{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_17265/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_17265","id":"gutenberg_17265","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/17265","summary":null,"tags":["Bible -- Study and teaching","Category: Encyclopedias/Dictionaries/Reference","Category: History - Religious","Category: Religion/Spirituality"],"text":"Produced by John Hagerson, Juliet Sutherland, David King,\nand the Online Distributed Proofreading Team\n\n\n\n\n\nCOMPANION\n\nTO\n\nTHE BIBLE.\n\n\n\nBY REV. E.P. BARROWS, D.D.,\n\nPROFESSOR OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE.\n\n\n\n\nGENERAL PREFACE.\n\n\nThe design of the present work, as its title indicates, is to assist in\nthe study of God's word. The author has had special reference to\nteachers of Bible classes and Sabbath-schools; ministers of the gospel\nwho wish to have ready at hand the results of biblical investigation in\na convenient and condensed form; and, in general, the large body of\nintelligent laymen and women in our land who desire to pursue the study\nof Scripture in a thorough and systematic way.\n\nThe First Part contains a concise view of the Evidences of Revealed\nReligion. Here, since Christianity rests on a basis of historic facts,\nspecial prominence has been given to the historic side of these\nevidences; those, namely, which relate to the genuineness, integrity,\nauthenticity, and inspiration of the several books of the Bible. A brief\nview is added of the evidences which are of an internal and experimental\ncharacter.\n\nIn the Introductions to the Old and New Testament which follow in the\nSecond and Third Parts, the general facts are first given; then an\naccount of the several divisions of each, with their office and mutual\nrelations, and such a notice of each particular book as will prepare the\nreader to study it intelligently and profitably.\n\nThe Fourth Part is devoted to the Principles of Biblical Interpretation.\nHere the plan is to consider the Scriptures, first, on the human side,\nas addressed to men in human language and according to human modes of\nthinking and speaking; then, on the divine side, as containing a true\nrevelation from God, and differing in this respect from all other\nwritings. To this twofold view the author attaches great importance. To\nthe human side belong the ordinary principles of interpretation, which\napply alike to all writings; to the divine side, the question of the\nunity of revelation, and the interpretation of types and prophecies.\n\nIn each of the abovenamed divisions the author has endeavored to keep\nprominently in view the unity of revelation and the inseparable\nconnection of all its parts. It is only when we thus contemplate it as a\nglorious whole, having beginning, progress, and consummation, that we\ncan truly understand it. Most of the popular objections to the Old\nTestament have their foundation in an isolated and fragmentary way of\nviewing its facts and doctrines; and they can be fairly met only by\nshowing the relation which these hold to the entire plan of redemption.\n\nThe plan of the present work required brevity and condensation. The\nconstant endeavor has been to state the several facts and principles as\nconcisely as could be done consistently with a true presentation of them\nin an intelligible form. It may be objected that some topics, those\nparticularly which relate to the Pentateuch, are handled in too cursory\na way. The author feels the difficulty; but to go into details on this\nsubject would require a volume. He has endeavored to do the best that\nwas consistent with the general plan of the work. The point of primary\nimportance to be maintained is the divine authority and inspiration of\nthe Pentateuch--the whole Pentateuch as it existed in our Saviour's day\nand exists now. There are difficult questions connected with both its\nform and the interpretation of certain parts of it in respect to which\ndevout believers may honestly differ. For the discussion of these the\nreader must be referred to the works professedly devoted to the subject.\n\nThe present volume is complete in itself; yet it does not exhaust the\ncircle of topics immediately connected with the study of the Bible. It\nis the author's purpose to add another volume on Biblical Geography and\nAntiquities, with a brief survey of the historic relations of the\ncovenant people to the Gentile world.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS.\n\n\nPART I.\n\nA CONCISE VIEW OF THE EVIDENCES OF REVEALED RELIGION.\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\nINTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 1. Christianity rests on a Basis of Historic Facts\ninseparably connected from First to Last--2. This Basis to be maintained\nagainst Unbelievers--3. General Plan of Inquiry--Christ's Advent the\nCentral Point--From this We look forward and backward to the\nBeginning--4. Importance of viewing Revelation as a Whole--5.\nFragmentary Method of Objectors--Particular Order of the Parts in this\nInvestigation\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nGENUINENESS OF THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES. 1. Terms defined--Necessity of\nknowing the Authors of the Gospels--2. Remarks on their Origin--They\nwere not written immediately, but successively at Intervals--Earlier\nDocuments noticed by Luke--3. Manner of Quotation by the Early Church\nFathers--4. _External Evidences_ traced upward from the Close of the\nSecond Century--Testimony of Irenaeus--Of Tertullian--Of Clement of\nAlexandria--Letter of the Churches of Lyons and Vienne--5.\nComprehensiveness and Force of these Testimonies--Freedom of Judgment in\nthe Primitive Churches--This shown by the History of the Disputed\nBooks--6. Public Character and Use of the Gospels--7. Earlier\nTestimonies--Justin Martyr--His Designation of the Gospels--They are Our\nCanonical Gospels--Explanation of his Variations and Additions--His\nReferences to the Gospel of John--8. Testimony of Papias--9. Epistle to\nDiognetus--10. The Apostolic Fathers--Clement of Rome--Ignatius\nPolycarp--The So-called Epistle of Barnabas--11. The Ancient Versions\nand Muratorian Canon--Syriac Peshito--Old Latin--12. Testimony of the\nHeretical Sects--Marcion--Valentinus--Tatian--13. Conclusiveness of the\nabove External Testimony--14. _Internal Evidences_--Relation of the\nFirst Three Gospels to the Last--They differ in Time--The First Three\nwritten before the Destruction of Jerusalem; the Fourth after that\nEvent--They differ in Character and Contents--Yet were all alike\nreceived by the Churches--15. Relation of the First Three Gospels to\nEach Other--They have Remarkable Agreements and Differences--These and\ntheir General Reception explained by their Genuineness--16. The Gospels\ncontain no Trace of Later Events--17. Or Later Modes of Thought. 18.\nFrom the Character of the Language\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nUNCORRUPT PRESERVATION OF THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES. 1. What is meant by an\nUncorrupt Text--2. Ancient Materials for Writing--Palimpsests--Uncial\nand Cursive Manuscripts--3. The Apostolic Autographs have perished, but\nWe have their Contents--This shown from the Agreement of\nManuscripts--From the Quotations of the Fathers--From Ancient\nVersions--Character of the \"Various Readings\"--They do not affect the\nSubstance of the Gospel--4. The Ancient Versions made from a Pure\nText--This shown from the Public Reading of the Gospels from the\nBeginning--From the Multiplication of Copies--From the High Value\nattached to the Gospels--From the Want of Time for Essential\nCorruptions--From the Absence of all Proof of such Corruptions--5. The\nAbove Remarks apply essentially to the other New Testament Books\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nAUTHENTICITY AND CREDIBILITY OF THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES. 1. General\nRemarks--2. Their Authors Sincere and Truthful--3. Competent as Men--4.\nAnd as Witnesses--5. Character of the Works which they record--\nSupernatural Character of our Lord's Miracles--They were very\nNumerous and Diversified, and performed openly--6. And in the Presence\nof His Enemies--7. The Resurrection of Jesus--Its Vital Importance--8.\nThe Character of Jesus proves the Truth of the Record--Its Originality\nand Symmetry--It unites Tranquillity with Fervor--Wisdom with Freedom\nfrom Guile--Prudence with Boldness--Tenderness with Severity--Humility\nwith the Loftiest Claims--He is Heavenly-minded without Asceticism--His\nPerfect Purity--His Virtues Imitable for All alike--Our Lord's Character\nas a Teacher--His Freedom from the Errors of His Age and Nation--His\nReligion One for All Men and Ages--This explained by its Divine\nOrigin--Our Lord's Manner of Teaching--His Divine Mission--Divinity of\nHis Person--Originality of its Manifestations--God His Father in a\nPeculiar Sense--He is the Source of Light and Life--He has Inward\nDominion over the Soul--He dwells in Believers, and they in Him--The\nInference--His Power over the Human Heart--Supernatural Character of the\nGospel--A Word on Objections\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\nTHE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES AND THE ACKNOWLEDGED EPISTLES. 1. These Books a\nNatural Sequel to the Gospels--2. _The Acts of the Apostles_--External\nTestimonies--3. Internal Evidence--4. Credibility--5. Date of\nComposition--6. _The Acknowledged Epistles_--Distinction of Acknowledged\nand Disputed Books--7. First Group of Pauline Epistles--Second Group, or\nthe Pastoral Epistles--Their Date--Their Peculiar Character--8. First\nEpistles of Peter and First of John--9. Mutual Relation between the\nGospels and Later Books--10. Argument from Undesigned Coincidences\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\nTHE DISPUTED BOOKS. 1. The Question here simply concerning the Extent of\nthe Canon--2. The Primitive Age One of Free Inquiry--3. Its Diversity of\nJudgment no Decisive Argument against a Given Book--4. The Caution of\nthe Early Churches gives Weight to their Judgment--This Judgment\nNegative as well as Positive\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\nINSPIRATION AND THE CANON. General Remarks--1. Rule of Judgment\ndetermined--It is the Writer's Relation to Christ--2. Christ Himself\nInfallible--3. _The Apostles_--They held the nearest Relation to\nHim--Their Infallibility as Teachers shown--From the Necessity of the\nCase--From Christ's Express Promises--From their Own Declarations--\nSummary of the Argument in Respect to the Apostles--4. Inspiration of\nthe _Apostolic Men_--5. Argument from the Character of the Books of\nthe New Testament--6. The Inspiration of the Sacred Writers Plenary--\n7. Principles on which the Canon is formed\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\nINSEPARABLE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE OLD AND THE NEW TESTAMENT. General\nRemarks--1. Previous Revelations implied in Christ's Advent--2. In the\nCharacter of the Jewish People--3. Proved from the New Testament--\nChrist's Explicit Declarations--4. The New Testament based on the Facts\nof the Old--The Fall of Man--The Abrahamic Covenant, which was\nconditioned on Faith alone, and fulfilled in Christ--Christ the End of\nthe Mosaic Economy--In its Prophetical Order--In its Kingly Office--In\nits Priestly Office--5. The New Testament Writers the Interpreters of\nthe Old\n\nCHAPTER IX.\n\nAUTHORSHIP OF THE PENTATEUCH. Meaning of the Term--1. It existed in its\nPresent Form from Ezra's Day--2. \"The Law\" ascribed to Moses in the New\nTestament--How Much is included in this Term--3. Force of the New\nTestament Testimony--4. The Law of Moses at the Restoration--5. Jewish\nTradition that Ezra settled the Canon of the Old Testament--He left the\nPentateuch essentially as he found it--References to the Law in the\nBooks of Kings and Chronicles--6. The Book of Deuteronomy--Its Mosaic\nAuthorship Certain--7. The Inference Certain that he wrote the Preceding\nLaws--8. This corroborated by their Form--9. By References in the New\nTestament--And the Old also--10. Relation of Deuteronomy to the Earlier\nPrecepts--In Respect to Time--And Design--Change in Moses' Personal\nRelation to the People--Peculiarities of Deuteronomy explained from the\nAbove Considerations--Meaning of \"the Words of this Law\" in\nDeuteronomy--11. Mosaic Authorship of Genesis shown--From Antecedent\nProbability--From its Connection with the Following Books--Objections\nconsidered--Supposed Marks of a Later Age--And of Different Authors--12.\nUnity of the Pentateuch\n\nCHAPTER X.\n\nAUTHENTICITY AND CREDIBILITY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 1. Its Historic Truth\nassumed in the New Testament--This shown by Examples--2. It was the\nFoundation of the Whole Jewish Polity--And could not have been imposed\nupon the People by Fraud--Contrast between Mohammed and Moses--3.\nScientific Difficulties connected with the Pentateuch--4. Alleged Moral\nDifficulties--Exclusiveness of the Mosaic Economy--Its Restrictions on\nIntercourse with Other Nations--5. Its Numerous Ordinances--The Mosaic\nLaws required Spiritual Obedience--6. Objections from the Toleration of\nCertain Usages--7. Extirpation of the Canaanites--8. The Mosaic Economy\na Blessing to the Whole World\n\nCHAPTER XI.\n\nREMAINING BOOKS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 1. General Remarks--2. The New\nTestament assumes their Divine Authority--Historical Books--3. Books not\nstrictly Historical or Prophetical--4. Prophetical Books--Argument from\nProphecy for the Divine Origin of the Old Testament--5. Christ the\nFulfilment of Prophecy--In his Office as a Prophet--as a King--as a\nPriest--6. The Jewish Institutions and History a Perpetual Adumbration\nof Christ preparatory to His Advent--7. Remarks on the Canon of the Old\nTestament--8. Principle of its Formation--9. Inspiration of the Old\nTestament\n\nCHAPTER XII.\n\nEVIDENCES INTERNAL AND EXPERIMENTAL. 1. External Evidences Important,\nbut not Indispensable to True Faith--2. Internal Evidences--View which\nthe Bible gives of God's Character--3. Code of Morals in the Bible--It\nis Spiritual, Reasonable, and Comprehensive--Obedience to It the Sum of\nall Goodness--4. All Parts of the Bible in Harmony with Each Other--5.\nPower of the Bible over the Conscience--6. Argument from Personal\nExperience--7. From the Character of Jesus--8. From General\nExperience--The Love of Jesus the Mightiest Principle of\nAction--Persecution first winnows, then strengthens the Church--The\nChurch corrupted and weakened by Worldly Alliances--9. The Gospel gives\nan Inward Victory over Sin--It purifies and elevates Society--10. Its\nSelf-purifying Power--11. The Argument summed up\n\n       *       *       *      *      *\n\nPART II.\n\nAN INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT.\n\nFIRST DIVISION--GENERAL INTRODUCTION.\n\n\nCHAPTER XIII.\n\nNAMES AND EXTERNAL FORM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 1. Origin and Meaning of\nthe Word Bible--Jewish Designations of the Old Testament--2. Origin of\nthe Terms Old and New Testament--Earlier Latin Term--2. The\nUnity--Scripture has its Ground in Divine Inspiration--Its Great\nDiversity in Respect to Human Composition--4. Classification and\nArrangement of the Old Testament Books--Classification of the Hebrew: of\nthe Greek Version of the Seventy; of the Latin Vulgate--No One of these\nfollows entirely the Order of Time--5. Original Mode of Writing called\nContinuous--6. Ancient Sections--Open and Closed; Larger Sections called\nParshiyoth and Haphtaroth--7. Chapters and Verses--Caution in Respect to\nour Modern Chapters\n\nCHAPTER XIV.\n\nTHE ORIGINAL TEXT AND ITS HISTORY. 1. Chaldee Passages in the Hebrew\nScriptures--Divisions of the Hebrew and Cognate Languages--2. The\nAssyrian or Square Character not Primitive--Jewish Tradition respecting\nits Origin--3. The Hebrew Alphabet and its Character--4. Change in the\nLanguage of the Hebrew Nation--5. Introduction of the Vowel-Points and\nAccents--The Question of their Antiquity--6. Jewish Rules for the\nGuidance of Copyists--Their Deep Reverence for the Sacred Text--Its\nUncorrupt Transmission to Us--7. Age and Character of Hebrew\nManuscripts--8. Form of Hebrew Manuscripts--the Public in Rolls, the\nPrivate in the Book Form, Poetical Passages, Columns, Pen and Ink\nAccompaniments--9. The Samaritan Pentateuch\n\nCHAPTER XV.\n\nFORMATION AND HISTORY OF THE HEBREW CANON. I. Meaning of the Word\n\"Canon\"--Gradual Formation of the Hebrew Canon--Its Main Divisions--1.\n_The Pentateuch_--2. General Remark on its Hebrew Name--3. The\nPentateuch forms the Nucleus of the Old Testament Canon--It was given by\nDivine Authority, committed to the Charge of the Priests, kept by the\nSide of the Ark, and to be publicly read at Stated Times--II. _The\nHistorical Books_--4. The Authors and Exact Date of Many of them\nUnknown--Important Historical Documents were deposited in the\nSanctuary--5. The Authors of the Books of Joshua and Judges made Use of\nsuch Documents--6. The Author of the Books of Samuel also--7. Original\nSources for the Books of Kings and Chronicles--8. These Two Works refer\nnot to Each Other, but to a Larger Collection of Original Documents--9.\nCharacter of these Documents--They were written, in Part at Least, by\nProphets, and they all come to us with the Stamp of Prophetic\nAuthority.--10. The Books of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther--III. _The\nProphetical Books_--11. The Books enumerated--Paucity of Prophets before\nSamuel--Schools of the Prophets established by him--The Prophets a\nDistinct Order of Men in the Theocracy from his Day onward--12. The Era\nof Written Prophecy--IV. _The Poetical Books_--13. Their General\nCharacter--The Book of Job--14. The Book of Psalms--15. Proverbs,\nEcclesiastes, and Canticles--_Completion of the Canon_--16. Preservation\nof the Sacred Books to the Time of Ezra--The Law; the Prophetical Books;\nthe Psalms and other Canonical Writings--17. The Completion of the Canon\nascribed by the Jews to Ezra and his Coadjutors--This Tradition True for\nSubstance.--No Psalms written in the Maccabean Age--18. Contents of the\nHebrew Canon--as given by Jesus the Son of Sirach, by Josephus, by\nOrigen and Eusebius, by Jerome--19. The Apocryphal Books\n\nCHAPTER XVI.\n\nANCIENT VERSIONS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. I. _The Greek Version called the\nSeptuagint_--1. Its Antiquity; its Great Influence on the Language of\nthe New Testament--2. Jewish Account of its Origin--3. Judgment of\nBiblical Scholars on this Account--4. Time occupied in the Completion of\nthe Work--5. Inequalities of this Version--Its Importance to the\nBiblical Student--6. Its Close Connection with the New Testament--\nQuotations from it by New Testament Writers--Their Manner and Spirit--\n7. Hebrew Text from which this Version was made--II. _Other Greek\nVersions_--8. The Septuagint originally in High Esteem among the\nJews--Change in their Feelings in Regard to it, and Rise of New\nVersions--9. Aquila's Version--10. Theodotion--11. Symniachus--12.\nOrigen's Labors on the Text of the Septuagint--the Tetrapla and\nHexapla--III. _The Chaldee Targums_--13. General Remarks on these--14.\nThe Targum of Onkelos--Its General Fidelity and Excellence--Its\nPeculiarities--Jewish Tradition respecting Onkelos--15. The Targum of\nJonathan Ben Uzziel--16. Of Pseudo-Jonathan and Jerusalem--17. Other\nTargums--The Samaritan Version of the Samaritan Pentateuch--IV. 18. _The\nSyriac Peshito_--Its Age and Character\n\nCHAPTER XVII.\n\nCRITICISM OF THE SACRED TEXT. 1. The Object to ascertain its Primitive\nForm--2. Means at Our Disposal--Ancient Hebrew Manuscripts--Remarks on\ntheir Quality and Age--3. Ancient Versions--4. Primary Printed\nEditions--5. Parallel Passages--6. Quotations from the Old Testament in\nthe New--7. Quotations in the Talmud and by Rabbinical Writers--8.\nCritical Conjecture\n\n\nSECOND DIVISION--PARTICULAR INTRODUCTION.\n\n\nCHAPTER XVIII.\n\nTHE BOOKS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT AS A WHOLE. 1. Province of Particular\nIntroduction--The Necessity of Understanding the Unity of Divine\nRevelation--2. Relation of the Old Testament as a Whole to the System of\nRevelation--It is a Preparatory, Introductory to a Final Revelation, of\nwhich the Gospel everywhere avails itself--the Unity of God; Vicarious\nSacrifice; General Principles; Well-developed State of Civilization--\nConnection of the Hebrews with the Great World Powers--Their Dispersion\nthrough the Nations at our Lord's Advent--Relation of the Gospel to\nCivilization--3. A Knowledge of the Preparatory Character of the Old\nTestament Revelations enables us to judge correctly concerning them--\nSeverity of the Mosaic Laws; Their Burdensome Multiplicity; Objection\nfrom their Exclusive Character answered--4. Office of each Division of\nthe Old Testament Revelations--the Pentateuch; the Historical Books;\nthe Prophetical Books--Character and Officers of the Hebrew Prophets--\nEra of Written Prophecy--The Poetical Books--5. Each Particular Book\nhas its Office--6. The Old Testament was a Revelation for the Men of\nits Own Age, as well as for those of Future Ages--the Promise made to\nAbraham; the Deliverance from Egypt; the Mosaic Law; the Words of the\nProphets; the Psalms of David: the Wisdom of Solomon--7. Value of the\nOld Testament Revelations to us--the System of Divine Revelation can\nbe understood only as a Whole; Constant Reference of the New Testament\nto the Old; the Old Testament a Record of God's Dealings with Men;\nthe Principles embodied in the Theocracy Eternal; the Manifold Wisdom\nof God seen only when the Whole System of Revelation is studied\n\nCHAPTER XIX.\n\nTHE PENTATEUCH. I. Its Unity--Its Fivefold Division--1. _Genesis_--2.\nIts Hebrew Name--Its Greek Name--3. Its Office--It is the Introductory\nBook of the Pentateuch--Its Connection with the Following Books--4.\nDivisions of the Book of Genesis--First Part and its Contents; Second\nPart and its Contents--5. Its Mosaic Authorship--Supposed Traces of a\nLater Hand--6. Difficulties connected with the Pentateuch--Scientific\nDifficulties: the Six Days of Creation; the Age of the Antediluvian\nPatriarchs; the Unity of the Human Race; the Deluge--Historical\nDifficulties: the Two Accounts of the Creation; Cain's Wife--\nChronological Difficulties: Discrepancies between the Masoretic\nHebrew, the Samaritan Hebrew, and the Septuagint, in Respect to (1) the\nAntediluvian Genealogy; (2) the Genealogy from Noah to Abraham--Remarks\non these Discrepancies--II. _Exodus_--7. Hebrew Name of this Book--Its\nUnity--Its Two Chief Divisions--Contents of the First Division; of the\nSecond Division--8. Time of the Sojourn in Egypt--Sojourn in the\nWilderness--III. _Leviticus_--9. Its Character and Contents--10. The\nPriestly Office and Sacrifices the Central Part of the Mosaic Law--IV.\n_Numbers_--11. Office and Contents of this Book--The Three Epochs of its\nHistory: the Departure from Sinai, the Rebellion of the People upon the\nReport of the Twelve Spies, the Second Arrival of Israel at Kadesh with\nthe Events that followed--V. _Deuteronomy_--12. Its Peculiar Character,\nDivisions, and Contents--13. It brings the Whole Pentateuch to a\nSuitable Close\n\nCHAPTER XX.\n\nTHE HISTORICAL BOOKS. 1 and 2. Their Office to Unfold the History of\nGod's Dealings with the Covenant People--General Remarks on the\nCharacter of this History--I. _Joshua_--3. Contents of this Book. Its\nImmediate Connection with the Pentateuch--Its Two Divisions with their\nContents--4. Its Authorship--5. Its Authenticity and Credibility--The\nMiracle of the Arrest of the Sun and Moon in their Course--II. _Judges\nand Ruth_--6. Name of this Book--Office of the Judges whose History it\nrecords--Condition of the Hebrew Nation during the Administration of the\nJudges--Office of this Book in the General Plan of Redemption--7.\nArrangement of its Materials--its Twofold Introduction; the Body of its\nHistory; its Two Appendixes--8. Its Date and Authorship--9. Uncertainty\nof its Chronology--10. The Book of Ruth. Its Place in the History of\nRedemption--III. _The Books of Samuel_--11. The Two Books of Samuel\noriginally One Work--Their Name--12. Their Office in the History of\nRedemption--Eventful Character of the Period whose History they\nrecord--Change to the Kingly Form of Government--God's Design in\nthis--The Kingly Office Typical of Christ--13. Contents of the Books of\nSamuel--Introductory Division; Second Division; Third Division--14.\nAuthorship and Date of their Composition--IV. _The Books of Kings_--15.\nThey Originally constituted a Single Book--Their Names and Office--Their\nManner of Execution--Their Main Divisions--16. The First Period--17. The\nSecond Period--18. The Third Period--19. Chronology of the Books of\nKings. Their Date and Authorship--V. _The Books of Chronicles_--20. They\noriginally constituted One Work--Their Various Names--They constitute an\nIndependent Work--Their Office different from that of the Books of\nKings--Peculiarities which distinguish them from these Books--Particular\nAttention to the Matter of Genealogy; Fullness of Detail in Respect to\nthe Temple Service; Omission of the History of the Kingdom of Israel;\nother Omissions--21. Position of the Chronicles in the Hebrew\nCanon--Their Authorship and Date--Their Relation to the Books of\nKings--22. Difficulties connected with these Books--VI. _Ezra and\nNehemiah_--23. General Remarks on these Books--Change in the Relation of\nthe Hebrews to the Gentile Nations--Gradual Withdrawal of Supernatural\nManifestations--24. While the Theocracy went steadily forward to the\nAccomplishment of its End--The Jews reclaimed from Idolatry in\nConnection with the Captivity--Establishment of the Synagogue Service\nand its Great Influence--25. The Book of Ezra--Its Authorship--Parts\nwritten in Chaldee--Persian Monarchs mentioned by Ezra and Nehemiah--26.\nThe Book of Nehemiah--Its Contents and Divisions--First Division; Second\nDivision; Third Division--27. Authorship and Date of the Book--VII.\n_Esther_--28. Contents of this Book--Feast of Purim--29. The Ahasuerus\nof this Book--Remarks on its History\n\nCHAPTER XXI.\n\nTHE POETICAL BOOKS (INCLUDING ALSO ECCLESIASTES AND CANTICLES). 1. Books\nreckoned as Poetical by the Hebrews--Hebrew System of Accentuation--A.\n_Characteristics of Hebrew Poetry_--_Its Spirit_--Harmony with the\nSpirit of the Theocracy; Vivid Consciousness of God's Presence;\nOriginality; Freshness and Simplicity of Thought; Variety--Job and\nIsaiah. David, Solomon; Diversity of Themes; Oriental Imagery;\nTheocratic Imagery--_Form of Hebrew Poetry_--3. Its Rhythm that of\nClauses--Antithetic Parallelism; Synonymous Parallelism; Synthetic\nParallelism--Combinations of the above Forms--Freedom of Hebrew\nPoetry--Peculiarities of Diction--_Office of Hebrew Poetry_--4. The\nCelebration of God's Interpositions in Behalf of the Covenant People;\nSong for the Sanctuary Service; Didactic Poetry; Prophetic Poetry--B.\n_The Several Poetical Books_--I. _Job_--1. Survey of its Plan--6. Its\nDesign to Show the Nature of God's Providential Government over Men--7.\nAge to which Job belonged--Age and Authorship of the Book--8. Its\nHistoric Character--II. _The Book of Psalms_--9. Its Office--Authors of\nthe Psalms--Date of their Composition--10. External Division of the\nPsalms into five Books--First Book; Second Book; Third Book; Fourth\nBook; Fifth Book--Subscription appended to the Second Book--Principle of\nArrangement--Attempted Classification of the Psalms--Frequent Quotation\nof the Psalms in the New Testament--11. Titles of the Psalms--the\nDedicatory Title; Titles relating to the Character of the Composition to\nthe Musical Instruments, or the Mode of Musical Performance--These\nTitles very Ancient, but not in all Cases Original--III. _The Proverbs\nof Solomon_--12. Place of this Book in the System of Divine\nRevelation--13. Its Outward Form--First Part; Second Part; Third Part;\nFourth Part--14. Arrangement of the Book in its Present Form--IV.\n_Ecclesiastes_--15. Authorship of this Book and its View of Life--16.\nSummary of its Contents--V. _The Song of Solomon_--17. Meaning of the\nTitle. Ancient Jewish and Christian View of this Song--18. It is not a\nDrama, but a Series of Descripture Pictures--Its Great Theme--Caution in\nRespect to the Spiritual Interpretation of it\n\nCHAPTER XXII.\n\nThe Greater Prophets. 1. General Remarks on the Prophetical Writings--2.\nDifferent Offices of the Prophets under the Theocracy--Their Office as\nReprovers--3. As Expounders of the Mosaic Law in its Spirituality--4.\nAnd of its End, which was Salvation through the Future Redeemer--They\nwrote in the Decline of the Theocracy--Their Promises fulfilled only in\nChrist--I. _Isaiah_--5. He is the First in Order, but not the Earliest\nof the Prophets--His Private History almost wholly Unknown--Jewish\nTradition Concerning him--Period of his Prophetic Activity--6. Two Great\nDivisions of his Prophecies--Plans for Classifying the Contents of the\nFirst Part--Analysis of these Contents--General Character of the Second\nPart, and View of its Contents--7. Objections to the Genuineness of the\nLast Part of Isaiah and Certain Other Parts--General Principle on which\nthese Objections are to be met--Previous Preparation for the Revelations\ncontained in this Part--True Significance of the Promises which it\ncontains--Form of these Promises--Mention of Cyrus by Name--Objection\nfrom the Character of the Style considered--8. Direct Arguments for the\nGenuineness of this Part--External Testimony; Internal Evidences--9.\nGenuineness of the Disputed Passages of the First Part--II.\n_Jeremiah_--10. Contrast between Isaiah and Jeremiah in Personal\nCharacter and Circumstances--Our Full Knowledge of his Outward Personal\nHistory and Inward Conflicts--11. His Priestly Descent--His Native\nPlace--Period of his Prophetic Activity--Degeneracy of the\nAge--Persecutions to which his Fidelity subjected him--He is more\noccupied than Isaiah with the Present--His Mission is emphatically to\nunfold the Connection between National Profligacy and National Ruin; yet\nhe sometimes describes the Glory of the Latter Days--12. The\nChronological Order not always followed in his Prophecies--General\nDivisions of them--First Division; Second Division; Appendix--Attempts\nto disprove the Genuineness of Certain Parts of Jeremiah--_The Book of\nLamentations_--13. Its Hebrew Name--Its Authorship and the Time of its\nComposition--14. Structure of its Poetry--III. _Ezekiel_--15. His\nPriestly Descent and Residence--Notices of his Personal History--Period\nof his Prophetic Activity--16. Peculiarities of his Style--17. His\nAllegoric and Symbolic Representations--General Remarks on the Nature of\nAllegories and Symbols--18. The Two Divisions of the Book--Contents of\nthe First Part; of the Second Part--Prophecies against Foreign\nNations--Promises relating to the Glory of the Latter Days--Ezekiel's\nVision of a New Jerusalem with its Temple--Meaning of this Vision and\nPrinciples according to which it is to be interpreted--IV. _Daniel_--19.\nIts Place in the Hebrew Canon--Notices of Daniel's Personal History--20.\nArrangement and Contents of the Book--First Series of Prophecies; Second\nSeries--Intimate Connection between the Book of Daniel and the\nApocalypse--21. Assaults made upon the Book of Daniel in Respect to its\nGenuineness and Credibility--Grounds on which it is received as a Part\nof the Sacred Canon--Its Unity; Uniform Tradition of the Jews and its\nReliability; Testimony of Josephus; of the Saviour; Language and Style;\nIntimate Acquaintance with the Historical Relations and Manners and\nCustoms of the Age--22. Insufficiency of the Various Objections urged\nagainst the Book--Chronological and Historical Difficulties;\nDifficulties connected with the Identification of Belshazzar and Darius\nthe Mede; Silence of Jesus the Son of Sirach respecting Daniel; Alleged\nLinguistic Difficulties; Commendations bestowed upon Daniel--The Real\nObjection to the Book on the Part of its Opponents lies in the\nSupernatural Character of the Events which it records--Remarks on this\nObjection\n\nCHAPTER XXIII.\n\nTHE TWELVE MINOR PROPHETS--1. Jewish Arrangement of these Books--Their\nOrder in the Masoretic Text and in the Alexandrine Version--2. General\nRemarks on their Character I. _Hosea_--3. Period of his Prophecying and\nits Character--4. Peculiarly of his Style--Contents of the Book II.\n_Joel_--5. Place and Date of his Prophecies--6. Character and Contents\nof his Book--III. _Amos_--7. Date of his Prophecies--Notices of his\nPerson--He was a Jew, not trained in any Prophetical School, and sent to\nprophesy against Israel--Character and Contents of his Writings--IV.\n_Obadiah_--8. Date and Contents of his Prophecy--V. _Jonah_--9. His\nAge--10. Remarks on the History of the Book--11. Authorship and Historic\nTruth of the Book--VI. _Micah_--12. His Residence and the Time of his\nProphetic Activity--His Prophecies directed against both Israel and\nJudah--13. Divisions of the Book with the Contents of Each--Passages\nCommon to Micah and Isaiah--General Agreement between the Two\nProphets--VII. _Nahum_--14. His Prophecy directed against Nineveh--Its\nProbable Date--15. Contents of the Book--VIII. _Habakkuk_--16. Date of\nthe Book and its Contents--Remarks on the Ode contained in the Third\nChapter--IX. _Zephaniah_--17. Date and Contents of his Book--X.\n_Haggai_--18. Date and Scope of the Book--19. Its Different\nMessages--XI. _Zechariah_--20. His Priestly Descent--Date of his\nProphecies--21. The Three Divisions of the Book--First Division; Second\nDivision; Third Division--22. Remarks on the Character of Zechariah's\nProphecies--XII. _Malachi_--23. Name of this Prophet--Date of his\nProphecies, and Condition of the Jewish People--24 Contents of the Book\n\nAPPENDIX TO PART II.\n\nTHE APOCRYPHAL BOOKS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT--1. The Term _Apocrypha_ and\nits Origin--2. Remarks on the Date of the Apocryphal Books--Their\nReception by the Alexandrine Jews--3. History of these Books in the\nChristian Church--4. Their Uses--I. _The Two Books of Esdras_--5. Name\nof this Book--Its Contents--Its Date--6. The Second Book of Esdras found\nonly in Versions--Remarks on these Versions--7. Its Contents and\nDate--II. _Tobit_--8. Accounts of the Contents of this Book--9. Various\nTexts in which this Book is Extant--Its General Scope--III.\n_Judith_--10. Contents of the Book--11. Remarks on its Character, Date,\nand Design--IV. _Additions to the Book of Esther_--12. Account of\nthese--V. _The Wisdom of Solomon_--13. Its Divisions and their\nContents--14. Authorship of the Book--Its Merits and Defects--VI.\n_Ecclesiasticus_--15. Its Titles and Contents--16. Date of the Book and\nof its Translation--VII. _Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah_--17.\nCharacter and Contents of the Book of Baruch--18. Second, or Syriac Book\nof Baruch--19. So-called Epistle of Jeremiah--VIII. _Additions to the\nBook of Daniel_--20. Enumeration of these--Their Authorship and\nDate--IX. _The Prayer of Manasses_--21. Remarks on this Composition--X.\n_The Books of the Maccabees_--22. Number of these Books--Remarks on\ntheir Historic Order--Origin of the Name Maccabee--23. First Book--Its\nGenuineness and Credibility--Its Authorship and Date--Original\nLanguage--24. Second Book--Its Character and Contents--25. Third\nBook--Its Contents and Character--Fourth Book--Its Stoical\nCharacter--Its Contents--Fifth Book--Its Original Language and Contents\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nPART III.\n\nAN INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT.\n\nFIRST DIVISION--GENERAL INTRODUCTION.\n\n\nCHAPTER XXIV.\n\nLanguage of the New Testament--1. God's Providence as seen in the\nLanguages of the Old and New Testaments--Fitness of the Hebrew for its\nOffice in History, Poetry, and Prophecy--2. Adaptation of the Greek to\nthe Wants of the New Testament Writers--3. Providential Preparation for\na Change in the Language of the Inspired Writings--Cessation of the\nHebrew as the Vernacular of the Jews, and Withdrawal of the Spirit of\nProphecy Contemporaneous--4. Introduction of the Greek Language into\nAsia and Egypt--Its Use among the Jews, especially in Egypt--Its General\nUse in our Lord's Day--5. Character of the New Testament Greek--Its\nBasis the Common Hellenic Dialect, with an Hebraic Coloring received\nfrom the Septuagint, and an Aramaic Tinge also--The Writers of the New\nTestament Jews using the Language of Greece for the Expression of\nChristian Ideas--Technical Terms in the New Testament--6. Adaptation of\nthe New Testament Greek to its Office\n\nCHAPTER XXV.\n\nExternal Form of the New Testament--1. The Three Main Divisions of the\nNew Testament Writings: Historical, Epistolary, Prophetical--2. Natural\nOrder of these Divisions--3. Subdivisions--In the Historic Part--In the\nEpistolary Part--Diversity of Arrangement in Manuscripts--4. Arrangement\nof the New Testament Writings not Chronological--Importance of Knowing\nthis--5. Continuous Writing of the Ancient Uncial Manuscripts--\nStichometrical Mode of Writing--This led gradually to the Present\nSystem of Interpunction Cursive Manuscripts--7. Ancient Divisions in\nthe Contents of the Sacred Text--Ammonian Sections and Eusebian Canons--\n8. Divisions called Titles--9. Divisions of the Other New Testament\nBooks--10. Chapters and Verses--Church Lessons--11. Remarks on the above\nDivisions--Paragraph Bibles--12. Titles and Subscriptions\n\nCHAPTER XXVI.\n\nTHE NEW TESTAMENT TEXT AND ITS HISTORY--I. _The Manuscript Text_--1 and\n2. General Remarks--3. Origin of Various Readings and their\nClassification--Substitutions, Insertions, Omissions--Arising from\nInadvertence, or Unskilful Criticism--Wilful Falsifications cannot be\nimputed to the Copyists--4. Materials for Textual Criticism--General\nResults--5. Notice of some Manuscripts--The Vatican, Sinai, Alexandrine,\nEphraem, Palimpsest, Dublin Palimpsest, Beza or Cambridge (Bilingual),\nPurple. Cursive Manuscripts--II. _The Printed Text_--6. Primary Editions\nand their Sources--Complutensian Polyglott, Erasmian, Stephens', Beza's,\nElzevir Editions--7. Remarks on the Received Text--III. _Principles of\nTextual Criticism_--8. Its End--Sources of Evidence--Greek\nManuscripts--Their varying Value--9. Ancient Versions and their\nValue--10. Citations of the Church Fathers--11. Canons of Criticism\n\nCHAPTER XXVII.\n\nFORMATION AND HISTORY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON--1. General Remarks--2.\nDifferent Periods to be noticed--3. Apostolic Age--4. Age of the\nApostolic Fathers--Remarks on their Quotations--5. Age of\nTransition--Events of this Age which awakened the Christian Church to a\nFull Consciousness of the Divine Authority of the Apostolic\nWritings--Execution of Versions--6. Age of the Early Church\nFathers--They recognized a Canon, though not yet Complete--Canon of the\nSyriac Peshito, Muratorian Canon--Canon of the Councils of Laodicea and\nCarthage--7. Closing Remarks\n\nCHAPTER XXVIII.\n\nANCIENT VERSIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT--I. _Latin Versions_--1. Interest\nattaching to these Versions--2. The Ante-Hieronymian or Old Latin\nVersion--3. Its Canon--Remarks on its Text--Manuscripts containing\nit--4. Jerome's Revision of the Old Latin Version--5. Jerome's New\nVersion of the Old Testament--Books left untranslated--The Vulgate and\nits Diversified Character--Remarks on the History of the Vulgate--II.\n_Syriac Versions_--6. The Peshito--It comprises the Old and New\nTestaments--Its Date--Its Name--7. Character of the Peshito--The\nCuretonian Syriac--Its Relation to the Peshito--Its high Critical\nValue--8. The Philoxenian Syriac--Its extremely Literal\nCharacter--Hexaplar Syriac--Remarks on these Versions--Jerusalem Syriac\nLectionary--III. _Egyptian and Ethiopic Versions_--Memphitic Version,\nThebaic, Bashmuric--10. Ethiopic Version--IV. _Gothic and other\nVersions_--11. Gothic Version of Ulphilas--12. Palimpsest Manuscripts of\nthis Version--13. Ancient Armenian Version\n\n\nSECOND DIVISION--PARTICULAR INTRODUCTION.\n\n\nCHAPTER XXIX.\n\nTHE HISTORICAL BOOKS--1. The New Testament a Necessary Sequel to the\nOld--The Two Testaments interpret Each Other, and can be truly\nunderstood only as an Organic Whole--2. Remarks on the Use Made of the\nOld Testament by the Writers of the New--Fundamental Character of the\nGospel Narratives--I. _The Gospel as a Whole_--3. Signification of the\nWord \"Gospel\"--Its Primary and Secondary Application--4. General Remarks\non the Relation of the Gospels to Each Other--5. Agreements of the\nSynoptic Gospels--6. Differences--7. Theories of the Origin of these\nThree Gospels: That of Mutual Dependence; That of Original Documents;\nThat of Oral Apostolic Tradition--Remarks on this Tradition--Its\nDistinction from Tradition in the Modern Sense--8. No One of the Gospels\ngives the Entire History of our Lord, nor always observes the Strict\nChronological Order of Events--Remarks on our Lord's Life before his\nBaptism--9. Remarks on the Peculiar Character of the Fourth Gospel--This\nand the other Three mutually Supplementary to Each Other--10. Harmonies\nof the Gospels--Relative Size of the Gospels--II. _Matthew_--11.\nPersonal Notices of Matthew--12. Original Language of his Gospel--The\nProblem stated--13. Testimony of the Ancients on this Point--14. Various\nHypotheses considered--15. Primary Design of this Gospel to show that\nJesus of Nazareth was the Promised Messiah--16. He is also exhibited as\nthe Saviour of the World--17. Fulness of Matthew's Record in Respect to\nour Lord's Discourses--18. He does not always follow the Exact Order of\nTime--19. Place and Date--20. Integrity--Genuineness of the First Two\nChapters--III. _Mark_--21. Personal Notices of Mark--Intimate Relation\nof Mark to Peter and Paul--22. Place--Date--Language--23. Design of this\nGospel to exhibit Jesus as the Son of God--He makes the Works of Jesus\nmore Prominent than his Discourses--24. Characteristics of Mark as a\nHistorian--25. Closing Passage in Mark's Gospel--IV. _Luke_--26. Notices\nof Luke in the New Testament--27. Sources of his Gospel--His Relation to\nPaul--28. Date and Place of Writing--29. Universal Aspect of Luke's\nGospel--30. Its Character and Plan--Comparison of the Gospels in Respect\nto Peculiar Matter and Concordances--31. Integrity of Luke's Gospel--The\nTwo Genealogies of Matthew and Luke--V. _John_--32. John's Manner of\nindicating himself--33. Personal Notices of him--34. Late Composition of\nhis Gospel and Place of Writing--35. Peculiarity of this Gospel in\nRespect to Subject-Matter--Its Relation to the First Three Gospels--36.\nGeneral Design of this Gospel--It is peculiarly the Gospel of Christ's\nPerson--VI. _Acts of the Apostles_--37. Author of this Book--38. Plan of\nthe Book--Its First Division; Second Division--Notices of Antioch--39.\nOffice of this Book--Portraiture of the Apostolic Age of Christianity;\nCursory View of the Inauguration of the Christian Church; Various Steps\nby which the Abolition of the Middle Wall of Partition between Jews and\nGentiles was effected--40. Concluding Remarks\n\nCHAPTER XXX.\n\nTHE EPISTLES OF PAUL--1. General Remarks on the Epistles--2. Paul's\nEpistles all written in the Prosecution of his Work as the Apostle to\nthe Gentiles--Nature of this Work--3. Paul's Peculiar Qualifications for\nthis Work--His Mode of Procedure--Union in him of Firmness and\nFlexibility--4. Character of the Apostle's Style--5. Points to be\nnoticed in the Separate Epistles--Notices of Paul's Labors in the Acts\nof the Apostles--6. Present Arrangement of Paul's Epistles and of the\nEpistles generally--Chronological Order of Paul's Epistles--Four Groups\nof these Epistles--I. _Epistle to the Romans_--7. Date and Place of this\nEpistle--8. Composition of the Roman Church--9. Occasion and Design of\nthe Epistle--Its General Outlines--10. Special Office of this\nEpistle--II. _Epistles to the Corinthians_--_First Epistle_--11. Place\nand Time of its Composition--12. Notices of the Corinthian\nChurch--Occasion of the Apostle's Writing--13. General Tone of the\nEpistle as contrasted with that to the Galatians--_Second Epistle_--14.\nPlace and Time of its Composition--15. Its Occasion--Prominence of the\nApostle's Personality in this Epistle and its Ground--Peculiarities of\nits Diction--Its Office in the Economy of Revelation--III. _Epistle to\nthe Galatians_--16. Historical Notice of Galatia--Missionary Visits of\nthe Apostle to that Province--Date of the Present Epistle and Place of\nComposition--17. Occasion and Design--18. Outlines of the Epistle--The\nHistoric Part, the Argumentative, the Practical--IV. _Epistles to the\nEphesians, Colossians, and Philemon_--19. Contemporaneousness of these\nEpistles--20. Place and Date--21. Chronological Order of the First\nTwo--_Epistle to the Colossians_--22. Notices of Colosse and the Church\nthere--Occasion of this Epistle--Character of the False Teachers at\nColosse--23. Outlines of the Epistle--Its Argumentative Part, its\nPractical--The Epistle from Laodicca--_Epistle to the Ephesians_--24.\nNotices of Ephesus--Labors of Paul at Ephesus--Occasion of the Present\nEpistle--Its General Character--Various Hypotheses respecting it--25.\nIts Outlines--Its Argumentative Part, its Practical--_Epistle to\nPhilemon_--26. Its Occasion and Design--V. _Epistle to the\nPhilippians_--27. Notices of Philippi and the Formation of the Church\nthere--28. Occasion of this Epistle--Place and Date of its\nComposition--29. Its Character--General View of its Contents--VI.\n_Epistles to the Thessalonians_--30. Notices of Thessalonica and the\nApostle's Labors there--_First Epistle to the Thessalonians_--31. Date\nand Place of its Composition--32. Its Occasion and Design--Outlines of\nthe Epistle--_Second Epistle_--33. Place of Writing and Date--Its\nDesign--Its General Outlines--34. Comparison between the Epistles to the\nThessalonians and that to the Philippians--VII. _The Pastoral\nEpistles_--35. The Date of these Epistles and Related Questions--36.\nCharacter of the False Teachers referred to in these Epistles--37.\nGenuineness of the Pastoral Epistles--38. Their Office--_First Epistle\nto Timothy_--39. Its Date and Place of Composition--Its Occasion and\nDesign--Its Contents--Scriptural Notices of Timothy--_Epistle to\nTitus_--40. Its Agreement with the Preceding Epistle--The Cretan Church\nand Titus--_Second Epistle, to Timothy_--41. Its Occasion and Character\nin Contrast with the Two Preceding Epistles--Its Office--_Epistle to the\nHebrews_--42. Question of its Authorship--How it was regarded in the\nEastern Church--How in the Western--General Remark--43. Persons\naddressed in this Epistle--Time and Place of its Composition--Manner of\nReference to the Levitical Priesthood and Temple Services--44. Central\nTheme of this Epistle--Dignity of Christ's Person in Contrast with the\nAncient Prophets, with Angels, and with Moses--Divine Efficacy of his\nPriesthood in Contrast with that of the Sons of Aaron--Design of the\nEpistle--Its Office in the System of Revelation\n\nCHAPTER XXXI.\n\nTHE CATHOLIC EPISTLES--1. Origin of the Name \"Catholic\"--1. _Epistle of\nJames_--2. Question respecting the Person of James--3. Place of Writing\nthis Epistle--Persons addressed--4. Question of its Date--5. Its\nGenuineness and Canonical Authority--6. Its Practical Character--Alleged\nDisagreement between Paul and James without Foundation--II. _Epistles of\nPeter_--_First Epistle_--7. Its Canonical Authority always\nacknowledged--8. Persons addressed--9. Place of its Composition--Its\nOccasion and Date--Traditions respecting Peter--10. Outline of the\nEpistle--_Second Epistle_--11. Persons addressed--Time of Writing--12.\nQuestion respecting the Genuineness of this Epistle--External\nTestimonies--Internal Evidence--General Result--13. Object of the\nPresent Epistle--Peculiar Character of the Second Chapter--Its Agreement\nwith the Epistle of Jude--III. _Epistles of John_--_First Epistle of\nJohn_--14. Its Acknowledged Canonicity--Time and Place of its\nComposition--Persons addressed--15. General View of its\nContents--_Second and Third Epistles_--16. Their Common\nAuthorship--Their Genuineness--17. The Occasion and Office of Each--IV.\n_Epistle of Jude_--18. Question respecting Jude's Person--Time of the\nEpistle, and Persons addressed--19. Its Canonical Authority--Its Design\n\nCHAPTER XXXII.\n\nTHE APOCALYPSE--1. Meaning of the Word \"Apocalypse\"--Abundance of\nExternal Testimonies to this Book--2. Internal Arguments considered--Use\nof the Apostle's Name, Devotional Views, Spirit of the Writer, Style and\nDiction--Here must be taken into Account the Difference between this\nBook and John's other Writings in Subject-Matter, in the Mode of Divine\nRevelation, in the Writer's Mental State and Circumstances; also its\nPoetic Diction--General Results--3. Date of the Apocalypse and Place of\nWriting--4. Different Schemes of Interpretation--The Generic--The\nHistoric--5. Symbolic Import of the Numbers in this Book--The number\nSeven, Half of Seven, Six; The Number Four, a Third and Fourth Part; the\nNumber Twelve; the Number Ten--6. Office of the Apocalypse in the System\nof Revelation\n\nAPPENDIX TO PART III.\n\nWRITINGS OF THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS, WITH SOME NOTICES OF THE APOCRYPHAL\nNEW TESTAMENT WRITINGS--1. The Writings of the Apostolic Fathers\ndistinguished from the Proper New Testament Apocrypha--Some Remarks on\nthe Character of these Writings\n\nI. _Writings of Clement of Rome_--2. His Epistle to the Romans--Its\nGenuineness Character, and Age--3. Its Occasion, with a Notice of its\nContents--4. The so-called Second Epistle of Clement to the\nCorinthians--Its Genuineness not admitted--Vague and General Character\nof its Contents--5. Notice of some Other Writings falsely ascribed to\nClement--Recognitions of Clement, and the Clementines, with their Plan\nand Contents; Constitutions of Clement, and their Contents; Apostolic\nCanons\n\nII. _Epistles of Ignatius_--6. Notices of Ignatius--The Seven Genuine\nEpistles that bear his Name--Unsatisfactory State of the Text--Syriac\nand Armenian Versions--Enumeration of these Epistles--Their\nCharacter--Strong Ecclesiastical Spirit that pervades them--His Letter\nto the Romans--The Undue Desire of Martyrdom which it manifests--His\nLetter to Polycarp--7. Spurious Epistles ascribed to Ignatius, and their\nCharacter\n\nIII. _Epistle of Polycarp_--8. Notices of Polycarp--His Epistle to the\nPhilippians--Its Character and Contents--Time and Occasion of its\nComposition\n\nIV. _Writings of Barnabas and Hermas_--9. Their Doubtful Authority--10.\nThe So-called Epistle of Barnabas--Tischendorf's Discovery of the\nOriginal Greek Text--The Author and Date of the Work--Notice of its\nContents--Its Fanciful Method of Interpretation--11. The Shepherd of\nHernias--Outward Form of the Work--Its Internal Character--Its Author\nand Age\n\nV. _The Apostle's Creed_--12. In what Sense it belongs to the Apostolic\nFathers--Apostolic Character of its Contents\n\nVI. _Apocryphal Gospels and Acts--13._ Their Number--Their Worthless\nCharacter in Contrast with that of the Canonical Gospels and Acts\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nPART IV.\n\nA DISCUSSION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXIII.\n\nINTRODUCTORY REMARKS--1. Definition of Certain Terms--Hermeneutics,\nExegesis, Epexegesis--2. The Expositor's Office--Parallel between his\nWork and that of the Textual Critic--3. Qualifications of the Biblical\nInterpreter--A Supreme Regard for Truth--4. A Sound Judgment with the\nPower of Vivid Conception--Office of Each of these Qualities and their\nRelation to Each Other--5. Sympathy with Divine Truth--6. Extensive and\nVaried Acquirements--The Original Languages of the Bible; Sacred\nGeography and Natural History; Biblical Antiquities; Ancient History and\nChronology--7. General Remarks on the above Qualifications--8. The Human\nand Divine Side to Biblical Interpretation--The Importance of observing\nBoth\n\n\nFIRST DIVISION--INTERPRETATION VIEWED ON THE HUMAN SIDE.\n\nCHAPTER XXXIV.\n\nGENERAL PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION--1. Signification of the Terms\nemployed how ascertained, with some Superadded Remarks--2. On\nAscertaining the Sense of Scripture--3. The Scope General and\nSpecial--Its Supreme Importance illustrated--How the Scope is to be\nascertained--The Author's Statements; Inferential Remarks; Historical\nCircumstances--Important Help derived from the Repeated and Careful\nPerusal of a Work--4. The Context defined and distinguished from the\nScope--Indispensable Necessity of attending to it--This illustrated by\nExamples--Question respecting the Limits of the Context--In some Cases\nno Context exists--On the Use of Biblical Texts as Mottoes--Various\nApplications of the Principle contained in a Given Passage a Legitimate\nMode of Exposition--5. Parallelisms Verbal and Real--Help derived from\nthe Former--Subdivision of Real Parallelisms into Doctrinal and\nHistoric--Importance of Doctrinal Parallelisms with Illustrations--Value\nof Historic Parallelisms illustrated--Difficulties arising from them,\nand the Principle of their Adjustment--Illustration--6. External\nAcquirements--Various Illustrations of the Importance of these--7. Sound\nJudgment--Office of this Quality illustrated--Inept Interpretations:\nInterpretations Contrary to the Nature of the Subject; Necessary\nLimitations of an Author's Meaning; Reconciliation of Apparent\nContradictions; Forced and Unnatural Explanations and the Rejection of\nWell-established Facts--8. Remarks on the Proper Office of Reason in\nInterpretation\n\nCHAPTER XXXV.\n\nFIGURATIVE LANGUAGE OF SCRIPTURE--1. Figurative Language defined and\nillustrated--General Remarks respecting it--2. Rules for the\nAscertaining of Figurative Language--Nature of the Subject; Scope,\nContext, and Analogy of Scripture--Error of understanding Literal\nLanguage figuratively--Remark on the Interpretation of Prophecy--3.\nDifferent Kinds of Figures--The Trope in its Varieties of Metonymy,\nSynecdoche, and Metaphor--Remarks on Comparisons--The Allegory--Its\nDefinition and Distinction from the Metaphor--Distinction between True\nAllegory and the Allegorical Interpretation of History--The Parable--How\ndistinguished from the Allegory--The Fable--The Symbol--Its Various\nForms--The Proverb--It always embodies a General Truth--Its Various\nForms--Signification of the Word \"Myth\"--It does not come within the\nSphere of Scriptural Interpretation--4. General Remarks on the\nInterpretation of the Figurative Language of Scripture--5. Its Certainty\nand Truthfulness--6. Key to the Interpretation of the Allegory--\nExamples: The Vine Transplanted from Egypt, Psa. 80; the two Eagles\nand the Cedar Bough, Ezek. 17:3-10; The Song of Solomon; the Two\nAllegories of Ezekiel, chaps., 16 and 23-7. The Interpretation of the\nParable--How it differs from that of the Allegory--Point of Primary\nImportance--How far the Details are significant--Examples: The Sower,\nMatt. 13:3-8, 19-23; the Tares in the Field Matt. 13:24-30, 37-43; the\nTen Virgins, Matt, 25:1-13--Remark respecting the Personages introduced\nin Parables with Illustrations--The Unforgiving Servant, Matt. 18:\n23-35; the Importunate Friend, Luke 11:5-8; the Unjust Judge, Luke\n18:1-8; the Unfaithful Steward, Luke 16:1-9--8. Scriptural Symbols-How\nto determine whether they are Real or Seen in Prophetic\nVision--Principles on which they are to be interpreted--Examples--9.\nRemarks on the Interpretation of Numerical Symbols\n\n\nSECOND DIVISION--INTERPRETATION VIEWED ON THE DIVINE SIDE.\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXVI.\n\nUNITY OF REVELATION--1. Essential Unity between the Old and the New\nTestament--2. This Unity one that coexists with Great Diversity--\nIllustrations from the Analogy of God's Works--3. Unity in\nDiversity in Respect to the Form of God's Kingdom--4. The Forms of\nPublic Worship--5. Forms of Religious Labor--6. Spirit of Revelation--7.\nWay of Salvation--8. Sternness of the Mosaic Dispensation explained from\nits Preparatory Character--9. Inferences from the Unity of\nRevelation--9. Each Particular Revelation Perfect in its Measure--10.\nThe Later Revelations the Exponents of the Earlier; Christ and his\nApostles in a Special Sense the Expositors of the New Testament--11. The\nExtent of Meaning in a Given Revelation that which the Holy Spirit\nintended--12. The Obscure Declarations of Scripture to be interpreted\nfrom the Clear, with Illustrations--13. Remarks on the Analogy of\nFaith--The Term Defined--Rules for its Use\n\nCHAPTER XXXVII.\n\nSCRIPTURAL TYPES--1. Types distinguished from Analogy--2. And from the\nForeshadowing of Future Events by the Present--3. The Type defined in\nits Three Essential Characters\n\nI. _Historical Types_--4. In Respect to these Two Extremes to be\navoided--Typical History has a Proper Significance of its Own--This\nillustrated by Examples: The Kingly Office; the Prophetical Office;\nTypical Transactions--Remarks on the Inadequacy of All Types\n\nII. _Ritual Types_--5. The Sacrifices the Essential Part of the Mosaic\nRitual--What is implied in them--The Sanctuary God's Visible\nDwelling-place where alone they could be offered--6. The Mosaic\nTabernacle described--7. Its General Typical Import--8. Significance of\nits Different Parts and Appointments--Preciousness of the Materials;\nGradation in this Respect--9. The Inner Sanctuary with its\nAppointments--10. The Outer Sanctuary with its Appointments--11. The\nBrazen Altar with its Laver--The Levitical Priests typified Christ--12.\nThe Levitical Sacrifices typified Christ's Offering of Himself for the\nSins of the World--This shown from Scripture--General Remark respecting\nChrist's Propitiatory Sacrifice--13. Characteristics of the Types\nThemselves--The Levitical Priests had a Common Human Nature with those\nfor whom they officiated; were appointed to their Office by God; were\nMediators between God and the People; and Mediators through Propitiatory\nSacrifices--Points of Dissimilarity between the Type and the\nAntitype--Remarks on the Central Idea of Priesthood--14. Scriptural Idea\nof Sacrifice the Offering of One Life in Behalf of Another--\nClassification of the Levitical Sacrifices with the Ideas\nbelonging to Each: Sin and Trespass Offerings; Burnt Offerings;\nPeace-Offerings--Sacrificial Nature of the Passover--Other Sacrifices of\na Special Character--All Sacrificial Victims to be without Blemish--The\nUnbloody Offerings and their Signification--15. Typical Transactions\nconnected with the Sacrifices and Oblations: The Laying of the Offerer's\nHands on the Head of the Victim; the Waving and Heaving of Offerings;\nthe Sprinkling of the Victim's Blood; the Burning of the Offering--16.\nTypical Meaning of the Tabernacle as a Whole--The Several Points of\nAdumbration considered: Adumbration of God's Presence with Men;\nImpossibility of approaching God without a Mediator; Adumbration of\nChrist's Expiatory Sacrifice and Heavenly Intercession on the Great Day\nof Atonement; Burning of the Victim without the Camp--17. Distinctions\nbetween Clean and Unclean--Levitical View of Bodily Infirmities\n\nCHAPTER XXXVIII.\n\nINTERPRETATION OF PROPHECY--1. General Remarks\n\nI. _Prophecies relating to the Near Future_--2. Their Specific\nCharacter--Examples\n\nII. _Prophecies relating to the Last Days_--3. Meaning of the Term \"Last\nDays,\" and its Equivalents--General Character of this Class of\nProphecies--4. Prophecies in which the Order of Events is\nindicated--Daniel's Fourth Monarchy; the Great Red Dragon of Revelation,\nthe Two Beasts that succeeded to his Power, and the Woman riding a\nScarlet-Colored Beast--5. Prophecies which give General Views of the\nFuture--Examples--6. The Prophets give an Inward View of the Vital\nForces which sustain and extend God's Kingdom--Unity of the Plan of\nRedemption; its Continual Progress; Indications of the End towards which\nit is tending; the End Itself the Chief Object of Interest--Great Crisis\nin the Church's History--Spirit that should actuate the Interpreter of\nProphecy\n\nIII. _Question of Double Sense_--7. The Term defined--8. Examples of\nLiteral and Typical Sense--Melchizedek's Priesthood; the Rest of\nCanaan--9. The Messianic Psalms--Different Principles on which they are\ninterpreted: Exclusive Application to Christ; Reference to an Ideal\nPersonage; Christ the Head and his Body the Church; Typical View--10.\nThe Principle of Progressive Fulfilment\n\nIV. _Question of Literal and Figurative Meaning_--11. General\nRemarks--12. Representative Use in Prophecy of Past Events--13. Of the\nInstitutions of the Mosaic Economy--14. The Principle of Figurative\nInterpretation not to be pressed as Exclusive--15. Question of the\nLiteral Restoration of the Jews to the Land of Canaan--16. Question of\nour Lord's Personal Reign on Earth during the Millennium\n\nCHAPTER XXXIX.\n\nQUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW--1. General Remarks on the\nAuthority of the New Testament Writers--2. Outward Form of their\nQuotations--Its very Free Spirit--This illustrated by Example--3.\nContents of the New Testament Quotations--The So-called Principle of\nAccommodation; in what Sense True, and in what Sense to be rejected--4.\nQuotations by Way of Argument--5. Quotations as Prophecies of Christ and\nhis Kingdom--Remarks on the Formula: \"That it might be fulfilled\"--6.\nProphecies referring immediately to Christ--7. Prophecies referring to\nChrist under a Type--Closing Remark\n\n\n\n\nPART I.\n\nEVIDENCES OF REVEALED RELIGION.\n\n\n\n\nPREFATORY REMARKS.\n\n\nMany thousands of persons have a full and joyous conviction of the truth\nof Christianity from their own experience, who yet feel a reasonable\ndesire to examine the _historic evidence_ by which it is confirmed, if\nnot for the strengthening of their own faith, yet for the purpose of\nsilencing gainsayers, and guarding the young against the cavils of\ninfidelity. It is our duty to give to those who ask us a reason of the\nhope that is in us; and although our own personal experience may be to\nourselves a satisfactory ground of assurance, we cannot ask others to\ntake the gospel on our testimony alone. It is highly desirable that we\nunderstand and be able to set forth with clearness and convincing power\nthe proofs that this plan of salvation has God for its author.\n\nThen there is a class of earnest inquirers who find themselves perplexed\nwith the difficulties which they hear urged against the gospel, and\nwhich they find themselves unable to solve in a satisfactory way. It is\nof the highest importance that such persons be met in a candid spirit;\nthat the immense mass of evidence by which the Christian religion is\nsustained be clearly set before them; and that they understand that a\nreligion thus supported is not to be rejected on the ground that there\nare difficulties connected with it which have not yet been\nsolved--perhaps never can be solved here below.\n\nAre you, reader, such an earnest inquirer after truth? We present to you\nin the following pages a brief summary of the historic evidence by which\nthe Bible, with the plan of salvation which it reveals, is shown to be\nthe word of God; and we wish, here at the outset, to suggest to you some\ncautions respecting the state of mind with which this great inquiry is\nto be pursued.\n\nFirst of all, we remind you that, whatever else may be uncertain, you\nknow that you must soon die, and try for yourself the realities of the\nunseen world. The question now before you is, Whether God has spoken\nfrom heaven, and made any revelations concerning that world. If so, they\nare more precious than gold; for in the decisive hour of death you will\nwish to know not what man, the sinner, has reasoned and conjectured\nconcerning a future judgment, forgiveness of sin, and the life to come;\nbut what God, the Judge, has declared. Now the Bible claims to contain\nsuch a message from God. If its claims are valid, it will not flatter\nyou and speak to you smooth things, but will tell you the truth. And you\nmust be prepared to receive the truth, though it condemn you. Sooner or\nlater you must meet the truth face to face: be ready to do so now; you\nhave no interest in error; falsehood and delusion cannot help you, but\nwill destroy you.\n\nDo not come to the examination of this great question with the idea that\nyou must clear away all mysteries connected with the gospel before you\nbelieve it. The world in which you live is full of mysteries. One would\nthink that if any thing could be fully comprehended, it must be the acts\nof which we are ourselves the authors. By a volition you raise your hand\nto your head; but _how_ is the act performed? True, there is in your\nbody an apparatus of nerves, muscles, joints, and the like; but in what\nway does the human will have power over this apparatus? No man can\nanswer this question: it is wrapped in deep mystery. Why be offended,\nthen, because the way of salvation revealed in the Bible has like\nmysteries--mysteries concerning not your duty, but God's secret and\ninscrutable methods of acting?\n\nAnd since the question now before you is not one of mere speculation,\nbut one that concerns your immediate duty, be on your guard against the\nseductive influence of sinful passion and sinful habit. There is a deep\nand solemn meaning in the words of Jesus: \"Every one that doeth evil\nhateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be\nreproved.\" Corrupt feeling in the heart and corrupt practice in the life\nhave a terrible power to blind the mind. The man who comes to the\nexamination of the Bible with a determination to persist in doing what\nhe knows to be wrong, or in omitting what he knows to be right, will\ncertainly err from the truth; for he is not in a proper state of mind to\nlove it and welcome it to his soul.\n\nRemember also that it is not the grosser passions and forms of vice\nalone that darken the understanding and alienate the heart from the\ntruth. Pride, vanity, ambition, avarice--in a word, the spirit of\nself-seeking and self-exaltation in every form--will effectually hinder\nthe man in whose bosom they bear sway from coming to the knowledge of\nthe truth; for they will incline him to seek a religion which flatters\nhim and promises him impunity in sin, and will fatally prejudice him\nagainst a system of doctrines and duties so holy and humbling as that\ncontained in the Bible. Take, as a comprehensive rule for the\ninvestigation of this weighty question, the words of the Saviour: \"If\nany man will do his will\"--the will of God--\"he shall know of the\ndoctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.\" So far as\nyou already know the will of God, do it; do it sincerely, earnestly, and\nprayerfully, and God will give you more light. He loves the truth, and\nsympathizes with all earnest and sincere inquirers after it. He never\nleaves to fatal error and delusion any but those who love falsehood\nrather than truth, because they have pleasure in unrighteousness. Open\nyour heart to the light of heaven, and God will shine into it from\nabove; so that, in the beautiful words of our Saviour, \"the whole shall\nbe full of light, as when the bright shining of a candle doth give thee\nlight.\"\n\n\n\n\nCOMPANION TO THE BIBLE.\n\n      *       *       *       *       *\n\nEVIDENCES OF REVEALED RELIGION.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\nINTRODUCTORY REMARKS.\n\n\nI. The Christian religion is not a mere system of ideas, like the\nphilosophy of Plato or Aristotle. It rests on a _basis of historic\nfacts_. The great central fact of the gospel is thus expressed by Jesus\nhimself: \"God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son,\nthat whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting\nlife,\" John 3:16; and by the apostle Paul thus: \"This is a faithful\nsaying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the\nworld to save sinners.\" 1 Tim. 1:15. With the appearance of God's Son in\nhuman nature were connected a series of mighty works, a body of divine\nteachings, the appointment of apostles and the establishment of the\nvisible Christian church; all which are matters of historic record.\n\nNor is this all. It is the constant doctrine of Christ and his apostles\nthat he came in accordance with the scriptures of the Old Testament, and\nthat his religion is the fulfilment of the types and prophecies therein\ncontained: \"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the\nprophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.\" Matt. 5:17. \"All\nthings must be fulfilled which were written in the law of Moses, and in\nthe prophets, and in the psalms concerning me.\" Luke 24:44. The facts of\nthe New Testament connect themselves, therefore, immediately with those\nof the Old, so that the whole series constitutes an indivisible whole.\nThe Bible is, from beginning to end, the record of a supernatural\nrevelation made by God to men. As such, it embraces not only\nsupernatural teachings, but supernatural facts also; and the teachings\nrest on the facts in such a way that both must stand or fall together.\n\nII. This basis of supernatural facts, then, must be firmly maintained\nagainst unbelievers whose grand aim is to _destroy the historic\nfoundation_ of the gospel, at least so far as it contains supernatural\nmanifestations of God to men. Thus they would rob it of its divine\nauthority, and reduce it to a mere system of human doctrines, like the\nteachings of Socrates or Confucius, which men are at liberty to receive\nor reject as they think best. Could they accomplish this, they would be\nvery willing to eulogize the character of Jesus, and extol the purity\nand excellence of his precepts. Indeed, it is the fashion of modern\nunbelievers, after doing what lies in their power to make the gospel a\nmass of \"cunningly-devised fables\" of human origin, to expatiate on the\nmajesty and beauty of the Saviour's character, the excellence of his\nmoral precepts, and the benign influence of his religion. But the\ntranscendent glory of our Lord's character is inseparable from his being\nwhat he claimed to be--the Son of God, coming from God to men with\nsupreme authority; and all the power of his gospel lies in its being\nreceived as a message from God. To make the gospel human, is to\nannihilate it, and with it the hope of the world.\n\nIII. When the inquiry is concerning a long series of events intimately\nconnected together so as to constitute one inseparable whole, two\nmethods of investigation are open to us. We may look at the train of\nevents in the order of time from beginning to end; or we may select some\none great event of especial prominence and importance as the _central\npoint_ of inquiry, and from that position look forward and backward. The\nlatter of these two methods has some peculiar advantages, and will be\nfollowed in the present brief treatise. We begin with the great central\nfact of revelation already referred to, that \"the Father sent the Son to\nbe the Saviour of the world.\" 1 John 4:14. When this is shown to rest on\na foundation that cannot be shaken, the remainder of the work is\ncomparatively easy. From the supernatural appearance and works of the\nSon of God, as recorded in the four gospels, the supernatural endowment\nand works of his apostles, as recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, and\ntheir authoritative teachings, as contained in their epistles, follow as\na natural and even necessary sequel. Since, moreover, the universal rule\nof God's government and works is, \"first the blade, then the ear, after\nthat the full corn in the ear,\" (Mark 4:28,) it is most reasonable to\nsuppose that such a full and perfect revelation as that which God has\nmade to us by his Son, which is certainly \"the full corn in the ear,\"\nmust have been preceded by exactly such preparatory revelations as we\nfind recorded in the Old Testament. Now Jesus of Nazareth appeared among\nthe Jews, the very people that had the scriptures of the Old Testament,\nand had been prepared for his advent by the events recorded in them as\nno other nation was prepared. He came, too, as he and his apostles ever\ntaught, to carry out the plan of redemption begun in them. From the\nposition, then, of Christ's advent, as the grand central fact of\nredemption, we look backward and forward with great advantage upon the\nwhole line of revelation.\n\nIV. We cannot too earnestly inculcate upon the youthful inquirer the\nnecessity of thus looking at _revelation as a whole_. Strong as are the\nevidences for the truth of the gospel narratives considered separately,\nthey gain new strength, on the one side, from the mighty revelations\nthat preceded them and prepared the way for the advent of the Son of\nGod; and on the other, from the mighty events that followed his advent\nin the apostolic age, and have been following ever since in the history\nof the Christian church. The divine origin of the Mosaic institutions\ncan be shown on solid grounds, independently of the New Testament; but\non how much broader and deeper a foundation are they seen to rest, when\nwe find (as will be shown hereafter, chap. 8) that they were preparatory\nto the incarnation of Jesus Christ. As in a burning mass, the heat and\nflame of each separate piece of fuel are increased by the surrounding\nfire, so in the plan of redemption, each separate revelation receives\nnew light and glory from the revelations which precede and follow it. It\nis only when we view the revelations of the Bible as thus progressing\n\"from glory to glory,\" that we can estimate aright the proofs of their\ndivine origin. If it were even possible to impose upon men as miraculous\na particular event, as, for example, the giving of the Mosaic law on\nSinai, or the stones of the day of Pentecost, the idea that there could\nhave been imposed on the world a series of such events, extending\nthrough many ages, and yet so connected together as to constitute a\nharmonious and consistent whole, is a simple absurdity. There is no\nexplanation of the unity that pervades the supernatural facts of\nrevelation, but that of their divine origin.\n\nV. In strong contrast with this rational way of viewing the facts of\nrevelation as a grand whole, is the fragmentary method of objectors. A\ndoubt here, a cavil there, an insinuation yonder; a difficulty with this\nstatement, an objection to that, a discrepancy here--this is their\nfavorite way of assailing the gospel. If one chooses to treat the Bible\nin this narrow and uncandid way, he will soon plunge himself into the\nmire of unbelief. Difficulties and objections should be candidly\nconsidered, and allowed their due weight; but they must not be suffered\nto override irrefragable proof, else we shall soon land in universal\nskepticism: for difficulties, and some of them too insoluble, can be\nurged against the great facts of nature and natural religion, as well as\nof revelation. To reject a series of events supported by an overwhelming\nweight of evidence, on the ground of unexplained difficulties connected\nwith them, involves the absurdity of running into a hundred difficulties\nfor the sake of avoiding five. If we are willing to examine the claims\nof revelation as a whole, its divine origin will shine forth upon us\nlike the sun in the firmament. Our difficulties we can then calmly\nreserve for further investigation here, or for solution in the world to\ncome.\n\nVI. When we institute an examination concerning the facts of revelation,\nthe first question is that of the genuineness and uncorrupt preservation\nof the books in which they are recorded; the next, that of their\nauthenticity and credibility. We may then conveniently consider the\nquestion of their inspiration. In accordance with the plan marked out\nabove, (No. III.,) the gospel narratives will be considered first of\nall; then the remaining books of the New Testament. After this will be\nshown the inseparable connection between the facts of revelation\nrecorded in the Old Testament and those of the New; and finally, the\ngenuineness of the books which constitute the canon of the Old\nTestament, with their authenticity and inspiration. The whole treatise\nwill be closed by a brief view of the internal and experimental\nevidences which commend the Bible to the human understanding and\nconscience as the word of God.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nGENUINENESS OF THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.\n\n\nI. _Preliminary Remarks._ 1. A book is _genuine_ if written by the man\nwhose name it bears, or to whom it is ascribed; or when, as in the case\nof several books of the Old Testament, the author is unknown, it is\ngenuine if written in the age and country to which it is ascribed. A\nbook is _authentic_ which is a record of facts as opposed to what is\nfalse or fictitious; and we call it _credible_ when the record of facts\nwhich it professes to give is worthy of belief. Authenticity and\ncredibility are, therefore, only different views of the same quality.\n\n    In the case of a book that deals mainly with _principles_, the\n    question of authorship is of subordinate importance. Thus the\n    book of Job, with the exception of the brief narratives with\n    which it opens and closes, and which may belong to any one of\n    several centuries, is occupied with the question of Divine\n    providence. It is not necessary that we know what particular man\n    was its author, or at what precise period he wrote. We only need\n    reasonable evidence (as will be shown hereafter) that he was a\n    prophetical man, writing under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.\n    But the case of the gospel narratives is wholly different. They\n    contain a record of the supernatural appearance and works of the\n    Son of God, on the truth of which rests our faith in the gospel.\n    So the apostle Paul reasons: \"If Christ be not risen, then is\n    our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.\" 1 Cor. 15:14.\n    It is, then, of vital importance that we know the relation which\n    the authors of these narratives held to Christ. If they were not\n    _apostles_ or _apostolic men_, that is, associates of the\n    apostles, laboring with them, enjoying their full confidence,\n    and in circumstances to obtain their information directly from\n    them--but, instead of this, wrote after the apostolic age--their\n    testimony is not worthy of the unlimited faith which the church\n    in all ages has reposed in it. The question, then, of the\n    genuineness of the gospel narratives and that of their\n    authenticity and credibility must stand or fall together.\n\n2. In respect to the _origin_ of the gospels, as also of the other books\nof the New Testament, the following things should be carefully\nremembered:\n\n_First._ There was a period, extending, perhaps, through some years from\nthe day of Pentecost, when there were no written gospels, their place\nbeing supplied by the living presence and teachings of the apostles and\nother disciples of our Lord.\n\n_Secondly._ When the need of written documents began to be felt, they\nwere produced, one after another, as occasion suggested them. Thus the\ncomposition of the books of the New Testament extended through a\nconsiderable period of years.\n\n_Thirdly._ Besides the gospels universally received by the churches,\nother narratives of our Lord's life were attempted, as we learn from the\nevangelist Luke (1:1); but those never obtained general currency. The\nchurches everywhere received the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke,\nand John, because of the clear evidence which they had of their\napostolic origin and trustworthiness; and because, also, these gospels,\nthough not professing to give a complete account of our Lord's life and\nteachings, were nevertheless sufficiently full to answer the end for\nwhich they were composed, being not fragmentary sketches, but orderly\nnarratives, each of them extending over the whole course of our Lord's\nministry. The other narratives meanwhile gradually passed into oblivion.\nThe general reception of these four gospels did not, however, come from\nany formal concert of action on the part of the churches, (as, for\nexample, from the authoritative decision of a general council, since no\nsuch thing as a general council of the churches was known till long\nafter this period;) but simply from the common perception everywhere of\nthe unimpeachable evidence by which their apostolic authority was\nsustained.\n\n    The narratives referred to by Luke were earlier than his gospel.\n    They were not spurious, nor, so far as we know, unauthentic; but\n    rather imperfect. They must not be confounded with the\n    apocryphal gospels of a later age.\n\n3. In respect to the quotations of Scripture by the early fathers of the\nchurch, it is important to notice their habit of quoting anonymously,\nand often in a loose and general way. They frequently cite from memory,\nblending together the words of different authors, and sometimes\nintermingling with them their own words. In citing the prophecies of the\nOld Testament in an argumentative way, they are, as might have been\nexpected, more exact, particularly when addressing Jews; yet even here\nthey often content themselves with the scope of the passages referred\nto, without being particular as to the exact words.\n\nWith the above preliminary remarks, we proceed to consider the\nevidences, external and internal, for the genuineness of the gospel\nnarratives.\n\nII. _External Evidences._ 4. Here we need not begin at a later date than\nthe last quarter of the second century. This is the age of Irenaeus in\nGaul, of Tertullian in North Africa, of Clement of Alexandria in Egypt,\nand of some other writers. Their testimony to the apostolic origin and\nuniversal reception of our four canonical gospels is as full as can be\ndesired. They give the names of the authors, two of them--Matthew and\nJohn--apostles, and the other two--Mark and Luke--companions of apostles\nand fellow-laborers with them, always associating Mark with Peter, and\nLuke with Paul; they affirm the universal and undisputed reception of\nthese four gospels from the beginning by all the churches; and deny the\napostolic authority of other pretended gospels. In all this, they give\nnot their individual opinions, but the common belief of the churches. It\nis conceded on all hands that in their day these four gospels were\nuniversally received by the churches as genuine and authoritative\nrecords of our Lord's life and works, to the exclusion of all others.\n\n    _Irenaeus_ was a native of Asia Minor, of Greek descent; but the\n    seat of his labors was Lyons and Vienne in Gaul, of the former\n    of which places he became bishop after the martyrdom of\n    Pothinus, about A.D. 177. He was born about A.D. 140, and\n    suffered martyrdom under Septimius Severus A.D. 202. In his\n    youth he was a disciple of Polycarp, who was in turn a disciple\n    of the apostle John. In a letter to one Florinus, which Eusebius\n    has preserved, (Hist. Eccl., 5. 20,) he gives, in glowing\n    language, his recollections of the person and teachings of\n    Polycarp, and tells with what interest he listened as this man\n    related his intercourse with the apostle John and the others who\n    had seen the Lord, \"how he recounted their words, and the things\n    which he had heard from them concerning the Lord, and concerning\n    his miracles and teaching.\" And he adds that these things which\n    Polycarp had received from eye-witnesses he related \"all in\n    agreement with the Scriptures;\" that is, obviously, with the\n    gospel narratives. Pothinus, the predecessor of Irenaeus at\n    Lyons, was ninety years old at the time of his martyrdom, and\n    must have been acquainted with many who belonged to the latter\n    part of the apostolic age. Under such circumstances, it is\n    inconceivable that Irenaeus, who knew the Christian traditions of\n    both the East and the West, should not have known the truth\n    respecting the reception of the gospels by the churches, and the\n    grounds on which this reception rested, more especially in the\n    case of the gospel of John. Tischendorf, after mentioning the\n    relation of Irenaeus to Polycarp the disciple of John, asks, with\n    reason: \"Are we, nevertheless, to cherish the supposition that\n    Irenaeus never heard a word from Polycarp respecting the gospel\n    of John, and yet gave it his unconditional confidence--this man\n    Irenaeus, who in his controversies with heretics, the men of\n    falsification and apocryphal works, employs against them, before\n    all other things, the pure Scripture as a holy weapon?\" (Essay,\n    When were Our Gospels Written, p. 8.) The testimony of Irenaeus\n    is justly regarded as of the most weighty character. The fact\n    that he gives several fanciful reasons why there should be only\n    four gospels, (Against Heresies, 3. 11,) does not invalidate his\n    statement of the fact that the churches had always received\n    four, and no more. We always distinguish between men's testimony\n    to facts of which they are competent witnesses, and their\n    philosophical explanations of these facts.\n\n    _Tertullian_ was born in Carthage about A.D. 160, and died\n    between A.D. 220 and 240. About A.D. 202 he joined the sect of\n    the Montanists; but this does not affect his testimony\n    respecting the origin and universal reception of the four\n    canonical gospels. His works are very numerous, and in them all\n    he insists with great earnestness that the gospel narratives, as\n    also the other apostolic writings, have been received without\n    corruption, as a sacred inheritance, from the apostolic\n    churches. His work against Marcion, whom he accuses of employing\n    a mutilated gospel of Luke, is particularly instructive as\n    showing how deep and settled was the conviction of the early\n    Christians that nothing could be a gospel which did not proceed\n    from apostles or apostolic men; and how watchful they were\n    against all attempts to mutilate or corrupt the primitive\n    apostolic records. In defending the true gospel of Luke against\n    the mutilated form of it employed by Marcion, he says: \"I affirm\n    that not in the apostolic churches alone, but in all which are\n    joined with them in the bond of fellowship, that gospel of Luke\n    which we most firmly maintain, has been valid from its first\n    publication; but Marcion's gospel is unknown to most of them,\n    and known to none, except to be condemned.\" This testimony of\n    Tertullian is very important, as showing his full conviction\n    that Marcion could not deny the universal reception, from the\n    beginning, of the genuine gospel of Luke. And a little\n    afterwards he adds: \"The same authority of the apostolic\n    churches will defend the other gospels also, which we have in\n    like manner through them, and according to them,\" (Against\n    Marcion, 4. 5.) Many more quotations of like purport might be\n    added.\n\n    _Clement of Alexandria_ was a pupil of Pantaenus, and his\n    successor as head of the catechetical school at Alexandria in\n    Egypt. He was of heathen origin, born probably about the middle\n    of the second century, and died about A.D. 220. He had a\n    philosophical turn of mind, and after his conversion to\n    Christianity made extensive researches under various teachers,\n    as he himself tells us, in Greece, in Italy, in Palestine, and\n    other parts of the East. At last he met with Pantaenus in Egypt,\n    whom he preferred to all his other guides, and in whose\n    instructions he rested. The testimony of Clement to the\n    universal and undisputed reception by the churches of the four\n    canonical gospels as the writings of apostles or apostolic men,\n    agrees with that of Tertullian. And it has the more weight, not\n    only on account of his wide investigations, but because, also,\n    it virtually contains the testimony of his several teachers,\n    some of whom must have known, if not the apostles themselves,\n    those who had listened to their teachings.\n\n    In connection with the testimony of the above-named writers, we\n    may consider that of the _churches of Lyons and Vienne_ in Gaul,\n    in a letter addressed by them to \"the churches of Asia and\n    Phrygia,\" which Eusebius has preserved for us, (Hist. Eccl., 5.\n    1,) and which describes a severe persecution through which they\n    passed in the reign of Antoninus Verus, about A.D. 177. In this\n    they say: \"So was fulfilled that which was spoken by our Lord,\n    'The time shall come in which whosoever killeth you shall think\n    that he doeth God service.'\" In speaking again of a certain\n    youthful martyr, they first compare him to Zacharias, the father\n    of John the Baptist, affirming, in the very words of Luke, that\n    he \"had walked in all the commandments and ordinances of the\n    Lord blameless,\" (Luke 1:6;) and then go on to describe him as\n    \"having the Comforter in himself, the Spirit, more abundantly\n    than Zacharias,\" where they apply to the Holy Spirit a term\n    peculiar to the apostle John. Here, then, we have indubitable\n    testimony to the fact that the gospel of John, as well as of\n    Luke, was known to the churches of Gaul in the west and Asia\n    Minor in the east in the days of Pothinus, bishop of these\n    churches, who suffered martyrdom in this persecution. But\n    Pothinus was ninety years old, so that his knowledge of these\n    gospels must have reached back to the first quarter of the\n    second century, when many who had known the apostles were yet\n    living.\n\n5. These testimonies, let it be carefully remembered, apply not to one\npart of Christendom alone, but to all its different and distant\ndivisions; and that, too, long before there was any attempt to bring the\njudgment of the churches into harmony by means of general councils. The\northodox churches planted in the different provinces of the Roman\nempire, though in substantial harmony with each other, had nevertheless\ntheir minor differences, which were sometimes discussed with much\nwarmth. In their relation to each other, they were jealous of their\nfreedom and independence. The history of the so-called _Antilegomena_\n(Disputed Books of the New Testament, chap. 6) shows that the reception\nof a writing as apostolic in one division of Christendom, did not insure\nits reception elsewhere. Had it been possible that a spurious book\nshould be imposed as genuine on the churches of one region, it would\ncertainly have met with opposition in other regions; but our four\ncanonical gospels were everywhere received without dispute as the\nwritings of apostles or apostolic men. This fact admits of but one\nexplanation: the churches had from their first appearance indubitable\nevidence of their genuineness.\n\n6. Let it be further remembered that this testimony relates not to books\nof a private character, that might have lain for years hidden in some\ncorner; but to the _public writings_ of the churches, on which their\nfaith was founded, of which they all had copies, and which it was the\ncustom, from the apostolic age, to read in their assemblies along with\nthe law and the prophets. (Justin Martyr Apol., 1. 67.) Earnestness and\nsincerity are traits which will not be denied to the primitive\nChristians, and they were certainly not wanting in common discernment.\nLet any man show, if he can, how a spurious gospel, suddenly appearing\nsomewhere after the apostolic days, could have been imposed upon the\nchurches as genuine, not only where it originated, but everywhere else\nin Christendom. The difficulty with which some of the genuine books of\nthe New Testament gained universal currency sufficiently refutes such an\nabsurd supposition.\n\n7. We are now prepared to consider the testimonies of an earlier period.\nHere _Justin Martyr_ is a very weighty witness, since he lived so near\nthe apostolic age, and had every facility for investigating the history\nof the gospel narratives. He was born near the beginning of the second\ncentury, and his extant works date from about the middle of the same\ncentury. Before his conversion to Christianity he was a heathen\nphilosopher earnestly seeking for the truth among the different systems\nof the age. Of his undoubtedly genuine works, there remain to us two\nApologies (defences of Christianity) and a Dialogue with Trypho a Jew,\ndesigned to defend the Christian religion against its Jewish opponents.\nIn these he quotes the gospel of Matthew very abundantly; next in number\nare his quotations from Luke. His references to Mark and John are much\nfewer, but enough to show his acquaintance with them. He never quotes\nthe evangelists by name, but designates their writings as \"The Memoirs\nof the Apostles;\" and more fully, \"The memoirs which I affirm to have\nbeen composed by his\"--our Lord's--\"apostles and their followers,\"\nDialog., ch. 103, \"which,\" he elsewhere says, \"are called gospels,\"\nApol. 1. 66, and in a collective sense, \"the gospel,\" Dialog., ch. 10.\nIt should be carefully noticed that he speaks in the plural number both\nof the apostles who composed the gospels and their followers. This\ndescription applies exactly to our canonical gospels--two written by\napostles, and two by their followers.\n\n    The attempt has been made in modern times to set aside Justin's\n    testimony, on the alleged ground that he quotes not from our\n    canonical gospels, but from some other writings. The\n    groundlessness of this supposition is manifest at first sight.\n    Justin had visited the three principal churches of Rome,\n    Alexandria, and Ephesus. It is certain that he knew what gospels\n    were received by them in his day as authentic, and that these\n    are the very gospels which he quotes, affirming that they were\n    the writings of apostles and their followers. Now, that the\n    gospels which Justin used should have been wholly supplanted by\n    others in the days of Irenaeus, who was of full age at the time\n    of Justin's death, is incredible. But Irenaeus, in common with\n    Clement, Tertullian, and others, quotes our four canonical\n    gospels as alone possessing apostolic authority, and as having\n    been always received by the churches. It follows that the\n    \"Memoirs\" of Justin must be the same gospels. We cannot conceive\n    that in this brief period an entire change of gospels should\n    have been made throughout all the different and distant\n    provinces of the Roman empire, at a time when concerted action\n    through general councils was unknown; and that, too, in so\n    silent a manner that no record of it remains in the history of\n    the church. The supposition that the gospels known to Justin\n    were different from those received by Irenaeus ought not to be\n    entertained without irrefragable proof. But no such proof\n    exists. \"An accurate examination in detail of his citations,\"\n    says Semisch, Life of Justin Martyr, 4. 1, \"has led to the\n    result that this title\"--the Memoirs of the\n    Apostles--\"designates the canonical gospels--a result in no way\n    less certain because again called in question in modern days.\"\n\n    The agreement of his quotations with our present gospels is of\n    such a character and extent as can be explained only from his\n    use of them. The variations are mainly due to his habit of\n    quoting loosely from memory. \"Many of these citations,\" says\n    Kirchhofer, \"agree, word for word, with the gospels; others with\n    the substance, but with alterations and additions of words, with\n    transpositions and omissions; others give the thought only in a\n    general way; others still condense together the contents of\n    several passages and different sayings, in which case the\n    historic quotations are yet more free, and blend together, in\n    part, the accounts of Matthew and Luke. But some quotations are\n    not found at all in our canonical gospels,\" (see immediately\n    below;) \"some, on the contrary, occur twice or thrice.\"\n    Quellensammlung, p. 89. note. Two or three more important\n    variations are, perhaps, due to the readings in the manuscripts\n    employed by Justin, since the later church fathers, who, as we\n    know, employed the canonical gospels, give the same variations.\n    Finally, Justin gives a few incidents and sayings not recorded\n    in our present gospels. As he lived so near the apostolic times\n    he may well have received these from tradition; but if in any\n    case he took them from written documents, there is no proof that\n    he ascribed to such documents apostolic authority. In one\n    passage, he accurately distinguishes between what he gives from\n    tradition or other written sources, and what from the apostolic\n    records. \"When Jesus came,\" he says, \"to the river Jordan, where\n    John was baptizing, as he descended to the water, both was a\n    fire kindled in the Jordan, and as he ascended from the water,\n    the apostles of this very Christ of ours have written that the\n    Holy Spirit as a dove lighted upon him.\" Dial., ch. 88.\n\n    It has been doubted whether certain references to the _gospel of\n    John_ can be found in Justin's writings; but it seems plain that\n    the following is a free quotation from chapter 3:3-5: \"For\n    Christ said, Except ye be born again, ye shall by no means enter\n    into the kingdom of heaven. But that it is impossible that they\n    who have once been born should enter into the wombs of those who\n    bare them is manifest to all.\" Apol. 1. 61. To affirm that a\n    passage so peculiar as this was borrowed by both the evangelist\n    John and Justin from a common tradition, is to substitute a very\n    improbable for a very natural explanation. Besides, Justin uses\n    phraseology peculiar to John, repeatedly calling our Saviour\n    \"the Word of God,\" and \"the Word made flesh;\" affirming that he\n    \"was in a peculiar sense begotten the only Son of God,\" \"an only\n    begotten One to the Father of all things, being in a peculiar\n    sense begotten of him as Word and Power, and afterwards made man\n    through the Virgin;\" and calling him \"the good Rock that sends\n    forth (literally, causes to _bubble forth_--compare John 4:14)\n    living waters into the hearts of those who through him have\n    loved the Father of all things, and that gives to all who will\n    the water of life to drink.\" These and other references to John\n    may be seen in Kirchhofer's Quellensammlung, pp. 146, 147.\n\n8. Another early witness is _Papias_, who was bishop of Hierapolis, in\nPhrygia, in the first half of the second century. He wrote \"An\nExposition of the Oracles of the Lord,\" in five books. This work has\nperished; but fragments of it, with notices of its contents, are\npreserved to us by Eusebius and other writers. As Papias, according to\nhis own express testimony, gathered his materials, if not from apostles\nthemselves, yet from their immediate disciples, his statements are\ninvested with great interest. Of Matthew he says, Eusebius Hist. Eccl.,\n5. 39, that he \"wrote the oracles in the Hebrew dialect, and every one\ninterpreted them as he could.\" He speaks of this interpretation by each\none as he could as something past, implying that in his day our present\nGreek gospel of Matthew (of the apostolic authority of which there was\nnever any doubt in the early churches) was in circulation, whether it\nwas or was not originally composed in Hebrew, a question on which\nlearned men are not agreed. Of Mark he affirms that, \"having become\nPeter's interpreter, he wrote down accurately as many things as he\nremembered; not recording in order the things that were said or done by\nChrist, since he was not a hearer or follower of the Lord, but\nafterwards\"--after our Lord's ascension--\"of Peter, who imparted his\nteachings as occasion required, but not as making an orderly narrative\nof the Lord's discourses.\" Hist. Eccl., 3. 39. The fact that Eusebius\ngives no statement of Papias respecting the other two gospels is of\nlittle account, since his notices of the authors to whom he refers, and\nof their works, are confessedly imperfect.\n\n    Eusebius notices, for example, Hist. Eccl. 4. 14, the fact that\n    Polycarp, in his letter to the Philippians, \"has used certain\n    testimonies from the First Epistle of Peter;\" but says nothing\n    of his many references, in the same letter, to the epistles of\n    Paul, in some of which he quotes the apostle by name. We have,\n    nevertheless, through Eusebius, an indirect but valid testimony\n    from Papias to the authorship of the fourth gospel, resting upon\n    the admitted identity of the author of this gospel with the\n    author of the first of the epistles ascribed to John. Speaking\n    of Papias, Eusebius says: \"But the same man used testimonies\n    from the First Epistle of John.\" Hist. Eccl., 3. 39, end. The\n    ascription to John of this epistle, is virtually the ascription\n    to him of the fourth gospel also. Eusebius speaks of Papias as a\n    man \"of very small mind.\" The correctness of this judgment is\n    manifest from the specimens which he gives of his writings; but\n    it cannot invalidate the evidence we have from the above\n    passages of the existence, in Papias' day, of the gospels to\n    which he refers. As to the question whether these were our\n    present canonical gospels of Matthew and Mark, it is sufficient\n    to say that neither Eusebius nor any of the church fathers\n    understood them differently.\n\n9. A very interesting relic of antiquity is the _Epistle to Diognetus_,\nof which the authorship is uncertain. Its date cannot be later than the\nage of Justin Martyr, to whom it is ascribed by some. It is,\nnotwithstanding some erroneous views, a noble defence of Christianity,\nin which the author shows his acquaintance with the gospel of John by\nthe use of terms and phrases peculiar to him. Thus he calls Christ \"the\nWord,\" and \"the only begotten Son,\" whom God sent to men. In the words,\n\"not to take thought about raiment and food,\" section 9, there is an\napparent reference to Matt. 6:25, 31.\n\nIn addition to the above testimonies might be adduced some fragments of\nearly Christian writers which have been preserved to us by those of a\nlater day; but for brevity's sake they are omitted.\n\n10. Following up the stream of testimony, we come now to that of the\nso-called _apostolic fathers_; that is, of men who were disciples of\napostles, and wrote in the age next following them. Holding, as they do,\nsuch a near relation to the apostles, and familiar with the oral\ntraditions of the apostolic age, we cannot expect to find in them such\nfrequent and formal references to the books of the New Testament as\ncharacterize the works of later writers. They quote, for the most part,\nanonymously, interweaving with their own words those of the sacred\nwriters.\n\n    One of the earliest among the apostolic fathers is _Clement of\n    Rome_, who died about A.D. 100. Of the numerous writings\n    anciently ascribed to him, his First Epistle to the Corinthians\n    is admitted, upon good evidence, to be genuine. In this we find\n    words which imply a knowledge of the first three gospels. Citing\n    evidently from memory, in a loose way, he says: \"For thus\n    he\"--the Lord Jesus--\"spake, 'Be merciful, that ye may obtain\n    mercy; forgive, that ye may be forgiven; as ye do, so shall it\n    be done to you; as ye give, so shall it be given to you; as ye\n    judge, so shall ye receive judgment; as ye are kind, so shall ye\n    receive kindness; with what measure ye measure, with that it\n    shall be measured to you.'\" And again: \"For he said, 'Woe unto\n    that man; it were better for him that he had not been born, than\n    that he should offend one of my elect.'\"\n\n    _Ignatius_ was bishop of the church at Antioch, and suffered\n    martyrdom A.D. 107, or according to some accounts, 116. In his\n    epistles, which are received as genuine, are manifest quotations\n    from the gospel of Matthew, and some apparent though not\n    entirely certain allusions to the gospel of John.\n\n    _Polycarp_, bishop of Smyrna, was a disciple of the apostle\n    John. He suffered martyrdom about the year 166. Of his writings,\n    only one short epistle, addressed to the Philippians, remains to\n    us; but this abounds in references to the books of the New\n    Testament, especially the epistles of Paul. Of quotations from\n    the gospel of Matthew, the following are examples: \"Judge not,\n    that ye be not judged; forgive, and ye shall be forgiven; be\n    merciful, that ye may obtain mercy; with what measure ye mete,\n    it shall be measured to you again.\" \"Blessed are the poor in\n    spirit, and those that suffer persecution for righteousness'\n    sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.\" \"The spirit indeed\n    is willing, but the flesh is weak.\" For the gospel of John,\n    Polycarp's testimony, though indirect, is decisive. In his\n    letter to the Philippians, he quotes from the First Epistle of\n    John, \"For every one who does not confess that Jesus Christ has\n    come in the flesh, is antichrist.\" 1 John 4:3. But that the\n    gospel of John and this first epistle both proceeded from the\n    same author, is a conceded fact.\n\n    The recently discovered Sinai Codex, the oldest known codex in\n    the world, contains the entire _Epistle of Barnabas_ in the\n    original Greek. In this we find, among other references to the\n    first three gospels, one to the _written_ gospel of Matthew of\n    the most decisive character: \"Let us be mindful, therefore, lest\n    perchance we be found as it is written, 'Many are called, but\n    few are chosen.'\" Matt. 20:16; 22:14. The form of quotation, \"as\n    it is written,\" is employed by the writers of the New Testament\n    only of citations from Scripture. In these words the writer\n    places the gospel of Matthew in the same rank as the Scriptures\n    of the Old Testament. That he was the Barnabas mentioned in the\n    New Testament as the companion of Paul cannot be maintained; but\n    the composition of the epistle is assigned, with probability, to\n    the beginning of the second century, though some place it as\n    late as its close.\n\n    The testimony of other apocryphal writings of early date might\n    be adduced, but for the sake of brevity it is here omitted. It\n    may be seen in the essay of Tischendorf, already referred to.\n\n11. A different class of witnesses will next be considered--the ancient\nSyriac version, the old Latin version, and the Muratorian fragment on\nthe canon of the New Testament--all of which bear testimony to our\ncanonical gospels.\n\n    The ancient _Syriac_ version, commonly called the\n    Peshito--_simple_, that is, expressing simply the meaning of the\n    original, without allegorical additions and explanations, after\n    the manner of the Jewish Targums--is admitted by all to be of\n    very high antiquity. Learned men are agreed that this version\n    cannot well be referred to a later date than the close of the\n    second century, and some assign it to the middle of the second\n    century, at which time the Syrian churches were in a very\n    flourishing condition, and cannot well be supposed to have been\n    without a version of the Holy Scriptures. The Peshito contains\n    all the books of the New Testament, except the Second Epistle of\n    Peter, the Second and Third Epistles of John, the Epistle of\n    Jude, and the Apocalypse. It testifies to the existence of our\n    four gospels, not only when it was made, but at an earlier date;\n    since we must, in all probability, assume that some considerable\n    time elapsed after the composition, one by one, of the books of\n    the New Testament, before they were collected into a volume, as\n    in this Syriac version.\n\n    Respecting the _Old Latin_ version, (in distinction from\n    Jerome's revision, commonly called the _Vulgate_, which belongs\n    to the fourth century,) various opinions have been maintained.\n    Some have assumed the existence of several independent Latin\n    versions of the New Testament, or of some of its books; but the\n    preferable opinion is that there were various recensions, all\n    having for their foundation a single version, namely, the Old\n    Latin; which, says Westcott, Canon of the New Testament, ch. 3,\n    \"can be traced back as far as the earliest records of Latin\n    Christianity. Every circumstance connected with it indicates the\n    most remote antiquity.\" It was current in north Africa, at least\n    soon after the middle of the second century. Though it has not\n    come down to us in a perfect form, it contains, along with most\n    of the other books of the New Testament, our four canonical\n    gospels; and its testimony is of the greatest weight.\n\n    The _Muratorian_ Fragment on the _Canon_ is the name given to a\n    Latin fragment discovered by the Italian scholar, Muratori, in\n    the Ambrosian Library at Milan, in a manuscript bearing the\n    marks of great antiquity. Its date is determined by its\n    reference to the shepherd of Hermas, which, says the Fragment,\n    Hermas \"wrote very recently in our times, while the bishop Pius,\n    his brother, occupied the chair of the church at Rome.\" The\n    later of the two dates given for the death of Pius is A.D. 157.\n    The composition of the Fragment must have followed soon\n    afterwards. Though mutilated at the beginning, as well as the\n    end, its testimony to the existence of the _four_ canonical\n    gospels is decisive. In its present form, it opens with the end\n    of a sentence, the beginning of which is lost. It then goes on\n    to say, \"_The third gospel according to Luke_.\" After mentioning\n    various particulars concerning Luke, as that he was a physician\n    whom Paul had taken with him, that he did not himself see the\n    Lord in the flesh, etc., it adds, \"_The fourth of the gospels,\n    that of John, of the number of the disciples_,\" to which it\n    appends a traditional account of the circumstances of its\n    composition. With the truth or falsehood of this account we have\n    at present no concern; the important fact is that this very\n    ancient canon recognizes the existence of our four canonical\n    gospels.\n\n12. The heretical sects of the second century furnish testimony to the\ngenuineness of our canonical gospels which is of the most weighty and\ndecisive character. Though some of them rejected certain books of the\nNew Testament and mutilated others, it was on doctrinal, not on critical\ngrounds. Had they attempted to disprove on historic grounds the\ngenuineness of the rejected portions of Scripture, it is certain that\nthe church fathers, who wrote against them at such length, would have\nnoticed their arguments. The fact that they did not, is conclusive proof\nthat no such attempt was made; but from the position which the leaders\nof these heretical sects occupied, it is certain that, could the\ngenuineness of the canonical gospels, or any one of them, have been\ndenied on historic grounds, the denial would have been made.\n\n    _Marcion_, one of the most distinguished leaders of those who\n    separated themselves from the orthodox church, came to Rome in\n    the second quarter of the second century. He separated\n    Christianity from all connection with Judaism, making the\n    Jehovah of the Old Testament a different being from the God of\n    the New Testament. His gospel, called by the ancients the gospel\n    of Marcion, is admitted to have been a mutilated copy of Luke's\n    gospel. Of course it became necessary that he should reject the\n    first two chapters of this gospel, (which alone he received,)\n    since they contain our Lord's genealogy in the line of Abraham\n    and David, and should otherwise alter it to suit his views. On\n    the same grounds, he altered the epistles of Paul also. That\n    Marcion was not ignorant of the other three gospels, but\n    rejected them, is plain from the words of Tertullian, who\n    accuses him, Against Marcion, 4. 3, of attempting \"to destroy\n    the credit of those gospels which are properly such, and are\n    published under the name of apostles, or also of apostolic men;\n    that he may invest his own gospel with the confidence which he\n    withdraws from them.\" His real ground for rejecting some books\n    of the New Testament and mutilating others was that _he_ could\n    judge better of the truth than the writers themselves, whom he\n    represented to have been misled by the influences of Jewish\n    prejudices. Accordingly Irenaeus well says of the liberties taken\n    by Marcion, Against Heresies, 1. 27: \"He persuaded his disciples\n    that he was himself more trustworthy than the apostles who have\n    delivered to us the gospel; while he gave to them not the\n    gospel, but a fragment of the gospel.\"\n\n    A distinguished leader of the Gnostics was _Valentinus_, who\n    came to Rome about A.D. 140, and continued there till the time\n    of Anicetus. His testimony and that of his followers is, if\n    possible, more weighty than even that of Marcion. His method,\n    according to the testimony of Tertullian, was not to reject and\n    mutilate the Scriptures, but to pervert their meaning by false\n    interpretations. Tertullian says, Against Heretics, ch. 38: \"For\n    though Valentinus seems to use the entire instrument, he has\n    done violence to the truth with a more artful mind than\n    Marcion.\" \"The entire instrument\"--Latin, _integro\n    instrumento_--includes our four canonical gospels. Clement of\n    Alexandria and Hippolytus have preserved quotations from\n    Valentinus in which he refers to the gospels of Matthew, Luke,\n    and John. See Westcott, Canon of the New Testament, 4. 5.\n    Respecting the gospel of John in particular, Irenaeus says,\n    Against Heresies, 3. 11, that \"the Valentinians make the most\n    abundant use of it.\" Heracleon, whom Origen represents as having\n    been a familiar friend of Valentinus, wrote a commentary on\n    John, from which Origen frequently quotes; but if Valentinus and\n    his followers, in the second quarter of the second century, used\n    \"the entire instrument,\" they must have found its apostolic\n    authority established upon a firm foundation before their day.\n    This carries us back to the age immediately succeeding that of\n    the apostles, when Polycarp and others who had known them\n    personally were yet living. The testimony of the Valentinians,\n    then, is of the most decisive character.\n\n    Another prominent man among the heretical writers was _Tatian_,\n    a contemporary and pupil of Justin Martyr, who, according to the\n    testimony of Eusebius, Epiphanius, and Theodoret, composed a\n    _Diatessaron_, that is, a _four-fold gospel_; which can be\n    understood only as a harmony of the four gospels which, as has\n    been shown, were used by Justin; or of such parts of these\n    gospels as suited his purpose; for Tatian, like Marcion, omitted\n    all that relates to our Lord's human descent. With this\n    Diatessaron, Theodoret was well acquainted; for he found among\n    his churches more than two hundred copies, which he caused to be\n    removed, and their places supplied by the four canonical\n    gospels.\n\n    As to other gospels of the second century, which are\n    occasionally mentioned by later writers, as \"The Gospel of\n    Truth,\" \"The Gospel of Basilides,\" etc., there is no evidence\n    that they professed to be connected histories of our Lord's life\n    and teachings. They were rather, as Norton has shown,\n    Genuineness of the Gospels, vol. 3, chap. 4, doctrinal works\n    embodying the views of the sectaries that used them.\n\n13. We have seen how full and satisfactory is the external evidence for\nour four canonical gospels. Considering how scanty are the remains of\nChristian writings that have come down to us from the first half of the\nsame century, we have all the external evidence for that period also\nthat could be reasonably demanded, and it is met by no rebutting\ntestimony that rests on historic grounds. The authorship of no ancient\nclassical work is sustained by a mass of evidence so great and varied,\nand the candid mind can rest in it with entire satisfaction.\n\nIII. _Internal Evidences._ 14. Here we may begin with considering the\nrelation of the first three gospels to the last, in respect to both time\nof composition and character.\n\nAnd first, with respect to _time_. The first three gospels--frequently\ncalled the _synoptical_ gospels, or the _synoptics_, because from the\ngeneral similarity of their plan and materials their contents are\ncapable of being summed up in a synopsis--record our Lord's prophecy of\nthe overthrow of Jerusalem. The three records of this prediction wear\nthroughout the costume of a true prophecy, not of a prophecy written\nafter the event. They are occupied, almost exclusively, with the various\n_signs_ by which the approach of that great catastrophe might be known,\nand with admonitions to the disciples to hold themselves in readiness\nfor it. Matthew, for example, devotes fifty verses to the account of the\nprophecy and the admonitions connected with it. Of these, only four,\nchap. 24:19-22, describe the calamities of the scene, and that in the\nmost general terms. Now, upon the supposition that the evangelist wrote\nbefore the event, all this is natural. Our Lord's design in uttering the\nprophecy was not to gratify the idle curiosity of the disciples, but to\nwarn them beforehand in such a way that they might escape the horrors of\nthe impending catastrophe. He dwelt, therefore, mainly on the signs of\nits approach; and with these, as having a chief interest for the\nreaders, the record of the prediction is mostly occupied. It is\nimpossible, on the other hand, to conceive that one who wrote years\nafter the destruction of the city and temple should not have dwelt in\nmore detail on the bloody scenes connected with their overthrow, and\nhave given in other ways also a historic coloring to his account. We may\nsafely say that to write a prophecy after the event in such a form as\nthat which we have in either of the first three gospels, transcends the\npower of any uninspired man; and as to inspired narratives, the\nobjectors with whom we are now dealing deny them altogether.\n\nBut there are, in the record of this prophecy, some special indications\nof the time when the evangelists wrote. According to Matthew, the\ndisciples asked, ver. 3: \"When shall these things\"--the destruction of\nthe buildings of the temple--\"be? and what shall be the sign of thy\ncoming and of the end of the world?\" These questions our Lord proceeded\nto answer in such a way that the impression on the minds of the hearers\n(to be rectified only by the course of future events) must have been\nthat the overthrow of the temple and city would be connected with his\nsecond coming and the end of the world. \"Immediately after the\ntribulation of those days,\" says Matthew, \"shall the sun be darkened,\"\netc. The probable explanation of this peculiar form of the prophecy is\nthat it does actually include all three events; the fulfilment which it\nhad in the destruction of the city and temple by the Romans being only\nan earnest of a higher fulfilment hereafter. But however this may be, it\nis important to notice that the evangelists, in their record of the\nprophecy, are evidently unconscious of any discrepancy, real or\napparent, that needs explanation; which could not have been the case had\nthey written years after the event predicted. \"It may be safely held,\"\nsays Professor Fisher, Supernatural Origin of Christianity, p. 172,\n\"that had the evangelist been writing at a later time, some explanation\nwould have been thrown in to remove the _seeming_ discrepancy between\nprophecy and fulfilment.\"\n\nIt should be further noticed that the evangelists Matthew and Mark, in\nreference to \"the abomination of desolation\" standing in the holy place,\nthrow in the admonitory words, \"Let him that readeth understand.\" These\nare not the Saviour's words, but those of the narrators calling the\nattention of believers to a most important sign requiring their\nimmediate flight to the mountains. Before the overthrow of the city\nthese words had a weighty office; after its overthrow they would have\nbeen utterly superfluous. Their presence in such a connection is proof\nthat the record was written before the event to which it refers.\n\nAdmitting the genuineness and authenticity of the book of Acts, (which\nwill be considered hereafter,) we have a special proof of the early\ncomposition of the gospel according to Luke. The book of Acts ends\nabruptly with Paul's two years residence at Rome, which brings us down\nto A.D. 65, five years before the destruction of Jerusalem. The only\nnatural explanation of this fact is that here the composition of the\nbook of Acts was brought to a close. The date of the gospel which\npreceded, Acts 1:1, must therefore be placed still earlier.\n\nIf, now, we examine the gospel of John, we find its internal character\nagreeing with the ancient tradition that it was written at Ephesus late\nin the apostle's life. That it was composed at a distance from Judea, in\na Gentile region, is manifest from his careful explanation of Jewish\nterms and usages, which among his countrymen would have needed no\nexplanation. No man writing in Judea, or among the Galileans who\nhabitually attended the national feasts at Jerusalem, would have said,\n\"And the passover, a feast of the Jews, was nigh,\" 6:4; \"Now the Jews'\nfeast of tabernacles was at hand,\" 7:2, etc. The absence of all\nreference to the overthrow of the Jewish polity, civil and\necclesiastical, may be naturally explained upon the supposition that the\napostle wrote some years after that event, when his mind had now become\nfamiliar with the great truth that the Mosaic institutions had forever\npassed away to make room for the universal dispensation of Christianity;\nand that he wrote, too, among Gentiles for whom the abolition of these\ninstitutions had no special interest. In general style and spirit,\nmoreover, the gospel of John is closely allied to his first epistle, and\ncannot well be separated from it by a great interval of time; but the\nepistle undoubtedly belongs to a later period of the apostle's life.\n\n    From the language of John, chap. 5:2, \"Now there _is_ at\n    Jerusalem, by the sheep-gate, a pool, which is called in the\n    Hebrew tongue, Bethesda, _having_ five porches,\"--it has been\n    argued that, when John wrote, the city must have been still\n    standing. But Eusebius speaks of the pool as remaining in his\n    day, and why may not the porches, as useful to the Roman\n    conquerors, have been preserved, at least for a season?\n\nWe have seen the relation of John's gospel to the other three in respect\nto time. It must have been written several years later than the last of\nthem; perhaps not less than fifteen years. If, now, we look to its\nrelation in regard to _character_, we must say that it differs from them\nas widely as it well could while presenting to our view the same divine\nand loving Saviour. Its general plan is different. For reasons not known\nto us, the synoptical gospels are mainly occupied with our Lord's\nministry in Galilee. They record only his last journey to Jerusalem, and\nthe momentous incidents connected with it. John, on the contrary,\nnotices his visits to Jerusalem year by year. Hence his materials are,\nto a great extent, different from theirs; and even where he records the\nsame events--as, for example, the miracle of the loaves and fishes, and\nthe last supper--he connects with them long discourses, which the other\nevangelists have omitted. Particularly noticeable are our Lord's\noft-repeated discussions with the unbelieving Jews respecting his\nMessiahship, and his confidential intercourse with his disciples, in\nboth of which we have such treasures of divine truth and love. How\nstrikingly this gospel differs from the others in its general style and\nmanner every reader feels at once. It bears throughout the impress of\nJohn's individuality, and by this it is immediately connected with the\nepistles that bear his name. It should be added that in respect to the\ntime when our Lord ate the passover with his disciples there is an\napparent disagreement with the other three gospels, which the harmonists\nhave explained in various ways.\n\nThe essential point of the above comparison is this: Notwithstanding the\nstriking difference between the later fourth gospel and the earlier\nthree, it was at once received by all the churches as of apostolic\nauthority. Now upon the supposition of its genuineness, both its\npeculiar character and its undisputed reception everywhere are easily\nexplained. John, the bosom disciple of our Lord, wrote with the full\nconsciousness of his apostolic authority and his competency as a witness\nof what he had himself seen and heard. He therefore gave his testimony\nin his own independent and original way. How far he may have been\ninfluenced in his selection of materials by a purpose to supply what was\nwanting in the earlier gospels, according to an old tradition, it is not\nnecessary here to inquire; it is sufficient to say that, under the\nillumination of the Holy Spirit, he marked out that particular plan\nwhich we have in his gospel, and carried it out in his own peculiar\nmanner, thus opening to the churches new mines, so to speak, of the\ninexhaustible fulness of truth and love contained in him in whom\n\"dwelleth all the fulness of the godhead bodily.\" And when this original\ngospel, so different in its general plan and style from those that\npreceded, made its appearance, the apostolic authority of its author\nsecured its immediate and universal reception by the churches. All this\nis very plain and intelligible.\n\nBut upon the supposition that the gospel of John is a spurious\nproduction of the age succeeding that of the apostles, let any one\nexplain, if he can, how it could have obtained universal and\nunquestioned apostolic authority. Its very difference from the earlier\ngospels must have provoked inquiry and examination, and these must have\nled to its rejection, especially at a time when some who had known the\napostle yet survived; and no one now pretends to assign to it a later\nperiod.\n\n15. We will next consider the relation of the first three gospels to\neach other. Here we have remarkable agreements with remarkable\ndifferences. The general plan of all three is the same. It is manifest\nalso, at first sight, that there lies at the foundation of each a basis\nof common matter--common not in substance alone, but to a great extent\nin form also. Equally manifest is it that the three evangelists write\nindependently of each other. Matthew, for example, did not draw his\nmaterials from Luke; for there is his genealogy of our Lord, and his\nfull account of the sermon on the mount, not to mention other\nparticulars. Nor did Luke take his materials from Matthew; for there is\nhis genealogy also, with large sections of matter peculiar to himself.\nMark has but little matter that is absolutely new; but where he and the\nother two evangelists record the same events, if one compares his\nnarratives with theirs, he finds numerous little incidents peculiar to\nthis gospel woven into them in a very vivid and graphic manner. They\ncome in also in the most natural and artless way, as might be expected\nfrom one who, if not himself an eye-witness, received his information\nimmediately from eye-witnesses. The three writers, moreover, do not\nalways agree as to the order in which they record events; yet,\nnotwithstanding the diversities which they exhibit, they were all\nreceived from the first as of equal authority.\n\nThe natural explanation of this is that all three wrote in the apostolic\nage, and consequently had access, each of them independently of the\nother two, to the most authentic sources of information. These sources\n(so far as the evangelists were not themselves eye-witnesses) lay\npartly, perhaps, in written documents like those referred to by Luke,\n1:1, partly in the unwritten traditions current in the apostolic\nchurches, and partly in personal inquiry from eye-witnesses, especially,\nin the case of Mark and Luke, from apostles themselves. From these\nmaterials each selected as suited his purposes, and the churches\neverywhere unhesitatingly received each of the three gospels,\nnotwithstanding the above-named variations between them, because they\nhad undoubted evidence of their apostolic authority. We cannot suppose\nthat after the apostolic age three gospels, bearing to each other the\nrelation which these do, could have been imposed upon the churches as\nall of them equally authentic. We know from the history of Marcion's\ngospel how fully alive they were to the character of their sacred\nrecords. On apostolic authority they could receive--to mention a single\nexample--both Matthew's and Luke's account of our Lord's genealogy; but\nit is certain that they would not have received the two on the authority\nof men who lived after the apostolic age.\n\n16. In the gospel narratives are numerous incidental allusions to\npassing events without the proper sphere of our Lord's labors, to social\ncustoms, and to the present posture of public affairs, civil and\necclesiastical. In all these the severest scrutiny has been able to\ndetect _no trace of a later age_. This is a weighty testimony to the\napostolic origin of the gospels. Had their authors lived in a later age,\nthe fact must have manifested itself in some of these references. The\nmost artless writer can allude in a natural and truthful way to present\nevents, usages, and circumstances; but it transcends the power of the\nmost skilful author to multiply incidental and minute references to a\npast age without betraying the fact that he does not belong to it.\n\n17. Every age has, also, its peculiar impress of thought and reasoning\nin religious, not less than in secular matters. Although the gospel\nitself remains always the same, and those who sincerely embrace it have\nalso substantially the same character from age to age, there is,\nnevertheless, continual progress and change in men's apprehension of the\ngospel and its institutions, and consequently in their manner of\nreasoning concerning them. No man, for example, could write a treatise\non Christianity at the present day without making it manifest that he\ndid not belong to the first quarter of the present century. The\nprimitive age of Christianity is no exception to this universal law.\nUnder the auspices of the apostles it began to move forward, and it\ncontinued to move after their decease. The pastoral epistles of Paul\nbear internal marks of having been written in the later period of his\nlife, because they are adapted to the state of the Christian church and\nits institutions that belonged to that, and not to an earlier period.\nIf, now, we examine the writings of the so-called apostolic\nfathers--disciples of the apostles, who wrote after their death--we find\nin them circles of thought and reasoning not belonging to the canonical\nwritings of the New Testament, least of all to the canonical gospels,\nthough they are evidently derived from hints contained in these\nwritings, whether rightly or wrongly apprehended. In this respect, the\nworks of the apostolic fathers are distinguished in a very marked way\nfrom those which bear the names of the apostles themselves or their\nassociates.\n\n18. Another decisive argument lies in the _character of the Greek_\nemployed by the evangelists, in common with the other writers of the New\nTestament. It is the Greek language employed by Jews, (or, in the case\nof Luke, if his Jewish origin be doubted--see Col. 4:11, 16--by one who\nhad received a Jewish training under the influence of the Greek version\nof the Old Testament,) and therefore pervaded and colored by Hebrew\nidioms. This peculiar form of the Greek language belongs to the\napostolic age, when the teachers and writers of the church were Jews.\nAfter the overthrow of Jerusalem, the dispersion of the Jewish nation,\nand the death of the apostles and their associates, it rapidly\ndisappeared. Thenceforward the writers of the church were of Gentile\norigin and training, in accordance with the Saviour's memorable words:\n\"The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation\nbringing forth the fruits thereof.\"\n\nThese internal proofs, coinciding as they do with a mass of external\nevidences so great and varied, place the genuineness of the four\ncanonical gospels on a foundation that cannot be shaken.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nUNCORRUPT PRESERVATION OF THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.\n\n\n1. It is necessary, first of all, to define what is meant in the present\nconnection by the uncorrupt preservation of the gospel narratives. When\na man, whose business it is to examine and compare manuscripts or\neditions of a work, speaks of a given text as corrupt, he means one\nthing; in a question concerning the truth of the Christian system as\ngiven in the writings of the New Testament, a corrupt text means\nsomething very different. The collator of manuscripts understands by a\ncorrupt text one that has been marred by the carelessness or bad\njudgment of transcribers, whence have arisen so many \"various readings,\"\nthough these do not change, or essentially obscure the facts and\ndoctrines of Christianity, as has been most conclusively shown by the\nresults of modern textual criticism; but in an inquiry whether we have\nin our canonical gospels the account of our Lord's life and teachings as\nit was originally written by the evangelists in all essential\nparticulars, we have to do with the question, not of various readings,\nsuch as are incident to all manuscripts, but of essential additions,\nalterations, or mutilations--like those, for example, which Marcion\nattempted--by which the facts and doctrines themselves are changed or\nobscured. It is against the charge of such essential corruptions that we\nmaintain the integrity of the text in the gospels, as in the other books\nof the New Testament.\n\n2. The most important materials for writing in ancient times were the\npaper made of the Egyptian _papyrus_ plant--whence the word _paper_--and\n_parchment_, prepared from the skins of animals, the finer kinds of\nwhich are called _vellum_. Both are of high antiquity. The use of the\nabove-mentioned paper was very common in the apostolic age; and from an\nincidental notice in the New Testament, (2 John 12 compared with 3 John\n13,) it appears to have been the material employed by the apostles\nthemselves. But the use of parchment became more common in the following\ncenturies, while that of papyrus-paper gradually ceased. To this\ncircumstance we owe, in a great measure, the preservation of our oldest\nmanuscripts; for the papyrus-paper was of a very perishable nature, and\nthe manuscripts written upon it that have come down to us from high\nantiquity have been kept in specially favorable circumstances, as, for\nexample, in the ancient Egyptian tombs. With the disuse of papyrus-paper\nceased also the ancient form of the roll. All manuscripts written on\nparchment are in the form of books with leaves. From about the eleventh\ncentury, paper made from cotton or linen came into common use.\n\nThe costliness of writing materials gave rise to a peculiar usage. From\nthe leaves of an ancient work the original writing was erased, more or\nless perfectly. They were then employed as the material for another\nwork, the latter being written over the former. Such manuscripts are\ncalled _palimpsests_--_written again_ after erasure. The original\nwriting, which is very often the sacred text, can in general be\ndeciphered, especially by the aid of certain chemical applications. Some\nof our most precious manuscripts are of this character.\n\nThe existing manuscripts of the New Testament are of two kinds. _First_,\nthe _uncial_, that is, those written in capital letters. Here belong all\nthe most ancient and valuable. The writing is generally in columns, from\ntwo to four to a page; sometimes in a single column. There is no\ndivision of the text into words; the marks of interpunction are few and\nsimple; and till the seventh century there were no accents, and\nbreathings only in special cases. _Secondly_, the _cursive_, or those\nwritten in running-hand, with division of the text into words, capitals\nonly for initial letters, accents, breathings, etc., and often with many\ncontractions. This is the common form of manuscripts after the tenth\ncentury, the uncial being retained for some ages afterwards only in\nbooks designed for use in the church service. In both the uncial and the\ncursive manuscripts, each century has its peculiar style of writing.\nFrom this, as well as from the quality of the materials, expert judges\ncan determine the age of a given manuscript with a good degree of\naccuracy.\n\n    The details pertaining to the form of ancient manuscripts, their\n    number, character, etc., belong to the department of textual\n    criticism. The above brief notices are given to prepare the way\n    for a statement of the evidence that we have the gospel\n    narratives, as also the other books of the New Testament,\n    without corruption in the form in which they were originally\n    written. _See the PLATES at the beginning of this book._\n\n3. Of the autograph manuscripts proceeding immediately from the inspired\nauthors we find no trace after the apostolic age. Here, as elsewhere,\nthe wisdom of God has carefully guarded the church against a\nsuperstitious veneration for the merely outward instruments of\nredemption. We do not need the wood of the true cross that we may have\nredemption through the blood of Christ; nor do we need the identical\nmanuscripts that proceeded from the apostles and their companions, since\nwe have the contents of these manuscripts handed down to us without\ncorruption in any essential particular. This appears from various\nconsiderations.\n\n_First._ Several hundred manuscripts of the gospels, or of portions of\nthem, (to confine our attention at present to these,) have been\nexamined, two of them belonging to the fourth century and two, with some\nfragments, to the fifth. All these, though written in different\ncenturies and coming from widely different regions, contain essentially\nthe same text. In them, not one of the great facts or doctrines of the\ngospel history is mutilated or obscured.\n\n_Secondly._ The quotations of the church fathers from the last part of\nthe second to the end of the fourth century are so copious, that from\nthem almost the entire text of our present gospels could be\nreconstructed. These quotations agree substantially with each other and\nwith the text of our existing manuscripts; only that the earlier\nfathers, as already noticed, chap. 2. 3, often quote loosely from\nmemory, blend together different narratives, and interweave with the\nwords of Scripture their own explanatory remarks.\n\n_Thirdly._ We have two _versions_ of the New Testament--the Old Latin or\nItalic, and the Syriac called Peshito--which learned men are agreed in\nplacing somewhere in the last half of the second century. The testimony\nof these witnesses to the uncorrupt preservation of the sacred text,\nfrom the time when they first appeared to the present, is decisive; for\nthey also agree essentially with the Greek text of the gospel as we now\npossess it. Nor is this all. Davidson affirms of the Old Latin version,\nthat \"the more ancient the Greek manuscripts, the closer is their\nagreement with it.\" And Tischendorf says of the oldest known manuscript\nof the Bible--the Greek Sinai Codex, brought by him from the convent of\nSt. Catharine, Mount Sinai, in 1859--that its agreement, in the New\nTestament portion, with the Old Latin version, is remarkable. Through\nthe joint testimony, then, on the one hand, of the most ancient Greek\nmanuscripts, especially the Sinai Codex, which is the oldest of them\nall; and on the other, of the Old Latin version which belongs to the\nlast half of the second century, we are carried back to a very ancient\nand pure form of the Greek text prevalent before the execution of this\nversion, that is, about the middle of the second century. Tischendorf\nadds arguments to show that the Syriac Peshito version, the text of\nwhich has not come down to us in so pure a state, had for its basis\nsubstantially the same form of text as the Old Latin and the Sinai\nCodex.\n\n    The substantial identity of the sacred text, as we now have it,\n    with that which has existed since about the middle of the second\n    century, is thus shown to be a matter not of probable\n    conjecture, but of certain knowledge. Here, then, we have a sure\n    criterion by which to measure and interpret the complaints which\n    textual critics, ancient or modern, have made, sometimes in very\n    strong language, concerning the corruptions that have found\n    their way into the text of the New Testament. These writers have\n    reference to what are called \"various readings,\" not to\n    mutilations and alterations, such as those charged by the\n    ancients upon Marcion, by which he sought to change the facts\n    and doctrines of the gospel. That this must be their meaning we\n    know; for there are the manuscripts by hundreds as witnesses,\n    all of which, the most corrupt as textual critics would call\n    them, as well as the purest, give in the gospel narratives the\n    same facts and doctrines without essential variation.\n\n    Let not the inexperienced inquirer be misled into any wrong\n    conclusion by the number of \"various readings,\" amounting to\n    many thousands, which textual criticism has brought to light.\n    The greater the number of manuscripts collated, the greater will\n    be the number of these readings; while, at the same time, we are\n    continually making a nearer approach to the purity of the\n    primitive text. As a general rule these variations relate to\n    trifling particulars; as, for example, whether the conjunction\n    _and_ shall be inserted or omitted; whether _but_ or _for_ is\n    the true reading; whether this or that order of words giving the\n    same sense shall have the preference, etc. A few of the\n    variations are of a more important character. Thus, in John\n    1:18, some manuscripts and fathers instead of _only begotten\n    Son_, read _only begotten God_. But even here we may decide\n    either way without changing or obscuring the great truths of the\n    gospel narratives; for these are not dependent on particular\n    words or phrases, but pervade and vivify the New Testament, as\n    the vital blood does the body. The same may be said of certain\n    passages which, on purely critical grounds--that is, the\n    authority of ancient manuscripts--some have thought doubtful;\n    as, for example, John 5:4, and the narrative recorded in the\n    beginning of the eighth chapter of the same gospel. The\n    insertion or omission of the passages concerning which any\n    reasonable doubts can be entertained on critical grounds, will\n    not affect in the least the great truths of the gospel\n    narratives.\n\n4. But it may be asked, Was the text from which the Old Latin version\nwas made, and with which, as we have seen, the oldest manuscripts have a\nclose agreement, substantially the same as that which proceeded from the\ninspired authors? Here we must discard all groundless suppositions, and\nadhere strictly to the known facts in the premises.\n\nThe first fact to be noticed is the public reading of the gospels in the\nChristian churches, a custom which prevailed from the earliest times.\nJustin Martyr, writing before the middle of the second century, says of\nthe memoirs written by the apostles or their followers and called\ngospels (which have been shown to be our canonical gospels, chap. 2:7)\nthat either these or the writings of the Jewish prophets were read in\nthe Christian churches on the first day of every week. This is a fact of\nthe highest importance; for it shows that the witnesses and guardians of\nthe sacred text were not a few individuals, but the great body of\nbelievers, and that no systematic corruption of their contents could\nhave taken place without their knowledge and consent, which would never\nhave been given.\n\nIntimately connected with the above is a second fact, that of the great\nmultiplication of copies of the books of the New Testament, especially\nof the gospel narratives, since these contain the great facts that lie\nat the foundation of the Christian system. Every church would, as a\nmatter of course, be anxious to possess a copy, and Christians who\npossessed the requisite means would furnish themselves with additional\ncopies for their own private use. If, now, we suppose one or more of\nthese copies to have been essentially changed, the corruption would not,\nas in the case of a printed work, extend to many hundreds of copies. It\nwould be confined to the manuscript or manuscripts into which it had\nbeen introduced and the copies made therefrom, while the numerous\nuncorrupt copies would remain as witnesses of the fraud; for the\nsupposition of a very early corruption during the apostolic age, before\ncopies of the gospels had been to any considerable extent multiplied, is\nutterly absurd.\n\nA third fact is the high value attached by the primitive churches to the\ngospel narratives, and their consequent zeal for their uncorrupt\npreservation. No one will deny to them the qualities of earnestness and\nsincerity. To them the gospels were the record of their redemption\nthrough the blood of Christ. For the truths contained in them they\nsteadfastly endured persecution in every form, and death itself. Could\nwe even suppose, contrary to evidence, that private transcribers altered\nat pleasure their copies of the gospels, it is certain that the churches\nwould never have allowed their public copies to be tampered with. The\nresistance which Marcion met with in his attempt to alter the sacred\ntext, shows how watchful was their jealousy for its uncorrupt\npreservation.\n\nA still further fact is the want of time for essential corruptions, like\nthose now under consideration. That such corruptions could have taken\nplace during the apostolic age, no one will maintain. Equally certain is\nit that they could not have happened during the age next succeeding,\nwhile many presbyters and private Christians yet survived who had\nlistened to the apostles, and knew the history of the gospels written by\nthem or their companions. But this brings us down into the first part of\nthe second century.\n\nLeaving out of view the apostle John, who probably died near the close\nof the first century, and assuming the martyrdom of Peter and Paul to\nhave taken place somewhere between A.D. 64 and 67, we may place the\nbeginning of the age now under consideration at A.D. 65. Of the numerous\nChristians who were then thirty years or less of age many must have\nsurvived till A.D. 110, and even later. Polycarp, a disciple of John,\nsuffered martyrdom A.D. 167, and doubtless many others of his hearers\nsurvived till the middle of the second century. The time, then, during\nwhich such a corruption as that now under consideration can be supposed\nto have taken place is so narrowed down that it amounts to well-nigh\nnothing; and it is, moreover, the very time during which Justin Martyr\nwrote his Apologies, and Marcion made his unsuccessful attempt to\nmutilate the gospel history.\n\nFinally, no evidence exists that the text of the gospel narratives has\nbeen essentially corrupted. Of Marcion's abortive attempt we have\nabundant notices in the writings of the early fathers. Their silence in\nrespect to other like attempts is conclusive proof that they were never\nmade. Had we the autographs of the evangelists, we should, with reason,\nattach to them a high value; but there is no ground for supposing that\ntheir text would differ in any essential particular from that which we\nnow possess. They would present to our view the same Saviour and the\nsame gospel.\n\n5. What has been said respecting the uncorrupt preservation of the\ngospel narratives applies essentially to the other books of the New\nTestament; so that in the consideration of them the above arguments will\nnot need to be repeated.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nAUTHENTICITY AND CREDIBILITY OF THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.\n\n\n1. The genuineness and uncorrupt preservation of our four canonical\ngospels having been established, the presumption in favor of their\nauthenticity and credibility is exceedingly strong. In truth, few can be\nfound who, admitting their apostolic origin in essentially their present\nform, will venture to deny that they contain an authentic and reliable\nrecord of facts. We may dismiss at once the modern theory which converts\nthe gospels into myths--pure ideas embodied in allegorical narratives\nwhich have no historic foundation. Myths do not turn the world upside\ndown, as did the preaching of Christ and his apostles. Myths do not\ninspire the souls of men and women by thousands and tens of thousands\nwith heroic zeal and courage, enabling them steadfastly to endure\npersecution and death for the truth's sake. It was love towards a\ncrucified and risen Saviour in deed and in truth, not towards the\nmythical idea of such a Saviour, that made the primitive Christians\nvictorious alike over inward sinful affection and outward persecution.\nTo every one who reads the gospel narratives in the exercise of his\nsober judgment, it is manifest that they are intended to be plain\nunvarnished statements of facts. The question is, Are these statements\nreliable? Here new arguments can hardly be expected; the old are\nabundantly sufficient. Reserving for another place those general\narguments which apply to the gospel system as a whole, let us here\nbriefly consider the character of the authors and their records; of the\nevents which they record with the surrounding circumstances; and\nespecially of Jesus, their great theme.\n\n2. It is natural to ask, in the first place, Were these men _sincere and\ntruthful_? Here we need not long delay. Their sincerity, with that of\ntheir contemporaries who received their narratives as true, shines forth\nlike the sun in the firmament. With reference to them, the Saviour's\nargument applies in all its force: \"How can Satan cast out Satan?\" \"If\nSatan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath\nan end.\" The life-long work of the evangelists and their associates was\nto cast out of the world all fraud and falsehood. If now they attempted\nto do this by the perpetration of a most astounding fraud, we have the\ncase of Satan casting out Satan. But we need not argue the matter at\nlength. By what they did and suffered in behalf of their doctrines, as\nwell as by the artless simplicity of their narratives, they give full\nproof of their sincerity and truthfulness.\n\n3. We next inquire: Were they _competent as men_? that is, were they men\nof sober judgment, able correctly to see and record the facts that came\nunder their observation, and not visionary enthusiasts who mistook\ndreams for realities? This question admits of a short and satisfactory\nanswer. No proof whatever exists that they were visionary men, but\nabundant proof to the contrary. Their narratives are calm,\nunimpassioned, and straightforward, without expatiation on the greatness\nof Christ's character and works and the wickedness of his enemies, as is\nthe way of all excited enthusiasts. What Paul said to Festus applies in\nits full force to them and their writings: \"I am not mad, most noble\nFestus, but speak forth the words of truth and soberness.\" If any one\nwill condemn them as visionary, it must be on the sole ground that all\nbelief in the supernatural is visionary--a position that will be noticed\nhereafter.\n\n4. A further inquiry is, Were these men _competent as witnesses_? that\nis, had they the requisite means of knowing the facts which they record?\nWith regard to the apostles Matthew and John, this matter need not be\nargued. With regard to the other two, Luke states very fairly the\nposition which they occupied: \"It seemed good to me also, having had\nperfect understanding of all things,\" (\"having accurately traced out all\nthings,\" as the original signifies,) \"from the very beginning, to write\nto thee, in order,\" etc. Luke had in abundance the means of accurately\ntracing out all things relating to our Lord's life and works, for he was\nthe companion of apostles and others who \"from the beginning were\neye-witnesses and ministers of the word;\" and from them, according to\nhis own statement, he drew his information. The same is true of Mark\nalso.\n\n5. We come now to consider the _character of the works_ which they\nrecord, and the circumstances in which they were performed. Here it may\nbe remarked in the outset that it is not necessary to examine in detail\nall the miracles recorded in the gospel history. Though they all\nproceeded alike from the direct agency of God, they are not all alike\nopen to human inspection. If upon examination we find the supernatural\norigin of many of them raised above all possibility of doubt, it is a\nlegitimate inference that the rest of them had the same divine origin.\nNot to insist then upon the miracles ascribed to our Lord within the\nsphere of inanimate nature, such as the conversion of water into wine,\nthe feeding of many thousands with a few loaves and fishes, and walking\nupon the sea, all of which were done in such circumstances that there is\nno room for questioning their reality, let us examine some that were\nperformed upon the persons of men. Palsy, dropsy, withered limbs,\nblindness, the want of hearing and speech, leprosy, confirmed\nlunacy--all these were as well known in their outward symptoms eighteen\nhundred years ago as they are to-day. Persons could not be afflicted\nwith such maladies in a corner. The neighbors must have known then, as\nthey do now, the particulars of such cases, and have been\nunexceptionable witnesses to their reality. Persons may feign blindness\nand other infirmities among strangers, but no man can pass himself off\nas palsied, deaf and dumb, blind, (especially blind from birth,) halt,\nwithered, in his own community. The reality of the maladies then is\nbeyond all question; and so is also the reality of their instantaneous\nremoval by the immediate power of the Saviour. Here we must not fail to\ntake into account the immense number of our Lord's miracles, their\ndiversified character, and the fact that they were performed everywhere,\nas well without as with previous notice, and in the most open and public\nmanner. Modern pretenders to miraculous power have a select circle of\nmarvellous feats, the exhibition of which is restricted to particular\nplaces. No one of them would venture to undertake the cure of a man born\nblind, or that had a withered limb, or that had been a paralytic for\nthirty-eight years. But Jesus of Nazareth went about the cities and\nvillages of Judea for the space of three years, healing all manner of\ndisease. With him there was no distinction of easy and difficult, since\nto Divine power nothing is hard. With the same word he rebuked a raging\nfever, cleansed from leprosy, gave strength to the paralytic, healed the\nwithered limb, gave sight to the blind, hearing to the deaf, and speech\nto the dumb, and raised the dead to life. The same voice that said to\nthe man at Bethesda, \"Rise, take up thy bed, and walk,\" said also to\nLazarus, who had lain four days in the grave, \"Come forth.\"\n\n6. It is with reason that we lay special stress upon the fact that\nChrist performed many of his greatest miracles in the presence of his\nenemies, who had both the means and the will to institute a searching\ninvestigation concerning them, and who would have denied their reality\nhad it been in their power to do so. Sad indeed is the record of the\nperverse opposition and calumny which our Lord encountered on the part\nof the Jewish rulers. But even this has a bright side. It shows us that\nthe Saviour's miracles could endure the severest scrutiny--that after\nevery means which power and wealth and patronage and official influence\ncould command had been used for their disparagement, their divine origin\nstill shone forth like the unclouded sun at noon-day. If any one doubts\nthis, let him read attentively the ninth chapter of John's gospel, which\nrecords the investigation instituted by the Jewish rulers respecting the\nmiracle of healing a man blind from his birth. In no modern court of\njustice was a question of fact ever subjected to a severer scrutiny. And\nthe result was that they could not deny the miracle, but said in their\nblind hatred of the Redeemer, \"Give God the praise: we know that this\nman is a sinner.\" So when they could not deny that Jesus cast out\ndevils, they alleged that he did it by the help of Satan; when it was\nmanifest that he had by a word healed a man that had lain\nthirty-and-eight years a helpless paralytic, they blamed him for working\non the Sabbath-day; when Lazarus had been called out of his grave in the\npresence of all the people, they said, \"What do we? for this man doeth\nmany miracles.\" And then they consulted not to disprove these miracles,\nbut to put both him and Lazarus to death. Thus, in the good providence\nof God, we have for the reality of our Lord's miracles the testimony of\nhis enemies and persecutors.\n\n7. The _resurrection_ of Jesus is the miracle of miracles, of which we\nmay say with truth that it comprehends in itself all the other mighty\nworks recorded in the gospel history. We cannot but notice the\ncondescending care with which our Lord himself certified to his\ndisciples its reality. When he had suddenly appeared in the midst of\nthem, \"they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had\nseen a spirit.\" To convince them of the reality of his bodily presence,\nhe said, \"Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me\nand see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. And\nwhen he had thus spoken, he showed them his hands and his feet,\" that\nthey might see in them the prints of the nails. Finding them still\nincredulous, \"believing not for joy and wondering,\" he added another\nconclusive proof that he was not a spirit, but a true man: he asked for\nmeat; \"and they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb;\nand he took it, and did eat before them.\" Luke 24:36-43. To the\nunbelieving Thomas he offered the further proof which he had demanded:\n\"Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy\nhand, and thrust it into my side; and be not faithless, but believing.\"\nThe certainty of this great event the evangelist Luke sets forth in his\nintroduction to the Acts of the Apostles: \"To whom also,\" (to the\napostles,) \"he showed himself alive after his passion, by many\ninfallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the\nthings pertaining to the kingdom of God.\" The apostle Peter, in his\naddress to Cornelius and his friends, says: \"Him God raised up the third\nday, and showed him openly; not to all the people, but unto witnesses\nchosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after\nhe rose from the dead.\" Acts 10:40, 41. The apostle Paul, in his\nenumeration of our Lord's appearances to his disciples after his\nresurrection, 1 Cor. 5-8, mentions that on one occasion \"he was seen of\nabove five hundred brethren at once; of whom,\" he says, \"the greater\npart remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.\"\n\nIt was not the greatness of the miracle, considered simply by itself,\nbut its relation to the gospel, that made our Lord's resurrection from\nthe dead the central fact of the apostles' testimony. It was, so to\nspeak, the hinge on which the whole work of redemption turned. Our\nLord's expiatory death for the sins of the world and his resurrection\nfrom the dead were both alike parts of one indivisible whole. It was not\nhis claim to be the promised Messiah alone that was involved in the fact\nof his resurrection. His completion, as the Messiah, of the work of\nman's redemption was also dependent on that great event. \"If Christ be\nnot risen,\" says the apostle, \"then is our preaching vain, and your\nfaith is also vain;\" and again, \"If Christ be not raised, your faith is\nvain; ye are yet in your sins.\" 1 Cor. 15:14, 17. We need not wonder\nthen that the apostles, in their testimony to the people, insisted so\nearnestly on this one great fact in our Lord's history; for by it God\nsealed him as the Prince of life.\n\n8. The _character of Jesus_ of Nazareth, as drawn by the four\nevangelists, is the highest possible proof of the authenticity and\ncredibility of the gospel narratives. Of this it has been justly said,\n\"The character is possible to be conceived, because it was actualized in\na living example.\" (Nature and the Supernatural, p. 324.) The\ninapproachable excellence of Christ's character places it high above all\nhuman praise. The reverent mind shrinks instinctively from the idea of\nattempting to eulogize it, as from something profane and presumptuous.\nWe do not eulogize the sun shining in his strength, but we put a screen\nover our eyes when we would look at him, lest we should be blinded by\nthe brightness of his beams. So must every man look at Jesus of Nazareth\nwith reverence and awe, who has any true sense of what is great and\nexcellent. What is now to be said of this character is not eulogy. It is\npart of an argument for the reality of the events recorded in the gospel\nhistory. Here it is important to notice not only the character itself,\nbut the manner of the portraiture, and its power over the human heart.\n\nThe character of Jesus is perfectly _original_. Nothing like it was ever\nconceived of by the loftiest minds of antiquity. Nothing like it has\nappeared since his day, in actual life, or even in the conceptions of\nthe most gifted writers. As there is one sun in the firmament, so there\nis one Jesus Christ in the history of the world. His character has a\n_human_ and a _divine_ element; and these two interpenetrate each other,\nso as to constitute together one indivisible and glorious whole. Jesus\ncould not be, even in idea, what he is as man, unless he were God also.\nAnd what he is as God, he is as God made flesh, and dwelling as man\namong men. It is the _God-man_ which the gospel narratives present to\nus. If we consider the qualities which belong to our Saviour as man, we\nnotice the union in full measure and just proportion of all those\nqualities which belong to perfect humanity. In the case of mere men, the\nabundant possession of one quality implies almost of necessity\ndeficiency elsewhere, and consequently one-sidedness of character. Not\nso in the case of Jesus. He has all the attributes of a perfect man in\nperfect fulness and in perfect harmony with each other. Let us\nreverently look at some particulars.\n\nHis character unites the deepest _tranquillity_ with the deepest\n_fervor_ of spirit. Our Lord's tranquillity shines forth through the\nwhole course of his ministry, and manifests itself alike in great things\nand small. It is evident to all who read the narratives of the\nevangelists that he performed his mighty works as one conscious that\ndivine power belonged to him of right, and that the exercise of it, even\nin its highest forms, was nothing new nor strange. In connection with\nhis greatest miracles he calmly gave directions, as if they had been\nordinary occurrences. When he had fed many thousands with a few loaves\nand fishes, he said, \"Gather up the fragments that remain, that nothing\nbe lost.\" When he had raised from the dead the daughter of Jairus, \"he\ncommanded that something should be given her to eat.\" When he had called\nout of the grave one who had lain there four days, he directed, \"Loose\nhim and let him go.\" Even in Gethsemane, when oppressed with agony too\ngreat for human endurance, his self-possession remained as perfect as\nhis submission to his Father's will. That his serenity never left him\nfor a moment during the process of his arrest, trial, sentence, and\nlingering death on the cross, is a truth which shines forth from the\nsacred narrative as his own raiment did on the mount of transfiguration,\n\"white and glistering.\" Any attempt to describe it would be but mockery.\nAnd yet this deep composure of spirit is not that of indifference or of\na cold temperament. It is the composure of one in whose bosom burns a\nsteady and intense flame of zeal for the glory of God and good will\ntowards men, by which he is borne forward with untiring energy in the\nwork committed to him from above. It is the composure of a spirit whose\ndepth of emotion none can measure.\n\nWe notice again the union in our Lord of perfect _wisdom_ with perfect\n_freedom from guile_ and double dealing. That his wisdom was never at\nfault all must admit. He was surrounded by crafty adversaries, who\ncontrived all manner of plans to entangle him in his talk. Yet in the\ntwinkling of an eye he turned their wiles against themselves, and they\nfound themselves taken in their own net. Meanwhile he always pursued the\nstraightforward course of sincerity and truth. Not the slightest trace\nof deceit or cunning artifice appeared in his ministry from first to\nlast.\n\nClosely allied to the above-named qualities are _prudence_ and\n_boldness_, both of which met in full measure in our Lord's character.\nThat he feared no man and shrank from no peril when it was his duty to\nencounter it, is too obvious to be insisted on. Yet he never needlessly\nencountered opposition and danger. He was never bold for the purpose of\nmaking a show of boldness. When the Jews sought to kill him, he \"walked\nin Galilee\" to avoid their enmity. When his brethren went up to the\nfeast in Jerusalem, he would not go up with them, but afterwards went\nup, \"not openly, but as it were in secret.\" When, at a later day, after\nthe resurrection of Lazarus, the Jews sought his life, he \"walked no\nmore openly among the Jews; but went thence into a country near to the\nwilderness, into a city called Ephraim, and there continued with his\ndisciples.\" Not until the time had come that he should die for the sins\nof the world did he expose himself to the rage of his enemies; and then\nhe went boldly into Jerusalem at the head of his disciples. His own\nprecept, \"Be ye wise as serpents and harmless as doves,\" he perfectly\nexemplified throughout his ministry.\n\nWe cannot but notice once more the union in our Lord's character of the\ngreatest _tenderness_ with unbending _severity_ whenever the cause of\ntruth demanded severity. He opened his ministry at Nazareth by reading\nfrom the prophet Isaiah a portraiture of his own character: \"The Spirit\nof the Lord God is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the\ngospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the broken-hearted, to\npreach deliverance to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind,\nto set at liberty them that are bruised, to preach the acceptable year\nof the Lord.\" Isa. 61:1, 2. The execution of this mission required a\ntender and forbearing spirit, that would not break the bruised reed or\nquench the smoking flax; and such was the spirit of his whole ministry.\nFor the penitent, though publicans and sinners, he had only words of\nkindness. Towards the infirmities and mistakes of his sincere disciples\nhe was wonderfully forbearing. When a strife had arisen among the\napostles which of them should be the greatest, instead of denouncing in\nsevere terms their foolish ambition, he called to himself a little child\nand set him in the midst, and from him gave them a lesson on the duty of\nhumility. Yet this tender and compassionate Jesus of Nazareth, who took\nlittle children in his arms and blessed them, who stood and cried, \"Come\nunto me, all ye that labor and are heavy-laden, and I will give you\nrest,\" and who wept at the grave of Lazarus--this same Jesus could say\nto Peter when he would deter Him from the path of duty, \"Get thee behind\nme, Satan!\" and could denounce in the presence of all the people the\nscribes and Pharisees who sat in Moses' seat. In truth, the most severe\ndenunciations of hypocrisy and wickedness contained in the New Testament\nand the most awful descriptions of the future punishment of the\nimpenitent fell from our Saviour's lips. In his tenderness there was no\nelement of weakness.\n\nOur Lord's perfect _meekness and humility_ need no human comment. They\nshine forth with serene brightness through all his words and actions. He\ndescribed himself as \"meek and lowly in heart,\" and his life was a\nperpetual illustration of these qualities. \"When he was reviled, he\nreviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed\nhimself to him that judgeth righteously.\" But the point to be\nparticularly noticed is the wonderful harmony of this meek and lowly\nmind with _claims_ more _lofty_ than were ever conceived of by any man\nbefore him--claims everywhere boldly asserted, and which, as we shall\nsee hereafter, implied the possession of a divine nature. It is not that\nhe claimed and exercised power over nature or outward power over men,\neven power to raise the dead, that fills us with awe and amazement; but\nthat he went within the spirit, and offered inward life, light,\nstrength, peace--in a word, life eternal--to all who would come to him;\nand that he asserted, in a way as decisive as it was calm, his absolute\ncontrol over the everlasting destinies of all men. When we read the\naccount of these superhuman claims, we have no feeling that they were\nincongruous or extravagant. On the contrary, they seem to us altogether\nlegitimate and proper. And yet, as has been often remarked, were any\nother person to advance a tithe of these pretensions, he would be justly\nregarded as a madman. The only possible explanation is, that this meek\nand lowly Jesus made good his claim to be the Son of God by what he was\nand by what he did.\n\nAnother quality very conspicuous in our Lord's character is his perfect\n_elevation above this world_. \"Ye are from beneath,\" said he to the\nJews; \"I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.\"\nIt was not in his origin alone, but in his spirit also that he was from\nabove. As he was from heaven, so was he heavenly in all his affections.\nHis own precept to his disciples, \"Lay not up for yourselves treasures\nupon earth, but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven,\" was the law\nof his own life. He had no treasures here below but the souls of men;\nand these are not earthly, but heavenly treasures. Satan plied him in\nvain with the offer of \"all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of\nthem.\" In him \"the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the\npride of life\" could find no place for a single moment. He kept the\nworld always and perfectly under his feet. Yet this perfect elevation\nabove the world had in it no tinge of _stoicism_ or _asceticism_. He\nmade no war upon the genuine passions and affections of human nature,\nbut simply subjected them all to his higher spiritual nature; in other\nwords to the law of God. Except temporarily for meditation and prayer,\nhe never withdrew himself, nor encouraged his disciples to withdraw\nthemselves from the cares and temptations of an active life, under the\nfalse idea of thus rising to a state of superhuman communion with God.\nHe did not fast himself systematically, nor enjoin upon his disciples\nsystematic fastings, but left fastings for special emergencies. In a\nword, he ate and drank like other men. His heavenly mind lay not in the\nrenunciation of God's gifts, but in maintaining his affections\nconstantly raised above the gifts themselves to the divine Giver. It\ntook on a human, and therefore an imitable form.\n\nAnd what shall we say of our Lord's spotless _purity_ of heart and life?\nWe cannot eulogize it, for it is above all human praise. But we can\nrefresh the eyes of our understanding by gazing upon it, as upon a\nglorious sun, until we feel its vivifying and transforming power in our\nown souls.\n\nIn contemplating the above qualities, it is of the highest importance to\nnotice that, though they exist in such fulness and perfection, they are\nyet human, and therefore imitable. They are not the virtues of an angel\nin heaven, or of a king on the throne, or of a philosopher in his\nschool, or of a monk in his cell; but of a man moving among men in the\nsphere of common life, and filling out common life with all the duties\nappropriate to it. His example then is available for the imitation of\nthe lowest not less than the highest. It offers itself to all classes of\nmen as a model of all that is good in human nature. We may boldly affirm\nthat such a character as this could never have been conceived of, if it\nhad not actually existed.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIf now we look at our Lord's _character as a teacher_, we find it\nequally original and wonderful. Writers on the gospel history have with\nreason laid great stress on the fact that he stood high above the errors\nand prejudices, not only of his own age and nation, but of all ages and\nnations. He saw intuitively and perfectly what God is, what man is, and\nwhat are man's relations to God and to his fellow-men; and was therefore\nable to establish a religion for men, as men, that needs no change for\nany age, or nation, or condition of life. He has sometimes been called a\n\"Galilean peasant.\" The phrase sounds unpleasantly in the ears of those\nwho adore him as their divine Lord and Master. Nevertheless it is in an\nimportant sense true. He was educated among the common people of\nGalilee, and had no special human training. It was an age of narrowness\nand formalism. The scribes and Pharisees, who sat in Moses' seat, had\ncovered up the true meaning and spirit of the Old Testament beneath a\nmass of human traditions that substituted \"mint, and anise, and cummin\"\nfor \"the weightier matters of the law.\" Yet in such an age Jesus came\nforth a perfect teacher of divine truth. He swept away at once the\nglosses of the Jewish doctors, unfolded to the people the true meaning\nof the law and the prophets as preparatory to his coming, and gave to\nthe world a religion that meets the wants of all classes and conditions\nof men in all ages and nations. Considered as the good leaven which\nChrist cast into the lump of humanity, the gospel has continual\nprogress. But considered as the plan of salvation which he revealed, it\ncannot have progress, for it is perfect. It needs no amendment or\nchange, that it may be adapted to our age or any other age. As air and\nwater and light meet the wants of all men in all ages, so the gospel,\nwhen freed from human additions and received in its original purity, is\nall that fallen humanity needs. Here is a great fact to be explained.\nThe only reasonable explanation is that given by the Saviour himself.\nWhen the Jews marvelled at his teaching, saying, \"How knoweth this man\nletters, having never learned?\" he answered, \"My doctrine is not mine,\nbut his that sent me.\" Such a religion as that described in the gospels\ncould not have been conceived of unless it had actually existed; and it\ncould not have existed without God for its author. Gifted men may be in\nadvance of their own age; that is, they may see before others what is\nthe next thing indicated by the present progress of society. But mere\nmen do not rise at once above all the errors and prejudices by which\nthey are surrounded into the region of pure light and truth. All the\nwork that men do is imperfect, and needs emendation by those who come\nafter them. A religion that remains from age to age as perfectly adapted\nto the wants of all men as it was at the beginning, must be from God,\nnot from man.\n\nOur Saviour's _manner of teaching_ was also as original as the teaching\nitself. He saw through the world of nature and mind at a glance, and it\nstood always ready at hand to furnish him with arguments and\nillustrations--arguments and illustrations as simple and natural as they\nwere profound, and by means of which he unfolded the deepest truths in\nthe plainest and most intelligible forms. Take, for example, the\nparables of the mustard-seed and the leaven. They contain within\nthemselves the whole history of Christ's kingdom in its inward\nprinciple. They unfold views of its steady progress from age to age, as\na growth from an inward vital force, on which the most philosophical\nminds especially love to dwell; and yet they are perfectly intelligible\nto the most unlettered man. To teach by parables, without any false\nanalogies, and in a way that interested and instructed alike the learned\nand the ignorant, this was a wonderful characteristic of our Lord's\nministry. In this respect no one of his apostles, not even the bosom\ndisciple, attempted to imitate him. Yet in the great fact that his\nteaching was not for a select few, but for the masses of mankind, so\nthat \"the common people heard him gladly,\" all his servants can and\nought to imitate him.\n\nThus far we have considered mainly the human side of our Lord's\ncharacter, though through it all his divinity shines forth. Let us now\nlook more particularly at _his divine mission and character_. On the\nfact that his mission was from God we need not dwell. Nicodemus\nexpressed the judgment of every candid mind when he said, \"Rabbi, we\nknow that thou art a teacher come from God; for no man can do these\nmiracles that thou doest, except God be with him.\" If there is one truth\nwhich our Lord asserted more frequently than any other, it is that he\ncame from God: \"The works which the Father hath given me to finish, the\nsame works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me.\"\n\"If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and\ncame from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.\"\n\nBut Jesus had not only a divine mission, but a _divine person_ also; and\nthe manner in which he manifested his divinity is, if possible, more\noriginal than any thing else in his history, and bears in itself the\nimpress of reality. A company of men who should attempt to give a\nportraiture of a divine being simply from their own conceptions would\ndoubtless put into his lips many direct assertions of his deity, and\nmake his life abound in stupendous miracles. But it is not in any such\ncrude way that our Saviour's divinity manifests itself in the gospel\nnarratives. It is true indeed that in the manner of his miracles he\neverywhere makes the impression that he performs them by virtue of a\npower residing in himself; that while the _commission_ to do them comes\nfrom the Father, the _power_ to do them belongs to his own person. In\nthis respect the contrast is very sharp between his manner and that of\nthe prophets before him and the apostles after him. In their case the\npower, as well as the commission, was wholly from God, as they were\ncareful to teach the people: \"In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth,\nrise up and walk.\" \"Why look ye so earnestly on us, as though by our own\npower or holiness we had made this man to walk?\" \"His name, through\nfaith in his name, hath made this man strong, whom ye see and know.\"\n\"Eneas, Jesus Christ maketh thee whole.\" But not to dwell on this, let\nus look at some very remarkable ways in which our Saviour manifested his\ndivine nature.\n\nHe called _God his Father_ in a peculiar and incommunicable sense. He\nnever said, \"Our Father,\" by which he would have classed himself with\nother men, but always, \"My Father,\" showing that thus he stood alone in\nhis relation to God. As the son has the same nature with the father, and\nwhen acting under his authority, the same prerogatives also; so Jesus,\nas the Son of God, claimed the power and right to do whatever his Father\ndid, and to receive the same honor as his Father: \"My Father worketh\nhitherto, and I work.\" This the Jews rightly understood to be an\nassertion of equality with the Father; for they \"sought the more to kill\nhim, because he not only had broken the Sabbath, but said also that God\nwas his own Father, (so the original reads,) making himself equal with\nGod.\" To this the Saviour answered: \"The Son can do nothing of\nhimself\"--acting in his own name, and without the concurrence of the\nFather's will--\"but what he seeth the Father do; for what things soever\nhe doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. For the Father loveth the\nSon, and showeth him all things that himself doeth: and he will show him\ngreater works than these, that ye may marvel. For as the Father raiseth\nup the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he\nwill. For the Father judgeth no man; but hath committed all judgment\nunto the Son: that all men should honor the Son, even as they honor the\nFather. He that honoreth not the Son, honoreth not the Father which hath\nsent him.\" John 5:17-23. Here the Son, though acting under the Father's\ncommission, claims equality with the Father; for without this he could\nneither share all the Father's counsels, nor do all the Father's works,\nnor receive from the Father authority to judge all men--an office which\nplainly implies omniscience--nor be entitled to the same honor as the\nFather. The point to be especially noticed in the present connection is\nthe originality of the way in which our Lord here asserts his divine\nnature. We cannot for a moment suppose that such a way would have\noccurred to one who was writing from his own invention. The only\npossible explanation of the existence of such a passage in the gospel of\nJohn, (and the same is true of many other passages,) is that it is a\ntrue record of what actually took place in our Lord's history.\n\nAgain: our Lord represents himself as the source of _light and life_ to\nall mankind. To the Jews he said: \"I am the light of the world: he that\nfolloweth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of\nlife.\" John 8:12. In comparison with what he here claims for himself,\nthe outward work of opening men's bodily eyes dwindles into nothing.\nThat was only the seal of his divine mission. But in these and other\nlike words, he does, as it were, draw aside the veil of his humanity,\nand give us a glimpse of the glory of the Godhead that dwells within. So\ntoo he says, \"I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any\nman eat of this bread he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will\ngive is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.\" John\n6:51. The resurrection of Lazarus, stupendous as that miracle was, does\nnot fill us with such awe and amazement as the mighty words which he\nuttered to Martha: \"I am the resurrection and the life: he that\nbelieveth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: and whosoever\nliveth, and believeth in me, shall never die,\" John 11:25, 26; for in\nthese words he represents himself as being to the whole human family the\nauthor of all life, natural, spiritual, and eternal. He connects the\nparticular act of giving life which he is about to perform with the\nfinal resurrection, \"when all that are in the graves shall hear his\nvoice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the\nresurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the\nresurrection of damnation.\" John 5:28, 29. These utterances, so calm, so\nlofty, so original, do not sound like the inventions of man. They wear a\nheavenly costume. When we read them, we feel that the only explanation\nof their existence in the gospel narrative is the fact that they were\nactually uttered by our Lord.\n\nAnd the same is true of another kindred class of passages, in which the\nSaviour asserts his _inward dominion over the human spirit_. Hear him,\nas he stands and proclaims: \"Come unto me, all ye that labor and are\nheavy laden, and I will give you rest.\" Matt. 11:28. \"Peace I leave with\nyou; my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto\nyou.\" John 14:27. The world gives peace at best outwardly, and often\nonly in empty words; but Jesus has direct access to the inmost fountains\nof feeling. He gives peace inwardly and efficaciously. When he turned\ninto songs of joy the tears of the widow of Nain by raising her son to\nlife, that was a wonderful instance of his giving peace; but far greater\nand more glorious is the work when, by his inward presence in the soul,\nhe makes it victorious over all \"the sufferings of this present time.\"\nThis is what he meant when he said to his disciples: \"These things have\nI spoken unto you that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall\nhave tribulations; but be of good cheer: I have overcome the world.\"\nJohn 16:33. In his name, apostles raised the dead to life; but no\napostle--no mere man--would have ventured to say, \"In me ye shall have\npeace.\"\n\nThese last words naturally lead to the consideration of another very\npeculiar form of speech first introduced by our Lord, and passing from\nhim to the church; that of the _mutual indwelling_ of himself and his\ndisciples: \"Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit\nof itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide\nin me.\" John 15:1-7. It is a vital union of the believer's soul with\nJesus, through which he receives from Jesus life and fruitfulness, as\nthe branch from its union with the vine. Here is an assertion of deity.\nThe Jews regarded Moses with the highest reverence; but no one of them\never spoke of abiding in Moses, or having Moses abiding in himself. Had\nany Christian disciple represented himself as dwelling in Peter or Paul,\nthe apostle would have rent his clothes at the blasphemy of the words.\n\nOther peculiar ways in which our Lord manifested his deity could be\nspecified, but the above will suffice as examples. Let any candid man\nconsider all these examples in their connection, each of them so\noriginal and so majestic, so simple and natural, and yet so far removed\nfrom anything that could have occurred to one sitting down to draw from\nhis own imagination the picture of a divine person; and he will be\nconvinced that such a record as that contained in our four canonical\ngospels was possible only because it is a simple and truthful history of\nwhat Jesus of Nazareth was and did. Plain men can give a straightforward\naccount of what they have seen or learned from eye-witnesses; but it\ntranscends the genius of any man to invent such narratives of such a\ncharacter. The gospel narratives are marked throughout by artless\nsimplicity. Each of the writers goes straightforward with his story,\nnever thinking for a moment of what his own genius is to accomplish, but\nintent only on exhibiting his Lord and Master as the Saviour of the\nworld. The apostle John, in giving the design of his own gospel, gives\nthat also of the other evangelists: \"And many other signs truly did\nJesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this\nbook. But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the\nChrist, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through\nhis name.\" John 20:30, 31.\n\nAnd because this glorious and divine person is a living reality, he\npossesses from age to age an undying power over the human heart. Love\ntowards him is the mightiest principle on earth, both for doing and for\nsuffering. It makes the soul of which it has taken full possession\ninvincible. When Jesus of Nazareth is enthroned in the castle of the\nhuman heart, not all the powers of earth and hell can overcome it. See\nfarther, chap. 12:8.\n\n9. Since, as we have seen, the gospel narratives are an authentic record\nof facts, it follows that in the person and life of Jesus of Nazareth we\nhave a _supernatural revelation_ from God in the fullest sense of the\nwords. That his origin was both superhuman and supernatural, the gospels\nteach us in the most explicit terms. He says of himself: \"I came forth\nfrom the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world,\nand go unto the Father.\" John 16:28. \"And now, O Father, glorify thou me\nwith thine own self, with the glory which I had with thee before the\nworld was.