the sub- 
 ject had been warmly discussed for twenty years, when 
 Semler gave new life to the excitement in relation to 
 the scriptural doctrine respecting demons, and began 
 by his 'cEconomicum dicendi genus' to explain it 
 away. But notwithstanding this, we may probably 
 anticipate more benefit hereafter, than we need fear 
 disadvantage. It was not altogether unnatural that 
 interpretation, in the first joy that it experienced in 
 being freed from the fetters of doctrinal divinity which 
 it had so long carried, should, with the feehngs which 
 this must excite, have gone somewhat further than ne- 
 cessity or propriety justified ; but, for this very reason, 
 it may be hoped with the more probability, that in 
 time it will of itself become right ; and then even doc- 
 trinal divinity will undoubtedly derive the greatest 
 advantages.! 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 After this brief history of interpretation, which 
 gives a view of the most remarkable changes it has 
 undergone, I proceed to make a statement of the most 
 useful works in this department, and which in each of 
 
 • Note XLVI. 
 
 t The concluding remarksof this chapter on the influence which 
 the principle* of Kant's philosophy might have in producing mya- 
 tical and allegorical interpretations, are omitted. 
 
WORKS ON INTERPRETATION. 171 
 
 the periods noticed have been principally used. To 
 express an opinion respecting the particular character 
 of these works, and to estimate their relative value, 
 must be unnecessary ; for a mere statement of the pe- 
 riods to which they belong, or from which they have 
 originated, is, in some degree, sufficient for this purpose. 
 
 The works themselves must be divided into two 
 classes, to the former of which are to be appropriated 
 those which contain proper directions relating to her- 
 meneutics, which develop and exhibit the rules and 
 principles of a correct method of interpretation, or in 
 which they are individually and particularly marked 
 out and illustrated, in their application to all the books 
 of our sacred scriptures, or again only to a limited 
 immber. 
 
 The second class will comprise the most remarkable 
 and useful of those writings, in which these principles 
 are actually applied to the interpretation either of the 
 whole Bible or of particular books ; in other words, 
 our principal commentaries, expositions, paraphrases, 
 (fcc, of every age, on the Old and New Testaments. 
 
 I. With respect to the first class of these literary 
 productions, no man will expect to find, in the early 
 and middle ages, any work in which hermeneutics is 
 reduced to the form of a distinct branch of knowledge, 
 and the theory of it drawn out in what may be called 
 a philosophical manner. Of the period of the fathers, 
 properly so termed, there are scarcely two works of 
 this kind, which can with propriety be here intro- 
 duced, and of the following, not a single one. 
 
 In the four books of Augustin ' de doctrina Christia- 
 na,' we not only find some scattered observations, which 
 
172 WORKS ox INTERPRETATION. 
 
 look like directions for a correct interpretation of scrip- 
 ture, but in Lib. iii. cap. 30, he has introduced the 
 seven rules, so called, for investigating and ascertaining 
 the sense of scripture, 'regulae ad investigandum et 
 inveniendam scripturarum intelligentiam,' which are 
 the production of a contemporaneous writer of the 
 name of Ticonius, of whom we have no further know- 
 ledge. These rules do not exhibit much penetration, 
 although they show the author to have possessed ex- 
 traordinary ingenuity. 
 
 Another work belonging to this period, which has 
 equal claims to notice in this review, is a composition 
 under the ^^title, Ewayoiyfi Us raj ecias ypa4>as, ' lutroductlon 
 to sacred scripture,' by a writer of the name of 
 Adrian, who was probably contemporaneous with 
 Augustin, although the age in which he lived cannot 
 be accurately determined.* But there is no reason to 
 place, as is usually done, among the list of writers on 
 theoretical hermeneutics, Eucherius, bishop of Ly- 
 ons, in Gaul in the fifth century, on account of his ' In- 
 structio ad filium Salonium,' '• Instruction addressed to 
 his son Salonius,' which has come down to us in two 
 books ; for this ' Instruction' does not contain, properly 
 speaking, any directions for the interpretation of scrip- 
 ture. The first book merely illustrates some difficult 
 passages, and the second explains the Hebrew names 
 which occur in the Bible. 
 
 From this time we find, in the literary history of her- 
 meneutics, a space of one thousand years, which presents 
 
 * This Introduction, with some other writings of the same kind, 
 was published in Greek by David HoESCHEi-.at Augsburg, in 1G02, 
 4to. It has also been introduced in the Critici Sacri, Tom. viii, of 
 the London edition. 
 
WORKS ON INTERPRETATION. 173 
 
 nothina: but a mere blank, for not until the latter half 
 of the sixteenth century do we meet with any true and 
 scientific directions for correct interpretation ; and, in 
 fact, the work which contains them may, without hesi- 
 tation, be regarded as the first of this class. The book 
 referred to is Clavis scripturas sacrae, the ' Key to the 
 sacred scripture,' of the celebrated Matthias Fla- 
 cius, which came out originally at Basle, in folio, in 
 the year 1567.* The first part, of which this Clavis 
 consists, may be called a biblical lexicon, for most of 
 the words and phrases occurring in scripture are ex- 
 plained in it in alphabetical order. But the second 
 is actually and strictly a treatise on hermeneutics, and 
 one alike honorable to the acuteness of Flacius and to 
 his learning. This is very willingly acknowledged, 
 even by our recent exegetical writers, notwithstand- 
 ing all the imperfections of the work, and is confessed 
 by Simon himself; and the truth of it is more particu- 
 larly evident, upon a comparison of this first work 
 with the greater part of those, which, in the next cen- 
 tury, were composed in imitation of it, by many di- 
 vines of our church. 
 
 Among these the following may probably be re- 
 garded as worthy of particular notice. 
 
 Wolfgang Franz : Tractatus theologicus novus 
 et perspicuus de interpretatione sacrarum literarum 
 maxime legitima. Wittenbergae, 1619, (5th edition, 
 1708,) Svo. 
 
 John Conrad Danhauer : Hermeneutica sacra 
 
 * Among the old editions of the Clavis, the principal is that, 
 which was published at Jena in 1075, fol., with a preface by John 
 
 MUSVEUS. 
 
 15 
 
174 
 
 WORKS ON INTERPRETATION. 
 
 — sen methodus exponendarum sacramm literarum, 
 Argentor. 1754, 8vo. 
 
 AuGusTiN Pfeiffer : Hermeneutica sacra, sive 
 tractatio luculenta de interpretatione sacramm litera- 
 rum. Dresdae, 1684 ; an enlarged edition with a pre- 
 face by Benedict Carpzov, entitled : Thesaurus 
 hermeneuticus, <fec. Lips. 1690, 4to. 
 
 Many of our divines, as Glassius, Gerhard, Ole- 
 ARius, and others, in the more comprehensive works 
 which they composed, introduced whatever branches 
 of literature belonged to exegesis, and particularly 
 those relating to the theory of hermeneutics ; yet, in 
 general, they merely made the Clavis of Flacius their 
 ground work, or raised upon it those principles only 
 which had already been developed in this work, while 
 they were not always able to seize and express them with 
 that nice precision, which Flacius had given to them. 
 Notwithstanding, there are in most of their works 
 excellent precepts for grammatical interpretation ; for 
 the error of the hermeneutics of this period lay only in 
 this, that the historical sense was too much neglected, 
 and the grammatical interpretation depended on as- 
 sistance which was too insecure. 
 
 The characteristic marks by which interpretation, 
 from the beginning of the present century, was for 
 some time distinguished in consequence of the pietistical 
 controversies, are particularly conspicuous in the fol- 
 lowing works, in which its character was, in part, ori- 
 ginally formed. 
 
 Herman Augustin Francke : Preelectiones her- 
 meneuticae — ad viam dextre indagandi et exponendi 
 sensum scriptural sacrae. Halse, 1723, Svo. 
 
WORKS ON INTERPRETATION. 176 
 
 Joachim Langius : Hermeneutica sacra. Halae, 
 1733, 8vo. 
 
 John James Rambach : Institutiones hermeneu- 
 ticae sacra3, variis observationibus, copiosissimisqiie ex- 
 emplis biblicis illustratae — cum praefat. J. Franc. 
 BuDD^i. Jense, 1723, 8vo. 
 
 These institutions of Rambach soon became the 
 principal work and manual of hermeneutics, and there- 
 fore were not only very often reprinted, but also illus- 
 trated by many divines with particular commentaries. 
 Thus, for instance, Ernest Frederic Neubauer 
 published, at Giessen, in 1738, extensive and profound 
 illustrations of Rambach's 'Institutiones,' and Andrew 
 Reiersen, at Copenhagen, 1741, Tabulae synopticae 
 in institutiones Rambachii, ' Synoptical view' of the 
 same work. 
 
 Among these works, others also made their appear- 
 ance, some of which were expressly intended to oppose 
 the principles of interpretation peculiar to the pietists, 
 and others contained generally the theory of herme- 
 neutics more completely formed. To the former of 
 these classes belong : 
 
 Valentine Ernst Loescher : Breviarium The- 
 ologiae exegeticae, legitimam scripturae sacrae interpre- 
 tationem tradens. — Wittenberg. 1719, 8vo. 
 
 Martin Chladenius : Institutiones exegeticae. — 
 Wittenberg. 1725, 8vo. 
 
 Of the others, the following is particularly conspi- 
 cuous : 
 
 Solomon Deyling : de scripturae recte interpre- 
 tandae ratione et fatis. Lips. 1721 ; and yet more so, 
 the work of a reformed divine : 
 
176 WORKS ON INTERPRETATION. 
 
 John Alphonso Turretin : de S. Scripturse in- 
 terpretandae methodo tractatus bipartitus — Trajecti 
 Thuniorum, (that is Dort.) 1728. A new and enlarged 
 edition, by Teller, counsellor of the superior con- 
 sistory, was published at Frankfort on the Oder, in 
 1776, 8vo. 
 
 The followinsf works, however, were those which 
 gradually prepared the way for the free hermeneutics 
 of our own time, and which principally promoted its 
 more general introduction and application. 
 
 SiGisMUND James Baumgarten : Unterricht von 
 Auslegung der heiligen Schrift, ' Instructions on the in- 
 terpretation of the sacred scripture.' Halle, 1742, Svo. 
 
 The same author's Ausfuehrlicher Vortrag ueber 
 die Hermeneutik, ' Complete view of hermeneutics,' 
 Halle, 1769, 4to. 
 
 John Solomon Semler : Vorbereitung zur theolo- 
 gischen Hermeneutik, Th. iii. ' Preparation for theo- 
 logical hermeneutics, in three parts,' Halle, 1759 — 
 1768, 8vo. 
 
 The same author's Apparatus ad liberalem Novi 
 Testamenti interpretationem, Halse, 1767, 8vo., and 
 Apparatus ad liberalem Veteris Testamenti interpreta- 
 tionem, ib. 1773, 8vo. 
 
 And, as the most distinguished work in reference 
 to this result : John Augustin Ernesti : Institutio 
 interpretis Novi Testamenti. Ed. quart, cura Chris- 
 toph.Frid. Amjmon. Lips. 1792, 8vo.* 
 
 In addition to what has been said, it is necessary 
 to remark, that the proper epoch, in which our herme- 
 neutics began perfectly to avail itself of the full liberty 
 • Note XLVII. 
 
WORKS ON INTERPRETATION. 177 
 
 which characterizes it, is to be placed in the years 
 1771 — 1775. In this period, Semler, on the one 
 side, in his controversies respecting the scriptural doc- 
 trine of demons, and, on the other. Teller, in his 
 lexicon of the New Testament, applied the principle, 
 that the Bible should be interpreted in the spirit of its 
 age, in a manner quite novel, which gave a new form 
 to our interpretation. It is sufficiently certain, that 
 the principle, in itself, and also even as extended to 
 the accommodating system of interpretation, which it 
 was applied to justify, was not then originally invent- 
 ed. It was even known and made use of by some of 
 the older Greek fathers.* The Socinians had occa- 
 sionally employed it with great freedom, and Grotius 
 with great success. But even on this very account it 
 had, until this time, been strongly opposed in our church, 
 and in the year 1729 it was warmly attacked by Ram- 
 BACH in his Dissertatio contra hypothesin de Scripturae 
 Sacrae ad erroneos vulgi conceptus, ' A Dissertation 
 against the hypothesis of accommodating scripture to 
 commonly received erroneous conceptions.' 
 
 Hence it was that the application which the divines 
 already named, and many others that followed them, 
 made of it, did not pass without opposition. Those of 
 Tuebingen, particularly, declared themselves very ear- 
 nestly against the new accommodating system of her- 
 meneutics. A dissertation by the chancellor Reuss, 
 De oeconomia qua Christus in docendo usus fuisse di- 
 citur. Tubing, 1773, 4to, ' On the economical method 
 which Christ is said to have employed in teaching,' 
 
 * See M. Frederic Adgustin Carus : Historia antiquior sen- 
 tentiarum ccclesia? GrtECtB de accommodatione Christo iniprimiB et 
 apoatolis tributa. Lips. 171)3, 4to. 
 
 15* 
 
178 WORKS ON INTERPRETATION. 
 
 and another by Dr. Storr, De sensu historico scrip- 
 turae sacrse, Tueb. 17S2, ' On the historical sense of 
 scripture,'* contain' many admonitions against the ap- 
 pUcation of this method too extensively and without 
 sufficient scrupulousness, which do undoubtedly de- 
 serve to be very attentively considered. Another more 
 modern production, which appeared in 1788, 8vo, un- 
 der the title, Bemerkungen ueber die Lehrart Jesu in 
 Ruecksicht auf juedische Sprache und Denkungsart, 
 ' Remarks on our Lord's method of teaching in refe- 
 rence to the language and mode of thinking of the 
 Jews, by C. Vict. Hauff, Offenbach on the Maine, 
 has the avowed design of limiting the abuse of this 
 method ; and to the same point has the author of ano- 
 ther work, still more recent, directed his attention : 
 Ueber die Lehrart Jesu und seiner Apostel, in wie fern 
 dieselbe sich nach den damahls herrschenden Volks- 
 meynungen gerichtet haben, 'On the method of teach- 
 ing pursued by Christ and his apostles ; how far they 
 have been governed by the prevailing opinions of the 
 people,' by Frederic Behn, Lubeck, 1791, 8vo. 
 We have indeed reasons enough for wishing this prin- 
 ciple to be limited within certain bounds : but, unless 
 time, or some new direction which the spirit of our 
 theological investigation may perhaps receive from a 
 collision with the critical philosophy, should be able to 
 effect more than has been effected by the attempts thus 
 far made at limitation, there does not really seem to be 
 much ground soon to hope for it. The most probable 
 
 * This most valuable treatise may be found in Storr's Opuscula 
 Academica, Vol i. pp. 1 — 88. It was translated into English by J. 
 W. G. (Professor Gibbs, now of Yale College.) and published at 
 Boston in 1817, in r.*nio. Tr. 
 
COMMENTARIES. 
 
 179 
 
 reason for such an expectation may still be found in the 
 circumstance, that this new exegesis cannot be carried 
 much further than it has already been extended. 
 
 II. The second diss of hermeneutical works, 
 wliich must here be introduced, comprehends those in 
 which the theoretical principles of interpretation are 
 really applied to the explanation of the whole Bible, 
 or to some of its separate books. Here, however, a se- 
 lection becomes the more necessary, in consequence of 
 their immense number ; and for this reason, from 
 among each of the various classes into which they 
 again divide themselves, a few only will be given, ex- 
 cept, indeed, with respect to the latest and most useful 
 productions. 
 
 It will not therefore be thought necessary to men- 
 tion all those fathers, who have labored, in their own 
 particular way, to explain the scriptures in separate 
 works, in commentaries, or what are called paraphra- 
 ses. Their exegetical works are also always to be 
 found in the collections of their writings, which are, 
 for the most part sufficiently known ; and some of 
 those works, in which their interpretations in particular 
 are collected, have been before cited under the name 
 of catenae patrum.* 
 
 * With respect to the characteristics, and the different spirit, es- 
 timate and value of interpretations of the fathers in general, or only 
 some particular fathers, decisions, but exceedingly various in their 
 nature, may be found in all larger works on the doctrine of the fa- 
 thers. We have a work particularly on this subject by Whitby ; 
 de sacrarum scripturarura interpretatione secundum patrum com- 
 mentarios. London, 1714. On the mystical method of interpreting, 
 John Christian Coestek has written : Dissertatio de mysticarum 
 interpretationum studio ab iEgyptiis maxime patribus rcpetendo, 
 HaliE, 17G0 ; and on that of Origen, John Augustin Ernesti ; de 
 Origene, intorpretationis grammaticre auctore, &c. 
 
 On the interpretation of many of the fathers, a course of histo- 
 rical treatises de fatis interpretationis sacrarum literarum in ecclesia 
 
180 COMMENTARIES. 
 
 Among the hermeneutical works of the following 
 and of more modern ages, it is proper to mention those, 
 in the first place, which comprehend the whole Bible, 
 accompanying the text throughout with explanatory- 
 observations. Some of this class are best known un- 
 der the name of glossed Bibles. The principal 
 work of this kind in the Roman Catholic church, is 
 the Bible with what is called the glossa ordinaria, 
 which was compiled as early as the ninth century by 
 Walafrid Strabo, and soon acquired so much 
 consideration, that it was quoted by the scholastics un- 
 der the name of ' auctoritas.' It was originally a cate- 
 na of the interpretations of many of the fathers, but it 
 received from time to time considerable accessions, and 
 in the more modern editions new matter was almost 
 always added. One of the most complete, and even 
 now most in use in the Roman church, appeared in 
 the last century under the title : Biblia Sacra, cum glossa 
 ordinaria, novis Patrum Grsecorum et Latinorum ex- 
 plicationibus locupletatse cumpostilla Nicol.Lirani — 
 a Leandro a S. Martino. T. vi. Antwerp. 1634, fol. 
 
 Among the commentators of the fifteenth century, 
 there is one who deserves to be particularly mentioned, 
 as he is distinguished in a very superior manner. 
 
 This is Alphonso Tostatus, bishop of Avila in 
 Spain. His works were collected and published at 
 Cologne, in 1612, in twenty-seven folios, of which his 
 commentaries on the whole Bible alone occupy the 
 first twenty-four. 
 
 Among the works of this class, which were corn- 
 Christiana, has been published by Dr. RosENMCELLERat Leipzig, at 
 different times ending in 1794, in ix. Programs.! 
 t Note XLVIII. 
 
COMMENTARIES. 181 
 
 posed after the reformation by divines of our church, 
 in other words, among the German glossed Bibles of 
 which Luther's translation was the text, the following 
 formerly stood in highest repute. 
 
 The Bible, which bore the names of Weimar, 
 Ernest, or, from the place in which it was printed, 
 Nuremberg, with the title : ' Biblia sacra — ver- 
 deutscht von Dr. Luther, und auf Verordnung Hez- 
 zog Ernest zu Sachsen vonetlichen reinen Theolo- 
 gen erklaert — erste Ausg. 1640 ; — neuste mit Ernst 
 Sal. Cyprians Vorrede — Nuernberg, 1736, fol. — Bi- 
 blia Sacra — translated into German by Dr. Luther, 
 and illustrated by some sound divines at the command 
 of Ernest, duke of Saxony. First edition, 1640 — last, 
 with a preface by Ernest Solomon Cyprian — Nu- 
 remberg, 1736, fol. 
 
 The work of Pfaff on the Bible, Tuebingen, 
 1729 ; and to this may be added a more modern pub- 
 lication, of the same class, namely : Die heilige Schrift 
 mit Anmerkungen, 'the holy Scripture with annota- 
 tions, by Dr. John Godfrey Koerner, in three 
 parts. Leipzig, 1770 — 1773, 4to. 
 
 Different from these, although belonging to the 
 same class, are several other works, in some of which 
 likewise the continuous text of the whole Bible, and in 
 others that of the Old, or New Testament in particular, 
 is explained by observations annexed, but in which a 
 new translation is also made the ground work. 
 
 Among the more recent of this kind, the principal 
 place is due to the celebrated Wertheim translation of 
 the Bible, by John Lawrence Schmid, on account 
 of the excitement it produced at the time of its publica- 
 
182 COMMENTARIES. 
 
 tion, and also on account of the surprise which this 
 must now occasion us. But as emperor and empire 
 were both wrought into a state of ferment against this 
 translator and his work, only the first part of it made 
 its appearance under the title : Die Goettiche Schriften 
 vor den Zeiten des Messias, durch und durch mit An- 
 merkungen erlaeutert, ' the divine writings before the 
 time of the Messias, illustrated throughout with notes.' 
 Werth. 1736, 4to. 
 
 Entire, and undoubtedly far more beneficial as re- 
 spects genuine acquaintance with scripture, is the trans- 
 lation of the Old Testament with notes, by John Da- 
 vid MicHAELis, which appeared at Goettingen, in 13 
 parts, 1769-83, 4to ; and the same author's transla- 
 tion of the New Testament, Goettingen, in three parts, 
 1789-92, 4to ; Uebersetzung des Alten Testaments ; 
 and Ubersetzung des Neuen Testaments. 
 
 To these works must be added, Uebersetzung und 
 erlaeuterung der heiligen Buecher Neuen Testaments ; 
 ' Translation and exposition of the sacred books of the 
 New Testament,' by Dr. John Henry Molden- 
 HAUER, 4 vols, in 4to. Leipzig, 1763-70, and of the 
 Old Testament, 6 vols, in 4to. Q,uedlinburg, 1774 
 —78. 
 
 Of the modern German translations of the New 
 Testament in particular, only those two which are 
 most dissimilar need be mentioned ; namely, John 
 Albert Bengel's, printed at Stuttgard, 1764, 8vo, 
 and the famous one of Bahrdt, with the title : Neu- 
 este Offenbarungen Gottes in Briefen und Erzaehlun- 
 gen ; ' Last revelations of God in epistles and narra- 
 tions,' in 4 parts. Riga, 1773, 8vo. 
 
COMMENTARIES. 183 
 
 A second class of works, belonging to this depart- 
 ment, is formed of the commentaries, which are extant. 
 Some of them extend over the whole Bible ; some are 
 limited to the Old, or to the New Testament in parti- 
 cular ; and some again are confined to certain books 
 of the one or the other. 
 
 The commentaries that we have of Luther on al- 
 most all the books of the Bible, deserve the first place ; 
 but it is unnecessary to mention them here, because 
 they are both generally known and appreciated. But, 
 next to his works, no expositions were formerly more 
 highly esteemed in our church than those of John 
 Brentz, the celebrated Wurtemberg divine, which 
 likewise extend almost over the whole Bible, and fill 
 seven of the eight folio volumes, of which the collec- 
 tion of his works consists. 
 
 The principal divines of the reformed church, also, 
 ZwiNGLE, Oecolampadius, Martin Bucer,Conrad 
 Pelican, made the interpretation of the Bible a chief 
 object of their learned and industrious efforts to ad- 
 vance the general good, and thereby acquired as much 
 reputation for a purer religious knowledge as those of 
 our own. Yet all their labors in this department must 
 unquestionably yield to those of John Calvin, who, 
 in his commentaries on all the books of the Bible with 
 the exception of the Apocalypse, displayed a learning, 
 an acuteness, and a spirit, which distinguished him 
 from all his contemporaries, and allowed him to con- 
 tend with Melancthon himself for the highest place.* 
 His commentaries, also, fill almost the first seven vol- 
 umes of his works, the collection of which was pub- 
 * Note XLIX. 
 
194 C0MMENTARIE8. 
 
 lished at Amsterdam, from the year 1667, in nine 
 folios. 
 
 Of the last century, it is not necessary to mention 
 more than the principal work of this kmd, namely, 
 that of Grotius : Annotationes in Vetus et Novinii 
 Testamentum ; for it must at that time have been re- 
 garded as a principal work, since Abraham Calo- 
 VI us thought it necessary to compose in opposition to 
 him his Biblia illustrata, in four folios. Frankfort, 
 1672-76. Notwithstanding all the learning which 
 this work of Calovius contains, and to which even 
 Richard Simon himself does justice,* it is now almost 
 forgotten, while the annotations of Grotius, which had 
 only been introduced in the collection of his works, 
 have been considered, even in our own day, by some 
 of our most esteemed theologians, as worthy of a par- 
 ticular edition. They have been published by George 
 Louis Vogel and John Christopher Doederlin, 
 enlarged with their own additions, at Halle, 1775-76, 
 in three vols, in 4to. 
 
 The following great works of the last century and 
 of our own, are prominent on account of their contain- 
 ing collections of the expositions of various interpreters, 
 which, however, must unavoidably produce a strange 
 mixture of good and bad. 
 
 The work, entitled : Critici sacri or Angli- 
 CANi. It came out originally at London in 1660, in 
 nine folio volumes,! afterwards at Frankfort in 1697, 
 in seven folios, and at the same time at Amsterdam 
 
 " See his Histoire crit. des Commentateurs, chap, xviii. 
 
 t The English scholars, who united in the compilation of this 
 work, were John Pearson, Anthony Scattergood, Francis 
 GouLDMAN, and Richard Pearson. 
 
COMMENTARIES. 
 
 1^5 
 
 with some additions, which were separately printed in 
 1700, 1701, by the pubhshers of the Frankfort impres- 
 sion, in two supplementary volumes. 
 
 An epitome of this great compilation, published by 
 Matthew Poole, who was also an English divine, 
 with the title : Synopsis criticornm aUorumque scrip- 
 tnrae sacrae interpretum et commentatorum, Tom. v. 
 London. This work contains even a greater treasure 
 of scriptural illustration than the former, because the 
 author drew from more numerous sources than his 
 predecessors. It was reprinted as early as 1679, at 
 Frankfort and Utrecht, and in 1712 at Frankfort a 
 second time, with a preface by John George Priti- 
 us, in the same number of volumes. 
 
 To the same class of publications belongs a later 
 work of this kind in German, and undertaken by Ger- 
 man theologians, namely : ' the holy scriptures of the 
 Old and New Testaments, together with a complete il- 
 lustration of them, being a compilation of the choicest 
 remarks of English writers, and enlarged with many 
 additions of German divines, Baumgarten, Dietel- 
 MAiER, DoEDERLEiN, Brucker, aud othcrs. In nine- 
 teen volumes 4to. Leipzig, 1749 — 1770. 
 
 Among the exegetical works, in which the Old 
 Testament in particular was illustrated, there is scarce- 
 ly one, if we except the late work of Michaelis, which 
 can be compared to the Commentary of the learned 
 John Le Clerc, or Clericus.* Altogether it consists 
 of five volumes, folio, the first of which was published 
 in 1093. 
 
 But on the scriptures of the Old Testament there 
 
 * Note L, 
 
 16 
 
186 COMMENTARIES. 
 
 has not been such frequent labor bestowed, at least 
 not on them as a whole, as on those of the New, which 
 from the earliest periods have occupied the industrious 
 attention of many learned men. 
 
 A very happy illustration of this industry is pre- 
 sented in the paraphrases of Erasmus on the New 
 Testament, which were published in parts from the 
 year 1517, and in the edition of his works by Le 
 ClerCj Leyden, 1703 — 1706, ten vols. foUo, are collect- 
 ed in the seventh volume. 
 
 Soon after Erasmus and in part contemporaneous 
 with him, James Faber published his commentaries 
 on the four gospels, on the epistles of St. Paul, and on 
 the Catholic epistles, which appeared at Metz, Paris 
 and Basle, from 1522 to 1527 in fol. 
 
 The remarks, by which Theodore Beza had il- 
 lustrated the text in several of his editions of the New 
 Testament, were collected together by Erasmus 
 ScHMiD, in his posthumous work, containing a version 
 of the New Testament, with notes and observations. 
 Nuremb. 1658. fol. 
 
 Very valuable also are the paraphrases on the 
 whole of the New Testament, which Moses Amy- 
 RAULT published at Saumur in eight volumes, from 
 1644 to 1651. 
 
 The French translation of the New Testament, 
 with remarks by John Le Clerc, appeared at Am- 
 sterdam, 1703, two vols. 4to ; — another French trans- 
 lation, with explanations by Beausobre and Len- 
 FANT, at Amsterdam, 1741, two vols. 4to ; — and the 
 celebrated New Testament, with moral reflections by 
 father Pasciuier CIuesnel, which produced so much 
 
COMMENTARIES. 187 
 
 excitement in the Roman church, was published ori- 
 ginally in 1687 at Paris, and afterwards, much enlarg- 
 ed, at Brussels in 1702, in eight vols. 8vo. 
 
 Of the English works of this kind, it will be suffi- 
 cient to mention three : 
 
 The New Testament with annotations, by Henry 
 Hammond, D. D. It was translated from English into 
 Latin by Le Clerc, and published at Frankfort in 
 1714, in two vols. fol. 
 
 A Paraphrase and commentary on the New Testa- 
 ment, by Daniel Whitby, D. D. London, 1727, two 
 vols. fol. 
 
 A paraphrastic interpretation of the New Testament, 
 with critical notes, by Philip Doddridge, D.D. Lon- 
 don. 1738 — 1747, three volumes in 4to.* It was trans- 
 lated into German, and published in four volumes, 
 4to, at Magdeburg, 1750. 
 
