ii^ 1 «j ^ CL ♦^ ca l4-i ^^k Ic U5 ^ Q. >i ^ ^ 0) W G CD TD OS '^*«- IE C S CO CL •H 5-1 4-> "o ^ a; ^ § 5 (U c CO T3 ^ p bJ) •H G ^ •^ r^ <: r-f-H CO (U "53 3 E CO :s Tj a> •^-d- X CO s ^ $-1 00 0) ^ cj 0) 00 G TJ O 2^ •TD rH G >— 1 % ■§ G 1 O LO CO CX) O c oCfxeva. Chrysostoji. Testamentum Vetus de Cliristo exliibeudo, Novum de Christo exbibito agit : Novum in veteri latet, vetus in novo patet.— Augustin. LONDON: JACKSON AND WALFOED, 18, ST. Paul's churchyard. MDCCCLIII, PUEFAGE. "All Scripture," says Paul,fspeaking of the Old Test- ament, " is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." It is to be feared that many excellent persons, whilst they cannot but admit this statement of the Apostle, are far from enjoying a personal realization of its truth. From the more devotional parts of the Jewish Scriptures they may derive much spiritual advantage ; but for the book, as a whole, they find themselves unable to entertain the same feeling of grateful regard as they pos- sess towards the writings of the New Testament, from which they are in the habit of deriving principally their religious aliment. The existence of such a divided state of feeling towards the two great component portions of a volume which, if of Divine origin, must be harmonious in its texture, is a circumstance deeply to be regretted. If the Old Testament was written for the use of Jews, it has been, by the gracious providence of God, iweserved for the use of Christians ; and to them, no less than to the Jews, is held out the assurance, that " he that meditates in the law of God, shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of waters, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season, whose Vi PREFACE. leaf shall not Avither, and who shall prosper in whatsoever he doth." To neglect a stady recommended by such an assurance, can neither be right nor safe. The main cause to which that neglect of the Old Test- ament, to which I have referred, is to be attributed, is not a disposition to underrate any portion of revealed truth, but rather an inability to perceive the bearing of many parts of that book, upon the principles and feelings which Christianity teaches us to receive and foster. We may hope to remedy it, therefore, by laying before the minds of intelligent Christians right views of the close connexion, mutual dependence, and internal harmony of the Old and New Testaments, so as at once to convince them that Christianity must be found in the former as well as in the latter, and to put them on the right way of finding it. To supply what has appeared to the author a desideratum hitlierto on this head in our British theological literature, is the design of the present publication. The vastness of the field I have had to traverse, has necessitated my proceeding upon principles of selection and condensation in the arrangement of my materials. I have, consequently, confined myself as much as possible to such points as seemed of most comprehensiveness and moment ; and have, save in a few instances, rested con- tented with adducing the evidence in favour of my posi- tions, without entering at length into the refutation of such objections as might be adduced against them. This I felt to be the less necessary, because the controversial bearings of the different branches of my subject are those which have hitherto almost exclusively occupied the atten- tion of those who have written upon them. PEEFACE. Vll Desirous of consulting the interests of all classes of readers, I have abstained, as much as possible, from all exegetical disquisition in the text, and have placed such philological remarks as seemed necessary for the eluci- dation of the passages quoted in notes. For the same reason, I have, for the most part, rendered into English the quotations from ancient or foreign authors, which I have had occasion to introduce; judging it not only more useful, but, upon the whole, more scholarly, to do so, than to load my pages with masses of Greek, Latin, and Ger- man, which two-thirds, perhaps, of my readers could not understand, and which no one would, in such a case, have had any security that I understood myself. Since the Lectures were delivered in the Congregational Library, they have been nearly entirely rewritten, and have, consequently, undergone considerable alterations in arrangement as well as in substance. My anxious aim has been to compress as large a portion of authentic informa- tion into my pages as was compatible with tlie limits within which I was necessarily confined. I now commend the work to the Divine blessing, and to the candid and enlight- ened judgment of my Christian brethren. W. L. A. Edinburgh^ March 3 h'^, 1841. PEEFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. Tins work has undergone a careful revision for tiie pre- sent edition. Several errors, which had been allowed to creep into the former edition, have been corrected ; nume- rous emendations, the result of maturer study, or more extended reading, have been introduced ; and extensive additions have been made, both to the text and the notes. Since the former edition appeared, a larger amount of attention has been directed to the study of the Old Test- ament in this country than formerly. It has been grati- fying to the Author to find that several opinions, which were treated by some of his reviewers as very doubtful novelties, when uttered by him twelve years ago, have, in consequence of a freer ventilation of the subject, passed into somewhat extensive acceptance among biblical scholars. Without claiming to have exerted any influence in bringing about this result, it is yet gratifying to find, that what he considers truth, is making way in quarters where it is ^ikely to be productive of important consequences to the cause of learning and piety. Pinkieburn House, 8tk October, 1853. PROPERTY^ PKIITCETOIT TKSOLOGIC&L CONTENTS. LECTURE I. EXTERXAL OK LITERAHY CONXEXIOX OF THE OLD AND XEW TESTAMENTS. Part I. PAGE Introductory Remarks — Design of this Course of Lectures — Import- ance of this Design — Subject of the present Lecture — General Affinity of the Old and New Testaments — Affinity in point of Form and Structure ; of Language ; of Nomenclature — General Allusions in the New Testament to the Old — Testimony of our Lord and his Apostles to the Authenticity and Inspiration of the Old Testament — Allusions in the New Testament to Historical Incidents, Insti- tutions, and Operations recorded in the Old — Purposes for v/hich these are made 1 Part II. "Verbal Quotations from the Old Testament in the New — Sources of these Quotations — Deviations from the Standard Text in many of the Passages quoted — Formulae of Quotation — Passages introduced without Formulge — Purposes for which Quotations are made by the New Testament Writers from the Old — Meaning of the phrase, " It is fulfilled," and the like in the New Testament — Concluding Remarks 27 Xii CONTENTS. LECTURE 11. IXTERN.VL OU DOCTniXAL CONXEXIOX OF THE OLD AND NEW TE3TA3IENTS — DOCxraNES respecting the divine natuee. PAGE All Scripture from the same Divine Source— Consequent Harmony of all its Statements— Problem of a Religion — Divine Existence assumed in Scripture — Unity of God as taught in the Old Testa- ment—Jehovah not viewed by the Israelites merely as their Tutelar Deity — Intimations in the Old Testament of the Plurality in the Divine Essence — Plural Names of Deity — Construction of these with singular Adjuncts — Use of the Plural by Jehovah when speaking of or to Himself — The Angel of Jehovah — The Spirit of Jehovah— Intimations in the Old Testament of the threefold Character of the Divine Plurality — Conclusion — Opinions of the Jews 50 LECTURE IIL internal oe doctrinal connexion of the old and new testaments doctrines respecting the divine character, and condition and prospects of man. Part L Moral Character of God — Mosaic Account of the Creation and Fall of Man — Consequence of the Fall — Doctrine of the New Testa- ment on this head — Penalty denounced in the primal Threatening not Natural but Spiritual Deiith — This Penalty incurred by all Men — Inquiry into the Knowledge possessed by the Old Testament Saints ref^pccting a future State of Rewards and Punishments — Degree of Knowledge upon this Subject possessed by the Jews in the Days of our Lord — Testimony of Paul to the Fact that such Knowledge was enjoyed by the Patriarchs, and to Abraham's Knowledge of a bodily Resurrection from the Dead . . .91 Part II. Evidence from the Old Testament upon this Head— Translation of Enoch, Rapture of Elijah, Sec. — Traces of a Belief on the part of CONTENTS. Xili PAGE tbe Patriarchs and Jews in the separate Existence of the Soul after Death — Traces of their Knowledge of tbe Resurrection and the Last Judgment — Result of this Inquiry — The Expectation of a future State of Retribution must have raade those Avho entertained it deeply concerned as to their State before God — Prospects of Man as a Sinner — Reasons for Hope — A Way of Escape revealed in the New Testament — Probability of finding tbe same in the Old . .110 LECTURE IV. IXTERXAL OR DOCTRIXAL CONNEXrON" OF THE OLD AND NZW TESTAMEKTS — CEITERIA AND CHARACTERISTICS OF THE WESSIANIC I'BOrHECIES. Adaptation of Divine Revelation to the peculiar Circumstances of tliose to whom it was first addressed — Under tbe ancient Economy God made use of both "Words and sensible Symbols to convey Truth to the Minds of Men — In relation to the Messiah the former Mode is used in the Prophecies concerning Him, the latter in tlie Types — Duties of the ancient Prophets — Subjects of their Oracles — Necessity of fixed Criteria of such Prophecies as refer to the Messiah — Internal Criteria — Extei'nal Criteria — Authority of our Lord and his Apostles final in respecr to such Prophecies as they quote — Theory of Accommoiktion — This Theory inconsistent with the Divine Authority of the New Testament, as well as Avith well- known Facts in the Life, Character, and Teaching of our Lord and his Apostles — Principles for the Interpretation of the Messianic Prophecies — Peculiarities of the Prophetic Style — Theory of a Plurality of Senses in Prophecy 133 LECTURE V. IXTEENAL OR DOCTRINAL CONNEXION OF THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS — SURVEY OF MESSIANIC PROPHECY FROM THE FALL TO THE TlilB. OF DAVID. Three Ages of Messianic Prophecy — First Age from the Fall of Adam till the Death of Saul, King of Israel — Tije first Gospel — Excla- mation of Eve on the Birth of Ca'n — Ncah's Blessing on Shem und Japheth — Promises made to Abraham — Blessing of Judah — Xiv CONTENTS. PAGE Traces of Acquaintance with the first Gospel in the Book of Job — The Prophet like unto Moses 176 LECTURE VI. IXTERXAL OR DOCTRINAL CONNEXION OF THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS SURVEY OF 3IESSIANIC PROrHECY DURING THE REIGNS OF DAVID AND SOLO-MON. Second Age of Messianic Prophecy — Characteristics of the Prophe- cies belonging to this Age — Authors of these Prophecies — Prophecy of Nathan to David — Last "Words of David — Messianic Psalms — • Authorship of these — Messianic Character of Psalms ii. xvi. xxii. x], xlv. Ixxii. ex. vindicated 215 LECTURE VIL INTERNAL OR DOCTRINAL CONNEXION OF THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS — SURVEY OF MESSIANIC TROrHECY FROM THE DEATH OF SOLOMON TO THE TIME OF MALACHI. Third Age of Messianic Prophecy — Historical Notices respecting the Israelites and Jews during this Age — General Characteristics of the Prophecies belonging to this Age — Messianic Prophecies by Amos, esjfecially chap. ix. ; by Hosea, especially i. 10; by Isaiah, especially vii. 14— 16; ix. 5, 6; lii. 13 — liii. 12; by Joel; by Micah, especially V. 1, 2; by Jeremiah, especially xxiii. 6; by Daniel, especially ix. 24—27; by Ezekiel; by Haggai, especially ii. 7; by Zechariah; and by Malachi — Concluding Remarks 253 LECTURE VIIL INTERNAL OR DOCTRINAL CONNEXION OF THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS — NATURE, CRITERIA, AND INTEIU'RETATION OF TYPES — EXAMINATION OF SOME OF IHE LEADING TYRES OF CHRIST IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. Part L Definition of a Type— Illustration of this Definition— Resemblance CONTENTS. XV PAGE of a Type to an acted Pai-able — Adaptation to the Human Mind of this Mode of Instruction — Instances of the Use of it in JMatters not directly connected with Christianity or any Religious Purpose — Criteria and Interpretation of Tj'pes: — I. Mere Resemblance to its Antitype not the Essence of a Type — 11. Nothing Typical •which is not also Symbolical — Principles of Symbolical Interpretation — III. Types to be distinguished from Comparisons and Allegories — IV. The Antitype always more glorious than the Type . .301 Part II. Typical Character of the Levitical Institutes — Component Parts of a Ritual — General Remarks on the Mosaic Ritual — Typical Cha- racter of the Tabernacle, the Sacred Seasons, the Purifications, the Animal Sacrifices, and the Priestly Office, among the Jews — Official Dress, Consecration, and Duties, of the High Priest — Services on the Day of Atonement — Meaning of them — Reference of the whole to Christ, and fulfilment of the whole in Him — Result of this Survey of the Messianic Types . _ 322 Part III. Summary of the whole Inquiry — Concluding Reflections on the Amount of Knowledge which a pious and enlightened Jew might obtain from his own Scriptures as to the way of acceptance with God — On the Superiority of the Christian to the preceding Dispen- sations, and on the Oneness of the Church in all Ages . . .365 APPENDIX. Note A. — Meaning of the term diaerjur}, as applied to the Sacred Writings 379 Note B. — Opinions of the Christian Fathers respecting the Claims of the Old Testament and its Harmony with the New . . . 38 1 Note C. — Works treating of the Subject of this Course of Lectures . 3S5 Note D. — Remarks on some of the Quotations in the New Testament from the Old 386 XVI CONTKXTS. PAGE Note E — Wiseman and Davidson on the Syriac usage of the plirase signifying "It is fulfilled" ............ 396 Note F.— On the use of the Plural in Hebrcv.' ..398 Note G. — Opinions of the Fathers regarding the Plural Appellations of Dt;ity in the Old Testament 407 XoTE H.— Edwards on the Death Threatened to our First Parents . 408 Note I.— Tholuck on Heb, xi. 19 ^ 411 Note K. — Different Versions of Job xix. 25— 27 412 Note L. — Allegorical Interpretations of Scripture iunnng the Ancient Jews 414 Note M. — Herder on the Doctrine of i\'.'comir,odntion 4i6 Note N. — Knobel on tiie Manner in -ivhich tlie The* crati.:; Pro- phecies were fulfilled by Clirist 417 Note 0. — Hengstenberg an Psalm xlv. G 420 Note P. — Brow]i on the Suggestive Power of External Ohj*cts . .421 Note Q. — Melchizedek 423 Index of ja-incipal iri.tters . . . 4:'^9 CONNEXION OF THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS. LECTUKE I. EXTERNAL OR LITERARY CONNEXION OF THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS. " Eemember the former things of old : for I am God, and there is none else I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the be- ginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure." — Isa. xlvi. 9, 10. PART I. Amongst the numerous and diversified religious systems which have prevailed in the world, there are two, the Jew- ish and the Christian, which stand distinguished from all the rest by the marked peculiarity of being founded upon direct revelations from God, embodied in written docu- ments. Other religions, it is true, have their sacred books, but these are either confessedly the production of mere men, — eminent, perhaps, for their sagacity, their foresight, and their knowledge of men and things, but still laying no claim whatever to the enjoyment of supernatural assistance in the composition of their works, — or, when pretensions to a higher influence are made, the evidence upon which vn. B EXTERNAL CONNEXION OF these rest is so entirely fictitious, that the slightest investiga- tion suffices to set them aside. The sacred books of the Jews and of the Christians, however, after having passed through the most searching scrutiny, in which their claims to Divine inspiration have been analyzed by the severest tests, have come forth from the ordeal with these claims not only unimpaired, but rendered more clear and unde- niable by every successive investigation ; so that, without the shghtest extravagance, it may be affirmed that nothing beyond a careful and candid examination is requisite in order to satisfy the most scrupulous inquirer of the Divine origin and authority of these books. From this circum- stance these two classes of religionists have been placed in a peculiar relation to each other. The Jews, as the professors of the older faith, and as those who have for the longest time enjoyed the privilege of a Divine revela- tion, naturally feel inclined to look down with mingled jealousy and contempt upon the pretensions of the Chris- tians. They are ready to allege that the religious system of the latter is entirely at variance with that which God enjoined upon his ancient people ; and, in spite of evidence as convincing, at least, as any they can adduce in favour of their own Scriptures, they denounce those of the Chris- tians as false and supposititious. The Christians, on the other hand, admit to the fullest extent the Divine authority of the Jewish Scriptures, and receive with reverence the revelation which they contain. At the same time, as these Scriptures themselves announce the prospect of a new revelation, more simple in its statements, more precise in its details, and more final in its character, it is urged by Christians that the mere fact of the prior existence of these Scriptures forms no argument against the possibility of the Divine authority of those which they possess, but on the contrary forms of itself a presumption in favour of their claims. They further argue, that in that revelation with which they have been privileged the acknowledged THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS. S desideratum of the Jewish Scriptures has been supplied ; inasmuch as, whilst it sets forth the same great truths as are to be found in them, it presents these to the mind of the reader in a more direct and precise form, and at the same time throws light upon much that is obscure, and gives mean- ing to much that is unintelligible in the statements, intima- tions, and ordinances of the older revelation. They have accordingly incorporated the sacred books of the Jews with their own, as equally a part of the sacred oracles, and equally demanding reverential homage from all to whom they may come : assigning to both the common appella- tion of the "Holy Scriptures," and distinguishing between them only as the Scriptures of the Old Testament or Covenant, and the Scriptures of the New, according to a mode of phraseology of which the earliest intimation occurs in the writings of one of the inspired authors of the latter. t' How far the views thus entertained by Christians, and which, sanctioned by the highest authority, have prevailed in the church from the earliest times downwards,! are sus- ceptible of articulate proof, it is the object of the present course of Lectures to inquire. Assuming the genuineness, the authenticity, and the inspiration of both divisions of the sacred canon, it is proposed to examine into the rela- tion of the two to each other; to estimate the influence which the existence of the earlier has had upon the com- position of the later ; to point out in what they agree, and in wdiat they differ ; to show that, whilst they are sub- stantially in perfect harmony, there is a difference of form, accident, and character, arising out of the different circum- stances in which they were delivered, and the diiterent ends they were primarily designed to answer ; and thus to evince that, whilst each is perfectly adapted to the purpose it was peculiarly intended to serve, both must be taken * See Appendix, Note A. t Appendix, Note B. 4 EXTERNAL COXNEXION OF together if we Avould perceive the full beauty, understand the full import, and reap the full benefit of either. An inquiry of such a nature must be admitted to be one of no small interest and importance. Involving, as it does, questions of moment connected with the history of letters among tlie Jews, its interest even in a literary point of view is not inconsiderable ; but it is from \ts relifjious bear- ings that its main importance, and that which has chiefly prompted to the present course of investigation, arises. It must be obvious that on the right settlement of the various questions presented by such an inquiry depends in no small degree the opinion we shall form both of the menyiincf of many sections of the Old Testament Scriptures, and of the use it is incumbent upon us to make of that portion of the sacred canon. If it cannot be shown to contain substantially the same religious system with that developed in the Christian Scriptures, and if its obscure and symbolical adumbrations of truth are not to be ex- pounded by the clearer revelation with which we have been favoured, it will follow not only that much of it will remain to us a sealed book, but that even to those parts of it which we may be able to understand it will not be competent for us to appeal, either in polemical defence of any controverted dogma of our New Testament faith, or in practical enforcement of those which are admitted on all sides to be true. Another feature of this inquiry, which confers upon it no small value, is its relation to certain of those controversies which Christians have been called to carry on in defence of their common faith. On the infidel controversy, for instance, the subject before us has a two-fold bearing : the one, as supplying materials for an important part of the direct argument in favour of the Divine authority of the Scriptures— r't;j:. that derived from the fulfilment of pro- phecy ; the other, as aiding to repel the objections which, THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS. 5 with its characteristic want of candour, Infidelity has urged, alike from the irreconcilable discrepancies, and the too close resemblances alleged to exist between the Old Testament and the New, against the insj)iration of both. On the controversy between Christians and Jews, also, the bearing of this inquiry is too obvious to require to be pointed out; for if that inquiry can be successfully pro- secuted ; — if it can be shown that the religious system unfolded in the New Testament is essentially the same with that inculcated in the Old ; that all the evidences of true Messiahship prescribed by the latter meet in the person whose history and doctrines the former is occupied in setting forth ; and that, besides all this, apart from the revelations of the New Testament, a great part of their own Scriptures must remain even to themselves unin- telligible upon any rational principles of interpretation ; — it must be obvious to all that the materials will be fur- nished for a most cogent appeal to the best feelings and most enlightened convictions of the Jews, the effect of which, when skilfully and devoutly made, has been already proved in the gathering up of not a few of these outcast branches, w4io, by the Divine blessing on the use of such means, have been " grafted into their own olive-tree." Nor, in enumerating the advantages of such an inquiry as that before us, must we omit the pleasure which it is calculated to convey to the pious mind, in the view which it will naturally unfold of the unbroken harmony of Divine truth, and the consequent unity of that church which is built upon the truth. In pursuing it we shall be led to trace the stream of gospel blessing from its first appearance in our world down to that point where, emerg- ing from the limits to which it had been previously con- fined, it sent forth its healing and purifying waters over the length and the breadth of our barren and polluted earth. At every stage of its progress we shall have occasion to 6 EXTERNAL CONNEXION OF mark the same properties as characterising it, and the same benignant results as effected by its presence. We shall thus be brought into contact, as it were, with the entire family of the redeemed, and be taught to realize in some measure the dehghtful fact that, under the gospel dispensation, believers have, even in their present state, "come to the general assembly and church of the First- born which are written in heaven." By every Christian mind an occupation such as this will be welcomed as replete with the materials of the purest and most elevated pleasure. A subject of so much interest and importance both in itself and in its relations could not fail to attract towards it much of the attention of those who devote themselves to the study of Divine truth. There exist, accordingly, both in our own language and in others, vast m.asses of learned and profound dissertation upon almost every point embraced in the present subject ; so that in treating of these little is left for a writer in the present day beyond the duty of arranging, condensing, and discriminating the materials of his predecessors. As these, however, exist chiefly in a controversial form, and as, consequently, the general question is viewed rather in its argumentative bearings, than in respect of its intrinsic merits, it is not unfrequently the case that principles are hastily assumed, generalizations rashly made, truth presented only in a one- sided aspect, and conclusions affirmed which rest upon very questionable bases. It seems desirable, therefore, to submit the general question, as I have already stated it, to a more rigid crisis ; and abstracting for the present from the uses to which the discussion may be applied, to endeavour to ascertain facts and fix principles, that thereby a satisfactory basis may be laid for further inquiry. In this department some valuable efforts have of late years been put forth by several German divines of eminence, of THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS. 7 whose labours, however, a discriminating use requires to be made.* Leaving for subsequent investigation the internal har- mony of the Old and New Testaments, I shall in the present Lecture confine myself to the consideration of those affinities which subsist between them in an external or literary point of view. Viewing them simply as vene- rable remains of the literature of a great nation, I shall in'quire in what relation they stand to each other, in what light the earlier was viewed by the authors of the later, and what use they made of it in the composition of their own waitings. A person familiar with the Scriptures of the Old Testa- ment, and proceeding to the study of those of the New, would not advance far in that study without being satisfied that the two volumes are of the same kind, and belong to the literature of the same people. The mode of thought and phraseology in both, — the peculiar opinions and prejudices of the writers, — the historical and topographical allusions, — are all essentially the same, with only such minuter peculiarities as lapse of time and change of circumstance naturally produce. The whole cast and character of the authorship of both is oriental and Jewish ; and that not- withstanding the western tongue in which one of them is written, and the greater notice its authors take of western and European affairs. The literature of no other nation, perhaps, presents so remarkable an instance of two books composed in different languages, and at widely distant periods, in which so many literary affinities are to be found, and in which the national character of the com- position is so thoroughly preserved. Among other points of literary resemblance between the two, is the similarity of form and structure by which * See Api^endix, Note C. 8 EXTERNAL CONNEXION OF they are pervaded. In neither is religions truth taught in a scientific or systematical form, but by means of narratives, apologues, conversations, popular discourses, or epistolary communications. In this respect both pre- sent a striking analogy to the work of God in nature, where the phenomena of every science are to be found scattered in boundless profusion over a wide field, and in every possible variety of combination, without any respect to system, yet always so disposed as never to transgress systematic unity, whilst the very irregularity of their arrangement effects the most useful purposes in the physical economy. It is also worthy of notice, that in both the Old Testament and the New an initiatory basis is laid in a historical narrative, to the facts recorded in which a continual reference is made in the subsequent documents. In both we see the nucleus of a distinct and peculiar society laid in the announcement of certain grand religious truths, and gradually, under the auspices of a great Teacher and Legislator, endowed with miraculous power, and holding direct intercourse with the Deity, developing itself into a vast, a powerful, and a privileged community, to which the God of the whole earth is represented as standing in a relation of singular complacency, and for the benefit of which all his revelations of truth and duty are peculiarly designed. To neither of these communities, however, is the idea of perfection or finality attached. On the contrary, both are set forth as introductory of a better and more perfect state, of which they contain the germ, and to which the desires and expectations of their members are continually directed. And, as the earlier writers occupy themselves chiefly with the historical narration of the rise and progress of their respective communities, the intermediate are principally engrossed with matters of a hortatory and didactic character, and those towards tlie close with prophetical descriptions and triumphant anticipations of that higher state into which their own was THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS. ' 9 ultimately to emerge, and of which the distinguished privi- leges they enjoyed were but the prelihation and the pledge.* Another thing that could not fail to strike the attention of such a reader of the New Testament as we have supposed, is the obvious influence which familiarity with Old Testament ideas and phraseology has exercised upon the language of the Evangelists and Apostles. The basis of that language is the common dialect (rj KOLvrj-^LaXeKTos) of the classical Greek; but it is extremely doubtful Avhether a Greek familiar only with his own language could have * Some by descending to minute details have earned this formal resem- blance of the Old and New Testaments to an absurd extreme. Thus Dr. J. Ch. W. Augusti, of Bonn, in his Versuch einer Historisch-dogmaiischen Einleiiung in die Heilige Schrift, Leipz. 1832, the fifth chapter of which is devoted to the " Harmony and Connexion of the Old and New Covenant," enumerates, amongst other points of resemblance, the frequent occurrence of mountain scenes, as in the giving of the law on Mount Sinai by Moses, and the sermon on the Mount by our Lord, — the appearance of Moses and Elias with our Lord on the Mount of Transfiguration, as compared with the mountain scenes in the history of these prophets, — and the ascension of our Lord from Mount Olivet, as compared with that of Moses from Mount Pisgah. He also compares the parting address of IMoses (Deut. xxxii. and xxxiii.) with tlie valedictory discourse of our Lord, (John xvi. xvii.) Tliese minutife, however, afford no fair specimens of the valuable work from which they are taken. A more interesting, though, perhaps, equally fanciful speculation is that in which others besides Augusti have indulged ; viz. that a parallel may be traced between the history of man and the history of Christ, illustrative of the great truth that the latter came as the second Adam to retrieve the en'ors and repair the evils committed and caused by the first. For this purpose tliey compare the miraculous creation of both, on account of which they are, tliough in different senses, called Sons of God ; the temptation and fall of Adam, the temptation and triumph of Clu-ist, the tempter in both cases being. the same ; the introduction of death through sin on the part of Adam, — the destruction of sin through death on the part of Christ ; the cry of Abel's blood for vengeance, as the utterance of justice against cruelty, — the commission of Christ to his disciples to make the first offer of salvation in the place where he had been crucified, as the expression of "mercy rejoicing against judg- ment ; " the confusion of tongues at Babel, as illustrative of the divisive nature of sin, — the gift of tongues to the Apostles, as indicating the undoing of the evil which sin had introduced by the reuniting power of Christianity, &c. &c. Of such a speculation one need say no more than valeat quantum vulcrc possit. 