\" John 17:5. That the appearance on earth of One who dwelt\nwith the Father in glory before the world was, and after the fulfilment\nof his mission returned to the Father again, was supernatural, is\nself-evident. His person was, as has been shown, divine. He was God\nmanifest in the flesh; and wherever he went, his supernatural power\ndisplayed itself. The miraculous element is so interwoven into the very\nsubstance of the gospel history, that there is no possibility of setting\nit aside, except by rejecting the history itself. It is the fashion with\na certain class of writers, after denying our Lord's divine nature and\nexplaining away his supernatural works, to be profuse in their eulogies\nof his character. If they can first rid themselves of the obligation to\nbelieve on him and obey him as their divine Lord, they are willing to\nbestow upon him, as a man like themselves, the highest commendations.\nBut the attempt is hopeless. What will they do with the fact of his\nresurrection from the dead--the most certain as well as the greatest\nmiracle in his history, and which includes in itself all the rest? Had\nJesus not risen from the dead, as he so often affirmed that he should,\nthen he would have been what the Jewish rulers called him--a deceiver,\nand no Saviour; but since the miracle of his resurrection must be\nadmitted by all who do not reject the whole gospel history as a fable,\nwhy deny the lesser miracles connected with his history? The assumption\nthat miracles are impossible can only go with the denial of God's\npersonality; and this, by whatever name it is called, is atheism. If\nthere is a personal God, who is before nature, above nature, and the\nauthor of nature in its inmost essence, he can manifest himself within\nthe sphere of nature in a supernatural way, whenever he chooses to do\nso. If God who made us cares for us, and is indeed our Father in heaven,\nit is reasonable to suppose that he may reveal himself to us in\nsupernatural forms, when the end is our deliverance from the bondage of\nsin, and our preparation for an eternity of holiness and happiness. To\ndeny this, would be to make nature the highest end of God--to put the\nworld of God's intelligent creatures under nature, instead of making\nnature their servant and minister.\n\n10. The objections that have been urged against the gospel history are\nof two kinds. The first class relates to its doctrines, as, for example,\nthat of demoniacal possessions, that of eternal punishment, etc. To\nenlarge on this subject would be out of place here. It is sufficient to\nsay that the only reasonable rule is to argue from the certainty of the\nrecord to the truth of the doctrines in question. He who first assumes\nthat a certain doctrine cannot be true, and then, on the ground of this\nassumption, sets aside a history sustained by overwhelming evidence,\nexalts his own finite understanding to be the supreme rule of faith; and\nto him an authoritative revelation becomes an impossibility. The second\nclass of objections relates to alleged contradictions and\ninconsistencies between the different writers. The explanation and\nreconciliation of these is the work of the harmonist. We need not wait,\nhowever, for the result of his labors, that we may rest confidently on\nthe truth of the record. These apparent disagreements do not affect a\nsingle doctrine or duty of Christianity. They all relate to incidental\nmatters, such as the time and order of the events recorded, the\naccompanying circumstances, etc. Had we all the missing links of the\nevangelical history, we might reconcile all these differences; but\nwithout them, it is not in all cases possible. Nor is it necessary;\nsince, where different writers record the same transactions, substantial\nagreement, with diversity in respect to the details, is everywhere the\ncharacteristic of authentic history.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\nTHE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES AND THE ACKNOWLEDGED EPISTLES.\n\n\n1. The genuineness, uncorrupt preservation, and credibility of the\ngospel narratives having been shown to rest on a firm foundation, the\nprincipal part of our work is accomplished, so far as the New Testament\nis concerned. We are prepared beforehand to expect some record of the\nlabors of the apostles, like that contained in the Acts of the Apostles;\nand also discussions and instructions relating to the doctrines and\nduties of Christianity, such as we find in the apostolic epistles. Our\nSaviour established his church only in its fundamental principles and\nordinances. The work of publishing his gospel and organizing churches\namong Jews and Gentiles he committed to his apostles. Before his\ncrucifixion he taught them that the Holy Ghost could not come (that is,\nin his special and full influences as the administrator of the new\ncovenant) till after his departure to the Father: \"It is expedient for\nyou that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come\nunto you; but if I depart I will send him unto you.\" John 16:7. \"When\nthe Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even\nthe Spirit of truth which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify\nof me. And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from\nthe beginning.\" John 15:26, 27. Now we have, in the Acts of the\nApostles, first an account of the fulfilment by the Saviour of his\npromise that he would send the Holy Ghost; then a record how the\napostles, thus qualified, obeyed the Saviour's command to preach the\ngospel to Jews and Gentiles--a record not, indeed, complete, but\nsufficient to show the manner and spirit in which the work was\nperformed. Some truths, moreover, of the highest importance the Saviour\ngave only in outline, because the time for their full revelation had not\nyet come. John 16:12, 13. Such were especially the doctrine of his\natoning sacrifice on Calvary with the connected doctrine of\njustification by faith; and the divine purpose to abolish the Mosaic\neconomy, and with it the distinction between Jews and Gentiles. We have,\npartly in the Acts and partly in the epistles, an account of the\nunfolding of these great truths by the apostles under the guidance of\nthe Holy Spirit, and of the commotions and contentions that naturally\naccompanied this work. The practical application of the gospel to the\nmanifold relations of life, domestic, social, and civil, with the\nsolution of various difficult questions arising therefrom, was another\nwork necessarily devolved on the apostles, and performed by them with\ndivine wisdom for the instruction of all coming ages. The book of Acts\nand the epistles ascribed to the apostles being such a natural sequel to\nthe Redeemer's work, as recorded by the four evangelists, a briefer\nstatement of the evidence for their genuineness and authenticity will be\nsufficient.\n\nI. _The Acts of the Apostles._ 2. According to Chrysostom, First Homily\non Acts, this book was not so abundantly read by the early Christians as\nthe gospels. The explanation of this comparative neglect is found in the\nfact that it is occupied with the doings of the apostles, not of the\nLord himself. Passing by some uncertain allusions to the work in the\nwritings of the apostolic fathers, the first explicit quotation from it\nis contained in the letter heretofore noticed, chap. 2:4, from the\nchurches of Vienne and Lyons in Gaul, written about A.D. 177, in which\nthey say: \"Moreover they prayed, after the example of Stephen the\nperfect martyr, for those who inflicted upon them cruel torments, 'Lord,\nlay not this sin to their charge.'\" Irenaeus, in the last part of the\nsecond century, Tertullian in the last part of the same century and the\nbeginning of the third, Clement of Alexandria about the end of the\nsecond century and onwards--all these bear explicit testimony to the\nbook of Acts, ascribing it to Luke as its author; and from their day\nonward the notices of the work are abundant. We may add the concurrent\ntestimony of the Muratorian canon and the Syriac version, called the\nPeshito, which belong to the last quarter of the second century, and the\nstill earlier testimony of the Old Latin version. In a word, the book is\nplaced by Eusebius among those that were universally acknowledged by the\nchurches.\n\n    The rejection of the book by certain heretical sects, as the\n    Ebionites, Marcionites, Manichaeans, etc., is of no weight, as\n    their objections rested not on historical, but on doctrinal\n    grounds. As to the statement of Photius that \"some call Clement\n    of Rome the author, some Barnabas, and some Luke the\n    evangelist,\" it is to be remarked that he is giving not his own\n    judgment, for he expressly ascribes it to Luke, but the\n    arbitrary opinions of certain persons; and these are\n    contradicted by the obvious fact that the third gospel, which\n    proceeded from the same hand as the Acts of the Apostles, was\n    never ascribed to any other person than Luke.\n\n3. The _internal testimony_ to Luke's authorship is decisive. The writer\nhimself, in dedicating it to the same Theophilus, expressly identifies\nhimself with the author of the third gospel: \"The former treatise have I\nmade, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and to teach.\"\nActs 1:1. Then there is a remarkable agreement in style and diction\nbetween the gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles, as any one may\nlearn who peruses them both together in the original Greek. Davidson,\nIntroduction to the New Testament, vol. 2, p. 8, has collected\nforty-seven examples of \"terms that occur in both, but nowhere else in\nthe New Testament.\" Luke, moreover, as the travelling companion of Paul,\nhad all needed facilities for composing such a work. With regard to the\nlatter portion of the book, this is denied by none. His use of the first\nperson plural, \"we endeavored,\" \"the Lord had called us,\" \"we came,\"\netc.--which first appears, chap. 16:10, and continues, with certain\ninterruptions, through the remainder of the book--admits of but one\nnatural and reasonable explanation, namely, that when he thus joins\nhimself with the apostle he was actually in his company. As it respects\nthe first part of the book, we notice that he visited Caesarea with\nPaul's company, and \"tarried there many days,\" chap. 21:8-10; afterwards\nhe went up with him to Jerusalem, chap. 21:15. We find him again with\nPaul at Caesarea when he sets out for Rome. Chap. 27:1. Now at such\ncentres as Jerusalem and Caesarea he must have had abundant opportunities\nto learn all the facts recorded in the present book which could not be\ngathered from Paul's own lips.\n\n4. For the _credibility_ of this book we have, in general, the same\narguments which apply to the gospel narratives, especially to the gospel\nof Luke. Its author is evidently a sincere and earnest man, who goes\nstraight forward with his narrative; and where he does not write as an\neye-witness, he had, as we have seen, abundant means of ascertaining the\ntruth concerning the facts which he records. His narrative is, moreover,\ncorroborated in a very special way, as will be shown hereafter--No. 8,\nbelow--by its many undesigned coincidences with the events alluded to in\nthe epistle of Paul. To admit the credibility of the gospel of Luke and\nto deny that of this work would be altogether inconsistent. In truth,\nthere is no ground for doubting the credibility of the Acts of the\nApostles other than that which lies in the assumption that no record of\nmiraculous events can be credible, and this is no ground at all.\n\n    To some modern writers the narrative of the gift of tongues on\n    the day of Pentecost has seemed to present an insuperable\n    difficulty. Undoubtedly it is above our comprehension how a man\n    should suddenly become possessed of the ability to speak in a\n    language before unknown to him; but why should we doubt God's\n    power to bestow such a gift? Can any one suppose for a moment\n    that when our Saviour met with a person deaf and dumb from\n    birth, he had, for the first time, a case beyond his healing\n    power? The gospel narrative plainly indicates the contrary. Mark\n    7:32-37, upon which passage see Meyer and Alford.\n\n    The account of the sudden death of Ananias and Sapphira, chap.\n    5:1-11, is not contrary to the spirit of the gospel. They died\n    by the immediate act of God. His wisdom judged such an example\n    of severity to be necessary in the beginning of the gospel, as a\n    solemn warning against hypocrisy and falsehood in his service.\n    Though the gospel is a system of mercy, it takes, as all admit,\n    a severe attitude towards those who reject it; why not, then,\n    towards those who make a hypocritical profession of it? As Nadab\n    and Abihu were consumed by fire from heaven at the beginning of\n    the Mosaic economy, so the death of Ananias and his wife came\n    early in the dispensation of the Holy Ghost, as a testimony to\n    all future ages of Christ's abhorrence of hypocrisy, and\n    consequently of the doom which hypocrites will receive from him\n    at the last day. Matt. 7:21-23.\n\n    The fact that Luke has omitted some events in the history of\n    Paul, as, for example, his journey into Arabia, which occurred\n    during the three years that intervened between his conversion\n    and his first visit to Jerusalem, Acts 9:22-26 compared with\n    Gal. 1:15-18, is no argument against the credibility of his\n    narrative. Difficulties that arise simply from a writer's\n    brevity must not be allowed to set aside satisfactory evidence\n    of his competency and truthfulness. The historical difficulties\n    connected with Stephen's address do not concern Luke's\n    credibility as a historian, and the discussion of them belongs\n    to the commentator.\n\n5. The book of Acts closes with a notice that \"Paul dwelt two whole\nyears in his own hired house, and received all that came in unto him,\npreaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern\nthe Lord Jesus, with all confidence, no man forbidding him.\" As it adds\nno notice of the issue of his imprisonment, or of what afterwards befell\nhim, we naturally infer that the book was written at Rome about this\ntime, that is, about A.D. 63.\n\nII. _The Acknowledged Epistles_, 6. It is well known that doubts\nexisted, to a greater or less extent, in the primitive churches before\nthe fourth century, respecting the apostolic origin and authority of\ncertain books which now constitute a part of the New Testament canon.\nHence the distinction made by Eusebius between the _acknowledged_ books,\n(_homologoumena_) that is, those that were universally received from the\nfirst, and the _disputed_ books, (_antilegomena_,) books respecting\nwhich some entertained doubts. The _acknowledged_ books are, the four\ngospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the thirteen epistles of Paul which\nbear his name at the beginning, the first epistle of Peter, and the\nfirst epistle of John; twenty in all. The _disputed_ books are, the\nepistle to the Hebrews, the epistle of James, the second epistle of\nPeter, the second and third epistles of John, the epistle of Jude, and\nthe book of Revelation; seven in all. The gospels and the Acts have been\nalready considered, and the disputed books are reserved for the\nfollowing chapter. Some remarks will here be made on the fifteen\nacknowledged epistles.\n\n7. The epistles of Paul may be conveniently distributed into two groups,\nof which the second or smaller contains the three pastoral epistles, and\nthe former or larger, the remaining ten. Of the apostolic origin of the\nlarger group little needs to be said. They bear throughout the impress\nof genuineness and authenticity. No doubts were ever entertained\nconcerning them in the ancient churches. There is, indeed, some ground\nfor suspecting that a few ancient copies of the epistle to the Ephesians\nomitted the words _at Ephesus_--more literally _in Ephesus_--chap. 1:1.\nBut the genuineness of these words is sustained by an overwhelming\nweight of evidence, and that Paul was the author of the epistle was\nnever once doubted by the ancient churches. The arguments of some modern\nwriters against its apostolic origin have no real weight, as will be\nshown hereafter in the introduction to the epistle.\n\nRespecting the apostolic authorship of the three pastoral epistles, two\nto Timothy and one to Titus, there was never any doubt in the ancient\nchurches. They are supported by the testimony of the Peshito-Syriac\nversion, of the Muratorian canon, also, (as appears from Jerome's letter\nto Marcella and the quotations of the church fathers before him,) of the\nOld Latin version; of Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and a\nmultitude of later writers. There are also some allusions to these\nepistles in the apostolic fathers, which seem to be decisive.\n\n    Such are the following: \"Let us therefore approach to him in\n    holiness of soul, _lifting up_ to him _holy_ and unpolluted\n    _hands_.\" Clement of Rome, First Epistle to the Corinthians,\n    chap. 29. \"But the beginning of all mischief is the love of\n    money. Knowing, therefore, that _we brought nothing into the\n    world neither have power to carry any thing out_, let us arm\n    ourselves with the armor of righteousness.\" Polycarp, Epistle to\n    the Philippians, chap. 4. The student may see other supposed\n    allusions in Kirchhofer, Quellensammlung; Lardner, 2:39;\n    Davidson's Introduction, 3, p. 101 seq.; Alford's New Testament,\n    Introduction to the Pastoral Epistles, etc.\n\nRespecting the _date_ of the pastoral epistles very different opinions\nare held. The whole discussion turns on the question whether they were\nwritten _before_ or _after_ Paul's imprisonment at Rome, which is\nrecorded in the last chapter of the Acts of the Apostles; and this again\nis connected with the further question whether he underwent a second\nimprisonment at Rome, concerning which learned men are not agreed. The\nfull discussion of this matter belongs to the introduction to the\npastoral epistles. It may be simply remarked, however, that the internal\narguments in favor of a late date are very strong, and that its\nassumption accounts for the development of such a state of things at\nEphesus as appears in the two pastoral epistles to Timothy--a state very\ndifferent from that which existed when the epistle to the Ephesians was\nwritten, between A.D. 60 and 64, and which makes it necessary to\nseparate the first epistle to Timothy from that to the Ephesians by a\nconsiderable interval of time.\n\nThe _theme_ of the pastoral epistles is _peculiar_. It is the\naffectionate counsel of an aged apostle to two young preachers and\nrulers in the church respecting the duties of their office. From the\npeculiarity of the subject-matter naturally arises, to some extent, a\npeculiarity in the diction of these epistles; yet the style and costume\nis throughout that of the apostle Paul.\n\n8. The testimony of the ancient church to the first epistle of Peter and\nthe first of John is very ample. Besides that of the Peshito-Syriac\nversion, and of the church fathers Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Clement of\nAlexandria, they have in addition that of Papias and the apostolic\nfather Polycarp. The first epistle of John is also included in the\nMuratorian canon. It scarcely needs, however, any external testimony.\nThe identity of its author with that of the fourth gospel is so manifest\nfrom its whole tone and style, that it has been always conceded that if\none of these writings came from the pen of the apostle John, the other\ndid also.\n\n    The testimony of Papias to these two epistles, though indirect,\n    is conclusive. Eusebius says, Hist. Eccl. 3. 39, \"The same\n    Papias has employed testimonies from the first epistle of John,\n    and in like manner of Peter.\" Polycarp says, Epistle to the\n    Philippians, ch. 7, \"For every one who confesseth not that Jesus\n    Christ is come in the flesh, is anti-Christ,\" with evident\n    reference to 1 John 4:3. Eusebius says also, Hist. Eccl. 4. 14,\n    that in the same epistle to the Philippians Polycarp \"has\n    employed certain testimonies from the first epistle of Peter;\"\n    and when we examine the epistle we find several certain\n    references to it, among which are the following: \"In whom,\n    though ye see him not, ye believe; and believing, ye rejoice\n    with joy unspeakable, and full of glory.\" Chap. 1 compared with\n    1 Pet. 1:8. \"Believing in him who raised up our Lord Jesus\n    Christ from the dead, and gave him glory, and a seat at his\n    right hand.\" Chap. 2 compared with 1 Pet. 1:21.\n\n9. The relation of the gospel history to the writings now under\nconsideration--the book of Acts and the apostolic epistles--is of the\nmost intimate and weighty character. The truth of the earlier narratives\ncontained in the gospels implies the truth of these later works; for, as\nalready remarked, they are the natural sequel of the events there\nrecorded. On the other hand, the truth of these later writings implies\nthe truth of the gospel history; for in that history they find their\nfull explanation, and without it they are, and must ever remain,\ninexplicable. All the parts of the New Testament constitute one\ninseparable whole, and they all shed light upon each other. Like a chain\nof fortresses in war, they mutually command each other. Unless the whole\ncan be overthrown, no one part can be successfully assailed. But to\noverthrow the whole is beyond the power of man; for God has guarded it\non every side by impregnable bulwarks of evidence.\n\n10. A special argument for the truth of the Scripture history of the\napostle Paul may be drawn from the numerous _undesigned coincidences_\nbetween the events recorded in the book of Acts and those referred to in\nthe epistles. This work has been accomplished with great ability and\nskill by Paley in his Horae Paulinae, to which the reader is referred. The\nargument is very conclusive; for when we consider the \"particularity of\nSt. Paul's epistles, the perpetual recurrence of names of persons and\nplaces, the frequent allusions to the incidents of his private life, and\nthe circumstances of his condition and history, and the connection and\nparallelism of these with the same circumstances in the Acts of the\nApostles, so as to enable us, for the most part, to confront them one\nwith another,\" we must be satisfied that the truth of the history can\nalone explain such a multitude of coincidences, many of them of a minute\ncharacter, and all of them manifestly undesigned.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\nTHE DISPUTED BOOKS.\n\n\nThe grounds on which each of the disputed books--Antilegomena, chap. 5,\nNo. 6--is received into the canon of the New Testament, will be\nconsidered in the introduction to these books. In the present chapter\nsome general suggestions will be made which apply to them as a whole.\n\n1. This is not a question concerning the _truth of Christianity_, but\nconcerning the _extent of the canon_; a distinction which is of the\nhighest importance. Some persons, when they learn that doubts existed in\nthe early churches, to a greater or less extent, respecting certain\nbooks of the New Testament, are troubled in mind, as if a shade of\nuncertainty were thereby cast over the whole collection of books. But\nthis is a very erroneous view of the matter. The books of the New\nTestament, like those of the Old, were written one after another, as\noccasion required; and the churches received each of them separately on\nthe evidence they had of its apostolic origin and authority. At length\ncollections of these books, that is, _canons_, began to be formed. Such\ncollections translators would of necessity make, unless they found them\nready at hand. The earliest canons of which we have any knowledge are\ncontained in the old Latin version, the Syriac version called Peshito,\nand the Muratorian canon; each of which represented the prevailing\njudgment of the churches in the region where it was formed. As this\njudgment differed in the different provinces of Christendom in respect\nto the books in question, so also do these canons. The Peshito contains\nthe epistle to the Hebrews and that of James, but omits the other five\nbooks. The Muratorian canon omits the epistle to the Hebrews, the\nepistle of James, and the second epistle of Peter; but contains the\nepistle of Jude, the book of Revelation, and apparently also the second\nand third of John, though in respect to them its language is obscure and\nof doubtful interpretation. The old Latin version, so far as we can\njudge from the quotations of the church fathers, agreed in general with\nthe Muratorian canon. It contained, however, the epistle of James,\n(Codex Corbeiensis, _ff_,) and that to the Hebrews; and if, as has been\nsupposed, this latter was a later addition, it was yet earlier than the\ntime of Tertullian. See Westcott on the Canon, pp. 282, 283. Now this\ndiversity of judgment with regard to particular books does not affect in\nthe least the remaining books of the New Testament, which are sustained\nby the authority of all the above-named witnesses, as well as by the\nundivided testimony of the ancient churches. Did the New Testament claim\nto be the work of _a single author_, the case would be different. We\nshould then have but _one_ witness; and if certain parts of his\ntestimony could be successfully assailed, this would throw a measure of\nsuspicion on the whole. But now we have in the separate books of the New\nTestament a _large number_ of witnesses, most of whom are entirely\nindependent of each other. Doubts respecting the testimony of one do not\naffect that of another. We receive the seven books in question as a part\nof God's revelation on grounds which we judge adequate, as will be shown\nin the introductions to the several books. But if any one feels under\nthe necessity of suspending his judgment with respect to one or more of\nthese books, let him follow the teachings of the other books, which are\nabove all doubt. He will find in them all the truth essential to the\nsalvation of his soul; and he will then be in a position calmly to\ninvestigate the evidence for the canonical authority of the so-called\ndisputed books.\n\n2. The diversity of judgment which prevailed in the early churches in\nrespect to certain books of the New Testament, is in harmony with all\nthat we know of their character and spirit. It was an age of free\ninquiry. General councils were not then known, nor was there any central\npower to impose its decisions on all the churches. In the essential\ndoctrines of the gospel there was everywhere an agreement, especially in\nreceiving the writings acknowledged to be apostolic, as the supreme rule\nof faith and practice. But this did not exclude differences on minor\npoints in the different provinces of Christendom; and with respect to\nthese the churches of each particular region were tenacious then, as\nthey have been in all ages since, of their peculiar opinions and\npractices. It is well known, for example, that the churches of Asia\nMinor differed from those of Rome in the last half of the second century\nrespecting the day on which the Christian festival of the Passover, with\nthe communion service connected with it, should be celebrated; the\nformer placing it on the fourteenth of the month Nisan, the latter on\nthe anniversary of the resurrection Sunday. Nor could the conference\nbetween Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna in Asia Minor, and Anicetus, bishop\nof Rome, about A.D. 162, avail to change the usage of either party,\nthough it did not at that time break the bond of brotherhood between\nthem. We need not be surprised therefore to find a like diversity in\ndifferent regions respecting certain books of the New Testament. The\nunanimous belief of the Eastern and Alexandrine churches ascribed to\nPaul the authorship of the epistle to the Hebrews; but in the Western\nchurches its Pauline authorship was not generally admitted till the\nfourth century. The Apocalypse, on the contrary, found most favor with\nthe Western or Latin churches. It has in its favor the testimony of the\nMuratorian canon, which is of Latin origin, and also--as appears from\nthe citations contained in the commentaries of Primasius--that of the\nold Latin version. Other examples see above, No. 1.\n\n3. Although we cannot account for the universal and undisputed reception\nof the acknowledged books by all the churches, except on the assumption\nof their genuineness, the non-reception of a given book by some of the\nearly churches is no conclusive argument against its apostolic origin.\nFrom the influence of circumstances unknown to us, it may have remained\nfor a considerable period of time in comparative obscurity. We have good\nground for believing that some apostolic writings are utterly lost. To\ndeny the possibility of this would be to prejudge the wisdom of God. As\nthe apostles delivered many inspired discourses which it did not please\nthe Holy Ghost to have recorded, so they may have written letters which\nhe did not judge needful to make the sacred volume complete. The\nquestion is one of fact, not of theory. The most obvious interpretation\nof 1 Cor. 5:9 and Col. 4:16 is that Paul refers in each case to an\nepistle which has not come down to us. And if an inspired epistle might\nbe lost, much more might the knowledge and use of it be restricted for a\ntime to a narrow circle of churches. When such an epistle--for example,\nthe second of Peter--began to be more extensively known, the general\nreception and use of it would be a slow process, not only from the\ndifficulty of communication in ancient as compared with modern times,\nbut also from the slowness with which the churches of one region\nreceived any thing new from those of other regions.\n\nThen again, if a book were known, there might be in some regions\nhesitancy in respect to receiving it, from doubts in regard to its\nauthor, as in the case of the epistle to the Hebrews and the Apocalypse;\nor from the peculiarity of its contents also, as in the case of the\nlatter book. In the influence of causes like the above named, we find a\nreasonable explanation of the fact that some books, which the mature\njudgment of the churches received into the canon of the New Testament,\ndid not find at first a universal reception.\n\n4. In the caution and hesitation of the early churches with respect to\nthe books in question, we have satisfactory evidence that, in settling\nthe canon of the New Testament, they acted with great deliberation and\nconscientiousness, their rule being that no book should be received\nwhose apostolic origin could not be established on solid grounds. Did\nthe early history of the Christian church present no such phenomenon as\nthat of the distinction between acknowledged and disputed books, we\nmight naturally infer that all books that professed to have emanated\nfrom the apostles, or to have had their sanction, were received without\ndiscrimination. But now the mature and final judgment of the churches is\nentitled to great consideration. This judgment, let it be remembered,\nwas not affirmative only, but also _negative_. While it admitted to the\ncanon the seven books now under consideration, it excluded others which\nwere highly valued and publicly read in many of the churches. On this\nground it is entitled to still higher regard. It is not, however, of\nbinding authority, for it is not the decision of inspired men. We have a\nright to go behind it, and to examine the facts on which it is based, so\nfar as they can be ascertained from existing documents. But this work\nbelongs to the introduction to the several books.\n\n    Three books alone \"obtained a partial ecclesiastical currency,\n    through which they were not clearly separated at first from the\n    disputed writings of the New Testament.\" Westcott on the Canon,\n    Appendix B, p. 550. This was on the ground that they were\n    written, or supposed to be written, by the immediate successors\n    of the apostles. The oldest known codex of the Bible is the\n    _Sinaitic_, discovered at mount Sinai by Tischendorf in 1859,\n    and which belongs to the fourth century. This contains the whole\n    of the epistle of Barnabas, and the first part of the work\n    called the Shepherd of Hermas. The Alexandrine codex, belonging\n    to the fifth century, has appended to it the first epistle of\n    Clement of Rome to the Corinthians, the genuineness of which is\n    admitted, and also a portion of the second or apocryphal\n    epistle, the remainder of it being lost. The explanation is,\n    that these three books were read in some at least of the\n    churches when these codices were formed. But they never obtained\n    any permanent authority as canonical writings, and were excluded\n    from the New Testament \"by every council of the churches,\n    catholic or schismatic.\" Tertullian, as quoted by Westcott, p.\n    551.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\nINSPIRATION AND THE CANON\n\n\nBy the word _inspiration_, when used in a theological sense, we\nunderstand such an illumination and guidance of the Holy Spirit as\nraises a speaker or writer above error, and thus gives to his teachings\na divine authority. If we attempt to investigate the interior nature of\nthis superhuman influence, its different degrees and modes of operation,\nand the relation which the human mind holds to the divine in the case of\nthose who receive it, we find ourselves involved in many difficulties,\nsome of which at least are to our finite minds insuperable. But if we\nlook at it from a practical point of view, restricting our inquiries to\nthe _end_ proposed by God in inspiration, which is to furnish his church\nwith an infallible and sufficient rule of faith and practice, we find no\ndifficulty in understanding the subject so far as our duty and welfare\nare concerned. From such a practical position the question of\ninspiration will now be discussed; and the inquiry will be, at present,\nrestricted to the writings of the New Testament. In connection with this\ndiscussion will also be considered the subject of the _canon_, not in\nits particular extent, but in the _principle_ upon which it is formed.\n\n1. It is necessary, first of all, to find a sure _rule_ by which we can\ntry the claims of a given book to be inspired, and consequently to be\nadmitted into the canon of the New Testament. It cannot be simply the\nwriter's own declaration. It will be shown hereafter that, in connection\nwith other evidence, his testimony concerning himself is of the highest\nimportance. But the point now is, that no man's inspiration is to be\nacknowledged simply on his own word. Nor can we decide simply from the\ncontents of the book. Very important indeed is the question concerning\nthe contents of any book which claims to be a revelation from God. Yet\nwe cannot take the naked ground that a given book is inspired because\nits contents are of a given character. This would be virtually to set up\nour own reason as the supreme arbiter of divine truth, which is the very\nposition of rationalism. Nor can we receive a book as inspired on the\nso-called authority of the church, whether this mean the authority of a\nman who claims to be its infallible head, or the authority of a general\ncouncil of the churches. Admitting for a moment the Romish doctrine of\nthe infallibility of the church, we could know this infallibility not\nfrom the declaration of any man or body of men in the church, but from\nScripture alone. But this is assuming at the outset the infallibility of\nScripture, and therefore its inspiration, which is the very point at\nissue. Looking at the question on all sides, we shall find for a given\nbook of the New Testament no valid test of the writer's inspiration\nexcept _his relation to the Lord Jesus Christ_. This presupposes our\nLord's divine mission and character, and his supreme authority in the\nchurch. It is necessary therefore to begin with the great central fact\nof the gospel, that Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God, and that\nthrough him God has made to men a revelation of his own character and\nwill for their salvation. This fact is to be first established according\nto the ordinary rules of human evidence, as has been attempted in the\npreceding chapters. After that we come naturally to the inspiration of\nthe record, and can establish it also on a sure foundation.\n\n2. The great fundamental truth that Jesus is the Son of God, who dwelt\nfrom eternity with the Father, knew all his counsels, and was sent by\nhim to this fallen world on a mission of love and mercy, being\nestablished on an immovable foundation, we have a sure point of\ndeparture from which to proceed in our inquiries respecting inspiration.\nIt becomes at once a self-evident proposition--the great axiom of\nChristianity, we may call it--that the teaching of Jesus Christ, when he\nwas on earth, was truth unmixed with error. This he himself asserted in\nthe most explicit terms: \"The Father loveth the Son, and showeth him all\nthings that himself doeth.\" John 5:20. \"I am the light of the world: he\nthat followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light\nof life.\" John 8:12. \"He that sent me is true; and I speak to the world\nthose things which I have heard of him.\" John 8:26. \"I have not spoken\nof myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what\nI should say, and what I should speak. And I know that his commandment\nis life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father\nsaid unto me, so I speak.\" John 12:49, 50. Proceeding then from the\nposition of our Lord's infallibility, let us inquire whether any of his\ndisciples, and if so, who among them, were divinely qualified to teach,\nand consequently to record, without error, the facts and doctrines of\nhis gospel. There are but two grades of relationship to Christ with\nwhich we can connect such a high endowment: that of _apostles_, and that\nof their _companions_ and fellow-laborers. Let us consider each of these\nin order.\n\n3. Early in our Lord's ministry he chose _twelve apostles_, \"that they\nshould be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach, and to\nhave power to heal sicknesses, and to cast out devils.\" Mark 3:14, 15.\nIn this brief notice we have all the distinguishing marks of an apostle.\nHe was chosen that he might be with Christ from the beginning, and thus\nbe to the people an eye-witness of his whole public life. When an\napostle was to be chosen in the place of Judas, Peter laid particular\nstress on this qualification: \"Wherefore of these men which have\ncompanied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among\nus, beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was\ntaken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his\nresurrection.\" Acts 1:21, 22. In the case of Paul alone was this\ncondition of apostleship wanting; and this want was made up to him by\nthe special revelation of Jesus Christ. Gal. 1:11, 12. An apostle,\nagain, was one who received his commission to preach immediately from\nthe Saviour, a qualification which Paul strenuously asserted in his own\nbehalf: \"Paul an apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus\nChrist, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead.\" Gal. 1:1. An\napostle, once more, was one who received directly from Christ the power\nof working miracles. This was the _seal_ of his apostleship before the\nworld. In the three particulars that have been named the apostles held\nto Christ the nearest possible relation, and were by this relation\ndistinguished from all other men. Have we evidence that they were\ndivinely qualified, through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, to preach\nand record the facts and doctrines of the gospel without error?\n\nThat they must have been thus qualified, we have, in the _first_ place,\na strong presumption from _the necessity of the case_. Though our Lord\nfinished the work which the Father gave him to do on earth, he did not\nfinish the revelation of his gospel. On the contrary, he said to his\ndisciples just before his crucifixion, \"I have yet many things to say\nunto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of\ntruth is come, he will guide you into all truth.\" John 16:12, 13. Let us\nlook at some of these things which were reserved for future revelation.\nThe purely spiritual nature of Christ's kingdom was not understood by\nthe apostles till after the day of Pentecost, for we find them asking,\njust before his ascension, \"Lord, wilt thou at this time restore the\nkingdom to Israel?\" a question which he did not answer, but referred\nthem to the promised gift of the Holy Spirit. Acts 1:6-8. Another of the\nthings which they could not bear was the abolition, through Christ's\npropitiatory sacrifice, of the Mosaic law, and with it, of the middle\nwall of partition between Jews and Gentiles. This great truth was\nreserved to be revealed practically in the progress of the gospel, as\nrecorded in the book of Acts, and doctrinally in the epistles of Paul.\nThen what a rich unfolding we have in the apostolic epistles of the\nmeaning of our Lord's death on Calvary, and in connection with this, of\nthe doctrine of justification by faith--faith not simply in Christ, but\nin _Christ crucified_. Faith in Christ's person the disciples had before\nhis death; but faith in him as crucified for the sins of the world they\ncould not have till after his resurrection and exaltation to the right\nhand of God. The abovenamed truths--not to specify others, as, for\nexample, what Paul says of the resurrection, 1 Cor., ch. 15; 1. Thess.\n4:13-18--enter into the very substance of the gospel. They are, in fact,\nintegral parts of it. Can we suppose that our Lord began the revelation\nof his gospel by his own infallible wisdom, and then left it to be\ncompleted by the fallible wisdom of men? If Augustine and Jerome in the\nlatter period of the Roman empire, if Anselm and Bernard in the middle\nages, if Luther and Calvin at the era of the Reformation, if Wesley and\nEdwards in later days, commit errors, the mischief is comparatively\nsmall; for, upon the supposition that the apostles were qualified by the\nHoly Ghost to teach and write without error, we have in their writings\nan infallible standard by which to try the doctrines of later uninspired\nmen. But if the apostles whom Christ himself appointed to finish the\nrevelation which he had begun, and whom he endowed with miraculous\npowers, as the seal of their commission, had been left without a sure\nguarantee against error, then there would be no standard of truth to\nwhich the church in later ages could appeal. No man who believes that\nJesus is the Son of God, and that he came into the world to make to men\na perfect revelation of the way of life, can admit such an absurd\nsupposition.\n\nIn the _second_ place, we have _Christ's express promises_ to his\napostles that they should be divinely qualified for their work through\nthe gift of the Holy Ghost: \"But when they deliver you up, take no\nthought\"--be not solicitous, as the original signifies--\"how or what ye\nshall speak, for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall\nspeak. For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which\nspeaketh in you.\" Matt. 10:19, 20. \"But when they shall lead you, and\ndeliver you up, take no thought beforehand what ye shall speak, neither\ndo ye premeditate: but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that\nspeak ye: for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost.\" Mark 13:11.\n\"And when they bring you unto the synagogues, and unto magistrates, and\npowers, take ye no thought how or what thing ye shall answer, or what ye\nshall say: for the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what ye\nought to say.\" Luke 12:11, 12. \"Settle it therefore in your hearts not\nto meditate before what ye shall answer: for I will give you a mouth and\nwisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor\nresist.\" Luke 21:14, 15. The above promises are perfectly explicit; and\nalthough they refer primarily to a particular emergency, in which the\napostles would especially feel their need of divine guidance, they\ncover, in their spirit, all other emergencies. We cannot read them\nwithout the conviction that they contain the promise to the apostles of\nall needed help and guidance in the work committed to them. If they were\ndivinely qualified to defend the gospel before their adversaries without\nerror--\"I will give you a mouth and wisdom which all your adversaries\nshall not be able to gainsay nor resist\"--so were they also to _record\nthe facts_ of the gospel, and to unfold in their epistles its doctrines.\n\nThe promises recorded in the gospel of John are more general and\ncomprehensive in their character. It will be sufficient to adduce two of\nthem: \"These things have I spoken unto you being yet present with you.\nBut the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in\nmy name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your\nremembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.\" John 14:25, 26. \"I have\nyet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit\nwhen he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth:\nfor he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that\nshall he speak: and he will show you things to come. He shall glorify\nme: for he shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you. All things\nthat the Father hath are mine: therefore said I that he shall take of\nmine, and shall show it unto you.\" John 16:12-15. In the former of these\npassages the special promise is that the Holy Spirit shall bring to the\nremembrance of the apostles and unfold to their understanding all\nChrist's personal teachings; so that they shall thus have a fuller\napprehension of their meaning than they could while he was yet with\nthem. The second promise is introduced with the declaration that the\nSaviour has yet many things to say to his apostles which they cannot now\nbear. Of course these things are reserved for the ministration of the\nSpirit, as he immediately proceeds to show: \"When he, the Spirit of\ntruth, is come, he will guide you into all truth.\" The Spirit shall\nglorify Christ; for he shall take of the things which are Christ's, and\nreveal them to the apostles. And what are the things which are Christ's?\n\"All that the Father hath;\" for the Father has given all things into the\nhands of the Son. John 13:3. Among these \"all things\" are included all\nthe Father's counsels pertaining to the way of salvation through the\nSon. These are given to the Son; and the Holy Ghost shall take of them\nand reveal to the church, through the apostles, as much as it is needful\nfor the church to know. In these remarkable words we have at once a\nproof of our Lord's deity, and a sure guarantee to the apostles of\nsupernatural illumination and guidance in the work committed to\nthem--all the illumination and guidance which they needed, that they\nmight be qualified to finish without error the revelation of the gospel\nwhich Christ had begun.\n\n    The question is often asked: Were these promises given to the\n    apostles alone, or through them to the church at large? The\n    answer is at hand. They were given _primarily_ and in a _special\n    sense_ to the apostles; for they had reference to a special work\n    committed to them, which required for its performance special\n    divine illumination and guidance. They were also given, in an\n    important sense, to the church at large; since all believers\n    enjoy, through the teaching of the apostles, the benefit of\n    these revelations of the Holy Spirit. They are not, however,\n    made to all believers personally; but were given, once for all,\n    through the apostles to the church. The gift of the Holy Spirit\n    is indeed made to all believers personally: through his\n    enlightening and sanctifying power they have all needed help and\n    guidance. But they are not called, as were the apostles, to lay\n    the foundations of the Christian faith, and have therefore no\n    promise of new revelations from the Spirit or of elevation above\n    all error, any more than they have of miraculous gifts.\n\nWe are now prepared to consider, in the _third_ place, the _claims_\nwhich the apostles themselves made to speak and write with divine\nauthority. Although their simple word as men could avail nothing, yet\nthis same word, taken in connection with their known relation to Christ,\nwith the work committed to them, and with the promises made to them, is\nof the most weighty import. It was not indeed their custom to assert\ngratuitously their superhuman guidance and authority. Yet when occasions\narose, from the nature of the subject under discussion, or from the\nopposition of false teachers, they did so in unambiguous terms. Thus the\napostle Paul, writing to the Corinthians, says, \"Now we have received\nnot the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God; that we\nmight know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things\nalso we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which\nthe Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual,\" 1\nCor. 2:12, 13: and writing to the Thessalonians concerning the\nresurrection, \"For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we\nwhich are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent\nthem which are asleep,\" etc. 1 Thess. 4:15. And again, in writing to the\nGalatians, among whom his apostolic standing had been called in question\nby certain Judaizing teachers, he says, \"I certify you, brethren, that\nthe gospel which was preached of me is not after man: for I neither\nreceived it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of\nJesus Christ.\" Gal. 1:11, 12. This language is explicit enough. It could\nhave been used only by one who was conscious of having been divinely\nqualified to teach the gospel without error. Accordingly, in the same\nepistle, he opposes his apostolic authority to these false teachers:\n\"Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised Christ shall\nprofit you nothing.\" Gal. 5:2. In the memorable letter of the apostles\nand elders to the Gentile churches, Acts 15:23-29, they say, \"It seemed\ngood to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than\nthese necessary things.\" \"To the Holy Ghost and to us\" can mean only, to\nus under the guidance of the Holy Ghost. Besides such explicit\nassertions as the above, there is a tone of authority running through\nthe apostolic writings which can be explained only from their claim to\nspeak with divine authority. They assert the weightiest truths and make\nthe weightiest revelations concerning the future, as men who know that\nthey have a right to be implicitly believed and obeyed. What majesty of\nauthority, for example, shines through Paul's discussion of the doctrine\nof the resurrection, 1 Cor., ch. 15, where he announces truths that lie\nwholly beyond the ken of human reason. \"Behold,\" says he, \"I show you a\nmystery; we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,\" as one\nwho has perfect assurance that he speaks from God. The same tone of\ncertainty runs through all the remarks which the apostle John\ninterweaves into his gospel, as well as through his epistles, and\nthrough the other apostolic writings.\n\nTo sum up in a single sentence what has been said respecting the\napostles: When we consider the strong presumption, arising from the\nnecessity of the case, that they must have been divinely qualified to\nteach and write without error, the explicit promises of Christ that they\nshould be thus qualified, and their explicit claims under these\npromises, we have full evidence that they wrote, as well as spoke, under\nthe inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and consequently that their writings\nare of divine authority.\n\n4. In the second grade of relationship to Christ stand men who, like\nMark and Luke, were not themselves apostles, but were the _companions of\napostles_, and their associates in the work of preaching the gospel. We\nare not authorized to place them in the same rank with the apostles. Yet\nthey had the gift of the Holy Spirit, which was always given in\nconnection with ordination at the hands of the apostles. If, in addition\nto this, their connection with some of the apostles was of such an\nintimate nature that we cannot suppose them to have written without\ntheir knowledge and approbation, we have for their writings all the\napostolic authority that is needed. The intimate relation of Luke to the\napostle Paul has been already sufficiently shown. We have good ground\nfor believing that he was with him when he wrote both the gospel and the\nbook of Acts. The intimate connection of Mark with the apostle Peter is\nshown by the unanimous testimony of the primitive churches, and is\nconfirmed, moreover, by an examination of the peculiarities of his\ngospel. In entire harmony with the position of these two evangelists is\nthe character of their writings. They never assume the office of\nindependent teachers, but restrict themselves to a careful record of the\nworks and words of Christ and his apostles.\n\n5. A final argument for the inspiration of the books of the New\nTestament, whether written by apostles or their companions, may be drawn\nfrom their general character, as contrasted with that of the writings\nwhich remain to us from the age next succeeding that of the apostles.\nThe more one studies the two classes of writings in connection, the\ndeeper will be his conviction of the distance by which they are\nseparated from each other. The descent from the majesty and power of the\napostolic writings to the best of those which belong to the following\nage is sudden and very great. Only by a slow process did Christian\nliterature afterwards rise to a higher position through the leavening\ninfluence of the gospel upon Christian society, and especially upon\nChristian education. The contrast now under consideration is\nparticularly important in our judgment of those books which, like the\nsecond epistle of Peter, are sustained by a less amount of external\nevidence. Though we cannot decide on the inspiration of a book simply\nfrom the character of its contents, we may be helped in our judgment by\ncomparing these, on the one hand, with writings acknowledged to be\napostolic, and on the other, with writings which we know to be of the\nfollowing age.\n\n6. The inspiration of the sacred writers was _plenary_ in the sense that\nthey received from the Holy Spirit all the illumination and guidance\nwhich they needed to preserve them from error in the work committed to\nthem. With regard to the degree and mode of this influence in the case\nof different books, it is not necessary to raise any abstract questions.\nThat Paul might make to the Galatians a statement of his visits to\nJerusalem and the discussions connected with them, Galatians, chaps. 1,\n2, or might give an account of his conversion before king Agrippa, Acts,\nch. 26, it was not necessary that he should receive the same kind and\nmeasure of divine help as when he unfolded to the Corinthians the\ndoctrine of the resurrection, 1 Cor., ch. 15. And so in regard to the\nother inspired penmen. Whatever assistance each of them needed, he\nreceived. If his judgment needed divine illumination for the selection\nof his materials, it was given him. If he needed to be raised above\nnarrowness and prejudice, or to have the Saviour's instructions unfolded\nto his understanding, or to receive new revelations concerning the way\nof salvation or the future history of Christ's kingdom--whatever divine\naid was necessary in all these cases, was granted. Thus the books of the\nNew Testament, being written under the guidance of the Holy Ghost,\nbecome to the Christian church an infallible rule of faith and practice.\n\n    If there be any limitation connected with the inspiration of the\n    sacred writers, it is one of which the Holy Spirit is himself\n    the author, and which cannot therefore injuriously affect their\n    testimony. It did not please God, for example, that the exact\n    order of time should always be kept in the gospel narratives;\n    nor that the identical forms of expression employed by the\n    Saviour on given occasions should always be preserved; nor that\n    the accompanying circumstances should in all cases be fully\n    stated; for in all these respects the evangelists frequently\n    differ among themselves. Had the wisdom of God judged it best,\n    minute accuracy in these particulars might have been secured.\n    But the result would probably have been injurious, by leading\n    men to exalt the letter above the spirit of the gospel. We\n    should be glad to know with certainty which, if any, of the\n    different ways that have been proposed for reconciling John's\n    narrative with those of the other evangelists in respect to the\n    day of the month on which our Lord ate his last passover with\n    his disciples, is the true one. It would give us pleasure were\n    we able to arrange all the incidents connected with our Lord's\n    resurrection, as recorded by the four evangelists, in the exact\n    order of their occurrence. Had we a full record of all the\n    circumstances pertaining to these two transactions, this might\n    be accomplished. But it would not make any essential addition to\n    our knowledge of the gospel. We should have, in every jot and\n    tittle, the same way of salvation that we have now, and the same\n    duties in respect to it. To all who, on grounds like these, find\n    difficulty with the doctrine of plenary inspiration, we may say,\n    in the words of the apostle, \"Brethren, be not children in\n    understanding; howbeit, in malice be ye children, but in\n    understanding be men.\"\n\n7. The _extent of the canon_ is determined by the _extent of\ninspiration_. The question to be settled respecting each book of the New\nTestament is, Was it written under the guidance of the Holy Spirit? or,\nwhich amounts to the same thing, Has it apostolic authority? If it has,\nit is to be received; if not, it is to be rejected. There is no middle\nground--no division of the canon into books of primary and of secondary\nauthority.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\nINSEPARABLE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE OLD AND THE NEW TESTAMENT.\n\n\nAlthough the great central truth of redemption, that \"the Father sent\nthe Son to be the Saviour of the world,\" and that we have in the New\nTestament a true record of this mission, rests, as has been shown, upon\nan immovable foundation, we have as yet seen the argument in only half\nits strength. Not until we consider the advent of Christ in connection\nwith the bright train of revelations that preceded and prepared the way\nfor his coming, do we see it in its full glory, or comprehend the amount\nof divine testimony by which it is certified to us. We have already\nseen, chap. 5. 1, how the events recorded in the Acts of the Apostles\nfollow, as a natural sequel, from the truth of the gospel history; how,\nif we admit the former, we ought, for very consistency, to admit the\nlatter also, since the two cling together as inseparable parts of one\ngreat plan. It is now proposed to look backward from the Saviour's\nadvent to the preceding series of revelations, and show how naturally in\nthe plan of God they preceded that great event, and how inseparably they\nwere connected with it as parts of one great whole.\n\n1. The supernatural mission of Christ furnishes, in and of itself, a\nvery strong presumption in favor of _previous_ supernatural revelations.\nThat such a mighty event as this should have burst upon the world\nabruptly, without any previous preparation, is contrary to the whole\norder of providence as well as of nature, which is, \"first the blade,\nthen the ear, after that the full corn in the ear.\" And since the advent\nof Christ was miraculous in the fullest sense of the term, why should\nnot the way for it have been prepared by miraculous revelations as well\nas by providential movements? The natural sun does not emerge suddenly\nfrom the darkness of night: his approach is preceded by the day-star and\nthe dawn. So were the revelations which God made to men from Adam to\nMalachi, with the mighty movements of his providence that accompanied\nthem, the day-star and the dawn that ushered in upon the world the\nglorious sun of righteousness.\n\n2. We have the great fact that the Jewish people, among whom our Lord\nappeared, and from among whom he chose the primitive preachers of the\ngospel, possessed a firm and deeply-rooted belief in the unity of God\nand his infinite perfections. That such a belief was a necessary\nfoundation for the peculiar doctrines of Christianity, all of which are\nunderlaid by that of trinity in unity, is self-evident. Now, this belief\nwas peculiar to the Jews, as contrasted with other nations; and it was\nheld, moreover, not simply by a few philosophers and learned men among\nthem, but by the mass of the people. No other example of a whole nation\nreceiving and holding firmly this fundamental doctrine of religion\nexisted then, or had ever existed; and no adequate explanation of this\ngreat fact has ever been given, except that contained in the revelation\nof God to this people recorded in the Old Testament. It was not by\nchance, but in accordance with the eternal plan of redemption, that the\nMessiah appeared where as well as when he did; not in Egypt in the days\nof Pharaoh, nor in Nineveh, or Babylon, or Greece, or Rome; but among\nthe Jewish people, when now \"the fulness of time was come.\"\n\n3. The impossibility of any attempt to dissever the revelations of the\nOld Testament from those of the New appears most clearly when we\nconsider the _explicit declarations_ of our Saviour, and after him the\napostles, on this point. If we know any thing whatever concerning the\ndoctrines of our Lord Jesus, we know that he constantly taught his\ndisciples that he had come in accordance with the prophecies of the Old\nTestament. If there were found in his discourses only one or two remote\nallusions to these prophecies, there would be more show of reason in the\nfavorite hypothesis of rationalists, that the disciples misapprehended\ntheir Lord's meaning. But his teachings are so numerous and explicit on\nthis point that, even aside from the inspiration of the writers, such an\nexplanation is not to be thought of for a moment. It was with two of\nthem a matter of personal knowledge that \"beginning at Moses and all the\nprophets, he expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things\nconcerning himself,\" Luke 24:27; and with all of them that he said,\nafter his resurrection, in reference to his past teachings: \"These are\nthe words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all\nthings must be fulfilled which were written in the law of Moses, and in\nthe prophets, and in the psalms concerning me.\" Luke 24:44. That in\nChrist were fulfilled the prophecies of the Old Testament, appears in\nevery variety of form in the gospel narratives. It constituted, so to\nspeak, the warp into which the Saviour wove his web of daily\ninstruction. Now if a single thread, unlike all the rest in substance\nand color, had found its way into this warp, we might, perhaps, regard\nit as foreign and accidental; but to dissever from our Lord's words all\nhis references to the prophecies concerning himself in the Old\nTestament, would be to take out of the web all the threads of the warp,\nand then the web itself would be gone. No unbiased reader ever did, or\never could gain from the words of Christ and his apostles any other idea\nthan that Jesus of Nazareth came in accordance with a bright train of\nsupernatural revelations going before and preparing the way for his\nadvent. This idea is so incorporated into the very substance of the New\nTestament that it must stand or fall with it.\n\n4. Having contemplated the indivisible nature of revelation from the\nposition of the New Testament, we are now prepared to go back and look\nat it from the platform of the Old Testament. We shall find this thickly\nsown with those great principles which underlie the plan of redemption,\nand bind it together as one glorious whole.\n\n_First_ of all, we have in the narrative of Adam's fall and the\nconsequences thence proceeding to the race, the substratum, so to speak,\non which the plan of redemption is built. From this we learn that\nalienation from God and wickedness is not the original condition of the\nrace. Man was made upright and placed in communion with God. From that\ncondition he fell, in the manner recorded in the Old Testament; and to\nrestore him, through Christ, to his primitive state is the work which\nthe gospel proposes to accomplish. The great historic event of\nredemption is that \"the Son of God was manifested that he might destroy\nthe works of the devil;\" and these are the very works described in the\nnarrative now under consideration, namely, the seduction of man from his\nallegiance to God, with the misery and death that followed. The\nprimitive history of man's apostacy contains, then, the very key to the\nplan of redemption. So it is plainly regarded by the apostle Paul. He\nbuilds upon it arguments relating not to the outworks of redemption, but\nto its inward nature. He makes the universality of man's fallen\ncondition through the sin of Adam the platform on which is built the\nuniversality of the provisions of salvation through Christ. \"As by the\noffence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation, even so by\nthe righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto\njustification. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners,\nso by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.\" Rom. 5:18, 19.\n\"Since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.\nFor as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.\" 1\nCor. 15:21, 22. How could the original transaction of the fall, through\nthe wiles of the devil, and the manifestation of God's Son to destroy\nthe works of the devil, be more indissolubly bound together as parts of\none great whole than in these words of an inspired apostle?\n\n_Secondly_, the Abrahamic covenant connects itself immediately with the\nmission and work of Christ. It was made with Abraham, not for himself\nand his posterity alone, but for all mankind: \"In thy seed shall all the\nnations of the earth be blessed.\" Gen. 22:18. And if the Abrahamic\ncovenant had respect to the whole human family, the same must be true of\nthe Mosaic economy in its _ultimate_ design; since this did not abrogate\nthe covenant made with Abraham, as the apostle Paul expressly shows,\nGal. 3:17, but rather came in as subordinate to it, and with a view of\npreparing the way for the accomplishment of its rich provisions of mercy\nfor \"all families of the earth.\" The Mosaic economy was then a partial\nsubservient to a universal dispensation.\n\nThe Abrahamic covenant was also purely spiritual in its character, the\ncondition of its blessings being nothing else than faith. The apostle\nPaul urges the fact that this covenant was made with Abraham before his\ncircumcision, lest any should say that it was conditioned wholly or in\npart upon a carnal ordinance: \"He received the sign of circumcision, a\nseal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being\nuncircumcised.\" Rom. 4:11. The seal of circumcision, then, did not make\nthe covenant valid, for the covenant existed many years before the rite\nof circumcision was instituted. Faith was the only condition of\nAbraham's justification. \"He believed in the Lord, and he counted it to\nhim for righteousness.\" Gen. 15:6.\n\nAnd if we look at the promise contained in the Abrahamic covenant, \"In\nthee shall all the families of the earth be blessed,\" we find it to be\nthe very substance of the gospel, as the apostle Paul says: \"The\nScripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith,\npreached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all\nnations be blessed.\" Gal. 3:8. The incarnation and work of Christ are,\naccording to the uniform representation of the New Testament, nothing\nelse but the carrying out of the covenant made with Abraham, for this\ncovenant was made for all mankind, was purely spiritual, being\nconditioned on faith alone, and its substance is Christ, in whom all\nnations are blessed.\n\nAnd while God has thus indissolubly linked to the incarnation of his Son\nthis high transaction with Abraham, we see how he has at the same time\nconnected it with the first promise made in Eden, and thus with the fall\nof man through the subtilty of Satan. The promise in Eden is that the\nseed of the woman shall bruise the serpent's head. The promise to\nAbraham is that in his seed, which is also the seed of the woman, all\nthe families of the earth shall be blessed. Now it is by the bruising of\nthe serpent's head, or, in New Testament language, by destroying the\nworks of the devil, that Abraham's seed blesses all the families of the\nearth. The two promises, then, are in their inmost nature one and the\nsame, and their fulfilment constitutes the work of Christ.\n\n_Thirdly_, the end of the Mosaic economy is Christ. Its general scope is\nthus briefly summed up by Paul: \"The law was our schoolmaster to bring\nus unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.\" Gal. 3:25. But not\nto insist on this, let us contemplate its three great institutions--the\nprophetic, the kingly, and the priestly order.\n\nThe mode of communication which God employed on Sinai the people could\nnot endure, and they besought him, through Moses, that it might be\ndiscontinued: \"Speak them with us,\" they said, \"and we will hear: but\nlet not God speak with us, lest we die.\" Ex. 20:19. Of this request God\napproved, and promised: \"I will raise them up a Prophet from among their\nbrethren like unto thee.\" Deut. 18:18. The point of special emphasis is,\nthat the great Prophet here promised, who is Christ, should be _one of\ntheir brethren_, as Moses was. His personal advent was for many ages\ndelayed; but in the meantime his office was foreshadowed by the\nprophetical order in Israel, consisting of men sent by God to address\ntheir brethren. Thus the old dispensation and the new are linked\ntogether by the great fundamental principle--that God should address man\nthrough man--which runs through both. The whole series of Old Testament\nprophecies, moreover, point to Christ as their end and fulfilment; \"for\nthe testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.\" Rev. 19:10.\n\nThe kingly office of the Old Testament connects itself with that of\nChrist in a special way. Not only did the headship given to David and\nhis successors over the covenant people of God adumbrate the higher\nheadship of Christ, but David had from God the promise: \"Thine house and\nthy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall\nbe established for ever.\" 2 Sam. 7:16. This promise is fulfilled in\nJesus of Nazareth, \"the seed of David according to the flesh,\" according\nto the express declaration of the New Testament: \"The Lord God shall\ngive unto him the throne of his father David, and he shall reign over\nthe house of Jacob for ever, and of his kingdom there shall be no end.\"\nLuke 1:32, 33.\n\nThe priestly office, with the blood of the sacrifices connected with it,\nprefigured Christ, \"the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the\nworld.\" By the stream of sacrificial blood that flowed for so many ages\nwas set forth that great fundamental truth of redemption, that \"without\nshedding of blood is no remission.\" Heb. 9:22. The sacrifices of the\nMosaic law were continually repeated, because \"it is not possible that\nthe blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.\" Heb. 10:4. But\nwhen Christ had offered his own blood on Calvary for the sins of the\nworld, the typical sacrifices of the law ceased for ever, having been\nfulfilled in the great Antitype, \"in whom we have redemption through his\nblood, the forgiveness of sins.\" Ephes. 1:7.\n\n5. Since the Old Testament and the New are thus inseparably connected as\nparts of one grand system of revelation, of which the end is Christ, it\nfollows that the later revelations of the New Testament are the true\ninterpreters of the earlier, which are contained in the Old. This is\nonly saying that the Holy Ghost is the true and proper expositor of his\nown communications to man. From the interpretations of Christ and his\napostles, fairly ascertained, there is no appeal. And they are fairly\nascertained when we have learned in what sense they must have been\nunderstood by their hearers. All expositions of the Old Testament that\nset aside, either openly or in a covert way, the supreme authority of\nChrist and his apostles, are false, and only lead men away from the\ntruth as it is in Jesus.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX.\n\nAUTHORSHIP OF THE PENTATEUCH.\n\n\nThe term _Pentateuch_ is composed of the two Greek words, _pente_,\n_five_, and _teuchos_, which in later Alexandrine usage signified\n_book_. It denotes, therefore, the collection of five books; or, the\nfive books of the law considered as a whole.\n\n1. In our inquiries respecting the authorship of the Pentateuch, we\nbegin with the undisputed fact that it existed in its present form in\nthe days of Christ and his apostles, and had so existed from the time of\nEzra. When the translators of the Greek version, called the Septuagint,\nbegan their work, about 280 B.C., they found the Pentateuch as we now\nhave it, and no one pretends that it had undergone any change between\ntheir day and that of Ezra, about 460 B.C. It was universally ascribed\nto Moses as its author, and was called in common usage _the law_, or the\n_law of Moses_.\n\n2. That the authorship of the law in its written form is ascribed to\nMoses in the New Testament every one knows. \"The law was given by\nMoses;\" \"Did not Moses give you the law?\" \"Had ye believed Moses, ye\nwould have believed me; for he wrote of me;\" \"For the hardness of your\nheart he,\" Moses, \"wrote you this precept;\" \"Master, Moses wrote unto\nus;\" \"What is written in the law? how readest thou?\" etc. Since now the\nwhole collection of books was familiarly known to the people as _the\nlaw_, or _the law of Moses_, it is reasonable to infer that our Saviour\nand his apostles use these terms in the same comprehensive sense, unless\nthere is a limitation given in the context. Such a limitation the\napostle Paul makes when he opposes to the Mosaic law the previous\npromise to Abraham: \"The covenant that was confirmed before of God in\nChrist, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot\ndisannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.\" Gal. 3:17,\nand compare the following verses. But in the following chapter Paul\nmanifestly employs the words _the law_ of the whole Pentateuch, to every\npart of which he, in common with the Jewish people, ascribed equal and\ndivine authority: \"Tell me, ye that desire to be under _law_\"--under a\nsystem of law, the article being wanting in the original--\"do ye not\nhear _the law_? For it is written, that Abraham had two sons; the one by\na bond-maid, the other by a free woman,\" etc., Gal. 4:21, seq., where\nthe reference is to the narrative recorded in Genesis, as a part of the\nlaw. So also in the following passage: \"Moses of old time hath in every\ncity them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every\nsabbath-day,\" Acts 15:21; the term Moses necessarily means the law of\nMoses, as comprehending the whole Pentateuch, for it was that which was\nread in the synagogues. Compare the words of Luke: \"After the reading of\nthe law and the prophets,\" Acts 13:15. And in general, when Christ and\nhis apostles speak of Moses or the law, without any limitation arising\nfrom the context, thus, \"The law was given by Moses;\" \"They have Moses\nand the prophets,\" etc., we are to understand them as referring to the\nPentateuch as a whole, for such was the common usage of the Jewish\npeople, and such must have been their apprehension of the meaning of the\nterms.\n\n3. But it may be said, Christ and his apostles did not speak as critics,\nbut only in a popular way. That they did not speak of the Pentateuch as\ncritics, is certain. They had no occasion for doing so, since no Jew\ndoubted either its divine authority or its Mosaic authorship. But when\nwe consider, on the one side, with what unsparing severity our Lord set\naside the traditions of the Pharisees as \"the commandments of men,\" and\non the other, how he and his apostles ascribed equal divine authority to\nevery part of the Pentateuch, as will be shown in the next chapter, and\nhow unequivocally they sanctioned the universal belief that Moses was\nits author, we must acknowledge that we have the entire authority of the\nNew Testament for its Mosaic authorship in every essential respect. This\nis entirely consistent with the belief that inspired men, like Ezra, and\nperhaps also prophetical men of an earlier age, in setting forth revised\ncopies of the Pentateuch, that is, copies which aimed to give the true\ntext with as much accuracy as possible, may have added here and there\nexplanatory clauses for the benefit of the readers of their day. Such\nincidental clauses, added by men of God under the guidance of his\nSpirit, would not affect in the least the substance of the Pentateuch.\nIt would still remain in every practical sense the work of Moses, and be\nso regarded in the New Testament.\n\n    Whether there are, or are not, in the Pentateuch, such clauses\n    added by a later hand, and not affecting either its essential\n    contents or its Mosaic authorship, is an open question to be\n    determined by impartial criticism. At the present day editors\n    carefully indicate their explanatory notes; but this was not the\n    usage of high antiquity. At the close of the book of\n    Deuteronomy, for example, there is immediately added, without\n    any explanatory remark, a notice of Moses' death. We are at\n    liberty to assume, if we have cogent reasons for so doing, that\n    brief explanatory clauses were sometimes interwoven into the\n    Mosaic text; as, for example, the remark in Gen. 36:31, which is\n    repeated in 1 Chron. 1:43, a book ascribed to Ezra; Exod. 16:35,\n    36, etc.\n\n4. Going back now to the days of the _Restoration_ under Zerubbabel and\nhis associates, about 536 B.C., we find that the very first act of the\nrestored captives was to set up \"the altar of the God of Israel, to\noffer burnt-offerings thereon, as it is written in the law of Moses the\nman of God.\" The narrative goes on to specify that \"they offered\nburnt-offerings thereon unto the Lord, even burnt-offerings morning and\nevening. They kept also the feast of tabernacles, as it is written, and\noffered the daily burnt-offerings by number, according to the custom, as\nthe duty of every day required; and afterwards offered the continual\nburnt-offering, both of the new moons, and of all the set feasts of the\nLord that were consecrated, and of every one that willingly offered a\nfree-will offering unto the Lord.\" Ezra 3:1-5. About ninety years\nafterwards, upon the completion of the walls of Jerusalem under\nNehemiah, about 445 B.C., we find Ezra the priest--\"a ready scribe in\nthe law of Moses, which the Lord God of Israel had given,\" Ezra 7:6--on\nthe occasion of the feast of tabernacles bringing forth \"the book of the\nlaw of Moses, which the Lord had commanded to Israel,\" and reading in it\n\"from the morning unto midday, before the men and the women, and those\nthat could understand.\" In this work he was assisted by a body of men,\nwho \"caused the people to understand the law;\" and the reading was\ncontinued through the seven days of the feast: \"day by day, from the\nfirst day unto the last day, he read in the book of the law of God.\"\nNeh. ch. 8. It was not the book of Deuteronomy alone that they read. We\nmight infer this from the extent of the reading, which was sufficient\nfor all the preceptive parts of the Pentateuch. But here we are not left\nto mere inference. On the second day \"they found written in the law\nwhich the Lord had commanded by Moses, that the children of Israel\nshould dwell in booths in the feast of the seventh month;\" and that they\nshould \"fetch olive-branches, and pine-branches, and myrtle-branches,\nand palm-branches, and branches of thick trees, to make booths, as it is\nwritten.\" Neh. 8:13-17. The precept concerning booths with boughs of\ntrees occurs in Lev. 23:40-43, a passage which they might naturally\nenough reach on the second day.\n\n    Ezra's assistants gave the sense not by labored expositions, but\n    by interpreting the Hebrew in the Chaldee vernacular of the\n    people. This would about double the time devoted to a given\n    section. All that pertained to the structure of the tabernacle\n    was superseded by the first temple, which served the returned\n    captives as their model in the erection of the second. We may\n    well suppose that this was omitted. There would then remain only\n    four or five chapters in the book of Exodus. Thus the passage in\n    question would naturally fall on the second day.\n\n5. Jewish tradition ascribes to Ezra the work of settling the canon of\nthe Old Testament, and setting forth a corrected edition of the same.\nThough some things included in this tradition are fabulous, the part of\nit now under consideration is corroborated by all the scriptural\nstatements concerning him, nor is there any reasonable ground for\ndoubting its correctness. Be this as it may, it is admitted that from\nEzra's day onward the Pentateuch existed in its present form. We are\nsure, therefore, that \"the book of the law of Moses,\" out of which he\nread to the people, was the book as we now have it--the whole\nPentateuch, written, according to uniform Jewish usage, on a single\nroll. Ezra belonged to the priestly order that had in charge the keeping\nof the sacred books, Deut. 31:25, 26, compared with 2 Kings 22:8, and\nwas moreover \"a ready scribe in the law of Moses.\" His zeal for the\nreestablishment of the Mosaic law in its purity shines forth in his\nwhole history. In his competency and fidelity we have satisfactory\nevidence that the law of Moses which he set forth was the very law which\nhad been handed down from ancient times, and of which we have frequent\nnotices in the books of Kings and Chronicles.\n\n    It is generally supposed that Ezra himself wrote the books of\n    Chronicles. They were certainly composed about his time. To\n    admit, as all do, that in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah the law\n    of Moses means the Pentateuch as a whole, and to deny that it\n    has the same meaning in the books of Chronicles, is very\n    inconsistent. Certainly the book which Ezra set forth was the\n    book which he found ready at hand, and therefore the book\n    referred to in the Chronicles, and the Kings also. Any\n    explanatory additions which he may have made did not affect its\n    substance. It remains for the objector to show why it was not,\n    in all essential respects, the book which Hilkiah found in the\n    temple, 2 Chron. 34:14, and to which David referred in his dying\n    charge to Solomon, 1 Kings 2:3.\n\n6. Passing by, for the present, the notices of the law of Moses\ncontained in the book of Joshua, we come to the testimony of the book of\nDeuteronomy. We have seen that the Mosaic authorship of the book, as a\npart of the Pentateuch, is everywhere assumed by the writers of the New\nTestament. But, in addition to this, they make quotations from it under\nthe forms, \"Moses wrote,\" \"Moses truly said unto the fathers,\" etc. Mark\n10:3-5; Acts 3:22; Rom. 10:19. If we examine the book itself, its own\ntestimony is equally explicit. In chap. 17:24 Moses directs that when\nthe Israelites shall appoint a king, \"he shall write him a copy of this\nlaw in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites.\" In\nthe opinion of some, this language refers to the whole law of Moses,\nwhile others would restrict it to the book of Deuteronomy; but all are\nagreed that it includes the whole of the latter work, with the exception\nof the closing sections. By a comparison of this passage with chaps.\n28:58; 31:9, 24-26, the evidence is complete that Moses wrote this law,\nand delivered it to the priests, to be laid up by the side of the ark in\nthe tabernacle. If this testimony needed any corroboration, we should\nhave it in the character of the work itself. It is the solemn farewell\nof the aged lawgiver to the people whose leader he had been for the\nspace of forty years. In perfect harmony with this are the grandeur and\ndignity of its style, its hortatory character, and the exquisite\ntenderness and pathos that pervade every part of it. It is every way\nworthy of Moses; nor can we conceive of any other Hebrew who was in a\nposition to write such a book.\n\n7. The book of Deuteronomy contains a renewal of the covenant which God\nmade with the children of Israel at Sinai. Chap. 29:10-15. Moses himself\ndistinguishes between the former and the latter covenant. \"These are the\nwords of the covenant which the Lord commanded Moses to make with the\nchildren of Israel in the land of Moab, besides the covenant which he\nmade with them in Horeb.\" Chap. 29:1. With each covenant was connected a\nseries of laws; those belonging to the latter being mainly, but not\nentirely, a repetition of laws given with the first covenant. We have\nseen that Moses wrote the second covenant, and all the laws connected\nwith it. From Exodus, ch. 24, we learn that he wrote also the book of\nthe first covenant containing, we may reasonably suppose, all of God's\nlegislation up to that time. The inference is irresistible that he wrote\nalso the laws that followed in connection with the first covenant. It is\nan undeniable fact that these laws underlie the whole constitution of\nthe Israelitish nation, religious, civil, and social. They cannot, then,\nhave been the invention of a later age; for no such fraud can be\nimposed, or was ever imposed upon a whole people. They are their own\nwitness also that they were given by the hand of Moses, for they are all\nprefaced by the words, \"And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying.\" When we\nconsider their fundamental character, their extent, and the number and\nminuteness of their details, we cannot for a moment suppose that they\nwere left unwritten by such a man as Moses, who had all the\nqualifications for writing them. Why should not the man who received\nthem from the Lord have also recorded them--this man educated at the\ncourt of Egypt, and learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, who had\nalready written \"the book of the covenant,\" and afterwards wrote the\njourneyings of the Israelites, Numb. ch. 23, and the book of\nDeuteronomy? An express statement from Moses himself is not needed. The\nfact is to be understood from the nature of the case, and to call it in\nquestion is gratuitous skepticism.\n\n8. The form of the Mosaic laws that precede the book of Deuteronomy is\nin perfect harmony with the assumption that Moses himself not only\nreceived them, but wrote them. They bear the impress of having been\nrecorded not continuously, but from time to time, as they were\ncommunicated to him. In this way the historical notices which are woven\ninto them--the matter of the golden calf, Exodus, ch. 32, the death of\nNadab and Abihu, Leviticus, ch. 10, the blasphemy of Shelomith's son,\nLeviticus, ch. 24, and the numerous incidents recorded in the book of\nNumbers--all these narratives find a perfectly natural explanation. Some\nof these incidents--as, for example, the blasphemy of Shelomith's\nson--come in abruptly, without any connection in the context; and their\nposition can be accounted for only upon the assumption that they were\nrecorded as they happened. In this peculiar feature of the Mosaic code\nbefore Deuteronomy, we have at once a proof that Moses was the writer,\nand that the historical notices connected with it were also recorded by\nhim. The result at which we arrive is that the whole record from God's\nappearance to Moses and his mission to Pharaoh has Moses himself for its\nauthor. The authorship of the preceding part of the Pentateuch will be\nconsidered separately.\n\n9. The above result in reference to that part of the law which precedes\nDeuteronomy, is confirmed by the _testimony of the New Testament_. In\ndisputing with the Sadducees, our Lord appealed to the writings of\nMoses, which they acknowledged: \"Now that the dead are raised, even\nMoses showed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham,\nand the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.\" Luke 20:37. It was by\nrecording the words of God, as given in Exodus 3:6, that Moses called\nthe Lord the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The apostle Paul, again,\nreferring to Lev. 18:5, says: \"Moses describeth\"--literally,\n_writeth_--\"the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which\ndoeth those things shall live by them.\" Rom. 10:5. Here also belong\ncertain passages that speak of precepts in \"the law of Moses,\" as Luke\n2:22-24, where the reference is to various precepts in Exodus,\nLeviticus, and Numbers--Exod. 13:2; 22:29; 34:19; Lev. 12:2, seq.; Numb.\n3:13; 8:17; 18:15--John 7:22, 23, where the reference is to Lev. 12:2;\nfor with the New Testament writers \"the law of Moses\" means the law\nwritten by Moses. In like manner we find references in the Old Testament\nto the books of the law of Moses that precede Deuteronomy--2 Chron.\n23:18 compared with Numb. 28:2, seq.; 2 Chron. 24:6 compared with Exod.\n30:12, seq.; Ezra 3:2-5 compared with Numb. 28:2, seq., and 29:12, seq.;\nNeh. 8:15 compared with Lev. 23:40.\n\n10. The relation of the book of Deuteronomy to the earlier portions of\nthe law deserves a careful consideration. And, first, in regard to\n_time_. All that portion of the law which precedes the sixteenth chapter\nof the book of Numbers was given in the first and second years after the\nexodus; consequently thirty-eight years before the composition of the\nbook of Deuteronomy. The four chapters of Numbers that follow, chaps.\n16-19, are generally dated about twenty years later--that is, about\neighteen years before the composition of Deuteronomy. Only the last\nseventeen chapters of Numbers, which are mostly occupied with historical\nnotices, were written in the preceding year.\n\nThen, as it respects general _design_. At Horeb the entire constitution\nof the theocracy was to be established. This part of the law is,\ntherefore, more formal and circumstantial. It gives minute directions\nfor the celebration of the passover; for the construction of the\ntabernacle and its furniture; for the dress, consecration, duties, and\nperquisites of the priesthood and Levitical order; for the entire system\nof sacrifices; for the distinction between clean and unclean animals;\nfor all those duties that were especially of a priestly character, as\njudgment in the case of leprosy, and purification from ceremonial\nuncleanness; for the order of journeying and encamping in the\nwilderness, etc. In a word, it gives more prominence to the forms of the\nlaw, and the duties of those to whom its administration was committed.\nNot so on the plains of Moab. The theocracy had then been long in\noperation. The details of its service were well understood, and there\nwas no need of formal and circumstantial repetition. The work of Moses\nnow was not to give a new law, but to enforce the law of Horeb, with\nsuch subordinate modifications and additions as were required by the new\ncircumstances of the people, now about to take possession of the\npromised land and change their wandering life for fixed abodes. He had\nto do, therefore, more prominently not with the administrators of law,\nbut with the people; and accordingly his precepts assume a hortatory\ncharacter, and his style becomes more diffuse and flowing.\n\nThe _personal relation_ of Moses to the people was also greatly changed.\nAt Horeb he had the great work of his life before him, but now it is\nbehind him. He is about to leave his beloved Israel, whom he has borne\non his heart and guided by his counsels for forty years. Hence the\ninimitable tenderness and pathos that pervade the book of Deuteronomy.\n\nWhen now we take into account all these altered circumstances, we have a\nfull explanation of the peculiarities which mark the book of Deuteronomy\nas compared with the preceding books. Were these peculiarities wanting,\nwe should miss a main proof of its genuineness. Nevertheless the book is\nthoroughly Mosaic in its style, and the scholar who reads it in the\noriginal Hebrew can detect peculiar forms of expression belonging only\nto the Pentateuch. As to alleged disagreements between some of its\nstatements and those of the earlier books, it is sufficient to remark\nthat upon a candid examination they mostly disappear; and even where we\ncannot fully explain them, this furnishes no valid ground for denying\nthe genuineness of either portion of the law. Such seeming discrepancies\nare not uncommon when a writer of acknowledged credibility repeats what\nhe has before written. Compare, for example, the three narratives of the\napostle Paul's conversion which are recorded in the book of Acts.\n\nThe question as to the extent of meaning which should be given in\nDeuteronomy to the expressions, \"a copy of this law,\" \"the words of this\nlaw,\" \"this book of the law,\" is one upon which expositors are not\nagreed, nor is it essential; since, as we have seen, the Mosaic\nauthorship of the former part of the law rests upon broader grounds.\n\n    In Deut. 27:3, 8, it seems necessary to understand the\n    expression, \"all the words of this law,\" which were to be\n    written upon tables of stone set up on mount Ebal, of the\n    blessings and curses--ver. 12, 13--contained in this and the\n    following chapter. But elsewhere, chs. 17:18; 31:9, 24-26, we\n    must certainly include at least the whole of Deuteronomy. If we\n    suppose that it was Moses' custom to write out the precepts of\n    the law with the historical notices pertaining to them in a\n    continuous roll, which was enlarged from time to time, and that\n    he added to this roll the book of Deuteronomy, then the words in\n    question must be understood of the entire body of precepts from\n    the beginning. But if, as seems to be intimated in Deut. 31:24,\n    he wrote Deuteronomy in a separate book, (\"_in a book_,\" without\n    the article,) the words naturally refer to Deuteronomy alone.\n    This work, as containing a summary of the law--_a second law_,\n    as the word _Deuteronomy_ signifies--might well be spoken of as\n    \"this law,\" without any denial of an earlier law; just as the\n    covenant made with the people at this time is called \"this\n    covenant,\" ch. 29:14, without any denial of an earlier covenant.\n    The reverent scholar will be careful not to be wise above what\n    is written. It might gratify our curiosity to know exactly in\n    what outward form Moses left the Law with the historical notices\n    woven into it; whether in one continuous roll, or in several\n    rolls which were afterwards arranged by some prophet, perhaps\n    with connecting and explanatory clauses; but it could add\n    nothing to our knowledge of the way of salvation. In either case\n    it would be alike the law of Moses and the law which Moses\n    wrote, invested with full divine authority.\n\n11. It being established that Moses wrote the whole law with the\nhistorical notices appertaining to it, we naturally infer that he must\nhave written the book of Genesis also, which is introductory to the law.\nFor this work he had every qualification, and we know of no other man\nthat had the like qualifications. On this ground alone the Mosaic\nauthorship of the book might be reasonably assumed, unless decided\nproofs to the contrary could be adduced. But we find, upon examination,\nthat the book of Genesis is so _connected with the following books_ that\nwithout the knowledge of its contents they cannot be rightly understood.\nThe very first appearance of God to Moses is introduced by the remark\nthat he \"remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with\nJacob.\" In addressing Moses he calls the children of Israel \"my people,\"\nExod. 3:6-10; and sends Moses to Pharaoh with the message, \"Let my\npeople go.\" All this implies a knowledge of the covenant which God made\nwith Abraham and his seed after him, by virtue of which the Israelites\nbecame his peculiar people. It is not simply as an oppressed people that\nGod undertakes to deliver them and give them possession of the land of\nCanaan, but as _his_ people. Again and again does Moses describe the\npromised land as \"the land which the Lord sware unto your fathers\nAbraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give unto them and to their seed after\nthem.\" With the book of Genesis these declarations are plain; but\nwithout it they are unintelligible. The Abrahamic covenant, which is\nrecorded in the book of Genesis, is not a subordinate, but an essential\npart of the history of the Israelites. It underlies the whole plan of\nredemption, and upon it the Mosaic economy, as a part of that plan, is\nerected. Why should any one suppose that Moses, who recorded the\nestablishment of this economy with all its details, omitted to record\nthe great transactions with the patriarchs which lie at its foundation?\nThere are other references to the book of Genesis in the law of Moses.\nThe institution of the Sabbath is expressly based on the order of\ncreation recorded in the first two chapters; and when the people leave\nEgypt they carry with them the bones of Joseph, in accordance with the\noath which he had exacted of them. Gen. 50:25, compared with Exod.\n13:19.\n\nTo the Mosaic authorship of Genesis it has been objected, that it\ncontains marks of a _later age_. But these marks, so far as they have\nany real existence, belong not to the substance of the book. They are\nrestricted to a few explanatory notices, which may well have been added\nby Ezra or some prophetical man before him, in setting forth a revised\ncopy of the law. See No. 3, above. The passages which can, with any show\nof probability, be referred to a later age, are, taken all together,\nvery inconsiderable, and they refer only to incidental matters, while\nthe book, as a whole, bears all the marks of high antiquity.\n\nTo the Mosaic authorship of this book it has been objected again, that\nit contains the writings of _different authors_. This is especially\nargued from the diversity of usage in respect to the divine name, some\npassages employing the word _Elohim_, _God_, others the word _Jehovah_,\nor a combination of the two terms. Whatever force there may be in this\nargument, the validity of which is denied by many who think that the\ninspired writer designedly varied his usage between the general term\n_God_ and the special covenant name _Jehovah_, it goes only to show that\nMoses may have made use of previously existing documents; a supposition\nwhich we need not hesitate to admit, provided we have cogent reasons for\nso doing. Whatever may have been the origin of these documents, they\nreceived through Moses the seal of God's authority, and thus became a\npart of his inspired word.\n\n    Several writers have attempted to distinguish throughout the\n    book of Genesis the parts which they would assign to different\n    authors; but beyond the first chapters they are not able to\n    agree among themselves. All attempts to carry the distinction of\n    different authors into the later books rest on fanciful grounds.\n\n12. That the Pentateuch, as a whole, proceeded from a single author, is\nshown by the unity of plan that pervades the whole work. The book of\nGenesis constitutes, as has been shown, a general introduction to the\naccount which follows of the establishment of the theocracy; and it is\nindispensable to the true understanding of it. In the first part of the\nbook of Exodus we have a special introduction to the giving of the law;\nfor it records the deliverance of the Israelites from bondage in Egypt,\nand their journey to Sinai. The Mosaic institutions presuppose a\nsanctuary as their visible material centre. The last part of Exodus,\nafter the promulgation of the ten commandments and the precepts\nconnected with them, is accordingly occupied with the construction of\nthe tabernacle and its furniture, and the dress and consecration of the\npriests who ministered there. In Leviticus, the central book of the\nPentateuch, we have the central institution of the Mosaic economy,\nnamely, the system of sacrifices belonging to the priesthood, and also,\nin general, the body of ordinances intrusted to their administration.\nThe theocracy having been founded at Sinai, it was necessary that\narrangements should be made for the orderly march of the people to the\nland of Canaan. With these the book of Numbers opens, and then proceeds\nto narrate the various incidents that befell the people in the\nwilderness, with a record of their encampments, and also the addition\nfrom time to time of new ordinances. The book of Deuteronomy contains\nthe grand farewell address of Moses to the Israelites, into which is\nwoven a summary of the precepts already given which concerned\nparticularly the people at large, with various modifications and\nadditions suited to their new circumstances and the new duties about to\nbe devolved upon them. We see then that the Pentateuch constitutes a\nconsistent whole. Unity of design, harmony of parts, continual progress\nfrom beginning to end--these are its grand characteristics; and they\nprove that it is not a heterogeneous collection of writings put together\nwithout order, but the work of a single master-spirit, writing under\nGod's immediate direction, according to the uniform testimony of the New\nTestament.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X.\n\nAUTHENTICITY AND CREDIBILITY OF THE PENTATEUCH.\n\n\n1. The historic truth of the Pentateuch is everywhere assumed by the\nwriters of the New Testament in the most absolute and unqualified\nmanner. They do not simply allude to it and make quotations from it, as\none might do in the case of Homer's poems, but they build upon the facts\nwhich it records arguments of the weightiest character, and pertaining\nto the essential doctrines and duties of religion. This is alike true of\nthe Mosaic _laws_ and of the _narratives_ that precede them or are\ninterwoven with them. In truth, the writers of the New Testament know no\ndistinction, as it respects divine authority, between one part of the\nPentateuch and another. They receive the whole as an authentic and\ninspired record of God's dealings with men. A few examples, taken mostly\nfrom the book of Genesis, will set this in a clear light.\n\nIn reasoning with the Pharisees on the question of divorce, our Lord\nappeals to the primitive record: \"Have ye not read that he which made\nthem at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this\ncause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife:\nand they twain shall be one flesh? wherefore they are no more twain, but\none flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put\nasunder.\" And when, upon this, the Pharisees ask, \"Why did Moses then\ncommand to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?\" Deut.\n24:1, he answers in such a way as to recognize both the authority of the\nMosaic legislation and the validity of the ante-Mosaic record: \"Moses,\nbecause of the hardness of your hearts, suffered you to put away your\nwives: but from the beginning it was not so.\" He then proceeds to\nenforce the marriage covenant as it was \"from the beginning.\" Matt.\n19:3-9, compared with Gen. 2:23, 24. In like manner the apostle Paul\nestablishes the headship of the man over the woman: \"He is the image and\nglory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not\nof the woman, but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for\nthe woman, but the woman for the man.\" 1 Cor. 11:7-9, compared with Gen.\n2:18-22. And again: \"I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp\nauthority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed,\nthen Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in\nthe transgression.\" 1 Tim. 2:12-14, compared with Gen. 2:18-22; 3:l-6,\n13. So also he argues from the primitive record that, as by one man sin\nand death came upon the whole human race, so by Christ Jesus life and\nimmortality are procured for all. Rom. 5:12-21; 1 Cor. 15:21, 22,\ncompared with Gen. 2:17; 3:19, 22. The story of Cain and Abel, Gen.\n4:3-12, is repeatedly referred to by the Saviour and his apostles as a\nhistoric truth: Matt. 23:35; Luke 11:51; Heb. 11:4; 12:24; 1 John 3:12;\nJude 11. So also the narrative of the deluge: Gen. chs. 6-8, compared\nwith Matt. 14:37-39; Luke 17:26, 27; Heb. 11:7; 1 Peter 3:20; 2 Peter\n2:5; and of the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah, Gen. ch. 19, compared\nwith Luke 17:28, 29; 2 Peter 2:6; Jude 7. It is useless to adduce\nfurther quotations. No man can read the New Testament without the\nprofound conviction that the authenticity and credibility of the\nPentateuch are attested in every conceivable way by the Saviour and his\napostles. To reject the authority of the former is to deny that of the\nlatter also.\n\n2. For the authenticity and credibility of the Pentateuch we have an\nindependent argument in the fact that it lay at the foundation of the\nwhole Jewish polity, civil, religious, and social. From the time of\nMoses and onward, the Israelitish nation unanimously acknowledged its\ndivine authority, even when, through the force of sinful passion, they\ndisobeyed its commands. The whole life of the people was moulded and\nshaped by its institutions; so that they became, in a good sense, a\npeculiar people, with \"laws diverse from all people.\" They alone, of all\nthe nations of the earth, held the doctrine of God's unity and\npersonality, in opposition to all forms of polytheism and pantheism; and\nthus they alone were prepared to receive and propagate the peculiar\ndoctrines of Christianity. Chap. 8, No. 2. If now we admit the truth of\nthe Mosaic record, all this becomes perfectly plain and intelligible;\nbut if we deny it, we involve ourselves at once in the grossest\nabsurdities. How could the Jewish people have been induced to accept\nwith undoubting faith such a body of laws as that contained in the\nPentateuch--so burdensome in their multiplicity, so opposed to all the\nbeliefs and practices of the surrounding nations, and imposing such\nsevere restraints upon their corrupt passions--except upon the clearest\nevidence of their divine authority? Such evidence they had in the\nstupendous miracles connected with their deliverance from Egypt and the\ngiving of the law on Sinai. The fact that Moses constantly appeals to\nthese miracles, as well known to the whole body of the people, is\nirrefragable proof of their reality. None but a madman would thus appeal\nto miracles which had no existence; and if he did, his appeal would be\nmet only by derision. Mohammed needed not the help of miracles, for his\nappeal was to the sword and to the corrupt passions of the human heart;\nand he never attempted to rest his pretended divine mission on the\nevidence of miracles. He knew that to do so would be to overthrow at\nonce his authority as the prophet of God. But the Mosaic economy needed\nand received the seal of miracles, to which Moses continually appeals as\nto undeniable realities. But if the miracles recorded in the Pentateuch\nare real, then it contains a revelation from God, and is entitled to our\nunwavering faith. Then too we can explain how, in the providence of God,\nthe Mosaic institutions prepared the way for the advent of \"Him of whom\nMoses in the law and the prophets did write.\" Thus we connect the old\ndispensation with the new, and see both together as one whole.\n\nOther arguments might be adduced; but upon these two great pillars--the\nauthority, on the one side, of the New Testament, and, on the other, the\nfact that the Pentateuch contains the entire body of laws by which the\nJewish nation was moulded and formed, and that its character and history\ncan be explained only upon the assumption of its truth--on these two\ngreat pillars the authenticity and credibility of the Pentateuch rest,\nas upon an immovable basis.\n\n3. The _difficulties_ connected with the Pentateuch, so far as its\ncontents are concerned, rest mainly on two grounds, _scientific_ and\n_historical_, or _moral_. The nature of the scientific difficulties\nforbids their discussion within the restricted limits of the present\nwork. It may be said, however, generally, that so far as they are real,\nthey relate not so much to the truth of the Mosaic record, as to the\nmanner in which certain parts of it should be understood.\n\n    How long, for example, that state of things continued which is\n    described in Gen. 1:2, or what particular results were produced\n    by the operation of the divine Spirit there recorded, we do not\n    know. What extent of meaning should be assigned to the six days\n    of creation--whether they should be understood literally or in a\n    symbolical way, like the prophetical days of Daniel and\n    Revelation--Dan. 7:25; 9:24-27; Rev. 9:15; 11:3, etc.--is a\n    question on which devout believers have differed ever since the\n    days of Augustine. See Prof. Tayler Lewis' Six Days of Creation,\n    ch. 14. But all who receive the Bible as containing a revelation\n    from God agree in holding the truth of the narrative. So also in\n    regard to the Deluge and other events involving scientific\n    questions which are recorded in the book of Genesis. Some of\n    these questions may perhaps be satisfactorily solved by further\n    inquiry. Others will probably remain shrouded in mystery till\n    the consummation of all things. To the class of historical\n    difficulties belong several chronological questions, as, for\n    example, that of the duration of the Israelitish residence in\n    Egypt. It is sufficient to say that however these shall be\n    settled--if settled at all--they cannot with any reasonable man\n    affect the divine authority of the Pentateuch which is certified\n    to us by so many sure proofs.\n\n4. The difficulties which are urged against the Pentateuch on moral\ngrounds rest partly on misapprehension, and are partly of such a\ncharacter that, when rightly considered, they turn against the objectors\nthemselves. This will be illustrated by a few examples.\n\nA common objection to the Mosaic economy is drawn from its\n_exclusiveness_. It contains, it is alleged, a religion not for all\nmankind, but for a single nation. The answer is at hand. That this\neconomy may be rightly understood, it must be considered not separately\nand independently, but as one part of a great plan. It was, as we have\nseen, subordinate to the covenant made with Abraham, which had respect\nto \"all the families of the earth.\" Chap. 8, No. 4. It came in\ntemporarily to prepare the way for the advent of Christ, through whom\nthe Abrahamic covenant was to be carried into effect. It was a\n_partial_, preparatory to a _universal_ dispensation, and looked,\ntherefore, ultimately to the salvation of the entire race. So far then\nas the benevolent design of God is concerned, the objection drawn from\nthe exclusiveness of the Mosaic economy falls to the ground. It remains\nfor the objector to show how a universal dispensation, like\nChristianity, could have been wisely introduced, without a previous work\nof preparation, or how any better plan of preparation could have been\nadopted than that contained in the Mosaic economy.\n\nIf the laws of Moses interposed, as they certainly did, many obstacles\nto the intercourse of the Israelites with other nations, the design was\nnot to encourage in them a spirit of national pride and contempt of\nother nations, but to preserve them from the contagious influence of the\nheathen practices by which they were surrounded. On this ground the\nMosaic laws everywhere rest the restrictions which they impose upon the\nIsraelites: \"Thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his\ndaughter shalt thou take to thy son. For they will turn away thy son\nfrom following me, that they may serve other gods.\" Deut. 7:3, 4. How\nnecessary were these restrictions was made manifest by the whole\nsubsequent history of the people. So far was the Mosaic law from\ncountenancing hatred towards the _persons_ of foreigners, that it\nexpressly enjoined kindness: \"If a stranger sojourn with thee in your\nland, ye shall not vex him. But the stranger that dwelleth with you\nshall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as\nthyself: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.\" Lev. 19:34.\n\n5. Another ground of objection to the Mosaic law has been the number and\nminuteness of its ordinances. That this feature of the theocracy was,\nabsolutely considered, an imperfection, is boldly asserted in the New\nTestament. The apostle Peter calls it \"a yoke which neither we nor our\nfathers were able to bear.\" Acts 15:10. Nevertheless the wisdom of God\njudged it necessary in the infancy of the nation, that it might thus be\ntrained, and through it the world, for the future inheritance of the\ngospel. It is in this very aspect that the apostle Paul says: \"The law\nwas our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified\nby faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a\nschoolmaster.\" Gal. 3:24, 25. The divine plan was to prescribe minutely\nall the institutions of the Mosaic economy, leaving nothing to human\ndiscretion, apparently to prevent the intermixture with them of\nheathenish rites and usages; perhaps also that in this body of outward\nforms the faith of the Israelites might have a needful resting-place,\nuntil the way should be prepared for the introduction of a simpler and\nmore spiritual system.\n\nWe must be careful, however, that we do not fall into the error of\nsupposing that the Mosaic law prescribed a religion of mere outward\nforms. On the contrary, it was pervaded throughout by an evangelical\nprinciple. It knew nothing of heartless forms in which the religion of\nthe heart is wanting. The observance of all its numerous ordinances it\nenjoined on the spiritual ground of love, gratitude, and humility. If\nany one would understand in what a variety of forms these inward graces\nof the soul, which constitute the essence of religion, are inculcated in\nthe Pentateuch, he has but to read the book of Deuteronomy; there he\nwill see how the law of Moses aimed to make men religious not in the\nletter, but in the spirit; how, in a word, it rested the observance of\nthe letter on the good foundation of inward devotion to God. The summary\nwhich our Saviour gave of the Mosaic law, and in it of all religion, he\nexpressed in the very words of the law: \"Thou shalt love the Lord thy\nGod with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind,\nand with all thy strength,\" Deut. 6:4, 5; \"this is the first and great\ncommandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy\nneighbor as thyself.\" Lev. 19:18. Nor is this love towards our neighbor\nrestricted to a narrow circle; for it is said of the stranger also\nsojourning in Israel, \"Thou shalt love him as thyself.\" Lev. 19:34.\n\n6. Of one usage which the Mosaic law tolerated, our Saviour himself\ngives the true explanation when he says: \"Moses, because of the hardness\nof your hearts, suffered you to put away your wives; but from the\nbeginning it was not so.\" Matt. 19:8. This general principle applies\nalso to polygamy and the modified form of servitude which prevailed\namong the Hebrew people. That the Mosaic economy suffered, for the time\nbeing, certain usages not good in themselves, is no valid objection to\nit, but rather a proof of the divine wisdom of its author. Though it was\nhis purpose to root out of human society every organic evil, he would\nnot attempt it by premature legislation, any more than he would send his\nSon into the world until the way was prepared for his advent.\n\n7. The extirpation of the Canaanitish nations by the sword of the\nIsraelites was contemplated by the Mosaic economy. The names of these\nnations were carefully specified, and they were peremptorily forbidden\nto molest other nations; as, for example, the Edomites, Moabites, and\nAmmonites. Deut. 2:4, 5, 8, 9, 18, 19. The whole transaction is to be\nregarded as a sovereign act of Jehovah, which had in view the\nmanifestation of his infinite perfections for the advancement of the\ncause of truth and righteousness in this fallen world. Though we may not\npresume to fathom all the divine counsels, we can yet see how God, by\nthe manner in which he gave Israel possession of the promised land,\ndisplayed his awful holiness, his almighty power, and his absolute\nsupremacy over the nations of the earth, not only to the covenant\npeople, but also to the surrounding heathen world. Had the Canaanites\nperished by famine, pestilence, earthquake, or fire from heaven, it\nmight have remained doubtful to the heathen by whose anger their\ndestruction had been effected, that of the Canaanitish gods, or of the\nGod of Israel. But now that God went forth with his people, dividing the\nJordan before them, overthrowing the walls of Jericho, arresting the sun\nand the moon in their course, and raining down upon their enemies great\nhailstones from heaven, it was manifest to all that the God of Israel\nwas the supreme Lord of heaven and earth, and that the gods of the\ngentile nations were vanity. This was one of the great lessons which the\nTheocracy was destined to teach the human family. At the same time the\nIsraelites, who executed God's vengeance on the Canaanites, were\ncarefully instructed that it was for their sins that the land spewed out\nits inhabitants, and that if they imitated them in their abominations,\nthey should in like manner perish.\n\n8. The Mosaic economy was but the scaffolding of the gospel. God took it\ndown ages ago by the hand of the Romans. It perished amid fire and sword\nand blood, but not till it had accomplished the great work for which it\nwas established. It bequeathed to Christianity, and through Christianity\nto \"all the families of the earth,\" a glorious body of truth, which\nmakes an inseparable part of the plan of redemption, and has thus\nblessed the world ever since, and shall continue to bless it to the end\nof time.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI.\n\nREMAINING BOOKS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.\n\n\n1. The divine authority of the Pentateuch having been established, it is\nnot necessary to dwell at length on the historical books which follow.\nThe events which they record are a natural and necessary sequel to the\nestablishment of the theocracy, as given in the five books of Moses. The\nPentateuch is occupied mainly with the founding of the theocracy; the\nfollowing historical books describe the settlement of the Israelitish\nnation under this theocracy in the promised land, and its practical\noperation there for the space of a thousand years. There is no history\nin the world so full of God's presence and providence. It sets forth\nwith divine clearness and power, on the one side, God's faithfulness in\nthe fulfilment of the promises and threatenings contained in the Mosaic\nlaw; and on the other, the perverseness and rebellion of the people, and\ntheir perpetual relapses into idolatry, with the mighty conflict thus\ninaugurated between the pure monotheism of the theocracy, and the\npolytheism and image-worship of the surrounding heathen nations--a\nconflict which lasted through many ages, which enlisted on both sides\nthe great and mighty men of the world, and which resulted in the\ncomplete triumph of the Mosaic law, at least so far as its outward form\nwas concerned, thus preparing the way for the advent of that great\nProphet in whom the theocracy had its end and its fulfilment.\n\n2. How fully the divine authority of these books is recognized by Christ\nand his apostles, every reader of the New Testament understands. It is\nnot necessary to establish this point by the quotation of particular\npassages. Though the writers of the _historical_ books which follow the\nPentateuch are for the most part unknown, the books themselves are put\nin the New Testament on the same basis as the Pentateuch. To those who\ndeny Christ, the Mosaic economy, with the history that follows, is a\nmystery; for when they read it \"the veil is upon their heart.\" But to\nthose who receive Christ as the Son of God, and the New Testament as\ncontaining a true record of his heavenly mission, Moses and the\nhistorical books that follow are luminous with divine wisdom and glory,\nfor they contain the record of the way in which God prepared the world\nfor the manifestation of his Son Jesus Christ.\n\n3. The Old Testament contains a body of writings which are not\nhistorical; neither are they prophetical, in the restricted sense of the\nterm, although some of them contain prophecy. The enumeration of these\nbooks, prominent among which are Job, Psalms, and Proverbs, with an\naccount of their contents and the place which each of them holds in the\nplan of revelation, belongs to the Introduction to the Old Testament. It\nis sufficient to say here, that they are precious offshoots of the\nMosaic economy, that they contain rich and varied treasures of divine\ntruth for the instruction and encouragement of God's people in all ages,\nand that they are, as a whole, recognized in the New Testament as part\nof God's revelation to men. The book of Psalms, in particular, is\nperpetually quoted by the writers of the New Testament as containing\nprophecies which had their fulfilment in Jesus of Nazareth.\n\n4. The prophetical books--according to our classification, the Jews\nhaving a different arrangement--are Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel,\nand the twelve minor prophets. The vast body of prophecies contained in\nthese books--the prophetical portions of the other books being also\nincluded--may be contemplated in different points of view.\n\nMany of these prophecies, considered independently of the New Testament,\nafford conclusive proof that the Old Testament is the word of God, for\nthey bear on their front the signet of their divine origin. They contain\npredictions of the distant future which lie altogether beyond the range\nof human sagacity and foresight. Such is the wonderful prophecy of Moses\nrespecting the history of the Israelitish people through all coming\nages, Lev. ch. 26; Deut. ch. 28, a prophecy which defies the assaults of\nskepticism, and which, taken in connection with our Lord's solemn\ndeclaration, \"They shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led\naway captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of\nthe Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled,\" Luke 21:24,\nmarks both the Old Testament and the New as given by the same omniscient\nGod, who declares the end from the beginning. Such also are the\npredictions of the utter and perpetual desolation of Babylon, uttered\nages beforehand, and which presuppose a divine foresight of the course\nof human affairs to the end of time: \"Babylon, the glory of kingdoms,\nthe beauty of the Chaldees' excellency, shall be as when God overthrew\nSodom and Gomorrah. It shall never be inhabited, neither shall it be\ndwelt in from generation to generation.\" \"I will also make it a\npossession for the bittern and pools of water: and I will sweep it with\nthe besom of destruction, saith the Lord of hosts.\" Isa. 13:19, 20;\n14:23. See also the prophecy of the overthrow of Nineveh, Nahum, chs. 2,\n3, and of Tyre: \"I will also scrape her dust from her, and make her like\nthe top of a rock. It shall be a place for the spreading of nets in the\nmidst of the sea.\" \"I will make thee like the top of a rock: thou shalt\nbe a place to spread nets upon; thou shalt be built no more.\" Ezek.\n26:4, 5, 14. On all the above prophecies, and many more that might be\nquoted, the descriptions of modern travellers furnish a perfect comment.\n\n5. But it is preeminently in Christ that the prophecies of the Old\nTestament have their fulfilment. As the rays of the sun in a\nburning-glass all converge to one bright focus, so all the different\nlines of prophecy in the Old Testament centre in the person of Jesus of\nNazareth. Separated from him they have neither unity nor harmony; but\nare, like the primitive chaos, \"without form and void.\" But in him\npredictions, apparently contradictory to each other, meet with divine\nunity and harmony.\n\nHe is a great _Prophet_, like Moses; the Mediator, therefore, of the new\neconomy, as Moses was of the old, and revealing to the people the whole\nwill of God. As a Prophet, the Spirit of the Lord rests upon him, \"the\nspirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the\nspirit of knowledge and the fear of the Lord.\" Isa. 11:2. As a Prophet,\nhe receives from God the tongue of the learned, that he should know how\nto speak a word in season to him that is weary. Isa. 50:4. As a Prophet,\n\"the kings shall shut their mouths at him: for that which had not been\ntold them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they\nconsider.\" Isaiah 52:15.\n\nHe is also a mighty _King_, to whom God has given the heathen for his\ninheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for his possession. He\nbreaks the nations with a rod of iron; he dashes them in pieces as a\npotter's vessel, Psa. 2:8, 9; and yet \"he shall not cry, nor lift up,\nnor cause his voice to be heard in the street. A bruised reed shall he\nnot break, and the smoking flax shall he not quench: he shall bring\nforth judgment unto truth.\" Isa. 42:2, 3. \"All kings shall fall down\nbefore him: all nations shall serve him,\" Psa. 72:11; and yet \"he is\ndespised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with\ngrief:\" \"he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before\nher shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth.\" Isa. 53:3, 7. Many\nother like contrasts could be added.\n\nWith the kingly he unites the _priestly_ office. Sitting as a king \"upon\nthe throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish\nit with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever,\" Isa.\n9:7, he is yet \"a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.\" Nor\nis his priestly office any thing of subordinate importance, for he is\ninducted into it by the solemn oath of Jehovah: \"The Lord hath sworn,\nand will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of\nMelchizedek.\" Psa. 110:4. As a priest he offers up himself \"an offering\nfor sin:\" \"he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our\niniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his\nstripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have\nturned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the\niniquity of us all.\" Isa., ch. 53. When we find a key that opens all the\nintricate wards of a lock, we know that the key and the lock have one\nand the same author, and are parts of one whole. The history of Jesus of\nNazareth is the key which unlocks all the wards of Old Testament\nprophecy. With this key Moses and the prophets open to the plainest\nreader; without it, they remain closed and hidden from human\napprehension. We know, therefore, that he who sent his Son Jesus Christ\nto be the Saviour of the world, sent also his prophets to testify\nbeforehand of his coming, and of the offices which he bears for our\nredemption.\n\n6. To sum up all in a word, we take the deepest, and therefore the most\nscriptural view of the Jewish institutions and history, when we consider\nthe whole as a perpetual adumbration of Christ--not Christ in his simple\npersonality, but Christ in his body the church. It is not meant by this\nthat the Mosaic economy was nothing but type. Apart from all reference\nto the salvation of the gospel, it was to the Israelitish people before\nthe Saviour's advent a present reality meeting a present want. The\ndeliverance of the people from the bondage of Egypt, their passage\nthrough the Red sea, the cloud which guided them, the manna which fed\nthem, the water out of the rock which they drank--all these things were\nto them a true manifestation of God's presence and favor, aside from\ntheir typical import, the apprehension of which indeed was reserved for\nfuture ages. So also the Mosaic institutions were to them a true body of\nlaws for the regulation of their commonwealth, and in their judges,\nkings, and prophets they had true rulers and teachers.\n\nBut while all this is important to be remembered, it is also true that\nthe Mosaic economy was thickly sown by God's own hand with the seeds of\nhigher principles--those very principles which Christ and his apostles\n_unfolded out of the law and the prophets_. Thus it constituted a divine\ntraining by which the people were prepared for that spiritual kingdom of\nheaven which \"in the fulness of time\" the Saviour established. \"All the\nprophets and the law prophesied until John\"--not the prophets and the\nlaw in certain separate passages alone, but the prophets and the law as\na whole. They prophesied of Christ, and in Christ their prophecy has its\nfulfilment.\n\n7. The consideration of the _extent of the canon_ of the Old Testament\ndoes not properly belong here. It is sufficient to say that we have no\nvalid reason for doubting the truth of the Jewish tradition, which\nassigns to Ezra and \"the great synagogue\" the work of setting forth the\nHebrew canon as we now have it. That this tradition is embellished with\nfictions must be conceded; but we ought not, on such a ground, to deny\nits substantial truth, confirmed as it is by all the scriptural notices\nof Ezra's qualifications and labors. It is certain that the canon of the\nJews in Palestine was the same in our Lord's day that it is now. The\nGreek version of the Septuagint contains indeed certain apocryphal books\nnot extant in the Hebrew. These seem to have been in use, more or less,\namong the Alexandrine Jews; but there is no evidence that any canonical\nauthority was ascribed to them, and it is certain that the Jews of\nPalestine adhered strictly to the Hebrew canon, which is identical with\nour own.\n\n8. The _principle_ upon which the canon of the Old Testament was formed\nis not doubtful. No books were admitted into it but those written by\nprophets or prophetical men. As under the New Testament the reception or\nrejection of a book as canonical was determined by the writer's relation\nto Christ, so was it under the Old by his relation to the theocracy. The\nhighest relation was held by Moses, its mediator. He accordingly had the\nprophetical spirit in the fullest measure: \"If there be a prophet among\nyou, I the Lord will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will\nspeak unto him in a dream. My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful\nin all mine house. With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even\napparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the Lord\nshall he behold.\" Numb. 12:6-8. The next place was held by prophets\nexpressly called and commissioned by God, some of whom also, as Samuel,\nadministered the affairs of the theocracy. Finally, there were the pious\nrulers whom God placed at the head of the covenant people, and endowed\nwith the spirit of prophecy, such as David, Solomon, and Ezra. To no\nclass of men besides those just mentioned do the Jewish rabbins ascribe\nthe authorship of any book of the Old Testament, and in this respect\ntheir judgment is undoubtedly right.\n\n9. The _inspiration_ of the books of the Old Testament is everywhere\nassumed by our Lord and his apostles; for they argue from them as\npossessing divine authority. \"What is written in the law?\" \"What saith\nthe scripture?\" \"All things must be fulfilled which were written in the\nlaw of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms concerning me;\"\n\"This scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost\nspake before concerning Judas;\" \"The scripture cannot be broken\"--all\nthese and other similar forms of expression contain the full testimony\nof our Lord and his apostles to the truth elsewhere expressly affirmed\nof the Old Testament, that \"all scripture is given by inspiration of\nGod,\" 2 Tim. 3:16, and that \"the prophecy came not in the old time by\nthe will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the\nHoly Ghost.\" 2 Peter 1:21. When the Saviour asks the Pharisees in\nreference to Psalm 110, \"How then doth David in spirit call him Lord?\"\nhe manifestly does not mean that this particular psalm alone was written\n\"in spirit,\" that is, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit; but he\nascribes to it the character which belongs to the entire book, in common\nwith the rest of Scripture, in accordance with the express testimony of\nDavid: \"The Spirit of the Lord spake by me, and his word was in my\ntongue.\" 2 Sam. 23:2.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XII.\n\nEVIDENCES INTERNAL AND EXPERIMENTAL.\n\n\n1. The external evidences of revealed religion are, in their proper\nplace and sphere, of the highest importance. Christianity rests not upon\ntheory, but upon historical facts sustained by an overwhelming mass of\ntestimony. It is desirable that every Christian, so far as he has\nopportunity, should make himself acquainted with this testimony for the\nstrengthening of his own faith and the refutation of gainsayers.\nNevertheless, many thousands of Christians are fully established in the\nfaith of the gospel who have but a very limited knowledge of the\nhistorical proofs by which its divine origin is supported. To them the\nBible commends itself as the word of God by its internal character, and\nthe gospel as God's plan of salvation by their inward experience of its\ndivine power, and their outward observation of its power over the hearts\nand lives of all who truly receive it. This is in accordance with the\ngeneral analogy of God's works. We might be assured beforehand that a\nsystem of religion having God for its author, would shine by its own\nlight, and thus commend itself at once to the human understanding and\nconscience, irrespective of all outward testimony to its truth. Although\nthe internal evidences of Christianity have already been considered to\nsome extent in connection with those that are outward and historical, it\nis desirable in the present closing chapter to offer some suggestions\npertaining to the internal character of the Bible as a whole, and also\nto the testimony of Christian experience, individual and general.\n\n2. To every unperverted mind the Bible commends itself at once as the\nword of God by the wonderful view which it gives of his character and\nprovidence. It exhibits one personal God who made and governs the world,\nwithout the least trace of polytheism on the one hand, or pantheism on\nthe other--the two rocks of error upon which every other system of\nreligion in the world has made shipwreck. And this great Spirit,\n\"infinite, eternal, and unchangeable in his being, wisdom, power,\nholiness, justice, goodness, and truth,\" is not removed to a distance\nfrom us, but is ever nigh to each one of his creatures. He is our Father\nin heaven, who cares for us and can hear and answer our prayers. His\nprovidence extends to all things, great and small. He directs alike the\nsparrow's flight, and the rise and fall of empires. To the perfect view\nof God's character and government which the pages of the Bible unfold,\nno man can add anything, and whoever takes any thing away only mars and\nmutilates it. How now shall we explain the great fact that the Hebrew\npeople, some thousands of years ago, had this true knowledge of God and\nhis providence, while it was hidden from all other nations? The Bible\ngives the only reasonable answer: God himself revealed it to them.\n\n    The superficial view which accounts for the pure monotheism of\n    the Hebrews from their peculiar national character, is\n    sufficiently refuted by their history. Notwithstanding the\n    severe penalties with which the Mosaic code of laws visited\n    idolatrous practices in every form, the people were perpetually\n    relapsing into the idolatry of the surrounding nations, and\n    could be cured of this propensity only by the oft-repeated\n    judgments of their covenant God.\n\n3. Next we have the wonderful code of morals contained in the Bible. Of\nits perfection, we in Christian lands have but a dim apprehension,\nbecause it is the only system of morals with which we are familiar; but\nthe moment we compare it with any code outside of Christendom, its\nsupreme excellence at once appears.\n\nIt is a _spiritual_ code, made for the heart. It proposes to regulate\nthe inward affections of the soul, and through them the outward life.\nThus it lays the axe at the root of all sin.\n\nIt is a _reasonable_ code, giving to God the first place in the human\nheart, and to man only a subordinate place. Its first and great\ncommandment is, \"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart;\"\nits second, \"Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.\" Thus it lays\nbroad and deep the foundations of a righteous character. If any moral\nproposition is self-evident, it is that such a code as this, which\nexalts God to the throne of the human soul and humbles man beneath his\nfeet, is not the offspring of human self-love. If any one would know the\ndifference between the Bible and a human code of morals, let him read\nCicero's treatise _on Duties_, perhaps the best system of ethics which\npure heathenism ever produced, but from which man's relation to deity is\nvirtually left out.\n\nIt is a _comprehensive_ code, not insisting upon one or two favorite\nvirtues, but upon all virtues. Just as the light of the sun is white and\nglistering because it contains in itself, in due proportion, all the\ndifferent sorts of rays, so the morality of the Bible shines forth, like\nthe sun, with a pure and dazzling brightness, because it unites in\nitself, in just proportion, all the duties which men owe to God and each\nother.\n\nMany who outwardly profess Christianity do not make the precepts of the\nBible their rule of life, or they do so only in a very imperfect way,\nand thus scandal is brought upon the name of Christ, whose servants they\nprofess to be. But it is self-evident that he who _obeys_ the Bible in\nsincerity and truth is thus made a thoroughly good man; good in his\ninward principles and feelings, and good in his outward life; good in\nhis relations to God and man; good in prosperity and adversity, in honor\nand dishonor, in life and death; a good husband and father, a good\nneighbor, a good citizen. If there is ever to be a perfect state of\nsociety on earth, it must come from simple obedience to the precepts of\nthe Bible, obedience full and universal. No man can conceive of any\nthing more glorious and excellent than this. We may boldly challenge the\nunbeliever to name a corrupt passion in the heart or a vicious practice\nin the life that could remain. Let every man love God with all his heart\nand his neighbor as himself, and bolts and bars, prisons and\npenitentiaries, would be unnecessary. One might safely journey around\nthe world unarmed and unattended, for every man would be a friend and\nbrother. \"Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good-will\ntowards men,\" would reign from pole to pole. The whole earth would be at\nrest and be quiet: it would break forth into singing. That such a\nglorious result would certainly come from simple obedience to the\nprecepts of the Bible is undeniable. And can any man persuade himself\nthat this perfect code of morals comes not from heaven, but from sinful\nman?\n\n4. We have, once more, the wonderful _harmony between the different\nparts of the Bible_, written as it was in different and distant ages,\nand by men who differed widely from each other in natural character and\neducation, and lived in very different states of society. In outward\nform and institutions the manifestation of God has indeed undergone\ngreat changes; for it has existed successively under the patriarchal,\nthe Mosaic, and the Christian dispensations. But if we look beneath the\nsurface to the substance of religion in these different dispensations,\nwe shall find it always the same. The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,\nthe God of Moses, Samuel, and David, is also the God of our Lord Jesus\nChrist. While he changes from time to time the outward ordinances of his\npeople, he remains himself \"the same yesterday and to-day and for ever.\"\nUnder the Old Testament, not less than under the New, he is \"the Lord,\nthe Lord God, merciful and gracious, long-suffering and abundant in\ngoodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity,\ntransgression, and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty.\"\nExod. 34:6, 7, etc. Under the New Testament, not less than under the\nOld, he is to all the despisers of his grace \"a consuming fire,\" Heb.\n12:29; and his Son Jesus Christ, whom he sent to save the world, will be\nrevealed hereafter \"in flaming fire, taking vengeance on them that know\nnot God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.\" 1\nThess. 1:7, 8. If the New Testament insists on the obedience of the\nheart, and not of the outward letter alone, the Old Testament teaches\nthe same doctrine: \"Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to\nhearken than the fat of rams.\" 1 Sam. 15:22. \"Thou desirest not\nsacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering.\nThe sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and a contrite\nheart, O God, thou wilt not despise.\" Psa. 51:16, 17. \"I will praise the\nname of God with a song, and will magnify him with thanksgiving. This\nalso shall please the Lord better than an ox or bullock that hath horns\nand hoofs.\" Psa. 69:30, 31. \"Take thou away from me the noise of thy\nsongs; for I will not hear the melody of thy viols. But let judgment run\ndown as waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream.\" Amos 5:23, 24. If\nthe Old Testament insists on obedience to all God's commandments as an\nindispensable condition of salvation, so does the New: \"Whosoever shall\nkeep the whole law, and offend in one point, he is guilty of all,\" James\n2:10; \"If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from\nthee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should\nperish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.\" Matt.\n5:29, etc. The Old Testament, as well as the New, teaches the doctrine\nof regeneration and sanctification by the Holy Ghost: \"Create in me a\nclean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me,\" Psa. 51:10.\n\"Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from\nall your filthiness, and from all your idols will I cleanse you. A new\nheart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and\nI will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you\na heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to\nwalk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments and do them.\" Ezek.\n36:25-27. The Old Testament, as well as the New, denounces\nself-righteousness in every form, and teaches men that they are saved\nnot for the merit of their good works, but through God's free mercy:\n\"Not for thy righteousness, or for the uprightness of thy heart dost\nthou go in to possess their land,\" Deut. 9:5; \"Not for your sakes do I\nthis, saith the Lord God, be it known unto you: be ashamed and\nconfounded for your own ways, O house of Israel.\" Ezekiel 36:32. When\nthe holy men of the Old Testament so often beseech God to hear and\nanswer their prayers _for his name's sake_, they renounce all claim to\nbe heard on the ground of their own merit. Faith that works by love and\npurifies the heart from sin--this is the substance of the religion\ntaught in the Bible from Genesis to Revelation. This wonderful unity of\ndoctrine and spirit that pervades the books of the Bible from first to\nlast, finds its natural explanation in the fact that they were all\nwritten \"by inspiration of God.\"\n\n5. The Bible is distinguished from all other books by its _power over\nthe human conscience_. The apostle says: \"The word of God is quick and\npowerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the\ndividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and\nis a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart,\" Heb. 4:12; and\nthis declaration is confirmed by the experience of every thoughtful\nreader. Whoever studies the pages of the Bible in an earnest spirit,\nfeels that in them One speaks who has a perfect understanding of his\nheart in its inmost workings; one who knows not only what he is, but\nalso what he ought to be, and who therefore speaks to him with\nauthority. The young are sometimes advised to study certain authors,\nthat they may thus gain \"a knowledge of men.\" It cannot be denied that,\nwithin the sphere of this world, the knowledge of men which some of\nthese writers possess is admirable. But the Bible contains not only all\nthis knowledge in its most complete and practical form, but also, what\nis wanting in the authors referred to, a perfect knowledge of men in\ntheir higher relation to God. With wonderful accuracy does the Bible\ndescribe men's character and conduct as citizens of this world. But here\nit does not stop. It regards them as subjects of God's everlasting\ngovernment, and thus as citizens of eternity also; and it portrays in\nvivid and truthful colors the way in which they harden their hearts,\nblind their minds, and stupefy their consciences by their continued\nwilful resistance of God's claim to their supreme love and obedience. In\na word, it describes men in their relation to God as well as to their\nfellow-men; and every man who reads the description, hears within his\nsoul the still small voice of conscience saying, \"Thou art the man.\"\nWhence this all-comprehensive knowledge of man contained in the Bible?\nThe answer is: He who made man has described man in his own word with\ninfallible accuracy; \"because he knew all men, and needed not that any\nshould testify of man; for he knew what was in man.\"\n\n6. We come now to the argument from _personal experience_. To receive\nChrist in sincerity and truth, is to know that his salvation is from\nGod. Many thousands have thus a full and joyous conviction of the truth\nof Christianity. They were oppressed with a deep consciousness of guilt,\nwhich no tears of sorrow or supposed good works could remove. But they\nread in the Holy Scriptures that Jesus is \"the Lamb of God which taketh\naway the sin of the world.\" They put their trust in his atoning\nsacrifice, and thus obtained peace of conscience, and joyous access in\nprayer to God as their Father in heaven. They were earthly in their\naffections, and able therefore to render to God's holy and spiritual law\nonly an obedience of the letter, which they knew would not be\nacceptable. But through faith in Christ they have been lifted up to a\nholy and blessed communion with God, and thus enabled to render to God's\nlaw an obedience of love \"in the spirit and not in the letter.\" They\nwere oppressed with a painful sense of the empty and unsatisfying nature\nof every thing earthly; but they have found in Christ and his glorious\nservice an all-sufficient portion. In a word, they are assured that the\ngospel is from God, because it meets all their wants as sinners. They\nhave the same evidence that God made the gospel for the immortal soul,\nas that he made bread for the stomach, air for the lungs, and light for\nthe eyes. The sincere believer has in himself the witness that the\ngospel is from heaven, for he is daily experiencing its healing,\nstrengthening, and purifying power. To tell him that the Bible is a\ncunningly devised fable, is like telling a man who daily feeds on \"the\nfinest of the wheat,\" and is nourished and strengthened by it, that the\nfield of golden grain which waves before his door is only wormwood and\ngall; or that the pure water from the bosom of the earth which daily\nquenches his thirst is a deadly poison; or that the blessed air of\nheaven which fans his lungs is a pestilential vapor. Not until error\nbecomes the nutriment of the soul and truth its destruction, can this\nargument from personal experience be set aside or gainsaid.\n\n7. The argument from the _character of Jesus_ has already been\nconsidered at length in chap, 4, No. 8. It is sufficient to repeat here\nthat the very description of such a character, so gloriously perfect, so\nfar above all that the greatest minds of antiquity ever conceived, is\nitself a proof of its reality. Very plain men may describe what they\nhave actually seen and heard. But that any man left to himself--and God\nwould not help in a work of error and delusion--should have conceived of\nsuch a character as that of Jesus of Nazareth, without the reality\nbefore him, is impossible; how much more that four unlettered men should\nhave consistently carried out the conception in such a life as that\nrecorded by the four evangelists.\n\n8. Passing now from individual to _general experience_, we find another\nproof of the divine origin of the Bible in the power of the\ngospel--which includes in itself the whole word of God--over the human\nheart. This is closely connected with the preceding head, since the\nChristian's religion takes the shape of personal love towards the\nSaviour--love which is awakened in the sinner's soul, as the New\nTestament teaches, by the Holy Spirit revealing to him his lost\ncondition and the character and offices of the Redeemer, whereby he is\ndrawn into an inward spiritual union with him. This love of Jesus is the\n_mightiest principle on earth_ for both doing and suffering. The man of\nwhose soul it has taken full possession is invincible, not in his own\nstrength, but in the strength of Him to whom he has given his supreme\nconfidence and affection. No hardships, privations, or dangers can deter\nhim from Christ's service; no persecutions can drive him from it. In the\nearly days of Christianity, at the period of the Reformation, in many\nmissionary fields in our own time, not only strong men, but tender women\nand children, have steadfastly endured shame and suffering in every\nform--banishment and the spoiling of their goods, imprisonment, torture,\nand death--for Christ's sake. In times of worldly peace and prosperity,\nthe power of this principle is dimly seen; but were the Christians of\nthis day required, under penalty of imprisonment, confiscation, and\ndeath, to deny Christ, it would at once manifest itself. Many would\napostatize, because they are believers only in name; but true believers\nwould remain steadfast, as in the days of old. It is a fact worthy of\nspecial notice, that persecution not only fails to conquer those who\nlove Jesus, but it fails also to hinder others from embracing his\nreligion. It has first a winnowing power. It separates from the body of\nthe faithful those who are Christians only in name. Then the\nmanifestation of Christian faith and patience by those who remain\nsteadfast, draws men from the world without to Christ. Hence the maxim,\nas true as trite, \"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church.\"\nThe Christian religion at the beginning had no worldly advantages, and\nit was opposed by all the power of imperial Rome in alliance with the\nheathen priesthood. Had it been possible that any combination of men\nshould crush it, it must have perished at the outset; but it only grew\nstronger in the midst of its fierce and powerful enemies. It went\nthrough ten bloody persecutions, \"conquering and to conquer,\" until it\noverthrew paganism, and became the established religion of the Roman\nempire. Then it was not strengthened by its alliance with the state, but\nonly corrupted and shorn of its true power. And so it has been ever\nsince. The gospel has always shown itself mightiest to subdue men to\nChrist, when it has been compelled to rely most exclusively on its own\ndivinely furnished strength. What the apostle said of himself\npersonally, the gospel which he preached can say with equal truth: \"When\nI am weak, then am I strong.\" How shall we account for this fact? The\nonly reasonable explanation is, that God is the author of the gospel,\nand his power is in it, so that it is able to overcome the world without\nany help from without. Were it the invention of man, we might reasonably\nexpect that it would be greatly strengthened by an alliance with the\nkings and rulers of the world, instead of being thereby corrupted and\nweakened, as we find to be the invariable result. Because God made the\ngospel, and not men, when it is left free to work according to his\nappointment, it is mighty in its power over the human heart; but the\nmoment worldly men take it under their patronage, that they may make it\nsubservient to their worldly ends, they bind it in fetters, and would\nkill it, had it not a divine and indestructible life.\n\n9. We notice, further, that the same love of Jesus which makes men\ninvincible to the world without, also enables them to _conquer their own\ncorrupt passions_, and this is the greater victory of the two. It is\neasy to declaim on the sins and inconsistencies of visible Christians.\nThe church of Christ, like every thing administered by men, is\nimperfect. Unworthy men find their way into it, making it, as the great\nMaster foretold, a field in which wheat and tares grow together.\nNevertheless, wherever the gospel is preached in its purity, bright\nexamples are found of its power to reclaim the vicious, to make the\nproud humble, and the earthly-minded heavenly. It draws all who truly\nreceive it, by a gradual but certain process, into a likeness to Christ,\nwhich is the sum of all goodness. In proportion also as the principles\nof the gospel gain ground in any community, they ennoble it, purify it,\nand inspire it with the spirit of truth and justice. Very imperfectly is\nour country pervaded by this good leaven. Yet it is this, small as is\nits measure, which makes the difference between the state of society\nhere at home and in India or China. Many thousands who do not personally\nreceive the gospel thus experience its elevating power. They receive at\nits hand innumerable precious gifts without understanding or\nacknowledging the source from which they come.\n\n10. As a final argument, may be named the power of the Christian\nreligion to _purify itself_ from the corruptions introduced into it by\nmen. It is not alone from the world without that Christ's church has\nbeen assailed. Corrupt men have arisen within her pale who have set\nthemselves to deny or explain away her essential doctrines, to change\nher holy practice, or to crush and overlay her with a load of\nsuperstitious observances. But the gospel cannot be destroyed by inward\nany more than by outward enemies. From time to time it asserts its\ndivine origin and invincible power, by bursting the bands imposed on it\nby men, and throwing off their human additions, thus reappearing in its\nnative purity and strength. So it did on a broad scale at the era of the\nReformation, and so it has often done since in narrower fields.\n\n10. Let now the candid inquirer ask himself whether a book which gives\nsuch gloriously perfect views of God's character and government; whose\ncode of morals is so spotlessly pure that simple obedience to it is the\nsum of all goodness, and would, if full and universal, make this world a\nmoral paradise; all whose parts, though written in different and distant\nages by men of such diversified character and training, are in perfect\nharmony with each other; which displays such a wonderful knowledge of\nman in all his relations to God and his fellow-men, and therefore speaks\nwith such authority and power to his conscience; which reveals a\nreligion that satisfies all the wants of those who embrace it, that\nmakes them victorious alike over outward persecution and inward sinful\npassion, and that asserts its invincible power by throwing off from\nitself the corrupt additions of men--whether such a book can possibly\nhave man for its author. Assuredly in character it resembles not sinful\nman, but the holy God. It must be from heaven, for it is heavenly in all\nits features.\n\n\n\n\nPART II.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nINTRODUCTION\n\nTO\n\nTHE OLD TESTAMENT\n\n\n\n\nPREFATORY REMARKS.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nTo consider at length all the questions which the spirit of modern\ninquiry has raised concerning the books of the Old Testament--their\ngenuineness, integrity, date, chronology, and credibility; their\nrelation to science, to profane history, to each other, and to the New\nTestament--would far exceed the limits allowed by the plan of the\npresent work. To the Pentateuch alone, or even a single book of it, as\nGenesis or Deuteronomy; to the books of Chronicles; to Isaiah or Daniel,\na whole volume might be devoted without exhausting the subject. In the\npresent Introduction to the books of the Old Testament, the aim has been\nto give the results of biblical research, ancient and modern, with a\nconcise statement of the lines of argument employed, wherever this could\nbe done without involving discussions intelligible only to those who are\nfamiliar with the original languages of Scripture and the ancient\nversions. For such discussions the biblical student is referred to the\nmore extended Introductions which abound at the present day. The author\nhas endeavored, first of all, to direct the reader's attention to the\n_unity of Scripture_. \"Known unto God are all his works from the\nbeginning of the world.\" The plan of Redemption is the very highest of\nthese works, and it constitutes a gloriously perfect whole, gradually\nunfolding itself from age to age. The earliest revelations have\nreference to all that follow. The later revelations shed light on the\nearlier, and receive light from them in return. It is only when the\nScriptures are thus studied as a whole, that any one part of them can be\ntruly comprehended. The effort has accordingly been made to show the\nrelation of the Old Testament, considered as a whole, to the New; then,\nthe relation of the several great divisions of the Old Testament--the\nlaw, the historical books, the prophets, the poetical books--to each\nother, and the place which each holds in the system of revelation; and\nfinally, the office of each particular book, with such notices of its\nauthorship, date, general plan, and contents, as will prepare the reader\nto study it intelligently and profitably. To all who would have a\nthorough and comprehensive knowledge of the _New_ Testament, the\ndiligent study of the preparatory revelation contained in the _Old_, is\nearnestly commended. The present Introduction will be followed by one to\nthe New Testament on the same general plan. It is hardly necessary to\nadd that for much of the materials employed, in these two parts,\nparticularly what relates to ancient manuscripts, the author is\ndependent on the statements of those who have had the opportunity of\nmaking original investigations.\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION\n\nTO\n\nTHE OLD TESTAMENT.\n\nFIRST DIVISION, GENERAL INTRODUCTION.\n\nCHAPTER XIII.\n\nNAMES AND EXTERNAL FORM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT\n\n\n1. The word _Bible_ comes to us from the Greek (_ta biblia, the books_;\nthat is, emphatically, the sacred canonical books) through the Latin and\nNorman French. In the ancient Greek and Latin churches, its use, as a\nplural noun applied to the whole collection of sacred books of the Old\nand New Testaments, can be traced as far back as the fifth century. In\nthe English, as in all the modern languages of Europe, it has become a\nsingular noun, and thus signifies THE BOOK--the one book containing in\nitself all the particular books of the sacred canon.\n\nIn very ancient usage, the word _Law_ (Heb. _Torah_) was applied to the\nfive books of Moses; but there was no general term to denote the whole\ncollection of inspired writings till after the completion of the canon\nof the Old Testament, when they were known in Jewish usage as: _The\nLaw_, _the Prophets_, and the _Writings_ (see below, No. 5). In\naccordance with the same usage, the writers of the New Testament speak\nof the \"law and the prophets,\" and more fully, \"the law of Moses, and\nthe prophets, and the psalms,\" Luke 24:44. And they apply to the\ncollected writings of the Old Testament, as well as to particular\npassages, the term _the Scripture_, that is, _the writings_, thus: \"The\nScripture saith,\" John 7:38, etc. Or they employ the plural number: \"Ye\ndo err, not knowing the Scriptures,\" Matt. 22:29, etc. Once the epithet\n_holy_ is added, 2 Tim. 3:15.\n\n    In 2 Pet. 3:16, the term _Scriptures_ is applied to at least the\n    epistles of Paul; apparently also to the other canonical\n    writings of the New Testament then extant. In the usage of\n    Christian writers, the application of this term to the books of\n    the New Testament soon became well established; but the above is\n    the only example of such an application that occurs in the New\n    Testament itself.\n\n2. The terms _Old_ and _New Testament_ arose in the following way: God's\ndealings with the Israelitish people, under both the patriarchs and\nMoses, took the form of a _covenant_; that is, not a mutual agreement as\nbetween two equal parties, but an _arrangement_ or _dispensation_, in\nwhich God himself, as the sovereign Lord, propounded to the chosen\npeople certain terms, and bound himself, upon condition of the\nfulfilment of these terms, to bestow upon them blessings temporal and\nspiritual. Now the Greek word _diatheke_, by which the Septuagint\nrenders the Hebrew word for _covenant_, signifies both _covenant_, in\nthe general sense above given, and _testament_, as being the final\ndisposition which a man makes of his worldly estate. The new covenant\nintroduced by Christ is, in a sense, a _testament_, as being ratified by\nhis bloody death. Matt. 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20. So it is\nexpressly called in the epistle to the Hebrews, 9:15-17, where the new\ncovenant, considered in the light of a testament, is contrasted with the\nold. It was probably in connection with this view that the _Old Latin_\nversion of the Bible (made in the Old Testament not from the original\nHebrew, but from the Greek Septuagint) everywhere rendered the Greek\nword _diatheke_ by the Latin _testamentum_. When Jerome undertook the\nwork of correcting this version, he did not everywhere pursue the same\nplan. The books of the Old Testament he rendered in general from the\nHebrew; and here he employed for the Hebrew word denoting _covenant_ the\nappropriate Latin words _foedus_ and _pactum_. But in the Psalms, and\nthe whole New Testament, from deference to established usage, he gave\nsimply a revision of the Old Latin, leaving the word _testamentum_, by\nwhich that version had rendered the word _diatheke_, _covenant_,\nuntouched. Hence in Latin usage we have in the New Testament the two\ncovenants, the old and the new, expressed by the terms _old testament_\n(_vetus testamentum_, _prius_ or _primum testamentum_) and _new\ntestament_ (_novum testamentum_), and sometimes in immediate contrast\nwith each other, as in 2 Cor. 3:6, 14; Heb. 9:15-18. The transfer of\nthese terms from the covenants themselves to the writings which give an\naccount of them was easy, and soon became established in general usage.\nHence the terms _Old_ and _New Testament_ for the two great divisions of\nthe Bible.\n\n    Another Latin term for the two great divisions of the Bible was\n    _instrumentum_, _instrument_, _document_; a term applied to the\n    documents or body of records relating to the Roman empire, and\n    very appropriate, therefore, to the records of God's dealings\n    with men. But as early as the time of Tertullian, about the\n    close of the second century, the word _testamentum_,\n    _testament_, was more in use. See Tertullian against Marcion, 4.\n    1. A striking example of the superior accuracy of Jerome's\n    independent version above his simple revision of the old Latin\n    is the passage Jer. 31:31-33 as compared with the quotation of\n    the same, Heb. 8:8-10. In the former, where the translation is\n    made immediately from the Hebrew, we read: \"Behold the days\n    shall come, saith the Lord, that I will make for the house of\n    Israel and the house of Judah a new _covenant_ (_foedus_): not\n    according to the _covenant_ (_pactum_) which I made with their\n    fathers,\" etc. In the same passage, as quoted in the epistle to\n    the Hebrews, where we have only a revision of the old Latin, we\n    read: \"Behold the days shall come, saith the Lord, that I will\n    accomplish for the house of Israel and for the house of Judah a\n    new _testament_ (_testamentum_): not according to the\n    _testament_ (_testamentum_) which I made for their fathers,\"\n    etc.\n\n3. The _unity_ of the Bible has its ground only in divine inspiration.\nSo far as human composition is concerned, both parts of it have a great\nvariety of authors. The writers of the Old Testament, especially, lived\nin different, and some of them in very distant ages. They were widely\nseparated from each other in native character and endowments, in\neducation, and in their outward circumstances and position in life. It\nis of the highest importance that the student of Scripture not only know\nthese facts, but ponder them long and carefully, till he fully\nunderstands their deep significance. He has been accustomed from\nchildhood to see all the books of the Bible comprised within the covers\nof a single volume. He can hardly divest himself of the idea that their\nauthors, if not exactly contemporary, must yet somehow have understood\neach other's views and plans, and acted in mutual concert. It is only by\nlong contemplation that he is able to apprehend the true position which\nthese writers held to each other, separated from each other, as they\noften were, by centuries of time, during which great changes took place\nin the social and political condition of the Hebrew people. Then, for\nthe first time, he begins to discern, in the wonderful harmony that\npervades the writings of the Old Testament, taken as a whole, the clear\nproofs of a superintending divine Spirit; and learns to refer this\nharmony to its true ground, that \"holy men of God spake as they were\nmoved by the Holy Ghost.\" 2 Peter 1:21.\n\n    According to the received chronology, Moses wrote the book of\n    Deuteronomy about 1451 B.C, and Malachi, the last of the\n    prophets, wrote about 397 B.C. The difference, then, between the\n    time of these two authors is 1054 years; or say, in round\n    numbers, about 1000 years. From Moses to the anointing of David\n    is, according to the shorter chronology, 388 years; and from\n    Moses to the composition of the books of Kings, nearly nine\n    centuries. From Joel to Malachi we must assume a period of about\n    400 years, within which space our present prophetical books were\n    composed. The earlier of the psalms written by David differ in\n    time from those composed at the close of the captivity by about\n    530 years. Let the reader who has been in the habit of passing\n    from one book of the Bible to another, as if both belonged to\n    the same age, ponder well the meaning of these figures. They\n    confirm the arguments already adduced (ch. 12, No. 4) that the\n    unity of Scripture has its ground not in human concert, but in\n    the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.\n\n4. The books of the Old Testament have been differently classified and\narranged. But in no system of distribution has the chronological order\nbeen strictly observed.\n\n(A.) _The Jewish classification and arrangement_ is as follows. They\nfirst distribute the books of the Old Testament into three great\nclasses, the _Law_, the _Prophets_, and the _Writings_; that is, the\ncanonical writings not included in the other two divisions--the\n_Hagiographa_ (_holy writings_), as they are commonly designated at the\npresent day.\n\nThe _Law_ is then subdivided into five books, as we now have them; for\nthe names of which see the introduction to the Pentateuch. Chap. 19, No.\n1.\n\nWith reference to this five-fold division of the Law, the Rabbins call\nit _the five-fifths of the Law_, each book being reckoned as one-fifth.\nThis term answers to the word _Pentateuch_, that is, _the five-fold\nbook_. Chap. 9, beginning.\n\nThe _second_ great class consists of the so-called _Prophets_. These are\nfirst divided into the _former_ and the _latter_ Prophets. The former\nProphets consist of the historical books: Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and\nKings, in the order named. The latter comprise the prophetical books in\nthe stricter sense of the word, with the exception of Daniel; and these\nare subdivided into the _greater_ and the _less_. The greater Prophets\nare Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel. The less are the twelve Minor\nProphets from Hosea to Malachi, in the same order as that followed in\nour English version.\n\nThe remaining books of the Old Testament constitute the _third_ great\nclass, under the name of _Writings_, _Hagiographa_; and they are\ncommonly arranged in the following order: Psalms, Proverbs, Job,\nCanticles, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra,\nNehemiah, Chronicles. These books naturally fall into three groups.\n_First_, devotional and didactic--the three so-called poetical books of\nPsalms, Proverbs, and Job, which have in Hebrew a stricter rhythm;\n_secondly_, the five rolls--Canticles, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes,\nEsther; so called because written on five separate rolls for use in the\nsynagogue service on the occasion of special festivals; _thirdly_, books\nthat are chiefly of an historical character--Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and\nChronicles.\n\n    The Talmud arranges the Greater Prophets thus: Jeremiah,\n    Ezekiel, Isaiah. Of the Hagiographa, various other arrangements,\n    Masoretic and Talmudic, are given, which it is not necessary\n    here to specify.\n\n    That the writing of sacred history belonged to the prophetical\n    office is clear from various scriptural notices. Compare 1\n    Chron. 29:29; 2 Chron, 9:29; 12:15; 20:34; 26:22; 32:32, 33:19.\n    The narrative concerning Sennacherib inserted in the second book\n    of Kings (18:13-19:37) is manifestly from the pen of Isaiah. The\n    Rabbins rightly ascribed the composition of the historical as\n    well as the other books which compose, according to their\n    division, the _Prophets_, to prophetical men. But the grounds\n    upon which they separated from these certain books, as, for\n    example, Daniel, and placed them among the Hagiographa, are not\n    clear. Some of the rabbins made the distinction to lie in the\n    _degree of inspiration_, Moses enjoying it in the fullest\n    measure (Numb. 12:6-8), the authors of the books which are\n    classed among the prophets having _the Spirit of prophecy_, and\n    those of the books belonging to the Hagiographa simply _the Holy\n    Spirit_ (the Holy Spirit, but not in the degree necessary for\n    prophetic revelation). But this distinction is untenable. Who\n    had the spirit of prophecy if not Daniel? In the opinion of some\n    modern scholars, they reckoned to the Prophets only books\n    written by men who were prophets in the stricter sense of the\n    term; that is, men trained to the prophetical office, and\n    exercising it as their profession; while the writings of men\n    like David, Solomon, and Daniel, who though they had the Spirit\n    of prophecy, were yet in their office not prophets, but rulers\n    and statesmen, were assigned to the Hagiographa. But this is\n    inconsistent with the fact that the book of Ruth (which in\n    respect to authorship must go with that of Judges) and also the\n    book of Lamentations are in the Hagiographa. Others, with more\n    probability, find the main ground of classification in the\n    character of the writings themselves--the _Law_, as the\n    foundation of the Theocracy; the _Prophets_, that record the\n    history of the Theocracy and make prophetic revelations\n    concerning it; the sacred _Writings_, occupied with the personal\n    appropriation of the truths of revelation, and as such\n    exhibiting the religious life of the covenant people in its\n    inward and outward form. But even here we do not find perfect\n    consistency.\n\n(B.) _Classification of the Greek Version of the Seventy._ The ancient\nGreek version of the Old Testament, called the _Septuagint_ (Latin\n_Septuaginta_, _seventy_), because, according to Jewish tradition, it\nwas the work of seventy men, interweaves the _apocryphal_ with the\n_canonical_ books. Its arrangement is as follows, the apocryphal books\nand parts of books being indicated by italic letters. We follow the\nedition of Van Ess from the Vatican manuscript, which omits the\napocryphal Prayer of Manasseh:\n\n1.  Genesis.\n2.  Exodus.\n3.  Leviticus.\n4.  Numbers.\n5.  Deuteronomy.\n6.  Joshua.\n7.  Judges.\n8.  Ruth.\n9.  1 Kings (our 1 Samuel).\n10. 2 Kings (our 2 Samuel).\n11. 3 Kings (our 1 Kings).\n12. 4 Kings (our 2 Kings).\n13. 1 Chronicles.\n14. 2 Chronicles.\n15. 1 _Esdras_.\n16. 2 Esdras (our Ezra).\n17. Nehemiah.\n18. _Tobit_.\n19. _Judith_.\n20. Esther, _with apocryphal additions_.\n21. Job.\n22. Psalms.\n23. Proverbs.\n24. Ecclesiastes.\n25. Canticles.\n26. _Wisdom of Solomon_.\n27. _Ecclesiasticus_.\n28. Hosea.\n29. Amos.\n30. Micah.\n31. Joel.\n32. Obadiah.\n33. Jonah.\n34. Nahum.\n35. Habakkuk.\n36. Zephaniah.\n37. Haggai.\n38. Zechariah.\n39. Malachi.\n40. Isaiah.\n41. Jeremiah.\n42. _Baruch_.\n43. Lamentations.\n44. _Epistle of Jeremiah_.\n45. Ezekiel.\n46. Daniel, _with apocryphal additions_--_Song of the Three Children in\nthe Furnace, History of Susannah, Story of Bel and the Dragon_.\n47. 1 _Maccabees_.\n48. 2 _Maccabees_.\n49. 3 _Maccabees_.\n\nThe arrangement of books in the Latin _Vulgate_ agrees with that of the\nSeptuagint with the following exceptions: the two canonical books of\nEzra and Nehemiah appear together, as in the Septuagint, but under the\ntitles of 1 Esdras and 2 Esdras. Next follow the two apocryphal books of\nEsdras (the latter wanting in the Septuagint), under the titles of 3\nEsdras and 4 Esdras. The Greater Prophets, with Lamentations after\nJeremiah and Daniel after Ezekiel, are inserted before the twelve Minor\nProphets, which last stand in the order followed in our version.\nThrowing out of account, therefore, the apocryphal books, the order of\nthe Vulgate is that followed by our English Bible.\n\n    From the above it is manifest that in neither the Hebrew, the\n    Greek, nor the Latin arrangement is the _order of time_ strictly\n    followed. The Hebrew, for example, to say nothing of the Psalms,\n    which were written in different ages, throws into the\n    Hagiographa Ruth, Job, Proverbs, etc., which are older than any\n    of the so-called latter prophets. The Hebrew places the books of\n    Kings, and the Greek and Latin not only these, but also the\n    books of Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther, before all the\n    proper prophetical books, though it is well known that several\n    of these were much earlier. In the Hebrew arrangement, the three\n    Greater Prophets precede all the Minor Prophets, though several\n    of the latter were earlier than Jeremiah and Ezekiel, and even\n    Isaiah. In the Greek, on the contrary, Isaiah and Jeremiah, as\n    well as Ezekiel, are placed after even the prophets of the\n    Restoration. The biblical student should carefully remember\n    these facts. He must not hastily assume that the books of the\n    Old Testament stand in the order in which they were written, but\n    must determine the age of each for itself, according to the best\n    light that he can obtain. See further in the introductions to\n    the several books.\n\n5. In high antiquity, the _continuous mode of writing_, (_scriptio\ncontinua_,) without divisions between the words, was common. We cannot\nindeed infer, from the continuous writing of the oldest manuscripts of\nthe New Testament, that the same method prevailed in the ancient Hebrew\nwriting; for in very ancient inscriptions and manuscripts, belonging to\ndifferent languages, the words are distinguished from each other more or\nless completely by points. Yet the neglect of these is common. In most\nGreek and Phoenician inscriptions there is no division of words. The\ntranslators of the Septuagint may be reasonably supposed to have\nemployed the best manuscripts at their command. Yet their version shows\nthat in these the words were either not separated at all, or only\npartially. The complete separation of words by intervening spaces did\nnot take place till after the introduction of the _Assyrian_, or\n_square_ character. Ch. 14, No. 2. With the separation is connected the\nuse of the so-called _final_ letters, that is, forms of certain letters\nemployed exclusively at the ends of words.\n\n6. A very _ancient Jewish division_ of the sacred text is into _open_\nand _closed_ sections. The former, which are the larger of the two, are\nso named because in the Hebrew manuscripts, and in some printed\neditions, the remainder of the line at their close is left _open_, the\nnext section beginning with a new line. The _closed_ sections, on the\ncontrary, are separated from each other only by a space in the middle of\na line--_shut in_ on either hand. The origin of these sections is\nobscure. They answer in a general way to our sections and paragraphs,\nand are older than the Talmud, which contains several references to\nthem, belonging at least to the earliest time when the sacred books were\nread in public. Davidson, Biblical Criticism, vol. 1, ch. 5.\n\nDifferent from these, and later in their origin, are the _larger\nsections of the Law_, called _Parshiyoth_ (from the singular _Parashah_,\n_section_), which have exclusive reference to the reading of the Law in\nthe synagogue service. These are fifty-four in number, one for each\nSabbath of the Jewish intercalary year, while on common years two of the\nsmaller sections are united. Corresponding to these sections of the Law\nare sections from the _Prophets_, (the former and latter, according to\nthe Jewish classification,) called _Haphtaroth_, embracing, however,\nonly selections from the prophets, and not the whole, as do the sections\nof the Law. The Jewish tradition is that this custom was first\nintroduced during the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes, (about 167\nB.C.,) because the reading of the Law had been prohibited by him. But\nthis account of the matter is doubted by many.\n\n    In the Pentateuch, the smaller sections called open and closed\n    are indicated, the former by the Hebrew letter [Hebrew: P], that\n    is, P, the initial letter of the word _pethuhah_, _open_; the\n    latter by the Hebrew letter [Hebrew: S]=S, the first letter of\n    the word _sethumah_, _closed_. The larger sections, arranged for\n    the reading of the Law in the synagogues, are indicated by three\n    [Hebrew: P]'s or three [Hebrew: S]'s, according as they coincide\n    at their beginning with an open or closed section. In the other\n    portions of the sacred text these divisions are simply indicated\n    by the appropriate spaces. But some printed editions do not\n    observe the distinction between the two in respect to space, so\n    that the open and closed sections are confounded with each\n    other.\n\n7. _Chapters and Verses._ The division of the _poetical_ books and\npassages of the Old Testament into separate _lines_, Hebrew, _pesukim_,\n(answering in general to our half-verses, sometimes to the third of a\nverse,) is very ancient, if not primitive. It is found in the poetical\npassages of the Law and the historical books, (Exod., ch. 15; Deut., ch.\n32; Judges, ch. 5; 2 Sam. ch. 22,) and belonged originally to the three\nbooks of Job, Psalms, and Proverbs, which alone the Hebrews reckon as\npoetical. See below, Ch. 21, No. 1. The division of the whole Old\nTestament into _verses_, (likewise called by the Hebrews _pesukim_,) is\nalso the work of Jewish scholars. It existed in its completeness in the\nninth century, and must have had its origin much earlier in the\nnecessity that grew out of the public reading and interpretation of the\nsacred books in the synagogue service.\n\nIn the Hebrew text the verses are distinguished by two points called\n_soph-pasuk_ (:), except in the synagogue rolls, where, according to\nancient usage, this mark of distinction is omitted.\n\nThe present division into _chapters_ is much later, and is the work of\nChristian scholars. By some it is ascribed to Stephen Langton,\narchbishop of Canterbury, who died in 1227; by others to Cardinal Hugo\nde St. Cher of the same century. The Jews transferred it from the Latin\nVulgate to the Hebrew text. There are, however, some discrepancies\nbetween the chapters of the Hebrew text and those of the Vulgate and our\nEnglish version.\n\nThe division of the sacred text into chapters and verses is\nindispensable for convenience of reference. But the student should\nremember that these distinctions are wholly of human origin, and\nsometimes separate passages closely connected in meaning. The first\nverse, for example, of Isaiah, ch. 4, is immediately connected in sense\nwith the threatenings against \"the daughters of Zion\" contained in the\nclose of the preceding chapter In the beginning of ch. 11 of the same\nbook, the words: \"And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of\nJesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots,\" contrast the Branch of\nthe Messiah with the Assyrian bough, the lopping off of which has just\nbeen foretold; chap. 10:33, 34. The last three verses, again, of Isaiah,\nch. 52, evidently belong to the following chapter. The connections of\nthe sacred text, therefore, must be determined independently of these\nhuman distinctions.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIV.\n\nTHE ORIGINAL TEXT AND ITS HISTORY.\n\n\n1. The original language of the Old Testament is _Hebrew_, with the\nexception of certain portions of Ezra and Daniel and a single verse of\nJeremiah, (Ezra 4:8-6:18; 7:12-26; Dan. 2:4, from the middle of the\nverse to end of chap. 7; Jer. 10:11,) which are written in the cognate\n_Chaldee_ language. The Hebrew belongs to a stock of related languages\ncommonly called _Shemitic_, because spoken mainly by the descendants of\nShem. Its main divisions are: (1,) the _Arabic_, having its original\nseat in the southeastern part of the Shemitic territory, and of which\nthe AEthiopic is a branch; (2,) the _Aramaean_ in the north and northeast,\ncomprising the eastern Aramaean or _Chaldee_, and the western or\n_Syriac_; (3,) the _Hebrew_, occupying a middle place between the two.\nThe _Samaritan_ is essentially Aramaean, but with an intermixture of\nHebrew forms; the _Phoenician_, or _Punic_, on the other hand, is most\nclosely allied to the Hebrew. All these languages, with the exception of\nthe AEthiopic, are written from right to left, and exhibit many\npeculiarities of orthography and grammatical forms and structure.\n\n2. The Hebrew characters in present use, called the _Assyrian_, or\n_square writing_, are not those originally employed. The earlier form is\nundoubtedly represented by the inscriptions on the coins struck by the\nMaccabees, of which the letters bear a strong resemblance to the\nSamaritan and Phoenician characters. The Jewish tradition is that the\npresent square character was introduced by Ezra, and that it was of\nAssyrian origin. The question of the correctness of this tradition has\nbeen much discussed. Some wholly reject it, and hold that the present\nsquare writing came by a gradual process of change from a more ancient\ntype. See Davidson's Bib. Crit., vol. I, ch. 3.\n\nThat the present square writing existed in our Saviour's day has been\nargued with much force from Matth. 5:18, where the Saviour says: \"Till\nheaven and earth pass, one jot (_iota_) or one tittle (_keraia_) shall\nin no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.\" The _iota_ (Hebrew\n_yod_) is the letter _i_ or _y_, which in the square writing is the\nsmallest in the alphabet ([Hebrew: y]), but not in the ancient Hebrew,\nPh[oe]nician, or Samaritan. The _keraia_, _little turn_, is that which\ndistinguishes one letter from another; as [Hebrew: d], _d_, from\n[Hebrew: r], _r_; or [Hebrew: b], _b_, from [Hebrew: k], _k_. See Alford\non Matth. 5:18. (The recent discovery in the Crimea of inscriptions on\nthe tombs of Caraite Jews, some of them dating back, it is alleged, to\nthe first century, proves that the Assyrian or square character was then\nin use. In these inscriptions the _Yod_ (iota) is represented by a\nsimple point. See Alexander's Kitto, vol. 3, p. 1173.)\n\nThe _Rabbinic_ is a modification of the Assyrian or square writing, for\nthe purpose of giving it a more cursive character.\n\n3. The _Hebrew alphabet_, like all the other Shemitic alphabets--with\nthe exception of the AEthiopic, which is _syllabic_, the vowels being\nindicated by certain modifications in the forms of the consonants--was\noriginally a skeleton alphabet, an alphabet of consonants, in which,\nhowever, certain letters, called vowel-letters, performed in a measure\nthe office of vowels. The Shemite did not separate the vowels from the\nconsonants, and express them, as we do, by separate signs. He rather\nconceived of the vowels as inhering in the consonants--as modifications\nin the utterance of the consonants, which the reader could make for\nhimself. Various particulars in respect to the pronunciation of certain\nconsonants were, in like manner, left to the reader's own knowledge. For\nexample, the three Hebrew letters, [Hebrew: sh], _sh_; [Hebrew: m], _m_;\n[Hebrew: r], _r_, ([Hebrew: shmr], to be read from right to left,) might\nbe pronounced, _shamar_, _he kept_; _shemor_, _keep thou_; _shomer_,\n_keeping_--the reader determining from the connection which of these\nforms should be used, just as we decide in English between the different\npronunciations of the word _bow_. As long as the Hebrew remained a\nliving language, that is, the language of the masses of the people, this\noutline alphabet was sufficient for all practical purposes. The modern\nArabs read without difficulty their ordinary books, which omit, in like\nmanner, the signs for the vowels. The regularity of structure which\nbelongs to the Shemitic languages generally, makes this omission less\ninconvenient for them than a like omission would be for us in our\nwestern tongues.\n\n4. During the long Babylonish captivity the mass of the Jewish people,\nwho were born and educated in Babylon and the adjacent regions, adopted\nof necessity the language of the country; that is, the Aramaean or\nChaldee language. After the exile, the Hebrew was indeed spoken and\nwritten by the prophets and learned men, but not by the people at large.\nIn Nehemiah 8:8 we are told that \"they read in the book in the law of\nGod distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the\nreading.\" This has been explained by some as meaning simply that they\nexpounded to them the sense. But the more natural meaning is that they\n_interpreted_ to the people the words read from the law. We find, soon\nafter the captivity at least, the old Hebrew supplanted as a living\nlanguage among the people at large by the Aramaean or Chaldee. Why not\ndate the change from the latter part of the captivity itself?\n\nIt was natural that the prophets and historians, all of whom wrote soon\nafter the exile, should employ the sacred language of their fathers.\nThis fact cannot be adduced as a valid argument that the body of the\npeople continued to speak Hebrew. The incorporation, on the other hand,\nof long passages in Chaldee into the books of Daniel and Ezra implies at\nleast that this language was known to the people at large. As to the\nchildren spoken of in Neh. 13:24, who \"could not speak in the Jews'\nlanguage, but according to the language of each people\"--the people, to\nwit, to which their mothers belonged--\"the Jews' language\" here is\nprobably the language used by the Jews, as distinguished from that used\nby the people of Ashdod, Ammon, and Moab. Keil, Introduction to Old\nTestament, Sec. 18.