GENERAL PREFACE.

For a considerable time I hesitated whether I should attach to each chapter what are commonly called reflections, as these do not properly belong to the province of the commentator. It is the business of the preacher, who has the literal and obvious sense before him, to make reflections on select passages, providential occurrences, and particular histories; and to apply the doctrines contained in them to the hearts and practices of his hearers. The chief business of the commentator is critically to examine his text, to give the true meaning of every passage in reference to the context, to explain words that are difficult or of dubious import, illustrate local and provincial customs, manners, idioms, laws, &c., and from the whole to collect the great design of the inspired writer.

Many are of opinion that it is an easy thing to write reflections on the scriptures, my opinion is the reverse; common-place observations, which may arise on the surface of the latter, may be easily made by any person possessing a little common sense and a measure of piety; but reflections, such as become the oracles of God, are properly inductive reasonings on the facts stated or the doctrines delivered, and require, not only a clear head and a sound heart, but such a compass and habit of philosophic thought, such a power to discern the end from the beginning, the cause from its effect (and where several causes are at work to ascertain their respective results, so that every effect may be attributed to its true cause), as falls to the lot of but few men. Through the flimsy, futile, and false dealing of the immense berd of spiritualizers, metaphor-men, and allegorists, pure religion has been often disgraced. Let a man put his reason in ward, turn conscience out of its province, and throw the reins on the neck of his fancy, and he may write-reflections without end. The former description of reflections I rarely attempt for want of adequate powers; the latter, my reason and conscience prohibit; let this be my excuse with the intelligent and pious reader. I have however, in this way, done what I could. I have generally, at the close of each chapter, summed up in a few particulars the facts or doctrines contained in it; and have endeavoured to point out to the reader the spiritual and practical use he should make of them. To these inferences, improvements, or whatever else they may be called, I have given no specific name; and of them can only say, that he who reads them, though he may be sometimes disappointed, will not always lose his labour. At the same time I beg leave to inform him that I have not deferred spiritual uses of important texts to the end of the chapter; where they should be noticed in the occurring verse I have rarely passed them by.

Before I conclude, it may be necessary to give some account of the original VERSIONS of the sacred writings, which have been often consulted, and to which occasional references are made in the ensuing work. These are the Samaritan, Chaldaic, Ethiopic, Septuagint, with those of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion; the Syriac, Vulgate, Arabic, Coptic, Persian, and Anglo-Saxon.

The SAMARITAN Text must not be reckoned among the Versions. It is precisely the same with the Hebrew, only fuller; having preserved many letters, words, and even whole sentences, sometimes several verses, which are not extant in any Hebrew copy with which we are acquainted. In all other respects it is the same as the Hebrew, only written in what is called the Samaritan character, which was probably the ancient Hebrew, as that now called the Hebrew character was probably borrowed from the Chaldeans.

1. The SAMARITAN Version differs widely from the Samaritan Text; the latter is pure Hebrew, the former is a literal version of the Hebreo-Samaritan Text, into the ChaldaicoSamaritan Dialect. When this was done it is impossible to say, but it is allowed to be very ancient, considerably prior to the Christian era. The language of this Version is composed of pure Hebrew, Syro-Chaldaic, and Cuthite terms. It is almost needless to observe that the Samaritan Text and Samaritan Version extend no farther than the five books of Moses; as the Samaritans received no other parts of the sacred writings.

2. The CHALDAIC Version or TARGUMS have already been described among the Commentators. Under this head are included the Targum of Onkelos upon the whole law; the Jerusalem Targum on select parts of the five books of Moses; the Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel also upon the Pentateuch; the Targum of Jonathan upon the Prophets; and the Targum of Rabbi Joseph on the books of Chronicles; but of all these the Targums of Onkelos on the law, and Jonathan on the prophets, are the most ancient, the most literal, and the most valuable. See page 2 of this preface.

