will agree to the Old Teftament alfo, I leave to men of leifure and learning to confider.

I was willing to do my beft, to clear up a matter of fuch great importance; not only as every man hath a right to publifh his own fentiments at any time; but as this subject hath, of late, been rudely handled by the enemies of the most reasonable, virtuous, and benevolent religion; and the friends to revelation have, many of them (as I apprehend) afcribed too much to infpiration; though fome, on the other hand, have afcribed too little.

ESSAY

ESS A

A Y

CONCERNING

The UNITY of SENSE; to fhew that no text of Scripture has more than one fingle sense.

N all other authors befides the Scriptures, before we fit down to read and study them, we expect to find in them one fingle, determinate fenfe and meaning of the words; from which we may be fatisfied that we have attained to their meaning, and understand what they intended to fay.

Exod. xxi. 8. Mofes is fpeaking of an Hebrew's felling his daughter, for a maid-fervant, to another Hebrew, and fuppofing that other Hebrew to marry her; and upon that he fays, "If the pleafe "not her master, who hath betrothed her to himfelf, then fhall he "let her be redeemed." The reading which we follow is in the margin of the Hebrew Bible. But, in the text according to the Hebrew, it is, [" that he do not betrothe her"]. The learned commentator Mr. Ainsworth fays, "That Mofes, hearing it of God, did, by his "fpirit, write both [thefe readings]. And the margin is that "which, in the Hebrew, is noted to be read. The Hebrew doc"tors [in Talmud. Bab. in Nedarim, c. 4. fol. 37. b.] fay, The "words read, and not written; and written, and not read; were "the tradition of Mofes, from [mount] Sinai :" i. e. as the Hebrew fcholion on the place noteth, "So Mofes received in Sinai, and de"livered to Ifrael.”

Lev. xi. 21. There is a defcription of the things which were clean, and might be eaten by the Jews; and the text fays [" fuch as have "not legs"]; in the margin of the Hebrew Bible, it is [" fuch as "have legs"]. The fame learned commentator fays, "Thus both "readings were wrritten by Mofes." Lev. xxv. 30. The Hebrew, in the text, reads, [" The houfe, that is in the city, which hath not a wall"]. In the margin of the Hebrew Bible, it is, ["the houfe, "that is in the city, which hath a wall"]. Where Mr. Ainsworth again contendeth that the text is not corrupted, though we follow "the marginal reading.'

The Papifts have contended for the very fame thing; and would have two different readings, in the Hebrew of the Old Teftament, or the Greek of the New Teftament, to fupport two fenfes; as if they were, both of them, the true fenfe of the text. [Vid. Spanhem. Chainier. contract. p. 236]. But does not this appear very strange, that contradictory fenfes of a text fhould be both true: and that VOL. IV.

I i

thefe

thefe different_readings, with contrary fignifications, fhould both proceed from God, or from the spirit of God?

Some of the Jewish rabbies have faid "that the Scripture hath "feventy-two faces." By which they mean that it may be interpreted many ways. For, under that expreffion, they comprehend thofe allegorical fenfes, which are as many as there are idle, fanciful rabbies to invent them. However, it is a common faying, not only among the Karaites, but also among the more judicious rabbies," that the Scripture does not go beyond the literal fenfe," which the learned Aben Ezra profeffes always to embrace, fcoming the feventy-two faces, or the allegorical and cabbalistic fenfes, which moft of the Jews in the Eaft fuperftitiously observe. [Sec Father Simon's Critical History of the Old Teftament, b. III. chap. 8. or part 3d. p. 47. and his Animadverfions on Voffius's Oracles of the Sibyls, p. 283. Glaffii philolog. facr. 1. II. p. 259.].

Auguftin affirms, "that the fame place of Scripture may be dif"ferently explained; and that the providence of God hath given "those many several fenfes to the holy Scriptures." [See Father Simon's Critical Hiftory of the Old Teftament, b. III. c. 8. p. 47.] The following lines in Homer have been interpreted four different ways. [Vid. Hom. II. a. 306, 367.]

Ὃς δὲ κ ̓ ἀνὴρ ἀπὸ ὧν ὀχέων ἕτερ ἅρμαθ ̓ ἵκηλαν,

Ἔγχει ὀριξάσθω· ἐπειὴ πολὺ φέρτερον ὅπως.

Upon which paffage, Mr. Pope's note is, The words in the original are capable of four different fignifications, as Euftathius obferves. The firft is, that whoever, in fighting upon his chariot, 'fhall win a chariot from his enemy, he fhall continue to fight, and not retire from the engagement to fecure his prize. The fecond is, that, if any one be thrown out of his chariot, he, who happens to be nearest, fhall hold forth his javelin, to help him up into his own own. The third is, directly contrary to the laft, that, if any one be caft from his chariot, and would mount up into another man's, that other fhall push him back with his javelin, and not admit him, for fear of interrupting the combat. The fourth is followed in the tranflation, as feeming much the most natural; viz. that every one fhould be left to govern his own chariot; and the other, who is admitted, fight only the javelin. The reafon of this advice appears, by the fpeech of Pandarus to Æneas, in the next book. Eneas, having taken him up in his chariot, 'to go against Diomede, compliments him with the choice either to fight or to manage the reins, which was esteemed an office of honour. To this Pandarus anfwers, that it is more proper for Æneas to guide his own horfes, left they, not feeling their ac• customed mafter, fhould be ungovernable, and bring them into danger. Upon occafion of the various and contrary fignifications of which thefe words are faid to be capable, and which Euftathius and Madam Dacier profefs to admire as an excellence, Monfieur de la Motte, in his late difcourfe upon Homer, very juftly animad

