UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA. 
 
 OIKT OK 
 
 Mrs. SARAH P. WALS WORTH. 
 
 Received October, 1894. 
 Accessions No. Ob V 7 ZL. Class No. 
 
HERMENEUTICAL MANUAL: 
 
 OR, 
 
 Jntrokt&m is % fegcihal 
 
 OF THE 
 
 SCRIPTURES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 PATRICK FAIRBAIRN, D. D., 
 
 // 
 PRINCIPAL AND PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY IN THE FREE CHURCH COLLEGE, GLASGOW; 
 
 AUTHOR OF "TYPOLOGY OF SCRIPTURE," ETC. 
 
 PHILADELPHIA: 
 
 SMITH, ENGLISH & CO., NO. 40 N. SIXTH ST. 
 
 NEW YORK: SHELDON, BLAKE MAN & CO. 
 
 BOSTON: GOULD & LINCOLN. 
 
 1859. 
 
\VM. S. YOUNG, PR1NTKH. 
 
PKEFACE. 
 
 THE alternative title prefixed to this volume has 
 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 sub 
 jects discussed, and in regard to the measure and 
 method of treatment respectively applied to them. 
 Works, indeed, 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 my 
 self in connexion with the present publication. 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 Cel- 
 lerier (Manuel <$ Hermeneutique, 1852,) which, how 
 ever objectionable in respect to the principles it occa 
 sionally enunciates, is one of the most systematic and 
 complete in form, treating, after a pretty long intro 
 duction, successively of the Psychological elements and 
 aspects of the subject the Grammatical, the Histo 
 rical, the Scriptuary (or more peculiarly Biblical,) the 
 Doctrinal. In this province, however, it is possible to 
 sacrifice to completeness or perfection of form greatly 
 more than there is any reasonable prospect of gaining 
 
IV PREFACE. 
 
 by it. Higher ends have here to be aimed at than 
 can always be reached by a rigid adherence to scien 
 tific 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 rela 
 tions, 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 passages of more peculiar diffi 
 culty, that solid footing is to be obtained, and satis 
 factory results accomplished. Accordingly, in those 
 hermeneutical works, which take the more precise and 
 scientific form, there is always what appears to me 
 much needless waste in one direction, and ill-judged 
 parsimony in another. Not a little space is occupied 
 in announcing, or illustrating principles, 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 simpler elements of the sub 
 ject are correctly enough stated, little often in con 
 nexion with them is properly wrought out ; and unless 
 the student of Scripture is content to take all on the 
 authority of his Master, 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 un 
 doubtedly so far possess a scientific character, that it 
 shall exhibit an acquaintance with the several branches 
 of learning and knowledge, which illustrate the lan 
 guage and structure, the incidental allusions, and the 
 
PREFACE. V 
 
 main theme of the sacred, books, and apply what it 
 may thence appropriate in an orderly and judicious 
 manner. If deficient in this, it fails in the fundamen 
 tals 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 w r ith others. It can 
 not otherwise occupy, in a serviceable manner, the 
 intermediate ground, that properly belongs to it, be 
 tween Lexicons, Grammars, Books of Antiquities, 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 pecu 
 liar province and object of a Hermeneutical work ori 
 Scripture, and that will always come practically 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 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, 
 arid 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 en 
 deavoured to exercise an impartial judgment, influ 
 enced, 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 
 
 1* 
 
Vlil PREFACE. 
 
 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 writ 
 ten 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 connexion of the discourse, not as 
 formed in the mind of God, and determining- with in 
 finite and unerring wisdom the entire system of the 
 Divine administration. I purposely abstained from 
 entering upon this higher region, and confined my 
 attention to the intimations of the Divine will as dis 
 closed 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 dif 
 fer widely in the extent to which they admit it,) 
 tinged with that anthropomorphic 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 which, while the form given to spiritual things 
 bears the variable type of what is human, there are 
 not the less realities lying behind, fixed and immuta 
 ble. 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 an 
 nouncements of God, did not, to my view, satisfactorily 
 explicate the matter at issue. I thought so then, and 
 
PREFACE. IX 
 
 I think so still, notwithstanding the advantage I have 
 derived from the instructions of so learned a reviewer. 
 To divide, as he and his authorities do, between pro 
 phecy, considered as equivalent to Divine decrees, and 
 prophecy, as involving matter of commination or pro 
 mise 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 pro 
 perly drawn; and has the appearance, at least, of at 
 tempting, by the mere adoption of a particular phrase 
 ology, or by arbitrarily singling out portions of the 
 same prophetic message, to tide over difficulties in in 
 terpretation, 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 which I hold to be essentially unfair, and 
 which, if similarly applied to the sacred writers, might 
 readily be made to turn one half of them against an 
 other. It is not likely that I shall refer to any thing 
 of the same sort in 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 the Reformed churches are 
 therein maintained and vindicated. 
 
 The Third Part of the volume, which is devoted to 
 the quotations from the Old Testament in the New, 
 occupies a larger space than I could have wished. 
 But it relates to a branch of the subject which, in the 
 present day, is of special importance; and I did not 
 
X PREFACE. 
 
 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 diffi 
 culty. 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. 
 
 ERRATA. 
 
 In Page 19, line 3G, for ty, read 1%. 
 
 " 35, lines 10 and 11, for ti$ and EIJ, read 
 " 35, for tVa, read L va>. 
 
 42, line 29, for at^ua, read cu ( ua. 
 " 43, line 2, for "W3, read 
 " 45, line 23, for W3>, read 
 " 45, line 26, for Drn , read 
 " 59, line 24, for a* cov, read di 
 " 222, line 31, for (v. 36,) read (iii. 36.) 
 
 326, line 19, for <xS?>, read a 
 " 407, line 22, for o, read St. 
 " 411, line 2, for drtofftMw, read a 
 " 416, line 22, for ar wj, read avrotj. 
 " 40, line 11, for aStv, read a8r t v. 
 11 421, line 11, for "U, read !&. 
 
 431, line 33, for foii^, read 1*01; 
 
; y jBtfv^i * J 
 
 ^%f|^F 
 
 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, 13 
 
 SECTION SECOND. The Characteristics of New Testament Greek,. 25 
 
 Deviation from classic purity, p. 25-31 ; its basis in the later com 
 mon dialect, p. 31-37; its Hebraistic impress, p. 37-45; mis 
 takes made respecting this, p. 45-54; impress derived from 
 new relations and ideas, p. 54-61. 
 
 SECTION THIRD. Collateral Sources for determining the Sense, and 
 
 explaining the Peculiarities of New Testament Scripture, 61 
 
 Writings of Philo and Josephus, p. 62-66; Jewish Rabbinical 
 writings, p. 66-70; ancient versions, p. 70-74; early Fathers, 
 p. 74-78; Books of Antiquities, etc., p. 78, 79. 
 
 SECTION FOURTH. General Rules and Principles to be followed in the 
 
 Interpretation of Particular Words and Passages, 79 
 
 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, 106 
 
 SECTION SIXTH. The Respect due in the Interpretation of the New 
 Testament 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, 121 
 
 SECTION SEVENTH. The Relation of the Old to the New in God s Dis 
 pensations more exactly denned, with the view of preventing 
 mistaken or partial Interpretations of such portions of New 
 Testament Scripture as bear on it, ,. 139 
 
 SECTION EIGHTH. On the proper interpretation of the Tropical parts 
 
 of the New Testament, 157 
 
 SECTION NINTH. The Parables of Christ, their proper Interpretation 
 
 and Treatment, 173 
 
 SECTION TENTH. On the Subject of Parallelism as bearing on the 
 
 Structure and Interpretation of New Testament Scripture, 189 
 
Xll CONTENTS. 
 
 PART SECOND. 
 
 DISSERTATIONS ON PARTICULAR SUBJECTS CONNECTED WITH THE 
 EXEGESIS OF NEW TESTAMENT SCRIPTURE. 
 
 Page. 
 SECTION FIRST. The Two Genealogies of Christ, given respectively 
 
 by the Evangelists Matthew and Luke, .............................. 205 
 
 SECTION SECOND. The designations and doctrine of Angels, with re 
 ference more especially to the Interpretation of passages in 
 New Testament Scripture, .............................................. 225 
 
 SECTION THIRD. On the Names of Christ in New Testament Scripture, 
 
 and, in particular, on the use of Xptoroj and TLOJ tov dvflpwrtov, 257 
 
 SECTION FOURTH. On the Import and Use of certain terms, which 
 express an antagonistic relation to Christ s Person and Autho 
 rity, ^vSo8i8daxahot , ^cvSorfpcxJ^T ac., 4 vSo#pKjT oj, dj"ri^piOT oj r ... 275 
 
 SECTION FIFTH. On |3a7tftw and its cognates, with special reference 
 
 to the mode of administering Baptism, .............................. 294 
 
 SECTION SIXTH. Import and Use of Hades, #Sjjs, in Scripture, ......... 315 
 
 SECTION SEVENTH. On the Import and Use of Siafl^jj in the New Tes 
 
 tament, ........ . ............................................................. 338 
 
 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, juttcM/ota, rta- 
 
 352 
 
 SECTION NINTH. On the use of Paraskeuc and Pasclia in St. John s 
 account of our Lord s last sufferings; and the question there 
 with connected, whether our Lord kept His last Passover on the 
 same day as the Jews, .................................................. 368 
 
 PART THIRD. 
 
 THE USE MADE OF OLD TESTAMENT SCRIPTURE IN THE WRITINGS 
 
 OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 Page. 
 
 SECTION FIRST. Quotations from the Old Testament in the New, con 
 sidered in respect to the manner of citation, 393 
 
 SECTION SECOND. Quotations from the Old Testament in the New, con 
 sidered in respect to the mode of application, 456 
 
 APPENDIX. The historical circumstances that led to Christ s birth at 
 
 Bethlehem Cyrenius and the taxing, 504 
 

 PART FIRST. 
 
 DISCUSSION OF FACTS AND PRINCIPLES BEARING ON THE LAN 
 GUAGE AND INTERPRETATION OF NEW TESTAMENT SCRIPTURE. 
 
 SECTION FIRST. 
 
 THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 IN the more exact and scientific study of the Sacred Scrip 
 tures, the first object, in the order of nature, that calls for 
 examination, has respect to the state of the original records. 
 The possession of a pure text is an indispensable preliminary 
 to a thoroughly correct and trustworthy exposition. And, as 
 well from its importance as from the peculiar character of the 
 investigations belonging to it, this is now fitly assigned to a 
 distinct branch of Biblical study. Next to it in order, and 
 certainly not inferior in importance, is a correct and discri 
 minating acquaintance with the original language of Scripture, 
 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 under 
 stood theologically, unless it has been already understood gram 
 matically, (Scriptura non potest intelligi theologice, nisi an- 
 tea sit intellecta grammatice.) In such statements, of course, 
 the term grammatical must be taken in its wider sense, as 
 comprehending all that is necessary to a just discernment of 
 2 
 
14 THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE 
 
 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 pe 
 culiar moment to the -well-furnished theologian ; since it has 
 respect to the ultimate source of all that is sound and valua 
 ble 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 orfginal form, in no other language than 
 that of the Greek. If any of them ever existed in a prior 
 original, it no longer does so. Nor, with the exception of St. 
 Matthew s Gospel, and the Epistle to the Hebrews, has it ever 
 been imagined, but by a few dreaming 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 remains the gospel of 
 St. Matthew about which there may stili be some room for 
 difference of opinion though, even in regard to it, the con 
 viction has of late been growing in favour of the proper origi 
 nality of its present form, which was certainly in current use 
 before the close of the apostolic age. 
 
 Whence, then, did this predilection for the Greek arise? 
 Were our Lord s discourses, and the writings of the Evange 
 lists, 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 question rather of antiquarian interest, than of 
 any vital moment for the interpretation of Scripture, it is en 
 titled to some consideration at our hands. It has also a certain 
 bearing on the dispute respecting the original language of St. 
 Matthew s Gospel. Indeed, it was chiefly in connexion 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 
 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 15 
 
 investigation of the subject, for the purpose of vindicating the 
 proper originality of the Greek gospel of Matthew; and en 
 deavoured to prove, that the Greek language was in current 
 use throughout Palestine at the commencement of the Chris 
 tian era so much so, that the people generally understood 
 it, that our Lord himself often employed it, nor had His evan 
 gelists and apostles any proper reason for resorting to another 
 in those writings, which were intended for circulation in Pa 
 lestine and the neighbouring regions. But the fullest and, 
 we believe, also the ablest defence of this view, is to be found 
 in the treatise of an Italian Ecclesiastic, Dominici Diodati, 
 entitled De Christo Graece 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 question of the original lan 
 guage of Matthew s Gospel. The position which 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 
 ingenious 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 principles 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 
 
16 THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF 
 
 occasional statements or fragmentary 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 slowly 
 yields to the force of foreign influences, than the vernacular 
 language of a people. " Language is after all the most du 
 rable of human monuments. Conquerors may overthrow em 
 pires 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 perma 
 nent, the most indestructible. If no longer able to support 
 an independent existence, it clings to and coalesces with some 
 more recent and robust dialect: if lost in one form, it is al 
 most certain to re-appear in another exhibiting amidst all 
 changes and disfigurations incontestable traces of its origin. 
 This law of decay and reproduction, of fluctuation yet perma 
 nence, is so general, that it is principally from analytical in 
 quiries into the origin, composition, and affinities of language, 
 that we derive what knowledge we possess of the early history 
 and fortunes of nations." 1 
 
 In confirmation of this, it is only necessary to point to a 
 few well-known examples. One of the most striking is fur 
 nished by the ancient country of the Pharaohs, after the time 
 that their dynasty came to an end, and a succession of con 
 quests, followed by the ascendency of a foreign power, swept 
 over the land. Persian, Macedonian, Roman, and Arabian 
 conquerors in turn held possession of the throne of Egypt, 
 each endeavouring to establish as firmly as possible their do 
 minion over the vanquished, and to render their sway enduring 
 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 Pha 
 raohs still survived, and continued, though not, we may well 
 
 1 Encyclopedia Britannica, 7th ed., Art. Hieroglyphics, c. 2d. 
 
THE NEW TESTAMENT. 17 
 
 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 correct form of 
 the old Egyptic, (as the name also, perhaps, is. 1 ) 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 
 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 substance of the ancient language had with 
 stood the influences of foreign conquest and dominion for more 
 than a thousand years. 
 
 We may, however, take an example nearer home. The 
 Norman 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 suc 
 cessors to get rid of the old Saxon entirely, and have it sup 
 planted by their own Norman French. In this French the 
 statutes of the realm were written ; so also were commentaries 
 upon the laws, and the decisions 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 1885 more than three centu 
 ries after the conquest when the English again resumed its 
 place in the schools ; and though it was English materially 
 altered, betraying in many respects the influence of Norman 
 domination, yet it still retained its old Saxon root and trunk. 
 The power and policy of the conquerors, though in active ope 
 ration for more than three centuries, could prevail no further 
 
 ? Gyptos, Coptos, Coptic. 
 
18 THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF 
 
 than to superinduce some partial changes upon the mother 
 tongue of the people, and introduce some additional terms; 
 and that, 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 freen sufficient to dislodge the ancient dialects from 
 their place, as the customary vehicles of intercourse among 
 the people. But it is needless to enlarge. The cases adduced 
 are by no means singular; they are but specimens of a multi 
 tude exemplifications of principles and habits that are inhe 
 rent in human nature, operating equally among all races and 
 in all climes. And is it, then, to be conceived, with 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 domination the rule, 
 too, of masters, who themselves spoke different languages, 
 first Persian, then Greek, then lioman, 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 ef 
 fect here was to be such, as to bring about an entire revolu 
 tion in the vernacular language of the people? The suppo 
 sition 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 pros 
 pects, for cleaving to their language, which no other people, 
 either in ancient or in modern times, equally possessed. 
 Every thing in the past and the future contributed to throw 
 an air of sacredness and grandeur around the Hebrew lan 
 guage, 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 
 
THE NEW TESTAMENT. 10 
 
 our Lord and His apostles, have come into general use in Pa 
 lestine, 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 com 
 mon 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, how 
 ever, that the ancient language of Palestine had undergone a 
 certain change; it had in some degree suffered by the misfor 
 tunes of the people, and had lost its original purity. The 
 long sojourn in Chaldea, in the first instance, then the in 
 tercourse kept up with the neighbouring Syrian tribes through 
 commerce, war, and marriage relationships, naturally brought 
 into it foreign elements, and imparted to it a Syro-Chaldaic 
 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 in 
 troduced 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 lan 
 guage, its structure and essence, substantially what they were. 
 The historical proofs of this are perfectly sufficient. Jose- 
 phus, 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 accus 
 tomed to his own tongue (xdrpcoz auvfjdeta) that he could not 
 attain to an accurate pronunciation of the Greek, (Antiq. xx. 
 11, 2.) In the introduction, 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, ( E/j.o.ot ~()M Gay /j-ZTufictAaju, & ro?c fiapfidpotz ?"fi ~u- 
 roUu (Twrdzaz, Bell. Jud. Pro. 1, Antiq. Pro. 2.) And once 
 and again he represents the communications sent from Titus 
 
20 THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OP 
 
 during the siege of Jerusalem as being interpreted by himself 
 to the Jews, or by some other person who Hebraised (j8a^av,) 
 as he terms it, or spake to them in their own tongue (narpiaj 
 fhoocrfl, 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 (GJ3K, abaneth,) and it was now called by 
 the Babylonian name Emia, (Antiq. iii..T, 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 turn 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 cha 
 racter, yet Hebrew of the Aramaic, not of the older and purer 
 Hebrew stamp. Thus, when our Lord appears in the attitude 
 of addressing any one very familiarly, of giving or adopting 
 designations for common use, He is represented as speaking 
 in Aramaic: as when He said to the daughter of Jairus, Ta- 
 litha cumi, ^p*p wvSp, Mark v. 41,) and to the blind man, 
 Ephphatha, (nnanN, Mark vii. 34;) or when He referred to 
 the terms currently employed among the people-, such as raka, 
 rabbi, corban; when he applied to His disciples such epithets 
 as Cephas, Bar-jona, Boanerges, ( &.*? "2? ;) or when on the 
 cross He exclaimed, Eli, Eli, lama Sabacthani. Similar in 
 dications 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, 
 Aceldama, (properly <A*AJ*jw*> ^?^p3, i. 19;) or of tabitha 
 as the familiar term, the native word for the Greek opxet$, 
 (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, some time about the apostolic age, 
 
THE NEW TESTAMENT. 21 
 
 (certainly little if at all later,) can only be explained on the 
 supposition that the Aramaic language in which they were 
 written, was that currently employed at the time by the Jews 
 in Palestine and the adjoining regions. Nor is there any clear 
 or even probable evidence of the Greek translation of the Old 
 Testament Scriptures ever having been used in the synagogues 
 of Palestine and Syria. The eiforts that have been made to 
 establish this point, have utterly failed ; indeed, it can scarcely 
 be said, that so much as one of the proofs advanced by Dio- 
 dati in support of it, has any proper bearing on the subject. 1 
 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 lan 
 guage of the Jewish people, and consequently the medium of 
 intercourse on all ordinary occasions. At the same time, it 
 cannot be reasonably doubted, on the 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 the world, to extend the language and culture, as well 
 as ascendency of Greece. With this view cities were planted 
 af convenient distances, which might be considered Grecian 
 rather than Asiatic in their population and manners. The 
 Syrian kings, by whom the Macedonian line of rulers was 
 continued, kept up Greek as the court language, and were 
 doubtless followed by their official representatives, 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 com 
 posed of persons of Grecian origin, who could not fail to make 
 the Greek language in some sense familiar at the various mili 
 tary stations in the regions of Syria. Even after the Mace 
 donian rule had terminated, and all became subject to the 
 sway of the Romans, it was still usually through the medium 
 
 1 The arguments by Diodati are well met by Dr. Pfannkuche, 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. 38 40. 
 
22 THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF 
 
 of the Greek tongue that official intercourse was maintained, 
 and the decrees of government were made known. It is in 
 the very 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 encouragements 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 Minor, 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 specially a Grecian di 
 rection; in every place of importance inhabited by Greeks, 
 members of the stock of Israel had their homes and syna 
 gogues. It is only, too, what might have been expected in 
 the circumstances, that the culture and enterprise which dis 
 tinguished 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 Pharisaism. 
 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, 
 
THE NEW TESTAMENT. 23 
 
 and which, there is good reason to believe, was in extensive 
 use about that era among the Jewish people. So that, look 
 ing to the numbers, 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 
 immediate 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 haye been their usual practice, or 
 that their public addresses should have been originally de 
 livered 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, including those which contain our Lord s personal 
 discourses, should, with at most one exception if the Gospel 
 of St. Matthew be indeed an exception 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 communities whose spiri 
 tual 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 op 
 portunities of becoming personally acquainted with the facts 
 of gospel history, and enjoying afterwards the ministry of 
 apostles and evangelists, who were perfectly cognisant of the 
 whole, were in a jnanner 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, presented an anticipative reason 
 
21 THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 against committing the sacred and permanent records of the 
 Christian faith to the Hebrew language. That language, it 
 self already corrupted and broken, was presently to become 
 to all but the merest fragment of the Jews themselves, anti 
 quated and obsolete. The real centres of Christianity 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 doc 
 trines 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 whose 
 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 ac 
 tive agents and representatives, and the direction it was ap 
 pointed to take in the world, the Greek was obviously the lan 
 guage in which its original and authoritative documents be 
 hooved to be written. Whatever reasons there were for the 
 adherents of Judaism getting the Scriptures of the Old Tes 
 tament 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 lan 
 guage in preference to Aramaic, the same reasons 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 language, 
 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 Aramaic productions, it was unspeakably better that, 
 from the first, they should have appeared in a Greek form. 
 
THE CHARACTERISTICS OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK. 25 
 
 SECTION SECOND. 
 
 THE CHARACTERISTICS OP NEW TESTAMENT GREEK. 
 
 I. Being satisfied that the books of the New Testament 
 were written in Greek, our next inquiry naturally turns on 
 the precise 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 peculiari 
 ties? This is evidently a subject of no small moment for the 
 correct interpretation of the New Testament writings, and de 
 mands a careful examination. In the present day, it can 
 scarcely be said, that there is any material difference of opi 
 nion upon the subject. This common agreement, however, 
 is the result partly of a long controversy, and partly of the 
 more exact and impartial treatment 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 Testament and classical Greek, (which no com 
 petent scholar could fail to perceive,) as upon the extent of 
 the difference, and the precise light in which it was to be re 
 garded. So early as the period of the Reformation, we find 
 distinct notice taken of the difference. Erasmus, for exam 
 ple, says on Acts x. 38, " The apostles had not learned their 
 Greek from the speeches of Demosthenes, but from the lan 
 guage of common discourse ; and I should think it best suited 
 to the gospel of Christ, that it was communicated in a simple 
 and unpolished style, and that the discourse of the apostles 
 resembled 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 
 garments." 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 imper 
 fect and obscure, as well as unpolished; but he admits the 
 3 
 
26 THE CHARACTERISTICS OF 
 
 existence of Hebraistic peculiarities, and of occasional sole 
 cisms. Practically, however, the theological writers of that 
 period treated the language of the New Testament much as 
 they would have done any other production in Greek, and as 
 if it had no very marked peculiarities of its own. The doc 
 trinal discussions, too, in which they, and their immediate 
 successors in sacred learning, were so much engaged, tended 
 not a little to impede the exact philological study of the Greek 
 Scriptures, 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 pur 
 pose mainly of impugning or defending out of Scripture a par 
 ticular 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 
 acquirement 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, Robert Ste 
 phens persons who sought to prove, that the seeming pecu 
 liarities of the New Testament dialect were also to be met 
 with in the contemporaneous and earlier writings of Greece. 
 It was the more common 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 from the Hebrew, 
 which characteristically distinguish it from the writings belong 
 ing to Greece proper; but yet that the introduction of these 
 to use the language of Pfeiffer, who speaks the general sen 
 timent of his age 1 " is to be sought, not in any degeneracy 
 of the Greek language into a distinct Hellenistic dialect, but 
 in an assimilation of the style of the New Testament to that 
 of the Old, through an especial direction of the Holy Spirit. 
 Such Hebraisms are not to be reckoned as solecisms, or barba 
 risms, 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 
 
 1 Klausen s Hermeneutik, p. 260. 
 
NEW TESTAMENT GREEK. 27 
 
 half Hebraistic, or Hebrew Greek, or Hebraizing, to say no 
 thing 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 communication. The strongest representative of this 
 feeling, perhaps, may be found in Black wall, who, in his Sa 
 cred Classics, both denied that many of the alleged peculiari 
 ties of New Testament Greek are Hebraistic or Oriental 
 idioms, and claimed for such, as he admitted to be of this de 
 scription, the character of true and proper ornaments. " He 
 did not consider," as justly remarked 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 Scotti 
 cism, which is equally in the manner of both Scotch and Eng 
 lish. Now, such foreign idioms as Hebraisms in Greek, Gre- 
 cisms in Hebrew, or Latinisms in either, come all within the 
 definition of barbarism, and sometimes even of solecism 
 words which have always something relative in their significa 
 tion ; 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 applica 
 tion of the names barbarism 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 should ever have been any unwillingness to ad 
 mit it. The unwillingness, as we have mentioned, simply arose 
 from a mistaken idea of some necessary connexion subsisting 
 between purity of diction and inspiration of sentiment; cer 
 tainly a mistaken idea, for the imagined purity is expressly 
 
28 THE CHARACTERISTICS OP 
 
 disclaimed by the most learned of all the apostles, who repre 
 sents 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 
 required 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 with the clas 
 sical 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 Testa 
 ment Scripture its being written in the style natural to the 
 persons by whom, and the age in which, it was produced. The 
 language is precisely what might have been expected from 
 Jews at that particular 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 con 
 nects with it in his own case connects with its very deficien 
 cies 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 delivering 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 wis 
 dom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that 
 your faith (the faith of those who listened to his preaching) 
 might not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of 
 
NEW TESTAMENT GREEK. 29 
 
 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 ob 
 vious defects and imperfections, as judged by the standard of 
 worldly taste and refined culture; and that, not as a matter 
 of accident, but of Divine choice for the purpose of render 
 ing more palpable and conspicuous the operation of God s hand 
 in the results that were accomplished through their instrumen 
 tality. 
 
 Even this is not the whole. 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 ne 
 cessity 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 gospel. As 
 these truths required the preparation 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 H 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 with 
 in the human and earthly sphere but still only these it was 
 not fully adequate to the requirements and purposes of Chris 
 tian 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 his 
 tory 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 
 
 3* 
 
30 THE CHARACTERISTICS OF 
 
 inconceivable. The canonical and the Hebrew are most inti 
 mately connected." 1 
 
 It is perfectly consistent with all this, and no less true, that 
 the writers of the New Testament often show a correct ac 
 quaintance with the idioms of the Greek language, and knew 
 how to distinguish between the nicer shades of meaning in 
 many of its expressions. There 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 deviations from 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 purposes for which they wrote required them 
 so to do. Their language may thus be said to be of a some 
 what 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 stand 
 ard, and to present 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 narrative, 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, con 
 sidered from a higher point of view, incomparably strongest. 
 
 1 Hengsteuberg on the Revelation of St. John, ii., p. 442. 
 
NEW TESTAMENT GREEK. 31 
 
 It is this investiture of its doctrines with the majesty of He 
 braistic imagery [and the peculiar richness and force of He 
 braistic modes of expression,] rather than with the diffluent 
 garb of a corrupted and decaded Hellenism that does truly re 
 veal to us the overruling providence and manifold wisdom of 
 God/ 1 
 
 Whether, therefore, we look to what was in itself natural 
 and proper at the time, to what was in fittest accordance with 
 the purposes for which the gospel revelation was given, or, 
 finally, to what was 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 modi 
 fied by the Hebraisms, 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 suc 
 ceed in the work of interpretation. 2 
 
 II. Undoubtedly the basis of the New Testament dialect is 
 
 1 Frazer s Magazine for December, 1855. Substantially, indeed, the cor 
 rect 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, < 4 As to the intermixture of 
 Hebraisms, it arose, not only from their being Hebrews, but because, in dis 
 coursing of those things which had been transmitted through the Hebrew 
 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 hap 
 pily expressed, nay, sometimes not expressed at all; so that, had those for 
 mulas not been used, new words and novel modes of expression would have 
 needed to be sometimes employed, which no one could properly have un 
 derstood." 
 
 2 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. 
 
32 THE CHARACTERISTICS OF 
 
 the xotvi) oedhxTOz, 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 language, which came into general use 
 after the Macedonian conquests. It was called common, and 
 sometimes 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, .ZEolic, 
 Doric, and Attic were not so properly the dialects in common 
 use among the people, circulating in their separate localities, 
 as the forms appropriated to so many departments of litera 
 ture, which severally 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 ambitious of writing in the purest style. 
 Certain changes began to pass upon this dialect after the pe 
 riod of the Macedonian conquests, arising chiefly from the 
 Doric peculiarities which predominated in Macedonia, and 
 which now obtained a more general currency; while, along 
 with these, occasional peculiarities from the other dialects 
 were also introduced, probably, in the first instance, from col 
 loquial 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 subject, 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 
 
NEW TESTAMENT GREEK. 33 
 
 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 under each head 
 the more marked and important distinctions, and in each shall 
 select 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 fierotxecria, Matt. i. 11, for which //- 
 Toixyatz or jusToexta was employed in earlier times; xau^rn^ 
 often in St. Paul s writings for the act or object of glorifying, 
 as previously in the Septuagint, but in Attic writers XWJ-/TJ 
 or xaoyj]fj.a\ yzveGta, which in the earlier Greek writers was 
 wont to signify the solemnities offered to the dead, on the pe 
 riodical return of their birth-day, was latterly used for the 
 birth-day itself, as in Matt. xiv. 6, instead of fzviQha ; z*x7ia- 
 lat for xdtar, various words with terminations in //a, as 
 afnq/jia for ofir^ai^ dvTarrody/jia for dvr7rooo^c 5 dufdiwjfJia 
 for dcrdevsea, (fisucr/jia for ^eDooc, (though it is found also in 
 Plato.) We have also ftaGihaaa^ queen, for flo-attzca or /9a- 
 cr^/c, d~offTa<7la for aTcoG-caai^, and various other alterations 
 of a like nature. (2.) Words, and forms of words, which were 
 but rarely used in classical Greek, or found only with the 
 poets, passed into common use in the later common dialect: 
 such as audevTztv, to govern; dtexrwp, a cock; dAexrpo- 
 <po)via, cock-crowing; d^/^roc, that is not, or cannot be 
 spoken, etc. (3.) Certain words formerly in use came latterly 
 to acquire new meanings; such as Trapaxate cv, in the sense 
 of admonishing or beseeching; TzaidBuscv, of chastising; zu%v.- 
 ptarsw, of giving thanks, (originally, to be thankful ;) d>ayr^jLto\>^ 
 of respectable or noble standing, (originally, graceful, decent, 
 or becoming;) d<f.>d()ioi;, diminutive, from o^ oy, (from s<po)J) 
 strictly, boiled meat, then any thing eaten with bread to give 
 it a relish, seasoning, sauce in particular, at Athens, fish, 
 which were there reckoned among the chief dainties whence 
 also the diminutive o^dpcov acquired the sense of fish, as in 
 
34 THE CHARACTERISTICS OF 
 
 John vi. 9, in Plutarch too, and Athenoeus. Under the same 
 class may be ranked verbs with an active meaning, which, in 
 classical Greek, are used only intransitively; for example, 
 fjLadqTS jsw, to disciple, instead of being or taking the place 
 of a disciple; dpeaftftevstv, to cause to triumph, instead of 
 leading in triumph. Such transitions, however, from the re 
 ceived intransitive to a transitive sense, should rather perhaps 
 be ascribed to the Hebraistic impress of the New Testament 
 diction, than regarded as a peculiarity of the common dialect 
 of the later Greek the sacred writers very naturally giving, 
 in certain cases, the force of the Hiphil to the simple mean 
 ing of the verb. But, undoubtedly, traces of such alterations 
 are also to be found in other writers. (4.) Words and phrases 
 entirely new entered, especially compound words ; for exam 
 ple, dttoTptosTTtffxoTroz, dvOpcoxdpsffxoz, j>jLOv6<pda.l/jioz, etdcolo- 
 XaTpda, (T7iAaf%vce<Td(u, with many others some peculiar to 
 the Septuagint and the writings of the New Testament, others 
 common to these and the productions in later Greek generally. 
 Peculiarities of this class are distributed by Planck, not in 
 aptly, into three kinds: the first comprehending those which 
 were expressly asserted by the ancient grammarians to have 
 belonged to the common language of later times; the second, 
 such as were not explicitly noted in this way, but are only 
 found in the productions which appeared subsequently to the 
 Macedonian era; and finally, those which nowhere occur but 
 in the Septuagint, the Apocrypha, the writings of the New 
 Testament, and the Greek Fathers. It is quite possible that, 
 in regard to many of the words comprised in each of these 
 divisions, the use made of them in the later Greek writings is 
 not absolutely novel; they may have existed before, most 
 likely did exist, but only as provincialisms, which had not re 
 ceived the sanction of any pure writer, or as expressions so 
 seldom employed, that the earlier writings in which they oc 
 curred have not been preserved among the remains of anti 
 quity. (5.) A fifih class consists of words imported into the 
 Greek tongue from the Latin a natural result of the subju 
 gation of the Greek-speaking countries by the Romans; of 
 these it is enough to notice such expressions as aaadpeov, 
 
NEW TESTAMERR GREEK. 35 
 
 7, Asf so/v, acxdpcoz, etc., 
 (consilium capere,) ^pfaaiav douvat, (operam dare,) etc. 1 
 
 2. In regard to the other great class of peculiarities be 
 longing to the common dialect those relating to flexion and 
 syntax Grammatical peculiarities they also fall into seve 
 ral divisions. (1.) We have peculiarities in the flexion of 
 verbs, such as d jvfi as 2d pers. sing, of indie, pass, for the re 
 gular d jvaaac, xddy for xddyffae ; second aorists with the ter 
 minations proper to the first, as e7~a. for eJrrov, tineaa for STTS- 
 (Tov, even fjfJutpT^ae. for yfjbaprov\ various endings also in v, 
 instead of aac, such as efucoxav for ifvo) xaae^ stpyxav for etpij- 
 Verbs occur, too, with double augments, as rj t ueUs, 
 dyv, Yjouv/jdrjcrav, 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 
 Trs^ttv for TTS^VT^V, dc^civ for dn/TQV^ ffr/fiavat for ar^yafvcu. 
 (2.) Peculiarities also appear in regard to the gender and 
 flexion of nouns; thus 7soc, which, with all good Greek au 
 thors, is masculine, is neuter in the New Testament and ec 
 clesiastical writers but occasionally also masculine; Tr^oDroc 
 in like manner is used as a neuter; Xep.6^ 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 Testa 
 ment twice, (Luke xv. 14, h/wz iayjjpd; Acts xi. 28, hfibv 
 fj.z?d):rjV,} according to the best copies. On the other hand, 
 the sacred writers and the later Greek writers make fldroz, 
 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 %dptra, the later and rarer form, oc 
 curs occasionally for %dpiv\ and ids of the accus. plural is 
 always dropt for ?c. (3.) As further distinctions, there may 
 be added the nearly entire disuse of the dual, and a few pe 
 culiarities 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 
 
 1 For a more complete list, see Klausen, Hermeneutik, pp. 338 343; also 
 Winer s Idioms, 2. 
 
36 THE CHARACTERISTICS OF 
 
 may be noticed as examples: orav used with the indicative 
 preterite, ee with the subjunctive, r iva with the indicative pre 
 sent; 1 the dispensing with Tv in forms like $S)M wa, dzcoz 
 cva, etc.; the coupling of verbs like yz jeadat with the geni 
 tive, and Trpoffxvvstv with the dative ; the use of the genitive 
 infinitive, such as TOO xoestv, beyond the original and natural 
 limit, and of the subjunctive for the optative in the historical 
 style after preterites; and, above all, the rare use of the opta 
 tive, which became entirely obselete in the late Greek. Also 
 a neglect of the declensions begins to be exhibited, as err 
 xafeeC, (after 1v xa0v,) and even *a0e?c; then also ava e2c, 
 Trap ?c; so also IJ.ZTGL TOL> ev, and similar instances." 
 
 These constitute the leading peculiarities of the later Greek, 
 appearing in the writings of the New Testament. But no 
 doubt, as Winer also remarks, this later and more popular 
 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 wo. 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 i va 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 ci<a TrtyptoOf, 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, wa rc IKTO/MZ 
 
 1 He might have added, what is still more peculiar, the occasional use of 
 */va with the future, as at 1 Cor. xiii. 3, llev. vi. 11, if these are, as they ap 
 pear to be, the correct readings. 
 
NEW TESTAMENT GREEK. 37 
 
 aurou rrjp(ii)fJV)* not that we do keep, as a fact but in or 
 der that we may keep the commandments 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, oupifepzi yap 0ot rW, x.T.L, it is for thj advan 
 tage, 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; Mark 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, which have been noted 
 as characterizing the dialect of the New Testament, in com 
 mon with that of the later Greek writers, there is no room for 
 difference of opinion. They distinguish the Greek of the apos 
 tolic age from the Greek of classical times. They must, there 
 fore, be understood, 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 some 
 times been committed by persons of high attainments in clas 
 sical learning, from their too exclusive regard to simply clas 
 sical 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 Testa 
 ment those, namely, arising from its Hebraistic impress. The 
 common dialect of later times was, in the case of the sacred 
 writings, intermingled with the free and frequent use of forms 
 derived from the Hebrew, which, as already stated, was to some 
 extent unavoidable 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 ad 
 mixture of Hebrew idioms. 
 4 
 
38 THE CHARACTERISTICS OP 
 
 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 epis 
 tles while these again have more of that element than many 
 other parts of the New Testament. The gospel of St. Luke 
 is decidedly less marked with Hebraisms than those of St. 
 Matthew and St. Mark; 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 without reference to the peculiarities of indivi 
 dual writers, there are three several respects in which the He 
 braistic 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 
 complexion of the style, namely, in those things in which the 
 Hebrew characteristically differed from the Greek. As (1.) 
 in the more frequent use of the prepositions for marking re 
 lations, which were wont to be indicated in classical Greek by 
 means of cases. This characteristic pervades so much the 
 style of the New Testament, that particular examples are al 
 most unnecessary. But take one or two: In Ileb. i. 2, ov 
 efhjxs xtyf>w)/w -ai/rojy, "whom he appointed heir of all," 
 is classical Greek ; but Acts xiii. 22, ty sefisv rov Javio si~ 
 fiaffdea, literally " raised up David for king," is Hebraistic. 
 Again, TIM fan et-zv ~OTS TWV a*fyi)MV, u for to which of the 
 angels said lie at any time," is pure Greek, but the use of 
 the preposition in the following expressions is Hebraistic, 777 
 IxtexTow $oy, Rom. viii. 33; dfavaxroyyrsT 
 JZi Mark xiv. 4; dOwoz (i~b TO~J aitmro^, Matt. 
 xxvii. 24, (so Sept. transl. T P *pJ in 2 Sam. iii. 28;) bfJioXoyeiv 
 Iv WJTW, Matt. x. 32, etc. (2.) It formed another marked 
 difference between the two languages the paucity of con- 
 
NEW TESTAMENT GREEK. 39 
 
 junctions which existed in the Hebrew, and their great abun 
 dance, one might almost say, their superfluity, in the Greek. 
 But the New Testament writers constantly show an inclina 
 tion 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 
 xac, where we would rather have expected an dttd, a xalxep, 
 or a xalTott and a ydo or an obv where we would have looked 
 for an c/rs/, a ware, or a OTC, if judging from the usage of clas 
 sical writers? In the narrative portions, more especially, of 
 the New Testament, it is the remarkable nakedness and sim 
 plicity 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 pronouns, instead 
 of the possessives <ro, ^oJ, aurou, fyjtcov, bfjuuu, a jTtov. This 
 naturally arose from the inspired writers being used to the He 
 brew suffixes, 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, how 
 ever, is greatly more frequent in the New Testament and 
 the Septuagint, than in other productions of the same period. 
 Indeed, we often meet with the personal pronouns generally 
 in the Greek Scriptures, where simply Greek writers would 
 have altogether omitted them; as in Gen. xxx. 1, ope /we 
 rsxva, el os /^, rsXsOT^ffa) iycb\ Ex. ii. 14, p:q dv^A^v /ji* cry 
 #/cYC> uv Tpbxov dyc?/oC %0s tov Aifbittoi*) (in both cases imi 
 tating the Hebrew;) so in John iii. 2, ~wj~a rd ar^zta. TTO^V 
 d crb xoes tz , Rev. v. 4, xal iyco HxAacou ;ro/y; 2 John 1, ouz 
 *{io dyo-a> s.u dtyOda, etc. (4.) Another pronominal pecu 
 liarity, arising from assimilation to the Hebrew, is occasion 
 ally found in the New Testament, arid abounds in the Septua 
 gint. In Hebrew there is only one relative pronoun, "^^ 
 (sometimes abbreviated into #;) and this without any distinc 
 tion as to number, gender, or case: on which account the 
 suffixes of the personal pronouns, or these pronouns themselves 
 with a preposition, required to be added, in order to give the 
 necessary point and explicitricss to the reference. Hence 
 
40 THE CHARACTERISTICS OF 
 
 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 
 o c, and adverhs derived from it, oy, o#cv, fcoy, 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 occa 
 sionally to have felt as if they could not give adequate expres 
 sion to their mind without availing themselves of the Hebrew 
 form. Hence such passages in the Septuagint as the follow 
 ing: 37 fy ~9> *]Z ov xaroexsi"^ J/r air^c? Gen. xxviii. 13; TTUZ 
 ffO(fbz rrj dtavoia, w idody G0(pia xal ixtarr^a lu auTol^, Ex. 
 xxxvi. 1; also Deut. ix. 28; Ex. xxx. 6; Deut. iv. 5, 14, etc. 
 In the New Testament the peculiarity occurs more rarely; 
 but still it is found, as in Mark vi. 55, " They carried about 
 the sick on couches," onou jjxooov on lxs? I<JTW\ vii. 25, yjc 
 ?/v TO Bufdrptov avrrfi 7rvei)/2a dxdOapTou; Rev. vii. 2, ofc 
 eoody ayroTc; xii. 6, oxoo eysf Ixse ro~ov fjTOtfJLO0[ivov\ ver. 
 14, oxoo Tpeysrae lxs? xac[>bv. The usage is found also in 
 some quotations from the Old Testament, (Acts xv. 17 ; 1 Pet. 
 ii. 24,) but it is certainly of rare occurrence in the New Tes 
 tament writings themselves. (5.) A further distinctive im 
 press arose from a marked difference between the Hebrew arid 
 the Greek in respect to the tenses of the verb, giving rise to a 
 peculiarity in the general character of the New Testament 
 style, and imparting to it something of a Hebraistic air. 
 Here again the Hebrew was as remarkable for the fewness, 
 as the Greek for the multiplicity of its forms the one having 
 its simple past and future tenses, while the other had its pre 
 sent, imperfect, perfect, pluperfect, first and second aorists, 
 first and second futures, and paulo-post future certainly a 
 plentiful variety, if not, in some respects, a needless redun 
 dancy; and all these, again, subject to variations of mood 
 indicatives, subjunctives, optatives which are unknown in 
 Hebrew. There can bo no doubt that the New Testament 
 writers were well acquainted with the principal tenses of the 
 Greek verb, and some of its more peculiar modes of construc 
 tion, such as those with neuter plurals, with wa and av; at 
 
NEW TESTAMENT GREEK. 41 
 
 the same time, there are occasional anomalies, with a mani 
 fest preference for the simple past and future of the Hebrew, 
 and, as in the latter, a tendency to use the future, as expres 
 sive of necessity and continued action, (must and is wont,) 
 somewhat more frequently than is usual in ordinary Greek. 
 (G.) Once more, there are some peculiar case-usages, though 
 rare in the New Testament, as compared with the Septuagint. 
 The most noticeable of these is the employment, though in the 
 New Testament occurring only in the Apocalypse, of a kind 
 of nominative absolute not such as is to be found in Acts 
 vii. 40, b yap Mcouarfi oyroc o dvOpcoTro^;, in which, merely for 
 the purpose of giving prominence to the leading noun, the 
 sentence begins with it in the nominative, and of which exam 
 ples are to be met with in ordinary Greek but one in which 
 the nominative comes after, and stands in apposition with, 
 other nouns in the oblique cases. This arose from a close 
 imitation of the Hebrew, prefixing the indication of case, or 
 the preposition, to the first noun in a sentence, and dropping 
 it in those that followed. Thus at Num. xx. 5, sic rbv TOTZOV 
 
 TOV.TtOVrjpOV TOUTOV TO7TOZ oL 01) ff~ipTf/.t , Deut. IV. 1.1, /.(J.I 
 
 TO opo^ exacero xvpi sco^ TOU ovpawu trxoroc, p^o^oc, $yeMa; 
 also ver. 22; Deut. viii. 8, x. 7. Though an anomalous con 
 struction, it had the effect, as Tiersch justly remarks, (Pent. 
 Versione Alexandrina, p. 133,) of giving force and emphasis 
 to the terms placed thus absolutely in the nominative which 
 were thereby isolated. This also is very decidedly the effect 
 of the employment of the nominative in Rev. i. 4, where grace 
 and peace are sent 0.7:0 b wu xal b vjv xal b Ipy^o^svoz , retain 
 ing in the nominative the words, which express the Lord s 
 eternal Being, and so taking them, as it were, out of the com 
 mon category of declinable nouns, and placing them in an in 
 dependent position. Other examples occur in Rev. ii. 20, iii. 
 12. In the same connexion may be mentioned a kind of He 
 braistic extension of the accusative of place, this accusative 
 being sometimes coupled with a following genitive, in a way 
 not usual with the Greeks; of which we have such examples 
 in the Old Testament as Deut. xi. 30, ovx coob TWJTO. rrep.av 
 b~i<Tco y bobu dufff^oji fjAioo^ i. 19; Ex. xiii. 17. 
 4* 
 
42 THE CHARACTERISTICS OF 
 
 And in the New Testament, the peculiar expression in Matt. 
 iv. 14, fy Na<p 6 a^el //, bobv OoJ.dcrcrr^, 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 compa 
 ratively 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 correspondence 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 transferred from the Hebrew and other Oriental languages 
 into the text of the New Testament: such as dp fa, dfaoocbv, 
 d/r/yy, 7T#/?aocroc, / sevj>, OCLTU.V, etc. Terms of this sort are 
 merely Oriental words in Greek letters, or with a Greek ter 
 mination ; 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 under 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 considera 
 ble number of this description, among which are sir in the 
 sense of rr: or xpcoroz, according to the Septuagint rendering 
 of "inx (e?> fpafjifiaT6U, Matt. viii. 19, 
 fiiav for npdirqv,) f jyrsev rr/v 
 t, Odvarov ros^v, nsptTtOTStV Ivconiov r/voc, Ttoc&v 
 
 v rrvo ffdc; xal 
 
 a!/m, etc. 
 
 To refer more particularly to one or two examples, the 
 phrase Trdffa <raoc, for all men, mankind at large, is quite a 
 Hebraism, being a literal translation of the Hebrew "^3-72) by 
 two terms, which in the one language, as well as the other, 
 signify all flesh while still native Greek writers never used 
 ados in the sense of men, and such an expression, if employed 
 by them, would have meant, not all mankind, but the whole 
 fL sh, (of a man or an animal, as it might happen.) Some 
 times the Hebraism is further strengthened by the addition of 
 
NEW TESTAMENT GREEK. 43 
 
 a negative, in a manner different from the practice of good 
 Greek writers. In Hebrew, "^2-^3 ^ not all flesh, is equi 
 valent to no flesh, and in this same meaning oi> Traaa adpq is 
 used in New Testament Scripture ; as when our Lord says, 
 Matt. xxiv. 22, " If the days should not be shortened, oux av 
 iucodf] -flcra craps," no flesh should be saved ; or St. Paul, 1 
 Cor. i. 29, OTZCOZ JJ.T] xaoy^v/jTcu r.dcra crdpz, so that no flesh 
 might glory. Such phrases are to be explained by coupling 
 the negative with the verb, and regarding the two together as 
 predicating the negation or want of something the all com 
 prehending the entire circle or genus to which such predicate 
 extends. Thus, in the sentence last quoted, the not being in 
 a condition to glory is the thing predicated, and the rcaaa 
 ffdp~, the all flesh, which follows, denotes the sphere of being 
 to which the predicate applies the entire compass of huma 
 nity. So that, when rightly viewed, the expression presents 
 no material difficulty, though it is a form of speech not na 
 tive to the Greek, but imported into it from the Hebrew. 
 
 The Vulgate has not been sufficiently observant of this pe 
 culiar idiom; hence it renders the passage in Matt, non salva 
 ficret omnis caro, and that in 1 Cor. ut non glorietur omnis 
 caro. Our translators, however, in the authorized version 
 have commonly attended to it, and given the correct render 
 ing though still in one case they appear to have missed it. 
 The passage we refer to is 1 John ii. 19, where the apostle is 
 speaking of those who had once belonged to the true church, 
 but had since fallen into Gnostic errors, and assumed an an- 
 tichristian position : " They went out from among us, but 
 they were not of us ; for if they had been of us, they would 
 have continued with us; but that (the sentence here is plainly 
 elliptical, and we must again supply they went out that) 
 they might be made manifest, ort G JX sew xdwcsz is fyjL&v" 
 that they were not all of us, our version has it but the apos 
 tle had already said of them, wholly and absolutely, that they 
 were not of us; and it would be strange, if now, at the close, 
 he should have introduced a limitation, and, when speaking 
 of the evidence of their having assumed an antichristian posi 
 tion, or being in deadly heresy, should have used terms that 
 
44 THE CHARACTERISTICS OF 
 
 were applicable only to a portion of them. The terms, how 
 ever, become quite plain, if understood in conformity with the 
 idiom now under consideration ; i. e., if the negative and the 
 verb (o>jx etffe) are taken together, as constituting the predi 
 cate, and the jravrsc following as indicating the extent of its 
 application embracing the totality of the parties spoken of. 
 Their going out from the company of the faithful, the apostle 
 then affirms, shows that they are not all of them of us; 
 i. e., that none of them are of us; the whole went out, that 
 they might be seen one and all not to be of the true church 
 of Christ. Such, substantially, is the view adopted, not only 
 by several foreign commentators, but also in the English An 
 notations of 1645, by Hammond, Guyse, Whitby, Peilc, and 
 others. 
 
 This, however, is rather a digression, and we return to our 
 proper subject simply remarking further, in respect to the 
 second class of Hebraisms, that a considerable portion of the 
 words and phrases comprised in it, are still to be taken in their 
 ordinary sense, but, at the same time, with such reference to 
 the Hebrew use and application of them, that in the sense ne 
 cessary to be put upon them they must be regarded as He 
 braisms. For example, in the common expression at/jta $x%st 9 
 to pour out, or shed blood, what is really meant, is not the 
 simple shedding of blood, but the pouring out of this unto 
 death the words being those used in rendering the Hebrew 
 PJ W? the usual sacrificial formula for taking the life of an 
 animal victim, when presenting it to God. It hence passed 
 into a common phrase for taking the life of any one; and in 
 the lips of a Jew, the phrase naturally became more peculiar 
 ly and distinctly indicative of death, than it should have done 
 when uttered by a Greek. In like mariner, in the use of the 
 word oi/o/jia, in a great variety of expressions, such as " call 
 ing upon the name," or doing any thing in the name of an 
 other, "hallowing God s name," "believing on the name of 
 Christ," " trusting in the name of the Lord," and such like 
 while the worm precisely corresponds to the Q in Hebrew, 
 and name in English to both, it is still only through the He 
 brew usage that we can get at the proper import of the ex- 
 
NEW TESTAMENT GREEK. 45 
 
 pressions. The Hebrews were wont to regard the name of an 
 individual, as, what it doubtless originally was, the index to 
 the nature ; and when the primary name failed properly to 
 do this, they very commonly superseded it by another, which 
 yielded a more significant or fitting expression of the indivi 
 dual properties. Hence, with them, the name was very much 
 identified with the person, as, on the other side, the person 
 was very often contemplated in the light of the name. Among 
 the Greeks the significance of names never assumed the same 
 place that it did among the Hebrews ; they were regarded 
 more as arbitrary signs, having their chief use in distinguish 
 ing one person or one object from another; and consequently 
 the same identification did not prevail in the ordinary Greek 
 usage, as in the Hebrew, between the name, and the person 
 or properties of the individual. In dealing with such expres 
 sions, therefore, as those specified above, we must have re 
 course to the Hebrew, in order to arrive at the proper import. 
 3. There is still a third respect, in which the Hebraistic 
 cast of the New Testament dialect appears; viz., in the for 
 mation of derivatives from words belonging, in the sense em 
 ployed, to the Hebrew, and not to the Greek. For example, 
 the word tfxaj/oa/ov, the rendering of the Septuagint for ^PP 
 a stumbling-block, or offence, is the root of a verb found only 
 in the New Testament, axavdati^to, to stumble, or cause to 
 stumble, (corresponding to ^^on bab: ;) ff^^y^i^effOaf from 
 {T-Mf%va (as in Hebrew Ern and O prn ) dyadsfjtaTc^ffOac 
 from dvddsijia, and so on. In such cases one is thrown en 
 tirely upon Hebrew ideas and usages; and from these it is 
 necessary to ascertain and determine the precise meaning to 
 be attached, if not to the original noun, at least to the verb 
 derived from it. 
 
 IV. It is plain, therefore, from the occurrence of such He 
 brew or Aramaic peculiarities as we have referred to, that the 
 Greek of the New Testament adds to the later Greek the 
 common Hellenic dialect elements derived from the verna 
 cular language of the sacred writers, on account of which it 
 may justly be denominated a peculiar idiom. It exhibits sin- 
 
46 THE CHARACTERISTICS, OF 
 
 gle Greek words, which are nowhere found in Greek writers 
 out of Palestine; it exhibits also Hebrew and Chaldaic 
 phrases, expressed in Greek terms, but conveying a sense dif 
 ferent from what a simply Greek reader would naturally have 
 put upon them ; and, finally, it exhibits in the grammatical 
 construction various features of a Hebraistic kind; all ne 
 cessarily requiring, in order to attain to a correct interpreta 
 tion of New Testament Scripture, an acquaintance with the 
 Hebrew as well as with the Greek languages, and, in particular, 
 with the usages established by the Septuagint Version of Old 
 Testament Scripture. But there are two important conside 
 rations, which ought to be borne in mind in connexion with 
 those Hebraisms the one having respect to their number, 
 and the other to the proper mode of dealing with them. 
 
 (1.) In the first place, they are not nearly so numerous as 
 they were at one time represented to be ; nor much more nu 
 merous than was rendered necessary by the circumstances of 
 the writers. By far the greater part of them are so essen 
 tially connected with the position of the writers, as not only 
 trained under the economy of the Jewish dispensation, but 
 called also to unfold truths and principles, which were but the 
 proper growth and development of such as belonged to it, that 
 they could not justly have been dispensed with. They entered, 
 by a kind of moral necessity, into the cast of thought and ex 
 pression adopted by the apostles of the New Testament. And 
 hence also they occur less frequently in grammatical con 
 structions than in other respects, and only so as to impart to 
 the style, in that particular respect, an occasional Aramaic 
 colouring. The Greek syntax differs in many things from the 
 Hebrew; the one has its own marked and peculiar characteris 
 tics, as well as the other; yet in most of these we find the 
 New Testament writers regularly accommodating themselves 
 to the foreign idiom as in the distinctive use of imperfects and 
 aorists, in the coupling of neuter plurals with a verb in the 
 singular, in the construction of verbs with ay, in the attraction 
 of the relative, etc. It may not be improper to point to an 
 example or two, in a single line, of this conformity to the 
 foreign idiom: in the discriminating use of the aorist and 
 
NEW TESTAMENT GREEK. 47 
 
 perfect tenses the aorist as denoting the historic past, and 
 the perfect as denoting the past in its relation to the present, 
 the past-continuing with its -effects and consequences to the 
 present. Even St. John, who has often been treated as igno 
 rant of the commonest Greek idioms, we find, at the very 
 beginning of his Gospel, carefully observing this distinction, 
 when he says of the work of the Logos, e^evsro ouos ev o 
 -fefovsv, nothing whatever that has come to be, and still is in 
 being, was made without Him. So also in Col. i. 16, point 
 ing to the act of creation by Christ in the indefinite past, iv 
 auTw ixTtady ra Trocvra; but when Christ s continued relation 
 to, and interest in, what was created, is in view, then the apos 
 tle changes from the aorist to the perfect, ra Travrec ol aurou 
 xal s;c O:JTOU IxTca-cae. Another striking example of a simi 
 lar change may be seen in ch. iii. 3 of the same epistle, in tho 
 dxsOdvsTS used of the old life once and for ever put away, and 
 the xixpunrat. of the new begun at conversion, but continuing 
 still on. In connexion with such discriminating employments 
 of the aorist and perfect tenses, it is justly remarked by the 
 late Professor Scholefield, that the English translation is often 
 obscured by failing to mark the distinction as observed in 
 the original, and consequently inserting or omitting at the 
 wrong place the auxiliary have. (Hints for Improvements in 
 the Authorized Version, Preface X.) 
 
 In respect, however, to the excessive multiplication of He 
 braisms, Titmann very justly says, in his Synonyms, ii. p. 
 163, 4 J Many expressions in the New Testament have been 
 stamped with the name of Hebraisms, for no other reason 
 whatever than because it was taken for granted that the wri 
 ters of the New Testament have imitated the Hebrew mode 
 of speaking; just as if they could not have derived those forms 
 from the like usage of the Greek language, which they were 
 writing. Many Hebraisms have thus been pointed out by 
 Yorstius, Leusden, and others, which might with equal justice 
 be called Hellenisms. Because, forsooth, they appear in the 
 New Testament, in writers ^Eftpaf^QVTtd they are Hebraisms; 
 while the same things, when found in Demosthenes, Thucy- 
 dides, Xenophon, or Polybius, are pronounced to be good and 
 
48 THE CHARACTERISTICS OP 
 
 elegant Greek. Thus, in the New Testament, the use of the 
 demonstrative pronoun without apparent necessity after a noun 
 or relative pronoun, has been regarded as a Hebraism, inas 
 much as the Hebrews do indeed use this construction, as also 
 the Arabs, Syrians, Greeks, and Romans, (we might add the 
 Germans and English.) Still that cannot surely be reckoned 
 as a Hebrew idiom, which is also employed by the best writers 
 of other nations." He proceeds to give various examples of 
 the usage, among which are, from Cicero, Illud quod supra 
 scripsi, id tibi confirmo ; from Sallust, Sed urbana plebes, ea 
 vero prseceps ierat; from Thucydides, " the most Attic of all 
 Greek writers," TW os c IxTioxpaTzt OVTC Trept TO Jyhov, d>c 
 O.UTW jj-ffeMrj; and concludes by saying, "The construction 
 in all these usages is evidently the same as in Matt. iv. 16, 
 viii. 5; John xv. 2, xviii. 11." 
 
 Michaelis remarked sharply, but not without cause, on this 
 tendency to discover Hebraisms in New Testament Scripture, 
 " It is extraordinary, that those very persons who are least 
 acquainted with the Hebrew are the most inclined to discover 
 Hebraisms; and it has been as fashionable, as it is convenient, 
 to ascribe the difficulty of every passage to an Oriental idiom." 
 (Intro, iv. 6.) Yet he has not himself altogether escaped the 
 contagion ; for we find him, in the same chapter, ranking some 
 things as Hebraisms, and giving them on that ground a false 
 rendering, which ought to be taken in their strictly Greek 
 meaning; for example, etz v2*oc, in 1 Cor. xv. 54, which he 
 designates "a harsh Hebraism" signifying "for ever," while 
 really the proper import is best given by the literal rendering, 
 "into victory," i. e., towards this as the end aimed at death 
 being viewed as the great enemy, with whose swallowing up 
 the final victory comes. Gerard, (Bib. Criticism, p. 54,) as 
 usual, follows Michaelis in this; and, along with many others 
 then and since, he also gives frf/M, in the sense of thing, as a 
 Hebraism, in such passages as Luke i. 37, ii. 15; Acts v. 32. 
 But it always b^ars the sense of word or saying, or of things 
 only in so far as they have become matters of discourse. 
 Thus, at Luke i. 37, the exact rendering undoubtedly is, "No 
 word shall be impossible with God;" and hence the verb is 
 
NEW TESTAMENT GREEK. 49 
 
 in the future, ddvvanjffsc, pointing to the futurity of the ac 
 complishment, as compared with the period when the word 
 was spoken. 
 
 (2.) Then, while we should thus beware of multiplying He 
 braisms in the New Testament beyond what really exist, we 
 should, in the second place, also beware, in handling what 
 really are such, and the peculiarities generally of the New 
 Testament dialect, of setting them down as mere extravagan 
 cies, or barbarous departures from a proper diction. On the 
 contrary, we should endeavour to ascertain the idea in which 
 they originated, and get at the precise shade of meaning, or 
 aspect of a subject, which they set before us. This is the 
 course, as Winer remarks, which has latterly been taken by 
 grammarians in their investigations concerning the Greek 
 language: " The idea which gave rise to each particular form 
 has been accurately apprehended, and its various uses reduced 
 to the primary signification. The language thus becomes a 
 directly reflected image of the Greekthought, as a living idiom. 
 One does not stop at the mere externals, but there is a refe 
 rence of each form and inflexion of the language to the think 
 ing soul, and an effort to apprehend it in its existence in the 
 mind itself. For a long time Biblical philologists took no no 
 tice of these elucidations of Greek grammar and lexicography. 
 They followed Viger and Storr, and separated themselves en 
 tirely from the profane philologists, under the impression that 
 the New Testament Greek, being Hebraistic, could not be an 
 object of such philological investigations. No one believed 
 that the Hebrew, like every other language, admitted and re 
 quired a rational mode of treatment. The rational view ia 
 now gaining ground. It is believed that the ultimate reasons 
 of the phenomena of the Hebrew must be sought out in the 
 nation s modes of thought; and, above all, that a plain, sim 
 ple people could not contravene the laws of all human lan 
 guage. It is no longer, therefore, considered proper to give 
 a preposition diverse meanings, according to one s own plea 
 sure, in a context superficially examined. Nor must it be 
 supposed that a Hebrew, instead of i this is my brother, could 
 say pleonastically, i this is of my brother, or l this is in the 
 5 
 
50 THE CHARACTERISTICS OF 
 
 wise man, instead of l this is a wise man; but the origin of 
 changes so contrary to rule must be sought for in the speaker s 
 mode of thought, as with every rational being each deviation 
 has its reason." (Idioms, pp. 19, 20.) 
 
 This, it will be understood, is said simply of the manner in 
 which deviations of the kind here referred to should be con 
 sidered and explained; and determines nothing as to what 
 may be called the comparative pureness and elegance of the 
 diction, or the reverse. In some of them, possibly, the thought 
 expressed may be cast into a form, which is not justified by 
 the usage of the most correct writers, nor accordant with the 
 native idioms of the language ; but possibly also there may 
 be no real departure from these; and the apparent devia 
 tion, or peculiarity, may lie in the thought expressed being 
 somewhat different from what a superficial consideration, or a 
 common point of view, might be apt to suggest. Such, no 
 doubt, will be found sometimes to be the case. But the ques 
 tion at present has respect, not simply, nor indeed so much to 
 the purity of the diction, as to the proper and rational mode 
 of explaining its real or apparent peculiarities. These should, 
 in every case, be considered with reference to the specific cir 
 cumstances and mental habits of the writer. And had they 
 been so had due regard been paid to the considerations which 
 have just been advanced not only would many senseless and 
 improper laxities have been spared from our grammars, lexi 
 cons, and commentaries, but the received text also of the New 
 Testament and our authorized version would have been in a 
 better state than they at present are. Schleusner s Lexicon 
 of the New Testament, and Mackriight s Commentary on the 
 Epistles, may be referred to as specimens, out of the more 
 learned class, which egregiously err in the respect now men 
 tioned, more especially in the laxity with which they render 
 the prepositions and the particles of the New Testament Greek. 
 For example, in Schleusner, the prepositions ecz and lv have 
 ascribed to them, the one 24, the other no fewer than 30, dis 
 tinct uses and meanings; and, though Macknight does not 
 carry it quite so far, yet, from the diverse and disconnected 
 senses he puts upon them in his Preliminary Essays, it seems 
 
NEW TESTAMENT GREEK. 51 
 
 as if, when handled by a Hellenistic Jew, these prepositions 
 might express almost any relation whatever. Et^, as it hap 
 pens, may be into or in, concerning or with, against, before, 
 by, in order to, among, at, towards, or it may stand without 
 any definite meaning as a mere expletive and had better 
 been wanted. So also with Jv. 1 
 
 Of course, in the writings of the New Testament, as in all 
 popular productions, there is a considerable freedom in the 
 use of such parts of speech especially in what are called preg 
 nant constructions and current phrases yet never without a 
 respect to the fundamental meaning of the word never with 
 a total abnegation and disregard of this. Thus, in the New 
 Testament, as with Greek writers generally, the preposition 
 eC is not unfrequently coupled with verbs of rest, and hence 
 comes to be rendered as if it were sv: as Matt. ii. 23, xarw- 
 % fjazy ecz xohv lefO/uvr}v Na^aped-; Acts viii. 40, 0Utf?r0f 
 tbpidy etz "A COTOV, John i. 18, 6 &v etc rov xofocov TOL> Ilar- 
 />6c But in all such cases there is an implied reference to 
 the preceding motion towards the place indicated, or some sort 
 of terminal relation to it. Thus, in the examples noticed, we 
 must explain, in the first, having gone so far as to the city 
 called Nazareth, having entered into it, he dwelt there; in 
 the second, Philip was found as far as Azotus, carried thither, 
 and so at it; in the third* He that is (viz. set, who has His 
 proper place of being) into the bosom of the Father, so close, 
 so deep into the personal indwelling, and union with, the Fa 
 ther. In none of the cases is there properly an interchange 
 of one preposition for another; but a complex thought is ut 
 tered in an abbreviated and elliptical form. 
 
 In many cases of this description, however, it is only by a 
 comment that the full and proper meaning can be brought out, 
 and in a simple translation it is scarcely possible to keep up 
 the peculiarity of the original. But there are others, in which 
 that was perfectly possible, and in which our authorized ver 
 sion has suffered from the too prevalent notion of Hebraistic 
 laxity nor has even the received text of the original escaped 
 
 1 This looseness has also been countenanced to some extent by Erncsti, and 
 still more by his foreign and English annotators. See Bib. Cabinet, vol. iv. 
 153, 154. 
 
52 THE CHARACTERISTICS OP 
 
 occasional corruptions. Under those of the latter description 
 we may point to Rev. ii. 14, \vhere the undoubtedly correct 
 reading of what is said of Balaam is, oc Ioc3a<rxsi> rco Ba/.ax 
 ftaJiecu crxdvoaAov luwr^w rwv uiwv IffpcojA. , but which, from 
 the apparent anomaly of the verb diddaxa) being coupled with 
 a noun in the dative, for its direct object, (as was supposed,) 
 the resort was made by grammarians and commentators to 
 Hebrew usage, according to which it was alleged the dative 
 was put for the accusative; and certain copyists went a step 
 further, and, taking the dative for an error, substituted the 
 accusative in its place, which is the reading of the received 
 text rbv Da/.ax. It is not a Hebraism, however, to couple 
 such a verb with the dative ; the Greek and Hebrew usage 
 here entirely correspond ; and that John was perfectly cogni 
 sant of the Greek usage is manifest from his coupling the same 
 verb with an accusative in ver. 20, as in every other instance, 
 in which he has placed a noun in regimen with it, except the 
 one before us, (John vii. 35, viii. 2, 28, ix. 34, xiv. 26; 1 
 Joh n ii. 27, thrice.) This sufficiently shows, that the dative 
 in Rev. ii. 14 is put, not by oversight or from the usage of a 
 foreign idiom merely, but on purpose; that it is what gram 
 marians call the dativus commodi, indicating that what was 
 done, was done, not upon the individual concerned, but in his 
 interest not that Balaam taughtBalak, (as in the English 
 version,) but that he taught for Balak, on his account and in 
 his behalf, to cast a stumbling-block before the children of 
 Israel. We are not, in short, told whom he taught, though 
 we know from the history it was the people of Balak, but/or 
 whose advantage he did so ; he taught in the service of the 
 king of Moab, not of the God of Israel. 
 
 We must refer to a few other passages, in which, though 
 the received text remains correct, the authorized version has 
 missed the precise shade of meaning by giving way to the idea 
 of laxity on the part of the original writers. Thus, in the 
 prayer of the converted malefactor, Luke xxiii. 42, Remember 
 me when Thou comest v rfi ftturdeia 0ou not into Thy king 
 dom, which might seem to point to the glory into which the 
 Lord was presently going to enter but in Thy kingdom, viz., 
 
NEW TESTAMENT GREEK. 53 
 
 TV hen the time comes for Thee to take to Thyself Thy great 
 power and to reign among men ; for this future manifestation 
 of glory was undoubtedly what the faith of the penitent man 
 anticipated and sought to share in, not the glory which lay 
 within the vail, which only the answer of Christ brought within 
 the ken of his spiritual vision. The same preposition has also 
 been unhappily translated in another important passage Phil, 
 ii. 10, r lua iv TOJ oyojj.aTc y Ir^aoit not at, but in the name of 
 Jesus, every knee should bow; in it as the ground and prin 
 ciple of the act, not at its mere enunciation. Again in Eph. 
 iii. 19, "That ye may be filled eiz nu.v TO ittyptopa TOO 0soi>," 
 not strictly with, which would imply an infinite recipiency, 
 but into all the fulness of God lifted, like empty vessels, 
 into the boundless pleroma of Godhead, that ye may take to 
 the full satisfaction of your desires, and the measure of your 
 capacity. So, again, in 2 Pet. i. 3, where God is said to have 
 given to us all things pertaining to life and godliness, through 
 the knowledge of Him xaAsffavroz fjplz dta oof^c *o-t d/?snyc> 
 who called us not, as in our version, to glory and virtue, 
 which puts a most arbitrary and unauthorized sense upon the 
 dca, and converts, besides, the means into the end but by or 
 through glory and virtue namely, the glory and virtue, the 
 divine energy exhibited in the way and manner, in which we 
 are called of God, in consequence of which, as is presently 
 added, there have also been given to us exceeding great and 
 precious promises; the promises are so great and precious, 
 because the call conducting to them was so distinguished by 
 divine power and glory. The very next verse but one of the 
 same epistle, ver. 5, furnishes another example of unfortunate 
 laxity in the translation, which in consequence misses the 
 precise shade of thought expressed in the original : the words, 
 7.0.1 WJTO To r JTo 3s, rendered, " And besides this," altogether 
 sinking the adversative particle ok, and mistaking also the 
 force of the adverbial accusative aJjTo TO JTO. The object of 
 the clause, is partly to suggest a difference, and partly to 
 mention an agreement, between what precedes and what fol 
 lows: "And on this very account indeed," or "but for this 
 same reason, give all diligence," etc. 
 
 5* 
 
54 TUE CHARACTERISTICS OF 
 
 These are only a few specimens out of many, that might be 
 adduced, of the evil that too long and generally prevailed, of 
 supposing that the sacred writers of the New Testament were 
 so Hebraistic, or otherwise so peculiar in their use of words 
 and phrases, that any sort of license might at times be taken 
 with their language. It is but rarely that the evil discovers 
 itself in the authorized version, and within narrow limits, com 
 pared with what has appeared often in later versions and com 
 mentaries. But it is still occasionally found there; and spe 
 cial notice has been taken of it, not for the purpose of dispa 
 raging that version, which, as a whole, is so admirable, but 
 in order to show, how even there, when the proper line has 
 been deviated from, and with the best intentions, the effect 
 has only been to substitute one shade of meaning for another 
 a meaning that could only at first view have seemed the 
 natural and proper one, for another more accordant both 
 with the idioms of the language and with the truth of things. 
 
 V. To pass now, however, from the real or alleged Hebra 
 isms of the New Testament, we may mention as another cha 
 racteristic feature of its diction, that which it occasionally de 
 rives from the new ideas and relations introduced by the gos 
 pel. These of necessity called into existence a class of ex 
 pressions, not in themselves absolutely new, but still fraught 
 with an import which could not attach to them as used by any 
 heathen writer, nor even in the production of any Greek- 
 speaking Jew prior to the birth of Christ. With the marvel 
 lous events of the gospel age, a fresh spring-time opened for 
 the world; old things passed away, all things became new; 
 and the change which took place in the affairs of the Divine 
 kingdom could not fail to impress itself on those words and 
 forms of expression, which bore respect to what had then for 
 the first time come properly into being. In so far as the terms 
 employed might embody the distinctive facts or principles of 
 Christianity, their former and common usage could only in 
 part exhibit the sense now acquired by them ; for the full 
 depth and compass of meaning belonging to them in their new 
 application, we must look to the New Testament itself, com 
 paring one passage with another, and viewing the language 
 
NEW TESTAMENT GREEK. 55 
 
 used in the light of the great things which it brings to our 
 apprehension. 
 
 When handling such terms as those now referred to, it is 
 peculiarly necessary to understand and apply aright the fun 
 damental principles of language, as to the relation in which 
 the spoken word stands to the internal thought, of which it 
 serves as the expression. " Language," it has been justly 
 said, 1 " is the outward appearance of the intellect of nations: 
 their language is their intellect, and their intellect their lan 
 guage; we cannot sufficiently identify the two. . . . Un 
 derstanding and speaking are only two different effects of the 
 same power of speech." In confirmation of this statement, 
 we may point to the twofold meaning of the Greek word /o^oc, 
 which denotes alike the internal and the external reason 
 either reason as exercising itself and forming conceptions in 
 the mind itself, (Ao; oc cvora^sroc,) or reason coming forth into 
 formal proposition, and embodying itself in the utterance of 
 human speech, (^o;-oc TipoyoprAoz) comprising, therefore, in 
 one term, what the Latins, with their more objective and re 
 alistic tendencies, took two words to express ratio and oratio. 
 Now, as the external reason, or reason embodied in the form 
 of spoken or written words, ought to be the exact image of 
 the internal, a correct representation of the thoughts and con 
 ceptions of the mind, so, in proportion as these thoughts and 
 conceptions vary, the language employed to express them 
 must present a corresponding variation ; and if the same terms 
 are retained, which may have been previously in use, there 
 must be infused into them a somewhat new and more specific 
 import. To some extent this is done, even in comparatively 
 common circumstances, and as the result of individual thought 
 and feeling; for speech, as has also been well said by the 
 writer just referred to, " acquires its last definiteness only 
 from the individual. No one assigns precisely the same mean 
 ing to a word that another does, and a shade of meaning, be 
 it ever so slight, ripples on, like a circle in the water, through 
 the entirety of language." That is for the sentiment must 
 be understood with such a limitation it will so perpetuate 
 
 1 William Von Hurnboldt, quoted in Donaldson s Cratylus, p. 56. 
 
56 THE CHARACTERISTICS OP 
 
 and diffuse itself, if circumstances favour it, and the particu 
 lar shade of meaning introduced is one not confined to too 
 narrow a sphere of thought, not merely local or temporary, 
 but requiring, by the exigencies of human thought, to have 
 an abiding place in its medium of communication. Whenever 
 that is the case, it will certainly "ripple on like a wave, widen 
 ing and enlarging its range, till it has embraced the whole 
 field. 
 
 Such peculiarly has been the case in respect to those terms, 
 which the great events of gospel history served to bring into 
 general use, and through which expression is given to some 
 of the more distinctive ideas and relations of gospel times. 
 Among the foremost of these is the phrase, jlaathia TOO 6sou, 
 or riov oupav&v a phrase composed of words perfectly fami 
 liar to all accustomed to the Greek tongue, but, as applied to 
 the state of things introduced by Christ, and growing out of 
 the events of His earthly career, expressive of ideas essentially 
 novel to heathen minds, and but partially possessed even by 
 Jewish. We can have no doubt about its origin, and the rea 
 son of its employment in this connexion. It points back to 
 those prophecies of the Old Testament, in which promise was 
 made of a king and kingdom, that should unite heaven and 
 earth, God and man, in another way than could be done by 
 a merely human administration; and especially to the prophe 
 cies of Daniel, in ch. ii. and vii., where, after a succession of 
 kingdoms, all earthly in their origin, and ungodly in their 
 spirit and aims, the Divine purpose was announced, of a king 
 dom that should be set up by the God of heaven, and that 
 should never be destroyed a kingdom imaged by one like a 
 Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven, and destined to 
 be possessed by the saints of the Most High. Some notion 
 might, therefore, be obtained of the import of the expression, 
 by those who were acquainted with Old Testament Scripture ; 
 yet only a vague and imperfect one, as the precise nature of 
 the kingdom, and its distinctive characteristics could only 
 be correctly understood, when they were brought clearly to 
 light by the facts and revelations of the gospel. The general 
 unbelief and apostacy of the Jewish people, after Christ came, 
 
NEW TESTAMENT GREEK. 57 
 
 showed how little previous intimations had served to bring 
 them properly acquainted with the nature of the kingdom ; 
 and both that, and the palpable errors and mistakes regard 
 ing it, which frequently discovered themselves even among 
 the followers of Christ, but too clearly proved how difficult it 
 was for the minds of men to rise to a just apprehension of 
 the subject. The difficulty, no doubt, chiefly arose from the 
 imperfect earthly forms under which the prophetic Spirit had 
 presented it to their view, and from the not unnatural ten 
 dency in their minds to shape their idea of it too much after 
 the monarchies and governments of this world, which kept 
 them from realizing the change in spirit, aim, and administra 
 tion, involved in the divine character of its Head. But as 
 soon as the true idea came to be realized, and the kingdom 
 in its real properties began to take root in the world, as a na 
 tural result, the phrase paaiAeia TOO 0sou, which gave ex 
 pression to the idea, became informed, we might say, with a 
 new meaning, and bore a sense which it were vain to look for 
 any where but in the writings of the New Testament. Even 
 there the sense which it bears is not quite uniform; for in a 
 subject so complex, and branching out into so many interests 
 and relations, the expression could not fail to be used some 
 times with more immediate reference to one aspect of the 
 matter, and sometimes to another. This is clearly the case 
 in the parables, where a manifold variety is found in the images 
 employed to represent the kingdom of God, with the view 
 of presenting under diverse, though perfectly consistent and 
 harmonious representations, a comprehensive exhibition of 
 the truth respecting it: some (as in the parable of the mus 
 tard-seed) pointing more to its growth from small beginnings; 
 others, (as in the parables of the ten virgins and the husband 
 man,) to its final issues in evil and good, according to the part 
 taken on earth by its members; others, again, to its internal 
 principles of administration, (as the parable of the talents, or 
 of the labourers in the vineyard;) to its external means and 
 agencies, with the diversified results springing from them (as 
 the parables of the sower, the tares and wheat, the fishing- 
 net;) or to the relation of the members of the kingdom to its 
 
58 THE CHARACTERISTICS OF 
 
 Divine Head, and to each other, (as the parable of the unfor 
 giving servant.) But with all this variety in the use of the 
 expression, two ideas are never lost sight of, which in truth 
 form the two most prominent things connected with it, viz., 
 those of a Divine king on the one hand, and of human sub 
 jects on the other the one ordering, providing, directing, 
 and controlling all; the other, according to the line of con 
 duct they pursue, receiving at His hand blessing or cursing, 
 life or death. 
 
 If these remarks are kept in view, there will appear no need 
 for dividing (as Dr. Campbell, for example, does, in his preli 
 minary Dissertations and Translation of the Gospels) and ren 
 dering ftaffdsla iCov o ? jpavtov sometimes the reign of heaven, 
 and sometimes the kingdom of heaven. This is not only un 
 necessary, but fitted also to mislead; since it gives, whenever 
 the word reign is used instead of kingdom, only a partial and 
 imperfect representation of the proper idea. It was one of 
 the prevailing tendencies of Campbell s mind a mind cer 
 tainly of great penetration, of remarkable clearness of per 
 ception, of much philosophical acumen, and singular perspi 
 cacity in thought and diction partly in consequence of these 
 very excellencies, it was a tendency in his mind to make pre 
 cision, rather than fulness of meaning his aim ; and for the 
 sake of that precision, both in his preliminary Dissertations 
 and his Notes, he often seizes only a part of the meaning, 
 couched under a particular phrase or expression, and exhibits 
 that as the whole. This is, indeed, the most characteristic 
 and general defect of his work on the Gospels, which, notwith 
 standing that defect, however, and a few others that might be 
 named, is well entitled to a perusal. It was the tendency now 
 referred to which led Dr. Campbell to substitute so often the 
 word reign for that of the kingdom of heaven, on the ground, 
 that the expression most commonly relates to that "sort of 
 dominion," as he terms it, which is understood by the dispen 
 sation of grace, brought in by the Gospel ; while the phrase, 
 "kingdom of heaven," he thinks, properly indicates "the state 
 of perfect felicity to be enjoyed in the world to come." Now, 
 this is to divide what Scripture seeks to preserve entire, and 
 
NEW TESTAMENT GREEK. 59 
 
 fixes the mind too exclusively on a part 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 fre 
 quently depicted with special relation to this; but still it com 
 prehends 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 pas 
 sages, in which it points to the present mixed state, and im 
 perfect administration of the affairs 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 Church 
 the idea of a kingdom in the proper sense, and to prompt her 
 to long for, and aim at, its realization. 
 
 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 be 
 longing to the same category : such astf/o>v p.e)JMy, ocxatouada:, 
 dcxacoa jvy, euafj eAc^cO) coij and ddvaroc; (understood spiri 
 tually,) xtfjffez, pwrrgpiov, VO/MZ, TrapdxtyToz, Tziattz, nMjp&fJMi, 
 T.fy 1 ** 7JU { na l w "> WKMWdW&Cj (JJU%MO~. All these, and, perhaps, 
 several others that might be named, are used in New Testa 
 ment 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. 
 
 VI. Once more, it may be given as a still further note of 
 distinction characteristic of the New Testament Greek, that, 
 while there are peculiarities of tttfe several kinds already de 
 scribed, distinguishing the language as a whole, there are also 
 
60 THE CHARACTERISTICS OF 
 
 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 individual, 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 revelations 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 belonging 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 writers of the New Testament the Apostles 
 Paul and John. In the writings of John we meet with vari 
 ous expressions, which, as used by him, are almost peculiar 
 to himself: such as dJby 0z, in the specific sense of denoting 
 what is emphatically the truth the truth of the Gospel ; xoesiv 
 TTJV dJ:rflz>a\>, in the sense of giving practical exhibition of that 
 truth ; yzwrflvpat dvwdsu, or Ix TOL> 6i.o~j ; b /o;-oc, as a perso 
 nal designation of the Saviour in respect to his divine nature 
 and relationship ; 6 /o^oc r^r C w ^ //ovofsvijc wfoc, 6 ~ac>d- 
 x/^roc, doyrcov TOU xdffjuo j, ep%s06ai ecz TOV xofffjtoy, etc. In 
 like manner, there is a set of phrases nearly as peculiar to the 
 Apostle Paul: such as fpd/jtfjta put in contrast to 5rvsD//a, d~o- 
 QvfjG /.ziv Ttvi, dexaeowrdeUj eo^a trapxoc, xatvrj xrlffiz, irfojpwfjui 
 roy 0oD, 1,6 uo~ lv ror: //s/s<7. , a-cavpovadcu mi, ffTor/a (taken 
 in a figurative sense of rudimental principles,) r^rror, etc. 
 
 We refrain 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 preceding classes, and are now mentioned only as con 
 nected with a further peculiarity their exclusive or prevail 
 ing use by particular writers. And as they undoubtedly ac 
 quired this further peculiarity from some mental idiosyncrasy 
 on the part of the person using them, or from some determi 
 native influences connected with the circumstance of his posi 
 tion, these ought, as far as possible, to be ascertained, that 
 the several expressions ma^ be considered from that point of 
 view, which was held by the writer, and may be interpreted 
 in accordance with the laws of thought under which he wrote. 
 
SOURCES FOR EXPLAINING THE NEW TESTAMENT. 61 
 
 SECTION THIRD. 
 
 COLLATERAL SOURCES FOR DETERMINING THE SENSE AND EXPLAIN 
 ING THE PECULIARITIES OF NEW TESTAMENT SCRIPTURE. 
 
 OUR attention has hitherto been confined to the original 
 language itself of the New Testament, and to the things which 
 concern both its general character and its more distinctive 
 peculiarities. In considering these, it has been implied, ra 
 ther than formally stated, that for the correct and critical 
 study of the writings of the New Testament, there must have 
 been acquired a competent 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 pecu 
 liarities, as well of the later Greek as of the Hebraistic style, 
 which have been noticed in connexion with the language of 
 the New Testament, are to be found; and some of them, those 
 especially of the Hebraistic class, in greater abundance, 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 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, 
 Wetstein, Koppe, Kuinoel, and the more recent commentaries 
 both of this country and the Continent. Some additional ser 
 vice has been rendered in the same line by the Editio Helle- 
 nistica of the New Testament of Mr. Grinfield, which is de 
 voted to the single purpose of collecting under each verse ex 
 amples of the same or of similar words and phrases occurring 
 in the Septuagint, and other writings of the period. The 
 Lexicons also of Biel arid Schleusner, and, above all, the 
 6 
 
62 COLLATERAL SOURCES FOR EXPLAINING 
 
 Grammar of Winer, have contributed to establish and eluci 
 date the connexion 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 know 
 ledge of the other. But there are also certain collateral sources 
 of information, 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 Testa 
 ment 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 spe 
 cific rules and principles of interpretation. 1 
 
 I. The sources that may be said to lie nearest to the inspired 
 writings, and which should first be named, are the contempo 
 rary Jewish writers, who used the Greek language. These 
 are simply two Philo and Josephus; the former, there is rea 
 son to believe, born about a quarter of a century before Christ, 
 though he appears 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 ambitious mainly of ranking with its men of 
 higher culture, both his sentiments and his style stood at a 
 wide distance from those peculiar to the writers of the New 
 Testament. Even in respect to the points, in which his 
 writings bear a kind of formal resemblance to those of the 
 Apostle John, in the use of a few terms relating to the Being 
 and operations of Godhead, no real advance has been made 
 
 1 It should be borne in mind by those who are entering on the prosecution 
 of such studies, that the Septuugint is far from being a close translation, and 
 that those commentators and grammarians, who have proceeded on the prin 
 ciple of always finding in it the key to the exact meaning of particular words 
 and phrases, are by no means 10 be trusted. 
 
THE NEW TESTAMENT WRITINGS. 63 
 
 by the efforts that have been put forth to interpret 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 comparative investiga 
 tions 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 interpre 
 tation 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 " l 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, 2 with the view simply of pointing attention 
 to Philo as a master in that kind of allegorizing, which was 
 pursued especially by the Apostle Paul not that Paul was 
 actually conversant 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 com 
 mon. In opposition to this view, we maintain, that the alle- 
 gorizings of Philo and those, as well of the Jewish cabalists 
 who preceded, as of the Christian theosophists who followed, 
 belonged to another class than the so-called allegorical inter 
 pretations of the New Testament. The latter are not alle 
 gorical, 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, 
 1 Institutes, P. III., ch. 8. 2 Hermeneutik, pp. 96, 97. 
 
64 COLLATERAL SOURCES FOR EXPLAINING 
 
 they are applications of the truths and principles embodied 
 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, 1 it is needless to do more 
 here than mark the confusion of ideas, on which this assimila 
 tion of Paul and Philo is grounded, and declaim against the 
 dishonour which is thereby done to the character of the apo 
 stolic teaching. 
 
 So far, therefore, as Philo is concerned, there is little to be 
 reaped from his writings for the exposition of New Testament 
 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 refer 
 ences also to existing manners and circumstances are extremely 
 few and unimportant. In this last respect, however, his con 
 temporary 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 former 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 else 
 where, arid particularly the state of things in Judea during 
 the ministry of our Saviour and His apostles ; whereby he has 
 wonderfully confirmed, though without intending it, the ve 
 racity and the ability of the evangelical writers, and the truth 
 of their history." 2 It was for the richness of materials in 
 this respect, contained in the writings of Josephus, that Mi- 
 chaelis strongly recommended a diligent study of his works, 
 from the beginning of Herod s reign to the end of the Jewish 
 
 1 Typology of Scripture, vol. i., o. I., and App. B., \ 1. 
 
 2 Works, vi. p. 502. 
 
THE NEW TESTAMENT WRITINGS. 65 
 
 Antiquities, and spake of him as furnishing the very best com 
 mentary on the Gospels and the Acts. 1 Of course, a com 
 mentary so furnished could only have been of the external 
 and historical kind, which too much accorded with the taste 
 of Michaelis ; but, in a revelation pre-eminently historical, the 
 incidental light and attestations derived from such a source 
 are not to be undervalued; and though, doubtless, the imper 
 fections in Josephus accounts, and what probably we may 
 call his occasional errors and studied omissions (in respect to 
 the subject of Christianity,) have given rise to some perplexi 
 ties, yet his writings, on the whole, have contributed greatly 
 to elucidate and confirm the narratives of the New Testament. 
 His style, however, which he aimed at having as pure as possi 
 ble, 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 par 
 ticular 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 
 Specilegium of Ottius.) were specially directed to the elucida 
 tion of the New Testament from this source; and many of the 
 examples adduced by them, with others gathered by subse 
 quent 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 conclusions 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 Scrip 
 ture, is well nigh conclusive on the subject. (But see Disser 
 tation on f$axTta) 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 when the Jewish institu- 
 
 1 Introduction, vol. iii. P. 1, c. 9. 
 
 6* 
 
66 COLLATERAL SOURCES FOR EXPLAINING 
 
 tions were actually in force is entitled to the greater -weight. 
 Nothing of this sort, however, has to be noted in connexion 
 with New Testament affairs. 
 
 II. The next source of illustrative materials that falls to be 
 noticed, is that supplied by the Jewish Rabbinical writings 
 writings composed near to the apostolic age, though subsequent 
 to it, and composed, not in Greek, but in modern Hebrew. 
 These writings consist of two main parts, the Mischna and the 
 Gemara, 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, origi 
 nating with the Chaldean Jews, and forming, with the Mischna, 
 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 Mischna 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, 1 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 to 
 wards the Christian cause, could not but be conscious of a 
 certain influence from the great events of the Gospel and the 
 writings of apostolic men. 
 
 There are few ancient writings extant, perhaps, that con 
 tain a larger proportion of what may be called rubbish than 
 these Talmudical productions. Lightfoot speaks of the stu- 
 
 1 See Frideaux, Connexion, at B. c. 44G; Lightfoot s Opera, i., p. 3G9. 
 
THE NEW TESTAMENT WRITINGS. G7 
 
 penda inanitas et vafrities of the subjects discussed in them, 
 and says of them generally, rntgis ubique 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, Vitringa, 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 litera 
 ture, and culling from it the comparatively few passages which 
 bear on the elucidation of the Word of God. They have un 
 doubtedly, by so doing, rendered important service to the 
 cause of Biblical learning; although it must also be confessed, 
 that a very considerable proportion of the passages adduced 
 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 Ara 
 maic 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 com 
 monwealth, to which so many allusions are made. But in 
 respect to the points in which the Scriptures of the New Tea-? 
 lament may be said to differ from those of the Old the doc 
 trines, for example, relating to the person of Messiah, His 
 peculiar office and work, the characteristics of the Christian 
 community, etc. nothing definite can be learned from the 
 Rabbinical sources under consideration. Endless quotations 
 have been made from them, apparently favouring the Christian 
 views; but it were quite easy to match them with others of an 
 opposite description ; so that all belonging to this department 
 was evidently but idle talk or free speculation. 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 connexion this, which Surenhu 
 sius (in his #. ,3/07 KaraVM^r^) and Eisenmenger (in his 
 Entwecktes Judentum) have shown to be so much the practice 
 with the Rabbinical Jews, and which rationalistic interpreters 
 
G8 COLLATERAL SOURCES FOR EXPLAINING 
 
 have so often sought to connect also with the writers of the 
 New Testament, must be held to be altogether foreign to the 
 territory of inspiration. It was quite natural to the Talinud- 
 ists and their followers; for they could find separate meanings 
 not only in every sentence, but in every word, and even letter 
 of Scripture, and in the numerical relations of these to each 
 other. With them, therefore, Scripture admitted of manifold 
 senses and applications, of which some might be ever so re 
 mote 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 the fair and legitimate sense of the terms; 
 otherwise, their use of it could not be justified as a handling 
 of the Word of God in simplicity and godly sincerity. 
 
 We may add, that on points of natural history the Talmuds 
 seem just about as capricious guides 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 quota 
 tions produced by Lightfoot in connexion with the cursing of 
 tjie fruitless fig tree. Among other wonderful things about 
 fig trees there noticed, 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 0*1 it at once; and on this notable piece of na 
 tural history an explanation of the evangelical narrative is 
 presented. In such matters it is greatly safer to trust the 
 accounts of scientific naturalists and travellers than Jewish 
 llabbis; 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 narrative referred 
 to. Meanwhile, no great loss is sustained; for the narrative 
 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 properly for purposes of elucidation, as with the view of 
 
THE NEW TESTAMENT WRITINGS. 69 
 
 showing how the teaching of the Gospel appropriated to itself 
 elements and forms of instruction already existing in the Jew 
 ish schools. Here the question of priority is of some moment ; 
 and though the things themselves remain the same, their re 
 lative character is materially affected, according as the priority 
 may appear to have belonged to the authors of the Gemara, 
 or to the originators 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, 
 when He began more formally to employ it, the Evangelist 
 Matthew saw in it the realization 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 impression is apt to be con 
 siderably weakened by the array of quotations sometimes pro 
 duced 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. 1 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 extracts from 
 Jewish forms of devotion. Now, this style of exposition pro 
 ceeds 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 course, that the Rabbinical gave the 
 tone to the Christian, rather than the Christian to the Rabbi 
 nical. The reverse is what the palpable facts of the case tend 
 to establish. The prayers of the synagogues before the Chris 
 tian 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 ele 
 vated moments, rise to the filial cry of "My Father in hea 
 ven;" it was the distinctive glory of the Gospel to bring in 
 this spirit of adoption; and the theological as well as the his 
 torical probability, is in favour of the supposition, that Rabbis 
 
 1 Lightfoot, Horse Heb. on Matt. vi. xiii. ; and Schoettgen, Horse Heb. on 
 Matt. xx. xxL, Luke xv. 
 
70 COLLATERAL SOURCES FOR EXPLAINING 
 
 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 ap 
 peared 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 from Rabbinical sources, 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 tradi 
 tion were not the persons to originate anything new or fresh, 
 not even in form. 1 
 
 III. The more ancient versions maybe mentioned as the 
 next collateral source, from which aid should be sought in en 
 deavouring to ascertain the meaning, and expound the text of 
 New Testament Scripture. Those versions have their primary 
 use, as among the helps for determining the text itself that 
 should be preferred; since they exhibit the one that was pre 
 ferred at an early period by some, and possibly should still be 
 retained, where there is a variation in the readings. In this 
 respect, however, they can never amount to more than sub 
 ordinate authorities; since it must ever remain doubtful whe 
 ther 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 adhering to the use of ver 
 sions in connexion 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 
 
 1 Owen, in his Theologoumena, Lib. v., c. 15, Dig. 4, discusses the ques 
 tion of onr Lord s relation to the Talmudical doctors, but chiefly with respect 
 to religious usages and services. lie indignantly rejects, however, the idea 
 of a borrowing on the part of Christ. 
 
THE NEW TESTAMENT WHITINGS. 71 
 
 consequently some possibility of the precise import having 
 been misunderstood. Still, considerable weight must always 
 be attached, especially in respect to the meaning of particular 
 words and phrases, to those versions, which were made by com 
 petent 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 for the worse. 
 In point of learning 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 expected 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, with the exception of the 
 Psalms, was 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 Septuagint, and departs from the He 
 brew. 1 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 select out of them the best; 
 so that, as he said, "he restrained his pen, merely correcting 
 those things which appeared to aifect the sense, and permit 
 ting other things to remain as they had been." What was 
 called the Old Italic, or Latin version, therefore, was simply 
 the current version, in one or other of the forms in which it. 
 existed before it had been the subject of Jerome s collating 
 and emendatory labours. It now exists only ia par.t, but mos* 
 fully in the Codex Claromontanus, which is of great antiquity. 
 In some things the rendering contained in it is even prefer 
 able to that adopted by Jerome, and, consequently, where ac- 
 
 1 See Walton s Prolegomena, x. c. 9. 
 
72 COLLATERAL SOURCES FOR EXPLAINING 
 
 cess can be had to it, it is worthy of being consulted. But it 
 is not so properly a distinct version from that of Jerome, as a 
 variation of what became his. And, as a whole, Jerome s 
 form of the Latin version must be held to be the best. Re 
 strained and limited as his object was, he undoubtedly accom 
 plished 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 re 
 presentations of the original, sometimes to be met with in it, 
 there can be no doubt that it is in general a faithful transla 
 tion, and has rendered essential service toward the elucidation 
 of the sacred text. 
 
 Some of the blemishes 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 pa 
 rallel places; Ave gratia plena, Luke i. 28; mortuus est au- 
 tem et dives, et sepultus est in inferno, Luke xvi. 22 ; et (Ja 
 cob) adoravit fastigium virgse ejus, Heb. xi. 21 ; panem nos 
 trum supersubstantialem da nobis, Matt. vi. 11, etc. And, 
 unfortunately, they are mistranslations which too often afford 
 a sort of handle to the advocates of corruption in the Church 
 of Rome. Yet it is proper also to add, that some of the ex 
 amples occasionally referred to in that connexion yield no real 
 countenance to those corruptions; ami some again, that are 
 more correct than the English translation, which has been ex 
 alted to the prejudice of the other. Thus at 1 Pet. iii. 19, 
 the rendering, in quo et his, qui in carcere erant, spiritibus 
 veniens praedicavit, is substantially correct (though the mean 
 ing 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 by which of the authorized version. In not 
 a few cases, indeed, the Vulgate is decidedly more correct 
 than our version in the rendering of prepositions and connect 
 ing particles: as, to refer to one or two examples partly 
 mentioned already in another connexion, ut in nomine Jesu 
 omne genu flectatur, Philippians ii. 10; gratia vobis ct pax 
 adimpleatur in cognitione Dei, 2 Pet. i. 2; qui vocavit nos 
 propria gloria et virtute, ver. 3; ut impleamini in ornnem pie- 
 
THE NEW TESTAMENT WRITINGS. 73 
 
 nitudinem Dei, Eph. iii. 19. In these, and many other cases, 
 the Vulgate contrasts favourably with our English version in 
 respect to grammatical precision; and, if judiciously used, it 
 may often be of service in suggesting some of the nicer shades 
 of meaning. It is due also to the memory of Jerome to no 
 tice (though it does not belong to the criticism of the New 
 Testament,) that the well-known mistranslation in the autho 
 rized 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 Val- 
 larsius, runs, ipse conteret caput tuum, and, in a note, he de 
 clares 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 last two 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 
 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, how 
 ever, to some extent, avail themselves of its aid by means of 
 the translations which have been made of it. It has long 
 existed in Latin; and a few years ago the portion containing 
 the Gospels was rendered into English by Mr. Etheridge, ac 
 companied with preliminary dissertations. 
 
 The remaining versions which, from their age or their fide 
 lity to the original, are entitled to consideration, and calcu 
 lated 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 li 
 mited. Mr. Ellicott, in the preface to his last volume (his 
 7 
 
74 COLLATERAL SOURCES FOR EXPLAINING 
 
 Commentary on the Epistles to the Philippians, Colossians, 
 and Philemon) speaks in strong terms of the excellence of the 
 Ethiopic version, and of the satisfaction 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 intelligent ac 
 quaintance with the old Ethiopic version of that Greek, that 
 most people will feel gYeatly more assured of coming at the 
 object of their search by repairing directly to the original 
 source; nor, with the defective literature of Ethiopia in the 
 early centuries, can such a version even if it were thoroughly 
 understood attain to a place of much authority. Its ren 
 derings 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 in 
 cidental benefits or personal satisfaction the study of such ver 
 sions may yield, little comparatively can now be expected 
 from them as to the correct understanding of New Testament 
 Scripture. 
 
