very clearly that thefe doctrines are not the leading fenfe of those paffages; and therefore are properly difregarded in fuch an expofition as the present. Another objection, we think, may be drawn from a part of the work which, Mr. Gilpin fays, (as the reader may have feen already in the extract which we made in our last review from the author's general preface,) he has laboured, and on which he has taken all the pains he could, and has used the beft helps he could find.' We mean the part which confifts in tracing, or rather in supplying, the connection between the divifions of a writer's difcourfe, and making out the thread of his narrative, or the chain of his reasoning. We must, however, do Mr. Gilpin the juftice to obferve that this is an objection which does not lie against him in particular, but which may, with equal truth and reafon, be urged against all the commentators on the fcriptures that we have yet feen. They feem to fuppofe that the facred writers, and especially St. Paul, in the very middle of a difcourfe on one fubject, fuddenly, and without the leaft preparation or warning, leaves the matter in hand, and plunges deeply into the very heart of another fubject, which has no natural connection nor fimilarity with the former; and then, after beftowing a few words or fentences on this last, as rapidly and wildly flies off to a third, or, it may be, comes back again to the firft: thus vaulting about from one thing to another, without pursuing any method or following any guide, as the commentators feem to imagine, but caprice, and without the probability of producing any effect but that of puzzling the reader. Then thefe learned gentlemen find out that the Jewish writers are more abrupt than thofe of any other nation; that Paul, in particular, was a man of fuch a fervid imagination, (or, to speak more plainly, of fuch a confufed dream of putting, as an infcription on the ftone; this is the hand, or, this is the feal, of John, King of England? In like manner, with regard to thofe paffages of holy writ on which predeflination is grounded, Mr. Gilpin has perhaps inferted in his expofition the beft explanation of them that is extant: but, if any candid man were to confront the text with the paraphrafe, we think that he would be puzzled to see how the latter could be fairly deduced from the former. We truft it is wholly needlefs to caution our readers against fuppofing that we are believers in tranfubftantiation, or in predeltination. All that we mean is to deal honefly by the interpretations of ali parties, catholic or proteftant, churchman or diffenter; and where, as in the prefent cafe, the explanations of all are alike unfatisfactory, to excite critics to a more diligent investigation of the true and rational fenfe of the facred writers. understanding,) that. with all the advantage of time to arrange his ideas, and to reduce them into writing, he could not reafon connectedly on the fame topic for five minutes together; and we know not how many more curious discoveries. Hence, in order to make the facred writers intelligible, they fupply the connection, as they call it; under the fanction of which term, they fupply fuch things as it is impoffible that any writer, who intended to be understood, could ever have omitted. No man in his fenfes ever built an edifice, confisting of different ftories, without making a regular stair-cafe, or at leaft fome mode of communication to go from one story to another, if he meaned that his building in all its parts should be inhabited by men. If therefore we fee a finifhed building without fuch communication, though it may perhaps, when viewed through the medium of our prejudices and preconceptions, appear in other respects to be defigned for a dwellinghoufe, its lower apartments feeming 'to correfpond to our notion of parlours, and its upper to that of chambers; yet, wanting the proper communication, we may be affured that the ftructure was intended to answer fome other purpose, and that we do not thoroughly understand the nature of it ;-and thus the commentators should have argued in the cafe of St. Paul; concluding, when they found him deftitute of all connection and coherence, not that he wrote in a way in which no man before or fince ever did, or as it appears to us ever could write, but that, either because they were not properly acquainted with Jewish idioms, phrafes, figures, and customs, or because they were misled, and put on a wrong fcent, by the preconceived opinions of themselves, or of their contemporaries, they did not rightly comprehend the meaning and defign of those parts which, as they explained them, seemed to have no union with each other. Were we to describe these connecting commentators,-inftead of calling them, with Mr. Gilpin, the beft helps, we fhould ftyle them the worst hindrances, toward understanding the facred writers; because, by misinterpreting what thofe writers do fay, and fupplying a great deal which they do not fay, they make them talk very fmoothly and confiftently about one thing, when the writers themselves are, in reality, talking as regularly and confiftently about another thing; and thus the commentators, inftead of illuftrating the bible, darken and obfcure it, by covering it with the veil of their own theological fyftems. We must not omit to inform our readers that, beside a particular preface and table of contents to each book of the New Teftament, Mr. Gilpin has prefixed to his expofition, a LIFE of JESUS, drawn from the prophecies of the Old Testament, and likewise a very useful general PREFACE to the whole work. In this preface, Mr. G. defcribes the ftate of the world, and particularly of the Jewish nation, at the time of the coming of Jefus; fhews the general expectation of a Meffiah that prevailed among the Jews and Gentiles; afferts the great fimplicity of his religion; explains the way in which it was taught by himself and his immediate followers; makes fome obfervations on the nature, ftyle, and authenticity of the writings which compofe the N. T.; gives two lifts of the refpective dates or times when, according to the opinions of Michaelis and of Lardner, they were written; enumerates the caufes which, in matters of less moment, have contributed to render the Bible obfcure and difficult; maintains, in oppofition to Mr. Locke and others, the utility of commentators; condemns the plan of harmonizing the Evangelifts, thinking it much better to expound the four gofpels feparately as he has done, in the order in which they follow one another, than to blend them together into one narrative; and concludes with a few explanations of perfons and things that occur frequently in fcripture. On the subject of commentators, we must briefly obferve that, notwithstanding what Mr. G. has faid, we think Mr. Locke was perfectly right when he condemned them all in a body. Nor can we aflent to Mr. Gilpin's opinion that it was not quite fair, in one who was a commentator himself, to pass fuch a general cenfure on his fellow labourers in the fame vineyard. In fact, they were not his