THE

No. 4.]

[1826.

For the Christian Spectator.

BRIEF HISTORICAL VIEW OF THE SCIENCE OF INTERPRETATION.

THE apostle Peter says there are some things in the epistles of Paul, hard to be understood. He intimates that the same is true of the other scriptures. If Peter, a Jew, and an apostle living in Palestine, said this nearly two thousand years ago, no wonder if there are many things hard to be understood by us, who live in these last days, and in these ends of the world. How indeed can it be otherwise? Should an American write a book abounding in imagery, in illustrations, and arguments, drawn from the magnificent scenery of our own country; from our free institutions, our domestic society, in short, from every thing around us, and should a Chinese, who knew nothing of America but the name, read it, how many things would he find hard to be understood? What this book would be to this Chinese, in relation to its obscurity, the Bible is to us. The business of the biblical interpreter is to explain such obscurities, by making us acquainted with every thing to which the sacred writers allude. When he has helped us to draw from the words of the author the very ideas which he meant to convey, his work, as an interpreter, 1826-No. 4.

22

is done. Considered simply as an interpreter, he has nothing to do with the correctness of his author's opinions, their good or bad tendency; he has only to tell us what they are. This species of interpretation is called historical and grammatical, chiefly to denote the sources to which the interpreter goes for help.

I well know there is another species of interpretation more common among us. I mean that which consists, not so much in an explanation of the difficult passages of scripture, as in a series of pious remarks on the plain ones. This kind of interpretation is well adapted to the object for which it was designed. This is, to affect the heart rather than enlighten the understanding. It answers a valuable purpose for the unlearned reader, and therefore has claims to our regard. This is the kind of interpretation in which the English commentators abound.

Some very able interpreters have appeared of late, on the continent of Europe, and have intermingled with their learned and valuable criticisms, some lax notions on subjects of theology. Their works are well adapted to enlighten the understanding, but not to warm the heart. They teach us the sentiments of the sacred writers, but do not impart to us their spirit. The picture which they draw on the

canvass, is true to the original in every respect but one; the coldness of death is on it, instead of the warmth and glow of life. Such helps however must be used for purposes of instruction, till interpreters, of equal ability and more piety, furnish commentaries more in accordance with the spirit of the gospel. Hume and Gibbon were infidels, and missed no fair opportunity to give a thrust at Christianity. But who cannot easily distinguish between this wanton expression of their infidelity, and the information which they convey as historians? and what scholar, who seeks a deep and thorough acquaintance with Roman or English history, will be so foolish as to reject their aid, at least till other histories of equal ability are furnished?

The science and business of biblical interpretation, as they now exist, are of somewhat recent origin, though the interpretation of the scriptures is no new thing. It commenced with the return of the Jews from the Babylonish captivity. The Hebrew was then no longer their vernacular tongue. Many were ignorant of their history, their religion, their country; and when Ezra stood on a pulpit of wood, and read in the book of the law of God distinctly, others stood on his right hand and on his left, and gave the sense, and caused the people to understand the reading. After the captivity, the learned Jews began to apply themselves to the study of their sacred books. At length there arose a class of men, called Masorites, who devoted themselves chiefly to these studies. They wrote out copies of the scriptures for the use of the synagogues, taught the true method of reading them, and commented on the sacred books. These Masorites invented the vowel points, and thereby settled finally the reading of the Hebrew text. The result of all their labours on the scriptures has been collected and

published in series of critical observations written in Chaldaic Hebrew, and entitled the Masora. From this book interpreters have derived some aid respecting Hebrew idioms and customs.

Christ, and his apostles by divine illumination, understood the scriptures, and taught them in simplicity and truth. The same was true, though in a less extent, of the immediate successors of the apostles, through whose instruction the people were taught the pure principles and doctrines of Christianity, till the beginning of the third century. Then arose Origen, a native of Alexandria, a man of learning and piety; but unhappily for the cause of sacred interpretation, he gave currency to an erroneous method of explaining the scriptures, the influence of which is still felt. If the sacred books were to be explained according to the real import of the words, Origen thought it would be found difficult to defend every thing they contained against the cavils of skeptics. Being himself deeply imbued with the Platonic philosophy, and being pressed with these cavils, Origen's inventive imagination suggested the thought, that the scriptures were to be explained in the same allegorical manner as the Platonists explained the fabulous history of their gods. The thought was fanciful in the extreme, and better becoming the dark ages than the times of Origen. Still he embraced it, and gave currency to the notion, that though certain ideas may be contained in the words of scripture, taken literally, yet this is not the true meaning of the sacred writers. This he said is hidden under the veil of allegory. Hence arose the multiplication of allegories; the notion of double sense and mystical meanings, by which interpreters have been led in almost every way but the right one.

From the third to the sixth century, Eusebius, Chrysostom, and

Theodoret, in the Greek church, together with Augustine and some of less note in the Latin, applied themselves to the interpretation of the scriptures. But, with the exception of the distinguished Jerom, they were not sufficiently learned, especially in the Hebrew language and Jewish antiquities; they were not guided by good rules, for interpretation had not yet become a science; they followed too much in the allegorizing and mystical path of Origen, and their critical works are comparatively of small value to the biblical scholar.