 IV. Among the collateral sources of information, that may 
 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 
 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 lin 
 guistic 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 connexion 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 investiga 
 tion of the facts and circumstances of the Gospel age, ex 
 amined with minute care thejnformation that lay within their 
 
THE NEW TESTAMENT WRITINGS. 75 
 
 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 the 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 our 
 selves involved in the strangest misconceptions even as to 
 matters of fact, and, instead of careful discriminations be 
 tween fable and history, are presented with a confused jum 
 bling 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 suspi 
 cion the-story of Aristeas about the translation of the Septua- 
 gint, 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 only ac 
 crediting the senseless tradition of Papias respecting the fruit- 
 fulness of the millenial age (B. V. c. 33,) but also affirming it 
 to have been the teaching of St. John, that our Lord s person 
 al ministry lasted from His thirtieth till His fiftieth year (ii. 
 c. 4, 5.) Even when we come down to the more regular and 
 elaborate expositors of New Testament Scripture, Augustine, 
 Jerome, Chrysostom, while they contain much that deserves, 
 and will repay a careful perusal, they are marvellously defi 
 cient 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 
 
70 COLLATERAL SOURCES FOR EXPLAINING 
 
 and places, customs and manners, they knew nothing of the 
 accuracy of our age. Their references to Old Testament af 
 fairs contain often the most egregious blunders (of which a 
 striking example will be found in the Dissertation on the Ge 
 nealogies ;) 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 understanding. Not unfre- 
 quently, also, in matters connected with the New, we meet 
 with explanations utterly puerile and fantastic; as in the in 
 stance produced by Archdeacon Hare from Augustine re 
 specting the gift of the Spirit to the disciples on two distinct 
 occasions an explanation that turns on the mystical value of 
 numbers and of which Hare justly remarks : " The striking 
 thing 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 contempo 
 rary grammarians and rhetoricians." 1 
 
 Another thing, that may equally be characterized as striking 
 in the mode of exposition adopted by the Fathers, is the per 
 petual interchange beween the most spiritualistic meanings 
 and the grossest literalism; so that one is puzzled to under 
 stand how the same minds that took pleasure 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 Tes 
 tament, an indication of the cross, numbers of all kinds spiri 
 tualized, the spring in Eden with its four streams made to 
 signify Christ and the four cardinal virtues (Ambrose de Pa- 
 rad. 3;) and, in short, the principle of Augustine carried out 
 in all directions, "that whatever in Scripture cannot be re 
 ferred 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 application of the prophecies: if these speak of New 
 Testament things under the images supplied by the Old, of 
 
 1 Mission of the Comforter, p. 312. 
 
THE NEW TESTAMENT \YRITINGS. 77 
 
 priesthood and sacrifice, they are interpreted to mean things 
 equally outward and earthly still. Some of the Fathers (such 
 as Irengeus, Tertullian, Ambrose, Lactantius,) even carried 
 this species of carnalism into the future world, and held that 
 flesh and blood only in the sense of unregenerate nature, shall 
 not inherit the kingdom of God; but that the bodies of be 
 lievers limb for limb, member for member, precisely the 
 same bodies as now shall be raised up from the dead, and 
 shall regale themselves with corporeal delights (Tert. de Resur. 
 c. 35, Irenseus, v. 9, etc.) This exegetical caprice, which os 
 cillated between two extremes, and inclined to the one or the 
 other as the fancy or exigence of the moment might prompt, 
 unfits the patristic writings for being employed as exegetical 
 guides; and, along with the other defects mentioned, obliges 
 the student at every step to exercise his discretion. 
 
 Still, considerable benefit is to be reaped for Scriptural 
 interpretation from the perusal of the more eminent Fathers 
 although one that we must be content to seek in fragments. 
 To say nothing of the bearing they have on the text of Scrip 
 ture, 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 manifestation they give of mind in the ancient 
 world, when brought into contact with the revelation of God 
 in Christ, and of the effect produced by this in turning the 
 tide of thought and feeling, and directing 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 uninstructive; for, when 
 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 they 
 contribute an element often a very important element 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 pre 
 sent it to our view in the sharpest outline. The Greek expo- 
 
 7* 
 
78 COLLATERAL SOURCES. 
 
 sitors, too, among the fathers, have a value of their own in 
 regard to occasional words and phrases, the precise import of 
 which they not unfrequently enable us to apprehend, or at 
 least to determine, in a way that might otherwise have been 
 impracticable. With all the exceptions, therefore, and seri 
 ous abatements that require to be made, in regard to the exe- 
 getical value of the fathers, there are advantages to be de 
 rived from their judicious perusal, which no well-furnished in 
 terpreter 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 cer 
 tainly 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 
 contributions from other quarters. From the nearly station 
 ary character of society in the lands of the East, the manners 
 and usages of the present time, which have been amply illus 
 trated 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 labours, the journeyings, 
 and voyages of the apostles, have been with laborious accu 
 racy 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 minuteness and fidelity, which leaves 
 nothing further to be desired, (Smith on the Voyage and Ship 
 wreck of St. Paul.) With sources of such a kind the intelli 
 gent interpreter of Scripture must make himself familiar; and 
 be prepared at fitting times to use the information, which past 
 
GENERAL RULES FOR INTERPRETATION. 79 
 
 care and industry have accumulated. In its own place this is 
 valuable, and, in a sense, indispensable; 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 INTER 
 PRETATION OF PARTICULAR WORDS 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 infor 
 mation 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 qualifications necessary to render us safe or skilful in 
 terpreters 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 neg 
 lect 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 lie must endeavour to attain to a 
 sympathy in thought and feeling with the sacred writers, whose 
 meaning he seeks to unfold. Such a sympathy is not required 
 for the interpretation 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 
 
80 GENERAL RULES FOR INTERPRETATION OF 
 
 indispensable. Language 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 
 philology and archaeology of Scripture, have been largely in 
 debted to their inquiries and researches; but, from the grie 
 vous 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 ne 
 cessarily failed to penetrate the depths of the subjects they 
 had to handle, fell often into jejune and superficial represen 
 tations on particular parts, and on entire books of Scripture 
 never once succeeded in producing a really satisfactory expo 
 sition. What proper insight, for example, into the utterances 
 of the apostle John utterances that are remarkable for the 
 combination they present of simplicity in form, with depth 
 and comprehensiveness of meaning could be expected from 
 one, who calls, indeed, upon the reader to sympathize with the 
 sacred writer, but how to do so? To sympathize " 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 manner in which even Lange 
 speaks, though in many respects greatly in advance ,of the 
 proper rationalists. Dr. Paulus of Heidelberg was long one 
 of the leading champions of this school a man of no or 
 dinary gifts, both natural and acquired, and a man, too, who 
 
PARTICULAR WORDS AND PASSAGES. 81 
 
 possessed what many learned and useful commentators have 
 wanted the power of so far sympathizing with 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-supernatural standard, the spirit 
 evaporates in his hands, and every thing in a sense becomes 
 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 refe 
 rence to the force of circumstances in awakening the mind to 
 reflection, and giving it a practical direction and impulse to 
 ward 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." 1 
 
 This school of interpretation, however, at least in the ex 
 treme 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 any where better specimens of a truly sympa 
 thetic and congenial 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 eertain modified form exhibit a defect in the respect under 
 consideration; but a conviction, as to the real nature of the 
 
 1 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, con 
 sidered as grounded in the Godhead, educating men in a spontaneous and 
 moral, not juridical manner. When they awaken the mind to reflection, fur 
 nish to its activity matters of practical insight, keep these before it, and 
 thereby quicken the energetic working toward what is good, then the pater 
 nally inclined Godhead reveals to man something which the grovelling and 
 earthly disposition in man could not have discovered to him." 
 
GENERAL RULES FOR INTERPRETATION OP 
 
 tilings which constituted the great aim and substance of the 
 gospel, and to the necessity of a correspondence in belief and 
 spirit between the inspired penmen and those who would en 
 gage in the work 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 mani 
 fest a becoming unison of sentiment between the original au 
 thor and the modern disciple. Hence it is laid down as a 
 fundamental 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 Horner or 
 Pindar, a sensibility to wit and satire for the perusal of Lu- 
 cian, a patriotic sentiment for the enjoyment of Sallust and 
 Tacitus, equally certain is it, that the fitness to understand 
 the profound truths of Scripture, of the New Testament espe 
 cially, presupposes, as an indispensable requisite,.a sentiment 
 of piety, an inward religious experience. Thus is it ever true, 
 that the Scriptures will not be rightly and spiritually compre 
 hended, unless the Spirit of God become himself the true in 
 terpreter 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 charac 
 ter of Scripture, as a revelation from God, the more shall we 
 be convinced of the necessity and the importance of the prin 
 ciple now stated. That character constitutes a special reason 
 for a harmony of spirit between the interpreter and the ori 
 ginal writer, beyond what belongs to Scripture in common 
 with other ancient writings. For, as an authoritative revela 
 tion 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 under 
 stood from a position of indifference, but as things affecting 
 our highest interests, and demanding our implicit and cordial 
 acceptance. In such a case something more is evidently re 
 quired than mere intellectual discernment, or competent scho- 
 
PARTICULAR WORDS AND PASSAGES. 83 
 
 larship. The heart as well 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, which Nean- 
 der took for his motto, Pectus est quod theologum facit. Our 
 Lord, indeed, declared as much at the outset, when He said, 
 in His address to the Father, "Thou hast hid these things 
 from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto 
 babes." It is only with the attainment of such a spiritual 
 condition, 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 mean 
 ing they convey. So that what has been said of religion ge 
 nerally, may be specially applied to the interpretation of its 
 sacred records: "As in all subjects we can understand lan 
 guage only as far as we have some experience of the things it 
 reports, so in religion (by the very same principle) the spiri 
 tual heart alone can understand 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 hea 
 ven." 1 
 
 2. Necessary, however, and important as this sympathetic 
 spirit, this spiritus 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 modifying it, or in superin 
 ducing something of its own upon it. And we, therefore, lay 
 it down as another principle to be sacredly maintained in 
 Scriptural interpretations, that nothing should be elicited from 
 the text but what is yielded by the fair and grammatical ex 
 planation of the language. The import of each word, and 
 phrase, and passage, must be investigated in a manner per 
 fectly accordant with the laws of language, and with the ac 
 tual circumstances of the writers. Not what we may think 
 1 Sermons by Mr. A. Butler, First Series, p. 94. 
 
84: GENERAL RULES FOR INTERPRETATION OF 
 
 they should 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 pursuit; and the more 
 there is of perfect honesty and discriminating tact in our ef 
 forts to arrive at this, the more certain is our success. For 
 in the words of Bengel: 1 "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 may 
 draw against us bitterness and rancour for a time, but sweet 
 ness will come out of it. Every single truth is a light of it 
 self, and every error, however minute, is darkness as far as it 
 goes." 
 
 Nothing is more directly at variance with this principle of 
 interpretation, and more surely fatal to success, than a party 
 or polemical 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 posses 
 sion of a spirit in harmony wijth that of the sacred penmen 
 implies something of this description 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 must proceed. To some extent 
 it must be so. But there is a great, and, for the most part, 
 easily marked distinction, between holding thus with the writers 
 of New Testament Scripture in a natural and appropriate man 
 ner, and doing it in a controversial and party spirit between 
 holding with them so as to give a fair and consistent interpre 
 tation of their language, and doing it, or professing to do it, 
 w T hile we are ever and anon putting a constrained or inade 
 quate meaning on their words. If the latter be our mode of 
 procedure, it will not fail to betray itself in the manifest vio 
 lence 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 
 
 1 Life by Burck, p. 259. 
 
PARTICULAR WORDS AND PASSAGES. 85 
 
 extreme. 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 authority 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 Reforma 
 tion, a movement basing itself upon the true sense of Scrip 
 ture, and perpetually appealing to that for its justification, 
 which would break the trammels that had so long lain upon 
 men s minds in this respect, and recall sincere students of 
 Scripture to the simple, grammatical sense of its words. To 
 a great extent, it actually did this. Luther, Melancthon, 
 Calvin, and the other leading Reformers, were of one mind 
 here, though they sometimes failed, and differed from each 
 other, in the results to which the principle actually led them. 
 Their fundamental rule was, that "the sense of Scripture is 
 one, certain, and simple, and is everywhere to be ascertained 
 in accordance with the principles of grammar and human dis 
 course." (Elem. Rhet. II. of Melancthon.) "We must not," 
 says Luther, "make God s word mean what we wish; we 
 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 fair, straightforward, grammati 
 cal mode of handling Scripture, as characteristic of the spirit 
 of the Reformation, the Commentaries of Calvin are the no 
 blest monument of the period, scarcely surpassed in that re 
 spect, as in certain others not equalled, to the present day. It 
 was more, indeed, by what the Reformers did in their exegeti- 
 cal productions, and their comments on Scripture, than by 
 any formal announcement or explanation of their hermeneuti- 
 cal principles, that both they themselves and their immediate 
 followers gave it to be understood what those principles really 
 were. A hermeneutical work by Flacius Illyricus did appear 
 in 1567 entitled, Clavis Scripturse Sacne somewhat cum 
 brous indeed (comprising, along with his explanation of Scrip 
 ture figures and expressions, two large volumes,) and in cer 
 tain parts not a little prolix ; but strong and earnest in its 
 advocacy of the great principle now under consideration, and 
 8 
 
86 GENERAL RULES FOR INTERPRETATION OF 
 
 for the period altogether 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 exegetical and less controversial spirit. The au 
 thor himself in this, as in his other works, was too much in 
 fluenced by doctrinal prepossession and interest, although 
 he justly condems Papists and sophists on this account, who 
 (he says) "pick out select passages 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 Scripture, 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 benefi 
 cial a change Dr. Campbell pronounces a most severe and 
 caustic judgment against Beza, one of the most learned and 
 able expositors of the Reformation ; he charges him with al 
 lowing his doctrinal 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 origi 
 nated 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 cri 
 tique, and which looks more like the expression of personal 
 antipathy to Beza for the kind of doctrines he espoused, than 
 for occasional indiscretion in the way of introducing them. 
 That something of this sort did mingle in Campbell s animad 
 versions, one can scarcely doubt, not only from the pungency 
 of their general tone, but also from the evident desire betrayed 
 in some of the examples to aggravate as much as possible the 
 charge of bad faith: As when, in regard to Beza s rendering 
 ^yjlt i n Acts ii- 27, by cadaver in his first edition, he is re 
 presented as quite singular and arbitrary, while for that sense 
 (though in itself, we believe, a wrong one) Beza produces the 
 
PARTICULAR WORDS AND PASSAGES. 87 
 
 authority of Jerome; and Suicer, in his Thesaurus, says of it, 
 Qace Beza in prima editione sua RECTE interpretatus erat, 
 referring, as Beza had done before him, to Virgil ^En. iii., 
 Animamque sepulchre condimus. So, again, in regard to the 
 word ^s^oorov^avrec, in Acts xiv. 23, which Beza renders per 
 suffragia creassent, Dr. Campbell can see nothing in the per 
 suffragia but Beza s desire to thrust in his own views respect 
 ing the popular election of ministers. Beza, however, only 
 professes to give what he held to be the full and proper im 
 port of the word, and what was undoubtedly its original mean 
 ing; as Suicer also admits, when he says, it designates, ac 
 cording to its primary signification, "an election, quse fit per 
 suffragia manuum extensione data" eligere per suffragia ad 
 Episcopatum a practice, he truly remarks, which long sur 
 vived 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 more 
 general sense of designating or appointing. Suicer himself 
 thinks it does not; but Erasmus had already translated cum 
 suffragiis creassent, and the same sense is vindicated by Ra- 
 phelius, 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 integrity of Scripture. These remarks 
 have been introduced merely for the purpose of guarding 
 against what appears an exaggerated 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 per 
 verting 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 systematically tampered with the sense (sometimes even 
 with the text) of Scripture ; and have sought to obtain from. 
 
88 GENERAL RULES FOR INTERPRETATION OF 
 
 it something else or something less than that which the words 
 by a natural interpretation 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 establishment of a more accurate criticism, 
 by sounder principles of interpretation, and a more intimate 
 acquaintance with the original languages, it has been found 
 that Scripture will not surrender up any of its peculiar doc 
 trines; so that, as has been remarked by Winer, 1 "the con 
 troversies among interpreters have usually led back to the ad 
 mission, that the old Protestant views of the meaning of the 
 sacred texts, 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 doc 
 trinal beliefs of the Jews, not as being in themselves absolutely 
 true or strictly Divine: they are there, the Rationalists of 
 the present day still admit, but only as the temporary and im 
 perfect forms of the truth, suited to an immature age, now to 
 be supplanted by higher and worthier conceptions. We thank 
 them both for the admission ; in that we have the confession 
 of those whom nothing but the force of truth could have con 
 strained to own, that the doctrines of the orthodox faith are 
 those which are elicited from Scripture by the grammatical 
 rendering and fair interpretation of its words. And by this 
 faith it behooves 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 
 Scripture 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 ele 
 ments, the Lexical and Syntactical peculiarities, by the ob 
 servance of which the real grammatical sense is to be ascer 
 tained. 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 
 
 1 Litteratur Zeitung, No. 44. 
 
PARTICULAR WORDS AND PASSAGES. 89 
 
 the characteristic peculiarities of individual writers are over 
 looked, 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 possi 
 ble 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 most honest purpose of attaining to correctness, and 
 many qualifications to aid in accomplishing it. When the 
 Apostle Paul, for example, in Gal. ii. 2, speaks of going up to 
 Jerusalem xara dxoxdjitrfev if, from undue regard to classical 
 analogy, we should interpret with the learned Hermann, ex- 
 plicationis causa for the purpose, that is, of rendering cer 
 tain explanations to parties residing there, we should certainly 
 not give what is either the grammatical sense of the expres 
 sion, or what accords with the Apostle Paul s use of the term 
 &~oxdAi)<f>iz , by whom it is always employed in the higher 
 sense of a Divine communication. And in such an expression 
 it is not so much classical analogy, as scriptural, and we may 
 even say Pauline, usage, that must determine the exact im 
 port. 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 lan 
 guage generally, and of the New Testament style and diction 
 in particular, that advances have been made in precision and 
 accuracy 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 significance, and to qualify them by a popular 
 turn, or dilute them by a paraphrase, is dangerous in the ex 
 treme." 
 
 3. Assuming, however, what has been stated assuming 
 that our primary object in interpreting Scripture, should be 
 to ascertain what sense the words of every passage may, by a 
 fair and grammatical interpretation, and in reality do yield: 
 assuming, moreover, that we both know and are disposed to 
 
 8* 
 
90 GENERAL RULES FOR INTERPRETATION OF 
 
 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 remem 
 bered and followed, especially in those parts that have some 
 degree of difficulty about them. One of these, which we there 
 fore specify as the third point to be noticed in this connexion, 
 is the regard that should be had to the simplicity which cha 
 racterizes the writings of the New Testament. "The excel 
 lence of an interpreter," says Ernesti, justly, " consists much in 
 simplicity; and the more any interpretation bears the mark of 
 facility, and it appears as if it ought to have struck the reader 
 before, the more likely is it to be true. ^Paocov TO dtyOst;, 
 says Lycurgus; and Schultens, in his Preface to Job, well re 
 marks that the seal of truth is simple and eternal." 
 
 It is necessary, however v to explain here. The simplicity 
 that should characterize our interpretations of Scripture is 
 very different 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 simplicity 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 mean 
 ing and which had its ground partly in the circumstances, 
 and partly in the design of the sacred penmen. In respect 
 to their circumstances, the position they occupied was that of 
 tlie comparatively humbler 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 cultivation and luxuri 
 ous living, but of the free, the open, the natural as of per 
 sons accustomed frankly to express, not to conceal their emo 
 tions, or to wrap their sentiments in disguise. On this ac 
 count because written by persons of such a type, and de 
 picting characters and events connected with such a state of 
 society, the narratives of Scripture are pre-eminent above all 
 
PARTICULAR WORDS AND PASSAGES. 91 
 
 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 characterizes 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 
 produce, 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 fellow-men. Hence, they naturally lost 
 themselves in their subject. 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 appro 
 priate and impressive terms the thoughts of their heart. The 
 simplicity which thus characterizes their writings is that of 
 men, who had a single aim in view, and so went straight to 
 the mark. 
 
 Such is the kind of simplicity which the writings of the 
 New Testament possess; and corresponding to this is the sim 
 plicity which should appear in our manner of interpretation. 
 How, then, should it appear? Primarily, no doubt, and 
 mainly, in putting a natural construction on their words, and 
 ascribing to them, precise indeed and accurate, yet not re 
 condite and far-fetched meanings. As in writing what they 
 were moved to indite 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 simplicity as a rule, and not recede, ex 
 cept for grave reasons, from that sense, wlich seems to be the 
 nearest and most direct. It may be quite possible, in certain 
 
92 GENERAL RULES FOR INTERPRETATION OP 
 
 cases, by the help of lexicons and other appliances, to bring 
 out interpretations of an ingenious 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 dif 
 ferent words, and the sense extracted from them, are such as 
 might seem appropriate to men using the language of ordinary 
 life, and using it with the view, not of establishing subtle dis 
 tinctions, 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 common 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 enlight 
 ened mind there is, what may be called, a divine simplicity, 
 which, by drawing it into closer connexion and sympathy with 
 the mind of God, discovers to it views and meanings, which 
 would otherwise never have suggested themselves. So, we 
 see with the inspired writers of the New Testament themselves, 
 that not unfrequently they discern an import in the earlier 
 dispensations of God, or indicate thoughts in connexion with 
 the facts of later times, such as would not have occurred to 
 persons, even of superior and cultivated minds, 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 
 characteristics of simplicity a style of thought and expres 
 sion, 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 
 
PARTICULAR WORDS AND PASSAGES. 93 
 
 of solid learning to the work of interpretation. It is only 
 through these, indeed, that we can hope to surmount the diffi 
 culties 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 that 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 calcu 
 lated to aid us in arriving at such intimate knowledge, must 
 also be serviceable in enabling us to attain to a proper sim 
 plicity 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 di 
 rection, when we mention as another, & fourth rule to be at 
 tended to in scriptural interpretations, that in settling the 
 meaning of words we must have respect chiefly to the usus 
 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 Testa 
 ment, 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 signifi 
 cation. But this signification often differs greatly from what 
 might be conjectured by looking simply to their etymology. 
 For the spoken language of 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 some 
 times even -become so entirely transformed in their progress, 
 that the ultimate use scarcely exhibits a trace of the primal 
 signification. A familiar example of this from our own Ian- 
 
94 GENERAL RULES FOR INTERPRETATION OF 
 
 guage 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 
 morally 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 literature meant 
 simply an accuser by-and-by & false accuser but in process 
 of time it lost this sense, and came to signify a fawning flat 
 terer, 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 purpose the only sense now retained by the word. 
 In like manner, the Greek aoxotfaur^, according to the 
 ancient grammarians, and according also to its apparent com 
 position, originally a fig -shower an informer (as is said, 
 though there is no certain proof of such a use) against per 
 sons 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 collateral sense, of extorting 
 money under false pretences (Luke iii. 14.) 
 
 Not only do words thus in current use sometimes escape 
 altogether from 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, which yet come to differ materially as to their 
 actual use. To refer only to one example: our two terms 
 foresight and provision are each made up of two words pre 
 cisely similar in meaning only the one pair of Saxon, the 
 other of Latin origin. Undoubtedly fore by itself answers 
 to pro, and sight to vision; yet usage has appropriated the 
 two words to different ideas the one to indicate what is anti 
 cipated 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 
 
PARTICULAR WORDS AND PASSAGES. 95 
 
 substitute the one for the other. And it is but lately that I 
 noticed in a letter written from abroad the expression used 
 respecting some one, that his " provisions were disappointed," 
 evidently meaning by provisions what should have been ex 
 pressed by foresight the anticipations that had been formed 
 in respect to the future. 
 
 A similar sense of incongruity, as in this case, is occasion 
 ally produced in one s mind, when a word occurs in some of 
 our older writers, which since their day has undergone a con 
 siderable change of meaning especially if, as sometimes hap 
 pens, it is employed by them, not only in its original accep 
 tation, 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, printed by him in 1485, beseeching the 
 reader s indulgence toward 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 (translated) 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 any thing but a simple person; simplicity and cun 
 ning 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 ken comes, and merely de 
 noted the kenning, or knowing, which one might have of any 
 thing in art or science. Applied to works of art, it became 
 nearly synonymous with skill or power approaching to an 
 other cognate German word, koennen, canning, having the 
 power or ability to accomplish any thing 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 comparatively 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. 
 
 Such examples show how cautiously etymology should be ap 
 plied in determining the sense of words, as these come to be 
 
96 GENERAL RULES FOR INTERPRETATION OF 
 
 used in a living tongue. As our examples have been chiefly 
 taken from our own language, it may be added in passing, 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 results 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 ulti 
 mately traceable to a meaning derived from sensible impres 
 sions, so words must be understood not in their acquired or 
 metaphorical, but always substantially in their primitive and 
 sensational meaning: consequently, as we have no words, 
 neither have we any ideas, of a properly absolute description 
 both alike cleave inseparably to the dust. So in regard even 
 to truth: "Truth is nothing (he says) but what 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 carrying the subjective principle in our natures to an 
 extravagant height, and making words govern ideas in a 
 manner, which few, we should think, will be disposed to ac 
 credit. We refer to it merely as a proof of the folly of push 
 ing 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 discrimination, 
 and will repay a careful perusal Dr. Trench on "the Study 
 of Words." Thus, when treating of kind, he says, u a land 
 person is a Icinned person, one of 7 w, one who acknowledges 
 and acts upon his kinship with other men. And so 
 
PARTICULAR WORDS AND PASSAGES. 97 
 
 is m&nkinned. In the word is contained a declaration of the 
 relationship 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 assented 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 multitude of beings who possess with ourselves a common 
 nature, but at the same time, perhaps, thinking as little of 
 their common origin, as, when speaking of truth, we have re 
 spect to what 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 im 
 portance to attend to the derivation of words, and that with 
 out knowing this we cannot get at those nicer shades of mean 
 ing which they often express, or make a thoroughly intelligent 
 and proper use of them. In the great majority of cases, the 
 etymological is also the actual sense of the word; and even 
 when the acquired or metaphorical 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 refe 
 rence 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 em 
 ployed 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 presently afterwards, in ver. 5, we have the announce 
 ment, "For every one shall bear his own burden." Even an 
 English reader may see, by looking at the connexion, that the 
 9 
 
08 GENERAL RULES FOR INTERPRETATION OF 
 
 burden in the one case cannot be the same with what is meant 
 by it in the other; that the one, as Augustine long ago re 
 marked, is the burden of one s own trials or infirmities, which 
 may be shared in by others, while the other is something al 
 together 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 turn to the ori 
 ginal, where we find two distinct words employed, each having 
 their respective shades of meaning. The burdens we are to 
 bear one for another are ra flapy, the weights, the things which 
 press like loads upon those who come into contact with them, 
 and in a manner call for friendly help; but the burden each 
 one has to bear for himself is TO i dtov <pop-iov, 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, EA&J0Q) ov di> IXsco, xal ofareepfaa) 
 ov dv olxTelpa), we have two verbs, which are of such cognate 
 meaning, that they are often loosely interchanged, and some 
 times 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 I7soc and D.escv as stronger than 
 otxrtpfJLOZ, and oixrelpew, because the former carry along with 
 them the additional notion 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 re 
 marked on the passage, the words 6 otxTep/j.6~ and otxTsepstv 
 signify more than 6 Ihoz and Ihew. The latter stand related 
 to 7/tfo;-, ttdofjLOt) tidffxo/iat (the being propitious, kind, or 
 gentle;) the other to of (the oh! the cry of distress or sym 
 pathy,) and Oixro^ (the tender pity or compassion, of which 
 that cry is one of the first and most natural expressions.) 
 Hence 6 e/soc denotes that sorrow which a kindly disposition 
 feels at the misery of another, and is the proper word to be 
 
PARTICULAR WORDS AND PASSAGES. 99 
 
 used when the general notion of mercy is to be expressed; 
 6 ocxTep/JLoz, however, denotes the sorrow awakened by the 
 sense of another s misery, which calls forth tears and lamen 
 tations 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 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, wa 
 iTctaxr/vcocTfl ITT 1/j.s q duvapt$ TOU Xpt0TOV 9 the full import of 
 which is but imperfectly conveyed by the common rendering, 
 " that the power of Christ may rest upon me." The verb em 
 ployed belongs to the later Greek, and is found in Polybius 
 in the sense of dwelling in a tent, or inhabiting. This, how 
 ever, is not sufficient to explicate 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 refe 
 rence to what is said in Old Testament Scripture of the re 
 lation 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 him 
 self. 
 
 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 fail 
 ures, is in a short compass the happiest specimen extant of this 
 kind of interpretation. This should be taken as an habitual 
 
100 GENERAL RULES FOR INTERPRETATION OF 
 
 companion. But occasionally, also, in writers of a more po 
 pular cast, good examples are to be met with of the same tact 
 in none, perhaps, more than in Leighton, who, if he sometimes 
 strains rather unduly the original meaning, more commonly 
 turns it to good account, and that in a natural and happy 
 manner. As in the following example: " Grod resisteth the 
 proud dvTtTdffcrsTa! singles it out as His grand enemy, and 
 sets Himself in battle array against it; so the word is. It 
 breaks the ranks of men, in which He hath set them, when 
 they are not subject birOTa0ff6fJievo, as the word is before; 
 yea, pride not only breaks rank, but rises up in rebellion 
 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 aifording scope for the display of fancy on the part of the 
 interpreter, it is quite possible, and, indeed, very common, to 
 err by pressing unduly the etymological import of words. 
 Horsley, for example, gives a marked somewhat ludicrous ex 
 hibition of this, when rendering, as he occasionally does, the 
 Greek word iot&rat by the English word derived from it, 
 idiots, 1 a word, no doubt, bearing much the same significa 
 tion with its Greek original denoting, first, the merely private 
 man, as contradistinguished from one conversant with affairs 
 and offices of state; then a person of rude and unskilled con 
 dition in manners and intellect unpolished; and, finally, one 
 altogether destitute of the ordinary powers of human intelli 
 gence bereft of reason, to which last sense it has long been 
 confined in the common intercourse of life. So that, with 
 Ilorsley, 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 interpretation of Luke i. 4, 
 " That thou mightest know the exact truth of those doctrines 
 wherein thou hast been catechised" xspe wv xar^yr^r^: 
 on which he remarks, " St. Luke s own Gospel, therefore, if 
 the writer s own word may be taken about his own work, is an 
 
 1 Tracts against Priestley, p. 4G. 
 
PARTICULAR WORDS AND PASSAGES. 101 
 
 historical exposition of the Catechism, which Theophilus had 
 learned when he was first made a Christian. The first two 
 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. Luke, 
 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 douht, which St. Paul s converts 
 learned of the apostle." 1 We see here, too plainly, the po 
 lemical interest, endeavouring to make the utmost of an argu 
 ment, but overreaching its purpose by putting an undue strain 
 on the principal word in the passage. That our word cate 
 chise might originally correspond to the Greek word xarr^sco, 
 from which it obviously comes, may be certain enough; but it 
 does not follow, that what xarqyjco imports, as used by St. 
 Luke, is fairly given by catechise, in its current acceptation. 
 The Greek word did not originally bear the technical import 
 of catechise; it meant, to sound out towards, to resound, or 
 sound in one s ears; then more specially to do this by word 
 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 no 
 thing as to the specific mode of instruction ; and to represent 
 it by the word catechise, would only render our translation in 
 most cases unintelligible or ridiculous. Thus, at Gal. vi. 6, 
 it would run, "Let him that is catechised in the word commu 
 nicate to him that catechiseth in ail good things;" and at 
 Acts xxi. 22, " But they have been catechised concerning thee, 
 that thou teachest all the Jews to forsake Moses." To sound 
 forth, or communicate instruction, in the active voice, and in 
 the passive, to hear by way of rumour, or be instructed any 
 how, these are the only senses which the word bears in the 
 New Testament. In later times the xo-r^ovfjAvoi. were those 
 who were under special instruction for admission to the Church, 
 and, as we might say, the catechised portion in Christian com 
 munities. 
 
 1 Sermon on the Incarnation. 
 
 9* 
 
102 GENERAL RULES FOR INTERPRETATION OF 
 
 In Dr. Campbell s Fourth Preliminary Dissertation will be 
 found some good remarks and apposite illustrations on the 
 subject before us. Not, however, without some grounds for 
 exception. His jealousy in respect to etymological considera 
 tions is carried to excess, and in some of the instances he pro 
 duces, leads him, more or less, into error. We formerly al 
 luded to his remarks on ^ztpoTovsco, 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 ap 
 pointment, although in the only other passage 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 TcpoytvctHTxa), whether this 
 should be rendered, as its component elements would lead us 
 to expect, by foreknow, or by some more general mode of ex 
 pression. 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 
 KpQ&p><0\) he would separate the preposition, 7r/>6, 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 lie ac 
 knowledged." 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 (o &c xpod-fvco,) 
 them He also did predestinate;" and there it is scarcely 
 possible to understand it otherwise than in the sense of fore 
 knowing 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 
 
PARTICULAR WORDS AND PASSAGES. 103 
 
 same literal sense in the passage before us? None that ap 
 pears worthy of notice. Dr. Campbell has, indeed, said, that 
 to speak there of God s people as those whorilrHe 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 happens" as if it might not equally im 
 port, when used in reference to an act of God, to know a per 
 son 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 ordi 
 nary meaning of the word knoiving, could never have been 
 suggested as a reason to hinder us from thinking, that He 
 would never cast them off; for, from the beginning, all na 
 tions and all things are alike known to God." True, indeed, 
 in one sense, but not in another. They were not all alike 
 known to God as destined to occupy toward Himself the same 
 relation, and to receive the same treatment; and that is pre 
 cisely the point in the eye of the apostle. God could not 
 cast away His own people, whom He foreknew as His own. 
 Their friendly relation to Him being 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 knoweth the way of the righteous." For such know 
 ledge necessarily implies a corresponding treatment. "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 know the sense of having 
 care and affection for, loving, which it never properly pos 
 sesses. It is enough, if only God with His foreknowledge is 
 not shut up in the heavens ; the rest flows spontaneously from 
 His nature, and does not need to be particularly mentioned." l 
 1 Hengstenberg on Ps. i. 
 
104 GENERAL RULES FOR INTERPRETATION OF 
 
 We have referred under this division to so many illustra 
 tive examples, on the one side and the other, because it is 
 chiefly through these, that the danger of running into an ex 
 treme 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 will be of 
 importance to remember, that while one should always seek 
 to be acquainted with the etymological import of words, this 
 cannot in every case be taken for the actual meaning; this is 
 determined by the current 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 at 
 tained. For the actual result, much will necessarily depend 
 upon the greater or less degree of exegetical tact possessed 
 by the student, and the 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 upon, but have that also matured 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 knowledge of the distinctive peculiari 
 ties of the writer, in whose productions the passage occurs 
 of the circumstances of the time in which he wrote, its man 
 ners and customs, modes of thought and principles of action 
 in a word, an insight into the nature of the language em 
 ployed, and the various things, of a circumstantial description, 
 fitted to tell upon the views of the writer and his more im- 
 
PARTICULAR WORDS AND PASSAGES. 105 
 
 mediate circle. It is clear, that without knowledge of such 
 compass and variety, no one can reasonably expect to succeed 
 in dealing with a passage, which involves any difficulty in 
 respect to the proper construction of its words, or the real 
 meaning 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 very "carefully and closely to the 
 connexion 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, 
 which occasions the difficulty, be examined in connexion with 
 others of the same, or nearly the same description, in what 
 remains besides of the individual 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 examination should 
 usually be made in the order of his own writings 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, we need scarcely say, all available 
 helps, whether ancient or modern, should be brought into re 
 quisition. 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 interpreta 
 tion 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 profitable use of what he can command in the persua 
 sion, 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 
 
106 TRUE AND FALSE ACCOMMODATION. 
 
 the Holy Spirit, who to the humble and prayerful mind will 
 often unlock secrets, which remain 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 pre 
 cise and proper import of its words. There are, however, 
 elements of various kinds, not properly of a linguistic nature, 
 which must yet, according to the influence allowed them, ex 
 ercise an important bearing on the sense actually obtained 
 from the words and phrases of Scripture elements, which 
 will 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 properly concern 
 the explanation of particular terms, than the nature of the 
 ideas contained in them. They respect the question, what is 
 there precisely of truth to be received, or of practical instruc 
 tion to be obeyed, in the portions which have been analyzed 
 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 apprehension 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 en 
 deavour, 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 sacred 
 
TRUE AND FALSE ACCOMMODATION. 107 
 
 writers stand to the spirit 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 course never bending in aught under the pre 
 vailing current, if this at all deviated from the exact arid na 
 tural line of things? Or, if they did to some extent accom 
 modate themselves to this, how far might we expect the ac 
 commodation to go? At a comparatively early period a 
 certain doctrine of accommodation was introduced with refer 
 ence to representations in Scripture which Origen, and others 
 of the Fathers, were wont to regard as spoken or done *ar 
 otxovojulav, by way of dispensation, or through ffopcard^affe^ 
 a condescension, or an accommodation to the position and in 
 firmities of the persons addressed. Advantage, it was believed, 
 was taken of these, in order the more readily to gain the con 
 fidence 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 princi 
 ple, meant to carry it, in respect to the teaching of Christ 
 and the apostles; for they are neither very explicit nor al 
 together consistent in their statements upon the subject. For 
 the most part they appear simply to have understood by it an 
 adaptation in the form 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 customs, without in 
 the least detracting thereby from the claims and principles of 
 the Gospel. In this way, Scripture was explained as accom 
 modating itself to men s infirmities or habits, when it speaks 
 of God as possessing human parts and passions, or uses para 
 bles, 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/orm: as when Origen (in his Priricipia, L. iv.) speaks of 
 mystic dispensations employed by God, which, in their literal 
 sense or obvious meaning, were opposed to enlightened faith 
 
108 TRUE A1S 7 D FALSE ACCOMMODATION. 
 
 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 pru 
 dence 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 particular 
 passages, than from any general laxity of principle, that they 
 have been occasionally betrayed into rash and unguarded state 
 ments upon the subject. 
 
 It was reserved for modern times to apply the principle of 
 accommodation to the teachings of Scripture in the full and 
 proper sense, and to represent Christ Himself and the apostles 
 as pandering to the mistaken views and narrow prejudices of 
 their time. Wetstein was among the first to lay down a for 
 mal principle 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 interpreta 
 tion, 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 ambiguous, sometimes erroneous, opinions of 
 the multitude." And he indicates, that this mode of explana 
 tion 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 prin 
 ciple of interpretation thus announced, and with character 
 istic ardour and industry applied it to the explanation of the 
 New Testament writings. His fundamental position was, that 
 
TRUE AND FALSE ACCOMMODATION*. 109 
 
 the exposition of the New Testament should be pre-eminently 
 historical; that is, that one should have respect to the spirit 
 ual conditions of the time the prevailing thoughts and opi 
 nions, as well as external circumstances, of those among whom 
 Christ and His apostles lived; and these he represented to be 
 such, that the truth could not always be spoken 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 abstract rea 
 son. Our Lord and His apostles, therefore, spoke at times 
 ex vulgari opinione, not precisely according to the truth of 
 things; yet so as that, by instituting a comparison of the dif 
 ferent parts of their writings, and making the more general 
 and comprehensive 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 
 from Semler s day to this, there have never been wanting men 
 fulhy disposed to avail themselves of the liberty which it in 
 vited 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 out 
 stripping him in the same line of accommodations. By degrees 
 every thing was reduced to a subjective standard; and if in 
 any thing an interpreter found statements recorded, or doc 
 trines taught, which did not accord with Ms 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 ac 
 commodation; the people at the time were capable of appre 
 ciating nothing higher, or the writers themselves as yet under 
 stood no better. And so, in the hands of many on the Conti 
 nent, and of some also in this country, of some here still, the 
 proper teaching of the Gospel came to be reduced to the scanty 
 form of a Sadducean creed. The doctrines of the Trinity, of 
 the Divine Sonship of Messiah, of the atonement, of the per 
 sonality of the Spirit, of a corporeal resurrection and a final 
 judgment, have all been swept away by the abettors of the 
 principle under consideration; and even the idea of Christian 
 ity s being in any peculiar sense a revelation from Heaven, 
 10 
 
110 TRUE AND FALSE ACCOMMODATION. 
 
 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 sometimes 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 sa 
 cred 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 no 
 tions. The proper revelation the real standard of truth and 
 error, is in that case within ; we stand upon essentially infidel 
 ground; and seeing that Scripture as much contradicts, as co 
 incides 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 Seiler, for example, 
 in his Hermeneutics, who says, that in such a matter we must 
 be careful to distinguish between innocuous and nocuous er 
 rors. 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 w T ords 
 did not really indicate. So, too, Roserimuller, 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 sentiments 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 Ame 
 rica (including such names as Moses Stuart, Home, Adam 
 Clarke, Albert Barnes,) the formula, "that it might be ful 
 filled," or "then was fulfilled what was spoken," is held to 
 have been used often as a kind of Rabbinical flourish, an em 
 bellishing of the narrative or discourse with quotations, which, 
 
TRUE AND FALSE ACCOMMODATION. Ill 
 
 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 innocu 
 ous error? Is it so light a thing for inspired men to mis 
 quote the writings of each other? It is precisely to their use 
 of Old Testament Scripture to the elucidations they give of 
 its meaning, and the specific applications they make of its se 
 veral parts, that we are indebted for our more certain know 
 ledge of its design, and especially for our insight into the con 
 nexion 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 interpreta 
 tion, 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 Scrip 
 ture 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 connexion 
 with events, to which it bore no proper reference. And the 
 rather may we thus conclude, when we think of the slender 
 nature of the reasons for which, it is supposed, an accommo 
 dation should have been made. To give fancied ornateness to 
 a discourse, or show a sort of Rabbinical adroitness in the 
 mere handling of texts and thereby to win for the moment 
 a readier attention to what they said or wrote were these 
 sufficient motives for our Lord and His disciples travestying 
 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 coun 
 trymen, 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 could they be guilty of such improper trifling with 
 the oracles of God, who brought it as one of their heaviest 
 
112 TRUE AND FALSE ACCOMMODATION. 
 
 charges against the men of that generation, that they erred 
 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 contemplation around them, as to admit error 
 into their instructions whether in respect to the interpreta 
 tion 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 ho 
 nesty; 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 confirmation 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 capable of apprehending or 
 bearing it, and another and very different thing to counte 
 nance them in the mistakes and delusions, in which that inca 
 pacity has its ground. The one course, in either respect, was 
 compatible with inspired wisdom, the other was not ; and when 
 ever 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 circum 
 stances, we must hold it to be a false accommodation: since, 
 if knowingly done by them, it must have been in the sphere 
 of religious instruction, doing evil that good might come; but 
 if without conscience of the evil, on their part, then it must 
 have bespoken their participation in the errors of the time, and 
 their consequent unfitness for being the infallible guides and 
 instructors of the world. 
 
 II. In rejecting, however, this false accommodation, because 
 it trenches on the matter of the teaching contained in the New 
 Testament, we say nothing against such an accommodation as 
 
TRUE AND FALSE ACCOMMODATION. 113 
 
 has respect to the form merely of the doctrines or lessons 
 taught, 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 accommo 
 dation, of which the inspired writers wisely availed themselves, 
 and which must be duly taken into account by those who 
 would fairly interpret their writings. The limits within which 
 such accommodation might be practised, cannot always, per 
 haps, be very precisely defined; but, in the general, it may 
 be stated to consist in the falling in with prevalent modes of 
 thought or forms of conception, 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 coun 
 try 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 accommo 
 dation from the visible to the invisible, from the known to the 
 unknown ; and though, in such cases, the form is necessarily 
 imperfect, and conveys an inadequate idea of the reality, it 
 still is the fittest representation of the idea, the nearest to the 
 truth of things, which it is possible for us in present circum 
 stances to attain to. What is said, for example, of God s an 
 ger 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 coun- 
 
 10* 
 
114 TRUE AND FALSE ACCOMMODATION. 
 
 ter-representations, which declare God to be in Himself essen 
 tially spiritual, unchangeable, and incapable of being carried 
 away by the feelings and impulses of finite beings. 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 entreaties of His people. 
 
 Essentially similar, and belonging to the same class, are 
 the representations given of Satan and his agents. Being in 
 themselves simply spirits, without bodily parts, the language 
 used concerning them could not have been intelligible, unless 
 it had taken its hue and colour from human forms and earthly 
 relationships. So that when Satan is spoken of as falling from 
 heaven, as being chained or set loose, as overcoming the saints 
 or being bruised under their feet or when the demons gene 
 rally 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 consideration, how far in such things there is an ac 
 commodation 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 incorpo 
 real creatures, and some, if closely pressed in the literal sense, 
 would be found inconsistent with others. Due allowance, 
 therefore, must be made in our interpretations for the sen 
 suous and external form of such statements not to the ex 
 tent, certainly, of explaining away the existence of those evil 
 spirits (which were to tamper with the very substance of the 
 representations;) but yet so as to render what is contained 
 in them a description of the relative, rather than of the abso 
 lute 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 whole, probably, that 
 can be understood, for example, by Satan being cast down 
 
TRUE AND FALSE ACCOMMODATION. 115 
 
 from heaven, is losing the place of godlike power and influ 
 ence he had reached and by the demons wandering in dry 
 and desert places, their being bereft for a season of that ma 
 lignant satisfaction, which they find in inflicting evil upon the 
 unhappy subjects of their sway being left, like persons in a 
 desert, without refreshment and without a home. It is need 
 less, at present, to pursue the subject into further details, as 
 from what has been said the principle of interpretation may 
 be distinctly understood. 
 
 It may be added, however, that the same kind of accom 
 modation, which appears in the language used of essentially 
 Divine and spiritual things, is also required in many descrip 
 tions of the still undeveloped future. For, although that fu 
 ture may lie within the region of sensible and earthly things, 
 yet, if the world s affairs are then to assume an aspect essentially 
 different from 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 
 realized, is by the help of representations so drawn from the 
 theatre of actual and known relations. 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. 1 
 
 (2.) But there is another and more specific class of accom 
 modations, which cannot thus be said to have their explana 
 tion 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, 
 
 1 For the particular investigation, see "Prophecy viewed in respect to its 
 Distinctive Nature," etc. 
 
116 TRUE AND FALSE ACCOMMODATION. 
 
 but rather led thereby, to think and write in a manner agreea 
 ble 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 expression some peculiarity in the 
 mode of conception embodying itself in a corresponding pe 
 culiarity 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 particularized by a related noun in a way not 
 natural to us they simply placed the limiting noun in the 
 accusative, without any thing to mark the nature of the con 
 nexion, while we invariably attach it to the verb or adjective 
 by a preposition. The expressions in Greek, xodaz cox j^, xd/t- 
 vzw ro jc d<pdcd/Jtouc 9 ra^ (ppevaz fyacveiv, 6o.o (warb^ TO /j.sf- 
 60^, and such like, are familiar to every one acquainted with 
 the Greek language; arid precisely similar are many phrases 
 in Hebrew such as vS:n-riij nSn, he was diseased the feet of 
 him ; B K"! T?^. ne will crush thee the head ; ^?? iron ? ne smites 
 him the soul or life; *Opx Sip, my voice I will cry. In* all 
 such cases, ive find it necessary to use some preposition before 
 the noun with, in respect to, upon, or such like in order to 
 bring out the idea we wish to express. This arises from our 
 conceiving the state expressed by the verb or adjective as 
 something by itself, as having no necessary connexion 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 connexion. 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 
 
TRUE AND FALSE ACCOMMODATION. 117 
 
 times to a more concrete mode of contemplation than prevails 
 now, that the Hebrews, and to some extent also the Greeks, 
 express relations in a more inward manner than we do they 
 look to the sphere or element in which a thing is, or is done ; 
 while we, viewing the matter more ab extra, speak of the 
 way or instrument 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 in 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 (joyful) 
 3103 rrn live in it as thy proper element. Quite similar 
 in the New Testament are such passages as Apoc. xiii. 10, 
 "If any one lv imyaipq. dxoxT^ys i," 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 
 fj>a%alpqL:" Rom. ii. 12, "As many as have sinned ev u6fj.co, 
 shall be judged $.v vbp.0)" the Iv denoting the status of the 
 person 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 & pdpowy ivdfdirrf 
 in a rod, as if a rod led and impelled me, or love: And 
 to mention no more, 2 Pet. i. 5-7, we have a whole series of 
 graces coupled with lv, Englished in the authorized version 
 by to, " add to your faith virtue," and so on ; but more properly 
 the $.v points to the spiritual state of the person addressed, as 
 standing in the several graces mentioned; and the exhorta 
 tion 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 principles or dispositions to be pos 
 sessed and exercised; and in such a manner, that the cultiva 
 tion of one should lead on to the possession 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: they 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 
 
118 TRUE AND FALSE ACCOMMODATION. 
 
 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 important 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 intervening generations between 
 the two. And in the Dissertation on the Genealogies of 
 Matthew and Luke, there will both be found many other 
 instances noticed of the same description in Old Testament 
 Scripture, and the mistakes also pointed out, into which many 
 have 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, appears to have been used throughout the East in those 
 days, as it still is, to denote connexion generally, either by 
 descent, or by succession." It is well, that an existing prac 
 tice 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 sub 
 stantial repetitions of one line of procedure, instead of being 
 precisely discriminated, were treated as in a manner one. The 
 prominence givea in the mind to the common principle or 
 homogeneous action, appearing in the several cases, had the 
 effect of practically obliterating the individual differences 
 
TRUE AND FALSE ACCOMMODATION. 119 
 
 -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 appearing in him person 
 ally, or in them ; and so in regard to the blessing connected 
 with it Abraham s blessing comes upon them, and the in 
 heritance 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 ima 
 gination 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 only to be viewed as an accommodation to the mode 
 of contemplation now referred to, in order to its being satis 
 factorily explained. The statement is that in which Stephen 
 says, U 8o Jacob went down into Egypt, arid 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 Ernmor, 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 Sychem, 
 was bought, not by Abraham, but by Jacob. It would ap 
 pear, 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- 
 
120 TRUE AND FALSE ACCOMMODATION. 
 
 comment 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 forgetfulness of the facts of the case the rather so, as it 
 occurs in a speech remarkable for the insight it displays into 
 the connexion and bearing of Old Testament history. And 
 that explanation is to be found in the principle of accommo 
 dation, considered merely as determining the form and man 
 ner 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 important principles, substantially 
 the very same principles, which were then struggling for victory 
 in the cause with which he was identified ; and it is only as 
 connected with these, and serving 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 speaking 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 ground from 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 ulti 
 mate realization of their hopes. As the faith in this respect 
 was one, and the way in which it showed itself the same, Ste 
 phen (after the manner of his countrymen) throws all together; 
 he does not distinguish between what was done by Abraham, 
 and what was done by Jacob, as if they were separate and in 
 dependent 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 
 contemplated as his purchase, in which, according to Jewish 
 tradition, the patriarchal heads of the nation were brought 
 from Egypt and buried; and the distinction is in a manner 
 lost sight of betwe2n the transactions connected with Mamre, 
 and those with Sychem, because one character and one 
 
ANALOGY OF THE FAITH. 121 
 
 bearing belonged to them in the light contemplated by Ste 
 phen. 1 
 
 It appears, therefore, that there is a perfectly legitimate 
 application of the principle of accommodation ; and one that it 
 may be of considerable importance rightly to understand and 
 employ, for the proper elucidation and defence of New Testa 
 ment Scripture. 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 pro 
 ceeds 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 else 
 where, it must always be our first concern, to get ourselves 
 well acquainted with the peculiarities themselves, and the state 
 of mind out of which they originated. For thus alone can we 
 come to perceive in what respects there was an accommoda 
 tion, and know how to give due allowance to it, without, at the 
 same time, impairing the substance of the truth that might bo 
 couched under it. 
 
 SECTION SIXTH. 
 
 THE RESPECT DUE IN THE INTERPRETATION OF THE NEW TESTA 
 MENT TO THE ANALOGY OP 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. 
 
 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 
 
 1 It is much in the same way, and on substantially the same principle, 
 that two prophecies the utterance of quite different men are sometimes 
 thrown together, and treated as one. See the remarks on Matthew xxvii. 
 9, 10. 
 
 11 
 
122 RESPECT TO BE HAD TO THE 
 
 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 in 
 terpretations to what is called the analogy or rule of faith. 
 The expression, the analogy of faith, is derived from Horn. xii. 
 6, where the subject of discourse is the exercise of spiritual 
 ministrations or gifts, and where, in regard to the gift of 
 prophecy, it is said, that they who possess the gift, should 
 employ it xara rrp avaAofiau TT^ K KJTZCO-, according to the 
 analogy of the faith, as some would render it; and when so 
 rendered, it becomes very nearly synonymous with according 
 to the rule of faith. For analogy in such a connexion can 
 only be understood as denoting the common agreement, the 
 standard xavcov, or rule, which results from a comparison of 
 one part of Scripture with another. And there can be no 
 doubt, that the word dvafofla is sometimes so used; for it is 
 denned, by the old lexicographer Hesychius, measure, canon, 
 rule. Yet the sense, which is thus obtained, is not suitable to 
 the connexion in the passage before us, and is now generally 
 abandoned by commentators, although it is still retained by 
 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 pre 
 scribed course. The faith 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 recipiency in respect to prophetical gifts, and fitness 
 for exercising them, depends. According to the measure or 
 proportion such i3 undoubtedly the usual import of dvalofla 
 of this faith, says the apostle, let each one prophesy, who is 
 spiritually endowed for that work; let him ply his function, or 
 
ANALOGY OF THE FAITH. 123 
 
 give forth the instructions 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" meaning, 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 ori 
 ginally meant, no specific creed or set form of words, but 
 merely the general principles of the faith, of which various 
 summaries 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 the difficulties 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 Ecclesige auctoritate per- 
 cepit; i.e. Let him rule the sense of the more obscure and 
 difficult parts of Scripture 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 connexion, and endeavour to get light to the par 
 ticular 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 authorized and sanctioned by the Church ; 
 and in the hands of Vincentius Lirinensis it came to assume 
 the form of an all-embracing principle 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 Scripture and the maxim 
 has hence passed as a watchword among Roman Catholic 
 theologians, and their High Church imitators. In this sense 
 
124 RESPECT TO BE HAD TO THE 
 
 the rule is, of course, rejected by all sound Protestant 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 connexion and dependen.ee of single laws; nor gram 
 matical analogy in the words themselves. But as gram 
 matical analogy is the law and form of language established 
 by usage, to which is opposed anomaly , that is, departure 
 from the established 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 denomi 
 nated by the Latin doctors, the Regula Fidei. To these 
 everything is to be referred, 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 interpreta 
 tion, it naturally suggests something apart from Scripture 
 some sort of compend 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 consideration, which must be taken into account ge 
 nerally, 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 interpretation of Scripture; for the 
 Word of God must be consistent with itself, while the word of 
 
ANALOGY OF THE FAITH. 125 
 
 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 compre 
 hensive and finished plan, can be educed; but as a matchless, 
 regular account of God s dealings with man through every ago 
 of the world, from the commencement to the end of time, even 
 to the consummation of all things. They indicate together 
 one beautiful, harmonious, and gloriously connected 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." 1 
 
 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 imply 
 ing, 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 doubt 
 ful 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 a one may not be adopted as 
 would place them at variance with the fundamental 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;" while in James i. 13, the general principle is laid 
 
 1 Life and Remains of Bengel, p. 254. 
 
 11* 
 
126 KESPECT TO BE HAD TO THE 
 
 down, that God tempteth no man; and it is the plain import 
 of what is taught in Scripture concerning God, that being 
 Himself infinitely wise and good, He cannot take a course 
 with His children which has for its object the enticing of them 
 to sin. This general doctrine, therefore, so frequently an 
 nounced, and so necessarily flowing from 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 tempt 
 ing that of an intention to draw into evil. The leading, on 
 the Spirit s part, into the field of temptation, was for the pur 
 pose of victory over sin, not of subjection to its power. In 
 the course of that temptation, Satan brought into remem 
 brance 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, He placed, 
 not as an antagonistic, but as a restrictive consideration, the 
 precept, "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God" show 
 ing that here, as in respect generally to the promises of Scrip 
 ture, 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 Matt. 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 uttermost, as if the subject of promise 
 stood in no sort of connexion with any other passages of 
 Scripture, it ought to be viewed in connexion with similar pro 
 mises and statements made concerning the other apostles, ac 
 cording to which they were all to be, in an instrumental sense, 
 foundation-stones and pillars, (Matt. xix. 29; Gal. H. 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 him- 
 
ANALOGY OF THE FAITH. 127 
 
 self, and for all others, he denounces that spiritual lordship, 
 which, on the ground of the original promise, has been attri 
 buted to him, (1 Pet. v. 1 4,) and gives to Christ frhe whole 
 and undivided glory of procuring and distributing the bless 
 ings of salvation, (ch. i. 2, 3, ii. 3 6,- etc.) Take one exam 
 ple more: in Prov. xxv. 21, 22, and again in Rom. 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 consideration, " 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 ag 
 gravate the guilt and the doom of thine adversary, or, thou 
 wilt altogether destroy in him that which makes him an ad 
 versary thy kindness, in recompense for his malice, will con 
 sume 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. Could the apostle, as 
 a sequel to such exhortations, and when, seeking to have the 
 disciples penetrated by a full sense of the mercies of God, 
 have meant to ply them with the diabolical motive of deepen 
 ing the guilt of an adversary, and rendering his doom more 
 intolerable? No we instinctively feel this could not possi 
 bly be ; what he intended, must have been the practising upon 
 him of that noble and generous revenge, which should convert 
 him from 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 interpre 
 tation of Scripture, may be applied. It undoubtedly requires 
 to be used with caution, and in a spirit of fairness and can 
 dour if it is to be turned to any valuable account, or even 
 not abused to the support of dangerous error. The faith, ac- 
 
RESPECT TO BE HAD TO THE 
 
 
 
 cording to which the sense of particular passages is determined, 
 must be that which rests upon the broad import of some of 
 the most explicit announcements of Scripture, about the mean 
 ing of which there can be, with unbiassed minds, no reasona 
 ble doubt. And in so far as we must decide between one pas 
 sage 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 no 
 ticed merely, but formally treated of and discussed; 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 re 
 spect to the relation that one part of New Testament Scrip 
 ture 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 possible to throw this into a specific principle of 
 interpretation; at least not further than that it must be re 
 membered, we have in the New Testament a higher, but very 
 closely related, exhibition of truth and duty: and consequent 
 ly must have respect alike to the agreements and the differ 
 ences subsisting between them. This relation, of necessity, 
 exercised a very marked and important 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 in 
 stance, that a correct apprehension be formed of the relation 
 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 par 
 ticular view that may be exhibited. This, however, is too 
 wide a field to be entered on particularly here. If considered 
 fully, it would require a discussion of the nature and princi 
 ples of the typical connexion between the law and the gospel, 
 arid lead to investigations fully as much connected with the 
 dogmatical as with the exegetical departments of theology. 
 
KELIGION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 129 
 
 So far, however, the relation must be understood, that it has 
 to do as well with the agreements as with the differences be 
 tween the affairs of the Old and those of the New Covenants. 
 Indeed, if any distinction were to be made between the two, 
 we should say, that the agreements ought more especially to 
 be regarded, because they lie deeper, and concern the more 
 essential elements in the two dispensations; while the differ 
 ences are of a more circumstantial and formal nature. From 
 the position of matters at the commencement of the New dis 
 pensation, more particularly from the determination 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 dif 
 ferences; 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 re 
 lation which subsists between the Old and the New in God s 
 dispensations, 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 Larnb 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 per 
 ceive, that there is an agreement or correspondence indicated 
 between the sacrifices of the Old Testament and the one great 
 sacrifice of the New that what the lamb of atonement, espe 
 cially 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 redemp 
 tion. No one can doubt, that like is compared to like; al 
 though, from the nature of the objects brought into compari 
 son, differences of an important kind were necessarily implied. 
 
130 RESPECT TO BE HAD TO THE 
 
 
 
 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, the apostle calls baptism " the 
 circumcision of Christ," and, in Phil. iii. 3, describes believers 
 as " the circumcision which worship God in spirit," the mean 
 ing 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 the 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 circumcision. 
 
 Again, there is another class of passages in which, with 
 equal plainness, our attention is drawn to the differences sub 
 sisting between 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 chap. x. 20, where 
 believers are said to enter the holiest of this higher tabernacle 
 "by a new and living way" in such passages, while the lan 
 guage bears distinct allusion to the things of the Old Cove 
 nant expresses the New, indeed, under the form and aspect 
 of the Old, yet it is for the purpose of showing the vast supe 
 riority of the New. So that, in such cases, it is the diffe 
 rences we are naturally led to think of these now become 
 the prominent things, and the resemblances fall into the back 
 ground. 
 
 But there are other passages, in which it is less easy to de 
 cide 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 sprinkled from 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 
 
RELIGION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 131 
 
 entered the sanctuary, they had to wash their hands and their 
 feet at the brazen laver, which stood in the outer court. But 
 what corresponds to this in Christian times? We have no 
 external sanctuary, like that which existed in the Jewish com 
 monwealth, and consequently no corporeal ablution to per 
 form, when drawing near to engage in the worship of God. 
 When, therefore, 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 bear 
 ing 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 con 
 duct. 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 main 
 tained by sincere and accepted worshippers, from all overt acts 
 of iniquity. And now that the symbol has dropped, 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 
 conscience, we must also have a blameless and untarnished 
 life and then, with the two together, we may draw near with 
 confidence 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 out 
 ward thing then, arid such another inward now, or fleshly 
 then, and spiritual now; but a similarity with a difference: 
 
132 RESPECT TO BE HAD TO THE 
 
 A similarity, since under both covenants alike freedom from 
 open impurities is required of God s acceptable worshippers 
 there must be clean hands, or a blameless life, as well as a 
 pure heart; and yet a difference, since from the clearer reve 
 lation 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 more 
 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 exhortation 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 reasonable service." There is evi 
 dently a reference in the language to the ancient sacrificial 
 worship; and, in particular, to the service of the whole burnt- 
 offering, in which at certain times an entire animal was pre 
 sented 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? If the apostle had stopped at doaiav 
 if he had said merely, "present your bodies a sacrifice," the 
 matter would have been quite plain; it would have been ma 
 nifest, 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 
 regarded 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 ^0^1x^11 Xarpziav, the reasonable ser 
 vice, at the close, is in particular held to indicate this idea, 
 as in the following comment of Ilaldane: "This evidently re 
 fers to the distinction between the service of the Jews by sa 
 crifices 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, in 
 deed, reasonable to worship God in whatever way He pre- 
 
RELIGION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 183 
 
 scribes; but had not man fallen, he would not have been re 
 quired to worship by such ceremonies as the Jewish, law en 
 joined. 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 Aofexijv, un 
 der the impression, that it was disrespectful to the Divine ap 
 pointments 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 
 different from the natural and proper one; it is offered 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 personal 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 ap 
 plied by the apostle to the sacrifice of Christians living, holy, 
 acceptable. Living, we are told, stands opposed to the dead 
 sacrifices presented under the law, slain victims; but what, 
 then, shall be put in contradistinction to the holy and accept 
 able? Were these epithets not applicable to the burnt-offer 
 ings of the Old Testament? On the contrary, they are pre 
 cisely 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 vic 
 tims were required to be without any external blemish; while 
 of every sacrifice offered according 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 some 
 what strange a confusion in the use of language we should 
 not have expected in the apostle if the one going immedi 
 ately before them, and the othar coming immediately after 
 them, should have pointed to & formal contrast. Such a throw- 
 12 
 
134 RESPECT TO BE HAD TO THE 
 
 ing together of agreements and differences in one continuous 
 description, is in the highest degree improbable. 
 
 A good deal of this confusion 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 affection on the part 
 of the worshipper accompanying them. According to the true 
 idea, the outward service was merely the symbolical expres 
 sion of what was thought and felt, done or purposed to be 
 done, by the person who performed 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 re. 
 ferred to, the occasion of presenting it usually was, when an 
 individual had experienced some great mercy, or felt upon his 
 soul a special call to devoted gratitude and love; and his feel 
 ings in this respect were embodied in the offering he ex 
 pressed thereby his personal surrender to God, and the dedi 
 cation of all he had to the Divine service and glory. With 
 out this grateful feeling and purpose of devotedncss on the 
 part of the offerer, the offering would have been simply a piece 
 of hypocrisy a sign without any thing signified thereby. 
 The proper connexion between the external and the internal 
 was beautifully brought out by David in the fifty-first Psalm, 
 when, after having expressed his deep contrition for past sin, 
 and renewed 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 offerings so drawn 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 grati 
 tude 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 
 
RELIGION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 135 
 
 and prominent thing in the apostle s description is a resem 
 blance, and not a contrast. His object is, to show how those, 
 who are partakers 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 i. 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 Xofi^ij larpsla, a reasonable ser 
 vice not, however, in the sense of rational, as opposed to a 
 former tr-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 crajfjLaTiXTJ, 
 corporeal or outward. In no part of the description is there 
 properly a contrast marked between the Christian and the 
 Jewish service; for, in the Jewish also, when rightly per 
 formed, 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 re 
 quired, 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 by him and with him: While now, the temptation to a 
 lifeless externality is in great measure removed, the service 
 is of a strictly personal and spiritual nature, springing from 
 the soul s proper consciousness of grace and blessing, and ap 
 pearing in the willing obedience of the members of the body, 
 as instruments of righteousness unto God. 
 
130 RESPECT TO BE HAD TO THE 
 
 Now, from these examples and illustrations there is plainly 
 deducible a twofold rule of interpretation in regard to those 
 portions 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 exhibit the difference between New and Old Testa 
 ment things, it is this difference, which ought to be rendered 
 prominent in our explanation, yet not without also pointing 
 attention to the fundamental agreement, which lies under 
 neath the superficial diversity; while, on the other hand, in 
 those passages, which simply present Christian things under 
 the form and aspect of those that belonged to the Old Covenant, 
 it is the correspondence or agreement that should be mainlij 
 dwelt upon. The Old should, in that case, be exhibited 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 with an 
 underlying substantial agreement; in the other, to unfold a 
 substantial agreement, though accompanied with formal and 
 ostensible differences such as necessarily pervaded the rela 
 tions of an inferior and preparatory, to an ultimate and per 
 manent state of things. 
 
 3. If now we pass, for a moment, from the true, to the 
 many false religions of the ancient world, from Judaism to 
 the endless forms of heathenism, we have to mark in Christi 
 anity toward them a relation of an essentially different kind 
 one simply of an antagonistic nature. The heathen religions 
 of antiquity, 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 sub 
 ject 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 in 
 structive ; since it shows in what a different region the Chris 
 tian religion moved, and what different elements it embraced 
 from those, out of which heathenism was constructed. Amid 
 the freedom, with which Christianity proceeded to diffuse 
 
RELIGIONS OF HEATHENISM. 137 
 
 itself in the world, and its adaptation to the modes of thought 
 and forms of expression 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 asso 
 ciated 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 Testa 
 ment bears respect to sacrificial usages, it borrows the terms 
 it employs from the Old Testament, or makes use only of such 
 as are common 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 suggestive of the pollutions of idolatry. Of 
 this description are rtspcxdOapfia and itspi^fw^ which both 
 bear, in the old lexicographers, the signification of ransom or 
 sacrifice the equivalents given are avriXorpov, dvr^y^ov. 
 The Septuagint also, at Prov. xxi. 18, has Trspixddap/jta daccuou 
 dvojuoz, the wicked is a ransom for the righteous. But as 
 the words acquired this sense from the horrid custom of sacri 
 ficing 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. The cus 
 tom prevailed especially at Athens, where persons of a worth 
 less 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 were called xaQdpuotTO, 7Tspf(/njfjtara^ and other 
 epithets of a like import. The terms are used only once in 
 the New Testament: 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 objectiona 
 ble for Christian uses. This term is PW/JLOZ; 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 any 
 thing corresponding to it in Christian times, but of the heathen 
 
 12* 
 
138 EESPECT TO BE HAD TO THE 
 
 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 duat- 
 affTijftioy: 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 oal/jitoy, and its compounds, we see a 
 similar instance of the wisdom and the propriety with which 
 the speech of the sacred writers were guided. The word had 
 become thoroughly inwoven with the ideas and the worship 
 of heathendom ; and as the evil, as well as the good had, and 
 malignant, not less than gracious and benign divinities, were 
 embraced in the religions of Polytheism, so the word oalfjtcov 
 extended equally to both. It was in that respect a word of 
 indifferent meaning. The whole religion of the Greeks and 
 the llomans might be called, and, indeed, was familiarly called, 
 demon-worship, d&ffedatfjtovia. It could not, therefore, be 
 counted a reproach, it might rather be esteemed an honour 
 for any one to be spoken of as 0<r0?o. / oy0T/voc ; it simply 
 marked him out as peculiarly given to the worship 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 from 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 ex 
 press the fact, that they were, in their own sense of the mat 
 ter, a very religious people. And it is certainly a somewhat 
 unhappy turn that is given to this, the opening part of the 
 apostle s address, in the authorized version, when he is made 
 to say, that he perceived " they were in all things too super 
 stitious." Had such been the native import of his language, 
 the apostle would have been guilty of the misdemeanor of 
 creating a prejudice against himself 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 misapplied in Acts 
 xxv. 19, where Festus says of the case of Paul to Agrippa, 
 
RELIGIONS OF HEATHENISM. 139 
 
 that it touched upon questions xspt rr 
 it should have been rendered, " concerning their own religion" 
 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 stigmatize 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 re 
 ligion was a 6soff$fizla, a reverential fear and worship of God, 
 but not a deeffefiaefjtQvla, a religious homage to the divinities. 
 In the Jewish sense, demon-worship was devil-worship abomi 
 nable idolatry. And hence ocu/w^ia was the common term. 
 employed to designate the malignant powers, that so often 
 held possession of the bodies and souls of men at the Gospel 
 era. Hence also the term eb&upovia, which so frequently 
 occurs in heathen authors to express human happiness and 
 prosperity, is never because it indicates prosperity as the 
 gift of the divinities similarly employed in the New Testa 
 ment. 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 
 interpretation 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 af 
 finity to that of heathenism, and convey a silent .protest 
 against all pollutions of idolatry. 
 
 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 
 
140 RELATION OF THE OLD TO THE NEW 
 
 be done within a small compass, a clue to the right path in 
 the treatment of those passages, which bear upon the mutual 
 relation 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. ^Ye do this more 
 especially for the purpose of guarding against a twofold error, 
 which is constantly reappearing, in the one or the other of 
 its aspects, with those who have not attained to accurate views 
 of the connexion between the Old and the New in God s dis 
 pensations: the error of either ascribing too much of the 
 carnal element to Judaism, or of imposing too much of the 
 Judaistic on Christianity. These are the two opposite ex 
 tremes, 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 ap 
 peared 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 realize the extent of the change which the 
 work of Christ had introduced they clung to what was tem 
 porary in the Old, even after it had been supplanted by some 
 thing higher and better; like persons, according to the simili 
 tude of our Lord, who have been accustomed to old wine, and 
 cannot straightway relish new although in this case the new 
 was the better. It was providential, that this Judaizing ten 
 dency did appear 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 deliverance on the subject, 
 arid their condemnation of the error which it involved. The 
 Epistles to the Galatians, to the Colossians, and to the He 
 brews 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 sacri 
 fices, stated festivals, and corporeal ablutions, were no longer 
 binding on the conscience, and naturally led, if perpetuated, 
 to carnalize the Gospel. It might have been thought, that 
 these apostolic efforts and explicit deliverances would have 
 been sufficient to check the evil, and prevent its recurrence 
 
MORE EXACTLY DEFINED. 141 
 
 in the Christian Church. But this was far from being the 
 case. With some non-essential modifications, the old error 
 reappeared, bringing in a train of forms and ceremonies, pur 
 gations and sacrifices, feasts and solemnities, which differed 
 only in name from those of the Old Economy; and a Chris 
 tian 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 
 ancient priesthood had to show their genealogical descent 
 from the loins of Aaron. And the result has been, that, not 
 withstanding the strong and repeated protest lodged in New 
 Testament Scripture 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 sacri 
 fices, 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 Spiritu 
 ality ; and to raise at least the loftier and more contemplative 
 believers of the Gospel into a kind of Divine-like superiority 
 to every thing outward and material. In this vain attempt, 
 however, it only corrupted Christianity, by disparaging or 
 denying the great historical facts on which it is based, and 
 entering into profitless speculationsrespecting heavenly things. 
 Along with this tendency, and as a kind of natural corollary 
 to it, it sought to break the chain between Christianity-end 
 Judaism holding the former to be indeed of God, but not so 
 the latter, on account of the fleshly ordinances and material 
 accompaniments with which it was connected ; it was, therefore, 
 
142 RELATION OF THE OLD TO THE NEW 
 
 assigned to the agency of an evil, or, at least, inferior spirit. 
 In this anti-scriptural form, Gnosticism was, of course, re 
 pelled bj the Church; its special views and conclusions were 
 universally reprobated by believers. But the spirit of Gnos 
 ticism 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 Testa 
 ment, 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 was, that, con 
 sidered by itself, in its obvious and historical reality, it was 
 too carnal to have much in common with Christianity. Now, 
 of course, the relations of those times no longer exist; the 
 leaven, which then wrought with insidious and corrupting in 
 fluence, 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 consequence, 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 unfre- 
 quently do so. Take as an example the following passage, 
 in a commentary by a late respectable member of that body: 
 " Israel was a stiff-necked and rebellious people; their law 
 was written on tables of stone, and enforced by temporal 
 sanctions; he that despised Moses law died without mercy. 
 But all Christ s disciples are taught of God; they are the cir 
 cumcision of Christ; they worship God in the Spirit; His law 
 is written on the fleshly tables of the heart." 1 If there is any 
 propriety in this contrast, it must be, that Israel, as such, 
 were a carnal arid ungodly people, yet were not the less en 
 titled to God s ordinances, nay, these ordinances were just for 
 i Haldane on the Epistle to the Galatians, pp. 113, 103. 
 
MORE EXACTLY DEFINED. 143 
 
 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 idolatrous Gen 
 tiles. In like manner, another writer, belonging to the same 
 communion, 1 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 temporal 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 en 
 tirely different school, a minister of the Church of England 
 in a late work, gives forth substantially the same views re 
 specting 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 Christian 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 collective 
 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 col 
 lectively acknowledged Jehovah as the one God." 2 And fur 
 ther, as regards the nature of the holiness aimed at by the co 
 venant, 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." 
 
 1 Dr. Cox, as quoted by Dr. Wardlaw on Baptism, pp. 55, 60. 
 
 2 Johnstone s Israel after the Flesh, p. 7. 
 
144 RELATION OF THE OLD TO THE NEW 
 
 And he adds, "This very manifest sense of the Old Covenant 
 holiness is constantly lost sight of, and errors of the most de 
 structive kind are caused." 1 
 
 Quotations of a similar kind might be furnished in great 
 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 them 
 selves to one s mind, and to which it seems impossible to pro 
 duce a satisfactory answer. Circumcision, and the other 
 ordinances of the Old Testament, were (it is alleged) altogether 
 carnal, and irrespective of personaf holiness how, then, could 
 Israel in the wilderness, when simply standing under a cove 
 nant with such ordinances, have been reproved and punished 
 for murmuring against God, and want of faith in God s pro 
 mises 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 threateriings 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 lie might 
 have a godly seed? (Isa. vi. 12; Mai. ii. 15.) How could 
 there come to exist in the midst of Israel such seed at all a 
 seed possessing the elements of real holiness? Whence could 
 its members have their being? How were they born? Was 
 it altogether apart from the ordinances? In that case, must 
 not their existence have been an anomaly, a miracle accom 
 plished by Divine power without the intervention of appro 
 priate means? And the more pious individuals of that seed, 
 such as David, and those who acted with him, how could they 
 possibly long for, and rejoice in waiting upon, ordinances 
 
 1 Johnstone s Israel after the Flesh, p. 87. 
 
MORE EXACTLY DEFINED. 145 
 
 which were wholly carnal, and without any adaptation to a 
 spiritual taste? To such questions no satisfactory answer can 
 be returned, on the supposition of the Old Testament ordi 
 nances being what those persons would 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 
 pleased to appoint; and how God could either appoint or 
 dinances altogether carnal, or how, if appointed, spiritual life 
 and nourishment could be derived from them, is a mystery 
 that seems inexplicable on any grounds of reason or of Scrip 
 ture. 
 
 Without going very minutely into the subject, there are a 
 few leading principles that may be laid down upon it, suffi 
 cient, 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 ad 
 ministration, there still must have been an essential agreement 
 between them at bottom an essential oneness in their per 
 vading 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." Un 
 changeable in His own nature, 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, from 
 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 
 13 
 
146 RELATION OF THE OLD TO THE NEW 
 
 actual product and authoritative revelation of an unchange 
 able God. 
 
 It is true, as indeed appears on a moment s inspection, that 
 the religion of the Old Testament addressed itself more im 
 mediately to the outward 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 sanc 
 tuary, an earthly inheritance and a present life in these ex 
 hibiting 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 incidental 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 con 
 tinually 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 holi 
 ness; so that the same description, as to its substance, will 
 serve at once for the true Israelite and for the genuine Chris 
 tian. As in that given by 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 com 
 posed 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 pos 
 sessed 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 in 
 stitution, which was given to the Israelites, not understanding 
 its dispensation, and because God has thought good now to 
 
MORE EXACTLY DEFINED. 147 
 
 place us, not under law but under grace. Let them, there 
 fore, give way to the authority of the apostle, who, in lauding 
 the condition of the Israelites, mentions it among their advan 
 tages, that to them had belonged the giving of the law, which 
 could not have been matter of praise, if it had been in itself 
 bad." And again, in another work, written against one who 
 had published a treatise containing many things of an of 
 fensive 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 
 represent 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 in 
 flictions 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 goodness 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, " Neverthe 
 less, in those times also there were spiritual and righteous 
 persons, whom the letter of command did not kill, but the aid- 
 giving Spirit quickened. 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 Scrip 
 tures, 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 (quiaetNovum 
 in Vetere est figuratum, et Vetus in Novo est revelatum." 1 ) 
 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 re- 
 1 Contra Adversarium Legis et^roph., i. 35. 
 
148 RELATION OF THE OLD TO THE NEW 
 
 quired, 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 uncleanness, 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 prefi 
 gured for a coming age. This is the whole that 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 omit 
 ted 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 
 performance of the service to recognise, and heartily concur 
 in. It was the conscious recognition of these views and prin 
 ciples, 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 meaningless form. Take as an example the cor 
 poreal washings, which on so many occasions were required 
 under the law these were not appointed for the purpose 
 merely of removing bodily defilement. Often, as in the case 
 of the restored leper, purification from the touch of a dead 
 body, or from sprinkling the Water of cleansing on others, 
 there was not even the semblance of any thing of that sort to 
 be removed. The washing, in every case, was appointed as a 
 natural and appropriate symbol of personal 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 understanding 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 
 
MORE EXACTLY DEFINED. 149 
 
 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 circum 
 cision, when brought into connexion 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 would 
 have been 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 
 Syro- 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 
 connexion with His covenant as its appropriate token and 
 seal, it thenceforth became a symbol of purification from 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~peop\e^ 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 dis 
 close its import. Moses himself pointed to it as a thing which 
 even then was familiarly known and understood, when he re 
 presented 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 im 
 port, 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. 
 
 13* 
 
150 RELATION OF THE OLD TO THE NEW 
 
 Such, at least, appears 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 em 
 blematic import, was no more a merely outward and corporeal 
 thing, than baptism now is; the one had respect to the be 
 liever 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 princ ple, which ascribes a symbolical or 
 spir tual 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. Pre 
 cisely as God s unchangeableness rendered it necessary, that 
 there should be in everything of vital moment a fundamental 
 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 every thing 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 im 
 mediate connexion with the holiness of God; as in Lev. xx. 
 25, 20, where the command is re-enforced as to the distinction 
 to be put between clean and unclean in food, it is addfid as 
 the ground of the requirement, "And ye shall be holy unto 
 Me, for I, the Lord, am holy, and I have severed you from 
 other people, that ye should be Mine." So again in ch. xxii., 
 
MORE EXACTLY DEFINED. 151 
 
 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 ; there 
 fore 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 institutions they were commanded to 
 observe. As the one was pre-eminently moral, so, of neces 
 sity 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 
 from what has 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 separa 
 tion from the world, was the direct aim of the laws and insti 
 tutions 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 evi 
 dent not only from the considerations already advanced 
 but also from the very end of their peculiar calling in Abra 
 ham, 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 frowning ex- 
 clusiveness, that they could fulfil this ulterior part of their 
 destination; it could only be by operating in a kindly and 
 beneficent manner upon the nations around them, diffusing 
 among them the knowledge of God, and extending the boun 
 daries of His kingdom. That this was from the first contem 
 plated by God may certainly be inferred from the admission 
 
152 RELATION OF THE OLD TO THE NEW 
 
 of proselyte strangers, even in Abraham s time, into the bosom 
 of the covenant, (Gen. xvii. 12,) and from the law afterwards 
 prescribed regarding it (Ex. xii. 48.) It is still further evi 
 dent 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 dis 
 position, on the part of others, to share with them in their 
 privileges and blessings, as in the times of David and Solomon, 
 (I 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 kings 
 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; nor was it 
 for any other end, than as the fittest means, in the existing 
 state of the world, for producing and maintaining that holi 
 ness 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 trans 
 gressions," 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 from others, as 
 
MORE EXACTLY DEFINED. 158 
 
 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 develop 
 ment. 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 re 
 straints, and stimulated by artificial expedients. When the 
 Prophet Jeremiah represents (ch. xxxi.) the distinction between 
 the Old Covenant then existing, and the New and better one 
 some time 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 only have 
 been meant to indicate a more effectual and general accom 
 plishment of this spiritual result, than had hitherto appeared, 
 not its absolute commencement. For, beyond all question, 
 the internal revelation of the law was to a certain extent pos 
 sessed also in former times possessed by every true Israelite, 
 of whom it was written, "The law of God is in his heart," 
 and "he meditates therein day and night." And in what 
 chiefly did the reforming agency of David and many of the 
 prophets appear? Was it not in their earnest striving to 
 awaken the people to the insufficiency of a dead formalism, 
 and have them brought to the cultivation of such holiness as 
 the law required? 
 
 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 
 
154 RELATION OF THE OLD TO THE NEW 
 
 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, which must con 
 tinue to grow and diffuse 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 an 
 cient Israel of God could, before Christ s appearance, receive 
 proselytes among themselves, who thereafter became part of 
 the covenant people; so now, since the appearance of Christ, 
 they have by reason of the covenant and the promise, already 
 become greatly enlarged through the incorporation of multi 
 tudes 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 foundation, 
 shall one day also receive the remnant of the other portion, 
 the apostacy, into its bosom." 1 
 
 5. From all these premises, there arises still another con 
 clusion, a fifth point to be kept steadily in view, viz., that the 
 ordinances of the two covenants, like the conditions of their 
 respective members, can admit only of relative differences. 
 Differences certainly 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 other 
 wise, 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 connexion between Judaism and Christianity. The one 
 1 In Delitzsch s Biblisch. proph., p. 132. 
 
MORE EXACTLY DEFINED. 155 
 
 was clearly enough seen to be the preparation and shadow of 
 the other; but in drawing out the connexion 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 fortu 
 itous and superficial resemblances turned into adumbrations 
 of Gospel mysteries; and then the theology of the New was 
 carnalized, 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 ceremony, 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 cir 
 cumstances; but rendered greatly more so by the considera 
 tion, that among the forces tending to produce it must be 
 placed the venerable name of Augustine, who, in his interpre 
 tations, often falls into the mistaken carnalism, out of which 
 the evil might be said to have originated. 
 
 But while shunning this form of error, care must be taken 
 to avoid falling into another. And the principle must be held 
 fast, that in the ordinances of the two covenants there can be 
 room only for differences of a relative kind. The sacrifices 
 and ablutions of the Old Testament were not simply carnal 
 institutions, no more than baptism and the Lord s Supper now 
 are. They also pertained to the conscience, and, to be accep 
 tably 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 pre 
 sent to the worshippers a full, complete, and permanent ground 
 of peace; whence a perpetual renewal of the sacrifices was 
 needed to reassure the conscience after fresh acts of trans 
 gression. Yet, this by no means proves, that they had to do 
 merely with the purification of the flesh. There were certain 
 
156 RELATION OF THE OLD TO THE NEW 
 
 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 misappre 
 hension 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 spiritual 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 from 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 provided only a temporary expedient as to 
 the way of relief no more than a shadow of the real satis 
 faction. So that for men to cleave to the Old Testament ser 
 vices 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, 
 but that it needed the purifications 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 understood, differed 
 from the ordinances of the gospel only in degree, not in kind; 
 and it is perfectly competent for us to draw conclusions from 
 the nature and administration of the one, to the nature and 
 administration of the other. Here, as in so many other things, 
 there is a middle path, which is the right one; and it is just 
 as easy to err from it by carnalizing too much in Judaism, as 
 by Judaizing too much in Christianity. 
 
TROPICAL PASSAGES. 157 
 
 SECTION EIGHTH. 
 
 ON THE PROPER INTERPRETATION OF THE TROPICAL PARTS OF THE 
 NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 AMONG the portions of New Testament Scripture which re 
 quire a separate hermeneutical consideration, are those in which 
 tropes or figures are employed. Some of the examples given 
 under the last two 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 suffi 
 cient compass and moment to entitle it to special inquiry. 
 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 appears in the New Testa 
 ment, and was not incompatible with its clearer revelations 
 and its more didactic aim. Reference, however, may also be 
 occasionally made, by way of illustration, to passages in the 
 Old Testament. 
 
 It is, perhaps, scarcely necessary to state, yet, in case of 
 any misapprehension, it may as well be stated, that the terms 
 figurative and tropical, on the one side, and those of literal 
 and grammatical, on the other, may be employed indiscrimi 
 nately, as being substantially of the same import. The one 
 pair happen to be derived from the Greek, and the other from 
 the Latin, but, in each case, from words that precisely cor 
 respond. Literal, from the Latin litera, denotes the mean 
 ing of a word, which is according to the letter, the meaning 
 it bears in its original or primary use ; and nothing else is in- 
 14 
 
158 PROPER METHOD OF INTERPRETING 
 
 dicated by the term grammatical, in this connexion, the word 
 of Greek derivation for what is according to the ypd/jt/jta or 
 letter. But when a word, originally appropriated to one thing, 
 comes to be applied to another, which bears some real or fan 
 cied resemblance to it, as there is then a rp6~oz 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 term, founded either on resemblance or 
 some other link of connexion, and forming a natural transi 
 tion from the original to the derived sense. Very commonly 
 also the word proper is used to denote the original import of 
 words, and improper the figurative. But as these epithets 
 are fitted to suggest wrong ideas, it is better not to employ 
 them in such a connexion. 
 
 All languages are more or less figurative; for the mind of 
 man is essentially analogical, and delights to trace resem 
 blances between 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 own feelings and conceptions are respecting spi 
 ritual 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 em 
 ployment by Christ and His apostles, in order to invest their 
 representations of Divine things with the greater force and 
 emphasis. 
 
 I. In applying our 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 tro 
 pically. How may we assure ourselves, or can we assure our 
 selves, against any mistake in the matter? 
 
TROPICAL PASSAGES. 159 
 
 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 lite 
 rally, and what figuratively. These are, certainly, somewhat 
 imperfect, as might have been expected, considering the pe 
 riod when they were written : yet they are not without their 
 value, and if they had been followed up by others, with any 
 measure of Augustine s discernment, they might have kept 
 the early church from many false interpretations, on which 
 the most unscriptural and superstitious views leaned for sup 
 port. 
 
 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 from the connexion in which 
 it stands. This holds especially of that kind of tropical lan 
 guage, which consists in tfie 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 me 
 taphor. 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 Bo 
 anerges, "Sons of thunder;" or, again, when He spake of 
 the difficulties connected with an admission into His kingdom, 
 under the necessity of "being born again," and of " entering 
 a strait gate and treading a narrow way;" in all these and 
 many examples of a like nature, the tropical element is pal 
 pable; 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 parables, in which the li 
 teral 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 synechdoehe prevails i. e. in which a part is 
 
160 PROPER METHOD OF INTERPRETING 
 
 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 cup of devils." 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 example, 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 
 connexion, says of Him, "He is our peace." In examples 
 of this description also there is no difficulty; it is obvious, 
 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 iden 
 tified with that result, or with the natural cause and instru 
 ment 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 cafted metonymies, in regard 
 to which it is not so easy to determine whether the language 
 should be understood literally or tropically. It may, for in 
 stance, be questioned, whether our Lord, in Matt. v. 23, where 
 He speaks of bringing a gift to the altar, means an actual al 
 tar 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 drinking His blood, He meant a corporeal or a spi 
 ritual participation : or Paul, when he makes mention of a 
 fire that is to try every 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 ef 
 fect 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 con 
 clusively the view that should be taken; for the settling of 
 the rules would necessarily involve a discussion of the parti 
 cular cases to which we wish to apply them. It is more, 
 therefore, to the general principles of interpretation to the 
 
TROPICAL PASSAGES. 161 
 
 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 connexion: it is to this, more 
 than to any specific directions, that we are to look for obtain 
 ing the skill to determine between the literal and the tropical 
 in the less obvious cases. At 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 any thing 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 incon 
 sistent with their proper nature. So that, on the supposition 
 of that nature being known to us, we can be at no loss to un 
 derstand in what sense the language should be taken. Thus, 
 it is essential to the nature of God, that He is spirit and not 
 flesh a Spirit infinite, eternal, and unchangeable ; conse 
 quently without bodily parts, which are necessarily bounded 
 by space and time; without liability 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 hearing, or having 
 experience of such affections as are the result of human weak 
 ness and infirmity, must be understood in a figurative 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 fol 
 lowers 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 nature of the sub 
 ject discoursed of; and since that is not such as to admit of 
 an application of the language in the literal sense, we can. 
 have no hesitation about understanding it tropically. 
 
 14* 
 
1C2 PROPER METHOD OF INTERPRETING 
 
 (2.) A second principle applicable to such cases, is, that if 
 the language taken literally would involve something incon 
 gruous 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 great 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 abandon the literal for the figura 
 tive. The passage formerly referred to in another connexion 
 Rom. xii. 20 may be taken as an example; it is the ex 
 hortation to heap coals of fire on an enemy s head, by show 
 ing 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 figu 
 ratively ; since the heaping of coals of fire on the head of an 
 other 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 nature 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 interested. 1 
 There are many similar examples in the Proverbs, where the 
 one just noticed originally occurs; as to mention only an 
 other when a person sitting at meat with a ruler is exhorted 
 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 
 
 1 Aug. De Doc. Christiana, iii. 10, Ne igitur dubitaveris figurate dictum; 
 et cum possit duplicitcr interpretari, uno rnodo ad nocendum, altero ad prse- 
 standum; ad bcneficentiam te potius charitas revocat, ut intelligas carbones 
 ignis csse urentes pocnitentioe gcmitus, quibus superbia sanatur ejus qui dolet 
 se inimicuui fuisso homiais, a quo ejus miseriye subvenitur. 
 
TROPICAL PASSAGES. 163 
 
 there must be a certain 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, otherwise 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 true meaning 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 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 our 
 selves 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 mean 
 ing clearly determined by the Epistle to the Hebrews, and 
 other parts of the New Testament, which declare earthly al 
 tars, and the offerings proper to them, to have no longer any 
 place in the Church of God. And the word of Jesus, "De 
 stroy 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 
 referred, 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. 
 
164 PROPER METHOD OP INTERPRETING 
 
 Now, if we apply these simple and just principles of inter 
 pretation to the passage in Corinthians (1 Cor. iii. 13,) we can 
 have no difficulty in ascertaining the result that ought to be 
 arrived at. The declaration there made is, that "the day," 
 viz., of coming 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 foundation 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 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 what 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 de 
 sert. The result, therefore, is obvious; the fire spoken of, 
 and spoken of simply in respect to its property as an instru 
 ment of trial, must be understood tropically of what, in spiri 
 tual 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 
 contend that the expressions must be taken literally, even as 
 recorded in John vi. 53, long before the sacrament of the Sup 
 per was instituted. Ernesti, who was a Lutheran, admits it 
 must be understood tropically there; but he maintains that 
 the words at the institution of the Supper must be taken lite 
 rally. When treating of the interpretation of tropical lan 
 guage, in his Institutes of Biblical Interpretation, 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 in- 
 
TROPICAL PASSAGES. 165 
 
 stitution of the Supper, about eating and drinking must be 
 taken literally. And he refers to what he regards 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, con 
 vey any other than its proper sense to the minds of the dis 
 ciples, who were accustomed to take up our Lord s declara 
 tions in their proper or literal sense. No doubt they were ac 
 customed 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 perceive 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, and on another, 
 cautioned His disciples to beware of the leaven of the Phari 
 sees; so far was He from justifying them for understanding 
 His words literally (as He discovered they did,) that He re 
 proved 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 na 
 tural conclusion would be, not only that the corporeal pre 
 sence of Christ in the Supper should be maintained, but also 
 that the whole legal economy should remain in force the altar 
 of sacrifice, with the blood of slain victims, the distinction of 
 Jew and Gentile, the continued teaching of the scribes in Mo 
 ses seat, etc. : for these are all distinctly mentioned by Christ, 
 and, in all probability, were at first understood in the most li 
 teral sense by the disciples. 
 
 We must plainly have other rules for our direction in such 
 a case. It is surely one thing to say, that- Christ literally ra 
 tified the covenant with His own blood, and a very different 
 thing, that bread and wine became His blood, and as such 
 were to be eaten and drunk, at a feast instituted in commemo 
 ration of His act in ratifying the covenant. Indeed, it is only 
 by a sort of figure that we can speak even of the covenant 
 
166 PROPER METHOD OF INTERPRETING 
 
 being ratified by His blood a figure derived from the ancient 
 sacrifices; for, in reality, it was the simple death of Christ, 
 the free 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 partici 
 pation spoken of, there is no resemblance whatever. Even 
 Augustine, with all his leanings toward ritualism, and his 
 mystic notions on the virtue of the Sacraments, 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 communicate with our Lord s passion, and have it sweetly 
 and profitably laid up in our memory, that His flesh was cru 
 cified and wounded for us (prgecipiens passioni dominions com- 
 rnunicandum, et suaviter atque utiliter recondendum in me- 
 moria quod pro nobis caro ejus crucifixa et vulnerata sit. 1 )" 
 Whether we look to this passage, or to the words, "This is 
 My body broken for you," and "This cup is the New Cove 
 nant 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 be 
 nefit: 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 
 this is what alone avails in such a matter. Then, the lite 
 ral interpretation is against our second principle of interpre 
 tation, inasmuch as it ascribes an action to Christians, nay 
 1 De Doc. Christiana, iii. 10. 
 
TROPICAL PASSAGES. 107 
 
 imposes as the highest and most sacred duty an action, which 
 is abhorrent to the common instincts of humanity 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 ex 
 treme cases, to eat human flesh and drink human blood; and 
 it is utterly inconceivable, that the -most solemn rite of Chris 
 tianity 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 consecra 
 tion, the bread as actually partaken by the communicants, is 
 still designated bread, and not flesh; as when the apostle 
 says, in 1 Cor. 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, ch. 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 exegeti- 
 cal point of view. Apart altogether from the doctrinal con 
 sequences and results, the close and comparative examination 
 of the words leads to the adoption of the tropical, in contra 
 distinction to the literal import. 
 
168 PROPER METHOD OF INTERPRETING 
 
 II. We turn now to what forms naturally the second sub 
 ject of consideration in this branch of inquiry, viz., the proper 
 mode of treating the tropical or figurative portions of Scrip 
 ture. This necessarily varies to a considerable extent, as does 
 also the use of figure in Scripture : so that uniform rules, ap 
 plicable 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 
 compositions, 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. Ex 
 amples of this in ordinary language are not far to seek. Ex 
 pression^ for example, 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, when the thought conceived 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 reflect, 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 draw-up, but now usually educate, instruct, rear,) 
 synagogue, church: in all which the secondary or tropical 
 meaning is the current 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 com 
 plex 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 
 
TROPICAL PASSAGES. 169 
 
 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 accu 
 rately almost all the primary and derived meanings of the 
 words in New Testament Scripture, with their relative order 
 and gradation. As an example of the accumulation of tropes 
 in the meaning of some words, we may refer to Rev. iii. 12, 
 "Him that overcorneth 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. \Ye 
 may point for another example to Mat. xxiii. 14, where our 
 Lord says to the Scribes and Pharisees, "Ye devour widows 
 houses" rc otxlaz raw ffipajv, 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 ob 
 jects contained in it and then, by a further limitation, putting 
 the means of support, belonging to the house or family, for 
 this itself on the implied ground, that the one as to sub 
 stantial 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, there 
 fore, growing out of the first, is quite natural; and we can 
 easily see, how much, by the throwing together of the several 
 15 
 
170 PROPER METHOD OF INTERPRETING 
 
 things which make up this last idea, the language of our Lord 
 gains in strength and vivacity. It leads us to think, not merely 
 of the avaricious arid 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 
 management of the tropical language of Scripture and in 
 deed, 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 re 
 semblances, 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 oddly, and we may say fantastically, Thomas Fuller 
 draws out the figure, "St. Paul saith, Let not the sun go 
 down on your wrath, to carry news to the antipodes in another 
 world of thy revengeful nature. Yet" he adds, as if in 
 tending 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 lite 
 rally, that we may take leave to be angry till sunset; then 
 might our wrath lengthen with the days, and men in Green 
 land, where day lasts above a quarter of a year, have plentiful 
 scope of revenge." It is evident on a moment s consideration, 
 that such turns given to the image are quite fanciful: they 
 could not have been in the apostle s mind, nor would they 
 readily suggest themselves 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. 
 
TROPICAL PASSAGES. 171 
 
 Thus Leightcm, in his first sermon on Isa. lx. 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,/az r as the moon; that of justification the greater, 
 by which she is clear as the sun. The sun is perfectly lumi 
 nous, 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 subject at all, so the imperfection of a Christian s holi 
 ness, is the cause of so many waxings and wanings, and of 
 the great inequality of his performances, whereas in the mean 
 while his justification remains constantly like itself." Doc- 
 trinally, 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 lumi 
 naries 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 were 
 in her normal condition of light and purity. 
 
 Take still another example. In Matt. x. 16, our Lord 
 exhorts His disciples, since they were to go forth like sheep 
 in the midst of wolves, to be "wise as serpents" on which 
 Augustine remarks, by way of explanation, "It is known re 
 specting the serpent, that it presents to those striking it, in 
 stead of the head, the whole body; and this shows, in con 
 nexion 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 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 
 
172 PROPER METHOD OF INTERPRETING 
 
 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." l 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 connexion, in which it is introduced; since, 
 plainly, the wisdom He recommends, and finds imaged in the 
 serpent, is wisdom, not to enter into a Christian 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 any thing 
 known in the natural history of the serpent-brood, which can 
 be of service in illustrating the comparison ; for in their ex 
 isting condition serpents are not remarkable for wisdom, in 
 the respect now r 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 com 
 monly taken as a symbol of wisdom, w r as even extensively 
 worshipped as having something Divine nbout it. But this 
 most probably sprung out of the tradition respecting its pri 
 meval 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 traditionally, 
 the serpent was peculiarly associated with the attribute of 
 wisdom and it is best to regard our Lord as simply founding 
 on this historical belief, and the deeply significant facts con 
 nected with it. 
 
 The danger of erring in the manner now referred to is not, 
 perhaps, so great in our day, as it was in former times, when 
 general literature abounded with laboured ingenuities and 
 fanciful conceits. We live in an age, which gives more play 
 to the unsophisticated feelings and instincts of nature, and 
 which is less disposed to seek for remote and curious analogies. 
 But when in 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 sug- 
 1 De Doc. Christiana, ii. 16. 
 
THE PARABLES OF CHRIST. 173 
 
 gests. The best way to avoid this, is to cultivate simplicity 
 of thought and style, and to rest in the conviction, -which ex 
 perience 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 sub 
 ject. 
 
 SECTION NINTH. 
 
 9 
 
 THE PARABLES OF CHRIST, THEIR PROPER INTERPRETATION AND 
 TREATMENT. 
 
 WE have considered as yet only the commoner and briefer 
 forms of figurative 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 representations of a much more extended and di 
 versified kind. We refer to the parables, which, both on ac 
 count of their intrinsic importance, and the peculiarities con 
 nected with such a mode of instruction, 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 whole, 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 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 
 
 15* 
 
174 THE PARABLES OP CHRIST 
 
 sense. Of this description are some parts of the Sermon on 
 the Mount; for example, ch. v. 25, "Agree with thine adver 
 sary 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 connexion in which they stand, 
 and the whole tenor of the discourse, 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 represented 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 commence 
 ment of the more regular system of parabolic instruction, we 
 find on record a few instances of similitude, 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 ministe 
 rial 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 uncon 
 sciously felt by all men between the natural and spiritual 
 worlds, so that analogies from the first are felt to be some 
 thing more than illustrations, happily, but not arbitrarily 
 
AND THEIR INTERPRETATION. 175 
 
 chosen." 1 Something more because they are the signs and 
 witnesses of that happy adjustment, which God has established 
 between the external and internal 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 everything 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 inverting 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 redemp 
 tion, but redemption pre-supposes creation pre-supposes it as 
 in itself good and right; and, in like manner, regeneration pre 
 supposes generation, and elevates it to a higher sphere. All we 
 have to affirm and hold is, that the author of the spiritual king 
 dom (as Tholuck, on John xv., has very correctly and fitly ex 
 pressed 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 king 
 dom of nature, are not mere similitudes, which serve the pur 
 pose 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 unsophisticated mind." 
 
 On this ground alone, then, we have a valid ground for the 
 1 Trench on the Parables, p. 13. 
 