\n\n5. After the Hebrew had ceased to be the language of the common people,\nits traditional pronunciation was carefully preserved for many\nsuccessive centuries in the synagogue-reading. It was not till several\ncenturies after Christ (somewhere between the sixth and the tenth\ncenturies) that the vowel-signs and other marks of distinction were\nadded in order to perpetuate, with all possible accuracy, the solemn\ntraditional pronunciation of the synagogue. This work is ascribed to\nlearned Jews of Tiberias, called _Masoretes_, from _Masora_,\n_tradition_; and the Hebrew text thus furnished by them is called the\n_Masoretic_, in distinction from the _unpointed_ text, which latter is,\naccording to Jewish usage, retained in the synagogue-rolls. From\nreverence to the word of God, the _punctuators_ (as these men are also\ncalled) left the primitive text in all cases undisturbed, simply\nsuperadding to it their marks of distinction. After giving with great\nminuteness the different _vowel-signs_ and marks (commonly called\n_diacritical_) for the varying pronunciation of the consonants, they\nsuperadded a complicated system of _accents_. These serve the threefold\noffice of guides in _cantillating_ the sacred text (according to ancient\nusage in the synagogue-reading); of indicating the _connection in\nmeaning_ among the words and clauses; and of marking, though with\ncertain exceptions, the _tone-syllables_ of words. In addition to all\nthe above, they added a mass of _notes_, partly of a critical and partly\nof a grammatical character, relating to various readings, grammatical\nforms and connections, modes of orthography, and the like. These are\ncalled collectively the _Masorah_, of which there is a fuller Masorah\ncalled the _greater_ (found only in Rabbinical Bibles), and a briefer,\ncalled the _less_, the main part of which is found in common editions of\nthe Hebrew Bible. To illustrate the _Masoretic_ as contrasted with the\n_unpointed_ text, we give the first verse of Genesis, _first_, in its\nsimple unpointed form; _secondly_, with the vowel-signs and diacritical\nmarks for the consonants; _thirdly_, with both these and the accents,\nthe last being the complete Masoretic text.\n\n[Hebrew: br'shit br' 'lhim et hshmym vet h'rts]\n\n[Hebrew: bere'shit bara' 'elohim et hashamayim veet ha'arets]\n\n[Hebrew: o bere'shit bara' 'elohim et hashamayim veet ha'arets]\n\n_ha-arets. ve-eth hasshamayim eth elohim bara Bereshith\n\nthe-earth. and-it the heavens them God created In-the-beginning_\n\nThe round circle above the initial letter in the third line refers to a\nmarginal _note of the Masorah_ indicating that it is to be written\n_large_.\n\nRespecting the origin and antiquity of the Hebrew points a warm\ncontroversy existed in former times. Some maintained that they were\ncoeval with the language itself; others that they were first introduced\nby Ezra after the Babylonish captivity. But their later\norigin--somewhere between the sixth and tenth centuries--is now\ngenerally conceded. It is further agreed that their inventors were able\nscholars, thoroughly acquainted as well with the genius and structure of\nthe language as with the traditional pronunciation of the synagogue; and\nthat they have given a faithful representation of this pronunciation, as\nit existed in their day. Their judgment, therefore, though not invested\nwith any divine authority, is very valuable. \"It represents a tradition,\nit is true; but a tradition of the oldest and most important character.\"\nHorne's Introduction, vol. 2, p. 15, edition of 1860.\n\n6. The deep reverence of the Jews for their sacred books manifests\nitself in their numerous rules for the guidance of copyists in the\ntranscription of the rolls designed for use in the synagogue service.\nThey extend to every minute particular--the quality of the ink and the\nparchment (which latter must always be prepared by a Jew from the skin\nof a clean animal, and fastened by strings made from the skins of clean\nanimals); the number, length, and breadth of the columns; the number of\nlines in each column, and the number of words in each line. No word must\nbe written till the copyist has first inspected it in the example before\nhim, and pronounced it aloud; before writing the name of God he must\nwash his pen; all redundance or defect of letters must be carefully\navoided: prose must not be written as verse, or verse as prose; and when\nthe copy has been completed, it must be examined for approval or\nrejection within thirty days. Superstitious, and even ridiculous, as\nthese rules are, we have in them a satisfactory assurance of the\nfidelity with which the sacred text has been perpetuated. Though their\ndate may be posterior to the age of the Talmudists (between 200 and 500\nafter Christ), the spirit of reverence for the divine word which they\nmanifest goes far back beyond this age. We see it, free from these later\nsuperstitious observances, in the transactions recorded in the eighth\nchapter of Nehemiah, when Ezra opened the book of the law in the sight\nof all the people, \"and when he opened it, all the people stood up.\" The\nearly history of the sacred text is confessedly involved in great\nobscurity; but in the profound reverence with which the Jews have ever\nregarded it since the captivity, we have satisfactory proof that it has\ncome down to us, in all essential particulars, as Ezra left it. Of the\nprimitive text before the days of Ezra and his associates we have but a\nfew brief notices in the historical books. But in the fidelity and skill\nof Ezra, who was \"a ready scribe in the law of Moses, which the Lord God\nof Israel had given,\" as well as in the intelligence and deep\nearnestness of the men associated with him, we have a reasonable ground\nof assurance that the sacred books which have come down to us through\ntheir hands contain, in all essential particulars, the primitive text in\na pure and uncorrupt form.\n\n7. As to the _age_ of Hebrew manuscripts, it is to be noticed that not\nmany have come down to us from an earlier century than the twelfth. In\nthis respect there is a striking difference between them and the Greek\nand Latin manuscripts of the New Testament, a few of which are as old as\nthe fourth and fifth centuries, and quite a number anterior to the\ntenth. The oldest known Hebrew manuscript, on the contrary, is a\nPentateuch roll on leather, now at Odessa, which, if the subscription\nstating that it was _corrected_ in the year 580 can be relied on,\nbelongs to the sixth century. One of De Rossi's manuscripts is supposed\nto belong to the eighth century, and there are a few of the ninth and\ntenth, and several of the eleventh. Bishop Walton supposes that after\nthe Masoretic text was fully settled, the Jewish rulers condemned, as\nprofane and illegitimate, all the older manuscripts not conformed to\nthis: whence, after a few ages, the rejected copies mostly perished. The\nexisting Hebrew manuscripts give the Masoretic text with but little\nvariation from each other.\n\nEarnest effort has been made to find a reliable ante-Masoretic text, but\nto no purpose. The search in China has thus far been fruitless. When Dr.\nBuchanan in 1806 brought from India a synagogue-roll which he found\namong the Jews of Malabar, high expectations were raised. But it is now\nconceded to be a Masoretic roll, probably of European origin. Respecting\nthe manuscripts of the _Samaritan_ Pentateuch, see below, No. 9.\n\n(A synagogue-roll has recently been discovered in the Crimea of the date\nanswering to A.D. 489. See Alexander's Kitto, vol. 3, pp. 1172-5.)\n\n8. In respect to _form_, Hebrew manuscripts fall into two great\ndivisions, _public_ and _private_. The public manuscripts consist of\n_synagogue-rolls_ carefully written out on parchment, as already\ndescribed, without vowel-points or divisions of verses. The Law is\nwritten on a single roll; the sections from the prophets (Haphtaroth,\nch. 12. 6) and the Five Rolls--Canticles, Ruth, Lamentations,\nEcclesiastes, Esther (ch. 12. 4)--each on separate rolls. The private\nmanuscripts are written _with leaves_ in book form--folio, quarto,\noctavo, and duodecimo; mostly on parchment, but some of the later on\npaper. The poetical passages are generally arranged in hemistichs; the\nrest is in columns which vary according to the size of the page. The\ntext and points were always written separately; the former with a\nheavier, the latter with a lighter pen, and generally with different\nink. The square or Assyrian character is employed as a rule, but a few\nare written in the rabbinic character. The Chaldee paraphrase (less\nfrequently some other version) may be added. The margin contains more or\nless of the Masorah; sometimes prayers, psalms, rabbinical commentaries,\netc.\n\n9. There is also a _Samaritan Pentateuch_; that is, a Hebrew Pentateuch\nwritten in the ancient Samaritan characters, and first brought to light\nin 1616, respecting the origin of which very different opinions are\nheld. Some suppose that the Samaritans received it as an inheritance\nfrom the ten tribes; others that it was introduced at the time of the\nfounding of the Samaritan temple on Mount Gerizim; others that it was\nbrought by the Israelitish priest sent to instruct the Samaritans in the\nknowledge of God, 2 Kings 17:27, 28. It is agreed among biblical\nscholars that its text has been subjected to many alterations which\ngreatly impair its critical authority. These, however, are not\nsufficient to account for its remarkable agreement with the Septuagint\nversion against the Masoretic text, in numerous readings, some of them\nof importance. The explanation of this phenomenon must be the agreement\nof the original Samaritan codex with the manuscripts from which the\nAlexandrine version was executed. Probably both were of Egyptian origin.\nSee Alexander's Kitto, art. Samaritan Pentateuch.\n\nIn a brief compend, like the present work, it is not thought necessary\nto notice particularly the _printed_ editions of the Hebrew Bible. The\nreader will find an account of them in the \"Bibliographical List\"\nappended to the fourth volume of Horne's Introduction, edition of 1860.\nThe text of Van der Hooght's Hebrew Bible, (Amsterdam and Utrecht,\n1705,) which was chiefly based on the earlier text of Athias,\n(Amsterdam, 1667,) is generally followed at the present day, and may be\nregarded as the received text of the Hebrew Scriptures.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XV.\n\nFORMATION AND HISTORY OF THE HEBREW CANON.\n\n\n1. The Greek word _canon_ (originally a _straight rod or pole_,\n_measuring-rod_, then _rule_) denotes that collection of books which the\nchurches receive as given by inspiration of God, and therefore as\nconstituting for them a divine rule of faith and practice. To the books\nincluded in it the term _canonical_ is applied. The Canon of the Old\nTestament, considered in reference to its constituent parts, was formed\ngradually; formed under divine superintendence by a process of growth\nextending through many centuries. The history of its formation may be\nconveniently considered under the following divisions: (1,) the\n_Pentateuch_; (2,) the _historical_ books; (3,) the _prophetical_ books\nin the stricter sense of the term; (4,) a somewhat miscellaneous\ncollection of books which may be designated in a general way as\n_poetical_.\n\n\nI. THE PENTATEUCH.\n\n2. In the name applied to the Pentateuch--\"the book of the law,\" and\nmore fully, \"the book of the law of Moses,\" \"the book of the law of\nMoses, which the Lord had commanded to Israel\"--we have from the\nbeginning the general idea of the canon. A canonical writing is one that\ncontains a communication from God to men, and has therefore the impress\nof divine authority. In its outward form it may be preceptive,\nhistorical, or meditative. But in all these different modes it still\nreveals to men God's character, and the duties which he requires of\nthem. The Hebrews never admitted to the number of their sacred books a\nwriting that was secular in its character. Even those who deny the\ncanonical authority of certain parts of the Old Testament acknowledge\nthat the Jews received these parts because they believed them to be of a\nsacred character.\n\n3. In Deut. 31:9-13, 24-26; 17:18, 19, we read: \"And Moses wrote this\nlaw, and delivered it unto the priests the sons of Levi, which bare the\nark of the covenant of the Lord, and unto all the elders of Israel. And\nMoses commanded them, saying, At the end of every seven years, in the\nsolemnity of the year of release, in the feast of tabernacles, when all\nIsrael is come to appear before the Lord thy God in the place which he\nshall choose, thou shalt read this law before all Israel in their\nhearing. Gather the people together, men, and women, and children, and\nthy stranger that is within thy gates, that they may hear, and that they\nmay learn, and fear the Lord your God, and observe to do all the words\nof this law: and that their children which have not known anything, may\nhear, and learn to fear the Lord your God, as long as ye live in the\nland whither ye go over Jordan to possess it:\" \"and it came to pass,\nwhen Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book,\nuntil they were finished, that Moses commanded the Levites, which bare\nthe ark of the covenant of the Lord, saying, Take this book of the law,\nand put it in the side\" (that is, not _within_, but _by the side_.\nCompare Josh. 12:9; Ruth 2:14; 1 Sam. 20:25; Psa. 91:7; where the same\nword is used in the original) \"of the ark of the covenant of the Lord\nyour God, that it may be there for a witness against thee;\" \"and it\nshall be when he\"--the king whom the Israelites in some future age shall\nset over themselves--\"sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he\nshall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before\nthe priests the Levites: and it shall be with him, and he shall read\ntherein all the days of his life; that he may learn to fear the Lord his\nGod, to keep all the words of this law and the statutes, to do them.\"\nThese passages are of the weightiest import; for they teach us how the\n_nucleus_ of the canon of the Old Testament was formed, and give us all\nthe particulars that enter into the idea of a canonical writing. It is\ngiven by God as an authoritative rule of faith and practice; it is\ncommitted to the custody of his people through their recognized\nofficers, and that for all future time; it is to be published to the\npeople at large, and diligently studied by the rulers, that they and the\npeople together may know and do the will of God. It is not necessary to\ndecide the question how much is included in the words \"this book of the\nlaw,\" Deut. 31:26, whether the whole Pentateuch, or only the book of\nDeuteronomy. The arguments to show that the four preceding books came,\nin all essential respects, from the pen of Moses have been already given\n(Ch. 9, Nos. 7-9), and need not be here repeated. We only add that even\nif the reference is to Deuteronomy alone, as some suppose, the rule for\nthis book would naturally be the rule for all the previous writings.\nThey also would be laid up by the side of the ark; for it is plain that\nthe priests and Levites, who had charge of the sanctuary, were made the\nkeepers of the sacred writings generally.\n\nAs a matter of simple convenience the book of Deuteronomy was written on\na separate roll (\"in a book,\" Deut. 31:24). But if this book, when\nfinished, was laid up with the earlier portions of the law at the side\nof the ark, so as to constitute with them a single collection, and if,\nas we may reasonably suppose, Moses, in writing the book of Deuteronomy,\ncontemplated such a collection of all the parts of the law into one\nwhole; then, when the law is mentioned, whether in Deuteronomy or in the\nlater books, we are to understand the whole law, unless there be\nsomething in the context to limit its meaning, as there is, for example,\nin Joshua 8:32 compared with Deut. 27:1-8. The command to \"read this law\nbefore all Israel in their hearing,\" \"at the end of every seven years,\nin the solemnity of the year of release, in the feast of tabernacles,\"\nwas understood in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah of the whole law, and\nnot of Deuteronomy alone (Ch. 9, No. 4); and so Josephus plainly\nunderstood it: \"But when the multitude is assembled in the holy city at\nthe septennial sacrifices on the occasion of the feast of tabernacles,\nlet the high priest, standing on a lofty stage whence he can be plainly\nheard, read the laws to all.\" Antiq. 4.8, 12. \"The laws,\" in the usage\nof Josephus, naturally mean the whole collection of laws.\n\n\nII. THE HISTORICAL BOOKS.\n\n4. The history of these is involved in obscurity. In respect to most of\nthem we know not the authors, nor the exact date of their composition.\nThere are, however, two notices that shed much light on the general\nhistory of the earlier historical books. In the last chapter of the book\nof Joshua, after an account of the renewal of the covenant at Shechem,\nit is added: \"And Joshua wrote these words in the book of the law of\nGod, and took a great stone, and set it up there under an oak that was\nby the sanctuary of the Lord.\" Josh. 24:26. Again, upon the occasion of\nthe establishment of the kingdom under Saul, we are told that \"Samuel\ntold the people the manner of the kingdom, and wrote it in a book, and\nlaid it up before the Lord.\" 1 Sam. 10:25. From the first of these\npassages we learn that a theocratic man after Moses, who had the spirit\nof prophecy, connected his writings (or at least one portion of them)\nwith the law. This addition by Joshua, though never formally regarded as\na part of the law, virtually belonged to it, since it contained a\nrenewal of the covenant between God and his people. From the second\npassage we learn that the place for other important documents pertaining\nto the theocracy was \"before the Lord,\" where the law was deposited.\nHence we infer with much probability that, besides the addition made to\n\"the book of the law of God,\" important historical writings, proceeding\nfrom prophetical men, like Joshua and Samuel, were in process of\ncollection at the sanctuary all the time from Moses to Samuel.\n\n5. If now we examine the books of Joshua and Judges, we must be\nsatisfied that the men who compiled them made use of such materials. In\nthe book of Joshua is recorded, with much detail, the allotment of the\nland of Canaan among the several tribes. A document of this nature must\nhave been written at the time, and by Joshua himself, or under his\nimmediate direction. The same may be reasonably supposed of other\nportions of the book. If then it was put into its present form after the\ndeath of Joshua, as some suppose, the materials must still have been\nfurnished by him to a great extent. The book of Judges covers a period\nof more than three centuries. Who composed it we do not know, but the\nmaterials employed by him must have existed, in part at least, in a\nwritten form. The book of Ruth may be regarded as an appendix to that of\nthe Judges.\n\n6. The two books of Samuel (which originally constituted one whole)\nbring down the history of the Theocracy from the birth of Samuel to the\nclose of David's reign--a period of about a century and a half. The\nauthor, therefore, can have been, upon any supposition, only in part\ncontemporary with the events which he records. Yet if we examine the\nbiographical sketches of Saul, Samuel, and David contained in these\nbooks, the conviction forces itself upon us that they must have been\nwritten by contemporaries. Their freshness, minute accuracy of detail,\nand graphic vividness of style mark them as coming from eye-witnesses,\nor from writers who had received their accounts from eye-witnesses. Who\nwere authors of these original documents we cannot determine. It is\ncertain that Samuel was one of them. 1 Chron. 29:29. Who composed the\nbooks, again, is a question that we are unable to answer. It was\nprobably a prophet living not very long after the separation of the\nkingdoms of Israel and Judah. From the days of Samuel and onward there\nwas a flourishing school of the prophets at hand which could furnish,\nunder the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, both the writers of the\noriginal materials and the author of the books in their present form.\n\nThe attempt has been made to set aside the evidence that the writer of\nthe books of Samuel made use of earlier documents, from the example of\nsuch men as Swift and Defoe, who composed works of fiction with all the\nsimplicity and circumstantial detail of those who write authentic\nhistory as eye-witnesses. But, unless the design be to class the books\nof Samuel with \"Gulliver's Travels\" and \"Robinson Crusoe,\" the argument\nis wholly irrelevant. With Swift and Defoe simplicity and minuteness of\ndetail were a matter of conscious effort--_a work of art_, for which\nthey naturally chose the region of fiction; and here they, and other men\nof genius, have been eminently successful. Shakespeare has portrayed\n_ideal_ scenes in the life of Julius Caesar with more vividness and\ncircumstantiality than any authentic historian of Caesar's age. But _real\nhistory_, written simply in the interest of truth, never has the graphic\ncharacter, artless simplicity, and circumstantiality of detail which\nbelong to these inimitable narratives, unless the writer be either an\neye-witness, or draw his materials from eye-witnesses.\n\n7. We come next to the books of Kings and Chronicles, the writers of\nwhich confessedly employed previously existing materials. In the two\nbooks of Kings (which, like the two of Samuel and of Chronicles,\noriginally constituted one work) reference is made to the following\nsources: For the reign of Solomon, \"the book of the acts of Solomon\" (1\nKings 11:41); for the kingdom of Judah after the revolt of the twelve\ntribes from Rehoboam to Jehoiakim, \"the book of the chronicles of the\nkings of Judah;\" for the kingdom of Israel, \"the book of the chronicles\nof the kings of Israel.\" In the books of Chronicles we have: For the\nreign of David, \"the book\" (history) \"of Samuel the seer, the book of\nNathan the prophet, and the book of Gad the seer\" (1 Chron. 29:29); for\nthe reign of Solomon, \"the book of Nathan the prophet, the prophecy of\nAhijah the Shilonite,\" and \"the vision of Iddo the seer against Jeroboam\nthe son of Nebat\" (2 Chron. 9:29); for the reign of Rehoboam, \"the book\nof Shemaiah the prophet,\" and \"of Iddo the seer concerning genealogies,\"\nthat is, in the manner of a genealogical record (2 Chron. 12:15); for\nthe reign of Abijah, \"the story\" (commentary) \"of the prophet Iddo\" (2\nChron. 13:22); for the reign of Jehoshaphat, \"the book of Jehu the son\nof Hanani,\" who is mentioned (rather, _who is inserted_, i.e., as an\nauthor) in the book of the kings of Israel (2 Chron. 20:34); for the\nreign of Uzziah, \"the prophet Isaiah\" (2 Chron. 26:22); for the reign of\nHezekiah in part, \"the vision of Isaiah the prophet\" (2 Chron. 32:32);\nfor the reign of Manasseh in part, \"the sayings of the seers,\" or, as\nmany prefer to render, \"the words of Hosai\" (2 Chron. 33:18). Besides\nthe above, reference is made to \"the book of the kings of Judah and\nIsrael,\" \"the book of the kings of Israel and Judah,\" \"the story of the\nbook of the kings;\" \"the book of the kings of Israel.\" These last are\nprobably only different titles of the same collection of annals,\nembracing in its contents the history of _both_ kingdoms; since the\nreferences to the book of the kings of Israel are for the affairs of the\nkingdom of Judah (2 Chron. 20:34; 33:18).\n\n8. With regard to the above _original sources_, it should be carefully\nnoticed that the references in the books of Kings are not to our present\nbooks of Chronicles, which did not exist when the books of Kings were\nwritten. Chap. 20, No. 21. Neither can the allusions in the books of\nChronicles be restricted to our present books of Kings; for (1) they\nrefer to matters not recorded in those books--for example, to the wars\nof Jotham, 2 Chron. 27:7; (2) they refer to the book of the kings of\nJudah and Israel for a _full_ account of the acts of a given monarch\n\"first and last,\" while the history of the same monarch in our present\nbooks of Kings refers for _further_ information to the book of the\nChronicles of the kings of Judah. It is plain that both writers had\naccess to a _larger collection of original documents_, which were in\ngreat part the same. The chief difference in outward form is that, when\nthe books of Chronicles were written, the annals of the two kingdoms of\nJudah and Israel seem to have constituted a single collection, whereas\nin the books of Kings they are always mentioned as two separate works.\nIn making his selections from these annals, each writer proceeded\nindependently. Hence the remarkable agreements, where both used the same\nmaterials; and the remarkable differences, where one employed documents,\nor parts of documents, which the other omitted to use.\n\n9. As to the _character_ of these original documents, it is plain that a\nportion of them were written by prophets. By some the books of the kings\nof Israel and Judah so often referred to, have been regarded as simply\nthe public annals of the two kingdoms written by the official annalists,\nthe \"scribes\" or \"recorders\" so often spoken of. No doubt such annals\nexisted, and entered largely into the documents in question. But the\nright interpretation of 2 Chron. 20:34, shows that, in some cases at\nleast, the writings of prophets were incorporated into these annals. The\nextended history of Elijah and Elisha cannot have been the work of the\npublic scribes of the kingdom of Israel, but of prophets, writing from\nthe prophetic point of view. The question, however, is not one of\npractical importance, since, whatever may have been the source or\ncharacter of the materials employed, the writers of the books now under\nconsideration, used them at their discretion under the guidance of the\nSpirit of God. To us, therefore, they come with the weight of prophetic\nauthority. The further consideration of the relation between the books\nof Kings and Chronicles is reserved for the special introductions to\nthese books. It may be added here that the probable date of the former\nis the first half of the Babylonish captivity; of the latter, the time\nof Ezra under the Persian rule.\n\n10. The books of Ezra and Nehemiah constitute a continuation of the\nbooks of Chronicles, and need not be particularly noticed in the present\nconnection. For their authorship and date, as also for the book of\nEsther, see the particular introductions to these books.\n\n\nIII. THE PROPHETICAL BOOKS.\n\n11. Under the _prophetical books_, in the stricter sense of the word,\nmay be included the three Greater prophets--Isaiah, Jeremiah, and\nEzekiel--Daniel (though largely historical), and the twelve Minor\nprophets. These will all come up hereafter for separate consideration.\nAt present we view them simply with reference to the growth of the Old\nTestament Canon. From the settlement of the Israelities in the land of\nCanaan to the time of Samuel, a period of several centuries (according\nto the chronology followed by the apostle Paul, Acts 13:20, four hundred\nand fifty years), we read of several appearances of the \"angel of the\nLord.\" Judges 2:1; 6:11; 13:3. The notices of prophets during the same\nperiod are only three in number. Judges 4:4; 6:8; 1 Sam. 2:27. But with\nSamuel began a new era. He was himself one of the greatest of the\nprophets, and he established a school of the prophets over which he\nhimself presided. 1 Sam. 10:5, 10; 19:20. From his day onward such\nschools seem to have flourished as a theocratic institution throughout\nthe whole period of the kings, though more vigorously at certain times.\n1 Kings 18:4; 20:35; 2 Kings 2:3, 5; 4:1, 38, 43; 5:22; 6:1; 9:1. So far\nas we have notices of these schools, they were under the instruction of\neminent prophets; and \"the sons of the prophets\" assembled in them\nreceived such a training as fitted them, so far as human instrumentality\nis concerned, for the exercise of the prophetical office, as well as for\nbeing, in a more general sense, the religious instructors of the people.\nFrom these schools came, apparently, most of those whom God called to be\nhis messengers to the rulers and people, though with exceptions\naccording to his sovereign wisdom. Amos 1:1; 7:14. We find, accordingly,\nthat from the days of Samuel and onward the prophets were recognized as\na _distinct order of men_ in the Jewish theocracy, who derived their\nauthority immediately from God, and spoke by direct inspiration of his\nSpirit, as they themselves indicate by the standing formula: \"Thus saith\nthe Lord.\"\n\n12. It is a remarkable fact, however, that from Samuel to about the\nreign of Uzziah, a period of some three centuries, we have no _books of\nprophecy_ written by these men, if we except, perhaps, the book of\nJonah. Their writings seem to have been mainly historical (like the\nhistorical notices incorporated into the books of Isaiah, Jeremiah,\nEzekiel, and Daniel); and what remains to us of them is preserved in the\nhistorical books of the Old Testament. See above, Nos. 6 and 7. But\nabout the time of Uzziah begins a new era, that of _written_ prophecy.\nDuring his reign appeared Hosea, Amos, Isaiah, and probably Jonah, Joel,\nand Obadiah. Micah followed immediately afterwards, being contemporary\nin part with Isaiah; and then, in succession, the rest of the prophets\nwhose writings have come down to us. When the theocracy was now on its\ndecline, waxing old and destined to pass away for ever, they felt\nthemselves called to _put on record_, for the instruction of all coming\nages, their words of warning and encouragement. Thus arose gradually our\npresent collection of prophetical books; that of Lamentations included,\nwhich is but an appendix to the writings of Jeremiah.\n\n\nIV. THE POETICAL BOOKS.\n\n13. These are a precious outgrowth of the theocratic spirit, in which\nthe elements of _meditation and reflection_ predominate. Concerning the\ndate and authorship of the book of Job, which stands first in order in\nour arrangement, we have no certain information. Learned men vary\nbetween the ante-Mosaic age and that of Solomon. Its theme is divine\nprovidence, as viewed from the position of the Old Testament. See\nfurther in the introduction to this book.\n\n14. With the call of David to the throne of Israel began a new and\nglorious era in the history of public worship, that of \"the service of\nsong in the house of the Lord.\" 1 Chron. 6:31. As when Moses smote the\nrock in the wilderness the water gushed forth in refreshing streams, so\nthe soul of David, touched by the spirit of inspiration, poured forth a\nrich and copious flood of divine song, which has in all ages refreshed\nand strengthened God's people in their journey heavenward \"through this\ndark vale of tears.\" Nor was the fountain of sacred poetry confined to\nhim alone. God opened it also in the souls of such men as Asaph, Ethan,\nHeman, and the sons of Korah; nor did its flow wholly cease till after\nthe captivity. The Psalms of David and his coadjutors were from the\nfirst dedicated to the service of the sanctuary; and thus arose our\ncanonical book of Psalms, although (as will be hereafter shown) it did\nnot receive its present form and arrangement till the time of Ezra and\nNehemiah.\n\n15. After David came Solomon in the sphere of practical wisdom. This,\naccording to the divine record, he received as a special endowment from\nGod, though doubtless he had in a peculiar measure a natural capacity\nfor such an endowment. In Gibeon the Lord appeared to him in a dream by\nnight, and said: \"Ask what I shall give thee.\" Passing by wealth, long\nlife, and the death of his enemies, the youthful monarch besought God to\ngive him \"an understanding heart,\" that he might be qualified to judge\nthe great people committed to his care. The answer was: \"Behold, I have\ndone according to thy word: lo, I have given thee a wise and an\nunderstanding heart; so that there was none like thee before thee,\nneither after thee shall any arise like unto thee.\" 1 Kings 3:5-12. Thus\ndivinely qualified, he embodied, in a vast collection of proverbs, his\nobservations on human life, and the course of human affairs. Our\ncanonical book of Proverbs is a selection from these, with some\nadditions at the end from other sources. For notices respecting the\narrangement of these proverbs in their present form, as well as\nrespecting the books of Ecclesiastes and Canticles, which are also\nascribed to Solomon, the reader may consult the introductions to these\nbooks.\n\n\nV. THE COMPLETION OF THE CANON.\n\nThe subject thus far before us has been _the growth of the materials_\nwhich constitute our canonical books. The question of their preservation\nand final embodiment in their present form remains to be considered.\n\n16. Respecting the _preservation_ of the sacred books till the time of\nEzra and Nehemiah, our information is very scanty. Each king was\nrequired to have at hand for his own personal use a transcript of the\nlaw of Moses (Deut. 17:18), the original writing being carefully laid up\nin the inner sanctuary, where Hilkiah, the high priest, found it in the\nreign of Josiah. 2 Kings 22:8. We cannot doubt that such kings as David,\nSolomon, Asa, and Hezekiah complied with this law: though after the\ndisorders connected with the reign of Manasseh and his captivity, the\ngood king Josiah neglected it. Jehoshaphat, we are expressly told, sent\nmen to teach in the cities of Judah, who had \"the book of the law of the\nLord with them, and went about throughout all the cities of Judah, and\ntaught the people.\" 2 Chron. 17:7-9. Of course it was a copy, and not\nthe original autograph, which might not be removed from the sanctuary.\nIt is a natural supposition that other transcripts of the law were made\nunder the direction of the high priest, for the use of pious men,\nespecially pious prophets, princes, and Levites, who needed its\ndirections for the right discharge of their official duties, though on\nthis point we can affirm nothing positively. As to the prophetical\nbooks, we know that Jeremiah had access to the writings of Isaiah, for\nin repeated instances he borrowed his language. We know again that\nDaniel had at hand the prophecies of Jeremiah; for he understood \"by\nbooks\" (literally \"by the books,\" which may be well understood to mean\nthat collection of sacred books of which the prophecies of Jeremiah\nformed a part) \"the number of the years whereof the word of the Lord\ncame to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in\nthe desolations of Jerusalem.\" Dan. 9:2. The consecration of the Psalms\nof David and his coadjutors to the public service of the sanctuary must\nhave insured their careful preservation by the Levites who had charge of\nthe temple music; and, in general, the deep reverence of the Jews for\ntheir sacred writings is to us a reasonable evidence that they preserved\nthem from loss and mutilation to the captivity, and through that\ncalamitous period.\n\n17. To Ezra and his coadjutors, the men of the Great Synagogue, the Jews\nascribe the _completion of the canon_ of the Old Testament. Their\ntraditions concerning him are embellished with extravagant fictions; yet\nwe cannot reasonably deny that they are underlaid by a basis of truth.\nAll the scriptural notices of Ezra attest both his zeal and his ability\nas \"a scribe of the words of the commandments of the Lord, and of his\nstatutes to Israel,\" a man who \"had prepared his heart to seek the law\nof the Lord, and to do it, and to teach in Israel statutes and\njudgments.\" Ezra 7:10, 11. The work in which he and his associates were\nengaged was the reestablishment of the Theocracy on its old foundation,\nthe law of Moses, with the ordinances pertaining to the\nsanctuary-service afterwards added by David; and that too in the vivid\nconsciousness of the fact that disobedience to the divine law had\nbrought upon the nation the calamities of the captivity. In such\ncircumstances their first solicitude must have been that the people\nmight have the inspired oracles given to their fathers, and be\nthoroughly instructed in them. The work, therefore, which Jewish\ntradition ascribes to Ezra and the men of the Great Synagogue was\naltogether appropriate to their situation, nor do we know of any man or\nbody of men afterwards so well qualified for its performance, or upon\nwhom it would so naturally have devolved.\n\nThat they arranged the inspired volume in substantially its present\nform, we have no good reason for doubting. But we should not, perhaps,\nbe warranted in saying that they brought the canon of the Old Testament\nabsolutely and formally to a close. Josephus (against Apion 1. 8)\naffirms that no book belongs to the sacred writings of his nation \"which\nare justly believed to be divine,\" that had its origin after the reign\nof Artaxerxes, Xerxes' son (Artaxerxes Longimanus, under whom Ezra led\nforth his colony, Ezra, chap. 7); and that on the ground that from this\ntime onward \"the exact succession of the prophets\" was wanting. This\ndeclaration of the Jewish historian is in all essential respects worthy\nof full credence. We cannot, however, affirm with confidence that all\nthe later historical books were put by Ezra and his contemporaries into\nthe exact form in which we now have them. The book of Nehemiah, for\nexample, contains some genealogical notices (chap. 12:11, 22) which,\naccording to any fair interpretation, are of a later date. We are at\nliberty to suppose that these were afterwards added officially and in\ngood faith, as matters of public interest; or, as some think, that the\nbook itself is an arrangement by a later hand of writings left by\nNehemiah, perhaps also by Ezra; so that while its contents belong, in\nevery essential respect, to them, it received its present form after\ntheir death. Respecting the question when the canon of the Old Testament\nreceived its finishing stroke, a question which the wisdom of God has\nleft in obscurity, we must speak with diffidence. We know with certainty\nthat our present Hebrew canon is identical with that collection of\nsacred writings to which our Saviour and his apostles constantly\nappealed as invested throughout with divine authority, and this is a\nfirm basis for our faith.\n\n    The attempt has been made, but without success, to show that a\n    portion of the Psalms belongs to the Maccabean age. The words of\n    the Psalmist (Psa. 74:8) rendered in our version: \"They have\n    burned up all the synagogues of God in the land,\" have no\n    reference to the synagogues of a later age, as is now generally\n    admitted. The Hebrew word denotes _places of assembly_, and was\n    never applied by the later Jews to their synagogues. The\n    Psalmist wrote, moreover, in immediate connection with the\n    burning of the temple--\"they have cast fire into thy sanctuary,\n    they have defiled by casting down the dwelling-place of thy name\n    to the ground\"--and this fixes the date of the Psalm to the\n    Chaldean invasion (2 Kings 25:9); for the temple was not burned,\n    but only profaned, in the days of the Maccabees. By \"the\n    assemblies of God,\" we are probably to understand the ancient\n    sacred places, such as Ramah, Bethel, and Gilgal, where the\n    people were accustomed to meet, though in a somewhat irregular\n    way, for the worship of God. But whether this interpretation be\n    correct or not, the words have no reference to the buildings of\n    a later age called synagogues.\n\n    Some of the apocryphal writings, as, for example, the book of\n    Wisdom, the book of Ecclesiasticus, the first book of Maccabees,\n    were highly valued by the ancient Jews. But they were never\n    received into the Hebrew canon, because their authors lived\n    _after_ \"the exact succession of the prophets,\" which ended with\n    Malachi. They knew how to make the just distinction between\n    books of human wisdom and books written \"by inspiration of God.\"\n\n18. The earliest notice of the _contents of the Hebrew Canon_ is that\ncontained in the prologue to the Greek translation of Ecclesiasticus,\nwhere it is described as \"the law, the prophets, and the other national\nbooks,\" \"the law, and the prophecies, and the rest of the books,\"\naccording to the three-fold division already considered. Chap. 18, No.\n4. Josephus, in the passage already referred to (against Apion, 1. 8),\nsays: \"We have not among us innumerable books discordant and contrary to\neach other, but only two-and-twenty, containing the history of all time,\nwhich are justly believed to be divine. And of these five belong to\nMoses, which contain the laws and the transmission of human genealogy to\nthe time of his death. This period of time wants but little of three\nthousand years\" (the longer chronology followed by him). \"But from the\ndeath of Moses to the reign of Artaxerxes, who was king of the Persians\nafter Xerxes, the prophets after Moses wrote the history of their times\nin thirteen books. The remaining four contain hymns to God and precepts\nfor human life. From Artaxerxes to our time various books have been\nwritten; but they have not been esteemed worthy of credence like that\ngiven to the books before them, because the exact succession of the\nprophets has been wanting.\" In this list the books of the Old Testament\nare artificially arranged to agree with the number _two-and-twenty_,\nthat of the Hebrew alphabet. The four that contain \"hymns to God and\nprecepts for human life\" are, in all probability: Psalms, Proverbs,\nEcclesiastes, Canticles; and the thirteen prophetical books (see below)\nare: (1) Joshua, (2) Judges and Ruth, (3) the two books of Samuel, (4)\nthe two books of Kings, (5) the two books of Chronicles, (6) Ezra and\nNehemiah, (7) Esther, (8) Isaiah, (9) Jeremiah and Lamentations, (10)\nEzekiel, (11) Daniel, (12) the book of the twelve Minor Prophets, (13)\nJob. See Oehler in Hertzog's Encyclopaedia, Art. Canon of the Old\nTestament. Origen, as quoted by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. 6.25), and Jerome\n(both of whom drew their information concerning the Hebrew Canon\nimmediately from Jewish scholars, and may, therefore, be regarded as in\na certain sense the expositors of the above list of Josephus) make\nmention of the same number, twenty-two. Origen's list unites Ruth with\nJudges, puts together the first and second of Samuel, the first and\nsecond of Kings, the first and second of Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah\n(under the names of the first and second of Ezra), and Jeremiah and\nLamentations (with the addition of the apocryphal Epistle of\nJeremiah--an inconsistency, or rather oversight, to be explained from\nhis constant habit of using the Septuagint version). In the present text\nof Eusebius, the book of the twelve Minor Prophets is wanting. But this\nis simply an old error of the scribe, since it is necessary to complete\nthe number of twenty-two. Jerome's list (Prologus galeatus) is the same,\nonly that he gives the contents of the Law, the Prophets, and the\nHagiographa in accordance with the Hebrew arrangement, placing Daniel in\nthe last class, and adding that whatever is without the number of these\nmust be placed among the Apocryphal writings. Smith's Dict. of the\nBible, Art. Canon. The catalogue of these two distinguished Christian\nscholars--Origen of the Eastern church, and Jerome of the Western, both\nof whom drew their information immediately from Hebrew scholars--is\ndecisive, and we need add nothing further.\n\n19. The _Apocryphal books_ of the Old Testament were incorporated into\nthe Alexandrine version called the Septuagint; but they were never\nreceived by the Jews of Palestine as a part of the sacred volume.\nConcerning them and their history, see further in the Appendix to this\npart.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVI.\n\nANCIENT VERSIONS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.\n\n\nIn the present chapter only those versions of the Old Testament are\nnoticed which were made independently of the New. Versions of the whole\nBible, made in the interest of Christianity, are considered in the\nfollowing part.\n\n\nI. THE GREEK VERSION CALLED THE SEPTUAGINT.\n\n1. This is worthy of special notice as the oldest existing version of\nthe holy Scriptures, or any part of them, in any language; and also as\nthe version which exerted a very large influence on the language and\nstyle of the New Testament; for it was extensively used in our Lord's\nday not only in Egypt, where it originated, and in the Roman provinces\ngenerally, but also in Palestine; and the quotations in the New\nTestament are made more commonly from it than from the Hebrew.\n\n2. The Jewish account of its origin, first noticed briefly by\nAristobulus, a Jew (as quoted by Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius),\nthen given at great length in a letter which professes to have been\nwritten by one Aristeas, a heathen and a special friend of Ptolemy\nPhiladelphus, king of Egypt, and the main part of which Josephus has\ncopied (Antiq. 12. 2), is for substance as follows: Ptolemy Philadelphus\n(who reigned from B.C. 285 to 247), at the suggestion of his librarian\nDemetrius Phalereus, after having first liberated all the Jewish\ncaptives found in his kingdom, sent an embassy with costly gifts to\nEleazar the high priest at Jerusalem, requesting that he would send him\nchosen men, six from each of the twelve tribes, with a copy of the\nJewish law, that it might be interpreted from the Hebrew into the Greek\nand laid up in the royal library at Alexandria. Eleazar accordingly sent\nthe seventy-two elders with a copy of the laws written on parchments in\nletters of gold, who were received by the king with high honors,\nsumptuously feasted, and afterwards lodged in a palace on an island\n(apparently Pharos in the harbor of Alexandria), where they completed\ntheir work in seventy-two days, and were then sent home with munificent\ngifts. The story that they were shut up in seventy-two separate cells\n(according to another legend two by two in thirty-six cells), where they\nhad no communication with each other and yet produced as many versions\nagreeing with each other word for word, was a later embellishment\ndesigned (as indeed were all the legends respecting the origin of this\nversion) to exalt its character in the apprehension of the people, and\nto gain for it an authority equal to that of the inspired original.\n\n3. The letter ascribed to Aristeas is now generally admitted to be\nspurious. It purports to have been written by a heathen scholar, yet it\nbears throughout marks of a Jewish origin. It represents the translators\nas Jewish elders sent by the high priest from Jerusalem. Yet the version\nis acknowledged to be in the Alexandrine Greek dialect. For these and\nother reasons learned men ascribe its authorship to a Jew whose object\nwas to exalt the merits of the Alexandrine version in the estimation of\nhis nation. But we are not, for this reason, warranted to pronounce the\nwhole account a pure fable, as many have done. We may well believe that\nthe work was executed under the auspices of Ptolemy, and for the purpose\nof enriching his library. But we must believe that it was executed by\nJews born in Egypt to whom the Greek language was vernacular, and\nprobably from manuscripts of Egyptian origin. Thus much is manifest from\nthe face of the version, that it was made by different men, and with\ndifferent degrees of ability and fidelity.\n\n    The name _Septuagint_ (Latin, _Septuaginta_), _seventy_, a round\n    number for the more exact _seventy-two_, probably arose from\n    this tradition of the execution of the work by seventy-two\n    elders in seventy-two days. The story of the parchments sent\n    from Jerusalem for the use of the translators (with the request\n    that they might be returned with them) has been rejected on the\n    ground that the text used by them differs too widely from the\n    Palestinian text. See further on this subject in No. 5, below.\n    It has been further affirmed that Demetrius Phalereus did not\n    belong to the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, but to that of his\n    father Ptolemy Soter, the son having banished him from court in\n    the beginning of his reign. For this reason some have proposed\n    to assign the founding of the Alexandrian library to the father\n    and not the son. But whatever be our judgment in respect to\n    Demetrius and his relation to the two Ptolemies, the voice of\n    history is decisive in favor of the son and not the father, as\n    the patron of learning.\n\n4. It has been a question whether the Hebrew Scriptures were translated\nat one time, or in successive portions. The tradition above considered\nspeaks only of _the law_, or, in the plural, _the laws_. These might,\nperhaps, be understood as comprehensive terms for the whole Old\nTestament, but they probably mean the Pentateuch alone, in which both\nthe Egyptian king and the Jews of his realm would feel a special\ninterest. It is probable that the Pentateuch--the _Law_ in the proper\nsense of the term--was first translated, and afterwards the remaining\nbooks. But how long a period of time was thus occupied cannot be\ndetermined. Respecting the incorporation into this version of the\napocryphal book, see in the appendix to this Part, No. 2.\n\n    When the translator of the Wisdom of Jesus, son of Sirach\n    (Ecclesiasticus), says in his prologue, in immediate connection\n    with his residence and labors in Egypt, that \"the law itself and\n    the prophets, and the rest of the books have no small difference\n    [as to force] when read in their own tongue,\" he plainly refers\n    to the Septuagint version as complete in his day. He visited\n    Egypt \"under Euergetes.\" But to which of the two monarchs who\n    bore that title he refers is uncertain. If to the former, it was\n    between 246-221 B.C.; if to the latter, between 145-116 B.C.\n\n5. The version varies so much in its different parts that it is not easy\nto give its character as a whole. It is agreed among biblical scholars\nthat the translators of the Pentateuch excelled in ability and fidelity,\naccording to the well-known judgment of Jerome--\"which [the books of\nMoses] we also acknowledge to agree more than the others with the\nHebrew.\" Among the historical books the translations of Samuel and Kings\nare the most faulty. Those of the prophets are in general poor,\nespecially that of Isaiah. That of Daniel was so faulty that the\nChristians in later times substituted for it the translation of\nTheodotion. See below, No. 10. Among the poetical books that of Proverbs\nis the best. As a whole the Septuagint version cannot for a moment enter\ninto competition with the Hebrew original. Yet, as the most ancient of\nversions and one which also represents a text much older than the\nMasoretic, its use is indispensable to every scholar who would study the\nOld Testament in the original language.\n\n6. Independently of its critical value, the Septuagint must be regarded\nwith deep interest from its close connection with the New Testament. In\nthe days of Christ and his apostles it was known and read throughout the\nwhole Roman empire by the Hellenists; that is, by those Jews and Jewish\nproselytes who had the Greek civilization and spoke the Greek language.\nAs the Alexandrine Greek, in which this version was made, was itself\npervaded throughout with the Hebrew spirit, and to a great extent also\nwith Hebrew idioms and forms of thought, so was the language of the New\nTestament, in turn, moulded and shaped by the dialect of the Septuagint,\nnor can the former be successfully studied except in connection with the\nlatter. Then again the greatest number of quotations in the New\nTestament from the Old is made from the Septuagint. According to Mr.\nGreenfield (quoted in Smith's Bible Dict., art. Septuagint) \"the number\nof direct quotations from the Old Testament in the Gospels, Acts, and\nEpistles, may be estimated at three hundred and fifty, of which not more\nthan fifty materially differ from the seventy. But the indirect verbal\nallusions would swell the number to a far greater amount.\" The\ndiscussion of the principles upon which the writers of the New Testament\nquote from the Old belongs to another part of this work. It may be\nbriefly remarked here that they quote in a free spirit, not in that of\nservile adherence to the letter, aiming to give the substance of the\nsacred writers' thoughts, rather than an exactly literal rendering of\nthe original word for word.\n\n    The prophecy of Isaiah, for example (6:9, 10), is six times\n    quoted in the New Testament, wholly or in part, with very free\n    variations of language. Matt. 13:14, 15; Mark 4:12; Luke 8:10;\n    John 12:40; Acts 28: 26, 27; Rom. 11:8. From neither of these\n    quotations, nor from all of them combined, could we draw a\n    _critical_ argument respecting either the Hebrew or Greek text\n    of the passage quoted. Neither can we argue from the exact\n    agreement of a quotation in the New Testament with the\n    Septuagint where that differs from the Hebrew, that the Hebrew\n    text has been corrupted. The New Testament writers are occupied\n    with the spirit of the passages to which they refer, rather than\n    with the letter.\n\n7. The Hebrew _text_ from which the Septuagint version was executed was\nunpointed and much older than the Masoretic text. Were the version more\nliteral and faithful, and had its text come down to us in a purer form\n(see below, Chap. 17, No. 2), it would be of great service in settling\nthe exact text of the original Hebrew. With its present character, and\nin the present condition of its text, it is of but comparatively small\nvalue in this respect. Yet its striking agreement with the text of the\nSamaritan Pentateuch (Ch. 13, No. 8) is a phenomenon worthy of special\nnotice. Biblical scholars affirm that the two agree in more than a\nthousand places where they differ from the Hebrew. For the probable\nexplanation of this see above, Ch. 14, No. 9.\n\n    The reader must be on his guard against the error of supposing\n    that these more than a thousand variations from the Hebrew text\n    are of such a nature as to affect seriously the system of\n    doctrines and duties taught in the Pentateuch. They are rather\n    of a critical and grammatical character, changes which leave the\n    substance of revelation untouched. See on this point Ch. 3.\n    There is one striking agreement between the Samaritan text and\n    that of the Septuagint in which many biblical scholars think\n    that the true ancient reading has been preserved. It is that of\n    Gen. 4:8: \"And Cain said to Abel his brother, Let us go out into\n    the field. And it came to pass when they were in the field.\"\n    etc.\n\n\nII. OTHER GREEK VERSIONS.\n\n8. In the beginning of Christianity the Septuagint enjoyed, as we have\nseen, a high reputation among the Jews; and as a natural consequence,\namong the Jewish converts also, as well as the Gentile Christians. To\nthe great body of Gentile believers it was for the Old Testament the\nonly source of knowledge, as they were ignorant of the Hebrew original.\nThey studied it diligently, and used it efficiently against the\nunbelieving Jews. Hence there naturally arose in the minds of the latter\na feeling of opposition to this version which became very bitter. They\nbegan to disparage its authority, and to accuse it of misrepresenting\nthe Hebrew. The next step was to oppose to it another version made by\n_Aquila_, which was soon followed by two others, those of _Theodotion_\nand _Symmachus_.\n\n9. _Aquila_ is represented to have been a Jewish proselyte of Pontus,\nand to have lived in the second century. His version was slavishly\nliteral, following the Hebrew idiom even where it is contrary to that of\nthe Greek. For this very reason, not withstanding all the barbarisms\nthus introduced, the Jews highly valued it, calling it _the Hebrew\nverity_. All that remains of it to us is contained in the fragments of\nOrigen's Hexapla. See below, No. 12. Had we the whole work, its\nextremely literal character would give it great value in a critical\npoint of view, as it would shed much light on the state of the Hebrew\ntext when it was executed.\n\n10. _Theodotion_ was, according to Irenaeus, an Ephesian. Jerome calls\nhim and Symmachus Ebionites, Judaizing heretics, and semi-Christians. He\nis supposed to have made his version in the last half of the second\ncentury. According to the testimony of the ancients, it had a close\nresemblance in character to the Septuagint. He seems to have had this\nversion before him, and to have made a free use of it. Of the three\nlater versions, that of Theodotion was most esteemed by the Christians,\nand they substituted his translation of the book of Daniel for that of\nthe Seventy.\n\n11. _Symmachus_, called by the church fathers an Ebionite, but by some a\nSamaritan, seems to have flourished not far from the close of the second\ncentury. His version was free, aiming to give the sense rather than the\nwords. His idiom was Hellenistic, and in this respect resembled the\nSeptuagint, from the author's familiarity with which, indeed, it\nprobably took its complexion.\n\nOf other ancient Greek versions discovered by Origen in his Eastern\ntravels and made by unknown authors it is not necessary to speak.\n\n12. The text of the Septuagint was never preserved so carefully as that\nof the Hebrew, and in the days of Origen it had fallen into great\nconfusion. To meet the objections of the Jews, as well as to help\nbelievers in their study of the Old Testament, Origen undertook first\nthe work called the _Tetrapla_ (Greek, _fourfold_), which was followed\nby the _Hexapla_ (Greek, _sixfold_). To prepare himself he spent\ntwenty-eight years, travelling extensively and collecting materials. In\nthe Tetrapla, the text of the Septuagint (corrected by manuscripts of\nitself), and those of Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus were arranged\nside by side in _four_ parallel columns. In the Hexapla there were _six_\ncolumns--(1) the Hebrew in Hebrew characters; (2) the Hebrew expressed\nin Greek letters; (3) Aquila; (4) Symmachus; (5) the Septuagint; (6)\nTheodotion. See Davidson's Bib. Crit., 1, p. 203; Smith's Bib. Diet., 2,\np. 1202. In some books he used two other Greek versions, and\noccasionally even a third, giving in the first case _eight_, in the\nsecond, _nine_ columns.\n\n    \"The great work,\" says Davidson, \"consisting of nearly fifty\n    volumes; on which he had spent the best years of his life, does\n    not seem to have been transcribed--probably in consequence of\n    its magnitude and the great expense necessarily attending a\n    transcript. It lay unused as a whole fifty years after it was\n    finished, till Eusebius and Pamphilus drew it forth from its\n    concealment in Tyre, and placed it in the library of the latter\n    in Caesarea. It is thought to have perished there when Caesarea\n    was taken and plundered by the Saracens, A.D. 653.\" Bib.\n    Criticism, 1, p. 206. Well did Origen merit by his vast\n    researches and labors the epithet _Adamantinus_ [_Adamantine_]\n    bestowed on him by the ancients. Fragments of the Hexapla,\n    consisting of extracts made from it by the ancients, have been\n    collected and published in two folio volumes by Montfaucon,\n    Paris, 1713, and reprinted by Bahrdt in two volumes octavo,\n    Leipzig and Lubeck, 1769, 1770. It is the hope of biblical\n    scholars that these may be enriched from the Nitrian\n    manuscripts. See further, Chap. 28, No. 8.\n\nFor the four \"Standard Text Editions\" of the Septuagint Greek version,\nwith the principal editions founded on them, the reader may consult the\nBibliographical List appended to the fourth volume of Home's\nIntroduction, edition of 1860.\n\n\nIII. THE CHALDEE TARGUMS.\n\n13. The Chaldee word _Targum_ means _interpretation_, and is applied to\nthe translations or paraphrases of the Old Testament in the Chaldee\nlanguage. When, after the captivity, the Chaldee had supplanted the\nHebrew as the language of common life, it was natural that the Jews\nshould desire to have their sacred writings in the language which was to\nthem vernacular. Thus we account, in a natural way, for the origin of\nthese Targums, of which there is a considerable number now extant\ndiffering widely in age as well as character. No one of them extends to\nthe whole Old Testament.\n\n    The question has been raised whether the Targums have for their\n    authors single individuals, or are the embodiment of traditional\n    interpretations collected and revised by one or more persons.\n    Many biblical scholars of the present day incline strongly to\n    the latter view, which is not in itself improbable. But the\n    decision of the question, in the case of each Targum, rests not\n    on theory, but on the character of its contents, as ascertained\n    by careful examination.\n\n14. The first place in worth, and probably in time also, belongs to the\n_Targum on the Pentateuch_ which bears the name of _Onkelos_. It is a\nliteral and, upon the whole, an able and faithful version (not\nparaphrase) of the Hebrew text, written in good Aramaean, and approaching\nin style to the Chaldee parts of Daniel and Ezra. In those passages\nwhich describe God in language borrowed from human attributes\n(_anthropomorphic_, _describing God in human forms_, as having eyes,\nhands, etc.; _anthropopathic_, _ascribing to God human affections_, as\nrepenting, grieving, etc.), the author is inclined to use paraphrases;\nthus: \"And Jehovah smelled a sweet savor\" (Gen. 8:21) becomes in this\nTargum: \"And Jehovah received the sacrifice with favor;\" and \"Jehovah\nwent down to see\" (Gen. 11:5), \"Jehovah revealed himself.\" So also\nstrong expressions discreditable to the ancient patriarchs are softened,\nas: \"Rachel _took_\" instead of \"Rachel _stole_.\" Gen. 31:19. In the\npoetical passages, moreover, the Targum allows itself more liberty, and\nis consequently less satisfactory.\n\n    According to a Jewish tradition, Onkelos was a proselyte and\n    nephew of the emperor Titus, so that he must have flourished\n    about the time of the destruction of the second temple. But all\n    the notices we have of his person are very uncertain. There is\n    even ground for the suspicion that the above tradition\n    respecting _Onkelos_ relates, by a confusion of persons, to\n    _Aquila_ (Chaldee _Akilas_), the author of the Greek version\n    already considered. In this case the real author of the Targum\n    is unknown, and we can only say that it should not probably be\n    assigned to a later date than the close of the second century.\n\n15. Next in age and value is the _Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzziel_ on the\n_Prophets_; that is, according to the Jewish classification (Chap. 13,\nNo. 4), Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and\nthe twelve Minor Prophets. In the historical books, this Targum is in\nthe main literal; but in the prophets (in the stricter sense of the\nterm) paraphrastic and allegorical.\n\n    The Jewish tradition represents that Jonathan wrote the\n    paraphrase of the prophets from the mouth of Haggai, Zechariah,\n    and Malachi; a mere fable. Who was the real author cannot be\n    determined with certainty, only that he lived after the\n    so-called Onkelos.\n\n16. There are two other Targums on the Pentateuch, one of them commonly\nknown as the _Targum of the Pseudo-Jonathan_ (because falsely ascribed\nto the author of the preceding Targum) and the _Jerusalem Targum_. The\nlatter is of a fragmentary character; and its agreement with the\ncorresponding passages of the former is so remarkable that it is\ngenerally considered as consisting of extracts taken from it with free\nvariations. But according to Davidson (in Alexander's Kitto): \"The\nJerusalem Targum formed the basis of that of Jonathan; and its own basis\nwas that of Onkelos. Jonathan used both his predecessors' paraphrases;\nthe author of the Jerusalem Targum that of Onkelos alone.\" The style of\nPseudo-Jonathan is barbarous, abounding in foreign words, with the\nintroduction of many legends, fables, and ideas of a later age. He is\nassigned to the seventh century. Keil, Introduc. to Old Testament, Sec.\n189.\n\n17. The Targums on the Hagiographa are all of late date. There is one on\n_Psalms_, _Job_, and _Proverbs_, the last tolerably accurate and free\nfrom legendary and paraphrastic additions; one on the _five\nrolls_--Ruth, Esther, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Canticles; which is\nnot a translation, but rather a commentary in the Talmudic style; two on\n_Esther_, one on _Chronicles_.\n\nIn the present connection, though not belonging properly to the Targums,\nmay be named the _Samaritan version of the Samaritan Pentateuch_,\nprinted with the originals in the Paris and London Polyglotts. It is a\nliteral translation executed in the spirit of the Targum of Onkelos, and\nadmitting the same class of variations from the letter of the original.\n\n\nIV. THE SYRIAC PESHITO.\n\n18. This is the oldest version made by Christians from the original\nHebrew. The word _Peshito_ signifies _simple_, indicating that it gives\nthe simple meaning of the original, without paraphrastic and allegorical\nadditions. It is upon the whole an able and faithful version. It often\nexhibits a resemblance to the Alexandrine version. We may readily\nsuppose that the translator, though rendering from the original Hebrew,\nwas familiar with the Septuagint, and that this exerted upon his work a\ncertain degree of influence. The Peshito was the standard version for\nthe Syriac Christians, being used alike by all parties; a fact which is\nnaturally explained by its high antiquity. If it be of the same date as\nthe New Testament Peshito, it may be placed not far from the close of\nthe second century.\n\nThe _Old Latin_, and in connection with this, the _Vulgate_ of Jerome,\nwith some other ancient versions of the Old Testament, will be\nconsidered in connection with the New Testament.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVII.\n\nCRITICISM OF THE SACRED TEXT.\n\n\n1. The only _legitimate criticism_ of the sacred text is that which has\nfor its object to restore it, as far as possible, to its primitive form.\nHad we the autograph of Moses in the exact form in which he deposited it\nin the sanctuary (Deut. 31:26), this would be a perfect text; and so of\nany other book of the Old Testament. In the absence of the autographs,\nwhich have all perished, we are still able to establish the form of\ntheir text with a reasonable degree of certainty for all purposes of\nfaith and practice. The means of accomplishing this are now to be\nconsidered.\n\n2. Here _ancient manuscripts_ hold the first place. It is obvious,\nhowever, that in settling the true reading of a given passage we cannot\nlook simply to the number of manuscript testimonies. The _quality_ of\nthe manuscripts must also be taken into account. Here age is of primary\nimportance. Other things being equal, the oldest are the most worthy of\ncredence, as being nearest to the original sources. But, in estimating\nthe testimony of a manuscript, there are other qualities besides age\nthat must be carefully considered--the care of the transcriber; its\nfreedom from interpolations by later hands (which can, however, as a\ngeneral rule, be easily detected); and especially its independence, that\nis, its independence as compared with other manuscripts. We may have a\ngroup of manuscripts whose peculiar readings mark them as having come\nfrom a single source. Properly speaking, their testimony is valid only\nfor the text of their source. The authority of a single independent\nmanuscript may be equal in weight to their combined testimony. Then,\nagain, the character of the different readings must be considered. The\neasiest reading--that which most naturally suggests itself to the\nscribe--has less presumption in its favor than a more difficult reading;\nand that on the simple ground that it is more likely that an easy should\nhave been substituted for a difficult reading than the reverse. There\nare many other points which would need discussion in a work designed for\nbiblical critics; but for the purposes of this work the above brief\nhints are sufficient.\n\n    The Masoretic manuscripts have a great degree of uniformity, and\n    are all comparatively recent. Chap. 14, No. 7. We have reason to\n    believe that the Hebrew text which they exhibit has a good\n    degree of purity. But we cannot consider these manuscripts as so\n    many independent witnesses. The text of the Samaritan Pentateuch\n    is independent of the Masoretic text. Could we believe that we\n    possess it in a tolerably pure form, its critical value would be\n    very great. But, according to the judgment of the best biblical\n    scholars, it has been subjected to so many alterations, that its\n    critical authority is of small account.\n\n3. Next in order come _ancient versions_, the value of which for\ncritical purposes depends on their character as literal or free, and\nalso upon the state of their text as we possess it. Other things being\nequal, the authority of a version is manifestly inferior to that of a\nmanuscript of the original. But a version may have been made from a more\nancient form of the original text than any which we have in existing\nmanuscripts; and thus it may be indirectly a witness of great value. The\nextremely literal version of Aquila (Chap. 16, No. 9) was made in the\nsecond century. Could we recover it, its testimony to the Hebrew text,\nas it then existed, would be of great value. The Septuagint version was\nmade (at least begun) in the third century before Christ. But its free\ncharacter diminishes, and the impure state of its text greatly injures\nits critical authority. Of the Targums, those of Onkelos and Jonathan\nalone are capable of rendering any service in the line of sacred\ncriticism, and this is not of much account.\n\n4. We have also _primary-printed editions_ of the Hebrew Bible--those\nprinted from Hebrew manuscripts, which the reader may see noticed in\nHorne's Bibliographical List, Appendix to vol. 4. The critical authority\nof these depends on that of the manuscripts used, which were all of the\nMasoretic recension.\n\n5. _Parallel passages_--parallel in a _critical_ and not simply in a\n_historical_ respect--are passages which profess not merely to give an\naccount of the same transaction, but to repeat the same text. Well known\nexamples are: the song of David recorded in the twenty-second chapter of\nthe second book of Samuel, and repeated as the eighteenth psalm; the\nfourteenth and fifty-third psalms, etc. Such repetitions possess for\nevery biblical student a high interest. But in the _critical_ use of\nthem great caution is necessary. It must be ascertained, first of all,\nwhether they proceed from the same, or from a different writer. In the\nlatter case they are only historical imitations. If, as in the case of\nthe above-named passages, they manifestly have the same author, the\ninquiry still remains _how_ the differences arose. They may be different\nrecensions of the same writer (in this case, of David himself), or of\nanother inspired writer, who thus sought to adapt them more\nperfectly--the fifty-third psalm, for example--to the circumstances of\nhis own day. The gift of inspiration made the later writer, in this\nrespect, cooerdinate in authority with the earlier.\n\n    _Historical_ parallelism, such as those in the books of\n    Chronicles, as compared with the earlier historical books, do\n    not properly belong here. Yet these also sometimes furnish\n    critical help, especially in respect to names and dates.\n\n6. The _quotations_ from the Old Testament _in the New_ have for every\nbeliever the highest authority; more, however, in a _hermeneutical_ than\na _critical_ respect. For, as already remarked (Chap. 16, No. 6), the\nNew Testament writers quote mostly from the Septuagint, and in a very\nfree way. The whole subject of these quotations will come up hereafter\nunder the head of Biblical Interpretation.\n\n7. _Quotations_ from the Old Testament in the _Talmud_ and _later\nrabbinical writers_ are another source of sacred criticism. The Talmud,\nembodying the ecclesiastical and civil law of the Jews according to\ntheir traditions, consists of two parts, the _Mishna_, or text,\ngenerally referred to the last half of the second century, and the\n_Gemara_, or _commentary_ on the Mishna. The Mishna is one; but\nconnected with this are two Gemaras of later origin; the more copious\n_Babylonian_, and the briefer _Jerusalem_ Gemara; whence the distinction\nof the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmud. Whether because the Hebrew text\nwas rigidly settled in its present form in the days of the Talmudists,\nor because their quotations have been made to agree with the Masorah, an\nexamination of the Talmud furnishes few various readings that are of any\nimportance. Most of them relate to trifling particulars. The quotations\nof later rabbinical writers are of small account in a critical respect.\n\n8. It remains to speak of _critical conjecture_. Of this a wise and\nreverent scholar will make a very cautious use. He will content himself\nwith offering to the public his suggestions, without venturing to\nincorporate them into the text itself. The recklessness of some modern\ncritics, who make an abundance of conjectural emendations, and then\nembody them in their versions, with only a brief note, deserves severe\ncondemnation. Had the ancient critics generally adopted this uncritical\nmethod, the sacred text would long ago have fallen into irretrievable\nconfusion.\n\n    We add an example where critical conjecture is in place, though\n    it may not venture to alter the established reading. In Psalm\n    42, the last clause of verse 6 and the beginning of verse 7,\n    written continuously without a division of words (Chap. 13, No.\n    5), would read thus:\n\n    [Hebrew: ky'od'odnu'sho'tpnyu'lhy'lynpshytshtvhh]\n\n    With the present division of words:\n\n    [Hebrew: ky 'od 'odnu 'sho't pnyu 'lhy 'ly npshy tshtvhh]\n\n    the clauses are to be translated, as in our version:\n\n    _For I shall yet praise him_ [for] _the salvation of his\n    countenance. O my God, my soul is cast down within me_.\n\n    Divided as follows (by the transfer of a single letter to the\n    following word).\n\n    [Hebrew: ky 'od 'odnu 'sho't pny u'lhy 'ly npshy tshtvhh]\n\n    the rendering would be:\n\n    _For I shall yet praise him_, [who is] _the salvation of my\n    countenance and my God. My soul is cast down within me_.\n\n    Thus the refrain would agree exactly with the two that follow\n    (ver. 11 and 43:5). Yet this conjecture, however plausible, is\n    uncertain, since we do not know that the sacred writer sought\n    exact uniformity in the three refrains.\n\n9. _General remark_ on the various readings of the sacred text. As a\ngeneral rule, the various readings with which textual criticism is\noccupied have respect to minor points--for the most part points of a\ntrivial nature; and even where the variations are of more importance,\nthey are not of such a character as to obscure, much less change, the\ntruths of revelation in any essential respect. Biblical critics tell us,\nfor example, that the Samaritan Pentateuch agrees with the Septuagint\nversion in more than a thousand places where they differ from the\nMasoretic Hebrew text. Chap. 16, No. 7. Yet these three texts all\nexhibit the same God, and the same system of doctrines and duties.\nRevelation does not lie in letters and syllables and grammatical forms,\nbut in the deep and pure and strong and broad current of truth \"given by\ninspiration of God.\" Reverence for the inspired word makes us anxious to\npossess the sacred text in all possible purity. Yet if we cannot attain\nto absolute perfection in this respect, we have reasonable assurance\nthat God, who gave the revelation contained in the Old Testament, has\npreserved it to us unchanged in any essential particular. The point on\nwhich most obscurity and uncertainty rests is that of scriptural\nchronology; and this is not one that affects Christian faith or\npractice.\n\n\n\n\nSECOND DIVISION: PARTICULAR INTRODUCTION.\n\nCHAPTER XVIII.\n\nTHE BOOKS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT AS A WHOLE.\n\n\n1. The province of _Particular Introduction_ is to consider the books of\nthe Bible separately, in respect to their authorship, date, contents,\nand the place which each of them holds in the system of divine truth.\nHere it is above all things important that we begin with the idea of the\n_unity of divine revelation_--that all the parts of the Bible constitute\na gloriously perfect whole, of which God and not man is the author. No\namount of study devoted to a given book or section of the Old Testament,\nwith all the help that modern scholarship can furnish, will give a true\ncomprehension of it, until we understand it in its relations to the rest\nof Scripture, We cannot, for example, understand the book of Genesis out\nof connection with the four books that follow, nor the book of\nDeuteronomy separated from the four that precede. Nor can we fully\nunderstand the Pentateuch as a whole except in the light of the\nhistorical and prophetical books which follow; for these unfold the\ndivine purpose in the establishment of the Theocracy as recorded in the\nPentateuch. The Pentateuch itself gives us only the _constitution_ of\nthe Theocracy. The books that follow, taken in connection with, the New\nTestament, reveal its _office_ in the plan of redemption; and not till\nwe know this can we be said to have an intelligent comprehension of the\ntheocratic system. The same is true of every other part of revelation.\n\n    The words of the apostle: \"Ever learning, and never able to come\n    to the knowledge of the truth\" (2 Tim. 3:7), apply to many\n    learned commentaries. Their authors have brought to them much\n    accurate scholarship and research; but they have not seen the\n    unity of divine truth. They have written mainly in an\n    antiquarian spirit and interest, regarding the work under\n    consideration simply as an ancient and venerable record. They\n    have diligently sought for connections in philology, in\n    antiquities, and in history. In these respects they have thrown\n    much light on the sacred text. But they have never once thought\n    of inquiring what place the book which they have undertaken to\n    interpret holds in the divine system of revelation--perhaps have\n    had no faith in such a system. Consequently they cannot unfold\n    to others that which they do not themselves apprehend. On a\n    hundred particulars they may give valuable information, but that\n    which constitutes the very life and substance of the book\n    remains hidden from their view.\n\n2. It is necessary that we understand, first of all, the relation of the\nOld Testament as a whole to the system of revealed truth. It is a\n_preparatory_ revelation introductory to one that is _final_. This the\nNew Testament teaches in explicit terms. \"When the fulness of the time\nwas come, God sent forth his Son.\" Gal. 4:4. Christ could not have come\nin the days of Enoch before the flood, nor of Abraham after the flood,\nbecause \"the fulness of the time\" had not yet arrived. Nor was the way\nfor his advent prepared in the age of Moses, or David, or Isaiah, or\nEzra. The gospel everywhere assumes that when the Saviour appeared, men\nhad attained to a state of comparative maturity in respect to both the\nknowledge of God and the progress of human society. The attentive reader\nof the New Testament cannot fail to notice how fully its writers avail\nthemselves of all the revelations which God had made in the Old\nTestament of himself, of the course of his providence, and of his\npurposes towards the human family. The _unity of God_, especially, is\nassumed as a truth so firmly established in the national faith of the\nJews, that the doctrine of our Lord's deity, and that of the Holy\nSpirit, can be taught without the danger of its being misunderstood in a\npolytheistic sense--as if the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit were\nthree gods. It is certain that this could not have been done any time\nbefore the Babylonish captivity. The idea of _vicarious sacrifice_,\nmoreover--that great fundamental idea of the gospel that \"without\nshedding of blood there is no remission\"--the writers of the New\nTestament found ready at hand, and in its light they interpreted the\nmission of Christ. Upon his very first appearance, John the Baptist, his\nforerunner, exclaimed to the assembled multitudes: \"Behold the Lamb of\nGod, which taketh away the sin of the world.\" To the Jew, with his\ntraining under the Mosaic system of sacrifices, how significant were\nthese words! Without such a previous training, how meaningless to him\nand to the world for which Christ died! Then again the gospel, in strong\ncontrast with the Mosaic law, deals in _general principles_. Herein it\nassumes a comparative maturity of human thought--a capacity to include\nmany particulars under one general idea. A beautiful illustration of\nthis is our Lord's summary of social duties; \"Therefore all things\nwhatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them:\nfor this is the law and the prophets.\" Matt. 7:12. We may add (what is\nindeed implied in the preceding remark) that the gospel required for its\nintroduction a _well-developed state of civilization_ and culture, as\ncontrasted with one of rude barbarism. Now the Hebrews were introduced,\nin the beginning of their national existence, to the civilization of\nEgypt; which, with all its defects, was perhaps as good a type as then\nexisted in the world. Afterwards they were brought successively into\nintimate connection with Babylonian, Persian, Grecian, and Roman\ncivilization; particularly with the last two. This was, moreover, at a\ntime when their national training under the Mosaic institutions had\ngiven them such maturity of religious character that they were not in\ndanger of being seduced into the idolatrous worship of these nations.\nDispersed throughout all the provinces of the Roman empire, they still\nmaintained firmly the religion of their fathers; and their synagogues\neverywhere constituted central points for the introduction of the\ngospel, and its diffusion through the Gentile world. Such are some of\nthe many ways in which the world was prepared for the Redeemer's advent.\nThis is a vast theme, on which volumes could be written. The plan of the\npresent work will only admit of the above brief hints.\n\n    Our Lord's command is: \"Go ye into all the world, and preach the\n    gospel to every creature.\" The history of missions shows that\n    the gospel can be preached with success to the most degraded\n    tribes--to the Hottentots of South Africa and the cannibals of\n    the South sea islands, and that this is the only remedy for\n    their barbarism. But the gospel did not _begin_ among savages,\n    nor does it have its centres of power and influence among them.\n    Christ came at the culminating point of ancient civilization and\n    culture; not that he might conform his gospel to existing\n    institutions and ideas, but that he might through his gospel\n    infuse into them (as far as they contained elements of truth)\n    the purifying and transforming leaven of divine truth. As the\n    gospel began in the midst of civilization, so does its\n    introduction among barbarous tribes always bring civilization in\n    its train.\n\n3. When we have learned to regard the revelation of which we have a\nrecord in the Old Testament as preparatory to the gospel, we see it in\nits true light. This view furnishes both the key to its character and\nthe answer to the objections commonly urged against it. It is not a\nrevelation of abstract truths. These would neither have excited the\ninterest of the people, nor have been apprehended by them. God made\nknown to the covenant people his character and the duties which he\nrequired of them by a series of _mighty acts_ and a system of _positive\nlaws_. The Old Testament, is, therefore, in an eminent degree\n_documentary_--a record not simply of opinions, but rather of actions\nand institutions. Of these actions and institutions we are to judge from\nthe character of the people and the age in connection with the great end\nproposed by God. This end was not the material prosperity of Israel, but\nthe preparation of the nation for its high office as the medium through\nwhich the gospel should afterwards be given to the world. The people\nwere rebellious and stiff-necked, and surrounded by polytheism and\nidolatry. Their training required severity, and all the severity\nemployed by God brought forth at last its appropriate fruits. The laws\nimposed upon them were stern and burdensome from their multiplicity. But\nno one can show that in either of these respects they could have been\nwisely modified; for the nation was then in its childhood and pupilage\n(Gal. 4:1-3), and needed to be treated accordingly.\n\nAn objection much insisted on by some is the _exclusive_ character of\nthe Mosaic institutions--a religion, it is alleged, for only one nation,\nwhile all the other nations were left in ignorance. To this a summary\nanswer can be given. In selecting Israel as his covenant people, God had\nin view the salvation of the whole world: \"In thee shall all families of\nthe earth be blessed\" (Gen. 12:3)--such was the tenor of the covenant\nfrom the beginning. His plan was to bring one nation into special\nrelation to himself, establish in it the true religion, prepare it for\nthe advent of Christ, and then propagate the gospel from it as a centre\nthroughout all nations. If men are to be dealt with in a moral way, as\nfree, responsible subjects of law (and this is the only way in which God\ndeals with men under a system of either natural or revealed religion),\ncan the objector propose any better way? He might as well object to the\nprocedure of a military commander that, instead of spreading his army\nover a whole province, he concentrates it on one strong point. Let him\nwait patiently, and he will find that in gaining this point the\ncommander gains the whole country.\n\n4. Having seen the relation of the Old Testament as a whole to the\nsystem of divine revelation, we are now prepared to consider the place\noccupied by its _several divisions_.\n\n(1.) To prepare the way for our Lord's advent, one nation was to be\nselected and trained up under a system of divine laws and\nordinances--the _theocracy_ established under Moses. The _Pentateuch_\nrecords _the establishment of the theocracy_, with the previous steps\nthat led to it, and the historical events immediately connected with.\nit. Hence the five books of Moses are called emphatically _the Law_; and\nas such, their province in the Old Testament is clear and well defined.\n\n(2.) The end of the Mosaic law being the preparation of the Israelitish\npeople, and through them the world, for Christ's advent, it was not the\npurpose of God that it should be hidden as a dead letter beside the ark\nin the inner sanctuary. It was a code for practice, not for theory. It\ncontained the constitution of the state, civil as well as religious; and\nGod's almighty power and faithfulness were pledged that it should\naccomplish in a thorough way the office assigned to it. The theocracy\nmust therefore have a _history_; and with the record of this the\n_historical books_ are occupied.\n\n(3.) God did not leave the development of this history to itself. He\nwatched over it from the beginning, and directed its course, interposing\nfrom time to time, not only in a providential way, but also by direct\nrevelation. Sometimes, for specific ends, he revealed himself\nimmediately _to_ particular individuals, as to Gideon, and Manoah and\nhis wife. But more commonly his revelations were made to the rulers or\npeople at large _through_ persons selected as the organs of his Spirit;\nthat is, through _prophets_. The prophet held his commission immediately\nfrom God. Since God is the author, not of confusion, but of order, he\ncame to the people _under_ the Law, not above it; and his messages were\nto be tried by the Law. Deut. 13:1-5. No prophet after Moses enjoyed the\nsame fulness of access to God which was vouchsafed to him, or received\nthe same extent of revelation. Numb. 12:6-8; Deut. 34:10-12.\nNevertheless, the prophet came to rulers and people, like Moses, with an\nauthority derived immediately from God, introducing his messages with\nthe words: \"Thus saith the Lord.\" In God's name he rebuked the people\nfor their sins; explained to them the true cause of the calamities that\nbefell them; recalled them to God's service as ordained in the Law,\nunfolding to them at the same time its true nature as consisting in the\nspirit, and not in the letter only--1 Sam. 15:22; Isa. 1:11-20; 57:15;\n66:2; Jer. 4:4; Ezek. 18:31; Hosea 10:12; 14:2; Joel 2:12, 13; Amos 5:\n21-24; Micah 6: 6-8--denounced upon them the awful judgments of God as\nthe punishment of continued disobedience; and promised them the\nrestoration of his favor upon condition of hearty repentance. In the\ndecline of the Theocracy, it was the special province of the prophets to\ncomfort the pious remnant of God's people by unfolding to them the\nfuture glory of Zion--the true \"Israel of God,\" and her dominion over\nall the earth. From about the reign of Uzziah and onward, as already\nremarked (ch. 15. 12), the prophets began, under the guidance of the\nHoly Spirit, to reduce their prophecies to writing, and thus arose the\nseries of _prophetical books_ that form a prominent part of the Old\nTestament canon. Their office is at once recognized by every reader as\ndistinct from that of either the Pentateuch or the historical books;\nalthough these latter were, as a general rule, written by prophets also.\n\n(4.) There is a class, more miscellaneous in character, that may be\ndescribed in general terms as the _poetical books_, in which the\nelements of meditation and reflection predominate. It includes the book\nof Job, which has for its theme divine providence, as viewed from the\nposition of the Old Testament; the book of Psalms, that wonderful\ntreasury of holy thought and feeling embodied in sacred song for the use\nof God's people in all ages; the book of Proverbs, with its\ninexhaustible treasures of practical wisdom; the book of Ecclesiastes,\nhaving for its theme the vanity of this world when sought as a\nsatisfying good; and the book of Canticles, which the church has always\nregarded as a mystical song having for its ground-idea, under the Old\nTestament, that God is the husband of Zion, and under the New, that the\nchurch is the bride of Christ. How high a place this division of the\ncanon holds in the system of divine revelation every pious heart feels\ninstinctively. Without it, the revelation of the Old Testament could not\nhave been complete for the work assigned to it.\n\n5. We have seen the relation of the Old Testament as a whole to the\nentire system of revelation, and also the place occupied by its several\ndivisions. It will further appear, as we proceed, that each particular\nbook in these divisions contributes its share to the perfection of the\nwhole.\n\n6. Although the revelation contained in the Old Testament was\npreparatory to the fuller revelation of the New, we must guard against\nthe error of supposing that it had not a proper significance and use for\nthe men of its own time. \"Unto us,\" says the apostle, \"was the gospel\npreached, _as well as unto them_.\" Heb. 4:2. And again: \"These all died\nin faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar\noff, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that\nthey were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.\" \"And these all, having\nobtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: God\nhaving provided some better tiling for us, _that they without us should\nnot be made perfect_.\" Heb. 11:13, 39, 40. They had a part of the truth,\nbut not its fulness; and the measure of revelation vouchsafed to them\nwas given for their personal salvation, as well as to prepare the way\nfor further revelations. The promise made to Abraham--\"In thy seed shall\nall the nations of the earth be blessed\"--was fulfilled in Christ. In\nthis respect Abraham \"received not the promise.\" Nevertheless, it was a\npromise made for his benefit, as well as for that of future ages. Into\nthe bosom of the patriarch it brought light and joy and salvation. \"Your\nfather Abraham,\" said Jesus, \"rejoiced to see my day; and he saw it, and\nwas glad.\" John 8:56. \"He believed in the Lord,\" says the inspired\nrecord, \"and he counted it to him for righteousness.\" Gen. 15:6. The\ndeliverance of Israel from Egypt typified the redemption of Christ; and\nit was, moreover, one of the grand movements that prepared the way for\nhis advent. But it was neither all type nor all preparation. To the\ncovenant people of that day it was a true deliverance; and to the\nbelieving portion of them, a deliverance of soul as well as of body.\n\"The law,\" says Paul, \"was our school-master to bring us unto Christ,\nthat we might be justified by faith.\" Gal. 3:24. But while it had this\npreparatory office, it was to the Israelitish nation a true rule of\nlife; and under it many, through faith, anticipated its end. The\nprophets prophesied for the men of their own age, as well as for distant\ngenerations. The sweet psalmist of Israel, while he foreshadowed the\nMessiah's reign, sung for the comfort and edification of himself and his\ncontemporaries; and Solomon gave rules of practical wisdom as valid for\nhis day as for ours. The revelation of the Old Testament was not\ncomplete, like that which we now possess; but it was sufficient for the\nsalvation of every sincere inquirer after truth. When the rich man in\nhell besought Abraham that Lazarus might be sent to warn his five\nbrethren on the ground that, if one went to them from the dead they\nwould repent, Abraham answered: \"If they hear not Moses and the\nprophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rose from the dead.\"\n\n7. There is another practical error against which Christians of the\npresent day need to be warned. It is the idea that the full revelation\nof the New Testament supersedes in a great measure the necessity of\nstudying the previous revelation contained in the Old Testament. Few\nwill openly avow this, but too many inwardly cherish the delusion in a\nvague and undefined form; and it exerts a pernicious influence upon\nthem, leading them to undervalue and neglect the Old Testament\nScriptures. Even if the idea under consideration were in accordance with\ntruth, it would still be to every earnest Christian a matter of deep\nhistorical interest to study the way by which God prepared the world for\nthe full light of the gospel. But it is not true. It rests on a\nfoundation of error and delusion. For, (1.) The system of divine\nrevelation constitutes a _whole_, all the parts of which are connected,\nfrom beginning to end, so that no single part can be truly understood\nwithout a knowledge of all the rest. The impenetrable darkness that\nrests on some portions of Scripture has its ground in the fact that the\nplan of redemption is not yet completed. The mighty disclosures of the\nfuture can alone dissipate this darkness.\n\n  \"God is his own interpreter,\n  And he will make it plain.\"\n\n(2.) We know that the writers of the New Testament constantly refer to\nthe Old for arguments and illustrations. A knowledge of the Old\nTestament is necessary, therefore, for a full comprehension of their\nmeaning. How can the reader, for example, understand the epistles to the\nRomans and Galatians, or that to the Hebrews, without a thorough\nacquaintance with \"Moses and the prophets,\" to which these epistles have\nsuch constant reference? (3.) The Old Testament is occupied with the\nrecord of God's dealings with men. Such a record must be a perpetual\nrevelation of God's infinite attributes, and of human character also,\nand the course of human society, every part of which is luminous with\ninstruction. (4.) Although the old theocracy, with its particular laws\nand forms of worship, has passed away, yet the _principles_ on which it\nrested, which interpenetrated it in every part, and which shone forth\nwith a clear light throughout its whole history--these principles are\neternal verities, as valid for us as for the ancient patriarchs. Some of\nthese principles--for example, God's unity, personality, and infinite\nperfections; his universal providence; his supremacy over all nations;\nthe tendency of nations to degeneracy, and the stern judgments employed\nby God to reclaim them--are so fully unfolded in the Old Testament that\nthey needed no repetition in the New. There they became _axioms_ rather\nthan doctrines. (5.) \"The manifold wisdom of God\" in adapting his\ndealings with men to the different stages of human progress cannot be\nseen without a diligent study of the Old Testament as well as the New.\nWhoever neglects the former, will want breadth and comprehensiveness of\nChristian culture. All profound Christian writers have been well versed\nin \"the whole instrument of each Testament,\" as Tertullian calls the two\nparts of revelation. Chap. 13, No. 2.\n\nModern skepticism begins with disparaging the Old Testament, and ends\nwith denying the divine authority of both the Old and the New. In this\nwork it often unites a vast amount of learning in regard to particulars\nwith principles that are superficial and false.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIX.\n\nTHE PENTATEUCH.\n\n\n1. The _unity of the Pentateuch_ has already been considered (Ch. 9, No.\n12), and will appear more fully as we proceed with the examination of\nthe separate books included in it. Even if we leave out of view the\nauthority of the New Testament, this unity is too deep and fundamental\nto allow of the idea that it is a patchwork of later ages. Under divine\nguidance the writer goes steadily forward from beginning to end, and his\nwork when finished is a symmetrical whole. Even its apparent\nincongruities, like the interweaving of historical notices with the\nlaws, are marks of its genuineness; for they prove that, in those parts\nat least, events were recorded as they transpired. Such a blending of\nhistory with revelation does not impair the unity of the work; for it is\na unity which has its ground not in severe logical arrangement and\nclassification, but in a divine plan historically developed. Whether the\ndivision of the Pentateuch into five books (whence its Greek name\n_Pentateuchos_, _fivefold book_) was original, proceeding from the\nauthor himself, or the work of a later age, is a question on which\nbiblical scholars are not agreed. It is admitted by all that the\ndivision is natural and appropriate. The Hebrew titles of the several\nbooks are taken from prominent words standing at or near the beginning\nof each. The Greek names are expressive of their prominent contents; and\nthese are followed in the Latin Vulgate and in our English version, only\nthat the name of the fourth book is translated.\n\n\nI. GENESIS.\n\n2. The Hebrews _name_ this book _Bereshith_, _in the beginning_, from\nthe first word. Its Greek name _Genesis_ signifies _generation_,\n_genealogy_. As the genealogical records with which the book abounds\ncontain historical notices, and are, in truth, the earliest form of\nhistory, the word is applied to the history of the creation, and of the\nancient patriarchs, as well as to the genealogical lists of their\nfamilies. Gen. 2:4; 25:19; 37:2 etc. In the same wide sense is it\napplied to the book itself.\n\n3. Genesis is the _introductory book_ to the Pentateuch, without which\nour understanding of the following books would be incomplete. Let us\nsuppose for a moment that we had not this book. We open the book of\nExodus and read of \"the children of Israel which came into Egypt;\" that\n\"Joseph was in Egypt already,\" and that \"there arose up a new king over\nEgypt, which knew not Joseph.\" Who were these children of Israel? we at\nonce ask; and how did they come to be in Egypt? Who was Joseph? and what\nis the meaning of the notice that the new king knew not Joseph? All\nthese particulars are explained in the book of Genesis, and without them\nwe must remain in darkness. But the connection of this book with the\nfollowing is not simply explanatory; it is _organic_ also, entering into\nthe very substance of the Pentateuch. We are told (Ex. 2:24, 25) that\nGod heard the groaning of his people in Egypt, and \"God remembered his\ncovenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob; and God looked upon\nthe children of Israel, and God had respect unto them.\" The remembrance\nof his covenant with their fathers is specified as the ground of his\ninterposition. Now the covenant made with Abraham, and afterwards\nrenewed to Isaac and Jacob, was not a mere incidental event in the\nhistory of the patriarchs and their posterity. It constituted the very\nessence of God's peculiar relation to Israel; and, as such, it was the\nplatform on which the whole theocracy was afterwards erected. The nation\nreceived the law at Sinai _in pursuance_ of the original covenant made\nwith their fathers; and unless we understand the nature of this\ncovenant, we fail to understand the meaning and end of the law itself.\nThe very information which we need is contained in Genesis; for from the\ntwelfth chapter onward this book is occupied with an account of this\ncovenant, and of God's dealings with the patriarchs in connection with\nit. The story of Joseph, which unites such perfect simplicity with such\ndeep pathos, is not thrown in as a pleasing episode. Its end is to show\nhow God accomplished his purpose, long before announced to Abraham (ch.\n15:13), that the Israelites should be \"a stranger in a land not theirs.\"\n\nBut the Abrahamic covenant itself finds its explanation in the previous\nhistory. For two thousand years God had administered the government of\nthe world without a visible church. And what was the result? Before the\nflood the degeneracy of the human family was universal. God, therefore,\nswept them all away, and began anew with Noah and his family. But the\nterrible judgment of the deluge was not efficacious to prevent the new\nworld from following the example of the old. In the days of Abraham the\nworship of God had been corrupted through polytheism and idolatry, and\nignorance and wickedness were again universal. The time had manifestly\ncome for the adoption of a new economy, in which God should, for the\ntime being, concentrate his special labors upon a single nation but with\nultimate reference to the salvation of the whole world. Thus we have in\nthe book of Genesis in a certain measure (for we may not presume to\nspeak of God's counsels as fully apprehended by us) an explanation of\nthe Abrahamic covenant, and, in this, of the Mosaic economy also.\n\n4. In accordance with the above view, the book of Genesis falls into two\nunequal, but natural divisions. The _first_ part extends through eleven\nchapters, and is occupied with the history of _the human family as a\nwhole_. It is the oldest record in existence, and its contents are\nperfectly unique. It describes in brief terms: the order of creation;\nthe institution of the Sabbath and marriage; the probation to which man\nwas subjected, with its disastrous result in his fall and expulsion from\nEden; the murder of Abel by Cain, and, in connection with this, the\ndivision of mankind into two families; man's universal degeneracy; the\ndeluge; the covenant made by God with the earth through Noah, and the\nlaw of murder; the confusion of tongues at Babel, and the consequent\ndispersion of the different families of men, a particular account of\nwhich is given by way of anticipation in the tenth chapter. In addition\nto these notices there are two genealogical tables; the first from Adam\nto Noah (ch. 5), the second from Shem to Abraham (ch. 11).\n\nThe _second_ part comprises the remainder of the book. In this we have\nno longer a history of the whole race, but of Abraham's family, with\nonly incidental notices of the nations into connection with whom Abraham\nand his posterity were brought. It opens with an account of the call of\nAbraham and the covenant made with him; notices the repeated renewal of\nthis covenant to Abraham, with the institution of the rite of\ncircumcision; its subsequent renewal to Isaac and Jacob; and the\nexclusion, first of Ishmael and afterwards of Esau, from a share in its\nprivileges. In immediate connection with the covenant relation into\nwhich God took Abraham and his family, we have the history of the\npatriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, sometimes with much detail, but\nalways with reference to the peculiar prerogative conferred upon them.\nThe book closes with an account of the wonderful train of providences by\nwhich Israel was brought into Egypt.\n\n    Though Ishmael and Esau were excluded from the covenant, yet,\n    apparently in consequence of their near relation to the\n    patriarchs, genealogical tables are devoted to them; to Ishmael,\n    ch. 25:12-18; to Esau, the whole of ch. 36.\n\n5. The _Mosaic authorship_ of Genesis has already been considered; and,\nin connection with this, the question whether the Pentateuch, and\nespecially Genesis, contains any clauses of a later date, Ch. 9, No. 11.\nSome, as Hengstenberg and his followers, deny the existence of such\nclauses; but others think that a few must be admitted, which were\nafterwards added, as needful explanations, by prophetical men. We are at\nliberty to decide either way concerning them according to the evidence\nbefore us. On the question whether Moses made use of earlier written\ndocuments, see Ch. 9, No. 11.\n\n    The clauses for which a later date can with any show of reason\n    be claimed are few in number, and none of them enter essentially\n    into the texture of the book. They are just such extraneous\n    remarks as the necessities of a later age required; for example,\n    Gen. 36:31; Ex. 16:35. On the last of these, Graves, who\n    considers it \"_plainly a passage inserted by a later hand_,\"\n    says: \"I contend that the insertion of such notes rather\n    confirms than impeaches the integrity of the original narrative.\n    If this were a compilation long subsequent to the events it\n    records\" (according to the false assumption of some respecting\n    the origin of the Pentateuch), \"such additions would not have\n    been plainly distinguishable, as they now are, from the main\n    substance of the original.\" On the Pentateuch, Appendix, sec. 1,\n    No. 13.\n\n6. The contents of the first part of this book are peculiar. It is not\nstrange, therefore, that we should encounter _difficulties_ in the\nattempt to interpret them. To consider these difficulties in detail\nwould be to write a commentary on the first eleven chapters. Only some\ngeneral remarks can here be offered. Some difficulties are imaginary,\nthe inventions of special pleading. In these the commentaries of modern\nrationalists abound. They are to be set aside by fair interpretation.\nBut other difficulties are real, and should not be denied or ignored by\nthe honest expositor. If he can give a valid explanation of them, well\nand good; but if not, let him reverently wait for more light, in the\ncalm assurance that the divine authority of the Pentateuch rests on a\nfoundation that cannot be shaken. To deny a well-authenticated narrative\nof facts on the ground of unexplained difficulties connected with it is\nto build on a foundation of error.\n\n    (A.) Of the difficulties connected with the first part of\n    Genesis some are _scientific_. Such is the narrative of the\n    creation of the world in six days. Respecting this it has\n    already been remarked (Ch. 10, No. 3) that with all who believe\n    in the reality of divine revelation the question is not\n    respecting the truth of this narrative, but respecting the\n    interpretation of it. As long ago as the time of Augustine the\n    question was raised whether these days are to be understood\n    literally, or symbolically of long periods of time. The latter\n    was his view, and it is strengthened by the analogy of the\n    prophetic days of prophecy.\n\n    Another difficulty relates to the age of the antediluvian\n    patriarchs, which was about tenfold the present term of life for\n    robust and healthful men. According to the laws of physiology we\n    must suppose that the period of childhood and youth was\n    protracted in a corresponding manner; since in man, as in all\n    the higher animals, the time of physical growth--physical growth\n    in the widest sense, the process of arriving at physical\n    maturity--has a fixed relation to the whole term of existence.\n    After the deluge, in some way not understood by us, the whole\n    course of human life began to be gradually quickened--to run its\n    round in a shorter time--till the age of man was at last reduced\n    to its present measure. All that we can say here is that we do\n    not know how God accomplished this result. He accomplished it in\n    a secret and invisible way, as he does so many other of his\n    operations in nature. On the discrepancy between the Masoretic\n    Hebrew text, the text of the Samaritan Pentateuch, and that of\n    the Septuagint, in respect to the genealogical tables in\n    Genesis, see below.\n\n    The _unity of the human race_ is everywhere assumed in\n    Scripture. Some modern scientific men have denied this, but\n    their arguments for a diversity of origin do not amount to\n    positive proof. They are theoretic rather than demonstrative,\n    and the weight of evidence is against them. We must remember,\n    moreover, that man lives under a supernatural dispensation. The\n    narrative in the eleventh chapter of Genesis seems to imply that\n    God interposed miraculously to confound human speech, in\n    accordance with his plan to scatter men \"abroad upon the face of\n    all the earth.\" In like manner he may have interposed in a\n    secret way to intensify the diversity in the different races of\n    men. It does not appear certain, however, on physiological\n    grounds, that any miraculous interposition was needed; and we\n    may leave the question of the manner in which the present\n    diversity among the children of Adam was produced among the\n    secret things of which it is not necessary that we should have\n    an explanation.\n\n    The question of the _universality of the deluge_ is with\n    believers in revelation one of words only, on which it is hardly\n    necessary to waste time. The _end_ of the deluge was the\n    complete destruction of the human race, all but Noah and his\n    family. This it accomplished, and why need we raise any further\n    inquiries; as, for example, whether the polar lands, where no\n    man has ever trod, were submerged also? \"All the high hills\n    under the whole heaven\" doubtless included all the high hills\n    where man lived, and which, therefore, were known to man.\n\n    (B.) Another class of difficulties is _historical_, consisting\n    in alleged inconsistencies and disagreements between different\n    parts of the narrative. For the details of these, the reader\n    must be referred to the commentaries. One or two only can be\n    noticed as specimens of the whole. It is said that the second\n    account of the creation (Gen. 2:4-25) is inconsistent with the\n    first; the order of creation in the first being animals, then\n    man; in the second, man, then animals. But the answer is\n    obvious. In the first account, the order of succession in the\n    several parts of creation is one of the main features. It\n    distinctly announces that, _after_ God had finished the rest of\n    his works, he made man in his own image. The second account, on\n    the other hand, which is introductory to the narrative of man's\n    sin and expulsion from Eden, takes no notice of the order of\n    creation in its several parts. In this, man is the _central_\n    object, and other things are mentioned incidentally in their\n    relation to man. The writer has no occasion to speak of trees\n    good for food till a _home_ is sought for Adam; nor of beasts\n    and birds till a _companion_ is needed for him. Then each of\n    these things is mentioned in connection with him. No candid\n    interpreter can infer from this that the second account means to\n    give, as the veritable order of creation--man, the garden of\n    Eden, beasts and birds!\n\n    A difficulty has been alleged, also, in regard to _Cain's wife_.\n    But this grows simply out of the brevity of the sacred\n    narrative. The children of Adam must have intermarried, brothers\n    and sisters. The fact that no daughter is mentioned as born to\n    Adam before Seth, is no evidence against the birth of daughters\n    long before. In the fourth chapter no individuals are mentioned\n    except for special reasons--Cain and Abel, with a genealogical\n    list of Cain's family to Lamech, because he was the head of one\n    branch of the human race before the deluge. In the fifth chapter\n    none are named but _sons in the line of Noah_, with the standing\n    formula of \"sons and daughters\" born afterwards. We are not to\n    infer from this that no sons or daughters were born before;\n    otherwise we should exclude Cain and Abel themselves. At the\n    time of the murder of Abel, the two brothers were adult men.\n    What was their age we cannot tell. It may have been a hundred\n    years or more; for our first parents were created not infants,\n    but in the maturity of their powers, and Adam was one hundred\n    and thirty years old when the next son after Abel's murder was\n    born. Gen. 4:25. At all events, the interval between Abel's\n    birth and death must have been long, and we cannot reasonably\n    suppose that during this period no daughters were born to Adam.\n\n    (C.) The _chronology_ of the book of Genesis involves, as is\n    well known, some difficult questions. In the genealogical tables\n    contained in the fifth and eleventh chapters, the texts of the\n    Masoretic Hebrew (which is followed in our version),\n    Hebrew-Samaritan, and Septuagint, differ in a remarkable manner.\n\n    (1.) _Antediluvian Genealogy._ According to the Septuagint, no\n    patriarch has a son before the age of one hundred years. It adds\n    to the age of each of the five patriarchs that preceded Jared,\n    and also to the age of Enoch, one hundred years before the birth\n    of his son, deducting the same from his life afterwards. To the\n    age of Lamech it adds six years before the birth of Noah,\n    deducting thirty years afterwards. In respect to the age of\n    Methuselah when Lamech was born, there is a difference of twenty\n    years between the Vatican and the Alexandrine manuscripts. The\n    latter agrees with the Masoretic text: the former gives one\n    hundred and sixty-seven instead of one hundred and eighty-seven.\n    Thus the Septuagint makes the period from the creation to the\n    deluge 2262 years (according to the Vatican manuscript 2242\n    years) against the 1656 of our Masoretic text.\n\n    The Samaritan-Hebrew text agrees with the Masoretic for the\n    first five patriarchs and for Enoch. From the age of Jared it\n    deducts one hundred years; from that of Methuselah one hundred\n    and twenty (one hundred according to the Vatican manuscript of\n    the Septuagint); and from that of Lamech, one hundred and\n    twenty-nine--three hundred and forty-nine years in all--before\n    the birth of their respective sons. This places the deluge in\n    the year of the world 1307.\n\n    (2.) _Genealogy from Noah to Abraham._ Chap. 11. Here the\n    Samaritan-Hebrew and the Septuagint (which Josephus follows with\n    some variations) give a much longer period than the Masoretic\n    text. They both add to the age of each of the six patriarchs\n    after Shem one hundred years before the birth of his son. To the\n    age of Nahor the Samaritan-Hebrew adds fifty, and the Septuagint\n    one hundred and fifty years. The latter also inserts after\n    Arphaxad a _Cainan_ who was one hundred and thirty years old at\n    the birth of Salah.\n\n    In respect to the variations in these two genealogical tables\n    (chaps. 5 and 11) it is to be remarked: (1) that the authority\n    of the Masoretic text is, on general grounds, higher than that\n    of the Septuagint or Samaritan Pentateuch; (2) that in the\n    present case there is reason to suspect systematic change in\n    these two latter texts; strong external corroboration alone\n    could warrant us in adopting the longer chronology of the\n    Septuagint; (3) that any uncertainty which may rest on the\n    details of numbers in the Pentateuch ought not to affect our\n    confidence in the Mosaic record as a whole, for here, as it is\n    well known, there is a peculiar liability to variations. With\n    these brief remarks we must dismiss this subject. The reader\n    will find the question of scriptural chronology discussed at\n    large in the treatises devoted to the subject. For more\n    compendious views, see in Alexander's Kitto and Smith's\n    Dictionary of the Bible the articles entitled Chronology.\n\n\nII. EXODUS.\n\n7. The Hebrew name of this book is: _Ve-elle shemoth_, _Now these_ [are]\n_the names_; or more briefly: _Shemoth_, _names_. The word _Exodus_\n(Greek _Exodos_, whence the Latin _Exodus_) signifies _going forth_,\n_departure_, namely, of Israel from Egypt. With the book of Exodus\nbegins the history of Israel _as a nation_. It has perfect unity of plan\nand steady progress from beginning to end. The narrative of the golden\ncalf is no exception; for this records in its true order an interruption\nof the divine legislation. The book consists of two parts essentially\nconnected with each other. The contents of the _first_ part (chaps.\n1-18) are briefly the _deliverance_ of the Israelites from Egypt and\ntheir _journey to Sinai_, as preparatory to their national covenant with\nGod there. More particularly this part contains: (1) an account of the\nmultiplication of the people in Egypt; their oppression by the\nEgyptians; the birth and education of Moses, his abortive attempt to\ninterpose in behalf of his people, his flight to Midian, and his\nresidence there forty years (chaps. 1, 2); (2) God's miraculous\nappearance to Moses at Horeb under the name JEHOVAH; his mission to\nPharaoh for the release of Israel, in which Aaron his brother was\nassociated with him; the execution of this mission, in the progress of\nwhich the Egyptians were visited with a succession of plagues, ending in\nthe death of all the first-born of man and beast in Egypt; the final\nexpulsion of the people, and in connection with this the establishment\nof the feast of the passover and the law respecting the first-born of\nman and beast (chaps. 3-13); (3) the journey of the Israelites to the\nRed sea under the guidance of a cloudy pillar; their passage through it,\nwith the overthrow of Pharaoh's host; the miraculous supply of manna and\nof water; the fight with Amalek, and Jethro's visit to Moses.\n\nThe _second_ part contains _the establishment of the Mosaic economy with\nits tabernacle and priesthood_. At Sinai God enters into a national\ncovenant with the people, grounded on the preceding Abrahamic covenant;\npromulgates in awful majesty the ten commandments, which he afterwards\nwrites on two tables of stone, and adds a code of civil regulations.\nChaps. 19-23. The covenant is then written and solemnly ratified by the\nblood of sacrifices. Chap. 24. After this follows a direction which\ncontains in itself the whole idea of the sanctuary: \"_Let them make me a\nsanctuary; that I may dwell among them_.\" Chap. 25:8. The remainder of\nthe book is mainly occupied with the structure of the tabernacle and its\nfurniture, and the establishment of the Levitical priesthood. Directions\nare given for the priestly garments, and the mode of inauguration is\nprescribed; but the inauguration itself belongs to the following book.\nThe narrative is interrupted by the sin of the people in the matter of\nthe golden calf, with the various incidents and precepts connected with\nit (chaps. 32-34), and a repetition of the law of the Sabbath is added.\nChap. 31:12-17. The office, then, which the book of Exodus holds in the\nPentateuch is definite and clear.\n\n8. With regard to the _time of the sojourn_ in Egypt, two opinions are\nheld among biblical scholars. The words of God to Abraham: \"Know of a\nsurety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs,\nand shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years,\"\n\"but in the fourth generation they shall come hither again\" (Gen. 15:13,\n16); and also the statement of Moses: \"Now the sojourning of the\nchildren of Israel who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty\nyears\" (Exod. 12:40), seem to imply that they spent four hundred and\nthirty years _in Egypt_ (a round number being put in the former passage\nfor the more exact specification of the latter). It has been thought,\nalso, that the vast increase of the people in Egypt--to six hundred\nthousand men (Exod. 12:37), which shows that the whole number of souls\nwas over two millions--required a sojourn of this length. On the other\nhand, the apostle Paul speaks of the law as given \"four hundred and\nthirty years _after_\" _the promise to Abraham_. Gal. 3:17. In this he\nfollows the Jewish chronology, which is also that of the Septuagint and\nSamaritan Pentateuch, for they read in Exod. 12:40: \"who dwelt in Egypt\nand in the land of Canaan.\" The words, \"in the land of Canaan,\" are\nundoubtedly an added gloss; but the question still remains whether they\nare not a correct gloss. The genealogy of Levi's family (Exod. 6:16-20)\ndecidedly favors the interpretation, which divides the period of four\nhundred and thirty years between Egypt and the land of Canaan. To make\nthis table consistent with a sojourn of four hundred and thirty years in\nEgypt, it would be necessary to assume, with some, that it is an\n_epitome_, not a full list, which does not seem probable.\n\n    Before we can draw any certain argument from the increase of the\n    people in Egypt, we must know the _basis of calculation_. It\n    certainly includes not only the seventy male members of Jacob's\n    family, with their wives and children, but also the families of\n    their male-servants (circumcised according to the law, Gen.\n    17:12, 13, and therefore incorporated with the covenant people).\n    From the notices contained in Genesis, we learn that the\n    families of the patriarchs were very numerous. Gen. 14:14;\n    26:14; 32:10; 36:6, 7. If Abraham was able to arm three hundred\n    and eighteen \"trained servants born in his own house,\" how large\n    an aggregate may we reasonably assume for the servants connected\n    with Jacob's family, now increased to seventy male souls? We\n    must not think of Jacob going into Egypt as a humble personage.\n    He was a rich and prosperous _emir_, with his children and\n    grandchildren, and a great train of servants. With the special\n    blessing of God upon his children and all connected with them,\n    we need find no insuperable difficulty in their increase to the\n    number mentioned at the exodus.\n\n    Provision was made in a miraculous way for the sustenance of the\n    Israelites in the wilderness. The question has been raised: How\n    were their flocks and herds provided for? In answer to this, the\n    following remarks are in point: (1.) We are not to understand\n    the word \"wilderness\" of an absolutely desolate region. It\n    affords pasturage in patches. Robinson describes Wady Feiran,\n    northwest of Sinai, as well watered, with gardens of fruit and\n    palm trees; and he was assured by the Arabs that in rainy\n    seasons grass springs up over the whole face of the desert. The\n    whole northeastern part of the wilderness, where the Israelites\n    seem to have dwelt much of the thirty-eight years, is capable of\n    cultivation, and is still cultivated by the Arabs in patches.\n    (2.) The Israelites undoubtedly marched not in a direct line,\n    but from pasture to pasture, as the modern Arabs do, and\n    spreading themselves out over the adjacent region. When Moses\n    besought his father-in-law not to leave him, but to go with him\n    that he might be to the people instead of eyes (Numb. 10:31), we\n    may well suppose that he had in view Hobab's knowledge of the\n    places where water and pasturage were to be found. (3.) There is\n    decisive evidence that this region was once better watered than\n    it is now, and more fruitful. The planks of acacia-wood, the\n    shittim-wood, which were employed in the construction of the\n    tabernacle, were a cubit and a half in width; that is, in\n    English measure, something more than two and a half feet. No\n    acacia-trees of this size are now found in that region. The\n    cutting away of the primitive forests seems to have been\n    followed, as elsewhere, by a decrease in the amount of rain.\n    But, however this may be, we know that, for some reason, this\n    part of Arabia was once more fertile and populous. In its\n    northeastern part are extensive ruins of former habitations, and\n    enclosed fields. The same is true of the region around Beersheba\n    and south of it. Here Robinson found ruins of former cities, as\n    Eboda and Elusa. Of the latter place he says: \"Once, as we\n    judged upon the spot, this must have been a city of not less\n    than twelve or fifteen thousand inhabitants. Now, it is a\n    perfect field of ruins, a scene of unutterable desolation;\n    across which the passing stranger can with difficulty find his\n    way.\" Vol. 1, p. 197. And of Eboda, farther south: \"The large\n    church marks a numerous Christian population.\" \"But the desert\n    has resumed its rights; the intrusive hand of cultivation has\n    been driven back; the race that dwelt here have perished; and\n    their works now look abroad in loneliness and silence over the\n    mighty waste.\" Vol. 1, p. 194. Ritter, the most accomplished of\n    modern geographers, affirms that from the present number of the\n    thin and negligent population, we can draw no certain conclusion\n    respecting the former condition of the country. Erdkunde, vol.\n    14, p. 927.\n\n    Of the numerous objections urged by Colenso against the\n    Pentateuch, and the book of Exodus in particular, many are\n    imaginary, and vanish upon the fair interpretation of the\n    passages in question. Others, again, rest on false assumptions\n    in regard to facts. For the details, the reader is referred to\n    the works written in reply.\n\n\nIII. LEVITICUS.\n\n9. The Hebrews call this book _Vayyikra_, _and_ [God] _called_. Later\nJewish designations are, _the law of priests_, and _the law of\nofferings_. The Latin name _Leviticus_ (from the Greek _Leuitikon_,\n_Levitical, pertaining to the Levites_) indicates that its contents\nrelate to the duties of the Levites, in which body are included all the\npriests. The book of Leviticus is immediately connected with that which\nprecedes, and follows in the most natural order. The tabernacle having\nbeen reared up and its furniture arranged, _the services pertaining to\nit_ are next ordained, and in connection with these, various\nregulations, most of which come within the sphere of the priestly\noffice. Hence we have (1) the law for the various offerings, followed by\nan account of the anointing of the tabernacle, and the consecration of\nAaron and his sons to the priestly office, with the death of Nadab and\nAbihu for offering strange fire before the Lord (chaps. 1-10); (2)\nprecepts concerning clean and unclean beasts, and cleanness and\nuncleanness in men from whatever source, followed by directions for the\nannual hallowing of the sanctuary on the great day of atonement, and\nalso in respect to the place where animals must be slain, and the\ndisposition to be made of their blood (chaps. 11-17); (3) laws against\nsundry crimes, which admitted, in general, of no expiation, but must be\nvisited with the penalty of the law (chaps. 18-20); (4) various\nordinances pertaining to the purity of the priestly office, the\ncharacter of the sacrifices, the yearly festivals, the arrangements for\nthe sanctuary, etc., with the law for the sabbatical year and the year\nof jubilee (chaps. 22-26:2); (5) a wonderful prophetic chapter,\nannouncing for all coming ages the blessings that should follow\nobedience, and the curses which disobedience should bring upon the\npeople (chap. 26:3-46). There is added, as a sort of appendix, a chapter\nconcerning vows and tithes. Chap. 27.\n\n10. The priestly office, with its sacrifices, was the central part of\nthe Mosaic economy, for it prefigured Christ our great High Priest, with\nhis all-perfect sacrifice on Calvary for the sins of the world. On this\ngreat theme much remains to be said in another place. It is sufficient\nto remark here that the book of Leviticus gives the divine view of\nexpiation. If the expiations of the Levitical law were typical, the\ntypes were true figures of the great Antitype, which is Jesus Christ,\n\"the Lamb of God. which taketh away the sin of the world.\" No view of\nhis death can be true which makes these types empty and unmeaning.\n\n\nIV. NUMBERS.\n\n11. _Bemidhbar_, _in the wilderness_, is the Hebrew name of this book,\ntaken from the fifth word in the original. It is also called from the\nfirst word _Vayyedhabber_, _and_ [God] _spake_. The English version,\nafter the example of the Latin, translates the Greek name _Arithmoi_,\n_numbers_, a title derived from the numbering of the people at Sinai,\nwith which the book opens, and which is repeated on the plains of Moab.\nChap. 26. This book records _the journeyings of the Israelites from\nSinai to the borders of the promised land_, and their sojourn in the\nwilderness of Arabia, with the _various incidents_ that befell them, and\nthe _new ordinances_ that were from time to time added, as occasion\nrequired. It embraces a period of thirty-eight years, and its contents\nare necessarily of a very miscellaneous character. The unity of the book\nis _chronological_, history and legislation alternating with each other\nin the order of time. A full enumeration of the numerous incidents which\nit records, and of the new ordinances from time to time enacted, is not\nnecessary. In the history of these thirty-eight years we notice three\nsalient points or epochs. _The first_ is that of the _departure from\nSinai_. Of the preparations for this, with the order of the march and\nwhatever pertained to it, a full account is given. Then follow the\nincidents of the journey to the wilderness of Paran, with some\nadditional laws. Chaps. 1-12. The _second_ epoch is that of the\nrebellion of the people upon the report of the twelve spies whom Moses\nhad sent to search out the land, for which sin the whole generation that\ncame out of Egypt, from twenty years old and upward, was rejected and\ndoomed to perish in the wilderness. Chaps. 13, 14. This was in the\nsecond year of the exodus. Of the events that followed to the\nthirty-eighth year of the exodus, we have only a brief notice. With the\nexception of the punishment of the Sabbath-breaker, Korah's rebellion\nand the history connected with it, and also a few laws (chaps. 15-19),\nthis period is passed by in silence. The nation was under the divine\nrebuke, and could fulfil its part in the plan of God only by dying for\nits sins with an unrecorded history. The _third_ epoch begins with the\nsecond arrival of Israel at Kadesh, and this is crowded with great\nevents--the death of Miriam, the exclusion of Moses and Aaron from the\npromised land, with the death of the latter at Mount Hor, the refusal of\nEdom to allow a passage through his territory, the wearisome journey of\nthe people \"to compass the land of Edom,\" with their sins and\nsufferings, the conquest of Arad, Sihon, and Og, and thus the arrival of\nthe people at the plains of Moab opposite Jericho. Chaps. 20-22:1. Then\nfollows the history of Balaam and his prophecies, the idolatry and\npunishment of the people, a second numbering of the people, the\nappointment of Joshua as the leader of the people, the conquest of the\nMidianites, the division of the region beyond Jordan to the tribes of\nReuben and Gad and the half-tribe of Manasseh, and a review of the\njourneyings of the people. With all this are intermingled various\nadditional ordinances.\n\n\nV. DEUTERONOMY.\n\n12. The Jewish name of this book is _Elle haddebharim_, _these are the\nwords_. The Greek name _Deuteronomion_, whence the Latin _Deuteronomium_\nand the English _Deuteronomy_, signifies _second_ law, or _repetition of\nthe law_, as it is also called by the later Jews. The book consists of\ndiscourses delivered by Moses to Israel in the plains of Moab over\nagainst Jericho, in the eleventh month of the fortieth year of the\nexodus. Deut. 1:1, 3. The peculiar character of this book and its\nrelation to the preceding books have been already considered in the\nfirst part of the present work (Chap. 9, No. 10), to which the reader is\nreferred. It is generally divided into three parts. The _first_ is\nmainly a recapitulation of the past history of Israel under Moses, with\nappropriate warnings and exhortations, followed by a notice of the\nappointment of three cities of refuge on the east side of Jordan. Chaps.\n1-4. The second discourse begins with a restatement of the law given on\nSinai. Exhortations to hearty obedience follow, which are full of\nfatherly love and tenderness. Various precepts of the law are then\nadded, with some modifications and additions, such as the altered\ncircumstances of the people required. Chaps. 5-26. In the _third_ part\nthe blessings and the curses of the law are prominently set forth as\nmotives to obedience. Chaps. 27-30. The remainder of the book is\noccupied with Moses' charge to Joshua, his direction for depositing the\nlaw in the sanctuary by the side of the ark, his song written by divine\ndirection, his blessing upon the twelve tribes, and the account of his\ndeath and burial on mount Nebo.\n\n13. As the book of Genesis constitutes a suitable _introduction_ to the\nPentateuch, without which its very existence, as a part of the divine\nplan, would be unintelligible, so does the book of Deuteronomy bring it\nto a sublime close. From the goodness and faithfulness of God, from his\nspecial favor bestowed upon Israel, from the excellence of his service,\nfrom the glorious rewards of obedience and the terrible penalties of\ndisobedience, it draws motives for a deep and evangelical obedience--an\nobedience of the spirit and not of the letter only. Thus it adds the\ncorner-stone to the whole system of legislation, completing it on the\nside of the motives by which it challenges obedience, and investing it\nwith radiant glory. The Pentateuch, then, is a whole. The first book is\ninseparable from it as an _introduction_; the last as a _close_. The\nthree intermediate books contain the legislation itself, and in this\neach of them has its appropriate province.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XX.\n\nTHE HISTORICAL BOOKS.\n\n\n1. In the Pentateuch we have the establishment of the Theocracy, with\nthe preparatory and accompanying history pertaining to it. The province\nof the historical books is to _unfold its practiced working_, and to\nshow how, under the divine superintendence and guidance, it accomplished\nthe end for which it was given. They contain, therefore, primarily, a\nhistory of God's dealings with the covenant people under the economy\nwhich he had imposed upon them. They look at the course of human events\non the divine rather than the human side, and in this respect they\ndiffer widely from all other historical writings. Human histories abound\nwith the endless details of court intrigues, of alliances and wars, of\nmaterial civilization and progress, and whatever else pertains to the\nwelfare of men considered simply as the inhabitants of this world. But\nthe historical books of the Old Testament, written by prophetical men\nillumined by the Holy Spirit, unfold with wonderful clearness the mighty\nmovements of God's providence, by which the divine plan proposed in the\nMosaic economy was steadily carried forward, alike through outward\nprosperity and adversity, towards the fulfilment of its high office.\nAfter a long series of bloody struggles, the Theocracy attained to its\nzenith of outward power and splendor under David and Solomon. From that\ntime onward the power of the Israelitish people declined, till they were\nat last deprived of their national independence, and subjected to the\nyoke of foreign conquerors. But in both the growth of the national power\nunder the Theocracy, and its decline, the presence of God and his\nsupremacy, as well over the covenant people as over the surrounding\nnations, were gloriously manifested, and their training for the future\nadvent of the Messiah was steadily carried forward. Thus we have in\nthese historical books a wonderful diversity of divine manifestations,\nwhich alike charm and instruct the pious mind.\n\n2. It has already been shown (Chap. 15, No. 7) that the books of Kings\nand Chronicles contain only _selections_ from a large mass of materials.\nThe same is probably true of the books of Judges and Samuel. The sacred\nwriters did not propose to give a detailed account of all the events\nbelonging to the periods over which their histories extended, but only\nof those which were specially adapted to manifest God's presence and\nguidance in the affairs of the covenant people. The history of some\npersons is given very fully; of others with extreme brevity. But we may\nsay, in general, that this divine history, extending over a period of a\nthousand years, is the most condensed in the world, as well as the most\nluminous with the divine glory. The student rises from the perusal of it\nwith such clear views of God's presence and supremacy in the course of\nhuman affairs, as cannot be gained from all the ponderous tomes of\nsecular history. Each book, moreover, presents some special phase of\nGod's providential movements, and contains, therefore, its special\nlessons of instruction. With few exceptions, the _authors_ of the\nhistorical books are unknown. We only know that they were prophetical\nmen, who wrote under the illumination and guidance of the Holy Spirit.\n\n\nI. JOSHUA.\n\n3. This book records the _conquest of the land of Canaan_ by the\nIsraelites under Joshua, and its _distribution by lot_ among the tribes\nthat received their inheritance on the west side of the Jordan. It\nconnects itself, therefore, immediately with the Pentateuch; for it\nshows how God fulfilled his promise to Abraham that he would give to his\nposterity the land of Canaan for an inheritance (Gen. 17:8), a promise\noften repeated afterwards, and kept constantly in view in the whole\nseries of Mosaic legislation. The book naturally falls into two parts.\nThe _first_ twelve chapters contain the history of the conquest itself,\nwith the movements preparatory thereto. Joshua, who had been previously\ndesignated as the leader of the people (Numb. 27:15-23), receives a\nsolemn charge to pass over the Jordan and take possession of the\npromised land; the people prepare themselves accordingly; two spies are\nsent out to take a survey of Jericho; the Israelites pass over the\nJordan dry-shod, its waters having been miraculously divided; they\nencamp at Gilgal, and are there subjected to the rite of circumcision.\nChaps. 1-5. Then follows an account of the overthrow of Jericho, the\ntrespass of Achan with the calamity which it brought upon the people,\nthe conquest of Ai, the ratification of the law at mount Ebal with the\nerection of the stones on which the law was written, the artifice of the\nGibeonites by which they saved their lives, the overthrow of the\ncombined kings of the Canaanites at Gibeon, and the conquest, first of\nthe southern and afterwards of the northern kings of Canaan. Chaps.\n6-12.\n\nThe _second_ part gives an account of the division of the land by lot\namong the several tribes. This work was begun as is described in\nchapters 13-17, and after an interruption through the dilatoriness of\nthe people, for which Joshua rebuked them, was continued and completed\nat Shiloh. Chaps. 18, 19. Six cities of refuge were then appointed,\nthree on each side of the Jordan; forty-eight cities were assigned by\nlot to the Levites; and the two and a half tribes that had received\ntheir inheritance on the east side of the Jordan (Numb., chap. 32) were\nsent home. Chaps. 20-22. The twenty-third chapter contains Joshua's\ncharge to the elders of Israel, and the twenty-fourth his final charge\nat Shechem to the assembled tribes, on which occasion there was a solemn\nrenewal of the national covenant. The whole book is brought to a close\nby a brief notice of the death of Joshua and Eleazar, and the interment\nof the bones of Joseph in Shechem. This brief survey of the contents of\nthe book reveals at once its unity, its orderly plan, and the place\nwhich it holds in the history of the Theocracy.\n\n4. The _authorship_ of the book cannot be determined from the title\nalone, any more than that of the two books which bear the name of\nSamuel. Jewish tradition ascribes it to Joshua himself, except the last\nfive verses. But it records some transactions which, according to the\nmost obvious interpretation of them, occurred after Joshua's death.\nAmong these are the conquest of Hebron (chap. 15:16-19, compared with\nJudges 1:12-15), and especially the excursion of the Danites (chap.\n19:47), which must be regarded as identical with that described in the\neighteenth chapter of the book of Judges. Unless we assume that this\nnotice of the Danites is an addition made by a later hand, we must\nsuppose that the book was written by some unknown prophetical man after\nJoshua's death. He may well have been one of the elders who overlived\nJoshua, since at the time of his writing Rahab was yet living among the\nIsraelites. Chap. 6:25.\n\n    The eighteenth chapter of the book of Judges, which records the\n    invasion of the Danites, is evidently an _appendix_, introduced\n    by the words: \"In those days there was no king in Israel;\" and\n    that this invasion took place not long after the settlement of\n    the people in Canaan, is manifest from the object proposed by\n    it. Judges 18:1. At the time of the conquest, Rahab was a young\n    woman, and may well have survived that event forty years or\n    more. The only apparent indication of a still later composition\n    of the book is that found in the reference to the book of\n    _Jasher_, chap. 10:13. From 2 Sam. 1:18, we learn (according to\n    the most approved interpretation of the passage) that David's\n    elegy on the death of Saul and Jonathan was written in the book\n    of Jasher. But we are not warranted in affirming that this title\n    was applied to a book of definitely determined contents. It may\n    have been a collection of national songs, enlarged from age to\n    age.\n\n    Though Joshua does not appear to have been the author of the\n    book in its present form, we may well suppose that the writer\n    employed, in part at least, materials that came from Joshua's\n    pen. When the land was divided by lot among the several tribes,\n    the boundaries of each inheritance, with the cities pertaining\n    to it, must have been carefully described in writing by Joshua\n    himself, or by persons acting under his direction. It is\n    probable that these descriptions were copied by the author of\n    the book of Joshua; and this is sufficient to account for any\n    diversity of diction that may exist in this part of the book as\n    compared with the purely historic parts. Nothing in the style\n    and diction of this book, or in that of the two following books\n    of Judges and Ruth, indicates that they belong to a later age of\n    Hebrew literature. Certain peculiarities of expression which\n    occasionally appear in them may be naturally explained as\n    provincialisms, or as belonging to the language of conversation\n    and common life.\n\n5. The book of Joshua bears every internal mark of _authenticity_ and\n_credibility_. The main transaction which it records--the extirpation of\nthe Canaanites by the immediate help of Jehovah, and the gift of their\ncountry to the Israelites--was contemplated from the very first by the\nAbrahamic covenant (Gen. 13:14, 15; 15:18-21; 17:8, etc.), and also by\nthe entire body of the Mosaic laws. Why God chose to accomplish this by\nthe sword of his covenant people, has been already sufficiently\nconsidered. Chap. 10, No. 7. The stupendous miracles recorded in the\nbook of Joshua are in harmony with the entire plan of redemption, the\ngreat and decisive movements of which have been especially marked by\nsignal manifestations of God's presence and power. The man who denies\nthe credibility of this book on the ground of these miracles, must, for\nconsistency's sake, go much farther, and deny altogether the\nsupernatural manifestations of God recorded in the Bible, including the\nmission, miraculous works, resurrection, and ascension of our Lord Jesus\nChrist himself.\n\n    In chap. 10:12-14 we read that, at the word of Joshua, the sun\n    stood still and the moon stayed in the midst of heaven about a\n    whole day, so that \"there was no day like that before it or\n    after it, that the Lord hearkened unto the voice of a man.\" Some\n    have sought to explain the whole passage as a quotation from\n    \"the book of Jasher\" expressed in the language of poetic\n    hyperbole; and they have compared with it such poetic\n    amplifications as those contained in Psa. 18:7-16; Hab., chap.\n    3, etc. But this interpretation is forced and unnatural; and\n    besides this, there remains the analogous event of which we have\n    a double record in 2 Kings 20:8-11; Isa. 38: 7, 8, and which is\n    expressly ascribed to divine power: \"Behold, I will bring again\n    the shadow of the degrees, which is gone down in the sun-dial of\n    Ahaz, ten degrees backward.\" Here it is manifest that to human\n    vision the sun, and with it the shadow, went backward ten\n    degrees. _How_ this was accomplished we need not attempt to\n    determine. We are not shut up to the supposition that the earth\n    was turned back on her axis ten degrees, nor that the rays of\n    the sun were miraculously deflected ten degrees (which would\n    change his apparent position in the heavens ten degrees), nor to\n    any other particular hypothesis. If God chose that the sun\n    should to human vision go backward ten degrees, he could\n    accomplish it by means inscrutable to us; and so also if he\n    chose that it should stand still in the midst of heaven about a\n    whole day.\n\n\nII. JUDGES AND RUTH.\n\n6. The book of Judges is so called because it is occupied with the\nhistory of the Israelites during the period when they were under the\ngeneral administration of _Judges_. These men are not to be confounded\nwith the ordinary judges under the Theocracy, of the appointment of\nwhich we have an account in Exodus, chap. 18. They were men specially\nraised up by God and endowed by him with extraordinary qualifications\nfor their office, which was general and political rather than municipal.\nMany of them were military leaders, called to their work in times of\nnational calamity. In times of peace they stood at the head of public\naffairs, although with regard to some of them it is generally thought\nthat their jurisdiction extended to only a part of the Israelitish\npeople. Thus Jephthah and the three succeeding judges seem to have\nexercised their office in northeastern Israel, while the scene of\nSamson's exploits was southwestern Israel, and he was, in the opinion of\nmany, contemporary with Eli, who judged Israel at Shiloh. The condition\nof the nation during the period of the Judges is described as one in\nwhich \"there was no king in Israel.\" Chap. 18:1; 19:1. There was no\nregularly organized central power which could give unity to the\nmovements of the people. The tribes seem to have acted in a great\nmeasure independently of each other, as in the expedition of the\nDanites. Chap. 18. It was only on special occasions, like that of the\nsin and punishment of the Benjamites (chaps. 19-21), that there was a\ngeneral concert among them. This state of affairs was not favorable to\nthe development of the military power of the nation, but it was well\nsuited to the high moral and religious ends which the Theocracy had in\nview; for it compelled the people to feel their constant dependence on\nGod's presence and help for defence against their enemies. Sin, and\noppression by the surrounding nations; repentance, and deliverance by\nGod's immediate interposition--this is the oft-repeated story of the\nbook of Judges. All this was in accordance with the promises and\nthreatenings of the Law, and it illustrated alike the perverseness of\nthe nation and God's faithfulness in the fulfilment of his covenant. The\nincidents recorded in this book are of a peculiarly checkered character,\nand many of them are full of romantic interest. In the history of\nredemption, the book of Judges has a well-defined place. It unfolds to\nour view the operation of the Theocracy in the first stage of the\nnation's existence, and under its first outward form of government.\n\n7. As it respects the _arrangement of materials_, the book of Judges\nopens with a two-fold _introduction_, giving, first, a brief notice of\nthe wars carried on against the Canaanites by certain tribes after\nJoshua's death, of the failure of the people to effect a complete\nextirpation of the Canaanites, and of the reproof administered to them\nby an angel of the Lord (chap. 1-2:5); secondly, a survey of the course\nof events during the time of the judges, with especial reference to\nGod's faithfulness in the fulfilment of his promises and threatenings.\nChap. 2:6-3:6. Then follows the _body of the work_, giving an account of\nthe _seven servitudes_ to which the people were subjected for their\nsins, and of the judges raised up by God for their deliverance, with\nsome incidental notices, as the history of Abimelech, (chap. 9) and the\nquarrel of the men of Ephraim with Jephthah. Chap. 12:1-6. The book\ncloses with a two-fold _appendix_, recording, first, the conquest of\nLaish by the Danites, and in connection with this the story of Micah and\nhis idolatrous establishment (chaps. 17, 18); secondly, the punishment\nof the Benjamites for espousing the cause of the wicked men of Gibeah\n(chaps. 19-21). These events are not to be conceived of as subsequent to\nthose recorded in the body of the book, but as contemporaneous with\nthem.\n\n8. The remark: \"In those days there was no king in Israel\" (chaps. 18:1;\n19:1) plainly implies that the _date_ of the book of Judges must be\nassigned to a period after the establishment of the kingdom. The\nstatement, on the other hand, that the children of Benjamin did not\ndrive out the Jebusites from Jerusalem, \"but the Jebusites dwell with\nthe children of Benjamin in Jerusalem unto this day\" (chap. 1:21),\nlimits the time of its composition to the period before David's conquest\nof the city. 2 Sam. 5:6-9. The author of the book is unknown. Jewish\ntradition ascribes it to Samuel. It may well have been written during\nhis life, and possibly under his supervision, though on this point we\ncan affirm nothing positively. The writer must have availed himself of\nearlier written documents. See Chap. 15, No. 5.\n\n9. The _chronology_ of the book of Judges is a matter of debate among\nbiblical scholars. Some contend for a longer period, in accordance with\nthe reckoning of the apostle Paul, who says that after God had divided\nto the people the land of Canaan by lot, \"he gave unto them judges about\nthe space of four hundred and fifty years, until Samuel the prophet.\"\nActs 13:20. Others seek to reduce the period so as to bring it into\nharmony with the statement in 1 Kings 6:1, that Solomon began to build\nthe temple \"in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of\nIsrael were come out of the land of Egypt.\"\n\n    If we suppose that the oppression of the Israelites by the\n    Philistines, described in the beginning of the first book of\n    Samuel, is the same as the forty years' oppression mentioned in\n    the book of Judges, and that the judgeship of Samson falls\n    within the same period (Judges 15:20), it is easy to make out\n    the four hundred and fifty years of the apostle's reckoning.\n    From the beginning of the first servitude under\n    Cushan-rishathaim to the close of the last under the\n    Philistines, we have, reckoning the years of servitude and rest\n    in succession, and allowing three years for the reign of\n    Abimelech, three hundred and ninety years. For the remaining\n    sixty years we have (1) the time from the division of the land\n    by lot to the death of the elders who overlived Joshua; (2) the\n    time from the close of the last servitude to the establishment\n    of the kingdom; and possibly (3) a further period for Shamgar's\n    judgeship, though it is more probable that this falls within the\n    eighty years of rest after the oppression of the Moabites. Those\n    who adopt a shorter chronology, assume that the forty years'\n    dominion of the Philistines was contemporaneous with the\n    oppression of the northeastern tribes by the Ammonites and the\n    period during which Jephthah, Ibzan, Elon, and Abdon judged\n    Israel; their jurisdiction being, as they suppose, restricted to\n    the northeastern part of the land. For both the longer and\n    shorter chronology, there are several variously modified\n    schemes, the details of which the student can find in works\n    devoted to the subject of biblical chronology.\n\n10. The incidents of the _book of Ruth_ belong to the period of the\nJudges, so that it may be regarded as in some sort an appendix to the\nbook of Judges, though probably not written by the same author. It\ncontains a beautiful sketch of domestic life in the early period of the\nTheocracy, written with charming simplicity and graphic vividness. Yet\nit is not on this ground alone or chiefly that it has a place in the\nsacred canon. It records also the sublime faith of Ruth the Moabitess,\nwhich led her to forsake her own country and kindred to trust under the\nwings of the Lord God of Israel (ch. 2:12), and which was rewarded by\nher being made the ancestress of David and of the Lord Jesus Christ.\nThus the book connects itself immediately with \"the house and lineage of\nDavid,\" and may be regarded as supplementary to the history of his\nfamily. It was evidently written after David was established on the\nthrone. Further than this we have no certain knowledge respecting its\ndate; nor can its author be determined.\n\n\nIII. THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL.\n\n11. The two books of Samuel constituted originally one work. The\ndivision was made by the Greek translators as a matter of convenience,\nso as to close the first book with the death of Saul, and begin the\nsecond with David's accession to the throne. This division was followed\nby the Vulgate, and was introduced by Daniel Bomberg into the printed\nHebrew text. To the original whole work the name of Samuel was\nappropriately given; for he is not only the central personage in the\nhistory which it records to the establishment of the kingdom, but it was\nalso through him, as the acknowledged prophet of the Theocracy, that\nboth Saul and David were designated and anointed for the kingly office.\nThe Greek Septuagint designates these books from their contents, _First\nand Second_ of _the Kingdoms_, and the Vulgate, _First and Second of\nKings_.\n\n12. In the history of the plan of redemption these two books have a\nwell-defined province. They are occupied with _the establishment_, under\nGod's direction and guidance, _of the kingly form of government_ in the\nTheocracy. All the events recorded before the inauguration of Saul were\npreparatory to that event and explanatory of it. Since, moreover, Saul\nwas afterwards rejected with his family on account of his disobedience,\nand David and his family were chosen in his stead, it was in the person\nof David that the kingdom was first fully established, and with the\nclose of his reign the work accordingly ends. The period included in\nthis history, though comparatively brief, was most eventful. Samuel,\nhimself one of the greatest of the prophets, established a school of the\nprophets, and from his day onward the prophetical order assumed an\nimportance and permanency in the Theocracy that was before unknown. See\nabove, Ch. 15, No. 11. The change to the kingly form of government\nconstituted a new era in the Hebrew commonwealth. Although the motives\nwhich led the people to desire a king were low and unworthy, being\ngrounded in worldliness and unbelief, yet God, for the accomplishment of\nhis own purposes, was pleased to grant their request. The adumbration in\nthe Theocracy of the kingly office of the future Messiah, not less than\nof his priestly and prophetical office, was originally contemplated in\nits establishment; and now the full time for this had come. While David\nand his successors on the throne were true civil and military leaders in\na secular and earthly sense, their headship over God's people also\nshadowed forth the higher headship of the long promised Redeemer, the\ngreat Antitype in whom all the types contained in the Mosaic economy\nfind at once their explanation and their fulfilment. Under David the\nHebrew commonwealth was rescued from the oppression of the surrounding\nnations, and speedily attained to its zenith of outward power and\nsplendor.\n\n13. The _contents_ of the books of Samuel naturally fall under three\nmain divisions. The _introductory_ part takes up the history of the\ncommonwealth under Eli and continues it to the time when the people\ndemanded of Samuel a king. 1 Sam. chaps. 1-7. This period properly\nbelongs to that of the judges, but its history is given here because of\nits intimate connection with the events that follow. It describes the\nbirth and education of Samuel; the disorders that prevailed under Eli's\nadministration, for which God denounced upon his family severe\njudgments; the invasion of the land by the Philistines, with the capture\nand restoration of the ark; Samuel's administration, and the deliverance\nof the people under him from the oppression of the Philistines. The\n_second_ part, extending through the remainder of the first book, opens\nwith an account of the abuses which led the people to desire a king, and\nthen gives an account of the selection, anointing, and inauguration of\nSaul as king of Israel, with a notice of his exploit in delivering the\npeople of Jabesh-gilead from the Ammonites. Chaps 8-12. It then gives an\naccount of his first sin at Gilgal, for which Samuel threatened him with\nthe loss of his kingdom, and of his victory over the Philistines, with a\ngeneral summary of the events of his reign. Chaps. 13, 14. For his\nsecond sin in the matter of the Amalekites Saul is rejected, and David\nis anointed by Samuel as his successor; the Spirit of the Lord forsakes\nSaul, and an evil spirit from God troubles him; David becomes his\nminstrel, is in high favor with him, slays Goliath in the presence of\nthe two armies of Israel and the Philistines, returns in triumph to the\ncamp of Saul, marries Michal his daughter, but becomes an object of his\njealousy and hatred because he has supplanted him in the affections of\nthe people. Chaps. 15-18:9. The remainder of the first book is mainly\noccupied with an account of the persecutions to which David was\nsubjected on the part of Saul, and of the wonderful way in which God\ndelivered him. It closes with an account of Saul's distress through the\ninvasion of the Philistines, of his resort in trouble to a woman that\nhad a familiar spirit, of the terrible message that he received at the\nlips of the risen Samuel, of the defeat of the armies of Israel by the\nPhilistines, and of the death of Saul and his three sons on Mount\nGilboa. The _third_ part occupies the whole of the second book. It\nrecords the reign of David, first at Hebron over the tribe of Judah,\nwith the accompanying war between the house of Saul and the house of\nDavid, and then, after Ishbosheth's death, over all Israel at Jerusalem.\nWith the fidelity of truth the sacred historian describes not only\nDavid's many victories over the enemies of Israel, but also his grievous\nsin in the matter of Uriah, with the terrible chastisements that it\nbrought upon him and his kingdom--Amnon's incest, the murder of Amnon by\nAbsalom, Absalom's rebellion, pollution of his father's concubines, and\ndeath in battle. The closing years of David's reign were saddened also\nby David's sin in numbering the people, for which there fell in\npestilence seventy thousand of his subjects.\n\n14. For the evidence that the author of these books availed himself of\nthe writings of the prophets contemporary with the events described, see\nabove, Chap. 15, No. 6. In 1 Chron. 29:29 we read: \"Now the acts of\nDavid the king, first and last, behold they are written in the book of\nSamuel the seer, and in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the book\nof Gad the seer.\" If, as some think, our present books of Samuel were\ncomposed shortly after David's death, the author may well have been one\nof the last two of the above-named prophets; but there are some\nindications that he lived after the division of the Israelitish people\ninto the two kingdoms of _Judah_ and _Israel_.\n\n    In 1 Sam. 27:6 we read that Achish gave Ziklag to David;\n    \"wheretofore,\" adds the sacred historian, \"Ziklag pertaineth\n    unto the kings of Judah unto this day.\" The only natural\n    interpretation of these words is that the kings of Judah--not\n    any particular king of Judah, but the kings of Judah as a\n    line--are named in contrast with the kings of Israel. In several\n    other passages, where he is speaking of events that occurred\n    _before_ the separation of the two kingdoms, he puts Judah and\n    Israel together. 1 Sam. 11:8; 17:52; 18:16; 2 Sam. 3:10; 24:1.\n    But this can, perhaps, be explained from the fact that during\n    the seven years of David's reign at Hebron there was an actual\n    separation of Judah from the other tribes. It is a remarkable\n    fact that while the full term of David's reign is given (2 Sam.\n    5:4, 5), which implies that the writer lived after its close, no\n    notice is taken of his death. The reason of this omission cannot\n    be known. As the first book of Kings opens with an account of\n    David's last days and death, some have conjectured that it was\n    designedly omitted from the books of Samuel as superfluous, when\n    the historical books were arranged in the sacred canon.\n\n\nIV. THE BOOKS OF KINGS.\n\n15. These two books, like the two of Samuel, originally constituted a\nsingle work. The division was first made by the Greek translators, was\nfollowed by the Vulgate, and was finally admitted by Daniel Bomberg into\nthe printed Hebrew text. The Greek version of the Seventy and the Latin\nversion, having called the books of Samuel, the former, First and Second\nof the Kingdoms, the latter, First and Second of the Kings, designate\nthese books as Third and Fourth of the Kingdoms or Kings. Each of the\nhistorical books presents the covenant people under a new aspect, and\nimparts new lessons of instruction. In the book of Joshua we see them\ntaking triumphant possession of the promised land through the mighty\nassistance of Jehovah; the book of Judges describes the course of\naffairs in the Hebrew commonwealth before the existence of a central\nkingly government; in the books of Samuel we learn how such a central\ngovernment was established, and how under the reign of David the nation\nwas raised from the deep degradation of servitude to the summit of\nworldly power. But the Theocracy was only a preparatory, and therefore a\ntemporary form of God's visible earthly kingdom. From the days of David\nand Solomon it began to decline in outward power and splendor, and it is\nwith the history of this decline that the books of Kings are occupied.\nIn the view which they present of the divine plan they are in perfect\nharmony with the preceding books of Samuel; but in respect to the manner\nof execution they differ widely. The books of Samuel give the history of\nSamuel, Saul, and David, with great fulness of detail, and never refer\nthe reader to other sources of information. The books of Kings, on the\ncontrary, give professedly only certain portions of the history of the\npeople under the successive kings, always adding, at the close of each\nmonarch's reign after Solomon, that the rest of his acts may be found,\nfor the kings of Judah, in \"the book of the Chronicles of the kings of\nJudah;\" and, for the kings of Israel, in \"the book of the Chronicles of\nthe kings of Israel.\" The Chronicles referred to are not our present\nbooks of Chronicles, as has been already shown, Chap. 15, No. 8, but a\nlarger collection of writings, from which the authors both of the books\nof Kings and Chronicles drew materials, in part at least, for their\nrespective works. The history contained in the books of Kings may be\nconveniently divided into three periods--(1) the reign of Solomon over\nall Israel; (2) the history of the coexisting kingdoms of Judah and\nIsrael; (3) the history of the kingdom of Judah after the extinction of\nthe kingdom of Israel.\n\n16. The history of the _first_ period opens with the reign of Solomon,\nwhich excelled that of David in outward magnificence, as it did that of\nevery succeeding king. 1 Kings 3:13. The great event of his reign,\nconstituting an epoch in the history of the Theocracy, was the _erection\nof the temple_ on Mount Moriah, which took the place of the ancient\ntabernacle constructed by divine direction in the wilderness. Thus\nSolomon added to the public services of the sanctuary an outward\nsplendor and dignity corresponding with the increased wealth and glory\nof the nation. But in the case of his kingdom, as often elsewhere, the\nzenith of magnificence came after the zenith of true power. Had his\nprofuse expenditures ceased with the erection of the temple and his own\nhouse, it would have been well; but the maintenance of such a household\nas his, embracing \"seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred\nconcubines,\" corrupted his religion and that of the nation, burdened the\npeople with heavy taxes, and thus prepared the way for the division of\nhis kingdom that followed immediately after his death, as recorded in 1\nKings 12.\n\n17. With the division of Solomon's kingdom under his son Rehoboam into\ntwo hostile nations begins the _second_ period of the history. This\ndivision was brought about by God's appointment as a chastisement for\nSolomon's sins, and in it the national power received a blow from which\nit never recovered. The religious effect also was unspeakably calamitous\nso far as the kingdom of the ten tribes was concerned; for Jeroboam, the\nfirst king of Israel, established idolatry _as a matter of state\npolicy_, thus corrupting the religion of his whole kingdom with a view\nto the establishment of his own power, a sin in which he was followed by\nevery one of his successors. The sacred historian carries forward the\nhistory of these two kingdoms together with wonderful brevity and power.\nSometimes, as in the days of Elijah and Elisha, the history of the ten\ntribes assumes the greater prominence, because it furnishes the fuller\nillustrations of God's presence and power; but as a general fact it is\nkept in subordination to that of Judah. It is a sad record of wicked\ndynasties, each established in blood and ending in blood, until the\noverthrow of the kingdom by the Assyrians about two hundred and\nfifty-four years after its establishment. Meanwhile there was in Judah\nan alternation of pious with idolatrous kings, and a corresponding\nstruggle between the true religion and the idolatry of the surrounding\nnations, which the sacred writer also describes briefly but vividly.\n\n18. It was during the reign of the good king Hezekiah that the\nextinction of the kingdom of Israel took place, and the _third_ period\nof the history began. Hezekiah's efforts for the restoration of the true\nreligion were vigorous and for the time successful. But after his death\nthe nation relapsed again into idolatry and wickedness. The efforts of\nJosiah, the only pious monarch that occupied the throne after Hezekiah,\ncould not avail to stay the progress of national degeneracy, and the\nkingdom of Judah was, in its turn, overthrown by the Chaldeans, and the\npeople carried captive to Babylon.\n\n19. The _chronology_ of certain parts of the history embraced in the\nbooks of Kings is perplexed and uncertain. But the beginning of the\nBabylonish captivity is generally placed B.C. 588, three hundred and\neighty-seven years after the beginning of Rehoboam's reign, and one\nhundred and thirty-three years after the extinction of the kingdom of\nIsrael. Reckoning in the forty years of Solomon's reign, we have for the\nperiod included in the books of Kings to the beginning of the captivity\nfour hundred and twenty-seven years. To this must be added twenty-six\nmore years for the thirty-seventh year of Jehoiachin's captivity (2\nKings 25:27), the last date given by the sacred historian. The _author_\nof the books of Kings is unknown. Jewish tradition ascribes them to\nJeremiah, perhaps on the ground that the last chapter of Jeremiah is\nmostly a repetition of 2 Kings from chap. 24:18 to the end of the book.\nBut Jeremiah and the author of these books may both have made use of\ncommon documents. We only know that the writer lived after the accession\nof Evil-merodach to the throne of Babylon (2 Kings 25:27), and during\nthe full pressure of the Babylonish captivity, since he nowhere gives\nany intimation of its approaching close.\n\n\nV. THE BOOKS OF CHRONICLES.\n\n20. These books, which originally constituted a single work, are called\nby the Hebrews: _Words of the Days_; that is, _History of the Events of\nthe Times_, or _Chronicles_, as they were first called by Jerome. The\nGreek name _Paraleipomena_, _things omitted_, has its ground in the\nfalse supposition that they were designed to be supplementary to the\nbooks of Kings, whereas they constitute an independent work having its\nown plan and end. The author of the books of Kings doubtless looked\nforward to the future restoration of his nation; but the time for that\njoyous event was yet distant, and he could have no immediate reference\nto the wants of the returning exiles. His aim was simply to set forth\nthe course of events under the Theocracy from Solomon to the captivity\nas an illustration of God's faithfulness in the fulfilment of both his\npromises and his threatenings. But the author of the books of Chronicles\nwrote, as all agree, during the process of the restoration. In addition\nto the common aim of all the historical writers, he had a particular\nobject in view, which was to furnish the restored captives with such\ninformation as would be especially interesting and important to them,\nengaged as they were in the reestablishment of the commonwealth. Hence\nwe may naturally explain the peculiarities of these books as compared\nwith the books of Kings.\n\n(1.) The writer gives _particular attention to the matter of genealogy_.\nThe first nine chapters are occupied with genealogical tables\ninterspersed with short historical notices, which the author took, for\nthe most part at least, from documents that have long since perished. To\nthe returning exiles the lineage of their ancestors must have been a\nmatter of general interest. A knowledge of the descent of the families\nof the different tribes would greatly facilitate the people in regaining\ntheir former inheritances. To the priests and Levites, especially, it\nwas of the highest importance that they should be able to show their\nlineage, since upon this depended their right to minister in holy\nthings. Ezra 2:61-63.\n\n(2.) The books of Chronicles are very _full on all that pertains to the\ntemple service_. The writer devotes, for example, eight chapters to an\naccount of David's preparations for the erection of the temple, and of\nhis elaborate arrangements for all the different parts of the service\npertaining to the sanctuary. 1 Chron. chaps. 22-29. He gives a\nparticular description of the solemn covenant made by the people with\nJehovah under Asa's direction, 2 Chron. 15:1-15; of the reformatory\nlabors and faith of Jehoshaphat, 2 Chron. 19, 20; of Hezekiah, 2 Chron.\nchaps. 29-31; and he adds to the account of Josiah's efforts against the\nidolatrous practices of his day, a notice of his solemn observance of\nthe passover, 2 Chron. 35:1-19.\n\n(3.) He _omits_, on the other hand, _the history of the kingdom of\nIsrael_, giving only a notice of its establishment, and of certain parts\nof its history which were connected with that of the kingdom of Judah.\nThe apparent ground of this is, that the kingdom of the ten tribes\nfurnished no example which could be available to the people in the work\nof reestablishing the commonwealth. It is to be noticed, moreover, that\nhe passes over in silence the adultery of David with its calamitous\nconsequences, and the idolatry of Solomon. This is, perhaps, due to the\nbrevity of the history before the division of the kingdom; for he does\nnot spare the sins of the pious monarchs that followed. See 2 Chron.\n16:7-12; 19:2; 32:25, 31; 35:21, 22.\n\n21. In the Hebrew canon the books of Chronicles stand last in order. It\nis generally agreed that they were written, after the return of the Jews\nfrom the Babylonish captivity, _by Ezra_, who had all the qualifications\nfor such a work. Whatever use he may have made of the earlier books of\nSamuel and Kings, it is plain that these were not his chief sources, for\nhe records many things not found in them. He and the author of the books\nof Kings had access to the same public records, and each of them made\nsuch selections from them as suited his purposes. Hence the matter\ncontained in the two works agrees in part, and is partly different. See\nabove, Chap. 15, Nos. 7, 8.\n\n22. That there are some discrepancies between the books of Samuel and\nKings and the books of Chronicles, arising from errors in transcribing,\nis generally admitted. These relate, however, mainly to dates, and do\nnot affect the general integrity of the works. But most of the\ndisagreements between the earlier and later histories are only apparent,\narising from their brevity, and from the fact that their authors\nfrequently select from the same reign different events, the one passing\nby in silence what the other records; or that, where they record the\nsame events, various accompanying circumstances are omitted.\n\n    An example of apparent error in transcription is 2 Sam. 24:13\n    compared with 1 Chron. 21:12; the former passage specifying\n    _seven_ years of famine, the latter _three_ years. For other\n    examples see 2 Sam. 8:4 compared with 1 Chron. 18:4; 2 Sam. 23:8\n    with 1 Chron. 11:11; 1 Kings 4:26 with 2 Chron. 9:25. We are not\n    to infer, however, that all cases of apparent disagreement\n    involve error in one or the other of the records. When the\n    events of a whole campaign, for example, are crowded into single\n    sentences, it is not surprising that the different narratives\n    should contain seeming discrepancies which a full knowledge of\n    the details would enable us to reconcile. The separate\n    discussion of the difficulties presented by the books of\n    Chronicles, as compared with the earlier histories, belongs to\n    the commentator. It is sufficient to remark here, that\n    independent parallel histories always exhibit, with substantial\n    agreement, minor diversities which it is sometimes not easy to\n    harmonize. It has not pleased God that in this respect the\n    sacred narratives of either the Old or the New Testament should\n    constitute an exception to the general rule. The parallel\n    narratives of our Lord's life contain as many and as great\n    diversities as those of the old Hebrew commonwealth. Though we\n    may not always be able to show how these are to be brought into\n    harmony, they constitute no valid objection to the authenticity\n    of the histories in the one case any more than in the other.\n\n\nVI. EZRA AND NEHEMIAH.\n\n23. In the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, which record the most important\nevents connected with the _restoration of the Hebrew commonwealth_, we\nhave unfolded to our view a new era in the history of the Theocracy. The\ncontrast between the relation of the Israelitish people to the heathen\nworld in the days of Joshua, and of Ezra and Nehemiah is as great as\npossible. Under Joshua the people marched, sword in hand, as invincible\nconquerors, to the possession of the promised land, while the hearts of\ntheir enemies melted before them. After the captivity they returned in\nweakness and fear, by the permission of their heathen rulers and under\ntheir patronage and protection. But in the latter case, not less than in\nthe former, the Theocracy was steadily advancing under God's guidance\ntowards the accomplishment of its high end, which was the preparation of\nthe Jewish people, and through them the world, for the advent of the\npromised Messiah. In the beginning of the Mosaic economy, and during the\nearlier part of its course, it was altogether appropriate that God\nshould make stupendous supernatural manifestations of his infinite\nperfections and of his supreme power over the nations of the world. Thus\nhe revealed himself as the only living and true God in the sight of all\nmen. But as the history of the covenant people went forward, there was a\ngradual return to the ordinary providential administration of the divine\ngovernment. God's miraculous interventions were never made for mere\ndisplay. They always had in view a high religious end. As that end\napproached its accomplishment, they were more and more withdrawn, and\nsoon after the captivity they ceased altogether until the final and\nperfect manifestation of God in Christ. From Malachi to Christ was the\nlast stage of the Theocracy, when, in the language of the New Testament,\nit was waxing old and ready to vanish away. Heb. 8:13. It was neither\nneedful nor proper that its history should be dignified by such displays\nof God's miraculous power as marked its earlier periods.\n\n24. But, although the age of miracles ceased after the Babylonish\ncaptivity, the Theocracy went steadily forward in the accomplishment of\nits divine mission. In truth it was now that it secured for the first\ntime, as a permanent result, the high end proposed by it from the\nbeginning, that of rescuing a whole nation from idolatrous practices and\nmaking it steadfast in the worship of the true God, at least so far as\nthe outward life is concerned. By the permanent subjection of the Jewish\npeople to heathen rulers, their national pride was humbled, and they\nwere placed in such a relation to heathenism as inclined them to abhor\nrather than imitate its rites. The fulfilment of the terrible\nthreatenings contained in the law of Moses in the complete overthrow,\nfirst of the kingdom of Israel, and afterwards of that of Judah, and\ntheir long and bitter bondage in Babylon, administered to them severe\nbut salutary lessons of instruction, under the influence of which they\nwere, by God's blessing, finally reclaimed from idolatrous practices. In\nconnection with the restoration, the synagogue service was established,\nin which the law and the prophets were regularly read and expounded to\nthe people throughout the land. To this, more than to any other human\ninstrumentality, was due that steadfastness which the Jewish people ever\nafterwards manifested in the worship of the true God. Thus, while the\noutward glory of the Theocracy declined, it continued to accomplish the\ntrue spiritual end for which it was established.\n\n25. The book of _Ezra_ embraces a period of about seventy-nine years,\nfrom the accession of Cyrus to the throne of Persia to the close of\nEzra's administration, or at least to the last transaction under it of\nwhich we have a record. The first six chapters give a brief sketch of\nthe course of events among the restored captives before Ezra's arrival\nat Jerusalem, especially their activity in rebuilding the temple, the\nformidable opposition which they encountered from the neighboring\npeople, and how that opposition was finally overcome. The last four\nchapters contain the history of Ezra's administration, the chief event\nof which was the putting away by the princes and people of the heathen\nwives whom they had married. That Ezra was the author of this book is\ngenerally acknowledged. The first three verses are a repetition, with\nsome unessential variations, of the last two verses of Chronicles, of\nwhich he is also believed, on good grounds, to have been the author. In\ncertain passages he speaks of himself in the third person; Ch. 7:1-26;\nch. 10; but there is no reason to deny, on this ground, that he was\ntheir author. Jeremiah changes, in like manner, employing sometimes the\nfirst and sometimes the third person. Certain parts of this book, which\nare mainly occupied with public documents respecting the building of the\ntemple and the orderly arrangement of its services, are written in the\nChaldee language, namely: chaps. 4:8-6:18; 7:12-26.\n\n    In respect to the Persian monarchs mentioned in this and the two\n    following books, there is not an entire agreement among biblical\n    scholars. The following table, formed in accordance with the\n    views that seem to be best supported, will be useful to the\n    reader. It contains, arranged in three parallel columns, first\n    the names of the Persian kings in their order of succession, as\n    given by profane historians; secondly, their scriptural names;\n    thirdly, the dates of their accession to the throne, according\n    to the received chronology.\n\n    Cyrus,                   Cyrus, Ezra 1:1, etc.,          B.C. 536.\n\n    Cambyses,                Ahasuerus, Ezra 4:6,              \"  529.\n\n    Smerdis,[1]              Artaxerxes, Ezra 4:7-23,          \"  522.\n\n    Darius Hystaspis,        Darius, Ezra 4:24-6:15,[2]        \"  521.\n\n    Xerxes,                  Ahasuerus, Esther throughout,[3]  \"  485.\n\n    Artaxerxes Longimanus,   Artaxerxes, Ezra 7:1, etc.; Neh.\n                             2:1, etc.                         \"  464.\n\n    [Footnote 1: He was a usurper who reigned less than a year.]\n\n    [Footnote 2: But in Neh. 12:22, Darius Nothus or Darius\n    Codomanus must be referred to.]\n\n    [Footnote 3: Some suppose Darius, others Artaxerxes, to have\n    been the Ahasuerus of Esther.]\n\n26. The book of _Nehemiah_ continues the history of the Jewish people\nafter the restoration, beginning with the commission which Nehemiah\nreceived from Artaxerxes Longimanus, king of Persia, in the twentieth\nyear of his reign (B.C. 446), to go to Jerusalem in the capacity of\nTirshatha, or civil governor, for the purpose of rebuilding the walls of\nJerusalem and setting in order the affairs of the commonwealth. The book\nnaturally falls into three divisions. The _first_ division contains the\nhistory of his labors in rebuilding the walls of the city and putting an\nend to the practice of usury, and of the violent opposition and\nintrigues of the surrounding people. Chaps. 1-7:4. To this is appended a\ngenealogical list, which is the same for substance as that contained in\nthe second chapter of Ezra. Ch. 7:5-73.\n\n    Upon a comparison of the two catalogues, we find various\n    differences in respect to names and numbers. The differences of\n    names may be explained from the fact that it was common for men\n    to bear different titles, particularly if they were persons of\n    distinction; as, for example, Daniel and Belteshazzar,\n    Zerubbabel and Sheshbazzar. It is not certain upon what\n    principle the differences in numbers are to be explained. The\n    sum total of both catalogues is the same, namely, 42,360; from\n    which it is plain that the lists are in both cases partial,\n    since neither of them amounts to this sum. We add the following\n    suggestion from Grey's Key as quoted by Scott: \"The sum of the\n    numbers, as separately detailed, will correspond, if to the\n    29,818 specified by Ezra, we add the 1,765 persons reckoned by\n    Nehemiah which Ezra has omitted; and, on the other hand, to the\n    31,089 enumerated by Nehemiah, add the 494, which is an overplus\n    in Ezra, not noticed by Nehemiah; both writers including in the\n    sum total 10,777 of the mixed multitude, not particularized in\n    the individual detail.\"\n\nIn the _second_ division we have an account of the solemn public reading\nof the law of Moses at the feast of tabernacles, and, in connection with\nthis, of the renewal of the national covenant with Jehovah through the\nsignature and seal of the princes, Levites, and priests, in their own\nbehalf and that of the people. Chaps. 8-10. In this religious and\necclesiastical transaction, Ezra the priest was the leader; Nehemiah, as\nthe Tirshatha, or civil governor, simply taking the lead of the princes\nin the act of sealing.\n\nThe _third_ division contains, along with some genealogical lists, an\naccount of the measures taken by Nehemiah and the princes to increase\nthe number of residents in Jerusalem, of the solemn dedication of the\nwall of Jerusalem, and of the rectification of various abuses which had\ncrept in partly during Nehemiah's absence at the court of Persia. Chaps.\n11-13.\n\n    The date of Nehemiah's commission to rebuild the walls of\n    Jerusalem is important on account of its connection with the\n    seventy prophetic weeks of Daniel, which are reckoned \"from the\n    going forth of the commandment to restore and to build\n    Jerusalem.\" Dan. 9:25. It cannot be considered as exactly\n    ascertained, but may be placed somewhere from B.C. 454 to B.C.\n    446. See the commentators on Dan. 9:24-27. How long Nehemiah's\n    administration continued after his visit to the court of Persia,\n    in the twelfth year of his rule, is not known.\n\n27. The book, as its title testifies, was written by Nehemiah, not\nearlier than his return from the court of Persia (ch. 13:6; 5:14); how\nmuch later cannot be known. From the general character of style and\ndiction which belongs to the second division (chaps. 8-10), as well as\nfrom the absence of Nehemiah's peculiar forms of speech, some have\nthought that Ezra, as the chief actor in the reading of the law and\nrenewal of the national covenant, wrote the account of the transaction,\nand that Nehemiah incorporated it into his work. To this supposition\nthere is no serious objection. We must remember, however, that arguments\nbased on supposed differences of style cannot amount to much where the\nmaterials from which a conclusion is to be drawn are so scanty.\n\n    The genealogical notice in ch. 12:10, 11, which gives the\n    lineage of the high priests from Joshua to Jaddua, who is\n    apparently the high priest described by Josephus as having met\n    Alexander the Great on his march to Jerusalem, is thought by\n    many to be an addition made after Nehemiah's death as a matter\n    of public interest. See above, Chap. 15, No. 17. The same\n    judgment is passed by some on 1 Chron. 3:19-24. But the\n    interpretation of this latter passage is very uncertain.\n\n\nVII. ESTHER.\n\n28. This book, the author of which is unknown, records the wonderful\nmanner in which the plot of Haman the Agagite to destroy the Jews was\nnot only overthrown, but turned to their enlargement and honor. It is\nremarkable that the author refrains throughout from mentioning the name\nof God, although he manifestly designs to represent this deliverance as\neffected by his providence, and that too in answer to the fervent\nprayers of the Jews in connection with a fast of three days'\ncontinuance. He prefers, as it would seem, to let the facts speak for\nthemselves. The book closes with an account of the establishment, under\nthe auspices of Mordecai and Esther, of the feast of Purim, in\ncommemoration of the deliverance which it records; and we are perhaps\nwarranted in saying that the immediate occasion of writing the book was\nto show the historic origin of that festival--a festival mentioned in\nthe second book of Maccabees, under the title of _Mordecai's_ day (chap.\n15:36), and observed, according to Josephus, by the Jews throughout the\nwhole world. Antiq., 11, 6. 13.