 Of the Commentaries on the New Testament which 
 have been written by our own divines, a much more 
 extensive list might be made, and it is consequently 
 the more necessary to limit it to some of the more 
 modern. 
 
 A mass of learning is contained in John Chris- 
 topher Wolf's Curae philologicae et criticae in Nov. 
 Test, in four volumes, 4to, Hamb. 1738-41. t 
 
 Almost as much learning, but less acuteness, may 
 be found in Christopher Augustin Heumann's 
 exposition of the New Testament, in twelve parts, 
 Haimov. 1750—1763, 8vo. 
 
 An excellent work, although less learned, is John 
 
 • Note LI. 
 I It was also published in five volumes 4to, at Basle, 1741. Tr. 
 
188 COMMENTARIES. 
 
 Albert Bengel's Gnomon Novi Testamenti, Ed 
 tert. Tubingas, 1773, 4to. An abridged translation 
 made its appearance under the title : Das Neue Testa- 
 ment niit eingeschalteten Erklaerungen als ein Auszug 
 der Arbeiten des seligen Bengels, 'the New Testament 
 accompanied by explanatory remarks, an epitome of 
 the works of the late Bengel,' by David Christian 
 MiCHAELis, Lips. 1769, 4to. 
 
 Of the same kind as this last work is : Das Neue 
 Testament mit einem genauen Inhalt, Sinn, Zusam- 
 menhang und Ammerkungen versehen, ' the New Tes- 
 tament, with an accurate view of the contents, sense, 
 connexion, with notes,' by John David Nicolai, in 
 two parts. Bremen, 1775. 
 
 Of a different character, and intended for the really 
 learned interpreter, is the following work : Novum 
 Testamentum Grsecum perpetua adnotatione illustra- 
 tum, a JoH. Benj. Koppe. Gottengge. Tom. i. iv. 
 1778, 1783, Svo. Upon the death of the author, this 
 work was interrupted, and it has not yet been com- 
 pleted by the learned men, who since that event have 
 published some volumes. The young interpreter 
 who is entering upon the subject, will find a very use- 
 ful substitute, in a work intended for him, by John 
 George Rosenmueller : Scholia in Nov. Test. 
 Tom. i— iv. Norimberg, 1777-83, 8vo.* 
 
 Lastly, some of those hermeneutical works must 
 not be passed over unnoticed, which illustrate and ex- 
 plain separate books of scripture. In fact, this class 
 of compositions justifies the highest degree of expecta- 
 tion ; for it is to be presumed, that the industiy of an 
 • Note LII. 
 
COMMENTARIES. 189 
 
 interpreter, who confined himself to one particular 
 book, will have produced afreater results, than the in- 
 dustry of another, whose attention was divided among 
 several. And, in truth, this is the case with many of 
 these works. But, since the number of such interpre- 
 tations is considerable, it becomes the more difficult to 
 make a selection, as only two or three of the most 
 valuable or recent, on each particular book, shall be 
 introduced. 
 
 The interpretation of Genesis, has in our own 
 times been very greatly facilitated by means of a work, 
 entitled : Conjectures sur les memoires originaux, dont 
 il paroit, que Moyse s'est servi pour composer le livre 
 de la Genese — par Jean Astruc. Bruxelles, 1753, 
 Svo.* — But all, which partly since, and partly before 
 that time, has been done and attempted, correctly to 
 settle the interpretation of that book, is now brought 
 together in J. G. Eichhorn's Urgeschichte, 'primi- 
 tive history,' an edition of which has been published, . 
 with an introduction and remarks, by Dr. John Phi- 
 lip Gabler, in two parts, 1791-93, 8vo.t 
 
 On the other books of Moses, so far as relates to the 
 history of the formation of the Israelitish common- 
 wealth and the code of laws which they contain, the 
 workof MicHAELis on the Mosaic law is undoubtedly 
 the best commentary, t 
 
 In the beginning of the last century Nicolas Sera- 
 Rius published, at Mayence, a commentary on most 
 of the other historical books of the Old Testament, 
 
 * Note LIII. t Note LIV. t Note LV. 
 
 16* 
 
190 COMMENTARIES. 
 
 which, ill the judgment even of Snnon, is equally dis- 
 tinguished for its learning and acuteness.* 
 
 We have an exposition of the Hagiographa in the 
 work of John Henry Michaelis : adnotationes ube- 
 riores philologico-exegeticse in libros Hagiographos 
 Vet. Test. Tom. iii. Halse, 1645—1751, 4to.t 
 
 In works of this class, the Psalms in particular are 
 most frequently explained, but the most recent work is 
 that of Dr. George Christ. Knapp, who published 
 a translation of them with remarks, at Halle, 1778, 
 1782, 8vo. Die Psalmen — ueberstetzt und mit Anmer- 
 kungen. 
 
 On Job the principal work is that of Albert 
 SchulTens, entitled : Liber Jobi cum nova versione 
 et perpetuo commentario. Lugd. Bat. Tom. ii. 4to. 
 1737. A new edition of this work, somewhat abridged, 
 was published by George Louis Vogel, at Halle, in 
 two vols. 8vo, in 1773-4. 
 
 The same author's book on the Proverbs must take 
 precedence of all others : Proverbia Salomonis cum 
 commentario. Lugd. 1748, 4to. This work also 
 was published by Vogel in 1769, accompanied by 
 a valuable mictarium by William Abraham Tel- 
 ler. 
 
 Less comprehensive is the translation of the Pro- 
 verbs of Solomon with explanatory remarks, by John 
 Christopher Doederlein, the second edition of 
 which was printed at Altorf in 1782, 8vo. 
 
 * His commentary on the books of Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Kings 
 and Chronicles, first came out at Mayence, in part after his death in 
 the years, 1609. 1610, 1617, fol. 
 
 t Note LVI. 
 
 i 
 
COMMENTARIES. 191 
 
 Der Prediger Salomo, mit einer Erklaeriing nach 
 dem Wortsverstand, von Mosen Mendelsohn, aus 
 deni Hebraeischen uebersetzt von Joh. Jac. Rabe, 
 ' the Book of Ecclesiastes, with an interpretation ac- 
 cording to the hteral sense, by Moses Mendelson, 
 translated from the Hebrew by John James Rabe. 
 Anspach, 1771, 4to.' This is, in various respects, a 
 valuable work. 
 
 On the Song of Solomon, which has suffered more 
 by incorrect interpretation than any other book, we 
 have all that is learned in John Mark's Commenta- 
 rms in Canticum Salomonis. Amstel. 1703, 4to, The 
 commencement of an improved method of treating this 
 poem was made in the small work of John Frederic 
 Jacobi, in Svo, printed in 1771, with the title : Das 
 durch eine leichte und ung-ekuenstelte Erklaerunsf 
 von seinen Vorwuerfen gerettete hohe Lied ; ' the 
 Song of Solomon delivered, by an easy and unaffected 
 interpretation, from the imputations cast upon it.' This 
 improvement it really received in a publication of Dr. 
 HuFNAGEL : Salomos hohe Lied gepreuft, uebersetzt 
 und erlaeutert ; ' Solomon's Song examined — trans- 
 lated and explained.' Erlangen, 1784, Svo. 
 
 With respect to the prophetical books of the Old 
 Testament, we may consider the two following works 
 in the light of general introductions. 
 
 Nicolas Guertler : Systema theologiae prophe- 
 ticae. Ed. sec. Francof 1724, 4to. 
 
 Christian Augustin Crusius : Hypomnemata 
 ad Theologian! propheticam. Tom. ii. Lips. 1764, 
 1771, 8vo.* 
 
 • Note LVII. 
 
192 COMMENTARIES. 
 
 The prophecies of Isaiah in particular, have lately 
 occupied the attention of many scholars. In addition 
 to the older production of Campegius Vitringa : 
 Comment, in Esaiam — ed. nov. Basil. Tom. iii. 1732, 
 fol.,* we have a work of Doederlein : Esaias — ex 
 recensione textus Hebra^i cum notis, Altorf. Ed. sec. 
 1780, 8vo ; and a new English translation, with notes, 
 by Robert Lowth, D. D. London, 1778, 4to. This 
 was translated into German by John Benjamin 
 KoppE, and published with additions and observa- 
 tions, at Leipzig in three vols. 8vo. 1779, 1780.t 
 
 For a long time we possessed scarcely any thing 
 on Jeremiah, except the Commentary of Henry Ve- 
 nema, Loewarden, 1765, two vols. 4to. But at pre- 
 sent we have, in addition, the work of John David 
 MicHAELis, entitled : Observationes philologicae et 
 criticae in Jeremiae Vaticinia et Threnos — edid. mul- 
 tisque animadversionibus auxit — Joh. Frid. Schleus- 
 ner. Goetting. 1793, 4to.t 
 
 The prophecies of Ezekiel, and particularly of his 
 latter temple, received at the very beginning of the last 
 century, very learned interpretations in the following 
 work : Hieron. Pradi et Joh. Bapt. Villalpan- 
 Di in Ezekielem explanationes et adparatus urbis ac 
 
 * It has several times been published, in two volumes folio. Tr. 
 The publication of a German translation of this work, compressed, 
 was commenced by Anthony Frederic Buesching in 1749-51. at 
 Halle, in two vols. 4to. 
 
 t Note LVIII. 
 
 t The more recent work of the lately deceased Gottlob Leber 
 Spohn, professor of theology at Wittemberg: Jeremias Vates ever- 
 sione Judaeorum Alexandrinorum ac reliquorum interpret. Graec. 
 emendatus — Lips. 1794. 8vo., does not belong to the class of inter- 
 pretations. 
 
 Vol. ii. of Spohn's work was published by his son in 1823. — A 
 notice of Blatnet's Jeremiah may be seen in Home. p. 233. Tr. 
 
COMMENTARIES. 195 
 
 templi Hierosolymitani — illustratus. Romae, Tom. iii. 
 1569 — 1604, fol.; but a work of more utility is that of 
 John Frederic Stark : Comment, in prophetam 
 Ezekielem. Francof. 1731, 4to. 
 
 Ancient and modern attempts to remove the difh- 
 cuhies in the collection of Daniel's prophecies are to 
 be found in Martin Geier's Prselectiones academicae 
 in Danielem. Lips. 1762, 4to. 
 
 Herman Venema — Dissert, ad vaticin. Danielis : 
 Cap. ii. viii. viii. Leovard, 1745, 4to, and 
 
 Exposition of the book of Daniel — by John 
 Christopher Harenburg, in two parts. Blanken- 
 burg. 1770-72, 4to.* 
 
 Lastly, on the twelve mmor prophets, we have, be- 
 sides a laro;'e number of interpretations on separate 
 books.t tlie work of John Marck : Commentarius in 
 xii prophetas minores — in Pfaff's edition. Tubing. 
 1734. fol. 
 
 Translations of the prophets, with the exception of 
 Jonah, by Christian Godfrey Struensee, in three 
 vols. Halberstadt, 1769-73. 8vo. 
 
 Prophetae Minores ex recensione Textus Hebrsei 
 cum notis Joh. Aug. Dathe. Halas, ed. ii. 1779, 
 Svo. 
 
 Among the expository writings on particular books 
 of the New Testament, none are more important and 
 neces.sary than those which, under the name of Har- 
 
 * Note LIX. 
 
 t Among these the most distinguislied is the Commentary of 
 Edward Pococke on Hosea and Joel. Oxford 1G85— 91,fol. 
 
 For a notice of Horseley's Hosea, Pococke on Hosea, Joel, 
 Micah,nad Malachi,BLAYNEv's Zecliariah, Newcome's Ezekiel and 
 minor Prophets, with other English works, see Home, pp. 234, 
 8s. Tr. 
 
194 COMMENTARIES. 
 
 monies of the evangelists, comprehend the four Gos- 
 pels, illustrate one by means of the others, and en- 
 deavor, by comparing their accounts, to determine 
 throughout the true chronological order of these works 
 and of the history of Christ. But as this, unhappily, 
 has been done in almost all cases, in various methods, 
 it becomes necessary to attempt to compare some of 
 them together.* 
 
 Among the older works of this kind the best, un- 
 doubtedly, is that of Martin Chemnitz: Harmonia 
 quatuor Evangehstarum — quam Polycarpus Lyse- 
 RLs continuavit — Johannes Gerhardus perfecit. 
 Ed. nov. Hamburg. Tom. iii. 1704. fol. 
 
 To the end of the last century belong the following : 
 
 Bernhard Lamy : Commeiitarius in harmoniam 
 et concordiam quatuor evaiigeliorum. Tom. i. Paris. 
 1699, 4to ; and Harmonia evangelica, cui subjecta est 
 historia Christi ex quatuor evangeliis concinnata — 
 auct. Jo. Clerico. Amstelod. 1698, fol. 
 
 Later works of this kind are these : 
 
 John Reinhard Rues : Harmonia Evangehsta- 
 rum. Tom. iii. Jenae, 1727-30. Svo. 
 
 John Albert Bengel's richtige Harmonic der 
 Evangelisten, 'accurate harmony of the Gospels.' 
 Third edition, Tuebingen, 1766, Svo. 
 
 Harmony of the Gospels, by Eberard David 
 Hauber, together with the same author's life of Jesus 
 Christ, drawn from the four Gospels, and remarks on 
 the harmony. Lemgo, 1737, 4to. 
 
 New harmony of the Gospels, by Ernest Augus- 
 tus Bertling. Halle, 1767, 4to. 
 * Note LX. 
 
COMMENTARIES. 195 
 
 Some illustrations of the gospel of St. Matthew in 
 particular are contained in the commentary of Solo- 
 mon Van Till which appeared in 1708 at Frankfort, 
 translated from the Dutch, and at the time of its publi- 
 cation was greatly valued. Also the Dubia evangeli- 
 ca discussa et vindicata of Frederic Spanheim, pub- 
 lished at Geneva, 1704, in three vols. 4to, relates prin- 
 cipally to this Gospel. 
 
 In addition to these, we have : James Elsner's 
 Commentarius critico-philologicus in evangelium 
 Matthaei — cum notulis Ferdin. Stosch, Zwolliae, 
 Tom. ii. 1769. 4to. But the third volume, which ap- 
 peared at Utrecht in 1773, contains a commentary on 
 the gospel of St. Mark. 
 
 On the great question relating to this evangelist, 
 whether he was an epitomist of St Matthew or not, we 
 have two treatises ; one by Koppe, of the year 1780, 
 which maintains the negative, and another by Gries- 
 BACH, counsellor of the consistory, published in 1789, 
 asserting and proving the affirmative. 
 
 On St. Luke ; — Observationes philologicae et theo- 
 logicae in Lucae cap. ix. priora, auct. Carolo Segaar, 
 Trajecti, 1766, 8vo. 
 
 On St. John ; — the old valuable work of Freder- 
 ic Adol. Lampe : Commentarius analytico-exegeticus 
 — Evangelii secundum Johannem. Tom. iii. Amste- 
 lod. 1724-26, 4to. A later and still more valuable 
 publication is that of Storr, Ueber den Zweck des 
 Evangeliums und der Briefe Johannis, ' on the design 
 of the gospel and epistles of St. John.' Tuebingen, 
 1786, 8vo.* 
 
 • Note LXI. 
 
196 COMMENTARIES. 
 
 On the Acts ; John Louis Lindhammer's Aus- 
 fuehrliche Erklaemng und Anwendnng der Apostel- 
 geschichte, ' Copious explanation of the Acts of the 
 apostles, with application.' Halle, 1725, fol. Also : 
 Dissertatio in Acta Apostolornm, by John Ernest 
 Immanuel Walch. Jenas, 1756-59-61. Tom. iii. 
 4to. 
 
 Of the epistles of St. Paul there are so many inter- 
 pretations, that it is impossible to take notice of any 
 but the more modern. 
 
 Among these belong the paraphrases of three dis- 
 tinguished English scholars, which in a manner con- 
 stitute one whole ; namely : A paraphrase of Paul's 
 epistles to the Romans, Galatians, Ephesians and Co- 
 rinthians, by John Locke, London, 1709, 4to. This was 
 translated into German by John George Hoffman, 
 and published at Francfort, 1769, two vols. 4to. — A 
 paraphrase of the epistles of Paul to the Colossians, 
 Philippians and Hebrews, by James Pierce, London, 
 1724, 1733, 4to. — Also, a paraphrase of the epistles to 
 the Thessalonians, Philemon, Timothy, and Titus, 
 by George Benson, London, 1734, 4to. This also 
 was translated into German, together with his para- 
 phrase on the Catholic epistles. Leipsig, 1761, four 
 vols. 4to. 
 
 From the scholars of our own country, we have 
 the following works. 
 
 Exposition of the epistles of St. Paul to the Gala- 
 tians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessaloni- 
 ans, and Philemon, by Sigismund James Baumgar- 
 TEN ; to which some contributions were made by 
 Semler. Halle, 1767, 4to. 
 
COMMENTARIES. 197 
 
 Paraphrase and notes on the epistles of Paul to 
 the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 
 Thessalonians, Timothy, Titus and Philemon, hy 
 John David Michaelis. Goettingen, 1750, 4to. 
 
 A paraphrastic interpretation of the epistle to the 
 Romans, by Gotth. Traug. Zachari^, Goettingen, 
 1769, 8vo. Also, on the two epistles to the Corinthi- 
 ans, 1769, and on those to the Galatians, Ephesians, 
 Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians, 1770, 8vo, both 
 works published at Goettingen by the same author. 
 
 Of the epistles of St. Paul taken separately, those 
 addressed to the Romans and Hebrews have occupied 
 the attention of the greatest number of interpreters. 
 On the former, there are among the later works — 
 
 A Paraphrase with notes on the epistle to the Ro- 
 mans, by John Taylor, London, 1745, 4to. A 
 German translation was publisiied at Berlin in 1759, 
 4to. 
 
 Benedict Carpzov : Stricturae in epistolam 
 PauU ad Romanos. Helmstad. ed. sec. 175S. 
 
 Christian Frederic Schmid : Annotationes in 
 Epist. Pauli ad Romanos. Lips. 1777, 8vo. 
 
 On the Hebrews : John Andr. Cramer's Erklae- 
 rung des Briefes an die Hebraeer, ' Explanation of the 
 epistle to the Hebrews, in two parts,' Copenhagen, 
 17.58, 4to; also Baumgarten's with Masch'.s notes, 
 and additions by Semler, Halle, 1763, 4to : and, 
 that of Michaelis, in two parts, Frankfort, 1762, 64, 
 4to. 
 
 A new translation of the epistle to the Hebrews, by 
 MoRus. Leipz. ed. sec. 1781, 4to. 
 
 17 
 
198 COMMENTARIES. 
 
 The epistle of Paul to the Hebrews, illustrated by 
 Dr. Storr. Tuebingen, 1789, 8vo. 
 
 A complete introduction to the epistle to the He- 
 brews, by Werner Charles Ziegler. Goettingen, 
 1790, Svo. 
 
 Epistola Pauli ad Hebraeos Graece, perpetua anno- 
 tatione illustrata a J. H. Heinrichs. Goettiiigae, 
 1792, Svo.* 
 
 On the epistles which are called Catholic, there is, 
 besides the paraphrase of Benson, a brief exposition 
 by Zachari^, Goetting. 1776, Svo, and also a work 
 by David Julius Pott : Epistol. Catholicae Graece, 
 perpetua annotatione illustratae. Vol. i. ii. Goettingae, 
 1786, 90. Svo. 
 
 Lastly ; Among the great variety of works which 
 have been published on the Revelation of St. John, the 
 following only can be here mentioned : 
 
 The Revelation of John, or rather of Jesus Christ 
 interpreted, by John Albert Bengel. Second edi- 
 tion, Stuttgard, 1746, Svo. 
 
 John Christopher Hareneerg : Erklaerung 
 der Offenbanmg Johannis, 'Interpretation of the Re- 
 velation of John.' Brunswick, 1759, 4to. 
 
 Maranatha — or the book of the coming of the 
 Lord. By J. G. Herder. Riga, 1779, Svo. 
 
 And, the latest work which has appeared on this 
 book of scripture, J. G. Eichhorn : Commentarius in 
 Apocalypsin. Tom. ii. Gottingae, 1791, Svo.t 
 
 ♦ Note LXII. + Note LXIII. 
 
OBJECT TO BE PROPOSED. 199 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 After this brief list of the principal literary works 
 relating to the interpretation of scripture, nothing 
 further is necessary, with respect to this last branch 
 of knowledge belonging to the study of interpretation, 
 than to subjoin some observations on the method by 
 which we may, with the most facility and success, not 
 only comprehend those principles, but also apply them 
 with some degree of readiness. These observations 
 may be reduced to a small compass. For, on the one 
 hand, in this subject all depends simply on the correct 
 determination of the object proposed by any one in 
 the study of hermeneutics, from which the observa- 
 tions then flow of themselves ; and, on the other, after 
 what has already been stated, it can hardly be further 
 necessary, to recommend it on any peculiar grounds. 
 
 Now with respect to that object, it may certainly 
 be presumed, that the principal aim of every one who 
 applies himself to the study of hermeneutics must be 
 this : to place himself by means of this knowledge in 
 such a situation, as will enable him, by the aid of cor- 
 rect principles, to explain the Bible for himself, and 
 with his own eyes to discover its contents ; and fur- 
 ther, to apply his knowledge as a test of the interpre- 
 tations of others, thereby forming a judgment respect- 
 ing the results to which they have arrived. We may 
 safely suppose, that every man, who is clearly con- 
 scious of any design on this subject, will have this 
 two-fold view ; at least, it is easy to show, that one of 
 • Note LXIV 
 
200 OBJECT TO BE PROPOSED. 
 
 these objects cannot be possessed without the other, 
 and that either this design, or none that is reasonable, 
 must be contemplated. 
 
 But here it cannot possibly be concealed, that, ac- 
 cording to the usual way of pursuing an exegetical 
 course at most of our universities, this does not seem 
 to be the principal aim of the greater proportion of 
 students. The tisual way is, to attend (whenever it is 
 practicable to do so,) one or more courses of exegetical 
 lectures on all the books of the Bible, to hear these in- 
 terpreted by an instructor, and merely to endeavor 
 to note down his interpretations as fully as possible, 
 and then — to lay them up for future use.* 
 
 If we may judge according to this view of the case, 
 the design of the great proportion would seem to be 
 this : to collect together, during their theological 
 course at the university, from the oral instruction of 
 one or more teachers, a complete commentary, if pos- 
 sible, on the whole Bible : for nothing beyond this 
 design can be attained by such a method. But, that 
 this cannot be the design which a man ought to have, 
 is in the strongest manner brought home to the feel- 
 ings, because it does not in any degree at all corres- 
 pond with the trouble which his acquisitions must 
 have cost him. 
 
 If, indeed, this is the ultimate object which a man 
 aims at, if nothing more is wished than to have a com- 
 mentary, which may afterwards be consulted, to which 
 he may resort when pressed with a difficult text, and 
 which may supply materials sufficient in general for 
 interpretation within the family circle and in the pui- 
 • Note LXV. 
 
OBJECT TO BE PROPOSED. 901 
 
 pit ; this may be attained with mucli greater ease, 
 and undoubtedly at a much cheaper rate. We have 
 already printed commentaries in abundance. We 
 have them of all kinds, in all forms and sizes, of de- 
 sirable brevity and of desirable length, in Latin and in 
 German. It is only necessary for a man to accomo- 
 date himself with one or two of these, and he has all 
 that he wants ; he can spare himself the trouble of 
 taking notes on four or five courses of exegetical lec- 
 tures, which, in this case, would be a labor altogether 
 superfluous. 
 
 Undoubtedly there might often be a very great dif- 
 ference between the commentary which a man may 
 procure, and the exegetical course of lectures which 
 he may hear ; yet there are late works of this kind, 
 highly valued, and indeed with great reason, which 
 in part have given the tone to the whole interpretation 
 of our age, and those every professor himself in pre- 
 paring his lectures must use. This then is a conside- 
 ration which removes almost all the difference which 
 could arise ; or at least, renders it unimportant. 
 
 For one, who contents himself with merely hear- 
 ing an exposition of what the Bible contains, it is not 
 of very great importance, at least in a principal re- 
 spect, what the interpretation is. Whether he rely 
 upon an old commentator or a modern interpreter, in 
 all cases he can only see with the eyes of another ; in all 
 cases he is only led by the guidance of another. And, 
 so long as he cannot himself determine whether the 
 way in which he is conducted is the right one, his 
 confidence is nothing but a blind faith, which must in- 
 duce him to follow indifferently the good or the bad 
 17* 
 
202 OBJECT TO BE PROPOSED. 
 
 guide, to receive as true the most erroneous interpreta- 
 tions as well as the most correct. For this purpose, 
 it is plain that no particular study is requisite. If a 
 man is willing to content himself with this, he may 
 spare himself the labor of interpretation altogether. 
 Hence, then, it is most clearly evident, that a very dif- 
 ferent design from this must be proposed, and this can 
 l3e none other than the one already stated. In pursu- 
 ing the study of hermeneutics, the only design which 
 can, with any appearance of reason, be aimed at is, to 
 learn how to interpret for one's self, and to form a 
 judgment, on sure fundamental principles, respecting 
 the conclusions, which the interpretation of others has 
 deduced from the Bible. In reference to this design, 
 and only to this, must the method also be determined, 
 by which we should be guided in the subject under 
 consideration. 
 
 If this point be admitted, the necessity of the fol- 
 lowing conditions, and the propriety of the directions 
 resulting from them for the study of interpretation, 
 will strike every one of themselves. 
 
 The first condition is this : no one should venture to 
 begin interpreting for himself, or even to suppose that he 
 has acquired the ability necessary for such a task, before 
 he has collected sufficient philological knowledge of 
 the languages of our sacred writers, from the sources 
 before adduced, and in the method already laid down. 
 It has been shown in this work, that philological ac- 
 quaintance with language is the first and most neces- 
 sary aid and instrument in interpreting ; and, as it is 
 a self evident truth, that no man can explain a book 
 while he is unacquainted with the language in which 
 
METHOD OF ATTAINING IT. 203 
 
 it was written, this at any rate need not be further de- 
 veloped, although it may be the more necessary to 
 take some notice here of the very absurd method 
 which is too often pursued in studies of this nature. 
 
 The usual manner in our universities is, to begin 
 with hearing exegetical lectures, before the student has 
 acquired grammatical knowledge enough to enable 
 him to understand even the words of the oriorinal text : 
 and, in fact, not a few, who are earnest in pursuing a 
 thorough course of study, begin in this way for the 
 very purpose of learning biblical philology, and of 
 becoming acquainted with the language of scripture. 
 
 A part of this object they may also, in some degree, 
 secure in this way. In interpreting before a class, 
 every professor must of course point out the significa- 
 tions of the words, the characteristics of his author's 
 language, the peculiarities of his style and grammar. 
 All of this a student may apprehend, observe, and at 
 all events note down, and thus he may collect a con- 
 siderable number of fi-agments of biblical philology of 
 no little use. But, in most cases of this kind, what 
 can a man do with such fi-agments? Not to urge, 
 that they are nothing but fragments, that for the most 
 part they suppose an acquaintance with the first and 
 most necessary grammatical principles of the language 
 to have been already made, that no teacher in an exe- 
 getical collegiate course can enter into these, that 
 what he draws from higher philology can be of no use 
 to those who are not conversant in the elements of 
 grammar ; to set aside all this, who can easily expect 
 immediately to seize upon these scattered philological 
 notices, as they must be given in the lecture of an in- 
 
204 METHOD OF ATTAINING IT. 
 
 structor, in reference to their sources, their reasons 
 and objects, so as to be able to apply them himself 
 with safety ? If a man cannot do this, or does not de- 
 sire to do it, he does, in fact, what is equivalent to a 
 formal renunciation of any purpose of interpreting for 
 himself 
 
 It is tlierefore absolutely necessary, to bring to the 
 study of hermeneutics a knowledge of the first princi- 
 ples at least of the grammar of the sacred languages. 
 For this study can teach us nothing more than how 
 to ascertain the sense of scripture by the assistance of 
 that knowledge of its languages ; it can only show us 
 how we must apply philology to interpretation, in or- 
 der to be certain whether the interpretation is correct 
 it is therefore, in the very nature of things, indispensa- 
 bly necessary to have previously acquired that know- 
 ledge. 
 
 Secondly : the next thing then to be done undoubt- 
 edly is, or should be, to become acquainted with the 
 principles of hermeneutics, with those general rules 
 which sound understanding prescribes, and those 
 means of assistance and invention, which logic must 
 supply. In fact, the knowledge of these is now indis- 
 pensable ; but this knowledge may be procured in 
 more ways than one, and it is by no means a matter of 
 indifference which of them shall be selected. 
 
