sages of the sacred writings, which have been variously explained by expositors, as well as of such passages as are particularly worthy of note, but concerning which our own researches, or those of others, have failed in procuring satisfactory information. Thus, whenever any new commentary falls into our hands, we can in a short time ascertain whether it contains any thing intrinsically new or valuable, or that may lead us to ascertain the genuine sense of a passage. By consulting commentators and expositors in this manner, we shail be able to distinguish ideas of things from ideas of sounds; and, thus becoming habituated to thei investigation and consideration of the sacred writings, we shall, under divine teaching, be enabled to understand the mind of the Spirit in the Scriptures. 4. Where it does not appear that either antient or modern interpret ers had more knowledge than ourselves respecting particular passages; and where they offer only conjectures, in such cases their expositions ought to be subjected to a strict examination. If their reasons are then found to be valid, we should give our assent to them: but, on the contrary, if they prove to be false, improbable, and insufficient, they must be altogether rejected. 5. Lastly, as there are some commentaries, which are either wholly compiled from the previous labours of others, or contain observations ertracted from their writings, if any thing appear confused or perplexed in such commentaries, the original sources whence they were compiled must be referred to, and diligently consulted. Having stated and illustrated, in the preceding chapters, the different senses of the sacred writings, and the various subsidiary means by which to ascertain those senses, it remains that we show in what manner the sense, when discovered, is to be communicated, expounded, and applied. The consideration of this topic will lead us to notice the interpretation of the Historical, Mystical, Propheti cal, Typical, Doctrinal, and Moral parts of the Bible, as well as of the Promises and Threatenings contained in the Scriptures, together with that Practical Application of them to the heart and conscience of the reader, without which all knowledge will be in vain. If, indeed, the previous investigation of the sense of Scripture be undertaken with those moral and devout qualifications which have been stated in the preceding volume, it is scarcely possible that we can fail to understand the meaning of the word of God. 1 See Vol. I. pp. 510-512. CHAPTER IV. ON THE HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. I. Historical Interpretation defined. - Rules for the Historical In- I. THE Bible being a collection of writings executed at different and distant times, partly historical, partly didactic, and partly prophetic, but throughout revealing the will of God to man, it is generally admitted that it ought not to be contemplated as one book. But since it not sufficient to know grammatically the different expressions employed by writers, in order to interpret antient works, so it is necessary that we add Historical Interpretation to our grammatical or Eteral knowledge. By historical interpretation we are to understand, that we give to the words of the sacred author that sense which they bore in the age when he lived, and which is agreeable to the degree of knowledge he possessed, as well as conformable to the religion professed by him, and to the sacred and civil rites or customs that obtained in the age when he flourished. In investigating the historical interpretation of the Scriptures, the following hints may be found useful. 1. The Books of the Old and New Testament, are, each, to be fre quently and carefully read, and the subjects therein treated are to be com pared together, in order that we may ascertain the meaning of what the authors thought and wrote. They, who wish to attain an accurate knowledge of the philosophical notions of Plato, Aristotle, or any other of the ancient Grecian sages, will not consult the later Platonic writers, or the scholastic authors who depended wholly on the authority of Aristotle, and whose knowledge of his works was frequently very imperfect, but will rather peruse the writings of the philosophers themselves: - in like manner, the books of the Old and New Testament are to be constantly and carefully perused and weighed by him, who is sincerely desirous to obtain a correct knowledge of their important contents. For, while we collate the expressions of each writer, we shall be enabled to harmonise those passages which treat on the same topics; and may reasonably hope to discover their true sense. Some foreign biblical critics, however, (who, in their zeal to accommodate the immutable truths of Scripture to the standard of the present age, would divest the Christian dispention of its most important doctrines,) have asserted that, in the interpretation of the Old Testament, all reference to the New