3. The SEPTUAGINT Translation of all the Versions of the sacred writings has ever been deemed of the greatest importance by competent judges. I do not, however, design to enter into the controversy concerning this venerable Version; the history of it by Aristaus I

GENERAL PREFACE.

consider in the main to be a mere fable, worthy to be classed with the tale of Bel and the Dragon, and the stupid story of Tobit and his Dog. Nor do I believe, with many of the Fathers, that "Seventy or Seventy-two elders, six out of each of the twelve tribes, were employed in the work; that each of these translated the whole of the sacred books from Hebrew into Greek while confined in separate cells in the island of Pharos;" or that they were so particularly inspired by God that every species of error was prevented, and that the seventy-two copies, when compared together, were found to be precisely the same, verbatim et literatim. My own opinion, on the controversial part of the subject, may be given in a few words: I believe that the five books of Moses, the most correct and accurate part of the whole work, were translated from the Hebrew into Greek in the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus, king of Egypt, about 285 years before the Christian era; that this was done, not by seventy-two, but probably by five learned and judicious men, and that when completed it was examined, approved, and allowed as a faithful Version, by the seventy or seventy-two elders who constituted the Alexandrian Sanhedrim; and that the other books of the Old Testament were done at different times by different hands, as the necessity of the case demanded, or the providence of GOD appointed. It is pretty certain, from the quotations of the Evangelists, the Apostles, and the Primitive Fathers, that a complete Version into Greek of the whole Old Testament, probably called by the name of the Septuagint, was made and in use before the Christian era; but it is likely that some of the books of that ancient Version are now lost, and that some others, which now go under the name of the Septuagint, were the production of times posterior to the incarnation.

4. The Greek Versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, are frequently referred to. Aquila was first a heathen, then a Christian, and lastly a Jew. He made a translation

of the Old Testament into Greek so very literal, that St. Jerome said it was a good Dictionary to give the genuine meaning of the Hebrew words. He finished and published this work in the twelfth year of the reign of the Emperor Adrian, A. D. 128.

5. Theodotion was a Christian of the Ebionite sect, and is reported to have begun his translation of the Hebrew scriptures into Greek merely to serve his own party; but from what remains of his Version it appears to have been very literal, at least as far as the idioms of the two languages would bear. His translation was made about the year of our Lord 180. All this work is lost, except his Version of the book of the prophet Daniel, and some fragments.

6. Symmachus was originally a Samaritan, but became a convert to Christianity as professed by the Ebionites. In forming his translation he appears to have aimed at giving the sense rather than a literal version of the sacred text. His work was probably completed about A. D. 200.

These three Versions were published by Origen in his famous work entitled Hexapla, of which they formed the third, fourth, and sixth columns. All the remaining fragments have been carefully collected by Father Montfaucon, and published in a work entitled, Hexapla Origenis quae supersunt, &c. Paris, 1713. 2 vols. folio. Republished by C. F. Bahrdt, Leips. 1769, 2 vols. 8vo.

7. The Ethiopic Version comprehends only the New Testament, the Psalms, some of the minor Prophets, and a few fragments of other books. It was probably made in the fourth century.

8. The Coptic Version includes only the five books of Moses, and the New Testament. It is supposed to have been made in the fifth century.

9. The Syriac Version is very valuable and of great authority. It was probably made as early as the second century; and some think that a Syriac Version of the Old Testament was in existence long before the Christian era.

10. A Latin Version, known by the name of the ITALA, Italic or Antehieronymian, is well known among learned men; it exists in the Latin part of the Codex Beza at Cambridge, and in several other MSS. The text of the four Gospels in this Version, taken from four MSS. more than a thousand years old, was published by Blanchini, at Rome, 1749, 4 vols. folio; and a larger collection by Sabathier, Rheims, 1743, 3 vols. folio. This ancient Version is allowed to be of great use in Biblical criticism.

11. The Vulgate, or Latin Version, was formed by Saint Jerome, at the command of Pope Damasus, A. D. 384. Previously to this there were a great number of Latin Versions made by different hands, some of which Jerome complains of as being extremely corrupt and self-contradictory. These Versions, at present, go under the general name of the old

GENERAL PREFACE.

Itala or Antehieronymian, already noticed. Jerome appears to have formed his text in general out of these, collating the whole with the Hebrew and Greek, from which he professes to have translated several books entire. The New Testament he is supposed to have taken wholly from the original Greek; yet there are sufficient evidences that he often regulated even this text by the ancient Latin Versions.

