^^^^.. OF mNCETo^. [ OCT 1 HEEMENEUTICAL MANUAL : ou, INTRODUCTION THE EXEGETICAL STUDY SCRIPTURES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. PATRICK I'AIEBAIEN, B.D,, PRINCIPAL AND PROFESSOR OF DITINITY IN THE FREE CHURCH COLLEGE, GLASGOW ; AUTHOR OF " TYPOLOGY OF SCRIPTURE," ETC. EDINBURGH: T. & T. CLARK, 38, GEORGE STREET, LONDON : HAMILTON, ADAMS, AND CO. DUBLIN: JOHN ROBERTSON. MDCCCLVm. Mfi. ML'KKAY ANLi (ilun, eRINTICltS, E ll 1 N I: II K(; 11 . PEEFACE. The alternative title prefixed to this volume lias been assumed, rather than the simple designation of " Hermeneutics of the New Testament," chiefly for the purpose of indicating, that a certain latitude may be expected in it, both in regard to the range of subjects discussed, and in regard to the measure and method of treatment respectively applied to them. Works, in- deed, could readily be named, bearing the title of Hermeneutics, which have taken nearly as much license in both respects, as I need to vindicate for myself in connection with the present pub- lication. But the term is strictly applicable only to such works as unfold the principles of Interpretation, and give to these a regular, consecutive, and scientific treatment. Of this sort is the comparatively recent work of Cellerier (llanuel (THenne- neutique, 1852), which, however objectionable in respect to the principles it occasionally enunciates, is one of the most systematic and complete in form, — treating, after a pretty long introduction, successively of the Psychological elements and aspects of the subject — the Grammatical, the Historical, the Scriptuary (or more peculiarly Biblical), the Doctrinal. In this province, however, it is possible to sacrifice to completeness or perfec- tion of form greatly more than there is any reasonable prospect of gaining by it. Higher ends have here to be aimed at than can always be reached by a rigid adherence to scientific method, or a close regard to artistic proportions. For, in a field so various as that of New Testament Scripture, so complicated, touching on so many relations, and embracing topics so diverse alike in nature and in importance, it often depends, not more, perhaps even less, upon the hermeneutical principles adopted, than upon the mode of applying these principles to particular cases, and Jv PREFACK. passages of more peculiar difficulty, that solid footing is to be obtained, and satisfactory results accomplished. Accordingly, in those hermeneutical works, which take the more precise and scientific form, there is always what appears to me much need- less waste in one direction, and ill-judged parsimony in another. Not a little space is occupied in announcing, or illustrating piin- ciples, which every one knows and admits, and which often have no special bearing on the interpretation of Scripture ; while many of the points more peculiarly calling for elucidation are summarily disposed of, and left much as they were found. Even when the simjiler elements of the subject are correctly enough stated, little often in connection with them is properly wrought out ; and unless the student of Scripture is content to take all on the authority of his INIaster, he will often feel as much at a loss as ever in respect to the things for which he more especially seeks the help of a qualified instructor. A work that is really fitted in the present day to serve the purpose of a proper guide-book, must undoubtedly so far possess a scientific character, that it shall exhibit an acquaintance with the several branches of learning and knowledge, which illustrate the language and structure, the incidental allusions, and the main theme of the sacred books, and apply what it may thence appro- priate in an orderly and judicious manner. If deficient in this, it fails in the fundamentals of the subject. But it should be allowed to move with some freedom in the selection of its topics, and in the relative care and consideration that it expends upon some of them, as compared with others. It cannot otherwise occupy, in a serviceable manner, the intermediate ground, that properly belongs to it, between Lexicons, Grammars, Books of Antiqui- ties, etc., on the one hand, and formal commentaries on the other — turning, as it should do, to such account the materials furnished by the former class of productions, as may aid and qualify the student for an independent and discriminating use of the latter. This is the peculiar province and object of a Her- meneutical work on Scripture, and that will always come prac- tically the nearest to the mark, which is the best fitted to place the student of Scripture in the position now indicated. In works composed with such an aim, there must ever be room for some diversity of judgment as to the subjects that should be PREFACE, brought into notice, and the degree of consideration respectively given to them. Different persons will naturally form their opinions from somewhat different points of view ; and what will appear to some the fittest arrangement to be adopted, and the points most in need of investigation, may not always be regarded in exactly the same light by others. In this respect I have simply to say, that I have endeavoured to exercise an impartial judg- ment, influenced, no doubt, to some extent, by what my own experience, coupled with the general tendencies of the age, may have suggested to me as of importance. Throughout the volume prominence has been given to the connection that subsists be- tween the Old and the New in the book of God's revelation, as well in respect to words as ideas ; there being nothing more essen- tial than correct views here to an intelligent reading of New Testament Scripture, or better fitted to serve as a safeguard against superficial and fanciful interpretations. This, also, has partly operated as a reason for introducing some of the disserta- tions which occupy the Second Part of the volume. The whole of these, however, have reference to terms and subjects, which must always engage the special attention of those, who give themselves to the exegetical study of the writings of the New Testament. And they may further serve the purpose of exem- plifying, as by a few testing cases, the principles and modes of inquiry, which it is the gi'eat object of the work to explain and recommend. In another respect, also, I am prepared for finding occasional differences between what has approved itself as right to my own mind, and what may appear such to some of my readers : — I refer to the explanations given of several of the more difficult passages of Scripture, and the exhibitions of Divine truth there- with connected. Here, again, there is room for a certain diver- sity of judgment, even among those who are agreed upon the plenary inspiration of Scripture, and the great doctrines of evan- gelical religion. And I am not so extravagant as to imagine, that on every point I shall carry the convictions of all, who may be at one with me in fundamental principles. It is possible I may find critics, who are disposed to look with so censorious a spirit and so unkindly an eye on what I have written, that thev shall even tr^- to represent me as at fault in regard to some of vi PREFACE. those evangelical principles themselves. This, I perceive, has been attempted in a certain quarter with respect to my last publication — Prophecy viewed in respect to its Distinctive Na- ture, etc. — and, as the work is occasionally referred to in the present volume, I may be permitted here to make a brief allusion to the subject. In Chapter IV. of that work, I treated of the bearing of prophecy on human freedom and responsibility, with a consideration of the question, how far it should be regarded as conditional in its announcements. I was aware, of covirse, that people would think differently respect- ing the mode of explanation I adopted : that to some it might appear more or less satisfactory, to others not. But a writer in .the Journal of Prophecy (for July 1857) has chosen to represent me as giving expression to views essentially at variance with the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination, or the unconditionality of the Divine decrees. Nothing certainly was further from my own mind ; neither there, nor in any other part of my writings, have I consciously given expression to a thought which was intended, in the slightest degree, to impugn the statement of doctrine on that subject, contained in the Westminster Confession, or the Articles of the Church of England, and not a few things that plainly enough point in the contrary direction. But the reviewer, of course, must have some way of making out his point ; and, with the adroitness of a critic, who sets himself to damage the credit of a book, and its author along with it, he does so by im- posing a sense upon my words which they were not intended to bear, and so bringing them into connection with a subject that was not properly in my view. Prophecy, as he there views it, is identical with the Divine decree ; so that a conditional element in the one comes to be virtually the same with a conditional ground for the other. The subject of discourse with me, how- ever, was prophecy, simply as it appears in the written Word, as an objective communication to men. In handling this, I, no doubt, occasionally spoke of the Divine purposes ; but of these, as is evident from the whole tenor and connection of the dis- course, not as formed in the mind of God, and determining with infinite and unerring wisdom the entire system of the Divine administration. I purposely abstained fi'om entering upon this higher region, and confined ni}' attention to the intimations of the PREFACE. vii Divine will as disclosed in the prophetic word — to these as coming into contact with men's obligations and responsibilities — and therefore, in a greater or less degree (for they differ widely in the extent to which they admit it), tinged with that anthropomor- phic colouring, which is required to adapt the communications of heaven to the thoughts and feelings, the ever varying states and conditions of men. The subject, as presented by me, might be assigned to that species of accommodation treated of in Part I. sect. 5 of this volume, according to wliich, Avhile the forin given to spiritual things bears the variable type of what is human, there are not the less realities lying behind, fixed and immutable. And in the very brief and general allusion, which was made to the Calvinistic writers of a former age, nothing more was designed than to intimate, in the shortest manner possible — it was implied, indeed, rather than intimated — that the distinction (however expressed) between the secret and the revealed, or between the absolute decrees and the conditional announcements of God, did not, to my view, satisfectorily explicate the matter at issue. I thought so then, and I think so still, notwithstanding the advan- tage I have derived fi'om the instructions of so learned a reviewer. To divide, as he and his authorities do, between prophecy, con- sidered as equivalent to Di^dne decrees, and prophecy, as involv- ing matter of commination or promise — the former absolute, the latter conditional — does not satisfy my " exegetical conscience," and I am afraid never can. It seems to me to introduce an arti- ficial distinction into the prophetic word, which is not indicated in that word itself, nor admits of being properly drawn ; and has the appearance, at least, of attempting, by the mere adoption of a particular phraseology, or by arbitrarily singling out portions of the same prophetic message, to tide over difficulties in inter- pretation, which attach to the subject as a concrete whole, as an objective communication addressed to the fears or the hopes of mankind. But this is not the place for minute or lengthened explanations on the subject. I wished merely, in a few sentences, to deliver my protest against a style of criticism Avhich I hold to be essen- tially unfair, and which, if similarly applied to the sacred Avi-iters, might readily be made to turn one-half of them against another. It is not likely that I shall refer to anything of the same sort in ■viii PREFACE. future. No one, who reads with a candid and unbiassed spirit what is written in this, or in previous productions of my pen, can have any doubt that the great principles of tlie Reformed churches are therein maintained and vindicated. And the palpable mis- representations, and, I must add, uncourteous treatment, which have sometimes already, and may possibly be again, employed respecting me, by parties belonging to the same prophetical school with the reviewer above referred to, together with the clouds of dust that usually accompany their hostile attempts, it is my in- tention to leave to the obscurity, to which they cannot fail of themselves to descend. The Third Part of the volume, which is devoted to the quota- tions from the Old Testameiit in the New, occupies a larger space than I could have wished. But it relates to a branch of the subject wdiich, in the present day, is of special importance ; and I did not see how my main object could be served without taking it up in detail, and examining somewhat carefully the parts which are more peculiarly attended with difficulty. For those who would study the subject in its relation to Typology, and would trace the gradual evolution of the meaning of Old Testament Scripture, through the application of particular passages to the realities of the Gospel, I take leave to refer to the first volume of my Typology, and especially to the Appendix in that volume on this particular subject. P. F. Glasgow, May 1858. CONTENTS. PART FIRST. DISCUSSION OF FACTS AND PRINCIPLES BEARING ON THE LANGUAGE AND INTERPRETATION OF NEW TESTAMENT SCRIPTURE. Page Section First. — The Original Language of the New Testament, 1 Section Second. — The Characteristics of New Testament Greek, 12 Deviation from classic purity, p. 12-18; its basis in the later common dialect, p. 18-24 ; its Hebraistic ifbpress, p. 24-31 ; mistakes made respecting this, p. 31-39 ; impress derived from new relations and ideas, p. 39-45. Section Third. — Collateral Sources for determining the Sense, and ex- plaining the Peculiarities of New Testament Scripture, . 46 Writings of Philo and Josephus, p. 47-50 : Jewish Rabbinical writings, p. 50-54 ; ancient versions, p. 55-58 ; early Fathers, p. 58-62 ; Books of Antiquities, etc., p. 62, 63. Section Fourth. — General Rules and Principles to be followed in the Interpretation of Particular Words and Passages, . . 63 Section Fifth — Of False and True Accommodation ; or the Influence that should be allowed to Prevailing Modes of Thought in fa- shioning the views and utterances of the Sacred Writers, . 85 Section Sixth. — The respect due in the Interpretation of the New Tes- tament to the Analogy of the Faith, or from one part of Scripture to another ; and the further respect to be had to the Religions of the Ancient World, the True and the False, . . 103 Section Seventh. — The Relation of the Old to the New in God's Dis- pensations more exactly defined, with the view of preventing mis- taken or partial Interpretations of such portions of New Testa- ment Scripture as bear on it, . . . . 120 X CONTENTS. Page Section Eighth. — On the proper Interpretation of the Tropical parts of the New Testament, . . . . .136 Section Ninth, — The Parables of Christ, their proper Interpretation and Treatment, . . . .151 Section Tenth. — On the subject of Parallelism as bearing on the Struc- ture and Interpretation of New Testament Scripture, . 166 PART SECOND. DISSERTATIONS ON PARTICULAR SUBJECTS CONNECTED WITH THE EXEGESIS OF NEW TESTAMENT SCRIPTURE. Section First. — The Two Genealogies of Christ, given respectively by the Evangelists Matthew and Luke, .... 181 Section Second. — The designations and doctrine of Angels, with refer- ence more especially to the Interpretation of passages in New Testament Scripture, ..... 201 Section Third. — On the Names of Christ in New Testament Scripture, and, in particular, on the use of Xpisros and Tioc rov dudpuTrov, 230 Section Fourth. — On the Import and Use of certain terms, which express an antagonistic relation to Christ's Person and Authority, ■ipsuloltlei.ax.»'hot, ■i^ivOo'7rpo(f)-/}Tcti, -ipivooxp'oro;, dvri'xp'aros, . 247 Section Fifth. — On jioiTrri^u and its cognates, with special reference to the mode of administering Baptism, . . . 264 Section Sixth.— Import and Use of Hades, oMyh, in Scripture, . 284 Section Seventh. — On the Import and Use of lioc,dvix.Yi in the New Testament, ...... 306 Section Eighth.— On the Import of certain terms employed in New Testament Scripture to indicate the nature and extent of the re- novation to be accomplished through the Gospel, y.iTxvoix^ ivtx,- 'Atyyi'Jidia, (kuoLKCt,ivuatg, d'Trox.x-nx.aruati, . ■ ■ 318 Section Ninth. — On the use oiParasheu^ and Pascha in St John's ac- count of our Lord's last sufferings ; and the question therewith connected, whether our Lord kept His last Passover on the same day as the Jews, ..•••• 334 CONTENTS. PART THIRD. THE USE MADE OF OLD TESTAMENT SCRIPTURE IN THE AVRITINGS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. Page Section First. — Quotations from the Old Testament in the New, con- sidered in respect to the manner of citation, . . 357 Section Second. — Quotations from the Old Testament in the New, con- sidered in respect to the mode of application, . . 416 Appendix. — The historical circumstances that led to Christ's birth at Bethlehem — Cyrenius and the taxing, . . . 461 ERRATA. Page 17, last line, for Hebraism read Hellenism, 37, second line, /or ^iat^ito; read O/Ai-r^oj. 101, eighth line from bottom, /or the victory, read victory. 134, fifth line from bottom, for showing read shunning. 202, line eighth, after vow insert than that thou shouldst vow. 228, line twenty-fifth, /or hope and despair, read fear and despair. 237, line twelfth, for •^ivlihot.aKce.'hot read i^svhohiba.aKa.'hoi. 311, line twenty-first, /or lta.6Y}x,xi read }na.&ri><.u.i. ... line twenty-sixth, /or B/a^ijxii read oioe.dyix.y]. 319, third line from bottom, insert or before from. PAET FIRST. DISCUSSION OF FACTS AND PRINCIPLES BEARING ON THE LANGUAGE AND INTERPRETATION OF NEW TESTAMENT SCRIPTURE. SECTION FIEST. THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. In the more exact and scientific study of the Sacred Scriptures, the first object, in the order of nature, that calls for examination, has respect to the state of the oi'iginal records. The possession of a pure text is an indispensable preliminary to a thoroughly correct and trustworthy exposition. And, as well fi'om its import- ance as from the peculiar character of the investigations belong- ing to it, this is now fitly assigned to a distinct branch of Biblical study. Next to it in order, and certainly not inferior in import- ance, is a correct and discriminating acquaintance with the original language of Scriptm^e, and the principles that should guide our inquiries into its meaning and purport. All theology that is really sound, and that will stand the test of time, must have its foundation here. The Reformers, to their credit, clearly perceived this, and were hence led to doctrinal results, which, in the main, never have been, and never can be displaced. They proceeded on the sound maxim of ^Melancthon, that Scripture cannot be understood theologically, unless it has been already understood grammatically (Scriptura non potest intelligi theo- logice, nisi antea sit intellecta grammatice). In such statements, of course, the term grammatical must be taken in its wider sense, A 2 THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF as comprehending all that is necessary to a just discernment of the import and spirit of the original. And if such a critical acquaintance with the mere language of Sacred Scripture be but one element of success, it still is an element of very- peculiar mo- ment to the well-furnished theologian ; since it has respect to the ultimate source of all that is sound and valuable in theological attainment. As regards the Scriptures of the New Testament, with which alone we have properly to do at present, it is only the Greek language that comes directly into notice ; since the whole of the writings that compose the New Testament are found, as to their original form, in no other language than that of the Greek. If any of them ever existed in a prfor original, it no longer does so. Nor, with the exce])tion of St Matthew's Gospel, and the Epistle to the Hebrews, has it ever been imagined, but by a few dream- ing and speculative minds, that the books of the New Testament appeared originally in any other language. The Epistle to the Hebrews is now also held by all men of competent learning to have been originally composed in Greek. And there only re- mains the Gospel of St Matthew about which there may still be some room for difference of opinion — though, even in regard to it, the conviction has of late been growing in favour of the proper originality of its present form, which was certainly in current use before the close of the apostolic ago. Whence, then, did this predilection for the Greek arise ? Were our Lord's discourses, and the waitings of the Evangelists, as well as of the apostles, transmitted to us in Greek, because that was the current language of the place and time ? Was this really the language in which our Lord and his apostles usually spoke ? So, some have been disposed to maintain ; and though it is a ques- tion rather of antiquarian interest, than of any vital moment for the interpretation of Scripture, it is entitled to some consideration at our hands. It has also a certain bearing on the dispute re- specting the original language of St Matthew's Gospel. Indeed, it was chiefly in connection with this more special question, that the other pressed itself on the attention of Biblical students. Thus Hug, in his Introduction to the New Testament, went at considerable length into the investigation of the subject, for the purpose of vindicating the proper originality of the Greek Gospel THE NEW TESTAMENT. 3 of Matthew ; and endeavoured to prove, that the Greek language was in current use throughout Palestine at the commencement of the Christian era — so much so, that the people generally un- derstood it, that our Lord himself often employed it, nor had His evangelists and apostles any proper reason for resorting to another in those writings, which were intended for circulation in Pales- tine and the neighbouring regions. But the fullest and, we be- lieve, also the ablest defence of this view, is to be found in the treatise of an Italian Ecclesiastic, Dominici Diodati, entitled De Christo Greece loquente exercitatio, originally published at Naples in 1767, and re-published in this country not many years since. In this treatise the subject is discussed, partly on general grounds, as on its own account interesting and important to the Biblical student, and partly also with reference to its bearing on the ques- tion of the original language of Matthew's Gospel. The position Avhich the author labours to establish, is, that " neither Hebrew, Syriac, nor Latin, was the vernacular language of the Saviour, but Greek." It will be readily understood, on the other side, that those who held the contrary opinion respecting Matthew's Gospel — viz. that it was originally written in Hebrew for the use of the Jewish believers in Syria — were naturally led to controvert the position, that Greek was generally spoken and understood in Palestine : they held, that not Greek, but Aramaic, a sort of broken Hebrew, was the only language in general use, and that also commonly employed by our Lord and his apostles in their public discourses. Now, on a question of this kind, it is not difficult for an in- genious theorist, or an eager disputant, to sort and apply some scattered notices of ancient writers, either directly or indirectly bearing on the subject, in such a way as to give them a plausible appearance, and compel them to pay tribute to the side of the controversy he has espoused. But there are certain great prin- ciples applicable to the case which, with all sober and impartial minds, must go far to settle it, and which cannot be overthrown, or materially modified by any occasional statements or fragment- ary notices culled out of ancient records. It is found, not in the history of one people, but in the history of nations generally, that there is nothing which is more tenacious of its grasp, and which more slowl}^ yields to the force of foreign influences, than the 4 THE ORTGINAI. LANGUAGE OF vernacular language of a people. " Language is after all the most durable of human monuments. Conquerors may overthrow empires and states ; earthquakes may swallow up cities ; time may confound all things besides : — But the winged words, in which man gives utterance to his feelings and thoughts, often outlast all these ravages, and preserve the memory of nations long after they have ceased to exist. That which seems the most fragile, the most variable, the most evanescent of human attributes or possessions, becomes in reality the most permanent, the most in- destructible. If no longer able to support an independent exist- ence, it clings to and coalesces with some more recent and robust dialect : — if lost in one form, it is almost certain to re-appear in another — exhibiting amidst all changes and disfigurations incon- testable traces of its origin. This law of decay and reproduction, of fluctuation yet permanence, is so general, that it is principally from analytical inquiries into the origin, composition, and affi- nities of language, that we derive what knowledge we possess of the early history and fortunes of nations." ^ In confirmation of this, it is only necessary to point to a few well-known examples. One of the most striking is furnished by the ancient country of the Pharaohs, after the time that their dynasty came to an end, and a succession of conquests, followed by the ascendency of a foreign power, swept over the land. Persian, Macedonian, Homan, and Arabian conquerors in turn held possession of the throne of Egypt, each endeavouring to establish as firmly as possible their dominion over the vanquished, and to render their sway endiu'ing and complete. Yet after this subduing and fusing process had been proceeding for twelve or fourteen centuries, we have the best grounds for believing that the language of the Pharaohs still survived, and continued, though not, we may well conceive, without the introduction of many foreign admixtures, to form the staple of the vernacular tongue of the people. What is called the Coptic language is but a corrupt form of the old Egyptic (as the name also, perhaps, is).^ Into this language the Scriptures were translated in the earlier ages of Christianity ; a liturgy in common use probably about the fifth or sixth century, is still employed by the few remaining ^ Encyclopedia Brittanica, 7th ed.. Art. 'Hieroglyphics,' c. 2d. ^ A/yi/TTTOf — Gyptos, Cop! OS, Coptic. THE NEW TESTAMliNT. » Copts of the present day — though the Coptic tongue in which it is written is no longer understood by them. They adhere to it merely as a venerable relic of the better past of their history ; of which it forms an abiding, though a mournful and mummy-like witness. But its introduction into the churches of Egypt a few centuries after the Christian era testifies to the fact, that the sub .stance of the ancient language had withstood the influences of foreign conquest and dominion for more than a thousand years. We may, however, take an example nearer home. The Nor- man conquest took place in the year 1066 ; and it is well known to have been the policy of the first Norman kings — a policy, too, that was continued with steady aim by their successors— to get rid of the old Saxon entirely, and have it supplanted by their own Norman French. In this French the statutes of the realm were written ; so also were commentaries upon the laws, and the de- cisions of the courts of justice. In many places it was at length introduced into the common schools ; so that an old chronicler (Ralph Higden) complains of it as a thing "against the usage and manner of all other nations," that " children in schools are compelled for to leave their own language, and to construe their lessons and their things in French." A change in this respect only began to be introduced about the year 1385 — more than three centuries after the conquest — when the English again re- sumed its place in the schools ; — and though it was English ma- terially altered, betraying in many respects the influence of Nor- man domination, yet it still retained its old Saxon root and trunk. The power and policy of the conquerors, though in active opera- tion for more than three centuries, could prevail no further than to superinduce some partial changes upon the mother tongue of the people, and introduce some additional terms ; and tliat, too, while this tongue itself was in a comparatively crude state, and very far from having reached its matured form. Other examples might be referred to — such as the Welsh, the Gaelic, and the Irish-speaking portions of the British Isles, from which still more powerful and long-continued influences have not been sufficient to dislodge the ancient dialects from their place, as the customary vehicles of intercourse among the ])eop]e. But it is needless to enlarge. The cases adduced are by no means singular ; they are but specimens of a multitude — exem[)lifications 6 THE ORIGINAL LAXGUAGE OF of principles and habits that are inlierent in human nature, ope- rating equally among all races and in all climes. And is it, then, to be conceived, Avitli such facts presenting themselves in the linguistic history of tribes and nations, that the effect of a foreign rule in Palestine — a rule that had not for more than two or three centuries possessed the form of a stringent and pervasive domi- nation— the rule, too, of masters, who themselves spoke different languages, first Persian, then Greek, then Roman, and who never were so closely identified with the subjects of their sway as in the cases already noticed — is it yet to be conceived, that the effect here was to be such, as to bring about an entire revolution in the vernacular language of the people ? The supposition is in the highest degree improbable — we may even say, morally impossible; the rather so, as the Jews had reasons connected with their religion, their history, and their prospects, for cleaving to their language, which no other people, either in ancient or in modern times, equally possessed. Ever3'thing in the past and the future contributed to throw^ an air of sacredness and grandeur around the Hebrew language, which must have doubly endeared it to their minds, and, on the part of their conquerors, have greatly aggravated the difficulty of supplanting it by another altogether different. It is, therefore, against all analogy, and in opposition to the strongest tendencies of human nature, to suppose that in such circumstances the Greek tongue should, in the age of our Lord and His apostles, have come into general use in Palestine, and to any considerable extent taken the place of Aramaic. With far more probability might it be maintained that Norman and not Anglo-Saxon was the language of common life among the English in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, or that in the present day English is understood and spoken by the mass of the population in the Principality of Wales, or in the Highlands of Scotland. It is true, however, that the ancient language of Palestine had undergone a certain change ; it had in some de- gree suffered by the misfortunes of the people, and had lost its original purity. The long sojourn in Clialdea, in the first in- stance, tlien the intercourse kept up with the neighbouring Syrian tribes through commerce, war, and marriage relationships, natu- rally brought into it foreign elements, and imparted to it a Syro- THE NEW TESTAMENT. 7 Clialdaic form. Of this we have undoubted indications, both in the later books of the Old Testament, and in occasional notices and expressions that occur in the New. But these successive changes only affected the accidents of the language ; they intro- duced new dialects, antiquated particular words and phrases, and obtained currency for others in their stead ; but — as in all similar cases — they left the bones and sinews of the language, its structure and essence, substantially what they were. The historical proofs of this are perfectly sufficient. Josephus, for example, constantly distinguishes between his native tongue and the Greek. While he speaks of having applied diligently to domestic and foreign literature, so as even to be acknowledged by all his countrymen as a person of superior learning, he yet confesses himself to have been so long accustomed to his own tongue {Tarptog ffuv^hia) that he could not attain to an accurate pronunciation of the Greek (Antiq. xx. 11, 2). In the introduc- tion, as well to the Antiquities as to the Wars, he speaks of writing in the Greek language and in his native tongue, as two distinct things, and says, that what he originally wrote in the one he afterwards translated into the other, (^EXXddi yXJJsffri fura- /3aAwy a roTg jSapjSdpoig t7\ TaTpiM 6vvTdt,ag, Bell. Jud. Pro. 1, Antiq. Pro. 2). And once and again he represents the com- munications sent from Titus during the siege of Jerusalem as being interpreted by himself to the Jews, or by some other person who Hebraised Qi3paf(^ojv), as he terms it, or spake to them in their own tongue {rrarpiu) yX'SiSsr,, Bell., v. 9, 2, vi. 2, 11). At the same time he shows, by occasional allusions to Syriac or Babylonian terms, that the Hebrew current in his day was not altogether identical with that of earlier times — as when, speaking of the high priest's upper robe or girdle, he tells us the old designation for it had been dropt (t233^, ahaneth), and it was now called by the Babylonian name Emia (Antiq. iii. 7, 2) — a proof that the foreign influence had reached even to the terms for sacred things, and if to these, then assuredly to many others. When we tm'n to the New Testament, the evidence is not less clear on both points — both, that the language in common use in Palestine was of the Hebrew, not of the Greek character, yet Hebrew of the Aramaic, not of the older and purer Hebrew « THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF stamp. Thus, Avhen our Lord appears in the attitude of ad- dressing any one very familiarly, of giving or adopting designa- tions for common use. He is represented as speaking in Aramaic : — as when He said to the daughter of Jairus, Talitha cumi {'rp^p t^n^^D, Mark v. 41),and to the blind man,Ephphatha (nnan^J, Mark vii. 34) ; or when He referred to the terms currently em- ployed among the people, such as raka, rabbi, corban ; when he applied to His disciples such epithets as Cephas, Bar-jona, Bo- anerges (tJ'''a"i "ipa) ; or when on the cross He exclaimed, Eli, Eli, lama Sabactliani. Similar indications are also to be found in the Acts of the Apostles — in the name, for example, reported to have been given by the Jews to the field purchased by the reward of Judas' treachery, ^c<3^(7ama (properly 'A/csX6a/xa, t?OT hpn, i. 19) ; or of tabitha as the familiar term, the native word for the Greek bopytdg (ix. 36) ; or, finally, in the fact of St Paul addressing the Jewish multitude on the occasion of his being apprehended in the temple, in the Hebrew tongue, and their giving, on that account, the more attentive heed to him, as addressing them through a medium which was at once intelligible and congenial to their minds (ch. xxii. 1). The composition also of Targums among the Eastern Jews, sometime about the apostolic age (certainly little if at all later), can only be explained on the sup- position that the Aramaic language in which they were written, was that currently employed at the time by the Jews in Pales- tine and the adjoining regions. Nor is there any clear or even probable evidence of the Greek translation of the Old Testa- ment Scriptures ever having been used in the synagogues of Palestine and Syria. The efforts that have been made to estab- lish this point, have utterly failed ; indeed, it can scarcely be said, that so much as one of the proofs advanced by Diodati in support of it, has any proper bearing on the subject.^ On all these grounds it appears to us a matter of historical certainty, that the Aramaic, or later Syro-Chaldaic form of the Hebrew, was in the age of our Lord the vernacular language of the Jewish people, and consequently the medium of inter- course on all ordinary occasions. At the same time, it cannot ^ The arguments by Diodati are well met by Dr Pfaunkuche, in vol. II., of Bib. Cabinet. A fair summary of the arguments on both sides is given by Dr Davidson, in his Introduction to the New Testament, I. pp. 3S-40. THE NEW TESTAMENT. 9 be reasonably doubted, on tlie other side, that from a long and varied concatenation of circumstances, the Greek language must have been very commonly understood by the higher and more educated classes throughout Syria. It was the policy both of Alexander and of his successors in that part of tlie world, to ex- tend the language and culture, as well as ascendency of Greece. With this view cities were planted at convenient distances, which might be considei'ed Grecian rather than Asiatic in their population and manners. The Syrian kings, by whom the Mace- donian line of rulers was continued, kept up Greek as the court language, and were doubtless followed by their official repre- sentatives, and the influential classes generally throughout the country. The army, too, though not entirely, nor perhaps even in the major part, yet certainly in very considerable proportions, was composed of persons of Grecian origin, who could not fail to make the Greek language in some sense familiar at the various military stations in the regions of Syria. Even after the Macedonian rule had terminated, and all became subject to the sway of the Romans, it was still usually through the medium of the Greek tongue that official intercourse was maintained, and the decrees of government were made known. It is in the nature of things impossible that so many Hellenizing influences should have continued in operation for two or three centuries, without leading somewhat generally to a partial knowledge of Greek among the better classes in all parts of Syria. There were also circumstances more strictly peculiar to the Jewish people, which require to be taken into account, and which could not be without their effect in bringing them to some extent acquainted with the Greek language. Partly from special en- couragements held out to them at the founding of Alexandria, a Grecian city, and partly, perhaps, from the mercantile spirit which began to take possession of them from the time of the Babylonish exile, Alexandria became one of their great centres, where, as we are told by Philo, they formed about two-fifths of the entire population. They abounded also, as is clear alone from the Acts of the Apostles, in the Greek-speaking cities of Asia IVIinor, and in those of Greece itself. From whatever causes, the dispersion seems, for some generations previous to the Christian era, to have taken very much a Western, and 10 THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF specially a Grecian direction ; in every place of importance in- habited by Greeks, members of the stock of Israel, had their homes and their synagogues. It is only, too, what might have been expected in the circumstances, that the culture and enter- prise which distinguished the communities in those Grecian cities, would act with stimulating effect upon the Jewish mind, and bring its powers into more energetic play and freedom of action, than was likely to be found among the Palestinian Jews, who were sealed up in their national bigotry and stagnant Pha- risaism. Hence, the only moral and religious productions which are known to have appeared among the Jews between the closing of the Old Testament canon and the birth of Christ — those contained in the Apocryphal writings — came chiefly if not entirely from the pen of the Hellenistic Jews, and exist only — most probably never did exist but — in the Greek language. Hence also the- Greek translation of the Old Testament, which was completed several generations before the Christian era, and which, there is good reason to believe, was in extensive use about that era among the Jewish people. So that, looking to the num- bers, the higher intelligence, and varied resources of the Hellenistic Jews, and taking into account their frequent personal visits to Palestine at the ever-recurring festivals, we cannot doubt that they materially contributed to a partial knowledge and use of the Greek tongue among their brethren in Palestine. As regards the question, then, whether our Lord and his im- mediate disciples ever spoke in Greek to their countrymen in Judea, it may be admitted as perfectly possible, perhaps even probable, that they sometimes did so — but the reverse of probable, that such should have been their usual practice, or that their public addresses should have been originally delivered in that tongue ; — the more so, as their intercourse for the most part lay, not with the more refined and educated, but with the humbler classes of society. But in respect to the further question, why in such a case the books of the New Testament, includino- those which contain our Lord's personal discourses, should, with at most one exception — if the Gospel of Matthew he indeed an exce]:)tion — have been originally composed in the Greek, rather than the Aramaic language ? the answer is obvious — that at the time those books were written, and for the individuals and comnumi- THE NEW TESTAMENT. 11 ties whose spiritual good they more immediately contemplated, the Greek language was on every account the fittest medium. It was comparatively but a small portion of the people resident in Jerusalem and Judea, who embraced the Christian faith ; and those who did, having in the first instance enjoyed many oppor- tunities of becoming personally acquainted with the facts of Gos- pel history, and enjoying afterwards the ministry of Apostles and Evangelists, who were perfectly cognisant of the whole, were in a manner independent of any written records. Besides, the troubles which shortly after befel their native land, and which were distinctly foreseen by the founders of the Christian faith, destined, as they were, to scatter the power of the Jewish nation, and to render its land and people monuments of judgment, pre- sented an anticipative reason against committing the sacred and permanent records of the Christian faith to the Hebrew language. That language, itself already corrupted and broken, was pre- sently to become to all but the merest fragment of the Jews themselves, antiquated and obsolete. The real centres of Chris- tianity— the places where it took firmest root, and from which it sent forth its regenerating power among the nations — from the time that authoritative records of its facts and expositions of its doctrines became necessary — were to be found in Greek-speaking communities — the communities scattered throughout the cities of Asia Minor, of Greece, at Rome and the West — where also the first converts to the faith consisted chiefly of those Avhose native tongue was Greek. Whether, therefore, respect were had to the immediate wants of the first Christian communities, or to the quarters in which the Gospel was to find its most active agents and i-epresentatives, and the direction it was appointed to take in the world, the Greek was obviously the language in Avhich its original and authoritative documents behoved to be written. Whatever reasons there were for the adherents of Judaism getting the Scriptures of the Old Testament rendered into Greek ; whatever reasons also Josephus could have for translating into Greek his Jewish histories, and the authors of the Apocryphal writings for adopting that language in preference to Aramaic, the same rea- sons existed, and in far greater force, for the inspired writings, which were to form in earlier and later times the fundamental records of the Christian faith, being composed in the Greek Ian- 12 THE CHARACTERISTICS OF guage, and in that language committed to the faithful keeping of the Church. Had they not been originally composed in Greek, the course of Providence would presently have required that they should be translated into Greek ; and considering how much depended on the correct knowledge of them, and how many sources we have for illustrating Greek, as compared with Ara- maic productions, it was unspeakably better that, from the first, they should have appeared in a Greek form. SECTION SECOND. THE CHARACTERISTICS OF ]SIEW TESTAMENT GREEK. I. Being satisfied that the books of the New Testament were written in Greek, our next inquiry naturally turns on the pre- cise character of this Greek. Is it fashioned after the model of classical Greek, or has it laws and properties of its own ? If the latter, wherein consist its distinctive peculiarities? This is evidently a subject of no small moment for the correct interpre- tation of the New Testament writings, and demands a careful examination. In the present day, it can scarcely be said, that there is any material difference of opinion upon the subject. This common agreement, however, is the result partly of a long controversy, and partly of the more exact and impartial treat- ment of Scripture, which is the general characteristic of present, as compared with earlier, times. Indeed, the question, in so far as it has been agitated, has usually turned, not so much upon the fact of a difference between New Testameiit and classical Greek (which no competent scholar could fail to perceive), as upon the extent of the difference, and the precise light in which it was to be regarded. So early as the period of the Reforma- tion, we find distinct notice taken of the difference. Erasmus, for example, says on Acts x. 38, " The apostles had not learned their Greek from the speeches of Demosthenes, but from the language of common discourse ; and I should think it best suited to the Gospel of Christ, that it was conununicateil in a simple NEW TESTAMENT GREEK. 13 and unpolished style, and that the discourse of the apostles re- sembled their clothing, their manners, and their whole life. Pious persons should as little take offence at the language of the apostles, as at their unwashed bodies, and their plebeian gar- ments." Beza, in a long note on the same chapter, only so far controverts the sentiments of Erasmus, as the latter had affirmed the language of the apostles to be relatively imperfect and ob- scure, as well as unpolished ; but he admits the existence of Hebraistic peculiarities, and of occasional solecisms. Practically, however, the theological writers of that period treated the lan- guage of the New Testament much as they would have done any other production in Greek, and as if it had no veiy marked pe- culiarities of its own. The doctrinal discussions, too, in which they, and their immediate successors in sacred learning, were so much engaged, tended not a little to impede the exact philologi- cal study of the Greek Sci'iptures, and their relation in point of dialect to other Greek writings, from a too prominent regard to polemical discussions. Often, indeed, Greek studies were prosecuted for the purpose mainly of impugning or defending out of Scriptm'e a particular class of doctrines ; and, as a natural consequence, the New Testament came to be regarded as an ordinary specimen of Greek, and to be commonly used as a class-book for the acquire- ment of the language. Nor, by and by, were there wanting persons to contend for the absolute purity of its style — including among others the well-known printer Eobert Stephens — persons who sought to prove, that the seeming peculiarities of the New Testament dialect Avere also to be met with in the contempo- raneous and earlier Avritings of Greece. It was the more com- mon opinion, however, among learned men during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, that there are certain terms and modes of expression frequently employed in the New Testament, and derived fi-om the Hebrew, which characteristically distinguish it from the -v\i-i tings belonging to Greece proper; but yet that the in- troduction of these — to use the language of Pfeiffer, who speaks the general sentiment of his age^ — "is to be sought, not in any degeneracy of the Greek language into a distinct Hellenistic dia- lect, but in an assimilation of the style of the New Testament to ' Klausen's Hcrmeneutik, p. 260. 14 THE CHARACTERISTICS OF that of the Old, tlirough an especial direction of the Holy Spirit. Such Hebraisms are not to be reckoned solecisms, or barbarisms, but modes of speech, which are peculiar to the Holy Spirit. If the style of the New Testament (he adds) may be designated by any name, it should rather be called after the authors, the sacred Greek style, than either Hellenistic, or half Hebraistic, or Hebrew Greek, or Hebraising, to say nothing of disfigured Greek." We have here, no doubt, in substance, the right view of the matter — though with an error in the formal representation of it, the offspring of a not unnatural, though mistaken dread, lest, in conceding the strict purity of New Testament Greek, a kind of slight should be thrown upon the medium of the Spirit's com- munication. The strongest representative of this feeling, per- haps, may be found in Blackwall, who, in his Sacred Classics, both denied that many of the alleged peculiarities of New Testament Greek are Hebraistic or Oriental idioms, and claimed for such, as he admitted to be of this description, the character of true and proper ornaments. " He did not consider," as justly I'emarked by Dr Campbell, in the first preliminary dissertation to the Gospels, "that when he admitted any Hebraisms in the New Testament, he in effect gave up the cause. That only can be called a Hebraism in a Greek book, which though agreeable to the Hebrew idiom, is not so to the Greek. Nobody would ever call that a Scotticism, which is equally in the manner of both Scotch and English. Now, such foreign idioms as Hebra- isms in Greek, Grecisms in Hebrew, or Latinisms in either, come all AA^thin the definition of barbarism, and sometimes even of solecism — words which have always something relative in their signification ; that term of expression being a barbarism or a solecism in one language, which is strictly proper in another, and, I may add, to one set of hearers, which is not so to another. It is in vain, then, for any one to debate about the application of the names harharism and solecism. To do so, is at best but to wrangle about words, after admitting all that is meant by them." So obvious is this view of the matter, and so readily does it commend itself to one's practical judgment, that it seems strange there shoiild ever have been any unwillingness to admit it. The NEW TESTAMENT GREEK. 15 unwillingness, as we have mentioned, simply arose from a mis- taken idea of some necessary connection subsisting between purity of diction and inspiration of sentiment ; — certainly a mis- taken idea, for the imagined purity is expressly disclaimed by the most learned of all the apostles, who represents himself as naturally appearing to a Greek audience " rude in speech ;" and of his method of discourse generally, including doubtless the language in which it was expressed, he declares that it did not aim at excellency of words. A strictly classical diction would not have been natural to him and the other apostles. And as it was the rule of the Spirit in all His supernatural gifts and operations to proceed on the basis of what is natural, it would, in the first instance, have been contrary to the usual method of the Spirit's working, if they had given utterance to their thoughts in language of fine polish and unexceptionable purity. It would, in fact, have requii'ed a kind of second inspiration to secure this, and one so little in accordance with the principle usually acted on in like cases, that it might well have suggested a doubt as to the reality of the first. If the apostles had written Avith the classical taste, which is sometimes claimed for them, thoughtful minds would have found some difficulty in believing them to be the authors of their own productions. And we, in this remoter age, should have wanted one of the most important evidences of the authenticity and genuineness of New Testament Scripture — its being written in the style natural to the persons by whom, and the age in which, it was produced. The language is pre- cisely what might have been expected from Jews at that par- ticular time expressing themselves in Greek. And this, beyond doubt, is the fundamental reason for the style being precisely what it is. But the Apostle Paul connects yn\h. it in his own case — connects with its very deficencies in respect to classical refinement and rhetorical finish — the further and higher reason, that it but served the more strikingly to exhibit the direct agency of God's Spirit in the success of the Gospel. He spake, in de- livering the Divine message, and of course also wrote, " not with the wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect ;" and " his preaching was not with enticing words of man's wnsdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith (the faith of those who listened to his preaching) 16 THE CHARACTERISTICS OF might not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God" (1 Cor. ii. 4, 5). His meaning evidently is, that in himself and the other heralds of the Gospel, in their personal attributes and in their whole manner of address, there were obvious defects and imperfections, as judged by the standard of worldly taste and re- fined culture ; and that, not as a matter of accident, but of Divine choice — for the pm'pose of rendering more palpable and conspicuous the operation of God's hand in the results that were accomplished through their instrumentality. Even this is not the wdiole. Another reason still may be added for the same thing, and one too commonly overlooked by those who contended against the purists. There was a necessity in the case for securing the proper ends of a divine revelation — a necessity for a certain departure from the pure classical style, and calling in the aid of Jewish idioms and forms of speech, in order to exhibit in the most distinct and appropriate manner the peculiar truths of the Gos23el. As these truths required the pre- paration of much time and special providences for their proper growth and development, so also did the language, in which they were to be finally presented to the world, require something of a peculiar conformation. The native language of Greece, though in some respects the most perfect medium for the communication of thought which has ever been employed by the tongue of man, yet from being always conversant with worldly things, adapted to express every shade of thought and every variety of relationship within the human and earthly sphere — but still only these — it was not fully adequate to the requirements and pur- poses of Christian authorship. For this higher end it needed to borrow something from the sanctuary of God, and be, as it were, baptized in the modes of thought and utterance which were familiar to those who had enjoyed the training of the Spirit. So that the writings of the Old Testament formed a necessary preparation for the language of the New, as did also the history and institutions of the one for the religious ideas of the other. Nor is it too much to say, as indeed has been said, " that a pure Greek Gospel, a pure Greek apostolic epistle is in- conceivable. The canonical and the Hebrew are most intimately connected." ^ ' Hengstenberg on the Revelation of St John, ii., p. 442. NEW TESTAMENT GREEK. 17 It is perfectly consistent with all this, and no less tnie, that the writers of the New Testament often show a correct acquaint- ance with the idioms of the Greek language, and knew how to distinguish between the nicer shades of meaning in many of its expressions. Thei'e are numberless passages in their writings which are scarcely less remarkable for the lofty elevation of thought they convey, than for the graceful and felicitous form in which it is embodied. And if we must say, on the one hand, that their language, as a whole, exhibits frequent devia- tions fi'om the purity of Attic Greek, we must say also, on the other, that it often makes near approaches to this — differing, if not only, yet most distinctly and chiefly, when the higher pur- poses for which they wrote required them so to do. Their language may thus be said to be of a somewhat irregular and oscillatory character. " In many cases it rises superior to the common dialect of the time, and approaches marvellously near to the vigour and precision of Attic Greek, while in other usages it seems to sink below the average standard, and to pre- sent to us the peculiarities of the later Greek, distorted and exaggerated by Aramaic forms of expression. This mixed character of the language is very interesting and suggestive. It shows us how at one time the august nature of the nar- rative, from the vital force of the truths it revealed, wove round itself a garb of clear and vigorous diction of Attic power, and more than Attic simplicity : and yet how, at other times, in the enunciation of more peculiarly scriptural senti- ments and doctrines, the nationality of the writer comes into view, and with it his inaptitude — his providential inaptitude (we may thankfully say) — at presenting definite Christian truths in the smooth, fluent, yet possibly unimpressive [and spiritually defective] turns of language, which the native Greek — the Greek of the first century — would have instinc- tively ' adopted. Where, however, in a merely literary point of view, the sacred volume may thus seem weakest, it is, considered from a higher point of view, incomparably strongest. It is this investiture of its doctrines with the majesty of Hebraistic imagery [and the peculiar richness and force of Hebraistic modes of expression], rather than with the diffluent garb of a corrupted and decaded Hebraism, that does truly re- B 18 THE CHARACTERISTICS OF veal to us the overruling providence and manifold wisdom of God."^ Whether, therefore, we look to what was in itself natural and proper at the time, to what was in fittest accordance Avith the purposes for which the Gospel revelation was given, or, finally, to what Avas required by the demands of the revelation itself, on each account there appears ground for concluding, that not the earlier and purer Greek of the classics, but the later Greek of the apostolic age, intermingled with and modified by the Heb- raisms, which were natural and familiar to those whose style of thought and expression had been moulded by Old Testament Scripture, was the appropriate diction for the writers of the New Testament. Admitting, however, that such is and ought to have been its general character, we have still to inquire into the special characteristics of this dialect — to notice the more marked peculiarities that belong to it, and which require to be kept in view by those who would succeed in the work of inter- pretation.^ II. Undoubtedly the basis of the New Testament dialect is the jco/i/jj hd'kv/.rog, the common, or Hellenic dialect, as it has been called, of the later Greek. This is the name given to the form of the Greek langviage, which came into general use after the Macedonian conquests. It was called common, and some- ' Eraser's Magazine for December 1855. Substantially, indeed, the correct view was given by Beza, in the note already referred to on Acts x. 46. After noticing the fine specimens of powerful and affecting writing to be found, especially in the epistles of Paul, he adds, " As to the intermixture of He- braisms, it arose, not only from their being Hebrews, but because, in dis- coursing of those things which had been transmitted through the Flebrew tongue, it was necessary to retain much peculiar to it, lest they should seem to introduce some new doctrine. And certainly I cannot in the least wonder that so many Hebraisms have been retained by them, since most of these are of such a description, that by no other idiom could matters have been so happily expressed, nay, sometimes not expressed at all ; so that, had those formulas not been used, new words and novel modes of expression would have needed to be sometimes employed, which no one could properly have imderstood." ^ For a short account of the earlier part of the controversy on the style of the New Testament, and a notice of some of the leading authors and works it called forth, see Planck's Sacred Philology, Bib. Cab. vii., pp. 67-76. NEW TESTAMENT GREEK. 19 times also Macedonian, because it originated in a sort of fusion of the particular dialects which had prevailed in earlier times ; and this again arose, in great measure, from the fusion of the several states of Greece into one great empire under kings of the Macedonian dynasty. Indeed, what are known as the four classical dialects of earlier times — the Ionic, ^olic, Doric, and Attic — were not so properly the dialects in connnon use among the people, circulating in their separate localities, as the forms appropriated to so many departments of literature, which sever- ally took their rise among the tribes that bore the distinctive names referred to. There may have been, and most probably were, other varieties in current use throughout Greece, but none, except one or other of the four specified, were allowed to appear in written productions. The Attic, however, surpassed the others so much, both by its inherent grace, and by the number of distinguished men who employed it in their writings, that it came to be generally regarded as the model form of the Greek language, and was cultivated by nearly all who were am- bitious of writing in the purest style. Certain changes began to pass upon this dialect after the period of the Macedonian conquests, arising chiefly from the Doric peculiarities which predominated in Macedonia, and which now obtained a more general cur- rency ; while, along with these, occasional peculiarities from the other dialects were also introduced, probably, in the first in- stance, from colloquial usage; — the whole combining to form the common speech of Greece in later times. Salmasius was among the first to draw the attention of the learned to this sub- ject, and since his day many others have contributed to the same line of investigation. Of these Henry Planck may be named as one of the most careful and accurate, whose treatise on the subject has been translated into English, and forms part of Vol. II. of Clark's Biblical Cabinet. The characteristics of this common dialect were not quite uniform ; but there are some general features which distinguish it pretty broadly from the Greek of the strictly classical times. They fall into two leading classes — Lexical and Grammatical peculiarities — the one relating to the form and usage of words, the other to their flexion and government. We shall notice tinder each head the more marked and important distinctions, and in each shall select •20 THE CIIAI.ACTEKISTICS OF only such examples as have a place in New Testament Scripture. 1. Under Lexical peculiarities, or such as relate to the form and usage of words, there are, (1.) Words that received a new termination: — such as /^sroixigia, Matt. i. 11, for which /u,iToi-/.r,.f., rij3ov}.r,dyiv, ridvvrjSyiGa'j, as sometimes also with Attic writers ; and again occasionally without the augment, according to the best readings, for example, in Luke xiii. 13; 2 Tim. i. 16. Besides, certain Doric forms came into general use — such as viivav for Ts/vj)!/, hi-^av for hi-^riv, criiMavai for e'l^fjbfjvai. (2.) Pecu- liarities also appear in regard to the gender and flexion of nouns : thus sXsog, which, with all good Greek authors, is masculine, is neuter in the New Testament and ecclesiastical writers — but occasionally also masculine ; tXoDt-o? in like manner used as a neuter ; Xi,a6c, which was used by the Greeks generally as a masculine, but was feminine in the Doric dialect, occurs in this gender also in the New Testament twice (Luke xv. 14, X//ao; la^vpd ; Acts xi. 28, a;/aov /MsydXrii), according to the best copies. On the other hand, the sacred writers and the later Greek writers make /Saros, a bramble, feminine, as the Greeks generally were wont to do, while the Attics treated it as a masculine. The peculiarities in flexion are fewer ; but ^dpiTa, the later and rarer form, occurs occasionally for %ap/v ; and sac of the accus. plural is always dropt for sTc. (3.) As further distinctions, there may be added the nearly entire disuse of the dual, and a few peculiarities in respect to syntax. These latter consist chiefly (to take the summary of Winer) "in a negligent use of the moods and particles. In the New Testament the following may be noticed as examples : orav used with the indicative preterite, ii with the subjunctive, 'ha Avith the indicative present;^ the dispensing with 'ha in forms like ^.)sXm 'im, ac,'og 'ha, etc. ; the coupling of verbs like yivsadai with the genitive, and TpoezvvsTv with the dative ; the vise of the genitive infinitive, such as rou voiiTv, beyond the original and natural limit, and of the subjunc- tive for the optative in the historical style after preterites ; and, above all, the rare use of the optative, which became entirely obso- lete in the late Greek. Also a neglect of the declensions begins to be exhibited, as iJg %ak7i (after sV xa&h), and even nakTc, ; then also dvd iJg, iig -rrap iJg ; SO also /jlitcc tou 'sv, and similar instances." These constitute the leading peculiarities of the later Greek, ' He might have added, what is still more peculiar, the occasional use of hoi with the future, as at 1 Cor. xiii. 3, Rev. vi. 11, if these are, as they appear to be, the correct readings. NEW TESTAMENT GKEEK. 23 appearing in the writings of the New Testament. But no doubt, as Winer also remarks, this later and more popvilar dialect had in some districts peculiarities which were unknown elsewhere. And in this category some have been disposed to place the expressions, which Jerome called Cilicisms of the Apostle Paul. But of such peculiarities we know too little to enable us to form any correct judgment ; and examples have been found in good Greek authors of, at least, some of Jerome's alleged Cilicisms. Winer, however, is disposed to reckon of the class in question, the occasional use of ha in expressions where the pure Greek writers would have used the infinitive, and would explain it as a sort of free and colloquial usage (§45, 9). It is, certainly, difficult to maintain the strictly telic use of ha throughout the New Testament, as Meyer, for example, endeavours to do ; nor can it be done without at times leading to strained and somewhat unnatural explanations. That the telic force should be retained in the great mass of cases, and, in particular, in the formula ha 'rXi^pudfi, we have no doubt ; for when so employed there always is the indication of design. So also is there in various passages, in which it does not at first sight appear, but discovers itself on a closer inspection ; as in 1 John V. 3, " This is the love of God, ha rag hrokac, ahroXi rripufj^sv" — not that we do keep, as a fact — but in order that we may keep the commancbnents of God, as a scope or aim ; the tendency and striving of Divine love in the heart is ever in the direction of God's commandments ; or again, in Matt. v. 29, (5\jij.ppu yap (SOI ha, x.r.X., it is for thy advantage, viz., to cut off the right hand, in order that one (one merely) of thy members may perish, and not thy whole body be cast into hell-fire ; this, at least, is a perfectly admissible explanation. But there are others — such as Rev. vi. 11 ; Matt, xviii. 6 ; ISIark vi. 25, ix. 30 — in which it is, no doubt, possible, by copious supplementings, to bring out a design, yet scarcely to do it in a way that appears consistent with the simplicity of the sacred writers. But of the peculiarities generally, Avhich have been noted as characterizing the dialect of the New Testament, in common Avith that of the later Greek writers, there is no room for diffe- rence of opinion. They distinguish the Greek of the apostolic age from the Greek of classical times. They must, therefore, 21 THE CHARACTERISTICS OF be imdei'stood, and have due allowance made for them by all, who would exhibit the precise import of Scripture, and would even avoid mistakes in interpretation, which have sometimes been com- mitted by persons of high attainments in classical learning, from their too exclusive regard to simply classical authorities. III. But another, and scarcely less important class of pecu- liarities, must be taken into account for the correct knowledge and appreciation of the original language of the New Testament — those, namely, arising from its Hebraistic impress. The common dialect of later times was, in the case of the sacred writings, inter- mingled with the free and frequent use of forms derived from the Hebrew, which, as already stated, was to some extent un- avoidable in the case of the sacred penmen. Very commonly the Greek of the apostolic age, with the addition of this Hebraistic element, is called Hellenistic Greek, from the name Hellenists, which was usually applied to the Greek-speaking Jews, and who naturally spoke Greek with an admixture of Hebrew idioms. It is to be borne in mind, however, that while all the writers of the New Testament partook to some extent of the Hebraistic influence, some did so considerably more than others ; and they are by no means uniform in the admission of Hebraisms into their style. The Hebraistic element was a very variable one among them. It differed with the same writers in different parts of their writings — as in the Apocalypse of St John, which is considerably more Hebraistic than either his gospel or epistles — while these again have more of that element than many other parts of the New Testament. The Gospel of St Luke is de- cidedly less marked with Hebraisms than those of St ]\Iatthew and St ISIark ; and in St Paul's epistles also there are diversities in this respect. The epistle to the Hebrews approaches more nearly to the classical diction than any other book of the New Testament. Viewing the subject generally, however, and with- out reference to the peculiarities of individual writers, there are three several respects in which the Hebx'aistic influence appears in the style of the New Testament. 1. The first is of a somewhat general kind, and consists of a sensible approximation to the Hebrew in the usual cast and com- plexion of the style, namely, in those things in which the Hebrew NEW TESTAMENT GREEK, 25 characteristically diftered from the Greek. As (1.) in the more fi'equent use of the prepositions for marking relations, which were wont to be indicated in classical Greek by means of cases. This characteristic pervades so much the style of the New Testa- ment, that particular examples are almost unnecessary. But take one or two : — In Heb. i. 2, ov 'idrjxs -/.Xripovo/Mov o-an-wi/, " whom he appointed heir of all," is classical Greek ; but Acts xiii. 22, rjys/piv rhv Aauid ilg 8asi>Aa, literally " raised up David for king," is Hebraistic. Again, rivi ydp if-iiv --on tmv ayyiXcuv, " for to which of the angels said He at any time," is pure Greek, — but the use of the preposition in the following expressions is He- braistic, rig lyxaXsffii Kara exXiXTojv ©sol/, Rom. viii. 33 ; ayava.-/.- Touvng Tpog saurovg, Mark XIV. 4 ; adujog aTrh tov a'iix,arog, Matt, xxvii. 24 (so Sept. transl. }0 ''ipj in 2 Sam. iii. 28) ; o'Mol.oyiTv h a-jrOj^ Matt. x. 32, etc. (2.) It formed another marked difference be- tween the two languages — the paucity of conjunctions which existed in the Hebrew, and their great abundance, one might almost say, their superfluity, in the Greek. But the New Testa- ment writers constantly show an inclination to adhere to the simplicity of the Hebrew in this respect, rather than to avail themselves of the greater wealth of the Greek. How often in their productions do we meet with a xai, where we would rather have expected an aXXa, a zai-rip, or a xahot % and a yap or an oh where we would have looked for an l-rs/, a wore, or a o-/, if judging from the usage of classical writers ? In the narrative portions, more especially, of the New Testament, it is the re- markable nakedness and simplicity of the Hebrew language, as to conjunctions and other particles, which presents itself to our notice, rather than the copiousness of the Greek. (3.) A further Hebraistic turn appears in the frequent use of the genitive pro- nouns, instead of the possessives — gov, imov, auroi;, ^/xwi/, i^/vcwv, avTcov. This naturally arose from the inspired writers being used to the Hebrew siiffixes, and was also encouraged by a growing tendency in the Greek language itself to substitute the genitives of the personal pronouns for the possessives. The practice, however, is greatly more frequent in the New Testa- ment and the Septuagint, than in other productions of the same period. Indeed, Ave often meet with the personal pronouns generally in the Greek Scriptures, where simply Greek writers 26 THE CHARACTERISTICS OF would have altogether omitted them ; as in Gen. xxx. 1, Ug fj^ot rsKvay ii hi [l-i]^ TiXsur-^ffu i/w; Ex. ii. 14, ^55 dviXiTv /a.? ffi) '^sXiic^ ov rpd'TTov di/£/7.£; y^Qig rh AJyuTTov (in both cases imitating the Plebrew) ; so in John iii. 2, tuvtu to, cr}/MiTa 'ttohTv a ffu -roisTg ; Rev. V. 4, Tiai lyu) ixXaiov 'ttoXv ; 2 John 1, oug lyw dyaTU) sv dXrj- 6i/cf,, etc. (4.) Another pronominal peculiarity, arising from assimilation to the Hebrew, is occasionally found in the New Testament, and abounds in the Septuagint. In Hebrew there is only one relative pronoun, 'lE'^!i (sometimes abbreviated into B') ; and this without any distinction as to number, gender, or case : — on which account the suffixes of the personal pronouns, or these pronouns themselves wdth a preposition, required to be added, in order to give the necessary point and explicitness to the reference. Hence such expressions as the following : " the land in which ye dwell upon it," " the place in which ye sojourn in it," and so on. As the Greek language possessed a declinable relative oc, and adverbs derived from it, oS, ohv, o-ttou, there was no need, when employing it, to resort to this kind of awkward circumlocution. But those who had been accustomed to the force and emphasis of the Hebrew usage, appear still occasionally to have felt as if they could not give adequate expression to their mind without availing themselves of the Hebrew form. Hence such passages in the Septuagint as the following : ^ yn eif rii gv naroiXiTg ii: aurrig, Gen. xxviii. 13 ; irag ffoJa:pdaXsT/x, o5ov QaXdecTiiy which has its parallel in the passages of the Old Testament referred to, and should not have been regarded in so exceptional a light as it is by Winer (Gr. § 32, 6). But such peculiarities exercise comparatively little influence on the Greek of the New Testament. 2. Secondly, The Hebraistic cast of the New Testament style appears in the use of words and phrases, which have their cor- respondence only in the Hebrew, but are not found in profane Greek writers, whether of the earlier or of the later periods. Among these, certain words might be included, which are trans- ferred from the Hebrew and other Oriental languages into the text of the New Testament : — such as a/3/3a, dfSabduv, dfji,riv, 'xapd- diieog, yiivm, earav, etc. Terms of this sort are merely Oriental words in Greek letters, or with a Greek termination ; and it is by a reference to their Oriental usage that their meaning is to be determined. It is not these, however, so much that we have in view imder the present division, as words and phrases which are strictly Greek expressions, but expressions thrown into a Hebraistic form, and conveying a sense somewhat different from what would naturally be put upon them by a simply Greek reader. There is a considerable number of this description, — among which are sTg in the sense of ng or irpuroc, according to the Septuagint rendering of Tnx {s7g ypaij.[j.ari\jg, Matt. viii. 19, e/'s (liav (riiJjipav) rSjv ga8j3d.ro}v — /jC/av for Tpurriv^, ^rjTsTv r'^v ■^\j')(7]v r/vo?, davdroD ysviadoci, ddvarov /^s/c, •ffipi'XariTv svu-ttiov t/voc, toisTv 'iXiOCy Trpodoi'Trov irphg 'Trpoduirov, XafiBdvuv itpoGoiirm Tivog, ffdp^ %al aJiJba, etc. To refer more particulaidy to one or two examples, the phrase Taca adpt,, for all men, mankind at large, is quite a He- braism, being a literal translation of the Hebrew "i^3"73 by two terms, which in the one language, as well as the other, signify all ;f(?'t merely of the idea, which it ought to associate with the expression. It was never intended that we should think of the Messiah's kingdom as having to do merely with the inner man, and, for the present, laying claim only to a sway over the thoughts and affections of the mind. His kingdom, according to its scriptural idea, is no more a divided empire, than He is Himself a divided person. It comprehends the external as well as the internal — although, from having its seat in the latter, it is most frequently depicted with special relation to this ; but still it comprehends both, and embraces eternity as well as time — though its condition, now on this side, now on that, may at times be brought most prominently into view. But even in those passages, in which it points to the present mixed state, and im- perfect administration of the affiiirs of the kingdom, we should take nothing from the full import of the expression, but retain it in its completeness ; as it serves to keep before the Cluirch the idea of a kingdom in the proper sense, and to pi'ompt her to long for, and aim at, its realisation. We have dwelt at the greater length on this particular ex- ample, as it is one of considerable moment, and it affords an intelligible and ready explanation of the peculiarity with which it has been here associated. But it is only one of a class belong- ing to the same category : such as afwv /xsXXwt/, diTcaiovedai, dtzaioauvr/, EL/ayyjA/^w, ^w^j and i)dvaTOi (understood spiritually), -/.Xriaig, /mvc>- TTipiov, vo//,oc, 'TapaxXri'To:, ■T/Vr/;, -rr'Aripcij/Ji^aj ^dpic, ■^dpiff/j.a, 'TTviu/JjarixCgy ■\i-jyj'Mc. All these,- and, perhaps, several others that might be named, are used in New Testament Scripture with the same radical meaning, indeed, as elsewhere ; but, at the same time, with so much of a specific character derived from the great truths and principles of the Gospel, that their New Testament import must be designated as peculiar. Vr. r)iicc more, it niav be given as a still further note of dis- NEW TESTAMENT GKEEK. 45 tiuction characteristic of the New Testament Greek, that, while there arepecuharities of the several kinds already described, dis- tinguishing the language as a whole, there are also peculiarities distinguishing the Greek of one writer from that of another — words and phrases used by one and not used by the others, or used in a manner peculiar to himself. There is an indivichial, as well as a general, impress on the language. And if, as in the class last mentioned, a special regard must be had to the revela- tions and writings of the New Testament as a whole, there should, in the class now under consideration, be a like regard had to the writings of the particular person by whom the expressions are more peculiarly employed. The terms belonmno; to this class are not of so extensive a range as some of the preceding ones ; and they are to be found chiefly in two winters of the New Testament — the Apostles Paul and John. In the writings of John we meet with various ex- pressions, which, as used by him, are almost peculiar to himself: such as aXy-ikia, in the specific sense of denoting what is empha- tically the truth — the truth of the Gospel ; 'rronTv rY,v aXrikiav, in the sense of giving practical exhibition of tiiat truth ; yiwriOrivai avukv, or SK Tov Qiov ; 6 Xoyog, as a personal designation of the Saviour in respect to His Divine nature and relationship ; 6 Xoyog T7}c ^wjj'c, 6 /Movoysvrig v'tog, o ^apd'A.7.r,rogy uf/jtiv roD ■/.ogh.ov, 'ipyje&ai sig rhv Koff/^ov, etc. In like manner, there is a set of phrases nearly as peculiar to the Apostle Paul : such as ypd/x/xa put in' contrast to rrvivf/.a, d'TTo^v'^czsiv rivi, Oixaioijadai, 'ipya eapzog, zaivri •/.riCiCy -rX^pc/j/Ji^a rou 0£oS, v6/j.og h rotg ii,s7.iGi, sraupouGiiai mi, GroiyjTa (taken in a figurative sense of rudimental principles), rh-iroc, etc. We refi'ain at present from entering on the examination of any of these peculiar forms of expression — the greater part of which, viewed simply in themselves, properly belong to some of the precechng classes, and are now mentioned only as connected with a ftirther peculiarity — their exclusive or prevailing use by particular writers. And, as they undoubtedly acquired this further peculiarity from some mental idiosyncrasy on the part of the person using them, or from some determinative influences con- nected with the circumstances of his position, these ought, as far as possible, to be ascertained, that the several expressions may be considered from that point of ^iew, which was held by the writer, 16 COLLATERAL SOUUCE8 FOR EXPLAINING and iiuiy be interpreted in accordance with the hiws of thoui>;ht under which he wrote. SECTION THIRD. COLLATERAL SOURCES FOR DETERMINING THE SENSE AND EX- PLAINING THE PECULIARITIES OF NEW TESTAMENT SCHIP- TURE. Our attention has hitherto been confined to the original km- guage itself of the New Testament, and to the things which con- cern both its general character and its more distinctive peculia- rities. In considering these, it has been impKed, rather than for- mally stated, that for the correct and critical study of the writings of the New Testament, there must have been acquired a compe- tent acquaintance, not only with the common dialect of the later Greek, but also with the idioms of the Hebrew tongue, and with that combination of Greek and Hebrew idioms, which appears in the Septuagint version of the Old Testament. In this version all the leading peculiarities, as well of the later Greek as of the Hebraistic style, wdiich have been noticed in connection with the language of the New Testament, are to be found ; and some of them, those especially of the Hebraistic class, in greater abun- dance, and in bolder relief, than in the writings of the New- Testament. In regard to the earlier portions of the Septuagint, this has been exhibited with scholarly acumen and precision in a late publication by the younger Thiersch (De Pentateuchi Versione Alexandrina, Libri Tres, 1851), to which reference has already been made. Considerable use has for long been made of the materials supplied by the Hebrew Bibles and the Septuagint for illustrating the diction of the New Testament in some of the more learned commentaries ; particularly those of Grotius, Wet- stein, Koppe, Kuinoel, and the more recent commentaries both of this country and the Continent. Some additional service has been rendered in the same line by the Editio Hellenistica of the New Testament of Mr Grinfield, which is devoted to the sinuje purpose of collecting under each verse examples of the same or of THE NEW TESTAMENT WRITINGS. 