Testament is to be excluded. But, unless we consult the latter, there are passages in the Old Testament, whose meaning cannot be fully apprehended. To mention only one instance, out of many that might be adduced:- -In Gen. i. 26, 27. God is said to have created man after his own image: this passage (which, it should be recollected, describes man in his primeval state of spotless innocence, before he became corrupted by the fall,) the divines in question affirm, must be interpreted according to the crude and imperfect notions entertained by the antient heathen nations concerning the Deity! But, if we avail ourselves of the information communicated in the New Testament (as we are fully warranted to do by the example of Christ and his inspired apostles,) we shall be enabled to form a correct notion of the divine image intended by the sacred historian: viz. that it consisted in righteousness, true holiness, and knowledge. See Eph. iv. 24. and Col. iii. 10. 1 How crude, imperfect, and erroneous these views of the Heathens were respecting the Almighty, has been shown at great length by various eminent advocates for the truth of the divine origin of Revelation; but no one has discussed it more elaborately than Dr. Leland, in his " Advantage and Necessity of the Christian Revelation, as shown from the state of Religion in the Heathen World." 1768. 8vo. Reprinted at Glasgow in 1819, in 2 vols. A compendious notice of the hea then notions respecting the Deity is given in Vol. I. pp. 4-8. 2. It is also indispensable that we lay aside, in many instances, that more accurate knowledge which we possess, of natural things, in order that we may fully enter into the meaning of different parts of the sacred writings. The antient Hebrews being altogether ignorant of, or imperfectly acquainted with, many things, the nature of which is now fully explored and well known, it were absurd to apply our more perfect knowledge to the explanation of things which are related according to the limited degrees of knowledge they possessed. Hence it is not necessary that we should attempt to illustrate the Mosaic account of the creation according to the Copernican system of the universe, which the experiments of philosophers have shown to be the true one. As the Scriptures were composed with the express design of making the divine will known to man, the sacred authors might, and did, make use of popular expressions and forms of speech, then in use among the persons or people whom they addressed; the philosophical truth of which they neither affirmed nor denied.1' 3. The historical interpretation of the Scriptures will, further, be essentially promoted by an acquaintance with the history of such antient nations or people, as did not possess a higher degree of cultivation than the Hebrews or Jews. A judicious comparison of the notions that obtained among antient, and comparatively uncultivated nations, with those entertained by the Hebrews or Jews, will, from their similitude, enable us to enter more fully into the meaning of the sacred writers. Thus many pleasing illustrations of patriarchal life and manners may be obtained by comparing the writings of Homer and Hesiod with the accounts given by Moses. The Iliad, for instance, illustrates Abraham's manner of dividing the sacrifice. The patriarchal hospitality is similar to that described in the Odyssey 3 How early a belief in the ministry of angels obtained among the heathen nations, is evident from comparing the account of Hesiod4 with that of Moses ;5 and it furnishes an additional proof to the many others, which have been collected by learned men, to show that all the knowledge of the antients was tra ditionally derived, though with innumerable corruptions, from the Hebrews. 4. In order, however, that we may correctly explain the manners, customs, or practices, referred to by the sacred writers at different times, it is necessary that we should investigate the laws, opinions, and principles of those nations among whom the Hebrews resided for a long time, or with whom they held a close intercourse, and from whom it is probable they received some of them. From the long residence of the Hebrews in Egypt, it has been conjectured by some learned men that they derived by far the greater part of their institutions from the Egyptians: but this hypothesis appears untenable, to its full extent, the Israelites being separated from the Egyptians by their pastoral habits, which rendered them abominable in the eyes of the latter. At the same time, from their having passed four hundred years in that country, it is not unlikely that they derived some things from their oppressors. A few instances will elucidate this remark. Under the Jewish theocracy, the judges are represented as holy persons, and as sitting in the place of Jehovah. The Egyptians regarded their sovereigns in this light. Hence Michaelis, to whom we are indebted for this fact, conjectures that the Israelites, just on their exit from Egypt, called their rulers gods, not only in poetry, but also in the common language of their laws, (see Exod. xxi. 6.) 