176 THE PARABLES OF CHRIST 
 
 employment by our Lord of the parabolic method of instruc 
 tion. He thereby drew the attention of His followers in every 
 age to the profound and intimate connexion 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 im 
 portant that lie 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 su 
 perstitions, and horrid crimes under which it groaned. It had 
 become, so to speak, a worn-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 Heaven, at the same 
 time directed a new look into the secrets and principles of na 
 ture. 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 con 
 stitution 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 na 
 tures, 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 compass 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 di 
 versified fortunes and conditions of men. There is this, pre 
 eminently, in the life of Jesus, with its wondrous details of 
 
AND THEIR INTERPRETATION. 177 
 
 doing and suffering, and the unfathomable depths of wisdom 
 and love, which it was ever exhibiting alike incomparable in 
 itself, and in the artless, engaging manner, in which it is pre 
 sented to our view by the Evangelists. The parables of Jesus, 
 from the historical element in them, and the attractive form 
 in which it appears, possess much 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 
 treasures 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, which 
 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 apprehensions, they could with difficulty be got 
 to receive with intelligence some of Christ s plainest revela 
 tions; 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 cipher to their view. That ci 
 pher, however, became lighted up with meaning when the 
 
178 THE PARABLES OF CHRIST 
 
 personal 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 the earthly form they could now descry the spiritual 
 reality ; and the advantage they derived from the types, when 
 rightly understood, they also derived, and in a still higher 
 degree, from the parables. 
 
 4. Once more, another reason, and, indeed, the one that 
 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 involved 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 connected with them : " Unto 
 you it is given (said He) to know the mysteries of the kingdom : 
 but to them it is not given ; for whosoever hath, to him shall 
 be given, and he shall have more abundance; but whosoever 
 hath not, from 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 opportu 
 nities remaining destitute of Divine knowledge, notwith 
 standing 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 tenden 
 cy of the work of Christ in its relation to the hearts of men, 
 which always carried along with it two ends, the one dis- 
 
AND THEIR INTERPRETATION. 179 
 
 playing 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 hard 
 ness and aggravated guilt of the people. 
 
 In the parable, viewed as a mode of instruction, there was 
 necessarily 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 previous indifference and contrariety to the mani 
 festation of the truth. Because the people had not received 
 it in love, when more openly presented to them, it now became 
 wrapt in an obscurer guise, and was placed at a greater dis 
 tance from their view. Even this, had it been rightly viewed, 
 would have wrought beneficially 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 coun 
 sel something fitted to rouse and startle them; it would have 
 fallen on their ear as the warning-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 man 
 ner of teaching. And in certain cases it may have done so; 
 but, with the greater 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 discourses delivered, He uttered against them those me 
 morable 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 
 properly an additional reason, as a particular mode of repre 
 senting 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 
 
180 THE PARABLES OF CHRIST 
 
 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 character 
 istic 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 dis 
 course required to their fulfilling aright their prophetic office. 
 And it was unavoidable, that the greatest messenger and pro 
 phet of all should also exhibit this mark of the prophetic call 
 ing. It behooved to appear in some form; but the 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 any thing new or different upon the subject, 
 but is comprehensive of all the considerations, which actually 
 weighed with our Lord, and induced Him to adopt the para 
 bolic style. 
 
 II. We proceed now to the second leading point of inquiry 
 respecting the parables of Jesus, viz., the proper mode of in 
 terpreting and handling them. We are not left here entirely 
 to our own resources; for, on two occasions, very near each 
 other, the disciples 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 examples of Divine exposition as specimens of 
 the kind of exposition 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 explanations, but taken for 
 granted there as perfectly understood, viz. the correct read 
 ing of the parabolical representation itself, which forms the 
 ground and cover of the spiritual instruction. We must ob 
 tain a clear understanding, and be able to give an accurate 
 exposition of the meaning of the words, and the natural or 
 
AND THEIR INTERPRETATION. 181 
 
 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 fulness and sim 
 plicity, preparatory to our drawing from it the instruction 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 distinct representation of what is nar 
 rated: not difficult, because usually the language in these 
 portions of Scripture is remarkable for simplicity, and the 
 parabolic narratives relate to the more familiar objects in na 
 ture and history. In a few cases only is some difficulty ex 
 perienced. As an example of one in the language, we may 
 point to the parable of the wheat and the tares as it is com 
 monly termed. The difficulty lies here in determining exactly 
 what is meant by /avra, 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 an 
 cient vicia, by which our translators have rendered the word, 
 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 na 
 ture, but are grown for purposes of nourishment. 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 probability a Syrian word; and, accordingly, 
 it never occurs in any Greek or Latin author, except 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 Rab 
 bins call zunim, and the Arabs of the present day zulzan 
 (neither of them very far from the zizania of Scripture,) which 
 abounds in the corn-fields of Syria a plant, which is at first 
 very like wheat in appearance, which belongs to the same 
 family, and which, when analyzed, contains nearly the same 
 16 
 
182 THE PARABLES OF CHRIST 
 
 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 
 effects. 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 different 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 mu- 
 tantur." This, certainly, maybe 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 naturalists. At all 
 events, this plant, and not our tares, is what must be under 
 stood by the term in the parable although it would be un 
 wise 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 representa 
 tive in the worldly sphere, of a selfish and carnal wisdom, 
 choosing skilfully its means for the accomplishment of a de 
 sired end, we must take care to confine it to that one point, 
 and abstain from giving it a more general direction. There 
 is a higher wisdom even in the world than what is there ex 
 hibited, 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 characterized some special aspect of the Divine 
 
AND THEIR INTERPRETATIONS. 183 
 
 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 discovered 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 appear in an entirely 
 round form, nor do the radii seem in their proper order, as 
 all tending to the centre, and in beautiful uniformity: this 
 is done, when the eye surveys every thing from 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 
 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 connexion ; 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 13th 
 ch. of Matthew, and which were delivered about the same 
 time, having been uttered one after another, without any 
 thing intervening between them in speech or action, can con 
 sequently derive no benefit from the immediate context. But 
 with that exception, all the parables in the Synoptic evange 
 lists 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 occa 
 sion served to bring out, is resumed, and for all times thrown 
 into the form of an attractive and striking parable. Possibly, 
 the parable may carry the instruction somewhat farther than 
 
184 THE PARABLES OF CHRIST 
 
 was done by what immediately preceded, but it will be found 
 to be only in the same line. Thus the beautiful and impress 
 ive parable of the rich fool, recorded in the 12th ch. of Luke, 
 was occasioned by a person rudely interrupting Jesus, and re 
 questing his interference with that person s brother, in order 
 to obtain a division of the inheritance. Our Lord first re 
 pelled the intrusion by asking, "Man, who made Me a judge 
 or a divider over you?" and then delivered to His followers 
 the appropriate counsel, "Take heed, and beware of covetous- 
 ness: 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 procedure, out 
 of which the taunt originated; they explain and justify, on 
 the common principles and feelings of humanity, the merciful 
 and considerate treatment, which the adversaries vilified. 
 
 These examples are comparatively simple; but there are 
 others, in which the proper result is not so easily arrived at. 
 It is, however, to be sought in the same way; the connexion, 
 when closely surveyed, will generally be found the best help 
 to ascertain the principal idea in the parable. In the case 
 which, probably, presents 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, 
 
AND THEIR INTERPRETATIONS. 185 
 
 in a somewhat stronger form, of this practical saying, is com 
 prised in the twofold truth therein contained. It teaches that 
 the one class, the outwardly first, represented by the early 
 called labourers, 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 no 
 thing 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 Di 
 vine householder might give. 
 
 It is needless to multiply examples further. But it will be 
 perceived, from what has been already stated, that the para 
 ble should be viewed in each case as one whole. If it is per 
 vaded 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 independently of the others. At the same time, 
 individual traits may, on certain occasions, be selected as the 
 basis of a discourse, if only care is taken to exhibit the con 
 nexion in which it stands with the unity of the entire repre 
 sentation, and a view is given of it properly consistent with 
 the place belonging to it in that connexion. 
 
 3. There is still another point, which requires consideration 
 in the treatment of parables, but on which it is scarcely pos 
 sible 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 sepa 
 rate significance. It is here more especially that our Lord s 
 interpretation of the two parables formerly noticed is fitted to 
 yield an important service. From this we 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, no 
 thing is wiredrawn, or made to bear a meaning that seems too 
 
 16* 
 
186 THE PARABLES OF CHRIST; 
 
 much for it. It may, doubtless, be regarded as one of the 
 indications of comparative perfection belonging to the para 
 bles of our Lord, that they admit of such a close and particu 
 lar application ; for the more numerous the points of agree 
 ment in such a case, the more perfect must be deemed the 
 form of the discourse. 
 
 In connexion with this, however, the distinctive nature of 
 the parable should be borne in mind, which is not fitted for 
 unfolding 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 mean 
 ing this is capable 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 partisanship, 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 ex 
 ample, 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, respecting the sowing of the bad seed in the field 
 as if the 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 any thing 
 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 
 
AND THEIR INTERPRETATION. 187 
 
 them plucked up, an argument for the utter relaxation of dis 
 cipline in the Christian Church. They thus place it in an 
 tagonism to the instruction contained in other portions of the 
 New Testament; for example, the Epistles to the Seven 
 Churches of Asia, and the First Epistle to the Corinthians, 
 in which the strictest charges are given to maintain a watch 
 ful discipline, and the severest rebukes 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 over 
 sight 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 opposed 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, what 
 is said in the one of the tares, nearly corresponds 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 be 
 coming 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 de- 
 markation between them and others, nor could any human 
 hand administer the proper discipline, without sometimes, at 
 least, confounding together the children of God and the chil 
 dren of Satan. 
 
 A misuse, similar to those already noticed, has also frequent 
 ly 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 any 
 thing 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 
 
188 THE PARABLES OF CHRIST. 
 
 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 ordinary 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 a father, 
 but as a righteous governor, that God requires an atonement 
 for the guilty; and to press a feature of this kind in an ex 
 clusive 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 reconcili 
 ation; 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 fundamen 
 tal 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 connexion to 
 the treatment often given to the parables in a prophetical re 
 spect. 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 condi 
 tion. 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 con 
 flict with that of another. Thus, the parable of the tares and 
 wheat presents the future aspect of the kingdom as to the in 
 termingling 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 working on till the whole 
 was pervaded by it. They are two different aspects, but per 
 fectly consistent, if the parts in which they differ are not un- 
 
THE SUBJECT OF PARALLELISM. 189 
 
 duly pressed; but if otherwise, then the apparent continuance 
 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; while, 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 ex 
 act line in each case can only be ascertained by careful con 
 sideration, a well-exercised judgment, and a spiritual sense, 
 derived from a living acquaintance with the truths of the gos 
 pel, and close attention to the manner in which they are re 
 vealed in Scripture. 
 
 SECTION TENTH. 
 
 ON THE SUBJECT OF PARALLELISM AS BEARING ON THE STRUCTURE 
 AND INTERPRETATION OF NEW TESTAMENT SCRIPTURE. 
 
 IT seems to be the invariable tendency of the human mind 
 the consequence of its partial and imperfect working that 
 when it gets hold of a right principle, it cannot rest till this 
 has been pushed in some direction to excess; and the subject 
 of Scripture parallelism forms no exception to the rule. It 
 was to the fine discernment 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 denominated parallelism, as the peculiar feature of 
 its rhythmical structure. He showed, first in his Prelections 
 on Hebrew Poetry, and afterwards in his Preliminary Disser 
 tation to his work on Isaiah, that while the poetry of the He 
 brews did not admit of rhyme, nor of the regular metrical 
 measures we meet with in the classical poets in Greece and 
 
190 THE SUBJECT OF PARALLELISM 
 
 Rome, yet it possessed a clearly marked rhythmical structure, 
 consisting in a certain correspondence of the lines not, how 
 ever, 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 parallel 
 ism, or the parallelism of members a name which is sufficient 
 ly 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 members of the verse, 
 but along with this, and as the foundation of this, " the rhyth 
 mical 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 formal investiga 
 tion of the subject of parallelism, as connected with the poeti 
 cal portions of Old Testament Scripture. But it may be pro 
 per to state, that under the general principle of parallelism 
 Bishop Lowth comprehended the different forms, which he 
 called severally synonymous, antithetic, and synthetic or con 
 structive parallels. The synonymous parallel lines are those 
 which correspond one to another, by expressing the same sense 
 in different but equivalent terms when a proposition is de 
 livered, and is immediately repeated in whole or in part, the 
 expression being varied, but the sense entirely or nearly the 
 same. As when it is said 
 
 "0-Jehovah, in-Thy-strength the-king shall-rejoice, 
 And-in-Thy-salvation how greatly shall-he-exult! 
 The-desire of-his-heart Thou-hast-grantcd unto-him, 
 And-the-request of-his-lips Thou-hast-not-denied." 
 
 The correspondence here is confined to two lines, the second 
 of the two having a formal resemblance both in thought and 
 
IN NEW TESTAMENT SCRIPTURE. 191 
 
 in membership to the first. But the correspondence may also 
 extend to three, to four, or even to five lines. The antithetic 
 parallels are those "in which two lines correspond with one 
 another by an opposition of terms and sentiments; in which 
 the second is contrasted with the first, sometimes in expres 
 sions, sometimes 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. xxvii. 6, " Faith 
 ful are the wounds of a friend, 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 consider 
 able variety, both in the Proverbs, where this species of pa 
 rallelism particularly abounds, and in other parts of Scripture. 
 The synthetic or constructive parallel lines are those, " in which 
 the parallelism consists only in the similar form of construc 
 tion; in which word does not answer to word, and sentence to 
 sentence, as equivalent or opposite ; but there is a correspond 
 ence and equality between the different propositions in respect 
 of the shape or turn of the whole sentence, and of the con 
 structive parts: such as noun answering to noun, verb to verb, 
 number to number, negative to negative, interrogative to in 
 terrogative." From its very nature, this species of parallel 
 ism is of a somewhat looser, and more discursive sort than 
 the others ; but, as one of the best, and most familiar exam 
 ples of it, we may point to Psal. 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 Bi 
 shop Lowth, and applied by him to the more strictly poetical 
 portions of Scripture, one can easily see the propriety and fit 
 ness of having the rhythmical structure of those portions con 
 fined to such a characteristic. It is the simplest of all rhyth 
 mical 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 complicated measures of classical poetry 
 would have been unsuited to such a purpose; for it would 
 have been difficult, next to impossible, for us to regard what 
 
192 THE SUBJECT OF PARALLELISM 
 
 was written, if thrown into such 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. 1 
 For, when the heart pours itself forth, there naturally flows 
 stream upon stream which is parallelism; or it turns over 
 the image, and shows the reverse side in order to impress the 
 matter more deeply upon the heart and this again is paral 
 lelism. 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 every language. It is the excellence of 
 the simple rhythmical structure of Hebrew poetry, that it is 
 "transfusible (to use the words of Bishop Jebb) into all lan 
 guages 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 primarily to the sense, but to 
 the sound. In literal translation, therefore, 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 lan 
 guages and of all peoples: the collocation of the words is pri 
 marily directed to secure the best possible announcement and 
 discrimination of the sense ; and so, if a translator be only lite 
 ral if he only preserve, so far as the genius of his language 
 will admit, the original order of the words, he will infallibly 
 put the reader in possession of all, or nearly all, that the He 
 brew text can give to the best Hebrew scholar of the present 
 day." 2 
 
 Bishop Lowth has himself in the Introduction to his work 
 on Isaiah given examples of this: he has shown how, by ad 
 hering closely to the order of the original, not only may the 
 parallelism be preserved, but a more lively and spirited exhi- 
 
 1 Herder, Hebr. Poesie, i. 21. 2 Sacred Literature, p. 20. 
 
IN NEW TESTAMENT SCRIPTURE. 193 
 
 bition also of the sense be given, than is done by neglecting 
 it. And he has further shown, that by means of the paral 
 lelism the interpretation is sometimes aided, in those cases 
 especially, in which rare words are employed, or words of 
 doubtful import; the plainer meaning of one member throw 
 ing light upon the corresponding one. At the same time, the 
 help to be derived from this source is of a somewhat 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 tamperings 
 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 manifested in the use of the parallel arrange 
 ment. So that what is called the synonymous parallel is not 
 always, and indeed very rarely, altogether synonymous; with 
 a general similarity, it usually 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 synonymous parallels, he represents it as containing either 
 entirety, or nearly, the same sense as the first. And in his 
 4th Prelection, when treating generally of the subject of pa 
 rallelism, he says not merely that they repeat, but also that 
 they vary and strengthen the sense (idem iterant, variant, au- 
 gent.) Practically, however, this was too much overlooked 
 both by hirn, 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 re 
 quire them. On this practice, which extended to the Greek 
 Scriptures also, Bishop Jebb very properly cautioned Biblical 
 17 
 
194 THE SUBJECT OF PARALLELISM 
 
 students: he said, "The assumed synonyme of periods, mera- 
 hers, or lines, has, in many instances, occasioned the conse 
 quent assumption, that in the Alexandrine 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." He adds, "Let the cited passages be carefully 
 examined, and I venture to affirm, that instead of a syno 
 nyme, there will almost universally be found an important va 
 riation 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 varia 
 tion in the meaning of one parallel line as compared with ano 
 ther, 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 pre 
 ferred the term cognate. We call this an extreme in the op 
 posite 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 intensifying of the sense in the se 
 cond 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 ex 
 ample, one of Jebb s illustrative passages: 
 
 "Who shall ascend the mountain of Jehovah? 
 And who shall stand within His holy Place? 
 The clean o^hands, and the pure in heart." Ps. xxiv. 3, 4. 
 
 "To ascend," says Jebb, "marks progress; to stand, sta 
 bility and confirmation; the mountain of Jehovah , the site of 
 
IN NEW TESTAMENT SCRIPTURE. 195 
 
 the Divine sanctuary; His lioly place, the sanctuary itself; 
 arid in correspondence 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.) Au 
 gustine, as Jebb acknowledges, had in substance made the 
 same distinction; but whenever, or by whomsoever made, I 
 hold it to be quite fanciful at least in the form in which it 
 has now been presented. 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 no 
 thing seems farther from his mind, than the thought of deli 
 neating different degrees of purity, and of privilege connected 
 with it one to occupy a certain position of nearness, and ano 
 ther to occupy a higher and a holier. To ascend God s moun 
 tain, 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 wor 
 shipper 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 fit 
 ting 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 descrip 
 tion ? If there is a progression in the first two, 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? 
 
196 THE SUBJECT OF PARALLELISM 
 
 Neither of these assertions can with any propriety be made. 
 And on tnis ground also we hold, that the distinction is an 
 entirely fanciful one; and that the description ought to be 
 viewed in its entireness, as the description, under a variety of 
 aspects, of one who might appear with acceptance 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 cha 
 racter. 
 
 It is, therefore, my conviction that the principle of paral 
 lelism has been carried to excess by Dr. Jebb, and his fol 
 lowers, in the way of discovering correspondences or relations 
 of a somewhat more complicated and artificial kind, than really 
 exist. But the chief excess has been in connexion with what 
 is called the introverted parallelism & fourth form introduced 
 by Jebb and its application to portions of the New Testa 
 ment writings. On this sort of parallel, Jebb says, "There 
 are stanzas so constructed, that whatever be the number of 
 lines, the first lines shall be parallel with the last; the second 
 with the penultimate; and so throughout, in an order that 
 looks inward, or, to borrow a military 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: 
 
 f; The idols of the heathen are silver and gold, "They have ears, but they hear not; 
 
 The work of men s hands: Neither is there any breath in their months. 
 
 They have mouths, but they speak not; They who make them are like unto them; 
 
 They have eyes, but they see not ; So are all they who put their trust 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 fabrica 
 tors; in the third line mouths without articulation, in the sixth 
 mouths without breath; in the fourth line eyes without vision, 
 and in the fifth ears without the sense of hearing." No doubt, 
 
IN NEW TESTAMENT SCRIPTURE. 197 
 
 a sort of correspondence throughout, but, at the same time, 
 no organic connexion, or peculiar relationship between the 
 lines thus artificially brought together nothing that mate 
 rially 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-distant 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 here at 
 tempted to be carried out; and we gain nothing by throwing 
 ourselves back from 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 the passage, when viewed consecutively, for 
 a somewhat fanciful arrangement of its several parts. So 
 also in multitudes of passages, that might be produced from 
 human compositions, it might be perfectly possible to throw 
 the successive lines of thought into similar combinations, 
 although these were quite remote from the mind of their re 
 spective authors ; but by doing so we would gain nothing, we 
 should rather lose by making 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 de 
 voted 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 poetical element enters, it naturally assumes 
 much of the ancient form ; the parallelistic structure is more 
 
 17* 
 
193 THE SUBJECT OF PARALLELISM 
 
 or less preserved. It is not, therefore, the fact of the exist 
 ence of parallelisms in New Testament Scripture, but the limits 
 within which 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, without 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 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 Galatians 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 
 Rtumbleth; Because the light is not in him" (five;) also 
 Matt. xxiv. 7, 8; 1 Thess. v. 7, 8; Rom. ii. 28, 29. For those 
 
IN NEW TESTAMENT SCRIPTURE. 199 
 
 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 [dis 
 cern] 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 arrange 
 ment 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 
 with 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, very few persons would ever have imagined 
 that they really admitted of such an arrangement. They 
 belong to that species of composition which consists of apoph 
 thegm, or short sententious utterance, usually embodying some 
 sort of comparison or contrast, and in which the mind natu 
 rally in modern as well as ancient times, in its ordinary as 
 well as in its loftier moods throws its words into set forms 
 and relative proportions but without ever thinking of any 
 thing 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 Parallel- 
 ists it would make a choice specimen of the introverted qua 
 train thus: 
 
 Good fame is like fire: 
 
 When you have kindled it, you may easily preserve it; 
 Cut 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 corre 
 spond; they both speak of fire in its capacity of burning, or 
 shining brightly. Then, the two intermediate clauses refer 
 to two different conditions, with their respective effects the 
 fire, when once kindled, easily preserved; when extinguished 
 
200 THE SUBJECT OF PARALLELISM 
 
 after having been kindled, not easily lit up anew. But \vhat 
 is gained by this sort of introversion? Does it throw addi 
 tional 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 substan 
 tially 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 natu 
 ral 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 dis 
 tinctly marked, and more easily detected, than many of those 
 found in Xew Testament Scripture. But what advantage is 
 gained by 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 the thoughts in a more lucid and 
 impressive manner? The writer himself has simply put them 
 down as so many consecutive sentences each growing natu 
 rally out of what preceded; 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 
 
IN NEW TESTAMENT SCRIPTURE. 201 
 
 his mind. The proper parallelism 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 feel 
 ing instinctively adopts, as necessary to give adequate ex 
 pression 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 from Bacon and the New Testament, it is the 
 reflective or logical faculties that are at work. The mind is 
 in its ordinary mood, and merely seeks in a pointed and con 
 secutive manner to present its thoughts on some particular 
 topic. So that introverted parallelisms, or complicated struc 
 tures 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 parallel 
 isms, 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 por 
 tions, but it leads occasionally to fanciful conceits and false 
 interpretations. Ihe most part, as we have said, of the Ser 
 mon on the Mount has been turned into examples of parallel 
 isms some of them of the most involved and intricate de 
 scription, but never with the effect of throwing any fresh light 
 upon its different parts sometimes, however, with the effect 
 of arbitrarily changing the connexion, and obscuring the na 
 tural import. In proof of this we may take one of Jebb s 
 examples, which is re-produced by Dr. Forbes, in his 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 introverted 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; Nei 
 ther cast your pearls before swine, Lest they trample them 
 
202 THE SUBJECT OF PARALLELISM 
 
 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 ordinary laws of construction, some 
 thing would have been required to carry back our thoughts 
 from the last to the first member: and Dr. Jebb, sensible of 
 this, shoves in a those 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 
 before 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 plainness for which we are indebted to the inven 
 tion 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. Plainness 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 statement, 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 vo 
 racious 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 
 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 holy given 
 to them, they doubtless had what they wished they got flesh 
 to eat; only, being holy flesh, they were incapable of appre 
 ciating its distinctive character, and treated it as a common 
 
IN NEW TESTAMENT SCRIPTURE. 203 
 
 thing. Understood 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 common 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 ad 
 vanced stage in the course of depravity not grovelling, 
 merely, and sensual, but also devilish ready to resent 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 repre 
 sented by the swine the sour, ungenial, repulsive, or furious, 
 as well as worldly spirits, who are chiefly referred to, and 
 w r arned 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 connexion is also the 
 best; and the search after a more artificial arrangement only 
 leads to a mistaken application of the images employed. 
 
 The same line of remark in substance might be extended 
 to many other passages in New Testament fecripture, to which 
 the principle of parallelism has been applied. And the ob 
 jections already urged are a fortiori valid in regard to a still 
 farther extension 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 by 
 Dr. Forbes. By this more extended application of the prin 
 ciple, whole chapters, and passages long enough to form a 
 chapter, are treated as specimens of the introverted parallel- 
 elism. The entire Epistle of Philemon is held to be con 
 structed on this principle the two 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 
 
204 THE SUBJECT OF PARALLELISM. 
 
 thought to render them parallel one to another. The merest 
 glance over the arrangement is sufficient to convince any un 
 biassed 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 coun 
 tenance the idea in appearance, 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 spon 
 taneous 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 paral 
 lelism, therefore, must be ranked as a vicious excess unsound 
 in principle, and sure, in practice, to lead to frivolous conceits. 
 Parallelism, as already remarked, properly belongs to the 
 poetical province, being the simplest of the measured and re 
 gular forms into which a poetical elevation throws the concep 
 tions and feelings which it strives to give forth. If judiciously 
 applied to those portions of Scripture 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 connexion only 
 with the simpler modes of construction. 
 
THE TWO GENEALOGIES OF CHRIST. 205 
 
 PART 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 characteristic differences 
 between the two genealogical tables presented by the Evange 
 lists of the human ancestry of our Lord differences that from 
 a very early period have occasioned embarrassment to inter 
 preters, and have often been pronounced inexplicable dis 
 crepancies. 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 ge 
 nealogical descent of Jesus is formally connected. What 
 renders this the more remarkable is, that the two Evangelists, 
 who thus agree in dropping the name of Mary from any os 
 tensible or direct connexion with the descent from David and 
 Abraham, are precisely those, who expressly record the mi 
 raculous conception of Jesus, and so provide an explicit testi 
 mony 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 re 
 spects, 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 directed, yet so as not to neglect the others, 
 which are also of considerable interest and importance. 
 18 
 
206 THE TWO GENEALOGIES OF CHRIST. 
 
 I. Here we observe at the outset, that there are certain 
 preliminary considerations, which ought, in all fairness, to be 
 borne in mind, and which, apart from all minutiae 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 in 
 vestigating 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 subject has been preserved by Eu- 
 sebius (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 regis 
 ters, "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 georse." On what grounds 
 this statement was made, nothing is known ; nor does it appear, 
 that Africanus himself had any great confidence in its histo 
 rical correctness; for he introduces the narrative as delivered 
 by the descendants of those who were the kinsmen of Jesus, 
 u either for the purpose of display [in respect to their own 
 pedigree,] or for simply declaring the truth;" and at the close 
 introduces the qualifying clause, "Whether the matter actually 
 stood thus or not" (err* ouv oZhroC ^ tfMc /^) -The 
 story must be held to be, if not entirely fabulous, at least a 
 great exaggeration of some lawless proceedings on the part of 
 Herod or his abettors. Josephus is altogether silent respect 
 ing any such destructive measures, which, if they had actually 
 occurred to the extent described, could scarcely have been 
 practicable: more than that, he expressly testifies, that he 
 took the materials of the abstract he gave of his own family 
 descent from those same public registers (os/ro^r dyfjtoffiocc 
 dvaftrpafjtfjdvyv evpov, Vit. i. 1,) and at a period considerably 
 later than that of the birth of Christ. The reference, too, of 
 
THE TWO GENEALOGIES OF CHRIST. 207 
 
 the Apostle Paul once and again to genealogies, as matters 
 with which certain Jewish teachers were wont needlessly to 
 entangle themselves and others (1 Tim. i. 4; Titus iii. 14,) is 
 a sufficient proof of the plentiful existence of such documents. 
 And so also is the reference made to them in the Protevange- 
 lium of James, which, though a spurious production, is yet of 
 very great antiquity. There can, therefore, be no reasonable 
 doubt of the late existence of registers, or genealogical tables, 
 public as well as private ; and the means must have been ac 
 cessible to all, who had a mind to examine the point, for de 
 termining whether Jesus was really of the house and lineage 
 of David. Nor can we doubt, from the nature 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 prejudice of His claims. If His title to a Davidic origin 
 was not impugned, the reason could only be, that it was in 
 capable 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 testi 
 mony in favour of that title, by no means rests exclusively, 
 or even principally, upon the preservation in the Gospels of 
 the two Genealogies. There is much evidence besides upon, 
 the subject, and evidence of a more patent and obtrusive kind. 
 In the annunciation 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 David. During the course of 
 His public ministry, He allowed Himself to be openly ad 
 dressed as the Son of David (Matt. ix. 27, xv. 22) again 
 implying both what He Himself claimed, and what was com 
 monly 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 the seed of David, according 
 to the flesh (Rom. i. 3; 2 Tim. ii. 8; Acts xiii. 23.) Finally, 
 in the Apocalypse He is designated "the root and offspring 
 
208 THE TWO GENEALOGIES OF CHRIST. 
 
 of David" (ch. xxii. 16.) Most plain, therefore, it is, that 
 neither our 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 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 understood, 
 that if He was the Son of David, and the heir to his throne, 
 He behooved to be born at Bethlehem (Matt. ii. 5 ; John vii. 
 42;) and on this account the objection was 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 al 
 legation laid, or even a suspicion uttered, against His con* 
 nexion by birth with the house of David. This is the more 
 remarkable, as His residence from childhood in Galilee gave 
 His adversaries a prinia 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 con 
 clusive 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 grandchildren of Judas, the brother of 
 Jesus, were accused to the Emperor Domitian, and brought 
 before him for examination, because of their reputed con 
 nexion with the royal line of David; but that when Domitian 
 ascertained their humble circumstances, and the spiritual na 
 ture of the kingdom they ascribed to Jesus Christ, he despised 
 them and sent them away. It thus appears, that amid all 
 the circumstances that had become known concerning 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 per 
 sonal relationship to the house of David remained unshaken. 
 
THE TWO GENEALOGIES OF CHRIST. 209 
 
 The fact, therefore, of our Lord s real descent from David 
 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 differences between them, which are fitted to suggest 
 the idea of their having been drawn up on somewhat different 
 principles ; and the thought 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 dif 
 ferences. 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 ab 
 sence of any specific mention of the lineage of Mary. Afri- 
 carms, who made the subject a matter of very careful investi 
 gation, 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 marry from among 
 their own tribe: 1 although he could scarcely be ignorant, 
 
 1 Qurerat diligens lector et dicat: Quum Joseph non sit pater Domini 
 Salvatoris, quid pertinet ad Dominum generationis ordo deductus usque ad 
 Joseph ? Cui respondebimus primum, non esse consuetudinem Scripturarum, 
 ut mulierum in generationibus ordo texatur. Deinde, ex una tribu fuisse 
 Joseph et Mariana; unde ex Lege earn accipere cogebatur ut propinquam 
 In Matt. i. 18. 
 
 18* 
 
210 THE TWO GENEALOGIES OF CHRIST. 
 
 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 per 
 fectly allowable, and not uncommon, for the husband to belong 
 to one tribe 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 frequent. Augustine, 
 the contemporary of Jerome, goes, somewhat singularly, into 
 the opposite extreme ; and while of opinion that Mary must 
 have had some connexion (he does not state what) with the 
 house of David, he is rather disposed to lay stress upon her 
 relationship to Elizabeth, and h.er connexion 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 Hebrews 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. 1 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 (obos dxb ~aTf)c<1<; lr^oc;) that 
 is," he adds, "kindred (<jv-ffevsia$") 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 
 u 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 fol- 
 
 1 Firmissime tenendum est camera Christ! ex utroque genere propagntam, 
 et regum scilicet et sacerdotum, in quibus personis apud ilium populum 
 Hebracorum etiam mystica unctio figurabatur, id est, chrisma, unde Cbristi 
 nomen elucet, tanto ante etiam ilia evidentissima significatione pnenuntiatum. 
 De Consensu Evang. ii. 2. 
 
THE TWO GENEALOGIES OF CHRIST. 211 
 
 lowed by the better class of interpreters. He indicates no 
 doubt, however, any more 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 lineage 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 af 
 fords a strong presumption against the idea itself, as proceed 
 ing on a too subtle or somewhat forced interpretation of the 
 text. It was only about the period of the Reformation that 
 the opinion seems to have been distinctly brought out and 
 advocated, of Mary s genealogy being given in Luke, and 
 Joseph s in Matthew the one for the satisfaction of the Jews, 
 who, in matters of this description, made account only of 
 males; and the other for the satisfaction of mankind in gene 
 ral, 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, Ro- 
 senmuller, 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 view is based on the words of the Evange 
 list Luke, when introducing the subject of the genealogy, 
 "And Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age when be 
 ginning (viz. His ministry,) being, as was supposed, the Son 
 of Joseph, who was the son of Eli," etc. (o>v, &z Jvo^/J sro, 
 vlb~ Icoffir^j roil ///*.) But the words, taken in their natural 
 and obvious sense, connect Jesus with Joseph as his reputed 
 father, and then this Joseph with H eli, as his father. The 
 native import and bearing of the d>c evo/^sro, was precisely 
 given by Euthymius, dc soozzt ro?c loodaio^- a>z jap 37 dAy- 
 Osca er/sv* o jx yjv u*bz a ? jTO r j 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 
 
212 THE TWO GENEALOGIES OF CHRIST. 
 
 Eli, that is Eli s grandson (through Mary the daughter of 
 Eli,) the passage would have required to run (as justly stated 
 by Meyer,) ov, cb~ t usv ivopi^ero olb^ /atfftyp, ourco^ dk Ma- 
 [Hf/.z, ro r j ///;, 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, the silence regarding Mary in the genealogi 
 cal tables, and the stress that is laid in the Gospels upon Jo 
 seph s connexion with the house of David, certainly seems 
 strange. It appears to imply, that the Davidic descent of Jo 
 seph somehow carried that of Christ along with it ; for the 
 genealogies are produced as evidence of that very point. In 
 much the same way, Joseph, when meditating the repudiation 
 of the Virgin, is addressed 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 ex 
 plained? Does the termination of Joseph s genealogy really 
 involve and carry along with it that of Mary s and Christ s? 
 So Augustine perceived, and in a profound remark expressed, 
 when commenting on the designation of Joseph and Mary by 
 St. Luke as the parents of Jesus. "Since, therefore, . 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 un 
 derstand, 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 
 
THE TWO GENEALOGIES OF CHRIST. 213 
 
 Christ to be the Son of David, for the very same reason that Jo 
 seph was entitled to be called His father." l This view, though 
 not formally referred to Augustine, has been taken up and 
 ably expounded by Delitzsch, in an article on the genealogies 
 in Rudelbach s Zeitschrift for 1850, p. 581, sq. He holds 
 that, in consequence 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, in 
 deed, as begotten of his body, but as a sacred gift, which God 
 had most wonderfully granted to him through his wife. 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 rea 
 son also lie was the Son of David; for He was born to a de 
 scendant of the house of David was conceived and born of a 
 virgin, who, simply from her espousals to Joseph, was already 
 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, according to the law 
 and the established convictions of Israel, all depended upon 
 Joseph s descent from David, not upon Mary s; and, by vir 
 tue 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 ac 
 cordance with Jewish notions on the subject, and rests upon a 
 solid basis of truth; fcince Mary, before the birth of the child, 
 had actually, and by Divine ordination, become the spouse of 
 
 1 Cum igitur ipse narret, non ex concubitu Joseph, sed ex Maria virgine 
 natum Christum; uncle eum patrem ejus appellat, nisi quia et virum Marioe 
 recte intelligimus sine commixtione carnis, ipsa copulatione conjugii; et ob 
 hoc etiam Christi patrem multo conjunctius, qui ex ejus conjuge natus sit, 
 quam si e^set aliunde adoptatus? Ac per hoc, etiam si demonstrare. aliquis 
 posset, Mariam ex David nullam consanguinitatis originem ducere, sat erat 
 secundum istam rationem accipere Christum filium David, qua ratione etiam 
 Joseph pater ejus recte appellatus est. De Consensu Evartg. ii. 1. 
 
214 THE TWO GENEALOGIES OF CHRIST. 
 
 Joseph, so that what was hers, through her became also her 
 husband s. Yet, as God s work is ever perfect not in de 
 sign and nature merely, but in the way and manner also of 
 its accomplishment so doubtless it was here. We have the 
 best reasons for supposing that the relationship of Mary, im 
 mediately to Joseph, and remotely to the house of David, was 
 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 relationship 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 Da 
 vid," an announcement 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, if the genealogies do not of themselves establish the per 
 sonal relation of Mary to the house of David, they may be 
 said to involve it; since, when viewed in connexion with the 
 entire representation of the sacred writers, they seem to pro 
 ceed on the ground of a common interest in this respect be 
 longing to Joseph and Mary, 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 diifer 
 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 exercised 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. 
 
THE TWO GENEALOGIES OF CHRIST. 215 
 
 We shall simply state what we deem to be the correct expla 
 nation of the matter prefacing it however by a few conside 
 rations, 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 se 
 veral 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 from 
 various circumstances and relations occurring to alter in some 
 respect the natural course of descent, and thereby leaving 
 room for one genealogist departing from the exact route or 
 nomenclature 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 diver 
 gence in the two tables before us, either altogether inexplica 
 ble now, or admitting of explanation only by the help of sup 
 positions which can at most be considered only as probable. 
 A more full and intimate knowledge of the particulars 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 re 
 lation of a son to a father in either case alike the table is to 
 be regarded as possessing the same character; and the same 
 allowances 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 con 
 sideration. It was thus, indeed, that Julius Africanus was 
 misled, and became the instrument of misleading many others 
 regarding the principles on which the two tables were con 
 structed, by supposing that the phrase in Matthew, such a 
 
216 THE TWO GENEALOGIES OF CHRIST. 
 
 one begat such another, is of a stricter kind than the phrase 
 in Luke, such a one was the son of another; he was of 
 opinion that the former always denoted a natural connexion 
 as of parent and child, while the latter might include other 
 connexions sons by adoption, or by marriage, or by legal 
 standing, as the case might be. In relftty, however, the He 
 brews observed no distinction of the krod; they were accus 
 tomed 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 freedom sometimes used in such cases, we 
 may point to the statements in Gen. xlvi. 26 ; Ex. i. 5, where 
 Jacob is himself included among those that came out of his 
 loins; 1 and to Gen. x. 13, 14, " Canaan begat Sidon, his first 
 born, and Heth, and the Jebusite, 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 
 
 1 See, for example, the Jewish Commentate)! Raphall, on Gen. xlvi. 26, 
 who, after referring to the opinions of other Jewish authorities, and showing 
 how the 66 persons said to have ccme 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 
 actually has,) whereas the text expressly declares, that the number of those 
 who proceeded from Jacob s loins were 06, 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 CHRIST. 217 
 
 was their common progenitor. We even occasionally find 
 cities or districts associated in the same way with an indivi 
 dual as their parent; thus in 1 Chron. ii. 50, "Shobal the 
 father of Kirjath-jearim, Salma the father of Bethlehem, Ha- 
 reph the father of Beth-Gader." And not only did the Le- 
 virate law afford occasions of pretty frequent occurrence, when 
 a person must have had children reckoned to him that were 
 not strictly his own, but women also for example, Sarah and 
 Ilachel are represented as speaking of the possibility of ob 
 taining children 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, any thing, so far as form is con 
 cerned, 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 up 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 person of David. This is sub 
 stantially the view that was adopted by Calvin, though not 
 originated; for he refers to some as preceding 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 mistake not, by very clear, 
 and not fanciful grounds, I am fully convinced, that Matthew 
 has respect to the legal succession. For he recounts those who 
 obtained the kingdom without the intermixture of a private 
 name. Then Jechonias, he says, begot Salathiel. But it was 
 not doubtfully intimated by Jeremiah, under the command of 
 God, that Jechoniah, on account of his sins, should die with 
 out children (ch. xxii. 30.) Wherefore, since Luke assigns 
 19 
 
218 THE TWO GENEALOGIES OF CHRIST. 
 
 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, devolved, 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 judicious 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 parent 
 age 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 supposition 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 inhe 
 ritance, the real parentage throughout. A second considera 
 tion is derived from the prophecy 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 de 
 throned 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 consideration is sup 
 plied by the names found in both tables immediately after 
 
THE TWO GENEALOGIES OF CHRIST. 210 
 
 Jehoiacliin. 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 genea 
 logy 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 Na 
 than s descendant. 
 
 A collateral confirmation is obtained for this view in cer 
 tain double genealogies which occur in the Old Testament 
 Scriptures ; the one having respect to the parentage, the other 
 to the inheritance. 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; Deut. iii. 14, 15;) and is represented 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 no 
 tice in the genealogy of 1 Chron. ii. 22, 23, explains the 
 discrepancy. We there learn that Hezron, his grandfather, 
 in his old age married the daughter of Machir, the son of 
 Manasseh, who bare him Segub, and that Segub begat Jair ; 
 while Ashur, another son by the same marriage, had his inhe 
 ritance in Judah. 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 was 
 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 reck- 
 
220 THE TWO GENEALOGIES OP CHRIST. 
 
 oned of the tribe of Judah; while yet, it would seem, he did 
 not originally and properly belong to that tribe: for, in Josh, 
 xiv. 14, he is called " Caleb the son of Jephunneh the Kene- 
 zite" and in ch. xv. 13, it is said that Joshua "gave him a 
 part among the children of Judah, according to the command 
 ment 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 felHo 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 accord 
 ingly, in the public genealogy given in 1 Chron. ii. 18-20, 
 the paternity of Jephunneh is dropt, and that of Hezron, the 
 son of Pharez, the son of Judah, put in its stead: "And 
 Caleb, the son of Hezron, 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 allotment 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 names in both of them during the period subsequent 
 to the captivity. In St. Luke s list the name of Nathan s son 
 is Matthata, (ver. 31 ;) another son, in the eleventh genera 
 tion, was called Matthat, (ver. 29;) and, between Salathiel 
 and Joseph, the name of Matthias occurs twice, (ver. 25, 26,) 
 and that of Matthat once, (ver. 24;) all but different modifi- 
 
THE TWO GENEALOGIES OP CHRIST. 221 
 
 cations of the original name Nathan, (from \ty , 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 Eliakim, Zadok (Zedekiah,) 
 Achim, (an abbreviation of Jehoiachim;) as if, while the line 
 age in this part was really that of Nathan, there was an effort 
 to keep up the connexion 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 stepped 
 into their place in the genealogy, though not in the kingdom, 
 seemed, by the very names they assumed, 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 
 explanation at once of the agreements and the differences be 
 tween 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 Matthat of 
 St. Luke, (of which there can be little doubt,) then Jacob the 
 son of Matthan, in Matthew, and Heli, 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 de 
 mands 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 throne, the birth of our Lord was in every 
 respect complete, whether viewed in respect to consanguinity 
 or to relationship to the throne. The whole ordering of the 
 
 19* 
 
222 THE TWO GENEALOGIES OF CHRIST. 
 
 matter exhibits a conjunction 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 appears 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 Zelophe- 
 had s five daughters, who married their five cousins, and re 
 tained 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 un 
 deserving of notice as, at least, negatively favouring the sup 
 position respecting Mary that, while we read of a sister, we 
 never hear of a brother belonging to her; excepting Joseph, 
 female relatives alone are mentioned. So that, in the sup 
 posed 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. 
 
 (I.) 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 ge 
 nealogy 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 some 
 how been dropo from the Hebrew text, or had been unwar 
 rantably inserted into the Greek. It is found in all the copies 
 
THE TWO GENEALOGIES OF CHRIST. 223 
 
 extant of the Septuagint, except the Vatican ; but the Septu- 
 agint itself omits it in the genealogies of 1 Chron. i. ; and it 
 is wanting in the Samaritan, 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 Sep 
 tuagint used by Theophilus of Antioch in the second century, 
 by Africanus in the third, or by Eusebius in the fourth. Je 
 rome, too, in his comments on that part of Genesis, omits all 
 mention of Cainan, though he has annotations 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 pre 
 cise time or occasion of its introduction can be matter only of 
 conjecture. Possibly, it may have originated in some mysti 
 cal notions about numbers, which often had a considerable in 
 fluence 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 sub 
 ject 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 which 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 
 fourteens 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 connect 
 ed with the same point is a peculiarity in respect to Josiah, 
 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 Jehoia- 
 kim, not Jeconias; and the birth of Jehoiakim took place a 
 considerable time before the exile. But Jehoiakim begat Jeco- 
 
224 THE TWO GENEALOGIES OF CHRIST. 
 
 nias 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 co 
 pyist, as, in one form of them, the names differed only in a 
 single letter: Jehoiakim being written /BM&etjU, and Jeconias 
 Ia>a%etfjL, A scribe might quite naturally take these for but 
 one name, and so leave out Jehoiakim. This view is strength 
 ened by the consideration, that unless we take in Jehoiakim, 
 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 
 preceding 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 expedient to leave out only two. And on each 
 account the probability is very great, that Jehoiakim has been 
 dropt from the text in the manner just stated. 
 
 In regard, however, to the general characteristic of the di 
 vision of the entire table into so many fourteens; and the 
 adoption of certain abbreviations to effect this, it has the sup 
 port of a very common practice among the Jews. Schottgen 
 has produced from the Synopsis of Sohar a genealogy con 
 structed in a quite similar manner to the one before us : " From 
 Abraham to Solomon 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 num 
 ber 14 was here, doubtless, fixed on as the basis of the ar 
 rangement, and made to rule each period: because, in the first 
 period, that from Abraham to David, it comprehends the en 
 tire number of links, when both Abraham and David are in 
 cluded. No higher number, therefore, could have been as 
 sumed; and in this fact we discover the most natural reason 
 for the ground of the arrangement. 
 
 In the preceding remarks we have touched on every thing 
 
SCRIPTURAL DESIGNATIONS. 225 
 
 that is likely to create difficulty in connexion with the two 
 genealogies. For various other points of a collateral kind, or 
 of antiquarian interest, and occasionally bearing on peculia 
 rities 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. 
 
 SECTION SECOND. 
 
 THE DESIGNATIONS AND DOCTRINE OF ANGELS, WITH REFERENCE 
 MORE ESPECIALLY TO THE INTERPRETATION OF PASSAGES IN NEW 
 TESTAMENT SCRIPTURE. 
 
 ANGELIC agency meets us at the very threshold of the gos 
 pel. The first communications made respecting the new or 
 der of things, then on the eve of emerging, came through the 
 mediation of angels: it was they who at length broke the si 
 lence 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 somewhat strange is the assumption of a name (Ga 
 briel) by one of those angelic messengers, for the purpose 
 more immediately of confirming the certainty of those things 
 which he came to announce, and magnifying the guilt incurred 
 by Zecharias in entertaining doubt concerning the possibility 
 of their accomplishment, (Luke i. 19.) This, however, admits 
 of a satisfactory explanation; but as there are various other 
 points and passages of Scripture connected with angelic agency, 
 which also call for explanation, we shall take the whole sub 
 ject 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 
 use in Scripture- The Greek affeloi, like the Hebrew D ? ?? , 
 
226 SCRIPTURAL DESIGNATIONS 
 
 has a general as well as a more specific sense: it may denote 
 any individuals sent forth with a message to carry, or a com 
 mission 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 ex 
 ample, Job i. 14; 1 Sam. xi. 3; Luke ix. 52; James ii. 25. 
 There are passages, however, in which, while the reference 
 still is to persons or things belonging to the earthly sphere, 
 the name is applied to them in a sense quite peculiar, and so 
 as sometimes to leave it doubtful whether angel or messenger 
 might be the more fitting translation. In this I do not in 
 clude 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 an 
 gels," in the other, some would understand merely human de 
 legates; entirely, as I conceive, against the proper import 
 and interpretation of the passages. Of this, however, after 
 wards. But, in Ps. civ. 4, we have the words, which are 
 quoted in Heb. i. 7, " who maketh His angels spirits, His mi 
 nisters a flaming fire ;" and as the discourse there is of natu 
 ral 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 approxi 
 mation to the ordinary meaning of the word, prophets are 
 sometimes called God s melakim, or angels, though the ren 
 dering of messengers is adopted in the authorized version (Hag. 
 i. 13; Mai. hi. 1;) and the epithet is even applied to Israel 
 
AND DOCTRINE OF ANGELS/ 227 
 
 generally, with special reference to the prophetical nature of 
 his calling, appointed 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 ano 
 ther 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 (Eogl. 
 version, messenger) of the Lord of Hosts." This obviously is 
 said, not so much of any individual member of the priestly 
 class, as of the class itself collectively; the priesthood was 
 God s delegated ministry for making known the things per 
 taining to His will and worship in that respect, His angel- 
 interpreter. And thus we obtain a ready explanation of ano 
 ther passage, which has often been much misunderstood: 
 "When 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 than that thou shouldst 
 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 per 
 form; 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 re 
 medied. On the ground especially of this last application of 
 the word angel in Old Testament Scripture, we find the most 
 natural explanation of the address under which, in the Apoca 
 lypse, 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 no 
 thing, therefore, as to the question, whether the party desig 
 nated angel, might at the time consist of one individual, or of 
 a collection of individuals ; without in any way defining this, 
 
228 SCRIPTURAL DESIGNATIONS 
 
 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 community in the 
 several churches. That party stood, as it were, between hea 
 ven and earth, and was charged with God s interest in that 
 particular locality. 1 
 
 Usually, however, when angels are mentioned in Scripture, 
 it is with reference to another kind of existences than such as 
 properly belong to this present world to spirits, as contra 
 distinguished from men in flesh and blood, and the occupants 
 of regions 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 
 expression 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 connexion with heaven, 
 because they have their more peculiar abode there, in the re 
 gion of God s manifested presence and glory. God s angels 
 also they are emphatically called, not merely because they 
 derived their being from His hand, and are constantly sus 
 tained by His power for this belongs 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 possess 
 ing the ministry of such glorious agents, and possessing them 
 in vast numbers, 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 
 
 1 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. 71.) 
 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. 229 
 
 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 steadfast 
 (Matt. xxv. 41; 2 Pet. ii. 4; Jude verse 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 altogether 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 par 
 ticular here. 
 
 II. We turn now to the individual or proper names some 
 times applied to angels in Scripture, one of which occurs 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 an 
 gels. There, for the first time, occur the names of Gabriel 
 and Michael; nor do any other names beside these occur. 
 The late appearance of such designations, 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 bre 
 thren learned them from the Chaldeans. .It were impossible 
 to admit such a view, without bringing into doubt the pro 
 phetical gifts of Daniel, and involving in just suspicion the 
 supernatural character of his communications. For the an 
 gelic names he uses were not applied by himself, but were 
 heard by him in vision, as applied one to another, by the hea 
 venly 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 accept 
 ed 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 ascend 
 ant the resolute determination to abide at all hazards by the 
 old foundations, and, in things spiritual and divine, to make 
 20 
 
230 SCRIPTURAL DESIGNATIONS 
 
 the heathen the learner merely, not the instructor or the guide. 
 The aim and design of the whole book is to show the real supe 
 riority 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 wis 
 dom carried him so far aloft. 
 
 It is true, no doubt, that the Jews, after the Babylonish 
 captivity, the interval that elapsed between that period and 
 the Christian era, showed a disposition to deal somewhat la 
 vishly 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 Ra 
 phael, but makes this personage say of himself, "I am Ra 
 phael, one of the seven holy angels, which present the prayers 
 of the saints, and which go in and out before the glory of the 
 Holy One:" evidently showing that something like a sys 
 tem of angelology, branching out into offices as well as names, 
 had sprung up among the Jews of the dispersion. As com 
 monly happens, when the elements of superstition 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 speculative Jews 
 of that period, we are told of the "four great archangels, Mi 
 chael, 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 po 
 sitions 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, 
 
AND DOCTRINE OF ANGELS. 231 
 
 from such a system having developed itself among the later 
 Jews, that it had its origin in the Chaldean influence, to which 
 they were exposed in Bahylon least of all, that Daniel and 
 his godly companions led the way in surrendering themselves 
 to the direction of such an influence. Considering the jea 
 lousy with which not only they, but the stricter Jews gene 
 rally, felt toward the corruptions of heathenism, after the Ba 
 bylonish exile, the more natural supposition is, that they spun, 
 their theories of angelical existences out of the few actual no 
 tices that occur of the world of spirits in their own Scrip 
 tures in this, as in other things, pushing some scattered ele 
 ments of truth into many groundless and frivolous extremes. 
 It is in perfect accordance with what is known of Jewish or 
 Rabbinical speculations 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 Testa 
 ment, 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 with spe 
 cific names of those heavenly messengers only in Daniel, yet 
 in earlier revelations there is a certain approximation to the 
 same thing; 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 Mature (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 re 
 specting 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 represented 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 
 
232 SCRIPTURAL DESIGNATIONS 
 
 Himself, whom the people professed to be seeking after; in 
 the second he is described as the Saviour of the covenant-peo 
 ple ; and, in the third the earliest of the three, and the foun 
 dation of the others He is in a pointed manner distinguished 
 from an angel in the ordinary sense (comp. the passage with 
 ch. xxxiii. 2, 12, 14,) and is characterized as the same that 
 afterwards appeared to Joshua, at once as the Lord and as 
 the Captain 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 with 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 designation is also frequently applied 
 to the great adversary of God and man Satan. So that it 
 was not to strike into a path altogether 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 
 generally, that, if such designations were proper to be intro 
 duced any where, it is precisely in the book of Daniel that 
 they might be 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 dra 
 matic visions in which the names occur. It was, therefore, 
 in them that the actors in the spiritual drama might be ex 
 pected to be most distinctly portrayed. And then the indi 
 vidual names, which are used for this end, are found on exami 
 nation to be, not proper names in the ordinary sense, but ap 
 pellatives designating the nature and office of those who bore 
 them, and most naturally growing out of the special commu 
 nications which they were engaged in making. To see this, 
 we have oi,ly to glance at the names themselves. 
 
 1. Beyond doubt the highest in rank and importance is 
 
AND DOCTRINE OF ANGELS. 233 
 
 MICHAEL. This name occurs twice in Daniel, and is also 
 found in the Epistle of Jude and the Revelation. It is com 
 pounded of three words, which together express the meaning, 
 Who is like God? (^P P.) The M 9 which denotes God, has re 
 spect to God as the God of might; so that the idea indicated by 
 the appellation 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 applied to a created intelligence. Here, however, there is 
 considerable diversity of opinion. The Jewish and Rabbini 
 cal authorities, as already noticed, understand by Michael one 
 of the four highest angels, or archangels, as they are some 
 times termed though with a certain superiority possessed by 
 him above the rest; for they call Michael the Princeps Maxi- 
 mus, 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 exhibited 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, Turretine, Lampe, 
 Calov, the last of whom even affirms the opinion which repre 
 sents the Michael in Dan. xii. 1 as a created angel, to be im 
 pious. This certainly appears 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 G-od? 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. 11, "Who 
 is like Thee among the gods, Lord?" or, in Ps. Ixxxix. 8, 
 " Who is like the Lord among the sons of the mighty?" Such 
 an ascription of peerless might and glory, when turned into a 
 personal appellation, seems most naturally to imply, that the 
 
 20* 
 
234 SCRIPTURAL DESIGNATIONS 
 
 qualities expressed 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 appellations. Nor, in that case, would 
 it have formed a suitable designation for the highest of the 
 angels, since it could have indicated nothing as to any peculiar 
 honour or dignity belonging to him. As a distinguished epi 
 thet, 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 
 coll-iteral, and, to some extent, epexegetical, or explanatory 
 designations, which are applied to the same personage. Thus 
 in Dan. xii. 1, He is called emphatically the Great Prince 
 pb H SiiJn) apparently referring to, and closely agreeing with, 
 the name assumed by the angel of the Lord in Josh. v. 14, 
 captain, or rather, prince of Jehovah s host ( n ] n :~ X P> - n ^,) 
 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 ap 
 pears as God, and sometimes as his peculiar representative. 
 Even the Rabbinical Jews could not altogether escape the con 
 viction of the identity of Michael and this personage; for the 
 saying occurs more than once in their writings, that "wher 
 ever Michael appeared, there was seen the glory of the She- 
 kinah itself." The passage, which tended chiefly to lead them 
 in the wrong direction, was Dan. x. 13, where he is called 
 "one (IHN ) of the chief princes," or, as it might equally be 
 
AND DOCTRINE OF ANGELS. 235 
 
 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 connexion 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 di 
 recting and governing head. It is substantially, indeed, of 
 the same import as archangel, which is never used in the 
 plural, and never receives a personal application but to Mi 
 chael (Jude ver. 9; 1 Thess. iv. 16;) so that there is no Scrip 
 tural warrant for understanding it as an indication of an an 
 gelic hierarchy, or otherwise than as a designation of the head 
 of angelic hosts. (3.) Lastly, the descriptions given of Mi 
 chael, 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 intelli 
 gence. 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 appear 
 ance 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 transferred 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 con 
 ceive the same personages to have been intended by them. 
 Some, indeed, have taken the description in Daniel as refer 
 ring 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 overpowering, that he was 
 unable to bear the sight. It is necessary, therefore, to under 
 stand 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 deliver the 
 Lord s people in a time of unparalleled tribulation, and the 
 
236 SCRIPTURAL DESIGNATIONS 
 
 co-relative action ascribed to him in the Apocalypse (ch. xii. 
 79,) 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, ap 
 parently, 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 before them, if only they proved stead 
 fast to the truth. (Compare Ode de Angelis, pp. 1054-58, 
 Hengstenberg on Daniel and on Rev. xii. 7-9.) 
 
 (2.) In regard to the other specific name, GABRIEL, it is 
 clear, both from the name itself, and from the historical no 
 tices given of the bearer of it, that a created angel is to be 
 understood. The word may have a slightly different explana 
 tion put upon it, according as the iod is held to be paragogic 
 merely, or the pronominal affix : in the former case, it means 
 hero, or mighty one of God ; in the other, my 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 two 
 fold idea that the bearer of the name is distinguished by he 
 roic 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 depend 
 ence 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 call for the mani 
 festation of hcrois energy, such as could be found only in close 
 connexion with the all-sufficient Jehovah. The times and cir- 
 
AND DOCTRINE OF ANGELS. 237 
 
 cumstances referred to in the vision of Daniel, in which Ga 
 briel acted a prominent part (ch. viii., ix. 21,) were precisely 
 of such a description; they bore respect to the great strug 
 gles and conflicts, through which ultimate security and bless 
 ing were to be attained for the covenant-people; and the re 
 velation 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 Gos 
 pel, where the name of Gabriel again meets us in Divine com 
 munications. These communications bore upon matters en 
 compassed 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 incarna 
 tion 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 ener.gy 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 con 
 firm for ever the eternal covenant? The remembrance of the 
 past, in which the purpose of God had been so fearlessly pro 
 claimed 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 cove 
 nant 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 keep 
 ing with the whole circumstances of the time. Viewed in con- 
 
238 SCRIPTURAL DESIGNATIONS 
 
 nexion with these, the aspect of harshness, which at first sight 
 it may seem to carry, 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 deserving of rebuke, must be regarded as certain 
 from the rebuke actually administered; no such, even slight 
 and temporary, punishment would have been inflicted, had it 
 not been amply justified by the existing state of mind in Za- 
 charias. 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 embo 
 died, along with the better elements that continued to work 
 among them, a portion also of the worse. The unbelief, there 
 fore, that discovered itself in connexion with the angelical an 
 nouncement, was but too sure 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 connexion 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 immediate operation 
 of the infinite power of Godhead. Thus the miracle of dumb 
 ness wrought upon Zacharias became a sign to all around a 
 sign of the certainty with which the things should be accom 
 plished 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 thus appears, when the history and relations of the sub 
 ject 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 Irnmanuel. Branch of the Lord, An 
 gel of the covenant, Satan, were really descriptive of nature 
 and position. And their appearance only in the later revela- 
 
AND DOCTRINE OF ANGELS. 239 
 
 tions of the Old covenant finds a ready explanation in the 
 circumstance, that the progressive nature of the Divine com 
 munications necessarily led to a progressive individualizing, 
 both in regard to the 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 Tes-. 
 tament, and in those of the New, the individual features and 
 characteristics of all kinds are brought most distinctly out. 
 In this respect, therefore, the appearance is precisely as the 
 reality might have led us to expect. 
 
 III. Having so far cleared our way to a right understand 
 ing of the subject of angels, by examining the language em 
 ployed, both in its more general and its more specific forms, 
 we naturally turn to inquire next, what, according to the re 
 velations of Scripture, 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 represented as in the most elevated condi 
 tion of intelligence, purity, and bliss. Endowed with facul 
 ties which fit them for the highest sphere of existence, they 
 excel in strength, and can endure, 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 harmony 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 des 
 tiny associated with theirs, to have our condition made equal 
 to theirs, is presented to our view as the very glory of that 
 resurrection-state to which Christ has called His people (Luke 
 xx. 36; Heb. xii. 22.) The two, indeed, may not be in all re 
 spects identical, can hardly, indeed, be so; but that which is 
 
240 SCRIPTURAL DESIGNATIONS 
 
 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 is indicated not, indeed, from evil to good, or from fee 
 bleness to strength, but from a state, in which there was, at 
 least, the possibility of falling, to another in which 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, implies that somehow the possibility now men 
 tioned 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 ad 
 vance in the security of their condition. And this, we inevi 
 tably conclude, must infer some advance also in relative per 
 fection ; for absolute security to rational beings in the enjoy 
 ment of life .and blessing, we can only conceive of as the re 
 sult 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 susceptibilities 
 of their being, that these can no longer feel and act but in 
 subservience to holy aims and obedience to principles of right 
 eousness. So far, therefore, the angels appear to have be 
 come what they now are, that a measure of security, and, by 
 consequence, a degree of perfection (whether as regards spiri 
 tual knowledge, or moral energy) is now theirs, which some 
 time 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 in 
 dicated or vaguely apprehended. The distinction referred to 
 is a certain diversity in rank and power, which there seems 
 ground for believing to exist among the heavenly hosts. 
 There are indications in Scripture of something like angelic 
 orders. For, though the term archangel cannot be applied 
 in this connexion, being used (as we have seen) only as the 
 
AND DOCTRINE OF ANGELS. 241 
 
 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 relation 
 ship 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 accumula 
 tion of epithets, as of different orders, when referring to the 
 heavenly intelligences; 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 exalta 
 tion, to have "angels, principalities, and powers made subject 
 to Him." But if such expressions appear to render probable 
 or certain the existence of some kind of personal distinctions 
 among the angels of glory, it leaves all minuter details re 
 specting it under a veil of impenetrable secrecy. An d to 
 presume like the ancient Jews, to single out four or seven pri 
 mary 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 autho 
 rity, 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.) 
 
 21 
 
242 SCRIPTURAL DESIGNATIONS 
 
 We are assuredly entitled to affirm, that in whatever the 
 distinction among angels may consist, or to whatever extent 
 it may reach, it cannot in the least interfere with the happi 
 ness they individually enjoy. For this happiness arises, in 
 the first instance, 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 employments, as are altogether adapted to their 
 state and faculties. These fundamental conditions being pre 
 served, it is easy to conceive, how certain diversities, both in 
 natural capacity, and in relative position, may be perfectly 
 compatible with their mutual satisfaction and general well- 
 being, and may even contribute to secure it. 
 
 IV. The proper function and employment of angels rela 
 tively to us, is what next calls for consideration ; and on this 
 point we are furnished in Scripture with information of a more 
 varied and specific nature, as it is that which more nearly 
 concerns ourselves. In not a few passages we find their know 
 ledge 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, desiring to look into the things which con 
 cern 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 individual 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 connexion is 
 indicated passages which represent them as engaged in di 
 rectly and actively ministering to the good of believers, and 
 shielding or delivering them from the evils incident to their 
 lot. The office of angels in this respect was distinctly under 
 stood 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 ex 
 ecution of His purposes; and still more from the frequent in- 
 
AND DOCTRINE OF ANGELS. 243 
 
 terposition of angels to disclose tidings or accomplish deliver 
 ances for the covenant-people, as well as from express as 
 surances, 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 Scripture, and come out, indeed, 
 with greater prominence there, conformably to the general 
 character and design of the Gospel, in rendering more patent 
 the connexion 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 from time to time ministered to by angels ; that on as 
 cending to the regions of glory, He had the angels made sub 
 ject to Him for carrying forward the operations of His king 
 dom ; that commissions 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 actu 
 ally 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. Nowhere is this ascribed to them ia 
 Scripture; on the contrary, it is uniformly represented as an 
 essentially Divine work, 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 
 employed, through a human, not through an angelic instru 
 mentality. The things which come within the sphere of an- 
 
244 SCRIPTURAL DESIGNATIONS 
 
 gelic ministrations, bear incidentally upon the work of salva 
 tion, rather than directly touch it; and as regards the ordi 
 nary history of the Church and the common experience of be 
 lievers, they have to do with the averting of evils, which might 
 too seriously affect the interests of righteousness, or the bring 
 ing 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 individu 
 als, 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 aus 
 picious event is owing to their interference; there are cer 
 tainly 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 direction; and as we have ex 
 plicit information in Scripture of the fact, that there are my 
 riads 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 operations per 
 formed 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 different from that of the several persons 
 of the Godhead; it is such merely as one finite being is capa 
 ble of exercising 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 reciprocal action established between finite 
 
AND DOCTRINE OF ANGELS. 245 
 
 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 connexion with, and 
 by means of natural causes; and only by intensifying, or in 
 some particular way directing these, can they exert any de 
 cisive 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: 
 arid 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 minis 
 trations; it only implies, that these ministrations are capable 
 of being viewed apart from 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 has from the 
 first been expressly interdicted (Col. ii. 18; Rev. xxii. 9.) 
 
 Various fanciful and groundless notions have been enter 
 tained 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 sepa 
 rated for the special work of praise in the heavenly places, 
 and observe hours of devotion; that angels act at times as 
 subordinate intercessors, mediating between believers and 
 Christ; that individual angels are appointed to the guardian 
 ship of particular kingdoms, and even of single persons; and 
 that they have also, whether individually or collectively, a sort 
 of charge to be present in the assemblies of the saints. As 
 this latter class of notions still extensively prevails, and has 
 an apparent foundation in certain passages of Scripture, it 
 will be necessary to subject it to a particular examination. 
 
 (1.) In regard to the guardianship or protection of parti 
 cular kingdoms by individual angels, the notion can scarcely, 
 perhaps, be said to exist, as a substantive belief in the present 
 
 21* 
 
246 SCRIPTURAL DESIGNATIONS 
 
 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 an 
 gel, and the guardian angel of the Jews, (designated as such, 
 44 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 represented as withstanding Gabriel for twenty- 
 on"e days, (x. 13,) has respect to another angel, exercising a 
 like guardianship over the Persian empire: on these suppo 
 sitions, the notion became prevalent, not only among the doc 
 tors 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 king 
 doms of the earth have each their protecting genius, or tute 
 lary angel a created, but high and powerful 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 beyond the pale 
 of any such guardianship, even if it had existed; nor do the 
 particular passages leaned upon, when fairly interpreted, coun 
 tenance the idea of its existence. AVe have already seen, 
 how the proof fails in respect to Michael, he not being an an 
 gel, in the ordinary sense, but the Lord Himself as the Angel 
 of the Covenant. He, the Jehovah-Mediator, the King and 
 Head of the Old, as well as of the New Dispensation, was 
 fitly denominated the "^, 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 king 
 dom. Such also is the prince of Grecia. afterwards mentioned. 
 The Lord in the heavens, by Ilis angelic agencies, and pro 
 vidential arrangements, contends with these earthly powers 
 and dominions: in the exercise of the freedom granted them, 
 and the resolute application of the resources they possessed, 
 they might succeed in gaining certain advantages, or creating 
 
AND DOCTRINE OF ANGELS. 247 
 
 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 represen 
 tation in Daniel, which contains nothing at variance with the 
 other representations in Scripture, nor any thing, indeed, pe 
 culiar unless it be the designation of the heads alike of the 
 Divine and of the human kingdoms by the name of prince, 
 instead of using the more common appellation, king. A pe 
 culiarity scarcely deserving of notice. 1 
 
 (2.) The idea of guardian-angels for each particular belie 
 ver, or, as it is often put, for each individual child the na 
 tural child in the first instance, then the spiritual has met 
 with much more general acceptance than the one already no 
 ticed, 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 spe 
 cial guardians; and on Acts xii. 15, where he 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 language 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 an 
 gelic appearance in the countenance and aspect of children. 
 Every believer, again, who may have come into a saved con 
 dition through the grace of redemption, gets, as a new spiri- 
 
 1 For a similar contrast between the Divine Head of the Jewish state, and 
 the merely earthly heads of the surrounding states, see the explanation given 
 in Tart Third of Isa. vii. 14, as quoted in Matt. i. 23. 
 
248 SCRIPTURAL DESIGNATIONS 
 
 tual child, his angel again, whom now he especially needs in 
 the weakness of his spiritual commencement, for deeper-reach 
 ing experiences of guardianship 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 ac 
 credited and often largely expatiated upon in its highest phi 
 losophyof attending genii or demons attached to single per 
 sons; and which naturally begat in the Father?, 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 
 disqualified 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 
 always see the face of the Father: the great dignity of souls, 
 that each should have from his natural birth (ab ortu nativi- 
 tatis) an angel appointed for his guardianship. Whence we 
 read in the Apocalypse of John, Write these things to the an 
 gel of Ephesus, Thyattra, 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 only than this 
 confused and puerile annotation, but also than the interpre 
 tations of the modern expositors referred to above, is the note 
 of Calvin? " The view taken by some of this passage, as if 
 it described to each believer his own peculiar angel, is with 
 out 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 com 
 manded, to protect every one of the faithful. Let us have 
 done, therefore," he justly adds, "with that comment con- 
 
AND DOCTRINE OF ANGELS. 249 
 
 cerning 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 individual members as ne 
 cessity 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 imme 
 diately before been assimilated ;) nor does it speak of individu 
 al 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 num 
 ber. 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 ac 
 complished for Peter by the ministry of an angel, there is no 
 thing of the historian 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 de 
 signated "the angel of the Lord," and is spoken of as coming 
 to Peter, to do the particular office required, and again de 
 parting 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 explanation of the matter, 
 "It is his angel." But as Ode has justly stated (De Angelis, 
 Sec. viii. c. 4,) "It is not every thing recorded by the Evan 
 gelists 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 all be 
 lievers, or ought it to be so. And, indeed, that Peter himself 
 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 hia 
 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. " 
 
250 SCRIPTURAL DESIGNATIONS 
 
 (3.) The last notion we were to consider respecting the 
 ministry of angels, is the special charge they are supposed to 
 take of Christian assemblies. This notion rests entirely upon 
 two passages: 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 angel 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 pub 
 lic assemblies. At the same time, it is proper to bear in 
 mind, what expositors too commonly overlook, that the imme 
 diate object of the statement is of a general kind, and has 
 respect to the relation of the woman to the man, as determined 
 by the order of their creation: "For the man is not of the 
 woman, but the woman of the man; neither was the man cre 
 ated for the woman, but the woman for the man : for this 
 cause (namely, on account of that relative position and des 
 tiny,) ought the woman to have power on her head, because 
 of the angels." It is plainly the attire and aspect of the 
 woman, as indicative of her proper place, that the apostle has 
 here more immediately 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 (Kweia) on 
 the head, is having what visibly exhibited that; viz. a veiled, 
 or covered appearance, which is the natural symbol of a de 
 pendent 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 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" (onb &o- 
 ) he stood, as it were, under its law and ordination 
 
AND DOCTRINE OF ANGELS. 251 
 
 having a right and a call to do whatever it authorized him to 
 do that, but no more. So the woman here, as standing 
 under the man in a relation of subservience, ought (fape&et) to 
 have authority or power upon her head; in other words, some 
 thing 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 authority 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. 
 
 Plence 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 au 
 thority 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 abandoning the covenant-engagement 
 under which he stood breaking loose from God. 
 
 We see, then, the fitness and propriety of the veiled ap 
 pearance 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 ex 
 pression, one thing should be distinctly understood regarding 
 it that, from the brief and abrupt manner in which the al 
 lusion is made not a word of explanation going before or 
 coming after it can have reference to no recondite or myste 
 rious 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 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 
 
252 SCRIPTURAL DESIGNATIONS 
 
 minds all the peculiar and unusual applications of the term 
 angels sometimes adduced by commentators; and also all 
 fanciful notions regarding 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 oversight of Christian assemblies 
 (a matter also nowhere else intimated in any earlier Scrip 
 ture:) and we have simply to consider, 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. 
 Vv r e know nothing of this description, unless 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 
 connexion 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 upon her, and she might be an authority 
 and a law to herself quitting her appointed place of minis 
 tering, for the coveted place of independent 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 bearing 
 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 here he virtually said to them the order of things in 
 
AND DOCTRINE OF ANGELS. 253 
 
 this lower world, serves as an image of the heavenly. Rela 
 tions of superiority and subservience exist there as well 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 pos 
 session of her bosom feel that it is good for her to wear per 
 petually the badge of subjection to authority. It is at once 
 safe and proper for her to retain it; and so, instead of con 
 stantly 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 brought 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 
 ministration 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 tendency to angel-worship. The Fathers, however, 
 opposed this tendency, and sometimes by formal synodal acts 
 denounced the practice, in which it showed itself, of dedi 
 cating particular churches to certain angels, and calling them 
 by their names. In the Tightness of this opposition, the in 
 consistency 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 re 
 ceived 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 diffi 
 culties, these have comparatively little to do with the inter- 
 22 
 
254 SCRIPTURAL DESIGNATIONS 
 
 pretation of Scripture. For the most part, the passages in 
 which the fallen angels are referred to, are plain enough in 
 their meaning; and it is the subjects themselves discoursed of, 
 not the language used 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 connected with, 
 or naturally growing out of, the principles that have been un 
 folded regarding the angels of God. (1.) It is, first of all, to 
 be held fast respecting them, that, in common with those who 
 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 
 a g es n or as to the circumstances that gave rise to it, and the 
 precise form.it assumed. The expression of our Lord in John s 
 Gospel, that Satan was a liar from the beginning (a^ 1 <Y >$ o) 
 does not necessarily refer to the commencement of his own ex 
 istence, but seems rather, from the connexion, to point to the 
 beginning of this world s history. It is more natural for us 
 to suppose, that the fall of the angels, like that of our first 
 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 blessedness 
 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 Scrip 
 ture does not conduct us, and it is best to avoid it as one that 
 can only involve matters of uncertain speculation. (2.) The 
 
AND DOCTRINE OF ANGELS. 255 
 
 total depravity, and consequent misery of the evil angels, is 
 also constantly asserted in Scripture. In both respects they 
 are represented as the antithesis of the good and blessed 
 angels. Inveterately hostile to God Himself, whatever is of 
 God excites their enmity and opposition : falsehood instead of 
 truth, instead of love, selfishness, hatred and malice, have be 
 come the elements of their active being ; and, themselves utterly 
 estranged from all good, they appear incapable even of ap 
 prehending the feelings of those who love it, and actuated only 
 by the insatiate desire of, in every possible way, resisting and 
 overthrowing it. Hence their policy is characterized by min 
 gled 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, with the other it per 
 petually miscalculates and defeats itself. Of all this the re 
 corded actings of Satan and his angels, in the history of our 
 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 irreconcilable hostility to it 
 and themselves; eternally shunning, and never escaping, the 
 presence of God; always endeavouring to destroy, and always 
 compelled to promote His purposes; 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 un 
 ending oscillation between fear and despair; instead of love, 
 an impotent hatred of God, their fellows, and themselves: 
 can the fearful condemnation of the last judgment, the thrust 
 ing down into the bottomless pit of destruction (Rev. xx. 10,) 
 add any thing to the anguish of such a condition, excepting 
 that they shall there see the kingdom of God for ever delivered 
 from their assaults, their vain presumption that they can de 
 stroy or impede it scattered to the winds, leaving to them only 
 
256 SCRIPTURAL DESIGNATIONS 
 
 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. 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 Scripture 
 in respect to the good, undoubtedly hold also here. Nega 
 tively, it cannot 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 entering into the series of second 
 causes, 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 wrought by them, are not (in ordinary cases) 
 to be distinguished from the operation of the moral and physi 
 cal laws which prevail in the world. No record is contained 
 of external injuries inflicted by them, except by means of ex 
 ternal causes, which they were allowed, in some unknown 
 manner, to intensify-as in the case of Job s calamities, or 
 Paul s thorn in the flesh. And the moral hardening, or in 
 tense 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 wickedness, and as consisting simply 
 in a more thorough abandonment to the carnal lusts and af 
 fections, which have gained dominion of the heart. The case 
 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- 
 2 Thess ii. 11, etc.) The nearest contact with the mdivulua 
 that any of the notices of Scripture give reason for supposing 
 to have ever taken place, or to be compatible with the natu 
 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 dominion. _ And 
 hence the utter fallacy of the whole theory and practice of 
 witchcraft, which proceeded on the assumption of direct per- 
 Bonal intercourse with the Wicked One. That the possibility 
 
THE NAMES OF CHRIST. 257 
 
 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 civili 
 zation. 
 
 SECTION THIRD. 
 
 OX THE NAMES OF CHRIST IN NEW TESTAMENT SCRIPTURE, AND, 
 
 O ^ AND Ylo- TO r J 
 
 ALL the names of the Redeemer were originally appella 
 tives. They expressed some leading property, or exhibited 
 some specific aspect of His person, His mission, or His king 
 dom. 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 continued still to retain 
 an appellative character; such v for example, as The Angel 
 of the Lord, The Angel of the Covenant, Immanuel, The 
 Prince, The Son of Gf-od. 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 pre 
 fixed to them, ultimately fell away. In one of them, indeed, 
 Michael which has already been investigated in connexion 
 with the subject 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 appella 
 tive, and, for the purpose of indicating more distinctly the 
 Divine nature and exalted position of Messiah, was preferred 
 to some of the earlier and more common designations used by 
 the prophets. As a proper example, however, of the change 
 from the appellative to the individual form, let us trace the 
 manner in which the term Zemach, or Branch, came to be ap- 
 
 22* 
 
258 THE NAMES OF CHRIST 
 
 plied definitely and personally to Christ. Isaiah first speaks 
 in ch. iv. 2, with reference probably to Messianic times, but 
 in a somewhat general way, of the Lord s branch (njrp rv?^) 
 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 member 
 of that house, he gives promise of a stem of Jesse, and a 
 branch, or sucker, from his roots. Here, however, the word 
 ZemacTi is not used, but non and "ttJ , showing that such terms 
 were employed simply in an appellative sense, arid merely 
 because indicating a certain characteristic of the future scion 
 of the royal house. With a still nearer approach to the per 
 sonal, Jeremiah, 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 pro 
 phecies 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 pro 
 per 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 Christ. In its primary import and application there was 
 nothing strictly personal, or even very specific, in the term. 
 A participle or verbal adjective from rw? 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," 
 
IN NEW TESTAMENT SCRIPTURE. 259 
 
 (hamaschiach^ rendered in the Septuagint 6 
 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 dig 
 nity, to which he had been set apart by a solemn act of con 
 secration ; as such, he is designated 6 jf/wrrdc TOL> Kopioo^ the 
 christ or anointed of the Lord, (1 Sam. xii. 8, 5, etc.) It 
 was Hannah who first gave the term this kingly direction, 
 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 (meschiho)" evidently using His 
 Messiah, or anointed, as synonymous with His king in the 
 preceding 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 elevation especially of its closing sentences, 
 seem to point above and beyond the immediate future, and to 
 bear respect to that universal King, of whom Jacob had al 
 ready spoken as the Shiloh, and to whom the gathering of 
 the peoples was to be whom Balaam also described 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 term 
 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 sight of; it came to be regarded as the distinctive 
 name of the promised Saviour as in Dan. ix. 25, "Know, 
 therefore, and understand, that from the going forth of the 
 commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem, unto Mes- 
 
260 THE NAMES OF CHRIST 
 
 siali. 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 Xpto-cbz. But 
 before 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 per 
 son 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 word Messiah arose. Such anointing, 
 as a religious ceremony, was always symbolical of the commu 
 nication 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 mem 
 bers 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 from that day forward, and 
 that the Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul," (1 6am. xvi. 
 13, 14;) and David himself, when by his iniquity he had for 
 feited his title to the place he held in the kingdom, 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 explicitly 
 Isaiah, pointing to gospel times, and personating the Messiah 
 himself, says, " The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because 
 He 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 sym 
 bol 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 Zerubbabcl, " Not by might, nor by power, but by 
 
IN NEW TESTAMENT SCRIPTURE. 2G1 
 
 My Spirit, saith the Lord of Hosts:" So that the presence 
 of the Spirit, pervading the affairs of the covenant, and carry 
 ing these triumphantly over the difficulties 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 
 practice of anointing that the passages in question are to be 
 understood and explained. One of them is Isa. xlv. 1, where 
 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 interests. 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 truth of God, and for acting as 
 God s chosen instrument at an important crisis in the affairs 
 of His Church. In the judicious language of Yitringa, "The 
 anointed person here is one who was separated by the Divine 
 counsel, and ordained to accomplish 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, fortitude, 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. royc Xptffwjz aou;) 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 Psal. cv. 15, it is said re 
 specting the patriarchs, "Touch not Mine anointed, and do 
 My prophets no harm;" and the reference is still of the same 
 kind it points to those heads of the Jewish nation as vessels 
 
262 THE NAMES OF CHRIST 
 
 and instruments 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 patriarchal heads of the covenant-people, and even 
 Cyrus the heathen prince, by the name of God s anointed, is 
 itself convincing 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 regarded as virtually present, if the things signified 
 by it had actually taken effect. 
 
 To return, however, to our more immediate object, we have 
 seen that while the term Messiah was properly 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 im 
 port was seen concentrating all its fulness in Him, so that He 
 alone seemed 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 indivi 
 dual to whom the name properly belonged, it is found to be 
 similarly used in New Testament Scripture. It is in reality 
 so used on the very first occasion on which Xptarbz occurs in 
 the Gospels, viz., when the angels announced to the shepherds 
 on the plains of Bethlehem that there had been born a Sa 
 viour, oc iff rev XpeffToz A iy)foc, "who is Christ, Lord" (Luke 
 ii. 11.) In like manner, the woman of Samaria, when speak 
 ing, not of any definite individual, but of the ideal Messiah, 
 or the specific, though still unknown individual, in whom the 
 idea was to be realized, uses the term absolutely, or as a pro 
 per name, "I know (she said, John iv. 25) that Messias comes, 
 who is called Christ (6 /c^o//svoc XpeffT^:) when he shall have 
 come, He will tell us all things." So, yet again, Jesus Him 
 self in the only passage in which He is recorded to have ap 
 plied the term directly to Himself, John xvii. 8, "And Jesus 
 
IN NEW TESTAMENT SCRIPTURE. 263 
 
 Christ/whom Thou hast sent." Here especially commentators 
 have often found a difficulty, from 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 
 XptGTfo. 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 Messiah, even be 
 fore 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. 
 
 But 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 na 
 tural that when the term was used during the period 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 Saviour. The question, whicq 
 at the time either consciously agitated, or silently occurred 
 to men s minds, was, whether this Jesus of Nazareth was en 
 titled 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 com 
 monly 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 un 
 certainty 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 A ^^ror, quite similar to that, which 
 was noticed in the Old Testament respecting Messiah: an ear 
 lier use, in which respect is had more to the appellative im 
 port, and a later, in which the word comes chiefly to be ap 
 plied as a proper name. And accordingly in the Gospels it 
 
264 THE NAMES OP CHRIST 
 
 is but rarely found without the article, while it is almost as 
 rarely found with 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 beginning of his genealogy, "The book 
 of the generation lycrou Kpta-cov" 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 As-yofjisvoz 
 X()CGTOZ.} In like manner Mark heads his Gospel, "The be 
 ginning 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 immediately after such 
 introductory statements, when they begin to report what per 
 sons 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, "We have 
 found the Messias." In Matt. ii. 3, Herod demands of the 
 chief priests and scribes, "Where the Christ is born;" 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 
 contributed 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 particu 
 larly in some passages of the Acts as at ch. iv. 42, "They 
 ceased not teaching 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 would evidently gain in distinct- 
 
IN NEW TESTAMENT SCRIPTURE. 265 
 
 ness 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 personal designation, always bore a refe 
 rence to its original import, so it never wholly loses this in the 
 minds of thoughtful readers of the Bible; and there are pro 
 bably not very many, at least of serious and thoughtful 
 readers, who 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. 1 No one could 
 possibly be insensible to the difference in these statements, 
 who reads with ordinary attention the authorized 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 obvious 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 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 xal Kuptov 
 y.at Xptarbv; 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, (ou Zyjiao.z, 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 ge 
 neral 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," (d>c H%ptasv abrw b 6eb^ UvebfjiaTt 
 ^l-fiuj xac duvdfjizf, Acts x. 38.) Indeed, the verb %pl<0 9 on this 
 
 1 Preliminary Dissertations. 
 
 23 
 
266 THE NAMES OP CHRIST 
 
 very account that is, because of its symbolical connexion 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, 
 spiritual anointing. With one exception, it is never used but 
 of Christ Himself, as the Spirit-replenished servant of Jeho 
 vah ; 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 establisheth us together with you into Christ, and 
 hath anointed us, is God," (b os fteftaccov fyjiaz crw b^v eiz 
 Xpta-bv, xal %plffaz fyiu.z, $0s,) 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 0Ue/^>a) 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 
 reference to the original meaning of the term is undoubtedly 
 lost sight of; and Jesus is designated Christ, when, as far as 
 we can see, Lord, or Redeemer, might have been equally ap 
 propriate. Thus in Eph. v. 21, according to the correct 
 reading, we have " being subject to one another in fear of 
 Christ," (Iv <f>6f)(f) XptffTOu;) Christ being simply an appella 
 tion of the Divine and glorified Redeemer, as the object of 
 humble reverence and submissive regard. Passages of this 
 sort, however, are not very frequent; and where there is no 
 distinct, there often is a concealed or implied reference to the 
 appellative import of the term. It is to this, 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 designation of Christian doctrine; we are rather to 
 regard it as pointing to that intimate spiritual fellowship be 
 tween the soul and Christ, which renders genuine believers so 
 
IN NEW TESTAMENT SCRIPTURE. 267 
 
 many images of Himself smaller vessels and partial embodi 
 ments of that grace, which in infinite fulness and perfection 
 is treasured up in Him. So again in 1 Cor. xii. 12, \ve 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 faithful; they are together 
 designated by the name of Christ, as having 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 Xptarb^ may have grown 
 that common name Xpeffreayoi^ Christians, by which the fol 
 lowers of Jesus became so early, and have so uniformly been 
 distinguished. We are told in Acts xi. 26, that they were so 
 called first in Antioch; and Dr. Trench, (in bis Study of 
 Words, p. 98,) as well as many in former times, have thought 
 that the name was imposed upon them by their heathen ad 
 versaries, and consequently at first had somewhat of the 
 aspect of a nickname. We cannot positively affirm it was 
 otherwise ; but the phraseology of St. Paul approaches so very 
 near to the use of the word as a common 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 employed 
 among the Christian communities, unless it had either spon 
 taneously arisen from within, or as soon as heard awakened a 
 response among the members of the Church. Hence, as con 
 scious of no reproach in the appellation, yea, rather as owning 
 arid accrediting its propriety, the Apostle Peter says, "But 
 if any of you suffer as a Christian oc Xpi0Tco.vbz let him 
 not be ashamed," (1 Pet. iv. 16.) And as regards the spiritual 
 use to be made of the appellation, the most natural and ap 
 propriate 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 understood ; 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. 
 
2G8 THE NAMES OF CHRIST 
 
 Another thing to be noted, in connexion 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 Christ s or anointed ones, who 
 had received no outward consecration with holy oil. The ap 
 plication 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 %pUo in all its forms, falls entirely away; it is ap 
 plied 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 un 
 derstood, 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 
 gradation, that appears in the names usually applied to our 
 Lord as regards their individual import and common use. The 
 first name by which lie was known and addressed was Jesus, 
 which, though of deep and comprehensive import, and requiring 
 the exercise of lively faith and spiritual discernment, 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 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, however, and one not so 
 readily decided, what personally this Christ was ? Was He 
 
IN NEW TESTAMENT SCRIPTURE. 269 
 
 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 be 
 fore even the immediate followers of Christ reached the pro 
 per position of knowledge and conviction upon this point; and 
 the first distinct, or, at least, thoroughly intelligent and as 
 sured utterance of the truth, was that which came from the 
 lips of Peter, when he 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 con 
 fession ; Philip virtually confessed as much at the outset, 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 convictions on the subject. Nearly the same confession 
 in words had been uttered at an early period by Nathanael, 
 when he exclaimed, " 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 re 
 velation, 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 My Father; and no man knoweth the 
 Son but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father 
 save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him," 
 (Matt. xi. 27.) And it was, beyond doubt, in this higher 
 sense, which had been indicated in various discourses of Christ, 
 that the Jewish high priest used it, 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 
 
 23* 
 
270 THE NAMES OF CHRIST 
 
 Christ, and the Son of God, was to own Him to be all that 
 the prophets foretold He should be all that His Divine mis 
 sion 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, ex 
 cept on one occasion the one already referred to in John 
 xvii. 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 the 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 re 
 lating the events of His earthly ministry ; nor is He ever men 
 tioned as having been addressed 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 Testa 
 ment Scripture unless we may so regard what is written in 
 Rev. i. 13, where the Apocalyptist speaks of seeing in vision 
 one O/JLOCOV otw avdptb-ov, "like to," not, as in the autho 
 rized 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 connexion it appears, that the individual, 
 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 
 worldly monarchies, one appeared in the night visions "like 
 
IN NEW TESTAMENT SCRIPTURE. 271 
 
 a son of man, (no article in the original,) coming with the 
 clouds of heaven, 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 
 fundamental 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 impos 
 sible rightly to apprehend the reason and object of the lan 
 guage 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 representatives 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 agi 
 tated 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 fifth and ulti 
 mate kingdom was seen descending from above, borne on the 
 clouds of heaven, the distinctive chariot of Deity, and bearing 
 the aspect, not of a nameless monster, or savage tenant of 
 the forest, but of "the human face Divine" ideal humanity. 
 Introduced in such a connexion, and with the obvious design 
 of exhibiting such a contrast, it is surely a meagre representa 
 tion 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." 1 Be it so; the question still remains, 
 Why only in respect to this last the sole world-embracing 
 and perpetual monarchy was there seen the attractive form 
 
 1 Dissertations, v. 13. 
 
272 THE NAMES OF CHRIST 
 
 of a human likeness, while the others, which were certainlj 
 to be constituted and governed by men, had their representa 
 tion in so many irrational and ferocious wild beasts? And 
 why, possessing the likeness 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 de 
 signed to have their correspondences 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 contra 
 distinguished from all the rest by the figure of a man, in order 
 to denote, that whereas violence, in some shape or other, would 
 bo the principal means by which those merely secular king 
 doms 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 An 
 cient of Days, wherein every thing should be suited to man s 
 rational and moral nature; affection should be the prevailing 
 motive to obedience, 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 admi 
 nistered among men? And when a prophetic representation 
 was given of the fundamental difference 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 king 
 dom from above, and descending thence, as on the chariot of 
 Deity, to take possession of His dominion, the obvious infer 
 ence and conclusion is, that here at last Divine and human 
 were to be intermingled in blessed harmony, and that till such 
 
IN NEW TESTAMENT SCRIPTURE. 273 
 
 intermingling took place, and the kingdom based on it was 
 properly erected, the ideal of humanity should remain an ideal 
 still, bestial properties should really have the ascendant, and 
 should retain their sway, till they were dislodged by the mani 
 festation and working of Him who, with Divine aid, should 
 restore humanity to its proper place and function 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 
 representation under one bearing the likeness of a son of man. 
 And it sufficiently explains our Lord s partiality for this epi 
 thet, when speaking of Himself, and some of the more peculiar 
 connexions 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 de 
 clared was at hand in other words, the fifth monarchy of 
 Daniel, which was to come from abqve, and which was destined 
 to supplant every other. How natural, then, for our Lord, 
 in order to keep prominently before men this idea, and im 
 press upon their minds correct views of the nature of His mis 
 sion, to appropriate to Himself that peculiar epithet, "Son of 
 Man," under which this kingdom has been prophetically ex 
 hibited, as contradistinguished from 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 the Son of Man personified, to whom prophetically, and 
 in vision, were committed the powers and destinies of the 
 kingdom, which was of God the kingdom, in which hu 
 manity was to be made to re-assume 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 
 
274 THE NAMES OF CHRIST. 
 
 John iii. 13, "And no man hath ascended up to heaven but 
 He that came down from heaven, who is in heaven" a seem 
 ing contradiction, if taken hy itself, hut, when placed in con 
 nexion with the passage in Daniel, embodying a most import 
 ant truth. For it tells us that no one, who is simply a man, 
 fallen and degenerate, ever has ascended to heaven, or can 
 do so the tendency is all in the opposite direction not up 
 wards 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 w r hen he appears (as in the person of Christ 
 He did appear) on earth, it is to exhibit in Himself what He 
 had received from the Father, and raise others to the posses 
 sion of the same. By the very title He assumed, He claimed 
 to be the New Man, the Lord from heaven, come for the pur 
 pose of making all things new, and conforming men to the 
 image of Himself. Hence, too, the peculiar expression, em 
 bodying another seeming incongruity, in John v. 27, where 
 our Lord says of Himself, that 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 realiza 
 tion 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 concentrating 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 sub 
 jection the powers of tho world to come. And there is still 
 another peculiar passage, which derives a clear and instructive 
 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 
 
ANTAGONISTIC RELATIONS TO CHRIST. 275 
 
 God;" and His reply was, "Thou hast said [rightly;] never 
 theless [rather, moreover, in addition to what I have declared] 
 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 what might have seemed to be more fitly asso 
 ciated with 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 TERM?, WHICH EXPRESS 
 AN ANTAGONISTIC RELATION TO CHRIST S PERSON AND. AU 
 THORITY, <f>Udodidd<TX<ZJ((K 9 fisud 
 
 IT is more especially the last two of the terms just men 
 tioned 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 atten 
 tion 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: ~poaiy^=~s. dnb TCOU (pz jdoxpcHpYjTcov 
 (Matt. vii. 15;) and the test He suggests to be applied to 
 
276 TERMS EXPRESSIVE OF 
 
 them is one chiefly of character; "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 verse 24, He re 
 turns to the subject, coupling false prophets with false Christs, 
 who, He said, "should arise, and give great signs and won 
 ders, so as to deceive, if it were possible, even the elect." 
 From these intimations, we are led to understand, 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 characteristic generally of the time 
 of the end. As to the precise import, however, to be attached 
 to the terms, we must bring under review 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 ^zodonpotfrr^; and partly in ex 
 planation of this designation he is styled Elymas the magos 
 /;/y//C 6 /m-j-oz two words of different languages expressing 
 substantially tne same meaning; Elymas (from alim) in the 
 Arabic or Aramaic, and /m r o- in the Persian, wise wise, 
 however, in the Eastern sense, that is, given to learned pur 
 suits and the skill of hidden and sacred lore. It did not ne 
 cessarily denote what is now commonly understood by the 
 term, magician or sorcerer; but comprehended also the better 
 wisdom of that higher learning, which was cultivated in the 
 East, with its attendant fancies and superstitions. In the Gos 
 pel 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 oi 
 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 fortune 
 tellers," "dealers in Babylonian numbers," etc.; 1 rushing in, 
 k i Hor. Sat. I. 2, 1 ; Od. I. 11, 2. Juv. Sat. III. C. 
 
ANTAGONISTIC RELATIONS TO CHRIST. 277 
 
 amid the decay of the old faith, with their delusive arts of di 
 vination, to play upon the credulity of an age alike skeptical 
 and superstitious. It is clear from the allusions of the an 
 cient satirists and historians, that those pretenders to the se 
 crets 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 pro 
 phetess in his camp, and to have been much guided by her 
 divinations in regulating his military and political movements. 
 Tiberius is described by Juvenal (x. 93, sq.,) sitting on the 
 rock in Caprese, " surrounded by a flock of Chaldeans." Even 
 such men as Pompey, Crassus, Cicsar, 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 by the Chaldeans, and, in particular, of the assurances 
 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 
 remarks, 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 soothsayers were a class that, according to the pro 
 found remark of Tacitus, were sure to be always shunned, yet 
 always retained (genus hominum, quod 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 pro 
 phet of that 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 ex 
 press and solemn condemnation of such things in the law of 
 Moses. But there can be no doubt of the fact: not this man 
 24 
 
278 TERMS EXPRESSIVE OF 
 
 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 condition, and a presage of approach 
 ing doom. Jewish females are represented by Juvenal (Sat. 
 vi. 542,) as emerging from their lurking places in the woods, 
 :md for the smallest pittance whispering into the ear of Ro 
 man 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 falla 
 cious arts, would acquire considerable accession from the fame 
 of the wonderful deeds performed by Christ and His imme 
 diate followers in Judea. The manifestation of the true, in 
 the knowledge of Divine mysteries and the exercise of super 
 natural power, with the mighty fermentation it produced, 
 created, as it were, a new field for the display of the false ; 
 whence, as our Lord foretold, many false prophets arose, de 
 luding the ignorant, and even seeking to press into the Chris 
 tian fold. 1 
 
 The apostle John, who lived to the close of the first cen 
 tury, 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 ; be 
 cause many false prophets are gone out into the world" (ore 
 7:o)>Xol (/) jdo7i t oo(f7jTae ietyti>da0iv s.ic rbv xoff/wv.) 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 in- 
 hight, that believers in Christ, as well as others, had need to 
 Btand on their guard against them. They might partly be the 
 subtle and audacious diviners, oC 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 
 
 1 It is well known, also, that the last struggles and convulsions in Judea 
 were accompanied with prophetical delusions. Josephus speaks of "a great 
 i.umber of false prophets" playing their part, and notices one in particular. 
 (Wars, VI. 5, 2, 3.) 
 
ANTAGONISTIC RELATIONS TO CHRIST. 279 
 
 may certainly be included in the description of the apostle ; 
 but from what follows in the Epistle, it is clear, that he more 
 especially points to the false teaching, the antichristian 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 
 Church, that the (fisudodtodcrxaXot were scarcely to be distin 
 guished from the (fsudo^^o^ra^ or that false prophesying 
 chiefly assumed the form of false teaching. The more arrant 
 impostors the astrologers and fortune-tellers the false pro 
 phets in that sense, were rather to be looked for beyond the 
 pale of the Church; as they could only be found in persons, 
 who either ignored the authority of Jesus, or set up their own 
 in rivalry to His. But within the Church, the spirit of false 
 hood would more naturally show itself in assuming the name 
 ^of Christ to teach what was inconsistent with the character 
 and tendency of His Gospel. It is evidently of such rather 
 ^evoodtddaxa/M than (pBUoor^o^ro.c. 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 from their own number, "speak 
 ing 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 
 
280 TERMS EXPRESSIVE OF 
 
 of the kind of false teachers to be expected, he gives as their 
 leading characteristics the introduction of heretical doctrines, 
 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 the 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 prophesying, while the place its apos 
 tles were to occupy in New Testament times should 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 pre 
 tenders to prophetical insight outside the church, the other to 
 the propagators of false and pernicious doctrinal views within 
 the church. The same persons might, and, doubtless, occa 
 sionally did sustain both of these characters at once ; yet by 
 no means 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 di-^ 
 vination 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 conjointly. In regard to ipeudfypearot 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 an 
 other word of Jesus, U 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. 48.) The most noted example 
 
ANTAGONISTIC RELATIONS TO CHRIST. 281 
 
 of the kind, as well as the earliest, was that furnished by 
 Barchochbas Son of a st^r, 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 
 victorious struggles, and his establishment of a Jewish domi 
 nion. False expectations of a similar kind have often been 
 raised among the Jewish people, and reports of persons an 
 swering 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 respecting 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 ma 
 nifestly wandering stars. There was a danger in that direc 
 tion,. near the beginning of the New Testament Church, for 
 persons, whose leanings might be on the side of Christianity, 
 but who were very imperfectly enlightened in their views, and 
 strong in their national predilections. Such persons might, 
 amid the tumults and disorders, the false hopes and ferment 
 ing excitement, which preceded the downfall of the Jewish 
 State, have for a time caught the infection of the evil that 
 was at work, and even, in some instances, have precipitated 
 themselves into the general delusions. But such cases would 
 certainly be rare ; and we cannot suppose that our Lord looked 
 no farther than that; we are rather to conceive, in accordance 
 with the whole structure of His discourse, that He wished 
 them to regard what was then to take place but as the begin 
 ning of the end a beginning that should be often in substance, 
 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 Christ, 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 contrary to Christ s; to lay open another way to the 
 
 24* 
 
282 TERMS EXPRESSIVE OF 
 
 favour and blessing of Heaven, than that which has been con 
 secrated by His blood ; or to conduct the world to its destined 
 state of perfection and glory, otherwise than through the ac 
 knowledgment of His name and the obedience of His gospel; 
 such a one would be as really acting the part of a false Christ, 
 as if he openly challenged the Messiahship of Jesus, or expli 
 citly claimed the title to himself. There is, therefore, a foun 
 dation of truth in the statement of Hegesippug, 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, propounded by those ad 
 vocates of heresy and corruption, undoubtedly was to supplant 
 or supersede Christ, and the spiritual doctrines of the gospel. 
 While paying a certain deference and respect 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 systems of later 
 times, of all, indeed, in every age, that have maintained, 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 
 set themselves up in His room as the guides and saviours of 
 the world. And we cannot fail to perceive an indication of 
 the varied forms such characters were to assume, and the 
 many different quarters whence they might be expected to ap 
 pear, in the warning of our Lord respecting them: " If they 
 shall say unto you, Behold he is in the desert, go not forth; 
 behold ho is in the secret chambers, believe it not." 
 
