tament.-1. Quotations exactly agreeing with the Hebrew.2. Quotations nearly agreeing with the Hebrew.-3. Quotations agreeing with the Hebrew in sense, but not in words.-4. Quotations that give the general sense, but abridge or add to it.5. Quotations taken from several passages of Scripture.-6. Quotations differing from the Hebrew, but agreeing with the Septuagint.-7. Quotations in which there is reason to suspect a different reading in the Hebrew.-8. Passages in which the Hebrew seems to be corrupted.-9. Passages which are mere references or allusions.-2. Quotations from the Septuagint Version in the New Testament.-1. Quotations agreeing verbatim with the Septuagint, or only changing the person, number, &c.-2. Quotations taken from the Septuagint, but with some variation.-3. Quotations agreeing with the Septuagint in sense, but not in words.-4. Quotations differing from the Septuagint, but agreeing exactly or nearly with the Hebrew. -5. Quotations that differ both from the Septuagint and Hebrew. Considerations on the probable causes of the seeming discrepancies in the quotations from the Old Testament in the New. Sec. II. On the Internal form of Quotations-Rabbinical modes of quoting the Old Testament. 1. Quotations from the Old Testament in the New, in which the predictions are literally accomplished.-2. Quotations in which that is said to have been done, of which the Scriptures have not spoken in a literal, but in a spiritual sense.-3. Quotations that are accommodated by the sacred writers to particular events or facts.-4. Quotations and other passages from the Old Testament which are alluded to in the New. Sec. III. Of Apocryphal passages, supposed to be quoted in the New Testament-Quotations from Profane Authors. We have written out these particulars for the purpose of presenting our readers a specimen of the comprehensive and excellent manner in which the Author treats the subjects included in this Introduction. He uniformly discovers an anxiety to provide the student with the best means of information, and of guiding his judgement on every occasion. It was utterly impracticable for the Author to insert in these Tables of quotations the words at length, but from this necessary omission there will arise no loss to the diligent reader who makes the proper use of the references, which, as far as we have examined them, are laudably correct. The classification would, we think, be improved, if the quotations which agree both with the Hebrew text and the Septuagint version had been distinguished. No. 3. in the first table, should have been omitted. Deut. vi. 16. Matth. iv. 7: these passages are given, p. 504, in the list of quotations agreeing verbatim with the Septuagint, and as the Septuagint in these examples differs from the Hebrew, they cannot in course be classed with quotations exactly

agreeing with the Hebrew. So Heb. xi. 21, which is said (p. 505, note,) to be taken from the Septuagint version of Gen. xlvii. 31, is included in the table of quotations, No. 60, exactly agreeing with the Hebrew text. Heb. i. 5, No. 51, p. 498, should have been referred also to Ps. ii. 7. We have noticed a few more errors in these tables, which indeed it was almost impossible in a work of this kind to avoid.

The formula, with which the quotations from the Old Testament in the New are introduced, have been considered by some writers, as indicating the different degrees of authority in their application; those, for example, which are ushered in with the words, "that it might be fulfilled," being considered as denoting a real prediction, while such as take the form "then was "fulfilled" are thought to import nothing more than accommodation. This distinction, however, we ventured to call in question, in our review of Bishop Marsh's Lectures, (Eclectic Rev. Vol. VII. N.S. p. 231,) and Mr. Horne properly remarks, that the very same quotations, expressed in the same words, and brought to prove the very same points, are introduced by different formulae in different gospels. On accommodations he has the following remarks.

Accommodations are passages of the Old Testament, which are adapted by the writers of the New Testament, to an occurrence that happened in their time, on account of some correspondence and similitude. These are not prophecies, though they are said sometimes to be fulfilled; for any thing may be said to be fulfilled when it can be pertinently applied. This method of explaining Scripture by accommodation, will enable us to solve some of the greatest difficulties relating to the prophecies.