47' similar words and phrases occurring in the Septuagint, and other writings of the period. The Lexicons also of Biel and Schleusner, and, above all, the Grammar of Winer, have contributed to esta- blish and elucidate the connection between the Greek of the New Testament and of the Septuagint, and the characteristics of the dialect in which they are written. All this, however, has respect to the elements of the subject under consideration ; it bears di- rectly upon the form and structure of the language itself of the New Testament ; so that, without a certain knowledge of the one, there can be no accurate and discriminating knowledge of the other. But there are also certain collateral sources of informa- tion, from which incidental and supplementary aid may be derived, to illustrate both the phraseology and some of the more characteristic notices and allusions of New Testament Scripture. These we must now briefly describe, with the view of indicating the nature and amount of the aid to be derived from them? before entering on the examination of specific rules and prin- ciples of interpretation.' I. The sources that may be said to lie nearest to the inspired writings, and which should first be named, are the contemporary Jewish writers, who used the Greek language. These are simply two — Philo and Josephus ; the former, there is reason to believe, born about a quarter of a century before Christ, though he ap- pears to have outlived the Saviour ; and the other fully as much later. The birth of Josephus is assigned to a.d. 37. In a strictly exegetical respect, little help, comparatively, is to be obtained from the first of these writers. Philo was much more of a philosopher than a religionist ; and living in Alexandria, and ambitiovis mainly of ranking with its men of higher culture, both his sentiments and his style stood at a wide distance fi:om those peculiar to the writers of the New Testament. Even in respect to the points, in which his writings bear a kind of formal resem- blance to those of the Apostle John, in the use of a few terms ^ It should be borne in mind by those who are entering on the prosecution of such studies, that the Septuagint is far from being a close translation, and that those commentators and grammarians, who have proceeded on tlie prin- ciple of always finding in it the key to the exact meaning of particular words and phrases, are by no means to be trusted. 48 COLLATERAL SOURCES FOR EXPLAINING relating to the Being and operations of Godhead, no real advance has been made by the efforts that have been put forth to inter- pret the one by the other. It has turned out rather — the more carefully the subject has been examined — that as their conceptions of divine things were essentially different, so their language, even when it seems most nearly coincident, is by no means agreed ; and little more has resulted from such compara- tive investigations than learned disputations about the meanings of words and phrases, which sometimes look as if they yielded what was sought, but again deny it. As for the principles of interpretation adopted by Philo, they have, indeed, a close enough affinity with what is found in many of the Fathers of the third and fourth centuries, but are by no means to be identified with those sanctioned by the writers of the New Testament. Such deliverances, therefore, as the following of Ernesti, which has often in substance been repeated since — " Philo is particularly useful in illustrating the allegorical and mystical reasonings, so much used by St Paul"^ — must be rejected as groundless, and fitted to lead in a wrong direction. The statement is made by Ernesti with apparent moderation, as it is again in recent times by Klausen,^ with the view simply of pointing attention to Philo as a master in that kind of allegorizing, which was pursued espe- cially by the Apostle Paul — not that Paul was actually conver- sant with the writings of the Alexandrian, and followed in his wake. This latter is noted by Ernesti as a fanciful extreme, advanced by Wetstein and some others, and is declared to be destitute of historical support ; unnecessary also, since both Paul and Philo but imbibed the spirit of their age, and adopted a style of exposition which was already common. In opposition to this view, we maintain,, that the allegorizings of Philo and those, as well of the Jewish cabbalists who preceded, as of the Christian th'eosophists who followed, belonged to another class than the so-called allegorical interpretations of the New Testament. The latter are not allegorical, in the distinctive sense of the term ; • they are not, as allegorical meanings properly are, adaptations of matters in one sphere of things to those of another essentially different, and consequently arbitrary and uncertain. On the contrary, they are applications of the truths and principles em- ' Institutes, P. III., cli. 8. '^ Hermcneutik, pp. 96, 97. THE NEW TESTAMENT WRITINGS. 40 bodied in the institutions or events of preparatory dispensations to the corresponding events or institutions of an ultimate dispen- sation, to which, from the first, they stood intimately related. In short, they are typical explanations, as contradistinguished from allegorical, and have nothing about them of the caprice and extravagance to which the others are liable. But as we have investigated this elsewhere,^ it is needless to do more here than mark the confusion of ideas, on which this assimilation of Paul and Philo is grounded, and reclaim against the dishonour which is thereby done to the character of the apostolic teaching. So far, therefore, as Philo is concerned, there is little to be reaped from his writings for the exposition of New Testa- ment Scripture ; his language, his style of thought, and his manner of dealing with Old Testament Scripture, all move in different channels from those followed by the apostles ; and his references also to existing manners and circumstances are ex- tremely few and unimportant. In this last respect, however, his contemporary Josephus may justly be said to compensate for the defect of Philo. A man of affairs, and bent on transmitting to posterity an account of what he knew and understood of the events of his times, as well as of fonner generations, his writings abound with details, which are calculated to throw light on, at least, the historical parts of the New Testament. In the words of Lardner, who has done more than any other person to turn to valuable account the notices of Josephus, " He has recorded the history of the Jewish people in Judea and elsewhere, and particularly the state of things in Judea during the ministry of our Saviour and His apostles ; whereby he has wonderfully confirmed, tliough without intending it, the veracity and the ability of the evangelical writers, and the truth of their history."^ It was for the richness of materials in this respect, contained in the writings of Josephus, that Michaelis strongly recommended a diligent study of his works, from the beginning of Herod's reign to the end of the Jewish Antiquities, and spake of him as fur- nishing the very best commentary on the Gospels and the Acts.^ Of course, a commentary so fiirnished covild only have been of the external and historical kind, wliich too much accorded with ^ Typology of Scripture, vol. i., c. 1, and App. B, § 1. ^ Works, vi. p. 502. ^ Introduction, vol. iii. P. 1, c. 9. 50 COLLATERAL SOURCES FOE EXPLAININ'G the taste of Michaelis ; but, in a revelation pre-eminently histori- cal, the incidental light and attestations derived from such a source are not to be undervalued ; and though, doubtless, the imperfec- tions in Josephus' accounts, and w^hat probably we may call his occasional errors and studied omissions (in respect to the subject of Cliristiauity), have given rise to some perplexities, yet his writings, on the whole, have contributed greatly to elucidate and confirm the narratives of the New Testament. His style, how- ever, which he aimed at having as pure as possible, is of little service in illustrating the more peculiar idioms of Scripture ; though, in regard to some of those common to it and the later Greek dialect, and the meaning also of particular words and phrases, considerable benefit has accrued from the study of his productions. Two works, of about the middle of last century (the Observationes of Krebs, and the Specilegmm of Ottius), were specially directed to the elucidation of the New Testament from this source ; and many of the examples adduced by them, with others gathered by subsequent inquirers, have found their way into recent grammars and commentaries. It is proper to add, that there are questions on which even the silence of Josephus is instructive, and fairly warrants certain con- clusions respecting the existing state of things in the apostolic age — for example, on the subject of Jewish proselyte-baptism ; since, treating, as he does, of matters bearing upon the reception of proselytes, and remaining silent regarding any such practice, this, coupled with the like silence of Scripture, is well-nigh con- clusive on the subject. (But see Dissertation on /SaTrr/^w in Part II.) Again, there are other points, chiefly of a formal or legal description, on which the testimony of Philo and Josephus runs counter to that delivered in the later Jewish writings ; and in such cases, we need scarcely say, the testimony of those who lived %^hen the Jewish institutions were actually in force is en- titled to the greater weight. Nothing of this sort, however, has to be noted in connection with New Testament aflFairs. II. The next source of illustrative materials that falls to be noticed, is that supplied by the Jewish Rabbinical wn'itings — writings composed near to the apostolic age, though subsequent to it, and composed, not in Greek, but in modern Hebrew. THE NEW TESTAMKNT WHITINGS. 51 These writings consist of two main parts, the IMischna and the Geniara, — the Mischna being the text, viz., of the traditions about the law, and the Gemara the comments of learned men upon it. Two sets of comments grew up around it, — the one earlier, produced by the Palestinian Jews, and called, along with the Mischna, the Jerusalem Talmud ; the other, originat- ing Avith the Chaldean Jews, and forming, with the ]\Iischna, the Babylonian Talmud. It is important to bear in mind the ascertained or probable dates of these productions, in order to determine their relation to the writings of the New Testament. The ISIischna being a compilation of traditional lore, may, of course, in many of its parts, be really more ancient than the Gospels ; but as it was not committed to writing till the latter half of the second century after Christ, and probably even later than that,^ there can be no certainty as to the actual existence of particular portions of it before that period ; and still more does this hold with the Talmudical comments, which were not pro- duced, the one till 300, and the other till 600 years after Christ. Besides, undoubted traces exist in these writings of references to the events of Gospel history, showing the posteriority of some of the things contained in them to that period ; and if some, who can tell how many ! They were, it must be remembered, the productions of men who wrote in the profoundest secrecy, and who, though not formally assuming a hostile attitude toward the Christian cause, could not but be conscious of a certain influ- ence from the great events of the Gospel and the writings of apostolic men. There are few ancient writings extant, perhaps, that contain a larger proportion of what may be called rubbish than these Tal- mudical productions. Lightfoot speaks of the stupenda inanitas et vafrities of the subjects discussed in them, and says of them generally, nugis uhique scatent. There is the more reason that we should cherish feelings of gratitude and admiration toward him, and such men (in particular the Buxtorfs, Bochart, Vi- tringa, Surenhusius, Schoettgen), who, with the simple desire of finding fresh illustrations of the meaning of sacred Scripture, have encountered the enormous labour, and the painful discipline, of mastering such a literature, and culling from it the comparatively ' See Prideaux, Connection, at b.c. 446 ; Lightfoot's Opera, i., p. 369. 52 • COl.LATEKAL SOUKCES FOR EXPLAINING few })as.sages wliich bear on the elucidation of the Word of God. They have undoubtedly, by so doing, rendeied important service to the cause of Biblical learning; although it must also be con- fessed, that a very considerable proportion of the passages ad- duced might as well have been left in their original quarries, and that some have been turned to uses which have been preju- dicial, rather than advantageous, to the right understanding of Scripture. The special benefit derived from them has been in respect to ancient rites and usages, the meaning of Aramaic expressions occasionally occurring in New Testament Scripture, the synagogal institution and worship, and the state of things generally in the closing period of the Jewish commonwealth, to which so many allusions are made. But in respect to the points in wdiich the Scriptures of the New Testament may be said to differ h'om those of the Old — the doctrines, for example, relating to the person of jMessiah, His peculiar office and work, the character- istics of the Christian community, etc. — nothing definite can be learned from the Rabbinical sources under consideration. End- less quotations have been made fi'om them, apparently favour- ing the Christian views ; but it were quite easy to match them Avith others of an opposite description ; so that all belong- ing to this department was evidently but idle talk or free specu- lation. In regard also to the treatment of Scripture — especially the method of expounding and applying it to things, with which it might seem to have no very direct connection — this, which Surenhusius (in his BilSXog KaraX'/.ayrii) and Eiseinnenger (in his Entwecktes Judentum) have shovni to be so much the practice with the Rabbi)iical Jews, and which rationalistic intei*preters have so often sought to connect also with the writers of the New Testament, must be held to be altogether foreign to the teri'itory of inspiration. It was quite natural to the Talmudists and their followers ; for ^/t«_y- could find separate meanings, not only in eveiy sentence, but in every word, and even letter of Scripture, and in the numerical relations of these to each other. With them, there- fore. Scripture admitted of manifold senses and applications, of which some might be ever so remote from the natural import and bearing. But apostles and evangelists belonged to another school : and when they apply Old Testament Scripture to a circumstance or event in Gospel times, it must be in tlie fair and legitimate THE NEW TESTAMENT WRITINGS. 53 sense of the terms ; "otherwise, their use of it conld not be justified as a handhne of the Word of God in simplicity and c;odlv sincerity. We may add, that on points of natural history the Talmuds seem just about as capricious o'uides as on texts of Scripture. The writers would appear to have wantoned sometimes with the field of nature around them, much as they did with the volume of God's revelation in their hands ; and to have found in it what no one has been able to find but themselves. A fitting specimen of this peculiarity may be seen in the quotations produced by Lightfoot in connection with the cursing of the fruitless fig-tree. Anions: other wonderful things about fig-trees there iioticed, mention is made of a kind which bore fruit, indeed, every year, though it only came to maturity on the third ; so that three crops, in different stages of progress, might be seen on it at once ; and on this notable piece of natural history an explanation of tne evangelical narrative is presented. In such matters it is greatly safer to trust the accounts of scientific naturalists and travellers than Jewish Rabbis ; and when they report the existence of such figs in Palestine, it will be time enough to consider what aid may be derived from the information, to illustrate the nnrrative referred to. Meanwhile, no great loss is sustained ; for the nar- rative admits^ without it, of a perfectly satisfactory explanation. There are points, however, of another kind, in respect to which this species of learning is not unfrequently applied, not so pro- perly for purposes of elucidation, as with the view of showing how the teaching of the Gospel appropriated to itself elements and forms of instruction already existing in the Je\vish schools. Here the question of priority is of some moment ; and though the things themselves remain the same, their relative character is materially affected, according as the priority may appear to have belonged to the authors of the Gemara, or to the origina- tors of Christianity. The teaching of our Lord, for example, by parables, is certainly one of the most distinctive features of His public ministry; and, accordingly, Avhen He began more for- mally to employ it, the Evangelist Matthew saw in it the realisa- tion of a prophetic utterance (Matt. xiii. 35) ; nor can any one attentively read the Gospels, without discerning in the parables the most impressive image of the mind of Jesus, But this im- 54 COLLATERAL SOURCES FOR l.XPLAINING pression is apt to be considerably weakened by the array of quot- ations sometimes produced from those Rabbinical sources, to show how the Jewish teachers delighted in the use of parables, and even exhibiting some of our Lord's choicest parables as in the main copies of what is found in the Talmud.^ The same thing has also been done in regard to the Lord's Prayer ; so that not only its commencing address, " Our Father which art in heaven," but nearly all that follows, is given as a series of ex- tracts from Jewish forms of devotion. Now, this style of expo- sition proceeds on a gratuitous assumption ; it takes for granted that the existing forms in the Talmud were there before they were in the Gospels, — and, of coui'se, that the Kabbinical gave the tone to the Christian, rather than the Christian to the Rab- binical. The reverse is what the palpable facts of the case tend to estabhsh. The prayers of the synagogue before the Christian era were doubtless moulded after the devotional parts of the Old Testament, and to a large extent composed of these. But in none of them does the suppliant, even in his most elevated mo- ments, rise to the filial cry of " My Father in heaven ;" it was the distinctive glory of the Gospel to bring in this spirit of adoption ; and the theological, as well as the historical proba- bility, is in favour of the supposition, that Eabbis here followed in the wake of Jesus, not Jesus in the wake of Rabbis. The same probability holds equally in regard to the parables. The parabolical form, possibly, to some extent appeared among the earlier traditional lore of the Jews ; for it is not unknown in Old Testament Scripture ; but the parable, such as it is found in the teaching of our Lord, bears on it the impress of originality ; and the few straggling specimens that have been produced fi'om Rabbinical soru'ces, nearly identical with those of Christ, may confidently be pronounced to be the echoes of the latter — the productions of men, who were greatly too feeble and puerile to invent, but who had enough of sagacity to imitate. The slaves of the letter and of tradition were not the persons to originate anything new or fresh, not even in form.^ ' Lightfoot, Horffi Heb. on Matt. vi. xiii. ; and Schoettgen, Horfe Heb. on Matt. XX. xxi., Luke xv. ^ Owen, in his Theologoumena, Lib. v., c. \o, Dig. 4, discusses tlie qnes- THE NEW TESTAMENT WRITINGS. 65 III. The more ancient versions may be mentioned as the next collateral source, from which aid should be sought in endeavour- ing to ascertain the meaning, and expound the text of New Tes- tament Scripture. Those versions have their primary use, as among the helps for determining the text itself that sliould be prefen-ed ; since they exhibit the one that teas preferred at an early period by some, and possibly should still be retained, where there is a variation in the readings. In this respect, how- ever, they can never amount to more than subordinate autho- rities ; since it must ever remain doubtful whether due pains were taken by the translator to obtain a pure text, and doubtful, still further, whether the translation may not to some extent have been tampered with in the course of its transmission to present times. There is necessarily the same kind of relative inferiority adher- ing to the use of versions in connection with the import of the original. While, in the simpler class of passages, they could scarcely fail to give the natural meaning of the original, it must still be a matter more or less problematical, how far they did so in those cases where there is some dubiety or difficulty in the passage, and consequently some possibility of the precise import having been misunderstood. Still, considerable weight must always be attached, especially in respect to the meaning of par- ticular words and phrases, to those versions, which were made by competent persons at a time when the original language of the New Testament continued to exist as a living tongue. And of such versions so made, the Vulgate seems entitled to hold the first place. The Vulgate, that is, as it came from the hands of Jerome, and as it appears with probably substantial correctness in the Codex Amiatinus, the oldest MS. of the Vulgate extant, not the common Vulgate of the Romish Church, which in many parts has undergone alteration to the worse. In point of learn- ing and critical tact, Jerome, we have reason to believe, was the most competent man in the ancient Church for executing a translation of the Scriptures; and the version he produced would have been probably as near perfection as the translation of a single individual, and in so early an age, could well be ex- tion of our Lord's relation to the Talmudical doctors, but chiefly with respect to religious usages and services. He indignantly rejects, however, the idea of a borrowing on the part of Christ, oC COLLATERAL SOURCES FOR EXPLAINING pected to be, if he had been left altogether free to exercise his judgment in the performance of the work. His version of the Old Testament, Avith the exception of the Psalms, luas the unfettered production of his hand ; it was made directly from the Hebrew, as he himself testifies once and again, although, as it now exists, it contains not a few accommodations to the Sep- tuagint, and departs from the Hebrew.^ But in regard to the New Testament, he professed to do nothing more than fulfil the request of Pope Damasus, — revise the current versions, and se- lect out of them the best ; so that, as he said, " he restrained his pen, merely correcting those things which appeared to affect the sense, and permitting other things to remain as they had been." What Avas called the Old Italic, or Latin version, therefore, was simply the current version, in one or other of the forms in Avhich it existed before it had been the subject of Jeroine's collating and emendatory labours. It now exists only in part, but most fully in the Codex Claromontanus, Avhich is of great antiquity. In some things the rendering contained in it is even preferable to tliat adopted by Jerome, and, consequently, Avhere access can be had to it, it is AA^orthy of being consulted. But it is not so pro- perly a distinct version from that of Jerome, as a vai'iation of what became his. And, as a Avhole, Jerome's form of the Latin version must be held to be the best. Restrained and limited as his object Avas, he undoubtedly accomplished much good. And with all the defect of polish that appears in the version that goes by his name, its occasional Hebraisms, the imperfect renderings, and even erroneous representations of the original, sometimes to be met Avith in it, there can be no doubt that it is in general a faithful translation, and has rendered essential service tOAvard the elucidation of the sacred text. Some of the blemislies in the Vulgate, especially in the New Testament portion, are obvious, and have often been exposed ; such as the poenitentiam agite, in Matt. iii. 2, and other parallel places ; Ave gratia plena, Luke i. 28 ; mortuus est autem et dives, et sepultus est in inferno, Luke xAa. 22 ; et (Jacob) adoravit fastigium virgse ejus, Heb. xi. 21 ; panem nostrum supersubstantialem da nobis. Matt. vi. 11, etc. And, unfortu- nately, they are mistranslations Avhich too often afford a sort of ^ See Walton's Prolegoniena, x. c. 9. 'HIE NEW TESTi^MENT WRITINGS. 57 liaiidle to die advo<-:ates of corruption in tlie Church of Rome. Yet it is proper also to add, that some of the examples occasion- ally referred to in that connection yield no real countenance to those corruptions ; and some again, that are more correct than the English translation, which has been exalted to the prejudice of the other. Thus at 1 Pet. iii. 19, the rendering, in quo et his, qui in carcere erant, spiritibus veniens pra^dicavit, is sub- stantially correct (though the meaning expressed, of course, may be, and often is, perverted by Romanists to a wrong use), and the in quo, in which, is more exact than the bi/ ivhich of the au- thorised version. In not a few cases, indeed, the Vulgate is decidedly more correct than our version in the rendering of pre- positions and connecting particles : — as, to refer to one or two examples partly mentioned already in another connection, ut in nomine Jesu omne genu flectatur, Phil. ii. 10; gratia vobis et pax adimpleatur wi cognitione Dei, 2 Pet. i. 2 ; qui vocavit nos ]3ropria gloria et virtute, ver. 3 ; ut impleamini in omnem plenitu- dinem Dei, Eph. iii. 19. In these, and many other cases, the Vulgate contrasts favourably with our English version in re- spect to grannnatical precision ; and, if judiciously used, it may often be of service in sugojestincp some of the nicer shades of meaning. It is due also to the memory of Jerome to notice (though it does not belong to the criticism of the New Testa- ment), that the well-known mistranslation in the authorised Vulgate of Rome, of Gen. iii. 15, ipsa conteret caput tuum, which ascribes to the woman the victory over the tempter, and which the Romanists usually apply direct to the Virgin, is a later corruption. The correct reading, as given by Vallarsius, runs, ipse conteret caput tuum, and, in a note, he declares this to be beyond doubt the reading established by the authority of MSS. The version next in importance to the Vulgate of Jerome, and undoubtedly prior to it in origin, is the Old Syriac, or Peschito— a production, in all likelihood, of the latter part of the second century. We know nothing of the author of this version (which, however, wants the second Epistle of Peter, the two last of John, Jude, and the Apocalypse) ; but without going into the extravagance of Michaelis, who pronounced it " the very best translation of the Greek Testament he had ever read," we may safely regard it as, in general, a faithful and 58 COLLATERAL SOURCES FOR EXPLATNINO spirited translation. The chief use, to which it has hitherto been turned, is as a witness in behalf of the genuine text. This may have partly arisen from the Syrian language being so little understood, even by Biblical scholars. They may, however, to some extent, avail themselves of its aid by means of the transla- tions which have been made of it. It has for long existed in Latin ; and a few years ago the portion containing the Gospels was rendered into English by Mr Etheridge, accompanied with preliminary dissertations. The remaining versions which, from their age or their fidelity to the original, are entitled to consideration, and calculated to be of occasional service in the work of exposition, are the Ethiopic, the Memphitic, and the Gothic of Ulphilas. The aid, however, to be derived from any of them is extremely limited. Mr Ellicott, in the preface to his last volume (his Commentary on the Ej^istles to the Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon) speaks in strong terms of the excellence of the Ethiopic version, and of the satisfac- tion he has derived from consulting it, since he has been enabled to find his way with some certainty to its meaning. But, in truth, we have so many more helps for getting at the precise import of the Greek New Testament, than for arriving at an intelhgent ac- quaintance with the old Ethiopic version of that Greek, that most people will feel greatly more assured of coming at the object of their search by repairing directly to tlie original source ; nor, with the defective literature of Etliiopia in the early centuries, can such a version — even if it were thoroughly understood— attain to a place of much authority. Its renderings can, at the most, confirm meanings obtained by other and surer lines of investigation. And the same may be said of the Memphitic and Gothic versions. So that, whatever, incidental benefits or personal satisfaction the study of such versions may yield, little comparatively can now be expected from them as to the correct understanding of New Tes- tament Scripture. IV. Amono' the collateral sources of information, that mav be turned to account in the interpretation of New Testament Scripture, we must unquestionably reckon the writings of the earlier Fathers. It is, certainly, but a mixed service they render ; since, from the strong tendency among them to al- TIIK NEW TESTAMENT AVRITINGS. 59 legorical and arbitrary modes of interpretation, if they are not used discriminatingly, they will often prove false guides. They were as a class defective in critical discernment, and that well- poised balance of mind, which in such matters is rarely pos- sessed, excepting as the result of an efficient training in linguistic and critical studies, such as they did not enjoy. Had the earlier Fathers but possessed a little more of the critical faculty, and employed in connection with it the advantages of their position for the good of the Church in future times, they would have directed their minds particularly to the investigation of the facts and circumstances of the Gospel age, examined with minute care the information that lay within their reach respecting the local and historical allusions in the New Testament, searched into the meaning of all words that in any way bore upon them the peculiar impress of the time, and by philological or antiquarian researches endeavoured to make plain tlie obscurer passages in the Gospels and Epistles. These, however, are the provinces which they have most thoroughly neglected to cultivate, and in respect to which, apparently, they felt least conscious of any need of special application. We have scarcely left the inspired territory, till we find ourselves involved in the strangest miscon- ceptions even as to matters of fact, and, instead of careful dis- criminations between fable and historj^, are presented with a confused jumbling of both together. In what is probably the earliest of sub-apostolic writings extant, one also of the best — the epistle of Clement to the Corinthians — we have the fables about the Danaids and the Phoenix classed with the biographical notices of sacred history, and treated as equally deserving of credit (c. 6, 24). Justin, in like manner, swallows without a suspicion the story of Aristeas about the translation of the Septuagint, and even speaks of Herod as having sent to Ptolemy the seventy elders who executed the work ; as if the two had been contemporaries! (Apol. c. 31, Exhor. ad Grsecos, § 11). Even in the face of plain statements in the Gospel history to the contrary, he once and again, in his Trypho, represents Jesus as having been born in a cave or grotto. Irenseus falls into mistakes and inanities still more extraordinary ; not oidy accrediting the senseless tradition of Papias respecting the fruit- fulness of the millennial age (B. V. c. 33), but also affirming it 60 COLLATERAT. SOURCES FOR EXPLAINING to have been the teaching of St John, that our Lord's personal ministry lasted from His thirtieth till His fiftieth year (ii. e. 4, 5). Even when we come down to the more regular and elabor- ate expositors of New Testament Scripture, Augustine, Jerome, Chrvsostom, while they con.tain much that deserves, and will repay a careful perusal, they are marvellously deficient on those points in which their comparative proximity to apostolic times, had they known how to avail themselves of its opportunities, should have given them an acknowledged superiority over more distant generations. In respect to dates and places, customs and manners, they knew nothing of the accuracy of our age. Their references to Old Testament affairs contain often the most egregious blunders (of which a striking example will be found in the Dissertation on the Genealogies) ; and of the spirit and design of the Old Testament economy, both as a whole, and in its several parts, they are ever evincing the most defective un- derstanding. Not unfrequently, also, in matters connected with the New, we meet with explanations utterly puerile and fantas- tic ; as in the instance produced by Archdeacon Hare from Augustine respecting the gift of the Spirit to the disciples on two distinct occasions — an explanation that turns on the mys- tical value of numbers — and of which Hare justly remarks : — " The striking thiiig is, not that the explanation is a bad one, but that it implies an ignorance of what an explanation is, and of the method in which we are to attain it : and the same thing we find perpetually, as well in the Fathers, as in the contem- porary grammarians and rhetoricians,"^ Another thing, that may equally be characterised as striking in the mode of exposition adopted by the Fathers, is the per- petual interchange between the most spiritualistic meanings and the grossest literalism ; so that one is puzzled to understand how the same minds that took jileasure in the one could possibly rest satisfied with the other. For example, we have not one merely, but a whole series of the Fathers (Barnabas, Tertullian, Clement Alex., Ambrose, Augustine, etc.), finding in the letter T, when occurring; as a numeral in the old Testament, an indication of the cross, numbers of all kinds spiritualised, the spring in Eden with its four streams made to signify Christ and the four 1 Mission of the Comforter. '). 312. THE NEW TESTA3IEXT WRITINGS. 61 cardinal virtues (Ambrose cle paracl. 3) ; and, in short, the principle of xVugustiue carried out in all directions, " that what- ever in Scripture cannot be referred to purity of manners or the realities of faith, is to be understood spiritually" (De Doc. Chris, iii. 14). But, on the other hand, there ever and anon meets us the most literal and fleshly aj^plication of the prophecies ; if these speak of New Testament things under the images supplied by the Old, of priesthood and sacrifice, they are interpreted to mean things equally outward and earthly still. Some of the Fathers (such as Irenasus, Tertidlian, Ambrose, Lactantius) even carried this species of carnalisra into the future world, and held, that flesh and blood, only in the sense of unregenerate nature, shall not inherit the kinrrdom of God ; but that the bodies of believers —limb for limb, member for member, precisely the same bodies as now — shall be raised up from the dead, and shall regale them- selves with corporeal deliglits (Tert. de resur. c. 35, Iren^us, v. 9, etc). This exegetical caprice, which oscillated between two extremes, and inclined to the one or the other as the fancy or exigence of the moment might prompt, unfits the patristic writ- ings for being employed as exegetical guides ; and, along with the other defects mentioned, obliges the student at every step to exercise his tliscretion. Still, considerable benefit is to be reaped for Scriptural inter- pretation from the perusal of the more eminent Fathers — al- thoucrh one that we must be content to seek in fragments. To 'say nothing of the bearing they have on the text of Scripture, the development of Christian doctrine, and the varied evolution of evil and good in the history of the Church, which constitute their chief historical interest, they are valuable for the manifesta- tion they give of mind in the ancient world, when brought into contact with the revelation of God in Christ, and of the efiect produced by this in turning the tide of thought and feeling, and dii'ecting it into a channel somewhat accordant with the realities of the Gospel. Even when the explanations given of Scripture are one-sided and imperfect, they are far from being uninstruc- tive ; for, wdien not absolutely erroneous, they still present one aspect of the truth, which the events and relations of the ancient world served more particularly to call forth. In this respect t!iey contribute an element— often a very important element — 62 COLLATERAL SOURCES. to the full understanding of the Divine record. And in writers of the higher class — writers like Augustine and Chrysostom — one is continually rewarded with passages, which discover the profoundest insight into the truth of Scripture, and present it to our view in the sharpest outline. The Greek expositors, too, among the Fathers, have a value of their OAvn in regard to occasional words and phrases, the precise import of Avhich they not unfrequently enable us to apprehend, or at least to deter- mine, in a way that might otherwise have been impracticable. With all the exceptions, therefore, and serious abatements that require to be made, in regard to the exegetical value of the Fathers, there are advantages to be derived from their judicious perusal, which no well-fnrnished interpreter can dispense with ; and however, in certain quarters, their employment may have been pushed to excess, the full and correct knowledge of New Testament Scripture has certainly gained by the revived study of their writings. V. In the way of collateral sources, nothing further requires to be mentioned, excepting the occasional employment of the various materials, furnished partly by ancient, partly by modern research, which serve to throw light on the historical, social, or geographical allusions of the New Testament. If the earlier Christian writers have done little to supply us with such materials, the deficiency is in a great degree made up by con- tributions from other quarters. From the nearly stationary character of society in the lands of the East, the manners and usages of the present time, whicla have been amply illustrated by modern travellers, have brought us almost equally acquainted with those of the Gospel age. All the scenes, too, of Gospel history, not only the places trodden by the footsteps of Jesus, but those hallowed by the laboiu-s, the journeyings, and voyages of the apostles, have been with laborious accuracy explored. The chronology of the New Testament has been so frequently and so fully investigated, that the probable period of every event of any moment has been ascertained. And even the local details, and casual occurrences of single chapters — such as the 27th of the Acts — have been verified and explained with a minute- ness and fidelitv, which leaves nothing further to be desired GENERAL RULES FOR INTERPRETATION. 63 (Smith on the Voyage and Shipwreck of St Paul). With sources of such a kind the intelligent interpreter of Scripture must make himself familiar ; and be prepared at fitting times to use the information, which past care and industry have accumu- lated. In its own place this is valuable, and, in a sense, indis- pensable ; yet still only as a subsidiary aid ; and the work of exposition turns into a wrong channel, when it finds its chief employment in matters of so incidental and circumstantial a kind. SECTION FOURTH. GENERAL RULES AND PRINCIPLES TO BE FOLLOWED IN THE INTERPRKTATION OF PARTICULAR AYORDS AND PASSAGES. We must now make the supposition, that the points adverted to in the preceding sections have been duly attended to ; that an acquaintance has been formed with the peculiar dialect of the New Testament, and with the collateral sources of information fitted to throw light on its terms and allusions. It by no means follows, however, that when we have become thus furnished with knowledge in such elementary matters, we have all the qualifi- cations necessary to render us safe or skilful interpreters of New Testament Scripture, capable of unfolding with clearness and accuracy the meaning of its several parts. For this various other things are requisite, the want or neglect of which may as certainly ensure our failure in the work of interpretation, at least as regards the more select portions of Scripture, as if we had yet to learn the peculiar structure and characteristics of the language. We proceed, therefore, to lay down some general rules and principles, which it is of essential moment that we be in a condition to embrace and act upon, in order to exhibit aright the meaning of Scripture. 1. The first we shall notice is one, that bears on the state of mind of the interpreter — he must endeavour to attain to a sympathy in thought and feeling loith the sacred ivriters, whose meaning he feel's to unfold. Such a synn)athy is not required for the inter- C4 GENERAL RULES FOU INTERPRETATION OF pretation alone of the inspired writings ; it is equally necessary in respect to any ancient author ; and the possession of it, to some extent, must be held to be altogether indispensable. Lan- guage is but the utterance of thought and feeling on the part of one person to another, and the more we can identify ourselves with the state of mind out of which that thought and feeling arose, the more manifestly shall we be qualified for appreciating the language in which they are embodied, and reproducing true and living impressions of it. An utter discordance or marked deficiency in the one respect, cannot fail to discover itself in the other by corresponding blunders and defects. It is the virtual abnegation of this principle, and the pal- pable want of the qualification which it presupposes, that has rendered the really available results so inadequate, which have been accomplished by the rationalistic school of interpreters. Not a few of them have given proof of superior talents, and have brought to the task also the acquirements of a profound and varied scholarship. The lexicography and grammar, the philo- logy and archaeology of Scripture, have been largely indebted to their inquiries and researclies ; but, from the gi'ievous mental discrepancy existing between the commentator and his author, and the different points of view from which they respectively looked at Divine things, writers of this class necessarily failed to penetrate the depths of the subjects they had to handle, fell often into jejune and superficial representations on particular parts, and on entire books of Scripture never once succeeded in pro- ducing a really satisfactory exposition. What proper insight, for example, into the utterances of the Apostle Jolm — utter- ances that are remarkable for the combination they present of simplicity in form, with depth and comprehensiveness of mean- ing— could be expected from one, who calls, indeed, upon tlie reader to sympathise with the sacred writer, but how to do so ? To sympathise '• with the apostle, as being, at the time of his writing the Epistle, a weak old man, who had no longer the power of thinking in any connected manner." Such is the maimer in which even Lange speaks, though in many respects greatly in advance of the proper Nationalists. Dr Pauhis of Heidelberg was for long one of the leading clKUupions of this school — a man of no ordinary gifts, both natural and acquired. PARTICULAR WORDS AND PASSAGES. 65 and a man, too, who possessed what many learned and useful commentators have wanted — the power of so far sympathising Avith the sacred penmen, as to realize, in a vivid and attractive manner, the scenes of their history, and the circumstances in which they were placed. But all being brought to the test of a so-called rational — namely, an anti-supernatui'al — standard, the spirit evaporates in his hands, and everything in a sense be- comes common and unclean. The most miraculous occurrences shrink into merely clever transactions or happy coincidences ; and even when he comes to such a passage as this, " Blessed art thou, for flesh and blood have not revealed it to thee, but My Father that is in heaven," he can see nothing but a refer- ence to the force of circumstances in awakening the mind to reflection, and giving it a practical direction and impulse toward what is good ; or to such another passage as this, " I must work the works of Him that sent Me while it is day : the night cometh, when no man can work," the whole he can extract from it is, " I must heal the diseased eyes before the evening twilight comes on, because when it is dark we can no longer see to work." ^ This school of interpretation, however, at least in the extreme shape represented by Dr Paulus, has become virtually extinct. In Germany itself the tide has long since turned, and been steadily setting in a better direction ; nor would it be easy to find anywhere better specimens of a truly sympathetic and con- genial spirit in the work of interpretation, than are furnished by some of the later expository productions from that country. There still is, no doubt, and probably will ever be, both there and here, a class of interpreters, who in a certain modified form exhibit a defect in the respect under consideration ; but a con- viction, as to the real nature of the things Avhich constituted the great aim and substance of the Gospel, and to the necessity of a correspondence in belief and spirit between the inspired penmen ^ The entire note on the first of the two passages is : " All circumstances leading to insight and pursuit after the good are, in the New Testament, considered as grounded in the Godhead, educating men in a spontaneous and moral, not juridical manner. When they awaken the mind to reflec- tion, furnish to its activity matters of practical insight, keep these before it, and tliereby quicken the energetic working toward what is good, then the paternally inclined Godhead reveals to man something which the grovelling and earthly disposition in man could not have discovered to him." 66 GENERAL RULES FOR INTERPRETATION OF and those avIio would engage in the Avork of interpretation, such a conviction being now more generally diffused and constantly growing, renders it probable, that that specific work will in the future be left more in the hands of persons, whose productions shall manifest a becoming unison of sentiment between the original author and the modern disciple. Hence it is laid down as a fiindn mental point by a distinguished German theologian — by Hagenbach in his Encyclopedia, that " an inward interest in the doctrine of theology is needful for a Biblical interpreter. As we say, that a philosophical spirit is demanded for the study of Plato, a poetical taste for the reading of Homer or Pindar, a sensibility to Avit and satire for the perusal of Lucian, a patriotic sentiment for the enjojanent of Sallust and Tacitus, equally cer- tain is it, that the fitness to understand the profound truths of Scripture, of the New Testament especially, presupposes, as an indispeiisable requisite, a sentiment of piety, an inward religious experience. Tlius is it ever true, that the Scriptures will not be right!}' and spiritually comprehended, unless the Spirit of God become Himself the true interpreter of His words, the angelus interpres, who will open to us the real meaning of the Bible." The more we take into consideration the distinctive character of Scripture, as a I'evelation from God, the more shall Ave be con- vinced of the necessity and the importance of the principle noAv stated. That character constitutes a special reason for a har- mony of spirit between the interpreter and the original Avriter, beyond what belongs to Scripture in common Avith other ancient writings. For, as an authoritatiA^e revelation of the mind of God, it unfolds things above the reach of our natural desire and apprehension, and unfolds them, not as things that may be coolly surveyed and thoroughly understood from a position of indiffer- ence, but as things affecting ovir highest interests, and demanding our implicit and cordial acceptance. In such a case something more is evddently required than mere iritellectual discernment, or competent scholarship. The heart as Avell as the head must be right ; there must be the delicacy of a spiritual taste, and the humility of a childlike disposition. So true is the sentiment, Avhich Neander took for his motto. Pectus est quod theologum facit. Our Lord, indeed, declared as much at the outset, Avhen He said, in His address to the Father, " Thou hast hid these TARTICULAK WOIIDS AND PASSAGEy. 67 things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed tliem unto babes." It is only with the attainment of such a spiritual con- dition, .that the eye opens to a clear perception of the truth, or that the mind is able to discern the full import of the words which embody it, and catch the nicer shades of meaning they convey. So that what has been said of religion generally, may be specially applied to the interpretation of its sacred records : " As in all subjects we can understand language only as far as we have some experience of the things it reports, so in religion (by the very same principle) the spiritual heart alone can under- stand the language of the Spirit. In every book whatever, it is the mind of the reader that puts meaning in the words ; but the language of the New Covenant is a celestial language, and they who would give their fulness to its blessed words, must have caught their secret from heaven." ^ 2. Necessary, however, and important as this sympathetic spirit, this sjnritus interpres, is, on the part of the interpreter of Scripture, when possessed in fullest measure, it can never entitle any one to use arbitrariness in the explanation of its words, or warrant him to put a sense on these different from that which properly belongs to them. Its value lies simply in guiding to the real import, not in modifjang it, or in superinducing some- thing of its own upon it. And we, therefore, lay it down as another principle to be sacredly maintained in Scriptural inter- pretations, that notlung should be elicited from the text hat ichat is yielded by the fair and grammatical explanation of the language. The import of each word, and phrase, and passage, must be in- vestigated in a manner perfectly accordant with the laws of language, and with the actual circumstances of the writers. Not what we may think they shoidd have said, or might possibly wish they had said, but simply what, as far as we are able to ascertain, they did say — this must be the sole object of our pur- suit ; and the more there is of perfect honesty and discriminating- tact in our efforts to arrive at this, the more certain is our suc- cess. For in the words of Bengel : ^ "It is better to run all lengths with Scripture truth in a natural and open manner, than to shift, and twist, and accommodate. Straightforward conduct 1 Sermons by Mr A. Butler, First Series, p. 94. 2 Life by Burck, p. 259. 68 GENERAL RULES FOR INTERPRETATION OP may draw against us bitterness and rancour for a time, but sweetness will come out of it. Every single truth is a light of itself, and every error, however minute, is darkness as far as it goes." Nothing is more directly at variance with this principle of inter- ])retation, and more surely fatal to success, than a party or polemi- cal bias, which brings the mind to the examination of Scripture with a particular bent, and disposes it to work for an inferior end. No doubt, it may be alleged, the possession of a spirit in harmony with that of the sacred penmen implies something of this de- scription— as such a spirit cannot exist without the recognition of vital truths and principles common to us with the inspired writers, and in conformity with which our interpretation mvist proceed. To some extent it must be so. But there is a great, and, for the most part, easily marked distinction, between holding thiis with the writers of New Testament Scriptui'e in a natural and appropriate manner, and doing it in a controversial and party spirit — between holding with them so as to give a fair and consistent interpretation of their langviage, and doing it, or pro- fessing to do it, while we are ever and anon putting a constrained or inadequate meaning on their words. If the latter be our mode of procedure, it will not fail to betray itself in the manifest violence occasionally done to the words of the original, and the various shifts resorted to for the purpose, either of evading their proper force, or foisting upon them a sense they cannot fairly be made to bear. Previous to the Reformation, divines of the Romish Church were wont to carry this style of interpretation to the worst ex- treme. Individual writers, here and there, gave evidence of a certain degree of candour and impartiality ; but, for the most part, the sacred text was treated in abject deference to the au- thority of Rome, and the most arbitrary expositions were fallen upon to establish her doctrinal positions. It was only such a vigorous and general movement as the Reformation, — a move- ment basing itself upon the true sense of Scripture, and perpetu- ally appealing to that for its justification, — which coidd break the trammels that had so long lain upon men's minds in tliis respect, and recall sincere students of Scripture to the simple, gram- matical sense of its words. To a great extent, it actually did PARTICULAR WORDS AND PASSAGES. 69 this. Luther, Melaiicthon, Calvin, and the otlier leading Re- formers, were of one mind here, though they sometimes failed, and differed from each other, in the results to which the prin- ciple actually led them. Their fundamental rule was, that " the sense of Scripture is one, certain, and simple, and is everywhere to be ascertained in accoi'dance with the principles of grammar and human discourse." (Eleni. Khet. II. of Melancthon.) " We must not," says Luther, " make God's word mean what we wish ; Ave must not bend it, but allow it to bend us ; and give it the honour of being better than we could make it ; so that we must let it stand." Of this fail*, straightforward, gram- matical mode of handling Scripture, as characteristic of the spirit of the Reformation, the commentaries of Calvin are the noblest monument of the period, scarcely surpassed in that re- spect, as in certain others not equalled, to the present day. It M'as more, indeed, by what the Reformers did in their exegetical productions, and their comments on Scripture, than by any formal announcement or explanation of their hermeneutical principles, that both they themselves and their immediate fol- lowers gave it to be understood what those principles really were. A hermeneutical work by Flacius Illyricus did appear in 1567 — entitled, Clavis Scripturae Sacrse — somewhat cumbrous, indeed (comprising, along with his explanation of Scripture figures and expressions, two large volumes), and in certain parts jiot a little prolix ; but strong and earnest in its advocacy of the great principle now under consideration, and for the period alto- gether a respectable and useful production. It stood alone, however, in the 16th century, and was not followed up, as it should have been, by Biblical students of a more strictly exege- tical and less controversial spirit. The author himself in this, as in his other works, was too much influenced by doctrinal pre- possession and interest, — although he justly condemns Papists and sophists on this account, who (he says) " pick out select pas- sages from the sacred books at their own pleasure, and combine them together again in the most arbitrary manner ; so that they speak, indeed, in the plain words of Scriptm'e, but at the same time utter their own thoughts, not those of Scripture." It is proper to note, however, that on this very point — the point in respect to which the Reformation wrought so beneficial 70 GENERAL RULES FOR INTERPSETATIOX OF a change — Dr Campbell pronounces a most severe and caustic judgment against Beza, one of tlie most learned and able exposi- tors of the Reformation ; he charges him with allowing his doc- trinal tendencies to impart an improper bias to his translation and notes. It cannot be questioned, we think, that Beza did lay himself open to objection on this ground, and his adversary Castalio proved himself quite ready to take advantage of it* Some of the examples produced by Castalio, and reproduced by Campbell, are certainly instances of wrong translation and false exposition, such as but too clearly originated in undue doctrinal bias. But neither is it quite fair, with Campbell, to ascribe them all to this source, nor are they such as to merit that bitter acrimony which pervades the critique, and which looks more like the expression of personal antipathy to Beza for the kind of doc- trines he espoused, than for occasional indiscretion in the way of introducing them. That something of this sort did mingle in Campbell's animadversions, one can scarcely doubt, not only from the pungency of their general tone, but also from the evi- dent desire betrayed in some of the examples to aggravate as miich as possible the charge of bad faith : — As when, in regard to Beza's rendering -^y-x/t, in Acts ii. 27, by cadaver in his first edition, he is represented as quite singular and arbitrary, while for that sense (though in itself, we believe, a wrong one) Beza produces the authority of Jerome ; and Suicer, in his Thesaurus, says of it, Quai Beza injM'ima editione sua recte interpretatus erat, — referring, as Beza had done before him, to Virgil ^n. iii., Ani- mamque sepulchre condimus. So, again, in regard to the word ^iipoTor/iffavTsg, in Acts xiv. 23, which Beza renders pei' suffixigia creassent, Dr Campbell can see nothing in the per suffragia but Beza's desire to thrust in his own views res]3ecting the popular election of ministers. Beza, however, only professes to give what he held to be the fall and proper import of the word, and what was undoubtedly its original meaning ; as Suicer also admits, when he says, it designates, according to its primary signification, " an election, qua? Jit per suffragia manuum extensione data" — eligereper siffragia ad EfAscopatum — a practice, he truly remarks, which long survived in the Church. It may be questioned, whether the word should have this definite meaning ascribed to it in the passage under consideration, as the word was often used in the rARTICULAR WORDS AND PASSAGES. 71 more general sense of designating or appointing. Suicer himself thinks it does not ; but Erasmus had already translated cum suf- fragiis creassent, and the same sense is vindicated by Eaphelius, who supports it by examples from profane writers ; to say nothing of Doddridge and others in later times. There is, therefore, no just reason for charging Beza with bad faith, as if, in ascribing such a sense to the word, he deliberately tampered with the in- tegi'ity of Scripture. These remarks have been introduced merely for the purpose of guarding against what appears an ex- aggerated representation of Beza's partiality, and of correcting the too depreciatory estimate formed by Dr Campbell of his merits as an interpreter of Scripture. It may be confidently affirmed, that the parties, who, next to the Papists, have erred most through doctrinal bias in pervert- ing and narrowing the proper import of Sacred Scripture, have been the elder Socinians and the modern Rationalists. These, if not the only, are at least the chief parties, who from the ranks of Protestantism, and under a show of learning, have systemati- cally tampered with the sense (sometimes even with the text) of Scripture ; and have sought to obtain from it something else or something less than that which the words by a natural interpre- tation yield. But the arts plied for this purpose have signally failed. The forced interpretations and arbitrary methods of the Socinian party have been obliged to give way. By the establish- ment of a more accurate criticism, by sounder principles of in- terpretation, and a more intimate acquaintance with the original languages, it has been found that Scripture Avill not surrender up any of its peculiar doctrines ; so that, as has been remarked by Winer,^ " the controversies among interpreters have usually led back to the admission, that the old Protestant views of the meaning of the sacred text, are the correct ones." These views are there, the Rationalists of a past generation confessed, though only by way of accommodation to the antiquated notions and doctrinal beliefs of the Jews, not as being in themselves ab- solutely true or strictly Divine : — they are there, the Rationalists of the present day still admit, but only as the temporary and imperfect forms of the truth, suited to an immature age, now to be supplanted by higher and worthier conceptions. We thank ' Litkratiir Ze'itung, No. 44, 72 GENERAL RULES FOR INTERPRETATION OF them both for the admission ; in that we have the confession of those, whom nothing but the force of truth could have constrained to own, that the doctrines of the orthodox faith are those which are eHcited from Sciipture by the grammatical rendering and fair interpretation of its words. And by this faith it behoves us to abide — till, at least, He who gave it may be pleased to give us another and better. The principle, however, of abiding in interpretations of Scrip- ture by the grammatical sense, not only requires a spirit of fairness, as opposed to a doctrinal bias or polemical interest, but also a spirit of discrimination in regard to the various elements, the Lexical and Syntactical peculiarities, by the observance of which the real grammatical sense is to be ascertained. It is obvious, that if no proper discrimination is made between the later and the more classical Greek — if due respect is not had to the Hebraistic element, which appears in some of the phrases and constructions of New Testament Scripture — if either the more distinctive meanings of particular words, or the characteristic peculiarities of individual writers are overlooked, failures and mistakes in a corresponding degree will inevitably be made in the exhibition of the correct meaning. From deficiencies in one or more of these respects it is possible to give an unfair and erroneous view of a passage, not only without any improper bias prompting one to do so, but even with the m'ost honest purpose of attaining to correctness, and many qualifications to aid in ac- complishing it. When the Apostle Paul, for example, in Gal. ii. 2, speaks of going up to Jerusalem xara a'jtoxaXw^'iv — if, from un- due regard to classical analogy, we should interpret with the learned Hermann, explicationis causa — for the purpose, that is, of rendering certain explanations to parties residing there, we should certainly not give what is either the grammatical sense of the expression, or what accords with the Apostle Paul's use of the term aToxaXv^ig ; by whom it is always employed in the higher sense of a Divine communication. And in such an ex- pression it is not so much classical analogy, as scriptural, and we may even say Pauline, usage, that must determine the exact import. It is in fact, as formerly stated, very much from the more careful and discriminating attention, that has latterly been paid to the various peculiarities both of the Greek language PARTICULAR AVORDS AND PASSAGES. 73 generally, and of the New Testament style and diction in par- ticular, that advances have been made in precision and accm-acy of interpretation. Nor should it be forgotten, in strictly critical expositions, what has been justly remarked by Mr Ellicot in his preface to the Epistle to the Galatians, that " in the Holy Scriptures every peculiar expression, even at the risk of losing an idiomatic turn, must be retained. Many words, especially the prepositions, have a positive dogmatical and theological sig- nificance, and to qualify them by a popular turn, or dilute them by a paraphrase, is dangerous in the extreme." 3. Assuming, however, what has been stated — assuming that our primary object in interpreting Scripture, should be to ascer- tain what sense the words of every passage ma^/, by a fair and grammatical interpretation, and in reality do yield : — assuming, moreover, that we both know and are disposed to keep in view the more distinctive peculiarities belonging in whole or in part to the language of the New Testament, there are still guiding- principles of great importance to be remembered and followed, especially in those parts that have some degree of difficulty about them. One of these, which we therefore specify as the third point to be noticed in this connection, is the regard that shoidd he had to the simplicity which characterises the loritings of the JVeio Testament. " The excellence of an interpreter," says Ernesti justly, " consists much in simplicity ; and the more any interpretation bears the mark of facility, and it aj^pears as if it ought to have struck the reader before, the more likely is it to be true. 'Padiov rh aXridsg, says Lycurgus ; and Schultens, in his Preface to Job, well remarks, that the seal of truth is simple and eternal." It is necessary, however, to explain here. The simplicity that should characterise our interpretations of Scripture is very dif- ferent from shallowness, or from what lies entirely on the surface and is found without difficulty. On the contrary, great skill and study may often be required to come at it. The sim- plicity we speak of is the proper counterpart of the simplicity of Scripture itself — a simplicity that is compatible with the most profound thought and the most copious meaning — and which had its ground partly in the circumstances, and partly in the design of the sacred penmen. In respect to their circumstances, 74 GENERAL RULES FOR INTEIIPRETATION OF tlie position tliey occupied was that of the comparatively hum- bler ranks of life ; they lived and thought in a simple, as contra- distinguished from an artificial state of society. Their manners and habits, their modes of conception, and forms of speech, are such as usually belong to persons similarly circumstanced ; that is, they partake, not of the polish and refinement, the art and subtlety, which too commonly mark the footsteps of high culti- vation and luxurious living, but of the free, the open, the natural — as of persons accustomed frankly to express, not to conceal their emotions, or to wrap their sentiments in disguise. On this account— because written by persons of such a type, and depicting characters and events connected with such a state of society, the narratives of Scripture are pre-eminent above all other writings for their simplicity ; they are nature itself, in its unvarnished plainness and clear transparency ; and from this they derive a charm, which is more or less felt in every bosom. But what so strikingly characterises the narrative portions of Scripture, has also given its impress to the others ; the whole are pervaded by the direct, the guileless simplicity of men, who had to do with the realities of life, and were wont to speak as from heart to heart. But if the circumstances of the sacred writers tended to pro- duce, the design with which they wrote expressly called for, this simplicity in writing ; and, indeed, secured it. It was to inform, to instruct, to save, that they wrote — this was their one grand aim. They had no personal, no literary ends in view ; they were simply witnesses, recording the wonderful things they had seen and heard, or ambassadors conveying messages from another, not on their own behalf, but for the interests of their felloAV-inen. Hence, they naturally lost themselves in their sub- ject. Having it as their one object to unfold and press this upon the minds of others, they used, as the apostle says, great plainness of speech — language the most natural, the most direct, the most fitted to convey in appropriate and impressive terms the thoughts of their heart. The simplicity which thus charac- terises their writings is that of men, who had a single aim in view, and so w'ent straight to the mark. Such is the kind of simplicity which the writings of the New Testament possess ; and corresponding to this is the simplicity PARTICULAPw AV0RD3 AND PASSAGES. 7.5 which shoiikl appear in our manner of interpretation. How, then, should it appear? Primarily, no doulDt, and mainly, in putting a natural construction on their words, and ascribing to them, precise indeed and accurate, yet not recondite and far- fetched meanings. As in writing what they were moved to in- dite by the Holy Ghost, the sacred penmen were guided by the simplicity of an earnest purpose and a lofty aim, so we should prescribe to ourselves (as Titmann has said) this quality of sim- plicity as a rule, and not recede, except for grave reasons, fi'om that sense, which seems to be the nearest and most direct. It may be quite possible, in certain cases, by the help of lexicons and other appliances, to bring out interpretations of an in- genious nature, and display a good deal of skill in supporting them ; but no satisfactory results shall thus be obtained, unless the meanings put upon the different words, and the sense extracted from them, are such as might seem appropriate to men usino- the lancuase of ordinary life, and using it with the view, not of establishing subtle distinctions, but of unfolding in the most effective manner the great principles of truth and duty. This, however, has respect only to our treatment of the language; the kind of thoughts and feelings of which that language might be expressive is another thing. Here there was room for infinite depth and fulness. It is of the nature of grace, in all its operations, to give a subjective elevation to the soul — to increase, not only its appetency, but its power of discernment also, for the inward and spiritual ; and by the help even of com- mon things, through the instrumentality of the simplest language, to open veins of thought, and awaken chords of feeling, which lie beyond the reach of those who are living after the course of nature. In the spiritually enlightened mind there is, wdiat may be called, a divine simplicity, which, by drawing it into closer connection and sympathy with the mind of God, discovers to it views and meanings, which would otherwise never have sug- gested themselves. So, we see Avith the inspired "v^Titers of the New Testament themselves, that not unfrequently they discern an import in the earlier dispensations of God, or indicate thoughts in connection with the facts of later times, such as would not have occurred to persons, even of superior and cultivated minds, 76 GENERAL RULES FOR INTEUPRETATION OF looking from a merely natural point of view. Yet not the less in what they thus discern and indicate — in the inferences they deduce, and the conclusions they build, as well as in the more substantive part of their announcements, are there to be found the proper cliaracteristics of simplicity — a style of thought and expression, direct, plain, natural. We simply add further, that in endeavouring to preserve and copy this simplicity, we are in no respect precluded from the necessity of applying careful thought and the resources of solid learning to the work of interpretation. It is only through these, indeed, that we can hope to surmount the difficulties which lie across the path of a thoroughly successful exegesis of Scripture. In aiming at this we have to throw ourselves back upon the times and circumstances of the sacred penmen — to realize their position — make ourselves familiar with their modes of thought and forms of expression, so as to be able to judge what would have been for them a natural and fitting mode of representation — what forced and unnatural. And this we can only expect to do by close study, and the judicious employment of the resources of learning. Not the learning merely which is confined to the use of grammars and lexicons, but all tViat can serve to throw light on the language, the manners, the opinions and habits of those, among whom Christ and His apostles lived and spoke. Whatever is calculated to aid us in arriving at such intimate knowledge, must also be serviceable in enabling us to attain to a proper simplicity in our interpretations of Scripture. 4. It is only following out the same line of thought, and rendering the principle it involves specific in a particular direction, when we mention as another, a fourth rule to be attended to in scriptural interpretations, that in settling the meaning of words we must have respect chiefly to the usiis^ loquendi, the current sense, or established usage at the time — to this more than to their etymology. The reason for such a rule is no further peculiar to the writings of the New Testament, than that they are of a popular and practical nature ; which rendered it expedient, and, in a sense, necessary, that words and phrases should be taken in their prevailing signification. But this signi- fication often differs greatly from what might be conjectured by looking simply to their etymology. For tlic spoken language of PARTICULAR WORDS AND PASSAGES. 77 a people is ever passing through certain processes of change and fluctuation. Many of its terms depart considerably, in the course of time, from their original import, acquire new shades of meaning, and sometimes even become so entirely transformed in their progress, that the ultimate use scarcely exhibits a trace of the p?'M>?o7 signijicatlon. A familiar example of this from our own language is to be found in the word villain — the English form of the Latin villanus — originally, the poor serf attached to the villa or farm of a proprietor — then, from the usual condition and manners of such, the low, selfish, dishonest peasant — and, finally, when villenage in the original sense became extinct, those capable of the most base and dishonourable actions — the moralli/ vile and mean. Another instance is furnished by a word, which by a strange coincidence has had the like fortune in its English, that it seems formerly to have had in its Greek form. Sycophant in the earlier stages of our literatui'e meant simply an accuser — by-and-by ix false accuser — but in process of time it lost this sense, and came to signify a fawning flatterer^ one who speaks, not ill of a person behind his back, but good of him before his face, though only for a sinister and selfish pur- pose— the only sense now retained by the word. In like manner, the Greek av/.ofidvT^g, according to the ancient gram- marians, and according also to its apparent composition, origin- ally a Jig-shoicer — an informer (as is said, though there is no certain proof of such a use) against perso7is exporting figs, from Attica — then a common informer — and ultimately a false accuser, or a false adviser, its only signification in classical writings — while in the New Testament it bears the still further, but col- lateral sense, of extorting money under false pretences (Luke iii. 14). Not only do words thus in current use sometimes escape alto- gether fi-om their original meaning, but there are also words, which, etymologically considered, ought to be identical in their import, and should admit of being interchanged as synonymous, Avhich yet come to differ materially as to then* actual use. To refer only to one example : our two terms foresight and p>rovision are each made up of two words preciseh^ similar in meaning — only the one pair of Saxon, the other of Latin origin. Un- doubtedly fore by itself answers to pro, and sight to vision ; yet 78 GENERAL RULES FOR INTERPRETATION OF usage has appropriated the two words to different ideas — the one to indicate what is anticipated in the future, the other to what is laid up or done with a view to the future. A foreigner not acquainted with the usage, and guided merely by the etymology, might readily substitute the one for the other. And it is but lately that I noticed in a letter written from abroad the expres- sion used respecting some one, that his " provisions were disappointed," evidently meaning by pro\dsions what should have been expressed by foresight — the anticipations that had been formed in respect to the future. A similar sense of incongruity, as in this case, is occasionally produced in one's mind, when a word occurs in some of our older writers, which since their day has undergone a considerable change of meaning — especially if, as sometimes happens, it is employed by them, not only in its original acceptation, but also in conjunction with an epithet, which seems to indicate what is incompatible with the other. Thus in one of Caxton's prefaces, his preface to a translation of a Life of Charles the Great, ])rinted by him in 1485, beseeching the reader's indulgence to- ward his translation, he says, " Though there be no gay terms in it, nor subtle, nor new eloquence, yet I hope, that it shall be understood, and to that intent I have especially reduced (trans- lated) it after the simple cunning that God hath lent me," — the simple cunning, two words that now bear antagonistic meanings, and seem incongruously united together. Certainly, as now understood, a man of cunning is anything but a simple person ; simplicity and cunning cannot exist together. But cunning originally implied nothing of a sinister kind. It has its root in the German kennen, to know, from which our hen comes, and merely denoted the kenning, or knowing, which one nn'ght have of anything in art or science. Applied to works of art, it became nearly synonymou.s with shill or power — approaching to another cognate German word, hosnnen, canning, having the power or ability to accomplish anything — in which sense it occurs in our English Bible, " Let my right hand forget her cunning," namely, her acquired skill to play upon the harp. It is only in com- paratively late times, that the word lost this meaning, and came to denote that sort of deceit, which is united with a low kind of skill or cleverness. I PAI;TICULAU WORDS AND TASSAOKS. 