 These principles and rules can be readily enough 
 found in the best directions for hermeneutics which 
 are most accessible. Neither are these principles so 
 numerous as to require any great trouble to extract 
 them from these directions, or any great effort to re- 
 tain them in memory ; much less are they so abstract, 
 
METHOD OF ATTAINING IT. 205 
 
 as to demand particular aciiteness or deep thought, in 
 order to penetrate into the grounds of them, and thus 
 become convinced of their truth. If we proceed on 
 this direct course, we certainly can arrive quickly and 
 easily enough at an acquaintance with them ; but still 
 considerable advantages appear to be possessed by ano- 
 ther, which, although it does not so promptly lead to 
 the same result, accomplishes the object with equal 
 certainty. 
 
 We may ourselves draw these rules and principles 
 of hermeneutics, even from examples wherein they are 
 applied, and thereby secure the advantage of making 
 ourselves acquainted at the same time with the princi- 
 ples themselves,''and with the manner, with the bene- 
 fits, with the talent of applying them ; and thus we 
 shall the sooner acquire a readiness in this matter. 
 Yet It is probable that both of these methods may be 
 connected without inconvenience, and this would un- 
 doubtedly be the most useful course. At all events, 
 there would certainly be no loss of time, if a student, 
 preparatory to his first exegetical course, should apply 
 himself for some days to the Interpres of Ernesti, in or- 
 der to obtain from it the rules which should guide in 
 mterpreting. A few days only would be quite sufficient 
 for this purpose. Let him then be shown by an in- 
 structor — not how these rules can be applied — but 
 their actual application in interpreting, and by the in- 
 terpretation of the scriptures let them as it were be 
 brought before him ; in other words, let him attend to 
 a course of instruction according to these rules, and 
 thus learn the art of applying them from the pro- 
 cedure of his interpreter. 
 
206 METHOD OF ATTAINING IT. 
 
 That he ought not in this stage to venture himself 
 to make the apphcation, and immediately to exercise 
 himself in interpreting, is too plain to need proof; for 
 in the first effort it will certainly be found that this re- 
 quires some experience, which can only be gradually 
 obtained by attentive observation of the endeavors of 
 others. But this observation is undoubtedly made 
 with the most effect, by attending a course of interpre- 
 tation, and listening to the oral instruction of a teach- 
 er. It may indeed be drawn also from any commen- 
 tary on the Bible, or on some separate book. We 
 need only ask ourselves in regard to any interpreted 
 passage, why the commentator has explained it in this 
 way and not in another, and we shall not only in ge- 
 neral easily ascertain the rule by which he was go- 
 verned, but also be in a situation to perceive the par- 
 ticular manner in which he applied it. But in the 
 oral lecture of an instructor, we see as it were this 
 very application ; we can observe the proper rise of 
 the interpretation, the gradual growth and formation 
 of the true sense of a passage interpreted according to 
 those rules ; we perceive, with clearer apprehension, 
 how the whole business can be conducted, how much 
 foresight may be directed to it, where it may be abbre- 
 viated or lightened ; we learn also along with many 
 practical advantages, and in this way we certainlv 
 shall approach nearer to the object in view in a short 
 space of time, than we could possibly do in a longer 
 period, spent in pursuing a course of study entirely 
 private. 
 
 Tlie benefit of exegetical lectures is, in this view of 
 the subject, strictly and unequivocally determined ; 
 
METHOD OF ATTAINING IT. 207 
 
 but, even in this view, is it also very evident how, and 
 for what purpose, they can and ought especially to be 
 used. 
 
 In such collegiate courses, it should not be the 
 principal point, merely to learn what the instructor 
 explains from the Bible, but to notice how he explains 
 it. In other words, we should not regard it as the 
 great object of attention, simply to hear another inter- 
 pret what the Bible contains, but rather this : to as- 
 certain HOW WE MAY BE ABLE OURSELVES TO DIS- 
 COVER ITS CONTENTS. We must therefore pay more 
 attention to the teacher's method of interpretation 
 than to his interpretation itself, more to the manner 
 than to the results of his exegesis, more to the reasons 
 from which he shows the true sense of a passage of 
 scripture, than to that sense itself which he shows as 
 the true one. 
 
 The ground of this may be seen in that design 
 which a man should have in the study of liermeneu- 
 tics, and which alone can properly be called reasonable. 
 But in order to attain this object it is not necessary, to 
 attend lectures on the whole Bible and all its separate 
 books ; it can very well be attained by hearing a 
 course of instruction on some. It may indeed, not- 
 withstanding this, be requisite to attend particular ex- 
 positions of some books of the Old Testament and of 
 some of the New ; and in peculiar circumstances and 
 with certain objects in view, it may also be very use- 
 ful, if opportunity offer, to hear more than one inter- 
 preter on the same book. The tyro in hermeneutics 
 during this period, or in this term of his course, can 
 derive little or no advantage from what are called Cur- 
 
208 METHOD OF ATTAINING IT. 
 
 soria, or brief outlines. Undoubtedly they may be use- 
 ful in a variety of respects, and the more certainly if the 
 whole Bible is gone through with them ; but their utili- 
 ty is confined to those who are prepared for them by 
 other means, and who have approached the close of 
 the third term, which they have to pass through. 
 
 After the student has acquired, in the proposed 
 way, some clear ideas respecting the practical applica- 
 tion of the principles of hermeneutics, then in the third 
 and last place, it is time for him to begin to exercise 
 himself in interpreting ; for which no particular direc- 
 tions are now necessary. In order the sooner to ac- 
 quire a readiness in this matter and a confidence, it is 
 perhaps of chief importance, to undertake it at first 
 rather slowly, to adopt nothing without being able to 
 give one's self an accurate account of the reasons 
 which have led to its adoption, and not to advance a 
 step without a clear consciousness of the causes which 
 make it necessary. In order to acquire this habit the 
 more readily, it would be very proper, to select de- 
 signedly, for the first efforts in interpretation, some pas- 
 sages of scripture, the exposition of which involves 
 several difficulties. If we exercise ourselves at first 
 with very easy passages, we may very soon be led into 
 the error of supposing the business of hermeneutics 
 much lighter than it is, or to congratulate ourselves 
 on having acquired a greater ability in conducting it 
 than is really the fact. On the other hand, we can in 
 no event lose any thing, if we originally venture on 
 difficult places : for if in the attempt we find them too 
 difficult for our abilities, we thereby experience, with 
 the utmost certainty, what deficiencies in our know- 
 
METHOD OF ATTAINING IT. 209 
 
 ledge still remain to be supplied ; and if we succeed in 
 the effort, we may be certain of a favorable result in 
 reference to all easy places. The correctness of these 
 attempts of our own will be best put to the proof, by 
 comparing the interpretations thus deduced, with 
 others which can easily be found in the abundance of 
 commentaries extant. 
 
 That, by pursuing this method, a man does and 
 must learn to become his own interpreter, is not only 
 a matter of experience, but is also to be presumed. 
 Still however — and this consideration affords the most 
 suitable conclusion to the whole subject — it is certain- 
 ly most clearly evident, that no one can ever learn to 
 interpret for himself, unless he has acquired the neces- 
 sary knowledge of all the literature already introduced 
 as belonging to exegetical theology.* 
 
 * Note LXVI. 
 
 18 
 
TRANSLATOR'S NOTES. 
 
 The notes appended lo this work are added by the translator, in 
 order to give the student who is unacquainted with criticism and inter- 
 pretation a general view of the most prominent points connected with 
 the subjects to which the author refers. If he wishes to acquire a more 
 minute knowledge of the several topics brought before him, the sources 
 of information are abundant ; and the most important and useful are 
 pointed out in the course of the work. More particular references 
 will occasionally be made in the notes. 
 
 NOTE I. 
 
 This observation, which is one of great practical im- 
 portance, might easily be illustrated, by showing, that in 
 general those writers, whose acquaintance with langua- 
 ges is but limited, are more remarkable for inaccuracy 
 in forming or developing their thoughts, than others, whose 
 philological knowledge is considerable. In theological 
 controversy, its truth is most conspicuous : and many a dis- 
 cussion of this kind would have been crushed in its very 
 bud, if the disputants had formed clear conceptions of the 
 litigated points, and had been able to define with tolerable 
 accuracy, the terms they employed. " Explain terms " — 
 is one of the rules laid down by Claude, in his admirable 
 Essay on the Composition of a Sermon, and it is no less 
 important for the theological writer, than for the Christian 
 preacher. It is said of Plato that he accustomed his pu- 
 pils to define with precision the ideas which they attached 
 to language. See Voyage d'Anacharsis, Chap. vii. Tom. 
 ii. p. 141, ed. Paris, l'2mo, 1810. 
 
212 
 
 NOTES. 
 
 NOTE II. 
 
 I have retained the word " dialect" which is used by 
 the author, although it is not considered by some critics 
 as accurately applied to the Greek of the New Testament. 
 See a very able article on the nature and character of this 
 Greek style, by Henry Planck, son of the author of this 
 work, in the Biblical Repository, conducted by Edward 
 Robinson, D. D. late Professor Extraordinary in the Theo- 
 logical Seminary at Andover, Vol. I. No. iv. pp. 638 — 689. 
 In this Essay the influence of the Macedonian conquests, 
 and also of the Hebrew language on the Greek of the New 
 Testament, is traced by the hand of a master. 
 
 NOTE III. 
 
 This remark is connected with the previous question, 
 ' whether the Greek or Aramaean language was employed 
 in Palestine in the time of our Lord and his apostles.' As 
 the truth seems to be that both these languages were then 
 in use in that country, the reader is referred to the disser- 
 tations of Pfannkuche and Hug, in the Biblical Repository, 
 Vol. I. No. ii. pp. 317—363, and No. iii. pp. 530—551, 
 with the introductory remarks of the editor in No. ii. pp. 309 
 — 317. He will there find a brief historical sketch of the 
 controversy on this subject, and a view of the evidence in 
 favor of the use of each language respectively. 
 
 NOTE IV. 
 
 As most of the apostles were natives of Galilee, or 
 lived in that country, near which numbers of persons had 
 long been residing to whom the Greek language was ver- 
 nacular ; it is evident that the intercourse with those per- 
 sons which the ordinary occupations of life required must 
 
NOTES. 213 
 
 have obliged the apostles, to use the Greek language as 
 spoken by them. St. Paul, who was a citizen of Tarsus 
 in Ciiicia, no doubt used the Greek as there spoken in his 
 intercourse with his Gentile fellow citizens. The declara- 
 tion of the author requires, therefore, some modification. 
 
 NOTE V. 
 
 When it is considered that the character of the Greek of 
 the New Testament is not Hebraistic merely, but partakes 
 also in a considerable degree of that which distinguishes 
 the later and less elegant Greek writers, who flourished 
 after the formation of the common dialect, and the influ- 
 ence of the Macedonian conquests on that dialect ; it must 
 be evident, that, in addition to the Septuagint version, there 
 are other sources to which the student should apply in 
 order to form a correct acquaintance with the language of 
 the New Testament. These he will find pointed out in 
 the Essay of Planck before referred to, pp. 656, 657. He 
 divides them into three classes; first, writers subsequent to 
 the age of Alexander ; second, writers who have treated ex- 
 pressly of this style, viz. the grammarians, scholiasts, and 
 lexicographers ; and third, writings which have come down 
 to us composed in the later diction, such as the Alexan- 
 drine and other Greek versions, the New Testament itself, 
 the Apocryphal books of the Old and New Testaments, and 
 the apostolical fathers. 
 
 NOTE VI. 
 
 Perhaps it would be more accurate to say, — " with 
 which the Hebrew was anciently in part identified." The 
 probability appears to be, that the Hebrew is only one dia- 
 lect of a language, which was originally employed as the 
 medium of communication in Syria, Phoenicia, Mesopo- 
 18* 
 
214 NOTES. 
 
 tamia, Babylonia, Arabia and Ethiopia. From the differ- 
 ent appellations given by the patriarch Jacob and his father- 
 in-law to a heap of stones erected as a pledge of mutual 
 amity,* it is evident, that in some respects at least, the 
 language of the Syrians differed at that early period from 
 that of the Hebrews. And yet, from the whole patriarchal 
 history, it would seem not less evident, that the difference 
 could not have been very considerable or extensive ; 
 and an examination of the monuments which remain of 
 both establishes the conclusion, that they were radically 
 the same. Abraham, his son, grand sons, connexions and 
 dependents, are constantly represented as migratory. But 
 no difficulty seems to have existed in communicating with 
 tlie different tribes or nations among whom they travelled : 
 and from this it would appear to be a reasonable inference, 
 that one dialect, sufficiently common for the purposes of 
 general intercourse, must have been then in use. If it 
 should be said, that like the merchants of ancient times 
 and of the middle ages, the patriarchs could have acquired 
 sufficient knowledge of the various tongues of the people 
 among whom they travelled ; this must be allowed. But 
 such a supposition will not meet all the difficulties of the 
 case, as an acquisition of various languages in this way, is 
 hardly to be assumed of all the members of their large 
 families, or rather of extensive bodies of men, as they are 
 more properly to be regarded. If Abraham's own family 
 supplied him with 318 native servants able to bear arms,t h 
 is plain that his domestic establishment must have amount- 
 ed, at least, to 1,500 souls. Unless the several dialects 
 approximated sufficiently near each other to constitute 
 some general medium of communication, it will be diffi- 
 cult to account for the apparent facility with which Rache' 
 
 * Gen. XXXI, 47. t See Gen. xiv, 14. 
 
NOTES. 215 
 
 converses with Jacob. And that this is the true solution 
 of the phenomena is strengthened by subsequent facts. 
 When Moses leaves Egypt and connects himself with the 
 Midianites in Arabia, he is able to converse with the daugh- 
 ter of the priest in the language, which in his youth he had 
 learned in the family of his Hebrew parents. When his 
 Midianite father-in-law visits him in the desert, they have 
 no difficulty in holding intercourse with each other. It is 
 worthy of notice also, that some centuries afterwards, as 
 late as the time of the Judges, the language spoken by the 
 Midianites, who are none other than Arabians, was under- 
 stood by the Hebrews without an interpreter. This is 
 plain from the fact, that Gideon, who had entered at night 
 the camp of the enemy, understood the narration of a 
 dream which he heard one Midianite communicating to his 
 companion.* The supposition that Gideon's knowledge 
 was peculiar to himself, does not seem to be probable. 
 
 NOTE Vil. 
 
 In applying the principle laid down in the text the 
 greatest possible caution is necessary. In the first place, 
 we should be intimately acquainted both with the ordinary 
 and peculiar grammatical forms of the language. Altera- 
 tions of the text may often be traced to the want of this. 
 Several various readings in Greek manuscripts have arisen 
 from the transcribers' ignorance of the principle of attrac- 
 tion. Then again an author may be accustomed to sole- 
 cisms not occurring in any other writer of the New Tes- 
 tament. Let the critic be on his guard lest he mar the 
 text of his author, at the very time when he imagines that 
 he is correcting it. This has probably been the fact in 
 several instances, and particularly in the Af>ocalypse of 
 
 ♦ See Judges vii. 13—15. 
 
216 NOTES. 
 
 St. John. Comp. i. 5. ii. 20. iii. 12 ; to which several other 
 passages might be added. The case ought to be very 
 clear indeed, to allow the application of the author's prin- 
 ciple. The reader will not fail to remark the limitations to 
 which he himself restricts it. 
 
 NOTE VIII. 
 
 To assist us in forming a correct idea of the criticism 
 of the New Testament, some general knowledge of the 
 most important manuscripts is necessary, which it is the 
 design of this note to communicate. It must of course be 
 very general, as a particular and altogether satisfactory ac- 
 count cannot be obtained, except by consulting various 
 authors and examining fac-similies. See Simon's Histoire 
 Critique du texte du Nouveau Testament, Chap, xxix — 
 xxxiii, pp. 336, ss., also his Dissertation Critique sur les 
 principaux Actes Manuscrits, appended to his Histoire Cri- 
 tique desprincipaux Commentateurs du N. T. ; Michaelis' 
 Introduction to the New Testament, translated from the 
 German and considerably augmented with Notes, &c. by 
 the Right Rev. Herbert Marsh, D. D. F. R. S. Vol. II. 
 Part I. pp. 159. ss. Edit. iii. ; Horne's Introduction, Vol. 
 II. pp. 97, ss. Edit. vi. Lond. and Montfaucon's Palaeo- 
 graphia Grseca. The two last works contain specimens 
 from which the reader may acquire a sufficient acquaint- 
 ance with the different characters in which manuscripts 
 were written. 
 
 There are many manuscripts which contain readings 
 that may be called characteristic. These are either de- 
 rived from the same source, or are copies one of an- 
 other ; and the affinity which they bear to each other has 
 induced critics to form them into classes, each class corres- 
 ponding in a great degree with what is meant by an edi- 
 
NOTES. . 217 
 
 tion, as the term is applied to printed books. This classi- 
 fication or relationship is called by Semler* recensio, and 
 the same word is used by GaiESBACH.t Bengel| employs 
 the term familia or natio ; Michaelis (in Marsh's Trans- 
 lation,) uses edition ; Laurence^ text ; and Nolan|| class. 
 
 In the greatest number of manuscripts the Gospels only 
 are contained ; a considerable number comprehend the Gos- 
 pels, the Epistles and Acts ; a few the Apocalypse. The 
 whole of the New Testament is seldom to be found in one 
 manuscript. As several have chasms, it is not to be con- 
 cluded that a manuscript accords with the commonly re- 
 ceived text, because it is not referred to in a critical edition 
 as differing from it ; for the passage or even the book in 
 which it occurs may be wanting. 
 
 It must be observed, that there are certain manuscripts 
 which are called in Greek dvayvuxriiaTa, from dvayiydicrKcj, to read, 
 and in Latin lectionaria. The portions which they con- 
 tain are those which were appointed to be read in the pub- 
 lic service of the Church, and hence they derive their 
 name. The text of the lectionaria was occasionally altered 
 to accommodate to the approved readings of a particular 
 period ; and introductory clauses were often added, to prepare 
 the hearer or reader for the history or discourse that was to 
 follow. Such introductory clauses are sometimes retained in 
 
 * Apparatus ad liberalem Novi Testamenti interpretationem, Halae, 
 17G7, 8vo. 
 
 t .Symbolae Criticae ad supplendas el corrigendas variarum Novi Tes- 
 tamenti lectionuin coUectiones. Halle, 1785, 8vo. Vol. II. Also, in 
 the Prolegomena to his New Testament. 
 
 t Apparatus Criticus ad Novum Testamentum, Tubingae, 1763, 4to. 
 
 § Remarks upon the systematical classification of Manuscripts adopt- 
 ed by Griesbach in his edition of the Greek Testament. O.vford, 1814, 
 Svo. pamphlet. 
 
 II An Inquiry into the integrity of the Greek Vulgate or received text 
 of the New Testament. London, 1815. 
 
218 NOTES. 
 
 our Book of Common Prayer. See, for example, the Gos- 
 pels for the sixth and ninth Sundays after Trinity, for St. 
 Philip and St. James' day, and that for All Saints' day. — 
 From these and other circumstances the evidence which 
 these manuscripts afford in determining the correctness of 
 readings in general, is less to be relied on than that of others. 
 
 In some manuscripts the Greek text is accompanied by 
 a Latin translation, with which, in the opinion of certain 
 critics it has been made to correspond. Hence the text of 
 such manuscripts has been said to latinize ; but this charge 
 is thought by some of the best critics to be unfounded. 
 When a Latin version accompanies the text, the copy is 
 called a Greek-Latin manuscript. 
 
 The manuscripts which are of principal importance in 
 relation to controverted readings are the following. They 
 are all, with the exception of the three last, written in 
 uncial characters, that is, in large, or capital letters. 
 
 The first, which is designated in critical editions by an 
 A, was presented to Charles I. by Cyril Lucar, Patriarch 
 of Constantinople, and is now in the British Museum. It 
 is called tTie Alexandrine Manuscript, (Codex Alexan- 
 DRiNus,) because Cyril is said to have brought it from 
 Alexandria, of which place he had been patriarch. It 
 contains the whole Bible. The Old Testament, which is 
 the Septuagint version, is in three folios. The New is in 
 one, and commences with Matt, xxv, 6, the preceding part 
 being wanting. On the antiquity of this manuscript, cri- 
 tics have been greatly divided in opinion. Some have as- 
 cribed it to the latter half of the fourth century, some to the 
 fifth, others to the sixth, and others again will not allow it 
 to be more ancient than the eighth. A fac-simile of it, 
 containing the New Testament was published by Dr. 
 WoiDE at London, in 1786, in one splendid folio. 
 
NOTES. 219 
 
 The next important manuscript is called the Vatican, 
 (Codex Vaticanus,) and is usually referred to in critical 
 editions by a B. Its name is derived from the Vatican Li- 
 brary at Rome, where it is preserved. It contains the whole 
 Greek Bible. In the New Testament the order of the 
 books is as follows : the Gospels, the Acts, the seven Cath- 
 olic Epistles, St. Paul's Epistles, with the exception of 
 those to Timothy, Titus and Philemon, and the latter part 
 of that to the Hebrews from ix, 14, a/zoj/ioi; n} ecij. The re- 
 mainder of the manuscript is lost, and consequently it wants 
 the Apocalypse of St. John ; although this and the latter 
 part of Hebrews have been added by a modern transcriber. 
 It is disputed whether this or the Alexandrine manuscript 
 is of higher antiquity ; and different critics have assigned 
 it different dates, from the fourth century to the seventh. 
 
 The third manuscript to be mentioned is generally de- 
 noted by a C. It is a Codex rescriptus, (in Greek 
 naXiiixpriaTOi,) and is SO Called because over the original wri- 
 ting — which comprehended the whole Greek Bible, and 
 which was imperfectly erased — the works of Ephrem the 
 Syrian were written ; and thus the material was made to 
 contain two different publications. This expedient was oc- 
 casionally resorted to in ancient times, in consequence of 
 the difficulty of procuring parchments or other substances 
 suitable to be used for writing. The manuscript has many 
 chasms. It is placed by some critics in the seventh centu- 
 ry ; by others in the sixth. 
 
 Another manuscript particularly deserving of notice, is 
 called the Cambridge, (Codex Cantabrigiensis,) or Be- 
 za's, (Codex Bez^e,) or Stephen's /3 , and is designated by 
 D. It was given to Cambridge by Beza in 1581, for which 
 reason it is known by both these names ; and because .some 
 of the best critics have identified it with a manuscript used 
 
220 NOTES. 
 
 by Robert Stephens, and marked ff in his celebrated edi- 
 tion of 1550, it has received also the third of the above 
 mentioned appellations. It is a Greek-Latin manuscript of 
 the Gospels and Acts, with many chasms. The arrange- 
 ment of the Gospels is that which is usual in Latin copies, 
 thus : Matthew, John, Luke, Mark. Some have thought 
 that the Cambridge manuscript is corrupted from the Latin, 
 because many of its characteristic readings agree with the 
 Vulgate, and many with some of the old Latin versions. 
 But this agreement only shows that their testimony respect- 
 ing readings coincides : it by no means proves that either 
 was altered from the other ; although if it did, it is ob- 
 vious that the Latin might as readily have been altered from 
 the Greek as the Greek from the Latin. In the opinion of 
 the most judicious and accurate critics, this manuscript 
 cannot possibly be more modern than the eighth century, 
 and most probably was written in the fifth ; although it may 
 have been written considerably before that period. 
 
 The next manuscript in uncial letters is the Clermont, 
 (Codex Claromontanus.) This also is a Greek-Latin 
 manuscript, marked D. Although the letter which desig- 
 nates it is the same as that of the preceding manuscript, no 
 confusion can possibly arise, as the Clermont contains no 
 other part of the New Testament except St. Paul's epistles. 
 It is preserved entire in the Royal Library at Paris, certain 
 sheets, which are said to have been stolen, having been re- 
 placed. Dr. Mill supposed this manuscript to be the 
 second part of the Codex Cantabrigiensis ; an opinion which 
 is satisfactorily refuted by Wetstein. It is assigned by the 
 critics to the sixth or seventh century. 
 
 Three other manuscripts, written in small characters, 
 are principally worthy of attention, because of the intimate 
 
NOTES. 221 
 
 connexion they have with the much contested passage in 
 I John V. 9. 7 
 
 The first of these, which contains the whole New Tes- 
 tament, is called the Montford or Dublin Manuscript, 
 (Codex Montfortianus or Dublinensis,) and is quoted 
 by Erasmus in his note on 1 John v. 7, under the name of 
 Codex Brittanicus, because he was informed that a Greek 
 manuscript containing the above mentioned text,* had 
 been found in England. No particulars of its history can 
 be traced farther back than this period, 1519 — 1522. It 
 belonged to Dr. Montfort, a Cambridge theologian, who 
 lived in the former half of the 17th century, and afterwards 
 became the property of Archbishop Usher, who presented 
 it to the library of Trinity College, Dublin, where it now 
 is, and whence it has derived its other title. On the au- 
 thority of this manuscript alone, Erasmus inserted 1 John 
 V. 7, in his third edition, having omitted it in his first and 
 second ; and he inserted it in consequence of a promise he 
 had made of introducing it in his next edition, if any 
 Greek manuscript containing it should be found. Hence 
 the suspicion has arisen that the manuscript was written for 
 this very purpose. It is universally allowed that it is very 
 modern, and probably was not written before the fifteenth 
 century, as it is divided according to the Latin chapters in- 
 troduced by Hugo in the thirteenth, which is not the case 
 with any Greek manuscripts written before the fifteenth, 
 when in consequence of the fall of Constantinople, the 
 Greeks fled into the west of Europe. As some of its read- 
 ings are remarkably coincident with those of the Latin 
 Vulgate, it is very likely that its author was not a little in- 
 debted to this , version. Compare in the same chapter of 
 
 * See Critici SacriTom. viii. Col. 272. 
 
 19 
 
222 NOTES. 
 
 St. John verse 6, its reading, Xptardi (instead of irvcS/za,) lanvf) 
 dMdcia with the Vulgate, " Christus est Veritas." 
 
 It has been conjectured that the Codex Brittanicus of 
 Erasmus was a different manuscript from the present Mont- 
 fortianus or Dublinensis, because Erasmus in quoting from 
 it 1 John V. 7, omits ayioi after the first rrveviia, and bt before 
 the second liaprvpovvres, both of which are to be found in this 
 manuscript. But it ought to be recollected, that this quo- 
 tation occurs in his defence addressed to James Lopez 
 Stunica, (a Spanish divine with whom he had a contro- 
 versy on this subject.) in which most probably he trusted to 
 his memory. In his third edition, where he professes to 
 introduce from the Codex Brittanicus what was wanting 
 in his own manuscripts, this controverted passage agrees 
 exactly with the Codex Dublinensis. 
 
 The second of these manuscripts, which also contains 
 the whole New Testament, is known by the name of the 
 Codex Ravianus or Ravii or Berolinensis, containing 
 also 1 John v. 7. This manuscript was brought from the 
 East by Professor Rave of Upsal, and is now in Berlin : 
 hence its titles. It is generally admitted by critics that it 
 is an imposture, a copy of the Greek text in the Complu- 
 tensian Polyglot, of which it is said to look like a fac-sim- 
 ile. It even copies from this edition errors of the press, 
 from which it may be inferred that the writer's knowledge 
 of Greek was very limited. Where its readings differ from 
 the Complutensian, as they frequently do, they agree with 
 the textuary or marginal readings in the third edition of 
 Stephens. When Erasmus challenged Stunica to produce 
 a single Greek manuscript containing ] John v. 7, he would 
 undoubtedly have appealed to the Codex Ravianus, had he 
 known of its existence. 
 
NOTES. 
 
 223 
 
 The other Manuscript is the Codex Ottobianus pre- 
 served in the Vatican Library and numbered 298. It contains 
 the disputed passage, although somewhat different from the 
 
 common reading, thus : — and rov dvpanov. TTariip, Xuyoj, Kai irvcvfta 
 aytov, Ka'i it rpct; tij to if dai. Kut Tpcif daiv hi fiaprvpovvTCi diro rrff y^f 
 
 — .ScHOLTz, who discovered this manuscript and made it 
 known, ascribes it to the 14th century. The lateness of 
 its date diminishes the value of its testimony in favor of 
 the text in question. See Lee's Prolegomena to Bagstek's 
 Polyglot. Prol vi. Sect. ii. p. 72. 
 
 NOTE IX. 
 
 Griesbach, in his Diatribe on 1 John v. 7, 8, at the end 
 of his New Testament, gives instances of marginal glosses 
 existing in some ancient Greek manuscripts, which, most 
 probably, by assistance obtained from the Vulgate, have 
 given rise to the text itself These glosses seem to be of 
 the same character as the mode of reasoning suggested by 
 Tertullian and Cyprian, and more clearly developed by 
 Facundus, Augustin, and other Latin Fathers, on the 
 genuine 8th verse, in connexion with John x. 30, who de- 
 duce the doctrine of the Trinity by a mystical interpretation 
 of "the Spirit, the Water, and the Blood." Griesbach says 
 also, that the Lateran council of 1215 first exhibits the entire 
 verse in aGreek version, although differing from the received 
 text in the absence of the article, and the collocation ofTwC/ia 
 before aytov. In ihe following century, Manuel Calecas, 
 a Greek who had become a convert to the Latin church, 
 and was perhaps a Dominican friar, in his zeal to establish 
 the addition oi Jilioque to the creed of the Greeks, wrote a 
 book " de fide et principiis catholicae fidei," in which he 
 endeavors to maintain his position that Scripture adds 
 the Holy Spirit as third to the Father and Son, and intro- 
 
224 
 
 NOTES, 
 
 duces these words : Tpcti eartv bi jiaprvpovvTe;. b nariip, b \uyoi nal rd 
 irvtvfia TO tiyiov. He OmitS iv T(~« oipavui and bvrot hi rpeis 'iv ticrtv. 
 