<verts, "that, if this be true, it is a grievous fault in Homer. For "what can be more abfurd than to imagine, that the orders given « in a battle fhould be delivered in fuch ambiguous terms, as to "be capable of many meanings? These double interpretations must "proceed, not from any defign in the author, but purely from the "ignorance of the moderns in the Greek tongue, it being impoffi"ble for any one to poffefs the dead languages to fuch a degree, as "to be certain of all the graces and negligences; or to know pre"cifely how far the licences and boldneffes of expreffion were happy "or forced. But critics, to be thought learned, attribute to the 46 poet all the random fenfes that amufe them; and imagine they fee, " in a single word, a whole heap of things, which no modern language can exprefs; fo are oftentimes charmed with nothing but "the confufion of their own ideas."

Dr. Clarke, in his note upon these two lines of Homer, hath, with great judgement, and with that critical skill in which he fo much excelled, endeavoured to support that which Mr. Pope mentions as the third fenfe. But he agrees with Mr. Pope in condemning Euftathius and Madam Dacier, for applauding this ambiguity, in Homer, as profound and excellent; and fays, 'The ambiguity ought by no means to be afcribed to the poet, but unto us, who are now ‹ less skilled in the Greek language; for the conftant and peculiar ' excellence of Homer's eloquence is fo great a perfpicuity in his most laboured and beautiful verfes, as no one ever attained in 'writing of profe.'

་

There is fuch another ambiguous paffage in Homer [II. E. 150.], which has been interpreted in three or four different fenfes. Euftathius has there again commended the ambiguity. But Dr. Clarke has made the fame judicious remarks upon that, as upon the passage already confidered.

Now, how exactly applicable are these things to the observations of fome divines? who, when they meet with a paffage of Scripture which is of more difficult interpretation, and which has been interpreted in divers fenfes, are ready to cry out (with Euftathius and Madam Dacier), "Oh, the depth! oh, the fulness!" whereas (with Monfieur de la Motte) it might be answered, "If this be true, it is a grievous fault. For what can be more abfurd than "to imagine that the doctrines, or rules of practice, which relate "to men's everlasting falvation,' fhould be delivered in fuch am"biguous terms as to be capable of many meanings? These double interpretations muft proceed, not from any defign in the author, but from the ignorance of the moderns in the Hebrew or Greek tongue; it being impoffible for any one to poffefs "the dead languages in fuch a degree, as to be certain of all the graces or negligences, or to know precifely how far the licences "or boldness of expreffion were happy or forced. But fome di"vines, to be thought learned, attribute to the Scriptures all the "random fenfes that amufe them; and imagine they fee, in a fingle word or fentence, a whole heap of things, which no modern

ર

I i2

"language

"language can exprefs: and so are oftentimes charmed with no"thing but the confufion of their own ideas."

SECT. II.

IT is well known that feveral of the fathers interpreted the Scripture in a mystical fenfe, and were fond of that method of interpretation. Origen was very famous for this. Dr. Lightfoot [vol. I. of his Works, p. 373.] is clear in it, that the fathers took this method of interpreting Scripture from the Jews; and that seems to be at present the most common opinion of learned men among the Chriftians. But fome, nevertheless, fuppofe that they rather took it from the more learned Heathens. And, fince there is now extant but very little interpretation of Scripture, in the way of commentary, among the fathers, till the days of Origen, who has been justly styled "The father of the myftical interpreters," as being moft eminent in that art, and who was much copied after by many other fathers, we fhall now confider whence Origen derived that method of interpretation. The best account which we < have of this matter is that given by Photius, the great critic of the ancients, who affures us, that Philo the Jew taught the way of allegorizing Scripture to the Chriftians. [Vid. Phot. Cod. 105.] Now, it is well known that Clemens of Alexandria, who cultivated this myftical art in all his writings, was the mafter of Origen. And, therefore, Origen is reasonably prefumed to have learned it more immediately from him. And Clemens himself certainly derived it from Philo; whom he not only imitates, but tranfcribes very largely; as very plainly appears in the fifth book of his Stromata, and indeed elsewhere. But, though Philo was the great pattern of the myftical writers among the fathers, yet there is reason to < believe that this way of expounding Scripture was of greater antiquity than Philo himself. [Vid. Philo. Jud. de vita contemplat. five de Therapeutis, p. 193. Parif. 1640. and Eufeb. H. E. lib. II. c. 17.]. In Philo's account Eufebius acquiefces, that the Effenes, or Therapeutæ, of Alexandria, had feveral very ancient books of their predeceffors, or founders, full of allegorical interpretations of Scripture.'

Le-Clerk [in his life of Clemens of Alexandria, English edition, p. 53, &c. & Hiftor. Ecclef. p. 24, &c.] thinks that allegories arofe among the Heathens; and that their philofophers invented them, to render plausible their fables, or ancient hiftories of their gods; which, understood literally, appeared to be very grofs and ridiculous and that, when the Jews got acquainted with the Greeks, they admired and copied after their method of explaining religion; and made ufe of it with respect to the Scriptures of the Old Teftament; which they by this means wretchedly abused. Clemens of Alexandria [Stromat. 1. V.] intimates that that which chiefly induced him to believe that the Holy Scripture is full of allegories is, becaufe the Ægyptians and Greeks were won't

to