79 Sucli examples show liow cautiously etymology should be ap- plied iu determining the sense of words, as these come to be used in a living tongue. As our examples have been chiefly taken from our own language, it may be added in ]:)assing, that the person, who did most to turn the attention of English scholars in this direction, and who originated inquiries which have led to many interesting and profitable I'esults — Home Tooke — has also exhibited in some of his deductions one of the most striking examples of the danger of pushing such inquiries to excess, and of being guided simply by the etymological ele- ment in ascertaining the import of words. In the spirit of a thorough-going Nominalist, he maintains, in his " Diversions of Purley," that as words are merely the signs of ideas, and as all our words, not excepting the most abstract, are ultimately traceable to a meaning derived from sensible impressions, so words must be understood not in their acquired or metaphorical, but always substantially in their primitive and sensational mean- ing : — consequently, as we have no words, neither have we any ideas, of a properly absolute description — both alike cleave in- separably to the dust. So in regard even to truth : " Truth is nothing (he says) but Avhat every man troweth ; whence there is no such thing as eternal, immutable, everlasting truth ; unless mankind, such as they are at present, be also eternal, immutable, and everlasting ; and two persons may contradict each other, and yet both speak truth, for the truth of one person may be opposite to the truth of another." This is carrjdng the subjecti\-e ])rinciple in our natures to an extravagant height, and makino- words govern ideas in a manner, which few, we should think, will be disposed to accredit. We refer to it merely as a proof of the folly of pusliing such a line of investigation to the utmost, and making what is the primary ground of our words and ideas also their ultimate standard and measure. Even with soberer inquirers and safer guides we sometimes perceive an excess in the same direction. It may be noticed occasionally in a work, which as a whole is marked by just thought and fine discrimina- tion, and will well repay a careful perusal — Dr Trench on " the Study of AYords." Thus, when treating of hind, he says, " a kind person is a kinned person, one of kin, one who acknowledges and acts upon his kinship with other men. And so m^wkind s 80 GENERAL RULES FOU INTEKriiETATION OF mankin7ied. In the word is contained a declaration of the rehi- tionship which exists between all the members of the human family ; and seeing that this relation in a race now scattered so widely and divided so far asunder can only be through a com- mon head, we do in fact, every time that we use the word man- kind, declare our faith in the common descent of the whole human race " (p. 42). We would, indeed, declare it, if, as often as we used the word, we had respect to that derivation, and as- sented to the principle implied in it ; but how few in reality do so ! In the language of every-day life, we employ the word simply as current coin — we take it as expressive of the multi- tude of beings who possess with ourselves a common natiire, but at the same time, perhaps, thinking as little of their common origin, as, when speaking of truth, we have respect to wdiat every individual troweth. But in all this we point only to the excess. There can be no doubt, in regard to the thing itself, that it is of great importance to attend to the derivation of words, and that without knowing this w^e cannot get at those nicer shades of meaning which they often express, or make a thoroughly intelligent and proper use of them. In the great majority of cases, the etymologiccd is also the actual sense of the word ; and even when the acquired or meta- phorical use comes materially to differ from the primary one, the knowledge of the primary is still of service, as most commonly a certain tinge or impress of it survives even in the ultimate. How often does a reference to the original import of some leading word in a phrase or sentence, enable us to bring out its meaning with a point and emphasis that we must otherwise have failed to exhibit ! How often, again, when terms nearly synonymous are employed — so nearly, perhaps, that in rendering from Greek to English we can only employ the same word for both, — does a glance at the fundamental import disclose the difference between them ! Thus, in Gal. vi. 2, we have the exhortation, " Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ ;" and pre- sently afterwards, in ver. 5, we have the announcement, " For every one shall bear his own burden." Even an English reader may see, by looking at the connection, that the burden in the one case cannot be the same with what is meant by it in the other ; that the one, as Aurrustine lone ago remarked, is the burden of one's PARTICULAR WORDS AND PASSAGES. 81 own trials or infirmities, which may be shared in by others, while the other is something altogether proper to the individual — the burden of his personal responsibility, or rather, perhaps, the burden of his personal state and destiny — which he must bear himself alone. But the difference at once presents itself when we timi to the original, where we find two distinct w'ords em- ployed, each having their respective shades of meaning. The burdens we are to bear one for another are ra (Supri, the iceights, the things which press like loads upon those who come into contact wdth them, and in a manner call for friendly help : but the bur- den each one has to bear for himself is rh 'ihm (popriov, that charge of what is more properly his own, which is indissolubly linked to his personal consciousness and rationality, and of which no one can relieve another. Again, in Rom. ix. 15, 'EXsjjffw ov av IXsw, zai oJxriip7](jM dv av o/KTiipu, we have two verbs, which are of such cognate meaning, that they are often loosely interchanged, and sometimes the one, sometimes the other, is held to be the stronger expression. Even Titmann (Synon. I. p 122), and after him Robinson, in Lex., designates sXsog and iXssTv as stronger than ol-/.rip/ji,6g, and oIztu- ps/v, because the former carry along with them the additional no- tion of beneficence, a desire to relieve the miserable. But if the greater strength had been there, we should rather have expected the clauses in this passage of the Epistle to the Romans to be in the inverse order — the weaker to be first, and the stronger last. A more exact analysis justifies the existing order; for, as Fritzsche has justly remarked on the passage, the words, o olzrip- /Mog and oiKTiipsTv signify more than 6 'iXiog and iXsj/i-. The latter stand related to 'iXaog, 'iXdofjMi, 'iXdaxoiLai (the being propitious, kind, or gentle) ; the other to ol (the Oh ! the cry of distress or sympathy), and oh.rog (the tender pity or compassion, of which that cry is one of the first and most natural expressions). Hence 6 'iXiog denotes that sorrow which a kindly disposition feels at the misery of another, and is the proper word to be used when the general notion of mercy is to be expressed ; 6 oixripiMog, however, denotes the sorrow awakened by the sense of another's misery, which calls forth tears and lamentations — not pity merely, but pity in its keener sensibilities and most melting moods. So that the passage referred to has in it a real progression : " I will F 82 GENERAL RULES FOR INTERPRETATION OF have mercy on -whom I will have mercy, and will have pity on whom I will have pity." An expression in 2 Cor. xii. 9 may be referred to as an example of a somewhat different kind. The apostle there says that he would most willingly rather glory in infirmities, ha sTiff- xyivdoffp sv sfis 7] Bvm/iig rov XpiffTou, the full import of which is but imperfectly conveyed by the common rendering, " that the power of Christ may rest ujDon me." The verb employed belongs to the later Greek, and is found in Polybius in the sense of dwelling in a tent, or inhabiting. This, however, is not sufficient to expli- cate the meaning of the word here ; nor is any aid to be obtained from the Septuagint, since it does not occur there. It can only be explained by a reference to what is said in Old Testament Scripture of the relation of the Lord's tabernacle or tent to His people ; by such a passage, for example, as Isa. iv. 6, where it is written, " And there shall be a tabernacle for a shadow in the day time from the heat ;" that is, the Lord's gracious presence and protection spread over them as a shelter. So in Rev. vii. 15, the Lord is represented as " tabernacling upon" the redeemed in glory. In like manner, the apostle here states it as the reason why he would rejoice in infirmities, that thereby Christ's power might tabernacle upon him — might serve, so to speak, as the abiding refuge and confidence in which he should hide himself. We need not multiply examples further of this description. But we may add, that for those who would know generally how much may be gained in drawing out the more precise and deli- cate shades of meaning, by a reference to the radical and primary sense of words, one of the. best helps will be found to be Bengel's Gnomon, which, notwithstanding occasional failures, is in a short compass the happiest specimen extant of this kind of interpreta- tation. This should be taken as an habitual companion. But occasionally, also, in writers of a more popular cast, good ex- amples are to be met with of the same tact — in none, perhaps, more than in Leigliton, who, if he sometimes strains rather un- duly the original meaning, more commonly turns it to good ac- covmt, and that in a natural and happy manner. As in the fol- lowing example : " God resisteth the 'proiid — avrtraseirai — singles it out as His grand enemy, and sets Himself in battle array against PARTICULAR WORDS AND PASSAGES. 83 it ; so the word is. It breaks the ranks of men, in which He hath set them, when they are not subject — 'wxoTacsoiJjivoi, — as the word is before ; yea, pride not only breaks rank, but rises up in rebel- lion against God, and doth what it can to dethrone Him, and usurp His place ; therefore He orders his forces against it ;" and so on. On the other hand, in passages presenting some difficulty, or affording scope for the display of fancy on the part of the inter- preter, it is quite possible, and, indeed, very common, to eiT by pressing unduly the etymological import of words. Horsley, for example, gives a marked and somewhat ludicrous exhibition of this, wlien rendering, as he occasionally does, the Greek word tdiojrai by the English word derived from it, idiots,^ — a word, no doubt, bearing much the same signification with its Greek ori- ginal— denoting, first, the merely private man, as contradistin- guished from one conversant with affairs and offices of state ; then a person of rude and unskilled condition — in manners and intellect unpolished ; and, finally, one altogether destitute of the ordinary powers of human intelligence — bereft of reason, to which last sense it has long been confined in the common inter- course of life. So that, with Horsley, to turn the expression used of the apostles in Acts iv. 13, "unlearned men and idiots," is only, by a misplaced literalism, to give a false representation of the meaning. Not much better is his rendering and interpre- tation of Luke i. 4, " That thou mightest know the exact truth of those doctrines wherein thou hast been catechized" — vip/ m xaryi^rjdrjg : — on which he remarks, " St Luke's own Gospel, there- fore, if the writer's own word may be taken about his own work, is an historical exposition of the Catechism, which Theophilus had learned when he was first made a Christian. The two first articles in this historical exposition are, the history of the Bap- tist's birth, and that of Mary's miraculous impregnation. We have much more, therefore, than the testimony of St Liike, in addition to that of St Matthew, to the truth of the fact of the miraculous conception ; we have the testimony of St Luke, that this fact was a part of the earliest catechetical instruction ; a part of the catechism, no doubt, which St Paul's converts learned ' Tracts against Priestley, p. 4G. 84 GENERAL RULES FOR INTERPRETATION OF of the apostle."^ We see here, too plainly, the polemical interest, endeavouring to make the utmost of" an argument, but overreach- ing its purpose by putting an midue strain on the principal word in the passage. That our word catechize might originally corre- spond to the Greek word 7{.arri-)(SM, from which it obviously comes, may be certain enough ; but it does not follow, that what xarjj- ysM imports, as used by St Luke, is fairly given by catechize, in its current acceptation. Tlie Greek verb did not originally bear the technical import of catechize ; it meant, to sound out to- wards, to resound, or sound in one^s ears ; then more specially to do this by loord of mouth, to instruct, and ultimately to instruct by way of question and answer. As used in the New Testament, and Greek writers generally, except the Fathers, it indicates nothing as to the specific mode of instruction ; and to represent it by the word catechize, would only render our translation in most cases vmintelligible or ridiculous. Thus, at Gal. vi. 6, it would run, " Let him that is catechized in the word communi- cate to him that catechizeth in all good things ;" and at Acts xxi. 22, " But they have been catechized concerning thee, that thou teachest all the Jews to forsake Moses." To sound forth, or communicate instruction, in the active voice, and m the passive, to hear by way of rumour, or be instructed anyhow, — these are the only senses which the word bears in the New Testament. Li later times the %aTr\yj)\)iirm were those who were under special instruction for admission to the Church, and, as we might say, the catechized portion in Christian communities. In Dr Campbell's Fourth Preliminary Dissertation will be found some good remarks and apposite illustrations on the sub- ject before us. Not, however, without some grounds for excep- tion. His jealousy in respect to etymological considerations is carried to excess, and in some of the instances he produces, leads him, more or less, into error. We formerly alluded to his remarks on yiifdTonoi, as used in Acts xiv. 23, and his severe denunciation of Beza for so far giving heed to its etymological formation, as to express in his translation a reference to the mode of appointment to church offices by popular election, signified by holding up the hand. He would exclude everything from its import but the simple idea of appointment, although in the only other passage ' Sermon on the Incarnation. PARTICULAR WORDS AND PASSAGES. 85 in the New Testament, where it is similarly used of appointment to church offices (2 Cor. viii. 19), it plainly does include the element of popular suffrage. We shall rather point, however, under the present division, to another example, in which Dr Campbell is still less successful, though he labours hard to make good his point. It turns on the word Tpoy/vwcxw, whether this should be rendered, as its component elements would lead us to expect, hj forehnow, or by some more general mode of expression. Dr Campbell holds, it should be less strictly taken in Rom. xi. 2, where we read in our common version, " God hath not cast away His people, whom He foreknew" (ov 'rposyvu) ; he would separate the preposition, Trpo, from the verb, and also impose on the verb itself a somewhat different meaning, — that, namely, of acknowledging or approving ; and thus he obtains a, no doubt, very plain and intelligible sense : " God hath not cast off His people, whom heretofore He acknowledged." But is this really the sense intended by the apostle ? We find him using the same compound verb a little before at ch. viii. 29, " Whom He did foreknow (oSg TpoiyvcS), them He also did predestinate ;" — and there it is scarcely possible to understand it otherwise than in the sense of foreknowing given to it by our translators, being plainly used of an act of the Divine mind toward His people, prior to that of their predestination to blessing : He foreknew, then He fore-appointed. Is there any necessity for departing from the same literal sense in the passage before us ? None that appears worthy of notice. Dr Campbell has, indeed, said, that to speak there of God's people as those whom He foreknew, " conveyed to his mind no meaning whatever ;" and, by a strange oversight in so acute a mind, he founds his statement on the assertion, that to foreknow " always signifies to know some event before it hap- pens " — as if it might not equally import, when used in reference to an act of God, to know a person before he exists. Presently, however, he resorts to another consideration, which implies a virtual abandonment of the other, and objects, that " God knew Israel before, in the ordinary meaning of the word knowing, could never have been suggested as a reason to hinder us from think- ing, that He would never cast them off; for, from the beginning, all nations and all things are alike known to God." True, in- deed, in one sense, but not in another. They were not all alike 86 GENERAL RULES FOR INTERPRETATION OF known to God as destined to occupy toward Himself the same relation, and to receive the same treatment ; and that is precisely the point in tlie eye of the apostle. God could not cast away His own people, whom He forekncAv as His own. Their friendly relation to Him beinrj; descried as among the certainties of the coming future, nothing in that future could arise to hinder its accomplishment. In another passage (2 Tim. ii. 19) of quite similar import, the apostle finds the ground of the believer's security from perdition in the simple fact, which he calls a seal, that " the Lord knoweth them that are His" — a thought which had consoled the Psalmist ages before, as appears from the words in the first Psalm, " The Lord hioweth the way of the righteous." For such knowledge necessarily implies a corresponding treat- ment. " If the way of the righteous is known by God as the omniscient, it cannot but be blessed by Him as the righteous. Hence, there is no necessity to ascribe to hnoio the sense of having care and affection for, loving, which it never properly possesses. It is enough, if only God with His foreknowledge is not shut up in the heavens ; the rest flows spontaneously fi*om His nature, and does not need to be particularly mentioned."^ We have referred under this division to so many illustrative examples, on the one side and the other, because it is chiefly through these, that the danger of running into an extreme is made apparent ; and along therewith the necessity of care and skill in avoiding it. It is, no doubt, one thing to know, in what direction a tendency to excess in such a matter lies, and another thing to keep clear of it. Yet it loill be of importance to re- member, that while one should always seek to be acquainted Avith the etymological import of words, this cannot in every case be taken for the actual meaning ; this is determined by the cur- rent usage, which must be ascertained and adhered to. So far as concerns the language of the New Testament, or the precise meaning and interpretation of its words, the general rules and principles now given appear to comprise all that is necessary. They will serve to mark out the course of inquiry that must be pursued, if any measure of success is to be attained. For the actual result, much will necessarily depend upon the greater or less degree of exegetical tact possessed by the student, and the ' Henffstenberg on Ps. i. PARTICULAR WORDS AjSD PASSAGES. 87 extent to which it has been cultivated by personal application and proper exercise. Hermeneutical skill, like skill of other kinds, must not only have something in nature to rest iipon, but have that also matui'ed by diligent and well-directed practice, without which no proficiency can be expected. For those cases, in which some more peculiar difficulty is felt in getting at the precise sense of a passage, there must, first of all, be brought into play the requisite qualifications connected with the application of the rules and principles already laid down. There must be an acquaintance with the original language, in its proper idioms, the etymology and usage of its words — a know- ledge of the distinctive peculiarities of the writer, in whose pro- ductions the passage occurs — of the circumstances of the time in which he wrote, its manners and customs, modes of thought, and principles of action — in a word, an insight into the nature of the language employed, and the various things, of a circumstantial description, fitted to tell upon the views of the writer and his more immediate circle. It is clear, that without knowledge of such compass and variety, no one can reasonably expect to suc- ceed in dealing with a passage, which involves any difficulty in respect to the proper construction of its words, or the real mean- ing which they bear. But it is possible, that where so much is possessed and used, the difficulty may still fail to be overcome. In that case, the next, and more special thing that should be done, is to look veiy carefully and closely to the connection in which the passage stands — which will often do much to remove the darkness or uncertainty that rests upon its import. Then, let the peculiar phrase or construction, wdiich occasions the diffi- culty, be examined in connection with others of the same, or nearly the same description, in what remains besides of the indi- Addual writer ; — or if none such may occur, then in other parts of Scripture ; and, still again, in other writings of the apostolic age, and periods not remote from it. The nearer to the passage itself, then the nearer to him who indited it, that any light can be found, the more likely to prove satisfactory. So that the ex- amination should usually be made in the order of his own writ- ings first, next of the other inspired productions, and, finally, of writings as near as possible to the age and circumstances in which he wrote. In such investigations; wc need scarcely sny, 88 TRUE AND FALSE ACCOMMODATION. all available helps, whether ancient or modern, should be brought into requisition. Access to these in any considerable degree must always be a special advantage to those who enjoy it. But even where it is very imperfectly possessed, no inconsiderable progress may be made in the exact knowledge and interpretation of Scripture, if this Scripture itself is but carefully studied, with a few good grammars and lexicons ; as, when so used, it will be found to supply many materials for interpreting itself. Let no one, therefore, wait till he has all requisite means within his reach ; but let each rather endeavour to make the most profit- able use of what he can command — in the persuasion, that though he may be far from accomplishing all he could wish, he will still find his labour by no means in vain. And, however he may stand as to inferior resources, let him never forget to seek the enlightening and directing grace of the Holy Spirit, Avho to the humble and prayerful mind will often unlock secrets, which re- main hid to the most learned and studious. SECTION FIFTH. OF FALSE AND TRUE ACCOMMODATION; OR, THE INFLUENCE THAT SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO PREVAILING MODES OF THOUGHT IN FASHIONING THE VIEWS AND UTTERANCES OF THE SACRED WRITERS. The previous discussions have had respect mainly to the language of the New Testament, and the principles or rules necessary to be followed, in order to our arriving at the precise and proper import of its words. There are, however, elements of various kinds, not properly of a linguistic nature, which must yet, accord- ing to the influence allowed them, exercise an important bearing on the sense actually obtained from the words and phrases of Scrip- ture— elements, Avhich Avill affect the interpretation of some parts of Scripture more than others, or tend to modify the meaning put on certain of its passages. The points referred to less pro- perly concern the explanation of particular terms, than the nature TRUE AND FALSE ACCOMMODATION. 89 of the ideas contained in them. They respect the question, what is there precisely of truth to he received, or of practical instruc- tion to be obeyed, in the portions which have been analysed and explained ? It is quite possible, that one may know with perfect correctness every word in a passage, and yet, from some false conceptions or misleading bias, may have a very imperfect appre- hension of its real purport, or, perhaps, give a wrong turn to the thoughts it expresses. It is necessary, therefore, on the basis of the principles already unfolded, to proceed to this higher line of hermeneutical inquiry, and endeavour, if possible, to set up some proper landmarks upon it. I. Now, the first point that here calls for investigation is, the general one, in what relations the sentiments of the saci'ed writers stand to the spii'it of their age — to its prevailing modes of thought and popular beliefs. Were they in any material respect modified by these ? Or did they pursue an altogether independent coiu'se — never bending in aught under the prevailing current, if this at all deviated from the exact and natural Kne of things I Or, if they did to some extent accommodate themselves to this, how far might we expect the accommodation to go ? At a comparatively early period a certain doctrine of accommodation was introduced with reference to representations in Scripture — which Origen, and others of the Fathers, were wont to regard as spoken or done ■Kar o/xoi/o//,/ai/, by way of dispensation, or through svyxardlSaaig, a condescension, or an accommodation to the position and infirmi- ties of the persons addressed. Advantage, it was believed, was taken of these, in order the more readily to gain the confidence or reach the understanding of those who were in an unfit state for receiving the naked truth. It is difficult to say precisely, how far the Fathers, who introduced this principle, meant to carry it, in respect to the teaching of Christ and the apostles ; for they are neither very explicit nor altogether consistent in their state- ments upon the subject. For the most part they appear simply to have understood by it an adaptation in the /orm of Divine communications to the modes of human thought and speech, while the matter' not the less remained true and divine ; as in conduct the Apostle Paul became as a Jew to the Jews (1 Cor. ix. 20), or externally conformed himself to their manners and 90 TllUE AND FALSE ACCOMMODATION. customs, without in the least detracting thereby from the claims and principles of the Gospel. In this way, Scripture was ex- plained as accommodating itself to men's infirmities or habits, when it speaks of God as possessing human parts and passions, or uses parables, proverbs, and familiar images, to set forth to our view things spiritual and divine. But occasionally they seem to indicate an application of the principle beyond this limit, and to include the matter of what was taught or done, as well as the form : as when Origen (in his Principia, L. iv.) speaks of mystic dispensations employed by God, which, in their literal sense or obvious meaning, were opposed to enlightened faith and reason — or when Jerome, in his Epistle to Augustine, teaches that Paul, as well as Peter, feigned himself to be a Jew, and yet reproved Peter at Antioch by what he calls honesta dispensatio, which the one administered, and the other submitted to feignedly, that they might show the prudence of apostles. It requires no arguments to prove, that honest dispensations of this sort but ill accord with that godly simplicity, which we are wont to ascribe to the apostles, and would, if generally believed in, somewhat shake their credit as inspired writers. Fortunately, however, the Fathers erred comparatively little in this direction ; and it was rather from inadvertence, or from perplexity in dealing with par- ticular passages, than from any general laxity of principle, that they have been occasionally betrayed into rash and unguarded statements upon the subject. It was reserved for modern times to apply the principle of ac- commodation to the teachings of Scripture in the full and proper sense, and to represent Christ Himself and the apostles as pan- dering to the mistaken views and narrow prejudices of their time. Wetstein was among the first to lay down a formal prin- ciple of this sort, although Grotius in some of his comments had before virtually acted on it. But Wetstein, in a little work on the criticism and interpretation of the New Testament (a.d. 1724), gave it out as a canon of interpretation, in respect to those passages, which seem to be at variance with truth, or with each other, that the sacred writers should be viewed "as not always expressing their own opinion, nor representing matters as to their real state, but occasionally also expressing themselves according to the sentiments of others, or the sometimes am- TRUE AND FALSE ACCOMMODATION. 91 biguous, sometimes erroneous, opinions of the multitude." And he indicates, that this mode of explanation should be especially adopted in regard to what is often said in the New Testament of sacrifices, of Satan, of angels and demons. Shortly after, Semler (both in a new edition of Wetstein's treatise, and in works of his own) took up the principle of interpretation thus announced, and with characteristic ardour and industry applied it to the explanation of the New Testament writings. His fundamental position was, that the exposition of the New Testa- ment should be pre-eminently historical ; that is, that one should have respect to the spiritual conditions of the time — the prevail- ing thoughts and opinions, as well as external circumstances, of those among whom Christ and Plis apostles lived ; and these he represented to be such, that the truth could not always be sjaoken as it should have been, and required a use to be made of Old Testament Scripture in reference to Gospel events, such as cannot be justified on principles of grammar or grounds of ab- stract reason. Our Lord and His apostles, therefore, spoke at times ex vulgari opiniojie, nofprecisely according to the truth of things ; yet so as that, by instituting a comparison of the different parts of their writings, and making the more general and com- prehensive rule the more special and peculiar, we may arrive at the ultimate and permanent ideas of the Gospel. The door was thus fairly opened for exegetical license, — and fi.'om Sender's day to this, there have never been wanting men fully disposed to avail themselves of the liberty which it invited them to take. Loose as Semler's views were, and great as was the havoc which he carried into the received views of Scripture, he lived to see (with grief, it is said) others far outstripping him in the same line of accommodations. By degrees everything was reduced to a subjective standard ; and if in anything an interpreter found statements recorded, or doctrines taught, which did not accord with /iis notions of the truth of things, the explanation was at hand, that such things had found a place in Scripture merely on a principle of accommodation ; the people at the time were capable of appreciating nothing higher, or the writers them- selves as yet understood no better. And so, in the hands of many on the Continent, and of some also in this country, of some here still, the proper teaching of the Gospel came to be 92 TRUE AND FALSE ACCOMMODxVTION. reduced to the scanty form of a Sadducean creed. The doc- trines of the Trinity, of the Divine Sonship of Messiah, of the atonement, of the personaHty of the Spirit, of a corporeal resur- rection and a final judgment, have all been swept away by the abettors of the principle under consideration ; and even the idea of Christianity's being in any peculiar sense a revelation from Heaven, has been sometimes represented as merely a mode of speech suited to the time of its appearance. Such has been the practical result of the accommodation theory, or the historical principle of interpretation (as it has been some- times called) — a result, which carries along with it the virtual doom of the principle itself. For, obviously enough, to deal in such an arbitrary and magisterial manner with sacred Scripture, is not to interpret, but to sit in judgment upon it, as we might do upon any human composition, and receive or reject what it contains, according to our preconceived notions. The proper revelation — the real standard of truth and eiTor, is in that case within ; we stand upon essentially infidel ground ; and seeing that Sci'ipture as much contradicts, as coincides with our views of things, it were better to discard it as an authority altogether — treat it merely as a help. Most commonly, however, the accommodation principle is confined within a comparatively narrow range, and applied to what are called innocuous errors. So Seller, for example, in his Hermeneutics, who says, that in such a matter we must be care- ful to distinguish between innocuous and nocuous errors. Among the innocuous he includes chiefly errors of an historical and chronological kind — such as he conceives occur in the speech of Stephen, Acts vii. — and exegetical errors, or false interpretations of several passages of the Old Testament, which were erroneously supposed to contain what the words did not really indicate. So, too, Rosenmuller, in his Historia Interpretationis, I. p. 27, who thinks, that as the Jews had a fondness for something out of the direct and simple style of writing, loved to exhibit their senti- ments in an allegorical dress, and to seek for them strained and fanciful supports in Scripture, so the apostles acted wisely in adapting themselves in these respects to the genius and habits of their countrymen. Whence with him, and many others in this country and America (including such names as Moses Stuart, TRUE AND FALSE ACCOMMODATION. 93 Home, Adam Clarke, Albert Barnes), the formula, "that it might be fulfilled," or " then was fulfilled what was spoken," is held to have been used often as a kind of Rabbinical flourish, an embellishing of the narrative or discourse with qviotations, which, though they had properly another sense, yet were so expressed as to admit of being happily applied to the circumstances and events of Gospel history. But would this really have been a wise, or even a justifiable procedure, on the part of our Lord and the apostles ? Would such a fanciful application of Scripture have been an innocuous error ? Is it so light a thing for inspired men to misquote the writings of each other ? It is precisely to their use of Old Tes- tament Scripture — to the elucidations they give of its meaning, and the specific applications they make of its several parts, that we are indebted for our more certain knowledge of its design, and especially for our insight into the connection that subsists between the Old and the New in God's dispensations. To bring looseness and ambiguity into such a region, were in reality to destroy all certainty of interpretation, and open the door on every hand for fanciful conceits or groundless conjecture. Surely the same majestic authority which said of the Old Testament writings, " And the Scriptm-e cannot be broken," virtually said, at the same time, It must not be arbitrarily dealt with ; it is too sacred a thing to be coupled with mock fulfilments, or brought into connection with events, to which it bore no proper refer- ence. And the rather may we thus conclude, when we think of the slender nature of the reasons for which, it is supposed, an accommodation should have been made. To give fancied or- nateness to a discourse, or show a sort of Rabbinical adroitness m the mere handling of texts — and thereby to win for the moment a readier attention to what they said or wrote — were these svifficient motives for our Lord and His disciples travesty- ing the great laws of sound exegesis, and bringing confusion into the sense of ancient Scripture ? No — we may rest assured, they knew their calling better ; and as in other things they were not afraid to meet the strongest prejudices of their comitrj-men, and lay the axe to the most rooted corruptions, it were folly to think, that in this, and for such trivial considerations, they should have entered into compromises about the truth. Least of all 94 TRUE AND FALSE ACCOMMODATION. could they be guilty of such improper trifling with the oracles of God, who brought it as one of their heaviest charges against the men of that generation, that they eiTed in not knowing the Scriptures, or in making them void with their own traditions. We hold it, therefore, to be contrary to any right views of the mission of Christ and His apostles, to suppose, that they in such a sense accommodated themselves to the modes of thought and con- templation around them, as to admit error into their instructions — whether in respect to the interpretation of Scripture, or in respect to forms of opinion and articles of belief. " This," as Heringa has justly said in his notes to Seiler, " were consistent neither with wisdom, nor with honesty ; it had not been suited to the case of extraordinary ambassadors of God, furnished with such full powers, and assisted by such Divine interposition as they were. There is a vast difference between leaving errors untouched, which would in time expire either of themselves, or by deeper views of the very doctrine preached, and the confir- mation of the same errors, by admitting them into their own instructions." It is, plainly, one thing to desist from unfolding a doctrine, because men are for the time incapable of apprehend- ing or bearing it, and another and very different thing to countenance them in the mistakes and delusions, in which that incapacity has its ground. The one course, in either respect, teas compatible with inspired wisdom, the other was not; and whenever explanations are given, which would involve our Lord and His apostles in the formal admission or inculcation of what is in itself erroneous, out of deference to existing circumstances, we must hold it to be a false accommodation : since, i^ hioioingly done by them, it must have been, in the sphere of religious in- struction, doing evil that good might come ; bu.t if icithout con- science of the evil, on their part, then it must have bespoken their participation in the errors of the time, and their consequent un- fitness for being the infallible guides and instructors of the Avorld. II. In rejecting, however, this false accommodation, because it trenches on the mattei' of the teaching contained in the New Testament, we say nothing against such an accommodation as has respect to the form merely of the doctrines or lessons taught, TEUE AND FALSE ACCOMMODATION. 95 which might be perfectly admissible, and, in a sense, even necessary. In this direction there was abundant room, in New as well as Old Testament times, for a true accommodation, of which the inspired writers wisely availed themselves, and which must be duly taken into account by those who would fairly in- terpret their writings. The limits within which such accommo- dation might be practised, cannot always, perhaps, be very precisely defined ; but, in the general, it may be stated to consist in the falling in loith prevalent modes of thought or forms of concep- tion^ so as, not to lend countenance to error, but to serve for the better apprehension of the truth. An accommodation of this sort might be employed under two kinds — one more general, the other more specific ; the former grounded in characteristics of thought common to mankind at large, the latter in such as were peculiar to the age and country in which the sacred penmen lived. (1.) To the first or more general class of accommodations are to be referred the representations given of Divine and spiritual things — things which lie beyond the region of sense, and are not directly cognisable by any faculties we possess. Such things can only be made known to us by an accommodation jfi'om the visible to the invisible, from the known to the miknown ; and though, in such cases, the form is necessarily imperfect, and conveys an inadequate idea of the reality, it still is the fittest re- presentation of the idea, the nearest to the truth of things, wdiicli it is possible for us in present circumstances to attain to. What is said, for example, of God's anger towards sinners — or of His being revealed (through Christ) in flaming fire for the execution of judgment upon the wicked — or of the possibility of moving Heaven by prayer to depart from some purpose already formed, as if there could be passion or mutability with God — everything of this sort manifestly proceeds upon that necessity, which is inherent in our natures, of thinking and speaking of God in a human manner. It is impossible, otherwise, to gain definite ideas of His perfections and government ; and the only way of guarding against the abuse of such representations, is by the employment of counter-representations, which declare God to be in Himself essentially spiritual, unchangeable, and incapable of being carried away by the feelings and impulses of finite beings. 96 TRUE AND FALSE ACCOMMODATIO^^. We must, nevertheless, think of Him, and conduct ourselves towards Him, as if the human form of conceptions respecting Him conveyed the exact truth ; — He will act toward impenitent sinners precisely as if He were moved to anger by their sins — His appearance for judgment against them will be as if He were encompassed with devouring fire — He will give effect to earnest and believing prayer, as if He could be changed by the en- treaties of His people. Essentially similar, and belonging to the same class, are the representations given of Satan and his agents. Being in them- selves simply spirits, without bodily parts, the language used concerning them could not have been intelligible, imless it had taken its hue and colour from human forms and earthly relation- ships. So that when Satan is spoken of as falling from heaven, as being chained or set loose, as overcoming the saints or being bruised mider their feet — or when the demons generally are spoken of as going into men, as driven out of them, as wandering in dry and desert places, and such like, it is open for consider- ation, how far in siich things there is an accommodation in the form of the truth exhibited to what is cognizable by the senses. To a certain extent there must be an accommodation — as several of the things mentioned are, if literally understood, incompatible with the nature of incorporeal creatures, and some, if closely pressed in the literal sense, w^ould be found inconsistent with others. Due allowance, therefore, must be made in our inter- pretations for the sensuous and external form of such statements — not to the extent, certainly, of explaining away the existence of those evil spirits (which were to tamper wdth the very sub- stance of the representations) ; — but yet so as to render what is contained in them a description of the relative, rather than of the absolute state of things — of what Satan and his agents are or do in reference to human interests, and as contemplated through a human medium. Viewed thus, the Avhole, probably, that can be understood, for example, by Satan being cast down from heaven, is losing the place of godlike power and influence he had reached — and by the demons wandering in dry and desert places, their being bereft for a season of that malignant satisfaction, which they find in inflicting evil upon the unhappy subjects of their sway — being left, like persons in a desert, without refreshment TRUE AND FALSE ACCOMMODATION. 97 and without a home. It is needless, at present, to pursue the subject into further details, as from what has been said the prin- ciple of interpretation may be distinctly understood. It may be added, however, that the same kind of accommoda- tion, which appears in the language used of essentially Divine and spiritual things, is also required in many descriptions of the still undeveloped future. For, although that future may lie within the region of sensible and earthly things, yet, if the world's affairs are then to assiime an aspect essentially different fi'om what has hitherto belonged to them, they can only be distinctly imaged to our view under the form of the present or the past. Partial, of course, and imperfect such prophetical representations of the higher things to come must always be, but they are the only ones adapted to our existing condition ; and the nearest approach to the truth, the best practical conception we can form, of what is hereafter to be realised, is by the help of repre- sentations so drawn from the theatre of actual and known rela- tions. But this opens too wide a field of thought for investigation in a general course of hermeneutical instruction ; it is enough to have indicated the fundamental principle, on which the structure of prophecy is framed, and on which its interpretation should proceed.^ (2.) But there is another and more specific class of accommo- dations, which cannot thus be said to have their explanation in the necessary limitations of the human mind, in its relation to the objects and beings of a higher sphere, but which arose out of the modes of thought and expression peculiar to the age and country in which the sacred writers lived. Every age and country has certain peculiarities of this description : and as the inspired penmen were not prevented by the Spirit, but rather led thereby, to think and write in a manner agreeable to the usage of the times, such peculiarities must be taken into account, if we would fully understand the passages, where they occur, or even sometimes avoid serious misconceptions of their meaning. The peculiarities referred to are often no further remarkable, than that they are connected with what seems a singular turn of ex- pression— some peculiarity in the mode of conception embodying ' For the particular investigation, see " Prophecy viewed in respect to its Distinctive Nature," etc. G 98 TRUE AND FALSE ACCOMMODATION. itself in a corresponding peculiarity in the form of representation. For example, both Hebrews and Greeks were in the habit of conceiving certain states of mind or body, indicated by some verb or adjective, as limited or particularised by a related noun in a way not natural to us — they simply placed the limiting noun in the accusative, without anything to mark the nature of the con- nection, while ice invariably attach it to the verb or adjective by a preposition. The expressions in Greek, 'jodag dj-Avg, zd/Mmv roiig b(pdaX/j,o{jCy rag (pphag vyiaivnvy Sav/xaarog to fMiysdog, and such like, are familiar to every one acquainted with the Greek langviage ; and precisely similar are many phrases in Hebrew — such as V^aTns n^n. he was diseased the feet of him ; t^•^<"l '^S^^\ he will crush thee the head ; K'Dp ^n^n, he smites him the soul or life ; aipH. '•Vlp, my voice I will cry. In all such cases, ice find it necessary to use some preposition before the noun — ivith, in re- spect to, upon, or such like — in order to bring out the idea we wish to express. This arises from our conceiving the state ex- pressed by the verb or adjective as something by itself, as having no necessary connection with any particular object ; and so, when there is such an object to be specified, we must connect the two by terms that will fitly indicate the connection. The Hebrews and Greeks seem to have viewed matters more concretely; they conceived of the state indicated as inseparably connected with some individual person or thing, and thought it enough to name in the loosest way the particular part or property affected. They were satisfied with the accusative, as it is called, of nearer defini- tion— or that which expresses the relation of the particular to the general. It arose partly, perhaps, from the same tendency in ancient times to a more concrete mode of contemplation than prevails now, that the Hebrews, and to some extent also the Greeks, ex- press relations in a more inward manner than we do— thei/ look to the sphere or element in which a thing is, or is done ; while ive, viewing the matter more ab extra, speak of the way or in- strument by which it comes to be so. Thus they said, to drink in a cup, while we say, to drink from it, or out of it ; to walk iji the counsel of any one ; " in murder in my bones," Ps. xlii. 10, as if my bones were actually undergoing murder ; Eccl. vii. 14, in the day of joy be thou in joy (joyftd) — niD3 ^^^ — live in it TRUE AND FALSE ACCOMMODATION. 99 as thy proper element. Quite similar in the New Testament are such passages as Apoc. xiii. 10, " If any one Iv /jt.a^a!pa a-ro-/.TsviT" literally, kills in sword — identifies himself, in a manner, with the sword, so as to make its proper action, killing, his own — " he must be killed Iv ij.ayju.ipcc :" — Rom. ii. 12, " As many as have sinned Iv voij^'m, shall be judged Iv voV-^w," the Iv denoting the status of the persons spoken of, in respect to law — in it, as possessing the knowledge of its requirements and its penalties : — 1 Cor. iv. 21, "What will ye? Shall I come to you sv pd^hu) ri h ocyd-v/i" — in a rod, as if a rod led and impelled me, or love : — And to men- tion no more, 2 Pet. i. 5-7, we have a whole series of graces coupled with Iv, Englished in the authorised version by to, " add to yoiu' faith virtue," and so on ; but more properly the iv points to the spiritual state of the persons addressed, as standing in the several graces mentioned ; and the exhortation given them is, that in the spirit and power of these they should go on and have themselves established in others of a like kind. For us, however, it is more natural to regard faith and the other graces as princi- ples or dispositions to be possessed and exercised ; and in such a manner, that the cultivation of one should lead on to the posses- sion and exercise of others. These may seem somewhat minute distinctions ; and it is only in a limited sense, that we can regard the expressions noticed as accommodations : the}^ are such, only in so far as they show a falling in, on the part of the inspired writers, with a somewhat peculiar mode of conception, belonging to their age and country — and one, with which we must acquaint ourselves, if we would catch the precise shades of thought they meant to express. But we have only to follow out the same line of reflection a little further, to find it supplying us with some very natural and im- portant explanations. The same tendency to the concrete, as contradistinguished from the isolating and analytic spirit of modern times, discovers itself occasionally in statements and forms of expression, which, if considered from a modern point of view, must appear loose and incorrect. For example, in the genealogy of Matthew, ch. i., Joram is said to have begotten Ozias, or Uzziah, although in reality there were three interven- ing generations between the two. And in the Dissertation on the Genealogies of Matthew and Luke, there will both be found 100 TRUE AND FALSE ACCOMMODATION. many other instances noticed of the same description in Old Testament Scripture, and the mistakes also pointed out, into which many liave been led by overlooking the practice adverted to. Mr Layard, in his work on Nineveh and Babylon, p. 613, when noticing an inscription, which seems to designate a certain king as the son of another, though he was only a successor, not the offspring of that other, remarks, that " the term, son of, ap- pears to have been used throughout the East in those days, as it still is, to denote connection generally, either by descent, or by succession." It is well, that an existing practice in the East can thus be appealed to in confirmation of a usage, that seems so manifestly sanctioned in the genealogies ; — but it is strange, that any students of Scripture should have been so regardless of the terms employed in other and similar portions of its records, as to have required any extraneous or modern proof of the usage. It was only to advance a step farther in the same line, and view another class of related objects in a like concrete manner, if successive exemplifications of one great principle, or substantial I'epetitions of one line of procedure, instead of being precisely discriminated, were treated as in a manner one. The prominence given in the mind to the common principle or homogeneous action, appearing in the several cases, had the effect of practically obliterating the individual differences, which separated one part of the transactions from another, and made the differences seem not worth noticing. In this way, Abraham and his posterity are often identified, in regard to the principle of faith, on account of which he was justified, — it is alike Abraham's faith, whether ap- pearing in him personally, or in them ; — and so in regard to the blessing connected with, it — Abraham's blessing comes upon them, and the inheritance of Canaan is indifferently spoken of as given to him or to them. Many similar examples occur in those Scriptures, which afford scope for the play of lively feeling or a warm imagination — those, therefore, more particularly, in which the facts and personages of history are worked up into the de- lineations of prophecy, or are considered as exponents of great and vital principles. It is thus we would explain a statement in the speech of Stephen before the Jewish council, which has often been treated as a demonstrable historical error, but which has onlv to be viewed as an accommodation to the mode of con- TKUE AND FALSE ACCOMMODATION. 101 templation now referred to, in order to its being satisfactorily- explained. The statement is that in which Stephen says, " So Jacob went down into Egypt, and died, he, and our fathers, and were carried over into Sychem, and laid in the sepulchre that Abraham bought for a sum of money of the sons of Emm or, the father of Sychem" (Acts vii. 15, 16). Now, there can be no doubt, that viewing the matter critically and historically, there are inaccuracies in this statement ; for we know from the records of Old Testament history, that Jacob's body was not laid in a sepulchre at Sychem, but in the cave of Machpelah at Hebron ; — we know also that the field, which was bought of the sons of Emmor, or the children of Hamor (as they are called in Gen. xxxiii. 19), the father of Sichem, was bought, not by Abraham, but by Jacob. It would appear, therefore, that to a critical eye there are no less than two distinct blunders here — and blunders so palpable, that a mere school-boy, who had read Old Testament Scripture, might without difficulty detect them. But this very circumstance, that the incongruities are so palpable and easy of detection, must surely render it very improbable, that they could have been fallen into by a man of Stephen's penetration and dis- cernment— to say nothing of his supernatural endowments by the Spirit. There must be some other explanation of the matter, than that which would resolve it into mere ignorance or forget- fulness of the facts of the case— the rather so, as it occurs in a speech remarkable for the insight it displays into the connection and bearing of Old Testament history. And that explanation is to be found in the principle of accommodation, considered merely as determining the form and manner of the representation, Stephen here, as in his speech generally, is not acting the part of a simple narrator of facts ; he has in view throughout impor- tant principles, substantially the very same principles, which were then struggling for the victory in the cause with which he was identified ; and it is only as connected with these, and serv- ing to throw light on them, that he notices and groups together the occurrences of the past. In this part of his statement, where he is sjieaking of the godly fathers of the nation, he is silently contrasting their faith in God with the unbelief and hardness of subsequent generations, his own in particular ; and the special proof of it, to which he points, is the purchase of gro)ind from 102 TKUE AND FALSE ACCOMMODATION. the Canaanites, at a time when it seemed little likely to the eye of sense that the land should ever be theirs, and destining their bodies to be deposited in the ground so purchased, as a pledge of the ultimate realisation of their hopes. As the faith in this respect was one, and the way in which it showed itself the same, Stephen (after the manner of his countrymen) throw^s all to- gether;— he does not distinguish between what was done by Abraham, and what w^as done by Jacob, as if they were separate and independent acts ; he looks at the matter concretely, and as Abraham originated the procedure of buying ground for a sepulchre, and Jacob merely trod in his footsteps, so the whole is identified with Abraham, — the ground at Sychem is also con- templated as his purchase, in which, according to Jewish tradi- tion, the patriarchal heads of tlie nation were brought from Egypt and buried ; and the distinction is in a manner lost sight of between the transactions connected with ^lamre, and those with Sychem, — because one character and one bearing belonged to them in the light contemplated by Stephen.^ It appears, therefore, that there is a perfectly legitimate appli- cation of the principle of accommodation ; and one that it may be of considerable importance rightly to understand and employ, for the proper ehicidation and defence of New Testament Scrip- ture. It is carefully to be borne in mind, however, that the accommodation has respect merely to the form and manner in which the statements are made, not to the substance of the truth therein communicated ; — its whole object is to render the truth more distinctly comprehensible, or to give it greater force and prominence to the mind. And as it proceeds upon forms of thought and conception prevalent, it may be, only in the times and places where the inspired writers lived, or, at least, more markedly prevalent there than elsewhere, it must always be our first concern, to get ourselves well acquainted with the peculiari- ties themselves, and the state of mind out of wdiich they origin- ated. For thus alone can Ave come to perceive in what i-espects there was an accommodation, and know how to give due allow- ^ It is much in the same way, and on siibstantially the same principle, that two prophecies — the utterances of quite different men — are sometimes thrown together, and treated as one. See the remarks on Matt, xxvii. i), 10. ANALOGY OF THE FAITH. 103 a nee to it, without, at the same time, impairing the substance of the truth that might be couched under it. SECTION SIXTH. THE RESPECT DUE IN THE INTEEPRETATION OF THE NEW TES- TAMENT TO THE ANALOGY OF THE FAITH, OK FROM ONE PART OF SCRIPTURE TO ANOTHER; AND THE FURTHER RESPECT TO BE HAD TO THE RELIGIONS OF THE ANCIENT WORLD, THE TRUE AND THE FALSE. From what concerns the form, we proceed now to what rather relates to the substance of the sacred writings ; with the view of considering whether this may not itself be subject to modifying influences — whether it is to be always taken in an absolute, and not also sometimes in a merely relative point of view. I. Here our first line of inquiry shall be, into the relation of one part of New Testament Scripture to another — whether any respect, or, if any, what respect, should be had in our inter- pretations to what is called the analogy or rule of faith. The expression, the analogy of faith, is derived from Rom. xii. 6, where the subject of discourse is the exercise of sjDiritual minis- trations or gifts, and where, in regard to the gift of prophecy, it is said, that they who possess the gift, should employ it xara rriv avaXoyiav r^g '^riffnug, according to the analogy of the faith, as some w^ould render it ; — and when so rendered, it becomes very nearly synonymous with according to the ride of faith. For analogy in such a connection can only be understood as denoting the com- mon agreement, the standard y.avwv, or rule, which results from a comparison of one part of Scripture with another. And there can be no doubt, that the word avaXoyia is sometimes so used ; for it is defined, by the old lexicographer Hesychius, measure, canon, rule. Yet the sense, which is thus obtained, is not suitable to the connection in the passage before us, and is now generally abandoned by connnentators, although it is still retained by 104 RESPECT TO BE HAD TO THE Hodge. When treating of persons, who do not merely pretend to possess, but who are actually endowed with, the gift of pro- phecy, an exhortation to use it in accordance with the great principles of the Christian faith seems out of place ; for it were really no gift at all, unless it took of itself this divinely prescribed course. The faitli here meant is to be understood, not objectively as a comprehensive term for the truths and doctrines of the Christian religion, but subjectively, for the internal principle of spiritual discernment and apprehension, on which the soul's re- cipiency in respect to prophetical gifts, and fitness for exercising them, depends. According to the measure or proportion — such is undoubtedly the usual import of ava\oyia — of this faith, says the apostle, let each one proj^hesy, who is spiritually endowed for that Avork ; let him ply his function, or give forth the instruc- tions he has to communicate, agreeably to the light and strength enjoyed by him — not seeking to go beyond it, on the one hand, and not falling short of it, on the other. Understood thus, the exhortation comes to be much of the same import as that of Paul to Timothy, to " stir up the gift that was in him " — mean- ing, that he should not allow the spiritual endowments conferred on him to slumber, nor divert them to a wrong use, but should endeavour to bring them into full and proper exercise. Some of the early Fathers make mention of a rule of faith (regula fidei), to which all teaching in the Church was to be conformed, or, if contrary to it, condemned. By this was originally meant, no specific creed or set form of Avords, but merely the general principles of the faith, of which various sum- maries are given by Irenseus, Tertullian, Origen, agreeing in the main, but by no means altogether the same. Augustine, in his Treatise de Doc. Christiana III. 2, expressly defines it to be the sense or doctrine, which is gathered from the plainer parts of Scripture. Speaking there of tlie difticulties which the student of Scripture sometimes meets with in his efforts to ascertain the meaning, he says, Consulat regulam fidei, quam de Scripturarum planioribus locis et Ecclesia) auctoritate percepit ; i.e. Let him rule the sense of the more obscure and difficult parts of Scrip- ture by such as are of plainer import, and the common faith held by the orthodox Church. And should this prove insufficient, then, he adds, let him carefully examine the connection, and en- ANALOGY OF THE FAITH. 105 deavour to get light to the particuhir text from what goes before or follows. The expression, however, of the rule of faith came by-and-by to be understood of the creeds publicly authorised and sanctioned by the Church ; and in the hands of Vincentius Lirinensis it came to assume the form of an all-embracing prin- ciple of conformity — in the famous maxim. Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est. By thus establishing universality, antiquity, and general consent as the great criterion of truth and duty, tradition was virtually exalted above Scrip- ture— and the maxim has hence passed as a watchword among Roman Catholic theologians, and their High Church imitators. In this sense the rule is, of coiurse, rejected by all sound Pro- testant writers. Yet there is also a sense in which it has been accepted by them, and has commonly had a place assigned it in the Hermeneutics of the New Testament. Ernesti, for example, thus writes of it in his Institutes : " Analogy of doctrine or of faith, which is rarely defined with sufficient accuracy, depends not upon the system received by any sect of Christians, as unfair and ignorant men falsely assert ; for in that case the rule would be variable; — nor on the mutual relation of its parts — just as legal analogy does not consist in the body of laws, nor in the mutual connection and dependence of single laws ; nor gram- matical analogy in the words themselves. But as grammatical analogy is the law and form of language established by usage, to which is opposed anomaly, that is, departure from the estab- lished usage and forms of speech ; so the analogy of doctrine or faith rests upon the main points of Christian doctrine evidently declared in Scripture, and thence denominated by the Latin doctors, the Regula Fidei. To these everything is to be re- ferred, so that no interpretation can be received, which is not consistent with them. Nor, as far as relates to matters of faith and practice, is the analogy of Scripture anything different from the analogy of doctrine." This is a very plain and reasonable account of the matter ; although one may justly say, with Dr Terrot, the translator of Ernesti, that the expression has not been happily chosen, and that it were better to say. Scripture, like all other books, ought to be interpreted consistently. When the analogy or rule of faith is mentioned as a standard or rule of interpretation, it lOG RESPECT TO BE HAD TO THE naturally suggests something apart from Scripture — some sort of compencl or exhibition of its leading principles ; whereas all that is really meant, is, that one part of Scripture should not be isolated and explained without a proper regard being had to the relation in which it stands to other parts. This is a consi- deration, which must be taken into accoiuit generally, without respect to any peculiarity in the nature of the writings we have to deal with ; but it should have place more especially in the in- terpretation of Scripture ; for the Word of God must be consis- tent with itself, while the word of man may not. " The books of Scripture were not handed down to us by chance or accident ; neither are we to regard them only as a manual of sayings and examples, or as isolated relics of antiquity, from which no perfect whole, no comprehensive and finished plan, can be educed ; but as a matchless, regular account of God's dealings with man through every age of the world, from the commencement to the end of time, even to the consummation of all things. They in- dicate together one beautiful, harmonious, and gloriously con- nected system. For, though each scriptural book is in itself something entire, and though each of the inspired penmen has his own manner and style of writing, one and the self-same spirit breathes through all ; one grand idea pervades all." ^ Thus understood, the principle of which we speak is not fairly open to the objection urged against it by Dr Campbell in his 4th Prelim. Dissertation. He represents it as implying, that we have first somehow learned the scheme of truth revealed in Scripture, and that, with this previously arranged scheme in our heads, we then go to Scripture, not in order to learn the truths it contains, but in order to find something that may be made to ratify our opinions. This is, no doubt, what has too often been done ; and, whenever done, ought to be strongly repudiated by all who have a proper reverence for the authority of Scripture. But in its fair and legitimate application the principle has respect only to the more doubtful or abrupt parts of the Word of God, and simply requires, that these should be brought into comparison with the other and clearer statements contained in it ; so that no erroneous or partial meaning may be imposed on them, and amid various possible interpretations such an one may • Life and Remains of Bengel, p. 254. ANALOGY OF THE FAITH. 107 not be adopted as would place them at variance with the funda- mental truths and pervading spirit of Scripture. The selection of one or two examples will serve to exhibit more distinctly its true nature and proper application. In Matt. iv. 1 it is stated, respecting our Lord, that " He was led up of the Spirit into the wilderness, to be tempted of the devil ;" Avhile in James i. 13, the general principle is laid down, that God tempteth no man ; and it is the plain import of what is taught in Scripture concerning God, that being Himself in- finitely wise and good. He cannot take a course with His chikben which has for its object the enticing of them to sin. This general doctrine, therefore, so frequently announced, and so necessarily flowing fi-om the character of God, must so far be allowed to qualify the statement respecting the design of our Lord's being led into the wilderness, that we dissociate from it the idea, which we usually couple with tempting — that of an intention to draw into evil. The leading, on the Spirit's part, into the field of temptation, was for the purpose of victory over sin, not of subjection to its power. In the course of that temptation, Satan brought into remembrance a promise, contained in Ps. xci., expressing in the strongest and most comprehensive terms the charge, which the Lord gives to the angels over His own people, and the certainty with which, in consequence, they shall be kept in all their ways. But, in reply to the use made of this promise by the tempter, for the purpose of inducing our Lord to cast Himself down from the pinnacle of the temple. Pie placed, not as an antagonistic, but as a restrictive consideration, the pre- cept, " Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God " — showing that here, as in respect generally to the promises of Scripture, the whole is to be understood as bounded and qualified by the plain rules of duty — nothing promised is ever meant to supersede or disannul what has been commanded. The special promise given to the Apostle Peter, in INIatt. xvi.- 18, as to his being the Rock on which Christ should build His Church, is to be dealt with in a similar manner ; — instead of being isolated, as is done by Romanists, and the meaning of its terms pressed to the utter- most, as if the subject of promise stood in no sort of connection with any other passages of Scripture, it ought to be viewed in connection with similar promises and statements made concern- 108 RESPECT TO BE HAD TO THE ing the other apostles, according to which they were all to be, in an instrumental sense, foundation-stones and pillars (Matt. xix. 29 ; Gal. ii. 9 ; Eph. ii. 20 ; Rev. xxi. 14) ; and also with what Peter himself wrote in the latter period of his earthly labours, in which, for himself, and for all others, he denounces that spiritual lordship, which, on the ground of the original promise, has been attributed to him (1 Pet. v. 1-4), and gives to Christ the whole and undivided glory of procuring and distributing the blessings of salvation (ch. i. 2, 3, ii. 3-6, etc.) Take one example more : In Prov. XXV. 21, 22, and again inRom. xii. 20, kindness instead of revenge is enjoined toward an enemy — giving him food when he is hungry, when thirsty giving him water to drink — by the con- sideration, " for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head." Now this, if taken simply by itself, is capable of a two- fold meaning : it may mean, either thou shalt by these acts of kindness sorely aggravate the guilt and the doom of thine ad- versary,— or, thou wilt altogether destroy in him that which makes him an adversary — thy kindness, in recompense for his malice, will consume the spirit of evil that works in him, and win him to the position of a friend. If the clause were entirely isolated, either of these explanations might be adopted. But, surely, when we consider the whole tenor of the Gospel of Christ — when we think even of what goes immediately before, of the benignant spirit and the active charities, which it is the ob- ject of the apostle to enforce, it is scarcely possible to doubt which of the two should be preferred. Coidd the apostle, as a sequel to such exhortations, and when seeking to have the dis- ciples penetrated by a full sense of the mercies of God, have meant to ply them with the diabolical motive of deepening the guilt of an adversary, and rendering his doom more intolerable ? No — we instinctively feel this could not possibly be ; what he intended, must have been the practising upon him of that noble and generous revenge, which should convert him fi'om being an enemy into a friend. These illustrations may suffice to show, in what manner, and within what limits, the principle of analogy, or, as it had better be called, the principle of consistency, in the interpretation of Scripture may be applied. It undoubtedly requires to be used with caution, and in a spirit of fairness and candour — if it is to R1<:LTGI0N of the old testament. W9 be turned to any valuable account, or even not abused to the support of dangerous error. The faith, according to which the sense of particular passages is determined, must be that which rests upon the broad import of some of the most explicit announce- ments of Scripture, about the meaning of which there can be, with unbiassed minds, no reasonable doubt. And in so far as we must decide between one passage and another, those passages should always be allowed greatest weight in fixing the general principles of the faith, in which the subjects belonging to it are not incidentally noticed merely, but formally treated of and dis- cussed ; for, in such cases, we can have no doubt that the point on which we seek for an authoritative deliverance was distinctly in the eye of the writer. 2. The principle of interpretation now considered has respect to the relation that one part of New Testament Scripture bears to another — the more difficult and obscure to the plainer and more explicit. But there is another relation also that must be taken into account — the relation in which the writings of the New Testament stand to those of the Old. It is scarcely pos- sible to throw this into a specific principle of interpretation ; at least not further than that it must be remembered, we have in the New Testament a higher, but very closely related, exhibition of truth and duty ; and consequently must have respect alike to the agreements and the differences subsisting between them. This relation, of necessity, exercised a very marked and import- ant influence upon the writings of the New Testament — upon its writings, both in respect to ideas, and the forms of expression in which the ideas are clothed. It is, of course, necessary, in the first instance, that a correct apprehension be formed of the rela- tion as regards the ideas involved in it, the ideas common to both dispensations ; for the knowledge of the ideas bears on the foundation, and touches the ground and nature of every particu- lar view that may be exhibited. This, however, is too "wide a field to be entered on particularly here. If considered fully, it wovild require a discussion of the nature and principles of the typical connection between the law and the Gospel, and lead to investigations fully as much connected with the dogmatical as with the exegetical departments of theology. So far, however, the relation must be understood, that it has to do as well with 110 RESPECT TO BE HAD TO THE the agreements as with the diferences between the aifairs of the Old and those of the New Covenants. Indeed, if any distinction were to be made between tlie two, we should say, that the agree- ments ought more especially to be regarded, because they lie deeper, and concern the more essential elements in the two dis- pensations ; while the differences are of a more circumstantial and formal nature. From the position of matters at the commence- ment of the New dispensation, more particularly from the deter- mination on the part of many to exalt to an undue place the temporary and shadowy things, in which the Old dispensation differed from the new, it became necessary for the inspired writers of the New Testament to bring out with peculiar prominence the differences ; with the view of manifesting the superior and more perfect nature of the work and economy of Christ. But they scarcely ever do this, without, at the same time, pointing to the essential agreements pervading both economies. Now, it is in accordance with this twofold nature of the rela- tion which subsists between the Old and the New in God's dis- pensations, that the language of New Testament Scripture, in so far as it bears respect to the Old, is constructed, and ought to be interpreted. In the great majority of cases, the precise nature of the reference is manifest; we can see at a glance whether it is the agreements or the differences that are in view. For example, when our Lord is described by the Baptist as " the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world ;" or when the Apostle Paul says, " Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us," the simplest reader will perceive, that there is an agreement or correspond- ence indicated between the sacrifices of the Old Testament and the one great sacrifice of the New — that what the lamb of atone- ment, especially the paschal lamb, was to the Israelite, as regards his interest in the blessings of the Old Covenant, that Christ now is to believers, in respect to the greater things of His redemption. No one can doubt, that like is compared to like ; although, from the nature of the objects brought into comparison, differences of an important kind were necessarily implied. But, in explaining the passages, we would naturally lay stress upon the resemblances between Christ and the Old Testament things referred to, and would only notice subordinately the points which distinguished the one from the other. In like manner, when, in Col. ii. 11, RELIGION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. Ill the apostle calls baptism " the circumcision of Christ," and, in Phil. iii. 3, describes believers as " the circumcision which wor- ship God in spirit," the meaning obviously is, that the essential design of circumcision, its real spirit and object, are attained in those who, as baptized believers, have entered into fellowship with Christ. So that it is tlie correspondences, which must again, in such passages, be brought out ; it is these which must be rendered prominent ; however, also, occasion may be taken to indicate the points, in which the new surpasses the old circum- cision. Again, there is another class of passages in which, with equal plainness, our attention is drawn to the differences subsisting be- tween the New and the Old : — as when, in Heb. viii. 2, Christ is called " a minister of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man ;" and, in ch. x. 20, where believers are said to enter the holiest of this higher tabernacle " by a ncAv and living way" — in such passages, while the language bears distinct allusion to the things of the Old Covenant — expresses the Ncav, indeed, under the form and aspect of the Old, yet it is for the puii^ose of showing the vast superiority of the New. So that, in such cases, it is the differences we are naturally led to think of — these now become the prominent things, and the resemblances fall into the background. But there are other passages, in which it is less easy to decide — passages, in which Old Testament language is employed, without any clear indication being given, whether the resem- blances or the differences are more particularly referred to. For example, in Heb. x. 22, the apostle exhorts us to make a fiducial approach to the throne of grace, as persons " having their hearts sprmkled fi'om an evil conscience, and their bodies washed with pure water." Now, what is here meant by our bodies being washed"? Corporeal ablutions held an important place under the Old economy ; and continually, as the priests entered the sanctuary, they had to wash their hands and their feet at the brazen laver, which stood in the outer court. But what corre- sponds to this in Christian times 1 We have no external sanc- tuary, like that which existed in the Jewish commonwealth, and consequently no corporeal ablution to perform, when drawing near to engage in the worship of God. When, therefore, the 11-2 RESPECT TO BE HAD TO THE apostle speaks of having the body washed with pure water, he must mean, not formally the "same thing as of old, but something corresponding to it in nature — bearing the same relation to a Christian, that the other did to a ceremonial worship. And this is not far to seek ; it is simply a freedom from all manifest stains and blemishes in the conduct. It was precisely these stains and blemishes, which were imaged by outward defilements on the body of one entering into the material sanctuary : — his washing of these off was a symbol of the separation, which then also had to be maintained by sincere and accepted M'orshippers, from all overt acts of iniquity. And now that the symbol has dropt, as no longer needed — now that the reality alone remains, it is of this reality that the language should be understood ; — we are to regard the apostle as intimating, that along with a purged con- science, we must also have a blameless and untarnished life — and then, with the two together, we may draw near with confi- dence to God. It is, therefore, to the resemblances that this expression also points. In explaining its import, we should endeavour chiefly to bring out the correspondence, that subsisted between the ritual service of the Old, and the spiritual worship of the New economy. This, obviously, cannot be done by exhibiting merely the ritual, on the one side, and the spiritual, on the other ; for that would be to present a contrast rather than a resemblance. We must penetrate into the symbolical import of the ritual, and show, that in the outward action, in which it consisted, there lay concealed a spiritual element, for the sake of which it was required and done. So that it is not properly a contrast, to be put after this manner : Such an outivard thing then, and such another inward now, or fleshly then, and spiritual now ; but a similarity with a difference : — A similarity, since under both covenants alike free- dom from open impurities is required of God's acceptable wor- shippers— there must be clean hands, or a blameless life, as well as a pure heart ; and yet a difference, since from the clearer revelation now made of all things spiritual and divine, and the abolition of the worldly sanctuary, the symbolical action has gone into desuetude, and the naked reality is alone brought into view. Let us still look at another example, and we shall thus moro RELIGION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 113 readily perceive the justness of the rule, which we are seeking to deduce for guiding our interpretations in respect to such portions of New Testament Scripture. In Rom. xii. 1, we have this ex- hortation given by the apostle, "I beseech you, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice — more exactly, a sacrifice, living, — holy, acceptable to God, which is your rea- sonable service." There is evidently a reference in the language to the ancient sacrificial worship ; and, in particular, to the ser- vice of the whole burnt-oifering, in which at certain times an entire animal was presented upon the altar to God. The only question is, what is the nature of the reference? Is it by way of resemblance, or by way of contrast 1 If the apostle had stopt at dvsiav — if he had said merely, " present your bodies a sacrifice," the matter would have been quite plain ; it would have been manifest, that the resemblance only was indicated. But he adds a series of epithets, characterizing the nature of the service, which Christians are called to render ; and these are usually re- garded by commentators as expressing the kind of service, not positively merely, as to what it is in itself, but negatively also, as to what it is not, viewed in reference to the ancient ritual of Judaism. The Xoyr/Jiv Xarpuav, the reasonable service, at the close, is in particular held to indicate this idea, — as in the following comment of Plaldane : " This evidently refers to the distinction between the service of the Jews by sacrifices and ceremonial worship, and the service of Christians. Sacrificial worship, and in general the whole ceremonial ritual of the Jews, were not worship according to reason. It is, indeed, reasonable to wor- ship God in whatever way He prescribes ; but had not man fallen, he would not have been required to worship by such cere- monies as the Jewish law enjoined. Sacrificial worship is not in itself rational ; and was appointed by God, not for its own excellence, but from its adaptation to prefigure the good things to come." He adds, and certainly not without reason, that many commentators hesitated about adopting this explanation of the y.oyiKnv, under the impression, that it was disrespectful to the Divine appointments to have them represented as not rational. But might we not, on the same ground that is assigned here for the non-rational character of the Old Testament worship, also deny rationality to the New ? For it, too, proceeds on a basis H 11:1 KESPECT TO BE HAD TO THE diiFerent from the natural and proper one ; it is oiFered on the foundation of what has been done by another in our stead, while the original and strictly proper idea of sacrifice is that of a per- sonal surrender and dedication to God. We may feel the rather inclined to doubt the correctness of this mode of explanation, at least in the strongly antithetic form expressed above, when we look to the other epithets applied by the apostle to the sacrifice of Christians — living, holy, acceptable. Living, we are told, stands opposed to the dead sacrifices pre- sented under the law, slain victims ; but what, then, shall be put in contradistinction to the holy and acceptable ? Were these epithets not applicable to the burnt-ofierings of the Old Testa- ment ? On the contrary, they are precisely the epithets that are most commonly applied to them. The flesh of the sacrifices generally, as of everything laid upon the altar, was declared to be holy — in token of which the victims were required to be with- out any external blemish ; while of every sacrifice offered ac- cording to the law the set phrase is, that it was an offering of sweet savour — in other words, acceptable to God. These two expressions, then, beyond a doubt, indicate a resemblance ; and it would surely be somewhat strange — a confusion in the use of language we should not have expected in the apostle — if the one going immediately before them, and the other coming im- mediately after them, should have pointed to a formal contrast. Such a throwing together of agreements and differences in one continuous description, is in the highest degree improbable. A good deal of this confusioii imputed to the statement of the apostle, arises from the inadequate notions that prevail respecting the Old Testament sacrificial worship — as if the outward actions had formed the one and all of this, and there were no outgoings of spiritual desire and afifection on the part of the worshipper ac- companying them. According to the true idea, the outward service was merely the symbolical expression of Avhat was thought and felt, done or purposed to be done, by the person who ])erformed it. The sacrifice was in the closest manner identified with the sacrificer. Thus, in the case of the burnt-offering, which is here more particularly referred to, the occasion of pre- senting it usually was, when an individual had experienced some great mercy, or felt upon his soul a special call to devoted grati- RELIGION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 115 tude and love ; and his feelings in this respect were embodied in the offering — he expressed thereby his personal surrender to God, and the dedication of all he had to the Divine service and glory. Without this grateful feeling and purpose of devotedness on the part of the offerer, the offering would have been simply a piece of hypocrisy — a sign without anything signified thereby. The proper connection between the external and the internal was beautifully brought out by David in the fifty-first Psalra, when, after having expressed his deep contrition for past sin, and re- newed the dedication of himself to God, he prays for fresh tokens of the Lord's favour, that, as the natural result of what was to be imparted on the one hand, and felt on the other, the Lord might receive and be pleased with sacrifices of righteousness, with the whole burnt-offerings that should be laid upon His altar. In offer- ings so ch'awn forth, and so presented, would there be no life ? Could the service with any propriety be designated as a dead one ? Assuredly not ; the soul of the offerer was itself on fire with love and gratitude to God, and a spirit of life animated its movements, not the less that it had to express itself by means of slain victims laid and consumed upon the altar. We entertain no doubt, therefore, that here also the direct and prominent thing in the apostle's description is a resemblance, and not a contrast. His object is, to show how those, who are par- takers of the rich grace and mercy of God under the Gospel, may and should exhibit a substantial agreement with the service of the burnt-offering, which was wont to be rendered by such as had received peculiar tokens of the Lord's goodness. They should present to God their bodies — ^'. e. the active powers and energies of their nature (for it is through the body that these come into operation) — present these as a sacrifice, living, holy, acceptable — a real dedication, instinct with life and purity, and on that account well-pleasing to God. On the same account also a /.07//C55 XarPiia, a reasonable service — not, however, in the sense of rational^ as opposed to a former w'-rational service ; but in the sense of spiritual — a reasonable or spiritual service, in which the soul and conscience are exercised, and hence opposed to what is simply ffw/xar/x^, corporeal or outward. In no part of the de- scription is there properly a contrast marked between the Chris- tian and the Jewish service ; for, in the Jewish also, when rightly 116 RESPECT TO BE HAD TO THE performed, there were the same spiritual elements, as in the Christian : there, too, the soul and conscience were engaged ; the service was one of life and holiness, on the part of the worshipper, and on the part of God crowned with acceptance. Still, no doubt, a difference is implied, though not distinctly and formally expressed; — it is implied in the very prominence which is given to the spiritual elements of the service required, presented apart from any external accompaniments or outward rites. For there being so much of what was outward in the Old Testament service, it naturally tended to take off the mind to some extent from the more inward and vital part ; the mind could, and doubtless too often did, view the sacrifice as something apart from itself — a thing done for one, rather than br/ him and ivith him : — While now, the temptation to a lifeless externality is in great measure removed, the service is of a strictly personal and S2:)iritual nature, springing from the soul's proper consciousness of gz'ace and bless- ing, and appearing in the willing obedience of the members of the body, as instruments of righteousness unto God. Now, from these examples and illustrations there is plainly deducible a twofold rule of interpretation in regard to those por- tions of the New Testament, which represent spiritual things in language derived from the relations and ritual of the Old. The rule is, that in those passages, which distinctly and formally ex- hibit the difference betiveen New and Old Testament things, it is this difference, ivhich ought to be rendered prominent in our ex- planation, yet not without also pointing attention to the funda- mental agreement, which lies underneath the superficial diversity; — while, on the other hand, in those passages, which simply pre- sent Christian things under the form and aspect of those, that be- longed to the Old Covenant, it is the correspondence or agreement that shoidd be mainly dioelt ripon. The Old should, in that case, be ex- hibited as a lively image or palpable representation of the New — though a representation in an inferior line of things, and with com- paratively inadequate results. In the former case, our object should be to unfold a marked and obvious difference vdth an under- lying substantial agreement ; in the other, to unfold a substantial agreement, though accompanied with formal and ostensible differ- ences— such as necessarily pervaded the relations of an inferior and preparatory, to an ultimate and permanent state of things. RELIGIONS OF HEATHENISM. 