 But a few more efforts would soon produce the text as now 
 received. Accordingly, in the next or 15th century, we 
 find another Greek monk, Joseph Bryennius, quoting the 
 very words of the received text with the exception of 
 TO rrvcvixa to ayfov instead of to ayiov irvzvfia. And it is remarka- 
 ble, that in the omission of the last clause kuX hi Tpin ds to kt> 
 siaiv in the 8th verse, and in the reading h Xpiarog laTiv h iMQtia 
 in the 6th, the quotation agrees with the Vulgate ; and 
 therefore there is considerable reason for suspecting that 
 it was formed by the aid of that version. The same coin- 
 cidence is to be seen in the Montford manuscript. — Who- 
 ever wishes to examine this subject more fully may consult 
 the Diatribe above mentioned, Bengel's Apparatus Criti- 
 cus, pp. 452 — 481, MicHAELis' Introduction, Vol. iv. Part 
 ii. pp. 412 — 442, Horne's Introduction, Vol. iv. pp. 462 
 — 487, and the authors there referred to. 
 
 NOTE X. 
 
 For an account of the labors of Origen and Jerome, 
 see Jahn's Introduction, Part i. pp. 51, ss. 75, ss., and the 
 authors there referred to, to which add Masch's edition of 
 Le Long's Bibliotheca Sacra. 
 
 NOTE XI. 
 
 As the author more than once introduces the name of 
 Father Simon with terms of unqualified approbation, it 
 seems proper to add here a caution, for the benefit chiefly 
 of the young and inexperienced reader. It is not to be 
 denied, that Simon was a critic of prodigious learning, but 
 his judgment in applying it is very questionable. His re- 
 presentations of certain phenomena connected with the cri> 
 
NOTES. 225 
 
 ticism and interpretation of the Bible, are partial, and appear 
 to border on extravagance, to say the least ; and not a few 
 of the conclusions which he draws from them, are forced 
 and illogical. The unwary reader of his works might easi- 
 ly be led to suppose, that the authenticity of several books 
 of the Old Testament, and the certainty of the interpreta- 
 tion of them as they exist in the Hebrew originals, are sub- 
 jects very much involved in the mists of obscurity and doubt. 
 Thus, according to his prepossessions, he might be led 
 either to scepticism, or to Roman Catholic views of the 
 infallibility of the church. 
 
 The translator avails himselfofthis occasion to add, that 
 although Dr. Planck was not of the neological or rationalist 
 school of Germany, yet he often speaks too favorably of 
 those writers whose interpretations are thought by very able 
 critics to be frequently loose, too much accommodated in 
 the Old Testament to Jewish views, which thus sometimes 
 influenced their expositions in the New. I refer to such com- 
 mentators as Grotius, Le Clerc, and J. D. Michaelis. The 
 reader is hereby cautioned against acquiescing entirely in all 
 the sentiments of the author relating to those writers. 
 
 NOTE XII. 
 
 The same charge was advanced against Mill. His 
 collection of various readings would destroy, it was ima- 
 gined, the authority of the sacred text, and this extraor- 
 dinary supposition is maintained by Whitby, in his Ex- 
 amen variarum Lectionum Millii, which was printed at 
 London in 8vo, 1720, and is also appended to the second 
 volume of his Paraphrase and Commentary on the New 
 Testament, fol. 1727. Its absurdity must be evident to 
 every reflecting mind, as the collecting of various read- 
 ings is the only way in which the text can be satisfacto- 
 19* 
 
226 
 
 NOTES. 
 
 rily settled. This is conclusively demonstrated by the 
 learned and acute Dr. Richard Bentley in his Remarks on 
 Mr. Collin's Discourse on Free Thinking. The 6th edi- 
 tion of this able work was printed at Cambridge, in 1725. 
 It was written under the assumed nameof Phileleutherus 
 LiPsiENSis, that is, in the explanation of the author himself, 
 " a Free Thinker of Leipzig." This book is worth the 
 attentive reading of every scholar, and especially of the 
 biblical critic. 
 
 Further information on the subject of this chapter and 
 on other points connected with sacred criticism, may be 
 found in the first twelve of Bishop Marsh's Lectures on 
 Divinity, delivered in Cambridge as Margaret Professor. 
 This work is very accessible to an English reader, and may 
 be read by the young student with much profit, as introduc- 
 tory to a course of critical study. 
 
 It cannot have escaped the reader's observation that the 
 latter part of the author's sketch relates principally to the 
 history of sacred philology and criticism in his own coun- 
 try. The names of a few of the most distinguished Eng- 
 lish writers on these subjects, shall be given in subsequent 
 notes, as the subjects of them may require. A complete 
 catalogue would have swelled this work far beyond its in- 
 tended limits. Such an one may be found in other books, 
 and especially in Dr. Horne's Introduction, sixth edition. 
 Vol. ii. Part ii. Appendix. 
 
 NOTE XIII. 
 
 The same author afterwards published a larger work in 
 five volumes, 8vo, far superior to any of the kind that pre- 
 ceded it : Novus Thesaurus Philologico-criticus in Septua- 
 ginta et reliquos Interpretes Graecos ac Scriptores Apocry- 
 phos Veteris Testamenti. Lipsiae, 1820 — 1. 
 
NOTES. 227 
 
 NOTE XIV. 
 
 In addition to the sources referred to by the author the 
 common and Macedonian dialect, as found in many of the 
 later Greek writers may be mentioned. See the treatise of 
 Planck referred to in Notes ii, and v. Also Fischer's 
 Prolusiones de vitiis Lexicorum Novi Testamenti, and F. 
 W. Sturz de dialecto Macedonica et Alexandrina, 8vo. 
 Lips. 1808. 
 
 NOTE XV. 
 
 Another Lexicon made its appearance in 1822, at Leip- 
 zig, with the following title : Clavis Novi Testamenti Phi- 
 lologica, usibus Scholarum et juvenum Theologiae studio- 
 sorum accommodata,auctore M. Christ. Abrahamo Wahl. 
 This is a more accurate work than Schleusner's, especially 
 in the account of prepositions and particles. The author 
 seems to have paid more attention to the results which the 
 latest efforts in Greek literature have produced, and to be 
 well versed in the pure classic, the common, and the He- 
 braistic Greek, all of which he has brought to bear upon 
 the New Testament. This lexicon has been translated into 
 English by ' Edward Robinson, A. M. (now D. D. lately) 
 Assistant Instructor in tlie department of Sacred Literature, 
 Theol. Sem. Andover.' It is in one volume royal 8vo. and 
 is considerably improved. The theological student will find 
 this to be the most convenient Lexicon to the New Testa- 
 ment, and also the cheapest he can procure. The translator 
 announces his intention of preparing and publishing a new 
 edition of his work ; revised and improved by the use of the 
 Lexicons of Bretsciineider, Passow andothers, of the late 
 ablest commentators and grammarians, and by the results of 
 
228 NOTES. 
 
 his own investigations. He hopes to be able to complete 
 the work in the course of the present year. 
 
 NOTE XVI. 
 
 For an account of the Greek versions above mentioned, 
 see Jahn's Introduction, pp. 51 — 63, and the authors there 
 referred to; also Masch's Le Long. Bahrdt's work is 
 said by Jahn to abound with errors. He adds : " In the 
 last century, several learned men, particularly Semler, 
 Scharfenberg, Dcederlein, Matthaei, Bruns, Adler, Schleus- 
 ner, Loesner, and Fischer, corrected many parts of the 
 preceding collections, and increased them by large addi- 
 tions. It is much to be wished that all were published in a 
 single collection." 
 
 NOTE XVII. 
 
 To the works mentioned in the text may be added the 
 following : An Inquiry into the present state of the Sep- 
 tuagint Version of the Old Testament. By the Rev. Dr. 
 Henry Owen, Rector of St. Olave, Hart-street, and Fellow 
 of the Royal Society, 8vo. London, 1769. 
 
 NOTE XVIII. 
 
 For some notice of the Targums, see Jahn, pp. 64 — 68, 
 and the authors there mentioned, with Le Long. — An ac- 
 count of the Samaritan Pentateuch, which the author both 
 here and elsewhere erroneously mentions as a " version," 
 may also be found in Jahn, pp. 135 — 141, and Le Long. 
 
 A new Polyglot in one splendid folio volume has lately 
 made its appearance under the following title. Biblia Sa- 
 cra Polyglotta, textu sarchetypos versionesque praecipuas, 
 necnon versiones recentiores, Anglicanum, Germanicam, 
 
NOTES. 229 
 
 Italicam, Gallicam et Hispanicam complectentia. Acce- 
 dunt Prolegomena in textuuni archetyporum versionumque 
 antiquarum crisin literalem, auctore Samuele Lee, S. T. B. 
 &.C. Londini, sumptibus Samuelis Bagster, 1831. In 
 this Polyglot the Hebrew is from Van der Hooght's edi- 
 tion, the Hebrew New Testament, by William Green- 
 field ; the Septuagint, from the Vatican of Cardinal Cara- 
 FA ; the Greek Testament, according to the received text ; 
 the Vulgate from the editions of Sixxus V and Clement 
 VIII. The English translation is accompanied with mar- 
 ginal readings and parallel places ; the German is that of 
 Luther ; the French, of Ostervald ; the Italian, of 
 DiODATi ; the Spanish of Father Scio. — An appendix is 
 also added, containing the New Testament in Syriac, the 
 Peshito, according to Widmanstadt's edition of 1555, 
 with a collation of the edition published by the British 
 and Foreign Bible Society ; the Samaritan Pentateuch, 
 according to Kennicott's edition ; various readings of the 
 Septuagint, from Grabe's edition ; and a collection of various 
 readings of the New Testament, from Griesbach. — The 
 whole work is exceedingly beautiful, but in so small a 
 type as to make the use of it very inconvenient. 
 
 The Prolegomena to this work are a series of learn- 
 ed disquisitions on the various topics connected with bib- 
 lical criticism. As they have been printed in a small 
 quarto volume of 75 pages, and can be obtained (I be- 
 lieve) separately from the Bible, I add the following no- 
 tice of the subjects discussed, in order that the reader may 
 have a general idea of their contents. 
 
 Prol. I. Sect i. De Scripturis sacris, earumque reve- 
 latione, indole, scopo, ^c. Sect. ii. De lingua qua primi- 
 tus patefactae sunt Scripturae Sacrae, ejusque antiquitate, 
 natura atque usu. Sect. iii. De Sacri textus originibus, 
 
230 NOTES. 
 
 atque conservafione. Sect, iv. De sacrarum scripturarum 
 fatis durante theocratia. Sect. v. De statu sacri textus, 
 Judaeis in Babylonia degentibus. Sect. vi. De Christianis- 
 mi ortu, ejusque in sacras literas vi effectrice. Sect. vii. 
 De masorae origine et incremeniis. Sect. vili. De masora, 
 qualis sc. sese nunc in Bibliis Rabbinicis nobis ob oculos 
 ponit. Sect. ix. De ablationibus et correctionibus e scribis 
 factis. Sect. x. De vocibus quibusdam legendis, quamvis 
 in textu scriptse non reperiantur. Sect. xi. De ea masorae 
 parte quae granimaiicen, sive inevpretationem sacri textus 
 exegeticam, spectat. Sect. xVi. Comparatio textus He- 
 braici in locis quibusdam Geneseos, cum Chaldaica On- 
 kelosi, necnon Syriaca versione quam Pesbito appellant, 
 sparsis hinc inde notis criticis. Sect. xiii. De textus He- 
 braici fatis ab anno C. N. 500, ad hunc usque diem. Sect. 
 xiv. De codicibus Hebraicis MSS. in India Orientali et 
 Sina reperiundis. — Prol. II. Sect. i. De Pentateucho 
 Samaritano, ejusque versionibus, Samaritica, Graeca, et 
 Arabica. Sect. ii. De versione Samaritico-Chaldaica, 
 ejusque sequacibus, Graeca et Arabica. Sect. iii. Collatio 
 versuum quorundam textus Hebraici editionis Samaritanae, 
 cum versione Chaldaico-Samaritica, Chaldaica Onkelosi, et 
 Arabica Abu Said. — Prol. III. Sect. i. De versionibus 
 Syriacis Arabicisque ex iis factis. Sect. ii. De versionibus 
 Veteris Foederis Syriacis, quae e Graeco fuerint cusae. Sect. 
 iii. De recensione Karkaphensi Syriaca. Sect. iv. De 
 Novi Foederis versione Syra, Peshito dicta. Sect. v. De 
 versionibus Syriacis, Philoxeniana et Hierosolymitana. 
 Sect. vi. De versionibus Arabica, sc. et Persica ex Peshito 
 Syrorum, factis. — Prol. IV. Sect. i. De Septuaginta Grae- 
 corum versione virali. Sect. ii. De operibus criticis Ori- 
 OEMS, Bibliis sc. Tetraplis, Hexaplis, &lc. Sect. iii. De 
 notis Origenianis, Aster isco, Obelo, Lemnisco, Hypolem- 
 
NOTES. 231 
 
 nisco. Sect. iv. De Aquila ejusque versionibus S. S. Grse- 
 cis. Sect. V. De Symmacho versioneque ejus Grseca. 
 Sect. vi. De Theodotionis versione. Sect. vii. De reliquis 
 versionibus, Quinta, Sexta, Septima, Hexaplaribus. Sect. 
 viii. De versione Graeca Venetiis baud ita pridem reperta. 
 — Prol. V. Sect. i. De Vulgatis Latinorum versionibus, 
 antiquiore sc. et Hieronymiana. Sect. ii. De versione Vul- 
 gata Latina Hieronymiana. — Prol. VI. Sect.\.,'\\. De crisi 
 Novi Testamenti, ejusque textus Grseci statu bodierno. — 
 Mantissa. De interpretatione scripturarum sacrarum exe- 
 getica. 
 
 NOTE XIX. 
 
 To tbe lexicographal works mentioned by the author, 
 the following are added, some of which are of later date 
 than that of his publication. Those of Avenarius, Cala- 
 
 SIO, SCHINDLER, CaSTELL, RoBERTSON, StOCKIUS,GuSSET, 
 
 and David Levi, with some others of less authority, are 
 omitted. 
 
 JoHANNis BuxTORFii Lcxicon Chaldaicum, Talmudi- 
 cum et Rabbinicum, folio, Basil. 1640 This most labo- 
 rious work (opus triginta annorum,) was prepared by the 
 father, and published, with some improvements, by the son. 
 There is no other work which can be substituted in its 
 place. 
 
 Parkhurst's Hebrew Lexicon, London, 1799, large 
 8vo., although it contains much learning, is superseded by 
 others compiled on more correct philological principles. 
 The author rejects the use of the points, and is devoted to 
 the philosophical and biblical views of Hutchinson. 
 
 A compendious Lexicon of the Hebrew language, in 
 two volumes, thick 12mo, vol. i, containing an explanation 
 of every word which occurs in the Psalms, with notes ; vol. 
 
232 NOTES. 
 
 ii, being a Lexicon and Grammar of the whole language. 
 By Clement C. Moore, (now L. L. D. and Professor of 
 Oriental and Greek Literature in the general Theological 
 Seminary of the Prot. Epis. church,) New- York, 1809. — 
 This work will be found very useful to a beginner in He- 
 brew, for whom it is principally designed. 
 
 Gesenius' Hebrew Lexicon, in German, appeared at 
 Leipzig, in two volumes, 8vo, in 1810 — 12 ; and in 1815, 
 the author published at the same place, an abridgment of 
 his work, with some improvements. The larger lexicon 
 was translated into English by Christopher Leo, and 
 published in two Parts, 4to, at Cambridge, (England,) Part 
 i, in 1825, and Part ii, in 1828. 
 
 In 1824, the Rev Josiah W. Gibbs, A.M., of the Theolo- 
 gical Seminary, Andover, published a Hebrew and English 
 Lexicon of the Old Testament, including the Biblical Chal- 
 dee, from the German works of Gesenius just mentioned, 
 with improvements, in one vol. 8vo. This valuable work 
 was reprinted in London, in 1827. 
 
 In 1828, Mr. Gibbs, now Professor of Sacred Literature 
 in the Theological School in Yale College, published in 
 Andover, a Manual Hebrew and English Lexicon, includ- 
 ing the Biblical Chaldee, designed particularly for begin- 
 ners. This Manual is intended to assist students of He- 
 brew, until the author shall be able to prepare a second 
 edition of his larger work ; which, if I may form an opinion 
 from a printed specimen that I have seen, will be a great 
 improvement of the first. 
 
 Lexicon Manuale Hebraicum et Chaldaicum in Veteris 
 Testamenti libros, post editionem Germanicam tertiam 
 Latine elaboravit, multisque modis retractavit et auxit GuiL. 
 Gesenius, Philos. et Theol. Doct., &lc. Lipsije, 1833. 
 Royal 8vo. This work is a great improvement of the au- 
 
NOTES. 233 
 
 thor's former work. He is preparing a still more extensive 
 Lexicon in Latin, one part of which in thin 4to, appeared 
 last year. — The reader will find a valuable article of 
 Gesenius translated from the original German, "on the 
 sources of Hebrew philology and lexicography" in the Bib- 
 lical Repository, vol. iii. pp. I. ss. 
 
 NOTE XX. 
 
 To the list of grammars and works of a grammatical 
 character given by the author, the following must be added, 
 as they are among the most important for an English stu- 
 dent. 
 
 A Hebrew grammar, with a copious Syntax and Praxis, 
 by Moses Stuart, Professor of Sacred Literature in the 
 Theological Seminary at Andover, 8vo. 1821. — This work 
 is founded chiefly on the Hebrew grammar of Gesenius. 
 The third edition considerably condensed and improved, 
 was published in 1828, and the fourth in 1831. In the 
 mean time the author published "Dissertations on the 
 importance and best method of studying the original 
 languages of tlie Bible, by Jahn, Gesenius and Wythnn- 
 RACH," translated from the original Latin, 8vo Pamphlet, 
 1821. 
 
 In 1827, the Rev. Samuel Lee, D. D. Professor of Ara- 
 bic, and since regius Professor of Hebrew, in the University 
 of Cambridge, published a grammar of the Hebrew lan- 
 guage, comprised in a series of Lectures, 8vo. The learn- 
 ed author published in 1832 a second edition of his work 
 enriched with much original matter. 
 
 In 1829, Professor Stuart published at Andover, a He- 
 brew Chrestomathy, designed as the first volume of a course 
 of Hebrew Study, 8vo. A second volume was issued in 
 1830. 
 
 20 
 
NOTES. 
 
 A Manual Hebrew Grammar, for the use of beginners. 
 By J. Seixas. Andover, 1833, 8vo, pp. 54. 
 
 Winer's Chaldee Grammar, to which is appended a 
 Chrestomathy or Collection of portions for reading, select- 
 ed from the Targums, is a very useful compilation. The 
 title of the book is : Grammatik des Biblischen und Tar- 
 gumischen Chaldaismus, von Dr. Georg Benedict Winer, 
 Leipzig, 1824, 8vo. 
 
 A Manual of the Chaldee language, containing a Chal- 
 dee Grammar, chiefly from the German of Professor G. B. 
 Winer ; a Chrestomathy, consisting of selections from the 
 Targums, and including the whole of the biblical Chaldee, 
 with notes ; and a vocabulary adapted to the Chrestomathy, 
 with an appendix on the Rabbinical character and style. 
 By Elias Riggs, A. M. Boston, 8vo, 1832. 
 
 NOTE XXI. 
 
 Bishop Lowth's work was translated into English by 
 G. Gregory, F. A. S., and published with the principal 
 notes of Michaelis and others including those of the trans- 
 lator, at London, in two vols. 8vo, in 1787 and again in 
 1816. — It was republished at Boston in one vol. in 1815, 
 and at Andover in 1829, with notes by Calvin E. Stowe, 
 A.M. 
 
 The work of Herder has been translated into English 
 by President Marsh of Burlington College. It will short- 
 ly be published in two volumes 12mo. The first volume 
 is already printed. 
 
 NOTE XXII. 
 
 This edition of Le Long contains more satisfactory in- 
 formation on the various topics connected with the criti- 
 cism of the Old Testament than any single work to which 
 
NOTES. 235 
 
 the student can resort. It is in two parts, the first treating 
 of the editions of the original text, and the second of the 
 versions of the sacred books. Part first is comprised in 
 one volume, quarto. It contains a Preface, a biographical 
 sketch of Le Long, a preliminary dissertation on the varie- 
 ties in Hebrew manuscripts, tables exhibiting different read- 
 ings in various editions of the Bible, and a particular ac- 
 count of editions. The last subject occupies nearly three 
 fourths of the volume, and is divided into four chapters. 
 The first gives an account of Hebrew Bibles entire, wheth- 
 er with points or without ; of portions of the Bible, begin- 
 ning with the Pentateuch, first the Hebrew, either whole or 
 in part, and then the Samaritan : of the five small books, 
 either in whole or in part ; of the prophets, all together, or 
 as divided into former and later ; of the Hagiographa uni- 
 ted or separate. All this most methodically and judiciously 
 arranged, is comprehended within the first section. In the 
 second he gives a similar account of Hebrew Bibles 
 and parts of Bibles, with Rabbinical Commentaries and 
 Paraphrases ; and in the third, when accompanied by 
 versions. Chapter second relates to editions of the Greek 
 Testament, and is distinguished by the same order and mi- 
 nuteness. The third chapter gives an account of Poly- 
 glots, and the fourth of the editions of the Apocryphal 
 books. — Part second treats of the versions of the sacred 
 books. It is divided into three volumes ; the first giving 
 an account of the Oriental versions, the second of the 
 Greek, and the third of the Latin. An appendix is added, 
 containing some corrections and additions. To each vo- 
 lume a chronological index is subjoined. 
 
236 NOTES. 
 
 NOTE XXIII. 
 
 This Bible of Michaelis is particularly valuable, not 
 only for its general accuracy, but principally for the exten- 
 sive and useful annotations with which the learned and 
 pious editor has enriched the text, and especially the 
 Psalms and Prophets. Rosenmueller is greatly indebted 
 to him, particularly in his notes on the minor prophets. 
 To the Bibles mentioned by the author may be added 
 the celebrated edition of Everard Van der Hoouht, 
 Amsterdam, 1705, remarkable for the beauty of its typo- 
 graphy. This edition has become very scarce. — Also, 
 Jahn's Hebrew Bible, published at Vienna in 1806 in four 
 vols. 8vo., with the following title : " Biblia Hebraica di- 
 gessit et graviores lectionum varietates adjecit, Johannes 
 Jahn, Phil, et Theol. Doct. &c." For an account of this 
 edition see Horne, vol. ii. part ii. appendix, p. 8, and 
 Jahn's Introduction, p. 135." — A very neat, and it is said 
 correct edition, was published in 1832 at Leipsig, by 
 Dr. Augustus Hahn. The editor has followed Van 
 der Hooght principally. At the end of the book he has 
 given a table of the sections into which the Prophets are 
 divided, and a Clavis explanatory of Rabbinical notes. It 
 is the cheapest edition that can be procured. 
 
 NOTE XXIV. 
 
 An edition of Wetstein's Prolegomena was published 
 in 8vo, at Halle, in 1764, by Joh. Sal. Semler, who ac- 
 companied it with notes, and added an appendix on the 
 older Latin recensions in various manuscripts and speci- 
 mens of Greek and Latin chirography. 
 
NOTES. 
 
 237 
 
 NOTE XXV. 
 
 As it is exceedingly desirable, that the student of the 
 Bible should acquire some knowledge of Syriac, and as 
 this may be done with a very moderate degree of labor 
 after having made a tolerable acquaintance with Hebrew, 
 it might be proper to mention a few books most useful in 
 pursuing the study of this language. But the reader is re- 
 ferred to the appendix to a " Treatise on the use of the 
 Syriac language, by John David Micuaelis, translated 
 from the German by John Frederic Sciiroeder, A M., 
 an assistant minister of Trinity Church, in the city of New- 
 York," and published in the first volume of Essays and 
 Dissertations in Biblical Literature, 8vo, p. 481 — 530 ; and 
 also to the Biblical Repository, vol. iii. p. 21, note*. These 
 two works, both of which are quite accessible, will supply 
 him with references to authors. 
 
 NOTE XXVI. 
 
 This opinion was generally supposed to be correct 
 when the author prepared his work. It was founded 
 " partly on several passages in the prefaces to the Complu- 
 tensian Bible, in which the editors boast of having received 
 from the apostolic library of Pope Leo X. very ancient and 
 valuable manuscripts, which had afforded them great assist- 
 ance ; partly on some expressions of Erasmus, which are so 
 construed as if the Pope had commanded the editors of this 
 edition to follow one of the best Vatican manuscripts in 
 particular." But it " is certain, that the Complutensian 
 Bible very frequently differs from it, and therefore we can- 
 not conclude from the readings of the one to those of the 
 other." Thus far Michaelis, in his account of the Vati- 
 can manuscript. Introduction, Part I. vol. ii. pp. 348 — 9. 
 20* 
 
238 
 
 NOTES. 
 
 Marsh, on the passage just quoted, (note 347,) gives a spe- 
 cimen of readings which he had collected from the Vatican 
 manuscript and the Complutensian edition on the first three 
 chapters of St. Matthew, from which it appears evident that 
 the manuscript could not have been " ever consulted by the 
 editors in this part of the Greek Testament"; and the same 
 result is obtained by an examination of other portions. 
 For an account of the Complutensian and other Polyglots, 
 see Masch's Le Long. Part i. p. 331, ss. Horne's Intro- 
 duction, vol. ii. Part ii. appendix, pp. 27. ss. edit. vi. 
 
 NOTE XXVII. 
 
 A more complete account of this controversy may be 
 found in Marsh's Michaelis, ubi sup. pp. 431 — 442, 
 with the notes. 
 
 NOTE XXVIII. 
 
 If the reader wishes to see a particular account of the 
 most celebrated editions of the Greek Testament that were 
 published before Griesbach's, he will find it in Marsh's 
 MicHAELis, vol. ii. Part. i. pp 429, ss., Horne's Introduc- 
 tion, vol. ii. Part ii. Appendix pp. 10, ss. and Le Long's Bib- 
 liotheca Sacra, Masch's edition. Part i. Cap. ii. pp. 189, ss. 
 A brief view is given also in Marsh's Lectures. 
 
 As the edition of Griesbach is much used, and has given 
 rise to considerable discussion, and as later editors of great 
 learning and acumen have differed somewhat from this dis- 
 tinguished scholar in their views of certain important prin- 
 ciples, and consequently have arrived at different results ; 
 it may not be unprofitable to lay before the young student, 
 for whom principally those notes are intended, a general 
 view of that critic's system, together with a few of the most 
 prominent objections which have been urged against it. 
 
NOTES. 239 
 
 Griesbach's Prolegomena is divided into seven sec- 
 tions, of which the following is an outline. 
 
 SECTION I. 
 
 The first section examines the origin and authority of 
 the commonly received text, and shows that a new recen- 
 sion is neither improper nor unnecessary. 
 
 The author tells us, that before the publication of the 
 received text in the Elzevir edition,* different editors fol- 
 lowed different authorities ; some made use of Erasmus, some 
 of the Complutensian text, while some selected from both, 
 and availed themselves also of other sources. The materi- 
 als made use of by Erasmus and the Complutensian editors 
 were exceedingly imperfect. Their manuscripts were few 
 in number, and comparatively of modern date and little 
 value. They wanted the best and most ancient manu- 
 scripts ; all the oriental versions also with the Gothic and 
 Slavonic ; and although they did possess a Latin transla- 
 tion, it was not the Italic. They wanted also the works of 
 the Greek fathers, of whom Erasmus in his second edition 
 mentions only Athanasius, Nazianzen and Theophylact ; 
 and indeed the copies of the fathers which they did possess 
 al)Ounded with errors. 
 
 They were also unacquainted with the proper method of 
 using even the imperfect helps within their reach. They 
 had not established any fixed laws of criticism. Hence it 
 is that Erasmus in his fourth edition inserted readings 
 taken from the Complutensian text, in the place of those 
 which he had before introduced into his third. The accu- 
 racy of this text is suspected, and on good grounds ; al- 
 though it may be difficult to say how far its inaccuracy ex- 
 tends. It is plain, that in some places the editors altered 
 
 ♦ Tills edition takes its name from the printer, who is celebrated for 
 the beauty of his impressions. 
 
