ness of the other, can invalidate the truth of the general position, that the New Testament does not only assert the secondary and spiritual meaning of much that is contained in the Old, but authorizes and strengthens the legitimacy of such interpretation, by affixing the like sense to portions also of its own contents.* 3. "The extent to which subsequent writers of doctrinal and practical theology have considered themselves at liberty to pursue the same track, is generally known," says the same writer, "to have varied very considerably, according to their age, school, genius, and other local or personal circumstances. On the one hand, allegorical or spiritual meanings have been attached, not only to those passages of Moses and the prophets which our Lord and his disciples expressly refer to as typical or prophetical of the person and office of the Messiah, and the economy of his covenant, but to every part, whether historical or preceptive, of the Old Testament, and to much even of the New. It has been contended virtually, if not in so many words, that whatsoever meaning of this nature the ingenuity or piety of the expositor might affix to any given passage of Scripture, was in reality the sense of that passage, the express intention of him who gave it, and that in this mode of exposition and application alone was to be found the spirit which giveth life,' the 'wisdom which maketh wise unto salvation.' 6 4. "On the other hand, many divines, even among those justly entitled to our respect and gratitude, fearful, perhaps, of the evils which might be supposed to result, both to those within and those without, from the admission of a principle of interpretation so lax and variable, have kept, with a prudence bordering somewhat too much upon coldness and timidity, what they esteemed the safer path; while of later years a school has arisen, happily not in our own church or country, but yet a school which possibly may not be without its share of influence upon our theological students, openly and professedly discarding as irrational and uncritical, all spiritual and allegorical interpretations whatsoever, and including in one sweeping and indiscriminate censure, the human expositions of Origen and Augustine, of Cocceius and Vitringa, and the inspired parallel isms of the Epistle to the Hebrews."+ 5. It becomes, therefore, a matter of grave importance to ascertain the extent to which the mys tical or spiritual sense of Scripture prevails; but upon this point those who admit the general principle are far from being agreed. A writer of high respectability in the Swedenborgian school of divinity, contends that the principle is of universal application, and that there is no part of the Bible, whatever may be the subject on which it treats, that is not invested with a secondary and spiritual meaning. 6. Mr. Conybeare, on the other hand, who is the most strenuous and successful advocate of the secondary sense of Scripture which modern times have produced, contends that it is only of limited application; at least, that the utmost extent to which we can consider any secondary or spiritual sense as having a character strictly argumentative, is that for which we have the direct authority of our Lord and his apostles. This is certainly the more sober and also the safer view of the subject, while it leaves open to us, in the way of illustration and moral use, the whole contents of the Bible. While we cautiously avoid multiplying the senses of Scripture, where we have neither express nor implied authority for so doing, there is no reason why we should run into the opposite extreme, and fail to draw those inferences and make those moral applications which the nature of the book warrants us to do, and which we cannot neglect to do without sustaining considerable loss. 7. In making these improvements and applications of scriptural subjects, the same sobriety of judgment and purity of taste must be exercised as in every other branch of interpretation. Remote and far-fetched analogies should be carefully avoided, as such a practice vitiates the religious taste, and produces a morbid longing for ingenious explications, mystical meanings, and forced resem blances; while it creates a strong disrelish for the pure milk of the word. In the interpretation of parables and allegories, especially, this suggestion should be attended to, because there is here, perhaps, a stronger temptation to give rein to the imagination than elsewhere. The general design of the composition should be ascertained, which it usually may be, from the context, and then the particular parts should each be referred to this. § Professor Stuart has laid it down as Mr. Noble The Plenary Inspiration of the Scriptures Asserted, 8vo. Lond., 1825. Bampton Lectures, p. 322. § It is gratifying to find that this sentiment was maintained by the celebrated Jewish writer, Maimonides, who says, that "in ral scope and intention of the writer is to be regarded, and not explaining the Scriptures, and especially the parables, the geneevery word and syllable of the parable." He adds, “Should the expositor act contrary to this, he will lose his time in endea vouring to explain what is inexplicable, or make the author say many things he never intended. More Nev. in Pref." one of the most important principles in explaining | is to supply the place of reasoning and philology? allegories, that comparison is not to be extended to And what riddle or oracle of Delphos could be all the circumstances of the allegory; and had this more equivocal, or of more multifarious signifirule been generally attended to by expositors, cancy, than the Bible, if such exegesis be admismany of the extravagances that have been put sible? "It is a miserable excuse which interforward as interpretations of Scripture, would have preters make for themselves," says the same writer, been withheld. Thus, “in the parable of the good" that they render the Scriptures more edifying Samaritan, the point to be illustrated is the extent and significant by interpreting them according to of the duty of beneficence. Most of the circum- the mystic school. Are the Scriptures, then, to stances in the parable go to make up merely the be made more significant than God has made verisimilitude of the narration, so that it may give them; or to be mended by the skill of the