Fhilol. 1. 1. c. 3. § 5. Morin. Exercit. 2. c. 7, 8, 9. Walton, 644. It is of different kinds; Gematria, deducing mysteries from a word, by comparing it with, or explaining it by another, whose letters, as used in notation, amount to the same sum;' Notarikon, by making each letter stand for a word, of which it is the initial, and thus from one word forming a sentence; Permutation, by combining the letters of a word differently, changing their order, or substituting in. their placé others supposed analogous to them, for their position in the alphabet, or some other reason equally chimerical.3 lid. Walton, ib. § 34-37. Simon, ib. 1. S. c. 6. 1 Zech. iii. 8. 2 Exod. xv. 11. 3 Exod. xxiii. 23. 645. Many of the Jews set a high value on the Cabala, and even prefer it to the Scripture, as giving the spiritual meaning of the law; but it is truly a fanciful and impious method of wresting Scripture to whatever sense one pleases, equally void of solidity and use. Walton, ib. § 30, 38. 646. The Jews have, likewise, a practical Cabala, which is a species of magic, being a method of using letters and words as charms for curing diseases, working miracles, obtaining intercourse with angels, and the like; and this is not only useless, but detestable. Walton, ib. § 33. 647. All the other Jewish writers are comprehended under the name of Rabbins; and their works are of different kinds, and different degrees of utility. 648. Though most of them extol the Masora, and adhere to the text, as determined by it; yet many of them bear testimony to the variation of copies, and in their quotations give readings different from the received ones; and some have made collections of various readings, as of the oriental and occidental MSS. of Ben Asher and Ben Naphtali. Ken. Diss. Gen. § 41, 42, 43. 649. Some of the Rabbinical writers employ themselves wholly on the grammar of the Hebrew language, which they took from the Arabians, and in which they have affected great subtlety; by this they contributed much to the knowledge of that language, and, consequently, to the understanding of the Old Testament; but all that is useful in them may now be much more easily learned from later works. 650. In their interpretations of Scripture, they are either literal, allegorical, or cabalistical; and some of them unite all these three modes. Bechai. 651. Many of them, especially the most ancient, are wholly set on allegorizing the Scriptures; and these are of no use, except their fables happen now and then to throw light on opinions referred to in Scripture. Jarchi. 652. Their cabalistical interpretations are ridiculous and altogether useless. Ramban. Abraham Seba. Moses Negara, &c. 653. The literal method of interpreting Scripture was revived among the Jews, by some who rejected all their traditions, allowing authority only to the written word, explained according to reason, and were, on this account, called Caraites, and regarded as a distinct sect, from about the middle of the 8th century. Simon, V. T. l. 1. c. 27. l. 3. c. 5, 6. & Catalog. Auth. Jud. Beausobre, Intr. Aaron. 654. Many of the Rabbinical writers who censure the Caraites, and do not reject all tradition, yet employ themselves chiefly in finding out the literal sense of Scripture, though often with too minute attention to the subtleties of their Grammar, or too great an intermixture of their philosophical notions. Simon, ib. Aben Ezra. Maimonides. Kimchi. Levi Ben Gerson. Abarbanel. Mordochai. Lombroso. Aben Melech. 655. The Rabbinical writers have many explications of Scripture handed down to them by tradition, or contained in MSS. to which there is not general access; several of them just, and, therefore, highly useful. 656. They likewise apply much to the study of the Hebrew language, and have great knowledge of it, which enables them to give the sense of Scripture ; and, particularly, they preserve many idioms, phrases and modes of expression, used by their ancestors, which best illustrate texts in which similar ones occur. Mat. xii. 36. "Every idle word (pna aprov) they shall give account thereof," their easy, ordinary conversation, whether good or bad, (Kimchi in Psal. i. 3. ;) we shall be examined concerning our slighter discourse, as well as our more de liberate. SECT. VI. Of the Ancient Christian Writers. 657. THE writings of the ancient Christians, called the Fathers, are of some use in criticism, both with respect to the reading, and the sense. 658. They contain many quotations from the original, at least of the New Testament; and all have agreed, that these may supply various readings, some of them genuine; though not concerning the degree of authority due to them. 659. Some, affirming that they frequently quote inaccurately, or only from memory, determine that they give no authority, or very little, to any reading which is not established by MSS. Michael. § 30. Pfaff. c. 12. can. 3. Whitby Exam. Millii, 1. 1. c. 1. 660. Others, particularly Popish writers, think, that their works being more ancient than any MSS. now extant, the quotations found in them are the best means of settling the genuine reading, and ought to have the greatest authority. Dupin. Diss. Prelim. Michael. ib. 661. The truth seems to be, that they generally quoted Scripture very exactly, as they had it in their copies; and, therefore, when a reading followed by them agrees with any ancient MS., it is, probably, the genuine reading. Wetstein, Prol. c. 16. can. 14. Pfaff. ib. Mat. vi. 1. "Do not λμovny, alms." So most copies. But dixaoovn," righteousness," in 2 ancient MS., Vulg., most Fathers, and most agreeable to the Scripture style. Mill. & Pearce in loc. 662. The total silence of the Fathers concerning a reading which would have confirmed their opinion in a controverted point, justly renders that reading suspicious. Wetstein, ib. 663. The Fathers generally take their quotations from the 70 version; and the Latin Fathers quote Scripture according to the Latin versions then in use; they therefore show what was then read in these versions. 664. Concerning the usefulness of the Fathers for the interpretation of Scripture, there are very different opinions; some, particularly the generality of Popish |