10 EXTERNAL CONXEXTOX OF perused with any great clegi'ee of ease or intelligence their writings. This arises not so much from the frequent use of Aramaic words by the New Testament writers, — a liberty which probably the laxity of the kolvt} diaXeKTos permitted, — as from the continual appropriation of authentic Greek words and phrases to denote ideas altogether foreign to that language, and the frequent ingrafting upon it of idioms such as will be sought for in vain in the works of those to whom that language was vernacular. In this respect it is true that differences obtain among the writers of the New Testament ; the language of Luke, for instance, is much purer than that of Matthew or John ; and the later epistles of Paul, written after extensive intercourse on his part with native Greeks, exhibit a marked approximation to the language and idiom of the classical authors, as com- pared with his earlier epistles, which is true also of the later writings of John as compared with the Apocalypse : still it is nevertheless the fact that Hebraisms abound to such an extent in every part of the New Testament, that the language of that book may be justly characterised in the words of one who more than any other perhaps has made its peculiarities the subject of careful investigation, as a sort of " Judaising Greek, which was for the most part unint(^ligible to the native Greeks, and the object of their contempt."* The more closely these linguistic pecu- liarities of the New Testament are studied, the more will it become apparent that they are to be traced to the intimate familiarity of its writers with the language and phraseology of the Old Testament, and the influence thereby insensibly exerted upon their own.f To the same * " Ein Judaisirendes Griechiscli, u. s. w." Winer's Grammatih chs Neutcstamcntlichen Sprachidioms , § 27, 3te. Aufl. + See Michaelis's Introduction to the New Testament, hy Marsh, vol. i. ; Home's' Introduction, vol. ii. p. 13—30. Edit. 1839 : CampbeU on the Gospeh, PrelDisH. I. pt. 1.; Maltby's Illustrations of the Truth of the Christian Religion, c. 1 ; Stuart's Grammar of the New Testament Dialect. Lond. 1838 ; also in the Edinburgh Biblical Cabinet, No. X. ; Planck's Cornmentalio de vera Natura • THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS. 11 source also must be traced a remarkable peculiarity in the structure of their sentences exemplified by all the writers of the New Testament, though more frequent with some than others. Instead of following the full and rounded periods of the classical writers, their sentences are, gene- rally speaking, brief, and consist of clauses, each of which has a complete meaning in itself, and which are united by the conjunctions koL, Se, or yap, sometimes, by a participial construction, and sometimes by such particles as ovtcds, KaScos, oxrirep. In these clauses, thus arranged, there is preserved a sort of verbal and real parallelism, whereby the full meaning of the writer is forcibly brought out, and which at once reminds the reader of the grand peculiarity of the poetical and ethical parts of the Old Testament. The effect produced is so entirely unclassical, that — asMichaelis has remarked of the LXX. — were all the Hebraisms, Ara- maisms, and other barbarisms removed, and the best and most exquisite words substituted for them, it is doubtful whether even then the style would be entitled to be called Greek.* That such, however, should be the style of men whose minds were full of the Old Testament, and whose thoughts had been shaped and moulded by the familiar study of its contents, is what could hardly fail to have been the case. Closely connected with the language and style of the New Testament writers are the names which they employ for the purpose of designating the leading subjects of their revelations. In the unfolding of a religious system this is atque Indole Orationis GrmccB Novi Test, (translated in the Biblical Cabinet, No. II. p. 91); also his Inlrod. to Sacred Philology, &c. (Biblical Cabinet, No. VII.) ; Sturz, De 'Dial. Macedonica et Alexandrina. Lips. 1808 ; "Winer's Grammatlk des Neutestamenilichen Sprachidioms, u. s. w. ; Davidson's Lectures on Biblical Criticism, Lect. 24, &c. * Prwfatio ad R. Lotvthii Pralect. de sacra Poesi Hehraorum, p. 407. Oxford ed. 1821. This subject has been discussed with consummate ability by the late Bishop Jebb, in his Sacred Literature, Lond. 1828. See also Home's Introduction, vol. ii. p. 504. 1'2 EXTERNAL CONNEXION OF always a matter of great importance ; for the influence of words upon our conceptions of things is so great, that no elucidation or enforcement of truth, however full and ex- plicit, will suffice to keep the religious sentiments of a scattered community uncorrupt, if these sentiments become identified with certain terms which suggest secondary ideas of a nature uncongenial with those which in the system they are primarily intended to represent. To the danger of employing such terms the New Testament writers were peculiarly exposed, from the circumstance of their having to write in a language that had previously been employed almost exclusively to express the conceptions of heathens. It is remarkable, however, how few of their religious desig- nations are borrowed from the ordinary phraseology of the Greeks. With a few exceptions the terms they employ for this purpose consist either of Hebrew v/ords taken directly from the Old Testament, or of words and phrases trans- lated from the Hebrew, — sometimes as these existed already in the LXX. version, sometimes made for the first time by the New Testament writer himself, — or of words and phrases imitated from the Hebrew. Tlius in designating the Divine Being, whilst we have the common Greek word Qeos, — a Avord which the sacred writers might legitimately employ, inasmuch as, though it was used by the Greeks with reference to the idol-gods of their mythology, it is in itself simply expressive of Deity in the abstract, and is so used by the classical writers in innumerable instances," — we * Compare such passages as these : — '"aXXw /itv -yc'ip ed(OKe eeo? noXefitfia tpTo, "AWw i' opxio-Tui', ^Ttpw KiOaptv Kal aoi6i)v. Jl xiii. 730. — 'O /ifcv h); Qeos, wanep Kal 6 TTuXaioy X6701-, iipxh" ^t Kai ^e\ev-i]v Kai {/jLtaa -rwv ovtcov a-KcivTijiv fc'xwi/, k.t.X. riatO, dc LcgtJ. iv. — Tov Kparovvra {J-aXBaKw^ Geor irpivwOev evnev'~'i irpocrbepKeTai. .Esch. Ag. 9^0, kc.—ee6<: is the Greek representative of a word of Avhich traces are to he found in ahnost all the hranches of the Indo-Germanic family: conip. Sans. Deva; Pers. Khoda; Lat. Dcus ; Teutonic, Tuista or Tcut, (Tacit. Gnin. c. 2;) and the Di.^ and Teutaies of the ancient Gauls, (Cies. Bell. Gu'l.\\. 18; Lucan. Phars. i. 445.) It is amusing to find oui' lexiccgi-aphers gi-avtly adducing Cfw, curru, as the root of 0^6^, and referring to the authority of Plato in support of their opinion ! The passage in the THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS. 13 have also such appellations as Kvpios o-alSaoid, (ma^^ nirr, Isa. i. 9 ;) 6 v-^icTTos, {]V)'^, Deut. XXxii. 8 ;) deanoTr^s, (pi^?;) 6 Trarrjp TjfXMi;, (^r3«^ Isa. Ixiii. 16 ;) Geo? 6 C^^v, (o^n U'fib^, Deut. v. 55 ;) and 6 ayv, or more fully, 6 wv, koI 6 7]v, kgI 6 epx^ofxeuos, (nin% rrnx n;'nx Tii« Exod. iii. 13 — 16;) which are all either borrowed, or translated, or imitated, from the Hebrew. The terms employed in designating our Lord — the grand subject of their writings — are also almost all derived from the Old Testament. He is called by such appellations as 'EfifxavovrjX ('?«-^;nS'), 6 Meaaias, 6 Xpiaros (it^^ot)^ ^Itjctovs, ao)rr]p (i-TTirr, contr. ^^ii^.^), 6 vl6s tov Qeov (D^ri^^i-i, comp. Ps. ii. 7; Hos. xi. ]), 6 vlos TOV dvdpoinov (oii^p., Ps. viii. 4; Chald. 'c:« "in, Dan. vii. 13), 6 ap,v6s tov 0eoO, 6 ipxpp-^vos, 6 ttpcototokos, 6 apxL^pevs, 6 dpxtTTOiprjv, 6 pvofxeuos ck Stobi/, (comp. Isa. lix. 20,) 6 ^Ap,rjv, 6 Xecov 6 eic Trjs cf)vXrjs 'lovSa, 37 pl^a Aavtd, and many others, the appropriateness of which can be fully under- stood only by a reference to the writings of the earlier economy. To the same source must we look for the origin and full explanation of such expressions as the following : rj diadrjKrj alcovcos, tj eTrayyeXiaj 6 opKos tov Qeov, used to designate the Divine purpose of redemption as revealed to men : rj /3ao-tXeia tov Qeov, and tmv ovpavcou, 37 avco 'lepova-aXrjix, 'lep. inovpavLos, &c., as descriptive of the new state of things introduced by the advent of Christ ; 6 'laparjX Cratylus, (397, 398,) where tliis supposed authority is given, occurs in one of those pungent specimens of the Socratic irony (cf. Cic. De Orat. ii. 07 ; Acad. ii. [iv.], 5) with Avhich the dialogues of Plato abound, and is conse- quently not in support hut in ridicule of this and similar pieces of etymologj-. See Stallhaum's Dissertatio de Cratylo, in his edition of Plato now in course of publication, vol. v. sec. 3. — Ihre thinks he has found the true etymon in the Moeso-Gothic thiuths, good; an opinion whicli derives some authority from the analogy of (7«f7, (Sueo-G.,) God, (A.S.,) and Gott, (Germ.,) which seem dis- tinctly traceable to the Moeso-Gothic God.s, the ordinaiy term for good. {Glos- saHum Sueo-Goth. voc. Gud.) Even those who cling to the authority of Plato must lend a favourable ear to such etymologies, for the great master has himself told us, that " amid the incessant changes to wliich words are sub- ject, it would not be wonderful should the ancient tongue be found identical with that of the barbarians." Crat. 421 D. 14 EXTERNAL CONNEXION OF Tov Qeov, ol rj-yiaa-jJieuoi, 77 TrepLTroirjcns, \abs Tre piovaios, tepei? Kai jSao-iXeiy, &c., as designating those who are interested in the christian salvation ; 6 Uapdoeia-os, 6 rpiros ovpnvbs, 1] Tovs defjLeXiovs e^ovaa noXis, narpls KpeirTcov rovreaTiv iirovpavios, Kkrjpovojua, aa^^aTL(Tp.os ra, Xa<5 rod Qeov, &C., as appellations of the place of rest and glory prepared for the genuine disciples of Christ; and such metaphors as marriage, to denote the union of Christ witli his people, — sacrifice, to signify devotion on their part to him, (that which was laid upon the altar being regarded as devoted to the Deity to whom it was presented,) — incense,'to signify what is accept- able, or renders something else acceptable, unto God, — chastity, to denote stedfastness and fidelity in the christian profession, — and many others which will naturally suggest themselves to the mind of every one who is familiar with New Testament phraseology. The continual occurrence of terms and phrases so obviously borrowed from the writ- ings of the Old Testament affords a strong evidence of the familiarity with these writings possessed by the inspired authors of the christian documents, and of the influence exercised by the former upon the composition of the latter. It is not, however, from such slight and incidental coincidences alone that this conclusion may be inferred ; there are proofs of a much more obvious nature, arising from the direct references to or quotations from the Old Testament occurring in the New. These are very nume- rous, amounting to several hundreds, and present matter for much interesting inquiry to the biblical student. The limits within which I am confined do not admit of our en- tering with minuteness into this part of my subject ; but it is too important, and too closely connected with the other parts of the course, to be passed over without an attempt, at least, to take a general survey of it. For this purpose the allusions referred to may be conveniently dis- tributed into three principal classes THE OLD AND NEW TESTA]\rENTS. 15 I. The first class comprises those passages in the New Testament which contain simple references to the Old Testa- ment Scriptures as extant in the clays of our Lord and his apostles ; as being in their estimation of Divine authority; and as containing p)re-intimations of the facts and doctrines of the Christian revelation. — ^If the Scriptures of the Old Testa- ment be what they profess, they must have been in the hands of the Jewish people from a period long anterior to the birth of our Lord ; and as, by their own showing, they were the peculiar property of no class in the community, but belonged in common to the nation at large, we must suppose that a general regard for their authority, and familiarity with their contents, was diffused through the mass of the nation by which they were possessed. Among a people thus circumstanced, a religious teacher, in unfold- ing his own doctrines and precepts, could not avoid taking notice of the opinions already in vogue among them, and pointing out the relation in wdiich these stood to what he himself had come forth to teach. For any one under such circumstances to have affected ignorance of or indifference to the writings of the Old Testament in his intercourse with the Jews, would have been to close the ears of that people for ever against his message, and to expose himself to their just indignation and contempt. We find, accordingly, in the discourses of our Lord, and in the discourses and wTitings of his apostles, a continual recognition of the existence and authority of the Old Testa- ment Scriptures. Not only is the possession of these on the part of the Jews perpetually taken for granted by the first teachers of Christianity, but this circumstance is adduced by them as constituting one of the highest privi- leges of that favoured people, and as laying them under the most solemn responsibilities. To the question, " What advantage then hath the Jew?" the apostle Paul emphati- cally answers, " Much every way ; chiefly because unto them were committed the oracles of God.'' "From a child," says I 6 EXTERNAL CONNEXION OF he to Timothy, enumerating the advantages the latter had enjoyed in consequence of his descent from Jewish ances- tors, "thou hast known the Scriptures, ivhich are able to make thee luise unto salvation.'' And our Lord and his apostles continually represent the enjoyment of this privi- lege as highly aggravating the guilt of the Jews in rejecting the gospel which they preached : "Ye do err," says Christ, in reply to one of their cavils, "not knowing the Scriptures and the power of God." * To the Scriptures of the Old Testament our Lord and his apostles ascribe the highest authority, as the direct product of Divine inspiration. They are spoken of as the " holy writings," as " given by inspiration of God," as con- taining" the Divine commandments and sayings, and as recording truths and statements which their human authors could have made only through the influence of the Divine Spirit.f The characters of sufficiency, as a religious and moral rule, — of direct and intentional adaptation to the spiritual profit of their readers, — oi certainty and infallibility in all their declarations and predictions, — and of imperish- able duration, are ascribed to them. J They are even iden- tified by the apostle Paul with their Divine Author, for in one passage he ascribes to the written word the faculty of judrpnent, and in another the attribute of prescience : " The Scripture," says he, "hath concluded all under sin;" and again, " The Scriptures, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying. In thee shall all nations be blessed." (Gal. iii. 2'2, 8.) These are only more striking specimens of a species of personification which frequently occurs in the writings of the apostle, and a familiar instance of which * Rom. iii. 1 , 2 ; 2 Tim. iii. 15 ; Matt. xxii. 29. + Comp. 2 Tim. iii. IG, 17; 2 Pet. i. 19—21, «Scc. See Henderson's Lectures on Divine Inspiration, &e. Lect. VI. p. 29G, ff. I Comp. Luke xvi. 31; 2 Tim. iii. IG, 17 ; 1 Cor. x. 11 ; Jolm x. 30; Matt. V. 18, &c. THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS. 17 is in the continually occurring formula, '" The Scripture saith." Such being the representation of the t)ivine dignity and worth of the Old Testament given by our Lord and his apostles, consistency required that in demanding attention to their own doctrines, they should show that these were, at least, not inconsistent with those already revealed. Hence we find that the harmony of the truths which they taught with those unfolded in the Old Testament formed a prominent position in the message which, as teachers sent from God, they addressed to men. " Ye search the Scriptures," said our Lord to the Jews, "for in them ye think ye have eternal life, and they are they which testify of me Had ye believed Moses ye would have believed me, for he ivrote of me.'' " Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets : I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you. Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."* It is the continual care of the Evangelists, in recording the events of our Lord's life, to point out in these the fulfilment of ancient prophecy ; and in all their expostulations with the Jews, the ground assumed by the apostles is, the necessity of Christianity as that to which the former dispensation pointed, and from which it could alone receive its explana- tion. " Those things," said Peter to the wondering crowd that had been drawn together by the cure of the impotent man, " which God before had showed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath fulfilled." "We declare unto you," said Paul to the synagogue at Antioch in Pisidia, " glad tidings, hovv' that the joromise which was made unto the fathers, God hath fulfilled the sanie unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again." In his apology before Agrippa and Fcstus, * JoLn V. 39, 40 ; Matt. v. 17, 18. VIT. c 18 EXTERNAL CONNEXION OF he boldly asserts that, in delivering his apostolic testimony, he said " none other things than those which Moses and the prophets did 'say should come : that Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should show light unto the people and to the Gentiles."* With such sentiments it is not surprising that the conduct of the Jews at Berea, who suspended their iudgment of the apostle's doctrine until they had carefully compared it with the declarations of their own Scriptures, should have been viewed by him as worthy of the warmest commendation.! This part of the doctrine of our Lord and his apostles is worthy of consideration, not only as it goes to show the existence in their day of the Old Testament Scriptures, — which is an important element in the proof of the authen- ticity of these writings, — but also as it gives the sanction of their infallible authority to the inspiration of the Old Testament, and to tlie essential harmony between its contents and those of the New. An attempt, indeed, has been made by certain writers of the Neologian school, to evade the force of this conclusion by resorting to the theory of ac- commodation, as it is called, according to which it is sup- posed that these and many other solemn declarations of the Divine Author of Christianity and his inspired fol- lowers, were uttered merely for the purpose of disarming the hostility, by flattering the prejudices, of the Jews. A more favourable opportunity of entering into the formal exposure of this unfounded and impious theory will occur at a subsequent stage of our inquiry; suffice it at present to observe, that its application to the case before us is en- tirely precluded by the fact, that it was not to the Jews alone, but to all to whom they delivered their message that the first teachers of Christianity proclaimed their reverence for the writings of the Old Testament, and the accordance * Acts iii. 18 ; xiii. 32, 30 ; xxvi. 22, 23. + Acts xvii. 11. THE OLD AND KKW TESTAMENTS. 19 of these with the doctrines which they themselves taught. Of this we have evidence sufficient in the language of Peter to Cornelius, (Acts x. 43.) and of Paul to the Corin- thians, (1 Ep. XV. 3, 4,) as well as in those references to the Old Testament made by the latter apostle in those epistles to Gentile churches, in which a regard to the wel- fare of his brethren led him to contend against the imposi- tion of Jewish rites and ceremonies upon Gentile converts. Had the apostle been one who was in the habit of accom- modating his teaching to the prejudices of those whom he addressed, he could hardly, one would think, have resisted the temptation of cutting off at once all such occasions of offence, by repudiating the claims of the Mosaic institutes to be regarded as of Divine origin ; and this the more especially that, upon the theory I am impugning, he would in so doing have uttered the truth. In vain, however, shall we search for any evidences of such duplicity in the writings of the apostle, or of any of his confederates. The great truths which they testified to one, they testified to all ; and in regard to the matter before us, it was their grand desire to show to both Jews and Gentiles that the revelation with which the former had been privileged, pronounced upon all an equal sentence, and offered to all a common salvation. Nor was it in addressing churches and public audiences alone that the apostles rendered respect to the Scriptures of the Old Testament ; they carried the same sentiments into their correspondence with their most inti- mate private friends. It is in an epistle to Timothy, his "own son in the Lord," a "man like-minded with him- self," and with whom, consequently, it would surely have been a piece of very luinccessary hypocrisy to have kept up a mere accommodation to popular prejudice, that Paul pronounces the highest eulogiums on the Old Testament Scriptures which his writings contain. In like manner, our Lord himself, in his most private communications with his followers, uses language as strongly expressive of the 20 EXTERNAL CONNEXION OF prophetical character of these writings as in any of his addresses to the Jews; comp. Matt. xxvi. 24, 31; Luke xxii. 37; xxiv. 44 — 47. Nay, so far does he carry this, that in his intercessory prayer for his disciples he says to his Heavenly Father, " Those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost but the son of perdition ; that the Scrijyture might he fulfilled:' * To suppose accommodation carried so far as this, would be to adopt the blasphemous opinion of the Jews, and charge our Lord with madness as well as impiety. The only alternative is to admit the con- clusion already announced ; to receive, that is, the Divine authority of the Old Testament, and its harmony with the New% as among those truths to which Christianity is jpledged by its Divine Author and his apostles. II. The second class of direct references in the New Testament to the writings of die Old, consists of passages in which notice is taken of certain incidents, institutions, and characters, mentioned in the historical portion of the latter. Such allusions are of very frequent occurrence in almost all the books of the New Testament, and indicate at once the familiarity of their authors with the historical records of their nation, and the close analogy which exists between the dispensation under which they lived and that to which the subjects of their allusions belonged. When these allusions are viewed in relation to the piiriwses for which they are made, they may be con- veniently disposed of under four heads. To the first of these I would refer the catalogues of Old Testament worthies furnished by Matthew and. Luke, as comprising the ancestry of our Lord, according to the flesh. Into the apparent discrepancies between these two genealogies it does not appertain to our pre- sent object to inquire ; it is enough simply to notice the fact that such catalogues exist, and to point out * Jolm xvii. 12. THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS. 31 their obvious intention; viz. the connecting of Jesus of Nazareth, — whom the apostles speak of as the second Adam, — with the original progenitor of our race, through the honourable line of David and of Abraham. With these two, and with others in the same line of descent, God formally established his everlasting covenant; re- vealing to them his purposes of grace towards mankind, and confirming these by solemn promise and oath. In that line were centred, if I may so speak, the hopes of the human race ; and each successive inheritor of the birthright was to the men of his day a living memorial of the existence of God's covenant of grace, an embodied prophecy of the Deliverer who was to come. In this line, consequently, the Messiah was expected ; nor, if the declarations regarding him, given from the earliest times by God to his people, were to stand firm, was it possible for him to come in any other. In claiming for Jesus, therefore, the honours of the Messiahship, it became necessary for his followers to show, that according to the flesh, he was the lineal representative of this illustrious family ; and hence the care with which the evangelists set forth the lineage of his mother and her affianced husband, and trace their genealogy up to David, Abraham, and Adam. To the second class of allusions in the New Testament, to historical facts and persons in the Old, I would refer those passages, of very frequent occurrence, in which the allusion is made for the sake of the illustration or enforce- ment of some doctrinal or 2^ractical statement. This is a practice than wdiich there is none more common with didactic speakers or writers of all ages and countries. The slightest observation is sufficient to satisfy us that there is no mode of inculcating truth half so successful as by present- ing it embodied in some illustrious example. The greater ease with which men apprehend a fact than an abstract principle, the obviousness with which a rule of action 00 EXTERNAL CONNEXION OF presents itself to the mind when it is displayed in actual operation, and the stimulus and encouragement afforded by the simple consideration that what is recommended has been adopted and successfully acted upon already, conspire to render this mode of working upon the minds of men of first-rate use to all who would act as instructors or guides of others. We find, accordingly, that our Lord and his apostles, who neglected no legitimate means of conveying to those whom they addressed the truths they had come forth to teach, make frequent appeals to facts in the Old Testament history, for the purpose of eluci- dating and enforcing their doctrines both in the way of warning and of example. To enter upon even the most cursory consideration of the passages in which such allu- sions are contained, either in the discourses of our Lord, or in the writings of his apostles, would occupy too large a portion of the present Lecture. Contenting myself, therefore, with a bare enumeration of the more important of these passages,* and leaving it with the reader to compare them with the context in which they stand, and the parts of the Old Testament to which they allude, 1 proceed to observe that such references, besides the particular use they were originally employed to serve, have a twofold importance in a more general point of view. In the Jirst j^lcice, they furnish the attestation of infallible authority to the actual historical character of the incidents referred to. Many of these — such, for instance, as the temptation of our first parents, the swallowing of Jonah by a fish, and others of the same sort — are of such a nature, that by a little ingenuity they may be explained away as mere myths or parables which * Matt. X. 10, xii. 3—9, 38—42, xxiii. 35, xxiv. 3C— 39 ; Luke iv. 25—29, xx. 37; John iii. 14, vi. 31, xii. 41; Acts vii., xiii. 16—23; Kom. ix. 9—18; 1 Cor. ix. 13, X. 1—10; 2 Cor. xi. 3; Gal. iii. 6, 14, 16, 17, iv. 22—31; Col. i. 16 ; 1 Tim. ii. 13, 14; Heb. xi., xii. 16, 18; James ii. 21, 25, v. 17; 1 Pet. iii. 5, 6, 19, 20; 2 Pet. ii. 5—7, 10, 16; 1 John iii. 12. 'iTIE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS. 23 had no existence save in the fertile imagination of some ancient poet or sage. But the fact of their being referred to by the New Testament writers as illustrative of their reasonings or exhortations is plainly destructive of all such attempts. To quote a mere fable for the sake of enforcing duty or exhibiting the application of a principle, were at best but a trifling with the gravity of the subject, and an insult to the intelligence of the reader or hearer. From all such charges the inspired authors of our religion stand exempt. The references in their writings or dis- courses to the Old Testament are made in perfectly good faith. What they adduce as examples they evidently believed to be facts ; and writing as they did, under unerring guidance, their opinion in this matter has all the force of law, and rebukes as presumptuous and profane every attempt, however ingenious, to explain away the literal truth of the passages to which they refer. These references are useful to us in the second ^jZac^, because they frequently furnish us with a more complete acquaintance with the fact referred to ; sometimes by the explanatory comments with which the reference is accompanied, and sometimes merely by the context into which it is introduced. In this way we become aware of the interesting facts that the Creator of the universe was oar Lord Jesus Christ, (John i. 3 ; Col. i. 16, &c. ;) that it was He who guided the Israelites through the wilderness, and against whom they spake their rebellious murmurings, (1 Cor. X. 9 ;) and that it was His glory of which Isaiah had a vision when he saw " Jehovah sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filling the temple." (Isa. vi. 1 — 4 ; John xii. 41.) We also learn by the same means, that the real tempter of our first parents was the devil, (comp. 2 Cor. xi. 3, and Kev. xii. 2, xx. 2 ;) that though Eve was deceived by his craft, Adam was not deceived, but sinned wilfully, (1 Tim. ii. 14 ;) and that the connexion between the sin of Adam and that of his 24 EXTERNAL CONNEXION OF posterity is not accidental or merely apparent, but flows out of the relation in which, according to the Divine purpose, he stood to them before he fell, (Rom. v. 12 — 21.) The interest of these additional facts, in a dogmatical point of view, needs not to be pointed out. Besides these references to facts and persons in the written records of the Jews, it may be proper here to mention, that the speakers and writers of the New Testa- ment frequently refer to others which seemed to have formed part of the traditionary learning of their nation. Thus Stephen in his apology supplies us with certain facts in the history of the patriarchs, of which no mention is made by Moses ; such as the appearance of God to Abraham in Mesopotamia, hej'ore he migrated into Charan, — the removal of the bones of the other sons of Jacob out of Egypt, and their re-interment in Shechem, as Avell as those of Joseph, of whom alone Moses mentions this, — and the division of Moses's own life into three periods of forty years each, by his flight into Midian, his return to Egypt, and his death.* To a similar allusion by Paul, in 2 Tim. iii. 8, we are indebted for the knowledge of the names of the Egyptian magicians, Jannes and Jambres, who sought to rival with their enchantments the miracles of Moses ; and from the epistle of Jude we learn the curious and interesting facts, that the apostate angels were the inhabitants of a particular department of the Divine empire, characterised as their own jjrincijmlity and peculiar habitation, (eavTcov dpxrjv .... TO tStoi/ OLKTjrrjpLOv) ; that Michael, the archangel, disputed with Satan about the body of Moses ; and that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, announced to the men even of his early day the certainty and solemnity of the final judgment. That these facts, * Acts vii. 2, 16, 23—30. So also David in the lOotli Psalm, adds to the Mosaic account of Joseph, the fact that " his feet were hurt with fetters, and that he was laid in iron," ver. 18. THE OLD AND KEW TESTAMENTS. 25 thus incidentally referred to in the inspired writings of the New Testament, formed part of the traditionary knowledge of the Jews, appears highly probahle from two consider- ations : the one is the cursory manner in which the allusions to them are made, as if to matters with which those addressed by the speaker or writer were already familiar ; and the other is the fact, that to all these incidents references more or less distinct are made in the Talmud, the compilers of which derived the mass of their materials from the traditions of their nation.* Let it not, however, be supposed that it is by this intended to in- sinuate that these facts rest upon a less authoritative basis than those which are formally recorded in the Old Testa- ment Scriptures. The simple fact of a reference to them being found in an inspired composition, gives them the stamp of authenticity, and entitles them to credibility. From whatever source derived, — whether from express revelation by God, or from tradition, or from public records, or from personal observation on the part of the writer, — the facts of Scripture are alike certified to us upon the simple ground of their being found in a book composed under the special direction of the Divine Spirit, and into which, consequently, nothing but truth, both as to facts and principles, could possibly enter, A tliird division of the passages containing allusions to the narrative parts of the Old Testament, comprises those in which a particular event is brought forw^ard as constituting the historical basis on which some doctrine or duty rests. Thus, the fact of the Fall is adduced by the apostle Paul as lying at the basis of his doctrine regarding * See a collection of the passages in the work of Surenhusius, entitled B//3\or KaraXXaYns, p. 24. The Targum of Jonathan on Exod. vii. 11 men- tions the names of Jannes and Jambres as those of the magicians summoned by Pharaoh to contend with Moses. This tradition had even, though in a corrupted form, reached the elder Pliny, who says, {Hist. Nat. 1. 