117 3. If now we pass, for a moment, from the one true, to the many false rehgions of the ancient workl, fi'om Judaism to the endless forms of heathenism, we have to mark in Christianit}'- toward them a relation of an essentiall}' different kind — one simply of an antagonistic nature. The heathen I'eligions of anti- quity, therefore, had no direct or positive influence in moulding the language of the New Testament, and imparting peculiar shades of meaning to its expressions. Yet the subject is not to be passed altogether unnoticed. For, though the respect had to heathen modes of thought and forms of expression is chiefly of a negative kind, yet even that is instructive ; since it shows in what a different region the Christian religion moved, and what different elements it embraced from those, out of which heathen- ism was constructed. Amid the freedom, v/ith which Christianity proceeded to diffuse itself in the world, and its adaptation to the modes of thought and forms of expi'ession in current use, it still manifested a careful reserve in respect to all that savoured of heathenism ; it abstained from the use of such terms as had become associated with the false worship, or impregnated with the false notions, of the pagan world. For example, in so far as the language of the New Testament bears respect to sacrificial usages, it borrows the terms it employs from the Old Testament, or makes use only of such as are com- mon to the Septuagint and the writings of Hellenic authors. It refrains from employing such expressions as, though of similar import, had been linked to usages, which rendered them sugges- tive of the pollutions of idolatry. Of this description are 'TnprKd- 6ap/Ma and irspi-^ri/Ma, which both bear, in the old lexicographers, the signification of ransom or sacrifice — the equivalents given are avrlXurpov, duri-yl/v^ov. The Septuagint also, at Prov. xxi, 18, has 'TTspr/.d&apft.a br/.aio\j dw'LOi, the wicked is a ransom for the righteous. But as the words acquired this sense from the horrid custom of sacrificing criminals and worthless persons to make expiation for the state in times of public calamity, they are never used in the New Testament with reference to religious worship. That cus- tom prevailed especially at Athens, where persons of a worthless caste were regularly kept against the occurrence of any plague or public calamity, and then thrown into the sea, in the belief that they should wipe off the guilt of the nation. Such persons 118 RESPECT TO BE HAD TO THE were called xaddpizara, Tspi-^l^rjfx.ara, and other epithets of a like import. The terms are used only once in the New Testa- ment : it is by the Apostle Paul, when speaking, in 1 Cor. iv. 13, of the indignities he had received ; but it is in the original sense of sweepings, offscourings, or filth, the vilest portions of society. The common term for the altars on which the heathens offered their victims, might have been thought less objectionable for Christian uses. This tenn is /3w/A0t ; yet it occurs only once in the whole of the New Testament ; and on that solitary occasion it is employed, not of a Jewish altar, or anything corresponding to it in Christian times, but of the heathen altar, with its inscription to the Unknown God, which Paul found at Athens. The term uniformly employed in the New Testament, whether in a literal or a figurative sense, is hdiasr/ipiov : — an evidence of the care with which the sacred writers sought to keep the true religion at a distance from all contact, even in name, with idolatry. In the use also of dal/xuv, and its compounds, we see a similar instance of the wisdom and the propriety with which the speech of the sacred writers was guided. The word had become thorough- ly inwoven w ith the ideas and the worship of heathendom ; and as the evil, as well as the good — bad, and malignant, not less than gracious and benign divinities, were embraced in the religions of Polytheism, so the word baiiMm extended equally to both. It was in that respect a word of indifferent meaning. The whole reli- gion of the Greeks and the Romans might be called, and, indeed, was familiarly called, demon-worship, huGibaiiJ^ovia. It could not, therefore, be counted a reproach, it might rather be esteemed an honour for any one to be spoken of as duffrdai/xovsgripog', it simply marked him out as peculiarly given to the w^orship of the gods. And when Paul, in the Areopagus, applied that epithet, at the commencement of his speech, to the men of Athens, inferring their title to it fi-om what he had observed of their altars, there can be no doubt that he meant to indicate nothing that should prove offensive to them. He merely intended to express the fact, that they were, in their own sense of the matter, a very reli- gious people. And it is certainly a somewhat unhappy turn that is given to this, the opening part of the apostle's address, in the authorised version, when he is made to say, that he perceived " they were in all things too superstitious." Had such been the RELIGIONS OF HEATHENISM. 11-9 native import of his language, the apostle would have been guilty of the misdemeanour of creating a prejudice against him- self at the outset — a fault, we may be sure, he did not commit at any time, and least of all in that which is, artistically considered, the most perfect of all his recorded discourses. There is another instance of a like use of the word — though in this case really mis- applied— in Acts XXV. 19, where Festus says of the case of Paul to Agrippa, that it touched upon questions 'Tnpi rric, ihlag ducidai- fjboviag ; it should have been rendered, " concerning their own reli- gio7i" to give the fair impression of what Festus actually meant ; since, speaking as Festus did to Agrippa, a professed Jew, he never could have intended to stigmatise the worship which was paid by the king and his countrymen as a superstition, in our sense of the term. It was, however, a wrong term to apply to the religion of a Jew, and in making use of it Festus spoke from a merely heathen point of view. The Jewish religion was a Siodi^sia, a reverential fear and worship of God, but not a hiatbai- fiovia, a religious homage to the divinities. In the Jewish sense, demon-worship was devil-worship — abominable idolatry. And hence hcu'ima was the common term employed to designate the malignant powers, that so often held possession of the souls and bodies of men at the Gospel era. Hence also the term suSa/.aof/a, which so frequently occurs in heathen authors to express human happiness and prosperity, is never — because it indicates pros- perity as the gift of the divinities — similarly employed in the New Testament. Not even once is it used there to express, in any way, the blessedness enjoyed by God's people. These examples may suffice, as the subject they are brought forward to illustrate is rather negative in its bearing on the inter- pretation of Scripture, than of a positive description. They are signs, impressed upon the language of the New Testament, that the religion of the Gospel has no proper affinity to that of hea- thenism, and convey a silent protest against all pollutions of idolatry. 120 RELATION OF THE OLD TO THE NEW SECTION SEVENTH. THE RELATION OF THE OLD TO THE NEW IN GOD's DISPENSA- TIONS MORE EXACTLY DEFINED, WITH THE VIEW OF PRE- VENTING MISTAKEN OR PARTIAL INTERPRETATIONS OF SUCH PORTIONS OF NEW TESTAMENT SCRIPTURE AS BEAR ON IT. To lay more securely the ground of some of the directions given in the preceding section, and to provide, so far as can be done within a small compass, a clue to the right path in the treatment of those passages, which bear upon the mutual relations between Christianity and Judaism, it seems advisable, before entering on a fresh topic, to devote a little space to the further consideration of these relations. We do this more especially for the purpose of guarding against a twofold error, which is constantly reap- pearing, in the one or the other of its aspects, with those who have not attained to accurate views of the connection between the Old and the New in God's dispensations : — the error of either ascribing too much of the carnal element to Judaism, or of im- posing too much of the Judaistic on Christianity. These are the two opposite extremes, into which certain diverse tendencies in Christianity are ever apt to run. They both began at an early period to develop themselves. The Judaizing tendency naturally appeared first, as it was out of Judaism that Christianity sprung; and in making the transition from the one to the other, many found it difficult to realise the extent of the change which the work of Christ had introduced — they clung to what was tempo- rary in the Old, even after it had been supplanted by something higher and better ; like persons, according to the similitude of our Lord, who have been accustomed to old wine, and cannot straightway relish new — although in this case the new ivas the better. It was providential, that this Judaizing tendency did ap- pear so early — at Jerusalem, at Antioch, in the churches of Galatia, and elsewhere — as it obliged the apostles at the very first to meet it. In various parts of the New Testament, we have their formal dehverance on the subject, and their con- demnation of the error which it involved. The Epistles to the MORE EXACTLY DEFINED. 121 Galatians, to the Colossians, and to the Hebrews are, in this point of view, especially important ; as they show conclusively, that the external forms of the ancient worship, its visible temple, Aaronic priesthood, fleshly sacrifices, stated festivals, and cor- poreal ablutions, were no longer binding on the conscience, and natui'ally led, if perpetuated, to carnalize the Gospel. It might have been thought, that these apostolic efforts and explicit de- liverances would have been sufficient to check the evil, and pre- vent its recurrence in the Christian Church. But this was far from being the case. With some non-essential modifications, P .... the old eri*or reappeared, bringing in a train of forms and cere- monies, purgations and sacrifices, feasts and solemnities, which differed only in name from those of the Old Economy ; and a Christian priesthood established itself as an essential part of the Church's constitution, of which the most characteristic feature was, that it should be able to trace up by successive links to Christ its hereditary power and authority, precisely as the an- cient priesthood had to show their genealogical descent fi-om the loins of Aaron. And the result has been, that, notwithstanding the strong and repeated protest lodged in New Testament Scrip- ture against such institutions and practices, as at variance with the genius of the Gospel, in what once formed nearly the whole, and what still forms the largest part of Christendom, sacred times and seasons, altars and sacrifices, external purifications and an official priesthood, have their recognised place now, much as in ancient Israel. To such a mournful extent has Christianity been Judaized. Exactly the opposite tendency, however, began also in early times to discover itself, and still continues to do so, though it has not proved nearly so powerful or so general as the other. The Gnostic spirit, which was just beginning to make its appearance in the Christian Church at the close of the apostolic period, was the first representative of this extreme. In its self-elated and ethereal flights. Gnosticism sought to soar above Christianity — to become spiritual above its spirituality ; and to raise at least the loftier and more contemplative believers of the Gospel into a kind of Divine-like superiority to everything outward and material. In this vain attempt, however, it only corrupted Christianity, by disparaging or denying the great historical facts 122 RELATION OF THE OLD TO THE NEW on which it is based, and entering into profitless speculations re- specting heavenly things. Along with this tendency, and as a kind of natural corollary to it, it sought to break the chain be- tween Christianity and Judaism — holding the former to be in- deed of God, but not so the latter, on account of the fleshly ordi- nances and material accompaniments with which it was con- nected ; it was, therefore, assigned to the agency of an evil, or, at least, inferior spirit. In this anti-scriptural form. Gnosticism was, of course, repelled by the Church ; its special views and conclusions were universally reprobated by believers. But the spirit of Gnosticism crept in through many avenues into the Church ; and in the case of some of the fathers— more especially Clement of Alexandria and Origen — it led them to draw too broadly the distinction between Christianity and Judaism, and to seek the instruction couched in the ordinances of the Old Testament, not in their immediate design or symbolical import, but in an allegorical interpretation of an entirely fanciful and arbitrary nature. The natural inference from their mode of treating the Old Testament ritual and worship w^as, that, con- sidered by itself, in its obvious and historical reality, it was too carnal to have much in common with Christianity. N^oiv, of course, the relations of those times no longer exist ; the leaven, which then w^'ought wuth insidious and corrupting influence, can scarcely be said to work after the same fashion that it did then. And yet there have been, and there still are, certain sections of the Christian Church, and particular individuals in almost every section, in whom the tendency to over-spiritualize (if we may so express it) in Christianity, and, as a natural con- sequence, to carnalize in Judaism, does not fail in some way to manifest itself. Writers belonging to the Baptist communion are under some temptation to give way to this tendency, and not unfrequently do so. Take as an example the following passage, in a com- mentary, by a late respectable member of that body : " Israel was a stiff'-necked and rebellious people ; their law was w^ritten on tables of stone, and enforced by temporal sanctions ; he that despised Moses' law died without mercy. But all Christ's dis- ciples are taught of God ; they are the circumcision of Christ ; they worship God in the Spirit ; His law is written on the fleshly MOEE EXACTLY DEFINED. 123 tables of the heart." ^ If there is any propi'iety in this contrast, it must be, that Israel, as such, were a carnal and ungodly people, yet were not the less entitled to God's ordinances, nay, these ordinances were just for such a people ; whereas the Church of the New Testament, as well in respect to its people as its ordinances, is strictly spiritual and holy. The conclusion, therefore, in regard to the Israelites, as the author distinctly states (p. 193), is, that their privileges were all carnal, that the relation in which they stood to God was carnal, and all properly growing out of it fleshly and temporal ; and that the covenant, under which they were placed, had attained its object, if only it preserved a worshipping people visibly separated from the ido- latrous Gentiles. In like manner, another writer, belonging to the same communion,^ " says of circumcision (and, of course, he might equally have said it of any other Jewish ordinance), that it was '' quite irrespective of personal character, conduct, or faith," that the covenant of which it was the sign " included solely tem- poral blessings ;" and that " the rite was instituted to distinguish the Jews from the other nations, and to show their title to the land of Canaan :" — all simply outward and carnal. Another writer still — and one belonging to an entirely different school, a minister of the Church of England— in a late work, gives forth substantially the same views respecting the people and ordinances of Israel ; does so, too, in the most assured tone, as if there could be no reasonable doubt upon the subject — as if, in announcing it, he was entitled to demand the assent of the whole ChristiaJi world : " The Old Covenant (he says) had nothing whatever to do with eternal life, except by way of type or suggestion ; it had nothing whatever to do with any, except with the nation of Israel ; and nothing whatever with any mere individual in that nation. It was made with the nation collectively (as if the col- lective nation did not consist of an aggregate of individuals !), and was entirely temporal. God promised to give the land of Canaan to the nation of Israel ; but only so long as the nation collectively acknowledged Jehovah as the one God."^ And, further, as regards the nature of the holiness aimed at by the 1 Haldane on the Epistle to the Galatians, pp. 113, 193. * Dr Cox, as quoted by Dr Wardlaw on Baptism, pp. 55, 60. 8 Johnstone's Israel after the Flesh, p. 7. 124 KELATION OF THE OLD TO THE NEW covenant, he says, that " it was quite irrespective of individual righteousness. Notwithstanding any sins, short of the national infraction of the covenant, Israel was still the holy nation." And he adds, " This very manifest sense of the Old Covenant holiness is constantly lost sight of, and errors of the most dis- tructive kind are caused.'" Quotations of a similarkindmightbefurnishedingreat profusion, but those given may suffice. They abundantly show what crude and ill-digested notions prevail still among persons, otherwise well- informed, and holding evangelical views, respecting the nature of the Old Economy, and the real position of God's people under it. On the hypothesis of such views, there are some queries that naturally suggest themselves to one's mind, and to which it seems impossible to produce a satisfactory answer. Circumcision, and the other ordinances of the Old Testament, were (it is alleged) altogether carnal, and irrespective of personal holiness — how, then, could Israel in the wilderness, when simply standing under a coA'^enant with such ordinances, have been reproved and punished for murmuring against God, and want of faith in God's promises — spiritual acts — acts committed by the people, while they still collectively acknowledged God — and both acts and punishments so personal, that the two individuals (Joshua and Caleb) who stood aloof from the rest in sin, were also excepted from them in judgment ? How could it be reconciled with the notion of a God essentially holy and spiritual, to have imposed such merely carnal services upon His people, with promises of blessing if performed, and threatenings of evil if neglected and despised ? How could He have represented it as the end He had in view in establishing such a covenant, that He might have a godly seed? (Isa. vi. 13; Mai. ii. 15.) How could there come to exist in the midst of Israel such a seed at all — a seed possessing the elements of real holiness ? Whence could its mem- bers have their being ? How were they born ? Was it alto- gether apart from the ordinances ? In that case, must not their existence have been an anomaly, a miracle accomplished by Divine power without the intervention of appropriate means t And the more pious individuals of that seed, such as David, and those who acted with him, how could they possibly long for, and ' Johnstone's Israel after the Flesh, p. 87. MOKE EXACTLY DEFINED. 1J,5 rejoice in waiting upon, ordinances which were wholly carnal, and without any adaptation to a spiritual taste ? To such ques- tions no satisfactory answer can be returned, on the supposition of the Old Testament ordinances being what those persons wovdd represent. We know of no way by which a spiritual seed can be expected, in any age, to come into existence, and find life to their souls, otherwise than through the ordinances which God is })leased to appoint ; and how God could either appoint ordinances altogether carnal, or how, if appointed, spiritual life and nourish- ment could be derived from them, is a mystery that seems inex- plicable on any grounds of reason or of Scripture. Without going very minutely into the subject, there are a few leading principles that may be laid down upon it, sufficient, if clearly understood, and kept properly in view, to guard us against any material error on either side. 1. It must be held, in the first place, as a fundamental prin- ciple, that whatever difference may exist between Judaism and Christianity, as to their respective services and forms of admin- istration, there still must have been an essential agreement between them at bottom — an essential oneness in their pervad- ing character and spirit. We say, must have been so ; there was a Divine necessity in the case, grounded in the nature of Him who is the Author of both covenants, and who makes Himself known as "Jehovah that changes not." Unchangeable in His own natiu'e. He must be such also in the principles of His government among men, not less than in the personal attributes of His being. The adversaries of the faith in every age have well understood this ; and hence, li'om the Manicheans of early times to the infidels and rationalistic writers of the present day, they have ever sought to overthrow the foundations of Divine truth by playing off one part of Scripture against another — exposing what they deemed the contrarieties between things established in the Old, and things taught in the New Testament ; or, through alleged defects and immoralities in the one, aiming a blow at the authority of the other. Had they succeeded in such attempts, their object had been gained ; since Scripture could no longer be vindicated as the actual product and authoritative revelation of an unchangeable God. It is true, as indeed appears on a moment's inspection, that 12G RELATION OF THE OLD TO THE NEW the religion of the Old Testament addressed itself more imme- diately to the ontward man, while that of the New addresses itself more to the inward. In ancient times, the business of religion • — if we may so speak — was transacted under the form and aspect of what pertained to visible and earthly relations : its rites and services had respect primarily to a worldly sanctuary, an earthly inheritance and a present life — in these exhibiting the shadow or sensible image of what relates to the concerns of an unseen world, and an eternal existence. They did, however, present such a shadow of higher realities ; and did it, not as an inciden- tal and subsidiary, but as an essential part of their design ; and not for some merely, but for all the worshippers. Through the external and corporeal, God continually spake to them of the internal and spiritual. Under the outward shell, and along with it. He conveyed to as many as would receive it, the kernel of Divine truth and holiness ; — so that the same description, as to its substance, will serve at once for the true Israelite and for the genuine Christian. As in that given l)y the Apostle Paul, " He is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit and not in the letter ; whose praise is not of men (the mere outside observer), but of God (who looks directly upon the heart)." We find the truth in this respect distinctly apprehended by Augustine, and correctly expressed in the writings he composed against the Manicheans and other errorists of his day. Referring, in his work against Faustus (Lib. xii. 3), to what the apostle says, in Rom. iii. and ix., of the advantage possessed by the Jews in having had God's oracles and covenants, he asks, " Why did he say that the covenants- belonged to them, had it not been that the Old Covenant was given to them, and that the New was imaged in the Old ? These men, in their senseless folly, are in the habit of denouncing the legal institution, which was given to the Israelites, not understanding its dispensation, and because God has thought good now to place us, not under law but under grace. Let them, therefore, give way to the authority of the apostle, who, in lauding the condition of the Israelites, mentions it among their advantages, that to them had belonged the giving of the law, vvhich could not have been matter of praise, if it had been in itself bad." And again, in another work, written against MOKE EXACTLY DEFINED. 127 one wlio had published a treatise containing many things of an offensive nature against the law and the prophets, he shows the pervading and essential agreement of these with the Gospel, even in those things, in which this adversary had sought to re- present them as utterly opposed to each other. In regard, for example, to the punishment of sin, he both mentions what precepts and examples there were under the Old Testament of a forgiving- spirit, and places alongside the temporal inflictions of the one the eternal retributions of the other, thereby making it manifest that " in each Testament alike (as he says) there was at once a good- ness to be loved, and a severity to be dreaded." Then, referring to the inferior nature of the Old Testament dispensation, on account of its having had so much to do with outward and temporal things, he says, " Nevertheless, in those times also there were spiritual and righteous persons, whom the letter of com- mand did not kill, but the aid-giving Spirit qidckened. Whence both the faith of a coming Saviour dwelt in the prophets, who announced beforehand that He should come ; and now, there are many carnal persons who either give rise to heresies by not understanding the Scriptures, or in the Catholic Church itself are like babes that can only be fed with milk, or, still worse, are preparing like chaff' to be burned in the fire. But as God is the sole and true Creator of both temporal and eternal goods, so is He also the Author of both Testaments ; because the New is as well figured in the Old, as the Old is revealed in the New (quia et Novum in Vetere est figuratum, et Vetus in Novo est revela- tum)."^ 2. Very nearly allied to the fundamental principle just stated is another, viz., that the ordinances of Judaism were all of a symbolical nature, not simply outward or typical. If they had been simply outward as regards the service they required, and typical as regards their religious value, they would have been nothing more than bodily exercises for those who engaged in them — exercises that had respect to their purification from a merely ceremonial imcleanness, and the preservation of a present life ; while, in addition to this, a few persons of superior discernment might have descried through them the higher and better things, which they prefigured for a coming age. This is the \^ hole that ' Contra Adversarium Legis et Propli., i. 35. 128 RELATION OF THE OLD TO THE NEW many persons would find in the ordinances of the Old Covenant ; and thence arises much of the confusion and misconception in which the subject has been enveloped. An important element is omitted — the symbolical — lying mid-way between the other two, and forming in reality the link that unites them together. By calling them symbolical, we mean, that they expressed, by means of the outward rite or action, certain religious views and principles, which the worshipper was expected in the perform- ance of the service to recognise, and heartily concur in. It was the conscious recognition of these views and principles, and the exercise of the feelings growing out of them, for which more immediately the outward service was appointed, and in which its acceptability with God properly consisted. Without these the whole would have been a false parade — an empty and mean- ingless form. Take as an example the corporeal washings, which on so many occasions were required under the law — these were not appointed for the purpose merelj^ of removing bodily defilement. Often, as in the case of the restored leper, purifica- tion from the touch of a dead body, or from sprinkling the water of cleansing on others, there was not even the semblance of anything of that sort to be removed. The washing, in every case, was appointed as a natural and appropriate symbol of per- sonal purity on the part of the worshippers, and was perfectly understood by all serious and thoughtful worshippers to carry such an import. Even Pilate, though a heathen, showed his un- derstanding of this symbol, by taking water and washing his hands before the people, to express more emphatically than he could do by words his refusal to participate in the condemnation of Jesus. And the Psalmist, when he spake of " washing his hands in innocency," and the prophet, when he called on the crimson-stained sinners of his day to "wash themselves, and make themselves clean," gave plain indication of the symbolical import of the transaction. In like manner — to refer to the initiatory ordinance of the whole series — the rite of circumcision, when brought into connection with the Divine covenant as its sign and seal, was by no means a merely external badge. Its proper aim and object were not the affixing of a corporeal mark upon the Jew, and thereby distinguishing him from the people of other countries. If that had been all, it should have been MORE EXACTLY DEFINED. 120 very imperfectly fitted to serve the end in view ; as it is certain, that at least the Egyptian priesthood, if not also some of the higher grades of the people, and not a few of the Sj'ro- Arabian races, practised the rite from the very earliest times. It is, in fact, one of those customs, the origin of which is lost in a remote antiquity. But when adopted by God in connection with His covenant as its appropriate token and seal, it thenceforth became a symbol of purification fi'om the guilt and pollution of the flesh — the symbol of a transition from nature's depravity into a spiritual and holy life. This transition should have been effected in all who stood within the bonds of the covenant ; and in those whose state accorded with their profession, it must in reality have been effected. It was, therefore, the distinctive badge of Israel, not simply as a separate people, but as God's covenant- people, called and bound to cast off nature's impurity, and walk in righteousness before God. This, too, was perfectly understood by all the more serious and thoughtful portion of the Israelites ; and they did not need the higher revelations of the Gospel to disclose its import. Moses himself pointed to it as a thing which even then was familiarly known and understood, when he repre- sented the people, in their state of impenitence and guilt, as being of uncircumcised hearts (Lev. xxvi. 41) ; and on this very account, — because circumcision had a strictly moral import, it was suspended during the thirty-eight years' sojourn in the wilderness ; since the people being then under the judgment of heaven for their sins, they were held to be in an unfit state for having the ordinance administered to them. Such, at least, ap- pears the main reason for the disuse of the ordinance during that long period. Circumcision, therefore, if viewed according to the design of God, and its own emblematic import, was no more a merely outward and corporeal thing, than baptism now is ; the one had respect to the believer's spiritual position and call to righteousness, not less than the other. In both cases alike the opus operatum might stand alone ; the sign might be without the thing signified ; since no ordinance of God ever has salvation indissolubly linked to it ; while yet the two would always in point of fact be connected together, if the ordinances were used in a spirit of sincerity and truth. 2. This second principle, which ascribes a symbolical or spiritual I 136 RELATIONS OF THE OLD TO THE NEW import to all the rites and ordinances of the Old Covenant, like the first, has its ultimate ground in the nature of God — in the essential holiness of His character. Precisely as God's unchange- ableness rendered it necessary, that there should be in everything of vital moment a ftindamental agreement between Judaism and Christianity ; so the pure and unspotted holiness of God, which comes out in the very first revelations of the Bible, and holds in all of them the most prominent place, rendered it necessary, that the Covenant, with every rite and institution belonging to it, should have respect to moral purity. What is essential and pre- eminent in God Himself must appear also essential and pre- eminent in His public administration. And hence in the very centre of the Mosaic polity — as the standard by which everything was to be judged, and the end to which it pointed — lay the two tables of the moral law — the comprehensive summary of love to God and man. Hence also, in some of those parts of the laws of Moses, which prescribe the more peculiar ceremonial institutions, the reason of their appointment is placed in immediate connection with the holiness of God ; as in Lev. xx. 25, 26, where the com- mand is reinforced as to the distinction to be put between clean and unclean in food, it is added as the ground of the requirement, " And ye shall be holy unto Me, for I the Lord am holy, and I have severed you fi'om other people, that ye should be Mine." So again in ch. xxii., after a multitude of prescriptions regarding sacrifice, and the eating of the flesh of peace-offerings, the whole is wound up by pointing to the fundamental reason, " I am Jehovah ; therefore shall ye keep My commandments and do them ; I am Jehovah. Neither shall ye profane My holy name ; but I will be hallowed among the children of Israel ; I am Jehovah, that hallow you." The entire ritual had its foundation in God, in the principles of His character and government, whither the people were directed to look for the ultimate ground of the laws and institiitions they were commanded to observe. As the one was pre-eminently moral, so, of necessity, was the other ; and no enlightened Israelite could regard the services of his symbolical worship, any more than the statutes and judgments of his theocratic polity, in any other light than as a system of means and appliances for securing purity, of heart and conduct. 3. It is clear then — and we state it, as equally a deduction MORE EXACTLY DEFINED. 131 from what lias preceded, and a third point to be kept in view, in all the representations that may be made in such matters — that the true Israelites, those who were such in the reckoning of God, were a spiritual, not a fleshly seed ; and that the rearing of such a seed, not any outward and formal separation from the world, was the direct aim of the laws and institutions of Moses. That the dwelling of the people alone, in a state of isolation from the other nations of the earth, or antagonism to them, could never of itself have been designed to form the principal reason of the ancient economy, is evident — not only from the considerations already advanced — but also from the very end of their peculiar calhng in Abraham, which was to be first blessed in themselves, and then to be a blessing to others — a blessing even to all the families of the earth. It can never be by an isolating and frown- ing exclusiveness, that they could fulfil this ulterior part of their destination ; it could, only be by operating in a kindly and bene- ficent manner upon the nations around them, difl:using among them the knowledge of God, and extending the boundaries of His kingdom. That this was from the first contemplated by God may certainly be inferred from the admission of proselyte strangers, even in Abraham's time, into the bosom of the cove- nant (Gen. xvii. 12), and from the law afterwards prescribed regarding it (Ex. xii. 48). It is still further evident from the prayer of Solomon at the dedication of the temple, which made express mention of the case of strangers coming to intermingle their devotions with those of the house of Israel ; and from the fact, that whenever the covenant-people were in a lively and prosperous state, there was a disposition, on the part of others, to shai'e with them in their privileges and blessings, as in the times of David and Solomon (1 Chron. xxii. 2 ; 2 Chron. ii. 17). So far, indeed, were David and the prophets from thinking it the glory of Israel to be alone, that they anticipated with joy the time when Idngs would bring presents to Jerusalem, and the Lord's house should become a house of prayer for all nations. So long, certainly, as the people of other countries abode in heathenism, it was inevitable that Israel should dwell apart — if they remained faithful to their calling. But the separation in that case was only the necessary result of Israel's holiness, on the one hand, and the corruptions of the Gentiles, on the other ;^- 182 RELATIONS OF THE OLD TO THE NEW nor was it for any other end, than as the fittest means, in the existing state of the world, for producing and maintaining that holiness in the families of Israel, that the laws and ordinances of the Old Covenant were established. So, indeed, the Apostle Paul distinctly declared, when in Gal. iii. 19, he said, " Where- fore, then, serveth the law ? It was added because of transgres- sions,"— added, that is, to the prior covenant made with Abraham, on account of the people's proneness to transgress. That covenant was not of itself sufficient to restrain them ; and the law with its explicit requirements of duty, and its terrible sanctions was given to supplement the deficiency. The law, therefore, when rightly understood and properly used was in perfect harmony with the covenant ; it occupied an inferior and subsidiary place, but in that place was alike designed and fitted for qualifying the people to carry into effect the objects of the covenant. And as it was not the aim of the covenant to make Israel merely a separate people, walled-ofF by certain distinctive peculiarities fi'om others, as little could it be the proper aim of the law. The scope and tendency of both, indeed, was for righteousness, and their common end was accomplished only in so far as there was produced a spiritual and holy seed to God. 4. It follows from what has been said, in the fourth place, that the difference, as to privilege and character between the genuine members of the Old and of the New Covenants, must be relative only, and not absolute. It should be exhibited, not as a contrast between two opposites, but as an ascending gradation, a rising from a lower to a higher stage of development. A contrast, no doubt, is sometimes presented in the New Testament between law and grace, between the darkness and servile condition before Christ's coming, and the light and liberty that followed. But the darkness was not that of total ignorance, nor was the bondage properly that of slaves, but of children rather, who from their imperfect discernment and feeble powers required to be hemmed in by outward restraints, and stimulated by artificial expedients. When the Prophet Jeremiah represents (ch. xxxi.), the dis- tinction between the Old Covenant then existing, and the New and better one sometime to be introduced, as consisting in the putting of the Divine laws into the hearts of the people, and engraving them in their inward parts, the representation can MORE EXACTLY DEFINED. 133 only have been meant to indicate a more effectual and general accomplishment of this spiritual result, than had hitherto ap- peared, not its absolute commencement. For, beyond all question, the internal revelation of the law was to a certain extent possessed also in former times — possessed by every true Israelite, of whom it was written, ''The law of God is in his heart," and "he medi- tates therein day and night." And in what chiefly did the re- forming agency of David and many of the prophets appear ? Was it not in their earnest striving to awaken the people to the insufliciency of a dead formalism, and have them brought to the cultivation of such holiness as the law required I There was something more, then, in the relation between Judaism and Christianity, than that of type and antitype — in the sense commonly understood by these terms ; there was the relation also of germ and development, beginning and end. The Christian Church, if in one respect a new thing in the earth, is, in another, a continuation and expansion of the Jewish. As was long ago well stated by Crucius, " Israel is the basis and the body itself of the Church, wdiich must continue to grow and diff"use itself more and more ; and this it does, not by virtue of its corporeal descent, but on account of its faith and obedience towards God's covenant of grace with it, in virtue of which it obtains the heritage of the heathen. When Paul in Gal. vi. 16, speaks of the true Israel of God, he means thereby believing Israelites, whom he opposes to the enemies of Christ. And these Israelites did not pass over to the heathen, but the heathen to them (Eph. ii. 19, iii. 6; Phil. iii. 3; Col. ii. 11; Acts xiii. 32, xxvi. 6, 7). In this sense true Christians are reckoned to Israel ; and as the ancient Israel of God could, before Christ's appearance, receive proselytes among themselves, who thereafter became part of the covenant people ; so now, since the appear- ance of Christ, they have by reason of the covenant and the promise, already become greatly enlarged through the incorpora- tion of multitudes of the heathen, and shall at length receive the whole earth for a possession. And this entire body of the Church, of which the believing portion of Israel formed the foun- dation, shall one day also receive the remnant of the other portion, the apostasy, into its bosom."^ ' In Delitzscli's Biblisch. proph., p. 132. 134 RELATIONS OF THE OLD TO THE NEW 5, From all these premises, there arises still another conclu- sion, a fifth point to be kept steadily in view, viz., that the ordi- nances of the two covenants, like the conditions of their respective members, can admit only of relative differences. Differences cer- tainly exist, corresponding in nature to the change in the Divine economy, and the spiritual condition of those placed under it ; and these must be carefully marked and explained in accordance with the truth of things— otherwise, countenance may be given to grievous mistakes. It was here that Augustine, in common with so many of the fathers, chiefly, erred, though holding correct views in the general as to the connection between Judaism and Christianity. The one was clearly enough seen to be the pre- paration and shadow of the other ; but in drawing out the con- nection to particular points, too little account was made of the rise that had taken place from a lower to a higher sphere ; a tendency rather was shown to regard the antitype as equally outward and formal with the type. Hence, in the first instance, the typology of the Old Testament was caricatured, by having the most fortuitous and superficial resemblances turned into adumbrations of Gospel mysteries ; and then the theology of the New was carnalised, by being cast into the form and pattern of the Old ; the observance of days and seasons in the one inferring, it was thought, a like observance in the other — and, as of old, so also now, it was held, that there should be an altar, with its consecrated priesthood and material oblations — a visible unity in the Church, from which it was heresy, even in matters of cere- mony, to deviate — and, at last, a supreme earthly head, on whose will were conceived to hang the issues of life and death for entire Christendom. A mournful result in any circumstances ; but rendered greatly more so by the consideration, that among the forces tending to produce it must be placed the venerable name of Augustine, who, in his interpretations, often falls into the mistaken carnalism, out of which the evil might be said to liave originated. But while showing this form of error, care must be taken to avoid falling into another. And the principle must be lield fast, that in the ordinances of tlie two covenants there can be room only for differences of a relatixe kind. The sacrifices and ablu- tions of the Old Testament were not simjd}- carnal institutions, MORE EXACTLY DEFINED. 135 no more than baptism and the Lord's Supper now are. They also pertained to the conscience, and, to be acceptably engaged in, required faith on the part of the worshipper. It is true, that " as pertaining to the conscience, they could not make the comers to them perfect ;" they could not present to the worshippers a full, complete, and permanent ground of peace ; whence a per- petual renewal of the sacrifices was needed to reassure the con- science after fresh acts of transgression. Yet, this by no means proves, that they had to do merely wdth the purification of the flesh. There ivere certain fleshly or ceremonial defilements, such as the touching of a dead body, for which purification was obtained by means of water, mixed with the ashes of a red heifer ; — and to that the apostle refers in Heb. ix. 13. But it is an utter misapprehension of his meaning, to understand him there to assert, that all the offerings of the law were of force merely to purify the flesh. What could purifications of such a kind have availed one, who had been guilty of fraud, or oppression, or deceit, or false swearing '? Yet for such sins, forgiveness was attainable through the appointed offerings, Lev. vi. 1-7. We hold it, therefore, as most certain, that there was also a s])iritual element in all the services of the Old Covenant, and that their unsuitableness to Gospel times does not arise from their having been exclusively carnal and outward. It arises, partly fr'om their being too predominantly symbolical for a religion, which contains a full revelation of the truth ; and partly also from their having been peculiarly adapted for bringing into view the demands of law, and the liabilities of debt, while they pro- vided only a temporary expedient as to the way of relief — no more than a shadow of the real satisfaction. So that for men to cleave to the Old Testament services after Christ had come, as a matter essential to salvation, was in effect to say, that they did not regard the death of Christ as in itself a perfect satisfaction for the guilt of sin, bu.t that it needed the pimfications of the law to render it complete — thereby at once dishonouring Christ, and taking the legal ceremonies for something more than they really were. But still, these ceremonies, when rightly under- stood, differed from the ordinances of the Gospel only in degree, not in kind ; and it is perfectly competent for us to draw con- clusions from the nature and administration of the one, to the 13C PROPER METHOD OF INTERPRETING nature and administration of the other. Here, as in so many otlier things, there is a middle path, which is the right one ; and it is just as easy to err from it hy carnalizing too much in Judaisniy as hy Judaizing too much in Christianity. SECTION EIGHTH. ON THE PROPER INTERPRETATION OF THE TROPICAL PARTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. Among the portions of New Testament Scripture which require a separate hermeneutical consideration, are those in which tropes or figures are employed. Some of the examples given under the two last divisions might in part be referred to this head, for there is also a figurative element in them. But other portions belong more properly to it ; and the class is of sufficient compass and moment to entitle it to special inqiiiry. The subject, however, does not hold so large a place in the hermeneutics of the New Testament as it does in those of the Old ; for the poetical enters more into the composition of the Old, and poetry, from its very nature, delights in the use of figure. In both the prophetical, and the more distinctively poetical books of Old Testament Scripture, the boldest images are introduced, and the language has throughout a figurative colouring. But of these we are not called to treat at present. We have to do merely with that more sparing and restricted use of tropical language, which ap- pears in the New Testament, and was not incompatible with its clearer revelations and its more didactic aim. Reference, how- ever, may also be occasionally made, by w^ay of illvistration, to passages in the Old Testament. It is, perhaps, scarcely necessary to state, yet, in case of any mis- apprehension, it may as well be stated, that the iQY\n& figurative and tropical, on the one side, and those of literal and grammatical, on the other, may be employed indiscriminately, as being substan- tially of the same import. The one pair happen to be derived from the Greek, and the other from the Latin, but, in each case. TROPICAL PASSAGES. 187 from words that precisely correspond. Literal, from the Latin litera, denotes the meaning of a word, which is according to the letter, the meaning it bears in its original or primary use ; and nothing else is indicated by the term grammatical, in this con- nection, the word of Greek derivation for what is according to the ypdfj.,'jt.a or letter. But when a word, originally appropriated to one thing, comes to be applied to another, which bears some real or fancied resemblance to it, as there is then a rpoTrog or turning of it to a new use, so the meaning is called tropical, or, if we prefer the Latin form of expression, figurative — there being always some sort of figure or image suggested to the mind in this new use of the terra, founded either on resemblance or some other link of connection, and forming a natural transition from the original to the derived sense. Very commonly also the word proper is used to denote the original import of words, and im- projyer the figurative. But as these epithets are fitted to suggest wrong ideas, it is better not to employ them in such a connection. All languages are more or less figurative ; for the mind of man is essentially analogical, and delights to trace resemblances be- tween one object and another, and embody them in forms of speech. In strictly mental operations, and in regard to things lying beyond the reach of sense or time, it is obliged to resort to figurative terms ; — for only through the form and aspect of sensible objects can it picture to itself and express what lies in those hidden chambers of imagery. And the more vivid its ovm. feelings and conceptions are respecting spiritual and Divine things, or the more it seeks to give a present and abiding impression of these to the mind of others, the more also will it naturally call to its aid the realistic language of tropes and metaphors. Hence the predominant use of such language in sacred poetry ; and hence also its occasional employment by Christ and His apostles, in order to invest their representations of Divine things with the greater force and emphasis. I. In applying om* minds to this subject, the first point that naturally calls for inquiry, has respect to the proper mode of ascertaining when words are employed, not literally, but tropi- cally. Hoiv may we assure ourselves, or caw we assure our- selves, against any mistake in the matter? 138 PROPEli METHOD OF INTERPllETING This branch of hermeneutical inquiry began to receive some consideration in comparatively early times ; and in Augustine's treatise De doctrina Christiana, we find certain rules laid down for determining what in Scripture should be taken literally, and what figuratively. These are, certainly, somewhat imperfect, as might have been expected, considering the period when they were written : yet they are not without their value, and if they had been followed up by others, with any measure of Augus- tine's discernment, they might have kept the early Church from many false interpretations, on which the most unscriptural and superstitious views leant for support. 1. In the first place, it may be noted, that in a large num- ber of cases, by much the larger number of cases, where the language is tropical, the fact that it is so, appears from the very nature of the language, or fi'om the connection in which it stands. This holds especially of that kind of tropical lan- guage, which consists in the employment of metaphor — i.e. when one object is set forth under the image of another ; and in the employment of parable, which is only an extended metaphor. Thus, when Jacob says of Judah, " Judah is a lion's whelp, from the prey, my son, thou art gone up ;" or when our Lord designated two of His disciples by the name of Boanerges, " Sons of thunder ;" or, again, when He spake of the difficulties connected with an admission into His kingdom, under the neces- sity of " being born again," and of " entering a strait gate and treading a narrow way :" — in all these and many examples of a like natiu'e, the tropical element is palpable ; a child, indeed, might perceive it ; and the only room for consideration is, how the lines of resemblance should be drawn between the literal and the figurative sense of the terms. The same also may be said, and with still stronger emphasis, of formal similitudes and para- bles, in which the literal interpretation is expressly, or by plain implication, taken as the mere cover of something higher and greater. 2. Another class of passages, in which the figure is also, for the most part, quite easy of detection, are those in which what is called synechdoche prevails — i. e. in which a part is put for the whole ; as a cup for its contents, " Take this cup and drink it," or, " Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cuj) of devils." TROPICAL PASSAGES. 139 It is manifest, that in such cases the cup does not stand alone ; it is viewed merely as the symbol of the draught presented in it. So in other passages, where there is a kind of metonymy, such as putting a cause for an effect, or an effect for a cause : — for ex- ample, when our Lord says of Himself, " I am not come to send peace upon earth, but a sword ;" or when, inversely, the Apostle Paul, in another connection, says of Him, " He is our peace." In examples of this description also there is no difficulty ; it is ob- vious, that a particular result is in the eye of the writer, and that, for the sake of point and brevity, the object or person is identified with that result, or with the natural cause and instrument of effecting it, as if they were one and the same. But still, when all such examples as those now referred to have been taken into account, there remains a considerable number, — especially of the class called metonymies, in regard to which it is not so easy to determine, whether the language should be under- stood literally or tropically. It may, for instance, be questioned, whether our Lord, in Matt. v. 23, where He speaks of bringing a gift to the altar, means an actual altar for the presentation of sacrificial offerings, or something in the spiritual sphere that might be held equivalent to it : — whether, again, when speaking of His followers eating His body and di'inking His blood, He meant a corporeal or a spiritual participation : — or Paul, when he makes mention of a fire that is to try eveiy man's work (1 Cor. iii. 13), whether he has respect to the material element of fire, or to a process of judgment, which in spiritual things will have the same effect as a searching fire in earthly. It is well known, that these questions are answered very differently, and that great points of doctrine hang on the specific interpretations adopted. Nor is it possible, by any sharply defined rules to settle conclusively the view that should be taken ; for the settling of the rules would necessarily involve a discussion of the particular cases, to which we wish to apply them. It is more, therefore, to the general principles of interpretation — to the proper mode and habit of dealing with the Word of God, the accurate analysis of its terms, the close and discriminating examination of the scope and connection : — it is to this more, than to any specific direc- tions, that we are to look for obtaining the skill to determine between the literal and the tropical in the less obvious cases. At 140 PllOPER JMETHOD OF INTERPRETING the same time, there are two or three leading principles, which if fairly and consistently applied, might in the majority of cases, be sufficient to guide to a right decision. (1.) The first of these is, that when anything is said, which, if taken according to the letter, would be at variance with the essential nature of the subject spoken of, the language must be regarded as tropical. This principle requires to be little more than enunciated ; it carries its own evidence along with it. No single act, no particular attribute can be ascribed by an intelligent writer to a person or an object, which is inconsistent with their proper nature. So that, on the supposition of that nature being known to us, we can be at no loss to understand in what sense the language should be taken. Thus, it is essential to the na- ture of God, that He is spirit and not flesh — a Spirit infinite, eternal, and unchangeable; consequently without bodily parts, which are necessarily bounded by space and time ; without lia- bility to passionate excitation or erring purposes, which arise from creaturely limitations. Hence all those passages, which represent God as possessed of human powers and organs, as seeing, or heai'ing, or having experience of such affections as are the result of human weakness and infirmity, must be understood in a figur- ative sense. Nor can it be otherwise with those things, which are spoken of the soul and its spiritual life in terms borrowed from what pertains to the body : — As when our Lord calls on His followers to cut off their right hand and pluck out their right eye, or when St Paul speaks of crucifying the flesh, and putting off the old man of corruption. In such cases the path is clear ; we must keep strictly in view the essential 7iature of the subject discoursed of ; and since that is not such as to admit of an ap- plication of the language in the literal sense, we can have no hesitation about understanding it tropically. (2.) A second principle applicable to such cases, is, that if the language taken literally would involve something incongruous or morally improper, the figurative, and not the literal sense, must be the right one. If the literal implies nothing contrary to sense and reason — if the instruction it conveys is in accordance with the gre^it moral distinctions impressed upon the conscience, and written in the Word of God, then it may safely be adhered to as the sense actually intended. But if otherwise, we must TROPICAL PASSAGES. 141 abandon the literal for the figurative. The passage formerly re- ferred to in another connection — Rom. xii. 20 — may be taken as an example ; it is the exhortation to heap coals of fire on an enemy's head, by showing kindness to him in the time of want and necessity. The action itself here specified (whatever may be understood of the motive involved in it) must in any case be understood figuratively ; since the heaping of coals of fire on the head of another must plainly have respect to the moral influence of the things done to him upon his state or character. But further, in regard to the kind of operation intended, or the na- ture of the effect to be wrought, held out as the motive for exertion in the manner specified, it must be, as Augustine long ago remarked, of a beneficial, not of an injurious description, since it is brought in to enforce a precept of benevolence, and must, therefore, have contemplated the good of the parties in- terested.^ There are many similar examples in the Proverbs, where the one just noticed originally occurs ; as — to mention only another — when a person sitting at meat with a ruler is ex- horted to put " a knife to his throat," meaning that he must set bounds to his appetite — slay, in a manner, his voracity. In like manner, our Lord says, " If any man will come after Me, let him take up his cross and follow Me," — " whosoever loveth his life, shall lose it," — "make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness :" — in each of which passages there must be a cer- tain amount of figure ; since, to bear a cross, and to love life, in the natural sense of the expression, cannot be regarded as things fitted to carry with them the consequences of good and evil with which they are associated, nor can it be deemed proper, other- wise than by a figure, to make for one's self a friend of what is unrighteous. In such cases, we can only get at the trvie mean- ing by penetrating beneath the surface, and apprehending a moral act or line of behaviour as the object presented to our notice. (3.) A third direction may be added, viz. that where we have ^ Aug. De Doc. Christiana, iii. 16, Ne igitur dubitaveris figurate dictum ; et cum possit dupliciter interpretari, uno modo ad nocendum, altero ad prse- standum ; ad beneficentiam te potius charitas revocat, ut intellegas carbones ignis esse urentes pcenitentia^ gemitus, quibus superbia sanatur ejus qui dolet se inimicum fuisse hominis, a quo ejus miserise subvenitur. 142 PROPER METHOD OF INTERPRETING still reason to doubt whether the language is literal or figurative, we should endeavour to have the doubt resolved, by referring to parallel passages (if there be any such) which treat of the same subject in more explicit terms, or at greater length. The really doubtful cases, in which we can avail ourselves of this help, may not, perhaps, be very numerous ; but they are still to be found. Thus, in the first beatitude of the Sermon on the Mount, in which the simple designation poor occurs, in the Gospel of Luke, " Blessed are ye poor :" this has its fuller explanation in St Matthew's Gospel, where we read, "Blessed are the poor in spirit:" — plainly indicating that, if literal poverty is not excluded, respect is mainly had to the spiritual frame. In like manner the passage in the same sermon, respecting bringing a gift to the altar, in so far as regards its bearing on the Christian Church, has its meaning clearly determined by the Epistle to the Hebrews, and other parts of the New Testament, which declare earthly altars, and the offerings proper to them, to have no longer any place in the Church of God. And the word of Jesus, " Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up again," though spoken with apparent literality, was afterwards found, when the progress of events and the illumination of the Spirit laid open its meaning, to have had a figurative import. It referi'ed, not to the building usually designated the temple, but to the Lord's body, although this also was in reality a temple, which is but another name for the dwelling-place of Deity : nay, was such in a sense more strictly appropriate than could be affirmed of the other. Now, if we apply these simple and just principles of interpre- tation to the passage in Corinthians (1 Cor. iii. 13), we can have no difficidty in ascertaining the result that ought to be arrived at. The declaration there made is, that " the day," viz. of com- ing trial, " shall be revealed by fire, and the fire shall try every man's work, of what sort it is." What is the nature of the work to be tried ? That is naturally our first question. Is it of a moral, or simply of an external and earthly kind ? The only work spoken of in the context is that which concerns the founda- tion and progress of Christ's Church, and man's relation to it — work, therefore, in a strictly moral sense ; and so, by our first principle, the fire that is to try it must be moral too. For how incongruous were it to couple a corporeal fire with a spiritual TROPICAL PASSAGES. 143 service, as the means of determining its real character ? And if, in accordance with our last principle, we have recourse to other passages, which speak of the day of future trial and final decision, we find statements, indeed, to the effect that the Lord will be revealed in flaming fire, or, as it again is, in the clouds of heaven ; but as to Avhat shall really fix the character and the award of each man's work in the Lord, we are left in no room to doubt that it shall be His own searching judgment : — this it is that shall bring all clearly to light, and give to every one according to his desert. The result, therefore, is obvious ; the fire spoken of, and spoken of simply in respect to its property as an instrument of trial, must be itnderstood tropically of what, in spiritual things, has the like property. Let us also try, in the same way, what our Lord says about eating His flesh and drinking His blood. The Romanists con- tend that the expressions must be taken literally, even as recorded in John vi. 53, long before the sacrament of the Supper was in- stituted. Emesti, who was a Lutheran, admits it must be under- stood tropically there ; but he maintains that the words at the institution of the Supper must be taken literally. When treating of the interpretation of tropical language, in his Listitutes of Biblical Literpretation, he states that, as at Matt, xxviii. 19, in the formula of baptism, the word baptize is to be taken literally, so the words at the institution of the Supper, about eating and drinking, must be taken literally. And he refers to what he re- gards as a kind of parallel passage, Heb. ix. 20, where the words of Moses are quoted, " This is the blood of the covenant which God hath enjoined unto you," and draws the conclusion that, as in this case the blood of the covenant must be literally understood, so our Lord must have meant His blood to be understood in the same manner. Nor could this expression, he adds, convey any other than its proper sense to the minds of the disciples, who were accustomed to take up our Lord's declarations in their proper or literal sense. No doubt they icere accustomed to do this : greatly too much accustomed : it was their failing and their error to be so. Hence our Lord had once and again to complain of their inaptitude to ])erceive the real import of His words ; and specially in regard to this very form of expression, when, on one occasion. He spoke of having Himself bread to eat that others knew not of. 144 PROPER METHOD OF INTERPRETING and on another, cautioned His disciples to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees ; so far was He from justifying them for under- standing His words literally (as He discovered they did), that He reproved them on that very account for their dulness of appre- hension. If Ernesti's reasoning were sound, and the use he makes of the words of Moses in Hebrews were valid, the natural conclusion would be, not only that the corporeal presence of Christ in the Supper should be maintained, but also that the whole legal economy should remain in force — the altar of sacri- fice, with the blood of slain victims, the distinction of Jew and Gentile, the continued teaching of the scribes in Moses' seat, etc.; for these are all distinctly mentioned by Christ, and, in all pro- bability, were at first understood in the most literal sense by the disciples. We must plainly have other rules for our direction in such a case. It is surely one thijig to say, that Christ literally ratified the covenant with His own blood, and a veiy different thing, that bread and wine became His blood, and as such were to be eaten and drunk, at a feast instituted in commemoration of His act in ratifying the covenant. Indeed, it is only by a sort of figure that we can speak even of the covenant being ratified by His blood — a figure derived from the ancient sacrifices ; for, in reality, it was the simple death of Christ, the fi-ee surrender of His soul through the pains of dissolution to the Father, which, in His case, established the covenant ; and would equally have done so, though not a drop of blood had been outwardly shed. There is a failure, therefore, as to formal resemblance at the very outset, in the actions that are brought into comparison. And when we come to the participation spoken of, there is no resem- blance whatever. Even Augustine, with all his leanings toward ritualism, and his mystic notions on the virtue of the Sacra- ments, saw that the literal in its strict sense could not stand. On the passage in St John's Gospel, about eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ, he says, " It appears to order a wicked and abominable action ; it is, therefore, a figure, teaching that we must commimicate with our Lord's passion, and have it sweetly and profitably laid up in our memory, that His flesh was crucified and wounded for us (pr?ecipiens passioni dominicas com- municandum, et suaviter atque utiliter recondendum in memoria TROPICAL PASSAGES. llo quod pro nobis caro ejus crucifixa et vulnerata sit).' Whether we look to this passage, or to tlie words, " This is My body broken for you," and " This cup is the New Covenant in My blood, shed for the remission of sins, drink ye of it," the literal interpretation violates every one of the three leading principles, which we have laid down as applicable to such cases. It is against the first principle ; for what our Lord was speaking of in the one passage, and the privilege He was establishing in the other, was a joint-participation with Himself as the Redeemer of men. But this is a thing in its very nature spiritual ; and a carnal amalgamation with His bodily parts — were such a thing possible — could be of no benefit ; in that respect, as our Lord Himself testified, " The flesh profiteth nothing." Not oneness of outward standing or corporeal substance, but unity of soul, identity of spiritual life — tliis is what alone avails in such a matter. Then, the literal interpretation is against our second principle of interpretation, inasmuch as it ascribes an action to Christians, nay imposes as the highest and most sacred duty an action, which is abhorrent to the common instincts of hu- manity— an action which has no parallel in real life, except among the lowest types of human nature — the most untutored savages. These alone among mankind are known, and even these only in extreme cases, to eat human flesh and drink human blood ; and it is utterly inconceivable, that the most solemn rite of Christianity should have been designed to be formally the same with the most unnatural and savage practice which exists in the world. And, finally, the parallel passages may also be said to be against it ; for though, from the singularity of the case, as to the Sacrament of the Supper, we cannot appeal to any passages absolutely parallel, yet passages substantially parallel are not wanting — passages, in which Christ is repre- sented as identifying Himself with an external object, much as He does with the bread and wine in the Sacrament : — Such as, " I am the door," " I am the vine," " The Church which is His body," " And that Rock was Christ." We have also passages, in which the bread of this ordinance, after consecration, the bread as actually partaken by the communicants, is still desig- nated bread, and not flesh ; — as when the apostle says, in 1 Cor. 1 De Doc. Christiana, iii, 16. K 14C PHOPEIl METHOD OF TNTERPRETIXG X. 16, 17, " The bread which we break is it not the communion of the body of Christ ? For, we being many are one bread, and one body ; for we are all partakers of that one bread" — from which one might as well argue, that believers are turned into bread, as from the words in Matthew, that the bread is turned into flesh. And in Acts, cli. ii. 42, xx. 7, 11, we have the expression, " breaking of bread," used as a common phrase to denote the celebration of the Supper, manifestly implying, that the participation of bread, and not what could be termed flesh, constituted the formal act in this part of the Communion. We say nothing of the doctrinal positions based upon the literal sense, but contemplate the matter in a simply exegetical point of view. Apart altogether from the doctrinal consequences and results, the close and comparative examination of the words leads to the adoption of the tropical, in contradistinction to the literal import. II. We turn now to what forms naturally the second subject of consideration in this branch of inquiry, viz., the proper mode of treating the tropical or figurative portions of Scripture. This necessarily varies to a considerable extent, as does also the use of figure in Scripture : — so that uniform rules, applicable to all cases of figurative language, cannot possibly be given. The field must be surveyed in successive portions. 1. In the first place, there are in Scripture, as in other com- positions, words and phrases, which are really used in a figurative manner, but in which the figurative has become so common, that it has ceased to be regarded as figurative. Examples of this in ordinary language are not far to. seek. Expression, for ex- ample, which in its original sense means a squeezing out, but is now almost invariably appropriated to the specific act of pressure outwards, which takes place in speech, wdien the thought con- ceived in the mind is put forth into intelligible words — ardour, which is primarily burning or heat, but by usage has come to be confined to states of mind — refiect, ruminate, and many others, of which what was once the tropical, has now come to be the ordinary usage. Examples of the same description are found in Scripture, in such words as edify (" edify one another in love"), train-up (originally draio-up, but now usually educate, instruct, TROPICAL PASSAGES. 147 rear), synagogue, church : in all wliicli the secondary or tropical meaning is the cnrrent one : and if occasionally a reference may with advantage be made to the primary sense, generally it is best to treat them as no longer tropical, but to regard the common acceptation as the only one, that has any particular claim for notice. 