to be compared, which were composed by the same author, in the same language, and on a parallel subject.

By comparing Psal. xxxviii. 10. with 1 Sam. xiv. 26, 27. (in which Jonathan, having taken some honey for his refreshment, is said to have had his eyes enlightened,) we shall readily apprehend the force of the psalmist's complaint, that the light of his eyes was gone from him ; for the eyes of a person in good health are so strong as to sparkle with the rays of light that fall upon them; whereas, when the constitution is worn by long sickness, or broken by grief, the eyes lose their vigour and brilliancy, and in cases of incipient blindness, the light gradually fails the eyes.

3. Collect all those similar passages, in which the same forms of speech occur, and the same topics are proposed; and consider well, whether they are really parallel, that is, not only whether the same word, but also the same thing, answers together, in order to form a safe judgment concerning it.

It often happens that one word has several distinct meanings, one of which obtains in one place, and one in another place. When, therefore, words of such various meanings present themselves, all those passages where they occur are not to be immediately considered as parallel, unless they have a similar power. Thus, if any one were to compare Jonah iv. 10. (where mention is made of the gourd which came up in a night, and perished in a night, and which in the original Hebrew is termed, the son of a night,) with 1 Thess. v. 5. where Christians are called, not children of the night, but children of the day, it would be a spurious parallel.

4. Where two parallel passages present themselves, the clearer and more copious place must be selected to illustrate one that is more briefly and obscurely expressed.

5. No assistance is to be derived from similar passages, the sense of which is uncertain.

The method here indicated is the only effectual way by which to ascertain parallel words and phrases, as well as parallelisms of things: it will indeed require a considerable portion of time and study, which every one may not perhaps be able to give; but individuals thus circumstanced may advantageously facilitate their researches by having recourse to editions of the Bible with parallel references, and to concordances, the most useful of which are specified in the Appendix.

Of the Antient Versions of the Holy Scriptures, and their uses in sacred criticism, an account has already been given in pages 91-99. It may here be remarked, that, to those who are able to consult them, these versions afford a very valuable aid in the interpretation of the Bible for they were the works of men who enjoyed several advantages above the moderns for understanding the original languages and the phraseology of Scripture. A single instance will illustrate the propriety of this remark.

as

In the first promulgation of the Gospel to mankind, (Gen. iii. 15.) God said to the serpent that beguiled our first parents, And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed, and IT (that is, the seed of the woman, our authorised translation rightly expounds it,) shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. But in the Anglo-Romish version, after the Latin vulgate, (which has IPSA conteret caput tuum,) it is rendered, SHE shall bruise his head, as if a woman should do it; which the Romanists interpreting of the Virgin Mary, ascribe to her this great victory and triumph over sin and Satan, and are taught to say in their addresses to her, "Adoro et benedico sanctissimos pedes tuos, quibus antiqui serpentis caput calcústi;" that is, "I adore and bless thy most holy feet, whereby thou hast bruised the head of the old serpent." That this rendering of the Romanists is erroneous, is proved by the Septuagint Greek version, by the Chaldee paraphrase, and by the Syriac version, all of which refer the pronoun IT to the seed of the woman, and not to the woman herself. (Bp. Beveridge's Works, vol. ii. p. 193. vol. ix. pp. 235, 234. Agier, Prophéties concernant Jésus Christ et l'Eglise, pp. 243, 244.)

With regard to the use and application of the Antient Versions, as a subsidiary mean for ascertaining the sense of Scripture, it is material to remark that, as no one version can be absolutely free from error, reliance ought not to be implicitly placed on any one translation. Versions of versions, that, is versions not made immediately from the Hebrew of the Old Testament, or the Greek of

the New Testament, are of authority only to determine the meaning of the version from which they are taken.

I. The Alexandrian or Septuagint Greek Version, from its very great antiquity, and its influence on the style of the New Testament, claims the first place. Next in order is,

II. The Syriac Peschito, which is particularly serviceable for the interpretation of the New Testament.

III. The Latin Vulgate, with the exception of the Psalms, claims the third place.

IV. The Targums, or Chaldee Paraphrases, especially that of Jonathan Ben Uzziel, illustrate many difficult passages in the Old Testament, as well as in the New Testament.