For the better understanding of this important subject, it should be recollected, that the writings of the Jewish prophets, which abound in fine descriptions, poetical images, and sublime diction, were the classics of the later Jews: and, in subsequent ages, all their writers affected allusions to them, borrowed their images and descriptions, and very often cited their identical words, when recording any event or circumstance that happened in the history of the persons whose lives they were relating; provided it was similar and parallel to one that occurred in the times, and was described in the books of the ancient prophets. It was a familiar idiom of the Jews, when quoting the writings of the Old Testament, to say that it might be fulfilled, which was spoken by such and such a prophet; not intending to be understood that such a particular passage in one of the sacred books was ever designed to be a real prediction of what they were then relating, but signifying only, that the words of the Old Testament might be properly adapted to express their meaning and illustrate their ideas. And thus the Apostles, who were Jews by birth, and wrote and spoke in the Jewish idiom, have very frequently alluded to the sacred books after the customary style of their nation; intending no more by this mode of speaking, than that the words of such an ancient writer are happily descriptive of

what was transacted in their time, and might, with equal propriety, be adapted to characterise such a particular circumstance as happened in their days; that there was a con-similarity of cases and incidents; and that the expressive style and diction of the old inspired prophets were as justly applicable to the occurrences recorded by the Apostles, as they were suitable to denote those events and facts in their times which they had commemorated.' Vol. I. pp. 518, 519.

Many valuable remarks will be found in the seventh chapter, on the Historical Interpretation of Scripture, and in the eighth, on the Interpretation of Scripture Miracles. The chapter which immediately follows, on the Spiritual Interpretation of Scripture, is less cautious than was to be expected from Mr. Horne. Nothing can be more proper than the rule which he prescribes, that the spiritual meaning of a passage is there only to be sought, where it is evident, from certain criteria, that such meaning was designed by the Holy Spirit; but we much fear that the criteria which he lays down, would not prove to be a safe guide towards the determination of the question, What passages were certainly designed by the Holy Spirit to convey a spiritual meaning? We quote the two following rules with the illustrations annexed.

3. When the Scriptures affirm that any kind of things has a spiritual meaning.

What is said of the genus is equally applicable to the species; and all the species comprised in a genus are, in a similar manner, to be spiritually expounded, but with great caution. Thus we learn from Heb. x. 1. that the Mosaic rites, generally, were shadows of good things to come; and consequently we are warranted in referring to Jesus Christ, the different species of sacrifices, purifications, &c. which they contained.

4. When it is certain that the whole of a thing has a typical meaning, the parts of which that whole consists, are likewise to be typically or spiritually understood.

Thus, it is evident from Zech. vi. 15, and Heb. ix. 2-7, that the tabernacle and temple were emblems of the church in which God dwells by his gracious presence: the various parts of which they consist are therefore to be understood in the same manner. The outer court represented the church before the law, which was not subject to the yoke of legal ceremonies, that were performed in the inner court, in which the victims were prepared for the altar, and which portrayed the church under the law. The holy part repre sented the church under the covenant of grace, which by St. Paul is termed a habitation of God, through the Spirit, (Eph. ii. 22). The Holy of Holies (into which no light was admitted) was an image of the church triumphant in glory, which is concealed from us while we continue in this life. Compare Heb. ix. 24. Vol. I. p. 606.

This is more related to the fanciful kind of interpretation which Mr. Horne has censured in other parts of his work, than VOL. XI. N.S.

Q

to the cautious mode of explanation which he recommends, and which we have already noticed with approbation. Too much encouragement is given in this chapter on Spiritual Interpretation, to the practice against which Mr. Horne has so strongly and so justly protested. We do not indeed perceive in what manner limitations can be put to this injurious mode of treating the Scriptures, if the rules and examples here supplied, are to be followed. If Luke xvii. 26, (Vol. II p. 33,) be sufficient to prove that Noah was a type of Christ, Luke xvii. 28, must also prove that Lot was a type of Christ, the passages being used by our Lord precisely in the same manner, not we think for the purpose of shewing either Noah or Lot to be a type of Himself, but to illustrate the circumstances of his coming.