30. c. 1,) " Est et alia magices factio a Mose et Jamne et Jotape judaeis pendens, &c." 20 EXTEP.XAL CONNEXION OF the universal depravity of mankind, witliout respect to nation or age, (Rom. v. 12 — 19.) So also the revelation of the Divine purpose of mercy to mankind, as embodied in the covenant of promise, or, as it is elsewhere called, " the oath of God," and which he made with Adam, Noah, Abraham, David, and others, is frequently referred to as that upon which the hopes of mankind, whether Gentiles or Jews, can alone be founded, (Luke i. 72 — 75 ; Rom. iv. 13 — 18; Gal. iii. 7 — 29, &c.) In like manner, the apostle grounds his doctrine concerning marriage, and the relative duties of the parties in that union, upon the facts recorded by Moses respecting the creation of Eve, and the first in- stitution of marriage in paradise, (Eph. v. 22 — 31,) — a ground upon which our Lord himself had already rested his doctrine upon this subject, (Mark xv. 6 — 12.) These fundamental facts in the Old Testament being necessarily few in number, the references to such in tlie New Testa- ment are correspondingly few. The last division which I would propose of references in the New Testament to the historical records of the Old, comprises those passages in which some fact or institution of the former economy is adduced as having constituted a type or symbolical adumbration of the truths of Christianity. Thus, the apostle Paul devotes the greater part of the Epistle to the Hebrews to an exposition of the typical significance of the religious ritual of the Mosaic economy ; and allusions are found in other parts of his writings, as well as in those of others of the New Testament writers, to facts and observances, as having been divinely-appointed prefigurations of the truths and blessings of the gospel dispensation. The careful examination of the meaning and object of these references to alleged correspondences between the ceremonial of the Old economy and the spiritual realities of the New, will form an important part of our subsequent inquiries ; they are noticed at present THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS. 27 simply for the sake of marking their position in that classification which I have judged it useful to adopt. TART TI. III. We come now to the third and last class of direct references to the Old Testament in the Books of the New, under which are included those passages in which a quotation more or less exact of the words of the earlier Scriptures occurs. The number of such quotations is very large, — larger, indeed, than most readers of the New Tes- tament are apt to suspect ; and so many are the perplex- ing questions to which the consideration of them has given rise, that we may venture to affirm, that on few subjects in the department of isagogical inquiry have greater diffi- culties been encountered than on this. What learning, ingenuity, and patient research can achieve for the re- moval of these difficulties we may safely assert has been already accomplished ; and if the results attained have not been in every respect so satisfactory as might have been desired, they are probably as much so as the nature and circumstances of the case admit. A field that has been searched by such men as Surenhusius, Drusius, Hoffmann, Michaelis, Owen, Kandolph, and Koppe,* not * Surenhusii B//3\o? KaraWayri^, in quo secundum Vet. Theol. Hebraorum. Formulas allegandi et Modes interpretandi co7iciliantur Loca ex V. in N. T. allegata. 1713. 4to. Drusii Parallela Sacra: li. e. Locorum V. T. cum iis quce iti N. citantur con- jnucta Commemoratio, Ebraice et Greece, cum Notis. 1616. -Ito. Published also in the 8th vol. of the Critici Sacri. HofFmanni Demonstratio Evangelica per ipsum Scripturarum Consensum ex Oraculis V. T. in N. allegaiis dcclarata. Edidit T. G. Hegelmaicr. 1773—79—81. 3 vols. 4 to. Michaelis's Einleitung in die Goitlichcn Schriften des N. B. Erster Theil, s. 223—265. [English Translation by Bishop Marsh, vol. i. p. 200—246.] Owen's Modes of Quotation used by the Evangelical Writers Explained and Vindicated. 1789. 4to. Randolph's Prophecies and other Texts cited in the New Testament compared with the Hebrew original, and with the Septuagint Version. 1782. 4to. 28 EXTERNAL CONNEXION OF to mention a multitude of others who have worked upon the materials which these have collected, can present but few additional objects of interest to any subsequent in- quirer. Instead, therefore, of attempting to institute an independent and original investigation of this subject, which, apart from any other consideration, would be pre- posterous within such limits as those to which this depart- ment of my inquiries must necessarily be confined, I shall content myself with presenting a condensed view of the leading results to which the researches of these learned and able writers seem to me satisfactorily to lead. The first question upon this subject relates to the sources whence the quotations in question are made, — whether by direct translation from the Hebrew original, or by borrowing from the Greek version of the Alexandrine Jews. Both of these we know to have been extant, and in use among the Jews, at the time the New Testament v/as composed; so that, in making their citations from the ancient Scriptures, the evangelists and apostles might employ either the one or the other exclusively, or both in- differently, as occasion or convenience might dictate. The problem is to determine which of these suppositions approximates most to the truth ; in other w^ords, whether the New Testament writers quoted from the Hebrew ex- clusively, or from the Greek exclusively, or sometimes from the one and sometimes from the other. Antecedent to any inductive reasoning from the facts of the case, — to which, however, the ultimate appeal must be made, — we should be led to conclude that, as the New Koppii ExcursuH I. in Ep. ad Romaiios, [^Nov. Test. Koppianum, vol. iv. p. 3-16. 1800.] The reader who has not tlie opportunity of examining these books, some of which are now scarce, will tind a very useful substitute in Mr. Home's excellent chapter upon the subject of which they treat; Infroduction, vol. ii. p. 281, 8th edit. The subject has also been discussed with gi-eat care by Dr. Davidson in his Sacred Hcrmeneutics, p, 334, ff. THE OLD AND KEW TESTAMENTS. 29, Testament writers made use of the Greek language as the vehicle of their communications, and as they addressed these in the first instance to persons who, generally speaking, were, to say the least, more familiar with the Alexandrine version than Avith the Hebrew original, the 2)rohahility is, that their quotations would be made from that version in all cases where to follow it did not involve a departure from the meaning and purport of God's will as originally communicated in the Hebrew Scriptures. This conclusion, suggested by the inherent and a 2^'i'iori probabilities of the case, is pretty nearly that to which an articulate examination of the passages containing quo- tations leads. These may be divided, in relation to the question at present before us, into Jive classes : — i. Those in which the quotation agrees with both the Hebrew and the Greek ; ii. Those in which it agrees with the Hebrew, but not with the Greek; iii. Those in which it agrees with the Greek, but differs from the Hebrew ; iv. Those in which it differs from both, but agrees more with the Hebrew than the Greek ; and v. Those in which it differs from both, but agrees more with the Greek than with the Hebrew. Of these, the first class must be left out of view, as obviously not determining anything in regard to our present inquiry. The second class we may combine with the fourth, and the third with the fifth ; inasmuch as closer affinity to the Hebrew or to the Greek speaks as decidedly in favour of the one or of the other as full agreement. There will then remain two classes of facts to be considered by us : i. Those in which the quotation agrees wholly or chiefly with the Hebrew, and differs con- siderably from the Greek ; and ii. Those in which it agrees wholly or chiefly with the Greek, and differs con- siderably from the Hebrew. By a careful comparison of these two must the question between the Hebrew original and the Greek translation be determined. 30 EXTERNAL CONxXEXlON OF Upon making this comparison we find that a very great preponderance in point of number belongs to the second of these classes over the first, so that we are justified in inferring that the customary practice of the New Testament writers was to take their quotations from the Greek version of the Old Testament, rather than from the Hebrew original. We find, also, that in those cases in which they have departed from this practice, and trans- lated from the Hebrew, the discrepancy between the original and the ancient version is so great as to render quotation from the latter altogether unsuitable for the purpose for which an appeal to the Old Testament is made. Thus, to take a single illustration : in 1 Cor. XV. 54, the apostle, after an exalted and glowing descrip- tion of the change to be effected by the resurrection, when all the evil that death has done to the people of God shall be undone, " when this mortal shall have put on immor- tality, and this corruptible shall have put on incorruption," adds, that in all this will be found the complete fulfilment of an ancient prophecy which says, " Death is swallovred up in victory." Here the apostle borrows his quotation from the Hebrew, and not from the LXX., and the reason is obvious : — the latter departs so far from the actual words of the prophecy, that to have quoted it would have not only rendered the apostle's statement incoherent, but w^ould not have been to quote the prophecy at all.- On the other hand, in those passages in which the New Testament writers follow the Alexandrine version, even in its departures from the Hebrew original, either the differ- ence between the two is so merely verbal, or the object of the quotation is so little dependent on perfect accuracy, that no evil can result from deserting the original to follow the version. Thus the apostle in warning the Jews against rejecting the gospel, quotes Hab. i. 5, thus, (Acts * The Alexandrine version is KaTtV:ev 6 Qivaro^ \ax<''aa^- Isa. xxv. 8. THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS. 31 xiii. 41 :) " Behold, ye despisers, and wonder, and perish : for I work a work in your days, a work which ye shall in no wise believe, though a man declare it unto you." This is taken from the LXX., and differs considerably from the Hebrew, but not so as to affect the meaning of the passage, especially as respects the purpose for which the apostle quotes it. From these facts the conclusion appears unavoidable, that the New Testament writers quoted always from the Alexandrine version, except when the errors of that version rendered an appeal to it incom- patible with tlie object for which the quotation was made. In having reached this conclusion, however, we have bv no means surmounted all the difficulties that surround this part of our inquiry. There still remains the fact to be accounted for, that of the quotations decidedly traceable to the LXX. (and the same may be said of those referable to the Hebrew), very few are made with perfect accuracy ; by far the greater part presenting certain deviations, more or less marked, from the received text of the book from which they are taken. These deviations may be classed under the following heads : — 1. Changes of person, number, or tense, in particular words. Thus in Matt. xxvi. 31, we read nard^u t6v noifMeua, Koi dia(TKop7Tia6r](TeTai to. irpo^ara rrjs Troifxvrjs, whilst the LXX. gives it, Trdra^ov rbv noLixeva, kol dtaarKopTriaOrjaovraL'^ k.t.X. Zech. xiii. 7, John xix. 30, 'Oo-tovv ov o-vvrpL^rjo-eTaL avrov, for 'Oarovv ov o-vvTpLyjreTe an avTOVy Exod. xii. 46. 1 Pet. ii. 24, Ov raav, where the words npcoTos and 'aSu/h are added by the apostle, (comp. Gen. ii. 7.) These additions are made sometimes from parallel passages, and sometimes of the writer's own device, for the purpose of rendering the meaning of the passage clearer, or connecting it more readily with the preceding or subsequent context. 5. Words omitted, and passages abridged: e. g. Matt. iv. 6, To7s ayyekois avTov evTeXelrai Trepl aov, Koi eVt x^Lpccv apovcrl ae, prjTTore 7rpoaK6\j/r]s vrpos \i6ov tov iroha aov, for to7s dyyekoLS avrov evreXelrai nepl aov, tov 8ia(pvXd^aL ae ev Trdcrais Tois obols TrXrjpovrat to yeypafXfjLevov' k. t. \. HiSresiS Ebion, cap. i.) So also the Latin imjolere is used by Jerome : " Cseterum Socraticum illud impletur in nobis. Hoc tantu- lum scio, quod nescio." EjJ. 103 ad Paulin.^ 3. A third purpose for which the New Testament writers make quotations from the Old, is that of clothing their own ideas in language already familiar to their readers, or attractive from its beauty, force, or dignity. The writings of the Old Testament were, as we have already seen, evi- dently perfectly familiar to the apostles and their Jewish brethren. They were the great classics of their nation, at once valuable as literary treasures, and venerable for their Divine authority. In these the youth of Judea were care- fully instructed from their earliest years, and with their words all their religious thoughts and feelings were identified. t Hence it was natural and nearly unavoidable, that in discoursing of religious subjects they should express their thoughts in language borrowed from the books which had formed the almost exclusive objects of their study. " Whenever," remarks Michaelis, " a book is the object of our daily reading and study, it cannot be otherwise than that passages of it should frequently flow into our pen in writing, sometimes accompanied with a conscious recollection of the i)lace where we have read them; at other times, without our possessing any such consciousness. Thus the lawyer speaks with the Corpus Juris and the laws, the schoolman with the Latin authors, * See Appendix Note E. + Comp. Deut. vi. vii. &c. ; 2 Tim. iii. 15 : Hist. Susannie, ver. 3 ; JosepM Jniiqq. Jud lib. iv. p. 132, A., Ed. Genev. 1611. In the Mischna it is pre- scribed that " every child of five years old must be introduced to the know- ledge of the sacred Scriptures." See Hartmann's Enge VerUndung des Altes Testaments mit d. Ncucn. u.s.w. s. 36, 377. 44 EXTEENAL CONNEXION OF and the preacher with the Bible. It is no wonder, there- fore, if the same has happened to the writers of the New Testament, most of whom were daily occupied in the study of the Old Testament, not only in the Hebrew, but also in the Greek version. Of this the natural consequence was, that they very often spoke wdth the Old Testament, and especially the Greek translation. Indeed, they have done this in many places, where it is not perceived by the generality of readers of the New Testament, because they are too little acquainted with the Septuagint."* What renders this more indubitable is, that in all the cases wdiich are clearly referable to this head, the citations from the Old Testament are introduced without any sign of quotation, and appear simply as part of the writer's own discourse. That such quotations are made for merely literary purposes, — for ornament of style, for vigour of expression, for felicity of allusion, or for impressiveness of statement, it seems unreasonable to deny. The pass- ages thus incorporated with the writer's own thoughts and words, are not appealed to as proving what he says, or as applying to any circumstance to which he refers ; their sole use appears to be to express in appropriate language his own thoughts. Thus, when Paul after dissuading the Koman Christians from the indulgence of vindictiveness, adds in the words of Solomon, (Prov. xxv. 21, 22,) "There- fore, if thine enemy hunger, feed him. ; if he thirst, give him drink, for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head ; " the quotation evidently serves no other purpose than to express in language of an approi3riate and impressive kind, the duty which the Ajiostle would enjoin, and which would have been equally intelligible and equally binding if expressed in his own words, as when uttered in * Einlcitung in die GUttl ScJu: dci N.D. Th. I. s. 223. I prefer citing the original of Michaelis, as Bp. Marsli has used great liberties with his author in his Translation. THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS. 45 those of the msph-ed author of the Proverbs. On what other principle, moreover, are we to account for the quota- tion made by Paul, in Eom. x. 18, from the 19th Psalm, where in speaking of the diffusion of the gosj^el among the Jews he says, "But I say, have they not heard? Yes, verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words into the end of the world," — a passage originally applied by the Psalmist to the heavenly bodies ? To insist upon regarding this as a prediction of the diffusion of the gospel, or as furnishing even a parallel to it, is surely to sacrifice reason and common sense to prejudice or some favourite theory. The chief difficulty which many good men, wdio reject the opinion I am now advocating, find in adopting it, arises from the circumstance, that in several of the pass- ages, as in that last quoted, there is upon this hypothesis an accommodation of words originally used of one thing to designate another; which they regard as inconsistent with due reverence to the Divine word. On this objection I would remark, that it does not very clearly appear where- in the alleged irreverence of such a practice lies. To employ the words of Scripture to express low and unworthy ideas, or for the sake of giving point to mere worldly rea- sonings, is to use them irreverently; but to use them to convey ideas as elevated as those originally attached to them, if not more so, (which is the case, e.g. in Rom. x. 18,) has but little appearance of treating them with irreve- rence. The only ground on which such a charge could be maintained is, that words once employed by an inspired writer in a peculiar combination, become thenceforw^ard sacred to the expression in that combination of the one idea they were first used to designate, whatever others they may be susceptible of expressing. But who is there who could seriously attempt to defend such a position as this ? If this were the case, every quotation not made expressly as authority, would be liable to censure ; and, as the number 46 EXTERNAL CONNEXTOX OF of such in the New Testament is indisputably consider- able, hardly any of its writers Avould stand clear of blame. That those who urge this objection are really concerned to uphold the reverence due to Scripture, it would be unjust to doubt. It may be questioned, however, whether with this object in view, it would not be better were they to take their ideas of what is due to Scripture from observ- ing the practice of the apostles, than to attempt to force by violent and arbitrary interpretations that practice into an accordance with certain preconceived notions of their own. Having disposed of the charge of irreverence towards the Old Testament Scriptures, alleged against the prac- tice which I have ascribed to the apostles, I proceed to observe that the opinion above expressed appears to be confirmed by the practice of Paul, in his quotations from the heathen classics. Of these we have three in his writings which are known to be such; of which only one appears to be adduced in the way of proof, one is brought in as if it formed part of the Apostle's own remarks, and the third, though formally quoted, is applied by accommodation to the subject of which the Apostle is discoursing. The first of these occurs in Titus i. 12, where Paul adduces a saying of Epimenides, a Cretan poet, regarding his countrymen, in support of the charac- ter he was himself ascribing to them; the second is found in 1 Cor. xv. 34, where the Apostle conveys a warning in words borrowed from the Thais of Menander ; and the third in Acts xvii. 19, where, in his address to the Athenians, he quotes from the Phsenomena of Aratus, (v. 5,) part of that poet's address to Jupiter, and applies it (by accommodation of course) to the one living and true God. These instances show that the apostles were in the habit of expressing their thoughts in the language of others, when that occurred to them ; and if they did so with the Greek classics, of which they knew comparatively so little, how much more were they likely to do so with THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS. 47 those of their own nation, with which they had been famihar from their chiklhood ? The truth is, the practice of making use in this way of previous and popular writers is one which not only was common in the days of the apostles, but which can hardly fail to be common wherever an established national litera- ture exists. In proof of this, we have only to examine the writings of the later classics of Greece and Rome, which abound in quotations direct and accommodated from their earlier authors. We see the same course pursued hj the Eabbinical writers towards the Old Testament, and bv the Christian fathers towards both the Old and the New, as well as towards the profane classics. What is still more remarkable, perhaps, we find instances of it in the later prophets of the Jews in the use which they make of the writings of their predecessors. Thus Micah (iv. 1 3) quotes nearly verbatim Isaiah ii. 2 — 4 ; Hab. ii. 14 is apparently taken from Isa. xi. 9 ; in the prayer of Jonah (chap, ii.) the latter part of ver. 3 is quoted from Ps. xlii. 8, and the beginning of ver. 5 from Ps. Ixix. 2 ; and of the short prophecy of Obadiah no less than seven verses (1 6, 8,) are found in the 49th chapter of Jeremiah, but which was the borrower in this case is not agreed among critics.* Without multiplying instances, these are sufficient to show how extensively this habit prevailed even among the Old Testament writers themselves. Indeed, such quotations form so apt and natural an ornament of style, that writers of all ages and countries, where the means of doing so exist, have availed themselves of it. As Dr. Jortin has remarked, in a sentence which at once commends and most happily exemplifies the practice, "A passage justly applied, and in a new sense, is ever pleasing to the in- genious reader, who loves to see a likeness and pertinency * See Rosenmiillers Scholia in Proph.Min. {Proem, in Ohadiaiii); Home's Introduction, vol. iv. p. 221, 8tli ed. 48 EXTEENAL CONNEXION OF Avhere he expected none ; he has that surprise which the Latin poet so poetically gives to the tree : ' Miraturque novas froudes et uou sua poma.' " * Why, then, should we wonder that such a practice should •have been followed by the sacred writers, who in other respects appear to have obeyed in the preparation of their works the ordinary rules and usages, both grammatical and rhetorical, of literary composition ? I have now finished what I have deemed it necessary to offer, in such a course as the ];)resent, on the external or literary connexion of the Old and New Testaments. From the survey which has been made it is obvious that that connexion is very close, and that a powerful influence has been exerted upon the composition of the latter by the familiarity which its authors possessed with the language and contents of the former. Though written originally in different tongues, and marked respectively by certain peculiarities of style, structure, and allusion, both belong evidently to the same national literature, and bear the stamp and hue of the same national taste, intellect, and character. Besides establishing this connexion, however, the ma- terials we have been considering clearly point us to one of a deeper and more intrinsic character — to one not in out- ward form merely, but also in substance. The terms in which our Lord and his apostles speak of the Old Tes- tament, the frequent references which, in their discourses or writings, they make to its contents, and the purposes for which these references are made, are such as to leave no doubt in the mind of the reader resi^ecting the views entertained and taught by them on this head. That the Jewish Scriptures contain a system of religious truth sub- stantially identical with that Avhich they promulgated, — * Eemarks on Eccles. Hist, Works, vol. i. p. 273. THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS. 49 that the prophecies recorded in these Scriptures concern- ing the Messiah and his kingdom find their fulfilment in the events in which they either were chief agents, or of which they are witnesses to the world, — that the symboli- cal and typical institutions of Moses adumbrated those great spiritual truths which they had come forth to pro- claim among mankind, — that, in short, Christianity is only the full manifestation of those glorious facts which had projected their jprophetic shadows into the previous econo- mies, — announcing that the source of light was in the direction from which they came, — are positions insepar- ably interwoven with the whole texture of the evangelical history and doctrines. If we profess to take our religion from the New Testament we must take this as a necessary part of the whole system therein revealed. To attempt an articulate proof and illustration of these positions, is the interesting and important duty which lies before us in the subsequent part of this course. V[l. LECTUEE 11. TNTEEXAL OR DOCTRINAL CONNEXION OF THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS. DOCTRINES RESPECTING THE DIVINE NATURE. " God, TV'ho at sundiy times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son."— Hee. i. 1, 2. In that revelation of the Divine will which the Bible contains, we have a series of communications stretching through a course of many centuries, conveyed through in- dividuals of different habits, tastes, education, and talents, and characterised by the greatest variety of form and style. Amid all this diversity, however, of outward circumstance, the great Author of the whole remained from first to last the same. By whomsoever the message was borne to men — whether by patriarchs, or prophets, or -by the Son of God himself; at whatever period it was announced — whether in the early dawn of the world's history, or after " the fulness of the time" had already come ; and in vdiat- ever form it appeared — whether clothed in symbols or con- veyed in the language of direct annunciation, — whether set forth by some silent yet significant type, or proclaimed by the living voice of some gifted seer, — whether uttered in brief and naked terms, or wrapped in the gorgeous mantle of impassioned poetry; it was throughout the same Divine Spirit who inspired the messenger and authorized the message. "God," the apostle tells us, "who at sundry times and in divers manners spake unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his INTERNAL CONNENaON, ETC. 5] Son." As in the natural world, the media through which the rays of the sun pass, and the degree of warmth and illumination experienced in consequence at the earth's sur- face, are different at different times, whilst it is in every case and at all times the same luminary to which we are indebted for whatever of light and heat our atmosi^here may transmit to us ; so in the spiritual world it hath pleased the Sovereign of the universe that the radiance of Divine truth, flowing as it ever must from the fountain of his own eternal mind, should descend in different degrees and with diversified hues upon those to whom it was origi- nally sent. The effluence of all Scripture from the same Divine source secures the perfect harmony of the doctrines which its different portions respectively unfold. Of their Al- mighty Author it has been justly said, " Opera mutat, nee mutat consilium."* He may change his mode of opera- tion, but his counsel — that which embraces the principles of his government and the scheme of his grace — remains unchangeable. He is " the Father of lights, with whom there is no variableness, nor the shadow of turning ; " — "nunquam novus, nunquam vetus."f In him there is no deficiency; with him there is no progress. Growth, ex- perience, acquisition, are terms without meaning if applied to him. No prejudice can bias, no ignorance becloud, no confusion mislead his holy and omniscient mind. " He is a rock, his work is perfect : for all his ways are judgment : a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he."! Nor are the truths of revelation of such a kind as to be affected by the lapse of time, or any change in the circum- stances of the parties addressed. They are the expression of certain great facts respecting the character and govern- ment of God, the relation in which man stands to his Creator and Kuler, and the provision which God has made * Augustine, Confess. I. 4. + Ibid. + Deut. sx:sii. 4. 52 INTEKNAL CONNEXION OF for the restoration of mankind to his favour, in consistency with the gloiy of his character and the claims of his govern- ment. These facts are necessarily the same in all ages and in every part of the world ; so that what was true of them at one time, and as announced to one class of per- sons, must be true of them for ever, and to whomsoever made known. A Divine revelation, consequently, of how many portions soever it may be composed, cannot but ex- hibit a substantial harmony in all the statements of moral and religious truth which it contains. That such harmony of statement exists between the Old and New Testaments is, as we have already seen, expressly affirmed by our Lord and his apostles ; and it now comes to be our business to endeavour to make this apparent by an examination of the principles laid down in both of these parts of the sacred volume, and a comparison of those of the one with those of the other. To avoid unnecessary prolixity, as well as to bring the subject within the limits of the present course, I shall confine myself in this inquir}^ to the consideration of such truths as may justly be re- garded as fundamental and characteristic. If in respect of these I shall be able to show that all wdiich Christianity teaches was taught also under the Patriarchal and Mosaic dispensations, and that nothing was announced in the re- velations enjoyed by those who lived under these dispen- sations, as a fundamental principle of their religion, which does not occupy the same place in the Christian system, no legitimate ground will be left for desiring any further demonstration of the essential identity of the systems of religious truth which these books resj^ectively unfold. In its simplest form, the problem of a religion may be expressed thus : — Given a supreme Deity, the Creator and Governor of all things, and an intelligent creature in a state of alienation and estrangement from his Creator ; to determine the means whereby a reconciliation may be effected, and the creature restored to the favour and ser- THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS. 5o vice of his God.* In this form, however, the problem is plainly too indeterminate to be susceptible of a satisfactory solution. We must know what are the attributes of the Creator, what the principles of his government, what the character of his creature, what the cause of estrangement between them, before we can be in circumstances to con- sider the principles upon which a reconciliation can be effected. Nay, we must possess information upon these points before we can decide whether tlie question be such as to lie within the sphere of om^ capacity ; for it may be that the relations of the parties are such, that only the Creator himself can determine the possibility and the means of a reconciliation. Such, in point of fact, is the case in regard to the question as applied to the human race ; and, consequently, the Scriptures, in announcing to us the possibility and the conditions of a religion for man, accompany this with a full development of the character of God, of the princif)les of that government under which he has placed his rational creatures, of the character and cir- cumstances of mankind, and of the gracious provision which God has made for restoring man from his fallen condition to a state of acceptance with Him. An inquiry, * It is a controversy of long standing, whether the word religio comes from rdegere, to reconsider^ or from religare, to rebind. Cicero {Dc. Nat. Dcor. ii. 28,) is the patron of the former ; Lactantiiis {Instit. Div. iv. 28,) advocates the latter. Linguistically, Cicero's derivation is the preferable ; by no known process of etymology can religio be deduced from religare. As respects the meaning, both are correct ; religion is the re-consideration of om- obligations to God, and our reunion to him. But may not the true etymon after all be re-eligere, thus making religio equivalent to re-eligio, a re-choice } Religion is so in point of fact ; objectively, God's re-choice of us ; subjectively, our re-choice of God. I may observe, that this etymology has the merit of accounting for the re in religio being long; a fact which has been strangely overlooked by writers on this matter. (Comp. Lucret. De. Rer. Nat. i. 78, 101, &c. ; Virg. JEneid, iii. 363, &c.) A remark of Augustine, in his De. Civitat. Dei, x. 4, greatly favom's this etymology: " Hunc (Deum) eligenies vel potius religentes (amiseramus enim negUgentes) , hunc ergo religentes wide et religio dicta perhi- hetur," &c. Whichever etymologj' we adopt, the idea of previous estrange- ment and subsequent reconcilement will present itself. 