fellow labourers. They all, without exception, laboured to expound the bible fyftematically, in conformity with the pre-established creed of their own church, or fect, whatever it might happen to be. He endeavoured to explain it rationally, juft as he would any other book, having nothing in view but to find out the meaning of the writers; and ftriving to keep himself wholly indifferent as to what opinions that meaning might be found to fupport, or what fyftems it might contribute to pull down. Mr. Gilpin, however, thinks that he fell into fome mistakes. We think fo too. What human being was ever entirely free from error? We do not, however, believe that his mistakes arose from trusting too much to his own reafon, and looking too little into commentators: but from a very oppofite caufe,—from his knowing too much about commentators, and being too ftrongly tinctured with their fyftems and opinions, their modes and manners, either imbibed among the prejudices of early life, or acquired by fubfequent reading. Even the ftrong mind of that great man, exerting itself with fuch efforts as it did, and labouring with fuch affiduity, was unable, (fo obftinate and in veterate veterate are theological prepoffeffions!) to burst its fetters, and to difengage itself thoroughly from the habits, temper, spirit, and turn of mind of a commentator. Hence we think that he has made Paul too much of a technical theologian, too great a dealer in fyftematical divinity; instead of reprefenting him, as he appears to us, after all the attention which we have been able to give to him, as a writer wholly intent on inculcating practical and moral chriftianity. Thanks, however, to the labours of Mr. Locke, and of thofe who have followed the path which he marked out, commentators are now much improved, and are become much more rational than they were in his days. Yet, even at prefent, if a man wishes thoroughly and intimately to understand his bible, and will take the neceffary pains for fo doing, (which we must tell him, beforehand, will be a work of no fmall labour,) we would advife him to forget the systematical divinity which he has learned in his youth, and to throw afide all commentators. Under this term, however, we do not include, nor did Mr. Locke ever think of including, critics and philologists who elucidate language, nor antiquaries who explain customs; nor yet geographers, nor chronologers: but merely theologians, who frame fyftems, invent, improve, or fupport doctrines, and, diving into the depths of the metaphyfical abyss, extract mysteries from fragments and particles In * It is wonderful to fee with what minutenefs and particularity of detail thefe theological gentlemen will unfold the nature of the Godhead, difplay the fecrets of the invifible world, adjust the whole procefs and ceremonial of the final judgment, and draw out of the fcripture a thousand other curious things which were never put into it: thus kindly letting the most ordinary reader of their difcoveries into a thorough knowlege and understanding of many profound myfteries, about fubjects of which the prophets, apoftles, and evangelifts, poor men! knew no more than a child knows ;-and it is still more furprizing to fee with what flender materials they will do all this. They have only to tack a little bit from one end of the Bible to a little bit from the other, and to few to the whole a few fcraps from the middle; and then, as Butler fays, they "Can tell as eafy how the world was made, As if they had been brought up to the trade :" or any thing else that they have a fancy to tell. It must be owned, however, that, though their original materials are flight, they have immense resources in their own ingenuity and contrivance. The fon of man, as we learn from the book of Revelations, hath the keys of hell and death, and we know that he gave to Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven: but what privilege or power of gaining information could thefe confer, when compared to the fuperior advantages of the perfons of whom we fpeak; who have contrived to get into their hands the keys of every door that they may think proper to open In a word, if a reader of piety, charity, and humility, (and after all, these, we think, are the perfons who read their Bibles with the most profit,) will but reft fatisfied with having a general and fuperficial view of its contents, and of its great leading object, that of purifying the hearts and lives of mankind by giving them certain and indubitable aflurance of the future infallible reward of virtue, and the inevitable punishment of vice-we fay, if a reader will content himself with this knowlege, let him read his Bible with any commentator, or no commentator, juft as he likes. It matters not. If he do but refolve, and hold firmly to his refolution, not to perplex himself with any thing farther, he can never go wrong: for these things are so very prominent, and fo repeatedly inculcated, over and over again, from one end of the Bible to the other, that even the thickest gloom that was ever hatched in the murkiest den* of popery would have been utterly unable for a moment to conceal their fplendor from the fight, had not priestcraft, at the fame time, with a holy zeal for vice and ignorance, caft its broad mantle over the gift of God, and concealed from every eye but its own, - the Bible itself. If the reader, however, be more curious and critical; if his appetite be fo nice and delicate, that it must be gratified with fomething more than the coarfe and plain, but wholefome, bread of life; if he be too faftidious to embrace a revelation until its minute fubordinate parts are made as rational, confiftent, and level to his comprehenfion, as the great and primary defign of the whole: then let him caft away, at once, all his theology, and, if poffible, the very name and memory of it; open, whether in heaven above, or in earth beneath, or in the waters under the earth? Then they have at command the compound lever of type and antitype, the powerful engine of double fenfes, and, in short, all the cumbrous mechanifm that is carefully preferved, to an infinite amount, in the vaft ftorehoufe of theological machinery. When we read our Bibles, we fee (Acts, i. 7.) that there are fome things which God hath put in his own power; and the more we read them, the more we are inclined to believe that the number of these things far, very far, exceeds what is commonly fuppofed. The fecret things, which belong unto the Lord our God, are innumerable: but thofe things which are revealed, and which belong unto us and to our children for ever, poffibly respect only this one object, viz. that we may do all the words of this law: (Deut. xxix. 29.) Thus it is, when we read our Bibles: but, when we read the authors whom we have been defcribing, which are the very fame that Mr. Locke advises the biblical student to throw wholly afide, all is completely reversed; · and it feems as if God had reserved nothing to himself, but had put every thing into the power of the theological commentator. Shakspeare. - |