12. The Anglo-Saxon Version of the four Gospels is supposed to have been taken from the ancient Itala some time in the eighth century; and that of the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, and Job, from the Vulgate, by a monk called Elfric, in the ninth century. The former was printed at Dort, in conjunction with the Gothic Version, by F. Junius, 1665, 4to.; the latter, by Edward Thwaites, Oxford, 1698, 8vo.; but in this Version many verses, and even whole chapters, are left out; and the Book of Job is only a sort of abstract, consisting of about five pages.

13. The Arabic is not a very ancient Version, but is of great use in ascertaining the signification of several Hebrew words and forms of speech.

14. The Persian includes only the five Books of Moses and the four Gospels. The former was made from the Hebrew text by a Jew named Yacoub Toosee; the latter, by a Christian of the Catholic persuasion, Simon Ibn Yusuf Ibn Ibraheem al Tubreezee, about the year of our Lord 1341.

These are the principal Versions which are deemed of authority in settling controversies relative to the text of the original. There are some others, but of less importance; such as the Slavonic, Gothic, Sahidic, and Armenian; for detailed accounts of which, as also of the preceding, as far as the New Testament is concerned, I beg leave to refer the reader to Michaelis's Lectures, in the translation, with the notes of the Rev. Dr. Herbert Marsh, and to the General Preface to the Gospels and Acts; and for farther information concerning Jewish and Christian commentators, he is requested to consult Bartoloccius's Bibliotheca Rabbinica, and the Bibliotheca Theologica of Father Calmet.

In the preceding list of commentators I find I have omitted to insert in its proper place a work with which I have been long acquainted, and which for its piety and erudition I have invariably admired, viz.: "A plaine discovery of the whole Revelation of Saint John; set downe in two Treatises: The one searching and proving the true interpretation thereof; The other applying the same paraphrastically and historically to the text. Set foorth by JOHN NAPEIR L. of Marchestoun, younger. Whereunto are annexed certaine Oracles of SIBYLLA, agreeing with the Revelation and other places of Scripture." Edinburgh, printed by Robert Waldegrave, printer to the King's Majestie, 1593. Cum privilegio Regali, 8vo. When the reader learns that the author of this little work was the famous Baron of Marchestoun, the inventor of the Logarithms, a discovery which has been of incalculable use in the sciences of astronomy, practical geometry, and navigation, he will be prepared to receive with respect what so great a genius has written upon a book that, above all others in the sacred code, seems to require the head and hand of the soundest divine and mathematician. The work is dedicated "to the right excellent, high and mighty Prince James VI., King of Scottes," afterwards James I., King of England; and in the Epistle Dedicatorie, the author strongly urges him to complete the reformation begun in his own empire, that he might be a ready instrument in the hand of God in executing judgment on the papal throne, which he then supposed to be near the time of its final overthrow. The first treatise is laid down in thirty-six propositions relating to the seals, trumpets, vials, and thunders.

In the third, fifth, and sixth propositions, he endeavours to prove that each trumpet or vial contains 245 years; that the first began A. D. 71. The second A. D. 316. The third A. D. 561. The fourth A. D. 806. The fifth A. D. 1051. The sixth A. D. 1296. The seventh A. D. 1541. See Propos. vi. And in Propos. x. he shows that, as the last trumpet or vial began in 1541, consequently, as it contains 245 years, it should extend to A. D. 1786. "Not that I mean," says the noble writer, "that that age or yet the world shall continew so long, because it is said, that for the elect's sake the time shall be shortened; but I mean, that if the world were to indure, that seventh age should continew untill the yeare of Christ, 1786. Taking up this subject again, in Propos. xiv., he endeavours to prove, by a great variety of calculations formed on the 1335 days mentioned by Daniel, chap. xii. 11, and the period of the three thundering angels, Rev. viii. and ix., that by the former it appears the DAY OF JUDGMENT will take place in A. D. 1700, and by the latter, in 1688, whence it may be confidently expected that this awful day shall take place between these two periods!