54 DOCTRINES EESPECTING consequently, into the religion of the Bible involves an ex- amination of what it announces upon these heads. ' In both the Old and New Testaments the existence of God is rather assumed than either formally announced or demonstrated. This is appropriate to the character of these writings, which, as communications from God to man, necessarily take for granted the existence of the Being from whom they proceed, as well as that of those to whom they are addressed. Nor do the inspired writers say much regarding what have been termed the natural attributes of Deity. Allusions to these, indeed, frequently occur, and the almighty power, infinite wisdom, unbounded benevo- lence, and absolute eternity, of the Supreme, are adduced as motives at once to reverence, submission, confidence, and gratitude towards him. But, as these are truths which may be gathered from the testimony of the natural crea- tion, and as the primary object of the inspired Word is to announce truths of which the volume of Nature presents no traces, these must be looked uj^on rather as incidental references to things already known, or at least capable of being known, than as forming part of that peculiar system of religion which the Bible was written to teach. " That," says Paul, " which may be known of God is manifest in them, for God hath shewed it unto them ; for the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things which are made, even his eternal power and Godhead."- The Old Testament, no less than the New, distinctly recognises it as at once the privilege and the duty of man to know God. Not only does it denounce atheism as folly, and put the brand of a contemptuous reprobation upon all idolatry and nature-worship,f but it summons men to seek God, to acquaint themselves with God, to know God ; and it ascribes it to wicked pride and earthliness when men refuse * Rom. i. 19, 20. + Comp. Ts. xiv. 1 ; Is. xl. and xli., &c. THE DIVINE NATUEE. 55 to comply with such injunctions * This phiinly involves that it is 'possible for man to arrive at a certain knowledge of God, otherwise such admonitions would be useless, and such censures unjust. But it is only through the medium of revelation that this can be done. God, in his essential glory, is unsearchable. In himself, man knows him not— cannot find him out. Such knowledge is too high for us ; we cannot attain unto it. He is a God that hideth him- self, and man cannot, by reason of darkness, order his speech aright before him.f It is only as he is pleased to show himself unto his creatures that they can apprehend anything concerning him. But he has thus showed him- self: in the heavens above, which are the work of his fingers ; in the moon and stars, which he has ordained ; in the earth, which is full of his riches, as is also the great and wide sea, he has revealed himself to men : the heavens declare his glory, and the firmament showeth his handy- work ; he covereth himself with light as with a garment, and all his works bless him in all places of his dominion.t He has revealed himself also by his providential govern- ment of the created universe ; he maketh clouds his chariot, and walketh on the wings of the wind; all things wait upon him, and he giveth them their meat in due season. Promotion cometli not from the east, nor from the west, nor from the south, but God is the judge ; he putteth down one, and setteth up another ; and he is known by the judg- ment which he executeth.§ More especially had God made himself known to the Israelites by his dealings with them. His dealings with Abraham and their fathers, his delivering them out of Egypt, his conducting them through the desert, and his establishment of them in the land of Canaan, were all so many manifestations to them of his being and attri- * Comp., e. (jr., Deut. v. 29 ; 1 Cliron. xxviii, 9 ; Job xxii. 21 ; Ps. x. 4, &c. + Job xxxvi. 26 ; xxxvii. 19 — 23 ; xi. 7, 8 ; Ps. cxlv. 3 ; cxxxix. 6 ; Is. xlv. 15, &c. + Ps. viU. 3 ; civ. 24 ; xix. 1, 2; civ. 2; ciii. 22. § Ps. civ. 3—27 ; Ixxv. 6 : ix. 16. 56 DOCTEINES EESPECTl^'G butes ; whereby they came to know the Lord through the works which he had done for IsraeL* He had even con- descended to atford them sensible tokens of his presence with them, and of his terrible majesty. Not only w^as he with them in the pillar of cloud by day and the pillar of fire by night — not only did he speak to them from amid the thunder and lightnings of Sinai — not only did Moses behold the skirts of his glory as he passed by him in visible manifestation, and enjoy conscious interviews with him on the mount — but on one occasion a select body of the nobles of Israel w^ere permitted to gaze upon him; " they saw the God of Israel, and there w^as under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in its clearness.''! I am prepared to take all these things in their literal acceptation ; but take them as you will, this at least is clear, that the book in which these are recorded means to teach that God, though in himself infinite and unsearchable, is yet, in some sense, knowable by his intelligent creatures, and that especially to the Jewish people did he makehimself known, that they might w^orship and obey him. All this, however, is but preparatory or subordinate to the more formal and precise revelation of himself which he has given by means of words. From the earliest period in the history of our race, individuals were favoured by direct communications from God, and these they were commis- sioned to convey to others in the form of messages from the Almighty. Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and the line of the prophets, were the principal channels through which these were conveyed, though many besides them were occasionally employed for this purpose. Thus men were put in possession of " the Name " of God. The object of their worship was not a mere conjectural being — not a mere vague conception of something vast, mysterious, * Deut, sxLx. 2— 6. + Exod. xxiv. 10. The Targum of Onkelos makes it the glory of God which thev beheld. THE DIVINE NATURE. 57 awful ; but a reality, of the existence of which they were assured, and of whose character, claims, and relations with themselves they had obtained definite and intelligible notions. He was no longer merely ElShaddai — the mighty and awful and unsearchable Power of the Universe ; he was Jehovah, the Living One, the Kevealed God, the un- changing I AM, in whose faithfulness and grace his people might place implicit confidence.* As a personal God, Jehovah has appropriate qualities or attributes. It is through these that God is to be known by men ; in their totality they constitute his name, or revealed personality; and their combined lustre is that "glory of the Lord" which is above the heavens, but of which the radiance has been suffered to shine down upon men that all flesh may see it together. The truths on which the sacred writers chiefly insist, respecting God, are the Unity of the Divine nature, and the absolute perfection and harmony of the moral attributes of the Godhead. On both these heads, man is deeply interested in the possession of accurate information; on both he stands in need of instruction from God himself; and on both the revelations of the Bible are alike copious and explicit. However agreeable to enlightened reason, and however consonant with the facts of creation maybe the doctrine of the Divine unity, it does not appear to be one which, in the absence of revelation, man has been able to retain, or, when lost, to discover anew\ That, in the early ages of the world, there was but one religion, and that a religion of Monotheism, is clearly attested by the Mosaic history, and seems to be the conclusion to which a careful analysis * ■;« and D''ri'7N come from the verb nb« to venerate, according to some, — from b^^ to be strong or mighty, according to others, j In either case, the radi- cal idea is substantially that of a Being to be feared for his power, rriri' Jahvch is the future of the substantive verb Trn^ and denotes (according to a peculiar usage of the future in Hebrew) the Being whose quality it is to be, who cannot cease to be, and who is unchangeable. 58 UNITY OF GOD TAUGHT IN of the religious remnants of ancient superstitions conducts the philosophic inquirer. How this doctrine came to be superseded by the Polytheistic and Pantheistic systems of heathenism, it is not necessary for us at present carefully to inquire. Perhaps the most satisfactory hypothesis is that which traces this fact to the operation, under an un- godly influence, of that disposition to j^^^ilosophize, i.e. to trace effects to a cause, which is characteristic of the human mind. In the infancy of science, men satisfy this dispo- sition by ascribing all phenomena to the direct agency of Deity, who is conceived of, not as having constructed and set in operation the beautiful machinery of the universe, regulating the movements of the whole by great general laws, and interposing by a direct act of his own power only when he sees meet to suspend the ordinary course of things and introduce a new set of phenomena, but as being himself formally and directly the doer of all things, — the immediate and proximate cause of every event. In a mind thoroughly imbued with right views of the spirituality of the Divine essence, and which delights in the contempla- tion of an infinitely powerful and wise Deity, such a philo- sophy might produce no effects unfavourable to the belief of the Divine unity ; but on a mind already debased by gi'oss conceptions of Deity, and to which the idea of an omnipresent, omniscient, and almighty Ruler was unspeak- ably repugnant, the effect could not fail to be very different. In such a case, the intellect would operate under antagonist forces. Superstition would lead men still to refer the phe- nomena of the material universe to Divine power, whilst an ungodly heart would repel the idea of that power being attributed to one great creative and universally superin- tending Spirit. The consequence could only be the adop- tion of a sort of medium course, whereby a distinct deity was assigned to each phenomenon or class of phenomena, over which he was supposed to preside, and which he was regarded in every separate instance as directly effecting. THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS, 59 Thus, I apprehend, arose that recondite nature-worship which appears to form the basis of all the older mytho- logies, and which in all probability constituted the first stage at which the human mind rested in its melancholy degeneracy from the simple but magnificent faith of the fathers of the race.* At the time when the earliest books of the Bible were committed to writing, Polytheism was, apparently, with the exception of the descendants of Abraham and a few individuals of other tribes, universally characteristic of those religious systems which were professed among men. To prevent the entire obliteration of Divine truth from the world, God was graciously pleased to select Abraham and his posterity as the recipients of a revelation concerning himself, of which the assertion of his essential Unity forms a fundamental part. We find, accordingly, that this doc- trine was fully recognised by that patriarch and his imme- diate descendants, as it had been by the pious among his ancestors, and such men as Melchisedek and Job among his cotemporaries or those of his sons. In subsequent times, too much intercourse with idolators tended in many instances to seduce the Israelites from their early adher- ence to this doctrine ; but this only gave occasion for more emphatic declarations of the claims of Jehovah to be feared and trusted as the only God. At the giving of the law on Sinai, this doctrine was asserted in the most solemn and impressive terms ; and occupies, indeed, in itself or its consequences, the preamble and the whole of the first table, as it is called, of that statute. In the address of Moses to the people when, before his death, he rehearsed to them all God's dealings with them, and exhorted them to continuance in his service, great prominence is given to this doctrine : " Unto thee," says he, " it was showed that * See some apposite remarks on this subject in tlie Quarterly Review, Vol. Ixiii. p. 124. GO UNITY OF GOD TAUGPIT IN thou mightest know that Jehovah he is God ; there is none else beside him." "Know therefore this day, and consider it in thy heart, that Jehovah he is God, in heaven above and upon the earth beneath : tliere is none else." "Hear, O Israel, Jehovah thy God is one Jehovah."- So also in later times the prophets were instructed to make to the people such declarations as the following : " Thus saith Jehovah, the king of Israel, and his Eedeemer, Jehovah of Hosts, I am the first and I am the last, and besides me there is no God." " I am Jehovah, and there is none else, there is no God besides me."t In these pas- sages, the doctrine of the Divine Unity is taught with all the clearness of which human language is susceptible. Such is the positive representation which the Old Tes- tament places before us of God : and nothing surely can be more accordant with all that reason can require or piety suggest. If any evidence of this were wanting, it might be sought in the attempts which have been so strenuously made to prove that it was only by a slow and progressive development that such views grew up among the Hebrew people. To those who reject the idea of a direct commu- nication of divine truth from God to men, this has naturally enough occurred as the only hypothesis on which they could account for the fact. It forms no part of my present object to refute this notion ; I simply adduce it as proving that the Old Testament, in the estimation even of certain of its assailants, contains such elevated, just, and noble views of God, that it becomes a problem in philosophical history to discover how they came to get there. How fully the doctrine of the Old Testament on this head accords with that of the New it would only be a waste of time were I to stop to point out. To some it may ap- pear that I have already gone to an unnecessary length in showing the place which this doctrine holds in the former, * Deut. iv. 35, 39 ; vi. 4. f Isa. xliv. 6; xlv. 5. THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS. 6L as it may be imagined that this is a point which none Avould presume to dispute. Among a certain class, how- ever, of theologians, especially on the Continent, the posi- tion has been disputed, and an attempt has been made to show that, from the writings of Moses especially, there is reason to conclude that the popular belief among the Hebrews was, that Jehovah was only their national or tutelar God, just as Chemosh was of the Ammonites, Mo- loch of the Moabites, and Baal of the Phoenicians. This opinion, Avhich has found among its leading advocates such men as Bauer, Wegscheider, and De Wette, rests almost ex- clusively, as maybe supposed, upon those passages in which Jehovah is called ** the God of Abraham," " the God of the Israelites," " the Bock of Israel," " the holy One of Israel," (numen venerdndum Israelitarmn, as Bauer renders it,) &c. Great stress is also laid by them on the words of Jephtha to the Ammonites, (Jud. xi. 24,) " Wilt not thou possess that which Chemosh thy god giveth thee ? So whomsoever the Lord our God shall drive out from before us, them will we possess." "Here," says Bauer, "Jephtha places Jehovah on a level with Chemosh, and attributes to the latter the same power as to Jehovah."* On this I would remark, first. That, even admitting the words of Jephtha to bear the meaning thus put upon them, it would not certainly follow that this was his belief, or that of his countrymen. In arguing with an opponent nothing is more common than to take up his own ground, and endeavour to show how, even on his own principles, he ought to yield the point in dispute. So here it is quite possible that Jephtha may be reasoning on the assumptions of the idolatrous Ammonites, and showing that even supposing Jehovah were no more than Chemosh, still, as they deemed themselves justifiable in taking pos- session of such territories as they conquered in the name * '•' Jeplxta Jovam eequiparat Camoso, et Imic eandem vim, quam Jovse, tribuit." Dicta Classica Vet. Test. Pars I- p. 17. 6*3 UNITY OF GOD TAUGHT IN of Chemosh, so they ought to admit the right of the Israel- ites to occupy what they conquered in the name of their God. It is obvious, therefore, that even on the neologian interpretation of this passage it affords no certain evidence that the religious opinions of Jephtha were such as its authors would have imputed to him. But secondly, There appears nothing in Jephtha's words to justify the idea that he considered Chemosh to be as much a real deity as Jehovah. On the contrary, his reasoning is obviously a fortiori, as if he had said, If you, attributing your success to Chemosh whom you worship, possess whatever you conquer, much more ought we to keep what Jehovah, the supreme Disposer of all things, has given us. That this was really the idea in Jephtha's mind appears evident from what almost immediately follows in ver. 27, where he says, " The Lord the Judge be judge this day between the chil- dren of Israel and the children of Ammon." This plainly assumes the supremacy of Jehovah over both parties, and ascribes to him his proper place as the only and infallible arbiter of right and wrong. To infer, in the face of this, from the mere mention of Chemosh, that he placed this idol on a level with Jehovah, is as unjustifiable as it would be to ascribe similar views of God to the Christian mis- sionary who, in arguing with Hindoos, should refer to Brumha or Siva as their gods, and contrast with these his God Jehovah. Thirdly, On the general argument I ob- serve, that when the Israelites spoke of Jehovah in the terms already quoted, they must have thereby intended either the one true God, or some imaginary deity. If the former, then they really believed and maintained the doc- trine of the Divine unity after all, notwithstanding the use of those terms which are supposed to be incompatible with this : if the latter, then the Jehovah they worshipped was as much an idol as any of the gods of the nations around them, — a supposition which would land us in the no less absurd than impious opinion, that all the denunciations of THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS. 63 idolatry addressed by God to the Israelites, were directed not so much against that sin in itself, as against the in- dulgence of it in connexion with any other imaginary deity than that which bore the name of Jehovah. Fourthly, Adopting the former part of this alternative, as that which reason and good feeling alike sanction, there can be no difficulty felt in the mind of any candid inquirer, as to the reconcihation of terms implying personal or national rela- tion to God, with the doctrine of the Divine Unity. The supposed discrepancy of these seems to rest upon some vague notion, that a Being who sustains certain universal relations to other beings, cannot at the same time sustain loarticular relations to individuals or classes amongst these. But this notion is manifestly opposed to all that we are most familiar with, both in regard to ourselves and to God, To all his intelligent creatures he sustains certain relations in common, but to every class of them he sustains also other relations in particular. To all men he stands in the com- mon relation of a Creator and Governor; but to some of them, besides this, he stands in the relation of a reconciled Father, — a God whose character has been specially revealed to them, and of whose pardoning grace they have had ex- perience. Now, whatever community of 2J^iysictil relation- ship to God the race may enjoy as such, it is clear, that in a moral point of view, this class of persons stand in a rela- tion of a far more intimate and endearing character to Him than the rest of mankind. Hence they are described as " his people," " the flock of his pasture," the children of his love ; and he is represented as in a peculiar manner their God, " manifesting himself unto them as he doth not unto the world." In this relationship stood Abraham and his posterity to the Almighty. Jehovah had chosen them from amongst all people to be "a special people" unto himself. He had favoured them with a revelation of his will, and instituted among them the ordinances of his worship. More than this, he had even condescended to 64 UNITY OF GOD TAUGHT IN place himself at the head of their political constitution as the King of Israel, by whom all their laws were enacted, and under whose special direction their government was administered. Under such circumstances, nothing was more natural than that they should speak of him as their God, without thereby intending to question or deny his universal supremacy as the God of the whole earth. This is language which even those who have borrowed their conceptions of God from the Christian Scriptures do not scruple continually to use ; nay, which they feel to be the natural and appropriate language of those to whom has been given the privilege of calling themselves " sons of God." That it should have been ever supposed suscep- tible of the interpretation which the authors I have named have put upon it, can be ascribed, I think, only to the dis- position which all errorists display to catch at every thing that can be constrained to give any countenance to their opinions, coupled with the melancholy fact, that the feel- ings of which this language is the natural exponent, are not those which Rationalism is designed or qualified to produce. Among the passages which I have cited from the writings of Moses, as asserting the Divine Unity, there is one the phraseology of which is peculiar, and deserving of particular notice. It is that in which the people are so- lemnly called to listen to the announcement : " Jehovah thy God is one Jehovah." These words diifer from all the other passages quoted, in this, — that they announce rather the unity of the Divine nature, than the soleity (if I may be allowed the word) of the Divine existence : they affirm not so much that there is one God, as that that God already conceived of as monadic, is also one in essence and nature. That such an announcement should have been deemed necessary, must be allowed to be somewhat remarkable. Amidst abounding Polytheism it is easy to see a reason for the repeated and emphatic declaration, that there is THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS. 65 only one God, Jehovah; but why it should have been necessary to add to this the announcement that Jehovah himself is One, seems to furnish occasion for careful in- quiry. A glance at the passage in the original will serve still further to quicken research. We there read : " Hear, Israel, i"^ n;rr ^idwx n^n^, Jehovah our Elohim is one Jeho- vah."* The use of the plural Elohim here gives an appro- priateness to the declaration, which it is impossible to transfer with the same force to any other language. Plu- rality and Unity are thus obviously affirmed as belonging to Jehovah; he is Elohim, and yet one Jehovah. The onl}^ expressible idea suggested by such a statement is, that whilst there is but one God, and whilst that God is one in substance, there is nevertheless a distinction of some sort or other co-existing with this unity, and compatible with it. When such a declaration is compared with the doctrine of the New Testament, regarding the Godhead, we are naturally led to infer that, in all probability, it contains an intimation of that mysterious fact, the Trinity, which is so clearly set forth in the Christian Scriptures. This reve- lation is intimately connected with the entire system of religious truth which Christ and his apostles taught. We * Le Clerc renders tliis passage, "Jehovah est Dews noster, Jehovah uniis," and in his note explains it as meaning, " nnllum hahenius Deum preeter liuiu Jehovah," thus making the passage declare merely that Jehovah alone was the God of Israel. But this rendering is opposed — 1, by the ancient versions ; 2, by the understanding of the passage by the Jews themselves, as is evident from Mark xii. 29, 32; and, 3, by the proper meaning of the Hebrew word Hm, which is not ambiguous, like the Latin imus, but properly signifies one. The exceptions to this last remark are only apparent. Those adduced by Gesenius are, Jobxxiii. 13 ; Ez. vii. 5, and Cant. vi. 9. But none of these is decisive. The first may be rendered as in the authorised version ; so Eosen- miiller, Maurer, and Hirzel. The second may be rendered " calamity, one calamity" — i. e. nothing but calamity; or " one calamity, a calamity, lo, is come" — i. e. one after another. The third is more to the purpose; but there the effect is produced rather by the repetition of the word than by its proper force ; and after all it means rather choice or darling than alone there. VII. F 66 IN'TIMATIONS OF THE TRINITY may expect, therefore, on the assumption that their system was not essentially different from that which had been inculcated under the former dispensation, to find some traces, at least, of this doctrine in those writings, which inform us of what the godly who lived under these dispen- sations knew and believed. In this inquiry many able theologians and ripe scholars have already embarked ; and the result I cannot but regard as decisively in favour of the affirmative side of the nuestion. Intimations, both numerous and intelligible, of this great doctrine are to be found in the Hebrew Scriptures ; not, indeed, so clear and precise as those of the New Testament, but as much so as the character of the dispensation under which they were given admitted, and sufficient to guide the thoughtful and pious reader to the reception of the truth. In support of this, let me submit the following remarks ; premising that I confine myself, at present, to the doctrine of the Trinity, as such, leaving the declarations in the prophetic Scriptures respecting the Godhead of the Mes- siah to be considered subsequently. 1. It must be admitted by every candid inquirer as a circumstance not a little remarkable, that tbe sacred writers should have selected a j^^ural term as that by which they usually designate the Supreme Being, Writing at a time when Polytheism abounded on every side, and to a people who showed themselves but too prone to take every occa- sion of forsaking the exclusive worship of the true God, it is natural to conclude that, commissioned as they were to teach the Divine Unity, they would have avoided every term or phrase which might seem to afford the slightest encouragement to set aside that doctrine. Instead of this, hovv'ever, they freely and continually apply to the Deit}' terms indicative of plurality, such as Elohim, the plural of Eloah, God ; Adonai, the plural of Adon, Lord, &c. ; and that w^ithout any necessity as respects the language in which they wrote, for, as their own practice shows, the IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 67 Hebrew affords an equal facility for the use of the singular number with reference to the Deity. Some weighty reason, we may rest assured, gave rise to a usage in itself so ano- malous, and in its possible results so dangerous to a doc- trine which the inspired penmen were especially anxious to impress upon the minds of all to whom they wrote. No reason can be suggested so likely, as that they were guided to use such forms because of their appropriateness as designations of Him, whose nature displayed a myste- rious combination of unity in one sense, with diversity in another. To weaken the force of this conclusion, it has been objected that the plural form Elohim is applied in Scrip- ture to idols, and as these must be conceived of as single, it will follow that nothing can be argued in favour of a l)lurality in the Divine Unity, from the application to the Almighty of a plural appellative. On this I remark, first, That whether we can explain the application of the term Elohim to idols or not, it is obvious that this does not in any degree help us to account for the application of the term to Jehovah. The question to be settled is not, Whe- ther 'a term primarily used of the Almighty may be also used of false deities ? but. How came this term to be applied to God at all? How is the fact, that the inspired messengers of the one living and true God spoke of him almost invariably in the plural, to be accounted for ? To this question it is obviously no answer to say, that the same form of speech is used of idol-deities ; for this goes no further than to show', that after the use of the plural form became common, it was extended to false deities as well as the true. The question still remains, How came this usage into existence among the sacred writers at all ? and, as it is only upon the Trinitarian hypothesis that this can be answ^ered with any degree of probability, we are entitled to assume for that hypothesis all the advantage which arises from the explanation of the phenomenon. 68 INTIMATIONS OF THE TEINITY But, secondly, There appears no difficulty in accounting for this application of the term Elohim to single idols, even upon the assumption that it is properly applicable only to the Triune God. As has been justly observed by Dr. Wardlaw, " there is nothing more wonderful in the name being so used in the ijlural form than in its being so used at all:"^ If, without impropriety, the terms appli- cable to the Supreme Being might be used to designate those idols which human ignorance and depravity had put in his place, then surely the form in which these terms were usually applied to the one, might without impro- priety be used when they were applied to the other. It does not necessarily follow from such an application, that all the ideas attached to the word in its primary appli- cation are carried with it into its stihordinate usages. No- thing is more common in all languages, than for words which in the first instance are appropriate to particular objects, because embracing a certain range of ideas, to become, in the course of time, by dropping one or more of these ideas, capable of being applied to other objects. So it appears to have been in the case before us. The plural form of the words applicable to the Deity came first into use as appropriately expressive of the plurality in the one Godhead, and having thus grown into established use, as Dr. Smith observes, " it came to be transferred to those secondaiy applications which in time arose, regarding only tlie ideas of sovereignty and supremacy, and dropping that of plurality."! 2. The conclusion above announced is confirmed by another remarkable anomaly in the language used by the Old Testament writers, when speaking of God, viz. the combination of these plural appellatives with singular verbs, pronouns, and adjectives. To this usage, only a few exceptions are found in the Hebrew Scriptures, from * Discotuses on the Socinian Conh-oversy, p. 400, 4tli edit. + Scripture Testimony, vol. i. p. 510, Sud edit. IN THP] OLD TESTAMENT. 