2. A second point to be noted is, that there is often a complex tropical meaning in the words and phrases of Scripture (as of language generally) — one tropical meaning, by some addition or subtraction in respect to the principal idea, giving rise to another, and that, perhaps, still to another. So that there is sometimes trope upon trope ; and it is of importance, not only to have a general acquaintance with the whole, so as to be able the more readily to choose the proper one for the occasion, but also to understand something of their successive growth — to be able to trace, in a manner, their genealogy, so as fitly and intelligently to connect one with another. This can now, for the most part, be done with comparative ease, and usually requires nothing more than the careful use of the grammar and the dictionary ; for of late years the progress of philological study has been such as to determine pretty accurately almost all the primary and de- rived meanings of the words in New Testament Scripture, with their relative order and gradation. As an example of the accu- mulation of tropes in the meaning of some words, we may refer to Rev. iii. 12, " Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God," in which not the nearer, but a more remote tropical meaning is given to pillar. The literal is that of a strong support to a material building ; whence comes the more imme- diate tropical meaning, of some kind of like support in the sphere of moral and spiritual things ; but a further tropical meaning also arises, suggested by the thought of pillars being usually the strongest and most securely fixed parts of the building — the meaning of a stable and abiding position. This is the idea intended to be conveyed in the passage referred to ; and hence it is added, as what naturally arises from the subject of the promise having the position of a pillar assigned him, that " he shall go no more out" — his place in the region of bliss and glory shall be one of eternal continuance. — We may point for another example to Matt, xxiii. 14, where our Lord says to the Scribes and Pharisees, ]4« PROPER METHOD OF INTERPRETING "Ye devour widows' houses" — rag o'lvtiag ruv x'^pojv, evidently meaning the goods or substance of those widows. The first transition from the natural to the figurative import consists in taking house, by metonymy, for family — what contains for the principal objects contained in it — and then by a further limita- tion, putting the means of support, belonging to the house or family, for this itself — on the implied ground, that the one as to substantial existence is identified with the other, and that he who lays his hand on the means of sustenance to a house virtually lays his hand on the house itself. This second trope, therefore, growing out of the first, is quite natural; and we can easily see, how much, by the throwing together of the several things which make up this last idea, the language of our Lord gains in strength and vivacity. It leads us to think, not merel}^ of the avaricious and fraudulent appropriation of some earthly goods, but of the result also flowing from such conduct — the actual absorption of a whole house, in order to gratify a base and selfish appetite. 3. As a third direction for the proper explanation and manage- ment of the tropical language of Scripture — and, indeed, the principal one — we mention this, that care should be taken to give a fair and natural, as opposed to a far-fetched or fanciful, turn to the figure employed. We do so, on the ground, that figurative language is essentially of a popular caste, and is founded on those broader and more obvious resemblances, which do not need to be searched for, but are easily recognised and generally perceived. When the apostle, for example, says, " Let not the sun go down upon your wrath," the reference plainly is, to the time that should be set to the continued indulgence of angry feelings; if these should arise in your bosom, let them not be harboured, let them at least expire ere the day closes, on which they have arisen. But see how odd!}', and we may say phantasti- cally, Thomas Fuller draws out the figure, " St Paul saith, ' Let not the sun go down on your wrath,' to carry news to the anti- podes in another world of thy revengeful nature. Yet" — he adds, as if intending to give a more simple view of the matter, " let us take the apostle's meaning rather than his words, with all possible speed to depose our passion ; not understanding him so literally, that we may take leave to be angry till sunset ; then might our wrath lengthen with the days, and men in Greenland, TROPICAL PASSAGES. 14!* Avliere day lasts above a quarter of a year, have plentiful scope of revenge." It is evident on a moment's consideration, that svich turns given to the image are quite fanciful ; they could not have been in the apostle's mind, nor would they readily suggest them- selves to an ordinary reader of the epistle : and they serve rather to amuse, or to divert attention from the right point, than guide it into the proper channel. Even writers much less fanciful than Fuller, and who have their imaginations more under control, often err in this direction. Thus Leighton, in his first sermon on Isa. Ix. 1 — as a whole an admirable discourse — when referring to Canticles vi. 10, where it is said of the spouse, " She is fair as the moon and clear as the sun," thus explains, " The lesser light is that of sanctification, /c/zV as the moon; that of justification the greater, by which she is clear as the sun. The sun is perfectly luminous, but the moon is only half enlightened ; so the believer is perfectly justified, but sanctified only in part ; his one-half his flesh, is dark ; and as the partial illumination is the reason of so many changes in the moon, to which changes the sun is not sub- ject at all, so the imperfection of a Christian's holiness, is the cause of so many waxings and" wanings, and of the great in- equality of his performances, whereas in the meanwhile his justi- fication remains constantly like itself." Doctrinally, indeed, this is perfectly correct ; but it is certainly not in the passage, on which it is founded. The reference there to the two objects in nature, sun and moon, is merely to these as they strike the eye of a spectator — therefore, to the intense brightness of the one, and to the milder radiance of the other. And the Church is compared to the two luminaries of nature, only for the purpose of exhibiting under two similar, though slightly diversified aspects, the imposing and attractive appearance, which would belong to her, if she Avere in her normal condition of light and purity. Take still another example. In Matt. x. 16, our Lord exhorts His disciples, since the}^ were to go forth like sheep in the midst of wolves, to be " wise as serpents " — on which Augustine re- marks, by way of explanation, " It is known respecting the serpent, that it presents to those striking it, instead of the head, the whole body ; and this shows, in connection with our Lord's word, that we should offer to those persecuting us our body, rather than our head, which is Christ, lest the Christian faith 150 PROPER METHOD OF INTERPRETING should be, as it were, slain in us, if by sparing our body we should disown God." " Or, again " — taking another view of the matter — " since it is known, that the serpent, when compressed by the straitness of its den, casts off its old skin, and thereby, it is said, receives new strength, it admonishes us to imitate that same cunning of the serpent, and put off the old man, as the apostle says, that we may put on the new, and put it off through straits, entering (as the Lord says) through the strait gate." ^ I need scarcely say, that these points in the natural history of the serpent (if they were real) would serve little to illustrate our Lord's maxim, in the connection, in which it is introduced ; since, plainly, the wisdom He recommends, and finds imaged in the serpent, is wisdom, not to enter into a Cln-istian state, nor to brave persecution and death, when entered, rather than betray the cause of Christ, but to guide one's self discreetly and pru- dently in the midst of danger, so as, if possible, to escape the evil threatened by it. Indeed, there is scarcely anything known in the natural history of the serpent-brood, which can be of ser- vice in illustrating the comparison ; for in their existing condi- tion serpents are not remarkable for wisdom, in the respect now mentioned, and possess lower instincts and sagacity than many other irrational creatures. Yet there can be no doubt, that in ancient times the serpent was very commonly taken as a symbol of wisdom, was even extensively worshipped as having something Divine about it. But this most probably sprung out of the tradi- tion respecting its primeval state, as the wisest among the beasts of the field, and the part it was in consequence employed by the arch-deceiver to play in the fall of man. Scripturally, and tra- chtionally, the serpent was peculiarly associated with the attri- bute of wisdom — and it is best to regard our Lord as simply founding on this historical belief, and the deeply significant facts connected with it. The danger of erring in the manner now referred to is not, perhaps, so great in our day, as it w^as in former times, when general literatui*e abounded with laboured ingenuities and fanci- ful conceits. We live in an age, which gives more play to the unsophisticated feelings and instincts of natm-e, and which is less disposed to seek for remote and curious analogies. But when in 1 De Doc. Christiann, ii. 16. THE PARABLES OE CHRIST. 151 public discourses a passage is selected, which contains a similitude, there always is some danger of pressing this, in some respects, too far, so as to make it the cover of a more varied or lengthened instruction than it naturally suggests. The best way to avoid this, is to cultivate simplicity of thought and style, and to rest in the conviction, which experience will amply justify, that two or three points, well chosen and vigorously handled, will make both a happier and a more lasting impression, than double the number, if not properly grounded in the text, or really germane to the subject. SECTION NINTH. THE PARABLES OF CHRIST, THEIR PROPER INTERPRETATION AND TREATMENT. We have considered as yet only the commoner and briefer forms of figiu'ative language in the New Testament writings — those which consist of single expressions, or admit of being compressed into one sentence. But a very considerable and important part of our Lord's discourses exhibits the use of figurative representa- tions of a mvich more extended and diversified kind. We refer to the parables, which, both on account of their intrinsic import- ance, and the peculiarities connected with such a mode of in- struction, demand a separate treatment. It is marked by the Evangelists as a sort of era in our Lord's ministry, when He began to teach in parables. Each of the Synoptic Evangelists takes notice of it, and connects it with specific reasons. The period itself is not very definitely indi- cated ; but it must have fallen, if not actually within the last year of His ministry, at least not far from its commencement ; and if not absolutely the Avhole, certainly by much the greater number of His parables must be ascribed to the last year. At the same time, the formal employment of parabolic teaching was not the introduction of something entirely new. Christ's manner of teaching from the outset partook largely of figure ; and some 152 THE PARABLES OF CHRIST even of His earlier recorded utterances were parables of a shorter kind ; for, while conveying a spiritual lesson, they bore a distinct and intelligible meaning also in the natural sense. Of this description are some parts of the Sermon on the Mount; for example, ch. v. 25, "Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him ; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison." Here human and earthly relations alone are directly mentioned, though it is plain, from the connection in which they stand, and the whole tenor of the dis- course, that they are employed merely as the cover of a higher instruction. Not materially different are other things in the same discourse, and especially the concluding verses, in which the two classes of hearers — the fruitful and fruitless — are repre- sented under the similitude of two builders, the one of whom erected his house on the sand, and the other on the solid rock. And in the interval between the delivery of the Sermon on the Mount, and the commencement of the more regular system of pai'abolic instruction, we find on record a few instances of simili- tude, which are always ranked with the parables — those, namely, of the old garment and the new patch, of the new wine and the old bottles (Matt. ix. 16, 17), and of the creditor and the two debtors in the house of Simon (Luke vii. 41, 42). So that the parabolic mode of instruction, to a certain extent, pervaded the ministry of Jesus; it was not altogether limited to any one period ; only, at a particular stage, somewhere between the middle and the close, He commenced a more regular, frequent, and systematic use of the parabolic style. And to this later period it is, that the parables distinctively so called, belong. I. In regard, first of all, to the reasons which may have led our Lord to adopt this mode of instruction, and to resort to it more especially in the concluding stages of His ministerial career, a variety of considerations may be named as having each had a certain share in the result. 1 . In the first place, a foundation is laid for it in the nature of things, " in the harmony that exists, and that is unconsciously felt by all men between the natural and spiritual worlds, so that analogies from the first are felt to be something more than ilhis- AND THEIR INTERPRETATION. 163 trations, happily, but not arbitrarily chosen."^ Something more — because they are the signs and witnesses of that happy adjust- fnent, which God has established between the external and in- ternal worlds, between matter and mind, time and eternity ; according to which the things that are seen are in many respects the image of those which are not seen, and nature-processes are at once designed and fitted to be emblems of the operations of grace. In saying this, we do not need with some, among others with Dr Trench, to go to the extreme of holding, that every- thing in nature has been pre-ordained expressly to shadow forth and represent Divine mysteries ; — to hold, for example, that " all the circumstances of our natural birth had been pre-ordained to bear the burden of the great mystery of our spiritual birth," or that the title of King, as applied to Christ, is not taken from the kings of the earth, but " rather that He has lent His title to them." We designate this an extreme, because it is an invert- ing of the natural order of things as they present themselves to our minds, and is also at variance with the whole current of Scriptural representation on the subject. There the natural ever precedes the spiritual, and the supernatural bases itself on the natural ; so that creation does not anticipate redemption, but re- demption pre-supposes creation — pre-supposes it as in itself good and right ; and, in like manner, regeneration pre-supposes gene- ration, and elevates it to a higher sphere. All we have to affirm and hold is, that the author of the spiritual kingdom (as Tholuck, on John xv., has very correctly and fitly expressed it) " is also the author of the natural kingdom, and both kingdoms develop themselves after the same laws. For this reason, the similitudes which the Redeemer drew from the kingdom of natui'e, are not 7nere similitudes, which serve the purpose of illustration, but are internal analogies ; and nature is a witness for the kingdom of God. Hence was it long since announced as a principle, that ' whatever exists in the earthly, is found also in the heavenly kingdom.' Were it not so, those similitudes would not possess that power of conviction, which they carry to every unsophisti- cated mind." On this ground alone, then, we have a valid ground for the employment by our Lord of the parabolic method of instruction. ' Trench on the Parables, p. 13. IM THE PARABLES OF CHRIST He thereby drew the attention of His followers in every age to the profound and intimate connection that subsists between the realms of nature and of grace, and taught them to look through the one to the other. It was the more important that He should do this, as the kingdom He came to introduce stood in so many respects opposed to the world as it existed in His time, through the false views, grovelling superstitions, and horrid crimes under which it groaned. It had become, so to speak, a vv'orn-out world, — corrupt nature had spent apparently its last efforts on it in vain ; and it seemed as if there was little more to be learned from it, or to be done for it. But our Lord, while mainly intent upon unfolding new views of the mind and purposes of Pleaven, at the same time directed a new look into the secrets and prin- ciples of nature. By means especially of His inimitable parables. He showed, that when nature was consulted aright, it spoke one language with the Spirit of God ; and that the more thoroughly it is understood, the more complete and varied will be found the harmony which subsists between the principles of its constitu- tion and those of Christ's spiritual kingdom. 2. A second reason very naturally suggests itself for this method of instruction, in the near assimilation, into which it brings a large portion of the teaching of Jesus with the acted lessons of His life, and with sacred history in general. That so much of the revelation of God to men consists of the facts of history, especially of biographical facts connected with the lives of God's saints, has ever been regarded by wise and thoughtful men as a striking proof of its adaptation to our natures, which so much more readily imbibe clear and lasting impressions in this way, than by set and formal instructions. And not only so, but by this means they can be taught much more in a brief com- pass than it is possible otherwise to impart to them. For, in a life, especially in such lives as are recorded in the Word of God, there is a great variety and fulness of instruction, admitting of a manifold applicability to the diversified fortunes and conditions of men. There is this, pre-eminently, in the life of Jesus, with its wondrous details of doing and suffering, and the unfathom- able depths of wisdom and love, which it was ever exhibiting — alike incomparable in itself, and in the artless, engaging manner, in which it is ]>resented to our view liy the Evangelists. Tiie AND THEIR INTERPHETATION. 155 parables of Jesus, from the historical element in them, and the attractive form in which it appears, possess mvich of the same excellence. They are based, if not on what has actually occurred in the world of realities, at least on what may have occurred there, and often in effect has done so. Ideal histories they are, yet derived as to all their leading features from the actual, and these grouped together, and portrayed with the simplicity of nature itself. They are hence, in a brief compass, copious trea- sures of Divine wisdom, from which lessons, new and old, may be continually drawn. And however much we may strive to exhibit the several aspects of the Divine kingdom, we shall still find, that we can present nothing under any of them so complete, as is contained in some one of the parables, wdiich is devoted to its illustration. 3. A third reason for our Lord's teaching in parables may be found in the opportunity it afforded of presenting more truth to the minds of His disciples than, from their continued dulness and carnality of spirit, could otherwise have been communicated to them. Steeped in prejudice, and, even when holding the truth in substance, mingling with it such partial, or mistaken appre- hensions, they could with difficulty be got to receive with intelli- gence some of Christ's plainest revelations ; and, at last. He was obliged to stay His hand in respect to the more direct and open communications of His mind, as He found the disciples were not able to bear, or to profit by it. But, by teaching in parables, and presenting the concerns of His kingdom under the image of familiar objects and earthly relations. He laid the ground-work of a most comprehensive and varied instruction. Many aspects of the kingdom were thus unfolded to them in a form they could easily grasp and distinctly comprehend — though, for the time, all remained, like the symbols of the Old Testament worship, very much as a dark and unintelligible cypher to their view. That cypher, however, became lighted up with meaning when the per- sonal work of Christ was finished, and the Spirit descended with power to make application of its blessings, and the minds of the disciples were enabled to grasp the higher as well as the lower scheme of doctrine exhibited in the representation. Through tlie earthly form they could now descry the spiritual reality ; and the advantage they derived from the types, when rightly 156 THE PARABLES OF CHRIST understood, they also derived, and in a still higher degree, from the parables. 4. Once more, another reason, and, indeed, the one tliat is most distinctly announced in the Gospels, for our Lord teaching so much in the latter part of His ministry in parable, was the judicial treatment in\olved in it — the practical rebuke it administered to the people generally, on account of their failure to receive the truth when presented in its simple and more direct form. After the parable of the sower and some others had been delivered, the disciples asked Jesus, " Why speakest Thou to them in parables'?" And the answer pointed chiefly to the measure of darkness con- nected with them : " Unto you it is given (said He) to know the mysteries of the kingdom : but to them it is not given ; for who- soever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abund- ance ; but whosoever hath not, Irom him shall be taken away even that which he hath. Therefore" — He added, with reference to the people, who belonged to the latter class, the persons who had not, as the disciples did to the former — " Therefore speak I to them in parables ; because they seeing, see not ; hearing, they hear not, neither understand." The import of the statement is, that the disciples, having to a certain extent used the privilege they possessed — having improved the talents committed to them — were to be intrusted with more ; while the body of the people, having failed to make a similar use of their opportunities — re- maining destitute of Divine knowledge, notwithstanding all that had been taught them — were to have their means of knowing abridged, were to be placed under a more indirect and veiled method of instruction. This mode of dealing was in perfect accordance with the whole nature and tendency of the work of Christ in its relation to the hearts of men — which always carried along with it two ends, the one displaying the severity, and the other the goodness of God. From the first He was " set for the fall," as well as "the rising again," of many in Israel— for the enlightenment and salvation first, but, if that failed, then for the growing hardness and aggravated guilt of the people. In the parable, viewed as a mode of instruction, there was ne- cessarily a veiling of the truth for such as neither sought, nor obtained through private explanations, the key to its spiritual bearing. And in that veiling there was an act of judgment for AND THEIR INTERPRETATION. lo7 previous indifference and contrariety to the manifestation of the truth. Because the people had not received it in love, when more openly presented to them, it now became wrapt in an ob- scurer guise, and was placed at a greater distance from their view. Even this, had it been rightly viewed, would have wrought bene- ficially upon their minds. For, had they not wilfully blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, they would have seen in such a darkening of the Divine counsel something fitted to rouse and startle them ; it would have fallen on their ear as the warn- ing-note of coming retribution ; and, perceiving that the Lord was showing Himself froward to the froward, they would have fled to the arms of mercy before severer judgment overtook them. This, undoubtedly, was what our Lord designed as the effect that should have been produced upon them by the change He adopted in His manner of teaching. And in certain cases it may have done so ; but, with the gi'eater part, the evil only proceeded from one stage to another, and, before leaving for the last time the cities in which most of His mighty works had been done, and His dis- courses delivered, He uttered against them those memorable woes which announced their approaching doom. Such appear to have been the chief considerations which in- duced our Lord in the later period of His ministry, to use so commonly the parabolic mode of instruction. It is not so pro- perly an additional reason, as a particular mode of representing those that have been specified, when the Evangelist Matthew says of Christ's speaking to the people in parables, " that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables, I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world." What is here regarded as a prophecy, is a somewhat general declaration respecting the form of utterances common to the more special messengers of heaven. With certain characteristic differences, there still was something proper to them all in this respect, more particularly in those communications which had a prospective reference to the kingdom of God ; there was a certain amount of figurative and analogical discourse required to their fulfilling aright their pro- phetic office. And it was unavoidable, that the greatest messen- ger and prophet of all should also exhibit this mark of the prophetic calling. It behoved to appear in some form ; but the 158 THE PARABLES OF CHRIST specific form it actually assumed in his hands was determined by the several considerations already mentioned. So that the allu- sion of the Evangelist to the passage in the forty-ninth Psalm, does not indicate anything new or different upon the subject, ])ut is comprehensive of all the considerations, which actually weighed with om* Lord, and induced Him to adopt the parabolic style. II. We proceed now to the second leading point of inquiry respecting the parables of Jesus, viz., the proper mode of inter- preting and handling them. We are not left here entirely to our own resources ; for, on two occasions, very near each other, the dis- ciples asked our Lord for an explanation of the parables He had delivered, and we have, in consequence, His interpretation of two of them. We are, doubtless, entitled to regard these ex- amples of Divine exposition as specimens of the kind of exposi- tion generally, that should be employed upon the parables, and the main features in them should be steadily kept in view by all interpreters. 1. The first thing, however, that requires to be attended to is one not noticed in our Lord's exjilanations, but taken for granted there as perfectly understood, \iz. the correct reading of the para- bolical representation itself, which forms the ground and cover of the spiritual instruction. We must obtain a clear understand- ing, and be able to give an accurate exposition of the meaning of the words, and the natural or historical allusions which they may contain. And the image or delineation, as a whole, in its merely natural aspect and relations, should be set forth in its proper ful- ness and simplicity, preparatory to our drawing from it the in- struction it is fitted to convey. For the most part, this is not difficult — if only a moderate amount of scholarship is possessed, and such a cast of mind as is capable of taking up a fair impres- sion, and giving forth a distijict representation of what is narrated : — not difficult, because usually the language in these portions of Scripture is remarkable for simplicity, and the para- bolical narratives relate to the more familiar objects in nature and history. In a few cases only is some difficulty experienced. As an example of one in the language, we may point to the parable of the wheat and the tares — as it is commonly termed. ANJ) THEIR IXTKRPRETATION. 159 The difficulty lies here in determining exactly what is meant by ^/^ai//a, the seed which the enemy scattered among the wheat, and which, it appears, did not attract any notice or excite any uneasiness, till the full blade had been put forth, and the ear had been formed. The tares, the ancient vicia, by which our translators have rendered the w-ord, plainly do not altogether accord with the description ; both because they are so different in form and appearance from wheat, that they should be detected the moment they rose above ground, and also because they are not of a noxious nature, but are grown for purposes of nourish- ment. Our Lord, there can be little doubt, referred to some weed with which His hearers were familiarly acquainted, and which was wont to be found in the corn-fields of Syria. The term zizania is, therefore, in all probabihty a Syrian word ; and, accordingly, it never occurs in any Greek or Latin author, ex- cept in the writings of the Fathers, where they refer to this parable. They explained it differently, and if we except Jerome, none of them quite correctly. But there is a plant, which the Rabbins call zimim, and the Ai'abs of the present day zulzan (neither of them very far from the zizania of Scripture), which abounds in the corn-fields of S}ana — a plant, which is at first very like wheat in appearance, Avhich belongs to the same family, and which, when analysed, contains nearly the same ingredients, yet so different in its effects upon the human frame, that when the seeds remain mixed with the wheat, the flour thus produced always occasions dizziness and other injurious efi^ects. There can be little doubt, that this is really the plant referred to. The only question (but one that can scarcely be said to affect the exposition of the parable) is, whether it is a distinct plant, or a sort of degenerate wheat — afterwheat as it is sometimes called. The Rabbinical doctors held it to be the latter : they said, as quoted by Lightfoot, " Wheat and zunim are not seeds of dif- ferent kinds," but " zunim is a kind of wheat, which is changed in the earth, both as to its form and as to its nature." The ancient scholiast, too, writes on Virgil's infelix lolium, " Triticum et hordeum in lolium mutantur." This, certainly, may be reckoned doubtful ; for the Rabbis and scholiasts were no great naturalists ; and it is more common now to regard the zizanion as a separate plant, the bearded darnel, lolium temulentum, of 160 THE PARABLES OF CHRIST naturalists. At all events, this plant, and not our tares, is what must be understood by the term in the parable — although it would be unwise now to substitute the one term for the other in our Bibles. In the figurative representation of the parable, apart from the language in which it is expressed, there is seldom any difficulty. Only, it is necessary to exercise caution, so as not to extend the representation too far — carry it beyond the bounds within which it was intended to move. Thus, in the parable of the unjust steward, who is set up as a representative in the worldly sphere, of a selfish and carnal wisdom, choosing skilfully its means for the accomplishment of a desired end, we must take care to con- fine it to that one point, and abstain fi'om giving it a more general direction. There is a higher wisdom even in the world than what is there exhibited, a wisdom that extends to the choice of a proper end, as well as to the employment of proper means : — but this is not brought into view in the representation of the parable. 2. The next thing to be attended to in the interpretation of the parables, is the main theme or leading idea, which they are severally intended to illustrate. For, there always is what may be so characterised — some special aspect of the Divine kingdom, or some particular line of duty to be followed, or of danger to be shunned, which the parable aims at exhibiting, and to which all its imagery is subservient. This, as Lisco has justly observed, " is the centre and kernel of the parable, and till it has been dis- covered and accurately determined, we need not occupy ourselves with the individual parts ; since these can only be seen in their true light, when contemplated from the proper centre. We may compare," he adds, "the whole parabolical representation to a circle, the centre of which is the Divine truth or doctrine, and the radii are the several figurative traits in the narrative. So long as we do not stand in the centre, neither does the circle ap- pear in an entirely round form, nor do the radii seem in their proper order, as all tending to the centre, and in beautiful uni- formity:— this is done, when the eye surveys everything fii'om the centre. So is it precisely in the parable. If we have brought clearly and distinctly out its central point, its principal idea, then also the relative position and right meaning of its several parts AND THEIR INTERPRETATION. Itil become manifest, and we shall only dwell upon these in so far as the main theme can thereby be rendered more distinct." In order to arrive correctly at this main theme, beside an exact and careful examination of the parable itself, the chief help is to be sought in the connection ; and if this is closely considered, and the light it furnishes applied to the illustration of the subject, we shall rarely, if ever, be left in doubt as to the principal idea or doctrine, which it was designed to unfold. A few of the earlier parables, all those recorded in the 13tli ch. of Matthew, and which were delivered about the same time, having been uttered one after another, without anything intervening between them in speech or action, can consequently derive no benefit from the im- mediate context. But with that exception, all the parables in the Synoptic evangelists are connected with occasions of an historical kind, very often also are preceded by a direct address ; and then the principle couched in the address, or which the historical occasion served to bring out, is resvimed, and for all times thrown into the form of an attractive and striking parable. Possibly, the parable may carry the instruction somewhat farther than was done by what immediately preceded, but it will be found to be only in the same line. Thus the beautiful and impressive parable of the rich fool, recorded in the 12th ch. of Luke, was occasioned by a person rudely interrupting Jesus, and reqviesting his interference with that person's brother, in order to obtain a division of the inheritance. Our Lord first repelled the intrusion by asking, " Man, who made Me a judge or a divider over you f and then delivered to His followers the appropriate counsel, " Take heed, and beware of covetousness : for a man's life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth." Now, the parable that follows is simply an embodiment of this great lesson, which is thrown into the parabolic form, to clothe it with life-like freshness, and give it a more impressive and touching influence on the heart. In like manner, the three parables in the 15th ch. of Luke — those of the lost sheep, the lost piece of money, and the prodigal son — all took their rise in the taunt thrown out by the Pharisees against Christ, that He received sinners and ate with them ; and they each unfold, under so many different, yet closely related aspects, the grounds of the procediire, out of which the taunt originated ; they explain and justify, on the common h 162 THE PARABLES OF CHRIST principles and f'eelincrs of Immanity, the merciful and considerate treatment, which the adversaries vilified. These examples ai'e comparatively simple ; but there are others, in vs^hich the proper result is not so easily arrived at. It is, how- ever, to be sought in the same way ; the connection, when closely surveyed, will generally be found the best help to ascertain the principal idea in the parable. In the case which, probably, pre- sents the greatest difficulty in this respect — that of the parable of the labourers in the vineyard. Matt. xxi. — we shall not search in vain if we look in the direction now indicated. By referring to the close of ch. xx., we find the parable was delivered for the purpose of embodying and illustrating a great principle, which Peter's self-complacent exhibition of the sacrifices he and the other apostles had made for Christ's sake, had elicited from the Saviour, " that many who were first should be last, and the last first." The main theme of the parable, which is summed up with the reiteration, in a somewhat stronger form, of this prac- tical saying, is comprised in the twofold truth therein contained. It teaches that the one class, the outwardly first, represented by the early called laboiu'ers, were unfit for the kingdom, because of the sense of merit, grounded on their early and long-continued services, rendering them indisposed to the simple reception of the gifts of grace, on which the Divine kingdom is founded. The other class, the outwardly last, represented by those who went into the vineyard at the eleventh hour, and who had nothing almost of their own on which to ground any claim to blessing — these, the parable teaches, are the proper subjects of the kingdom, having that deep spirit of humility, which disposes them to receive without a murmur whatever the Divine house- holder might give. It is needless to multiply examples further. But it will be perceived, from what has been already stated, that the parable should be viewed in each case as one whole. If it is pervaded by some great idea, or specific lesson, it should be viewed and treated with a reference to this ; and it cannot but suffer if it is broken up into a variety of separate parts, and each handled in- dependently of the others. At the same time, individual traits may, on certain occasions, be selected as the basis of a discourse, if onlv care is taken to exhibit the connection in which it stands AND THEIR INTERPRETATION. IG.! with the unity of the entire representation, and a view is given of it properly consistent with the place belonging to it in that connection. 3. There is still another point, which I'equires consideration in the treatment of parables, but on which it is scarcely possible to lay down a very explicit direction. We refer to the regard that should be paid to the individual traits — how far they should, or should not, be looked upon as having a separate significance. It is here more especially that our Lord's interpretation of the two parables formerly noticed is fitted to jield an important service. From this w^e see, that every specific feature in the earthly type has its correspondence in the higher line of things it represents. Nothing, on the one hand, appears merely for ornament ; while, on the other, nothing is wiredrawn, or made to bear a meaning that seems too much for it. It may, doubt- less, be regarded as one of the indications of comparative perfec- tion belonging to the parables of our Lord, that they admit of such a close and particular application ; for the more numerous the points of agreement in such a case, the more perfect must be deemed the form of the discourse. In connection with this, however, the distinctive nature of the parable should be borne in mind, which is not fitted for unfold- ing the particular facts or the more specific doctrines of the kingdom of Christ, as its more fundamental laws and broader features. In their nature, parables are a species of allegory, or symbol ; and whatever variety or depth of meaning this is capa- ble of embodying, it still must relate more to the great lines of truth and duty, than to the minuter details of either. If we should, therefore, go to the interpretation of them in a spirit of partizanship, eager to find support for some particular dogma we may be anxious to uphold, the result is sure to be an unnatural wresting of certain portions of the parable. And in all ages such has too frequently been the case in the treatment that has been given to this species of discourse. In early times we find many indications of it. For example, the Manicheans sought support for their independent principle of evil, the essentially divine and creative power of the wicked one, in the representation given in the parable of the tares, re- specting the sowing of the bad seed in the field — as if the 16-J THE PARABLES OF CHRIST existence of the bad were something altogether new, and not rather the depravation of what existed before. It is not, as Augustine contended, and many others of later times, that something is brought into being apart from the creation of God, or accomplishing what God alone could effect. The zizania were of God, as well as the wheat, only in the wrong place, and in that place a depravation — a travestying of the proper order and harmony of God's productions — an evil, as every work of Satan is. Nor can we regard it as anything but another, and, in principle, similar misinterpretation of the same parable, when many in modern times find in the sowing of the zizania, and the refusal of the householder to have them plucked up, an argument for the utter relaxation of discipHne in the Christian Church. Tliey thus place it in antagonism to the instruction contained in other portions of the New Testament ; for example, tlie Epistles to the Seven Churches of Asia, and the First Epistle to the Corinthians, in which the strictest charges are given to maintain a watchful discipline, and the severest rebulces and threatenings are uttered on account of its neglect. The proper application of that part of the parable has respect only to such admixtures as spring up unperceived — those which the most vigilant oversight cannot prevent, or which, when they appear, are not so flagrantly offensive to Christian sense and purity, that they may at once be proceeded against as utterly ojoposed to the character of a Christian Church. It is only of such things that the representation can justly be understood, as of them only could it be said, that the judicial treatment of them by human instrumentality might involve the exclusion also of some of the true children from the state and privileges of grace. Comparing this parable with that of the sower, Avhat is said in the one of the tares, nearly coiTesponds to what is said in the other of the third class of hearers — those in whom the cares of this life, and the deceitfulness of riches, spring up and choke the word. Both alike seem to include such as might be within the pale of the Christian Church, though becoming by degrees alien to it in spirit and character, yet still preserving so much of the form of godliness, that no merely human eye has sufficient discernment to draw the line of demarcation between them and others, nor could any human hand administer the proper discipline, without AND THEIR INTERPRETATION. ](i^ sometimes, ut least, confounding together the children of God and the children of Satan. A misuse, similar to those already noticed, has also frequently been made of the representation given in the parable of the prodigal son, of the reception which that son met with on his return to the father. No mention is there made of anything being necessary to secure the father's reconciliation, or provide for the son access to the bosom of his love, excepting the son's own penitent frame of mind, and actual return ; and hence, it is argued, in the higher sphere of things represented by these, there can also be no need for more — an atonement in the ordinaiy sense cannot be required. But here the cases are not parallel — the representation, by this use of it, is stretched beyond the proper line ; since it is not as Si father, but as a righteous governor^, that God requires an atonement for the guilty ; and to press a feature of this kind in an exclusive sense, is simply to place it in antagonism to other parts of Scripture. This parable, like all the others, was intended to represent Divine things under the image of the human, only in so far as the one could present a parallel to the other. In the case of the earthly parent and child, there was no room for the introduction of an atonement as the basis of reconciliation ; the whole that could, with any propriety, be exhibited, was the play of feeling from the one side to the other, with the results to which it led — every- thing of a more fundamental kind, or connected with other aspects and relations of the subject, being left, for the present, out of view. Reference may still further be made in this connection to the treatment often given to the parables in a prophetical respect. Undoubtedly, they do generally contain a prophetical element, referring as well to the future progress and results of Messiah's kingdom, as to its existing character and condition. But they commonly do so under some particular aspect, one parabolical representation being chosen to give prominence to one feature, that was going to be developed, and another to another. Care, therefore, should be taken to keep in view the partial nature of each representation ; otherwise particular traits will have undue significance attached to them, and the instruction conveyed by one parable will be brought into conflict with that of another. 16G THE SUBJECT OF PARALLELISM. Thus, the parable of the tares and wheat presents the future aspect of the kingdom as to the intermincrhng of the evil with the good — presents this as a state of things that should, more or less, continue to the end of time ; — while the parable of the leaven hid in meal represents the Divine element in the kingdom work- ing on till the whole was pervaded by it. They are two different aspects, but perfectly consistent, if the parts in which they differ are not unduly pressed; but if otherwise, then the apparent con- tinuance of evil in the one case, and its gradual extinction in the other, must become, not the complements, but the antitheses of each other. The Divine leaven cannot spread onwards till all is leavened, without, at the same time, causing the tares of error and corruption to disappear. But that there shall still, till the time of the end, be a certain admixture of the evil with the good, can readily be supposed ; Avliile, on the whole, the good continues to grow and spread, and becomes ultimately triumphant. These hints, perhaps, may suffice. It is impossible, on such a subject, to lay down precise and definite rules ; and the exact line in each case can only be ascertained by careful consideration, a well-exercised judgment, and a spiritual sense, derived from a living acquaintance with the truths of the Gospel, and close attention to the manner in which they are revealed in Scripture. SECTION TENTH. ON THE SUBJECT OF PARALLELISM AS BEARING ON THE STRUC- TURE AND INTERPRETATION OF NEW TESTAMENT SCRIPTURE. It seems to be the invariable tendency of the human mind — the consequence of its partial and imperfect w'orking — that when it gets hold of a right principle, it cannot rest till this has been piished in some direction to excess ; and the subject of Scripture parallelism forms no exception to the rule. It was to the fine dis- cernment and poetical taste of Bishop Lowth that we owe the first correct appreciation of the distinctive characteristics of Hebrew poetry, and the establishment of what he deuommated pa7'allelisni, i IX NEW TESTAMENT SCRIPJ'URK. 107 as the peculiar feature of its rhythmical structure. He showed, first in his Prelections on Hebrew Poetry, and afterwards in lais Preliminary Dissertation to his work on Isaiah, that Avhile the poetry of the Hebrews did not admit of rhyme, nor of the regular metrical measures we meet with in the classical poets in Greece and Rome, yet it possessed a clearly marked rhythmical struc- ture, consisting in a certain correspondence of the lines — not, however, in respect to the sound, but in respect to the sense; " a certain equality (as he defined it), resemblance, or relation- ship between the members of each period, so that in one or more lines or members of the same period things shall answer to things, and words to words, as if fitted to each other by a kind of rule or measure" (Prelec. xix.). Lowth gave to this rhythmical structure, as we have said, the name of Parallelism, or the paral- lism of members — a name which is sufficiently indicative of the reality, and is not likely, in this country at least, to be displaced by the "verse-rhythm," or "thought-rhythm" of Ewald. It is, however, in the thought or the sense that the rhythm properly lies. It is not simply, as Ewald justly states, a harmony of the mem- bers of the verse, but along with this, and as the foundation of this, " the rhythmical outpouring of the subject and life of the thoughts which fill the verse ; and the beauty of the verse, as a whole, rises in proportion to the equilibrium and symmetry with which the sense is poured forth." We are not called here to enter into any fonnal investigation of the subject of parallelism, as connected with the poetical por- tions of Old Testament Scripture. But it may be proper to state, that under the general principle of parallelism Bishop Lowth comprehended the different forms, which he called se- verally synonymous, antithetic, and synthetic or constructive parallels. The synonymous parallel lines are those which con'e- spond one to another, by expressing the same sense in different but equivalent terms — when a proposition is delivered, and is im- mediately repeated in whole or in part, the expression being varied, but the sense entirely or nearly the same. As when it is said — " O- Jehovah, in-Thy-strength the-king shall-rejoice, And-in-Thy-salvation how greatly shall-he-exult ! The-des,ire of-his-heart Thou-hast-granted unto-him, And-the-request of-his-lips Thou-hast-not-denied." 168 THE SUBJKCT OF PARALLELISM The correspondence here is confined to two lines, the second of the two having a formal resemblance both in thought and in membership to the first. But the correspondence may also ex- tend to three, to four, or even to five lines. — The antithetic parallels are those " in which two lines correspond wath one another by an opposition of terms and sentiments ; in which the second is contrasted with the first, sometimes in expressions, some- times in sense only." One of the simplest examples is Prov. x. 7, " The memory of the just is blessed, But the name of the wicked shall rot." Or this, Prov. xx\4i. 6, " Faithful are the wounds of a fi'iend, But deceitful are the kisses of an enemy." The antithesis expressed may differ both in kind and degree ; and is found, indeed, to exist in very considerable variety, both in the Proverbs, wdiere this species of parallelism particularly abounds, and in other parts of Scripture. — The synthetic or con- structive parallel lines are those, " in which the parallelism con- sists only in the similar form of construction ; in which word does not answer to word, and sentence to sentence, as equivalent or opposite ; but there is a correspondence and equality between the different propositions in respect of the shape or turn of the whole sentence, and of the constructive parts : such as noun answering to noun, verb to verb, number to number, negative to negative, interrogative to interrogative." — From its very nature, this species of parallelism is of a somewhat looser, and more discursive sort than the others ; but, as one of the best, and most familiar ex- amples of it, we may point to Ps. xix., " The law of the Lord is perfect — converting the soul ; The testimony of the Lord is sure — making wise the simple," etc. Now, looking to this parallelism, as first explained by Bishop Lowth, and applied by him to the more sti-ictly poetical portions of Scripture, one can easily see the propriety and fitness of having the rhythmical structure of those portions confined to such a char- acteristic. It is the simplest of all rhythmical forms, and the freest, and, as such, peculiarly adapted to inspired strains, in which, whatever scope may be allowed to the fancy, the form must still be subordinated to the sense. The artificial and com- plicated measures of classical poetry would have been unsuited to such a purpose ; for it would have been difficult, next to im- possible, for us to regard ^vhat was written, if thrown into such IN NEW TESTAMENT SCRIPTURE. 1G9 forms, as the unconstrained and fresh utterances of men, who spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. It is the chaste and natural simplicity of parallelism which peculiarly adapts it for sacred purposes, and renders the discourse so true, hearty, and confidential,^ For, when the heart pours itself forth, there naturally flows stream upon stream — which is parallelism ; or it tui'ns over the image, and shows the reverse side, in order to im- press the matter more deeply upon the heart — and this again is parallelism. Only a measure which possessed such freedom and simplicity could have been worthy of being employed as the poetry of revelation. And this alone, too, properly consisted with the design of the Bible, as destined for the use of men, in every nation and of every language. It is the excellence of the simple rhythmical structure of Hebrew poetry, that it is " trans- fusible (to use the words of Bishop Jebb) into all languages — an excellence, not only unattainable in classical poetry, but prevented by classical metre. Classical poetry is the poetry of one language, and of one people. The words are, I shall not say chosen (though this be sometimes the case), but arranged, with a view, not prim- arily to the sense, but to the sound. In literal translation, there- fore, especially if the order of the original words be preserved, not only the melody is lost, but the sense is irreparably injured. Hebrew poetry, on the contrary, is universal poetry, the poetry of all languages and of all peoples : the collocation of the words is primarily directed to secure the best possible announcement and discrimination of the sense ; and so, if a translator be only literal — if he only preserve, so far as the genius of his language will admit, the original order of the words, he will infalhbly pvat the reader in possession of all, or nearly all, that the Hebrew text can give to the best Hebrew scholar of the present day."^ Bishop Lowth has himself — in the Introduction to his work on Isaiah — given examples of this : he has shown how, by adhering closely to the order of the original, not only may the parallelism be preserved, but a more lively and spirited exhibition also of the sense be given, than is done by neglecting it. And he has further shown, that by means of the parallelism the interpretation is sometimes aided, in those cases especially, in which rare words are employed, or words of doubtful import ; the plainer meaning ot" ' Herder, liebr. Poesie, i. 21. - Sacred Literature, p 20. 170 THE SUBJECT OF PAEALLELISM one member throwing light upon the corresponding one. At the same time, the help to be derived from this source is of a some- what ambiguous character, and is very apt to lead astray. In the hands of Lowth himself, and of some of his followers, it led to not a few arbitrary interpretations, and unwarranted tamper- ings with the sacred text ; as a change in the received import of a word, or in the existing text, when it seemed favoured by the parallelism, presented itself as an easy mode of getting over a difficulty, while, perhaps, it only led to a departure from the true meaning of the original. As a help to interpretation, therefore, the parallelism of Hebrew poetry always requires to be used with much caution. It does so more especially on this account, that there is both a considerable diversity, and a great freedom mani- fested in the use of the parallel arrangement. So that what is called the synonymous parallel is not always, and indeed very rarely, altogether synonymous ; with a general similarity, it usu- ally exhibits some distinct shade of meaning ; and, again, when there is something of antithesis, the sentiment expressed is often but partially antithetic. Bishop Lowth was not insensible of such freedoms and shades of diversity ; for, when speaking of the second member of synony- mous parallels, he represents it as containing either entirely, or nearly, the same sense as the first. And in his 4th Prelection, when treating generally of the subject of parallelism, he says not merely that they repeat, but also that they vaiy and strengthen the sense (idem iterant, variant, augent). Practically, liowever, this was too much overlooked both by him, and by his followers ; and the custom sprung up and grew, among lexicographers and commentators, of ascribing many unwarranted meanings to words, on the simple ground, that the sense as determined by the parallelism seemed to require them. On this practice, which extended to the Greek Scriptures also, Bishop Jebb very properly cautioned biblical students : he said, " The assumed synonyme of periods, members, or lines, has, in many instances, occasioned the consequent assumption, that in the Alexandiine translators of the Old Testament words are synonymous, which in all other writers have totally diverse meanings ; and the same principle has been applied to several words and passages in the New Testament." lie adds, " Let the cited passages be care- IN NEW TESTAMENT SCRIPTURE. 171 fully examined, and I venture to affirm, that instead of" a synonyme, there will almost universally be found an important variation of meaning, between the related members ; commonly a progress in the sense ; but always such a variation as will quite supersede the necessity of resorting to an unusual, much less an unprecedented, acceptation of the terms employed" (p. 51). Jebb, however, fell into something like an opposite extreme ; and, instead of being satisfied with showing a general variation in the meaning of one parallel line as compared with another, he sought to establish a uniform and regular progression of thought in the sentences. Hence, the parallels of the first class, instead of being called synonymous, have come to be usually designated gradational — though Jebb himself preferred the term cognate. We call this an extreme in the opposite direction ; for though there can be no doubt, that in a very large proportion of the parallelisms of Scripture, there is a gradational advance, an in- tensifying of the sense in the second parallelistic line as compared with that given in the first, yet in a considerable number of cases there is a substantial agreement, or a diversity without anything that can fitly be called a progression of thought. And the attempt to make out a uniform gradational sense in the parallelism has led, not unfrequently, to forced interpretations. Take, for example, one of Jebb's illustrative passages : — " Who shall ascend the mountain of Jehovah ? And who shall stand within His holy Place ? The clean of hands, and the pure in heart." — Ps. xxiv. 3, 4. " To ascend," says Jebb, " marks progress ; to stand, stabihty and confirmation ; the mountain of Jehovah, the site of the Di- vine sanctuary; His holy place, the sanctuary itself ; and in cor- respondence with the advance of the two lines which form the first couplet, there is an advance in the members of the third line : the clean of hands, and the pure in heart : — the clean of hands shall ascend the mountain of Jehovah, the pure in heart shall stand within His holy place" (p. 40). Augustine, as Jebb acknowledges, had in substance made the same distinction ; but whenever, or by whomsoever made, I hold it to be quite fanci- ful— at least in the form in which it has now been presented. 172 THE SUBJECT OF PARALLELISM The Psalmist is plainly describing, in this part of the Psalm, the sincere worshipper of God, and doing so in respect to his going to appear before God at the appointed place of worship under the Old economy. But nothing seems farther from his mind, than the thought of delineating different degrees of purity, and of privilege connected with it — one to occupy a certain ])osition of nearness, and another to occupy a higher and a holier. To ascend God's mountain, in the sense here contemplated, was all one, in substance, with standing in His holy place ; for, it was for the purpose and with the view of standing in such a place, that the worshipper comes into consideration as ascending the mountain ; — and the law of Moses recognised no distinction of the kind here indicated — between cleanness of hands fitting for one act of worship, or one stage of approach, and purity of heart fitting for another. Cleanness of hands has no other significance than as a symbol of moral purity ; if it differs at all from the other expression — purity of heart — it can only be in pointing more to the life as embodying the purity, which has its seat in the heart ; — but the two expressions at most denote, not different degrees of goodness, but different aspects of the same goodness. Besides, in a continuous description of this sort, how can you stop simply at the second term of the description ? If there is a progression in the two first, why should it not extend also to what follows '? It is added, " Who hath not lifted up his soul to vanity, nor sworn deceitfully." Do these denote a gradation of excellence beyond purity of heart ? Or is the one clause here also to be connected with ascending the mountain, and the other with standing in the holy place 1 Neither of these assertions can with any propriety be made. And on this ground also we hold, that the distinction is an entirely fanciful one ; and that the de- scription ought to be viewed in its entireness, as the description, under a variety of aspects, of one who might appear with accep- tance among God's sincere worshippers. The several epithets are not absolutely synonymous, but neither are they gradational ; they are merely diverse representations of the righteous man's state and character. It is, therefore, my conviction, that the principle of parallelism has been carried to excess by Dr Jebb and his followers, in the way of disco\x'ring correspondences or relations of a somewhat IN NKW TESTAMENT SCRIPTURE. 173 more complicated and artificial kind, than really exist. But the chief excess has been in connection with what is called the intro- verted parallelism — a fourth form introduced by Jebb — and its application to portions of the New Testament writings. On this sort of parallel, Jebb says, " There are stanzas so constructed, that whatever be the number of lines, the first line shall be par- allel with the last ; the second Avith the penultimate ; and so throughout, in an order that looks inward, or, to borrow a mili- tary phrase, from flanks to centre." One of the longest examples given of this by Jebb is also, perhaps, the best for his purpose that could have been selected : it is in Psalm cxxxv. 15—18, and consists of eight lines, of which the first and eighth are held to be parallel — then the second and seventh — the third and sixth — and finally, the two beside each other, the fourth and fifth, in the centre. The passage is the following : — " The idols of the heathen are silver and gold, " Tliej' have ears, but they hear not ; The work of men's hands : Neither is there any breath in their mouths. Thej' have mouths, but they speak not ; They who make them are like imto them ; They have eyes, but they see not; So are all they who put their tnist in them." " In the first line," says Dr Jebb, " we have the idolatrous heathen ; in the eighth, those who put their trust in idols ; in the second line the fabrication, in the seventh the fabricators ; in the third line mouths without articulation, in the sinth months with- out breath ; in the fourth line eyes without vision, and in the fifth ears without the sense of hearing." No doubt, a sort of correspondence throughout, but, at the same time, no organic connection, or peculiar relationship between the lines thus artifi- cially brought together — nothing that materially contributes to help the meaning. Thus, in the first and last, " the idols of the heathen are silver and gold — so are all they who put their trust in them." What is gained, we ask, by bringing these far-dis- tant lines into juxtaposition ? So far from the sense thereby gaining in force and clearness, it is not even preserved ; and though, it is true, idolatrous persons are the subjects in both of them, yet this is no more than what may be said of the seventh line — " they who make them are like to them," — and one might as well join together the first and seventh as the first and eighth. Indeed, rather do so, as this collocation would make sense, while the other does not. The parallelism, therefore, viewed in respect to the sense, which is the main point, fails in the manner it is 174 THE SUBJECT OF PARALLELISM here attempted to be carried out ; and we gain nothing by throw- ing ourselves back fi'om the later to the earlier line, with which it is supposed to have some special affinity. On the contrary, we are in danger of losing the real progression of thought, which appears in tlie passage, when viewed consecutively, for a some- what fanciful arrangement of its several parts. So also in multitudes of passages, that might be produced from human com- positions, it might be perfectly possible to throw the successive lines of thought into similar combinations, although these were quite remote fi^om the mind of their respective authors ; but by doing so we should gain nothing, we should rather lose by mak- ing the attempt. It may be well to give proof of this by pointing to some ex- amples ; but let me first present some idea of the extent to which the parallelistic principle has been carried. A great portion of Bishop Jebb's work on Sacred Literature was devoted to the purpose of applying that principle, and more especially this latter form of it, to New Testament Scripture. Of course, there are parallelisms there. The language of the New Testament, as well as its doctrines, spring out of the Old ; and where the poe- tical element enters, it naturally assumes much of the ancient form ; the parallelistic structure is more or less preserved. It is not, therefore, the fact of tlie existence of parallelisms in New Testament Scripture, but the limits within wliich they should be confined, or the form they may be made to assume, that can be regarded as just matter of controversy. It is not the presence, but the excess of the principle, as exhibited by the class of writers referred to, to which we object. But this principle, first of all, is often sought for in cases where there is nothing peculiar — where there is merely such a structure of the sentences as the mind naturally adopts when tersely expressing its thoughts, with- out thinking of any regular measures or parallel lines. Thus, in Luke xii. 48, " Unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall much be required ; and to whom they have committed much, of him shall they demand the more;" — or Gal. vi. 8, " He who soweth to the flesh, shall of the flesh reap corruption ; and he who soweth to the Spirit, shall of the Spirit reap life eternal." In Matt. viii. 20, we have an example of what is called the triplet, there being three lines in parallelism, — " The foxes have IN NEW TESTAMENT SCRIPTURE, 175 dens, And the birds of the air have nests, But the Son of Man hath not where to lay His head;" and again, in Rev. xiv. 18, " Put forth thy sharp sickle, And gather in the clusters of the vine of the earth. For its grapes have become fully ripe." Then, there is the quatrain, consisting of two parallel couplets, the pairs of which are termed sometimes directly, sometimes inversely parallel — of which the passages just cited from Luke and Gala- tians may be taken as specimens ; — or this in John xv. 10, " If ye keep My commandments, Ye shall abide in my love. Even as I have kept My Father's commandments, And abide in His love :" — And even this in Mark xii. 12, " And they sought to seize Him, And they feared the people ; For they knew that against them he spake the parable ; And having left Him, they departed." But examples of longer stanzas, having five, six, and even more lines, are produced — such as John xi. 9, 10, " Are there not twelve hours in the day ? If a man walk in the day he stumbleth not ; Because he seeth the light of this world : But if a man walk in the night he stumbleth ; Because the light is not in him" {jive) ; — also Matt. xxiv. 7, 8 ; 1 Thess. v. 7, 8 ; Rom. ii. 28, 29. For those of six, see Matt. xvi. 2, 3 (" When it is evening, ye say, ' a calm !' For the sky is red : And in the morning, 'to-day a tempest;' For the sky is red and lowering: Hypocrites ! the face of the sky ye know how to discern. But ye cannot [discern] the signs of the times"). Also Luke xii. 4, 5, 47, 48 ; 1 Cor. xv. 47-49 ; and many parts of the Sermon on the Mount. Now, that there is nothing of the proper parallel arrangement in such passages as these, is evident from the difficulty often of knowing where precisely the division of the lines should be made, or which part is to be held as corresponding wnth another. One has to cast about for a time, to see how the sentences can be brought into shape ; and were it not for the stanza-form, into which they are thrown by the advocates of parallelism, verv few persons would ever have imagined, that they really admitted of such an arrangement. They belong to that species of composi- tion, which consists of apophthegm, or short sententious utterances, usually embodying some sort of comparison or contrast ; and in which the mind naturally — in modern as well as ancient times, in its ordinary as well as in its loftier moods — throws its words 176 TttE SUBJECT OF PARALLELISM into set forms and relative proportions — but without ever think- ing of anything like remote and complicated parallels. Open, for example, Lord Bacon's Collection of Apophthegms, and take one of the very first that occurs. As presented by him, it forms two short sentences; but in the hands of the Parallelists it would make a choice specimen of the introverted quatrain — thus : Good fame is like fire : When you have kindled it, you may easily preserve it ; But if once you have extinguished it, you will not easily kindle it again, At least not make it burn as bright as it did. Here, it might be stated, the first and the last lines correspond ; they both speak of fire in its capacity of burning, or shining brightly. Then, the two intermediate clauses refer to tvvo dif- ferent conditions, with their respective effects — the fire, when once kindled, easily preserved ; when extinguished after having been kindled, not easily lit up anew. But what is gained by this sort of introversion ? Does it throw additional light on the thoughts expressed, or present them in a more striking aspect ? Not in the least; it only suggests an artificial arrangement, where none whatever was intended, and the mind of the writer was merely following the natural course of its thoughts and feelings. — We might say substantially the same of another example in Bacon : " In great place, ask counsel of both times — Of the ancient time, what is best; and of the latter time, what is fittest :" — quite natural and orderly as it stands, but incapable of being improved by being drawn out into parallels. Or, look at this longer specimen from the same quarter : — " The empirical philosophers are like pismires, They only lay up and use their store ; The rationalists are like the spiders, They spin all out of their own bowels. But give me a philosopher who is like the bee, Who hath a middle faculty, Gathering from abroad. But digesting that which is gathered, By his own virtue." Thrown into so many lines, this passage, doubtless, presents a great variety of parallels — parallels, too, much more distinctly marked, and more easily detected, than many of those found in New Testament Scripture. But what advantage is gained by IN NEW TESTAMENT SClllPTURE. 177 presenting the passage in such a form ? Was this form present to the mind of the writer ? Or, when exhibited, does it serve to bring out tlie thoughts in a more lucid and impressive manner? The writer himself has simply put them down as so many con- secutive sentences — each growing naturally out of what pre- ceded; and, so far from making any improvement upon the manner of exhibiting the truths stated, the introduction of parallelisms would tend rather to lead our minds in the wrong- direction — make us conceive of him as busying himself about artificial forms of expression, while in reality he was intent only upon giving distinct utterance, or logical sequence, to the ideas which had formed themselves in his mind. Thejuropgr parallel- ism— that which by way of distinction should be so called — is a particular form of that measured diction, which the mind in an elevated state of feeling instinctively adopts, as necessary to give adequate expression to the fiery glow, or swelling fulness of sentiment, of which it is conscious : it cannot be satisfied with itself, till it has thrown its conceptions and feelings into such a compressed and regulated form. But in the examples that have been adduced both fi'om Bacon and the New Testament, it is the reflective or looical faculties that are at work. The mind is in its ordinary mood, and merely seeks in a pointed and consecu- tive manner to present its thoughts on some particular topic. So that introverted parallelisms, or comphcated structures of any kind, are out of place ; nor can they serve any purpose but that of suggesting the idea of constraint or art, where in reality nothing of the kind existed. Not only, however, does this extreme fondness for parallelisms, and the attempt to discover them in the simply didactic or historical portions of New Testament Scripture, tend to give too artistic and constrained an appearance to such portions, but it leads occasionally to fancifid conceits, and false interpretations. The most part, as we have said, of the Sermon on the Mount has been turned into examples of parallelisms — some of them of the most involved and intricate description, but never with the effect of throwing any fresh light upon its different parts — sometimes, however, with the effect of arbitrarily changing the connection, and obscuring the natural import. In proof of this we may take one of Jebb's examples, which is re-produced by Dr Forbes, in M 178 THE SUBJECT OF PARALLELISM liis work on Scripture Parallelism — viz., Matt. vii. 6 : " Give not that which is holy to the dogs, Neither cast your pearls before swine ; Lest they trample them under their feet, And turn about and rend you." This is considered as a specimen of the intro- verted parallelism ; so that the first and the fourth go together, then the second and the third. It is, therefore, according to Dr Jebb, to be read thus : " Give not that which is holy to the dogs. Lest they turn about and rend you ; Neither cast your pearls before swine. Lest they trample them under their feet." And this interpretation is justified on the ground, that our Lord wished to place the more dangerous act of imprudence first and last, so as to make it, and its fatal result, produce the deepest impression on the mind ; — while the other, and less senseless form, that represented by the image of casting pearls before swine, is placed in the middle. But, in that case, by the ordi- nary laws of construction, something would have been required to carry back our thoughts fi-om the last to the first member : and Dr Jebb, sensible of this, shoves in a tliose before the verbs in the last line — " Lest those turn about and rend you." And, indeed, to make the matter quite right, the they in the preceding clause should have been these : it should have stood thus : " Give not that which is holy to the dogs. Neither cast your pearls be- fore swine : Lest these (the swine) trample them under their feet, And those (the dogs) turn about and rend you." In this way, no doubt, the references become tolerably plain ; but it is a plain- ness, for which we are indebted to the invention or arbitrariness of an interpreter who has a theory to support, and adjusts the words to the theory, rather than the theory to the words. Plain- ness of this kind is too easily found to be of much value, and in the present case it is not needed. For, while both dogs and swine might be included in the latter part of our Lord's state- ment, it is the swine more especially, not the dogs, that must be meant. The one, as well as the other, might turn about and rend those, who threw something in their way ; — but from the very nature of the case, it is the swine we are here naturally led to think of as acting such a part : — both, because they are the more voracious and savage in disposition, and because the thing cast to them, pearls, being fitted to mock, rather than to satiate their appetite, it was quite natural for them to turn about and IN NEW TESTAMENT SCRIPTURE. 179 rend the person, who had thus provoked, without satisfying their greed. The dogs, on the other hand, had no temptation to act so ferocious a part ; for in having what was hofy given to them, they doubtless had what they wished — they got flesh to eat ; only, being lioly flesh, they were incapable of appreciating its distinctive character, and treated it as a common thing. Under- stood spiritually, the dogs represent those, who are in such a grovelling and debased condition, that they have no aptitude for the things of God — no relish or capacity for spiritual exercises and enjoyments ; so that to admit them to sacred privileges, or to spread before them the joys of the Divine life, were only to give them an opportunity of treating as coravtxow, profaning, what should be handled with holy reverence and spiritual relish. The characters represented by the swine, however, are such as have reached a more advanced stage in the course of depravity — not grovelling, merely, and sensual, but also devilish — ready to re- sent as evil what has been meant for good, but does not suit their unhallowed appetite ; hence disposed, not only to treat with despite or scorn the pearls of Gospel truth and promise, but also to vilify, abuse, or persecute those, who would press these on their regard. It is such, therefore — the characters represented by the swine — the sour, ungenial, repulsive, or fui'ious, as well as worldly spirits, who are chiefly referred to, and warned against as, likely to turn again, and rend those who might offer the precious things of the Gospel to them. — Thus, it appears, that the natural order and connection is also the best ; and the search after a more artificial arrangement only leads to a mistaken ap- plication of the images employed. The same line of remark in substance might be extended to many other passages in New Testament Scripture, to which the principle of parallelism has been applied. And the objections already urged are a fortiori valid in regard to a still farther ex- tension of the principle, which has occasionally been made — in particular by Mr Boys, in what he designates a Key to the Book of Psalms, and more recently adopted bj Dr Forbes. By this more extended application of the principle, whole chapters, and passages long enough to form a chapter, are treated as speci- mens of the introverted parallelism. The entire Epistle of Philemon is held to be constructed on this principle — the two 180 THE SUBJECT OF PARALLELISM. verses at the centre (ver. 15, 16) having something in common, viz. one and the same subject, Onesimus ; and then the respective verses on each side, as they recede from this centre, possessing what is thought to render them parallel one to another. The merest glance over the arrangement is sufficient to convince any unbiassed mind, that it is altogether fanciful ; since what are called parallel verses have often so little in common, that no one, who was not in search of resemblances, would ever have thought of them. But even if there had been more to countenance the idea in appear- ance, we should still have rejected it. The very conception of such complicated and artificial structures has something palpably and painfully unnatural about it, and is utterly opposed to the simplicity, which we cannot but associate with the epistolary and didactic parts of Scripture. It is as if one should compress the free and spontaneous movements of Spirit-stirred minds within bones of steel, and make art, rather than nature, the ground-form of the utterances of God's Spirit. Such applications of parallelism, therefore, must be ranked as a vicious excess — unsound in prin- ciple, and sure, in practice, to lead to frivolous conceits. Paral- lelism, as already remarked, properly belongs to the poetical province, being the simplest of the measured and regular forms, into which a poetical elevation throws the conceptions and feel- ings, which it strives to give forth. If judiciously applied to those portions of Scriptiu'e which partake of this elevation, the beauty of the composition, and the fulness and force of the thoughts expressed in it, will be more distinctly perceived, and may be more impressively set forth. But when brought into the province of history, of epistolary writing or familiar discourse, if admitted to a place at all, it must be within very narrow bounds, and in connection only with the simpler modes of construction. THE TWO GENEALOGIES OF CHRIST. 