\n\n29. Among the various opinions respecting the Ahasuerus of this book,\nthe best sustained is that which identifies him with the celebrated\n_Xerxes_ of profane history. With this agrees all that is said of the\nsplendor and extent of his dominions, extending \"from India even unto\nEthiopia, over a hundred and seven and twenty provinces\" (1:1), and of\nhis passionate, capricious, and sensual character.\n\n    To us, who are accustomed to a government of law, in which the\n    rulers are restrained from the exercise of arbitrary power, and\n    are kept under constant restraint by popular opinion, the\n    incidents recorded in this book seem very strange. But it gives\n    a true and faithful portraiture of the course of affairs at the\n    court of a Persian despot, where the monarch knows no law but\n    his own arbitrary will, suddenly elevates his favorites to the\n    highest places of power and trust, as suddenly consigns them to\n    the hand of the executioner, and gives himself up to the\n    unbridled indulgence of his passions. The history of Haman's\n    sudden rise and fall is that of many an oriental courtier since\n    his day. The Jews, we are told, \"slew of their foes seventy and\n    five thousand.\" This was a very great slaughter; but we must\n    remember that it was distributed through all the provinces of\n    the kingdom. Ch. 9:16. The permission which they had received\n    was \"in every city to gather themselves together, and to stand\n    for their life; to destroy, to slay, and to cause to perish, all\n    the power of the people and province that would assault them,\n    both little ones and women, and to take the spoil of them for a\n    prey\" (ch. 8:11); all which, except the last clause, seems to\n    have been carried into execution. We are not required to\n    vindicate the wisdom of this severe decree, or to deny that the\n    Jews may have used to excess the terrible power thus conferred\n    upon them. On the side of God's providence, the vengeance that\n    fell upon the Jews' enemies was righteous; but on the side of\n    the human instrumentalities employed by him, there may have been\n    much imperfection, or even folly and wickedness. So it has ever\n    been in the history of human affairs, and so it is at the\n    present day.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXI.\n\nTHE POETICAL BOOKS (INCLUDING ALSO ECCLESIASTES AND CANTICLES).\n\n\n1. The Hebrews reckon but three books as _poetical_, namely: Job,\nPsalms, and Proverbs, which are distinguished from the rest by a\nstricter rhythm--the rhythm not of feet, but of _clauses_ (see below,\nNo. 3)--and a peculiar system of accentuation. It is obvious to every\nreader that the poetry of the Old Testament, in the usual sense of the\nword, is not restricted to these three books. But they are called\npoetical in a special and technical sense. In any natural classification\nof the books of the Old Testament, those of Ecclesiastes and Canticles\nwill fall into the division which contains the books of Job, Psalms, and\nProverbs.\n\n    The Hebrew system of accentuation is very subtle and\n    complicated, and there is nothing corresponding to it in our\n    western languages. These so-called accents are quite numerous,\n    one of them resting, as a general rule, upon each word. Certain\n    of them are peculiar to the poetical books, and are called\n    poetical accents. They serve a threefold office. (1.) They guide\n    the modulated flow of the voice in _cantillation_, thus serving,\n    in a certain sense, as _musical notes_. Some think that this was\n    their primary office. (2.) They indicate the _logical relation_\n    to each other of the words and clauses, thus performing the\n    office of marks of _interpunction_. (3.) They rest, with certain\n    exceptions, on the _tone_ syllable, and thus serve as _accents_\n    in our restricted sense of the word.\n\nIn the first division of the present chapter, the _characteristics of\nHebrew poetry_ will be briefly considered in respect to its _spirit_,\nits _form_, and its _offices_. Then will follow, in the second division,\na notice of the _contents of the several books_.\n\n\n(A.) CHARACTERISTICS OF HEBREW POETRY.\n\n2. As it respects the _spirit_ of Hebrew poetry, we notice, first of\nall, its perfect _harmony with the spirit of the Theocracy_. It is, in\ntruth, an outgrowth of the Theocracy in the souls of holy men educated\nunder its influence and thoroughly imbued with its spirit. The God of\nMoses and Aaron is also the God of David, Asaph, and Solomon; of Hosea,\nIsaiah, and Habakkuk. In his boldest flights the Hebrew poet always\nremains loyal to the institutions of Moses, not in their letter alone,\nbut much more in their spirit, of which he is the inspired interpreter.\nThe same Jehovah who thundered from Sinai and spake to the people by\nMoses, speaks also by the sweet psalmist of Israel, by the wisdom of\nSolomon, and by the whole succession of the prophets. Hence the poetry\nof the Hebrews is radiant throughout with the pure monotheism of the\nTheocracy. It exhibits God in his infinite perfections, as the Creator\nand sovereign Ruler of the world, without a single taint of pantheism or\npolytheism, and that in an age when pantheism and polytheism were the\nreigning forms of religion without the pale of the covenant people.\n\nAnother distinguishing mark of Hebrew poetry is the _vivid consciousness\nof God's presence_ by which it is pervaded. In this respect it runs\nentirely parallel with Hebrew history. It has already been remarked (Ch.\n20, No. 1) that Hebrew history differs widely from all other historical\nwritings in its habit of looking at the course of human events from the\nDivine side, rather than the human; that while secular history is mainly\noccupied with the endless details of human combinations and alliances,\nand the progress of material civilization, the historical books of the\nOld Testament unfold to us with wonderful clearness God's presence and\npower as shaping the course of human events in the interest of his great\nplan of redemption. Take, for example, that small section of Hebrew\nhistory comprehended under the title, _Affinity with Ahab_. No Christian\ncan read it without feelings of holy awe, for it is radiant throughout\nwith the presence of that righteous God who renders to every man\naccording to his works, and visits the iniquity of the fathers upon the\nchildren to the third and fourth generation. In it the retributive\njustice of God shines forth, like the lightning, from one end of heaven\nto the other. Just so is Hebrew poetry also filled with the presence and\nglory of God. When the Hebrew bard sweeps his lyre, all nature gives\nsigns of her Maker's presence. The heavens rejoice before him, the earth\nis glad, the sea roars, the mountains and hills break forth into\nsinging, and all the trees of the field clap their hands. He looks on\nthe earth, and it trembles; he touches the hills, and they smoke. Nor\nless conspicuous is his presence in providence and in the human soul. He\nis seen in awful majesty high above the tumult of the nations, directing\ntheir movements to the accomplishment of his own infinitely wise\npurposes; making the wrath of man to praise him, and restraining the\nremainder of it. Meanwhile his presence shines in the believer's soul,\nlike the sun in his strength, filling it with strength, light, and\ngladness. In a word, over the whole domain of Hebrew poesy, whether its\ntheme be God or nature or human society or the human spirit, is heard\ncontinually the solemn cry of the seraphim: \"Holy, holy, holy, is the\nLord of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory.\"\n\n_Originality_ is another feature of Hebrew poetry. It cannot indeed be\nsaid that this quality belongs to all the Hebrew poets. With such\ndivinely perfect models as the later writers had before them, models\nwith which they had been familiar from childhood, it was natural that\nthey should imitate them. The spirit of inspiration did not prevent\nthis, for it was not necessary to the ends of revelation that it should\nbe prevented. Set even among the later poets we have some striking\nexamples of originality; and Hebrew poetry, taken as a whole, is\noriginal in the fullest sense of the word, borrowing nothing that we\nknow of from any other nation. Not to anticipate the question of the age\nto which the book of Job belongs, and passing by some gems of poetry\ncontained in the book of Genesis, we may say that the oldest recorded\nsong of certain date which the world possesses is that of the Israelites\nupon their deliverance at the Red sea. Exod., ch. 15. Next in order (to\npass by the poetic effusions of Balaam, and some other fragments, Numb.,\nchaps. 21-24) come the song which Moses wrote for the children of Israel\njust before his death (Deut., ch. 32), and (according to the title, the\ngenuineness of which there is no valid reason for doubting) \"the prayer\nof Moses the man of God,\" contained in the ninetieth psalm. In the\nperiod of the judges we have only the song of Deborah and Barak. The\nperfect originality of all these primitive songs is acknowledged by all.\nIt constitutes indeed one of their chief charms. With \"the sweet\npsalmist of Israel\" began the era of lyric song; with Solomon that of\ndidactic, and with Hosea, Joel, Isaiah, and their contemporaries, that\nof prophetic poetry. The poets to whom, under the illumination of the\nHoly Ghost, these different forms of Hebrew poetry owe their origin, are\nall distinguished for their originality. So is also the book of Job,\nthat great didactic song so perfectly unique in its character.\n\nThe wonderful _freshness and simplicity of thought_ in Hebrew poetry is\ninseparably connected with its originality. A thought is fresh when it\nbursts forth directly from the inner fountain of the soul just as it was\nconceived there. But the moment the man pauses to remould it and shape\nit to some artificial standard of propriety, it loses its originality\nand its freshness together. It is no longer the living, glowing\nconception as it existed in his bosom, but rather what he thinks it\nought to have been. In the process of working it over he has killed, if\nnot its life, at least its power. But the Hebrew poet opens, so to\nspeak, the floodgates of his heart, and pours forth the stream of his\nthoughts and emotions just as they have sprung into being there. Because\nhe is under the sanctifying and illuminating influence of the divine\nSpirit, they are high and holy thoughts. Because they come forth in\ntheir primitive form, they are natural and fresh; and for this reason\nthe lapse of ages does not diminish their power over the human spirit.\n\nIntimately connected also with the originality of Hebrew poetry is its\ncharming _variety_. The Hebrew poets are exceedingly unlike each other\nin native character, in training, in surrounding circumstances, and in\nthe nature of the work laid upon them by the Spirit of inspiration. And\nas they all write in a natural and appropriate way, it follows that\ntheir writings must exhibit great diversities. No two writers can well\nbe more unlike each other than Isaiah and the author of the book of Job.\nWith Isaiah the central object of thought is always _Zion_, in whose\ninterest he sees God governing the world, and whose future glory is\nrevealed to him in prophetic vision. But Zion is not an individual. She\nis a divine organization which God has destined to universal victory,\nand around which revolve, under his almighty guidance, the great\nmovements of the heathen nations. The prophet, accordingly, has to do\nnot so much with particular persons, as with the destiny of society,\nwhich is involved in that of Zion. He describes her present conflicts\nand her future triumphs in his own peculiar and gorgeous imagery. But\nthe problem before the author of the book of Job is _God's providence\ntowards individuals_, as viewed from the position of the Old Testament\nbefore the fuller revelations of the New. He is occupied with the\ndestiny of particular persons, rather than of nations or of human\nsociety at large. To the solution of the question of God's justice\ntowards individual man he directs all his energy, and he discusses this\ngreat theme in a manner as effective as it is original. His imagery is\nas forcible as that of Isaiah, but how different, and how powerfully\nadapted to his end! A few passages from each of these great poets, set\nside by side, will exhibit the contrast between them in a striking\nmanner.\n\nJOB.                                 ISAIAH\n\nTHE PROSPERITY OF THE RIGHTEOUS.     THE PROSPERITY OF ZION.\n\nHe shall deliver thee in six         Violence shall no more be heard in\ntroubles: yea, in seven there shall  thy land, wasting nor destruction\nno evil touch thee. In famine he     within thy borders, but thou shalt\nshall redeem thee from death: and    call thy walls Salvation, and thy\nin war from the power of the sword.  gates Praise. The sun shall be no\nThou shalt be hid from the scourge   more thy light by day; neither for\nof the tongue: neither shalt thou    brightness shall the moon give\nbe afraid of destruction when it     light unto thee; but the Lord shall\ncometh. At destruction and famine    be unto thee an everlasting light,\nthou shalt laugh: neither shalt      and thy God thy glory. Thy sun\nthou be afraid of the beasts of the  shall no more go down; neither\nearth. For thou shalt be in league   shall thy moon withdraw itself; for\nwith the stones of the field: and    the Lord shall be thine everlasting\nthe beasts of the field shall be at  light, and the days of thy mourning\npeace with thee. And thou shalt      shall be ended. Thy people also\nknow that thy tabernacle shall be    shall be all righteous: they shall\nin peace; and thou shalt visit thy   inherit the land forever, the\nhabitation, and shalt not sin. Thou  branch of my planting, the work of\nshalt know also that thy seed shall  my hands, that I may be glorified.\nbe great, and thine offspring as     A little one shall become a\nthe grass of the earth. Thou shalt   thousand, and a small one a strong\ncome to thy grave in a full age,     nation: I the Lord will hasten it\nlike as a shock of corn cometh in    in his time. Ch. 60:18-22.\nin his season. Ch. 5:19-26.\n\nJOB.                                 ISAIAH.\n\nTHE OVERTHROW OF THE WICKED.         THE OVERTHROW OF ZION'S ENEMIES.\n\nHe shall flee from the iron weapon,  For he bringeth down them that\nand the bow of steel shall strike    dwell on high; the lofty city, he\nhim through. It is drawn, and        layeth it low; he layeth it low,\ncometh out of the body; yea, the     even to the ground; he bringeth it\nglittering sword cometh out of his:  even to the dust. The foot shall\ngall: terrors are upon him. All      tread it down, even the feet of the\ndarkness shall be hid in his secret  poor, and the steps of the needy.\nplaces: a fire not blown shall       Ch. 26:5, 6. For I will contend\nconsume him; it shall go ill with    with him that contendeth with thee,\nhim that is left in his tabernacle.  and I will save thy children. And\nThe heaven shall reveal his          I will feed them that oppress thee\niniquity; and the earth shall rise   with their own flesh; and they\nup against him. The increase of      shall be drunken with their own\nhis house shall depart, and his      blood, as with sweet wine: and all\ngoods shall flow away in the day of  flesh shall know that I the Lord\nhis wrath. Ch. 20:24-28.             am thy Savious and thy Redeemer,\n                                     the mighty one of Jacob. Ch. 49:25,\n                                     26\n\nIf now we open the book of Psalms, we find ourselves in a new world of\npoetry, as different from that of Isaiah as it is from that of the book\nof Job. David was anointed by God to be the head and leader of Israel.\nAs such he had a perpetual outward conflict with powerful, crafty, and\nmalicious foes, who sought his life and his kingdom. This brought to him\na perpetual inward conflict with doubts and fears. Under the pressure of\nthis double conflict he penned those wonderful psalms, which are the\nembodiment of his whole religious life. And since heart answers to\nheart, as face to face in water, they are the embodiment of religious\nlife in all ages. The songs of David and his illustrious collaborators,\nAsaph and the sons of Korah, are emphatically the poetry of religious\nexperience. As such they can never grow old. They are as fresh to-day as\nwhen they were written. God has given them to his church as a rich\ntreasury for \"the service of song in the house of the Lord,\" in the\nfamily, and in the closet. If we turn from the book of Psalms to the\nbook of Proverbs, we have still another type of poetry, unlike any one\nof the forms hitherto considered. It is the poetry of _reflection_ on\nthe course of human life, as seen in the light of God's law and God's\nprovidence. It is, therefore, didactic in the highest sense of the\nword--the poetry of practical life. The maxims of heavenly wisdom\nembodied in the book of Proverbs will make all who study them, believe\nthem, and obey them, prosperous in this life and happy in the life to\ncome. This contrast between the great Hebrew poets might be carried\nthrough the whole galaxy, but the above hints must suffice.\n\n_Diversity of themes_ often coincides with difference in the character\nof the poets. Where the theme is the same, each writer will still pursue\nhis own peculiar method. If that theme be the vengeance of God on the\nwicked, the style will naturally be rugged and abrupt. Yet the\nruggedness and abruptness of David will not be that of Hosea or Nahum.\nBut where both the theme and the character of the poet differ, there the\ndiversity of style becomes very striking. To illustrate this, take the\ntwo following passages:\n\nDAVID.                               NAHUM\n\nGOD'S FAVOR TO THE RIGHTEOUS.        GOD'S VENGEANCE ON THE WICKED\n\nThe Lord is my shepherd; I shall     The mountains quake at him, and\nnot want. He maketh me to lie        the hills mels, and the hearth is\ndown in green pastures: he leadeth   burned at his presence, yea, the\nme beside the still waters. He       world, and all that dwell therein.\nrestoreth my soul: he leadeth me in  Who can stand before his\nthe paths of righteousness for his   indignation? and who can abide in\nname's sake. Yea, though I walk      the fierceness of his anger? his\nthrough the valley of the shadow of  fury is poured out like fire, and\ndeath, I will fear no evil: for      the rocks are thrown down by him.\nthou art with me; thy rod and thy    The Lord is good, a strong hold in\nstaff they comfort me. Thou          the day of trouble; and he knoweth\npreparest a table before me in the   them that trust in him. But with\npresence of mine enemies: thou       an overrunning flood he will make\nanointest my head with oil; my cup.  an utter end of the place thereof,\nrunneth over. Surely goodness and    and darkness shall pursue his\nmercy shall follow me all the days   enemies. Nahum 1:5-8\nof my life; and I will dwell in\nthe house of the Lord for ever.\nPsa. 23.\n\nThe passage from Nahum is like a pent-up mountain stream leaping from\nprecipice to precipice. The psalm is like the same stream escaped to the\nplain, and winding its way gently and placidly through green meadows and\nshady groves vocal with the songs of birds. This subject might be\npursued to an indefinite extent. Suffice it to say that Hebrew poetry\nhas the charm of endless variety, always with graceful adaptation to the\nnature of the theme.\n\nThe _oriental imagery_ in which Hebrew poetry abounds imparts to it a\npeculiar and striking costume. Palestine was, in an emphatic sense, the\nHebrew poet's world. It was the land given by God to his fathers for an\neverlasting possession; about which all his warm affections clustered;\nwith whose peculiar scenery and climate, employments and associations,\nall his thoughts and feelings had been blended from childhood. It\nfollowed of necessity that these must all wear an oriental costume. As\nsoon as he opens his mouth there comes forth a stream of eastern\nimagery, very natural and appropriate to him, but much of it very\nstrange to us of these western regions. To understand the extent of this\ncharacteristic one has only to peruse the Song of Solomon. The bride is\nblack but comely as the tents of Kedar, as the curtains of Solomon. She\nis a dove in the clefts of the rock; her hair is as a flock of goats,\nthat appear from Mount Gilead; her teeth are like a flock of sheep which\ncome from the washing; her lips are like a thread of scarlet; her\ntemples are like a piece of a pomegranate; her stature is like a palm\ntree, and her breasts like clusters of grapes--all thoroughly oriental.\nSo also the bridegroom is like a roe or a young hart leaping upon the\nmountains; his eyes are as the eyes of doves by the rivers of waters;\nhis cheeks are as a bed of spices; his lips like lilies, dropping\nsweet-smelling myrrh, and his countenance as Lebanon, excellent as the\ncedars. So also if we open the book of Isaiah, we find the Messiah\ndescribed as \"the shadow of a great rock in a weary land\"--a figure\nwhich could not well occur to an Englishman or an American, but was\nperfectly natural in the mouth of a Hebrew familiar with the terrible\nsun of the Asiatic deserts, where neither tree nor cloud offers a\nshelter to the thirsty and fainting traveller. Precisely here lies much\nof the obscurity of which the expounders of Hebrew poetry complain.\nTrue, there are other difficulties of a formidable character. The theme\nis often vast, stretching into the distant and dimly-revealed future;\nthe language rugged with abrupt transitions, the historic allusions\nobscure, and the meaning of the terms employed doubtful. But aside from\nall these considerations the western scholar encounters a perpetual\ndifficulty in the fact that he is not of oriental birth, and can enter\nbut imperfectly into the spirit and force of oriental imagery. What\ncosts him days of laborious investigation would open itself like a flash\nof lightning to his apprehension--all except that which remains dark\nfrom the nature of the prophetic themes--could he but have that perfect\napprehension of the language, the historic allusions, the imagery\nemployed, and the modes of thought, which was possessed by the\ncontemporaries of the Hebrew poet.\n\nIt remains that we notice in the last place what may be called the\n_theocratic imagery_ of the Hebrew poets; that is, imagery borrowed from\nthe institutions of the Mosaic law. The intense loyalty of the Hebrew\npoets to the Mosaic law has already been noticed. They were its\ndivinely-appointed expositors and defenders, and their whole religious\nlife was moulded by it. No wonder, then, that their writings abound with\nallusions to its rites and usages. The sweet psalmist of Israel will\nabide in God's tabernacle for ever, and trust in the covert of his\nwings, the literal tabernacle on Zion representing God's spiritual\npresence here and his beatific presence hereafter (Psa. 61:4 and\nelsewhere); he will have his prayer set forth before God as incense, and\nthe lifting up of his hands as the evening sacrifice (Psa. 141:2); he\nwill be purged with hyssop that he may be clean, and washed that he may\nbe whiter than snow (Psa. 51: 7); he will offer to God the sacrifice of\na broken spirit (Psa. 51:17); the people promise to render to God the\ncalves of their lips (Hosea 14:2); the vengeance of God upon Edom is\ndescribed as \"a sacrifice in Bozrah, and a great slaughter in the land\nof Idumea,\" in which the Lord's sword shall be filled with the blood of\nlambs and goats and the fat of the kidneys of rams (Isa. 34: 6); with\nallusions to the Levitical sprinklings God promises that he will\nsprinkle upon his penitent and restored people clean water that they may\nbe clean (Ezek. 36: 25); and with allusion to the sacrificial flocks\nassembled at Jerusalem on the occasion of her great festivals, that he\nwill increase them with men like a flock--\"as the holy flock, as the\nflock of Jerusalem in her solemn feasts; so shall the waste cities be\nfilled with flocks of men\" (Ezek. 36:37, 38). How full the book of\nPsalms is of allusions to the solemn songs of the sanctuary with their\naccompaniment of psaltery and harp, trumpet and cornet, every reader\nunderstands. This subject might be expanded indefinitely, but the above\nhints must suffice.\n\n3. We come now to the _form_ of Hebrew poetry. This is distinguished\nfrom the classic poetry of Greece and Rome, as well as from all modern\npoetry by the absence of metrical feet. Its rhythm is that of _clauses_\nwhich correspond to each other in a sort of free parallelism, as was\nlong ago shown by Bishop Lowth in his Prelections on the Sacred Poetry\nof the Hebrews, the matter of which has been revised and expanded in\nlater treatises. Herein, as elsewhere, Hebrew poetry asserts its\noriginality and independence. Biblical scholars recognize three\nfundamental forms of parallelism in Hebrew poetry, which will be briefly\nconsidered, first separately, and then in their combinations.\n\nThe _first_ is the _antithetic_ form, where two parallel members are\ncontrasted in meaning, a form peculiarly adapted to didactic poetry, and\ntherefore occurring most abundantly in the book of Proverbs. The\nfollowing are examples of it:\n\n  The memory of the just is blessed:\n  But the name of the wicked shall rot (Prov. 10:7);\n\nwhere, in the original Hebrew, each clause consists of three words. In\nsuch an antithetic parallelism the words of one couplet, at least, must\ncorrespond in meaning, as here _memory_ and _name_; while the others are\nin contrast--_just_ and _wicked_, _is blessed_ and _shall rot_.\nSometimes the two clauses are to be mutually supplied from each other,\nthus:\n\n  A wise son maketh a glad father:\n  But a foolish son is the heaviness of his mother (Prov. 10:1);\n\nwhere the reader understands that a wise son is the joy, and a foolish\nson the grief of both father and mother.\n\nThe _second_ form is the _synonymous_, where the same general thought is\nrepeated in two or more clauses. It is found abundantly in the whole\nrange of Hebrew poetry, but is peculiarly adapted to that which is of a\nplacid and contemplative character. Sometimes the parallel clauses\nsimply repeat the same thought in different words; in other cases there\nis only a general resemblance. Examples are the following:\n\n  He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh:\n  The Lord shall have them in derision. Psa. 2:4.\n\n  For thou, Lord, wilt bless the righteous:\n  With favor wilt thou compass him as with a shield. Psa. 5:12.\n\n  Perish the day wherein I was born;\n  And the night in which it was said, There is a man child conceived.\n  Job 3:3.\n\n  Hear the word of the Lord, ye rulers of Sodom:\n  Give ear unto the law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah. Isa. 1:10.\n\nIn the following example we have a _compound_ synonymous couplet:\n\n  Give them according to their deeds,\n  According to the wickedness of their endeavors:\n  Give them after the work of their hands,\n  Render to them their desert. Psa. 28:4\n\nSometimes three or more parallel clauses occur, thus:\n\n  When your fear cometh as desolation,\n  And your destruction cometh as a whirlwind;\n  When distress and anguish cometh upon you. Prov. 1:27.\n\n  Who forgiveth all thine iniquities;\n  Who healeth all thy diseases;\n  Who redeemeth thy life from destruction;\n  Who crowneth thee with loving-kindness and tender mercies;\n  Who satisfieth thy mouth with good things;\n  Thy youth is renewed like the eagle's. Psa. 103:3-5.\n\nIn the preceding example, synonymous parallelism passes into _simple\nenumeration_. So often with a succession of short clauses, or shorter\nand longer clauses, where the poetry of the Hebrews assumes the freedom\nof prose, thus:\n\n  Who hath woe?\n  Who hath sorrow?\n  Who hath contentions?\n  Who hath babbling?\n  Who hath wounds without cause?\n  Who hath redness of eyes? Prov. 23:39.\n\n  A sinful nation;\n  A people laden with iniquity;\n  A seed of evil-doers;\n  Corrupt children:\n  They have forsaken the Lord;\n  They have despised the Holy One of Israel;\n  They have gone away backward. Isa. 1:4.\n\nThe parallel clauses are frequently introduced or followed by a single\nclause, thus:\n\n  Blessed is the man\n  Who walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly;\n  And standeth not in the way of sinners;\n  And sitteth not in the seat of scorners. Psa. 1:1.\n\n  Hear, O heavens;\n  Give ear, O earth;\n  For the Lord hath spoken. Isa. 1:2.\n\nThe _third_ form of parallelism is called _synthetic_ (Greek\n_synthesis_, _a putting together_), where one clause is necessary to\ncomplete the sense of the other, as in the following examples:\n\n  Better is a dinner of herbs where love is,\n  Than a stalled ox and hatred therewith. Prov. 15:16.\n\n  Every way of a man is right in his own eyes;\n  But the Lord pondereth the hearts. Prov. 21:2.\n\n  Whoso curseth his father and his mother,\n  His lamp shall be put out in obscure darkness. Prov. 20:20.\n\nThe connection between the two clauses may be that of comparison, cause,\neffect, etc. Sometimes it is not expressed, but simply implied, as in\nthe following:\n\n  A whip for the horse,\n  A bridle for the ass,\n  And a rod for the fool's back. Prov. 26:3.\n\nThe _combinations_ of the above forms in Hebrew poetry are exceedingly\nvaried and graceful. Here are examples of two _synonymous_ couplets that\nare _antithetic_ to each other:\n\n  The ox knoweth his owner,\n  And the ass his master's crib:\n  Israel doth not know,\n  My people doth not consider. Isa. 1:3.\n\n  The Lord bringeth the counsel of the heathen to naught;\n  He maketh the devices of the people of none effect.\n  The counsel of the Lord standeth for ever;\n  The thoughts of his heart to all generations. Psa. 33:10, 11.\n\nIn the following example, two _synonymous_ couplets constitute together\na _synthetic_ parallelism:\n\n  Because they regard not the works of the Lord,\n  Nor the operation of his hands,\n  He shall destroy them,\n  And not build them up. Psa. 28:5.\n\nIn the following, three _synthetic_ parallelisms make a _synonymous_\ntriplet:\n\n  For as the heaven is high above the earth,\n  So great is his mercy toward them that fear him:\n  As far as the east is from the west,\n  So far hath he removed our transgressions from us:\n  Like as a father pitieth his children,\n  So the Lord pitieth them that fear him. Psa. 103:11-13.\n\nBut our limits will not allow us to pursue this subject farther. The\nfreedom of the Hebrew poet is one of his high prerogatives. He is not a\nslave to form, but uses form as it suits his purposes. He blends\ntogether the different kinds of parallelism as he pleases. Often he\nbreaks through all parallelism to the freedom of prose. But he soon\nreturns again, because this measured rhythm of clauses is to him the\nnatural costume of poetic thought, which always seeks to embody itself\nin some form of rhythm.\n\nTo the form of Hebrew poetry belongs also its _peculiar diction_. To one\nwho reads the Hebrew poets in the original, this is a striking\ncharacteristic. He meets with words, and sometimes with grammatical\nforms, that do not occur in the prose writers. Many of these peculiar\nwords are _Aramean_; that is, they are words current in the Aramean\nbranch of the Shemitic languages. Chap. 14, No. 1. They are to be\nregarded as _archaisms_--old words that were once common alike to the\nHebrew and the kindred Aramean, but which have been dropped out of prose\nusage in Hebrew. They must not be confounded, as has too often been\ndone, with _true Aramaisms_, that is, Aramean words and forms borrowed\nby later Hebrew writers from their intercourse with those who spoke\nAramean.\n\n4. As it respects the _office_ of Hebrew poetry, it is throughout\nsubservient to the interests of revealed religion. This is implied in\nwhat has been already said of the loyalty of the Hebrew poets to the\ninstitutions of the Theocracy. It follows that the poetry of the Bible\nis all _sacred_ in its character. It contains no examples of purely\nsecular poetry except here and there a short passage which comes in as a\npart of history; for example, the words of \"those that speak in\nproverbs,\" Numb. 21:27-30; perhaps also the lament of David over Saul\nand Jonathan. 2 Sam. 1:19-27. It is certain that the song contained in\nthe forty-fifth psalm and that of the Canticles were received into the\ncanon solely on the ground that they celebrate the mutual love between\nGod and the covenant people, considered as his bride; or, in New\nTestament language, between Christ and \"the bride, the Lamb's wife.\"\n\nBut sacred poetry has various uses. One of its earliest offices was to\ncelebrate the praises of God for his interposition in behalf of his\ncovenant people, as in the song of the Israelites at the Red sea, and\nthat of Deborah and Barak. But when David was raised to the throne of\nIsrael, the time had now come for introducing lyric poetry as a\npermanent part of the sanctuary service. God accordingly bestowed upon\nthis monarch the needful inward gifts, and placed him in the appropriate\noutward circumstances; when at once there gushed forth from his bosom,\nsmit by the spirit of inspiration, that noble stream of _lyric song_,\nwhich the congregation of the faithful immediately consecrated to the\npublic service of the sanctuary, and which, augmented by the\ncontributions of Asaph, the sons of Korah, and other inspired poets, has\nbeen the rich inheritance of the church ever since. In the book of Job,\nsacred poetry occupies itself with the mighty problem of the justice of\nGod's providential government over men. It is, therefore, essentially\n_didactic_ in its character. In the Proverbs of Solomon, it becomes\ndidactic in the fullest sense; for here it moves in the sphere of\npractical life and morals. The book of Ecclesiastes has for its theme\nthe vanity of this world, considered as a satisfying portion of the\nsoul; and this it discusses in a poetic form. Finally, the prophets of\nthe Old Testament exhaust all the wealth of Hebrew poetry in rebuking\nthe sins of the present time, foretelling the mighty judgments of God\nupon the wicked, lamenting the present sorrows of Zion, and portraying\nher future glories in connection with the advent of the promised\nMessiah. The Hebrew harp--whoever sweeps it, and whether its strains be\njubilant or sad, didactic or emotional, is ever consecrated to God and\nthe cause of righteousness.\n\n\n(B.) THE SEVERAL POETICAL BOOKS.\n\nI. JOB.\n\n5. The design of the book of Job will best appear if we first take a\nbrief survey of its plan. Job, a man eminent above all others for his\npiety and uprightness, is accused by Satan as serving God from mercenary\nmotives. To show the falsehood of this charge, God permits Satan to take\nfrom the patriarch his property and his children, and afterwards to\nsmite him with a loathsome and distressing disease. Thus stripped of\nevery thing that could make life valuable, he still holds fast his\nintegrity, and returns to his wife, who counsels him to \"curse God and\ndie,\" the discreet and pious answer: \"Shall we receive good at the hand\nof the Lord, and shall we not receive evil?\" His three friends, who have\ncome to comfort him, amazed and confounded at the greatness of his\ncalamities, sit down with him in silence for seven days. At last Job\nopens his mouth with vehement expressions of grief and impatience, and\ncurses the day of his birth. The three friends sharply rebuke him, and\nin a threefold round of addresses (only that the third time Zophar fails\nto speak), enter into an earnest controversy with him assuming the false\nground that the administration of God's government over this world is\nstrictly _retributive_, so that special calamity comes only as a\npunishment for special wickedness, and is therefore itself a proof of\nsuch wickedness. They accordingly exhort him to repent of his sins, and\nseek God's forgiveness, as the sure means of removing his present\nmisfortunes. Conscious of his integrity, Job, with much warmth and\nasperity, repels their unjust charges, and refutes their false arguments\nby an appeal to facts. The ground he takes is that, by some inscrutable\nplan of God, calamity comes alike upon good and bad men. He passionately\nbeseeches God to show him why he thus deals with him; and, according as\nfaith or despondency prevails in his soul, he sometimes expresses the\nhope that he shall come out of his troubles like gold tried in the fire;\nand then, again, the fear that he shall speedily sink down to the grave\nunder the weight of his sorrows, and nevermore see good. Having put to\nsilence his three friends by an array of facts to which they can make no\nreply, he freely expresses the belief that the hypocrite's end shall be\ndestruction (chap. 27); shows that the wisdom by which God governs the\nworld is above man's comprehension, whose true wisdom lies in fearing\nand obeying his Maker (chap. 28); contrasts his present calamities with\nhis former prosperity (chaps. 29, 30); and closes with a solemn\nprotestation of his integrity (chap. 31).\n\nElihu, a young man who has hitherto been a silent witness of the\ncontroversy, now takes up the argument on the ground that trouble is\nsent by God upon men as a _discipline_, that by it they may be made\naware of their errors and infirmities; and that, if they make a right\nimprovement of it, by bearing it with patient submission and looking to\nGod in penitence and prayer for its removal, it will end in renewed and\nhigher prosperity. To show the unreasonableness of charging upon God\ninjustice, he dwells at length upon his infinite majesty and greatness.\nThe special ground of Job's trial, as given in the first two chapters,\nElihu could not of course understand. But his general position in regard\nto human afflictions is right; and it should be carefully noticed that\ntheir issue as described by him in the case of a good man--an\nimperfectly good man under a system of grace--is precisely what happens\nto Job when he humbles himself before his Maker.\n\nAs Elihu's discourse was drawing towards a close, the signs of God's\napproach had already began to manifest themselves (chap. 37). Now he\naddresses Job out of the whirlwind, rebuking him for his presumptuous\nlanguage, and setting before him His infinite perfections, manifested in\nthe creation and government of the world, as a sufficient proof that to\narraign His justice at the bar of human reason is folly and presumption.\nJob now humbles himself unconditionally before his Maker. Upon this God\npublicly justifies him to his three friends, while He condemns them,\ndeclaring that he has spoken of Him the thing which is right (42:8).\nThis is to be understood as referring not to the _spirit_ manifested by\nJob, which God had sharply rebuked, but rather to the _ground_ taken by\nhim in respect to God's dealings with men. By God's direction the three\nfriends now offer sacrifices for their folly, which are accepted in\nanswer to Job's prayer in their behalf, and his former prosperity is\nrestored to him in double measure.\n\n6. From the above sketch of the plan of the book its _design_ is\nmanifest. It unfolds the nature of God's providential government over\nmen. It is not simply retributive, as the three friends had maintained,\nso that the measure of a man's outward sufferings is the measure of his\nsins; nor is it simply incomprehensible, so that there can be no\nreasoning about it; but it is disciplinary, in such a way that sorrow,\nthough always the fruit of sin, comes upon good men as well as upon the\nwicked, being a fatherly chastisement intended for their benefit, and\nwhich, if properly improved, will in the end conduct them to a higher\ndegree of holiness, and therefore of true prosperity and happiness. The\nthree friends were right in maintaining God's justice; but with respect\nto the manner of its manifestation their error was fundamental. Job's\nview was right, but inadequate. A disciplinary government, administered\nover a world in which the wicked and the imperfectly good live together,\nmust be incomprehensible as it respects the particular distribution of\ngood and evil. Elihu was right in the main position, but he wanted\nauthority. The question was settled by God's interposition not _before_\nthe human discussion, nor _without_ it, but _after_ it; an interposition\nin which the three friends were condemned, Job approved, and the\nargument of Elihu left in its full force.\n\n    It has been the fashion with a certain class of critics to\n    disparage Elihu as a self-conceited young man, and to deny the\n    authenticity of his discourses. But thus the plan of the book is\n    fatally broken, as must be evident from the account given of it\n    above. It was not necessary that Elihu should be named in the\n    prologue. It is enough that he is described when he takes a part\n    in the argument. Why he is not named in the closing chapter has\n    been already indicated. There was nothing in his argument to be\n    censured. As to the attacks made on other parts of the book as\n    not authentic, for example, what is said of Behemoth and\n    Leviathan, they rest on no valid foundation. They are only\n    judgments of modern critics as to how and what the author of the\n    book before us ought to have written. The attempt to resolve\n    into disconnected parts a book so perfect in its plan, and which\n    has come down to us by the unanimous testimony of antiquity in\n    its present form, is a most uncritical procedure.\n\n7. Job plainly belonged to the patriarchal period. This appears from his\nlongevity. He lived after his trial a hundred and forty years (42:16),\nand must have been then considerably advanced in life. This points to a\nperiod as early as that of Abraham. To the same conclusion we are\nbrought by the fact that no form of idolatry is mentioned in the book,\nbut only the worship of the heavenly bodies. The simplicity of the\npatriarchal age appears, moreover, in all its descriptions. But we need\nnot from this infer that the book was written in the patriarchal age,\nfor the author may have received from the past the facts which he\nrecords. The book is written in pure Hebrew, with all the freedom of an\noriginal work, and by one intimately acquainted with both Arabic and\nEgyptian scenery. Some have supposed Moses to be the author, but this is\nvery uncertain. The prevailing opinion of the present day is that it was\nwritten not far from the age of Solomon.\n\n8. There is no ground for denying that the book of Job has a foundation\nof _true history_. He is mentioned by Ezekiel with Noah and Daniel as a\nreal person. Ezek. 14:14, 20. The apostle James also refers to the happy\nissue of his trials as a historic event calculated to encourage God's\nsuffering children. Jas. 5:11. But we need not suppose that all the\ndetails of the book are historic. The inspired poet takes up the great\nfacts of Job's history and the great arguments connected with them, and\ngives them in his own language; probably also, to a certain extent,\naccording to his own arrangement. The scene of the first two chapters is\nlaid in heaven. Undoubtedly they record a real transaction; but it may\nbe a transaction revealed to the author in an allegorical form, like\nMicaiah's vision (1 Kings 22:19-22), that it might be thus made level to\nhuman apprehension.\n\n\nII. THE PSALMS.\n\n9. We have seen the office of the Book of Job in the system of divine\nrevelation. Very different, but not less important, is that of the book\nof Psalms. It is a collection of sacred lyrics: that is, of poems\nexpressive of religious feeling and adapted to the public worship of\nGod. In respect to subjects, the Psalms exhibit a wonderful diversity.\nThey cover the whole field of religious experience, and furnish to the\nchurches an inexhaustible treasury of sacred song for all ages.\nSeventy-three of the psalms are ascribed to David in their titles, and\nthe whole book, as referred to in the New Testament, bears his name. Of\nthe remaining psalms, Asaph is named as the author of twelve; to the\nsons of Korah eleven are ascribed; to Solomon two (Psalms 72 and 127);\nto Moses one (Psalm 90); to Ethan one (Psalm 89). The remaining fifty\nare anonymous. Of these, some appear from their contents to have been\nwritten as late as the era of the captivity and restoration. Some\nwriters have referred certain psalms to the Maccabean age. But there is\nnothing in the contents of these psalms which makes such a reference\nnecessary, and we have decisive evidence that the Hebrew canon was\nclosed long before this period. See below, Chap. 22, No. 21.\n\n10. In regard to the external arrangement of the Psalms, which is\ngenerally ascribed to Ezra, and cannot be earlier than his day, they are\ndivided in the Hebrew Bible into _five books_, each closing with a\ndoxology except the last, to which, as well as to the whole collection,\nthe final psalm serves as a doxology.\n\nThe _first_ book contains Psalms 1-41. Of these forty-one psalms,\nthirty-seven bear the name of David. Of the remaining four, the second\nand tenth undoubtedly belong to him, and in all probability the first\nand thirty-third also. The psalms of this book are remarkable for the\npredominance of the name _Jehovah_ over _Elohim_, _God_.\n\nThe _second_ book includes Psalms 42-72. Of these, eighteen bear the\nname of David; the first eight (including Psa. 43, which is manifestly\nconnected with the preceding psalm) are ascribed to the sons of Korah;\none to Asaph (Psa. 50); one to Solomon (Psa. 72); and the remaining\nthree are without titles. In this book the divine name _Elohim_, _God_,\ngreatly predominates over the name _Jehovah_.\n\nThe _third_ book includes Psalms 73-89, seventeen in all. Of these, the\nfirst eleven are ascribed to Asaph; four to the sons of Korah; one to\nDavid (Psa. 86); and one to Ethan the Ezrahite (Psa. 89). In the psalms\nof Asaph the divine name _Elohim_, _God_, predominates; in the remainder\nof the book the name _Jehovah_.\n\nThe _fourth_ book includes Psalms 90-106. Of these seventeen psalms,\nonly three bear titles; the ninetieth being referred to Moses, the\nhundred and first and hundred and third to David. This book is therefore\nemphatically one of anonymous psalms, which are for the most part of a\nvery general character, being evidently arranged with reference to the\nservice of song in the sanctuary. Throughout this book the divine name\n_Jehovah_ prevails; the name _Elohim_, _God_, being rarely used except\nin connection with a pronoun or some epithet--_my God_, _God of Jacob_,\netc.\n\nThe _fifth_ book contains the remaining forty-four psalms. Of these,\nfifteen are ascribed to David; one to Solomon (Psa. 127); and\ntwenty-eight are anonymous. In this book also the divine name _Jehovah_\nprevails almost exclusively.\n\nIt is probable that these five books were arranged not simultaneously\nbut successively, with considerable intervals between some of them. The\nsubscription appended to the second book: \"The prayers of David the son\nof Jesse are ended,\" may possibly be explained, upon this supposition.\nIt may have been added as a subscription to the first two books, before\nthe others were arranged for the temple service.\n\nAlthough the psalms belonging to the respective books are not classified\nupon any strict principle, yet their arrangement is not altogether\nfortuitous. We find psalms with the same title grouped together--eleven\npsalms of Asaph. (73-83); eight of the sons of Korah (42-49); eight of\nDavid (139-145 separated from his other psalms); three psalms inscribed\n_Al-taschith_ (57-59); the fifteen songs of degrees (120-134), etc. Also\nwe find psalms of similar contents grouped together--Psa. 79, 80; 88,\n89; 91-100; 105-107; etc.\n\nVarious attempts have been made to classify the psalms according to\ntheir subjects. But their very richness and variety makes this a very\ndifficult undertaking. They cover the whole field of religious\nexperience for both individual believers and the church at large. Many\nof them--the so-called _Messianic_ psalms--are prophetic of the\nSaviour's offices and work. We need not wonder, therefore, that the\nPsalms are quoted in the New Testament oftener than any other book of\nthe Old Testament, Isaiah not excepted.\n\n11. Besides the names of the authors, or the occasion of their\ncomposition, many of the psalms bear other inscriptions. Of these the\nprincipal are the following:\n\n(1.) The _dedicatory title: To the chief musician_, prefixed to\nfifty-three psalms, signifies that the psalm is assigned to him, as the\nleader of the choir at the tabernacle or temple, to be used in the\npublic worship of God. The title rendered in our version: _For the sons\nof Korah_, is better translated, as in the margin: _Of the sons of\nKorah_; that is, written by one of their number.\n\n(2.) Titles expressing the _character_ of the composition. Here we have,\nas the most common and general, _Psalm_, a lyric poem to be sung;\n_Song_, a title borne by sixteen psalms, generally in connection with\nthe word _psalm_, where the rendering should be: _a psalm_, _a song_;\nor, _a song_, _a psalm_. All the psalms thus designated except two (Psa.\n83, 88) are of a joyous character, that is, songs of praise; _Song of\ndegrees_, a title the meaning of which is disputed. Many render: _A song\nof ascents_, and suppose that the fifteen psalms which bear this title\n(120-134) were so called because they were arranged to be sung on the\noccasion of the ascent of the people to Jerusalem to keep the yearly\nfestivals. For other explanations, the reader is referred to the\ncommentaries. The titles: _Prayer_ (Psa. 17, 90, 102, 142), and _Praise_\n(Psa. 145) need no explanation. Besides these titles, there are several\nothers left untranslated in our version, as: _Maschil_, _teaching_, that\nis, a didactic psalm; _Michtam_ (Psa. 16, 56-60) either a _writing_,\nthat is, poem, or a _golden psalm_.\n\n(3.) Titles relating to the _musical_ performance. Of these, the most\ncommon is the much disputed word _Selah_. It is generally agreed that it\nsignifies a _rest_, either in singing for the purpose of an instrumental\ninterlude, or an entire rest in the performance. As a general rule, this\ntitle closes a division of a psalm. Of the titles supposed to indicate\neither musical instruments or modes of musical performance, the\nfollowing are examples: _Neginath_ (Psa. 61), elsewhere _Neginoth_,\n_stringed instruments_; _Nehiloth_, probably flutes (Psa. 5); _Gittith_\n(Psa. 8, 81, 84), from the word _Gath_, which denotes a Philistine city,\nand also a wine-press. Gittith has been accordingly interpreted to mean\n(1) a musical instrument or a melody brought from Gath; (2) a musical\ninstrument in the form of a winepress, or a melody used in treading the\nwine-press; _Shoshannim_, _lilies_ (Psa. 45, 69); _Shushan-eduth_, _lily\nof the testimony_ (Psa. 60); _Shoshannim-eduth_, _lilies of the\ntestimony_ (Psa. 80), either a musical instrument so named from its\nshape, or a particular melody, or, as some think, an emblematic term\nreferring to the contents of the psalm; _Sheminith_, _the eighth_, or\noctave, perhaps a musical key (Psa. 6, 12); _Alamoth_, _virgins_,\nprobably denoting treble voices (Psa. 46); _Al-taschith_, _destroy not_\n(Psa. 57, 58, 59, 75), according to some, the name of an air taken from\na well-known poem; according to others, an indication of the contents of\nthe psalm. For other titles, occurring but once or twice, the reader\nmust be referred to the commentaries.\n\n    Whether the titles constitute a part of the psalms; that is,\n    whether they were prefixed by the writers themselves, is a\n    question that has been much debated, and answered differently by\n    different writers. That they are very ancient--so ancient that\n    the meaning of the terms employed had passed into oblivion when\n    the Alexandrine version was made--must be admitted. But it would\n    be too much to affirm that they are a part of the inspired word.\n    The correctness of some of them is doubtful. If we admit their\n    general correctness, reserving for critical investigation the\n    question of the historical validity of particular titles, it is\n    as far as we need go.\n\n\nIII. THE PROVERBS OF SOLOMON.\n\n12. The _place_ of the book of Proverbs in the system of divine\nrevelation is obvious at first sight. It contains a complete code of\npractical rules for the regulation of life--rules that have a divine\nbreadth and fulness, and can make men wise not for time alone, but also\nfor eternity. The principles embodied in them admit of endlessly varied\napplications, so that the study of a life cannot exhaust them. The more\nthey are pondered, and prayed over, and reduced to practice, the more\nare their hidden treasures of wisdom brought to light. Solomon lived\nhimself in the sphere of practical life. He had constantly to deal with\nmen of all classes, and he knew men and the course of human events most\nthoroughly. His maxims are therefore adapted to the actual world, not to\nsome imaginary state of things; and they contain those broad principles\nof action which meet the wants of all men in all circumstances and\nconditions of life. Whoever gives himself, in the fear of God, to the\nstudy of these proverbs, and conforms his life to the principles which\nthey set forth, will be a truly happy and prosperous man. Whoever shapes\nhis conduct by different principles will be compelled in the end to\nacknowledge his folly. To the young, for whose instruction they were\nespecially intended, they are affectionately commended as their manual\nof action.\n\n13. In respect to _outward form_, the book of Proverbs naturally falls\ninto four parts. Of these, the first nine chapters, consisting of\nearnest and fatherly exhortations addressed to the young in a series of\ndiscourses, of which the parts are more or less connected with each\nother, constitute the _first_ part. The title prefixed to this part,\ngiving both the author's name and the end which he proposes (1:1-6)\nrefers perhaps to the book considered as a whole. The _second_ part,\nintroduced by the title: \"The proverbs of Solomon,\" extends to the end\nof the twenty-fourth chapter. Of this, the first section (chaps.\n10-22:16) consists of proverbs properly so called, each verse\nconstituting a separate maxim of heavenly wisdom for the regulation of\nthe heart and life. Between the different verses there is either no\nconnection, or one of a slight and casual character, consisting\nfrequently in the common occurrence of the same word. In the remaining\nsection (chap. 22:17-24:34) the method of exhortation in discourse more\nor less connected is resumed. To the _third_ part (chaps. 25-29) is\nprefixed the superscription: \"These are also the proverbs of Solomon\nwhich the men of Hezekiah copied out.\" The proverbs of this part are, in\ngeneral, expressed in detached maxims, as in the first section of the\nsecond part; but occasionally there is a connection between adjacent\nverses. There is also an effort to bring together related proverbs, as\nthose concerning rulers (25:1-8); concerning fools (26:1-12); concerning\nsluggards (26:13-16); concerning busybodies and tale-bearers (chap.\n26:17-28). In this part also a number of proverbs are repeated that have\noccurred elsewhere. Finally, the _fourth_ part, which may be considered\nas a sort of appendix, contains the words of Agur (chap. 30), and of\nKing Lemuel (chap. 31).\n\n    According to the most natural interpretation of the words\n    prefixed to chap. 24:23--\"these [maxims] also belong to the\n    wise\"--the verses that follow to the end of the chapter contain\n    also a short appendix of proverbs not belonging to Solomon.\n\n14. From the above it is manifest that the book of Proverbs was arranged\nin its present form as late, at least, as the days of Hezekiah. It\ncontains not the whole of the three thousand proverbs which Solomon\nspake (1 Kings 4:32), but only selections from them, such as the wisdom\nof God judged needful for the edification of his people. Whether the\nproverbs contained in the first and second parts were arranged in their\npresent form by Solomon himself or by some other person, we do not know;\nbut that all the proverbs of the book belong to him as their author,\nexcept those which are expressly ascribed to others, there is no valid\nreason for doubting.\n\n\nIV. ECCLESIASTES.\n\n15. The Hebrew name of this book is _Koheleth_, respecting the meaning\nof which there has been much discussion. The Alexandrine rendering of\nthis word, _Ecclesiastes_, _one who gathers or addresses an assembly_,\nand the English rendering, _Preacher_, express for substance its\nprobable meaning; or rather, since the form of the word is feminine, it\nis _Wisdom as a preacher_, Solomon being regarded as her impersonation.\nThe uniform belief of the ancient church was that Solomon wrote this\nbook in his old age, when brought to repentance for the idolatrous\npractices into which his heathen wives had seduced him. He had\nthoroughly tried the world in all its forms of honor, wealth, pleasure,\nand the pursuit of wisdom--speculative wisdom--and found it only \"vanity\nand vexation of spirit,\" when sought as the supreme good. The conclusion\nto which he comes is that in such an empty and unsatisfying world, where\ndisappointment and trouble cannot be avoided, the cheerful enjoyment of\nGod's present gifts is the part of wisdom, for thus we make the best of\nthings as we find them. But this enjoyment must be in the fear of God,\nwho will bring all our works into judgment; and accompanied, moreover,\nby deeds of love and charity, as we have opportunity. He explicitly\nasserts a judgment to come; yet his general view of life is that\nexpressed in the Saviour's words: \"The night cometh, when no man can\nwork;\" words which imply that God's earthly service, as well as the\nenjoyment of his earthly gifts, will come to a close at death. This view\nof the Preacher is not a denial of the future life, as some have wrongly\nmaintained, but implies rather a less full revelation of it than is\ngiven in the New Testament.\n\n    Many evangelical men, as Hengstenberg, Keil, and others,\n    interpret the first verse of this book as meaning not that\n    Solomon was himself the author, or that the writer meant to pass\n    himself off as Solomon, but simply that he wrote in Solomon's\n    name, as assuming his character; that monarch being to the\n    ancient Hebrews the impersonation of wisdom. Their reasons for\n    this view are chiefly two: _First_, that the state of things\n    described in the book of Ecclesiastes does not suit Solomon's\n    age, the picture being too dark and sombre for his reign;\n    _secondly_, that the language differs widely from that of the\n    book of Proverbs and of the Canticles. Whether we adopt this\n    view, or that above given, the _canonical authority_ of the book\n    of Ecclesiastes remains as a well-established fact. It always\n    held a place in the Hebrew canon, and existed there in its\n    present form in the days of Christ and his apostles.\n\n16. The following summary of the Preacher's argument is condensed from\nScott. He had evidently two objects in view. First, to show where\nhappiness could not be found; and secondly, where it might. The first\nsix chapters are principally employed on the former part of the\nargument, yet with counsels interspersed tending to show how the vanity,\nor at least the vexation of earthly pursuits may be abated. The\nremaining six chapters gradually unfold the latter part of the argument,\nteaching us how to make the best of things as we find them, how to live\ncomfortably and usefully in this evil world, and how to derive benefit\nfrom the changing events of life. In respect to outward things, the\nsacred writer inculcates a cheerful, liberal, and charitable use of\nthem, without expecting from them permanent or satisfying delight. He\ncounsels us to take the transient pleasure which agreeable circumstances\ncan afford, as far as consists with the fear of God; to be patient under\nunavoidable evil; not to aim at impracticable results; to fill up our\nallotted station in a peaceable, equitable, and prudent manner; to be\ncontented, meek, and affectionate; and to do good abundantly as we have\nopportunity, in the expectation of a gracious reward. These general\nrules are interspersed with warnings and counsels to princes and great\nmen, and to subjects in respect to their rulers.\n\n\nV. THE SONG OF SOLOMON.\n\n17. The title of this book: _The Song of songs_, that is, the most\nexcellent of songs, indicates its application to the heavenly Solomon,\nand his spouse the church. So the Jews from the most ancient times have\ninterpreted it. Looking at this song from the position of the Old\nTestament, its ground-idea is: \"Thy Maker is thy husband.\" Identical\nwith this is the New Testament idea: \"The bride, the Lamb's wife.\" The\ngerm of this representation exists in the Pentateuch, where idolatry is\nregarded as spiritual adultery. Exod. 34:15; Deut. 31:16. We find it\nfully developed in the forty-fifth Psalm, which probably belongs to\nSolomon's age, and which is expressly quoted in the epistle to the\nHebrews as a description of the Messiah. The same figure occurs in many\npassages of the prophets who lived after Solomon's day. Isa. 54:5; 62:5;\nJer. 2:2; 3:14; Hos. 2:16, 19, 20. In the book of Revelation this\nimagery is repeated and amplified.\n\n18. This song is not a dramatic representation, in which the action\nsteadily advances to the end, but a series of descriptive pictures, the\ngreat theme of which is the separation of the bride from her\nbeloved--the heavenly Bridegroom--for her sins, and her reunion with him\nby repentance. In the spiritual application of its rich and gorgeous\nimagery we should confine ourselves to the main scope, rather than dwell\non particulars. Thus the fruitfulness of the church is set forth under\nthe image of a garden filled with spices and precious fruits. But we are\nnot to seek for a hidden meaning in each particular spice or fruit--the\nsaffron, the spikenard, the myrrh, the pomegranate, the apple, the nut;\nand the same is true with respect to the descriptions of the bride and\nbridegroom with which the book abounds.\n\nThe book has always constituted a part of the Hebrew canon.\n\n    The language of this book is pure and elegant, with all the\n    freshness and energy of the best age of Hebrew poetry. Its most\n    striking peculiarity is the uniform use (except once in the\n    _title_) of the abbreviated form of the relative pronoun as a\n    prefix--_shekkullam_ for _asher kullam_; _shehammelek_ for\n    _asher hammelek_, etc.--which is manifestly a _dialectic_\n    peculiarity of the living Hebrew adopted by Solomon for the\n    purpose of giving to his song a unique costume.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXII.\n\nTHE GREATER PROPHETS.\n\n\n1. We have already seen (Chap. 15, Nos. 11 and 12) that from Moses to\nSamuel the appearances of prophets were infrequent; that with Samuel and\nthe prophetical school established by him there began a new era, in\nwhich the prophets were recognized as a distinct order of men in the\nTheocracy; and that the age of _written_ prophecy did not begin till\nabout the reign of Uzziah, some three centuries after Samuel. The Jewish\ndivision of the _latter_ prophets--prophets in the more restricted sense\nof the word--into the _greater_, including Isaiah, Jeremiah, and\nEzekiel, chronologically arranged; and the _less_, or twelve _Minor_\nProphets, arranged also, in all probability, according to their view of\ntheir order in time, has also been explained. Chap. 13, No. 4.\nRespecting the nature of prophecy and the principles upon which it is to\nbe interpreted, much remains to be said in another place. In the present\nconnection, a brief account will be given of _the place which the\nprophets held in the Theocracy_, followed by a notice, in this and the\nfollowing chapter, of the separate books of prophecy belonging to the\nHebrew canon, according to the order in our English version, Daniel\nbeing reckoned with the greater prophets, Lamentations considered as an\nappendix to Jeremiah, and the minor prophets arranged by themselves.\n\n2. The office of the prophets under the Theocracy, which we first\nnotice, was that of _bold reprovers_. They came to rulers and people\nwith an immediate commission from God to rebuke them for their sins; and\nas the contents of their messages were received from God himself, they\nexposed the hypocrisy and wickedness of their times in the pure sunlight\nof truth, denouncing upon great and small alike the awful judgments of\nJehovah if they persisted in their impenitence. If we except the\npreaching of Christ and his apostles, the history of the world furnishes\nno such bright examples of faithful dealing with men's consciences. They\nnever spare kings and princes from fear of their power and patronage.\nThey never go round about men's sins, but declare them directly and\nfaithfully. With what majesty of severity did Samuel reprove Saul, and\nNathan David, and Elijah Ahab, and Elisha Jehoram, and Jehu Jehoshaphat!\nAnd if we open the books of Hebrew prophecy which have come down to us\nfrom distant ages and from a very different civil and social order, we\nfind them not in the least antiquated, but fresh as yesterday, instinct\nwith life and power. They are a mirror of terrible brightness in which\nwe may see reflected our pride, self-sufficiency, vain ostentation, and\nworldliness; our avarice, fraud, overreaching artifices, breaches of\ntrust, bribery, oppression of the weak, and corrupt combinations for the\namassing of filthy lucre; our ambition, slander, falsehood, intrigues,\nhypocrisy, and vain pretensions; our luxury, prodigality, sensuality,\nand intemperance; our profaneness, Sabbath-breaking, neglect of God's\nordinances and contempt of his written word--a mirror too in which we\ncan see in the background dark clouds of judgment, big with awful\nthunder, such as have already come forth upon our land from the\ninexhaustible storehouse of divine justice, and are ready to come forth\nagain, but over which hangs the rainbow of mercy for all that will\nrepent and humble themselves before God.\n\n3. We may next consider the office of the Hebrew prophets as _expounders\nof the Mosaic law_--the Mosaic law in its substance, as distinguished\nfrom its outward form. They never undervalued the letter of the law,\nsince that too was of divine appointment; but they taught men that true\nobedience must rise above the letter to its spirit. When Saul excused\nhimself to Samuel for disobeying God's command on the ground that the\npeople had spared the best of the sheep and oxen to sacrifice to the\nLord, the prophet indignantly answered: \"Hath the Lord as great delight\nin burnt-offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord?\nBehold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of\nrams.\" 1 Sam. 15:22. \"Bring no more vain oblations,\" says God to the\nJews whose hands were full of oppression and blood; \"incense is an\nabomination unto me: the new moons and Sabbaths, the calling of\nassemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting.\nYour new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are a\ntrouble unto me; I am weary to bear them.\" And his direction is: \"Wash\nyou, make you clean: put away the evil of your doings from before mine\neyes; cease to do evil; learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the\noppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow.\" Isaiah 1:13-17.\n\"I hate,\" says God to the covenant people through Amos, \"I despise your\nfeast-days, and I will not smell in your solemn assemblies. Though ye\noffer me burnt-offerings and your meat-offerings, I will not accept\nthem; neither will I regard the peace-offerings of your fat beasts. Take\nthou away from me the noise of thy songs; for I will not hear the melody\nof thy viols. But let judgment run down as waters, and righteousness as\na mighty stream.\" Amos 5:21-24. \"Wherewith,\" says Micah, \"shall I come\nbefore the Lord, and bow myself before the high God? Shall I come before\nhim with burnt-offerings, with calves of a year old? Will the Lord be\npleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil?\nshall I give my first-born for my transgression, the fruit of my body\nfor the sin of my soul? He hath showed thee, O man, what is good; and\nwhat doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy,\nand to walk humbly with thy God?\" Micah 6:6-8. Under the Old Testament,\noutward forms of divine service were required, and they are necessary,\nto a certain extent, under the New also. But if any man puts his trust\nfor salvation in these, to the neglect of inward faith, love, and\nobedience, he stands condemned at the bar of Moses and the prophets, not\nless than at the bar of Christ and his apostles, Under the Mosaic\neconomy, both the rites of divine service and the succession of the\npriesthood were definitively prescribed by God himself, and therefore to\nall of binding authority. But the man who placed his religion in these\noutward observances, to the neglect of his heart and life, was to God an\nobject of abhorrence, and the severest judgments were denounced against\nhim. It cannot be, then, that under the gospel any system of outward\nforms, however right and proper in itself, can bring salvation to the\nsoul, where inward faith, love, and obedience are wanting.\n\n4. The last and highest office of the prophets was to direct men's\nthoughts to _the end of the Mosaic economy_, which was the salvation of\nthe world through the promised Messiah. The Spirit of Christ that spoke\nthrough them, \"testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the\nglory that should follow.\" 1 Pet. 1:11. It does not appear that they\nunderstood the divine purpose to abolish the Mosaic economy, and with it\n\"the middle wall of partition\" between Jews and Gentiles--that great\nmystery, the revelation of which was reserved for the days of the\napostles; but they did have glorious visions of the latter days, when\nthe law should go forth from Zion, and the word of the Lord from\nJerusalem, to all nations; when the whole world should submit itself to\nJehovah under the administration of the Messiah; and the earth should be\n\"filled with the knowledge of the glory of God, as the waters cover the\nsea.\" Their glowing descriptions of the future enlargement and glory of\nZion have been the stay and solace of God's people in all succeeding\nages. The student of the Bible should not fail to notice that these\nbright visions of the future were vouchsafed to the Hebrew prophets, and\nthrough them to the church universal, not when the Theocracy was in the\nzenith of its outward power and splendor, as in the days of David and\nSolomon, but in the time of its decline and humiliation. The hopes so\nardently cherished by the covenant people of a return of the outward\nglory of Solomon's reign were destined to utter and final\ndisappointment. It was not to feed their national pride, but to prepare\nthe way for Christ's advent, that God established the Theocracy. Now\nthat its outward glory was departing, it was suitable that the hopes of\nthe pious should be turned from the darkness of the present to the\nbrightness of \"the last days\" that awaited Zion in the distant future.\nWhen Isaiah began his prophecies, the kingdom of Israel was tottering to\nits fall, and before he had finished them it had suffered an utter\noverthrow. The invasion of Judah by the allied kings of Israel and\nSyria, in the reign of Ahaz, and by Sennacherib king of Assyria, in the\nreign of Hezekiah, furnished an occasion for predicting not only the\npresent deliverance of God's people, but also the future triumph of Zion\nover all her enemies, and the extension of her dominion over all the\nearth. In his present interpositions in behalf of Zion, God mirrored\nforth his purpose to give her a final and universal victory. And so it\nwas with all the other prophets. With their backs towards the gloom and\ndistraction of the present, and their faces steadfastly turned towards\nthe glory of the latter days, they uttered words of promise and comfort\nthat can have their fulfilment only in Christ's kingdom, which is the\ntrue heir to all the promises made to the ancient Zion. Out of Christ\nthese promises are vain and delusory. In Christ their fulfilment has\nbeen begun, and shall be completed in the appointed time. Out of Christ\nno amount of learning will enable a man to understand the Hebrew\nprophets; for the veil is on his face, which can be done away only in\nChrist. What if more than eighteen centuries have elapsed since our\nLord's advent, and the domain of his kingdom is yet very limited? In the\ndivine reckoning, \"one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a\nthousand years as one day.\" If it took four of these days to prepare the\nworld for Christ's advent, can we not allow two days and more for the\ncomplete establishment of his kingdom?\n\nWe add a notice of each separate book of the Greater prophets.\n\n\nI. ISAIAH.\n\n5. According to the Hebrew arrangement already noticed (No. 1, above),\nthe book of Isaiah, as the first of those belonging to the greater\nprophets, stands at the head of the whole collection of prophetical\nbooks; although Hosea, Amos, and Jonah, and in all probability Joel\nalso, entered upon their prophetical office before him. Micah was\ncontemporary with him. Of the private history of Isaiah we know almost\nnothing, except that he was the son of Amoz (chap. 1:1), and that he was\nmarried and had sons (chap. 8:1-4). The Jewish tradition is that he was\nsawn asunder under the reign of Manasseh, to which it has been supposed\nthat there is a reference in the epistle to the Hebrews (chap. 11:37);\nbut all such traditions are uncertain. Isaiah prophesied \"in the days of\nUzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah.\" Chap. 1:1. If, with\nmany, we suppose him to have entered upon his office in the last year of\nUzziah, we have sixty-two years to the close of Hezekiah's reign. He\ncertainly exercised the prophetical office to the fifteenth year of\nHezekiah's reign, and possibly through the remaining fourteen years. As\nthe superscription is silent respecting any prophecies uttered in\nManasseh's reign, we are not warranted to extend the period of his\nactivity beyond that of Hezekiah, although he may have survived him, and\nhave perished in the way indicated by the Jewish tradition.\n\n6. The book of Isaiah naturally falls into two great divisions. The\nfirst, after an introductory chapter, contains a great variety of\nprophetic messages, delivered on special occasions. Chaps. 2-39. The\nsecond division, comprising the remaining twenty-seven chapters, seems\nto have had no special occasion, but to have been written after the\noverthrow of Sennacherib's army, probably in the old age of the prophet,\nfor the comfort and encouragement of God's people in all coming ages.\n\"Comfort ye, comfort ye my people, saith your God\"--this is its great\ntheme as expressed in the introductory verse. Of the various plans for\n_classifying the contents_ of the first part, all that rest upon the\nrationalistic view that the book is a collection of writings belonging\nto different authors and ages are false and groundless. Among\nevangelical men, who hold the unity of the book and its authorship by\nIsaiah, there have been various schemes of classification. It has been\nproposed by Drechsler and others to arrange all of Isaiah's prophecies\naround two great central events in the history of his times; namely, the\ninvasion of Judah in the reign of Ahaz by the allied forces of Israel\nand Syria (chap. 7), and in Hezekiah's reign by Sennacherib, king of\nAssyria (chaps. 36, 37). That these were the two great crises of\nIsaiah's age, and that many of his prophecies had reference to them\ndirectly or indirectly, cannot be denied; but to affirm that _all_ his\nprophecies, extending over a period of from forty-eight to sixty-two\nyears, were connected with those two events, either directly or by way\nof anticipation beforehand and natural sequence afterwards, is more than\ncan be established by any probable arguments. We must be careful not to\nthrust upon the prophet a systematic arrangement beyond any that ever\nexisted in his own consciousness. The following brief analysis will be\nsufficient for the general reader.\n\nThe title prefixed to the first chapter refers certainly to the first\npart, and probably to the whole book. The contents of the first chapter\nare well suited to constitute a general introduction to the book, and\nthere is much ground for the opinion that the prophet prefixed them, as\nsuch an introduction, to the whole collection of prophecies. The four\nchapters that follow were evidently written during a period of great\nworldly prosperity. They contain visions against Judah and Jerusalem of\na threatening character, but interspersed with glorious promises to the\ntrue Israel. The sixth chapter records a vision which the prophet had of\nJehovah in the temple, with the awful message to the people which he\nreceived from His lips. Many regard this as the prophet's _inauguration_\nto his office, and consequently as the first of his prophecies in order\nof time. The four preceding chapters will then naturally fall into the\nreign of Jotham. There is no decisive ground, however, for understanding\nthe words, \"Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?\" (verse 8,) as\ncontaining the original call of Isaiah to the prophetical office. They\nmay have reference to the special message which he immediately receives;\na message of the most weighty import, and often quoted in the New\nTestament. The confession of Isaiah, moreover, that he is \"a man of\nunclean lips,\" may be very naturally referred to his previous exercise\nof the prophetic office. According to this view, the preceding four\nchapters belong to the latter part of Uzziah's reign.\n\nThe series of prophecies that follows (chaps. 7-12) is connected with\nthe invasion of Judah by the allied kings of Israel and Syria. In this\nemergency Ahaz, instead of seeking help from Jehovah, had hired the\nAssyrians to defend him against the confederate forces. The prophet\npredicts the overrunning of the land by these same Assyrians in whom the\nJews had reposed their confidence; and afterwards the overthrow of the\nAssyrians themselves, and the universal establishment of the Messiah's\nkingdom, who is foretold under the name of Immanuel. The series closes\nwith the millennial song of Zion.\n\nNext we have a series of prophecies relating mainly to the heathen world\n(chaps. 13-23), through all of which the prophet keeps prominently in\nview the great truth that the nation which will not acknowledge Jehovah\nand minister to the welfare of his people must perish. He begins with\nBabylon, and passes in order to Philistia, Moab, Syria (with which as a\nconfederate nation Ephraim is joined), Ethiopia and Egypt (first\nseparately and then conjointly), Babylon again under the enigmatical\nname of \"the desert of the sea,\" Edom, and Arabia. Next follows a\nprophecy against \"the valley of vision,\" that is, Jerusalem, to which is\nappended one against Shebna. The prophet then passes to Tyre, and so he\nbrings this series to a close.\n\nThe four chapters that follow (24-27) are general in their character.\nThey exhibit Jehovah as the avenger and deliverer of his people, who\nabases the proud and destroys sinners as well within the pale of Zion as\nwithout in the heathen world, while he exalts his true worshippers to\nhonor and salvation.\n\nThe next series of prophecies (chaps. 28-35) was apparently delivered in\nview of the approaching invasion of the Assyrians, by which the\ndestruction of the kingdom of Israel was completed, and Judah was\noverrun and desolated; but which ended in the overthrow of the invading\narmy, and the deliverance of Hezekiah and his kingdom. The prophet\ndenounces, first upon Ephraim and then upon Judah and Jerusalem, God's\nheavy judgments for their iniquities, especially for the sin of making\nEgypt instead of Jehovah their confidence; foretells the utter and\nperpetual desolation of Edom, which here represents all the powers that\narray themselves in hostility against God's people; and describes in\nglowing language the glory and peace of Zion under the future reign of\nthe Messiah.\n\nNext follows the history of Sennacherib's invasion and overthrow; of\nHezekiah's sickness and miraculous recovery, and of his sin in\nconnection with the mission of Merodach-baladan's servants. Chaps.\n36-39.\n\nIn the second part of Isaiah, which includes the last twenty-seven\nchapters, the prophet is occupied with the future redemption and glory\nof Zion. In the clear light of inspiration, and in accordance with the\nexplicit prophecy that has just been quoted, he takes his stand in the\nfuture of Babylon's supremacy, and of the captivity of Zion and the\ndispersion of her children; and he comforts the true Israel by the\npromise of restoration and elevation to a greater than the former glory,\nwhen all nations shall submit themselves to Jehovah, and shall minister\nto the peace and welfare of Zion. If we divide these twenty-seven\nchapters into three equal sections of nine chapters each, the first and\nsecond close with the words: \"There is no peace, saith my God, to the\nwicked\" (chaps. 48:22; 57:21); while the third ends with a more\nextended, threatening against the wicked (chap. 66:24). The prominent\ncharacteristics of these three sections are thus given by Keil:\n\n\"The _first_ of these sections (chaps. 40-48) portrays the relation of\nIsrael to the heathen nations; and from the redemption of Israel\neffected through Cyrus, the servant of God, it unfolds the certain\nvictory of the Theocracy over the gods and powers of the heathen world.\nThe _second_ section (chaps. 49-57) exhibits Israel as the seat of\nsalvation for the world. This it does by carrying out the thought that,\njust as Cyrus is to redeem Israel from the Babylonish captivity, so must\nthe true servant of Jehovah, by his vicarious suffering and death, make\nexpiation for sin, raise the covenant people to true glory, and make\nthem, through the establishment of 'the sure mercies of David' (55:3),\nthe centre of salvation for the whole world. Finally in the _third_\nsection (chaps. 58-66), after an exhortation in which the sins of the\npeople are acknowledged and rebuked (chaps. 58, 59), the prophet\nforetells, in a series of majestic images, how the Theocracy shall be\nglorified when it shall become, in connection with the creation of a new\nheaven and a new earth, the perfected kingdom of God.\" Introduction to\nthe Old Testament, Sec. 65. This view of the glorification of the Theocracy\nin the latter days is preeminently just, provided only that we do not\nunderstand the Theocracy in a gross literal sense. It is the true\nkingdom of God, once embodied in the old Theocracy, but now existing\nunder the freer forms of Christianity, that is heir to all this glory.\n\n7. As Isaiah holds the first place among the Hebrew prophets in the\ncanon, in the extent of his writings, and in the fulness of his\nprophecies concerning the Messiah and his kingdom, so has he been first\nalso in receiving the assaults of those who deny the supernatural\ncharacter of revelation. Since the last quarter of the last century\npersistent attempts have been made to show that the whole of the second\npart (chaps. 40-66) and various sections of the first part, particularly\nall those that relate to the overthrow of Babylon, belong not to Isaiah,\nbut to an unknown prophet who lived about the close of the exile. In\nsupport of this view many arguments have been adduced; but the real\nargument which lies at the foundation of the whole is the belief that no\nsuch insight into the future is possible as that which this part of the\nbook manifests, upon the supposition that Isaiah was himself the author\nof it. The denial of the genuineness of the chapters in question began\nand has always gone hand in hand with the denial of the reality of\nprophetic inspiration. In the view of rationalists prophecy is no\nrevelation of the future through the illumination of the Holy Spirit. It\nis only anticipation and shrewd conjecture of the future from the course\nof the present. The possibility of prophecy, therefore, is limited by\nthe possibility of human foresight. Reasoning from this false position,\nthe critic first assumes that Isaiah cannot have been the author of the\nlast part of the book which bears his name, and then proceeds to find\narguments against its genuineness. To meet him we must plant our feet\nfirmly on the great historic truth that God has made to men a\nsupernatural revelation, of which prophecy in the proper sense of the\nword--the revelation of the future by his Spirit--constitutes an\nimportant part. We do indeed find that in the matter of prophecy, as in\nall other parts of God's operations, the great law is: \"First the blade,\nthen the ear, after that the full corn in the ear.\" The way for the\nfuller revelations is prepared by previous intimations of a more general\ncharacter. Precisely so was it in the present case. Moses himself had\nmore than once predicted the captivity of the covenant people and the\ndesolation of their land as the punishment of their foreseen apostacy\nfrom God's service, and also the preservation of a remnant and its\nrestoration upon repentance. Lev., chap. 26; Deut., chaps. 28-32. When\nSolomon had dedicated the temple, and his kingdom was at the zenith of\nits glory, he received from the mouth of God himself the solemn warning:\n\"If ye shall at all turn from following me, ye or your children, and\nwill not keep my commandments and my statutes which I have set before\nyou, but go and serve other gods and worship them; then will I cut off\nIsrael out of the land which I have given them; and this house, which I\nhave hallowed for my name, will I cast out of my sight; and Israel shall\nbe a proverb and a by-word among all people.\" 1 Kings 9:6, 7. When the\nprophet wrote, these awful threatenings had been fulfilled upon the\nkingdom of the ten tribes, and he had been commissioned to announce\ntheir approaching fulfilment upon Judah also, and that in the form of a\ncaptivity in Babylon: \"Behold, the days come, that all that is in thy\nhouse, and that which thy fathers have laid up in store until this day,\nshall be carried to Babylon: nothing shall be left, saith the Lord. And\nof thy sons which shall issue from thee, which thou shalt beget, shall\nthey take away; and they shall be eunuchs in the palace of the king of\nBabylon\" (39:6, 7). Micah also had foretold, in express terms, both the\nBabylonish captivity, and the subsequent delivery of God's people\n(4:10). We see, then, what a full preparation had been made for the\nrevelations vouchsafed to Isaiah in the chapters now under\nconsideration. They relate not to something new and unheard of, but to a\ncaptivity which he had himself foretold in accordance with the\nthreatenings of God by former prophets. Under the illumination of the\nHoly Spirit he is carried into the future of Zion. In prophetic vision\nhe sees her land wasted, her temple burned, and her children groaning in\ncaptivity. As the nearest interposition of God in her behalf, he\nforetells her liberation by Cyrus, the anointed of the Lord, and her\nrestoration to the promised land. But this is only the earnest and\npledge of a higher redemption through the Messiah, the true servant of\nJehovah, under whom she shall be glorified with a perpetual salvation,\nand her dominion extended over all the earth. To limit the prophet's\nvision to the deliverance from Babylon would be to make him a messenger\nof glad tidings which mocked the hopes of the covenant people; for this\ndeliverance did not fulfil the just expectations which his lofty\npromises awakened in the bosoms of the pious remnant of Israel. No; it\nis in Christ's redemption alone, of which that of Cyrus was only a\nshadow, that Zion receives in full measure the glorious promises which\nshine forth in this part of Isaiah.\n\nIf now we consider the _form_ of these promises, we find that they bear\nthroughout the stamp of true prophecy, as distinguished from history.\nThey have neither the dress of prose history, with its dates and\ncircumstantial details, such as we find in the books of Ezra and\nNehemiah, nor of historic poetry, like the song of Deborah and Barak;\nlike the seventy-eighth hundred and fifth, and hundred and sixth psalms.\nThey are expressed in a series of poetic images, in which, with the\nexception of the name of Cyrus, all is general; images, moreover, drawn\nfor the most part, not from the great events connected with the\nconquests of Cyrus, but from the earlier history of Israel. Let any one\nread, for example, the forty-sixth and forty-seventh chapters of Isaiah,\nand ask himself whether a writer who lived in Cyrus' day could have\ndescribed the fall of Babylon without specific allusions to the agencies\nby which it was brought to pass. As to the _historic references_ which\nsome find to the march of the Jewish caravans of returning captives\nthrough the desert that lay between Babylon and Palestine, whoever reads\nthe passages in question without a previously formed conclusion, must be\nsatisfied that they are _poetic descriptions_ of the redemption and\nrestoration of God's people borrowed mainly from the primitive journey\nof Israel from Egypt to Canaan through the wilderness of Arabia. God, as\nthen, goes before his people, opening for them in their extremity\n\"rivers in high places, and fountains in the midst of the valleys;\"\nmaking \"the wilderness a pool of water, and the dry land springs of\nwater.\" Even Cyrus is mentioned not as the king of Persia, but as a man\nraised up from the east to execute God's vengeance on the oppressors of\nhis people.\n\n    According to Ctesias and Plutarch, the name _Cyrus_ signifies\n    _sun_. Strabo says that his name, before ascending the throne of\n    Persia, was _Agradales_. Some are of opinion that the word\n    _Cyrus_ (Heb. _Koresh_) was an appellation common to the kings\n    of Persia. We do not need, however, the help of this hypothesis.\n    God himself explains the ground on which he is mentioned by\n    name: \"For Jacob my servant's sake, and Israel mine elect, have\n    I even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though\n    thou hast not known me\" (45:4). According to Josephus (Antiq.\n    11. 1, 2), Cyrus was moved to issue his decree for the\n    liberation of the Jews by a knowledge of the prophecies of\n    Isaiah in which he is mentioned by name. With this agree the\n    terms of the edict: \"The Lord God of heaven hath given me all\n    the kingdoms of the earth, and he hath charged me to build him a\n    house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah.\" Ezra 1:2, compared with\n    Isa. 44:28. If this view be correct, the mention of Cyrus by\n    name was a part of God's plan for the restoration of the\n    covenant people.\n\n    It is not true, as has been asserted, that the prophet follows\n    Cyrus in the details of his conquests. On the contrary, his\n    notices of him are few and general. As to the sins of the people\n    which he rebukes, they may be all naturally referred to the\n    times of Isaiah, while some of them, as the neglect of the\n    established sacrifices and oblations (43:23, 24), and the\n    offering of sacrifices in connection with an impure heart and\n    life (66:3), presuppose the existence of the temple and altar at\n    Jerusalem, where alone sacrifices could be lawfully offered. The\n    sin of seeking heathen alliances (57:9) points also unmistakably\n    to the same period. Although the prophet is carried forward in\n    vision to the future of the covenant people, he does not wholly\n    forget the men of his own generation, but occasionally\n    administers to them severe rebukes, thus mingling the present\n    with the future, after the manner of all the prophets.\n\nThe other arguments which have been urged against the genuineness of\nthis part of Isaiah are only of secondary importance, and can readily be\nanswered. It is said that the style is more diffuse and flowing than in\nthe first part. The answer is that this agrees well with both the\naltered circumstances of the prophet and the altered character of his\ntheme. Most of his earlier prophecies were delivered under the pressure\nand excitement of public life, when he went before rulers and people\ncharged with specific messages from Jehovah, and these, too, mostly of a\ndenunciatory character. But the part now under consideration was written\nin the serenity of retirement, with the general purpose of comforting\nGod's people by a view of the future glory in reserve for them. It is\nentirely natural, then, that the style of the first part should be more\nconcise and abrupt, that of the latter more diffuse and flowing; even if\nwe do not make allowance for the influence of age. But notwithstanding\nthis difference between the two parts, both have the same general\ncostume, and the same peculiar expressions and turns of thought, by\nwhich they are sufficiently marked as the productions of the same pen.\nIt should be added that the Hebrew of this second part of Isaiah is in\ngeneral as pure as that of the first part. The few Chaldaisms which it\nexhibits may be explained as belonging to the poetic diction. Such\nChaldaisms exist, moreover, in the earlier books. \"Some words, as\n_seganim_ (_princes_, 41:25), may be explained by the intercourse of the\nJews with the Assyrians in the days of Isaiah.\" Davidson's Introduction\nto the Old Testament, p. 857.\n\n8. It has been shown that the arguments against the genuineness of this\npart of Isaiah (and by parity of reason against certain sections of the\nfirst part) have their ground in the denial of prophetic inspiration,\nand cannot endure the test of sober criticism. The evidence, then, for\nthe genuineness of these chapters remains in its full force, and it is\nof the most weighty character. If we look to _external_ testimony, there\nis the undeniable fact that, as far back as we can trace the history of\nthe book of Isaiah, they have constituted an integral part of it. They\nare recognized as such by Josephus (Antiq. 11. 1, 2); by Jesus the son\nof Sirach, in the book called Ecclesiasticus (48:24, 25); and always in\nthe New Testament when quotations are made from them--Matt. 3:3; 8:17;\n12:17-21; Luke 3:4; 4:17-19; John 1:23; 12:38-41, where a quotation from\nthe _last_ part of Isaiah is joined with one from the _first_ part; Acts\n8:28-33; Rom. 10:16, 20, 21. That they were appended by fraud and\nforgery no one pretends to affirm. The character of this part of the\nbook, not less than the character of those who had the Jewish canon in\ncustody, is a sufficient protection against such a supposition. That\nthey should have been appended through ignorance is inconceivable. How\ncan the name of so great a prophet have remained unknown? According to\nthe hypothesis in question, he lived about the close of the Babylonish\ncaptivity. He was contemporary, therefore, with Daniel; with Zerubbabel\nalso, Jeshua, and the other chiefs of the restoration. Did no one of\nthese know who was the man that prophesied so abundantly of the work\nwhich they had so much at heart? And did his name indeed escape the\nknowledge of the learned scribe Ezra? And if they did not know his name,\nwhy did they append his writings to those of the true Isaiah, thus\ntacitly ascribing to him their authorship? Why did they not leave them\nwithout a name, as they did the books of Judges, Ruth, Samuel, Kings,\nand Chronicles? That these chapters have always constituted a part of\nthe book of Isaiah, and been acknowledged as such, is a fact which\nadmits of but one explanation; that, namely, of their genuineness. The\n_Great Unknown_, as he is called, is no other than Isaiah himself, whom\nthe principles of certain critics do not allow them to acknowledge as\nIsaiah.\n\nThe _internal_ evidence for the genuineness of these chapters has\nalready been partly considered in an incidental way. It is found in the\npurity of the Hebrew, which belongs to the age of Isaiah, not of Cyrus;\nin the undeniable allusions to the temple sacrifices and oblations as\nthen existing (43:23, 24), and to the sin of seeking heathen alliances\n(57:9); and especially in the fact that a writer living near the close\nof the exile must have referred in a more particular and historic way to\nthe great events connected with Cyrus' conquests. It may be added that\nthere are in the later prophets some clear allusions to this part of\nIsaiah. Jeremiah, who undeniably made use of prophecies contained in the\nfirst part of Isaiah, was acquainted with the second part also. Compare\nJer. 10:3,4, with Isa. 40:19, 20; 41:7; Jer. 31:35, with Isa. 51:15,\nwhere a whole clause is repeated from Isaiah, which agrees in the Hebrew\nto every letter; Jer. 50:2, with Isa. 46:1, 2. Compare also Zeph. 2:15,\nwith Isa. 47:8; Nah. 1:15, with Isa. 52:7.\n\n9. The arguments urged against the genuineness of certain sections of\nthe first part of Isaiah are for substance the same as these that have\nnow been examined, and need not a separate consideration. We come on\nsolid grounds to the conclusion that Isaiah was the author of the whole\ncollection of prophecies which bear his name, and that the arrangement\nof these prophecies in their present form also proceeded from him.\n\n\nII. JEREMIAH AND THE BOOK OF LAMENTATIONS.\n\n10. In passing from Isaiah to Jeremiah, the contrast is as great as it\ncan well be; and yet it is a contrast necessary to the completeness of\ndivine revelation, which employs men of all characters and temperaments,\nand living in every variety of outward circumstances. Isaiah, like the\napostle John, seems to have lived above his personal relations in the\nsphere of divine truth. He never alludes to his private history, except\nwhere the nature of a given narrative requires it. It is not probable\nthat he was subjected to such an ordeal of persecution as that through\nwhich Jeremiah passed. However this may be, we gain almost no knowledge\nof his private life from the book of his prophecies. But Jeremiah, like\nthe apostle Paul, unfolds to us very fully the history of his inward and\noutward life. With his peculiarly tender and sensitive mind it could not\nhave been otherwise. If he had not woven into his prophecies his own\ninner and outer life, he would not have written naturally, and therefore\ntruthfully. Through this interweaving of biography with revelation, God\nhas given in the case of Jeremiah, as in that of the great apostle to\nthe Gentiles, a rich storehouse of truth for the instruction and comfort\nof his persecuted and suffering servants in all ages. With the\nsimplicity of truth, the prophet informs us how the men of Anathoth, his\nnative place, conspired to take away his life (11:18-23; 12:6); how\nPashur, the son of Immer, smote him and put him in the stocks (20:1-6);\nhow in the beginning of Jehoiakim's reign he was accused before the\nprinces by the priests and false prophets as a man worthy of death, but\nacquitted by them (chap. 26); how afterwards he and Baruch were hidden\nby Jehovah (chap 36); how under Zedekiah he was repeatedly imprisoned\n(chaps. 32:2; 33:1), and thrust into dungeons (chaps. 37, 38); how upon\nthe conquest of the city by the Chaldeans he was released from his\nfetters and honorably treated (chs. 39:11-14; 40:1-4); and how\nafterwards he was forced to go into Egypt with the fugitive Jews (chaps.\n42, 43).\n\nIn connection with this external history, we have a vivid portraiture of\nhis inward conflicts. Most deeply does he sympathize with his countrymen\nin the calamities which their sins have brought upon them; yet he is\nrewarded only with curses, because he faithfully forewarns them of the\njudgments of heaven which are fast approaching, and which can be averted\nonly by hearty repentance and reformation. \"Woe is me, my mother,\" he\ncries out in his anguish, \"that thou hast borne me a man of strife and a\nman of contention to the whole earth! I have neither lent on usury, nor\nmen have lent to me on usury; yet every one of them doth curse me\"\n(15:10); and like Job he loses all composure under the pressure of his\nsorrows, and bitterly curses the day of his birth (20:14-18). Again we\nsee him in the hands of his persecutors serenely committing himself to\nGod, and calmly warning them against the guilt of shedding his blood\n(26:12-15). In such alternations of impatience and faith we have a true\nportraiture of the struggle of grace against the weakness of nature; and\nit is this which gives it especial value as a part of revelation, which\nnever exhibits good men in a fictitious light, but always in the sober\nlivery of truth.\n\n11. Jeremiah was of priestly descent (1:1); but that Hilkiah, his\nfather, was identical with the high priest who found in the temple the\nbook of the law (2 Kings 22:8), rests upon mere conjecture. Anathoth,\nhis native place, was in the land of Benjamin, about four miles north of\nJerusalem. He was called to the prophetical office in his youth, and\nexercised it in his native land from the thirteenth year of Josiah to\nthe close of Zedekiah's reign, through a period of about forty-one years\n(chap. 1:3); and afterwards in Egypt, whither he was carried by the\nrebellious remnant of the people (chaps. 43, 44). His first appearance,\ntherefore, was about one hundred and thirty-one years after that of\nIsaiah, if we reckon from the last year of Uzziah, and some seventy or\nmore after the close of Isaiah's prophecies. During all this time the\nreligious and moral condition of the Jewish nation had been steadily\nchanging for the worse under such kings as Manasseh and Amon; nor could\nthe zealous efforts of Josiah avail to check the swelling tide of\nidolatry and profligacy. Sent by Jehovah in such a degenerate age to\nrebuke the wicked rulers and people for their sins, and to forewarn them\nof God's impending judgments, he was necessarily subjected to much\npersecution. Isaiah had administered stern rebukes to Ahaz and his\npeople, but he had encouraged them with the hope of successful\nresistance to the Assyrian power. But from the Chaldeans, who had\nsucceeded the Assyrians as the ruling monarchy of the world, Jeremiah\ncould promise no deliverance. In the name of the Lord he counselled\nsubmission, solemnly assuring the kings and princes of Judah that their\nreliance on Egyptian help would end in shame and disappointment\n(37:5-10). This brought upon him a load of calumny, insult, and\npersecution, which he keenly felt, but bore with fortitude, never\nswerving from the path of strict fidelity towards God. The prophecies of\nJeremiah do not contain so many animating visions of the distant future\nas are found in Isaiah. He is more occupied with the sins of his own\nage, and the heavy judgments of God that impend over his countrymen. His\nmission is emphatically to unfold the connection between national\nprofligacy and national ruin. This he does with a masterly hand, holding\nup to the world, in the character and fate, of his countrymen, a mirror\nfor all time, in which wicked nations may see themselves and the ruin\nwhich awaits them. The whole compass of profane history does not contain\nso much clear instruction on this point as is crowded into the few pages\nof \"the weeping prophet.\" If the book of God's revelation could not have\nbeen complete without the ecstatic visions of Isaiah, so neither could\nit have spared Jeremiah's vivid delineation of a profligate nation\nplunging itself into remediless ruin by its iniquities. At times,\nhowever, we find in Jeremiah also joyous anticipations of the good\nreserved for God's people in the latter days. He predicted not only the\nBabylonish captivity, but its termination at the end of seventy years,\nand the perpetual overthrow of Babylon and the Chaldean power (25:12-14;\n29:10-14). See also chapters 30-33, where he describes, after the manner\nof Isaiah, the glory of the latter days.\n\n    In Jeremiah we have an illustrious example of one whose\n    reputation after death became as high and lasting, as the\n    reproach which he endured before death was deep and protracted.\n    The men of his generation could not appreciate his worth. His\n    messages they treated with scorn, and him with contumely.\n    Through a long life of faithful labor it was his lot to endure\n    reproach and calumny. But neither their unbelief, nor the\n    burning of the roll of his prophecies by Jehoiakim could hinder\n    the fulfilment of his words. When the captivity had come, as he\n    had predicted, and especially when God's promise through him\n    that it should end after seventy years had been fulfilled, he\n    was honored as among the greatest of the prophets, and from that\n    day onward his name became as ointment poured forth. The history\n    of Jeremiah is also peculiarly encouraging to God's faithful\n    servants who labor on for years amid difficulties and\n    discouragements, and see no fruits of their toils. When he died\n    it seemed as if all his solemn messages had been wasted upon\n    that ungodly generation. But they were not lost to the Jews who\n    lived to witness the fulfilment of his predictions in their\n    captivity. In connection with the labors of Ezekiel and Daniel\n    they contributed greatly to bring about that change for the\n    better which took place during the exile. Through them,\n    moreover, God provided a treasury of instruction and comfort for\n    his people in all coming ages. How forcible a comment are his\n    life and labors upon the apostolic declaration made many\n    centuries afterwards: \"Let us not be weary in well-doing: for in\n    due season we shall reap if we faint not.\"\n\n12. Of the prophecies of Jeremiah some are without date, and where the\ndate is given the chronological order is not always observed. In the\nfourth year of Jehoiakim the prophet, by God's direction, dictated to\nBaruch, and he wrote in a roll of a book all the prophecies which God\nhad communicated to him from the days of Josiah to that time (36:1-4).\nWhen the king had destroyed this roll, he was directed to prepare\nanother containing the same prophecies, and \"there were added besides\nunto them many like words\" (36:27-32). Whatever use may have been made\nof this manuscript in the compilation of our present book, it is plain\nthat it has not come down to us in its original form as a constituent\npart of Jeremiah's prophecies; since in these, as we now have them,\nthere is an intermingling of messages before and after the fourth year\nof Jehoiakim. We cannot tell the origin of the present order, nor is it\na matter of importance, so far as the instructions to be derived from\nJeremiah's writings are concerned. Following the Hebrew order (see\nbelow) we have the following general divisions:\n\n(1.) Prophecies addressed to Judah, with which are connected many\nnotices of Jeremiah's personal history, and at the close of which stands\na message to Baruch. Chaps. 1-45.\n\n(2.) Prophecies against foreign nations.\n\n(3.) An appendix taken almost verbatim from 2 Kings 24:18-20 and chap.\n25, and which seems to have been added by some later writer, as Ezra\n(chap. 52.)\n\nIt is not necessary to consider particularly the attempt made to\ndisprove the genuineness of certain parts of Jeremiah's prophecies,\nsince they all rest, not on critical grounds, but on the false principle\nthat has been already considered--the denial of the reality of prophetic\ninspiration. Men who deny that Isaiah could foresee the restoration of\nthe Jews from the Babylonish captivity, must deny also that Jeremiah\ncould limit the duration of that captivity to seventy years. But with\nthose who believe that \"holy men of God spake as they were moved by the\nHoly Ghost,\" such arguments cannot have weight. It is well known that\nJeremiah, particularly in his prophecies against foreign nations, made\nuse of earlier prophecies, as those of Isaiah and Obadiah. Compare Isa.\nchaps. 15, 16 with Jer. chap. 48; Obadiah with Jer. 49:7-17.\n\n    The Alexandrine version differs unaccountably from the Hebrew\n    text in its arrangement of the prophecies of Jeremiah. Those\n    against foreign nations come after chap. 25:13, and also follow\n    a very different order. Besides this, the Alexandrine exhibits a\n    number of variations larger and smaller from the Hebrew text.\n    The explanation of these differences in arrangement and in the\n    text is a matter of uncertain conjecture.\n\n13. _The book of Lamentations_ is designated in Hebrew by the opening\nword _Echa_, _how_. The unanimous voice of antiquity ascribes it to\nJeremiah, and with this tradition agree its internal character and\nstyle. It was written in view of the desolation of Judah and Jerusalem\nby the Chaldeans, by an eye-witness of all the unutterable miseries\nconnected with that catastrophe. While it laments, in strains of the\ndeepest anguish, the desolation of Jerusalem with the slaughter and\ncaptivity of its inhabitants, and heaps together images of horror, it\nascribes righteousness to God, and acknowledges the manifold sins of the\nrulers and people as the cause of the overwhelming calamities that had\ncome upon them. We see throughout the feelings of a tender-hearted and\ncompassionate man, of a sincere patriot, and of a devout worshipper of\nJehovah beautifully blended together. Sad as is the picture, it is to us\nwho contemplate it in the light of history, not without its lessons of\ncomfort as well as of warning. It teaches us that in the midnight of\nZion's adversity her covenant God is with her, and that she has an\nindestructible life. The prerogative which the Roman bard applied to his\ncountry: \"Plunge her in the deep, she comes out the stronger\"--this high\nprerogative belongs to the true spiritual Jerusalem, which no fire can\ndestroy, nor floods overwhelm.\n\nThe structure of this book is peculiar. Its five chapters constitute\nfive poetical compositions, each complete in itself so far as outward\nform is concerned, but the whole inwardly bound together as parts of one\ngreat theme. The first and second chapters consist each of twenty-two\nverses, arranged in the order of the twenty-two letters of the Hebrew\nalphabet; that is, the first verse beginning with the first letter, the\nsecond with the second, and so on. Each of the verses, moreover,\ncontains as a rule _three_ clauses. The third chapter contains sixty-six\nshort verses of _one_ clause each, the first three beginning with the\nfirst letter of the alphabet, the next three with the second, and so\nthroughout. In this central chapter, therefore, the alphabetic structure\nreaches its culmination. The fourth chapter is like the first and\nsecond, with the exception that the verses generally consist of _two_\nclauses each. The fifth chapter contains twenty-two short verses of\n_one_ clause each, like those of the third, but not arranged\nalphabetically.\n\n    The more artificial structure of the third chapter marks it at\n    once as peculiar. In this the prophet, as the representative of\n    the pious part of the nation, bewails the calamities that have\n    come upon himself and his country, expresses his firm confidence\n    in God and his purpose to wait for deliverance in patient\n    submission to his will, exhorts his countrymen to repentance,\n    and offers up his fervent prayer to God that he would remember\n    his suffering people and punish their persecutors. The fifth\n    chapter is a complaint of Zion in prayer to God in view of the\n    terrible calamities that have come upon her. The other three\n    chapters (the first, second, and fourth) are occupied mainly\n    with a description of these calamities.\n\n\nIII. EZEKIEL.\n\n15. Ezekiel was especially the prophet of the captivity. Daniel, his\ncontemporary, received in Babylon glorious revelations respecting the\nfuture history of God's kingdom; but he was a statesman, exercising the\nprophetical office, like David, only in an incidental way. Ezekiel, on\nthe contrary, was expressly called and consecrated, like his\npredecessors Isaiah and Jeremiah, to the prophetical office. Like\nIsaiah, he has given us but few particulars concerning his personal\nhistory. He was the son of Buzi, and of priestly descent (1:3); belonged\nto that company of captives of the better class of the people who had\nbeen carried away with Jehoiachin by the king of Babylon when he made\nZedekiah king in his stead (2 Kings 24:8-16); and lived with other\ncaptives at Tell-abib on the Chebar (perhaps the ancient Chaboras, a\nbranch of the Euphrates), where he had a house and was married (1:1-3;\n3:15; 8:1; 24:15-18). That he was held in high honor by his\nfellow-captives, as a true prophet of God, is manifest from the manner\nin which they assembled at his house to inquire of the Lord through him\n(8:1; 14:1; 20:1). Of his personal standing and reputation, as well as\nof the character of his hearers, we have an interesting notice in chap.\n33:30-32, where instead of \"talking against thee\" (verse 30) we may\nbetter render, as in the margin of our English version, \"talking of\nthee:\" \"Also, thou son of man, the children of thy people are still\ntalking of thee by the walls and in the doors of the houses, and speak\none to another, every one to his brother, saying, Come, I pray you, and\nhear what is the word that cometh forth from the Lord. And they come\nunto thee as the people cometh, and they sit before thee as my people,\nand they hear thy words, but they will not do them: for with their mouth\nthey show much love, but their heart goeth after their covetousness. And\nlo, thou art unto them as a very lovely song of one that hath a pleasant\nvoice, and can play well on an instrument: for they hear thy words, but\nthey do them not.\" Ezekiel was called to the prophetical office \"in the\nfifth year of king Jehoiachin's captivity\" (1:2), from which date he\nconstantly reckons. Jeremiah's activity as a prophet continued not only\nthrough the eleven years of Zedekiah's reign, but for a considerable\nperiod afterwards; so that the two prophets were for some time\ncontemporary, the one prophesying in Jerusalem and afterwards in Egypt,\nthe other among the captives in Mesopotamia. The latest date which the\nprophecies of Ezekiel furnish is the twenty-seventh year of Jehoiachin's\ncaptivity, about twenty-two years from the time when he was called to\nhis office. How much longer he prophesied we have no means of\ndetermining.\n\n    The date with which the book of Ezekiel opens is \"the thirtieth\n    year, in the fourth month, in the fifth day of the month,\" which\n    was also \"the fifth year of king Jehoiachin's captivity\" (verse\n    2), or five hundred and ninety-five years before Christ.\n    Reckoning back from this date thirty years, we come to the\n    eighteenth year of Josiah, when he repaired the temple, and\n    solemnly renewed the worship of God; and also to the first year\n    of Nabopolassar, the father of Nebuchadnezzar, who made Babylon\n    independent of the Assyrian monarchy, and thus established a new\n    era. Some have assumed the former of these two eras as that from\n    which the prophet reckons; but the latter is more probable.\n    Writing, as he does, under the Chaldean monarchy, it is natural\n    that he should give, at the outset, a date by which the\n    chronology of the whole series of his prophecies may be\n    determined in reference to Chaldean history. Elsewhere he dates\n    from Jehoiachin's captivity.\n\n16. It is not worth while to raise any questions concerning the purity\nof Ezekiel's Hebrew, as compared with that of the earlier writers. The\nHoly Spirit is not concerned about the classic style of a prophet. He\nselects men whose natural qualities, providential training, and\nsanctified hearts fit them for the work assigned to them; and under his\ninspiration they speak and write in the dialect to which they and their\nhearers are accustomed. Ezekiel's style is marked by Chaldaisms, as\nmight have been expected from the circumstances in which he wrote. At\nthe same time it is as forcible as it is peculiar, a style every way\nadapted to the work laid upon him. He was sent to \"a rebellious nation;\"\nto \"impudent children and stiff-hearted,\" with the charge: \"Be not\nafraid of them, neither be afraid of their words, though briers and\nthorns be with thee, and thou dost dwell among scorpions: be not afraid\nof their words, nor be dismayed at their looks, though they be a\nrebellious house\" (2:3, 4, 6). How well he fulfilled his mission his\nprophecies show, in which there is a wonderful fire and vehemence,\njoined with a wonderful variety of representation and imagery. Proverbs,\nparables, riddles, symbolic actions, vivid portraitures of human\nwickedness, terrible denunciations of God's approaching judgments, and\nglorious visions of future peace and prosperity in reserve for the true\nIsrael--these are all familiar to him, and are set forth often with an\nexuberant fulness of imagery. When summoned by God to judge \"the bloody\ncity\" of Jerusalem, ripe for the judgments of heaven, he heaps one upon\nanother the black crimes of which she is guilty (22:6-12). The\nrepetitions so remarkably characteristic of his style are those of\nenergy, not of weakness. They are the repetitions of a battering-ram\nthat gives blow upon blow till the wall crumbles before it. The same may\nbe said of his amplifications, as in chaps. 1, 16, 23, 27, etc. He had a\nremarkable adaptation to his office; and his influence must have been\nvery great in bringing about the reformation of the nation which took\nplace during the captivity.\n\n17. Ezekiel abounds in allegoric and symbolic representations. These\ngive to many of his prophecies a dark and mysterious character, and make\nthem difficult of interpretation. Jerome long ago called the book \"an\nocean and labyrinth of the mysteries of God.\" Nevertheless, the common\nreader finds in him much that is plain of apprehension, and full of\nweighty instruction. Reserving the general subject of the interpretation\nof prophecy for another place, we add here a few words respecting the\nnature of allegories and symbols, and the principles upon which they are\nto be interpreted.\n\nAn _allegory_ is a narrative of a real event expressed in figurative\nlanguage; that is, where one historic transaction is described under the\nimage of another. Thus in chap. 17:1-10, the two great eagles are\nNebuchadnezzar and Pharaoh; the highest branch of the cedar is\nJehoiachin; the cropping off and carrying away of this branch is his\nremoval by Nebuchadnezzar to Babylon, etc. So also the extended\ndescriptions of Jerusalem in chap. 16, and of Jerusalem and Samaria in\nchap. 23, under the figure of lewd women. For other beautiful examples\nof allegory see Judges 9:8-15; Isa. 5:1-6; Psa. 80; Mark 12:1-9.\n\nIn scriptural usage _parables_ are not always distinguished from\nallegories. But properly speaking parables are narratives of supposed\nincidents--at least of incidents the reality of which is of no\nconsequence--for the purpose of illustrating important truths; while\nallegories are figurative descriptions of actual events.\n\nA _symbol_ represents some great truth or event of the future under the\nform of an action, or some material structure or arrangement. _Prophetic\nsymbols_ take the form of actions, and are of two kinds:\n\nFirst, _actual_, where the prophet himself performs some action before\nthe eyes of his countrymen; as in chap. 24:18, where Ezekiel, in\nobedience to God's command, refrains from all expressions of grief at\nthe death of his wife; and chap, 37:16, 17, where he joins together two\nsticks to represent the reunion of the ten tribes with Judah and\nBenjamin. See also Jer. 27:2 compared with 28:10.\n\nSecondly, _ideal_; that is, seen only in vision; like Ezekiel's prophecy\nupon the dry bones, chap. 37:1-10, and his measurements of the New\nJerusalem with its temple, porches, etc. Chaps. 40-48.\n\nIt is often difficult to determine to which of these two classes a given\nsymbol belongs. Did Jeremiah, for example, actually go to Euphrates to\nbury the linen girdle there, or only in prophetic ecstacy? Jer. 13:1-11.\nDid Ezekiel perform the acts recorded in chap. 4 in reality or in\nvision? The answer to such questions is not of great importance, since\neither way the meaning of the symbols and the instructions which they\nfurnish are the same.\n\n18. If we divide the book of Ezekiel into two equal parts of twenty-four\nchapters each, the _first_ part contains prophecies delivered before the\noverthrow of Jerusalem. These are arranged in chronological order. After\nan introductory chapter describing the vision of the glory of God which\nthe prophet had when called to his office, there follows, in the form of\nvisions, allegories, symbolic actions, and direct addresses, a series of\nvivid descriptions of the sins of Jerusalem and the judgments of heaven\nthat are about to fall upon her. With these are interspersed\ndenunciations of the false prophets that flatter the people in their\nsins, and fervent addresses to his fellow-captives remarkable for their\nplainness and evangelical spirit. The _second_ part opens with a series\nof prophecies against seven foreign nations, in which the order of time\nis not observed--first, short prophecies against the four neighboring\nnations, Ammon, Moab, Edom, Philistia (chap. 25); secondly, a series of\nprophecies against Tyre, to which is appended a short prophecy against\nSidon (chaps. 26-28); thirdly, a like series of prophecies against Egypt\n(chaps. 29-32). These prophecies were fulfilled through the same\nChaldean power that executed God's righteous vengeance on the covenant\npeople. As the number _seven_ is made out by separating Sidon from Tyre\nto which it properly belonged, it is rightly held to be a symbolic\nnumber, as in the book of Revelation and elsewhere, seven being the\nwell-known symbol of completeness. With the announcement of the fall of\nJerusalem (33:21) the thunders of God's wrath that had so long rolled\nover her die away; and the series of prophecies that follows is mainly\noccupied, like the last part of Isaiah, with predictions of the future\nglory of Zion, in connection with God's awful judgments upon the wicked\nwithin and without her borders. Of these the last nine chapters contain\na description of the vision which God vouchsafed to the prophet of a new\nJerusalem, with its temple, priests and altars, rising out of the ruins\nof the former, of larger extent and in a more glorious form. He sees\nthe land of Canaan also divided out to the returning captives by lot, as\nit was in the days of Joshua, but upon an entirely different plan.\n\nThe general plan of the temple is after the model of Solomon's; yet this\nvision is not to be understood as a mere prophecy of the rebuilding of\nSolomon's temple with the city in which it stood, and of the\nrepossession of the land after the Babylonish captivity. Several\nparticulars in the description make it plain that it was not intended to\nbe literally understood. See chaps. 42:15-20; 45:1-8; 47:1-12; and the\nwhole of chap. 48. It is rather a symbolical representation of the\ncoming deliverance and enlargement of the true spiritual Zion, which is\nGod's church, the same in all ages. The resettlement of the land of\nCanaan, and the rebuilding of the temple and city after the captivity,\nwere a part indeed, but only a very small part of the \"good things to\ncome\" which the vision shadowed forth. Its fulfilment belongs to the\nentire history of the church from Ezekiel's day onward, and it will be\ncompleted only in her final triumph over the kingdom of Satan, and her\nestablishment in permanent peace and holiness.\n\nAs the time had not yet come for the old covenant to pass away, Ezekiel,\nwho was himself a priest under the law of Moses, saw the future\nenlargement of God's kingdom under the forms of this covenant. The New\nJerusalem which God revealed to him had its temple, priests, altar, and\nsacrifices. All these were shadows of Christ's perfect priesthood, of\nthe spiritual temple of which he is the chief corner-stone, and of the\nspiritual priesthood of his people. 1 Peter 2:5-9. The literal\npriesthood, altar, and sacrifices are for ever done away in Christ's one\nperfect offering for the sins of the world on Calvary. Heb. chaps. 9,\n10.\n\nIn interpreting the vision before us we should not curiously inquire\nafter the meaning of every particular chamber and pillar and door, but\nrather look to the general meaning of the whole. The angel measures, and\nthe prophet records all the parts of the building. This signifies, in\ngeneral, that God's care extends to all parts of his spiritual temple,\nand that he will see that they are in due time made perfect. The New\nJerusalem described by the apostle John has much in common with this. It\nis, in truth, a vision of the same spiritual city, \"whose builder and\nmaker is God.\" But it differs from Ezekiel's vision in two respects.\nFirst, it belongs apparently to the glorified state of the church after\nthe resurrection; secondly, it has nothing Jewish in it, neither temple\nnor altar. These shadows have for ever passed away.\n\n\nIV. DANIEL.\n\n19. The book of Daniel is assigned in the Hebrew canon to the third\ndivision, called _Hagiographa_. For the supposed grounds of this, see\nabove, Chap. 13, No. 4. Daniel, like Jeremiah, has interwoven into his\nwritings so many biographical notices of himself, that we gather from\nthem a pretty full history of his life. He belonged to the royal family\nof Judah, being one of the number \"of the king's seed and of the\nprinces,\" whom Nebuchadnezzar had carried captive to Babylon in an\ninvasion not recorded in the books of Kings or Chronicles (1:1-3). Thus\nwas fulfilled the prophecy recorded in Isa. 39:7. But God graciously\nturned this into a rich blessing to the Hebrew nation; for Daniel,\nhaving been educated with his three companions, Hananiah, Mishael, and\nAzariah, \"in the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans,\" and having\n\"understanding in all visions and dreams,\" a remarkable proof of which\nhe gave by relating to Nebuchadnezzar the dream which had gone from him,\nwith its interpretation, was made \"ruler over the whole province of\nBabylon, and chief of the governors over all the wise men of Babylon,\"\nand at his request his three companions were also set over the affairs\nof the province of Babylon (chaps. 1, 2). He continued in high honor at\nthe court of Babylon as a wise and incorruptible statesman, and a\nprophet who had the gift of interpreting dreams, till the overthrow of\nthe Chaldean empire by the Medes and Persians. By Darius the Mede he was\ntreated with like honor (perhaps in connection with his interpretation\nof Belshazzar's dream, chap. 5), being made chief of the three\npresidents whom he set over his whole realm, and a plot formed to\ndestroy him was frustrated through God's miraculous interposition and\nturned to the increase of his honor and influence; so that he continued\nto prosper \"in the reign of Darius, and in the reign of Cyrus the\nPersian\" (chap. 6). He lived, therefore, to see the release of his\ncountrymen from their long captivity, though it does not appear that he\nhimself returned to his native land. Probably he continued in the\nservice of the Persian court to the day of his death.\n\n20. The first chapter is introductory to the whole book, giving an\naccount of the selection and education of Daniel and his three\ncompanions by direction of the king of Babylon. The prophecies that\nfollow naturally fall into two series. The _first_, occupying chaps.\n2-7, is written in Chaldee from the middle of the fourth verse of chap.\n2. It unfolds the relation which God's kingdom holds to the heathen\npowers as seen (1,) in a twofold vision of the four great monarchies of\nthe world, in the form first of an image consisting of four parts, and\nthen of four great beasts rising up out of the sea, the last monarchy\nbeing succeeded by the kingdom of the God of heaven, which shall never\nbe destroyed (chaps. 2, 7); (2,) in the protection and deliverance of\nGod's faithful servants from the persecution of heathen kings and\nprinces (chaps. 3, 6); (3,) in the humbling of heathen monarchs for\ntheir pride, idolatry, and profanation of the sacred vessels belonging\nto the sanctuary (chaps. 4, 5). Thus we see that the first three of\nthese six chapters (2-7) correspond to the last three taken in an\ninverse order--the second to the seventh, the third to the sixth, and\nthe fourth to the fifth. The _second_ series, consisting of the\nremaining five chapters, is written in Hebrew. This also exhibits the\nconflict between God's kingdom and the heathen world, taking up the\nsecond and third monarchies under the images of a ram and a he-goat.\nChap. 8. There follow some special details relating to the nearer\nfuture, with some very remarkable revelations respecting the time of the\nMessiah's advent, the destruction of the holy city by the Romans, the\nlast great conflict between the kingdom of God and its enemies, and the\nfinal resurrection.\n\nThe intimate connection between the book of Daniel and the Revelation of\nJohn must strike every reader of the holy Scriptures. They mutually\ninterpret each other, and together constitute one grand system of\nprophecy extending down to the end of the world. Both also contain\npredictions, the exact interpretation of which is extremely difficult,\nperhaps impossible, till the mystery of God shall be finished.\n\n21. That they who deny the reality of miracles and prophecy should\nreceive the book of Daniel as genuine and authentic is impossible. To\nreview the history of the assaults made by them upon it, or of the\nvolumes written in reply, is foreign to the plan of the present work. A\nbrief summary only will be given of the grounds on which its claim to a\nplace in the canon of the Old Testament is vindicated.\n\n(1.) The _unity_ of the book of Daniel is now conceded. \"The two leading\ndivisions are so related that the one implies the existence of the\nother. Both have the same characteristics of manner and style, though a\nconsiderable portion of the book is in Chaldee, and the remainder in\nHebrew.\" Davidson after Keil and others, Introduction to the Old\nTestament, p. 916. This being admitted, the book as a whole claims\nDaniel for its author; for in it he often speaks in the first person,\nand in the last chapter the book is manifestly ascribed to him (12:4,\n9).\n\n(2.) The uniform tradition of the Jews ascribed the book to Daniel. It\nwas on this ground that they received it into the canon of the Old\nTestament. The objection that they did not class Daniel with the\nprophets, but with the Hagiographa (see above, Chap. 13, No. 4) is of no\naccount. Had the book belonged, as the objectors claim, to the Maccabean\nage, it would not have found a place in the Hagiographa any more than in\nthe prophets. The first book of Maccabees, which contains authentic\nhistory, was never received into the Hebrew canon, because, as the Jews\nrightly judged, it was written after the withdrawal of the spirit of\nprophecy. Much less would they have received, under the illustrious name\nof Daniel, a book written as late as the time of Antiochus Epiphanes,\nmore than three centuries and a half after Daniel. That they should have\ndone this through ignorance is inconceivable; that they could have done\nit through fraud is a supposition not to be admitted for a moment, for\nit is contrary to all that we know of their conscientious care with\nregard to the sacred text.\n\n    It may be added that the book of Baruch, which cannot be placed\n    later than the Maccabean age, and is perhaps earlier, makes\n    abundant use of the book of Daniel; and that the author of the\n    first book of Maccabees had this book in the Alexandrine\n    version, as is plain from the peculiar expressions employed by\n    him in chap. 1:54--\"they built the abomination of desolation\n    upon the altar.\" Compare Dan. 9:27 of the Alexandrine version.\n\n(3.) Josephus relates, Antiq. 11. 8. 5, among the other particulars of\nthe visit which Alexander the Great made to Jerusalem, that the high\npriest Jaddus (Jaddua) showed him the book of Daniel \"in which he\nsignified that a certain one of the Greeks should destroy the empire of\nthe Persians;\" and that this, in connection with other extraordinary\ncircumstances narrated by Josephus, had the effect of assuaging the\nking's wrath which had been excited against the Jewish high priest and\npeople by their refusal to render him assistance against Darius, and of\ndisposing him to bestow upon them great favors. Respecting the\nauthenticity of this narrative there has been much discussion; but there\nis no ground for denying its substantial truth. It bears the stamp of\nreality, and it accounts, moreover, for the extraordinary privileges\nconferred upon the Jews by Alexander, which otherwise remain\ninexplicable.\n\n(4.) _Christ himself recognizes Daniel as a true prophet._ He refers to\nthe future fulfilment of one of his prophecies as a most important sign\nfor his disciples: \"When ye therefore shall see the abomination of\ndesolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place\n(whoso readeth, let him understand), then let them which be in Judea\nflee into the mountains.\" Matt. 24:15, 16; Mark 13:14. De Wette says\nindeed: \"In the nature of the case Christ neither _would_ nor _could_ be\na critical authority.\" That our Lord did not assume to be a critical\nauthority in the ordinary sense of the term is evident; for in this very\ncase he referred to the Alexandrine version, without pausing to notice\nits variation from the Hebrew. But our Lord knew whether the book of\nDaniel is a collection of real prophecies, or a spurious work composed\nseveral centuries after Daniel, imposing upon the world in Daniel's name\npretended prophecies written after the events. Far be it from any one\nwho believes in the reality of Christ's supernatural mission thus to\nmake him set the seal of his divine authority to the work of an\nimpostor. Heb. 11:33, 34 also refers undeniably to Daniel, chaps. 6 and\n3.\n\n(5.) The _language_ of the book agrees with the age of Daniel. The\nwriter employs both Hebrew and Chaldee, thus indicating that he lives\nduring the period of transition from the former to the latter language.\nHis Chaldee, moreover, like that of Ezra, contains Hebrew forms such as\ndo not occur in the earliest of the Targums. His Hebrew, on the other\nhand, agrees in its general character with that of Ezekiel and Ezra.\nThough the Hebrew survived as the language of the learned for some time\nafter the captivity, we cannot suppose that so late as the age of\nAntiochus Epiphanes and the Maccabees a Jewish author could have\nemployed either such Hebrew as Daniel uses, or such Chaldee.\n\n(6.) The author manifests intimate acquaintance with the historical\nrelations, manners, and customs belonging to Daniel's time. Under this\nhead writers have specified the custom of giving new names to those\ntaken into the king's service (1:7); the threat that the houses of the\nmagi should be made a dunghill (2:5); the different forms of capital\npunishment in use among the Chaldeans and Medo-Persians; the dress of\nDaniel's companions (3:21); the presence of women at the royal banquet\n(5:2), etc. See Davidson's Introduction, p. 920, who sums up the\nargument thus: \"It is improbable that an author in the Maccabean times\nshould have been so _uniformly accurate_ in his narrative, without\nhaving been in Babylon itself.\"\n\n22. The objections urged against the book of Daniel are not of a nature\nto overthrow the mass of evidence in its favor. They may be considered\nunder the following heads:\n\n(1.) Various _chronological and historical difficulties_. It is said\nthat Jewish history knows no expedition of Nebuchadnezzar against\nJerusalem in the _third_ year of Jehoiakim. The answer is that an\nexpedition which apparently fell about this time is mentioned in 2 Kings\n24:1. The actual capture of the city, however, seems not to have taken\nplace before the _fourth_ year of Jehoiakim; for Jeremiah, in a prophecy\ndated in this fourth year, speaks in terms which imply that the\nthreatened blow had not yet fallen. Jer. 25:9. Perhaps Daniel, chap.\n1:1, dates from the beginning of the expedition, so that it fell partly\nin the third and partly in the fourth year of Jehoiakim. It was in\nconnection with this expedition of Nebuchadnezzar that he overthrew the\narmy of Pharaoh-necho at Carchemish on the Euphrates; for that event\nalso took place in the fourth year of Jehoiakim. Jer. 46:2.\n\n    We learn from Berosus, as quoted by Josephus (Antiq. 10. 11. 1),\n    that when Nebuchadnezzar was engaged in this expedition, and had\n    already conquered the Egyptians, he received tidings that the\n    throne of Babylon was made vacant by the death of his father.\n    Upon this he hastened with his light troops across the desert to\n    Babylon, leaving the body of his army to return by the ordinary\n    route.\n\nIt is said again that the dates given in Jer. 25:1 and Dan, 2:1 cannot\nbe reconciled with each other. In the former of these the _first_ year\nof Nebuchadnezzar is the fourth of Jehoiakim, in which year, or at all\nevents in the preceding year, Daniel with his three companions was taken\ncaptive. Yet after they have been transported to Babylon and received an\neducation there extending through three years (Dan. 1:5), we find Daniel\ninterpreting Nebuchadnezzar's dream in the _second_ year of his reign.\nTo this it can be answered in part that in the second book of Kings and\nin Jeremiah the years of Nebuchadnezzar are obviously reckoned from the\ntime when he was placed by his father, who was now old and infirm, at\nthe head of his army, the title of king being applied to him by way of\nanticipation. 2 Kings 24:12; 25:8; Jer. 25:1. In the book of Daniel, on\nthe contrary, his years are reckoned from his actual accession to the\nthrone. But even then it is necessary to assume a considerable delay\nbetween his return from his Egyptian expedition and his formal\ninvestiture with the kingdom.\n\n    The grounds of such a delay we can only conjecture. It may have\n    been connected with the settlement of the affairs of the realm,\n    which he found, Berosus tells us, administered by the Chaldeans,\n    the kingdom being kept for him by the chief man among them; or\n    the statement of Berosus may be wanting in fulness and accuracy.\n    An argument from our ignorance cannot be urged against the\n    authenticity of Daniel any more than in its favor.\n\nAs to the acknowledged difficulties connected with the identification of\nBelshazzar and Darius the Median (chap. 5), it is sufficient to say that\nthe notices which we have of the Chaldean monarchy after Nebuchadnezzar\nare so fragmentary and contradictory that no valid argument can be drawn\nfrom such difficulties against the authenticity of the book of Daniel.\n\n    An old opinion identifies Belshazzar with Nabonnedus, who was\n    either a son of Nebuchadnezzar or a grandson--called his son,\n    Dan. 5:22, in the sense of his descendant. But Rawlinson (as\n    quoted in Smith's Bible Dictionary) informs us that from\n    inscriptions deciphered by him it appears that the eldest son of\n    Nabonnedus was called _Bel-shar-ezer=Belshazzar_. He thinks that\n    as joint king with his father he may have been governor of\n    Babylon, when the city was taken by the Medes and Persians, and\n    have perished in the assault, while, in accordance with the\n    statements of Berosus, Nabonnedus himself survived. Upon either\n    of the above suppositions, Darius the Median will be Cyaxares\n    II., son of Astyages and uncle to Cyrus, who succeeded to the\n    title of king--\"took the kingdom\" (Dan 5:31 and chap. 6)--though\n    the conquest of Babylon was due to Cyrus himself, who not long\n    afterwards ascended the throne of the united kingdoms of Media\n    and Persia. Another view makes Belshazzar the same as\n    Evil-merodach, son and successor of Nebuchadnezzar, and\n    identifies Darius the Median with Astyages. It is not necessary\n    to decide which, if either of these two views, is correct.\n\n(2.) An argument has been drawn from the fact that Jesus, the son of\nSirach, does not mention the name of Daniel in the catalogue of his\nworthies (chap. 49). Such negative arguments are at best weak, and this\nloses all its force from the circumstance that he omits others, as Ezra\nand Mordecai (the twelve minor prophets also, since chap. 49:10 is\nregarded as spurious).\n\n(3.) The alleged _linguistic_ difficulties have been reduced, so far as\nthe date of the book is concerned, to three or four Greek names of\nmusical instruments; all of which--the instruments and their names--may\nnaturally enough have been brought from Greece, the home of musical art,\nin the way of ordinary commercial intercourse. We are not called upon to\ndefend the classic purity of Daniel's style. A Hebrew and educated at\nthe court of Babylon, it was natural that his Chaldee should be colored\nwith Hebrew forms, and his Hebrew with Chaldaisms. The argument from the\ngeneral style of the book is in favor of its genuineness, not against\nit.\n\n(4.) The _commendations_ bestowed upon Daniel are thought to be\ninconsistent with his being the author of the book. Some, who admit its\nauthenticity and its right to a place in the sacred canon, have been led\nby this consideration to adopt the opinion that Daniel, though\nessentially the author of the book, did not himself put it into its\npresent form, but that some one of his countrymen put together his\nprophecies, prefixing to them introductory notices respecting the\nauthor. So far as the canonical authority of the book is concerned there\nare no serious objections to this hypothesis; but we may well ask\nwhether undue weight is not given to the objection under consideration.\nThroughout the whole book these commendatory notices are underlaid by\nthe idea that Daniel's wisdom is not his own, but is given him by God,\nand for purposes connected with the welfare of the covenant people. By\nrevealing to his servant secrets beyond the ken of all the wise men of\nBabylon, he manifests at once his own infinite perfections and the\nvanity of the Chaldean gods; and this Daniel records to the glory of the\nGod of Israel.\n\n(5.) The real objection to the book lies, as already intimated, in _the\nsupernatural character of its contents_--in the remarkable miracles and\nprophecies which it records. The miracles of this book are of a very\nimposing character, especially adapted to strike the minds of the\nbeholders with awe and wonder. But so are those also recorded in the\nbeginning of the book of Exodus. In both cases they were alike fitted to\nmake upon the minds of the heathen, in whose presence they were\nperformed, the impression of God's power to save and deliver in all\npossible circumstances. The prophecies are mostly in the form of dreams\nand visions; and they are in wonderful harmony with Daniel's position as\na minister of state at the court of Babylon, and also with the relation\nof Judaism to the heathen world. In the providence of God, the history\nof his covenant people, and through them of the visible kingdom of\nheaven, had become inseparably connected with that of the great\nmonarchies of the world. How appropriate, then, that God should reveal,\nin its grand outlines, the course of these monarchies to the final and\ncomplete establishment of the kingdom of heaven (2:44, 45; 7:26, 27). In\nall this we find nothing against the general analogy of prophecy, but\nevery thing in strict conformity with it. In the seventh chapter there\nappears, for the first time, an interpreting angel communicating to the\nprophet, _in connected discourse_, the meaning of the vision which he\nhas just seen. So also in the eighth chapter and onward. Such a mode of\nrevelation is peculiarly adapted to _the communication of details_, and\nin the eleventh chapter these are given to an unparalleled extent. But\nthis constitutes no ground for denying the reality of the prophecy.\nThough the spirit of prophecy does not, as a general rule, give future\nevents in their succession, this is sometimes done. So it is in God's\nannouncement to Abraham of the bondage of his posterity (Gen. 15:13-16);\nand also in our Lord's prophecy of the overthrow of Jerusalem (Matt.,\nchap. 24). In this respect it does not become us to prescribe rules for\nthe wisdom of God.\n\n    We need not pursue this subject any farther. No one of the above\n    difficulties, nor all combined, can outweigh the evidence we\n    have for the genuineness and authenticity of the book of Daniel.\n    On the contrary, the hypothesis that it belongs to so late an\n    age as that of the Maccabees is beset with difficulties\n    inconceivably greater. It has for its foundation not sober\n    criticism, but the denial of the supernatural.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXIII.\n\nTHE TWELVE MINOR PROPHETS.\n\n\n1. By the Jewish arrangement, which places together the twelve minor\nprophets in a single volume, the chronological order of the prophets as\na whole is broken up. The three greater prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and\nEzekiel, stand in the true order of time. Daniel began to prophesy\nbefore Ezekiel, but continued, many years after him. The Jewish\narrangement of the twelve minor prophets is in a sense chronological;\nthat is, they put the earlier prophets at the beginning, and the later\nat the end of the collection. It does not appear, however, that they\nintended to follow the order of time with exactness. If they did, then\nin the judgment of many they committed errors. The particulars must be\ndiscussed as the books come up separately for consideration.\n\n    In regard to the first six, the arrangement of the Septuagint\n    differs from the Masoretic, which is followed in our version, as\n    follows:\n\n    MASORETIC TEXT.                      SEPTUAGINT VERSION.\n\n    1. Hosea.                            1. Hosea.\n    2. Joel.                             2. Amos.\n    3. Amos.                             3. Micah.\n    4. Obadiah.                          4. Joel.\n    5. Jonah.                            5. Obadiah.\n    6. Micah.                            6. Jonah.\n\n2. This precious collection contains the earliest as well as the latest\nwritings of the Hebrew prophets, except such as are embodied in the\nhistorical books; for Hosea, Joel, and Amos, at least, are older than\nIsaiah, and the three prophets of the restoration are younger than\nEzekiel and Daniel. The minor prophets exhibit a great diversity of\nmanner and style--the rugged and sententious, the full and flowing, the\noratorical, and the simple and unadorned. In them are passages attaining\nto the sublimity of Isaiah, to the tenderness and pathos of Jeremiah,\nand to the vehemence of Ezekiel. Nowhere do we find sin rebuked with\nmore awful severity, the true meaning of the law more clearly expounded,\nor the future glory of Zion more confidently predicted. That some of\nthese writings are obscure and of difficult interpretation cannot be\ndenied. This arises partly from the character of the style, as in the\ncase of Hosea and others; partly from the nature of the themes\ndiscussed, as in Zechariah; partly from our ignorance of the times and\ncircumstances of the writers. Nevertheless the prayerful student will\nfind in them a rich treasury of divine truth, which will abundantly\nreward the labor bestowed upon it.\n\n\nI. HOSEA.\n\n3. The prophecies of Hosea were addressed immediately to the kingdom of\nthe ten tribes, yet so that he did not overlook Judah; for he considered\nthe two kingdoms of Judah and Israel as constituting together the\ncovenant people of God. Of his personal history we know nothing except\nthat he was the son of Beeri, for the transactions of the first three\nchapters may be best understood as symbolic acts seen only in vision.\nSee above, Chap. 22, No. 17. For any thing that appears to the contrary,\nhe was of Israelitish descent. As it is generally agreed that Isaiah\nbegan to prophesy in the last year of Uzziah's reign, or but a few years\nbefore his death, while Hosea prophesied in the reign of Jeroboam II.,\nthe great-grandson of Jehu (2 Kings 14:23), who died about twenty-six\nyears before Uzziah, it follows that Hosea, though partly contemporary\nwith Isaiah, was called to the prophetical work at an earlier period. If\nwe suppose him to have commenced prophesying two years before the death\nof Jeroboam, and then add the twenty-six remaining years of Uzziah's\nreign, the sixteen of Jotham, the sixteen of Ahaz, and two of the first\nyears of Hezekiah, we shall have a period of sixty-two years. To Israel\nthis was a calamitous period, embracing four usurpations and murders of\nthe reigning sovereigns, and three invasions of the Assyrians. See the\nhistory in 2 Kings 15:8-31, and 17:1-6. In the last of these Hosea, king\nof Israel, became tributary to Shalmaneser, king of Assyria; but he\nproved unfaithful to his master, and sought the alliance of So, king of\nEgypt. 2 Kings 17:4. For this the Assyrian king besieged him in Samaria,\nand after a siege of three years, took him with the city, and put an end\nto the kingdom of Israel in the fifth year of Hezekiah, king of Judah.\nHosea seems to have closed his writings when Hoshea was seeking the help\nof Egypt, while he had at the same time a covenant with Assyria (12:1),\nconsequently somewhere early in Hezekiah's reign.\n\n4. Hosea's style is very concise and sententious, and his diction\nimpresses even the casual reader as original and peculiar. A remarkable\nfeature of his book is the constancy with which he sets forth the\nrelation of Israel to Jehovah under the figure of the marriage-covenant;\nthus making unfaithfulness to God, and especially idolatry and\nidolatrous alliances, to be spiritual adultery and whoredom. This fact\naffords a key to the interpretation of the first three chapters, where\nthe nature of the transactions requires that we understand them not as\nhistoric events, but as prophetic symbols occurring only in vision. The\nremaining eleven chapters contain perhaps a summary of the prophet's\ndiscourses to the people, written by himself near the close of his\nministry. The prophecies of Hosea are repeatedly referred to in the New\nTestament as a part of the oracles of God. Matt. 2:15; 9:13; 12:7; Rom.\n9:25, 26; and an allusion in 1 Cor. 15:55. The prophet brings his book\nto a close with a delightful and refreshing view of the future\nprosperity and peace of the true Israel, chap. 14.\n\n\nII. JOEL.\n\n5. The prophecies of Joel, the son of Pethuel, give no specifications of\nplace or time. But all the internal indications of the book point to\nJudea--probably Jerusalem, with its temple, altar, priesthood, and\nsolemn assemblies--as the sphere of his labors, and to the date as among\nthe earliest of those belonging to written prophecy. The coincidences\nbetween Joel and Amos cannot well be regarded as accidental. Compare\nJoel 3:16 with Amos 1:2; Joel 3:18 with Amos 9:13; and notice the\nstriking similarity in the close of the two prophecies. If we may assume\nthat one of these prophets borrowed expressions from the other, the\npriority will naturally be given to Joel, from whose closing address\n(3:16) Amos takes the opening words of his prophecies. He must then be\nplaced as early, at least, as the reign of Uzziah, and perhaps earlier.\n\n    From the fact that Joel does not mention as among the enemies of\n    Judah the Syrians who invaded Judah in the reign of Joash, the\n    grandfather of Uzziah, some have placed him as early as the\n    reign of Joash before this Syrian invasion. There is no ground\n    for placing him after Uzziah; for his writings contain no\n    allusion to the Assyrian power, which became so formidable soon\n    after Uzziah's time.\n\n6. The writings of Joel bear the full impress of culture in a prophetic\nschool. His Hebrew is of the purest kind; his style is easy, flowing,\nelegant, and adorned with magnificent imagery; and for vividness and\npower of description he is not surpassed by any of the prophets. The\nimmediate occasion of his prophecies is a double plague of drought and\nlocusts, which has already invaded the land, and whose desolating\nprogress he describes in poetic strains of matchless elegance and power.\nHe summons the people of all classes to repentance, and promises, upon\nthis condition, not only the restoration of the land to its former\nfruitfulness, but also the outpouring of God's Spirit upon all flesh,\nthe triumph of the covenant people over all their foes, and an era of\nuniversal holiness and peace. In this respect he is a model for all the\nprophets that come after him. They all with one accord look forward\nbeyond the calamities of the present time, and the heavier impending\ncalamities which they are commissioned to foretell in the near future,\nto the glory of the latter days, when Zion shall be made triumphant over\nall her foes, and the whole earth shall be given her for her\ninheritance. The apostle Peter, in his address on the day of Pentecost,\nquotes a remarkable prophecy of Joel (2:28-32, compared with Acts\n2:16-21).\n\n    The opinion of some commentators, that under the figure of\n    locusts are represented simply hostile armies, must be regarded\n    as forced and unnatural. More probable is the opinion of\n    Henderson and others, that the prophet uses an actual invasion\n    of the land by locusts as the type of a more formidable invasion\n    of foreign foes. But there does not seem to be any valid reason\n    for departing from the simple interpretation above given.\n\n\nIII. AMOS.\n\n7. Amos prophesied \"concerning Israel in the days of Uzziah king of\nJudah, and in the days of Jeroboam son of Joash king of Israel, two\nyears before the earthquake\" (1:1). The time of this earthquake, which\nis simply mentioned by Zechariah (14:5) as occurring in Uzziah's reign,\ncannot be determined. We only know that Amos must have prophesied\nsomewhere during the last part of the reign of Jeroboam II., when he was\ncontemporary with Uzziah. Amos was thus contemporary with Hosea, and was\na considerable number of years earlier than Isaiah, who began to\nprophesy near the close of Uzziah's long reign of fifty-two years. The\nvery specific date \"two years before the earthquake\" indicates that his\nwhole mission to Israel was executed within a single year, perhaps\nwithin a few months. It seems to have been after his return to Judah,\nwhen at least two years had elapsed, that he collected his prophecies\nand put them into their present form.\n\nAmos describes himself as one of \"the herdmen of Tekoa,\" a small town\nsoutheast of Bethlehem on the border of the wilderness of Judah. 2\nChron. 20:20. It belonged to Judah, whence we infer that Amos was\nhimself a Jew, a supposition which agrees well with the advice of\nAmaziah: \"O thou seer, go, flee thee away into the land of Judah, and\nthere eat bread, and prophesy there\" (7:12). He speaks of himself as \"no\nprophet, neither a prophet's son\" (7:14); which means that he had not\nbeen trained up for the prophetical office in any school of the\nprophets, as were \"the sons of the prophets.\" 1 Kings 20:35; 2 Kings\n2:3, etc. God took him from following the herd, and gave him a\ncommission to prophesy to His people Israel, an office which he executed\nat Bethel, where one of the golden calves erected by Jeroboam the son of\nNebat was worshipped (7:10-17 compared with 1 Kings 12:29). In entire\nharmony with this historical notice is the character of his prophecies.\nHis style has not the flowing fulness of Joel, but charms the reader by\nits freshness and simplicity. His writings abound in images taken from\nrural scenes and employments, some of which are very unique and striking\nin their character. See chaps. 2:13; 3:12; 5:19; 6:12; 9:2, 3, 9. He\nopens his prophecies by a solemn annunciation of the approaching\njudgments of heaven upon the nations bordering on Israel, specifying in\neach case the sin which has provoked God's wrath. The storm passes,\nwithout pausing in its course, over Syria, Philistia, Tyre, Edom, Ammon,\nMoab, Judah, till at last it reaches Israel. Here it rests, gathers\nblackness, and thunders long and loud. The reign of Jeroboam II was one\nof much outward prosperity. 2 Kings 14:25-28. The vices which Amos\nrebukes are those which belong to such a period--avarice, violence,\noppression of the poor, perversion of justice, luxury, lewdness--all\nthese joined with the idolatrous worship established by Jeroboam the son\nof Nebat. For such multiplied transgressions God will cause the sun to\ngo down at noon, and darken the earth in the clear day. Their feasts\nshall be turned into mourning, their songs into lamentation, and they\nshall go into captivity beyond Damascus. But while all the sinners among\nGod's people thus perish by the sword, he will remember his true Israel\nfor good. He will rear up again the fallen tabernacle of David, bring\nagain the captivity of his people of Israel, and plant them for ever in\ntheir own land in peace and prosperity. Thus do the visions of Amos,\nlike those of Hosea and Joel, close with a cheering view of the future\nglory of Zion. Amos is twice quoted in the Acts of the Apostles (Acts\n7:42, 43; 15:16, 17).\n\n\nIV. OBADIAH.\n\n8. The short prophecy of Obadiah is directed against Edom. The Edomites\nwere conspicuous for their hatred of the covenant people. See Ezek.\n25:12; 35:5-15; Joel 3:19; Amos 1:11, and the parallel prophecy of Jer.\n49:7-22. Accordingly they stand here, in respect to both their guilt and\npunishment, as the representatives of Zion's enemies in all ages. In\nlike manner the promised victory of God's people over them shadows forth\nthe universal triumph of the kingdom of heaven which is reserved for\n\"the last days.\"\n\nConcerning the date of Obadiah's prophecy expositors are not agreed. The\nwhole question turns upon the interpretation of verses 11-14. That these\ncontain an historic allusion to the exultation of the Edomites over the\ncapture and plunder of Jerusalem cannot well be doubted. If this was the\nfinal capture of the city by the Chaldeans, then Obadiah's place will be\nafter the beginning of the Babylonish captivity. But since no mention is\nmade of the burning of Jerusalem, some suppose that the prophet refers\nto an earlier capture, as that by the Philistines and Arabians under\nJehoram. 2 Chron. 21:16, 17. In favor of this view is urged the fact\nthat Jeremiah, who was in the habit of using the writings of the earlier\nprophets, has much in common with Obadiah.\n\n    That Jeremiah borrowed the language of Obadiah is far more\n    probable than that both prophets availed themselves of an older\n    document, as some have conjectured. Since, however, Jerusalem\n    was taken more than once by the Chaldeans before its final\n    overthrow (2 Kings chap. 24; Dan. 1:1), Obadiah may have\n    referred to one of these earlier captures, and yet have written\n    before Jeremiah penned his prophecy against Edom.\n\n\nV. JONAH.\n\n9. We learn from 2 Kings 14:25 that Jonah, the son of Amittai, was of\nGath-hepher, which is undoubtedly the same as Gittah-hepher, a town of\nthe tribe of Zebulun in the northern part of Palestine (Josh. 19:13);\nand that he predicted the successes of Jeroboam II. According to the\ngeneral analogy of Scripture, prophecies like this, relating to one\nparticular event, are not separated by any great space of time from\ntheir fulfilment. He belongs, therefore, in all probability, to the days\nof Jeroboam II, when Amos also flourished. There is no valid reason for\nassigning him, as some do, to an earlier date.\n\n10. The story of the book of Jonah is too simple to need any analysis.\nHis act in fleeing from God's presence, when commissioned to go to\nNineveh with a threatening message, is very extraordinary; but such is\nthe inconsistency and folly of human passion. The conduct of the\nmariners when overtaken by a tempest is not wonderful: it is in harmony\nwith all that we know of ancient habits of thinking and acting. But what\nbefell Jonah, when cast into the sea, is more than wonderful: it is\nmiraculous. That there exist in the Mediterranean fish capable of\nswallowing a man entire is a well-attested fact. The original Hebrew\nmentions only, \"a great fish.\" The Alexandrine version, and after that\nthe New Testament, use the word _whale_ apparently in the sense of any\ngreat sea monster. But whatever the fish may have been, his preservation\nalive in its body for the space of three days, and his subsequent\nejection upon the dry land, can be accounted for only by reference to\nthe immediate power of God, with whom nothing is impossible. The effect\nof his preaching upon the Ninevites was remarkable; but much more so was\nhis grief at its success, whereby God was moved to spare the city. The\ncommon opinion is that he feared for his reputation as a true prophet;\nbut a deeper ground of his anger may have been that he rightly\nunderstood the design of his mission to the Ninevites to be that through\nrepentance they might be saved from impending destruction; while he\nregarded them as the enemies of God's people, and unworthy of his mercy.\nHowever this may be, Jonah's mission to the Ninevites foreshadowed God's\npurposes of mercy towards the heathen world, and that too at a very\nsuitable time, when the history of the covenant people, and through them\nof God's visible earthly kingdom, was about passing into lasting\nconnection with that of the great monarchies of the earth.\n\n11. The authorship of the book of Jonah is not expressly given; but may\nbe most naturally referred to the prophet himself. The few alleged\nChaldaisims found in it may be explained as belonging to the provincial\ndialect of the prophet; since we have but an imperfect knowledge of the\nvariations which the living Hebrew language admitted in this respect. In\nMatt. 12:39-41; Luke 11:29-32 the Saviour refers in explicit terms to\nevents recorded in this book as being true history; nor can the historic\ncharacter of the narrative as a whole be denied except on the ground\nthat all records of the supernatural are unhistoric.\n\n\nVI. MICAH.\n\n12. Micah is called the Morasthite, probably because he was a native of\nMoresheth-gath, a small town of Judea, which, according to Eusebius and\nJerome, lay in a southwesterly direction from Jerusalem, not far from\nEleutheropolis on the plain, near the border of the Philistine\nterritory. With this agrees the connection in which it is named\n(1:13-15); for Lachish, Mareshah, and Adullam also lay in that\ndirection. He prophesied \"in the days of Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah,\nkings of Judah.\" His prophetic activity began, therefore, soon after\nthat of Isaiah, and he was contemporary with him, as well as with Hosea\nand Amos. His prophecies related to Samaria, the capital city of the\nkingdom of Israel, and to Jerusalem (1:1). We find accordingly\ndenunciations against Samaria intermingled with his prophecies\nconcerning Judah and Jerusalem. The people, moreover, are spoken of\nunder the name of Jacob and Israel where, sometimes at least, as in\nchap. 3:9, Judah must be included. It is generally thought that the book\nof Micah contains only a summary of his prophecies, prepared perhaps in\nthe days of Hezekiah. But this is not certain; for the reference in\nJeremiah 26:18 obviously relates only to the particular prophecy quoted\nthere.\n\n13. The book is commonly distributed into three sections: chaps. 1 and\n2; chaps. 3, 4, and 5; and chaps. 6 and 7. Each of these opens with a\nsummons to hear God's message, and then proceeds with expostulations and\nthreatenings, which are succeeded by glorious promises. The second of\nthese sections, which is the largest and contains the most extended\npromises, is addressed more particularly to the rulers of the people.\nThe style of Micah is bold, vehement, and abrupt. His sudden transitions\nsometimes make his writings difficult of interpretation. He abounds in\nstriking images, taken to a great extent, like those of Amos, from\npastoral and rural life. Micah has one remarkable prophecy common to him\nwith Isaiah. Chap. 4:1-3 compared with Isaiah 2:2-4. From the connection\nof the context the passage in Micah is generally thought to be the\noriginal. Besides this there is a general agreement between the two\nprophets in their representations; and especially in the manner in which\nthey perpetually mingle stern rebukes and threatenings with glorious\npromises relating to the Messiah and his kingdom. The remarkable\nprophecy concerning the Messiah's birth (chap. 5:2) is quoted with some\nvariations in Matt. 2:5, 6, and referred to in John 7:42. The Saviour's\nwords, as recorded in Matt. 10:35, 36; Mark 13:12; Luke 12:53 contain an\nobvious reference to Micah 7:6.\n\n\nVII. NAHUM.\n\n14. Nahum is called \"the Elkoshite,\" probably from Elkosh, a village of\nGalilee, which Jerome (Introduction to Nahum) mentions as pointed out to\nhim by his guide. The tradition which assigns for the place of his birth\nand residence the modern Alkush, an Assyrian village on the east side of\nthe Tigris, a few miles above the site of the ancient Nineveh, rests on\nno good foundation. The prophecy of Nahum is directed against Nineveh,\nthe capital of the Assyrian empire. When the prophet wrote, this city\nwas still in the height of its power (chap. 1:12; 2:8); oppressing the\nnations and purposing the conquest of Judah (chap. 1:9, 11; 3:1, 4).\nFrom chap. 1:12, 13 it appears that the Assyrians had already afflicted\nJudah, and laid their yoke upon her. All these particulars point to the\nreign of Hezekiah as the probable date of the book.\n\n15. The first chapter opens with a description of God's awful majesty\nand power, which nothing created can withstand. These attributes shall\nbe directed to the utter and perpetual overthrow of Nineveh and the\nsalvation of God's afflicted people. The second chapter begins a sublime\ndescription of the process of this destruction by the invasion of\nforeign armies. The third continues the account of the desolation of\nNineveh by her foes. For her innumerable sins she shall be brought to\nshame before the nations of the earth, and made like populous No, that\nis, No-amon, the celebrated metropolis of upper Egypt, also called\nThebes, whose children were dashed in pieces and her great men laid in\nchains. The present condition of Nineveh, a mass of uninhabitable ruins,\nis a solemn comment upon the closing words of the prophecy; \"There is no\nhealing of thy bruise; thy wound is grievous: all that hear the report\nof thee shall clap their hands over thee: for upon whom hath not thy\nwickedness passed continually?\"\n\n\nVIII. HABAKKUK.\n\n16. Respecting Habakkuk's personal history we have no information. The\napocryphal notices of him are unworthy of credence. From the fifth and\nsixth verses of the first chapter it is evident that he prophesied not\nlong before that series of invasions by the Chaldeans which ended in the\ndestruction of Jerusalem and the captivity of the people; that is,\nsomewhere between 640 and 610 years before Christ, so that he was\ncontemporary with Jeremiah and Zephaniah. The theme of his prophecy is,\nfirst, the overthrow of Judea by the Chaldeans, and then the overthrow\nin turn of the Chaldean monarchy, each power in turn for its sins. In\nthe first chapter he predicts in a dramatic form--that of expostulation\nwith God on the part of the prophet, and God's answer--the approaching\ndesolation of the land by the Chaldean armies, whose resistless power he\ndescribes in bold and striking imagery. In the second chapter the\nprophet appears standing on his watch to see what answer Jehovah will\ngive to the expostulation with which the preceding chapter closes. He\nreceives a comforting message, but one that will try the faith of God's\npeople by its delay. Verse 3. It is an announcement of the overthrow of\nthe Chaldean oppressor, carried out in a series of bold and vivid\ndescriptions in which woe upon woe is pronounced against him for his\nrapine, covetousness, iniquitous oppression, and idolatry. The third\nchapter is a lyric ode in which the prophet, in view of both the\njudgments that God is about to execute on his countrymen through the\nChaldeans (chap. 1), and the promised deliverance from them at a future\nperiod (chap. 2), supplicates and celebrates the future interposition of\nJehovah for the redemption of his people in language borrowed from their\npast history. Thus this sublime song is both a prayer for the renewal of\nGod's wondrous works in the days of old and a prophecy of such a\nrenewal. The apostle Paul quotes the words of Habakkuk: \"The just shall\nlive by his faith\" (2:4), and applies them to all believers (Rom. 1:17).\n\n    The language of chap. 1:5 implies that the desolation of the\n    land by the Chaldeans would be a _surprising_ event, which could\n    not have been the case after the victory of Nebuchadnezzar over\n    the Egyptians and his capture of Jerusalem in the fourth year of\n    Jehoiakim, B.C. 606. It was also to be in the day of that\n    generation--\"in your days.\" Consequently we cannot date the\n    prophecy earlier than B.C. 640, probably not before B.C. 630.\n\n    The dedication of Habakkuk's ode (3:19) \"to the chief\n    musician\"--the Hebrew word is the same that so often occurs in\n    the titles of the Psalms--implies that this ode was to be used\n    in the solemn worship of God. The added words, \"on my stringed\n    instruments,\" are most naturally understood of those under his\n    charge as a leader in the service of song in the sanctuary.\n    Hence we infer with probability that Habakkuk was a Levite.\n\n\nIX. ZEPHANIAH.\n\n17. Zephaniah prophesied in the reign of Josiah (1:1), apparently while\nhis work of reformation was in progress and not yet completed (1:4-6, 8,\n9); that is, somewhere between his twelfth and his eighteenth year (2\nChron. 34:3-13).\n\nIn the first chapter he predicts the utter desolation of Judah, and with\nit the destruction of all the patrons of idolatry and the rich and\npresumptuous sinners in Jerusalem. In the second chapter he exhorts the\ncovenant people to repentance in view of the judgments that are coming\nupon them (verses 1-3), threatens the surrounding nations--Philistia,\nMoab, and Ammon--with desolation (verses 4-11), and denounces the\njudgments of God upon the Ethiopians and Assyrians (verses 12-15). In\nthe third chapter, after a severe rebuke of Jerusalem for her\nincorrigible rebellion against God (verses 1-7), he foretells in glowing\nlanguage the future purification and enlargement of Zion, and the\ndestruction of all her enemies (verses 8-20). The style of Zephaniah is\nclear and flowing, having a general resemblance to that of Jeremiah. He\nhas frequent allusions to the earlier prophets. Chap. 1:7 compared with\nIsa. 34:6; chap. 2:13-15 compared with Isa. 13:21, 22; 34:13-15; chap.\n1:14, 15 with Joel 2:1, 2; chap. 1:13 with Amos 5:11, etc.\n\n    The genealogy of Zephaniah is given through Cushi, Gedaliah, and\n    Amariah to Hezekiah; for in the original Hebrew the words\n    Hizkiah and Hezekiah are the same. As it is not usual that the\n    descent of prophets should be given with such particularity, it\n    has been assumed, with some probability, that this Hezekiah was\n    the king of that name; though in this case we should have\n    expected the addition \"king of Judah.\" The \"chemarim,\" verse 4,\n    are the idol-priests; that is, priests devoted to idol worship.\n    In 2 Kings 33:5, where the writer is speaking of the reformation\n    under Josiah, the word is translated \"idolatrous priests;\" in\n    Hosea 10:5 simply \"priests,\" which is its meaning in the Syriac\n    language. Some have maintained that the invasion of Judah to\n    which Zephaniah refers was that of the Scythians described by\n    Herodotus, 1. 105; but this is very improbable. From the fact\n    that \"the king's children\" are included in the threatened\n    visitation--in the Hebrew, \"I will visit upon the princes and\n    the king's children\" (1:8)--some have inferred that they must\n    have been already grown and addicted to idolatrous practices;\n    consequently that Zephaniah wrote later than the eighteenth year\n    of Josiah. But, as Keil and others have remarked, the mention of\n    the king's children may have been added simply to indicate the\n    universality of the approaching visitation; not to say that the\n    prophetic vision of Zephaniah may have anticipated the sin and\n    punishment of these king's children--Jehoahaz and Jehoiakim.\n\n\nX. HAGGAI.\n\n18. Haggai is the first of the three prophets after the captivity, who\nare commonly called _Prophets of the Restoration_. His four short\nmessages to the people were all delivered in the space of three months,\nand they all had reference to the rebuilding of the temple. By the\nslanderous representations of the Jews' enemies this work had been\ninterrupted, as we learn from the fourth chapter of Ezra. Meanwhile the\nJews, having yielded to the spirit of unbelief, had lost their zeal for\nGod's cause and grown cold and indifferent. For this the prophets Haggai\nand Zechariah were sent to reprove them, while at the same time they\nencouraged them to resume the work, a mission which they successfully\naccomplished. Ezra 5:1, 2.\n\n19. The first message is dated \"in the second year of Darius the\nking\"--Darius Hystaspes, who ascended the throne of Persia B.C. 521--\"in\nthe sixth month, in the first day of the month.\" Chap. 1:1. In this\nmessage the prophet sharply reproves the people for their indifference\nto the cause of God's house and their selfish devotion to their own\nprivate interests, which have brought upon them the divine rebuke. Chap.\n1:2-11. The effect of his words in exciting both rulers and people to\nrenew the work upon the temple is added. Chap. 1:12-15. The second\nmessage \"in the one and twentieth day\" of the same month is throughout\nof an encouraging character. The elders who had seen the first house in\nits glory, were despondent in view of the comparative meanness of the\nnew edifice. Jehovah promises them that \"the Desire of all nations\"\nshall come, that he will fill this house with glory, so that \"the glory\nof this latter house shall be greater than of the former\" (2:1-9). This\npromise was fulfilled in a material way in the second temple as renewed\nby Herod the Great. But the real reference is to its spiritual glory. It\nwas honored by the presence of the Son of God, who is the brightness of\nthe Father's glory. In the third message, \"in the four and twentieth day\nof the ninth month,\" the prophet in a sort of parable, rebukes the\npeople for their heartless formality, which, like the touch of a dead\nbody, defiles all their offerings and services, yet promises them God's\nblessing upon their repentance. Chap. 2:10-19. The last message, which\nwas delivered on the same day, is wholly occupied with the future. Amid\ncommotions and overturnings God will destroy the power of the heathen\nnations, and make Zerubbabel as a signet.\n\n    The reference is to a seal-ring, and the promise is that God\n    will preserve Zerubbabel from all the assaults of the wicked.\n    Zerubbabel was one of the Messiah's ancestors (Matt. 1:12; Luke\n    3:27), and since the prophecy reached far beyond his day, the\n    promise made to him extends to all faithful rulers whom God sets\n    over his church but can have its perfect fulfilment only in the\n    Messiah himself, of whom Zerubbabel was a type.\n\n\nXI. ZECHARIAH.\n\n20. Zechariah, the second and greatest prophet of the Restoration, calls\nhimself the son of Berechiah, the son of Iddo (1:1). But in Ezra the\nname of the father is omitted, perhaps as being less known, and he is\ncalled simply the son of Iddo (chaps. 5:1; 6:14), the word son being\nused in the general sense of descendant. There is no reason to doubt the\nidentity of this Iddo with the priest of that name who went up from\nBabylon with Zerubbabel and Jeshua (Neh. 12:4); so that Zechariah, like\nJeremiah and Ezekiel, was of priestly descent. He began to prophesy two\nmonths after Haggai (chap. 1:1 compared with Hag. 1:1), and the two\nprophets were contemporary, at least for a short time.\n\n21. The book of Zechariah may be naturally divided, according to its\ncontents, into three parts. The first six chapters constitute the\n_first_ of these parts. After a short introductory message (1:1-6) there\nfollows a very remarkable series of visions relating to the\nreestablishment of the Jews in their own land, and the future\ndispensations of God towards them; the whole being closed by a symbolic\nprophecy of Christ as both priest and king upon the throne of David. To\nthe _second_ part belong the prophecies contained in the seventh and\neighth chapters. The occasion of the first of these was a question\nproposed to the prophet concerning the observance of a certain fast. He\nfirst rebukes the people for their formality, and then proceeds to\nencourage them in the way of duty, adding glorious promises respecting\nthe future prosperity of Judah and Jerusalem. The remaining six\nchapters, constituting the _third_ part, appear to have been written at\na later time. They all relate to the future destinies of the covenant\npeople, and, through them, of the visible kingdom of God on earth. But\nthe first three of these chapters are mainly occupied with the nearer\nfuture, yet with glimpses at the final consummation in the latter days.\nThey are generally understood to predict the conquests of Alexander the\nGreat (9:1-8), the conflict of the Jews with their enemies in the\nMaccabean age (9:13-16), the advent of Christ (9:9), the corrupt and\nrapacious character of the Jewish rulers at that era, their rejection of\nChrist, and the consequent rejection of the nation by God (chap. 11).\nThey also contain a prediction of the final reunion and restoration of\n\"the house of Judah\" and \"the house of Joseph\" (ch. 10). The remaining\nthree chapters are occupied with the great and decisive conflict of the\nlast days, which is to usher in the era of millennial glory.\n\n22. The prophecies of Zechariah, containing as they do a portraiture of\nthe destiny of God's people to the end of time, and comprehending so\nmany mighty events which yet await their fulfilment, present to the\ninterpreter many difficulties, some of which have hitherto been found\ninsoluble, and will probably remain unsolved till the mystery of God\ncontained in them shall have been fulfilled. One thing, however, they\nclearly reveal to us: that the future triumph of God's kingdom is\ncertain, and that all the great movements in the history of the nations,\nhowever unpropitious they may seem at the time, are parts of the mighty\nplan of divine providence which shall end in making the kingdoms of this\nworld the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ.\n\n    In Matt. 27:9, 10, there is a quotation for substance of the\n    words of Zechariah 11:13, but they are ascribed to \"Jeremiah the\n    prophet.\" Of this discrepancy various explanations have been\n    proposed. Some have suspected an early error in the manuscript\n    of Matthew's gospel; but of this there is no satisfactory proof.\n    Others have thought that the part of our present book of\n    Zechariah which contains the prophecy in question actually\n    belongs to Jeremiah; but upon this hypothesis it remains a\n    mystery how it should have been attached to the writings of\n    Zechariah.\n\n    Upon the ground of diversity of style and other alleged internal\n    marks, it has been maintained by some biblical scholars that the\n    whole of the last part of Zechariah belongs to an earlier age;\n    but the validity of this conclusion is denied by others. To give\n    even a summary of the opposing arguments would exceed the limits\n    of the present work. The internal proofs being very nearly\n    balanced against each other, the fact that these chapters have\n    always been connected with the writings of Zechariah ought to be\n    allowed a decisive influence in favor of their genuineness.\n\n\nXII. MALACHI.\n\n23. In Hebrew Malachi signifies _my messenger_, being the very word\nemployed in chap. 3:1. Hence some have supposed that this is not the\nprophet's name, but a description of his office. Such a supposition,\nhowever, is contrary to scriptural usage, which in every other case\nprefixes to each of the prophetical books the author's proper name.\nMalachi has not given the date of his prophecies, but it can be\ndetermined with a good degree of certainty from their contents. The\npeople had been reinstated in the land, the temple rebuilt, and its\nregular services reestablished. Yet they were in a depressed condition,\ndispirited, and disposed to complain of the severity of God's dealings\ntowards them. Their ardently cherished expectation of seeing the\nTheocracy restored to its former glory was not realized. Instead of\ndriving their enemies before them sword in hand, as in the days of\nJoshua, or reigning triumphantly over them in peace, as in the days of\nSolomon, they found themselves a handful of weak colonists under the\ndominion of foreigners, and returning to the land of their fathers\nsolely by their permission. All this was extremely humiliating to their\nworldly pride, and a bitter disappointment of their worldly hopes. Hence\nthey had fallen into a desponding and complaining state of mind. While\nrendering to God a service that was not cheerful but grudging,\ncomplaining of its wearisomeness, withholding the tithes required by the\nlaw of Moses, and offering in sacrifice the lame and the blind, they yet\ncomplained that he did not notice and requite these heartless services,\nand talked as if he favored the proud and wicked. \"Ye have said, It is\nvain to serve God: and what profit is it that we have kept his\nordinance, and walked mournfully before him? And now we call the proud\nhappy; yea, they that work wickedness are set up; yea, they that tempt\nGod are even delivered\" (3:14, 15). To these sins they had added that of\nputting away their Hebrew wives, that they might marry foreign women\n(2:10-16). All these circumstances point to the administration of\nNehemiah, probably the latter part of it; for after his visit to Babylon\nin the thirty-second year of Artaxerxes (Neh. 13:6), he found upon his\nreturn, and has described in the last chapter of his book precisely the\nsame state of affairs. Malachi is thus the last of all the prophets.\n\n24. He opens his prophecies by reminding the people of God's great and\ndistinguishing love towards them and their fathers, which they were so\nslow to acknowledge. He then reproves them sharply for the sins above\nreferred to, and forewarns them that the Lord, of whose delay they\ncomplain, will suddenly come to his temple to sit in judgment there--an\nadvent which they will not be able to endure; for it will consume the\nwicked root and branch, while it brings salvation to the righteous\n(3:1-5; 4:1-3). In view of the fact that the revelations of the Old\nTestament are now closing, he admonishes the people to remember the law\nof Moses, and closes with a promise of the mission of \"Elijah the\nprophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord\"\n(4:5, 6). This promise, with that contained in chap. 3:1, is repeatedly\nreferred to in the New Testament, and applied to the coming of John the\nBaptist as our Lord's forerunner. The opening words of the prophecy,\nchap. 1:2, are quoted by the apostle Paul (Rom. 9:13).\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX.\n\nTHE APOCRYPHAL BOOKS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.\n\n\n1. The Greek word _Apocrypha_, _hidden_, that is, _hidden_ or _secret_\nbooks, was early applied by the fathers of the Christian church to\nanonymous or spurious books that falsely laid claim to be a part of the\ninspired word. By some, as Jerome, the term was extended to all the\nbooks incorporated by the Alexandrine Jews, in their Greek version, into\nthe proper canon of the Old Testament, a few of which books, though not\ninspired, are undoubtedly genuine. Another designation of the books in\nquestion was _ecclesiastical_, books to be read in the churches for\nedification, but not as possessing authority in matters of faith. But at\nthe era of the Reformation, when these books were separated by the\nProtestant churches from the true canon, and placed by themselves\nbetween the books of the Old and the New Testament, Jerome's old epithet\n_Apocrypha_, or the _Apocryphal books_, was applied to the entire\ncollection.\n\nHow the term _Apocrypha_, _hidden_, became associated with the idea of\n_spurious_ or _anonymous_ is doubtful. According to Augustine, it was\nbecause the origin of these books was not clear to the church fathers. A\nlater conjecture, expressed by the translators of the English Bible, is\n\"because they were wont to be read not openly and in common, but as it\nwere in secret and apart.\" Still more probable is the opinion that they\nwere so called from their close relation to the _secret_ books\ncontaining the mysteries--secret doctrines--of certain heretical sects.\n\n2. The date of several of the apocryphal books is very uncertain; but\nnone of them can well be placed as early as the beginning of the third\ncentury before Christ. Though some of them were originally written in\nHebrew or Aramean, they have been preserved to us only in Greek or other\nversions. None of them were ever admitted into the Hebrew canon. The\nground of their rejection is well stated by Josephus (Against Apion 1,\n8), namely, that from the time of Artaxerxes, Xerxes' son (Artaxerxes\nLongimanus, under whom Ezra led forth his colony, Ezra 7:1, 8), \"the\nexact succession of the prophets\" was wanting. The Alexandrine Jews,\nhowever, who were very loose in their ideas of the canon, incorporated\nthem into their version of the Hebrew Scriptures. How far the mass of\nthe people distinguished between their authority and that of the books\nbelonging to the Hebrew canon is a question not easily determined. But\nJosephus, as we have seen, clearly recognized their true character.\nPhilo also, as those who have examined the matter inform us, though\nacquainted with these books, never cites any one of them as of divine\nauthority. The judgment of these two men doubtless represents that of\nall the better informed among the Alexandrine Jews, as it does that of\nthe Saviour and his apostles, who never quote them as a part of the\ninspired word.\n\n3. During the first three centuries of the Christian era very few of the\nchurch fathers had any knowledge of Hebrew. The churches received the\nScriptures of the Old Testament through the medium of the Alexandrine\nGreek version, which contained the apocryphal books. It is not\nsurprising, therefore, that the distinction between these and the\ncanonical books was not clearly maintained, and that we find in the\nwritings of the church fathers quotations from them even under the name\nof \"divine scripture.\" But Jerome, who translated the Old Testament from\nthe Hebrew, understood perfectly the distinction between the canonical\nand the apocryphal books. The canon which he has given agrees with that\nof the Palestine Jews. He says (Prologus Galeatus) of the apocryphal\nbooks Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Judith, Tobit, and Maccabees, that the\nchurch reads these \"for the edification of the people, not for authority\nin establishing church doctrines.\" The same distinction is made by\nRufinus, the contemporary and antagonist of Jerome. The language of\nAugustine was more wavering and uncertain. At the Council of Hippo, A.D.\n393, at which he was present, the \"ecclesiastical books,\" as the\napocryphal books are called, were included in the catalogue of sacred\nbooks; and from that day to the time of the Reformation the extent of\nthe Old Testament canon was regarded as an open question. But the Romish\nCouncil of Trent included the apocryphal books in the canon of the Old\nTestament, with the exception of Esdras and the prayer of Manasseh,\npronouncing an anathema on all who should hold a contrary opinion. The\nProtestant churches, on the other hand, unanimously adhered to the\nHebrew canon, separating from this the apocryphal books as useful for\nreading, but of no authority in matters of faith.