 But in what relation, it is proper to ask, does fieud6% l oeffroc 
 stand to the dvri%pt0TQ<?1 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 contra 
 riety and opposition of a different kind? The word dvTt%pt<t+ 
 roc was not used by our Lord Himself; nor does it occur in 
 
ANTAGONISTIC RELATIONS TO CHRIST. 283 
 
 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 altogether 
 four times thrice in the singular, and once in the plural. Be 
 fore looking at these, let us first endeavour to determine the 
 force of the preposition fort in the word. There are ^some 
 who hold that it necessarily denotes contrariety 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 His false representative or sup- 
 planter. 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. What is over 
 against may be so in one of three different respects: in the 
 way (1.) of direct antithesis and opposition ; or (2.) of substitu 
 tion, 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, involved in the dvr/, 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 preposition. Thus, at John i. 16, " Of His fulness we 
 all have received, and grace for grace" %&[ & u-^ y&pt~ Q Z 
 i. e., grace corresponding to grace grace in the believer be 
 coming the counterpart of Christ s line for line, feature for 
 feature. So also in composition, when occurring in such words 
 as dvTax68offec t a giving back in return, a recompense ; or av- 
 Ttrj-oz, the correspondence to the TU~QZ. 
 
 This, however, is the less common form of the relation de 
 noted by the avr/; and of the other two, we find instances of 
 both in Scripture. In such words as dyrc/of/a, d^Tcdsffe^ 
 eUCTxec/tevoc, the relation of formal opposition is denoted; as 
 it is also in dvzYVO/zro, contrariety to law, dvr/otffOT, an adver 
 sary in. a suit, dvrfyeep, what is over against the hand, the 
 thumb. But there is another class of words, in which the idea 
 
284 TERMS EXPRESSIVE OF 
 
 of substitution, or contradistinction, in the form of taking the 
 place of another, whether by deputy or as a rival, is also in 
 dicated; for example, ctvtfyrraror, the substitute of the consul, 
 pro-consul ; dvrr/3<T^sr>c, pro-rex, or viceroy ; avrttuTpov, sub 
 stitute or equivalent for a forfeit, ransom. It is plain, there 
 fore, that the single term dvTfyptffroz cannot of itself deter 
 mine the precise meaning. So far as the current use of the 
 preposition is concerned, it may point either to contrariety or 
 to substitution ; the antichrist may be, indiiferently, what sets 
 itself in opposition to Christ, or what thrusts itself into His 
 room a faud6%ptffTOC and it is only by the connexion in 
 which the word is used, and the comparison of the paraUel 
 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 (d.VTi%pt0TOt KO//OI 
 "fzfbvaaw^ 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 the term had already passed into a 
 reality, and that in a variety of persons. This, however, is 
 itself of considerable moment, especially as it conveys the in 
 formation, that while the name is used in the singular, as of 
 an individual, it was not intended to denote the same kind of 
 strict and exclusive personality 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 Church to corrupt the doctrine of 
 Christ, and without it to disown and resist His authority, we 
 have yet no reason to suppose, that there were more than a 
 very few, who distinctly claimed the title of Christ, and pre 
 sumed to place themselves in Messiah s room. The next pas 
 sage 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 no lie is of the truth; and he 
 
ANTAGONISTIC RELATIONS TO CHRIST. 285 
 
 then continues, "AVho is the liar (o </>stW^c, 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 antichristianism 
 with Jewish infidelity or with heathenism, which certainly was 
 not the object of the apostle. The denial of the truth by the 
 antichriat was denial after a peculiar manner, not as from a 
 directly hostile and antagonistic position, but under the cover 
 of a Christian name, and with more or less of a friendly as 
 pect. 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 evi 
 dent, 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 apos 
 tle, "have become antichrists;" they were not so originally, 
 but by a downward progress had ended in becoming such. 
 And again, "They went out from us, but were not of us;" 
 that is, they had belonged to the Christian community, 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 (itytodbc<) 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, still again, when he says, "For many de 
 ceivers have entered into the world, who confess not Jesus 
 Christ having come in flesh (Ipftopevov ev aapxi\) this is the 
 deceiver and the antichrist" ("2 John v. 7.) In all these pas 
 sages, it can only be of a virtual denial of the truth, that the 
 
286 TERMS EXPRESSIVE OF 
 
 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 represents the falsehood 
 as circling around the person of Jesus, and disowning Him as 
 having come in the flesj), 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 doctrine of this 
 sort, could the persons referred to have proved peculiarly 
 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 apostacy 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 arrive, then, at the conclusion, that in St. John s use 
 of the term antichrist, there is an unmistakable reference to 
 the early heretics, as forming at least one exemplification of 
 its idea. Such, also, was the impression derived from the 
 apostle s statements 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 (Ecumenius says, 
 "He declares antichrist to be already in the world, not cor 
 poreally, 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. orth. 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 Augustine, in 
 the third Tractatus on 1 John, speaking to the question, 
 "Whom did the apostle call antichrist? extends the term, in- 
 
ANTAGONISTIC RELATIONS TO CHRIST. 287 
 
 deed, so as to make it comprehend every one who is contrary 
 to Christ, and is not a true member of His body, 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 attention 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, x the other declared it had already come; and with 
 reference, no doubt, to the prophetic utterances of Paul, re 
 minded believers of their having previously heard that it was 
 to come. So that the antic?irists of John are found to coin 
 cide 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 turned His truth into a lie. 
 They might, so far also be said to supplant Him, as to follow 
 tJiem was to desert Christ; yet, from the circumstances of the 
 case, there could be no direct antagonism to Jesus, or distinct 
 unfurling of the banner of revolt. 
 
 We cannot, therefore, concur in the statement of Dean 
 Trench (New Testament Synonyms, p. 120,) that t( resistance 
 to, arid defiance of, Christ, is the essential mark of anti 
 christ." Defiance of Christ betokens avowed and uncom 
 promising opposition, which was the part, not of deceivers, 
 who had corrupted, the truth by some specious lie of their 
 own, but of undisguised enemies. 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 as 
 sumption of Christ s character and offices no further, at 
 
288 TERMS EXPRESSIVE OF 
 
 least, than in the modified sense already explained, of com 
 mitting 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 im 
 piety arid wickedness, to be exhibited before the appearing of 
 Christ? It was thought, from comparatively early times, 
 that the mention so emphatically of the antichrist bespoke 
 something of a more concentrated and personally 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 An- 
 tiochus of old) of heaven-daring impiety, and unscrupulous 
 disregard of every thing sacred and divine, who, after pur 
 suing 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 connexion with certain portions of the Apocalypse.) 
 Amid many crude speculations and conflicting views on this 
 passage, none of the Fathers appear to have doubted, as 
 Augustine expressly states, (De Civ. Dei, xx. 19,) that it re 
 ferred to antichrist, under the names, "Man of Sin," and 
 44 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 from 
 the faith, and a corrupting of the truth of the Gospel; so 
 here the coming evil is designated emphatically the apostacy 
 jj d.7ioGTaaia by which we can think only of a notable falling 
 
ANTAGONISTIC RELATIONS TO CHRIST. 289 
 
 away from the faith and purity of the Gospel ; so that the 
 evil was to have both its root and its development in connex 
 ion with the Church s degeneracy. Nor was the commence 
 ment of the evil in this case, any more than the other, to be 
 far distant. 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 antichrist evidently 
 denoted, some kind of antithesis in doctrine 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, b dv-exslfjtsvoz one who sets himself 
 against God, and arrogates the highest prerogatives and ho 
 nours. Yet, with such impious self-deification in fact, there 
 was to be nothing like an open defiance and contempt of all 
 religious propriety in form; for this same power is repre 
 sented as developing itself by a "mystery of iniquity;" i. e., 
 by such a complex and subtle operation of the worst princi 
 ples and designs, as might be carried on under the fairest and 
 most hypocritical pretences; and by "signs and lying won 
 ders, and all deceivableness of unrighteousness," beguiling 
 those who should fall under its influence, to become the vie- 
 tims of "a strong delusion," and to "believe a lie," viz., to 
 believe that which should, to their view, have the semblance 
 of the truth, but in reality should be at complete 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 understood 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 
 consummation of the workings of iniquity within the Chris 
 tian community. So that, as a whole, the description of the 
 25 
 
290 TERMS EXPRESSIVE OP 
 
 apostle presents to our view some sort of mysterious and 
 astounding combination of good and evil, formally differing 
 from either heathenism or infidelity a gathering up and as 
 sorting together of certain elements in Christianity, for the 
 purpose of accomplishing, by the most subtle devices and 
 cunning stratagems, the overthrow and subversion of Chris 
 tian truth and life. It is, therefore, but the full growth and 
 final development of St. John s idea of the antichrist. 
 
 Of the descriptions generally of the comin^evil in New 
 Testament 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 harmonize with the Romish opinion which 
 Hengstenberg and a few others in the Protestant Church have 
 been attempting to revive the opinion that would find the 
 evil spoken of realized in the power and influence exerted in 
 early times by Rome, 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 over 
 bearing violence in its aim transparent to every one, who 
 knew the Gospel of the grace of God, and involving, if yielded 
 to, the conscious renunciation of Christ. As to the signs and 
 lying wonders, and deceivableness 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 contro 
 versy which ancient heathenism waged with Christianity. On 
 
ANTAGONISTIC RELATIONS TO CHRIST. 291 
 
 every account, therefore, this view is to be rejected as want 
 ing in the more essential points of correspondence between 
 the apostolic description and the supposed realization in Pro 
 vidence. 
 
 Another view, however, has of late been rising into notice, 
 which, if well founded, would equally save the Romish apos- 
 tacy from any proper share in the predicted evil ; and which, 
 we cannot but fear, if not originated, has a* least been some 
 what encouraged and fostered by that softened apologetic hue, 
 which the mediaeval and antiquarian tendencies of the present 
 age have served to throw around Romanism. The view we 
 refer to would make the full and proper development of the 
 antichrist an essentially different thing from any such depra 
 vation 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 ele 
 vate 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 him 
 self up as the only object of adoration. This remarkable idea, 
 that sin in antichrist issues in a downright self-deification, dis 
 closes to us the inmost nature of evil, which consists in sel 
 fishness. In antichrist all love, all capability of sacrifice and 
 self-denial, shows itself entirely submerged in the making of 
 the I all and all, which then also insists on being acknow 
 ledged by all men, as the centre of all power, wisdom, and 
 glory." The proper antichrist, therefore, according to Ol 
 shausen, must be a person, and one who shall be himself the 
 mystery of iniquity, as Christ is the mystery of godliness a 
 
292 TERMS EXPRESSIVE OF 
 
 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 rea 
 lizing 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 
 striving 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 assert the fulfilment 
 in himself, for he shall deny that word altogether; 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 acknowledgment 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 ungodly 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 un 
 biassed interpretation of the passages of Scripture, in which 
 the antichrist is described or named. Such an antichrist as 
 those authors delineate, the impersonation of unblushing wicked 
 ness and atheism, has everything against it, which has been 
 already urged against the view, that would identify the de 
 scription with the enmity and persecutions of heathen Rome. 
 Instead of seating itself in the temple of the Christian Church 
 as its own, and arrogating there the supreme place, an anti- 
 
ANTAGONISTIC RELATIONS TO CHRIST. 298 
 
 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 accompanied 
 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 respond- 
 ency 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 direc 
 tion as well as the true, would need to have sustained a para 
 lysis alike unprecedented and incredible. And, besides, the 
 historical connexion would be broken which the passages, bear 
 ing on the antichristian apostacy, 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 anti 
 christ now suggested to our apprehension, if it should ever at 
 tain to a substantive existence, would stand in no proper affi 
 nity to the false doctrine and corruptions of the apostolic age. 
 It would be a strictly novel phenomenon. 
 
 It were out of place, however, to prosecute the subject fur 
 ther here, where exegetical investigations are what chiefly de 
 mand attention. For those who wish to see the subject viewed 
 more in its doctrinal and historical aspects, I must refer them 
 to Prophecy, Viewed 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 may be readily inferred from the preceding 
 remarks, that the conditions of the Scriptural problem respect 
 ing 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 
 
 25* 
 
294 " THE USE OF 
 
 substantially similar disfiguration of the truth, and undue ex 
 altation of the creature into the place and prerogatives of 
 Godhead. 
 
 SECTION FIFTH. 
 
 ON aTTTi^CO AND ITS COGNATES, WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO 
 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 
 administering the baptism of repentance; while still a pro 
 found silence is observed as to the manner in which he admi 
 nistered the ordinance to his disciples. St. Luke in his first 
 notice of the subject, couples the two together the doctrine 
 and the ordinance and says, "John came into all the coun 
 try 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. 8, with like simplicity 
 relates, that "all Jerusalem went out to him, and all Judea, 
 and all the region round about Jordan, and were baptized of 
 him in Jordan, confessing their sins." Whence may we sup 
 pose such reserve upon the matter to have arisen? Was it 
 from the practice of religious baptism being already in fami 
 liar use among the Jews, so that no specific information was 
 needed respecting the mode of its administration? Or did 
 the word itself, fiartTt^ct), so distinctly indicate the kind of ac 
 tion 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 ordinance being necessarily tied to 
 no particular form? Any of these suppositions might possi 
 bly account for the peculiarity; but as they cannot be all ad 
 mitted, it is of some importance, that we know which has the 
 preferable claim on our belief. 
 
AND ITS COGNATES. 295 
 
 I. To look first to the term employed ^a^ri^co has the 
 form of a frequentative verb from ftd-rco, which is rarely used 
 in the New Testament, and never in this connexion. Bdarra) 
 means simply to dip; the Latin synonyms are mergo, tingo; 
 and f9a;rroc has the sense of tinctus. The word 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 fkxjrtta> for a fre 
 quentative of fidx-cO) the earlier glossaries ascribed to it the 
 meaning of mergito, as is stated by Vossius in his Etymolo- 
 gicon: Cum autem t 3d~~co sit mergo, ^a^ri^aj commode verta- 
 mus mergito; and he adds, respecting the Christian ordinance, 
 prnesertim, 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 immersed 
 several times ; so that not immersion only, but . repeated im 
 mersion, would be the constitutional form. In mentioning 
 definitely three times, as Vossius does, reference is made to a 
 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 belief in a triune God. Thus Tertullian writes, Adv. 
 Praxeam, c. 26:.Novissime mandavit (viz. Christus) ut tingue- 
 rent in Patrem, et Filium, et Spiritum Sanctum, non in unum. 
 Nam nee semel, sed ter, ad singula nomina in personas singu- 
 las tinguimur. (Jhrysostom, in like manner, affirms, that the 
 Lord delivered one baptism to His disciples in three immer 
 sions of the body, when He gave the command to baptize in 
 the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (Horn, 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 scriptce legis usurpa- 
 verunt, velut in lavacro ter caput mergitare, deinde aggressos, 
 lactis et mellis prsegustari concordiam ad infantile significa- 
 tionem, etc. We have no definite information as to the time 
 
296 THE USE OF 
 
 and manner in which this threefold immersing of the head in 
 baptism began to be practised. Jerome admits, that there is 
 no authority for it in Scripture, 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 specially 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 panTi^co, and whether, as commonly used, it was taken for 
 the frequentative of fidxrco. We have said, that if it really 
 were a frequentative, it must indicate, not immersion simply, 
 but repeated 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 variety of ways, and without any distinct or 
 special reference to the act of dipping or plunging. Thus it 
 is used by Polybius of ships, i. 51, 6, xai ~o)J.a TMV axaupwv 
 ; and in like manner by Josephus, xoftepviJTyC) oarez 
 oMcoz xpb ~7jZ Ou)Jjjz IftdftTcffev Ixtbv TO axdcoz 
 (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 skiff." Speaking of Jonah s vessel, Josephus uses the ex 
 pression, "the vessel being all but ready to be overwhelmed," 
 or sunk (otrov ouxco /jtettovTOZ fta.~Tirs.a6ac, Ant. ix. 10, 2;) 
 and again, in his own life, 2, of the ship that he sailed in to 
 Home being swamped in the Adriatic (/Sdorr/fwroc fyp&v TOL> 
 7r/o/oy,) 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, fab TO T J TTOTatwi) xspdrtfOsvTa 
 deoupOsipertu /fajtr/ffyieva, and by Polybius, both of horses sink 
 ing in a marsh, v. 47, 2, and of infantry being plunged, or 
 
AND ITS COGNATES. 297 
 
 covered up to the waist, eVuc TMV ftcwccov fkamfyt&Mx; so that, 
 whether the objects were covered by the water flowing over 
 them, or by themselves sinking down in it, the word ^ar.ri^co 
 was equally applied. lu 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 con 
 dition, 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 com 
 mon, and is therefore usually and pretty constantly, but it 
 may not be necessarily implied." 1 In plain terms, PaTiri^a) 
 does not always mean dip, but sometimes bears the more ge 
 neral 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 sometimes to 
 have gone under water. Pressed by such uses and applica 
 tions of the term, 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 immersed." 2 This, as justly remarked by 
 Wall, is, indeed, to contend for the word, but at the same time, 
 "to grant away the thing;" since, "if that which he allows 
 be dipping, the controversy 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. Liddell and 
 Scott, in their Lexicon, beyond all reasonable doubt, give the 
 fair import of the word, as used by profane writers and Jose- 
 phus, when they represent it as signifying to dip underwater, 
 to sink, to lathe or soak. It denotes somehow, and to some 
 extent, a going into, or being placed under water; but is by 
 
 1 Wall s History of Infant Baptism, iii., p. 122. 
 
 2 D. p. 145. 
 
298 THE USE OF ftax 
 
 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" xal $pourclTO iv rrj 
 irapefiftoAfl ITU r^c TT^C roD udaroc: which can scarcely be 
 understood of any thing but some sort of ablution or washing, 
 since the action is reported to have been done in camp, and 
 not in, but at the fountain of water. Immersion seems to be 
 excluded, both by the publicity of the scene, and by the re 
 lation 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 
 ftaTiTt^ofjisuoz 0.7:0 uszpoLt and touches it again, of what avail 
 is his washing" (TW Xourpw?) 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 sprink 
 ling the person with water, mixed with the ashes of a red 
 heifer, bathing it, and washing the clothes. Plainly, there 
 fore, the {3a~Tt^o/jt.yoz of the son of Sirach is a general term 
 expressive 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 this passage. Dr. Gale informs us, that "he 
 remembered the time, when he thought it a very formidable 
 instance;" but bracing himself for the occasion, he again re 
 covered 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 be 
 sides 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 a preparatory to the great purification, which was 
 to be by washing the body and clothes on the seventh day, 
 
AND ITS COGNATES. 299 
 
 with which the uncleanliness ended." 1 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 impres 
 sion, 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 ac 
 count alone is made of the ivater 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 ac 
 count of this species of uncleanness, was to suffer excision 
 simply "because the water of separation was not sprinkled 
 upon him." So that the ^carce^ofjiivot 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 interpretation is to view it as inclusive of all the ablu 
 tions practised on the occasion. 2 
 
 1 Wall iii., 154. 
 
 2 An explanation has been given of the passage in Numbers, \vhich goes to 
 an extreme on the opposite side, and would deny that the person who under 
 went 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 Bap 
 tisms, 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 se 
 venth 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 person sprink 
 ling, 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 unclean shall wash his clothes, and be unclean till the evening (p. 72.) 
 But such an explanation will not stand. For the latter person was not re 
 quired 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. 
 
300 THE USE OF ftarr 
 
 In New Testament Scripture we find the same general use 
 of the word, embracing, in like manner, various ceremonial 
 ablutions. Thus in Heb. ix, 10, the ancient ritual is described 
 as " standing in meats and drinks and divers washings 
 dcaybpozz fjartrta/j.o iz 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 re 
 ferred to, the diverse would have been entirely out of place. 
 In Mark vii. 3, 4, 8, it is said, u The Pharisees, and all the 
 Jews, except they wash their hands oft (iav p.r^ Trvf/jfrJ vlfiwv- 
 TO.C rc #^ oa C,) eat not, holding the tradition of the elders ; 
 and when they come from the market, except they are bap 
 tized (lav fj.7] paxrlffcovTa:,) they eat not." This latter ex 
 pression is undoubtedly of stronger import than the former 
 one, and marks a difference between what was done when 
 they came from the market, and what was done on other 
 and commoner occasions. Dr. Campbell, who, on this sub 
 ject, 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 grammatically untenable; it would 
 have required the repetition of the rdc &2/>c, in the second 
 clause, after the paxTiacovrat) if the verb had referred to the 
 dipping of them alone. But on another ground this suppo 
 sition must be abandoned; for /Sflorr/fai is never applied to a 
 part of the body, nor is even Mco ; these always have respect 
 to the body or person as a whole ; while vlxTco is invariably 
 the word used when some particular member or select portion 
 is meant. 1 Having respect to this usage, and marking also 
 
 1 Titmann s Synonyms: "kouw viVtt w; they differ as our bathe and wash. 
 Therefore vijttinOa*, is used of any particular part of the body, not only of 
 the hands or feet; but kovacwOcu of the whole body. Acts ix. 37; Horn. II. 
 w. v. 582." See also Trench s Synonyms under the words. 
 
AND ITS COGNATES. 301 
 
 that the verb is here in the middle voice, having a reflective 
 sense, we must render the clause, which speaks of what the 
 Pharisees did on coining from market, "except they baptize 
 (or wash) themselves, they eat not;" i.e. they first perform a 
 general ablution ; for, having mingled with the crowd in the 
 market-place, and possibly come into contact with some un 
 clean person, not the hands alone, as in ordinary circumstances, 
 but the whole body, was supposed to need a purification. Yet 
 not such a one as involved a total immersion; for the law 
 only required this in extreme cases of actual and ascertained 
 pollution ; 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 Evange 
 list, 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 im 
 mersions, in the ordinary sense, but washings and sprinklings, 
 which are the forms of purification 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 ou ifiaatriady xpb TOL> dplffrov, had not washed be 
 fore dinner. Even Dr. Campbell finds himself obliged to ren 
 der here, a 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 prac 
 tise 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 con 
 clusive evidence to the contrary of this. The passage already 
 cited from the Gospel of Mark alone proves it; for the wash 
 ing of the hands merely is there mentioned as the ordinary 
 kind of ablution practised by the Pharisees before dinner. 
 And Josephus notices it among the peculiarities of the Es- 
 senes, 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 believe, 
 that private baths were common in Judea ; and, indeed, the 
 26 
 
802 THE USE OF fto~rict) 
 
 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 respecj in more ancient times, 
 and in states of society similar to what existed there in the 
 apostolic age. In countries also, where water was greatly 
 more abundant than in Judea, bathing by immersion was com 
 paratively little practised till effeminate and luxurious habits 
 had become general, and even then it was not always so fre 
 quent as is commonly 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 (d<ra/^ v^oc) was only a vessel for sitting in ; and the 
 water, after being heated, was poured over the head and shoul 
 ders. In the Dictionary of Greek and Koman Antiquities, 
 edited by Dr. Smith, it is stated (Art. Balneal) that, "on an 
 cient vases, on which persons are represented 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 (Aoonjp or JLounjpeov) resting on a stand, by the side of 
 which those who are bathing are represented standing un 
 dressed, and bathing themselves." "The daily bath," says 
 Bekker (Charicles, p. 149,) " was by no means so indispensable 
 with the Greeks as it was with the Romans; nay, in some in 
 stances the former nation looked on it as a mark of degeneracy 
 and increasing effeminacy, when the baths were much fre 
 quented." Various proofs are given of this; and it is fur 
 ther stated, that in the Grecian baths there appear usually to 
 have been, beside the XOOTT^^ already mentioned, some sort 
 of tubs, in which the persons sat or stood. Some of the paint 
 ings represent women standing, and a kind of shower-bath de 
 scending 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 /Ja7rr/<M did not always signify immersion, or even 
 the being 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 
 
AND ITS COGNATES. 303 
 
 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, ev UOO.T!, "in water;" but 
 Luke has simply the dative after the verb, If at p.V uoart fiax- 
 ri^co (ch. iii. 16,) "I indeed baptize you with water" with 
 that as the instrument, but leaving altogether indeterminate 
 the mode of its application. 1 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 affusion. 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 from its cisterns, and public reservoirs chiefly sup 
 plied by rain early in the season. 2 It is not unworthy of no 
 tice also, that 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. 3 
 And it may be still further noted as an additional confirma 
 tion of the view taken, that in the old Latin version the verb 
 ftaxTt<t) was not rendered by immergo or mergito as if those 
 words were somehow too definite or partial in their import to 
 
 1 Dr. Campbell most unwarrantably translates this passage in Luke s 
 Gospel, "baptize in water," as if it were ev vSaft; and so, has rendered 
 himself justly liable to the rebuke which, in his note on Matt. iii. 11, he has 
 administered to those who translate Iv vdatt, with water: "It is to be re 
 gretted 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 partisan 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. 
 
 2 Dr. Robinson s Researches, vol. i., sec. 7, $ 9. 
 
 3 Ibid., vol. ii., sec. x. 
 
304 THE USE OF 
 
 be presented as equivalents. It preferred adhering to the 
 Greek, and simply gave baptizo. 
 
 II. A second point demanding examination, is that which 
 respects proselyte-baptism among the Jews. Did this exist 
 prior to John s baptism ? In other words, did he simply adopt 
 an existing institution? or did he introduce what might be de 
 signated a new ordinance? Both sides of this question have 
 been zealously maintained, and the discussion of it has given 
 rise to long and learned investigations, both in this country 
 and on the continent, into that department of Jewish antiqui 
 ties. In favour of the prior existence of Jewish proselyte- 
 baptism we find, among others, the names of Lightfoot, Schott- 
 gen, Selden, Buxtorf, Wetstein, 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 proselytes, was more common 
 ly 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 en 
 tertain a shadow of doubt. Thus Wall gives expression 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 baptize, as well as circumcise 
 any proselyte, that came over to them from the nations. This 
 does fully 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 mankind beside them 
 selves to be in an unclean state, and not capable of being en 
 tered into the covenant of Israelites without a washing or 
 baptism, to denote their purification from their uncleanness. 
 And this was called the baptizing of them into Moses." 1 
 
 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 mat- 
 
 1 History of Infant Baptism, vol. i., p. 4. 
 
AND ITS COGNATES. 305 
 
 ters in the gospel age? It is here, that when the authorities 
 are looked into, they prove insufficient for the end they are 
 intended to serve; for, so far from finding any attestations 
 among them respecting the existence of proselyte-baptism in 
 the apostolic age, we are rather apt to he struck with the to 
 tal want of evidence on the point; and the want 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 con 
 nected with the admission, either of native Jews or converted 
 Gentiles, into the Covenant, except that of circumcision. Nor 
 is mention once made of any other in the Apocrypha, or in 
 the Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan, or in Philo and Jose- 
 phus, 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 very 
 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 supposing it to have been then originated, it may, 
 with some probability, be held to have been commonly in ope 
 ration for a certain time previously. But if we inquire when, 
 or how, we can find no satisfactory answer; all is involved in 
 uncertainty. 1 
 
 1 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 following 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 soui ces, and espe 
 cially from several passages in Josephus, (such as Ant. xiii. 9, xx. 2, xviii. 
 8, 4,) in which the reception of individuals from other lands is expressly 
 treated of, and no mention is made of baptism. (2.) The lustration performed 
 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 discontinued sacrifice, 
 yet not probably till the end of the third century ; and was then, for the most 
 
 26* 
 
306 THE USE OF y97ZT/a 
 
 From the state of the evidence, therefore, respecting prose 
 lyte-baptism among the Jews, we are not entitled to found 
 any thing on it in respect to the subject under consideration, 
 since it is not such as to enable us to draw any definite con 
 clusions regarding its existence or form in the gospel age. We 
 are not on that account, however, to hold that there was no 
 thing in the usages of the time tending in the direction of a 
 baptismal service, and that the institution of such a service 
 in connexion with a new state of things in the kingdom of 
 God, must have had an altogether strange and novel appear 
 ance. For, in the ancient religions generally, and in the Mo 
 saic religion in particular, there was such a frequent use of 
 water, by means of washings, sprinklings, 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 otherwise than natural and pro 
 per. In the Greek and Roman classics we find constant re 
 ferences to this symbolical use of water. Thus, in Virgil, 
 .ZEn. ii. 17, Tu, genitor, cape sacra manu, patriosque Penates; 
 Me bello e tan to digressum et caede recenti, Attrectare nefas ; 
 donee flumine vivo abluero. Macrobius, Sat. iii., Constat 
 Diis superis sacra facturum corporis ablutione purgari. Por 
 phyry, de Abstin. iv. 7, says of the priests of Egypt, roiz ~"^C 
 fj[jLpa.Z d.7izXou(javTO (f>u^ow. Ovid speaks of the belief in the 
 efficacy 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 nocentes 
 Impia lustratos 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 ef- 
 
 part, still performed as a self-lustration in connexion 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 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 significance of lustrations among 
 the Jews, taken in connexion with the expectations entertained respecting 
 the new state of things to be introduced by the Messiah. 
 
AND ITS COGNATES. 807 
 
 feet, but these are enough. The state of feeling and practice 
 among the Jews was only so far different, that they had a bet 
 ter foundation to rest upon, and ordinances of service directly 
 appointed by Heaven to observe. Among these, as already 
 noticed, divers baptisms baptisms by washing, sprinkling, 
 and immersion were imposed on them ; and both the priests 
 daily, when they entered the Temple, and the ordinary wor 
 shippers on ever-recurring occasions, had ablutions of various 
 kinds to perform. Not only so, but it was matter of public 
 notoriety, that the Essenes, who carried their notions and 
 practices somewhat farther than others in ceremonial obser 
 vance, 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 connexion with the society, (Josephus Wars, ii. 8, 6.) 
 Taking all these things into account, and remembering, be 
 sides, how frequently in the Old Testament the purification 
 to be effected upon the soul of true penitents, and of those 
 especially who were to live when the great period of reforma 
 tion came, is represented under the symbol of a water-purifi 
 cation, (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 prepara 
 tory to a new phase of the Divine administration, should have 
 accompanied his preaching with an ordinance of baptism. The 
 ideas, the practices, the associations, the hopes of the time, 
 were such as to render an act of this kind both a natural ex 
 pression and a fitting embodiment of his doctrine. Hence, 
 when John gave a succession of denials to the interrogatories 
 of the Pharisees, such as they understood to be a renuncia 
 tion of any claim on his part to the character, either of Mes 
 siah or of Messiah s forerunner, they asked him, " Why bap- 
 tizest thou, then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither 
 that prophet?" (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, disclaiming, as they 
 
308 THE USE OF paTCrl^G) 
 
 thought, being identified with one or other of them, should 
 still have made himself known as the dispenser of such an or 
 dinance. 
 
 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 very proba 
 ble 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 immersion; but these descriptions belong 
 to a period long subsequent to the apostolic age. In de 
 scribing the practice of the Essenes, which, perhaps, comes 
 the nearest to the new rite of any known existing custom, 
 Josephus uses the words d-oMa) (wash off,) and frr-vela, 
 cleansing; pointing rather to the operations of the lavacrum 
 or Xowcrjpiov, than to the act of immersion in a pool or bathing- 
 tub. And it is always by words of a like nature words in- 
 dicative of washing, cleansing, and such like, that the ablu 
 tions of the Old Testament ritual are described; as in Lev. 
 xvi. 28, where it is in the Septuagint, xlovs c ra Iftdrea xo.l 
 Ao jffsrae TO ffco/ia WJTQ~J 5orr, 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 re 
 ferred to. 
 
 III. A third line of reflection will be found to conduct us 
 substantially to the result we have already arrived at. It is 
 derived from the incidental allusions and explanatory expres 
 sions occurring in Scripture, both in respect to the symboli 
 cal 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. 1G, "Arise, and be 
 
AND ITS COGNATES. 809 
 
 baptized, 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 represented as finding its accom 
 plishment "in the Word" being wrought mainly in the soul 
 through the belief of the truth. Yet, along with the more 
 direct and inward instrumentality, the apostle couples that of 
 baptism, and points, while he does so, to the cleansing pro 
 perty of the symbolical element employed in its administra 
 tion. The same also is done in such expressions as "But ye 
 are washed," "lie hath washed us from our sins," "He hath 
 saved us by the washing of regeneration and renewing 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 
 entirely different, and only the main, fundamental idea alike. 
 Thus in 1 Cor. x. 2, the apostle represents the Israelites as 
 having been all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the 
 sea; where nothing but the most fanciful imagination, or the 
 most determined partisanship can think of an immersion being 
 indicated. 1 The two actions classed together were quite dif 
 ferent in form; and neither the one nor the other 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 
 
 1 One would almost think it was in &jeux d* esprit some one had said of Mo 
 ses -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. 
 
310 THE USE OF 
 
 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 accom 
 plishing 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; precisely as we, when our bap 
 tism 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 partici 
 pation of a Divine life. In each of these illustrative cases 
 no stress whatever is laid upon the particular form or mode, 
 in which they respectively differed ; in 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 tne apostle speaks of baptism as a burial, and which 
 Baptists usually contend is founded on the specific mode of 
 immersion even these, when viewed in connexion with the 
 representations 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 administration, 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 in 
 terment and a cleansing. What natural relation have these 
 to each other ? What proper affinity ? Manifestly none what 
 ever; and if the same ordinance is somehow expressive of both 
 ideas, it cannot possibly be through its form of administration ; 
 it must be got by looking above this (whatever precisely that 
 may be,) and taking into account the spiritual things symbol 
 ized and exhibited in the ordinance. Indeed, as burial was 
 commonly practised in the East, it did not present even a 
 formal resemblance to an immersion in water ; for, usually the 
 body, and in particular our Lord s body, was not let down, 
 
AND ITS COGNATES. 311 
 
 as with us, into an open sepulchre, but placed horizontally in 
 the side of a cave, and there not unfrequently 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 external resemblance, they 
 had been so associated by the apostle, it would have been im 
 possible to vindicate the connexion from the charge of an un 
 regulated play of fancy. But there is here nothing of the 
 kind. The apostle is viewing baptism as the initiatory ordi 
 nance 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 connexion with 
 the several stages of Christ s redemptive work His death, 
 burial, and resurrection, reckoning these as so many stages 
 in the believer s personal history. And as thus, the very 
 substance 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 off from the forms, he varies the figure, 
 passes from the idea of being buried with Christ, to that of 
 being, like saplings, 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 tlje spiritual design of the ordinance. 
 
 There is still another passage, to which, in this connexion, 
 reference should be made ; for although it does not directly 
 discourse of baptism, it proceeds on the ideas commonly asso 
 ciated 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. 117, which narrates the action of wash 
 ing the disciples feet by our Lord. The action had a twofold 
 significance. It was intended, in the first instance, to exhibit 
 an affecting 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 
 
312 THE USE OF J3a~~ia) 
 
 spiritual cleansing to its necessity, even in the case of those 
 who have already become the disciples 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 ignorant, 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," indi 
 cating that a deep symbolic import attached to the service, 
 on account of which all the disciples behooved to submit to it. 
 And now Peter, catching a glimpse of his Master s meaning, 
 exclaimed, "Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and 
 head." To this Jesus again replied, hXoofjLevo^ ou %psiav 
 
 )C Ion xa.0a.fjbz o/o^; where 
 
 we are to mark the change of verb in the first member the 
 
 i vo^, referring to a general washing, the cleansing of 
 the whole body, and the vtyaaOae, the cleansing merely of 
 the feet in accordance with the usage previously noticed 
 (p. 300.) By reason of their relation to Christ, the disciples 
 (all except Judas, who is expressly distinguished from the 
 rest in what immediately follows) had been, in a manner, 
 washed; that is, they were in an accepted or justified con 
 dition, which, with reference to the action of washing, our 
 Lord designated clean. But they could only abide in this 
 condition (our Lord would have them to understand) by per 
 petually repairing to Him for deliverance from the partial 
 defilements which they contracted in the world; so that the 
 one great baptism into a forgiven and purified condition must 
 be followed up by ever recurring lesser baptisms. But in 
 both cases alike, it is the cleansing virtue alone of the outward 
 service that is made account of; it is the washing away alone 
 of contracted defilement ; and if that idea is made prominent in 
 the use of the water, we naturally and reasonably infer, the 
 design of the symbol will in any case be accomplished. 
 
 On the whole, two things seem perfectly clear, from all that 
 is written in Scripture respecting what is external in the ordi 
 nance of baptism. The first is, that there is nothing, either 
 in the expressions employed concerning it, or in the circum- 
 
AND ITS COGNATES. 313 
 
 stances of its institution, to fix the Church down to a specific 
 form of administration, as essential to its proper being and 
 character. This sufficiently appears from the considerations 
 already adduced; but the view might be greatly strengthened, 
 by comparing the indeterminateness which characterizes the 
 language respecting baptism, with the remarkable precision 
 and definitiveness with which the appointments were made in 
 Old Testament ordinances. In these the form was essential, 
 and hence its minutest details were prescribed the day, the 
 place, the materials to be employed, and the manner of em 
 ploying them: all were matter of explicit legislation. But in 
 the New Testament ordinance it is otherwise, because, while 
 the rite itself is imperative, nothing of moment depends upon 
 the precise form of administration. The second conclusion is, 
 that the use of water in baptism is chiefly, if not exclusively, 
 for the purpose of symbolizing the cleansing and regenerative 
 nature of the change, which those, who are the proper subjects, 
 must undergo on entering the Messiah s kingdom. So that 
 the prominent idea the one point on which the general tenor 
 of Scripture would lead us to lay stress is the cleansing pro 
 perty of the element applied to the body, not the precise 
 manner of its administration. And we may fairly regard it 
 as an additional confirmation of the soundness of our views 
 in both these respects, that when we look from the external 
 symbol to the internal reality, we find the same disregard as 
 to form, coupled with the same uniformity as to substantial 
 import. It is said, we are baptized in the Spirit (sv Trusti/mre 
 d:( uo, Matt. iii. 11 ; John i. 33 ; Acts i. 5 ;) but this is described 
 as taking effect by the Spirit descending into us, not by our 
 being immersed into the Spirit by His being poured out 
 upon us, or coming to abide in us. The cloven tongues as 
 of fire, which at the first imaged the fact of his descent on 
 the apostles, appeared sitting on them ; it was not an element, 
 into which they themselves were plunged, but a form of power 
 resting upon them. In a word, it is the internal, vivifying, 
 regenerative agency, which alone is important; the mode in 
 which it is represented as coming into operation is varied, 
 27 
 
314 THE USE OF 
 
 because pointing to -what in the ordinance is not absolutely 
 fixed or strictly essential. 
 
 We have confined our attention, in the preceding line of 
 inquiry, to what properly belongs to the exegetical province. 
 Our immediate object has been to ascertain, by every fair and 
 legitimate consideration, the Scriptural import of fia-ri^co and 
 ftdftreffpa, as applied to the baptism of John and our Lord. 
 The doctrine of baptism the truths it involves, the obliga 
 tions it imposes, its proper subjects, and the parties by whom 
 it should be administered these are topics that belong to 
 another department of theological inquiry. We shall merely 
 advert, in conclusion, to one or two expressions, in which the 
 word to baptize is coupled with certain adjuncts, used to indi 
 cate more definitely its nature and object. In respect to 
 John s baptism, the common adjuncts are, ere perdvoeav, e;c 
 d<fffw tipapTccov, into repentance, into remission of sins that 
 is, into these as the aim and result of the ordinance. The 
 same general relation is sometimes expressed in regard to 
 Christ s baptism, only the object is different; as when it is 
 said to be ere & ffcofta (1 Cor. xii. 13,) et Xptffrbv > /TjffOW J 
 or s/c TOV dduarov a\jro r j (Rom. vi. 3) into these, as the end 
 or object aimed at in the ordinance. To be baptized into a 
 person into Christ, for example, or into His body means, 
 to be through baptism formally admitted into personal fellow 
 ship with Him, and participation in the cause or work asso 
 ciated with His name. And not materially different is the 
 expression of being baptized, Iv rw dvoparc rou Kupeoo (Acts 
 x. 48,) also ITTI TOJ ovo/tare Y^tfoy (Acts ii. 38 ;) the import of 
 which is not that the original formula given by the Lord 
 was dispensed with that instead of it Christ s name simply 
 was pronounced over the baptized; but that they were bap 
 tized into the faith of His person and salvation, or into the 
 profession and hope of all that His name indicates for those 
 who own His authority, and trust in His merits. 
 
HADES IN SCRIPTURE. 815 
 
 SECTION SIXTH. 
 
 IMPORT AND USES OF HADES, v Atdrfa IN SCRIPTURE. 
 
 THIS is one of the few words employed by the sacred writers 
 which played a prominent part in the mythologies of Greece 
 and Rome; and it is of importance, for the correct interpre 
 tation of certain portions of New Testament Scripture, to as 
 certain, whether the sense which it bears in the sacred, is the 
 same with that which it bore in the profane territory; or what, 
 if any, may have been the modifications it underwent in being 
 brought into contact with the spiritual revelations of the Bi 
 ble. 
 
 1. To look first to the heathen use of the term, the deri 
 vation and primary meaning cannot be pronounced absolutely 
 certain; yet what has been the most general, continues still 
 to be the most approved opinion that it is a compound of 
 privative a and tasty, so that, if applied to a person or power, 
 it would designate what makes invisible, if to a place, the in 
 visible region. We may the rather hold this to be the correct 
 etymology, as in the more ancient writers the iota is very com 
 monly written and pronounced as a constituent part of the 
 word; and aor^ may consequently be regarded as an abbre 
 viation of alur^. One does not see how this could have hap 
 pened, if the derivation had been from cioco or y/ioco^ to re 
 ceive. In the elder Greek writers, the word is generally used 
 to designate a person or power; it is but another name for 
 Pluto, Dis, or Orcus. In Homer it is always so used ; but in 
 later writers it is applied sometimes to the power, and some 
 times to the abode or region, over which he was supposed to 
 preside. And as people felt unwilling (according to Plato) 
 to designate the Deity by the dreaded name of Hades, pre 
 ferring that rather of Pluto, so the term Hades came in pro 
 cess of time to be generally appropriated to the region. Nor 
 can there be any doubt that this region, in respect to locality, 
 was understood to occupy a relatively lower position than the 
 earth hence the Latin designations, inferi and inferna, the 
 
316 IMPORT AND USE 
 
 people or places beneath ground ; and that, in respect to its 
 nature and design, it was the common receptacle of the de 
 parted, ndvraz bftcoz dvyToyz Aior^ oiyncu. This common 
 receptacle, however, they held to be divided into two distinct 
 spheres one for the good and another for the bad Elysium 
 and Tartarus. Delineating the two paths, which at a certain 
 point led off to the different habitations, Yirgil says, JEn. vi. 
 540: 
 
 " Hac iter Elysium nobis: et laeva malorum 
 Exercet poenas, et ad impia Tartara naittit." 
 
 But notwithstanding this division, and the possibility, ac 
 cording to it, of a state of happiness being enjoyed in the 
 nether world, the notion of Hades was still a predominantly 
 gloomy and forbidding one to the heathen mind. Pluto and 
 his subordinates were always imaged under a grim and stern 
 aspect; and the whole region over which their sway extended 
 looked dull and mournful. The passage of souls thither was 
 commonly represented as a transition from the region of light 
 and life to the mansions of darkness, and the possession, at 
 the most, of a kind of shadowy, semi-real existence, a sort of 
 mid-way condition between proper life and death. The poets, 
 who partly expressed and partly also formed the popular be 
 lief upon the subject, inclined so much in their representations 
 to the shady side, that Plato would only admit them into his 
 Republic, if the passages bearing on this point were erased 
 from them ; because, filling the minds of men with such un 
 inviting representations of the state after death, they inevita 
 bly tended, he conceived, to unnerve the spirits of men, and 
 dispose them to prefer slavery to defeat and death (Rep. iii. 
 1-4.) This dark and gloomy portraiture of the state of the 
 departed in heathen mythology arose, doubtless, in part from 
 the want of any definite revelation to guide and elevate men s 
 views regarding the future; but still more, from a want of 
 another kind the want of any proper satisfaction for the 
 guilt of sin, such as should, on solid grounds, have restored 
 peace to the conscience. Their imperfect ablutions and sacri 
 fices were felt to be insufficient for so great an end, especially 
 when the thought of future retribution hove distinctly in 
 
OF HADES IN SCRIPTURE. 317 
 
 view. Yet, uninviting as the prospect of an entrance into 
 Ilades was, even for the better portion of mankind, it was 
 greatly preferred to exclusion ; and the classes that were de 
 nied admission for a time, were deemed peculiarly unhappy. 
 These were the unburied, the unripe (such as had been carried 
 off at an immature age, hence supposed to be not ready,) and 
 those who had met a violent death. The first class till their 
 funeral rites were performed, the other two till the natural 
 period of death had arrived, were doomed to flit about the 
 outskirts of Hades. 1 Itself a proof of the superficialism of 
 heathen mythology, and of the undue regard that was had in 
 it to merely natural considerations! since all the circum 
 stances which were supposed to exclude from the proper 
 receptacles of the dead, belonged to the outward and fortui 
 tous, rather than to the moral. But whatever may be thought 
 of such imaginations, there can be no doubt of the two lead 
 ing points already noted namely, that the Ilades of ancient 
 heathenism was believed to be the common receptacle of de 
 parted souls, and that it was understood to possess a compart 
 ment of bliss for the good, and a compartment of retributive 
 punishment and misery for the bad. 
 
 2. Turning now to the territory of Scripture, we look in 
 the first instance to the light that is furnished on the subject 
 in the writings of the Old Testament. There the place of 
 departed spirits is designated by the Hebrew name of Sheol; 
 which is most commonly, and I believe rightly, derived from 
 >>*$?, to demand or ask: So called, to use the words of Mi- 
 chaelis, a poscendo, quod non desinat postulare, et homines 
 alios post alios ad se trahere. With reference to this primary 
 import of the term, as well as to the reality indicated by it, 
 it is said in Prov. xxvii. 20, " Sheol and the abyss are never 
 satisfied," and in Hab. ii. 5, the Chaldean monarch is likened 
 to Sheol, "because he gathereth unto him all nations, and 
 heapeth unto him all people." Gesenius s later derivation, as 
 if it were for 7ij,$ ? a hollow, then a hollow arid subterranean 
 place, seems to rest on no solid foundation. But nothing of 
 
 1 See Tertullian cle Anima, c. 56 ; also the long note of Pearson on the 
 subject under Art. V. of the Creed, note L 
 
 27* 
 
318 IMPORT AND USE 
 
 importance depends on the etymology; other and more cer 
 tain sources of information exist as to the notions involved in 
 it. The Sheol of the Hebrews bore so much of a common 
 resemblance to the Hades of the Greeks, that in the Septua- 
 gint fuir^ is the word commonly employed as an equivalent; 
 and in the latter periods of the Jewish commonwealth the two 
 words were viewed as of substantially like import. According 
 also to the Hebrew mode of contemplation, there was a com 
 mon receptacle for the spirits of the departed; and a recep 
 tacle which was conceived of as occupying, in relation to this 
 world, a lower sphere under ground. Hence they spoke of 
 going down to Sheol, or of being brought up again from it. 
 Josephus, when describing in this respect the belief of the 
 Pharisees, which was, undoubtedly, the common belief of his 
 countrymen, says, "They believe that souls have an immortal 
 vigour in them, and that under the earth (UTTO 0ovoc,) there 
 will be rewards or punishments, according as they have lived 
 virtuously or viciously in this life; that the latter are to be 
 detained in an everlasting prison, but that the former shall 
 have power to revive and live again," (Ant. xviii, 1, 8.) The 
 language of earlier times perfectly accords with these views, 
 so far as it refers to the points embraced in them. Jacob, for 
 example, speaks of being brought down to Sheol with sorrow, 
 (Gen. xlii. 38;) and David, in one place, (Ps. cxxxix. 8,) con 
 templates the possibility of making his bed in Sheol, and in 
 another, (Ps. xxx.,) after deliverance from the sore calamity 
 which had enveloped him for a time as in an atmosphere of 
 death, gives thanks to God, like one actually restored to life, 
 for having brought his soul up again from Sheol. At the 
 same time, that the wicked were regarded as going to Sheol, 
 is so often expressed in Old Testament Scripture, that it is 
 almost needless to produce any particular examples of it. 
 The passage alone of Isa. xiv., which, though highly figurative, 
 is certainly based on the existing beliefs of the Israelitish 
 people, is conclusive proof. The king of Babylon is there 
 represented as thrown from his lofty elevation by the judgment 
 of Heaven, and sent as an humbled captive into the chambers 
 of Sheol, the inmates of which appear moved with wonder at 
 
OF HADES IN SCRIPTURE. 319 
 
 the thought of his downfall, and raise over him the shout of 
 exultation. Beyond doubt, therefore, Sheol, like Hades, was 
 regarded as the abode after death alike of the good and the 
 bad. And the conception of its low, deep, subterranean 
 position is not only implied in the general style of thought 
 and expression upon the subject, but is sometimes also very 
 forcibly exhibited; As when in Deuteronomy, ch. xxxii. 22, 
 the Lord declares that a fire was "kindled in his anger, which 
 should burn to the lowest Sheol;" and in Job xi. 7 9, 
 "Canst thou by searching find out God? canst thou find out 
 the Almighty unto perfection? It is high as heaven, what 
 canst thou do? Deeper than Sheol, what canst thou know?" 
 And still again in Amos ix. 2, "Though they dig into Sheol, 
 thence shall My hand take them ; though they climb up into 
 heaven, thence will I bring them down." In these passages 
 Sheol, like Hades, is manifestly put in opposition to what is 
 elevated in height; it is the antithesis of heaven, and stands 
 as a concrete designation of the lowest depths. 
 
 From what has been stated, it is clear, that the Sheol of 
 the Hebrews much more nearly coincides with the Hades of 
 the Greeks, than with either our hell (in its now universally 
 received acceptation 1 ) or the grave. In some of the passages 
 referred to, indeed, the meaning would not materially suffer 
 by one or other of these terms being employed as an equiva 
 lent. Substantially, we should give the sense of Jacob s de 
 claration, if we rendered, "Ye shall bring down my gray hairs 
 with sorrow to the grave;" nor should any violence be done 
 to the general import of the passage in Deuteronomy, if. as in 
 the authorized version, the wrath of God was said to burn to 
 the lowest hell; because here it is the wicked only that are 
 contemplated, and these as pursued by Divine vengeance to 
 the farthest bounds of their possible existence. Yet, the 
 terms in either case are not precisely equivalent, and hence 
 are not convertible ; we could not substitute hell for grave in 
 Jacob s declaration, or grave for hell in the passage from Deu- 
 
 1 Originally, it had much the same meaning as Hades, being derived from 
 ihe Saxon helan, to cover, and denoting simply the covered or hidden space 
 the invisible regions. 
 
320 IMPORT AND USE 
 
 teronomy. With this general agreement, however, between 
 Hades and Sheol, there may still be shades of difference be 
 tween them, and such as involve important principles. The 
 term Hades certainly came nearer to Sheol than either hell 
 or the grave, especially in these two respects, that both alike 
 were viewed as the common receptacle of departed souls, and 
 as lying far under ground: In two other points also there 
 might be said to be a substantial agreement. First, in regard 
 to the diverse conditions of the departed; for, though in what 
 is said of Sheol we do not find by any means such a distinct 
 separation into the two regions for their respective classes of 
 occupants, as in the case of Hades with its Elysium and Tar 
 tarus, yet the existence of such a separation is not doubtfully 
 indicated. It is implied in the representations given of the 
 doctrine of Divine retribution, as reaching beyond the boun 
 daries of sense and time into the realms of the dead. It is 
 again implied in the hope, which was possessed by the right 
 eous in his death the rooted conviction, that he was safe in 
 the keeping of the all-present and omnipotent Jehovah, even 
 when appointed to find his bed in the viewless chambers of 
 Sheol; a very different condition from that of those, who, 
 like the godless monarch of Babylon, were represented as cast 
 down thither with the marks upon them of shame and dis 
 honour. Such things leave no room to doubt, that while Sheol 
 might be regarded but as one region, it was known to possess 
 quite different receptacles for those received within its gates, 
 and that there still, there, indeed, pre-eminently, it should be 
 well with the righteous and ill with the wicked. With all 
 this and here lies the other point of substantial agreement 
 with the Hades of heathendom a certain degree of gloom 
 and repulsiveness hung around the region even to the eye of 
 the believing Israelite. He felt alarmed and saddened at the 
 thought of his entrance into it as if his nature must there 
 suffer a kind of collapse; and not only the commoner sympa 
 thies of flesh and blood, but the holiest affections also of grace, 
 must be denied the exercise they delighted in on earth. In 
 the Book of Psalms Sheol is spoken of as the land of forget- 
 fulness, and of silence, where no celebration is made of God s 
 
OF HADES IN SCRIPTURE. 821 
 
 praise, or active service is done for Him, like what is ever 
 proceeding on earth. David asks respecting those who have 
 entered that nether world, "Who shall give Thee thanks?" 
 (Ps. vi. 5.) And Hezekiah, in like manner, declares "Sheol 
 cannot praise Thee, nor death extol Thee. The living, the 
 living, he shall praise Thee, as I do this day." (Isa. xxxviii. 
 18.) 
 
 Were expressions of this nature to be taken absolutely, they 
 would bespeak even a darker and gloomier view of Sheol, on 
 the part of Old Testament believers, than was held by the 
 better sort of heathens respecting the Elysium of Hades. But 
 it is evident, from what has been stated, that they cannot be 
 so taken. ^If the retributive justice of God followed men into 
 Sheol, distinguishing there also between the righteous and 
 the wicked, there could not possibly, with either class, be total 
 silence and forgetfulness ; the soul must have been conceived 
 capable of happiness or misery, and consequently to have had 
 continued recollection and consciousness, as discerning in the 
 elements of its new state the issues of that which it had left. 
 The ideal scene, too, in Isaiah, of the Chaldean monarch s re 
 ception among the departed, and the historical representation 
 of Samuel s reappearance at Endor to rebuke Saul and pro 
 claim his approaching doom, should have wanted their proper 
 basis, if the tenants of Sheol had been supposed to be bereft 
 of consciousness and power. The language, which seems to 
 betoken such a complete cessation of thought and energy, 
 could be nothing more than relative. It meant, that, as com 
 pared with the present life, so replete with busy, and in many 
 respects pleasurable activities, existence in Sheol presented it 
 self to the apprehension of the Hebrews, as an obscure, inac 
 tive, torpid repose. In truth, they had no revelation on the 
 subject; and, wiser than the heathen, they stopped where 
 their light forsook them ; they did not attempt to supply the 
 lack of supernal illumination by silly fables, which were fitted 
 only to deceive. It was the further development of God s 
 scheme which alone could relieve the gloom ; and waiting for 
 that, they rested meanwhile in the conviction though not 
 without many recoils of feeling and faintings of heart that 
 
IMPORT AND USE 
 
 He who had kept and blessed them through the troubles of 
 life, would not leave them a prey to evil in the undiscovered 
 regions that lay beyond. 
 
 Along, however, with those points of obvious or substantial 
 agreement, between the Sheol of the Hebrews and the Hades 
 of the Greeks, there were points two in particular of actual 
 diversity. One was, that Sheol was not, in the estimation of 
 the Hebrews, a final, but only an intermediate state. It was 
 the soul s place of rest, and, it might be, for aught they knew, 
 of absolute quiescence, during its state of separation from the 
 body, but from which it was again to emerge, when the time 
 should come for the resurrection of the dead. The prospect 
 of such a resurrection was cherished from the very first by the 
 believing people of God, to whom the promise was given of a 
 reversion of the evil brought in by sin, and, by consequence, 
 of the destruction of death, in which that evil found its proper 
 consummation. So that every true believer was a man of 
 hope of a hope that penetrated beyond the mansions of 
 Sheol; his final resting-place, he knew, was not to be there. 
 And when the Psalmist spake concerning himself, " God will 
 redeem my soul from the hand (or power) of Sheol, for He 
 shall receive me," (Ps. xlix. 15;) or the prophet Isaiah, of 
 the righteous generally, " Thy dead men shall live, my dead 
 body shall arise; awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust," 
 (xxvi. 19;) or Hosea, "I will ransom them from the power 
 of Sheol, I will redeem them from death : death, I will be 
 thy plagues; Sheol, I will be thy destruction," (xiii. 14;) 
 or Daniel, " Many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth 
 shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and 
 everlasting contempt," (xii. 2:) they but gave varied expres 
 sion to that hope, which lay in the breast of every pious Is 
 raelite namely, that there should be a resurrection of the 
 just and of the unjust that for the just, at least, there should 
 be a release from Sheol, with its unnatural abridgments of life 
 and being, that they might enter on their proper heritage of 
 blessing. 
 
 In this consisted one important element of difference be 
 tween Sheol and Hades; for the heathen idolater could see 
 
OF HADES IN SCRIPTURE. 823 
 
 nothing beyond Hades ; its bars to him were eternal ; the 
 thought of a resurrection was alien to all his conceptions of 
 the possible future. And closely connected with that was this 
 other, that Sheol was not viewed as a separate realm, like 
 Hades, withdrawn from the primal fountain of life, and sub 
 ject to another dominion than the world of sense and time. 
 With the heathen, the lord of the lower regions was the rival 
 of the King of earth and heaven; the two domains were es 
 sentially antagonistic. But with the more enlightened He 
 brew there was no. real separation between the two ; the cham 
 bers of Sheol were as much God s as the habitations of men 
 on earth, or the mansions of the blest in glory ; there, as well 
 as here, the one living Jehovah was believed to be in all, 
 through all, and over all. 
 
 Now, it is impossible but that these two leading principles, 
 associated with the Hebrew Sheol, but not with the Grecian 
 Hades, must have materially affected the views currently en 
 tertained upon the subject; and though the Hellenistic Jews 
 employed Hades as the nearest equivalent in the Greek lan 
 guage to Sheol, it must yet have called up ideas in the mind 
 of an enlightened Israelite, which found no place in the bosom 
 of a heathen. The word was a different thing in the mouth 
 of the one from what it was in the mouth of the other. 
 
 8. So much, then, for the Old Testament usage and ideas; 
 we come now to those of the New Testament. Here the word 
 Hades is of comparatively rare occurrence ; it is not found in 
 more than eight passages altogether. The first time it meets 
 us is in our Lord s denunciation upon Capernaum, the place 
 where He had usually resided during the time of His active 
 ministry in Galilee; and it is employed, as in some of the 
 passages cited from the Old Testament, merely as one of the 
 terms of a contrast: " And thou, Capernaum, which art ex 
 alted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to Hades" (Matt. 
 xi. 23) i.e., from the most towering elevation to the deepest 
 debasement. From a proverbial use of this description no 
 thing very definite can be inferred as to the nature of the 
 place; the reference proceeds simply on the popular appre 
 hension respecting its position in the lowest depths. The next 
 
324 IMPORT AND USE OF 
 
 use of the term by our Lord is also of a somewhat rhetorical 
 character; it is in the memorable words addressed to Simon 
 Peter, which contained the declaration, "And on this rock I 
 will build My Church, and the gates of Hades shall not pre 
 vail against it" (Matt. xvi. 18.) This no further determines 
 the nature of Hades, than that somehow it is conceived of as 
 standing in opposition to the continued existence or prosperity 
 of the church; so that the ascendency of the one would be 
 the defeat or overthrow of the other. Hades is referred to as 
 a realm or kingdom, having, like earthly kingdoms in the 
 East, seats of council and authority at its gates, where deli 
 berations were held, and measures taken, in regard to all that 
 concerned its interests; and these, the Lord affirms, should 
 never prevail against His cause on earth; this cause should 
 ever maintain its ground. But on another occasion still 
 the only occasion besides on which the term occurs in the re 
 corded sayings of our Lord in the parable of the rich man 
 and Lazarus, it is there said of the former, that " in Hades 
 he lifted up his eyes, in torments." And it cannot but be re 
 garded as a noticeable circumstance, that in the solitary ex 
 ample, wherein Hades is mentioned by our Lord explicitly as 
 a receptacle for the departed, it is in connexion with the 
 wicked, and as a place of torment. True, no doubt, Lazarus 
 also, the child of faith and the heir of glory, was so far asso 
 ciated with the lost worldling, that he appears, as it were, 
 within sight and hail of the other; but still, it is only to the 
 compartment, where the lost had their portion, that the name 
 Hades is applied; and betwixt that locality and the abodes 
 of the blest an impassable gulf is represented as being fixed. 
 Coupling with this the circumstance, that in the other two 
 cases also, in which the term Hades was employed by our 
 Lord, it appears in a kind of antithesis to His cause and king 
 dom, one can scarcely avoid feeling as if there had been taken 
 from Hades somewhat of that common aspect and relation to 
 the whole of mankind, which in more ancient times was ascribed 
 to Sheol. The rather may we thus conclude, when we call to 
 remembrance the words of Christ on another occasion ; words 
 which exhibit a marked contrast to those spoken of the rich 
 
OF HADES IN SCRIPTURE. 325 
 
 man in the parable, and which, from the emphatic moment 
 when they were uttered, might be said to designate for future 
 time the receptacle of departed saints. It was on the cross, 
 when Jesus said to the penitent malefactor, "-To-day shalt 
 thou be with Me in paradise," (Luke xxiii. 43.) Paradise! 
 the region, not of gloom and forgetfulness, but of beautiful 
 and blessed life the primeval home and heritage of man; 
 and so, proclaiming Jesus to be that Second Man, the Lord 
 from heaven, who had prevailed to recover what was lost by 
 the first. 1 
 
 Notwithstanding, however, this studied avoidance, on the 
 part of our Lord, of the term Hades to denote the place of 
 His temporary sojourn, and that of His people, between death 
 and the resurrection, the next passage in which we meet with 
 the word, seems to make Hades, such a place of sojourn for 
 the Redeemer Himself. It is in Acts ii. 27-31, where, after 
 quoting a portion of the 16th Psalm, and applying it to Christ, 
 the Apostle Peter says, that David spake there as a prophet 
 "spake of the resurrection of Christ, that His soul was not 
 left in Hades, neither did His flesh see corruption." By 
 the great body of Christian writers this passage is held con 
 clusive as to the fact of Christ s soul having actually been in 
 Hades; since it could not have been represented as not left 
 there, had it not actually been there ; and by many of them it 
 is deemed the only very clear and decisive text on the point. 2 
 Yet it is rather pressing the language too far, when it is al 
 leged in proof of Hades being the proper designation of the 
 place, whither our Lord s soul went at the moment of death. 
 For it is an Old Testament passage, and like other passages 
 
 1 The full significance of our Lord s language on this occasion has been 
 sadly marred by our rabbinical commentators (Lightfoot, Wetstein, etc.,) who 
 have thought they sufficiently explained it by adducing passages from Jewish 
 writings, in which the Garden of Eden is used as a name for the place of de 
 parted believers. As if such writings were entitled to rank even in antiquity 
 with the gospels! Or, as if the kind of hap-hazard employment of terms by 
 blind Rabbis, as often wrong as right, when referring to the mysteries of the 
 kingdom, gave the key to Christ s pregnant and select diction ! But see at 
 Part L, sec. 3, p. 51, sq. 
 
 2 See Pearson on the Creed, Burnet or Browne on the 39 Articles. 
 
326 IMPORT AND USE 
 
 of a prophetic nature, which pointed to New Testament times, 
 it naturally spoke of the future under the form and image of 
 the things then present or past. It should, therefore, be un 
 derstood of the actual event in Gospel times with such a mea 
 sure of qualification, as the altered circumstances of the new 
 dispensation might require. And if, as we have seen reason 
 to believe, the language of our Lord Himself gave indication 
 of a change in respect to Hades, as regards the souls of be 
 lievers if in His discourses he carefully distinguished between 
 Hades and the receptacle of His own and His people s disem 
 bodied spirits, we can scarcely be warranted in pressing the 
 Old Testament passage quoted by St. Peter, so as to impose 
 on it still an Old Testament sense. But, in reality, neither 
 the original Hebrew, nor the Septuagint Greek, which is 
 adopted by the apostle, gives any precise indication of the 
 place where our Lord s spirit sojourned; they do not define 
 so closely, as is supposed, his relation to Hades. The words 
 in the Greek, which represent quite exactly the sense of the 
 Hebrew, are, o*j% IfxaTatetyeez xty <j)uy$v p-oo e/c 7<%y Thou 
 wilt not relinquish, or abandon, my soul to Hades wilt not 
 surrender it as a helpless prey to that hostile power, or un 
 welcome abode. It might, indeed, mean, that the soul was 
 to be allowed to enter there, though not to be shut up for a 
 continuance; but it might also, and even more naturally, inti 
 mate that the soul should not properly fall under the dominion 
 of Hades. The expression is general as regards the matter 
 of relationship; Hades is simply eyed as the antagonistic 
 power, the hostile quarter, against which security was to be 
 provided, or from which deliverance was to be granted. 
 
 Another passage commonly referred to in the same connex 
 ion, were it justly so employed, might also be treated as de 
 riving its impress from Old Testament times. Having quoted 
 Isa. xxv. 8, "He will swallow up death in victory," St. Paul 
 breaks out into the fervid exclamation, "0 death, where is 
 thy sting? Hades, where is thy victory?" (1 Cor. xv. 55.) 
 Such is the reading of the received text; but there can be no 
 doubt that Qa^ars, death, should be in this clause, as well 
 as the preceding one. So that the passage does not come into 
 
HADES IN SCRIPTURE. 327 
 
 consideration here; and the English version, which merely 
 substitutes grave in the second clause for death in the first, is 
 really more correct than the original it professed to follow. 
 Grave answers more nearly to OduaTS than it should have done 
 
 C/ (^ 
 
 to (w~r}. 
 
 Passing this, then, as not applicable, the only remaining 
 passages, in which Hades occurs, are in the Book of Revela 
 tion. There it is found four times. In ch. i. 18, the Lord 
 re-assures John, who had fallen at His feet as dead, by saying, 
 "Fear not: I am the first and the last; He that liveth and 
 was dead ; and, behold, I am alive for evermore ; Amen, and 
 have the keys of death and of Hades." The second is in the 
 description of the rider on the pale horse, in ch. vi. 8, whose 
 name was Death, and who was followed by Hades, slaying on 
 every hand with sword and pestilence. The two others occur 
 in successive verses, at ch. xx. 13, 14, where, amid the changes 
 that usher in the final condition of things, it is said, "And 
 the sea gave up the dead that are in it, and death and Hades 
 gave up the dead that are in them, and each were judged 
 according to their works. And Death and Hades were cast 
 into the lake of fire, which is the second death." In these 
 representations it were too much, perhaps, to affirm with some, 
 that Hades is necessarily restricted to the place of torment, 
 the temporary prison-house of the lost. For, when Christ 
 speaks of having the keys of death and of Hades, He might 
 refer to the invisible world generally; He might intend to 
 comfort the Apocalyptist with the assurance, that He, who 
 then appeared to him in glory, had supreme control over the 
 mansions of life and death, and that excepting under His di 
 rection no one could be sent into the nether world from the 
 scenes and habitations of the living. At the same time, when 
 the connexion of the words is taken into account when it is 
 remembered that John, together with the church he repre 
 sented, was then threatened with destruction by a powerful 
 adversary, and that he felt at the moment on the point of 
 dissolution, the conviction forces itself on our minds, that there 
 also death and Hades are chiefly contemplated as evils ob 
 jects shrunk from and dreaded, on account of their connexion 
 
328 IMPORT AND USE 
 
 with sin, and from which exemption was to be sought and 
 obtained in Christ. That such is the aspect in which death 
 and Hades are presented in ch. vi. 8, where the one follows 
 the other in the work of carnage and desolation, admits of 
 no doubt; for the work given them to do was one emphatically 
 of judgment, to take effect on the adversaries of God. The 
 same reference to the wicked, and to the consequences re 
 sulting from their misdeeds, if less obvious in the remaining 
 passage of Revelation, is scarcely less certain. For, while 
 the sea is. spoken of, along with death and Hades, as giving 
 up the dead tbat were in it, and of all the dead, so given up, 
 being judged out of the books that were written in them ac 
 cording to their works, it is not to be forgotten, that in the 
 Apocalypse sea is the usual symbol of the world, in its sin- 
 heaving, agitated, and troubled state the world as opposed 
 to the peaceful and blessed kingdom of Christ; and in such a 
 case the books are most naturally regarded as the ideal re 
 cords of human guilt and depravity. I am inclined, there 
 fore, to the opinion, that the souls here represented as coming 
 out of the sea, death, and Hades, and being judged according 
 to the things written in the books, are the non-elect portion 
 of mankind all, whose names were not found in the book of 
 life. And this is confirmed by what is said immediately after, 
 that death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire ; for what 
 reason could there have been for such an utter perdition, if 
 Hades included in its domain the paradise to which Christ 
 went with the penitent malefactor? Could the realms of bliss 
 and wo, life and destruction, be so indiscriminately con 
 founded together? Manifestly a Hades, which was to find 
 its outgoing in the devouring fire of Heaven s wrath, was a 
 very different region from that, in which our Lord tasted the 
 sweets of paradise, or even the lap of Abraham s bosom, 
 wherein a pious Lazarus is said to have reaped his reversion 
 of comfort from the sorrows of an afllicted life. 
 
 On the whole, there seems ample ground for maintaining 
 that a marked difference lies between the use of Hades in the 
 New Testament and of Sheol in the Old. Sheol is plainly 
 and uniformly represented as the common receptacle of the 
 
OF HADES IN SCRIPTURE. 329 
 
 good and the bad; for the one class, indeed, containing the 
 elements of a very different portion from what awaited the 
 other; yet even for the good wearing an aspect somewhat 
 cheerless and uninviting. Hades, in New Testament Scrip 
 ture, is not once explicitly employed as a designation for the 
 common region of departed spirits ; when speaking of the inter 
 mediate state for the good, our Lord carefully abstained from 
 associating it with the mention of Hades ; and both as referred 
 to by Him, and as personified in the Book of Revelation, 
 Hades is placed in a kind of antagonistic relation to the in 
 terests of His kingdom is even viewed as standing in 
 close affinity with death, and destined to share in its final ex 
 tinction. Not, however, that we are therefore warranted to 
 deny the existence of an intermediate state for the souls of 
 believers, differing in place or character from their ultimate 
 destination ; or that it must on no account be identified with 
 Hades. No; but simply that this is no longer the fitting epi 
 thet to apply to the temporary receptacle of departed saints ; 
 and we cannot but regard it as unhappy, and tending to con 
 vey a partially wrong impression respecting Christ, that the 
 article in the Apostles Creed should have taken the form of 
 representing His disembodied soul as descending into Hades. 
 He Himself introduced a change in the phraseology respect 
 ing the state of the departed, such as appears to have be 
 tokened a corresponding change in the reality. Assuredly, 
 by the incarnation and work of Christ, the position of the 
 Church on earth was mightily elevated; and it is but natural 
 to infer, that a corresponding elevation extended to those 
 members of the Church who had already passed, or might 
 henceforth pass, within the veil ; that a fresh lustre was shed 
 over their state and enjoyments by the entrance of Christ, as 
 the triumphant Redeemer, into the world of spirits; and that 
 for them now the old Hades, with its grim and cheerless 
 aspect, was to be accounted gone, supplanted by the happy 
 mansions in the Father s house, which Christ opened to their 
 view. Hence also, instead of shrinking from the immediate 
 future, as from the grasp of an enemy, the children of faith 
 and hope should rather look to it as a provisional paradise, 
 
 28* 
 
380 IMPORT AXD USE 
 
 and confidently anticipate in its realms of light and glory a 
 higher satisfaction than they can ever experience in the flesh. 
 In this statement, however, nothing is to be understood as 
 affirmed in respect to the locality assigned for the spirits of 
 the departed as if it had been removed to another sphere by 
 the agency of Christ, and a new and higher region had taken 
 the place of the one originally appointed. This was a very 
 common view among the later Fathers those who lived subse 
 quently to the fifth century and became at length the received 
 opinion of the Church. It was supposed that, up to the 
 death of Christ, and His descent into Hades, the souls of the 
 righteous were kept in what was called Limbus Patrum not 
 absolutely hell, but a sort of porch or antechamber in its out 
 skirts; and that Christ, after having finished the work of re 
 conciliation, went thither to deliver them from it, and set 
 them in the heavenly places. Bede expresses this to be the 
 general faith of the Church in his day j 1 although many of the 
 greatest authorities before him had opposed it, both because 
 it seemed to bespeak the existence of too much evil in the con 
 dition of ancient believers after death, and also to ascribe too 
 great a change to the personal descent of Christ. The notion 
 undoubtedly rested on fanciful grounds, and had various errors, 
 of a collateral kind, associated with it. Its propounders and 
 advocates too much forgot that the language used of this pro 
 vince of the invisible world, as well as others, is to a large 
 extent relative, and, as regards circumstantial matters, was 
 never meant to impart precise and definite information. When 
 represented as a lower region, as stretching away even into 
 the profoundest depths, it was, doubtless, the world of sense 
 that supplied the form of the representation. The body, at 
 death, goes down into the earth; and it became natural to 
 think and speak of the soul as following it in this downward 
 direction, and finding its proper abode in the shades below. 
 
 1 Catliolica fides habet, quia dcsccndens ad Inferna Dominus non incredu- 
 los inde, scd fideles lantummodo suos cducens, ad celestia sccum regna per- 
 duxerit. So also Isidore llispalensis, Sentent. L. I. c. JO, Idco Dominus in 
 Inferno descendit, ut his, qui ab eo non poenalitcr detinebantur, viam aperiret 
 revertendi ad coclos. See other authorities in Pearson on the Creed, Art. V. 
 
OF HADES IN SCRIPTURE. 331 
 
 But this no more determined the locality, than our concep 
 tion of heaven as a higher region necessitates its position over 
 our heads; which, indeed, -would require it to shift perpetually 
 with the seasons of the year, and with the revolutions of day 
 and night. Hence it is ridiculous to say with Horsley, as if 
 such language aimed at philosophical precision, "The sacred 
 writers of the Old Testament speak of a common mansion in 
 the inner parts of the earth; and we find the same opinion so 
 general among the heathen writers of antiquity, that it is more 
 probable that it had its rise in the earliest patriarchal revela 
 tions, than in the imaginations of man, or in poetical fiction." 1 
 Did not the sacred writers as well, though less frequently, also 
 speak of the spirit of a man going upwards, while that of a 
 beast went downwards of God taking the most eminent saints 
 to Himself, of their being made to see the path of life, and 
 dwelling in the house of the Lord for ever? 2 In speaking of 
 what pertains to the soul after death, we necessarily speak 
 under a veil; the discourse we make must fashion itself after 
 the appearances, rather than the realities of things; and we 
 wander into a wrong path whenever we attempt to turn the 
 language so employed into a delineation of exact bounds and 
 definite landmarks. "What is written of departed believers is 
 intended only to give us some idea of their state, but not of 
 their local habitation ; and the comparison of the later, with 
 the earlier revelations, as already stated, warrants the belief, 
 that with the progress of the scheme of God, and especially 
 with its grand development in the person of Christ, that state 
 did also partake of some kind of progression, or experience 
 some rise, though we want the means for describing wherein 
 precisely it consisted. 
 
 It is scarcely necessary to add, that the same qualifications 
 attach to what is sometimes indicated as to the relative near 
 ness of the two regions appropriated respectively to the saved 
 and the lost in the separate state. An actual nearness is 
 inconceivable, if the better portion are really to exist in a 
 state of blissful consciousness ; for what room could there be 
 
 1 Sermon on 1 Fet. iii. 18-20. 
 
 2 Gen. v. 2-1; Eccl. iii. 21, xii. 7; Fs. xyi. 11, xxiii. 6. 
 
332 IMPOUT AND USE OF 
 
 for an Elysium of joy, with the existence of such a mass of 
 wretchedness perpetually pressing on their view? The scene 
 of the rich man s cognizance of and interview with Lazarus 
 can be nothing more than a cover to hring out the elements 
 of remorse and agony, that torment the bosom of the lost. 
 So far, disembodied spirits might be viewed as occupying a 
 common territory, that they are alike tenants of a region 
 physically suited to such spirits, and a region not yet parted 
 into the final destinations of heaven and hell. But nearer 
 determinations are impracticable, and the attempt to make 
 them is to enter into profitless and haply misleading specula 
 tions. 
 
 i 4. The preceding remarks have touched upon every thing 
 that calls for consideration as regards the import and applica 
 tion of the term Hades in Scripture. The doctrine of our 
 Lord s temporary withdrawal into the world of spirits, its his 
 torical reality, the relation it bears to the experience of His 
 people, and the results to which it may be applied in respect 
 to the constitution of His person and the completeness of His 
 work, all this properly belongs to another department of 
 theological inquiry. Or, if treated exegetically, it would be 
 more fitly discussed in connexion with a few texts, in which 
 the term Hades does not occur. One of these is the appli 
 cation made in Eph. iv. 9, of an Old Testament passage, in 
 which the Lord is.represented as ascending up on high, lead 
 ing captivity captive; and on which the apostle remarks, 
 "Now that He ascended, what is it but that He also descended 
 first into the lower parts (ra xardtrepa) of the earth?" The 
 Fathers, undoubtedly, made frequent use of this passage in 
 establishing the descent of Christ into Hades, and they have 
 also been followed by many in modern times. But this, as 
 Bishop Pearson long ago remarked, and for stronger reasons 
 than he alleged, is a very questionable interpretation; for the 
 contrast marked in the apostle s statement is not, betwixt one 
 part of the earth and another, but rather betwixt earth as the 
 lower region, and heaven as the higher. The one is brought 
 into view simply as expressive of His humiliation, preceding 
 and preparing for the exaltation, announced in the other; 
 
OF HADES IN SCRIPTURE. 383 
 
 and to understand the words of a farther descent into the 
 bowels of the earth, would not only be to press them to a 
 sense which cannot fairly be regarded as before the mind of 
 the writer at the time, but also to make them include a por 
 tion of our Lord s history, yea, specially to single out that, 
 as the distinctive mark of his humiliation, which does not 
 strictly belong to it. This will appear from what follows in 
 connexion with another text the one that chiefly bears on 
 the point under consideration 1 Pet. iii. 1820, in which the 
 apostle points to the sequence and result of Christ s sufferings 
 in the flesh. He suffered once, says Peter, for sins, "the just 
 for the unjust, that He might bring us unto God, being put to 
 death, indeed, in flesh, but quickened in spirit, in which also 
 he went and preached, (or made proclamation,) to the spirits 
 in prison, that sometime were disobedient in the days of 
 Noah," etc. (d-avarcodsl^ t&v aapxl, M07ror/]Osc<; ds xvsvfjiaTe, 
 ev oj y.al TO?Z sv <pi>Aaxfj Truzu/jtawy xopzudsit; Ixypussv, drrscOij- 
 GU.G W Trore, ore dne^edl^STO 57 ro r j 6sou [j.axpodu<j.ia, x. r. ^.) 
 
 This is, certainly, one of the most remarkable, and, if iso 
 lated from the context, one of the most obscure passages of 
 New Testament Scripture bringing in so abruptly, and with 
 such rapidity passing over, some of the more remote and pe 
 culiar points in the Divine economy. The greatest theologians 
 have not only differed from each other in their views respect 
 ing it, but also differed from themselves at one period as 
 compared with another; of which instances may be found in 
 Augustin, Luther, and Calvin. It would be out of place here, 
 however, to give a history of opinions on the subject; they 
 may be seen, for example, in Steiger s Commentary, (Biblical 
 Cabinet,) and in part, also, in Pearson s Notes under Art.V. 
 It will here be enough to indicate a few guiding principles and 
 textual explanations, which it is hoped may serve to show, 
 that when contemplated in the proper light, the passage is 
 neither inexplicable in meaning, nor in the least at variance 
 with the general teaching of Scripture. 
 
 First, then, it must be held as fixed and certain, that our 
 Lord s visit to the world of departed spirits, between His 
 death and His resurrection, was an historical reality, whatever 
 
334 IMPORT AND USE 
 
 He might have felt or done when there. His departed soul 
 did not ascend to the proper heaven of glory, as He expressly 
 declared, till after the resurrection ; while yet it went, accord 
 ing to another declaration, to a region so blissful, that it could 
 be called by the name of paradise. One alternative alone 
 remains, that His spirit went to the company of those who 
 are waiting in hope of a better resurrection. 
 
 Secondly, Christ s presence and operations in that world of 
 spirits must be held to have taken place in free and blessed 
 agency; they are to be associated, not with the passive, but 
 with the active part of His career. His sufferings were at 
 an end when He expired upon the cross; for then the curse 
 was exhausted, and, with that, the ground of His appointment 
 to evil finally removed whence the change explains itself of 
 the difference that forthwith appeared in the Divine procedure 
 toward Him. Shame and contumely now gave place to ho 
 nour: not a bone of Him was allowed to be broken; He was 
 numbered no longer with the vile and worthless, but with the 
 rich and honourable, and by these, after being wrapped in 
 spices, He was committed to a tomb, where no man had lain: 
 all, so many streaks of that dawn which was to issue in the 
 glory of the resurrection-morn. Whatever, therefore, was 
 done by the soul of Christ subsequent to His death, must 
 have been in free and blessed agency; and it were abhorrent 
 to all right notions of the truth respecting Him, to suppose, 
 as some have done, that His sufferings were prolonged in the 
 world of spirits, and that He there for a time had experience 
 of the agonies of the lost. This were in effect to say, that 
 His work of reconciliation on the cross was not complete, 
 that the sacrifice then paid to Divine justice was not accepted 
 of the Father. Even the modified view of Bishop Pearson 
 must be rejected, that "as Christ died in the similitude of a 
 sinner, His soul went to the place where the souls of men are 
 kept who die for their sins, and so did wholly undergo the law 
 of death;" for, in that case, a certain measure of penalty and 
 satisfaction should still have been implied in the transaction. 
 The language of St. Peter in the passage more immediately 
 before us gives no countenance to such an idea, nor admits it 
 
HADES IN SCRIPTURE. 335 
 
 under any modification ; for he represents Christ s spirit as 
 being vivified, or quickened starting into fresh life and 
 energy of action, from the moment that in flesh He underwent 
 the stroke of death, and, as so invigorated, going" forth to 
 preach. 1 In short, the culminating point of His humiliation 
 and suffering was His death upon the cross, (as already pre 
 figured in the Old Testament sacrifices,) 2 and from that point, 
 both in respect to soul and body, the process of exaltation, 
 strictly speaking, began. 
 
 Thirdly, In regard to the more specific points why the 
 Apostle Peter should have made such particular mention of 
 this agency of Christ s disembodied spirit, why he should have 
 coupled it only with the spirits of those who had perished in 
 the flood, and what may have been the nature and intent of 
 his preaching to them: for all this we must look to the con 
 nexion. Now, it must be carefully remembered (for chiefly 
 by overlooking this have commentators gone so much into the 
 
 1 In this explanation, it will be observed, the ZuortoiqOsis rtvEvpcrtt is 
 taken to refer to the spiritual part of Christ s human nature, precisely as 
 the Oavortufais aapxt, to His corporeal part; for it is impossible to deny that 
 this is the natural, and, indeed, the only grammatical mode of interpreting 
 them. As Flacius long ago remarked, "The antithesis clearly shows, that 
 He is said to have been put to death in one part of Him, or in one manner 
 of life, but vivified in another." In like manner Horsley, If the word 
 flesh denote, as it most evidently does, the part in which death took effect 
 upon Him, spirit must denote the part in which life was preserved in Him, 
 i. e., His own soul." Perfectly right thus far, though scarcely right when 
 he adds, that "the word quickened is often applied to signify, not the re 
 suscitation of life extinguished, but the preservation and continuance of 
 life subsisting;" no, not preservation and continuance simply, but rather 
 freshened energy and revived action. The interpretations, which under 
 stand by spirit the Holy Ghost, and regard the preaching spoken of as 
 either the preaching of Noah through the Spirit, to the antediluvians, or 
 that of the apostles to the wicked around them, hence fall of themselves; 
 they are but ingenious shifts resorted to for the sake of getting over a dif 
 ficulty, but twisting the passage into an unnatural sense. Giving to the 
 words TtopsvOei? txr t pv%ev their legitimate import, they must mean, that 
 Christ went away and preached as a spirit to spirits. And the spirits 
 being described as having been sometime, or formerly disobedient, also 
 plainly implies, that the period of disobedience was a prior one to that to 
 which the preaching belonged. 
 
 2 See Typology of Scripture, vol. ii. p. 347. 
 
336 IMPORT AND USE OF 
 
 wrong track,) that the apostle is not discoursing of these topics 
 doetrinally ; they are referred to merely as matters of fact, 
 which had a practical bearing on the great moral truths that 
 were the more immediate subject of discourse. What were 
 these? They were, that Christians should seek to avoid suf 
 fering by maintaining a good conscience; but that if they 
 should still, and perhaps on this very account, be called to 
 suffer, it was greatly better to do so for well-doing, than for 
 ill-doing. Then, in confirmation of this complex truth, he 
 points to a twofold illustration. In the first instance, he fixes 
 attention on Christ as having suffered, indeed, the just for the 
 unjust suffered as the Righteous One, but only once suffered; 
 and on that (the ar.az z-adsv) the special stress is here to be 
 laid; it was, so to speak, but a momentary infliction of evil, 
 however awful in its nature while it lasted; still, but once 
 borne, and never to be repeated, because borne in the cause 
 of righteousness. Not only so, but it carried along with it 
 infinite recompenses of good for sinful men, bringing them 
 to God; and for "Christ Himself, limiting the reign of death 
 to a short-lived dominion over the body, while the soul, light 
 ened and relieved, inspired with the energy of immortal life, 
 went into the invisible regions, and, with buoyant freedom, 
 moved among the spirits of the departed. How widely diffe 
 rent from that mighty class of sufferers! the most striking 
 examples in the world s history of the reverse of what appeared 
 in Christ the last race of antediluvians, who suffered, not for 
 well-doing, but for ill-doing , and suffered, not once merely in 
 the flood, that swept them away from their earthly habitations, 
 but even now, after so long a time, when the work on the 
 cross was finished still pent up as in a prison-house of doom, 
 where they could be only haunted by memories of past crime, 
 and with forebodings of eternal retribution ! What a contrast ! 
 How should the thought of it persuade us to suffering for well 
 doing, rather than for evil-doing! And for those lost ones 
 themselves, Christ s spirit, now released from suffering, fresh 
 with the dew of its dawning immortality, preached; preached 
 by its very entrance into the paradise of glory. For even 
 this, seen from afar, must have been to them like the appear- 
 
HADES IN SCRIPTURE. 337 
 
 ance of a second Noah, "the preacher of righteousness;" since 
 it proclaimed proclaimed more emphatically than Noah ever 
 did the final establishment of God s righteousness, and a sure 
 heritage of life and blessing for those, but for those only, who 
 were ready to hazard all for its sake. Such, doubtless, was 
 the kind of preaching meant ; it is that alone which the case 
 admits of whether, as to its formal character, it may have 
 consisted in the simple presentation of the Spirit of. Christ 
 among the spirits of the blessed, or may have included some 
 more special and direct intercourse with the imprisoned hosts 
 of antediluvian time. In either case it was to them like the 
 renewal, in a higher form, of the old preaching of righteous 
 ness; for what the one had provisionally announced, the other 
 finally confirmed and sealed; yea, was itself the radiant proof 
 of an eternal distinction between those, in whom suffering 
 triumphs because of sin, and those who through righteousness 
 triumph over suffering. 1 
 
 Viewed thus, the whole passage hangs consistently together ; 
 one part throws light upon another; and the agency ascribed 
 to Christ is in perfect keeping with all that is elsewhere writ 
 ten, both of His own mediatorial work, and of the condition 
 of departed spirits. On the one hand, it rescues the words 
 from the arbitrary meanings which doctrinal considerations 
 have so often led pious minds to put on them; and, on the 
 other, it removes the ground, which has too often been sought 
 in the passage, not only by Romish, but even by some Pro 
 testant writers, who find a door of hope for certain classes of 
 those who have lived and died in sin. The reference to the 
 antediluvians in the age of Noah is not to some individuals 
 among them, for whom possibly some better fate might have 
 been reserved, but to the collective race as a well-known class 
 in sacred history; and to them as still detained in the prison 
 
 1 It is no objection to the view now given, that xqpvaac* is commonly used 
 in the sense of a gospel proclamation ; for it is neither necessarily nor al 
 ways so used. In Rom. ii. 21, it is coupled with abstinence from steal 
 ing as its object a preaching of moral duty. Here the reference mani 
 festly is to the ancient preaching of Noah; and to connect this action of 
 Christ with his the term might justly seem the fittest. 
 29 
 
838 IMPORT AND USE OF 
 
 of judgment, not as having any prospect of deliverance from 
 it. Nay, on this very circumstance the great moral of the 
 reference properly turns , for it is their protracted, everlasting 
 destination to a doom of suffering, as contrasted with Christ s 
 suffering but once, and, that over, entering on a fresh career 
 of Ufa and glory, which lent all its weight to the exhortation 
 given, to prefer suffering for righteousness-sake to suffering 
 for sin. In what follows also the same account substantially 
 is made of their case; they are thought of simply as repro 
 bate and lost. It is in Noah alone, and the little remnant in 
 the ark, whom the waters, that destroyed the corrupt and pes 
 tilential mass around them, saved, to be the seed of a new 
 world, that the prototypes are found of the genuine subjects 
 and fruits of Christian baptism. And what does this imply 
 of the mass whom the waters engulfed? Plainly, that their 
 counterpart in Christian times is to be sought in the corrup 
 tions of the flesh and the world, from which it is the design 
 of baptism through the power of Christ s resurrection, to save 
 His people corruptions which, like their antediluvian exem 
 plars, are irreconcilably opposed to the life of God, and can 
 have no end but destruction. 
 
 SECTION SEVENTH. 
 
 ON THE IMPORT AND USE OF dca6^ /:/j IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 THE word now to be considered is of frequent occurrence, 
 both in Scripture, and in the classics, but usually in a some 
 what different sense. In the classics it commonly signifies 
 disposition, arrangement, or, more specifically, that parti 
 cular disposition which is denominated a mans ivill and tes 
 tament the deed by which he finally disposes of his effects. 
 The latter is the more common usage; whence the old glos 
 saries gave testamentum as the Latin synonym. The cases 
 are so rare in which with classical authors it is found in any 
 other sense, that little account needs to be made of them. 
 
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 389 
 
 They do occur, however, and in one passage at least, the Aves 
 of Aristophanes, 1. 480, the phrase, dtadscdac ocaOr^v^ is used 
 to express the making of a compact or covenant, to be carried 
 out between two parties. But the common noun for such cases 
 was undoubtedly ffubdyxq. Yet for what was emphatically 
 the covenant in ancient times, the Septuagint has preferred 
 diaOvjxir], which, accordingly, among Greek-speaking Jews, be 
 came the appropriate term for the covenant of God with Is 
 rael. The first occasions on which the word was used had re 
 spect to transactions which strikingly displayed the goodness 
 of God in making sure provision for the present safety and 
 highest well-being of man (Gen. ix. 9, xvii. 7.) It is possible, 
 we may even say probable, that on this account mainly the 
 term diadyic/] was employed rather than auvd q^ for the latter 
 might justly seem an inadequate expression to characterize 
 arrangements, in which it appeared so prominent an object to 
 make men recipients of the Divine goodness, personally par 
 takers, or instrumentally channels of blessing. It seemed 
 more fitting to employ a term which, without altogether losing 
 sight of the mutual relationship, as between two parties some 
 how standing in contract, should still give chief prominence 
 to the beneficence of God in disposing of His affairs, so as to 
 provide a suitable heritage of good for His people. In this 
 light it appears to have been understood by some of the Fa 
 thers. Thus Clemens Alex, describes dcadrjxq as that "which 
 God, the Author of the universe, makes;" namely, His ar 
 rangement or disposition of the riches of His bounty. Suidas 
 defines it as q Ozo 7 ) ~ ( ooc Aftpaa/ji, xac robs XotTiovz irpoitdropac 
 YsyoiJLsvq Ixaft-sMa, the promise which God made to Abraham 
 and the other patriarchs. Isidore of Pel us i am gives it a some 
 what different turn, and points to a more special character 
 istic, but one also that is derived from its more peculiar refe 
 rence to God. He says, u -0uy(fajxq is called in Scripture a tes 
 tament because the promise it contains is firm and permanent; 
 pactions, indeed, are often broken up, but legal testaments 
 never." (See Suicer.) 
 
 But, however we may thus be able to account for the use 
 of dcajtyxn rather than of 0uv6qxy t as a translation.of the Heb. 
 
840 IMPORT AND USE OF 
 
 bcrith, we must not allow it to assume, in its ordinary use, the 
 classical sense of testament, rather than of covenant. There 
 can be no doubt, that covenant is the proper rendering of be- 
 rith; and as dtaOyw) was employed as its synonym by the Sep- 
 tuagint, it must be taken in the sense of the original unless 
 the connexion should determine otherwise. Indeed, for any 
 thing that appears in the Hebrew Scriptures, the Israelites 
 knew nothing of testaments in the ordinary sense of the term ; 
 their rights of property were so regulated as to render these 
 for the most part unnecessary ; if only the means were at hand 
 for ascertaining the family descent and relationship of the 
 parties concerned. They consequently made much account 
 of genealogies, but none, so far as we know, of testaments. 
 When God, however, designated the transactions into which 
 He entered with their fathers by the name of covenant, even 
 though the pledged and promised goodness of God might be 
 the most prominent feature in them, the idea of a mutual pac- 
 tion or agreement was still meant to be kept steadily in view; 
 the Lord sustained one part, and the people another. And 
 this was done, primarily, that they might have a clear and af 
 fecting proof of His desire to assure them of the certainty of 
 the things guarantied in the covenant. Not for this only, 
 however, but for the farther purpose of impressing upon their 
 minds the feeling, that they had a part to perform to God, as 
 well as God to them, and that faithfulness in duty, on the one 
 side, must keep pace with bountifulness in giving on the other. 
 Such was the case even in the Abrahamic covenant, which is 
 called, by way of eminence, the covenant of promise; for the 
 assurance it contained of a numerous and blessed offspring 
 carried along with it the condition, that parent and offspring 
 alike should abide in the faith of God and keep His charge. 
 In the English Bible the word covenant is the uniform ren 
 dering adopted for the Heb. berith; and so is it also in New 
 Testament Scripture for oeaOyzy, whenever the word points 
 to the covenants made with the patriarchs or at Sinai. Yet 
 in the designation of the Scriptures, which belong to the pe 
 riods embraced by those covenants, the sense of testament has 
 been generally introduced. By a natural metonymy, the 
 
* dtaO-fcy IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 341 
 
 writings that pertain to a period during which a deaOyxq was 
 in force had this applied to them as an appropriate name. 
 Thus, in 2 Cor. iii. 14, St. Paul speaks of the veil remaining 
 on the minds of the Jews, Ine TTJ ava*(vtb(jzc rrfi nodae&c deadij- 
 xr^, at the reading of the Old Testament, as our translators 
 have rendered it, not. of the Old Covenant. We have become 
 so much accustomed to the use of Testament in this applica 
 tion, that we rarely think whether it is altogether appropriate 
 or not. Yet had it been proposed for the first time to our 
 consideration, it could hardly have failed to strike us as a sort 
 of anomaly in language, that the term Testament should be 
 employed as the distinctive epithet for writings in which the 
 term itself never occurs, while the term covenant is of frequent 
 use, and in the later Scriptures, old covenant is employed to 
 designate a period altogether or nearly past, in contradistinc 
 tion to a new and better era approaching, (Jer. xxxi. 31.) 
 The Old covenant, therefore, was clearly the fitting designa 
 tion for the earlier half of the Bible, rather than the Old Tes 
 tament. 1 The Vulgate, however, by its adoption of testamen- 
 tum, instead of fcedus, has in this respect given the law to 
 modeTn times. Some of the earlier versions presented both 
 terms, at least in respect to New Testament Scripture, as Be- 
 za s Testamentum Novum, Sive Foedus Novum, and the Ge 
 nevan French, Le Nouveau Testament, c est a dire la Nouvelle 
 Alliance. But the alternative phrase never came into gene 
 ral use; and the only prevailing designation has been, and 
 still is, The Scriptures of the Old arid the New Testaments. 
 
 1 Kohlbrugge, in a treatise Wozu das alte Testament, objects also to this de 
 signation, and deems it not warranted by the language of the apostle in 2 
 Cor. iii. 14. He conceives the apostle to be there speaking of the Hebrew 
 Scriptures, not absolutely, but as they are to the unbelieving and blinded 
 Jews; to these they are merely the old covenant, while to the enlightened 
 believer, who can read them with open eye, they display the new covenant. 
 Undoubtedly the books are very different things to the two classes mentioned ; 
 but the plain and natural import of the apostle s language points to the books 
 themselves, as containing what pertains to the Old Covenant. Their further 
 and prospective reference is not here taken into account. And if persons now 
 think themselves entitled to disregard those books, because they are specially 
 connected with the Old Covenant, this is an abuse chargeable on their own 
 ignorance and sin. 
 
 29* 
 
342 IMPORT AND USE OP 
 
 Of course, as a convenient term for simply designating the 
 two component parts of the Bible, it is of little moment whe 
 ther we use the one or the other. The current epithets serve 
 well enough to distribute the inspired writings into two sec 
 tions or parts, standing related to each other, the one as the 
 earlier, the other as the later revelation of Divine truth; the 
 one springing up in connexion with that state of things which 
 preceded the birth of Christ, and has vanished away ; the 
 other with that which was introduced by Christ, and abides 
 for ever. But as there can be no doubt that the substitution 
 of Testament for covenant, in the designation of Scripture, 
 arose from a disposition to regard the economy of Christ s sal 
 vation in the light of a testament rather than of a covenant 
 as on this account the writings of evangelists and apostles 
 came to be denominated The New Testament, and in confor 
 mity with this appellation that of Old Testament was assigned 
 to the Law and the Prophets the question very naturally 
 presents itself, whether such be the Scriptural view of the 
 matter? Whether the gift of Christ, and the benefits of His 
 redemption, are exhibited in the light of a testamentary be 
 quest? For if they are not, then the testamentary aspect of 
 redemption must be pronounced formally incorrect, however 
 in substance accordant with the truth of things ; but if they 
 are, the form also is capable of vindication. In neither case 
 is any doctrine of Scripture involved in the inquiry; it touches 
 merely the mode of representation. 
 
 Now, as otaOr^ constantly bears in the Old Testament the 
 sense of covenant, it may justly be inferred to carry the same 
 meaning in the New, unless the connexion should, in certain 
 cases, plainly decide in favour of the other rendering. So 
 far as regards our Lord s personal teaching, there is no room 
 for any difference of view on the subject. Though lie fre 
 quently referred to both the affairs and the writings of the 
 old economy, He was very sparing in the use of the term ota.- 
 drjxy. Ho docs not employ it to designate the revelation of 
 law from Sinai; nor are the transactions entered into with, 
 the patriarchs, as the heads of the Jewish people ; or with Da 
 vid, as the founder of the royal house, called by this name. 
 
-/] IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 843 
 
 The first, and the only time that the word appears in our 
 Lord s discourses, is at th-e institution of the Supper. The 
 words of institution slightly vary in the accounts of the three 
 evangelists, and of the apostle Paul, (1 Cor. xi. ;) but in each 
 of them He is represented as using the expression 57 xac^ oca- 
 (hjxy. And using it, as He does, without a word of explana 
 tion, we cannot doubt that He intended it to be taken by the 
 disciples in its current acceptation; namely, in the sense of 
 covenant; for in that sense alone had it hitherto been em 
 ployed. Nor can we but regard it as unfortunate, that at that 
 special moment in our Lord s ministry, and in connexion with 
 the most sacred and distinctive institution of His kingdom, 
 the later rendering of testament should have been substituted 
 for the earlier one of covenant. For it confuses the expres 
 sion in words which are of perpetual recurrence, as well as so 
 lemn import, and in respect to which it was desirable that the 
 greatest clearness and certainty should exist; and in so far 
 as the language may be distinctly understood, it presents the 
 great redemption in an aspect which had not at least been 
 previously exhibited, and could not therefore have been in 
 tended at the time. 
 