We, who have lived to A. D. 1830, see the fallacy of these predictive calculations; and

GENERAL PREFACE.

consider in the main to be a mere fable, worthy to be classed with the tale of Bel and the Dragon, and the stupid story of Tobit and his Dog. Nor do I believe, with many of the Fathers, that "Seventy or Seventy-two elders, six out of each of the twelve tribes, were employed in the work; that each of these translated the whole of the sacred books from Hebrew into Greek while confined in separate cells in the island of Pharos ;" or that they were so particularly inspired by God that every species of error was prevented, and that the seventy-two copies, when compared together, were found to be precisely the same, verbatim et literatim. My own opinion, on the controversial part of the subject, may be given in a few words: I believe that the five books of Moses, the most correct and accurate part of the whole work, were translated from the Hebrew into Greek in the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus, king of Egypt, about 285 years before the Christian era; that this was done, not by seventy-two, but probably by five learned and judicious men, and that when completed it was examined, approved, and allowed as a faithful Version, by the seventy or seventy-two elders who constituted the Alexandrian Sanhedrim; and that the other books of the Old Testament were done at different times by different hands, as the necessity of the case demanded, or the providence of GOD appointed. It is pretty certain, from the quotations of the Evangelists, the Apostles, and the Primitive Fathers, that a complete Version into Greek of the whole Old Testament, probably called by the name of the Septuagint, was made and in use before the Christian era; but it is likely that some of the books of that ancient Version are now lost, and that some others, which now go under the name of the Septuagint, were the production of times posterior to the incarnation.

4. The Greek Versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, are frequently referred to. Aquila was first a heathen, then a Christian, and lastly a Jew. He made a translation of the Old Testament into Greek so very literal, that St. Jerome said it was a good Dictionary to give the genuine meaning of the Hebrew words. He finished and published this work in the twelfth year of the reign of the Emperor Adrian, A. D. 128.

5. Theodotion was a Christian of the Ebionite sect, and is reported to have begun his translation of the Hebrew scriptures into Greek merely to serve his own party; but from what remains of his Version it appears to have been very literal, at least as far as the idioms of the two languages would bear. His translation was made about the year of our Lord 180. All this work is lost, except his Version of the book of the prophet Daniel, and some fragments.

6. Symmachus was originally a Samaritan, but became a convert to Christianity as professed by the Ebionites. In forming his translation he appears to have aimed at giving the sense rather than a literal version of the sacred text. His work was probably completed

about A. D. 200.

These three Versions were published by Origen in his famous work entitled Hexapla, of which they formed the third, fourth, and sixth columns. All the remaining fragments have been carefully collected by Father Montfaucon, and published in a work entitled, Hexapla Origenis quæ supersunt, &c. Paris, 1713. 2 vols. folio. Republished by C. F. Bahrdt, Leips. 1769, 2 vols. 8vo.

7. The Ethiopic Version comprehends only the New Testament, the Psalms, some of the minor Prophets, and a few fragments of other books. It was probably made in the fourth century.

8. The Coptic Version includes only the five books of Moses, and the New Testament. It is supposed to have been made in the fifth century.

9. The Syriac Version is very valuable and of great authority. It was probably made as early as the second century; and some think that a Syriac Version of the Old Testament was in existence long before the Christian era.

10. A Latin Version, known by the name of the ITALA, Italic or Antehieronymian, is well known among learned men; it exists in the Latin part of the Codex Beza at Cambridge, and in several other MSS. The text of the four Gospels in this Version, taken from four MSS. more than a thousand years old, was published by Blanchini, at Rome, 1749, 4 vols. folio; and a larger collection by Sabathier, Rheims, 1743, 3 vols. folio. This ancient Version is allowed to be of great use in Biblical criticism.

11. The Vulgate, or Latin Version, was formed by Saint Jerome, at the command of Pope Damasus, A. D. 384. Previously to this there were a great number of Latin Versions made by different hands, some of which Jerome complains of as being extremely corrupt and self-contradictory. These Versions, at present, go under the general name of the old

GENERAL PREFACE.

Itala or Antehieronymian, already noticed. Jerome appears to have formed his text in general out of these, collating the whole with the Hebrew and Greek, from which he professes to have translated several books entire. The New Testament he is supposed to have taken wholly from the original Greek; yet there are sufficient evidences that he often regulated even this text by the ancient Latin Versions.