1 On this subject, the reader may compare Vol. I. Appendix No. III. Sect. VIII pp. 590-597. 2 Homeri Ilias, lib. i. v. 460, 461. compared with Gen. xv. 9, 10. 3 Gen. xviii. 6-8. compared with the Odyssey, lib. xiv. v. 71–76. 419–430. 4 Opera et Dies, lib. i. v. 130-126. 5 Gen. xxxii. 1, 2. 6 Deut. i. 17. and xix. 17. ? Diodorus Siculus, lib. i. c. 20. "From this cause" (viz. gratitude to benefactors, Again, where the word judges is, in the original Hebrew, gods. agriculture was the basis of the whole Mosaic polity: and it was probably from the Egyptians that the Jewish legislator borrowed the principle, on which his polity was thus founded: though indeed we find, that the state of the antient Romans was accidentally established on a similar plan.2 The priests, and especially the Levites, united the profession of ministers of religion with that of literati among the Jews, in the same manner as the Egyptian priests had partitioned literature among themselves, so that their institution was wholly Egyptian in its origin.3 And, to mention no further instances of this kind, the molten calf which the Israelites required of Aaron, seems to have an exact resemblance of the celebrated Egyptian god Apis, who was worshipped under the form of an ox.4 At a subsequent period, during their captivity, some of the Jews appear to have imbibed the absurd notion of the Persians, that there were two supreme beings, an evil and a good one, representing light and darkness; and that, according to the ascendancy of one or other of these, good and happiness prevailed among men, or evil and misery abounded. Such at least was the absurd opinion held by the person to whom Isaiah addressed his prophecy (ch. xlv.) and which he refutes in the most significant and pointed manner.5 One illustration more will serve to exemplify the rule above given. In our Saviour's time the learning of the Greeks was cultivated by the Jews, who adopted the peculiar tenets of some of their most eminent philosophers. The Pharisees, it was well known, believed the immortality of the soul: but it appears from Josephus, that their notion of such immortality was the Pythagorean metempsychosis.6 From the Pharisees this tenet was generally received by the Jewish people; and, notwithstanding the benefit derived from hearing the discourses and conversations of our Lord, it appears to have been held by some of his disciples. 5. We should carefully distinguish between what the Scripture itself says, and what is only said in the Scripture. The Bible is not to be contemplated as an oration from God to man, or as a body of laws, similar to our English Statute-Book, in which the legislature speaks to the people throughout: but it is to be regarded as a collection of compositions of very different sorts, and written at very distant times; and in these books, although their authors were divinely inspired, many other persons are introduced besides the penmen, who have faithfully set down the sayings and actions they record. This distinction of the excellent Mr. Boyle, if duly applied, will enable us to silence some of their malicious cavils, who accuse the Scriptures of teaching vice by the ungodly sayings and examples, that are occasionally to be met with among whom they reckoned such animals as were peculiarly useful to the country, and held them sacred)" the Egyptians seem so to reverence their kings, and humbly to address them as if they were gods. They even believe that it is not without the peculiar care of Providence that they arrive at supreme power; and that those, who have the will and the power to perform deeds of the greatest beneficence, are. partakers of the divine nature." 1 Michaelis's Commentaries on the Laws of Moses, vol. i. p. 192. 2 Ibid. vol. i. p. 222. 3 Ibid. vol. i. p. 255. 4 Schumacher, De Cultu Animalium inter Ægyptios et Judæos Commentatio, pp. 40-47. Our learned countryman, Spencer, in his work De Legibus Hebræorum, and Michaelis, in his Commentaries, above cited, have shown, in many additional examples, the striking resemblance between the institutions of the Israelites and those of the Egyptians. 5 Vitringa, and Lowth, on Isaiah xiv. 7. 6 Josephus, De Bello Judaico, lib. ii. c. 8. § 14. and Antiq. lib. xviii. c. 1. § 3. The Pharisees held that every soul was immortal, but that only the souls of the righteous transmigrate into other bodies, while the souls of bad men are subject to eternal punishment. At first sight, this account appears to contradict the statement of Saint Paul (Acts xxiv. 15.): but the repugnancy is easily obviated, when it is considered that Josephus is speaking of the Pharisees only, but the apostle of the Jews in general, and of himself in particular. 7 Considerations on the Style of Scripture, (Works, vol. ii. p. 260.) Consid. 