 How, then, it may naturally be asked, should such a sense 
 have been so generally put upon it? Are there other pas 
 sages in subsequent portions of New Testament Scripture, in 
 which the word, in its connexion with the work of Christ, con 
 clusively bears the meaning of testament? There is a remarka 
 ble one in the Epistle to the Hebrews, in which it certainly 
 appears to have that meaning, and which will call for special 
 investigation. Leaving that passage, however, for a moment 
 (which is in ch. ix.,) there are various other places where the 
 word deadly. /] is used; and always, it is proper to note, in 
 reference to what was strictly a covenant. In the Epistle to 
 the Hebrews itself, we read once and again of two covenants 
 an old and a new; the former imperfect in its nature and pro 
 visions, and destined to last only till the time of reformation; 
 the latter, founded on better promises, complete in all its ar 
 rangements, consequently declared to be everlasting. In like 
 manner, in Gal. iv. 24 31, we have a discourse upon the 
 
344 IMPORT AND USE OF 
 
 two covenants, the covenants of law and of promise, as alle 
 gorized or typified by the facts and relations of Abraham s 
 family; the term deadyxae being used as the common designa 
 tion of both. Again, in the third chapter of the Second 
 Epistle to the Corinthians, a contrast is drawn between the 
 two covenants the old and the new -in respect to the points, 
 in which the one differed from, by rising superior to, the other. 
 In this comparison, however, the word dcaQyxq is only once 
 used ; and our translators, following the Vulgate and the earlier 
 English versions, have rendered it testament ("who hath made 
 us able ministers of the New Testament," ver. 6.) Such was 
 their regard to those guides, that on one occasion they have 
 even adopted this rendering in connexion with a phrase which, 
 in all the other passages where it occurs, has been otherwise 
 translated. The passage is Rev. xi. 19, where the temple 
 presented itself in vision to the prophet, and he saw " the ark 
 of the testament," as we find it rendered, but, as it should 
 rather have been, "the ark of the covenant." In all these 
 cases, there can be no reasonable doubt that, whether referring 
 to the old or to the new things in God s dispensations, the 
 "word dtadyxT] is to be understood in the ordinary sense of 
 covenant. So that if, in the one remaining passage where it 
 occurs, we should see reason for adopting the sense of testa 
 ment, this would furnish no ground for altering the transla 
 tion in the other passages that have been referred to. The 
 less so, indeed, as the passage in the ninth chapter of Hebrews, 
 as far as regards what is denoted by dtadijxy, is of a somewhat 
 general nature ; it does not point exclusively, or even specially, 
 to the transactions bearing that name in Scripture, but rather 
 to the nature of deadqxai generally what those of Scripture 
 have in common with others. 
 
 But let us turn to the passage itself. Commencing with 
 verse 15, for the sake of the connexion, it reads thus in the 
 authorized version: "For this cause He (viz. Christ) is the 
 Mediator of the New Testament, that by means of death, for 
 the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first 
 testament (oeaO^xvj both times,) they that are called might 
 receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. For where 
 
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 345 
 
 a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death 
 of the testator (oxov jap dcaOrf/y, OdvaTou dydfxq tpepsaOcu 
 TO~J dcaftefJLevov.} For a testament is of force after men are 
 dead (Ixl v*/>o?c;) otherwise, it is of no strength at all, while 
 the testator liveth (ore C/j b deaOsfi^o^.) Whereupon neither 
 the first (viz. testament) was dedicated without blood." The 
 meaning obtained by this rendering may be briefly stated 
 thus: A will does not become valid so long as the person 
 making it is alive; it is a disposition of his affairs proceeding 
 on the contemplation of his death, and can only take effect 
 when he has himself ceased to live; whence also Christ, as 
 the testator of an inheritance of blessing for His people, 
 must die before the benefit provided by Him can be reaped. 
 So understood, and viewed with reference to the practice 
 known to exist among Greeks and Romans respecting wills, 
 the sense of the passage is plain enough. The only question 
 is, will the sense obtained suit the connexion, and meet 
 the real circumstances of the case? There are, obviously, 
 some apparent incongruities in the way; both at the com 
 mencement and at the close. The statement is brought in to 
 illustrate a certain correspondence between the preparatory 
 and the final in God s dispensations: Christ is the Mediator of 
 a new deaOyxq, that by His death He might purchase redemp 
 tion for those who could not obtain it by the old; for where a 
 is there must of necessity be the death of the oeads- 
 But the notion of testament here involves some diffi 
 culty ; since a mediator, in ordinary circumstances, has no 
 thing to do with a testament; nor is there any essential link 
 of connexion between a mediator and a testator. Then, again, 
 at the close, where it is said, "Whence the first also the 
 first deadyxq was not consecrated without blood," it is not 
 death, as of a testator, but consecration from defilement, that 
 is represented as constituting the establishment of the earlier 
 dtaOyxy. So that the connexion at both ends seems to hang 
 somewhat loosely with the notion of a testament; and if that 
 notion is here the correct one, its justification must be sought 
 in some peculiarity connected, either with the transactions 
 referred to, or with the point of view from which they are 
 
346 IMPORT AND USE OF 
 
 contemplated. It is possible, that such may be found, when 
 the subject is properly considered. 
 
 Meanwhile, it is right to state, that the difficulties are by 
 no means lessened by resorting to the other translation, and 
 rendering by covenant. The late Professor Scholefield, who 
 preferred this rendering, still found himself so beset with dif 
 ficulty, that the passage appeared to him the "most perplexing 
 in the whole of the New Testament." l He would render ver. 
 16, 17, "For where a covenant is, there must of necessity be 
 brought in the death of the mediating [sacrifice.] For, a 
 covenant is valid over dead [viz. sacrifices;] since it is never 
 of any force while the mediating [sacrifice] continues alive." 
 Here, we are first of all struck with the number of ellipses 
 in so short a passage ; sacrifice or sacrifices requiring to be 
 supplied no less than three times to ota.dzp.evou, in ver. 16, 
 then to inl vexpotz, in the first part of ver. 17, and again to 
 ocaOsfJisuot; in the second. It is plainly too much ; especially 
 as a transition is made from the singular to the plural, and 
 back again from the plural to the singular. Sacrifice and 
 sacrifices were not wont thus to be interchanged in the reality. 
 Then, to speak of sacrifices as dead, is altogether unusual, 
 still more to put dead simply for sacrificial victims; no proper 
 parallel can be produced to justify such a license. And, 
 finally, the rendering of dcads/ievoz by mediating sacrifice is 
 equally unwarranted: when used in regard to covenant trans 
 actions, it is so naturally understood of him who makes the 
 covenant, that, as Professor Scholefield remarks, a strong 
 nerve should be required for any one, that would be conscious 
 of no difficulty in giving it a different sense here. In short, 
 it is an entirely arbitrary translation, and no support can be 
 found for it in the whole range of Greek literature. This 
 alone is fatal to the view under consideration ; and when taken 
 along with the objections previously urged, leaves the matter 
 under this aspect utterly hopeless. 
 
 It could serve no end to examine in detail the other modi 
 fications of the view, which proceeds to the adoption of cove- 
 
 1 Hints for Some Improvements in the Authorized Version of the New 
 Testament, p. 142. 
 
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 347 
 
 nant for the sense of dtafhjxq, and "over dead sacrifices" for 
 l~c vsxpdtz. The same objections substantially, or others 
 equally valid, apply to each of them. We revert, therefore, 
 to the apparently natural sense of testament, and inquire 
 whether there be not some point of view, from which, if the 
 subject be contemplated, a natural and satisfactory vindica 
 tion may be gained for it. This, we are persuaded, is to be 
 found. The statement, it will be perceived in this aspect of 
 the matter, proceeds upon the apprehension of a certain 
 agreement between a covenant made by God for the good of 
 men, and a will or testament made by a man in behoof of his 
 heirs. There are, no doubt, obvious points of difference 
 between the two; in this respect especially, that in a cove 
 nant strictly so called, there is something of the nature of a 
 mutual engagement or contract between the covenanting par 
 ties. This, however, is not the aspect in which the Divine 
 covenants are contemplated in this portion of the Epistle to 
 the Hebrews. From ch. viii. 6, where a formal comparison 
 begins to be instituted between the New and the Old, they are 
 viewed in the light of a disposition or arrangement, on the 
 part of God, for the purpose of securing certain blessings to 
 His people imperfectly and provisionally in the Old Cove 
 nant, adequately and finally in the New. On this account, 
 the contracting element in them naturally falls into the back 
 ground, and the beneficiary or promissory alone comes into 
 view; the discussion turns upon what God has done and laid 
 up for them that fear Him, scarcely, if at all, upon what they 
 are taken bound to do for God. Now, it is precisely here, 
 that a point of contact is to be found between a covenant 
 of God and a testament of man; the very point which led 
 to the adoption of dcaO foir] as the fittest term for expressing 
 the Heb. berith; because a covenant of God, in this aspect of 
 it, is not, in the ordinary sense, a GuvOr/x"/] or compact, but 
 rather a dtaOyxr) or disposition, an unfolding of the way and 
 manner in which men may attain to a participation or inheri 
 tance in the riches of Divine grace and goodness. It is to 
 this common element, that the apostle points, and on it that he 
 founds this part of his argument for the superiority of the 
 
348 IMPORT AND USE OF 
 
 New over the Old. The first, he in effect tells us, did con 
 tain a disposition from the Lord s hand as to the participa 
 tion of His riches; but one only provisional and temporary, 
 because of its presenting no proper satisfaction for the sins 
 of the people.. It left the guilt of these sins still standing 
 Tin-atoned, in the eye of Divine Justice, and so, if taken simply 
 by itself, it could not provide for men the eternal inheritance 
 which God destines for His people. Christ, who comes ac 
 tually to provide, and confer on men, a title to this inheri 
 tance, must therefore come as the executor of a new dtadiqx. q, 
 to make good the deficiencies of the Old, and by a valid atone 
 ment remove the sins, which continued to lie as a bar across 
 the path to the inheritance. He must (as stated in ver. 15) 
 through JHis death provide redemption for the transgressions 
 pertaining to the first covenant, that they who had been called 
 under it, as well as those called now, might have the promise 
 of the inheritance made good in their behalf. Thus it comes 
 to pass, that to do here the part of an effective mediator, in 
 establishing a complete and valid covenant, Christ has, at the 
 same time, to do the part of a testator; He must lose the 
 personal possession of His goods, before He can secure for 
 His people a right to participate in them ; to enrich them He 
 must, for a time, impoverish Himself die the death that they 
 (along with Him) may ultimately inherit eternal life. And 
 so, in this fundamental respect, the two ideas of covenant 
 and testament coalesce in the work of Christ; He is at once 
 Mediator and Testator; at one and the same moment He 
 establishes for ever what God pledges Himself in covenant to 
 bestow, and by His voluntary death transmits to others the 
 inheritance of life and blessing wherein it consists. It is, there 
 fore, as true of this Divine deadyzy, as of any human testa 
 ment, that it could not be of force till the deaOs/Jtsuoc; had 
 died. Till then the inheritance was bound up indissolubly 
 with His own person ; and through His death alone was it 
 set free for others; as was plainly intimated under a natural 
 image, by our Lord Himself, when He said, "Verity, verily, 
 I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground 
 and die, it abideth alone; but if it die, it bringeth forth much 
 fruit/ (John xii. 24.) 
 
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 349 
 
 When viewed in the light now presented, the allusion of 
 the inspired writer is very different from what is commonly 
 represented a mere play upon words. On the. contrary, 
 each word is retained in its natural and appropriate meaning, 
 while, at the same time, there appears a strictly logical con 
 nexion in the argument. The train of thought proceeds, not 
 upon a fanciful or fictitious, but upon a real point of coinci 
 dence and agreement between a Divine covenant and a human 
 testament; hence also, between Christ the mediator of the 
 covenant, and Christ the testator of the eternal inheritance; 
 since it is the great object of the covenant, whether in its old 
 or its new form, to instate men in the possession of that in 
 heritance, and the great end of Christ s work as mediator, to 
 open the way to the possession by His sacrificial death. With 
 perfect propriety, therefore, might the apostle, in confirma 
 tion of his principle respecting the necessity of an interve- 
 nient death, point back to the offerings of blood at the ratifi 
 cation of the old covenant, and identify death (as of a testa 
 tor) with consecration by blood (as through sacrifice.) For 
 as the old covenant did make a provisional or temporary 
 arrangement for men attaining to the inheritance of life 
 and blessing, it had in consequence to be ratified by a pro 
 visional or typical death. The death inflicted there was 
 Christ s death in symbol, as the blessing inherited was Christ s 
 blessing by anticipation. But in the passage before us, the 
 typical blood is presented in the more common aspect of a 
 consecration (ver. 18;) and, under that aspect, its necessity 
 and value are set forth, in the verses that follow, as the one 
 grand medium of access for sinners to the region of eternal 
 glory. This simply arose from the two aspects of death 
 death as necessary to the participation of the inheritance, 
 and death as necessary to purification from sin happening 
 to coalesce in Christ; so that the same act, which was needed 
 to secure, and did secure a title to the inheritance, was also 
 needed to consecrate, and did consecrate, a way to the eternal 
 inheritance; and but for the one necessity, the other should 
 never have existed. The two ideas, therefore, so far as Christ 
 is concerned, run into each other; and as that of consecration 
 30 
 
850 THE IMPORT AND USE OF 
 
 was both the more usual, and the most immediately connected 
 with the great theme of the epistle, the sacred penman quite 
 naturally resumes and prosecutes it quitting the other, which 
 had been but casually introduced for the sake of confirming a 
 truth, and marking a point of connexion between things sacred 
 and common. 
 
 Such appears to us the correct interpretation of the pas 
 sage, and the proper mode of explicating its meaning. The 
 difficulty felt in arriving at this has arisen mainly from over 
 looking the special ground of the apostle s statement; that is, 
 the common element or point of coincidence between a human 
 testament and a Divine covenant in the particular aspect re 
 ferred to. Both alike contain a disposition in regard to the 
 joint participation by others of the goods of him who makes 
 it; and a participation that requires, as its indispensable con 
 dition, his own subjection to the power of death. We thus 
 obtain a clear and natural sense from the passage, without 
 interfering with the received, which is certainly also the ap 
 parent, import of the words. 1 At the same time, while we 
 here vindicate the received translation, we cannot but regard 
 it as somewhat unfortunate, that on the ground of a thought 
 so casually introduced, and a meaning of ocadr^ nowhere else 
 distinctly exhibited in Scripture, many, both of the ancient, 
 and of the more modern theological writers, should have given 
 such prominence to the testamentary aspect of the scheme of re 
 demption. The Cocceian school, to which several of our own 
 older divines belonged, had a sort of predilection for this 
 mode of exhibiting Christ s relation to his people, and thereby 
 gave a somewhat artificial air to their explanations of things 
 connected with the covenant of grace. They were wont to 
 treat formally of the testament, the testator, the executor, 
 the legatees, and the legacies. Such a style of representation, 
 though not altogether unwarranted by Scripture, has yet no 
 broad and comprehensive ground to rest upon there. When 
 
 1 The considerations, on which the above explanation is made to turn 
 had not suggested themselves to me when I wrote the article on the Epis 
 tle to the Hebrews in the British and Foreign Evangelical Review for Sept. 
 1854. I there adopted substantially Ebrard s view. 
 
deadrjxy IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 351 
 
 salvation is exhibited in connexion with a covenant, it is 
 always (with the exception just noticed in Heb. ix. 15-17) 
 covenant in the ordinary sense that is to be understood a 
 sense, that involves the idea of mutual engagements indi 
 vidual parts to be fulfilled, and corresponding relations to be 
 maintained though the place occupied by God is pre-emi 
 nently that of a bountiful and gracious benefactor. And to 
 keep attention alive to the strictly covenant aspect of re 
 demption, it had, doubtless, been better to have retained in 
 the authorized version the rendering of covenant for dtadrjxin 
 in all but the one passage of Hebrews, and to have designated 
 the Bible the Scriptures of the Old and New Covenants, rather 
 than of the Old and New Testaments, In particular, it had 
 been better, in the words connected with the celebration of 
 the Lord s Supper, to have retained the common rendering, 
 and read, "This is the new covenant in My blood;" since all 
 should thus have readily perceived, that the Lord pointed to 
 the Divine covenant, in its new and better form, as contra 
 distinguished from that which had been brought in by Moses, 
 and which had now reached the end of its appointment. Due 
 pains should be taken to instruct the unlearned, that such is 
 the import of the expression, and also to inform them, that 
 while the covenant, as established in His blood, bears the 
 epithet new, it is so designated merely from respect to the 
 order of exhibition, while, if viewed with respect to the mind 
 and purpose of God, this is the first as well as the last 
 the covenant, which was planned in the counsels of eternity 
 to retrieve the ruin of the fall, and out of the depths of per 
 dition to raise up a spiritual and blessed offspring for God. 
 
352 TERMS INDICATIVE OP THE 
 
 SECTION EIGHTH. 
 
 ON THE IMPORT OF CERTAIN TERMS EMPLOYED IN NEW TESTA 
 MENT SCRIPTURE TO INDICATE THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF 
 THE RENOVATION TO BE ACCOMPLISHED THROUGH THE GOS 
 
 PEL ; fj-STdvota, naJii ffevsfflay dvaxcuvoMTic, aTioxardaraff^. 
 
 THE mission of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the institution 
 consequent on it of His spiritual kingdom, have for their ob 
 ject the accomplishment of a great arid comprehensive reno 
 vation. And in addition to such expressions as flaffdsla TOL> 
 $oD, iq xawq dtaJdyxr}, which, in different respects, indicate 
 the design and character of the change to be introduced, and 
 which have already been considered, there is a class of ex 
 pressions pointing also to the change in question, but with a 
 more special respect to its renovating character. There are 
 altogether four of these terms, which, while they form a sort 
 of whole, must yet be considered separately, in order to obtain 
 a correct idea, both of their distinctive meanings, and of the 
 relation in which they stand to each other. 
 
 I. The first in order of the terms referred to is /jter 
 which need not detain us long. The verb meets us at the 
 very threshold of the Gospel, in the Baptist s call of prepara 
 tion for the kingdom /^srocvos^rs which was afterwards also 
 taken up by our Lord. The first and most immediate change, 
 which was required of men in expectation of the Lord s ap 
 pearance and kingdom, was an altered state of thought and 
 purpose in regard to things spiritual and divine; and to im 
 press the necessity of this more deeply upon the minds of all, 
 the call to enter into it was coupled with an administration of 
 baptism a baptism e/c fJ-ZTdvotav. Even after the personal 
 ministry of Christ was finished, and He had left the work to 
 be prosecuted among men by his apostles, the call was still 
 the same; /j.sravo jcraTe zai flaTmffdiJTco was theclosing and 
 practical point of St. Peter s address to the multitudes on the 
 day of Pentecost; and in St. Paul s brief summary of the 
 
RENOVATION ACCOMPLISHED BY THE GOSPEL. 853 
 
 Gospel he everywhere preached the first article named is -rp 
 ere Osbv p.%rdyotav (Acts xx. 21.) In all these passages, it is 
 fjtsTdvoea or the cognate verb, which is employed, not fierafil* 
 /. and ftera/ji&o/JLat; and this, no doubt, because the former 
 more significantly and correctly indicated the change intend 
 ed than the latter. Both, indeed, by etymology and usage 
 fjLsrdvoea points more to the change itself in thought and pur 
 pose, while pjerapLiXetOL fixes attention chiefly on the concern 
 or regret, which the consideration of the past has awakened. 
 Of itself, /jLSTdvoea expresses nothing as to the nature of the 
 change, in what particular direction taken, or how far in that 
 direction carried: this is left to be determined by the con 
 nexion, or from the nature of the case. In the New Testa 
 ment it is always used in a good sense, and in reference to a 
 sincere practical reformation of mind and conduct. Not this, 
 however, in the aspect of a change wrought by the power of 
 God, but rather in its relation to human responsibilities, as 
 an amendment that men are bound to aim at and strive after; 
 hence the verb is used in the imperative; the thing to be done 
 is bound as an obligation upon men s consciences. The other 
 verb, pt$Tafjt%Ofjtae 9 is never so used the thought it expresses 
 being a matter of suffering rather than of action, the recoil of 
 feeling or inward sorrow and dissatisfaction which rushes upon 
 the soul s consciousness, when a past course of transgression 
 is seen in its true light. Whenever the fjterdifoea is of the 
 right description, there will always, of necessity, be something 
 of this sort; since it is impossible for the mind to turn from 
 the love and practice of sin, to even the heartfelt desire after 
 righteousness, without a certain degree of sorrow and remorse. 
 But, from the varieties that exist in human temperaments, and 
 the diversified effects apt to be produced by the circumstances 
 of life, no definite measure or uniform rule can be laid down 
 in this respect; there may be considerably less of such con 
 scious and painful regret in some cases than in others, where 
 the change is alike genuine ; and there may also be a good 
 deal of it where there is no actual jnerduota the recoil of feel 
 ing passing away without leading to any permanent result. 
 Accordingly it is not the fjie-a/jtslsca, but the p*rdi>ot& ) which 
 
854 TERMS INDICATIVE OF THE 
 
 is indispensably required of those who would find a place in 
 the Messiah s kingdom a /isTdisota, as is expressed in 2 Cor. 
 vii. 10, e/c ffatTqpi.av dfjiTa/jistyToz 9 a repentance unto salva 
 tion not to be repented of. 
 
 The word repentance, however, as is evident from the pre 
 ceding remarks, is but an imperfect synonym for /j-sravota:, it 
 does not sufficiently distinguish between this and fierafjisXeia 
 in the respects wherein they differ, but gives a partial indica 
 tion of the import of both. As commonly understood, it points 
 fully as much to the sorrow or regret which ensues upon a 
 proper change of mind, as to the change itself. Yet we have 
 no other word that can fitly take its place; for, though refor 
 mation or amendment may seem more closely to correspond 
 with the original, and have been formally proposed as a better 
 rendering, they carry the thoughts too much outward to meet 
 with general approval as a substitute for repentance. It is 
 the excellence of this last, as a translation of /jterdyoea, that 
 however otherwise defective, it points inward, and marks the 
 state of the soul not merely of the outward behaviour as 
 different from what it formerly was: it is expressive of a 
 changed action of the heart in respect to sin and holiness; 
 only it leaves the action in a state of incompleteness, as if it 
 had respect merely to the evil perceived to have existed in the 
 past. It is right, however, as far as it goes. lie who repents 
 has come to see that to be evil which he previously loved and 
 followed as good ; and it is only necessary to think of this al 
 tered bent of mind, as taking a direction toward the future 
 equally with the past, in order to find in the term repentance, 
 which is used to express it, a fair representation of the New 
 Testament /y.sravor. 
 
 The call to this /^ravo^a, as necessary for admission into 
 the Messiah s kingdom, proceeds on the existence of a state of 
 alienation and disorder in respect to the things of God; it 
 implies, that the vo^ //r, the thoughts and intents of the mind, 
 have gone in the wrong direction, and must be turned back 
 upon the right objects. As a people the Jews were in such a 
 state when the call was originally addressed to them ; arid, 
 notwithstanding the call, they, for the most part, continued to 
 
RENOVATION ACCOMPLISHED BY THE GOSPEL. 355 
 
 abide in it. In respect to the state itself, however, there was 
 nothing singular in their case; the same alienation of heart 
 belongs naturally to every individual, and the spiritual change, 
 or conversion, which consists in its abandonment, is the one 
 door-way for all into the kingdom. The great question when 
 once the heart has begun to grapple in earnest with the Di 
 vine call is how the change is to be effected? It is man s 
 duty and interest to have it done; for till it is done, he is an 
 enemy of God, a child of perdition; and to bestir himself to 
 the task of reformation is his immediate and paramount con 
 cern. Eut if in reality he does so, he will presently find that 
 other powers than his own are needed for the end in view; he 
 can himself see the necessity for the change, can think with 
 sorrow and remorse of the errors of the past, can anticipate 
 with dread the dangers of the future, can wish and pray that 
 it were otherwise with him but nothing comes to perfection, 
 unless the effort to convert bring the soul into contact with 
 the regenerating grace of God, and make it conscious of a 
 
 vital influence from above. 
 
 
 
 II. It is this second, but most important stage in the pro 
 cess, that is marked in the next term xcdejjeveffja, or rege 
 neration. Considered doctrinally, either of these terms might 
 be made to include the other, and the one or the other might 
 indifferently be put first. Regeneration might be represented 
 as necessary to conversion, and determining what belongs to 
 it; since it is only when the Divine element implied in rege 
 neration works upon the soul, that the conversion it undergoes 
 is sufficiently deep and earnest to be lasting. On the other 
 hand, conversion, if viewed in its entire compass and perfect 
 ed results, must be made to comprehend, as well the regene 
 rating grace that effects the change, as the desires and strug 
 gles of the soul, while travailing in birth for its accomplish 
 ment. But, viewed in the order of nature, and also as com 
 monly represented in Scripture, the ij.=rdvoca, or conversion, 
 must be placed first; for it is with this that man s responsi 
 bilities have immediately to do: and it is in addressing him 
 self to the things connected with it, that he is driven out of 
 
356 TERMS INDICATIVE OF THE 
 
 himself, and brought to surrender himself to the working of 
 that Divine power on which he depends for the necessary re 
 sult. Scripture never puts regeneration, or what is implied 
 in regeneration, before conversion ; but it does press the work 
 of conversion, as in some sense prior to the possession of a re 
 generated state: as in the original call of the Baptist to re 
 pent, or be converted, that men might be prepared for the 
 baptism of the Spirit; or in St. Peter s address to the inhabi 
 tants of Jerusalem, exhorting them to convert and be baptized, 
 that they might receive the gift of the Spirit. Of course, when 
 so represented, conversion is to be understood as spoken of 
 only in respect to its initial stages, and as a work demanding 
 men s earnest application; in which respect it may be said 
 to "precede regeneration, and to be the condition and qualifi 
 cation for it;" 1 if by condition and qualification we under 
 stand simply that without which, on the sinner s part, he has 
 no valid reason to expect the further and higher good implied 
 in regeneration. And there is undoubtedly this further dif 
 ference implied in the terms themselves, that, while conversion 
 is a change of mind which, so far as the mind that experiences 
 it is concerned may possibly change again, regeneration is a 
 change of state, a new being and so, we may say, carries the 
 idea of fixedness and perpetuity in its bosom. 
 
 The term itself -ahffsvsffla, which exactly answers to our 
 regeneration, is found only twice in the New Testament (Matt. 
 xix. 28 ; Titus iii. 5,) and in the second alone of the two cases, 
 has it respect to spiritual renovation. There are, however, 
 various other expressions which are employed to indicate the 
 same thing. In point of time, the first was that used by our 
 Lord in His conversation with Nicodemus one also of the 
 most explicit in which he declared the necessity for every 
 one who would enter His kingdom, of being born again. 
 *AvcoOsy fzwrfl7 t vat is the expression used, and is most exactly 
 rendered, perhaps, born afresh but obviously all one as to 
 meaning with r.dhv ^^.vvrfl^at or flvzcrdat , for both alike in 
 dicate a kind of starting anew into being, or re-entering upon 
 life, in some new and higher sense. In the explanations given 
 
 1 Mozley on Baptismal Regeneration, p. 58. 
 
RENOVATION ACCOMPLISHED BY THE GOSPEL. 357 
 
 immediately after by our Lord, it is connected with water 
 and the Spirit with the Spirit alone, however, as the effective 
 agent; for He calls it "a birth of the Spirit," as contradis 
 tinguished from a birth of the flesh (ver. 6 ;) and, after re 
 ferring for illustration to the somewhat similar operation of 
 the wind in nature, He sums up by saying, " So is every one 
 that is born of the Spirit" (ver. 8.) The Evangelist John 
 himself, ch. i. 13, says of all genuine believers, Ix 6zoi> lyevvq- 
 drjGav, they were born of God, and that in a manner different 
 from every form of natural generation. So again in his first 
 Epistle, ch. v. 4, the believer, on account of his faith, is "born 
 of God." In 1 Pet. i. 23, and Jas. i. 18, the new birth is 
 asserted equally of all Christians, and ascribed directly to 
 God, but connected instrumentally with the operation of the 
 word (Sea ),6foo, or Xoyto dAydslaz.) So, still further, St. Paul, 
 who not only designates believers once and again "new 
 creatures" (2 Cor. v. 17; Gal. vi. 15;) but in the passage 
 already referred to, Titus iii. 5, characterizes the change that 
 passes on them, when they become true Christians, as a rege 
 neration. The whole passage runs thus : " After that the kind 
 ness and love toward man (ydavdpantca) of our Saviour God 
 (TO~J ff(i)T9j t oozitjfjLaJv Ozo~j) appeared; not by works of righteous 
 ness which we did (lirotytrafjiev,) but according to His mercy 
 He saved us dea Jtourpou nafcffeveffioLZ xai duaxatvaxreax; 
 7tV jfj.o.Toz 6.floD through washing (or laver) of regeneration 
 and renewing of the Holy Ghost." 
 
 The whole of these passages describe in terms substantially 
 alike, the spiritual change which passes over those who become 
 Christ s true people; differing only in connecting it, some 
 more immediately with the word, understood and received in 
 faith, others with the baptismal font or water. As this con 
 nexion can only be of a subordinate and instrumental kind, 
 it does not affect the nature of the thing itself, which must be 
 determined by the plain import of the language employed 
 concerning it. But the language, in its plain import, un 
 doubtedly expresses an actual change a new birth ; not the 
 mere capacity for such, but its realized possession. Were 
 this xajsffsvsffia any thing short of a work of God, brought 
 
358 TERMS INDICATIVE OF THE 
 
 into actual existence in the case of the person who is the sub 
 ject of it, the term would be an entire misnomer, such as we 
 cannot conceive to have a place in the volume of inspiration. 
 But this becomes still more certain, and is established beyond 
 all reasonable doubt, when along with the natural import of 
 the language we couple what is said of those, who have under 
 gone the regenerating change. "He that is born of God, 5 
 says the Apostle John, "doth not commit sin, for his seed 
 remaineth in him, and he cannot sin because he is born of 
 God." And, he adds, "in this the children of God are mani 
 fest, and the children of the devil; whosoever doeth not right 
 eousness is not of God." (1 John iii. 9, 10.) In like man 
 ner St. Paul describes the sons of God as those, who are led 
 by the Spirit of God, and declares that if any have not this 
 Spirit they are none of His (Rom. viii. 9, 14.) Not only so, 
 but he characterizes them, on the ground of their regeneration, 
 as dead to sin, risen again with Christ to walk in newness of 
 life, and already sitting together with Him in heavenly places 
 (Rom. vi. 4; Eph. ii. 6; Col. ii. 12.) The apostles of our 
 Lord can no longer be regarded as persons, who used great 
 plainness of speech, or even gave intelligible utterance to their 
 thoughts, if such expressions were employed by them to denote 
 any thing else than an actual change from death to life, from 
 sin to holiness; if nothing more was meant, for example, 
 than the bestowal of some mysterious gift or capacity, which 
 might be held by the worst in common with the best of men 
 by one who continues practically a child of the devil, as well 
 as by him who breathes the spirit and does the works of a child 
 of God. "Such a monstrous perversion of language," it has 
 been justly said, "would never approve itself to any one, who 
 did not come to this subject with his mind pre-occupied with 
 a particular" view. But it is in vain, that Scripture is plain 
 and express to the effect, that the Divine gift of regeneration 
 is actual holiness, so long as men are pre-occupied with an 
 idea, that actual holiness cannot be a Divine gift. They will 
 go on to the last, not seeing the plainest assertions of Scrip 
 ture as to the nature of regeneration." 1 
 
 1 Mozley on Baptismal Regeneration, pp. 29, 30. 
 
RENOVATION ACCOMPLISHED BY THE GOSPEL. 359 
 
 It can serve no good purpose, therefore, to dwell longer on 
 this aspect of the matter; since exegetical efforts must be 
 altogether misspent in endeavouring to impart light to those 
 who cannot afford to see. But in regard to the point of the 
 instrumental relationship of regeneration to the Divine ordi 
 nances, we may remark, that while it is specially and fre 
 quently connected with baptism, it is not connected with that 
 ordinance alone; the Word of God equally shares in the 
 honour. It is not to be denied, that when our Lord speaks 
 of being born of water and spirit, and when St. Paul couples 
 the laver with regeneration, and represents believers as being 
 buried and rising again with Christ, a close relationship is 
 established between Christian baptism and. spiritual regenera 
 tion. But there are other passages referred to above, which 
 equally connect it with the word of the Gospel, of which also 
 it is said generally, that it is "the power of God to salvation 
 to every one that believeth," that it is "quick, powerful, and 
 sharper than a two-edged sword," that it is even "spirit and 
 life." Nothing stronger than this is said of baptism in respect 
 to regeneration ; so that the relationship of baptism to the 
 spiritual change is by no means exclusive; and as the change 
 itself is inward and vital, neither baptism nor the word can 
 have more than a subordinate and instrumental relation to it. 
 As to efficacious power, it is "the spirit that quickeneth," 
 not, however, apart from the ordinances, but in connexion 
 with their instrumentality; nor yet by indissoluble union and 
 invariable efficiency through these, but in such manner and 
 ways as seem good to Him who quickeneth whom He will. It 
 is enough for us to know, that in this spiritual birth, as in the 
 natural, the internal links itself with the external, the Divine 
 with the human; so that if the word is honestly handled, and 
 the sacrament of baptism believingly received and used, the 
 spiritual effect will infallibly result. When so received and 
 used, baptism saves, and the baptized are regenerated, because 
 the manifested grace of God meets with a suitable recipiency, 
 on the part of man ; as also the word of truth brings salva 
 tion, quickens and renews, when its promises of grace and 
 blessing are rested on in humble faith. But abstract the 
 
360 TERMS INDICATIVE OF THE 
 
 supposition, -which is commonly made in Scripture, of this 
 faithful and honest dealing with these ordinances of God, and 
 there is nothing of regenerative power or saving effect in 
 either; the hearer of the word only treasures up for himself 
 a heavier condemnation, and the baptized, so far from rising 
 to newness of life, remains, even when baptized by an apostle, 
 in "the gall of bitterness and the bond of iniquity." 
 
 There is, doubtless, so far a difference in the scriptural 
 statements referred to, as to the relation in which baptism 
 and the word respectively stand to regeneration, that the for 
 mer, being a symbolical and sealing ordinance, it more dis 
 tinctly and personally exhibits the things connected with the 
 soul s regeneration. It has somewhat of the nature of a 
 covenant transaction, in which the individual presents himself, 
 or is presented by others, for a personal participation in the 
 regenerating grace exhibited in the ordinance; and personally, 
 or through others for him, professes to accept what is there 
 offered to his hand, and engages to act accordingly. Con 
 templating the matter, therefore, as an honest transaction a 
 transaction in which the human subject seems truthfully to 
 respond to the Divine condescension and favour shown him 
 our Lord and His apostles represent baptism as, according to 
 its true idea, an instrument or channel of regeneration, and 
 speak of those as regenerate persons who have in sincerity 
 complied with it. But that is a very different thing from 
 saying, that baptism, simply as an ordinance, carries regene 
 ration in its bosom, or that all who have passed through the 
 outward rite are regenerate. Such language is in Scripture 
 applied only to those who have actually been born of the 
 Spirit, or who, in the judgment of faith and charity, may be 
 considered to have been so born again. And precisely on 
 account of regeneration being thus essentially a Divine work, 
 in which man, as a spiritual being, has to be the recipient, 
 through the grace of the Spirit operating vitally within, it is 
 not directly laid as an obligation upon his conscience. He 
 is entreated and bound to do the things, which, in their full 
 compass, involve it, and which also bring him into immediate 
 contact with the living agency that works it; but for the 
 
RENOVATION ACCOMPLISHED BY THE GOSPEL. 361 
 
 change itself the actual regeneration of his soul to God he 
 must be a partaker and not a doer, become a subject of the 
 Spirit s renewing grace. 
 
 III. This interconnexion, however, between the human and 
 the Divine, as directly related to men s responsibilities, comes 
 out in the next term of the series, dvaxacvcoffez, which is occa 
 sionally, though not very frequently, used in New Testament 
 Scripture. In the passage cited from the Epistle to Titus, it 
 is coupled with ncdeffeveffla, and placed after it, as denoting 
 something consecutive a carrying forward of the regeneration 
 to its proper completion; which again brings us into the re 
 gion of human responsibility and active working. For, while 
 it belongs to God, through the internal agency of His Spirit, 
 to implant the principle of divine life in the soul, it belongs 
 to man not independently, indeed, and as at his own hand, 
 feut in connexion with the promised grace of God to guard, 
 and nourish to perfection the gift conferred upon him. Hence 
 this &v axo.lv a) an; is matter of express command; for example, 
 in Eph. iv. 23, where the apostle charges believers who had 
 already "been taught as the truth is in Jesus" to "renew 
 themselves (avavzo~jG6a.c) in the spirit of their mind;" and in 
 Rom. xii. 2, they are called to be transformed, or to trans 
 form themselves, in the renewing of their mind (TYJ dva /awcoGst 
 Toi) vooc-) This growing renewal of mind and spirit, which 
 is only rendered possible by a preceding regeneration, it is 
 the imperative duty of every believer to press forward ; it 
 should be the object of his daily watchings, strivings, and 
 prayers, which, if rightly directed, shall have for their great 
 end his progressive advancement in the divine life, and assi 
 milation to the image of his Father in heaven. 
 
 We have here to note the manner in which the new life of 
 Christianity has formed for itself a language, to give adequate 
 expression to the thoughts and aspirations it has awakened. 
 Of the two words just mentioned, one of them dvaxa>v coats, 
 is found only in the New Testament, as is also the verb dva- 
 xa&bto. The classical word for expressing a somewhat similar 
 action of mind, was dvaxacvi^co^ which occurs in Heb. vi. 6, 
 but is found nowhere else in the New Testament. It was, we 
 31 
 
302 TERMS INDICATIVE OF THE 
 
 may conceive, felt to be too feeble, or, from its ordinary ap 
 plication, indicative of too partial and defective an improve 
 ment, to bring out the Christian sense that was meant to be 
 conveyed; and so a distinct word, of the same root, but with 
 a different termination, was brought into requisition. The other 
 word, Trodrffsveffla, was, indeed, employed by heathen writers, 
 but in a sense so inferior, that it may be said to have become 
 instinct with new meaning, when turned in a Christian di 
 rection. As employed elsewhere, it expresses such renova 
 tions as take place, from time to time, within the natural 
 sphere, and on the same line of things with itself. Thus 
 Cicero, on the close of his exile, and referring to his resto 
 ration to honour and dignity, speaks of hanc nafcffevealau 
 nostram (Ad Attic, vi. 6.) In like manner, Josephus applies 
 the word to that political resuscitation, which was granted to 
 his people and country, on the return from the Babylonish 
 captivity (Ant. xi. 3, 9.) Marcus Antoninus and the Stoics ge 
 nerally designated the revivals, which, at shorter or longer 
 intervals, occur in the constitution and order of earthly things, 
 and which they believed would ultimately become fixed, rr^ 
 7rsf)fOO!xr^ 7zahfys.vs.a t.a.v rcov O)MV, the periodical regeneration 
 of the world. And approaching a step nearer, though basing 
 itself on a fanciful foundation, it was the doctrine of the Py 
 thagoreans, as we learn from Plutarch (De Em. Cat. i. 7) 
 part of their general doctrine of the transmigration of souls 
 that there was a -a^rff^zoia to each particular person when 
 his soul returned to the body, and again made its appearance 
 on the theatre of an earthly existence. From such applica 
 tions of the word, one sees at a glance what an elevation was 
 given to it when it entered into the sphere of Christian ideas, 
 and came to denote that high moral renovation, which Christ 
 ever seeks to accomplish in His people the formation in them 
 of a life fashioned after the life of God. Here we find our 
 selves in another region than that of nature s feebleness and 
 corruption; the supernatural mingles with the natural; and 
 the earthly in man s being is transformed, so as to receive the 
 tone and impress of the heavenly. 
 
 But the nadcffwsffla of the gospel, and its attendant dva- 
 
RENOVATION ACCOMPLISHED BY THE GOSPEL. 863 
 
 tz-, do not stop here ; while commencing with the soul 
 of the individual believer, they thenceforth proceed to other 
 operations and results. The internal renovation is but the 
 beginning of a process, which is to extend far and wide to 
 spread with regenerating power through all the relations and 
 departments of social life to defecate and transfigure the 
 corporeal frame itself into the fit habitation of an immortal 
 spirit yea, and embrace the whole domain of external nature, 
 which it will invest with the imperishable glory of a new cre 
 ation. It was this more extended and comprehensive appli 
 cation of the word Tzalrff^zaia, which was made by our Lord 
 in Matt. xix. 28, when He gave assurance to the disciples of 
 the immortal honour and dignity that was to be their position 
 in the closing issues of His kingdom, " Verily, I say unto you, 
 that ye who have followed Me, in the regeneration (Trahrfeve- 
 aia) when the Son of Man shall sit on the throne of His 
 glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve 
 tribes of Israel." It was a prevalent opinion among the Fa 
 thers, that by regeneration here, our Lord pointed explicitly 
 to the resurrection of the body. Thus Augustine, De Civ. 
 Dei. xx. 5, " When he says, in the regeneration, beyond doubt 
 He wishes to be understood thereby the resurrection from the 
 dead; for thus shall our flesh be regenerated through incor- 
 ruption, even as our soul has been regenerated by faith." 
 To the like effect Jerome, who says on the passage, "In the 
 regeneration, that is, when the dead shall rise incorruptible 
 from corruption." Gregory, Theophylact, Euthymius, and 
 others, follow in the same line. It is, however, too narrow a 
 reference to give to our Lord s words. The resurrection of 
 the body is, doubtless, implied in what He says ; for when the 
 Son of Man sits upon the throne of His glory, or is manifested 
 in His kingly state, the saints shall certainly have been raised 
 up to sit with Him ; according to the testimony of the apostle, 
 " When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall we 
 also appear with Him in glory." Undoubtedly, too, the re 
 surrection may be fitly designated a regeneration ; as it shall 
 be in the most emphatic sense a renovating of the old, casting 
 it entirely into a fresh mould, and giving it a kind of second 
 
364: TERMS INDICATIVE OF THE 
 
 birth, unspeakably better than the first. So, the apostle Paul 
 in effect, though not in express terms, calls it, when in Rom. 
 viii. 23, he speaks of the general body of believers groaning 
 in themselves, and " waiting for the adoption, the redemption 
 of the body;" as if their proper filiation only began then, and 
 not till it took place did they fairly enter. into the state and 
 heritage of the sons of God. Then only indeed shall they 
 reach it in its completeness, or in respect to their entire per 
 sonality. The regeneration is already theirs; it is theirs from 
 the first moment of their spiritual life, in so far as their souls 
 are concerned, but still only as in a mystery; since the cor 
 poreal and visible part of their natures continues as before, 
 in the frailty and corruption of the fall. At the resurrection, 
 however, this anomalous state of things shall be terminated ; 
 the old man shall in this respect also be exchanged for the 
 new ; and the children of the regeneration shall at last look 
 like their state and destiny they shall possess the visible seal 
 of their adoption, in the redemption of their bodies from the 
 law of mortality and corruption. 
 
 On these accounts, the resurrection of the body may fitly 
 be called a Tcafoffeveffla; it is certainly to be included in the 
 general renovation, which the Lord will introduce at the pro 
 per time; but it is this general renovation itself, not simply 
 the resurrection of the body, which is to be understood as 
 pointed to in the declaration of our Lord. The ncdrffeveffla 
 there mentioned is the bringing in of what is elsewhere called 
 the new heavens and the new earth, the constitution of every 
 thing after a new and higher pattern ; in consequence of which, 
 that which is in part shall be done away, evil in every form 
 shall be abolished, and universal peace, harmony, arid per 
 fection established. For, such is the proper issue and con 
 summation of Christ s work, who, as the Lord s anointed, has 
 received from the Father the heritage of all things, and re 
 ceived it, not to retain them in their state of corruption and 
 disorder, but to rectify and bless them ; so that, throughout 
 the entire domain, there shall be nothing to hurt and offend, 
 and all shall reflect the spotless glory of their Divine Head. 
 
RENOVATION ACCOMPLISHED BY THE GOSPEL. 365 
 
 IV. The regeneration in this large and general sense is 
 much of the same import as another word the last we have 
 to notice in this connexion dTroxardcrTafftz* The noun oc 
 curs, indeed, only once with reference to the work of Christ 
 (Acts iii. 21;) but the verb is found, on two occasions, with a 
 somewhat similar reference. In Matt. xvii. 11, our Lord 
 replied to a question respecting Elias, "Elias indeed cometh 
 and restoreth (or shall restore axoxaOtaTavst, Mark ; aTtoxa- 
 ra(TT7](Tst, Matt.) all things. It was the purpose or destina 
 tion for which John came that Christ here speaks of; His 
 mission was of a restorative nature, being appointed in respect 
 to a people, who had gone away backward, and were practi 
 cally in a state of alienation, first from the God of their fa 
 thers, and then from these fathers themselves. To turn again 
 this tide of degeneracy, and bring the hearts of the people 
 into a friendly relationship as well to God, as to their pious 
 ancestors, was the special calling of this new Elias ; he came 
 to the intent, that He might restore all things to their normal 
 state of allegiance to God, and mutual respondency between 
 parent and child (Luke i. 16, 17.) But in respect to the 
 event, all was marred by the perverseness and carnality of 
 the people; they frustrated the grace of God, and did to the 
 Elias "whatever they listed." In this case, it was plainly 
 but a provisional moral restoration that was meant to be ac 
 complished; but even this was arrested in its course, and only 
 in a very partial manner reached its end. 
 
 Still more immediately, however, in connexion with Mes 
 siah s work, we find the expression used by the apostles after 
 the resurrection, when they asked Christ, "Lord, dost Thon 
 at this time restore the kingdom to Israel ($c lu rw ypbvu) 
 TOUTOJ o~ 0X0.6 c&Tdvzct; rrp ftaadeiav TW fopcajfyV The answer 
 returned simply conveyed a rebuke for their too prying curi 
 osity regarding the future, and an instruction as to present 
 duty: "It is not for you to know the times and seasons, which 
 the Father has put in His own power ; but ye shall receive 
 power, when the Holy Ghost comes upon you," etc In short, 
 there was to be no d.noyjj.ro.araat^ such as they were looking 
 for, of a present resuscitation of the temporal kingdom ; and 
 
 31* 
 
366 TERMS INDICATIVE OF THE 
 
 for themselves, they had other and higher things to mind, 
 for which the needed power was shortly to be conferred on 
 them from above. They were not on this account, however, 
 discharged from expecting an aTioxardaracfc^^ only it was to 
 be one (as they themselves soon understood,) which carried in 
 its bosom the elements of a nobler renovation fresh suc 
 cessions of spiritual revival in the first instance, and these 
 culminating at last, in a complete, final restitution. So, in a 
 comparatively brief period, the Apostle Peter gave expression 
 to his views, and showed the vast moral elevation that had 
 been imparted to him by the descent of the Spirit: " Repent, 
 therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted 
 out, so that times of refreshing may come (oxtoz av eWcovw 
 xaepoc cLyaip j^toz) from the presence of the Lord; and He 
 may send Jesus Christ that before was preached unto you; 
 whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution 
 of all things (a~oxaTd<JTO.(Jzcoz Travrwv,) of which (of which 
 times) God spake by the mouth of His holy prophets, since 
 the world began (or, from the earliest times.") 
 
 The slightest inspection may convince any one, that this 
 was spoken under the direction of a far more enlightened and 
 elevating impulse, than that which dictated the question , u Wilt 
 Thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?" In the 
 one case there is a manifest savouring of the things of the 
 flesh, in the other, of those of the Spirit; the first thoughts 
 were characterized by a narrow exclusiveness, and a desire 
 for some sort of temporal ascendency, while in the latter there 
 is a noble breathing after things heavenly and divine, a just 
 appreciation of the spiritual in comparison of the earthly, and 
 a lively expectation of the complete triumph over all evil yet 
 to be effected by the presence and power of the glorified Re 
 deemer. The cbroxara0ra0Y:r now looked and longed for by 
 the apostles was nothing short of a general and thorough 
 renovation the same, that prophets had from the first been 
 heralding, when they pointed to the glory which was to fol 
 low the obedience and sufferings of the Redeemer a re-es 
 tablishment of the original order and blessedness of the world, 
 or its final deliverance frem all the troubles and disorders that 
 
RENOVATION ACCOMPLISHED BY THE GOSPEL. 367 
 
 afflict it, and along therewith its elevation to a higher even 
 than its primeval condition. But the general carries no anta 
 gonism to the particular; the restitution of all things now 
 hoped for should also be, in the truest sense, the restitution 
 of the kingdom to Israel. For, in Christ all that is really 
 Israel s, finds its proper centre and its ultimate destination; 
 where He, the King of Zion is, there is Israel s ascendency, 
 Israel s seed of blessing, Israel s distinctive glory; and the 
 best and highest thing for Jew and Gentile alike is to share 
 in the dominion of Christ, and with him to possess the king 
 dom. 
 
 To sum up, then, in regard to this series of words so pecu 
 liarly indicative, as a whole, of the nature and tendency of the 
 Gospel of Christ: The generic idea of renovation, or radical 
 change from a worse to a better state, is here presented to our 
 view under successive stages and developments. We see it 
 beginning in the region of the inner man in the awakening 
 of a sense of guilt and danger, with earnest strivings after 
 amendment (/jLsrdvoia?) then, through the operation of the 
 grace of God, it discovers itself in a regenerated frame of spi 
 rit, the possession of an essentially new spiritual condition 
 (i:cdrffVCFia ;) this, once found, proceeds by continual advances 
 and fresh efforts to higher and higher degrees of spiritual reno 
 vation (dvaxaluoMTiz ;) while, according to the gracious plan 
 and wise disposal of God, the internal links itself to the ex 
 ternal, the renovation of soul paves the way for the purifica 
 tion of nature, until, the work of grace being finished, and the 
 number of the elect completed, the bodies also of the saints 
 shall be transformed, and the whole material creation shall 
 become a fit habitation for redeemed and glorified saints (6.7:0- 
 xaT(i<7-a<Ttz.) Vv^hat a large and divine-like grasp in this re 
 generative scheme ! How unlike the littleness and superfici 
 ality of man! How clearly bespeaking the profound insight 
 and far-reaching wisdom of God ! And this not merely in its 
 ultimate results, but in the method also and order of its pro 
 cedure! In beginning with the inner man, and laying the 
 chief stress on a regenerated heart, it takes possession of the 
 fountainhead of evil, and rectifies that which most of all requires 
 
368 PARASKEUE AND PASCHA 
 
 the operation of a renewing agency. As in the moral sphere, 
 the evil had its commencement, so in the same sphere are the 
 roots planted of all the renovation, that is to develop itself in 
 the history of the kingdom. And the spiritual work once pro 
 perly accomplished, all that remains to be done shall follow 
 in due time; Satan shall be finally cast out; and on the ruins 
 of his usurped dominion, the glories of the new creation shall 
 shine forth in their eternal lustre. 
 
 SECTION NINTH. 
 
 ON THE USE or Paras7ceue AND Pasclia IN ST. JOHN S ACCOUNT OP 
 OUR LORD S LAST SUFFERINGS; AND THE QUESTION THERE 
 WITH CONNECTED, WHETHER OUR LORD KEPT HIS LAST PASS 
 OVER ON THE SAME DAY AS THE JEWS. 
 
 IT is simply in connexion with this question respecting the 
 time of keeping the last Passover, that the use of the words 
 yrapctffxeurj and t:dff%a, by St. John, in ch. xviii. and xix., is 
 involved in doubt, or assumes an aspect of importance. And, 
 as we are firmly persuaded that the question itself has mainly 
 arisen from some of the historical circumstances being too 
 little regarded, we shall commence our inquiry by taking these 
 in their order, and endeavouring to present them in their pro 
 per light. 
 
 1. The first thing requiring to be noted is the determined 
 purpose formed by the leading men in Jerusalem to make away 
 with Jesus. The clear revelations He had given, especially 
 on the occasion of this last visit to Jerusalem, of His own cha 
 racter and kingdom, and the unsparing exposure He had 
 made of their ignorance, carnality, and deserved condemna 
 tion, had brought matters, as between them and Him, to a 
 crisis. It was now seen that, if their authority was to stand, 
 His career must be extinguished. But, in their project for 
 accomplishing this, two points of special moment are to be 
 noted. In the first place, it was to be by stratagem (ly ootyj, 
 Matt. xxvi. 4; Mark xiv. 1) this being, as they naturally 
 
AND TIME OF THE LAST PASSOVER. 369 
 
 conceived, the only safe course for them to adopt. They durst 
 not venture on an open assault, as Jesus had evidently ac 
 quired great fame, had come up to the feast with a large re 
 tinue of followers, and by His miracles, His discourses, and 
 His disinterested life, had made profound impressions upon 
 many hearts. Against such a person it would have been a 
 hazardous thing for them to bring a formal charge of impiety 
 or crime; it were on every account wiser to compass their 
 design by the hand of an assassin, or some secret plot, which 
 might admit of their remaining in the background. Then, 
 this stratagem was not to be quite immediately put in force; 
 not till after the feast. This is expressly noticed in two of 
 the Evangelists (Matt. xxvi. 5; Mark xiv. 2;) and they both 
 assign the same reason for the delay "lest there should be 
 an uproar among the people." These seemed now to an alarm 
 ing degree won to Plis side; they had attended Him in 
 crowds from Galilee; they had even borne Him in triumph, 
 and with every demonstration of enthusiastic joy, as King 
 Messiah, from Mount Olivet into the heart of the city; and 
 it was not to be supposed that multitudes, apparently so full 
 of confidence in their leader, and so ardently devoted to His 
 cause, would suffer Him to be openly wronged, without exert 
 ing themselves to the utmost in his defence. It was, there 
 fore, the obvious dictate of prudence to let the crowds again 
 disperse, before the hand of violence was lifted against Jesus. 
 2. But all of a sudden a new element came into their de 
 liberations, and their policy took another form, when the 
 treachery of Judas discovered itself, offering for a sum of mo 
 ney to deliver up Jesus into their hands. The precise moment 
 when Judas made this offer to them is not stated. It must, 
 however, have been some time between the conclusion of those 
 discourses, in which the Lord had so plainly exposed and de 
 nounced the leading Jews, and the actual execution of the 
 treachery; for it is manifest that the traitor had come to terms 
 with them before the paschal feast had actually begun, and 
 yet not less manifest that it must have been after they had 
 formed their plan not to proceed against Jesus till the feast 
 was over. Subsequently to this resolution on their part, but 
 
370 PABASKEUE AND PASCHA 
 
 prior even to the assignation of any particular time or place 
 for the accomplishment of the purpose, "he sought how he 
 might conveniently betray Him" (Mark xiv. 11.) The pur 
 pose itself doubtless took shape in the mind of Judas, and 
 reached the point of action, much in the same way that the 
 Jewish rulers were led to their resolution to kill Him. From 
 the position matters had now assumed, it had become for both 
 alike a necessity to get rid of Jesus: His presence was felt to 
 be intolerable. Indeed, Judas, in his state of mind and his 
 procedure toward Jesus, might be taken for a representative 
 among the twelve of those Jewish rulers ; he did within the 
 narrower sphere what they did in the larger one delivered 
 up the Holy One of God to His adversaries; on which ac 
 count, in the psalms that spake before concerning the treachery, 
 the individual traitor is identified with the whole company of 
 faithless men who were to take the part of violence and deceit 
 (Ps. Ixix., cix. ; Acts i. 16 20.) Judas had undoubtedly, at 
 the time of his first connexion with Christ, been known as a 
 person of shrewd intellect, as well as respectable demeanour, 
 most probably also as a person of active business habits: 
 whence the charge naturally fell to him of managing the pe 
 cuniary concerns of the company, of bearing the purse. With 
 such natural gifts and acquired habits, he had thought he dis 
 cerned enough in Jesus of Nazareth to convince him that this 
 could be no other than the expected Messiah; but, beyond 
 doubt, the Messiah of an earthly cause and a worldly kingdom. 
 And as the hopes of advancement in this direction began to 
 give way ; as the plan of Jesus more fully developed itself, 
 and successive revelations of coming events forced on the mind 
 of Judas the conviction, that not earthly grandeur or political 
 ascendency, but sacrifice, self-denial, peril, and shame, were 
 to be the immediate portion of those who espoused the cause 
 of Jesus, then the spell was broken to his calculating and 
 worldly spirit. He not only became depressed and sorrowful, 
 like the others, but totally unhinged: his only distinct motives 
 for embarking In the enterprise were withdrawn from him ; he 
 must be done with the concern. Symptoms of this recoil had 
 been perceived by the penetrating eye of Jesus about a twelve- 
 
AND TIME OF THE LAST PASSOVER. 371 
 
 month before the last Passover, which led Him to utter the 
 strong expression, that of those He had chosen, one was a 
 devil (John vi. 70.) It was only now, however, that the full 
 effect was produced. The repeated intimations which Jesus 
 had recently made of His coming death, the specific assurance 
 that He was to be rejected by the chief priests and scribes, 
 crucified and slain; the palpable breach that took place be 
 tween Him and these rulers of the people on the occasion of 
 His public entrance into Jerusalem, with the discourses subse 
 quently delivered; still more recently the reproof individually 
 and pointedly addressed to Judas, in connexion with the per 
 sonal anointing at Bethany, and the fresh allusion then also 
 made to His impending death and burial: all these follow 
 ing in rapid succession, and leaving, at length, no room to 
 doubt that a catastrophe was at hand, consummated the process 
 which had been going on in the mind of Judas, and impelled 
 him to adopt a course of decisive action to resolve on being 
 done with a service which no longer possessed his sympathy 
 or his confidence, and make sure of his interest with those 
 that had. Thus prompted and drawn, he secretly threw him 
 self into the camp of the adversaries, and entered into terms 
 with them for the betrayal of Jesus. 1 
 
 3. But this unexpected occurrence, we may well conceive, 
 cast a new light upon the prospects of Christ s adversaries in 
 Jerusalem, and naturally led to a remodelling of their plans. 
 The discovery that one of His bosom friends was deserting 
 Him, as if he had seen through the imposture, and was even 
 proffering his aid to the accomplishment of their aims, could 
 not fail to beget the conviction, that the cause of Jesus was 
 by no means so powerful, nor His place in the popular esteem 
 so firmly seated, as they had imagined. They now began to 
 think that there was not so much need for stratagem and de 
 lay, as they at first imagined; nay, that their best chance for 
 accomplishing the desired result, was by a bold and summary 
 
 1 It is most likely, on account of the influence exercised on the mind of 
 Judas by what took place at Bethany, that the Evangelists Matthew and. 
 Mark mention it in immediate connexion with the purpose of Judas to be 
 tray. In reality, however, it occurred before several of the last discourses 
 were delivered, and six days previous to the last Passover, John xii. 1. j 
 
372 PAEASKEUE AND PASCHA. 
 
 procedure. Most heartily, therefore, did they close with the 
 proposal of Judas, and for the stipulated sum of thirty pieces 
 of silver, agree to act in concert with him. This circumstance, 
 if allowed its due consideration, and followed to its legitimate 
 results, will be found sufficient to account for all the peculiari 
 ties and apparent inconsistencies in the evangelical narratives. 
 It first of all led the Jewish rulers to resolve on taking action 
 immediately, the moment Judas might find a favourable op 
 portunity for effecting the betrayal. And it led our Lord, 
 who was perfectly cognizant of what was proceeding in the 
 camp of the enemies, to pursue a course at the very com 
 mencement of the Passover, which left Judas no alternative: 
 he must either act promptly that very night, or lose the op 
 portunity of acting at all. 
 
 4. This procedure, then, on the part of Christ, is the point 
 that next calls for notice. In compliance with His own in 
 structions, the necessary preparations had been made for 
 holding the feast an upper chamber was engaged, and the 
 materials requisite for the feast provided. There Jesus met 
 with the disciples at the appointed time we can readily sup 
 pose at a somewhat earlier hour than customary, as He well 
 foreknew what a series of events had to be crowded into the 
 remaining hours of that night. The period, it should be re 
 membered, for eating the paschal lamb, was left somewhat 
 indefinite. The lamb itself was to be killed any time between 
 the two evenings, (Ex. xii. G; Lev. xxiii. 5;) that is, between 
 the ninth and eleventh hour by the Jewish reckoning, or the 
 third and fifth in the afternoon by ours, (Joseph. Wars, vii. 9, 3.) 
 So that, as our Lord had special reasons for making the hour 
 as early as possible, we may warrantably suppose that the lamb 
 was killed about three o clock, and the feast entered upon 
 about five, or shortly after it. But scarcely had Jesus and 
 His disciples begun the feast it was, at least, only in pro 
 gress, after the solemn service of the washing of the disciples 
 feet had been performed, (John xiii. 1-22,) when Jesus, with 
 evident emotion, announced that one of them should betray 
 Him. l The disciples, as might be supposed, were greatly 
 
 1 Notwithstanding the positive assertions of Meyer to the contrary, there 
 can be no reasonable doubt, that the feast mentioned in this 13th ch. of 
 
AND TIME OF THE LAST PASSOVER. 373 
 
 stunned by the announcement for a moment looked at one 
 another then anxiously, in succession, put the question, 
 "Lord, is it I?" Judas could not afford to appear singular 
 at such a time, perhaps also wished to learn how far Jesus 
 might be acquainted with the secret, and so, followed the 
 rest in putting the question. The reply informed him that 
 his treachery was known ; but it would seem, the information 
 was so conveyed, as to be intelligible only to the traitor him 
 self. Hence, still revolving the matter, and anxious to attain, 
 to certainty regarding it, Peter beckoned to John, who lay 
 next to Jesus, to the intent that he might endeavour to ob 
 tain more definite information. The inquiry was evidently 
 
 John, at which our Lord washed the disciples feet, was the same as that 
 described by the other Evangelists under the name of the Passover. The 
 great majority of commentators are agreed on this however they differ oil 
 other points. Stier justly states, that the supper or feast here mentioned^ 
 from the manner in which it is introduced, was manifestly no ordinary sup 
 per; and the reference to it again, at ch. xxi. 20, as the supper, by way of 
 eminence, at which John leaned on his Master s bosom, confirms the view. 
 A still further confirmation is derived from the evident allusion, in Luke 
 xxii. 27, to the action of washing the disciples ? feet, which took place at it, 
 and is recorded only by St. John; there, however, and with reference to it, 
 our Lord says Himself, "I am among you as one that serveth." The ex 
 pression of St. John, at the beginning of the chapter, rtpo ir^ Eop-r jjs *ou 
 rtas^a, which Meyer so strongly presses as conclusively showing that the 
 circumstances of this supper were prior to the Passover, and that our Lord 
 did not keep the Passover at all, have no such necessary import. It is 
 utterly arbitrary to make them point to all the transactions that followed, 
 and, indeed, against the most natural and proper sense. The Evangelist 
 simply tells us, that before the Paschal Feast, at which the things concern 
 ing His earthly career were to proceed to their consummation, had actually 
 arrived before that, but without any indication of how long before, Jesus, 
 being cognizant of all that was at hand, and of His speedy return to the 
 Father, having loved His own, and still loving them, was resolved to give 
 them a palpable and personal proof of it, by washing their feet before the 
 feast properly commenced. So substantially, after multitudes of earlier 
 commentators, Alford, Stier, Luthardt. The precise period of washing, 
 however, is wrongly put in our version, by the words in ver. 2, "and supper 
 being ended;" it should be, "supper having come " for it is quite clear 
 from what follows, that it had not ended, nor even in any proper sense be 
 gun. There was, at most, before the washing, the jtpoeo^iov or ante-sup 
 per, as it was called, from which, (ver. 4,) Jesus rose and went about the 
 washing; after which came the supper itself, the Paschal Feast. 
 
 32 
 
374 PARASKEUE AND PASCHA 
 
 made by John in a whisper, as simply between himself and 
 Christ. But the mode adopted by our Lord in giving the 
 reply, of presenting a sop to Judas, while it served the pur 
 pose of a sign in regard to the treachery in question, served, 
 at the same time, to connect the act of Judas with the delinea 
 tions of prophecy, (John xiii. 18; Ps. xli. 9.) Then, turning 
 to Judas, He said emphatically, " That thou doest, do quickly." 
 This brought the matter to an issue. Judas s time was clearly 
 up; he had forfeited his place among the disciples of Jesus; 
 and if the bargain with his new masters was to be imple 
 mented, it must be instantly gone about. Hence, without a 
 moment s delay, he hurried off to the Jewish rulers to get 
 them to strike at once, as now only was it likely he could do 
 aught in their behalf. 
 
 5. Now, let it be imagined, in what mood he must have 
 found his accomplices at such a time, and what was likely to 
 have been the effect produced on them by his appearance. 
 His purpose had been precipitated by what took place in the 
 Passover-room; and this necessarily led them to precipitate 
 theirs. It was a great crisis with them now or never. Even 
 scrupulous men could not be expected to be very nice in such a 
 moment ; and since they now had what they could never look for 
 again, the opportune help of one of the companions of Jesus, 
 they must venture somewhat, though it should oblige them to 
 depart a little from use and wont the rather so, as it was 
 probable that the matter might be brought to quite a speedy 
 termination. Let it be remembered, that it was but a com 
 paratively limited number of persons, who were actively en 
 gaged in the business only a few of the more resolute and 
 daring members of the Sanhedrim. When Judas presented 
 himself before these, it was in all probability still the earlier 
 part of the evening, considerably before persons in their rank 
 of life would be accustomed to sit down to the Passover-feast. 
 And as there was no time to lose, as every thing, in a manner, 
 depended upon their seizing the favourable moment, and as 
 they could eat their Passover any time between night and 
 morning, what was more likely than that they should agree 
 to postpone their participation of the feast till they had got 
 
AND TIME OF THE LAST PASSOVER. 375 
 
 through with this urgent business? It was possible enough 
 they might have it despatched before midnight, when still it 
 would not be too late for them to eat the Passover. Such, it 
 might seem, would be the natural, and, on every account, the 
 most advisable course, for them to pursue in the circumstances. 
 Judas in the first instance, and then the party with whom he 
 was in concert, had both, sooner than they anticipated, been 
 thrown into the vortex of active and violent operations, through 
 the overruling providence of Him, who bounds and restrains 
 even the wrath of the wicked, so as to render it subservient to His 
 purposes. And as they could postpone their paschal solemnity 
 for a certain period, but could not postpone concurrence with the 
 proposal of Judas to proceed immediately against Jesus, they 
 hastily concerted their measures, and commenced their course 
 of action, by sending along with Judas an armed band to the 
 garden of Gethsemane, for the purpose of arresting the Son 
 of Man, and dragging him to the tribunal of judgment. 
 
 6. So far the traitor had calculated aright. Jesus was 
 found in the well-known garden. He had there already passed 
 through that solemn and affecting scene of agony, in which, 
 with thrice-repeated and ever-increasing earnestness, He had 
 prayed to the Father that the cup might be removed from 
 Him. The season of watching and prayer was no sooner 
 ended than Judas and his company presented themselves. It 
 could not, therefore, be late; as it was still near the beginning 
 of April, when the nights are too cold in Palestine to admit 
 of persons remaining at an advanced hour in the open air, 
 without harm; and hence, when it did become late, Peter is 
 spoken of as shivering with cold, and going near to warm him 
 self at the fire that had been kindled (John xviii. 18.) We 
 cannot reasonably suppose the time of the meeting in Geth- 
 semane to have been beyond eight, or, at the furthest, nine 
 in the evening, according to our mode of reckoning. What 
 ensued upon the meeting need not at present detain us. Jesus 
 proved Himself to be fully equal to the occasion with mingled 
 majesty and meekness met the assault of His adversaries, 
 kept them for a time awe-struck and powerless, by word and 
 deed showed how easily, had He willed, He could have smit- 
 
376 PARASKEUE AND PASCIIA 
 
 ten them to the ground; but, that the Father s counsel might 
 be fulfilled, freely yielded Himself into their hands. There 
 after Ife was conducted by them to the house of the high 
 priest; first, indeed, to Annas, the father-in-law of Caiaphas, 
 then to Caiaphas himself, where the chief priests and elders 
 such of them as could be got together on such hasty notice 
 had meanwhile assembled to give formal judgment against 
 Him. Here, however, they met with an unexpected difficulty ; 
 for, while Judas had put them in possession of the obnoxious 
 party, he had but poorly provided them with grounds of guilt, 
 or evidence to establish it. " They sought for witness against 
 Jesus to put Him to death and found none" (Mark xiv. 55.) 
 So that, after fruitless efforts to make good a charge of felony, 
 and considerable time spent in the endeavour, they were obliged 
 to fall back on the claims of Jesus regarding His person, and 
 extorted from Him a confession of His assuming to be, in a 
 sense altogether peculiar, the Son of the living God. This 
 they held to be blasphemy, and thereby obtained, indeed, the 
 materials of a capital offence; since, by the law of Moses, 
 blasphemy was punishable with death. But a new difficulty 
 sprung up on this very ground, for, as it was necessary to ob 
 tain the sanction of the Roman governor to the doom before 
 it could be put in execution the charge being a strictly re 
 ligious, not a civil one how should they manage to get Pilate 
 to accredit it? They must, however, make the trial; Pilate s 
 consent was indispensable ; and they must present themselves 
 with the prisoner at the judgment-hall, in order to press the 
 sentence of judicial condemnation. Thither, accordingly, they 
 went. 
 
 7. By this time it was past midnight; it is even said in 
 John xviii. 28, that, when they got to the judgment-hall or 
 pnetorium of Pilate, it was T: ft col , not merely past midnight, 
 but early morn. This is implied also, in the circumstance 
 that, before leaving the palace of the high priest, the crowing 
 of the cock, indicating the approach of dawn, had been heard, 
 awakening the cry of guilt in Peter s bosom. It might still 
 further be inferred, from the accounts given by the several 
 Evangelists of the processes of trial and examination gone 
 
AND TIME OF THE LAST PASSOVER. 377 
 
 through, followed by the scenes of mockery and dishonour, 
 during which, it is evident, many hours must have been con 
 sumed. And, indeed, the very purpose for which they went 
 to the praetorium is a proof that it must have been about the 
 break of day; since they could not sooner have expected an 
 audience of the governor on a matter of judicial administra 
 tion. Early in the morning, then it might be a little before, 
 or a little after sunrise they led Jesus to the prsetorium ; and 
 when there, they presented Him before Pilate for summary 
 condemnation, as a person whom they had ascertained to be a 
 rebel against the government of Caesar, forbidding men to 
 give tribute, and perverting the nation (Luke xxiii. 1.) This 
 took place, apparently, at the door of the pnstorium, and they 
 doubtless hoped that Pilate would instantly accede to their 
 proposal, and allow them to take their own way with the pri 
 soner. Such, however, was not the result; the same over 
 ruling Providence, which controlled their proceedings before, 
 controlled them again; instead of summarily pronouncing 
 judgment, Pilate took Jesus into the hall for the purpose of 
 examining more closely into the matter. But thither, it is 
 said, (John xviii. 28,) His accusers refused to follow, "they 
 did not go in to the judgment-hall, lest they should be defiled, 
 but that they might eat the Passover." 
 
 8. Now, it is here that the first, and indeed the main diffi 
 culty presents itself, in reconciling St. John s account of the 
 transactions with the accounts of the other Evangelists, and 
 with what may seem to have been the facts of the case: a 
 difficulty which has given rise to a- variety of conjectural ex 
 planations; in particular, to the supposition, on the part of 
 some, that Jesus kept the Passover with His disciples a day 
 earlier than the Jews generally; and, on the part of others, 
 to the supposition that the eating of the Passover mentioned 
 in the passage just quoted, referred, not to the eating of the 
 Paschal lamb itself, but to the subsequent and supplemental 
 provisions of the feast. Both views carry a somewhat unna 
 tural and arbitrary appearance; and can neither of them stand 
 a rigid examination. 
 
 9. The latter view, which would take the expression "eating 
 
 32* 
 
378 PARASKEUE AND PASCIIA 
 
 the Passover" in an inferior sense, of tlie tilings to be eaten 
 only on the second and other days of the feast, has the usage 
 of the Evangelists wholly against it. The expression occurs 
 in five other places Matt. xxvi. 17; Mark xiv. 12, 14; Luke 
 xxii. 11, 15 and always in the sense of eating -the Passover 
 strictly so called. It is true, as is still urged hy Luthardt, 
 that in Deut. xvi. 2, offerings of the herd and flock to be pre 
 sented during the feast are called the paschal sacrifices, and 
 that the word Passover itself is used by John frequently of 
 the feast generally (ii. 28, xiii. 1, xviii. 89.) But these things 
 will never prove, or even render probable the idea, that the 
 phrase of "eating the Passover" might be used of any other 
 part of the feast, exclusive of the very thing from which all 
 the rest took its character and name; and the plain meaning 
 of the expression, in all the other passages where it occurs, 
 must be held conclusive against it. Then, as regards the other 
 opinion, that our Lord kept the Passover on a day earlier than 
 the Jews generally, it places the account of John in direct 
 opposition to that of the other Evangelists. They clearly 
 represent the day observed by our Lord as the one looked 
 forward to with common expectation for the keeping of the 
 Passover. In Matt. xxvi. 2, Jesus is represented as saying 
 at the close of His discourses, " Ye know (as if there could be 
 no doubt upon the matter) that after two days is the Passover, 
 and the Son of Man is betrayed to be crucified;" again at 
 ver. 17, "And on the first day of unleavened bread the disci 
 ples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt Thou that we 
 prepare for Thee to eat the Passover?" So also in Mark xiv. 
 1, it is intimated, as a matter of public notoriety, "After two 
 days was the feast of the Passover, and of unleavened bread;" 
 and still again in Luke xxii. 7, "Then came the day of un 
 leavened bread, when the Passover must be killed." With 
 such clear and explicit statements on the subject, it is not too 
 much to say with Lucke, that "it is impossible to extract 
 from the text of the Synoptical Gospels even the semblance 
 of an anticipation of the Passover." And if we hold by the 
 historical fidelity of their accounts, no ingenious theorizings 
 as to the probability, or moral fitness of the day preceding 
 
AND TIME OF TEE LAST PASSOVER. 379 
 
 that of the ordinary Passover, being observed, can have any 
 effect in countervailing the force of the testimony delivered 
 in the above passages. Of such theorizings none has been 
 pressed with more frequency or confidence than the require 
 ments of type and antitype not merely as understood by the 
 Jews, and urged by commentators like De Wette, Liicke, 
 Meyer, Ewald, Bleek; but also as demanded by the nature of 
 things. So Mr. Gresswell, for example, presses the considera 
 tion: circumstances of time and place were indispensable to 
 the constitution of the paschal offering as a type; it must be 
 slain on the 14th of Nisan, and only in the place where God 
 had put His name, latterly in the city of Jerusalem ; other 
 wise, the ordinance was not kept in its integrity. And "who 
 then," asks Mr. Gresswell, " shall say, that they were not 
 equally indispensable to the antitype? Had Christ suffered, 
 though He had suffered as a victim, on any day but the 14th 
 of Nisan could He have suffered as the Jewish Passover ? Had 
 Jesus suffered, though He had suffered any where but at Je 
 rusalem, could He have suffered as the Jewish Passover?" 1 
 But why stop simply there? Why not insist upon other cor 
 respondences of a like kind? The Jewish Passover was ex 
 pressly required to be a lamb of a year old; and could Christ 
 have suffered as the Jewish Passover, if more than a year had 
 elapsed since He entered on His high vocation ? The Jewish 
 Passover, wherever and however killed, must have its blood 
 poured around the altar; and could Christ have suffered as the 
 Jewish Passover, if a like service was not performed with His 
 life-blood? If such merely outward correspondences are 
 pressed, we shall not find the reality, after all; and that not 
 here alone, but in the ordinances generally which had their 
 antitypical fulfilment in the history and work of Chris t. The 
 demand for these proceeds on mistaken views of the relation 
 between type and antitype , as if the one stood upon the same 
 level with the other, and were equally dependent upon con 
 ditions of place and time. 2 And, besides, what, in the cir 
 cumstances supposed, should become of our Lord s own Pass 
 over? The precise day did enter as an important element 
 1 Harmony, vol. iii., p. 163. 2 See Typology of Scripture, vol. i., p. 57. 
 
380 PARASKEUE AND PASCHA 
 
 into the Old Testament ordinance ; and was He, who came to 
 fulfil the law, to change at will the Divine appointment? Was 
 it by infringing upon one part of a typical institution, that 
 He was to make good another? To say with some, among 
 others Stier, that it was probably the right day for the Pass 
 over our Lord and His disciples kept, and that the Jews erred 
 a day in their calculations, is a mere assertion, and against 
 the manifest bearing of the evangelical statements already 
 adduced. Such lame and halting respect to the ordinances 
 of heaven, could neither be pleasing to God, nor satisfactory 
 to men; and Christ s accomplishment of the things written 
 beforehand concerning Him in type and prophecy, must be 
 placed on another footing, if it is to approve itself to our re 
 ligious feelings and intelligent convictions. We dismiss, 
 therefore, all pleadings of the kind now referred to ; and hold 
 to the plain import of the historical statements in the Evange 
 lists, that our Lord and His disciples knew of no day for 
 observing the Passover, but the one which the law required^ 
 and which was common to them with their countrymen. 1 
 
 1 The reasoning in the text is directed only against those who hold the idea 
 of an anticipated Passover being kept by our Lord, witho.ut impugning the 
 historical accuracy of the Synoptical Evangelists. But most of the German 
 writers, who think that our Lord either did not keep the Passover at all, or, 
 at least, that He did not keep it on the common day, give up the historical 
 accuracy of the Synoptists. So, for example, Meyer and Ewald (the latter 
 in his Gcschichte des Volkes Israel, v. p. 409, s<?.,) who both, though Meyer 
 most sharply and offensively, hold John s narrative to be irreconcilable with 
 the other accounts; that he, however, gave the correct one, while the others 
 erroneously identify the feast kept by our Lord with the proper Jewish Pass 
 over. They followed a mere tradition; and Meyer supposes the tradition to 
 have originated in the Lord s Supper coming to be identified with the Paschal 
 Feast; whence the day of its institution was first viewed as an ideal 14 Nisan, 
 and by-and-by was taken for a real 14 Nisan. Precious writers of sacred 
 history to say nothing of their inspiration who could thus, all three, con 
 found the ideal with the real, which is here, in plain terms, the false with the 
 true! Considering the importance which attached to the last festal solem 
 nity of Jesus, we ask, with Luthardt, how could such an error in the tradi 
 tion have sprung up, especially under the eyes of the apostles, and gained an 
 established footing? Or, if such a thing hud been possible, what must one 
 think of the intelligence and the memory of the Synoptists? The very pro 
 posing of such a solution seems like an affront to one s understanding, as well 
 as an assault on one s faith. 
 
AND TIME OF THE LAST PASSOVER. 381 
 
 10. In truth, the supposition, that our Lord and his disci 
 ples anticipated by a day the proper time for observing the 
 Passover, when closely examined, fails to explain the state 
 ment, for the solution of "which it was more peculiarly adopted: 
 it does not, if it were true, account for the refusal of our Lord s 
 accusers to enter the prgetorium. This has been well pointed 
 out by Friedlieb, in a passage quoted by Alford, " The Jews 
 would not enter the prcetorium, that they might not be defiled, 
 but that they might eat the Passover. For, the entrance of 
 a Jew into the house of a Gentile made him unclean till the 
 evening. It is surprising, that, according to this declaration 
 of the holy Evangelist, the Jews had still to eat the Passover; 
 whereas Jesus and His disciples had already eaten it on the 
 previous night. And it is no less surprising, that the Jews 
 in the early morning should have been afraid of rendering 
 themselves unclean for the Passover; since the Passover could 
 not be kept till the evening; i. e. 9 till the next day, (for the 
 day was reckoned from evening to evening;) and the unclean- 
 ness which they dreaded, did not, by the law, last till the next 
 day." Had these Jews, therefore, been simply concerned 
 about fitness for eating the Passover on the day following 
 that observed by Christ and His disciples, they did not need 
 to have been so sticklish about entering the prsetorium; the 
 uncleanness they were anxious to avoid contracting would of 
 itself have expired by the time they behooved to be free from 
 it ; at sunset they should again have been pure. So that the 
 supposition, which is historically groundless, is also inadequate 
 for the purpose of a proper explanation. 
 
 11. Friedlieb himself, along with not a few critical autho 
 rities, in former as well as present times, is disposed to fall 
 in with the other supposition, and to regard the eating of the 
 Passover, in John xviii. 28, as referring to subordinate parts 
 of the feast. After stating that the passage labours under no 
 small exegetical difficulties, which, perhaps, cannot be solved 
 for want of accurate knowledge of the customs of the time, 
 he adds, " Possibly the law concerning Levitical defilements 
 and purifications had in that age been made more stringent, 
 or otherwise modified; possibly they called some other meal. 
 
382 PARASKEUE AND PASCHA 
 
 beside the actual Passover, by its name. This last we cer 
 tainly, with our present knowledge of Hebrew antiquities, must 
 assume." We might, indeed, have to do so, and take what 
 satisfaction we could from the possible solution thereby pre 
 sented, if the circumstances of the case absolutely required it. 
 But it is here we demur: we see no necessity for having re 
 course to the merely possible and conjectural, when the actual 
 (if duly considered) may suffice. It is to be borne in mind, 
 we again repeat though constantly overlooked by the authors 
 of those hypothetical explanations that the persons mentioned 
 by the evangelist as afraid to contract uncleanness by enter 
 ing, the pragtoriura, and thereby losing their right to eat of 
 the Passover, formed no fair representation, in this matter, of 
 the Jews at large. The Evangelist, in the whole of this part 
 of his narrative, is speaking merely of the faction of the chief 
 priest and elders, the comparative handful of men who con 
 ducted the business of our Lord s persecution, and never once 
 refers to the general population of the Jews. Once, indeed, 
 and again, he calls them by the name of Jews (ch. xviii. 31, 
 xix. 7, etc.) partly to distinguish them from Pilate, the hea 
 then, and partly also from his custom of using the general 
 name of Jews, where the other Evangelists employ the more 
 specific names of Scribes and Pharisees, (v. 16, 18, ch. vi. x., 
 etc.) He still, however, leaves us in no doubt, that the per 
 sons really Concerned were the mere party of the high priest, 
 the accomplices of Judas. This base faction had, as already 
 stated, been driven by circumstances, over which they had no 
 control, to a course of proceeding different from what they 
 had contemplated. When preparing to partake of the Pass 
 over, they suddenly found themselves in a position which 
 obliged them to act with promptitude, while it did not appear 
 to exclude the possibility of their being able, at a more ad 
 vanced period of the night, to eat the Passover. In the ur 
 gency of the moment they allowed the feast to stand over till 
 the business in hand was despatched. But unexpected diffi 
 culties met them in the way; in the midst of which the night 
 wore on, and at last the morning dawned, without the desired 
 result being reached. They did not, however, on that ac- 
 
AND TIME OF THE LAST PASSOVER. 383 
 
 count, abandon the purpose of eating the Passover no doubt 
 conceiving that the greatness of the emergency justified the 
 slight deviation they had to make from the accustomed order. 
 Hypocrites and formalists, in all ages, when bent on the exe 
 cution of some cherished project, have been notorious for their 
 readiness in accommodating their notions of duty to the exi 
 gencies of the moment; they can swallow a camel when it 
 suits their purpose, while at other times they can strain at a 
 gnat. Nor were the chief actors on the occasion before us 
 ordinary hypocrites and formalists; the more forward of them 
 at least belonged to the Sadducean party, the members of 
 which, it is well known, never scrupled to make religious prac 
 tice bend to self-interest or political expediency. It is vain, 
 therefore, in a case like the present, to summon a host of wit 
 nesses (as Mr. Gresswell does, Harmony, iii. p. 156) to the 
 great regard which the Jews as a people paid to the Sabbath, 
 and to the consequent improbability of their pressing forward 
 such judicial proceedings against Christ, on the supposition 
 of the time being the first day of the Paschal Feast, which by 
 the law was to be observed as a Sabbath. A single fact or 
 two, coupled with the known characters of the actors, is per 
 fectly sufficient to put all such general testimonies to flight. 
 Looking into Jewish history, we find it related of a period 
 very shortly after that now under consideration, during the 
 commotions, which took place under Cestius, that while the 
 Jews were celebrating the Feast of Tabernacles, they heard 
 of the governor s approach with an army towards Jerusalem ; 
 and immediately, (to use the words of Josephus, Wars, ii. 19, 
 2,) " they left the feast, and betook themselves to their arms; 
 and, taking courage greatly from their multitude, they went 
 in a sudden and disorderly manner to the fight, with a great 
 noise, and without any consideration had of the rest of the 
 seventh day, although the Sabbath was the day to which they 
 had the greatest regard; but that rage, which made them 
 forget the religious observance, made them too hard for their 
 enemies in the fight." Here, both the solemnities of the feast 
 and the hallowed rest of the Sabbath were unhesitatingly sa 
 crificed to the demands of a civil emergency. And at a some- 
 
384 PARASKEUE AND PASCHA 
 
 what later stage of affairs, instances are recorded by Josephus, 
 which show, that the men who then chiefly ruled in Jerusalem 
 came even to count nothing whatever sacred, in comparison 
 of their own mad policy; that the most hallowed things were 
 turned, without scruple, to a profane use whenever the interests 
 of the moment seemed to require it ; so that, from what passed 
 under his observation, the historian is led to express his con 
 viction that, if the Romans had not come and put an end to 
 such impieties, some earthquake, or supernatural visitation 
 from heaven, must have been sent to revenge the enormities, 
 (Wars, v. 13, 6.) 
 
 12. Now, it is only ascribing a measure of the same spirit, 
 and in a far inferior degree, to the few leaders of this conspi 
 racy against Jesus, when we suppose them to have been hur 
 ried on by the progress of events beyond the proper time for 
 eating the Passover; yet, without abandoning the intention, 
 and the hope of still partaking of it, after the business in hand 
 was brought to a close. They were consequently anxious to 
 avoid contracting a defilement, which would have prevented 
 them from eating the Passover during the currency of the first 
 day of the feast. Were it not better that they should strive 
 so to keep the feast, than omit its observance altogether? 
 Undoubtedly, they would reckon it to be so. For the delay 
 that had occurred beyond the appointed time, they would 
 plead (as with their views there was a fair pretext for doing) 
 the constraint of circumstances ; they would rest in the con 
 viction, that they had come as near to t4ie legal observance of 
 the institution as it was practicable for them to do. And as 
 to the special objection of the first day of the feast being a 
 Sabbath, and, as such, unfit for the prosecution of such a mat 
 ter as now engaged their attention, the same considerations, 
 which could reconcile them to the postponment of the feast, 
 would also appear to warrant the active operations they pur 
 sued. It was not as if matters were moving in a regular and 
 even current, and they could shape their proceedings in ac 
 cordance with their own deliberate judgments; the rush of 
 unexpected circumstances had shut them up to a particular 
 course. Nor arc there wanting instances in what is presently 
 
AND TIME OF THE LAST PASSOVER. 385 
 
 after recorded of them in Gospel history, in perfect keeping 
 with the view now taken of their procedure. On the day fol 
 lowing the crucifixion, which by the testimony of all the Evan 
 gelists, was not only a Sabbath, but a Sabbath of peculia r so 
 lemnity, they waited upon Pilate, for the purpose of getting 
 him, on that very day, to set a watch around the sepulchre 
 of Jesus, lest the body should be stolen (Matt, xxvii. 62, 63.) 
 And at an earlier period, we learn from John vii. 32, 37, 45, 
 the Pharisees sent out officers to apprehend Jesus on the last 
 day of the Feast .of Tabernacles, which by the law was also to 
 be observed as a Sabbath. So that either they did not look 
 upon such judicial proceedings as work unsuited to a Sabbath, 
 or they thought the urgency of the occasion justified its being 
 done. How much more, then, in the matter now under con 
 sideration, when every thing, in a manner, was at stake? It 
 is proper also to add, that while the first day of the Paschal 
 Feast was appointed to be kept as a Sabbath, it was not pos 
 sible, from the amount of work that had to be done in con 
 nexion with the feast, that it could have so much the charac 
 ter of a day of rest as an ordinary Sabbath. And, indeed, 
 the law regarding it expressly provides, that such work as 
 was necessary to the preparation of victuals and travelling to 
 their respective abodes, was allowable (Ex. xii. 16; Deut. xvi. 
 6, 7;) ordinary avocations merely were prohibited, in order 
 that the observances proper to the feast might proceed. 
 
 The conclusion, therefore, to which on every account we are 
 led is precisely that which the Statement in John xviii. 28 it 
 self requires us to adopt. The expression of " eating the Pass 
 over" there employed, by invariable usage points to an actual 
 participation on that very day of the proper feast; and the 
 more closely the circumstances of the time, and the character 
 of the actors are considered, the more reason do we find for 
 the belief, that it was the same Passover of the 14th of Nisan 
 which our Lord had kept, and which they were still intent on 
 celebrating, though from urgent circumstances, it had to be 
 postponed a little beyond the due season. 1 
 
 1 It is not necessary to do more than refer to an objection that might be 
 raised against this conclusion, drawn from the procedure of our Lord Him- 
 
 33 
 
386 PARASKEUE AND PASCHA 
 
 13. So much for the more peculiar passage in St. John s 
 Gospel on this subject; but there are one or two others that 
 also require explanation. These have respect to the Sabbath, 
 and in particular what is called the paraskeue. Speaking of 
 the time when Pilate was going to pronounce judgment against 
 Jesus, it is said in John xix. 14, ty os Trapaffxzoy TOL> rcdff%a 9 
 it was the paraskeue or preparation day of the Passover. This, 
 it has been alleged, points to the proper passover-day as still 
 to come, and fixes it to be the day following the one of which 
 the transactions are recorded. It would certainly do so, if 
 the expression, as used by the Evangelist, meant a prepara 
 tion-day before the keeping of the Passover. But this does 
 not appear to be the case. He uses the word paraskeue twice 
 again in the same chapter, and each time in reference to the 
 Sabbath: ver. 81, "The Jews, therefore, because it was the 
 paraskeue, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross 
 on the Sabbath-day (for that Sabbath was a high day) be 
 sought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they 
 might be taken away;" and ver. 42, "There laid they Jesus 
 therefore because of the Jews paraskeue ; for the sepulchre 
 was nigh at hand." Here, plainly, it is with the Sabbath, 
 that the term is specially connected; and the natural inference 
 is, that in the earlier passage, although it is called the para 
 skeue of the Passover, yet what is meant is not a paraskeue 
 of the feast itself, but a Sabbath paraskeue during the feast. 
 This is confirmed by what is written in the other gospels. 
 Thus, at Matt, xxvii. 62, with reference to the application 
 made to Pilate for a guard on the day after the crucifixion it 
 is said, "Now, on the following day, which is the one after 
 the paraskeue" (jyivc IGTW /Jtsra rr^ ^aoacrxzo^v ;) the follow- 
 
 self, going out with His disciples after eating the Passover. This Mr. Alford 
 mentions as a reason for thinking of another than the exact day and feast 
 prescribed by the law being kept; since in Exod. xii. 22, it was ordered that 
 none should leave his house till the morning. But it was equally ordered, 
 that all should cat the Passover, attired as travellers, and ready for a journey, 
 though we know, the prescription was not kept in later times, and was un 
 derstood to be temporary. So and much more must the other have been; 
 for, keeping the Passover, as multitudes necessarily did, in other people s 
 houses, it must often, have happened that they were obliged to go out after 
 wards. 
 
AND TIME OF THE LAST PASSOVER. 387 
 
 ing day, beyond doubt, was the ordinary Sabbath; and the 
 name paraskeue had become so common as a designation of 
 the preceding day, that the Sabbath itself, it would seem, was 
 sometimes denominated from it. Not merely, the evening 
 after sunset of the sixth day, as Michselis, Kuinoel, Paulus, and 
 Alford suppose (though even so, the words would apply to what 
 was strictly the Jewish Sabbath ;) but the following morn, as 
 the T 7j l~a jf)tov of the Evangelist properly means. This we 
 may the rather believe to be the meaning, as it is against all 
 probability that the thought of placing a guard around the se 
 pulchre during the night between the second and the third day, 
 should have occurred so early as the very night of the cruci 
 fixion ; it has all the appearance of an after-thought, spring 
 ing up when reflection had got time to work. In Mark xv. 
 42, we have not only the same word applied to designate the 
 time preceding the Sabbath, but an explanation added, "And 
 evening having now come, since it was paraskeue, which is 
 TrpocrdfifiaTou, fore Sabbath." Luke says, ch. xxiii. 54, "and 
 it was paraskeue day" (xal fyuspa fjy xaoaff.) The day which 
 preceded the Sabbath, was called by way of emphasis, the 
 preparation, on account of the arrangements that had to be 
 made on it in anticipation of the approaching Sabbath, with 
 the view of spending this in perfect freedom from all ordinary 
 labour. So much account was made of such preparatory ar 
 rangements, in the later periods of Jewish history, that the 
 name paraskeue came to be a familiar designation for the sixth 
 day of the week, and even to have a certain degree of Sabbati 
 cal sacredness attached to it. Josephus gives a decree of Au 
 gustus securing, among other liberties to the Jews, exemption 
 from judicial proceedings on the Sabbath, and on paraskeue, 
 after the ninth hour (Ant. xvi. 6, 2.) Irenreus, in his account 
 of the Yalentinian Sj^stem, represents them as connecting the 
 creation of man with the sixth day, because it was the para 
 skeue (I. 14, 6.) And in a passage quoted by Wetstein, at 
 Matt, xxvii. 62, from a Rabbinical authority, the days of the 
 week are given thus: the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, pa 
 raskeue, Sabbath. Clearly therefore the word in question 
 had come to be familiarly applied to denote the day corre- 
 
888 PARASKEUE AND PASCHA 
 
 spending to our Friday, to denote that day as a whole, not 
 merely some concluding fragment of it; but we have no evi 
 dence of any such appellation being customary in regard to 
 the Passover Feast. Nor, indeed, can we conceive how it 
 should have been thought of. For, as already stated, even on 
 the first day itself of the feast, a certain freedom was allowed 
 for travelling and preparing victuals ; and the day preceding 
 it must usually have been one of considerable bustle and acti 
 vity. We hold it, therefore, as established beyond all reason 
 able doubt, that the paraskeue is the day preceding the regu 
 lar Jewish Sabbath; and that when the Evangelist John speaks 
 of the paschal paraskeue, he is to be understood as meaning 
 simply the Jewish Saturday, the fore-Sabbath of the Passover- 
 solemnity ; in other words, not an ordinary preparation-day, 
 but that heightened by the additional solemnities connected 
 with the Passover such a paraskeue as was itself a sort of 
 Sabbath. Hence he makes the further explanatory state 
 ment, that the Sabbath following was a high day, or, lite 
 rally, " Great was the day of that Sabbath." Why should it 
 have been called great ? Not surely though this is very often 
 alleged because the first day of the Jewish Passover coin 
 cided with the ordinary Sabbath; for a great deal had to be 
 done on the first day of the feast, which tended rather to dis 
 turb Jewish notions of Sabbatical repose: the killing of many 
 thousand victims (Josephus even speaks of so many as 200,000,) 
 the pouring of the blood around the altar, the hurrying to and 
 fro of persons performing these services, and all the labour 
 and bustle connected with the cooking of so many suppers. 
 A day, on which all this went on, could scarcely be regarded 
 among the Jews as emphatically a great Sabbath. They 
 were much more likely to apply such an expression to the 
 Sabbath immediately following the Paschal Supper, when, the 
 activities of the feast being over, the assembled people were 
 ready, in vast numbers, and with excited feelings, to engage 
 in the public services of the sanctuary. 
 
 Thus, every expression receives its most natural explana 
 tion; no constraint is put upon any of the words employed 
 either by St. John or by the other Evangelists ; while, by giving 
 
AND TIME OF THE LAST PASSOVER. 389 
 
 full play to the historical elements mentioned in the narra 
 tive, we have the best grounds for concluding, both that our 
 Lord kept the Passover with His disciples on the- 14th of 
 Nisan, on the day prescribed by the law, and observed by the 
 great body of the Jews, and that a faction, but in point of 
 number, only a small faction of these, lost the opportunity of 
 observing it till a later period of the same day. If these po 
 sitions have been successfully made out, then, in this case, as 
 in so many others connected with the sacred writings, the ap 
 parent discrepance in the different statements, as seen from a 
 modern point of view, coupled with the satisfactory explana 
 tion, which arises from a careful examination of the circum 
 stances, affords a strong confirmation of the thorough truth 
 fulness and integrity of the writers greatly more than if their 
 narratives had presented a superficial and obvious agreement. 
 
 33* 
 
390 OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW. 
 
 PART THIRD. 
 
 THE USE MADE OF OLD TESTAMENT SCRIPTURE IN THE WRITINGS 
 OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 THE use here referred to has respect simply to the formal 
 quotations made in the New Testament from the Old, and 
 the purposes to which they are applied. There is a more 
 general use pervading the whole of the New Testament writings, 
 and appearing in the constant appropriation of the truths and 
 principles unfolded in Moses and the prophets, of the hopes 
 and expectations that had been thereby awakened, and the 
 very forms of thought and expression to which, as subjects of 
 former revelations, the minds of God s people had become 
 habituated. In all these respects the New is the continuation 
 and the proper complement of the Old. But beside this 
 general use, which touches more or less on every department 
 of theological inquiry, there is the more formal and specific 
 use, which consists in the citations made by our Lord and 
 His apostles from the inspired writings of the Old Covenant. 
 These are of great number and variety; and are marked by 
 such peculiarities, that it may justly be regarded as one of 
 the chief problems, which modern exegesis has to solve, to give 
 a satisfactory explanation and defence of the mode of quoting 
 and applying Old Testament Scripture in the New. If this 
 cannot be made to appear consistent with the correct inter 
 pretation of the Old Testament, and with the principles of 
 plenary inspiration, there is necessarily a most important 
 failure in the great end and object of exegetical studies. 
 
 It is proper, however, to state at the outset, that a very con 
 siderable number of the passages, which may, in a sense, be 
 reckoned quotations from Old Testament Scripture, are better 
 omitted in investigations like the present. They consist of 
 silent, unacknowledged appropriations of Old Testament words 
 
OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW. 391 
 
 or sentences, quite natural for those, who from their childhood 
 had been instructed in the oracles of God, but so employed as 
 to involve no question of propriety, or difficulty of interpreta 
 tion. The speakers or writers, -in such cases, do not profess 
 to give forth the precise words and meaning of former reve 
 lations ; their thoughts and language merely derived from these 
 the form and direction, which by a kind of sacred instinct 
 they took; and it does not matter for any purpose, for which 
 the inspired oracles were given, whether the portions thus ap 
 propriated might or might not be very closely followed, and 
 used in connexions somewhat different from those in which 
 they originally stood. For example, when the Virgin Mary, 
 in her song of praise, says, "He hath filled the hungry with 
 good things," she uses words exactly agreeing in our version 
 with those in Ps. cvi. 9, and in the original differing only in 
 its having the singular for hungry and good, where the other 
 has the plural: but nothing scarcely can be said to be either 
 gained or lost by bringing the two passages into comparison, 
 nor can we even be certain, that the later passage was actu 
 ally derived from the other. Or, when the Apostle Peter, in 
 ch. iii. 14, 15, of his first epistle, gives the exhortation, "Be 
 not afraid of their terror, neither be troubled, but sanctify the 
 Lord God in your hearts," there can be no doubt, that he 
 substantially adopts the language of Isaiah, in ch. viii. 12, 13 ; 
 but as he does not profess to quote what had been written by 
 the prophet, so he reproduces the passage with such freedom, 
 as to manifest, that it was the substance of the exhortation, 
 rather than the ipsissima verba containing it, which he meant 
 to appropriate. There are multitudes of similar examples, 
 which in an exegetical respect involve no difficulty, and call 
 for no special remark; and if noticed at all, it should only be 
 as proofs of the extent to which the ideas and language of the 
 Old Testament have given their impress to the New. Taking 
 in all the instances in which the expressions of the Old Testa 
 ment are thus used by the authors of the New, as well as the 
 more direct and formal quotations, a number exceeding 600 
 has been made out. 1 No proper end, however, could be served 
 1 See the volume of Mr. Gough, "The New Testament Quotations collated 
 
392 OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW. 
 
 hereby exhibiting such a lengthened array as this; it would 
 tend rather to embarrass than promote the object we have in 
 view. Our business must be chiefly with citations of a more 
 formal and explicit kind, fitted, from the manner in which 
 they are employed, to raise the inquiry, whether they are 
 fairly given and legitimately applied. 
 