\n\n4. Although the Protestant churches rightly reject the apocryphal books\nas not belonging to the inspired word, the knowledge of their contents\nis nevertheless a matter of deep interest to the biblical scholar. The\nfirst book of Maccabees is in the main authentic, and it covers an\nimportant crisis of Jewish history. All of the apocryphal books,\nmoreover, throw much light on the progress of Jewish thought, especially\nin the two directions of Grecian culture and a rigid adherence to the\nforms of the Mosaic law. Keil divides the apocryphal books into\n_historical_, _didactic_, and _prophetic_, but with the remark that this\ndivision cannot be rigidly carried out. In the following brief notice of\nthe several books the arrangement of the English Bible is followed.\n\n\nI. THE TWO BOOKS OF ESDRAS.\n\n5. The first two in order of the apocryphal books in the English version\nbear the title of _Esdras_, that is, _Ezra_. The Greek Bible has only\nthe first, which stands sometimes before our canonical book of Ezra, and\nsometimes after Nehemiah. In the former case it is called the _first_\nbook of Esdras, that is, Ezra; in the latter the _third_, Nehemiah being\nreckoned as the continuation of Ezra, and called the _second_ book of\nEzra. It gives the history of the temple and its service from Josiah to\nEzra--its restoration by Josiah, destruction by the Chaldees, rebuilding\nand reestablishment through Zerubbabel and Ezra. Its original and\ncentral part is a legend from an unknown source respecting a trial of\nwisdom between Zerubbabel and two other young men, made in the presence\nof Darius, king of Persia, which resulted in Zerubbabel's favor, and so\npleased the king that he issued letters for the rebuilding of Jerusalem,\nand conferred many other favors on the Jews. Chaps. 3, 4. The preceding\nand following parts are made up of extracts from 2 Chronicles, Ezra, and\nNehemiah, in which the compiler has made a free use of his biblical\nsources, at one time abridging the narrative, at another making\nexplanatory additions, and again transposing the order of events\ncontrary to historical truth. Some, as Keil, think that the writer made\nuse of the Alexandrine version; others, that he drew from the original\nHebrew. His design was to exhibit the liberality of Cyrus and Darius\ntowards the Jews as a pattern for the heathen rulers of Judea in his own\nday. (Keil.) Neither the author nor the date of the book is known, but\nit cannot be placed earlier than the second century before Christ.\n\n6. The _second_ book of Esdras (called also the _fourth_, when the first\nis reckoned as the third) is extant in a Latin, an Arabic, and an\nEthiopic version. The Greek original has not thus far been found. The\nArabic and Ethiopic are thought to represent the primitive text more\ncorrectly than the Latin: as they want the two introductory and closing\nchapters of the latter, which are generally admitted to be spurious\nadditions by a later hand; and contain, on the contrary, a long passage\nafter chap. 7:35, which is not found in the Latin, and is thought to be\ngenuine.\n\n7. If we reject the first two and last two chapters of the Latin\nversion, which do not belong to the original work, the remainder of the\nbook has entire unity from beginning to end. It consists of a series of\npretended visions vouchsafed to Ezra through the angel Uriel in the\nthirtieth year after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Chaldees, while\nhe mourned over the desolate and distressed condition of the covenant\npeople with fasting and prayer. Of these visions, the first six, which\nare preparatory to the last, pertain mainly to the method of God's\ndealing with men, the end of the present age, the introduction of the\ncoming age, and the glorification of Zion, with the heavy judgments of\nGod that shall accompany these events. Many of these revelations are\nmade through the medium of symbols. In the seventh and last revelation,\na voice addresses Ezra out of a bush, as it did Moses of old. Upon his\ncomplaining that the law has been burnt, he is directed to take five\nready scribes, with a promise that the holy writings which are lost\nshall be restored to his people. The next day the voice calls to him\nagain, commanding him to open his mouth and drink the cup which is\noffered to him, \"full as it were with water, but the color of it was\nlike fire.\" Upon this he is filled with the spirit of inspiration, and\ndictates to his five scribes in forty days 204 books (according to some\n94). Of these the last 70 are secret, to be delivered only \"to such as\nbe wise among the people.\" The rest are to be published openly, that the\nworthy and unworthy may read them. The historic truth underlying this\nfabulous revelation seems to be the revision of the canon of the Old\nTestament by Ezra and his associates. Chap. 15, No. 17. It is agreed\nthat this book is the production of a Jew, but the date of its\ncomposition is a disputed point. Some assign it to the first century\nafter Christ; others to the century preceding our Lord's advent, but\nwith interpolations that manifestly belong to the Christian era.\n\n\nII. TOBIT.\n\n8. The book of Tobit contains a narrative of the piety, misfortunes, and\nfinal prosperity of Tobit, an Israelite of the tribe of Naphtali, who\nwas among the captives brought to Assyria by Enemessar (Shalmaneser)\nking of Assyria. With Enemessar he was in favor, became his purveyor,\nand was able to deposit ten talents of silver with Gabael at Rages, a\ncity of Media. But Sennacherib, the successor of Enemessar, persecuted\nhim, especially for his pious care in burying the bodies of his Jewish\nbrethren whom that king had slain, and he was obliged to flee with his\nwife Anna and his son Tobias, leaving all his goods as plunder to the\nAssyrian king. Under Sarchedonus (Esarhaddon) he returned again to his\nhome, but soon a new misfortune overtook him. As he lay one night by the\nwall of his courtyard, being unclean from the burial of a Jew whom his\nson had found strangled in the market-place, \"the sparrows muted warm\ndung\" into his eyes, which deprived him of sight. Wishing now to send\nhis son Tobias for the ten talents of silver deposited with Gabael at\nRages in Media, he directs him to seek a guide for the way; when the\nangel Raphael offers himself under the name of Azarias the son of\nAnanias the great, one of Tobit's brethren. As the angel and Tobias\njourney together, they come one evening to the river Tigris. As the\nyoung man goes down to the river to bathe, a fish assaults him; but by\nthe angel's direction he seizes him, drags him on shore, and takes for\nfuture use his heart, liver, and gall. On their way to Rages they come\nto Ecbatane, a city of Media, where resides Raguel, the cousin of\nTobias, whose only daughter, Sara, has lost seven husbands on the night\nof their marriage, through the power of Asmodeus, an evil spirit. Tobias\nbeing her nearest surviving kinsman, marries her according to the law of\nMoses. By the angel's direction, upon entering the marriage-chamber, he\nlays the heart and liver of the fish upon embers. The evil spirit, at\nthe smell of the smoke, flees away into the utmost parts of Egypt, where\nthe angel binds him. The angel goes to Rages and brings the ten talents\nand Gabael himself to the wedding feast; the wedded pair return in\nsafety to Tobit with the silver, and also the half of Raguel's goods,\nwhich Sara receives as her wedding portion. Finally Tobias, by the\nangel's direction, anoints his father's eyes with the gall of the fish;\nwhereupon he recovers his sight, and lives in honor and prosperity to a\ngood old age. Such is a brief outline of the story, which is told in an\ninteresting and attractive style. How much historic truth lies at its\nfoundation, it is impossible to determine. The introduction of the\nangelic guide may well be regarded as a mythical embellishment.\n\n9. The book of Tobit is extant in various texts--Greek, Latin, Syriac,\nand Hebrew, the Hebrew forms being all translations from the Greek or\nLatin. These texts differ in minor details, but have all sprung directly\nor indirectly from one original, which was probably Hebrew or Aramaic,\nthough some maintain that it was Greek. The book is thoroughly Jewish in\nits spirit. The date of its composition is uncertain. The common opinion\nof biblical scholars is that it was composed about 250-200 B.C. In its\ngeneral scope the book has a resemblance to that of Job. A good man\nencounters suffering in the way of piety, but is finally delivered,\nlives in prosperity, and dies in a good old age. The portraiture which\nit gives of domestic piety is very pleasing, and affords an instructive\ninsight into the spirit of the age in which it was written. It gives\ngreat prominence to deeds of charity; but the alms on which it insists\nso earnestly flow from inward faith and love. In this respect they are\ndistinguished from the dead works of the late Scribes and Pharisees.\n\n\nIII. JUDITH.\n\n10. This book relates the exploit of Judith, a Jewish widow\ndistinguished alike for beauty, courage, and devotion to her country.\nWhen Holofernes, one of Nebuchadnezzar's generals, was besieging\nBethulia, a city of Judea, she went over to his camp with her maid in\nthe character of a deserter, promised to guide him to Jerusalem, and by\nher flattery and artful representations so insinuated herself into his\nfavor that he entertained her with high honor. At last, being left alone\nwith him at night in his tent, she beheaded him with his own falchion as\nhe lay asleep and intoxicated, and going forth gave his head to her\nmaid, who put it in her bag, and they two passed the guards in safety\nunder the pretext of going out for prayer, as had been their nightly\ncustom. The head of Holofernes was suspended from the wall of the city,\nand when the warriors within sallied forth, the besieging army fled in\nconsternation. Judith receives as a reward all the stuff of Holofernes,\nlives at Bethulia as a widow in high honor, and dies at the age of one\nhundred and five.\n\n11. The historical and geographical contradictions of this book are too\nmany and grave to allow the supposition that it contains an authentic\nnarrative of facts. It was manifestly written after the return of the\nJews from the Babylonish captivity and the rebuilding of the city and\ntemple (chaps. 4:3; 5:18, 19), when the nation was governed, not by a\nking, but by a high priest and Sanhedrim. Chap. 4:6, 8; 15:8. Yet it\nmakes Nebuchadnezzar, who reigned in Babylon long before, king in\nNineveh in the eighth year of his reign, whereas his father had\ndestroyed Nineveh. The attempts that have been made to reconcile these\nand other inconsistencies with true history are forced and unnatural.\nWhatever historical truth may lie at the basis of the story, it is so\ninterwoven with fiction that the two elements cannot be separated from\neach other. It was probably written by a Palestinian Jew in Hebrew or\nAramaic somewhere about the second century before Christ. The design of\nthe book is to excite the people to faith and courage in their severe\nconflicts with foreign persecutors; but its morality is of a very\nquestionable character. Judith, its heroine, while she adheres with\ngreat punctiliousness to the Mosaic ritual, does not scruple to employ\nhypocrisy and falsehood that she may prepare the way for assassination,\nbeing evidently persuaded that in the service of the covenant people the\nend sanctifies the means.\n\n\nIV. ADDITIONS TO THE BOOK OF ESTHER.\n\n12. These are printed by themselves in our English version, and\nentitled: \"The rest of the chapters of the Book of Esther, which are\nfound neither in the Hebrew, nor in the Chaldee;\" but in the Septuagint\nand old Latin they are dispersed through the canonical book so as to\nform with it a consistent whole. They profess to supply deficiencies in\nthe canonical Esther--a dream of Mordecai with its interpretation; an\naccount of the conspiracy of the two eunuchs to destroy Ahasuerus; a\npretended copy of the king's edict for the destruction of the Jews; the\nprayer of Mordecai and of Esther in view of this edict; various details\nof Esther's visit to the king; and the pretended edict of Artaxerxes\n(Ahasuerus) revoking the former edict, and giving the Jews liberty to\ndestroy all who should assault them--into which the name of God, which\nnowhere appears in the genuine book of Esther, is abundantly introduced.\nThe origin of these legends is unknown.\n\n\nV. THE WISDOM OF SOLOMON.\n\n13. The author of this book personages Solomon, and speaks in his name,\nSolomon being to the ancient Jews the representative of all wisdom. Keil\ngives the summary of its contents in three divisions, as follows; (1.)\n\"The book begins with a forcible exhortation to the rulers of the earth\nto strive after wisdom as the fountain of righteousness and the guide to\nimmortality and happiness. With this it connects a warning against the\nfolly of unbelieving men who rebel against the law, oppress the\nrighteous, and thus bring upon themselves just punishment, distraction,\nand everlasting shame. Chaps. 1-6. (2.) After the example of King\nSolomon, who is introduced as speaking, the way to obtain wisdom is next\npointed out, and she is described in her nature as the spirit that\nformed and sustains the world, and is the author of all that is good,\ntrue, and great. Chaps. 7-9. (3.) Then follows a long historical\ndiscourse (interrupted in chaps. 13-15 by a copious discussion\nconcerning the origin and nature of idolatry), in which the blessed\neffects of wisdom and the fear of God, and the unhappy consequences that\ncome from the folly of idolatry are illustrated by the opposite fortunes\nof the righteous and the wicked of past ages, especially of the people\nof God as contrasted with the idolatrous Canaanites and Egyptians.\" The\ndifferent parts of the book constitute a well connected whole.\n\n14. The book was originally composed in Greek by an Alexandrine Jew, who\nis generally placed by biblical scholars somewhere in the second century\nbefore Christ. Though possessing no canonical authority, it is very\ninteresting and valuable for the view which it gives of the progress of\nJewish thought in both religion and philosophy. This writer is the first\nwho expressly identifies the serpent that deceived Eve with the devil:\n\"Through envy of the devil came death into the world.\" Chap. 2:24. He\nteaches also the doctrine of the immortality of the soul and of a future\njudgment. In a passage of great beauty he personifies Wisdom, after the\nexample of the book of Proverbs, as the worker of all things, and the\nteacher and guide, of men. \"She is the breath of the power of God, and a\npure efflux from the glory of the Almighty; therefore nothing defiled\ncan find entrance into her. For she is the effulgence of the everlasting\nlight, and the unspotted mirror of the divine might, and the image of\nhis goodness. And being but one she can do all things; and remaining in\nherself [unchanged] she makes all things new. From age to age entering\ninto holy souls, she makes them friends of God and prophets.\" Chap.\n7:25-27. But along with this true development of doctrine on the basis\nof the Old Testament he holds the unscriptural doctrine of the\npreexistence of souls (chap. 8:20), whether borrowed from the\nPlatonists, or taken from some other source. Some have thought that he\nalso holds matter to be eternal. But when he speaks of God's almighty\nhand as having \"created the world out of formless matter\" (chap. 11:17),\nhe may have reference simply to the chaotic state described in Gen. 1:2.\n\nJerome left the Latin translation of this book unrevised. The text,\ntherefore, of our Latin Bibles is that of the \"Old Latin\" version, as it\nexisted before his day.\n\n\nVI. ECCLESIASTICUS.\n\n15. The Greek title of this book is, _The Wisdom of Jesus the son of\nSirach_, or more briefly: _The Wisdom of Sirach_. The Latin title,\n_Ecclesiasticus_, that is, _Ecclesiastical_ book, designates it as a\nbook that was read for edification in the churches, though not included\nin the Hebrew canon. We give, mainly from Keil, the summary of its\ncontents: This copious book is rich in its contents, embracing the whole\ndomain of practical wisdom, and, what is inseparable from this, the fear\nof God. These virtues it describes, commends, and inculcates according\nto their origin and nature, their characteristics and results, and their\nrealization in life, in a rich collection of proverbs, with rules and\ncounsels for the regulation of life in all its manifold relations. The\nwhole is after the manner of the Proverbs of Solomon, only with much\ngreater particularity of details, extending to all the spheres of\nreligious, civil, and domestic life, and giving rules of conduct for the\nregulation of the same. This collection of wise maxims, moral precepts,\nand rules of life constitutes a united whole, in which the particular\nproverbs, counsels, and warnings are strung together in accordance with\nan association of ideas that is often quite loose. Interwoven with these\nare a number of connected discussions and prayers. The author closes his\ninstructions with two extended discourses, in the former of which he\ncelebrates the works of God in creation (chaps. 42:15-43:33); in the\nlatter, the praises of the famous men of Scripture from Enoch to Simon\nthe high priest, the son of Onias (chaps. 44-50). He then adds in the\nfinal chapter a thanksgiving and prayer (chap. 51). This book, like that\nof Wisdom, is of great value for the insight which it gives into the\ntheology and ethics of the Jews at the time of its composition.\n\n16. It is undoubtedly genuine, having been written in Hebrew by the man\nwhose name it bears, and translated into Greek in Egypt by his grandson,\nas stated in the prologue. But the age of the translator, and\nconsequently of the author, is a matter of dispute. The last of the\nworthies described by him is \"Simon, the son of Onias, the high priest.\"\nThere were two high priests of this name, both sons of Onias, but the\nauthor's eulogy is applicable only to the former, who flourished about\n310-290 B.C. It is a natural inference that Jesus, the son of Sirach,\nwrote not many years afterwards. The translator, again, speaks of\nhimself as coming into Egypt \"in the eight and thirtieth year, when\nEuergetes was king.\" Does he mean the eight and thirtieth year of his\n_own_ life, or of _Euergetes_' reign? If the latter, then of the two\nkings that bore the surname Euergetes the latter only (B.C. 170-117) can\nbe understood, since the former reigned only twenty-five years. If the\nformer, as is most probable, then we naturally understand Euergetes I.,\nwho reigned B.C. 217-222, during which period the translation must have\nbeen executed.\n\nThe Greek text, as exhibited in manuscripts, is in a very corrupt and\nconfused state, with many variations and transpositions. The Latin text\nis that of the \"Old Latin,\" which Jerome left, as he did that of the\nbook of Wisdom, without revision.\n\n\nVII. BARUCH AND THE EPISTLE OF JEREMIAH.\n\n17. This is the only apocryphal book which assumes the character of\nprophecy. It is formed after the model of Jeremiah, and ascribed to\nBaruch his friend. But its spuriousness is generally admitted. Besides\nhistorical inaccuracies, such as are not conceivable in the case of\nBaruch, the fact that its author employed the Septuagint translation of\nJeremiah and Daniel mark it as of a later date. Keil assigns it to about\nthe middle of the second century B.C. The book professes to be a letter\nwritten by Baruch in the name of the captive Jews in Babylon to their\nbrethren at Jerusalem, and consists of two well-marked divisions, the\nfirst of which, extending to chap. 3:8, is, in the opinion of some, a\ntranslation from an original Hebrew document. This part contains, after\nan introductory notice, a confession of sin with prayer for deliverance.\nThe second part begins with an address to the covenant people, in which\nthey are rebuked for neglecting the teachings of divine wisdom, and\nencouraged with the hope of returning prosperity when they shall obey\nher voice. Chaps. 3:9-4:8. Zion is then introduced lamenting over the\ndesolations which God has brought upon her and her children (chap.\n4:9-4:29), and afterwards comforting them with the hope of certain\ndeliverance and enlargement (chaps. 4:30-5:9). It is generally agreed\nthat the second part was originally written in Greek, and some think\nthat the same is true of the first part also.\n\n18. There is another Epistle of Baruch preserved to us in the Syriac,\nwhich is inserted in the London and Paris Polyglotts. It is addressed to\nthe nine and a half tribes, and \"made up of commonplaces of warning,\nencouragement, and exhortation.\" Smith's Bib. Dict., Art. Baruch.\n\n19. There is a spurious _Epistle of Jeremiah_ which appears in the\nVulgate and our English version as the sixth chapter of Baruch. It is\nentitled: \"Copy of an epistle which Jeremiah sent to those who were to\nbe led captives into Babylon by the king of the Babylonians to make\nannouncement to them, as it was commanded him by God.\" It purports to be\na warning to these captives against the idolatrous practices which they\nshall witness in Babylon, and is made up of a long discourse on the\nimpotence of the idols which the heathen worship, written in a\nrhetorical style, in imitation of Jer. 10:1-16. Its author is supposed\nto have been a Hellenistic Jew who lived towards the end of the\nMaccabean period.\n\n\nVIII. ADDITIONS TO THE BOOK OF DANIEL.\n\n20. The Greek version of the book of Daniel, besides many departures\nfrom the Hebrew and Chaldee original, contains three large additions.\nThe first of these is: _The Prayer of Azarias, and the Song of the Three\nChildren in the Fiery Furnace_, which is appended to the third chapter.\nThe second is: _The History of Susanna_, who is exhibited as a pattern\nof chastity, and was delivered from the machinations of her enemies\nthrough the wisdom of Daniel. This is placed sometimes before the first\nchapter of Daniel, and sometimes after chapter 12. The third addition\nis: _The Story of Bel and the Dragon_, which stands at the end of the\nbook, and is falsely ascribed in the Septuagint to the prophet Habakkuk.\nIts design is to show the folly of idolatry. According to Keil, these\nthree pieces were composed in Egypt towards the end of the third, or the\nbeginning of the second century before Christ.\n\n\nIX. THE PRAYER OF MANASSES.\n\n21. A genuine prayer of Manasseh, king of Judah, existed at the time\nwhen the books of Chronicles were composed. 2 Chron. 33:18, 19. But the\nexisting prayer of the Apocrypha, though upon the whole beautiful and\nappropriate, cannot claim to be a true representative of that prayer.\n\"The author,\" says Keil, \"was a pious Jew who lived at all events before\nChrist, though his age cannot be more accurately determined.\"\n\n\nX. THE BOOKS OF THE MACCABEES.\n\n22. These are five in number. The first two passed from the Greek into\nthe early Latin versions, and thence into the Vulgate and the English\nversions, and were received as canonical by the Council of Trent. Two\nothers are found in some manuscripts of the Septuagint. The fifth exists\nonly in Arabic. \"If the historic order were observed, the so-called\n_third_ book would come first, the fourth would be an appendix to the\n_second_, which would retain its place, and the _first_ would come last;\nbut it will be more convenient to examine the books in the order in\nwhich they are found in the MSS., which was probably decided by some\nvague tradition of their relative antiquity.\" Smith's Bible Dict., Art.\nMaccabees. The name _Maccabees_ is applied to the family and posterity\nof the illustrious Jewish priest Mattathias, who maintained a long and\nsuccessful struggle with the Syrian kings, and finally succeeded in\nestablishing for a period the independence of the Jews. The origin of\nthe term has been variously explained; but the most common account of it\nis, that it comes from a Hebrew word signifying _hammer_, so that the\nadjective _Maccabee_ (Greek [Greek: Makkabaios]) will denote _Hammerer_.\nAccording to Josephus (Antiq. 12, 6, 1) Mattathias was descended from\none _Asmonaeus_: Hence the family of the Maccabees are also called\n_Asmoneans_.\n\n23. _The first book of the Maccabees._ This is one of the most important\nof all the apocryphal books. It contains a narrative of the long and\nbloody struggle of the Jews, under their Maccabean leaders, for the\npreservation of their religion, and the deliverance of the nation from\nthe yoke of their Syrian oppressors. The history bears the internal\nmarks of authenticity and credibility, being distinguished by simplicity\nand candor. It is only when speaking of foreign nations that the writer\nfalls into some inaccuracies. These do not detract from his\ntrustworthiness in relating the affairs of his own nation through a\nperiod of forty years of the most eventful character (B.C. 175-135). The\nbook is pervaded throughout by the Jewish spirit, and must have been\nwritten by a Palestinian Jew. Its date is uncertain, but may probably be\nplaced somewhere during the government of the high priest John Hyrcanus\n(B.C. 135-106). According to the testimony of Origen, the book was\noriginally written in Hebrew. With this agrees its internal character;\nfor the Greek version of it contains many Hebraisms, as well as\ndifficulties which are readily accounted for upon the supposition of a\nHebrew original.\n\n21. _The second book of Maccabees._ This book opens with two letters\npurporting to have been written by the Jews of Palestine to their\nbrethren in Egypt, in which the former invite the latter to join with\nthem in the celebration of \"the feast of tabernacles in the month\nCaslen,\" that is, the feast of dedication established to commemorate the\npurification of the temple after its pollution by Antiochus Epiphanes.\nTo the latter of these is appended an epitome of the five books of Jason\nof Cyrene, containing the history of the Maccabean struggle, beginning\nwith Heliodorus' attempt to plunder the temple, about B.C. 180, and\nending with the victory of Judas Maccabeus over Nicanor, B.C. 161. Both\nof the letters are regarded as spurious. The second of them abounds in\nmarvellous legends--how, upon the destruction of the first temple, the\nsacred fire of the altar was hid in a hollow pit without water; how, at\nthe close of the captivity, it was found in the form of thick water,\nwhich being by the command of Nehemiah sprinkled on the wood of the\naltar and the sacrifices, there was kindled, when the sun shone upon it,\na great fire, so that all men marvelled; how Jeremiah, at God's command,\ncarried the tabernacle, the ark, and the altar of incense to the\nmountain \"which Moses ascended and saw the heritage of God,\" that is,\nmount Nebo (Deut. 34:1), and hid them there in a hollow cave, where they\nare to remain until the time that God shall gather his people together\nagain, and be gracious to them.\n\nThe epitome of Jason's history begins some five years earlier than the\nhistory contained in the first book, and covers a period of about\nnineteen years; so that it is partly anterior to that history, partly\nsupplementary, and partly parallel. Alexander's Kitto, Art. Maccabees.\nThe two books are entirely independent in their sources of information;\nand although the second cannot lay claim to the same degree of\ntrustworthiness as the first, yet the general judgment of biblical\nscholars is that it is, in its main facts, authentic. But these are set\nforth with embellishments and exaggerations, in which the author\nmanifests his love for the marvellous. Where the history of the two\nbooks is parallel, it agrees in its general outlines, but the details\nare almost always different, and sometimes they present irreconcilable\ndiscrepancies. In its religious aspect this book is very interesting. In\nthe account of the martyrdom of a mother and her seven sons for their\nrefusal to eat swine's flesh (chap. 7) the doctrine of the resurrection\nis plainly announced: \"It is a thing to be desired,\" says the fourth son\nto the king Antiochus, \"that one being put to death by men should wait\nfor the hope of God that he shall be again raised up by him; but for\nthee there is no resurrection unto life\" (v. 14). Where Jason composed\nhis work cannot be determined. He cannot have lived long after the\nevents which he describes, else he would have taken notice of the\nimportant events that followed. The author of the epitome contained in\nthis book is believed to have been a Hellenistic Jew living in\nPalestine, who probably wrote in the first century before Christ.\n\n25. _The third book of Maccabees._ This book does not belong to the\nMaccabean age, but to the earlier time of Ptolemy Philopator (B.C.\n221-204). Its title seems to have come simply from the similarity of its\ncontents. It relates in a pompous and oratorical style how Ptolemy\nPhilopator, being enraged at his failure to enter the sanctuary at\nJerusalem, determined to wreak his vengeance on the Jews in Egypt, and\nassembled them for this purpose in the circus, that they might be\ntrampled under foot by drunken elephants, but was hindered by the\nmiraculous interposition of God; whereupon the king liberated the Jews,\nprepared for them a sumptuous feast, and gave them permission to take\nvengeance on their apostate countrymen. The narrative probably has a\ngroundwork of truth with legendary embellishments, after the manner of\nthe later Jews. Its author is believed to have been an Alexandrine Jew,\nbut his age cannot be determined. It was never admitted into the Romish\ncanon.\n\n26. _The fourth book of Maccabees_ opens with a philosophical discussion\nrespecting the supremacy of devout reason over the passions, which is\nthen illustrated by the history of the martyrdom of Eleazar and the\nmother with her seven sons, an account of which we have in 2 Macc.,\nchaps. 6 and 7. The author of this book was a Jew imbued with the spirit\nof the stoical philosophy. It has been falsely ascribed to Josephus.\n\n27. _The fifth book of Maccabees_ exists only in Arabic. We draw our\nnotice of it from Alexander's Kitto, according to which \"it contains the\nhistory of the Jews from Heliodorus' attempt to plunder the treasury at\nJerusalem till the time when Herod revelled in the noblest blood of the\nJews;\" that is, from 184-86 B.C., thus embracing a period of 98 years.\nThe book is a compilation made in Hebrew, by a Jew who lived after the\ndestruction of Jerusalem, from ancient Hebrew memoirs or chronicles,\nwhich were written shortly after the events transpired. In the absence\nof the original Hebrew, the Arabic versions of it, printed in the Paris\nand London Polyglotts, give the text upon which we must rely.\n\n\n\n\nPART III.\n\nINTRODUCTION\nTO\nTHE NEW TESTAMENT.\n\nFIRST DIVISION, GENERAL INTRODUCTION.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXIV.\n\nLANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.\n\n\n1. In the _character of the original languages of the Bible_, as in\nevery thing else pertaining to the plan of redemption, God's hand is to\nbe reverently acknowledged. It was not by chance, but through the\nprovident care of Him who sees the end from the beginning, that the\nwriters of the Old Testament found the Hebrew, and those of the New\nTestament the Greek language ready at hand, each of them so singularly\nadapted to the high office assigned to it. The stately majesty, the\nnoble simplicity, and the graphic vividness of the Hebrew fitted it\nadmirably for the _historical_ portions of the Old Testament, in which,\nunder the illumination of the Holy Spirit, the direct intuition of God's\npurposes and of the deep springs of human action superseded the\nnecessity of philosophical argument and deduction. The historians of the\nOld Testament did not pause to argue concerning their statements of\nmen's motives and God's designs. They saw both with wonderful clearness\nof vision; and they found in the simplicity and directness of the Hebrew\nsyntax, so far removed from all that is involved and complex, a suitable\nvehicle for their simple and direct statements of truth. How congenial\nthe Hebrew language is to _poetic_ composition, as well in its rugged\nand sublime forms as in its tender and pathetic strains, every reader of\nthe Old Testament in the original understands. The soul is not more at\nhome in the body than is sacred poetry in the language of the covenant\npeople. As the living spirit of the cherubim animated and directed the\nwheels of the chariot in Ezekiel's vision, so does the spirit of\ninspired poesy animate and direct the words and sentences of the Hebrew\nlanguage: \"When the cherubim went, the wheels went by them; and when the\ncherubim lifted up their wings to mount up from the earth, the same\nwheels also turned not from beside them. When they stood, these stood;\nand when they were lifted up, these lifted up themselves also: for the\nspirit of the living creatures was in them.\" Ezek. 10:16, 17. The same\ncharacteristics fitted the Hebrew language most perfectly for\n_prophetic_ vision, in which the poetic element so largely prevails.\n\n2. Turning now from the Hebrew of the Old Testament to the Greek of the\nNew, we have a language very different in its structure; elaborate in\nits inflections and syntax, delicate and subtle in its distinctions,\nrich in its vocabulary, highly cultivated in every department of\nwriting, and flexible in an eminent degree; being thus equally adapted\nto every variety of style--plain unadorned narrative, impassioned\noratory, poetry of every form, philosophical discussion, and severe\nlogical reasoning: in a word, a language every way fitted to the wants\nof the gospel, which is given not for the infancy of the world but for\nits mature age, and which deals not so much with the details of\nparticulars as with great principles, which require for their full\ncomprehension the capacity of abstraction and generalization. In the\nhistorical records of the Old Testament, and in its poetic and prophetic\nparts, the Hebrew language was altogether at home. But for such\ncompositions as the epistle to the Romans the Greek offered a more\nperfect medium; and here, as everywhere else God's providence took care\nthat the founders of the Christian church should be furnished in the\nmost complete manner.\n\n3. We find, accordingly, that centuries before our Lord's advent,\npreparation began to be made in the providence of God for this change in\nthe language of the inspired writings. One result of the Babylonish\ncaptivity was that Hebrew ceased to be the vernacular of the masses of\nthe people, and a form of Aramaean took its place. Chap. 14, No. 4.\nAfter the return of the Jews from this same captivity and their\nreestablishment in their own land, the spirit of prophecy was also\nwithdrawn, and the canon of the Old Testament brought to a close. Thus\nthe cessation of Hebrew as the spoken language of the people, and the\nwithdrawal of the spirit of prophecy were contemporaneous events. The\ncanon was locked up in the sacred language, and the _interpreter_ took\nthe place of the _prophet_. \"The providential change of language\nsuggested a general limit within which the voice of inspiration might be\nheard, as the fearful chastisements of the captivity turned men's minds\nto the old Scriptures with a devotion unknown before.\" Westcott's\nIntroduc. to the Study of the Gospels, chap. 1.\n\n4. But the conquests of Alexander the Great (B.C. 334-323) brought the\nGreek language and the Greek civilization into Asia and Egypt, as a sure\nleaven destined to leaven the whole mass. To this influence the Jews\ncould not remain insensible. It reached even Palestine, where they\nnaturally clung most tenaciously to the Aramaean language and to the\ncustoms of their fathers. But out of Palestine, where the Jews were\ndispersed in immense numbers, it operated more immediately; especially\nin Egypt, whose metropolis Alexandria was, after the age of Alexander\nits founder, one of the chief seats of Grecian learning. To the Jews of\nAlexandria the Greek language was vernacular. By them was executed, as\nwe have seen, under the patronage of the Egyptian king, the first\nversion ever made of the Hebrew Scriptures, namely, that called the\nSeptuagint (Chap. 16, Nos. 1-7), which was begun, if not completed, in\nthe latter part of the third century before Christ. Though this version\nencountered bitter opposition on the part of the unbelieving Jews\n_after_ the establishment of the Christian church, in consequence of the\neffective use made of it against them by Christian writers, it was\nreceived from its first appearance and onward with general favor. The\nHellenistic Jews--those using the Greek language and conforming\nthemselves to Grecian civilization--made constant use of it, and the\nknowledge of it was very widely diffused beyond the boundaries of Egypt.\nIn our Saviour's day it was in very general use, as the abundant\nquotations from it in the New Testament show; and it must have\ncontributed largely to the spread of the knowledge of the Greek language\namong the Jewish people in and out of Palestine. Though the Roman empire\nsucceeded to that of the Greeks, the Roman could not supplant the more\npolished Greek tongue, with its immense and varied literature. On the\ncontrary, the Greek language penetrated into Italy, and especially into\nRome, the metropolis of the civilized world, where, in our Saviour's\nday, Greek literature was in high repute, and the Greek language was\nvery generally understood. Thus, in the good providence of God, the\nwriters of the New Testament, also, found ready at hand a language\nsingularly adapted to their service.\n\n    Biblical scholars have noticed the significant fact that of the\n    long list of names in the sixteenth chapter of Romans, the\n    greater number belongs to the Greek language, not to the Latin.\n    \"The flexibility of the Greek language gained for it in ancient\n    time a general currency similar to that which French enjoys in\n    modern Europe; but with this important difference, that Greek\n    was not only the language of educated men, but also the language\n    of the masses in the great centres of commerce.\" Westcott in\n    Smith's Bible Dict., Art. Hellenist.\n\n5. Respecting the _character_ of the New Testament Greek there was in\nformer times much controversy, often accompanied with unnecessary heat\nand bitterness. One class of writers seemed to think that the honor of\nthe New Testament was involved in their ability to show the classic\npurity and elegance of its style; as if, forsooth, the Spirit of\ninspiration could only address men through the medium of language\nconformed to the classic standard of propriety. Another class went to\nthe opposite extreme, speaking in exaggerated terms of the Hebraisms and\nsolecisms of the New Testament writers. The truth lies between these\nextremes. The style of the New Testament is neither classical nor\nbarbarous. Its characteristics are strictly conformable to the history\nof its origin. (1.) Its basis is not the Greek of Plato and Xenophon,\nbut the so-called Hellenic or common dialect which arose in the age of\nAlexander the Great, when \"the previously distinct dialects, spoken by\nthe various sections of the Hellenic nation, were blended into a popular\nspoken language.\" Winer, Gram, of the New Test., sec. 2. The Alexandrine\nJews doubtless learned it not so much from books as from the daily\nintercourse of life, and it probably had its provincial peculiarities in\nAlexandria and the adjacent region. (2.) In Jewish usage this common\nGreek dialect received an Hebraic coloring from the constant use of the\nSeptuagint version, which is a literal rendering of the Hebrew\nScriptures into Greek, of course with the retention of many Hebrew\nidioms. Only such thorough Greek scholars as Josephus and Philo could\nrise above this influence. The New Testament writers manifest its power\nin different degrees; for, as it respects Hebraisms, they do not by any\nmeans stand on a common level. (3.) As the Aramaic--the so-called\nSyro-Chaldaic--was the language of the mass of the people, the style of\nthe New Testament writers received a tinge from this also. (4.) More\nthan all, the style of the New Testament receives a peculiar impress\nfrom the fact that the authors were Jews writing under the full\ninfluence of a Jewish education and a Jewish faith, with the superadded\nelement of Christianity. It is the phenomenon of the spirit and thoughts\nof Jewish Christians embodied in the language of Greece; and this at\nonce separates the writings of the New Testament by a wide interval from\nall purely classic compositions. The apostolic writers imposed on the\nGreek language an arduous task, that of expressing ideas foreign to the\nconceptions of the most cultivated among the pagan authors; ideas partly\ncommon to the old Jewish and the Christian religions, partly peculiar to\nChristianity. This could only be done by giving to existing terms a new\nand higher meaning, whereby they assumed a technical character wholly\nunknown to the classic writers.\n\n    \"Compare particularly the words: _works_ (_to work_, Rom. 4:4),\n    _faith_, _to believe in Christ_, or _to believe_ absolutely,\n    _confession_, _righteousness_, _to be justified_, _to be\n    chosen_, _the called_, _the chosen_, _the saints_ (for\n    Christians), _edification_ and _to edify_ in a figurative sense,\n    _apostle_, _to publish the good tidings_ and to _publish_\n    absolutely for Christian preaching, the adoption of _baptisma_,\n    _baptism_, for _Christian baptism_, perhaps _to break bread_ for\n    the _holy repast_ (the _Agape_ with the communion), _the world_,\n    _the flesh_, _fleshly_, in the known theological sense,\" etc.\n    Winer's Gram, of the New Test., sec. 3.\n\n6. From all the abovenamed causes the language of the New Testament\nreceived a form differing widely from the classic style, but admirably\nadapted to the high office assigned to it. To those who study the New\nTestament in the original, the peculiarities of its language offer a\nwide and interesting field of inquiry. But for the common reader the\nabove hints will be sufficient.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXV.\n\nEXTERNAL FORM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.\n\n\n1. The writings of the New Testament fall into three _main divisions_;\nthe _historical_, the _epistolary_, and the _prophetical_, the latter\nincluding only the Apocalypse. This distinction is not to be understood\nin an absolute sense; since, as every reader knows, there are\nprophetical passages in the historical books, and both historical and\nprophetical in the epistles; but it gives with accuracy the general\ncharacter of each division. In outward form the Apocalypse is\nepistolary, being addressed, with the apostolic greeting, to the seven\nchurches of Asia, and containing messages to each. But its contents,\nafter the first three chapters, are so wholly prophetical, that it is\nentitled to stand by itself in any general division.\n\n2. The _order_ of these _main divisions_ is natural and appropriate. The\ngospel, as was remarked at the outset (Chap. 1, No. 1), is not a mere\nsystem of philosophy or ethics, but rests on a basis of historic facts.\nOn these its whole system of doctrines and duties is built; so that to\ndestroy the foundation would be to destroy the superstructure also. It\nis suitable, therefore, that the record of the facts should hold the\nfirst place. The apostolic epistles, which unfold the doctrines and\nduties involved in the gospel, and make a practical application of them\nto all the manifold relations of life, naturally follow the historic\nrecord. The mighty system of prophecies contained in the book of\nRevelation, which stretches over the whole future history of the church\nto the end of time, forms an appropriate close to the entire collection\nof writings.\n\n3. Equally appropriate is the order of the two _subdivisions_ of the\nhistoric part--first, the four Gospels, containing the history of our\nLord's life; secondly, the Acts of the Apostles. In the general\narrangement of the epistles, the thirteen which bear the name of Paul\nstand first in order. The seven so-called catholic epistles occupy the\nlast place. Intermediate between these two subdivisions stands the\nepistle to the Hebrews, which is anonymous, though generally ascribed to\nPaul. The epistles which bear the name of Paul fall into two\ngroups--nine addressed to _Christian churches_, which occupy the first\nplace; then four to _particular persons_. Of these last, the first\nthree, being addressed to Timothy and Titus, the apostle's companions in\ntravel and in the gospel ministry, are appropriately named from their\ncontents the _pastoral_ epistles. The letter to Philemon, a private\nmember of the church in Colosse, naturally stands last of all.\n\n    We add from Bleek (Introduc. to New Test., secs. 18 and 254) the\n    following additional notices:\n\n    The present order of the Gospels is very ancient. Only in some\n    manuscripts of the Old Latin version, in one Greco-Latin\n    manuscript (the so-called Codex Bezae or Cambridge Codex), and\n    in the manuscript of the Gothic version, the two apostles\n    Matthew and John stand first; then the two companions of\n    apostles, Luke and Mark, or sometimes Mark and Luke. In the very\n    ancient Curetonian-Syrian manuscript the order is Matthew, Mark,\n    John, Luke.\n\n    The Acts of the Apostles stand in some manuscripts after the\n    Pauline or after the catholic epistles.\n\n    In the oldest Greek manuscripts, and generally in the greatest\n    number of Greek manuscripts which contain the whole New\n    Testament, the catholic epistles stand before the Pauline; an\n    arrangement which some modern editors, as Lachmann and\n    Tischendorf, have followed. In many manuscripts, the oldest\n    Greek included, the epistle to the Hebrews stands after 2\n    Thessalonians, immediately before the pastoral epistles. Luther\n    placed together, at the end of his version, the epistles to the\n    Hebrews, the epistles of James and Jude, and the Apocalypse. But\n    this arrangement rested on no authority of manuscripts. It was\n    only an expression of his private judgment respecting their\n    canonical authority, which he placed below that of the other\n    books of the New Testament.\n\n4. We have seen (Chap. 13, No. 4) that in the arrangement of the books\nof the Old Testament, the order of time is followed only very partially.\nThe same is true respecting the order of books in the New Testament, a\nfact which the biblical student ought always to bear in mind. If we look\nto the several divisions and subdivisions of the New Testament writings,\nit is obvious that the arrangement is not chronological. It is generally\nadmitted that the Gospel according to John was written after the death\nof Peter and Paul; consequently, after the Acts of the Apostles (which\nwere written during the life of Paul, Chap. 5, No. 5), after all the\nPauline epistles, and probably after all the Catholic epistles except\nthose which are ascribed to John himself. The Acts of the Apostles,\nagain, are of later date than several of Paul's epistles. Finally,\nneither the Pauline nor the catholic epistles are arranged in\nchronological order. See below, Chap. 30, No. 6. The intelligent student\nof the New Testament will avail himself of all the means at his command\nto ascertain the date, proximately at least, of each particular book;\nthat he may thus connect it with the development of Christianity in the\nthreefold line of doctrine, practice, and polity.\n\n5. The present distinction of large letters (capitals) and small did not\ncome into use before the ninth century. In conformity with ancient\nusage, the manuscripts executed before this period are written in large\ndisconnected letters (the so-called _uncial_), without any marks of\ninterpunction, or even division of words. This is called the _continuous\nwriting_ (_scriptio continua_), in which it is left to the reader's\ndiscretion to make the necessary division of words and sentences; as if\nthe beginning of the Gospel according to John were written thus in Latin\nand English:\n\n_Latin_.                          _English_.\n\nINPRINCIPIOERATVERBUMET                INTHEBEGINNINGWASTHEWORDAND\nVERBUMERATAPUDDEUMETDEUSE              THEWORDWASWITHGODANDGODW\nRATVERBUMHOCERATINPRINCIPI             ASTHEWORDTHESAMEWASINTHEBEGIN\nOAPUDDEUMOMNIAPERIPSUMFA               NINGWITHGODALLTHINGSBYHIMWEREMA\n\n    Writers before our Saviour's time do indeed speak of signs of\n    interpunction; but they seem to have been in use only in the\n    grammatical schools, and with a limited application to certain\n    doubtful passages in the ancient writers. That they were unknown\n    in the older manuscripts of the New Testament is evident from\n    the discussions that arose among the church fathers respecting\n    the right division of certain passages, in which they never\n    appeal to the authority of manuscripts, but argue solely from\n    the nature of the connection. The reader may see a collection of\n    examples in Hug's Introduction to the New Testament, Sec. 43, where\n    are also some curious examples of the wrong division of words.\n\n6. To obviate the inconvenience of this continuous mode of writing,\nthere was introduced, about the middle of the fifth century, what is\ncalled the _stichometrical_ mode (Greek _stichos_, a _row_ or _line_,\nand _metron_, a _measure_). This consisted in arranging in a single line\nonly so many words as could be read, consistently with the sense, at a\nsingle inspiration.\n\nThe invention of stichometry has been generally ascribed to Euthalius, a\ndeacon in Alexandria, who, in the year 458, set forth a copy of Paul's\nepistles stichometrically arranged; but Tregelles is inclined to the\nopinion that he borrowed the system from an earlier writer, Pamphilus\nthe martyr. However this may be, the original conception doubtless came\nfrom the stichometry of Hebrew poetry. Hug (Sec. 44) and Tregelles (Horne's\nIntroduct., vol. 4, chap. 4) give an example in Greek from a fragment of\nthe Pauline epistles. This example (Titus 2:2, 3), when literally\ntranslated into English according to the Greek order of words, reads as\nfollows:\n\nTHEAGEDMENTOBESOBER\nGRAVE\nSOBERMINDED\nSOUNDINTHEFAITH\nINLOVE\nINPATIENCE\nTHEAGEDWOMENLIKEWISE\nINBEHAVIORASBECOMESHOLYWOMEN\nNOTSLANDERERS\nNOTGIVENTOMUCHWINE\nTEACHERSOFGOODTHINGS\n\nThough the design of stichometry was not interpunction according to the\nconnection of thought, yet it seems to have led to this result. The\nexpensiveness of this mode of writing, owing to the waste of parchment,\nnaturally suggested the idea of separating the lines by a simple point,\nthus:\n\nTHEAGEDMENTOBESOBER. GRAVE.\nSOBERMINDED. SOUNDINTHEFAITH.\nINLOVE. INPATIENCE. THEAGED\nWOMENLIKEWISE. INBEHAVIORAS\nBECOMETHHOLYWOMEN. NOTSLAN\nDERERS. NOTGIVENTOMUCHWINE.\nTEACHERSOFGOODTHINGS.\n\nAs these divisions were mainly _rhythmical_, and often broke the true\nconnection of thought, men sought to introduce a more logical system of\ninterpunction. Thus was laid the foundation of our present system;\nwhich, however, was not perfected till after the invention of the art of\nprinting.\n\n    In the opinion of some, the use of the dot, at least to some\n    extent, was earlier than stichometry. From the eighth or ninth\n    century punctuation in manuscripts became more common and\n    systematic. In _cursive_ manuscripts--those that employ the\n    running hand with large and small letters and the separation of\n    the words, a style of writing that became the common one from\n    the ninth century and onward--punctuation also prevails, though\n    not according to any one established system. Tregelles, _ubi\n    sup_. Various other particulars interesting to those who study\n    the Greek text in the original, as those relating to the\n    accents, the smooth and rough breathing, and the iota subscript,\n    are here omitted.\n\n7. We come next to consider the _ancient divisions_ made in the\n_contents_ of the sacred text. _Chapters_ are very early mentioned, as\nby Tertullian and Dionysius of Alexandria. But it is uncertain whether\nany thing more is meant than parts or sections of given contents. The\nearliest formal division of the four gospels that has come down to us\nconsists of the _Ammonian sections_ (Greek _kephalaia_, _heads_ or\n_chapters_), so named from Ammonius of Alexandria, who, about the middle\nof the third century, prepared a harmony of the four gospels--_the\nGospel by four_, as Eusebius calls it. His plan was, to arrange in the\norder of Matthew the parallel passages side by side, interpolating those\nthat were wanting in Matthew. To this end, he divided each of the\ngospels into sections the length of which was very various, being wholly\ndetermined by the parallelisms of the other gospels. Of these sections\nMatthew contained 355; Mark, 234 (in Wordsworth's Greek Testament, 236\nare given); Luke, 342; John, 231 (in Wordsworth's Greek Testament, 232).\nThe infelicity of this arrangement was that, with the exception of the\nfirst gospel, the true order of the evangelists was broken up--\"The\ntrain of sequence of the three was destroyed in respect to the orderly\ncourse of reading,\" as Eusebius says (Letter to Carpianus, given in\nWordsworth's Greek Testament).\n\nTo remedy this evil, Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea, in the following\ncentury connected with these Ammonian sections his _ten canons_. These\nare ten tables, arranged according to the order of Matthew, or where\nsections are wanting in Matthew, according to the order of the next\nevangelist that contains them, in such a way as to show at a glance what\nsections of the other evangelists answer to any given section of that\ngospel which stands first in order in each canon.\n\n    Numbering the four gospels in order--1, 2, 3, 4--the ten canons\n    of Eusebius contain as follows:\n\n        I. Sections common to 1, 2, 3, 4.\n       II.           \"        1, 2, 3.\n      III.           \"        1,    3, 4.\n       IV.           \"        1, 2,    4.\n        V.           \"        1,    3.\n       VI.           \"        1, 2.\n      VII.           \"        1,       4.\n     VIII.           \"           2, 3.\n       IX.           \"              3, 4.\n        X. Sections peculiar to one.\n\n    A couple of examples will make this matter plain. Turning to\n    what is now the beginning of the thirteenth chapter of Matthew,\n    we find (the Greek numerals being exchanged for those in common\n    use) the sign 131/II that is, the 131st Ammonian section of\n    Matthew with the second canon of Eusebius. Turning to the table\n    of the second canon, we find, corresponding to the 131st section\n    of Matthew, the 36th of Mark and the 76th of Luke, which contain\n    the parallel passages concerning the sower. Again, connected\n    with Mark 1:23, is the sign, 14/VIII whence we learn, by\n    reference to the eighth canon, that the fourteenth section of\n    Mark answers to the 25th of Luke. By a repetition of the canons\n    as often as necessary, so as to allow each gospel in turn to\n    take the lead, Wordsworth has greatly facilitated the work of\n    comparing parallel passages.\n\n    \"The Codex Vaticanus B, contains a distribution into sections\n    wholly peculiar. Of these, St. Matthew contains 170, St. Mark\n    61, etc. The length of these divisions is very unequal; the\n    _sense_ being the reason of the breaks occurring when they do.\n    In the gospels, at least, the sections are perhaps the best that\n    were ever devised; and this system of capitulary division is\n    probably the earliest of which we have the means of knowing any\n    thing.\" Horne's Introduction, vol. 4, chap. 4, revised edition,\n    1860.\n\n8. Different from the Ammonian-Eusebian sections, and later in their\norigin, are the divisions of the gospels called _titles_, because each\nof them received a title from one of the first or principal subjects\nmentioned in it. They are thought to have been connected with the public\nreading of the gospels. Of these, Matthew contains 68; Mark, 48; Luke,\n83; John, 18. They are, therefore, larger than the Ammonian sections,\nand resemble more nearly our modern chapters.\n\n    These _titles_ are called by the Latins _briefs_ (_breves_), and\n    the tables of their contents _breviaries_ (_breviaria_). They\n    did not come into common use before the fifth century, and are\n    commonly annexed to manuscripts along with the Ammonian-Eusebian\n    sections. But they are the only divisions known to some of the\n    church fathers, as Euthymius and Theophylact.\n\n9. The divisions of the other books of the New Testament are thought to\nbe of later origin. Euthalius introduced into a copy, which he sent to\nAthanasius the younger, divisions called chapters. He has sometimes been\nconsidered the author of those in the Acts and catholic epistles; but he\nprobably took them from an older source. Those in the Pauline epistles\nhe expressly ascribed to \"one of the wisest and most Christ-loving of\nour fathers.\" He also gave headings to the chapters, descriptive of\ntheir contents, but collected from previous sources. The Apocalypse was\ndivided into twenty-four larger sections and seventy-two smaller--a work\nascribed to Andreas of Caesarea in Cappadocia. Tregelles, in Horne's\nIntroduction, vol. 4, chap. 4.\n\n10. Our present division of chapters was made in the thirteenth century,\nby Cardinal Hugo, from whom proceeded also that in the Old Testament. It\nwas first introduced into the Latin copies, and afterwards into the\nGreek. Our present division of verses was made by Robert Stephens, in\n1551. It was preceded by some earlier divisions, as that of Pagninus, in\nwhich the verses were longer than those of Stephens.\n\n    Distinct from all the above divisions are the _church-lessons_,\n    made very early, in imitation of the Jewish Haphtaroth, or\n    sections from the prophets. Chap. 13, No. 6. The beginning of\n    these seems to have been in special selections for the church\n    festivals. But the usage was afterwards extended so as to\n    include selections for all the Sabbaths and feast-days of the\n    year. Hence from the fifth century and onward the whole New\n    Testament was no longer publicly read, as in the primitive days\n    of Christianity, according to the free judgment of those who\n    conducted the church-services; but these selected sections\n    (_pericopae_). Collections of these lessons were called by the\n    general name of _lectionaries_ (lectionaria). Those from the\n    gospels or Acts and epistles received special names indicative\n    of their contents. See Bleek, Sec. 265; Horne's Introduction, vol.\n    4, chap. 4, end.\n\n11. From the above brief survey, it is manifest that none of the\nexternal divisions of the sacred text rest on any divine authority. They\nare the work of uninspired men, and are to be treated accordingly. For\n_convenience of reference_, a division of the Scriptures into chapters\nand verses is indispensable; and we may well rest contented with that\nwhich now prevails, though it cannot claim perfection. But in the\n_interpretation_ of the inspired word we must go behind human divisions,\ncarefully inquiring after the true connection of thought, according to\nthe acknowledged laws of interpretation. To give one example out of\nmany, we must not infer that the last verse of the eleventh chapter of\nthe book of Revelation belongs to the _preceding_ and not the\n_following_ context, because of its separation from the latter in the\ndivision of chapters; but we must determine its true connection\nindependently of this division.\n\n    A very good arrangement is that of _Paragraph Bibles_, in which\n    the distinctions of chapter and verse are thrown into the\n    margin, the text being broken into longer or shorter sections\n    according to the true course of thought. Yet this mode of\n    division also is human, and cannot be infallible.\n\n12. The _titles_ of the several books of the New Testament did not\nproceed immediately from the authors themselves. In form they present\nsome diversity; for example: _The Gospel according to Matthew_;\n_according to Matthew_; _the holy Gospel according to Matthew_, etc.,\nthe shorter and simpler titles being, as a rule, the more ancient. For\nsubstance, however, the different forms are the same. They represent the\nancient church tradition, and are of very high authority. The\n_subscriptions_, on the other hand, which stand at the end of the\nepistles of Paul, that to the Hebrews included--are confessedly the work\nof later copyists. They are of no authority, and are sometimes\nmanifestly incorrect.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXVI.\n\nTHE NEW TESTAMENT TEXT AND ITS HISTORY.\n\n\nThe history of the New Testament text naturally falls into two main\ndivisions, that of the _manuscript_ text, and that of the _printed_\ntext. A few remarks will be added on the _principles of textual\ncriticism_. _See PLATES at the beginning of this book_.\n\n[Transcriber's Note: Transcriptions of the Plates are at the end of this\ne-book.]\n\n\nI. THE MANUSCRIPT TEXT.\n\n1. The preservation of the primitive text of the gospels from all\nessential corruptions, additions, and mutilations has already been shown\nat some length (Part 1, Chap. 3). The same line of argument applies\nsubstantially to the other books of the New Testament. Though the text\nof different books varies in respect to purity, there is no ground for\nsupposing that if we had the autographs of the evangelists and other\nsacred writers, they would present to us a gospel differing in any\nessential particular from that which we now possess. We should see in\nthem the same glorious Saviour, and the same holy system of doctrines\nand duties.\n\n2. But it has not pleased God to interpose in a miraculous way for the\npurpose of keeping the primitive text in a state of immaculate purity.\nHe has left it subject to those common influences which produce what are\ncalled _various readings_ in all works that are perpetuated from age to\nage by transcription. Compared indeed with any other ancient writings,\nthe text of the New Testament has immensely the advantage in regard to\nuncorruptness of preservation and means of verification. This arises\nfrom the early multiplication of copies, as well as from the high value\nattached by the primitive churches to their sacred books, and their\nconsequent zeal for their uncorrupt preservation. But the same\nmultiplication of copies which constitutes a sure guarantee against\nessential mutilations and corruptions increases also the number of\nvarious readings. Suppose, for example, that of two books equal in size\nthe second has been, from the first, copied a hundred-fold oftener than\nthe first. It is plain that, while the means of ascertaining and\nverifying the true text of the second will abound, the number of\nvariations among the different manuscripts will abound also. The greater\nthe number of copies, the greater will be the number of various\nreadings, but this will make the true text not more but less uncertain;\nfor by diligent collation a text may be produced which, though not\nabsolutely immaculate, is very near to the primitive autograph, and\nwhich can be certainly known to agree with it in every essential\nrespect. God does not rain down upon men bread and raiment from heaven,\nas he could do with infinite ease; but he imposes upon them the\nnecessity of gaining both by hard labor. \"In the sweat of thy face shalt\nthou eat bread\" is the stern law. God does not miraculously communicate\nto the missionary who goes to Syria or India or China a knowledge of the\nvernacular in his field of labor; but he must learn it by years of\npatient study. And when he begins the work of translating, God does not\nkeep him in a supernatural way from all errors. He must find out and\ncorrect his errors by the diligent use of the means at his disposal.\nJust so it is the will of God that we should have a pure text of the New\nTestament--pure in a critical sense--not without hard labor, but by\nyears of patient toil in the study and collation of the abundant\nmaterials which his good providence has preserved for us.\n\n3. _Various readings_ have arisen in the manuscripts of the New\nTestament, as elsewhere, from the mistakes, and sometimes from the\nunskilful corrections of the copyists and those subsequently employed to\ncompare and correct the copies. They are commonly divided into the three\nclasses of _substitutions_, _insertions_, and _omissions_.\n\n_Substitutions_ from similarity of sound would naturally arise among the\nvowels when, as was sometimes the case, the copyist wrote from\ndictation, being guided by the ear instead of the eye. Most of these,\nhowever, are mere matters of orthography. It is only when they affect\nthe sense that they come under the head of various readings. Synonymous\nwords, or those of kindred meaning, are frequently put for one another,\nor the order of words is altered; sometimes a different word is made\nthrough inadvertence by the change of a single letter or a couple of\nletters; compound words are interchanged with simple; contracted words\nare confounded with each other; plainer or more grammatical readings are\nsubstituted for those that are difficult or less grammatical, etc.\nEspecially are parallel passages in one writer altered, so as to be\nbrought into conformity with the same in another.\n\n_Insertions_ are the most frequent mode of variation. The copyist fills\nout the text of his author from a parallel passage, inserts marginal\nnotations in the text, repeats clauses through inadvertence, etc.\n\n    Of amplification from parallel passages many undoubted examples\n    could be given. A single one must suffice. In Acts 9:5, the\n    words, _It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks_, have\n    been added from Acts 26:14.\n\nThe most fruitful source of _omissions_ is the similar termination of\ntwo adjacent words, lines, or sentences, causing the eye of the copyist\nto overlook the word, line, or sentence intervening between the two\nsimilar endings. The same error may be caused by the circumstance of two\nsentences beginning in the same way. It should be remembered that in the\nancient manuscripts the text was written continuously in uncial--that\nis, capital--letters, without any division between the words, which made\nit more difficult for the copyist to follow the manuscript before him,\nand for both the copyist and collater to discover the errors made in\ntranscription.\n\nBy far the greatest number of various readings had their origin in\nsimple inadvertence. Some of them, however, are due to unskilful\ncriticism; as when the copyist or the corrector sought to bring a\npassage in one writer into more exact agreement with the corresponding\npassage in another, to supply supposed deficiencies or correct supposed\nerrors in his copy, or to substitute smoother and more grammatical forms\nof expression. Wilful falsifications in the interest of a particular\nsect or party cannot with any show of justice be imputed to the men who\nhave perpetuated to us the text of the New Testament.\n\n4. The _materials_ for textual criticism are much more abundant in the\ncase of the New Testament than of the Old. A vast mass of manuscripts\nhas been collected from different and distant regions, dating from the\nfourth century and onward. Of these, part are in the original Greek,\npart in ancient versions, or bilingual, that is, containing the original\nand a version of it side by side. In addition to these are the\nquotations of the early fathers, which are so abundant that a large part\nof the New Testament text might be collected from them alone. The\nquestion of the history of the text, as gathered from this rich mass of\nmaterials, is very interesting, but is foreign to the plan of the\npresent work. To give even a history of the controversies respecting the\nproper classification of the manuscripts of the New Testament according\nto their characteristic readings would require a volume, and the\nquestion must be regarded as yet unsettled. There are, however, some\ngeneral results, a few of the more important of which are here given\nfrom Tregelles (in Horne, vol. 4, chap: 8).\n\n    The variations in the form of the sacred text are not due to any\n    general recensions or revisions by ecclesiastical authority, but\n    arose gradually from the causes above considered (No. 3). These\n    variations exhibit such gradations of text that it is impossible\n    to draw definite lines of classification, without admitting so\n    many exceptions as almost to destroy the application of such a\n    system.\n\n    There is a general difference in characteristic readings between\n    the more ancient manuscripts, versions, and citations, and the\n    copies of general circulation in more recent times. This gives\n    rise to the general line of demarcation between the _more\n    ancient_ and the _more recent_ texts; each of these two classes,\n    however, having, in turn, its own points of difference among the\n    texts belonging to it.\n\n    The more ancient manuscripts, versions, and citations which we\n    possess range themselves under what we know from their combined\n    testimony to be the more ancient text. Among the manuscripts and\n    documents so allied there are such shades of difference and\n    characteristic peculiarities, that the versions and manuscripts\n    might be easily contemplated as ramifying into two subclasses.\n\n    The most ancient documents in general are sufficiently\n    dissimilar to enable us to regard their testimony, when\n    combined, as cumulative.\n\n5. Respecting the materials for writing in ancient times--papyrus and\nparchment, afterwards paper made from linen or cotton; the form of\nmanuscripts--the roll with papyrus, and the book-form with leaves when\nparchment was used; the use of _palimpsests_; the _uncial_ and _cursive_\nstyles of writing; and the means of determining the age of manuscripts,\nsee in Chap. 3, No. 2. The existing manuscripts have been all numbered\nand catalogued. The custom since the time of Wetstein has been to mark\nthe uncial manuscripts by capital letters, and the cursives by numbers\nor small letters. We append a brief notice of a few of the more\ncelebrated manuscripts.\n\n    There are four very ancient and important manuscripts, all of\n    which originally contained the entire Greek Bible of the Old and\n    New Testament, and which belong to a time when the arrangements\n    of Euthalius, especially his stichometrical mode of writing\n    (Chap. 25, Nos. 6-9), had either not been introduced or not come\n    into common use. These are the following:\n\n    (1.) The _Codex Vaticanus_, _Vatican manuscript_, marked by the\n    letter B, and so called from the Vatican library at Rome to\n    which it belongs. It is written continuously (without any\n    division of words) on very fine vellum--one of the marks of high\n    antiquity--in small but neat uncial letters, very much like\n    those of the manuscript rolls of Herculaneum, and has three\n    columns to the page, which is of the quarto size. Originally it\n    had at the end of particular sections a small empty space of the\n    breadth of a letter or half a letter, but no ornamental\n    capitals, marks of punctuation, or accents, though some of these\n    have been added by later hands. The divisions into sections made\n    by the empty spaces above named are peculiar to this codex, not\n    agreeing with those of any other system. Of these Matthew has\n    170; Mark, 62 (so says Cardinal Mai, but others say 72 or 61);\n    Luke, 152; John, 80. Most of the books have also brief titles\n    and subscriptions. The manuscript contained originally the whole\n    Bible, the Apocrypha included, as also the epistle of Clement to\n    the Corinthians. The order of the books in the New Testament, if\n    entire, would be the same as in the Alexandrine manuscript, the\n    Catholic epistles preceding the Pauline, and the epistle to the\n    Hebrews coming in between 2 Thessalonians and 1 Timothy. See\n    below. At present the Old Testament wants the greater part of\n    Genesis and a part of the Psalms. In the New Testament the\n    epistle to Philemon, the three pastoral epistles, the latter\n    part of the epistle to the Hebrews, and the Apocalypse are\n    wanting. This manuscript is generally referred to the fourth\n    century. Its authority is very high, but through the jealousy of\n    its Roman conservators it has been of late years, for all\n    practical purposes, inaccessible to biblical scholars. Cardinal\n    Mai's edition of it in 1858, and the revision of this in 1859,\n    are unreliable. Tischendorf has published an edition of the New\n    Testament part of it. _No. (3) PLATE II_.\n\n    (2.) The _Codex Sinaiticus_, _Sinai manuscript_, designated by\n    Tischendorf, its discoverer, by the Hebrew letter _aleph_\n    ([Hebrew: A]). One of the most interesting events of the present\n    century, in the department of biblical science, is the very\n    unexpected discovery of a complete manuscript of the New\n    Testament, belonging, as is generally agreed, to the fourth\n    century; therefore as old, at least, as the Vatican manuscript,\n    perhaps older, and of very high authority in biblical criticism.\n    In a visit to Mount Sinai in 1844, Tischendorf had found at the\n    convent of St. Catharine on Mount Sinai forty-three beautiful\n    parchment leaves belonging to a manuscript of the Septuagint not\n    before known to biblical scholars. In a subsequent visit to the\n    same convent in February, 1859, it was his high privilege to\n    find of the same manuscript all the Greek New Testament entire,\n    part of the Old, the so-called epistle of Barnabas, and part of\n    the writing called the Shepherd of Hermas, the whole contained\n    in one hundred and thirty-two thousand columnar lines, written\n    on three hundred and forty-six leaves. This precious manuscript\n    Tischendorf managed to obtain for the emperor Alexander of\n    Russia as the great patron of the Greek church, and it is now at\n    St. Petersburg. It is written on parchment of a fine quality in\n    large plain uncial letters, with four columns to a page. It\n    contains, as is commonly the case with ancient manuscripts,\n    revisions and so-called corrections by a later hand; but, as it\n    proceeded from the pen of the original writer, it had neither\n    ornamented capitals, accents, nor divisions of words or\n    sentences. The style of writing is plain, and every thing about\n    it bears the marks of high antiquity. The order of the books is\n    as follows: (1) the gospels; (2) the epistles of Paul, that to\n    the Hebrews included, which stands after 2 Thessalonians; (3)\n    the Acts of the Apostles; (4) the Catholic epistles; (5) the\n    Apocalypse. It has the Ammonian sections and Eusebian canons,\n    but whether from the first or a subsequent hand is doubtful. A\n    splendid edition of this Codex was published at St. Petersburg\n    in 1862, which seeks to preserve with the greatest possible\n    accuracy the form of writing, columns, corrections, etc. The\n    Leipsic edition is adapted to popular use. _See No. (1), PLATE\n    I_.\n\n    (3.) We will consider next in order the _Codex Alexandrinus_,\n    _Alexandrine manuscript_, placed first in the list of uncial\n    manuscripts, and accordingly marked A. It is now in the British\n    Museum, London. In the year 1628 it was sent as a present to\n    Charles I., king of England, by Cyrillus Lucaris, patriarch of\n    Constantinople, by whom it was brought from Alexandria in Egypt,\n    where Cyrillus had formerly held the same office. Hence the name\n    Alexandrine. Cyrillus himself, in a notice attached to it, says\n    that tradition represented a noble Egyptian woman of the fourth\n    century named Thecla as the writer of it (an Arabic subscription\n    makes her to have been Thecla the martyr). These external\n    notices are not so reliable as the internal marks, all of which\n    show it to be of a great age. Some assign it to the fourth\n    century, but it is more commonly assigned to the fifth, and\n    Egypt is generally regarded as the place where it was written.\n    It is on parchment in uncial letters, without divisions of\n    words, accents, or breathings, and with only occasional marks of\n    interpunction--a dot to indicate a division in the sense. The\n    lines are arranged in two columns, and the sections begin with\n    large letters, placed a little to the left of the\n    column--outside the measure of the column. The order of the\n    books is: (1) the gospels; (2) the Acts of the Apostles; (3) the\n    Catholic epistles; (4) the epistles of Paul, with that to the\n    Hebrews between 2 Thessalonians and 1 Timothy; (5) the\n    Apocalypse. In the gospels, the Ammonian sections with the\n    Eusebian canons are indicated, and at the top of the pages the\n    larger sections or _titles_. In the Old Testament it is\n    defective in part of the Psalms. In the New it wants all of\n    Matthew as far as chap. 25:6; also from John 6:50 to 8:52; and\n    from 2 Cor. 4:13 to 12:6. It has appended at the end the genuine\n    letter of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians, and a fragment of\n    a second spurious letter. To these apocryphal additions we owe\n    the preservation of the Apocalypse in an entire state. Until the\n    discovery of the Sinai codex, the Alexandrine exhibited the text\n    of the New Testament in far the most entire state of all the\n    uncial manuscripts. _See No. (2), PLATE I_.\n\n    (4) The fourth manuscript of this group is the celebrated\n    palimpsest called _Codex Ephraemi_, _Ephraem manuscript_,\n    preserved in the Imperial library of Paris, and marked in the\n    list of uncials with the letter C. Originally it contained the\n    whole of the New Testament, and apparently the Old also,\n    elegantly written on thin vellum, with a single column to a\n    page. The writing is continuous, without accents or breathings,\n    and the letters are rather larger than in the Alexandrian\n    manuscript, the first letter of each section being of larger\n    size than the rest, and standing, as in that manuscript, a\n    little to the left of the column. The Ammonian sections stand in\n    the margin, but without the Eusebian canons. The gospels were\n    preceded by the list of _titles_, or larger sections, of which\n    those of Luke and John alone are preserved. The titles and\n    subscriptions are short and simple. The date of the manuscript\n    is supposed to be the first half of the fifth century. It has\n    undergone corrections at the hand of at least two persons,\n    possibly a third. These can be readily distinguished from the\n    original writing. The critical authority of this codex is very\n    high. Tregelles (in Horne, vol. 4, chap. 13) places it next to\n    the Vatican manuscript.\n\n    A few words on its history. About the thirteenth century, being\n    regarded as a worn-out and obsolete manuscript, the vellum on\n    which it was written was taken for a new purpose, that of\n    receiving the Greek works of Ephraem the Syrian saint, a\n    celebrated theologian of the old Syrian church, who flourished\n    in the fourth century. \"For this purpose the leaves were taken\n    promiscuously, without any regard to their proper original\n    order, and sewed together at hap-hazard, sometimes top end down,\n    and front side behind, just as if they had been mere blanks, the\n    sermons of Ephraem being the only matter regarded in the book.\"\n    Stowe, Hist. of the Books of the Bible, p. 75. In the latter\n    part of the seventeenth century, Allix first observed the older\n    writing under the works of Ephraem. It was very illegible, but a\n    chemical preparation applied in 1834-5 revivified it to a\n    certain extent. It has been diligently collated by eminent\n    scholars, and in 1842 Tischendorf printed an edition of it page\n    for page and line for line. Of the two hundred and nine leaves\n    contained in this manuscript, one hundred and forty-five belong\n    to the New Testament, containing not quite two-thirds of the\n    sacred text. The order of the books is the same as in the\n    Alexandrine codex. _See No. (4), PLATE III_.\n\nBesides the abovenamed four manuscripts, a few others may be briefly\nnoticed.\n\n    An interesting palimpsest of great critical value is the _Codex\n    Dublinensis rescriptus_, _Dublin palimpsest manuscript_, in the\n    library of Trinity College, Dublin, designated by the letter Z.\n    It contains with other writings thirty-two leaves of the gospel\n    by Matthew. They were edited, as far as legible, in 1801, by Dr.\n    John Barrett, Fellow of Trinity College. In 1853 Dr. Tregelles\n    made a new and thorough examination of the manuscript, and, by\n    the aid of a chemical process, brought all that exists of the\n    gospel text to a legible condition. This manuscript is assigned\n    to the sixth century. Its letters are written in a singularly\n    bold style, which unites the three qualities of ease, elegance,\n    and symmetry.\n\n    A celebrated _bilingual_ manuscript (in this case\n    _Graeco-Latin_, containing the Greek and Latin texts) is the\n    _Codex Bezae_, _Beza's manuscript_, called also _Codex\n    Cantabrigiensis_, _Cambridge manuscript_, from the place of its\n    deposit, which is the public library of the University of\n    Cambridge, England. It is designated by the letter D, and\n    contains the four gospels and Acts of the Apostles in Greek and\n    Latin on opposite pages, stichometrically written. The account\n    of Theodore Beza, its former possessor, was that he found it\n    during the French civil wars in 1562, in the monastery of St.\n    Irenaeus, at Lyons. In 1581 he sent it as a present to the\n    University of Cambridge. The interest felt in this manuscript\n    arises in great part from the very peculiar character of its\n    readings. \"The text of this codex,\" says Bleek (Introduc. to New\n    Test., sec. 270), \"presents much that is peculiar--many\n    additions and alterations that have even an apocryphal\n    character, but are yet not uninteresting. Its native country is\n    the West, and more definitely the south of Gaul.\" _See No. (5),\n    PLATE IV_.\n\n    Among the _fragments_ of manuscripts of high antiquity is one\n    called _Codex purpureus_, _Purple manuscript_. _Four_ leaves of\n    this are in the Cotton Library in the British Museum, _six_ in\n    the Vatican, _two_ in the Imperial Library at Vienna. The\n    manuscript to which they belonged was written in silver letters\n    (the names of God and Christ in gold) on purple vellum. The\n    writing is in two columns with large and round letters. It is\n    referred to the end of the sixth or beginning of the seventh\n    century.\n\n    Many other uncial manuscripts, or fragments of manuscripts, some\n    of them of great critical value, might be described; but the\n    above brief notices must suffice. Of those which contain ancient\n    _versions_, a few of the more important will be noticed in the\n    following chapter.\n\n    The _cursive_ manuscripts of the Now Testament are numbered by\n    hundreds. In general their authority is less than that of the\n    more ancient uncials. But a cursive manuscript may give\n    indirectly a very ancient text. There are some cursives which,\n    from their characteristic readings, were manifestly executed\n    from codices of high antiquity, and are for this reason very\n    valuable. As such Tregelles specifies those numbered 1 and 33.\n    For further notices of these, as also of the _lectionaries_,\n    containing selections for church readings, the reader may\n    consult the works devoted to biblical criticism.\n\n\nII. THE PRINTED TEXT.\n\n6. The _primary editions_ of the Greek New Testament, whence is derived\nwhat is called _the received text_ (_Textus receptus_) are the\nfollowing: (1) the _Complutensian_; (2) the _Erasmian_; (3) those of\n_Robert Stephens_; (4) those of _Beza_ and _Elzevir_. Their authority in\ntextual criticism depends wholly upon that of the manuscripts from which\ntheir text was formed. As no stream can rise higher than its fountains,\nso no printed text can obtain a just weight of influence above that of\nits manuscript sources. It becomes, then, a matter of interest to\ninquire what was the basis of these early printed editions.\n\n    (1.) The entire New Testament was printed for the first time in\n    Greek in the fifth volume of the _Complutensian Polyglott_ (so\n    called from _Complutum_, that is _Alcala_ in Spain, where it was\n    printed under the patronage of Cardinal Ximenes). It bears the\n    date of 1514, but was not published until 1522, when Erasmus had\n    already printed three editions of his Greek Testament. Its\n    editors professed to have formed their text from manuscripts\n    sent to them from the papal library at Rome. What these\n    manuscripts were cannot now be ascertained; but that they were\n    very ancient and correct, as alleged by these editors, is\n    contradicted by the character of the text, which agrees with the\n    modern in opposition to the most ancient manuscripts.\n\n    (2.) At the request of Froben, a celebrated printer and\n    publisher of Basle, _Erasmus_, who was then in England, where he\n    had devoted some time to a revised Latin translation of the New\n    Testament with annotations, went to Basle in 1515, and began the\n    work of editing a Greek New Testament. \"By the beginning of\n    March, 1516,\" says Tregelles, \"the whole volume, including the\n    annotations as well as the Greek and Latin texts, was complete;\n    in less, in fact, than six months from the time that the first\n    sheet was begun.\" The design of this haste was to anticipate the\n    publication of the Complutensian edition. The critical apparatus\n    in Erasmus' possession was quite slender. It consisted of such\n    manuscripts as he found at Basle, with the help of the revised\n    Latin translation already prepared in England and Brabant. For\n    the Apocalypse he had but one manuscript, and that defective at\n    the end. In his four subsequent editions--1519, 1522, 1527,\n    1535--he made many corrections. In that of 1527 he availed\n    himself of the Complutensian text. This edition, from which the\n    fifth and last published during his life differs but slightly,\n    is the basis of the common text now in use.\n\n    (3.) In 1546, 1549, 1550, appeared the three editions of _Robert\n    Stephens_, the celebrated Parisian printer. In the first two of\n    these the text is said to have been formed from the\n    Complutensian and Erasmian. In the third edition, although he\n    had the aid of thirteen Greek manuscripts, his text is almost\n    identical with that of Erasmus' fifth edition.\n\n    (4.) In 1565, _Theodore Beza_ published at Geneva his first\n    edition of the Greek Testament with his own Latin version, and\n    also the Vulgate with annotations. Three other editions followed\n    in 1576, 1582, 1588-9. He had the use of the Codex Bezae above\n    described, the Codex Claromontanus (an ancient Graeco-Latin\n    manuscript of the Pauline epistles), the Syriac version then\n    recently published by Tremellius, with a close Latin\n    translation, and Stephens' collations. But he is said not to\n    have made much use of these helps.\n\n    The first of the _Elzevir_ editions, so celebrated for their\n    typographical beauty, was issued in 1624, its text being mainly\n    copied from that of Beza. This is the text that has acquired the\n    name of _Textus receptus_, the _Received Text_, as it was for\n    more than a century the basis of almost all subsequent editions.\n    The genealogy of this _Textus receptus_ is thus succinctly given\n    by Bishop Marsh: \"The _Textus receptus_, therefore, or the text\n    in common use, was copied, with a few exceptions, from the text\n    of Beza. Beza himself closely followed Stephens; and Stephens\n    (namely, in his third and chief edition) copied solely from the\n    fifth edition of Erasmus, except in the Revelation, where he\n    followed sometimes Erasmus, sometimes the Complutensian edition.\n    The text, therefore, in daily use, resolves itself at last into\n    the Complutensian and the Erasmian editions.\" Divinity Lectures,\n    part I, p. 111.\n\n7. It requires but a moderate acquaintance with the history of textual\ncriticism to understand that the Elzevir text is not only not perfect,\nbut is more imperfect than that which has been elaborated by the help of\nthe abundant manuscripts, versions, and citations of the early fathers,\nof which modern criticism has availed itself. It is no reproach to the\neditors of the primary editions that, with their comparatively scanty\nmaterials, they could not accomplish as much as we can with the rich and\nvaried means at our disposal. The _essential integrity_ of the received\ntext, we do indeed thankfully acknowledge and firmly maintain. Our\nfathers had presented to them in this text the same divine and glorious\nSaviour, the same way of salvation, the same holy system of doctrines\nand duties, as we now find in the most carefully revised modern text.\nNevertheless, a true reverence for the inspired word must impel us to\nthe diligent use of all the means at our command for setting forth a\npure text, that is, a text conformed as nearly as possible to that of\nthe original autographs. Viewed in this light the modern critical\neditions of the New Testament must possess a deep interest for all who\nare able to read it in the original tongue. But to discuss the merits of\nthese would be foreign to the design of the present work.\n\n    Examples of the more important various readings occur in John\n    1:18; Acts 20:28; 1 Tim. 3:16. The passage 1 John 5:7, 8, _in\n    heaven--in earth_, is generally rejected on the testimony of the\n    manuscripts (see the full discussion in Horne, vol. 4, ch. 36).\n    Among the passages which are regarded as more or less doubtful\n    may be mentioned John 5:4; 8:3-11; Acts 8:37. In regard to all\n    these the biblical scholar must be referred to the critical\n    commentaries. So also for the questions connected with the text\n    of Mark 16:9-20, which are of a peculiar character.\n\n\nIII. PRINCIPLES OF TEXTUAL CRITICISM.\n\n8. The end proposed by textual criticism is to restore the sacred text\nas nearly as possible to its primitive purity (Chap. 7, No. 1). To this\nwork the biblical scholar should come in a candid and reverential\nspirit, prepared to weigh carefully all the evidence which is accessible\nto him, and decide, not as an advocate, but as a judge, in the simple\ninterest of truth. The three great sources of evidence for the original\ntext of the New Testament are Greek manuscripts, versions, and the\ncitations of the fathers. Of these, _Greek manuscripts_ hold the first\nplace. But all manuscripts are not of equal value. Other things being\nequal, the oldest manuscripts have the highest authority. \"If the\nmultiplication of copies of the New Testament had been uniform, it is\nevident that the number of later copies preserved from the accidents of\ntime would have far exceeded that of the earlier, yet no one would have\npreferred the fuller testimony of the thirteenth to the scantier\ndocuments of the fourth century. Some changes are necessarily introduced\nin the most careful copying, and these are rapidly multiplied.\" Westcott\nin Smith's Bible Dict.; Art. New Test. Yet, as the same writer remarks,\nwe may have evidence that a recent manuscript has been copied from one\nof great antiquity, and thus has preserved to us very ancient readings.\nRevisions and corrections by a later hand are to be carefully\ndistinguished from the primitive writing. Yet these may be valuable, as\ntestifying to the prevailing reading of the age to which they belong.\nThe general class or family to which a given manuscript belongs is also\nto be taken into the account. In a word, so many elements of judgment\nare to be taken into account in determining the relative weight of\nauthority that belongs to a given manuscript, that the right decision of\nthe question requires large observation combined with much critical\ntact.\n\n9. _Ancient versions_ are of great value in textual criticism; for some\nof them, as the old Latin and Syriac, to which may be added the old\nEgyptian versions, are based on a text more ancient than that preserved\nto us in any manuscript. In textual criticism, the testimony of a\nversion is valuable in proportion to its antiquity, its fidelity--not\nits elegance or even its correctness of interpretation, but its literal\ncloseness--and the purity of its text. Versions are liable to all the\ncorruptions of text incident to Greek manuscripts, and far more liable\nto interpolations by explanatory glosses. The difference of idiom,\nmoreover, frequently prevents such a literal rendering as shall be a\nsure indication of the form belonging to the original text.\n\n10. The _citations_ of the church fathers, which are immensely numerous,\nconstitute another source of testimony. But less authority belongs in\ngeneral to these, because they are often made loosely from memory alone.\nTheir testimony is chiefly valuable as _corroborative_. \"Patristic\ncitations _alone_ have very little weight; such citations, even when in\naccordance with a version, have but little more; but when a citation\n_is_ in accordance with some ancient MSS. and translations, it possesses\ngreat corroborative value. It is as _confirming_ a reading known\nindependently to exist, that citations are of the utmost importance. If\nalone, or nearly alone, they may be looked at as mere casual adaptations\nof the words of the New Testament.\" Tregelles in Horne, vol. 4, ch. 34.\n\n11. The _application_ of the above sources of criticism to the sacred\ntext demands very extensive research and much sound judgment. \"Canons of\ncriticism,\" as they are called are valuable in their proper sphere; but,\nas Westcott remarks (_ubi supra_), \"they are intended only to guide and\nnot to dispense with the exercise of tact and scholarship. The student\nwill judge for himself how far they are applicable in every particular\ncase; and no exhibition of general principles can supersede the\nnecessity of a careful examination of the characteristics of separate\nwitnesses, and of groups of witnesses.\"\n\nWe bring this subject to a close by an enumeration of the last six of\nthe thirteen rules laid down by Westcott.\n\n8. \"The agreement of ancient MSS., or of MSS. containing an ancient\ntext, with all the ancient versions and citations marks a certain\nreading.\"\n\n9. \"The disagreement of the most ancient authorities often marks the\nexistence of a corruption anterior to them.\"\n\n10. \"The argument from internal evidence is always precarious.\" This\ncanon he illustrates by several examples: \"If a reading is in accordance\nwith the general style of the writer, it may be said on the one side\nthat this fact is in its favor, and on the other that an acute copyist\nprobably changed the exceptional expression for the more usual one,\" &c.\n\n11. \"The more difficult reading is preferable to the simpler.\" This\ncanon rests on the obvious ground that a copyist would be more apt to\nsubstitute an easy reading for a difficult than the reverse.\n\n12. \"The shorter reading is generally preferable to the longer.\" Because\nof all corruptions of the text, additions from parallel passages, or to\nmeet its supposed wants, are the most common.\n\n13. \"That reading is preferable which explains the origin of the\nothers.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXVII.\n\nFORMATION AND HISTORY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON.\n\n\n1. Respecting the canon of the New Testament there are two distinct but\nrelated fields of inquiry. The first has reference to the _origin and\ngradual accumulation, of the materials_ which enter into the canon; the\nsecond, to the _collection of these materials_ into a volume or series\nof volumes possessing cooerdinate authority with the books of the Old\nTestament, and constituting with them the sum of written revelation. The\nfirst of these questions has been already discussed in great measure. In\nChs. 2-4, the genuineness, uncorrupt preservation, authenticity, and\ncredibility of the four gospels were shown at some length; in Ch. 5 the\nsame was done in respect to the Acts of the Apostles and the\nacknowledged epistles; in Ch. 6 was considered the position of the\ndisputed books in respect to the canon; and in Ch. 7 the inspiration of\nthe canon was demonstrated. Connected with these inquiries were some\ngeneral notices respecting the date of the several books of the New\nTestament; but the fuller consideration of this latter question is\nreserved for the second division of the present Part--that of Particular\nIntroduction. It will be sufficient to state here in a general way that,\nif we leave out of account the writings of the Apostle John, the\nremaining books of the New Testament were written somewhere between A.D.\n45-70 (according to the commonly received opinion, between A.D. 50-70);\nwhile the most probable date of John's writings is A.D. 70-100. The\ncomposition of the books of the New Testament, then, spreads itself over\na period of about half a century.\n\n2. Turning our attention, now, to the second question, that of the\ncollection and arrangement of these writings in a volume or series of\nvolumes cooerdinate in authority with the books of the Old Testament, we\nhave a succession of periods, not sharply separated from each other, but\neach of them possessing, nevertheless, its prominent characteristics in\nrelation to the canonical writings.\n\n3. First in order is the _apostolic age_, extending to about A.D. 100,\nespecially the first half of it when many of the apostles still\nsurvived. This is the period of the _composition_ of the books of the\nNew Testament, but we have no certain evidence that they were then\ncollected into a whole. The writings of apostles and apostolic men had\nof course the same authority as their spoken word: that is, an authority\nthat was supreme and decisive, according to the principle laid down by\nthe Saviour: \"He that receiveth you, receiveth me; and he that receiveth\nme, receiveth him that sent me.\" Matt. 10:40. But so long as the\nchurches had the presence of the apostles they could not feel, as we do\nnow, the need of an authoritative written rule of faith and practice;\nnor is there any proof that the apostles themselves understood in the\nbeginning of the gospel God's purpose to add, through them, a second\npart to the canon of revelation that had been for so many centuries\nclosed. A considerable number of years elapsed after the ascension\nbefore it was thought necessary to give to the churches under apostolic\nsanction a written account of our Lord's life and teachings. The Acts of\nthe Apostles were not composed till about A.D. 61-63. The apostolic\nepistles were for the most part written on special occasions and to meet\nspecial exigencies, the greater number of them not till between A.D.\n50-70, those of John still later. The Christians of this age drew their\nknowledge of the gospel mainly from the same sources to which Luke\nrefers in the preface to his gospel; from oral tradition, namely,\nreceived directly or indirectly from them \"who from the beginning were\neye-witnesses and ministers of the word.\"\n\n4. After the death of the apostles came what may be called the _age of\nthe apostolic fathers_; men who, like Ignatius, Polycarp, and others\nwhose names have not come down to us, had been the disciples of the\napostles. Ignatius suffered martyrdom at Rome, A.D. 107 or 116. Polycarp\nsurvived beyond the middle of the second century. The literary remains\nof this period are very scanty, the genuine writings of the apostolic\nfathers being confined to a few epistles--one of Clement of Rome to the\nCorinthians, seven of Ignatius, one of Polycarp to the Philippians, to\nwhich we may add the so-called epistle of Barnabas; since whoever was\nthe author, it does not date from later than the early part of the\nsecond century. From these writings we gather in general that the\ngospels and apostolic epistles were in current use in the churches, but\nnothing definite in regard to the collection of these writings into a\nwhole.\n\n    \"With the exception of the epistles of _Jude_, _2 Peter_ and _2,\n    3 John_, with which no coincidences occur, and 1, 2\n    Thessalonians, Colossians, Titus, and Philemon, with which the\n    coincidences are very questionable, all the other epistles were\n    clearly known, and used by them; but still they are not quoted\n    with the formulas which preface citations from the Old Testament\n    (The Scripture saith, It is written, &c.), nor is the famous\n    phrase of Ignatius (To the Philadelphians 5: Betaking myself to\n    the gospel, as to the flesh of Christ, and to the apostles, as\n    the eldership of the church) sufficient to prove the existence\n    of a collection of apostolic records as distinct from the sum of\n    apostolic teaching. The coincidences with the gospels on the\n    other hand are numerous and interesting, but such as cannot be\n    referred to the exclusive use of our present written gospels.\"\n    Westcott, in Smith's Bible Dict.; Art. Canon. The reason of\n    this, as the writer goes on to show, was that \"the details of\n    the life of Christ were still too fresh to be sought for only in\n    written records.\" There is, however, one remarkable passage in\n    the epistle of Barnabas, the _Greek text_ of which has been\n    recently discovered appended to the Sinaitic manuscript, in\n    which he says (ch. 4): \"Let us take care that we be not found as\n    it is written, many are called, but few are chosen.\" This\n    formula, \"as it is written,\" distinguishes the gospel from which\n    it is quoted as a part of the inspired word; for it is the\n    customary formula employed by Christ and his apostles in\n    accordance with the usage of their age, when they appeal to the\n    Old Testament as of divine authority; and is never applied to\n    writings of mere human authority.\n\n5. Next in order comes what may be called the _period of transition_\nbetween the age of the apostolic and that of the early church fathers.\nThe most distinguished writer of this period is Justin Martyr. It is now\ngenerally conceded that the \"Memoirs\" of which he so often speaks were\nour canonical gospels. Chap. 2, No. 7. Besides the abundant use of these\nhe mentions the Apocalypse by name, and ascribes it expressly to the\napostle John--\"a certain man among us named John, one of the apostles of\nChrist, prophesied, in the revelation given him, that those who have\nbelieved in our Christ will spend a thousand years in Jerusalem,\" etc.\nDialogue with Trypho, chap. 81. He has also some apparent allusions to\nthe Pauline epistles, but how far he possessed and used a collection of\nthe New Testament writings, we have no means of judging. Towards the\nmiddle of the second century, however, events occurred which had a\npowerful influence, not indeed, for establishing the _authority_ of the\napostolic writings (since that existed from the beginning), but for\nbringing home to the consciousness of the churches their _supreme\nimportance_ as an authoritative rule of faith and practice, and also the\nnecessity of carefully defining their extent as well as their true\ninterpretation. Heretical teachers arose who sowed in the Christian\nchurch the seeds of gnosticism. Of these some, as Marcion, rejected on\ndogmatical grounds a portion of the apostolic writings, and mutilated\nthose which they retained; others, as Valentinus, sought by fanciful\nprinciples of interpretation to explain away their true meaning. Chap.\n2, No. 12. The reaction upon the churches was immediate and effectual.\nThey set themselves at once to define and defend the true apostolic\nwritings as well against Marcion's false and mutilated canon, if canon\nit may be called, as against the false interpretations of Valentinus,\nHeracleon and others. The _occasion_ had now come for the recognition of\na New Testament canon cooerdinate in authority with that of the Old\nTestament, and from this time onward we find the idea of such a canon\nclearly developed in the writings of the church fathers. What aided\nessentially in this work was the execution, about this time, of\n_versions_ of the New Testament books, such as the Old Latin and Syriac;\nfor the authors of these versions must of necessity have brought\ntogether the writings, which, in their judgment, proceeded from the\napostles and their companions.\n\n6. We find, accordingly, when the _age of the early church fathers_\nopens, about A.D. 170, a clearly recognized canon--sometimes described\nin two parts, the _gospels_ and the _apostles_--which is placed on a\nlevel with that of the Old Testament as the inspired word of God, and\ncited in common with it as _the Scriptures_, _the divine Scriptures_,\n_the Scriptures of the Lord_, etc. Both canons are mentioned together as\n_The entire Scriptures both prophetical and evangelical_; _The prophets,\nthe gospel, and the blessed apostles_; _the law and the prophets, with\nthe evangelical and apostolical writings_; _the Old and the New\nTestament_; _the entire instrument of each Testament_, etc. _Irenaeus_,\nagainst heresies, 2. 46; 5. 20; _Letter to Florinus_ in Eusebius' Hist.\nEccl., 5. 20: _Clement of Alexandria_, Strom., 7, p. 757; _Tertullian_,\nagainst heretics, chap. 30. 36: against Marcion, 4. 6, etc. The canon\nwas not, however, completed in its present form; for the right of\ncertain books--the so-called _antilegomena_, chap. 6. 6.--to a place in\nit remained for a considerable time an open question, which, in its\napplication to particular books was answered differently in the East and\nthe West. See chap. 6. On the other hand, certain writings of the\napostolic fathers (as the so-called epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of\nHermas, the epistle of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians), being read\nin certain of the early churches, found their way into some codices of\nthe New Testament. Chap. 6, No. 4.\n\n    To the latter part of the second century belong two important\n    canons, that of the Syriac Peshito, and the Muratorian canon.\n    The former of these represents the judgment of the _Eastern_\n    churches; the latter apparently that of the _Western_.\n\n    The canon of the Peshito has, of the seven disputed books,\n    _Hebrews_ and _James_. It wants the other five, namely, _2\n    Peter_, _2, 3 John_, _Jude_, _Revelation_.\n\n    The Muratorian canon is in such an imperfect state that its\n    testimony on some points is doubtful. It contains _Jude_ and\n    _Revelation_; perhaps also _2, 3 John_. It wants _Hebrews_, and\n    _2 Peter_, and it adds the apocryphal book called the\n    _Apocalypse of Peter_.\n\n    Origen in the third century (as quoted by Eusebius, Hist. Eccl.,\n    6. 25) and Eusebius in the fourth, Hist. Eccl., 3. 25, give each\n    a review of the New Testament canon with a statement of the\n    differing judgments as to the disputed books. The details will\n    come up hereafter in connection with the books in question.\n\n    The Synodical Council of Loadicea, which was probably held\n    between A.D. 343-381, gives in its 60th canon (the genuineness\n    of which, however, has been called in question by some) a list\n    of the books of the Old and New Testaments. That of the New\n    Testament wants the _Apocalypse_.\n\n    The third Council of Carthage, held A.D. 397, contains all the\n    books of our present canon. So also the Latin fathers, as\n    Jerome, Rufinus, etc. But the Syrian churches still adhered to\n    the canon of the Peshito.\n\n7. The history of Christian opinion in regard to the canon of the New\nTestament, of which a very brief outline has been given, has all the\nmarks of naturalness and truthfulness. The Biblical student should\ncarefully remember the two following important considerations:\n\n(1.) The books of the New Testament were not received as a whole, but\n_separately_ upon the evidence that each gave of its apostolic origin.\nDoubts in respect to certain books throw no shadow of suspicion upon the\nrest, the genuineness and authenticity of which were acknowledged by all\nfrom the beginning. The question, therefore, is not concerning the truth\nof revelation, but simply concerning the claims of certain books to be a\npart of the record of revelation. However it may be decided in\nparticular cases, the apostolic authority of the universally\nacknowledged books, which constitute the main body of the New Testament,\nremains perfectly sure.\n\n(2.) The early diversities of judgment in respect to certain books\nfurnish satisfactory evidence of the freedom of thought and discussion\namong the primitive Christians, and of the sincerity and earnestness of\ntheir investigations. It was precisely because they would not accept any\nbook without full evidence of its apostolic authority, that these\ndiversities of judgment prevailed.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXVIII.\n\nANCIENT VERSIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.\n\n\nIn the present chapter those versions of the Old Testament also that\nwere made in connection with versions of the New, and in the interest of\nChristianity, will be briefly considered.\n\n\nI. LATIN VERSIONS.\n\n1. A peculiar interest attaches to the early Latin versions. The \"_Old\nLatin_\" translation of the New Testament, in connection with which one\nof the Old Testament was executed from the Septuagint, is perhaps the\nearliest that exists in any language. The Old Syriac alone can rival it\nin antiquity, and if either may claim the precedence, it is probably the\nLatin. This version, and afterwards the revision of it by Jerome, was\nthe grand medium through which the Holy Scriptures were known to the\nWestern or Latin churches for more than twelve centuries. It has\nexercised no small influence on the popular modern versions of\nChristendom, and it is the great storehouse of theological terms for\nboth Catholic and Protestant Christianity.\n\n    The English version of Wiclif (1324-1384) is a literal\n    translation of the current text of the Latin Vulgate. The\n    Psalter of the English Prayer Book is taken from Cranmer's Bible\n    called the \"Great English Bible:\" and the version of the Psalms\n    follows the Gallican Psalter, the second of the revisions made\n    by Jerome from the Old Latin. See below, No. 4.\n\n2. How early the _ante-Hieronymian_ Latin version (that current before\nthe days of _Hieronymus_, that is, _Jerome_), was executed is unknown;\nbut the writings of Tertullian furnish satisfactory proof that it was in\npopular use in North Africa (the place where it was made) in the last\nquarter of the second century. According to the testimony of the ancient\nchurch fathers, its text existed in a great variety of forms, and the\nsame variety has come down to us in the old manuscripts that contain it.\nSome, indeed, have maintained that several independent versions existed.\nBut the sum of the evidence from both the early fathers and the\nmanuscripts goes to show that there was never more than one that could\nbe called independent. The copies of this were subjected to multiplied\nemendations or revisions from the Greek original, till the text had\nfallen in the days of Augustine and Jerome into a state of great\nconfusion.\n\n    The language of Augustine is very strong: \"The translators of\n    the Scriptures from the Hebrew tongue into the Greek can be\n    numbered, but the Latin interpreters can by no means be\n    numbered. For whenever, in the first ages of Christianity, any\n    one had gained possession of a Greek manuscript, and imagined\n    himself to possess some little skill in the two languages, he\n    ventured to become an interpreter.\" De Doct. Christ. 2. 16.\n    According to the received opinion the so-called _Itala_\n    (_Italian_) was not an independent version, but one of these\n    revisions, apparently made in Italy, and as some think, under\n    ecclesiastical auspices. This, Augustine recommends as more\n    faithful and perspicuous than the rest.\n\n3. The _canon_ of the Old Latin version seems to have wanted, in the New\nTestament, Hebrews, James, and 2 Peter. In the Old Testament it followed\nthe Septuagint. It contained, therefore, the apocryphal books of that\nversion, to which was also added the second of Esdras. Appendix to Pt.\n2, No. 6. The _text_ of this version is known to us from two sources,\nquotations and manuscripts. For our knowledge of the Old Testament we\nare dependent mainly on the quotations of the early Latin fathers, since\nonly a few fragments remain in the shape of manuscripts. The same is\ntrue of some parts of the New Testament, particularly the Apocalypse.\nBut of the gospels as well as other parts of the New Testament, we have\nsome very ancient manuscripts which are of high value in textual\ncriticism. The agreement of this version in many characteristic readings\nwith the oldest known Greek manuscripts has already been noticed. Chap.\n3, No. 3. Such agreement is the strongest possible testimony for the\ngenuineness of the readings in question. Chap. 26, No. 2.\n\n    The _Codex Vercellensis_, belonging to the fourth century, and\n    said to have been written by Eusebius, bishop of Vercellae (now\n    Vercelli) in Northern Italy where the manuscript is preserved,\n    is one of the oldest manuscripts of the sacred text in\n    existence. The _Codex Veronensis_ at Verona, the Graeco-Latin\n    _Codex Claromontanus_ in the Imperial Library at Paris, the\n    _Codex Vindobonensis_ at Vienna, the _Codex Bobbiensis_ at\n    Turin, and others that might be named, are also very ancient.\n    Among the codices that contain what is called the _Italic_\n    version, is the _Brixianus_ of the sixth century.\n\n4. About A.D. 388, Jerome at the solicitation of Damasus, bishop of\nRome, undertook the arduous task of _revising_ the Old Latin version by\na comparison with the original Greek text. In this work he proceeded\nvery cautiously, being well aware of the prejudices which he must\nencounter on the part of multitudes who could not discriminate between\nthe authority of the original Greek text and that of the Latin version\nmade from it. He began with the four gospels. According to his own\ntestimony, he selected ancient Greek manuscripts, but such as did not\ndiffer much from the Latin usage; and in the use of these he so\nrestrained his pen that, when he had corrected those things only which\nseemed to change the sense, he suffered the rest to remain as they were.\n(Preface to the four gospels addressed to Damasus.) His work of revision\nwas afterwards extended to the remaining books of the New Testament; a\nrevision which Tregelles describes as \"less complete and uniform than\nthat of the gospels, and in which many parts seem to have received\nhardly any alterations from his hand.\" In Horne, vol. 4, ch. 23. About\nthe same time he turned his attention to the Latin version of the Old\nTestament, which had been made, not from the original Hebrew, but from\nthe Greek Septuagint. Of this he first revised the Psalter, but not very\nthoroughly; in his own words, \"cursorily for the most part.\" This first\nrevision is known by the name of the _Roman_ Psalter. A later and more\nthorough revision, executed by Jerome at Bethlehem between A.D. 384-391,\nis called the _Gallican_ Psalter. There is good reason to believe that\nJerome's revision extended to all the remaining books of the Old\nTestament, though we have positive evidence in respect to only a part of\nthem--Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Chronicles.\n\n    Gregory of Tours is said to have introduced Jerome's second\n    revision of the Psalter into the public service in France;\n    whence its name _Gallican_. The Roman Psalter was retained in\n    Italy till the time of Pius V., who introduced the Gallican\n    generally. But three churches, one of them that of the Vatican,\n    continued to use the Roman Psalter. Westcott in Smith's Bible\n    Dict.; Art. Vulgate.\n\n5. Jerome was soon convinced of the necessity of undertaking a _new\ntranslation_ of the Old Testament from the original Hebrew. To this\narduous task he addressed himself with great earnestness, availing\nhimself of the help of Jewish scholars to complete his knowledge of the\nHebrew. The whole work occupied his time, with periods of intermission,\nfrom A.D. 385 to A.D. 405. See in Horne, vol. 2, p. 89. He did not\nventure, however, to make a new version from the Hebrew of the book of\nPsalms, the constant use of which in the church service was a barrier to\nthe substitution of a new translation. He accordingly retained his\nsecond _revision_ from the Septuagint, which is called the Gallican\nPsalter. Of the Apocryphal books he translated only two, Judith and\nTobit. The remaining Apocryphal writings were retained in their old\nform. The Latin bible thus in part revised and in part translated by\nJerome (most of the Apocryphal writings being left unrevised) is called\nthe _Vulgate_, that is _common_ or _current_ version, although this term\nbelonged, before the days of Jerome, to the Old Latin itself. Its\ndiversified character is thus briefly indicated by Westcott.--\"(1.)\n_Unrevised Old Latin_: Wisdom, Eccl., 1, 2 Macc., Baruch. (2.) _Old\nLatin revised, from the LXX._: Psalter. (3.) _Jerome's free translation\nfrom the original text_: Judith, Tobit. (4.) _Jerome's translation from\nthe original_: Old Testament except Psalter. (5.) _Old Latin revised\nfrom Greek MSS._: Gospels. (6.) _Old Latin cursorily revised_: the\nremainder of New Testament.\" In Smith's Bible Dict.; Art. Vulgate.\n\n    It is not necessary to follow the history of the text of the\n    Vulgate since Jerome's day. Suffice it to say that the\n    simultaneous use of the Old Latin and Vulgate led to a\n    corruption of both texts, which has not yet been thoroughly\n    removed. The present standard text is that called the\n    _Clementine_, from Pope Clement VIII., under whose auspices the\n    Vulgate was edited in 1592. This is better than the preceding\n    _Sixtine_ edition, A.D. 1590, but not by any means the pure text\n    of Jerome, as it might be recovered, proximately at least, by a\n    careful collation of ancient manuscripts and quotations.\n\n    The oldest and best manuscript of the Latin Vulgate Old and New\n    Testaments, is the _Codex Amiatinus_ in the Laurentian Library\n    at Florence. It belongs to the sixth century, and exhibits the\n    text of Jerome in a very pure form, carrying us back to about\n    120 years from Jerome's death. The _Codex Fuldensis_ is said to\n    belong to the same century. There are other good manuscripts\n    more or less complete of the eighth and ninth centuries.\n\n    Many other Latin versions have appeared in modern times,\n    sometimes in connection with the original text, and sometimes\n    separately, which it is not necessary to notice in detail.\n\n\nII. SYRIAC VERSIONS.\n\n6. The ancient Syriac version called the _Peshito_ belongs, in the\njudgment of biblical scholars, to the second century. It comprises the\nOld Testament as well as the New. The version of the Old Testament was\nmade from the original Hebrew, and thus has the honor of being the\noldest translation of the Hebrew Scriptures for Christian use, the Old\nLatin version having been made from the Septuagint. The version of the\nNew Testament was made in connection with that of the Old, so that both\ntogether constitute one work.\n\n    Syrian tradition makes extravagant claims in respect to the\n    antiquity of the Peshito, telling us that it was executed by men\n    sent to Palestine by the apostle Thaddeus (whom tradition\n    connects with the founding of the church at Edessa), and by\n    Abgarus, King of Edessa, a contemporary of the Saviour. The Old\n    Testament was sometimes referred to a still earlier age--that of\n    Solomon and Hiram, or that of the captivity of the ten tribes.\n    Without giving credence to such traditions, we may well believe\n    that it belongs to the earliest period of the Syrian churches,\n    and cannot be placed later than the last part of the second\n    century. Of the term _Peshito_, that is, _simple_, there are\n    different explanations. The most usual is that it denotes a\n    simple and literal version, free from glosses and allegorical\n    interpretations. Tregelles suggests that it was called _simple_\n    in contrast with the translation made by Paul of Tela from the\n    Hexaplar text of Origen (see below, No. 8), which was replete\n    with _asterisks_ and _obeli_ to mark Origen's revisions, and had\n    also marginal references. It is agreed that the Old Testament\n    was translated from the original Hebrew and Chaldee, though the\n    translators seem to have had before them the Greek version of\n    the Seventy, and to have consulted it in the progress of their\n    work\n\n7. The Peshito is a free, and at the same time, a faithful version of\nScripture, holding the first place among the ancient versions for its\ngeneral excellence, while it ranks with the Old Latin in antiquity. Its\nauthority in both textual criticism and interpretation is deservedly\nhigh. As it regards textual criticism, however, its value is diminished\nby the fact that its text has not come down to us in a pure state. It\nhas suffered in the same way as the text of the Old Latin, though not to\nthe same extent.\n\nAmong the manuscripts brought from the Nitrian monasteries, and\ndeposited in the British Museum, is one of great antiquity, containing\nlarge portions of the four gospels in Syriac. Dr. Cureton published in\n1858 the text of this manuscript as \"Remains of a very ancient Syriac\nrecension of the four gospels in Syriac, hitherto unknown in Europe,\"\nwith an English translation and preface. Its appearance was hailed with\nlively interest and has excited warm discussions. The manuscript itself\nis assigned to the fifth century, but it presents a text which, in the\njudgment of competent scholars, is older than the current text of the\nPeshito. Whether it is an older form of the Peshito version, or another\nand earlier version of the gospels, is a question that has been\ndifferently answered. It is maintained, on the one hand, that the\nPeshito is a revision of the Curetonian text, \"replete with readings\nunknown in the second century\" (Tregelles in Smith's Bible Dict.); on\nthe other, that it is \"an older version than the Peshito; which the\nauthor or authors of the latter consulted throughout.\" Davidson in\nAlexander's Kitto. Its great value for critical purposes must be\nacknowledged by all.\n\n    In many characteristic readings it agrees with the oldest\n    manuscripts and quotations. It has also some erroneous readings\n    known to be of great antiquity. In a word, the high antiquity of\n    its text cannot be reasonably questioned. Drs. Cureton and\n    Tregelles think that the gospel of Matthew may be a translation\n    from the apostle's Hebrew copy. But this is denied by Davidson\n    and others.\n\n8. The _Philoxenian_ Syriac version was executed A.D. 508, under the\nauspices of Philoxenus, or Xenaias, bishop of Hierapolis or Mabug in\nSyria. Philoxenus belonged to the sect of the Monophysites, and it is\ngenerally thought that the version was made in the interest of that\nsect. The translator's name was Polycarp, one of Philoxenus' rural\nbishops. With the exception, perhaps, of certain books (see below), the\ntext of this version has not come down to us in its original form. We\nhave only a _revision_ of it made A.D. 616 by Thomas of Harkel in a\nmonastery of Alexandria, whence this version is also called the\n_Harclean_ Syriac. The characteristic of this version is its extremely\nliteral character. It is the translator's aim to represent every Greek\nword, even the article, by a corresponding Syriac word, even where the\nidiom of the language must thereby be violated. Hence its style is of\nnecessity barbarous. But this very character of literalness gives to the\nPhiloxenian version high authority in respect to textual criticism. So\nfar as it has come down to us in its primitive form, it is, in truth,\nequal to the Greek text of its own time.\n\nAbout the time that Thomas of Harkel revised the Philoxenian version of\nthe New Testament, Paul of Tela, another Monophysite, executed what is\ncalled the _Hexaplar Syriac_ version of the Old Testament, because it\nwas made from the text of Origen's Hexaplar. Chap. 16, No. 12. It\ncoincides with the Philoxenian version of the New Testament in respect\nto its character as well as the time of its appearance, being made on\nthe principle of following the Greek text word for word as exactly as\npossible. Thus the Hexaplar version of the Old, and the Philoxenian\nversion of the New, constitute together a whole of like character\nthroughout.\n\n    After the example of Origen, Paul introduced into his version\n    _asterisks_ and _obeli_; the asterisk (*) to indicate insertions\n    made in the text on the authority of manuscripts and other\n    versions; the obelus (/), to mark passages of doubtful\n    character. Thus it supplies, as far as a version can, the\n    Hexaplar of Origen, of which only a few fragments remain.\n\n    The Philoxenian version of the New Testament, as revised by\n    Thomas of Harkel, contains also the same asterisks and obeli.\n    Critical marks and marginal readings also appear in most of the\n    manuscripts. This critical apparatus is generally thought to\n    have proceeded from Thomas himself, in imitation of the Hexaplar\n    Syriac of the Old Testament; but whether to indicate comparison\n    with the Peshito, or with the Greek manuscripts employed by\n    Thomas is not certain.\n\n    There is a version of the Catholic epistles wanting in the\n    Peshito--2 Pet., 2, 3 John, Jude--existing in two forms, one of\n    which is thought to be the _unrevised_ Philoxenian text. There\n    is a codex at Rome containing the four gospels which has also\n    been supposed to contain the same unrevised text.\n\n    The _Jerusalem Syriac Lectionary_, containing simply lessons\n    from the four gospels, is a peculiar version known to us from a\n    single manuscript in the Vatican Library which belongs to the\n    eleventh century. The version itself is referred by some to the\n    sixth century, by others to a later date. Its dialect is\n    barbarous, being a mixture of Chaldee and Syriac, but its\n    readings are said often to coincide with the oldest and best\n    authorities.\n\n\nIII. EGYPTIAN AND ETHIOPIC VERSIONS.\n\n9. Formerly but one version was known to exist in the language of the\nancient Egyptians. This, which was made in the dialect of lower Egypt,\nwas naturally called _Coptic_. When it was discovered that another\nversion existed in the dialect of upper Egypt, the Arabic term _Sahidic_\nwas applied to it. But since the word _Coptic_ is generic, applying to\nboth dialects alike, it has been proposed to call the former version\n_Copto-Memphitic_ or simply _Memphitic_, from Memphis, the ancient\ncapital of lower Egypt; and the latter _Copto-Thebaic_ or _Thebaic_,\nfrom Thebes, the celebrated capital of ancient upper Egypt. When these\nversions were executed cannot be determined with certainty. But they\nexisted in the fourth century, and probably in the latter part of the\nthird century. Their high antiquity gives to them great value in textual\ncriticism. The latter of them, however, exists only in a fragmentary\nform. Some fragments of a _third_ version, differing from both the\nMemphitic and the Thebaic, have been discovered. To this, the epithet\n_Bashmuric_ has been applied, from the Arabian name _Bashmur_, a\ndistrict of lower Egypt in the Delta to the East. But Egyptian scholars\ndoubt whether the term is well applied, as the version is said to have\nstronger affinity to the Thebaic than to the Memphitic version.\n\n    The Memphitic and Thebaic versions are said to have contained\n    the whole Bible, that of the Old Testament being made from the\n    Septuagint. The whole Memphitic New Testament has been several\n    times published, but never in such a manner as to meet the wants\n    of Biblical criticism. Of the Thebaic version only some\n    fragments have been published.\n\n10. An _Ethiopic_ version of the whole Bible exists in the ancient\ndialect of Axum. That of the Old Testament was made from the Septuagint;\nthat of the New is a close version of the original Greek. The age to\nwhich it belongs is not known. Many of the readings of its text are said\nto show an affinity with the older class of Greek manuscripts, while\nothers are of a later character. This leads to the suspicion that the\nversion has undergone revision by the aid of later Greek manuscripts. An\nedition of the whole Bible is in process of publication in Germany.\n\n\nIV. THE GOTHIC AND OTHER VERSIONS.\n\n11. The first information which European scholars had of the existence\nof a _Gothic_ version of the New Testament was in the sixteenth century,\nwhen one Morillon copied from a Gothic manuscript in the library of the\nMonastery of Werden in Westphalia the Lord's Prayer and some other\nparts, which were afterwards published. When the Swedes, in 1648, took\nPrague, among the spoils sent to Stockholm was the celebrated _Codex\nArgenteus_, _Silver manuscript_, containing a copy of the Gothic gospels\nwritten on purple vellum in silver letters, except the beginnings of the\nsections which are in gold. When entire the manuscript is said to have\ncontained 320 leaves, but when found it had but 188 in quarto size. In\nits present state it wants parts of all the gospels. The letters are\ndeeply furrowed, and beautifully regular. It is thought that this\nmanuscript was executed for the use of some Gothic king. After various\nchanges of place, it was finally deposited in the library of the\nUniversity of Upsal in Sweden, where it is now preserved enclosed in a\nsilver case. The Gothic version, of which the Codex Argenteus is a\ntranscript, was made in the fourth century by Ulphilas, second bishop of\nthe Goths in Moesia (the so-called Moeso-Goths). The manuscript itself\nbelongs, it is thought, to the sixth century.\n\n12. In 1762 a palimpsest was discovered by Knittel at Wolfenbuettel, a\ncity of the duchy of Brunswick in Germany, containing, as the earlier\nwriting, part of the epistle to the Romans in Gothic and Latin, the\nversions standing side by side. In 1817 the late Cardinal Mai discovered\nin the Ambrosian Library at Milan five palimpsests, from which, in\nconnection with the Wolfenbuettel palimpsest, the Gothic text of the\ngreater part of the Pauline epistles (that to the Hebrews not included)\nhas been recovered, as also some fragments of the gospels, and of the\nbooks of Ezra and Nehemiah. All that has been recovered of the Gothic\nversion was edited in 1835-6 by Gabelentz and Loebe with a Latin\ntranslation, notes, and a Gothic dictionary and grammar. There are\nseveral later editions partly of the Codex Argenteus, and partly of all\nthe Gothic remains of the Scriptures. Thus this interesting version,\nwhich represents the text of the New Testament in the fourth century as\nit was known to Ulphilas, is made available for the purposes of Biblical\ncriticism.\n\n13. There is an ancient _Armenian_ version unaccompanied as yet by any\nLatin translation; and thus available for critical purposes only through\nthe help of those who know the language. By means of such help Dr.\nTregelles used it for his critical edition of the New Testament, and he\nspeaks of its value \"as a critical witness as to the general reading of\ncertain Greek copies existing in the former half of the fifth century.\"\nIn Smith's Bible Dict., Art. Armenian Version.\n\nOther ancient versions, as the Arabic and Slavonic, we pass by; as their\ncomparatively late date makes them of little importance for critical\nstudies. The history of modern versions, among which is our own\nauthorized version, presents a wide and interesting field of inquiry,\nbut it does not come within the scope of the present work.\n\n\n\n\nSECOND DIVISION, PARTICULAR INTRODUCTION\n\nCHAPTER XXIX.\n\nTHE HISTORICAL BOOKS.\n\n\n1. The New Testament, like the Old, is not an abstract system of\ndoctrines and duties, but a _record of facts_ involving doctrines and\nduties of the highest import. This record does not constitute an\nindependent history, complete in itself, and to be explained in its own\nlight. It is rather the necessary sequel to the record of the Old\nTestament. It interprets the Old Testament, and is itself interpreted by\nit. The two constitute together an organic whole, and can be truly\nunderstood only in their mutual connection. To discard the Old Testament\nwhether formally or in practice, is to throw away the key which unlocks\nto us the treasures of the New; for the writers of the New Testament\ncontinually reason out of the Scriptures of the Old. If we cannot truly\ncomprehend the Old Testament except when we view it as preparatory to\nthe revelation contained in the New, so neither can we have a full\nunderstanding of the New except as the completion of the revelation\nbegun in the Old. In a word, we understand revelation aright only in its\nunity.\n\n2. The New Testament _uses_ all the teachings of the Old, but it does\nnot _repeat_ them all. The unity, personality, and infinite perfections\nof God; his universal providence, and his supremacy as well over nations\nas individuals; the duties that men owe to God and each other, as\nembodied for substance in the ten commandments and expanded in the\nteachings of Moses and the prophets; the indissoluble connection, on the\none hand, between righteousness and true prosperity, and on the other,\nbetween sin and ruin--all these great truths are so fully unfolded in\nthe Old Testament that they need no formal repetition in the New. The\nperson and office of the Messiah--as that great prophet, like unto\nMoses, whom God should raise up for his people in the latter days; as\nthat mighty king of David's line, who should sit on his throne and in\nhis kingdom to order it and to establish it with judgment and with\njustice forever; as that high priest after the order of Melchisedec whom\nGod should establish forever with a solemn oath--had been prefigured in\nthe institutions of Moses, in the Psalms, and in the writings of the\nprophets.\n\nSome other important truths not so fully revealed in the Old Testament\nbut deducible in a legitimate way either from its general scope or from\nsome brief hints in its teachings, had become firmly established in the\nfaith of the Jewish people during the long interval that elapsed between\nMalachi and Christ. Such particularly were the doctrines of the\nresurrection of the dead and of future rewards and punishments. These\ntruths, also, as well as those more directly and fully taught in the Old\nTestament, were assumed by the Saviour and his apostles as a platform\nfor the peculiar revelations of the gospel, the sum of which is _Jesus\nChrist crucified for the salvation of the world_. The four gospels,\nthen, as containing the history of our Lord's appearance and works, lie\nat the foundation of the revelation contained in the New Testament. To\nthese, then, our attention must first be given; after which the history\nof the apostolic labors, as given in the Acts of the Apostles, will\nnaturally follow.\n\n\nI. THE GOSPELS AS A WHOLE.\n\n3. The word _gospel_ (Anglo-Saxon, _god_, _good_, and _spell_, _history_\nor _tidings_) answers to the Greek word _euangelion_, _good-tidings_,\nwhence comes the Latin _evangelium_, with the derived words in use among\nus, as _evangelist_, _evangelical_, etc. It properly signifies the _good\nmessage itself_, and it is only by a secondary usage that it is applied\nto the _written histories_ of the Saviour's life, as being the\nembodiment of this message. The titles prefixed to these gospels from\nthe beginning; \"The Gospel according to Matthew\", \"The Gospel according\nto Mark,\" etc., indicate that the written record is not itself the\ngospel, but rather an account of the gospel _according to_ these\ndifferent writers. Christ himself is the author of the gospel. It\nexisted and was received by many thousands before a line of it was put\nupon record on the written page.\n\n4. The genuineness, uncorrupt preservation, and authenticity of the four\ncanonical gospels have already been shown at some length. Chaps. 2, 3,\n4. In connection with the argument for their genuineness, their natural\ndivision into two parts--the first three, commonly called the synoptical\ngospels, and the gospel according to John; the remarkable agreements and\ndifferences of the three synoptical gospels among themselves; and the\nremarkable contrast which the fourth gospel presents to all three of the\nsynoptical gospels, have also been considered simply as _existing\nfacts_. Chap. 2, Nos. 14 and 15. But when we seek an _explanation_ of\nthese remarkable phenomena, we enter upon a very difficult problem, one\non which the ingenuity of Biblical scholars has exhausted itself for\nseveral successive generations without reaching thus far a result that\ncan be regarded as perfectly satisfactory. Almost all conceivable\ntheories and combinations of theories have been proposed, some of which,\nhowever, are now generally abandoned as untenable, and need not be\nconsidered at large.\n\n5. Looking at the three synoptical gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, we\nfind a remarkable _agreement_ not only in their general plan, but in\nmany of their details also. With the exception of our Lord's last\njourney to Jerusalem and the history of his passion there, they are\nmainly occupied with his ministry in Galilee. The selection of incidents\nis also to a great extent the same. \"The most remarkable differences lie\nin the presence of a long series of events connected with the Galilean\nministry, which are peculiar to St. Matthew and St. Mark (Matt.\n14:22-16:12; Mark 6:45-8:26), and a second series of events connected\nwith the journey to Jerusalem (Luke 9:51-18:14), which is peculiar to\nSt. Luke.\" Westcott, Introduct. to the Study of the Gospels, chap. 3.\nThe coincidences of language, as well as incident, are also remarkable;\nand here the general law prevails that these coincidences are more\ncommon, as has been shown by Norton and others, in the recital of the\nwords of others than in the narrative parts of the gospels, and most\ncommon when our Lord's own words are recited.\n\n6. But with these remarkable agreements coexist equally remarkable\n_differences_. Each writer has his own peculiarities of style, which\nappear more distinctly in the original than they can in any version. It\nhas been noticed also by Biblical scholars that these peculiarities are\nmore marked in the narrative than in the recitative parts of the gospels\nin question. Each writer, moreover, brings in incidents peculiar to\nhimself, not in the form of patchwork, but as parts of a self consistent\nwhole. So far is he from exact outward conformity to either of the other\ngospels, in respect to arrangement and circumstantial details, that the\ndiversity between him and them in these particulars, sometimes creates\nserious difficulties when we attempt to arrange the three different\nnarratives in the form of a harmony.\n\n7. No theory of the origin of these three gospels can be true which does\nnot explain both their coincidences and their differences. Hence we may\nset aside at once the hypothesis of their _mutual dependence_ on each\nother--that the later evangelists used the writings of the earlier. By\nthe different advocates of this theory, each of the three synoptic\ngospels has been made in turn the primary record from which the others\ndrew; but no one of them has been able, upon this hypothesis, to account\nfor the omissions or insertions of the supposed later evangelists, much\nless for the remarkable fact already noticed, that the peculiarities of\neach writer appear more fully in the narrative than in the recitative\npart of his gospel. The later evangelists may, indeed, have been\nacquainted with the writings of the earlier and have consulted them, but\nthis supposition alone does not explain their peculiar coincidences and\ndifferences.\n\nAnother hypothesis is that of an _original document or documents_, from\nwhich all three are supposed to have drawn. The assumption of a single\noriginal written gospel, as the basis of our first three canonical\ngospels, is manifestly untenable. Had a primitive gospel existed of such\ncompass and authority as to be the common source of our three synoptic\ngospels, it is inconceivable that the churches, which carefully\npreserved these three gospels, though two of them proceeded not from\napostles themselves but only from their companions, should have allowed\nthe original gospel so speedily and utterly to perish, that no traces of\nit remained in the days of Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Clement of\nAlexandria. Besides, this hypothesis, as it was soon seen, does not\nexplain the peculiar relation of these gospels to each other in respect\nto coincidences and differences. Hence various modifications were\nproposed--an original Aramaic gospel with various Greek translations,\nthis original Aramaic gospel variously increased with new matter, etc.\nIn a word, the form of these assumed original documents was\nhypothetically explained from the actual form of our three synoptic\ngospels; the very reverse of the true problem, which was to explain,\nfrom some reliable data, the form of the canonical gospels themselves.\n\nThe remaining hypothesis is that of _oral tradition_ emanating from the\napostles themselves, and maintained in its purity during their lives by\ntheir personal presence and teaching. That the gospel existed in this\nform alone for some years after the beginning of Christianity is\nadmitted by all. The apostles were Christ's chosen witnesses of his life\nand teachings. From their lips proceeded the tradition which now\nconstitutes our written gospels. The necessity of embodying this\ntradition in the form of permanent records was not felt at the\nbeginning. But, as the churches were multiplied, oral tradition became\nliable to corruption in many ways through the multiplicity of the organs\nemployed in its transmission. Then the need of written gospels began to\nmanifest itself, and it was natural that the apostles should look to the\nsupply of this need either by their own direct agency, or by that of men\nwriting with their knowledge and approbation. How many years elapsed\nbefore the appearance of the earliest of our canonical gospels, which is\ncommonly supposed to have been that of Matthew, we have no means of\nascertaining with accuracy. But we may reasonably suppose that the\nperiod was long enough to allow the apostolic tradition of our Lord's\nlife and teachings to assume a somewhat definite shape in respect to\nboth matter and outward form. _First_, in respect to _matter_. As their\npublic instructions could not cover the whole of our Saviour's history\n(John 20:30; 21: 25), they naturally selected, under the guidance of the\nHoly Spirit, those parts of it which embodied the spirit and meaning of\nthe whole. Since, moreover, the apostles remained together at Jerusalem\nfor some time after our Lord's ascension (Acts 8:1; 15:6), it is highly\nreasonable to suppose that in a matter of such moment they had a mutual\nunderstanding--an understanding which, while it interfered with the\nfreedom of no one, secured a general agreement as to the points in our\nLord's history and teachings which should be especially insisted on.\n_Secondly_ in respect to _outward form_. While the apostles were\npreserved by the illumination of the Holy Spirit from any superstitious\nregard to the letter of our Lord's teachings, their reverence for him as\na perfect teacher, whose words were truth unmixed with error, must have\nmade them anxious to put the oral tradition of his sayings into as\nperfect a form as possible; whence the tradition of our Saviour's words\nwould assume from the first a more fixed form than that of his life\ngenerally.\n\nIt is supposed by many that the writers of the first three gospels drew\neach from this common body of oral tradition such materials as suited\nhis general plan; no one of them proposing to give the whole of our\nLord's history, or even to observe a strict chronological order in the\nevents recorded by him, any farther than such order was rendered\nnecessary by their nature and essential connection. In the case of\nMatthew, who was one of the twelve apostles, it might be thought that he\nwrote simply from his own personal knowledge; but his gospel could not\ncover all the ground of our Lord's history as known to him, and we may\nwell suppose that in the selection of his materials he had regard--not a\nservile, but a free regard--to the common oral tradition of the\napostles, which was, in fact, the embodiment of their united wisdom\nunder the illumination of the Divine Spirit. Each evangelist, as well\nMark and Luke who were not apostles, as Matthew who belonged to the\nnumber of the twelve, wrote independently of the other two. The later\nwriters may, indeed, have been acquainted with the writings of the\nearlier, but a bare inspection of the three gospels shows that there was\nno labored effort on the part of one evangelist to adjust his work to\nthose of the others. Hence arise apparent discrepancies, as in the two\ngenealogies of our Lord, which it is sometimes hard to explain. But\nthese very difficulties witness to the independent truthfulness of the\nwriters. Had they written in concert, or borrowed systematically from\neach other, such difficulties would not have existed.\n\nAlthough apostolic oral tradition is thus made the main source whence\nthe writers of these gospels drew their materials, it is not necessary\nto affirm or deny their use, in a subordinate way, of written documents.\nThat such documents existed in the time of Luke we know from his own\nwords, chap. 1:1. He does not condemn them, but neither does he rely\nupon them. His gospel is not derived from them, but from his own\naccurate investigations; \"It seemed good to me also, having accurately\ntraced out all things from the beginning\" (as the original Greek means),\n\"to write to thee in order, most excellent Theophilus.\" Chap. 1:3. And\nif Luke, the companion of Paul, was not dependent for his materials on\nany previously existing writings, neither was Mark, the companion of\nboth Peter and Paul, nor Matthew, who was himself an apostle. Nor can\nthe incorporation of such writings into the synoptic gospels be shown\nwith any degree of probability. If it cannot be claimed for this\nhypothesis of a primitive apostolic tradition, as the source whence the\nwriters of the synoptic gospels drew their materials, that it explains\nall the phenomena of their mutual relation to each other, it is,\nnevertheless, more satisfactory than any other that has been proposed,\nand may be regarded as a near approximation to the actual facts in the\ncase.\n\n    Between the _traditions_ of which the apostle Paul speaks (2\n    Thess. 2:15; 3:6; also, according to the original, 1 Cor. 11:2)\n    received immediately from his mouth or pen, and the pretended\n    traditions of later days, handed down from century to century\n    through a succession of uninspired men, the difference is that\n    between light and darkness, between truth and fiction. We have\n    in the _writings_ of the New Testament the genuine apostolic\n    tradition, at first oral, but put into a written form during the\n    lifetime of the apostles. These traditions are the \"gold,\n    silver, precious stones\" of divine truth. All other traditions\n    are the \"wood, hay, stubble\" of human origin. In settling the\n    question respecting the _genuineness_ of the New Testament\n    writings, we proceed as in the case of any other writings. We\n    avail ourselves of all the evidence within our reach, external\n    and internal. We take the testimony of Irenaeus and Tertullian,\n    and also of Marcion and Valentinus; though none of them were\n    inspired, and the two latter were heretical. But when we have\n    once determined what books were written by apostles or apostolic\n    men, these contain for us the only authoritative _tradition_, as\n    defined by the apostle: \"Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and\n    hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word\n    or our epistle.\" 2 Thess. 2:15.\n\n8. In comparing the synoptic gospels with each other and with the fourth\ngospel, we must ever bear in mind that no one of them professes to give\na complete history of our Lord's life, or to arrange all the incidents\nwhich he relates in the exact order of time. Under the guidance of the\ndivine Spirit each one pursues his own course, independently of the\nothers, here inserting what one or more of the rest have omitted, or\nomitting what one or more of them have inserted; and here, again,\nbringing in incidents without regard to their exact chronological order,\nwith some general preface like the following: \"at that time,\" Matt.\n12:1; \"and he began again,\" Mark 4:1; \"and it came to pass as he was\nalone praying,\" Luke 9:18; \"and it came to pass as they went in the\nway,\" Luke 9:57; etc. Thus the wisdom of God has given us, not all the\nparticulars of our Lord's history, but such a selection from both the\nincidents of his public life and his public and private teachings as\nbest embodies the great facts of the gospel, and the doctrines and\nduties connected with them. In the four canonical gospels the church\nhas, not all of our Lord's history and teachings, but all that the Holy\nGhost judged needful for her establishment and edification to the end of\ntime.\n\n    Of our Lord's history before his baptism we have only his\n    genealogy in a twofold form; some notices of his miraculous\n    conception; an account of his birth and circumcision, with the\n    visions and prophecies connected with them; a history of his\n    preservation from Herod's attempt to destroy him; the subsequent\n    residence of his parents in Nazareth, with a single incident of\n    his childhood. Luke 2:40-52. All these particulars have, in one\n    way or another, a bearing on his divine mission and work as the\n    Son of God. The apocryphal gospels on the contrary, as, for\n    example, the Gospel of the Infancy, and the Gospel of Nicodemus,\n    abound in frivolous stories relating to our Lord's infancy and\n    later life, which have no connection with the great work of\n    redemption.\n\n9. The peculiarities of the fourth gospel, as well as its relation to\nthe three preceding gospels, will come up for consideration hereafter.\nAt present we only remark that John wrote many years after the\nappearance of the synoptic gospels, and that, whatever reference he may\nhave had to them, his gospel constitutes, in the plan of revelation, a\n_true complement_ to the other three. For (1) if we except the narrative\nof our Lord's passion, it covers, for the most part, ground not occupied\nby them. They give mainly the history of the Saviour's ministry in\nGalilee (Luke also, at some length, that of his last journey to\nJerusalem); the scene of much of John's gospel, on the contrary, is\nJerusalem and its near vicinity. (2) John unfolds more fully the nature\nof our Lord's person, and his peculiar relation to the Father and to his\nchurch. This he does, more especially, in his prologue (chap. 1:1-18);\nin the record of the Saviour's discussions with the Jews (chaps. 3,\n5-12); and in that of his discourses addressed in private to the circle\nof the apostles, chaps. 13-17. Thus John's gospel is emphatically that\nof Christ's _person_, as illustrated by his works and words; while the\nthree earlier evangelists give rather the gospel of his _public\nministry_, through which his divine person everywhere shines forth. This\ndeeper view of our Lord's person and office which the gospel of John\nunfolds met the wants of the primitive church in a more advanced stage,\nwhen false teachers were already beginning to sow the seeds of those\nerrors which, in the next generation, brought forth such a rank and\npoisonous harvest. The same great characteristics adapt it to the wants\nof the church in all ages. Without the fourth gospel she could not be\ncompletely furnished to meet the assaults of error, which, from one\ngeneration to another, makes, with unerring instinct, its main assault\nupon the person and office of the Son of God.\n\nBut if the evangelical narrative would not be complete without the\nfourth gospel, neither would it be perfect for the use of the church\nwith this alone. The record of our Lord's life and teachings as given in\nthe first three gospels is preeminently adapted to popular instruction.\nIt is precisely such a record as the preachers of the gospel need in\ntheir public ministrations. With it they can use the fourth gospel with\neffect; but without it they would want the natural preparation for and\nintroduction to those deep and spiritual views of Christ's person and\noffice which the bosom-disciple unfolds. It is not in the three synoptic\ngospels, nor in the gospel of John taken separately, that we find the\ncomplete evangelical armor, but in the perfect whole of the four.\n\n10. Very numerous attempts have been made to construct _harmonies_ of\nthe four gospels. One plan is to form out of the whole, in what is\nsupposed to be the true chronological order, a continuous narrative\nembracing all the matter of the four, but without repetitions of the\nsame or similar words. Another plan is to exhibit in chronological\norder, the entire text of the four gospels arranged in parallel columns,\nso far as two or more of them cover the same ground. The idea is very\nimposing, but the realization of it is beset with formidable if not\ninsurmountable difficulties. It is certain that the evangelists do not\nalways follow the exact order of time, and it is sometimes impossible to\ndecide between the different arrangements of events in their records. In\nthe four narratives of the events connected with the resurrection all\nharmonists find themselves baffled. Had we a full account of all the\nparticulars of that exciting scene, we might undoubtedly assign to the\ndifferent parts of each narrative its true place in the order of time.\nBut with our present means of information this is impossible. Experience\nshows that the most profitable way of studying the evangelical narrative\nis to take _each gospel as a whole_, but with continual reference to the\nparallel parts of the other gospels, so far as they can be ascertained.\nIn this work a good harmony, like that of Robinson, may render essential\nservice, though its arrangements must in many cases be regarded only as\n_tentative_--essays at obtaining the true order, rather than the certain\ndetermination of it.\n\n    The relative number of _chapters_ in the different gospels does\n    not give their true relation in respect to _size_. The chapters\n    are respectively 28, 16, 24, 21; which are to each other in the\n    proportion of 7, 4, 6, 5 1/4. But estimating according to the\n    number of pages (in an edition without breaks for the verses),\n    it will be found that the gospel of Luke holds the first place,\n    its size being to that of the other gospels nearly as 60 to 57,\n    35, 46. The relation of Matthew's gospel to that of Mark, in\n    respect to the quantity of matter is then nearly that of 8 to 5.\n\n    In the notices of the separate gospels which follow it is not\n    thought necessary to give an elaborate analysis of their\n    contents. The aim will be rather to exhibit the prominent\n    characteristics of each, and its special office in the economy\n    of divine revelation.\n\n\nII. MATTHEW.\n\n11. The unanimous testimony of the ancient church is that the first\ngospel was written by the _apostle Matthew_, who is also called Levi.\nWith his call to the apostleship he may have assumed the name of\nMatthew, as Saul took that of Paul. He was of Hebrew origin, the son of\nAlphaeus, and a tax-gatherer under the Roman government, Matt. 10:3;\nMark 2:14; 3:18; Luke 5:27, 29; 6:15; Acts 1:13. He was evidently a man\nof some means (Luke 5:29), and his office must have required for its\nproper discharge a knowledge of the Greek as well as of his native\nHebrew; that is, Aramaean, as the word Hebrew means in the New\nTestament, when applied to the vernacular of the Palestine Jews.\n\n12. The question respecting the _original language_ of Matthew's gospel\nhas been, since the time of Erasmus, a matter of controversy, in which\neminent biblical scholars have been found on different sides. The\nproblem is to find a solution which shall bring into harmony the\nfollowing well-established facts: (1) that, according to the united\ntestimony of the early church fathers, Matthew originally wrote his\ngospel in Hebrew; (2) that our present Greek gospel has all the freedom\nof an original work, that it has remarkable coincidences in language\nwith the second and third gospels, and especially that the citations\nfrom the Old Testament which stand in our Lord's discourses follow as a\nrule the Greek version of the Seventy; (3) that all the early writers,\nthose who testify to the Hebrew original of this gospel included,\nreceive and use our present Greek gospel as the genuine and\nauthoritative gospel of Matthew; (4) that the original Hebrew gospel, to\nthe existence of which there is such abundant testimony, was allowed\nutterly to perish, while the Greek form of it alone was preserved and\nplaced at the head of the canonical books of the New Testament.\n\n13. The testimony from Papias, in the beginning of the second century,\nand onward to the fourth century, has often been quoted and discussed.\nIt is not necessary to adduce it here at length. It may be found in\nKirchhofer, in the critical commentaries and introductions, and also in\nthe modern Bible dictionaries. The words of Papias, as preserved to us\nby Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., 3. 39) are as follows: \"Matthew therefore\nwrote the oracles in the Hebrew dialect, and every one interpreted them\nas he was able.\" If there were any ground for doubting what Papias meant\nby \"the oracles,\" it would be removed by the testimony of the later\nwriters, as Pantaenus and Origen (in Eusebius' Hist. Eccl., 5. 10; 6.\n25), Irenaeus (Against Heresies, 3. 1), Eusebius himself (Hist. Eccl., 3.\n24), Epiphanius (Heresies, 29. 9; 30. 3), and others. They who maintain\nthat Matthew wrote originally in Greek suppose that the early fathers\nconfounded an apocryphal gospel, the so-called \"gospel according to the\nHebrews,\" with the true gospel of Matthew. Others think, perhaps with\nmore reason, that the gospel according to the Hebrews was a corrupted\nform, or, what amounts to nearly the same thing, a close imitation of\nthe true Hebrew gospel of Matthew.\n\n    The Ebionites and Nazarenes used each apparently a different\n    form of a Hebrew gospel which is sometimes called the gospel\n    according to Matthew, but more properly \"the gospel according to\n    the Hebrews\" (once by Jerome \"the gospel according to the\n    apostles\"). According to Epiphanius that in use among the\n    Ebionites was \"not entire and full, but corrupted and abridged.\"\n    Heresies, 30. 13. Jerome says: \"Matthew, who is called Levi,\n    having become from a publican an apostle, first composed in\n    Judea, for the sake of those who had believed from among the\n    circumcision, a gospel of Christ in Hebrew letters and words.\n    Who was the person that afterwards translated it into Greek is\n    not certainly known. Moreover, the Hebrew copy itself is at this\n    day preserved in the library of Caesarea which Pampilus the\n    Martyr collected with much diligence. The Nazarenes, who live in\n    Beroca, a city of Syria, and use this volume, gave me the\n    opportunity of writing it out.\" De Vir. Illustr., 3. Here he\n    certainly identifies this gospel, which, as he repeatedly\n    informs us, he translated, with the true Hebrew gospel of\n    Matthew. But he afterwards speaks of it more doubtfully, as \"the\n    gospel according to the Hebrews,\" and more fully as \"the gospel\n    according to the Hebrews, which is written indeed in the Chaldee\n    and Syriac language, but in Hebrew letters, which the Nazarenes\n    use to the present day, [being the gospel] according to the\n    apostles, or, as most think, according to Matthew\" (Against the\n    Pelagians, 3); \"the gospel which the Nazarenes and Ebionites\n    use, which we have lately translated from the Hebrew language\n    into the Greek, and which is called by most the authentic gospel\n    of Matthew.\" Comment. in Matt. 12:13. The most probable\n    supposition is that Jerome, knowing that Matthew originally\n    wrote his gospel in Hebrew, hastily assumed at first that the\n    copy which he obtained from the Nazarenes was this very gospel.\n    The character of the quotations which he and Epiphanius give\n    from it forbids the supposition that it was the true Hebrew\n    gospel of Matthew. It may have been a corrupted form of it, or\n    an imitation of it.\n\n14. Of those who, in accordance with ancient testimony, believe that the\noriginal language of Matthew's gospel was Hebrew, some assume that the\napostle himself afterwards gave a Greek version of it. In itself\nconsidered this hypothesis is not improbable. Matthew, writing primarily\nfor his countrymen in Palestine, might naturally employ the language\nwhich was to them vernacular. But afterwards, when Christianity had\nbegun to spread through the Roman empire, and it became evident that the\nGreek language was the proper medium for believers at large; and when\nalso, as is not improbable, some of the existing canonical books of the\nNew Testament had appeared in that language, we might well suppose that,\nin view of these circumstances, the apostle himself put his gospel into\nthe present Greek form. But it is certainly surprising that, in this\ncase, no one of the ancient fathers should have had any knowledge of the\nmatter. In view of their ignorance it seems to be the part of modesty as\nwell as prudence that we also should say with Jerome: \"Who was the\nperson that afterwards translated it into Greek is not known with\ncertainty.\" The universal and unhesitating reception of this gospel by\nthe early Christians in its present Greek form can be explained only\nupon the supposition that it came to them with apostolic authority; that\nit received this form at the hand, if not of Matthew himself, yet of an\napostle or an apostolic man, that is, a man standing to the apostles in\nthe same relation as Mark and Luke.\n\n    This supposition will explain the freedom of Matthew's gospel\n    and its coincidences in language with the gospels of Mark and\n    Luke. An apostle or apostolic man would give a faithful, but not\n    a servile version of the original. The oral tradition of our\n    Lord's life and teachings from which the first three evangelists\n    drew, as from a common fountain (see above, No. 7), must have\n    existed in Palestine in a twofold form, Aramaean and Greek. The\n    translator would naturally avail himself of the Greek\n    phraseology, so far as the oral tradition coincided with that\n    embodied in Matthew's gospel. Those who have carefully examined\n    the subject affirm that the citations from the Old Testament\n    adduced by Matthew himself in proof of our Lord's Messiahship\n    are original renderings, with more or less literalness, from the\n    Hebrew. The citations, on the contrary, embodied in the\n    discourses of our Lord himself follow, as a rule, the Greek\n    version of the Seventy; probably because the translator took\n    these citations as they stood in the oral tradition of these\n    discourses.\n\nMeanwhile the original Hebrew form of the gospel, being superseded by\nthe Greek in all the congregations of believers except those that used\nexclusively the vernacular language of Palestine, gradually fell into\ndisuse. The \"gospel according to the Hebrews,\" noticed above, may have\nbeen a corrupted form of this gospel or an imitation of it. As Marcion\nchose the Greek gospel of Luke for the basis of his revision, so the\nEbionites and Nazarenes would naturally use the Hebrew gospel of Matthew\nfor their purposes.\n\n15. The gospel of Matthew opens with the words: \"The book of the\ngeneration of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.\" In\naccordance with this announcement, it traces back our Lord's lineage\nthrough David to Abraham, giving, after the manner of the Jews, an\nartificial arrangement of the generations from Abraham to Christ in\nthree sets of fourteen each, chap. 1:17. To effect this, certain kings\nof David's line are omitted--between Joram and Ozias (the Uzziah of the\nHebrews), Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah; between Josias and Jechonias,\nEliakim--and David is reckoned twice; once as the last of a set of\nfourteen, then as the first of the following fourteen. The thoroughly\nJewish form of this introduction indicates the primary design of\nMatthew's gospel, which was to exhibit to his countrymen Jesus of\nNazareth as their _long promised Messiah and king_. To this he has\nconstant reference in the facts which he relates, and which he connects\nwith the prophecies of the Old Testament by such forms of quotation as\nthe following: \"that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord\nby the prophet,\" chaps. 1:22; 2:15, 23; 13:35; 21:4; 27:35; \"that it\nmight be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet,\" chaps. 4:11;\n8:17; 12:17; \"then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the\nprophet,\" chap. 2:17; etc. His direct references to the Old Testament in\nproof of our Lord's Messiahship are more numerous than those of either\nof the other evangelists. Peculiar to him is the expression \"the kingdom\nof heaven,\" to signify, in accordance with Rabbinic usage, the kingdom\nwhich the Messiah was to establish in accordance with the prophecies of\nthe Old Testament; though he takes a spiritual view of its character,\nand not the earthly and political view of the Jewish doctors. Another\ndesignation of the same idea, common to him with the other evangelists,\nis \"the kingdom of God,\" which also was current among the Rabbins. This\n\"kingdom of heaven\" and \"kingdom of God\" is also the kingdom of the\nMessiah. Chaps. 13:41; 20:21.\n\n16. But precisely because Jesus of Nazareth is the promised Messiah, his\nmission is not to the Jews only, but _to all mankind_, in accordance\nwith the original promise to Abraham: \"In thy seed shall all the nations\nof the earth be blessed.\" Gen. 22:18. While he records the fact that our\nLord's personal ministry was restricted to the Jews (chaps. 10:5, 6;\n15:24), he also shows from our Lord's own words that the unbelieving\n\"children of the kingdom\"--the Jews as the natural heirs to the\nMessiah's kingdom--shall be cast out, and the believing Gentiles\nreceived into it (chaps. 8:11, 12; 21:43); and he brings his gospel to a\nclose with the great commission: \"Go ye, therefore, and teach all\nnations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and\nof the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have\ncommanded you, and lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the\nworld.\" Chap. 28:19, 20.\n\n17. A striking characteristic of this gospel is the _fulness and orderly\nmanner_ with which it records _our Lord's discourses_. Striking examples\nof this are the Sermon on the Mount (chaps. 5-7), his awful denunciation\nof the Scribes and Pharisees (chap. 23), and the majestic series of\nparables (chap. 25). Doubtless, Matthew had by nature a peculiar\nendowment for this work, which the Holy Spirit used to preserve for the\nchurch much of our Lord's teachings which would otherwise have been\nlost. The narrative part of this gospel, on the other hand, has not the\ncircumstantial fulness of the following gospel. As already remarked, the\nfield covered by Matthew's narrative is mainly that of our Lord's\nGalilean ministry, with the great events connected with his final visit\nto Jerusalem, though he gives indications of repeated visits to that\ncity. Chap. 23:37-39.\n\n18. It has been assumed by some that Matthew follows, as a general rule,\nthe order of time. But others deny this, thinking that his arrangement\nis according to subject-matter rather than chronological sequence,\nespecially in the first part (Alexander's Kitto); and this appears to be\nthe correct judgment. He follows the exact order of time only when the\nnature of the events recorded requires him to do so.\n\n19. It is universally admitted that Matthew wrote his gospel _in\nPalestine_. This fact accounts for the absence of explanatory clauses\nrelating to Jewish usages, such as are not unfrequent in the gospel of\nMark. As to the interpretation of Hebrew words, as \"Immanuel\" (chap.\n1:23); and the words on the cross (chap. 27:46), that belongs to the\nGreek form of the gospel. The _date_ of this gospel is doubtful.\nAccording to the tradition of the ancient church it was written first of\nthe four gospels. Assuming that it originally appeared in Hebrew, we may\nreasonably suppose that a period of some years elapsed before it was put\ninto its present Greek form.\n\n20. The _integrity_ of this gospel is unquestionable. In modern times\nthe genuineness of the first two chapters has been called in question by\nvarious writers, but the insufficiency of their arguments has been shown\nby many, among whom may be mentioned Davidson, Introduction to New\nTestament, vol. 1, pp. 111-127. In the words of this writer the chapters\nin question are found \"in all _unmutilated_ Greek MSS., and in all\nancient versions;\" \"the earliest fathers had them in their copies, and\nreceived them as a part of the gospel;\" \"the ancient heretics and\nopponents of Christianity were acquainted with this portion of the first\ngospel;\" \"the commencement of the first chapter is closely connected\nwith something preceding;\" and \"the diction of these two chapters bears\nthe same impress and character which belong to the remainder of the\ngospel, proving that the gospel, as we now have it, proceeded from _one_\nauthor.\"\n\n\nIII. MARK.\n\n21. There is no valid ground for doubting the correctness of the ancient\ntradition which identifies the author of the second gospel with \"John\nwhose surname was Mark\" (Acts 12:12, 25; 15:37), who is called simply\nJohn (Acts 13:5, 13), and Marcus or Mark (Acts 15:39; Col. 4:10; 2 Tim.\n4:11; perhaps also 1 Peter 5:13). He was _cousin_ to Barnabas (Col.\n4:10, not _sister's son_, as in our version), which relationship may\nexplain Barnabas' earnest defence of him (Acts 15:37-39). His mother\nMary resided in Jerusalem, and it was to her house that Peter resorted\nimmediately upon his miraculous deliverance from prison (Acts 12:12).\nThe intimacy of Peter with Mary's family must have brought about an\nearly acquaintance between the apostle and Mark. Ancient tradition\nuniformly affirms a close relation between Peter and Mark, representing\nthe latter to have been the disciple and _interpreter_ of the former.\nSee below.\n\n    Papias (in Eusebius' Hist. Eccl. 3. 39) says, upon the authority\n    of John the Presbyter, \"Mark being Peter's interpreter, wrote\n    down accurately as many things as he remembered; not, indeed, as\n    giving in order the things which were spoken or done by Christ.\n    For he was neither a hearer nor a follower of the Lord, but, as\n    I said, of Peter, who gave his instructions as occasion\n    required, but not as one who was composing an orderly account of\n    our Lord's words. Mark, therefore, committed no error when he\n    thus wrote down certain things as he remembered them. For he was\n    careful of one thing, to omit nothing of the things which he\n    heard and to make no false statements concerning them.\" These\n    words of Papias are somewhat loose and indefinite. But, when\n    fairly interpreted, they seem to mean that as Peter taught\n    according to the necessities of each occasion, not aiming to\n    give a full history of our Lord in chronological order, so Mark\n    wrote not all things pertaining to our Lord's life and ministry,\n    but certain things, those namely that he had learned from\n    Peter's discourses, without always observing the strict order of\n    time. We need not press the words \"in order\" and \"certain\n    things,\" as if Papias meant to say that Mark's gospel is only a\n    loose collection of fragments. It is a connected and\n    self-consistent whole; but it does not profess to give in all\n    cases the exact chronological order of events, nor to be an\n    exhaustive account of our Saviour's life and teachings. Eusebius\n    has preserved for us in his Ecclesiastical History the testimony\n    of Irenaeus on the same point (Hist. Eccl., 5. 8); also of\n    Clement of Alexandria (Hist. Eccl., 6.14); and of Origen (Hist.\n    Eccl., 6. 25). He also gives his own (Hist. Eccl., 2. 5). We\n    have besides these, the statements of Tertullian (Against\n    Marcion, 6. 25); and Jerome (Epist. ad Hedib. Quaest., 2). All\n    these witnesses, though not consistent among themselves in\n    respect to several minor details, yet agree in respect to the\n    two great facts, (1) that Mark was the companion of Peter and\n    had a special relation to him, (2) that he was the author of the\n    gospel which bears his name. We add from Meyer (Introduction to\n    Commentary on Mark) the following exposition of the word\n    _interpreter_ as applied to Mark in his relation to Peter: \"No\n    valid ground of doubt can be alleged against it, provided only\n    we do not understand the idea contained in the word\n    _interpreter_ to mean that Peter, not having sufficient mastery\n    of the Greek, delivered his discourses in Aramaean, and had them\n    interpreted by Mark into Greek; but rather that the office of a\n    _secretary_ is indicated, who wrote down the oral communications\n    of his apostle (whether from dictation, or in the freer exercise\n    of his own activity) and so became _in the way of writing_ his\n    interpreter to others.\"\n\nMark's connection with the apostle Paul, though interrupted by the\nincident recorded in the Acts of the Apostles (15:37-39), was afterwards\nrenewed and he restored to the apostle's confidence, as is manifest from\nthe way in which he notices him. Col. 4:10; 2 Tim. 4:11. If, as is\nprobable (see below, No. 22), Mark wrote between A.D. 60 and 70, his\nlong intimacy with Peter and Paul qualified him in a special manner for\nhis work.\n\n22. Ancient tradition favors the idea that Mark wrote his gospel _in\nRome_. Had he written in Egypt, as Chrysostom thinks, we can hardly\nsuppose that Clement of Alexandria would have been ignorant of the fact,\nas his testimony shows that he was. In respect to _date_, the accounts\nof the ancients differ so much among themselves that it is difficult to\narrive at any definite conclusion. We may probably place it between A.D.\n64 and 70. The _language_ in which Mark wrote was Greek. This is\nattested by the united voice of antiquity. The subscriptions annexed to\nsome manuscripts of the Old Syriac, and that in the Philoxenian Syriac\nversion, to the effect that Mark wrote _in Roman_, that is, in Latin,\nare of no authority. They are the conjectures of ignorant men, who\ninferred from the fact that Mark wrote in Rome that he must have used\nthe Latin tongue.\n\n    The story of the pretended _Latin autograph_ of Mark's gospel\n    preserved in the Library of St. Mark at Venice is now exploded.\n    The manuscript to which this high honor was assigned is part of\n    the _Codex Forojuliensis_, which gives the text of the _Latin\n    Vulgate_. The text was edited by Blanchini in the appendix to\n    his _Evangeliarium Quadruplex_, _Fourfold Gospel_. The gospel of\n    Mark having been cut out and removed to Venice was exalted to be\n    the autograph of Mark. See Tregelles in Horne, vol. 4, chap. 23.\n    The fact that Mark wrote out of Palestine and for Gentile\n    readers at once accounts for the numerous explanatory clauses by\n    which his gospel is distinguished from that of Matthew. Examples\n    are: chaps. 7:3, 4; 12:42; 13:3; 14:12; 15:42; and the frequent\n    interpretations of Aramaean words: 3:17; 5:41; 7:11, 34; 10:46;\n    14:36; 15:34.\n\n23. The opening words of Matthew's gospel are: \"The book of the\ngeneration of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham,\" by\nwhich, as already remarked, he indicates his purpose to show that Jesus\nof Nazareth is the long promised Messiah of David's line, and the seed\nof Abraham, in whom all nations are to be blessed. Mark, on the\ncontrary, passing by our Lord's genealogy, commences thus: \"The\nbeginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.\" He recognizes\nhim, indeed as the son of David, and the promised Messiah and king of\nIsrael. Chaps. 10:47, 48; 11:10; 15:32. But, writing among Gentiles and\nfor Gentiles, the great fact which he is intent on setting forth is the\nperson and character of Jesus as the Son of God. Matthew gives special\nattention to the Saviour's discourses. With these considerably more than\na third of his gospel is occupied. Mark, on the contrary, devotes\nhimself mainly to the narrative of our Lord's works. With this is\ninterwoven a multitude of his sayings; since it was the Saviour's custom\nto teach in connection with surrounding incidents. But if we compare the\nset discourses of our Lord recorded by Mark with those which Matthew\ngives, they will hardly amount to a fifth part in quantity. Between the\nnarrative parts of Matthew and Mark, on the contrary, there is not a\nvery great disparity in respect to the space occupied by each.\n\n24. Though Mark has but little matter that is absolutely new, he yet\nhandles his materials in an original and independent way, weaving into\nthe narratives which he gives in common with one or more of the other\nevangelists numerous little incidents in the most natural and artless\nway. His characteristics as a historian are _graphic vividness_ of\ndescription and _circumstantiality of detail_. If we except some\nstriking passages of John's gospel, he brings us nearer to our Lord's\nperson and the scenes described than either of the other evangelists. He\nbrings before us, as in a picture, not only our Lord's words and works,\nbut his very looks and gestures. It is he that records as has been often\nnoticed, how the Saviour \"looked round about\" him with anger on the\nunbelieving multitudes and on Peter (chap. 3:5; 8:33); with complacency\non his disciples (chap. 3:34; 10:27); and with the piercing look of\ninquiry (chap. 5:32); how he looked up to heaven and sighed when he\nhealed one who was deaf and dumb (chap. 7:34); and how he sighed deeply\nin spirit at the perverseness of the Pharisees (chap. 8:12). He\nsometimes gives us the very words of the Saviour when he performed his\nmighty works--_Talitha cumi_ (5:41), _Ephphatha_ (7:34). His narratives\nare remarkable for bringing in little incidents which can have come from\nnone but an eyewitness, but which add wonderfully to the naturalness as\nwell as the vividness of his descriptions. When the storm arises he is\nasleep _on a pillow_ (chap. 4:38); Jairus' daughter arises and walks,\n_for she was of the age of twelve years_ (chap. 5:42); the multitudes\nthat are to be fed sit down _in ranks by hundreds and by fifties_ (chap.\n6:40), etc. As examples of vivid description may be named the account of\nthe demoniac (chap. 5:2-20), and the lunatic. Chap. 9:14-27. It is not\nnecessary to assume that Mark was himself a disciple of our Lord. If, as\nancient tradition asserts, he was the disciple and interpreter of Peter\nhe could receive from his lips those circumstantial details with which\nhis narrative abounds.\n\n25. The closing passage of this gospel, chap. 16:9-20, is wanting in a\nnumber of important manuscripts, among which are the Vatican and\nSinaitic. The same was the case also in the days of Eusebius and Jerome.\nBut it was known to Irenaeus, and quoted by him and many others after\nhim. The reader must be referred to the critical commentaries and\nintroductions for the discussion of the difficult questions concerning\nit. Tregelles, who, in his account of the printed text has given a full\nstatement of the case, thus expresses his judgment (in Horne, vol. 4, p.\n436): \"It is _perfectly_ certain that from the second century and\nonward, these verses have been known as part of _this gospel_ (whoever\nwas their _author_).\" He thinks that \"the _book of Mark himself_ extends\nno farther than 'for they were afraid,' chap. 16:8; but that the\nremaining twelve verses, by whomsoever written, have a full claim to be\nreceived as an authentic part of the second gospel, and that the full\nreception of early testimony on this question does not in the least\ninvolve their rejection as not being a part of canonical Scripture.\"\n\n\nIV. LUKE.\n\n26. The unanimous voice of antiquity ascribes the third gospel with the\nActs of the Apostles to _Luke_. He first appears as the travelling\ncompanion of Paul when he leaves Troas for Macedonia (Acts 16:10); for\nthe use of the first person plural--\"we endeavored,\" \"the Lord had\ncalled us,\" \"we came,\" etc.--which occurs from that point of Paul's\nhistory and onward, with certain interruptions, through the remainder of\nthe Acts of the Apostles, admits of no other natural and reasonable\nexplanation. There is good reason to believe that he is identical with\n\"Luke, the beloved physician,\" who was with Paul when a prisoner at\nRome. Col. 4:14; Philemon 24; 2 Tim. 4:11. From the first of these\npassages it has been inferred that he was not a Jew by birth, since he\nis apparently distinguished from those \"who are of the circumcision,\" v.\n11.\n\n    Tradition represents him to have been by birth a Syrian of\n    Antioch (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., 3. 4; Jerome, Preface to Matt.,\n    and elsewhere), and a Jewish proselyte (Jerome, Quest. on Gen.,\n    chap. 46); and it adds various other legends which are not worth\n    repeating.\n\n27. The evangelist himself, in his dedicatory address to Theophilus\n(chap. 1:1-4), gives us clear and definite information respecting the\n_sources of his gospel_. He does not profess to have been himself an\neye-witness, but has drawn his information from those \"who from the\nbeginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word.\" His\ninvestigations have been accurate and thorough: \"having accurately\ntraced out all things from the beginning\" (as the original words mean),\nhe writes to Theophilus \"in order;\" that is, in an orderly and connected\nway. He proposes to give not some loose fragments, but a connected\nnarrative; although, as we have seen above (No. 10), his order is not\nalways that of strict chronological sequence. From the long and intimate\nconnection of Luke with Paul it is reasonable to suppose that the latter\nmust have exerted an influence on the composition of this gospel. Luke,\nhowever, did not draw the materials of his narrative from Paul (at least\nnot principally), but, as he expressly states, from those \"who from the\nbeginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word.\" He did not\nwrite from Paul's dictation, but in a free and independent way; though\nthere is no reasonable ground for doubting that it was with Paul's\nknowledge and approbation.\n\n    The \"eye-witnesses and ministers of the word\" are those who (1)\n    were from the beginning eye-witnesses of our Lord's public\n    ministry; (2) were intrusted with the work of preaching the\n    word; that is, the apostles and such of their associates as had\n    companied with them all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and\n    out among them. Acts 1:21. The words of Luke must not be\n    strained; for he records some incidents of our Lord's history\n    _before_ his public appearance which could have been learned\n    only from Mary and her circle.\n\n    The remarkable agreement between Luke's account of the\n    institution of the Lord's Supper (Luke 22:9, 20), and Paul's (1\n    Cor. 11:28-25) has often been noticed. It is most naturally\n    explained by the supposition that Luke recorded the transaction\n    in the form in which he had often heard it from the lips of\n    Paul. But there is nothing in the character of this gospel which\n    can warrant the supposition that the apostle exercised a formal\n    supervision over its composition. Such a procedure would be\n    contrary to the spirit of the apostolic age. The apostle himself\n    wrote by an amanuensis. But when one of his associates in the\n    ministry wrote, in whom he had full confidence, he left him to\n    the free exercise of his judgment under the illumination of the\n    Holy Spirit.\n\n28. In respect to the _date_ of this gospel, if we assume that the Acts\nof the Apostles were written at Rome about A.D. 63-65 (Chap. 5, No. 5),\nit is reasonable to suppose that the gospel, which is dedicated to the\nsame personage, was composed not very long before, perhaps even during\nthe two years of Paul's imprisonment at Rome, in which case Rome would\nalso be the _place_ of its composition. Whether Luke wrote before or\nafter Mark is a question that has been differently answered, and cannot\nbe determined with certainty. The proof that all three of the first\nevangelists wrote before the destruction of Jerusalem has been already\ngiven. Chap. 3, No. 14.\n\n29. Though Luke dedicates his gospel to Theophilus (chap, 1:1-4), it is\nnot to be supposed that it was written for his use alone. He had a more\n_general end_ in view, and that is indicated by the form of our Lord's\ngenealogy as given by him. While Matthew traces the Saviour's lineage\nthrough David to Abraham, in conformity with his design to show that he\nis the promised seed of Abraham and king of Israel, Luke traces it back\nthrough David and Abraham to Adam \"the son of God.\" He identifies Jesus\nof Nazareth not with the Messiah alone of Abraham's and David's line,\nbut with man as man. He is the second Adam, and as such the Saviour of\nthe race. This _universal aspect_ of the gospel, as a gospel not for one\nnation but for all mankind, shines forth indeed in all the gospels, but\nit appears with wonderful sweetness and power in some of the parables\nwhich are peculiar to Luke, as those of the good Samaritan (chap.\n10:30-37), the lost sheep (chap. 15:3-7), the lost pieces of silver\n(chap. 15:8-10), the prodigal son (chap. 15:11-32); in all which Jesus\nis set forth as the Saviour of suffering humanity.\n\n30. As it respects the _character and plan_ of Luke's gospel, the\nfollowing particulars are to be noticed. In the distribution of matter\nbetween the narration of events and the recital of our Lord's discourses\nit holds a position between the first and the second gospel; being less\nfull in the latter respect than Matthew, but far more full than Mark. In\nthe narrative part there is an easy and graceful style which charms\nevery reader. In the introduction of minute incidents he goes beyond\nMatthew, though he has not the circumstantial exactness of Mark. The\nagreement of Luke's gospel with the two preceding in its general plan is\nrecognized at once by every reader. Like them it is mainly occupied with\nour Lord's Galilean ministry. In regard to the Saviour's infancy he is\nmore full than Matthew, the matter of the first three chapters being in\na great measure peculiar to him. He omits a long series of events\nrecorded by the first two evangelists. Matt. 14:22-16:12; Mark\n6:45-8:26. On the other hand he introduces (chap. 9:43-18:30) \"a\nremarkable series of acts and discourses which are grouped together in\nconnection with the last journey to Jerusalem. Some of the incidents\noccur in different connections in the other evangelists; and the whole\nsection proves, by the absence of historical data and the unity of its\ngeneral import, that a moral and not a temporal sequence is the law of\nthe gospels.\" Westcott, Introduct. to Gospel, chap. 7. Very much of the\nmatter in this remarkable section is peculiar to Luke, and contains\npassages of wonderful beauty and sweetness which would have been lost to\nthe church but for the record of this gospel. Among these are the\nmission of the seventy, several miracles, some striking lessons of\ninstruction from passing incidents, and no less than twelve parables:\nthe good Samaritan, the unfortunate friend, the unclean spirit, the rich\nfool, the barren fig-tree, the lost sheep, the lost pieces of silver,\nthe prodigal son, the unfaithful steward, the rich man and Lazarus, the\nunjust judge, the Pharisee and publican. While the attentive reader\nperceives the very near relationship of the third gospel to the first\nand second, he notices also the fact that it differs from both of them\nmore than they do from each other.