unacquainted with their conventional use. It was applied by heathen philosophers to the fables of their mythology. They maintained that, notwithstanding the grossness of the images presented, these fables, having a hidden meaning, were designed to express important truths. By the Jews, from various causes, on which it would be out of place here to dwell, this mode of interpretation was applied to their sacred books, and formed one. branch of what was called the Cabbala. A few passages from ancient and modern authors may serve to illustrate its prevalence among this people, and the character which it assumed. Philo, the Jewish philosopher of Alexandria, was cotemporary with our Saviour, though he appears to have been wholly unacquainted with Christianity. He has left us an account of a class of Jews, who led a monastic, religious life, whom he denominates Therapeuta, and who were a branch of the Essenes.* They are spoken of by Philo with great admiration and respect. In this account, he says of them ;†-The whole interval between dawn and evening is occupied in mental exercise. For being engaged in the study of the sacred writings, they philosophize according to the system of their ancestors, interpreting them allegorically; regarding the words as symbolic, expressing something of a hidden nature, which is propounded in allegories. They have likewise compositions of ancient men, who, being among the leaders of their sect, left many monuments of the allegorical art, which they use as exemplars, imitating the method therein adopted.' The Therapeuta, at their meals, conferred respecting the sense of scripture. Of these conferences, Philo says; Their expositions of the sacred writings are of hidden senses allegorically expressed. For the whole Law seems to these men to resemble an animal. The written commands they consider as its body, and the unseen sense which resides in the words, as its soul. By means of this, the rational soul begins clearly to see what belongs to its nature, reflected, as it were, by the mirror of the words; beholding the exceeding beauty of the thoughts contained in them, and unfolding and unveiling the symbols, and bringing their meaning naked to the light, for those who are able, upon a slight suggestion, to perceive what is not apparent by means of what is apparent.' Philo himself, throughout his works, abounds in allegorical expositions of the Old Testament. He, however, differs widely # See Philo, De Vita Contemplativa. Opp. II. p. 471. Ed. Mang. Ibid. pp. 475, 476. VOL. V.NO. I. 6 from the Rabbinical writers in applying no passages, either in a literal or mystical sense, to the Messiah. This, perhaps, may be accounted for by the circumstance, that he was writing among Gentiles, with a view, probably, of being read by them, quite as much as by his countrymen. From his works it is evident, that the mode of interpreting the Old Testament adopted by him, was nothing new in his time; for he neither explains nor defends its principles. It may here be observed, that there are such correspondences of thought and expression between Philo and the writer to the Hebrews, as to create a strong presumption, that the latter was acquainted with the writings of the former. In this, there is nothing improbable, but perhaps the coincidences mentioned may be explained, by supposing that they each derived thoughts and expressions from a school of philosophy common to both. In the Proem to his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus thus speaks of the contents of the Pentateuch ;- All things are disposed in harmony with the nature of the Universe; some things being expressed by the lawgiver skilfully in enigmas, some in decent allegories, and whatever it was preferable should be readily understood, in plain words. To those who are desirous. of becoming acquainted with the principles of all this, there is a wide field for truly philosophical speculation. This I now pass over; but if God give me time, I will endeavour to treat of it, after finishing the present work.' Unfortunately, the work proposed by Josephus was never accomplished. We pass to the Rabbinical Doctors; and will first quote Lightfoot, than whom no one is more celebrated for his Rabbinical learning, and the use which he has made of it. He says of the Jewish teachers ;*- As to the written Law, they had a twofold way of declaring it; viz. explaining and applying it according to the literal sense of it, or else by drawing allegories, mysteries, and far-fecht notions out of it. As to the latter, the instances are endless in the Jewish writings everywhere, so far that they have even melted down the whole volume of the scriptures into tradition and allegory.' The following is from Father Simon's account of the Jewish expositors in his Critical History of the Old Testament.†— The mode of explaining holy scripture adopted by the Jews, has been different at different times and in different places. Though in their disputes with Christians, they keep sufficiently close to *Hora Hebraicæ et Talmudicæ, note on Luke x. 25. the literal sense; yet in their ancient commentaries upon the bible, we find nothing but allegories, fanciful conceits, fictions, and some moral reflections. They seldom give their attention to discovering the literal sense; they are wholly bent upon inventing parables and allegories.' Allix, in his Judgment of the Ancient Jewish Church against the Unitarians, once a famous book, undertakes to maintain the three following propositions ;-1. That in the times of Jesus Christ Our Blessed Saviour, the Jews had among them a common Explication of the scriptures of the Old Testament, grounded on the Tradition of their Fathers, which was in many things approved by Christ and his Apostles.-2. That the Jews had certain traditional maxims and rules for understanding the scrip-. ture.-3. That Jesus Christ and his Apostles proved divers points of the Christian Doctrine by this common Traditional Exposition received among the Jews, which they could not have done (at least not so well), had there been only such a Literal Sense of those Texts which they alleged, as we can find without the help of such Exposition.' The last proposition may serve in part to show the bearings of the subject before us, and how necessary it is to have clear and correct ideas concerning it. Schoeltgen, in the two volumes of his Hora Hebraicæ et Talmudica, gives examples of the allegorical expositions of the Jews. In one passage, after producing various specimens of their Cabbalistic interpretation of the Old Testament, he makes the following remarks ;*-1. What opinion is to be formed of this kind of Cabbala appears from what has been said; seeing that it has pleased the Holy Spirit sometimes to use the same method as the sober Cabbalists; as for example in the Epistle to the Galatians, where the inspired author applies the history of Sarah and Hagar and their two children to the two covenants. could not oppose this shield, perhaps others would think this kind of interpretation worthless.