69 among hundreds of cases in which the plural appellative is used, — a circumstance which, whilst it shows that this w^as the regular usage of the sacred writers, at the same time proves that it would have been equally consistent with the idiom of the language, to have followed the ordi- nary rule of grammar applying to such cases. For this anomaly, the Trinitarian hypothesis suggests a natural and easy solution. Assuming the fact of a plurality as existing in the Divine Unity, there appears nothing strange in supposing that the sacred writers might be directed by this to such a usage as that in question. So remarkable a departure from the ordinary construction would naturally attract the attention of the reader, and lead him to search after further information, if previously ignorant of the mysterious fact involved ; and if aware of that fact, would continually remind him of it, as often as his attention was directed by the sacred writer to the being and works of God. Apart from this hypothesis, however, no expla- nation of this usage can be furnished ; and it must remain as one of the most unaccountable and capricious depar- tures from one of the fundamental laws of human speech, of which we have an instance in the literature of any nation. Attempts, it is true, have been made to account for this anomaly, without the adoption of the hypothesis above referred to. Of these, the following may be noticed as the only important ones : — 1. Le Clerc, and after him Herder, De Wette, and others, find in this usage a remnant of polytheism. Ac- cording to this hypothesis, the earliest speakers of the Hebrew, believing in a plurality of deities, were wont to speak of " the gods ; " and this usage was retained after correcter views of the Deity came to prevail amongst their descendants. To this it may suffice to reply that the basis on which the hypothesis rests is altogether unsupported, there being no evidence whatever that the religion of the Hebrews grew out of a polytheistic system, but abundant 70 INTIMATIONS OF THE TIUNJTY evidence to. the contrary; and further, that supposing the fact thus assumed to be correct, all analogy goes to show that the effect upon their language of such a change in the opinions of the Hebrews regarding the nature of Deity would have been the very reverse of that supposed, inas- much as all peoples on renouncing a belief in a plurality of deities are careful to avoid every mode of expression that may be construed to imply such a belief. It is, besides, worthy of notice, that this theory leaves unaccounted for such usages as ^^'i^ ^^''?«, Job xxxv. 10, "t;^'"-' "1;'^% Isa. liv. 5, &c., which are plainly part of the phenomenon to be explained. * '2. Many grammarians, following the Eabbins, include this usage under what they have called the Pluralis Majes- taticus, affirming that it is an idiom of the Hebrew to use words denoting relations of greatness or poivei- in the plural. But this rule has no real existence, nor can it be substan- tiated by any sufficient evidence. Did it express an actual law of Hebrew thought, we should find it pervading the language ; so that every word descriptive of mastership or power, would show a tendency to appear in the plural form. Such words, especially as those for /cing, judge, lyriest. prince, noble, general, &c., all terms expressive of dignit}- and authority, would be found assuming this plural-of- majesty form. But nothing of all this do we perceive to be the case. Bating the terms for Deity and the term for mas- ter, and one or two others which can be accounted for, there is no noun of dignity which is used in the plural form. Hence Ewald has promptly rejected this rule from his Hebrew Grammar ; justly remarking that " it is a great error to suppose that the Hebrew language, as we find it, has any feeling for a so-called pluralis majestaticus."t 3. Some regard this usage as an instance of the plural used * See Hengstenberg, Die Authentie des Pcnfatenchcs, i. 250. + Grammar of the Hebrew Language of the Old Testament, translated by Nichol- aon. Lond. 1836, p. 231. Some vestiges of this usage, at a period antecedent I IX THE OLD TESTAMENT. 71 to denote the abstract. Deriving rr:N from nb^, a root lost to the Hebrew but still existing in the Arabic, where it signifies coluit, adoravit, they regard o^nbx as denoting the numeii venerandnm, the abstract embodiment of the ideas of reverence, authority, power, and judgment. But to this it may be objected, that, as the Jews did not conceive of God as a loersonification, but as a i^crson, it seems to the last degree improbable that they should use words to designate Him formed according to the rule for words expressive of an embodied or personified abstract. The Hebrews, enjoying an express revelation of God, had no- thing in their theology corresponding to the vague to Oeiov of the Greeks, or the nnmen venerrandum of the Latins. It was emphatically their privilege to know God and to draw nigh to him as to a personal existence possessing and exercising certain attributes. 4. Hengstenberg* explains this usage as an instance of the plural intensive, and considers the plural here as serving the same end with the repetition of the names of God as in Josh. xxiv. 22 ; Isaiah vi. 3, &c. But though this use of the plural may serve to account for so7ne of the instances of plural appellatives of Deity, it does not appear sufficient to account for all, and especially for the peculiar term of Deity EloJiim. It is true that when the Hebrews would denote a fierce lord, or an absolute proprietor, they to the comi^osition of any of the hooks of the Bible, he thinks, remain in tlie words for Lord and Mader, wliich are always used in the plural: hut of this, as Dr. Smith and Dr. Wardlaw have shown, there is very great reason to douht. See Smith's Script. Test. vol. i. p. 508, fF., and Wardlaw's Discourses on the Socinian Controversy, p. 448. Ot Elohim, Ewald says, that it "appears to have remained always in the pL, in prose, from the earliest time ; " and in another place he says that it is " designedly construed with the plural, where polytheism or idolatry is intended, Exod. xxxii. 4, 8, or where the angels may he understood at the same time, Gen. xxxv. 7; otherwise, in accordance to the Mosaic monotheism, it is almost without exception (2 Sam. vii. 23 j, con- strued with the sing, of the predicate, and rarely also with tlie pi. in appo- sition, Jos. xxiv. 19; 1 Sam. xvii. 26." — P. 354. * Die Auth. d. Pent. i. 260. 72 IXTII\IATIO^;S OF THE TKIA'ITY use Aclonim and Baalim, instead of Adon and Baal; and as Jehovah is the all-powerful Lord and the absolute master of all, it may he said that the plural terms are applied to him on this account. To this it would he dithcult to offer any satisfactory reply; but when we come to apply the same process of reasoning to account for Elohim, we shall perceive that the cases are not exactly parallel. In the case of Adonim, Baalim, &c., the plural intensive is used to describe one who possesses in a very high or the high- est degree, the quality possessed by every one whom we may designate by the singular. Aclon = 2i lord; Adonim (pi. intens.), a very lord =^ Dominissimus — KvpLWTaros. But Elohim is not the intensive of Eloah. In this case the sin- gular means as much as the plural ; and accordingly is occasionally used to signify the Great Supreme. The rule here, therefore, for intensives fails, and must be set aside by us as inadequate to explain the phenomena of the case. The same is true of Shaddai. We cannot aver that this is the intensive plural of a singular denoting a mighty one, for it has no singular, and so far as we know anything of the language, never had: for it, therefore, we must have some other mode of accounting than the pliir. intens. The true grammatical theory of this singular linguistic phenomenon I take to be expressed in the following rule : Substantives in the plural are commonly construed ivith sin- gular adjuncts, when theij describe objects in which the qualities of plurality and unity are combined. In support of this rule, I would adduce the following instances : Jer. li. 58, •T?T»nn -wns) nznji "jii m±, " The broad wall of Babylon shall be utterly overthrown," (the one wall consisting of many separate pieces of masonry,) Mmiia Balnjlonis lata (fern, sing.) penitus evertetur ;* Ps. Ixxviii. 15, ^^1 riinririj aqua * Dr. Henderson translates this passage thus : '' The walls of spacious Babylon," &c., thus making nimn agi-ee with bai, and not with niDH- This of course, would destroy my example ; and had the translation appeared to IX THE OLD TESTAMENT. 73 multa, " a great sea," (composed of many floods ;) Ps. xviii. 15, 2:j ^1?y{, fulgura multiim, "much lightning, "(many flashes of hghtning;) Psalm cxxiv. 5, D:^f "i?? " The waters (the body of water) has gone over me ;" Isa. xvi. 8, ^)^^ niQTO, " The fields (the glebe comprising several fields) languishes ; " Comp. Hab. iii. 17. To the same rule may be referred the following instances : Joel i. 20, where riinn;! is " the animal creatioyi;'"^ Ezek. xiv. 1, where Q^ip?^ is '■' the body of men,'' who waited on the prophet; Isa. lix. 12, where ^s^mx'^n is " our guilt,'' (consisting of many sins,) &c. Of such usages, the account given in grammars and commentaries is ex- ceedingly unsatisfactory. Many of them are treated as mere anomalies, and the student who seeks an explanation is put off with some such piece of information as the fol- lowing : " Constructio est, qua nomen plur. fem. junctum sibi habet verbum sing. masc."t — which leaves the matter exactly where it w^as. Others of them are treated as coming .under the head of verbs used impersonally, which assuredly is not the case ; and others as belonging to the rule for nouns used distributively, which is just as far from the fact. I cannot help thinking that the rule above proposed supplies the simplest and most probable mode of account- ing for such usages. That rule is only a counterpart of the rule regarding collectives in the singular being con- strued with plural adjuncts, and the one is not less natural than the other. | If the rule be admitted, the use of Elohim me con-ect, I would have struck it out. I would, however, submit to my learned friend that the prevailing Hebx'ew idiom favours the usual rendering, which is also that of ail the versions. See Gesenius, Heb. Gr. by Conant, § 109, 2. * As they say in Scotland, "the bestial." i Rosenmiiller, Schol. in Hab. iii. 17. l Upon this principle, the learned and philosophic Kuehner proposes to account for the well-known usage in the Greek classics of neuter plurals with singular verbs. " This construction," says he, " rests upon a deep and ust sense of language {Sprachgefuhk). The multitude of impersonal objects 74 INTIMATIONS OF THE TRINITY and other appellations of Deity with singular verbs and adjectives will, upon the Trinitarian hypothesis, fall na- turally under it : if that hypothesis be rejected, this usage is and remains an anomaly.* 3. In perfect keeping with the peculiar phraseology al- ready noticed, is that occasionally ascribed to the Divine Being, when speaking of or to himself. In the cases here referred to, Jehovah makes use of the first person plural, as in Gen. i. 26 : " And God said. Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness." So also in chap. iii. 22 : " And the Lord God said, Behold the man is become as one of us,'' &c. ; chap. xi. 7, " Go to, let us go down, and there (let us) confound their language," &c. ; and Isa. vi. 9, " And I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?'' ka. These passages pre- sent a peculiarity which is well deserving of notice, and for which no satisfactory reason has been given by those who would banish from the Old Testament all traces of the plurality of persons in the one Godhead. The supposition that God uses this language with reference to the angels whom he had taken into his counsel ; or, that he spoke to the earth when about to create man ; or, that he uses this style to commend humility to men, seeing that he hereby speaks as if he took counsel with inferiors, which are the opinions of different Rabbins, may all be safely left to that neglect which is unhappily due to the great mass of modern Jewish interpretations of the Scriptures. f As for the notion denoted by tlie neuter plural was regarded by the Greeks as one object, en masse as it were, in which all individuality was disregarded, as a simi^le heajx" —AuHfuehrlichc Grammatik d. Griech. Sprache, II**""- Th. s. 49. Hanover, 1835. See also Ewald, Heb. Grammar, § 569, p. 353, Eng. Trans. * See Appendix, Note F. + It is a fact not unworthy of notice, that the two former of these intei-pre- tations are indignantly rejected by some Eabbins themselves. Thus Abarbanel : " The Blessed himself created all these, without any other thing, by his own infinite power ; " and Kimchi : None of the angels, much less any of mankind, directed his Spirit, or suggested counsel to him when he was creating the IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 70 that God here uses the language appropriate to a sove- reign, it yet remains to be shown that the use of the plural number by sovereigns was customary among the Jews, or was known at all at the early period when the Mosaic writings were penned ; and, moreover, even could this be shown, it would still remain to be proved that any analogy whatever exists between the style of the passages above quoted, and that in which sovereigns usually speak when they use the plural number. The most natural, and, at the same time, satisfactory account of the usage in question is, that it contains an implied reference to the plurality of persons in the Divine nature.* 4. The instances hitherto adduced can only be regarded as affording certain dim intimations of this great truth ; I have now to call attention to one of a more direct and pal- pable kind. I refer to the distinction which is made in many parts of the Old Testament, between Jehovah as invi- sible and Jehovah as manifested to men, — a distinction which is so expressed, that we are constrained to come to the conclusion, that in the One Jehovah there is a mys- terious plurality of persons. The facts of the case are briefly these : In many narratives of the Old Testament, world." Apud Witsii Judceus Chrktianlzans circa Principia Fidei, Sj-c. Ultra- jecti, 1661, p. 294. Tucli, who peremptorily rejects the ordinarj' rationalistic- modes of accounting for this usage, proposes to account for it on the ground that " the discourse reverts to the summoning subject, as if it passed over to a second person, standing by him. Comment, ub. Gen. s. 29. Unless I greatly mistake, this, instead oi accounting for the phenomenon, simply describes it; for it is exactly this replication of the discourse upon himself by the speaker, as (f there were another with him, which is the thing to be explained. Tuch adds, " Instructive is the poetic representation, 1 Kings xxii. 20, ff.,in which min personified is set over against mrP." Instructive, certainly! But the instance is not in favour of Tuch's theory; for if m"in here denote the Divine Spirit, the passage must be taken as another instance in which Jehovah and the Spirit of Jehovah are in the Old Testament spoken of as distinct person- alities. It is probable, however, that it is rather Satan that is meant by " the Spirit" here ; comp. to nvevna rn? TrXai/rjr, I John iv. 6. * See Smith's Script. Test. vol. i. p. 524, fi'., andWardlaw's Discourses on the Soc. Cont. p. 42, ff. See also Appendix, Note G. 76 INTIMATIONS OF THE TEINITY an exalted being is introduced bearing the appellation of '* The Angel or Messenger of God or of Jehovah," ("hn^ t37ib« ^«bo, nirr^) who appears as the commissioned agent of the Almighty, who speaks of himself as, in one sense, dis- tinct from the unseen and eternal Jehovah, but who, at the same time, is styled God and Jehovah, and assumes to him- self the honours and the works of the Supreme. The only hypothesis upon which these facts can be reconciled and explained, seems to be that which regards this Angel of Jehovah as the second person of the Trinity, the essential equal of the first, but who, for the accomplishment of cer- tain great purposes of their common counsel, assumed the human form, appeared as the Sent-of-God, had intercourse in this capacity with men, performed certain works on earth, and was known and worshipped by pious persons as mani- fested Deity. Such a view is in entire accordance with the New Testa- ment doctrine regarding Him who is there clearly set forth as the second person of the Trinity. Of our Lord Jesus Christ it is said, that he is "Emmanuel, God with us — God manifested in the flesh — the image of the invisible God — the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person — the Word that was God, but became flesh, and dwelt amongst us, full of grace and truth."* These passages indicate, with that clearness which belongs to the Christian revelation, the same truth which appears to be less directly and dogmatically, but not less necessarily, taught by the passages in the Old Testament, in which the " Angel of Jehovah " is introduced. It is not, indeed, at present contended, that by this term our Lord Jesus Christ is meant. The appeal is made to these passages at present simply as authorizing the assertion, that a revelation was thereby conveyed to the Jews of a distinction in the divine * Matt. i. 23; 1 Tim. iii. 10; Col. i. 15; Heb. i. 3; John i. 14. IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 77 nature, analogous to that which was with greater clearness and emphasis afforded by the incarnation of Christ.'"" To account for the peculiar usage in question in these passages, different hypotheses have been proposed. Pass- ing over that of Herder, {Geist d. Hebr. Poesie, ii. 47,) who supposes the phrase " Angel of Jehovah " to be merely a figurative mode of announcing the occurrence of some re- markable natural phenomenon, as not deserving serious refutation ; there are two, besides the one already an- nounced as that which Trinitarians commonly advocate, of which it will be necessary to examine into the merits. i. The former of these is, that the Angel of Jehovah spoken of in these passages, was nothing more than a created angel, who spoke and acted in the name of Him by whom he was commissioned, and whom he for the occa- sion represented. This is the opinion of Origen, Augus- tine, Jerome, and Gregory the Great among the Fathers ; of Abenezra, and several other Jewish interpreters ; and in more recent times of several Roman Catholic interpreters, of Le Clerc, Grotius, and the entire school of Socinian and Neologian divines. This somewhat unusual confluence of opinion amongst these parties is traceable, as Hengsten- berg has justly remarked, f to a very different cause in the case of each. " The Fathers named," says he, "believed that this interpretation was necessitated by several passages in the Old Testament ; the Romish interpreters were de- * The passages in question are the following: Gen. xvi. 7 — 13, where Hagar calls the angel that aiipeared to her 'xn bn, " the visible or manifested God;" ver. 13, " And she called the name of Jehovah that spake to her, Thou God-Manifest ! for she said, Do I still see here [am I still alive] after the manifestation?" (Comp. Eosenmiiller and Tuch m loc); xviii. 19 — 38, xxi. 17—19, xxxi. 11—13, xxxii. 24—30; Exod. iii. 2, 4, 14, xiv. 19; Numb, xxii. 22 — 25 ; Judges xiii. 3 — 23. The reader will find these passages adduced and ably illustrated by Dr. Smith, Script. Test. i. 482, and by Prof. Hengsten- berg, Christologie, i. s. 218, ff. + Christologie, i. 229. 78 INTIMATIONS OF THE TRINITY siroiis of finding some scriptural ground for the practice of worshipping angels ; the Socinians were swayed by abhor- rence of the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity ; the Armi- nians partly by their contempt of the Old Testament, and partly by their philosophical rather than scriptural notions of God ; and the more recent inquirers, by their dread of stumbling upon a mystery, and a pre-intimation of the doctrines of Christianity." An interpretation which can be turned to so many uncongenial uses, carries in its very versatility of adaptation a strong suspicion of its unsound- ness. That it is altogether untenable, will, I think, be apparent from the following observations. First, this theory assumes as granted the position that it is competent for a creature, under any circumstances, to personate the Creator; — a position, which in the absence of any support from Scripture, it is not too much to de- nounce as presumptuous and profane. That it should be allowed to any merely created being to call himself God, to speak in the person of God, to swear by himself, and to receive worship as God, simply because he comes forth as God's messenger to man, is repugnant to all our most correct notions of the reverence which the highest of crea- tures owes to the Creator. Upon the same principle, the apostles, as the ambassadors of Christ, might have assumed his place, and received the homage which was due only to him ; but who needs to be told that the very idea of such conduct would have been associated in their minds with all that was daring and blasphemous, as well as ruinous alike to them and to their cause ? The feelings which they entertained upon this matter, are those which must fill every reflecting mind that takes its views of the cha- racter and claims of God from the Bible. His own solemn declaration, that " his glory he will not give to another," (Tsa. xlii. 4,) is felt by all such, as demanding the imme- diate and peremptory rejection of every assumption such as that on which this hypothesis is based. IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 79 Secondly, the idiom of the Hebrew language forbids this hypothesis. If we follow the latter, the words rTiq> ^bo, must be rendered " an Angel of Jehovah," indefinitely ; but, as every Hebrew scholar is aware, such rendering would be false, for it is a rule of that language, that a sub- stantive followed by a propername in. the genitive is definite. The proper rendering, therefore, is " the Angel of Jehovah," which fixes the appellation to one person or being. Now, according to the usage of language, the individual thus definitely described must, when standing as the subject of a sentence, be either one to whom the writer has already introduced us, in which case the article fixes him to be that very individual of whom mention has previously been made, or one who is the only being of his kind. In the former case, the party spoken of becomes definite by acci- dent; in the latter he is so essentially. In the case before us, therefore, it is to be inquired on which of these grounds the sacred writers denominate the person in question The Angel of Jehovah, and not merely An angel; and hei*e there is no room for doubt, because in all the passages in which this phrase occurs, the being to whom it is applied is for the first time introduced to the reader by this appel- lation. This plainly shows that it is his proper appella- tion — that he is the angel of Jehovah in a 's,en%e peculiar to himself. The usage is the same as that of " Son of God," as applied to Jesus Christ ; he is the Son of God in a sense in which none other is, though there be many who are called sons of God. The same remark holds true of the interchangeable phrase, D'n'"'« '^«)p; for, though dtI'jm be admitted to have been originally merely an appellative, yet having by usage become a proper name, the rule belonging to such applies to it.- Thirdly, in several of the passages in question, the Angel of Jehovah is expressly called by the sacred historian him- * Hengstenberg, ChrUtologie, i. s. 232; Ewald's Heh. Gr. p. 323, Eng. Trans. 80 INTIMATIONS OF THE TRINITY self, God and Jehovah, (comp. Gen. xvi. 13; xix. 24, &c.) This is a fact of which the hypothesis under examination offers no explanation. Assuming it to be sound, it might enable us to account for the Angel's calling himself or allowing others to call him by these titles, but it will not explain how the inspired icriter came deliberately to say what was not true. An ambassador may be conceived of as personating his sovereign -vhilst acting on his behalf; but that a historian, in recounting the circumstance, should apply to the ambassador the name of the sovereign, is utterly inconceivable. This could only introduce confusion into his narrative, and occasion unnecessary perplexity to his readers. Still less can this be supposed in the case of a sacred historian, who had not only to record facts, but to teach certain truths, one of which, the Unity of the Divine nature, might be materially endangered by such a mode of writing, supposing it did not form part of that doctrine to admit a plurality of persons in the one Godhead. ii. The other hypothesis by which it is proj)Osed to ac- count for this remarkable phraseology without calling in the aid of the Trinitarian doctrine, is, that the phrase " Angel of Jehovah " is only a periphrasis for Jehovah him- self. According to this it is affirmed that the word '^^% rendered "Angel," instead of meaning the sent, means rather the sending; and that the whole phrase n^n? ^«^r? signifies "the sending or appearance of Jehovah," the 6co(f)dv€ia. Such is the opinion of Sack, Kosenmiiller, De Wette, and others among the recent theologians of Germany. Besides the authority of their names, it must be confessed that the theory has much in its favour. It violates no idiomatic rule or usage of the language ; it gives to -^^hp a rendering which, according to Ewald, its gram- matical form requires ; it accounts for the greater promi- nence given in the narratives to the identity between the Angel of Jehovah and Jehovah himself, than to the distinc- tion between them ; and it will serve to explain well enough [X THE OLD TESTAMENT. 81 many of the passages in which the phrase in question is used. Still, that it is not the true theory in explanation of this phrase, may, I think, be very fairly affirmed on the following grounds : — First, supposing it proved (which it is not as yet) that the proper meaning of '^)^ in this phrase is sending, it would not follow thence that the Trinitarian hypothesis is inadmissible. For, upon that hypothesis, there was in each of these appearances a Theophany, as well as upon the hypothesis now under notice. It was Jehovah who appeared in human form to the eye of man on either sup- position; so that it matters little to Trinitarians whetlier the phrase in question be rendered " the Messenger of Jehovah" or "the Appearance gf Jehovah." The only difference between the two hypotheses is, that the one unites with the assertion of this Theophany the assertion of a distinction in the Divine nature, while the other repu- diates this latter assertion ; but it affords us no aid in de- termining between these, simply to affirm that the Maleach Jehovah was a manifestation of Jehovah. Secondly, while it is conceded that, in the passages where the Angel of Jehovah is introduced, more emphasis is laid upon the identity of this mysterious personage with God than upon any distinction between him as God re- vealed and God the invisible, a reason for this is found in the practical advantage resulting from such a course, in *• the case of persons so circumstanced as were those for whom the Old Testament was first WTitten. The danger to which they w^ere exposed came from the side of poly- theism ; so that there was more need for continually keep- ing before them the truth, that, though there was in such appearances evident diversity, there was nevertheless real and essential Unity. Even upon the Trinitarian hypo- thesis, then, this fact can be accounted for, so that no advantage over it is thereby gained by its rival. Thirdly, thus far, both hypotheses stand upon equal VII. G 82 I>'TIMATTOXS OF THE TEINITY ground. There is one fact, however, which furnishes a decisive criterion of their respective claims. That is, that whilst the intimations of identity between the Angel of Jehovah and Jehovah himself may be explained upon both, it is only upon that of Trinitarians that the no less express, though fewer, intimations of ^jersonaZ distinction can be accounted for. For this the hypothesis under examination offers no explanation, and of this its advocates, generally, take no notice. As the fact, however, is undeniably there, nothing can be more unphilosophical than thus to leave it out of view, rather than renounce a fav'ourite theory with which it does not accord. On the contrary, it ought rather to be hailed as supplying, — what every philosophical in- quirer knows to be, in every department of knowledge, of the greatest value, — an instantia crucis, or directive fact, pointing out which of two paths that seem to lie equally before us is the only one which conducts to truth. View- ing it in this light, we gladly accept its guidance, and re- cognise in the narratives we have been considering a very striking intimation of that mysterious but glorious truth of which the clearer revelations of Christianity afford us a fuller and more dogmatical announcement. 5. In many passages of the Old Testament, the phrase *' The Spirit of God " or " of Jehovah " occurs in conjunc- tion with certain attributes, qualities, and acts, which lead to the conclusion, that by that phrase is designated a Divine person. Thus we are told that the Spirit of God moved on the face of the waters, — the Spirit of the Lord inspired the prophets, and through them, by his Spirit, Jehovah of Hosts sent his words to men, — the good Spirit of God is given to instruct, — the Holy Spirit is vexed by rebellion, — the Spirit of the Lord lifts up a standard against the enemy — remains with the people of God — and in answer to prayer is not taken away from them.* These * Gen. i. 2; Neh. Lx. 20, 30; Zecli. vii. 12; Ps. cxliii. 10; Isa. Ixiii. 10 lix. 19; Ps.H. 11, 12. IN THE OLD TESTAMENT, 83 and many similar passages would seem to conduct to the inference, that by this " Spirit of Jehovah " is intended, as by the phrase already examined, " Angel of Jehovah," a Divine jjerson in some sense distinct from, and yet, in another sense, one with the invisible Jehovah. To avoid this conclusion, two hypothetical interpretations have been advanced. i. The one is, that the phrase is only a periphrasis for Jehovah, and that nothing more is implied in it, than if the word " God " alone had been used. On this I remark — First, that this hypothesis is in itself gratuitous and improbable. The phrase in question, by its very gram- matical constitution, conveys to the mind the idea of some- thing which Jehovah may be said to possess. We have analogous cases (grammatically, I mean) in such phrases as "the hand of Jehovah," "the eye of Jehovah," &c., which, as every person perceives at once, convey the idea of something belonging to Jehovah. So Avith the phrase before us. An attribute of God it may express, but God himself it does not. The Spirit of God is His, not He. Secondly, though this interpretation, if admissible, would suit some of the passages in which the phrase in question is used, there are others by which it is plainly repudiated. Such are all those in which Jehovah and the Spirit are represented as distinct, and the latter as being sent by the former. Unless we would render the language of such passages altogether meaningless, we must understand the Spirit of Jehovah as something distinguishable from Jeho- vah simply so designated. When, e. g. God is said to have testified against the Israelites by his Spirit in (or through) his prophets, (Nehem. ix. 30,) it would be as reasonable to argue, that the prophets of God mean himself, as that his Spirit means nothing more. ii. The other hypothesis is, that by the phrase, " Spirit of Jehovah," is intended some attribute of the Deity, such 84 INTIMATIONS OF THE TRINITY as 2^ower, insdom, &c. That such rnay be the meaning of the phrase has been already conceded ; but it needs only a slight glance at the passages in which it is used, to satisfy us that this interpretation will not suit all of them. What, for instance, could David mean, upon this hypothesis, by the following prayer: "Cast me not away from thy pre- sence, and take not thy Holy Spirit from me," Ps. li. 11? This language evidently implies, that the Psalmist had God's Holy Spirit ; consequently, upon this hypothesis, that he possessed a Divine attrihiite, — which is absurd. Again, in another passage, the prophet declares, respecting the Messiah, that " the Spirit of Jehovah shall rest upon him, the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of coun- sel and might, the Spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord," Isa. xi. 2. Now we have only to apply the in- terpretation under consideration to this passage, to make the language of the prophet that of absolute absurdity. Let us take any of the Divine attributes, — that of j^oiver, for instance, — and how will the passage read? "The power of God shall rest upon him, the power of God of wisdom and understanding, the power of God of counsel and might, i. e., power, the power of God of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord." Can any intelligible idea be gathered from this confused jargon of words? Or can w^e suppose for a moment that such was the style of men who wrote by inspiration of God? It is obvious that neither of these hypotheses will suffice to explain the phenomena. Our only consistent course, therefore, is to set them aside, and adopt that which will, viz., that by the Spirit of Jehovah is intended that Divine subsistence, to whom a similar appellation is given in the New Testament, and who there appears as the equal of the Father and the Son, the third person in the undivided Trinity. On this hypothesis, all the passages in question admit of an easy and harmonious explanation; so that, even though wc were unwilling to adopt it, no other course IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 85 would seem to be open to us on the principles of sound inductive reasoning.