interpleasure to him who hears or reads it. But how preter, so as to become more edifying than the differently does the whole appear when it comes Holy Spirit has made them? If there be a semto be interpreted by an allegorizer of the mystic blance of piety in such interpretations, a semblance school? The man going down from Jerusalem is all. Real piety and humility appear to the to Jericho, is Adam wandering in the wilderness best advantage, in receiving the Scriptures as they of this world; the thieves who robbed and wounded him, are evil spirits; the priest who passed by on the one side without relieving him, is the Levitical law; the Levite, is good works; the good Samaritan, is Christ; and the oil and wine, are grace." What may not a parable be made to mean, asks the Professor, if imagination are, and expounding them as simply and as skilfully as the rules of language will render practicable, rather than by attempting to amends and improve the revelation which God has made.”* * Elements of Interpretation, pp. 116, 117. K 1. THE books comprised under this title are men- | above 2,553 years, according to the vulgar computioned in several parts of Scripture as "the Law," tation; or of 3,765 years, according to the chronoand “the Law of Moses:" they are cited as the in-logy of Dr. Hales. It blends revelation and hisdisputable works of Moses, and have been received tory together, furnishes laws and describes their as such, by every sect of the Jewish and Christian execution, exhibits prophecies and relates their churches. Immediately after their composition, accomplishment. Some of the principal details they were deposited in the tabernacle, and thence of the Pentateuch are confirmed by pagan traditransferred to the temple, where they were pre- tion, and the earliest uninspired historical records served with the most vigilant care. The Penta- which exist, can only be rendered intelligible by teuch was read every sabbath-day in the syna- the superior and more consistent histories of gogues, and again publicly and solemnly every Moses. || seventh year. The prince was obliged to copy and the people were commanded to teach it to their children, and to wear it "as signs on their hands, and frontlets between their eyes." By the special providence of God a sufficient number of these books was always preserved; and the high veneration with which the Jews regarded every letter, called forth numerous guardians to watch over its purity, and preserve its integrity. The Pentateuch furnishes us with a compendious history of the world, from the creation till the arrival of the Israelites on the verge of Canaan-a period of it ; 2. The duty of studying these venerable records. of antiquity results from their forming part of the revealed will of God, and from the circumstance that many of the events recorded in them adumbrate others under the Christian dispensation. “All these things happened unto them for ensamples [or types], and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come," 1 Cor. x. 11. For a tabular exhibition of the chronology of the Penta teuch, the reader may refer to Dr. Clarke's Commentary, Vol. I. ad fin. After all the vaunting of infidels respecting the high antiquity of the Hindoo Chronology, the fact appears to be, that the records of the Hindoos go to confirm the truth of the Mosaic writings. In a work on the "Hindoo Astronomy," by Mr. Bentley, of Calcutta, it is shown that, according to the Hindoo system of Chronology, the creation took place in the very year of the Mosaic Deluge! DEUTERONOMY. NUMBERS. LEVITICUS. EXODUS. GENESIS. A GENERAL VIEW OF ALL THE SECTIONS OF THE LAW, AND OF THE PROPHETS, As read in the different Jewish Synagogues, for every Sabbath of the Year.* liv. Vezoth Habberachah, xxxiii. 1 to xxxiv. 12. Josh. i. 1-18; Eccles. i.-xii. inclusive. Ditto. In the above chapters and verses I have, in general, followed the divisions in the best Masoretic Bibles, from which our common English Bibles will in some cases be found to differ a little. In the synagogues the law is read entirely through in the fifty sabbaths of their lunar year; for they join certain sections together, which are noticed at the end of the tables. But in their intercalated years, in which they add a month, they have then fifty-four sabbaths, and this is one reason why we find fifty-four Pareshahs, and fifty-four Haphtaras, instead of fifty-two. See the concluding tables. It has already been observed that when Antiochus Epiphanes conquered the Jews about the year 168 before the Christian Era, he forbad the law to be publicly read in the synagogues, on pain of death. The Jews, that they might not be wholly deprived of the word of God, selected from other parts of the sacred writings fifty-four portions, which were termed HAPHTARAS, Dhaphtaroth, from 75 patar, he dismissed, let loose, opened-for though the Law was dismissed from their synagogues, and was closed to them by the edict of this persecuting king, yet the prophetic writings, not being under the interdict, were left open, and therefore they used them in place of the * From Dr. A. Clarke's others. It was from this custom of the Jews, that the primitive Christians adopted theirs of reading a lesson every sabbath out of the Old and New Testaments; and on this custom, the practice of the church in our own country, in reading certain portions of the epistles and gospels every Sunday in the year was founded. As a proper knowledge of these Haphtaras or prophetical sections may sometimes help to fix the chronology of some events in the New Testament, it hath been deemed proper to give a table of them in connexion with the Pareshioth or sections of the law, in the place of which they were originally read; and with which, ever since the days of the Asmoneans or Maccabees, they continue to be read in the various synagogues belonging to the English, Portuguese, Italian, Dutch, and German Jews. From the above tables the reader will perceive that though the Jews are agreed in the sections of the law that are read every sabbath, yet they are not agreed in the Haphtaras or sections from the prophets; as it appears above, that the Dutch and German Jews differ in several cases from the Italian and Portuguese; and there are some slighter variations besides those above, which I have not noticed. Comment. vol. i. p. 839. |