181 PAET SECOND. DISSERTATIONS ON PARTICULAR SUBJECTS CONNECTED WITH THE EXEGESIS OF NEW TESTAMENT SCRIPTURE. I. THE TWO GENEALOGIES OF CHRIST, GIVEN RESPECTIVELY BY THE EVANGELISTS MATTHEW AND LUKE. There are several marked and charactenstic differences between the two genealogical tables presented by the Evangelists of the human ancestry of our Lord — differences that from a very early period have occasioned embarrassment to intei'preters, and have often been pronounced inexplicable discrepancies. Nor is it only in the things in which they differ that they have given rise to trouble and dispute ; but a still more perplexing circumstance, if possible, has been found, in a matter on which they are, at least, apparently agreed ; namely, that it is with Joseph, not with Mary, that the genealogical descent of Jesus is formally connected. What renders this the more remarkable is, that the two Evan- gelists, who thus agree in dropping the name of Mary from any ostensible or direct connection with the descent from David and Abraham, are precisely those, who expressly record the mira- culous conception of Jesus, and so provide an explicit testimony to the fact, that He was strictly the Son only of Mary, and not of Joseph. There can be no doubt that this is, in some respects, the greater difficulty adhering to these tables, since it touches the point of our Lord's title to the name and office of Messiah. It is, therefore, the point to which our attention shall be primarily di- rected, yet so as not to neglect the others, which are also of con- siderable interest and importance. 182 THE TWO GENEALOGIES OF CHRIST, I. Here we observe at the outset, that there are certain pre- hminary considerations, which ought, in all fairness, to be borne in mind, and which, apart from all minutitc belonging to the construction of the genealogies, go far to determine the chief historical question. It is certain, for example, that up till the period of our Lord's birth, and even after His death, genealogical registers were kept in Judea, both publicly and privately ; so that ample materials must have existed for investigatmg all that concerned the lineage of Jesus. This fact, like most others in Gospel history, has been questioned, chiefly on the ground of a statement of Julius Africanus, who wrote, in the earlier part of the third century, a chronicon, of which a fragment on this sub- ject has been preserved by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. i. 7). Africanus there reports, that Herod, conscious of the infelicity of his birth, and anxious to prevent the possibility of detecting it, burned the public family registers, " imagining that he should then appear noble, when no one could derive from the public monuments the evidence of a descent from the patriarchs, or the proselytes, and the mixed multitude that was called georceT On what grounds this statement was made, nothing is known ; nor does it appear, that Africanus himself had any great confidence in its historical correctness ; for he introduces the narrative as delivered by the descendants of those who were the kinsmen of Jesus, " either for the purpose of display [in respect to their own pedigree], or for simply declaring the truth ;" and at the close introduces the qualifyino- clause, "Whether the matter actually stood thus or not" U'lT olv o'J7-w5, s/V aXXw? 'iyj'}- The story must be held to be, if not entirely fabulous, at least a great exaggeration of some law- less proceedings on the part of Herod or his abettors. Josephus is altogether silent respecting any such destructive measures, which, if they had actually occurred to the extent described, could scarcely have been practicable : more than that, he ex- ])ressly testifies, that he took the materials of the abstract he gave of* his own family descent from those same public registers {hs7.Toig dnfJ'Oeloig dmyiypa/Mfisyriv ivpov, Vit. i. 1), and at a period considerably later than that of the birth of Christ, The refer- ence, too, of the Apostle Paul once and again to genealogies, as matters with which certain Jewish teachers were wont need- Icsslv to entangle themselves and others (1 Tim. i. 4 ; Titus iii. THE TWO GENEALOGIES OF CHRIST, 183 14), is a sufficient proof of the plentiful existence of such docu- ments. And so also is the reference made to them in the Prot- evangelium of James, which, though a spurious production, is yet of very great antiquity. There can, therefore, be no reason- able doubt of the late existence of registers, or genealogical tables, public as well as private ; and the means must have been accessible to all, who had a mind to examine the point, for deter- mining whether Jesus was really of the house and lineage of David. Nor can we doubt, from the natm'e and intensity of the opposition made to Him, that, if the evidence on this point had not been known to be of the most conclusive kind, the defect would certainly have been discovered, and pressed to the preju- dice of His claims. If His title to a Davidic origin was not im- pugned, the reason could only be, that it was incapable of being gainsayed. It is further to be borne in mind, that both Christ's title to be regarded as the Son of David, and the evangelical testimony in favour of that title, by no means rests exclusively, or even prin- cipally, upon the preservation in the Gospels of the two Genealo- gies. There is much evidence besides upon the subject, and evidence of a more patent and obtrusive kind. In the annuncia- tion of His birth to the Virgin, it was declared, that the throne of His father David should be given to Him — implying, that simply as born of her. He stood connected with the throne and family of Da\ad. During the course of His public ministry. He allowed Himself to be openly addressed as the Son of David (Matt. ix. 27, XV. 22) — again implying both what He Himself claimed, and what was commonly believed respecting Him. On the day of Pentecost, St Peter proclaimed to the assembled thousands, that God had raised Him up of the fruit of David's loins, to sit upon his throne (Acts ii. 30) ; and in several passages St Paul represents Him as having been of the seed of David, according to the flesh (Rom. i. 3 ; 2 Tim. ii. 8 ; Acts xiii. 23). Finally, in the Apocatypse He is designated " the root and ofl"spring of David" (ch. xxii. 16). Most plain, therefore, it is, that neither om' Lord Himself, nor His immediate followers, made any secret of His strict and proper relationship to the house of David — itself a conclusive proof, that it had a solid ground to rest upon, and could challenge the fullest scrutiny. The very objections urged against Him may be cited 184 THE TWO GENEALOGIES OF CHRIST. as evidence ; for, while they occasionally grazed the border of this important point, they never actually struck upon it, and so yielded a virtual testimony in its support. It was perfectly un- derstood, that if He was the Son of David, and the heir to his throne. He behoved to be born at Bethlehem (Matt. ii. 5; John vii. 42) ; and on this account the objection teas raised against Jesus, that He was a Galilean, and came forth from Nazareth, whence nothing good in the spiritual sphere might be looked for (John i. 46, vii. 52) ; but it never took the form of an allegation laid, or even a suspicion uttered, against His connection by birth with the house of David. This is the more remarkable, as His residence fi'om childhood in Galilee gave His adversaries a prima facie ground to question it ; doubts could scarcely fail to be stirred in many minds on the subject ; and that these doubts did not find any audible utterance or assume a tangible form, can only be accounted for by the conclusive evidence ^which existed of His royal parentage. Still further, the report of Hegesippus concerning the relatives of Jesus in a subsequent generation, furnishes a collateral proof, as it clearly indicates the general and settled belief of the time. He states, as quoted by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. iii. 20), that the gi'andchildren of Judas, the brother of Jesus, were accused to the Emperor Domitian, and brought before him for examination, because of their rej^uted connection with the royal line of David; but that when Domitian ascertained their humble circumstances, and the spiritual nature of the kingdom they ascribed to Jesus Christ, he despised them and sent them away. It thus appears, that amid all tlie circumstances that had become known concern- ing Christ down to the close of the first century — the claims put forth on the part of His followers, and the objections or surmises raised on the part of His adversaries — the belief of His personal relationship to the house of David remained unshaken. The fact, therefore, of our Lord's real descent from Da-vid must be held as certain, whatever difficulties concerning it may hang around the two genealogical tables. The subject of inquiry in respect to them narrows itself to the point, how they can be made to appear consistent with the truth of things, and not in antagonism with each other. There are certain palpable differ- ences between them, wliich arc fitted to suggest the idea of their THE TAVO GENEALOGIES OF CHRIST. 185 having been drawn up on somewhat different principles ; and the tliought very naturally suggests itself, that if these could only be ascertained, a satisfactory explanation would be found of the diversities subsisting between them. II. Is this diversity of principle in the construction of the two genealogies to be sought — as regards the main point at issue — in the one evangelist presenting the genealogy of Jesus through Joseph the reputed and legal father, and the other through Mary the only real parent, according to the flesh? If this were a practicable mode — exegetically considered — of understanding what is written, it would, no doubt, present a comparatively natural and easy solution of the greater differences. But so far is it from appearing on the face of the language, that it seems never so much as to have occurred to the earlier writers, who had their minds specially directed to the subject. With one consent they referred both genealogies to Joseph, and appear to have been little troubled by the absence of any specific mention of the lineage of INlary. Afi'icanus, who made the subject a matter of very careful investigation, makes no allusion to this point, as tending to create in his mind any embarrassment. Jerome, indeed, refers to it ; but thinks it enough to say, that Joseph's relation to the tribe of Judah and the house of David determined also Mary's, since by the law people were obliged to many from among their own tribe :^ — although he could scarcely be ignorant, that however customary this might be, there is no express enactment upon the subject ; and, indeed, in the case of the daughters of Zelophehad, the legislation actually made pro- ceeded upon the usual liberty of the females to marry into any tribe, and prescribed a limit in their case, and cases of a similar kind, only for the sake of perpetuating the inheritance. When there was nothing peculiar in this respect, it was perfectly allow- able, and not uncommon, for the husband to belong to one tribe • Quperat diligens lector et dicat : Quum Joseph non sit pater Domini Salvatoris, quid pertinet ad Doniinum generationis ordo deductus usque ad Joseph? Cui respondebimus primuni, non esse consuetudinem Scripturarum, ut mulierum in generationibus ordo lexatur. Deinde, ex una tribu fuisse Joseph et Mariam ; unde ex Lege earn accipere cogebatur ut propinquam. —In .Matt. i. IS. 186 THE TWO GENEALOGIES OF CHRIST. and the wife to another. In the Gospel age, also, when remnants of all the tribes were thrown together, such intermarriages would naturally be more fi'equent. Augustine, the contemporary of Jerome, goes, somewhat singularly, into the opposite extreme ; and while of opinion that !Mary must have had some connection (he does not state what) with the house of David, he is rather dis- posed to lay stress upon her relationship to Elizabeth, and her connection with the house of Aaron ; for, he says, " it must be held most firmly, that the flesh of Christ was propagated from both stems, that alike of the kings and of the priests, the personages in whom among the HebreAvs was figured that mystic unction (namely, chrism), whence the name of Christ beams forth, so long before also pre-intimated by that most evident sign.'" Chrysostom, in his second homily on St ^Matthew, reverts to Jerome's mode of explanation, and puts it in a still stronger form. He says, " not only was it not lawful to marry from another tribe, but not even from another family (oios d-h -rarpiac Iripas) ; that is," he adds, " kindred (avyyivelag).''^ This is the chief ex- planation he gives, although he also points to the words used by the angel Gabriel, of whom it is said, that he was sent to " a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David" — understanding the latter expression, " of the house of David," to refer, not to Joseph the immediate, but to Mary the remote, antecedent ; in which he is not followed by the better class of interpreters. He indicates no doubt, however, anymore than the other writers of early times, that both genealogies bore respect to the ancestry of Joseph. This general agreement, for so long a time, as to the fact of Joseph's hneage being exhibited in both tables — the absence of any idea, that either of them did, or by possibility might be understood, to trace the descent of Mary, undoubtedly aftbrds a strong presumption against the idea itself, as proceeding on a too subtle or somewhat forced interpretation of the text. It was only about the period of the Reformation that tlie opinion seems to ^ Firmissime tenendum est carnem Christi ex utroque genere propagatam, et regum scilicet et sacerdotum, in quibus personis apud ilium populum Hebrseorum etiam mystica unctio figurabatur, id est, chrisma, unde Christi nomen elucet, tanto ante etiam ilia evidentissima significatione prsenuntiatum. ■ — J)e Cotisnisu Evang. ii. 2. THE TWO GENEALOGIES OF CHRIST. 187 have been distinctly brought out and advocated, of Mary's genea- logy being given in Luke, and Joseph's in Matthew — the one for the satisfaction of the Jews, who, in matters of this description, made accoimt only of males ; and the other for the satisfaction of mankind in general, who might seek to know the lineage of Jesus, not through his reputed or legal father, but through his one real earthly parent. Calvin refers to it as a view which had its known advocates in his day, but rejects it as untenable ; and, though it has since numbered many learned names on its side — those, among others, of Osiander, Calov, Spanheim, Lightfoot, Rosen- miiller, Paulus, Kuinoel — yet it must be held to be without any just foundation in the text, and even to do violence to its plain import. The \dew is based on the words of the Evangelist Luke, when introducing the subject of the genealogy, "And Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age when beginning (viz. His ministry), being, as was supposed, the Son of Joseph, who was the son of Eli," etc. (wv, dig tvo/jji^iro, v'lhg 'lcAjSri(p, rou 'HX/'). But the words, taken in their natural and obAaous sense, connect Jesus with Joseph as his reputed father, and then this Joseph with Heli, as his father. The native import and bearing of the ws svo/Jt^sTo, was precisely given byEuthymius, m; ido-KsiroTg'ioudaloig- ug yap ij dX/jhia s/^sf, outi rjv u'log aurolj— in the common reckoning of the Jews He was Joseph's Son, but He was not so in reality. The latter idea, however, was only implied, not distinctly stated, in the Evangelist's expression. If the meaning had been : the Son, as was supposed, of Joseph, but in reality of Eli, that is Eli's grandson (through ^Mary the daughter of Eli), — the passage would have required to run (as justly stated by Meyer), w, ug ^b hoiMiZ^iro xj'ihg 'lu(SYi(p, ovrojg di Maplag, rov 'HX/, or something similar. It is possible enough, and may even be deemed probable, that the genealogies of Mary and Joseph coincided at a comparatively near point, but this can only be matter of probable conjecture, or, at most, natural inference ; for, as regards the genealogy itself of St Luke, we have no direct notice of Mary's pedigree, but only of Joseph's. To our view, this silence regarding Mary in the genealogical tables, and the stress that is laid in the Gospels upon Joseph's connection with the house of Da\ id, certainly seems strange. It appears to imply, that the Davidic descent of Joseph somehow 188 THE TWO GENEALOGIES OF CHRIST. carried that of Christ along with it ; for the genealogies are pro- duced as evidence of that very point. In much the same way, Joseph, when meditating the repudiation of the Virgin, is ad- dressed by the angel in terms that make special reference to his royal descent, — " Joseph, thou son of David" (Matt. i. 20) ; and, again, when the reason is assigned for the journey to Bethlehem, which led to the birth of Jesus there, it was because, not Mary, but Joseph, was of the house and lineage of David (Luke ii. 4). How is this to be explained ? Does the determination of Joseph's genealogy really involve and carry along with it that of Mary's and Christ's ? So Augustine conceived, and in a profound re- mark expressed, when commenting on the designation of Joseph and Mary by St Luke as the parents of Jesus. " Since, there- fore," says he, " the Evangelist himself relates that Christ was born, not from intercourse with Joseph, but of Mary, as a virgin, whence should he call him (Joseph) His father — unless we rightly understand, both that he was the husband of Mary, without car- nal intercourse, by the bond simply of the marriage-tie ; and that he was on this account also Christ's father, Christ being born of his wife, in a manner far more intimate than if He had been adopted from another family ? And on this ground," he adds, " even if any one should be able to prove that Mary had no blood-relationship to David, it was competent to hold Christ to be the Son of David, for the very same reason that Joseph was entitled to be called His father." ^ This view, though not for- mally referred to Augustine, has been taken up and ably ex- pounded by Delitzsch, in an article on the genealogies in Kudel- bach's Zeitschrift for 1850, p. 581, sq. He holds that, in conse- quence of the Divine revelation made to Joseph, and his entire acquiescence in the arrangements announced to him, Jesus was really the fruit of his marriage, and, as such, his Son. Joseph acknowledged and owned the child, not, indeed, as begotten of ' Cum igitur ipse narret, non ex concubitu Joseph, sed ex Maria virgine natum Christum; unde eum patrem ejus appellat, nisi quia et virum Marise recte intelligimus sine commixtione carnis, ipsa copulatione conjugii ; et ob hoc etiam Christi patrem multo conjunctius, qui ex ejus conjuge natus sit, quam si esset aliunde adoptatus ? Ac per hoc, etiam si demonstrare aliquis posset, Mariam ex David nullam consanguinitatis originem ducere, sat erat secundum istam rationem accipere Christum fiUuni David, qua ratione etiam •Toseph pater ejus recte appellatus est. — De Consensu Evang. ii. 1. THE TWO GENEALOGIES OF CHRIST. 189 his body, but as a sacrecl gift, which God had most wonderfully granted to him through his wdfe. In all cases children are God's gifts ; but this child was so in the most peculiar sense, there being an exclusion of human agency, and the direct intervention of the Divine. Now, if Jesus was the Son of Joseph, in his married relation, for the same reason also He was the Son of David ; for He was born to a descendant of the house of David — was con- ceived and born of a virgin, who, simply from her espousals to Joseph, was ah'eady introduced into the house of David, and, within that house, as Joseph's spouse, brought forth her child. So the Evangelist Matthew contemplated the matter ; for, accord- ing to the law and the established convictions of Israel, all de- pended upon Joseph's descent fi'om David, not upon Mary's ; and, by \artue simply of his relation to Joseph, Jesus was born in the house of David, was therefore the child of a Davidic person, and so was justly held to have sprung out of the house of David. Such is the view of Delitzsch, which is undoubtedly in accord- ance with Jewish notions on the subject, and rests upon a solid basis of truth ; since Mary, before the birth of the child, had actually, and by Divine ordination, become the spouse of Joseph, so that what was hers, through her became also her husband's. Yet, as God's work is ever perfect — not in design and nature merely, but in the way and manner also of its accomplishment — so doubtless it was here. We have the best reasons for suppos- ing that the relationship of Mary, immediately to Joseph, and remotely to the house of David, w^as such, and so well known, that the genealogy of the one, at a point comparatively near, was understood to be the genealogy also of the other. This relation- ship on Mary's part seems plainly taken for granted by the angel, who announced the conception and birth of the child, when he said, " And the Lord God shall give unto Him the throne of His father David," — an annomicement that was made to her before her marriage to Joseph, before she could be sure of such a mar- riage ever being consummated, and so implying that, simply as born of her, through the power of the Holy Ghost, the child should stand in a filial relation to David. The statements in other parts of Scripture, designating Christ as, beyond dispute, of the seed of David, are also to be taken into account ; so that. 190 THE TWO GENEALOGIES OF CHRIST. if the genealogies do not of themselves establish the personal re- lation of Mary to the house of David, they may be said to involve it ; since, when viewed in connection with the entire representa- tion of the sacred writers, they seem to proceed on the ground of a common interest in this respect belonging to Joseph and Maiy, and to Jesus through them. Certain other probabilities will also present themselves as we proceed. III. But, meanwhile, difficulties start up from the ground we have already won. For, if the two genealogical tables are both those of Joseph's proper pedigree, how should they differ at so many points from each other — differ, even in respect to the immediate father of Joseph — and differ so regularly in the latter divisions, that between David and Christ they present only two names in common ? This is a difficulty, which has long exer- cised the ingenuity of interpreters, and has given rise to a variety of schemes. It would occupy a considerable time to recount all these, and could serve no valuable purpose. We shall simply state what we deem to be the correct explanation of the matter — prefacing it, however, by a few considerations, which ought to be kept in view by those who would arrive at right conclusions on the subject. The first is, that in these, as in genealogical tables generally, there may be several diversities without any actual incorrectness. This holds of such tables generally, and arises from the diversity of names sometimes borne by individuals mentioned in them, and fi-om various circumstances and rela- tions occurring to alter in some respect the natural course of descent, and thereby leaving room for one genealogist departing from the exact route or nomenclatiu'e of another. It is perfectly well known by those, who are at all acquainted with Jewish genealogies, how much this is the case ; and the reference of the apostle to disputes in his day about endless genealogies (1 Tim. i. 4 ; Tit. iii. 9), clearly implies, that the circumstances just noticed were wont to involve considerable diversity in details, not readily settled or explained. It may well be expected, therefore, especially at this distance of time, that there should be points of divergence in the two tables before us, either alto- gether inexplicable now, or admitting of explanation only by the help of suppositions wdiich can at most be considered only as THE TWO GENEALOGIES OF CHRIST. 191 probable. A more full and intimate knowledge of the particu- lars might have made all perfectly plain. Another consideration to be kept in mind is, that whatever precise form the genealogical tables might assume — whether they traced the lineage in an ascending or a descending order — whether each successive generation is presented to our view as begotten by the preceding, or as standing to this in the relation of a son to a father — in either case alike the table is to be re- garded as possessing the same character ; and the same allow- ances or qualifications that may have to be made in the one case, are also quite allowable in the other. Mistakes and false theories have arisen from the neglect of this consideration. It was thus, indeed, that Julius Africanus was misled, and became the instrument of misleading many others, regarding the prin- ciples on which the two tables were constructed, by supposing that the phrase in Matthew, ' such an one begat such another,' is of a stricter kind than the phrase in Luke, ' such an one was the son of another ;' he Avas of opinion that the fomier always denoted a natural connection as of parent and child, while the latter might include other connections — sons by adoption, or by marriage, or by legal standing, as the case might be. In reality, however, the Hebrews observed no distinction of the kind ; they were accustomed to use both forms of expression in the same way ; and the one as well as the other was sometimes applied to denote, not descendants by actual procreation, but the next of kin, or descendants in the wider sense. The table itself in Matthew's Gospel affords conclusive evidence of this ; for it has " Joram begat Ozias," or Uzziah, although we know for certain that three links of the chain are there dropt out, and that Joram begat Ahaziah, then Ahaziah Jehoash, and Jehoash Uzziah. As a proof of the fi'eedom sometimes used in such cases, we may point to the statements in Gen. xlvi. 26 ; Ex. i. 5, where Jacob is him- self included among those that came out of his loins ;^ and to Gen. ' See, for example, the Jewish commentator Raphall, on Gen. xlvi. 26, who, after referring to the opinions of other Jewish authorities, and showing how the G6 persons said to have come out of Jacob's loins were made up (32 by Leah, 16 by Zilpah, 11 by Rachel, 7 by Bilhah), thus sums up : " Now, as the family of Leah is said to consist of 33, though only 32 are enumerated, and as the former number would give us 67 persons (which the Septuagint 192 THE TWO GENEALOGIES OF CHRIST. X. 13, 14, " Canaan begat Sidon his first-born, and Heth, and the Jebnsite, and the Amorite," etc., — where evidently whole races are said to have been begotten by the person who was no further related to them than that he was their common progeni- tor. We even occasionally find cities or districts associated in the same way with an individual as their parent ; thus in 1 Chron. ii. 50, " Shobal the father of Kirjath-jearim, Salma the father of Bethlehem, Harepli the father of Beth-Gader." And not only did the Levirate law afford occasions of pretty frequent occurrence, when a person must have had children reckoned to him that were not strictly his own, but Avomen also — for example, Sarah and Rachel — are represented as speaking of the possibility of obtaining chikh'en born to them through their handmaids (Gen. xvi. 2, xxx. 3). Such being the case, there is plainly nothing in the way of our holding, that the table of Matthew may, equally with that of Luke, admit of relationships being introduced not of the nearest degree ; nor, further, anything, so far as form is concerned, to render the position untenable, that in the one we may have the succession in the strictly royal line, the legal heirs to the throne of David (Matthew's), and in the other (Luke's) the succession of our Lord's real parentage vip to David. So that, were this view to be accepted, we should have Christ's legal right to the kingdom established, by the list in the one table ; and by that of the other, the direct chain which connected Him with the per- son of David. This is substantially the view that was adopted by Calvin, though not originated ; for he refers to some as pre- actually has), whereas the text expressly declares, that the number of those who proceeded from Jacob's loins were 66, and no more : And as, moreover, the only members of Jacob's family whom the text mentions as being in Egypt were three, namely, Joseph and his two sons ; and as these three, with the 66 above named, are only 69, whereas the text declares, that all the persons of the house of Jacob who came into Egypt were 70 ; and as Jacob must, of course, be considered as a member of his own house, it follows, that the 70th person who came, can have been no other than Jacob himself. And if this be so, then the 33d person numbered with, but not among, the descendants of Leah, can also have been no other than Jacob ; for if it had been any other person, the total number of Jacob's house would have been 71 — contrary to the text, since Jacob can in no wise be excluded from his own house." THE TWO GENEALOGIES OF CHKIST. 103 ceding him in the same view. It was first, however, fully brought out, and vindicated against the errors involved in the current belief, by Grotius. In opposition to that belief, which owed its general prevalence to the authority of Africanus — the belief that in St Matthew we have the natural, and in Luke the legal, descent — Grotius remarks, " For myself, guided, if I mis- take not, by very clear, and not fanciful grounds, I am fully con- vinced, that Matthew has respect to the legal succession. For he recounts those who obtained the kingdom without the inter- mixture of a private name. Then Jechonias, he says, begot Salathiel. But it w^as not doubtfully intimated by Jeremiah, under the command of God, that Jechoniah, on account of his sins, should die without children (ch. xxii. 30). Wherefore, since Luke assigns Neri as the father of the same Salathiel, a private man, while Matthew gives Jechoniah, the most obvious inference is, that Luke has respect to the right of consanguinity, Matthew to the right of succession, and especially the right to the throne — which right, since Jechoniah died without issue, de- volved, by legitimate order, upon Salathiel, the head of the family of Nathan. For among the sons of David Nathan came next to Solomon." This view has lately been taken up, and at great length, as well as in a most j udicious and scholarly manner wrought out by Lord Arthur Hervey, in a separate volume. The work as a whole is deserving of careful perusal. On this particular part of the subject he reasons somewhat as follows : — First of all, since St Matthew's table gives the royal successions, as far as they go, one can scarcely conceive why another table should have been given, unless it were that the actual parentage of Joseph did not properly coincide with that. If Joseph's direct ancestors, and Solomon's direct successors, had run in one line, there had been no need for another line ; since having already the most honourable line of descent, there could have been no inducement to make out an inferior one. But, on the supposi- tion that a failure took place in Solomon's line, and that the offspring of Nathan (the next son of David) then came to be the legal heirs to the throne, another table was required to show, along with the succession to the inheritance, the real parentage throughout. A second consideration is derived from the pro- N 1U4 THE TWO GENEALOGIES OF CHRIST. phecy of Jeremiah already noticed, in which it was declared concerning Jehoiakim, " He shall have none to sit upon the throne of David " (ch. xxxvi. 30) ; and again, of Jehoiachin or Jechoniah, the son, who was dethroned after being for a few months acknowledged king, " Write ye this man childless, for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah." After such explicit declarations, it is not conceivable that these men should yet have been the parents of a seed, out of which was at last to spring the ultimate possessor of David's throne. A third con- sideration is supplied by the names found in both tables im- mediately after Jehoiachin. It was precisely there, that the lineal descent from Solomon was broken ; and there, accordingly, the two tables again coincide ; for the next two generations the names Salathiel and Zerubabel occur alike in both tables — brought in, we may reasonably suppose, from Nathan's line, to supply the place of Solomon's, when it became defunct, and so are connected with Solomon's line by Matthew, but with Nathan's by Luke. So that, the line being traced by one Evangelist through Solomon, by the other through Nathan, the double object is served, of showing Christ to be at once David's son and Solomon's heir, the latter being the type of Christ as David's immediate son and heir. And thus also the genealogy of the one Evangelist supplements that of the other, by showing the validity of the right of succession as traced by Matthew, since Joseph was Solomon's heir only by being Nathan's de- scendant. A collateral confirmation is obtained for this view in certain double genealogies which occur in the Old Testament Scriptures ; the one having respect to the parentage, the other to the inherit- ance. One of the most remarkable of these is that of Jair, who, in 1 Chron. ii., has his genealogy ranked with the house of Judah, being the son of Segub, the son of Hezron, the son of Pharez, the son of Judah. By Moses, however, he is always called the son of Manasseh (Num. xxxii. 41 ; Dent. iii. 14, 15), and is re- presented as having come to the possession of a number of small towns in Gilead, which he called Havoth-Jair, i.e., the towns of Jair. A notice in the genealogy of 1 Chron. ii. 22-23 explains the discrepanc3\ We there learn that Hezron, his grandfather, THE TWO GENEALOGIES OF CHRIST. 195 in his old age married tlie daughter of Machir, tlie son of Ma- nasseh, who bare him Segub, and that Segub begat Jair — while Ashm', another son by the same marriage, had his inheritance in Jiidah. So that Jair, by his real parentage, was a descendant of Judah ; though, in respect to his inheritance, and, no doubt, in the reckoning of the public registers, he Avas of the tribe of Manasseh. Another example is found in the case of Caleb, who, in the earlier records, is always called the son of Jephunneh (Num. xiii. 6, xiv. 6, etc.), and is reckoned of the tribe of Judah ; while yet, it would seem, he did not originally and properly be- long to that tribe : for, in Josh. xiv. 14 he is called " Caleb the son of Jephunneh the KenezUe^^ and, in ch.xv. 13, it is said that Joshua " gave him a part among the children of Judah, accord- ing to the commandment of the Lord to Joshua." If he had by birth belonged to that tribe, there should have been no need for a special commandment appointing his inheritance to be given out of what fell to that tribe ; this would have happened to him as a matter of course ; and both, therefore, on this account, and from his being called a Kenezite, we are led to infer that, not by birth, but by adoption, he had his place and portion fixed in the tribe of Judah. But, in order to this, he must be reckoned to some particular family of that tribe ; and, accordingly, in the public genealogy given in 1 Chron. ii. 18—20, the paternity of Jephunneh is dropt, and that of Ilezron, the son of Pharez, the son of Judah, put in its stead : " And Caleb, the son of Plezron, begat children of Azubah, his wife, and of Jerioth," etc. It is probable that one or other of these wives belonged to the family of Hezron, and that Caleb became, by marriage, connected with it ; while afterwards, on account of his steady faith and resolute behaviour, he had the honour conferred on him of a special allot- ment in the tribe of Judah. We have thus the interesting fact brought out, through these comparatively dry details, that Caleb was originally a stranger, probably a native of Egypt, or an Arab of the Desert, but that he joined himself to the Lord's people, and was not only counted of the seed of Jacob, but became one of the most distinguished heads of its chief tribe. A still further proof in support of the principles supposed to be involved in the construction of the two tables, as to the points now under consideration, is found in the recurrence of certain 106 THE TWO GENEALOGIES OF CHRIST. names in both of them during the period subsequent to the cap- tivity. In St Luke's hst the name of Nathan's son is Matthata (ver. 31) ; another son, in the eleventh generation, was called Matthat (ver. 29); and, between Salathlel and Joseph, the name of Mattathlas occurs twice (ver.25,26),andthatof Matthat once (ver. 24) : — all but different modifications of the original name Nathan (from jnJ, he gave), and so affording internal evidence of the genealogy being really that of Nathan's line. In the other table, we find Matthan (the same person. In all probability, as Luke's Matthat), In the third generation before Joseph ; and, at the same time, several names taken with little alteration from the royal household of former times — Ellakim, Zadok (Zedeklah), Achim (an abbreviation of Jeholachim) ; as if, while the lineage in this part was really that of Nathan, there was an effort to keep up the connection with the latter days of the elder branch, the line of royal succession down to the period of the exile. The descendants of Nathan, who afterwards stept into their place in the genealogy, though not In the kingdom, seemed, by the very names they as- sumed, to be conscious of their peculiar relationship to Solomon's house, and desirous of Indicating their claim to the throne. This is all quite natural ; and it affords a very probable expla- nation at once of the aoreements and the differences between the two genealogical tables. Now it only requires one or two very natural suppositions to bring the closing parts of the tables into correspondence ; for, on the supposition that the Matthan of St Matthew is the same with the ]\Iatthat of St Luke (of which there can be little doubt), then Jacob the son of Matthan, in Matthew, and Hell, the son of Matthat, In Luke, must, in fact, have been brothers — sons of the same father. And If Jacob had no sons, but only daughters, and Joseph, Heli's son married one of these — perfectly natural suppositions— then he became (on the principle of Matthew's table) also Jacob's son, and the lineal heir of the throne, as Jacob had been. It only requires that we make the further supposition — no ways extraordinary or unreasonable — of that daughter being the Virgin Mary, in order to meet all the demands of the case ; for thereby the principle of each table would be preserved : and Mary and Joseph being, in that case, first cousins, and cousins In that line which had the right of succession to the tln'ono, the birth of our Lord was In every respect com- THE TWO GI:NEAL0GIES of CHRIST. 197 plete, whether viewed in respect to consanguinity or to relationship to the throne. The whole ordering of the matter exhibits a con- junction of circumstances which it was worthy of the Divine oversight to accomplish, and which yet might, in the common course of events, have readily come about. It may be added, that the last circumstance in the series of suppositions now mentioned — the marriage of Joseph and Mary, as of two cousins, the one the son of Heli, the other the daughter of Jacob, dying without sons — perfectly accords with Jewish practice ; as a])pears alone from the case of Jair marrying into the tribe of Manasseh, and thenceforth taking rank in that tribe ; and still more, from the case of Zelophehad's five daughters, \\]\o married their five cousins, and retained their inheritance. It was the constant aim of the Jews to make inheritance and blood- relationship, as far as possible, go together. And it could not seem otherwise than natural and proper, that the daughter of the nearest heir to the throne of David, should be espoused to the next heir. Nor is it undeserving of notice — as, at least, nega- tively favouring the supposition respecting Mary — that, while v. e read of a sister, we never hear of a brother belonging to her ; excepting Joseph, female relatives alone are mentioned. So that, in the supposed circumstances of the case, there is nothing that even appears to conflict with the facts of Gospel history ; every- thing seems rather to be in natural and fitting agreement with them. IV. The few remaining peculiarities in the two tables are of comparatively little importance, and need not detain us long. (1.) The existence of a second Cainan in only one of the tables — in that of Luke (v. 36) — between Sala and Arphaxad — is one of these minor difficulties. In the corresponding genealo£>v of our Hebrew Bibles, the name is not found. The only Cainan that appears in the early Hebrew records belongs to the ante- diluvian period ; and it is still a matter of dispute how the second Cainan has originated — whether it had somehow been dropt from the Hebrew text, or had been unwarrantably inserted into the Greek. It is found in all the copies extant of the Septuagint, except the Vatican ; but the Septuagint itself omits it in the genealogies of 1 Chron. i. ; and it is wanting in the Samaritan, 198 THE TWO GENEALOGIES OF CHRIST. Pentateuch, and seems not to have been known to Josephus, Berosus, Eupolemus, Polyhistor ; nor does it even appear to have been in the copies of the Septuagint used by Theophihis of Antioch in the second century, by Africanus in the third, or by Eusebius in the fourth. Jerome, too, in his comments on that part of Genesis, omits all mention of Cainan, though he has an- notations on the precise verse, where the name of Cainan is now found. Augustine, however, had the name in his copy both of the Septuagint and of St Luke. The probability seems to lie decidedly against the original existence of the name of Cainan in the genealogy, either in the Old or the New Testament tables. But the precise time or occasion of its introduction can be matter only of conjecture. Possibly, it may have originated in some mystical notions about numbers, which often had a considerable influence in the form given to genealogies. Bochart was of opinion, it probably arose from some clerical oversight in the transcription of the table in Luke, and was thence transferred to the Septuagint ; but the common opinion rather leans to the view of its having first appeared in the Septuagint ; certainty, however, is unattainable. Bochart's statements on the subject are worth consulting — Phaleg, L. ii. c. 13. (2.) A peculiarity of a minor kind also belongs to the other table, and one, in respect to Avhich we can have no difficulty in perceiving the influence of numbers. It is the division into three tesseradecades. For the purpose of securing the three fom'teens certain names are omitted in the second division — Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah — which would have unduly swelled the number, if they had been inserted. And closely connected with the same point is a peculiarity in respect to Josiali, who is said to have " begot Jeconias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon" (v. 11). It is scarcely possible to doubt, that some corruption must have crept into the text here ; for, in reality, Josiah begot Jehoiakim, not Jeconias ; and the birth of Jehoiakim took place a considerable time before the exile. But Jehoiakim begat Jeconias much about that period ; and the natural supposition is, that the original text here must have had Jehoiakim as the son of Josiah, and then Jeconias as the son of Jehoiakim. The two might very readily have been run together by a copjnst, as, in one form of them, the names differed THE TWO GENEALOGIES OF CHRIST. 199 only in a single letter — Jehoiakim being written ^lojaxnij., and Jeconias'lwa;>/£;ja. Ascribe might quite natru'ally take these for but one name, and so leave out Jehoiakim. This view is strengthened by the consideration, that unless we take in Jeho- iakim, as well as Jeconias, we want one to complete the fourteen of this middle division ; at least, it can only be made out by the somewhat awkward expedient of including the name of David at the beginning of this division, as well as at the close of the pre- ceding one. If this really had required to be done, one does not see why the evangelist should have omitted three names together in order to shorten the list ; it had been a much simpler ex- pedient to leave out only two. And on each account the proba- bility is -s^ery great, that Jehoiakim has been dropt from the text in the manner just stated. In regard, however, to the general characteristic of the division of the entire table into so many fourteens ; and the adoption of certain abbreviations to effect this, it has the support of a very common practice among the Jews. Schottgen has produced from the Synopsis of Sohar a genealogy constructed in a quite similar manner to the one before us : " From Abraham to Solo- mon there are 15 generations, and at that time the moon was full; from Solomon to Zedekiah there are again 15 generations, and at that time the moon was down, and Zedekiah's eyes were put out." Lightfoot also produces on Matt. i. several artificially framed genealogies. The number 14 was here, doubtless, fixed on as the basis of the arrangement, and made to rule each period ; because, in the first period, that from Abraham to David, it com- prehends the entire number of links, when both Abraham and David are included. No higher number, therefore, could have been assumed; and in this fact we discover the most natural reason for the ground of the arrangement. In the preceding remarks we have touched on everything that is likely to create difficulty in connection with the two genealo- gies. For various other points of a collateral kind, or of anti- quarian interest, and occasionally bearing on peculiarities in the Old Testament chronology, we refer again to the volume of Lord A. Hervey, which will be found well deserving of a careful perusal from those, who are desirous of prosecuting the subject into its minuter details. 200 SCRirTUKAL DESIGNATIONS SECTION SECOND. tiip: designations and doctrine of angels, with refer- ence MORE ESPECIALLY TO THE INTERPRETATION OF PAS- SAGES IN NEW TESTAMENT SCRIPTURE. Angelic agency meets vis at the very threshold of the Gospel. The first communications made respecting the new order of things, then on the eve of emerging, came through the mediation of angels : it was they who at length broke the silence of ages. Nor may this be matter of surprise, if, together with the long cessation of prophetical gifts among men, respect be had to the part, that in earlier times was wont to be taken by angels in supernatural revelations. The only thing that may seem some- what strange is the assumption of a name (Gabriel) by one of those angelic messengers, for the purpose more immediately of confirming the certainty of those things which he came to an- nounce, and magnifying the guilt incurred by Zecharias in enter- taining doubt concerning the possibility of their accomplishment (Luke i. 19). This, however, admits of a satisfactory explana- tion ; but as there are various other points and passages of Scripture connected with angelic agency, which also call for ex- planation, we shall take the whole subject into consideration, and discuss the several topics relating to it, in the order that seems most natural and appropriate. I. And, first, in regard to the general designation and its tise in Scripture. The Greek ayyiXo/, like the Hebrew C^^^, has a general as well as a more specific sense : it may denote any indi- viduals sent forth with a message to carry, or a commission to execute — messengers, as well in the natural as in the supernatural sphere of things. When the reference is plainly to the former, then the rendering ought commonly to be messenger, as it usually is in the English version — for example, Job i. 14 ; 1 Sam. xi. 3 ; Luke ix. 52 ; James ii. 25. There are passages, however, in which, while tlie reference still is to persons or things belonging AND DOCTRINE OF ANGELS. 201 to the earthly sphere, the name is apphed to them in a sense quite pecuHar, and so as sometimes to leave it doubtful whether angel or messenger might be the more fitting translation. In this I do not include such passages as Acts xii. 7, or 1 Cor. xi. 10, where, by " the angel of the Lord," in the one case, and by " the angels," in the other, some would understand merely human delegates ; entirely, as I conceive, against the proper import and interj^retation of the passages. Of this, however, afterwards. But, in Ps. civ. 4, we have the words, which are quoted in Heb. i. 7, " who maketh His angels spirits. His ministers a flaming fire;" and as the discourse there is of natural things, in their relation to the beneficent disposal and ever present agency of God, it seems fittest to understand by the spirits winds, and by the flaming fire lightning ; so that the sense comes to be, that God makes the winds of heaven, as angels or messengers, do His bidding, and the lightning of the clouds minister to His will : not certainly (as Kingsley interprets it, Village Sermons, p. 7), " showing us that in those breezes there are living spirits, and that God's angels guide those thunder clouds :" no, but showing that these very breezes and thunder-clouds are His angelic or ministering agents. Of course, they are poetically so designated ; and the language is of the same kind, as when it is said of God, that " He makes the clouds His chariot, and flies upon the wings of the wind." In like manner, but with closer approximation to the ordinary meaning of the word, prophets are sometimes called God's melaMm, or angels, though the rendering of mes- sengers is adopted in the authorised version (Hag. i. 13 ; Mai. iii. 1) ; and the epithet is even applied to Israel generally, with special reference to the prophetical nature of his calling, ap- pointed by God to be the light and instructor of the world (Isa. xlii. 19). ' It formed but a comparatively slight transition from this use of the word, and indeed, was but connecting it with another aspect of the delegated trust committed to the covenant-people, when the priesthood were styled God's angels ; as in Mai. ii. 7, " The priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth ; for he is the angel (Engl, version, mes- senger) of the Lord of Hosts." This obviously is said, not so much of any indi^•idual member of the priestly class, as of the 202 SCRIPTURAL DESIGNATIONS class itself collectively ; the priesthood was God's delegated mi- nistry for making known the things pertaining to His will and worship — in that respect, His angel-interpreter. And thus we obtain a ready explanation of another passage, which has often been much misunderstood : " Wlien thou vowest a vow unto God, defer not to pay it ; for He hath no pleasure in fools ; pay that which thou hast vowed. Better is it that thou shouldst not vow and not pay. Suffer not thy mouth to cause thy flesh to sin ; neither say thou before the angel, that it was an error" (Eccl. V. 4-6) ; that is, neither rashly utter with thy lips what thou hast not moral strength and fixedness of purpose to perform ; nor, if thou shouldst have uttered it, go before the priesthood, the Lord's deputed agents to wait on such things, and say it was an error, as if by making an easy confession of having done wrong in uttering the vow, the evil could be remedied. On the ground, especially of this last application of the w^ord cmgel in Old Testament Scripture, we find the most natural explanation of the address under which, in the Apocalypse, the epistles were sent to the seven churches of Asia : — " to the angels of the churches." The term is adopted, like so many others in the Apocalypse, from the prophetical usage, and from that usage more especially as employed in later times with respect to the priesthood. It can determine nothing, therefore, as to the ques- tion, whether the party designated angel, might at the time con- sist of one indi-sadual, or of a collection of individuals ; without in any way defining this, it indicates the high position of the party, whether single or collective, as having had committed to it the authoritative instruction and oversight of the Christian com- munity in the several churches. That party stood, as it were, between heaven and earth, and was charged with God's interest in that particular locality.^ Usually, however, when angels are mentioned in Scripture, it is with reference to another kind of existences than such as pro- ^ This very charge and the responsibility implied in it, is itself quite fatal to the notion of Dean Stanley, " that the churches are there described as per- sonified in their guardian or representative angels" {Apostolic Age, -p. 11). Angels are nowhere else spoken of as having to do in such a manner with the life and purity of the churches ; and the notion is altogether opposed to the general doctrine of angels. AND DOCTRINE OF ANGELS. 203 perly belong to this present world — to spirits, as contradistin- guished from men in flesh and blood, and the occupants of re- gions suited to their ethereal natures. Yet even when thus limited, there is considerable latitude in the expression, and the name may be said to comprise several orders of being. (1.) First, there are those more commonly understood by the expres- sion— the angels of God, as they are sometimes called, or of heaven (Matt. xxiv. 36 ; Mark xiii. 32 ; John i. 51 ; Matt. xxii. 30). They are named in connection with heaven, because they have their more peculiar abode there, in the region of God's mani- fested presence and glory. God's angels also they are emphati- cally called, not merely because they derived their being from His hand, and are constantly sustained by His power — for this be- longs to them in common with all creation — but more especially because they are in a state of peculiar nearness to God, and are His immediate agents in executing the purposes of His will. It is as possessing the ministry of such glorious agents, and possess- ing them in vast immbers, as well as invincible strength, that He takes to Himself the name of " The Lord of Hosts." (2.) Then there are the angels of darkness, who are never, however, like the others, designated simply the angels, but always with some qualifying epithet indicative of their real character and position ; such as " the Devil's angels," as contrasted with the angels of God, or " the angels that sinned," " that kept not their first estate," in contradistinction as well to what they themselves once were, as to the party that remained stedfast (Matt. xxv. 41 ; 2 Pet. ii. 4 ; Jude ver. 6). (3.) Finally, there is one who is called the angel, by way of eminence, or " the Angel of the Covenant," and who, as regards angelic ministrations, occupies a place alto- gether peculiar to himself. As we shall have occasion to refer at some length to this angel-prince under the next division, it is needless to be more particular here. II. We turn now to the individual or proper names sometimes applied to angels in Scripture, one of which occiu"s so near the commencement of the Gospel history. It is at a comparatively late period of the elder dispensation, and only in the book of Daniel, that we find any specific names given to particular angels, or beings acting in the capacity of angels. There, for the first 204 SCRIPTURAL DESIGNATIONS time, occur the names of Gabriel and Michael ; nor do any other names beside these occur. The late appearance of such de- signations, together with the local position of him who employed them, was sufficient ground for the Rationalists to rush to the conclusion, that such names were of heathen origin, and that Daniel and his captive brethren learned them from the Chal- deans. It were impossible to admit such a view, without bring- ing into doubt the prophetical gifts of Daniel, and involving in just suspicion the supernatural character of his communications. For the angelic names he uses were not applied by himself, but were heard by him in vision, as applied one to another, by the heavenly messengers themselves. So that whatever may have been the reason for their introduction, it can with no fitness be ascribed — if Daniel's own representations are to be accepted — to an adoption of the heathen notions prevalent around him. Nor was such a tendency in the direction of heathenism to have been expected here. Nowhere more strongly than in the book of Daniel does the theocratic spirit keep the ascendant — the re- solute determination to abide at all hazards by the old founda- tions, and, in things spiritual and divine, to make the heathen the learner merely, not the instructor or the guide. The aim and design of the whole book is to show the real superiority and ultimate triumph of Judaism over heathenism. And it was not, to say the least, by any means likely that in this one point Daniel should have been disposed to renounce his claims as a messenger and prophet of the true God, and become a disciple of the magicians over whom his better wisdom carried him so far aloft. It is true, no doubt, that the Jews, after the Babylonish cap- tivity, in the interval that elapsed between that period and the Clu'istian era, showed a disposition to deal somewhat lavishly with angelic names and orders. The book of Tobit, which was composed during this interval, not only finds one of the principal characters of the story in an angel called Raphael, but makes this personage say of himself, " I am Raphael, one of the seven holy angels, which present the prayers of the saints, and whicli go in and out before the glory of the Holy One :" — evidently showing that something like a system of angelology, branching out into offices as well as nauies, had sprung up among the Jews of tlie AND DOCTRINE OF ANGELS. 205 dispersion. As commonly happens, when the elements of super- stition begin to work, the false tendency developed itself more fully as time proceeded. In the book of Enoch, a spurious production that appeared some time about the Christian era, and undoubtedly embodying the notions of many of the more specu- lative Jews of that period, we are told of the " four great arch- angels, Michael, Raphael, Gabriel, and Uriel," who perpetually bring reports to the Creator, of the corrupt state of the world, and receive from Him their respective commissions. Rabbinical writers descend into still further details, specify the exact posi- tions of those superior angels in the presence of God (setting- Michael on the right, Gabriel on the left, Raphael behind, Uriel in front), tell us how Gabriel attended at the nuptials of Adam and Eve, how he taught Joseph the 70 languages of the world, and many similar things both of him and of the other archangels (Eisenmenger Ent. Judenthum, vol. i., p. 374, sq.). Such were the fanciful and ridiculous vagaries into which the Jewish angelology ran ; but it by no means follows, from such a system having de- veloped itself among the later Jews, that it had its origin in the Chaldean influence, to which they were exposed in Babylon — least of all, that Daniel and his godly companions led the way in surrendering themselves to the direction of such an influence. Considering the jealousy with which not only they, but the stricter Jews generally, felt toward the corruptions of heathenism, after the Babylonish exile, the more natural supposition is, that they spun their theories of angelical existences out of the few actual notices that occur of the world of spirits in their own ScriptTires — in this, as in other things, pushing some scattered elements of truth into many groundless and frivolous extremes. It is in perfect accoi'dance with what is known of Jewish or Rab- binical specvdations in general, to affirm, that the real basis of what they imagined respecting the names and offices of angels, was to be found in the writings of the Old Testament, though the opinions of those among whom they lived might come in at one quarter or another, to give a particular turn to the current of their speculations. Now, it is to be remembered that, while we meet wuth specific names of those heavenly messengers only in Daniel, yet in earlier revelatiims there is a certain appi'oximation to the same thing ; 20G SCRIPTURAL DESIGNATIONS and the change cannot be characterized as very abrupt, or the feature in Daniel marked as absolutely singular. Even in one of the earliest notices of angelic visitation, that which occurred to Abraham on the plains of Mamre (Gen. xviii.), it is evident from the sacred narrative that, of the three personages who then appeared, one was manifestly superior in dignity, if not also in nature, to the other two. He remains behind, and, in the name of the Lord, speaks to Abraham respecting the destruction of Sodom, while they go in the humbler character of messengers to take personal cognizance of its state. Then, in later times, we have the designations of" the Angel of the Covenant," "the angel of the Lord's presence," " the angel in whom the Lord's name is" (Mai. iii. 1 ; Isa. Ixiii. 9 ; Ex. xxiii. 21) ; constantly repre- sented as different from, and superior to, a mere angel — for, in the first of the passages just referred to, he is identified with the Lord Himself, whom the people professed to be seeking after ; in the second he is described as the Saviour of the covenant- people ; and, in the third — the earliest of the three, and the foun- dation of the others — He is in a pointed manner distinguished ft'om an angel, in the ordinary sense (comp. the passage with ch. xxxiii. 2, 12, 14), and is characterized as the same that after- wards appeared to Joshua, at once as the Lord and as the Cap- tain of the Lord's host (Josh. v. 14, 15, vi. 2). Still further, we find this highest angel, the Angel or messenger of the covenant, identified A^dth the Messiah, and designated by a variety of names, such as Immanuel, Jehovah Zidekinu, the prince, or the prince of the host, etc. And not only is this leader of the Lord's hosts thus individualized and indicated by name, but a specific desig- nation is also frequently applied to the great adversary of God and man — Satan. So that it was not to strike into a path alto- gether new, but merely to take an additional step in a direction already formed, when Daniel introduced the names of Michael and Gabriel into our heavenly vocabulary. But why should even such a step have been taken ? Was this done in a way which admits of being intelligently explained and justified ? Or does there appear in it something arbitrary and fanciful ? In answer to such questions, it may be replied gene- rally, that, if such designations were proper to be introduced anj'-- where, it is precisely in the book of Daniel that they might be AND DOCTKINE OF ANGELS. 207 most fitly looked for. His writings possess considerably more of a dramatic character than those of the other prophets, and in his own book those are the most dramatic visions in which the names occur. It was, therefore, in them that the actors in the spiritual drama might be expected to be most distinctly portrayed. And then the individual names, which are used for this end, are found on examination to be, not proper names in the ordinary sense, but appellatives designating the nature and office of those who bore them, and most naturally growing out of the special communica- tions which they were engaged in making. To see this, we have only to glance at the names themselves. 1. Beyond doubt the highest in rank and importance is Michael. This name occurs twice in Daniel, and is also found in the Epistle of Jude and the Revelation. It is compounded of three words, which together express the meaning, Who is like God ? (7S3''p). The El, which denotes God, has respect to God as the God of might ; so that the idea indicated by the appella- tion is, the possession, either of absolutely Divine, or of Divine- like majesty and power — the former, if the name is applied to one in whom the nature of God resides ; the latter, if apphed to a created intelligence. Here, however, there is considerable diversity of opinion. The Jewish and Rabbinical authorities, as already noticed, understand by Michael one of the four highest angels, or archangels, as they are sometimes termed — though with a certain superiority possessed by him above the rest ; for they call Michael the Princeps Maximus, the tutelary angel of Judea, God's peculiar angel, the Prince of the World. He was, therefore, in their account, decidedly the highest of created intelligences, but still himself a part of the creation. We find the same view ex- hibited in one of the earliest Patristic productions, the Shepherd of Hermas ; and it became the prevailing opinion among the fathers. But the divines of the Reformation very commonly adopted another view, and understood Michael to be a name of Christ. So, for example, Luther (on Dan. x. 21 and xii. 1), and Calvin, who, at least, expresses his preference for the same opinion, though without absolutely rejecting the other ; in the next age, also Cocceius, Witsius, TuiTetine, Lampe, Calov, the last of whom even affirms the opinion which represents the Michael in Dan. xii. 1 as a created angel, to be impious. This certainly appears 208 SCRIPTURAL DESIGNATIONS to be the correct view, and we shall present in as brief a compass as possible the grounds on which it is based. (1) The name itself — who is like God ? This seems to point to the Supreme Lord, and in a way very common with the earlier writers of the Old Testament ; as in Ex. xv. 1 1, " Who is like Thee among the gods, O Lord f or, in Ps. Ixxxix. 8, " Wlio is like the Lord among the sons of the mighty ?" Such an ascrip- tion of peerless might and glory, when turned into a personal appellation, seems most naturally to imply, that the qualities ex- pressed in it belonged to the individual ; it fixes our regard upon Him as the representative and bearer of what the appellation imports ; and the turn given to it by Bengel (on Rev. xii. 7), as if it were a mark of humility rather than of weakness — as if the possessor of the title pointed away from himself to God — is quite unnatural, and contrary to the Scriptural usage in such appella- tions. Nor, in that case, would it have formed a suitable desig- nation for the highest of the angels, since it could have indicated nothing as to any peculiar honour or dignity belonging to him. As a distinguishing epithet, it is appropriate only to Christ, who actually possesses the unrivalled properties of God ; and who, expressly on the ground of his possessing these, and being able to say, " All that the Father hath is Mine," has charged Himself with the interests of the covenant-people, and is found adequate to the establishment of its provisions (John v. 18, xvi. 15 ; Isa. ix. 6, 7 ; Phil. ii. 6-11). (2) Another argument is found in the collateral, and, to some extent, epexegetical, or explanatory de- signations, which are applied to the same personage. Thus in Dan. xii. 1, He is called emphatically the Great Prince ("i^n hSi-!>T^) apparently referring to, and closely agi'eeing with, the name assumed by the angel of the Lord in Josh. v. 14, captain, or rather, ^:)?'inc-g of Jehovah's host {'^\i^''~ fr53y" lb'), that is, the leader of the heavenly forces of the Great King. So again, in ch. X. 21, Michael is styled the prince of the covenant-people, " Your prince," the one who presides over their state and destinies ; or, as it is at ch. xii. 1, " Who standeth up for the children of thy people," namely, to protect and deliver them. These descriptions seem plainly to identify Michael with the Angel of the Covenant, who sometimes appears as God, and sometimes as his pecidiar representative. Even the Pnbbinical AND DOCTRINE OF ANGELS. 209 Jews could not altogether escape the conviction of the identity of Michael and this personage ; for the saying occurs more than once in their writings, that '• wherever Michael appeared, there was seen the glory of the Shekinah itself." The passage, which tended chiefly to lead them in the wrong direction, was Dan. x. 13, where he is called " one ('in^) of the chief princes," or, as it might equally be rendered, " first of the chief princes," head of the angel-chiefs. The Jewish writers understood it to indicate merely precedence or superiority in respect to others essentially of the same class. But, taken in connection with the other passages and expressions in Daniel, it seems intended simply to exhibit the relation of Michael to the angels, to present him to our view as their directing and governing head. It is sub- stantially, indeed, of the same import as archangel, which is never used in the plural, and never receives a personal applica- tion but to Michael (Jude ver. 9 ; 1 Thess. iv. 16) ; so that there is no Scriptural warrant for understanding it as an indica- tion of an angelic hierarchy, or otherwise than as a designation of the head of angelic hosts. (3) Lastly, the descriptions given of Michael, both of his person and his acts, seem to confirm the same view : they are such as properly belong to the Messiah, the essentially Divine Head and King of His Church, but are scarcely compatible with the position of a created intelligence. Take, for example, the delineation of his person as given in Dan. X. 5, 6, "And I looked, and behold a certain man in linen, whose loins were girded with fine gold of Uphaz : his body also was like the beryl, and his face as the appearance of lightning, and his eyes as lamps of fire, and his arms and his feet like in colour to polished brass, and the voice of his words like the voice of a multitude" — the description has been almost literally trans- ferred to the vision of the glorified Redeemer by St John in the Apocalypse (ch. i. 13-17, ii. 18). With representations so nearly identical, we naturally conceive the same personages to have been intended by them. Some, indeed, have taken the de- scription in Daniel as referring to Gabriel, and not to Michael ; but this is plainly against the natural import of the narrative ; which represents Gabriel as coming and talking familiarly with the prophet, while the vision of the glorious One was so over- powering, that he was unable to bear the sight. It is necessary, o 210 SCRIPTURAL DESIGNATIONS therefore, to understand It of Michael, who appeared in glory at some distance, and on the opposite bank of the river. What is afterwards said of Michael, at ch. xii. 1, as standing up to de- liver the Lord's people in a time of unparalleled tribulation, and the co-relative action ascribed to him in the Apocalypse (ch. xii. 7—9), of overcoming and casting down from the heaven of his power and glory the great adversary of God and man, serve also to confirm the identification of Michael with Christ. For, the actions referred to are manifestly proper to Christ, as the Head of His Church, not to any inferior agent. Scripture constantly represents it as the sole and peculiar glory of Christ to put down all power and authority that exalts itself against God, or to execute the judgment written upon the adversary. On these grounds we conclude, that Michael is but another name for the Angel of the Covenant, or for Christ. It is the name alone that is peculiar to Daniel ; and the reason, apparently, why such a name was chosen in the revelations given through Him, was to render prominent the Divine power and majesty in the angel- mediator, which assured the covenant-people of a triumphant issue out of those gigantic conflicts and troubles that were be- fore them, if only they proved stedfast to the truth. (Compare Ode de Angelis, pp. 1054-58, Hengstenberg on Daniel and on Eev. xii. 7-9). (2) In regard to the other specific name, Gabriel, it is clear, both from the name itself, and from the historical notices given of the bearer of it, that a created angel is to be understood. The word may have a slightly different explanation put upon it, according as the iod is held to be paragogic merely, or the pro- nominal affix : in the former case, it means hero, or mights/ one of God ; in the other, 7ny hero, or mighty one, is God — God is my strength. Either way the leading thought conveyed by it is much the same ; it embodies a twofold idea — that the bearer of the name is distinguished by heroic might, and that he has this might, not of himself, but of God. Such an appellation could only be given to a created intelligence, to one whose part it was to recognise his dependence upon God, and in the exercise of his might to show forth something of the almightiness of the Creator. Appearing under this designation, it indicated that the business, which led to his appearance, was one that would AND DOCTRINE OF ANGELS. 211 call for the manifestation of heroic energy, such as could be found only in close connection with the all-sufficient Jehovah. The times and circumstances referred to in the vision of Daniel, in which Gabriel acted a prominent part (ch. viii., ix. 21), were precisely of such a description ; they bore respect to the great struggles and conflicts, through which ultimate security and blessing were to be attained for the covenant-people ; and the revelation of the progress and issue of the contest by one, whose very name carried up the soul to the omnipotence of Jehovah, was itself a pledge and assurance of a prosperous result. Nor was it materially different at the commencement of the Gospel, where the name of Gabriel again meets us in Divine communi- cations. These communications bore upon matters encompassed with peculiar difficulty, and capable of being brought about only by the supernatural agency of Godhead. The very first stage in the process lay across a natural impossibility, since to furnish the herald of the new dispensation an aged and barren woman (Elizabeth) must become the mother of a child. The next, which was presently afterwards announced to Mary, involved not only a natural impossibility, but the most astounding and wonderful of all mysteries — the incarnation of Godhead. In such circumstances, what could be more fitting and appropriate, than that the Divine messenger, sent from the Upper Sanctuary to disclose the immediate approach of such events, should come as the personal representative of the heroic might and energy of Heaven ? — should even make himself known as the Gabriel, the God-empowered hero, who in former times had disclosed to Daniel the purpose of God to hold in check the powers of evil, and in spite of them to confirm for ever the eternal covenant ? The remembrance of the past, in which the purpose of God had been so fearlessly proclaimed and so successfully vindicated, now came in aid of the testimony, which the same Divine messenger was sent to deliver ; so that the tidings, all strange and startling as they might appear, should have met from the children of the covenant with a ready and believing response. Even the miraculous, temporary suspension of the power of speech, with which the appearance of Gabriel to Zacharias came to be attended, was full of meaning and in perfect keeping with the whole circumstances of the time. Viewed in connection 212 SCRirTURAL DESIGNATIONS with these, the aspect of harshness, which at first sight it may seem to cany, will be found to disappear. That the measure of unbelief, which arose in his mind on seeing the angelic vision, and on first hearing the announcement made to him, was de- servino; of rebuke, must be re£i;arded as certain from the rebuke actually administered ; no such, even slight and temporary, pun- ishment would have been inflicted, had it not been amply justified by the existing state of mind in Zacharias. But Zacharias is chiefly to be contemplated here as a representative of the people, whose prayers he was at the time symbolically offering; and in him, as such, were embodied, along with the better elements that continued to work among them, a portion also of the worse. The unbelief, therefore, that discovered itself in connection with the angelic announcement, was but too sm'e an indication of the evil, that slumbered even among the better part of the covenant-people. And the instant, and visible, though still comparatively gentle rebuke it met with in the case of Zacharias, was meant to be a salutary and timely warning to the people at large ; and, taken in connection with the name, Gabriel, made known along with it, it was also a palpable proof that this name was no empty title, but gave assurance of the im- mediate operation of the infinite power of Godhead. Thus the miracle of dumbness wrought upon Zacharias became a sign to all around — a sign of the certainty with which the things should be accomplished that were announced by Gabriel (whatever might be required of miraculous power for their performance), and a sign also of the withering and disastrous result, which should infallibly emerge, if the manifestations of Divine power and goodness that were at hand should be met by a spirit of dis- trust and unbelief. It thu§ appears, when the history and relations of the subject are duly considered, that there is nothing greatly peculiar in the use of the names Michael and Gabriel, whether in the Book of Daniel, or in New Testament Scripture. The names here also, as in those of Immanuel, Branch of the Lord, Angel of the covenant, Satan, were really descriptive of nature and position. And their ajipearance only in the later revelations of the Old covenant finds a ready explanation in the cu-cumstance, that the progressive nature of the Divine communications necessarily led AND DOCTRINE OF ANGELS. . 213 to a progressive individualizing, both in regard to th-e Messiah Himself, and to the various persons and objects connected with His undertaking. Hence, it naturally happens, that in the later books of the Old Testament, and in those of the New, the indi- vidual features and characteristics of all kinds are brought most distinctly out. In this respect, therefore, the appearance is pre- cisely as the reality might have led us to expect. ni. Having so far cleared our way to a right understanding of the subject of angels, by examining the language employed, both in its more general and its more specific forms, we naturally turn to inquire next, what, according to the revelations of Scrip- ture, is their personal state ? — the state, namely, of those, who are always understood, when angels generally are spoken of — the angels in heaven. In Scripture they are uniformly repre- sented as in the most elevated condition of intelligence, purity, and bliss. Endowed with faculties which fit them for the highest sphere of existence, they excel in strength, and can en- dure, unharmed, the intuition of God (Ps. ciii. 20 ; Matt, xviii. 10). Nor in moral excellence are they less exalted ; for they are called emphatically " the holy angels," " elect angels," "angels of light" (Mark viii. 38 ; 2 Tim. v. 21 ; 2 Cor. xi. 14) ; and are represented as ever doing the will of God, doing it so uniformly and perfectly, that men on earth can aim at nothing- higher or better than doing it like the angels in heaven. In the sphere, too, of their being and enjoyment, all is in fitting har- mony with their natural and moral perfections; not only no elements of pain or disorder, but every essential provision for the wants and capacities of their immortal natures ; so that to have our destiny associated with theirs, to have our condition made equal to theirs, is presented to our view as the very glory of that resmTection-state to which Christ has called His peojDle (Luke XX. 36 ; Heb. xii. 22). The two, indeed, may not be in all respects identical, can hardly, indeed, be so ; but that which is made to stand as the pattern cannot in anything of moment be inferior to what is represented as bearing its likeness. That the angelic state was from the first substantially what it still is, can scarcely be doubted from the general tenor of the Scriptural representations. Yet in these a certain change also 214 SCRIPTURAL DESIGNATIONS is indicated — not, indeed, from evil to good, or from feebleness to strength, but from a state, in which there was, at least, the possibility of falling, to another in Avhich this has ceased to be possible — a state of ever-abiding holiness and endless felicity. The actual fall and perdition of a portion of their number, im- plies that somehow the possibility now mentioned did at one period exist ; and the angels, that kept their first estate, and have received the designation of elect angels, nay, are assigned an everlasting place among the ministers and members of Christ's kingdom, must have made some advance in the security of their condition. And this, we inevitably conclude, must infer some advance also in relative perfection ; for absolute security to rational beings in the enjoyment of life and blessing, we can only conceive of as the result of absolute holiness ; they have it — they alone can have it — we imagine, in whom holiness has become so deeply rooted, so thoroughly pervasive of all the powers and sus- ceptibilities of their being, that these can no longer feel and act but in subservience to holy aims and obedience to principles of righteousness. So far, therefore, the angels appear to have he- come what they now are, that a measure of security, and, by consequence, a degree of perfection (whether as regards spiritual knowledge, or moral energy) is now theirs, which sometime was not. From the representations of Scripture, there is room also for another distinction in regard to the state of angels, though, like the one just noticed, it cannot be more than generally indicated or vaguely apprehended. The distinction referred to is a certain diversity in rank and power, which there seems ground for be- lieving to exist among the heavenly hosts. There are indications in Scriptm'e of something like angelic orders. For, though the term archangel cannot be applied in this connection, being used (as we have seen) only as the designation of a single personage, and that, apparently, the Messiah, yet the name Gabriel, when assumed as a distinctive epithet, appears to imply that he stood in a nearer relationship to God than certain others, or partook to a larger extent than they of the might of Godhead. So also in Rev. xviii. 21, we read of " a mighty angel," as if not every angel could be called such. And in various places there is an accumulation of epithets, as of different orders, when referring to AND DOCTRINE OF ANGELS. 