 There are properly, however, two points of inquiry one 
 bearing respect to the form in which the citations appear; the 
 other, to the application made of them. These are two dis 
 tinct questions. Are the passages quoted from the Old Testa 
 ment in the New fairly dealt with, simply as quotations ? And 
 are the purposes for which they are adduced, and the sense 
 put upon them, in accordance with their original meaning and 
 design? In answer to the first question, it is found, that the 
 quotations fall into four different classes; the first, a very 
 large one, in which they exactly agree with the Hebrew, (of 
 ten also with the Septuagint;) the second, likewise a consi 
 derable one, in which they substantially agree with the 
 Hebrew, the differences being merely formal or circumstan 
 tial, and indicating no diversity of sense; the third, those in 
 which the Septuagint is followed, though it diverges to some 
 extent from the Hebrew; and the fourth, a class of passages 
 in which neither the Hebrew nor the Septuagint is quite 
 exactly adhered to. The whole of the passages might be 
 ranged under these different classes; but for purposes of 
 reference and consultation this would give rise to inconve 
 nience; and we shall, therefore, follow the order of the cita 
 tions themselves, as they occur in the New Testament. In 
 adopting this course, however, we shall not lose sight of the 
 several classes, which shall be marked respectively, I., II., 
 III., IV., and one or other of them appended to each quota 
 tion, indicating the class to which it belongs, with a figure 
 besides, denoting its number in that class. A summation will 
 be given, at the close, of the results obtained, and such ex 
 planatory remarks added as may seem to be called for. This 
 will occupy the first section. 
 
 with the Scriptures of the Old Testament," Walton nnd Maberly, 1855; a 
 volume which shows pnins find industry, but is not distinguished for critical 
 ability; and is, besides, too cumbrous and expensive to be cf general use. 
 
ST. MATTHEW S GOSPEL. 393 
 
 Another section will be devoted to the second point no 
 ticed the sense put upon the passages quoted, and the pur 
 poses to which they are applied ; in other words, the principles 
 involved in the application made of them. In the great 
 majority of cases, however, the application is so manifestly 
 in accordance with their original meaning and design, that it 
 requires no vindication. All of this description, therefore, 
 will be passed over, and attention directed only to such as 
 involve some apparent license in interpretation. 
 
 SECTION FIRST. 
 
 QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW, CON 
 SIDERED IN RESPECT TO THE MANNER OF CITATION. 
 
 THE capital figures employed after each quotation, it will 
 be borne in mind, refer to the several classes indicated above. 
 I. Those in which the Greek exactly corresponds with the 
 Hebrew. II. Those in which it substantially agrees with the 
 Hebrew, the differences being merely circumstantial, and in 
 dicating no diversity of sense. III. Those in which the 
 Septuagint is followed, though it diverges to some extent 
 from the Hebrew. IV. Those in which neither the Hebrew 
 nor the Septuagint is exactly adhered to. The numerals 
 subjoined to these figures give the number of that class, 
 reckoning from the commencement of the Gospels. In all 
 cases the exact translation will be given, whether precisely 
 agreeing with the authorized version or not. 
 
 ST. MATTHEW S GOSPEL. 
 
 Ch. i. 22, 23. In order that it might be fulfilled, which 
 was spoken by the prophet, saying, Vooi> 57 xapOsvos li> 
 faarpl ezet xac re^srae ulbv, zal xaXffOuatv TO ovofia 
 WJTO~J E/ifjiavo jft: Isa. vii. 14. Behold the virgin 
 shall be with child and shall bring forth a Son, and 
 they shall call His name Emmanuel. II. 1. 
 
394 OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW. 
 
 The deviation here from the exact rendering of the original 
 is very slight and unimportant; it relates only to two expres 
 sions, putting "shall be with child" for "shall conceive," n ??, 
 and "they shall call" for "thou shalt call," ^-JD. J n both 
 cases the Septuagint is closer to the original; it has lv yaarpl 
 
 and xaleffsez. 
 Ch. ii. 5, 6. For thus it is written by the prophet, Kal 0b 
 
 . / ^ louda, ouda/juo:; 
 . Ix croi) yap Isste jffST 
 TOV Xaov fio j TOV lapoyX: Micah v. 2. And thou Beth 
 lehem, Judah-land, art by no means least among the 
 rulers of Judah; for out of thee shall come forth a 
 Governor, who shall rule My people Israel. IV. 1. 
 Here the differences are very considerable, both from the 
 Hebrew and from the Septuagint. (1.) Instead of Ephratah, 
 after Bethlehem, the Evangelist puts pj loitda an elliptical 
 expression for situated in the land of Judah, and, coupled 
 with Bethlehem, making substantially the same meaning as is 
 sometimes expressed in the Old Testament by the compound 
 term, Bethlehem-Judah, (Judg. xvii. 7; Ruth i. 1.) It merely 
 distinguishes that Bethlehem from another in a different loca 
 lity. So far, the addition of the Evangelist serves much the 
 same purpose as the Ephratah of the prophet, which defined 
 Bethlehem as the place that originally bore the name of 
 Ephratah, (Gen. xxxv. 19.) The Septuagint has oTxov EypaOd, 
 which gives no proper sense. (2.) Instead of "thou art by 
 no means least among the rulers of Judah," the Hebrew has 
 "thou art little to be (too small to be reckoned) among the 
 thousands of Judah," nn-irr ^Sxa nrnS Y;*. The Septua 
 gint gives this part of the passage with substantial correct 
 ness, dkyoffTOZ EC roi) ewat Iv %tkdaiv /o joa. The words of 
 the Evangelist express a meaning formally different, yet 
 materially the same. Looking at the substance of the origi 
 nal, it intimates, that Bethlehem, little in one respect, scarcely 
 or not at all able to take its place among the ruling divisions 
 of the land, was yet destined to be great in another as the 
 appointed birth-place of the future Governor of Israel. This 
 two-fold idea is precisely that also which the words of the 
 
ST. MATTHEW S GOSPEL. 895 
 
 Evangelist convey only they contemplate the preceding lit 
 tleness as in a manner gone, on account of the now realized 
 ultimate greatness: q. d. Thou wast, indeed, among the least, 
 but thou art no longer so, for thou hast already attained to 
 what in the Divine purpose was to make thee great. So that 
 this change, as well as the preceding one, proceeds on the 
 principle of explaining while it quotes modifying the lan 
 guage, so as, without changing the import, to adapt it to the 
 Evangelist s times. (3.) The remaining clause is a quite cor 
 rect, though somewhat free, translation of the original, which 
 hardly admits of a very close rendering lit. "Out of thee 
 there shall come forth for Me to be Governor in Israel," 
 V}?;:p Stfia nrn 1 ? *v:. ^ *\m 9 that is, One shall be raised up 
 there by My special providence, who shall possess the govern 
 ment in Israel; all one in substance with the Evangelist s 
 " out of thee shall come forth a <jovernor, who shall rule My 
 people Israel." 1 
 
 Ch. ii. 15. In order that it might be fulfilled which Was 
 spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, . Alfu-n:- 
 TO J IxdXsffa rov uiov /JLO>J: Hos. xi. 1. Out of Egypt 
 have I called My Son. I. 1. 
 
 The passage of Hosea is here given with the greatest exact 
 ness. The Septuagint is more loose, // ? Ar(. {jtsrexdAsaa ra 
 rsxva :)roD, apparently taking the word for My Son, ^ 9 as 
 a plural, sons, or children. 
 
 Ch. ii. 18. Then was fulfilled that which was spoken through, 
 Jeremiah the prophet, saying, 0co^ lu ^Papa. tyobada, 
 *xAaudfJibc xal doopfib^ xoAvz, "Payj^ xAaiooaa ra rexi/a 
 auTYfi, xal oux ijd&tymv Trapaxtyflrjvat, o~c OL>X eiaivi Jer. 
 xxxi. 15. In Kama was there heard a voice, lamenta 
 tion and great mourning, Kachel bewailing her child 
 ren, and refused to be comforted, because they are not. 
 II. 2. 
 The departures from the Hebrew original are here quite 
 
 1 For some explanation of the circumstances connected with the fulfilment 
 of tha prophecy, and especially its relation to the governorship of Syria by 
 Cyrenius, as stated in Luke ii. 2, see Appendix. 
 
 a The received text has 0p?Jvo$ before xTwwfyws, but it wants authority. 
 
396 OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW. 
 
 trifling ; they" consist merely in substituting " great mourning 
 for "bitter weeping," or weeping of bitternesses, nnnion O3 ? 
 a correct, though not the most literal translation ; and omit 
 ting the second mention of her children^ which is found in the 
 prophet "refused to be comforted for her children," while 
 the Evangelist simply has, " refused to be comforted," namely, 
 for the loss of her children. What is not expressed is clearly 
 implied. 
 
 Ch. ii. 23. And he came and dwelt in a city called Naza 
 reth, so that it might be fulfilled which was spoken 
 through the prophets, ore Na^wpaco^ xtydfaerae, He 
 shall be called a Nazarene. IV. 2. 
 
 The words here given as a quotation from the prophets are 
 not found in express terms in any one of them; and the mode 
 of quotation, as from the prophets generally, seems to import, 
 that the Evangelist had in view, not a single prediction, but 
 a series of predictions, respecting Messiah, the substance of 
 which might be compressed into the sentence, He shall be 
 called a Nazarene; that is, He shall be a person of low and 
 contemptible appearance, as the inhabitants of Nazareth were 
 in a somewhat peculiar sense esteemed (John i. 46.) The re 
 ference appears to be to such passages as Isa. iv. 2, xi. 1; 
 Jer. xxiii. 1; Zech. iii. 8, vi. 12, in which the Messiah was 
 spoken of as the offspring of David, that was to grow up as a 
 nezer, or tender shoot; in plain terms, rise from a low condi 
 tion, encompassed for a time with the emblems of poverty and 
 meanness. Nazareth itself was probably derived from nczer; 
 so that sound and sense here coincided. 
 
 Ch. iii. 3. This is he that was spoken of by Isaiah the pro 
 phet, saying, (Pajvi/j floa>vro{ zv T~/J Ipy/iyj, c A ro^atfarc 
 TYjV bduv Kufjlo j, sutlzlaz ~ots t~ rc roiftoo^ oJjTul) ; Isa. 
 xl. 3. The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Pre 
 pare ye the way of the Lord, make His paths straight. 
 II. 3. 
 
 The same passage is also quoted in Mark i. 3 ; Luke iii. 4, 
 and in precisely the same words. They are directly taken 
 from the Septuagint, except the last expression, rpifiouz aitTou, 
 for which the Septuagint has r/iifio jz roD 6eo r j fyww. Both 
 
ST. MATTHEW S GOSPEL. 397 
 
 renderings, however, differ slightly from the expression of the 
 prophet, which is " highway for our God," - rrjbNS nbqa. The 
 sense is entirely the same, only less fully and boldly exhibited 
 by the Evangelists. 
 
 Ch. iv. 4. It is written, O jx ITT dorat ILOVIO ^azrai 6 dv- 
 #/>o>7roc, cU/ v Havre py/jari x7roptjo/jtsi>a> did 0roymroc 
 6soi>: Deut. viii. 3. Not on bread alone shall man 
 live, but by every word that cometh forth through 
 God s mouth. I. 2. 
 
 The passage is most fitly assigned to the first class of quo 
 tations; for it is a close translation of the original, down to 
 the last word, the name of God. This is Jehovah in the ori 
 ginal, which is usually given in the Greek by A^/?;oc; but 
 here the Septuagint has OSGIJ, and it is followed by the Evan 
 gelist, as it is also throughout, except in the substitution of 
 iv xavri instead of e~i xavrt. The insertion of p /j/j.a~t in the 
 Septuagint and the Evangelist, without any thing correspond 
 ing in the original, is only done to render the sense plain, and 
 cannot justly be regarded as a deviation from the original. 
 Ch. iv. 6. For it is written, * On ro?c dyfeAott; o.i>ro r j IUTS- 
 nepe <roD, xal ixt %ecp&v dpouacv <TS, p.rj TTOTS Ttpo- 
 tpoz tiOou TOV Koda voi): Ps. xci. 11, 12. He 
 shall give His angels charge concerning thee, and upon 
 their hands they shall bear thee up, lest thou dash thy 
 foot against a stone. I. 3. 
 
 The meaning of the original is quite exactly given, and 
 given in the words of the. Septuagint only a clause is omitted 
 in ver. 11 of the Psalm, "to keep thee in all thy ways." No 
 change is thereby introduced into the passage, which, as far 
 as it goes, is a faithful reproduction of that in the Psalm. 
 Ch. iv. 7. It is again written, O jx Iz-eipdffstz Kupcov rbv 
 6zbv GOL>: Deut. vi. 16. Thou shalt not tempt the 
 Lord thy God. I. 4. 
 
 This must also be regarded as an exact translation ; for it 
 
 merely adopts the singular for the plural thou for ye; an 
 
 interchange that is constantly made in the Pentateuch itself, 
 
 according as Israel was contemplated as a plurality or a unity. 
 
 34 
 
398 OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW. 
 
 The Septuagint here adopts the singular; so the words of the 
 Evangelist exactly correspond with it. 
 
 Ch. iv. 10. For it is written, Kb p toy rby Ozbv oo r j xpoaxu- 
 vrjaziz,, %ai abrw /JLOUOJ Xarp^bas.^ . Deut. vi. 13. Thou 
 shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shult 
 thou serve. III. 1. 
 
 The same words are given in Luke iv. 8 ; they are those of 
 the Septuagint; but they differ so slightly from the Hebrew, 
 that th e passage might almost with equal propriety be ranked 
 under class I. The only divergence is in putting "thou shalt 
 worship," for "thou shalt fear," NVJ> The fear undoubtedly 
 includes worship, as its chief outward expression. 
 
 Ch. iv. 14 16. In order that it might be fulfilled, which was 
 spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, /^ Zapo Mv 
 7.o.\ -fii Netpdakslfr bow Qa/Aaar^ Tzipav ro r j lopddvoo, 
 FaAiAala TCOV lOvtov, b tabs b xaOij/Jtvoz Iv axoria yco^ 
 eJosv pi-fa, xae rol^ xady/jievoiz iy y^opa xal ffxif Oayd- 
 TOU, <pto~ dyTEtAy cwro t^: Isa. ix. 1, 2. Land of Zabu- 
 lor., and land of Nephthalim, way of the sea beyond 
 the Jordan, the people that sat in darkness saw a great 
 light, and for them that sat in the region and shadow 
 of death, light sprung up to them. IV. 3. 
 It is but a part of Isaiah s prophecy that is here cited ; the 
 Evangelist begins in the middle of a sentence, and does not 
 give even the whole of what follows. The entire passage 
 may be thus literally rendered: "As the former time degraded 
 the land of Zabulon and the land of Nephthalim, so the latter 
 makes glorious the way of the sea, the farther side ("O#) of 
 Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles. The people (viz. of this 
 Galilee,) those walking in the dark, see a great light, the 
 dwellers in the land of the shadow of death, light rises upon 
 them." It thus appears, that there are considerable differ 
 ences between the Evangelist and the prophet, but chiefly in 
 the way of abridgment, His purpose did not require him 
 to produce the whole, and he gives only a part very naturally, 
 on this account, beginning with a nominative, rf Zap., while 
 a fuller quotation would have required the accusative. For 
 the boby in the next clause, see at p. 42. It has very much 
 
ST. MATTHEW S GOSPEL. 399 
 
 the force of a preposition, and means alongside, or by the 
 tract of, viz. the sea; the sea-board portions of the tribes of 
 Zabulon and Naphthali. The only deviation worth naming, 
 in the portion that is fully quoted, from the precise meaning 
 of the original, is in substituting "the people that sat," for 
 "the people, those walking" D\?Vnn o;;n; and "in the land 
 and shadow of death," for "in the land of the shadow of 
 death" .?^ H^f The difference in both respects is quite 
 immaterial, and seems to have been adopted for the sake of 
 greater distinctness. The Septuagint differs so much, both 
 from the original and from the Evangelist, that it has mani 
 festly exercised no influence here. 
 
 Ch. viii. 17. So that it might be fulfilled which was spoken 
 by Esaias the prophet, saying, AUTO- ra- aadzvdaz 
 fyjiujv i)Afov xal rd^ vbcrooz IfldffTCurevi Isa. liii. 4. 
 Himself took our sicknesses and bore our pains. I. 5. 
 
 The Septuagint has here oDroc TO.- d/MUprla^ ^IJLOJV <pep*i, 
 xal xs t oi f/fjLwv douudra ^ This one bears our sins, and on our 
 account is put to grief. So that the rendering of the Evange 
 list strikingly departs from it, and does so by adhering more 
 closely to the original. There can be no doubt that this is 
 the case respecting the first clause, "Himself took (i. e., took 
 upon Him x ; ^) our sicknesses," or diseases. But it holds equally 
 of the second clause, which is D^ag -irDto^ "and our pains 
 He bore them." The only peculiarity in the Evangelist is, 
 that he employs vbao j^ in the sense of pains ; which, however, 
 is a very common meaning of the word, though not elsewhere 
 found in the New Testament. 
 
 Ch. ix. 13 (xii. 7.) But go and learn what is y JAeoc Oeho 
 y.al o j O joiav : IIos. vi. 6. I desire mercy and not sa 
 crifice. I. 6. 
 
 The passage is again quoted on another occasion by our 
 Lord, at ch. xii. 7, and in precisely the same words. They 
 give the literal meaning of the original, and adhere more 
 strictly to the form than the Septuagint, which has v Ehoz 
 Oiho yj Oufflau. This gives undoubtedly the substantial mean 
 ing I desire, or delight, in mercy rather than sacrifice but 
 it is obtained by a sort of paraphrase. 
 
400 OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW. 
 
 Ch. xi. 10. For this is he of whom it is written, Jdol> If a) 
 
 dTTOffTsMco TOV ^/OV [JLOU TTOO TZOOffCOTTO J ffO J, Xdl Xd- 
 
 TaaxsudffZ! rr^ bow oou s/ji7if)0(76sv aoo\ Mai. iii. 1. 
 
 Behold I send My messenger before Thy face, and he 
 
 shall prepare Thy way before Thee. II. 4. 
 In the original it is simply, "Behold I send My messenger 
 (or angel,) and he shall prepare the way before Me." As 
 given by our Lord, there is a change of person not found in 
 the Hebrew / send . . . before Thy face, prepare the way 
 before Thee; and it is also a little more explicit not simply 
 send, but send before Thy face, and prepare, not the way 
 merely, but expressly Thy way. The alterations are, like 
 others of a like kind already noticed, plainly for the sake of 
 explanation. It was in reality the same Divine Being who 
 sent the messenger, and before whom the messenger was to go, 
 preparing the way. But when that Divine Being had become 
 man, and was Himself in the condition of one sent, it was fit 
 that He should somehow indicate the diversity that thus ap 
 peared in connexion with the unity. And it was quite natu 
 rally done by the change of person introduced, by which the 
 sender appeared in some sense-different from the person before 
 whom the messenger went; yet, as the messenger had just 
 been declared to be greater than all the prophets (ver. 9,) who 
 could He be, whose way the messenger went before to prepare, 
 but the Lord Himself, that sent him? This was evident to 
 any thoughtful mind; and to show it was the same, and yet 
 in one sense another, of whom in both parts the prophet spake, 
 was our Lord s object in slightly altering the original words. 
 The real meaning was not thereby altered; it was only adapt 
 ed to existing circumstances* and to a certain extent expli 
 cated. The Septuagint mistook the meaning of the second 
 clause of the verse, apparently from not knowing that the verb 
 p in the Piel signifies to clear or prepare; so, they rendered 
 ijyi H23 by IxtplefieTac bdbv, he shall survey the way. 
 
 Ch. xii. 17 21. In order that it might be fulfilled which 
 
 was spoken through Esaias the prophet, saying, /ooy, 
 
 6 7TCUC [J.OO, OV 7jf)Tt0a, 6 dfO.TlTjTO^ ftOU, OV SyoOX^tfSV jj 
 
 TO xvev/Jid /JLOU ITT cwrov, me xpiatv roTc 
 
ST. MATTHEW S GOSPEL. 401 
 
 v dxajfelet. oux lolcrsc ouos xf)a>jfd(j*c, ouos dxou- 
 ev rat^ irfareiaiC try (pwvYjV a>jToi>- xd.Aafj.ov 
 pifJLfjLsvoy ou xarsdzzc, xal Mvov T>J<p6fj.yov ou 
 ff^lffet, ewz dv IxfidJUQ e/c vTxoc ^v xpiaw. xal ~w ovo- 
 /mrr a j^o 7 } I0y^ ihtiouffw. Isa. xlii. 1 4. Behold my 
 servant, whom I have chosen, My beloved, in whom 
 My soul is well-pleased ; I will put My Spirit upon 
 Him, and He shall announce judgment to the Gen 
 tiles. He shall not strive, nor cry, nor shall any one 
 hear His voice in the streets. A bruised reed shall 
 lie not break, and smoking flax shall He not quench, 
 till He have brought forth judgment into victory. 
 And in His name shall the Gentiles trust. IV. 4. 
 By much the greater part of this passage might be assigned 
 to the first class ; for it gives a faithful representation of the 
 original in this differing favourably from the Scptuagint, 
 which presents a very loose and incorrect translation. It 
 merely has, "whom I have chosen," instead of "whom I up 
 hold" 1 -~ =I??^; also, "He shall not strive, nor cry," instead 
 of "He shall not cry nor lift up," *&: N*7] p*! K 1 ?; the former 
 being only "more explicit, and affixing to the lifting up of the 
 prophet the more definite sense of boisterous and wrangling 
 procedure. But at the close of ver. 20, we have "till He 
 have brought forth judgment into victory," while in the ori 
 ginal it is, "He shall bring forth judgment into truth" 
 33^? N-sv raxS or rather, "for truth (in the interest of truth) 
 He shall bring forth judgment;" that is to say, His administra 
 tion shall be in accordance with the principles of truth ; and 
 that is not materially different from the sense of the Evange 
 list, who represents the Lord s servant going on in His quiet, 
 peaceful exercise of goodness, shunning everything that might 
 lead to violent measures, or insurrectionary movements, till 
 judgment i. e., righteousness in act and power shall have 
 been rendered triumphant over all that was opposed to it. It 
 is a free rendering of the words of the original, but one that 
 gives with perfect fidelity their scope and import. And the 
 same also may be said of the last clause, "in His name shall 
 the Gentiles trust," which is the Septuagint rendering for 
 
 34* 
 
402 OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW. 
 
 what is literally, "the isles shall wait for His law." In pro 
 phecy "the isles" is often put for the Gentiles; and these 
 being said to wait for His law, is as much as, they look to 
 Him as their Lord, they trust in His name. 
 
 Ch. xiii. 14, 15. And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of 
 Esaias, which saith, y-Jxojy axouffsrs y.ol ou /JITJ GUSTS 
 xac /9/s/Tovrec pWjMw zo.1 ou py loirs l7ta% jvOiy yap ~q 
 xapota TOL> Xo.o r j TOUTOU, xat roTc watv ftaoiw 
 xat TOU^ d(fdo.AtjLob^ WJTCUV Ixdfjtfjtuffav, JAY/ /rors 
 
 tZj xat TOIZ OMTW axoLxjaxnv, xat TTJ xapoca 
 xat IxtffTptyaHTiv, xal Idffopon oJjTO j^: Isa. \i. 
 9, 10. Ye shall verily hear, and shall not understand, 
 and shall verily see, and shall not perceive; for this 
 people s heart has waxed gross, and in their ears they 
 are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed, 
 lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and 
 should hear with their ears, and should understand 
 with their heart, and should convert, and I shall heal 
 them. III. 2. 
 
 The quotation accords throughout with the Septuagint, dif 
 fering only in the transposition of a single word, putting obt&v 
 after o^OaA/wj^ instead of after toaiv. Nor does it any other 
 wise differ from the Hebrew, than by using throughout the 
 future instead of the imperative ; what shall be done, accord 
 ing to the Septuagint and the Evangelist, the prophet repre 
 sents himself as commanded to do. But this was only a 
 stronger form of the future; it ordered the melancholy results 
 spoken of to be accomplished, because these were so clearly 
 foreseen as going to take place, that the Lord might as well 
 instruct His servants to bring them about. Winer, Gr. 
 44, 3. So that the Greek version is but the plainer and 
 milder form of the prophetic declaration. In Acts xxvii. 20, 
 27, it occurs again in the same form ; and in John xii. 40, 
 it is given historically as a state of things actually brought 
 about by the Lord, " He hath blinded their eyes," etc. ; because 
 what, in such circumstances, was commanded to be done, might 
 equally be represented as in the eye of God already in being. 
 In all the places of New Testament Scripture, in which the 
 
ST. MATTHEW S GOSPEL. 403 
 
 original passage is cited, it is applied to the mass of the Jewish 
 people of the apostolic age, as if directly spoken of them. 
 But it is clear from the passage itself, that it was uttered re 
 specting that people generally, and that the prophet spoke for 
 a long time to come. 
 
 Ch. xiii. 35. So that it might be fulfilled which was spoken 
 by the prophet, saying, "Avoi^w Iv Trapaftolacz TO arojia 
 /wo, Ips jzofjiac xexpv/jtfjieya ebro xarafioZfc: Ps. Ixxviii. 
 2. I will open my mouth in parables, I will utter 
 things that have been hidden from the foundation [of 
 the world.] II. 5. 
 
 In the first member the citation literally agrees with the 
 Septuagint, and only so far differs from the Hebrew, that it 
 puts parables in the plural, instead of in the singular. In the 
 second member, however, the Evangelist very markedly dif 
 fers from the Septuagint, which has (fOsfzo/mi npoftXrj para art 
 a f r /J^i I w ^ utter problems dark sentences, enigmas from 
 the beginning. This is a pretty close rendering of the origi 
 nal Hebrew, tng- M niTn njT2x ; excepting that "from of old," 
 "from ancient time," would have been a little closer than 
 "from the beginning;" but the meaning is the same. The 
 version of the Evangelist, which expresses the same general 
 sense, was obviously intended to present a simpler meaning, 
 and to give a sort of explanation of the dark sentences spoken 
 of, and of the ancient time. They were defined to be things 
 that had been hid, not properly understood, and that from the 
 beginning of the world. The Ipzuzo/mt of the Evangelist ex 
 actly corresponds to the Hebrew, both signifying properly to 
 sputter, or belch out, then to give forth, or utter. 
 
 Ch. xv. 4. For God said, Ti/jta TW r:arepa xal Try fir/rspa 
 xae, c xaxolofcov rears pa y /j-yrepa davdrcf) TeXeurdro : 
 Ex. xx. 12, and xxi. 16. Honour father and mother; 
 and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the 
 death. I. 7. 
 
 This may justly be assigned to the first class; for it gives 
 the exact meaning of the original, only omitting the personal 
 pronouns, thy and his, after father and mother, merely on 
 account of the citations being turned from the form of a direct 
 
404 OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW. 
 
 address into that of a general charge. The Septuagint no 
 further differs, than in having the pronouns, ao>j in the first 
 verse after father and mother, a>jroi> in the second ; and in 
 having TzAzur/jasi instead of rs/eyraro. In Mark vii. 10, the 
 ffo j is retained in the first part of the citation, but not in the 
 second. Otherwise, it agrees with Matthew. 
 
 Ch. xv. 8, 9. Esaias prophesied concerning you, saying, ^0 
 
 /aoc oDroc ro?c Je&e< v //s r^, /j os xapdta 
 
 Tib <> pun dx%c d/r* l/wu fjtd,Tiyv de 
 
 rec oioaffxaAiaz, ivrdtyara dvdpanr&vi Isa. xxix. 33. 
 
 This people honoureth Me with the lips, but their 
 
 heart keeps far from Me ; but in vain do they worship 
 
 Me, teaching doctrines, commandments of men. III. 3. 
 The Evangelist here so nearly gives the words of the Sep 
 tuagint, that the passage may be substantially regarded as an 
 adoption of its words. The only difference is, that the Evange 
 list abbreviates the commencement a little, puts the verb after 
 Aooc in the singular, Tt/jta. instead of rtftcoffi, and, at the close, 
 while using the same words, places them in another order; 
 the Septuagint has, diddaxovrs^ivrd}.fJLa.ra avdpcoTTwv xal dtoo.ff- 
 xaAca^. It is in the last part chiefly, that this version differs 
 from an exact impression of the original. For the sentence, 
 "But in vain do they worship Me, teaching doctrines, command 
 ments of men," the Heb. is rm 1 ?? D BUX rnyp YIN DPNT <nni ? 
 literally, "and their fear toward Me has become a precept of 
 men, taught" (viz. by men, as contradistinguished from God.) 
 An abrupt and somewhat obscure sentence, of which the Sep 
 tuagint version is a kind of paraphrase, giving what is sub 
 stantially the same meaning in a fuller and plainer form. 
 They seem to have taken nru for irini and D^T fr the 
 second person plural Kal of the verb, thus obtaining the sense, 
 "in vain do they worship Me." This is not distinctly stated 
 in the original, but it is implied; for their fear toward God 
 being characterized as a fruit of man s teaching, necessarily 
 bespoke its vanity. 
 
 Ch. xix. 4, 5. Have ye not read, that He who made them 
 
 at the beginning, made them male and female, and 
 
 said, *Eexa TO JTOU xa-ra 
 
ST. MATTHEW S GOSPEL. 405 
 
 xal TYJV fiyrspa, xal xoM /jd /jfrerac rf) fuvatxl ayroy, xal 
 (?oi<Tai ol duo ere adpxa [j. .av ; Gen. ii. 24. Therefore 
 shall a man leave father and mother, and shall be joined 
 to his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. II. 6. 
 The Septuagint is here all but adopted, and, for any prac 
 tical purpose, it is of no moment whether we should say, the 
 Hebrew is rendered with substantial correctness, or the Sep 
 tuagint is in the main followed. The Septuagint differs only 
 in having a jroi* after Trar^a, which the Evangelist omits, and 
 in putting TrpoffxoU^dijffeTac ~pb^ Try fuvac/.a instead of xoX- 
 Ir^at-cai TTJ fwaal variations of no moment. Nor is the 
 difference much greater from the Hebrew: this has his father, 
 and his mother; and instead of they two shall be one flesh, it 
 has simply they shall be one flesh ; by the tliey, however, 
 plainly meaning the two in the preceding context. The sense, 
 therefore, is the same. 
 
 Ch. xix. 18, 19. Ob ^OVSLXTS^, ou fOfeua&<;, etc. Thou 
 shalt not kill, thou shalt not commit adultery, etc., 
 precisely as in Ex. xx. 12, sq., and Lev. xix. 18. I. 8. 
 Ch. xxi. 4, 5. In order that it might be fulfilled which 
 was spoken through the prophet, saying, EixaTs TTJ 
 dufarpi Zicbv, loob, b ftaadz jz &o>j spheral 0w, xpauz 
 7.0.1 iirtft.e.fhpc&<; Ixc ovou xai ITTI nattov vlbv uTzo^o-fioo \ 
 Zech. ix. 9. Say ye to the daughter of Zion, Behold, 
 thy King cometh to thee, meek and mounted on an ass, 
 and on a colt the foal of a beast of burden. II. 7. 
 There is a peculiarity in the commencement of this citation, 
 the "Say ye to the daughter of Zion" being found, not in 
 Zech. ix. 9, from which what follows is taken, but in Isa. Ixii. 
 11; so that there is properly the joining together of two Old 
 Testament passages. They both relate to the same thing 
 the one more generally, the other more particularly. Isaiah 
 says, " Behold thy Salvation cometh; behold His reward is with 
 Him, and His work before Him." Zechariah proclaims, not 
 the salvation merely, but the Saviour Himself, and His ap 
 pearance and character. It is, no doubt, on this account that 
 the two passages are thrown together, and considered as one; 
 although, as it is merely the preamble of Isaiah s that is taken, 
 
406 OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW. 
 
 the prophecy quoted as now fulfilled is strictly that of Zecha- 
 riah. As given by the Evangelist, it does not differ much 
 from the Septuagint, but it comes somewhat nearer to the 
 original omitting, however, one clause, " He is just and 
 having salvation." The last expression in the original, rrijnK-fa, 
 more exactly means son, or foal of she-asses; according to a 
 common Hebraism, by which the young of a creature is de 
 nominated the offspring of that kind of creatures generally; 
 for example, ^p T ?-jp, son of the herd, offspring of cattle. The 
 Evangelist gives the import more generally, foal of a beast 
 of burden including asses of course, but not specifically 
 designating them. The Septuagint had also given the meaning 
 in a general way Ixefiefyxcbz l~i u-o^jftov xal xtiAov viov\ 
 and this, no doubt, was partly the reason of the rendering 
 adopted by the Evangelist. 
 
 Ch. xxi. 13. And He said unto them, It is written, 
 oJxo:; xoffeuz xAfaffsrai bJtstz ok aurbv 
 
 Isa. Ivi. 7; Jer. vii. 11. My house 
 shall be called a house of prayer, but ye make it a den 
 of thieves (or robbers.) I. 9. 
 
 It is only the first part of this passage that is properly a 
 citation ; and it is a literal version of a part of Isa. Ivi. 7. It 
 stands there, "My house shall be called a house of prayer for 
 all nations." Matthew omits the "for all nations," as Luke 
 also does, but it is given in Mark xi. 17. The other part of 
 the passage is the word of Christ Himself, charging the per 
 sons before Him with an entire depravation of the character 
 of the temple and a frustration of its design ; but He does 
 so in language borrowed from Jer. vii. 11, where the prophet 
 indignantly asks of the priests and elders of his day, "Is this 
 house, which is called by My name, become a den of robbers 
 in your eyes?" Our Lord purposely threw His accusation 
 into this form, to impress on the men of His generation, that 
 the iniquities of Jeremiah s age had again returned, and that 
 consequently like judgments also might be expected. It is 
 an allusion, however, to the prophet s words, rather than a 
 formal citation of them. 
 
 Ch. xxi. 16. Have ye never read, On Ix 
 
ST. MATTHEW S GOSPEL. 407 
 
 xal drjka^bvTajv xarr/pTiGuj a.woy: Ps. viii. 2. Out of 
 the mouth of babes and sucklings Thou hast perfected 
 praise. III. 4. 
 
 A transcript from the Septuagint. The Hebrew has yj; rncr, 
 Thou hast founded, or, more generally, prepared strength. 
 Earlier commentators gave the sense of praise here, and in 
 some other places, to the noun ; and it is still one of the mean 
 ings ascribed to it by Gesenius. Such also must have been 
 the view of the Septuagint translators. In the passages, how 
 ever, where it is conceived to bear this meaning, it rather in 
 dicates the strength, by which God gets praise to Himself over 
 His enemies, than the praise itself. In the eighth Psalm par 
 ticularly, the idea of such strength is appropriate ; for chil 
 dren are plainly brought in there to show how God, even by 
 such weak and foolish instruments, can put to shame His 
 powerful adversaries; the strength of babes is sufficient for 
 His purpose. So that we must regard our Lord here as adopt 
 ing the current version of the Septuagint, giving the general 
 sense, though not the precise shade of meaning in the origi 
 nal. It merely differs in directing attention, more to the re 
 sult aimed at, less to the means of accomplishing it. 
 
 Ch. xxi. 42. Have ye never read, AiOov w dxedoxc/jtaffav o 
 (HxodofJU&VTes, O JTOC; if^TJO fj V xsyafyu fcoviaz xapa 
 K jolo j ifsvero aitT /j, xal lo~iv 8a>jju>acrT7] sv dtpOaAfJLOiz 
 <qjy.(ov: Ps. cxviii. 22, 23. The stone which the builders 
 rejected, the same has become the head of the corner; 
 it was the Lord s doing, and it is marvellous in our 
 eyes. I. 10. 
 
 The Septuagint is followed verbatim, as it is also in Mark 
 xii. 10, 11; Luke xx. 17; and as far as the quotation goes, in 
 Acts iv. 11; 1 Pet. ii. 7. But the Septuagint here gives a 
 close translation of the original. 
 
 Ch. xxii. 24. Moses said, If any one die, etc. The refe 
 rence is to Deut. xxv. 5; but the passage cannot 
 justly be regarded as a quotation; it merely professes 
 to give the substance of a provision in the Mosaic law. 
 Ch. xxii. 31, 32. Have ye not read that which was spoken 
 unto you by God, saying, Efa) et/ju o 6eb 
 
408 OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW. 
 
 7.0.1 b $c6c y I0aax, xat b $t>c Idxcofi: Ex. iii. 6. I am 
 the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the 
 God of Jacob. I. 11. 
 
 At once coincides with the Septuagint, and closely adheres 
 to the Hebrew, but omits what is in both, after I am, " of thy 
 father," as not bearing on the point in hand. 
 
 Ch. xxii. 37. Jesus said to him, Afa-fazez Kbptov rbu Ozbv 
 000 iu oty T 7j xaoola GOO, xal Iv o)y TYJ </>o%fi GOO, xat 
 Iv oAfi diavoia GOO: Deut. vi. 5. Thou shalt love the 
 Lord thy God with (or in) all thy heart, and with all 
 thy soul, and with all thy mind. I. 12. 
 The passage keeps closer to the Hebrew than to the Sep 
 tuagint, which uses the preposition Is instead of Iv. The only 
 apparent deviation from the exact import of the original, is at 
 the close, in rendering ^HD-7^3 with all thy mind, as strength 
 is the more proper meaning of the noun; but it is mental 
 strength that is meant; and consequently mind is really the 
 same, denoting the full bent and purpose of soul. 
 
 Ch. xxii. 39. Afounjffsec ?ov nhjffiov GOO oc Gsaorov : Lev. 
 xix. 18. Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 
 I. 13. 
 
 An exact translation, found previously in the Septuagint. 
 Ch. xxii. 43, 44. How then doth David in Spirit call Him 
 Lord, saying, Ecxsv Kbpiot; rw xopiuj /wo- KdOoo Ix 
 poo, eto$ dv da) rolc l%dpo& GOO urzoxdrw TOJV 
 aoo: Ps. ex. 1. The Lord said to my Lord, Sit 
 Thou at My right hand, until I make Thine enemies 
 Thy footstool. I. 14. 
 
 Also an exact translation, and differing from the Septua 
 gint only in having u-oxdrco instead of U7io~bdcov. The sense 
 is the same in both. The passage is cited in the same terms 
 in Mark xii. 36; Luke xx. 42; Acts ii. 35; Heb. i. 13; but 
 in the last three with unoxbocov. 
 
 Ch. xxvi. 31. For it is written, Hard^o rov Tro. /^eva, xal 
 
 dto.Gxoo-tGOrjGovTat ra Kptifiara ri^c xoifjo/qc: Zech. xiii. 
 
 7. I will smite the Shepherd, and the sheep of the 
 
 flock shall be scattered abroad. II. 8. 
 
 The rendering hero is nearer to the Hebrew than the Sep- 
 
ST. MATTHEW S GOSPEL. 409 
 
 tuagint, but it differs in putting the first verb in the first per 
 son future instead of in the imperative, as in the Hebrew, and 
 also in adding r^c jro/jttwyCj for which there is nothing to cor 
 respond, either in the Hebrew or in the Septuagirit. This 
 addition is omitted in Mark xiv. 27. The passage, as given 
 in Matthew, is merely the simpler and more explicit form of 
 that in Zechariah; by using the first person future of the verb 
 7rara<7<7o>, the action is more distinctly referred to God, and 
 by calling the sheep the sheep of the flock, they are more 
 pointedly described as the Lord s select people. Both, how 
 ever, were implied in the original passage. 
 
 Ch. xxvii. 9, 10. Then was fulfilled that which was spoken 
 by Jeremy the prophet, saying, Kal !7#/9ov ra rpiaxovra 
 rrp Tiprp toy ren^/^voy, ov irtpyjaavTo anb 
 IffpamJi, xal edcoxau oJjia et TOV dypbu roi) xspa- 
 z, xada covera^ey /we K jptot;: Zech. xi. 13. And 
 they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of Him 
 that was valued, whom they valued from (i. e., on the 
 part of) the children of Israel, and gave them for the 
 potter s field, according as the Lord appointed me. 
 IV. 5. 
 
 The most striking peculiarity in connexion with this cita 
 tion, is the circumstance of its being ascribed to Jeremiah, 
 while in reality it is found in the writings of Zechariah. This 
 point will be considered in Section Second, as it bears upon 
 the mode of application. Viewing the words as those of the 
 prophet Zechariah, there certainly are considerable differences 
 between the original Hebrew and the Evangelist s version, 
 though they affect the form only, and not the substance. The 
 Septuagint differs again so materially from both, that it can 
 have exercised no influence. The passage in Zechariah runs 
 literally thus, "And the Lord said to me, Cast it (viz., the 
 price, mentioned immediately before) to the potter, a glorious 
 price which I was prized at of them (0"7v?, from off them, 
 on their part;) and I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast 
 them into the house of the Lord for the potter (i. e. that they 
 might be given to the potter.") Here, the whole assumes the 
 form of a transaction between the Lord and the prophet, who 
 35 
 
410 OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW. 
 
 personates the Divine Shepherd, thus meanly rated by the 
 people; in the Evangelist, the people themselves are repre 
 sented as doing all as might, indeed, have been understood, 
 would be the case, when the prophecy passed into the reality. 
 The change in this respect, therefore, is entirely of the same 
 kind with that which was made at ch. xi. 10 and xiii. 14; a 
 change from the first person to the third, to adapt the words 
 more palpably to the historical fulfilment, and render them 
 more transparent in meaning. The same object led to the 
 other alterations. In the original, the passage is very strong 
 ly enigmatical; and so, instead of Jiterally quoting it, the 
 Evangelist presents a sort of paraphrase of the words. But 
 there are in both the same leading ideas, viz. that the Lord s 
 representative, the Shepherd of Israel, had a price set upon 
 Him that this price w r as the miserable sum of thirty pieces 
 of silver that the transaction was gone into on the part of 
 the people, and consequently by those who had to do with the 
 house of the Lord that, in token of the baseness of the trans 
 action, the money was to be somehow consigned to the potter 
 and that the hand of the Lord was to be remarkably seen 
 in the ordering of what took place. The words at the close, 
 "according as the Lord commanded me," answer to the pre 
 amble in the prophet, "And the Lord said to me," coupled 
 with the imperative form of what follows. The disposal of 
 the price of blood was described as of the Lord s appointment; 
 and, in like manner, in the history, while Jewish rulers alone 
 are mentioned as doing all, it is plainly implied, that the hand 
 of God directed the course of events into the particular channel 
 they took. 
 
 Ch. xxvii. 46. And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with 
 a loud voice, saying, IDCt, //>^, Xap.a aaftaxdavi\ TOUT&- 
 
 <TT(l>, 0eS [WO, [JLOO, ?Va Ti /J.S IfXaTskTZSZ J Ps. XXU. 
 
 1. My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me? 
 
 I. 15. 
 
 The Hebrew is exactly given, but given in the words of the 
 Septuagint. Mark only so far differs, that instead of 6h he 
 has 6 #oc, and instead of Iva. ri he has sic . The sense ia 
 quite the same. 
 
ST. MARK S GOSPEL. 411 
 
 ST. MARK S GOSPEL. 
 
 Ch. i. 2, 3. As it is written in Esaias the prophet, Idou 
 rov d-ffstov [toy xpb itpoadmou ffou, o^ xara- 
 
 T t V OOW ffOV 0COV7] fiQWUTOZ; V T7j IpljfJtqj, 
 
 S rr^ bobu Koplou, sudetaz xots iTe rc Tpiftouc 
 a\jro r j\ Mai. iii. 1 ; Isa. xl. 3. Behold I send my Mes 
 senger before Thy face, who shall prepare thy way. 
 The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye 
 the way of the Lord, make His paths straight. II. 9. 
 The Old Testament passages have been already noticed 
 the latter at Matt. iii. 3, where it appears in precisely the 
 same form; the former at Matt. xi. 10, from which the words 
 here no further differ, than in substituting oc for xal before 
 xaTaffxs jdcrse, merely turning the second member of the verse 
 from an independent into a relative clause; and by leaving 
 out at the close IpnpoaOiv GOD. This abbreviates the passage, 
 and so far departs from the original, but the meaning is not 
 altered. Eor the principle of coupling two prophets together, 
 and under the name only of one introducing*quotations from 
 both, see the remarks in Section Second, No. VIII., near the 
 close. 
 
 Ch. iv. 12. In order that /3/s/rovrcC ftXiit&ffev xal ^ I dcoaiv, 
 
 xal ctxouovrsc dxo jcocrtu xal /rjy 0uv towns, /j:/j nors. l~t- 
 
 ffTptyaHrcv xal d<fzd 7j ai>ro1^: Isa. vi. 9, 10. Seeing 
 
 they might see, yet perceive not, and hearing might 
 
 hear, yet understand not, lest at any time they should 
 
 convert, and it be forgiven to them. IV. 6. 
 
 The Evangelist does not expressly cite these words; and we 
 
 only know, from their substantial agreement with the passage 
 
 referred to in Isaiah, that they are a virtual quotation from 
 
 the prophet. From the manner in which the passage is given, 
 
 however, it is evident that the Evangelist only meant to give 
 
 the substance of what was written. And accordingly, the 
 
 words actually produced are a sort of compound of the first 
 
 and second part of the original passage; and, intent on the 
 
 spiritual import of the prophecy, the closing member, " and 
 
 it be healed to them," is here turned into "and it be forgiven 
 
412 OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW. 
 
 to them." This, doubtless, was what was really meant; but 
 in so changing the passage here, and in the other parts, it is 
 plain that the Evangelist thought it enough to give the sub 
 stance. 
 
 Ch. vii. 6, 7. See.at Matt. xv. 8, 9. 
 Ch. vii. 10. See at Matt. xv. 4. 
 Ch. x. 7. See at Matt. xix. 5. 
 Ch. xi. 17. See at Matt. xxi. 13. 
 Ch. xii. 11. See at Matt. xxi. 42. 
 Ch. xii. 26. See at Matt. xxii. 32. 
 
 Ch. xii. 29, 30. The first commandment of all is, y //*ous, 
 Kupioc 6 6e oc fj/jtcou Kuptoz eFc iffTtv xal dya- 
 stz Kupiov TOU 6s6v ffo j | otys T^C xapdta^ aoo, 
 xal % 5A^C T " /Z ^/tyC 000, xal | otyz r^c oca^ola^ 000, 
 xal s| oAyz T ^C t&%bo (TOO: Deut. vi. 4, 5. Hear, 
 Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord ; and thou shalt 
 love the Lord thy God out of all thy heart, and out of 
 all thy soul, and out of all thy mind, and out of all thy 
 strength. IV. 7. 
 
 It is necessary to assign this quotation to the last class ; 
 since, while very nearly coinciding with the Septuagint, it 
 still slightly differs, without following the Hebrew. The dif 
 ference is increased by the clause, o^c rfz dcavoiaz 000, 
 for which there is nothing corresponding either in the Septua 
 gint or in the Hebrew; but it seems doubtful, if the clause 
 should form part of the text. Tischendorf omits it. Besides 
 this, however, there is the substitution of iayjoz, for the 
 o jva/^s^c of the Septuagint. The change renders it fully 
 more close to the Hebrew; and, (supposing the clause above 
 noticed being unauthorized,) the only departure from the 
 exact translation of the Hebrew is in the preposition ^c, in 
 stead of Iv pointing more distinctly to the action of Divine 
 love, as being from within outwards, and not simply to its 
 having its seat within. 
 
 Ch. xii. 31. See at Matt. xxii. 39. 
 Ch. xii. 36. See at Matt. xxii. 43, 44. 
 Ch. xiv. 27. See at Matt. xxvi. 31. 
 
 Ch. xv. 28. And the Scripture was fulfilled, which said; 
 Kal fjLsra avb[j.a)v i/.ofiadr^ and lie was numbered with 
 
ST. LUKE S GOSPEL. 413 
 
 the transgressors. The passage is a literal translation 
 of Isa. liii. 12; but the whole verse is wanting in the 
 best MSS., A B C D X, and it is consequently omit 
 ted in the later editions of the text. 
 Ch. xv. 31. See at Matt, xxvii. 46. 
 
 ST. LUKE S GOSPEL. 
 
 Ch. i. 17, comp. with Mai. iv. 5, 6; ver. 37, comp. Gen. 
 xviii. 14; ver. 46, comp. with 1 Sam. ii. 2, sq. : ver. 
 76, comp. with Mai. iii. 1; ver. 78, comp. with Mai. 
 iv. 2; in these and various other parts of the first 
 chapter of this Gospel, there are references to pas 
 sages in Old Testament Scripture; but they are con 
 cealed references, the meaning of the original Scrip 
 tures being adopted, and their language, with more or 
 less exactness, also employed, but without any formal 
 citation of them. The object of the references, indeed, 
 is as much for the purpose of elucidating the Old, as 
 confirming the New; and hence therjD is a considera 
 ble freedom in the mode of using the original. 
 Ch. ii. L4. According to that which is said in the law of 
 the Lord, c5^oc Tp&fov&v y duo Vc0<7<7ol>c TrepeffTspwv : 
 Lev. xii. 8. A pair of turtle-doves, or two young 
 pigeons. I. 16. 
 
 The translation is as literal as it could well be ; for the ex 
 pression in the original, "two sons of a pigeon," is but a 
 Hebraism for "two young pigeons." The rendering of the 
 Evangelist very nearly accords also with the Septuagint. 
 Ch. iii. 4 6. As it is written in the book of the words of 
 Esaias the prophet, (Pcovyj /3octvroc V T~/J Ipijuqj kror 
 fj.dffa.TS Try bobv Kvpiov^ euOslaz TZOISITS rc Tpej3ou 
 auTOi) Tidaa (fdpa*(s TrtyncodrjCrzTS, y.a.1 xau opo$ xal 
 /9owvoc Ta7t$tuw6 /j(TTat, xai larat ra axoAta eiz eudslaz, 
 %at a! T l oa%z tat eiz boob^ teias, xat Offierat TtiLaa craps 
 TO GcoTTjpcov Tou 6zou: Isa. xl. 3 5. The voice of 
 one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of 
 the Lord, make His paths straight. Every valley shall 
 be filled up, and every mountain and hill shall be made 
 35* 
 
414 OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW. 
 
 low; and things crooked shall be [made] into straight 
 [paths,] and rough ways into those of smoothness; and 
 all flesh shall see the salvation of God. III. 5. 
 
 The citation so nearly agrees with the Septuagint, that the 
 Evangelist may justly be held to have followed it. The first 
 part of the passage occurred also in Matthew and Mark; and 
 here too, as with them, the departure from the Septuagint 
 and the Hebrew merely consists in substituting WJTOU for TOO 
 6eoi> TJfjtwv. This Evangelist alone gives the latter and longer 
 part of the passage; and the language, throughout, with only 
 very slight and superficial differences, is that of the Septua 
 gint. The Septuagint has xduTa before ra axoAca; it has 
 rpayMo. instead of Tpa%tcu, and Tiedia instead of boobt; hla^ , 
 no difference in meaning, grammatical diversities chiefly. 
 The last clause, which, according to the Hebrew, is, "And 
 all flesh shall see it together," is in the Septuagint and Evan 
 gelist, "And all flesh shall see the salvation of God." The 
 object to be seen the salvation of God appears to have 
 been introduced for the sake of explanation. The manifesta 
 tion of God spoken of was plainly that of God as the Saviour 
 of His people ; and the Septuagint translator merely expressed 
 what was implied in the preceding context. 
 
 Oh. iv. 4. See at Matt. iv. 4. 
 
 Ch. iv. 8. See at Matt. iv. 8. 
 
 Ch. iv. 10, 11. Sec at Matt, iv. 6. 
 
 Ch. iv. 12. See at Matt. iv. 7. 
 
 Ch. iv. 17-19. Opening the book, He found the place where 
 it was written, Iluey/m Kopioo ITT l/jis- oh ewsxev e//?:- 
 
 TOL>Z 0uuTTpi/jL/j.vouz TT^v xapdlav of somewhat doubt 
 ful authority,] xypvou aiyjjLaXcoTOtz dyzacv, xai 
 
 Kopioo oexrbu: Isa. Ixi. 1, 2. The Spirit of 
 the Lord is upon Me ; because that He anointed Me 
 to preach good tidings to the poor, sent Me to heal 
 the broken-hearted, to proclaim deliverance to the 
 captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set 
 at liberty them that are bruised, to proclaim the ac 
 ceptable year of the Lord. IV. 8. 
 
ST. LUKE S GOSPEL. 415 
 
 Supposing the clause within brackets to be a part of the 
 text, the Evangelist has followed the Septuagint precisely as 
 far as dvct^s^w; but after that he inserts the clause, axoa- 
 TzV.at Ts.0. V a(fi(7c, not found in the Septuagint, and in the 
 last clause, which is in the Septuagint, substitutes xypusae for 
 xaUccu. It is obvious, that the Septuagint has been mainly 
 followed, even though its rendering is not very literal. Thus, 
 instead of poor, as the persons preached to, the Hebrew ex 
 presses rather humble or meek D "!?>? ; and for healing the broken 
 hearted, it has bind up. But in such a connexion binding up 
 and healing convey much the same meaning, and the poor must 
 plainly be understood, partly at least, in a moral sense. The 
 clause, "recovering of sight to the blind," corresponds to what 
 in the authorized version of that part of Isaiah, runs u the 
 opening of the prison to them that are bound." But the 
 original, nip-npa Dn>D^ literally is, "and to the bound open- 
 opening," or complete release from the evil under which they 
 laboured. The evil itself is not distinctly expressed; and it 
 is only by a sort of conjecture that prison has been inserted. 
 The verb is almost always used of opening blind eyes (for ex 
 ample, in Isa. xlii. 7, 1. 10,) which accounts for the rendering 
 of the Septuagint. The translator merely sought to bring out 
 the meaning more definitely; and even now after all the 
 helps of modern learning have been called into requisition 
 this substantially is the sense that approves itself to some as 
 the best. Dr. Alexander holds, that "the only natural sense 
 which can be put upon the words, is that of spiritual blindness 
 and illumination." The clause, dTtoffzsdae rzd. $.v aysazc, 
 appears to have been imported from another part of Isaiah, 
 ch. Iviii. 6. But how it should have come to be introduced 
 here, is incapable of any proper explanation. 
 
 Ch. vii. 27. See at Matt. xi. 10. 
 
 Ch. x. 27. See at Matt. xxii. 37, and Mark xii. 29. 
 
 Ch. xix. 46, xx. 17, xx. 42, 43. See at Matt. xxi. 13, xxi. 
 42, xxii. 43, 44. 
 
 Ch. xxii. 37. For I say unto you, that this that is written 
 must yet be accomplished in Me, on */al /JLSTO. dvo/zaiv 
 lloflffO-q: Isa. liii. 12. And He was numbered with 
 the transgressors. I. 17. 
 
416 OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEAT. 
 
 An exact rendering of the Hebrew, and but slightly dif 
 fering from the Septuagint, which has Jv rot- dvo/jioiz. 
 
 Ch. xxiii. 46. El$ y^tpaz, <TOL> naparlde/jtai TO xvsu/jid /J.OL> : 
 Ps. xxxi. 6. Into Thy hands I commit My spirit. I. 
 18. 
 
 The words exactly accord with the original, and only so 
 far differ from the Septuagint, that the latter has TtapadrjaofjLat, 
 the future, instead of the present. The received text has also 
 the future; but there can be no doubt that the other is the 
 correct form, which is that exhibited in the older MSS. 
 
 ST. JOHN S GOSPEL. 
 
 Ch. i. 23. See at Matt. iii. 3. There is here the substitu 
 tion of bd jio.T for kroefjuLffOLTe. 
 
 Ch. ii. 17. His disjiples remembered, that it was written, 
 c # C/jAoz Toy oi xo j GOO Kara<pdfsrai /j>z: Ps. Ixix. 9. 
 The zeal of thine house consumes me. I. 19. 
 It only differs from the Septuagint by using the present in 
 stead of the past tense of the verb. The Septuagint has xa- 
 T<faf. The original is closely adhered to. 
 
 Ch. vi. 31. According as it is written, v ///>rov ex rou obpa- 
 vo r j eowxsv aroTc yafziv. Ps. Ixxviii. 24. He gave 
 them bread out of heaven to eat. II. 10. 
 The more precise rendering of the Hebrew is, " Corn of 
 heaven "(DVDtP-]ri) He gave them." The Septuagint corre 
 sponds with the Evangelist, excepting that it was simply ovpa- 
 uo r j, without the preposition and the article. 
 
 Ch. vi. 45. It is written in the prophets, Kal effovrat xdvrzz 
 dcoaxToi Ozo r j: Isa. liv. 13. And they shall be all 
 taught of God. II. 11. 
 
 The form of citation is very general: "in the prophets," as 
 if our Lord had various passages in view, the substance of 
 which alone He meant to give. The words, however, so nearly 
 coincide with the passage in Isaiah referred to, that this is 
 justly regarded as the original. The sense only is given ; the 
 more exact rendering is, "All thy children shall be taught of 
 the Lord;" with which also the Septuagint agrees. 
 
ST. JOHN S GOSPEL. 417 
 
 Ch. x. 34 Is it not written in your law, on iyco ecTtov, 6sol 
 
 iars\ Ps. Ixxxii. 6. I said, Ye are gods. I. 20. 
 In accordance both with the Hebrew and the Septuagint. 
 Ch. xii. 14, 15. According as it is written, My (popou, &i>?a- 
 rqp Zttoy cdob 6 (3a<T(h j<; wj ep%srae xadypevoc l~i 
 irattov ovou : Zech. ix. 9. Fear not, daughter of Zion ; 
 behold thy King corneth to thee upon an ass s colt. 
 IV. 9. 
 
 Corap. at Matt. xxi. 5. The passage is here given in a 
 somewhat abbreviated form, and so as merely to convey the 
 general sense. It hence does not literally accord with the 
 Hebrew, yet differs but slightly from it, as far as the quota 
 tion goes: there is "fear not" instead of "rejoice," and "sit 
 ting" instead of "riding" differences of no moment. 
 
 Ch. xii. 38. That the saying of the prophet Esaias might 
 
 be fulfilled, which he spake, Kupte, r/c iitiareoaev rfj 
 
 dxofj fjfJLcijv ; xal 6 fipayjtov Kopioo rive dnexoAuyOy ; Isa. 
 
 liii. 1. Lord, who hath believed our report? and to 
 
 whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? I. 21. 
 
 The Septuagint is here followed in the closest manner; but 
 
 the Hebrew, at the same time, is literally rendered. Only the 
 
 passage begins with a K&pee, which is in the Septuagint, but 
 
 has nothing corresponding in the Hebrew. 
 
 Ch. xii. 43. See at Matt. xiii. 15. 
 
 Ch. xiii. 18. In order that the Scripture might be fulfilled, 
 Tpdrfaw fjier iijLOi> rbu aprov, iTTflpsv in ip.s xty 
 xrepvav aitrou: Ps. xii.. 9. He that eateth bread with 
 Me, lifted up his heel against Me. II. 12. 
 The words are fully nearer to the Hebrew than the Septua 
 gint, and differ from it so little, that the sense is no way in 
 terfered with. The precise import of the Hebrew is, " He that 
 ate My bread, magnified against Me the heel." To magnify 
 the heel is a peculiar expression, and undoubtedly means the 
 same as the simpler phrase, "Lift up the heel;" namely, for 
 the purpose of kicking, or overthrowing his benefactor. 
 
 Ch. xv. 25. In order that the word might be fulfilled, which 
 is written in their law, ore Ipiarjadv //* owpscfo: Psal. 
 cix. 3. They hated me without a cause. II. 13. 
 
418 OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW. 
 
 The original is wn ^DpV, they fought against Me gratui 
 tously, or without a cause; \vhich the Septuagint also ex 
 presses by l-ottmcrav. The fighting, of course, implied the 
 hatred, and was but the expression of it; so that the sense is 
 substantially the same. And possibly this mode of rendering 
 was adopted to indicate more distinctly the moral nature of 
 the conflict, arid divert the minds of the disciples from exter 
 nal weapons of violence. 
 
 Ch. xix. 24. In order that the Scripture might be fulfilled, 
 JesfjieplffavTO TV. Ipdred fj.o>j la^rc^c? xal I/T? rbv lp.aTc- 
 ff/wu fj.00 lfio.\ov jdypov: Psal. xxii. 18. They parted 
 My garments among themselves, and upon My vesture 
 they cast lot. I. 22. 
 
 The words are taken verbatim from the Septuagint, which 
 here exactly render the Hebrew. 
 
 Ch. xix. 36. In order that the Scripture might be fulfilled, 
 Offrow o j ffuyTpiffiffSTat auTou: Ex. xii. 46. A bone 
 of Him shall not be broken. I. 23. 
 
 The words again correspond with the Septuagint, and give 
 a literal rendering of the Hebrew, with the trifling exception 
 of a change of person and voice in the verb, to agree better 
 with the application made of the prescription: instead of " Ye 
 shall not break a bone," "A bone shall not be broken." 
 Ch. xix. 37. Another Scripture saith/^ovra. ere oi> Izs- 
 xevrrjaav: Zech. xii. 10. They shall look unto Him 
 whom they pierced. I. 24. 
 
 An exact rendering of the .original, with simply a change 
 of person, to adapt to the occasion, as a word spoken of the 
 Messiah, not by Him, as in the prophet: hence, look unto 
 Him, not, unto Me. The Septuagint expresses it quite dif 
 ferently, iTicfiAs&ovTai Tipbz /jLSj a^d wv xar& 
 
 ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. 
 
 Ch. i. 20. For it is written in the book of Psalms, Feviq- 
 Or/rto /J Ixavhz octroi) Sf>yf20<;, xac fj.r) Iffrco o zarotxcov iv 
 ai)T7j\ Ps. Ixix. 25. Let his habitation be desolate, 
 and let there be none dwelling in it. II. 14. 
 
ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. 419 
 
 The sense is entirely that of the original ; only what is there 
 in the plural is here applied to an individual, and in the last 
 clause, "in their tents" is omitted, and a reference made by 
 the pronoun to the habitation in the preceding clause. The 
 Septuagint does not differ materially. 
 
 Ch. i. 20. And rr t v i-iaxo-ty wjro r j hdftero ers/joc: Ps. cix. 
 
 8. Let another take his office. I. 25. 
 An exact version of the original, and a transcript of the 
 Septuagint, except in having Idfa-co for )A$ot. 
 
 Ch. ii. 16 21. But this is that which was spoken by the 
 prophet [Joel,] Kal IOTCLL lv rat- sa^dracc; fjfj.spa.iz-, 
 etc. The whole of this long passage is, with a few ex 
 ceptions, a transcript of the Septuagint, and, as the 
 Septuagint is here very faithful to the Hebrew, it is 
 at the same time a close version. The lv ral~ l(j%. 
 fyj.spa.ic; of the Evangelist is substituted for fj.sra TWJTO. 
 of the Septuagint, and p-OD^ of the Hebrew ; and there 
 is a change of order in the two clauses of the second 
 division of ver. 17; at the close of ver. 18 the Evange 
 list adds, xat 7ipo(prjT$.uGooaiV) apparently for the pur 
 pose of rendering more explicit the intended result of 
 the Spirit s effusion, resuming what had been in that 
 respect indicated before; and, lastly, in ver. 19, there 
 is for iv obpavqj of the Septuagint, iv TOJ obp. dvco ; also 
 for xal 7Tf r-^c J^C, there is xae cry/ista ITTC r^c rfz xdra). 
 The slight additions are all of an explanatory kind; 
 they seem to have been designed to render the mean 
 ing at certain places somewhat more pointed and ex 
 plicit. Though the passage approaches very nearly 
 to the first class, it should perhaps strictly be ranked 
 with the second. II. 15. 
 
 Ch. ii. 25 28. For David saith respecting Him, Ffpoopa)- 
 fjLTjV TOV Kupeov iva)~tov PLOD dca.~ai;T:6z, etc.: Ps. xvi. 
 8, sq. The passage throughout is taken verbatim 
 from the Septuagint. But the translation gives the 
 original very faithfully the only, and that a very 
 slight deviation, being in ver. 8, second member, where 
 the original expresses, "Because He is at my right 
 
420 OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW. 
 
 hand, I shall not he moved;" while the other has, 
 " Because He is at my right hand, in order that I 
 may not be moved." In rendering, however, so as to 
 give the meaning at once of the Hebrew and of the 
 Greek, the first clause should run, not as in the Eng 
 lish version, "I foresaw the Lord," but "I proposed," 
 or set, " the Lord;" and again, at ver. 27, instead of, 
 "Thou wilt not leave My soul in hell," the exact im 
 port is, "Thou wilt not leave (give up, abandon) My 
 soul to Hades," obx IfxaTcdety&c rrp <!>uyj}v 
 adev. I. 26. 
 
 Ch. ii. 84, 35. See at Matt. xxii. 44. 
 Ch. iii. 22, 23. Moses said, "On TzpoiprjrrjV UIJLIV 
 Kbptot; 6 6eb^ fyjuou ex TWV ddeAip&u U/JLOJU, 
 abToo dxouffeffds XO.TO. TidvTa oaa dv /(atyff 
 EGTO.I os, xdcra (poxy fas &v /*y dx6bar) TOO 
 Ixswou, lo).e6pevdyffeTat ex TOO Aaoo: Deut. xviii. 15, 
 18, 19. The Lord your God shall raise up to you of 
 your brethren a Prophet, like me; Him shall ye hear, 
 in all things whatsoever He may speak to you. And 
 it shall come to pass, that every soul which will not 
 hear that Prophet, shall be destroyed from among the 
 people. IV. 10. 
 
 This citation differs as remarkably from the Septuagint as 
 that of ver. 25 28 coincides with it; there is some resem 
 blance between them in the first part of the passage, but in 
 the latter part, not an expression is the same. Ver. 22 is an 
 exact rendering of the Hebrew, as far as "Him shall ye hear," 
 with which Deut. xviii. 15 terminates. But instead of pro 
 ceeding right onwards, or passing over to ver. 19, in what 
 follows the substance is given of the latter part of ver. 18, 
 together with ver. 19. "He shall speak unto them," it was 
 said, in ver. 18, "all that I shall command Him." This sub 
 stantially is added after the quotation from ver. 15, "Him shall 
 ye hear, in all things whatsoever He may speak to you" the 
 things, namely, that the Lord should command Him to speak. 
 And then the general import of ver. 19 is given. According 
 to the original it is, "And it shall come to pass, that whoso- 
 
ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. 421 
 
 ever will not hearken to My words, which He shall speak in 
 My name, I will require it of him." St. Peter makes it some 
 what more specific, putting "every soul," instead of "whoso 
 ever," and "he shall be destroyed from among the people," 
 instead of "I will require it of him." Not different in reality. 
 Ch. iii. 25. Saying to Abraham, Kal Hv TOJ (TTrsp/jtaTi ffo j 
 iveuXoffjOirjaovTCU xaaac o.l HOLT peat r^c rfc Gen. xxii. 
 18. And in thy seed shall all the families of the earth 
 be blessed. II. 16. 
 
 It follows the Septuagint, with the exception of ;rar/>rttt, which 
 it substitutes for Idvy. The Hebrew has V^, and consequently 
 agrees with the Septuagint. In the original call, however, as 
 given at Gen. xii. 3, the term for families is used, although 
 the Septuagint there uses <puXal. 
 Ch. iv. 11. See at Matt. xxi. 42. 
 
 Ch. iv. 25, 26. Who didst speak through the mouth of thy 
 servant David, f/ /va rl l<ppuaav Hdyrj, xae Aaoc lfs%- 
 xsi,d , nap&ffT qffav o! flacrch cz ~"fi rfz, xal o! dp- 
 c ffui/y%dyffav ITZC TO auro xara TO~J Kuplou xal xara 
 TO~J Xptaroit a JTOv: Psal. ii. 1, 2. Why did heathen 
 rage, and peoples imagine vain things? The kings of 
 the earth stood forth, (or up,) and the rulers were ga 
 thered together, against the Lord and against His 
 Christ. I. 27. 
 
 A literal transcript of the Septuagint, and also a fair ver 
 sion of the Hebrew. 
 
 Ch. vii. 3, 6, 7, 26, 27, 28, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 40, 42, 43, 49, 
 50: In all these verses the words of Old Testament 
 Scripture are referred to, and cited in the course of 
 Stephen s speech. With only one or two slight verbal 
 exceptions, the Septuagint is followed, in which the 
 plain sense of the Hebrew for the most part is given. 
 But as the passages are recited in a merely historical 
 way, and no specific application made of them, further 
 than what is implied in their having a place in such a 
 speech, it is unnecessary to exhibit them here in detail. 
 No principle of interpretation is involved in the use 
 made of them by Stephen. 
 36 
 
422 OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW. 
 
 Ch. viii. 32, 33. Here again there is a simple production of 
 an Old Testament passage, as found in the extant Greek 
 translation, and. perused by the eunuch in his carriage. 
 The version accords generally, though not exactly, with 
 the Hebrew. 
 
 Ch. xiii. 32, 33. And we declare unto you glad tidings, how 
 that the promise which was made unto the fathers, God 
 hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, having 
 raised up Jesus, as also in the second Psalm it is writ 
 ten, Y[6$ JJLOU el <TL>, Ifw ffypepov ^zfs^xd as: Ps. ii. 
 7. Thou art My Son, to day have I begotten Thee. 
 I. 28. 
 
 The words are precisely those of the Septuagint, which closely 
 render the Hebrew. As to the form of quotation, some MSS. 
 have Iv TOJ xpcorqj <>atyw, which is preferred by Lachmann 
 and Tischendorf. If this be the correct reading, the apparent 
 incorrectness is easily accounted for by the known practice of 
 the Jews, to regard the first psalm as a sort of general intro 
 duction to the whole collection. In that case, what is now 
 reckoned the second psalm would naturally be viewed as the 
 first. 
 
 Ch. xiii. 34. But that He raised Him from the dead, no longer 
 going to return to corruption, He spake after this man 
 ner, on dcoaco u/juv ra oata Ja jelo ra ~{ffrd: Isa. Iv. 3. 
 I will give you the sure mercies of David. I. 29. 
 The words again are those of the Septuagint, which corre 
 spond with the Hebrew; only otooto is introduced at the be 
 ginning, as necessary to give a complete sense. 
 Ch. xiii. 35. See at ch. ii. 27. 
 
 Ch. xiii. 40, 41. Beware, therefore, lest that come upon you, 
 which is spoken of in the prophets, v /(?rc, olxaT 
 rai, xal OwjrmvaTS xac d.(pa^ia0^rz on l<>*(ov i 
 lyuj iv r?c fjusfiatz u/jt(oi<>, sfrfoi/ o ou /J.TJ ~t0TUffaTe lav 
 TiZ ixdiypfiW. ufj.1v . Hab. i. 5. Behold, ye despisers, 
 and wonder and vanish; for I will work a work in your 
 days, a wjrk which ye will in no wise believe, if one 
 should declare it to you. III. 6. 
 The Septuagint is followed with such slight variations as 
 
ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. 423 
 
 are scarcely worth noticing. It omits the xal i-ej&eif a-cs of 
 the Septuagint, which form its second clause, and also dav/id- 
 0>a, which it has after dau/jidcraTe. It also inserts a second 
 l^fo\> l()fov o OL> frrj which is wanting in the Septuagint. 
 The Hebrew expresses substantially the same meaning, but 
 instead of " ye despisers," has "ye among the heathen," 
 which undoubtedly points to the moral condition of the per 
 sons addressed, their heathenish, ungodly state of mind, rather 
 than to their local position ; and it also has nothing precisely 
 corresponding to the dyadic 6 Y^TZ of the Greek. ^The idea con 
 veyed by this is implied rather than expressed in the original. 
 That the passage is quoted so generally as "from the pro 
 phets," is to be explained, partly, from the circumstance to 
 be noticed in the elucidation of Matt. xxi. 5, that the minor 
 prophets are scarcely ever individually mentioned; and partly 
 because there is probably a reference to the very similar pro 
 phecy of Isa. xxviii. 14, which may be regarded as the foun 
 dation of that in Habakkuk. 
 
 Ch. xiii. 47. For so hath the Lord commanded us, Tedeixd 
 tfc (fco^ IdvoJV) Toy eJuac ffs c^ 0a)TTjpio.v sco^ iayd- 
 ro j TY^ frfi: Isa. xlix. 6. I have appointed Thee for 
 a light of the Gentiles, that Thou shouldst be for sal 
 vation to the ends of the earth. I. 30. 
 The Septuagint is again followed, excepting that the He 
 brew is more closely rendered at the beginning, by the 
 xd <7, for which the Septuagint has dsocoxd as ec 
 fsvouZ The passage before us differs from the Hebrew only 
 in the latter expressing My salvation, instead of simply, sal 
 vation. 
 
 C.h. xv. 16, 17. As it is written, Merer. raOrcc dva<7Tpi(pto xac 
 dvoexodofjojffw rr t v axr^v dausid rrp TieTtTcoxu co.v xai rd 
 zo.Ts.amp.p.ei a avrrfi dvoexodofflffa), xai dvopdcbaco wjrrjV 
 onto^ dv i.x^7jT~fj(tco(Jti> of xardAotTrot TWU d&ftp&ftQtV TOV 
 oVj xal Travra ra edvy i<p* oEc SmxextyTat TO ovoud 
 ITC adro JCj ^sj"se Kupto^ Tioccou TCVJTO.: Amos ix. 
 11, 12. After these things I will return, and will 
 build up the tabernacle of David, which has fallen 
 down ; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I 
 
424 OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW. 
 
 will set it up; so that the residue of men may seek 
 the Lord, and all the Gentiles upon whom My name 
 is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. 
 III. 7. 
 
 The citation is made almost verbatim from the Septuagint; 
 but instead of fisra TOUTO. avaorps^w, the commencement, the 
 Septuagint has iv TTJ f][J-pa xz!vfl. The latter is what the 
 original expresses; and the explanation of the diversity here 
 in the address of James is, no doubt, to be found in the desire 
 to indicate byefly the period to which the prophecy referred, 
 as implied in the context: it was to be after the times of judg 
 ment and humiliation there threatened had run their course. 
 The Septuagint also, at least in most MSS., wants the rov 
 Kupiov in the second verse, though this seems requisite to 
 complete the meaning; and it has after the avopdtooco abr/jv, 
 what is omitted here, %add>z at fapat ro r j aiioioz, as in the 
 days of eternity, or of old. Down to this point, or through 
 out the first of the two verses quoted, the Septuagint renders 
 the original closely; but after that it deviates very consider 
 ably from the Hebrew, though it still expresses the general 
 sense. The meaning of the original, however, is so plain, 
 that it is difficult to understand how it should have been so 
 rendered. "So that they may possess (or inherit, the rem 
 nant of Edom, and of all the heathen" this is what in the 
 Septungint is turned into, "So that the residue of men may 
 seek [the Lord], and all the Gentiles." It has been supposed 
 they might have had a text, of which that was the literal 
 rendering; but this is doubtful, as all the MSS. give the 
 reading of the received text. The reasons for the deviation 
 can be only conjectural. But as it is clear, that Edom was 
 particularized by the prophet, only on "account of the enmity 
 which animated the heathen toward Israel having assumed 
 in them its keenest form, so that u Edom and all the 
 heathen" was as much as "all the heathen, not excepting 
 even Edom," consequently, the rendering of the Septuagint, 
 adopted by Luke, "the residue of men and all the heathen," 
 comes, though in a general way, to much the same thing; it 
 denotes all sorts of heathen, wherever a residue of the old 
 
ROMANS. 425 
 
 tribes might be found. And tbat instead of Israel possessing 
 them, they should be represented as themselves making in 
 quiry after God, the "great fact is still indicated, that there 
 was to be an entire change of relationship between the 
 covenant people and the heathen ; instead of hating and 
 fighting against them, the heathen were to make suit to them, 
 arid press forward to obtain a share in their peculiar privi 
 leges. But this, in substance, is all one with Israel possessing 
 them, in the sense meant by the prophet; he meant, that 
 Israel was to become, in what was really important, the head 
 of all the nations, and all were to come to them for blessing. 
 So that, while the import is very much generalized in the ren 
 dering adopted, the leading ideas of the prophet are still con 
 veyed. And they are quite apposite to the point at issue; 
 for they imply, that there were to be tribes of men seeking 
 after God, yea, over whom His name was called as peculiarly 
 His own, who yet were formally different from the family of 
 Israel. 
 
 Ch. xxviii. 26, 27. See at Matt. xjii. 14. 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 Ch. i. 17. As it is written, "0 as dixwoc Ix irto^fac ffitrsrae i 
 Hab. ii. 4. But (or, now) the just shall live of faith. 
 II. 17. 
 
 According to the original it is, And the just shall live by 
 his faith ; or, as it may be rendered, Arid the righteous through 
 his faith shall he live. The apostle, undoubtedly, gives the 
 virtual import; for, as the suffix in the original, iro^K, un 
 doubtedly refers to the righteous person, the apostle could, 
 without the least injury to the sense, leave out the his. The 
 saying is again quoted in Gal. iii. 11, and Heb. x. 38. The 
 Septuagint only differs from the apostle s citation by inserting 
 
 after xufrstbz. 
 
 Ch. ii. 24 and iii. 4 adopt the words of Isa. Iii. 5, and Ps. 
 li. 4, as given by the Septuagint, and correctly ex 
 pressing the original; but the words are simply appro 
 priated as suitable to the subject of the apostle s re- 
 36* 
 
426 OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW. 
 
 marks, and are not introduced as having any special 
 or prophetical reference to it. 
 
 Ch. iii. 10 18 is a series of quotations, in like manner, 
 from Ps. xiv. v. 9, cxl. 3, x. 7 ; Isa. lix. 7, 8; Ps. 
 xxxvi. 1, cited merely as proof texts on the subject 
 of human depravity and corruption, and without any 
 peculiar Christian application. They are all taken 
 from the Septuagint, with occasional slight alterations, 
 which indicate no material difference of meaning, and 
 call for no explanatory remark. 
 
 Ch. iv. 3. For what saith the Scripture, ExlffTevffsv as 
 ^Afipadp. rqj 0(jj, xal IXoyiffQy aurw ec^ dr/.aiOG>jvr t y. 
 Gen. xv. 6. And Abraham believed God, and it was 
 counted to him for righteousness. I. 31. 
 The rendering is that of the Septuagint, and it gives the 
 original with sufficient exactness. What in the one is " He 
 counted it," is merely put passively in the other, "it was 
 counted to him." 
 
 Ch. iv. 6, 7. According as also David saith, Ala /dpcot a>v 
 d(f>6ycriv a! dvo/j.!a.!, 7.o.\ coy inexaXuyd qffa.v al cLfmp- 
 riac uaxdpioz dvr^o w oi> pr) AofcG^Tat Kupto$ &pa.pTiav\ 
 Ps. xxxii. 1, 2. Blessed are they whose transgres 
 sions are forgiven, and whose sins are pardoned: 
 blessed is the man to whom the Lord does not impute 
 sin. I. 32. 
 
 The plural is here adopted in the first of the two verses, 
 " blessed they sins transgressions ; " while the original has 
 the singular. But the words are there evidently used in a 
 collective sense ; so that there is no real difference. The 
 apostle follows the Septuagint exactly. 
 
 Ch. iv. 17. As it is written, ore r.aripa. xoMcou Idvcov reOzt- 
 xd ffs: Gen. xvii. 5. A father of many nations have 
 I made thee. I. 33. 
 
 From the Septuagint, and a literal rendering of the He 
 brew. 
 
 Ch. iv. 18. As it is written, O JTCO^ 1 ara.i TO a^ip^o. aoo: 
 
 Gen. xv. 5. So shall thy seed be. I. 34. 
 The same as the preceding example. 
 
ROMANS. 427 
 
 Ch. viii. 36. As it is written, f/ On evsxev aou Oayarou/ieOa 
 o):r t v ryv falpav, iXofiffdrjfiev w- xpopara atfaf/fi: Ps. 
 xliv. 23. For Thy sake we are killed all the day long, 
 we are counted as sheep for slaughter. I. 35. 
 Again quite literal. 
 
 Ch. ix. 7, 9, 12, 13, 15, contain passages from Gen. xxi. 
 12, xviii. 10, xxv. 23; Mai. i. 2, 3; Ex. xxxiii. 19, 
 which are merely historically referred to, and are cited 
 almost uniformly in the words of the Septuagint. 
 Ch. ix. 17. For the Scripture saith to Pharaoh, Ore eez 
 aura Toi)ro lEifretpd <rs, OTTWC ^del^atftau Iv <roc rty ou- 
 vafj.iv /JIOL>, xal OTZCO^ deaffsXfl TO ovo/md /JLOU iv TiCicr} rfj 
 "j"7j : Ex. ix. 16. For this same thing did I raise thee 
 up, that I might show forth in thee My power, and 
 that My name might be declared throughout all the 
 earth. I. 36. 
 
 Here the Septuagint is not precisely followed in the first 
 part, and the rendering is more close to the Hebrew. The 
 Septuagint has euexsu TO JTOO deerypijSqc, ?va. 
 
 Ch. ix. 25. As He saith also in Osee, Kate&w rbv ou la.6y 
 fwj, Aaov fj.o j, %al rrp oux iff(arr}p.ivqV) f^aTir^eur^: 
 Hos. ii. 23. I will call the not-My-people, My peo 
 ple; and the not-beloved, beloved. IV. 11. 
 Here again the Septuagint is departed from, notwithstanding 
 that it gives a pretty literal version. The exact rendering 
 of the Hebrew is, "I will have pity on the not-pitied (lo-ruha- 
 mah,) and will say to the not-My-people (lo-ammi,) My peo 
 ple art thou." The Septuagint in the first, expresses, I will 
 love the not loved, d^a^aa) rrp oux fjToary/jtvqv ; otherwise, 
 it is quite exact. The apostle gives substantially the same 
 meaning, but he expresses the sense somewhat paraphrasti- 
 cally. 
 
 Ch. ix. 26. Kal e ffrai ev ~w TOTTOJ ob lf>f>0y aL~o^? Ol> )uo^ 
 [toy UIJLZIZ, zx xhjdyffourcu ulot OeoiJ ^WVTOZ: Hos. i. 
 10. And it shall come to pass, that in the place where 
 it was said to them, Ye are not My people, there shall 
 they be called sons of the living God. I. 37. 
 The Septuagint is here followed, excepting that instead of 
 
428 OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW. 
 
 Ixst xtyO.) it has xty. xal afoot. But the Hebrew is faithfully 
 rendered. 
 
 Ch. ix. 27, 28. But Esaias crieth for Israel, /?y o d.ptQpb$ 
 rcijy olcov IcroaYjA dc $ dfJLtJtoz TY^ daAaaar^, f o bnofafjifjia 
 
 ffOjOfosTOl AOfOV J(L() (T JVTZAwy XO.l ai)VT[JLVWV cV 0^- 
 
 xawff jyfi on Aoyov ff jvTeT/j.r / /jiyoy Kotijast Kupios Ixe 
 T 7jZ T^ : -"- sa " x< 22, 23. If the number of the children 
 of Israel be as the sand of the sea, the remnant shall 
 return; for He is finishing His word and cutting it 
 short in righteousness; because a word cut short will 
 the Lord accomplish in the earth. IV. 12. 
 The citation approaches pretty nearly to the Septuagint, 
 yet does not exactly accord with it; nor does it, in the latter 
 part, give more than the general sense of the Hebrew. The 
 first part is a close rendering: If the number of the children 
 of Israel be as the sand of the sea, (referring to the promise 
 to Abraham,) the remnant (viz. that mentioned in the verse 
 immediately preceding, u the remnant shall return unto the 
 mighty God," this, but only this, not the countless, sand- 
 like multitude) shall return. Then the reason follows; which 
 in the original runs, For the Lord God of hosts is making a 
 consumption, and (or, even) determined, in the midst of all 
 the earth. The sentence is obscure ; and a paraphrastic ren 
 dering is given of it by the apostle. It evidently points to a 
 work of judgment, which the Lord was going to execute ge 
 nerally in the earth, and from which the covenant-people were 
 by no means to escape: Even in respect to them, He was not 
 going always to forbear; and, while He saved a remnant, He 
 would, at the same time, accomplish a work of judgment upon 
 the many. This also is what is expressed by the apostle, and 
 more distinctly. The Lord was going, according to it, to bring 
 His word to an issue an abrupt and determinate issue that 
 would signally display His righteousness; implying, of course, 
 from the connexion, that Israel was to share in the severity 
 of its inflictions. So that this does not differ, in sense, from 
 the consumption determined, which the literal rendering yields. 
 Ch. ix. 29. And as Esaias said before, El /Jtrj Kuptoz aa- 
 
ROMANS. 429 
 
 Oy/jtsv, xal we Po/ioppa dv w^occodr^i^: Isa. i. 9. If 
 the Lord of hosts had not left us a seed, we should 
 have become like Sodom, and should have been made 
 like to Gomorrha. III. 8. 
 
 The Septuagint is here followed verbatim: it differs from 
 the Hebrew only in one word, in rendering a seed, a-zippo., 
 what in the original is remnant, "P&. It means, of course, 
 barely a seed a remnant so small, that it should merely 
 suffice for preserving a seed. So that the difference is only 
 in form. 
 
 Ch. ix. 33. As it is written, Idob rid rj tie iv 2ta>v tidov 
 
 Ttpbffxo/jtfjiaTOZ xal xirpav GxavodXoo, xal 6 TrtffTS Jcyv CTT 
 
 aurw o j jcaTCuaOuvO qffeTfu: Isa. xxviii. 16, combined 
 
 with ch. viii. 14. Behold I lay in Sion a stone of 
 
 stumbling and rock of offence, and he that believeth 
 
 on Him shall not be put to shame. IV. 13. 
 
 There are here brought together two related passages of the 
 
 prophet Isaiah ; the principal one referred to is ch. xxviii. 16, 
 
 but certain epithets, descriptive of the stone in respect to those 
 
 who refused to use it aright, are borrowed from an earlier pas 
 
 sage, in ch. viii. 14. There alone is the stone designated "a 
 
 stone of stumbling and rock of offence." The apostle, com 
 
 bining thus two passages together, uses some freedom, as might 
 
 be expected, in the manner of quotation. He does not adhere 
 
 closely either to the Septuagint or to the Hebrew. The He 
 
 brew, indeed, is so nearly followed, that it may be said to be 
 
 all but literally rendered. The only deviation worth noticing 
 
 is in the last expression: the Hebrew is trn; N S, not shall 
 
 make haste ; while the apostle, after the Septuagint, gives it, 
 
 "shall not be put to shame." Not different in meaning, how 
 
 ever; for the making haste of the prophet undoubtedly points 
 
 to that hasty flight which they should betake to who made, 
 
 not this foundation-stone, but lies, their refuge: these should 
 
 o 
 
 very soon be found in a state of trepidation and flight; while 
 the others, resting calmly on God s foundation, should stand 
 fast, as having no occasion for rash and precipitate measures. 
 The last clause is again cited at ch. x. 11. 
 
 Ch. x. 5. For Moses saith, OTL o xor/jaaz OJJTCF. dudpwnoz 
 
430 OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW. 
 
 yffZT0.( Iv afco cz : Lev. xviii. 5. The man that doeth 
 these things shall live therein. I. 38. 
 The precise words of the Septuagint, but also correspond 
 ing with the Hebrew. 
 
 Ch. x. 6 8. But the righteousness of faith speaketh on 
 this wise, My efar^ &v ?fi xapoia GOD, r/c ava^ tfsrar sc^ 
 rov GU(>avbv ; robr IGTIV XpiG~bv xr^/ ?v 77, r/c 
 c TTJV CL^OGGOV ; TOUT IGTIV Xficarby Ix 
 . Efpjz GOO TO p7jp.d IGTIV, lv TW 
 c GOO xal eu TTJ xapdla GOD: Deut. xxx. 12, sg. 
 Do not say in thy heart, who shall ascend into heaven ? 
 That is,, to bring Christ down again. Or, who shall 
 descend into the abyss? That is, to bring Christ 
 again from the dead. (But what saith it?) The word 
 is nigh thee, in thy mouth and in thy heart. 
 This is not a quotation in the strict sense, but merely the 
 free use of certain words in Deuteronomy, which conveyed a 
 meaning adapted to the apostle s purpose, and is intermingled 
 with comments or explanatory remarks of his own. The 
 parts employed are given pretty nearly in the version of the 
 Septuagint. 
 
 Ch. x. 11. See at ch. ix. 33. 
 
 Ch. x. 15. As it is written, .(?c ojpaccx of TTOOSC ro>v euaf- 
 YkofJiiva)V dyaOd: Isa. lii. 7. How beautiful are the 
 feet of those that publish good things. I. 39. 
 The original is here exactly rendered, only the apostle 
 omits " upon the mountains," as not required for his purpose. 
 The Septuagint differs considerably, and mistakes the mean 
 ing of the first part, rendering w^ wjta Ixi TOW opscov. 
 
 Ch. x. 16. For Esaias saith, Kupts, r/c Ixlffrsuffev T /J axofj 
 fjfjLcov; Isa. liii. 1. Lord, who hath believed our re 
 port? I. 40. 
 
 A transcript of the Septuagint, and a close rendering of 
 the Hebrew. 
 
 Ch. x. 18. Eiz KU.GO.V TYJV ?7jV, x.T.L An exact citation of 
 the words in Ps. xix. 5, as found in the Septuagint, 
 and also correctly representing the Hebrew; but the 
 words are only appropriated, not formally quoted. 
 
ROMANS. 431 
 
 Ch. x. 19. First Moses saith, Efco 
 
 obx e#ve. , Ini ZOust da J^STuj napopfe<f> b/jtz: Deut. 
 
 xxxii. 21. I will move you to jealousy by [what is] 
 
 no-people; by a foolish people I will provoke you to 
 
 anger. I. 41. 
 
 A close translation, but taken from the Septuagint. 
 Ch. x. 20, 21. But Esaias is very bold, and saith, EbpiOyv 
 
 [sv] ro?c I/JLS /jq tyrouaev, IfupawjC tyevtifajv ro^ I jus 
 But to Israel he saith, * Otyv rr^ 
 
 xal dwtMfOVTa: Isa. Ixv. 1, 2. I was found of them 
 that sought Me not, I became manifest to them that 
 asked not after Me. All day long I stretched forth 
 My hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people. 
 * III. 9. 
 
 The Septuagint is followed in both verses, only the order 
 
 is somewhat varied; what forms the first clause here being 
 
 the second in the Septuagint, and the otyv rr { v fjfjLSfKW in the 
 
 second verse being thrown farther back. But the import of 
 
 the Hebrew is not exactly given. According to it the first 
 
 verse is, " 1 was sought of those that asked not, I was found 
 
 of those that sought Me not." And, in the closing part of 
 
 the second verse, there is but one epithet applied to the peo 
 
 ple not "disobedient and gainsaying," but simply "rebel 
 
 lious." There is no real difference of meaning; but the sense 
 
 is somewhat more paraphrastically expressed in the Greek. 
 
 Ch. xi. 3, 4. Two passages from Elijah s history are here 
 
 quoted, but merely in a historical respect, as indica 
 
 tive of the state of things existing at the time. In 
 
 both the Hebrew is pretty closely adhered to, more so 
 
 than in the Septuagint. 
 
 Ch. xi. 8. As it is written, *Edutxeu a jro^c 6 6sbz m<L>/jta 
 za~wjzzu)z d<pda%fjtoi)G roit p.rj /5/s/Trv, zal wra TLUJJ.T} 
 dxo jsw. Isa. xxix. 10, combined with Deut. xxix. 4. 
 God gave to them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they 
 should not see, and ears that they should not hear. 
 IV. 14. 
 The apostle seems here to have combined two passages, as 
 
432 OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW. 
 
 at ch. ix. 33. The spirit of slumber is spoken of in Isa. xxix. 
 10, as judicially inflicted on the people; and an explanation 
 is given of what is meant by this in words derived from Deut. 
 xxix. 4. What might be expected in such a case, was that 
 the general sense should be expressed, rather than a very 
 exact translation; and so in reality it is. 
 
 Ch. xi. 9, 10. David saith, FevzdiJT(o /} r/>a/Ta WJTCOV set; 
 , xal i$ d /jpav, xo.c et axdvoaAov, xal eiz di^Tano- 
 brdt^ crxoTCGO /jTwcray ol 6<pdaXfJLol aurcov TOU prj 
 
 |9A&re*v, xal TOU VMTOU aijTajv did Travroc aufxafJL(jfOV. Ps. 
 
 Ixix. 22, 23. Let their table become a snare, and a 
 
 net, and a stumbling-block, and a recompense to them ; 
 
 let their eyes be darkened that they may not see, and 
 
 bow down their back alway. III. 10. 
 The Septuagint is here followed by some very slight varia 
 tions; chiefly the leaving out of lv(b~tov abra)y before erV 
 xa fioa, and inserting e/c 0^/wxv, which does not exist in the 
 Septuagint. Substantially, however, the apostle follows the 
 Septuagint, though this departs considerably from the Hebrew. 
 The precise meaning of the latter is. "Let their table before 
 them become a snare, and for peace (lit. peaces, salams, salu 
 tations of peace) for a gin (i.e. what seemed to be for peace, 
 let it become for a gin.) Let their eyes become dark, so that 
 they shall not see, and their bones continually shake." The 
 rendering of the Septuagint, adopted by the apostle, however 
 it may have been brought about, gives the general sense, 
 though somewhat paraphrastically : the snare of the one, and 
 its substitution of a gin for indications of peace, is amplified 
 into "a snare, and a net, and a stumbling-block, and a re 
 compense," that is, into things entirely the reverse, but such 
 as they had deserved by their own treachery. The other 
 verse varies less from the original; it merely substitutes, "bow 
 down their back alway," for "let their bones continually 
 shake:" only a different mode of expressing a state of op 
 pressive and enfeebling bondage. 
 
 Ch. xi. 26, 27. As it is written, Hszt Ix 2uov 6 frjbfjLzvoz, 
 
 dxoffr (.>(/ si dasfletac dnb laxtbfl- xal o?jrr) wjrolz yxap 
 
 l/wu diaOujxij) orav d<piXwfJt.at rd^ d/JtapTca^ auTatv : Isa. 
 
ROMANS. 433 
 
 lix. 20, 21. The Redeemer shall come out of Zion, 
 He shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob ; and this 
 is the covenant from Me to them, when I have taken 
 away their sins. IV. 15. 
 
 This citation diifers less from the Septuagint than from the 
 Hebrew, but it does not exactly accord with either. " The 
 Redeemer shall come to Zion," is the first clause in the origi 
 nal, or "for Zion," \ftfl ; the Septuagint has evexsv 2ttov\ 
 but the apostle says "out of Zion." And in the following 
 clause, what is in the original, " unto them that turn from 
 transgression in Jacob," becomes with the apostle, who here 
 follows the Septuagint, " He shall turn ungodliness from Ja 
 cob." Peculiar as these changes are, they proceed upon the 
 same principle as that which we have so often had occasion 
 to notice in previous examples; without in reality altering the 
 meaning, the apostle throws the passage into a form, which 
 virtually explains while it quotes; as our Lord, for instance, 
 slightly altered the words of Malachi, to render them of easier 
 understanding to those who lived when they were passing into 
 fulfilment, (See at Matt. xi. 10.) In like manner here, we 
 have such an alteration put upon the original passage, as might 
 render the only fulfilment it could henceforth receive more 
 easy of apprehension. Christ, it intimates, will again come 
 to Zion, as He has already done, and come to such as turn 
 from transgression in Jacob namely, for the purpose of bless 
 ing them and doing them good. But having already come 
 and finished transgression, Christ has put an end to the old 
 state and constitution of things, so that the Zion that then 
 was is now abolished: Zion, in the proper sense, is above, the 
 residence of the Divine King; and when He comes to visit 
 His people for the full execution of His covenant, He must 
 come out of Zion, even while, in a sense, He may be said to 
 come to it. And, as regards the Jewish people, now rooted 
 in apostacy, He must also, in connexion with that coming, 
 turn them from ungodliness; for only thus could the ends of 
 the covenant in their behalf be accomplished, and the Lord s 
 coming be attended by the benefits pointed at by the pro 
 phets. It is, therefore, the same prophecy still only, by the 
 37 
 
434 OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW. 
 
 verbal alterations he puts on it, the apostle adapts it to the 
 time when he wrote, and renders it more distinctly indicative 
 of the manner in which it was to find what still remained of 
 its accomplishment. 
 
 The last clause, " when I have taken away their sins," is 
 a brief and compendious expression for the state of blessing 
 and acceptance, in which the people are contemplated by the 
 prophet, and which with him is more especially connected with 
 the indwelling agency of the Spirit. The Lord s coming 
 finally to redeem and bless, will take place, only when the 
 barrier raised by their guilt and alienation shall have been 
 removed, and their personal state shall correspond with their 
 privileges and prospects. 
 
 Ch. xii. 19. For it is written, Ep.ol xdtxycric, ifto avTava- 
 
 TcodcoGu), AsfS! K jfxoz: Deut. xxxii. 35. Vengeance 
 
 is Mine, I will repay, saith the Lord. II. 18. 
 The passage is not far from a literal rendering of the He 
 brew, which is, " Vengeance is Mine, and recompense." The 
 tefst Kupioz is introduced for the purpose of indicating more 
 expressly, that it is the Lord Himself who there speaks. 
 Ch. xii. 20. Contains a reiteration, and in the words of the 
 
 Septuagint, of the exhortations originally given in Prov. 
 
 xxv. 21, 22. But they are not formally cited. 
 Ch. xiii. 9. Contains citations of the commandments of the 
 
 second table of the law, where there was no room for 
 
 variation. 
 Ch. xiv. 11. For it is written, Za> fto, ll^i Kuptoz, ort 
 
 ipol xdftfiee TZU.V fbvu, xat IzofwAofyjasTai rracra ^Coaoo. 
 
 TUJ 0sa>: Isa. xlv. 23. As I live, saith the Lord, to 
 
 Me shall every knee bow, and every tongue confess to 
 
 God. II. 19. 
 
 The original passage is abbreviated; but it is so near to 
 the Hebrew, that the deviations make no difference in the 
 sense. Instead of "I live, saith the Lord," the prophet has, 
 "I have sworn by Myself, the word is gone out of My mouth 
 in righteousness, and shall not return" a fuller declaration, 
 but not different in sense. * Every tongue shall confess" is 
 also substantially the same with " every tongue shall swear," 
 
ROMANS. 435 
 
 which is the expression in the prophet. For in the Old Testa 
 ment usage swearing to, or in the name of the Lord, is simply 
 to own and confess Him as the one living God. 
 
 Ch. xv. 3. As it is written, 01 dvsidtfffjioi T&V 6vs.tdt^6vTcov 
 <TS t/Te/TStfov IT? 1/j.s: Ps. Ixix. 9. The reproaches of 
 them that reproached thee fell upon Me. I. 42. 
 From the Septuagint, but exactly rendering the Hebrew. 
 Ch. xv. 9- As it is written, Jed TOUTO IsoftoAoyTJao/ucu aoi Iv 
 #v0w, xat rw depart ffoi> (f aAat: Ps. xviii. 49. For 
 this cause will I confess (or, give thanks) to Thee among 
 the Gentiles, and sing praise to Thy name, I. 43. 
 Again from the Septuagint, and a literal translation of the 
 Hebrew. 
 
 Ch. xv. 10. Again he saith, EwppdvdyrG) edvy, fj.srd TOU Aaou 
 al>Toi>: Deut. xxxii. 43. Exult, ye Gentiles, with His 
 people. 1.44. 
 
 Here the Septuagint is quite different; it has su(p. oupavot 
 dim al>Tw. The apostle follows the Hebrew, only inserting 
 the preposition between Gentiles and people, for the sake of 
 distinctness. "Exult ye Gentiles, His people," is the precise 
 rendering of the original; addressing the Gentiles as now 
 among God s people, having one place and character with 
 them. 
 
 Ch. xv. 11. And again he saith, Aws ire xdvra rd Idvy rov 
 Kupiov, xac ixawzGdrwaav aurbv Trai/rec ol Aaol: Psal. 
 cxvii. 1. Praise the Lord all ye nations, and laud 
 Him all ye peoples. I. 45. 
 
 From the Septuagint, which literally renders the Hebrew. 
 Ch. xv. 12. And again Esaias saith, " Eorat q pi^a roO Y<T- 
 aol, xal b dw<7Td/j.zvoz dp^zw s^vwv, ITT abrw HOvf] i)- 
 KIO~JGW\ Isa. xi. 10. There shall be a root of Jesse, 
 and He that ariseth to govern the Gentiles, in Him 
 shall the Gentiles trust. III. 11. 
 
 Follows the Septuagint. The Hebrew is, "In that day 
 there shall be a root of Jesse, that shall stand as a banner of 
 the Gentiles; to it (or him) shall the Gentiles seek." The 
 Greek is a free translation, but gives the sense in a simpler 
 form. To be a banner to the Gentiles, is, in plain language, 
 to take the leadership or government of them; and to seek to 
 
436 OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW. 
 
 Him, in such a connexion, must be all one with repairing to 
 Him in confidence and hope. 
 
 Ch. xv. 21. As it is written, 01$ obx dwpfl ty rczpt ay-rov, 
 
 Q(povT(u, xat ol oux dzr^xbaaw, awrjaouaw. Isa. lii. 10. 
 
 To whom He was not announced, they shall see, and 
 
 they that had not heard, shall understand. III. 12. 
 
 Again following the Septuagint, which differs from the 
 
 original only in some points that merely affect the form. It 
 
 has "what was not announced or told them," and, at the close, 
 
 "they shall consider," implying, doubtless, that they should 
 
 so do it, as to understand. 
 