\n\n    \"If the total contents of the several gospels be represented by\n    100, the following table is obtained:\n\n                                  Peculiarities.           Concordances.\n    St. Mark,.........................7........................93\n    St. Matthew,.....................42........................58\n    St. Luke,........................59........................41\n    St. John,........................92.........................8\n\n    \"From this it appears that the several gospels bear almost\n    exactly an inverse relation to one another, St. Mark and St.\n    John occupying the extreme positions, the proportion of original\n    passages in one balancing the coincident passages in the other.\n    If again the extent of all the coincidences be represented by\n    100, their proportionate distribution will be:\n\n    St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke, . . . . . . . . 53\n    St. Matthew, St. Luke, . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11\n    St. Matthew, St. Mark, . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20\n    St. Mark, St. Luke,  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6 \"\n\n    [Westcott, after Stroud and Norton.]\n\n    Of absolutely new matter in Mark a striking example is the\n    beautiful parable, chap. 4:26-29. The two miracles peculiar to\n    him (chap. 7:31-37; 8:22-26) are both of a very striking\n    character, and related with circumstantial minuteness of detail.\n    Where his narratives coincide with those of the other\n    evangelists, they are characterized by the addition of details,\n    which, as already remarked, add much to the vivedness and\n    graphic power of his descriptions.\n\n31. The _integrity_ of the third gospel has been recently assailed in\nGermany in the way of attempting to show that the gospel of Luke, as we\nnow have it, is corrupted by interpolations, and that Marcion had it in\nits true form. See Chap. 2, No. 12. But the result of a voluminous\ndiscussion is that Marcion's gospel is now acknowledged to have been a\nmutilated form of the canonical gospel, in accordance with the testimony\nof the ancient fathers.\n\n    On the relation to each other of the two genealogies of our Lord\n    given by Matthew and Luke respectively, and the different modes\n    of bringing them into harmony with each other, many volumes have\n    been written. Two different principles of interpretation are\n    proposed. According to the _first_, the genealogies of both\n    Matthew and Luke are those of _Joseph_, the legal father of\n    Jesus, and the only one that could be known in this relation in\n    the public registers. The _second_ view is that Matthew gives\n    the genealogy of _Joseph_, and Luke that of _Mary_, Joseph being\n    called the son of Heli, in the sense of _son-in-law_; and being\n    perhaps also legal heir to Heli through Mary in the absence of\n    brothers. The reader will find statements of these two views,\n    the former in Smith's Bible Diet., the latter in Alexander's\n    Kitto, Art. Genealogy of Jesus Christ; also in the commentaries\n    generally. We only add that though we may not be able to\n    determine with certainty _what_ is the true solution of the\n    difficulty, no one can show that such a solution is impossible.\n    The reverent believer will quietly wait for more light, if it\n    shall please God to give it; otherwise he will be content to\n    remain without it.\n\n\nV. JOHN.\n\n32. Though the writer of the fourth gospel everywhere refrains from\nmentioning his own name, he clearly indicates himself as the \"bosom\ndisciple.\" When he speaks of two disciples that followed Jesus,\nafterwards adding that \"one of the two\" \"was Andrew, Simon Peter's\nbrother\" (chap. 1:37, 40); of \"one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved\"\n(chap. 13:23; 21:7, 20); and of \"another disciple\" in company with Simon\nPeter (chap. 18:15, 16; 20:2-8), the only natural explanation of these\ncircumlocutions is that he refers to himself. Even if we suppose, with\nsome, that the two closing verses of chapter 21 (the former of which\nascribes this gospel directly to John) are a subscription by another\nhand, their authenticity is unquestionable, sustained as it is by the\nuniform testimony of antiquity, and by the internal character of the\ngospel.\n\n33. The Scriptural notices of John are few and simple. He was the son of\nZebedee, a fisherman of Bethsaida on the Western shore of the sea of\nGalilee not far from Capernaum. Matt. 4:21; Mark 1:19, 20; Luke 5:10,\n11. His mother's name was Salome. Matt. 27:56 compared with Mark 15:40.\nHis parents seem to have been possessed of some property, since Zebedee\nhad hired servants (Mark 1:20), and Salome was one of the women who\nfollowed Jesus in Galilee, and ministered to him. Mark 15:40, 41. From\nthe order in which he and his brother James are mentioned--James and\nJohn, except Luke 9:28--he is thought to have been the younger of the\ntwo. Early in our Lord's ministry he was called to be one of his\nfollowers; was one of the three who were admitted to special intimacy\nwith him, they alone being permitted to witness the raising of Jairus'\ndaughter, the transfiguration, and the agony of Gethsemane (Matt 17:1;\n26:37; Mark 5:37; 9:2; 14:33; Luke 8:51; 9:28); and of the three was,\nthough not first in place, first in the Lord's love and confidence--\"the\ndisciple whom Jesus loved,\" and to whose tender care he committed his\nmother as he was about to expire on the cross. By his natural\nendowments, as well as by his loving and confidential intercourse with\nthe Saviour, he was prepared to receive and afterwards to publish to the\nworld, those deep and spiritual views of Christ's person and office\nwhich so remarkably characterize his gospel.\n\nSo far as we have any notices of John in the Acts of the Apostles and\nepistles of Paul, his residence after our Lord's ascension was at\nJerusalem. But, according to the unanimous testimony of antiquity, he\nspent the latter part of his life in Ephesus, where he died at a very\nadvanced age, not far from the close of the first century. The subject\nof his banishment to the isle of Patmos will come up in connection with\nthe Apocalypse.\n\n    There is a mass of traditions respecting the latter years of\n    this apostle, which are, however, of a very uncertain character.\n    Among the more striking of these are: his being taken to Rome\n    during the persecution under Domitian, and there thrown into a\n    caldron of boiling oil, whence he escaped unhurt; his refusal to\n    remain under the same roof with the heretic Cerinthus, lest it\n    should fall upon him and crush him; his successful journey on\n    horseback into the midst of a band of robbers to reclaim a\n    fallen member of the church who had become their leader; and\n    especially, that during the last days of his life, he was\n    customarily carried into the assembly of the church, where he\n    simply repeated the words: \"Little children, love one another.\"\n\n34. The arguments for the _late composition_ of this gospel--after the\ndestruction of Jerusalem--have already been given. Chap. 2, No. 14. If\nwe say between A.D. 70 and 100, it will be as near an approximation to\nthe time as we can make. The _place_, according to Irenaeus (in Eusebius,\nHist. Eccl. 5. 8) was Ephesus, with which statement all that we know of\nhis later life is in harmony.\n\n35. From the beginning of our Lord's ministry John was, as we have seen,\nadmitted to his intimate companionship and friendship. He was not\ntherefore, dependent on tradition. His gospel is the testimony of what\nhe had himself seen and heard. Yet it covers only a _part_ of the\nSaviour's ministry; and the question remains why, with the exception of\nthe closing scenes of our Lord's life on earth, that part should be to\nso remarkable an extent precisely _what the earlier evangelists have\nomitted_. In answer to this question it might be said that those actions\nand discourses of our Lord which John selected most clearly exhibit his\nperson and office as the son of God; and that these were especially, (1)\nhis encounters with the Jewish rulers at Jerusalem, (2) his private\nconfidential intercourse with his disciples. Whatever weight we may\nallow to this consideration, it cannot be regarded as a full explanation\nof the difference between John and the other evangelists in the\nselection of materials. With the exception of the miracle of the loaves\nand fishes and the incidents connected with it (chap. 6:1-21) his\nnotices of our Lord's ministry in Galilee relate almost entirely to\nincidents and discourses omitted by the other evangelists. It is\naltogether probable that, although John did not write his gospel simply\nas supplementary to the earlier gospels, he yet had reference to them in\nthe selection of his materials. His own statement: \"Many other signs\ntruly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written\nin this book. But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is\nthe Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye might have life\nthrough his name\" (chap. 20:30, 31), is not inconsistent with such a\nsupposition. The \"many other signs\" he may have omitted, in part at\nleast, because he judged that a sufficient account of them had been\ngiven by the earlier evangelists, of whose writings, when we consider\nthe time that in all probability intervened between their composition\nand that of his gospel, we cannot suppose him to have been ignorant.\nSuch a reference to these writings does not in any way exclude the\ngeneral design which he had, in common with the earlier evangelists, to\nshow \"that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God,\" through faith in whose\nname eternal life is received.\n\n    Ancient tradition represents, in a variety of forms, that John\n    intended to complete the evangelical history, as given by the\n    other evangelists, in the way of furnishing additional events\n    and discourses omitted by them. The citations may be seen in\n    Davidson's Introduct. to New Test., vol. 1, pp. 320-22. Though\n    the statements of the fathers on this point cannot be accepted\n    without qualification, there is no valid ground for denying the\n    general reference above assumed.\n\n36. In writing his gospel John had not a polemical, but a _general end_\nin view. It was not his immediate aim to refute the errors and heresies\nof his day; but, as he tells us, to show that Jesus is the Christ, the\nSon of God, in order that men, through faith in his name, may have\neternal life. Yet, like every wise and practical writer, he must have\nhad regard to the state of the churches in his day and the forms of\nerror by which they were assailed. In the latter part of the apostolic\nage the seeds of those heresies which in the following century yielded\nsuch a rank and poisonous harvest, had already begun to be sown. Like\nall the heresies which have troubled the Christian church to the present\nday, they consisted essentially in false views respecting our Saviour's\nperson and office. The beloved disciple who followed Jesus through the\nwhole of his ministry and leaned on his bosom at the last supper, has\ngiven us an authentic record of the Redeemer's words and works, in\nwhich, as in a bright untarnished mirror, we see both the divine dignity\nof his person and the true nature of his office as the Redeemer of the\nworld. Such a record was especially adapted to refute the errors of his\nday, as it is those of the present day. It is preeminently the gospel of\nour Lord's person. It opens with an account of his divine nature and\neternal coexistence with the Father; his general office as the creator\nof all things, and the source of light and life to all men and his\nspecial office as \"the word made flesh,\" whom the Father sent for the\nsalvation of the world, and by whom alone the Father is revealed to men.\nEquality with the Father in nature, subordination to the Father in\noffice, union with human nature in the work of redeeming and judging\nmen, and in all these perfect union with the Father in counsel and\nwill--such are the great doctrines that run through our Lord's\ndiscussions with the unbelieving Jews, as recorded by this evangelist.\nIn the same discussions, but more especially in his private confidential\nintercourse with his disciples, he adds deep views of his relation to\nthe world, as the only revealer of God's truth, the only source of\nspiritual life, and the only way of access to the Father; and to\nbelievers, as the true vine, through vital union with which they have\nlife, nourishment, and fruitfulness. He unfolds also more fully than the\nother evangelists the office of the Comforter, whom the Father shall\nsend to make good to the church the loss of his personal presence. Thus\nthe gospel of John becomes at once an inexhaustible storehouse of\nspiritual food for the nourishment of the believer's own soul, and a\ndivine armory, whence he may draw polished shafts in his warfare against\nerror. This last record of our Lord's life and teachings owes its\npresent form, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, partly to the\npeculiar character of the writer, and partly to the lateness of the\nperiod when it was composed. In both these respects we ought devoutly to\nrecognize the superintending providence of him who sees the end from the\nbeginning.\n\n\nVI. THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.\n\n37. The author of the Acts of the Apostles is identical with that of the\nthird gospel, as we learn from the dedication to the same Theophilus.\nChap. 1:1. Both are ascribed to Luke by the unanimous testimony of the\nancient church. The genuineness of this book, its credibility, and the\ntime of its composition--about A.D. 63-65--have been already shown.\nChap. 5, Nos. 2-5. It remains to consider its _plan_ and its _office_ in\nthe system of revelation.\n\n38. In respect to _plan_ this book naturally falls into two main\ndivisions, the former embracing the first twelve chapters, the latter\nthe remainder of the work. The _first_ division contains the history of\nthe apostolic labors after the ascension, _in Jerusalem and from\nJerusalem as a centre_. Here, if we except the events connected with the\nmartyrdom of Stephen (chs. 6, 7), the conversion of Saul (chap. 9:1-31),\nand the Ethiopian eunuch (chap. 8:26-40), _Peter_ everywhere appears as\nthe chief speaker and actor, being first among the twelve, though\npossessing no official authority over them. It is he that proposes the\nchoice of one to supply the place of Judas, and that is the foremost\nspeaker on the day of Pentecost, at the gate of the temple, before the\nJewish Sanhedrim, and in the assembly of the church. Chaps. 1:15-22;\n2:14-40; 3:4-26; 4:8-12; 5:3-11, 29-32. Associated with him we often\nfind the apostle John. Chaps. 3:1; 4:13, 19; 8:14. When the Samaritans\nare to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, Peter and John are sent to\nthem from Jerusalem. Chap. 8:14-25. When the gospel is to be carried for\nthe first time to the Gentiles, Peter is sent by the Holy Ghost to the\nhouse of Cornelius in Cesarea (chap. 10), for which mission he\nafterwards vindicates himself before the brethren at Jerusalem. Chap.\n11:1-18. Further notices of Peter we have in chaps. 9:32-43; 12:3-19. We\nknow that the other apostles must have been actively and successfully\nemployed in prayer and the ministry of the word (chap. 6:4), but it does\nnot come within the plan of this narrative to give a particular account\nof their labors.\n\nThe _second_ division is occupied with the history of _Paul's missionary\nlabors among the Gentiles, from Antioch as a centre_. He had already\nbeen sent from that city with Barnabas to carry alms to the brethren in\nJerusalem and Judea (chaps. 11:27-30; 12:25), when \"the Holy Ghost said,\nSeparate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called\nthem;\" and they were sent, with fasting and prayer and the solemn laying\non of hands, on their great mission to the Gentiles. Chap. 13:1-3.\nThenceforward the narrative is occupied with an account of the labors of\nPaul among the Gentiles. The fifteenth chapter is no exception; for the\nconvocation of the apostles and elders at Jerusalem was occasioned by\nthe missionary labors of Paul, and had especial reference to them.\n\n    Two cities are mentioned in the New Testament which have the\n    name of _Antioch_--_Antioch_ of _Pisidia_ so-called, though\n    situated in the southern part of Phrygia near the border of\n    Pisidia (Acts 13:14; 14:19, 21; 2 Tim. 3:11); and _Antioch_ of\n    _Syria_, situated on the southern bank of the Orontes about\n    fifteen miles from its mouth. Acts 11:19-27; 13:1; 14:26;\n    15:22-35; 18:22; Gal. 2:11. The latter city was the centre of\n    Gentile Christianity. It was the metropolis of Syria, the\n    residence of the Syrian kings, and afterwards the capital of the\n    Roman provinces in Asia. Here the first Gentile church was\n    gathered, and the disciples first received the name of\n    _Christians_. Acts 11:19-26. Hence Barnabas and Saul were sent\n    to Jerusalem to bear alms (Acts 11:29, 30; 12:25); and\n    afterwards to consult the apostles and elders at Jerusalem on\n    the question of imposing the Mosaic law on the Gentile converts.\n    From this city also the apostle started on his three missionary\n    journeys, and to it he returned from his first and second\n    journey. Acts 13:1-3; 14:26; 15:36, 40; 18:22, 23. From the time\n    that Barnabas first brought the apostle to Antioch (Acts 11:26)\n    to that of his seizure at Jerusalem and subsequent imprisonment,\n    most of his time not occupied in missionary journeys was spent\n    at Antioch. Acts 11:26; 12:25; 14:26-28; 15:30, 35; 18:22, 23.\n    As _Jerusalem_ was the centre for the apostles of the\n    circumcision, so was _Antioch_ in Syria for the apostle of the\n    Gentiles.\n\n39. This brief survey of the plan of this book gives us also an insight\ninto its _office_. First of all it gives us a fresh and vivid\nportraiture of the apostolic labors and the spirit of the apostolic\nchurch, as pervaded and quickened by the presence of the promised\nComforter. On the side of the apostles, we see a boldness and ardor that\nno persecution can check, united with simplicity and godly sincerity. On\nthe side of the brethren, we see a whole-hearted devotion to the\nSaviour, under the mighty impulse of faith and love, which opens their\nhearts in liberality and causes them to have all things in common. On\nthe side of both the apostles and the brethren, we see untiring activity\nand patient endurance in the Master's service, such as make the\nprimitive church a bright illustration of the promise: \"Thou shalt be\nlike a watered garden, and like a spring of water, whose waters fail\nnot. And they that be of thee shall build the old waste places.\" Isa.\n58:11,12. On the side of the unbelieving Jews and Gentiles, on the\ncontrary, we behold, as ever since, a series of unsuccessful efforts to\nhinder the work of God; the very ringleader of the persecutors being\ncalled, in the midst of his heat and fury against Christianity, to be\nthe \"ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes.\" Such an authentic record\nof apostolic times is of immense value to the church in all ages. It\ngives the true standard of enlightened Christian zeal and activity, and\nthe true exhibition of what constitutes the real strength and prosperity\nof the Christian church.\n\nThe Acts of the Apostles give also a cursory view of the inauguration of\nthe Christian church, by the descent of the Holy Spirit in his plenary\ninfluences (chap. 2), by the appointment of deacons (chap. 6), and the\nordination of elders, though these last are only mentioned incidentally\n(chaps. 14:23; 20:17), the office being understood of itself from the\nusages of the Jewish Synagogue. The scantiness of the information which\nwe have on this matter of church organization is a part of the wisdom of\nthe Holy Ghost, and is full of instruction to the church in all ages.\n\nOnce more, the Acts of the Apostles give a most interesting and\ninstructive account of the way in which \"the middle wall of partition\"\nbetween Jews and Gentiles was gradually broken down. The full import of\nthe Saviour's last command: \"Go ye into all the world, and preach the\ngospel to every creature,\" seems to have been at first but dimly\napprehended by the apostles. For some time their labors were restricted\nto their own countrymen. But when, upon the dispersion of the disciples\nin the persecution that arose in connection with Stephen's martyrdom,\nthe gospel had been preached to the Samaritans, the apostles Peter and\nJohn were sent to them, and they in common with the Jews received the\ngift of the Holy Spirit. Chap. 8:5-25. This was an intermediate step.\nAfterwards Peter was sent among the Gentiles proper, and they also\nreceived the Holy Spirit, to the astonishment of the Jewish brethren who\nhad accompanied Peter. Chap. 10. The same thing happened also at Antioch\n(chap. 11:20), where the true reading is _Hellenas_, _Greeks_, that is,\n_Gentiles_, not _Hellenistas_, _Hellenists_. But the work was not yet\nfinished. It remained that the believing Gentiles should be, by the\nsolemn and formal judgment of the assembled apostles and elders,\nreleased from the yoke of the Jewish law. Of this we have an account in\nthe fifteenth chapter. Thus was the demolition of the middle wall of\npartition completed. Of the greatness of this work and the formidable\ndifficulties by which it was beset--difficulties having their ground in\nthe exclusive spirit of Judaism in connection with the false idea that\nthe Mosaic law was to remain in force under the Messiah's reign--we who\nlive so many centuries after its accomplishment can form but a feeble\nconception.\n\n40. Brief and imperfect as is the sketch which Luke has given us, it is\nsufficient for the instruction of the churches in subsequent ages. God\ndeals with them not as with children, to whom the command, \"Touch not,\ntaste not, handle not,\" must continually be repeated; but as with\nfull-grown men, who need general principles rather than specific and\nminute directions. The facts recorded in the Acts of the Apostles are of\na _representative_ character. They embody the spirit of apostolic times,\nand the great principles upon which the cause of Christ must ever be\nconducted. Fuller information in respect to details might gratify our\ncuriosity, but it is not necessary for our edification.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXX.\n\nTHE EPISTLES OF PAUL.\n\n\n1. The apostolic epistles are a natural sequence of the office and work\ncommitted by the Saviour to the apostles. They were the primitive\npreachers of the gospel, and, under Christ, the founders of the\nChristian church. From the necessity of the case they had a general\nsupervision of all the local churches, and their authority in them was\nsupreme in matters of both faith and practice. It was to be expected,\ntherefore, that they should teach by writing, as well as by oral\ninstruction. It does not appear, however, that epistolary correspondence\nentered originally into their plan of labor. Their great Master taught\nby word of mouth only, and they followed his example. \"We,\" said the\ntwelve, \"will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry\nof the word.\" Acts 6:4. It was only when circumstances made it\nnecessary, that some of them took up the pen to write to the churches.\nPassing by for the present the disputed question of the time when the\nepistle of James was written, and assuming that the conversion of Paul\ntook place about A.D. 36, we have an interval of at least sixteen years\nbetween this event and the date of his earliest epistles, those to the\nThessalonians, written about A.D. 53. The apostles did not regard\nthemselves as letter-writers, but as preachers of the word. They took up\nthe pen only when some special occasion made it necessary. The apostolic\nepistles are _incidental_; and for this very reason they are eminently\nlife-like and practical. In respect to themes, and the manner of\nhandling them, they present a rich variety. All the great questions of\nfaith and practice that have agitated the Christian church since the\napostolic age come up for discussion in these letters, not indeed, in\ntheir ever-varying outward forms, but in their great underlying\nprinciples. Thus the providence of God has provided in them a rich\nstorehouse of truths for the instruction and edification of believers to\nthe end of time.\n\n2. Of the twenty-one epistles contained in the New Testament _fourteen_\nbelong to Paul (if we include the anonymous letter to the Hebrews), all\nwritten in the prosecution of his great work as the apostle to the\nGentiles. The Saviour's personal ministry was restricted to the Jews,\nand so was that of the twelve apostles and the seventy disciples whom he\nsent forth before his crucifixion. Matt. 10:5, 6; 15:24; Luke 10:1. But\nhis last command was: \"Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations,\nbaptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the\nHoly Ghost.\" Matt. 28:19. In carrying into execution this command, which\ninvolved such an immense change in the outward form of God's visible\nearthly kingdom, it was necessary--\n\n(1) That the apostles should insist very earnestly and fully on the\ngreat fundamental doctrine of the gospel, that men have justification\nand eternal life, not through the law of Moses, or any other possible\nsystem of works, but _through faith in Jesus Christ_; a doctrine which\ncuts up Pharisaism by the roots.\n\n(2) That, since faith in Christ is the common ground of justification\nfor Jews and Gentiles, _both were to be admitted upon equal terms_ to\nall the rights and privileges of the Christian church; the ancient\nprerogative of the Jews above the Gentiles being done away in Christ.\n\n(3) Still further, that since the Gentiles had justification and\nsalvation not through the law of Moses, but through faith alone, _the\nMosaic law was not to be imposed upon them_. This was virtually\nannouncing its abolition, its types and shadows having been fulfilled in\nChrist.\n\n(4) That this removal of \"the middle wall of partition\" between the Jews\nand Gentiles was _in accordance with Moses and the prophets_--not a\nchange of God's original plan, but only the full accomplishment of it.\nActs 15:15-18; Rom. 3:21, 31; 4:6-25; Gal. 3:6-9.\n\nWe have seen how this great work was begun by the gift of the Holy\nSpirit, in connection with the preaching of the gospel, first to the\nSamaritans (Acts 8:5-17), and afterwards to the Gentiles (Acts 10;\n11:20-26, etc.); and how it was completed, so far as concerns the\n_principles_ involved in it, by the solemn decree of the apostles and\nthe elders (Acts 15:1-29).\n\n3. But for the _realization_ of these principles in the actual preaching\nof the gospel to the Gentile nations, and the establishment of Christian\nchurches among them which should embrace on equal terms Jews and\nGentiles, a man of very peculiar qualifications was raised up in the\nprovidence of God. Saul of Tarsus was a Jew, brought up in Jerusalem at\nthe feet of Gamaliel, thoroughly instructed in the law and the prophets,\nand able therefore to speak with authority concerning the Old Testament\nto both Jews and Gentiles. His indomitable energy and fiery zeal, united\nwith rare practical wisdom, had made him the foremost man in persecuting\nthe Christians. When the proper time had come Jesus met him on the road\nto Damascus with converting power, and all his superior education and\nendowments were thenceforth consecrated to the work of preaching the\nfaith which once he destroyed, especially to the Gentile world. But in\nthis matter he felt and acted as a Jew. He did not separate himself\nabruptly from his countrymen. Cherishing towards them the tenderest\naffection, they were everywhere the first objects of his Christian\neffort. Into whatever city he went, he first sought the Jewish\nsynagogue, and there he \"reasoned with them out of the Scriptures,\" Acts\n13:14; 14:1; 17:2, 10; 18:4; 19:8. It was only when they persisted in\nopposing and blaspheming, that he desisted from further effort among\nthem and turned to the Gentiles. Acts 13:45-47; 18:6; 19:9. Wherever he\nwent he encountered the bitterest persecution on the part of his own\ncountrymen, because of the prominence which he gave to the great\nevangelical principles above considered--that men have justification not\nwholly or in part through the Mosaic law, but simply through faith in\nChrist, and that in him the distinction between Jews and Gentiles is\nabolished. Even the believing Jews found it hard to apprehend these\ntruths in their fullness. In the narrowness of their Jewish prejudices\nthey were anxious to impose on the Gentile converts the yoke of the\nMosaic law. This, Paul steadfastly resisted, and it is to his defence of\nGentile liberty that we owe, in great measure, those masterly\ndiscussions on the ground of justification, and the unity of Jews and\nGentiles in Christ, which are so prominent in his epistles. Yet with his\nuncompromising firmness of principle he united remarkable flexibility in\nregard to the means of success. To those who would impose circumcision\non the Gentiles he \"gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour.\" Gal.\n2:5. But where no great principle was concerned, he was willing to\ncircumcise Timothy, out of regard to the feelings of the Jews; thus\nbecoming, in his own words, \"all things to all men.\" 1 Cor. 9:22.\n\n4. The peculiar character of the apostle's style is obvious to every\nreader. It is in an eminent degree argumentative. He \"reasoned with\nthem,\" says Luke, \"out of the Scriptures.\" These words describe\naccurately the character of both his epistles and his addresses to the\nJews as recorded in the Acts of the Apostles. In addressing a Gentile\naudience at Athens, he still \"reasoned with them;\" but it was now from\nthe inscription on one of their altars, from certain of their own poets,\nand from the manifestations in nature of God's power and Godhead. His\nreasoning takes occasionally the form of an argument within an argument.\nHe pauses by the way to expand some thought, and does not return again\nto complete in grammatical form the sentence which he had begun; so that\nhis style sometimes becomes complex and obscure. The versatility of the\napostle's mind, which made him equally at home in discussing subjects\nthe most varied, appears in his style also. It naturally takes the\ncomplexion of his themes. To understand this one has only to compare the\nepistle to the Romans with those to the Corinthians; the epistle to the\nGalatians with that to the Ephesians; and all these with the epistles to\nthe Philippians and Thessalonians. His style may be compared to a clear\nwindow, which shows with fidelity the ever varying forms and scenes that\npass before it.\n\n5. The commentaries that have been written on the epistles of Paul would\nthemselves constitute a large library. Our own century has been very\nfruitful in them, and some of them are accessible to every reader. For\nthis reason our notice of the separate epistles may well be brief. Our\naim will be to give the occasion of each, its chronological order in the\nseries, its connection with the apostle's missionary labors, its scope,\nand the office which it accomplishes in the plan of revelation.\n\n    In connection with Paul's epistles the reader should carefully\n    study the history of his life and labors, as given in the Acts\n    of the Apostles. From Acts 9:23-26 compared with Gal. 1:16-18,\n    we learn that the first three years after Paul's conversion were\n    spent at Damascus and in Arabia. Then he went up to Jerusalem,\n    but after a short sojourn there was driven away by the\n    persecution of the Jews, and retired to his native city, Tarsus\n    in Cilicia. Acts 9:29, 30. After an interval of some time, which\n    he spent \"in the regions of Syria and Cilicia\" (Gal. 1:21),\n    \"Barnabas departed to Tarsus, for to seek Saul. And when he had\n    found him, he brought him unto Antioch.\" Acts 11:25, 26. This is\n    supposed to have been about A.D. 43, seven or eight years after\n    his conversion.\n\n    Here begins his recorded public ministry _in Antioch and from\n    Antioch as a centre_. See above, Chap. 29, No. 38. It embraces\n    _three_ great missionary tours (Acts 13:1, etc.; 15:36, etc.;\n    18:23, etc.), and _four_ visits to Jerusalem besides that\n    already noticed. Acts 11:27-30 compared with 12:25; 15:2; 18:22;\n    21:15. The last of these ended in his captivity and\n    imprisonment, first at Cesarea and afterwards at Rome, with an\n    intervening perilous voyage and shipwreck. Acts chap. 21-28. See\n    the incidents of Paul's life chronologically arranged in\n    Davidson's Introduct. to New Test., vol. 2, pp. 110-112, with\n    the annexed table; in Horne's Introduct., vol. 4, pp. 490-495;\n    in Conybeare and Howson, vol. 2, Appendix 2; and in the\n    commentaries of Hackett, Alford, Wordsworth, etc.\n\n6. As the epistles of Paul stand in the New Testament, they are not\narranged in chronological order. The principle of arrangement seems to\nhave been, first, those to _churches_, then, those to _individuals_; the\nfurther order being that of _relative size_, with this modification;\nthat two epistles addressed to the same church should stand together,\nand that the last of them, which is always the shorter, should determine\ntheir place in the series. Where the epistles are about equal in size,\nit seems to have been the design to arrange them chronologically. The\ncatholic epistles are arranged upon the same plan. The epistle to the\nHebrews, as being anonymous, now stands after those which bear the name\nof Paul. But in many Greek manuscripts it is placed after 2\nThessalonians, consequently between the epistles addressed to churches\nand those to individuals.\n\n    The student of these epistles should carefully note the\n    chronological order, because, as Wordsworth remarks (Preface to\n    Commentary on the Epistles), the mutual illustration which the\n    Acts of the Apostles and the apostolic epistles receive from\n    each other \"is much impaired if the apostolic epistles are not\n    studied in connection with and in the order of the apostolic\n    history.\" The following is the chronological order of the\n    epistles, as far as it can be ascertained, though (as will\n    hereafter appear) some uncertainty exists in respect to several\n    of them:\n\n    1 Thessalonians . . . about A.D. 53\n    2 Thessalonians . . . about A.D. 53\n    Galatians . . . . . . about A.D. 56 or 57\n    1 Corinthians . . . . about A.D. 57\n    2 Corinthians . . . . about A.D. 57\n    Romans  . . . . . . . about A.D. 58\n    Ephesians . . . . . . about A.D. 62\n    Colossians  . . . . . about A.D. 62\n    Philemon  . . . . . . about A.D. 62\n    Philippians . . . . . about A.D. 63\n    Hebrews . . . . . . . uncertain.\n    1 Timothy . . . . . . about A.D. 65\n    Titus . . . . . . . . about A.D. 65\n    2 Timothy . . . . . . about A.D. 66\n\n    Arranged according to the order of time the thirteen epistles\n    which bear the name of Paul naturally fall into _four groups_:\n    (1) the two epistles to the Thessalonians, written during the\n    apostle's _second_ missionary journey recorded Acts 15:36-18:22;\n    (2) the epistles to the Galatians, Corinthians, and Romans,\n    written during his _third_ missionary journey, Acts 18:23-21:15;\n    (3) the epistles to the Ephesians, Colossians, Philemon, and\n    Philippians, written during Paul's imprisonment in Rome, Acts\n    28:16-31 (some suppose the first three to have been written\n    during his imprisonment at Cesarea, Acts 23:35-26:32); (4) the\n    pastoral epistles, the first and third probably written after\n    his recorded imprisonment in Rome, and the second during a\n    second imprisonment after the publication of the Acts of the\n    Apostles, and which ended in his martyrdom A.D. 67 or 68.\n\nThe epistles of Paul will now be considered in the usual order, except\nthat the three to the Ephesians, Colossians. and Philemon, which are\ncontemporaneous, will be taken together.\n\n\nI. EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.\n\n7. The _date_ of the epistle to the Romans, as well as the _place_ where\nit was written, can be gathered with much certainty from the epistle\nitself, taken in connection with other notices respecting Paul found in\nthe Acts of the Apostles. He was about to bear alms to his brethren in\nJudea from Macedonia and Achaia. Chap. 15:25, 26. He had previously\nexhorted the church of Corinth in Achaia to make this very collection,\nwhich he was to receive of them when he came to them through Macedonia.\n1 Cor. 16:1-6. That he was also to bring with him a collection from the\nMacedonian churches is manifest from 2 Cor. 8:1-4; 9:1-4. He wrote,\nmoreover, from Corinth; for among the greetings at the close of the\nepistle is one from \"Gaius mine host\" (chap. 16:23), a Corinthian whom\nhe had baptized (1 Cor. 1:14); he commends to them Phebe, a deaconess of\nthe church at Cenchrea, the eastern port of Corinth, chap. 16:1; and he\nspeaks of \"the city\" where he is as well known (chap. 16:23), which can\nbe no other than Corinth. Now by comparing Acts 19:21; 20:1-3; 24:17, we\nfind that he was then on his way to Jerusalem through Macedonia and\nGreece, for the last time recorded in the New Testament. The epistle to\nthe Romans, then, was written from Corinth during the apostle's third\nmissionary tour and second abode in that city, about A.D. 58. It is the\nsixth of his epistles in the order of time, and stands in near\nconnection with those to the Galatians and Corinthians, which were\napparently written during the previous year.\n\n8. Concerning the founding of the church at Rome we have no information.\nAt the date of this epistle Paul had not visited it. Chaps. 1:10-15;\n15:23, 24. Of its _composition_, however, we have more certain\nknowledge. Founded in the metropolis of the Roman empire, where, as we\nknow from many notices of ancient writers, many Jews resided, it must\nhave been of a mixed character, embracing both Jews and Gentiles; with\nthis agree the contents of the present epistle. That the Gentile element\nlargely predominated in the church at Rome appears from the general\ntenor of the epistle. Chaps. 1:13; 11:13-25, 30, 31; 15:16. That it had\nalso a Jewish element is plain from the whole of chap 2, and the\nprecepts in chap. 14.\n\n9. The _occasion_ of writing seems to have been of a general character.\nThe apostle had often purposed to visit Rome, but had been as often\nhindered. Chap. 1:13. To compensate in part for this failure, he wrote\nthe present epistle, having, as it appears, an opportunity to send it by\nPhebe, a deaconess of the church at Cenchrea. Chap. 16:1. The apostle's\n_design_, like the occasion of his writing, was general. It was natural\nthat, in addressing a church which he had long desired to visit, he\nshould lay himself out to unfold the gospel of Christ in its deep\nfoundation principles, as a plan of salvation provided for the whole\nworld, and designed to unite Jews and Gentiles in one harmonious body,\non the common platform of faith in Christ. He first shows that the\nGentiles are under the dominion of sin (chap. 1:18-32), and the Jews\nalso (chap. 2), so that both alike are shut up to salvation by grace.\nChap. 3. He connects the gospel plan of salvation immediately with the\nOld Testament by showing that Abraham, the father of the Israelitish\npeople, was justified by faith, not by the works of the law or any\noutward rite; so that he is the father of all who walk in the steps of\nhis faith, whether Jews or Gentiles. Chap. 4. He then sets forth the\nlove of God in Christ, who is the second Adam, sent to restore the race\nfrom the ruin into which it was brought by the sin of the first Adam\n(chap. 5); and shows that to fallen sinful men the law cannot give\ndeliverance from either its condemnatory sentence or the reigning power\nof sin, so that its only effect is to work wrath, while the\nrighteousness which God gives through faith in Christ sets men free from\nboth the curse of the law and the inward power of sin, thus bringing\nthem into a blessed state of justification, sanctification, and holy\ncommunion with God here, with the hope of eternal glory hereafter.\nChaps. 6-8. Since the doctrine of the admission of the Gentiles to equal\nprivileges with the Jews, and the rejection of the unbelieving part of\nthe Jewish nation, was exceedingly offensive to his countrymen, the\napostle devotes three entire chapters to the discussion of this\nmomentous theme. Chaps. 9-11. He then proceeds to draw from the whole\nsubject, as he has unfolded it, such practical exhortations in respect\nto daily life and conduct as were adapted to the particular wants of the\nRoman Christians--entire consecration of soul and body to God in each\nbeliever's particular sphere (chap. 12); obedience to magistrates (chap.\n13:1-7); love and purity (chap. 13:8-14); mutual respect and forbearance\n(chaps. 14:1-15:7). He then returns to the great theme with which he\nbegan, that Christ is the common Saviour of Jews and Gentiles, in\nconnection with which he refers to his office and labors as \"the\nminister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles\" (chap. 15:8-21), and closes\nwith miscellaneous notices and salutations (chaps. 15:22-16:27).\n\n10. From the above brief survey the special _office_ of the epistle to\nthe Romans is manifest. In no book of the New Testament is the great\ndoctrine of justification by faith so fully unfolded. The apostle sets\nit in vivid contrast with the Pharisaical idea of justification by the\nMosaic law, and, by parity of reason, of justification by every other\nsystem of legalism; showing that it is only by grace through Christ that\nmen can be delivered from either the guilt of sin or its reigning power\nin the soul, while the effect of the law is only to excite and irritate\nmen's corrupt passions without the power to subdue them. The place,\ntherefore, which this epistle holds in the understandings and affections\nof believers must be a good measure of their progress in the Christian\nlife.\n\n\nII. EPISTLES TO THE CORINTHIANS.\n\n11. THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS was written _from Ephesus_, not\nfar from the time of Pentecost (chap. 16:8); not from Philippi,\naccording to the subscription appended to it. It was during Paul's\nsecond and last visit to that city, as we learn from his directions\nconcerning a collection for the saints at Jerusalem, and his promise to\ncome to the Corinthians through Macedonia (chap. 16:1-5); for when Paul\nleft Ephesus after his second sojourn there he went by Macedonia and\nAchaia (of which province Corinth was the capital) to Jerusalem to bear\nalms. Acts 19:21; 20:1-3; 24:17. Paul's second stay in Ephesus, during\nwhich time some think that he made a short visit to Corinth not\nmentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, which would be the _second_ in\norder, that promised in this and the second epistle being the _third_ (2\nCor. 12:14; 13:1), extended over the space of about three years. Acts\n19:1-10; 20:31. From his words (chap. 16:3-8), we gather that the\nepistle was written not long before the close of this period.\nChronologists generally place it about A.D. 57.\n\n12. The _occasion_ of his writing was more specific than when he penned\nhis epistle to the Romans. Corinth, the renowned capital of the Roman\nprovince Achaia, situated on the isthmus that connects the southern\npeninsula of Greece--the ancient Peleponnesus and the modern Morea, and\nenjoying the advantage of two ports was alike distinguished for its\nwealth and progress in the arts, and for its luxury and dissoluteness of\nmorals. Here the apostle had labored a year and six months, and gathered\na flourishing church embracing some Jews, but consisting mostly of\nGentiles. Acts 18:1-11; 1 Cor. 12:2. These Gentile converts, having just\nemerged from the darkness and corruption of heathenism (chap. 6:9-11),\nand living in the midst of a dissolute community (chap. 5:9, 10), did\nnot wholly escape the contamination of heathenish associations and\nheathenish vices. Chaps. 5, 6, 8, 10. Taking a low and worldly view of\nthe Christian church and the spiritual endowments of its several\nmembers, they were led into party strifes and rivalries. Chaps. 1:11-13;\n3:3-7. Certain vain-glorious teachers, moreover, had come in among them\nwith a great show of worldly wisdom, who disparaged Paul's apostolical\nstanding, taught the people to despise the simplicity of his teachings,\nand sought to supplant him in the confidence and affections of the\nCorinthian church. Chaps. 4, 9; 2 Cor. 10-13. In addition to this,\ncertain disorders and abuses had crept into their public assemblies\n(chaps. 11, 12, 14), and some among them denied the doctrine of the\nresurrection. Chap. 15. According to the most probable interpretation of\nchap. 5:9, the apostle had already written them a letter on some of\nthese points which has not come down to us, and the Corinthians\nthemselves had written to the apostle, asking his advice on some points\nof a practical character, particularly in respect to the marriage\nrelation in their present state of trial. Chap. 7:1. The occasion, then,\nof writing this epistle, which gives also its _scope_ and _office_, was\nto correct the above named errors and abuses, of which he had received\naccurate information, and also to answer the inquiries of the\nCorinthians in their letter. In this work the apostle employs now sharp\nrebuke, now tender expostulation, and now earnest and impassioned\nargument. The party strifes among the Corinthians he meets by showing\nthat Christ himself is the only head of the church, that all gifts are\nfrom him, and are to be used to his glory in the edification of\nbelievers. Chaps. 1:13, 14, 30, 31; 3:5-23. The vain-glorious boasting\nof their leaders he exposes by showing the emptiness and impotence of\ntheir pretended wisdom in comparison with the doctrine of Christ\ncrucified, who is the power of God and the wisdom of God for the\nsalvation of all that believe, without regard to the distinctions of\nworldly rank. Chaps. 1:18-2:16; 3:18-20. The abuses and disorders that\nhad crept into the church he rebukes with apostolical severity; and in\ncorrecting them, as well as in answering the questions of the\nCorinthians, he makes an application of the general principles of the\ngospel to the several cases before him which is full of practical\nwisdom--the incestuous person (chap. 5:8), companionship with the\nvicious (chap. 5:9-13), litigation among brethren (chap. 6:1-8), fleshly\nindulgence (chap. 6:9-20), the inquiries of the Christians in respect to\nmarriage (chap. 7), meats offered to idols and sundry questions\nconnected with them (chaps. 8, 10), disorders in the public assemblies\n(chap. 11), spiritual gifts with a beautiful eulogy on love (chaps.\n12-14), the doctrine of the resurrection (chap. 15). He also defends his\napostolical character and standing against his opposers, though by no\nmeans so earnestly and fully as in the following epistle. Chaps. 4, 9.\nThus it comes to pass that the present epistle contains a remarkable\nvariety of topics, and gives us a fuller and clearer insight into the\npractical working of Christianity in the primitive apostolic churches\nthan that furnished by any other of Paul's epistles, or, indeed, any\nother book of the New Testament. The great principles, moreover, which\nhe lays down in meeting the particular wants of the Corinthian church\nremain valid for all time; shedding from age to age a clear and steady\nlight, by which every tempest-tossed church may, God helping it by his\ngrace, steer its way into the haven of peace and prosperity.\n\n13. The reader cannot fail to notice the remarkable contrast between the\ntone of this epistle and that to the Galatians, which belongs in the\norder of time to the same group. See above, No. 6. The errors of the\nCorinthians were not fundamental, like those of the Galatians. They\nbuilt upon the true foundation, Jesus Christ; but marred the building by\nthe introduction of base materials--the \"wood, hay, stubble\" of human\nwisdom, instead of the \"gold, silver, precious stones\" of the truth as\nPaul had taught it. The false teachers among the Galatians, on the\ncontrary, sought to subvert the very foundations of Christianity by\nbringing in a system of legal justification. In writing to the\nGalatians, therefore, Paul contends, with apostolic severity, for the\nvery substance of the gospel, but in addressing the Corinthians, he\nseeks only to purify the gospel from the admixture of human additions.\n\n14. THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS was written not many months\nafter the first, _from Macedonia_, where the apostle was occupied in\ncompleting a collection for the poor saints at Jerusalem, with the\npurpose of afterwards proceeding to Corinth that he might receive the\ncontribution of the Corinthian church also. Chaps. 8:1-4; 9:1-5. Whether\nhe wrote from Philippi, according to the subscription of the epistle, or\nfrom some other place in Macedonia, cannot be determined.\n\n15. The _occasion_ of writing was manifestly the report which he had\nreceived from Titus (and as is generally inferred from 1 Cor. 4:17;\n16:10, from Timothy also). He had sent Titus to Corinth with the\nexpectation that he would bring tidings thence to Troas, where he hoped\nto find him on his way from Ephesus to Macedonia. But in this he was\ndisappointed. He therefore hastened from Troas to Macedonia, where he\nmet Titus and learned from him the effect of his first epistle. Chaps.\n2:12, 13; 7:6; 12:18. So far as the main body of the Corinthian\nChristians was concerned, this was highly favorable, and for it the\napostle devoutly thanks God (chap. 7:6, 7); commends their prompt\nobedience (chap. 7:11); directs them to restore the excommunicated\nperson (chap. 2:5-10); and discusses very fully the matter of the\ncollection for the poor Christians at Jerusalem (chaps. 8, 9). But the\nvery success of his first epistle with the better part of the church had\nembittered his enemies, and made them more determined in their\nopposition to him. They accused him of levity in changing his original\nplan of visiting the Corinthian church on his way to Macedonia (chap.\n1:15-17); of uttering threats which he would not dare to execute when\npresent among them (chap. 10:9-11); of making a gain of them by indirect\nmeans (chap. 12:16-18); and sought in various ways to disparage his\napostolical character and standing. This led him to dwell with great\nearnestness on the fullness of his apostolic credentials, the purity of\nhis apostolic life, and the abundance of his labors and sufferings in\nbehalf of Christ's cause, always with reference more or less direct to\nhis enemies. With these personal notices of himself are interwoven\nexalted views of the dignity of the ministerial office, and the true\nspirit and manner in which its weighty duties are to be performed. See\nchaps. 2:14-7:16; chaps. 10-13. The prominence which the apostle is thus\nforced to give to his own person and labor constitutes the most\nremarkable feature of the present epistle. To the same cause are due the\npeculiarities of its diction, and its rapid transitions from one theme\nand tone to another. \"Consolation and rebuke, gentleness and severity,\nearnestness and irony, succeed one another at very short intervals and\nwithout notice.\" Alford, Introduction to this Epistle. All this came\nabout by the wisdom of God, who placed his servant in such circumstances\nthat fidelity to the cause of truth compelled him unwillingly to set\nforth in himself the character of a true minister of the gospel in\nbright contrast with that of those vain-glorious and selfish men, who\nunder a show of great worldly wisdom, seek to create parties in the\nchurch of Christ for their own private honor and emolument. The\nparticular occasion which called forth this epistle soon passed away;\nbut the epistle itself remains a rich treasure for all believers,\nespecially for all Christian teachers.\n\n\nIII. EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.\n\n16. _Galatia_ is the Greek word answering to the Roman _Gallia_, that\nis, _Gaul_. It was one of the central provinces of Asia Minor, and\nreceived its name from the circumstance of its being inhabited by a\npeople of Gallic origin who came by the way of Byzantium and the\nHellespont in the third century before Christ. Two visits of the apostle\nto Galatia are recorded in the Acts of the Apostles; the first, during\nhis second missionary journey (Acts 16:6); and the second, at the\nbeginning of his third journey (Acts 18:23). After which of these visits\nthe present epistle was written is a question that has been much\ndiscussed, and answered in different ways. The most natural\ninterpretation, however, of chapter 4:13-16 leads to the conclusion that\nit was after his _second_ visit. The course of the events seems to have\nbeen as follows: He was suffering from an infirmity of the flesh when he\npreached the gospel to the Galatians \"_at the first_,\" that is, upon the\nfirst visit (verse 13). Then they received him \"as an angel of God, even\nas Jesus Christ,\" and were filled with holy joy through simple faith in\nChrist's name (verses 14, 15). Upon his _second_ visit he found it\nnecessary to warn them in very plain terms against the seductions of\nfalse teachers, who were seeking to draw them away from the simplicity\nof the gospel to faith in a system of works. But after his departure\nthese false teachers had great success; and the result was that the\naffections of the Galatians were alienated from Paul, who was their\nspiritual father. In view of this fact he asks (as we may render v. 16,\nafter Ellicott, in perfect accordance with the idiom of the Greek): \"So\nthen, am I become your enemy, by speaking to you the truth?\" that is\nbecause in my recent visit I told you the truth. According to this view\nthe epistle belongs to the second group, and was written about A.D. 56\nor 57. Farther than this we cannot go in determining the time. The\n_place_ is uncertain. It may have been Ephesus, or Corinth, which cities\nPaul visited in his third and last missionary journey, but it cannot\nhave been Rome, as the subscription erroneously gives it.\n\n    The subscriptions are of no authority. That to the present\n    epistle probably had its ground mainly in chapter 6:17, where\n    the writer was erroneously supposed to allude to the bodily\n    sufferings that he endured in connection with his last recorded\n    imprisonment.\n\n17. The _occasion_ of this epistle, which gives also its _design_, was\nvery specific. The Galatian churches had begun well (chap. 5:7); but\nsoon after Paul's departure Judaizing teachers had drawn them away to\nthe very form of error noticed in the Acts of the Apostles (chap. 15:1);\n\"Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses ye cannot be saved.\"\nThey sought to impose on all the Gentile converts circumcision as\nessential to salvation. Thus they placed justification on a _legal_\nground, and made faith in Christ a subordinate matter. This error was\nfundamental. Paul therefore attacks it with unsparing severity, with\nwhich, however, he mingles a wonderful tenderness of spirit. His\nargument is for substance the same as that in the epistle to the Romans,\nonly that it takes from necessity a more controversial form, and is\ncarried out with more warmth and vehemence of expression. It is a divine\nmodel of the way in which fundamental error should be dealt with.\n\n18. The epistle naturally falls into three divisions. The _first_ is\nmainly _historic_. Chaps. 1, 2. The false teachers had disparaged Paul's\napostolical standing, on the ground, apparently, that he was not one of\nthe original twelve, and had not been called immediately by Christ to\nthe apostleship, but had received his gospel from men. It would seem\nalso that they labored to make it appear that Paul's doctrine respecting\ncircumcision and the Mosaic law was contrary to that of Peter and the\nother apostles of the circumcision. Paul accordingly devotes these two\nintroductory chapters to a vindication of his full apostolic standing.\nHe shows that his apostleship is \"not of man neither by man, but by\nJesus Christ and God the Father\" (chap. 1:1); that the gospel which he\npreaches he neither received of man, nor was taught by man but by the\nrevelation of Jesus Christ (verses 11, 12); that, accordingly, upon his\ncall to the apostleship, he went not up to Jerusalem to receive\ninstruction from those who were apostles before him, but into Arabia,\nwhence he returned to Damascus (verses 15-17); that after three years he\nmade a brief visit of fifteen days to Peter, where he also saw James,\nbut had no personal acquaintance with the churches in Judea (verses\n20-24); that fourteen years afterwards he went up to Jerusalem by\nrevelation, not to be instructed by the apostles there, but to confer\nwith them respecting \"the gospel of the uncircumcision\" which was\ncommitted to him, and that he obtained the full recognition of \"James,\nCephas, and John, who were reckoned as pillars\" (chap. 2:1-10); and that\nafterwards, when Peter was come to Antioch he withstood him to the face\non this very question of circumcision, because, through fear of his\nJewish brethren, he had dissembled and drawn others into dissimulation,\nadding also the substance of the rebuke administered by him to Peter,\nwhich contains an argument (drawn in part from Peter's own practice)\nagainst compelling the Gentiles to live as do the Jews (verses 11-21).\n\nHaving thus vindicated his apostolic authority against the false\nteachers in Galatia, he proceeds, in the _second_ part of the epistle,\nto unfold the great _argument for justification by faith in Christ_. The\nGalatians have received the Holy Spirit, with the accompanying\nmiraculous gifts, not by the works of the law, but by faith in Christ\n(chap. 3:1-5); Abraham was justified by faith, as an example for all\nfuture ages (verses 6-9,18); the law cannot bring justification to\nsinners, but only condemnation (verses 10-12); from this condemnation\nChrist delivers us, and makes us through faith the children of Abraham,\nand heirs to all the promises which God made to him (verses 13, 14); the\nAbrahamic covenant, conditioned on faith alone, is older than the Mosaic\nlaw and cannot be disannulled by it (verses 15-17); the true office of\nthe law was to prepare men for the coming of Christ, in whom all\ndistinction between Jew and Gentile is abolished (verses 19-29); before\nChrist the people of God were like a child that has not yet received the\ninheritance, but is kept under tutors and governors, but through Christ\nthey are like the same child arrived at full age, and put in possession\nof the inheritance (chap. 4:1-7). The apostle adds (chaps. 4:8-5:12)\nvarious arguments and illustrations, with pointed allusions to the false\nteachers who were subverting the simplicity of their faith in Christ;\nand he solemnly warns the Galatian Christians that by receiving\ncircumcision they bind themselves to do the whole law--the whole law as\nthe ground of their justification. They have left Christ, and thus\nfallen away from grace--forsaken a system of grace for one of works, so\nthat \"Christ is become of no effect\" to them. Chap. 5:3, 4.\n\nThe _third_ part (chaps. 5:13-6:18) is of a _practical_ character. The\napostle affectionately exhorts the Galatians to use their Christian\nliberty in a worthy manner, mortifying fleshly lusts, restoring fallen\nbrethren in meekness, bearing one another's burdens, and being diligent\nin every good work. In bringing the epistle to a close he contrasts the\nvain-glory and hypocrisy of these Judaizing false teachers with his\nsteadfast purpose to glory only in the cross of Christ, in whom \"neither\ncircumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new\ncreature.\"\n\n\nIV. EPISTLES TO THE COLOSSIANS, EPHESIANS, AND PHILEMON.\n\n19. These three epistles are contemporaneous, in the sense that they\nwere written on the same general occasion, and forwarded at the same\ntime, though some days may have intervened between the composition of\nthe first and the last of them. They were all written when Paul was a\nprisoner (Eph. 3:1; 4:1; 6:20; Col. 4:10; Philemon 1, 9, 10, 23), and\nall sent virtually by Tychicus; for Onesimus, a servant whom Paul sent\nback to his master, Philemon of Colosse, with a commendatory letter,\nwent in company with Tychicus. Eph. 6:21, 22; Col. 4:7-9. The epistle to\nthe Ephesians contains no salutations; but those of the other two, are,\nwith a single exception, sent from the same persons--Aristarchus,\nMarcus, Epaphras, Luke, and Demas. If any further argument for their\ncontemporaneousness were needed, it could be found in the remarkable\nagreement between the contents of the epistles to the Ephesians and\nColossians, extending not only to the thoughts but to the phraseology\nalso.\n\n20. It is agreed that these three epistles were written during the\napostle's imprisonment in either _Cesarea_ or _Rome_; but from which of\nthese two places is a question on which biblical scholars differ, and\nwhich cannot be answered with certainty, though the common opinion has\nbeen that the apostle wrote from Rome. It is not necessary to review the\narguments advanced on the two sides. The reader who wishes to\ninvestigate the matter will find them in commentaries and bible\ndictionaries.\n\n21. Another question is: In what _order_ were the epistles to the\nEphesians and Colossians written? Here we have only indirect\nindications, and these not decisive. It is manifest, however, from a\ncomparison of the two epistles, that the apostle had a more specific\noccasion for writing to the Colossians than to the Ephesians. It is\nnatural, therefore, to suppose that he first penned his letter to the\nformer church, and very soon afterwards, while his heart was yet warm\nwith the great theme of that letter--the personal glory and dignity of\nChrist, and the union through him of both Jews and Gentiles in one holy\nfamily--he wrote to the Ephesians among whom he had so long labored,\ngoing over the same general course of thought, but with more fulness and\nin a less argumentative tone. However this may be, it is certain that\nthe most convenient order of studying these two closely related epistles\nis to begin with that to the Colossians and thence proceed to the other.\nWe propose to consider them in this order.\n\n22. EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. Colosse was a city lying in the\nsouthwestern part of Phrygia, in Asia Minor, in the neighborhood of\nLaodicea and Hierapolis. Chap. 4:13, 16. Respecting the founding of the\nchurch there we have no information. According to the most natural\ninterpretation of chap. 2:1, Paul had not visited Colosse in person when\nhe wrote the present epistle. The _occasion_ of his writing seems to\nhave been information received by him that false teachers were troubling\nthe Colossian church. That these men were Jews is plain from chap. 2:16,\n20, 21; where the reference is to Jewish ordinances. But their doctrine\nwas not simple Phariseeism, like that of the false teachers among the\nGalatians. They did not seek directly to substitute circumcision and the\nMosaic law for faith in Christ, as the ground of justification. They\nseem rather to have been Christian Jews of an ascetic turn of mind, and\nimbued with the semi-oriental philosophy of that day, which contained in\nitself the seeds of the later Gnostic systems. Having no clear\napprehension of the glory of Christ's person and the fulness of the\nsalvation which his gospel offers to men, they sought to supplement the\nChristian system by their ascetic practices and their speculations\nconcerning the orders of angels, whom they seem to have regarded as\nmediators between God and men. To all this human philosophy the apostle\nopposes directly the divine dignity and glory of Christ's person, and\nthe completeness of the redemption which he has provided for men.\n\n    The _Jewish_ character of these false teachers appears in their\n    insisting on meats and drinks, holy-days, new moons, and\n    Sabbaths (chap. 2:16, 20, 21); their _ascetic_ character, in\n    their doctrine concerning the mortification of the body (chap.\n    2:23); their _speculations concerning angels_, in the fact that\n    they are described as \"delighting in humility and the worship of\n    angels\" (chap. 2:18, 23). The apostle apparently refers to a\n    false humility which, under the pretence that God is too great\n    to be approached except through the mediation of angels, made\n    them instead of Christ the way of access to him, thus\n    disparaging the Redeemer's person and office.\n\n23. In respect to _plan_, the epistle naturally falls into two parts of\nabout equal length. The _first_ is _argumentative_. Chaps. 1, 2. After\nan introduction, in which the apostle thanks God that the Colossians\nhave been made partakers of the gospel, commends them for the\nfruitfulness of their faith, and assures them of his incessant prayers\nin their behalf (chap. 1:1-12), and passes to his great theme, which is\nto set forth the divine dignity and glory of Christ's person. He is the\nimage of the invisible God, existing before all things, and the creator\nand upholder of all things, those angelic orders included whom the false\nteachers regarded as objects of worship (verses 15-17). He is also the\nhead of the church, and as such unites under himself all holy beings in\nheaven and earth in one happy family (verses 18-22). In him all fulness\ndwells, and all believers are complete in him; receiving through him a\nspiritual circumcision which brings to them holiness of heart,\nforgiveness of sins, and life from the dead (verses 11-13). Christ has\nabolished by his death on the cross \"the handwriting of ordinances\"--the\nMosaic ordinances under the figure of a bond which was before of binding\nforce, but which he has annulled--so that the former ground of\nseparation between Jews and Gentiles is done away (2:14). By the same\ndeath on the cross he has \"spoiled principalities and powers\"--the\npowers of darkness, of which Satan is the head--openly triumphing over\nthem (verse 15). The Colossians, then, have all that they need in\nChrist, and the apostle affectionately warns them against being spoiled\nthrough the philosophy of these false teachers, which is a compound of\nignorance, self-conceit, and will-worship, void alike of reality and\npower.\n\nThe _second_ part is _practical_. Chaps. 3, 4. The duties on which the\napostle insists come mainly under two general heads. The first is that\nof a _heavenly temper of mind_ growing out of their resurrection with\nChrist who sits at the right hand of God, and who shall appear again to\nreceive his disciples to himself, that they also may appear with him in\nglory. In view of this animating hope he exhorts the Colossians to put\naway all the sins belonging to their former state of heathenism. Chap.\n3:1-8. The second is that of _mutual love and harmony_ arising from\ntheir union with each other in Christ, whereby they have been made one\nholy body, in which outward distinctions are nothing \"but Christ is all\nand in all.\" On this ground they are urged to cultivate all the graces\nof the Spirit, the chief of which is love, and faithfully to discharge,\neach one in his station, the mutual duty which they owe as husbands and\nwives, as parents and children, as masters and servants. Chaps. 3:9-4:1.\nThey are admonished, moreover, to let the word of Christ dwell in them\nrichly for their mutual edification (chap. 3:16); to be single-hearted\nin their aim to please Christ (verse 17); to be prayerful and vigilant\n(chap. 4:2-4); and wise in their intercourse with unbelievers (verses 5,\n6). The epistle closes with notices of a personal character intermingled\nwith salutations (verses 7-18).\n\n    In chap. 4:16 the apostle directs that this epistle be read also\n    in the church of the Laodiceans, and that the Colossians\n    likewise read the epistle from Laodicea. What was this epistle\n    from Laodicea? (1) Some think it was a letter written by the\n    church of Laodicea to Paul, and forwarded by him to the\n    Colossians. (2) Others understand it of an epistle of Paul to\n    the Laodiceans (perhaps forwarded along with the three epistles\n    now under consideration) and which the Colossians were to obtain\n    _from_ Laodicea. This is the most probable supposition. On the\n    attempt to identify this epistle with our canonical epistle to\n    the Ephesians see below.\n\n\n24. EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.--Ephesus, the metropolis of Proconsular\nAsia, which comprehended the western provinces of Asia Minor, lay on the\ncoast of the AEgean sea between Smyrna on the north and Miletus on the\nsouth. In the apostolic age it was a flourishing city, and renowned for\nthe temple of the heathen goddess Diana. Two visits of the apostle to\nEphesus are recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, the latter of which\nwas prolonged through most of three years. Acts 18:19-21; chaps. 19;\n20:31. The _occasion_ of writing this epistle seems to have been of a\nvery general nature. The apostle was sending a letter by Tychicus to the\nColossians, and embraced the opportunity to write to the Ephesians also.\nIn entire accordance with this supposition is the _general character_ of\nthe epistle. The apostle has no particular error to combat, as he had in\nthe case of the Colossians. He proceeds, therefore, in a placid and\ncontemplative frame of mind to unfold the great work of Christ's\nredemption; and then makes a practical application of it, as in the\nepistle to the Colossians, but with more fulness, and with some\nimportant additions.\n\n    It has seemed surprising to many that the apostle should have\n    written in so general a strain to a church on which he had\n    bestowed so much labor, and where he had so many personal\n    friends; particularly that he should have omitted at the close\n    all salutations. To account for this various hypotheses have\n    been proposed. The words \"_in Ephesus_\" are omitted in the Sinai\n    and Vatican manuscripts, and there is reason for believing that\n    they were wanting in some other ancient manuscripts not now\n    extant. See the quotations from Basil the Great, and other\n    fathers in Alford, Ellicott, Meyer, and other critical\n    commentators. On this ground some have supposed that the present\n    epistle was intended to be _encyclical_--an epistle for general\n    circulation among the churches; others, that it is the\n    _Laodicean epistle_ referred to in Col. 4:16. But in favor of\n    the words \"in Ephesus\" there is an overwhelming weight of\n    evidence. They are sustained by all the versions and all the\n    manuscripts except the above. Besides, as every Greek scholar\n    knows, if these words are omitted, it compels the omission from\n    the original of the two preceding words which are found in every\n    manuscript and version--unless, indeed, we adopt the far-fetched\n    hypothesis that the apostle furnished Tychicus with two or more\n    copies of the epistle for different churches, leaving a _blank\n    space_ to be filled as occasion should require; and then it\n    becomes impossible to explain how the reading \"in Ephesus\"\n    should have been so universal in the manuscripts and versions.\n    There is no occasion for any of this ingenuity. The omission of\n    these words from single manuscripts is not wonderful. It finds a\n    parallel, as Alford remarks, in the omission of the words _in\n    Rome_ (Rom. 1:7) from one manuscript, whether from oversight or\n    for the purpose of generalizing the reference of its contents.\n    Nor can any valid objection be drawn from the general character\n    of the epistle. That depended much on the _occasion_ which\n    called it forth, which we have seen to have been general, and\n    the _frame of mind_ in which the apostle wrote. As to the\n    omission of salutations, we shall find upon examination that the\n    measure of Paul's personal acquaintance with the churches was\n    not that of his personal greetings. These abound most of all in\n    the epistle to the Romans whom he had never visited. Rom. 16.\n    They are found also in the epistle to the Colossians to whom\n    Paul was personally a stranger. Col. 4:10-14. On the contrary\n    they are wanting, except in a general form, in the epistles to\n    the Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, Thessalonians (in 2\n    Thessalonians wholly wanting as in this epistle), Titus, and the\n    first to Timothy. The other objections are founded on\n    misinterpretation, as when it is inferred from chap, 1:15 that\n    the author had never seen those to whom he wrote; and from chap,\n    3:2 that they had no personal acquaintance with him. But in the\n    former passage the apostle speaks simply of the good report\n    which had come to him from the Ephesian church since he left it;\n    and, in the latter, the words: \"if ye have heard\" imply no doubt\n    (compare 1 Peter 2:3), and cannot be fairly adduced to prove\n    that the writer was personally unknown to his readers.\n\n25. This epistle, like that to the Colossians, naturally falls into two\ndivisions of about equal size; the first _argumentative_, the second\n_practical_.\n\nThe _argumentative_ part occupies the first two chapters. Full of the\ngreat theme with which the epistle to the Colossians is occupied--the\npersonal dignity and glory of Christ, the greatness of his salvation,\nand especially the union through him of all holy beings in heaven and\nearth in one family of God--the apostle begins, immediately after the\napostolic greeting, by pouring out his heart in thanksgiving to God for\nhis rich mercy, which has made him and his beloved Ephesians partakers\nof Christ's redemption, the greatness and glory of which he describes in\nglowing terms, bringing in, as he proceeds, the thought with which his\nmind is filled, that it is God's purpose to \"gather together in one all\nthings in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth.\"\nChap. 1:10. He then adds a fervent prayer for the growth of the\nEphesians in the knowledge of Christ, whom God has raised above all\nprincipality and power and made head over all things to his body the\nchurch. Returning in the second chapter to the theme with which he\nbegan, he contrasts with the former wretched condition of the Ephesians,\nwhen they had no hope and were without God in the world, their present\nblessed state, as fellow-citizens with the saints and of the household\nof faith; God having through Christ broken down the middle wall of\npartition between Jews and Gentiles, and built them all into a holy\ntemple upon one common foundation, of which Jesus Christ is the chief\ncorner stone. In the third chapter he dwells upon the grace of God which\nhad committed to him, in a special sense, the office of preaching among\nthe Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; and adds a rapturous\nprayer for the strengthening of the Ephesians through the Spirit in the\ninner man, for their establishment in faith and love, and their\nillumination in the love of Christ which passes knowledge, that they may\n\"be filled with all the fulness of God.\" Then follows a doxology in\nwhich the apostle labors to find words wherewith to express his\nconception of the greatness of God's power and grace through Jesus\nChrist.\n\nWith the fourth chapter begins the _practical_ part of the epistle. He\nbegins with an exhortation to unity, the argument for which cannot be\nabridged: \"There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in\none hope of your calling: one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and\nFather of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.\" Chap.\n4:4-6. He next speaks of the diversity of gifts among believers, all of\nwhich come from Christ, and have for their end the unity of the church\nin faith and knowledge, and thus her stability (verses 7-16). Then\nfollow earnest admonitions to shun the vices of their former state of\nheathenism, and cultivate all the graces of the Spirit. The mutual\nrelations of life are then taken up, as in the epistle to the\nColossians. Here occurs that grand digression in which the love of\nChrist towards his church is compared with that of the husband towards\nhis wife. Chap. 5:23-32. The closing exhortation, in which the Christian\nis compared to a warrior wrestling not with flesh and blood but with the\npowers of darkness, and his heavenly panoply is described at length, is\n(with the exception of the brief figure, 1 Thess. 5:8) peculiar to this\nepistle and is very striking.\n\n26. EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.--This short epistle is essentially of a private\ncharacter. It was sent to Colosse by Onesimus at the same time with the\nepistle to the Colossians, of which Tychieus was the bearer. Col. 4:7-9.\nThe epistle itself plainly indicates its object. It is a plea for\nOnesimus, the servant of Philemon, who had left his master and\napparently defrauded him (verse 18), but now returns to him a Christian.\nAs a model of Christian delicacy and courtesy it has been the admiration\nof all ages.\n\n\nV. EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.\n\n27. The ancient name of Philippi was _Crenides_ (_Fountains_); but\nPhilip of Macedon fortified the place and called it after his own name.\nIt lay along the bank of a river on a plain in the eastern border of\nProconsular Macedonia, and was made a colony by Augustus in memory of\nhis victory gained there over Brutus and Cassius. Compare Acts 16:12.\nIts port was Neapolis on the AEgean sea about twelve Roman miles to the\nsoutheast of it. Philippi was the first place in Europe where the gospel\nwas preached by Paul, who had been summoned across the sea to Macedonia\nby a vision. Acts 16:9. This was during his second missionary journey,\nabout A.D. 53. A record of his labors and sufferings on that occasion is\ngiven in Acts 16:12-40. In his third missionary journey he twice visited\nMacedonia, sailing the second time from Philippi, that is, from its port\nNeapolis. Acts 20:1, 3-6.\n\n28. The _occasion_ of this epistle seems to have been the contribution\nmade by the Philippians to supply the apostle's necessities while a\nprisoner in Rome. Chap. 4:10-18. That he was a prisoner is plain from\nchap. 1:13, 14, 16. That the _place_ of imprisonment was Rome is\ninferred from the general tone of the epistle, which shows that the\napostle was awaiting a decision of his case, in accordance with his\nappeal to Caesar, with the confident expectation of a favorable result\n(chaps. 1:19-25; 2:23, 24), and especially from the mention of Caesar's\nhousehold (chap. 4:22). From chap. 2:23, 24 we infer, moreover, that the\ntime for a decision of his case was at hand. The date of this epistle,\nthen, was about A.D. 63.\n\n    The apostle speaks very confidently of a speedy release and\n    restoration to the work of his apostolic office. Chaps. 1:19,\n    25, 26; 2:24. This language is important in connection with the\n    two closely related questions, that of a second imprisonment at\n    Rome and that of the date of the pastoral epistles. See below,\n    No. 35.\n\n29. The _character_ of this epistle answers well to its occasion. It is\na free outpouring of the apostle's heart towards his beloved\nPhilippians, who had remembered him in his bonds and sent Epaphroditus\nto supply his wants. He bestows upon them no censure, unless the\nsuggestion to Euodias and Syntyche be regarded as such, but commends\nthem for their liberality, exhorts them to steadfastness in the\nendurance of persecution, and admonishes them to maintain a deportment\nwhich shall be in all things such as becomes the gospel, the several\nparts of which he specifies in the course of the epistle, but not in any\nvery exact order. It is in connection with these admonitions that the\napostle, while insisting on the duty of humility and self-sacrificing\nlove, brings in that sublime description of the Saviour's original glory\nand equality with God, which he laid aside for our redemption, taking\nupon himself the form of a servant and submitting to the death of the\ncross; for which act of self-abasement he is now exalted to be Lord of\nheaven and earth. Chap. 2:5-11. Intermingled with the above named\ncommendations, exhortations, and counsels, are frequent notices\nrespecting himself, introduced in the most natural and artless manner,\nand unfolding for our edification some of the deepest principles of\nChristian character.\n\nHis faith in Christ and love for His cause raise him above the sphere of\nhuman jealousies. He rejoices that Christ is preached, whether of\ngood-will or of envy, knowing that this shall turn to his salvation\nthrough the prayers of the Philippians and the supply of Christ's\nSpirit. Chap. 2:15-19.\n\nHe knows that for himself personally it is better to depart and be with\nChrist: but to continue in the flesh is more needful for the\nPhilippians. He cannot, therefore, choose between life and death. Chap.\n1:21-25. How different this from the spirit of some, who think of death\nonly in connection with their own personal comfort, and how much higher\nthe type of religion which it reveals!\n\nSo far as outward advantages are concerned, no man can have more\noccasion than he to glory in the flesh. But all these he has renounced\nand counted loss for Christ. His one ambition is to know Christ, and be\nunited with him in his death and resurrection. His present attainments\nhe forgets in his single purpose of pressing towards the goal for the\nprize of God's heavenly calling in Christ Jesus. Chap. 3:4-14.\n\nHe warmly commends the Philippians for their liberality, but wishes them\nto understand that he does not speak in respect to personal want; for\nevery where and in all things he has been taught the lesson of\ncontentment with present circumstances. Chap. 4:10-14.\n\n\nVI. EPISTLES TO THE THESSALONIANS.\n\n30. The original name of Thessalonica was _Therme_, whence the gulf at\nthe head of which it is situated, was called the Thermaic gulf. The\nmodern name of the city is _Saloniki_, and of the gulf, the gulf of\nSaloniki. In the apostolic age it was a large and wealthy city, and the\nmetropolis of the second district of Macedonia. At the present day it is\nsecond only to Constantinople in European Turkey. Then as now a large\nnumber of Jews resided in it. In his second missionary tour the apostle,\nwhen driven from Philippi, went through Amphipolis and Apollonia to\nThessalonica. After his usual manner he first resorted to the Jewish\nsynagogue \"and three Sabbath days reasoned with them out of the\nScriptures.\" After this a tumult was raised at the instigation of the\nunbelieving Jews, and the apostle was sent away by night to Berea. Acts\n17:1-10. We cannot affirm that his stay at Thessalonica was limited to\nthree weeks; yet it was very brief, and for this reason he was anxious\nto return again that he might impart further instruction and consolation\nto the converts there, who were undergoing a severe ordeal of temptation\nthrough persecution. Chaps. 2:17-3:5. His labors at Thessalonica were\nnot confined to the Sabbath-day and the Jewish synagogue. He preached\nthe gospel to the Gentiles also, and his chief success seems to have\nbeen among them. 1 Thess. 1:9; 2:14, 16.\n\n31. THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS was written during the\napostle's _second_ missionary journey, the same journey in which he\nfirst visited Thessalonica. This we gather from the fact that Silvanus\n(Silas) was with him (chap. 1:1), for Silas was Paul's travelling\ncompanion only during that journey (Acts 15:40; 16:19, 25, 29; 17:4, 10,\n14, 15; 18:5); also from the notice of his being at Athens (chap. 3:1\ncompared with Acts 17:15, 16). He did not, however, write from Athens,\nas the subscription erroneously states, but from _Corinth_; for it was\nat this place that Silas and Timotheus rejoined him, bringing good\ntidings from Macedonia respecting the church in Thessalonica. Chap.\n3:1-6 compared with Acts 18:1-5. This is, then, _the earliest of Paul's\nepistles_, having been written about A.D. 53.\n\n32. The epistle clearly indicates its _occasion_. In consideration of\nthe brief time which the apostle had been able to spend at Thessalonica,\nand of the severe persecution to which the converts in that city were\nexposed, he was very desirous to make them a second visit. But having\nbeen twice frustrated in this purpose, he sent Timothy and Silas to\nlearn the condition of the Thessalonian church and bring him word\nconcerning it, which they did while he was at Corinth. Chaps. 2:17-3:6.\nThe letter is an affectionate outpouring of his heart in view of the\ngood tidings received through these brethren, into which are interwoven\nencouragements, instructions, and admonitions adapted to the\ncircumstances of the brethren at Thessalonica, with abundant references\nto the apostle's own labors there. In the first chapter he commends,\nwith devout thanksgiving to God, the faith and love and patience of the\nThessalonian Christians. The second and third chapters are mainly\noccupied with a notice of his own labors and those of his colleagues at\nThessalonica, of his strong desire to revisit them which he had thus far\nbeen hindered from carrying into execution, and of his joy at the good\ntidings brought by Timothy, the whole closed with a fervent prayer in\ntheir behalf. The two remaining chapters contain miscellaneous\ninstructions suited to the condition of a church that had been recently\ngathered in great part from the ranks of heathenism. In the course of\nthese he corrects an error into which the Thessalonian believers had\nfallen from the idea that they who should die before Christ's second\ncoming might fail of their share in its glory and blessedness. Chap.\n4:13-18. In both of the epistles he admonishes the Thessalonians against\nthe neglect of their proper worldly business, a fault that was\napparently connected with visionary ideas respecting the speedy second\ncoming of our Lord, and which he rebukes in severe terms. 1 Thess. 4:11;\n2 Thess. 3:10-12.\n\n33. THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS, like the first, is written\nin the name of \"Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus,\" and seems to have\nbeen sent from _Corinth_ not many months after the first. The apostle's\nmain _design_ was to correct a pernicious error respecting the time of\nour Lord's second advent, which some at Thessalonica seem to have been\nstrenuously engaged in propagating, and to give them further instruction\nrespecting this great doctrine and their duty in relation to it. After\nthe apostolic salutation he expresses his gratitude to God for the\ngrowth of their Christian faith and love, and comforts them under the\npressure of the persecution to which they were subjected with the\nassurance of our Lord's second coming in glory to destroy his and their\nenemies and give rest to his suffering servants; but proceeds in the\nsecond chapter to show that this day is not yet at hand, and cannot come\ntill there has first been a great apostacy, the characteristic features\nof which he proceeds to give (verses 3-12). The remainder of the epistle\nis occupied with commendations and encouragements to perseverence,\nmingled with admonitions. The latter have special reference to certain\nidle and disorderly members of the church, whom the apostle describes as\n\"some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busy\nbodies\" (chap. 3:11), and who also set themselves in opposition to his\napostolic authority (verse 14). These disorderly persons seem to have\nbeen the same as those who were engaged in propagating erroneous notions\nrespecting the time of our Lord's second advent. Their visionary views\non this subject made them self-conceited, talkative, and self-willed,\nand led them to neglect the sober duties of daily life.\n\n    The apostle beseeches the Thessalonians not to be soon shaken in\n    mind, or troubled, \"neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by\n    letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.\" And he\n    adds: \"Let no man deceive you in any way\"--in any of the ways\n    specified or any other way. Chap. 2:2, 3. There were then\n    persons at Thessalonica busily occupied in misleading the\n    Thessalonians: (1) \"by spirit,\" that is, by prophesies which\n    they professed to have received from the Holy Spirit; (2) \"by\n    word,\" by oral teaching; (3) \"by letter as from us,\" that is,\n    purporting to come from the apostle. Or, perhaps, we should\n    render: \"nor by word nor by letter as from us:\" that is, neither\n    by oral teaching nor by written communication alleged to have\n    come from me. We can well understand how the unwritten words of\n    the apostle should have been perverted by these false teachers.\n    The question remains: Did they pervert the meaning of his\n    language in the first epistle, or did they employ an epistle\n    forged in his name? The latter has been from ancient times a\n    common interpretation of this clause, and it is favored by the\n    words: \"The salutation of Paul with mine own hand, which is the\n    token in every epistle: so I write.\" Chap. 3:17. Yet the\n    supposition of such a forged epistle is something so improbable\n    that many are inclined to adopt the former supposition.\n\n    The question respecting \"the man of sin\" belongs to the\n    commentator. In a brief introduction like the present, we cannot\n    enter upon it farther than to say that, though we are not\n    warranted in affirming that it has its exhaustive fulfilment in\n    the Papacy, yet its chief embodiment thus far has been in that\n    corrupt and persecuting power whose character answers so\n    remarkably to the apostle's description.\n\n34. The epistles to the churches of Philippi and Thessalonica, both\nlying within the bounds of ancient Macedonia, have a remarkable\nagreement in their general tone and manner. In both cases we have the\nsame affectionate outpouring of the apostle's heart towards the brethren\nto whom he writes, and the same abundant personal notices respecting\nhimself and his ministry. Yet they differ precisely as we might suppose\nthey would in view of the fact that the two to the Thessalonians are the\nearliest of Paul's writings, and are separated from that to the\nPhilippians by an interval of ten eventful years. In writing to the\nThessalonians he gives peculiar prominence to the doctrine of our Lord's\nsecond coming, perhaps because, in the persecutions which they were\nundergoing, they especially needed its strengthening and consolatory\ninfluence; perhaps also because in the continual maltreatment which he\nhad encountered ever since he entered Macedonia--at Philippi (Acts\n16:19-40; 1 Thess. 2:2), at Thessalonica (Acts 17:5-10), at Berea (Acts\n17:13, 14), at Corinth (Acts 18:6-17)--he was staying his own soul on\nthe same glorious hope. On the contrary, we find in these earlier\nepistles no mention of Judaizing Christians, nor any contrast between\nthe two opposite systems of justification by faith and by the works of\nthe Mosaic law, such as appears in his later epistles, that to the\nPhilippians included. Phil. 3:4-9. His opponents at Thessalonica are not\nJudaizing Christians, but unconverted Jews, whose malignant opposition\nhe describes in strong terms. 1 Thess. 2:15, 16. To the Thessalonians\nthe apostle speaks of himself; but it is of his ministry, and the manner\nin which he has discharged its duties among them. To the Philippians he\nalso speaks of himself; but then it is from a prison, with a trial for\nlife or death before him, and the retrospect of a long ministry behind\nhim. He unfolds, therefore, as is natural, his deep experiences as a\nChristian and an apostle of Christ. See above, No. 29. In this contrast\nbetween the earlier and the later epistles we have an evidence of their\ngenuineness which is all the stronger because of its indirectness. It is\nsuch a mark of truth as no falsifier has power to imitate.\n\n\nVII. THE PASTORAL EPISTLES.\n\n35. The attempt to find for the pastoral epistles a place in Paul's\nministry as far as recorded in the Acts of the Apostles is beset with\ndifficulties which amount to impossibilities.\n\n    Among these difficulties are the following:\n\n    (1.) Whoever carefully studies these three epistles in their\n    connection with each other, and in contrast with the other\n    Pauline epistles, must be profoundly impressed with the\n    conviction that they all belong, as it respects style and tone\n    of thought, to the same period of the apostle's life; and, as it\n    respects subject-matter, to the same era when the churches were\n    troubled by the same forms of error. But if we assume that they\n    were written during that part of Paul's ministry of which Luke\n    has left us the record, the second to Timothy must be widely\n    separated from the other two. That was certainly written during\n    Paul's last imprisonment near the close of his life. But when he\n    wrote the first to Timothy and that to Titus he was at liberty\n    and prosecuting his missionary labors in Asia Minor and the\n    vicinity. It must have been then, upon this assumption, during\n    his third missionary tour (when Apollos appears for the first\n    time, Acts 18:24 compared with Titus 3:13), and before his last\n    recorded journey to Jerusalem, his arrest there, his two years'\n    imprisonment at Cesarea, his voyage to Rome, and his\n    imprisonment there for the space of at least two more years.\n\n    (2.) There is no part of Paul's history \"between his first visit\n    to Ephesus and his Roman imprisonment, which satisfies the\n    historical conditions implied in the statements of any one of\n    these epistles.\" Conybeare and Howson, vol. 2, Appendix 1. The\n    student may see the arguments on one side in Davidson's\n    Introduction to the New Testament; and on the other in Alford,\n    and other critical commentators. Reference may also be made to\n    the biblical dictionaries.\n\n    (3.) Upon the assumption that the first epistle to Timothy, whom\n    Paul had left in charge of the Ephesian church, was written\n    _before_ his recorded imprisonments at Cesarea and Rome, it must\n    be earlier than his farewell address to the elders of Ephesus,\n    and also his epistle to the Ephesians. But the contents of the\n    epistle manifestly point to a later period, when the errors in\n    doctrine and practice which he had predicted (Acts 20:29, 30),\n    but of which he takes no notice in his epistle to the Ephesians,\n    had already begun to manifest themselves. The more one compares\n    with each other these two epistles, the deeper must his\n    conviction be that the first to Timothy is not the earlier but\n    the later of the two.\n\n    (4.) The peculiar tone and diction of the pastoral epistles and\n    the peculiar character of the errors combated in them all\n    indicate a later period in the apostle's life, and a later stage\n    in the history of the churches. To place the first and third of\n    these among those to the Galatians, Corinthians, and Romans, and\n    the second, among those to Philemon, the Colossians, Ephesians,\n    and Philippians, must appear forced and unnatural. It is much\n    easier to assume the lapse of some years. Even then the contrast\n    between these and the other epistles of Paul in respect to tone\n    and diction is very striking. But it may be explained partly\n    from the peculiar theme of the pastoral epistles, partly from\n    the change which the lapse of time with its manifold experiences\n    had brought to the apostle's style and diction.\n\n    We assume, therefore, that the apostle was released from the\n    Roman imprisonment recorded by Luke; and that, not very long\n    before his second imprisonment which was terminated by his\n    martyrdom at Rome, he wrote the three epistles now under\n    consideration. It is well known that this is in accordance with\n    ancient tradition. See the testimonies in Conybeare and Howson,\n    chap. 27; in Alford, and in other commentators.\n\n    Against this view is urged the apostle's declaration to the\n    elders of Ephesus that they should see his face no more;\n    whereas, according to the present supposition, he visited\n    Ephesus _again_ after his first imprisonment. As a fair offset\n    to this may be urged on the other side his equally strong\n    declaration to the Philippians that his present imprisonment\n    should have a favorable issue (Phil. 1:25); which was not the\n    case upon the hypothesis of a single imprisonment at Rome. Such\n    declarations, where no doctrine or fact of Christianity is\n    concerned, are not to be taken as revelations of the Spirit. We\n    know, for example, from Paul's own words, that he changed his\n    declared purpose respecting a visit to Corinth, for which his\n    enemies accused him of using lightness. 2 Cor. 1:15-18.\n\n    It is urged again that when Paul wrote the pastoral epistles\n    Timothy was a _young man_. 1 Tim. 4:12; 2 Tim. 2:22. But\n    according to ancient ideas one might be called a young man at\n    any age under thirty-five or even forty years. Paul found\n    Timothy in his second missionary journey, about A.D. 52. It is\n    not necessary to assume that he was then more than twenty years\n    old. At the time of Paul's martyrdom, then, about A.D. 67 or 68,\n    he may have been, for anything that appears to the contrary, a\n    young man in the ancient sense of the word.\n\n36. The false teachers with whom the apostle deals in these epistles are\ncorrupt in _practice_ as well as in doctrine. 1 Tim. 1:6; 6:5; 2 Tim.\n2:16, 17; 3:6, 8; Titus 1:15, 16. They were chiefly Jews (1 Tim. 1:7;\nTitus 1:10, 14; 3:9); but not Jews who held to simple Phariseeism, like\nthe false teachers among the Galatians. They more nearly resembled those\nwho troubled the Colossians--Jews of a speculative turn of mind, who\nsought to bring into Judaism the semi-oriental philosophy of that day.\nThey were not Gnostics; for Gnosticism was essentially anti-Judaistic,\nseparating the God of the Jews from the God of Christianity, and placing\nthe two in antagonism to each other. The speculations of these false\nteachers took a direction which was in some respects akin to the\nGnosticism of the second century; but the allegation that they were\nthemselves Gnostics rests upon the misinterpretation of certain passages\nin these epistles, or unwarrantable inferences from them.\n\n37. The _genuineness_ of these epistles is sustained by the unanimous\ntestimony of the ancient church. Only in modern times has it been called\nin question by certain writers, who rest their arguments wholly on\nalleged internal evidence.\n\n    So far as their objections are founded on the assumed early date\n    of the pastoral epistles--before the close of Paul's\n    imprisonment at Rome recorded by Luke, on their peculiar tone\n    and diction, or on the supposed references in them to the\n    Gnosticism of the second century, they have already been\n    considered. But it is further alleged:\n\n    (1.) That they reveal a _hierarchical spirit_ foreign to the\n    character of the apostle Paul. The answer is that no trace of\n    such a spirit is discernible in them. The churches had from the\n    first their officers--bishops or elders and deacons; and the\n    apostle simply gives the necessary directions for the selection\n    of these, with a few brief hints respecting the line of conduct\n    to be observed towards them. 1 Tim. 5:1, 17, 19, 22.\n\n    (2.) That the _institution of widows_ (1 Tim. 5:9-16) belongs to\n    a later age. Respecting the exact position of those who were\n    enrolled in the class of widows there have been different\n    opinions. One is that this class consisted of those who were to\n    receive relief from the funds of the church; another, that they\n    were matrons set apart for special service in the church,\n    performing for their own sex duties analogous to those which the\n    presbyters performed for the church generally. The latter\n    opinion is the more probable of the two, as it explains the\n    conditions insisted on by the apostle. But according to either\n    view there is no difficulty in admitting the existence in\n    apostolic times of such an arrangement.\n\n38. In these pastoral epistles we have the affectionate counsels of the\ngreat apostle to the Gentiles, when he was now ripe in years and\nChristian experience and about to close his earthly ministry, addressed\nto two young men whom the Holy Ghost had made overseers of the churches.\nThey are a rich storehouse of instruction for all to whom God has\ncommitted the ministry of reconciliation. Let them, as they hope at last\nto render up an account of their stewardship with joy and not with\ngrief, prayerfully study and reduce to daily practice these precepts of\nheavenly wisdom given by the Holy Spirit through the pen of \"Paul the\naged.\"\n\n39. THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.--The _time_ of this epistle lies, as\nwe have seen, beyond the recorded history of the apostle, and before his\nsecond and final imprisonment at Rome, perhaps about A.D. 65 or 66. It\nwas addressed to Timothy at Ephesus not long after the apostle had left\nthat city to go into Macedonia (chap. 1:3), but whether from Macedonia\nor some other province of the Roman empire cannot be determined. The\n_occasion_ we learn from the epistle. Paul had left Timothy in charge of\nthe Ephesian church, and, being apprehensive of a protracted absence, he\nsends him these written instructions relating partly to his own personal\ndemeanor as a Christian minister, but chiefly to his office as the\noverseer of the Ephesian church. In the discharge of this office he is\n(1) to withstand and keep down the growing heresies of the day; (2) to\nsuperintend the government of the church in various particulars which\nthe apostle specifies.\n\nThe _contents_ of the epistle though not arranged in systematic order,\nare in harmony with its occasion and design. Into the first chapter,\nwhich is of an introductory character, the apostle, in the free\nintercourse of confiding affection, inserts a personal notice of\nhimself, which breathes the spirit of devout gratitude and deep\nhumility. He then proceeds to give directions pertaining to the public\nworship of God--prayer, the costume of women, and their place in the\npublic assembly (chap. 2); and to the choice of bishops and deacons\n(chap. 3). After a digression in the fourth chapter respecting the\ncharacter of the coming apostacy foretold by the Spirit, which is\nfollowed by admonitions to Timothy of a personal character, he proceeds\nin the fifth chapter to give directions respecting the appointment and\ntreatment of elders, of the elder and younger women, and especially of\nwidows, with personal counsel to Timothy. Then follows an admonition to\nservants, a notice of the false teachers, a warning to the rich with\nfurther counsels to Timothy, and an animating glance at the second\ncoming of our Lord.\n\n    Eunice, the mother of Timothy, was a Jewess distinguished for\n    her piety, as was also his grandmother Lois. Acts 16:1; 2 Tim.\n    1:5. By them he was carefully trained in the knowledge of the\n    holy Scriptures (2 Tim. 3:15), and had a good reputation among\n    the brethren when Paul found him at Derbe and Lystra (Acts 16:1,\n    2). His father being a Greek, he had never been subjected to the\n    rite of circumcision. But in consideration of his mixed descent\n    Paul, to allay the prejudices of his countrymen, \"took and\n    circumcised him,\" while he would not allow this rite to be\n    imposed on Titus, who was of unmixed Gentile origin. Timothy was\n    one of the most trusty and beloved of Paul's fellow-laborers, as\n    we learn from these and his other epistles, and he naturally\n    desired the comfort and help of his presence in his final\n    imprisonment at Rome. 2 Tim. 4:9, 21. His health was feeble (1\n    Tim. 5:23), and there are in Paul's epistles some indications\n    that he was naturally timid and diffident (1 Cor. 16:10, 11; 2\n    Tim. 1:7, 8; 2:3). But grace made him faithful to the end.\n\n40. THE EPISTLE TO TITUS which comes next in chronological order, has a\nremarkable agreement with the first to Timothy in both subject-matter\nand style. With the exception of what relates to widows and the demeanor\nof women in the public assemblies, it contains the same general\nprecepts, with additional exhortations that young men be sober-minded,\nand that the Cretan Christians obey magistrates and be meek and gentle\nin their deportment. With these counsels the apostle interweaves, as in\nthe first epistle to Timothy, exhortations to Titus of a personal\ncharacter, and animating notices of God's grace in the gospel and of the\nsecond coming of our Lord.\n\n    Respecting the founding of the Cretan churches we have no\n    information in the Acts of the Apostles. The only time mentioned\n    by Luke when Paul touched at Crete was on his voyage to Rome as\n    a prisoner (Acts 27:8); and then he had neither time nor liberty\n    for the work of preaching the gospel in that island. Crete\n    contained many Jews, some of whom were present at Jerusalem on\n    the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:11). The apostle's visit to Crete\n    referred to in this epistle we assume to have taken place\n    between his first and second imprisonment at Rome. Whether the\n    churches of the island were then founded for the first time or\n    had previously existed, it is certain that Paul left them in an\n    imperfect state of organization. For this reason he requested\n    Titus to remain, that he might set in order the things that were\n    wanting, and ordain elders in every city. Chap. 1:5.\n\n    It is remarkable that we have no notice of Titus in the Acts of\n    the Apostles. From the epistles of Paul we learn that he was his\n    companion in travel, and intrusted by him at different times\n    with missions to the churches. He accompanied Paul and Barnabas\n    to the so-called Council of the Apostles and Elders at\n    Jerusalem, where, being a Greek, he was exempted from the\n    necessity of circumcision. Gal. 2:1, 3. For other notices of him\n    see 2 Cor. 2:13; 7:6, 13, 14; 8:6, 16, 23; 12:18. His stay in\n    Crete was not to be permanent; for the apostle directs that upon\n    the arrival from him of Artemas or Tychicus he should rejoin him\n    at Nicopolis--probably Nicopolis in Epirus. Chap. 3:12.\n\n41. SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.--The first epistle to Timothy and that to\nTitus are in a certain sense official; that is, they are largely\noccupied with apostolic counsels and directions to these two men\nrespecting the administration of the churches which Paul had committed\nto their care. The present epistle is of a more private and personal\ncharacter. It was written from Rome when Paul was a prisoner there\n(chaps. 1:8, 16, 17; 2:9), and expecting soon to seal his testimony with\nhis blood (chap. 4:6). In his extremity, when fidelity to him could be\nshown only at the hazard of life, many of his friends had forsaken him.\nChaps. 1:15; 4:10. He needed the presence and help of Timothy, and wrote\nurging him to come speedily, and to bring certain articles which he had\nleft at Troas. Feeling that his end was near, he improved the occasion\nto give Timothy his affectionate apostolic counsel and encouragement.\nHence the present epistle differs strikingly in its preceptive part from\nthe other two. They contain specific directions for ordaining officers\nand managing the affairs of the churches; for in them the apostle writes\nto men in charge of specific fields of labor. In the second epistle to\nTimothy, on the contrary, the apostle's exhortations are general, for he\nis summoning him away from his particular field to give attendance upon\nhimself at Rome. But all three of the pastoral epistles agree\nremarkably, as well in their general style and diction as in their\ndescription of existing errors and false teachers. It is generally\nthought that Timothy was at Ephesus; and with this opinion agrees the\nsalutation to \"the household of Onesiphorus,\" who was at Ephesus. Chap.\n4:19 compared with 1:18. The words of chap. 4:12, however, \"Tychicus\nhave I sent to Ephesus,\" do not favor this supposition. Hence some have\nthought that Timothy was not in that city, but only in its vicinity. The\npresent is undoubtedly the last of Paul's epistles in the order of time.\nAs such we cannot but peruse it with solemnity, as the closing testimony\nof one who has fought the good fight, finished the appointed course, and\nkept the faith; and who here instructs all, especially all preachers of\nthe gospel, how they may do the same. \"And thus we possess an epistle\ncalculated for all ages of the church; and in which while the maxims\ncited and encouragements given apply to all Christians, and especially\nministers of Christ, in their duties and difficulties--the affecting\ncircumstances in which the writer himself is placed carry home to every\nheart his earnest and impassioned eloquence.\" Alford, Introduction to 2\nTimothy.\n\n\nVIII. EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.\n\n42. In regard to the _authorship_ of this epistle biblical scholars are\nnot agreed. Each of the thirteen preceding epistles bears the name of\nPaul. But the present epistle is without either name or address, and it\nomits also at the beginning the apostolic salutation. Thus it commences\nin the form of an essay, though it closes in that of an epistle. These\ncircumstances, in connection with its peculiar style and diction and the\npeculiar range of the topics discussed in it, have produced a diversity\nof opinion on the question whether Paul was its author, at least its\nauthor in the immediate sense in which he was the author of the\npreceding epistles. For the full discussion of the arguments on both\nsides the reader must be referred to the commentaries, some of which are\naccessible to all. Our limits will only permit us to indicate certain\nfacts and principles which have a bearing on the authorship of the\nepistle and its canonical authority.\n\nThe unanimous belief of the _Eastern_ church, where we must suppose that\nit was first received and whence the knowledge of it was spread abroad,\nascribed it to Paul as its author either immediately or virtually; for\nsome, as Origen (in Eusebius' Hist. Eccl., 6. 14) accounted for its\npeculiar diction by the supposition that Paul furnished the thoughts,\nwhile they were reduced to form by the pen of some other person. Another\nopinion was that Paul wrote in Hebrew, and that our present canonical\nepistle is a translation into Greek (Eusebius' Hist. Eccl., 3. 38;\nClement of Alexandria in Eusebius' Hist. Eccl., 6. 14). In the _Western_\nchurch Clement of Rome did indeed refer to the epistle as authoritative,\nbut without naming the author. Yet its Pauline authorship was not\ngenerally admitted, nor was it received as a part of the sacred canon\ntill the fourth century, when here too the opinion of the Eastern church\nwas adopted. The Muratorian canon, which represents the belief of the\nWestern church before the fourth century, omits this epistle. The Syriac\nPeshito, on the other hand, inserts it in accordance with its uniform\nreception by the Eastern church. This uniformity of belief in the\nEastern church must have had for its starting point the Hebrews to whom\nthe epistle was sent; and it is a strong argument for the supposition\nthat it did originally come to them under the sanction of Paul's name\nand authority; whether dictated to an amanuensis, as were most of his\nepistles, or written with his knowledge and approbation by some inspired\nman among his attendants and fellow-laborers who was thoroughly\nconversant with his views on the subjects treated of in the epistle.\nThis is as far as we have any occasion to go, since we know that the\ngift of inspiration was not confined to the circle of the apostles.\n\n    As we cannot affirm that _all_ who were associated with the\n    apostles in the work of the ministry had the gifts needful for\n    the composition of writings that should be given to the churches\n    as the authoritative word of God, so neither can we deny to\n    _some_ the possession of these gifts, as is plain from the\n    examples of Mark and Luke. When men who stood in the second\n    grade of relation to Christ--_apostolic men_, as we may\n    conveniently call them--composed their works, it is not\n    necessary to assume that they wrote under a formal apostolic\n    supervision. The \"discerning of spirits\" is a gift which we must\n    concede to all of the apostles. If, then, an associate of one of\n    the apostles had such relations to him and wrote in such\n    circumstances that we cannot suppose it to have been done\n    without his knowledge and approbation formal or implied, we have\n    for his work all needful authority. What further connection the\n    apostle may have had with it in the way of suggestion or\n    supervision is a question which we may well leave undetermined.\n    In judging of this matter we consider first of all the testimony\n    of the early churches, since they enjoyed the best means of\n    ascertaining the origin of a writing; and then the character of\n    the writing itself. Proceeding in this way we come to the full\n    conviction of _the canonical authority_ of the epistle to the\n    Hebrews, whether we believe, with many, that Paul was its\n    immediate author, or, with Origen, that \"the ancients not\n    without reason have handed it down as Paul's; but on the\n    question who wrote the epistle God only knows the truth.\"\n\n43. That the apostle wrote for the instruction of Jewish Christians is\nmanifest. The uniform tenor of the epistle indicates, moreover, that\nthey were _Jewish Christians_ without any admixture of a Gentile\nelement. The salutations at the end further imply that the epistle\naddresses not Hebrew Christians in general, but some particular\ncommunity of them, which is most naturally to be sought in Palestine,\nperhaps in Jerusalem. As to the _time_ of the epistle, the manner in\nwhich it refers to the temple and its services makes it certain that the\nauthor wrote before the overthrow of Jerusalem, that is, before A.D. 70.\nThe arguments adduced to show that Paul was its author, either\nimmediately or virtually, carry it back beyond A.D. 67 or 68, when,\naccording to ancient tradition, the apostle suffered martyrdom. It was\nprobably written not many years before that event; but a more exact\ndetermination of the time is impossible. According to the most probable\ninterpretation of chap. 13:24, the epistle was written from Italy. But\nthat Timothy was not the bearer of it, as the subscription states, is\nplain from the preceding verse, in which he conditionally promises to\ncome with Timothy at a future time.\n\n    The references in the epistle to the Levitical priesthood and\n    the temple services connected with it are in the _present_ or\n    perfect _tenses_--\"is ordained,\" \"is encompassed,\" \"he ought,\"\n    \"taketh this honor,\" \"have a commandment to take tithes\"\n    \"receive tithes\" \"_hath given attendance_ at the altar\" (chap.\n    7:13), \"_have become_\" (chap. 7:21, 23), \"maketh men high\n    priests,\" \"who serve,\" \"hath made the first old\" (the references\n    in chap. 9:1-5 are to the ancient tabernacle), \"_enter_ always\n    into the first tabernacle\" (chap. 9:6), \"which he _offers_\"\n    (verse 7), \"the Holy Ghost this signifying that the way into the\n    holiest places _has not yet been made manifest_, while the first\n    tabernacle _is as yet standing_\" (verse 8), \"gifts and\n    sacrifices _are offered_\" (verse 9), \"sanctifieth,\" \"are by the\n    law purged,\" \"can never,\" \"standeth.\" It is to be regretted that\n    our version has not in all cases observed this distinction of\n    tenses.\n\n44. The _central theme_ of this book is the superiority of the Christian\nover the Mosaic dispensation considered on the side of its divine\nMediator and High-priest. In unfolding this great theme the writer\ndwells on the glory and dignity of Christ's person in contrast with the\nancient prophets, with the angels, and with Moses, all of whom were\nconnected with the first economy. He then proceeds to exhibit the divine\nefficacy of Christ's priesthood. This is the substance, of which the\nLevitical priesthood, with its altar, its offerings and all the\ntemple-services connected with it, was only the shadow. In no book of\nthe New Testament is our Lord's priestly office set forth with such\nfullness and rich variety of illustrations, always with reference to its\ndivinely appointed type, the Levitical priesthood. This was especially\nneedful to fortify the Hebrew Christians, who had been educated and\nlived under the constant impression of the splendid Mosaic ritual with\nits magnificent temple, against the danger of being turned from the\nsimplicity of the gospel to reliance on the \"carnal ordinances\" of\nJudaism, which would have been virtual apostacy from Christ. This\nmagnificent epistle constitutes in some sense a solemn requiem to the\nold temple service with its altar and priesthood, where the blood of\nbulls and goats that can never take away sin had flowed for so many\ncenturies. This service had accomplished its end in prefiguring Christ\nthe true \"Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world,\" and it\nwas destined soon to pass away forever \"with tumult, with shouting, with\nthe sound of the trumpet\"--to pass away forever, that men might give\ntheir undivided faith to Christ, our great High-priest, who ministers\nfor us in the heavenly tabernacle, presenting there before his Father's\nthrone his own blood shed on Calvary to make propitiation for the sins\nof the world.\n\nTo the argumentative part of this epistle are appended exhortations\n(partly, indeed, anticipated in the preceding part) to constancy in the\nChristian profession, drawn from the awful doom that awaits apostates,\nfrom the examples of faith furnished by ancient worthies, and especially\nfrom the example of Christ himself and the glorious fellowship to which\nhis gospel introduces us. To these are added some admonitions of a more\nspecial character. Thus the present epistle performs an office in the\ngeneral system of revelation which is supplied by no other book of the\nOld or New Testament. To the book of Leviticus it may be said to hold\nthe relation of substance to shadow, and it is its divinely appointed\nexpositor.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXI.\n\nTHE CATHOLIC EPISTLES.\n\n\n1. Seven epistles, that of James and the six that follow, are called\n_Catholic_, that is, _general_ or _universal_, as not being directed to\nany particular church. They were not all, however, addressed originally\nto believers generally, but some of them to particular classes of\nbelievers, or even to individuals, as the introductory words show.\n\n\nI. EPISTLE OF JAMES.\n\n2. The question respecting the _person_ of James who wrote this epistle\nis one of great difficulty. That \"James the Lord's brother,\" whom Paul\nnames as one of the apostles (Gal. 1:19), is identical with the James\nmentioned by Luke in Acts 12:17; 15:13; 21:18, and is the author of the\npresent epistle, is admitted by most writers, though not by all. That\nthis James of Gal. 1:19 was the James who is named with Joses, Simon,\nand Judas, as one of our Lord's brethren (Matt. 13:55; Mark 6:3), must\nbe received as certain. But whether he was identical with \"James the son\nof Alpheus,\" who was one of the twelve (Matt. 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke\n6:15; Acts 1:13), is a question which has been much discussed and on\nwhich eminent biblical scholars are found arrayed on opposite sides. The\nquestion turns very much on the interpretation of the words \"brother,\"\nand \"brethren\" and \"sisters,\" in the passages above referred to. If we\ntake them in their literal sense, as some do, then James the son of\nAlpheus and James the Lord's brother are different persons. But others\nunderstand them in the general sense of kindred or cousins, believing\nthat our Saviour was the only child of Mary. A statement at length of\nthe arguments and objections that are urged on both sides does not come\nwithin the compass of the present work. Nor is it necessary. The author\nof the present epistle is beyond all reasonable doubt the James who gave\nthe final opinion in the assembly of the apostles and elders at\nJerusalem (Acts 15:13-21), whom Paul names with Cephas and John as one\nof the \"pillars\" there (Gal. 2:9), and who elsewhere appears as a man of\ncommanding influence in the church at Jerusalem (Acts 21:18; Gal. 2:12).\nIf any one doubts his identity with James the son of Alpheus, who was\none of the twelve, this cannot affect the canonical authority of the\nepistle. The position of this James in the church at Jerusalem and his\nrelation to the apostolic college is such that, even upon the\nsupposition that he did not belong to the number of the twelve, his\nwritings must have to us the full weight of apostolic authority. See\nabove chap. 30, No. 42.\n\n3. The _place_ where this epistle was written was manifestly Jerusalem,\nwhere James always resided; and the _persons addressed_ are \"the twelve\ntribes who are in the dispersion\" (chap. 1:1); that is, as the nature of\nthe case and the tenor of the epistle make manifest, that part of them\nwho had embraced Christianity. There is no allusion in the epistle to\nGentile believers.\n\n    _The dispersion_ is a technical term for the Jews living out of\n    Palestine among the Gentiles. We need not hesitate to understand\n    it here literally. The apostle _wrote_ to his Jewish brethren of\n    the dispersion because he could not visit them and superintend\n    their affairs as he could those of the Jewish Christians in and\n    around Jerusalem. Some take the term in a wider sense of the\n    Jewish Christians scattered abroad in and out of Palestine, but\n    this is not necessary.\n\n4. With regard to the _date_ of this epistle also different opinions are\nheld. Some place it early in the history of the church--earlier, in\nfact, than any other of the apostolic epistles--_before_ the origin of\nthe controversy respecting circumcision and the Mosaic law recorded in\nActs, chap. 15; others quite _late_, not long before the destruction of\nJerusalem by the Romans. The latter view best agrees with the contents\nof the epistle. The doctrine of justification by faith, for which Paul\nhad contended, would naturally be abused precisely in the way here\nindicated, by the substitution of a barren speculative faith, for the\ntrue faith that works by love and purifies the heart and life from sin.\nThe age preceding the destruction of Jerusalem was one of abounding\nwickedness, especially in the form of strife and faction. It had been\npredicted by our Lord that the effect of this would be to chill the love\nof many of his visible followers and withdraw them from his service. In\ntruth the descriptions of these unworthy members of the Jewish Christian\ncommunity which we find in this epistle, in the second of Peter, and in\nthat of Jude, are but the realization, in most particulars, of the state\nof things foretold in the following remarkable words of the Saviour:\n\"And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and\nshall hate one another. And many false prophets shall arise and shall\ndeceive many. And because iniquity shall abound the love of many shall\nwax cold. But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be\nsaved.\" Matt. 24:10-13.\n\n5. For the _genuineness_ and _canonical_ authority of the present\nepistle we have a very important testimony in the Old Syriac version\n(Peshito), which represents the judgment of the Eastern churches where\nthe epistle was originally circulated. The remaining testimonies prior\nto the fourth century are scanty and some of them not very decisive.\nThey may be all seen in Davidson's Introduction to the New Testament,\nand in the critical commentaries generally.\n\n    It cannot be reasonably doubted that the words of Irenaeus,\n    \"Abraham himself, without circumcision and without the\n    observance of Sabbaths, believed in God, and it was counted to\n    him for righteousness, and he was called the friend of God\"\n    (Against Heresies, 4.30), refer to James 2:23. Origen quotes the\n    epistle as \"current under the name of James,\" and intimates that\n    some did not acknowledge its apostolic authority. But he\n    elsewhere cites it as that of \"James the Lord's brother,\" \"the\n    apostle James,\" \"the apostle,\" and simply \"James.\" See in\n    Kirchhofer Quellensamlung, pp. 263, 264. Eusebius reckons the\n    epistle among the books that were \"disputed, but known\n    nevertheless to many.\" Hist. Eccl., 3, 25. Elsewhere he says:\n    \"It is regarded as spurious; at least not many of the ancients\n    have made mention of it.\" Hist. Eccl., 2. 23. But these words\n    cannot be regarded as expressing Eusebius' own opinion; for he\n    himself quotes him as \"the holy apostle,\" and his words as\n    \"Scripture.\" See in Davidson's Introduction to the New\n    Testament, vol. 3, p. 336; Kirchhofer Quellensamlung, p. 264.\n\nIn the course of the fourth century the canonical authority of this\nepistle was gradually more and more acknowledged, and in the fifth its\nreception in the churches of both the East and the West became\nuniversal.\n\n    \"This is just what we might expect: a writing little known at\n    first, obtains a more general circulation, and the knowledge of\n    the writing and its reception go almost together. The contents\n    entirely befit the antiquity which the writing claims; no\n    _evidence_ could be given for rejecting it; it differs in its\n    whole nature from the foolish and spurious writings put forth in\n    the name of this James; and thus its gradual reception is to be\n    accounted for from its having, from early times, been known by\n    some to be genuine (as shown by the Syraic version), and this\n    knowledge being afterwards spread more widely.\" Tregelles in\n    Horne, vol. 4, chap. 25. Davidson suggests that differences of\n    opinion and perplexities respecting the number of the persons\n    called James in the apostolic period, and the relation they bore\n    to one another, and also the fact that the epistle was addressed\n    solely to Jewish Christians, may have made its early circulation\n    comparatively limited. Perhaps we may also add, as he does, its\n    apparent contrariety to the Pauline doctrine of justification by\n    faith, but this is by no means certain.\n\n6. This epistle is eminently practical. If any part of it can be called\nargumentative, it is that in which the apostle shows that \"faith without\nworks is dead.\" Chap. 2:14-26. The sins which he rebukes with such\ngraphic vividness and power were all preeminently the sins of his\ncountrymen at that age--hearing God's word without doing it, resting in\nan empty faith that does not influence the life, inordinate love of\nworldly possessions and a self-confident spirit in the pursuit of them,\nwanton revelling in worldly pleasures, partiality towards the rich and\ncontempt of the poor, defrauding the poor of their wages, ambition to\nassume the office of teaching, censoriousness, a lawless and slanderous\ntongue, bitter envying and strife, mutual grudging and murmuring, wars\nand fightings; all these with an unbelieving and complaining spirit\ntowards God. But these are not merely Jewish vices. They are deeply\nrooted in man's fallen nature, and many a nominal Christian community of\nour day may see its own image by looking into the mirror of this\nepistle.\n\nThe alleged disagreement between Paul and James is unfounded. Paul's\nobject is to show that the ground of men's justification is faith in\nChrist, and not the merit of their good works. The object of James is to\nshow that faith without good works, like the body without the spirit, is\ndead. Paul argues against dead works; James against dead faith. Here we\nhave no contradiction, but only two different views of truth that are in\nentire harmony with each other, and both of which are essential to true\ngodliness.\n\n\nII. EPISTLES OF PETER.\n\n7. The First Epistle of Peter was unanimously received by the primitive\nchurch as the genuine work of the man whose name it bears. Polycarp, in\nhis epistle to the Philippians, made numerous citations from it. It was\nalso referred to by Papias, according to the testimony of Eusebius.\nHist. Eccl. 3. 39. Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen,\netc. all quote it expressly. It is found in the Syriac Peshito version\nwhich contains but three of the catholic epistles. It is wanting in the\nMuratorian canon, but to this circumstance much weight cannot be\nattached when we consider how dark and confused is the passage referring\nto the catholic epistles.\n\n8. _The readers_ addressed in the epistle are \"the elect sojourners of\nthe dispersion, of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,\" all\nprovinces of Asia Minor. The words \"sojourners\"--or \"strangers\" as\nrendered in our English version--and \"dispersion\" are both the\nappropriate terms for the Jews living in dispersion. That the apostle,\nin an introduction of this kind, should have used the word \"sojourners\"\nin a simply figurative sense, to describe Christians as \"pilgrims and\nstrangers on the earth,\" is very improbable, especially in immediate\nconnection with the word \"dispersion,\" which must be understood\nliterally. We must rather understand the apostle as recognizing in the\nChristian churches scattered throughout the world the true \"Israel of\nGod,\" having for its framework the believing portion of the covenant\npeople, into which the Gentile Christians had been introduced through\nfaith, and thus made the children of Abraham. Compare Rom. 4:12-17; Gal.\n3:7-9; and especially Rom. 11:17-24. Hence it comes to pass that while\nPeter addresses them as the ancient people of God, he yet includes\nGentile Christians in his exhortations, as is manifest from various\npassages, especially from chap. 4:3.\n\n9. According to chap. 5:13 the _place_ from which this epistle was\nwritten was Babylon. No valid reason exists why we should not understand\nhere the literal Babylon. The old opinion that the apostle used the word\nenigmatically to signify Rome is nothing more than a conjecture in\nitself improbable. It has been urged not without reason that Peter names\nthe provinces of Asia Minor in the order which would be natural to one\nwriting from Babylon; naming Pontus first, which lay nearest to Babylon,\nand Asia and Bithynia, which were the most remote, last. The question of\nthe _date_ of this epistle is connected with that of its _occasion_.\nThis seems to have been a \"fiery trial\" of persecution that had already\nbegun to come upon the Christians of the provinces named in the\nintroductory address. Chaps. 1:6, 7; 2:12, 19, 20; 3:14, 16, 17; 4:1,\n12-19; 5:9, 10. The exact date and character of this persecution cannot\nbe determined. The majority of commentators assign it to the latter\nyears of Nero's reign, which ended A.D. 68. The second epistle of Peter\nwas written not long before the apostle's death, and after the epistles\nof Paul had become generally known in Asia Minor. As we cannot\nreasonably separate the two epistles by a great space of time (see\nbelow, No. 11), we infer that the first was written after Paul's first\nimprisonment in Rome, say somewhere between A.D. 63 and 67.\n\n10. The general tone of the first epistle is in harmony with its\noccasion. The apostle seeks to animate and strengthen his brethren in\nview of the \"fiery trial\" of persecution that had already begun to come\nupon them. To this end he sets before them in glowing language the\ngreatness and glory of the heavenly inheritance in reserve for them,\nwhich was purchased by the precious blood of Christ, and the dignity and\nblessedness of suffering for Christ's sake, with the assurance of God's\nfaithful presence and protection. With these encouragements he\nintermingles admonitions suited to their circumstances. He exhorts them\nas strangers and pilgrims to abstain from fleshly lusts and all the\nother vices of their former life in ignorance; to commend their religion\nby a holy deportment which shall put to shame the calumnies of their\nadversaries; to perform faithfully all the duties of their several\nstations in life; to be humble, sober, vigilant, and ready always to\ngive a reason of their Christian hope; and above all things to have\nfervent charity among themselves. The fervent spirit of the great\napostle of the circumcision, chastened and mellowed by age, shines forth\nconspicuously in this epistle. The closing chapter, where he addresses\nfirst the elders, then the younger, then the whole body of believers,\ncharms the reader by the holy tranquillity which pervades it\nthroughout--a tranquillity deeply grounded in that faith which is \"the\nsubstance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.\"\n\n11. THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. The _address_ of this epistle is\ngeneral (chap. 1:1); yet the reference which it contains to the first\n(chap. 3:1) shows that the apostle had in mind primarily the same circle\nof churches. The character of this reference--\"This second epistle,\nbeloved, I now write unto you, in which [two epistles] I stir up your\npure minds by way of reminding [you]\"--indicates that the second was not\nseparated from the first by a very great space of _time_, certainly not\nmany years. The apostle wrote with the conviction that his decease was\nnear at hand (chap. 1:13-15). There is a tradition, the correctness of\nwhich, however, is doubted by many, that he suffered martyrdom at Rome\nunder the persecution raised by Nero against the Christians. This would\nbe about A.D. 67. As to the _place_ from which the epistle was written\nwe have no information.\n\n12. The present epistle is one of the _disputed_ books. Chap. 5, No. 7,\nand Chap. 6. The question respecting its genuineness may be conveniently\nconsidered under the two heads of _external_ and _internal_ evidence.\n\n    The _external_ testimony to the present epistle is scanty.\n    Passing by some doubtful references we come first to Origen who\n    says (in Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., 6. 25): \"But Peter, upon whom is\n    built the church of Christ, against which the gates of hell\n    shall not prevail, has left one acknowledged epistle; a second\n    also, if you will, for it is doubted of.\" In those of his works\n    which are extant only in the Latin version of Rufinus, Origen in\n    a number of passages quotes the present epistle as Scripture. It\n    has been suspected that these passages were interpolated by\n    Rufinus, who took many liberties with the text of Origen; but\n    one of them, which occurs at the beginning of his seventh homily\n    on Joshua, is so peculiar that we cannot well doubt that Origen\n    himself was its author. In allusion to the procession of priests\n    blowing with trumpets when the Israelites compassed the walls of\n    Jericho (Josh. chap. 6), he compares the writers of the New\n    Testament to so many sacerdotal trumpeters, assigning to them\n    trumpets for each book, and mentioning _every book_, as well the\n    disputed as the acknowledged: \"First Matthew in his gospel, gave\n    a blast with his sacerdotal trumpet. Mark also, Luke, and John,\n    sounded with their single sacerdotal trumpets. Peter also sounds\n    aloud with the two trumpets of his epistles; James also, and\n    Jude. But John adds yet again to blow with the trumpet through\n    his epistles and Apocalypse; Luke, also, narrating the Acts of\n    the Apostles. But last of all that man came, who said: 'I think\n    that God has set forth us apostles last,' and thundering with\n    the fourteen trumpets of his epistles, overthrew to their\n    foundations the walls of Jericho, and all the engines of\n    idolatry and dogmas of philosophers.\" The \"epistles\" through\n    which the apostle John sounds are obviously his three epistles.\n    The \"fourteen trumpets\" upon which Paul blows include the\n    epistle to the Hebrews. In this remarkable passage, then, we\n    have an _exhaustive list_ of our present canonical books; and\n    there is no ground for imputing any interpolation to the\n    translator. It may be said, indeed, that this enumeration of the\n    books of the New Testament is made in a popular way, and does\n    not imply Origen's deliberate judgment that they were all of\n    apostolic authority. If this be granted, it still remains\n    evident from the form of the passage that _all the books of our\n    present canon were in current ecclesiastical use_ in Origen's\n    day, whatever doubts he may have had respecting some of them,\n    and that they constituted, along with the writings of the Old\n    Testament, that whole of divine revelation which the Christian\n    churches employed in assaulting the kingdom of Satan.\n\n    The testimony of Eusebius himself is of the same general import\n    as that of Origen--that the first epistle of Peter has been\n    universally acknowledged; but that the one current as the second\n    has not been received as a part of the New Testament; but yet,\n    appearing useful to many, has been studied with the other\n    Scriptures (Hist. Eccl., 3. 3); that among the writings which\n    are disputed, yet known to many, are the epistles current as\n    those of James and Jude, and the second epistle of Peter (Hist.\n    Eccl., 3. 25).\n\n    Jerome says that Peter \"wrote two epistles that are called\n    catholic, of which the second is denied by most persons on\n    account of its disagreement in style with the first.\" Scrip.\n    Eccl., 1. But he himself received the epistle, and explained the\n    difference in style and character and structure of words by the\n    assumption that Peter used _different interpreters_ in the\n    composition of the two epistles (Epist. 120 ad Hedib., chap.\n    11); and from his time onward the epistle was generally regarded\n    as a part of the New Testament.\n\n    The reader who wishes to investigate farther the question of\n    external testimonies will find them all given in Davidson's\n    Introduct. to New Test.; and Alford's Commentary, Introduction\n    to 2 Peter. We simply repeat the remark already made (Chap. 6,\n    No. 3) that although the universal and undisputed reception of a\n    book by all the early churches cannot be explained except on the\n    assumption of its genuineness, its non-reception by some is no\n    conclusive argument against it. It may have remained (as seems\n    to have been peculiarly the case with some of the catholic\n    epistles) for a considerable period in obscurity. When it began\n    to be more extensively known, the general reception and use of\n    it would be a slow process both from the difficulty of\n    communication in ancient as compared with modern times, and\n    especially from the slowness and hesitancy with which the\n    churches of one region received anything new that came from\n    another region. Chap. 2, No. 5. Jerome does indeed mention the\n    objection from the difference of style between this epistle and\n    the first of Peter; but it is doubtful whether in this matter he\n    speaks for the early churches generally. The obscurity in which\n    the epistle had remained, partly at least because it was not\n    addressed to the guardianship of any particular church, seems to\n    have been the chief ground of doubt.\n\n    The _internal_ testimony for and against the genuineness of this\n    epistle has been discussed at great length by many writers. The\n    reader will find good summaries of them in the two works above\n    referred to, also in the critical commentaries generally and the\n    modern Bible dictionaries. If one would come to true results in\n    this field of investigation it is important that he begin with\n    true principles. There are what may be called _staple\n    peculiarities_, which mark the style of one writer as compared\n    with that of another--that of John, for example, in contrast\n    with that of Paul. We cannot conceive of these as being wanting.\n    But then we must allow to one and the same writer a considerable\n    range of variation in style and diction, dependent partly on\n    difference of subject matter, and partly on varying frames of\n    mind of which no definite account can be given. If one would be\n    convinced of this, he has only to read side by side the epistle\n    of Paul to the Romans and his second to the Corinthians.\n    Reserving now the second chapter of the present epistle for\n    separate consideration, we do not find in the two remaining\n    chapters, as compared with the first epistle, any such\n    fundamental differences of style and diction as can constitute a\n    just ground for denying the common authorship of the two\n    epistles. For the particulars, as well as for the examination of\n    other objections of an internal character, the reader must be\n    referred to the sources above named. It is certainly remarkable\n    that Peter should refer to the writings of Paul in such terms as\n    to class them with the \"Scriptures\" of the Old Testament. Chap.\n    3:16. But, as Alford remarks, this implies not that the canon of\n    the New Testament had been settled when the present epistle was\n    written, but only that \"there were certain writings by Christian\n    teachers, which were reckoned on a level with the Old Testament\n    Scriptures, and called by the same name. And that that was not\n    the case, even in the traditional lifetime of Peter, it would be\n    surely unreasonable to deny.\" We close this part of the\n    discussion with the following words from the same author: \"Our\n    general conclusion from all that has preceded must be in favor\n    of the genuineness and canonicity of this second epistle;\n    acknowledging at the same time, that the subject is not without\n    considerable difficulty. That difficulty however is lightened\n    for us by observing that on the one hand, it is common to this\n    epistle with some others of those called catholic, and several\n    of the later writings of the New Testament; and on the other,\n    that no difference can be imagined more markedly distinctive,\n    than that which separates all those writings from even the\n    earliest and best of the post-apostolic period. Our epistle is\n    one of those latter fruits of the great outpouring of the Spirit\n    on the apostles, which, not being intrusted to the custody of\n    any one church or individual, required some considerable time to\n    become generally known; which when known, were suspected,\n    bearing, as they necessarily did traces of their late origin,\n    and notes of polemical argument; but of which as apostolic and\n    inspired writings, there never was, when once they became known,\n    any general doubt; and which, as the sacred canon became fixed,\n    acquired, and have since maintained, their due and providential\n    place among the books of the New Testament.\"\n\n13. The _object_ of the present epistle is to warn believers against\nbeing led away with the error of the wicked so as to fall from their own\nsteadfastness. Chap. 3:17. It contains accordingly extended notices of\nthe gross errors in doctrine and morals which, as we know from the New\nTestament, abounded in the Christian church near the close of the\napostolic period. The second chapter, which is occupied with a vivid\ndescription of the false teachers that had \"crept in unawares\" (chap.\n2:1; Jude 4), is very peculiar in its contents; and its agreement with\nthe epistle of Jude is of such a character as leads to the inference\nthat the two writings are somehow connected with each other. It has been\nsupposed that both writers drew from a common source unknown to us. More\nprobable is the opinion that one of them had in view the words of the\nother. A comparison of the two writings will perhaps lead to the belief\nthat Jude's was the original, though on this point biblical scholars\ndiffer. It matters not to us whether, under the guidance of the Holy\nSpirit, Peter employed, in a free and independent way, the words of\nJude, or Jude those of Peter. Upon either supposition his writing is as\nmuch inspired as if he had written independently. The most prominent\nidea of Peter's first epistle is patience and steadfastness in the\nendurance of suffering for Christ's sake; that of this second epistle is\ncaution against the seductions of false teachers. Thus each epistle\nfills an important place in the entire economy of revelation.\n\n\nIII. EPISTLES OF JOHN.\n\n14. THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN bears throughout the impress of its\n_authorship_. That it was written by the same man who wrote the fourth\ngospel is too evident to be reasonably controverted. On this ground\nalone its genuineness and authenticity may be regarded as established on\na firm basis. But the external testimonies to its authorship are also\nabundant from Polycarp, the disciple of the apostle, and onward. It is\nunnecessary to enumerate them. In respect to the _date_ of this epistle\nwe have no certain knowledge. The common opinion is that it was written\nafter the gospel, and towards the close of the first century. With this\nsupposition the contents agree. It contains the affectionate counsel of\nan aged apostle to his younger brethren, whom he addresses as his\n\"little children.\" He writes, moreover, in \"the last time,\" when,\naccording to the prediction of our Lord and his apostles, many\nantichrists and false prophets are abroad in the world (chaps. 2:18;\n4:1-3), and there are some who deny that Jesus Christ is come in the\nflesh (chap. 4:2, 3). As to the _place_ of the apostle's writing, if we\nfollow ancient tradition, which makes Ephesus his home in his old age,\nwe may well believe that he wrote from that city, and that the epistle\nwas addressed primarily to the circle of churches which had Ephesus for\na centre.\n\n    Some of the ancients refer to the present epistle as written to\n    the _Parthians_. But this is a very improbable assumption, and\n    rests apparently on some mistake. The apostle evidently writes\n    to those who are under his spiritual care; and these are not the\n    Parthians, but the Christians of Asia, to whom also the seven\n    letters of the Apocalypse are addressed.\n\n15. The epistle has unity throughout, but not the unity of systematic\nlogical arrangement. Its unity consists rather in the fact that all its\nthoughts revolve around one great central truth, _the incarnation of the\nSon of God in the person of Jesus Christ for the salvation of the\nworld_. With this truth he begins, and he affirms it authoritatively, as\none of the primitive apostolic witnesses: \"That which we have seen and\nheard declare we unto you.\" Chaps. 1:3; 4:6. He guards it also against\nperversion, when he insists upon the reality of our Lord's incarnation:\n\"Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is\nof God: and every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come\nin the flesh, is not of God\" (chap. 4:2, 3), words which are with good\nreason understood as referring to a very ancient form of error, that of\nthe _Docet[oe]_, who maintained that the Son of God had not a real, but\nonly an apparent body. The reception through faith of this great truth,\nthat the Son of God has come in the flesh for man's salvation, brings us\ninto blissful union and communion with the Father and the Son, and thus\ninto the possession of sonship and eternal life. Chaps. 1:3; 3:1, 2;\n4:15; 5:1, 13, 20. The rejection of this truth is the rejection of God's\nown testimony concerning his Son (chaps. 2:22; 5:9, 10), and thus the\nrejection of eternal life; for out of Christ, the Son of God, there is\nno life (chap. 5:11, 12). But this reception of Christ is not a matter\nof mere theoretic belief. It is a practical coming to the Father and the\nSon, and a holy union with them. The proof of such union with God and\nChrist is likeness to God and obedience to God's commandments. They who\nprofess to know God and to be in him, while they walk in darkness and\nallow themselves in sin, are liars and the truth is not in them. Chaps.\n1:5-7; 2:4-6; 3:5-10, 24; 5:4, 5, 18. The sum of all God's attributes is\nlove; and the sum of Christian character is love also. Chap. 4:16. But\nthere can be no true love towards God where there is none towards the\nbrethren; and such love must manifest itself \"not in word, neither in\ntongue; but in deed and in truth.\" Chaps. 3:11-18; 4:7-11, 20, 21; 5:1.\nHe that loves his brother abides in the light; but he that hates him\nabides in darkness and death. Chaps. 2:9-11; 3:14, 15. All believers\nhave an abiding unction of the Spirit, which enables them to distinguish\nbetween truth and falsehood, and keeps them from the seductions of the\nmany antichrists that are abroad. Chap. 2:18-27. Such true believers,\nwhose hearts are filled with love, are raised above fear, and have\nconfidence in prayer, and may look forward with joyful confidence to the\nday of judgment. Chaps. 2:28; 3:18-20; 4:17, 18; 5:14, 15. These\nfundamental truths the apostle reiterates in various forms and\nconnections, intermingling with them various admonitions and promises of\na more particular character. He dwells with especial fulness on the\nevidences of discipleship as manifested in the daily spirit and life.\nThere is perhaps no part of God's word so directly available to the\nanxious inquirer who wishes to know what true religion is, and whether\nhe possesses it. He who, in humble reliance on the illumination of the\ndivine Spirit, applies to himself this touchstone of Christian\ncharacter, will know whether he is of God, or of the world that lies in\nwickedness.\n\n16. SECOND AND THIRD EPISTLES OF JOHN. These two short epistles are so\nclosely related to each other in style and manner that they have always\nbeen regarded as written by one and the same person. In considering,\ntherefore, the question of their authorship we take them both together.\nThough reckoned by Origen (in Eusebius' Hist. Eccl., 6. 25) and by\nEusebius himself (Hist. Eccl., 3. 25; Demonstratio Evangel. 3. 5) among\nthe disputed writings, the external testimony to their apostolic\nauthorship is upon the whole satisfactory, embracing the names of\nIrenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Dionysius of Alexandria, Jerome, etc.\nWhen we take into account the small extent of these epistles it is plain\nthat no unfavorable inference can be drawn from the silence of\nTertullian and others. Nor is there any internal evidence against them.\nThat the man who, in his gospel, studiously avoids the mention of his\nown name, describing himself as \"the disciple whom Jesus loved,\" and, in\nhis first epistle, simply classes himself with the other apostles--\"that\nwhich _we_ have seen and heard,\" etc.--should in these epistles, where\nsome designation of himself was necessary, speak of himself as \"the\nelder\" is not surprising. Compare 1 Peter 5:1.\n\n17. Concerning the date of these two epistles we know nothing. The\nobject of the first seems to have been to set before the lady to whom it\nwas addressed the importance of a discriminating love, which\ndistinguishes between truth and falsehood, and does not allow itself to\naid and abet error by misplaced kindness towards its teachers.\n\nIn the second the apostle, writing to Gaius, commends to his\nhospitality, certain missionary brethren, who were strangers in the\nplace where this disciple lived. It would seem that the design of these\nbrethren was to preach the gospel to the Gentiles without charge; that\nhe had in a former letter, commended them to the church where Gaius\nresided; but that Diotrephes had hindered their reception, and\npersecuted those who favored them.\n\nShort as these epistles are, then, each of them contains weighty\ninstruction--the first, in reference to ill-timed kindness and\nliberality towards the teachers of error; the second, concerning the\ncharacter and conduct of those who love to have the preeminence, and the\nabhorrence in which they ought to be held by all who love the purity and\npeace of the churches.\n\n\nIV. EPISTLE OF JUDE.\n\n18. The writer of this epistle styles himself \"the servant of Jesus\nChrist, and brother of James.\" Chap. 1:1. This James is undoubtedly the\nsame man who held so conspicuous a place in the church at Jerusalem, and\nwas the author of the epistle which bears his name. Whether Jude was an\napostle, or an apostolic man, like Mark and Luke, depends upon the\nquestion respecting the relation which his brother James held to Christ,\nconcerning which see the introduction to the epistle of James. In either\ncase the canonical authority of the epistle holds good. The close\nrelation between this epistle and the second chapter of Peter's second\nepistle has already been noticed. See above, No. 13. It was probably\nanterior in time to that epistle, but not separated from it by a great\nnumber of years. If we may infer anything from the abundant use made by\nthe writer of Jewish history and tradition, the persons addressed are\nJewish Christians.\n\n19. Eusebius classes this epistle also among the disputed writings\n(Hist. Eccl., 2. 23; 3. 25), yet the testimonies to its genuineness are\nample--the Muratorian canon, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen,\nJerome, etc.\n\n    It was objected to this epistle in ancient times that the writer\n    quotes from the apocryphal book of Enoch (verses 14, 15). To\n    this it may be answered--(1) that, if this be the case, Jude\n    does not sanction the book of Enoch as a whole, but only this\n    particular tradition embodied in it; (2) that the writer of the\n    book of Enoch manifestly made use of a current tradition, and\n    that, for anything that appears to the contrary, Jude may have\n    availed himself of the same tradition, independently of the book\n    of Enoch. That an inspired writer should refer to a traditional\n    history not recorded in the Old Testament ought not to give\n    offence. The apostle Paul does the same (2 Tim. 3:8, 9); and\n    Jude himself in another passage (verse 9).\n\n20. The _design_ of the epistle Jude himself gives in explicit terms\n(verses 3, 4). It is to guard believers against the seductions of false\nteachers, corrupt in practice as well as doctrine; whose selfishness,\nsensuality, and avarice; whose vain-glorious, abusive, and schismatic\nspirit, he describes in vivid language, denouncing upon them at the same\ntime the awful judgment of God. The apostolic portraiture has not yet\nbecome antiquated in the history of Christ's church.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXII.\n\nTHE APOCALYPSE.\n\n\n1. The word _Apocalypse_ (Greek _Apokalupsis_) signifies _Revelation_,\nthe title given to the book in our English version as well from its\nopening word as from its contents. Of all the writings of the New\nTestament that are classed by Eusebius among the disputed books\n(_Antilegomena_, chap. 5. 6), the apostolic authorship of this is\nsustained by the greatest amount of _external_ evidence; so much so that\nEusebius acknowledges it as doubtful whether it should be classed among\nthe _acknowledged_ or the _disputed_ books.\n\n    It was known to Papias, to Melito bishop of Sardis, and to\n    Theophilus of Antioch; is quoted as a part of Scripture by the\n    churches of Vienne and Lyons in the last quarter of the second\n    century; and is expressly ascribed to the apostle John by Justin\n    Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, the\n    Muratorian canon, Hippolytus, Origen, Jerome, etc. The\n    testimonies may be seen in Davidson's Introduction to the New\n    Test., in Alford, and in the other works already frequently\n    referred to. Eusebius, after giving a list of the _acknowledged_\n    books, adds: \"After these should be placed, if it be thought\n    proper, the Revelation of John, concerning which we shall give\n    the opinions at the proper time.\" Then, at the end of a list of\n    the _disputed_ and _rejected_ books he adds: \"And moreover, as I\n    said, the Revelation of John, if it be thought proper, which\n    some, as I said, reject, but others reckon among the\n    acknowledged books\" (Hist. Eccl., 3. 25); and again, after\n    mentioning with approbation the account of those who said that\n    there were at Ephesus two who bore the name of John (John the\n    _apostle_, and the so-called _presbyter_ John), he adds: \"For it\n    is probable that the second, if any one be not willing to allow\n    that it was the first, saw the Revelation current under the name\n    of John\" (Hist. Eccl., 3. 39). Those who denied the apostolic\n    authorship of the book generally referred it to this latter,\n    John the presbyter. So Dionysius of Alexandria and others. But\n    for this they adduced no historic proof. Their arguments were\n    drawn wholly from considerations relating to its internal\n    character, especially in the case of some, its supposed\n    millenarian views. Upon any fair principle of judging, we must\n    concede that the apostolic authorship of this book is sustained\n    by a mass of ancient testimony not rebutted by any contrary\n    testimony which rests on a historic basis.\n\n2. In modern, as in ancient times, the main arguments against the\napostolic authorship of the Apocalypse have been drawn from its\n_internal_ character, especially as contrasted with that of the fourth\ngospel and the first epistle of John. On this ground the assaults upon\nthe book have been many and strong, and they have been met with vigorous\nresistance. To review the arguments on both sides would exceed our\nlimits. Many of them, moreover, presuppose a knowledge of the original\nlanguages of both the Old and the New Testament. We can only indicate\nsome considerations of a general nature.\n\n    (1.) No valid argument against the apostolic authorship of this\n    book can be drawn from the fact that the writer specifies his\n    name in the introduction and elsewhere. Chaps. 1:1, 4, 9; 21:2;\n    22:8. It may surprise us that the man who studiously avoids\n    mentioning his name in the fourth gospel, and who describes\n    himself in his second and third epistles as \"the elder,\" should\n    here directly introduce his name at the beginning and in the\n    progress of the book. But for this difference he may have had a\n    good reason, whether we can discover it or not. The direct\n    command, addressed to him personally, that he should write down\n    his visions and send them to the seven churches of Asia would\n    seem to imply the propriety, if not the necessity, of his\n    connecting his own name with the record of them. He addressed\n    the churches immediately and authoritatively in the name of the\n    risen and glorified Saviour. What more natural and proper than\n    that he should inform them directly who he was that had received\n    this heavenly message.\n\n    (2.) The _doctrinal_ views of the Apocalypse afford no argument\n    against its apostolic authorship. The writer, it is true, moves\n    to a great extent in a new and peculiar sphere of truth; but\n    there is nothing in it contradictory to the teachings of John's\n    gospel and epistles. On the contrary, the great central truths\n    that relate to Christ's person and office are in perfect harmony\n    with those teachings.\n\n    (3.) The _spirit_ of the Apocalypse is not contradictory to that\n    of the gospel and epistles. A writer in Alexander's Kitto says:\n    \"Quiet contemplation has full scope in the evangelist; mildness\n    and love find utterance in affectionate discourse. But the\n    spirit of the apocalyptist is stern and revengeful, with cutting\n    reproofs, calls to repentance, commands and threatenings.\" The\n    answer to all this is that, just as the human body has bones and\n    muscles as well as fluids and soft tissues, so the mediatorial\n    government of Christ has a stern as well as a mild side; and\n    that the very nature of the visions contained in the apocalypse\n    gives prominence to this side.\n\n    (4.) The main objections are based on _diversity of style and\n    diction_. Notwithstanding all the true points of resemblance in\n    this respect that have been adduced by various writers, the\n    difference between the Apocalypse, on the one hand, and the\n    gospel and epistles of John, on the other, is very striking. But\n    here we must take into account, first of all, the great\n    difference in the _subject-matter_, which naturally brings a\n    corresponding difference of language. Next, the difference in\n    the _mode of divine communication_. The gospel and epistles were\n    written under that constant tranquil illumination of the Holy\n    Spirit which all the apostles enjoyed. The subject-matter of the\n    Apocalypse was given in direct vision--much of it, moreover,\n    through the medium of oral address. To one who believes in the\n    reality of the revelations here recorded it is vain that an\n    opponent urge the difference in style between the first epistle\n    of John and the epistles to the seven churches of Asia; since\n    these latter are expressed in the very words of Christ.\n    Inseparably connected with the peculiar mode of revelation in\n    the Apocalypse are the peculiar _mental state and circumstances_\n    in which the apostle wrote. He composed the gospel and epistles\n    in the calmness of tranquil contemplation and reminiscences of\n    the past. The visions of the Apocalypse he received \"in the\n    Spirit\" (chap. 1:10; 4:2); that is, in a state of ecstacy; and,\n    according to the plain language of the book, he _wrote them down\n    at the time_, beginning, as we must suppose, with the second\n    chapter, the introductory chapter and some closing remarks\n    having been added afterwards. The direction: \"What thou seest\n    write in a book\" (chap. 1:11, 19), does not indeed imply that he\n    should write upon the spot; but that he did so is plainly\n    indicated elsewhere: \"When the seven thunders had uttered their\n    voices, I was about to write: and I heard a voice from heaven\n    saying unto me, Seal up those things which the seven thunders\n    uttered, and write them not\" (chap. 10:4). In entire harmony\n    with this is another passage: \"And I heard a voice from heaven\n    saying unto me, Write, Blessed are the dead which die in the\n    Lord from henceforth,\" etc. (chap. 14:13); that is, \"Write down\n    now these words of comfort.\" The apostle, therefore, wrote down\n    his visions one after another immediately after they were\n    received. When he wrote he was not in a state of\n    unconsciousness, but of mental and spiritual exaltation above\n    his ordinary condition. To affirm that he could not have\n    received this series of visions without being deprived of the\n    capacity to record them at the time, would be to limit the modes\n    of divine revelation by our ignorance. If we cannot understand\n    how the apostle could hear \"in the Spirit\" the voices of the\n    seven thunders, and immediately prepare to write down their\n    utterances, we ought, at least, reverently to receive the fact\n    as stated by him. To expect from one writing in such\n    circumstances careful attention to the rules of Greek syntax and\n    the idioms of the Greek language would be absurd. Undoubtedly\n    Plato in a like situation would have written pure Attic Greek,\n    because that would have been to him the most natural mode of\n    writing. But the Galilean fisherman, a Jew by birth and\n    education, fell back upon the Hebrew idioms with which he was so\n    familiar. Finally we must remember that, after the analogy of\n    the Old Testament prophecies, this prophetic book is expressed\n    in _poetic diction_. It is full of images borrowed from the old\n    Hebrew prophets, often spiritualized and applied in a higher\n    sense. Looking to the imagery alone, one may well call this book\n    a _grand anthology_ of the old Hebrew poets. But the poetic\n    diction of one and the same writer may differ widely from his\n    prose style, as we see in the case of Moses, Isaiah, and\n    Jeremiah.\n\n    If the above considerations do not wholly remove the difficulty\n    under consideration they greatly relieve it. The apostolic\n    authorship of the fourth gospel and the first epistle of John is\n    sustained by a mass of evidence that cannot be set aside. That\n    the same John also wrote the visions of the Apocalypse is\n    attested, as we have seen, by the almost unanimous voice of\n    antiquity. Far greater difficulties are involved in the denial\n    of the ancient tradition of the church than in the admission of\n    it.\n\n3. The _date_ of the Apocalypse has been a matter of much discussion,\nthe great question being whether it was written before or after the\ndestruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. The external testimony strongly\npreponderates on the side of a late date; for the great body of this\ntradition represents the banishment of the apostle to the isle of Patmos\nas having taken place under Domitian who succeeded Titus, and reigned\nfrom A.D. 81 to 96. This supposition also agrees with the fact that the\nrecipients of our Lord's seven messages (chaps. 2, 3) are the seven\nchurches of Proconsular Asia, among whom, according to the unanimous\ntestimony of the primitive church, the apostle spent the latter years of\nhis life. The hypothesis of an earlier date is but feebly supported by\nexternal testimony. It rests mainly on the alleged reference of the\nwriter to the overthrow of Jerusalem as an event yet future, and as\nbeing the main subject of the prophesies contained in the book. But this\nreference has never been clearly established, and is contradicted by the\ngeneral analogy of prophecy, by the contents of the book, and by its\nmanifest relation to the prophecies of Daniel. A few only of the briefer\nprophetic books, as those of Jonah and Nahum, confine themselves to one\nparticular event lying in the near future. All the more extended among\nthem, and many of the shorter, look forward undeniably to the distant\nfuture. The book of Daniel can be interpreted only as containing a great\nscheme of prophecy stretching forward into the distant future, and with\nthis the revelation of John has the closest connection. The _place_\nwhere the revelation was received was the isle of Patmos, one of the\ngroup called Sporades in the AEgean sea off the southwestern corner of\nAsia Minor, where the apostle represents himself to have been \"for the\nword of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ\" (chap. 1:9): that\nis, in accordance with ancient tradition, banished to that isle on\naccount of the gospel.\n\n4. For the _interpretation_ of this book many and very discordant plans\nhave been proposed. Setting aside at the outset all those schemes which\ndo not find in the Apocalypse a view of the conflicts of Christ's people\nto the end of time and their final victory over their enemies, there\nremain two general principles of interpretation. The first may be called\nthe _generic_ principle. Those who adopt it inquire only after the\ngeneral import of the symbols employed, without attempting any\nparticular application of them to the history of the church in\nconnection with that of the world. Thus, the white horse of the first\nseal (chap. 6:2) denotes in general the conquests of Christ through his\ngospel; the red horse of the second seal (chap 6:4), war and carnage, as\naccompanying the progress of the truth; and so on throughout the other\nsymbols of the book. But when we come to the most important part of the\nprophecies, those concerning the two beasts (chap. 13), and that\nconcerning the woman riding on the scarlet-colored beast (chap. 17),\nthis principle utterly fails. It cannot be that so many specific and\nvery peculiar marks mean only persecuting powers in general. They point\nwith wonderful clearness and precision to that grand combination of the\ncivil with the ecclesiastical power of which papal Rome has ever been\nthe chief representative.\n\nWe come, then, for the true key to the Apocalypse, to the other\nprinciple, which may be called the _historic_. This seeks in the history\nof the church and of the world for the great events foretold in this\nbook. It is no valid objection to this principle, that in the attempt to\napply it interpreters find great, and in many cases insuperable\ndifficulties. The mystery of God is not yet finished. It may be that the\nmighty events of the future can alone throw a clear light on the entire\nplan of the book. Meanwhile we must wait in reverential expectation,\nhaving in the plain fulfilment of that part of its prophecies which\ndescribes the rise and character of the combined ecclesiastical and\npolitical power which, under the name of Christianity, persecutes the\ntrue servants of Christ, a certain pledge that all the rest will be\naccomplished in due season. Expositors are agreed that the predictions\nof the book do not run on in chronological order from beginning to end.\nMost find in chaps. 6:1-11:18 (with an episode, chaps. 10:1-11:13) one\nseries relating more to the outward history of the world in its\nrelations to God's people; while in chap. 12 the writer returns to the\nprimitive days of Christianity, and gives a more interior and spiritual\nview of the conflicts of God's people along the track of ages and their\nfinal triumph, adding at the close various supplementary views of the\nsame mighty struggle and victory.\n\n5. On the _symbolic import of the numbers_ in the Apocalypse a few words\nmay be added.\n\n_Seven_ is the well known symbol of completeness, and this is the most\nprominent number in the book. Thus we have the seven churches of Asia\nrepresented by the seven golden candlesticks, and their seven angels\nrepresented by seven stars (chap. 1:4, 12, 16, 20); the seven lamps of\nfire burning before the throne which are the seven spirits of God (chap.\n4:5); the seven seals (chap. 5:1); the seven trumpets (chap. 8:2); the\nseven thunders (chap. 10:4); the seven last plagues (chap. 15:1); to\nwhich may be added the seven ascriptions of praise--power, riches,\nwisdom, strength, honor, glory, blessing (chap. 5:12), blessing, glory,\nwisdom, thanksgiving, honor, power, might (chap. 7:12). Lastly, we have\nthe seven heads of the persecuting beast in all its various forms.\nChaps. 12:3; 13:1; 17:3. So far as the number seven has its fulfilment\nin the history of the world, we are at liberty to suppose that this is\naccomplished, in part at least, by the manner in which the wisdom of God\nhas been pleased to group together the events of prophecy--a grouping\nwhich is always appropriate, but might have been different had the plan\nof representation so required. The final judgments which precede the\nmillennium, for example, which in chaps. 15 and 16 are set forth under\nthe figure of seven vials full of the wrath of God, might have been, by\nanother mode of distribution, represented under the number two. Many\nthink they are thus represented in chap. 14:14-20. Another prophetic\nnumber, occurring in Daniel and the Apocalypse, always as a designation\nof time, is the _half of seven_. Thus we have \"a time, and times, and\nhalf a time,\" that is, three years and a half (chap. 12:14); or in\nmonths, \"forty and two months\" (chaps. 11:2; 13:5); or in days, \"a\nthousand two hundred and threescore days\" (chaps. 11:3; 12:6). Compare\nDaniel 7:25. Again, answering to these three years and a half, we have\nthe three days and a half during which the two witnesses lie dead. Chap.\n11:9, 11. The number _six_, moreover, from its peculiar relation to\nseven, represents the preparation for the consummation of God's plans.\nHence the sixth seal (chap. 6:12-17), the sixth trumpet (chap. 9:14-21),\nand the sixth vial (chap. 16:12-16) are each preeminent in the series to\nwhich they belong. They usher in the awful judgments of Heaven which\ndestroy the wicked. Here, perhaps, we have the key to the symbolic\nimport of the number of the beast, 666. While it represents, according\nto the principles of Greek numeration, the number of a man, it seems to\nindicate that upon him fall all the judgments of the sixth seal, the\nsixth trumpet, and the sixth vial.\n\n_Four_ is the natural symbol for universality. Thus we have the four\nliving creatures round about the throne (chap. 4:6), perhaps as symbols\nof the agencies by which God administers his universal providential\ngovernment (chaps. 6:1, 3, 5, 7; 15:7); the four angels standing on the\nfour corners of the earth and holding the four winds (chap. 7:1); and\nthe four angels bound in the river Euphrates (chap. 9:14). So also in\nthe fourfold enumeration, \"kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation,\"\nor its equivalent. Chaps. 5:9; 10:11; 11:9; 14:6; 17:15. _A third and a\nfourth part_, on the contrary, represent what is partial. Chaps. 6:8;\n8:12; 9:18.\n\n_Twelve_ is the well-known signature of God's people. Compare the twelve\ntribes of the Old Testament and the twelve apostles of the New; the\nwoman with a crown of twelve stars (chap. 12:1); the twelve gates,\ntwelve angels, twelve foundations of the New Jerusalem, the twelve times\ntwelve cubits of its wall, and its tree of life that yields twelve\nharvests a year (chaps. 21:12, 14; 22:2). We have also the same number\ncombined with a thousand, the general symbol for a great number. From\neach of the twelve tribes of Israel are sealed twelve thousand (chap.\n7:4-8), making for the symbolical number of the redeemed twelve times\ntwelve thousand (chap. 14:1, 3); and the walls of the New Jerusalem are\nin every direction twelve thousand furlongs (chap. 21:16).\n\n_Ten_ is possibly only a symbol of diversity, as in the case of the ten\nhorns of the beast (chaps. 12:3; 13:1; 17:3); though some take a literal\nview of it.\n\n6. Dark as are many parts of the Apocalypse and difficult of\ninterpretation, the book as a whole is radiant with the promise to God's\npeople of a final and complete victory in their conflict with the\nkingdom of Satan. Though long delayed, as we mortals reckon time, it\nshall come at last with a splendor above the brightness of the sun, and\nthe earth be lighted from pole to pole with its glory. \"Amen. Even so,\ncome, Lord Jesus\"!\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX TO PART III.\n\nWRITINGS OF THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS, WITH SOME NOTICES OF THE APOCRYPHAL\nNEW TESTAMENT WRITINGS.\n\n\n1. A wide distinction should be made between the _writings of the\napostolic fathers_ which are acknowledged to be genuine, or the\ngenuineness of which may be maintained on more or less probable grounds,\nand the large mass of spurious works afterwards palmed upon the\nChristian world as the productions of apostles or their contemporaries.\nThe latter constitute properly the _New Testament Apocrypha_, though the\nterm is sometimes applied in a loose way to both classes of writings.\nThe writings of the apostolic fathers, though possessing no divine\nauthority, are valuable as showing the state of the Christian churches\nat the time when they were composed in respect to both doctrine and\ndiscipline, as well as the various errors and divisions by which they\nwere troubled. Their testimonies to the genuineness of the New Testament\nhave been already considered. Chap. 2, No. 10. Some of the apocryphal\nworks also, worthless as they are for instruction in the doctrines and\nduties of Christianity, throw much light on the religious spirit,\ntendencies, and heretical sects of the times to which they belong.\nOthers of these writings are unutterably absurd and puerile, worthy of\nnotice only as showing the type of the puerilities current in the age of\ntheir composition.\n\n\nI. WRITINGS OF CLEMENT.\n\n2. Appended to the Alexandrine manuscript (Chap. 26, No. 5) is an\n_epistle of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians_, followed by part of a\nso-called second epistle to the same church. The first of these epistles\nis acknowledged to be genuine. It was known to the ancient fathers as\nthe work of Clement of Rome, and highly commended by them. Their\nquotations from it agree with the contents of the epistle as we now have\nit, nor does it exhibit any marks of a later age; for the author's\nreference to the well-known fable of the phoenix as a type of the\nresurrection (chap. 25), constitutes no real difficulty. It may prove\nthat he was credulous, but not that he belonged to a later than the\napostolic age. The ancients represent this Clement to have been\nidentical with _Clement bishop of Rome_. Whether he was also identical\nwith the Clement named by the apostle Paul (Phil. 4:3), is a question\nthat we may well leave undecided. The epistle was written shortly after\nsome persecution (chap. 1), which Grabe, Hefele, and others suppose to\nhave been that under Nero; Lardner, Cotelerius, and others, that under\nDomitian. Upon the former supposition it was written about A.D. 68--a\nsupposition apparently favored by the way in which he refers to the\ntemple and service at Jerusalem as still in existence (chaps. 40, 41);\nupon the latter, about A.D. 96 or 97.\n\n3. The _occasion_ of the epistle, which Clement writes in the name of\nthe church at Rome, is easily gathered from its contents. As in the days\nof Paul, so now, the Corinthian church was troubled by a \"wicked and\nunholy sedition,\" fomented by \"a few rash and self-willed men,\" who had\nproceeded so far as to thrust out of their ministry some worthy men.\nChap. 44. It would seem, also, from chaps. 24-27 that there were among\nthem those who denied the doctrine of the resurrection. To restore in\nthe Corinthian church the spirit of love and unity is the grand scope of\nthe epistle. The author commends them for their orderly and holy\ndeportment before their present quarrel arose, traces it to its true\nsource in the pride gendered by the honor and enlargement granted them\nby God, and urges them to lay aside their contentions by every motive\nthat the gospel offers--the mischiefs that strife occasions, the rules\nof their religion, the example of the Saviour and holy men of all ages,\nthe relation of believers to God, his high value of the spirit of love\nand unity, the reward of obedience and punishment of disobedience, etc.\nComparing the church to an army, he insists earnestly on the necessity\nof different ranks and orders, and the spirit of obedience. Comparing it\nagain to the human body, he shows that all the particular members, each\nin his place, should conspire together for the preservation of the\nwhole.\n\nClement's style has not the merit of compactness and conciseness. He is,\non the contrary, diffuse and repetitious. But a thoroughly evangelical\nspirit pervades the present epistle, and it is, moreover, characterized\nby a noble fervor and simplicity. \"It evinces the calm dignity and the\npractical executive wisdom of the Roman church in her original apostolic\nsimplicity, without the slightest infusion of hierarchical arrogance.\"\nSchaff, Hist. Christ. Church, vol. 1, p. 460. In its internal character,\nas in the time of its composition, it approaches the canonical writings\nof the New Testament more nearly than any other remains of antiquity.\n\n4. The _second_ epistle ascribed to Clement is not mentioned by any of\nthe fathers before Eusebius, who speaks of it doubtingiy: \"But it should\nbe known that there is said to be also a certain second epistle of\nClement. But it is clear to us that this is not equally known with the\nfirst, for we know that the ancients have not made use of it.\" Hist.\nEccles. 3. 38. It is generally acknowledged to be spurious, and is,\nperhaps, as Hefele suggests, one of the homilies falsely ascribed to\nClement. With this supposition its contents well agree; for it does not\nseem to have, like the first, a definite end to accomplish. It opens\nwith a general exhortation that the Corinthians should think worthily of\nChrist in view of the great work which he has wrought in their behalf,\nand urges upon them a steadfast confession of him before men, not by\nempty words, but by a life of holy obedience. It sets before them the\nincompatibility of the service of God and mammon, and dwells with\nespecial earnestness on the high rewards of eternity in comparison with\nthe pleasures and pains of the present life; as if the writer had in\nmind those who were exposed to the double peril of substituting an empty\nprofession for the living spirit of obedience, and of apostatizing from\nChrist through fear of persecution and martyrdom.\n\n5. Besides the above, there is a mass of writings current in ancient\ndays under the name of Clement which are acknowledged by all to be\nspurious. Among these are: The _Recognitions of Clement_; The\n_Clementines_, or, according to the Greek title, _Clement's Epitome of\nPeter's Discourses in Travel_; _Clement's Epitome concerning the Acts\nand Discourses of Peter in Travel_--three forms of substantially the\nsame work. It will be sufficient to give a brief notice of the\nRecognitions. The author, apparently a Jew by birth and a philosopher of\nthe Alexandrine school, has embraced a form of Christianity mixed up\nwith the dogmas of his philosophy. For the purpose of attacking and\noverthrowing the false religious notions of his age, he invents an\ningenious historic plot. Clement, a Roman citizen, who, as appears in\nthe sequel, has been separated in early life from his father, mother,\nand two brothers, whom he supposes to be dead, is introduced as sending\nto James, who presides over the church at Jerusalem, with an\naccompanying letter, an account of his early education; his acquaintance\nwith the apostle Peter, who chooses him to be his companion in travel;\nPeter's conversations with himself and the rest of the company; his\npublic addresses and acts; especially his famous encounters with Simon\nMagus, whom he overthrows and puts to public shame. In the course of\ntheir journeying they visit a certain island, where they meet with a\npoor woman begging alms, who is found, upon the relation of her history,\nto be the mother of Clement. Upon farther inquiry it appears that two of\nPeter's company, Nicetus and Aquila, are her sons and the brothers of\nClement. Finally, Peter encounters on the sea-shore, whither he had gone\nto perform for the newly discovered mother and sons the rite of baptism,\nan old man who is found to be the long lost husband and father. From\nthese _recognitions_ the work receives its title. But this historic plot\nis only the occasion of introducing the writer's theological and\nphilosophical opinions, with especial reference to the prevailing errors\nof his day. Any page of the work is sufficient to show that Peter and\nClement had nothing to do with its composition. It cannot be placed\nearlier than the close of the second or the beginning of the third\ncentury. Prefixed to these Clementine writings, and having reference to\nthem, are two spurious epistles, one from Peter to James, president of\nthe church at Jerusalem, with the proceedings of James consequent upon\nthe reception of it, and one from Clement to James. These it is not\nnecessary to notice.\n\nThe so-called _Constitutions of Clement_ in eight books, embracing, as\ntheir name indicates, a system of rules pertaining to church order and\ndiscipline, were certainly not the work of Clement. It is not certain\nthat they had their origin as a whole in the same age; but the judgment\nof learned men is that no part of them is older than the second half of\nthe third century. The eighty-five so-called _Apostolic Canons_ have\nprefixed to them the spurious title: \"Ecclesiastical Rules of the Holy\nApostles promulgated by Clement High Priest (Pontifex) of the Church of\nRome.\" The origin of these canons is uncertain. They first appear as a\ncollection with the above title in the latter part of the fifth century.\nHow much older some of them may be cannot be determined with certainty.\n\n\nII. THE EPISTLES OF IGNATIUS.\n\n6. _Ignatius_ was bishop of the church at Antioch, and suffered\nmartyrdom at Rome by exposure to wild beasts A.D. 107, or according to\nsome accounts, A.D. 116. Of the _fifteen_ epistles ascribed to him, it\nis agreed among biblical scholars that _eight_ are spurious and of later\norigin. The remaining seven are generally regarded as genuine, but the\ntext of these, as of all the rest, is in a very unsatisfactory\ncondition. There are two Greek recensions, a longer and a shorter, the\nlatter containing approximately the true text, though not without the\nsuspicion of interpolations. There is a Syriac version containing but\nthree of Ignatius' epistles, and these in a much reduced form (which\nsome are inclined to regard as the only genuine epistles); also an\nArmenian version containing thirteen epistles. See further Schaff, Hist.\nChris. Church, vol. 1, pp. 469-471. As the question now stands, we may\nwith good reason receive as genuine the seven mentioned by Eusebius\n(Hist. Eccl. 3. 36) and Jerome (De Viris illust. 16). They were all\nwritten on his last journey to Rome; four from Smyrna, where Polycarp\nwas the bishop, to the Ephesians, Magnesians, Trallians, and Romans;\nthree after his departure from Smyrna, to the churches of Philadelphia\nand Smyrna, and to Polycarp bishop of Smyrna. The native vigor and\nenergy of Ignatius, as also the depth and sincerity of his piety, shine\nforth conspicuously in these letters; but they differ from the epistle\nof Clement in the manifestation of an intense ecclesiastical spirit, by\nwhich, indeed, they are marked as belonging to a later era of the\nchurch. If we except the epistle to the Romans, they all abound in\nexhortations to render implicit obedience to their spiritual rulers as\nto Christ himself. To these precepts he adds exhortations to maintain\nunity, and to avoid false doctrines, specifying particularly Judaizing\nteachers and such as deny our Lord's proper humanity.\n\nWe cannot read his letter to the Romans, among whom he expected shortly\nto lay down his life for Christ's sake, without deep interest. But it is\nmarred by the manifestation of an undue desire to obtain the crown of\nmartyrdom, which leads him to protest against any interposition of the\nRoman brethren in his behalf. \"I beseech you,\" says he, \"show no\nunseasonable good-will towards me. Suffer me to be the food of wild\nbeasts, by means of which I may attain to God. I am the wheat of God,\nand am ground by the teeth of wild beasts, that I may be found the pure\nbread of God.\" Chap. 4. His letter to Polycarp, a fellow bishop, abounds\nin precepts for the right discharge of his duties. It is interesting as\nshowing Ignatius' idea, on the one side, of the office with its high\nresponsibilities, and, on the other, of the duties which the churches\nowe to those who are set over them in the Lord.\n\n7. There are some spurious epistles ascribed to Ignatius which it is\nsufficient simply to name. These are: A letter to one Maria a proselyte\nof Cilicia in answer to her request that certain young men might be sent\nto her people as their spiritual guides; epistles to the church of\nTarsus, of Antioch, and of Philippi--theological dissertations mostly\nmade up of texts of Scripture; a letter to Hero a deacon, containing\nprecepts for the right discharge of his office, and abounding, like\nthose just named, in quotations from Scripture: two pretended letters of\nIgnatius to the apostle John; one to the Virgin Mary, with her reply.\n\nFinally, there are some fragments of Ignatius' writings preserved to us\nin the quotations of the ancients, which it is not necessary to notice.\n\n\nIII. THE EPISTLE OF POLYCARP.