* 6. Besides the passages already adduced as containing intimations of a plurality of persons in the one Godhead , there are one or two others which it is important to notice . chiefly because they seem to convey that intimation in con- nexion with an allusion to the threefold extent of that plu- rality, as more clearly revealed in the New Testament. I pass over such passages as Numb. vi. 22 — 27, and Isa. vi. 1 — 5, where the whole amount of evidence bearing upon this question resolves itself into this, that in the former the name of Jeliovah, and in the latter the ascription to him of holiness, is thrice repeated. On this I humbly apprehend no argument of any kind can be built in the face of the obvious fact that the threefold repetition of a v^'ord or phrase is a common biblical mode of adding force and vehemence to an affirmation. Thus Jeremiah repre- sents the Jews as saying, "The temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord are we ;" and the same prophet himself commences one of his oracles with the exclamation, " earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the Lord."t In fact, the number three appears to have been very generally regarded as carrying with it the idea oi completeness and magnitude ; of which we have illus- trations, not only in the Greek and Latin classics, but also in the languages, traditions, and proverbs of many na- tions. J If any shall insist that, at the basis and origin of * See Dr. J. Pye Smith's Discourse on ihe Pcisonality and Divinity of the Holy Spirit. Lond. 1831. Hurrion's Scripture Doctrine of the Proper Divinity, Real Personality, ^c, of the Holy Spirit, Lond. 1734 ; and Owen's master-work, Pncumatologia; or, a Discourse coiicerning the Holy Spirit. + Jer. vii. 4, xxii. 29. Comp. also Ezek. xxi. 32, and 2 Sam. xviii. 33. So also in the New Testament, the judgments of God upon his enemies ai-e announced hy an angel saying with a loud voice, "Woe, woe, woe to the in- liabiters of earth," &c. Eev. viii. 13. + Compare such phrases and sayings as the following : — Felices ter et am- plius quos, &c.— Hor. Carm. I. xiii. 17. Ter si resurgat murus .... ter 80 INTIMATIONS OF THE TRINITY this wide-spread notion, there lies an obscure reminiscence of primitive tradition regarding the threefold perfection of the Divine natm^e, I shall not certainly dispute the asser- tion ; at the same time, this will furnish no good reason for our considering any passage of Scripture in wiiich the lin- guistic usage arising from this notion is exemplified as affording a direct allusion to the Trinity. The same ob- jection, however, does not apply to such a passage as the following : " In all their afflictions he was afflicted, and the Angel of his Presence saved them ; in his love and grace he redeemed them, and bare them, and carried them all the days of old. But they rebelled and grieved his Holy Spirit, so that he was turned to be their enemy, and him- self fought against them."* In this passage mention is pereat, &c. — Carm. III. iii. 65. lUi fes triplex circa pectus erat, &c. — Carm. I. iii. 10. KokGv TpiKvfxia, the greatest of evils. — ./Esch. Prom. V. 1051, (cf. Blomfielcl, Gloss, in loc. et in Again. 237.) TptTaXaivat Kopai — Eurip. Hippol. 736. TpiiTfjidKape<0, let us look at the usages of this word by the sacred writers. From a comparison of these it appears, that by the He- brews this was regarded as the appropriate designation of a place which was conceived of as of immense extent ; to which men went after death ; in which the shades or manes of the dead were congregated in a state of consciousness ; from which they were supposed capable of speaking; and where they were under the eye and control of the Almighty. With whatever degree of obscurity such notions might be associated, it is obvious that they could not have been held by persons altogether ignorant of the separate existence of the soul. 2. The language in which the patriarchs and Israelites were accustomed to speak of death, indicates clearly a notion in their minds, of a separate conscious existence after that event. They spoke of it as "a going to" their departed relatives, and as a " being gathered to their rate, it does not prove that, after they were sure of the fact, they did not per- ceive and receive the full illumination which it was calculated to diffuse over the subject of a future state. VII. I 1]4 DOCTBINE OF A FUTUKE STATE fathers and to their people." That these expressions imply something more than that those of whom they are used were buried in the tomb of their family, (to which some writers have proposed to restrict them,) is proved by the fact, that they are used in cases in which no such in- terpretation is possible. Thus Jacob says, "I will go down into Sheol to my son mourning," (Gen. xxxvii. 35,) by which he could not mean that he would be buried with Joseph, for he believed that Joseph had been torn to pieces by wild beasts. So also of Abraham it is said, that he " gave up the ghost, and was gathered to his people," (Gen. XXV. 8,) which cannot mean that he was buried in the tomb of his ancestors, for their remains lay in a land far distant from that in which his were deposited. The same phraseology is used of Moses when he died, though he was buried in a valley in the land of Moab, where none of his kindred was ever laid (Deut. xxxiv. 6). To interpret this phraseology, then, of burial in the family tomb is absurd. What remains, but that we should recognise in such language an intimation of that happy assurance in which the Old Testament believers died, — the assurance, that when they left the scenes and society of earth, it was not to sink into annihilation, but to emerge into a loftier state of being, where they should mingle their exalted spirits with the glorious and congenial host of their own people ? 3. In the book of Ecclesiastes occur two passages which very clearly intimate a belief in the separate existence of the soul after death. The former of these is found in chap. iii. ver. 21 : "Who knoweth the spirit of the sons of man which ascendeth? it (belongs) to above; and the spirit of the brute which descendeth ? it to below, to the earth." In the context of this verse, the inspired writer is discoursing of death as a common event to both man and brute (ver. 19, 20), and lamenting the folly of those who live only for a present state, and perceive not that thereby IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 115 they reduce themselves to the level of the beasts (ver. 1 8). Such are ignorant of the immense difference between the human spirit and that of the lower animals ; so much so, that it may, be asked, Who is there that knows it? i. e., that considers it, and believes it ? But, however such persons may treat this subject, the difference between the human soul and that of the brutes is very great : the one belongs to above, and after death goes upward, while the other is of the earth, and consequently goes downward, and is annihilated.* Such appears to be the meaning of this passage, and it is fully supported by the other, from the same book, to which I have referred ; viz. ch. xii. 7 : — " Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was ; but the spirit shall re- turn unto God who gave it." The testimony of this verse to the separate existence of the human soul after death, is so explicit that it has been admitted on almost on all hands, even by critics whose general anxiety to depreciate the amount of religious knowledge possessed by the Hebrews would have led them to resort to any expedient for ex- plaining away its force, had such been attainable. "You have here," says Doederlein, " an illustrious testimony that the immortality of the soul was a doctrine not unknown before Christ, which sufficiently defends the pious author against those who, either from ignorance or audacity, allege ■* Several of the older versions render this passage, " Who know^eth whether the spirit of mankind goeth up," &c., as if Solomon meant to intimate that nothing but uncertainty rested upon the future condition of the dead. So the Chald. LXX. Vulg. Syr. and Arab, of the Polyglott. But for such render- ing there is no cause. The n before the participles here is not the interro- gative sign, but the article with the force of a demonstrative. Comp. 2 Sam. xix. 6 ; Ps. ciii. 3, &c. I may farther observe, that the Hebrews often use the phrase " to know this and that," when they mean " to know or consider the difference between this or that." So Gen. iii. 5 is to be explained, I appre. hend. In the same way the Greeks use ^ivwo-kco, Plato, Erast. c. 7, fitvwaKtt Tovi xpio-Tour Kal fxoxOnpovi, " Discerns between the good and the bad." In the following context he substitutes for this dia'^nvmoKU). 0pp. ed. Stallbaum T. VI. § 2, p. 288. 116 DOCTRINE OF A FUTURE STATE that he believed the soul to return with the body to anni- hilation. He does not, indeed, expressly say whither the spirit goes, but only that it returns to God, as its judge, from whom, as its author, it came."* But it is not the creed of Solomon alone which this passage defends from the imputation of wanting the doctrine of the soul's immor- tality. From the manner in which the subject is intro- duced, the doctrine must have been one with which his readers were believed by him to be as familiar as himself. The doctrine is announced, not as any new discovery which he had made, nor as a truth with which men generally were unacquainted, but as a matter which was so obviously true, that it needed only to be announced to be admitted. It stands, in his announcement of it, upon the same foot- ing with the decay of the body into dust — a fact which many amid the gaiety or cares of life might forget, but which no man in his senses would so much as think of disputing. We may, therefore, regard these passages from Ecclesiastes as conveying to us an intimation of what was the general belief of the Jews in the days of Solomon, respecting the continued existence of the soul after death .+ 4. Whilst death was regarded by the patriarchs and •Tews as in itself an event common to all, it was viewed as fraught with consequences of momentous difference to the righteous and the wicked. In support of this, let me adduce the following passages in the order in which they occur in Scripture. Numb, xxiii. 10 : — " Let me die the death of the upright, and let my latter end be like his." These words plainly imply on the part of him by whom they were uttered, a conviction that it was extremely de- sirable to die the death of those whom God approved * Scholia in Libros Vet. Test. Poeticos, 4to. Halse, 1779, in loc. p. 187. + See on both passages Wardlaw's Lectures on Ecclesiastes, Lect. VI. p. 165 —169, vol. i. and Lect. XXII. p. 292, ff. vol. ii. 1st edition. B.o\Aen's Attempt to illustrate the Booh of Ecclesiastes ; Prelim. Diss. § 4, and in loc. IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 117 ("ttt.^ prohus, vel qui probatur. comp. Deut. xii. 24). But as the physical circumstances of death are common to men of all classes, he must have seen that there was something in the moral consequences of death which made it so much more desirable to die the death of the good than that of the wicked ; and this evidently implies a belief in a future state of rewards and punishments. The utterance of such a sentiment by Balaam, shows at how early a period, and how universally, this belief was disseminated among men. Job vi. 8—10:— " O that my request might come, And that God would grant my expectation ; Even that it might please God to destroy me, That he would loose his hand and cut me off. That nevertheless my solace may be, [may come] And that I may exult in agony which spares not, Because I have not renounced the words of the Holy One."* Job, in this remarkable passage, wishes for death as a relief from the sore suffering by which he had been visited. He even goes the* length of anticipating an increase to these sufferings as necessary for the accomplishment of * Ver. 10. That nevertheless, Sj-c. The •) here and in the next clause is used ^na% with the fut. (See Gesenius, Heb. Gr. § 152. 1, e, Ewald, § 618.) I have followed Ewald in rendering nx? nevertheless (docli noch). This tenth verse has occasioned considerable difficulty to interpreters, arising chiefly from the ana^ Xeyofjievov, "fjQ, and from the unconnected manner in which the words blOIT vh are introduced. The LXX. and Vulg. concur in supporting the ren- dering of ife above given in the text, as do also Schultens, Gesenius, Ewald, Heiligstedt, Hirzel, &c. Eosenmliller, following Kimchi, renders it by aistuem, which gives a sense not to be despised : " though I burn (waste away) with agony," &c. The rendering in the received version, " I would harden my- self," is rejected by. most critics as untenable on sound principles of lexico- graphy. In regard to the other source of difficulty, I have followed Gesenius {in voc. nfe) and Lee, in understanding it as a relative clause, " which " being understood, and the antecedent being the "agony" of the preceding clause. Eosenmliller, Hirtzel, &c., suppose an ellipsis of mbw* which is less probable. The Syriac of the Polyglott renders the whole " et perficiam virtute sine mensura." 118 DOCTRINE OF A FUTURE STATE his wish; but amid all, his consolation would thereby- come, for he had not denied, abjured, or renounced the words of the Holy One. Whatever meaning we attach to this latter declaration — whether we view it as intimating the speaker's attention to divine worship, and obedience to the divine law, or his cordial reception of the divine revelation of mercy — it is obvious that it sets forth the ground on which alone Job saw that death would be a blessing to him, and resting on which, he was so assured of a happy futurity, that he was willing to undergo any extent of bodily agony which might be required to effect the anxiously expected consummation. Such a state of mind it is not easy to reconcile with ignorance of a future state of blessedness for the true servants of God. Ch. xviii. 13, 14 :— " It shall devour the members of his body ; The first-born of death shall devour his members ; He shall be dragged from his tent, in which he trusted, And they shall bring him to the king of terrors."* * Verse 13. The subject of b3«' in both clauses of this verse seems to be the same, viz. niD ">iDa, and the repetition of the verb, to denote the gradual progress of dissolution : " the first-bom of death shall eat and eat," &c. The " first-born of death" is a poetical expression for a very fatal disease; just as among tlie Arabs the fever is called " the daughter of fate," The members of his body, lit. " ihe parts of his skin," — ver. 14. The subject of the verb here is obviously the wicked person of whom Bildad is speaking, and intDlO* which in the common version is made the subject, is in apposition with ibn«D '■ lit. " his tent, his confidence." And they shall bring. The verb here is used impersonally ; lit. " it shall be brought to him — he shall be brought." Schultens and others, following the Vulg., would render this clause thus : " Terrors pui-sue or assail him like a king. But besides the somewhat unusual force thus given to the preposition b> this intei-pretation seems gi-atuitous and im- probable. How is the meaning of pursue or asuail got for the verb, which in Kal. signifies to advance, and in Hiphil to came to advance, to bring ? And what particular analogy is there between the assault of fear and that of a king ? or how does the mention of the latter help to assist oiir conception of tlie former ? To most people the former is the better understood of the two. Gesenius, who in his Lex. Man. had adopted this rendering, has in his Thesaurus deserted it for that given in the text, which is that adopted also by IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 119 This passage occurs as part of a description of the melancholy fate of the wicked. The portion of it of most importance for our present object, is the concluding clause, which seems to intimate not only a knowledge of a future state, but also of the subjugation of the impenitent in that state to the power of Satan. I know not what other inter- pretation can be consistently put upon the words in ques- tion. A being to whom the wicked is to be brought after death, in spite of all his self-confidence and hope whilst alive, and to whom the appellation " king of terrors" may be appropriately applied, can be no other, surely, than that mighty and malignant spirit under whose dominion, we are told, that all the finally impenitent shall suffer through eternity. Not a few of the German critics, accordingly, explain this of some oriental Pluto, who, they suppose, occupied some such place in the creed of Job as the fabulous deity of that name occupies in the mythology of the Greek and Roman classics * — an expla- nation which, while it shows their unhappy opposition to divine truth, at the same time clearly evinces that they felt Ewald and Heiligstedt. — In verse 15, Bildad goes on to describe the utter perishing from the earth of all memorials of the wicked : — " There shall dwell in his tent strangers {lit. not his), Brimstone shall be poured on his habitation. Below, his roots shall be dried up, And above, his branch shall wither. His memory perisheth from the earth, . And no name hath he in the streets." * " Fingitur regni moi-tuorum s. inferni rex, ut Pluto orci princeps, qui apud Virgilium uEneid. vi. 106, Inferni Rex, et apud Ovidium Metam. v. 359, Tenebrosa sede Tyrannus dicitur." Eosenmiilleri, Sch. in loc. '" To the King of Terrors, i. e. to the Abaddon of the Apocalypse, ix. 11, the Indian Jamais." Ewald, Poet. Buech. des A. B. III. 184. Virgil, in his description of the in- fernal regions, uses imagery somewhat analogous to that of Job in this passage* when he represents the vestibule of Orcus as occupied with — " Griefs, vengeful cares, diseases pale, sad Age, Fear, iU-advising Hunger, and foul Want, Forms terrible to see." — Mn. vi. 273. ff. 130 DOCTRINE OF A FUTURE STATE themselves constrained, in interpreting this passage, to attribute to its author some knowledge, at least, of a future state of punishment, and of an awful tyrant under whom its wretched occupants were placed. Prov. xiv. 32 : " The wicked shall be driven away in his wickedness ; but the righteous hath hope in his death." In this passage we have not only brought before us the marked difference between the righteous and the wicked in regard to the circumstances of their departure from this world, but, in the language employed for this purpose, we are distinctly pointed forward to 2i future state, as the scene where the misery of the one and the felicity of the other will be consummated. Whilst the wicked is driven away or destroyed by his wickedness (" malitia sua detruditur impius, i. e. perit, in perniciem ruit," Gesenius in ^)} the righteous has hope even while dying ; not merely that composure which springs from feeling that life has been well spent, but an expectation of future blessings still to be enjoyed. Had such a passage occurred in a heathen classic, no person would for a moment have scrupled to attribute to its author the knowledge of a future state of rewards and punishments. Why should we be less ready to give Solomon, the wisest of men, the benefit of an equally candid inference?* From these passages, selected from the older books of the Hebrew Scriptures, it must, I think, be admitted that information of a very decided character was possessed by the patriarchs and their descendants respecting the very different aspect with which the event of death regarded the holy and the impious ; to the former of whom it was a change for the better, while to the latter it was a change for the worse. But such ideas and impressions being of necessity dependent upon the expectation of a future state, their occurrence in the Old Testament Scriptures must be ♦ Comp. also ch. xi. 5 — 7. IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 121 held as evidence of the knowledge possessed from the earliest periods of such a state ; and this, coupled with the facts and statements already adduced respecting their views of Sheol, of the reunion of the pious after death with their own people, and of the ascent of the^soul, after its separa- tion from the body, to God, appears to me to afford no trifling support to the assertion, that distinct traces are to be found in the Old Testament of a belief on the part of the patriarchs and their successors, of the separate exist- ence of the soul after death. vi. There are several statements in the Old Testament, from which it may be justly inferred that the fact of a corporal resurrection and of a future judgment — a fact announced to the antediluvians by Enoch — was not lost sight of or forgotten by those who lived under the Patri- archal and Levitical dispensations. In the book of Job — that invaluable record of patriarchal opinions and manners — we have one very remarkable de- claration bearing on this subject in chap. xix. 25 — 27, than which, perhaps, few passages of Scripture have more ar- rested the attention of interpreters. In the form in which this interesting and remarkable passage appears in the common version, it is difficult to conceive what idea the latter part of it especially would convey to the mind of an intelligent reader, were he not to regard it as an expression of Job's faith and hope in the resurrection of the body. If, notwithstanding the destruction of his body, he expected in his flesh, and with his own eyes, to see his Eedeemer- God stand upon the earth in the latter days ; what possible inference can be drawn from his w^ords, but that he ex- pected his decayed body to be restored and once more reunited to his soul ? The only question, therefore, now to be discussed, as respects the object for which the passage is at present quoted, is, what degree of correctness attaches to the rendering in the common version ? On this point, whilst there is considerable diversity of opinion as to the 122 DOCTETNE OF A FUTDEE STATE meaning of particular words and the force of particular constructions, there is a wonderful harmony as to the general sense which the passage, as a whole, bears, among almost all who are entitled to be placed in the first class of interpreters as Hebraists and as Exegetes. A comparison of the renderings of the Chaldee, Alexandrine, and Vulgate versions, with those of Schultens, Kosenmliller, Pareau, Smith, Michaelis, Hirzel, Lee, Ewald and others,^' leads to the conclusion, that little beyond a few corrections is required to make our common version exactly correspond with the original. The following translation is offered as that to which a careful consideration of these versions, and such other helps as I have been able to command, has conducted : — But I, even I know that my Vindicator liveth, And that One coming after [me] shall arise over [my] dust (or tomh) ; Even after my skin shall he devoured, this [shall be] And out of my flesh shall I see God — Whom I, even I shall see for myself, And my [own] eyes shall behold, and not another : — My reins are consumed in my bosom. + * See Appendix, Note Iv. + Ver. 25, the insertion of the »:« here and in ver. 27, is to give emphasis to the assertion : Z, /or my part, I, even I. — 'jNj is the participle of the verb ^^3> to redeem, to vindicate. It is used in the Old Testament to denote a kinsman whose it is to redeem an inheritance that had been sold ; or to marry the widow of one who has died childless ; and, with the addition of Dl blood, one whose it is to avenge the slaughter of a relative. It is used of God as the Redeemer and Vindicator of his people and his true worshippers. Is. xli. 14, xliv. 6 ; Ps. xix. 14, &c. It is applied by Job here to the Almighty, with an evident reference to ch. xvi. 19.— tn is here the present tense from ^tT' and is construed with "hn:^ as its subject. The omission of 'd between the two verbs is not rare ; cf. ch. xxx. 23 ; Ps. ix. 17, &c.— pns< is a term used for all the three degrees of comparison, posterns, posterior, postremus. It may be construed here either in apposition with 'biO " and the last or at last ;" or as the subject of the verb mp^ " posterus veniet, an afterman shall come." In the former edition I adopted the former construction ; but on reconsideration the latter seems preferable, as in ch. xviii. 20 the adjective is used in the sense oi posteri. IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 123 Presuming upon the general accuracy of this version, the testimony of the passage in favour of Job's belief in the reanimation of the body is incontestable. He knew that though he might die, his Vindicator remained, and that he would in due time arise and stand over the dust of his servant to vindicate his character and assert his rights. He was assured that, even after his body had been destroj^ed, he should enjoy the blessing he thus expected, and that, notwithstanding that destruction, out of his flesh, with his corporeal organs, he should see God. The certainty of this prospect consumed him with intense desire : like the So E wald. — u^'p "i3!?-'?»- The preposition here used has the meaning primarily of above, over, upon. Joined with Dip the phrase has the force, 1st, of rising against or assailing, which is its usual meaning ; 2nd, of rising to or succeeding, Deut.xxv.6; 2 Chron.xxi.4,&c. ; 3rd, (in a pregnant sense) o£ at-ising and com- ing to, 2 Sum. xii. 17; ith, oi standing upon, persisting or persevering, Is. xs.xii. 8. It seems to be used here in the third of these senses : " An afterman shall arise and come to my sepulchre." Comp. h$ -\J2V, Dan. xii. 1. IDS? is fre- quently used in this book to denote the dust with which the body mingles after death; of. ch. vii. 21 ; xvii. 16; xx. 11, xxi. 26, &c. Ewald views it as equivalent here to dem grahe, the grave ; and Gesenius gives in sepulchro as one of the meanings of ISS' ''>■$. The omission of the possessive suffix is not unusual with Job. Ver. 26, >ni2> inx, after my skin, i. e. after this wasting dis- ease has finished its ravages. iDp: is used impersonally ; the relative TO« is, according to a not unusual construction, omitted. There is an evident ellipsis after nxi> which Gesenius (in np:) and others have supplied as in the text. By some the pronoun is referred to Job's body, and he is supposed to affirm that it is this very body of which he speaks, whilst others render it simply thus, hoc modo. I greatly prefer the interpi-etation of Gesenius, which is also that of the Targum : " hoc sc. erit, eveniet, id nimirum quod prseceperet, ver. 25, Dei adventus." — ^^'lUJlQ- Some Avould render this " apart from my flesh," i. e. having laid aside his body ; but it accords more with the proper force of the preposition to understand Job as saying, " out of my flesh," i. e. that from within his body again restored to him, he should see God. It may be added, that this is also more in keeping with the reference in the next clause to his eyes as the instruments of vision. Ver. 27. — Tj sbl, et non alius (Vijlg.) So in Prov. xxvii. 2 : — " let another (-|^) praise* thee, &c." Some would render the adjective here in the aceus. as agreeing with itDX so as to make the mean- ing that Job expected to see God on his side, and not alien from him or against him. But for this rendering of i^ there does not seem sufficient authority ; and the patriarch's boast appears rather, to be that he himself with his own eyes (the '3i< and the '- in 'y5> are emphatic) should see God as his God, even though disease and death should destroy his flesh. 1 24 DOCTRINE OF A FUTUKE STATE Psalmist, his "soul fainted for the salvation of God." So firm and ecstatic was his confidence in the resurrection of the body. Nor is this the only passage in the book of Job in which the patriarch's expectation of resuscitation after death is declared ; another, of a scarcely less remarkable kind, occurs in an earlier chapter: — O that thou wouldest hide me in Sheol, That thou wouldest conceal me till thy wrath be averted, That thou wouldest appoint me a fixed time and remember me. Though a man die, shall he not revive ? All the days of my appointed time will I wait Till my renovation come. Thou shalt call and I will answer thee, Thou shalt desire the work of thy hands.* In this passage we have the patriarch imploring death ; but at the same time intimating that it is only for a season that he desires or expects to be in the separate state. He prays for a definite time to be fixed, at the close of which he might be remembered ; and by way of confirming the expectation implied in this, he boldly asks, " Though a man die, shall he not revive ?" Supported by this assur- ance, he declares his readiness to remain in the disem- bodied state as long as the appointed interval shall last ; and concludes, by triumphantly uttering his assurance that God would call him from the sleep of the tomb, and thereby exhibit the regard which he entertained towards that body * Job xiv. 13 — 15. Ver. 14. There appears no necessity for render- ing the first clause here as if the interrogative form was used to express a negation. The n is frequently employed where it is the design of the writer rather strongly to affirm ; cf. ch. xx. 4 ; 1 Sam.ii. 27; Jer. xxxi. 20 ; Ezek, xx. 4. — «1S, from signifying an army, is used to denote not only a period of mili- tary service, but any definite period of trial, anxiety, or suftering. Thus in Job vii. 1, it is used as parallel to "the days of an hireling;" comp. Is. xl. 2, and Dan. x. 1. — \*iQ>bn, my change, i.e. " my discharge from my state of con- strained service, — my deliverance from the invisible world." — Hirzel. " Donee venirent vices mc«, donee static mea missa esset, i. e. donee a conditione molestissima liberarem, i. e. ex orco reductus ad novam vitam revocarem.'' — Heiligstedt. How this was to be accomplished, Job declares in the following verse. IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 125 which was the work of his hands. Such I take to be, upon the whole, the most natural and consistent explanation of this remarkable passage. In the writings of David, we find many expressions of confident expectation of the restoration of the soul from the separate state, and the resurrection of the body from the grave, such as might have been expected from the pen of one, who, when mourning the loss of his infant child, comforted himself with the assurance, that though the babe could not return to him, he should go to it. (0 Sam. xii. 23.) Thus, addressing God in the person of the Messiah, he says, " Thou wilt not leave my soul in Sheol, neither wilt thou permit thy Holy One to see corruption. Thou wilt show me the path of life : in thy presence is fulness of joy; at thy right hand are pleasures for evermore." Ps. xvi. 10, 11. So also in Ps. xlix. 14, 15, in contrasting his own prospects and those of the righteous generally with those of the wicked, he says: — "Like sheep they (the wicked) are laid in Sheol, death shall feed on them, and the upright shall have dominion over them in the morning, and their beauty shall consume in the grave from their dwelling. But God shall redeem my soul from the power of the grave, for he shall receive me."* Here we have not * Ver. 15. And their beauty, Sj-e. The proper rendering of this clause is much disputed. Kennicott translates it, " till the grave cease from being a habitation to them," which Mr. Jebb {Lit. Trans, of the Book of Psalms, in loc.) pronounces "an utterly constrained meaning," and classes among "the ab- surdities" into which " a learned ingenuity may sometimes betray the soundest critics." The translation of Kennicott, however, is neither constrained nor absurd ; it is in the main adopted by Hengstenberg, who renders : " Sheol is to them away from being a habitation, i. e. it is a habitation which is no habitation," taking the p as it is used in 1 Sam. xv. 23; Jer. xlviii. 2, &c. Ewald translates: "Soon — so shall their beauty waste, Sheol shall be an abode for them," taking 'jn'JQ as equivalent to bint, which can hardly be ad- mitted. Kosenmiiller makes it : " Orcus shall consume their form, so that there shall not be a habitation to any of them," i. e. of all the splendid posses- sions they have had, not one shall be retained. Maurer translates : " their beauty is for a consumption of Orcus [driven] from its dwelling," which is 126 DOCTRINE OF A FUTURE STATE only the Psalmist's own confident expectation that he should be delivered out of Sheol, and received by God, but also his assurance, that whatever superiority the wicked might sometimes obtain over the righteous here, their relative positions would be entirely changed at a period designated by him " the morning."