 I. CORINTHIANS. 
 
 Ch. i. 19. For it is written, *A~oho rr^ ao<piav TCOU ffcxpcov, 
 xat Trp a jvsfftv raw (TUVSTCOV ddzr^aco: Isa. xxix. 14. 
 I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the under 
 standing of the prudent I will set aside. II. 20. 
 The citation agrees with the Septuagint, except in the last 
 word, which is xpv<pw in the Septuagint, I will hide. The 
 translation, however, though not the most literal that could 
 be made, undoubtedly gives the plain meaning of the original. 
 The chief difference is, that the thing is spoken of in the 
 original merely as done, while here God is directly represented 
 as doing it; this was certainly what the prophet also meant. 
 To make men s understanding to become hidden, and to set 
 it aside, are obviously but different modes of expressing the 
 same thing. 
 
 Ch. i. 31. An abbreviated form of the sentiment contained 
 
 in Jer. ix. 24, and not strictly a quotation. 
 Ch. ii. 9. As it is written, c // oipdaX^b^ o jx e?osv, xat ou$ 
 oux yjxo jffsv, xat Ixe xapolav dvdfH&nou obx duefy, oaa 
 /jTOtfjiaaev 6 6eb^ TO C^ ayajcwoiv aurov: Isa. Ixiv. 4. 
 Things which eye saw not, and ear heard not, and upon 
 the heart of man came not up, the things which God 
 has prepared for them that love Him. IV. 16. 
 This citation agrees neither with the Hebrew nor with the 
 Greek of any particular passage of the Old Testament. It 
 comes nearest, however, to Isa. Ixiv. 4, where the exact ren 
 dering of the original is, "And from the beginning of the 
 
I. CORINTHIANS. 437 
 
 world they heard not, they perceived not by the ear, the eye 
 saw not, God, beside Thee (or, a God beside Thee,) who 
 will do for him that trusteth on Him." It is an obscure pas 
 sage, and is rather paraphrased than translated by the apostle- 
 The "neither hearing nor perceiving by the ear," is a kind 
 of reiteration for the purpose of strongly asserting, that the 
 matters referred to lay entirely remote from any cognizance 
 of men s faculties; but the apostle, instead of giving this du 
 plicate reference to ear knowledge, carries it into the region 
 of the heart, and uses words substantially taken from the 
 cognate passage of ch. Ixv. 17, "it came not up upon the 
 heart." The Septuagint has in the latter place, ob /JLTJ IxeWT] 
 ab-rwv Ini rrp xapdiav, so similar to the phrase here employed 
 by the apostle, that one can scarcely doubt he had it in view. 
 The citation, therefore, proceeds on the principle of bringing 
 distinctly out, by a sort of paraphrastic interpretation, the 
 import of the passage, and, while doing so, availing himself 
 in part of language furnished by another passage in Isaiah s 
 writings. 
 
 Ch. iii. 19. For it is written, ^0 dpaffff6fiew> rob? ffoipobc 
 iu T7J Tiavoupfla GL>JTWV: Job v. 13. He taketh the 
 wise in their own craftiness. I. 46. 
 
 The original is closely rendered, but not in the words of 
 the Septuagint. 
 
 Ch. iii. 20. And again, K6 t otoz ytvcbaxsi rolc dealofeff/JLob^ 
 TOJV ffo<f(jjy, ore etffiv /mrafoc: Ps. xciv. 11. The Lord 
 knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain. 
 II. 22. 
 
 It differs from the Septuagint, and also from the Hebrew, 
 only by putting "the wise," instead of "man." But as man 
 is used emphatically by the Psalmist, as much as the most 
 skilful, the most aspiring of men, it comes to the same thing 
 as the apostle s wise. 
 
 Ch. ix. 9. For in the law of Moses it is written, Ob (ftjutcb- 
 tfs. C pouv aAocovTa: Deut. xxv. 4. Thou shalt not 
 muzzle the ox that treadeth. I. 47. 
 
 A literal translation, and in the words of the Septuagint. 
 Ch. x. 7. As it is written, ExdOursv b Xab^<pa t ^ zai 
 
 37* 
 
438 OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW. 
 
 xal dvlffryvau Tiol^ziv. Ex. xxxii. 6. The people sat 
 down to eat and drink, and rose up to play. I. 48. 
 Another literal translation, and in the words of the Sep 
 tuagint. 
 
 Ch. xiv. 21. In the law it is written, "On li> hepo^cocrffo^ 
 xal iv ystksatv fa&p&v JtaAfow rw haw TO JTOJ, xal obS 1 
 o jTcoz etGaxo jaovrai fj.00) XsfZi Kuptot;: Isa. xxviii. 11, 
 12. For in other tongues, and in lips of other per 
 sons (strangers,) will I speak to this people; and not 
 thus [even] will they listen to Me, saith the Lord. II. 
 22. 
 
 Here the Septuagint is quite forsaken, being palpably in 
 correct. The meaning of the Hebrew is given, though not by 
 a close translation: what is there "stammering lips and ano 
 ther tongue," is here put in an explicated form by "other 
 tongues and lips of strangers;" i.e. unaccustomed modes of 
 speech and address. The same thing seems to be meant by 
 both forms of expression. 
 
 Ch. xv. 25, 27, 32, 45. The language is adopted of the fol 
 lowing passages: Ps. ex. 1, viii. 7; Isa. xxii. 13; Gen. 
 ii. 7. 
 
 Ch. xv. 54. Then shall be fulfilled the word that is written, 
 KaT~6d7} b OdvaTO^ ^c v?xo<;: Isa. xxv. 8. Death is 
 swallowed up into victory. I. 49. 
 
 A literal translation ; for n> J~> means to perfection, or to 
 glory, as well as to perpetuity; but quite different from the 
 {Septuagint, which has xareTtczv b OdvaTo;; layjjaa^. 
 
 II. CORINTHIANS. 
 
 Ch. vi. 2. For He saith, Kotow ozxrw Inyxooad aou, xal iv 
 ijp&pq. ocorypiaz i^d^ffd aoi : Isa. xlix. 8. In an ac 
 ceptable time I heard thee, and in a day of salvation I 
 succoured thee. I. 50. 
 
 A close translation, taken verbatim from the Septuagint. 
 
 Ch. vi. 16. A3 God said, ore ivor/yau) v avro^c xal ifmspt- 
 noLtinffW) xal iffOfjuu a jTcou 0s.bz, xal abrol siaouTat. /JLOO 
 /aoc: Lev. xxvi. 11, 12. I will dwell among them, 
 
II. CORINTHIANS. 439 
 
 and I will walk among them, and I will be their God, 
 and they shall be My people. II. 23. 
 The meaning entirely accords with the Hebrew; only, in 
 stead of "I will set My tabernacle," it has "I will dwell;" 
 and it uses throughout the oblique instead of the direct form 
 of address, as in the original and the Septuagint. 
 
 Ch. vi. 17, 18. dib IseAdsTs Ix /ISCFOV aurajv xal dtpopitrOyTS 
 (saith the Lord,) xal dxaOdorov fiy aTiTeffde xdycb etcr- 
 oszo/jiat utJiu.Z) xal laotmt utftv el^ Tcarepa, xal ufjistz 
 i&zffOe /Jtof etz utobz xal do^arspa^ saith the Lord Al 
 mighty: Isa. lii. 11, 12; Jer. xxxi. 9, 33. Wherefore 
 come out from among them, and be ye separate saith 
 the Lord and touch not the unclean thing; and I will 
 receive you, and will be a Father unto you, and you 
 shall be to Me sons and daughters saith the Lord Al 
 mighty. IV. 17. 
 
 The first of these two verses is a free translation of Isa. lii. 
 11, and a portion of verse 12, which contains an address to the 
 Lord s people, as redeemed, to go forth from their state of 
 bondage and depression, and to separate themselves from all 
 the defilements amid which they were placed; with the assu 
 rance, that if they did so, the Lord Himself would go with 
 them and defend them. Undoubtedly, the substance of the 
 prophet s declaration is given by the apostle. The remaining 
 part of the passage seems to be a compressed exhibition of the 
 purport of several verses in particular, the two referred to 
 in Jeremiah. Jer. iii. 19 might also be included, and 2 Sam. 
 vii. 14 has sometimes been thought to be referred to. In all 
 these passages the same sentiment is undoubtedly expressed, 
 viz., the acknowledgment of a filial relationship on the part 
 of God toward those who should forsake their sins, and give 
 themselves to His service. But as to the formal character of 
 both these verses, it may be questioned whether they should 
 be regarded strictly as a quotation or, rather, as an utter 
 ance of the Lord s mind by the apostle himself; though couched 
 in the style of ancient prophecy, and with reference to certain 
 passages contained in it. So that we might say, substantially, 
 the Lord spake thus in former times ; formally, and explicitly , 
 He speaks thus now. . 
 
440 OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW. 
 
 Ch. viii. 15. As it is written, TO xoftj obx ZTTAzovavzv, xat 
 b TO oMyov obx fjAaTToyrjffsy : Exod. xvi. 18. He that 
 [got] the much had no surplus, and he that [got] the 
 little had no lack. I. 51. 
 
 A close translation, and very nearly the same as the Sep 
 tuagint. 
 
 Ch. ix. 9. As it is written, ^EaxopxiGsv, eocoxsv ro?c izewjatv, 
 /} oixacoff jyq abTob p.ivs.1 et^ TOV atcova: Ps. cxii. 9. He 
 dispersed, He gave to the poor, His righteousness en- 
 dureth for ever. I. 52. 
 
 The same precisely as in the last example. 
 
 GALATIANS. 
 
 Ch. iii. 8. The Scripture preached before the Gospel to Abra 
 ham : c/ OTC ivs.oXoyr]67jGovTac iv Gol TidvTa TO. HOvy : Gen. 
 xii. 3. In thee shall all nations be blessed. I. 53. 
 The original, in Gen. xii. 3, h&s families instead of nations; 
 the Septuagint <pulal; but this is all one with nations; and 
 the word for the latter is frequently used in the repetition of 
 the promise: Gen. xviii. 18, xxii. 18. 
 
 Ch. iii. 10. For it is written, ore ImxaTdparoz xaz oc obx 
 
 ubfJLOi), Tob TIO^GU.I ai)rd: Deut. xxvii. 20. Cursed is 
 every one that continueth not in all things that are 
 written in the book of the law, to do them. II. 24. 
 The citation differs only in a few unimportant particulars 
 from the Septuagint, and from the Hebrew only in being a 
 little more full and explicit. The latter has, "Whosoever 
 does not confirm," or ratify, " the words of this law to do them." 
 Evidently the kind of ratification meant is that of a steady ad 
 herence to them. 
 
 Ch. iii. 11, 12. See at Rom. i. 17, x. 5. 
 Ch. iii. 13. For it is written, EirexaTd/Mxroz TCUL^ b xpefjidftevoc 
 l~c y/ow: Deut. xxi. 23. Cursed is every one that 
 hangeth on a tree. II. 25. 
 
 The Hebrew has merely hanged in the verse actually quoted, 
 but the preceding verse uses the fuller expression, hanged on 
 
EPHESIANS. 441 
 
 a tree; so that there is no real difference between the citation 
 arid the original. The apostle, however, abbreviates the other 
 part of the verse; he says simply, "cursed," while the origi 
 nal has " cursed of God." 
 
 Ch. iii. 16. He says not to seeds, as of many, but as of one, 
 Kal TW an$.pnari ffou : Gen. xxii. 18. And to thy seed 
 (which is Christ.) 
 
 The passage was already cited at Acts iii. 25. But here it 
 is coupled with a peculiar interpretation, for which see No. 
 XV. 
 
 Ch. iv. 27. For it is written, EbypdvfhjTt ariupa rj ou TCATOO- 
 <ra, p7fiov xo.1 fioTjGov YJ oux woluouffa, ort TCOAACL iu. rexva 
 TY^ ipYjpoo fj.ij.Rov r) TY^ %ou<7Yj<; TW dvooa: Isa. liv. 1. 
 Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and 
 cry aloud, thou that didst not travail ; for more are 
 the children of the desolate than of her that hath a 
 husband. I. 54. 
 
 The Septuagint is followed throughout; but it gives the ori 
 ginal with fidelity. 
 
 Ch. iv. 30. What saith the Scripture? v ExfiaXs rrp nae- 
 diaxrjV xal rov ulbv a.OT 7^ ou yap p.7] xXypovo/jajff&e 6 Otbz 
 TYjZ natScffxrjz JJ.ZTO. TOU o!ou TY^ IteuQspaz: Gen. xxi. 
 10. Cast out the bond- woman and her son; for the 
 son of the bond-woman shall not be heir with the son 
 of the free-woman. I. 55. 
 
 This is also a literal translation ; only, it generalizes the 
 closing words, by putting "with the son of the free- woman," 
 instead of with "my son, with Isaac." Naturally; for the 
 words were originally Sarah s; but as the Lord sanctioned the 
 principle announced in them, the apostle fitly quotes them as 
 spoken by the Lord of Sarah s offspring. 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 Ch. iv. 8. Wherefore He saith, / 
 
 GZV alyjmlcjuaiav, eocuxsv do/j.ara roTc dvdfHtmoef: Ps. 
 Ixviii. 18. Having ascended up on high, He led cap 
 tivity captive, He gave gifts to men. II. 26. 
 
442 OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW. 
 
 The rendering here adopted, which in the latter part only 
 differs from the Septuagint, is a faithful representation of the 
 original, so far as the substantial import is concerned. The 
 only deviation from the literal meaning is in using the oblique, 
 for the direct form of statement, and substituting gave, for re 
 ceived, in respect to the gifts of grace. The two words exhi 
 bit but different aspects of the same thing. 
 
 Ch. v. 14. Wherefore He saith, " Eyzcpai b mdsudcov xai 
 d.vdara ix TCOV vexp&v, xal lxi<pauffi aoc b Xpiarbz: 
 Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, 
 and Christ shall give thee light. 
 
 The passage is introduced with a very general reference to 
 Divine authority, specifying no particular Scripture where 
 the saying was to be found ; and as the words do not occur in 
 any book of the Old Testament, some have even doubted if 
 there is a reference to any passage in it. The mention of 
 Christ at the close plainly shows, that an exact or literal 
 quotation was not meant; but rather a free use of one or more 
 passages read in the light of the Gospel. Such passages exist 
 in Isa. Ix. 1, 2, comp. with xxvi. 19. 
 
 Ch. v. 31. See at Matt. xix. 4, 5. 
 
 I. TIMOTHY. 
 Ch. v. 18. See at 1 Cor. ix. 9. 
 
 II. TIMOTHY. 
 
 Ch. ii. 19. And, * Eyvco Kuptoz robe ovrdz altToZ: Numb, 
 xvi. 5. The Lord knoweth them that are His. II. 27. 
 
 The words of the Septuagint are taken, except that Kupfoc 
 is put for 6ib^. In the original it is rather, the Lord will 
 make known who are His not only knows them, but will 
 make His knowledge to appear. This is all the difference ; 
 the one indicating simply the fact, the other the visible mani 
 festation, of the Divine knowledge. 
 
HEBREWS. 443 
 
 HEBREWS. 
 
 Ch. i. 5. (on first quotation, see at Acts xiii. 32, 33, and 
 No. XII. of the Second Part.) And again, Efw 00- 
 IJ.O.L ohroj ec Trarepa, xac abrbz zarac [JLOC etc oibv : 2 Sam. 
 vii. 14. I will be to him a Father, and He shall be 
 to Me a Son. I. 56. 
 
 In the words of the Septuagint, which correctly render the 
 Hebrew. 
 
 Ch. i. 6. And when again He brings His first-begotten into 
 the world, He saith, Kal xpoGxuvrjGdTWGav CVJTW xdvrsz 
 dffzAo: 6zo~j: Ps. xcvii. 7. And let all the angels of 
 God worship Him. III. 13. 
 
 Coincides with the Septuagint, except in using the oblique 
 instead of the direct form of speech. The original has Eloliim 
 instead of angels; and there is the same difference at ch. ii. 
 7, where see what is said in explanation. 
 
 Ch. i. 7. And as to the angels, He saith, ^0 KOICOU rolc df- 
 z adroit ;ryU//ara, xal TOL>Z fetroupyobz auToit xupbz 
 Ps. civ. 4. Who maketh His angels (messen 
 gers) win,ds, and flame of fire His ministers. I. 57. 
 The Hebrew is exactly rendered, and in the words of the 
 Septuagint, excepting in the last expression, which is there 
 
 Ch. i. 8, 9. And to the Son, C ^ovoc 0o>j, 6 0oc, ec rov 
 aiaiva TOI> atatvoz, x.r.L: Ps. xlv. 6, 7. Thy throne, 
 God, is for ever and ever, etc. I. 58. 
 
 Throughout from the Septuagint, with no variations worth 
 naming, and giving a close translation of the Hebrew. 
 
 Ch. i. 10 12. And, Zv xdr d t o%dz, Kupis, rr f v rfu lOs/isti- 
 coGaz, x.T.L : Ps. cii. 25, 26. Thou, Lord, in the be 
 ginning didst lay the foundation of the earth, etc. I. 
 59. 
 
 Precisely as in the last example. 
 
 Ch. i. 13. See at Matt. xxii. 44. 
 
 Ch. ii. 6 8. But one testified in a certain place, saying, 
 ore fttfjtvfaxfl ayroD j x.r.h. : Ps. viii. 
 
444 OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW. 
 
 4-6. What is man that thou art mindful of him? etc. 
 III. 14. 
 
 The citation is made entirely from the Septuagint, and dif 
 fers from the Hebrew only in one clause: What is here "/y/ctr- 
 TOHraz O}JTOV fipayj re Trap d-fflouz, Thou hast made Him some 
 what less than the angels, is in the Hebrew DT^** 1 ? D >1P ^"Jipnfi 
 Thou hast made him want little of Elohim (God.) There 
 is, however, an ambiguity in the Greek; for the fipo-yu TI 
 may refer either to space or to time lessened him either 
 for a short period, or by a little degree, though the latter is 
 the more natural. The Hebrew is more definite, and indi 
 cates little in respect to degree or space. The application 
 made of the passage consists with the one aspect as well as 
 the other; as will be shown in the remarks at No. XVIII. of 
 Second Section. And in regard to the Elohim, it is plain, 
 that when man is spoken of as wanting but a little of this, that 
 is, of Deity, the term cannot be taken in its strictest sense; 
 it cannot mean the Supreme Jehovah, in His personal pro 
 perties and perfections; for the highest of creatures stand at 
 an infinite distance from Him. It must be understood, there 
 fore, in the looser sense, of something Divine-like in condition 
 and dignity. It is so used in Ps. Ixxxii. 6; Ex. xxii. 9, comp. 
 with John x. 34. In the same sense it must also be under 
 stood in Ps. xcvii. 7, cited in ver. 6 of the preceding chapter, 
 where the Elohim are called to do worship to one higher than 
 themselves. Divine-like honour and dignity, therefore, are 
 all that, in such cases, can be fairly understood by the term. 
 And as the angels stand highest in this respect among created 
 intelligences known to men, they are not unnaturally regard 
 ed as the beings that most fully answer to the description. 
 Substantially, therefore, the Greek version here gives the 
 sense of the original; and some of the best commentators still 
 concur in it as the most appropriate rendering that can be 
 given. "The angels," says Delitzsch on the passage, "are 
 called Elohim, as pure spiritual natures that have been pro 
 duced from God, and are the purest reflections of the Divine 
 essence." 
 
 Ch. ii. 12. Saying, A-aft-sho TO dvo/jtd ffo>j rote 
 
HEBREWS. 445 
 
 /J.OL>, Iv /Jisffoj ixxtyfflac ujuarfffo) <T : Psal. xxii. 22. I 
 will declare Thy name to My brethren, in the midst 
 of the Church (or congregation) will I sing praise to 
 Thee. I. 60. 
 
 The Septuagint is followed, except in the first word, for 
 which it has ogq-ffffo/jat ; and the Hebrew is strictly adhered 
 to. 
 
 Ch. ii. 18. And again, Efa) effo^a: 7i$.~ocdco:; in O:JTW, I 
 will put My trust in Him. And again, Idol* if at xal 
 ra Ttcudla d JJLOL edatxsv 6 0s6c, Behold I and. the chil 
 dren which God hath given Me: Isa. viii. 17, 18. I. 
 61. 
 
 The Septuagint is literally followed in both parts of the ci 
 tation; and without any material difference it exhibits the 
 meaning of the original. 
 
 Ch. iii. 7 11. As the Holy Ghost saith, Zypspov, iav TY^ 
 
 <pa)vrfi aurou dxouffaTs, x.T.L : Ps. xcv. 7. sq. To-day, 
 
 if ye will hear His voice, etc. I. 62. 
 
 The words are again those of the Septuagint, but the divi 
 
 sion made of them is not precisely the same ; for here we have 
 
 "saw My works for forty years," while in the Septuagint, and 
 
 also in the original, there is a pause after "saw My works," and 
 
 the following sentence begins: "Forty years was I grieved." 
 
 The sense is still the same, and by coupling the forty years 
 
 with the seeing of God s works additional emphasis is given 
 
 to the guilt of the people. 
 
 Ch. iv. 4. For He spake in a certain place, Kal 
 6 0coc ^ ~# fy^t ?- T fj ^?vofjLy d/TO xdv-cov 
 al)To r j\ Gen. ii. 3. And God rested in the seventh day 
 from all His works. I. 63. 
 
 The passage is somewhat abbreviated, but it is exactly ren 
 dered, and in the words of the Septuagint. 
 
 Ch. v. 6. As He saith in another place : 2b tspsvz e?c rov 
 alaJva xaxa rr^ rdziv MsAy^credsx: Psal. ex. 4. Thou 
 art a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedek. 
 I. 64. 
 
 The Hebrew again rendered in the words of the Septuagint. 
 Ch. vi. 14. God sware by Himself, saying, El 
 38 
 
446 OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW. 
 
 <7, xai TttyOuvcou ntydww <T: Gen. xxii. 17. 
 Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will 
 multiply thee. I. 65. 
 
 There is no deviation from the Hebrew and the Septuagint, 
 except in putting az at the close instead of 07: t o/j.a cru j. It 
 makes no difference as to the sense. 
 
 Ch. viii. 5. As Moses was divinely instructed, f Opa yap^ 
 (pya iv, xocijffstz Tzdvra 7.0.10. rbv TUTTOV rov dei^dsura aoi 
 lv raj opei : Ex. xxv. 40. For see, says He, thou shalt 
 make all according to the pattern that was shown thee 
 in the mount. I. 66. 
 
 The words are again to a nearness those of the Septuagint, 
 the only difference being the use of the aorist participle in 
 stead of the perfect osoe^/jJ^o^. The original is correctly 
 exhibited. 
 
 Ch. viii. 8 12. For finding fault He &aith to them, Joob 
 ^fjLepat Ipyjovrai, hefsc Kupco^, xo.l owczAeaat l~t rw 
 otxov y Iffpayji, x.r.L: Jer. xxxi. 31 34. Behold the 
 days come, saith the Lord, and I will establish with 
 the house of Israel, etc. I. 67. 
 
 There is no difference worth naming between this citation 
 and the corresponding passage in the Septuagint; it is sub 
 stantially a quotation from the Septuagint only in one or 
 two instances it substitutes a phrase of like import for ano 
 ther such as ffuvTsAsffaj ITTI rov olxov for otaOqcro/jLac TW oixqj, 
 and (jcaOrjxrjv Ir^oir^ao. for dcsde/rqv. Throughout also the mean 
 ing of the Hebrew is closely rendered ; nor does any excep 
 tion need to be made for the clause at the close of verse 9, 
 where the writer of the epistle, following the Septuagint, has 
 xdfa) tyjtstyffa abrwu, and I regarded them not. In the origi 
 nal it is DD rnSyip rpjw, wjiich in the English Version, and many 
 others, has the sense put on it, "though I was married to 
 them." The same expression occurs at Jer. iii. 14, and has 
 received the same rendering. But the propriety of that ren 
 dering is justly called in question, arid the translation of the 
 Septuagint is rather to be maintained. The primary meaning 
 of the verb is to possess, or have dominion over; then to pos 
 sess a wife, to marry; but finally, according to Gesenius, to 
 
HEBREWS. 447 
 
 loathe, to reject, in which sense he takes it in the two passages 
 referred to. "The common meaning," he says, "may do in 
 ch. xxxi., if it be rendered, "Although I was their Lord;" but 
 it gives a harsh sense ; and what weighs with me more, the 
 signification of loathing is not foreign to the primary power of 
 the verb. For there are also other verbs, in which the sense 
 of subduing, being high over, ruling, is applied to the signifi 
 cation of looking down upon, despising, contemning." 
 
 Ch. ix. 20. Saying, TOUTO TO al/m TY^ otadyxyz f)Z ivsre&aro 
 xpbz u[M.z o 6so^: Ex. xxiv. 6. This is the blood of 
 the covenant which God hath enjoined unto you. II. 
 28. 
 
 The sense of the original is substantially given, though dif 
 fering slightly in form, and also departing somewhat from the 
 Septuagint. The more exact rendering is, "Behold the blood 
 of the covenant, which the Lord hath made with you." 
 
 Ch. x. 5-7. Wherefore when He cometh into the world He 
 saith, Overlay xac 7tpoff<popay oux fjOefyaaz, aa>p.a dk xa- 
 Tt]QTtGUj pot, bXoxaoTtb[j.a.TO. xal Trepe 6./j>aprla<; obx /judo- 
 z TOTS e?~ov, loob r/xaj iv X<f>cdlde ftefttiou ji- 
 TTTat xspe iuoti roD Koa^ai, 6 6>soc, TO ds/cfj^d 000 : 
 Ps. xl. 6 8. Sacrifice and offering I did not desire, 
 but a body hast Thou prepared for Me ; burnt-offerings 
 and offerings for sin Thou hadst no pleasure in. Then 
 I said, Lo I come in the volume of the book it is writ 
 ten of Me to do Thy will, God. III. 15. 
 This citation follows the Septuagint so closely, that the va 
 riations from it are quite inconsiderable. Instead of ol>x. yudo- 
 xqaaz it has oux fjr/jffaz, which is the more exact rendering of 
 the original; but the idea is the same; and it is substantially 
 all one, whether the offerings in question are represented as 
 not sought, or not delighted in, on the part of God. The one 
 implies the other. There is, however, a very peculiar render 
 ing given of a clause in v. 5. In the Hebrew it is ? J T"!-? D ! J .f, 
 ears hast Thou dug through (laid thoroughly open) for Me; 
 the meaning is, Thou hast formed in me a willing and obedi 
 ent spirit, so that I preserve an open and listening ear to all 
 Thy commands. It is difficult to understand, how this should 
 
448 OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW. 
 
 have come to be put into the form given it by the Septuagint, 
 "a body hast Thou prepared for Me." But the sentiment 
 conveyed by it is substantially the same ; for by the preparing 
 of a body, in such a connexion, is evidently meant, a body 
 formed and qualified for the service of God ready in all its 
 powers to yield the obedience required. The contrast here is, 
 between the sacrifices of slain victims, and the free will sacri 
 fice of a living body, or a listening and obedient spirit. 
 Ch. x. 16, IT. See at ch. viii. 811. 
 
 Ch. x. 30. For we know Him that hath said, E/wl Ixolxyfftt;, 
 e-faj dvTaTrodaxraj, Isfst Kupioz. And again, xptve? Ki>- 
 ftccx; TOV )jj.bv O.I>TO~J : Deut. xxxii. 35, 36. Vengeance 
 is Mine, I will recompense, saith the Lord. The Lord 
 will judge His people. II. 29. 
 
 The only difference is in the form of the first declaration ; 
 as put in the original it is, Mine is vengeance and recompense. 
 Here the latter word is turned into an independent sentence, 
 to give additional emphasis to the meaning. 
 
 Ch. x. 37, 38. There is here a substantial appropriation of 
 the language of Hab. ii. 3, 4; but there is no express 
 citation, and the original is used with some freedom. 
 Ch. xi. 21. Kal Tipoffsxwycrsv Im TO dxpou rrfi pdftdou ai)TO~j\ 
 Gen. xlvii. 31. And worshipped upon the top of his 
 staff. I. 68. 
 
 This is not given as a quotation, but it is actually one, 
 being the precise words of the Septuagint. According as the 
 words in the original are pointed, they admit of a different 
 rendering; cither that just produced, or the one given in the 
 English version, according to the Mas. punctuation, "He 
 bowed himself (or, worshipped) upon the bed s head." The 
 other is the more probable meaning. 
 
 Ch. xii. 5, 6. And ye have forgotten the exhortation, which 
 speaketh unto you as unto children, Yle [JLOO, py dfoyco- 
 
 p TKUOltaZ I&Jpioi), fJLY^Ts Ixl JOU l>7l WJTOU iXf"OflVOZ" 
 
 ov fdo dfttTrtf Kuptos 7r;o Jcr, iiaaTtifdi 3s ;ravr# uibv 
 w Ttapadfyerati Prov. iii. 11, 12. My son, despise not 
 the Lord s chastening, nor faint when thou art rebuked 
 of Him; for whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and 
 scourgeth every son whom He receiveth. III. 16. 
 
HEBREWS. 449 
 
 The Septuagint is followed verbatim, which only in the last 
 clause departs from the Hebrew; but here it does so rather 
 singularly. The Hebrew is n^T j3-r\x 3X3^ and (or, as) a fa 
 ther the son he delighteth in. The Septuagint apparently read 
 the first word as if it were 3X3:, and so turned it into a verb, 
 having God for its nominative, and making it mean, "and 
 chastise th the son whom He receiveth," or delighteth in. As 
 this introduced no change into the sentiment conveyed in the 
 passage, but only omitted the allusion to the earthly father, 
 which, however, the apostle shortly afterwards takes occasion 
 to bring out in words of his own (ver. 9,) he simply adopted 
 the rendering of the Septuagint. 
 
 Ch. xii. 20, 21. In these two verses the general import 
 merely is given of passages in the Old Testament. Ex. 
 xix. 12, 13, 16; Deut. ix. 19. 
 
 Ch. xii. 26. Now hath He promised, saying, v ETC a~a~, Ifa) 
 adffco oi) /JLOVOV rr t v p t v, alAa y.o.l rbv ohpavov. Hag. ii. 
 6. Yet once, I will shake not only the earth, but also 
 the heaven. II. 30. 
 
 The citation differs from the Septuagint and from the He 
 brew only in form: for the purpose of bringing out more pro 
 minently the heaven as included in the shaking, what accord 
 ing to the original is, "the heaven and the earth," is here 
 made, "not only the earth, but the heaven." 
 
 Ch. xiii. 5. For He Himself hath said, O j /ty 02 avco, oud* 
 o>j prj (7~ Ifxa-caAl-a) : Josh. i. 5. I will not leave thee, 
 nor will I forsake thee. I. 69. 
 
 Follows the Hebrew closely, but differs in form from the 
 Septuagint. The same sentiment occurs in Deut. xxxi. 8. 
 Ch. xiii. 6. So that we may boldly say, Kupeoc ip.ol ftoydbz, 
 ml oi> (poprjQyaopar ~l Tioc^an JJLOI a\>>0p(.o~oz\ Ps. cxviii. 
 6. The Lord is my helper, and I shall not be afraid; 
 what shall man do to me? I. 70. 
 
 The Septuagint is cited, but it gives the original quite cor 
 rectly ; for, "the Lord is my helper," is substantially one with 
 "the Lord is for me," which is the literal rendering of the 
 Hebrew. 
 
 38* 
 
450 OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW. 
 
 JAMES. 
 
 Oh. ii. 8, 23. See at Matt. xxii. 39, and Rom. iv. 3. 
 Ch. iv. 5. Do ye think that the Scripture saith in vain, TT/>OC 
 <pObvov IntxodeZ TO Trvsy/^a o xarwxiazv ev iq/juv ; the spi 
 rit that dwelt in us lusts to envy? 
 
 The reference seems to be to the passages which condemn 
 an envious or covetous spirit, as naturally working in men s 
 hearts such as the tenth commandment of the law, Eccl. iv. 
 4, etc. But it is only a reference to the general import of 
 such passages, not an explicit quotation. 
 
 Ch. iv. 6. Wherefore He saith, ^0 6zbz direpyy>dvot{ dvTcrdff- 
 ffZTa:, Tanzivdiz os dldtoaeu %dptv : Prov. iii. 34. God 
 resisteth the proud, but giveth grace to the lowly. III. 
 17. 
 
 The Septuagint has precisely these words in the passage re 
 ferred to. The Hebrew so far differs, that in the first mem 
 ber it expresses, " Surely He scorneth the scorners." It is 
 undoubtedly the scorn of a proud and elated spirit that is 
 meant; so that the meaning is virtually the same. A very 
 similar antithesis also is found in Prov. xxix. 23. 
 
 I. PETER. 
 
 Ch. i. 16. Because it is written, * Aftoi iasffde, ore ifo) 
 Lev. xi. 44. Be ye holy, for I am holy. I. 71. 
 
 An abridged quotation, but quite literal. 
 
 Ch. i. 24, 25. For, KU.OO. aaoq %opTO, xal 7iu0a ob^a aJbrrfi 
 w^ disOoz ybpTou IfypdvOy b /o/>roc, xai TO ai^Oo^ l- 
 
 7T<TV TO O [>%/40L Koft iOO /JlVl C TOV atCOVO. . Isa. xl. 
 
 0, 7. All flesh is grass, and all the glory of it as the 
 flower of grass; the grass witheretb, and the flower 
 fadeth; but the word of the Lord abideth for ever. I. 
 72. 
 
 The Septuagint is followed, which adheres closely to the 
 Hebrew. 
 
 Ch. ii. 6. See at Rom. ix. 33. The-apostle here merely adds 
 
REVELATION. 451 
 
 a few epithets from Isa. xxviii. 16, which were omitted 
 by St. Paul. 
 
 Oh. ii. 7. See at Matt. xxi. 42, and Acts iv. 11. 
 
 Ch. ii. 9, 22, 24. In each of these verses there is a silent 
 appropriation of Old Testament passages Ex. xix. 6 ; 
 Isa. liii. 9, 5, in perfect accordance with the Hebrew, 
 and in the words of the Septuagint. But there is no 
 formal citation. 
 
 Ch. iii. 10-12. Another silent appropriation of an Old Tes 
 tament passage Ps. xxxiv. 1216 almost entirely in 
 the language of the Septuagint, and quite faithful to 
 the original. 
 
 Ch. iii. 14, 15. A similar adoption of the language of Isaiah, 
 in ch. viii. 12, 13. 
 
 Ch. iv. 8. A substantial, though not quite literal appropria 
 tion of the words of Prov. x. 12. 
 
 II. PETER. 
 
 Ch. ii. 22. It has happened unto them according to the true 
 proverb, x>ja> imatptyaz Ixl TO tdeov Izepa/m, xal &c 
 Aovaa/jidi/q ec$ xuAifffia ftoppopoo : The dog is turned to 
 his own vomit again, and the sow that was washed to 
 her wallowing in the mire. 
 
 This is not properly a scriptural quotation, but the applica 
 tion merely of a common proverb to a spiritual case. The 
 first part of it occurs substantially in Prov. xxvi. 11, yet not 
 precisely as presented here. 
 
 REVELATION. 
 
 Throughout the book of Revelation there is a constant ap 
 propriation of the language of Old Testament Scripture; some 
 times as at ch. ii. 27, v. 10 sentences are adopted entire ; but 
 of proper and formal citation there is no example, as, indeed, 
 the nature of the book did not admit of it. 
 
452 OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW. 
 
 GENERAL RESULT. 
 
 It thus appears, that of the four classes of citations men 
 tioned at the outset, there are not reckoning repeated cita 
 tions of the same passages in the same or other books 72 
 belonging to the first, 80 to the second, 17 to the third, and 
 17 to the fourth. In other words, considerably more than 
 the half of the whole, in which the passages from the old 
 Testament are closely rendered very commonly in the words 
 of the Septuagint, but also occasionally by an independent 
 translation. In 30 more the difference between the original 
 and the citation is merely of a formal kind, some slight alte 
 ration being adopted in the phraseology, usually for the pur 
 pose of adapting it better to its place as a citation, but with 
 out making any assignable difference in the meaning of the pas 
 sage. Indeed, so narrow often is the boundary between this 
 class of quotations and the first, that it is of no moment, prac 
 tically, whether they should be assigned to the first class, or 
 should form one by themselves. The third class presents 17, 
 in which the Septuagint is followed, in preference to the He 
 brew; but here again the variations are commonly of a formal 
 kind; and even when they exhibit a substantial difference, it 
 is only by a sort of paraphrastic explanation being given of the 
 original, or by a distinct expression being imparted to a par 
 ticular aspect of the truth, such as specifying a result or a 
 cause, which the original did nothing more than indicate. In 
 none of the cases are we presented with a different sense, but 
 simply with a modified representation of the same sense. And 
 in the remaining 17, in which neither is the Hebrew nor the 
 Septuagint strictly followed, there is a common principle per 
 vading them; that, namely, of rendering something peculiar 
 or obscure in the original more clearly intelligible to those who 
 were immediately in the eye of the New Testament writer, or 
 to readers generally in gospel times. In the whole of this 
 class of cases, as well as of the immediately preceding one, 
 the general meaning of the ancient Scripture is still preserved, 
 
GENERAL RESULT. 453 
 
 and nothing in doctrine or precept is built upon the superficial 
 differences existing between the citation and the original. 
 
 It is, therefore, a groundless and unwarranted application 
 to make of these occasional departures from the exact import 
 of the original, when they are employed as an argument 
 against the plenary inspiration of Scripture. So, for example, 
 Dr. Davidson, in his Hermeneutics, (page 513,) holds, that 
 the freedom with which the New Testament writers cite the 
 Scriptures of the Old Testament, is a conclusive proof against 
 such inspiration. For, he argues, " the terms and phrases of 
 the Old Testament, if literally inspired, were the best that 
 could have been adopted. Why, then, did not the writers of 
 the New Testament give, as nearly as possible, these best 
 terms and phrases? They should have adhered to the ipsis- 
 sima verba of the Holy Spirit, (seeing they were the best,) as 
 closely as the genius of the Hebrew and Greek languages al 
 lowed. But, instead of this, they have widely departed from 
 them." We are afraid this argument, if valid, would go much 
 further than establish a conclusion against what is termed 
 verbal inspiration. The question cannot be one merely of 
 words; for if not the main import, yet the precise shade of 
 meaning, is necessarily affected by the deviations; so that, 
 on the principle in question, the New Testament writers are 
 liable to the charge of having chosen an inferior thing to what 
 lay actually before them; they altered, to some extent, the 
 statements of Scripture, and altered them to the worse. But 
 the argument rests upon a fallacy the fallacy of supposing, 
 that what is the best in certain circumstances, what may have 
 been best when the ancient prophets wrote, must also be the 
 best when apostles and evangelists brought into notice the 
 fulfilment of their words. By that time circumstances were 
 materially changed; and it may have been expedient, it may 
 even have been required by the highest spiritual wisdom, to 
 adopt some slight modification of the original passage, or to 
 give an explanatory rendering of its terms, so as to adapt it 
 the better to the purpose of its application. Even in those 
 cases, in which, for any thing we can see, a closer translation 
 would have served equally well the purpose of the writer, it 
 
454 OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW. 
 
 may have been worthy of the inspiring Spirit, and perfectly 
 consistent with the fullest inspiration of the original Scrip 
 tures, that the sense should have been given in a free current 
 translation; for the principle was thereby sanctioned of a ra 
 tional freedom in the handling of Scripture, as opposed to the 
 rigid formalism and superstitious regard to the letter, which 
 prevailed among the Rabbinical Jews. The Church of the 
 New Testament, we are thereby taught, is not bound by the 
 pedantic trammels which Jewish authorities imposed, and which, 
 by spending its solicitude upon the shell, comparatively neg 
 lected the kernel. The stress occasionally laid in the New 
 Testament upon particular words in passages of the Old, and 
 even on the number and tenses of words as at Matt. xxii. 32, 
 45; Gal. iii. 16; Heb. i. 5, v. 10 sufficiently proves what a 
 value attaches to the very form of the Divine communications, 
 and how necessary it is to connect the element of inspiration 
 with the written record as it stands. It shows that God s 
 words are pure words, and that, if fairly interpreted, they can 
 not be too closely pressed. But in other cases, when nothing 
 depended upon a rigid adherence to the letter, the practice of 
 the sacred writers, not scrupulously to stickle about this, but 
 to give prominence simply to the substance of the revelation, 
 is fraught also with an important lesson; since it teaches us, 
 that the letter is valuable only for the truth couched in it, and 
 that the one is no further to be prized and contended for, than 
 may be required for the exhibition of the other. 
 
 The practice in this respect of the sacred writers is followed 
 every day still, and followed by persons who hold the strictest 
 views of inspiration. They never imagine, while they quote 
 passages from a current translation, though it may not give 
 the meaning to the nicest shade, or themselves slightly modify 
 the form of words to suit the particular application made of 
 them, that they are thereby compromising the plenary inspi 
 ration of Scripture. They do not the less hold every jot and 
 tittle of it to be sacred, that they at times find it unnecessary 
 to press what is comparatively but a jot or tittle. Indeed, the 
 matter in this aspect of it has been quite properly put by the 
 writer just quoted, and in a manner, that seems to accord ill 
 
GENERAL RESULT. 455 
 
 with what fell from him on verbal inspiration. " It is unrea 
 sonable to expect," he says, a that the apostles should scrupu 
 lously abide by the precise words of the passages they quote. 
 By a slight deviation from the Greek, they sometimes rendered 
 the sense clearer and more explicit; at other times they para 
 phrased, rather than translated, the original Hebrew. In 
 every instance we suppose them to have been directed by the 
 superintending Spirit, who infallibly kept them from error, 
 and guided them in selecting the most appropriate terms, where 
 their own judgments would have failed." (P. 470.) 
 
 There za, however, a point connected with the citations from 
 the Old Testament, which seems somewhat strange, and admits 
 of no proper explanation although it can scarcely be said to 
 touch upon the doctrine of inspiration, or to involve any 
 question of principle. It is in respect to the apparent capri- 
 ciousness of the treatment given to the Septuagint translation. 
 Sometimes it is followed with great regularity for a series of 
 passages, and then, it is suddenly abandoned at places where 
 its rendering is not less, or even more exact. Thus at Matt, 
 xxvii. 9, 10, a rendering is preferred markedly differing from 
 the Septuagint, itself too one of the most peculiar, while in 
 several preceding quotations the words of the Septuagint were 
 almost literally adopted. So again, at John xv. 25, the Sep 
 tuagint is departed from, where it literally renders the origi 
 nal, but in the two following citations it is implicitly followed. 
 There are similar irregularities elsewhere, particularly in the 
 Epistle to the Hebrews, where, usually, the Septuagint ia 
 closely followed, while yet at certain passages a somewhat 
 different rendering is preferred (see ch. ix. 20, x. 30, xii. 26.) 
 This alternating use and disuse of the Septuagint as a transla 
 tion of Old Testament Scripture finds no explanation in any 
 existing relations, or spiritual principle, with which we are 
 acquainted. 
 
456 OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW. 
 
 SECTION SECOND. 
 
 QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW, CONSIDERED 
 IN RESPECT TO THE MODE OF APPLICATION. 
 
 IT is but a comparatively small number of the passages, 
 which have been already produced and compared with the 
 original Scriptures, that require to be brought up for con 
 sideration here. The use made of them in the New Testa 
 ment is, for the most part, so transparently reasonable and 
 proper, that among thoughtful and sober-minded Christians 
 there can be but one opinion regarding it. We shall, there 
 fore, as formerly intimated, limit our inquiry to the examples 
 which have chiefly created embarrassment, and require ex 
 planation. 
 
 I. 
 
 Matt. i. 22, 23; Isa. vii. 14. 
 
 It is remarkable, that the application of no testimony of 
 Old Testament Scripture to the transactions of the New, has 
 given rise to more variety of opinion, or is more frequently 
 called up for fresh discussion, than the one which meets us 
 at the very threshold of the Gospels, in Matt. i. 22, 23, where 
 we are told, that the things concerning the miraculous con 
 ception of Christ took place, that the prophecy in Isa. vii. 14 
 might be fulfilled, which said, "Behold the virgin shall con 
 ceive, and bear a son, and they shall call His name Immanuel." 
 By a large body of interpreters it is held, that in this appli 
 cation there is a certain accommodation of the prophecy to 
 what was not primarily, if at all, contemplated in it; and that 
 the child to be born and called Immanuel was, in the first 
 instance at least, to be a child produced in the ordinary course 
 of nature, and within a very short period from the deliverance 
 of the prophecy. They argue this on the ground, that the 
 birth of the child was to form the sign of Judah s speedy de 
 liverance from the hostile assaults of Syria and Israel; inso 
 much that, before he should know to discern the evil and the 
 
MATT. i. 23; ISA. vii. 14. 457 
 
 good, those two lands should be forsaken of their kings (ver. 
 16.) They, therefore, conceive, that by the child-bearing 
 virgin must primarily be meant a then living maid a maid 
 presently to be married, and to have offspring; that to this 
 offspring a symbolical name should be given, as a pledge of 
 the Divine favour and protection, and that the pledge should 
 be verified within two or three years by the removal of the 
 kings of Syria and Israel. So that the Evangelist Matthew 
 must, either have accommodated a prediction to Christian 
 times, which did not originally and properly point to them, or 
 the prediction of itself admitted and justified such an applica 
 tion because of a typical relationship between the nearer and 
 the more remote birth the one being like the foreshadowing 
 sign of a much greater future. Many subordinate differences 
 exist among the interpreters, who concur in the more funda 
 mental part of this view; they only differ as to the particular 
 almah, or virgin, and child that may be meant, and the way 
 in which the ultimate is to be connected with the primary ap 
 plication. But as such shades of difference do not affect the 
 principle of the interpretation, or obviate the objections, to 
 which in any form it appears to me liable, there is no need for 
 going into details. 
 
 I. (1.) To begin with the negative aspect of the matter, or 
 the objections that present themselves to this mode of inter 
 pretation, we remark, first of all, that there is obviously in it 
 the want of a proper nexus between the two events, such as 
 the application of the Evangelist seems to indicate, and as 
 the nature of the relation itself would require. We take for 
 granted, that there was a relation of some kind; for the mere 
 accommodationists are not worth arguing against. The Evan 
 gelist, then, plainly appears to have found, in the words of 
 the prophet, an explicit and definite announcement of Mes 
 siah s wonderful birth and person, as being in Himself a 
 marvellous^ombination of the Divine and human, and as born 
 into this world the singular offspring of a virgin. However 
 he may have found this in the prophecy, he certainly appears 
 to have found it; and can the right to do so be justified on 
 39 
 
458 OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW. 
 
 such a rejationship between the immediate and the ultimate 
 as the view under consideration, in any of its forms, supposes? 
 One can conceive of a birth among the chosen people so 
 brought about and so circumstanced, as that it might fitly 
 enough be taken for a prophetical sign or prefiguration of 
 Christ s birth. The birth of Isaac was pre-eminently one of 
 that description; there was a quite special and supernatural 
 element in the one as well as in the other; and in both cases 
 alike connected with the higher interests of the Divine king 
 dom. Such, too, in a measure, was the case with Solomon, 
 the immediate successor of David on the throne of the king 
 dom. But in such cases there was a peculiarity connected 
 with the parentage; a typical relationship already existed 
 there, forming the ground of the prospective reference of the 
 birth; and it became comparatively easy to pass from the im 
 mediate to the future, and to see the one imaged in the other; 
 especially when there was a prophetic word uttered over the 
 nearer event, which naturally carried the thoughts onward to 
 the remoter and greater things of the kingdom. But here, on 
 the interpretation in question, there is nothing properly special, 
 either in the parent or the child; it might have been (for 
 aught that appears) any young woman in Judea, any child 
 born of such a woman, in the ordinary course of nature, 
 whether in the line of Messiah s parentage or not. One can 
 not even see why, on the supposition in question, the single 
 specification should have been made, of the mother being at 
 the time an unmarried person granting, what we by no means 
 admit, that the almah of the prophet denotes only a marriage 
 able maid, though not necessarily a virgin ; for there seems 
 no proper call for the mother being a maid, if the child was 
 to come by ordinary generation, and if it was to be the pledge 
 of Divine protection and deliverance only by the period of its 
 birth. In such a case, it seems arbitrary in the prophet to 
 lay stress on the point of her maidenhood, especially when no 
 particular maiden was indicated; and still more Arbitrary in 
 the Evangelist to find in the child of this indefinite mother, 
 with its immediate adjuncts, a distinct and circumstantial 
 presage of Messiah s birth. 
 
MATT. i. 23; ISA. vii. 14. 459 
 
 (2.) Then, the name assigned to this child, for the purpose 
 of indicating its nature and destiny, taken in connexion with 
 the prophet s own subsequent references to it, seems incom 
 patible with the idea of its being a common child, produced 
 by ordinary generation. That a maiden or virgin, without 
 further specification, should be announced as the prospective 
 mother of a child, that was to bear, as a fit designation, the 
 name Immanuel (God with- us,) would certainly be peculiar 
 we may even say, without a parallel if in that child there 
 was nothing supernatural in respect to its generation or its 
 birth. The very imposing of such a name seems to import, 
 that Divinity was somehow to be peculiarly manifested in the 
 Being produced. Not only so, but in ch. viii. 8, the prophet 
 addresses Him as the rightful proprietor of the land; for, 
 speaking of the adversary, he says, "The stretching out of 
 his wings shall fill the breadth of Thy land, Immanuel." 
 And in the very fact of that proprietorship, he descries the 
 sure ground of a final deliverance from all oppression and 
 violence: "Take counsel," he says to the enemies, "and it 
 shall come to naught; speak the word, and it shall not stand, 
 because of Immanuel" (ch. viii. 10.) Thus Immanuel is 
 plainly regarded by Isaiah as the God-man, the proper Lord 
 of the heritage, supreme Head of the kingdom. And still 
 again, in another part of the same line of prophecy, in the 
 glorious announcement with which it closes (ch. ix. 6,) the 
 prophet evidently points back to the original passage, and in 
 vests it with the full meaning of which its words were suscep 
 tible: in the one, "a virgin conceives and bears a son;" in 
 the other , "unto us a child is born, a son is given;" "God- 
 with-us" is the name by which the first is to be called, and 
 of this, in like manner, it is said, "His name shall be called 
 Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting 
 Father, the Prince of Peace." With such marked resem 
 blances, it is impossible almost to doubt the identity of the 
 two; and looking at the whole of these subsequent references 
 to the prediction of the Immanuel, it is not too much to say, 
 that the prophet himself stretches out the hand to the Evan 
 gelist. 
 
460 OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW. 
 
 (3.) Thirdly, the interpretation we oppose would find only 
 comfort and encouragement in what was announced to the 
 house of David; and thereby leaves altogether unexplained 
 the element of indignation and threatening with which it is so 
 pointedly introduced. a ls it a small thing for you to weary 
 men, but will ye weary my God also? Therefore the Lord 
 Himself shall give you a sign; Behold, the virgin shall con 
 ceive," etc. Does it seem a natural or satisfactory way to 
 understand this address, to read it as if it meant, Because ye 
 have wearied men by your faithless and foolish procedure, and 
 are proceeding to do the same with God, therefore the Lord 
 will Himself give you the most astonishing sign of His gracious 
 nearness and protection. This, surely, would have been a 
 premise and a conclusion that hung strangely together; and 
 so some of its propounders have felt ; for they have endeavoured 
 to turn the therefore (p? ) into a nevertheless, which would, 
 indeed, make an intelligible meaning, but it is entirely un 
 warranted by the usage of the word. There were, no doubt, 
 at the time, pious individuals in the kingdom of Judah, and 
 of these some probably in the house of David, who needed a 
 word of encouragement, and for whom also it was provided, 
 in the communication actually given ; but such persons are not 
 formally brought into notice. It is with the false and back 
 sliding portion, that the prophet directly and ostensibly deals; 
 hence, whatever of a hopeful nature might be wrapt up in 
 the message he delivers, we are constrained to look for some 
 thing also something even of a striking and palpable kind 
 which involved a work of rebuke and judgment. In presenting 
 nothing of this description, the interpretation und er review 
 entirely fails to account for a prominent feature in the pro 
 phetic announcement. 
 
 These objections which are derived mainly from the Old 
 Testament passage itself, seem fatal to the view, under any 
 modification, which would find in the Immanuel an ordinary 
 child, born at that particular time. In urging them, no re 
 ference has been made to incidental topics such as the at 
 tempt sometimes made to identify this child with that said, in 
 ch. viii. 1-4, to be born of the prophet and the prophetess; 
 
MATT. I. 23; ISA. vii. 14. 461 
 
 for this identification is utterly arbitrary, the latter child 
 having both a different parentage ascribed to it, and a dif 
 ferent name; nor can it be consistently understood otherwise 
 than of a transaction in the ideal region of prophetic vision. 1 
 
 II. It is one thing, however, to make good, or to appear 
 to make good a negative, and quite another thing to establish 
 satisfactorily a positive, view of a controverted subject. And 
 as the strength and plausibility of the class of interpretations 
 now considered lie in the apparent necessity of findinga present 
 birth to render the child a sign (as it is supposed the prophet 
 meant it to be considered) of an immediately approaching de 
 liverance, it is necessary to show how, on the supposition of 
 the Messiah being directly contemplated in the prediction of 
 Immanuel, this objection can be met. 
 
 (1.) Now, it is at the outset to be borne in mind, that the 
 prophecy has in its very form something enigmatical pur 
 posely has it; both from the nature of the subject, which re 
 fers to the deep things of God, and from the condition of the 
 people, which was such as to call for what would, in a manner, 
 drive them from their superficial mode of looking at Divine 
 things. Our Lord. Himself sometimes, for like reasons, spoke 
 enigmatically; He did so, for example, near the commence 
 ment of His ministry, when He said, "Destroy this temple, 
 and in three days I will raise it up" an announcement which 
 none present at the time understood, and which was not even 
 intended to be understood, except by such as would give them 
 selves to prayerful and earnest inquiry. The real import and 
 bearing of Isaiah s prediction, in like manner, lay beyond the 
 depth of those who had no eye to look beneath the surface, 
 and might even baffle the research and inquiry of those who 
 possessed such an eye, till farther revelations and the course 
 of Providence had thrown additional light on it. Undoubt 
 edly, there is no want of similar announcements in Isaiah and 
 the other prophetical books. 
 
 (2.) Another thing to be kept in mind is the precise start 
 ing-point, or crisis of affairs, out of which the prophecy origi- 
 1 See Prophecy in its Distinctive Nature, etc., p. 505. 
 
 39* 
 
462 OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW. 
 
 nated, and which it was designed to meet. The combination 
 formed by the kings of Syria and Israel had for its object, 
 not merely the invasion of Judah and the subjugation of the 
 king, but the entire displacement of the house of David, and 
 the substitution of another dynasty under the son of Tabeal 
 (ver. 6 ;) in other words, the avowed aim* of the hostile party 
 was to make void God s covenant with the house of David. 
 This was the audacious design which called forth the first word 
 of God on the occasion, and led Isaiah to give to Ahaz and 
 his people a solemn assurance that the scheme should certainly 
 miscarry (ver. 8, 9.) Yet, in the very act of doing this, he 
 distinctly intimated, that for Ahaz and his house there still 
 was danger danger arising, not so much from any plans or 
 power of their open adversaries, as from their own faithless 
 and ungodly spirit; for the word concluded by saying, "If ye 
 will not believe, surely ye shall not be established." As much 
 as to say, Even the overthrow of your immediate enemies, 
 and the defeating of their hostile policy, cannot secure to you 
 and your family the possession of the throne, and the esta 
 blishment of the kingdom in your hands unless you rid your 
 selves of the evil spirit of unbelief, and learn to rest in the 
 word and power of Jehovah. 
 
 (3.) Then, partly with the view of bringing out this fatal 
 defect in the character of Ahaz, and partly for the purpose 
 of unfolding God s own design as to the establishment of the 
 kingdom in the house of David, the prophet represents him 
 self as giving Ahaz the option of a sign a sign of what? A 
 sign, we are constrained by the connexion to think, of God s 
 purpose to maintain inviolate the covenant with David, and 
 perpetuate the kingdom therein granted to his seed. Ahaz, 
 however, as if already satisfied, pretended to regard the offer 
 as superfluous, and declined asking a sign while really his 
 heart was set upon earthly confidences, and from want of faith 
 in the assurances given him, he was calling in the aid of the 
 king of Assyria (2 Chron. xxviii. 16, 20.) Hence, the Lord 
 interposes to give a sign; but of what nature? Such a sign, 
 we naturally expect in the circumstances, as would show at 
 once His determination to maintain the covenant, and His 
 
MATT. i. 23; ISA. vii. 14. 463 
 
 just displeasure with, or even virtual repudiation of, the ex 
 isting representatives of the house and throne of David. While 
 men should be made to see that God s covenant must stand 
 fast, they must also see, it would be in a way that should augur 
 no good to persons in such ill accordance with its design. 1 
 
 (4.) In this state of matters, when there was given the sign 
 of a virgin conceiving and bringing forth a son, whose name 
 should be Immanuel, we are, if not absolutely necessitated, 
 at least most naturally led to think of a son, that should bear 
 directly and conclusively upon the point at issue; namely, 
 the establishment and perpetuation of the kingdom in con 
 formity with the covenant of David: a son who, by his very 
 birth and being, should form the truest sign of the full reali 
 zation of all that properly belonged to it. Such a sign, could 
 it be given, would settle, as nothing else could, the pending 
 controversy. And what the connexion thus seems to point 
 to, is confirmed by the implied contrast between this Son of 
 the virgin, the destined possessor of David s throne, and what 
 had previously been said of the possessors of the two rival 
 thrones in Syria and Israel (ver. 8,) "The head of Syria is 
 Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Ilezin (these and no 
 thing more they ascend no higher than a mere earthly city 
 and a frail human being;) and in sixty-five years Ephraini 
 shall be broken, that it be not a people." That is, both tho 
 two have about them the weakness and instability of the world ; 
 they shall presently become striking examples of its fleeting 
 and transitory existence. But now, on the other hand, when 
 the prophet turns to the kingdom of David, the Divine comes 
 prominently into view along with the human ; to establish it, 
 Deity itself is to become incarnate ; and the inference, there 
 fore, is plain all attempts to overthrow it must be fruitless ; 
 it moves in the element of immortality, and shall abide for 
 ever. 
 
 (5.) But the mention of such a good implied for existing 
 
 1 It makes no difference, as to the essential nature and purport of the re 
 presentation above given, if we suppose the transactions arid words to have 
 passed in vision; for in that case the offer of the sign to Ahaz and his refusal 
 would simply have served as a cover to bring out his actual state of mind; 
 precisely as in the eighth chapter of Ezekiel with the elders of Judah. 
 
464 OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW. 
 
 parties a corresponding evil; the sign given bespeaks a fall as 
 well as a rising; and a contrast was indicated, not merely 
 between the kingdom of David and the kingdoms of Syria and 
 Israel, but also between the child Immanuel and the degenerate 
 house of Ahaz. For in this Divine purpose and provision for 
 a better future, the existing royal house is entirely overleapt; 
 silently passed by on account of their unfaithfulness and cor 
 ruption, when the higher interests of the kingdom and its 
 ultimate stability come into consideration. The sign, in which 
 the nature and destiny of the kingdom were to be imaged, 
 bursts upon the view as a prodigy from an unknown quarter; 
 it is to be a child born, not to the present occupant of the 
 throne, nor to any future occupant, but to a virgin; and even 
 she marked out by no distinct specifications of place or time, 
 foreseen only by the omniscient eye of God. He it is alone, 
 who charges Himself with the accomplishment of the result; 
 in His own time He will bring forth the almah and her Son 
 as if Ahaz and his successors in the kingdom had no personal 
 interest in the matter! 
 
 (6.) This alone is ominous of evil, but what follows is much 
 more so. And in what follows we include, not merely ver. 
 15 and 16 with which commentators usually and unhappily 
 stop but all the concluding portion of the chapter. There 
 is no real break or proper termination at the close of ver. 16, 
 as if the prophet intended to shut up his present communica 
 tion there, and commence afresh with something different. 
 The whole, to the end of the chapter, is but one message, and 
 is required in its totality to make out a full arid consistent 
 meaning. From what follows, then, it appears that the Son, 
 on whose birth all hope hung, was to grow up in the midst of 
 a depressed state of things; such as betokened a terrible and 
 wide-spread previous desolation. The precise time is left al 
 together indefinite. From anything that is said in the pro 
 phecy, it might be comparatively near or remote; but the 
 position and aspect of affairs, amid which Immanuel was to 
 appear, is distinctly indicated to be one in which the reverse 
 of prosperity and strength should prevail. For no sooner 
 does the child appear, than butter and honey are assigned as 
 
MATT. i. 23; ISA. vii. 14. 465 
 
 His food (ver. 15,) and not for Him only, but the people in 
 the land generally are afterwards spoken of as having these 
 for their support (ver. 22:) and butter and honey are most 
 fitly regarded here as the symbols of a reduced and prostrate 
 condition, being the products of a land, far from barren in 
 deed, but yielding of its resources after little or no cultivation. 
 It tells us, that at the period of Immanuel s birth, and while 
 He should Himself be still in the feebleness of childhood, all 
 around should be in a weak, dilapidated, impoverished con 
 dition in the kingdom of Judah, not less than in the regions 
 of Syria and Israel. These, indeed, should experience the 
 calamity first; before the child should have out-grown His 
 childhood, they should have "been forsaken of both their 
 kings." This does not mean, as is very commonly assumed, 
 that the then reigning kings of Syria and Israel should have 
 ceased to fill the throne ; far more than that the land in both 
 its divisions was to be bereft of those holding the state and 
 office of king ; it should have ceased to have kingdoms. There 
 was no need, therefore, for the true children of God to be 
 greatly concerned about them; Immanuel, when He came, with 
 the manifestations of Divine power and glory, should not find 
 them even in existence. But, if the earlier and the greater 
 prostration should befall them, the house and kingdom of David 
 should also be marred with symptoms of humiliation and decay. 
 This is more briefly indicated in ver. 15 by the eating of butter 
 and honey nature s products in pastoral countries and 
 then more pointedly and fully at ver. 17, where the prophet, 
 turning to the ungodly Ahaz, says, "The Lord shall bring 
 upon thee, and upon thy people, and upon tliy father s house, 
 days that have not come, from the day that Ephraim departed 
 from Judah," etc. In a word, the substance of the message 
 was, God s covenant should certainly stand fast, and the sign 
 to be given of its stability should eventually be brought to 
 pass; but, meanwhile, the kingdom of David, in its existing 
 form, together with the kingdoms of Syria and Israel, should 
 undergo a sad and calamitous reverse; they should altogether 
 go down, while it should be diminished and brought low. And 
 the kingdom of David, as the object of faith and hope to the 
 
466 OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW. 
 
 Lord s people, was to spring as from a fresh starting-point 
 in the person of Immanuel, and out of poverty and weakness 
 rise to its proper magnitude and glory. 
 
 Such, by a careful consideration of the original passage, ap 
 pears to be the progress of thought and the richness of mean 
 ing embodied in the prophecy here referred to by the Evan 
 gelist Matthew. If we are right in the view that has been 
 given of it, the Evangelist was undoubtedly right in the use, 
 to which he applied it; and not a tendency to catch at some 
 obvious and superficial meaning, but a capacity to apprehend 
 the real import of the prediction, was what determined him in 
 turning it to such an account. Understood in the light, in 
 which it has now been presented, it stands in no need of the 
 embarrassing hypothesis of a double birth, nor of the fanciful 
 supposition of Hengstenberg, (Christology, vol. ii.,) and also 
 of Ewald, (if I rightly understand his view of the passage,) 
 the supposition of the promised child being ideally present in 
 his birth and growth to boyhood before the spiritual eye of 
 the prophet, and constituting, as so present, the sign of a 
 speedy deliverance of Judah from Syria and Israel. Such an 
 impersonation were far too subtle and involved for the purpose 
 in question; and it would, besides, most incongruously con 
 found together the ideal and the real making the prophet s 
 internal apprehension of a future event, a sign to the people 
 of a more immediate external reality. The sign, however, as 
 already stated, was not intended to be directly or properly a 
 pledge of Judah s deliverance from her impending evils; it 
 was strictly a sign of God s purpose to ratify His covenant 
 with David, and build up his throne to all generations; and a 
 sign so conceived and announced as to speak at once of judg 
 ment and of mercy to the existing representative of David s 
 house. 
 
 II. 
 Matt. ii. 15; Hos. xi. 1. 
 
 There can be no doubt, that the portion of Ilosea here ap 
 plied to the circumstance of our Lord s recall from His tem 
 porary sojourn in Egypt, was in its original connexion sim 
 ply an historical statement respecting what God had done for 
 
MATT. II. 15; HOS. xi. i. 467 
 
 the national Israel in the commencing period of their history. 
 The whole passage is, " When Israel was a child, then I loved 
 him, and I called ray son out of Egypt." The question, there 
 fore, is, how the Evangelist could find in such a passage any 
 proper pre-intimation of the circumstance in our Lord s life 
 to which he has so specifically applied it? The application 
 can only be understood and vindicated on the ground of a ty 
 pical relationship between the literal Israel and the Messiah ; 
 but on this ground it admits of a satisfactory explanation. 
 The relationship in question was not obscurely indicated even 
 in Old Testament Scripture; and* particularly in the latter 
 portion of Isaiah s writings, where there is a constant transi 
 tion from Israel in the literal sense to an ideal and prospec 
 tive Israel from an Israel called, indeed, to the enjoyment 
 of high privileges, and the discharge of important obligations, 
 but still compassed about with imperfection, backsliding and 
 trouble, to an Israel, in whom the calling was to find its ade 
 quate fulfilment God s elect, in whom His soul delighted, 
 and by whom His name was to be glorified, sin and evil purged 
 away from the condition of His people, and the world restored 
 to the favour of Heaven. (Compare, for example, on the one 
 side, ch. xlii. 19-25, xliii. 22-28, xlviii. 18-22, lix. 1-19; and 
 on the other, xlii. 1-8, xlix. 1-13, liii., lix. 20, 21, Ixi.) The 
 same sort of relationship was indicated in another class of 
 prophecies, between the son of David in the literal sense, and 
 a son some time to appear, who should occupy an unspeakably 
 higher position, and raise the kingdom to a state of purity 
 and bliss it could never otherwise have reached. (Compare 
 here also, on the one side, 2 Sam. vii. 14 ; Ps. Ixxxix. 30-32, 
 3845; 1 Kings xi. 3639; Amos ix. 11; and on the other, 
 Ps. ii., xlv., Ixxii., ex.; Isa. ix. 6, 7, etc.) There was no es 
 sential difference between this later covenant with the house 
 of David, and the earlier covenant with Abraham or Israel; 
 they both aimed at the same great end of obtaining salvation 
 and blessing for the world, in connexion with the establish 
 ment of truth and righteousness : only, what the one proposed 
 to accomplish through the seed of Israel, the other, more spe 
 cifically and individually, sought to work out by the adminis- 
 
468 OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW. 
 
 tration of a kingdom, in the hands of a son of David. The 
 design of each covenant should be realized, when (as it might 
 be indifferently expressed) the kingdom among the sons of men 
 had become the Lord s, or all the families of the earth were 
 truly blessed in Him. Fundamentally, therefore, the relation 
 of the promised Messiah to David s immediate son was the 
 same with that of Christ to Israel ; it was such as, in God s 
 dispensations, subsists between the present and the ultimate, 
 the preparatory and the final that is, in both there were 
 relatively the same place and calling, but these in the earlier 
 connected with an inferior-line of things, partaking more of 
 the human, and the external, in the later, rising more into 
 the sphere of the spiritual Divine ; consequently, in the one 
 case intermingled on every hand with imperfection and fail 
 ure, in the other, attaining to heavenly excellence and per 
 fection. Such generally is the relation between the Old and 
 New between type and antitype; and such it is also here. 
 Christ is at once the antitypical or the true Israel, and the 
 antitypical or true Son of David; since in Him all the pro 
 mises made concerning these were to stand fast, and the high 
 calling of God was to find its proper realization. Hence, the 
 prophetic announcements respecting Abraham s seed of bless 
 ing, and David s son and heir, are, in their higher bearing and 
 import, ascribed to the Messiah ; they have no adequate accom 
 plishment till they find it in Him, (Acts ii. 25, 26, xiii. 33; 
 Heb. i. 5.) 
 
 Now, as before the incarnation the Spirit gave forth a series 
 of prophetical utterances, based on the relationship of Israel 
 to the Messiah, and again a series based on His relationship 
 to David, it was quite natural, that the writers of the New 
 Testament, under the guidance of the same Spirit, should at 
 times mark how the things concerning both were discovering 
 themselves in the history of Christ. And in doing so, we 
 might expect them to take, not merely the prophetical pas 
 sages, which on the ground of the typical relationship, in either 
 of its forms, pointed to the corning future, but also occasion 
 ally at least, to render prominent the relationship itself, and 
 show how, by remarkable coincidences in God s providence, 
 
MATT. ii. 15; HOS. XL 1. 469 
 
 Jesus was, in a manner, identified with the literal Israel, or 
 with the house of David. In the nature of things there could 
 not be more than occasional coincidences of the kind referred 
 to ; for it had been impossible, or if possible, it had been on 
 many accounts unsuitable, that Jesus should have been made 
 to pass through all the recorded experiences belonging either 
 to Israel at large, or to David s house. It were enough, if a 
 few noticeable agreements took place, fitted from their own 
 nature, or from the manner in which they were brought about, 
 to serve as finger-posts to direct the eyes of men to Him that 
 was to come, or, like Heaven s seal on the connexion between 
 the beginnings and the end, to certify them that the old was 
 at length in its higher form coming into being. Such was the 
 birth of Jesus at Bethlehem, the city of David, fulfilling, in 
 deed, a prophecy which had been announced regarding it (not 
 overlooked by the Evangelist, ch. ii. 5, 6,) but itself, especially 
 when effected by so singular turns of Providence, a sign from 
 above, that the long expected Son of David was born into the 
 world. Of the same kind, and pointing to the other form of 
 the typical relationship, was the removal of the infant Saviour 
 for a time to an asylum in Egypt, and His recall thence when 
 the season of danger was over; it was substantially doing over 
 again what had been done in the infancy of the national Is 
 rael, and thereby helping a weak faith to recognise in this re 
 markable babe the new Israel, the child of hope for the world. 
 Of the same kind, again, was His withdrawal, through the 
 Spirit, into the wilderness, to be tempted of the devil, and His 
 sojourn there for forty days the number, and the place, and 
 the object, all pointing back to Israel s forty years tempta 
 tion in the desert; but by the day for a year (instead of, as 
 in their case, a year for a day,) and by the baffling of the 
 tempter in every assault, showing how infinitely superior the 
 new was to the old, and that here, at last, was the Israel in 
 whom God was to be fully glorified. 
 
 If these principles in the Divine government are kept in 
 
 view, no difficulty will be found in the application made by 
 
 the Evangelist of Hos. xi. 1 to our Lord s return from Egypt. 
 
 His temporary descent thither, and subsequent recall to the 
 
 40 
 
470 OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW. 
 
 land appointed for the fulfilment of His high vocation, as just 
 noticed, was one of the more striking and palpable coinci 
 dences between His outward history, and that of Israel, which 
 were ordered and designed by God to point Him out as the 
 true Israel, the antitype of the old; and the passage in Ho- 
 sea, which records the earlier event, necessarily formed, by 
 reason of the typical connexion, a virtual prophecy of the 
 corresponding event in the future. It embodied a typical 
 fact; and so, when viewed in connexion with God s ulterior 
 design, it enclosed a presage of the antitypical counterpart. 
 Substantially the requirements of the type might have been 
 met, if some other local asylum had been" provided for the 
 youthful Saviour than the literal Egypt precisely as, after 
 wards, the circumstantials of His temptation differed in time 
 and place from the prior temptation of Israel. But to render 
 the correspondence here more obvious and convincing, the 
 new was made formally , as well as substantially, to coincide 
 with the old ; so that, for those who were watching and de 
 sirous to learn from the footsteps of Providence, there might 
 be the less difficulty in discerning the fulfilment of the typi 
 cal prediction, when, the Lord anew called his son out of 
 Egypt. 
 
 Matt. ii. 18 ; Jer. xxxi. -15. 
 
 The application of Jeremiah s prophecy, about Rachel be 
 wailing her lost children, and refusing to be comforted on ac 
 count of the apparently hopeless deprivation she had sus 
 tained, to the slaughter of the children at Bethlehem, un 
 doubtedly proceeds upon a certain connexion between the 
 earlier and the later event. But from the very nature of 
 things, and the terms of the passage cited, the connexion 
 could not be regarded as of such a close and organic kind, as 
 that indicated in the last quotation. There, stress was laid 
 even on the external resemblance between what befell Christ, 
 and what* had anciently befallen Israel; the connexion of 
 both with Egypt formed the immediate and ostensible ground 
 of the word, spoken originally of the one, being extended to 
 the other. Here, on the other hand, there is a palpable di- 
 
MATT. II. 18; JER. XXXI. 15. 471 
 
 versity as to the external circumstances ; for the scene of ac 
 tion in the one case was Rama, a city in the tribe of Benjamin, 
 a few miles to the north of Jerusalem, while in the other 
 it was Bethlehem, a city about the same distance to the 
 south, in the tribe of Judah; and, consequently, if respect 
 were had to literal exactness, Leah, the ancestral mother of 
 Judah, should have been addressed as the chief mourner on 
 the present occasion, as Rachel had been on the former. In 
 such circumstances of obvious and palpable disagreement, 
 the Evangelist could not possibly mean, that the passage he 
 quoted from Jeremiah had either been directly uttered of the 
 scene at Bethlehem, or even that the original mourning at 
 Rama had a typical relation, in the stricter sense, to that at 
 Bethlehem. And hence he does not say, as he usually does, 
 that the circumstances took place in order that the word might 
 be fulfilled, but merely that then was fulfilled what had been 
 spoken by Jeremiah. The kind of fulfilment indicated must 
 be determined by the points of agreement in the two re 
 lated transactions. Even in its original application, the pas 
 sage is highly poetical in form, and cannot be interpreted as 
 a piece of prosaic writing. It was at Rama, as we learn from 
 Jer. xl. 1, that the last band of captives was assembled by 
 the captains of Nebuchadnezzar, before they were sent into 
 exile; and either in anticipation of this sore calamity, or in 
 reference to it after it had taken place, the prophet repre 
 sents Rachel, the ancestral mother of the tribe, where the 
 hapless exiles were gathered, bewailing the fate of her off 
 spring, and giving way to an inconsolable grief, as if all were 
 gone. The introduction of Rachel is, of course, a mere cover, 
 to bring out in vivid colours, the sadness of the occasion, and 
 the apparently hopeless character of the calamity; to human 
 eye, and especially to the passionate fondness of maternal af 
 fection, it seemed as if Israel had utterly perished under the 
 stroke of Nebuchadnezzar. Yet it was not so in reality; and 
 the prophet presently goes on to assure the disconsolate mo 
 ther, that her grief was inordinate, that her children should 
 return again from the land of the enemy, and that there was 
 hope in her end. 
 
472 OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW. 
 
 Now, with all the circumstantial diversities that distinguish 
 the original event at Rama, and the message it called forth, 
 from the slaughter of the infants in Bethlehem, there still 13 
 a fundamental agreement in the more peculiar features of both. 
 Herod was the new Nebuchadnezzar, who, by his cruel and 
 crafty policy, sought to do what, after another fashion, the 
 Chaldean conqueror thought he had done, viz., extinguish 
 for ever the better hopes and aspirations of Israel. When the 
 one, after having razed the foundations of Jerusalem, bore 
 away from Rama the shattered remnants of her people, he had 
 struck, as he conceived, a fatal blow at their singular preten 
 sions and distinctive glory. And, in like manner, when Herod 
 smote the children at Bethlehem, with the impious design of 
 embracing in the slaughter the new-born "King of the Jews," 
 he would, had his aim been accomplished, have buried in the 
 dust all that was to render Israel pre-eminent among the na 
 tions. They might as well, thenceforth, have ceased to exist, 
 gone to a hopeless exile, or a dishonoured grave. So that, 
 looking upon matters with the eye of sense, the ancestral mo 
 ther might, as of old, have raised anew the wail of sorrow, 
 even such as might appear incapable of any true solace. Yet 
 God, in His paternal faithfulness and oversight, had provided 
 against the worst, and here again had taken the wise in his 
 own craftiness. As regarded the main object in view, the 
 stroke fell powerless to the ground; the bird escaped from 
 the snare of the fowler. But situated as matters now were 
 not only with a Herod in the seat of power, but with an Hero- 
 dian party, who thought that the best thing for the people was 
 to maintain the Herodian interest, it was well to bring this 
 memorable transaction of Gospel times into formal connexion 
 with the ancient catastrophe to show that Herod was virtu 
 ally now what Nebuchadnezzar was then and that, so far as 
 concerned the real glory and salvation of Israel, to look for 
 help from the existing representative of the worldly power in 
 Judea, was like going to Babylon for pity and succour. From 
 such a quarter misery and despair, not life and hope, were 
 what might surely be looked for. 
 
MATT. vin. 17; ISA. LIII. 4. 473 
 
 IV. 
 
 Matt. viii. 17; Isa. liii. 4. 
 
 The explanation given of the terms, by which the Evange 
 list renders the original in this quotation, has shown the faith 
 fulness of the rendering. It is at once more specific, and 
 more literal, not only than the Septuagint, but also than the 
 authorized version of the passage in Isaiah, which has, "He 
 hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows." Sicknesses 
 and pains, however, are the more exact synonyms for the He 
 brew terms; and it is not bearing and carrying, anyhow, that 
 is ascribed to the Messiah respecting them, but more specially 
 taking them on Himself, as a burden bearing them on His own 
 person. Such also is the sense put upon them by the Evan 
 gelist. Yet Meyer says, "The passage is cited according to 
 the original, but not in conformity with its import, since, ac 
 cording to this, the Messiah is represented as an atoning sin- 
 bearer; for the parallel verbs, fapfidvetv and fta0Tdetv, must 
 here be rendered (against the meaning of the corresponding 
 Hebrew words) to take away^ to remove, on account of the 
 historical connexion in which the citation is found." There 
 is, however, no such necessity; and Meyer here, as in many 
 other cases, merely adopts a superficial historical sense as the 
 only tenable one, and then pronounces an arbitrary and pre 
 sumptuous judgment on the sacred record. It is, first of all, 
 riot sins, but sicknesses, or diseases and pains, that primarily 
 and directly are the subject of discourse. And, secondly, 
 while the sense of bearing away or removing these would have 
 suited the connexion, it is not absolutely required by it; nay, 
 the other and literal rendering gives us, though a less obvi 
 ous, yet a much profounder insight into our Lord s connexion 
 with the troubles and distresses of mankind. In respect to 
 these also He had a vicarious relation to fill to charge Him 
 self with the burden of human sorrows, as well as with the 
 guilt from which they spring; and, in order to remove them, 
 He must bring them into contact with His own sympathies, 
 and powers, and benevolent working. 
 
 Hengstenberg, in his comment on the original passage 
 
 40* 
 
474 OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW. 
 
 (Christology, vol. ii.,) maintains the rendering above given, 
 and justifies the use made of it by the Evangelist. He says, 
 "According to the opinion of several interpreters, by diseases 
 all outward and inward sufferings are figuratively designated; 
 according to the opinion of others, spiritual diseases, sins. 
 But, from the relation alone of this verse to the preceding, it 
 appears that here, in the first instance, diseases and pains, in 
 the ordinary sense, are spoken of; just as the blind and deaf, 
 in ch. xxxv., are, in the first instance, they who are naturally 
 blind and deaf. Diseases, in the sense of sins, do not occur 
 at all in the Old Testament. The circumstance, that in the 
 parallel passage, ver. 11, 12, the bearing of the transgressions 
 and sins is spoken of, proves nothing. The servant of God 
 bears these also in their consequences, in their punishments, 
 among which sickness and pains occupy a prominent place. 
 Of the bearing of outward sufferings, ll ? T H Ni#j occurs also in 
 Jer. x. 19. If the words are rightly understood, then at once 
 light falls upon the apostolic quotation, in Matt. viii. 16, 17, 
 which deserves the more careful consideration, as the Evange 
 list intentionally deviates from the Alexandrine version. In 
 such an application there is not an external meaning given to 
 that, which is to be understood spiritually; but when the Sa 
 viour healed the sick, He fulfilled the prophecy in its most 
 proper and obvious sense. . . . He has not only put away 
 our sicknesses and pains, but He has, as our substitute, taken 
 them upon him; He has healed us by His having Himself be 
 come sick in our stead." This, of course, implies, as Heng- 
 stenberg goes on to state, Christ s personal appropriation of 
 our sins, of which His sufferings were the consequence. But 
 it implies also, that the troubles and disorders of humanity 
 were themselves, in a sense, laid upon Christ; He had to make 
 these also His own; and showed that He did so by applying 
 His Almightiness to remove them. Even here there was the 
 proof of an infinite condescension, and the indication of a vi 
 carious work. 
 
 In 1 Pet. ii. 24, 25, there is undoubtedly a reference to the 
 53d of Isaiah; and the sin-bearing of Jesus is expressed in 
 the very words used by the Septungint in rendering the first 
 
MATT. xin. 35; PS. LXXVIII. 2. 475 
 
 clause of vor. 4. But there is no ground, on that account, 
 for supposing that Peter meant the words to be understood as 
 expressing his view of the passage. lie is merely unfolding, 
 in language which the thoughts and words of that chapter had 
 rendered current, the great truth, which doubtless formed the 
 centre of the prophet s representation, as well as the main 
 theme of the apostle s teaching. 
 
 V. 
 
 Matt. xiii. 35; Ps. Ixxviii. 2. 
 
 It is in connexion with the change introduced into our Lord s 
 method of teaching, when He began to speak in parables, that 
 the passage from Ps. Ixxviii. 2 is cited. He did so, the Evan 
 gelist states, " that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by 
 the prophet, I will open my mouth in parables, I will utter 
 things that have been hidden from the foundation of the world." 
 The stress is plainly meant to be laid upon the first part of 
 the passage; it was that, which now more especially had its 
 verification in the procedure of Christ; the hidden or enigma 
 tical nature of the things discoursed of was but a consequence, 
 that, in greater or less degree, attached itself to the other. 
 Now, in considering the fitness of this application of the Psalm 
 ist s language, we are first of all met with a source of doubt 
 and uncertainty in regard to the proper meaning of the word 
 rendered parables. This in the original is S#a ? mashal; and 
 opinions have been, and still are, divided on its precise import 
 in certain applications some making it bear mainly upon the 
 form and character of the discourse, others upon its style and 
 diction. To the former class belongs Hengstenberg, who says 
 in his work on Balaam, on Num. xxiii. 7, " The noun mashal 
 originally means likeness, comparison, and properly maintains 
 this sense always. When it is used of sentences, proverbs, 
 and songs, then it denotes these, not simply as such, but only 
 in so far as the idea of likeness, comparison, prevails in them." 
 As used by Balaam, he conceives it to have respect more par 
 ticularly to the poetic elevation in them, which naturally led 
 to a considerable infusion of the figurative modes of concep 
 tion, in which poetry delights to indulge. And there are 
 
476 OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW. 
 
 other portions of the prophetic Scriptures such, for example, 
 as Isa. xiv., and the prophecies of Ezekiel (com. ch. xv. 49,) to 
 which also the word is applied in respect to which from the 
 play of fancy and the large employment of figure that appears 
 in them, we can readily perceive the appropriateness of a term 
 that is indicative of images and similitudes. But when the 
 same term is applied to such didactic pieces, as Ps. xxxix. (ver. 
 4,) or to such narrative discourses, as Ps. Ixxviii., which are 
 not characterized by any flights of fancy, or by-figurative 
 speech, one is at a loss to see, how, if the word always retains 
 the sense of comparison or likeness, it should be applied to 
 compositions which seem to have so little about them of the 
 distinctive quality. 
 
 It is partly on this account, that the other shade of opinion 
 respecting maslial has been adopted, and which would find the 
 idea of similitude or likeness, that forms the root-meaning, in 
 the parallelism of the sentences. Thus Gesenius, while he re 
 presents the word as often applied to parabolical and figura 
 tive discourses, holds it to be also employed of songs and other 
 compositions, "the particular verses of which consist of two 
 hemistichs of similar argument and form." In this case there 
 might be no figure, or illustrative style of thought emploj ed 
 in developing the subject handled; nothing, indeed, marked 
 or peculiar beyond the digesting of what was uttered into a 
 series of parallelistic members. This view, however, appears 
 to give undue prominence to the mere structure of the sen 
 tences, which is never rendered prominent in Scripture itself, 
 and only takes, in certain cases, the parallelistic form, from 
 the requirements of the kind of instruction, or the species of 
 discourse, with which it is associated. 
 
 The fault probably lies in making the import and bearing 
 of the word too determinate either way. The sense put upon, 
 it by Lowth, which may be said to include both the shades of 
 opinion now mentioned giving chief prominence to the cha 
 racteristics of the discourse, yet not altogether excluding the 
 external form, into which its utterances are cast is perhaps 
 the correcter mode of representation. He takes it to be a 
 term " expressive of the poetic style. Many interpreters de- 
 
MATT. xin. 35; PS. LXXVIII. 2. 477 
 
 signate it parable; a word in some respects not unsuitable, 
 but by no means embracing the entire compass of the Hebrew 
 term; which, taken in its full strength, and according to its 
 current use, will be found to signify a sententious, figurative, 
 and elevated kind of discourse." He means one or other of 
 these, as the occasion may require; and in the kind of dis 
 course he would include also its appropriate style of expres 
 sion. When applied, therefore, to such a piece of composition 
 as the 78th Psalm, in which by a poetico-historical rehearsal 
 of the transactions of former times, the inspired writer seeks 
 to convey lessons of instruction for the future, it may be re 
 garded as calling attention, not so much to the parallelism of 
 the sentences, if to that at all, in a quite subordinate man 
 ner but chiefly to the underlying parallelism of circumstances 
 conceived as existing between the Israel of former generations 
 and those yet to come; and to the profound, sententious form 
 in which the instruction inlaid in the one was exhibited for 
 the benefit of the other. It was a turning of history into pro 
 phecy ; for while ostensibly but rehearsing the past, it aimed 
 at presenting in this a mirror of the future. 
 
 Precisely similar was the object of our Lord s parables; 
 differing only in so far as they employed for the cover of the 
 instruction, not the records of actual history, but the ideal 
 narratives of parabolical discourse. This, indeed, was a form 
 of speech and instruction, that still more distinctly and fully 
 realized the idea of the maslial, than the 78th Psalm con 
 taining, as it did, more of the poetical element, and more pal 
 pably basing its instruction on the similitude of one class of 
 relations to another. And as all preceding teachers, who in 
 any measure possessed and exercised the spirit of prophecy, 
 were but so many forerunners and types of Him, who was to 
 be emphatically the teacher and prophet of His church, so, 
 what by any one of these had been uttered of His calling and 
 His work, might, with fullest propriety, be applied to Christ, 
 as destined to find in Him its truest realization. Nor could 
 any thing of ihit description be more fitly so applied, than 
 the saying before us, which pointed to a method of instruction, 
 
 1 Pnelec. de Heb. Poesi, 4. 
 
478 OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW. 
 
 that in one of its forms was carried by our Lord to the high 
 est degree of perfection, and which, at once for what it un 
 folded and for what it wrapt in temporary concealment, was 
 peculiarly adapted to the ends of His mission. The exterior 
 form conveyed to those, who heard, the image of the truth; 
 and purporting to be but the image, it naturally served both 
 to prompt their desires, and to direct their inquiries after the 
 reality. 
 
 VI. 
 
 Matt. xxi. 42; Ps. cxviii. 22, 23. 
 
 The application, first by our Lord, and afterwards by His 
 apostles, of the figurative passage in the 118th Psalm, re 
 specting the rejection of the stone by men, and its elevation 
 by God to the head stone of the corner, to the things which 
 were to befall Himself, proceeds upon the same relation of 
 Christ to Israel, which has been explained under No. II. 
 The psalm speaks in the first instance of the literal and col 
 lective Israel; but of this with reference to its election of 
 God, its higher calling and destiny. The experiences, there 
 fore, to which it relates, while they had an earlier verifica 
 tion in the history of the covenant-people, necessarily had a 
 higher development, a kind of culminating exemplification 
 in the person and kingdom of Christ. As a prophecy, it is 
 of that class which may most justly be said to have "spring 
 ing and germinant accomplishment," while "the height and 
 fulness of them" are to be found only in the things which re 
 late to the Messiah. The conflict, which the psalm describes, 
 between the speaker and the ungodly adversaries around Him, 
 was in some form perpetually proceeding. The purpose of 
 God to bless Israel, and to make them the one channel of 
 blessing to the world, was ever and anon calling forth the un 
 godly opposition of the world sometimes within the natural 
 Israel itself, as in the struggles through which David, the 
 chosen servant of God, had to make his way to the throne 
 but more commonly with Israel as a community, when set on 
 by the jealous rivalry and malice of surrounding nations. 
 More especially did this conflict come to a height under the 
 old relations, when the worldly power, headed by the king of 
 
MATT. xxi. 42; PS. cxvm. 22, 23. 479 
 
 Babylon, scattered the force of the chosen people, and, in 
 boastful opposition to them, claimed to be recognised as the 
 ruling dynasty among men. Israel was then like a stone re 
 jected by the builders, deemed altogether unworthy of a place 
 in their proud scheme of earthly dominion and personal ag 
 grandizement. But when Babylon herself fell from her high 
 position, and Israel not only survived the calamities which 
 crushed their conquerors in the dust, but was sent back with 
 honour, and the clear signs of Heaven s favour, to lay the 
 foundation of a new, and, ultimately, a nobler destiny in their 
 native land, it then strikingly appeared how God s purpose 
 respecting them prevailed over the power and malice of men; 
 and how the rejected stone was by Him appointed to be the 
 head of the corner. At such a time, even thoughtful persons 
 among the heathen were constrained to say, " The Lord hath 
 done great things for them;" and the covenant-people them 
 selves naturally sung their song of triumph, and exclaimed, 
 "It is the Lord s doing, and wondrous in our eyes." 
 
 In all probability, the event now referred to was the histo 
 rical occasion on which Psalm 118th was composed and origi 
 nally sung; a probability that is greatly strengthened, and 
 rendered all but certain by the recorded fact, that at the lay 
 ing of the foundation of the second temple, the returned exiles 
 sung in responsive strains, (such as actually belong to this 
 psalm,) and strains that commenced precisely as it does. For 
 we are told, at Ezra iii. 11, that they then "sang together by 
 course, in praising and giving thanks unto the Lord, because 
 He is good, for His mercy endureth for ever toward Israel." 
 But the principles of the Divine government, which then re 
 ceived such a striking exemplification in the case of Israel, 
 were again to be exhibited, and in a yet higher form, in the 
 personal history of Messiah. Many prophecies had pointed 
 in this direction all, indeed, which spake of the Messiah as 
 executing His work, and rising to the place of pre-eminent 
 power and glory, through a course of trying experiences and 
 headstrong opposition. These, one and all, betokened a con 
 trariety between the views of men and the purpose of God, in 
 respect to the Author and the plan of salvation ; and never 
 
480 OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW. 
 
 failed to make manifest the ultimate triumph of Heaven s 
 counsels over the perversity and malice of the world. But 
 among these prophecies, there were several which connected 
 the struggle and triumph of Messiah with substantially the 
 same idea as that employed in Ps. cxviii. In Isaiah, for ex 
 ample, ch. viii. 14, speaking of the Lord s more peculiar ma 
 nifestation of Himself, which was to take place in the future, 
 it is said, " And He shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone 
 of stumbling and a rock of offence to both the houses of Is 
 rael." Again, at ch. xxviii. 16, with a more special and 
 pointed reference to the work of Christ, "Therefore, thus saith 
 the Lord God, Behold I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, 
 a tried stone, a precious corner-stone, a sure foundation: he 
 that believeth shall not make haste. r In Zechariah also the 
 promised appearance of the Lord s Branch the Messiah, as 
 the scion of the house of David is associated with the erec 
 tion of a temple, of another and a nobler kind than that which 
 was in process of erection by the returned captives, and in 
 that, of course, Messiah Himself was to occupy the most pro 
 minent place, (ch. vi. 12, 13.) So that, when in Ps. cxviii., 
 mention is made of the stone rejected by the builders, yet ex 
 alted by the Lord to be the head of the corner, and on that 
 very account He is magnified as the God of salvation, the 
 thoughts of believers, even in ancient times, might as readily 
 have been led to think of the future as of the past. And had 
 not a judicial blindness been on the hearts of the people, when 
 our Lord asked them, " Have ye never read in the Scriptures, 
 The stone which the builders rejected is become the head of 
 the corner?" they would have seen, that to continue their op 
 position after all the mighty works that had showed themselves 
 forth in Him, was but to enact anew, and with infinitely less 
 excuse, the part which of old the heathen had acted toward 
 Israel, or which the Sauline party had acted toward David. 
 The same controversy was pending as of old, and the same 
 disastrous results must inevitably befall those who set them 
 selves against the manifested purpose of God. 
 
 It thus appears, that while the passage had a primary re 
 spect to Israel, it from the first included the Divine purpose, 
 
MATT. xxn. 31, 32; EX. in. 6. 481 
 
 with -which Israel was more peculiarly identified their elec 
 tion of God to be the instrument and channel of blessing to 
 the world, and as such to have the chief place among men. 
 But as this purpose was to find its proper accomplishment in 
 Christ, so to apply the passage personally to Him Was in per 
 fect accordance with its original import and design. 
 
 YIT. 
 
 Matt. xxii. 31, 32; Ex. iii. 6. 
 
 This is one of the few passages in which it has sometimes 
 been alleged our Lord occasionally fell in with the cabalistic 
 mode of handling Scripture, which was current among the 
 Rabbinical Jews. It is only, however, with the more extreme 
 and reckless section of the Rationalists that this allegation 
 is found ; for, however often interpreters of Rationalistic ten 
 dencies have failed to bring out the full force of our Lord s 
 reasoning, they have commonly admitted that the argument 
 He draws is based on a solid foundation ; and even Paulus, 
 in the last edition of his Commentary on the Synoptical Gos 
 pels, says, "Jesus reasons here in a subtle manner, yet by no 
 means so that there did not really lie in the premises what He 
 deduces from them." It is not undeserving of notice, that, 
 amid all the sayings which have been gathered out of ancient 
 Jewish writings, for the purpose of elucidating New Testa 
 ment Scripture, none has been found that bears any proper 
 resemblance to the words of Jesus, before us. In a compara 
 tively modern Jewish writer, the words themselves, and the 
 reference of Christ, have been substantially appropriated; 
 the passage is quoted by Schb ttgen, on this part of Matthew s 
 Gospel. It is from R. Menasse Ben Israel de Resur., p. 68: 
 "When the Lord first appeared to Moses, he is reported to 
 have said, I am the God of your fathers, the God of Abra 
 ham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob. But God is not 
 the God of the dead, because the dead are not; but of the 
 living, because the living exist. On that ground, therefore, 
 it is rightly inferred that, in respect to the soul, the patri 
 archs still live." Rabbinical men could in some measure 
 perceive the force of the argument, when it was formed to 
 41 
 
482 OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW. 
 
 their hand, but they wanted depth and discernment of spirit 
 to discover it for themselves. Indeed, the argument is per 
 fectly simple, and must appear so to all, the moment they ap 
 prehend what is implied in the relationship which God, as 
 God, admitted to subsist between Himself and those patri 
 archs. He owns himself their God ; their God still, though 
 for hundreds of years their bodies had been mouldering in the 
 cave of Marnre. In His account they were yet alive; and 
 He, being their God, it necessarily behooved Him to do for 
 them whatever a God is able to perform on their behalf just 
 as a father is bound to do for his children whatever he really 
 can to promote their welfare. But cannot God He who at 
 first breathed into those patriarchs the breath of life, again 
 raise them from the dust of death, and clothe them with 
 strength and beauty? Doubtless He can; and because He 
 can, He will nay, He must, since He has Himself assumed 
 the name, and thereby pledged Himself to make good all that 
 it imports. He who would have been ashamed to be called 
 their God, if He had not provided for them a city, would 
 much more have been ashamed so to call Himself, if their bo 
 dies, a part of their very natures, were left for ever as a prey 
 to corruption. 
 
 VIII. 
 
 Matt, xxvii. 9, 10; Zech. xi. 13. 
 
 There are two points that require explanation, in the use 
 that is made here of the words of ancient prophecy; one more 
 general, and another more specific. The first has respect to 
 the propriety of understanding the Messiah as the person who 
 was to be so unworthily treated, and rated at the mean price 
 of thirty pieces of silver the price of a slave. This admits 
 of a full justification; for, in the preceding context, the sub 
 ject of discourse plainly is about the false shepherds, on the 
 one side, and the true Shepherd on the other. Reproving 
 and judging the former, the Lord Himself, whom the prophet 
 personates, undertakes the office, and in doing so, feeds the 
 misled and injured flock, and cuts off those who had impove 
 rished and oppressed them. But, so far from meeting with a 
 
MATT. xxvn. 9, 10; ZECH. XL 13. 483 
 
 kind reception and grateful acknowledgment from those 
 whose cause he undertook, " their souls rebelled against him," 
 and he resolved on withdrawing in disgust; but demanded of 
 them a reward for his services in their behalf. This, they 
 are represented as answering, by weighing out the contempt 
 uous sum of thirty pieces of silver: a transaction which evi 
 dently bespoke the light estimation in which they held him, 
 and the work he had performed amongst them. Hence they 
 are again given up to bad shepherds, and disorder and trou 
 ble rush in as before. 
 
 Now, since the Lord Himself is the Good Shepherd spoken 
 of, and the transaction about the rating, carries a peculiarly 
 personal aspect, it is scarcely possible to understand it other 
 wise than as referring to some manifestation of Godhead more 
 objective and realistic than any that had taken place in ancient 
 times. The people, under the relations of the Old Covenant, 
 might be represented as selling themselves (Isa. lii. 3,) but they 
 neither were, nor could fitly be, spoken of as selling the Lord. 
 Such a mode of representation pointed to another and more 
 palpable exhibition of Godhead than had hitherto appeared; 
 it pointed to the appearance of the Divine Shepherd, of whom 
 the earlier prophets had so often and so distinctly spoken (Ps. 
 ii. 9, Ixxii. ; Isa. ix. 6, 7; Jer. xxiii. 4, 5; Ezek. xxxiv. 23.) 
 And when, in addition to this, we look to the particulars of 
 the account given by the prophet of the treatment of the shep 
 herd, we may justly say, with Hengstenberg, "The agreement 
 of prophecy and fulfilment is so striking, that it would force 
 itself upon us, although it had been indicated by no declara 
 tion of the New Testament. What could the last and most 
 fearful expression of ingratitude towards the Good Shepherd 
 here predicted be, other than the murderous plot by which 
 the Jews rewarded the pastoral fidelity of Christ, and for 
 whose accomplishment Judas was bribed?" (Christology.) 
 
 The differences that present themselves between the terms 
 of the prophecy and the record of its fulfilment, are such 
 merely as respect the form, not the reality of things. In the 
 prophecy, the shepherd demands the payment of a sum, and 
 that in the shape of a reward for his services ; but this is only 
 
484 OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW. 
 
 for the purpose of bringing out more distinctly the fact that 
 he had appeared to them in the character of one doing them 
 important service, and that when they came formally to sur 
 render their interest in him, the time and circumstances of 
 the transaction might fairly be taken as an evidence of the 
 value they set upon him. In a word, it would inevitably and 
 justly be regarded as a proof of blackest ingratitude toward 
 him, and senseless disregard of their own highest interests. 
 Not only so, but as Divine Providence ordered it so that 
 the ministers of the temple paid the price, and the price was 
 again taken back and thrown down in the temple ; so in reality 
 all came to be, in a manner, transacted before the Lord ; it 
 was done as under His immediate eyesight. As for the com 
 mand in the prophecy to cast the price to the potter, it was 
 but a strong form of the future (as in Isa. vi. 9, noticed under 
 Matt. xiii. 14,) and merely denoted the certainty with which 
 the event should come to pass. 
 