From the sixth to the sixteenth century, few vestiges of sound interpretation can be found. The Bible during this period was neglected, nay even proscribed, and the faith of the church was settled by the decisions of councils and the authority of the Pope. About the commencement of the sixteenth century, the study of the Bible was somewhat revived in Germany, and some better specimens of interpretation were sent abroad by Erasmus and others. Near the middle of this century, Luther translated and published the Bible in German, together with some commentaries. These were attacked on every side by the supporters of papal domination. To defend his Bible and stop the mouths of his opponents, Luther systematized and published the rules by which he guided himself in the interpretation of the sacred books. This treatise, written by Luther while involved in the conflicts of the reformation, laid the foundation of the modern science of interpretation. From that time it has gradually advanced among the biblical scholars of protestant Europe.

A new and far greater impulse was given to the study of the scriptures in Germany about the middle of the last century, by the publication of Bishop Lowth's Lectures on Hebrew Poetry. These were delivered at Oxford in England.

Since that time, some of their most distinguished scholars have devoted themselves chiefly to the study of the Bible, and the advances made in the science of interpretation have been truly great. It has been founded on the principles of language and common sense. The civil and religious history of the Jews, their geography and scenery, indeed every thing that pertained to the Jewish people or their country, has been made to reflect light on the sacred pages. While the biblical scholars of the Continent have done this, England has moved on in the beaten track of mere moralizing interpretation. She has given us commentaries distinguished indeed for their piety, but not at all for their learning. Commentaries which unite great learning with great piety are yet a desideratum in the church. The Pilgrims left every thing dear in home and country, to plant civil liberty and the religion of the Bible on these western shores. God reserved it for them to teach the world true notions of liberty and free institutions. Whether he has reserved it for their descendants to unite great biblical learning with much piety, and thereby teach the world the true method of interpreting the scriptures, I cannot tell. I only know that every thing urges those devoted to the sacred profession in this country to study the Bible. It is demanded by the intelligence of American Christians, their desire to understand the simple meaning of the scriptures-their sound piety, which demands instruction drawn directly from the word of God-all unite in requiring of those who minister in holy things a thorough knowledge of the word and doctrine which they teach. Here too no set of doctrines is supported by civil authority, but the Bible is regarded as the foundation of our faith; so that the preacher's most important qualification is, as it always should be, a knowledge of the sacred books. Besides, explanatory preaching is coming into use, and is beginning to be demanded by the people. Bible classes are to be instructed, and all are beginning to demand the appropriate evidence of the doctrines they are called on to believe. These things call loudly on those of the sacred profession to study the Bible, to understand the Bible, to preach the Bible, and let me add, and let the sound echo through every part of our beloved land, -to live in accordance with the precepts of the Bible.

LAY PRESBYTERS, NO. XVII.

DIONYSIUS, the Areopagite, who heard Paul at Athens,* has been deemed by Nicephorus, Gregory the great, Baronius, and many others, the writer of the books which bear his name. According to these, he received a liberal education, and went into Egypt a little before the death of Christ, where he witnessed that eclipse of the sun which happened at the crucifixion, when the moon was full. The writer affirms, he was then in his twentyfifth year; he nevertheless appears to have survived Ignatius and Trajan. The genuineness of these writings, which have received the scholia of Maximus, and paraphrase of Pachymeras, in the Greek; and the annotations of Corderius in the Latin, has been a matter of dispute through the last twelve cen

the church by degrees and at distant periods, is unsatisfactory. Neither is it conceivable that these books, which so plainly assert the doctrine of the Trinity, should never have been cited in the disputes with the Arians, nor that Chrysostom, Ambrose, and Augustine, who mentioned the Dionysius of Athens, should have concealed, if acquainted with, his writings.

These works are probably those of a Platonistic Christian, mystically but argumentatively written, in good style, and with a free use of terms introduced by the disputants of the fourth century. Some have imagined that Dionysius, not the Areopagite converted by Paul, but the patron of the Franks, who were different men, of different periods, was the author of these works.

About the commencement of the fifth century we may with probability place them ; and supposing them the works of an anonymous and disingenuous writer, yet was he a man of more than ordinary talents and information; they are entitled to notice therefore, subject to these qualifications.

Not a solitary instance has been observed, rejecting the captions, wherein this writer uses the words επισκοπος, πρεσβύτερος, διακονος, bishop, presbyter, or deacon; but instead of them, ιεραρχης ιερευς and λειτουργος, governor of priests, priest, and minister; ιεραρχης is a refinement upon αρχιερεύς not found in the New Testament : ιερεύς never there occurs for an officer under the gospel, nor λειτουργος for the deacon.

Baronius, wherefore they were not mentioned by Eusebius and Jerom, are plausible; and his opinion, that the Clement named in them was not Alexandrinus, is probable. But his answer to the objection of Theodorus, preserved by Photius, that they exhibit an account of those traditions which grew up in

cer in the church of Christ, in Clemens Rom., Justin Martyr, Clemens Alexandr., Origen, Gregory Thaum., Lactantius, or in either of the Hilarys. Irenæus infers from

+ Blondel and Lardner place them at A. D. 490. Pearson, 330. S. Basnage and Daille, 520. Cave, 360. And others at different intermediate periods.