* By many critics, this term has been supposed to denote the day of judgment, an opinion which they have supported on various grounds. Perhaps, however, we cannot safely go farther than to re- gard the expression as intimating generally the close of the period during which the body is to lie in the grave — the morning which is to succeed that night on which the dead have entered, and which is to awaken and arouse those who have been laid in the tomb. This, it is true, will be no other than the day of final doom ; but for the knowledge of this we are indebted rather to other passages of Scripture than to that before us. In the book of Ecclesiastes, there are two passages which are worthy of being quoted under this head. " Rejoice, O young man, in thy youth," says the Preacher, in the former of these (xi. 9), " and let thy heart cheer thee in the days of thy youth, and walk in the ways of thy heart, and in the sight of thine eyes ; but know thou that for all these things God will bring thee into judgment." And again (xii. 14), in closing the book he solemnly declares, as a reason for fearing God and keeping his commandments, that " God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good or whether it be evil." The closer to tjie words than any of the others. The literal rendering of the words is this : And their beauty for destruction (i. e. shall be destroyed) Sheol from a mansion for it (i. e. shall not be a mansion for it). As Vllt is always used to denote, not a dwelling of any sort, but a permanent or glorious dwelling, the meaning seems to be, that in Sheol their beauty should find no congenial abode ; it should be to them a place of destruction, not of honour. * Comp. Ps. xvii. 14, 15. IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 127 language employed, especially in the latter of these pas- sages, is such as to intimate very clearly that it is to " the judgment of the great day" that the Preacher refers. In the writings of the Prophets, passages occur which are admitted by most interpreters to teach either directly or by implication the resurrection of the body, and a final state of felicity to the righteous, and misery to the wicked. In two of these, Isaiah xxvi. 19, and Ezekiel xxxvii. 1 — 14, the resuscitation of the kingdom of Israel is illustrated by a reference to the resurrection of the body ; from which, as Bauer candidly observes, " we may infer that the doc- trine itself from which the images are borrowed was known to the authors of that period."* The most explicit and unequivocal declaration, however, is that of Daniel, chap. xii. 2 : — " And many (the multitude, or mass) of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to ever- lasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt." Critics are divided in opinion as to whether this passage refer to the final resurrection, or to the great moral revolu- tions of the Jewish nation which should be consequent upon the appearance of the Messiah. Without entering upon this question at present, I content myself with re- marking that whichever of these two opinions we adopt, the evidence will be alike clear in favour of the position, that the doctrine of a resurrection from the grave was familiar to the Jews at the time this book was written. An attentive and impartial consideration of the evidence thus adduced will, I am persuaded, induce the conviction, that knowledge of a remarkably clear and impressive cha- * Dicta Classica Vet. Test. Pars II. p. 60. The same argument is used by Pareau (Comment, de ImmortaUtatis Notitiis, &c. pp. 108, 9), and its force is admitted by Gesenius in his Notes on his Translation of Isaiah, though he insists that the doctrine was one of recent date among the Jews at the time this book was written. His assertions on this head are rebutted by Eosen- miiUer (Scholia in Camp. red. in loc.) and by Henderson (Translation of Isaiah, with a Commentary Critical, Philological, and Exegetical. Lond. 1840 in loc.) 128 DOCTRINE OF A FUTURE STATE racter, respecting a future state of existence and the events consequent upon death, was possessed by the Old Testa- ment saints. What ought to strengthen this conviction is, that these evidences are gathered, not from books profess- ing formally to set forth a system of religious truth, but from narratives and poetical compositions expressive of the feelings, hopes, and convictions, of persons who may be fairly taken as characteristic specimens of the religious men of their day. From such sources we are to expect general intimations rather than formal and dogmatical statements of truth ; nor is it too much to affirm, that in point of evidence the former occupy in such compositions the same place which in an argumentative or doctrinal treatise is sustained by the latter.* It was not, then, to a mere temporal and transitory system of rewards and punishments as consequent upon human conduct, that the attention of mankind was directed by those Divine revelations which were enjoyed under the ancient dispensations. On the contrary, there does not appear to have been a time when they were not instructed to look beyond the present to a future and permanent state of existence, the character of which was to depend upon their conduct whilst on earth. But for this, their minds could not have acquiesced in those views of the Divine Being, as a just and equal governor, which they were taught to entertain. They had numerous instances then, as we have now, of the prosperity of the wicked and the * The reader who wishes to enter more fully into this subject, will find ample materials in the following works : — Warburton's Divine Legation of Moses, B. VI. — Whately's Essays on some of the Peculiarities of the Christian Religion. Ess. I. — Faber's Treatise on the Genius and Object of the Patriarchal, the Levitical, and the Ohristian Dinpeiisations. Vol. II. pp. 11 — 194. — Lancas- ter's Harmony of the Law and the Gospel with regard to the Doctrine of a Future State. Oxford, 1825. — J. H. Pareau, Commentaiio de Immortalitatis ac Vita Futures Notiliis ab antiquissimo Jobi Scriplore in suos Usus adhibitis. Daventriae, 1807. — Leitres de quelques Juifs a M. de Voltaire, &c. Tome II. Lett. 4. Lyon, 1819. 10th edit. IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 129 sufferings of the righteous ; and but for their expectation of a state beyond this, where it should be made manifest that the righteous is more excellent than his neighbour, this fact would not only have vexed their feelings, but per- plexed and confounded their moral perceptions. On this head we have the express testimony of one of themselves. Distressed by what he saw of the prosperity of the wicked and the sufferings of the righteous, his reflections upon the subject became too painful for him, "until," says he, " I went into the sanctuary of God ; then understood I their end." By his going into the sanctuary of God, Asaph I apprehend here means his viewing the subject in con- nexion with the character of God as revealed to his true worshippers. By the consideration of this, he was led to see that all was consistent with truth and justice ; and to believe that, by the end of the whole, the glory of God would be vindicated, and the arrangements of his Provi- dence approved. It is not easy to see how he could have arrived at such a conclusion, had he been ignorant of that great event which is to close the history of our world, " Assert eternal Providence, And justify the ways of God to men." We are now in circumstances to understand the purport of the question contained in that passage which stands at the commencement of this Lecture : — " How shall man be just with God?" That question, as asked by Job, and reiterated by many an anxious spirit by whom his book was perused under the former economy, meant in their lips the same as it would mean in ours. It indicates an awful conviction that man is guilty before God, in danger of everlasting punishment, and unable to clear or excuse himself. At the same time, it seems to intimate on the part of the speaker a cleaving to the hope that some way may be discovered by which he shall be able to approach with acceptance unto God : else, why propose so solemnly the question ? Anxiety here evidently mingles with expect- VII. K 130 WAY OF SALVATION ation, fear with hope ; and the words may well be taken as expressing the feelings of one who was too conscious of iniquity to have any trust in himself, but at the same time too confident of God's grace and wisdom altogether to despair. At first sight, indeed, and in the absence of any revela- tion from God upon the subject, the problem involved in this question would seem incapable of solution. The very fact, that the law of God had been broken by man, and the penalty thereto attached been incurred, would seem to foreclose all further inquiry into this subject. The sum of the whole matter would seem to be :— man is guilty, and must take the consequences of his guilt : righteous before God he never can be ; for how can a just and holy Governor overlook or forgive sin ? On further reflection, however, it might occur to the in- quirer that a governor does not directly lie under the necessity of punishing the transgressor. The obligation laid upon him is, that of upholding the law and preserving inviolate the authority with which as governor he is in- vested ; and if this can be done without the infliction of suflfering upon the guilty, wisdom and mercy would concur in recommending their forgiveness. This consideration suggests a ground of hope for the sinner towards God. It may be that some way may be discovered of upholding the Divine law without the eternal condemnation of the trans- gressor ; and if such a way can be discovered, we may rest assured that it will not escape the Divine wisdom, or be otherwise than eagerly embraced by the Divine compas- sion. To God alone, however, must we look for the con- trivance of such a plan. In a case like this, all the wisdom, experience, and sagacity of the creature are of no avail. Ignorant of the full amount of our own guilt, — ignorant of the mighty interests pending on the question of our for- giveness, — we are utterly incompetent to enter upon the inquiry. To the grace of God alone must we stand in- THROUGH AN ATONEMENT. 131 debted for that intelligence which is to enlighten out ignorance, hush our anxieties, remove our fears, enkindle our hopes, and fill us with the happy assurance that man, though a sinner, may be just before God. Such intelligence it has pleased God to convey to us in the gospel of his Son. By means of that obedience unto death which he displayed whilst incarnate in human nature, he has offered such an atonement for sin as renders it honourable for God, because compatible with the claims of his government, to forgive the sinner. In the New Testament this " Gospel " is announced to us with un- doubted clearness. The testimony of God concerning his Son is there presented to us as "a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation ; " and the apostles, as the ap- pointed ambassadors of Christ, beseech us, as in Christ's stead, to be reconciled unto God. But how was it with those who lived under the former dispensation ? Did they possess any knowledge of this mode of justifying the ungodly which has been so fully revealed unto us ? Were they, burdened with a sense of sin, and tremblmg in the prospect of futurity, relieved by any glimpses, however slight, of that " glorious Gospel " which diffuses over our minds " the peace of God, which passeth all understand- ing ?" Or, were they left to wander in hopeless ignorance of God's designs of mercy to our race, and to sink into the tomb with no other consolation than that which a feeble hope of the possibility of salvation might supply ? In answer to these questions, every one must feel that the preliminary probabilities are in favour of the position, that knowledge to a degree sufficient, at least, to ensure the salvation of all who believed it, was enjoyed by those who lived under the Patriarchal and Levitical dispensa- tions. That the communication of such knowledge was possible, no one will venture to question : and when we reflect upon the grace and goodness of Jehovah, and the intimate relation into which he was pleased to enter with 139 WAY OF SALVATION THROUGH AN ATONEMENT. the pious in ancient times, we cannot but admit, that it is to the last degree unlikely that he would withhold it from them. Further, when we find the apostles plainly declar- ing that there is no other name under heaven given amongst men by which we must be saved but that of Jesus, and at the same time admitting that salvation was enjoyed by many who had lived before the birth of Jesus ; — when we hear them asserting that the death of Christ had a retrospective as well as a present and prospective effi- cacy, (Rom. iii. 25,) and assuring us that the patriarchs Avere partakers of like precious faith with believers under the Christian dispensation ; — our reverence for their au- thority forbids us to doubt that the truths, by the know- ledge of which men are saved, were known from the earliest periods of human history. Nor do they leave us in any uncertainty as to the means by which the knowledge of these truths was preserved ; for they inform US that in the Scriptures of the Old Testament are con- tained the words of eternal life, (John v. 39,) and that they " are able to make man wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus ;" (2 Tim. iii. 15 ;) and before that revelation was committed to writing, they assure us that such men as Enoch and Noah were preachers of righte- ousness unto those among whom Ihey lived, (Heb. ii. 6, 7). They further inform us that, at the time of our Lord's advent, there were persons among the Jews who had learned from their own Scriptures that a Saviour was to be expected, and who hailed the birth of Jesus as the rising upon them of the day-spring from on high, (Luke i. 76—79 ; ii. 25—37; John i. 41, 45, &c.) Emboldened by these considerations, we may proceed to the examination of the Old Testament Scriptures, with the conviction that we shall certainly find in them, if our inquiry be wisely and honestly conducted, a full develop- ment of the truth concerning Him, in the light of whose salvation it is our inestimable privilege to walk. LECTUKE IV. INTEENAL OR DOCTRINAL CONNEXION OF THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS. CRITERIA AND CHARACTERISTICS OF THE MESSIANIC PROPHECIES. " The testimony of Jesus is the Spirit of Prophecy."— Bev. xix. 10. Whilst there is every reason to conclude that God would not leave mankind, even in those ages of the world which preceded the birth of Christ, in total ignorance of that way of salvation which he had provided, there exists no ground for supposing that this knowledge required to be conveyed to them in the same way in which it has been communicated to us. On the contrary, the very different position which they, as expectant of an event to which we look back as already accomplished, occupied from that which we sustain, would lead us to infer that, as a revelation upon this point has been given to us, suited to our peculiar position, the revelations conveyed to them would be no less suited to the circumstances in which they were placed. The economies under which they lived were promissory and preparative of that to which we belong. They had the shadow and the assurance of good things to come, but not the exact and accurate representation of these things. Where we enjoy the picture upon the canvass, the saints under these dispensations saw only the imperfect reflection of that picture as from a mirror. To us the message of 134 THE GOSPEL TAUGHT IN THE God has come to assure us that the price of our redemp- tion has been paid; to them it came with the assurance that One had been provided, by whom, in the fulness of time, it should be paid. The revelation appropriate to our circumstances, consequently, is that of historical narrative ; the revelation appropriate to theirs, that of prediction and promise. In order, then, to ascertain what kind and degree of knowledge was possessed by the Old Testament saints respecting the gospel plan of salvation, we must go to the study of those pre-intimations and assurances which they received from Heaven upon this subject, and of which we have a record in the pages of the Jewish Scriptures. These may be divided into two great classes, according to the nature of the signs employed as the media of com- munication. In our present state, it is only by the inter- vention of outward and sensible signs, that thought can be transmitted from one mind to another. The immediate intercourse of spirit with spirit is a matter of which we can form no just conception, and of which, at any rate, in our present compound state, we have no instance, — with the single exception of the mysterious and, to us, utterly in- comprehensible operation of the Deity upon the human mind in inspiration and conversion. Of the signs which we employ for the jmrpose of conveying ideas to each other, there are two classes, — ivords and things ; the latter including gestures, actions, pictures, and 7nodels. Both of these have been used by God, as we learn from Scripture, for the purpose of conveying accurate and vivid impressions of divine truth to mankind. Under the New Testament economy, though it is chiefly by words that we are taught, there is also the use of real signs, as in the ordinances of Baptism and the Lord s Supper. In like manner, under the Old Testament, the predictions respecting Christ and his work were conveyed, partly by verbal communications more or less plain, and partly by significant pictures and OLD TESTAMENT BY PROPHECY AND TYPES. 135 actions more or less obscure. To the former class belongs the title of Frophecy ; to the latter, that of Types. The truths conveyed by these two instruments to those who lived under the Patriarchal and Levitical dispensa- tions, it Yi^ill now be our business to investigate. As a necessary preliminary, however, we must, in regard to both, enter upon an examination of the nature, circum- stances, and criteria, of the instruments themselves. Taking these in the order in which they have been named, and which is also the order of Nature, — inasmuch as knowledge can be conveyed satisfactorily by means of symbols only after it has been already inculcated by words, -^ — let us now inquire into the nature, conditions, and characteristics, of Messianic Prophecy. The Hebrew word, vcy:, which we render Prophet, is used in a much more extended sense in Scripture, than the word by which it is translated is, strictly speaking, under- stood by us. Besides denoting one who predicts future events, — the proper act of a prophet in the modern usage of the term, — this appellation was employed to designate one who was made the recipient of a Divine communica- tion, and the medium of conveying that to his fellow men. Latterly it came to be a designation of office rather than of agency ; but in its primary usage it conveyed the notion just expressed. A conclusive instance is furnished by Exod. vii. 1, where Jehovah says to Moses, " See, I have made thee a God unto Pharaoh, and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet," («'^3)- Here the meaning clearly is, " Thou shalt stand to Piiaraoh in a relation analogous to that of God when he reveals himself to man, and Aaron shall * " Truth," says a sound and accurate thinker, " may be brought before the mind in two ways, — by verbal statement, or by emblematical representation. The first is best fitted for conveying new information ; the second is ad- mirably calculated for recalling, in a striking manner, to the mind informa- tion already presented to it." — Introductory Essay to Henry s Communicant's Companion, by J. Brown, D.D. Edinburgh ; 2nd edit. p. 12. 136 OBJECTS OF PROPHECY. Stand to thee in the relation of the Prophet to God, who in- spires him and teaches him what he is to say to others."* Hence, under the head prophecy, in the present investiga- tion, must he included not merely the announcement beforehand of those great historical events on which Chris- tianity is based, but also all those communications of the principles of saving truth with which it pleased Jehovah to exercise the faith, and encourage the hopes, of the ancient saints. Under the Ante-Mosaic dispensation, the knowledge of these facts and truths was conveyed by God, either directly to the parties interested in them, or through the medium of some individual eminent for character or station in the community to which he belonged. On the establishment, however, of the theocratical constitution, under which it was the will of God that his chosen people should live, a more fixed and regular provision was made for their reli- gious instruction, in the appointment of an order of men whose office it was to act as the medium of communication * See Henderson's Lectures on Divine Inspiration, p. 26, ff. Hulsii Theol. Judaica, lib. i. p. 215, Pareau's Principles of Interpretation of the Old Testa- ment, translated by P. Forbes, D.D. vol. ii. p. 197. Crusii Hypomnemata ad Theol. Froph. Pars. i. p. 70. Knobel's Prophetismus der Hebrder, T. i. s. 103; Haverniek's Introduction to the Old Test., translated by W. L. Alexander, D.D. p. 49. The uses of ancient prophecy are thus enumerated by Eusebius : " The object of the Divine Spirit's influence upon the Prophets, was to teach men the knowledge of God, and the heavenly theology concerning the Father and the Son, — to instruct them in the way of true godliness, and to remind them of those who had in former times followed it with success, — as well as to show at length the demonstration consequent upon these things (t6v le fxera Tovrtci' eXeYX"" 5'" fiaKfjwv kK6rj^ Iva nKr]po>6fj and the like. By what means, then, it may be justly asked, are we to determine when they quote a passage as containing a real prediction concerning Christ, and when they quote merely for the sake of illustration or allusion ? To this question, I know no other answer which can be given than that each individual quotation must be judged of by itself, and that the light in which it was regarded by * The testimonies of the Jews in favour of the ]\Iessianic interpretation of tlie prophecies, •wliieh are generally quoted by Christians as applicable to our Saviour, have been collected by several learned and accui-ate scholars. The works most in repute are those of Raymond Martin, Pugio Fidel adv. Mauros et Judaos cum ohss. Jos. de Voisln ed. J. B. Carpzov. Lips. 1687, fol. ; of Schcittpfen, TIorcB Hchr. et Talmud, in Theologiam Jud(corum,\c. Tom. ii. Dresd. 1742, 4to. ; and of Kidder, Demonstration o/ the Messias, i^r. Loud. 1726, fol. For the citations fi'om Jewish writers in the present volume, the author is indebted chiefly to the work of Hulsius, entitled Theologies JudaiccB Pars Prima, dc Messia, Sfc. Bredse, 1G53, 4to, and to a little work by Schottgen, not much. known in this country, entitled .Testis' der ivahre Messias ans der alien und reinen Judischen Theulogie dargethan und erl'dutert. Leipz. 1748, sm. 8vo. MESSIANIC PEOPHECY. 147 the speaker or writer who made it, must be determined by the object which lie appears to have had in view in making it. The inspired vobime, in all its parts, is addressed to the common sense of mankind. It contains Divine truths conveyed not only in human words, but in human words arranged according to all the formal laws of thought and speech prevailing among men. Hence we are left to judge for ourselves regarding the meaning and construction of its several parts ; and to determine, not only what is argu- mentative and what not, but in each argument what rela- tion every successive statement bears to others and to the general conclusion. When, therefore, a sacred writer introduces into his own composition a quotation from some other part of the inspired volume, it is competent for us to ask, For what purpose was this quotation made ? — for the sake of argument, or only for the sake of illustration ? What we are thus competent to ask it ought not to be difficult for us, in the majority of cases at least, to answer. In a merely human composition, where the most ordinary degree of accuracy on the part of the author has been dis- played, we find no difficulty in determining what the writer intended to adduce as argument, and what he has brought forward for merely rhetorical purposes. Is there any reason why a greater degree of difficulty should be anticipated in coming to a similar conclusion with regard to the sacred writings, when no confusion of thought, no error of judg- ment, no hurry of composition, could exist to endanger the perfect accuracy of the writer ? Assuming, then, our ability to determine when a quo- tation from the Old Testament is introduced into the New argumentatively, and when otherwise, we have a simple and a certain criterion for determining what passages are adduced by our Lord and his Apostles as prophetic of him, and what not. When it can be shown that on the quo- tation some conclusion is founded regarding the claims of our Lord to the honours of the Messiahship, or regarding 148 THEORY OF ACCOMMODATION. the identity of his church and the Messiah's kingdom, it is proved that our Lord and his Apostles regarded the passage so quoted as containing a prophecy of him. What the Divine Founder of our rehgion and his inspired followers may be thus shown to have regarded as a pro- phecy of him, is by their infallible authority determined to us to have been really so. The only question for us is, Have they, indeed, cited this or that passage as prophetical of Christ? This settled in the affirmative, nothing remains for us but thankfully to receive the intimation, and to study the passage quoted in this light. For the sake of avoiding this conclusion, and escaping certain difficulties of an exegetical kind, arising out of the application of this criterion, recourse has been had to a theory which, by vitiating the character of our Lord and his Apostles as public teachers, supplies its adherents with an easy method of setting aside all inferences built upon their declarations as to the meaning and character of the passages which they quote from the Old Testament. Ac- cording to this theory it is pretended that Jesus and his followers were in the habit of accommodating their teach- ing to the prevailing opinions and habits of the Jews ; and more especially with regard to the Old Testament, that they gave in to that spirit of allegorizing which, it is affirmed, prevailed among the Jewish doctors in their day, and which had been adopted for the purpose of deriving to certain favourite tenets the colour, at least, of sanction from the sacred books of their nation. On this ground, it is argued that nothing can be more inconclusive than to appeal to their opinion, as fixing the proper meaning or original design of any of the passages which they quote. This impious theory, which is generally associated with the name of the famous J. S. Semler, Professor of Theology in the University of Halle (died 1797), but which was known and had been promulgated, both in this country THEORY OF ACCOMMODATION. ] 49 and on the continent, long before his time,* is commonly and properly designated the '* Theory of Accommodation." It must be carefully distinguished, however, from other opinions which have sometimes received the same name. Such is the opinion already advocated in this volume re- specting the use made by the New Testament writers of certain phrases and passages of the Old Testament for the expression of ideas not by any means identical with those they were primarily employed to express. Such is, also, the doctrine that in the form and manner of instruction, used by the first teachers of Christianity, much was ac- commodated to the national tastes, habits, and concep- tions of those whom they addressed, and to whom they communicated truth in the way and degree in which they were best able to bear it. In both these cases there was doubtless an accommodation ; but it was an accommo- dation of a totally different kind from that supposed by the theory now under consideration. In the one case there was an accommodation of words which had been once used to express one thing, to the expression of an- other, no less true and important than the former. In the other case, there was a coming down of the teacher to the level of the scholar, that so the latter might be gra- * It forms the main thesis of a work which made no small noise in its day, but which is now known chiefly by the replies which it called forth from the pens of Chandler, Sykes, Sherlock, and others — I mean Anthony Collins's Discourse of the Grounds and Reasons of the Christian Religio7i, Lond. 1724. To this flippant attack upon Christianity, no less than fifty-two answers, more or less formal, are enumerated by Fabricius, in his Lux Salutaris Evan- gelii, S,-c. Hamb. 1781, p. 173. The Theory of Accommodation appears also to have been a favourite with the Cartesians of the 17th and 18th centuries (see Hahn's Glaubenslehre, s. 66), though in the works of Des Cartes himself I have not been able to find any doctrine with which it stands naturally allied. On the contrary, his repeated declaration that in a Divine revelation we are to believe all that is taught, even though we may not understand it {Princip. Phil. Pars I. § 25, and § 76), appears to indicate a mind decidedly unfavourable to such a doctrine. 350 THEORY OF ACCOMMODATION. dually raised by familiar steps to the full apprehension of the truths inculcated. But in neither case was truth itself sacrificed, or its integrity tampered with. There was no clothing of error in what had once been the guise of truth ; no attempt to disarm prejudice by giving currency to favour- ite fancies, or flattering the prejudices of the people.* In this lies the radical difference between these so-called theories of accommodation, and that to which alone, I apprehend, this title should be given. The extent to which this doctrine has been embraced in recent times, especially among the theologians of Germany, renders it necessary to make it the subject of a few stric- tures in this place ; otherwise, it is one so repulsive to the best feelings of the Christian, and so diametrically opposed to the truths most surely believed among us, that it might, without danger, have been left to the good feeling and sound judgment of my audience. I shall content myself with the two following general remarks upon it. First, if this theory were sound, it would go to overthrow Christianity entirely as a system of Divine truth. The theory is plainly inconsistent with the Divine in- spiration of the first teachers of Christianity. Whether we regard our Lord and his Apostles as deceived them- selves in the interpretations they put upon the Old Testa- ment Scripture, — or as intentionally, and for sinister pur- l^oses, adducing these interpretations, knowing them to be fictitious, — we ahke adopt an hypothesis fatal to their pre- tensions as teachers inspired of God in all that they taught. To suppose such conduct compatible with such preten- sions, would be to make God the patron of ignorance, * Origen, after observing that the word of God is so attempered as to suit different spiritual constitutions, furnishing milk for one, vegetable diet (\dxavov) for another, and strong meat for a third, proceeds thus : — " The V7ord doth not, however, belie its own nature, though it becomes nutritive to each, according to his power of receiving it ; and it neither misleads nor lies." Cont, Gels. lib. iv. p. 171-2, ed. Spencer. THEORY OF ACCOMMODATEON. 