 But another point here calls for consideration, of a some 
 what more special kind; viz. why should the price have been 
 so explicitly adjudged to the potter? This seems to imply, 
 that somewhere already mention had been made of a potter, 
 in such a connexion, as rendered the destination of this money 
 to the same quarter a natural and proper thing. The prophecy 
 here, therefore, must lean on some earlier portion of Scrip 
 ture, which it either resumes, or takes for granted as known 
 and understood. Now, it is only in Jeremiah that we find 
 anything of that description. There, but there alone is mention 
 made of the potter, in a way that is fitted to throw light on 
 the passage under consideration. In ch. xviii. 2, the word of 
 the Lord comes to Jeremiah, saying, "Arise, and go down to 
 the potter s house, and there will I cause thee to hear My 
 words." From the use of the definite article, the potter, we 
 are naturally led to think of some one being meant, who had 
 a well-known and recognised place in connexion with the 
 temple ; and from the prophet being ordered to go down to 
 him, we are not less naturally led to think of his workshop as 
 being situated in a lower place, probably in the valley that 
 lay adjacent to the temple. This, however, is rendered certain 
 
MATT, xxvir. 9, 10; ZECH. xi. 13. 485 
 
 in ch. xix. 2, -where, after being commanded to get a potter s 
 earthen bottle, he was instructed to proceed, in company with 
 the priests and elders of the people, "into the valley of the 
 son of Hinnom," and proclaim certain words. This valley 
 had first been the scene of frightful abominations, when idola 
 try was at its height in Jerusalem ; and afterwards, to mark 
 his abhorrence of these, Josiah had polluted the place, by 
 throwing into it carcasses and bones into that part of it more 
 especially, which was called Tophet, and in which children 
 had been made to pass through the fire to Moloch (2 Kings 
 xxiii. 10; comp. Jer. vii. 31.) When the prophet, then, had 
 gone down to the potter, he saw a vessel become marred in 
 the potter s hand; on which the word of the Lord came, in 
 timating that the Lord could do the same with the children of 
 Israel, and, on account of their sins, might even be expected 
 to do it. But the second special message was the one recorded 
 in ch. xix., when the prophet was commanded to throw an 
 earthen vessel of the potter into the valley of Hinnom, and 
 accompany the action with these appalling words, "Behold I 
 will bring evil upon this place, the which whosoever heareth, 
 his ears shall tingle. Because they have forsaken Me, and 
 have estranged this place, and have burned incenso in it 
 unto other gods, whom neither they nor their fathers have 
 known, and have filled this place with innocent blood; there 
 fore behold the days come, saith the Lord, that this place shall 
 no more be called Tophet, nor the valley of the son of Hin 
 nom, but the valley of slaughter. And I will make void the 
 counsel of Judah and Jerusalem in this place ; and I will cause 
 them to fall by the sword," etc. "Even so will I break this 
 people and this city, as one breaks the vessels of a potter, 
 which cannot be made whole again, and they shall bury in 
 Tophet, till there be no place to bury." 
 
 Now, when in Zechariah it was said, regarding the thirty 
 pieces of silver, without any farther explanation, " cast them 
 to the potter," there can be no doubt, that he refers to these 
 transactions in Jeremiah. And the meaning of the appoint 
 ment was to this effect, Let these pieces of silver become, like 
 the potter of Jeremiah and his vessels, the symbol of the 
 
 41* 
 
486 OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW. 
 
 people s consummate guilt and impending doom. They are the 
 price of innocent blood blood that must still more surely 
 draw down the vengeance of Heaven, than that which was of 
 old shed in the valley of Hinnom; let them, therefore, be 
 identified with the potter s field, the place emphatically of 
 pollution and crime, as a sign and warning to all, that the 
 former desolations are ready to come back again. Such was 
 the natural import of the prediction ; and it affords by far the 
 most fitting explanation of the apparent anomaly in the refe 
 rence of the Evangelist, who, when quoting a passage of Zecha 
 riah, ascribes it to Jeremiah. Many suppositions have been 
 made to account for this, such as, that there may have been. 
 a lost passage in the writings of Jeremiah to the same effect 
 that the portion of Zeehariah s writings quoted from may 
 really have belonged to Jeremiah that the Evangelist s me 
 mory may have failed him, etc. The real reason, however, is, 
 that the Evangelist had in his eye the inseparable connexion 
 between the prediction in Zechariah and the earlier announce 
 ments in Jeremiah; that he regarded the one only as a later 
 and more specific application of the other; and that as he 
 wished the people to consider the denunciations of guilt and 
 judgment most graphically portrayed in the original prophecy, 
 so he couples the prophecy with the name of the earlier rather 
 than of the later prophet. This view, which was first dis 
 tinctly propounded by Grotius, who says, Cum autem hoc 
 dictum Jeremiae per Sach. repetitum hie recitat Mat., simul 
 ostendit tacite, eas poenas imminere Judseis, quas iidem pro- 
 phetse olini sui temporis hominibus praedixerant, has been 
 more fully vindicated and established by Hengstenberg, in his 
 Christology, on Zechariah. He justly says, " Matthew might, 
 indeed, have cited both prophets. But such prolixity in cita 
 tion is entirely contrary to the custom of the authors of tho 
 New Testament; which may be explained by a twofold reason. 
 They presuppose their readers to possess an accurate know 
 ledge of Scripture; and then the human instrument was kept 
 far behind the Divine Author, the Spirit of God and of Christ, 
 who spake in all the prophets in the same manner. Very 
 frequently, therefore, the human author is not mentioned at 
 
MATT, xxvir. 9, 10; ZECH. xi. 13. 487 
 
 all; they content themselves with such forms of citation as 
 "the Scripture saith," "according as it has been written," 
 "for it is written," "as saith the Holy Ghost," etc. 
 
 The explanation of Hofmann, in his Weissagung und Er- 
 fullung, differs only in some subordinate points. He also 
 thinks, that the Evangelist cannot be supposed to have attri 
 buted to Jeremiah a passage of Zechariah, as if by mistake ; 
 especially as he has taken the chief circumstance, with which 
 the citation is formally connected, not from Zechariah but 
 from Jeremiah that, namely, which respects the purchase of 
 the potter s field, Hofmann, however, would confine the refe 
 rence to Jeremiah to the xviii. ch., making no account of ch. 
 xix. ; and would regard the link of connexion between the 
 passage in Zechariah and that of Jeremiah, as consisting sim 
 ply in this that the shepherd in Zechariah treats the temple- 
 court as a clay-pit, and under the conviction, that this was 
 destined soon to become a clay-pit, casts down in that holy 
 place the money that was to be given to the potter as a 
 worker in clay. On which account a curse is pronounced 
 upon the place by the prophet, as had been done by Jere 
 miah; and hence the combination of the two passages toge 
 ther by the Evangelist. The explanation has somewhat of a 
 recondite and artificial appearance; and the other seems 
 simpler. 
 
 It should be borne in mind also, that the throwing together 
 in the way now supposed of two passages of Old Testament 
 Scripture, is nothing absolutely singular. We have already had 
 an example of it at ch. xxi. 4, 5, where a portion of Isa. Ixii. 
 11, is conjoined with Zech. ix. 9, while the Evangelist simply 
 introduces the words as having been spoken by the prophet. 
 In Rom. ix. 33, also, two prophecies of Isaiah are thrown to 
 gether and treated as if they formed a continuous utterance. 
 But the most striking example, next to the one under consi 
 deration, is at Mark i. 2, 3, where, according to the correct 
 text, the Evangelist says, "As it is written in Esaias the 
 prophet, Behold I send my messenger before thy face, who 
 shall prepare thy way. The voice of one crying in the wil 
 derness," etc. Here, the two prophecies of Malachi and 
 
488 OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW. 
 
 Isaiah are coupled together, and cited only in connexion with 
 the name of Isaiah; partly, doubtless, because he was both 
 the earlier and the greater prophet, and, partly, because the 
 prophecy in Malachi was but the resumption of that in Isaiah, 
 only cast into a somewhat more personal and specific form. 
 It is remarkable, too, and lends further confirmation to the 
 view now given, that while there are numerous references to 
 Malachi and Zechariah in the New Testament, the prophets 
 themselves are never named. Zechariah is quoted four times 
 besides the occasion before us Matt. xxi. 5, xxvi. 31; John 
 xii. 14, xix. 37, and always with a general formula. Hosea 
 alone of the minor prophets, and he but once, is expressly 
 mentioned (Rom. ix. 25 ;) for, it seems very doubtful if the 
 reference in Acts ii. 16 to the prophet Joel should go further 
 than simply, "But this is that which was spoken by the pro 
 phet." The minor prophets were usually regarded as a single 
 book of prophecies by the Jews, somewhat of the nature of an 
 appendage to the larger prophetical books. Hosea stood at 
 the head of the list, and it was natural to name him, but 
 scarcely less natural to refer to the others in a more general 
 manner ; or even, when the passage taken from any of them 
 coincided in substance with what had been uttered by one of 
 the greater prophets, to bring out its connexion with the 
 more prominent name. These things undoubtedly indicate 
 a peculiar mode of contemplation in respect to the point at 
 issue, and lend confirmation to the explanations given above. 
 
 John xix. 36; Ex. xii. 46. 
 
 The prescription regarding the Passover Lamb, that a bone 
 of it should not be broken, is applied by the Evangelist to our 
 Lord, as a Scripture that required to find its correspondence, 
 or meet with its verification in His person. The application 
 proceeds, of course, on the ground of a typical relationship 
 between that sacrificial lamb and Christ, as the author of re 
 demption to His people; on account of which it is said by the 
 apostle, "For also our Passover, Christ, was sacrificed" (1 
 Cor. v. 7:) and our Lord Himself, pointing to the same rela- 
 
JOHN xix. 36; EX. xn. 46. 489 
 
 tionship, said, at the celebration of the last Passover he held 
 with His disciples, "With desire I have desired to eat this 
 Passover with you before I suffer ; for I say unto you, I will 
 not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom 
 of God " (Luke xxii. 15, 16.) It will at once be admitted 
 by all, who believe in the fact of this relationship, that it in 
 volved the necessity of Christ s sacrificial death, as the means 
 whereby the stroke of deserved judgment was to be averted 
 from their heads. And not only that, but that this new pass- 
 over-sacrifice was to hold relatively the same place as the 
 old was to be the formation of a new era for the Church, 
 the redemptive act, that provided for her members life and 
 blessing. But persons may admit this, without perceiving 
 any necessary connexion between the preservation of our 
 Lord s limbs from the violence done to those crucified beside 
 Him, and the order to break no bone of the Paschal Lamb. 
 For, why, it may be asked, this specific formal agreement 
 while so many others were wanting? The lamb, for example, 
 was to die, by having its blood shed with a knife, which was 
 afterwards to be poured out or sprinkled; the flesh of it also 
 was to be roasted entire, and eaten the very night it was slain. 
 These were prescriptions respecting the mode of treating the 
 lamb, as well as that about the bones, while yet we see no 
 formal agreement with them in the personal history of Christ. 
 Why, then, should there have been such an agreement in re 
 gard to this one particular? The precise relation of things 
 may be thus stated: The ordinance of the Passover had this 
 as a distinctive feature in its institution, that the lamb, which 
 had been the provisional means of deliverance from impend 
 ing destruction, the source, in a sense, of material life, should 
 also be the food and support of the life so preserved ; it must 
 be eaten, and eaten entire, by those for whom it had provided 
 a ransom ; and for this end it had to be roasted, without suf 
 fering mutilation. Now in this, the ordinance was to find its 
 counterpart in the new dispensation, by the appropriation of 
 Christ for strength and nourishment, on the part of all, who 
 should be saved by his death; they must continue to live upon 
 Him, and can only do so by making His fulness of life and 
 
490 OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW. 
 
 blessing their own. And to give, even outwardly, a sign of 
 this unbroken wholeness of Christ of the necessity of it, and 
 of the believer s fellowship with it, to salvation the Lord in 
 terfered by a singular act of providence, to preserve the body 
 of the crucified intact. The type, might, indeed, without this 
 external conformity have been substantially verified; but it 
 was given as a special token or seal from the hand of God, 
 to authenticate the antitype, and to point men s thoughts back 
 to the ordinance, which had been framed so many ages before 
 in anticipation of the reality. The fulfilment here, therefore, 
 belongs to the same class as those referred to in No. II.; a 
 fulfilment that manifested an external correspondence, fitted 
 to help an imperfect discernment, or a feeble faith, but one 
 that, at the same time, bespoke a more inward and deeper 
 correspondence lying beneath. It was, so to speak, but the 
 outer shell of the antitypical development, which is noticed by 
 the Evangelist; yet such, that through it discerning minds 
 might discover the rich kernel of spiritual and abiding truth, 
 of which it was the index. 
 
 X. 
 
 John xix. 37 ; Zech. xii. 10. 
 
 We have here another example of that kind of fulfilment 
 of ancient Scripture, which has been treated of in the last 
 number in something outward and corporeal a verification 
 of a word, which reached much farther and deeper. Here, 
 however, it is connected, not with a typical transaction of 
 former times, but with an emblematic announcement of ancient 
 prophecy. Describing prospectively the repentance of the 
 people, whose blindness and folly had alienated them from 
 the Lord, and involved them in misery and ruin, the Prophet 
 Zechariah represents them as looking to Him whom they had 
 pierced, and mourning. It was, undoubtedly, a spiritual 
 grief a grief on account of sin, of which the prophet spake, 
 and in connexion with that, a spiritual direction of the eye to 
 their offended Lord; for the whole is described as the conse 
 quence of a spirit of grace and supplication being poured out 
 upon their souls. In such a case the piercing, which more 
 
ACTS i. 20; PS. LXIX. 25, cix. 8. 491 
 
 especially caused the mourning, must also have been of a like 
 profound and spiritual kind; it could be nothing less than the 
 heart-grief experienced by the Shepherd of Israel on account 
 of the wrongs and indignities He had received from His peo 
 ple. But the Evangelist John, who had a peculiar eye for 
 the symbolical, and was ever seeing the spiritual imaged in 
 the visible, descried in the piercing of our Lord s side by the 
 soldier s spear a sign of that other piercing. It was an in 
 dignity that formed, indeed, so far as it went, a proper fulfil 
 ment of the prophetic word, yet still one that touched the 
 surface only, of its dark meaning, and was important, more 
 for what it suggested than for what it actually embodied. 
 (Comp. John xii. 32, 33.) 
 
 XI. 
 
 Acts i. 20; Ps. Ixix. 25, cix. 8. 
 
 The manner in which St. Peter brought these passages from 
 the Psalms to bear on the case of Judas, is such as to leave 
 no doubt that they had in this their most legitimate and 
 proper application. He prefaced the use made of them with 
 the words, "Men and brethren, this Scripture must needs 
 have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost, by the mouth of 
 David, spoke before concerning Judas." There was a Divine 
 necessity in the case; Judas was so definitely in the mind of 
 the inspiring Spirit, that the things written must have their 
 accomplishment in the fate that befell him. And when we 
 reflect, that this was the very first application of a prophetic 
 Scripture by any of the Apostles after they had been instruct 
 ed by Jesus respecting all things that were written of Him 
 "in the law of Moses, in the prophets, in the Psalms" (Luke 
 xxiv. 44,) we cannot doubt that it was made on the express 
 warrant and authority of their Master. It is chiefly valuable, 
 on account of the insight it affords into the position and cha 
 racter of Judas. For, as the hostile party portrayed in Ps. 
 Ixix. and cix., sometimes as an individual, sometimes as a 
 band of adversaries, stands arrayed in the darkest features, 
 alike of guilt and of condemnation as in the delineation 
 given we see ingratitude of the blackest dye, malice and wick- 
 
492 OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW. 
 
 edness taking entire possession of the soul, and rendering it 
 incapable of yielding to the impressions of love and holiness, 
 capable only of rushing headlong to destruction so we are 
 taught by the personal application of the words to Judas 
 (what the evangelical history itself teaches,) that it was no ac 
 cidental circumstance, his having found a place among the 
 number of the apostles, and no misapprehension merely, or 
 precipitancy of judgment, (as some would have it,) which led 
 him to take the part he did, in betraying the Son of Man. Ju 
 das, within the bosom of the twelve, did what his countrymen 
 generally did, in respect to the world at large betrayed the 
 Lord of glory to His enemies. He was, therefore, the uncon 
 scious representative and leader of these enemies the imper 
 sonation of those elements of evil, which rendered them what 
 they ultimately became to Christ, and the cause of the gospel. 
 He was but accidentally separated from them fundamentally 
 and in spirit he was one with them. Hence, it was quite le 
 gitimate to take what is written in Ps. Ixix. 25, of the adver 
 saries as a body, and apply it, as St. Peter does, individually 
 to Judas: what was to find its realization in the unbelieving 
 portion generally of the Jewish people, was, in a concentrated 
 form, to take effect upon him, who, with peculiar aggravations, 
 acted the treacherous part, which they also pursued. In him, 
 as an individual, their guilt and punishment were alike re 
 flected as the one first, by his own perversity, so of necessity 
 the other, by Divine ordination. Happy, had they but read 
 in time the sign it was intended to afford of their inevitable 
 doom! In that case, even the melancholy fate of the son of 
 perdition might have proved a beacon, to warn them away 
 from that coming wrath, which laid their habitations desolate 
 like his, and drove them from the office they had been called 
 to fill, as the channels of blessing to mankind. 
 
 XII. 
 
 Acts xiii. 83; Ps. ii. 7. Acts xiii. 84; Isa. Iv. 3. 
 The peculiarity in the use of these passages of Old Testa 
 ment Scripture lies in their being placed in such immediate 
 connexion with the resurrection of Christ. It has been 
 
ACTS xin. 33; PS. n. 7. ACTS xni. 34; ISA. LV. 3. 493 
 
 doubted by some, whether in ver. 33 the apostle is speaking 
 directly and specially of the resurrection: they would rather 
 regard the raising up (auacrrr^a^) there mentioned as pointing 
 to the natural birth of our Lord, or His official appointment 
 as Messiah. This is argued on the ground, more especially, 
 that the word avacr. does not necessarily imply a raising up 
 again; that it occurs, for example, at ch. iii. 22, of the sim 
 ple existence and manifestation of Jesus as the great pro 
 phet like unto Moses ; and that when the raising up has respect 
 to the resurrection of Christ, it is coupled with Ix vsxp&y as 
 in the very next verse to the one under consideration. These 
 grounds are urged, for example, by Treffry, on the Eternal 
 iSonship, p. 299, who therefore thinks, that the apostle "be 
 gins to speak of the resurrection only in ver. 34," and that 
 the raising up of Jesus mentioned in ver. 33, was His being 
 brought forth, not from the dead, but from the seed of David, 
 as at ver. 23. 
 
 This view might have been held with some appearance of 
 reason, if the apostle in his address had not distinctly intro 
 duced the resurrection of Jesus in the immediately preceding 
 context. But this he has done; he has even brought it pro 
 minently out, as the point, on which all, in a manner, hung 
 for the Messiahship of Jesus, and in support of which the 
 apostolic testimony was more peculiarly given. " God raised 
 Him from the dead," he had said, "and He was seen many 
 days of them which came up with Him from Galilee to Jeru 
 salem, who are his witnesses unto the people. And we de 
 clare unto you," he continues, "glad tidings, how that the 
 promise which was made unto the fathers, the same has God 
 fulfilled unto us their children, having raised up Jesus; as it 
 is also written in the first Psalm, Thou art my Son, this day 
 have I begotten Thee." It were, perhaps, wrong to say, that 
 this passage in the Psalm is brought in simply and exclusively 
 with reference to the resurrection of Christ; but the con 
 nexion seerns plainly to indicate, that both in that, and in the 
 raising up of Jesus, it is to the resurrection that allusion is 
 more peculiarly made. All, according to the apostle s view, 
 seemed to point to, and find its consummation in, the risen 
 42 
 
494 OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW. 
 
 Saviour; this realized the hopes nourished hy ancient pro 
 phecy, and proved Jesus to be emphatically the Son of God. 
 It is to be remarked, also, that this was but the first of a se 
 ries of like testimonies from St. Paul: above all the apostles, 
 he delights to connect the promise of God and the Messiah- 
 ship of Jesus with the resurrection. When standing on his 
 trial before Felix, he put the whole question, as between him 
 self and his accusers, thus: "I believe all things, which are 
 written in the law and in the prophets, and have hope to 
 ward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall 
 be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust," 
 (Acts xxiv. 14, 15.) And again, when pleading before Agrippa, 
 he represented the hope that God would raise the dead, as at 
 once "the promise made of God unto the fathers, and that 
 for which he was accused of the Jews," (Acts xxvi. 6, 7.) 
 "If Christ has not risen," he elsewhere wrote, "your faith 
 is vain, ye are yet in your sins," (1 Cor. xv. 17.) It was 
 precisely by His resurrection, that Christ was " declared to 
 be the Son of God with power," (Rom. i. 4;) and by virtue 
 also of a fellowship in the power of His resurrection, that sin 
 ners are quickened to newness of life, and constituted sons of 
 God: Himself first, by reason of His resurrection, the first- 
 begotten from the dead, and then, the life the causal life 
 to many, who were dead in sin, (Rom. viii. 29; Col. i. 18, iii. 
 1-4, etc.) 
 
 It was probably on account of Christ s having appeared to 
 Paul as the risen Saviour, and wrought thereby such a mar 
 vellous change on his condition and prospects, that his thoughts 
 took so strongly this direction. Not, however, as if there 
 were anything properly singular in such a mode of representa 
 tion for the same substantially is found in the discourses of 
 Christ, and the writings of the other apostles; but in those of 
 Paul it assumed a more remarkable prominence. It proceeds 
 on the contemplation of Christ s work as the actual restora 
 tion of man from the curse of death, which came in by sin. 
 The promise of such a icstoration was the grand hope of the 
 fdllen, for which the children of faith were ever waiting and 
 longing. And Christ, by His resurrection from the dead, and 
 
ROM. i. 17; HAB. ir. 4. 495 
 
 ascension to the heavenly places, actually brings in the hope; 
 now at length it passes into a living reality ; and He, who 
 prevails thus to bring life out of death, and enter in the name 
 of His elect on the heirship of immortality, is found, by the 
 very act, to be, what He was long ago declared, God s pecu 
 liar Son for He could have done it only by having life in 
 Himself, even as the Father hath life in Himself. 
 
 Such is the ground of the apostle s application of the word 
 in Ps. ii. 7 to Christ, in connexion with His resurrection from 
 the dead. It does not mean, that He was constituted God s 
 Son by the resurrection ; but that the power of the resurrec 
 tion belonged to Him as God s Son, and by the exercise of 
 this power was His Sonship made incontrovertibly manifest. 
 And it is merely by following out the same line of thought, 
 that the other passage that from Isaiah is applied to the 
 perpetuity of Christ s risen life. It was not enough for the 
 apostle s purpose to exhibit a risen Saviour; he must show 
 this Saviour to be the possessor of an endless life; for, other 
 wise, the realization of the world s hopes would not be com 
 plete; the covenant could not have been established on a suf 
 ficient basis. Therefore, the promise is called in, which spoke 
 of "the sure mercies of David" the mercies which had for 
 their guarantee the everlasting faithfulness of Jehovah. Here 
 there is no room for failure, as in the case of merely human 
 gifts or promises; the covenant once ratified by the appear 
 ance and triumph of Jesus, stands fast for ever, living in the 
 presence of the Father, He can see no corruption, and of His 
 kingdom of grace and blessing there can be no end. 
 
 XIII. 
 
 Rom. i. 17; Hab. ii. 4. 
 
 The only question that can be raised upon this citation is, 
 whether the word rendered faith is taken by the apostle pre 
 cisely in the same sense in which it is used by the prophet. 
 The word is undoubtedly employed in different senses; some 
 times as an objective matter-of-fact property stability, the 
 settled condition of things; sometimes as a personal property 
 of God, His fidelity or truthfulness; and sometimes, again, as 
 
496 OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW. 
 
 a personal property of men, their truthfulness in word or deed, 
 steadfast adherence to what is felt to be right and good. Some 
 have hence sought to identify it, as used by Habakkuk, with 
 the righteous principle generally; and Hitzig even says, on 
 the passage, that it might as well have been said, that the 
 righteous man shall live by his righteousness. But to this it 
 is justly replied by Delitzsch, that "in a passage which treats, 
 not of the relation of God to man, or of man to his fellow- 
 men, but of man to God, it may fitly designate the state of 
 him who, in respect to God, is named R^-, faithful or steady. 
 But he is so named, whose spirit clings to God with unwaver 
 ing steadfastness, whose mind is firmly fixed upon God, (Psal. 
 Ixxviii. 8; 1 Chron. xxix. 18.) The property here marked, 
 accordingly, is that of an unshaken confidence in God, a firm 
 adhesion to God, or unwavering direction of the soul upon 
 Him. If, then, the subject of discourse is the gracious pro 
 mises of God, the term before us will denote an unshaken rest 
 ing upon these, or firm confidence in them; in short, faith, 
 for this settled acquiescence, this firm confidence, this tena 
 cious cleaving, is the very soul, the constituting element of a 
 living, life-giving, justifying faith." As used by the prophet, 
 it is of the general principle of faith, as an humble, confiding 
 trust in God s power and faithfulness of this, as opposed to 
 the proud, self-reliant spirit of the Chaldean, that the prophet 
 speaks. He who has such faith shall live; for the living God 
 is on his side, and infinite resources of grace and blessing are 
 at his command. But it is so still, the apostle affirms; the 
 principle is an all-pervading one; and whenever life in the 
 higher sense is attained, it comes only through faith in the 
 manifested grace of God, realizing and trusting in what this 
 has provided. 
 
 XIV. 
 
 Rom. xi. 9, 10; Ps. Ixix. 22, 23. 
 
 The verses here quoted and applied to the apostate part of 
 the Jewish people, are from one of the psalms, which the 
 Apostle Peter had applied to Judas, (Acts i. 20.) This appli 
 cation of it confirms the view taken of the subject at the place 
 
GAL. in. 16; GEN. xxii. 18. 497 
 
 referred to. Judas and the Jewish people are identified; their 
 sin was substantially the same, and such also must be their 
 condemnation. In both cases alike, the falsehood and trea 
 chery that had been manifested toward the cause of Heaven, 
 must be repaid into their own bosom. 
 
 XV. 
 
 Gal. iii. 16; Gen. xxii. 18. 
 
 The apostle Peter, very shortly after the ascension of our 
 Lord, had applied the promise to Abraham, about all the fa 
 milies of the earth being blessed in his seed, in such a way as 
 clearly to imply, that the fulfilment was to be found in Christ. 
 All were to be blessed in Abraham s seed; and God having 
 raised up His Son Jesus, hath sent Him (says Peter) to bless 
 you first meaning, to give the seed of Israel precedence in 
 the enjoyment of the benefit, which yet was to be diffused 
 through every tribe and region of the world, (Acts iii. 25, 26.) 
 By implication at least, this really involves the principle of 
 the Apostle Paul s formal explanation in Gal. iii. 16. For he 
 merely asserts, that the Abrahamic promise of blessing concen 
 trates itself, as to vital efficacy, in Christ, and so is enjoyed by 
 such, but only by such as are in organic union with Him. Not 
 to seeds, therefore, as of many not to Abraham s offspring 
 indiscriminately the various families and tribes that looked 
 to him as their common fleshly head; but to the one seed that 
 combined the spiritual with the carnal bond of affinity to Abra 
 ham the seed of which Christ was to be the public repre 
 sentative, and the one living Head. This seed, throughout 
 all its generations and members, is properly but one, having 
 its standing, its characteristics, its destiny in Christ. So that 
 by Christ, as the one seed, the apostle does not mean Christ 
 individually, but Christ collectively Christ personally, in 
 deed, first, but in Him, and along with Him, the whole of His 
 spiritual body the Church. This is put beyond all doubt by 
 ver. 28, 29, where he says of believers, that they are all one 
 (sic) in Christ one corporate being and that being Christ s, 
 they are Abraham s seed (axsppoi) a collective unity, as re 
 gards the heirship of blessing. The term Christ is used in a 
 
 42* 
 
498 OLD TESTAMENT IN TIIE NEW. 
 
 precisely similar manner at 1 Cor. xii. 12, where our Lord 
 and His people are compared to the body with its many mem 
 bers, and are simply designated Christ. If the apostle had 
 meant in either case the simply personal Redeemer, he would 
 doubtless have said, Christ Jesus. Considered thus, the ar 
 gument of the apostle is perfectly legitimate, and there is no 
 thing whatever of the Rabbinical in it. The use of the singu 
 lar from the first showed, as Tholuck has justly remarked, 
 "that the prophecy had a definite posterity in view, namely, 
 a believing posterity; and had seeds been employed, it would 
 have indicated, that all the posterity of Abraham, who sprung 
 from him by natural descent, were included." This was not 
 meant; the seed of blessing was to hold of Abraham in a spi 
 ritual respect, still more essentially than in a carnal; and the 
 apostle merely affirms, that it has its spiritual standing, and 
 with that its organic oneness, in Christ. No otherwise could 
 it be a seed of blessing. 
 
 iXYI. 
 
 Heb. i. 6; Ps. xcvii. 7. 
 
 The chief peculiarity in this application of an Old Testa 
 ment passage to Christ, is in respect to the time or occasion 
 with which it is more particularly associated. The Lord, it 
 is said, commanded all the angels (or Elohim) of God to wor 
 ship the Son, when He introduced Him as the first-begotten 
 into the world. To what occasion or period does this refer? 
 There is nothing in the Psalm itself to enable us to give a 
 very specific answer. It describes in figurative and striking 
 terms a contemplated manifestation of God such as should 
 confound all the adversaries of Zion, and to Zion herself bring 
 peace, security, and blessing. There can be no doubt, that 
 this was to be accomplished in the highest degree by the in 
 carnation and work of the Lord Jesus Christ, and no other 
 wise could it be effectually accomplished. He alone was to 
 put for ever to shame the enemies of God s truth, and esta 
 blish the interests of righteousness to establish them on such 
 a sure foundation, that the people of God should be able to 
 rejoice with a joy unspeakable, and full of glory. The Psalm, 
 
HEB. i. 1012; PS. en. 2527. 499 
 
 therefore, in regard to its main theme, might be associated 
 generally with the manifestation of Christ s person and the 
 execution of His mediatorial work ; especially as in the preg 
 nant and ideal style of prophecy particular stages and precise 
 moments of the Divine kingdom are often less contemplated 
 than its general character and results. At the same time, as 
 the Psalmist seems to have more properly in his eye the final 
 processes of the work of Christ, and speaks of the whole world 
 having become the theatre of the manifested glory of God in 
 Him, it is most natural to understand the language as point 
 ing more immediately to the time of the end, when every thing 
 shall be brought to its proper consummation. This seems also 
 to be the view adopted by the inspired writer of this epistle ; 
 for the xdhv is most naturally coupled with the verb that fol 
 lows "when He (God) again bringeth in the first-begotten 
 into the world" as if there had been an earlier and prelimi 
 nary bringing in, which was regarded as past, and another 
 were anticipated, to which the description of the Psalmist 
 more especially applied. The epithet first-begotten also, as a 
 designation of Christ, seems to point in the same direction ; 
 for, as used elsewhere, it has a predominant reference to the 
 (either in fact, or in destination) risen, perfected God-man, in 
 whom all humanity, in so far as it is an heir of blessing, has 
 its life and head. So that, when in this respect He is spoken 
 of as being again brought into the world, we naturally think 
 of His return in glory. Even at his first advent, however, 
 angels worship and serve Him, on account of what appeared 
 in Him and was done by Him ; and when the passage before 
 us is placed in special connexion with the event of the second 
 advent, it is not as if the affairs of the first were altogether 
 excluded. 
 
 XVII. 
 
 Heb. i. 10-12; Ps. cii. 25-2T. 
 
 It strikes one at first sight as strange, that a passage, which 
 proclaims the eternity and immutableness of God, in marked 
 contrast with the created universe, should have been applied, 
 without a note of explanation, to Christ, as if He were beyond 
 
500 OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW. 
 
 any doubt the subject of the representation. But it must be 
 remembered, the sacred writer is not here arguing with Jews, 
 who might have been disposed to question the ground on which 
 the application is made. He is addressing believers, Jewish 
 Christians, who were already persuaded of the truth of Christ s 
 Messiahship, and who, therefore, understood, that in Christ 
 Divine and human met together that by Him, as the Great 
 llevealer of Godhead, the worlds were originally made, and 
 all the provisions and arrangements connected with the Old 
 Economy brought into existence. It is in truth as the Divine 
 Head of the covenant with Israel, and in particular with the 
 house of David, that the Lord is addressed throughout the 
 102d Psalm ; and the thought of the eternal being and un- 
 changeableness of God is brought in, not absolutely and as an 
 independent consideration, but in connexion with the hopes of 
 His Church and people. There were troubles, the Psalmist 
 well foresaw, lying in the future calamities and desolations 
 enough to make the pious soul conscious of gloom and horror 
 at the prospect. But he reassured himself, and would have 
 afflicted believers in every age to re-assure themselves, by rea 
 lizing their connexion with their eternal and glorious King. 
 He is infinitely exalted above the mutable and the perishing; 
 He fails not with created things, which He made by the word 
 of His mouth, and which he can again change at His plea 
 sure, or fold up as a decayed garment; And we also, who by 
 faith have become heirs of God, and have an imperishable in 
 terest in all that is His, are, on this ground, secured against 
 failure, in respect to our hopes of final bliss. This is the train 
 of thought in the Psalm ; and the passage, therefore, is in the 
 strictest sense applicable to the Divine Redeemer, by whom 
 the worlds were made, and through whom all the operations 
 of Godhead have been, and are executed in our fallen world. 
 
 XVIII. 
 
 Heb. ii. 6-8 ; Ps. viii. 4-6. 
 
 The use here made of a portion of the 8th Psalm has been 
 so well vindicated by Hengstenberg, as to the ground on which 
 it rests, that we shall do little more than quote what he has 
 
IIEB. IT. 68 ; PS. vni. 46. 501 
 
 said on the subject in his introductory remarks on the Psalm. 
 "The Psalm stands in the closest connexion with the first 
 chapter of Genesis. What is written there of the dignity with 
 which God invested man over the works of His hands, whom 
 He placed as His representative on earth, and endowed with 
 the lordship of creation, that is here made the subject of con 
 templation and praise. We simply have that passage in Ge 
 nesis turned into a prayer for us. But how far man still 
 really possesses that glory, what remains of it, how much of it 
 has been lost, of this the Psalmist takes no thought. His 
 object was merely to praise the goodness of God, which still 
 remained the same, as God, whose gifts are without repent 
 ance, has not arbitrarily withdrawn what He gave; only man, 
 by his folly, has suffered himself to be robbed of it. But even 
 with this single eye upon the goodness of God, which, on His 
 part, continues unabated, it is to be understood, that the en 
 tire representation holds good only at the beginning and the 
 end; and but very imperfectly suits the middle, in which we, 
 along with the Psalmist, now stand. When this middle is 
 placed distinctly before the eye, man is represented quite other 
 wise in the Old Testament than we find him here as a sheep, 
 a shadow, a falling leaf, a worm, as dust and ashes. And 
 why God is here thanked, see especially Isa. xi. 6-9, where 
 the same reference is made as here to Gen. L, and where a 
 restitution is promised to man, in the times of Messiah, of the 
 relation he originally held to the earth, but which is now in a 
 state of prostration. Accordingly, the matter of the Psalm 
 can find its full verification only in the future; and for the 
 present it applies to none but Christ, in whom human nature 
 again possesses the dignity and glory over creation, which was 
 lost in Adam. By-and-by, when the moral consequences of 
 the fall have been swept away, this also shall come to be the 
 common inheritance of the human family." Contemplated 
 thus, the application of the 8th Psalm to the temporary humi 
 liation and final exaltation of Christ, as the Head of redeemed 
 and glorified humanity, admits of a perfect justification. Only, 
 when viewed simply in reference to Christ, the words descrip 
 tive of the nearly Elohim-dignity of man necessarily become, 
 
502 OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW. 
 
 at the same time, indicative of a relative, though temporary 
 humiliation. "With the man of creation the /fy>a/y TC is an 
 abiding inferiority of degree, connected with his creaturely ex 
 istence; but the Son of God, who has humbled Himself to the 
 condition of man, in order that He might exalt it to the lofty 
 position which it is destined to occupy, cannot remain in that 
 low estate; and so, that which with man as such was a paulu- 
 lum of degree (much as at 2 Sam. xvi. 1,) becomes changed 
 into a paidulum of time (fipo*fj~> ft, as at Isa. Ivii. 17, and com 
 monly with the Attics;) and while with man the paidulum of 
 degree has his glory for a correlate, with Jesus the paululum 
 of time has his glory for a contrast. Thus the sense of the 
 flpa% j re suffers a kind of necessary, but by no means arbi 
 trary turn, in the application to the Man Christ Jesus of the 
 words that were originally spoken of man generally." (De- 
 litzsch.) There still are commentators, among others, Stier, 
 who would regard the Psalm as pointing more directly to 
 Christ, and to the restitution of all things to be brought in by 
 Him. But this view cannot be deemed so natural as the 
 other; and it is not needed to justify or explicate the argu 
 ment of the apostle. 
 
 XIX. 
 
 Heb. ii. 13; Isa. viii. 17, 18. 
 
 Three passages are here appealed to in proof of the kindred- 
 ness of Messiah to those whom He came to redeem. One is 
 from Psal. xxii., which is strictly Messianic; the other two 
 from the eighth chapter of Isaiah. By not a few commen 
 tators the propriety of these latter applications is doubted; 
 at least, they are judged applicable only in a secondary sense, 
 as the prophet himself is considered to be the speaker ; so that 
 only by way of accommodation, or typically, can the words 
 be understood of the Messiah. This, however, may justly be 
 questioned, and is questioned, by a large body of interpreters. 
 They hold, that as in the immediately preceding verse, it is 
 the Messiah who appears to be the speaker in the words, 
 " Bind up the testimony, seal up the law, among My disci 
 ples," so He ought to be understood as continuing to speak 
 in vcr. 17 and 18, declaring His trust in the Father, an a 
 
IIEB. ii. 13; ISA. vm. 17, 18. 503 
 
 pointing to the spiritual seed the Father had given Him. 
 The passage is unquestionably an obscure one; but even if 
 we should prefer considering the prophet as more directly the 
 speaker, he must be viewed as speaking in a representative 
 character personating the being, and maintaining the cause 
 of the Immanuel. The whole discourse, from ch. vii. 14 to 
 ix. 7, is perpetually-turning upon "the God with us," as the 
 great security and hope for Israel; and mediately or imme 
 diately, the words in question must be regarded as pointing 
 in that direction. Either way the use made of them in the 
 epistle is perfectly legitimate. 
 
 In the remaining passages of Old Testament Scripture 
 quoted, either in the Epistle to the Hebrews, or in the gene 
 ral epistles, there is nothing very peculiar, as regards the use 
 that is made of them by the inspired writers. We may simply 
 state, in regard to the application made of Ps. xl. in Heb. x. 
 510, to the personal obedience and offering of Christ, that 
 it is not to be understood as excluding an inferior reference 
 to the Psalmist himself. He knew perfectly, in regard to his 
 own spiritual state and calling, that a willing surrender of 
 himself to God ranked higher than the mere presentation of 
 animal victims; and substantially the same idea is expressed 
 elsewhere, in passages that undoubtedly have a direct refe 
 rence to the Psalmist and his fellow-worshippers in Old Testa 
 ment times (Psal. 1. 7-15, li. 16, 17.) It is not necessary, 
 therefore, to suppose, that in Psal. xl. no respect was had to 
 that self-dedication to the Divine service, which even under 
 the ancient dispensation was preferred to all burnt-offerings. 
 But as little should the remarkable words there written be con 
 fined to that; and the defects and short-comings, of which the 
 saints of God in those earlier times were painfully conscious, 
 as mingling with all their personal surrenders to God, could 
 not but dispose them to look for the proper realization of what 
 was written in one higher and greater than themselves. The 
 spiritual Israel in every age aimed at it; but He alone, in 
 whom Israel s state and calling were to find their true accom 
 plishment, could in the full sense appropriate the words, and 
 embody them in action. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 THE HISTORICAL CIRCUMSTANCES THAT LED TO CHRIST S BIRTH 
 AT BETHLEHEM CYRENIUS AND THE TAXING (p. 395.) 
 
 THE application of the prophecy in Micah v. 2 to the birth 
 of our Lord at Bethlehem, by the Evangelist Matthew, in 
 volves in itself no peculiar difficulty; for the prophecy itself 
 is so specific, and was so readily understood and applied by 
 the Jews themselves to the great event it contemplated, that 
 the use made of it in this connexion cannot justly be questioned 
 by any fair interpreter of Scripture. The difficulties which 
 do hang around the subject have sprung up in connexion with 
 the historical circumstances, which are mentioned by the 
 Evangelist Luke, as the more immediate causes that led to 
 the birth of Christ at Bethlehem. These circumstances re 
 late, in the first instance, to the decree issued by Augustus, 
 appointing a general census or enrolment to take place; arid, 
 secondly and more especially, to the incidental notice as to 
 the time when this decree was carried into e-ffect, that it was 
 while Cyrenius was governor, or had the presidency of Syria ; 
 ~f] a~ofpa(p f] Ttpcbrq ifivzro "/ffeuousuovTOz r^c Sopio.^ Ku- 
 This latter being the more special difficulty, and one 
 also on which recently some new light has emerged, we shall 
 here give it our first and chief attention. 
 
 I. Giving to the words of St. Luke what seems their na 
 tural and grammatical rendering, " this first enrolment was 
 made (or, it was first made) when Cyrenius was governor of 
 Syria," they appear plainly enough to indicate, that at the 
 time the presidency of Syria was in the hands of Cyrenius, 
 
PRESIDENCY OF CYRENIUS, LUKE II. 2. 505 
 
 and possibly also (though that is not so clear) that the census 
 now under consideration was an earlier as contrasted with a 
 later one. Dismissing, however, for the present, the ques 
 tion, whether reference is made to a second census, we have 
 to face the position which seems involved in the historical 
 statement of the Evangelist, that the particular census, which 
 led to the birth of Jesus at Bethlehem, took place during the 
 time that Cyrenius was governor of Syria. And this, it is 
 alleged, was impossible; for to quote the words of Meyer, 
 "at the time of the birth of Jesus, Q. Sentius Saturninus 
 was president of Syria, and P; Sulpicius Quirinius did not be 
 come so till about ten years later;" i. e. ten years after the 
 real period of our Lord s birth, but only six after the common 
 era, which is four years too late. There can be no doubt that 
 Cyrenius, or Quirinius (as the name ought rather to be writ 
 ten, and as we shall retain it in what follows,) did receive the 
 presidency of Syria at the later period mentioned, and shortly 
 afterwards did conduct a census in Judea. So that, if this 
 were the only presidency of Syria, held by Quirinius, and the 
 only census taken contemporaneously with it, the statement 
 of the Evangelist must be pronounced erroneous. 
 
 It certainly would be very strange if such were the case ; 
 for, apart altogether from the inspiration of St. Luke, it would 
 indicate a degree of looseness in historical information, which 
 would ill comport with his assertion at the outset, of possess 
 ing "perfect understanding of all the matters" he was going 
 to write about; and it would just as little correspond with 
 the remarkable accuracy exhibited in his other historical no 
 tices. The most searching results of modern inquiry have not 
 only confirmed the general fidelity of his allusions to political 
 affairs and current pvents, but have established his correct 
 ness even in minute details, and in respect to points on which 
 for a time his testimony lay under a measure of suspicion. 
 The narrative in Acts xxvii. of St. Paul s voyage and ship 
 wreck, in which every particular has been subjected to the 
 severest scrutiny, and has thereby become but the more clearly 
 marked with the attributes of truth, is itself a convincing evi 
 dence of this. But one or two examples more may be taken, 
 43 
 
506 APPENDIX. 
 
 and these more closely connected with the point under dis 
 cussion. In Acts xviii. 12, Gallio is called "pro-consul," 
 (Eng. version, deputy) of Achaia; and Achaia was, indeed, 
 originally a senatorial province; but Tiberius changed it into. 
 an imperial one. In that case proprce-tor would have been 
 the proper name for the representative of the Roman state. 
 Stra bo expressly calls it 4 a praetorian province;" and not 
 only had great perplexities thence arisen among the learned, 
 but Beza even took the liberty to correct the text, substi 
 tuting pro-prcetor for pro-consul. But we learn from Sueto 
 nius, that the Emperor Claudius restored the province to the 
 Senate; and as this change took place only about five or six 
 years before the time referred to by St. Luke, pro-consul had 
 then become the proper designation. Again, in Acts xiii. 7, 
 8, Sergius Paulus is called the pro-consul of Cyprus, although 
 Cyprus is known to have been ranked as an imperial province, 
 and might still have been reckoned so by the learned, but 
 for a notice in Dio Cassius, which contains the information, 
 that Augustus restored it to the Senate. " And so," says 
 Tholuck, who, after Lardner, refers to the passage, " as if pur 
 posely to vindicate the Evangelist, the old historian adds, 
 4 Thus pro-consuls began to be sent into that island, also. 
 
 Now, it is surely against all probability, that a historian, 
 who has shown in such things the most exact and scrupulous 
 fidelity, and whose reputation for accuracy has been in danger 
 of suffering, not from our possessing too much, but rather from 
 our possessing too little of collateral testimony it is against 
 all probability, that he should have committed the gross ana 
 chronism of connecting Quirinius with Syria, at a period ten 
 years before his presidency actually commenced. It is the 
 less likely in this case, that there should have been such an 
 erroneous antedating of a public event, as there is every rea 
 son to suppose that the Evangelist himself was a native of 
 Syria, most probably a citizen of Antioch, and, consequently, 
 must have had every facility for becoming acquainted with 
 the political history of the district. 
 
 A conviction of the extreme improbability of any error in 
 this direction, has led many persons among others in the 
 
PRESIDENCY OF CYRENIUS, LUKE II. 2. 507 
 
 last century Lardner, and in the present Ewald and Greswell 
 to adopt an unusual translation of the passage in Luke, so as 
 to make it point to a future, not to an existing, presidency 
 of Quirinius. They would render, "And this enrolment was 
 made before that Quir. had the presidency of Syria." Cer 
 tainly an unnatural, if even (in the circumstances) an admis 
 sible, representation of the meaning; and one that could only 
 be resorted to, if it were otherwise impossible to vindicate the 
 truthfulness of the narrative! But we are saved from this 
 alternative by the recent progress of research in the historical 
 territory, which has again, and in a very singular manner, lent 
 its confirmation to the scrupulous accuracy of the Evangelist. 
 The person who, in this instance, has conducted the investiga 
 tion, is Augustus W. Zumpt, the anthor of a very learned 
 work on Roman Antiquities entitled Commentationes Epi 
 graphies? ad Antiquitates Romanas pertinentes. In the se 
 cond volume of this work he has a chapter on Syria as a Ro- 
 m;m province from Caesar Augustus to Titus Vespasian, in 
 which he treats of the successive governors of the province, 
 and the leading features of their respective administration. 
 It is an entirely literary, or antiquarian investigation; and 
 simply as connected with the subject of the Syrian presiden 
 cies, the passage in Luke ii. 2 comes into consideration. The 
 inquiry is conducted with great patience and acuteness; and 
 in so far as it bears on the point before us for it frequently 
 branches off in other directions we shall present an outline 
 of the argument. 
 
 Taking the words of the Evangelist Luke in their apparent 
 sense, as denoting the contemporaneousness of a presidency 
 of Quirinius over Syria with the event that led to Christ s 
 birth at Bethlehem, Zumpt conceives that there is the more 
 reason for adhering to that sense of the Evangelist, and ac 
 crediting the testimony it delivers respecting Quirinius, that 
 the Fathers in various connexions deliver a like testimony. 
 Thus Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. i. 5, "Now this was the forty-se 
 cond year of the reign of Augustus, and the twenty- eighth 
 from the subjugation of Egypt, and the decease of Antony 
 and Cleopatra, with which last event terminated the dynasty 
 of the Ptolemies in Egypt, when our Lord and Saviour Jesus 
 
508 APPENDIX. 
 
 Christ was born in Bethlehem of Judea on the occasion of the 
 first census being taken, and while Quirinius was governor of 
 Syria." The reckoning here given dates from the time that 
 Augustus was first made consul ; from which time there were 
 forty-one years complete to the third before the Christian era, 
 and twenty-eight after the subjugation of Egypt. At that pe 
 riod, therefore, which to a nearness coincides with the real 
 time of Christ s birth, Eusebius plainly believed, that Quiri 
 nius presided over Syria, and that a census was taken: and 
 so also did Irenseus, Hser. ii. 22, 6; Tertullian adv. Jud. c. 9; 
 Clemens Alex. Strom, i. p. 147, etc. In all these passages 
 both the fact of a general census, and the presidency of Quir. 
 over Syria, at the time of Christ s birth, are distinctly assert 
 ed. Of what nature the*census might be, or whether the time 
 of its being taken might precisely accord with the exact pe 
 riod of Christ s birth, is not now the question. But in regard 
 to the Syrian presidency of Quir. there is an important notice 
 in Tacitus, Annal. iii. 48, which he introduces in connexion 
 with the death of Quir., A.D. 21. Nihil ad veterem et patri- 
 ciam Sulpiciorum familiam Quir. pertinuit, ortus apud mu- 
 nicipium Lanuvium: sed impiger militia? et acribus ministe- 
 riis consulatum sub divo Augnsto, mox expugnatis per Qiliei- 
 am Homonadensium castellis insignia triumplii adcptus, da- 
 tusque rector Q. Ocesari Armeniam obtinenti Tiberium quoque 
 Rliodi agentem coluerat. Quod tune patefecit (viz. Tiberius) 
 in Senatu laudatis in se officiis et ineusato M. Lollio, quern 
 auctorem 0. Cuesari pravitatis et diseordiarum arguebat. Here 
 we learn respecting Quir., first that he was a man of compara 
 tively obscure origin; then, that he had approved himself to 
 be expert in military affairs, and services that called for 
 stringent measures, in consequence of which he had attained 
 to the consulship under Augustus, by-and-by also got the tri 
 umphal badges for having stormed the fortresses of the Ho- 
 monadenses, 1 and was afterwards appointed counsellor or guar- 
 
 1 The triumphal badges or ornaments were the honours granted in place of 
 a triumph, after triumphs ceased to be held except by the Emperors. They 
 consisted in the permission to receive the titles bestowed on those who did 
 obtain triumphs, to wear in public the robes peculiar to them, and to be 
 queath triumphal statues to their descendants. 
 
PRESIDENCY OF CYRENIUS, LUKE II. 2. 509 
 
 dian to Caius Coesar on receiving Armenia. He had also paid 
 court to Tiberius, when residing at Rhodes in a sort of exile, 
 and Tiberius reported to the Senate in laudatory terms the 
 services rendered to him by Quir., while he charged M. Lol- 
 lius with having led C. Caesar into vicious and quarrelsome 
 courses. Now, as the C. Csesar here mentioned, one of the 
 grandsons of Augustus, is known to have obtained Armenia 
 in the year B. c. 1, and as Quir. was raised to the consulship 
 in B. c. 12, it is manifest, that the conquest of the Homona- 
 denses must have been accomplished in the interval. It re 
 mains, therefore, to be inquired who these people were, and 
 in what position Quir. was, when he made himself master of 
 their fortified places. 
 
 The Homonadenses are mentioned by Pliny, Hist. Nat. v. 
 23, 94, as a people in the farthest parts of Cilicia, near the 
 Isauri, with a fortified town, Homona, and forty-four strong 
 holds situated in rugged valleys or ravines. Strabo also oc 
 casionally mentions them, and places them in the rough parts 
 of Cilicia, near the Isauri, and the Pisidians, xiv. 1, 4, 24. 
 There can be no doubt, therefore, about their character and 
 position ; they were evidently a hardy and troublesome set of 
 mountaineers, occupying a number of forts in the more inac 
 cessible parts of Cilicia, and requiring a vigorous and ener 
 getic warrior, like Quir., to bring them into- subjection. But 
 how should he have come into conflict with them? Or what 
 might be the province held by him, when he gained such victo 
 ries over the Homonadenses, and triumphal ornaments on ac 
 count of them? 
 
 Various provinces might be, and have been thought of. (1.) 
 Proconsular Asia; but this will not suit. For. the Homona 
 denses did not live within the bounds of that province; and, 
 besides, proconsular Asia having come before this into a state 
 of entire subjugation, had no legion stationed in it (Tac. Ann. 
 iv. 5;) and hence there could have been no such victories won 
 by its governor as to secure for him triumphal honours. (2.) 
 Nor could it be Bithynia and Pontus; for Galatia lay between 
 this province and the region of the Homonadenses. It was 
 also a senatorian province, and had no legionary force ; even 
 
 43* 
 
510 APPENDIX. 
 
 Pliny, in Trajan s time, had none, though his case was some 
 what peculiar, having been sent to put things in order. It 
 was usually assigned, too, to men of only praetorian rank 
 (Dio, liii. 12;) so that, unless we should betake to merely 
 groundless conjectures, the province of Bithynia and Pontus 
 must be excluded from the number of those with whom Quir. 
 might be supposed to have been connected. (3.) Galatia has 
 been pointed to as the probable region ; but this also fails in 
 the requisite conditions; for the possessor of it had no legion 
 assigned him, with which he might carry on such warlike ope 
 rations as would entitle him to triumphal honours. Nor were 
 the Homonadenses situated in Galatia, but on its borders ; so 
 that the governor of the province, even if he had the com 
 mand of a legion, could have had no call to make war upon 
 those Cilician mountaineers. It is also known, that the pro 
 vince of Galatia was wont to be committed to a man of prae 
 torian rank (Eutrop. vii. 5; Euseb. Chron. p. 168.) (4.) Ci- 
 licia alone remains, which seems to be indicated by Tacitus as 
 the province so far, at least, the province of Quir., that the 
 people, whose forts were scattered through it, lay within his 
 jurisdiction. But Cilicia by itself was by much too small a 
 province for a consular man, at the head of a legion ; it must 
 have been conjoined with some other district. It is stated by 
 Dio, liii. 12, that when Augustus surrendered, in the 27th 
 year of his reign, the thoroughly reduced and quiet provinces 
 to the Senate, he reserved Cilicia (because of the fierce and 
 warlike tribes that were in it,) and also Cyprus. Afterwards, 
 however, in B. c. 22, Cyprus was granted to the Senate, (Dio, 
 liv. 4.) It, therefore, could not have been coupled with Cili 
 cia to make out a sufficient province; and it seems impossible 
 to think of any other region than Syria. 
 
 The conclusion thus arrived at from the examination of the 
 passage in Tacitus, is confirmed by evidence from other sources. 
 For example, in the year B. c. 17, Syria and Cilicia appear to 
 have been associated under one provincial administration; 
 since, when Cn. Piso then obtained the presidency of Syria, 
 and required to levy troops against Germanicus, he sent an 
 order to the chiefs (reguli) of the Cilicians to furnish him with 
 
PRESIDENCY OF CYRENIUS, LUKE IT. 2. 511 
 
 supplies of men (Tac. Ann. ii. 70, 78.) It is by no means 
 probable, that either he would have issued such an order, or 
 that they would have complied with it (especially in a war 
 against Germanicus,) unless the governor of Syria had a legal 
 right to their services. And in the course of the proceedings 
 that followed, during which Piso himself acted treacherously, 
 he is reported to have seized the fortress of Celenderis, which 
 Tacitus designates a town in Cilicia (Ann. ii. 80,) and Strabo 
 also places in the highlands of Cilicia (xiv. 4.) But it is also 
 connected withPiso s province, which was Syria; for Piso was 
 accused by Tiberius to the Senate of seeking to possess the 
 province (the province, namely, over which he had been ap 
 pointed) by force of arms armis repetita provincia (Tac. 
 Ann. iii. 12) and on this very account the Emperor is said 
 to have been implacable toward Piso, that he had taken arms 
 against the province ob bellum provincice inlatum (Ann. iii. 
 14.) In another passage of Tacitus, Ann. vi. 41, it is stated 
 that Vitellius, president of Syria, sent troops A. D. 36, to subdue 
 the Clitae, a people of Cilicia, as work that properly fell under 
 his administration. It thus appears, that both about B. c. 25, 
 and A. D. 36, Cilicia was conjoined with Syria into one province, 
 and placed under the sway of one imperial representative; and 
 so it remained till the times of Vespasian. 
 
 From these data there seems no avoiding the conclusion, 
 that Quir., at the time that he possessed himself of the forts 
 of the Homonadenses throughout Cilicia, was the legate of 
 Augustus and pro-prsetor of Syria. It only remains to be 
 ascertained, more narrowly, if such a thing be possible, over 
 what period his presidency was spread, and how far down it 
 reached. The determination of this point is to be sought in 
 another series of passages, and chiefly in those which connect 
 Quir. with Caius Caesar. As the da-te of his elevation to the 
 consulship precluded his connexion with Syria at an earlier 
 period than B. c. 12, so his relationship to C. Caesar fixes its 
 termination to a period not later than about the commence 
 ment of the Christian era. For it was at the very close of 
 the year B. c. 2, or the beginning of B. c. 1, that C. Caesar ob 
 tained the government of Armenia, when it was threatened 
 
512 APPENDIX. 
 
 with war by Phraates, the Parthian king. Velleius, ii. 101, 
 states, that he set out for Armenia a short time after his mo 
 ther Julia was banished for her incontinence; and this banish 
 ment is known to have taken place before Kal. Oct. of B. c. 2. 
 It was some time after this that Caius set out, and he took 
 Greece, Egypt, Palestine, on his way. He even appears to 
 have spent the winter at Samos, where he was visited by his 
 stepfather Tiberius, at that time resident in Rhodes (Suet. 
 Tib. c. 11.) The year immediately B. c. must, therefore, have 
 been nearly spent before he left Samos; and in the following 
 year, A. D. 1, he was designated consul, and set forth toward 
 the region over which he was appointed. The year after this 
 he brought Phraates to a conference, in which the Parthians 
 agreed to abandon Armenia. But in a subsequent war with 
 Tigranes the Armenian, he received a wound, of which he 
 died in A. D. 4, the wound itself having been received in the 
 third year. So that Quir., on being appointed rector to C* 
 Caesar, evidently did not require to quit his Syrian presidency 
 sooner than some time in the year B. c. 2, and it might even 
 be supposed, on a hasty consideration, that about two years 
 later might have been soon enough. But as the determination 
 of this point is one both of some nicety and of some import 
 ance, it is necessary to look a little more closely into the 
 circumstances of the time. 
 
 In the passage formerly quoted from Tacitus, the Emperor 
 Tiberius was represented as commending Quir. for the part he 
 had acted toward Caius Caesar, while standing in the relation 
 of rector to him, and, at the same time, severely blaming iVl. 
 Lollius. 1 Tacitus does not expressly say, though his language 
 seems to imply, that Lollius held the same relation to C. Caesar 
 that Quirinius had done. But Suetonius distinctly calls him 
 comitem et rcctorem 0. Csesaris (Tib. c. 12, 13,) and adds, 
 that from the charges made by Lollius against Tiberius, Ti 
 berius perceived, when he went on a visit to C. Caesar at 
 Samos, that the mind of the latter had become alienated from 
 
 1 The rector was not a guardian in the ordinary sense, but a person of skill 
 in war and experience in affairs, who could act as confidential adviser and 
 counsellor to a youthful prince, at the commencement of his public career. . 
 
PRESIDENCY OF CYRENIUS, LUKE II. 2. 513 
 
 him. And it also appears from a passage in Yelleius, ii. 102, 
 that when the conference was held with the Parthian king, 
 Lollius was present, and represented himself as appointed by 
 Augustus to be a sort of regulator to his youthful grandson 
 veluti moderator em juventte filii sui. It thus appears, that M. 
 Lollius had become rector to C. Caesar about the end of B. c. 1 
 or. the beginning of A. D. 1, when the young commander was 
 passing the winter at Samos, and that he continued to hold 
 the same^position for a year or two afterwards. What time, 
 then, must be assigned for Quir. being rector? It has been 
 thought by Norisius (in Cenot. Pisan. ii. 9,) that he succeeded 
 Lollius in the office, as it is mentioned by Tacitus in connexion 
 with C. Caesar s obtaining Armenia. But this is untenable. 
 For in the Latin idiom he is said to obtain Armenia, who has 
 acquired the legal right to preside over it, whether he may 
 actually have taken possession of it or not. And from the 
 position and import of the words in the passage of Tacitus 
 (insignia triumphi adeptus, datusque rector C. Caesari Ti- 
 berium quoque Rhodi agentem coluerat,) it seejns plain, that 
 Tiberius was at Rhodes at the time when Quir. had obtained 
 his triumphal honours and had become rector to C. Caesar. 
 Hence M. Lollius must have succeeded Quir., and not this the 
 other. It is also certain on another account; for by com 
 paring Tacitus, Ann. iii. 22 and 48, it appears that Quir. had, 
 in A. D. 21, been married about twenty years to Lepida, a lady 
 of high rank at Rome, whom Augustus had destined for Lucius 
 Caesar, the brother of Caius. But this Lucius died in A. D. 2; 
 and hence Quir. must have gone to Rome, and become married 
 to Lepida about the time that Caius actually entered on his 
 Armenian administration. It is clear, therefore, that Quir. 
 must have been made rector to C. Caesar immediately on the 
 latter crossing the sea on his way to the East, and remained 
 with him for a year or so, and that M. Lollius was sent to 
 take his place toward the beginning of the first year of the 
 Christian era. It seems probable also, that Quir. accompa 
 nied C. Caesar to Egypt, and that both together paid a visit 
 to Tiberius at Rhodes, with which the latter was well pleased; 
 while by the time Tiberius visited Caias at Samos, Lollius had 
 
514 APPENDIX. 
 
 become rector, and had begun to alienate the mind of Cams 
 from his stepfather. 
 
 Such, then, are the successive links of the history, as 
 brought out by this investigation: Quir., it is ascertained, 
 was governor or president of Syria, some time subsequent to 
 
 B. c. 12, when he obtained the consulship, and before A. D. 1 
 or 2, when he seems to have gone to Rome, and become 
 married to Lepida; after entering on his Syrian presidency, 
 he carried on a difficult, and, no doubt, somewhat arduous 
 conflict, with the warlike mountaineers of Cilicia, and on ac 
 count of his successes against them obtained triumphal ho 
 nours; about a year before the Christian era he was ap 
 pointed rector to C. Caesar, in order to prepare him for the 
 administration of affairs in Armenia, for which both military 
 prowess and a considerable measure of diplomatic skill were 
 requisite ; it was, however, while he was governor of Syria 
 that he held this office of rectorship, for it was as governor of 
 that province that he was more peculiarly qualified to give the 
 counsel and aid that were needed to one who was going to 
 fulfil a difficult and dangerous mission in the neighbouring 
 region of Armenia whence Lollius, and another person, who 
 succeeded him in the one office, also succeeded him in the 
 other they became both presidents of Syria and rectors of 
 
 C. Caesar. But since the common Christian era is four years 
 later than the actual birth of Christ, it follows that Quir. 
 must have been governor of Syria about the time that Christ 
 was born, and for a year or two subsequent to the event. 
 And thus the statement of St. Luke, reiterated by several of 
 the Christian fathers, that Quir. was president of Syria at 
 the time when Jesus was born at Bethlehem, is fully vindi 
 cated, though the proof is reached only by a minute and 
 lengthened deduction, and it is again the paucity, not the 
 fulness of the collateral sources of information, which has 
 brought into suspicion the accuracy of the sacred historian. 1 
 
 1 In the text, we have given only the evidence bearing on Quir. s presi 
 dency about the time of our Lord s birth. But since the investigations of 
 Norisius, referred to in the preceding discussion, it has been held by most 
 writers on the subject (for example, by Ores well, Harmony, Vol. I., Diss. 
 
PRESIDENCY OF CYRENIUS, LUKE II. 2. 515 
 
 II. The other points connected with the subject need not 
 detain us long. They refer to the nature of the census, for 
 which, it is said, a decree was issued by Caesar Augustus, and 
 to the compass of territory it embraced whether the whole 
 Roman world, or simply that portion of it which was bounded 
 by the regions more immediately in the eye of the. Evange 
 list. 
 
 In regard to this part of the inquiry which, as already 
 stated, is not touched upon by Zumpt it ought to be borne 
 in mind, that here also our information is extremely scanty; 
 and it is very possible, that if ampler materials were within 
 our reach for determining the political relations and move 
 ments of the time, all would become perfectly plain. In such 
 a matter, it should be enough, if there is nothing obviously 
 irreconcilable with the Evanelical narrative and certain 
 
 V., Meyer, Alford, etc,) that Saturninus was president of Syria at the 
 time of Christ s birth, that in the year of His birth (viz. u. c. 750) Varus be 
 came president, and continued, probably, for five years, till he was succeeded 
 by another Saturninus. It is admitted, however, for instance, by Mr. Ores- 
 well, that coins have come to light, which do not readily correspond with this 
 representation. And the more careful inquiries of Zumpt tend to establish 
 the following as the real succession: C. Sentius Saturninus became presi 
 dent of Syria in the year 9 B.C. (i.e. before the common Christian era,) as 
 may be inferred from Jos. Ant. xvi. 9. 1, who also speaks of him as a man of 
 consular rank, and of great authority, xvi. 11. 3, etc. ; then, it appears from 
 coins and other collateral evidence, that Varus obtained the Syrian presi 
 dency in B. c. 6, and continued for about two years. The precise time when 
 this Varus was superseded is doubtful ; for here, both the notices of Josephus, 
 and other accounts of Syrian affairs, are somewhat meagre and confused. 
 Evidence, however, has been produced of L. Volusius Saturninus having held 
 the government of Syria; and it is certain that he must have quitted it in 
 the year 6 A. D., because then Quir. was appointed to Syria, with the design 
 of reducing Judea to a Roman province, and annexing it to Syria. But be 
 tween this Gth year after A. D., and the 6th before it, when Varus entered on 
 his office, there is room, according to the usual practice of Augustus, for at 
 least one legate, and possibly more than one, to fill up the space. And it is 
 here that the legation, first of Quir. and then of Lollius (both of a somewhat 
 special character, and lasting but a short time,) come in. So that the suc 
 cession stands thus: C. Sentius Saturninus became president B.C. 9; P. 
 Quinctilius Varus, B.C. G; P. Sulpicius Quirinius, B.C. 4; M. Lollius, B.C. 
 1 ; C. Marcius Censorinus (mentioned by Velleius as for a short time after 
 Lollius, who killed himself, rector of C. Cresar and governor of Syria,) A. D. 
 3; L. Volusius Saturninus, A. D. 4; P. Sul. Quirinius, A. D. 6, etc. 
 
516 APPENDIX. 
 
 things that make it reasonably probable. It should also be 
 noted, that while the Evangelist says that the census was 
 taken while Quir. was governor of Syria, he does not affirm 
 it to have been personally conducted by him in Judea. It 
 merely happened to be coeval with his Syrian presidency, and 
 formed a first census, as contradistinguished from a second. 
 St. Luke being himself a native of Syria, and very probably 
 writing to a Syrian, quite naturally indicated the name of 
 the governor presiding at the time over the region, and the 
 relation of this census to another, with which the governor 
 was known to be officially connected. 
 
 In regard to the d-oypayij itself, it is impossible to arrive 
 at any very definite conclusion. The word strictly means an 
 enrolling, though very commonly an enrolment with a view 
 to taxing taking an account of men s persons and goods for 
 the purpose of laying on them an equitable proportion of the 
 public burdens ; and hence it might often with propriety be 
 rendered by our word taxing. But, undoubtedly, there were 
 cases in which this term would be too specific ; in which, at 
 least, the immediate act was not directly associated with any 
 pecuniary rating. Those who, with Lardner, would regard 
 the Evangelist as writing. of the whole world in the restricted 
 sense that is, as embracing merely the districts more imme 
 diately in his eye, the provinces subject to the jurisdiction of 
 Herod think they discover a probable account of the trans 
 action in certain notices of Josephus respecting the latter 
 days of Herod s reign. In the Ant. xvi. 9, 3, 10, 9, it is 
 stated that Herod toward the close of his life, "lost the Em 
 peror s favour, and was forced to submit to many disgraces 
 and affronts;" in consequence of which he sent an ambassa 
 dor to Rome, who succeeded, though not without difficulty, 
 in explaining matters and effecting a reconciliation. Further, 
 in Ant. xvii, 2, 6, the historian having mentioned the Pha 
 risees as a powerful and subtle party, ready to attempt any 
 thing against those who were obnoxious to them, adds, "When, 
 therefore, the whole Jewish nation took an oath to be faithful 
 to Coesar and the interests of the king, these men to the num 
 ber of above 6000, refused to swear." He proceeds to men- 
 
PRESIDENCY OF CYRENIUS, LUKE II. 2. 51T 
 
 tion, that for this act of contumacy they were fined by He 
 rod, while, on their part, they declared that God had decreed 
 to put an end to the government of Herod and his race. 
 This came to the ears of Herod, and proved the occasion of 
 death to not a few of their number. Now, it is supposed that 
 the oath of fidelity here spoken of as having been exacted 
 towards Csesar and the interests of Herod, might be identical 
 with the enrolment or census of St. Luke; the rather so, as 
 the time must have been nearly the same in both cases, and 
 the national expectation of another king than Herod, or any 
 that could spring from his family, did then also assume a very 
 definite and specific form. 
 
 Whatever truth, however, there may be in all this, as re 
 gards Herod and the people of his dominions, it must be 
 owned that it scarcely meets the conditions of the historical 
 statement presented by the Evangelist. In the account of 
 the Jewish historian the matter seems to lie between Herod 
 and his people, and to be altogether of local interest; while 
 with the Evangelist it is the decree of the Emperor oof/ia 
 xapa Kalffapoz AbfO jcrTou which alone comes into notice ; and 
 the object of this is represented in the most general terms, as 
 ordering an enrolment for the whole world, xaffav rty oexov- 
 pivyv. Of course, not absolutely the whole ; the words must 
 in any case be understood with some limitation ; for wide as the 
 Roman empire was, there still were, in the age of Augustus, re 
 gions of considerable extent and ample resources, respecting 
 which he would never have dreamt of issuing a decree of the 
 kind here specified. We are constrained to think, at the very 
 utmost, of a universality co-extensive with Caesar s acknow 
 ledged supremacy: but to that, both the words themselves 
 and the connexion in which they stand, seem most naturally 
 to point. There is some reason to believe, as Mr. Greswell 
 has shown (Harmony, vol. i., p. 536 sq.,) that Augustus did 
 take measures for effecting, not merely partial censuses of 
 which various are incidentally noticed by the ancient histo 
 rians but also surveys of a more general kind. There ap 
 pears, for example, to have been made in his reign a general 
 geometrical survey of the empire, which, though not men- 
 44 
 
518 APPENDIX. 
 
 tioned by any historian extant, is yet explicitly referred to 
 by several writers, especially by such as treat of rural affairs. 
 Thus Frontinus de Coloniis says, Huic addenda sunt men- 
 surge liraitum et terminorum ex libris Augusti et Neronis Cae- 
 sarum ; and speaks further of a surveyor Balbus, qui tempo- 
 ribus Augusti omnium provinciarum et civitatum formas et 
 mensuras compertas in commentarios contulit, et legent Agra- 
 riam per universitatein provinciarum distinxit ac declaravit. 
 Various other authorities are cited by Mr. Greswell to the 
 same effect. And it certainly can be regarded as by no 
 means unlikely, that along with a general measurement of 
 the empire, Augustus should have sought to obtain a general 
 census of its inhabitants. The one could scarcely fail to seem 
 the proper complement of the other. And it is also known 
 that Augustus left behind him what is called breviarium impe 
 ril (Tac. Ann. i. 11 ; Suet. Aug. c. 102 ; Dio, Ivi. 33,) which it 
 took many years to complete, and which would in all proba 
 bility be based to some extent on returns regarding the popu 
 lation of the empire. But the accounts we have of it are brief, 
 and the history, in particular, of Dio, appears to be defective 
 in respect to this period. 
 
 Supposing such a measure to have been prosecuted by 
 Augustus, there is no need for imagining that the decree or 
 dering the returns must have been issued for the whole em 
 pire at once, and appointed to be carried out simultaneously 
 throughout all the provinces. It would be more likely to be 
 carried into effect piecemeal; although, when speaking of it 
 in connexion with any particular province, a writer of the pe 
 riod would naturally connect the special work in his region of 
 the empire with the decree of the Emperor ordering its ge 
 neral accomplishment. So the Evangelist may be conceived 
 to have done. And it tends still further to confirm this view 
 of the nature and design of the census here spoken of, that 
 the very mode of taking it seems to indicate a specific diffe 
 rence between it and the census afterwards taken by Quiri- 
 nius, when Judca was formally annexed to Syria. Of the 
 latter it is said, that the express design of it was to take an 
 account of the people s substance ; and Quir. himself is desig- 
 
PRESIDENCY OF CYRENIU8, LUKE II. 2. 519 
 
 nated an appraiser of their means reij^rr^ r&v obauov (Ant. 
 xviii. 1.) Had the first census been of this description, there 
 could have been no need for so early a renewal of it. And, 
 besides, the circumstances noted by the Evangelist in regard 
 to the holy family, seetn to indicate that other things than 
 property were in question ; since, instead of being enrolled 
 where their dwelling and substance (if they had any) existed, 
 they repaired to what was reckoned their own city theirs, it 
 would appear, only by genealogical descent and personal 
 claims; for, if any property had belonged to them there, 
 they should not have been obliged to lodge in the mere out 
 houses of the inn. Such things seem best to accord with a 
 census of persons merely, apart from the valuation of their 
 property. 
 
 Finally, as to the relation of the census to the Syrian pre 
 sidency, it should be borne in mind, that the accounts both of 
 the census itself, and the Syrian presidents at this time, are 
 extremely brief and indistinct. As it was about the very time 
 of our Lord s birth, that Quir. appears to have taken the place 
 of Varus, one can quite easily conceive, that the enrolling may 
 have partly fallen under the one administration, and partly 
 under the other. It is also quite conceivable and even pro 
 bable, that, as the appointment of Quir. seems to have been 
 made (according to the notice of Tacitus) for the more imme 
 diate purpose of bringing into subjection the Homonadenses in 
 the western and less accessible parts of the province, Yarus, 
 his predecessor, may have been ordered to remain for some 
 time in the east, till Quir. was at liberty to enter on the re 
 gular administration of the affairs of the province. These are 
 quite natural suppositions in the circumstances; and they may 
 sufficiently account for the mention made by Josephus of Va 
 rus in Ant. xvii. 9, 3, as being still president of Syria, shortly 
 after Herod s death. He may have been so, in point of* fact, 
 as regards the eastern part of the province, although not 
 strictly the president of Syria at the time. But the notices 
 are so partial and incomplete, that it is impossible to exhibit 
 more than a probable view of the circumstances of the period. 
 From what has been established, there is valid ground for as- 
 
520 APPENDIX. 
 
 serting, that it is not our Evangelist who has reason to fear 
 the fullest inquiry, and that the more the actual relations of 
 the time are known, the more patent and conclusive should be 
 the proof of his historical accuracy. 
 
INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 
 
 Paga. 
 
 A 
 
 Accommodation ih interpreta 
 tions of Scripture, the false, lOGsq. 
 
 Accommodation in interpreta 
 tions of Scripture, the true.:.. 113 
 
 Africanus, Julius, his explanation 
 of the two genealogies 200, 209 
 
 Analogy of the faith, respect due 
 to 122 
 
 Angel of the Covenant, 231 
 
 Angels, designations and doctrine 
 of 225 
 
 Angels, import of the general term 226 
 
 B 
 
 Page. 
 
 Baptism, why done by threefold 
 immersion 295 
 
 Baptism, wheth er administered to 
 Jewish proselytes 304 
 
 Baptism, symbolical import of... 306 
 
 Bathings among Greeks and Ro 
 mans 302 
 
 Bezu s view of New Testament 
 Greek 25, 31 
 
 Beza s name defended against Dr. 
 Campbell 86 
 
 Blood, pouring out of 44 
 
 Angels of the Seven Churches.... 227 Boys, his Key to the Book of 
 
 Angels, Jewishnotions concerning 230 
 Angels, past and present state of 231 j 
 Angels, their proper function and 
 
 employment 242 
 
 Angels, whether guardians of par 
 ticular persons and kingdoms 245 ! 
 Angels, the fallen, their state and 
 
 prospects 253 ! 
 
 Anointing with oil, its symbolical 
 
 import 266 
 
 Antichrist, in St. John s Epistles 280 
 Antichrist, in Cyprian and the 
 
 Fathers 286-8 
 
 Aramaic forms and idioms in New 
 
 Testament , 21 
 
 Archangel, Scriptural application 
 
 of the name 240 
 
 Armstrong, Dr., his doctrine of 
 
 baptisms 299 
 
 Augustine on the rule of faith... 123 
 Augustine on the relation of the 
 
 Old Testament to the New 146 
 
 Augustine, his hermeneutical work, 
 
 de doc. Christiana 159 
 
 Augustine on the wisdom of ser- 
 
 pents 171 
 
 Augustine on the relation of Christ 
 
 to the house of David 210 
 
 Psalms 203 
 
 Cainan, whether the name should 
 be twice in Luke s genealogical 
 table 
 
 Caleb, most probably a Gentile 
 by birth 
 
 Campbell, Dr., his undue censure 
 of Beza 
 
 Campbell, Dr., his extreme views 
 
 222 
 219 
 86 
 102 
 
 on the etymology of words 
 
 Campbell, Dr., on the Analogy of 
 the faith 125 
 
 Campbell, Dr., <-n the use of the 
 article before Christ 265 
 
 Campbell, Dr., on the title, Son 
 of Man 271 
 
 Campbell, Dr., on certain baptis 
 mal expressions 300-3 
 
 Christ, names of, in New Testa 
 ment 257 
 
 Christians, origin and meaning 
 of the name 267 
 
 Circumcision, its symbolical im 
 port and sacramental design... 149 
 
 Cyrenius, when first governor of 
 Syria 504 
 
 44* 
 
INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 
 
 Page. 
 D 
 Delitzscli on the genealogy of 
 
 Christ 213 
 
 Diodati Doniinici. his work on the 
 original language of the JSew 
 Testament 15 
 
 E 
 
 Egypt, the tenacity of its ancient 
 language 1C 
 
 England, the resistance it gave to 
 the introduction of Norman 
 French 17 
 
 Erasmus, his view of the charac 
 ter of New Testament Greek... 25 
 
 Ernestion the analogy of the faith 124 
 
 Ernesti on the words of institution 
 at the Lord s Supper 165 
 
 Etymology, the respect to be paid 
 to it 93 
 
 Fathers, their uses and defects as 
 interpreters of Scripture 74 
 
 Fig-trees, as spoken of by some 
 Kabbius 68 
 
 Flacius Illy ricus, his Clavis Scrip 
 ture 85 
 
 Forbes, Dr., on Scripture paral 
 lelism 203 
 
 Fuller, Thos. , his grotesque appli 
 cation of Scripture metaphors 170 
 
 Gabriel, the name and its appli 
 cation 236 
 
 Gale, Dr., on baptism 297 
 
 Genealogies of Christ in the Gos 
 pels 205 
 
 Genealogies, principle on which 
 they were constructed 215 
 
 God, His moral character, a fun 
 damental and pervading cha 
 racter in Old Testament insti 
 tutions 150 
 
 Grammatical sense of Scripture, 
 importance of ascertaining it.. 83 
 
 Greek of New Testament different 
 from the purely classical 25 
 
 Greek of N. T., lexical peculiari 
 ties belonging to it 33 
 
 Greek of N. T., grammatical pe 
 culiarities 35 
 
 Greek of N. T., its Hebraistic im 
 press 37 
 
 Grotius on the principle of the 
 two genealogies 217 
 
 H 
 
 Hades, import and use of 315 
 
 Hades, among the Greeks and 
 
 Romans 315 
 
 Hades, among the Hebrews 317 
 
 Hagenbach on the qualilications 
 
 of an interpreter of Scripture 82 
 Heathen religion, the relation of 
 
 New Testament Scripture to it 137 
 Hebraisms not so frequent in the 
 New Testament as often repre 
 sented 46 
 
 Heringa on the subject of accom 
 modation 112 
 
 Hervey, Lord A., on the genealo 
 gies 218 
 
 Higden, Ral. on Norman French 17 
 Horsley, Bishop, his tendency 
 to extremes in etymological 
 
 senses 101 
 
 House, its tropical meanings 169 
 
 Humboldt, William, on language 55 
 
 Jacob, peculiarity in his genealo 
 gical table 216 
 
 Jebb, Bishop, on parallelisms.... 194 
 
 Jebb, Bishop, on Matt. vii. 6.... 201 
 
 Jesus Christ, His sparing use of 
 these names Himself 270 
 
 Jesus Christ, why He commonly 
 called Himself Son of Man.... 271 
 
 Jesus Christ, evidence of His 
 claim to be reckoned Son of 
 David 207 
 
 Jews, their language in time of 
 Josephus 19 
 
 Josephus, relation of his writings 
 to those of the New Testament 64 
 
 Israel, as children of the cove 
 nant, a spiritual seed... 151 
 
 Israel, not placed by God in anta 
 gonism to the Gentiles 151 
 
 Judas, Ids character and relation 
 to Christ 3C.9, 483 
 
 Judaistic spirit, its early mani 
 festation 141 
 
 K 
 
 Kingdom of God, meaning of the 
 expression 56 
 
 Kohlbriigge on the term Old Tes 
 tament 341 
 
 L 
 
 Labourers in vineyard, parable of 184 
 Language of the New Testament 13 
 
INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 
 
 528 
 
 Page. 
 Layard, his remarks on Eastern 
 
 genealogies 118 
 
 Leighton, Archbishop, as an in 
 terpreter 100 
 
 Limbus Patrum, what? 330 
 
 Lisco on the parables 183 
 
 Lowth, Bishop, on parallelisms.. 189 
 
 M 
 Macedonian conquest, its effects 
 
 on the Greek }anguage 32 
 
 Mashal, import of the Hebrew 
 
 term 475 
 
 Melancthon on Scripture inter 
 pretations 13, 85 
 
 Messiah, import and use of the 
 
 name 258 
 
 Michaelis on Hebraisms in New 
 
 Testament 48 
 
 Michaelis on the writings of Jo- 
 
 sephus 64 
 
 Michael, import and application 
 
 of the name in Scripture 233 
 
 N 
 
 Names, significance of, in Scrip 
 ture 45 
 
 Nazarite, reason of his long hair 251 
 Neander, his deep sense of the im 
 portance of the moral element 
 in an interpreter 83 
 
 
 
 Old Testament Scripture, mode 
 of dealing with, in the New.... Ill 
 
 Old Testament Scripture wor 
 ship, spiritual element in 134, 148 
 
 Old Testament Scripture, only re 
 lative difference between it, 
 and that of the New 154 
 
 Old Testament Scripture, quota 
 tions from, in the New 390 sq. 
 
 Olshausen, his view of Antichrist 291 
 
 Parables of JesusChrist, and their 
 interpretation 173 
 
 Parables, why our Lord used so 
 much this style of discourse 174, 477 
 
 Parable of* prodigal son misinter 
 preted 187 
 
 Parallelism in New Testament 
 Scripture 189 
 
 Parallelism, its appropriateness as 
 a measure for inspired strains 192 
 
 Passover, eating of, how to be 
 understood 378 
 
 Pacre. 
 
 Passover, time of our Lord s last 379 
 Paulus, Dr., his character as an 
 
 interpreter 81 
 
 Philo, the relation of his writings 
 
 to the New Testament 62 
 
 Pillar, its tropical meanings 169 
 
 Prepositions in New Testament 
 
 often arbitrarily dealt with.... 50 
 Prepositions, peculiar usages of, 
 
 by Hebrews and Greeks 117 
 
 Prophets, false, who meant by... 275 
 Prophets, false, the regard paid 
 
 to such among the Romans in 
 
 later times 276 
 
 Q 
 Quotations from Old Testament 
 
 in the New 390 sq. 
 
 Quotations, the bearing of them 
 
 on the subject of inspiration... 453 
 Quotations, their relation to the 
 
 Septuagint 455 
 
 Quirinius see under Cyrenius. 
 
 R 
 
 Rabbinical writings, their proper 
 use 67 
 
 Reformers, their hermeneutical 
 principles 85 
 
 Regeneration, its meaning and 
 place 355 
 
 Repentance, its meaning and place 352 
 
 Resurrection of Christ, promi 
 nence given to it by Paul 493 
 
 Rosenmuller on accommodation 110 
 
 S 
 
 Schneckenburger on Jewish bap 
 tism 305 
 
 Scholefield, Professor, on the Eng 
 lish Version of Scripture 47 
 
 Scholefield, Professor, on Heb. 
 ix. 15 346 
 
 Seiler on accommodation 110 
 
 Semler on accommodation 109 
 
 Sheol, import of. 317 
 
 Sheol, difference between the re 
 presentations of, and those in 
 New Testament Scripture 320 
 
 Simplicity, as a characteristic of 
 the New Testament 90 
 
 Socinians, their arbitrariness as 
 interpreters of Scripture 87 
 
 Son of Mt.n, why appropriated 
 by Christ 270 
 
 Stephen s speech, explanation of 
 peculiarities in it 119 
 
524 
 
 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 
 
 Page. 
 
 Stephens, Robt., his view of New 
 Testament Greek 2G 
 
 Sycophant, etymology of 94 
 
 Symbolical element in Old Testa 
 ment worship 148 
 
 Sympathy with sacred writers, 
 how necessary for interpreters 79 
 
 Talmuds, when probably com 
 posed G6 
 
 Talmuds, their misuse in inter 
 pretations of the New Testa 
 ment 67 
 
 Tares, explanation of, in the pa 
 rable 181 
 
 Teachers, false, who meant by the 
 term 279 
 
 Testaments, or wills, unknown 
 among the Jews 340 
 
 Tiersch on the Septuagint Version 61 
 
 Titmann on the Hebraisms of the 
 New Testament 47 
 
 Tooke (Home,) his views on lan 
 guage 96 
 
 Transubstantiation not justified 
 by the words of Christ, rightly 
 interpreted 165 
 
 Page. 
 
 Trench, Dean, his remarks on 
 certain words 96 
 
 Trench, Dean, on parabolical re 
 presentations 175 
 
 Trench, Dean, on Antichrist 292 
 
 Tropical parts of the New Testa 
 ment, and their interpretation 157 
 
 U 
 
 Usage, importance of attending 
 to, in the interpretation of 
 words 93 
 
 Vulgate, Latin, some of its im 
 perfections as a translation.... 43 
 
 Vulgate, Latin, its value, and that 
 of other early versions in inter 
 pretations 70 
 
 W 
 
 Wetstein, his treatise on accom 
 modation 108 
 
 Winer on New Testament idioms 49 
 Women, why required to use vails 250 
 
 Zumpt, A. W., on the Presidents 
 of Syria 507 
 
INDEX OF TEXTS ILLUSTRATED. 
 
 Page. 
 
 Page 
 
 Page. 
 
 Exod. iii. 6, . 481 
 
 Jer. xviii. xix. . 484 
 
 Matt. xii. 17-21, 400 
 
 xii. 46, . 488 
 
 xxiii. 5, . 258 
 
 xiii. 11-13, 178 
 
 Num. xix. 13, 19, 298 
 
 xxxi. 15, . 470 
 
 xiii. 14, 15, 402 
 
 Psalm viii. 2, . 407 
 
 xxxi. 31-34, 446 
 
 xiii. 35, 403, 475 
 
 viii. 4-6, 443, 500 
 
 Dan. ix. 25, . 259 
 
 xv. 4, . 403 
 
 xvi. 8-16, 419 
 
 x. 5, 6, . 235 
 
 xv. 8, 9, . 404 
 
 xxiv. 3, 4, 194 
 
 x. 13, . 234 
 
 xvi. 18, 126, 324 
 
 xl. 6-8, .447,503 
 
 Hosea xi. 1, . 466 
 
 xvii. 11, . 353 
 
 xlii. 10, . 117 
 
 Amosix. 11, 12, 423 
 
 xviii. 10, 247 
 
 Ixix. 22, 23, 
 
 Mi cak v. 2, . 394 
 
 xix. 28, . 363 
 
 432, 496 
 
 Hab. i. 5, . 422 
 
 xix. 4, 5. 404 
 
 Ixix. 25, 418,491 
 
 ii. 4, 425, 495 
 
 xxi. 5, . 405 
 
 Ixxviii. 2, 403,475 
 
 iii. 13, . 261 
 
 xxi. 13, . 406 
 
 xcvii. 7, . 498 
 
 Zech.iii..8, . 258 
 
 xxi. 42, 407, 478 
 
 cii. 25-27, 499 
 
 vi. 12, . 258 
 
 xxii. 32, 407, 481 
 
 civ. 4, . 226 
 
 ix. 9, . 405 
 
 xxii. 37, . 408 
 
 cv. 15, . 261 
 
 xi. 13, 409, 482 
 
 xxiii. 14, 169 
 
 cxviii. 22,23, 478 
 
 xii. 10, . 490 
 
 xxiv. 22, 43 
 
 cxxxv. 15-18,196 Malachi iii. 1, 226,400 
 
 xxvi. 31, 408 
 
 Prov. iii. 11, 12, 448 
 
 Matt. i. 23, 393, 456 
 
 xxvi. 64, 274 
 
 xxv. 21, 22, 127 
 
 ii. 3, . 264 
 
 xxvii. 9, 10, 
 
 Cant. vi. 10, . 171 
 
 ii. 6, . 394 
 
 .409, . 482 
 
 Eccles. v. 4-6, 227, 250 
 
 ii.7, . 493 
 
 xxvii. 46, 410 
 
 Isaiah vi, 9, 10, . 402 
 
 ii. 15, 395, 466 
 
 Marki. 2, 3, 411,487 
 
 vii. 14, . 456 
 
 ii. 18, 395, 470 
 
 iv. 12, . 411 
 
 viii. 17, 18, 502 
 
 ii. 23, . 51, 396 
 
 vii. 3, 4, 8, 300 
 
 ix. 1, 2, . 398 
 
 iii. 3, . 396 
 
 xii. 29, 30, 412 
 
 x. 22, 23, 428 
 
 iv. 4, . 397 
 
 xv. 28, . 412 
 
 xi. 1, . 258 
 
 iv. 6, . 397 
 
 Luke i. 4, . 100 
 
 xi. 10 ; . 435 
 
 iv. 7, . 397 
 
 i. 37, . 48 
 
 xxviii. 16, 429 
 
 iv. 10, 14, 398 
 
 ii. 2, . 504 
 
 xxix. 13, 404 
 
 v. 29, . 37 
 
 ii. 11, . 262 
 
 xlii. 1-4, 400 
 
 vii. 6, . 201 
 
 ii. 15, . 48 
 
 xlv. 1, . 261 
 
 viii. 17, 399, 473 
 
 ii. 24, . 413 
 
 liii. 4, .399,473 
 
 ix. 13, . 399 
 
 iii. 4-6, . 413 
 
 Iv. 3, . 492 
 
 x. 16, . 171 
 
 iii. 16, . 303 
 
 lix. 20, 21, 433 
 
 xi. 10, . 400 
 
 iii. 23, . 211 
 
 Ixi. 1, 2, . 414 
 
 xi. 23, . 323 , 
 
 iii. 36, . 222 
 
526 
 
 INDEX OF TEXTS ILLUSTRATED. 
 
 Pao;e. 
 
 P age. 
 
 Pa-re. 
 
 Luke iv. 17-19, 414 
 
 Rom.iv. 18, . 426 
 
 Gal.vi. 2, . 97 
 
 xi. 88, . 301 
 
 vi. 3, 4, . 310 
 
 Ephes. iii. 19, . 53 
 
 xxiii.42, . 52 
 
 viii. 23, . 364 
 
 iv. 8, . 441 
 
 xxiii.43, . 325 
 
 ix. 15, . 98 
 
 iv. 9, . 332 
 
 xxiii.46, . 41G 
 
 ix. 25, . 427 
 
 iv. 26, . 170 
 
 John i. 16, . 283 
 
 ix.26, . 427 
 
 v. 14, . 442 
 
 i. 18, . 51 
 
 ix. 27, 28, 428 
 
 v. 21, . 266 
 
 iii. 1-8, . 356 
 
 ix. 29, . 428 
 
 v. 25, 26, 309 
 
 iii. 13, . 274 
 
 ix. 33, . 429 
 
 Philip, ii. 10, . 53 
 
 iv. 25, . 262 
 
 x. 6-8, . 430 
 
 Col os. ii. 12, 13, 310 
 
 v. 27, . 274 
 
 x. 20 ; 21, 431 
 
 2 Thess. ii.3-10, 288 
 
 vi. 31, . 416 
 
 xi. 2, . 102 
 
 2 Tim. ii. 19, 103, 442 
 
 vi. 45, . 416 
 
 xi. 8, . 431 
 
 Titus iii. 5, . 357 
 
 vi. 53, . 164 
 
 xi. 9, 10, 432,496 
 
 Heb. i. G, 443, 497 
 
 xii. 14, 15, 417 
 
 xi. 26, 27, 433 
 
 i. 7, 226, 443 
 
 xii. 38, . 417 
 
 xii. 1, . 132 
 
 i. 10-12, 443, 499 
 
 xiii.1-17, 311,372 
 
 xii. 19,20,108,434 
 
 ii. 6-8, 444, 500 
 
 xiii. 18, . 417 
 
 xiv. 11, . 434 
 
 ii. 12, 13,445, 502 
 
 xv. 25, . 417 
 
 xv. 10, . 435 
 
 iii. 7-11, . 445 
 
 xviii. 28, . 376 
 
 xv. 12, . 435 
 
 viii. 2, . 130 
 
 xix. 36, 418, 488 
 
 1 Cor. i. 19, . 436 
 
 viii. 8-12, 446 
 
 xix. 37, 418,490 
 
 i. 29, . 43 
 
 ix. 15-17, 344 
 
 Acts i. 6, . 366 
 
 ii. 9, . 436 
 
 ix. 20, . 447 
 
 i. 20, 418, 491 
 
 iii. 13, . 164 
 
 x. 5-7, 447, 503 
 
 ii. 16-21, 419 
 
 iii. 19, 20, 437 
 
 xi. 21, . 448 
 
 ii. 25-28, 419 
 
 iv.21, . 117 
 
 xii. 5, 6, . 448 
 
 ii. 27, . 86, 325 
 
 x. 2, . 309 
 
 James iv. 5, . 450 
 
 iii. 19, 20, 366 
 
 xi. 10, . 250 
 
 iv. 6, . 450 
 
 iii. 22, . 420 
 
 xiv. 21, . 438 
 
 1 Peter iii. 18-20, 333 
 
 iii. 25, . 421 
 
 xv. 54, . 48, 438 
 
 iii. 20, 21, 310 
 
 iv. 27. . 265 
 
 xv. 55, . 326 
 
 2 Peter i. 3, . 53 
 
 vii. 15, 16, 119 
 
 2 Cor. i. 21, . 266 
 
 i. 5, . 53 
 
 viii. 40, . 51 
 
 iii. 14, . 341 
 
 i. 5-7, . 117 
 
 x. 38, . 265 
 
 vi. 16, . 438 
 
 1 John ii. 18, . 284 
 
 xii. 7, . 249 
 
 vi. 17, 18, 439 
 
 ii. 19, . 43 
 
 xiii. 33, 422, 492 
 
 viii. 15, . 440 
 
 iv. 1, . 278 
 
 xiii. 34, 422, 492 
 
 xii. 9, . 99 
 
 v. 3, . 36 
 
 xiii. 40, 41, 422 
 
 Gal. ii. 2. . 89 
 
 Rev. i. 13, . 270 
 
 xv. 16, 17, 423 
 
 iii. 8, . 440 
 
 i. 18. . 327 
 
 xvii.2 2, . 138 
 
 iii. 10, . 440 
 
 ii. 14, . 52 
 
 xxv. 19, . 138 
 
 iii. 13, . 440 
 
 iii. 12, . 169 
 
 Rom. i. 17, 425, 495 
 
 iii. 16, 441,497 
 
 vi.8, . 327 
 
 iv. 3. . 426 
 
 iii. 19, . 152 
 
 xii. 7-9, . 236 
 
 iv. 6, 7, . 426 
 
 iv. 30, . 441 
 
 xiii. 10, . 117 
 
 THE END. 
 
VALUABLE BOOKS 
 
 PUBLISHED AXD TOR SALE BY 
 
 SMITH, ENGLISH & Co., 
 
 NO. 40 N. SIXTH STREET, 
 
 PHILADELPHIA. 
 
 THOLUCK S COMMENTARY ON JOHN. 
 
 (To be published, March 1st.) 
 
 COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. BY DR. A. TIIOLUCK. 
 TRANSLATED FROM THE GERMAN, BY CHARLES P. KRAUTII, 
 D. 1)., PITTSBURGH, PA. 8vo. ; CLOTH. 
 
 The first edition of this Commentary, which may now be considered a classic in its depart 
 ment, appeared in 1827, and was followed by a second in the next year, and by a third in 
 1831. The fourth Edition, which appeared in 1833, found a translator in Itev. A. Kaufman. 
 (Boston: Perkins & Marvin, 183(3.) Though the translation was severely criticised, yet the 
 hearty reception giren it by students of the New Testament, and the extensive use made of 
 it by lea ling Theological writers in this country and in England, show, that with all its 
 drawbacks, it was regarded as an aid of the highest value in the interpretation of John. A 
 fifth Edition of the original was issued the year after the appearance of this translation. 
 
 All these editions were essentially the same. The changes were not radical and the im 
 provements were not such as to affect the identity of the work. But between the appearance 
 of the fifth Edition (1837) and of the sixth, (1844) a revolution in the criticism of the Gospels 
 had taken place. The works of Strauss, and of kindred writers, and the masterly vindications 
 by Aeander and othtrs which they called forth and the appearance of an extraordinary 
 number of books of high merit, bearing on the interpretation of .John, had made it necessary 
 that the sixth Edition should be newly elaborated from beginning to end. Not only did 
 Tholuck perform this labour thoroughly, but he enriched his work by new researches in neg 
 lected portions of the ancient mines, so as to make it ampler as a storehouse of the old, even 
 while he was storing it with fresh treasures of the new. Though much of the mutter of the 
 other editions was dropped and what was retained was compressed as far as possible, yet the 
 new Edition embraced nearly fifty pages more than the latest of the old. 
 
 Finally, toward the close of 1857, a seventh Edition appeared. In addition to the use of 
 the most recent writers, the miscellaneous works of Origen, together with the writings of 
 some of the Greek fathers, and the works of the Theologians of the Reformation, and of the 
 period immediately following it, have been either used for the first time or drawn upon more 
 freely. The doctrinal passages have been more fully discussed. On the critical questions 
 including that of the Passover the position of the sixth Edition is retained without a 
 change. 
 
 The Commentary of Tholuck is comprehensive and thorough, yet compact. It presents a 
 great deal in a comparatively small compass, and is therefore a manual. The selectest thoughts 
 of Fathers, of Reformers, and of recent writers are brought together, and combined with what 
 has been furnished by the auth< r himself. Genius, culture, piety in affinity with that of 
 John, are his characteristics; arid his work, whether in the hands of the learner, or of the . 
 scholar, of the intelligent lay student of the Bible, of the pastor, or of the theologian, will be 
 found a treasure of learning, of original thought, and of all that ministers to the wants of the 
 Christian heart. 
 
 The translator offers to the public, in connexion with the most valuable portions of the 
 seventh, a translation of the sixth Kdition of this Commentary. As the work is one of science 
 and not of art, he has aimed at presenting the exact idea of the author with a faithfulness to 
 which mere graces of style are freely sacrificed. The original work has been revised, its refe 
 rences of every kind, almost without exception, have been verified, and where mistakes have 
 been made they have been corrected. As an indispensable aid to one class of readers, and as 
 a convenieuca even to the scholar, the citations are accompanied with a translation. 
 
BENGEL S GNOMON. 
 
 GNOMON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. BY JOHN ALBERT BENGEL. 
 
 The translation of this valuable work is now complete in five handsome 
 volumes, octavo. Price in cloth, $10.00. 
 
 RELIGIOUS CASES OF CONSCIENCE 
 
 Answered in an Evangelical Manner. 
 BY THE KEV. S. PIKE, AND THE REV. S. HAYWAHD. 
 
 New Edition, with an Introduction by the 
 REV. HENRY A. B ARD M AN , D . D . 
 
 I2mo. cloth, $1.00. 
 
 COLES ON GOD S SOVEREIGNTY. 
 
 PRACTICAL DISCOURSE ON THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD, WITH OTHER 
 MATERIAL POINTS DERIVED THENCE. BY ELISHA COLES. 
 12MO. Go CENTS. 
 
 WORKS OF DR. JOHN OWEN. 
 
 EDITED BY REV. DR. GOOLD, EDINBURGH. 
 
 Iii twenty-four volumes, 8vo. 
 The Miscellaneous Works, 16 vols., $24.00. 
 
 The Theologoumena and Exposition of the Hebrews, 8 vols., $12.00. 
 The Whole Works, complete in 24 vols., $36.00. 
 
 CLARK S FOREIGN THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY. 
 
 COMPRISING 
 
 Hengstenberg s Christology of the Old Testament, 4 vols. 
 
 Stier on the Words of the Lord Jesus, 8 vols. 
 
 Keil s Commentary on the Book of Joshua. 
 
 Keil and Bertheau on Kings and Chronicles, 2 vols. 
 
 Hengstenberg s Commentary on the Psalms, 3 vols. 
 
 do do Revelation of St. John, 2 vols. 
 
 Gieseler s Compendium of Ecclesiastical History, 5 vols. 
 Hageubach s Compendium of the History of Doctrines, 2 vols. 
 Baumgarton s Apostolic History, 3 vols. 
 Ullmann s lleformers before the Reformation, 2 vols. 
 Muller on the Christian Doctrine of Sin, 2 vols., &c. &c. 
 
14 DAY USE 
 
 RETURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWED 
 
 LOAN DEPT. 
 
 This book is due on the last date stamped below, or 
 
 on the date to which renewed. 
 Renewed books are subject to immediate recall. 
 
 2 
 
 BRARY 
 
 . 
 
 MAY 2 9 1967 
 
 
 w~ 
 
 
 LD 21A-60m-7, 66 
 (G4427slO)476B 
 
 General Library 
 
 University of California 
 
 Berkeley 
 
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY