written, or published, must know it immediately; and from thence it fpread gradually. But the book was infpired, as it came from the apoftles. And that did not depend upon the authoritative confirmation of fathers or councils, of that or any fucceeding age. [Vid. Clerici Hiftor. Ecclef. p. 520, &c.]

Corol. VI. Hence it will follow, that not only the fpurious books, afcribed to the apoftles, are to be rejected; but even the genuine and valuable productions of the apoftolic fathers are to be excluded the canon of facred fcripture; as they want this apoftolic fanétion.

As to the former part of this obfervation, it was evidently the rule, which the ancients went by. For the epiftle to the Hebrews, the epiftle of St. James, the fecond epistle of St. Peter, the fecond and third epiftles of St. John, the epiftle of St. Jude, and the Revelation, were excluded the canon,-only by fuch as thought they were not written by the apoftles. Whereas; fuch, as thought them genuine, received them as canonical. And,

If the epiftle afcribed to Barnabas were genuine, it ought (according to this account) to be received into the canon of the New Teftament: because he was an apoftle. [Acts xiii. 2. and xiv. 14. 1 Cor. ix. 1, &c. Gal. ii. 9.] But, though I allow that epiftle to be of great antiquity; and to have been written, after the deftruction of Jerufalem, by a primitive Chriftian, probably, of the name of Barnabas; yet I am very well fatisfied that it is not, now, commonly afcribed to the right author; nor could, poffibly, be an epiftle of Barnabas the apostle, fpecially as we now have it t

And, unless we follow the guidance of this clue (fo as also to "exclude from the canon all," even the genuine, "writings of the "apoftolic fathers, which want this apoftolic fanction"), what reafon can we give for receiving the writings of St. Luke into the canon; and excluding Hermas; and (especially) that golden remain of Clemens his first epistle to the Corinthians? For, as to the laft, it hath all the marks of pure and genuine antiquity; is allowed to have been written by a companion of St. Paul, whom that apoftle hath mentioned with great honour, Phil. iv. 3. and to have been written before fome of the books of the New Testament itself. For my own part, I cannot fee any fufficient internal marks, for which it ought to be excluded; and apprehend, that it was excluded, mercly for want of the apoftolic atteftation,

Thus I have briefly gone through what I reckon the just account of infpiration, as it relateth to the New Teftament. How far it

Vide Millii prolegom. 203, &c.

"Eufebius (Hift. Ecclef. I. III. c. 25.) places that, which is called the epiftle of Barnabas, v reis vélos, by which he cannot, poflibly, mean less than that it was of "ambiguous and contested authority." [Vid. Valef. & Bevereg. Cod. can. 1. II. c. 9. Pearfon. Vindic. Ignat. 1. 8. Dr. Jortin's Difcourfes, p. 203. See a fo Abp. Laud's Letter to Menard, &c. in the firft volume of Le-Clerc's edition of the Apoftolic Fathers, at the beginning; Dr. Lardner's Credibility, &c. Part 11. vol. I. p 27 Canon, &c. vol. II. c 38, 39-1

Mr. Jones's

will

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 fubject 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 inspiration; though some, on the other hand, have afcribed too little,

ESSAY

E S S

A Y

CONCERNING

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

N all other authors befides the Scriptures, before we fit down to read and ftudy 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 say.

Exod. xxi. 8. Mofes is fpeaking of an Hebrew's felling his daughter, for a maid-servant, to another Hebrew, and fuppofing that other Hebrew to marry her; and upon that he fays, "If the pleafe "not her mafter, who hath betrothed her to himself, 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.] say, 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 description 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 house, "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 fenses; as if they were, both of them, the true fenfe of the text. [Vid. Spanhem. Chamier. contract. p. 236]. But does not this appear very ftrange, that contradictory fentes of a text fhould be both true: and that VOL. IV.

I i

thefe

thefe different readings, with contrary fignifications, should both proceed from God, or from the fpirit 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, fcorning the feventy-two faces, or the allegorical and cabbalistic fenfes, which most of the Jews in the Eaft fuperftitiously obferve. [See 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 "thofe many feveral fenfes to the holy Scriptures." [See Father Simon's Critical Hiftory of the Old Teftament, b. III. c. 8. p. 47.1 The following lines in Homer have been interpreted four different ways. [Vid. Hom. II. a. 306, 367.]

Ὃς δὲ κ' ἀνὴρ ἀπὸ ὧν ὀχέων ἔτερ ἅρμαθ ̓ ἵκηλαν,

Ἔγχει ὀρεξάσθω· ἐπειὴ πολὺ φέρτερον ὕτως.

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 neareft, 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 pufh 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 moft 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 efteemed an office of honour. To this Pandarus answers, that it is more proper for Eneas to guide his own horfes, left they, not feeling their accustomed 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 justly animad‹ verts,

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 muft "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 <c 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; so 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 fkill in which he fo much excelled, endeavoured to fupport 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 lefs fkilled 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 paffage 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 everlafting 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