\n\n8. _Polycarp_ was a disciple of the apostle John, and presided over the\nchurch in Smyrna. He suffered martyrdom about the year 166. Of his\nwritings only one short epistle remains, addressed by him to the\nPhilippians soon after the martyrdom of Ignatius, who passed through\nSmyrna on his way to Rome. This we gather from the letter itself; for in\nthis he assumes that Ignatius has already suffered (chap. 9), and yet he\nhas not heard the particulars concerning his fate and that of his\ncompanions. Chap. 14. This brief epistle is marked by a fervor and\nsimplicity worthy of an apostolic man. The writer commends the\nPhilippians for the love manifested by them towards the suffering\nservants of Christ, exhorts them to steadfastness, reminds them of\nPaul's precepts in his epistle to them, and proceeds to unfold and\ninculcate the duties belonging to the officers and several classes of\nmembers in the church. The immediate occasion of the letter seems to\nhave been his transmission to the Philippians, in compliance with their\nrequest, of Ignatius' epistle to himself, with such others of his\nepistles as had come into his hands. Chap. 13. The preservation of the\npresent epistle is probably due to this its connection with the epistles\nof Ignatius forwarded by him to the Philippians.\n\n\nIV. THE WRITINGS OF BARNABAS AND HERMAS.\n\n9. The writings current under the names of _Barnabas_ and _Hermas_ have\nby no means the outward testimony in their favor by which the preceding\nepistles of Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp are supported; nor the\ninward evidence arising from the consideration of their contents. We\nwill consider them briefly in the order abovenamed.\n\n10. Until recently the first part of the _Epistle of Barnabas_ existed\nonly in a Latin version. But in 1859 Tischendorf discovered at Mount\nSinai the Sinai Codex (Chap. 26, No. 5), which contains the entire\nepistle in the original Greek. That the writer was the Barnabas\nmentioned in the New Testament as the companion of Paul in preaching the\ngospel, cannot be maintained on any firm basis of evidence. As to the\ndate of its composition learned men differ. Hefele places it between the\nyears 107 and 120. Apostolic Fathers, Prolegomena, p. 15.\n\nThe writer was apparently a Hellenistic Jew of the Alexandrine school,\nand he wrote for the purpose of convincing his brethren, mainly from the\nOld Testament, that Jesus is the Messiah, and that in him the rites of\nthe Mosaic law are done away. His quotations from the Old Testament are\nnumerous, and his method of interpretation is allegorical and sometimes\nvery fanciful, as in the following passage, for the right understanding\nof which the reader should know that the two Greek letters [Greek: IE],\nwhich stand first in the name [Greek: IESOUS], JESUS, and represent that\nname by abbreviation, signify as numerals, the first _ten_, the second,\n_eight_; also that the Greek letter [Greek: T] (the sign of the cross)\ndenotes as a numeral, _three hundred_. \"The Scripture says,\" argues\nBarnabas, \"that Abraham circumcised of his house _three hundred and\neighteen men_. What was the knowledge communicated to him [in this\nfact]? Learn first the meaning of the _eighteen_, then of the _three\nhundred_. Now the numeral letters [Greek: I], _ten_, [Greek: E],\n_eight_, make _eighteen_. Here you have _Jesus_ (Greek [Greek: IESOUN],\nof which the abbreviation is [Greek: IE]). And because the cross, which\nlies in the letter [Greek: T], was that which should bring grace, he\nsays also _three hundred_.\" Chap. 9. The Rabbinic system of\ninterpretation in which the writer was educated furnishes an\n_explanation_, indeed, of this and other like puerilities, but no\n_vindication_ of them.\n\n11. The _Shepherd of Hermas_, as the work current under the name of\nHermas is called, consists of three books--his Visions, his Commands,\nand his Similitudes. The four visions are received through the ministry\nof an aged woman, who is the church of Christ. The twelve commands and\nten similitudes are received from one who appears to him \"in the habit\nof a shepherd, clothed with a white cloak, having his bag upon his back,\nand his staff in his hand,\" whence the title The _Shepherd_ of Hermas.\nAll these are intended to unfold the truths of Christianity with its\ndoctrines and duties. The writer has a most luxuriant imagination. In\nreading his books, particularly the first and the third, one sometimes\nfinds himself bewildered in a thicket of images and similitudes, some of\nthem grotesque and not altogether congruous. Yet the work throws much\nlight on the religious ideas and tendencies of its age.\n\nThe ancients speak doubtingly of the authority of this work. Origen,\nwhom Eusebius and Jerome follow, ascribes it to the Hermas mentioned in\nthe epistle to the Romans (chap. 16:14); though it does not appear that\nhe had any other ground for this than the identity of the name. The\nMuratorian canon names as its author Hermas the brother of Pius bishop\nof Rome. According to this, which is the more probable view, the date of\nits composition would be about the middle of the second century.\n\n\nV. THE APOSTLES' CREED.\n\n12. We put this among the remains of the apostolic fathers, not because\nthere is any doubt as to its containing the substance of the doctrines\ntaught by the apostles, but because, as is generally admitted, it did\nnot receive its present form at their hand. \"Though not traceable in its\npresent shape before the third century, and found in the second in\ndifferent longer or shorter forms, it is in substance altogether\napostolic, and exhibits an incomparable summary of the leading facts in\nthe revelation of the triune God from the creation of the world to the\nresurrection of the body; and that in a form intelligible to all, and\nadmirably suited for public worship and catechetical use.\" Schaff, Hist.\nChris. Church, pp. 121, 122.\n\n\nVI. APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS AND ACTS.\n\n13. These are very numerous. Under the head of Apocryphal Gospels.\nTischendorf has published twenty-two works; under that of Apocryphal\nActs of the Apostles, thirteen. To the student of church history they\nare not without value; for they illustrate the origin of many ancient\ntraditions and some ritual observances. But if we look to their\nintrinsic character, they may be described as a mass of worthless\nlegends abounding in absurd and puerile stories. The contrast between\nthe miracles which they relate and the true miracles recorded in the\ncanonical gospels and Acts is immense, and such as makes the darkness of\nthese spurious writings more visible. The miracles of the canonical\nbooks have always a worthy occasion, and are connected with the\nSaviour's work of redemption. But the pretended miracles of the\napocryphal writings are, as a general rule, wrought on trivial\noccasions, with either no end in view but the display of supernatural\npower, or with a positively unlawful end, whence it not unfrequently\nhappens that their impiety rivals their absurdity. Many samples of both\nthese characters could be given, but the general reader may well remain\nignorant of them.\n\n\n\n\nPRINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nCHAPTER XXXIII.\n\nINTRODUCTORY REMARKS.\n\n\n1. The term _Hermeneutics_ (Greek, _hermeneuo_, _to interpret_) is\ncommonly employed to denote the _principles of scriptural\ninterpretation_. The Greek word _exegesis_--that is,\n_exposition_--denotes the actual _work of interpretation_. Hermeneutics\nis, therefore, the _science_ of interpretation; Exegesis, the\n_application_ of this science to the word of God. The hermeneutical\nwriter lays down general principles of interpretation; the exegetical\nwriter uses these principles in the exposition of Scripture. The terms\n_epexegesis_ and _epexegetical_ are used by expositors in a special\nsense to denote something explanatory of the immediate context.\n\n2. The expositor's _office_ is, to ascertain and unfold the true meaning\nof the inspired writers, without adding to it, subtracting from it, or\nchanging it in any way. Here we may draw an instructive parallel between\nhis work and that of the textual critic. The textual critic aims to\ngive, not what some one might think the inspired penman should have\nwritten, but what he actually did write. So the true expositor, taking\nthe very words of Scripture, seeks not to force upon them a meaning in\nharmony with his preconceived opinions, but to take from them the very\nideas which the writer intended to express. It is pertinent, therefore,\nto consider at the outset the qualifications which belong to the\nbiblical interpreter. These include high moral and intellectual\nqualities, as well as varied and extensive acquirements.\n\n3. Foremost among the qualities that belong to the interpreter is a\n_supreme regard for truth_. A general conviction and acknowledgment of\nthe duty of truthfulness will not be sufficient to guard him against all\nthe seductive influences that beset his path. Though he may be a sincere\nChristian, he will still be in danger of being misled by the power of\npreconceived opinions and party connections. He will need a constant and\nvivid apprehension of the sacredness of all truth, more especially of\nscriptural truth, which God has revealed for the sanctification and\nsalvation of men. \"Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.\"\nThese words of the Saviour he will do well to ponder night and day, till\nthey become a part of his spiritual life; and to remember always that,\nif such be the divine origin and high office of scriptural truth, God\nwill not hold guiltless any who tamper with it in the interest of\npreconceived human opinions, thus substituting the folly of man for the\nwisdom of God.\n\n4. The interpreter further needs a _sound judgment_, combined with the\npower of _vivid conception_. These two qualities are named together,\nbecause they mutually supplement each other. A large part of the Bible\nis occupied with description. Here the interpreter needs the power of\nconception, that he may bring before his mind a vivid picture of the\nscenes described, with the relations of their several parts to each\nother. Another large part of the Bible contains the language of poetry\nand impassioned feeling. In the interpretation of this, the faculty of\nconception is especially necessary, that we may place ourselves as fully\nas possible in the circumstances of the writers, and form a true idea of\nthe emotions which filled their minds and gave form and complexion to\ntheir utterances. Pure cold logic, with the addition of any amount of\nhuman learning, will not enable us to comprehend and expound aright the\nforty-second Psalm. By the power of imagination, we must go with the\npoet, in his exile from the sanctuary at Jerusalem, across the Jordan to\nthe land of the Hermonites; must see his distressed and forsaken\ncondition; must hear the bitter taunts of his enemies; must witness the\ninward tempest of his feelings--a continual conflict between nature and\nfaith--before we can have a true understanding of his words. The same\nmight be said of innumerable other passages of Scripture.\n\nBut this power of vivid conception, when not held in check by a _sound\njudgment_, will lead the expositor of Scripture into the wildest\nvagaries of fancy. Disregarding the plainest rules of interpretation, he\nwill cover up the obvious sense of Scripture with a mass of allegorical\nexpositions, under color of educing from the words of inspiration a\nhigher and more edifying meaning. That high natural endowments, united\nwith varied and solid learning and indefatigable zeal for the gospel, do\nnot of themselves constitute a safeguard against this error, we learn\nfrom the example of Origen and many others. Not content to let the\nsimple narratives of Scripture speak for themselves and convey their\nproper lessons of instruction, these allegorical expositors force upon\nthem a higher spiritual sense. In so doing, they unsettle the very\nprinciples by which the spiritual doctrines of Scripture are\nestablished.\n\nOrigen, for example, in commenting on the meeting between Abraham's\nservant and Rebecca at the well in Haran, says: \"Rebecca came every day\nto the wells. Therefore she could be found by Abraham's servant, and\njoined in marriage with Isaac.\" Thus he gives the literal meaning of\nthis transaction. But he then goes on to show, among other things, that\nRebecca represents the human soul, which Christ wishes to betroth to\nhimself, while Abraham's servant is \"the prophetic word, which unless\nyou first receive, you cannot be married to Christ.\" See in Davidson's\nSacred Hermeneutics, pp. 103, 104.\n\n5. Another indispensable qualification of scriptural interpretation is\n_sympathy with divine truth_; in other words, that harmony of spirit\nwith the truths of revelation which comes from a hearty reception of\nthem, and a subjection of the whole life, inward and outward, to their\ncontrol. \"If any man,\" said our Saviour, \"will do his will, he shall\nknow of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of\nmyself.\" John 7:17. In these words our Lord proposed to the unbelieving\nJews the true remedy for their ignorance and error respecting his person\nand office, which had their ground not in the want of evidence, but in\ntheir perverse and guilty rejection of evidence. Their moral state was\none of habitual rebellion against the truth of God; and they could not,\ntherefore, have sympathy with the Saviour's doctrine. They hated the\nlight, and would not come to the light, because their deeds were evil.\nJohn 3:20. What they needed was not more light, but that obedient spirit\nwhich loves the light, and allows it to shine through the soul. The man\nwho would be a successful interpreter of God's word must begin where the\nSaviour directed these Jews to begin. So far as he knows the truth, he\nmust give it a hearty reception not in theory alone, but in daily\npractice. Then he will be prepared to make further progress in the\nknowledge of it, and to unfold its heavenly treasures to his fellow-men.\nBut if he comes to the study of God's word with a heart habitually at\nvariance with its holy precepts, and an understanding darkened by the\npower of sinful affections, no amount of scholarship or critical\nsagacity will avail to make him a true expositor of its contents. Having\nno sympathy with the great foundation doctrines of the gospel, but\nregarding them with positive aversion, he will neither be able to\napprehend them in their true light, nor to explain them aright to his\nfellow-men. In the work of interpretation, a good heart--good in the\nscriptural sense--is not less important than a clear understanding and\nwell-furnished mind.\n\n6. How extensive and varied should be the _acquirements_ of the able\ninterpreter will be manifest to any one who considers the extent and\nvariety of the fields of knowledge covered by the Holy Scriptures.\n\nThe _languages_ in which they are written are no longer spoken. The\nknowledge of them, like that of all dead languages, is locked up in\nbooks--grammars, lexicons, ancient versions, and various subsidiary\nhelps--and can be mastered only by severe and protracted study. It is\nnot indeed necessary that the great body of Christians, or even all\npreachers of the gospel, should be able to read the Bible in the\noriginal languages. But it is a principle of Protestantism, the\nsoundness of which has been confirmed by the experience of centuries,\nthat there should always be in the churches a body of men able to go\nbehind the current versions of Scripture to the original tongues from\nwhich these versions were executed. The commentator, at least, must not\ntake his expositions at second hand; and a healthy tone of feeling in\nregard to the sacredness and supreme authority of the inspired word will\nalways demand that there should be a goodly number of scholars scattered\nthrough the churches who can judge from the primitive sources of the\ncorrectness of his interpretations.\n\nThe Scriptures are crowded with references to the cities, mountains,\nplains, deserts, rivers, and seas of Palestine and the surrounding\nregions; to their climate, soil, animals, and plants; to their\nagricultural products and mineral treasures; to the course of travel and\ncommerce between the different nations; in a word, to those numerous\nparticulars which come under the head of _geography_ and _natural\nhistory_. The extended investigations of modern times in these\ndepartments of knowledge have shed a great light over the pages of\ninspiration, which no expositor who is worthy of the name will venture\nto neglect.\n\nAnd if one collect and illustrate the various allusions of Scripture to\nthe manners and customs of the ancient Hebrews, to their civil\ninstitutions and their religious rites and ceremonies, he will compose a\nvolume on _biblical antiquities_.\n\nThe connection, moreover, which the covenant people had with the\nsurrounding nations, especially the great monarchies which successively\nheld sway over the civilized world--Egypt, Assyria, Chaldea, Greece,\nRome--requires an extended knowledge of _ancient history_, and, as\ninseparably connected with this, of _ancient chronology_. Biblical\nchronology constitutes, indeed, a science of itself, embracing some very\nperplexed and difficult questions, the solution of which has an\nimportant bearing upon the passages of Scripture to which they have\nreference.\n\n7. We do not affirm that all the above-named qualifications are\nnecessary to a saving knowledge of God's word. Its great essential\ndoctrines and precepts are so plain that the unlettered reader, who\nbrings to the work an honest heart, cannot fail to understand them. In\nthis respect God has made the vision so plain \"that he may run that\nreadeth it;\" and the road to heaven so direct that \"the wayfaring men,\nthough fools, shall not err therein.\" But the interpreter of Scripture\nis expected to unfold the meaning of the difficult passages also, as far\nas human investigation will enable him to do so. They are a part of \"all\nScripture given by inspiration of God,\" which the apostle affirms to be\n\"profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction\nin righteousness.\" He should spare no effort, therefore, to ascertain\ntheir exact sense, and to expound this sense to others with all possible\nfidelity and clearness.\n\n8. There is a _human_ and a _divine_ side to biblical interpretation--a\nhuman side, because the Scriptures address men in human language, and\naccording to human modes of thinking and speaking; a divine side,\nbecause they contain a true revelation from God to men, and differ in\nthis respect from all other writings. The neglect of the human side\nleads to visionary schemes of interpretation, in which the writer's\nfancy is substituted for the sober rules of criticism, and the word of\nGod accommodated to his preconceived opinions. The rejection, open or\ncovert, of the divine side, manifests itself in a cold, skeptical\ncriticism, which denies or explains away all that is supernatural in the\nBible; which, instead of seeking to discover and unfold that unity of\nplan and harmony of parts which belong to every work of God, delights\nrather in exaggerating the supposed inconsistencies and contradictions\nof the sacred writers, and in arraying one part of Scripture against\nanother; and which, having no faith itself in the Bible as containing a\nrevelation from God, infuses doubts respecting its divine origin into\nthe mind of the reader. It is only by keeping steadily in view these two\nsides of revelation, which mutually supplement each other, that we can\nattain to a true knowledge of the inspired word.\n\n\n\n\nFIRST DIVISION.\n\nINTERPRETATION VIEWED ON THE HUMAN SIDE.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nCHAPTER XXXIV.\n\nGENERAL PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION.\n\n\n1. Since the Bible addresses men in human language, and according to\nhuman modes of thinking and speaking, the interpreter's first work is to\nascertain the _meaning of the terms_ employed. Here he must proceed as\nin the case of other writings, seeking by the aid of grammars, lexicons,\ncognate languages, ancient versions, ancient interpreters, and whatever\nother outward helps are available, to gain a thorough knowledge of the\nlanguage employed by the Holy Spirit in his revelations to men. To these\nexternal sources of knowledge he will add all the internal light which\ncomes from a careful consideration of the context, of the author's known\nuse of terms, of parallel passages, etc.\n\nIn the case of the New Testament, a knowledge of classical Greek will\nnot be sufficient. The interpreter must superadd a thorough acquaintance\nwith the peculiar dialect of the New Testament (Chap. 24, No. 5), and\nalso the special usages of particular writers. The apostle John, to\nadduce a single instance, applies the term _Logos_, _Word_, to the Son\nof God. But we cannot argue from this for a like usage by other writers;\nas, for example, in the well-known passage: \"The word of God is quick\nand powerful,\" etc. Heb. 4:12.\n\nUsage alone is often insufficient to determine the meaning of a word in\na particular passage; for (1) the term may occur nowhere else, (2) it\nmay have in current usage two or more different significations. In the\nformer case, the interpreter must avail himself of all the external\nhelps above specified, and especially of the light shed upon the meaning\nof the term in question by the context. In the latter case, the context\nmust be his chief guide. The same Greek word, for example, signifies\n_stature_ (Luke 19:3) and _age_ (Heb. 11:11). In the interpretation of\nMatt. 6:27, where our version reads: \"Which of you by taking thought can\nadd one cubit unto his stature?\" the question may naturally enough arise\nin which of these two senses the Saviour employed it. Whatever may be\nthe decision, it must have for its basis not simple usage, which is\nambiguous, but the connection of the word in the context. Many like\nexamples might be adduced.\n\nIt has been already remarked (Chap. 24, No. 5) that in New Testament\nusage many words have a technical and therefore peculiar meaning. We are\nnot at liberty, however, to determine such technical meanings at random,\nor in accordance with any preconceived opinions. It can only be done, as\nin the case of all other writings, in accordance with the acknowledged\nlaws of interpretation. The general result, then, at which we arrive is,\nthat in determining the meaning of scriptural terms we must be guided by\nthe same rules which we follow in the interpretation of other writings.\n\n2. From the signification of particular words we proceed to the\nconsideration of the _sense_ embodied in the language of the sacred\nwriters. A knowledge of the words which enter into the composition of a\nsentence does not of itself give us a true apprehension of the sense\nwhich the writer seeks to convey. We must know the writer's aim, the\nshape and course of his argument, the ideas which he is combating as\nwell as those which he seeks to establish, the emphatic words of the\nsentence, whether he wishes to be understood literally or figuratively,\nand various other particulars; all which are to be ascertained by the\nsame rules which we employ in the interpretation of language generally.\n\n3. The _scope_ or _design_ of the inspired writer may be _general_ or\n_special_; the former being his design in writing the whole work in\nquestion, the latter, his design in particular sections of it. \"The\nscope,\" it has been well observed, \"is the soul or spirit of a book;\nand, that being once ascertained, every argument and every word appears\nin its right place, and is perfectly intelligible; but if the scope be\nnot duly considered, every thing becomes obscure, however clear and\nobvious its meaning may really be.\" Horne's Introduct., vol. 2, p. 265,\nedit. of 1860. This language is not too strong. It is by a neglect or\nperversion of the scope that the meaning of the inspired writers is\nperverted, and they are made to contradict one another.\n\nThe apostle Paul says, for example: \"Therefore we conclude that a man is\njustified by faith without the deeds of the law.\" Rom. 3:28. The apostle\nJames: \"Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by\nfaith only.\" James 2:24. If one insists on leaving out of account the\nseparate and distinct design which each of these two writers had in view\nrespectively, he can easily bring their words into contradiction. Had\nthe scope of Paul's argument been to show that faith in Christ\n_releases_ men from the obligation of obeying the divine law, and thus\nmakes good works unnecessary; or had James been laboring to prove that\ngood works are the _meritorious ground_ of men's forgiveness, then the\ndoctrines of the two apostles would have been irreconcilably at\nvariance. But we know that neither of these suppositions is true. Paul\nwas combating the error of the Pharisees \"who trusted in themselves that\nthey were righteous\"--righteous on the ground of \"the deeds of the\nlaw\"--\"and despised others.\" His aim was to show that men receive\nforgiveness and salvation neither wholly nor in part on the ground of\nthe supposed merit of their good works, but wholly through faith in\nChrist; as he elsewhere argues that \"if it be by grace, then it is no\nmore of works: otherwise grace is no more grace.\" Rom. 11:6. We know\nalso, from the whole tenor of his writings, that he condemned as\nspurious that pretended faith which does not manifest itself in good\nworks. In this very epistle, where the question is not concerning the\nmeritorious ground of justification, but concerning that character which\nGod will accept, the apostle lays down the great principle: \"Unto them\nthat are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey\nunrighteousness, indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, upon\nevery soul of man that doeth evil; of the Jew first, and also of the\nGentile; but glory, honor, and peace to every man that worketh good; to\nthe Jew first, and also to the Gentile: for there is no respect of\npersons with God.\" Rom. 2:8-11. If now we turn to the epistle of James,\nwe find that the faith without works which he condemns as dead is one of\nmere empty notions--an inoperative belief _about_ Christ instead of that\nhearty trust _in_ him which brings the heart and life into subjection to\nhis authority. In a word, Paul condemns, as dead, works without faith;\nJames, faith without works. The one rejects dead works (Heb. 9:14); the\nother, dead faith. Between these two judgments there is no\ncontradiction. We have dwelt somewhat at large upon this example of\nalleged contradiction for the purpose of full illustration. The same\nmode of reasoning might be applied to many other passages, where a\nknowledge of the writer's design is essential to the true apprehension\nof his meaning.\n\nSuch being the importance of the scope, the question arises: How shall\nit be ascertained? Here mechanical rules will be of little avail. The\nattentive and judicious reader will be able, in general, to gather it\nfrom the various indications given by the writer himself, or from the\nknown circumstances in which he wrote, just as in the case of other\nwritings.\n\nSometimes an author directly _states_ his general end, or his design in\nwriting a particular section of his work. An example of the former kind\nis John 20:31: \"These things are written that ye might believe that\nJesus is the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through\nhis name;\" of the latter kind, 1 Cor. 7:1: \"Now concerning the things\nwhereof ye wrote unto me,\" etc.; whence we learn that in this particular\nchapter the apostle's design is to answer certain inquiries of the\nCorinthian Christians in regard to the relation of marriage. More\ncommonly the writer's scope is indicated indirectly by various\n_inferential remarks_, as in the passage already quoted: \"Therefore we\nconclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law,\"\nwhich is in fact a statement of the apostle's design in the preceding\nargument. See Horne's Introduct., vol. 2, pp. 266, 267, where the author\nfollows Morus, Hermeneutica, 1.2.2.\n\nSometimes a clear light is shed upon the design of a writer or speaker\nby a knowledge of _historical circumstances_; especially, of his own\nposition and that of his opponents. The twenty-third chapter of Matthew,\nin which the Saviour exposes the wickedness and doctrinal errors of the\nscribes and Pharisees, and denounces upon them the judgments of heaven,\ncannot be thoroughly understood without a knowledge of the system of\nPharisaism, and the high position of authority and influence which the\nPharisees held; sitting, as they did, in Moses' seat, imposing upon the\npeople their human traditions in place of God's commandments,\nsubstituting a religion of outward forms for one of inward faith, love,\nand obedience, and thus taking away from the people the key of divine\nknowledge. It was necessary that the Son of God, to whom the church\nbelonged, who came to shed his blood for her redemption, and to\nestablish her in the principles of truth and holiness, should expose\nwith unsparing severity the wickedness and ignorance of these scribes\nand Pharisees, for the instruction of his people in all coming ages. A\nknowledge of the same historical circumstances throws a strong light on\nthe apostle's aim in writing to the Romans and Galatians. Had we fuller\ninformation respecting the false teachers referred to in the epistle to\nthe Colossians and the pastoral epistles, we should understand more\nclearly the apostle's arguments against them.\n\nBut the surest means of ascertaining a writer's scope is the repeated\nand careful perusal of his words. The biblical student should early form\nthe habit of reading over with earnest attention a whole book at a\nsitting--the epistle to the Romans, for example, or that to the\nHebrews--without pausing to investigate particular questions; his aim\nbeing to throw himself as fully as possible into the general current of\nthought, and to be carried forward by it to the writer's final\nconclusions. When he has thus made himself familiar with the scope of\nthe work as a whole, he will be better prepared for the examination of\nthe particular difficulties that offer themselves in the course of the\nauthor's argument.\n\n4. The word _context_ (Latin, _contextus_) signifies literally _a\nweaving together_; and is appropriately used, therefore, to denote the\nweb of a writer's discourse. The scope is the _end_ which a writer\nproposes to accomplish: the context gives the _form and manner of its\naccomplishment_. With reference to a given passage, the context has been\nloosely defined to be that which immediately precedes and follows. More\naccurately, it is the series of statements, arguments, and illustrations\nconnected with the passage whose meaning is sought, including all the\nvarious connections of thought. The sober interpreter, then, must have\nconstant reference to the context, as well for the signification of\nparticular terms as for the general sense of the passage under\nconsideration. To interpret without regard to the context is to\ninterpret at random; to interpret contrary to the context is to teach\nfalsehood for truth.\n\nThe necessity of having constant reference to the context for the\ndetermination of the sense, as well as of the particular terms employed,\nadmits of innumerable illustrations. From these we select a few\nexamples:\n\nIn Rom. 14:23 the apostle lays down the following maxim: \"He that\ndoubteth is damned [literally, _condemned_] if he eat, because he eateth\nnot of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.\" The context\nrelates not to the Lord's supper, but to scruples in respect to the use\nof particular kinds of food: \"One believeth that he may eat all things;\nanother who is weak\"--over-scrupulous in respect to distinctions of\nfood--\"eateth herbs\" (ver. 2). Consequently there is no reference here\nto the personal qualifications requisite for partaking of that\nordinance, or to the consequence of eating unworthily. The apostle means\nto say that whoever has scruples about the lawfulness of using a\nparticular article of food is condemned if he eat it, \"because he eateth\nnot of faith.\" He acts contrary to his persuasion of duty. Thus he\nviolates, in this particular case, that general law of faith which\nrequires that in all things we keep a conscience void of offence towards\nGod and man, subjecting ourselves in loving confidence to Christ's\nauthority, and doing in all things what we believe to be right in his\nsight.\n\nAgain we read in Gal. 5:4 the words: \"Ye are fallen from grace.\" Taken\nout of their connection, these words are ambiguous in their application.\nBut the context makes all plain. The apostle is addressing those who are\ninclined to substitute a system of justification by works for the grace\nof the gospel: \"Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you\nare justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace\"--fallen away from\ngrace, as the original word means. Ye have abandoned the system of grace\nrevealed in the gospel for one of works.\n\nThe psalmist says: \"My soul thirsteth for God, for the living God: when\nshall I come and appear before God?\" Psa. 42:2. Taken out of their\nconnection, these words might be understood of his desire to enjoy the\nbeatific vision of God in heaven. But the context shows that the writer\nhad in mind God's earthly sanctuary, from which he was banished: \"My\ntears have been my meat day and night, while they continually say unto\nme, Where is thy God? When I remember these things, I pour out my soul\nin me: for I had gone with the multitude, I went with them to the house\nof God, with the voice of joy and praise, with a multitude that kept\nholy-day\" (ver. 3, 4).\n\nAgain the psalmist says: \"The king's daughter is all glorious within\"\n(Psa. 45:13); words that have more than once been applied directly to\nthe inward spiritual beauty of the church, the bride of Christ. This is,\nindeed, the idea that we gain from a true interpretation of them. But it\ncomes not directly, but through a beautiful figure. The primary meaning\nof the words is, that the royal bride appearing _within the palace_ in\nraiment of wrought gold is all glorious to the beholder's view.\nUndoubtedly she represents the church espoused to Christ; dwelling, so\nto speak, in his kingly mansion, and gloriously adorned with his\nrighteousness. Rev. 19:8.\n\nThe question may naturally occur to the reader: Within what limits is\nthe context to be consulted? The answer must be, that no definite limits\ncan be prescribed. The entire web of discourse must be carefully\nstudied, including the more remote as well as the nearer context; for\nthe inspired writers do not, as a general rule, proceed according to\nformal divisions and subdivisions. The train of argument is often\ninterrupted by parenthetical remarks, particularly in the writings of\nthe apostle Paul, or it is resumed in an informal way after extended\ndigressions. The true connection of thought, then, is to be gathered not\nso much from our modern notions of what logical accuracy would require,\nas from the repeated and careful perusal of the writing in question. In\nthis way alone can we place ourselves in the author's position, and look\nat the subject under discussion from his point of view; that is to say,\nin this way alone can we enter into his modes of thinking and reasoning,\nand thus qualify ourselves to be the expounders of them to others.\n\nIn some cases no context exists, and none is to be sought. In a large\npart of the book of Proverbs, for example, each separate aphorism shines\nby its own light. If it have any connection with what precedes or\nfollows, it is only casual or superficial. In some books, again, like\nthat of Ecclesiastes, the transitions are rapid, and often difficult to\nexplain. Here we should be careful not to force upon the author a\nlogical connection of which he never thought. Systematic arrangement is\ngood in its place; but the Holy Spirit did not think it needful to\nsecure it in the case of all who spake as he moved them.\n\nSome religious teachers are fond of employing scriptural texts simply as\n_mottoes_, with little or no regard to their true connection. Thus they\ntoo often adapt them to their use by imparting to them a factitious\nsense foreign to their proper scope and meaning. The seeming gain in all\nsuch cases is more than counterbalanced by the loss and danger that\nattend the practice. It encourages the habit of interpreting Scripture\nin an arbitrary and fanciful way, and thus furnishes the teachers of\nerror with their most effective weapon. The practice cannot be defended\non any plea of necessity. The plain words of Scripture, legitimately\ninterpreted according to their proper scope and context, contain a\nfulness and comprehensiveness of meaning sufficient for the wants of all\nmen in all circumstances. That piety alone is robust and healthful which\nis fed, not by the fancies and speculations of the preacher who\npractically puts his own genius above the word of God, but by the pure\ndoctrines and precepts of the Bible, unfolded in their true connection\nand meaning.\n\nIt is important to remark, however, that when the _general principle_\ncontained in a given passage of Scripture has been once fairly\nexplained, it admits of innumerable applications which are in the\nhighest sense legitimate and proper. The principle, for example, that\n\"whatsoever is not of faith is sin,\" which the apostle Paul announces in\nconnection with the question of using or abstaining from particular\nkinds of food, may be applied to the settlement of cases of conscience\narising in widely different relations and spheres of action. The\npreacher's power lies very much in the ability of unfolding to the\nunderstanding and applying to the conscience the general principles\ninvolved in the passage of Scripture which he undertakes to expound.\n\n5. We may next consider the help to be derived from _parallel passages_.\nThe ordinary division of parallelisms is into _verbal_ and _real_:\nverbal, where the same word or phrase occurs; real, where the same\nthought is expressed or the same subject discussed. Verbal parallelisms\noften shed much light on the meaning of particular words or phrases,\nbecause what is obscure in one passage is made plain in another by some\nexplanatory addition.\n\nAn example is the use of the expression _my glory_ (English version, _my\nhonor_), in Gen. 49:6: \"O my soul, come not thou into their secret\"\n(their secret conclave); \"unto their assembly, my glory, be not thou\nunited.\" A comparison of the parallel passages, Psa. 7:5; 16:9; 30:12;\n57:8; 108:1, leads to the conclusion that in such a connection the\nexpression is substantially equivalent to _my soul_, the soul being made\nin the image of God, and thus the seat of man's glory. By a like process\nof comparison, we arrive at the true signification of the phrase, \"_the\nrighteousness of God_,\" or more fully, \"_the righteousness which is of\nGod by faith_\" when used with reference to the way of salvation through\nChrist; at the meaning of the Greek terms translated \"_propitiation_,\"\netc. In the same way, as already remarked (No. 1, above), the\ninterpreter ascertains the different significations in which words are\nemployed, and determines which of these is appropriate to any given\npassage.\n\n_Real_ parallelisms are subdivided, again, into _doctrinal_ and\n_historic_; doctrinal, where the same truth is inculcated; historic,\nwhere the same event or series of events is recorded. The supreme\nimportance of doctrinal parallelisms will appear most fully when we come\nto look at revelation on the divine side, as constituting a grand system\nof truth harmonious in all its parts. At present we regard them simply\nas among the means of ascertaining the sense of a given passage.\nPresuming that every author means to be self-consistent, it is our\ncustom to place side by side his different statements which relate to\nthe same subject, that they may mutually explain each other. The same\nreasonable method should be pursued with the writings of Isaiah and\nJeremiah in the Old Testament, and of Paul and John in the New. What is\nobscure is to be interpreted by what is clear; what is briefly hinted,\nby what is more fully expressed. Different writers, moreover, belonging\nto the same age, animated by the same spirit, and confessedly governed\nby the same general rules of faith and practice, mutually explain each\nother. Thus the prophets Isaiah, Hosea, Joel, Amos, and Micah, who\nbelong to the same century, and in a less degree Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and\nthe other prophets of a later age, shed each a light on the pages of all\nthe rest. The same is true of all the epistolary writers of the New\nTestament, notwithstanding their marked differences of style, and the\ndifferent aspects also in which they respectively contemplate Christian\ndoctrine and duty.\n\nOur Saviour says of those who claimed to be, before his advent, the\nshepherds and leaders of God's spiritual fold: \"All that ever came\nbefore me are thieves and robbers; but the sheep did not hear them.\"\nJohn 10:8. Yet according to this same evangelist he honored Abraham,\nMoses, and the prophets, as true leaders and teachers of God's people.\nChaps. 8:39, 40, 56; 5:45-47; 12:38-41. We know, then, that the\nSaviour's words must be restricted to such spiritual thieves and robbers\nas the scribes and Pharisees of his day, who under the leadership of\nSatan (chap. 8:41, 44) climbed up some other way into the fold.\n\nThe apostle Paul says (Rom. 2:7) that God shall render \"to them who by\npatient continuance in well-doing seek for glory, and honor, and\nimmortality, eternal life.\" We know at once, without reference to the\ncontext, that he does not mean, in opposition to the whole tenor of his\nepistles, to affirm that men can obtain eternal life by their own\nwell-doing, without respect to \"the righteousness of God, which is by\nfaith of Jesus Christ, unto all and upon all them that believe.\" But if\nwe examine the context, this shows that here the apostle is not speaking\nof the meritorious ground of justification, but of God's impartial\nregard to a righteous character in both Jews and Gentiles.\n\n_Historical_ parallelisms hold of necessity a prominent place in the\ninterpretation of both the Old and the New Testament. In the Old\nTestament we have the two parallel histories of the Hebrew commonwealth,\nfirst in the books of Samuel and the Kings, then in the books of\nChronicles. In the New, the four gospels are four parallel accounts of\nour Lord's life and teachings. Then there are several parallelisms of\nless extent; as, for example, Isaiah's account of Sennacherib's war upon\nHezekiah, and Hezekiah's sickness (Isa. chaps. 36-39, compared with 2\nKings 18:13-20:21, and the briefer notice of 2 Chron. chap. 32); the\nthree accounts of Paul's conversion (Acts 9:1-22; 22:1-21; 26:1-20); and\nother passages which will readily occur to the reader. To the work of\ncomparing and harmonizing these parallel histories biblical students\nhave with reason devoted much labor, since they mutually supplement and\nillustrate each other in many ways. We understand the books of Samuel\nand Kings more fully by comparison with the books of Chronicles, and the\nreverse. Each of the four gospels sheds light on the other three. It is\nby placing the three accounts of Paul's conversion side by side that we\ngain the most perfect knowledge of this event. The numerous coincidences\nbetween the Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline epistles, give us a\nfuller idea of the apostle's inward life and outward labors than we\ncould otherwise gain. Without the epistles the biographical notices of\nthe Acts would be very incomplete; without the narrative of the Acts\nmany references in the epistles would remain obscure.\n\nYet these same historic parallelisms, which are the source of so much\nlight, are the occasion of difficulties also, which require for their\nadjustment a comprehensive view of the spirit of inspiration. In respect\nto all essential matters of faith and practice, a divine unity pervades\nthe Holy Scriptures. But this essential unity does not exclude diversity\nof conception and representation. Though all the \"holy men of God spake\nas they were moved by the Holy Ghost,\" it pleased the divine Spirit to\nleave them free to speak each in accordance with his individual\npeculiarities of thought and language. A page from the writings of the\napostle John, taken anywhere at random, can be at once distinguished\nfrom a page of Paul or Luke. In relating the same transaction, two\ninspired writers often select different materials, or handle them in a\ndifferent way. The narrative of each is truthful, but not exhaustive. It\ngives a correct view of the thing related, but not all the particulars\nconnected with it. The omission from two or more parallel narratives of\nconcomitant circumstances, or the neglect of exact chronological order,\nsometimes makes the work of harmonizing them a very difficult matter. We\nfeel confident that each separate narrative is correct, and that, had we\nall the accompanying circumstances in the true order of time, we could\nsee _how_ they are consistent with each other; but for want of this\nlight the exact mode of reconciliation remains doubtful. Such\ndifficulties are incident to all parallel histories. Had the Holy Spirit\nseen good, he could have excluded them from the pages of inspiration;\nbut herein he chose to deal with us not as children, but rather as men\n\"of full age, even those who, by reason of use, have their senses\nexercised to discern both good and evil.\" It is worthy of special\nnotice, that where two or more evangelists record the same words of our\nSaviour, they are solicitous only about their substance.\n\nIn the three parallel accounts of the storm on the sea of Galilee, the\ndisciples say according to Matthew (8:25): \"Lord save us, we perish;\"\naccording to Mark (4:38): \"Master, carest thou not that we perish?\"\naccording to Luke (8:24): \"Master, master, we perish.\" And the Lord\nanswers according to Matthew (v. 26): \"Why are ye fearful, O ye of\nlittle faith?\" according to Mark (v. 40): \"Why are ye so fearful? how is\nit that ye have no faith?\" according to Luke (v. 25): \"Where is your\nfaith?\" On the variations in the words of the disciples Augustine well\nremarks (and the same remarks hold good of our Lord's answer): \"The\ndisciples have one and the same meaning in thus awaking the Lord and\ndesiring salvation. Nor is it necessary to inquire which of these\naddresses, rather than the others, contains the exact words spoken to\nhim. For whether they uttered one of the three, or other words which no\none of the evangelists has mentioned, which yet have the same force in\nrespect to the truth of the thought, what matters it?\" Harmony of the\nGospels 2.24, quoted by Alford on Matth. 8:25.\n\nOn the relation of the books of Chronicles to those of Kings and the\ndifficulties connected with them, see Chap. 20, Nos. 21, 22. On the\nrelation of the four gospels to each other, see Chap. 29, Nos. 4-10. We\ncannot here go into particulars. It must suffice to indicate the general\nprinciple by which the harmonist must be guided.\n\n6. The _external acquirements_ necessary to constitute the\nwell-furnished expositor of God's word--the \"scribe which is instructed\nunto the kingdom of heaven\"--have been already briefly noticed. Chap.\n33, No. 6. Not only are the Scriptures in their original form locked up\nin dead languages which the interpreter must thoroughly master, but they\nare, so to speak, embedded in ancient history, chronology, and\narchaeology.\n\nIllustrations of this point are so numerous that the only difficulty is\nin the selection. The servitude of the Israelites under the Egyptians,\ntheir captivity in Babylon, their deliverance under Cyrus, and their\nsubsequent history till the time of our Lord's advent, connect\nthemselves immediately, as all know, with the general history of the\nancient heathen world. But there are many illustrations of a more\nspecial character. The difficulty of the position in which our Lord was\nplaced by the ensnaring question of the Pharisees and Herodians\nrespecting the lawfulness of paying tribute to Caesar, and the divine\nwisdom of his answer (Matt. 22:15-22: Mark 12:13-17; Luke 20:20-26)\ncannot be perfectly understood without a knowledge, on the one hand, of\nthe political condition and feeling of the Jews as subjected to the\ndominion of the Romans, which they thoroughly detested, and of which\ndominion the tribute money daily reminded them; and, on the other, of\nthe hatred which both Pharisees and Herodians bore towards Christ, and\ntheir anxiety to find a pretext for accusing him to the people or before\nthis same Roman government.\n\nTo apprehend the force of our Lord's argument from the Pentateuch\nagainst the error of the Pharisees: \"Have ye not read that which was\nspoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of\nIsaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the\nliving\" (Matt. 22:31, 32), we must understand the _form_ in which the\nSadducees denied the doctrine of the resurrection. They denied, namely,\nthe existence of spirits separated from bodies. Acts 23:8. To them,\nconsequently, the death of the body was the _annihilation_ of the whole\nman, which made the very idea of a future resurrection an absurdity. Our\nSaviour showed from the writings of Moses, whose authority they\nacknowledged, the error of their assumption that the spirit dies with\nthe body. Thus he demolished the ground on which their denial of a\nfuture resurrection rested.\n\nThe psalmist says of those who hate Zion: \"Let them be as the grass upon\nthe house-tops, which withereth before one plucketh it\" (Eng. version,\n\"before it groweth up\"): \"wherewith the mower filleth not his hand, nor\nhe that bindeth sheaves his bosom.\" Psa. 129:6, 7. For the illustration\nof these words we need a double reference, (1) to the oriental custom of\nconstructing flat roofs covered with earth, on which grass readily\nsprings up; (2) to the division of the year into two seasons, the rainy\nand the dry, upon the commencement of which latter such grass speedily\nwithers. Another reference to the same oriental roofs we have in the\nwords of Solomon: \"The contentions of a wife are a continual dropping;\"\n\"a continual dropping in a very rainy day and a contentious woman are\nalike\" (chaps. 19:13; 27:15), where we are to understand a continual\n_dropping through_ of water from the roof, which makes every thing\nwithin uncomfortable.\n\nOur Lord's parable of the ten virgins (Matt. 25:1-13) requires for its\nillustration a knowledge of the oriental customs connected with\nmarriage: the transaction recorded by Luke, where a woman came behind\nJesus as he reclined at the table, washed his feet with her tears, and\nwiped them with her hair (Luke 7:37, 38), and the position of John when\nat the last supper he leaned on Jesus' bosom (John 13:23, 25), cannot be\nmade intelligible without a knowledge of the reclining posture in which\nmeals were then taken: one familiar only with the use of glass or\nearthen bottles cannot comprehend the force of our Lord's maxim\nrespecting the necessity of putting new wine into new bottles (Matt.\n9:17), till he is informed that oriental bottles are made of leather. We\nmight go on multiplying illustrations indefinitely, but the above must\nsuffice. We may affirm, without fear of contradiction, that the study of\nthe Holy Scriptures has contributed more than all other causes to the\ndiffusion among the masses of the community of a knowledge of ancient\nhistory and antiquities. To say that a congregation has a thorough\nknowledge of the Bible is equivalent to affirming that it has an\nenlarged acquaintance with the ancient world in its spirit as well as in\nits outward institutions and forms.\n\n7. That the interpreter may make a wise and effective use of all the\nhelps that have been enumerated, he needs especially that sound and\npractical judgment which is called in ordinary discourse _good sense_.\nInvestigations respecting the meaning of terms, inquiries concerning the\nscope, reasonings from the context, the comparison of parallel passages,\nthe use of ancient history, chronology, and archaeology--that any one or\nall of these processes combined may lead to valuable results they must\nbe under the guidance of that sound judgment and practical tact by which\nthe interpreter is enabled to seize the true meaning of his author and\nunfold it with accuracy, or is at least kept from far-fetched and\nfanciful expositions where the author's real sense is involved in\nobscurity.\n\n(1.) This quality of sound judgment will preserve the interpreter from\n_inept_ expositions for which a plausible reason many be assigned.\n\nThus, when the Saviour says to Martha, who \"was cumbered about much\nserving:\" \"One thing is needful,\" these words have been interpreted to\nmean _one dish_--not many and elaborate preparations, but a single dish.\nA sound judgment rejects at once this interpretation as below the\ndignity of the occasion, and not in agreement with what immediately\nfollows: \"Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away\nfrom her.\" The one thing needful is such a devotion of the soul to\nChrist as Mary manifested. So the words: \"Simon, son of Jonas, lovest\nthou me more than these?\" (John 21:15), have been explained to mean:\nmore than these _fish_, or the employment and furniture of a\nfisherman--an ingenious substitution, one must say, of a low and trivial\nmeaning for the common interpretation: more than these thy\nfellow-disciples love me, which accords so perfectly with Peter's former\nprofession: \"Though all men shall be offended because of thee, yet will\nI never be offended.\" Matt. 26:33; Mark 14:29.\n\nInterpreters who ordinarily manifest sound judgment and skill are\nsometimes betrayed into inept expositions through the influence of some\npreconceived opinion. The psalmist says, for example (Psa. 17:15): \"As\nfor me, in righteousness shall I behold thy face: I shall be satisfied\nupon awaking with thy likeness;\" that is, with the contemplation of thy\nlikeness, with apparent reference to Numb. 12:8: \"The likeness of the\nLord shall he behold.\" This passage is ordinarily interpreted correctly\nof the vision of God upon awaking in the world to come. And this view is\nsustained by other like passages: \"In thy presence is fulness of joy; at\nthy right hand there are pleasures for evermore\" (Psa. 16:11); \"Truly\nGod shall redeem my soul from the power of Sheol; for he shall take me,\"\n(Psa. 49:15), where Tholuck well says: \"He who took an Enoch and a Moses\nto himself, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, will also take me to\nhimself;\" \"Thou shalt guide me by thy counsel, and afterwards take me to\nglory. Whom have I in heaven but thee? and there is none upon earth that\nI desire besides thee. My flesh and my heart faileth: God is the\nstrength of my heart, and my portion for ever\" (Psa. 73:24-26)--words\nthat are inexplicable except as containing the anticipation of a blessed\nimmortality with God in heaven; \"The wicked is driven away in his\nwickedness; but the righteous hath hope in his death\" (Prov. 14:32);\netc. But there is a class of interpreters who, having adopted the maxim\nthat the Old Testament, at least in its earlier writings, contains no\nanticipations of a blessed life with God after death, are constrained to\ngive to the passage in question the frigid meaning: I shall be satisfied\nwith thy likeness when I awake to-morrow, as if the psalm were intended\nto be an evening song or prayer; or, whenever I awake, that is, from\nnatural sleep.\n\n(2.) A sound judgment will also keep the biblical scholar from\ninterpretations that are _contrary to the known nature of the subject_.\n\nA familiar example is the declaration made by Moses of God's view of\nman's wickedness: \"And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the\nearth, and it grieved him at his heart.\" Gen. 6:6. The robust common\nsense of any plain reader will at once adjust the interpretation of\nthese words to God's known omniscience and immutability; just as he will\nthe prayer of the psalmist: \"Search me, O God, and know my heart; try\nme, and know my thoughts; and see if there be any wicked way in me, and\nlead me in the way everlasting.\" Psa. 139:23, 24. The immutable God does\nnothing which is not in accordance with his eternal counsels. The\nomniscient God, to whom all truth is ever present, does not literally\ninstitute a process of searching that he may know what is in man. But in\nthese and numberless other passages, he condescends to speak according\nto human modes of thought and action.\n\nWhen it is said, again, that \"the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh;\"\nthat \"God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the men of Shechem\"\n(Judg. 9:23); that he sent a lying spirit to deceive Ahab through his\nprophets (1 Kings 22:21-23); that he sent Isaiah with the command: \"Make\nthe heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their\neyes\" (Isa. 6:10); that he made the covenant people to err from his\nways, and hardened their heart from his fear (Isa. 63:17), we\ninstinctively interpret these and other like passages in harmony with\nthe fundamental principle announced by the apostle: \"Let no man say when\nhe is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted of evil,\nneither tempteth he any man. But every man is tempted, when he is drawn\naway of his own lust, and enticed.\" Jas. 1:13, 14. The Scriptures\nascribe every actual event to God in such a sense that it comes into the\nplan of his universal providence; but they reject with abhorrence the\nidea that he can excite wicked thoughts in men, or prompt them to wicked\ndeeds.\n\nWhen it is said, once more, that men are _drawn_ to Christ (John 6:44),\nor _driven_ to worship the heavenly bodies (Deut. 4:19), we understand\nat once a drawing and a driving that are in accordance with their free\nintelligent and responsible nature. Other illustrations of this\nprinciple will be given in the following chapter, which treats of the\nfigurative language of Scripture.\n\n(3.) The same quality of good sense will enable the interpreter to make\nthose _limitations_ in the language of the sacred writers which are\ncommon in popular discourse. In the language of daily life many\nstatements are made in general terms that require for their exact\ntruthfulness various qualifications which the readers or hearers can\nreadily supply for themselves. Honest men, addressing honest men, are\nnot in the habit of guarding their words against every possible\nmisconstruction. It is enough if they speak so that all who will can\nunderstand them.\n\nIt is said, for example (Gen. 41:57), that \"all countries (literally,\n_all the earth_) came into Egypt to Joseph for to buy corn; because the\nfamine was sore in all the earth.\" It would be only trifling to ask\nwhether \"all the earth\" included the people of Europe and India. The\nreader naturally understands all the lands around Egypt, since they only\ncould come thither for corn. So when it is said in the account of the\ndeluge that \"all the high hills that were under the whole heaven were\ncovered\" (Gen. 7:19), it is straining the sacred writer's words to give\nthem a rigid geographical application, as if they must needs include the\nmountains about the North pole. \"All the high hills under the whole\nheaven\" were those where man dwelt, and which were consequently known to\nman. \"The Holy Ghost,\" says John, \"was not yet given, because that Jesus\nwas not yet glorified.\" John 7:39. Yet David prayed ages before: \"Take\nnot thy Holy Spirit from me\" (Psa. 51:11); Isaiah says of ancient Israel\nthat \"they rebelled and vexed his Holy Spirit\" (Isa. 63:10); the\nSaviour, long before his glorification, promised the Holy Spirit to all\nthat should ask for him (Luke 11:13); and it is a fundamental article of\nour faith that from Abel to the archangel's trump all holiness is the\nfruit of the Spirit. But John's readers, who lived after the plenary\ngift of the Holy Spirit from the day of Pentecost and onward, could not\nfail to understand him as referring to the gift of the Spirit in that\nspecial sense. The apostle Paul says (1 Tim. 2:4) that God \"will have\nall men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.\" Yet\nthe same apostle teaches that some will remain in ignorance of the\ntruth, and thus perish. 2 Thess. 1: 8, 9; 2:11, 12. The reader's good\nsense readily reconciles the former with the latter passages. He\nunderstands God's will to have all men saved as the will of _benevolent\ndesire_; just as God says of ancient Israel (Psa. 81:13). \"Oh that my\npeople had hearkened unto me, and Israel had walked in my ways!\" but\nbecause they would not do this, he \"gave them up to their own heart's\nlust, and they walked in their own counsels\" (ver. 12). Many like\nillustrations might be added.\n\n(4.) Hence we readily infer the office of a sound judgment in\n_reconciling apparent contradictions_, since these arise mainly from the\nneglect, in one or both of the passages between which the contradiction\nis said to exist, of reasonable qualifications and limitations.\n\nA striking illustration of this is found in the two accounts of the\ncreation. Gen. chaps. 1-2:3 and chap. 2:4-25. In the former narrative\nthe order of time is an essential element. Not so in the latter, where\nman is the central object, and the different parts of creation are\nmentioned only as the writer has occasion to speak of them in connection\nwith him. Hence we have in this latter passage the creation of the man\n(ver. 7), the planting of the garden for his use with its trees and\nrivers (ver. 8-14), the placing of the man in the garden and the law\nimposed upon him (ver. 15-17), the defective condition of the man (ver.\n18), the notice in connection with this of the creation of beasts and\nfowls and their being brought to the man to receive names (ver. 19, 20),\nthe creation of the woman and the primitive condition of the pair (ver.\n21-25). This simple statement of the course of narration sufficiently\nrefutes the allegation that the second account is inconsistent with the\nfirst.\n\nIn the first account of Paul's conversion it is said that \"the men which\njourneyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice but seeing no man.\"\nActs 9:7. In the second Paul says: \"They that were with me saw indeed\nthe light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that\nspake to me.\" Acts 22:9. There is no valid ground for doubting that the\nfirst narrative, as well as the other two, came from the lips of the\napostle himself, and the assumption of any essential contradiction is\nunreasonable and unnecessary. In regard to the _light_, it is certain\nthat Paul saw the _person_ of the Saviour, and was made blind by the\nglory of the vision (Acts 9:17, 27; 22:14; 1 Cor. 9:1), while his\ncompanions saw only the light that shone around them, which did not make\nthem blind. In regard to the _voice_, it is a fair interpretation that\nthey heard a voice only, but no intelligible words. _How_ this\ndifference of perception between Paul and his companions in regard to\nboth the light and the voice was effected we do not know, nor is it\nnecessary that we should. The first account, again, represents Paul's\ncompanions as having \"stood speechless,\" while in the third the apostle\nsays: \"When we were all fallen to the earth,\" Acts 26:14. The most\nnatural explanation here is that the third narrative gives the posture\nwith accuracy, while the first lays stress only upon the amazement which\nfixed them in a motionless attitude. The apparent discrepancies in these\nthree parallel histories are peculiarly instructive, because they all\nproceed from the pen of the same author, and must all have been derived\nfrom the same source. Such circumstantial differences have the stamp of\nreality. Instead of throwing any discredit upon the transaction, they\nonly establish its truth upon a firmer basis. Many like illustrations\nmight be added.\n\n(5.) Finally, where the means of reconciling discrepancies are not\napparent, the same quality of a sound judgment will keep us from the two\nextremes of _seeking_, on the one hand, _forced and unnatural\nexplanations_, and, on the other, of _discrediting well-attested\ntransactions_ on account of these discrepancies. In the scriptural\nnarratives there are some difficulties (relating mostly to numbers,\ndates, and the chronological order of events) which we find ourselves\nunable, with our present means of knowledge, to solve in a satisfactory\nway. It is the part of sober reason to reserve these difficulties for\nfurther light, not to set aside, in view of them, facts attested by\nirrefragable proof.\n\nNothing in the evangelic record is more certain, for example, than the\nfact of our Lord's resurrection. Yet to harmonize the four accounts\nwhich we have of it in all their details is a work of extreme\ndifficulty. \"Supposing us to be acquainted with every thing said and\ndone, in its order and exactness, we should doubtless be able to\nreconcile, or account for, the present forms of the narratives; but not\nhaving this key to the harmonizing of them, attempts to do so in minute\nparticulars carry no certainty with them.\" Alford on Matt. 28:1-10. The\nsame general principle applies to other difficulties--in the Old\nTestament, that respecting the duration of the sojourn in Egypt, and\nother chronological questions; in the New, that of the two genealogies\ngiven of our Lord by Matthew and Luke, that of the day when our Lord ate\nthe passover with his disciples, etc. See further in Chaps. 19, Nos. 6\nand 8; 20, No. 22; 29, Nos. 8-10.\n\n8. In bringing this chapter to a conclusion, we add a few words on _the\noffice of reason_ in the interpretation of Scripture. It is admitted by\nall that we have certain primitive intuitions which lie at the\nfoundation of all knowledge. That an immutable obligation, for example,\nrests on all men to be truthful, just, benevolent, and grateful, is a\ntruth which we see by the direct light of conscience. There are certain\nmoral axioms, also, outside of the direct sphere of conscience, which\nshine by their own light. Such is that fundamental truth of theology\nthus announced by the apostle John: \"God is light, and in him is no\ndarkness at all\" (1 John 1:5); where light and darkness are both taken\nin a moral sense, as the context shows; and thus by the apostle James:\n\"God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man\" (Jas.\n1:13); and thus, ages before, by Moses: \"He is the Rock, his work is\nperfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without\niniquity, just and right is he\" (Deut. 32:4); and still earlier by\nAbraham: \"Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?\" (Gen. 18:25).\nWe are sure that no declaration of God's word, properly interpreted,\nwill contradict these necessary and universal convictions. But there are\nmany weighty truths that lie wholly above the sphere of our direct\nintuitions on which the infinite understanding of God is alone competent\nto pass an infallible judgment. Such are the following: If it be God's\nwill to create a race of intelligent beings, what shall be the compass\nof their faculties, moral, intellectual, and physical? In what\ncircumstances and relations shall he place them, to what probation shall\nhe subject them, and what scope shall he allow to their finite freedom?\nIf they sin, what plan shall he devise for their redemption, and by what\nprocesses shall he reveal and execute this plan? These, and many other\nquestions involving man's highest interests, lie above the sphere of\nsimple intuition. God alone, who looks through eternity at a glance, can\nfully comprehend them, for they are all constituent parts of his eternal\nplan. That human reason, which cannot see the whole of truth, should\naffect to sit in judgment upon them, and to pronounce authoritatively\nwhat God may, and what he may not do, is the height of presumption and\nfolly.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXV.\n\nTHE FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE OF SCRIPTURE.\n\n\n1. When the psalmist says: \"The Lord God is a sun and shield\" (Psa.\n84:11), he means that God is to all his creatures the source of life and\nblessedness, and their almighty protector; but this meaning he conveys\n_under the figure_ of a sun and a shield. When, again, the apostle James\nsays that Moses is read in the synagogues every Sabbath-day (Acts\n15:21), he signifies the writings of Moses under the figure of his name.\nIn these examples the figure lies in particular words. But it may be\nembodied in a sentence, thus: \"It is hard for thee to kick against the\npricks\" (Acts 26:14), where Saul's conduct in persecuting Christ's\ndisciples is represented under the form of an ox kicking against the\nploughman's goad only to make the wounds it inflicts deeper. Figurative\nlanguage, then, is that in which _one thing is said under the form or\nfigure of another thing_. In the case of allegories and parables, it may\ntake the form, as we shall hereafter see, of continuous discourse.\n\nA large proportion of the words in all languages, in truth all that\nexpress intellectual and moral ideas, were originally figurative, the\nuniversal law being to represent immaterial by material objects.\nExamples are the words _exist_, _existence_, _emotion_, _affliction_,\n_anguish_, etc. But in these, and innumerable other words, the primitive\nphysical meaning has become obsolete, and thus the secondary spiritual\nmeaning is to us literal. Or, what often happens, while the original\nphysical signification is retained, a secondary figurative meaning of\nthe word has become so common that its use hardly recalls the physical\nmeaning, and it may therefore be regarded as literal; as in the words\n_hard_, _harsh_, _rough_, when applied to character. In the first of the\nabove examples: \"It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks,\" the\ntransfer of the word _hard_ from what is physically hard to what is\npainful or difficult, is so common that it can hardly be regarded as\nfigurative. But the expression that follows is figurative in the fullest\nsense of the word.\n\nRhetoricians divide figures into two general classes, figures of\n_words_, and figures of _thought_, and they give elaborate definitions,\nclassifications, and rules for their use. The interpreter of Scripture,\nhowever, need not encumber himself with any rhetorical system. The\ngeneral rules of interpretation already considered will be, for the most\npart, a sufficient guide to the meaning of the rich variety of figures\ncontained in the Bible, especially in its poetical parts. It is only\nnecessary to add a few words in reference to the ascertaining of\nfigurative language; the most prominent classes of figures; and some\nprinciples to be observed in their interpretation.\n\n2. The question may arise whether a writer is to be understood literally\nor figuratively. For the _ascertaining_ of figurative language, a few\nsimple rules will be, in general, sufficient.\n\n(1.) Multitudes of cases can be decided at once by considering _the\nnature of the subject_.\n\nThus, when the apostle calls Jesus Christ a \"foundation,\" and speaks of\nbuilding upon this foundation \"gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay,\nstubble,\" adding that \"every man's work shall be revealed by fire; and\nthe fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is;\" and, further,\nthat \"if any man's work abide\" this fire, \"he shall receive a reward,\"\nbut \"if any man's work be burned he shall suffer loss\" (1 Cor. 3:11-15),\nwe know at once, from the nature of the subject, that he speaks\nfiguratively. He compares the church of God to a temple, of which Jesus\nChrist is the foundation, while her teachers and preachers are the\nbuilders. The \"gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble,\"\nrepresent primarily the materials with which they build; that is, the\ncharacter of their doctrines and precepts, and secondarily, the\ncharacter of those whom they bring into the Christian fold. The \"fire,\"\nagain, is the trial and judgment of the last day.\n\nThe apostle says of the ancient Israelites that \"they drank of that\nspiritual Rock that followed them; and that Rock was Christ.\" 1 Cor.\n10:4. So also Christ is called to believers \"a chief corner-stone,\nelect, precious;\" but to unbelievers \"a stone of stumbling and a rock of\noffence\" (1 Pet. 2:6-8); \"the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of\nDavid\" (Rev. 5:5); \"the Lamb of God\" and simply \"the Lamb\" (John 1:29,\n36; Rev. 5:12; 6:1; etc.); \"the door of the sheep\" (John 10:7, 9); \"the\ntrue vine\" (John 15:1); and \"the living bread which came down from\nheaven\" (John 6:51). He himself says: \"Whoso eateth my flesh and\ndrinketh my blood hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last\nday.\" John 6:54. There is no more ground for understanding the last of\nthese passages literally than the preceding, that is, there is no ground\nwhatever. The dogma of the Romish church, which teaches that the\nconsecrated bread and wine are literally converted into the body and\nblood of Jesus, violates alike sound reason and every sound principle of\ninterpretation. \"As the words, 'This is my body,' and 'This is my\nblood,' were spoken BEFORE Christ's body was broken upon the cross, and\nBEFORE his blood was shed, he could not pronounce them with the\nintention that they should be taken and interpreted literally by his\ndisciples. He could not take his body in his hands, nor offer them his\nblood in the cup; for it had not yet been shed.\" Horne, vol. 2, p. 319.\n\n(2.) In ascertaining figurative language, the interpreter will naturally\ntake into account _the scope_, _the context_, and the _general analogy\nof scriptural teaching_. If the literal sense, though possible in the\nnature of things, is inept or contrary to the general tenor of\nScripture, it must be rejected.\n\nThe prophet Isaiah tells us that, under the future reign of the Messiah,\nthe wolf shall dwell with the lamb, the leopard lie down with the kid,\nthe lion eat straw like the ox, and the child play with impunity on the\nhole of the asp. Isa. 11:6-8. It is possible to conceive of this state\nof things as effected by a change in the physical nature of all noxious\nanimals. But the writer immediately adds: \"They shall not hurt nor\ndestroy in all my holy mountain; for the earth shall be full of the\nknowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea\" (ver. 9). Since then\nthe change is effected by the universal diffusion of \"the knowledge of\nthe Lord,\" it must be a _moral_ change--a transformation of the\ncharacter of wicked men figuratively described as wolves, leopards,\nbears, lions, and vipers. The general analogy of prophetic language,\nwhich, as will be hereafter shown, abounds in figurative forms of\nrepresentation, strengthens this conclusion.\n\nBy the prophet Haggai, again, God says: \"Yet once, it is a little while,\nand I will shake the heavens, and the earth, and the sea, and the dry\nland.\" Chap. 2:6. The key to the meaning of these words is given in the\nfollowing verse: \"And I will shake all nations, and the Desire of all\nnations shall come: and I will fill this house with glory, saith the\nLord of hosts.\" In such a connection, and with such a result, nothing\ncould be more vapid than to understand this shaking of heaven and earth,\nsea and land, in a physical sense. It is the mighty overturnings among\nthe nations, social, moral, and political, that are here predicted, as\nJehovah says by Ezekiel: \"I will overturn, overturn, overturn it, and it\nshall be no more, until he come whose right it is, and I will give it to\nhim.\" Chap. 21:27. Compare Isa. 13:13; Jer. 4:24; Ezek. 38:20; Joel\n3:16. So when God announces that he \"will cause the sun to go down at\nnoon, and darken the earth in the clear day\" (Amos 8:9), we understand\nat once that under this figure he forewarns the covenant people of the\nsudden approach of great calamity. Compare Deut. 28:29; Job 5:14; Isa.\n13:10; Jer. 4:23-28; Ezek. 32:7, 8; Joel 2:31; 3:15; etc. This subject\nwill be further discussed under the head of the interpretation of\nprophecy.\n\nIn the sermon on the mount, the Saviour says: \"Whosoever shall smite\nthee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also\" (Matt. 5:39); but\nthe preceding context gives the _scope_ of this and the other particular\nprecepts that follow, which is that Christ's followers should \"resist\nnot evil,\" that is, by rendering evil for evil. It is the spirit of\nmeekness and forbearance that he inculcates, not a slavish regard to\nthis and that particular form of manifesting it. So when he says: \"Give\nto him that asketh of thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn\nnot thou away\" (ver. 42), he cannot mean, consistently with the scope of\nthe passage and his teachings elsewhere, that we should stultify\nourselves by literally giving to every asker and borrower, without\nregard to his necessities, real or alleged. He means rather to inculcate\nthat liberal spirit which never withholds such help as it is able to\ngive from those who need it.\n\nWhen the Saviour says again: \"If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out\nand cast it from thee,\" etc., both the preceding context and the general\ntenor of the Scriptures teach us that he means what is expressed by the\napostle in another form: \"Mortify, therefore, your members which are\nupon the earth.\" Col. 3:5. To _mortify_ is to _deprive of life_, _make\ndead_. We mortify our members which would seduce us into sin, not by\ndestroying them, but by keeping them in subjection to \"the law of the\nspirit of life in Christ Jesus.\"\n\n(3.) If the interpreter is liable to err by taking figurative language\nin a literal sense, so is he also by regarding as figurative what should\nbe understood literally. A favorite expedient with those who deny the\nsupernatural character of revelation is to explain the miraculous\ntransactions recorded in the Bible as _figurative_ or _mythical_. When\nDavid says that in answer to his prayer \"the earth shook and trembled,\nthe foundations also of the hills moved and were shaken, because he was\nwroth;\" that God \"bowed the heavens also and came down, and darkness was\nunder his feet;\" that \"the Lord thundered in the heavens, and the\nHighest gave his voice, hailstones and coals of fire;\" that \"he sent out\nhis arrows and scattered them, and he shot out lightnings and\ndiscomfited them,\" all acknowledge that the language is to be\nfiguratively taken. Why then, an objector might ask, not understand the\naccount of the giving of the law on Sinai amid thunderings and\nlightnings as figurative also? The answer of every plain reader would\nbe--and it is the answer of unsophisticated common sense--that the\nformer passage occurs in a lyric poem, where such figurative\ndescriptions are entirely in place; the latter in a plain narrative,\nwhich professes to give throughout historic facts with names and dates;\nthat no reader, who had not a preconceived opinion to maintain, ever did\nor could think of interpreting the passage in Exodus in any other than a\nliteral way, while every reader understands at once that the poetic\ndescription in the eighteenth psalm is to be taken figuratively. The\nattempt has been made to interpret the gospel history as a _myth_--the\nembodiment of a system of pure ideas in the garb of history. It is\ndifficult to refute an assumption which has no foundation to rest upon.\nThis mythical theory may, nevertheless, be disposed of in a very short\nand simple way. The great central truth of the gospel history is the\ndeath and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. If any one would know how\nthe apostle Paul regarded this, let him read the fifteenth chapter of\nthe first epistle to the Corinthians, where he pledges his veracity as a\nwitness on its historic reality (ver. 15). If, now, Paul so regarded it,\nLuke, his companion in travel and labor, cannot have taken a different\nview of it, nor any other of the evangelists. But if the death and\nresurrection of Jesus are recorded as true historic events, the whole\nmythical theory vanishes at once into thin air.\n\n(4.) In regard to those prophecies which relate to the distant future,\nit may sometimes be difficult to determine whether we are to look for a\nliteral or a figurative fulfilment of them. But this subject will come\nup for consideration in another place.\n\n3. In regard to the _different kinds of figures_ a few words may be in\nplace.\n\n(1.) The term _trope_ (Greek, _tropos_, _a turn_) is applied, in a\ngeneral sense, to figures of words and speech of every variety; but, in\nstricter usage, to a word or sentence _turned_ from its literal\nsignification to a figurative sense. Quintilian adds (Inst. Orator. 8.\n6. 1) that this must be _with good effect_ (_cum virtute_); that is, it\nmust add clearness, force, or beauty to the thought.\n\nThe principal varieties of the trope are the _metonymy_ and the\n_metaphor_. The _metonymy_ is founded on the _relation_ of one thing to\nanother. Thus when Abraham says to the rich man: \"They have Moses and\nthe prophets, let them hear them\" (Luke 16:29), Moses and the prophets\nare put for their writings; that is, the _authors_ for their _works_. \"A\nsoft tongue,\" says the wise man, \"breaketh the bone.\" Prov. 25:15. Here\nthe word tongue is put for speech, the _instrument_ for the _thing\neffected_, and this metonymy is joined with a metaphor. (See below.) The\n_synecdoche_, in which a _part_ is put for the _whole_, as the _sword_\nfor _war_, is in its nature essentially a metonymy. Rhetoricians give\nelaborate classifications of metonymies, but they are of little value to\nthe scriptural student, since all are interpreted according to the few\nsimple principles given in the preceding chapter.\n\nThe _metaphor_ is founded on the _resemblance_ of one thing to another;\nas in the examples already given: \"The Lord God is a sun and shield\"\n(Psa. 84:11); \"I am the true vine and my Father is the husbandman.\" John\n15:1. It may lie not in a single word, but in an entire expression,\nthus: \"It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks\" (Acts 26:14); \"I\ncounsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be\nrich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame\nof thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eye-salve,\nthat thou mayest see.\" Rev. 3:18. The metaphor and metonymy may be\njoined, as in the words already quoted: \"A soft tongue breaketh the\nbone;\" or they may blend themselves with each other, as when Nahum says\nof the princes of Nineveh: \"The sword shall devour thy young lions.\"\nChap. 2:13. In this last example, as often elsewhere, _personification_,\nwhich is properly a figure of thought, is added, the sword being\nrepresented as a beast of prey. The grand and gorgeous personifications\nof Scripture naturally clothe themselves in tropical language of\ninimitable beauty and exhaustless variety. \"O thou sword of the Lord,\"\nsays Jeremiah, \"how long will it be ere thou be quiet? put up thyself\ninto thy scabbard, rest, and be still. How can it be quiet, seeing the\nLord hath given it a charge against Ashkelon, and against the sea-shore?\nThere hath he appointed it.\" Chap. 47:6, 7. The prophet Habakkuk\nrepresents God as coming forth in his glory for the salvation of his\npeople: \"The mountains saw thee,\" says he, \"and they trembled: the\noverflowing of the water passed by: the deep uttered his voice, and\nlifted up his hands on high: the sun and moon stood still in their\nhabitation.\" Chap. 3:10, 11. God's promise to his redeemed is: \"Ye shall\ngo out with joy, and be led forth with peace: the mountains and the\nhills shall break forth before you into singing, and all the trees of\nthe field shall clap their hands.\" Isa. 55:12. Metonymies, metaphors,\nand sometimes personifications--the books of the New Testament sparkle\nwith these figures, and they are used always for effect, not empty show.\nThey are like the flaming bolts of heaven, which rend and burn as well\nas shine. \"Beware of false prophets,\" says the Saviour, \"which come to\nyou in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall\nknow them by their fruits: do men gather grapes of thorns or figs of\nthistles?\" Matt. 7:15, 16. How effectually does he by these metaphors\nstrip off the mask from false teachers! \"If the foot shall say, Because\nI am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the\nbody? And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of\nthe body; is it therefore not of the body?\" 1 Cor. 12:15, 16. Here is\npersonification without a trope. \"O death, where is thy sting? O grave,\nwhere is thy victory?\" (1 Cor. 15:55), here is a majestic\npersonification in metaphorical form.\n\nAs resemblance lies at the foundation of the metaphor, it may be called\nan _abbreviated form of comparison_, the thing with which the comparison\nis made being directly predicated of that which is compared. Thus, when\nwe say: A sluggard is vinegar to the teeth and smoke to the eyes of\nthose who send him, we have a metaphor, the sluggard being directly\ncalled vinegar and smoke. But if we say: \"As vinegar to the teeth, and\nas smoke to the eyes, _so is_ the sluggard to them that send him\" (Prov.\n10:26), we have a comparison, and the language ceases to be tropical.\nThe metaphor is thus a more vivid form of expression than the\ncomparison.\n\nA common mode of comparison in the book of Proverbs is simply to put\ntogether the object compared and the thing or things with which it is\ncompared, thus: \"A whip for the horse, a bridle for the ass, and a rod\nfor the fool's back\" (chap. 26:3); that is, _As_ a whip is appropriate\nfor, the horse, and a bridle for the ass, _so_ is a rod for the fool's\nback. Again, \"Where there is no wood the fire goeth out, and where there\nis no tale-bearer the strife ceaseth\" (Prov. 26:20); \"Charcoal to live\ncoals, and wood to fire; and a man of strife to kindle strife\" (Prov.\n26: 21); \"Silver dross spread over an earthen sherd--burning lips [lips\nglowing with professions of love] and a wicked heart\" (Prov. 26: 23); in\nall which cases our version has supplied particles of comparison.\n\n(2.) An _allegory_ is the _narrative of a spiritual transaction under\nthe figure of something lower and earthly_, the lower transaction\nrepresenting directly the higher. We have in the eightieth Psalm an\nexquisite example of the allegory: \"Thou hast brought a vine out of\nEgypt: thou hast cast out the heathen and planted it. Thou preparedst\nroom before it, and didst cause it to take deep root, and it filled the\nland. The hills were covered with the shadow of it,\" etc. (ver. 8-16);\nwhere the transfer of the Israelitish people from Egypt to the land of\nCanaan, with their subsequent history, is described under the figure of\na vine.\n\nThe metaphor and allegory have this in common, that the foundation of\nboth is _resemblance_, and in both the lower object is _put directly_\nfor the higher. Yet the metaphor cannot be properly called a condensed\nallegory, nor the allegory an extended metaphor; for it is essential to\nthe allegory that it have the form of a narrative, and that it contain\nreal history--in the case of _prophecy_ it may be _future_\nhistory--under a figure. Hence it admits of indefinite extension, as in\nthe \"_Pilgrim's Progress_;\" and we may add the _Canticles_, which the\nChristian church from the earliest times has regarded as an allegory of\nwhich the subject is, in Old Testament language, God and his covenant\npeople, but, according to the representation of the New Testament,\nChrist and his church.\n\nWe must carefully distinguish between _true allegory_ and the\n_allegorical_ or _mystical application_ of real history. In the former\ncase it is not the literal meaning, but the higher sense represented by\nit, which constitutes the historic truth. God, for example, never\ntransferred a vine from Egypt to Palestine, but he did the covenant\npeople. The story of Sarai and Hagar, on the contrary (Gen., chap. 16),\nis true history. The apostle Paul makes an allegorical application of it\nto the two covenants, that on Sinai and that in Christ, which is very\nbeautiful and appropriate; yet the story itself is not allegory, but\nplain history. See further, in Chap. 37, No. 4.\n\n(3.) A _parable_ is the _narrative_ of a supposed event for the purpose\nof illustrating a _spiritual truth_ or principle. The office of the\nnarrative is to embody the principle. It should, therefore, be natural\nand probable; but its literal truth is of no consequence. In our Lord's\nparable of the unjust steward, for example (Luke 16:1-9), the incidents\nof the narrative may or may not have been historically true; but either\nway the great principle which it illustrates (ver. 10) remains the same.\n\nAllegories and parables pass into each other by insensible degrees. Some\nof our Lord's so-called parables are rather allegories; as that of the\nvineyard let out to husbandmen (Matt. 21:33-41), which is founded on the\nbeautiful allegory of Isaiah (chap. 5:1-7); so also that of the good\nshepherd (John 10:1-18). In their pure form, however, the allegory and\nthe parable are easily distinguished from each other. In the allegory,\nthe figure represents directly the higher transaction. Hence the\nincidents introduced in the figure--at least all the _main_\nincidents--must have something corresponding to them in the spiritual\ntransaction which the figure represents. The case of the parable is\ndifferent. Here the spiritual truth is not directly described in terms\nof the figure, but simply _illustrated_ from it. The incidents and\ncharacters of the story are separable from the general principle which\nit inculcates, and are sometimes formally separated by the speaker\nhimself; as when our Lord says: \"The kingdom of heaven _is likened_ unto\na man which sowed good seed in his field,\" etc. Matt. 13:24. For this\nreason they may belong more or less to the mere drapery of the parable,\nso that to press them in its interpretation would lead to error instead\nof truth. See further below, No. 7.\n\n(4.) _The fable_ is related to the parable, but it differs from it in\ntwo respects. _First_, it moves in a _worldly sphere_, having to do with\nprudential maxims rather than spiritual truth. _Secondly_, it allows, in\nharmony with this its lower nature, irrational objects as speakers and\nactors, which would be contrary to the dignity of the parable. Our Lord\nnever employed fables as vehicles of instruction. There are two examples\nof them in the Old Testament; neither of them, however, coming from the\nlips of prophetical men. The first is that of Jotham: \"The trees went\nforth on a time to anoint a king over them; and they said unto the\nolive-tree, Reign thou over us,\" etc. Judg. 9:8-15. The second is that\nof Jehoash: \"The thistle that was in Lebanon sent to the cedar that was\nin Lebanon, saying, Give thy daughter to my son to wife: and there\npassed by a wild beast that was in Lebanon, and trode down the thistle.\"\n2 Kings 14:9.\n\n(5.) A _symbol_ is a _material object_, a _transaction in the material\nworld_, or sometimes a _number_, to represent some _higher spiritual\ntruth_. Ritual symbols, like the ark of the covenant, the high-priest's\ndress, the sacrifices, and, in general, the whole tabernacle and temple\nservice, will be considered hereafter under the head of _types_. We\nspeak of symbols now, only so far as they belong to the human side of\ninterpretation. We have a beautiful example of a symbolic transaction in\nthe seventeenth chapter of the book of Numbers, where the princes of\nIsrael, by God's direction, take twelve rods, write each man his name\nupon his rod, and lay them up in the tabernacle before the Lord,\nwhereupon Aaron's rod \"budded, and brought forth buds, and blossomed\nblossoms, and yielded almonds;\" a symbol that God would make the\npriesthood to flourish in his family.\n\n    Scriptural symbols exhibit a wonderful variety. Sometimes they\n    are seen in _dreams_, as in Jacob's dream of a ladder reaching\n    to heaven (Gen. 28:12-15); Pharaoh's two dreams of the fat and\n    lean kine, and the good and thin ears (Gen. 41:1-7); or in\n    _prophetic vision_, like Jeremiah's vision of a seething pot\n    with the face towards the north (Jer. 1:13); Ezekiel's vision of\n    the cherubim (chap. 1); and Amos' vision of a basket of summer\n    fruit (chap. 8:2). At other times they are actual transactions.\n    So the false prophet Zedekiah \"made him horns of iron: and he\n    said, Thus saith the Lord, with these shalt thou push the\n    Syrians till thou have consumed them\" (1 Kings 22:11); the true\n    prophet Jeremiah wore a yoke upon his neck as a sign that God\n    would subject the nations to Nebuchadnezzar's power, and the\n    false prophet Hananiah broke it, that he might thus signify the\n    deliverance of the people from Nebuchadnezzar's rule. Jer.\n    27:1-8, compared with 28:10, 11.\n\n(6.) A _proverb_ is a _short maxim_ relating to practical life. It may\nbe expressed literally or figuratively, but in either case it must\ncontain a _general truth_. \"A scorner loveth not one that reproveth him;\nneither will he go unto the wise\" (Prov. 15:12), is a proverb expressed\nin plain language. \"The name of the Lord is a strong tower: the\nrighteous runneth into it, and is safe\" (Prov. 18:10), is a proverb\nunder a beautiful figure. The foolish young men counselled Rehoboam to\nsay to the Israelites: \"My little finger shall be thicker than my\nfather's loins.\" 1 Kings 12:10. This is not a proverb, because it\ncontains only the figurative statement of a particular fact. But if we\nchange the form, and say: The little finger of a foolish ruler is\nthicker than the loins of a wise king, we make it general, and thus it\nbecomes a proverb.\n\nThe Hebrew word for a proverb (_mashal_) denotes a _similitude_, this\nbeing one of its most common forms. Examples occur in abundance in the\nbook of Proverbs. We have them in the form of _direct comparison_: \"As\nin water face answereth to face, so the heart of man to man\" (chap.\n27:19); \"A continual dropping in a very rainy day and a contentious\nwoman are alike\" (chap. 27:15); \"Better is a dinner of herbs where love\nis, than a stalled ox and hatred therewith\" (chap. 15:17). We have them\nalso in the form of _metaphor_: \"The contentions of a wife are a\ncontinual dropping\" (chap. 19:13); \"The lips of knowledge are a precious\njewel\" (chap. 20:15). But most frequently the comparison appears in the\nform of _contrast_, thus: \"A wise son heareth his father's instruction;\nbut a scorner heareth not rebuke\" (chap. 13:1); \"A faithful witness will\nnot lie; but a false witness will utter lies\" (chap. 14:5). The\nsignification of the word _proverb_ is then extended to short\nsententious maxims of every form, even where comparison is excluded,\nthus: \"A wicked man taketh a gift out of the bosom to pervert the ways\nof judgment\" (chap. 17:23).\n\n(7.) The word _myth_ (Greek _muthos_) was applied by the Greeks to a\nlegend or story of early times, then to a _fable_, like those of AEsop.\nIn modern usage it is defined to be a story in which \"there is an\nunconscious blending of the deeper meaning with the outward symbol, the\ntwo being separate and separable in the parable.\" \"The mythic narrative\npresents itself not merely as the vehicle of the truth, but as itself\nbeing the truth; while in the parable there is a perfect consciousness\nin all minds of the distinctness between form and essence, shell and\nkernel, the precious vessel and yet more precious wine that it\ncontains.\" Trench, Notes on the Parables, chap. 1. A good illustration\nof this we have in the tales of Grecian mythology, once received by the\nmasses of the people as literally true; but which \"a later and more\nreflective age than that in which the mythus had birth\" learned to\nregard as only the vehicle of certain ideas respecting deity. The myth,\nas thus defined, does not come within the sphere of biblical\ninterpretation. The historic events recorded in the Old Testament may,\nand often do, shadow forth something higher. In that case they are not\nmyths, but _typical history_. Chap. 37, No. 4. All the scriptural\nnarratives, on the contrary, which are true, not in their literal\nmeaning, but in a higher sense, come under the head of allegories,\nparables, or symbolic representations.\n\n4. In the _interpretation_ of figurative language we must be guided, in\ngeneral, by the principles considered in the preceding chapter. To lay\ndown special rules for the interpretation of the rich and endlessly\nvaried figures which adorn the pages of Holy Writ would be as\nimpracticable as useless. The history of Biblical exegesis, however,\nshows that some general cautions are much needed.\n\n5. The youthful student of Scripture should be reminded, first of all,\nthat its figurative language is no less _certain and truthful_ than its\nplain and literal declarations. The figures of the Bible are employed\nnot simply to please the imagination and excite the feelings, but to\nteach _eternal verities_. The Lord Jesus, \"the faithful and true\nWitness,\" said: \"Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall\nnot pass away.\" Mark 13:31. Yet there is a class of interpreters who\nseem to think that if they can show in any given case that his language\nis figurative, its meaning is well nigh divested of all certainty and\nreality. Thrice in immediate succession did he solemnly warn his hearers\nto cut off an offending hand or foot, and to pluck out an offending eye,\nrather than be cast with the whole body into hell, \"into the fire that\nnever shall be quenched: where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not\nquenched.\" Mark 9:43-48. But, says one of this class of expositors, the\nmaiming of the body is figurative language, and so is the representation\nof the worm that never dies. Undoubtedly the maiming of the body is so;\nand how far the unquenchable fire may also be a figure for the dread\nreality that awaits the incorrigibly impenitent in the world to come we\npretend not to know. But in the lips of Jesus figures teach truth, not\nfiction. The unhappy sinner who despises the grace of the gospel will\nfind the reality not less terrible than the figures by which Christ has\nrepresented it. The story of the rich man and Lazarus is a parable; but\nwe cannot on this ground set aside the solemn lessons which it\ninculcates. What these lessons are, it requires only candor and faith to\nreceive. They teach us that God's suffering children go immediately,\nupon death, to a state of conscious blessedness; and \"the men of the\nworld, which have their portion in this life,\" to a place of unmitigated\nsuffering. Whatever be the comprehension of the word _Hades_ (rendered\nin our version by the word _hell_), there is an impassable gulf between\nLazarus in Abraham's bosom and the rich man in torment. The \"great gulf\nfixed\" may be a figure; but it represents an awful reality; and that\nreality is, that there is no transition from the one state to the other.\n\n6. In the _allegory_ the higher spiritual transaction is, as we have\nseen, directly represented by the lower. When we know, therefore, what\nthe allegory represents, we have the key to its interpretation, and all\nits incidents fall naturally into place. If the sphere of the allegory\nbe the outward history of God's people, all its incidents--at least all\nits _main_ incidents--ought to have a significance. If its sphere be\nthat of inward spiritual experience, as in the Song of Solomon, more\nlatitude must be allowed for the drapery of the story; yet here also the\nessential parts will each correspond to something in the higher object\nrepresented.\n\nAn example of pure historic allegory is that of the vine transplanted\nfrom Egypt (Psa. 80), where the higher object, which gives the key to\nthe meaning, is _God's covenant people_. The casting out of the heathen\n(ver. 8), is literally expressed, but in the verses following, the\nfigure is beautifully carried out. This vine takes deep root and fills\nthe land; the hills are covered with its shadow, and its boughs are like\nthe goodly cedar; it sends out its boughs to the sea, and its branches\nto the river (ver. 9-11). Here we have one main incident, the _increase_\nof the people in the land of Canaan. Then God breaks down its hedges, so\nthat every passer-by plucks it; the boar out of the wood wastes it, and\nthe wild beast of the field devours it (ver. 12, 13). This is another\nmain incident, the _withdrawal of God's protection_ from his people, and\ntheir oppression by their heathen neighbors. The prayer that follows in\nbehalf of this vine (ver. 14-16) represents the _love_ which God's\npeople bear to his church. All these parts of the allegory have their\nproper significance. The rest of the imagery--the hills overshadowed by\nit, the boughs like the goodly cedar, the wild boar wasting it, etc.--is\nbut the drapery of the allegory; and an attempt to find a spiritual\nmeaning for each of these particulars--the boar out of the wood, for\nexample, and the beast of the field--would but mar its beauty and force.\n\nWe give from Ezekiel (chap. 17:3-10) another example of historic\nallegory, in which the essential parts can be readily distinguished from\nthe luxuriant imagery of the prophet: \"A great eagle with great wings,\nlong-winged, full of feathers, which had divers colors [Nebuchadnezzar],\ncame unto Lebanon, and took the highest branch of the cedar [Jehoiachin,\nwhom Nebuchadnezzar dethroned and carried to Babylon. The cedar of\nLebanon represents the royal family, and Jehoiachin, as the reigning\nmonarch, its highest branch]: he cropped off the top of his young twigs\n[the same as: he took the highest branch of the cedar], and carried it\ninto a land of traffic [Chaldea]; he set it in a city of merchants\n[Babylon]. He took also of the seed of the land [the king's seed,\nmeaning Zedekiah, whom Nebuchadnezzar made king in the place of\nJehoiachin], and planted it in a fruitful field; he placed it by great\nwaters, and set it as a willow-tree [established Zedekiah on the throne,\nand gave him the means of prosperity as his vassal]. And it grew, and\nbecame a spreading vine of low stature [not a lofty cedar, but a low\nvine; that is, a tributary king], whose branches turned towards him\n[towards Nebuchadnezzar, as dependent upon him], and the roots thereof\nwere under him [under Nebuchadnezzar, as subject to his power]: so it\nbecame a vine, and brought forth branches, and shot forth twigs. There\nwas also another great eagle with great wings and many feathers\n[Pharaoh, king of Egypt]: and behold this vine did bend her roots\ntowards him [Zedekiah turned away his confidence from Nebuchadnezzar to\nPharaoh], and shot forth her branches towards him, that he might water\nit by the furrows of her plantation. It was planted [had been planted by\nNebuchadnezzar] in a good soil by great waters, that it might bring\nforth branches, and that it might bear fruit, that it might be a goodly\nvine [fidelity to Nebuchadnezzar would have made Zedekiah prosperous].\nSay thou, Thus saith the Lord God: Shall it prosper? [now that it bends\ntowards the second eagle] shall he [Nebuchadnezzar] not pull up the\nroots thereof, that it wither? It shall wither in all the leaves of her\nspring, even without great power or many people to pluck it up by the\nroots thereof [the work of plucking it up will be easy, not requiring a\nnumerous force]. Yea, behold, being planted shall it prosper? shall it\nnot utterly wither when the east wind toucheth it? [a new figure to\nrepresent its destruction] it shall wither in the furrows where it\ngrew.\"\n\nThere is a class of allegories in the Old Testament which represent the\nrelation of God to his people under the figure of husband and wife. Such\nare the Song of Solomon, and the two remarkable allegories in Ezekiel\n(chapters 16 and 23). The luxuriant fulness of imagery in these\nallegories does not admit of interpretation in detail. The general scope\nonly of the images is to be taken into account, since this contains the\nessential idea.\n\nIn the free style of the scriptural writers the allegory admits of the\nintroduction of _literal_ clauses (\"_Thou hast cast out the heathen_,\nand planted it,\" Psa. 80:8), and also of _explanatory_ clauses, though\nnot so readily as the parable. See examples in Isa. 5:7; John 10:9, 11,\n14.\n\n7. The scriptural _parables_ have a rich variety of form, sometimes\napproaching to that of the allegory, when the interpretation must be\nupon the same general principle. In its pure form, however, the parable\ndoes not, like the allegory, represent directly the higher spiritual\ntruth, but is simply a narrative to illustrate it. It may be introduced\nin the absolute form, like the parable of the barren fig-tree (Luke\n13:6-9); or, more commonly, in the shape of a similitude, thus: \"The\nkingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his\nfield\" (Matt. 13:24); \"Whereunto shall we liken the kingdom of God? or\nwith what comparison shall we compare it?\" Mark 4:30. It may be left\nwithout explanation, but more commonly an explanatory remark is added.\nSo to the parable of the two sons whom the father asked to work in his\nvineyard is added the application: \"Verily I say unto you, that the\npublicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you\" (Matt.\n21:28-31); and the parable of the Pharisee and publican is both\nintroduced and followed by an explanatory clause (Luke 18:9-14). All\nsuch clauses are of the highest importance for the interpretation of the\nparables to which they are annexed. In the interpretation of a parable,\nthe first and most important thing is to ascertain the spiritual truth\nwhich it is intended to inculcate. How far a spiritual significance is\nto be sought for the particular incidents of parables is a question to\nbe determined separately for each, according to its nature.\n\nIn the parable of the sower, which our Lord himself interpreted (Matt.\n13:3-8, 19-23), all the parts are essential, since the four different\nkinds of soil represent four different classes of hearers. So in the\nparable of the tares in the field (Matt. 13:24-30, 37-43), the good seed\nsown by the owner of the field, the tares sown by his enemy, the\nseparation, at the time of harvest, of the tares from the wheat, the\nburning of the tares, and the gathering of the wheat into the barn, are\nall main incidents in its spiritual application. Not so in the parable\nof the ten virgins (Matt. 25:1-13), of which our Lord himself has given\nthe scope, and, so far as we can see the only scope: \"Watch, therefore,\nfor ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.\"\nIf we go farther, and inquire what is the spiritual meaning of the lamps\nand oil-vessels, of the equal division of the virgins into five wise and\nfive foolish, of the request of the foolish virgins that the wise would\ngive them oil, and the answer of the wise virgins, we run into useless\nspeculations. All these particulars belong to the drapery of the\nparable, and are intended to make the story natural and probable.\n\nIn the pure form of the parable, the personages introduced to illustrate\nGod's ways of providence and grace do not, as in the allegory, directly\nrepresent God himself. It is not necessary, therefore, that there be in\nall cases a correspondence between their character and that of the holy\nGod. It is sufficient if the words and deeds ascribed to them truly\nillustrate the spiritual principle in question. In the parable of the\nunforgiving servant (Matt. 18:23-35), his lord \"commanded him to be\nsold, and his wife and children, and all that he had, and payment to be\nmade\" (ver. 25); and afterwards he \"was wroth, and delivered him to the\ntormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him\" (ver. 34). We\nneed not trouble ourselves about the reasonableness of these acts _on\nthe part of an earthly lord_. It is sufficient for the end of the\nparable that they were in accordance with the usages of the age, and\nthus illustrated the great truth which the parable was intended to\nenforce: \"So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye\nfrom your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses\"\n(ver. 35). We have still more forcible illustrations of this principle\nin such parables as those of the importunate friend (Luke 11:5-8), the\nunjust judge (Luke 18:1-8), and the unfaithful steward (Luke 16:1-9).\nThe Saviour does not compare God to an indolent friend, who will not\narise to accommodate his neighbor with bread till he is forced to do so\nby his importunity; nor to an unjust judge, who fears not God nor\nregards men. But he _draws illustrations_ from their conduct of the\nefficacy of importunate prayer; adding, at the conclusion of each\nparable, its scope: \"And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you;\nseek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you\" (Luke\n11:9); \"And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night\nunto him, though he bear long with them?\" Luke 18:7. In the parable of\nthe unfaithful steward, our Lord introduces a fraudulent transaction--a\ntransaction so manifestly fraudulent that there is no danger of our\nthinking that it could have his approbation--that he may thus illustrate\nthe importance of _prudent provision_ for the future. By allowing each\nof his lord's debtors to diminish the amount due from him, he gains\ntheir favor, that in time of need he may be received into their houses.\nFor the right apprehension of the parable, the words of the eighth verse\nare of primary importance: \"And the lord [the master of the steward]\ncommended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely\" [_prudently_,\nas the Greek word means]. Unjust as the steward's conduct was, he could\nnot but commend it as a prudent transaction for the end which he had in\nview. Our Saviour adds: \"For the children of this world are in their\ngeneration [more exactly, _towards_ or _in respect to_ their own\ngeneration; that is, in dealing with men of their own sort] wiser than\nthe children of light.\" The steward and his lord's debtors were all\n\"children of this world,\" and the transaction between them was conducted\nupon worldly principles. Our Saviour would have \"the children of\nlight\"--God's holy children, who live and act in the sphere of heavenly\nlight--provident of their everlasting welfare in the use which they make\nof this world's goods, as this steward was of his earthly welfare when\nhe should be put out of his stewardship. He accordingly adds, as the\nscope of the parable (ver. 9): \"Make to yourselves friends of [by the\nright use of] the mammon of unrighteousness [so called as being with\nunrighteous men the great object of pursuit, and too commonly sought,\nmoreover, by unrighteous means]; that when ye fail [are discharged from\nyour stewardship by death], they may receive you [that is, the friends\nwhom ye have made by bestowing your earthly riches in deeds of love and\nmercy] into everlasting habitations.\" Our Lord uses the words, \"they may\nreceive you,\" in allusion to the steward's language: \"they may receive\nme into their houses.\" They do not receive us by any right or authority\nof their own, for this belongs to Christ alone; but they receive us in\nthe sense that they bear witness before the throne of Christ to our\ndeeds of love and mercy, by which is manifested the reality of our\nfaith, and thus our title, through grace, to everlasting habitations.\nCompare the remarkable passage in Matt. 25:34-46, which furnishes a true\nkey to the present parable.\n\n8. To determine whether a _symbol_ is a _real transaction or seen only\nin vision_, we must consider both its _nature_ and the _context_. When\nEzekiel, at God's command, visits the temple-court, digs in its wall,\nand sees the abominations practised there (chap. 8), we know from his\nown words (ver. 3) that the whole transaction was \"in the visions of\nGod.\" So also the remarkable vision of dry bones. Chap. 37:1-14. But the\nsymbolical action that follows--the joining of two sticks into\none--seems to be represented as real; for the people ask concerning it:\n\"Wilt thou not tell us what thou meanest by these?\" (ver. 18), and the\ntwo sticks are in the prophet's hand \"before their eyes\" (ver. 20). The\nnature of the symbolical transaction recorded in Jer. 32:6-12--the\npurchase of Hanameel's field--with the accompanying historical\ncircumstances, shows that it was real. From the nature of the vision of\nthe chariot of God, on the contrary, which Ezekiel saw (chap. 1:10), as\nwell as from the accompanying notices (chaps. 1:1; 8:1-4), we know that\nit was represented to the prophet's inner sense, not seen with his\noutward eyes. The moral character of the transactions recorded by Hosea\n(chaps. 1-3) has led commentators to decide against their literal\noccurrence.\n\nIn some cases we must remain in doubt whether the symbolical\ntransactions are real or seen in vision. How are we to understand, for\nexample, the transactions recorded in Isa. chap. 20; in Jer. chap.\n13:1-11; in Ezek. chap. 4? Concerning such examples expositors will\njudge differently; but in either way of understanding them, their\nmeaning and the instructions which they furnish are the same.\n\nThe subject of symbols will come up again in connection with that of\nprophecy. At present we consider simply the general principles upon\nwhich they are to be _interpreted_. Here we are to be guided first of\nall by the writer's own explanations. Where these are wanting we must\ncarefully study the nature of the figures used, and the connections in\nwhich they occur.\n\nThe sacred writers very commonly indicate the meaning of the symbols\nwhich they employ. Thus the prophet Isaiah is directed to loose the\nsackcloth from his loins, and put off his shoe from his foot, walking\nnaked and barefoot. Chap. 20:2. Then follows the explanation of this\nsymbolical transaction: \"Like as my servant Isaiah hath walked naked and\nbarefoot three years for a sign and wonder upon Egypt and Ethiopia; so\nshall the king of Assyria lead away the Egyptians prisoners, and the\nEthiopians captives, young and old, naked and barefoot,\" etc. (ver. 3,\n4). For other examples see the symbol of the girdle (Jer. 13:1-7\ncompared with ver. 8-11); of the purchase of Hanameel's field (Jer.\n32:6-12 compared with ver. 13-15); of the removal of household stuff\n(Ezek. 12:3-7 compared with ver. 8-12); of the plumb-line (Amos 7:7, 8);\nof the four horns and four smiths (Zech. 1:18-21); and many other\nsymbolical transactions which will readily occur to the student of\nScripture.\n\nBut sometimes the symbol is given without an explanation, or with only\nan obscure intimation of its meaning. The prophet Amos has a vision of\ngrasshoppers, and afterwards of a devouring fire, with only a general\nintimation that they denote heavy calamities, which the Lord in his pity\nwill avert in answer to prayer. Amos 7:1-6. Here the nature of the\nsymbols, in connection with the known situation of the Israelitish\npeople, shows that they represent the general desolation of the land by\nforeign enemies. The prophet Ezekiel adds no interpretation to his\nvision of the Lord enthroned in glory upon the firmament above the\nchariot with four cherubim and four living wheels full of eyes, in the\nmidst of which a bright fire glows and lightnings blaze. Chaps. 1, 10.\nFrom a careful study of the nature of this magnificent imagery we may\ninfer with probability that the cherubim with their wheels, moving every\nway with the rapidity of a flash of lightning, denote all the agencies\nand instrumentalities by which God administers his government over the\nworld, which are absolutely at his command, and execute with unerring\ncertainty all his high purposes. The four faces of the cherubim,\nmoreover, which answer to the four principal divisions of living beings\namong the Hebrews, seem to represent the fulness of their endowments.\nThe meaning of Ezekiel's vision of a New Jerusalem, with its temple and\naltar, comes more properly under the head of prophecy. Some of the\nsymbols in the book of Zechariah are expounded with beautiful clearness,\nas that of the two olive-trees. Chap. 4:1-10. Of others the meaning is\nonly hinted at in an enigmatical way; so that their interpretation is a\nmatter of great difficulty and uncertainty. As examples we may refer to\nthe symbol of the ephah (chap. 5:5-11); of the four chariots coming out\nfrom between two mountains of brass with horses of different colors\n(chap. 6:1-9); of the two staves, Beauty and Bands, with which the\nprophet in vision is commanded to feed \"the flock of the slaughter,\" and\nwhich he is afterwards to break (chap. 11:4-14). For the details in the\ninterpretation of these and other difficult symbols the reader must be\nreferred to the commentaries. Our limits will only allow us to indicate\nthe general principles upon which the expositor must proceed.\n\n9. There is a class of scriptural symbols which may be called\n_numerical_. Thus _seven_ is the well-known symbol of completeness,\n_four_ of universality, _twelve_ of God's people. See Chap. 32, No. 5.\nUnder this head fall also those passages in which a day is put for a\nyear, or for an indefinitely long period of time. One of the most\ncertain examples is Daniel's prophecy of the _seventy weeks_ that were\nto precede the death of the Messiah (chap. 9:24-27), for the details of\nwhich the reader is referred to the commentators. Upon the same\nprinciple we must, in all probability, interpret the \"time and times and\ndividing of time,\" that is, three and a half years (Dan. 7:25); the\n\"forty and two months\" (Rev. 11:2; 13:5); and the \"thousand two hundred\nand threescore days\" (Rev. 11:3; 12:6). Compare Ezekiel 4:4-8, in which\nsymbolical transaction a day is expressly put as the symbol of a year.\nOn the symbolical interpretation of the six days of creation, see in\nChap. 19, No. 6.\n\n\n\n\nSECOND DIVISION.\n\nINTERPRETATION VIEWED ON THE DIVINE SIDE\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nCHAPTER XXXVI.\n\nTHE UNITY OF REVELATION.\n\n\n1. \"Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world;\"\nand therefore they constitute together a self-consistent whole. To\nreceive the Holy Scriptures as containing a revelation from God is to\nacknowledge that they possess an _essential and all-pervading unity_.\nWhoever speaks timidly and hesitatingly of the essential harmony between\nthe Old Testament and the New, either refuses to acknowledge both as\ngiven by inspiration of God, or he apprehends this great fundamental\ntruth only in a confused and imperfect manner. If God spake by Moses and\nthe prophets, as well as by Christ and his apostles, it is vain to\nallege any contradiction in doctrine or spirit between the former and\nthe latter. So absolutely certain is it that the Saviour and his\napostles built on the foundation of the Old Testament, that to deny its\ndivine authority is to deny that of the New Testament also.\n\n2. But the unity of revelation, like that which pervades all the other\nworks of God, is a _unity in the midst of diversity_--diversity in its\ncontemporaneous parts, but especially in its _progress_. Illustrations\nwithout number are at hand. The history of a plant of wheat, from the\ntime when the kernel is sown in the earth to the harvest, has perfect\nunity of plan. But how unlike in outward form are the tender blade, the\ngreen stalk, and the ripened ear! The year constitutes a self-consistent\nwhole. But can any thing be more dissimilar in form than spring and\nautumn? Yet no one thinks of finding a want of harmony between the\nfragrant blossoms of the former, and the ripened fruit of the latter.\nThe path to the harvest lies through the blossoms. Geologists dwell at\ngreat length on the varied conditions through which our planet has\npassed, and the wonderfully diversified forms of vegetable and animal\nlife corresponding to these several conditions. Yet in this endless\ndiversity of outward form they recognize from first to last a deep\nunderlying unity of plan. We might, then, reasonably infer beforehand\nthat if God should make a revelation of himself to men, it would have\nnot only unity but _diversity of outward form_, especially _diversity of\nprogress_. The fact that the revelation contained in the Bible has such\ndiversity is one of the seals of its genuineness.\n\n3. We may consider this unity in diversity in respect to the _form of\nGod's kingdom_. From Adam to Abraham God administered the affairs of the\nhuman family as a whole, without any visible organization of a church as\ndistinct from the world at large. From Abraham to Moses his\nchurch--using the term church in a general sense--existed in a\n_patriarchal_ form. With the beginning of the Mosaic dispensation he put\nit into the form of a _state_, of which he was the supreme head and\nlawgiver, while its earthly rulers exercised under him all the functions\nof civil offices, the bearing of the sword included. When Christ came,\nhe separated the church from the state, and gave it its present\nspiritual and universal organization. In all this diversity of outward\nform we recognize the progress of one grand self-consistent plan.\n\n4. We may now go back again to the beginning, and consider the diversity\nin the _forms of public worship_--the simple offering of Abel, who\n\"brought of the firstlings of his flock, and of the fat thereof,\" the\naltars of the patriarchs, the gorgeous ceremonial of the Mosaic economy\nwith its priesthood and sacrifices, \"the service of song in the house of\nthe Lord\" added by David, the synagogue service of later times, and,\nfinally, the spiritual priesthood of believers under the New Testament,\nwhose office is \"to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God by\nJesus Christ\" (1 Pet. 2:5); and show that through all this variety of\noutward form the essence of God's service has ever remained unchanged,\nso that the example of primitive believers is a model for our imitation.\nHeb. chap. 11.\n\n5. We may show, again, that the same manifoldness belongs to _the forms\nof labor_ devolved on God's servants in different ages. The work\nassigned to Noah was not that of Abraham; nor was Abraham's work that of\nMoses; nor the work of Moses that of David; nor David's work that of\nIsaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel; nor did any one of the Old Testament\nbelievers receive the broad commission: \"Go ye into all the world; and\npreach the gospel to every creature.\" They could not receive such a\ncommission, for the way was not yet prepared. Abraham must sojourn in\nthe land of promise \"as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles\nwith Isaac and Jacob\" (Heb. 11:9); Moses must lead Israel out of Egypt,\nand be God's mediator for the law given on Sinai; Joshua must take\npossession of the land of promise and David maintain it, sword in hand;\nthe prophets must foretell the future glories of Christ's kingdom, not\npreach it, as did the apostles, to all nations. But in the divine plan\nthis manifoldness of service constitutes a self-consistent and\nharmonious whole.\n\n6. The same unity in diversity belongs to _the spirit of revelation_.\nFailing to apprehend the character of God in its entireness, Marcion\nrent the seamless garment of divine perfection into two parts, the one\nconsisting of _justice_, which he assigned to the \"Demiurge\" of the Old\nTestament, the other of _goodness_, as the attribute of the supreme God\nof the New Testament. He did not see that God's character is alike\ninfinite on both sides; that his justice is a justice of infinite\ngoodness, and his goodness a goodness of infinite justice. Hence he\narrayed in opposition to each other two caricatures of deity, the one\ndrawn from the Old Testament, the other from the New; an error in which\nhe has had too many imitators in modern times. To see the harmony of the\nspirit that pervades the Holy Scriptures from beginning to end _in\nrespect to the Divine character_, we should take a comprehensive instead\nof a partial view of their representations. It is true that the Old\nTestament describes God as infinite in holiness and inflexibly just. But\nit also describes him as \"the Lord God, merciful and gracious,\nlong-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for\nthousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin.\" It is true\nthat God's covenant under the Old Testament was restricted to a single\nnation; but this was, as has been heretofore shown, _preparatory_ to a\nuniversal dispensation of mercy, as when a general seizes one strong\nposition with a view to the conquest of an entire region. Chap. 18. It\nis true, on the other hand, that the New Testament is, in a peculiar\nsense, a revelation of God's mercy through Jesus Christ. But it is a\ndiscriminating mercy, through which God's awful holiness and justice\nshine with dazzling brightness. It is a mercy shown not at the expense\nof justice, but in perfect harmony with it; a mercy sternly restricted,\nmoreover, to those who comply with the conditions on which it is\noffered. The gospel is a plan of salvation, not of condemnation; \"for\nGod sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the\nworld through him might be saved.\" John 3:17. Yet it brings condemnation\nto those who reject it; for the Saviour immediately adds (ver. 18): \"He\nthat believeth on him, is not condemned; but he that believeth not is\ncondemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only\nbegotten Son of God.\" It is in the New Testament, not in the Old, that\nwe find the most awful declarations of God's wrath against the finally\nimpenitent, some of them proceeding, too, from the lips of the\ncompassionate Saviour: \"The Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven,\nwith his mighty angels, in flaming fire, taking vengeance on them that\nknow not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: who\nshall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the\nLord, and from the glory of his power\" (2 Thess. 1:7, 9); \"He that\nbelieveth not the Son, shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth\non him\" (John 3:36); \"These shall go away into everlasting punishment,\nbut the righteous into life eternal\" (Matt. 25:46).\n\n7. The same harmony of spirit pervades both Testaments in respect to\n_the way of salvation_. On this momentous question the teachings of the\nNew Testament are fuller than those of the Old, but never in\ncontradiction with them. The Old Testament teaches that men are saved,\nnot from the merit of their good works, but from God's mercy: the New\nTestament adds a glorious revelation respecting the _ground_ of this\nmercy in Jesus Christ. To exhibit in a clear light the reality of this\nharmony, let us take a passage of the New Testament which embodies in\nitself the substance of the way of salvation, and compare with it the\ndeclarations of the Old Testament. The following will be appropriate:\n\"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his\nmercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the\nHoly Ghost.\" Titus 3:5.\n\n_Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his\nmercy he saved us_. \"The Lord did not set his love upon you, nor choose\nyou, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the\nfewest of all people: but because the Lord loved you, and because he\nwould keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath the Lord\nbrought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of\nbondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt\" (Deut. 7:7, 8); \"For\nthy name's sake, O Lord, pardon mine iniquity, for it is great\" (Psa.\n25:11); \"Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy loving-kindness;\naccording unto the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my\ntransgressions\" (Psa. 51:1); \"I do not this for your sakes, O house of\nIsrael, but for my holy name's sake, which ye have profaned among the\nheathen whither ye went\" (Ezek. 36:22); \"We do not present our\nsupplications before thee for our righteousness, but for thy great\nmercies\" (Dan. 9:18).\n\n_By the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost._\n\"Behold thou desirest truth in the inward parts; and in the hidden part\nthou shalt make me to know wisdom. Purge me with hyssop and I shall be\nclean; wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.\" \"Create in me a clean\nheart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me. Cast me not away from\nthy presence; and take not thy Holy Spirit from me\" (Psa. 51:6, 7, 10,\n11); \"I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their\nhearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people\" (Jer.\n31:33); \"Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be\nclean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse\nyou. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put\nwithin you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and\nI will give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you,\nand cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments,\nand do them\" (Ezek. 36:25-27).\n\n8. The stern character of the Mosaic dispensation is freely admitted. As\na preparatory dispensation, severity belonged appropriately to it. \"The\nlaw,\" says Paul, \"was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we\nmight be justified by faith.\" Gal. 3:24. Its office was to educate the\nhuman conscience to such a point that it should be prepared for the full\nrevelation of God's mercy in Christ. We may concede the prominence of\nGod's justice in the Old Testament, and his mercy in the New; but we\nmust never forget that neither part of divine revelation is complete in\nitself. It is only when we view them in their connection with each\nother, as parts of one great whole, that we discern in them an\nall-pervading unity and harmony of spirit.\n\nFrom the unity of revelation some inferences may be drawn of a very\npractical character, especially in reference to the interpretation of\nthe Old Testament.\n\n9. _Each particular communication from God to man must be, in its place\nand measure, perfect._ For it proceeded from the infinite mind of God,\nwho understood at the beginning the whole plan of redemption, and who,\nwhen he made the first revelation concerning it, knew all that was\nafterwards to follow, and said and did, in the most perfect way, what\nwas proper to be said and done at the time. The revelations of the Holy\nSpirit, therefore, admit of a stupendous _development_, but no\nrectification or improvement. The very earliest of them contain the\ngerms of all that is to follow without any admixture of falsehood. There\nis a holding back of the full light reserved for future ages, but no\nmist of error--nothing which, fairly interpreted, will ever need to be\nretracted. For this reason the very earliest of God's communications to\nmen retain for us, who live in these latter days, their pristine\nfreshness and power. Take, for example, the great primitive prophecy: \"I\nwill put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her\nseed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.\" Gen.\n3:15. We can find no words more pertinent to describe the mighty\nconflict now going on between the kingdom of God and that of Satan. What\nare they but a condensation into one sentence of the history of\nredemption--a flash of light from the third heavens, which discloses at\na glance man's destiny from Eden to the trump of the archangel? And so\nis it also with the later prophecies concerning Christ and his kingdom.\nWhat is true of the revelations of the Old Testament holds good of all\nits _institutions_. In their place, and with reference to the end which\nthey proposed to accomplish, they were all perfect; were the best that\ncould be given under existing circumstances. At the foundation of all\nour reasonings concerning the appointments of the Old Testament must lie\nthe axiom: \"As for God his way is perfect.\"\n\n10. _The later revelations must he taken as the true exponents of the\nearlier._ This is but saying that the Holy Spirit is the true and proper\nexpositor of his own communications to men. Since, as we have seen, the\nfirst revelations were made in full view of all that was to follow, the\nlater revelations must be considered not as a mass of foreign and\nheterogeneous materials superadded to the original prophecies, but as a\ntrue expansion of the earlier prophecies out of their own proper\nsubstance. For example, the promise made to Abraham: \"In thy seed shall\nall the nations of the earth be blessed\" (Gen. 22:18), is not so much a\nnew promise as a further unfolding of the original one: \"It shall bruise\nthy head.\" A further development of the same promise we have in Nathan's\nwords to David: \"Thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for\never before thee, thy throne shall be established for ever;\" and in all\nthe bright train of prophecies in which the glory and universal dominion\nof the Messiah's kingdom are foretold down to the day of Gabriel's\nannouncement to Mary: \"He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of\nthe Highest; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his\nfather David. And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and\nof his kingdom there shall be no end.\" Luke 1:32, 33.\n\nAnd since the manifestation of God in the flesh is the culminating point\nof revelation, it follows that the Lord Jesus and his apostles, whom he\nauthoritatively commissioned to unfold the doctrines of the gospel, must\nbe, in a special sense, the expositors of the Old Testament, from whose\ninterpretations, when once fairly ascertained, there is no appeal. The\nattempt of some to make a distinction between Christ's authority and\nthat of his apostles is nugatory. As it is certain that our Lord himself\ncould not have been in error, so it is certain also that he would not\nhave commanded his apostles to teach all nations concerning himself and\nhis doctrines, and have further given them, in the possession of\nmiraculous powers, the broad seal of their commission, only to leave\nthem subject to the common prejudices and errors of their age. See\nfurther in Chap. 7, Nos. 3, 4.\n\n11. _The extent of meaning contained in a given revelation must be that\nwhich the Holy Spirit intended._ It is not to be limited, then, by the\napprehension of those to whom it was originally made. Earlier prophecy\nis, at least in many cases, framed with a view to the subsequent\ndevelopment of its meaning. Until such development is made by God\nhimself, either in the way of further revelations, or indirectly by the\ncourse of his providence, men's apprehension of its meaning, though it\nmay be true as far as it goes, must yet be inadequate. To cite a single\npassage from one of the Old Testament prophecies: \"It hath pleased the\nLord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief; when thou shalt make his\nsoul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his\ndays, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.\" Isa.\n53:10. No one will maintain that the Jews before our Lord's advent (all\ncarnal prejudices aside) could have had that apprehension of its deep\nmeaning which it is our privilege to enjoy. This meaning was contained\nin the promise from the first, but in an undeveloped form. Accordingly\nthe prophets themselves \"inquired and searched diligently\" concerning\nthe import of their utterances and the time of their fulfilment. 1 Pet.\n1:11. They who deny the reality of prophetic inspiration are\nnecessitated, for consistency's sake, to deny also the principle now\nlaid down. But if revelation be a true communication from God to men, it\nis reasonable to believe that it should have contained from the\nbeginning the germs of mighty events in the distant future, the\nrealization of which in history should be, in connection with further\nrevelations from God, its true expositor.\n\n12. _The more obscure declarations of Scripture are to be interpreted\nfrom the clearer._ A single passage of God's word occasionally gives us\na glimpse of some great truth nowhere else referred to in Scripture. Of\nthis we have a remarkable example in what the apostle says of Christ's\ndelivering up the kingdom to the Father upon the completion of the work\nof redemption. 1 Cor. 15:24-28. But no great truth relating to the way\nof salvation through Christ is thus taught obscurely and in some single\npassage of Scripture. Every such truth pervades the broad current of\nrevelation, and shines forth from its pages so clearly that no candid\ninquirer can fail to apprehend its true meaning. If, then, we find in\nthe Bible dark and difficult passages, they must, if interpreted at all,\nbe explained, not in contradiction with what is clearly and fully\ntaught, but in harmony with it. This is but saying that, instead of\nusing what is obscure to darken what is clearly revealed, we should, as\nfar as possible, illustrate that which is dark by that which is clear.\n\n    The Scriptures teach, for example, with abundant clearness, that\n    Christ is the only foundation on which the church can rest. Isa.\n    28:16; 1 Cor. 3:11; Ephes. 2:20; 1 Pet. 2:6. This is, indeed, an\n    office which plainly requires for its exercise that omnipotence,\n    and that supreme power in heaven and earth which are expressly\n    ascribed to him. Matt. 11:27; 28:18; John 5:19-30; 17:2; 1 Cor.\n    15; 24-28; Ephes. 1:20-23; Phil. 2:9-11; Col. 1:15-19; Heb. 1:3.\n    When, therefore, our Lord says to Peter: \"Thou art Peter [that\n    is, as the word Peter means in the original, _Thou art Rock_],\n    and upon this rock will I build my church\" (Matt. 16:18), to\n    understand Peter, or any pretended successor of Peter, as a rock\n    in any other sense than as an eminent instrument in Christ's\n    hand for the establishment of his church, is absurd and\n    blasphemous.\n\n    Again: Christ gives to Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven,\n    with power to bind and loose (Matt. 16:19), and elsewhere the\n    same power is conferred upon all the apostles (Matt. 18:18).\n    That Peter and his associates in the apostleship had the keys of\n    the kingdom of heaven in any such sense as that in which Christ\n    has them (Rev. 3:7); that is, that they had authoritative power\n    to admit their fellow-sinners to heaven, or exclude them from\n    heaven, is contrary to the whole tenor of the New Testament,\n    which everywhere represents Christ as the supreme Judge, upon\n    whose decision depends the everlasting destiny of every child of\n    Adam. Matt. 7:21, 22; 16:27; 25:31-46; John 17:2; Acts 17:31; 2\n    Cor. 5:10. Christ's words concerning the keys may be best\n    understood of the _special_ authority which he bestowed on the\n    apostles, as inspired teachers and guides of his primitive\n    church, to settle all questions respecting her. For eminent\n    examples of the exercise of this power, see the decisions\n    concerning Gentile converts, Acts 11:1-18; 15:1-29. In this\n    sense the gift of the keys ceased with that of inspiration. But\n    if, as some think, the words may be understood of the _common_\n    power conferred by Christ on his churches to regulate their own\n    affairs, to administer discipline, and to admit or exclude from\n    their communion, the power continues in this sense in the\n    visible church, and is valid so far as it is exercised in\n    accordance with God's word.\n\n    So also must we interpret the words of Christ recorded by the\n    apostle John: \"And when he had said this, he breathed on them,\n    and said unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost; whosesoever sins\n    ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whosesoever sins ye\n    retain, they are retained.\" Chap. 20:22, 23. The authoritative\n    forgiveness of sin is a prerogative of God alone, the exercise\n    of which implies omniscience as well as supreme authority in\n    heaven and earth. The prerogative of remitting and retaining\n    men's sins here conferred on the apostles is part of the general\n    power of binding and loosing already considered. It was\n    exercised _in the sphere of the visible church on earth_. As it\n    respects the actual forgiveness of sin and consequent admission\n    of the soul to communion with God here and eternal life\n    hereafter, God's ministers can only declare the terms of\n    salvation as they are set forth in the gospel.\n\n    The same general principle is applicable to the interpretation\n    of all passages containing \"things hard to be understood.\" The\n    \"unlearned and unstable\" wrest them, by taking them out of their\n    connection and in contradiction to the general tenor of God's\n    word. But the candid student of Scripture never uses that which\n    is difficult in revelation to obscure that which is plain. He\n    seeks, on the contrary, to illumine what is dark by that which\n    shines with a clear and steady light.\n\n13. As a fitting close to this part of our subject we add some remarks\non _the analogy of faith_. \"We may define it to be that general rule of\ndoctrine which is deduced, not from two or three parallel passages, but\nfrom the harmony of all parts of Scripture in the fundamental points of\nfaith and practice.\" Horne's Introduct., vol. 1. p. 269, edit. 1860. It\nis based on two fundamental principles; first, that \"all Scripture is\ngiven by inspiration of God,\" and therefore constitutes a\nself-consistent whole, no part of which may be interpreted in\ncontradiction with the rest; secondly, that the truths to which God's\nword gives the greatest prominence, and which it inculcates in the\ngreatest variety of forms, must be those of primary importance. Thus\nunderstood, the analogy of faith is a sure guide to the meaning of the\ninspired volume. He who follows it will diligently and prayerfully study\n_the whole word of God_, not certain selected parts of it; since it is\nfrom the whole Bible that we gather the system of divine revelation in\nits fulness and just proportions. \"If we come to the Scriptures with any\npreconceived opinions, and are more desirous to put that sense upon the\ntext which coincides with our sentiments rather than with the truth, it\nthen becomes the analogy of _our_ faith rather than that of the whole\nsystem.\" Horne, _ubi supra_. In this substitution of \"the analogy of\n_our_ faith\" for the analogy of Scripture lies the foundation of\nsectarian controversy.\n\nAgain; he who follows the true analogy of faith will not allow a\ndoctrine which runs through the whole tenor of divine revelation to be\nweakened or set aside in the interest of some other scriptural doctrine.\n\n    The Scriptures teach, for example, with great frequency and\n    clearness that men are saved, not from the merit of their good\n    works, but solely by God's free grace through faith in Jesus\n    Christ. They teach also with equal frequency and clearness that\n    without repentance and obedience to the divine law there is no\n    salvation. These two deductions are not contradictory, but\n    supplementary to each other. They present two sides of one and\n    the same way of salvation. Yet it may happen that a Biblical\n    student will find himself unable to reconcile in a logical way\n    two such deductions as the following: \"Therefore we conclude\n    that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law\"\n    (Rom. 3:28); \"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord,\n    shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the\n    will of my Father which is in heaven\" (Matt. 7:21). What then\n    shall we counsel him to do? Plainly it is his duty, first of\n    all, to receive and hold _both_ doctrines. _Afterwards_ he may\n    properly seek to reconcile them with each other in a logical\n    way; but if he fails to accomplish this task to his\n    satisfaction, he must not deny one truth, or sink its\n    importance, in the interest of the other. The same general\n    principle applies to various other doctrinal difficulties, which\n    need not be here specified.\n\nFinally, a true regard to the analogy of faith will make our system of\nbelief and practice _entire and well proportioned_ in all its parts.\nEvery declaration of God's word is to be received in a reverent and\nobedient spirit. But inasmuch as the Scriptures insist much more\nearnestly and fully on some things than on others, it is our wisdom to\nfollow, in this respect, the leadings of the Holy Spirit. It will be the\naim of the enlightened believer to give to each doctrine and precept of\nrevelation the place and prominence assigned to it in the Bible.\nEspecially will he be careful that no obscure or doubtful passage of\nScripture be allowed to contradict the plain teachings of inspiration.\n\n    The practical study of the Bible, that is, the study of it as\n    \"profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for\n    instruction in righteousness,\" resolves itself in a great\n    measure into the comparison of Scripture with Scripture,\n    especially the comparison of _doctrinal parallelisms_. All that\n    the Bible teaches from Genesis to Revelation concerning God's\n    being and attributes, his providential government over man, the\n    person and offices of Christ and the way of salvation through\n    him, and the final destiny of the righteous and the wicked,\n    should be diligently compared, that from the whole we may gather\n    a full and well-proportioned system of faith and practice as it\n    is contained in the pages of inspiration. So far as we fail to\n    do this our view of divine truth is defective and\n    disproportioned. The solemn warning in respect to the last book\n    of revelation applies with equal force to revelation as a whole:\n    \"If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him\n    the plagues that are written in this book: and if any man shall\n    take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall\n    take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy\n    city, and from the things that are written in this book.\" Rev.\n    22:18, 19.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXVII.\n\nSCRIPTURAL TYPES.\n\n\n1. The _material world_ is full of _analogies_ adapted to the\nillustration of spiritual things. No teacher ever drew from this\ninexhaustible storehouse such a rich variety of examples as our Saviour.\nHis disciples are the salt of the earth, the light of the world, and a\ncity set on a hill. From the ravens which God feeds and the lilies which\nGod clothes, he teaches the unreasonableness of worldly anxiety. The\nkingdom of heaven is like seed sown in different soils, like a field of\nwheat and tares growing together, and like seed that springs up and\ngrows the sower knows not how. Again it is like a net cast into the sea,\nlike a grain of mustard seed, and like leaven hid in three measures of\nmeal. When the Saviour opens his lips the whole world of nature stands\nready to furnish him with arguments and illustrations; as well it may,\nsince the God of nature is also the God of revelation. _The world of\nsecular activity_ abounds in like analogies, on which another class of\nour Lord's parables is based; like that of the vineyard let out to\nhusbandmen, the servants intrusted with different talents, the ten\nvirgins, the importunate friend, the unjust judge, the unfaithful\nsteward, the prodigal son, and others that need not be enumerated.\nAnalogies like these, however, do not properly constitute _types_. Types\nrest on a foundation of analogy, but do not consist in analogy alone.\n\n2. In the history of God's people, moreover, as well as of the world\nwhich he governs with reference to them, the _present_ is continually\nforeshadowing _something higher in the future_. This must be so, because\nthe train of events in their history constitutes, in the plan of God,\nneither a loose and disconnected series nor a confused jumble of\nincidents, like a heap of stones thrown together without order or\ndesign, but a well-ordered whole. It is a building, in which the parts\nnow in progress indicate what is to follow. It is the development of a\nplant, in which \"the blade\" foreshadows \"the ear,\" and the ear, \"the\nfull corn in the ear.\" The primal murder, when \"Cain rose up against\nAbel his brother, and slew him,\" \"because his own works were evil and\nhis brother's righteous,\" was the inauguration of the great conflict\nbetween the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent--the\nforerunner of the higher struggle in Egypt between Pharaoh on the side\nof the devil, and the covenant people on the side of the seed of the\nwoman. This struggle in Egypt, again, foreshadowed the still higher\ncontest between truth and error in the land of Canaan--a contest which\nendured through so many centuries, and enlisted on both sides so many\nkings and mighty men; and which, in its turn, ushered in the grand\nconflict between the kingdom of Christ and that of Satan, a conflict\nthat began on the day of Pentecost, and is yet in progress. This\ncontinual foreshadowing of the future by the present is essentially of a\ntypical nature, yet it does not constitute, in and of itself, what we\nunderstand by a type in the ordinary usage of the term.\n\n3. _A type_ is _a symbol appointed by God to adumbrate something higher\nin the future_, which is called the _antitype_. This definition includes\nthree particulars: (1.) The type must be a _true adumbration_ of the\nthing typified, though, from the very nature of the case, the\nadumbration must be inadequate--a _shadow only_ of the antitype, and not\nits substance. Thus the paschal lamb was a type of Christ, though there\nis infinitely more in the antitype than in the type. (2.) The symbol\nmust be _of divine appointment_, and as such, designed by God to\nrepresent the antitype. We must carefully remember, however, that, from\nthe very nature of the case, the divine intention cannot be clearly\nannounced when the type is instituted. The paschal lamb typified \"the\nLamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world;\" but it was not\ntill centuries after the institution of the passover that God began to\nintimate by the prophets the approaching sacrifice of the great Antitype\n(Isa. chap. 53; Zech. 13:7), and the full import of the type was\nrevealed only when the sacrifice of \"Christ our passover\" had been\naccomplished on Calvary. (3.) Since the type is \"a shadow of good things\nto come,\" it follows that the antitype must _belong to the future_. A\npure symbol may belong to the present or the near future. It may\nrepresent something that now exists, or is coming into existence, in\nrespect to which concealment is not necessary. Hence we find the sacred\nwriters freely explaining the meaning of the symbols which they employ\n(Numb. chap. 17; Josh. 4:1-7; 1 Sam. 7:12; 10:1, and the same symbol of\nanointing often elsewhere; 1 Kings 11:29-39; 22:11, where a false\nprophet uses a symbol; Isa. chap. 20; Jer. 1:11-14; 13:1-11, and\nelsewhere; Ezek. chap. 3, and in many other passages; Amos 7:1-9; 8:1-3;\nZech. 1:8-11, and elsewhere). The true type, on the contrary, reckoned\nfrom the time of its institution, looks forward to the distant future.\nThe high reality which it foreshadows may be intimated by the prophets\n\"as in a glass darkly,\" but the appearance of the antitype can alone\nfurnish a full explanation of its meaning.\n\nThe types of the Old Testament have been variously classified. We\npropose to consider them under the two divisions of _historical_ and\n_ritual_ types.\n\n\nI. HISTORICAL TYPES.\n\n4. The extravagance of a class of Biblical expositors in converting the\nOld Testament history into allegory typical of persons and events under\nthe gospel dispensation has produced a strong reaction, leading some to\ndeny altogether the existence of historical types. But this is going to\nthe other extreme of error. No man who acknowledges the writers of the\nNew Testament to be true expositors of the meaning of the Old can\nconsistently deny the existence in the Old Testament of such types, for\nthey interpret portions of its history in a typical way. But it is of\nthe highest importance that we understand, in respect to such history,\nthat it has _a true and proper significance_ of its own, without respect\nto its typical import. It is not allegory, which has, literally taken,\nno substance. It is not mere type, like the rites of the Mosaic law, the\nmeaning of which is exhausted in their office of foreshadowing the\nantitype. It is veritable history, valid for the men of its own day,\nfulfilling its office in the plan of God's providence, and containing,\nwhen we look at it simply as history, its own lessons of instruction. We\ncall it typical history because, following the guidance of the New\nTestament writers, we are constrained to regard it as so ordered and\nshaped by God's providence as to prefigure something higher in the\nChristian dispensation.\n\nNo careful student of the New Testament can for a moment doubt that\nDavid's kingdom typified the kingdom of Christ. There is, indeed, a very\nimportant sense in which David's kingdom was identical with that of\nChrist; for its main element was the visible church of God, founded on\nthe covenant made with Abraham, and therefore in all ages one and\nindivisible. Rom. 11:17-24; Gal. 3:14-18; Ephes. 2:20. But we now speak\nof David's kingdom in its outward form, which was temporary and typical\nof something higher. In this sense it is manifest that God appointed it\nto foreshadow that of the Messiah. David's headship adumbrated the\nhigher headship of the Redeemer; his conflicts with the enemies of God's\npeople and his final triumph over them, Christ's conflicts and\nvictories. The same thing was true of Solomon, and in a measure of all\nthe kings of David's line, so far as they were true to their office as\nthe divinely appointed leaders of the covenant people. Unless we adopt\nthis principle, the view which the New Testament takes of a large number\nof Psalms--the so-called _Messianic_ psalms--becomes utterly visionary.\n\nBut neither David's kingdom nor his headship over it was mere type. The\nnation over which he presided was a historic reality, a true power among\nthe other nations of the earth. His leadership also, with its conflicts\nand triumphs, belongs to true history. It brought to the people of his\nown day true deliverance from the power of their enemies; and it\ncontains, when we study it without reference to its typical character,\ntrue lessons of instruction for all ages.\n\nThe declarations of Scripture in respect to the typical nature of the\n_prophetical_ office are not so numerous and decisive as those which\nrelate to the kingly office. There is, however, a remarkable passage in\nthe book of Deuteronomy, from which we may legitimately infer that it\nwas truly typical of Christ. When God had addressed the people directly\nfrom the midst of the cloud and fire on Sinai, unable to endure this\nmode of communication between God and man, they besought God that he\nwould henceforth address them through the ministry of Moses: \"Speak thou\nwith us, and we will hear: but let not God speak with us, lest we die.\"\nExod. 20:19. With reference to this request, God said to Moses: \"They\nhave well spoken that which they have spoken. I will raise them up a\nprophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words\nin his mouth: and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.\nAnd it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words\nwhich he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.\" Deut.\n18:17-19. The essential points of this promise are, that the promised\nprophet shall be like Moses, one whose words shall be invested with\nsupreme authority; and, especially, that he shall be raised up from\namong their brethren, and shall therefore be a man like themselves. The\npromise was manifestly intended to meet the wants of the covenant people\n_from that day and onward_. Yet the great Prophet in whom it was\nfulfilled did not appear till after the lapse of fifteen centuries or\nmore. But in the mean time the promise was truly fulfilled to God's\npeople in a _typical_ way through the succession of prophets, who spake\nin God's name, and who were men like their brethren to whom they were\nsent. In these two essential particulars the prophetical office truly\nprefigured Christ, its great Antitype.\n\nThe Old Testament contains not only typical _orders of men_, but\n_typical transactions_ also; that is, transactions which, while they had\ntheir own proper significance as a part of the history of God's church,\nwere yet so ordered by God as to shadow forth with remarkable clearness\nand force the higher truths of Christ's kingdom. Such are the\ntransactions between Melchizedek and Abraham recorded in the fourteenth\nchapter of Genesis. Considered simply in itself, Melchizedek's\npriesthood belongs to the class of _ritual_ types. But in the record of\nhis intercourse with Abraham there is an accumulation of historic\ncircumstances arranged by God's providence to shadow forth the higher\npriesthood of Christ. (1.) He united in his person the _kingly and\npriestly offices_, as does the Messiah. In the hundred and tenth Psalm\nit is, in like manner, a king invested by God with universal\nsovereignty, to whom the declaration is made: \"The Lord hath sworn, and\nwill not repent, Thou art a priest for ever, after the order of\nMelchizedek.\" (2.) In _official dignity_ he was higher than Abraham, and\nthus higher than any of Abraham's descendants by natural generation; for\nAbraham paid tithes to him, and received from him the priestly blessing\n(Gen. 14:19, 20); \"And without all contradiction the less is blessed of\nthe better.\" Heb. 7:7. (3.) His priesthood _was without limitation_, and\nhad thus the attribute of _universality_. It was not restricted in its\nexercise by nationality, for Abraham was not one of his people. (4.) He\ndid not belong to a line of priests, who transmitted their office from\nfather to son. He was, so far as we know from the record, _without\npredecessors, and had no successor_ in his priesthood. The author of the\nepistle to the Hebrews describes him as one who is \"without father,\nwithout mother, without pedigree\" (marginal rendering), \"having neither\nbeginning of days nor end of life: but made like unto the Son of God;\nabideth a priest continually.\" Heb. 7:3. In the interpretation of this\ndifficult passage, we must begin with the axiomatic principle that\nMelchizedek was a _human being_. He could not have been, as some have\nthought, the Son of God himself; for how could the Son of God be \"made\nlike unto the Son of God?\" Nor could he have been an angel; for angels\nare not partakers of human nature, and cannot therefore typify him who\ncame in human nature to deliver those who are \"partakers of flesh and\nblood.\" Heb. 2:14-18; 4:15; 5:1, 2. And if he was a proper man, then he\nwas \"without father, without mother, without pedigree,\" not in an\nabsolute sense, but with reference to his priesthood. He was a priest\nwhose genealogy is not mentioned, because his priesthood was not\nrestricted, like that of the Levitical priests, to any particular line\nof descent. He held his priesthood from God, without predecessors or\nsuccessors. The words that follow--\"having neither beginning of days nor\nend of life: but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest\ncontinually\"--are more difficult. It is certain, however, that they\ncannot be understood absolutely. They are commonly interpreted upon the\nsame principle as the preceding words; namely, that in omitting from the\ninspired record every limitation of Melchizedek's life as well as\ndescent, it was God's purpose to shadow forth the unlimited nature of\nChrist's priesthood; that, in truth, the apostle describes Melchizedek,\nthe type, in terms which hold good in their full meaning only of Christ\nthe great Antitype. They who, admitting that Melchizedek was a human\nbeing, find the interpretation unsatisfactory, must leave the apostle's\nwords shrouded in mystery.\n\nBut whatever obscurity there is in the scriptural notices of\nMelchizedek, they abundantly affirm the typical nature of his priesthood\nas distinguished from that of the Levitical priests. He was a type of\nChrist not simply as a priest, but also in the peculiar character of his\npriesthood. He united with his priesthood the kingly office; was\nsuperior in dignity to Abraham himself, and thus to the Levitical\npriests; and his priesthood had the attribute of universality. Here,\nthen, we have an undoubted example of a historic type.\n\nIt is not without reason that the deliverance of the covenant people\nfrom Egypt, their journey through the wilderness of Arabia under God's\nguidance, and their final settlement in the land of promise, have been\nregarded as typical of the higher redemption, guidance, and salvation\nreceived through Christ. From the earliest ages of the Christian church\nthis wonderful history has been an inexhaustible storehouse of analogies\nfor the illustration of Christian experience. In his pilgrimage through\nthis vale of tears, the believer instinctively turns to it for\ninstruction and encouragement. The mighty interposition of God when the\nIsraelites were \"yet without strength\" in their bondage; their\nprotection through the blood of the paschal lamb sprinkled on the doors\nof their houses when the destroyer passed through Egypt; the opening of\na way through the Red sea when all human means of escape failed them;\nthe journey through the wilderness; the pillar of cloud by day and of\nfire by night to guide, the water from the rock to refresh, the manna\nfrom heaven morning by morning to feed them; God's faithful discipline\nin contrast with human unbelief, waywardness, and folly; the final\npreparation for the conquest of Canaan and its successful\naccomplishment--this whole series of events is wonderfully adapted to\nillustrate the course of Christian experience, and who shall say that\nGod did not order it with a view to this end? We do not resolve it into\nmere type. We acknowledge it to be true history, valid to the men of\nthat age--a true earthly deliverance, guidance, and sustenance in the\nwilderness, conducting to the possession of a true earthly inheritance.\nBut we say that it is a history so ordered by God as to typify the\nhigher pilgrimage of the believer to the heavenly Canaan. It is\nundeniable that the writer to the Hebrews regards the rest of the\ncovenant people in the land of promise as a type of the rest of heaven.\nHeb. 3:7-4:11. And if that part of the history was typical, it is\nreasonable to infer that the whole was typical. It belongs to the nature\nof a type that it should, on the one hand, come short of the fulness of\nmeaning that belongs to the antitype, and, on the other, should contain\nsome things which find no correspondence in that which it adumbrates.\nThe priesthood of the sons of Aaron, as we shall see, typified Christ's\npriesthood, but only inadequately, as a shadow represents the substance;\nwhile sinfulness, which belonged to all the priests of Aaron's line, not\nonly did not correspond to the character of the Antitype, but was in\ncontradiction with it. So is it also with the historical types that have\nbeen under consideration. They represent the antitype inadequately, and\nonly in certain respects.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nII. RITUAL TYPES.\n\n5. The _sacrifices_ were the central part of the Jewish ritual. But\nsacrifices imply _offerers_, a _personal God_ to whom the offering is\nmade, and a _priesthood_ through which it is presented. In the primitive\nages of the world, men offered sacrifices in their own behalf and that\nof their household in whatever place it was their chance to sojourn.\nGen. 4:4; 8:20; 12:7, 8; 31:54; 33:20; 35:1, 7; 46:1; Job 1:5; 42:8. But\nupon the establishment of the Mosaic economy, the priestly office was\nrestricted to the family of Aaron. Thenceforward all who wished to offer\nsacrifices must bring them through the mediation of the priests of\nAaron's line. It belonged to the nature of the Mosaic economy, that God\nshould have a visible dwelling-place among the Israelites. The\ndirections for the construction of the tabernacle with its furniture are\nintroduced by the words: \"Let them make me a sanctuary; that I may dwell\namong them.\" Exod. 25:8. The material sanctuary, then, was God's visible\ndwelling-place, where he manifested himself to his people, and received\ntheir worship according to the rites of his own appointment; the whole\nbeing, as we shall see, typical of higher realities pertaining to our\nredemption through Christ. And as this earthly sanctuary was God's\nchosen dwelling-place, it followed, as a necessary consequence, that\nafter its erection all the sacrifices must be brought to its altar, and\npresented there to God through the priesthood of his appointment.\n\n6. The _Mosaic tabernacle_ was a movable structure very simple in its\nplan. Its frame-work on three sides consisted of upright boards, or\nrather timbers (for, according to the unanimous representation of the\nJewish rabbins, they were a cubit in thickness), standing side by side,\nand kept in position by transverse bars passing through golden rings.\nThus was formed an enclosure ten cubits in height, thirty cubits in\nlength from east to west, and ten cubits in width; the eastern end,\nwhich constituted the front, having only a vail suspended from five\npillars of shittim-wood. Over this enclosure, and hanging down on either\nside, was spread a rich covering formed by coupling together ten\ncurtains of \"fine-twined linen, and blue, and purple, and scarlet, with\ncherubim of cunning work.\" Over this was another covering, formed from\nthe union of eleven curtains of goats' hair; and above two other\ncoverings, the one of rams' skins dyed red, and the other, or outermost,\nof badgers' skins. Surrounding the tabernacle was a court one hundred\ncubits long and fifty wide, enclosed by curtains of fine-twined linen\nsupported on pillars five cubits high. The tabernacle itself was divided\nby a vail supported on four pillars into two parts; the _inner_\nsanctuary, or \"holy of holies,\" ten cubits every way, and the _outer_,\nor \"holy place,\" twenty cubits long by ten in breadth and height.\n\n    In a wider sense the whole movable structure within the court is\n    called the tabernacle. But in a stricter sense the rich inner\n    curtain is distinguished in the Mosaic description as the\n    _tabernacle_, while the curtain of goats' hair is called the\n    _tent_. Exod. 26:1, 7; 36:8, 14, 19. The true meaning of the\n    word rendered in our version _badgers_ is uncertain. Some think\n    that the seal is referred to.\n\n7. We have seen that the tabernacle was God's visible dwelling-place.\nBut the palace of a king has its _audience-rooms_, where he receives his\nsubjects and attends to their petitions. In like manner the Mosaic\ntabernacle, and afterwards the temple, had its \"holy of holies\" and its\n\"holy place,\" the former being in a special sense the abode of Israel's\nGod. The tabernacle, with its furniture, priesthood, and services, is\ndeclared in the New Testament to have been \"a shadow of good things to\ncome.\" Heb. 10:1, and elsewhere. Unless we understand this its typical\ncharacter, we fail to gain any true apprehension of its meaning.\n\n8. In contemplating the truths which the Mosaic tabernacle shadowed\nforth, we begin with the _materials_ used in its construction. Here we\nnotice two things; their _preciousness_, and the _gradation_ observed in\nthis respect.\n\n(1.) Their _preciousness_. All the materials were of the most durable\nand costly character--gold, silver, fine-twined linen of blue and purple\nand scarlet, acacia-wood (the shittim-wood of our version), brass being\nallowed only in the external appointments. This obviously represented\nthe glory and excellence of God's service, and the corresponding\nobligation on the part of the worshippers to give to God the best of all\nthat they had.\n\n(2.) The _gradation_ in the preciousness of the materials had reference\nto the inner sanctuary, where, as will presently be shown, God dwelt\nbetween the cherubim that overshadowed the mercy-seat. The rule of\ngradation was this: the nearer to God's dwelling-place the greater the\nglory; and hence, as shadowing forth this glory, the more precious the\nmaterials. The mercy-seat, where God dwelt between the cherubim, was\naccordingly of pure gold. All the woodwork pertaining to the tabernacle\nand its furniture was overlaid with gold. The inner or proper covering\nof the tabernacle, as also the vail that hung before the ark, separating\nthe holy from the most holy place, was of \"fine-twined linen, and blue,\nand purple, and scarlet, with cherubim of cunning work.\" The outer vail,\nat the entrance of the outer sanctuary, was of the same materials, but\nwithout the cherubim; while the curtains of the court were made simply\nof fine-twined linen, suspended from pillars of shittim-wood not\noverlaid with gold. The sockets, again, that supported the timbers of\nthe tabernacle and the inner row of pillars before the ark were of\nsilver; but those beneath the outer pillars of the sanctuary, and all\nthe pillars of the court, were of brass.\n\n9. Passing to the _appointments_ of the tabernacle, we naturally begin\nwith the _inner_ sanctuary. Here between the wings of the cherubim that\novershadowed the mercy-seat, or lid of the ark, was the _Shekinah_, or\nvisible dwelling-place of Jehovah. In the ark beneath the mercy-seat\nwere placed, by God's direction, the two tables of the law. Exod. 25:16\ncompared with 1 Kings 8:9. This was their appropriate place. It shadowed\nforth the great truth that God is the fountain of law, and that they who\napproach him must come in the spirit of true obedience.\n\n    That God's dwelling-place was between the cherubim we learn from\n    the original direction for the construction of the ark: \"And\n    thou shalt put the mercy-seat above upon the ark; and in the ark\n    thou shalt put the testimony that I shall give thee. And there\n    will I meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above\n    the mercy-seat, from between the two cherubim which are upon the\n    ark of the testimony, of all things which I will give thee in\n    commandment unto the children of Israel.\" Exod. 25:21, 22. In\n    accordance with these words God repeatedly promised that he\n    would meet with Moses at the mercy-seat (Exod. 30:36; Lev. 16:2;\n    Numb. 17:4); and after the dedication of the tabernacle and its\n    altar, it is recorded that \"when Moses was gone into the\n    tabernacle of the congregation to speak with Him, then he heard\n    the voice of one speaking unto him from off the mercy-seat that\n    was upon the ark of testimony, from between the two cherubim.\"\n    Numb. 7:89. Hence Jehovah is described in the Old Testament as\n    he that dwells between the cherubim. 1 Sam. 4:4; 2 Sam. 6:2; 2\n    Kings 19:15; Psa. 80:1; 99:1; Isa. 37:16.\n\n10. In the _outer_ sanctuary, before the vail that separated it from the\nholy of holies, stood, on the south side, the _golden candlestick_, with\nits seven lamps burning always before the Lord (Exod. 27:20; 40:24, 25;\nLev. 24:25), and on the north side the _table of show-bread_, with its\ntwelve loaves renewed every week (Exod. 25:30; 40:22, 23; Lev. 24:5-9).\nThese typified the light and the life that come from God's presence\nthrough the ordinances of his appointment; and since the end of these\nordinances is Jesus Christ, they shadowed him forth as the light of the\nworld and the bread of life. John 8:12; 12:46; 6:35-58; and especially\nJohn 1:4. Between the golden candlestick and the table of show-bread,\nconsequently directly in front of the ark, and separated from it by the\ninner vail, was the _golden altar of incense_, on which the priests\nburned sweet incense every morning and evening before the Lord (Exod.\n30:6-8; 40:26, 27), whereby was shadowed forth Christ's intercession,\nthrough which the prayers of saints are made acceptable to God.\n\n    In the book of Revelation an angel is represented as offering\n    upon this golden altar much incense with the prayers of all\n    saints. \"And the smoke of the incense, which came with the\n    prayers of the saints, ascended up before God out of the angel's\n    hand.\" Rev. 8:3, 4. This passage seems to warrant the\n    interpretation above given to this symbol; not that the ancient\n    covenant people understood fully its meaning, or that of the\n    other symbolic rites, but that such was the mind of the Spirit,\n    to be made manifest in due time.\n\n    There is a view of the Mosaic ceremonial, which makes it simply\n    a _scenic representation_ of a king's court; in which the\n    tabernacle represents the royal palace, the incense the homage\n    rendered to the monarch (compare Dan. 2:46), the sacrifices,\n    show-bread, and other unbloody offerings the provision made for\n    his table, the priests his ministering servants, etc.; by which\n    the whole is reduced to the idea of service rendered to Jehovah\n    as the national monarch, and all typical representation of the\n    provision made by God for man's spiritual wants is excluded.\n    This interpretation of the Mosaic ritual is as superficial as it\n    is false. In this ritual, service is indeed rendered to God; but\n    it is a service which typically shadows forth the provision\n    which God makes for man's wants as a fallen being--light for his\n    darkened understanding, life for his spiritual nature dead in\n    trespasses and sins, and reconciliation to God through the blood\n    of Christ. This is the constant interpretation given in the New\n    Testament of the \"carnal ordinances\" of the Old.\n\n11. In the court before the tabernacle stood the _brazen altar_ with its\n_laver_. Here the blood of the sacrifices flowed from age to age--a lamb\nevery morning and evening, and on the Sabbath day two lambs morning and\nevening, besides all the public sacrifices connected with the national\nfestivals, and the private sacrifices of individuals. The New Testament\nteaches us that the _Levitical priests_ who ministered at the Jewish\naltar _typified Christ_, our great High Priest. In the one hundred and\ntenth psalm, which the Saviour himself quotes as written by David \"in\nspirit,\" and as referring to himself (Matt. 22:41-45; Mark 12:35-37) the\nMessiah is represented as uniting in himself the kingly and the priestly\noffice. There is a remarkable symbolical transaction in Zechariah (chap.\n6:9-14) which contains the same representation. The prophet is directed,\nin the presence of competent witnesses, to \"take silver and gold, and\nmake crowns, and set them upon the head of Joshua [the Hebrew word\nanswering to the Greek _Jesus_, which stands in the Septuagint rendering\nof this passage] the son of Josedech, the high priest.\" In his office as\nhigh priest Joshua typifies Christ our great High Priest. By the\nsymbolical act of crowning Joshua is typified _the kingly office of\nChrist as united with the priestly_. Hence the prophet is directed by\nGod to add: \"Thus speaketh the Lord of hosts, saying, Behold the man\nwhose name is the BRANCH\" (compare chap. 3:8, and Isa. 11:1; Jer.\n23:4-6; 33:15, 16); \"and he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall\nbuild the temple of the Lord: even he shall build the temple of the\nLord; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his\nthrone; and he shall be a priest upon his throne: and the counsel of\npeace shall be between them both.\" In accordance with these\nrepresentations a large part of the epistle to the Hebrews is occupied\nwith a discussion of our Lord's priestly office, in which, beyond\ncontradiction, he is exhibited as the great antitype of both Melchizedec\nand the Levitical priests.\n\n12. If the Levitical priests typified Christ, it follows that the\n_sacrifices_ which they offered _were also typical of Christ's\nsacrifice_ for the sins of the world. So the epistle to the Hebrews\nargues: \"Every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices:\nwherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer.\"\nChap. 8:3. The Levitical priests stood \"daily ministering, and offering\noftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins.\" Chap.\n10:11. Their offerings were only _typical of expiation_, and needed\ntherefore to be continually repeated till the Antitype itself should\nappear. But Christ offered his own blood on Calvary, by which he\nobtained eternal redemption for us, so that his sacrifice needs no\nrepetition. He was \"once offered to bear the sins of many;\" and by this\n\"one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.\"\nChaps. 9:11-14, 25, 26; 10:10-14.\n\nBut this doctrine respecting the typical character of the Levitical\nsacrifices is not restricted to the epistle to the Hebrews. The New\nTestament is full of it. John the Baptist, the Saviour's forerunner,\nannounced him as \"the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the\nworld.\" John 1:29. Whether we render, as in the margin of our version,\n\"which _beareth_ the sin of the world,\" or, as in the text, \"which\n_taketh away_ the sin of the world,\" the words contain the idea of a\n_propitiatory_ sacrifice, or, which amounts to the same thing, an\n_expiatory_ sacrifice; since it is by expiating our sin that Christ\npropitiates the Father. By bearing the sin of the world Christ expiates\nit, and thus takes it away. Thus he is \"the propitiation for our sins,\nand not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.\" 1 John\n2:2.\n\nThe Saviour himself announced his purpose to die for his people: \"I lay\ndown my life for the sheep.\" \"Therefore doth my Father love me because I\nlay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me,\nbut I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have\npower to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.\"\nJohn 10:15, 17, 18. And lest any should think that he died simply in the\ncharacter of a martyr, he elsewhere explains that \"the Son of man came\nnot to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a\nransom for many\"--more literally, \"a ransom instead of many\" (Matt.\n20:28; Mark 10:45), where the sacrificial and vicarious nature of our\nLord's death is explicitly affirmed.\n\nBut it was after our Lord's resurrection that the sacrificial and\npropitiatory character of his death was most fully revealed. We have\nseen the view taken of it in the epistle to the Hebrews. With this the\nother writers of the New Testament are in harmony. Jesus Christ is the\ngreat sufferer foretold in the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah, who \"was\nwounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities: the\nchastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are\nhealed;\" upon whom the Lord \"laid the iniquity of us all;\" who was\nbrought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers\nis dumb, so he opened not his mouth; whose soul God made \"an offering\nfor sin;\" who \"was numbered with the transgressors,\" and \"bare the sins\nof many, and made intercession for the transgressors.\" 1 Pet. 2:24, 25;\nActs 8:32-35; Mark 15:28; Luke 22:37. He \"hath once suffered for sins,\nthe just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God\" (1 Pet. 3:18);\nHe has redeemed us to God by his blood (Rev. 5:9); has \"loved us and\nwashed us from our sins in his own blood\" (Rev. 1:5); and his redeemed\n\"have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb\"\n(Rev. 7:14).\n\nTo recite all the declarations of the apostle Paul on this great theme\nwould be a superfluous work. It is not through Christ's example or\nteachings, but _through his blood_ that we have \"redemption, the\nforgiveness of sins.\" Ephes. 1:7. \"Christ hath redeemed us from the\ncurse of the law, being made a curse for us\" (Gal. 3:13), words which\nteach as explicitly as human language can, that Christ has delivered us\nfrom the penalty of the divine law, which is its curse, by bearing the\ncurse in our behalf. This he did when he was hanged on the tree. His\ndeath on the cross was, then, _vicarious_, a death in our stead; and\n_propitiatory_, for in view of it God releases us from the curse of the\nlaw. This is what is meant by a _propitiatory_ sacrifice. Finally, as if\nto cut off all ground for the assertion that the efficacy of Christ's\ndeath lies wholly in its moral influence upon the human heart--its\nhumbling, softening, and winning power--the apostle teaches that God has\nset forth Christ Jesus as a propitiation through faith in his blood for\na manifestation of his righteousness, \"_that he might be just, and the\njustifier of him that believeth in Jesus_.\" Rom. 3:25, 26.\n\n    Every word of this weighty passage deserves serious\n    consideration. We give by the side of the English version\n    another translation, intended to be somewhat more literal:\n\n    Whom God hath set forth _to      Whom God hath set forth, a\n    be_ a propitiation, through      propitiation, through faith,\n    faith in his blood, to declare   in his blood, for the\n    his righteousness for the        manifestation of his\n    passing over [marginal           righteousness in respect to\n    rendering] of sins that are      the overlooking of sins that\n    past, through the forbearance    are past, through the\n    of God. To declare, _I say_,     forbearance of God--a\n    at this time, his                manifestation of his\n    righteousness; that he might     righteousness at the present\n    be just, and the justifier of    time; in order that he may be\n    him which believeth in Jesus.    just, and the justifier of him\n                                     that believeth in Jesus.\n\n    From these words we learn: (1.) That God has publicly set forth\n    Christ as a propitiatory sacrifice. The following paraphrase\n    gives the probable connection of the words of the first clause:\n    Whom God, by means of his blood, hath set forth as a\n    propitiation through faith. But if we take the connection as\n    given in our version, the propitiation is still through Christ's\n    blood, and is thus a propitiatory or expiatory sacrifice. (2.)\n    That the appropriation to individual sinners of this\n    propitiation is conditioned on personal faith. Christ's\n    propitiatory sacrifice does not, in and of itself, justify any\n    man; but it provides a _ground_ whereby all may be justified, if\n    they will believe in Jesus. (3.) That through Christ's\n    propitiatory sacrifice God makes a public manifestation of his\n    righteousness in showing mercy to sinners. The phrase, \"the\n    righteousness of God,\" may mean, in the usage of Paul, the\n    righteousness--justification--which _he gives_ through faith.\n    But in connection with the words that follow, \"that he might be\n    just, and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus,\" it can\n    only mean righteousness as an attribute of God, his public\n    justice, namely, as the lawgiver and governor of the world. (4.)\n    That Christ's propitiatory sacrifice was necessary in order that\n    God might show mercy to sinners consistently with the demands of\n    his justice. For when the apostle says \"that God might be just,\n    and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus,\" the words\n    necessarily imply that, without this sacrifice, he could not\n    have been just in justifying sinners. Christ's propitiation was\n    not needed to make God more merciful _in his nature_; for in\n    this respect he is unchangeably \"the same yesterday, to-day, and\n    for ever.\" But it _opens a way_ by which he may show mercy\n    consistently with his justice and the sanctity of his law. When\n    we raise inquiries concerning the interior nature of the\n    atonement, we meet with deep mysteries, some of which are,\n    perhaps, above the comprehension of finite human understanding.\n    But we can comprehend, and believe upon God's testimony, the\n    great central fact of the gospel, that Christ offered himself to\n    the Father to bear in human nature the curse of the divine law\n    in behalf of sinners; and that God accepted this propitiatory\n    offering as a satisfaction to his justice in such a sense that\n    he can pardon all who believe in Christ without dishonor to\n    himself or injury to his moral government.\n\n13. We have considered Christ as the great Antitype of the Levitical\npriests and sacrifices. Let us now go back and consider the\n_characteristics belonging to the types themselves_, beginning with the\npriesthood.\n\n(1.) The first point in which the Levitical priests typified Christ was\nin their possession of _the same common human nature_ as those in whose\nbehalf they acted. \"For both he that sanctifieth [Christ] and they who\nare sanctified [believers] are all of one [one Father, having a common\nsonship as members of the same family of Adam]: for which cause he is\nnot ashamed to call them brethren\" (Heb. 2:11); and again: \"Forasmuch\nthen as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself\nlikewise took part of the same\" (ver. 14); and still further: \"Wherefore\nin all things it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren; that he\nmight be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to\nGod, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he\nhimself hath suffered, being tempted, he is able to succor them that are\ntempted\" (ver. 17, 18; and compare 4:15). Accordingly the priests who\ntypified Christ were taken from among men, not angels; and \"able to have\ncompassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way,\" being\nthemselves \"compassed with infirmity.\" Heb. 5:1, 2.\n\n(2.) The Levitical priests, again, were _appointed to their office by\nGod_: \"And no man taketh this honor upon himself, but he that is called\nof God, as was Aaron. So also Christ glorified not himself to be made a\nhigh priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to-day have I\nbegotten thee. As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for\never after the order of Melchizedec.\" Heb. 5:4-6.\n\n(3.) The Levitical priests, once more, were _mediators between God and\nthe people_. After the establishment of their priesthood, no Israelite\nor sojourner in the land could approach God with sacrifices and\noblations in his own right, and be his own priest. He must come to God\nthrough the priesthood of his appointment--an expressive type of the\ngreat truth announced by Christ; \"I am the way, and the truth, and the\nlife: no man cometh unto the Father but by me.\" John 14:6.\n\n(4.) Finally, the Levitical priests were not only mediators between God\nand men, but _mediators through propitiatory sacrifices_. They were\nordained to \"offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins.\" Heb. 5:1; 8:3.\n\"Wherefore,\" adds the writer, \"it is of necessity that this man [Christ]\nhave somewhat also to offer.\" Heb. 8:3. They offered the blood of bulls\nand goats, which made expiation only in a typical way; he offered to God\nhis own blood as a real propitiation for sin. Heb. 7:27; 9:12-28;\n10:10-14.\n\nThe points of _dissimilarity_ between the Levitical priests and Christ,\nas stated in the epistle to the Hebrews, all serve to illustrate the\nsuperior dignity and efficacy of his priesthood. They were sinful men,\nand as such needing to offer sacrifice first for their own sins (chap.\n5:3); but he is \"holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and\nmade higher than the heavens\" (chap. 7:26). They were many, \"because\nthey were not suffered to continue, by reason of death:\" but he,\n\"because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.\" Chap.\n7:23, 24. Their offerings could not take away sin. They were only\ntypical of expiation, and therefore needed to be continually repeated.\nBut Christ has by his one offering \"perfected for ever them that are\nsanctified\"--perfected them in respect to the expiation of sin, which is\nthe foundation on which the work of personal sanctification rests. Heb.\n10:11, 12.