The eleventh chapter, On the Doctrinal Interpretation of Scripture, is very excellent. The student is here furnished within the limits of forty pages, with the most important and useful rules for ascertaining the genuine sense of the Scriptures in respect to Christian Doctrines. These should certainly be learned, not from the volumes of commentators, but from the inspired writings themselves; and this being the case, it is of more service to the theological student to direct him as to the best means of conducting the perusal of them, than to explain to him the contents of the largest or hest bodies of divinity. If he would do justice to the sacred writings, and form his sentiments on their representations, he should remember that the doctrinal books of Scripture will require to be read through at once, with a close attention to the scope and tenor of the discourse, regardless of the modern divisions of chapters and verses which, though of great use on some accounts, are great hinderances to the intelligible perusal of the Bible. This rule Mr. Horne illustrates by relating the practice of Mr. Locke in studying the Epistles of Paul. After he had found by long experience, that the ordinary way of reading a chapter, and then consulting commentators upon difficult passages, failed in leading him to the true sense of the Epistle, he says,

I saw plainly, after I began once to reflect on it, that if any one should now write me a letter as long as St. Paul's to the Romans, concerning such a matter as that is, in a style as foreign, and expressions as dubious, as his seem to be, if I should divide it into fifteen or sixteen chapters, and read one of them to-day and another to-morrow, &c. it was ten to one that I should never come to a full and clear comprehension of it. The way to understand the mind of him that wrote it, every one would agree, was to read the whole letter through from one end to the other, all at once, to see what was the main subject and tendency of it: or, if it had several parts and purposes in it, not dependent one of another, nor in a subordination to one

chief aim and end, to discover what those different matters were, and where the author concluded one and began another; and if there were any necessity of dividing the Epistles into parts, to mark the boundaries of them.' p. 628.

It is a bad, but not perhaps very uncommon practice, for preachers and students to consult a commentator, before they have attempted to ascertain the meaning of a passage for themselves. The more sparingly commentators are used, the more solid will be the proficiency of the reader who comes to the Scriptures otherwise prepared and furnished for their perusal. The following advice is so excellent on this subject, that we add the entire paragraph to our extracts.

1. We should take care that the reading of commentators does not draw us away from studying the Scriptures for ourselves, from investigating their real meaning, and meditating on their important contents.

This would be to frustrate the very design for which commentaries are written, namely, to facilitate our labours, to direct us aright where we are in danger of falling into error, to remove doubts and difficulties which we are ourselves unable to solve, to reconcile apparently contradictory passages, and in short, to elucidate whatever is obscure or unintelligible to us. In the first instance, therefore, no commentators should be consulted until we have previously investigated the sacred writings for ourselves, making use of every grammatical and historical help, comparing the scope, context, parallel passages, the analogy of faith, &c.; and even then commentaries. should be resorted to only for the purpose of explaining what was not sufficiently clear, or of removing our doubts. This method of studying the sacred volume will, unquestionably, prove a slow one; but the student will proceed with certainty; and, if he have patience and resolution enough to persevere in it, he will ultimately attain greater proficiency in the knowledge of the Scriptures, than those, who disregarding this method, shall have recourse wholly to assistances of other kinds. From the mode of study here recommended, many advantages will result. In the first place, the mind will be gradually ac customed to habits of meditation; without which we cannot reasonably hope to attain even a moderate, much less a profound knowledge of the Bible-secondly, those truths will be more readily as well as indelibly impressed on the memory, which have thus been "marked, learned, and inwardly digested" in the mind by silent thought and reflexion ;and thirdly, by pursuing this method, we shall perceive our own. progress in sacred literature more readily, than if (like idle drones in a bee hive) we devour and exhaust the stores provided by the care and labour of others.'* p. 685.

The second volume of this valuable work is appropriated to the Analysis of Scripture, which is executed in a manner that

'Baüer; Herm. Sacr. p. 302. Steph. Gausseni. Dissertatio de Ratione Studii Theologici, pp. 25, 26. Dr. H. Owen's Directions for young Students in Divinity, p. 37, 5th edit.'