215 the heavenly intelHgences ; as in Eph. i. 20, 21, where Christ is said to be exalted " above all principality and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come ;" and in 1 Pet. iii. 22, where He is again said, in His heavenly exaltation, to have " angels, principalities, and powers made subject to Him." But if such expressions appear to render probable or certain the ex- istence of some kind of personal distinctions among the angels of glory, it leaves all minuter details respecting it under a veil of impenetrable secrecy. And to presume, like the ancient Jews, to single out four or seven primary angels ; or, like the Rabbins, to distribute the angelic hosts into ten separate classes ; or, still again, with many of the Scholastics, to range them in nine orders, each consisting of three classes, regularly graduated in knowledge and authority, the class below ever standing in dependence upon the one above : — to deal with the matter thus, is to do precisely what the apostle has discharged any one from attempting on such a subject, " intrude into those things which he has not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind" (Col. ii. 18). Of persons who discourse familiarly upon such points, and discuss the most subtle questions regarding angelic being and agency, Gerhard very justly, as well as wittily said, " They naturally dispose one to ask, how recently must they have fallen from heaven !" (quam nuper sint de coelo delapsi.) And Calvin with his accustomed sense and gravity remarks, " If we would be truly wise, we shall give no heed to those foolish notions, which have been delivered by idle men concerning angelic orders without warrant from the Word of God " (Inst. i. c. 14, 4). We are assuredly entitled to affirm, that in whatever the dis- tinctions among angels may consist, or to whatever extent it may reach, it cannot in the least interfere with the happiness they individually enjoy. For this happiness arises, in the first in- stance, from each standing in a proper relation to the great centre of life and blessing ; and then from their being appointed to occupy such a sphere, and take part in such services and em- ployments, as are altogether adapted to their state and faculties. These fundamental conditions being preserved, it is easy to con- ceive, how certain diversities, both in natural capacity, and in relative position, may be perfectly compatible with their mutual 21G SCRIPTURAL DESIGNATIONS satisfaction and general well-being, and may even contribute to secure it. IV. The proper function and employment of angels relatively to us, is what next calls for consideration ; and on this point we are furnished in Scripture with information of a more ^'aried and specific nature, as it is that which more nearly concerns our- selves. In not a few passages we find their knowledge of what pertains to affairs on earth distinctly intimated, and also their interest in it, as proving to them an occasion of joy, or yielding a deeper insight into the purposes of God. Thus, they appear taking part in communications made from heaven to earth, desir- ing to look into the things which concern the scheme of salvation, learning from the successive evolution of the Divine plan more than they otherwise knew of God's manifold wisdom, rejoicing together at the birth of Jesus, and even over the return of indi- vidual wanderers to His fold (1 Pet. i. 12 ; Eph. iii. 10; Luke ii. 13, XV. 10). But there are other passages, in which a still closer connection is indicated — passages which represent them as engaged in directly and actively ministering to the good of be- lievers, and shielding or delivering them from the evils incident to their lot. The oflSce of angels in this respect was distinctly understood even in Old Testament times ; as appears alone from the designation, " Lord of Hosts," so commonly applied to God in respect to the forces He has at command for the execution of His purposes ; and still more from the frequent interposition of angels to disclose tidings or accomplish deliverances for the covenant-people, as well as from express assurances, such as these : " The angel of the Lord encampeth round about them that fear Him, and delivereth them" (Ps. xxxiv. 7). "He shall give His angels charge concerning thee, to keep thee in all thy ways ; they shall bear thee up in their hands, lest thou dash thy foot against a stone" (Ps. xci. 11, 12). Similar representations of angelic agency are found in New Testament Scrij^ture, and come out, indeed, with greater prominence there, conformably to the general character and design of the Gospel, in rendering more patent the connection between this lower region and the world of spirits. So that it is only what we might have expected beforehand, to learn that our Lord in the days of His flesh was AND DOCTRINE OF ANGELS. 217 from time to time ministered to by angels ; that on ascending to the regions of glory, He had the angels made subject to Him for carrying forward the operations of His kingdom ; that commis- sions of importance were executed through their instrumentality during the life-time of the apostles ; and that, generally, they are declared to be " all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister to those who are heirs of salvation" (Mark i. 13 ; Luke xxii. 43 ; Phil. ii. 10 ; 1 Pet. iii. 22 ; Acts xii. ; Heb. i. 14). In regard, however, to the kind of services which are actually rendered to believers by the ministry of angels, or the benefits which may justly be expected from it, we know too little of the nexus, which binds together in any particular case the world of sense with the world of spirits, to be able with much accuracy to determine. Negatively, there are definite boundaries that may be set down ; we must hold as excluded from their agency the actual communication of life and grace to the souls of men. No- where is this ascribed to them in Scripture ; on the contrary, it is uniformly represented as an essentially Divine W'Ork, and, as such, lying beyond the agency of created beings. Father, Son, and Spirit are here the only effective agents, working, in so far as subordinate means are emj)loyed, through a human, not through an angelic instrumentality. The things which come within the sphere of angelic ministrations, bear incidentally upon the work of salvation, rather than directly touch it: and as regards the ordinary histoiy of the Church and the common experience of believers, they have to do with the averting of evils, which might too seriously affect the interests of righteousness, or the bringing about of results and operations in the world, which are fitted to promote them. When it is reflected how much even the children of God are dependent upon the circumstances in which they are placed, and how much for the cause of God, whether in the world at large or in the case of single individuals, often turns upon a particular event in Providence, one can easily see what ample room there may be in the world for such timely and subtle influences as the quick messengers of light are capable of imparting. It might be too much to say, as has occasionally been said by divines, and seems to be held by Mr Kingsley, that all the active powers of nature are under angelic direction, and every event — at least every auspicious event — is 218 SCRIPTURAL DESIGNATIONS owing to their interference ; there are certainly no testimonies in Scripture sufficient to warrant so sweeping an inference. But, on the other hand, it is equally possible to err in the opposite di- rection ; and as we have explicit information in Scripture of the fact, that there are myriads of angelic beings in heavenly places, who are continually ascending and descending on errands of mercy for men on earth, it may not be doubted, that in many a change which takes place around us, there are important opera- tions performed by them, as well as by the ostensible actors, and by the material agencies of nature. But whatever individuals, or the collective body of believers, may owe to this source, there are certain laws and limitations, under which it must always be understood to be conveyed. The fundamental ground of these is, that the efficiency of angels is essentially diffi^rent from that of the several persons of the God- head ; it is such merely as one finite being is capable of exer- cising toward another. Consequently, it never can involve any violent interference with the natural powers of reason in those who are the subjects of it : it must adapt itself to the laws of re- ciprocal action established between finite beings, and so, can only work to the hand, or set bounds to the actings of nature, but cannot bring into operation elements absolutely new. Hence, as a further necessary deduction, all that is done by angels must be done in connection with, and by means of natural causes ; and only by intensifying, or in some particular way directing these, can they exert any decisive influence on the events in progress. Thus, at the pool of Bethesda, the angel's power wrought through the waters, not independently of them ; at Herod Agrippa's death, through the worms that consumed him ; at the jail of Philippi, through the earthquake that shook the foundations of the building : — and if thus in these more peculiar, certainly not less in the more regular and ordinary interpositions of their power. But this takes nothing from the comfort or efficacy of their ministrations ; it only implies, that these minis- trations are incapable of being viewed apart fi'om the channels through which they come, and that the beings who render them are not to be taken as the objects of personal regard or adoring reverence. Hence, while the hearts of believers are cheered by the thought of the ministry of angels, the worshipping of angels AND DOCTRINE OF ANGELS. 219 lias from the first been expressly interdicted (Col. ii. 18 ; Rev. xxii. 9). Various fanciful and groundless notions have been entertained on the subject of angelic ministrations, and have sought for countenance in isolated statements of Scripture. It has been held, for example, that a part of their number are separated for the special work of praise in the heavenly places, and observe hours of devotion ; that angels act at times as subordinate inter- cessors, mediating between believers and Christ ; that individual angels are appointed to the guardianship of particular kingdoms, and even of single persons ; and that they have also, whether in- dividually or collectively, a sort of charge to be present in the assemblies of the saints. As this latter class of notions still ex- tensively prevails, and has an apparent foundation in certain passages of Scripture, it will be necessary to subject it to a par- ticular examination. (1) In regard to the guardianship or protection of particular kingdoms by individual angels, the notion can scarcely, perhaps, be said to exist, as a substantive belief in the present day, in Protestant Christendom ; but it is held by not a few interpreters of Scripture as a doctrine of the book of Daniel, though not a doctrine they are themselves disposed to accredit. Rabbinical writers have certainly from an early period found it there. On the supposition, that Michael was a created angel, and the guar- dian angel of the Jews (designated as such, "their prince"), coupled with the further supposition, that what is said in the same book of the prince of the kingdom of Persia, who is repre- sented as withstanding Gabriel for twenty-one days (x. 13), has respect to another angel, exercising a like guardianship over the Persian empire : — on these suppositions, the notion became pre- valent, not only among the doctors of the synagogue, but also among the Christian fathers, from whom it went down, like other crudities, as a heritage to the Catholic theologians, that the several states or kingdoms of the earth have each their pro- tecting genius, or tutelary angel — a created, but high and power- ful intelligence. The idea— as the divines of the Reformation justly contended — is at variance with all right views of the general teaching of Scripture respecting those kingdoms, which are represented as in a condition that must have placed them be- 220 SCRIPTURAL DESIGNATIONS yond the pale of any such guardianship, even if it had existed ; nor do the particular passages leant upon, when fairly interpreted, countenance the idea of its existence. We have already seen, how the proof fails in respect to Michael, he not being an angel, in the ordinary sense, but the Lord Himself as the Angel of the Covenant. He, the Jehovah-Mediator, the King and Head of tlie Old, as well as of the New Dispensation, was fitly denominated the 1^, or Prince of the covenant-people. But the prince of the kingdom of Persia, who stands, by way of contrast, over against this Divine Head of the Theocracy, is the mere earthly potentate, the only real head of that kingdom. Such also is the prince of Grecia, afterwards mentioned. The Lord in the heavens, by His angelic agencies, and providential arrangements, contends with these earthly powers and dominions : in the exercise of the freedom granted them, and the resohite application of the re- sources they possessed, they might succeed in gaining certain advantages, or creating a certain delay, but in such an unequal contest the result could not be long doubtful ; and the victory is soon announced to be on the Lord's side. This is the substance of the representation in Daniel, which contains nothing at vari- ance with the other representations in Scripture, nor anything, indeed, peculiar — unless it be the designation of the heads alike of the Divine and of the human kingdoms by the name o? prince, instead of using the more common appellation, hlng. A peculiarity scarcely deserving of notice.^ (2) The idea of guardian-angels for each particular believer, or, as it is often put, for each individual child — the natural child in the first instance, then the spiritual — has met with much more general acceptance than the one already noticed, and still has the support of distinguished commentators. It is chiefly based on our Lord's statement in Matt, xviii. 10, " Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones ; for I say unto you, that in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father, which is in heaven." Alford, as well as Meyer, holds the plain teaching of the passage to be, that individuals have certain angels appointed to them as their special guardians; and on Acts xii. ^ For a similar contrast between the Divine Head of the Jewish state, and the merely eartlily heads of the surrounding states, see the explanation given in Part Third of Isa. vii. 14, as quoted in Matt. i. 23. AND DOCTRINE OF ANGELS. 221 15, where lie again refers to the passage, he affirms, not only that the doctrine of guardian-angels had been distinctly asserted by our Lord, but that the disciples, on the ground of His teaching, naturally spoke of Peter's angel, and believed that the guardian- angel sometimes appeared in the likeness of the person himself. So also Stier (on Matt, xviii. 10), while he admits, that the lan- guage points only by way of allusion to special guardian-angels of persons, holds the doctrine on this ground, and the unanimous sense of the Fathers, to be beyond any reasonable doubt. " Every child," he affirms, " has his angel until sin drives him away, as we may still be able to trace in the reflection of the angelic ap- pearance in the countenance and aspect of children. Eveiy be- liever, again, who may have come into a saved condition through the grace of redemption, gets, as a new spiritual child, his angel again, whom now he especially needs in the weakness of his spiritual commencement, for deeper-reaching experiences of guar- dianship and admonition, than weak and foolish children in times of bodily danger." I am no way moved by these high authorities and confident assertions ; for they seem to me to impose a sense upon the words of our Lord, which they neither necessarily bear, nor naturally convey. The readiness and unanimity with which the Fathers found in them the doctrine of guardian-angels, is easily understood from the universal belief in the heathen world — a belief accredited and often largely expatiated upon in its highest philosophy — of attending genii or demons attached to single per- sons; and which naturally begat in the Fathers, whose early training was to a greater or less degree received in the school of heathenism, a predisposition to discover the same doctrine in a Christian form. On such a point they were peculiarly disquali- fied for being careful and discriminating guides ; of which the following comment of Jerome on the passage may serve as a sufficient proof: " Because their angels in heaven ahoays see the face of the Father : the great dignity of souls, that each should have from his natural birth (ab ortu nativitatis) an angel ap- pointed for his guardianship. Whence we read in the Apocalypse of John, Write these things to the aiigel of Ephesus, Thyatira, and to the angels of the other churches. The apostle also commands the heads of women to be veiled in the churches, on account of the angels." How much sounder and more discriminating, not 222 SCRIPTURAL DESIGNATIONS only than this confused and puerile annotation, but also than the interpretations of the modern expositors referred to above, is the note of Calvin ? " The view taken by some of this passage, as if it ascribed to each believer his ovv^n peculiar angel, is without support. For the words of Christ do not import, that one angel is in perpetuity attached to this person or that, and the notion is at variance with the whole teaching of Scripture, which testifies, that angels encamp round about the righteous, and not to one angel alone, but to many has it been commanded, to protect every one of the faithful. Let us have done, therefore," he justly adds, " with that comment concerning a good and evil genius, and be content with holding, that to angels are committed the care of the whole Church, so that they can bring succour to in- dividual members as necessity or profit may require." This plainly appears to be the correct view of the passage. It does not speak of little children simply as such, but of believers under this character (to which in humility and lowliness of spirit they had immediately before been assimilated) ; nor does it speak of individual relationships subsisting between these and the angels, but of the common interest they have in angelic ministrations, which extend to the apparently least and lowest of their nimiber. But of a separate guardianship for each individual there is not a word dropt here, nor in any other part of Scripture. Even in Acts xii. 7, where a very special work had to be accomplished for Peter by the ministiy of an angel, there is nothing of the his- torian's own that implies any individual or personal relationship of the one to the other : the angel is not called Peter's angel, nor is the angel represented as waiting upon him like a tutelary guardian ; on the contrary, he is designated " the angel of the Lord," and is spoken of as coming to Peter, to do the particular office required, and again departing from him when it was done. It is true, the inmates of Mary's house, when they could not credit the report of the damsel, that Peter himself was at the door, said, as if finding in the thought the only conceivable ex- planation of the matter, " It is his angel." But as Ode has justly stated (De Angelis, Sec. viii. c. 4), " It is not everything recorded by the Evangelists as spoken by the Jews, or even by the disciples of Christ, which is sound and worthy of credit. Nor can what in this particular case was true of Peter be affirmed of AND DOCTRINE OP ANGELS. 223 all believers, or ought it to be so. And, indeed, that Peter him- self did not believe, that a particular angel was assigned to him for guardianship, clearly enough appears from this, that when Peter got out of the prison, and followed the angel as his guide, he did not as yet know it to be true, that an angel was the actor, but thought he saw a vision ; and at length, after the departure of the angel, having come to himself, he said, ' Now I know of a surety, that the Lord hath sent His angel, and delivered me from the hand of Herod.'" (3) The last notion we were to consider respecting the minis- try of angels, is the special charge they are supposed to take of Christian assemblies. This notion rests entirely upon two pas- sages— the one, Eccl. v. 4-6, which has already been examined, and shown to have no proper bearing on this, or any other point, connected with angelic agency ; the other, 1 Cor. xi. 10, in which the apostle says, " For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head, because of the angels." It is said in the course of the discussion, which the apostle introduces on the subject of female attire in the public assemblies. At the same time, it is proper to bear in mind, what expositors too commonly overlook, that the immediate object of the statement is of a general kind, and has respect to the relation of the woman to the man, as de- termined by the order of their creation : " For the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man ; neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man : for this cause (namely, on account of that relative position and destiny) ought the woman to have power on her head, because of the angels." It is plainly the attire and aspect of the woman, as in- dicative of her proper place, that the apostle has here more imme- diately in view, and not merely nor directly her appearance and bearing in the church; this last and more specific point he would derive simply as a practical conclusion from the other. Now, as to the import of what he says on that other and more general subject, there can be little doubt, that what is meant by having power or authority {s^ousla) on the head, is having what visibly exliibited that ; viz. a veiled, or covered appearance, which is the natural symbol of a dependent or subordinate position. There is no force in the objection to this, that it is rather the want of authority, than the possession of it, which is ascribed to the 22i SCRIPTURAL DESIGNATIONS woman ; for it proceeds on a mistaken view of the expression, as if the apostle meant she had the power to use it as her own. The reverse, rather, is what is indicated. The expression is entirely similar to that used by the centurion in Matt. viii. 9, when he said of himself, "For I also am a man under authority" {vTh s^ovaiav) — he stood, as it were, under its law and ordination — having; a right and a call to do whatever it authorised him to do — that, but no more. So the woman here, as standing under the man in a relation of subservience, ought (cxpslXu) to have autho- rity or power upon her head ; in other words, something in the very attire and aspect of her head to denote, that authority lay upon her. Her veiled appearance — naturally, by her long hair, and artificially, by an appropriate head-dress — is such a thing ; it is a token of respect and submission toward the higher autho- rity lodged in the man, and betokens that it is hers to do with ministrations of service, rather than with the right of government and control. Hence the feminine aspect which, in the ancient ordinance of the Nazarite vow, the person bound by it had to assume, in regard to his head. The Nazarite was one who, by a special vow, placed himself in strict subservience to God ; the authority of God rested upon him in a manner quite peculiar ; and, to mark this, he had to let his hair grow like a woman's ; so that, as the woman in relation to man, so he in relation to God, might be said to have power or authority on his head ; and the parting with the symbol of his position (as in the case of Samson) was in effect abandon- ing the covenant-engagement under which he stood^breaking loose from God. We see, then, the fitness and propriety of the veiled appearance of the woman's head — it is the becoming sign of her place and calling, as made of man, and, in a sense also, for man. But why should this be said to be because, or, for the sake of the angels ? Whatever may be meant by the expression, one thing should be distinctly understood regarding it — that, from the brief and abrupt manner in which the allusion is made — not a word of explanation going before or coming after — it can have reference to no recondite or mysterious point — nothing in itself of doubtful speculation, or capable of being ascertained only by minute and laborious search. Points of such a nature, together with the AND DOCTRINE OF ANGELS. 226 Rabbinical or heathen lore, on which they are grounded, must be out of place here, as the allusion (had it referred to such) could only have tended to perplex or mislead. Proceeding, therefore, on the ground now laid down, we have to dismiss from our minds all the peculiar and unusual applications of the term angels some- times adduced by commentators ; and also all fancifal notions re- garding the acts of real angels — such as their supposed habit of veiling their faces before God (which is never mentioned of angels, strictly so called), or having a sort of superintendence and over- sight of Christian assemblies (a matter also nowhere else inti- mated in any earlier Scripture) : — and we have simply to con- sider, whether there be any broad and palpable facts respecting the angelic world, which, without violence or constraint, may be fitly brought into juxtaposition with the proper place and bearing of women. We know nothing of this description, imless it be what their very name imports — their position and calling as ministering spirits before God, from which one section of them, indeed, fell, but which the rest kept, to their honour and blessing. This, however, is enough ; it furnishes precisely the link of con- nection between them and woman. Her place, in relation to man, is like that of the angels of God ; it is to do the part of a ministering agent and loving help — not independently to rule and scheme for herself. It is by abiding under law to man, that she becomes either a subject or an instrument of blessing. Hence, when she fell, it was by departing from this order, by attempting to act an independent part, as if no yoke of authority lay upoii her, and she might be an authority and a law to herself — quitting her appointed place of ministering, for the coveted place of inde- pendent action. So, too, was it, in the higher regions of existence, with the angels that lost their first estate ; they strove, in like manner, against the prime law of their being, which was to minister and serve, and aspired to be and act as from themselves. By this vain and wicked attempt they fell ; and the fall of Eve, through their instrumentality, was but the image and echo of their own. Now, is it unnatural to suppose that the apostle, while tracing up the matter concerning woman's place and bear- ing in society to the origin and fountain of things, should also have reminded them of these instructive facts ? should have pointed their thoughts to the higher region of spirits ? The order p 226 SCRIPTURAL DESIGNATIONS liere — he virtually said to them — the order of things in this lower world, serves as an image of the heavenly. Relations of superio- rity and subservience exist there as w^ell as here ; and the harmony and blessedness of both worlds alike depend upon these relations being duly kept ; to disregard them, is the sure road to confusion and every evil work. Let the woman, therefore, recognising this, and remembering how the evil that originated in ambitious striving in the heavenly places, renewed itself on earth by the like spirit taking possession of her bosom — feel that it is good for her to wear perpetually the badge of subjection to authority. It is at once safe and proper for her to retain it ; and so, instead of constantly repeating the catastrophe of the fallen angels, she will show her readiness to fulfil that angel-relationship, with its ministrations of service, for which she was broiTght into being, and exhibit before the blessed ministers of light a reflection of their own happy order and loving obedience. It may be added, in respect to the false views of angelic minis- tration which we have combated, and as an additional proof of their contrariety to the truth of Scripture, that the countenance they too commonly received from the Fathers produced its natural fruit throughout the early Church in a prevailing ten- dency to angel- worship. The Fathers, however, opposed this tendency, and sometimes by formal synodal acts denounced the practice, in which it showed itself, of dedicating particular churches to certain angels, and calling them by their names. In the rightness of this opposition, the inconsistence with which it was connected may be overlooked ; but it were hard to see how, if the guardianship of distinct regions, of particular persons, and of Christian assemblies, were assigned to individual angels, these should not have received a share in the semi-divine honour that was paid to the saints. Angelic adoration and saint-worship are but different forms of the same idolatrous tendency. V. The doctrine of the fallen angels, and their agency among men, though it should not be totally omitted here, yet does not call for lengthened consideration; since, while it gives rise to many metaphysical questions and baffling difficulties, these have com- paratively little to do with the interpretation of Scripture. For the most part, the passages in which the fallen angels are referred AND DOCTRINE OF ANGELS. 227 to, are plain enougli in their meaning ; and it is the subjects themselves discoursed of, not the language vised in discoursing of them, which more peculiarly exercise the powers of the mind. At present, it will be enough to indicate a few points nearly con- nected with, or naturally growing out of, the principles that have been unfolded regarding the angels of God. (1) It is, first of all, to be held fast respecting them, that, in common with those Avho still retain their place in light and glory, they were originally created good. The teaching of Scripture throughout is alto- gether opposed to the idea, which, from the earliest times, was so extensively prevalent in the East, of an independent, uncreated principle of evil, whether as embodied in one, or in a multiplicity of concrete existences. Every being in the universe, that is not God, is a part of the creation of God ; and, as His works were all, like Himself, very good, the evil that now appears in any of them must have been a perversion of the good, not an original and inherent malignity. And, in the case of the evil angels, the fact of a fall from a preceding good state is distinctly asserted (John viii. 44 ; Jude 6 ; 2 Pet. ii. 4). But nothing is said as to the period of this fall, whether it came immediately after their creation, or after the lapse of ages — nor as to the circumstances that gave rise to it, and the precise form it assumed. The ex- pression of our Lord, in John's Gospel, that Satan was a liar from the beginning (a^' dp^rig), does not necessarily refer to the com- mencement of his own existence, but seems rather, fi'om the con- nection, to point to the beginning of this world's history. It is more natvu'al for us to suppose, that the fall of the angels, like that of our fii'st parents, was nearly coeval with their existence, as it is next to impossible for us to conceive how they should, for any length of time, have enjoyed the intuition and the blessed- ness of God, without having all the principles of goodness in their natures strengthened and rendered continually less capable of turning aside to evil ; — but this is a region into which Scripture does not conduct us, and it is best to avoid it as one that can only involve matters of uncertain speculation. (2) The total de- pravity, and consequent misery of the evil angels, is also con- stantly asserted in Scripture. In both respects they are repre- sented as the antithesis of the good and blessed angels. Inveter- ately hostile to God Himself, whatever is of God excites their 228 SCHIPTLKAL DESIGNATIONS enmity and opposition : falseliood instead of ti'uth, instead of love, selfishness, hatred and malice, have become the elements of their active being ; and, themselves utterly estranged fi'om all good, they appear incapable even of apprehending the feelings of those Avho love it, and actuated only by the insatiate desire of, in every possible way, resisting and overthrowing it. Hence their policy is characterised by mingled intelligence and blindness, cunning and folly, according as it is directed to those who, like themselves, are inclined to the evil, or to such as are wedded to the good : with the one it is skilfully laid and reaches its aim, Avith the other it perpetually miscalculates and defeats itself. Of all this the recorded actings of Satan and his angels, in the history of oiu' Lord and His apostles, supply ample proof (comp. besides Matt. xiii. 39 : 1 Pet. v. 8 ; Eph. vi. 12 ; Heb. ii. 14). So that sinning and doing evil may be said to have become a moral necessity in their natures, as love and holiness with the elect angels. " Hence they are necessarily miserable. Torn loose from the universal centre of life, without being able to find it in themselves ; by the feeling of inward void, ever driven to the outward world, and yet in irreconcileable hostility to it and themselves ; eternally shun- ning, and never esca^iing, the presence of God ; always endea- vouring to destroy, and always compelled to promote His pur- poses ; instead of joy in the beatific vision of the Divine glory, having a never-satisfied longing for an end they never reach ; instead of hope, the unending oscillation between hope and de- spair ; instead of love, an impotent hatred of God, their fellows, and themselves: — can the fearful condemnation of the last judg- ment, the thrusting down into the bottomless pit of destruction (Rev. XX. 10), add anything to the anguish of such a condition, excepting that they shall there see the kingdom of God for ever delivered fi'oni their assaults, their vain presumption that they can destroy or impede it scattered to the winds, leaving to them only the ever-gnawing despair of an inward rage, which cannot spend itself upon anything without, and is, therefore, for ever undeceived as to its own impotence !" — (Twesten's Lectures, see Bib. Sacra, i., p. 793). (3) Lastly, in regard to the agency of the evil angels, and the mode in which it is exercised in the world, the general limitations already deduced from ScrijDtiu'e in respect to the good, undoubtedly hold also here. Negatively, it cannot AND DOCTRINE OF ANGELS. 229 assume a substantive existence or separate action of its own, nor come into direct contact with the minds of men. It has no other way of operating, either upon men's souls or bodies, but by en- tering into the series of second caiises, and giving such additional potence to these as it may consist with the Divine purpose to admit of being employed. So that the temptations of the powers of evil, and the effects of every kind Avrought by them, are not (in ordinary cases) to be distinguished from the operation of the moral and physical laws which prevail in the Avorld. No record is contained of external injuries inflicted by them, except by means of external causes, which they were allowed, in some un- known manner, to intensify — as in the case of Job's calamities, or Paul's thorn in the flesh. And the moral hardening, or intense addictedness to evil, which is sometimes ascribed to the working of Satan, or his fellows, always appears as the result of a previous course of Mackedness, and as consisting simply in a more thorough abandonment to the carnal lusts and afl^ections, which have gained dominion of the heart. The cases of Saul in the Old Testament, of Judas, Ananias and Sapphira, the followers of Antichrist, etc., in the New, fully confirm this (1 Sam. xvi. 14, xviii. 10 ; Luke xxii. 3 ; Acts v. 1-9 ; 2 Thess. ii. 11, etc.). The nearest contact with the individual that any of the notices of Scripture give rea- son for supposing to have ever taken place, or to be compatible with the nature of things, lies in some such operation on the bodily organism, as is fitted to inflame the existing tendencies to evil, and shut their unhappy victim more entirely up to their dominicm. And hence the utter fallacy of the whole theory and practice of witchcraft, which proceeded on the assumption of direct, personal intercourse with the Wicked One. That the possibility of such a traffic should have been believed in Christian times, and especially that it should have led to the sacrifice of thousands of lives in every state of European Christendom, is one of the greatest scandals in the history of modern civilization. 230 THE NAMES OF CHRIST SECTION THIRD. ON THE NAMES OF CHRIST IN NEW TESTAMENT SCRIPTURE, AND, IN PARTICULAR, ON THE USE OF XpiSTog, AND Tiog rou dvdp'Jj'Trou. All tlie names of the Redeemer were originally appellatives. They expressed some leading property, or exhibited some specific aspect of His person, His mission, or His kingdom. The term Christ is no exception, nor even Jesus, which simply denotes Him as emphatically the Saviour — although being the individual name borne by Him from His infancy, it was familiarly used, and might from the first be regarded, as a proper name. The Old Testament designations not only were originally, but for the most part con- tinued still to retain an appellative character ; such, for example, as The Angel of the Lord, The Angel of the Covenant, Immanuel, The Prince, TJie Son of God. But in others the appellative passed, even in Old Testament times, into a kind of proper name ; and, as a consequence, the article, which was originally prefixed to them, ultimately fell away. In one of them, indeed, Michael — which has already been investigated in connection with the sub- ject of angels — the article was not prefixed ; for in the only book where it occurs (Daniel) it was employed substantially as a proper name ; yet it was really an appellative, and, for the pur- pose of indicating more distinctly the Di\ane nature and exalted position of Messiah, was preferred to some of the earlier and more common designations used by the prophets. As a projDer example, however, of the change from the appellative to the in- dividual form, let us trace the manner in which the term Zemach, or Branch, came to be applied definitely and personally to Christ. Isaiah first speaks in ch. iv. 2, with reference probably to Mes- sianic times, but in a somewhat general way, of the Lord's branch (n"in^ nov), which he said was yet to be beautiful and glorious ; and at ch. xi. 1, a little more specifically, at least with a more special reference to the house of David, and an individual mem- ber of that house, he gives promise of a stem of Jesse, and a branch, or sucker, fi'om his roots. Here, however, the word IN NEW TESTAMENT SCRIPTURE. 231 Zemach is not used, but iLDh and "IVJ, showing that such terms were emj^loyed simply in an appellative sense, and merely be- cause indicating a certain characteristic of the future scion of the royal house. With a still nearer approach to the personal, Jere- miah, in ch. xxiii. 5, prophesies of a time, when the Lord would raise up to David a righteous branch (Zemach), and a king (viz. the branch already mentioned) should reign and prosper. And, finally, when through these earlier prophecies the appellative had come, in the general apprehension, to be associated with the one object of hope and expectation, to whom it pre-eminently pointed, it is used as a sort of proper name by the prophet Zechariah — though still with an obvious reference to its appellative import : ch. iii. 8, " Behold, I bring my servant. Branch ;" and again, ch. vi. 12, " Thus saith the Lord, Behold a man, whose name is Branch." — Much in the same manner Melek, king, is occasionally used ; for example in Ps. xlv. 1, Ps. Ixxii. 1, where the theme is that King by way of eminence, to whom even then the eye of faith looked forward as the crowning-point of Israel's glory ; it is applied to Him individually, and without the article, as a strictly personal designation. This progression, however, from the appellative to the proper use of names, appears still more distinctly in the epithet, by which in ancient times the coming Redeemer was most commonly known — the Messiah, or, adopting the Greek form, the Chiist. In its primary import and application there was nothing strictly personal, or even very specific, in the term. A participle or verbal adjective from r\\y^ to anoint, it was applied to any one so anointed ; for example, to the high-priest, who is called in Lev. iv. 3, " the priest the anointed " (Jiamaschiach), rendered in the Septuagint 6 hpiiii 6 yjie-oc.. At a later period it is similarly used of Saul by David — not of Saul as an individual, but of him as the possessor of a dignity, to which he had been set apart by a solemn act of consecration ; as such, he is designated o ^fisrog rov li.vplou, the christ or anointed of the Lord (1 Sam. xii. 3, 5, etc.) It was Hannah who first gave the term this kingly direc- tion, when, at the conclusion of her song of praise, she proclaimed the Lord's intention to give " strength to His king, and exalt the horn of His anointed (ineschiho) " — evidently using His Messiah, or anointed, as synonymous with His king in the preceding 232 THE NAMES OF CHRIST clause ; and, singularly enough, doing so, before there was an actual king in Israel, and when as yet the act of anointing had not been applied to any one filling the kingly function. The prophetic spirit, in which her song was conceived, and the eleva- tion especially of its closing sentences, seem to point above and beyond the immediate future, and to bear respect to that uni- versal King, of whom Jacob had already spoken as the Shiloh, and to whom the gathering of the peoples was to be — whom Balaam also descried as " the Star that should come out of Jacob, and the Sceptre that should rise out of Israel, who was to smite the corners of Moab, and destroy all the children of tumult." This was the child of hope more especially in the eye of Hannah ; for the anointed King, of whom she speaks, was to stand pre- eminent above the states and powers of the world, and through Him the adversaries of the Lord were to be broken, and the ends of the earth to be judged. Not long after we find the tenn Messiah applied in the same manner by David — not to a merely human and earthly monarch, but to the Son of the Highest, to whom as such the heritage of the world, to its utmost bounds, by Divine right belongs. And at length it became so appro- priated to this higher use, in the diction of the Spirit and the expectations of the people, that its other possible applications were lost siolit of; it came to be reoarded as the distinctive name of the promised Saviour — as in Dan. ix. 25, "Know, therefore, and understand, that fi'om the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem, unto Messiah, Prince" (no article) ; and again in the next verse, " And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off"." These remarks will explain some apparent grammatical ano- malies in the New Testament use of the term XpisTog. But be- fore quitting the Old Testament usage, it is not unimportant to notice, that there are two or three passages, in which the term is applied to persons not precisely included in the cases already noticed ; applications which have given rise to the idea, that the term was loosely extended to include any person of note, and in particular the collective people of Israel. This is a mistaken view, and loses its apparent plausibility, when respect is had to the symbolical import of anointing with oil, out of which the A^ ord Messiah arose. Such anointing, as a religious ceremony, IN NEW TESTAMENT SCllIPTURE. '^33 was always symbolical of the communication of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Thus the anointing of the tabernacle and all its furniture bespoke the indwelling of the Spirit for purposes of life and blessing among the members of the Theocracy. Hence, when David was anointed to be king in the room of Saul, it is immediately said, that " the Spirit of the Lord came upon him fi'om that day forward, and that the Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul" (1 Sam. xvi. 13, 14); and David himself, when by his iniquity he had forfeited his title to the place he held in the king- dom, prays that God would not take His Holy Spirit from him (Ps. li.) — would not deal with him as He had dealt with Saul, and leave his anointing a shell without a kernel. Still more ex- plicitly Isaiah, pointing to Gospel times, and personating the Messiah himself, says, " The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, be- cause Pie hath anointed me to preach glad tidings to the meek " (ch. Ixi. 1) — the possession of the Spirit because of the anoint- ing ; as if the one necessarily inferred the other ; and, indeed, in this case the reality alone was made account of; the symbol was dropt as no longer needed. And, to mention no more, in the vision presented to Zechariah, ch. iv., there is first the symbol of two olive-trees, pouring a perpetual stream of oil into the candle- stick, with its seven branches — emblems of the Church ; and then the explanation of the symbol in what is said to Zerubbabel, "Not by might, nor by power, but by My Spii'it, saith the Lord of Hosts :" — So that the presence of the Spirit, pervading the affairs of the covenant, and carrying these triumphantly over the diffi- culties and dangers around them, is the reality indicated by the oil that flowed from the olive-trees into the candlestick. Now, it is by a reference to this symbolical import of the prac- tice of anointing that the passages in question are to be under- stood and explained. One of them is Isa. xlv. 1, Avhere Cyrus is designated by the name of Messiah (" Thus saith the Lord to His anointed, to Cyrus") ; so designated, however, not from his being simply a prince or a ruler, but from the peculiar relation in which he stood to the covenant-people, and the important service he rendered to their intei'ests. On these accounts he was justly regarded as one possessed of a certain measure of the Spirit, having the reality, though not the outward symbol of an anointing, which qualified him for discerning in some degree the 234 THE NAMES OF CHRIST truth of God, and for acting as God's chosen instrument at an important crisis in the affairs of His Church. In the judicious hmguage of Yitringa, " The anointed person here is one who was separated by the Divine counsel, and ordained to accomphsh a matter that pertained to the glory of God, and was furnished for it from above with the necessary gifts ; among which were his justice, his regard for the Divine Being, his prudence, forti- tude, mildness, and humanity ; so that he could not seem to be unworthy of being made an illustrious means of executing the counsels of God." Again, in Hab. iii. 13, it is said, " Thou wentest forth for the salvation (help) of Thy people, and for the salvation of Thine anointed" (Sept. roug XpiffTovg ffov) ; where the anointed, in the last clause, is often viewed as synonymous with people in the first. But this is erroneous ; the former expression points to the God-anointed king of the people, in whose behalf the Lord is often also in the Psalms represented as coming, or entreated to come, for the purpose of bringing deliverance (Ps. xxviii. 8, XX. 6). Finally, in Ps. cv. 15, it is said respect- ing the patriarchs, " Touch not Mine anointed, and do My pro- phets no harm ;" and the reference is still of the same kind — it points to those heads of the Jewish nation as vessels and instru- ments of God's Spirit, to whom were communicated revelations of the Divine will, and by whom were accomplished the more peculiar purposes of Heaven : on which account also Abraham is expressly called a prophet (Gen. xx. 7). To style thus the pa- triarchal heads of the covenant-people, and even Cyrus the heathen prince, by the name of God's anointed, is itself con- vincing evidence of the respect that was had, in Old Testament times, to the reality in the symbol, and shows how, where the external form of anointing had failed, this might still be re- garded as virtually present, if the things signified by it had actually taken effect. To retui'n, however, to our more immediate object, we have seen that while the term Messiah was properly an appellative, yet, toward the close of the Old Testament writings, it came to be used of the expected Redeemer much as a proper name, and hence, naturally, without the article ; still, not as if it thereby lost its appellative import, but only because this import was seen concentrating all its fulness in Him, so that He alone seemed IN NEW TESTAMENT SCRIPTURE. 235 worthy to bear the appellation. It should not, therefore, excite any surprise ; it is rather in accordance with what might have been expected, if, sometimes at least, and especially when persons spoke, who were peculiarly under the influence of the Spirit, or who had no doubt as to the individual to whom the name pro- perly belonged, it is found to be similarly used in New Tes- tament Scripture. It is in reality so used on the very first occa- sion on which Xpiffrhg occurs in the Gospels, viz., when the angels announced to the shepherds on the plains of Bethlehem that there had been born a Saviour, og knv XpiSrhg K-Jpiog, " who is Christ, Lord" (Luke ii. 11). In like manner, the woman of Samaria, when speaking, not of any definite individual, but of the ideal ISIessiah, or the specific, though still unknown individual, in whom the idea was to be realized, uses the term absolutely, or as a proper name, " I know (she said, John iv. 25) that Messias comes, who is called Christ (6 Xiyo/j^svog Xpicrog) : when he shall have come, He will tell us all things." So, yet again, Jesus Himself, in the only passage in which He is recorded to have applied the term directly to Himself, John xvii. 3, " And Jesus Christ, whom Thou hast sent." Here especially commentators have often found a difficvilty, fl'om not seeing the matter in its proper light ; and Dr Campbell even suspects, in the face of all the MSS., that the article has somehow been lost before Xpisrov. He might, however, as well have suspected a like omission in the address of the angels to the shepherds, or in Dan. ix. 24, 25, before Messiah. The same principle accounts for the omission in all the cases, and satisfactorily explains it ; viz., the distinctive application of the term ISIessiah, even before the close of Old Testament Scripture, to the promised Redeemer, which rendered it substantially a proper name, when used by those who looked with some degree of confidence to the individual that was entitled to bear it. Bu.t from the circumstances connected with our Lord's ap- pearance in the world, which were such as to occasion doubts in many minds respecting His Messiahship, it was quite natural that when the term was used during the })eriod of His earthly sojourn, it should not commonly have been employed as a proper name, but should rather have been taken in its appellative sense, and as only with a greater or less degree of probability applicable to the 23(5 THE NAMES OF CHRIST Saviour. The question, which at the time either consciously agitated, or silently occmTed to men's minds, was, whether this Jesus of Nazareth was entitled to be owned as the Messiah ; whether He was in reality the person, in whom the characteristics and properties implied in that designation were to be found. Hence, being commonly used with reference to the solution of such a question, the name Messiah, or Christ, usually has the article prefixed, till after the period of the resurrection, when all doubt or uncertainty vanished from the minds of His followers, and the name began, equally with Jesus, to be appropriated to our Lord as a strictly personal designation. We can thus mark a general progress in the usage of the sacred writers, and a diversity in respect to Xpisrog, quite similar to that, which was noticed in the Old Testament respecting Messiah : an earlier use, in which respect is had more to the appellative import, and a later, in which the word comes chiefly to be applied as a proper name- And, accordingly, in the Gospels it is but rarely found without the article, while it is almost as rarely found ivith the article in the Epistles. This more advanced stage of matters, when Christ as well as Jesus had come to be used as a proper name, had already entered when the Gospels were written. Hence we find the Evangelists, at the beginning of their narratives, and when speaking from the point of view which had then been reached, employing the term Christ in as personal a manner as Jesus. Thus Matthew, at the befinninff of his a'enealoo-v, "The book of the generation 'iriaoij XpisTov" of Jesus Christ ; and again at the close of it, " Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ " (6 Xsyo^tavog Xpisroi). In like manner Mark heads his Gospel, " The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, Son of God." So also John in ch. i. 17, " The law was given by Moses ; grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." But imme- diately after such introductory statements, when they begin to report what persons thought and spake, while the events of Gospel history were in progress, we mark in the use of the article the regard men had to the appellative import of the word. Thus in John i. 20, the Baptist is reported as confessing, that he was " not the Christ ;" and at ver. 42, Andrew says to Peter, " Wo liave found (he ISlessias." In Matt. ii. 3, Herod demands of the IN NEAV TESTxVMENT SCRIPTURE, 237 chief priests and scribes, " Where the Christ is bom ;" i. e. the person to whom that appellation should really belong. And Peter in his memorable confession says, " We believe that Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." It would undoubtedly have been better, and would have con- tributed to the more easy and distinct understanding of some passages in New Testament Scripture, if our translators had been more generally observant of the difference in style now under consideration, and had more commonly rendered the article when it exists in the original. We miss it particularly in some passages of the Acts — as at ch. iv. 42, " They ceased not teach- ing and preaching Jesus Christ," properly, Jesus the Christ, meaning, that Jesus is the Christ ; ch. xvii. 3, " This Jesus whom I preach to you is Christ," ch. xviii. 28, " Showing by the Scriptures that Jesus was Christ " — where in both passages the meaning Avould evidently gain in distinctness by inserting the article, as in the original, " That Jesus is the Christ." At the same time, as the name, even when it became a kind of per- sonal designation, always bore a reference to its original import, so it never wholly loses this in the minds of thoughtful readers of the Bible; and there are probably not very many, at least of serious and thoughtful readers, M'ho are in the position described by Dr Campbell, when he says, that they consider Jesus Christ as no other than the name and surname of the same person, and that it would sound all one to them to say, that Paul testified that Christ was Jesus, as that Jesus was Christ.^ No one coidd possibly be insensible to the difference in these statements, who reads with ordinaiy attention the authorised version — excepting in the sense, which would not suit Dr Campbell's purpose, of ascribing an appellative import to Jesus as well as Christ. In that case it would be much the same to say, that Jesus or Saviour is Christ, and that Christ or Messias is Jesus. All, however, that can with propriety be affirmed is, that the omission of the article in such cases renders the meaning less palpable and ob- vious than it would otherwise have been. Even when the word Christ was passing, or had already passed into a sort of personal designation, pains were taken by the apostles to keep up in the minds of the disciples an acquaintance 1 Preliminary Dissertations. 238 THE NAMES OF CHEIST with its proper import. Thus Peter on the day of Pentecost speaks of God having made the Jesus who had been so recently crucified both Lord and Christ — %at Kvpiov zai Xpiarhv ; and, somewhat later, the assembled company of apostles, after the liberation of Peter and John, say in their joint address to God, " Thy holy child Jesus, whom Thou didst christen," or anoint (ov s^piffag, Acts iv. 27). Still more explicitly was this done in the address of Peter to the household of Cornelius, when, after briefly adverting to the general outlines of our Lord's history, and styling Him simply, Jesus of Nazareth, he adds, " how God anointed him with the Holy Spirit and power" (w? ^XP"^^^ a-orh 0 Qihg Uviv/xari ' Ayiui -/.ai dvvd/jbsi, Acts X. 38). Lideed, the verb XP''^) on this very account — that is, because of its symbolical con- nection with the gift of the Spirit, and in particular with the name and consecration of Jesus — itself acquired a kind of sacred value, and in New Testament Scripture is only used of this higher, spmtual anointing. With one exception, it is never used but of Christ Himself, as the Spirit-replenished servant of Je- hovah ; and even that exception is not without a close respect to the same. It is in 2 Cor. i. 21, where the apostle says, "He that establishetli us together with you into Christ, and hath anointed us, is God" (o 3s (BsSaiSjv yj/Jt^ag ff-ov hiu^ sig Xpiffrhn, xai yj'iGag YiiJjag, Qiog) — that is. He has SO knit and consolidated us into Christ, that we have ourselves become Christ-like, replenished with a portion of His enlightening and sanctifying Spirit. The verb dXiif oj is the word employed in reference to anointings of an inferior sort, done for the sake of refreshment merely, and without any sacred design. In some of the later passages of .the New Testament this refer- ence to the original meaning of the term is undoubtedh^ lost sight of; and Jesus is designated Christ, when, as far as we can see. Lord, or Redeemer, might have been equally appropriate. Thus in Eph. V. 21, according to the correct reading, we have "being subject to one another in fear of Christ " {sv (pSjStjj Xpiarou) ; Christ being simply an appellation of the Divine and glorified Pedeemer, as the object of humble reverence and submissive re- gard. Passages of this sort, however, are not very fi'equent; and where there is no distinct, there often is a concealed or implied reference to the appellative impoi't of the term. It is to this, IN NEW TESTAMENT SCEIPTUKE. 239 that we would ascribe the occasional employment of Christ, rather than any other name of the Redeemer, to denote the organic union between Him and His people. Thus in Gal. iv. 19, the apostle says, " My little children, of whom I travail in birth again, until Christ be formed in you ;" and in Eph. iv. 20, " Ye have not so learned Christ." In these passages we are not to dilute the term Christ, so as to take it for a kind of concrete designa- tion of Christian doctrine ; Ave are rather to regard it as pointing to that intimate spiritual fellowship between the soul and Christ, which renders genuine believers so many images of Himself — smaller vessels and partial embodiments of that grace, which in infinite fulness and perfection is treasured up in Him. So again in 1 Cor. xii. 12, we read, " For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body ; so also is Christ;" i.e. Christ and those who are His — the whole corporate society of the faithfiil ; they are together designated by the name of Christ, as ha^dng their spiritual being in Him, and in Him receiving the unction of the same Spirit. It is quite possible also, and even probable, that out of this import and use of the word Xpierhg, may have grown that common name XpiGTiavol, Christians, by which the followers of Jesus became so early, and have so uniformly been distin- guished. We are told in Acts xi. 26, that they were so called first in Antioch; and Mr Trench (in his Study of Words, p. 98), as well as many in former times, have thought, that the name w^as imposed upon them by their heathen adversaries, and con- sequently at first had somewhat of the aspect of a nickname. We cannot positively afiirm it was otherwise; but the phraseology of St Paul approaches so very near to the use of the word as a com- mon designation, that if it did not actually originate in the Church itself, we might almost say, it should have done so ; nor, assuredly, would it have become so readily owned, and so extensively em- ployed among the Christian communities, unless it had, either spontaneously arisen from within, or as soon as heard awakened a response among the members of the Church. Hence, as conscious of no reproach in the appellation, yea, rather as ow^ning and accrediting its propriety, the Apostle Peter says, " But if any of you suffer as a Christian — wg xpiSTiavog — let him not be ashamed" (1 Pet. iv. 16). And as regards the spiritual use to 240 THE NAMES OF CHRIST be made of the appellation, the most natural and appropriate turn, in our judgment, to be given to the matter, is, to direct attention — not to the supposed accident of the origin of the term — but to the real meaning involved in it, when rightly under- stood; in other words, to the fulness of grace and blessing, which ought to distinguish those, who have their calling and designation from Him, who is the Christ — the Spirit-anointed Saviour. Another thing to be noted, in connection with this name and its cognate terms, is the rise that took place from the outward and symbolical, to the inward and spiritual. This had begun, as we have noticed, even in Old Testament times ; persons were even then designated as Christs or anointed ones, who had re- ceived no outward consecration with holy oil. The application of the term to the patriarchs in Psalm cv., and to Cyrus by Isaiah, was manifestly of this description ; and in the New Testament the external symbol, so far as regards the use of ;)^p/w in all its forms, falls entirely away ; it is applied only to the inward communication and endowment with the Spirit's grace, which was symbolized by the external anointings with holy oil. The spiritual reality was so well understood, that while the old language was retained, the ancient symbol was felt to be no longer needed ; so that the anointed one now is simply the vessel of grace — Jesus pre-eminently and completely, because in Him resides the plenitude of the Spirit's grace ; then, subordinately to Him, the members of His spiritual body, because out of His fulness they receive grace for grace. It is proper, still further, to note the relative order and grada- tion, that appears in the names usually applied to our Lord as regards their individual import and common use. The first name by which He was known and addressed was Jesus, which, though of deep and comprehensive import, and requiring the exercise of lively faith and spiritual discei'nment, if used with a proper knowledge and apprehension of its meaning, was yet for the most part regarded as simply a proper name. When called Jesus of Nazareth by the men of His generation, our Lord was merely distinguished from the other persons of the place and neighbourhood. The first question that came to be stirred in men's bosoms, was, whether He was entitled to have the further IN NEW TESTAMENT SCRIPTUHE. '.Ml name of the Christ, or simply to be called Jesus Christ. As soon as inquirers attained to satisfaction on that point, they took their place among His disciples ; they recognised Him as the promised Messiah, and confessed Him as such. It was a further question, hoAvever, and one not so readily decided, what per- sonally this Christ was ? Was He simply a man, distinguished from other men by superior gifts of nature and of grace ? Or was He, in a sense altogether peculiar, the Son of God? A considerable time elapsed before even the immediate followers of Christ reached the proper position of knowledge and conviction upon this point ; and the first distinct, or, at least, thoroughly intelligent and assured utterance of the truth, was that which came from the lips of Peter, Avhen lie said, " We believe, that Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." If he had stopt at " the Christ," there had been nothing very remarkable in the confession ; Philip virtually confessed as much at the out- set, when he said to Nathanael, " We have found Him, of whom Moses in the law and the prophets wrote, Jesus the Son of Joseph ;" and by Andrew, when he informed Simon, " We have found the Messiah." But it was greatly more to be able to add, with a full understanding and conviction of what was said, " the Son of the living God." Peter appears to have had precedence of the other disciples in the clearness and strength of his con- victions on the subject. Nearly the same confession in words had been uttered at an early period by Nathanael, when he ex- claimed, " Rabbi, Thou art the Son of God, Thou art the King of Israel ;" but we can scarcely doubt that his mind was still imperfectly enlightened regarding the person of Jesus, and that he really confessed to nothing more than some kind of indefinite superiority in Jesus over ordinary men. But the truth had been communicated to Peter by special revelation, and had taken firm possession of his soul ; and the Sonship of Jesus to which he confessed was that essentially Divine one, of which Christ spake when He said, " All things are delivered to Me of Mv Father ; and no man knoweth the Son but the Father ; neither knoweth any man the Father save the Son, and he to whomso- ever the Son will reveal Him" (Matt. xi. 27). And it was, be- yond doubt, in this higher sense, which had been indicated in various discourses of Christ, that the Jewish high priest used it, Q 242 THE NAMES OF CHRIST ^ when he solemnly put the question to Jesus, whether He were the Christ, the Son of God ; and on receiving an affirmative answer, condemned Him for blasphemy. So that to confess Jesus, as at once the Christ, and the Son of God, was to own Him to be all that the prophets foretold He should be — all that His Divine mission required Him actually to be ; it declared Him to be pos- sessed of a nature essentially Divine, as well as human, and thereby rendered capable of receiving the entire fulness of the Spirit, to qualify Him for executing in every part the work of man's redemption. It is somewhat singular, that our Lord Himself never, except on one occasion — the one already referred to in John x\di. 3 — appropriated the names, Jesus and Christ ; and only on a very few occasions, and even then somewhat obliquely, did He take to Himself the title of Son of God (Matt. xi. 27 ; John v. 25, ix. 35, xi. 4). The epithet, under which He usually spoke of Himself, was that of the " Son of Man." There are on record upwards of forty distinct occasions on which He is represented to have employed it in His discourses. Yet it was never applied to Him by the Evangelists, when relating the events of His earthly ministry ; nor is He ever mentioned as having been ad- dressed under this title either by friends or foes. Stephen, however, after the resurrection of Jesus, made use of it, when in ecstasy he exclaimed, " Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God" (Acts vii. 56). On no other occasion do we find it used, either of Christ or to Him, in New Testament Scripture — unless we may so re- gard what is written in Eev. i. 13, where the Apocal}q3tist speaks of seeing in vision one o,u.om v'lQj avSpuTov, " like to" — not, as in the authorised version, the, but — " a son of man." It is in itself a quite general expression, although it doubtless points to the glorified Redeemer. This, however, we only learn from what follows : from the connection it appears, that the indivi- dual, who in the vision bore such resemblance to a son of man, was none other than the once crucified but now exalted Saviour ; but the description, " like a son of man," is not in itself more specific and personal than the corresponding phrase in Daniel, ch. vii. 13 — where, after the vision of the four wild beasts rising from the sea, and representing the four successive IN NEW TESTAMENT SCRIPTURE. 243 worldly monarchies, one appeared in the night visions " like a son of man (no article in the original), coming with the clouds of hea\en, and receiving dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages should serve Him." There can be no doubt that this passage in Daniel is the fun- damental one, on which not only that in Revelation, but also our Lord's favourite and familiar use of the phrase in question, is based ; and without knowing the precise import and bearing of the representation in the prophet, it is impossible rightly to a]>- prehend the reason and object of the language derived from it in New Testament times. There are two points of contrast brought out in the prophet between the representative of the fifth, the really universal and everlasting kingdom, and the repre- sentatives of the earthly kingdoms that preceded. These latter are all exhibited as deriving their origin from beneath ; they appeared coming out of the sea, that is from the world, in its heaving, troubled, and agitated state ; and not only so, but they, one and all, bore the aspect and possessed the nature of wild beasts, having only earthly properties about them, and these of the more savage and selfish description. In marked contrast to both of these broad characteristics, the representative of the fiftli and ultimate kingdom was seen descending from alcove, borne on the clouds of heaven, the distinctive chariot of Deity, and bearing tlie aspect, not of a nameless monster, or savage tenant of the forest, but of "the human face Divine" — ideal humanity. In- troduced in such a connection, and with the obvious design of exhibiting such a contrast, it is surely a meagre representation of its import, which is given by many commentators — for example, by Dr Campbell, when it is said, " Nothing appears to be pointed out by the circumstance, ' one like a son of man,' but that he would be a human, not an angelical, or any other kind of being ; for, in the Oriental idiom, son of man and man are terms equivalent."' Be it so; the question still remains. Why only in respect to this last — the sole world-embracing and per- petual monarchy — was there seen the attractive form of a human likeness, while the others, which were certainly to be constituted and governed by men, had their representation in so many in'a- ' Dissertation v. 13. 2U THE NAMES OF CIIKIST tional and ferocious wild beasts ? And why, possessing the like- ness of a man, should the former have appeared, not coming from beneath, like the others, cast up by the heaving convulsions of a tumultuous and troubled world, but descending from the lofty elevation of a higher region, and a serener atmosphere ? These things assuredly were designed to have their correspon- dences in the realities to which they pointed ; and the difference indicated is but poorly made out in the further statement of Dr Campbell, when he says, " This kingdom, which God Himself was to erect, is conti'adistinguished from all the rest by the figure of a man, in order to denote, that vrhereas violence, in some shape or other, would be the principal means by which those merely secular kingdoms should be established, and terror the principal motive by which submission should be enforced, it would be quite otherwise in that spiritual kingdom to be erected by the Ancient of Days, wherein everything should be suited to man's rational and moral nature ; aflFection should be the prevailing motive to obetUence, and persuasion the means of producing it." True, so far as it goes ; but the question is. How was such a spiritual and Divine kingdom to be set up and administered among men ? And when a prophetic representation was given of the fundamental differences betwixt it and the merely worldly kingdoms that were to precede, was the human element alone thought of ? Did the Spirit of prophecy mean to exhibit a simple man as destined to realize, on the wide field of the world, the proper ideal of humanity? That certainly is by no means likely ; and if the whole vision of the prophet is taken into account, is plainly not the case. The simply terrene or human kingdoms are there represented by the wild beasts ; and if one like a son of man is brought in to represent another and better kingdom, and one both receiving His kingdom from above, and descending thence, as on the chariot of Deity, to take possession of His dominion, the obvious inference and conclusion is, that here at last Divine and human weretobe intermino-ledin blessed harmony, and that till such intermingling took place, and the kingdom based on it was properly erected, the ideal of humanity shoidd remain an ideal still, bestial properties should really have the ascendant, and should retain their sway, till they Avere dis- lodged by the manifestation and working of Him who, with Di- TN NEW TESTAMENT SCRIPTURE. 245 vine aid, should restore humanity to its proper place and func- tion in the world. Such is the fair and natural interpretation of that part of Daniel's vision which relates to the fifth monarchy, and its repre- sentation inider one bearino- the likeness of a son of man. And it sufficiently explains our Lord's partiality for this epithet, when speaking of Himself, and some of the more peculiar connections in which He employed it. He was announced to Israel by His forerunner as coming to set up " the kingdom of God," or " of heaven." It was this kingdom which John declared Avas at hand — in other words, the fifth monarchy of Daniel, which was to come fi:om above, and which was destined to supplant every other. How natural, then, for our Lord, in order to keep prominently before men this idea, and impress upon their minds correct views of the natiu'e of His mission, to appropriate to Him- self that peculiar epithet, " Son of JNIan," under which this king- dom had been prophetically exhibited, as contradistinguished fi'om the kingdoms of the world? In so appropriating this epithet, He by no means claimed simple humanity to Himself; on the contrary. He emphatically pointed to that union of the Divine with the human, which was to form the peculiar characteristic of this kingdom, as that through which its higher ideal was to be realized. He was that Son of Man personified, to whom pro- phetically, and in vision, were committed the powers and des- tinies of the kingdom, which was of God — the kingdom, in which humanity was to be made to re-assmne its proper type. Hence we can readily explain, and see also the full propriety of such representations as that in John i. 51 — the first occasion on which the phrase in question is recorded to have been used — " Verily, verily, I say unto you, ye shall see heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man" — on Him, as uniting, according to Daniel's vision, heaven and earth, the Divine and the human. Or that in John iii. 13, " And no man hath ascended up to heaven but He that came down from heaven, who is in heaven" — a seeming contradiction, if taken by itself, but, when placed in connection with the passage in Daniel, embodying a most important truth. For it tells us that ]io one, who is simply a man, fallen and degenerate, ever has ascended to heaven, or can do so — the tendencv is all in the 246 THE NAMES OF CHKIST. opposite direction — not npwards to heaven, but downwards to hell. The Son of Man, however, in whom the idea of humanity was to be realized, is of a higher mould ; He belongs to the heavenly — that is His proper region ; and when He appears (as in the person of Christ He did appear) on earth, it is to exhibit in Himself what He has received from the Father, and raise others to the possession of the same. By the very title He assumed. He claimed to be the New Man, the Lord fVom heaven, come for the purpose of making all things new, and conforming men to the image of Himself. Hence, too, the peculiar expression, embodying another seeming incongruity, in John v. 27, where our Lord says of Himself, tliat the Father " has given Him authority also to execute judgment, because He is Son of Man." To execute judgment is, undoubtedly, a Divine work ; and yet it is committed to Christ precisely because He is the Son of Man. How? Not, assuredly, because in Him there were simply human properties ; but because there was the realization of that form in Daniel's vision, which represented the nature and aspect of the Divine kingdom among men — the Son of Man, in whom humanity was to attain to its proper completeness, and in whom, that it might do so, the human should be interpenetrated by the Divine, and hold its powers and commission direct from a higher sphere. He, therefore, could execute judgment ; nay, as con- centrating in Himself the properties of the kingdom, it was His peculiar province to do it ; since to man, as thus allied to heaven, God has put in subjection the powers of the world to come. And there is still another peculiar passage, which derives a clear and instructi^^e light from the same reference to the original passage in Daniel ; it is Matt. xxvi. 64. The high priest had adjured our Lord to confess whether He were indeed " the Christ, the Son of God ;" and His reply was, " Thou hast said [rightly] ; nevertheless [rather, moreover, in addition to what I have de- clared] I say unto you, Hereafter ye shall see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven." It is very striking, how our Lord here drops the title, " Son of God," to which He had confessed when put by another, and immediately reverts to His wonted appellation, " Son of Man ;" while, at the same time, He affirms of this Son of Man whnt might have seemed to be moi-e fitlv associated with ANTAGONISTIC HELAFIONS TO ClIKIST. 247 the Son of God. The explanation is found in the passage of Daniel, the very language and imagery of which it adopts ; and our Lord simply asserts Himself to be the Head and Founder of that Divine kingdom, which was presented to the eye of Daniel in vision, under the appearance of one like a Son of Man coming- in the clouds of heaven ; but which a moment's reflection might have convinced any one He could be, only by, at the same time, being in the strict and proper sense the Son of God. SECTION FOURTH. ON THE IMPORT AND USE OF CERTAIN TERMS, WHICH EXPRESS AN ANTAGONISTIC RELATION TO CHRIST'S PERSON AND AU- THORITY, -yl/sudiddSKaXoi, -^^/sudoTfoiprirai, ■\l/sv86^pi(!rog, avri^piffrog. It is more especially the two last of the terms just mentioned, which call for particular investigation ; but as the other two are nearly related to them, and belong substantially to the same line, we shall in the first instance direct some attention to them. 1. The two may be taken together, as they appear to be used in senses not materially different. So early as in the Sermon on the Mount, we find our Lord warning His disciples against false prophets: Tpogs^iTi d'jo rm ■\l/su8o'7rpo(pYiTo!/v (Matt. vii. 15); and the test He suggests to be applied to them is one chiefly of cha- racter ; " They come," says He, " in sheep's clothing, but within they are ravening wolves." The warning is again given in our Lord's discourse respecting the last times, " And many false prophets shall arise and deceive many" (Matt. xxiv. 11); and further on, at ver. 24, He returns to the subject, coupling false prophets with false Christs, who, He said, "should arise, and give great signs and wonders, so as to deceive, if it were possible, even the elect." From these intimations, we are led to under- stand, that the appearance of such characters in considerable numbers was to form one of the precursors of the dissolution of the Jewish State, and was also to be a cliaracteristic generally of the time of the end. As tr) the precise import, however, to be 248 TERMS EXPKESSIVE OF attached to tlie terms, we must bring under revieAv one or two of the passages, in which they are mentioned as actually appearing. Thus in Acts xiii. 6, the Jew, Barjesus, who was with Sergius Paulus, the proconsul of Cyprus, and who there withstood Paul's preaching, is called ■^svdo'rpoipyjrrig ; and partly in explanation of this designation he is styled Elymas the magos — 'EXv/j.ac o ij^dyoi — two words of different languages expressing substantially the same meaning ; Elymas (from alim) in the Arabic or Ai'amaic, and ^dyog in the Persian, loise — wise, however, in the Eastern sense, that is, given to learned pursuits and the skill of hidden and sacred lore. It did not necessarily denote what is now commonly understood by the term, magician or sorcerer; but comprehended also the better wisdom of that higher learning, w^hich was cultivated in the East, with its attendant fancies and superstitions. Li the Gospel age, however, this learning had become so much connected with astrology, and kindred arts, that too often — and in the case particularly of the Barjesus mentioned above — it did not materially differ from what is denominated magic or sorcery. The persons, who bore the name of Magi, in the districts of Syria, were for the most part mere fortune-tellers. It was such, who swarmed about Rome, and are celebrated in the Latin classics, as " Chaldean astrologers," " Phrygian for- tune-tellers," " dealers in Babylonian numbers," etc. ;^ rushing in, amid the decay of the old faith, with their delusive arts of divination, to play upon the credulity of an age alike sceptical and superstitious. It is clear from the allusions of the ancient satyrists and historians, that those pretenders to the secrets of the gods and the knowledge of futurity drove a very lucrative trade, and had the ear of men, as well as women, high in rank, and by no means deficient in intellect. Marius is reported by Plutarch to have kept a Syrian witch or prophetess in his camp, and to have been much guided by her divinations in regulating his mili- tary and political movements. Tiberius is described by Juvenal (x. 93, sq.), sitting on the rock in Caprea3, " surrounded by a flock of Chaldeans." Even such men as Pompey, Crassus, Cassar, appear to have had frequent dealings with them; for Cicero speaks of having heard from each of them many things, that had been said to them liy the Chaldeans, and, in particular, of the as- » Hor. Sat. I. 2, 1 ; Od. I. 11, 2. Juv. Sat. Ill 6. ANTAGONISTIC RELATIONS TO CHRIST. 