V. The Jewish Antiquities of Josephus, the historian of the Jewish nation, may be reckoned among the antient versions for though, on some occasions, he followed the Septuagint version, yet it is evident that he derived his representations of sacred history from the Hebrew text, by his abandoning the sense of that version in very many places. With regard to these he is an evidence of great authority, for he is more antient than the other translators, except the Alexandrian or Septuagint: the Chaldee was his vernacular dialect; and as he was a learned priest, and subsequently a commander of an army in Galilee, during the war with the Romans, he was well versed in all ecclesiastical, civil, and military matters. His readers, however, will find it necessary, not rashly to give evidence to all his statements, especially such as are warped in favour of his own nation, or even of the heathens, or such as represent the temple of Solomon by a description taken from that of Herod.

VI. Other versions made immediately from the Hebrew and Greek originals follow next in order.

Antient versions need not to be consulted, except in passages that are really difficult, or unless an examination of them be instituted for some special object of inquiry.

§ 3. Scholiasts and Glossographers.

I. Nature of SCHOLIA.

Scholia are short notes on antient authors, and are of two kinds exegetical or explanatory, and grammatical. The former briefly explain the sense of passages, and are, in fact, a species of commentary; the latter, which are here to be considered, illustrate the force and meaning of words by other words which are better known. Such Scholia are extant on most of the antient classic authors. On the Old Testament, we believe, there are no antient scholia extant: but on the New Testament there are several collections, which present themselves under three classes.

1. Scholia taken from the writings of the Greek fathers, who in their homilies and commentaries have often briefly explained the force of particular words.

The homilies of Chrysostom, in particular, abound with these scholia; and from his works, as well as those of Origen and other fathers, Theodoret, Theophylact, and other more modern Greek expositors, have extracted what those illustrious men had concisely stated relative to the meaning of words.

2. Scholia, written either in the margin, within the text, or at the end of manuscripts.

Many of this description have been published separately by Wetstein in the notes to his elaborate edition of the Greek Testament, and particularly by Matthæi in his edition of the New Testament.

3. Antient Scholia, which are also exegetical or explanatory. These, in fact, are short commentaries: an account of those which are most deserving of notice will be found in the Appendix to the second volume of the author's larger Introduction, to which the reader is necessarily referred.

II. Nature of GLOSSARIES.

A Glossary differs from a Lexicon in this respect, that the former treats only of words that really require explanation, while the latter gives the general meaning of words.

The authors of the most antient Glossaries are Hesychius, Suidas,

Phavorinus, Photius, and Cyril of Alexandria. The celebrated Ernesti selected from the three first of these writers, and also from the Etymologicon Magnum whatever related to the New Testament, and published the result of his researches at Leipsic, in 1786, in two octavo volumes; from which Schleusner has extracted the most valuable matter, and inserted it in his well-known and excellent Greek Lexicon to the New Testament.

In estimating the VALUE of SCHOLIASTS and GLOSSOGRAPHERS, and also the weight of their testimony, for ascertaining the force and meaning of words, it is of importance to consider, first, whether they wrote from their own knowledge of the language, and have given us the result of their own learning, or whether they compiled from others. Almost all the scholia now extant are compiled from Chrysostom, Origen, or some other fathers of the third and fourth centuries; if the scholiast have compiled from good authorities, his labours have a claim to our attention. In proportion, therefore, to the learning of a scholiast (and the same remark will equally apply to the glossographer), he becomes the more deserving of our confidence: but this point can only be determined by daily and constant use.

§ 4. On the Testimony of Foreigners who have acquired a Language.

The testimony of those who, though foreigners, have acquired a language, are an important help for ascertaining the notion affixed to a word by those persons by whom such language was formerly spoken. Thus the writings of Philo and Josephus, who were Jews, and also those of the Emperor Marcus Antoninus, may be beneficially used to illustrate the meaning of Greek words; because, although foreigners, they well understood the Greek language. Grotius, Elsner, Raphelius, Loesner, Kypke, Carpzov, and other eminent critics and commentators, have successfully applied the productions of