12. The Anglo-Saxon Version of the four Gospels is supposed to have been taken from the ancient Itala some time in the eighth century; and that of the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, and Job, from the Vulgate, by a monk called Elfric, in the ninth century. The former was printed at Dort, in conjunction with the Gothic Version, by F. Junius, 1665, 4to. ; the latter, by Edward Thwaites, Oxford, 1698, 8vo. ; but in this Version many verses, and even whole chapters, are left out; and the Book of Job is only a sort of abstract, consisting of about five pages.

13. The Arabic is not a very ancient Version, but is of great use in ascertaining the signification of several Hebrew words and forms of speech.

14. The Persian includes only the five Books of Moses and the four Gospels. The former was made from the Hebrew text by a Jew named Yacoub Toosee; the latter, by a Christian of the Catholic persuasion, Simon Ibn Yusuf Ibn Ibraheem al Tubreezee, about the year of our Lord 1341.

These are the principal Versions which are deemed of authority in settling controversies relative to the text of the original. There are some others, but of less importance; such as the Slavonic, Gothic, Sahidic, and Armenian; for detailed accounts of which, as also of the preceding, as far as the New Testament is concerned, I beg leave to refer the reader to Michaelis's Lectures, in the translation, with the notes of the Rev. Dr. Herbert Marsh, and to the General Preface to the Gospels and Acts; and for farther information concerning Jewish and Christian commentators, he is requested to consult Bartoloccius's Bibliotheca Rabbinica, and the Bibliotheca Theologica of Father Calmet.

In the preceding list of commentators I find I have omitted to insert in its proper place a work with which I have been long acquainted, and which for its piety and erudition I have invariably admired, viz.: “A plaine discovery of the whole Revelation of Saint John; set downe in two Treatises: The one searching and proving the true interpretation thereof; The other applying the same paraphrastically and historically to the text. Set foorth by JOHN NAPEIR L. of Marchestoun, younger. Whereunto are annexed certaine Oracles of SIBYLLA, agreeing with the Revelation and other places of Scripture." Edinburgh, printed by Robert Waldegrave, printer to the King's Majestie, 1593. Cum privilegio Regali, 8vo. When the reader learns that the author of this little work was the famous Baron of Marchestoun, the inventor of the Logarithms, a discovery which has been of incalculable use in the sciences of astronomy, practical geometry, and navigation, he will be prepared to receive with respect what so great a genius has written upon a book that, above all others in the sacred code, seems to require the head and hand of the soundest divine and mathematician. The work is dedicated " to the right excellent, high and mighty Prince James VI., King of Scottes," afterwards James I., King of England; and in the Epistle Dedicatorie, the author strongly urges him to complete the reformation begun in his own empire, that he might be a ready instrument in the hand of God in executing judgment on the papal throne, which he then supposed to be near the time of its final overthrow. The first treatise is laid down in thirty-six propositions relating to the seals, trumpets, vials, and thunders.

The

In the third, fifth, and sixth propositions, he endeavours to prove that each trumpet or vial contains 245 years; that the first began A. D. 71. The second A. D. 316. The third A. D. 561. The fourth A. D. 806. The fifth A. D. 1051. The sixth A. D. 1296. seventh A. D. 1541. See Propos. vi. And in Propos. x. he shows that, as the last trumpet or vial began in 1541, consequently, as it contains 245 years, it should extend to A. D. 1786. "Not that I mean," says the noble writer, "that that age or yet the world shall continew so long, because it is said, that for the elect's sake the time shall be shortened; but I mean, that if the world were to indure, that seventh age should continew untill the yeare of Christ, 1786. Taking up this subject again, in Propos. xiv., he endeavours to prove, by a great variety of calculations formed on the 1335 days mentioned by Daniel, chap. xii. 11, and the period of the three thundering angels, Rev. viii. and ix., that by the former it appears the DAY OF JUDGMENT will take place in A. D. 1700, and by the latter, in 1688, whence it may be confidently expected that this awful day shall take place between these two periods!

We, who have lived to A. D. 1830, see the fallacy of these predictive calculations; and