249 surances they had received, that they should not die, excepting in a ripe age, at home, and in honour (De div. ii. 47). Certainly, most fallacious predictions ! and calculated, as Cicero justly re- marks, to destroy all confidence in such prognostications ! Yet it failed to do so ; for men must have something to repair to for support and comfort in the hour of need ; if destitute of the true, they inevitably betake to the false ; and infested as Rome was with the elements of religious darkness and moral evil, the sooth- sayers were a class that, according to the profound remark ot Tacitus, were sure to be always shunned, and yet always retained (genus hominum, qviod in civitate nostra et vitabitur semper et retinebitur). It was, then, to this fraudulent and essentially profligate class of persons, that Barjesus belonged; he was a false prophet of tliat low and reprobate caste. But he had evidently acquired a certain sway over the mind of Sergius Paulus, much as the other leading men of the age yielded themselves to the spell of a like delusive influence. It may well seem strange, that there should have been found Jews addicting themselves to such magical arts and false divinations, considering the express and solemn con- demnation of such things in the law of Moses. But there can be no doubt of the fact ; not this man alone, but vast numbers of the Jews in apostolic times, plied sorcery and divination as a regular trade. It was one of the clear proofs of their sunk con- dition, and a presage of approaching doom. Jewish females are represented by Juvenal (Sat. vi. 542), as emerging from their lurking places in the woods, and for the smallest pittance whis- pering into the ear of Roman matrons some revelation of heaven's secrets. But such were only the lower practisers of the art. There were others, like Barjesus, who made loftier pretensions, who insinuated themselves by their apparent learning and divine insight into the counsels of the powerful ; and their number, we can easily conceive, as well as the disposition to give heed to their fallacious arts, would acquire considerable accession from the fame of the wonderful deeds performed by Christ and Flis im- mediate followers in Judea. The manifestation of the true, in the knowledge of Divine mysteries and the exercise of supernatural power, with the mighty fermentation it produced, created, as it were, a new field for the display of the false ; ^^•hence, as our 2.50 TERMS EXPRESSIVE OF Lord foretold, many false prophets arose, deluding the ignorant, and even seeking to press into the Christian fold.^ The Apostle John, who lived to the close of the first century, testifies that many such prophets had already appeared. In ch. iv. 1 of his first Epistle, he says, " Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets are gone out into the world" {on toXXoI ■^iubo'TTpopriTat s^iX'/iXuSaffiv i'lg rhv jco'ff/xov). He does not say, that they had found their way into the Church, but merely that they had made their appearance in the world, and were there making such pretensions to supernatural insight, that believers in Christ, as well as others, had need to stand on their guard against them. They might partly be the subtle and audacious diviners, of whom we have just spoken, who went about deceiving the simple and the crafty by their vaunted ability to explore the depths of futurity. That class may certainly be included in the description of the apostle ; but from what follows in the Epistle, it is clear, that he more es])ecially points to the false teaching, the anti- christian forms of error, which were springing up, if not actually within, yet on the borders of the Christian Church. For, he presently states, that the spirits are not of God, which do not confess Christ to have come in the flesh ; and " this," he adds, namely, the denial of Jesus as the incarnate Son of God, " is that of the antichrist, of which ye have heard that it comes, and even now is it in the world." This apostle, therefore, virtually identifies the false prophets with false teachers, and both with the spirit of antichrist. It may, indeed, be affirmed generally, so far as regards the manifestation of error in reference to the early Christian Chiu'ch, that the -^ivdodidda-KaXoi were scarcely to be distinguished from the ■^iuho'!rpo(prirai, or that false prophesying chiefly assumed the form of false teaching. The more arrant impostors — the as- trologers and fortune-tellers — the false prophets in that sense, were rather to be looked for beyond the pale of the Church ; as thev could only be found in persons, who either ignored the ' It is well known, also, that the last struggles and convulsions in Judea were accompanied with prophetical delusions. Josephus speaks of " a great number of false prophets" playing their part, and notices one in particular (Wars, VI. 5, § 2, '\). ANTAGONISTIC KELATION8 TO CHRIST. 251 authority of Jesus, or set up their own in rivahy to His. But ivithin the Church, tlie spirit of falsehood would more naturally show itself in assuming the name of Christ to teach what was inconsistent \\'itli the character and tendency of His Gospel. It is evidently of such — rather -^sudodiddg/taXoi than ■vJ^su^oTf of jjra/ in the ordinary sense of the term — that the Apostle Paul speaks, in Acts XX. 29, 30, as sure to arise, after his departure, among the converts at Ephesus — "grievous wolves," as he calls them, "not sparing the flock ;" some of them also fi'om their own number, " speaking perverse things, and drawing away disciples after them." In his epistles, also, it is false teaching, chiefly, with which he had to struggle, and in regard to which his warnings were more particularly uttered. And Peter, in his second Epistle, at the commencement of the second chapter, draws thus the parallel between Old and New Testament times : " But there were false prophets also among the people (i.e. ancient Israel), even as there shall be false teachers among you ;" the latter now, as the former then. And in the description that follows of the kind of false teachers to be expected, he gives as their leading characteristics the introduction of heretical doc- trines, tending to subvert the great truths of the Gospel, and the encouragement, by pernicious example as well as by corrupt teaching, of licentious and ungodly behaviour. To do this was, no doubt, to act tlie part of false prophets, since it was to give an untrue representation of the mind of God, and to beget fallacious hopes of the issue of His dealings with men on earth ; but, as it did not necessarily involve any formal predictions of the future, it was more fitly characterized as false teaching than false pro- phesying, while the place its apostles were to occupy in New Testament times shoidd virtually correspond to that of the false prophets in the Old. In general, therefore, we may say in respect to these two terms, that while the false prophets were also false teachers, and the two were sometimes viewed as nearly or altogether identical, the first term usually had more respect to the pi'e- tenders to prophetical insight outside the Church, the other to the propagators of false and pernicious doctrinal views within the C'hurch. The same persons might, and, doubtless, occasionally did sustain both of those characters at once ; yet l)v no means 2S2 TERMS EXPRESSIVK OF always, and never necessarily so ; since there might be the most heterodox doctrine and corrupt behaviour without any attempt at divination ; and in certain cases the art of divination might be carried on as a traffic by itself. 2. We proceed now to the two other, and more peculiar terms of this class, which must also, in great measure, be taken con- jointly. In regard to -^Bvdo^piaroi there can be little doubt ; it can only indicate false pretenders to the name and character of Messiah. Precisely as false prophets are such as laid claim to gifts that did not belong to them, by false Christs must be meant those who assumed to be what Jesus of Nazareth alone is. In the strict sense, therefore, false Christs could only arise outside the Christian Church, and among those who had rejected the true. In so far as they did arise, there was in their appearance the fulfilment of another word of Jesus, — " I am come in My Father's name, and ye receive Me not ; if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive" (John v. 43). The most noted example of the kind, as well as the earliest, was that h\r- nished by Barchochbas — Son of a star, as he chose to call himself, with reference to the prophecy of Balaam, which he would have his followers to believe was going to find its fulfilment in his \'ictorious struggles, and his establishment of a Jewish dominion. False expectations of a similar kind have often been raised among the Jewish people, and reports of persons answering to them circulated ; but they have never reached such a height as they did in the pretensions and the exploits of Barchochbas. It would scarcely be right, however, to limit the declaration of our Lord I'especting false Christs to such Jewish pretenders ; the more especially as the place where He made it was in a discourse addressed to His own disciples ; and for them the danger was comparatively little of being misled by such manifestly wander- ing stars. There ivas a danger in that direction, near the bemn- ning of the New Testament Church, for persons, whose leanings might be on the side of Christianity, but who were very imper- fectlv enlio-htened in their views, and strono; in their national predilections. Such persons might, amid the tumults and dis- orders, the false hopes and fermenting excitement, which pre- ceded the downfall of the Jewish State, have for a time caught the infection of the evil that was at work, and even, in some ANTAGONISTIC RELATIONS TO CIHUST. 253 instances, have precipitated themselves into the general delusions. But such cases would certainly be rare ; and we cannot suppose that our Lord looked uo farther than that : we are rather to con- ceive, in accordance with the whole structure of His discourse, that He wished them to regard what was then to take place but as the beginning of the end — a beginning that should be often in sub- stance, though under different forms, repeating itself in the future. It matters little whether persons call themselves by the name of Christ, or avowedly set up a rival claim to men's homage and regard, if they assume to do what, as Ohrist, He alone has the right or the power to perform ; for in that case they become in reality, if not in name, false Christs. Should any one undertake to give a revelation of Divine things, higher than and contraiy to Christ's ; to lay open another way to the favour and blessing of Heaven, than that which has been consecrated by His blood ; or to conduct the world to its destined state of perfection and glory, otherwise than through the acknowledgment of His name and the obedience of His Gospel ; — such an one would be as really acting the part of a false Christ, as if he openly challenged the Messiahship of Jesus, or explicitly claimed the title to him- self. There is, therefore, a foundation of truth in the statement of Hegesippus, in which, after mentioning the Menandrians, Marcionites, Carpocratians, and other Gnostic sects, he says, that " from these spring false Christs, false prophets, false apostles, the persons who, by their corrupt doctrines against God and against His Church, broke up the unity of the Church" (Euseb. Hist. Eccl., iv. 22) ; although they could hardly be said to bring division into a body, to which they did not themselves strictly belong. The tendency of the doctrines, however, pro- pounded by those advocates of heresy and corruption, undoubt- edly was to supplant or supersede Christ, and the spiritual doc- trines of the Gospel. Wliile paying a certain deference and re- spect to the name of Jesus, their teaching in reality breathed another spirit, and drew in another direction than that of Christ. And the same, of course, may be said of many authors and sys- tems of later times, — of all, indeed, in every age, that have main- tained, or rested in the sufficiency of nature to win for itself a position of safety before God, or to acquire a place of honour in His kingdom. These, in reality, disown the name of Jesus, and 254 TERMS EXPRESSIVE OF set themselves up in His room as the guides and saviours of the workl. And we cannot fail to perceive an indication of the A-aried forms such characters were to assume, and the many dif- ferent quarters whence they might be expected to appear, in the warning of our Lord respecting them : — " If they shall say vmto you, Behold he is in the desert, go not forth ; behold he is in the secret chambers, believe it not." But in what relation, it is proper to ask, does ■^lubSxpK^'rog stand to the d'jrl^pidToi ? Is this last but another name for the same idea of assumption, in some form or another, of Christ's peculiar office and work ? Or, does it denote contrariety and opposition of a different kind ? The word dvri^piffroc was not used by our Lord Himself; nor does it occur in any of the writings of the New Testament, except those of the Apostle John. There are descriptions which virtually indicate what the word, as used by him, imports ; but the word itself is found only in his writings ; and there it occurs altoo;ether four times — thrice in the singular, and once in the plural. Before looking at these, let us first endeavour to determine the force of the preposition dvrl in the word. There are some who hold that it necessarily denotes con- irariety or opposition to, and others who with equal tenacity contend for the sense of substitution, in the room of: If the former were the proper view, the antichrist would necessarily be the enemy of Christ ; but if the latter, it would be Plis false repre- sentative or supplanter. The original meaning of the preposition is over against, and all its uses, whether alone or in composition, may be traced without difficulty to this primary idea, and express but different shades of the relation it involves. Wliat is over against may be so in one of three different respects : in the way (1) of direct antithesis and opposition ; or (2) of substitution, as when one takes the place which belongs to another; or (3) of correspondence, when one thing or person answers to another — an image or counterpart. This last aspect of the relation, in- Aolved in the dvri, cannot, of course, come into consideration here. But it is not unknown in New Testament Scripture, either as regards the simple or the compound use of the preposi- tion. Thus, at John i. 16, " Of His fulness we all hav^e received, and grace for grace" — %«/"•' dvri yapimc, — i. e., grace correspond- ing to grace — grace in the believer becoming the counterpart of ANTAGONISTIC RELATIONS TO CHRIST. 255 Christ's — line for line, featnre for feature. So also in composi- tion, when occurring in such words as di/TaToSoff/g, a giving back in return, a recompense ; or avnrh'Ttog, the correspondence to the rii'Troc. This, however, is the less common form of the relation denoted by the avri ; and of the other two, we find instances of both in Scripture. In such words as avnXoyia, avrlkgig, avTixiifjjivoc, the relation of formal opposition is denoted ; as it is also in avrm[/jia, contrariety to law, avribixog, an adversary in a suit, avr'iy^np, what is over against the hand, the thumb. But there is another class of Avords, in which the idea of substitution, or contradistinction, in the form of taking the place of another, whether by deputy or as a rival, is also indicated ; for example, avQu'xaTog, the substitute of the consul, pro-consul ; dvnjSaaiXsvg, pro-rex, or viceroy ; dvr!- XuTpov, substitute or equivalent for a forfeit, ransom. It is plain, therefore, that the single term avrl^piarog cannot of itself deter- mine the precise meaning. So far as the current use of the pre- position is concerned, it may point either to contrariety or to substitution ; the antichrist may be, indifferently, what sets it- self in opposition to Christ, or what thrusts itself into His room — a -^svdo^piffTog — and it is only by the connection in which the word is used, and the comparison of the parallel passages, that we can determine which may be the predominant or exclusive idea. In the first passage, where the word occurs, 1 John ii. 18, the literal rendering of which is, " Little children, it is the last hour (or season) ; and as ye heard, that the antichrist cometh, even now many have become antichrists {avriyjiaroi --xoXXol ysyovaffiv) ; whence we know it is the last hour." Here there is no precise definition of what forms of evil are included in the antichrist ; there is merely the assumption of a fact, that the idea expressed by tfee term had already passed into a reality, and that in a variety of persons. This, however, is itself of considerable mo- ment, especially as it conveys the information, that while the name is used in the singular, as of an individual, it was not in- tended to denote the same kind of strict and exclusive per- sonality as the Christ. Even in the apostolic age, John finds the name of antichrist applicable to many individuals. And this, also, may so far help us to a knowledge of the idea, since, while there were numbers in that age who sought within the 256 TERMS EXPRESSIVE OF Church to corrupt the doctrine of Christ, and without it to dis- own and resist His authority, we have yt-'t no reason to suppose, that there were more than a very few, who distinctly claimed the title of Christ, and presumed to place themselves in Messiah's room. The next passage occurs very shortly after the one just noticed, and may be regarded as supplementary to it ; it is in the 22d verse. The apostle had stated, that uo lie is of the truth ; and he then continues, " Who is the liar (o -^^svsrrjg, the liar by pre-eminence), but he who denieth that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, who denieth (or, denying) the Father and the Son." Here it is the denial of the truth concerning Christ, not the formal supplanting of Christ by an impious usurpation of His office, to which the name of antichrist is applied. Yet it could not be intended to denote every sort of denial of the truth ; for this would have been to identify antichrist! anism with Jewish infidelity or with heathenism, which certainly was not the object of the apostle. The denial of the truth by the antichrist w^as denial after a peculiar manner, not as fi'om a directly hostile and antagonistic position, but under the cover of a Christian name, and with more or less of a friendly aspect. While it was denied that Jesus was the Christ, in the proper sense of the term, Jesus was by no means reckoned an impostor ; His name was still assumed, and His place held to be one of distinguished honour. That this was the case is evident, not only from the distinctive name applied to the form of evil in question, but also from what is said in ver. 18, 19, of the origination of the antichrists. " Many," says the apostle, " have become antichrists ;" they were not so originally, but by a downward progress had ended in be- coming such. And again, " They went out from us, but were not of us ;" that is, they had belonged to the Christian commu- nity, but showed, by the course of defection they now pursued, that they had not formed a part of its living membership, nor had really imbibed the spirit of the Gospel. When, therefore, the apostle says, in the verse already quoted, that those whom he designated antichrists denied Jesus to be the Christ ; and when, in another verse, he says, " Every spirit that confesseth not Jesus Christ as having come (IXn^vSora) in the flesh, is not of God ; and this is that spirit of antichrist whereof ye have heard, that it cometh, and is even now in the world" (ch. iv. 3) ; and, ANTAGONISTIC RELATIONS TO CHRIST. 207 still again, when he says, " For many deceivers have entered into the world, who confess not Jesus Christ having come in flesh {sp- yjjliivov h ffapxi) ', this is the deceiver and the antichrist" (2 John V. 7). In all these passages, it can only be of a virtual denial of the truth, that the apostle speaks. He plainly means such a depravation of the true doctrine, or abstraction of its essential elements, as turned it into a lie. And when, further, he repre- sents the falsehood as circling around the person of Jesus, and disowning Him as having come in the flesh, we can scarcely entertain a doubt, that he refers to certain forms of the great Gnostic heresy — to such, as held, indeed, by the name of Jesus, but conceived of Him as only some kind of shadowy emanation of the Divine virtue, not a personal incarnation of the Eternal Word. Only by taking up a position, and announcing a doc- trine of this sort, could the persons referred to have proved pecu- liarly dangerous to the Church — so dangerous, as to deserve being called, collectively and emphatically, the Deceiver, the em- bodiment, in a manner, of the old serpent. In an avowed re- sistance to the claims of Jesus, or a total apostasy from the faith of His Gospel, there should necessarily have been little room for the arts of deception, and no very pressing danger to the true members of the Church. We an'ive, then, at the conclusion, that in St John's use of the term antichrist, there is an unmistakeable reference to the earl}^ heretics, as forming at least one exemplification of its idea. Such, also, was the impression derived ft'om the apostle's state- ments by many of the Fathers ; they understood him to speak of the heretics of the time, under the antichrists who had already appeared. For example, Cyprian, when writing of heretics, Ep. Ixxiii. 13, and referring to 1 John iv. 3, asks, " How can they do spiritual and divine things who are enemies to God, and whose breast the spirit of antichrist has possessed?" On the same passage Ql^cumenius says, " He declares antichrist to be already in the world, not corporeally, but by means of those who prepare the way for his coming ; of which sort are false apostles, false prophets, and heretics." So, too, Damascenus, L. iv. ortli. fid. 27, " Every one who does not confess the Son of God, and that God has come in the flesh, and is perfect God, and was made perfect man, still remaining God, is antichrist." And 258 TERMS EXPEESSIVE OF Augustine, in the third Tractatus on 1 John, speaking to the question. Whom did the apostle call antichrist? extends the term, indeed, so as to make it comprehend every one who is con- trary to Christ, and is not a true member of His hody, but places in the first rank, as being the characters most directly meant, " all heretics and schismatics." It is manifest, indeed, that the existing antichrists of John, the abettors and exponents of the lie, or deniers, under a Christian name, of what was emphatically the truth, belonged to the very same class with the grievous wolves and false brethren of St Paul, of whom he so solemnly forewarned the Ephesian elders, and of whom he also wrote in his epistles to Timothy (1 Tim. iv. 1 ; 2 Tim. iii. 1), as persons who should depart from the faith, teach many heretical doctrines, and bring in perilous times upon the Church. St John, writing at a later period, and referring to what then existed, calls atten- tion to the development of that spirit, of which Paul perceived the germ, and described beforehand the future growth. The one announced the evil as coming, the other declared it had already come ; and with reference, no doubt, to the prophetic utterances of Paul, reminded believers of their having previously heard that it was to come. So that the antichrists of John are found to coincide with one aspect of our Lord's false Christs ; they were those who, without renouncing the name of Christians, or without any open disparagement of Jesus, forsook the simpli- city of the faith in Him, and tvirned His truth into a lie. They might, so far, also be said to supplant Him, as to follow thetn was to desert Christ ; yet, from the circumstances of the case, there could be no direct antagonism to Jesus, or distinct unfurl- ing of the banner of revolt. We cannot, therefore, concur in the statement of Dean Trench (New Testament Synonyms, p. 120), that " resistance to, and defiance of, Christ, is the essential mark of antichrist." Defi- ance of Christ betokens avowed and uncompromising opposi- tion, which was the part, not of deceivers, who had corrupted the truth by some specious lie of their own, but of undisguised ene- mies. We concur, however, in the other part of his statement, that, according to St John's representation of the antichrist, there was not the false assumption of Christ's character and offices — no further, at least, than in the modified sense already ANTAGONISTIC EELATIONS TO CHRIST. 259 explained, of committing one's self to a kind of teaching, which was virtually subversive of the truth and authority of Christ. It is still, however, a question, whether we are to regard the Scriptural idea of the antichrist as exhausted in those heretical corrupters of the Gospel in the apostolic age, and their successors in apostolic times ; or should rather view them as the types and forerunners of some huge system of God-opposing error, or of some grand personification of impiety and wickedness, to be ex- hibited before the appearing of Christ ? It was thought, from comparatively early times, tliat the mention so emphatically of the antichrist bespoke something of a more concentrated and per- sonally antagonistic character than the many antichrists which were spoken of as being already in the world. These, it was conceived, were but preliminary exemplifications of some far greater embodiment of the antichristian spirit, some monarch, probably (like Antiochus of old) of heaven-daring impiety, and imscrupulous disregard of every thing sacred and divine, who, after pursuing a course of appalling wickedness and violence, should be destroyed by the personal manifestation of Christ in glory. This view, however, was founded, not simply, nor even chiefly, upon the passages above referred to in the Epistles of John, but on the representation of St Paul, in 2 Thess. ii. 3-10 (taken in connection with certain portions of the Apocalypse). Amid many crude speculations and conflicting views on this passage, none of the Fathers appears to have doubted, as Augus- tine expressly states (De Civ. Dei, xx. 19), that it referred to anti- christ, under the names " Man of Sin," and " Son of Perdition." And, beyond all question, the evil portrayed here is essentially of the same character as that spoken of in the passages already considered, only with the characteristic traits more darkly drawn, and the whole mystery of iniquity more fully exhibited. As in the other passages, the antichristian spirit was identified with a departing fi'om the faith, and a con^upting of the truth, of the Gospel ; so here the coming eval is designated emphatically the apostasy — t) a'Trocracia — by which we can think only of a notable falling away from the faith and purity of the Gospel ; so that the evil was to have both its root and its development in connection with the Church's degeneracy. Nor was the commencement of the evil in this case, any more than the other, to be far distant. 260 TERMS EXPRESSIVE OF Even at the comparatively early period when the apostle wrote, it had begun to work ; and in his ordinary ministrations he had, as he reminds his disciples (v. 5, 7), forewarned them concerning it ; plainly implying, that it was to have its rise in a spiritual and growing defection within the Christian Church. Then, as the term antichist evidently denoted, some kind of antithesis in doc- trine and practice to Christ — a certain use of Christ's name, with a spirit and design utterly opposed to Christ's cause^so, in the passage under consideration, the power personified and described is designated the opposer, 6 avrixel/j^svog — one who sets himself against God, and arrogates the highest prerogatives and honours. Yet, with such impious self-deification in fact, there was to be nothing like an open defiance and contempt of all religious pro- priety in foi'ni ; for this same power is represented as developing itself by a " mystery of iniquity ; " i.e., by such a complex and subtle operation of the worst principles and designs, as might be carried on under the fairest and most hyjiocritical pretences ; and by " signs and lying wonders, and all deceivableness of un- righteousness," beguiling those who should fall under its influ- ence, to become the victims of " a strong delusion," and to " be- lieve a lie" — viz., to believe that which should, to their view, have the semblance of the truth, but in reality should be at com- plete variance with it. Not only so, but the Temple of God is represented as the chosen theatre of this impious, artful, and wicked ascendency (ver. 4) ; and in respect to Christian times, the Apostle Paul knows of no temple but the Church itself. Nor can any other be u.nderstood here. It is the only kind of temple-usurpation which can now be conceived of as affecting the expectations and interests of the Church generally ; and that alone, also, which might justly be represented as a grand con- summation of the workings of iniquity within the Christian community. So that, as a whole, the description of the apostle presents to our view some sort of mysterious and astounding combination of good and evil, formally differing from either hea- thenism or infidelity — a gathering up and assorting together of certain elements in Christianity, for the purpose of accomplishing, by the most subtle devices and cunning stratagems, the overthrow and subvei'sion of Christian truth and life. It is, therefore, but the full growth and final development of St John's idea of the antichrist. ANTAGONISTIC RELATIONS TO CHRIST. 261 Of the descriptions generally of the coming evil in New Tes- tament Scripture, and especially of this fuller description in the Epistle to the Thessalonians, nothing (it appears to me) can be more certain on exegetical grounds, than that they cannot be made to harmonise with the Romish opinion — which Hengsten- berg and a few others in the Protestant Church have been at- tempting to revive — the opinion that would find the evil spoken of realised, in the power and influence exerted in early times by Kome, in its heathen state, against the cause and Church of Christ. In such an application of what is written, we have only some general coincidences, while we miss all the more distinctive features of the delineation. If it might be said of the heathen power in those times, that it did attempt to press into the temple or Church of God, and usurp religious homage there, the attempt, as is well known, was successfully repelled; and it never properly assumed the appearance of an actual sitting, or enthroning one's self there (as the words import), for the purpose of displacing the true God and Saviour from their rightful supremacy. Nor, in the operations of that power, do we perceive any thing that could fitly be designated ''a mystery of iniquity" — the iniquity practised being that rather of palpable opposition and overbearing violence — in its aim transparent to every one, who knew the Gospel of the grace of God, and involving, if yielded to, the conscious renun- ciation of Christ. As to the signs and lying wonders, and de- ceivableness of unrighteousness, and strong delusions, which the apostle mentions among the means and characteristic indications of the dreaded power, there is scarcely even the shadow of them to be found in the controversy which ancient heatlienism waged w^ith Christianity. On every account, therefore, this view is to be rejected as wanting in the more essential points of correspond- ence between the apostolic description and the supposed realisa- tion in Providence. Another view, however, has of late been rising into notice, which, if well founded, would equally save the Romish apostasy from any proper share in the predicted evil ; and which, we can- not but fear, if not originated, has at least been somewhat en- couraged and fostered by that softened apologetic hue, which the medigeval and antiquarian tendencies of the present age have served to throw around Romanism. The view Ave refer to would 262 TERMS EXPRESSIVE OF make the full and proper development of the antichrist an essen- tially different thing from any such depravation of the truth, as is to be found in the Papacy — a greatly more blasphemous usurpation, and one that can only be reached by a Pantheistic deification of human nature. So Olshausen, who, on the passage in Thessalonians, thus writes, "The self-deification of the Roman emperors appears as modesty by the side of that of antichrist ; for the Caesars did not elevate themselves above the other .gods, they only wanted to have a place beside them, as representatives of the genius of the Roman people. Antichrist, on the contrary, wants to be the only true God, who suffers none beside him ; what Christ demands for Himself in truth, he, in the excess of his pre- sumption, claims for himself in falsehood." Then, as to the way in which he should do this, it is said, " Antichrist will not, as Chrysostom correctly remarks, promote idolatry, but seduce men from the true God, as also from idols, and set himself up as the only object of adoration. This remarkable idea, that sin in anti- christ issues in a downright self-deification, discloses to us the in- most nature of evil, which consists in selfishness. In antichrist all love, all capability of sacrifice and self-denial, shows itself en- tirely submerged in the making of the I all in all, which then also insists on being acknowledged by all men, as the centre of all power, wisdom, and glory." The proper antichrist, therefore, according to Olshausen, must be a person, and one who shall be himself the mystery of iniquity, as Christ is the mystery of god- liness— a kind of embodiment or incarnation of Satan. He can regard all the past manifestations and workings of evil, only as serving to indicate what it may possibly be, but by no means as realizing the idea ; and he conceives, it may one day start forth in the person of one, who shall combine in his character, the elements of infidelity and superstition, which are so visibly stri\'ing for the mastery over mankind. Some individual may be cast up by the fermentation that is going forward, who shall concentrate around himself all the Satanic tendencies in their greatest power and energy, and come forth at last in impious rivalry of Christ, as the incarnate son of the devil. Dean Trench seems substantially to adopt this view, though he expresses himself more briefly, and also less explicitly, upon the subject. With him, the antichrist is " one who shall not pay so much homage to God's word as to ANTAGONISTIC RELATIONS TO CHRIST. 5J63 assert the fulfilment in himself, for he shall deny that word alto- gether ; hating even erroneous worship, because it is worship at all ; hating much more the Church's worship) in spirit and in truth ; who, on the destruction of every religion, every acknow- ledgment that man is submitted to higher powers than his own, shall seek to establish his throne ; and for God's great truth, ' God is man,' to substitute his own lie, 'man is God'" (Synonyms, p. 120). It may be admitted, with reference to this view, that there are tendencies in operation at the present time, fitted, in some degree, to suggest the thought of such a possible incarnation of the un- godly and atheistic principle ; but nothing has yet occurred, which can justly be said to have brought it within the bounds of the probable. At all events, it is an aspect of the matter derived greatly more from the apprehended results of those tendencies themselves, than from a simple and unbiassed interpretation of the passages of Scripture, in which the antichrist is described or named. Such an antichrist as those authors delineate, the im- personation of unblushing wickedness and atheism, has every thing against it, which has been already urged against the view, that would identify the description with the enmity and persecu- tions of heathen Home. Instead of seating itself in the temple of the Christian Church as its own, and arrogating there the supreme place, an anti christian power of that sort could only rise on the ruins of the temple. And whatever audacity or foolhardiness there might be in the assumptions and proceedings of such a power, one cannot, by any stretch of imagination, conceive how, with such flagrant impiety in its front, it could present to God's people the appearance of a mystery of iniquity, and be accom- panied with signs and wonders and deceitful workings, destined to prevail over all who had not received the truth in the love of it. Conscience and the Bible must cease to be what they now are, cease at least to possess the mutual force and respondency they have been wont to exercise, ere so godless a power could rise to the ascendant in Christendom. It may even be said, the religious susceptibilities of men, in the false direction as well as the true, would need to have sustained a paralysis alike unprecedented and incredible. And, besides, the historical connection would be broken, Avhich the passages, bearing on the antichristian apostasy. 264 THE USE OF (Sa'zrl^M plainly establish between the present and the future. In what already existed the apostles descried the germ, the incipient workings of what was hereafter more fully to develop itself; while the antichrist now suggested to our apprehensions, if it should ever attain to a substantive existence, would stand in no proper affinity to the false doctrine and corruptions of the apos- tolic age. It would be a strictly novel phenomenon. It were out of place, however, to prosecute the subject further here, where exegetical investigations are what chiefly demand attention. For those who wish to see the subject viewed more in its doctrinal and historical aspects, I must refer them to Prophecy, Vieiced in Respect to its Distinctive Features, etc., p. 359, sq., from which some of the last preceding pages have been mainly taken. It will be enough here to state my conviction, which mav be readily inferred from the preceding remarks, that the conditions of the Scriptural problem respecting the antichrist, have met their fullest, and incomparably most systematic and general fulfilment in the corruptions of Popery. And, in as far as any other forms of evil, either now existing, or yet to arise, may be comprehended under the same designation, it can only be because they shall contain a substantially similar disfiguration of the truth, and undvie exaltation of the creature into the place and prerogatives of Godhead. SECTION FIFTH. ON l3a-7rri<^co AND ITS COGNATES, WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TQ THE MODE OF ADMINISTERING BAPTISM. It is a somewhat striking circumstance, that when our Lord's forerunner came forth to prepare the way for His Master, he is represented as not only preaching the doctrine, but also as ad- ministering the baptism of repentance ; while still a profound silence is observed as to the manner in which he administered the ordinance to his disciples. St Luke, in his first notice of the subject, couples the two together — the doctrine and the AND ITS COGNATES. 265 ordinance — and says, " John came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance." And St Matthew, after briefly mentioning his call to repent, and referring to the prophecy in Isa. xl. 3, with like simplicity relates, that "all Jerusalem went out to him, and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan, and were baptised of him in Jordan, con- fessing their sins." Whence may we suppose such reserve upon the matter to have arisen? Was it from the practice of re- ligious baptism being already in familiar use among the Jews, so that no specific information was needed respecting the mode of its administration ? Or did the word itself, /Sacrr/^w, so dis- tinctly indicate the kind of action employed, that all acquainted with the meaning of the word would understand what was done ? Or, finally, did it arise from no dependence being placed on the precise mode, and from the virtue of the ordi- nance being necessarily tied to no particular form ? Any of these suppositions might possibly account for the peculiarity; but as they cannot be all admitted, it is of some importance, that we know which has the preferable claim on oiu: belief. I. To look first to the term employed — /Sk'tt/^w has the form of a frequentative verb from (Suttcj, which is rarely used in the New Testament, and never in this connection. Bacrrw means simply to dip; the Latin synonyms are mergo, tingo; and ^dirrog has the sense of tlnctus. The w^ord was used of dipping in any way, and very commonly of the operation of dyeing cloth by dipping; whence it has the figurative import of dyeing, with a collateral reference to the manner in which the process was accomplished. Taking /3aT7-/^w for a frequentative of /Sccttw, the earlier glossaries as- cribed to it the meaning of mergito, as is stated by Vossius in his Etymologicon : Cum autem iSd'TTco sit mergo, BaTrl^oj commode vertamus mergito ; and he adds, respecting the Christian ordi- nance, prffisertim, si sermo de Christianorum baptismo, qui trina fit immersione. If this view were correct, it would be necessary, to a right administration of baptism, that the subject of it should not only be immersed in water, but should be im- mersed several times ; so that not immersion only, but repeated immersion, would be the constitutional form. In mentioning definitely three times, as Vossius does, reference is made to a 2m THE USE OF ^a-rri^u custom that came early into use, and in certain portions of Christendom is not altogether discontinued, according to which a threefold action was employed in order more distinctly to express behef in a triu.ne God. Thus Tertullian writes, Adv. Praxeam, c. 26 : No\^ssime man davit (\'iz. Christus) ut tingue- rent in Patrem, et Filium, et Spiritum Sanctum, non in unum. Nam nee semel, sed ter, ad singula nomina in personas singulas tinguimur. Chrysostom, in like manner, affirms, that the Lord delivered one baptism to His disciples in three immersions of the body, when He gave the command to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (Hom. de fide, 17). Jerome and others mention the head as the part on which the threefold immersion was performed. Thus Jerome, adv. Luciferanos : Nam et multa alia, quae per traditionem in ecclesiis observantur, auctoritatem sibi scriptee legis usurpaverunt, velut in lavacro ter caput mergitare, deinde aggressos, lactis et mollis prsegustari concordiam ad infantige significationem, etc. We have no definite information as to the time and manner in which this three-fold immersing of the head in baptism began to be prac- tised. Jerome admits, that there is no authority for it in Scrip- ture, and that it was observed in his day, and was to be vindicated merely as an ancient and becoming usage. It very probably took its rise about the period when the doctrine of the Trinity came to be impugned by the theories of ancient heretics, toward the middle or latter part of the second century, with the view of obtaining from each subject of baptism a distinct and formal acknowledgment of the doctrine. But the head being so spe- cially mentioned as the part immersed, seems to imply that the entire person did not participate in the action. This, however, only by the way. The point we have at present more immediately to consider, is the precise import of /Sa^r/^w, and whether, as commonly used, it was taken for the frequenta- tive of /SocTrr-w. We have said, that if it really were a frequen- tative, it must indicate, not immersion simply, but rej^eated immersion, as the proper form of administering baptism. This, however, is not borne out by the usage. The word is applied to denote the enveloping of objects in water, in a considerable A'ariety of ways, and without any distinct or special reference to the act of dipping or plunging. Thus it is used by Polybius of AND ITS COGNATES. 267 ships, i. 51, 6, nai ToXXa tuv s%a(pm sSd-rriciov ; and in like manner by Josephus, •A.u^spvrjrrjg, oarig y^n/Muiva dsdoiKug vpo r^g dviXXrjg sjSd'Tr- riffsv i%m TO Gxafog (Bel. J. iii. 8, 5) : in both cases, the general meaning, sink, is evidently the sense to be adopted ; in the first, " many of the skiffs sunk ;" in the second, " of his own accord the pilot sunk the skiif." Speaking of Jonah's vessel, Josephus uses the expression, " the vessel being all but ready to be over- whelmed," or sunk (oaov outoj /jAXXoirog (Sa'Trrlt^sadai, Ant. ix. 10, 2) ; and again, in his own life, § 2, of the ship that he sailed in to Kome being swamped in the Acb'iatic ((SaTTi^ovrog ?]//,uv tou ■-Xo/ou), so that they had to swim through the whole night. The same word is used by Diod. Sic. i. 36, of animals drowned by the overflowing of the Nile, vvh rov rrora/j.ov 'mpiXTiif&svra hia(pki- pirat ^a'TrrZ^of/.iva, and by Polybius, both of horses sinking in a marsh, v. 47, 2, and of infantry being plunged, or covered up to the waist, 'lug tuv i^aaruv ^a'jTiZ^o'j.ivoi ; SO that, whether the ob- jects were covered by the water flowing over them, or by them- selves sinking down in it, the word /Sa-rW^w was equally applied. In consideration of such passages, and others of a like kind, Dr Gale, in his Reflections on Wall's History of Infant Baptism, feels constrained to say, that " the word, perhaps, does not so necessarily express the action of putting under water, as in general a thing being in that condition, no matter how it comes to be so, whether it is put into the water, or the water comes over it ; though, indeed, to put it into the water is the most natural way, and the most common, and is therefore usually and pretty constantly, but it may be not necessarily implied."^ In plain terms, jSa-Trrli^w does not always mean dij), but sometimes bears the more general import of being under water. And even this requires to be qualified ; for when dipping appears to be meant, not the whole, but only a part of the object seems some- times to have gone under water. Pressed by such uses and applications of the tenn, Dr Gale says, " We readily grant that there may be such circumstances in some cases, which neces- sarily and manifestly show, that the thing spoken of is not said to be dipt all over ; but it does not therefore follow, that the word in that place does not signify to dip. Mr Wall will allow his pen is dipt in the ink, though it is not daubed all over, or totally im- ^ Wall's History of Infant Baptism, iii , p. 122. 2()8 THE USE OF ^aTTiZ^u mersed."^ This, as justly remarked by Wall, is, indeed, to con- tend for the word, but at the same time, " to grant away the thing ;" since, " if that which he allows be dipping, the contro- versy is at an end." It resolves itself into a petty question, not worth contending about, how much or how little water should be used in baptism — whether this or that part of the body should be in the element. Liddle and Scott, in their Lexicon, beyond all reasonable doubt, give the fair import of the word, as used by profane writers and Josephus, wdien they represent it as signify- ing to dip under water, to sink, to bathe or soak. It denotes somehow, and to some extent, a going into, or being placed under water ; but is by no means definite as to the precise mode of this being done, or the length to which it might be carried. When, however, we turn to the use of the word in the Apo- crypha and the New Testament, we find a still greater latitude in the sense put upon it. In the apocryphal book Judith, ch. xii. 7, it is said of the heroine of the story, that " she went out every night to the valley of Bethulia, and baptized herself in the camp at the fountain of water" — xai l/SaTr/^sro sv r^ TapifLSoXTj Iti rrii; Tnyng Tou vdaroi : which can scarcely be understood of anything but some sort of ablution or washing, since the action is reported to have been done in the camp, and not in, but at the fountain of water. Immersion seems to be excluded, both by the publi- city of the scene, and by the relation indicated to the fountain. Another, and, if possible, still more unequivocal example, occurs in the Wisdom of Sirach, xxxiv. 25, " When one is baptized from a dead body — ^a-xn^ofihog aTro vv/cpou — and touches it again, ot what avail is his washing" {rw Xovrpu/) 1 The passage evidently refers to what the law prescribed in the way of purification for those who had come into contact with a corpse. And this we learn from Numb. xix. 13, 19, included a threefold action — sprinkling the person with water, mixed with the ashes of a red heifer, bathing it, and washing the clothes. Plainly, therefore, the ^aTTTit^o/jusvog of the son of Sirach is a general term expres- sive of the whole of these ; it includes all that the law required as to the application of water for the purposes of purification in the case supposed. Nothing but a controversial aim could lead any one to think of ascribing another meaning to the word in 1 D. p. 145. AND ITS COGNATES. 269 this passage. Dr Gale informs us, that " he remembered the time, when he thought it a veiy formidable instance ;" but brac- ing himself for the occasion, he again recovered his composure, and corrected, as he says, his mistake ; nay, he even came to " think it exceeding clear to any who are willing to see it, that a further washing is necessary beside the sprinklings spoken of, and that this washing was the finishing of the ceremony. The defiled person was to be sprinkled with the holy water on the third and on the seventh day, only as preparatory to the great purification, which was to be by washing the body and clothes on the seventh day, with which the uncleanness ended." ^ Such is the shift to which a controversialist can resort, in order to recover his equanimity from a formidable instance ! So far from any sort of bathing at the close being the chief thing in the ordinance, and that from which the whole might be designated, the bathing was evidently one of the least ; for it is not so much as mentioned in the Epistle to the Hebrews, where the service is referred to (ch. ix. 13). The whole stress there is laid on the sprinkling the unclean with water, mixed with the ashes of the red heifer ; nor can any one take up a different impression, who reads the passage in Numbers with an unbiassed spirit. For there, when the state of abiding uncleanness is denoted, nothing is said of the absence of bathing, but account alone is made of the loater of separation not being sprinkled on him, which is thrice emphatically repeated, ver. 9, 13, 20. He that was to be cut off from his people, on account of this species of uncleanness, was to suffer excision simply " because the water of separation was not sprinkled upon him." So that the Ba'm^o/j.ivoi of the son of Sirach, if it should be connected with one part of the transaction rather than another, ought plainly to be viewed as having respect chiefly to the sprinkling of the unclean with the water, which had the ashes of the heifer mingled with it ; but the fairer inter- pretation is to view it as inclusive of all the ablutions practised on the occasion.^ 1 Walliii., p. 154. 2 An explanation has been given of the passage in Numbers, which goes to an extreme on the opposite side, and would deny that the person who underwent the process of purification from the touch of a dead body, required to be bathed at all. Thus Dr Armstrong, in a late work on the Doctrine of 270 THE USE OF ^a-TTT'i^M In New Testament Scripture we find the same general use of the word, embracing, in Hke manner, various ceremonial ablutions. Thus in Heb. ix. 10, the ancient ritual is described as " standing in meats and drinks and divers washings — dia(p6poig (^a'XTicfLoTc, — and carnal ordinances." The diverse evidently points to several uses of water, such as we know to have actually existed under the law, sprinklings, washings, bathings. If it had been but one mode or action that was referred to, the diverse would have been entirely out of place. In Mark vii. 3, 4, 8, it is said, " The Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft {lav jjj'n vvy/jbjj Mi-^oivrai rag p^s/pag), eat not, holding the tra- dition of the elders ; and when they come from the market, ex- cept they are baptized {kav fj^ri BarrrisuvTai), they eat not." This latter expression is undoubtedly of stronger import than the former one, and marks a difference between what was done when they came fi:om the market, and what was done on other and commoner occasions. Dr Campbell, who, on this subject, lends his support to the views of the Baptists, concurs with them in making the distinction to be — in the one case a simple washing of the hands, or pouring water on them, and an immersion of them in the other. Dr Campbell even throws this view into his translation ; he renders the one clause, " until they wash their hands, by pouring a little water on them ;" and the other, " until they dip them." This mode of explanation, however, is gram- matically untenable ; it would have required the repetition of the rag x^7f)ag, in the second clause, after the iSa'rriffcovrai, if the verb had referred to the dipping of thetn alone. But on another ground this supposition must be abandoned ; for /SaTr/^w is Baptisms, holds respecting Numb. xix. 19, " And the clean person shall sprinkle upon the unclean on the third day, and on the seventh day ; and on the seventh day he shall purify himself, and wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and shall be clean at even," that this is meant of the per- son sprinkling, not of the person sprinkled upon. And he thinks this is made quite certain by ver. 21, which ordains it as a perpetual statute, that he who sprinkles the miclean shall wash his clothes, and be unclean tiU the evening (p. 72). But such an explanation will not stand. For the latter person was not required to bathe his body at all ; he had simply to wash his clothes. And if he had been meant in ver. 19, there could have been no propriety in laying stress on the seventh day, any more than the third. This points manifestly to the person defiled by the touch of the dead. AND ITS COGNATES. 271 never applied to a part of the body, nor is even Xouw ; these always have respect to the body or person as a whole ; while v/Vrw is invariably the word used when some particular member or select portion is meant/ Having respect to this usage, and markino; also that the verb is here in the middle voice, havincf a reflective sense, we must render the clause, which speaks of what the Pharisees did on coming from market, " except they baptize (or wMsh) themselves, they eat not ;" i.e. they first perfomi a general ablution ; for, having mingled with the crowd in the market-place, and possibly come into contact with some unclean person, not the hands alone, as in ordinary circumstances, but the whole body, was supposed to need a purification. Yet not such an one as involved a total immersion ; for the law only required this in extreme cases of actual and ascertained pollu- tion ; in cases of a less marked or palpable description, it was done by sprinkling or washing. And we are the rather led to think of this mode of purification here, as the Evangelist, in v. 4, speaks of the Pharisees having " many other things which they received to hold, baptism of pots and cups, and brazen things, and couches ;" obviously meaning, not immersions, in the ordinary sense, but washings and sprinklings, which are the forms of pm'ification proper to such things as brazen utensils, pots, and couches. A still further, and very decisive use of the verb is given in Luke xi. 38, where we read of the Pharisee marvelling, that our Lord 0X1 IjSaTT/ffdyj 'Ttph Tov dplsrov, had not washed before dinner. Even Dr Campbell finds himself obliged to render here, " had used no washing ; " judging from his views on other passages it should rather have been, " had not immersed, or bathed himself." If the Pharisees had been wont to practise immersion before dinner, we might then have supposed, that it was the disuse of such a practice, on the part of our Lord, which gave occasion to the wonder. But there is conclusive evidence to the contrary of this. The passage already cited from the Gospel of ]\Iark alone proves it ; for the washing of the hands merely is there mentioned ^ Titmann's Synonyms : " Tiovu vivru ; they differ as our hathe and wash. Therefore vlTirrsaden is used of any particular part of the body, not only of the hands or feet ; but "hovijuadxi of the whole body. Acts ix. 37 ; Horn. II. u. V. 582." See also Trench's Synonyms under the words. 272 THE USE OF /Saar/^w as the ordinary kind of ablution practised by the Pharisees be- fore dinner. And Josephus notices it among the pecuharities of the Essenes, that they bathed themselves before dinner in cold water ; plainly implying, that in this they differed from others. There is no evidence to show, and it is against probability to be- lieve, that private baths were common in Judea ; and, indeed, the scarcity of water for a great part of the year rendered it next to impossible to have them in common use. Nor was Judea singular in this respect in more ancient times, and in states of society similar to what existed there in the apos- tolic age. In countries also, where water was greatly more abundant than in Judea, bathing by immersion was comparatively little practised till effeminate and luxurious habits had become general, and even then it was not always so freqiient as is com- monly represented. It is doubtful if the Greeks in earlier times practised it. Ulysses, indeed, is represented by Homer as going into the bath in the palace of Circe, but the bath {aea'xiv&oc) was only a vessel for sitting in ; and the water, after being heated, was poured over the head and shoulders. In the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, edited by Dr Smith, it is stated (Art. Balneal) that, " on ancient vases, on which persons are re- presented bathing, we never find any thing corresponding to a modern bath, in which persons can stand or sit ; but there is always a round or oval basin (Xovttip or Xovryjpiov) resting on a stand, by the side of which those who are bathing are represented standing undressed, and bathing themselves." " The daily bath," says Bekker (Charicles, p. 149), " was by no means so indispens- able with the Greeks as it was with the Romans ; nay, in some instances the former nation looked on it as a mark of degeneracy and increasing effeminacy, when the baths were much frequented." Various proofs are given of this ; and it is further stated, that in the Grecian baths there appear usually to have been, beside the Xourripsg already mentioned, some sort of tubs, in which the per- sons sat or stood. Some of the paintings represent women stand- ing, and a kind of shower-bath descending on them. To return, however, to the subject more immediately before us — it seems unquestionable, that according to Hellenistic, and more especially to Apocryphal and New Testament usage, the verb /SaTT/^w did not always signify immersion, or even the being AND ITS COGNATES. 273 totally under water, but included the more general notion of ablution or washing. Nor is there any reason for supposing it to have borne a narrower meaning when applied to the baptism of John or of Christ. We thus quite naturally account for the different construction used in coupling the act of baptizing with the instrument employed. Very commonly the baptism is said to have been done, iv 'vdan, "in water;" but Luke has simply the dative after the verb, syu fxh vdari (SaTTif^cj (ch. iii. 16), " I indeed baptise you with water" — with that as the instrument, but leaving altogether indeterminate the mode of its application.^ We can readily conceive the practice to have varied. When administered at the Jordan, or where there was plenty of water, there might be an actual immersion, or, at least a plentiful affu- sion. But how could there well be such a thing at Jerusalem about the time of Pentecost, in the height of summer, when the rite had to be administered to several thousands at once ? We are informed by a most credible witness, that in summer there is no running stream in the vicinity of Jerusalem, except the rill of Siloam, a few rods in length, and that the city is, and was supplied with water fi'om its cisterns, and public reservoirs chiefly supplied by rain early in the season.^ It is not unworthy of notice also, what we learn from the same competent authority, that the baptismal fonts still found among the ruins of the most ancient Greek churches in Palestine, and dating, it is understood, from very remote times, are not large enough to admit of the baptism of adult persons by immersion, and from their structure were obviously never intended to be so used.^ And it may be still further noted as an additional confirmation of the view taken, that in the old Latin version the verb jSaTrl^u was not rendered ^ Dr Campbell most unwarrantably translates this passage in Luke's Gospel, " baptize in water," as if it were iv voxn ; and so, has rendered himself justly liable to the rebixke which, in his note on Matt. iii. 11, he has ad- ministered to those who translate kv voccn, with water : " It is to be regretted that we have so much evidence, that even good and learned men allow their judgments to be warped by the sentiments and customs of the sect which they prefer. The true partizan always inclines to correct the diction of the Spirit by that of the party." So, sometimes, does the man who unduly presses a particular opinion. - Dr Robinson's Researches, vol. i., sec. 7, § 9. ' Ibid., vol. ii., sec. x. S 274 THE USE OF (Sacrr/^w by immergo or mergito — as if those words were somehow too definite or partial in their import to be presented as equivalents. It preferred adhering to the Greek, and simply gave haptizo. II. A second point demanding examination, is that wdiich re- spects proselyte-baptism among the Jews. Did this exist prior to John's baptism ? In other words, did he simply adopt an ex- isting institution ? or did he introduce what might be designated a new ordinance ? Both sides of this question have been zeal- ously maintained, and the discussion of it has given rise to long and learned investigations, both in this country and on the con- tinent, into that department of Jewish antiquities. In favour of the prior existence of Jewish proselyte-baptism we find, among others, the names of Lightfoot, Schottgen, Selden, Buxtorf, Wet- stein, Michaelis, Hammond, Wall, etc.; and against it Owen, Carpzov, Lardner, Paulus, De Wette, Schneckenburger (in an elaborate, separate treatise), Ernesti, Moses Stuart, etc. The existence of Jewish baptism, as an ancient initiatory rite for pro- selytes, was more commonly believed in former generations, than it is now. Not a few of the writers mentioned in the first of the above lists, spoke of it as a matter about which it was scarcely possible to entertain a shadow of doubt. Thus Wall gives ex- pression to their views, " It is evident that the custom of the Jews before our Saviour's time (and as they themselves affirm, from the beginning of their law), was to baptise, as well as circumcise any proselyte, that came over to them from the nations. This does fiilly appear from the books of the Jews themselves, and also of others, that understood the Jewish customs, and have written of them. They reckoned all mankmd beside themselves to be in an unclean state, and not capable of being entered into the cove- nant of Israelites without a washing or baptism, to denote their purification from their uncleanness. And this was called the baptising of them into Moses." ^ Now, there can be no doubt, that ample quotations can be produced (Dr Wall has great store of them) in support of these positions. But then what sort of quotations ? Are they of a kind to bear with decisive evidence on the state of matters in the Gospel age ? It is here, that when the authorities are looked ^ History of Infant Baptism, vol. i., p. 4. AND ITS COGNATES. 275 into, tliey prove insufficient for the end they are intended to sen^e ; for, so far fi'om finding any attestations among them re- specting the existence of proselyte-baptism in the apostohc age? we are rather apt to be struck with the total want of evidence on the point ; and the Avant of it in writings which, if it could have been had, might have been confidently expected to furnish it. In the inspired writings of the Old Testament no notice is taken of any ordinance connected with the admission, either of native Jews or converted Gentiles, into the Covenant, except that of circum- cision. Nor is mention once made of any other in the Apo- crypha, or in the Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan, or in Philo and Josephus, notwithstanding the references which abound in their writings, to Jewish rites and customs. There is a like silence upon the subject in the Patristic productions of the first three or four centuries, and in those of the Jewish Rabbis for the same period. So far as the direct evidence goes, the veiy utmost that can be said is, that indications appear of Jewish proselyte- baptism as an existing practice during the fourth century of the Christian era. And as there is no historical ground for suppos- ing it to have been then originated, it may, with some probability, be held to have been commonly in operation for a certain time previousl3% But if we inquire lohen, or Iwio, we can find no satisfactoiy answer ; all is involved in uncertainty.^ ^ Schneckenburger, in the treatise above referred to, besides giving a clear historical survey of the opinions and literature upon the subject, has satis- factorily established the folloning positions, (1) The regular admission of strangers into the Jewish religion, while the temple stood, was done through circumcision and sacrifice — a lustration, however, preceding the sacrifice, which, like all other lustrations, obtained merely as a Levitical purification, not as an initiatory rite. This appears from a variety of sources, and espe- cially from several passages in Josephus (such as Ant. xiii. 9, xx. 2, xviii. 3, 4), in which the reception of individuals from other lands is expressly treated of, and no mention is made of baptism. (2.) The lustration per- formed on the occasion did not differ in outward form from the ordinary lustrations, but, like these, was practised by the proselytes merely* upon themselves. (3.) This lustration by and by took the place of the discon- tinued sacrifice, yet not probably till the end of the tliird century ; and was then, for the most part, still performed as a self-lustration in connection with the circumcision that followed it : but in the case of women was done apart from the latter, and in process of time came to be applied, as a proper initiatory rite, as in the case of slaves and foundlings. (4.) Hence, a derivation 270 THE USE OF /3a^r/^w From the state of tlie evidence, therefore, respecting proselyte- baptism among the Jews, \vc are not entitled to found anything on it in respect to the subject under consideration, since it is not such as to enable us to draw any definite conclusions regarding its existence or form in the Gospel age. We are not on that account, however, to hold that there was nothing in the usages of the time tending in the direction of a baptismal service, and that the institution of such a service in connection with a new state of things in the kino;dom of God, must have had an alto- gether strange and novel appearance. For, in the ancient reli- gions generally, and in the Mosaic religion in particular, there was such a frequent use of water, by means of washings, sprink- lings, and immersions, to indicate the removal of defilement, that the coupling of a great attempt towards reformation with an administration of baptism, could scarcely have appeared other Avise than natiu'al and proper. In the Greek and Roman clas sics we find constant references to this symbolical use of water. Thus, in Virgil, ^n. ii. 17, Tu, genitor, cape sacra manu, patriosque Penates; Me bello h tanto digressum et caede re- centi, Attrectare nefas ; donee flumine vivo abluero. Macrobius, Sat. iii.. Constat Diis superis sacra facturum corporis ablutione purgari. Porphyry, de Abstin. iv. 7, says of the priests of Egypt, rfig rrig 9^/xfpa; aTsAougavro -^u^piZ. Ovid speaks of the belief in the eflicacy of ablutions as not only prevailing, but prevailing too extensively among the Greeks and Romans : — Omne nefas, omnemque mali purgamina causam credebant nostri tollere posse senes. Graecia principium moris fuit ; ilia npcentes Impia lus- tratos ponere facta putat. Ah ! nimium faciles, qui tristia crimina caedis, Flumina tolli posse putetis aqua (Fasti, ii. 35). Many other passages might be cited to the same effect, but these are enough. The state of feeling and practice among the Jews was only so far different, that they had a better foimdation to rest upon, and ordinances of service directly appointed by Heaven to observe. Among these, as already noticed, divers baptisms — of the baptism of John or Christ from this Jewish custom, is not to be thought of; but it is to be accounted for from the general use and signifi- cance of lustrations among the Jews, taken in connection with the expecta- tions entertained respecting the new state of things to be introduced by the Messiah. AND ITS COGNATES. 277 baptisms by washing, sprinkling, and immersion — were imposed on them; and both the priests daily, when they entered the Temple, and the ordinary worshippers on ever-recurnng occa- sions, had ablutions of various kinds to pei-form. Not only so, but it was matter of public notoriety, that the Essenes, who car- ried their notions and practices somewhat farther than others in ceremonial observance, admitted converts into their number by a solemn act of lustration, making it strictly an initiatory rite ; for only after this purifying service had been undergone, and two years of probation had been passed, could the applicant be admitted into full connection with the society (Josephus' Wars, ii. 8, 6). Taking all these things into account, and remember- ing, besides, how frequently in the Old Testament the piuifica- tion to be effected upon the soul of true penitents, and of those especially who were to live when the great period of reformation came, is represented under the symbol of a water-purification (Ps. xxvi. 6; Isa. i. 16, lii. 15; Ezek. xxxvi. 25; Zech. xiii. 1), we can scarcely conceive how it should have appeared in any way startling or peculiar that John, who so expressly called men to repentance and amendment of life, as preparatory to a new phase of the Divine administration, should have accompanied his preaching with an ordinance of baptism. The ideas, the prac- tices, the associations, the hopes of the time, were such as to render an act of this kind both a natural expression and a fitting embodiment of his doctrine. Hence, when John gave a succes- sion of denials to the interrogatories of the Pharisees, such as they understood to be a renunciation of any claim on his part to the character, either of Messiah or of Messiah's forerunner, they asked him, " Why baptizest thou, then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet T' (John i. 25);— they would have been nowise surprised had any one of these come with an ordinance of baptism ; they only wondered that John, disclaim- ing, as they thought, being identified with one or other of them, should still have made himself known as the dispenser of such an ordinance. After what has been stated, it is scarcely necessary to add, that it is a matter of no moment in what manner Jewish pro- selyte-baptism was administered, when it came to be regularly established. For, as we have no certain, or even verv probable '-^78 THK USE OF ^a-TtTiZ^o) evidence of its existence till some centuries after the Christian era, the mode of its administration can have no bearing on the question of baptism by John or the apostles. According to the descriptions given of it by Maimonides and other Jewish writers (as may be seen in Wall), it appears to have been done by im- mersion ; but these descriptions belong to a period long subse- quent to the apostolic age. In describing the practice of the Essenes, which, perhaps, comes the nearest to the new rite of any known existing custom, Josephus uses the words d'TroXovu (wash off), and ajnloc, cleansing ; pointing rather to the opera- tions of the lavacrum or Xour^piov, than to the act of immersion in a pool or bathing-tub. And it is always by words of a like nature — words indicative of washing, cleansing, and such like, that the ablutions of the Old Testament ritual are described ; as in Lev. xvi. 28, where it is in the Septuagint, 'ttX-jvs?' ra ifidna xcci Xovesrai to ffw^cc aurov udarif he shall wash his clothes, and bathe (in any of the forms) his body with water. It was not, in short, by any precise mode of applying the water, but to the cleansing property or effect of the water, when applied, that respect appears to have been had in the descriptions referred to. III. A third line of reflection will be found to conduct us substantially to the result we have already arrived at. It is de- rived from the incidental allusions and explanatory expressions occiarring in Scripture, both in respect to the symbolical use of water generally, and to the ordinance of baptism in particular. In nearly all of these it is simply the cleansing property of the water, its washing virtue, which is rendered prominent. For example, in Acts xxii. IG, " Arise^ and be baptised, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord ;" or in Eph. v. 25, 26, " Christ loved the Church, and gave Himself for it, that He might sanctify and cleanse it, by the washing of water by (lit. in) the Word." Here the reference is not exclusively to the ordinance of baptism ; for the cleansing spoken of is repre- sented as finding its accomplishment " in the Word " — being wrought mainly in the soul through the belief of the truth. Yet, along with this more direct and inward instrumentality, the apostle couples that of baptism, and points, while he does so, to the cleansing property of the symbolical element emplo^^ed in its AND ITS COGNATES. 279 administration. The same also is done in such expressions as "But ye are washed," "He hath washed us from our sins," " He hath saved us by the washing of regeneration and renew- ing of the Holy Ghost ;" in each of them the language employed is founded on the baptismal use of water, and bears respect simply to its natural adaptation to purposes of cleansing. On this alone the attention is fixed. It adds force to the argument derived from these considera- tions, to observe, that the word baptism is sometimes used of circumstances and events, in regard to which the mode was en- tirely different, and only the main, fundamental idea alike. Thus in 1 Cor. x. 2, the apostle represents the Israelites as having been all baptised into Moses in the cloud and in the sea ; where nothing but the most fanciful imagination, or the most determined partizanship can think of an immersion being indi- cated.^ The two actions classed together were quite different in form; and neither the one nor the otlier — neither the passing under the cloud, nor the going dry-shod through the Red Sea, possessed the reality, or even bore the semblance of a dipping. In 1 Peter iii. 20, 21, the preservation of Noah by the waters of the deluge, which destroyed the ungodly, is represented as a species of baptism — baptism in the type. And there also it was plainly of no moment what corporeal position Noah occupied relatively to the waters — whether above or below them. This is not brought at all into notice. The simple point of comparison between the Old and the New is, that with Noah, as with us, there was an element accomplishing a twofold process — the destruction of the evil, and the preservation of the good. He was saved in the ark through that which destroyed others ; pre- cisely as we, when our baptism becomes truly operative in our experience, are saved by that regenerative and sanctifying grace, which at once destroys the inherent evil in our natures, and brings to them a participation of a Divine life. In each of these illustrative cases no stress whatever is laid upon the par- ticular form or mode, in which they respectively differed ; in 1 One would almost think it was in a jeux d'esprit some one had said of Moses walking through the sea on dry ground, " He got a dry dip. And could not a person, literally covered with oil-cloth, get a dry immersion in water?" But it is Dr Carson who has put his name to such solemn trifling. 280 THE USE OF l3a-zri''C,M regard to none of them is it so much as distinctly referred to, and the whole point of the comparison is made to turn on the separation, the cleansing process effected between the evil and the good — the corruption of nature, on the one side, and the saving grace of God, on the other. Even the passages in Rom. vi. 3, 4, and Col. ii. 12, 13, in which the apostle speaks of baptism as a burial, and which Baptists usually contend is founded on the specific mode of im- mersion— even these, when viewed in connection with the re- presentations already noticed, instead of invalidating, rather confirm the deduction we are seeking to establish. For, on the supposition of a reference being made merely to the mode of ad- ministration, it would surely be to present us with a most incongruous association, if one and the same act were held to be significant, in its simply external aspect, at once of an interment and a cleansing. What natural relation have these to each other ? What proper affinity? Manifestly none whatever; and if the same ordinance is somehow expressive of both ideas, it cannot pos- sibly be through its form of administration ; it must be got by look- ing above this (whatever precisely that may be), and taking into account the spiritual things symbolised and exhibited in the ordinance. Indeed, as burial was commonly practised in the East, it did not present even n formal resemblance to an immer- sion in water ; for, usually the body, and in particular our Lord's body, was not let down, as with us, into an open sepulchre, but placed horizontally in the side of a cave, and there not unfre- quently lifted up as on a ledge. Such an act could not be said to look like a dip into water ; and if, on the ground of an ex- ternal resemblance, they had been so associated by the apostle, it would have been impossible to vindicate the connection from the charge of an unregulated play of fancy. But there is here nothing of the kind. The apostle is viewing baptism as the initiatory ordinance that exhibits and confirms the believer's union to Christ — the crucified and risen Redeemer ; and to give the greater distinctness to the representation, he places the be- liever's fellowship with Christ successively in connection with the several stages of Christ's redemptive work — His death, burial, and resurrection, reckoning these as so many stages in thf? believer's personal history. And as thus, the very substance AND ITS COGNATES. 281 of the statement shows, how Paul was looking to the realities, not to the mere forms of things, so, as if the more to take our thoughts oft' from the forms, he varies the figure, passes from the idea of being buried with Christ, to that of being, like sap- lings, planted in the likeness of His death and resurrection. But if immersion in water has little resemblance to an Eastern burial, it has still less to the process of planting a shoot in the ground, that it may spring up into life and fruitfulness. Thus, the figures, with the truth couched under them, only become intelligible and plain, when they are viewed in relation to the spiritual design of the ordinance. There is still another passage, to which, in this connection, reference should be made ; for although it does not directly dis- course of baptism, it proceeds on the ideas commonly associated in our Lord's time with the religious use of water, and on which the ordinance of baptism is certainly founded. The passage is John xiii. 1-17, which narrates the action of washing the dis- ciples' feet by our Lord. The action had a twofold significance. It was intended, in the first instance, to exhibit an afi^ecting and memorable proof of our Lord's lowly and loving condescension toward His disciples — one. He gave them to understand, which in spirit must be often repeated among themselves. But, besides this, it pointed to the necessity of spiritual cleansing — to its neces- sity, even in the case of those who have already become the dis- ciples of Christ. They must be perpetually repairing to Him for fresh purifications. Of this symbolic import of the action Peter soon betrayed his ignorance — though really not more igno- rant, but only more prompt and outspoken than the others — when he declared that Jesus should never wash his feet. The reply this drew forth was, " If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with Me," indicating that a deep symbolic import attached to the service, on account of which all the disciples behoved to submit to it. And now Peter, catching a glimpse of his Mas- ter's meaning, exclaimed, " Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head." To this Jesus again replied, 'o XeXov/jbhog ou %p£'ai' £%£' »5 Tovg xodag \i'f^a