2. in them." But," he further remarks, "as the Apostle said that they are not all Israel, that are of Israel (Rom, x.); so we may say that is not all Scripture that is in the Scripture: for many wicked persons, and their perverter Satan, are there introduced, whose sayings the Holy Ghost doth not adopt, but, barely registers; nor does the Scripture affirm that what they said was true, but that it was true they said it. As for the ills recorded in the Scripture, besides that wicked persons were necessary to exercise God's children, and illustrate his providence; and, besides the allegations commonly made on that subject, we may consider, that there being many things to be declined as well as practised, it was fit we should be taught as well what to avoid, as what to imitate. Now, as we could not be armed against the tempter's methods, if we ignored (were ignorant of) them, so we could never more safely or better learn them than in his book, who can alone discover the wiles, and fathom the depths of Satan, and track him through all his windings, and otherwise untrackable labyrinths: and in that book, where the antidote is exhibited with the poison, and either men's victory or defeat may teach us, at others' costs, and without our hazard, the true art of that warfare we are all so highly concerned in. And, as anciently God fed his servant Elias, sometimes by an angel, sometimes by a woman, and sometimes too by ravens, so doth he make all persons in the Bible, whether good or bad, or indifferent supply his servants with that instruction, which is the aliment of virtue and of souls, and makes them and their examples contribute to the verification of that passage of St. Paul,? wherein he says, that all things co-operate for good to them that love God.”2 To illustrate the preceding observations by one or two examples: In Mal. iii. 14. we meet with the following words, It is in rain to serve God, and what profit is it that we have kept his ordinance? And in 1 Cor. xv. 32. we meet with this maxim of profane men- Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow ve dic. But, when we read these and similar passages, we must attend to the characters introduced, and remember that the persons who spoke thus were wicked men. Even those, whose piety is commended in the sacred volume, did not always act in strict conformity to it: Thus, when David vowed that he would utterly destroy Nabal's house, we must conclude that he sinned in making that vow: and the discourses of Job's friends, though in themselves extremely beautiful and instructive, are not in every respect to be approved; for we are informed by the sacred historian, that God was wroth with them, because they had not spoken of him the thing that was right. (Job xlii. 7.) The rule, thus ably illustrated by Mr. Boyle, will admit of a more ready application, if we further notice the person addressed as well as the person introduced as speaking in any book, whether he speak in his own character, or, by a figure of speech, introduce another person as speaking; and also if we attend to the frequent and very elegant changes and successions of persons occurring in the Scriptures, and especially in the prophetic writings. The first chapter of the prophecy of Isaiah affords an apposite elucidation of this remark. Jehovah is there represented as impleading his disobedient people, Israel. The prophet, with a boldness and majesty becoming the herald of the Most High, be gins with summoning the whole creation to attend when Jehovah speaks. (ver. 2.) A charge of gross insensibility is, in the next verse, brought against the Jews, whose guilt is amplified (ver. 4.); and their obstinate wickedness highly aggravated the chastisements and judgments of God, though repeated till they had almost been left like Sodom and Gomorrah. (v.5-9.) The incidental mention of these places leads the prophet to address the rulers and people of the Jews, under the chaFacter of the princes of Sodom and Gomorrah, in a style not less spirited and severe, than it is elegant and unexpected. (10.) The vanity of trusting to the perform ance of the external rites and ceremonies of religion is then exposed (11—15.), and the necessity of repentance and reformation is strongly enjoined (16, 17.), and urged by the most encouraging promises, as well as by the most awful threaten ings. (18-20.) But, as neither of these produced the proper effect upon that peo ple, who were the prophet's charge, he bitterly laments their degeneracy (21-23) and concludes with introducing the Almighty himself, declaring his purpose of inflicting such heavy judgments as would entirely cut off the wicked, and excite in the righteous, who should pass through the furnace, an everlasting shame and abhorrence of every thing connected with idolatry, the source of all their misery (24-31.) The whole chapter, in loftiness of sentiment, and style, affords a beau1 Rom. viii. 28. 2 Boyle's Works, vol. ii. p. 261. |