SERMON XXII.

[Preached in the Parish Church of NEWNHAM, July 13, 1832, at the Primary Visitation of the Right Rev. James Henry, Lord Bishop of Gloucester, and published at the request of his Lordship and the Clergy of the Forest Deanery.]

NEHEMIAH VIII. 2, 3, 7, 8.

And Ezra the priest brought the Law before the congregation, and he read therein-and the Levites caused the people to understand the Law: so they read in the Book, in the Law of God, distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.

By

FROM these words I conceive that it may be inferred that, in reading and giving the sense of their Law, the Jews scrupulously adhered to a close and literal interpretation of it. writings of the greatest authority among them we are informed that from the days of Ezra they were accustomed to have an interpreter in the synagogue, who interpreted to the people what was recited by the reader; that so they might understand the sense of the words. *

* Lightfoot, Opp. Tom. i. p. 614.-Otho, Lexic. Rabb. Philos. p. 465, Ed. 2.-Prideaux, Connect. vol. i. p. 334, 8vo. Lond. 1716.-Buxtorf. Tiber. p. 34, 39.

Accordingly we learn that "the reader read a verse, and then stopped till the interpreter had interpreted it; and then went on to another:" that is, the Law was first read in the original Hebrew; but, as this was a language which, after the Captivity, the people in general did not understand, it was afterwards interpreted in Chaldee, verse by verse, or in such short periods as were most easily remembered. From this mode of proceeding it seems manifest that the principal object was to give a succint and faithful interpretation of the words, according to their literal and grammatical sense; not deviating into paraphrase, nor affixing to them such fanciful meanings as were not to be traced to their etymology.

There is reason to believe that it might have been of no little consequence toward promoting a critical knowledge of the Sacred Writings, if a practice somewhat similar had been more frequently adopted by the expositors and commentators of later days. Under whatever view, and to whatever extent, we contemplate the Scriptures as the work of inspiration, (for we know that there has been much diversity of opinion upon this subject,)*

* Carpzov. Crit. Sacr. c. i. § iv.-Marsh's Michaelis, vol. i. p. 87.-Stackhouse's Body of Divinity, part 1, c. 4, p. 47.-Ammon Sum. Theol. Præf. p. xiv.-Ernesti Instit. Interpr. N. T. p. 171, b. Ed. 5.

they must, however, as they are come down to us, be studied and explained on the same footing as other writings of great antiquity. The first step, therefore, in the investigation of the sense of any passage of Scripture is a minute attention to its phraseology. Unless this be perfectly understood; unless we have a clear idea of the several words; how far they are reducible to grammatical analogy, to the idiom of the language, to an agreement with the context, and to the same mode of expression used by the same author in other places; it is impossible to determine any thing concerning the doctrine contained in them.* Obvious, however, and unquestionable as such a position may be thought, it is certain that for many ages little regard was paid to it in the interpretation of Scripture. Doctrines were not established on the plain and unequivocal sense of words; but words were diverted to new and analogical senses, in order to render them subservient to particular doctrines. An attachment to mysteries and allegory, and a consequent propensity to search after latent or double meanings of the most simple and perspicuous expressions, are faults with which the ancient expositors of the Sacred Writings are almost universally chargeable.†

* Ernesti Instit. Interpr. apud init.

+ This observation is applicable even to the great Erasmus. See his Life by Jortin, vol. 2, p. 314, 8vo. Lond. 1808.

It was not till about the time of the Reformation that an attempt was made to introduce a better mode of interpretation; the commentary of Joachim Camerarius on the New Testament being the first work of the kind founded on principles purely critical and grammatical.*

We cannot wonder, indeed, that in the dark ages which succeeded the fall of the Western Empire, so little attention should be paid to the phraseology of the Scriptures, while the languages, in which they are written, were so rarely cultivated, or rather almost universally unknown. But when the

study of these was at length revived, a new light was thrown upon biblical literature, and a way was opened to that grand disideratum, a more perfect text of both Testaments; those in common use being not only in many instances defective, but corrupted also and deformed, by the blunders of ignorant transcribers, and occasionally interpolated with absurd and fanciful emendations.

How much soever it were to be wished, it certainly was not to be expected that we should be in possession of the autograph of any of the Sacred Writers. By nothing less

* Camerarius was Professor of the Literæ Humaniores in the newly founded University of Nuremberg, in the early part of the sixteenth century. See Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History, by Maclaine, vol 4, p. 305. Ed. 1782.

than a miracle could such a document be preserved through the revolutions of two or three thousand years. But no critic, as is remarked by a learned and ingenious foreigner,* inquires after the original of profane authors, as Cæsar, or Cicero. The authenticity of their works is amply demonstrated by the unanimous voice of antiquity; as is that of the Holy Scriptures by the testimony not only of Jewish and Christian, but also of Heathen authors;† not to mention their reception into all churches and places of devotion, from the earliest ages. It could not fail, however, that of writings so widely dispersed, and through so long a period of time, many variations would be found in the different copies. An attempt to reconcile them, so as to establish a general uniformity of text, though a necessary undertaking, was not one of early date; for it is yet not more than four hundred years since the first collection of manuscripts was formed for that purpose.‡ How much has since been done in the same department, and especially from the commencement of the last century; how greatly

Michaelis Introd. to N. T. by Marsh, vol. 1, p. 247. + See Lardner-Jewish and Heathen Testimonies, vol. 7, 8, 9. Edit. 1788.

By Laurent. Valla. His collection applies to the N.T. only. Ernesti ubi supr. p. 281. See Phileleuth. Lipsiens. Rem. xxxi. Enchirid. Theolog. vol. 2, p. 402.