+-2. This exegetical Cab * Tom. II. p. 48. If we Respecting the authority to be ascribed to the allegorical expositions of the Jews, the opinions of Schoeltgen appear to have been unsettled. In his note on the passage in Galatians, which he refers to above, he remarks; Much might here be said of the Jewish allegories, which they bring forward continually in their Cabbalistic commentaries. At the present day we must be cautious in searching for such allegories. For the apostle [St Paul] has selected but a few out of a great number of histories; and even these are not conclusive, except as argumenta ad homines. They were adapted to the Jews of those times, or even to recent converts from that nation; but not to us Christians. They were written for our benefit, that ministers of the divine word might hence learn, that it is not unlawful to use arguments which are extraneous, and adapted only to particular individuals. They may likewise, at the present day, be of the same use in confuting Jews, as they were in the time of the apostle.' bala shows, that the ancient Jews diligently sought for the Messiah and his church in various types both of persons and things, so as to arrive in many respects to a more intimate knowledge of him.-3. Nor was this mode of interpretation applied to histories only, but likewise to other passages of the Old Testament. Thus in Exodus, iv. 22, God calls his people Israel, his first born son, which words have been applied to the Messiah, not by the Jews alone, but by the evangelist Matthew himself." Among the personages of the Old Testament, who were supposed by the Jews to be types of the Messiah, David was preeminent. The language in which he speaks of himself in the Psalms, and the declarations made concerning him, were applied by the Jews, whenever the case would admit, in what was esteemed a higher and more complete sense, to the Messiah. It is from this source that Christians have derived the notion, that the Psalms contain many prophecies of Christ. To the passages which have been quoted, we will add but one more, from the preface to the Epistle to the Hebrews by Beausobre, in the very valuable French translation of the New Testament by him and Lenfant. He says;*From the very commencement of this epistle, the reader finds passages of the Old Testament alleged by way of proof, which are explained in a manner that surprises him, because, upon considering them in their original connexion, the sense given them by the sacred writer is not to be perceived. It is in consequence necessary to make some remarks upon the mode of explaining the ancient scriptures mystically, which was followed by the apostles, and afterwards imitated with too little circumspection by the Christian Fathers. It is, then, to be understood, that the ancient Jews were persuaded, that there were in the holy scriptures hidden and deep senses, which might be discovered by means of the expressions employed by the Holy Spirit, because these expressions were too strong to be restricted to the subject which the prophets appear to have in view. Proceeding by this rule, the divine author of this epistle has discovered various truths of the gospel in the Old Testament. One may turn for example to the remarks which he has made in chapter ii. upon the words of Psalm viii.; in chapter iv. upon those of Psalm xcv.; and in chapter xii. upon those of the prophet Haggai. Another principle of the ancient Jews was, that the person and kingdom of the Messiah were designed, not only in those *Tom. II. p. 428. prophecies which regarded him directly, but in other obscurer oracles which had no direct relation to him. They further believed, that the great personages of the Old Testament were figures of this divine king, whom the nation was expecting, and that what the scripture said in honor of them, was applicable to them only in an imperfect sense, while it was applicable to the Messiah in its whole extent. In this, the fundamental principle of the Jewish doctors corresponded to the intention of the Holy Spirit. All the prophets spoke of Christ, of his sufferings, and his glory; and all which God said in honor of David and Solomon belonged less to them than to the celestial king of whom they were the figures. Conformably to this principle, the sacred author explains of Jesus Christ, what the Holy Spirit had said of these two kings. Comp. ch. i. 5. 8, 9, 10, with Ps. ii. 5. 2 Sam. vii. 14; Fs. xlv. 7.' It will be readily perceived, that we quote Beausobre only in evidence of the fact, that the mode of interpretation which is found in the Epistle to the Hebrews, prevailed among the ancient Jews. His notion that there is sufficient foundation for it in the real existence of mystical senses throughout the Old Testament, will, to many readers, unacquainted with his works, hardly give a fair impression of the character of one of the most learned and acute of writers. Such and so prevalent was the allegorical interpretation of the Old Testament among the Jews. We will now attend to some examples of it furnished by the writer to the Hebrews, noticing by the way, a few other passages which illustrate his manner of reasoning. The Jews gloried in their Law as having been given by the ministry of angels. In the first chapter, therefore, the writer undertakes to prove Christ's superiority to the angels. He asks, vv. 5, 6; For to which of the angels did God ever say, Thou art my son, this day have I made thee so? and again; I will be to him as a father; and he shall be to me as a son? And in another place, upon introducing his firstborn into the world, it is said; And let all the angels of God do him reverence.' The first passage here quoted by the writer to the Hebrews, is taken from the second Psalm, v. 7, which the ancient Jews considered prophetic of the Messiah, as many Christians have done. The next is from 2 Samuel vii. 14, where it is said of Solomon, and cannot be regarded as having any reference to the Messiah or Christ, except in a secondary and mystical sense, Christ being viewed as the antitype of Solomon. The third |