\n\n    Mediatorship between God and man through propitiatory sacrifice\n    constitutes the central idea of priesthood. The Levitical\n    priests did indeed make intercession for the people in the\n    burning of sweet incense (see above, No. 8), and in presenting\n    to God their unbloody offerings, but all this was done _through\n    the blood of atonement_. We see, then, how false and mischievous\n    is the idea that there can be true mediating priests under the\n    New Testament dispensation. Christ appeared once for all \"to put\n    away sin by the sacrifice of himself\" (Heb. 9:25-28; 10:10-12),\n    since which no further sacrifice is needed, or can be lawfully\n    offered. Christ also opened to all believers through his blood a\n    new and living way of access to God, through which they can come\n    boldly to the throne of grace, having no need of human\n    mediators. Heb. 10:18-22. Believers as a body are \"a holy\n    priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God\n    by Jesus Christ.\" 1 Pet. 2:5. They present themselves to God \"a\n    living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God.\" Rom. 12:1. They\n    \"offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the\n    fruit of their lips, giving thanks to his name.\" Heb. 13:15.\n    These spiritual sacrifices offered by the body of believers\n    through Christ, their glorified High Priest, are the only\n    sacrifices known to the New Testament church.\n\n    Of the high priest's garments, made by divine direction \"for\n    glory and for beauty,\" we cannot here speak in detail. Suffice\n    it to say that they represented in general the dignity and\n    excellence of his office, as the divinely appointed mediator\n    between God and the covenant people. The golden plate with the\n    inscription HOLINESS TO THE LORD is its own interpreter. The\n    twelve names of the tribes of Israel, graven on two precious\n    stones, and borne on the shoulders of the high priest, six on\n    each shoulder, and then the same twelve graven on twelve gems,\n    and borne on his breast as he ministered before the Lord,\n    beautifully typify Christ our great High Priest, who bears his\n    people on his shoulders by his almighty power and efficacious\n    atonement, and on his heart by his everlasting love.\n\n14. From the typical priests we naturally pass to the consideration of\nthe _typical sacrifices_ offered by them. Upon Noah's leaving the ark,\nGod prohibited the eating of blood on the ground that it is the _life_\nof the animal. Gen. 9:4. The reason of this prohibition is unfolded in a\npassage of the Mosaic law, which clearly sets forth the nature and\ndesign of bloody offerings: \"And whatsoever man there be of the house of\nIsrael, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any\nmanner of blood, I will even set my face against that soul that eateth\nblood, and will cut him off from among his people. For the life of the\nflesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to make\nan atonement for your souls: FOR IT IS THE BLOOD THAT MAKETH AN\nATONEMENT FOR THE SOUL.\" Lev. 17:10, 11. Hence the sprinkling of the\nsacrificial blood by the priest as a sign of expiation, a rite that will\nbe more particularly considered hereafter (No. 15). The reason that the\n_blood_ makes the atonement is that \"the _life_ of the flesh is in the\nblood.\" The scriptural idea, then, of a sacrifice is the offering to God\nof one life in behalf of another that has been forfeited by sin--the\nlife of the innocent beast instead of the life of the guilty offerer.\nThis general idea of the vicarious and propitiatory nature of sacrifices\ncomes out with beautiful simplicity and clearness in the book of Job:\n\"And it was so when the days of their feasting were gone about, that Job\nsent and sanctified them, and rose up early in the morning, and offered\nburnt offerings according to the number of them all: for Job said, _It\nmay be that my sons have sinned_, and cursed God in their hearts.\" Chap.\n1:5. And again: \"My wrath is kindled against thee, and against thy two\nfriends; for ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my\nservant Job hath. Therefore take unto you now seven bullocks and seven\nrams, and go to my servant Job, and offer up for yourselves a\nburnt-offering; and my servant Job shall pray for you: for him will I\naccept: lest I deal with you after your folly.\" Chap. 42:7, 8. The\nsacrifices of the Mosaic law were of various kinds, implying various\naccessory ideas. But underlying them all was the fundamental idea of\n_propitiation through blood_. Hence the writer to the Hebrews, when\ncommenting on the transaction recorded in Exodus, chap. 24:4-8, says:\n\"And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without\nshedding of blood is no remission.\" Heb. 9:22. The only exception was in\nthe case of the poor man who was \"not able to bring two turtle doves or\ntwo young pigeons.\" He was allowed to \"bring for his offering the tenth\npart of an ephah of fine flour for a sin-offering\" (Lev. 5:11), upon the\nprinciple that God \"will have mercy and not sacrifice.\"\n\nNo orderly classification of sacrifices is to be sought without the pale\nof the Jewish ceremonial. The burnt-offerings, for example, mentioned in\nthe book of Job, had the force of proper sin-offerings. Chaps. 1:5;\n42:8. The classification in the book of Leviticus is into\nburnt-offerings, sin-offerings, trespass-offerings, and peace-offerings.\nBut they may be most conveniently considered in the order of their\npresentation, when two or more of them were offered on the same\noccasion, as when Aaron and his sons were consecrated to the priesthood,\nand the people sanctified in connection with this transaction (Lev.\nchaps 8, 9), and in the offerings of the great day of atonement (Lev.\nchap. 16).\n\nHere the _sin-offering_ naturally held the first place; for this, as its\nname indicates, was wholly expiatory and propitiatory, bringing the\nofferer into a state of forgiveness and divine favor. The sin-offerings\nhad reference (1) to sin generally, as when Aaron and his sons were\nconsecrated and the people sanctified, and when, on the annual day of\natonement, expiation was made for the sins of the past year; (2) to\nspecific offences (Lev. chaps. 4, 5), The exact distinction between the\nsin-offering and the _trespass-offering_ is of difficult determination.\nBoth were alike expiatory, were in fact subdivisions of the same class\nof offerings. A comparison of the passages in which trespass-offerings\nare prescribed (Lev. 5:1; 6:1-7; Numb. 5:6-8) seems to indicate that\nthey belonged especially to trespasses for which restitution could be\nmade.\n\nNext in the order of sacrifices, though first in dignity, came the\n_burnt-offering_, also called _holocaust_ (Heb. _kalil_) that is, _whole\nburnt-offering_, the characteristic mark of which was the consuming of\nthe whole by fire (Lev. chap. 1). It is conceded by all that this was a\n_symbol of completeness_; but in what respect is a question that has\nbeen answered in different ways. Some refer the completeness to the\noffering itself, as that form of sacrifice which embraces in itself all\nothers (Rosenmueller on Deut. 33:10); or, as the most perfect offering,\ninasmuch as it exhibits the idea of offering in its completeness and\ngenerality, and so concentrates in itself all worship. Baehr, Symbolik,\nvol. 2, p. 362. But we cannot separate, in the intention of God, the\ncompleteness of the form from the state of the offerer's mind. The\nburnt-offering was indeed, in its outward form, the most perfect of all\nsacrifices, for which reason it excluded female victims, as relatively\ninferior to the male sex. But because of this its completeness and\ngenerality it signified the _entire self-consecration of the offerer to\nGod_. Winer and others after Philo. But this, let it be carefully\nremembered, was a self-consecration that could be made only _through the\nblood of expiation_, to indicate which, the blood of the burnt-offering\nwas sprinkled by the priest \"round about upon the altar;\" or, in the\ncase of a bird, where the quantity was too small to be thus sprinkled,\nwas \"wrung out at the side of the altar.\"\n\nThe _peace-offering_ (more literally, _offering of renditions_; that is,\noffering in which the offerer rendered to God the tribute of praise and\nthanksgiving which was his due) was in all its different\nsubdivisions--thank-offering, votive offering, free-will offering (Lev.\n7:11-16)--a _eucharistic_ offering. Hence its _social_ character. After\nthe sprinkling of the blood, the burning of the prescribed parts on the\naltar, and the assignment to the priest of his portion, the offerer and\nhis friends feasted joyfully before the Lord on the remainder. Lev.\nchap. 3 compared with chap. 7:11-18. In the case of monarchs, like David\nand Solomon, the whole nation was feasted. 2 Sam. 6:17-19; 1 Kings\n8:62-66. Hence the Messiah, as the great King of all nations, is\nbeautifully represented as paying his peace-offerings to God for the\ndeliverance granted him from his foes, and as summoning all nations to\nthe sacrificial feast: \"My praise shall be of thee in the great\ncongregation; I will pay my vows [vows in the form of peace-offerings]\nbefore them that fear him. The meek shall eat and be satisfied: they\nshall praise the Lord that seek him: your heart shall live for ever. All\nthe ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the Lord,\" etc. Psa.\n22:25-31. The peace-offering naturally followed the burnt-offering, as\nthat did the sin-offering in the sanctification of the Israelitish\ncongregation. Lev. 9:15-18. It signified joyful communion with God in\nthanksgiving and praise; but this, too, only _through the blood of the\nvictim_ sprinkled upon the altar as a sign of expiation. Lev. chap. 3.\nIn these three classes of offerings, then, we have typically set forth,\nfirst, _expiation_ restoring man to God's favor, then _self-consecration_,\nthen holy _communion_ in thanksgiving and praise--ALL THREE ONLY THROUGH\nTHE SPRINKLING OF THE BLOOD OF CHRIST, the great Antitype of the Levitical\npriests and sacrifices.\n\nThe sacrificial nature of the _passover_ appears in the direction given\nat its institution that the blood of the paschal lamb should be\nsprinkled on the lintel and two side-posts of the house where it was\neaten as a protection against the destroyer of the first-born (Exod.\n12:22, 23); and in the ordinance afterwards established, requiring that\nit should be slain at the sanctuary (Deut. 16:1-8), and its blood\nsprinkled upon the altar. 2 Chron. 30:16; 35:11. Its character\napproached very near to that of the peace-offerings. It was a joyous\nfestival, commemorative of the deliverance of Israel from Egyptian\nbondage; and thus typically shadowing forth the higher redemption of\nGod's people from the bondage of sin. As the blood of the paschal lamb\nsprinkled on the doors of the houses protected the inmates from the\ndestroyer of the first-born, so does the blood of Christ protect all who\nthrough faith receive its expiatory power from the wrath to come. As the\nIsraelites feasted joyfully on the flesh of the paschal lamb, so does\nthe church feed by faith on the great antitypal Lamb of God, who is the\ntrue Passover sacrificed for us. 1 Cor. 5:7.\n\nThere were some other sacrifices of a special character, such as those\nby which the covenant between God and the people was ratified (Exod.\n24:3-8); the ram of consecration, when Aaron and his sons were inducted\ninto the priesthood (Lev. 8:22-30); the sacrifice and other rites\nconnected with the cleansing of the leper (Lev. 14:1-32); the sacrifice\nof the red heifer from which were prepared the ashes of purification\n(Numb. chap. 19); the sacrifice of the heifer in the case of an\nuncertain murder (Deut. 21:1-9). Respecting these, it is only necessary\nto remark generally that, whatever other ideas were typified by them,\nthat of expiation through blood was not wanting.\n\nIt was required by the law that all the sacrificial victims should be\nwithout blemish, not only because the offering to God of an imperfect\nvictim would have been an affront to his majesty (Mal. 1:8, 13, 14), but\nespecially because a perfect victim could alone typify the Lamb of God,\n\"without blemish and without spot,\" who was offered on Calvary as the\npropitiation for the sins of the whole world. 1 Pet. 1:19, 20.\n\nOf the _unbloody offerings_ [_oblations_, called in our version\n_meat-offerings_], some were supplementary to the sacrifices, being\nnecessary to their completeness. Such was the salt which, as a symbol of\npurity and friendship, was prescribed for all meat offerings (Lev.\n2:13), and seems to have been used with all sacrifices also. Ezek. 43:24\ncompared with Mark 9:49. Such, also were the flour, wine, and oil\noffered with the daily sacrifice (Exod. 29:40), and in certain other\ncases. Lev. 8:26; 9:17; 14:10, etc. Other oblations, like those\nprescribed in the second chapter of Leviticus, were presented by\nthemselves, as expressions of love, gratitude, and devotion to God on\nthe part of the offerers. After a portion of them, including all the\nfrankincense, had been burned on the altar, the rest went to Aaron and\nhis sons as their portion.\n\nThe priests also received specified portions from the peace-offerings of\nthe people, the trespass-offerings, and the sin-offerings the blood of\nwhich was not carried into the sanctuary. See Lev. chap. 6:24-7:34.\n\n15. Of the _typical transactions_ connected with the offering of\nsacrifices and oblations we notice the following:\n\n(1.) In all cases the offerer _laid his hands upon the head of the\nvictim_. The meaning of this act may be inferred from the first mention\nof it in the Levitical ceremonial: \"And he shall put his hand upon the\nhead of the burnt-offering; and it shall be accepted for him to make\natonement for him.\" Lev. 1:4. The act in question was, then, the solemn\ndedication to Jehovah of the victim for the end proposed. By the laying\non of his hands, he presented it to God as his offering to make\natonement for his soul, and God accepted it as such. From the very\nnature of the offering, this act of presentation contained an\nacknowledgment of guilt that needed expiation, but there was no formal\ntransfer of his sins to the victim, as in the case of the scape-goat.\nSee below, No. 16.\n\n(2.) The _waving_ and _heaving_ of offerings belonged to the priests\nalone. Both were manifestly acts of presentation and dedication to God.\nFor example, the loaf of bread, cake of oiled bread, and wafer of\nunleavened bread employed upon the occasion of Aaron's consecration were\nfirst placed in his hands to be waved before the Lord, and then burned\nby Moses on the altar of burnt-offering. Exod. 29:23-25. So also the\nbreast of the ram of consecration was waved, and the right shoulder\nheaved, before they were eaten by Aaron and his sons (Exod. 29:26-28);\nthe lamb of the leper who had been healed, with the accompanying\noblation, was waved by the priest before the Lord before slaying it.\nLev. 14:12, seq.\n\nAccording to the rabbins, the waving consisted of a movement forwards\nand backwards. Some think that there was also a lateral motion from\nright to left and the reverse. The heaving was a movement upwards and\ndownwards. The ground of the distinction between these two forms of\npresentation to Jehovah is uncertain. We only know that the ceremony of\nheaving was restricted to certain cases. Thus the breast of the\npeace-offerings was always waved, and the right shoulder heaved, before\nthey were given to the priests as their portion. Lev. 7:28-34.\n\n(3.) The _sprinkling of the victim's blood_ was a most weighty part of\nthe ceremonial, for by this expiation was symbolized. It was accordingly\nrestricted to the priest, who was the appointed mediator between God and\nthe people. The sevenfold sprinkling of the blood that was carried into\nthe sanctuary (Lev. 4:6, 17; 16:14, 19), and in certain other cases\n(Lev. 8:11; 14:7, 51) denoted the _completeness_ of the expiation, seven\nbeing the well-known symbol of perfection. Hence the New Testament\nbeautifully represents believers as purified from sin by the sprinkling\nof the blood of Christ, the great Antitype of the Mosaic sacrifices.\nHeb. 9:13, 14; 10:22; 12:24; 1 Pet. 1:2.\n\nKindred to the rite of sprinkling was the application of the victim's\nblood to the horns of the altar and to the person of the offerer. Exod.\n29:12, 20; Lev. 4:7, 18, 25, 30; 8:15, 24; 14:14, etc.\n\n(4.) The _burning_ of the offering, or of certain specified parts of it,\nupon the altar, whereby its odor ascended up to heaven, was a natural\nexpression of dedication to God. Compare Gen. 8:21, Lev. 1:9, etc.\n\n16. We have seen the typical import of the furniture of the tabernacle\n(Nos. 8 and 9 above). That the _tabernacle itself_, considered\ngenerally, had also a typical meaning, is admitted by all who believe in\nrevelation. But when we come to the consideration of details, we\nencounter diversities of interpretation which cannot be here considered.\nWe notice only the following points:\n\n(1.) The Mosaic tabernacle was, as we have seen, God's visible earthly\ndwelling-place. As such, it shadowed forth his real presence and glory,\nfirst, in the church of the redeemed on earth through Jesus Christ;\nsecondly, in the glorified church in heaven. Some think that the outer\nsanctuary, with its altar of incense, its golden candlestick, and its\ntable of show-bread, typified God's presence with the church militant,\nthrough her divinely-appointed ordinances; and the inner sanctuary, his\npresence with the church triumphant in heaven.\n\n(2.) Under the Mosaic economy, the people were not admitted to either\nsanctuary. They could approach God only through the mediation of the\npriests. The priests themselves entered the outer sanctuary daily to\nburn incense and perform the other prescribed services; but the high\npriest alone was permitted to enter the most holy place once every year\nwith the blood of the sin-offering. This represented that, under the old\ndispensation, the way of access to God on the part of sinners was not\nyet made manifest. In respect to the holy of holies, we have the express\nstatement of inspiration: \"But into the second went the high priest\nalone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself,\nand for the errors of the people: the Holy Ghost this signifying, that\nthe way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the\nfirst tabernacle was yet standing.\" Heb. 9:7, 8. By parity of reason,\nthe principle holds good in respect to the exclusion of the people from\nthe outer sanctuary. We are informed, accordingly, that when Christ\ncried upon the cross with a loud voice, \"It is finished,\" and gave up\nthe ghost, \"the vail of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the\nbottom.\" Matt. 27:50, 51; Mark 15:37, 38; Luke 23:45, 46. By this was\nsignified that now the way of access to God was opened through Christ's\nblood to all believers; so that they constitute a spiritual priesthood,\nhaving access to God within the vail without the help of any earthly\nmediation, that they may there \"offer up spiritual sacrifices,\nacceptable to God by Jesus Christ.\" Heb. 7:25; 10:19, 20; 1 Pet. 2:5, 9;\nRev. 1:6.\n\n(3.) The typical character of the tabernacle appears very strikingly in\nthe ceremonies of the great day of atonement. Lev. chap. 16. After the\nhigh-priest had first offered a sin-offering for himself, and sprinkled\nits blood in the inner sanctuary upon and before the mercy-seat seven\ntimes, he brought the two goats that had been appointed for the\nexpiation of the people, one for a sin-offering, the other for a\nscape-goat, the office of each being determined by lot. When he had\nslain the goat of the sin-offering, he carried its blood into the most\nholy place, and sprinkled it also seven times upon and before the\nmercy-seat, to \"make an atonement for the holy place, because of the\nuncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their\ntransgressions in all their sins (ver. 16).\" Then it was directed that\nthe live goat should be brought: \"And Aaron shall lay both his hands\nupon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities\nof the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their\nsins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by\nthe hand of a fit man into the wilderness. And the goat shall bear upon\nhim all their iniquities into a land not inhabited; and he shall let go\nthe goat in the wilderness.\" Ver. 21, 22. By this double ceremonial was\nsignified, first, that Christ should _expiate_ our sins by his own\nblood; secondly, that through this expiation he should _bear_ them in\nhis own person, and thus _remove_ them far away from us. The Jewish high\npriest entered year by year through the earthly tabernacle into God's\npresence with the blood of the sin-offering, that he might sprinkle it\nbefore the mercy-seat. But Christ, our great High Priest, has entered\n\"by a greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands\" into\nheaven itself, to present his own blood before the throne of God as a\nperfect propitiation for our sins. Heb 9:11, 12, 24.\n\nThe striking ceremonial connected with the scape-goat on the great day\nof atonement (Lev. chap. 16) is never to be interpreted separately, but\nalways in connection with the other goat, which was slain as a\nsin-offering, and its blood carried within the vail into the most holy\nplace. The inadequacy of the type made it necessary that _two_ goats\nshould be used in this _one_ service, one to represent the expiation of\nthe people's sin through the sprinkling of its blood; the other, the\nvicarious bearing and taking away of their sin. Whatever difficulties\nare connected with the interpretation of the Hebrew word rendered in our\nversion \"for a scape-goat\" (Hebrew, _la-azazel_), the typical meaning of\nthe transaction is clear, and it has its fulfilment only in Christ, who\nhas _expiated_, and so _taken away_, the sin of the world.\n\n(4.) In the case of the more solemn sacrifices--the sin-offerings for\nthe high-priest and for the congregation (Lev. 4:1-21; chap. 16)--the\nexpiatory blood was carried into the sanctuary to be presented before\nGod. But the victim was in all cases slain without the sanctuary; and\nwhen its blood was carried into the sanctuary, its body typically\nbearing the curse of the violated law, was burned without the camp. In\ncorrespondence with this, the writer to the Hebrews reminds us that\n\"Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood,\nsuffered without the gate.\" Heb. 13:11, 12. He suffered \"without the\ngate\" in a two-fold sense. As a condemned malefactor, he was thrust out\nof the holy city, which answered to the ancient Israelitish camp, and\nthere he expiated on the cross the sin of the world. He also suffered\n\"without the gate\" of the true holy city, the heavenly Jerusalem, which\nhe left that he might tabernacle among men and die for their redemption;\nand having accomplished this work, he went \"by his own blood\" into the\nheavenly holy of holies, there to make intercession for us.\n\nThe dignity and sacredness of these solemn sin-offerings made it\nnecessary that a clean place should be selected for the burning of the\nflesh; but inasmuch as they were typically laden with the curse of sin,\nthey were carried without the precincts of the camp where God dwelt, and\nthere consumed, where the ashes of all the bloody offerings were poured\nout. Lev. 4:11, 12, 21; 16:27. The man, moreover, who performed the\nservice of burning the sin-offering on the day of atonement, having been\ntypically defiled by contact with it, was required to wash his clothes\nand bathe his flesh in water before coming into the camp. Lev. 16:28. In\nthe case of the scape-goat, \"the wilderness,\" the \"land not inhabited,\"\nanswered to the place without the camp where the sin-offering was\nburned; and the man that led him away was, in like manner, required to\nwash his clothes and bathe his flesh in water before reentering the\ncamp. Lev. 16:26.\n\n17. The _distinctions between clean and unclean_ in respect to articles\nof food and various other particulars, had also a typical meaning. That\nthe regulations in regard to these matters were promotive of physical\npurity and health is undoubtedly true; yet we are not to consider them\nas simply a sanitary code. They reached to the inner man. Through these\nphysical distinctions of clean and unclean God educated the people to an\napprehension of the difference between moral purity and impurity.\n\nThe Levitical view of sickness and every bodily infirmity is deep and\nfundamental. All is referred to sin as the primal cause. The sufferer\nfrom leprosy and various other infirmities (Lev. chaps. 12-15) is\nregarded not as a sinner above other men (Luke 13:1-5), but yet as\nsuffering in the character of a sinner. Hence the ceremonial uncleanness\nof such persons, and the expiatory offerings required in the case of\nthose who have been healed.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXVIII.\n\nINTERPRETATION OF PROPHECY.\n\n\n1. The scriptural idea of prophecy is widely removed from that of human\nforesight and presentiment. It is that of _a revelation made by the Holy\nSpirit respecting the future_, always in the interest of God's kingdom.\nIt is no part of the plan of prophecy to gratify vain curiosity\nrespecting \"the times or the seasons which the Father hath put in his\nown power.\" Acts 1:7. \"Comfort ye, comfort ye my people, saith your\nGod\"--this is its key-note. In its form it is carefully adapted to this\ngreat end. Its notices of the future are interwoven with exhortations\nand admonitions, encouragements and warnings, promises and threatenings.\nThese constitute, indeed, the great bulk of the prophetical writings\nthat have come down to us. The subject of the interpretation of prophecy\nmay be conveniently considered under the following heads: prophecies\nrelating to the near future; prophecies relating to the last days; the\nquestion of double sense; the question of literal and figurative\nmeaning.\n\n\nI. PROPHECIES RELATING TO THE NEAR FUTURE.\n\n2. The Bible contains many prophecies relating to the comparatively near\nfuture. These are all _specific_ in their character, and have a _single_\nexhaustive fulfilment. Examples are: the prediction to Noah of the\napproaching deluge, and to Abraham of the bondage of his posterity in a\nstrange land; the disclosure through Pharaoh's dreams of the coming\nfamine in Egypt; Joseph's announcement of the future deliverance of\nIsrael from Egypt; the token given to Moses that God had sent him: \"When\nthou hast brought forth the people out of Egypt, ye shall serve God upon\nthis mountain\" (Exod. 3:12); God's threatened judgments upon the house\nof Eli with the accompanying sign (1 Sam. 2:34); the warning that David\nreceived by Urim and Thummim of Saul's approach to destroy him (1 Sam.\n23:9-12); the prediction that Josiah should defile Jeroboam's altar at\nBethel with men's bones (1 Kings 13:2); etc. Minute events, in\nthemselves unimportant, sometimes come within the sphere of prophetic\nrevelation, but always in connection with and subserviency to important\ntransactions affecting the interests of God's people. Thus when Samuel\nanointed Saul as the future king of Israel, he foretold to him the\nincidents of his journey homeward (1 Sam. 10:2-7). But this was in order\nthat Saul might be assured of Samuel's prophetic office, and\nconsequently of the divine sanction to the transaction. An event in the\nimmediate future is frequently predicted as a pledge that some prophecy\nof more distant fulfilment shall be accomplished. Thus the death of\nEli's two sons in one day was to be a token of the fulfilment of all the\nevils threatened against his house. The same end may be accomplished by\na miraculous sign. 1 Kings 13:3; 2 Kings 20:9, 11. Prophecies of the\nkind now under consideration are in general very plain and simple, and\ntheir recorded fulfilment is to us a sufficient interpreter of their\nmeaning.\n\n\nII. PROPHECIES RELATING TO THE LAST DAYS.\n\n3. In Old Testament usage, \"the last days,\" or \"the latter days\" (\"in\nthe latter years,\" Ezek. 38:8) denote not simply the distant future, but\nthat future as including the kingdom of the Messiah, which extends to\nthe consummation of all things Gen. 49:1; Numb. 24:14; Deut. 4:30;\n31:29; Isa. 2:2; Jer 23:20; 30:24; 48:47; 49:39; Ezek. 38:16; Dan.\n10:14; Hos. 3:5; Mic. 4:1. We are not, however, to conceive of these\n\"last days\" as totally separated from the preceding ages. In the plan of\nGod the history of the world constitutes a whole, all the parts of which\nare closely connected. Hence the prophecies relating to the latter days\ninclude, more or less distinctly, the events which precede them, and\nprepare the way for them. In such prophecies we are not to look for\nexhaustive details. They give, as a rule, only general views relating to\nthe conflicts of God's people and their final triumph. Where minute\nincidents are introduced (Psa. 22:18; 69:21; Zech. 9:9; 11:13) it is\napparently for the purpose of identifying to future generations the\nMessiah as their main subject. See below, No. 9.\n\n    Prophecies relating to the days of the Messiah are introduced in\n    other more indefinite ways, thus: \"Behold the days come\" (Jer.\n    23:5; 31:31; etc.): \"And it shall come to pass afterward\" (Joel\n    2:28); \"In that day\" (Isa. 4:2, Jer. 30:8; Ezek. 39:11; Amos\n    9:11, and elsewhere); or they are sufficiently indicated by\n    their contents, as Isa. chaps. 40-66.\n\nThese prophecies naturally fall into two classes: those in which the\n_succession of events_ is distinctly indicated, and those which give\nonly _general views_ of the future, without any clear order of\nsuccession.\n\n4. To the first and smaller class belong especially certain of Daniel's\nprophecies. The four great monarchies, for example, that are to bear\nrule over the earth are symbolized first by a great image (Dan. chap.\n2), then by four beasts rising out of the sea (Dan. chap. 7). Of these\nmonarchies the fourth, represented by the legs of iron and feet part of\niron and part of clay (Dan. 2:33), and by the fourth beast with his ten\nhorns (Dan. 7:7), belongs in part to the latter days of the Messiah.\n\n    The fourth kingdom, represented by the \"legs of iron and feet\n    part of iron and part of clay,\" is at the beginning \"strong as\n    iron\" (chap. 2:40); afterwards it is \"partly strong and partly\n    broken\" (ver. 42); it is, moreover, the last great monarchy that\n    oppresses the world. All these characters point to the Roman\n    empire, first in its pagan, afterwards in its papal form. From\n    the nature of the symbol, the prophet sees the _whole_ image\n    standing till it is smitten in its feet of iron and clay. This\n    does not mean that the four monarchies are contemporaneous, but\n    that they constitute one great system of oppression, in which\n    the power passes successively down from the head to the feet. It\n    is in its feet that the stone smites it, for it is in this its\n    last form that the kingdom set up by the God of heaven shall\n    encounter and destroy it. The toes, part of iron and part of\n    clay, well represent the kingdoms that grew up out of the old\n    Roman empire, with an intermixture of the northern nations.\n    These could never unite into a compact whole, like the original\n    pagan empire, yet they constituted a continuation of it in a\n    divided form.\n\n    That the fourth beast again (chap. 7:7-14, 19-28) represents the\n    same Roman empire appears from the following considerations:\n    (1.) Both here and in the second chapter a succession of four\n    great monarchies is represented, of which the first three are\n    admitted to have been universal. It is altogether reasonable,\n    therefore, to look for a universal empire in the fourth; but\n    that empire can be no other than the Roman. (2.) The fourth\n    beast is represented as the strongest and most terrible of them\n    all, which cannot apply to any other than the Roman power. (3.)\n    All its characters agree with those of the Roman empire, and\n    cannot be made to agree with those of any other power. Those who\n    understand by the little horn of the fourth beast Antiochus\n    Epiphanes, must consider the fourth beast as representing the\n    Syrian monarchy, or perhaps Syria and Egypt. But these belong to\n    the _third_ beast. They are two of the four divisions into which\n    his empire was broken, and which have just been represented by\n    the four heads and four wings of the leopard. (4.) No\n    persecuting power comes after this beast. Its dominion is\n    destroyed by that of the Messiah, who takes the kingdom and\n    holds it for ever. This can apply only to the Roman power as\n    perpetuated in its papal form in the ten horns, which correspond\n    to the ten toes of the image. Chap. 2:41-43. All the characters\n    of the little horn agree with those of the papal power; and\n    considering the vast influence which this has wielded, and still\n    wields, over God's church, we should naturally expect that it\n    would be included in a comprehensive view like this of the\n    world's history.\n\n    The prophecies of the book of Revelation relative to the great\n    red dragon--pagan Rome (chap. 12), the two beasts that succeeded\n    to his seat and power (chap. 13), and (what is identical with\n    these two beasts) the woman riding upon a scarlet-colored beast\n    (chap. 17), are so intimately related to the fourth kingdom of\n    Daniel, that whatever view be taken of this kingdom must apply\n    to them also. In these prophetic symbols we have again all the\n    characters of pagan Rome as continued in papal Rome. Chap. 32,\n    No. 4. To the class of prophecies now under consideration belong\n    also, according to the most probable principle of\n    interpretation, those of the seven seals, the seven trumpets\n    included under the last seal, and the seven vials of the last\n    trumpet (Rev. 6:1 _seq._); for in these the succession of events\n    is distinctly marked.\n\n    The _numbers_ of the books of Daniel and Revelation,\n    particularly the \"time and times and dividing of time\"--three\n    years and a half--during which the little horn is to have\n    dominion (Dan. 7:25), and (what is equivalent to this number)\n    the \"forty-and-two months\" during which the Gentiles are to\n    tread down the holy city (Rev. 11:2), and the beast that\n    succeeds to the dragon is to have power (Rev. 13:5); or in days,\n    the thousand two hundred and threescore days of the two\n    witnesses (Rev. 11:3), and of the woman's sojourn in the\n    wilderness (Rev. 12:6), have furnished for centuries matter of\n    curious speculation and computation, upon the assumption that a\n    day here represents a year (Chap. 35, No. 9); but hitherto\n    history has not verified the results as to time which the\n    students of these prophecies have given. The failure of their\n    computations might have been anticipated. It seems to be the\n    plan of God to throw such a vail over even exact dates of\n    prophecy, that their place in a chronological chart of history\n    cannot be accurately marked out beforehand. Either the time\n    _from_ which the reckoning is to proceed, or the symbolism of\n    the dates, or the place which the whole series holds in relation\n    to other prophecies, is left in obscurity. The experience of\n    those who have busied themselves with the computation of these\n    dates teaches, not that we should wholly withdraw ourselves from\n    inquiries of this kind, but that to pursue them in a confident\n    and dogmatic spirit, as if we had been admitted to the\n    council-chamber of heaven, and had there learned the exact day\n    and hour on which the papal throne must fall, or our Lord\n    reappear on earth, is a mark, not of wisdom, but of weakness and\n    folly.\n\n5. In the _second_ and larger class of prophecies relating to the last\ndays, the element of time, and especially that of succession in time, is\neither wholly wanting, or is indicated in only a vague and general way.\n\n    Examples of this class of prophecies are almost innumerable. A\n    remarkable specimen is found in the fourth chapter of Isaiah,\n    viewed in connection with the preceding context. The prophet's\n    position is that of his own day. He writes at a time when heavy\n    calamities are impending over his countrymen. With these\n    calamities he begins: \"Behold the Lord, the Lord of hosts, doth\n    take away from Judah and Jerusalem the stay and the staff, the\n    whole stay of bread, and the whole stay of water, the mighty\n    man, and the man of war, the judge, and the prophet, and the\n    prudent, and the ancient, the captain of fifty, and the\n    honorable man, and the counsellor, and the cunning artificer,\n    and the eloquent orator.\" Chap. 3:1-3. So he proceeds, in terms\n    which must apply primarily to the Babylonish captivity, to the\n    end of the third chapter, which closes with the terrible\n    denunciation: \"Thy men shall fall by the sword, and thy mighty\n    men in war. And her gates shall lament and mourn; and she, being\n    desolate, shall sit upon the ground\" (ver. 25, 26). To complete\n    the picture of desolation, it is added in the beginning of the\n    fourth chapter: \"And in that day seven women shall take hold of\n    one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own\n    apparel: only let us be called by thy name to take away our\n    reproach.\" The obvious meaning of this last threatening is, that\n    the mass of the men shall perish in war, so that the surviving\n    women cannot find husbands. Seven of them, therefore, ask of one\n    man the privilege of being called each his wife, while they\n    offer to forego all the usual advantages of that relation. Thus\n    far the prophet proceeds in a strain of threatening. But now,\n    with the single formula, \"in that day,\" there is a sudden\n    transition to promise, and promise of such a character that it\n    must cover the whole future period of the Messiah's kingdom: \"In\n    that day shall the branch of the Lord be beautiful and glorious,\n    and the fruit of the earth shall be excellent and comely for\n    them that are escaped of Israel\" (chap. 4:2); and so he goes on\n    to describe the glory of the latter days, when the Lord, having\n    \"purged the blood of Jerusalem from the midst thereof by the\n    spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning,\" \"will create\n    upon every dwelling-place of Mount Zion, and upon her\n    assemblies, a cloud and smoke by day, and the shining of a\n    flaming fire by night: for upon all the glory shall be a\n    defence\" (ver. 4, 5). Here we have, in a certain sense, an\n    indication of time, but it is wholly indefinite. No date is\n    given for the fulfilment of the prophecy, nor any exact\n    chronological order of succession. The prophet began with the\n    judgments that impended over his countrymen. He ends with the\n    full glory of the Messiah's reign, without any indication of the\n    intervening interval of time.\n\n    Another striking example is furnished by the eleventh chapter of\n    Isaiah in connection with the preceding context. The tenth\n    chapter of Isaiah contains an account of the Assyrian monarch's\n    progress through the land of Judea, ending with a figurative\n    account of his overthrow: \"Behold the Lord, the Lord of hosts,\n    shall lop the bough with terror; and the high ones of stature\n    shall be hewn down, and the haughty shall be humbled. And he\n    shall cut down the thickets of the forest with iron, and Lebanon\n    shall fall by a mighty one\" (ver. 33, 34). Immediately upon this\n    prediction, and with reference to the Assyrian bough and the\n    thickets of Lebanon--Sennacherib with his host--that have been\n    hewn down, follows a prophecy of the Messiah's advent: \"And\n    there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a\n    branch shall grow out of his roots.\" Chap. 11:1. The prophet\n    represents these two events, the overthrow of the Assyrian and\n    the advent of the Messiah, as so connected that the latter\n    follows as a natural sequel to the former, passing over in\n    silence the many intervening centuries. He represents, again,\n    the Messiah's kingdom as one of continuous victorious progress,\n    till \"the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as\n    the waters cover the sea,\" without pausing to indicate any\n    intervening period of darkness and depression.\n\n    Still a third pure specimen of this form of prophecy occurs in\n    the fifty-ninth and sixtieth chapters of Isaiah. The former of\n    these two chapters is occupied with a description in very dark\n    lines of the sins of God's covenant people (ver. 1-15), and of\n    God's interposition in awful majesty to vindicate his own cause\n    (ver. 16-21). Immediately upon this follows, in the sixtieth\n    chapter, a vision of the latter-day glory that has no parallel\n    in the Old Testament for brightness, extending down to the full\n    establishment of the millennial age. But _when_ shall these\n    things be? How long shall the present age of iniquity endure?\n    And when Jehovah appears to save the cause of truth and\n    righteousness, shall it be by a single interposition or a series\n    of interpositions? If by the latter, how widely shall they be\n    separated, and what dark scenes shall intervene? When shall the\n    promised Redeemer appear, and how long shall his work be in\n    progress before that blessed consummation contained in the\n    promise: \"Thy sun shall no more go down; neither shall thy moon\n    withdraw itself: for the Lord shall be thine everlasting light,\n    and the days of thy mourning shall be ended?\" On all these\n    points which involve the element of time the prophecy maintains\n    a majestic silence. The closing promise indeed is: \"I the Lord\n    will hasten it in his time;\" but with the Lord one day is as a\n    thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The time for\n    the consummation of God's plan to rescue this apostate world\n    from the dominion of Satan--how many slowly revolving centuries\n    may it include, and what fierce and bloody assaults of the\n    adversary, compelling God's suffering people to cry out: \"O\n    Lord, how long!\"\n\n    The whole of the prophecy of Joel belongs to the class now under\n    consideration. It begins with impending judgments, and closes\n    with the conflict and triumph of the last times: \"Multitudes,\n    multitudes in the valley of decision: for the day of the Lord is\n    near in the valley of decision. The sun and the moon shall be\n    darkened, and the stars shall withdraw their shining. The Lord\n    also shall roar out of Zion, and utter his voice from Jerusalem;\n    and the heavens and the earth shall shake; but the Lord shall be\n    the hope of his people, and the strength of the children of\n    Israel. So shall ye know that I am the Lord your God dwelling in\n    Zion, my holy mountain; then shall Jerusalem be holy, and there\n    shall no strangers pass through her any more.\" Chap. 3:14-17.\n\n    Many more examples might be adduced from the other prophets, but\n    the above will be sufficient.\n\n6. But let no one infer, from this absence of dates and of the exact\nsuccession of events, that the view which the prophet gives of the\nfuture is loose and confused. Times and successions belong rather to the\noutward machinery of God's providential government. They are, so to\nspeak, the wheels and bands and shafts which connect the different\nmovements. But the _perpetual living power_ that dwells in the church is\nabove all time and succession. In this lies the guarantee of her final\ntriumph, and with this the prophets are mainly occupied. They take the\ndeepest view of the progress of God's kingdom, for they unfold to our\nview the indestructible divine life and power which animate it\nthroughout, and which are steadily bearing it onward towards its final\ndestiny--victory complete and eternal over all the powers of darkness.\nIf we examine more particularly the manner in which the prophets of the\nOld Testament represent the future of the kingdom of heaven, we shall\nfind that it has its foundation in the _unity_ of the plan of\nredemption, the _end_ towards which it is tending, the _indications_ of\nthat end which are perpetually given in its progress, and the fact that\n_the end itself is the chief object of interest_ in prophetic vision.\n\n(1.) The _unity_ of the plan of redemption lies not in its times and\nseasons, but in the higher connections of cause and effect, which, under\nGod's supernatural presence and agency, bind the whole together\nlaterally, so to speak, as well as backward and forward. It may be\ncompared to the unity of a web, in which each thread of the warp extends\nfrom its beginning to its end, and each thread of the woof from one\nmargin to the other; so that every part of the texture is connected with\nevery other part without respect to nearness or distance. So in the plan\nof redemption, events thousands of years apart and taking place in\nregions thousands of miles from each other, are as really connected as\nif they belonged to the same year and country. And since they are thus\nconnected in God's plan, it is natural that prophecy should exhibit them\nin this connection, passing over, it may be, many centuries in silence;\nfor it is the _salient points_ of the church's future history, the great\ncrises in the process of her development, that the spirit of inspiration\nwill naturally bring to view. Prophecy relating to the last times is not\na _map_, in which the distance from one point to another, with all the\nintervening mountains, rivers, and towns, is accurately marked; but\nrather a _prospective view_, which exhibits only the great features of\nthe region that lies before the traveller. He sees far off in the\nhorizon the goodly mountains rising one behind another, and bathed in\nthe pure light of heaven, with no ability to discern, much less to\nmeasure, the intervening valleys and plains. Nay more, mountain ranges\nthat are widely separated may appear to his eye as one and indivisible.\n\n(2.) The plan of redemption has not only complete unity, but _continual\nprogress towards a high end_. It may be compared to a majestic river,\nfed by thousands of perennial springs, that cannot stay a moment in its\ncourse towards the ocean. Its path is not always straight, but it is\nalways onward. Its current is not always rapid and broken, for it is not\nalways obstructed. Sometimes, like the Arar described by Caesar, it winds\nthrough level plains with a current so gentle and noiseless, that the\neye cannot discern its direction. Then it plunges over some Niagara,\nroaring, boiling, and foaming, and shaking the very earth with its\nmighty cataracts. But it _has_ all the power in the level meadows that\nit _manifests_ on the fearful brink of the precipice. To arrest its\ncurrent in one place is as impossible as in the other. Resistance cannot\novercome its strength, but only bring it to view. Let any number of\nTitans build up ever so high a wall across the level meadow, and the\nstream, every particle of which is pressed forward by an inward force,\nwill quietly rise above their vain rampart, and then it will begin to\nthunder. Since then God's kingdom--this river of God that is full of\nwater--is continually tending towards a high end, and since every event\nof his providence contributes something towards its progress, what\nwonder if we find in prophecy events separated by many centuries of time\nimmediately connected as cause and effect? Does the prophet predict the\noverthrow of Sennacherib's army, or the coming desolation of Jerusalem\nby the Chaldean armies; he connects these calamities immediately with\nthe advent of Christ, for this is the end towards which they look.\nDesolating judgments prepare the way for the King of glory to appear.\nAfter the storm of thunder and hail there follows a serene light, \"as\nthe light of the morning when the sun riseth, even a morning without\nclouds; as the tender grass springing out of the earth by clear shining\nafter rain.\" The mind of the inspired bard hastens onward towards the\nglorious _end_ of God's judgments, without pausing to give us, what it\nis not necessary that we should know, the chronological distance of that\nend.\n\n(3.) The progress of God's kingdom gives continual _indications of the\nend_ towards which it is tending. The first great interposition of God\nin behalf of Israel contained in itself a pledge of all needful help for\nthe future, and thus of a final triumph in the future; for it was a\nmanifestation of both God's absolute power to save his people, and his\nabsolute purpose to save them. The full idea embodied in this\ninterposition is summed up in the closing words of their triumphal song\non the shore of the Red sea: \"_The Lord shall reign for ever and ever_.\"\nWhat was true of this deliverance was true of every subsequent\ndeliverance. In each of them separately, and in the whole of them\ncollectively, lay the promise: \"Fear not, thou worm Jacob, and ye men of\nIsrael; I will help thee, saith the Lord, and thy Redeemer, the Holy One\nof Israel. Behold I will make thee [make thee to be] a new sharp\nthreshing instrument having teeth: thou shalt thresh the mountains, and\nbeat them small, and shalt make the hills as chaff. Thou shalt fan them,\nand the wind shall carry them away, and the whirlwind shall scatter\nthem: and thou shalt rejoice in the Lord, and shalt glory in the Holy\nOne of Israel.\" Isa. 41:14-16.\n\nThe _chastisements_, moreover, which God inflicted on the covenant\npeople through the temporary ascendency of their enemies, and in other\nways, gave in like manner indications of a final triumph of the cause of\ntruth and righteousness. However great their severity, they were always\nso ordered that God's people were _never destroyed, but always purified_\nby their power, and thus the way was prepared for their future\nenlargement. This purifying tendency the divinely illumined eye of the\nHebrew prophet clearly discerned. What wonder, then, that he should have\nconstantly connected with present or impending judgments glorious\npromises respecting the future. The destruction of Sennacherib's army by\nthe destroying angel, and afterwards of Jerusalem itself by the Chaldean\narmies--the former event so joyous in its outward form, the latter so\nsad--these were both alike to the prophet's vision parts of the\npreparation through which God was carrying his people for the future\nglory and blessedness of the latter days. He accordingly connected both\nwith bright visions of the future, without pausing to notice the\nintervening centuries, respecting the duration of which he had no\ncommission to speak.\n\n(4.) _The end itself_ towards which the plan of redemption tends _is the\nchief object of interest_ in prophetic representation. To nourish the\nfaith and hope of the church, to invigorate her in her present struggles\nby the assurance of final victory--this, and not the gratification of a\nprurient curiosity respecting the exact dates of \"times and seasons,\" is\nthe main design of prophecy. That it has other subordinate ends need not\nbe denied. It challenges for itself the attribute of omniscience, and\nits fulfilment is, to those who live after it, a proof of the validity\nof its claim. But to become absorbed in calculations beforehand\nrespecting its dates is to elevate the subordinate and circumstantial in\nprophecy to the place of the essential. The bright _end_ of the present\nconflict with the powers of darkness is what prophetic vision is\ncontinually presenting for our encouragement. To those who love God,\nthis is the point of chief interest; and accordingly the prophets make\nit, not the exact number of years that is to elapse before the final\nconsummation with the details of their history, the prominent point.\nSome great crises in the church's history are indicated so clearly that\nthey who can discern \"the signs of the times\" may understand beforehand\nthat they are near. The general expectation of the Messiah's advent at\nthe time when he actually appeared had its foundation in a sober\ncomparison of the prophecies with the existing condition of the covenant\npeople. The present universal belief among Christians that the time for\nthe final overthrow of the triple league between Satan, wicked kings,\nand wicked priests for the suppression of the gospel is at hand rests,\nwe doubt not, on the same solid ground. But farther than this we cannot\ngo. We cannot say that it shall be in such a year of the present\ncentury, or even in the century, in harmony with the true spirit of\nprophecy. It is enough for us to know that God \"will hasten it in his\ntime\"--that the victory is certain, and that every believer from Abel to\nthe trump of the archangel shall have his share in it.\n\n\nIII. THE QUESTION OF DOUBLE SENSE.\n\n7. The so-called _double sense_ of Scripture, especially of prophecy,\nconcerning which there has been so much discussion among biblical\nwriters, must be distinguished from the double sense of pure allegory,\nwhich all admit. In allegory, the first or literal meaning is only a\ncover for the higher spiritual sense, which alone is of importance. That\nwe may have a true example of double sense, the obvious literal meaning\nmust have its own proper significance, irrespective of the higher sense\nbelonging to it, and this higher sense must be intended by the Spirit of\ninspiration. The question now to be considered is: Do such examples\noccur in Scripture, by whatever term we may choose to designate them?\n\n    To avoid logomachy, arising from the use of the same phrase in\n    different senses, we prefer the expression _literal_ and\n    _typical sense_.\n\n8. If, as has been shown above (chap. 37, No. 4), examples of _historic\ntypes_ are found in the Old Testament, these contain a twofold sense.\nThe priesthood of Melchizedek and the transactions between him and\nAbraham were true historic realities, having their own proper office and\nmeaning. Yet the word of inspiration teaches us that the circumstances\nconnected with Melchizedek's priesthood and his meeting with Abraham\nwere intended by God to shadow forth the higher priesthood of\nMelchizedek's great Antitype. He brought forth bread and wine, the very\nsymbols that should afterwards represent Christ crucified as our\nspiritual food and drink, blessed him that had the promises, and\nreceived at his hand tithes of all (Gen. 14:18-20), thus exercising the\nprerogatives of one higher than Abraham, and consequently higher than\nall his posterity. Heb. 7:4-10. In the intention of the Holy Ghost, the\nhigher typical meaning lay in this transaction from the beginning, but\nit was not revealed to the apprehension of believers till the Christian\ndispensation had begun. So also the rest of the covenant people in the\nland of Canaan is represented in the New Testament as typical of the\ntrue heavenly rest. Heb. 4:7-11. Other examples might be adduced, but\nthese will serve as an illustration of the principle now under\nconsideration.\n\n9. The most striking examples of a literal covering a typical meaning\nare furnished by the so-called _Messianic psalms_, a part of which\ndescribe the victories and universal dominion of a mighty King whom\nJehovah himself establishes on Zion to reign there for ever (Psalms 2,\n45, 72, 110, etc.); another part, the deep afflictions of a mighty\nSufferer and his subsequent deliverance, which has for its result the\nconversion of all nations to the service of Jehovah. Psalms 22, 40, 69,\n109, etc. That such psalms as the second and seventy-second, the\ntwenty-second, fortieth, and sixty-ninth (not to mention others), have a\ntrue reference to Christ's person and work, cannot be denied without\nimputing either error or fraud to the writers of the New Testament. Nay\nmore, our Lord himself said, after his resurrection: \"These are the\nwords which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things\nmust be fulfilled which were written in the law of Moses, and in the\nprophets, and in the psalms, concerning me\" (Luke 24:44); whence we\nlearn that it was our Lord's custom to refer to the psalms as containing\nprophecies of himself. If the psalms, when legitimately interpreted,\ncontain no such prophecies, then, when the writers of the New Testament\nquoted them as referring to Christ, they either believed that they were\nmaking a true application of them according to the mind of the Holy\nSpirit, or they simply accommodated themselves to what they knew to be\nthe groundless prejudices of the age. Upon the former supposition they\nwere in error; upon the latter, they were guilty of fraud. Such is the\ndishonor which the modern principles of rationalism put upon the word of\nGod. In the interpretation of these psalms, then, we must assume as a\nfundamental truth that they contain a true reference to Christ. The only\nquestion is, whether they contain a lower reference also.\n\n(1.) One class of interpreters understand these psalms simply of Christ;\nthat is, they assume that the writer speaks wholly in the name of\nChrist, without reference to himself or any merely human personage.\nThere are psalms--the hundred and tenth, for example--that may be very\nwell explained in this way. The opening words of that psalm--\"The Lord\nsaid unto my lord\"--seem to exclude David as the subject, and it is\ndifficult to see in what sense David could speak of himself as made by a\ndivine oath \"a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek\" (ver. 4).\nBut in the attempt to carry this principle consistently through all the\nMessianic psalms, one meets with serious difficulties. They contain, at\nleast some of them, historic allusions of a character so marked and\ncircumstantial that it is hard to believe that the writer had not in\nview his own personal situation. In some of them, moreover, the writer\nmakes confession to God of his sins. Psa. 40:12; 69:5.\n\n    They who apply these psalms exclusively to Christ assume that\n    these confessions of sin are made in a _vicarious_ way, the\n    Messiah assuming the character of a sinner because \"the Lord\n    hath laid on him the iniquities of us all.\" Isa. 53:6. But the\n    form of these confessions forbids such an interpretation. When\n    the psalmist says: \"Mine iniquities have taken hold upon me;\" \"O\n    God, thou knowest my foolishness, and my sins are not hid from\n    thee,\" we cannot understand such language of any thing else than\n    personal sinfulness. It is true that the Messiah bore our\n    iniquities, and that God \"made him to be sin for us, who knew no\n    sin;\" but the Saviour nowhere speaks or can speak of \"mine\n    iniquities,\" \"my foolishness,\" and \"my sins.\"\n\n(2.) According to another class of interpreters, the subject of these\npsalms, particularly of those which describe the Messiah as a sufferer,\nis an _ideal personage_, namely, the congregation of the righteous\nconsidered not separately from Christ, but in Christ their head; or,\nwhich amounts to the same thing, Christ considered, not in his simple\npersonality apart from the church, but Christ with his body the church.\nThe contents of these psalms are then applied, _according to their\nnature_, to Christ alone, to believers alone who are his members, or to\nChrist in the fullest sense and believers in a subordinate sense. Much\nmight be said in favor of this view; yet it labors under the difficulty\nalready indicated, that one cannot well read the psalms in question,\nwith their marked historic allusions, without the conviction that the\nauthor had in view--not indirectly, but immediately--his own personal\nsituation.\n\n(3.) There remains a third, and perhaps preferable view, which may be\ncalled the _typical view_, maintained, as is well known, by Melanchthon,\nCalvin, and many later expositors. This begins with the well-established\nprinciple that David (in a less eminent degree his successors also on\nthe throne, so far as they were true to their office) was a\ndivinely-constituted type of the Messiah, not only in his office as the\nearthly head of God's kingdom, but in the events of his history also;\nthat the psalms in question, whether they describe his victorious might\nor his deep suffering at the hand of his enemies, had a true historic\norigin; that their first and immediate reference was to the writer's own\nsituation and the events which befell him; but that, under the guidance\nof the Holy Spirit, he was carried beyond himself to describe the office\nand history of the Messiah; that consequently these psalms have a lower\nfulfilment in David the type (the seventy-second in Solomon), and a\nhigher in Christ the Antitype.\n\n    The second psalm, for example, which describes the vain\n    conspiracy of the heathen rulers against the Lord's anointed\n    king, and God's purpose to give him the uttermost ends of the\n    earth for his possession, may have had its occasion in the\n    combination of the surrounding heathen nations against David. In\n    the victorious might with which God endowed him, it had a lower\n    fulfilment; and this was, so to speak, the first sheaf of the\n    harvest of victories that was to follow. It was an earnest and\n    pledge of the complete fulfilment of the psalm in Christ, in\n    whom alone the promise made to David: \"Thine house and thy\n    kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne\n    shall be established for ever\" (2 Sam. 7:16), could have its\n    real accomplishment. Luke 1: 32, 33.\n\n    The second class of psalms, of which the twenty-second is a\n    well-known example, may have had, in like manner, a true\n    historic origin. When the psalmist began with the exclamation:\n    \"My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?\" he may have had\n    immediate reference to his own distressed condition. But since\n    he was the divinely appointed head of the line of kings which\n    should end in Christ, and was thus in his office a type of\n    Christ, God had so ordered the circumstances of his history as\n    to shadow forth in them the sufferings and final triumph of the\n    Messiah. Writing under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, he was\n    led, through these circumstances, to say many things which\n    applied to himself only in a lower and often figurative sense,\n    but which were appointed to have a complete fulfilment in Christ\n    his Antitype (Psa. 22:1, 7, 8, 14, 15, 16, 18; 40:6-10; 69:4,\n    7-9, 21; 109:1-20), and which point to Christ as the chief\n    subject of the prophecies.\n\n    How far the psalmist understood this higher reference of his\n    words is a question difficult to be determined. With regard to\n    the sixteenth psalm, the apostle Peter tells us that David,\n    \"being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to\n    him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he\n    would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; he seeing this\n    before, spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was\n    not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption\" (Acts\n    2:30, 31); whence we infer that in penning this psalm David was\n    conscious of its higher application to Christ. The spirit of the\n    New Testament quotations from the psalms indicates that he had a\n    deeper insight into the prophetic meaning of his words than many\n    modern expositors are willing to admit. But however this may be,\n    the Spirit of inspiration had in view the fulfilment of these\n    psalms in Christ; and his intention, clearly revealed to us in\n    the New Testament, is our rule of interpretation.\n\n10. Different from the above literal and typical sense, yet closely\nrelated to it in principle, is that of the _progressive fulfilment_ of\nprophecy, which has a wide application in the interpretation of those\nprophecies which relate to the last days. By the progressive fulfilment\nof prophecy is meant, a fulfilment not exhaustively accomplished at one\nparticular era or crisis in the church's history, but successively from\nage to age; a fulfilment repeated, it may be, many times, and ending\nonly with the final consummation of the Messiah's kingdom. An undeniable\nexample of such a prophecy is God's message by Isaiah to the covenant\npeople: \"Go and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not;\nand see ye indeed, but perceive not,\" etc, with the threatened\ndesolation that should follow (chap. 6:9-13). This prophecy had a true\nfulfilment in the ancient Jewish people before the Babylonish captivity.\nFor their blindness of mind and hardness of heart, they were given over\nto the power of Nebuchadnezzar, who wasted their land, destroyed their\ncity and temple, and carried the remnant of the people into captivity.\nBut the same prophecy had, in both its parts, a more awful fulfilment in\nthe generation of Jews who rejected and crucified our Lord, and were\ndestroyed with their city and temple by the armies of Rome (Matt. 13:14,\n15; Mark 4:12; Luke 8:10; John 12:39-41; Acts 28:25-27; Rom. 11:8); and\nits fulfilment is yet in progress. Joel's prophecy of the outpouring of\nthe Spirit in the last days upon all flesh, with the mighty accompanying\njudgments (chap. 2: 28-32), and Amos' prediction of the raising up of\nDavid's fallen tabernacle (chap. 9:11, 12), had both their _initial_\nfulfilment in the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost\nand the triumphs of the gospel that followed. Acts 2:16-21; 15:16, 17.\nBut the blessings which they promised were not exhausted in the\napostolic age. The church has had rich instalments of them, but richer\nstill are reserved for the future of millennial glory. A large part of\nthe prophecies of the Old Testament indicate in their very structure\nthat they are not to be understood of particular events, but of the\ndevelopment of God's kingdom from age to age. The reader may take, as a\nsingle example among many others, the prediction of Isaiah and Micah\nconcerning the establishment of the Lord's house in the last days in the\ntop of the mountains, the resort of all nations to it, and the universal\npeace that shall follow. Isa. 2:2-4; Micah 4:1-4. That particularism\nwhich seeks for the fulfilment of every prophecy in some one specific\nevent of history must go widely astray in its interpretation of\nScripture.\n\n\nIV. THE QUESTION OF LITERAL AND FIGURATIVE MEANING.\n\n11. On this question expositors are, as is well known, much divided; one\nclass adopting, as far as possible, the literal meaning of the prophetic\nannouncements, the other freely employing the principle of figurative\ninterpretation. A full discussion of the claims of these two methods of\ninterpretation, on which so many volumes have been written, would far\nexceed the limits of the present work. All that can be done is, to\nindicate some well-established principles which may help to guide the\nbiblical student in the study of prophecy.\n\n12. We begin by calling attention to the _representative use_ which the\nOld Testament prophets make of the events of the _past history of\nIsrael_; that is, to their habit of representing the future under the\nimagery of this history. When Israel journeyed from Egypt to Palestine\nthrough the wilderness of Arabia, God dried up the tongue of the\nEgyptian sea before the people, guided them miraculously by the cloudy\npillar, fed them with manna, made streams of water to burst forth from\nthe rock for their refreshment, and finally divided the waters of the\nJordan to give them a passage into the promised land. This primitive\nhistory of Israel furnishes for the prophets who lived in later ages a\nrich treasury of images which it would be absurd to interpret in a\nliteral way.\n\n    Thus Isaiah, speaking of the future gathering together of the\n    outcasts of Israel and the dispersed of Judah from the four\n    corners of the earth (chap. 11:11, 12), says: \"And the Lord\n    shall utterly destroy the tongue of the Egyptian sea, and with\n    his mighty wind shall he shake his hand over the river [the\n    Euphrates], and shall smite it in the seven streams, and make\n    men go over dry shod\" (ver. 15). To suppose that the prophet\n    foretells a literal repetition of the miracles wrought upon the\n    Red sea and the Jordan is unnecessary and most improbable. The\n    meaning is, that God shall remove all obstacles which hinder the\n    return of his people to their own land, as he originally removed\n    all obstacles which opposed their entrance into it. This is,\n    indeed, the very idea of the following verse: \"And there shall\n    be a highway for the remnant of his people, which shall be left,\n    from Assyria; like as it was to Israel in the day that he came\n    up out of the land of Egypt.\"\n\n    Again, the prophet foretells that in the latter day glory \"the\n    Lord will create upon every dwelling-place of mount Zion, and\n    upon her assemblies, a cloud and smoke by day, and the shining\n    of a flaming fire by night: for upon all the glory shall be a\n    defence.\" Isa. 4:5. Here \"the figurative reference is to the\n    pillar of cloud and the pillar of fire in which the Lord went\n    before the Israelites in the wilderness, and to the glory which\n    rested upon the tabernacle.\" Henderson. God will give to his\n    church in the latter day that which the pillar of cloud and of\n    fire signified, his glorious presence and protection. A literal\n    repetition of the miracle is not to be thought of.\n\n    Once more, God promises to his weary people, on their pilgrimage\n    to Zion, that \"in the wilderness shall waters break out, and\n    streams in the desert\" (Isa. 35:6, and often elsewhere), with\n    obvious allusion to the miraculous supplies of water furnished\n    to the Israelites in their journey through the Arabian desert to\n    the land of Canaan. The water here promised is the water of\n    life, and not literal fountains in the desert. Upon the same\n    principle are we to interpret the river that flows out from\n    under the threshold of the temple, and flows down eastward to\n    the Dead sea, growing broader and deeper in its course, and\n    imparting life to everything which comes within its influence.\n    Ezek. 47:1-12, and compare Psa. 46:4; Joel 3:18; Zech. 14:8.\n\n13. The same representative use is made by the prophets of the\n_institutions of the Mosaic economy_. One of their offices was, to\nforetell the extension of the true religion over all the earth; the\nconversion of all nations to the faith of the covenant people, and their\npeaceful subjection to Jehovah who reigned in Zion. _In what form_\nshould this be done while the theocracy was yet in full force? The\ndisclosure of God's purpose to abolish this theocracy in the interest of\na simpler and more spiritual dispensation, which should know no\ndistinction between Jews and Gentiles, would have been a premature act.\nIt would, so far as we can judge, have led to much error and\nmisapprehension; and it must have had the effect of disparaging the\nexisting economy before the world was prepared to receive any thing\nbetter in its place. God, therefore, allowed his prophets to portray the\nglories of the latter day, when all nations should come to the knowledge\nand obedience of the truth, _under the forms of the Jewish\ndispensation_, with its temple, sacrifices, and solemn festivals.\n\nA striking example is the bright portraiture of two contemporary\nprophets: \"But in the last days it shall come to pass, that the mountain\nof the house of the Lord shall be established in the top of the\nmountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills; and people [Hebrew\n_peoples_, that is, as Isaiah, _all the nations_] shall flow unto it.\nAnd many nations shall come, and say, Come, and let us go up to the\nmountain of the Lord, and to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will\nteach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for the law shall\ngo forth of Zion, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. And he shall\njudge among many people, and rebuke strong nations afar off; and they\nshall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into\npruning-hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither\nshall they learn war any more. But they shall sit every man under his\nvine and under his fig-tree; and none shall make them afraid: for the\nmouth of the Lord of hosts hath spoken it.\" Micah 4:1-4, compared with\nIsa. 2:2-4. The temple at Jerusalem, with its altar and priesthood, was\nthe central point of the old theocracy. There all the sacrifices were to\nbe offered, there was the seat of royal authority, and consequently of\npublic justice, and thither all the males among the people were required\nto repair three times a year at the great national festivals. Deut.\n16:16. A Jew could conceive of the conversion of all nations only in the\nform of their subjecting themselves to the theocracy, and coming up to\nJerusalem for worship and the administration of justice. Accordingly the\nSpirit of prophecy here represents the mountain of the Lord's house as\n\"established in the top of the mountains,\" a conspicuous object to all\nnations, who resort thither for worship, submit themselves to the\nauthority of the great king who reigns there, and thus have universal\npeace and happiness. To insist on the literal interpretation of these\nwords is contrary to the general analogy of prophecy. It is an attempt\nto bring back the outward sensuous form of the kingdom of heaven which\nthe gospel dispensation has abolished.\n\nThere is another celebrated passage in Zechariah (14:16-21) which is\nintensely Jewish in its costume. After describing the judgments of God\nupon the nations that have fought against Jerusalem, the prophet goes on\nto say: \"And it shall come to pass that every one that is left of all\nthe nations which came against Jerusalem, shall even go up from year to\nyear to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, and to keep the feast of\ntabernacles. And it shall be, that whoso will not come up, of all the\nfamilies of the earth, unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the Lord of\nhosts, even upon them shall be no rain. And if the family of Egypt go\nnot up, and come not, that have no rain; there shall be the plague,\nwherewith the Lord will smite the heathen that come not up to keep the\nfeast of tabernacles. This shall be the punishment of Egypt, and the\npunishment of all nations that come not up to keep the feast of\ntabernacles. In that day there shall be upon the bells of the horses,\nHOLINESS UNTO THE LORD; and the pots in the Lord's house shall be like\nthe bowls before the altar. Yea, every pot in Jerusalem and in Judah\nshall be holiness unto the Lord of hosts; and all they that sacrifice\nshall come and take of them and seethe therein: and in that day there\nshall be no more the Canaanite in the house of the Lord of hosts.\" The\nprophet's care to include \"all the families of the earth\" in this\nordinance is very noticeable. Whatever nation refuses to observe it\nshall have no rain. But, recollecting that for Egypt this can be no\npunishment, he appoints for that country the plague instead of the\nabsence of rain. Is it so, then, that in the last days all the families\nof the earth are to go up year by year to worship at Jerusalem? If so,\nthey are to _sacrifice_ also; for the prophecy is a homogeneous whole,\nof which, if the beginning is to be understood literally, so is the end\nalso. The reference is to the _peace-offerings_ of the people, on which,\nafter certain prescribed portions had been burned on the altar, the\nofferer feasted with his friends; and a special provision is made for\nthe multitude of these sacrifices. \"Every pot in Judah and Jerusalem,\"\nas well as \"the pots in the Lord's house,\" \"shall be holiness unto the\nLord of hosts,\" that it may be used for boiling the flesh of the\npeace-offerings, precisely as we find done in the days of Eli. 1 Sam.\n2:13-16. But all sacrifices are done away for ever in Christ. Heb.\n10:10-18. This part of the prophecy must clearly be understood\nfiguratively, and therefore the whole. The future reception of the true\nreligion by all nations is foretold under the symbols of the Mosaic\neconomy, with its ritual, its yearly feasts, and its central place of\nworship. For this principle of interpretation we have the warrant of the\nNew Testament. Did the law of Moses prescribe a literal priesthood with\nliteral sacrifices; believers, under the new dispensation, are a\nspiritual priesthood, presenting their bodies as \"living sacrifices.\"\nRom. 12:1; 1 Pet. 2:5. Did the Mosaic economy have a central metropolis,\na literal Zion, whither all the tribes went up; believers in Christ have\ncome to the spiritual \"Mount Zion\" which this shadowed forth, where the\ngreat Antitype of David reigns, that all nations may resort to him, and\nhe may teach them his laws.\n\nUpon the same principle, as well as for other very obvious reasons (see\nchaps. 42:15-20; 45:1-8; 47:1-12, and the whole of chap. 48), Ezekiel's\nminute description of a New Jerusalem, with its territory, its temple,\nand its Jewish appointments (chaps. 40-48), is to be understood not\nliterally but figuratively. This temple has also its Levitical\npriesthood, its altar, and its sacrifices (chap. 43:13-27), all which\nare done away in Christ. There are other passages kindred to the above\nwhich it is not necessary to consider separately, as they all come under\nthe same general principle of interpretation.\n\n14. In the classes of prophecies that have been considered, the\nprinciple of figurative interpretation can be maintained upon solid\ngrounds. But it would be wrong to press it as of universal and exclusive\napplication. Where no reasons to the contrary exist, the literal\ninterpretation, as the most natural and obvious, deserves the\npreference. To draw the limits between the literal and the figurative in\nprophecy is difficult, and in some cases impossible. In this respect it\nhas pleased the wisdom of God that a vail should rest on some\nunfulfilled predictions which his own hand alone has power to remove.\nThere are two questions, especially, respecting which interpreters have\nlong been divided, and will probably continue to be divided, till God\nhimself shall decide them. The first is that of the _literal\nrestoration_ of the Jews to the promised land; the second, that of _our\nLord's personal reign on earth_ during the promised age of millennial\nglory. To enter upon the full discussion of either would require a\nvolume. We must dismiss both with some brief hints.\n\n15. The original promise to Abraham included the grant of the land of\nCanaan to him and his seed \"for an everlasting possession.\" Gen. 12:7;\n13:15; 15:18; 17:8; 26:3; 28:13. It is expressed in the plainest terms,\nthe boundaries of the promised territory are defined, and the nations\ninhabiting it enumerated (Gen. 15:18-21); in a word, every thing\nindicates the literal as the true interpretation. The remarkable words\nof the Saviour: \"And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall\nbe led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden\ndown of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled\"\n(Luke 21:24), have had a literal fulfilment in the awful judgments which\nthey foretell; and it seems reasonable to believe that the promise\nimplied in the last clause, \"_until the times of the Gentiles be\nfulfilled_\" shall have a literal fulfilment also in their repossession\nof Jerusalem and the Holy Land. The wonderful preservation of the Jewish\nnation through so many centuries of dispersion points in the same\ndirection. All these things, taken in connection with the numerous and\nvery explicit prophecies of their captivity and dispersion for their\nsins, and their subsequent restoration upon repentance (Lev. chap. 26;\nDeut. chaps, 28-30: 1 Kings 8:46-50; Isa. chaps. 6, 11, 66; Jer. chaps.\n30, 31; Ezek. chaps. 36-39; Hosea 1:10, 11; Joel. chap. 3; Amos chap. 9;\nMicah 7:8-20; Zeph. 3:8-20), seem to warrant the expectation of a\nliteral fulfilment hereafter of the promise made to Abraham that his\nseed should inherit the land of Canaan for ever.\n\n16. That Christ will come again in glory to raise the dead, change the\nliving, and judge all nations, is a fundamental article of the Christian\nfaith. But the doctrine \"that the fleshly and sublunary state is not to\nterminate with the coming of Christ, but to be then set up in a new\nform; when, with his glorified saints, the Redeemer will reign in person\non the throne of David at Jerusalem for a thousand years, over a world\nof men yet in the flesh, eating and drinking, planting and building,\nmarrying and giving in marriage, under this mysterious sway\" (Brown on\nthe Second Advent, who correctly states the fundamental principle of the\nsystem), cannot lay claim to an irrefragable basis of scriptural\nteaching. The arguments relied on by its advocates are drawn in part\nfrom the very passages that have been considered above (Micah 4:1-4;\nZech. 14:16-21). How little support the theory derives from these\npassages, when fairly interpreted, we have seen. Nor is it favored by\nthe references to our Lord's second coming in the gospels and epistles,\nfor they clearly connect it with the final consummation of all things.\n\nOur Saviour says: \"The hour is coming, in the which all that are in the\ngraves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done\ngood unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto\nthe resurrection of damnation.\" John 5:28, 29. He plainly represents\nthese two resurrections as simultaneous; nor is there in the record of\nhis words any hint of a partial resurrection ages before the reign of\ndeath in this world shall close. The resurrection \"_at the last trump_\"\nto which the apostle Paul refers (1 Cor. chap. 15; 1 Thess. 4:13-18; 2\nThess. 1:7-10) is universal. It expressly includes all the dead in\nChrist and the change of all Christ's living disciples. If nothing is\nsaid of the resurrection of the wicked, it is because the apostle has in\nmind only the \"resurrection of life,\" and has no occasion to speak of\nthe simultaneous \"resurrection of damnation\" which the Saviour himself\nconnects with it. This resurrection at the last trump is also the\nannihilation of the reign of death; for when it happens, \"then shall be\nbrought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in\nvictory.\" 1 Cor. 15:54. But \"the last enemy that shall be destroyed is\ndeath,\" and \"then cometh the end.\" 1 Cor. 15:24-26.\n\nThe Saviour teaches, moreover, that his personal presence on earth is\ninconsistent with the dispensation of the Holy Spirit. \"It is expedient\nfor you that I go away; for if I go not away the Comforter will not come\nunto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.\" John 16:7. It is\nexpedient, doubtless, because the dispensation of the Spirit is better\nadapted to our present state of flesh and blood than his personal\npresence could be. This dispensation of the Spirit must, from the nature\nof the case, be continued in its full force throughout the millennial\nera, when the generations of men will succeed each other as at present.\nBut the New Testament knows nothing of the dispensation of the Holy\nSpirit existing contemporaneously with Christ's personal reign on earth.\nIts constant doctrine is that the salvation of men is effected by\n_Christ's intercession in heaven_ conjointly with _the gift of the Holy\nSpirit on earth_.\n\nThe passage mainly relied upon by the advocates of this theory is the\ntwentieth chapter of the book of Revelation, which speaks of the first\nand second resurrection. But the _first_ resurrection there described\ncannot be identical with the resurrection described by Paul at our\nLord's advent. The resurrection described by Paul includes in express\nterms _all_ the righteous, whereas this first resurrection of the\nApocalypse is restricted to a certain class, namely, the martyrs and\nconfessors for Christ's sake (ver. 4), while the rest of the dead live\nnot till the thousand years are over (ver. 5). Then there is a general\nresurrection (ver. 11-15), which, from its very terms, includes _the\nrighteous and the wicked_; for among the books then opened is \"the book\nof life.\" The risen dead are \"judged every man according to his works,\"\nand all whose names are not found in the book of life are cast into the\nlake of fire. At the same time death and hell (Hades), personified as\ntwo enemies of the human race, are cast into the lake of fire, and thus\n\"death, the last enemy, is destroyed,\" and \"death is swallowed up in\nvictory.\" 1 Cor. 15:26, 54. _This_ is the resurrection which takes place\nupon our Lord's advent at the last trump, not a thousand years after his\nadvent; the resurrection and judgment, when the wicked \"shall go away\ninto everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life eternal.\" We\nventure not to interpret the meaning of the first resurrection,\nbelieving that it is one of the mysteries which God alone will reveal in\nits fulfilment. But whether it should be taken literally or\nfiguratively, after the analogy of the resurrection of the two witnesses\n(chap. 11:11), it does not seem reasonable to build upon this obscure\nand difficult passage a doctrine respecting our Lord's pre-millennial\nadvent and personal reign on earth which is so decidedly at variance\nwith the general tenor of Scripture.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXIX.\n\nQUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.\n\n\n1. As it respects inspiration, and consequent infallible authority, the\nquotations of the New Testament stand on a level with the rest of the\napostolic writings. The Saviour's promise was: \"When he, the Spirit of\ntruth, is come, he will guide you into all truth;\" literally, \"into all\nthe truth,\" that is, as immediately explained, all the truth pertaining\nto the Redeemer's person and work. When, therefore, after the fulfilment\nof this promise, Peter and the other apostles expounded to their\nbrethren the Scriptures of the Old Testament, wherein the Spirit of\nChrist \"testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory\nthat should follow,\" the same \"Spirit of Christ\" guided them to a true\napprehension of their meaning. If we cannot trust Peter and Paul, whom\nChrist himself personally commissioned to preach his gospel, qualified\nfor this work by the gift of the Holy Spirit, and endowed with\nmiraculous powers as the seal of their commission--if we cannot trust\nthese men to interpret the words of the Old Testament, then we cannot\ntrust the guidance of the Divine Spirit himself. But when we have\nadmitted, as we must, the authority of the New Testament writers as\ninterpreters of the Old Testament, a very important question remains to\nbe considered; and that is the _manner of their quotations_. This\nquestion we propose briefly to examine in respect to both _outward form_\nand _inward contents_.\n\n2. As it respects _outward form_, we cannot but notice at once the _very\nfree spirit_ of these quotations. It is manifest that these inspired\npenmen are not anxious about the verbal accuracy of the words cited. The\nspirit and scope of a passage, which constitute its true life and\nmeaning, are what they have in view, not the exact number of words\nliterally translated from Hebrew into Greek. It is well known that a\nvery large part of their quotations is made from the Greek version of\nthe seventy, called the Septuagint, which was in common use in their\nday. No one pretends that the translators who made the Septuagint were\ninspired, or that they always succeeded in hitting the exact meaning of\nthe Hebrew original. Yet, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the\nrobust good sense of the New Testament writers went straight forward\nwithout stopping to notice or criticise deviations from the Hebrew,\nprovided they did not affect the use which they wished to make of the\npassages quoted.\n\nBut the New Testament writers do not always conform their quotations to\nthe Septuagint. They frequently follow the Hebrew wholly or in part\nwhere the Greek version departs from it. Matthew, in particular, follows\nthe Hebrew in the Messianic quotations. Chap. 29, No. 19. Yet in these\ncases also they cite in the same free manner, abridging sometimes the\nHebrew passage quoted, or giving only its general sense. It may be that\nthus the wisdom of God intended to bear testimony against the undue\nexaltation of the letter of inspiration above its spirit.\n\nFrom a list of some two hundred and fifty citations placed side by side\nwith the original Hebrew passages and the Septuagint version of the same\nwe select the following as illustrations of the above remarks, each\npassage being literally translated. The words in brackets are regarded\nby some as not belonging to the true text.\n\n_Hebrew._ The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me; because the Lord hath\nanointed me to preach good tidings to the meek: he hath sent me to bind\nup the broken-hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the\nopening of the prison to the bound; to proclaim a year of acceptance to\nthe Lord. Isa. 61:1,2.\n\n_Septuagint._ The Spirit of the Lord is upon me; because he hath\nanointed me to preach good tidings to the poor; he hath sent me to heal\nthe broken-hearted, to proclaim release to the captives, and recovery of\nsight to the blind; to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord. Isa.\n61:1, 2.\n\n_New Testament._ The Spirit of the Lord is upon me; because he hath\nanointed me to preach good tidings to the poor, he hath sent me [to heal\nthe broken-hearted,] to proclaim release to the captives, and recovery\nof sight to the blind, to send away free the bruised (perhaps from the\nGreek of Isa. 58:6); to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord. Luke\n4:18, 19.\n\n_Hebrew._ Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of\nJerusalem: behold thy king shall come to thee: he is just and endowed\nwith salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal\nof an ass. Zech. 9:9.\n\n_Septuagint._ Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; proclaim, O daughter\nof Jerusalem: behold the king cometh to thee, just and exercising\nsalvation; he is meek, and mounted on an ass and a young colt. Zech.\n9:9.\n\n_New Testament._ Say ye to the daughter of Zion (Isa. 62:11): Behold thy\nking cometh to thee, meek, and mounted upon an ass, and upon a colt the\nfoal of an ass. Matt. 21:5.\n\nFear not, O daughter of Zion; behold thy king cometh sitting upon an\nass's colt. John 12:15.\n\n_Hebrew._ In hearing hear ye, but understand not; and in seeing see ye,\nbut perceive not. Make fat the heart of this people, and their ears make\nheavy, and their eyes cover over: lest they see with their eyes, and\nwith their ears hear, and with their heart understand, and turn, and one\nheal them. Isa. 6:9,10.\n\n_Septuagint._ In hearing ye shall hear, but understand not; and in\nseeing ye shall see, but perceive not. For the heart of this people\nbecame gross, and with their ears they heard heavily, and the eyes they\nclosed; lest at any time they should see with the eyes, and with the\nears should hear, and with the heart should understand, and should turn,\nand I should heal them. Isa. 6;9, 10.\n\n_New Testament._ In hearing ye shall hear, but understand not; and in\nseeing ye shall see, but perceive not. For the heart of this people\nbecame gross, and with the ears they heard heavily, and their eyes they\nclosed; lest at any time they should see with the eyes, and with the\nears should hear, and with the heart should understand, and should turn,\nand I should heal them. Matt. 13:14, 15; also Acts 28:26, 27.\n\nThat in seeing they may see and not perceive, and in hearing they may\nhear and not understand; lest at any time they should turn, and [their\nsins] should be forgiven them. Mark 4:12.\n\nThat in seeing they may not see, and in hearing they may not understand.\nLuke 8:10.\n\nHe hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they might\nnot see with the eyes, and understand with the heart, and be turned, and\nI should heal them. John 12:40.\n\nThese quotations of the same passage by different New Testament writers\nfurnish a remarkable example of their free manner, while the spirit and\nscope of the prophet are kept by all.\n\nIn Heb. 10:5 we have a quotation from the Septuagint where it differs\nwidely from the Hebrew of Psa. 40:7. This reads: \"Sacrifice and offering\nthou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened\" (Heb. _bored_ or\n_digged_). But the apostle quotes after the Septuagint: \"Sacrifice and\noffering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared for me.\" The\nattempted explanations of this difference are not very satisfactory. It\nis to be noticed, however, that the apostle builds no essential part of\nhis argument upon the clause in question.\n\nIn the long quotation from Jeremiah in Heb. 8:8-12, the clause, \"and I\nregarded them not\" (ver. 9), is perhaps correct for substance; since\nmany prefer to render the corresponding Hebrew clause not as in our\nversion--\"though I was a husband unto them,\"--but, \"and I rejected\nthem.\"\n\nWhen, on the contrary, the spirit and scope of a passage are lost in the\nversion of the Seventy, the New Testament writers quote directly from\nthe Hebrew. Examples are the following:\n\n\"When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of\nEgypt.\" Hosea 11:1, quoted in Matt. 2:15. Here the Seventy render: \"Out\nof Egypt I called my children,\" a variation from the original which\nmakes the passage inapplicable; since Israel, as God's first-born son\n(Exod. 4:22, 23), was the type of Christ, and not the individual\nIsraelites.\n\nAgain, to the passage Isa. 42:1-4, quoted in Matt. 12:18-21, the\nSeptuagint gives a wrong turn by the introductory words: \"Jacob my son,\nI will help him: Israel my chosen, my soul hath accepted him: I have put\nmy Spirit upon him; he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles,\"\netc.; whereas the Hebrew speaks not of Jacob and Israel, but of God's\nservant: \"Behold my servant, whom I uphold; my chosen, in whom my soul\ndelighteth,\" etc. Matthew accordingly follows the Hebrew, yet in a very\nfree manner: \"Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom\nmy soul delighteth,\" etc.\n\nFor other examples see Mal. 3:1, as quoted by Matt. 11:10; Mark 1:2;\nLuke 7:27; Isa. 9:1, 2, as quoted by Matt. 4:15, 16.\n\n3. Passing now to the consideration of the New Testament citations on\nthe side of their _inward contents_, the first question, that arises has\nrespect to the so-called _principle of accommodation_. There is a sense\nin which the writers of the New Testament sometimes employ the language\nof the Old in the way of accommodation; that is, they use its\nphraseology, originally applied in a different connection, simply as\nexpressing in an apt and forcible manner the thoughts which they wish to\nconvey. Of this we have a beautiful example in Rom. 10:18, where the\napostle says, in reference to the proclamation of the gospel: \"But I\nsay, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the\nearth, and their words unto the ends of the world,\" meaning that what\nthe psalmist says of the instruction given by the heavens, Psa. 19:1-4,\nis true of the preaching of the word; so that none are excusable for\ntheir unbelief. Another striking example is found in the same chapter\n(ver. 6-8), where \"phraseology originally used by Moses to express the\nway of justification contained in the law (Deut. 30:11-14) is adapted to\nthe gospel as properly descriptive of the salvation propounded in it.\"\nDavidson's Hermeneutics, p. 471.\n\nBut that the Saviour and his apostles used accommodation in the commonly\nreceived sense of the term; that is, that they quoted, in accommodation\nto the ideas of their age, passages from the Old Testament as applicable\nto the Messiah and his kingdom, which they knew to have no such\napplication when fairly and legitimately interpreted; that, for example,\nthey used the hundred and tenth psalm as a prophecy of the Messiah\n(Matt. 22:41-46; Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-44; Acts 2:34, 35; Heb.\n1:13), simply because this was the current interpretation of their\ntimes--this is not to be admitted for a moment. That the Saviour dealt\nprudently with the prejudices of his age is admitted; but he did not\nbuild upon them his claim to be the Messiah, nor solemnly appeal to the\nauthority of Moses and the prophets knowing this to be only a dream of\nfanciful interpretation. If Christ and his apostles taught any thing, it\nwas that he had come in accordance with the prophecies of the Old\nTestament, and in fulfilment of these prophecies. Did they indeed, in\nall this, only act upon the maxim which Paul rejects with abhorrence as\ndamnable? \"If the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto\nhis glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner? And not rather (as we\nbe slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say), Let us do\nevil that good may come? whose damnation is just.\"\n\n4. The writers of the New Testament often cite the Old by way of\n_argument_. Thus the Saviour argues against divorce at the husband's\nwill \"for every cause\" by an appeal to the original institution of\nmarriage (Matt. 19:3-6); and Paul proves that the man is the head of the\nwoman, and that she owes subjection to him, from the order of creation\nand its accompanying circumstances. 1 Cor. 11:8, 9; 1 Tim. 2:11-14.\nRespecting this class of quotations, it is only necessary to remark that\nthe validity of the arguments depends on the historic truth and divine\nauthority of the passages adduced. The Saviour and his apostles\nprofessedly build their arguments on the record of the Old Testament. If\nthis is sand--mythical quicksand--their house falls, and their authority\nwith it. But if the foundation is rock--an inspired record of\nfacts--their house stands, and with it their character as truthful\nteachers.\n\n5. Far more numerous are the passages which are cited as _prophecies of\nChrist and his kingdom_. These are introduced by various formulas: \"That\nit might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet;\"\n\"that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet;\" \"in\nthem is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias;\" \"this day is this Scripture\nfulfilled in your ears;\" \"this Scripture must needs have been\nfulfilled;\" \"it is contained in Scripture;\" \"another Scripture saith;\"\n\"this that is written must yet be accomplished in me,\" etc.\n\nThe common formula, \"that it might be fulfilled,\" means that the event\nrecorded took place _in order that_ the purpose of God announced in the\nprophecy might be accomplished. The prophecy was not the main thing, but\nthe purpose of God contained in it. For the accomplishment of this\npurpose, and thus of the prophecy which revealed it, God's truth was\npledged. In the same way are to be understood the words of John (chap.\n12:39, 40): \"Therefore they could not believe because that Esaias saith\nagain, He hath blinded their eyes,\" etc. The hinderance to their belief\nlay not in the prophecy, but in that which the prophecy announced.\n\n6. Of the prophecies quoted, some refer _immediately to Christ_. Such\nare the following: \"The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right\nhand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool\" (Matt. 22:44, from Psa.\n110:1); \"The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever\nafter the order of Melchizedek\" (Heb. 7:21, from Psa. 110:4); \"He was\nled as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his\nshearer, so opened he not his mouth,\" etc. (Acts 8:32, 33, from Isa.\n53:7, 8); \"A Prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your\nbrethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear,\" etc. (Acts 3:22, 23; 7:37,\nfrom Deut. 18:15, 18, 19).\n\n7. Others refer _ultimately to Christ, but under a type_. An undeniable\nexample is the following: \"A bone of him shall not be broken\" (John\n19:36, from Exod. 12:46; Numb. 9:12); words originally spoken of the\npaschal lamb, which was the type of Christ, and now fulfilled in the\ngreat Antitype. Again, we read in Hosea (chap. 11:1): \"When Israel was a\nchild, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt;\" words which\nMatthew quotes as fulfilled in Christ (chap. 2:15). It was the purpose\nof God, namely, that the history of Israel, God's first-born son (Exod.\n4:22, 23), in his national childhood, should foreshadow that of Jesus,\nthe only begotten Son of God.\n\nTo the same class belongs apparently the following citation: \"What is\nman, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest\nhim? Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him\nwith glory and honor, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:\nthou hast put all things in subjection under his feet.\" Heb. 2:6-8, from\nPsa. 8:4-6. It seems impossible to deny that the immediate reference of\nthe psalm is to man's exalted dignity and high prerogatives as the lord\nof this lower world. But, as the writer to the Hebrews argues, the words\nhave no complete fulfilment in man considered apart from Christ. It is\nin the person of Christ alone that the high destiny of human nature\nfinds its full realization. He is made Lord of all, and \"crowned with\nglory and honor\" for himself and for all his disciples also, who shall\nreign with him in glory for ever. We add one more example from Heb. 1:5,\nwhere the writer quotes and applies to Christ the words of Nathan to\nDavid: \"I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son.\" 2 Sam.\n7:14. The promise undeniably had immediate respect to Solomon; not to\nSolomon, however, in his simple personality, but to Solomon as the first\nafter David of a line of kings that should end in Christ, in whom alone\nit has its true fulfilment. God took Solomon, and in him the whole line\nof kings on David's throne, into the relation of sonship, and thus of\nheirship. Rom. 8:17; Gal. 4:7. To Solomon, as God's son, the kingdom was\nconfirmed for ever through Christ; and Solomon's lower sonship,\nmoreover, adumbrated the higher sonship of the last and greatest of his\nsons, to whom the promise was: \"He shall be great, and shall be called\nthe Son of the Highest; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne\nof his father David: and he shall reign over the house of Jacob for\never; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.\" Luke 1:32, 33.\n\nTo draw the exact line of separation between the two above named classes\nof citations is difficult, and in some cases perhaps impossible. Nor is\nit necessary, since the essential truth is, that all these prophecies\nfind their accomplishment in Christ; those of the former class directly,\nthose of the latter through types of divine appointment.\n\nThe exegesis of the New Testament quotations presents many difficult\nquestions, relating partly to the true rendering of the original words,\npartly to the deviations of the Septuagint from the Hebrew, and the\ncitations from both the Septuagint and the Hebrew; partly to the\noriginal application of the passages cited and the use made of them in\nthe New Testament. For the details the student must be referred to the\ncommentators. All that has been here attempted is a statement of the\ngeneral principles that must govern us in interpreting the quotations\nfrom the Old Testament which are found in the New.\n\n\n\n\nINDEX OF SUBJECTS.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nN.B. THE FIGURES REFER TO THE PAGES.\n\n\nA.\n\nAbrahamic covenant,\n  the ground work of the Pentateuch, 225;\n  of the gospel, 116, seq.\n\nAdam, his apostasy the key to the plan of redemption, 115.\n\nAccentuation, Hebrew system of, 265.\n\nAcknowledged epistles, 91, seq.\n\nAccommodation, principle of, 635.\n\nActs of the Apostles,\n  a natural sequel to the Gospels, 87;\n  external testimonies to the book, 88;\n  internal evidences, 89;\n  its credibility, 90;\n  coincidences with the Pauline epistles, 90;\n  its plan and divisions, 440;\n  its offices, 442, seq.\n\nAhasuerus, the Xerxes of history, 261.\n\nAlamoth, 288.\n\nAlexander the Great, his visit to Jerusalem, 263, 325.\n\nAlexandria, the Septuagint version made here, 199.\n\nAlexandrine Jews, their use of the Greek language, 369.\n\nAlexandrine manuscript, 385.\n\nAllegorical applications of Scripture, 553.\n\nAllegories; their interpretation, 558, seq.\n\nAltar,\n  of incense, 589;\n  of burnt-offering, 590.\n\nAl-taschith, 288.\n\nAmmonian sections, 375.\n\nAmos, 336;\n  book of, 336, seq.\n\nAnalogy of faith, 576, seq.\n\nAntilegomena, 91, 96, seq.\n\nAntioch in Pisidia, 442.\n\nAntioch in Syria, the centre of Paul's missionary labors, 441, 442, 449.\n\nApocalypse,\n  meaning of the term, 503;\n  its apostolic authorship, 503;\n  its date, 506;\n  various schemes of interpretation, 507;\n  symbolic import of its numbers, 508, seq.\n\nApocrypha, meaning of the word, 350.\n\nApocryphal books of the Old Testament, 198, 350, seq.;\n  uncertainty of their dates, 350;\n  none of them exist in Hebrew or were received into the Hebrew canon, 350;\n  received by the Alexandrine Jews, 351;\n  estimation by the early Christians and by Protestants, 351.\n\nApocryphal Gospels and Acts, 517.\n\nApostolic canons, so-called, 514.\n\nApostolic epistles,\n  a natural sequel to the Gospels, 445;\n  their occasions and offices, 445, seq.\n\nApostolic men, 109;\n  their writings, 483.\n\nApostolic fathers, 511, seq.\n\nApostles,\n  their peculiar office, 103;\n  their inspiration, 104, seq.\n\nApostle's Creed, 517.\n\nAquila and his version, 204.\n\nAramaean or Aramaic and its branches, 175;\n  became the language of the Jews after the captivity, 177, 369.\n\nArk of the covenant, 588.\n\nAristeas' account of the Septuagint version, 199.\n\nAristobulus' account of the same, 199.\n\nArmenian version, 409.\n\nArtaxerxes, 261;\n  Artaxerxes Longimanus, 261, 349.\n\nAssyrian or square character, 172, 175.\n\nAtonement, great day of, 603.\n\nAuthenticity of the Gospels, 66, seq.;\n  of the Pentateuch, 120, seq.\nSee further under the several books.\n\nAutographs of the sacred writers, their early disappearance, 61, 209.\n\n\nB.\n\nBabylon, church in, 492.\n\nBabylonish captivity, 255.\n\nBarnabas, his relation to Mark, 427.\n\nBarnabas, so-called Epistle of, 46, 100, 516.\n\nBaruch, apocryphal book of, 358.\n\nBashmuric version, 407.\n\nBelshazzar, identification of, 327.\n\nBerosus' account of Nebuchadnezzar, 328.\n\nBeza's, or the Cambridge manuscript, 387.\n\nBible, meaning of the word, 165;\n  variety of its authors and dates of its books, 168, 372, seq.;\n  their arrangement, 169, seq., 371, seq.;\n  different designations of, 165, seq.;\n  its code of morals, 150, seq.;\n  harmony of its parts, 152, 154;\n  its power over the conscience and life, 154.\n\nBlood, sacrificial, the atonement lay in it, 597;\n  sprinkling of, 601, 603;\n  when carried into the sanctuary, 604.\n\nBooks of the New Testament, public reading of, 63.\nSee further under New Testament and the several books.\n\nBooks of the Old Testament.\nSee under Bible and Old Testament.\n\nBranch as a designation of the Messiah, 590.\n\nBriefs, 377.\n\nBurning of sacrifices, signification of, 602;\n  without the camp, 605.\n\nBurnt-offerings, 598.\n\n\nC.\n\nCambyses, 261.\n\nCanaanites, their extirpation, 140, 244.\n\nCandlestick, golden, 589.\n\nCanon, meaning of the word, 183;\n  its extent, 112.\n\nCanon of the New Testament, its gradual formation, 394, seq.;\n  first recognition of a canon, 398;\n  the books received separately and on full evidence, 399;\n  completion of the present canon, 398;\n  important ancient canons, 398.\n\nCanon of the Old Testament, settled by Ezra, 123, 193, seq.;\n  principle of its settlement, 147;\n  Josephus' account of, 197;\n  Origen's and Jerome's, 197;\n  canon of the Pentateuch, 183, seq.;\n  of the historical books, 185, seq.;\n  of the prophetical and poetic books, 190, seq.\n\nCanticles, 292.\n\nChaldaisms, 307.\n\nChaldee language, parts of the Old Testament written in it, 175.\nSee further under Targums.\n\nChapters, origin of, 174, 377.\n\nCherubim over the ark, God's dwelling-place, 588.\n\nChrist, his person and advent the central point of Christianity, 32, 411;\n  his character verifies itself, 71, seq.;\n  manner of his teaching, 77, seq.;\n  manner in which he manifested his deity, 79, seq.;\n  his infallibility an axiom of Christianity, 102;\n  preparation for his advent, 114;\n  union of the kingly and priestly offices in his person, 590;\n  question of his second advent and personal reign on earth, 629, seq..\n\nChristian church, inauguration of, 443.\n\nChristianity, its historic basis, 31, 410.\n\nChronicles, books of, originally one 255,;\n  meaning of the name, 255;\n  their characteristics, 256;\n  their place in the Hebrew canon, 257;\n  difficulties connected with them, 257, seq..\n\nChronology, of the Old Testament, 230;\n  of the book of Judges, 247;\n  of the books of Kings, 255;\n  of the book of Ezra, 260.\n\nChurch lessons, 378.\n\nClean and unclean, Mosaic distinctions of, 605.\n\nClement of Alexandria, 40.\nSee further under various New Testament books.\n\nClement of Rome,\n  first epistle of, 100, 511, seq.;\n  its occasion, scope, and style, 512;\n  its reference to the Epistle to the Hebrews, 483;\n  second Epistle of, not genuine, 512;\n  so-called Clementines, or Recognitions of Clement, 513;\n  so-called Constitutions of Clement, and apostolic canons, 514.\n\nCodex Vaticanus, 384;\n  Sinaiticus, 385;\n  Alexandrinus, 385, seq.;\n  Ephraemi, 386;\n  Dublinensis, 387;\n  Bezae, 387;\n  Purpureus, 388.\nSee further on pages 402, 404.\n\nColosse and church of the Colossians, 463.\n\nColossians, epistle to the,\n  its relation to the epistle to the Ephesians, 461;\n  its occasion, scope, and plan, 464.\n\nComparisons, 552.\n\nContext, definition of, 531;\n  its importance, 531.\n\nContinuous writing, 172, 373.\n\nContradictions, apparent, reconciliation of, 543.\n\nCoptic version, 407.\n\nCorinth and the Corinthian church, 454.\n\nCorinthians, first epistle to the,\n  date and place of writing, 453:\n  occasion and scope, 454;\n  contents, 455;\n  contrast with the epistle to the Galatians, 456.\n\nCorinthians, second epistle to the,\n  date and place of writing, 456;\n  occasion, contents, and peculiar character, 457.\n\nCornelius, 441.\n\nCouncils, general, their later introduction, 41, 97.\n\nCouncil of Laodicea, its canon, 399.\n\nCredibility of the gospels. See gospel narratives.\n\nCrete and the Cretan churches, 480.\n\nCriticism of the sacred text,\n  its office, 209;\n  of the Old Testament text, its sources, manuscripts, 209;\n  ancient versions, 210;\n  primary editions, 210;\n  parallel passages, 211;\n  quotations in the New Testament, 211, 632, seq.;\n  criticism of the New Testament text, its state, 380, seq.;\n  various readings, 381;\n  materials for correction, 383;\n  manuscripts, 384, seq.;\n  primary editions, 388;\n  the received text, 389, seq.;\n  principles of textual criticism, 391, seq.\n\nCursive manuscripts, 60, 375, 388.\n\nCyrus, signification of the name, 306\n  his decree for liberating the Jews, 306\n\n\nD.\n\nDamasus, his agency with respect to the vulgate, 402.\n\nDaniel, 322.\n\nDaniel, book of,\n  its place in the Jewish canon, 322;\n  arrangement and contents, 323;\n  genuineness, 324, seq.;\n  unity, 324;\n  testimonies to it, Josephus, 325;\n  the Saviour, 325, seq.;\n  its language, 326, 329;\n  difficulties connected with its chronology and history, 327;\n  its supernatural contents, 330.\n\nDaniel, apocryphal additions to, 359.\n\nDanites, their conquest of Laish, 243, 245.\n\nDarius Hystaspes, 261, 345.\n\nDarius the Median, 328.\n\nDavid, 249, seq.;\n  typical character of his kingdom and office, 582.\n\nDeluge, 229.\n\nDemetrius Phalerens, his agency in the Septuagint version, 201.\n\nDeuteronomy, book of,\n  meaning of the name, 238;\n  its authorship, 124, seq.;\n  its relation to the earlier parts of the law, 127;\n  design, 128;\n  peculiar character, 129;\n  contents, 238, seq.\n\nDiatesseron of Tatian, 50.\n\nDifficulties,\n  treatment of, 34, 85;\n  of the Mosaic economy, 138, 571;\n  of the book of Genesis, 229, seq.\n\nDiognetus, epistle to, 45.\n\nDisputed books. See Antilegomena.\n\nDouble sense,\n  question of, 618, seq.;\n  in the historic types, 618;\n  in the Messianic Psalms, 619.\n\nDublin manuscript, 387.\n\n\nE.\n\nEbionites, their gospel, 422.\n\nEcclesiastes, book of, 290, seq.\n\nEcclesiasticus, apocryphal book of, 357.\n\nElihu, 283.\n\nEgypt, the sojourn in, 233.\n\nEleazar, martyrdom of, 361.\n\nEnoch, apocryphal book of, 501.\n\nEphesus and the Ephesian church, 465, 479.\n\nEphesians, Epistle to the, 462, 465, seq.;\n  its relation to the epistle to the Colossians, 462;\n  occasion and general character, 466;\n  address and authorship, 466;\n  contents and divisions, 467, seq.\n\nEphraem manuscript, 386.\n\nEpistles,\n  apostolic, 445;\n  Pauline, 446.\nSee further under the several epistles.\n\nEsdras, apocryphal books of, 352.\n\nEsther, book of, 263.\n\nEsther, apocryphal additions to, 355.\n\nEthiopian version, 408.\n\nEusebius, account of the New Testament canon, 398.\nSee further under the various New Testament books.\n\nEusebian canons, 376.\n\nEuthalius and stichometry, 374.\n\nEvidences of Christianity, internal and experimental, 149, seq.\nFor the historic see gospel narratives, Pentateuch, etc.\n\nExodus,\n  meaning of the word, 232;\n  unity, divisions, and contents of the book, 232;\n  time of the sojourn in Egypt, 233.\n\nExegesis defined, 521.\n\nExpositions,\n  inept, 540;\n  incompatible, 541;\n  forced, 544.\n\nExpositor,\n  his office, 521;\n  qualifications, 522, seq.\n\nEzekiel, 316, seq.\n\nEzekiel, book of, 320, seq.\n\nEzra,\n  his work in the restoration, 258;\n  in settling the Hebrew canon, 123, 147.\n\nEzra, book of, 258;\n  its chronology, 260.\n\n\nF.\n\nFables, distinguished from parables, 554.\n\nFigurative language, 546;\n  its ascertainment, 547, seq.;\n  its interpretation, 557, seq.\n\nFigures, different kinds of, 550, seq.\n\n\nG.\n\nGalatia and the Galatian church, 458.\n\nGalatians, Epistle to the,\n  date and place of writing, 458;\n  occasion and scope, 459;\n  contents and divisions, 460, seq.\n\nGenesis, book of,\n  meaning of the word, 224;\n  its relation to the following books, 130;\n  authorship, 132, 227;\n  introductory office, 225;\n  divisions, 226, seq.;\n  contents and difficulties, 227, seq.\n\nGentiles, their reception of the gospel, and introduction to the church,\n443, 447.\n\nGenuineness. See under the several divisions and books of the Bible.\n\nGittith, 287.\n\nGnosticism, 477.\n\nGospel, meaning and different uses of the word, 411.\n\nGospel of the Ebionites, 422.\n\nGospels,\n  relation to each other, 417;\n  chronology, 419;\n  relative size of, 420.\n\nGospels, synoptical, 50;\n  their earlier composition, 51;\n  their agreements, 412;\n  differences, 413;\n  theories of their origin, that of mutual dependence, 413;\n  of an original document, 413;\n  of apostolic tradition, 414, seq.;\n  their incomplete character, 417;\n  relation to the fourth gospel, 419.\n\nGospels, the several. See under the head of each.\n\nGospel narratives,\n  their genuineness, 36, seq.;\n  written successively at intervals, 37;\n  earlier histories of our Lord, 37;\n  external evidences considered, 38, seq.;\n  internal, 50, seq.;\n  their uncorrupt preservation, 59, seq.;\n  their authenticity and credibility, character of the writers, 67, seq.;\n  of the works recorded, 68;\n  certainty of our Lord's resurrection, 70;\n  the character of Jesus verifies itself, 71, seq.;\n  supernatural character of the facts recorded in the gospels, 84;\n  objections considered, 85.\n\nGospel harmonies, 419.\n\nGothic version, 408.\n\nGreek of the New Testament, its peculiar character, 57, 368\n  its adaptation to the wants of the New Testament writers, 366;\n  its introduction into Asia and Egypt, 367.\n\n\nH.\n\nHabakkuk, book of, 342.\n\nHaggai, book of, 345.\n\nHagiographa, 169;\n  Targums on the, 208.\n\nHaman, 263.\n\nHaphtaroth, 173.\n\nHarmony between the Old and New Testament,\n  in spirit, 568, seq.;\n  in doctrine, 570.\n\nHarmonies of the gospels, 419, 537.\n\nHeave-offerings, 601.\n\nHebrew alphabet, 176;\n  vowel points and accents, 178.\n\nHebrew commonwealth,\n  its establishment under Joshua, 241;\n  its condition under the Judges, 245;\n  the Kings, 249, 253;\n  at the restoration, 256, 258, 261.\n\nHebrew language, 175, 366;\n  its disuse after the captivity, 177, 367;\n  succeeded by the Aramaean, 367.\n\nHebrew text,\n  Jewish divisions of, 173;\n  manuscripts, 189.\n\nHebrews, Epistle to the, 482;\n  question of its authorship, 482;\n  date, and persons addressed, 484;\n  its central theme, 485.\n\nHellenistic Jews, 368.\n\nHermas, Shepherd of, 100, 517.\n\nHermeneutics defined, 521.\n\nHeretics, their testimony to the gospels, 48, seq.\n\nHexapla of Origen, 205.\n\nHexaplar, Syriac version, 406.\n\nHistorical books of the Old Testament, 240, seq.;\n  of the New Testament, 410, seq.\n\nHistorical types, 581, seq.\n\nHolocausts, or burnt-offerings, 598.\n\nHomologoumena, 91.\n\nHosea, book of, 333.\n\nHugo, Cardinal, divides the Bible into chapters, 174, 377.\n\n\nI.\n\nIgnatius and his testimony, 46;\n  his epistles, 514.\n\nInfidelity, its fragmentary method of argument, 34.\n\nInspiration of the New Testament,\n  the term defined, 101,\n  tests of, 102, seq.;\n  in what sense plenary, question of its limitation, 111;\n  inspiration of the Old Testament books, 134, 142, 148, 195, seq., 215,\n    etc.\n\nInterpretation,\n  its human and divine sides, 526;\n  of figurative language, 527, seq.\n\nInterpreter,\n  his office, 521;\n  qualifications, 522, seq.\n\nIrenaeus and his testimony, 39. See further under the several books.\n\nIsaiah, his age and prophetical activity, 299.\n\nIsaiah, book of,\n  its two main parts, 299;\n  contents and divisions of the first part, 299, seq.;\n  the second part, 302;\n  its genuineness, 303, seq.;\n  its form that of true prophecy, 305.\n\n\nJ.\n\nJames the apostle, and James the Lord's brother, question respecting, 487.\n\nJames, Epistle of,\n  its author, date, and place of writing, 488;\n  genuineness and reception into the canon, 489, seq.;\n  practical character, 490;\n  alleged disagreement with the Pauline doctrine of justification, 491.\n\nJasher, book of, 243.\n\nJason, his five books, 360.\n\nJeremiah, sketch of his life, 310.\n\nJeremiah, book of, 309, seq.;\n  general character of his prophecies, 312;\n  their arrangement, 313;\n  arrangement of the Alexandrine version, 314.\n\nJeremiah, apocryphal epistle of, 358.\n\nJeroboam, his sinful policy and its results, 254.\n\nJerome,\n  his account of the Old Testament canon, 197;\n  of the New Testament canon, 399;\n  revision of the Latin Bible, 400, seq.\nSee further under the several books of the New Testament.\n\nJerusalem, the first centre of Christianity, 440.\n\nJerusalem Targum, 207.\n\nJesus. See Christ.\n\nJews,\n  their preparation for Christ's advent, 114;\n  their institutions typical of Christ as well as preparatory, 146.\n\nJob, book of,\n  its plan, 280;\n  design, 282;\n  age of Job and of the book, 283;\n  question of its authorship, 283;\n  its historic character, 284.\n\nJoel, book of, 334.\n\nJohn the apostle, notices of, 436, seq.\n\nJohn's gospel,\n  its later composition, 53; 437;\n  sources, 438;\n  peculiarity in respect to matter, 438, seq.;\n  general scope and special office, 418, 439.\n\nJohn's epistles,\n  the first epistle, 93, 497, seq.;\n  the second and third, 500.\n\nJohn the Presbyter, 503.\n\nJonah, book of, 338.\n\nJonathan, Targum of, 207.\n\nJosephus,\n  his account of the Old Testament canon, 195, 197;\n  testimony to the book of Daniel, 325;\n  account of the feast of Purim, 263.\n\nJoshua, book of,\n  its office and contents, 241;\n  age and authorship, 243;\n  authenticity and credibility, 244.\n\nJoshua the high-priest, as a type of Christ, 590.\n\nJudaizing teachers, 448;\n  in Galatia, 459;\n  among the Colossians, 463;\n  of the Pastoral Epistles, 477.\n\nJude, Epistle of, 501, seq.\n\nJudges of the Old Testament, their character and office, 245.\n\nJudges, book of, 245, seq.;\n  its chronology, 247.\n\n\nK.\n\nKephalaia, 375.\n\nKeys of the kingdom of heaven, 575.\n\nKingdom of Israel,\n  its establishment, 249;\n  division, 254;\n  extinction of the kingdom of the ten tribes, 254.\n\nKingdom of Judah,\n  its origin, 254;\n  its extinction, 255.\n\nKingly office, typical of Christ, 118, 249, 582.\n\nKings, books of,\n  originally one, 252,\n  their contents and office, 252;\n  chronology, 255.\n\n\nL.\n\nLamentations of Jeremiah, 314;\n  peculiar structure of the book, 315.\n\nLaodiceans, epistle to the, 465.\n\nLast days, meaning of the term, 608;\n  prophecies concerning, 611, seq.\n\nLaw. See Pentateuch.\n\nLectionaries, 378.\n\nLeviticus, book of,\n  meaning of the word, 235;\n  its contents, 235, seq.\n\nLimitations in the interpretation of languages, 542.\n\nLuke the Evangelist,\n  his origin and relation to Paul, 431;\n  his sources of information, 432;\n  his identity with the author of the Acts of the Apostles, 440.\n\nLuke's gospel,\n  its date, 432;\n  plan and character, 433;\n  peculiar matter, 434;\n  its integrity, 435;\n  its genealogy of our Lord, 433, 435.\n\nLyons and Vienne, letter of the churches of, 40, 88, 503.\n\n\nM.\n\nMaccabees, family of, 359;\n  origin of the name, 360.\n\nMaccabees, apocryphal books of, 360, seq.\n\nMalachi, book of, 348.\n\nManasses, apocryphal prayer of, 359.\n\nManuscripts, ancient mode of writing, 60, 172, 373, 382.\n\nManuscripts of the Old Testament,\n  their age and form, 180;\n  synagogue rolls, 181.\n\nManuscripts of the New Testament,\n  their early multiplication, 64;\n  noted manuscripts, Vatican, 384;\n  Sinai, 385;\n  Alexandrine, 385, seq.;\n  Ephraem, 386,\n  Dublin palimpsest, 387;\n  Beza's, 387, seq.;\n  purple, 388;\n  cursive manuscripts, 388.\n\nManuscripts of the old Latin, 402;\n  of the vulgate, 404.\n\nManuscript of the Gothic version called the Silver manuscript, 408.\n\nMarcion and his gospel, 49, 435.\n\nMark the Evangelist,\n  notices of, 427;\n  his relation to Peter and Paul, 427, seq.;\n  in what sense he was Peter's interpreter, 428.\n\nMark's gospel,\n  place, time of writing, and language, 428;\n  its design, 429;\n  its peculiarities, 430;\n  question respecting its closing passage, 430, seq.\n\nMaschil, 287.\n\nMasora and Masoretic text, 178, seq.\n\nMattathias, 359.\n\nMatthew the Evangelist, 420.\n\nMatthew's gospel,\n  its original language, 421;\n  present Greek form, 422;\n  primary design, 424;\n  characteristics, 425;\n  chronology, 426;\n  place and time of writing, 426;\n  integrity, 426;\n  its genealogy of our Lord, 424, 435.\n\nMeat-offerings, 600.\n\nMelchizedek, his person and typical character, 583.\n\nMemphitic version, 407.\n\nMessiah. See Christ.\n\nMessianic Psalms, different principles of interpretation,\n that of exclusive reference to Christ, 620;\n that of an ideal personage, 620, seq.;\n the typical view, 621.\n\nMetaphor, 551.\n\nMetonymy, 551.\n\nMicah, book of, 340.\n\nMichtam, 287.\n\nMosaic economy,\n  Christ its end, 118;\n  its preparatory character, 138;\n  objections to it considered, 138, 571;\n  its spirit was love, 139, seq.\n\nMottoes, remarks respecting, 533\n\nMuratorian canon, 48, 89, 93, 398, etc.\n\nMyths, remarks concerning, 556, 560.\n\n\nN.\n\nNahum, Prophecy of, 341.\n\nNathan's writings, 251.\n\nNazarenes, their gospel, 422.\n\nNebuchadnezzar, his expeditions to Judea, 327.\n\nNeginah and Neginoth, 287.\n\nNehemiah, his work in the restoration, 261.\n\nNehemiah, book of, 261, seq.\n\nNehiloth, 287.\n\nNew Jerusalem of Ezekiel's vision, 321, 627.\n\nNineveh. See Nahum.\n\nNitrian desert, Syriac manuscripts from, 405.\n\nNumbers, book of, 237.\n\nNumbers, symbolical, 508, 564, 610.\n\n\nO.\n\nObadiah, Prophecy of, 338.\n\nOblations, or unbloody offerings, 600.\n\nOld Latin. See versions, Latin.\n\nOnkelos, Targum of, 206.\n\nOrigen,\n  his account of the Old Testament canon, 197;\n  of the New Testament canon, 398;\n  his Hexapla, 205.\nSee further under the several New Testament books.\n\n\nP.\n\nPaley's Horae Paulinae, 94.\n\nPalimpsests, 60, 384;\n  examples of, 386.\n\nPantaenus, 40.\n\nPapias, 44. See also under the several books of the New Testament.\n\nPapyrus, 59; rolls of, 384.\n\nParables, 553;\n  their interpretation, 560, seq.\n\nParagraph Bibles, 378.\n\nParallelisms, 211, 534;\n  real and verbal, 534;\n  doctrinal and historic, 535, seq.\n\nParallelisms, poetic, 274, seq.\n\nParchments, 59, seq.\n\nParshiyoth, 173.\n\nParticular Introduction, its province 214.\n\nPassover, its sacrificial and typical character, 599.\n\nPastoral epistles, 92;\n  their place in Paul's history, 475, seq.;\n  character of the false teachers described in them, 477;\n  their genuineness and peculial tone, 478\n\nPaul, the apostle of the Gentiles,\n  and his peculiar qualifications, 447;\n  his style, 448;\n  three missionary journeys, 449.\n\nPauline epistles, 446;\n  commentaries on them, 449;\n  their connection with Paul's history contained in the Acts, 449;\n  principle of their arrangement, and groups into which they fall, 450.\n\nPentateuch,\n  meaning of the term, 120;\n  its admitted existence from Ezra's time, 120;\n  its authorship, 120, seq.;\n  relation of Deuteronomy to the preceding books, 126, 239;\n  of Genesis to the following, 130, 225; unity of its plan, 132, 224;\n  its authenticity, 134, seq.;\n  the Jewish polity presupposes it, 135;\n  difficulties connected with it, 137, seq.;\n  its preparatory office, 141;\n  constitutes a Jewish division of the Old Testament, 169.\n\nPersonal reign of Christ, question concerning the, 629, seq.\n\nPersonification, 551.\n\nPeshito. See Syriac versions.\n\nPeter,\n  his leadership among the apostles, 441;\n  in what sense a rock, 575.\n\nPeter, first epistle of, 491.\n\nPeter, second epistle of, 493;\n  question of its genuineness, 494, seq.;\n  its design, 497.\n\nPhilemon, Epistle to, 469.\n\nPhiloxenian. See Syriac versions.\n\nPhilippi and the Philippian church, 469.\n\nPhilippians, Epistle to the,\n  date, occasion, and place of writing, 469;\n  contents and peculiar character, 470.\n\nPhoenician language, 175.\n\nPlan of redemption,\n  its unity and progress, 614;\n  its foreshadowings, 616;\n  its end, 617.\n\nPoetry, Hebrew,\n  its characteristics, 266, seq.;\n  its outward form, 274, seq.;\n  its diction, 278;\n  its offices, 279.\n\nPoetical books, so-called Hebrew, 169, 265.\n\nPolycarp, 46.\n\nPolycarp, epistle of, 515.\n\nPothinus, 40.\n\nPriesthood of our Lord, 485.\n\nPriesthood, Levitical,\n  typical of Christ, 119, 236;\n\n  points of agreement specified, a common human nature, appointment by\n    God, mediatorship between God and the people through propitiatory\n    sacrifice, 594, seq.;\n  points of disagreement incident to the type, 595, seq.;\n  central idea of priesthood, 596.\n\nPriesthood of Melchizedek, 583, seq.\n\nPriestly garments, 596.\n\nProphecy,\n  interpretation of, 607, seq.;\n  its progressive fulfilment, 622;\n  question of its literal and figurative meaning, 624, seq.;\n  its representative use of Old Testament history and institutions, 624.\n\nProphecies,\n  specific, 607;\n  generic, 608;\n  with the succession of events, 609;\n  without it, 611;\n  their inward view of God's kingdom, 613, seq.\n\nProphetical books and their office, 143, seq.\n\nProphetical office, typical of Christ, 118, 582.\n\nProphets, Hebrew, their office and character, 294, seq.\n\nProphets,\n  as a Jewish division of the Old Testament canon, 169;\n  greater prophets, 169, 294;\n  less or minor, 169, 332;\n  Masoretic and Septuagint arrangement of, 332.\n\nProverbs, 555.\n\nProverbs, book of,\n  its office, 288;\n  outward form and divisions, 289;\n  arrangement in its present form, 290.\n\nPsalms, book of,\n  its character and office, 284;\n  fivefold division, 285, seq.;\n  titles, 286, seq;\n  Messianic psalms, 619.\n\nPsalms, alleged Maccabean, 196.\n\nPsalters, Gallican and Roman, 400, 403.\n\nPseudo-Jonathan, Targum of, 207.\n\nPtolemy Philadelphus, his agency in respect to the Septuagint version, 199.\n\nPunic language, 175.\n\nPurple manuscript, 388.\n\nPurim, feast of, 263.\n\n\nQ.\n\nQuotations of the early fathers, 37.\n\nQuotations from the Old Testament in the New,\n  their use in sacred criticism, 211;\n  authority, 632;\n  outward form, 633;\n  free spirit, 635;\n  principle of accommodation considered, 635;\n  quotations for argument, 637;\n  of Old Testament prophecies referring to Christ--directly, 638;\n    in a typical way, 638.\nSee further under Septuagint.\n\nQuotations from the Old Testament in the Talmud and Rabbinic writers,\n  211, seq.\n\n\nR.\n\nRabbinic writers, 211, seq.\n\nRabbinic mode of writing, 176.\n\nReason, its office in interpretation, 544.\n\nRestoration of the Jews, question concerning the, 628.\n\nResurrection of Jesus, 70.\n\nResurrection, first and second, 630.\n\nRevelation,\n  its unity, 33, 566, 568;\n  diversity, 566, seq.;\n  each particular revelation perfect in its place, 571;\n  the later revelations interpret the earlier, 572.\n\nRevelation, book of. See Apocalypse.\n\nRitual types, 585, seq.\n\nRomans and Roman church, 451.\n\nRomans, Epistle to the,\n  its date and place of writing, 451;\n  occasion and contents, 452;\n  office, 453.\n\nRuth, book of, 248;\n  supplementary to the history of David's family. 248.\n\n\nS.\n\nSacrifices,\n  typical of Christ, 591, seq.;\n  their essential character, 597, seq.;\n  Mosaic classification of them, sin-offerings and trespass-offerings, 598;\n  burnt-offerings, 598;\n  peace-offerings, 599;\n  sacrificial victims, 600.\n\nSahidic version, 407.\n\nSalome, 436.\n\nSamaritans,\n  their language, 175;\n  their Pentateuch and its version, 181, 208.\n\nSamuel, he establishes the school of the prophets and the kingly office,\n  249.\n\nSamuel, books of,\n  their original unity, 248;\n  contents, office, and divisions, 249, seq.;\n  age and sources, 251.\n\nSanctuary, Mosaic,\n  its general idea, 585;\n  structure, divisions, and furniture, 586, seq.;\n  typical character, 587, seq.\n\nSaul, 250.\n\nScape-goat, 603.\n\nScope,\n  defined, 528;\n  its primary importance, 529;\n  how ascertained, 530.\n\nScriptio continua, 172, 373.\n\nSense, distinguished from signification, 528.\n\nSense of Scripture,\n  its extent, 573;\n  the clearer statements of Scripture interpret the more obscure, 574.\n\nSelah, 287.\n\nSeptuagint, Greek version of,\n  its antiquity, 199;\n  Jewish account of its origin, 199, seq.;\n  character and critical value, 201;\n  influence on the New Testament language, 202;\n  Hebrew text from which it was made, 203;\n  history of its text, 205; Origen's Hexapla, 205;\n  Jewish estimates of it, 203, 368;\n  quotations from it in the New Testament, 633, seq.\n\nSeptuagint arrangement of the Old Testament books, 171.\n\nSeventy. See Septuagint.\n\nShalmaneser, 334.\n\nSheminith, 288.\n\nShemitic languages, 175.\n\nShoshannim, Shushan, and Shushaneduth, 287, seq.\n\nShow-bread, 589.\n\nSignification of words, 527.\n\nSinai manuscript, 385.\n\nSirach, Jesus son of. See Ecclesiasticus.\n\nSix days of creation, 137, 228.\n\nSmerdis, 261.\n\nSo, 334.\n\nSojourn in the wilderness, its typical import, 584.\n\nSolomon,\n  his temple, 253;\n  his splendor and profuse expenditures, 253.\n\nSolomon, Song of, 292, seq.\n\nSongs of degrees, 287.\n\nSprinkling of the sacrificial blood, 601, 603.\n\nStevens, Robert, author of the modern division of verses in the New\n  Testament, 377.\n\nSubscriptions to the New Testament books, 379.\n\nSymbols, 319, 554;\n  numerical, 508, 564, 610;\n  distinguished from types, 555;\n  real and seen in visions, 562, seq.\n\nSymmachus, his version, 204.\n\nSynagogue, the great, 194.\n\nSynagogue rolls, 179.\n\nSynagogues, Jewish, as places of preaching, 447.\n\nSynoptical gospels. See Gospels.\n\nSyriac language, 175.\n\nSyriac versions. See Versions.\n\nSyro-chaldaic, 369.\n\n\nT.\n\nTabernacle, Mosaic, 585, seq.;\n  its typical character, 602, seq.\n\nTargum of Onkelos, 206;\n  of Jonathan, 207;\n  of Pseudo-Jonathan, 207;\n  Jerusalem Targum, 207;\n  Targums on the Hagiographa, 208.\n\nTatian and his Diatessaron, 50.\n\nTemple of Solomon, 253.\n\nTent, Mosaic, as distinguished from the tabernacle, 587.\n\nTestament,\n  various ancient designations of, 165;\n  origin and meaning of the term, 166.\n\nTestament, Old,\n  its inseparable connection with the New, 113, seq.;\n  its inspiration, 134, 142, 148, 195, seq.;\n  various arrangements of its books, 168, seq.;\n  Old Testament text, Jewish divisions of, 173;\n  modern, 173, seq.;\n  original languages, 175;\n  criticism of its text, 209;\n  preparatory character of its revelations, 215;\n  office of its several divisions, 218;\n  its significance to the covenant people, 220;\n  to the Christian church, 222.\n\nTestament, New,\n  the natural sequel to the Old, 113, seq.;\n  and its interpreter, 119;\n  its language, 365, seq.;\n  main divisions of its books and their order, 371;\n  subdivisions, of the historic part, 371;\n  of the epistolary, 372;\n  various arrangements of the gospels, 372;\n  arrangement of the epistles, 373;\n  titles and subscriptions, 378;\n  New Testament text, its essential integrity, 65, 390;\n  uncial and cursive modes of writing, 373;\n  continuous writing, 373;\n  stichometry, 374;\n  ancient divisions of the text, 375, seq.;\n  modern, 377, seq.;\n  criticism of the text, 380;\n  the manuscript text, 380, seq.;\n  various readings, 381, seq.;\n  manuscripts, 384;\n  the printed text, 388;\n  primary editions, 388, seq.;\n  remarks on the received text, 390.\n\nTertullian, 39. See also under the several New Testament books.\n\nThebaic version, 407.\n\nTheocracy,\n  its establishment under Moses, 232;\n  Christ its end, 118;\n  and typified by it, 146;\n  alleged objections to it, 138, seq.;\n  its preparatory character and practical working, 141, seq.;\n  its condition at the restoration, 259.\n\nTheodotion's version, 204.\n\nThessalonica and the Thessalonian church, 471.\n\nThessalonians, first epistle to the, 472;\n  its early date, occasion, and contents, 472, seq.\n\nThessalonians, second epistle to the,\n  date, design, and contents, 473;\n  question respecting our Lord's second advent, 474;\n  epistles to the Thessalonians and Philippians contrasted, 474, seq.\n\nTimothy, notices of, 479.\n\nTimothy, first epistle to, time of writing, occasion, and contents, 479.\n\nTimothy, second epistle to,\n  its peculiar tone and character, 481;\n  its late date, 482.\n\nTitus, notices of, 480.\n\nTitus, epistle to, 480.\n\nTobit, apocryphal book of, 353.\n\nTradition, different senses of, 417.\n\nTropes, 550, seq.\n\nTypes,\n  distinguished from analogies and from simple foreshadowings, 579;\n  their essential character, 580;\n  different kinds of types, historical, 581, seq., 618;\n  ritual, 585, seq.\n\nTypical orders of men, 581, seq.;\n  typical historic transactions, 583;\n  typical ritual acts, laying on of the offerer's hands, waving and\n    heaving, sprinkling of the sacrificial blood, and burning on the\n    altar, 601, seq.;\n  burning of incense, 589;\n  ceremonies connected with the great day of atonement, 603;\n  with the scape-goat, 604.\n\n\nU.\n\nUncial manuscripts, 60, 373, 384.\n\nUncleanness, Levitical, 606.\n\n\nV.\n\nVail of the tabernacle, 586, seq.\n\nVail of the temple, rending of the, 603.\n\nValentinus, 49.\n\nVarious readings of the gospels, 63;\n  of the New Testament text generally, 380;\n  examples of the more important, 390.\n\nVerses, of the Old Testament, 173;\n  of the New Testament, 377.\n\nVersion, Armenian, 409;\n  English of Wiclif, 400;\n  Ethiopic, 408;\n  Gothic, 409;\nSeptuagint, see under this title.\n\nVersions, Latin,\n  the old Latin, 47, 62, 89, 400;\n  age, place of execution, and variety of text, 400;\n  its canon, 401;\n  made in the Old Testament from the Septuagint: the vulgate,\n    its arrangement of the Old Testament books, 171;\n  in the New Testament a revision of the old Latin, 402;\n  in the Old Testament mostly a new translation, 403;\n  its diversified character, 403;\n  history of its text, 404;\n  manuscripts of it, 404.\n\nVersions, Syriac:\n  the Peshito version of the New Testament, 47, 62, 89;\n  of the Old Testament, 208;\n  its canon, 398;\n  made in the Old Testament from the original Hebrew, 404;\n  its age and character, 404, seq.;\n  the Cureton Syriac, 405;\n  the Philoxenian, 406;\n  the Hexapla, 406, seq.;\n  the Jerusalem Syriac Lectionary, 407.\n\nVersions, ancient,\n  their testimony to the genuineness of the gospels, 47;\n  and to their integrity, 62;\n  their use in sacred criticism, 210, 392.\n\nVulgate. See Versions, Latin.\n\n\nW.\n\nWave-offerings, 601.\n\nWhale, 339.\n\nWilderness, sojourn in the, 234.\n\nWisdom, apocryphal book of, 356.\n\nWisdom of the son of Sirach. See Ecclesiasticus.\n\nWriting,\n  ancient mode of, 172, seq.;\n  materials for, 59, 179, 384.\n\n\nX.\n\nXerxes, 261, 263.\n\n\nZ.\n\nZebedee, 436.\n\nZechariah, Prophecies of, 346, seq.;\n  question respecting the last part of, 348;\n  Matthew's quotation from Zechariah, 348.\n\nZephaniah, Prophecies of, 344.\n\n\n\n\nINDEX OF TEXTS.\n\n\nN.B. Texts not specified in this Index will be found on the pages of the\ngeneral references, prefixed to the lists from the several books.\n\nGENESIS.                  PAGE.\n\nCh. 1, seq................225-231\n    1:1--2:3..................543\n    1:2..................137, 357\n    2:4.......................225\n    2:4-25...............230, 543\n    2:23, 24..................135\n    3:15.................572, 573\n    3:19,22...................135\n    4:3-12....................135\n    4:4..................567, 585\n    4:8.......................203\n    6:6.......................541\nChs. 6-8......................135\n    7:19.................229, 542\n    8:20......................585\n    8:21.................206, 602\n    9:4.......................597\n    11:5......................206\n    11:8......................229\n    12:3.................117, 218\n    12:7......................628\n    12:7, 8...................585\n    13:14, 15.................244\n    13:15.....................628\n    14:14.....................234\n    14:18-20.............583, 618\n    15:6.................117, 221\n    15:13.....................226\n    15:13, 16............233, 331\n    15:18-21.............244, 628\nCh. 16........................553\n    17:8............241, 244, 628\n    17:12, 13.................234\n    18:25.....................545\nCh. 19........................135\n    22:18...........116, 425, 573\n    25:12-18..................227\n    25:19.....................225\n    26:3......................628\n    26:14.....................234\n    28:12-15..................555\n    28:13.....................628\n    31:19.....................207\n    31:54.....................585\n    32:10.....................234\n    33:20.....................585\n    35:1,7....................585\nCh. 36........................227\n    36:6,7....................234\n    36:31................122, 228\n    37:2......................225\n    41:1-7....................555\n    41:57.....................542\n    46:1......................585\n    49:1......................608\n    49:6......................534\n    50:25.....................131\n\nEXODUS.\n\nCh. 1, seq................232-235\n    1:1, 5, 8.................225\n    2:24,25...................225\n    3:6.......................127\n    3:6-10....................130\n    3:12......................607\n    4:22, 23.............635, 638\n    6:16-20...................233\n    12:22, 23.................599\n    12:37, 40.................233\nCh. 12:46.....................638\n    13:2......................127\n    13:19.....................131\nCh. 15...................174, 268\n    15:18.....................616\n    16:35, 36............122, 228\n    20:19................118, 583\n    22:29.....................127\n    24:3-8..........125, 598, 600\n    25:8.................233, 586\n    25:16, 21, 22.............588\n    25:30.....................589\nCh. 26...................586, 588\n    26:1, 7...................587\n    27:20.....................589\nCh. 28........................596\n    29:12,20..................602\n    29:23-28..................601\n    29:40.....................600\n    30:6-8....................589\n    30:12, seq................127\n    30:36.....................588\n    31:12-17..................233\nCh. 32........................126\n    34:6, seq.................152\n    34:15.....................292\n    34:19.....................127\n    36:8, 14,19...............587\n    40:22-27..................589\n\n\nLEVITICUS.\n\nCh. 1, seq...............235, 236\nCh. 1.........................598\nChs. 1-10.....................236\n    1:4.......................601\n    1:9.......................602\n    2:12......................127\n    2:13......................600\nChs. 3-9..................598-605\nCh. 10........................126\n    12:2, seq.................127\nChs.12-16.................598-605\n    17:10, 11.................597\n    18:5......................127\n    19:8, 34.............139, 140\n    23:40-43........123, 127, 185\nCh. 24........................126\n    24:5-9, 25................589\nCh. 26..............144, 304, 629\n\n\nNUMBERS.                     PAGE.\n\nCh. 1, seq...............237, 238\n    3:13......................237\n    5:6-8.....................598\n    7:89......................589\n    8:17......................127\n    9:12......................638\n    12:6-8..........148, 170, 219\n    12:8......................540\nCh. 17........................581\n    17:4......................588\n    18:15.....................127\nCh. 19........................600\nChs.21-24.....................268\n    21:27-30..................279\nCh. 23........................126\n    24:14.....................608\n    27:15-23..................242\n    28:2, seq.................127\n    29:12, seq................127\nCh. 32........................242\n\n\nDEUTERONOMY.\n\nCh. 1, seq...............238, 239\n    1:1, 43...................238\n    2:4, 5, 8, 9, 18, 19......140\n    4:19......................541\n    4:30......................608\n    6:4, 5....................140\n    7:3, 4....................138\n    7:7, 8....................570\n    9:5.......................153\n    13:1-5....................219\n    16:1-8....................600\n    16:16.....................626\n    17:18.....................193\n    17:24.....................125\n    18:17-19.............583, 638\n    18:18...........118, 129, 184\n    21:1-9....................600\n    24:1......................134\nChs.27-32...........238, 304, 629\n    27:1-8, 12, 13.......129, 185\nCh. 28........................144\n    28:29.....................549\n    28:58.....................125\n    29:1, 10-15...............125\n    29:14.....................129\n    30:11-14..................636\n    31:9,24-26.124,125,129,184,185\nCh. 31:9-13...................184\n    31:16.....................292\n    31:26.....................209\n    31:29.....................608\nCh. 32...................174, 268\n    32:4......................545\n    33:10.....................598\n    34:1......................360\n\n\nJOSHUA.\n\nCh. 1, seq...............241, 244\n    4:1-7.....................581\n    6:12......................242\n    6:25......................243\n    8:32......................185\n    10:12-14..................244\n    12:9......................184\n    15:16-19..................243\n    19:13.....................338\n    19:47.....................243\n    24:26.....................186\n\nJUDGES.\n\nCh. 1, seq................245-247\n    1:12-15...................243\n    1:21......................247\n    2:1.......................190\n    4:4.......................190\nCh. 5.........................174\n    6:8, 11...................190\n    9:8-15....................319\n    9:23......................541\n    10:13.....................243\n    13:3......................190\n    15:20.....................247\n    18:1......................243\n\n\nRUTH.\n\n    2:12......................248\n    2:14......................184\n\n\n1 SAMUEL.\n\nCh. 1, seq................248-250\n    2:13-16...................627\n    2:27......................190\n    2:34......................608\n    4:4.......................589\n    7:12......................581\n    10:1......................581\n    10:2-7....................608\n    10:5, 10..................190\n    10:25.....................186\nCh. 11:8......................252\n    15:22...........153, 219, 296\n    17:52.....................252\n    18:16.....................252\n    19:20.....................190\n    20:25 ....................184\n    23:9-12...................608\n    27:6......................251\n\n\n2 SAMUEL.\n\nCh. 1, seq...............251, 252\n    1:18......................243\n    1:19-27...................279\n    3:10......................252\n    5:6-9.....................247\n    6:2.......................589\n    6:17-19...................599\n    7:14......................639\n    7:16.................119, 621\n    8:4.......................257\nCh. 22........................174\n    23:2......................148\n    23:8......................258\n    24:1......................252\n    24:13.....................257\n\n\n1 KINGS.\n\nCh. 1, seq................252-254\n    2:3.......................124\n    3:5-12....................193\n    3:13......................253\n    4:26......................258\n    4:32......................290\n    6:1.......................247\n    8:9.......................588\n    8:46-50...................629\n    8:62-66...................599\n    9:6, 7....................304\n    11:29-39..................581\n    11:41.....................188\n    12:10.....................555\n    12:29.....................337\n    13:2, 3...................608\n    18:4......................190\n    20:35................190, 337\n    22:11................555, 581\n    22:19-23.............284, 541\n\n\n2 KINGS.\n\nCh. 1, seq...............254, 255\n    2:3, seq.............190, 337\n    14:9......................554\n    14:23.....................333\n    14:25.....................338\n    14:25-28..................337\n    15:8-31...................334\n    17:1-6....................334\n    17:27, 28.................181\n    18:13-19:37...............170\n    18:13-20:21...............536\n    19:15.....................589\n    20:8-11..............244, 608\n    22:8............124, 193, 311\n    23:5......................344\nCh. 24........................338\n    24:1......................327\n    24:12.....................328\n    24:18-20..................314\n    25:8......................328\n    25:9......................196\n    25:27.....................255\n\n\n1 CHRONICLES.\n\nCh. 1, seq................256-258\n    1:43......................122\n    3:19-24...................263\n    6:31......................192\n    11:11.....................258\n    18:4......................258\n    21:12.....................257\n    29:29......170, 187, 188, 251\n\n\n2 CHRONICLES.\n\nCh. 1, seq................256-258\n    9:25......................258\n    9:29.................170, 188\n    12:15................170, 188\n    13:22.....................188\n    15:1, seq.................256\n    16:7-12...................257\n    17:7-9....................193\n    19:2......................257\n    20:20.....................336\n    20:34...........170, 188, 189\n    21:16, 17.................338\n    23:18.....................127\n    24:6......................127\n    26:22................170, 188\n    27:7......................189\n    30:16.....................600\nCh. 32........................536\nCh. 32:25, 31.................257\n    32:32................170, 188\n    33:18, 19.......170, 188, 359\n    34:14.....................124\n    35:11.....................600\n\n\nEZRA.\n\n    1:1, seq.............260, 261\n    2:61-63...................256\n    3:1-5................122, 127\n    4:8-6:18.............175, 260\n    5:1, 2...............345, 346\n    6:14......................346\n    7:1, 8....................350\n    7:6..................123, 180\n    7:10, 11..................194\n\n\nNEHEMIAH.\n\n    1:1, seq.............261, 262\nCh. 8.........................123\n    8:5.......................180\n    8:13-17.........123, 127, 185\n    12:4......................346\n    12:11, 22............195, 263\n    13:6.................262, 349\n    13:24.....................177\n\n\nESTHER.\n\n    1:1, seq.............261, 263\n    8:2.......................264\n    9:16......................264\n\n\nJOB.\n\nCh. 1, seq................280-283\n    1:5.............585, 597, 598\n    2:10......................280\n    3:3.......................276\n    5:14......................549\n    5:19-26...................270\n    20:24-28..................270\n    42:8............585, 597, 598\n\n\nPSALMS.\n\nPs. 1, seq................284-288\nPs. 2....................619, 621\n    2:4.......................275\n    2:8, 9....................145\n    5:12......................276\n    7:5.......................534\n    8:4-6.....................638\nPs. 16........................622\n    16:9......................534\n    16:11.....................540\n    17:15.....................540\nPs. 13: 1-16.............244, 549\n    19:1-4....................636\nPs. 22........................619\n    22:1, 7, 8, 14-16, 18.....622\n    22:18.....................609\nPs. 23........................272\n    25:11.....................570\n    28:4......................276\n    28:5......................278\n    30:12.....................534\nPs. 40........................619\n    40:6-10...................622\n    40:7......................635\n    40:12.....................620\n    42:2-4....................532\nPs. 45...................292, 619\n    45:13.....................532\n    46:4......................625\n    49:15.....................540\nPs. 50........................285\n    51:1, 6, 7, 10, 11...570, 571\n    51:7, 17..................274\n    51:10, 16, 17.............153\n    51:11.....................542\n    57:8......................534\n    61:4......................274\nPs. 69........................619\n    69:4, 7-9, 21.............622\n    69:5......................620\n    69:30, 31.................153\nPs. 72..............284, 285, 619\n    72:11.....................145\n    72:20.....................286\n    73:24-26..................540\n    74:8......................196\nPs. 80..............319, 553, 558\n    80:1......................589\n    80:8.................558, 560\n    80:8-16..............553, 558\n    81:12, 13............542, 543\n    84:11................546, 551\n    90, title............268, 287\n    91:7......................184\n    99:1......................589\n    103:3-5...................276\n    103:11-13.................278\n    108:1.....................534\nPs. 109.......................619\nPs. 109:1-20..................622\nPs. 110.............590, 619, 636\n    110:1................620, 638\n    110:4..145, 148, 573, 620, 638\n    129:6, 7..................539\n    139:23, 24................541\n    141:2.....................274\n\n\nPROVERBS.\n\nCh. 1, seq...............289, 290\n    1:27......................276\n    10:1, 7...................275\n    10:26.....................552\n    13:1......................556\n    14:5......................556\n    14:32.....................540\n    15:12.....................555\n    15:16.....................277\n    15:17.....................556\n    17:23.....................556\n    18:10.....................555\n    19:13.....................539\n    20:15.....................556\n    20:20.....................277\n    21:2......................277\n    23:39.....................276\n    24:23.....................290\n    25:15.....................551\n    26:3.................277, 552\n    26:1-28...................289\n    26:20, 21, 23.............552\n    27:15................539, 556\n    27:19.....................556\n\n\nECCLESIASTES.\n\nCh. 1, seq................290-292\n\n\nCANTICLES.\n\nCh. 1, seq...............292, 293\n    1:5; 2:8, 9, 14; 4:1-3;\n    5:12, 13, 15; 7:7.........273\n\n\nISAIAH.\n\nCh. 1, seq................299-303\n    1:2-4.....................277\n    1:10......................276\n    1:11-20..............219, 296\n    2:2.......................608\n    2:2-4...........341, 623, 626\n    3:1-3, 25, 26.............611\n    4:1..................174, 611\n    4:2.......................609\nCh. 4:2-5.....................612\n    4:5.......................624\n    4:10......................305\n    5:1-6.....................319\n    5:7.......................560\nCh. 6.........................629\n    6:5.......................301\n    6:8.......................300\n    6:9-13..........203, 623, 634\n    6:10......................541\n    8:1-4.....................299\n    9:1, 2....................635\n    9:7.......................145\n    10:33, 34............174, 612\nCh. 11........................629\n    11:1............174, 590, 612\n    11:2......................145\n    11:6-9...............548, 612\n    11:11, 12, 15, 16.........624\n    13:10.....................549\n    13:13.....................548\n    13:19, 20.................144\n    13:21, 22.................344\n    14:23.....................144\nChs.15, 16....................314\nCh. 20...................563, 581\n    20:2-4....................563\n    28:16.....................575\n    32:2......................273\n    34:6, 13-15..........274, 344\n    35:6......................625\n    35:8......................526\nChs.36-39................302, 536\n    37:16.....................589\n    38:7, 8...................244\n    39:6, 7..............305, 322\nChs. 40-66...............302, 609\n    40:1.................299, 607\n    40:19, 20.................309\n    41:7......................309\n    41:14-16..................616\n    41:18.....................306\n    41:25.....................307\n    42:1-4...............145, 635\n    43:23, 24............307, 309\n    44:28; 45:4...............306\n    46:1, 2; 47:8.............309\n    48:22.....................302\nCh. 49:25, 26.................270\n    50:4......................145\n    51:15; 52:7...............309\n    52:13-15.............145, 174\nCh. 53..............146, 580, 592\n    53:3-7....................145\n    53:6......................620\n    53:7, 8...................638\n    53:10.....................574\n    54:5......................292\n    55:3......................303\n    55:12.....................552\n    57:9......................309\n    57:15.....................219\n    57:21.....................302\n    58:6......................634\n    58:11, 12.................442\nChs. 59, 60...................612\n    60:18-22.............270, 613\n    61:1,2................74, 633\n    62:5......................292\n    62:11.....................634\n    63:10.....................542\n    63:17.....................541\nCh. 66........................629\n    66:2......................219\n    66:3......................307\n    66:24.....................302\n\n\nJEREMIAH.\n\nCh. 1, seq................310-314\n    1:1, 3....................311\n    1:11-14...................581\n    1:13-.....................555\n    2:2; 3:14.................292\n    4:23-28..............548, 549\n    10:3, 4...................309\n    10:1-16...................359\n    10:11.....................175\n    11:18-23; 12:6............310\n    13:1-11.........320, 563, 581\n    15:10.....................311\n    20:1-6, 14-18........310, 311\n    23:4-6....................590\n    23:5, 20.............608, 609\n    25:1, 9..............327, 328\n    25:12-14..................312\n    25:13.....................314\n    26:12-15..................311\nCh. 26:18.....................340\n    27:2; 28:10...............319\n    27:1-8; 28:10, 11.........555\n    29:10-14..................312\nChs. 30, 31...................629\n    30:8; 21:31...............609\n    30:24.....................608\n    31:31-33.............167, 571\n    31:35.....................309\n    32:2; 33:1................310\n    32:6-15...................563\n    33:15, 16.................590\n    36:1-4, 27-32.............313\n    37:5-10...................312\n    39:11-14-40:1-4...........310\n    46:2......................327\n    47:6, 7...................551\n    48:47; 49:39..............608\n    49:7-22..............314, 338\n    50:2......................309\n\n\nLAMENTATIONS.\n\nCh. 1, seq................314-316\n\n\nEZEKIEL.\n\nCh. 1, seq................316-322\nCh. 1..........318, 555, 563, 564\n    1:1-3; 2:3, 4, 6; 3:15...316-318\nCh. 3.........................581\nCh. 4....................320, 563\n    4:4-8.....................565\n    8:1.......................316\n    8:1-4................562, 563\nCh. 10...................563, 564\n    12:3-12...................563\n    14:1......................316\n    14:14, 20.................284\nCh. 16..............318, 319, 560\n    17:1-10..............319, 559\n    18:31.....................219\n    20:1......................316\n    21:27.....................548\n    22:6-12...................318\nCh. 23..............318, 319, 560\n    24:15-18.............316, 319\n    25:12.....................338\n    26:4, 5, 14...............144\n    32:7, 8...................549\n    33:21.....................320\nCh. 33:30-32..................316\n    35:5-15...................338\nChs. 36-39....................629\n    36:22.....................570\n    36:25-27.............152, 571\n    36:25. 37, 38.............274\n    36:32.....................154\n    37:1-14..............319, 562\n    37:16-20.............319, 563\n    38:8, 16..................608\n    38:20.....................548\n    39:11.....................609\nChs. 40-48...............319, 627\n    42:15-20; 43:13-27...321, 627\n    43:24.....................600\n    45:1-8...............321, 627\n    47:1-12.........321, 625, 627\nCh. 48...................321, 627\n\n\nDANIEL.\n\nCh. 1, seq................322-324\n    1:1.......................338\n    1:5.......................328\n    1:7.......................326\n    2:1-5.....................338\n    2:4-7:28..................175\n    2:33, 40-45.....330, 609, 610\n    2:46......................589\nCh. 3....................323, 326\n    3:21......................327\nCh. 5....................323, 328\n    5:2.......................327\n    5:22, 31.............328, 329\nCh. 6...............323, 326, 329\n    7:7-28..........330, 609, 610\n    7:25............509, 565, 610\n    9:2.......................194\n    9:18......................570\n    9:24-27.........137, 262, 565\n    9:27......................325\n    10:14.....................608\n\n\nHOSEA.\n\nChs. 1-3......................563\n    1:10,11...................629\n    2:16, 19, 20..............292\n    3:5.......................608\n    10:12.....................219\n    11:1.................635, 638\n    12:1......................334\nCh. 14........................334\n    14:2.................219, 274\n\nJOEL.\n\n    2:1, 2....................344\n    2:12, 13..................219\n    2:28......................609\n    2:28-32..............336, 623\n    2:31......................549\nCh. 3.........................629\n    3:14-17...................613\n    3:15, 16........335, 548, 549\n    3:18.................335, 625\n    3:19......................338\n\n\nAMOS.\n\nCh. 1, seq...............336, 337\n    1:1..................191, 336\n    1:2.......................335\n    1:11......................338\n    5:11......................344\n    5:21-24.........153, 219, 296\n    7:1-9................564, 581\n    7:14.................191, 336\n    8:1-3.....................581\n    8:2.......................555\n    8:9.......................548\nCh. 9.........................629\n    9:11......................609\n    9:11, 12..................623\n    9:13......................335\n\n\nOBADIAH.......................338\n\n\nJONAH.\n\nCh. 1, seq................338-340\n\n\nMICAH.\n\nCh. 1, seq...............340, 341\n    4:1.......................608\n    4:1-4...........623, 626, 629\n    6:6-8................219, 296\n    7:8-20....................629\n\n\nNAHUM.\n\nCh. 1, seq...............341, 342\n    1:5-8.....................272\n    1:15......................309\nChs.2, 3......................144\n    2:13......................551\n\n\nHABAKKUK.\n\nCh. 1, seq...............342, 343\n    2:2.......................526\nCh. 3.........................244\n    3:10, 11..................551\n\n\nZEPHANIAH.\n\nCh. 1, seq................343-345\n    2:15......................309\n\n\nHAGGAI.\n\nCh. 1, seq...............345, 346\n    2:6, 7....................518\n\n\nZECHARIAH.\n\nCh. 1, seq................346-348\n    1:8-11....................581\n    1:18-21...................564\n    3:8.......................590\n    3:8-20....................629\n    4:1-10; 5:5-11; 6:1-9;\n    11:4-14...................564\n    6:9-14....................590\n    9:9.............347, 609, 634\n    11:13................348, 609\n    13:7......................581\n    14:5......................336\n    14:8......................625\n    14:16-21.............626, 629\n\n\nMALACHI.\n\nCh. 1, seq...............348, 349\n    1:8, 13, 14...............600\n    3:1.............348, 349, 635\n\n\n1 ESDRAS......................352\n\n2 ESDRAS.................352, 353\n    7:3.......................353\n\nTOBIT....................353, 354\n    2:10......................353\n\nJUDITH...................354, 355\n    4:3.......................355\n    4:6,8; 5:18, 19; 15:8.....353\n\nWISDOM OF SOLOMON.\nCh. 1, seq...............356, 357\n\nECCLESIASTICUS...........357, 558\n    48:24, 25.................308\n    49:1, seq.................329\n\nBAKUCH, AND EPISTLE OF JEREMIAH..358, 359\n\nBOOKS OF THE MACCABEES....359-362\n\n1 Mac 1:54....................325\n2 Mac 7:14....................361\n\nMATTHEW.                      PAGE.\n\nCh. 1, seq...............420, 426\n    1:12......................346\n    1:17, 22..................424\n    1:23......................426\n    2:5, 6....................341\n    2:15............334, 635, 638\n    2:17......................424\n    3:3.......................308\n    4:14......................424\n    4:15, 16..................635\n    4:21......................436\n    5:17.......................31\n    5:29, seq.................153\n    6:19, 20...................76\n    6:25, 31...................45\n    6:27......................528\n    7:12......................216\n    7:15, 16..................552\n    7:21-23..........91, 575, 577\n    8:11, 12..................425\n    8:17......................308\n    8:25, 26..................537\n    9:13......................334\n    9:17......................539\n    10:3.................420, 487\n    10:5, 6..............425, 446\n    10:16......................74\n    10:19, 20.................105\n    10:35, 36.................341\n    10:40.....................395\n    11:10.....................635\n    11:13.....................147\n    11:27.....................575\n    11:28-30...............75, 82\n    12:1......................417\n    12:7......................334\n    12:13.....................422\n    12:17.....................424\n    12:17-21.............308, 635\n    12:39-41..................340\n    13:3-8, 19-23.............560\n    13:14, 15.......203, 623, 634\n    13:24.....................554\n    13:24-30, 37-43...........561\n    13:35.....................424\n    14:22-16:12..........412, 434\n    14:37-39..................135\n    15:24................425, 446\nCh. 16:18, 19, 27.............575\n    17:1......................436\n    18:18.....................575\n    18:23-35..................501\n    19:3-9...............135, 637\n    20:16......................47\n    20:21.....................425\n    20:28.....................592\n    21:4......................421\n    21:5......................631\n    21:28-31..................560\n    21:33-41..................554\n    21:43.....................425\n    22:14......................47\n    22:15-22, 31, 32..........538\n    22:29.....................166\n    22:37-40..................151\n    22:41-46..................590\n    22:44.....................638\n    23:35.....................135\n    23:37-39..................425\nCh. 24........................331\n    24:3, 19-22, 29............51\n    24:10-13..................489\n    24:15, 16.................326\n    25:1-13..............539, 561\n    25:34-46.............562, 575\n    25:46.....................570\n    26:26-28.............166, 548\n    26:33.....................540\n    26:37.....................436\n    27:9, 10..................348\n    27:35.....................424\n    27:46.....................426\n    27:50, 51.................603\n    27:56.....................436\n    28:1-10...................544\n    28:18.....................575\n    28:19, 20............425, 446\n\n\nMARK.\n\nCh. 1, seq................427-431\n    1:2.......................635\n    1:19, 20..................436\n    2:14......................420\n    3:5, 34...................430\n    3:14, 15..................103\n    3:17......................429\n    3:18.................420, 487\nCh. 3:23, 26...................67\n    4:1................... ...417\n    4:12............203, 623, 634\n    4:28..................33, 580\n    4:30......................560\n    4:26-29...................435\n    4:38, 40.............430, 537\n    5:2-20, 32, 42............430\n    5:37......................436\n    5:41, 42.............429, 430\n    5:43.......................73\n    6:40......................430\n    6:45-8:26............412, 434\n    7:3, 4, 11, 34............429\n    7:32-37...................435\n    7:34......................430\n    8:12, 33..................430\n    8:22-26...................435\n    9:2.......................436\n    9:14-27...................430\n    9:43-48...................557\n    9:49......................600\n    10:3-5....................124\n    10:5......................120\n    10:27.....................430\n    10:45.....................592\n    10:46-49..................429\n    11:10.....................429\n    12:1-9....................319\n    12:13-17..................528\n    12:35-37.............590, 636\n    12:42.....................429\n    13:3......................429\n    13:11.....................106\n    13:12.....................341\n    13:14.....................326\n    13:31.....................557\n    14:12, 36.................429\n    14:24.....................166\n    14:29.....................540\n    14:33.....................436\n    15:28.....................592\n    15:32, 34, 42.............429\n    15:37, 38.................603\n    15:40, 41.................436\n    16:8......................431\n    16:9-20..............391, 431\n    16:15................217, 568\n\n\nLUKE.             PAGE\n\nCh. 1, seq................431-436\n    1:1....................37, 56\n    1:1-4................431, 433\n    1:3...................68, 416\n    1:6........................40\n    1:32, 33...119, 573, 621, 639\n    2:14......................152\n    2:22-24...................127\n    2:40-52...................418\n    3:4.......................308\n    3:27......................346\n    3:38......................433\n    4:17-19..............308, 634\n    5:10, 11..................436\n    5:27, 29..................420\n    6:15.................420, 487\n    7:27......................635\n    7:37, 38..................539\n    8:10............203, 623, 634\n    8:24, 25..................537\n    8:51......................436\n    9:18, 57..................417\n    9:43-18:30......412, 434, 436\n    10:1......................446\n    10:26.....................120\n    10:30-37..................433\n    10:40-42..................540\n    11:5-9....................561\n    11:29-32..................340\n    11:51.....................135\n    12:11, 12.................106\n    12:53.....................341\n    13:1-5....................606\n    13:6-9....................560\nCh. 15........................433\n    16:1-9..........553, 561, 562\n    16:10.....................554\n    16:19-31..................558\n    16:20.....................551\n    16:31.....................222\n    17:26-29..................135\n    18:1-8....................561\n    18:9-14...................560\n    19:3......................528\n    20:20-26..................538\n    20:37.....................127\n    20:41-44..................636\n    21:14, 15.................106\nCh. 21:24................144, 628\n    22:9, 20..................432\n    22:20.....................166\n    22:37.....................592\n    23:45,46..................603\n    24:27.....................115\n    24:37-43...................70\n    24:44..32, 115, 148, 165, 619\n\nJOHN.\nCh. 1, seq................436-444\n    1:1-18....................418\n    1:4.......................589\n    1:17......................120\n    1:18......................390\n    1:23......................308\n    1:29.155, 236, 485, 547, 580, 591\n    1:36......................547\n    1:37, 40..................436\nChs.3, 5-12...................418\n    3:2........................79\n    3:3-5......................43\n    3:16.......................31\n    3:17, 18..................569\n    3:20......................524\n    3:36......................570\n    4:14.......................44\n    5:2........................53\n    5:4.......................390\n    5:17-23....................81\n    5:20......................103\n    5:28, 29..............82, 629\n    5:36.......................79\n    5:45-47...................535\n    5:46......................120\n    6:1-21....................438\n    6:4........................53\n    6:12.......................73\n    6:44......................541\n    6:51,54...................547\n    7:1-10.....................74\n    7:2........................53\n    7:15, 16...................78\n    7:17......................523\n    7:19......................120\n    7:22, 23..................127\n    7:38......................166\n    7:39......................542\n    7:42......................341\n\nJOHN                            PAGE.\n\nCh. 8:3-11....................390\n    8:12.............81, 103, 589\n    8:23.......................76\n    8:26......................103\n    8:39-41, 44, 56...........535\n    8:42.......................79\n    8:56......................221\n    9:4.......................291\n    9:24.......................70\n    10:1-18...................554\n    10:7, 9...................547\n    10:8......................535\n    10:9, 11, 14..............560\n    10:15, 17, 18.............592\n    11:25, 26..................82\n    11:44......................73\n    11:47......................70\n    12:15.....................634\n    12:38-41........308, 535, 623\n    12:40................203, 634\n    12:46.....................589\n    12:49, 50.................103\nChs.13-17.....................418\n    13:3......................107\n    13:23, 25............436, 539\n    14:6......................595\n    14:25, 26.................106\n    14:27......................82\n    15:1.................547, 551\n    15:1-7.....................83\n    15:26, 27..................87\n    16:2.......................40\n    16:7..................87, 630\n    16:12, 13.............88, 104\n    16:12-15..................106\n    16:28......................84\n    16:33......................82\n    17:2......................575\n    17:5.......................84\n    18:15, 16.................436\n    19:36.....................638\n    20:2-8....................436\n    20:22, 23.................576\n    20:27......................70\n    20:30, 31...84, 415, 438, 530\n    21:7, 20..................436\n    21:15.....................540\n    21:25.....................415\n\nACTS.                            PAGE.\n\nCh. 1, seq................440-444\n    1:1...............52, 89, 440\n    1:3........................71\n    1:6-8................104, 607\n    1:13.................420, 487\n    1:15-22...................441\n    1:21, 22.............103, 432\n    2:11......................480\n    2:14-40...................441\n    2:16-21..............336, 623\n    2:30, 31..................622\n    2:34, 35..................636\n    3:1, 4-26.................411\n    3:6, 12, 16................80\n    3:22......................124\n    3:22, 23..................638\n    4:8-13, 19................441\n    5:1-11.....................90\n    5:3-11, 29-32.............441\n    6:4..................441, 445\n    7:37......................638\n    7:42, 43..................337\n    8:1.......................415\n    8:5-25..........441, 443, 447\n    8:32, 33..................638\n    8:26-40..............441, 592\n    8:28-33...................308\n    8:37......................391\n    9:1-22....................536\n    9:1-31, 32-43.............441\n    9:7, 17, 27...............543\n    9:22-26, 29, 30.......91, 449\nCh. 10..............441, 443, 447\n    10:40, 41..................71\n    11:1-18..............441, 575\n    11:19-26.............442, 447\n    11:20.....................443\n    11:25-30........441, 442, 449\n    12:3-19...................441\n    12:12, 25.................427\n    12:17.....................487\n    12:25...........441, 442, 449\n    13:1, seq.......441, 442, 449\n    13:5, 13..................427\n    13:14.................442,447\n    13:15.....................121\n    13:20................190, 247\n    13:45-47..................447\nCh. 14:1......................447\n    14:19-28.............442, 443\nCh. 15........................488\n    15:1......................450\n    15:1-29...................447\n    15:2......................449\n    15:6......................415\n    15:10.....................139\n    15:13-21.............487, 488\n    15:15-18..................446\n    15:16, 17.................337\n    15:18.....................566\n    15:21................121, 546\n    15:22-35..................442\n    15:23-29..................108\n    15:36-18:22..........449, 450\n    15:37-39.............427, 428\n    15:40.....................472\n    16:1, 2..............479, 480\n    16:6......................458\n    16:9, 12-40...............469\n    16:10.................89, 431\n    16:19, 25, 29.............472\n    16:19-40..................475\n    17:1-10, 14-16.......471, 472\n    17:2, 10.............447, 448\n    17:5-10, 13, 14, 31.......475\n    18:1-11...................454\n    18:4, 6...................447\n    18:5......................472\n    18:6-17...................475\n    18:19-21..................465\n    18:22, 23............442, 449\n    18:23-21:15.....449, 450, 458\n    18:24.....................476\n    19:1-20:31................465\n    19:1-10, 21..........451, 454\n    19:8, 9...................447\n    20:1-3...............451, 454\n    20:1-6....................469\n    20:17.....................443\n    20:28.....................290\n    20:29, 30.................476\n    20:31.....................454\nChs.21-28.....................449\n    21:8-10, 15...........90, 449\n    21:18................487, 488\n    22:1-21....................536\nCh. 22:9, 14..................543\n    23:8......................538\n    23:35-26:32...............450\n    24:17................451, 454\n    26:1-26...............111,536\n    26:14...........543, 546, 551\n    27:1.......................90\n    27:8......................480\n    28:16-31..................450\n    28:26, 27.......203, 623, 634\n    28:30, 31..................91\n\n\nROMANS.\n\nCh. 1, seq................451-458\n    1:10-15...................451\n    1:7.......................466\n    1:13, 18-32...............452\n    1:10-15...................451\n    1:17......................343\n    2:7.......................535\n    2:8-11....................529\n    3:7, 8....................637\n    3:21, 31..................446\n    3:22......................535\n    3:25,26...................593\n    3:28............529, 530, 577\n    4:4.......................370\n    4:6-25....................446\n    4:11......................117\n    4:12-17...................492\n    5:12-24..............116, 135\n    8:17......................639\n    9:13......................349\n    9:25, 26..................334\n    10:5......................127\n    10:6, 8, 18...............636\n    10:16, 20, 21.............308\n    10:19.....................124\n    11:6......................529\n    11:8.................203, 623\n    11:13-25, 30, 31..452, 492, 582\n    12:1.................596, 627\n    14:2, 23..................531\n    15:8-21...................453\n    15:16.....................452\n    15:22-16:27...............453\nCh. 16........................466\n    16:1......................451\n    16:14.....................510\n\n\n1 CORINTHIANS                    PAGE.\n\nCh. 1, seq................453-456\n    1:11-14, 31..........454, 455\n    1:14......................451\n    1:18--2:16................455\n    2:12, 13..................108\n    3:3-23...............454, 455\n    3:11......................575\n    3:11-15...................547\n    4:17......................457\n    5:7..................581, 600\n    5:9...................99, 455\n    7:1..................455, 530\n    9:22......................448\n    10:4......................547\n    11:2......................417\n    11:7-9...............135, 637\n    11:23-25..................432\n    12:15, 16.................552\nCh. 15.........105, 109, 111, 629\n    15:5-18, 14, 17............71\n    15:14......................36\n    15:15.....................550\n    15:21, 22............116, 135\n    15:24-28........574, 575, 630\n    15:26, 54............630, 631\n    15:51.....................109\n    15:55................334, 552\n    16:1-6, 23...........451, 454\n    16:3-8....................454\n    16:10, 11............457, 480\n\n\n2 CORINTHIANS.\n\nCh. 1, seq................456-458\n    1:15-17..............457, 477\n    2:13......................481\n    3:6, 14...................167\n    5:10......................575\n    7:6, 7, 13, 14.......457, 481\n    8:1-4................451, 455\n    8:6, 16, 23...............481\n    9:1-5................451, 456\n    10:10-13..................454\n    12:10.....................157\n    12:14.....................454\n    12:18.....................481\n    13:1......................454\n\n\nGALATIANS.\n\nCh. 1, seq................458-461\nChs. 1, 2................111, 449\n\nGALATIANS.\n\nCh. 1:1..................104, 460\n    1:11,12.........103, 108, 460\n    1:15-18...............91, 460\n    1:16, 21..................449\n    1:19......................487\n    2:1-3.....................481\n    2:5.......................448\n    2:9,12....................488\n    2:11......................442\n    3:6-9,18........446, 461, 492\n    3:8, 17..............117, 233\n    3:10-29...................461\n    3:13......................592\n    3:14-18...................582\n    3:15......................572\n    3:24,25....118, 130, 221, 571\n    4:1-3.....................217\n    4:4.......................215\n    4:7.......................639\n    4:8-6:18..................461\n    4:13-16..............458, 459\n    4:21, seq.................121\n    5:2.......................108\n    5:3,4.....................461\n    5:4.......................532\n    5:7.......................459\n    6:6.......................313\n    6:17......................459\n\nEPHESIANS.\n\nCh. 1, seq................463-469\n    1:1........................92\n    1:7.......................592\n    1:10......................467\n    1:20-23...................575\n    2:20.................575, 582\n    3:1;4:1...................462\n    5:23-32...................468\n    6:20-22...................462\n\n\nPHILIPPIANS.\n\nCh. 1, seq................469-471\n    1:25......................477\n    2:9-11....................575\n    4:3.......................512\n\n\nCOLOSSIANS.\n\nCh. 1, seq................463-465\n    1:10......................467\n    1:15-19...................575\n    3:5.......................549\n    4:10,13,16................462\n    4:11..................57, 431\n    4:14......................431\n    4:16.............99, 465, 466\n    4:18......................469\n\n\n1 THESSALONIANS.\n\nCh. 1, seq...............471, 472\n    1:7,8.....................152\n    2:2,15,16.................475\n    4:11......................473\n    4:13-18.........105, 473, 629\n    4:15......................108\n    5:8.......................468\n\n2 THESSALONIANS.\n\nCh. 1, seq................473-475\n    1:7-10..........542, 569, 629\n    2:2,3.....................474\n    2:11, 12..................542\n    2:15......................417\n\n1 TIMOTHY.\n\nCh. 1, seq................476-480\n    2:4.......................542\n    2:11-14.............135,  637\n    3:16.................390, 526\n\n2 TIMOTHY.\n\nCh. 1, seq......476-478, 481, 482\n    3:6, 8....................477\n    3:7.......................214\n    3:8, 9....................501\n    3:11......................442\n    3:15......................166\n    3:16.................148, 577\n    4:9, 21...................480\n    4:11............427, 428, 431\n\nTITUS.\n\nCh. 1, seq...............480, 481\n    1:10, 14-16...............477\n    2:2, 3....................374\n    3:5.......................570\n    3:9.......................477\n    3:13......................476\n\nPHILEMON.\n\n    Ver.l, 9, 10, 23..........462\n    18........................469\n    24........................431\n\nHEBREWS.   PAGE.\n\nCh. 1, seq................482-486\n    1:3.......................575\nCh. 1:5.......................639\n    1:13......................636\n    2:6-8.....................638\n    2:11, 14, 17, 18.....594, 595\n    2:14-18...................584\n    3:7-4:11..................585\n    4:2.......................220\n    4:7-11................ ...619\n    4:12.................154, 527\n    4:15.................584, 595\n    5:1-6................484, 595\n    7:3.......................584\n    7:5, 8, 13, 21, 23, 28....484\n    7:4-10....................618\n    7:7.......................583\n    7:23, 24, 26..............596\n    7:25......................603\n    7:27......................595\n    8:3.............484, 591, 595\n    8:5, 13...................484\n    8:8-10....................167\n    8:9.......................635\nChs. 9, 10....................321\n    9:1-9, 13, 22.............484\n    9:7, 8....................603\n    9:11-14, 25-28.......591, 596\n    9:12-28...................595\n    9:13, 14..................602\n    9:14......................529\n    9:15-17..............166, 167\n    9:22.................119, 598\n    10:1............485, 581, 587\n    10:5......................635\n    10:10-22...485, 591, 596, 627\n    10:19, 20, 22........602, 603\nCh. 11........................568\n    11:4, 7...................135\n    11:9......................568\n    11:11.....................528\n    11:13, 39, 40.............221\n    11:33, 34.................326\n    11:37.....................299\n    12:24................135, 602\n    12:29.....................152\n    13:11, 12.................605\n    13:15.....................596\n    13:24.....................484\n\nJAMES.\n\nCh. 1, seq................487-491\n    1:13, 14.............541, 545\n    2:10......................153\n    2:14-26...................490\n    2:24......................529\n    5:11......................284\n\n1 PETER.\n\nCh. 1, seq................491-493\n    1:1, 2....................602\n    1:6, 7....................492\n    1:8, 21....................94\n    1:11.................297, 574\n    1:19, 20..................600\n    2:3.......................467\n    2:5-9..321, 568, 596, 603, 627\n    2:6, 8...............547, 575\n    2:23.......................75\n    2:24, 25..................592\n    3:18......................592\n    3:20......................135\n    5:1.......................500\n    5:13......................427\n\n2 PETER.\n\nCh. 1, seq................493-497\n    1:21.................148, 168\n    2:1.......................497\n    2:5, 6....................135\n    3:16.................166, 496\n\n1 JOHN.\n\nCh. 1, seq................497-499\n    1:5.......................545\n    2:2.......................591\n    3:8.......................116\n    3:12......................135\n    4:3....................46, 94\n    4:14.......................33\n    5:7, 8....................390\n\n2 AND 3 JOHN.\n\nVer. 1, seq..............500, 501\n2 John 12; 3 John 13...........60\n\nJUDE.\n\nVer. 1, seq..............501, 502\n    4.........................497\n    7, 11.....................135\n\nREVELATION.\n\nCh. 1, seq................503-510\n    1:5.......................592\n    3:7.......................575\n    3:18......................551\n    5:5, 12...................547\n    5:9..................510, 592\n    6:1..................547, 610\n    7:14......................592\n    8:3, 4....................589\n    9:15......................137\n    11:2, 3....137, 509, 565, 610\n    11:11................509, 631\n    12:6............509, 565, 610\n    13:5.................509, 565\n    19:8......................532\n    19:10.....................118\n    20:4, 5, 11-15............630\n    21:9......................292\n    22:18, 19.................578\n\n\n\n\nFAC-SIMILES\n\nOF\n\nANCIENT NEW TESTAMENT MANUSCRIPTS,\n\nTO ILLUSTRATE CHAPTER XXVI., PAGE 380.\n\n\nMost of the following specimens of ancient manuscripts are taken from\nScrivener's Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament. No. (1)\nis from Tischendorf s Novum Testamentum Graece ex Sinaitico Codice; Nos.\n(2) and (11) from Smith's Dictionary of the Bible; and No. (5) from\nHorne's Introduction, Vol. IV.\n\nNo. (1). PLATE I. SINAI CODEX, Century IV. Heb. 12:27-29. Notice the\noccasional use of very small letters. In line 3 the article [Greek: taen]\nis inserted by correction in its proper place, while it is left standing\nwhere it should not at the beginning of line 2.\n\nNo. (2). PLATE I. ALEXANDRINE CODEX, Century V. Jno. 1:1-5. In the\nmargin stands the first Ammonian section (A), and under it the tenth\nEusebian canon (I).\n\nNo. (3). PLATE II. VATICAN CODEX, Century IV. Psa. 1:1, 2 and part of\nverse 3; called by Scrivener \"a tolerable _fac-simile_.\"\n\nNo. (4). PLATE III. CODEX EPHRAEMI, _palimpsest_ of Century V. 1 Tim.\n3:16, and end of verse 15. The heavier upper writing in two columns\n(cursive) is a translation from Ephraem the Syrian. The paler underneath\nis the Greek text.\n\nNo. (5). PLATE IV. CODEX BEZAE, Century VI. Matt. 5:1-3. From the _type_\ncast for Kipling's edition, which give a good idea of the manuscript. It\nis _bilingual_, the Greek and Latin stichometrically written and on\nopposite pages. In the present specimen the Latin is placed below the\nGreek. On the left margin of the Greek are the Ammonian sections.\n\nNo. (6). PLATE II. CODEX PURPUREUS, Century VI. Part of Jno. 15:20. In\nthe margin the Ammonian section 139 ([Greek: RATh]), and under it the\nthird Eusebian canon ([Greek: G]).\n\nNo. (7). PLATE II. CODEX LAUDIANUS, Century VI. Part of Acts 20:28.\nBilingual and stichometrically written, the Latin on the left and the\nGreek on the right.\n\nNo. (8). PLATE III. CODEX MONACENSIS, Century X. Luke 7: end of verse 25\nand beginning of verse 26.\n\nNo. (9). PLATE III. CODEX BASILENSIS (cursive), Century X. Matt. 15:1,\nand part of verse 2.\n\nNo. (10). PLATE V. CODEX RUBER (cursive, in bright red ink), Century X.\n2 Cor. 1:4, with end of verse 3, and beginning of verse 5.\n\nNo. (11). PLATE V. Part of Luke 20:9, 10, from a fragmentary Palimpsest\nof century VI., brought in 1847 from the Nitrian desert, and now in the\nBritish Museum, add. 17,211. It is covered by Syrian writing of Century\nIX. or X.\n\n[Illustration: PLATE I. (l). SINAI CODEX. (2). ALEXANDRINE CODEX.]\n\n[Illustration: PLATE II. (3). VATICAN CODEX. (6). CODEX PURPUREUS.]\n\n[Illustration: PLATE III. (4). CODEX EPHRAEMI. (7). CODEX LAUDIANUS.\n(8). CODEX MONACENSIS. (9). CODEX BASILENSIS.]\n\n[Illustration: PLATE IV. (5). CODEX BEZAE.]\n\n[Illustration: PLATE V. (10). CODEX RUBER. (11). A PALIMPSEST FROM THE\nNITRIAN DESERT.]","title":"Companion to the Bible","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":244446}