240 
 
 NOTES. 
 
 and interpolated against the authority of their own manu- 
 scripts, and that they were too much attached to the Vul- 
 gate version. So also was Erasmus, who in his last edi- 
 tions yielded to the clamors of his adversaries, and made 
 alterations on the doubtful authority of the Complutensian 
 edition. Since the time of these editors about five hundred 
 Greek manuscripts had been discovered, all of which were 
 unknown to them ; and a more enlarged view of the subject 
 has greatly improved the ability of critics to employ these 
 materials to greater advantage. For these and other rea- 
 sons, it would be idle to suppose that they ought to be im- 
 plicitly followed. 
 
 The author then proceeds to show that the editions of 
 Stephens also are not to be relied on, and that as works of 
 criticism they are of little authority. He gives an account 
 of the manuscripts used by that celebrated editor, and con- 
 siders his /?' as the same with the Cambridge manuscript, 
 Beza's account of which is, he thinks, erroneous. 
 
 Beza's New Testament of 1559 is the text of Stephens' 
 fourth edition ; his subsequent publications were compiled 
 by himself He had better helps than his predecessors, 
 among which may be found the Cambridge and Clermont 
 manuscripts, the Syriac version, and, in some books of the 
 New Testament, the Arabic. But Beza did not make a 
 thorough use of them, and Wetstein has shown in his Pro- 
 legomena that he cannot be vindicated from the charge of 
 negligence. He has expressed his approbation of readings 
 not introduced by him into the text ; and sometimes he has 
 introduced readings from one version or manuscript only, 
 and sometimes even from conjecture. 
 
 The Elzevir, or, received text, which made its appear- 
 ance in 1624, is not founded on manuscripts, but follows 
 the third or fourth edition of Stephens, except in about one 
 
NOTES. 241 
 
 hundred places, in most of which it follows Beza. Where 
 it differs from him, the authority by which it is governed is 
 uncertain. 
 
 The received text then is founded upon those of Beza 
 and Stephens, the former of whom followed the latter, with 
 tlic exception of some places altered according to his own 
 pleasure and without sufficient authority. Stephens pursu- 
 ed the track of Erasmus, except in a very few places and 
 in the Apocalypse, where he preferred the Complutensian 
 readings. Erasmus compiled his text, as he could, from a 
 very small number of manuscripts and those rather modern, 
 without any other helps except the Vulgate interpolated, 
 and inaccurate editions of a few of the fathers. 
 
 From the above sketch it is abundantly evident, that 
 tlie sanction of the received text by no means determines 
 the correctness of readings. In the sixteenth and seven- 
 teenth centuries about twenty editions were printed, no two 
 of which entirely agreed, as each editor corrected and al- 
 tered the text, according to his own judgment, acting 
 on the testimony before him. Through the diligence of 
 critics it has been proved, that the oldest manuscripts and 
 versions, and also the quotations in the fathers, differ in 
 words and phrases and sometimes in sentences, while they 
 agree in important and fundamental truths. Nor in the 
 former is uncertainty the necessary consequence ; but some 
 are shown to be certainly preferable, others probably so, 
 and those which require further investigation, a few perhaps 
 excepted, of little moment. 
 
 SECTION II. 
 
 This section states the design which the author had in 
 view in preparing his edition. 
 
 His intention was, to collect in a small compass the 
 
242 NOTES. 
 
 critical apparatus which lay dispersed in various works, and 
 to prepare an edition of the Greek Testament which should 
 contain a text freed from considerable errors, accompanied 
 by such helps as might facilitate interpretation ; to exhibit 
 the more important various readings and the authorities on 
 which they are supported, together with the judgment of 
 the editor respecting them expressed with perspicuity, and 
 at the same time briefly and with modesty. 
 
 The utility of such a work for students of theology is 
 unquestionable. For although an intimate acquaintance 
 with criticism is by no means necessary for every clergy- 
 man, yet every one ought to be guarded against such errors 
 as prevent an accurate knowledge and proper use of scrip- 
 ture ; and this does certainly require some acquaintance 
 with it. Nothing gives greater acuteness, or tends more 
 thoroughly to prepare the mind for interpretation than criti- 
 cism. Many places, doubtless corrupted in the common 
 editions, cannot be correctly understood without it. Many 
 also have given rise to controversies of which a clergyman 
 ought not to be ignorant, as, for example, those connected 
 with the true readings in Acts xx. 28. 1 Tim. iii. 16. 
 1 John V. 7.; but in order to form a sound opinion respecting 
 such places, it is necessary to begin by examining others 
 which are of less importance. To all this it maybe added, 
 that a critical collection of various readings must exhibit 
 many valuable expositions of antiquity. 
 
 I. The first object which Griesbach had in view was, 
 to present his readers with a text as correct as possible. 
 Every reading of any moment which might appear prefera- 
 ble to the received is placed either in the text or the inner 
 margin. — He does not presume that his edition is not sus- 
 ceptible of improvement. Far from it. That it is so is 
 clearly evident from what follows. A vast number of manu- 
 
NOTES. 243 
 
 scripts have been collected by critics, some of which have 
 been examined in particular places only or in a hasty man- 
 ner; whereas, if the examination had been complete and 
 the results fully made known, many readings which are 
 now in the inner margin, would probably have been placed 
 in the text. The ancient versions do not afford a critic all 
 the aid that might be obtained from them ; a Syriac edition 
 from the best manuscripts is a desideratum ; the Armenian 
 is suspected of varying from the best copies, and of being 
 adapted to a more modern Greek text ; of the Sahidic and 
 Jcrusalem-Syriac fragments merely have been published ; 
 the Slavonic manuscripts ought to be carefully examined, 
 also those of the Old Latin version. All the Greek fathers 
 should be examined, as Origen is in the SymbolrD Criticae. 
 The origin, the primitive characteristics, and the changes 
 of each recension, have not been sufficiently investigated; 
 nor indeed can this be done, until further extracts shall 
 have been made from the fathers : when therefore different 
 readings occur in different recensions nearly of the same 
 antiquity it is almost impossible to determine which are 
 genuine. In the best manuscripts, interpolations, the ori- 
 gin of which is very difficult to be explained, require the dili- 
 gence and acumen of future critics. These considerations 
 illustrate the extreme difficulty of procuring a text absolute- 
 ly perfect. — He remarks further, that the collections of 
 Mill, Wetstein and others are imperfect ; — that they occa- 
 sionally ascribe to manuscripts, versions and fathers, read- 
 ings which do not exist in them, which he professes to 
 know from personal examination ; — that later editors have 
 corrected errors of former, and later still will correct those 
 into which their predecessors had fallen; and this, not by 
 following any one manuscript, but by investigating the pri- 
 mitive readings of each class. 
 
244 NOTES. 
 
 II. It entered into the editor's design, to note those 
 readings which, although not preferred by him, he consi- 
 dered as of equal authority with those retained, or nearly 
 so with those preferred ; those also which, if inferior, are 
 not to be despised, or which with some color of truth might 
 seem probable to other crhics. These he has separated 
 from the mass, and appropriated to them descriptive marks, 
 after the example of Bengel. 
 
 III. It was his intention also to subjoin a suitable col- 
 lection of various readings, such as appeared to him most 
 worthy of notice. They are of the following character. 
 Such as are not improbable ; — such as may assist in dis- 
 tinguishing tlie genuine reading from interpolations ; — such 
 as may elucidate the history of the Greek text, and aid in 
 discovering the character of ancient recensions and re- 
 markable classes ; — such as are found in many valuable 
 books, or have crept into some editions, or have remarkably 
 changed the sense, or may illustrate the forms of speech 
 employed by the sacred writers. Of these he has not de- 
 signedly omitted one, although he freely grants, that some 
 not unworthy of attention may have escaped his notice, as 
 must be the case in every attempt to reduce within a small 
 compass such an immense collection of various readings. 
 He then gives a view of his plan more in detail, with the 
 names of the authors and collators whom he has examined. 
 For the benefit of younger students, he has introduced a 
 few specimens of conjecture.* Readings, which may be 
 classed in the list which follows, he has omitted. Such as 
 
 * See, for example, Acts vii. 14, where, to remove a difficulty, 
 Beza conjectures -navrei to be the true reading, instead of ttivtc. 
 But, as Kkebs has remarked, this would be a solecism, as grammati- 
 cal correctness would require Traauis. It is to be regretted that 
 Griesbach should have admitted any conjectures bearing on funda- 
 mental doctrine, and he is certainly to be censured for having allow- 
 ed a place to the conjectural reading 6sov for Oed; in John i. 1, of the 
 Socinian Crellius. 
 
NOTES. 24l9 
 
 are found in but few manuscripts, and those of the more 
 modern date ; — such as are evidently taken from parallel 
 places in the Gospels, or have crept into the text from lec- 
 tionaries ; — such as refer to orthography, particularly of 
 proper names, or to the order of the words, except in places 
 where the order affects the sense, or the authority of a word, 
 or where the best manuscripts agree in a different order 
 from the received ; — also, unusual forms of words which 
 forms frequently occur in the most ancient manuscripts ; — 
 the article ; — the participles Xeywv and dwoKptdiis ; — and very 
 many words, which are often commuted in manuscripts. 
 In these cases he has omitted the various readings, unless 
 they occurred in very many manuscripts, or in some of the 
 more valuable, or else certain causes existed for remarking 
 a difference of reading, which would otherwise be of no 
 moment. Some readings, which are found very often, are 
 only noticed at their first occurrence. 
 
 IV. Although the author did not intend his work to su- 
 persede the use of former editions, which ought to be con- 
 sulted by those who apply themselves to criticism or wish 
 thoroughly to investigate the authority and true reading of 
 a text ; yet he did expect it to supply in some measure 
 the want of them. 
 
 V. Lastly : it was not so much his object to augment 
 and correct the collection of readings made by his prede- 
 cessors, as to make a proper use of them. 
 
 SECTION III. 
 
 In this section Griesbach presents a view of the more 
 important critical observations and rules by which he was 
 governed. 
 
 In examining various readings the internal goodness is 
 to be regarded as well as the weight and consent of testi- 
 21 
 
246 
 
 NOTES. 
 
 mony. Internal goodness is determined by the fact, that a 
 particular reading suits the manner, style, scope, and other 
 circumstances of the author ; or by this, that it can be shown 
 to be probable, that all others have sprung from it. In apply- 
 ing this latter criterion, we must keep in mind the general 
 causes which lead transcribers into error, and also the parti- 
 cular causes which affect transcribers of the New Testa- 
 ment, and especially that arising from the difference of its 
 style from that of classic Greek. From that canon of cri- 
 ticism which prefers the reading which will account for the 
 origin of the others with the greatest facility, the following 
 rules, among others, are deduced. 
 
 1. A shorter reading is preferable to a longer and more 
 verbose, unless destitute of ancient and weighty authority. 
 The reason is, that transcribers have always been more dis- 
 posed to add to the text than to omit what belongs to it, and 
 it is more likely that incidental circumstances should give 
 rise to additions than to omissions. He goes on to show 
 particularly in what cases either is to be preferred.* 
 
 2. The more difficult and obscure reading is superior to 
 
 one extremely plain. t 
 
 * Those readings which are evidently glosses on the text, although 
 they are afterwards mentioned by Griesbach, very properly come 
 under this rule. Comp. John iii. 0, where, after the words cdp^ can, 
 one Greek manuscript, a prima manu, and some other authorities 
 
 add, on Ik Ti]i aapKos iycvvi'jDr} ; and after TTfiv^a ian, the words on Ik 
 
 Tov Trrtu^arof tanv. In Eph. i. 6, after >jyo7r)7/(fi/f.), the Clermont manu- 
 script a prima manu, and three others written in uncial letters, with 
 several of the versions and fathers, read vn^ airoii. In Col. ii. 11, 
 T(T>i' anapTv~>v is wanting in ABCD [\\\e last a prima manu.) and three 
 other manuscripts in uncial characters, besides most of tlie ancient 
 versions and fathers ; and it seems to be an addition to the text, 
 introduced in order to explain tuv mJ^MToi n'n aap^oi. So also in 
 2 Peter, i. 10, after (7/ri)i)(5a<jar£, several manuscripts and versions read, 
 
 li/ti <5io 7(01/ KoXotv ({i/i.iji') cpyov f3c,Saiai' vi.:o>ii ri'n' K\>i<nv Kai iK\oyriii ■noXtjcOc, 
 
 and in Gal. v. 8, a few introduce Oeov as explanatory of Ka\oivTOi. It 
 is unnecessary to multiply instances of this kind, which are of very 
 frequent occurrence. 
 
 t Thus, for instance, in John vii. 8, he considers ovk dva^ahw as 
 preferable to ovjtw, although this is the reading of some manuscripts 
 
NOTES. 247 
 
 3. The harsher reading that for instance which is ellip- 
 tical, or which contains a Hebraism or a solecism, is pre- 
 ferable to the smoother.* 
 
 4. The less usual to the more common. 
 
 5. The less emphatic phraseology to the contrary, un- 
 less the context and design of the writer require empha- 
 sis.f 
 
 6. That reading is to be preferred, which conveys a 
 sense seeming at first incorrect, but upon careful exami- 
 nation proved to be true.| 
 
 7. Readings which may be traced to an inclination of 
 transcribers to introduce terminations which they had just 
 written or were about to write, are of no authority ; nor 
 those which arise from connected words beginning with 
 the same syllable or letter. 
 
 and many versions. Upon the same principle, dvroiv in Luke ii. 22, 
 is better than avrSv or awnjf, for both of which authority may be 
 adduced. But it is necessary to guard against an extravagant 
 application of this rule, as a reading is certainly not to be suspected 
 because it is easy. In Matt. xix. 17, the received text has, ri f,c Xtytij 
 dyaddv ; ovScU d^^adog, it fin Its, (S 0£of. This reading is probably the 
 best, while that admitted by Griesbach is hardly intelligible, ri fit 
 
 ipoyrai -ntoX rii dyaOoxi; lif turtv h dyadoi. Besides, this readintr looks 
 
 very like a gloss, written on the margin by some early transcriber, 
 in whose copy the dyadl of v. 16, (the authority of which is doubt- 
 ful,) had been lost. 
 
 * The harsher reading ecrKv\iicvoi in Matt. ix. 36, is to be preferred 
 to the smoother cKXcXviicvot. The same passage may be adduced to 
 illustrate the next rule. 
 
 t Comp. Gal. vi. 15, where iariv is probably the genuine reading, 
 in place of which the more emphatic ia^t<ct has been introduced. 
 
 t This rule le illustrated by John i. 28, where BnOavla, the true 
 reading has been displaced in many manuscripts, versions and 
 fathers, to make room for Brjdnfiapii. This has arisen from sup- 
 posing that Bethany cannot be the place meant, because it was near 
 Jerusalem ; as if there could not be two or more towns of the same 
 name. Comp. Michaelis, Part I, Chap. x. Sect. iii. V( 1. II. pp. 
 3!)'J. ss. It is probable, that the difference between the Hebrew text 
 of Exod. xii. 40, and the reading of the Samaritan Pentateuch and 
 the Septuatfint, may be accounted for on the same principle. A 
 Bupposed dirticulty seems to have given rise to the latter. 
 
248 NOTES. 
 
 8. When several readings occur of the same place, that 
 is to be esteemed the best, which may be called the 
 medium, from which all the others may be shown to have 
 originated. 
 
 9. Those readings are to be rejected which it is admitted 
 were introduced into the text from the commentaries of 
 fathers or old scholiasts. Although the more modern 
 copies chiefly have been injured by interpolations, yet there 
 is no manuscript, however ancient, that is entirely free 
 from glosses ; and many have flowed from the commenta- 
 ries and catenae of the fathers written on the margin. Still 
 the rule is to be applied with great caution ; and it is al- 
 ways to be recollected, that the agreement of a manuscript 
 with scholia will by no means prove it to have been cor- 
 rupted by the scholia, as the agreement may have sprung 
 from other causes. 
 
 10. Those readings which have arisen in lectionaries, 
 and add or remove or alter a passage, whether to introduce 
 the lesson or to diminish difficulties, are to be rejected. 
 But here the same caution must be exercised as in the for- 
 mer rule. 
 
 11. Lastly : those are to be condemned which have 
 found their way into Greek copies from the Latin version. 
 This rule, which is very sound and correct, has been greatly 
 abused by some learned men, who, whenever they disco- 
 vered a reading differing from that of the common mass 
 of books and agreeing with the Latin version, immediately 
 inferred that the manuscript containing it latinized. But 
 to prove such interpolation, other marks are necessary be- 
 side mere consent. 
 
 After giving these rules, with two or three others, which 
 are here passed over, to ascertain the internal goodness 
 of a reading, Griesbach examines on what the authority 
 
NOTES. 
 
 249 
 
 of testimonies is supported. There must be weight and 
 
 CONSENT. 
 
 The weight of testimony is determined partly by age, 
 and partly by other favorable circumstances. The age is 
 not to be inferred simply or principally from that of the 
 parchments. It is the antiquity of the text, and not of the 
 transcriber, which is important ; and this is ascertained by its 
 frequent agreement with other witnesses, particularly ver- 
 sions and fathers whose age is well known. There are manu- 
 scripts, the text of which is composed sometimes of ancient 
 and sometimes of more modern readings, and it is necessary 
 to examine them with caution, and not to infer the high an- 
 tiquity of their text from a few readings. Further, a manu- 
 script may be of great antiquity and excellence, and yet in cer- 
 tain places it may be corrupted by lectionaries or by the Latin 
 version ; still, in those parts where there is no reason to suspect 
 any corruption, it may have great weight. Although the learn- 
 ing and ability of a transcriber, and the fact of his having 
 used a good and ancient copy, are circumstances which 
 ought to carry with them great authority ; yet it is evidently 
 necessary to apply them with no small care. It is the cha- 
 racter of the copy alone which generally assists in deter- 
 mining the question, from what manuscript it was trans- 
 cribed ; then again, the manuscript, although old, may have 
 been corrupted, and where it is so the transcriber's fidelity 
 is of no importance. — The errors of a transcriber are readi- 
 ly distinguishable from tlie original readings, by separating 
 those peculiar to the manuscript from others which it has 
 in common with many manuscripts. 
 
 With respect to the consent of testimonies, it is import- 
 ant to remark, that this must not be identified with the ex- 
 hibition of the same reading by a great number ; it is ne- 
 cessary that they be really different witnesses. There are 
 21* 
 
2dG 
 
 NOTES. 
 
 above a hundred manuscripts of the gospels, which, being 
 derived from one source, agree in almost every sylla- 
 ble, with the exception of such readings as are caused by 
 errors of copyists, and others arising from peculiar causes. 
 Hence then the necessity of distributing testimonies into 
 classes. 
 
 The author informs us in his preface, that his plan of 
 distinguishing from each other the different recensions of 
 the Greek text, which from the commencement of the third 
 century at least have existed, — of separating as far as pos- 
 sible the primitive readings of each recension from later in- 
 terpolations, — of distributing manuscripts, versions and fa- 
 thers into different classes according to the difference of 
 the recension which each one followed, — of reckoning all 
 the witnesses of one class, whether many or few, as one wit- 
 ness only, — and of attributing to each recension its legiti- 
 mate importance, — was suggested by Bengel and com- 
 menced by Semler. In his Prolegomena he proceeds as 
 follows. 
 
 Recensions of the text of the New Testament exist, as 
 also of many Latin and Greek works. The want of proper 
 records makes it impossible to trace the history of these re- 
 censions. A comparison of Origen with Tertullian and 
 Cyprian proves, that at least in the beginning of the third 
 century there were two. That which after Clement of 
 Alexandria and Origen, the Alexandrians used, may be 
 called the Alexandrine ; the other, which from the time 
 of Tertullian was made use of in Africa, Italy, Gaul, and 
 other occidental countries, the western, although its use 
 was not confined to the western part of the empire. From 
 each of these recensions, in the gospels, (to which the 
 author confines his remarks,) differs the text of A, which 
 agrees sometimes with the Alexandrine recension, some- 
 
NOTES. 
 
 261 
 
 times with the Western, sometimes with both together, 
 but very often varies from both, and approximates some- 
 what nearer the received text. With this manuscript 
 others are kindred, tliat are marked E F G H S, which 
 however have very many modern readings and are also 
 much more closely allied to the received text. All these, 
 (A E F G H S,) seem to agree in the gospels, so far as 
 imperfect collations enable us to ascertain, with the fathers 
 of the latter part of the fourth century, and of the fifth and 
 sixth centuries in Greece, Asia Minor and that vicinity : 
 this may be called the Constantinopolitan recension, 
 because it was most generally used in that patriarchate, and 
 there widely disseminated by means of numberless copies. 
 From it came the Slavonic version. The Syriac version, as 
 we have it in printed editions, is not like any of these recen- 
 sions ; but neither is it altogether unlike any. In many of 
 its readings it agrees with the Alexandrine, in more with 
 the Western, and in some with the Constantinopolitan, yet 
 at the same time it rejects most of those which found their 
 way into this recension in later ages. It seems therefore 
 to have been at different periods again and again revised, 
 according to Greek manuscripts evidently different. 
 
 In addition to manuscripts which exhibit one of these 
 ancient recensions, some contain a text compiled from the 
 readings of two or three. This is probably the case also 
 with the Ethiopic, Armenian, Sahidic, and Jerusalem-Syri- 
 ac versions. 
 
 That the observations already made may be tlie more 
 useful in assisting the reader to form an estimate of read- 
 ings eitlier belonging to one recension or common to more, 
 the author lays down a few premonitions. 
 
 1. It is necessary for a critic to be well acquainted with 
 the characteristics of a recension, with whatever makes it 
 
252 NOTES. 
 
 more or less valuable. The Alexandrine acts the gramma- 
 rian ; the Western the expositor, and, by no means unfre- 
 quently without success. 
 
 2. No recension is to be found unaltered, in any manu- 
 script now extant. The causes of this are briefly but clearly 
 stated. Yet errors in one manuscript are not to be ascri- 
 bed to the whole recension. 
 
 3. It is of very great importance to discover the primi- 
 tive reading of each recension. This is to be done by com- 
 paring all the manuscripts, fathers and versions of the 
 same recension, and by selecting from among their read- 
 ings that which is most strongly recommended, both by tes- 
 timonies of higher antiquity and by internal marks of good- 
 ness. 
 
 4. Before the genuineness of one reading among many 
 can be determined, we must examine to what recension 
 any one is to be referred. The inquiry is not, — how many 
 manuscripts now existing agree in any reading ; but, — 
 what ancient recensions originally exhibited that reading : 
 for all the testimonies of the same recension are to be re- 
 garded as one, and therefore two or three manuscripts may 
 be of as much weight as a hundred others, because some 
 recensions are preserved in a few only, others in a great num- 
 ber. Greek manuscripts were but seldom written in the 
 Western provinces after the fourth century, and in Egypt 
 after the sixth ; but in the patriarchate of Constantinople, 
 the Greek monks were indefatigable in multiplying copies 
 of the New Testament until the fifteenth. 
 
 5. If all the old recensions originally agreed in any 
 reading, it is undoubtedly the true one, even if afterwards 
 another should have been introduced into a multitude of 
 more modern manuscripts. 
 
 C. If all the recensions did not originally agree in the 
 
 I 
 
NOTES. 253 
 
 same reading, that which has the support of the most 
 ancient is the best, unless there be special circumstan- 
 ces to the contrary arising from the character of the re- 
 cension. 
 
 7. From the consent of the Alexandrine recension with 
 the Western, is it concluded on very good grounds, that a 
 reading common to both is by far the most ancient, and in- 
 deed, if supported by its internal goodness, genuine. If it 
 be destitute of this goodness, the want must be balanced 
 against the consent of the two recensions. 
 
 8. If the Alexandrine agrees with the Constantinopoli- 
 tan, while the Western differs from both, we are to exam- 
 ine whether the reading which has the sanction of the 
 Western be of a class in which the errors of this last re- 
 cension are frequent, and at the same time the internal 
 marks of truth or error must be carefully considered. 
 
 9. In the same way must Ave judge of readings in which 
 the Western recension agrees with the Constantinopolitan 
 against the Alexandrine. 
 
 10. If any recension exhibit a reading varying from 
 those of the others, it is not the number of individual wit- 
 nesses, but the internal marks of goodness, on which the 
 preference must be founded. No matter how few the wit- 
 nesses, provided it can be shown, that the reading was one 
 in which all the old recensions originally agreed, and there 
 be no special circumstances, arising from the character of 
 the recensions, to weigh against it. 
 
 It is to be remarked further, that the Alexandrine manu- 
 script follows one recension in the Gospels, another in St. 
 Paul's epistles, and a third in the Acts and Catholic epis- 
 tles. — The Vatican, in the former part of St. Matthew, 
 agrees with the Western ; in the last chapters and in the 
 three other Evangelists, with the Alexandrine. — In forming 
 
254 NOTES. 
 
 an opinion on the consent of testimonies, the critic should 
 carefully attend to mixed manuscripts of this kind. 
 
 SECTION IV. 
 
 This section explains the author's mode of arranging 
 his work, and the critical marks with which the text is pro- 
 vided. 
 
 1. The received text is made the basis. 
 
 2. Whatever alterations have been made are scrupu- 
 lously indicated. 
 
 3. Every word and syllable of the received text is print- 
 ed, and in one uniform character. Whatever alterations 
 are suggested, are pointed out by marks affixed to the re- 
 ceived text. If the received reading has been stricken 
 out of the text, it is printed in the inner margin in 
 the same type as the text in general. — The inner margin 
 is the space between the text and the body of readings 
 with the authority for each, and is included within two 
 lines. 
 
 4. Whatever is substituted for the received reading, 
 whether it be admitted into the text or introduced into the 
 inner margin, is printed in smaller type. 
 
 5. Nothing is altered on conjecture, nothing without 
 the authority of witnesses, namely, manuscripts, versions, 
 fathers. 
 
 6. As some readings varying from the received are un- 
 doubtedly to be regarded as genuine, others, although not 
 certainly genuine, yet as equal to the received or nearly so, 
 and others, although less probable, yet worthy of considera- 
 tion ; these different grades of probability are distinctly in- 
 dicated. 
 
 (1) Those that in the author's judgment are most cer- 
 tainly spurious, are omitted in the text and placed in the 
 
NOTES. 255' 
 
 inner margin, this mark t being substituted in the former, 
 and in the latter prefixed to the displaced words. 
 
 (2) Such as ought probably to be stricken out, yet not 
 certainly, are retained in the text with this mark = pre- 
 fixed.* 
 
 (3) If the authority for striking out is less sufficient 
 than in the former case, the reading, which ought perhaps 
 to be removed, is retained in the text with the mark — . 
 
 7. Those readings which seem to have been improperly 
 omitted in the received text are inserted, but in smaller 
 type, with the mark ^ or 4|f or + prefixed, of which the 
 first intimates the greatest degree of probability, the second 
 a less, and the third the least. 
 
 8. With respect to those emendations of the sacred text 
 which are produced by commuting one or more words for 
 others, the following observations must be attended to. 
 
 (1) A reading undoubtedly genuine, yet different from 
 the received, is introduced into the text without any mark, 
 but in smaller characters ; and that which has hitherto 
 been the received reading is placed, in larger characters 
 and without any mark, in the inner margin. 
 
 (2) If in favor of a reading thus removed from the text 
 
 considerable authority can be adduced, yet by no means 
 
 sufficient to determine its genuineness ; to the received 
 
 * The reader v/ill observe the extreme caution of Griesbach not to al- 
 ter the received text without reasons most satisfactory to himself. Yet 
 I cannot but think, that the principle here stated is not perfectly in unison 
 with that laid down in the seconcl Section, I, where he avows it to be 
 his object to present "his readers with a text as correct as possible, 
 (textum a mcndis quantum fieri posset purgatissimum exhibere studui.") 
 If the probability is on the side of strikinif out certain readings, it seema 
 plain, that upon this latter principle they ought to have been stricken 
 out. The author has been led to the result expressed above, by making 
 the received text his basis; and it is evident that his own text does 
 sometimes contain readings which ho himself considered as probably 
 spurious. Compare also below, No. 8, (3,) from which it appears that 
 a reading believed to be inferior to some other, may remain in the text, 
 and that which is supposed preferable may appear in smaller ciiaracters 
 in the inner margin. 
 
236 NOTES. 
 
 reading, which is placed in the inner margin, the mark C*<^ 
 is attached. 
 
 (3) A received reading, to which some other is of equal 
 authority, or which, although inferior to some other, is still 
 not determined to be spurious, remains in the text with the 
 mark CJSO prefixed. The reading which is considered equal 
 or preferable to the received, is put in smaller characters 
 in the inner margin, accompanied by the same mark. 
 
 (4) When authority of some weight can be urged in 
 defence of a reading, which at the same time is decidedly 
 inferior to the received, the former is put in the inner mar- 
 gin, in smaller characters, with the mark C^ which is also 
 prefixed to the received reading retained in the text. 
 
 9. When the text is susceptible of a punctuation worthy 
 of notice which varies from the received, it is indicated by 
 a *. See Matt. iii. 3. iv. 7, 24. xix. 28. 
 
 10. The lessons read in the Greek church, or the ana- 
 gnosmata, are enclosed in brackets. 
 
 The text of Griesbach's New Testament is divided into 
 paragraphs and printed in continuous order : the chapters 
 are marked at the top, and the verses, (each of which be- 
 gins with a capital letter,) on the side. 
 
 SECTION V. 
 
 As the object of this section is merely to show in what 
 respects the second edition differs from the first, it is un- 
 necessary to give an outline of it. 
 
 SECTION VI. 
 
 Here the author explains the various marks and abbre- 
 viations employed in his work, whether in the text, the 
 inner margin, or the notes. Several will be found 
 already illustrated in Section iv. ; an explanation of a few 
 
NOTES. 257 
 
 others of principal importance and frequent occurrence is 
 here subjoined. If the reader wishes to see them all in 
 one view, let him consult Griesbach himself. 
 
 " This mark indicates the extent to which the immedi- 
 ately preceding mark, or small Latin letter referring also 
 to the notes, applies. — : This is used when the application 
 of the mark is more limited than that of the Latin letter. 
 Both may be illustrated by referring to Matt. iii. 12, 
 aui/tt|£t Tov ciTov "= avTov : eis rhv drroOi'iKnv, " where the forcc of the 
 letter ' applies to all the following words, while the = is 
 limited to avroi. 
 
 The two preceding marks belong to the text, the follow- 
 ing to the notes. 
 
 II This is employed to intimate, that the various read- 
 ings to which it is prefixed belong to the same words of the 
 text, to which the various reading related which had already 
 been noted. 
 
 — This indicates that the words of the text, which are 
 comprehended within the Latin letter and the mark ", or 
 which the inner margin contains with the mark t prefixed, 
 are omitted in the enumerated manuscripts ; and + denotes 
 that the words which follow it are added in the manuscripts 
 cited. If no Greek word follow, the meaning is, that in 
 the manuscripts enumerated after the mark, the reading is 
 the same as that introduced in the text in smaller charac- 
 ters. 
 
 * This signifies that the manuscript, to the appropriate 
 mark of wliich it is subjoined, contained the reading refer- 
 red to a prima manu, but that subsequently it was changed 
 into another ; and ** denotes that the reading occurs in the 
 manuscript from emendation, or may be found in the 
 
 margin. 
 
 22 
 
258 NOTES. 
 
 SECTION VII. 
 
 This section contains a list of Greek manuscripts refer- 
 red to. I. Those written in uncial characters ; II. those in 
 smaller character ; III. Evangelistaria*; IV. manuscripts 
 used in preparing St. Matthew's Gospel ; and lastly, a 
 list of Sclavonian Manuscripts communicated to him by 
 
 DOBROSKY. 
 
 This brief outline of Griesbach's principles and views 
 as exhibited in his Prolegomena, is given for the informa- 
 tion of the reader who wants time or opportunity to consult 
 the original work. It must be evident, that to prepare an 
 edition of the Greek Testament under the guidance of 
 them, must indeed be a task equal if not superior in diffi- 
 culty in that of Adamantius himself Whatever may be 
 said of the result, it is impossible to question the laborious- 
 ness of the undertaking. In the one all have acquiesced, 
 but not a few have been dissatisfied with the other. 
 
 The first reflection which must strike an examiner of 
 
 the author's system, is the extreme difficulty of determining 
 
 to what recension each manuscript, version, or reading 
 
 taken from the work of any father, does certainly belong.! 
 
 * The Evangelistaria contain the Gospels as read in the daily service 
 of the ancient Greek church. 
 
 ■f I find that Professor Lee has made the same remark in his Prolego- 
 mena to Bagster's Polyglot. Prol. VI. § xi. p. 69. I cannot agree with 
 him, however, in considering the whole subject of recensions as an 
 ingenious fabrication, devised with the view of involving a matter of no 
 great difficulty in utter darkness, and am surprised that he should have 
 expressed himself in such unqualified language. " Ingeniosse" (says he,) 
 illae familiarum fabricae, uti mihi videtur, in unum tantunimodo finem 
 feliciter exstructae sunt ; ut, scilicet, rem in seipsa haud valde obscuram, 
 tenebris jEgyptiacis obscuriorem reddant; editoresque eos, qui se omnia 
 rem acu tetigisse putent, supra mortalium labendi statum, nescio quan- 
 tum, evehere." The reader is particularly referred to Schulz's edition 
 of Griesbach's New Testament, of which some account is given at the 
 end of this note. Preface p. xxxii — xxxv. While he gives his opinion 
 that the doctrine of different recensions is not to be rejected, he candidly 
 
NOTES. 
 
 And until this is done, there can be no such classification 
 of the testimony as Griesbach has made, and by conse- 
 quence no reasoning founded on the evidence afforded by 
 any specific number of witnesses. 
 
 Another difficulty of no small magnitude is connected 
 with a previous point, viz : that of settling the primitive 
 readings in every authority, where so many circumstances, 
 both designed and incidental, may have produced and pro- 
 pagated diversity. 
 
 A third consideration is perhaps of more importance 
 than either of these. Allowing the existence of recensions, 
 it may very reasonably be asked, has the number been 
 definitely settled t If there be more than three, as Gries- 
 bach himself seems to suppose,* his procedure in determin- 
 ing the evidence from the testimony of three only is inad- 
 missable. " If we suppose," says Lawrence,! " the exist- 
 ence of five or six, but bring only three to a comparison, 
 
 acknowledges thai it ought to be more closely limited, and more sparingly 
 and cautiously applied, than has been done by Griesbach and his fol- 
 lowers, lest it should result in a mere mechanical process. He plainly 
 intimates that there never was any authority by which the characteris- 
 tics of the Alexandrine, Western and Constantinopolitan recensions 
 could be determined, that no manuscript or version uniformly exhibits a 
 text in such a clearly defined state as must assign it to some particular 
 recension, but on the contrary, even the most ancient show some marks 
 of other recensions than those to which they have been assigned ; that 
 it is scarcely possible to show, in any respect, a particular character 
 appropriate to any of the recensions so called, and in what way any one 
 may be distinguished from the rest; that there are no settled grounds 
 whereby to determine the number and character of particular readings 
 necessary to constitute any new recension ; and that none of the docu- 
 ments of the various recensions exhibit those recensions in an unadulte- 
 rated condition, but more or less in a state of corruption and confusion. 
 While therefore it is right to distribute the various manuscripts and 
 versions into classes, on account of their agreement or disagreement in 
 a greater or less degree, yet it is necessary to distinguish between vari- 
 ous readings of fortuitous origin, and such as have been introduced 
 intentionally and with some particular design. Of the former class the 
 number undoubtedly does greatly preponderate. 
 
 * See his Curse in Epistolas Paulinas, 1777, and Preface to his edition 
 of the Gospels, published the same year, as quoted by Lawrence, ubj 
 Bup. pp. 18, ss. 
 
 + lb. p. 50, 
 
260 
 
 NOTES. 
 
 it is manifest that we cannot possibly determine to which 
 of the five or six any manuscript properly belongs ; but 
 merely that it possesses a closer affinity to one, than to the 
 other two, of the three compared." And, on the other 
 hand, if the existence of even three should be doubtful, the 
 author's conclusions must be in a great measure insecure. 
 And that this is doubtful is the opinion of the acute and 
 perspicacious writer just quoted. "Instead of establishing 
 five or six classes, I confess that I see not good ground 
 for the admission of even three. I do not however deny 
 that these, or more than these, exist, because their exist- 
 ence is possible ; but I contend, that it has not been suffi- 
 ciently proved."* 
 
 Dr. Lawrence'sf pamphlet is well worthy of attention 
 in reference to this subject. He possesses nothing of that 
 castigating and bitter spirit, which shows itself in some 
 writers on criticism, whose works may be said to be " plena 
 quidem eruditionis, ac non aeque plena humanitatis."| He 
 writes with the candor of a scholar and liberal minded man, 
 allowing Griesbach the praise of being a modest and un- 
 assuming and most able critic, and in the outset vindicating 
 his orthodoxy on the subject of the divinity of Christ, by an 
 appropriate quotation from his preface to the apostolical 
 writings published in 1775, in which he * publicly professes 
 and calls God to witness, that he has no doubt of the truth 
 of this doctrine, substantiated as it is by so many and evi- 
 dent proofs from scripture.' || It is on good grounds that 
 
 * p. 92. + Now Archbishop of Cashel. 
 
 X This remark is made by Moaus in reference to the controversy 
 between Heinsius and Sahnasius on the Hellenistic language. Herman. 
 Novi Test. vol. i. p. 223. 
 
 II As it IS probable, that neither the publication of Griesbach, nor the 
 ■(vork of Archbishop Lawrence is accessible to most of my readers, 
 and as the avowal is made in very express language, I shall here intro- 
 duce it, being indebted to the latter author for the quotation, pp. 3, s. 
 " Interim um tamen dogmati eique palmario, doctrinse scilicet de vera 
 
NOTES. 261 
 
 this able writer questions the correctness of Griesbach's 
 method of estimating the various readings of a manuscript 
 by its departure from the received text ; and he has shown, 
 that the careful and laborious German critic is to be 
 " suspected" not indeed of want of fidelity, but of occa- 
 sional " inadvertency." 
 
 Griesbach's scheme is more particularly examined in 
 the large work of the Rev. Frederick Nolan before 
 referred to. According to this learned writer, Griesbach's 
 Western and Alexandrine recensions are, properly speaking, 
 the Egyptian and Palestine ; the Constantinopolitan or 
 Byzantine is considered as the same by both these authors. 
 Nolan treads partly in the steps of Griesbach and partly 
 in those of Bengel. In part also he is led by his own 
 conjectures, which are plainly destitute of any founda- 
 tion. He admits three recensions or " principal classes of 
 Greek manuscripts, one of which agrees with the Italic 
 translation contained in the Brescia manuscript, another 
 with that contained in the Vercelli manuscript, and a third 
 with that contained in the Vulgate." Inquiry, &c. p. 61. 
 He supposes the Palestine text as amended by Origen, to 
 have been corrupted by Eusebius of Caesarea, and published 
 by him in this state ; and maintains that the Coptic, Syriac, 
 Ethiopic and some other versions, were also corrupted from 
 the text of Eusebius, and therefore are of little or no au- 
 
 Jesu Christi divinitate, nonnihil a me detractum esse videri posset non- 
 nuUis. Quare ut iniquas siispiciones omncs, quantum in mo est, amo- 
 !iar, et hominibus malevolis calumniandi ansam prasripiam, primum 
 publice, projileor atc/ue Deum teslor, neutiquain medu veritate istius dog- 
 matis dul)itare. Atque sunt profecto tarn vmlia et luculenta argximmta 
 et Scripturcc loca. quibus vera Deltas Christo vindicatur, ut ego quidem 
 intelligure vix possum, quomodo, conoessa Scriptura; sacra; divina auc- 
 toritate et admissis justis interpretandi regulis, dogma hoc in dubium a 
 quoquam vocaii possit. In primis locus ilTe, John i. 1 — 3, tam pcrspicu- 
 us est atque omnibus exceptionibus major, ut neque interjiretum neque 
 criticorum audacibus conatibus unquam everti atque veritaiis dcfensori- 
 bus eripi possit." 
 
 22* 
 
262 NOTES. 
 
 thority. See pp. 26, ss. A charge of wilful corruption, 
 and in texts which have the strongest and most direct 
 bearing on some of the vital doctrines of Christianity, 
 (such, for instance, as 1 John v. 7. 1 Tim. iii. 16. Acts 
 XX. 28. See p. 27.) ought not to be advanced without the 
 clearest and most irrefragable proof But it is altogether 
 destitute of support. Indeed its very extravagance is its 
 own confutation. For it is not to be supposed that so 
 distinguished a man as Eusebius would desire to publish 
 a mutilated text; and it is utterly incredible, that he could 
 have done so, without exciting the attention of Christian 
 scholars, especially at a period when Arianism began to 
 prevail in the church. 
 
 If the reader wishes to see this bold criticism examined 
 and refuted, he is referred to the very learned Prolegomena 
 to Bagster's Polyglot by Professor Lee, Prol. VI. pp. 66, 
 ss. For a fuller account of Mr. Nolan's book, and for 
 other theories on the subject of recensions and classifi- 
 cations of manuscripts, see Horne's Introduction, Vol. IL 
 pp. 104—115. 
 
 A cheap and neat edition of the Greek Testament is 
 that of Dr. Knapp. Novum Testamentum Graece. Re- 
 cognovit atque insignioris lectionem varietates et arguraen- 
 torum notationes subjunxit Georgius Christian us Knap- 
 pius. Edit. Test. Hal. 1824. This edition takes notice 
 of the more remarkable various readings, and gives brief 
 outlines of the subjects, at the bottom of the page. It is 
 highly praised for the accuracy of its punctuation. It is 
 in two vols. 12mo, frequently bound in one. 
 
 In the same year. Dr. Vater published his edition, 
 founded on the Greek text of Griesbach and Knapp. It 
 is in one large Svo volume of 835 pages, and is a very 
 useful work. It contains, besides the Greek text, the prin- 
 
NOTES. 
 
 cipal various readings and their authorities, with exegeti- 
 cal notes, which although short are often satisfactory. At 
 the end four indexes are added ; the first geographical 
 and historical ; and the second of difficult Greek words 
 and such as occur but seldom ; the third of critical helps ; 
 and the fourth of exegetical. The last contains a list 
 of commentators, chiefly German, on each book of the 
 New Testament. 
 
 An account of Dr. Schulz's edition of Griesbach's 
 New Testament shall bring this long note to a termination. 
 I am indebted for it to a learned friend and indefatigable 
 scholar, the Rev. William R. Whittingham, A. M., who 
 prepared it originally as a paper for the Biblical Litera- 
 ture Association. 
 
 Notice of " Novum Testamentum Graece. Textum ad fidem codicum, 
 Versionum, et Patrum recensuit, et Lectionis Varietatem adjecit 
 J. J. Griesbachius. — Vol. I. Evangelia complectens. Editionem 
 tertiam emendatam et auctam, curavit D. Schulz. 8vo. Berolini. 
 1827." 
 
 This is a compact volume, in a style of printing far 
 superior to that of the generality of German books. As 
 it has been sometime expected, as the very title indicates 
 an attempt of no small magnitude, an enlargement and 
 improvement of Griesbach's edition, and as it is in reality a 
 valuable accession to the stock of Biblical literature, it is 
 deserving of some short notice. 
 
 First, as to its history. The author states (Pref. i — iv.) 
 that four years before the appearance of this volume, he 
 had been solicited to superintend a reimpression of the 
 New Testament of Griesbach. He had declined the office, 
 and used his endeavors to induce the celebrated Dr. 
 Knapp to undertake it, whose smaller critical edition of the 
 
264 NOTES. 
 
 New Testament, in its several continually improved edi- 
 tions, so fully attested his competence. Knapp declined, 
 and in his turn pressed it upon Schulz, who had devoted 
 many years' attention to the studies necessary to qualify 
 him for the task. Upon the death of Dr. Knapp which 
 occurred soon after, Schulz at length set seriously about 
 the work. He had, however, previously to that event, 
 received his friend's advice respecting the manner of con- 
 ducting the edition, his opinion on two sheets which were 
 printed in 1826 as a specimen, and his approbation of the 
 general features of the plan, as exhibited in that specimen. 
 Secondly, respecting the plan of the work, it is proper 
 to give some account of the measures taken to ensure cor- 
 rectness and completeness in the reimpression of Griesbach's 
 edition ; the additions made to it, and the improvements on it. 
 
 I. Schulz's first endeavor was to secure any posthumous 
 remains of Griesbach himself, that might afford assistance 
 in the correction and completion of his work. But his 
 search for these was fruitless. His next object was to 
 ascertain the correctness of Griesbach's references to 
 authorities, by a new examination. With respect to the 
 greater part of those relating immediately to manuscripts, 
 however, this was impossible. Such as were accessible, 
 were recoUated with great care. The references to print- 
 ed works were almost subjected to a re-examination, Schulz 
 himself having bestowed much pains upon the collection 
 of such works, while the rarer and more expensive were 
 accessible to him in the Royal Library at Berlin. 
 
 II. In the enlargement of the work, Schulz has aimed 
 at the use, after Griesbach's plans of all the additional 
 sources furnished during the thirty years which had elapsed 
 since the publication of his last edition. The principal 
 materials thus employed by him, are the following. 
 
NOTES. 265 
 
 1) The fac-simile of the Alexandrine manuscript by 
 Woide. 
 
 2) The fac-simile of the Cambridge manuscript by 
 Kipling. 
 
 3) Sabatier's edition of the old Latin version, with 
 the various readings of several ancient MSS. 
 
 4) Blanchini's Latin MSS. in his Evangeliarium Quad- 
 ruplex. 
 
 5) Bentley's collation of the Vatican MS., which in 
 many places differs considerably from that made by Birch, 
 and which was first published at Oxford in 1799, as an 
 Appendix to Woide's New Testament from the Alexandrine 
 MS. ; that is, the fac-simile above mentioned. 
 
 6) Barret's fac-simile of the Dublin Rescript MS. of 
 the Gospel according to St. Matthew. 
 
 7) The collation of the Codex Cyprius, an uncial MS. 
 of the 8th or 9th century, by A. Scholz, the traveller. 
 
 8) Pappelbaum's collation of a Berlin MS. of the 
 11th century, containing portions of the gospels. 
 
 9) Birch's collation of some Greek MSS. published in 
 his Variantes Lectiones ad textum IV evangeliorum. 
 
 10) A few readings collected from 5 Paris MSS. pre- 
 viously uncollated, by A. Scholz. 
 
 11) The Rehdingeran MS. of the ante-Hieronymian 
 Latin version of the Gospels; transcribed throughout by 
 Schulz himself 
 
 12) The Gothic version, published by Zahn, in 
 1805. 
 
 13) The fragments of the Gothic version published by 
 Angelo Mai. ' 
 
 14) The fragments of the Sahidic version, published 
 from Oxford MSS. by Ford, in an appendix to Woide's 
 edition of the Alexandrine MS. 
 
NOTES. 
 
 15) The fragments of the Basmurico-Coptic version, 
 published by Engelbrecht in 1811. 
 
 16) The MSS. notes of C. B. Michaelis in his copy 
 of Kuster's edition of Mill ; principally relating to the read- 
 ings of the Syriac, Arabic, Persian and Ethiopic ver- 
 sions. 
 
 17) The Gronovian and Meermanian MSS., neither of 
 them, however, of any great value, published by Dermont 
 at Leyden, in his collectanea critica in Nov. Test, in 1825. 
 
 These several sources of additional critical matter, are, 
 as an aggregate, of very considerable value, and their care- 
 ful use by Schulz must tend in no small degree to enhance 
 the value of this new edition. 
 
 While bestowing sedulous attention upon this reimpres- 
 sion of the work of Griesbach, Schulz undertook also, with 
 a view to its improvement, continually to consult all the 
 principal editions both ancient and modern ; especially 
 those of Stephens, Wetstein, Mill, Bengel, Birch, both of 
 Matthaei's, that of Knapp, and both of Griesbach's, all which 
 he declares were always open before him. 
 
 The result of this collation was the discovery of fre- 
 quent errors in Griesbach's references or citations, which 
 have been carefully corrected. Occasionally Schulz hag 
 been led to doubt the correctness of Griesbach's decisions, 
 and to adopt opinions different from those of his author. 
 In all such cases, the original readings of Griesbach have 
 been retained, with the addition of such as Schulz would 
 prefer; and his reasons for the preference are given in notes 
 in double brackets. All the additions from the supplemen- 
 tary critical apparatus used by Schulz, and all the additions 
 which he has thought proper to make from the sources par- 
 tially used by Griesbach, which are very numerous, are 
 similarly distinguished. 
 
NOTES. 267" 
 
 Besides these improvements in the substance of the 
 work, others of great importance have been made in its 
 external form and arrangement. 
 
 Griesbach's text was printed in double columns, while 
 the notes, in a type but one degree smaller, extended across 
 the page, without any break or other distinction between 
 the notes, than that produced by the mark of reference to 
 the text. Schulz has printed the text in large type, all 
 across the page, without distinction, in the body of the 
 print, of chapters and verses, other than a small blank 
 between each verse which begins a capital letter ; the num- 
 bers of each being given in the outer margin. The notes 
 are printed in double columns, each note commencing a 
 separate paragraph. In the text, the most minute attention 
 has been paid to its typography, of which the details are 
 given by Schulz, Pref p. viii — xv. — Griesbach's punctua- 
 tion has been very much altered, the rule of giving as little 
 punctuation as possible, recommended by Knapp and Butt- 
 man, having been adhered to. Passages where a difference 
 of punctuation would alter the sense have generally been 
 left unpointed. The asterisk used by Griesbach to indicate 
 possible varieties of punctuation, has been retained, and in 
 many places added. The accents and orthography have 
 been scrupulously regulated according to the most approved 
 modern principles. Names of men and places are com- 
 menced with capital letters, a distinction limited by Gries^ 
 bach to verses. Parentheses are in general more .sparingly 
 used by Schulz than by Griesbach, (e. g. Mar. v. 28. Luc. 
 ii. 2, 4, 23. 35.) although occasionally added by the former 
 (Luc. vii. j4.) The name and chapter of the book at the 
 head of the page, are given in Latin, the former of which 
 is in Greek in Griesbach's own editions. 
 
 In the critical apparatus, the aim of Schulz has been 
 
268 NOTES. 
 
 to make the references and citations as clear, and yet as 
 brief as possible. 
 
 The references to the fathers have been made more 
 explicit and definite, and sometimes the book and chapter 
 have been added, thus affording great additional facility to 
 one who would verify them for himself, and examine their 
 connexion with the context, which is often of no small im- 
 portance in determining the degree of authority which they 
 may possess. The abbreviated references to MSS autho- 
 rities, &c. have been rendered more full, and much more 
 uniform. Attention has been paid even to the capital ini- 
 tials, &/C., which in references to the versions, is of conside- 
 rable importance to prevent the possibility of mistake. 
 
 Schulz has added, with great care, references to the 
 places of the Old Testament, parallel to others in the New, 
 which parallels have frequently been sources of various 
 readings. He occasionally alters Griesbach's arrangement 
 of a note. Often he adds an opinion respecting the merits 
 of a reading in a very kw words, perhaps not more than 
 one. The letters of reference to the notes have not been 
 changed, the additional notes of Schulz having double let- 
 ters. A number of other minor alterations, of a similar 
 nature, have been made in the references and citations, and 
 are, almost without exception, considerable improvements. 
 Numerous abbreviations, generally very judicious, have been 
 adopted, for the purpose of saving room. 
 
 With relation to accuracy of typography, this edition is 
 deserving of the fullest confidence. All the sheets were 
 twice corrected at Berlin, by a competent scholar, with a 
 degree of diligence and accuracy much praised by Schulz. 
 Two copies of each sheet were then sent by post to the 
 editor, one of which he read in every part with the utmost 
 care, the other he submitted, for the correction of the 
 
NOTES. 269 
 
 text alone, to his philological friends Passau, Schneider, 
 and PiNSGER, who carefully revised it, with a view princi- 
 pally to the correction of the accents and points. — All of 
 these corrections were copied into both sheets, one of which 
 Schulz retained, for the purpose of correcting the sheets by 
 it a second time. After all this care, a sixth reading of the 
 sheets after they were printed, has produced 18 pages of 
 addenda et corrigenda. 
 
 A full account of all these particulars respecting his 
 edition, with a statement of his reasons, occupy 30 pages 
 of the preface. 
 
 Pp. XXX — Ivi. contain copious and learned remarks on 
 the criticism of the text in general, and particularly on 
 Griesbach's system of recensions, and his method of cor- 
 rection. 
 
 Griesbach's Prolegomena are printed entire with a few 
 brief notes, distinguished from those of the author by 
 double brackets ; and with some additions to the critical 
 apparatus. 
 
 NOTE XXIX. 
 
 The view here given of the very great facility with which 
 the Hebrew language may be acquired cannot be admitted. 
 An enthusiastic admiration of any thing not unfrequently 
 leads its advocates to represent its attainment as the easiest 
 matter imaginable. No language can be gained without 
 time and labor ; and all attempts to advance the study of 
 a language by making its acquisition the work of a few 
 days or a few hours, must be injurious, because experience 
 proves them to be unfounded. An accurate and funda- 
 mental acquaintance with Hebrew is a work of time and 
 patient examination ; but it brings with it an ample reward, 
 in enabling the interpreter to judge for himself, without 
 
 23 
 
270 
 
 NOTES. 
 
 placing implicit reliance on the judgments of others. An 
 ability to analyze a chapter by the aid of a Grammar and Lex- 
 icon, may indeed be acquired with moderate study in a few 
 months; and at present, when the facilities for acquiring 
 Hebrew are so abundant, no student of theology need be, and 
 scarcely any ought to be, without this ability. The reader 
 is referred to the Biblical Repository, vol. i. No. ii. pp. 491 
 — 530, for a defence of the claims of the Hebrew language 
 and literature on the attention of scholars in general, and 
 particularly of students of theology. 
 
 NOTE XXX. 
 
 If to this course of preparation, the apocryphal books 
 of the Old Testament, and some works in the common 
 Greek dialect be added, it will be the more complete in 
 itself, and the more advantageous in its results. 
 
 NOTE XXXI. 
 
 It is stated in the Biblical Repository, vol. iii. p. 757, 
 that " Professor Theile, of Leipzig, announced in April 
 1832, that the exegetical part of Wetstein's New Testa- 
 ment, and all the remarks of the writers of Observationes 
 in N. T., as Alberti, Eisner, Krebs, Kypke, Loesner, 
 Munthe, Raphel, &c., were to be arranged together under 
 his supervision, and published in one Corpus Observationum 
 philologicarum in N. T." — I am unable to say whether this 
 work has yet appeared. If executed with proper judgment, 
 it would be an important acquisition to the library of any 
 student. 
 
 NOTE XXXII. 
 
 I have endeavored to express the author's meaning, 
 without confining myself closely to his language. It is 
 evident that he speaks of reason uninfluenced by prejudice, 
 
NOTES. 271 
 
 and in this sense, the correctness of his remark is undenia- 
 ble, as truth must make its appeal to this principle. This 
 is the foundation of argument. All truths must be agreea- 
 ble to pure reason, although many are far removed from 
 the grasp of limited reason which man is able to appropriate. 
 Whatever truths are rejected by the understanding, are 
 rejected from ignorance or prejudice. 
 
 "Unto the word of God," says Hooker, "being in 
 respect of that end for which God ordained it, perfect, 
 exact, and absolute in itself, we do not add reason as a 
 supplement of any maim or defect therein, but as a necessa- 
 ry instrument, without which we could not reap by the scrip- 
 ture's perfection that fruit and benefit which it yielded." — 
 " Because the sentences which are by the Apostles recited 
 out of the Psalms, to prove the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 
 did not prove it, if so be the prophet David meant them of 
 himself, this exposition therefore they plainly disprove, and 
 show by manifest reason, that of David the words of David 
 could not possibly be meant. Exclude the use of natural 
 reasoning about the sense of holy scripture, concerning the 
 articles of our faith, and then that the scripture doth con- 
 cern the articles of our faith who can assure us 1 That 
 which by right exposition buildeth up Christian faith, being 
 misconstrued, breedeth error ; between true and false con- 
 struction, the difference reason must show." Ecclesiastical 
 Polity, Book iii. § 8. The whole section is particularly 
 worthy of the reader's attention. 
 
 NOTE XXXIII. 
 
 This word is used in a technical sense, for literally, as 
 indeed the term figurative, which follows, would suggest. 
 Comp. Ernesti's Elements of Interpretation, translated by 
 Stdakt, ^ 42, p. 21. 
 
272 NOTES. 
 
 NOTE XXXIV. 
 
 To prevent the possibility of misapprehending the 
 author's meaning, I beg leave to suggest — what however 
 can hardly escape the observation of all discerning readers 
 — that the rule does not direct the interpreter to allow the 
 spirit and mode of thinking of the age to modify or do 
 away the evident meaning of a passage, but merely to 
 assist him in ascertaining what the meaning is. In con- 
 nexion with the subject, it may be proper to add another 
 consideration, in itself very evident, and yet not sufficiently 
 attended to by some modern commentators. Before the 
 interpreter appeals to the spirit and mode of thinking of 
 his author's age, in order to illustrate a supposed difficulty, 
 let him ascertain with as much certainty as the case will 
 admit, what that spirit is, lest he apply a principle arising 
 out of his imagination rather than one supplied by historic 
 evidence. It is said by some commentators, that the narra- 
 tive of our Lord's temptation is only a parabolical represen- 
 tation of evil and distressing thoughts arising in his mind, 
 which he strongly repressed, and thus prevented the natu- 
 ral result of such reflections : and this they say is repre- 
 sented, agreeably to the Jewish manner, and in the spirit 
 of the apostolic age, as if the devil had assaulted him 
 with temptations. So again, the account of an appearance 
 of an angel to Zacharias, and also to Mary, merely denotes 
 the providential agency of God, expressed according to the 
 mode of thinking prevalent at that time. Before such 
 representations of apparent facts can advance any reasona- 
 ble claim to attention, it ought to be shown that such was 
 the manner of thinking, and of expressing one's thoughts in 
 plain prose composition, among the Jews, when the New 
 Testament was written. Any reference to the machinery 
 of poetry would be entirely irrelevant. Let the reader 
 
NOTES. 273 
 
 compare what the author says on the abuse of higher criti- 
 cism on page 152. 
 
 NOTE XXXV. 
 
 The author means I suppose, that our Lord and his 
 apostles, in common with their nation, used this phrase to 
 express the authority and government of the divine Messiah. 
 That our Lord attached to it a very different meaning from 
 the one in which it was understood by the great body of the 
 Jews and the apostles themselves originally, who employed 
 the phrase to express their gross idea of a temporal reign, 
 is too evident to require any proof See Robinson's Lexi- 
 con from Wahl's Clavis, under PaaiXeta, No. 4. 
 
 NOTE xxxvi. 
 
 Illustrations of most of the author's remarks in this 
 paragraph will be perceived by an examination of the fol- 
 lowing passages. 1 Cor. vi. 26, ss. xi. 10. Acts xxi. 21 
 — 26. Luke xvii. 20, 21. xix. 11. 2 Cor. xii. 2, last clause. 
 Rev. i. 4., iv. 5. Matt. iii. 9. Rom. ix. 7. Several places 
 in our Lord's sermon on the mount. John ix. 2. Matt, 
 xxii. 17, 23. Mark vii. 3, 4. Luke xiii. 1, 4. xix. 12. 
 Matt. iii. 11. Luke iii. 16. Matt. xxiv. 21, (Comp. Ezek, 
 r. 9. Dan. xii. 1. Joel ii. 2.) 28. Luke xxiii. 31. John 
 i. 46. iv. 35, 37. In Luke ii. 27, the word " parents" is 
 used in accommodation to popular or legal opinion. Nolan 
 indeed argues against Griesbach's preferring " father" to 
 " Joseph" in v. 33, from its being the language of an Evan- 
 gelist, and consequently expressive of his own opinion. 
 Therefore, he says, the case is different from John i. 46, 
 where the sacred historian merely relates the declaration of 
 Philip. He proceeds to say that " from Luke ii. 48 — 50, it 
 will appear, that had St. Luke assigned any father to Christ 
 but God, it must have been by grossly confounding what 
 23* 
 
an 
 
 NOTES. 
 
 our Lord had expressly distinguished." Inquiry into the 
 integrity of the Greek Vulgate, p. 169, Note 135. Comp. 
 also p. 475, Note 88. — Yet certainly St. Luke might have 
 applied the word " father" to Joseph, as he has the term 
 *' parents" to Joseph and Mary, without exposing himself 
 to any such charge. He merely adopts the current lan- 
 guage ; or he may regard Joseph as legal father of Jesus. 
 In either view, Nolan's ground is untenable. Other refer- 
 ences might easily be added, but they are supposed to be 
 unnecessary. 
 
 NOTE XXXVII. 
 
 It would be easy to illustrate the truth of this remark 
 by referring merely to certain places in the gospel of St. 
 John. An interpreter who presumes it to be the author's 
 design to refute the errors of Cerinthus, will very readily dis- 
 cover the Gnostic Kons in the former part of the first chap- 
 ter. Another who believes that the apostle intended to 
 attack the heresy of the Docetse, finds satisfactory evidence 
 of this, in the particularity with which the account of our 
 Lord's death is detailed, the piercing of his side with a 
 spear, and the issuing out of blood and water. If it be 
 assumed, that the Evangelist wrote in order to confute the 
 notions of John the Baptist's disciples, that their master 
 was the true Messiah, clear proof is thought to be afforded 
 by several passages. So important is it to form a right 
 view of the character and design of a writer. 
 
 The correctness of the three principles laid down in 
 the text will be allowed, I presume, by most readers. As 
 is the case with respect to all general principles, much care 
 is requisite in applying them ; and from the tone and man- 
 ner of the author's representations, I cannot but think him 
 disposed to carry out the application beyond what the facts 
 exhibited in the scriptures require. 
 
NOTES. 275 
 
 NOTE XXXVIII. 
 
 In the preceding remarks, the author has expressed 
 himself in general and unqualified language. It cannot be 
 denied, that the same principles must govern the interpreter 
 of scripture, as are used in explaining other writings. And 
 yet, the peculiar character of certain portions of scripture 
 is such, as to allow, and very reasonably too, an interpreta- 
 tion, which could not with certainty be elicited, without 
 conceding such a view of their character as cannot be pre- 
 tended to apply to that of any other writings extant. 1 refer 
 to whatever portions of the Old Testament are really typical 
 of events connected with the New Dispensation ; and also 
 to those portions of the prophecies, which, while they declare 
 truths and facts in immediate connexion with that religious 
 system under which the authors lived, do also announce 
 other truths and facts of a subsequent age, and identified 
 with doctrines and realities belonging to the Gospel. This 
 is not the place to discuss the whole subject connected with 
 this remark, but the scriptural fact on which it is founded 
 constitutes a striking difference between some portions of 
 scripture and ordinary writings. In such cases therefore, 
 the allowed principles by which writings in general are 
 explained, are not of themselves sufficient. The comment 
 in the New Testament, which can in no case be proved to 
 be incorrect, must be regarded by the Christian expositor in 
 tlie light of a principle beyond the ordinary principles of 
 interpretation, and must become an additional aid to him in 
 eliciting tlie true meaning. Comp. Ps. viii. with Heb. ii. 
 G— 9. 
 
 NOTE XXXIX. 
 
 After some deliberation, I have concluded to omit a kw 
 passages in some of the following paragraphs, and in others 
 to modify in some degree the author's language, inasmuch 
 
276 
 
 NOTES. 
 
 as it is unnecessarily strong, even admitting the correctness 
 of his views respecting accommodation. In reference to 
 this subject, I beg leave to direct the reader's attention to 
 Note xli ; at the same time requesting him to keep in 
 mind the limitations suggested by the author himself. 
 
 NOTE XL. 
 
 This is certainly one of the most important considerations 
 in reference to the explanation of such moral and religious 
 writings as those in the Bible, which can be addressed to 
 the understanding and conscience of an interpreter. The 
 highest degree of moral purity, and the most extensive and 
 truest views of divine truth which can now be attained, in- 
 asmuch as they bring the interpreter nearest to the enlight- 
 ened and holy character of his author, place him in the best 
 possible situation (cseteris paribus,) to understand him. 
 He can then enter more deeply into the feeling and spirit of 
 the sacred writer, especially in relation to religious affections 
 and hopes, which belong in different degrees to different 
 grades of the Christian life. The minister of the Gospel, 
 who is to interpret the holy scriptures to the people, cannot 
 have this principle too deeply imprinted on his mind. 
 And as a practical principle it should exercise habitual 
 influence on his moral and religious habits. 
 
 Indeed, on this same principle of correspondence of 
 views with the writer to be explained, it may be added, 
 that the more we enter into his feelings and associations, 
 whether religious, literary or domestic, the more likely shall 
 we be to seize on his real meaning. The reader who enters 
 on the study of the prophecies relating to the Messiah with 
 a mind stored with the opinions of the ancient Hebrews, 
 accustomed to the figures under which they represented 
 those opinions, well versed in the language in which they 
 expressed them, in the religious and political usages by 
 
NOTES. 277 
 
 which they illustrated them ; to say all in one word, with 
 the feelings and views of a pious and intelligent ancient 
 Hebrew, so far as under present circumstances they can be 
 gained, will no doubt be best fitted to understand and 
 appreciate those sublime instructions. 
 
 NOTE XLI. 
 
 The principle of accommodation, which, in various 
 degrees, has exercised an influence on the interpretation of 
 scripture from a very early age, has, within the last half 
 century, been applied, and especially in Germany, with an 
 extravagance that sets common sense and sound criticism 
 alike at defiance. A reaction seems to have begun, and 
 interpretation on true philosophical and Christian principles, 
 which must ever be identified, is gradually making its way 
 in the country which is distinguished both for its sound 
 philology, and for hypotheses connected with interpretation 
 of scripture, the strangeness of which is only equalled by 
 their utter want of any reasonable foundation. 
 
 Accommodation is known among writers on interpreta- 
 tion under various terms. It is called (TByKord/Jao-if, conde- 
 scensio, demissio, obsequium, &.c. The author who em- 
 ploys it is said to speak xar 'oiKovoyiiav, or ceconomically ; that 
 is to say, he accommodates his course of reasoning or 
 remark, by a wise economy or arrangement, to the situation 
 and character of those whose immediate benefit is intended. 
 In points which have no connexion with religion, the 
 scriptures do generally represent the views of the age for 
 which they were written ; and there seems to be no reason 
 for supposing that the authors, with but few exceptions, 
 entertained any other views. In such a collection of 
 writings as that of the Old and New Testaments, would it 
 not be unreasonable to expect opinions in philosophy and 
 science which are based on the system of Newton, and 
 
S78 NOTES. 
 
 which, from what we see of the progressive character of 
 human knowledge, it is evident could not have existed in 
 the ages of antiquity, except by inspiration? It seems 
 unnecessary to illustrate so plain a point. And why may 
 we not apply the principle to other topics of the same 
 general character ? Why may it not be conceded, that on 
 some unimportant matters, such as genealogical records, 
 and points of chronology, the inspired writers adopted the 
 prevailing opini(ms, or, at least, would not disturb the minds 
 of their readers or call off their thoughts from the all- 
 important subject of religious instruction, by correcting 
 those opinions. In such cases, neither the religious cha- 
 racter of the authors, nor the divine truths which they were 
 inspired to teach, can possibly be affected. 
 
 Indeed, a comparison of different passages of scripture 
 would seem to prove that such a concession is unavoidable. 
 The difficulties of this kind, which have been urged by 
 sceptical objectors to Christianity, and not only urged, but 
 pressed beyond all reasonable bounds, may indeed, in most 
 cases, be triumphantly solved. I do not know that any 
 portions of scripture have been supposed to lie more open to 
 such attacks, than those in St. Matthew and St. Luke, 
 which contain our Lord's genealogy. And yet, to establish 
 the objections which have been made to these portions, 
 much must be assumed, which the Christian need not grant, 
 and the sceptic cannot prove. In one particular indeed, the 
 case is of such a kind, that it seems to have a necessary 
 bearing on the subject under consideration. 
 
 By comparing Luke iii. 36, with Gen. xi. 12, a discre- 
 pancy in the genealogical lists will be discovered. The 
 Old Testament writer makes Arphaxad the father of Salah; 
 the Evangelist by introducing another name, makes Ar- 
 phaxad the grandfather of Salah, the immediate son of 
 Cainan. Although the word Cainan is indeed omitted in 
 
NOTES. 279 
 
 one important manuscript of the New Testament, yet the 
 weight of evidence in favor of it is abundantly sufficient to 
 determine its genuineness. This point therefore is indis- 
 putable. St. Luke agrees with the reading as found in the 
 Septuagint translation. Shall we therefore say, that this 
 translation is here correct, and that all the other ancient 
 versions, and the Hebrew original are wrong ? and this too, 
 when we shall be obliged to maintain, according to that 
 translation, that Cainan and Salah each lived 130 years be- 
 fore the birth of their respective sons, and each 330 after- 
 wards ; which is a strange coincidence and quite improbable ? 
 Or shall we not rather say, that, in an unimportant point 
 which could have no bearing on religion, St. Luke adopts the 
 genealogy as it existed in the Septuagint version, which was 
 in his time and long after in ordinary use among his 
 readers? It is not improbable that the same principle should 
 be applied in a {ew other instances. 
 
 But with regard to matters directly religious, or which 
 have a direct bearing on religion, the case is far different. 
 The Christian interpreter can admit no accommodation of 
 sentiment here. It is true, that in a very few instances, 
 there will be, even among conscientious expositors, a differ- 
 ence of opinion respecting the application of the principle. 
 Candid men with equal reverence for God's holy word, will 
 differ in determining the points which have a direct bearing 
 on religion, although not in themselves directly religious. 
 But this by no means affects the principle "itself It only 
 shows, that in some cases it is difficult to apply it, and 
 leaves such cases to the varying judgments of different 
 honest and devout minds. 
 
 In points of a religious nature, positive accommodation 
 to error cannot possibly be allowed, consistently with the 
 moral character of the teacher. It may indeed be, that 
 
280 NOTES. 
 
 even the holiest of inspired teachers may omit to inculcate 
 truth, or may leave error without refutation. The cause 
 may lie in the party addressed. He may be inadequate to 
 comprehend and admit certain truths, and this inadequacy 
 may arise merely from want of previous instruction, or from 
 prejudices of education, or from obduracy and judicial 
 blindness. Or, again, the religious object which the teacher 
 wishes to advance, may make it inexpedient, and even 
 positively mischievous, to impart some truths, which are of 
 the very highest moment. Illustrations of these remarks 
 must immediately occur to the attentive and habitual reader 
 of the Gospels. Our Lord tells his disciples, that he had 
 " many things to say to them, but they could not bear 
 them" at that time. John xvi. 12. He frequently urges 
 them not to make public his character as Messiah. On 
 one occasion he refuses to tell on what authority he acted. 
 Matt. xxi. 27. On another he limits his instruction to the 
 simple point of Jonah the prophet being a sign to the Jews, 
 without informing his hearers, as he had done at a former 
 time, wherein the similarity of the cases consisted. Comp. 
 Matt. xvi. 4, with xii. 39, 40. — It is not required in a 
 religious or inspired teacher, nor indeed would it be prudent 
 or right, to shock the prejudices of his uninformed hearers, 
 by inculcating truths which they are unprepared to receive. 
 If he would reap a harvest, he must prepare the ground, 
 before he attempts to sow the seed. Neither is it required 
 of such an one to persist in inculcating religious instruction, 
 after such evidence of its rejection as is sufficient to prove 
 incurable obstinacy. Now it must be granted, that in most 
 of these cases there is accommodation. The teacher omits 
 either altogether or in part certain religious truths, and per- 
 haps, truths of great importance, in accommodation to the 
 incompetency and weakness of those whom he has to instruct. 
 
NOTES. 281 
 
 Sometimes also there may be accommodation in the 
 form in which religious truth is conveyed. This may be 
 one reason for adopting the mode of instruction by parable, 
 in order the more effectually to insinuate religious truth, 
 when direct address would be inexpedient and perhaps 
 hurtful. For the same reason does St. Paul adapt his 
 language to the various classes of persons to whom he is 
 writing. The figures and illustrations which he chooses in 
 one epistle, are different from those which pervade another ; 
 and indeed even in the same letter, he judiciously varies his 
 forms, as he has occasion to address different parties. The 
 principle may be applied to explain the discrepancy which 
 has been alleged, but not proved, to exist, between the same 
 apostle and St. James on the subject of justification. Each 
 teacher modifies the form and language of his instruction so 
 as to meet the particular errors of the persons, whose religious 
 improvement he was desirous of advancing. It applies also 
 to several of the prophecies of the Old Testament. The 
 form in which they are conveyed is adapted to the views of 
 those for whom they were first intended, or indeed it may 
 be that which is most in unison with the prophet's own feel- 
 ings. Hence, re-establishment in the promised land, and 
 peaceful enjoyment of rest and happiness after the subjuga- 
 tion of enemies, is the form in which the spiritual blessings 
 of the Gospel are often represented. The one becomes a 
 figure to illustrate the other. The same principle explains 
 the use of symbols as means of communicating divine truth. 
 
 The form of instruction may sometimes modify the rea- 
 sonings of a divine teacher. He may argue from the opinion 
 of his hearers. This, I conceive, is the case in the instance 
 cited by the author from Matt. xii. 27. " If I by Beelzebub 
 cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out?" 
 Our Lord cannot possibly refer to his own disciples, for they 
 
 24 
 
282 
 
 NOTES. 
 
 were of his party, and the calumny vented against him was 
 also equally intended for them. He must mean the Phari- 
 sees' disciples. Nor can it be admitted, notwithstanding 
 the representations made by Josephus and some of the 
 fathers, that the Jews, either before or during the life time 
 of Christ, were in the habit of casting out demons; for this 
 would be conceding to them a miraculous power. Whether 
 a real expulsion did occasionally take place or not, is of little 
 consequence, as our Lord's language implies frequency. 
 How is it possible then to avoid admitting, that he argues 
 with the Pharisees on their own premises and not on the 
 real facts of the case, unless we grant the habitual operation 
 among the Jews of that age of a divine and miraculous in- 
 fluence? And again, in the case of the young man who 
 addressed him with the flattering title of " good," is not our 
 Lord's appeal founded on the inquirer's ignorance of his 
 real character ? See Matt. xix. 16, 17. To a merely 
 human teacher, the title, as the young man intended it, was 
 inapplicable. 
 
 It appears then, that accommodation may be allow- 
 ed in matters which have no connexion with religion, 
 and in these too so far as regards the degree and the form 
 of instruction. But positive accommodation to religious 
 error is not to be found in scripture, neither is it justifiable 
 on moral principles. 
 
 The author not only maintains that the apostles accom- 
 modated to erroneous views, but also that some of them at 
 least did themselves hold such views in common with their 
 age. The former point has already been considered and 
 limited. What is the evidence alleged to prove the latter ? 
 The early history and education of the apostles, their asso- 
 ciations before they became connected with Christ, and the 
 incorrect views which they maintained after this connexion. 
 
NOTES. 283 
 
 — The early history of the apostles, and even the erroneous 
 opinions which they cherished before our Lord's ascension, 
 constitute no proof that erroneous views are to be discovered 
 in their writings ; for, by the effusion of the Holy Spirit on 
 the day of Pentecost and subsequently, their minds were 
 enlightened, and, agreeably to the promise of Christ, they 
 were " guided into all the truth" of his religion. That they 
 clung to the expectation of an earthly reign of the Messiah 
 after the effusion of the Holy Spirit, cannot be proved, and 
 indeed is evidently untrue. That in common with a large 
 proportion of their countrymen the apostles had at first im- 
 bibed the notion of a temporal Messiah, is quite plain from 
 the Gospels, and the error is referred to by St. Paul as one 
 which he had formerly indulged. "Though we have known 
 Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him (in 
 this manner) no more." 2 Cor. v. IG. Indeed, it appears 
 from the question of the apostles in Acts i. 6, "Wilt thou at 
 this time restore the kingdom to Israel 1" that subsequently 
 to our Lord's resurrection, the same secular feeling predo- 
 minated. But that so gross an error, and one so incon- 
 sistent with spiritual views of Christ's religion, was retained 
 in after life, is a charge which cannot be sustained, and is 
 inconsistent with the promise just referred to. It were 
 strange indeed, if, in a point of such vital importance as 
 this, " their master had given them no particular informa- 
 tion." Even our Lord's discourses in the gospels abound 
 with instruction on this subject. Should it even be ad- 
 mitted that they did not make such impressions during his 
 life time as might reasonably have been expected, it would 
 still be impossible for any one who believes the scriptures to 
 doubt, that the Spirit not only communicated additional 
 knowledge to the apostles, but also brought to their remem- 
 brance the partly forgotten truths respecting the celestial 
 
284 
 
 NOTES. 
 
 nature of Christ's kingdom, which he had often inculcated. 
 See John xiv. 26. xvi. 13. Dr. Planck does indeed restrict 
 the application of the principle under review to "things, 
 which properly speaking do not belong to religious truths." 
 I have already remarked, that in determining the extent of 
 this restriction, honest and candid interpreters must be 
 allowed to differ. But if the expectation of an earthly reign 
 of the Messiah be not a religious error, it will be difficult to 
 know how to distinguish it. 
 
 Respecting the other point adduced by the author, 
 attachment to Jewish peculiarities and Levitical ceremonies, 
 the evidence is equally doubtful. It is true that even after 
 the descent of the Spirit, St. Peter does give evidence of 
 such attachment. If St. Paul enjoined or practised any of 
 the Jewish ceremonies, it was only under peculiar circum- 
 stances, which prompted him, like a wise and benevolent 
 man, to yield to prejudices, when he could do so inno- 
 cently to himself, and with beneficial influence on others. 
 Under circumstances of a contrary kind he was warm in 
 his opposition. See Gal. v. 2. The same general princi- 
 ples and views may be presumed to have been maintained 
 by the apostles in general, as no evidence can be adduced 
 to the contrary. A suspicion of an opposite kind would 
 be derogatory to their character as enlightened teachers of 
 Christianity, " guided" by the Spirit of truth. Neither is 
 there any scriptural evidence that St. Peter cherished his 
 former attachment to Levitical rites, after the instruction 
 imparted to him on this subject by the vision of the " great 
 sheet." By it God had " showed him that he should not 
 call any man common or unclean." Acts x. 28. The 
 narrative referred to in Gal. ii. 11 — 14, proves nothing in 
 reference to his sentiments ; it only shows that his conduct 
 was culpable. And indeed this is the view which the 
 
NOTES. 285 
 
 author of the epistle takes of it. He says that " Peter was 
 to be blamed ;" that " he separated himself from the Gen- 
 tiles," not through attachment to the Jewish ritual, but 
 "through fear of the Jews," that he "dissembled," along 
 with other Jewish converts, and that even " Barnabas 
 was carried away with their dissimulation." Here is no 
 charge of weak and childish fondness for old prejudices, 
 bujt of conduct " not according to the truth of the Gospel.'"* 
 I cannot therefore acquiesce in the view of the author. 
 Nor can I assent to the remark of Mr. Locke in his note 
 on Rom. xvi. 25, that " St. Peter would not have incurred 
 St. Paul's reproof, if he had been as clear as St. Paul was" 
 in the doctrine of " the law of Moses being abolished by 
 the death of Christ." 
 
 The author's three limitations do appear sufficient to 
 guard the principle of accommodation against abuse if 
 properly applied. And it is evident to me, that the first 
 and last are both applicable in relation to the cases just 
 stated ; and consequently accommodation cannot there be 
 allowed. 
 
 NOTE XLII. 
 
 It is not to be denied that Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Cle- 
 ment of Alexandria, and other Christian writers of the second 
 and third centuries, abound with allegorical interpretations. 
 The works also erroneously ascribed by some to Clement of 
 Rome, and to the apostle Barnabas, contain specimens of 
 allegorical trifling, worthy of the Jewish Cabbala. Antece- 
 
 ♦ Since writinEf the above, I find that Knapp has given the same 
 view of this inattcr. The reader is referred to an Essay on " the doc- 
 trines of Paul and James respecting failh and worlis, coinp.Tred with 
 the teaching of our Lord, translated from the ' Scrinta vani artjumenti,' 
 by William Thompson," and published in the Biblical Repository, vol. 
 iii. pp. 189, ss. and especially p. 219. 
 
 24* 
 
286 
 
 NOTES. 
 
 dently to our Lord's appearance in the world, the Jews 
 were accustomed to this method of exposition. It appears to 
 have arisen after the establishment of the synagogue ser- 
 vice during the time of the Maccabees, and to have flourish- 
 ed principally at Alexandria. Most probably it may be 
 traced to the disposition of some Jews to imitate the Greek 
 philosophers, who, with Plato at their head, were accus- 
 tomed to explain their mythology by the aid of allegory. 
 The fact that this method of interpretation did prevail among 
 the Jews is proved from the writings of Philo, and from the 
 allegorical expositions or Medrashim, still to be found in 
 very ancient Jewish books, and quoted by their most dis- 
 tinguished commentators. The reader will find many such 
 interpretations from the Talmuds, the book called Sohar or 
 Zohar,* and the old extensive commentary, entitled Bere- 
 shith Rabba, quoted by Schoettgen, in his work on the Mes- 
 siah. 
 
 But it by no means follows, that the early Christian 
 converts must have fallen into the same method of interpre- 
 tation. The language of the author appears to be unguard- 
 ed, and his representations not susceptible of proof He 
 seems to presume that extravagant allegorical interpretation 
 was universal with the Jews ; which need not by any 
 means be allowed. Again he presumes that Jewish con- 
 verts could have no other system of exposition ; whereas it 
 is clear that their reception of Christianity might have im- 
 parted simpler and more intelligent views, and in all pro- 
 bability this was often the fact. — ' The converts from Hea- 
 thenism would naturally receive Jewish principles of inter- 
 
 * This work which is so called from the word inir splendor, is gene- 
 rally believed by the .lews to he the production of Rabbi Simeon, the 
 son of JocHAi, a pupil of Rabbi Akiba, and to have been written about 
 the year 120, in a cave, where the author was obliged to conceal himself 
 through fear of the emperor Adrian. See Wolf's Bibliotheca Hebraica, 
 vol iv. p. 1012, 3. 
 
NOTES. 287 
 
 pretation, inasmuch as they received the Jewish scriptures.' 
 But this conclusion by no means follows. Because they 
 admitted as divine the books of the Old Testament, must 
 it be inferred that they admitted also all the cabbalistical 
 puerilities of allegorical triflers? Is it to be taken for 
 granted that the great body of Gentile converts adopted, 
 with the credulous facility of unthinking and unsuspicious 
 children, the mass of insipid and disconnected comments, 
 which oral tradition had heaped together, because they re- 
 ceived from men who had been Jews " the lively oracles" 
 of God 1 But how did they " receive the holy scriptures of 
 the Hebrews" ? Not as the author's representation would 
 lead us to suppose, from weak Jews incompetent to teach 
 them the true meaning of the Bible ; but from inspired 
 apostles, or from persons directly or indirectly commission- 
 ed by the apostles ; from " faithful men," well taught in 
 Christian truth themselves, " and able to teach others also." 
 So far then from having been instructed in the silly trifles 
 of Jewish allegory, the first converts must have been imbued 
 with the plain, simple doctrines of the Old Testament, and 
 made acquainted with the facts which it narrates as matters 
 of historic truth. 
 
 Now if we examine the very few documents of the ear- 
 liest age which are still extant, we shall find that they do 
 not support the author in the view that he has taken. Ro 
 senmueller indeed represents the interpretation of the first 
 century as characterized by allegory, not excepting the 
 writings of the apostles themselves, who explained the Old 
 Testament according to the manner of their nation ; popu- 
 larium suorum consuetudinem secuti sunt.* His proof is 
 drawn principally from the epistle to the Hebrews, the cele- 
 
 » See J. Geobgii Rosenmuelleri Historia Interpretationis in Ec- 
 clesia Christiana, Part I. pp. 14. ss. 
 
288 NOTES. 
 
 brated passage in Galatians, and one or two figurative il- 
 lustrations in Corinthians and Ephesians. This might of 
 course have been expected from the loose views of inspira- 
 tion entertained by him, in common with the neological 
 divines of Germany. But even Rosenmueller can find 
 scarcely any thing in the writings of the apostolical fathers, 
 to prove the general prevalence of allegorical exposition 
 among Christians of their age. The letter of Clement of 
 Rome to the Corinthians is a beautiful specimen of simpli- 
 city and purity, more resembling the inspired epistles of 
 the New Testament, than any composition extant. He 
 very often alludes to passages in the Old Testament, and 
 combines several together. He quotes from it not with 
 exact verbal accuracy, but, like the apostles, according to 
 the sense of the author. And yet, in this very long letter, 
 only one decidedly allegorical interpretation is to be found. 
 It occurs in the twelfth chapter, where the scarlet rope 
 which Rahab was to fasten from the window of her house 
 as a sign to the destroying Hebrews,* is represented as in- 
 dicating redemption by the blood of Christ. Surely if Cle- 
 ment was devoted to the allegorical system of interpreta- 
 tion, his work might reasonably be expected to afford more 
 than one solitary illustration. The want of others cannot 
 be accounted for by his not commenting on the passages 
 quoted. Indeed this very fact affords argument in opposi- 
 tion to the charge advanced against him, inasmuch as the 
 admirers of that system would not fail to exhibit to their 
 readers the supposed allegorical instruction afforded by the 
 quotations. 
 
 The same remarks might be made in relation to the 
 seven epistles of Ignatius. A discussion respecting their 
 genuineness would here be out of place. The contrary has 
 
 ♦Josh. ii. 18. 
 
NOTES. 289 
 
 never yet been proved, nor have the arguments alleged in 
 their defence ever been satisfactorily answered. Bishop 
 Pearson's Vindiciae is the store-house, from which modern 
 defenders of the smaller epistles of Ignatius have drawn 
 their weapons. There are some obscure places in these 
 ancient letters, but no allegory. — The epistle of Polycarp 
 to the Philippians also contains many quotations from the 
 New Testament, but no allegory.* — Whether the Shep- 
 herd of Her mas was written in the first or second century 
 is somewhat doubtful. It is itself an allegory or a series of 
 allegories ; but it is worthy of consideration, that it contains 
 
 NO ALLEGORICAL EXPOSITIONS. 
 
 NOTE XLIII. 
 
 The author refers to the opinions of the early millena- 
 ries, that preparatory to the earthly reign of Christ, there 
 should be a resurrection of the bodies of the saints, with all 
 their ordinary properties and propensities, fitting them for 
 the enjoyment of corporeal delights. The reader may see 
 proof of this opinion having been entertained in Whitby's 
 " Treatise of the true Millenium," chap. i. § iv., at the end 
 of his commentary on the New Testament, fol. London, 
 1727. 
 
 NOTE XLIV. 
 
 SeeErnesti'sdissertation,deOrigineInterpretationislibro- 
 rum sacrorum grammaticae auctore, in hisOpuscula philologi- 
 ca Critica, 177G, pp. 288, ss. A translation of it may be found 
 
 * Dr. Frederic Luecke, in his able, though somewhat mystical com- 
 mentary on the writings of the Evangelist John, says, (Introduction to 
 the first epistle, p. 3) that Polyearp's epistle to the Philippians cannot be 
 proved to be spurious, and has never yet been proved to be corrupted. 
 From such a man this attestation ought to be considered as entitled to 
 great weight. 
 
290 
 
 NOTES. 
 
 in Professor Hodge's Biblical Repertory, Vol. III., No. 2, 
 pp. 245 — 260. Rosenmueller, in his History of Interpreta- 
 tion before referred to, thinks that Ernesti has been as libe- 
 ral in his praises of Origen, as others have been in their 
 censures. See Pars iii. p. 22, 15.5. And yet Erasmus 
 does not hesitate to say, " plus me docet Christiana; philo- 
 sophise unica Origenis pagina, quam decern Augustini." 
 This, says Jortin, is " laudari a viro laudato." See his 
 remarks on Ecclesiastical History, Vol. ii. p. 112. Lond. 
 1805. Some judicious scholars, however, have thought 
 such praise extravagant. 
 
 NOTE XLV. 
 
 An account of the early pietistical controversies may be 
 found in Mosheim, Cent. xvii. Sect. ii. Part ii. chap. i. 
 § xxvi, ss. Both he and Schroeckh speak in the most ex- 
 alted terms of Spener, the reviver of the study of the 
 Bible, as a man of learning and piety, lamenting at the 
 same time the consequences which resalted from the inju- 
 dicious zeal of some of his followers. Among the most 
 distinguished of the pietists was Francke, founder of the 
 orphan house at Halle, (a man not to be mentioned without 
 the highest respect for his assiduous labors, and for his 
 faithful dependence on God in pressing difficulties ;) and 
 Rambach, a most respectable scholar, and pious Christian 
 divine. The editor of the lectures of Morus on Herme- 
 neutics, A. Eichstaedt, whose views on the subject of in- 
 terpretation are directly opposed to those of the pietists, 
 and who does not hesitate to say, that they " pressed on 
 every letter, hunted out pregnant senses, and trifled with 
 emphases," awards no slight praise to Rambach. He not 
 only records the judgment of Buddseus, Wollius, and others, 
 that this writer's superiority entirely eclipsed all others of 
 
NOTES. 291 
 
 this class, but gives his own opinion as follows. " Any 
 one who estimates fairly the good and the bad, and makes 
 a proper allowance for the period in which Rambach lived, 
 will undoubtedly praise the learning of the man, who ac- 
 quired more by reading than his censurers listened to ; he 
 will approve the correctness of his logical precepts ; nor 
 will he be surprised, that his compendium acquired such 
 authority, as to be very much used in schools, and illustra- 
 ted by some learned men in works written expressly for the 
 purpose." See his Preface to Mori Ilermeneutica, pp. 
 XXV, xxvii. 
 
 The remark of Dr. Planck, that "it was a very common 
 usage with the Greeks, to employ compound words inter- 
 changeably with the simple," is by no means necessarily 
 applicable to the word iircpvipuinc. The i-cp is evidently in- 
 tensive, and the compound term expresses great elevation, 
 agreeably to our own version, " highly exalted ; the same 
 as vipuM, but more emphatic." Robinson's Lexicon, from 
 Wahl's Clavis. — So also the vTrcp in vrrcpviKoiiui', Rom. viii. 37, 
 which is expressive of the completeness of the conquest, and 
 very well rendered by Dr. Bloomfield, "we are triumphant- 
 ly victorious." See an article in the Biblical Repository, 
 "on the force of the Greek prepositions in compound verbs, 
 as employed in the New Testament, by J. A. II. Tittmann, 
 translated by the editor." Vol. iii. pp. 45, ss. 
 
 NOTE XLVI. 
 
 If the author had lived to the present time, he would 
 have seen his anticipations realized. Indeed, the extrava- 
 gant and licentious wildness of some among the late Ger- 
 man commentators, is far beyond what he could with any 
 reason have expected. 
 
293 NOTES. 
 
 NOTE XLVII. 
 
 For a notice of other works on Interpretation, and, in 
 general, on the whole Bible, or on particular books, the 
 reader may consult Horne's Introduction, as referred to in 
 Note XII.* Since the publication of Dr. Horne's sixth edi- 
 tion, a new translation of Ernesti's Institutio, by the Rev. 
 C. H. Terrot, has appeared as the first and second volumes 
 of the Biblical Cabinet, published at Edinburgh, in 1832. 
 
 Although I am aware that several of the works men- 
 tioned by the author might have been omitted, without any 
 injury to this Introduction as a manual for the American 
 student ; yet I have not felt myself justified in rejecting the 
 title of any book, which he thought proper to introduce, in 
 order to illustrate the literature of his country, in the de- 
 partments under review. Should a more extensive list of 
 such works be desired, it may be found in E. F. K. Rosen- 
 mueller's Handbuch, or Manual for the Literature of 
 Biblical Criticism and Interpretation, and G. B. Winer's 
 Handbuch, or Manual of Theological Literature, princi- 
 pally of Protestant Germany. 
 
 The reader cannot fail to observe, that the works men- 
 tioned by the author are principally those of his own coun- 
 
 * In this work, which is within the reach of students in general, so 
 full a notice of English and other publications may be seen, as to make 
 it superfluous to insert a list of them here. The learned author furnish- 
 es his readers with notices of "general Bibliographical works on the 
 editions, literary history, criticism, cVc. of the Bible," then with accounts 
 of "entire texts and versions of the Bible," both ancient and modern. 
 To these he adds works on " Sacred Philology, or the criticism and in- 
 terpretation of the scriptures." These comprehend "treatises on the 
 canon of scripture and on apocryphal books ; introductions to the study 
 of the scriptures ; treatises on the sacred text, its style, idiom, and ver- 
 sions ; on the original languages of scripture, and grammars and lexi- 
 cons thereof; commentaries and paraphrases : concordances and dic- 
 tionaries, common place books, indexes and analyses of the Bible ;" and 
 lastly, "treatises on Bibhcal antiquities, and on other historical circum- 
 stances of the Bible." 
 
NOTES. 293 
 
 trymen, the most prominent of which is Luther's Bible. 
 If he should be surprised, that the translator has added 
 nothing respecting our own version, and other English works 
 of great judgment and learning, he is requested to ascribe 
 the omission, not to a want of due regard for their eminent 
 merit, but simply for the reason above suggested, and from 
 an unwillingness to swell his book into a large volume. 
 
 NOTE XLVIII. 
 
 These Programs were afterwards altered and enlarged 
 by their author, and gave rise to his Historia Interpretationis, 
 the work referred to in Note xlii. His assertions respecting 
 the character of the interpretation of the first century, 
 and of the first half of the second, except as applied to the 
 epistle ascribed to Barnabas the Apostle, are certainly un- 
 founded. 
 
 NOTE XLIX. 
 
 It must be exceedingly gratifying to a candid mind to 
 hear a Lutheran divine bear such full and unequivocal testi- 
 mony in favor of Calvin. With ad the faults of this celebra- 
 ted reformer, (and "who can understand bis own?") he must 
 be allowed to have been a man of extraordinary industry 
 and intellect. A divine of the church of England, who, on 
 comparison, will not be found inferior in profoundness of 
 thought and elevation of character to the greatest and best 
 of any age or country, speaks of him as " incomparably the 
 wisest man that ever the French church did enjoy, since the 
 hour it enjoyed him." Hooker's Preface to his Ecclesias- 
 tical Polity, § 2, beginning. A new and cheap edition of Cal- 
 vin's Commentary on St. Paul's epistles, including the He- 
 brews, was published in three neat and closely printed octavo 
 volumes at Halle in 1831, by Professor Tholuck. 
 25 
 
294 NOTES. 
 
 NOTE L. 
 
 Compare the remark made in Note xi., towards the end. 
 Among the late works on the whole Bible, the following 
 must not be past over. The writings of the Old and New 
 Testaments, translated by J. C. W. Augusti and W. M. 
 L. DE Wette, in 6 vols. 8vo., Heidelberg, 1809—1814. 
 The work is in German, and comprehends the Apocrypha. 
 It is divided into Sections, and in addition to the translation, 
 the authors give occasionally, at the foot of the page, other 
 versions of difficult passages, which had been differently 
 rendered by other critics. — A valuable work for the biblical 
 student, is the Latin translation of the Old Testament by 
 J. A. Dathe, in G vols. 8vo., Halle, 1784-1794. The text, 
 in neat and plain Latin, is accompanied by a few short notes 
 on difficult places, which in general are clear and instructive. 
 It is to be regretted, that on some of the subjects connected 
 with the first part of Genesis, the author has adopted an 
 interpretation, agreeing for the most part with the views of 
 Eichhorn. — Rosenjiueller's (Ern. Fred. Cha.) Scholia 
 in Vetus Testamentum is well known. The 3d edition, 
 so improved by the author that it may be regarded as 
 a new work, began to be published at Leipzig in 1821 ; 
 it is not yet completed. The volumes that have been pub- 
 lished are the following. On the Pentateuch, 3; on Job, 
 1; on the Psalms, 3; on the writings of Solomon, 2; 
 on Isaiah, 3 ; on Jeremiah, 2 ; on Ezekiel, 2 ; on Daniel, 1 ; 
 and on the Minor Prophets, 4.* — A compendium of this work, 
 compiled, under the inspection of the author,t is also in 
 progress, and several volumes have already been published. 
 
 *An additional volume on the historical books, is now preparing for 
 publication. 
 
 t By J. C. S. Lechner. 
 
NOTES. 295 
 
 The theological views of Rosenmueller are so well known, 
 that it must be unnecessary to caution the reader to be on 
 his guard against their influence.* — The Commentary of 
 Patrick, Lowtii, Arnald, and Whitby, on the Old and 
 New Testaments, including the Apocrypha, are of estab- 
 lished reputation. The reader will find in them a vast fund 
 of valuable matter. — Gill's and Dodd's Expositions are par- 
 ticularly worthy of his attention. — Poole's Annotations 
 upon the Holy Bible, in two volumes folio, is also a valuable 
 work, which the English reader may consult with great 
 profit. The notes in general are brief, and contain solu- 
 tions of the principal difficulties, with replies to objections. 
 See Home, pp. 205—208. 
 
 NOTE LI. 
 
 It is entitled : The family expositor, &.c. The seventh 
 edition with a life of the author by Andrew Kippis, D. D., 
 was published at London, 1792, in six volumes, 8vo; and 
 lately an edition has appeared in one very large octavo vol- 
 ume, 1825. The critical notes are valuable for their learning 
 and good sense ; the paraphrase rather enfeebles the text ; 
 the practical improvement is excellent. 
 
 NOTE LII. 
 
 This is the same Rosenmueller who wrote the History 
 of Interpretation before mentioned in Note xlii, and the 
 student who consults his work should keep in view the prin- 
 ciples of the author as there intimated. For a fuller ac- 
 count of Koppe's publication, see Home, p. 242-3. Hein- 
 RiCHs, a very prominent commentator in that work, is to be 
 read with caution, especially on the Hebrews. — In 1827, 
 
 ♦ For a literary notice of the Compendium by Professor Stuart, see 
 Biblical Repository, vol. ii. pp. 210, S3. 
 
296 NOTES. 
 
 Dr. S. T. Bloomfield published his Recensio Synoptica, 
 or critical digest and synoptical arrangement of the most 
 important annotations on the New Testament, &c. Lon- 
 don, 8 vols. 8vo. Mr. Home, p. 248, gives a particular ac- 
 count of this most laborious work. The same learned 
 author published last year a new edition of " the Greek 
 Testament, with English notes, critical, philological, and 
 exegetical, in two vols." 8vo. It is beautifully printed, at 
 Cambridge. The text, which is "formed on the basis of 
 the last edition of R. Stephens, adopted by Mill," without 
 " deviation, except on the most preponderating evidence," 
 (Preface, p. x.) occupies the upper part of the page, and 
 the notes, in two columns, the lower. This is probably the 
 most useful single publication that the student of the New 
 Testament can procure. The indefatigable author has ac- 
 cumulated a mass of valuable information, of which his 
 work contains more than any other similar one of its size. 
 From the brevity of its plan, the young interpreter may oc- 
 casionally find somewhat of obscurity. To avoid this in all 
 cases, when so much matter is condensed, is perhaps im- 
 possible ; it would certainly be unreasonable to expect it. 
 
 NOTE LIII. 
 
 This refers to the theory, that Moses composed the 
 book of Genesis from previously existing documents, some 
 of which were probably written by the earlier patriarchs. 
 For an account of this theory, the reader is referred to 
 Jahn's Introduction, Part ii. § 16, with the notes. — The 
 Rev. George Bush, assistant Professor of Hebrew and Ori- 
 ental literature in the New- York University, has published 
 in three volumes, 12mo., a work which may be read with 
 much profit. It is entitled : Questions on Genesis, Exodus, 
 and Leviticus, with Notes. 
 
NOTES. 297 
 
 NOTE LIV. 
 
 As this work contains some interpretations exceedingly 
 forced, and explains allegorically most of the history in the 
 first three chapters of Genesis, tlie reader who examines it 
 would do well to read in connexion with it a Dissertation 
 on the Fall of Man, by the Rev. George Holden, M. A., 
 London, 1823. 
 
 NOTE LV. 
 
 This work, written originally in German, w^as translated 
 into English by Alexander Smith, D. D., and published 
 at London, in 1814, in 4 vols. 8vo. See Home, p. 303, 
 who suggests that it should be " consulted with great cau- 
 tion," as it partakes of the character of many modern Ger- 
 man publications. Michaelis is undoubtedly very prone to 
 indulge in conjectural criticism. 
 
 NOTE LYI. 
 
 These notes on the Hagiographa are exceedingly useful. 
 They are not all by the author to whom they are ascribed 
 by Planck. Those on Ruth, Nehemiah, Esther, and Eccle- 
 siastes, are by John James Rambach, edited by J. H. 
 Michaelis ; those on Chronicles, Ezra, Job, the Psalms, 
 and the Song of Solomon, are by the last named writer; 
 and tliose on Proverbs, Lamentations and Daniel, by Chris- 
 tian BENEDICT Michaelis. — De Wette's Introduction to 
 the Psalms, translated from his Commentary by J. Torrey, 
 Professor of languages in the University of Vermont, may 
 be found in the Biblical Repository, vol. iii. pp. 445, ss. 
 
 25* 
 
298 
 
 NOTES. 
 
 NOTE LVII. 
 
 In addition to the works on this subject mentioned by 
 Home, pp. 185, ss., a treatise written by John Smith, fel- 
 low of Queen's College, Cambridge, is worthy of notice. 
 It may be found in the 4th volume of Watson's Tracts, 
 pp. 297, ss. — Among the latest and most valuable publications 
 on this subject, may be mentioned Christologie des Alten 
 Testaments und Commentar ueber die Messianischen Weis- 
 sagungen der Propheten, Christology of the Old Testament, 
 and Commentary on the prophecies relating to the Messiah, 
 by Dr. E. W. Henstenberg. The first part of this work, 
 in two thin octavo volumes, containing a general introduc- 
 tion, prophecies in the Pentateuch, Psalms, and Isaiah, with 
 discussions connected with the subject, was published at 
 Berlin in 1829. It has been translated into English by 
 Professor Keith, of the Episcopal Theological Seminary, 
 Alexandria, and will very soon be published. The second 
 part, containing a Commentary on Zechariah and Daniel's 
 seventy weeks, made its appearance in 1832. Between 
 the publication of these two parts, the learned author issued 
 an able defence of the authenticity of Daniel against the 
 objections of Bertholdt and others, and of the integrity of 
 Zechariah, in one volume, 8vo., Berlin, 1831. These works 
 are among the very best of the late German Theological 
 productions. 
 
 NOTE LVIII. 
 
 For a notice of this work, and the discussions it gave 
 rise to respecting the genuineness of some of Isaiah's prophe- 
 cies, see Jahn's Introduction, Part II. (§ 104, note a) pp. 350, s. 
 The latest work on Isaiah is the Commentary of Gesenius, in 
 three vols. 8vo., very learned, but, as might be supposed from 
 the author's known principles, neological. 
 
NOTES. 299 
 
 NOTE LIX. 
 
 In addition to the work of Hengstenberg mentioned in 
 Note Lvii., the following publication is particularly worthy of 
 notice. Commentar ueber das Buch Daniel, Commentary 
 on the book of Daniel, by H. A. C. Haevernick. Hamburg, 
 1832. This is a learned, orthodox and able Commentary. 
 The author is a friend of Hengstenberg, and has recently 
 been settled as a Professor in the new Theological School 
 at Geneva, Switzerland. He is said to be " a devoted Chris- 
 tian, and deeply skilled in the Oriental languages." 
 
 NOTE LX. 
 
 In Home, pp. 113, ss. a full account may be seen of 
 Harmonies of the Old and New Testaments, of the four 
 Gospels, of parts of the Gospels, and of the Acts of the 
 Apostles, with the Apostolic Epistles. Newcome's Har- 
 mony of the Gospels, which is probably more used than any 
 other, was published at Andover, in 1814, in one vol. 8vo, 
 It is "reprinted from the text and select various readings of 
 Griesbach." 
 
 NOTE LXI. 
 
 A notice of other works on St. John's Gospel may be 
 found in Home, p. 2.52. In addition to those mentioned by 
 him, among the most valuable of which is that of Titt- 
 MANN, it may be proper to n.ention here two German works of 
 great merit. The one is a Commentary in one vol. 8vo. by 
 Dr. Augustus Tnoi.ucK, and the other in two vols. 8vo. by 
 Dr. Frederic Luecke, Bonn, 1820, to which are prefi.xed 
 general discussions respecting the Gospel of St. John. The 
 author, although occasionally somewhat mystical in his 
 views of religion, enters very much into the spirit of the 
 
300 
 
 NOTES. 
 
 Evangelist, and the second volume particularly may be read 
 with great profit. This is true also of his Commentary on 
 the Epistles of St. John, which is contained in his 3d vol- 
 ume, printed in 1825. The work is continued in a Com- 
 mentary on the Apocalypse, which I have not yet been able 
 to procure. He denies this to have been the production of 
 St. John. — The Commentary of Kuinoel on the Gospels and 
 Acts in 4 vols. 8vo, is well known. The author has intro- 
 duced into his work many German theories, some of which 
 he refutes, while he adopts no small proportion. It is very 
 useful as a philological commentary, although inferior in 
 this respect to a later work on the Gospels, by C. F. A. 
 Fritsche. Both of these writers are of the neological 
 school. Their commentaries are in Latin. 
 
 NOTE LXII. 
 
 This work of Heinrichs constitutes the 8th volume of 
 the Koppian Commentary, and has been already mentioned 
 in a previous note. — Among the latest and most useful works 
 on the Hebrews, it is proper to mention the commentary of 
 Maclean, London, 1819, 2 vols. 8vo., and that of Professor 
 Stuart, in 2 vols. 8vo., a second edition of which, in one 
 large volume, has recently made its appearance. The 
 same author's commentary on the Romans, in one vol. 8vo. 
 is also a valuable accession to our stores of biblical litera- 
 ture. — The work of Borger on the epistle to the Galatians 
 is a learned and judicious commentary. — Storr's interpre- 
 tation of the epistles to the Philippians, Colossians, and 
 Philemon, with historical notices respecting those to the 
 Corinthians, and an interpretation of St. James, may be 
 found in his Opuscula Academica, in 3 vols. Svo. A short 
 essay, by the same author, on the connexion between St. 
 Paul's epistles to the Hebrews and Galatians may be found 
 
NOTES. 301 
 
 in the Commentationes Theologicae, edited by Velthusen, 
 KuiNOEL, and Ruperti, vol. ii, pp. 394 — 420. Storr's 
 works are too highly appreciated to require any recommen- 
 dation. — On the first epistle of St. Peter, Professor Stei- 
 GER of Geneva, has lately published a volume, which is 
 said to be a work of great excellence ; and on the epistle of 
 St. Jude, Laurmann's Notae Criticae et Coramentarius, Gro- 
 ningae, 1818, 8vo., is well worthy of attention. — The Latin 
 version of the epistles, by G. S. Jaspis, illustrated with 
 brief notes, is also an useful book. 
 
 NOTE LXIII. 
 
 The reader may see a brief abstract of Eichhorn'a 
 scheme in Home, p. 266, also notices of other works on the 
 Apocalypse, pp. 265 — 269. Those of Lowman and Wood- 
 house are generally considered as among the most satis- 
 factory. 
 
 NOTE LXIV. 
 
 Although a large proportion of the contents of this 
 chapter is particularly appropriate to theological students 
 who pursue a course of divinity in German Universities ; 
 yet the general sentiments which it expresses, and the ex- 
 posure of incorrect views and meagre preparation which it 
 makes, are equally applicable in our own age and country. 
 The reader will very easily accommodate the author's re- 
 marks to the state of theological study among ourselves, so 
 as to advance his own improvement. 
 
 NOTE LXV. 
 
 The practice mentioned by the author is not even yet 
 fallen into disuse. Dwunix, in his travels in Germany, 
 p. 194, relates " an anecdote illustrative of tlie eagerness of 
 
302 NOTES. 
 
 students to write down every thing that the professor utters, 
 A young man from Hesse Cassel, who had passed three years 
 at the University of Heidelberg, having finished his educa- 
 tion, started for home with nearly twenty volumes of notes 
 which he had taken at the lectures. On the way, his 
 trunk, containing his note book, was cut off from the car- 
 riage. In consequence of tliis robbery, he returned to Hei- 
 delberg, and studied three years longer, to provide himself 
 with a trunk full of learning." This anecdote, as the tra- 
 veller remarks, exhibits the practice in a ludicrous light. 
 But as the notes taken " contain not only abstracts of the 
 lectures, but a list of all the authorities referred to, with the 
 chapters and sections," it is plain that they may be very 
 useful to the students in future life, especially to those who 
 cannot conveniently procure many books. Other advanta- 
 ges arising from the practice of taking notes will readily 
 suggest themselves. 
 
 NOTE LXVI. 
 
 The translator feels that he cannot conclude these 
 notes more suitably, than by urging the author's last remark 
 on the attention of theological students. For them princi- 
 pally this work was undertaken ; and if it shall aid, through 
 the blessing of divine Providence, in promoting a funda- 
 mental and continued study of the holy scriptures, the in- 
 tended object will have been gained, and the labor of the 
 writer abundantly compensated. 
 
 It is an admitted principle among Protestants, that all 
 revealed knowledge of religion is to be drawn from the 
 Bible. " Whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be 
 proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it 
 should be believed as an article of faith."* How to deter- 
 
 • Article sixth of the Prot. Epis. Church in the United States. 
 
NOTES. 303 
 
 mine the genuineness of the Bible, and to ascertain its 
 meaning, are the two leading topics, to an acquaintance 
 with which, the preceding work is intended to introduce 
 the reader. A satisfactory interpretation of the Bible must, 
 of course, be founded on the original texts ; it must be an 
 interpretation of the Hebrew of the Old Testament, and of 
 the Greek of the New. The very first condition therefore 
 required of him who would become an interpreter, is a 
 competent acquaintance with the^e languages ; that is to 
 say, such an acquaintance as shall enable him to read and 
 analyse with grammatical correctness. With regard to the 
 New Testament this may universally be expected, and is in 
 a considerable degree complied with. But with regard to 
 the Old, the very contrary is true. And yet it would be 
 difficult to give a good reason, why a young man of educa- 
 tion should think of beginning to explain the Old Testa- 
 ment, without having acquired a knowledge of Hebrew. I 
 hazard nothing by remarking, that very few intelligent can- 
 didates for the ministry pursue their studies many months 
 without regretting that their philological preparation is so 
 imperfect. If those who intend to become students of di- 
 vinity could be induced to acquire a considerable acquaint- 
 ance with Hebrew before commencing their theological 
 course, they would prosecute the study of the Bible with 
 tenfold satisfaction. They would feel that they were ad- 
 vancing towards the desired object on solid ground, if not 
 with rapidity, yet with certainty. They would be able to 
 appreciate the instructions of a teacher, and would the soon- 
 er become prepared to judge themselves respecting their 
 correctness, and to form opinions on the various topics con- 
 nected with interpretation. Then, instead of paying no 
 more attention to Hebrew than is absolutely necessary in 
 order to enable a student to meet the unavoidable demands 
 
304 NOTES. 
 
 of a theological seminary, and after entering on the duties 
 of the ministry abandoning it entirely; it would be read du- 
 ring the course of instruction with comparative ease, and 
 pursued in after life with pleasure. The uninterrupted ap- 
 plication of three or four hours a day for six months, direct- 
 ed first to the grammar of the language, the forms of the 
 words, and especially the paradigms of the verbs, with which 
 tlie learner ought to make himself thoroughly acquainted, 
 and then to reading and analysing, would enable a diligent 
 student to realize the advantages just mentioned. The fa- 
 cility with which so important an end can be attained, ought 
 to be regarded as a strong motive on every candidate for the 
 ministry to make the effort, unless prevented by considera- 
 tions, which impartial and conscientious examination will 
 allow him to regard as sufficient to free him from the obli- 
 gation. 
 
 THE END. 
 
INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 
 
 Pages- 
 Accommodation, Doctrine of. 140—146, 277—282 
 
 Limitations of the principle of. 147 — 154, 283 — 285 
 
 Alexandrine Manuscript 50, 218 
 
 Allegorical Interpretation incorrectly charged on some of the 
 
 eariiest fathers 287—289 
 
 Biblical Criticism, Literary Helps for the study of. 83—98 
 
 Cambridge Manuscript 219, 220 
 
 Canon, what 20 
 
 Catenae Pat rum 94 
 
 Clermont Manuscript 220 
 
 Codex Ottobianus 223 
 
 Ravinus 222 
 
 Rescriptus : 219 
 
 Commentaries, &c 179—198, 294—301 
 
 Criticism, Sacred, Objects and Necessity of. 39 — 41 
 
 -Sources of. 43, ss 
 
 Divinity, Apologetic 15 — 19 
 
 Exegesis, what 121 
 
 Fathers, Quotations in the 56 — 58 
 
 Grammars, Hebrew and Chaldee 80, 81, 233, 234 
 
 Hebrew, one dialect of a more extensive language 213 — 215 
 
 Usefulness of a knowledge of it 269, 270, 303, 304 
 
 Helps to be used in studying it 36 — 39 
 
 Method of study 108, 109 
 
 Hellenistic Controversy 65 — 69 
 
 Hermeneutics, what 121 
 
 History of. 155—170 
 
 Interpretation, Laws of necessary 123, 124 
 
 Source from which they must be drawn 125, 126 
 
 First Law 128—132 
 
 Second 132—136 
 
 Third 136, 137 
 
 Works on 171—178 
 
 Object which the Student of should propose to 
 
 himself 199-202 
 
 Method of attaining it 203—209 
 
 26 
 
306 
 
 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 
 
 Introduction to Theology, what 5 — 7 
 
 Languages, the utility of studying them 13, 14 
 
 Lectionaria 217 
 
 Lexicons, Hebrew and Greek 80, 227, 231—233 
 
 Manuscripts 48-54, 216—223 
 
 Classification and recension of. 52, 53, 250—253 
 
 Monifort Manuscript 221 
 
 New Testament, editions of the 95—97, 262, 263, 296 
 
 Greek, of the 24—27 
 
 A particular study of it necessary 28 — 30 
 
 Helps to be used 31 — 34 
 
 Sources to illustrate 70—74, 213, 227 
 
 ■ Philology, method of studying it 113 — 119 
 
 Old Testament, sources to illustrate the language of the 75 — 83 
 
 Philology, Sacred, what 23, 24 
 
 History of. 59—65 
 
 — ■ Method of studying it 99—120 
 
 Polyglots 78, 228, ss 
 
 Prolegomena, Analysis of Griesbach's 239 — 258 
 
 Remarks on his system 258—262 
 
 Reason to be appealed to in interpretation 125, 271 
 
 Samaritan Pentateuch 79 
 
 Scripture to be interpreted in the same manner as other books.. 138, 139 
 
 Limitation of this principle 275 
 
 Targums 77 
 
 Theology, what 7, 8 
 
 Division of. 11, 12 
 
 (Qualifications necessary for studying 9 — 11 
 
 Preparatory knowledge 12 — 14 
 
 Translations not to be substituted for originals 110 — 112 
 
 Vatican Manuscript 219 
 
 Versions, use of 54, 55 
 
 Ancient, of the New Testament 90 — 94 
 
Date Due 
 
 mvmmmmm,m 
 
 b 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 <|) 
 
 PRINTED 
 
 IN U. S. A. 
 
 
 ^^H