151 fanaticism, or deceit. In so far, then, as Christianity depends for its authority upon the inspiration of its great Author and his commissioned representatives, (and there is no evangelical Christian who will hesitate to admit that this dependence is entire and absolute,) in so far is its very existence as a religious system threatened by such a doc- trine as that now uncier consideration. Further, this theory involves the whole of the New Tes- tament in uncertainty, and exposes its doctrines to con- tempt. There are some who, though they will not admit the Divine inspiration of the first teachers of Christianity, yet profess no small reverence for their doctrines, on the ground that a Divine illumination of a certain sort had been vouchsafed to them, which, if it did not preserve them altogether from error, introduced them to the know- ledge of truths, such as mere ordinary intellects could not have reached. Even with such low views, however, of the reverence due to the New Testament, this theory of ac- commodation appears utterly inconsistent. Take the case, in the first instance, that our Lord and his Apostles knowingly made use of fictitious interpreta- tions of the Old Testament for the purpose of gaining favour with the Jews. Is the perception of such conduct in them, I ask, consistent with respect for their persons or reverence for their doctrines ? Would not such a course indicate a consciousness on their part that they w^ere im- postors, and that their claims and opinions could not stand upon their own merits, or abide the scrutiny of an un- biassed examination ? Or what shall be thought of men, who, professing to be teachers of religion and morals, should so far transgress the first principles of both, as for the sake of a little temporary popularity to carry on for years a system of compromise and deceit? Can we, in such a case, separate the man from the system, and whilst we despise the one, embrace and revere the other? Or do we not rather feel that the infamous 152 THEORY OF ACCOMMODATION. conduct of the teacher casts doubt upon all his preten- sions, assertions, and doctrines? It is true, that notwith- standing our ill opinion of him, we may make some use of his writings. We may read them for their literary merits, or we may cull from them some choice maxims, observa- tions, or descriptions, just as we may from the writings of Shakspeare or Aristophanes, or, as" Paul has done from one of the comedies of Menander ;* but what is this but to place them on a level with the performances of mere human genius, and by the very mode of using them to profess our entire rejection of their claims to our rever- ence and submission, as authoritative records of Divine truth ? Take, on the other hand, the case that our Lord and his Apostles were themselves misled as to the meaning and application of the passages which they quoted. This sup- position will not much mend the matter, as respects the effect of this theory upon the claims of the New Testa- ment to the reverential submission of its readers. For in what light does this place the parties whose doctrines that book records ? In that of mere fanatics and enthusiasts ! The case, on this supposition, stands thus : In the days of Jesus an opinion prevailed among the Jews, founded on certain mystical and allegorical explanations of obscure portions of their sacred books, that a great deliverer and prince would arise from amongst them ; and from often hearing this opinion talked of, his imagination had become so excited that he deemed himself the person expected, as such presented himself to his countrymen, endeavoured to trace an analogy between the descriptions contained in these passages and the events of his own life, and was so far successful that he drew around him a considerable body of persons, some of whom have recorded his history and sayings, and others have appeared as the expounders * 1 Cor. XV. 33. The quotation is from the Thais of Menander; see Mei- neke, Fragmenta Menandri, p. 75. THEORY OF ACCOMMODATION. 153 of his doctrines to the world. Such is the theory of the origin of Christianity to which this liypothesis reduces us. What else is it than a declaration that the founder of that system was a madman, and his followers no better? After this, it is folly and weakness to talk of respecting Christi- anity, or reverencing the book in which its principles are taught. If that book contain anything divine, it is such that the writers themselves could not distinguish it from the wild hallucinations of their own heated imaginations ; and it must, of necessity, be so intermingled with these in their works, that all attempts on our part to sift it out of the heap must be precarious, if not altogether fruitless. The question, then, as to this theory of accommodation resolves itself into a question as to the truth of Christi- anity, and the inspiration of the sacred volume. Con- sidered as a scheme for facilitating the interpretation of Scripture, it resembles a specific which professes to re- move a disorder by rendering the patient not worth the curing. By all who would retain their reverence for the Great Author of Christianity, and the records of his truth, it must be peremptorily and indignantly rejected. 2ndly. The rejection of this theory is called for by its glaring contrariety to the best ascertained facts of the case. i. Whilst it is fruitless to deny, as some have done,* the existence of a love of allegorical interpretation among the Jews long anterior to the time of Jesus Christ, there is, nevertheless, so marked a difference between such a mode of interpretation and that followed by our Lord and his Apostles in their references to the Old Testament pro- phecies, that nothing can be more fallacious than to argue from the one to the other. Without entering minutely into the matter at present, it may be enough to remark, that an allegory is professedly the affixing to some his- torical narrative of a secondary spiritual meaning, distinct * See Appendix, Note L. 154 THEORY OF ACCOMMODATION. from the literal meaning which its words set forth.* This is obviously sometliing very different from what we find in the interpretations affixed to the Old Testament prophecies by our Lord and his Apostles, which were designed to ex- plain what was the one simple and untransferable meaning of the passages cited. The ancient allegorists all proceed upon the admission that the meaning they put upon the passages which they spiritualize is not their proper mean- ing, and Philo even expressly says, that this literal mean- ing must be first ascertained before the allegorist can pro- ceed with security.! The principle of their procedure, accordingly, was that under certain historical events lay certain pregnant analogies to divine and spiritual truths, which a skilful and careful study might educe, and thereby at once give deeper interest to the history and a clearer view of the truth it was thought to shadow forth. How far such a principle of interpretation is a good one it is not at present our business to inquire ; this, at least, seems evi- dent, that such is not the principle sanctioned by the New Testament writers in their quotations from the prophecies of the Old. Their principle is, that in these prophecies a direct and primary reference is made to Christ and his church; comp. Luke xxiv. 44; John xii. 41; Acts ii. 25, &c. Whatever opinion then, in other respects, we may adopt respecting these quotations, it is a gross mistake to assimilate them to the allegories which the Jews were wont to build upon the histories of the Old Testament. In the original they are not histories; in the quotation they are not allegories. * 'AXXiiToperi/ qu. SXXo ayopetv " to speak fiome other thing," to wit, than that which the words literally set forth. Philo sometimes uses the word aWnyofiia (I. p. 38), sometimes the phrase h o-i/ju/JoXikJ; uTrodoo-ts (I. 37), and sometimes h it' inrovoiuni, "that which is accomplished by means of supposi- tions or figures" (I. 315, II. 14). The Hebrew word for such figurative in- terpretation is trhT or 'dirvOt which, coming from a root signifying " to in- quire," means that which is sought out, recherche. See Hartmann's Enge Verbindung u. «. w. s. 034 ; and Hulsii Theol. Jud. p. 443. + 0pp. T. I. p. 450. Ed. Mangey. THEORY OF ACCOMMODATION. 155 ii. This theory is opposed to all we know of the character of our Lord and his Apostles. Of that character, sagacity, prudence, intelligence, as Avell as honesty, integrity, in- genuousness, and perfect singleness of heart and purpose, were predominant features. For this we have the same evidence which we have that they lived and taught at all. Now, the laws of human nature forbid the supposition that men possessing such a character could be found prosecu- ting such a course, either of error or deceit, as this theory attributes to them. A mistaken opinion upon some ab- struse or obscure subject the most intelligent teacher may sometimes form ; but for a man to assume that he is a divinely-commissioned teacher, the subject of ancient pro- phecy, and the Saviour of the world, and, in proof of this, to appeal to the fulfihnent, in his person, of inspired pro- phecy, when he has no title whatever to any such assump- tion, is to suppose a case of mental hallucination utterly incompatible with ordinary sanity, to say nothing of such intelligence and sagacity as that which our Lord displayed. Into an occasional deviation from the path of uprightness the best of men may, under the influence of strong tempta- tion, be seduced ; but to affirm that a man whose prominent characteristic is honesty and integrity, would deliberately and systematically impose upon others for his own pur- poses, is nothing short of a contradiction in terms. If, then, the character of the first teachers of Christianity be such as all who admit the truth of history must regard it, this theory must fall to the ground. iii. The performance of miracles by our Lord and his Apostles proves the falsity of this theory. The object of a miracle is to accredit the party performing it as divinely commissioned to teach the doctrines he inculcates. In virtue of this, whatever such an one declares is no longer to be regarded as his doctrine, but demands our reverence as the doctrine of God who sent him. In such a case, the supposition of error or deceit is necessarily excluded. To 156 THEORY OF ACCOMMODATION. entertain such a supposition for a moment would be to sap all the foundations on which our religion rests ; for it would amount to a denial that miraculous powers afford evidence of divine sanction, or an assertion that that sanc- tion might be lent to what was deceptive, foolish, or false. iv. The theory that the first teachers of Christianity in- terpreted the Old Testament prophecies in accommoda- tion to the prejudices of the Jews, is glaringly opposed to the fact, that on no point did our Lord and his Apostles come more directly and offensively into conflict with these prejudices than on this. Whether as respected the person, or the history, or the character, or the work, or the kingdom of the Messiah, the explanation which Jesus Christ and his followers put upon the Old Testament prophecies differed irreconcilably from those most fondly cherished by the great body of the Jews. So wide was this difference, and so distasteful to that people were our Lord's interpreta- tions, that this formed one main cause of their hatred to him and their implacable desire for his death. Had he given in to their carnal views of a temporal kingdom under the administration of the Messiah, and with his extra- ordinary powers of teaching and acting set himself to accomplish such an arrangement, there can be no doubt but that the whole power and influence of the nation would have flocked to his standard. When he acted a part so different ; when, instead of flattering their prejudices on this head, he even denounced them as gross and blinding errors ; and when, persevering in this course to the last, he preferred enduring the full vengeance of their infuriated malice to retracting one jot or tittle of what he had uttered, nay, borrowed from the very circumstances of his fate renewed proofs of the truth of his former doctrines; it seems the mere phrenzy of infidelity to reject his instruc- tions upon the plea that he sacrificed truth to gain the favour of his ignorant and prejudiced countrymen. Is it uncharitable to insinuate that the same spirit which urged THEORY OF ACCOMMODATION. 157 on the Jews to seek his crucifixion, — a spirit of aversion from the purity and spirituality of his doctrines, — Ues at the source of this audacious attempt to mahgn his cha- racter, and discredit his teaching? It is hoped, that the preceding remarks may suffice to show how impossible it is to adopt this theory of accommo- dation, and retain any respect for the character and teach- ing of the great Author of our religion and his commissioned ambassadors.* It is usual to recommend it, as tending to remove many difficulties which otherwise impede our endeavours to reconcile what appears to us the meaning of the Old Testament prophecies with that which our Lord and his Apostles have put upon them. Where such a dis- crepancy exists, it is natural to suggest whether instead of devising theories to account for what after all may be only the result of the imperfection of our instruments of ob- servation, our wisest course would not be, to try if we cannot, by improving our apparatus, remove the obstacles which have disturbed our conclusions. It were much to be wished that our prophetical hermeneutics were subjected to a thorough and searching analysis and reconstruction. They are far, as all, I think, will admit, from possessing that scientific form which other departments of her- meneutical science have received, and without which the student cannot proceed with confidence to apply them to the sacred text. On such a subject it would be at once presumptuous and preposterous to enter in this place. Without attempting this, however, it may be necessary, before entering upon the examination of those parts of the Messianic prophecies to which I intend to call your atten- tion, to offer a brief statement of a few of the leading principles under the guidance of which that examination is to be conducted.t * See Appendix, Note M. t In preparing what follows, I have to acknowledge my obligations to the essay of Velthusen, De Optica Rerum Futurarum Dencriptione, &c., in Commentt. TheoU. edita a Velthusen Kuinoel et Buperti, vol. vi., and to the 158 THEORY OF ACCOMMODATION. The Apostle Peter, in his second epistle, (ch. i. ver. 19 — 21,) makes certain statements respecting the Old Testament prophecies, which it will be useful for us to consider in the outset of our present inquiry. This passage, literally rendered, is as follows; "And we [having had such convincing proofs of the Divine mission of Jesus, comp. ver. 16 — 18] have the prophetic word rendered more sure, to which when ye give heed ye do well, as to a lamp which shone in a dark place till day dawned and the sun arose in your hearts ; knowing this before, that no pro- phecy of Scripture is of self-interpretation, for at no time was prophecy announced by the will of man, but holy men of God, borne by the Holy Spirit, spoke."* works of Hengstenberg {Christologie I. 293 ff.) Knapp {Scripta Var. Argum. p. 1. ff.), Smitli {Select Discourses, p. 181, ff. 8vo. ed.), Pareau {Principles of Interpreiaiion oj the Old Testament, by Forbes, Vol. II. p. 196, ff.), Marsh {Lec- tures on the Criticism and Interpretation of the Bible, p. 401, ff.), and Crusius {Hypomnemata al Iheol. Proph. Pars I.) Some valuable remarks on this subject are also to be found in Mr. Douglas of Cavers' little work, entitled, Structure of Prophecy, in the Introduction to Dr. Alexander's Commentary on Isaiah, and in a work of another eminent Transatlantic theologian, which has not been reprinted in this country, but which is full of vigorous, racy, and acute observations, viz. : A brief Treatise on the Canon and Interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, Sfc, by Alex. McClelland, Prof, of Biblical Literature in the Theol. Sem, at New Brunswick. * Ver. 10. Be/Jaiorepoi/ here is obviously to be joined with e'xoyuei/ as part of the predicate — 'o irpo^. X67o?, " the prophetic word," embracing the whole body of ancient prediction regarding Christ ; comp. Rom. xvi. 26. — aivovTc^ followed by the aorists dtavyaarj and uvareix^, is more properly rendered in the imperfect than in the present ; comp. oi-re?, ver. 18 — 0wo-^6po9, literally, "the light bringer." It is used sometimes of the moon (see Ptobinson's Lexicon on the word), but generally of the morning-star. The Syriac ver- r sion renders it here by 1 ^ Vn • " the sun," and Suidas also gives »iX'os as an equivalent word. This seems to suit better with the context, as it pre- sents the antithesis between the glimmering light of the prophetic lamp and the radiance of the gospel day more fully. — tovto tt^jvotov yivwaKovrei seems to be a phrase equivalent to " having this as a settled principle; " comp. ch. iii. 3,— la/uy eTTiXuo-ewy. The translation of these words given in the text is the only one which sound rules of interpretation will sanction. For none of the others which have been proposed have satisfactory instances from the usus THEORY OF ACCOMMODATION. 159 In this section of sacred writ the following things appear to be intimated: 1st, That the study of ancient prophecy- is one in which Christians do well to be engaged; 2ndly, That the intimations of prophecy were before the appear- ance of Christ obscure, shedding only a lamp-Uke illumi- nation upon the mind of the reader, but that since that event they have become much plainer and more certain ; 3rdly, That in interpreting prophecy, we must look to the design and fulfilment of it as the best guide to the mean- ing of its statements; and 4thly, That this is a necessary consequence of the divine inspiration of the prophet, who, had he uttered merely the conjectures of his own sagacity, would, for the sake of his own credit, as well as inability to do otherwise, have spoken in a manner which mere human wisdom would have found no difficulty in understanding.* These sentiments of the Apostle suggest two very im- portant directions, which must be carried with us in all our attempts to explain the Messianic prophecies ; the one relating to the substance of these prophecies, the other to the/on?* in which they are presented in the sacred writings. A few remarks on each of these shall conclude the present lecture. I. As respects the substance of the prophetic Scriptures relating to the Messiah, all their intimations must be in- terpreted in strict accordance with the statements of the New Testament respecting the history, character, person, loquendi been adduced. The two most in repute, viz. that which renders these words " an interpretation peculiar to the prophet," and that which renders tliera " an interpretation peculiar to the reader," suppose an ellipsis altogether unparalleled in the language. "i5«or always expresses the relation of that with which it is joined to the subject of the proposition, which in this case is wpo^nreia. See Horsley's Sermons, Serm. 15 ; Note K. in the fourth edition of Wardlaw's Discourses on the Sociuian Controversy ; Griesbach, De verho proph. 1 Pet. i. 16—21, in Velthusen, &c., Commentt. Theoll. vi. 441, &c. * To this remark the obscurity of the Delphic oracles furnishes no objec- tion, for that obscui'ity arose not, as in the case of the Old Testament pro- phecies, from the uncertainty of the application, but from the mere am- biguity of the words. 160 INTERPRETATION OF and work of Christ. Assuming the Messiahship of Jesus of Nazareth, on the ground both of his own assertion to that effect, supported as it was by miraculous power, and of the exact correspondence between the circumstances of his life and those criteria which had been laid down in the Jewish Scriptures for testing the claims of any who pre- tended to that dignity; assuming this, the soundness of the principle just announced will follow as a matter of course. There are only three suppositions which can be made in regard to this matter. Either all the Messianic prophecies find their fulfilment in what the New Testament teaches regarding Christ and his church ; or some of these prophecies have remained, and must remain for ever un- fulfilled ; or, the New Testament is an imperfect record of the truth concerning our Lord and his religion. Excluding the last two suppositions as inadmissible in an inquiry which proceeds upon the assumption of the divine autho- rity and absolute perfection of Scripture, there remains the first as that which alone can be adopted by us. But if all the Messianic prophecies have been fulfilled in Christ Jesus, it follows that in interpreting these, we must admit nothing into our interpretation which is not sanctioned by that book, which contains a perfect record of the whole truth as it is in Him, and as it concerns Him. II. As respects the form of the Messianic prophecies, we must constantly bear in mind the condition of the prophet whilst uttering them. Peter says he was home along, transj)orted by the Holy Spirit [vtto TTvevjxaTos ayiov (f)ep6^€vos). The verb here is used to express the vehement and impetuous rush of a torrent or a tempest, and tropically the state of a person under violent mental excitement. * Applied to the ancient prophets, therefore, it would seem to indicate that under the afflatus of the Spirit they were thrown into a state of powerful excitement, and borne, as * See Robinson's Lexicon, and Bloomfield's ditto, in voc, especially the latter. THE MESSIANIC PROPHECY. 161 it were, out of themselves and away from the ordinary sphere of mortal contemplations. This accords with the statements of the Old Testament respecting the con- dition of the prophet whilst receiving the divine com- munication. It was not in the exercise of his reasoninof faculties, nor in connexion with any process of ordinary reflection, that the divine message was conveyed to him. Eapt out of himself by the power of God, he saw in pic- tures and visions the scenes which he was commissioned to declare to men. To use the expressive language of Philo, " as the divine light rose upon him, the human w^ent down;" and " so the setting of the reasoning process [tov Xoyio-jLtov) and the darkness around him begot an ecstasy and God-borne excitement."* Elevated by the sounds of appropriate music (comp, 2 Kings iii. 15, 1 Chron. xxv. 1), or soothed by the murmur of some rushing stream (Ezek. i. 3), their minds were quickened and prepared for the heavenly vision. In general this came upon them with such vehe- mence as to deprive them of all power of resistance, and often to produce a permanent effect upon their bodily frame. It is usually said, that " the hand of Jehovah," or, "the Spirit of Jehovah," came and fell upon them— expressions which indicate their entire subjection to the divine afflatus. f To the irresistible nature of this impulse Jeremiah bears wit- * Quis Rer. Div. Hares. 0pp. T. I. p. 511, ed. Mangey. The doctrine of Philo on this subject is that of Maimonides, and of the Jews generally. " The prophet," says Kimchi {Pref. to his Comment, on the Psalms), is deprived of his sensitive faculties, withdrawn from all the affpirs of this world, and sees in vision the prophecy, as if a certain person spoke to him thus or thus, or as if the things were in representation brought before him, or as if with- out any representation he heard a voice speaking to him." This view is advocated by Smith, in his valuable Discourse on Prophecy {Select Dis- courses, loc. cit.), and in more recent times has been espoused by Hengsten- berg {Christologie, I. c.) + " Whenever," says Jarchi, in a note on Ezek. i. 3, quoted by Ptosen- miiller in loc, " the word T is in this book used of prophecy, it expresses the idea of constraining, because the spirit of prophesying drives the prophet, independently of his own will, like one seized with madness." Comp. 2 Kings ix. 11. VII. M 163 PROPHETIC AFFLATUS. ness, when he says, " Lord, thou hast constrained me, and I was constrained : thou art stronger than I, and hast prevailed .... I said I will not make mention of him, nor speak any more in his name. But there was in my heart, as it were, a burning fire shut up in my bones, and I was exhausted with enduring, and could not [continue to endure]."* With regard to the effect produced upon the prophet's frame, w^e have abundant testimonies. Thus Abraham, we are told, upon one occasion, experienced " a horror of great darkness," (Gen. xv. 12,) whilst receiving Divine communication; Ezekiel, Balaam, and John, under similar circumstances, were so affected that they fell to the ground as dead (Ezek. i. 28; Num. xxiv. 4; Kev. i. 17); and Daniel was so overpowered upon the occasion of one vision with which he was favoured, that " there remained no strength in him, for his comeliness was turned into corruption, and he retained no strength " (ch. x. 8). So common were these exciting and transporting effects upon the prophet, that it seems to have been a trick of the false aspirants to that office to feign this divine insanity in order to support their pretensions (Jer. xxix. 26). When thrown into this excited state, the subject of the oracle was presented to the prophet in the shape of a vision. Scenes of glory or of gloom, with actions of a correspond- ing character, passed in review before him, sometimes exhibiting, as in actual occurrence, the events he had to predict, sometimes unfolding, in symbolical imageiy, the fortunes and spiritual condition of the church under par- ticular circumstances. Not unfrequently the prophet be- held himself as an actor in the visionary pageant, and heard himself engage in conversation with other beings with whom he was represented as meeting. This was the case, for instance, with Daniel in the vision which he has re- corded in ch. viii. of his book ; it was the case, also, with • Jer. K. 7 — 9. (Comp. also i. 4 — 8.) Cf. Eosenmiilleri Scholia, in loc, and Maureri Commentar. Gram. Crit. in Vet. Test., in loc. PROPHETIC AFFLATUS. 163 Ezekiel, on the occasion described in the commencing chapters of his prophecies. '-i^ In accordance ^Yith this view is the language so often employed by the prophets in announcing their oracles, such as " I looked and beheld,'' &c. " I lifted up my eyes, and saw,'" &c. — "Then was shewed unto me," &c. — jjhraseo- logy directly indicative of the pictorial character of the impression which had been made on their minds. Hence, also, the appellation seer, nxn or nih, by which tlie prophet was usually designated, and the term vision or appearance, P'^, ^^T>^ &c. applied to their prophecies, All this, taken in connexion with the declaration of Jehovah, (Numb. xii. 5 — 8,) that, whilst he would admit Moses to personal inter- course, as it were, with himself, he would to other prophets convey his will only " by visions and dreams, "f leads to the conclusion that such apparitions were the usual, if not the exclusive vehicle employed for the communication of the Divine oracles into the mind of the prophet. From this arise the chief peculiarities, and many of the difficulties, of the prophetic style. It would be unreason- able to expect that men, writing under the circumstances above referred to, should exhibit all the plainness, pre- cision, and composure of language which we look for in the works of the dogmatist or the historian. They were seers, not logicians ; and as what they saw was beheld under circumstances of extraordinary excitement, it is natural to suppose that their communications will greatly partake of the form and character incident to the writings of persons who narrate scenes of overwhelming interest, through which they have passed, and the impression pro- * On this principle, doubtless, are to be explained sucb scenes as we find recorded in Ezek. iv. 9 — 15 ; Hos. i. and iii., &c. ; scenes which shock every feeling both of the natural and the spiritual man, if we suppose them real. t The Jews have treated largely of the distinction between the " Mosaic grade " of inspiration and that of the other prophets. See Smith's Select Discourses, pp. 189, 281, ff. 164 PECULIARITIES OF THE duced by which is still fresh upon their minds. Hence we find such peculiarities as the following in the Messianic prophecies. 1. A strong and vivid sense of the reality of the scenes which are described, leading the prophet, in many instances, to speak of them as actually taking place while he writes. No mere guessers at probabilities, but seers, before whose inspired vision the persons and events of a far-distant futurity were presented in lively manifestation, the prophets, in announcing their oracles to others, naturally speak with the ardour and vivacity of those who do not so much narrate what has been, or foretel what shall be, as describe what is actually at the moment passing before their view. Hence we find them in innumerable instances using the present tense in their predictions instead of the future. " Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given," exult- ingly exclaims Isaiah, when announcing the birth of the God-man. "Who is this," asks the same prophet, "that Cometh from Edom, with dyed garments from Bozrah? this that is glorious in his apparel, travelling in the greatness of his strength? I that speak in righteousness, mighty to save."* In this latter passage, we have an instance of another consequence of the felt presence of the scene described by the prophet, in the introduction of a second speaker without any formal mention that such a thing is to take place. This peculiarity is frequently exemplified, especially by Isaiah and David. t 2. The prophets pay more attention to the grouping and colouring of their pictures, than to the historical and chronological sequence of the events they predict. Their visions, regarding the Messiah, frequently embraced a vast compass of objects ; indeed, in most cases, the whole of the latter dispensation. They had thus, in one pictm-e, to * Isa. ix. 6; Lxiii. I. + See Pareau's Principles of Intei-pretation of the Old Testament, Vol. II. p. 171. PROPHETIC STYLE. 165 present a conception of scenes of spiritual condition ex- tending over a course of centuries, and diversified by many- varieties of accidental occurrence. To accomplish this successfully, the only plan open to the writer was that of grouping remarkable instances of the different points he sought to illustrate, so as to present them in their relative importance and dependency, and to bring out most forcibly the general idea of the whole. This is the course pursued by all emblematical poets and painters ; who, in order to give due effect to their works, select the objects and characters most suited to their purpose, without any re- gard to chronological or topographical accuracy.* Hence we find in the prophecies scenes and characters placed side by side, which in actual realization have been separated by centuries, or by half the globe : just as, in gazing upon the firmament, (to use the illustration of Crusius,) we see the stars as if all at equal distances from us, though in regard to no two of them is this the case.f Hence also the rapid transition which the prophets make from one topic to another, — so rapid, indeed, that in many cases, one event appears as if it were immediately projected upon another, from which, in point of time, it may stand very far remote. In interpreting such prophecies, it is obvious that we must take the picture as a whole, and seek, not for a pragmatical accomplishment of every line and figure of which it is made up, but for the realization in the kingdom of Christ * Witness, for example, the emblematical description of Pride, in the first book of the Faerij Queen, where knights, wizardc, faeries, " holy monks" and. "gentle hushers, " {orm the retinue, — and mirrors, ruffes, and coaclus, aie found in the equipage, — of the daughter of "griesly Pluto and sad Proser- pina." Canto iv. sub init. For an analogous instance from the sister art, I may refer to Riibens's " Triumph of Peace," in the National Gallery, in which there is a combination of figures that sets all chronology and history at defiance, but each of which has an ideal relation to tlie subject of the piece. + Hypomnemata ad Theol. Proph. Pars i. p. 623. The Rabbins have the maxim, "Non estprius et posterius in lege ; " and Jerome says, " Non curae fuit spiritui prophetali historise ordinem sequi." See the valuable observa- tions on this head in Smith's Select Discourses, p. 298. 16d PECULIARITIES OF THE of the great idea it is intended to convey. The object of the picture is not to foretel historical events, so much as to foreshadow a particular state of things as consequent upon the coming of Christ, and characteristic of his reign. In so far as the prophecy relates to the person of Jesus, it announces historical facts, but where this is not the case, the words of the inspired writer must be viewed in the light of a description of a picture which had emblematically set before his view the character and glory of the latter dispensation. It is not in this age nor in that, in this country nor in that, we are to seek the fulfilment of the prophecy : it is fulfilled, more or less, in every age and in every country where the spiritual reign of Christ is set up ; in other words, the grand idea which the inspired picture presents is realized wherever the truth as it is in Christ Jesus takes hold of the minds of mankind. The characters of the Messiah's reign are the same wherever and whenever it exists, allowance being made for that difference of degree which the greater or more limited diffusion of its principles will produce. Nothing appears to me more unscriptural than the notion which many entertain, that the kingdom of Christ is yet to come ; and that during what is called " the latter day glory," the prophecies regarding the Messiah's reign shall be for the first time fulfilled, by something altogether different in kind from anything we have yet seen. Surely our Lord's own words should have effectually prevented all such theories : " I tell you of a truth," said he to his disciples, " there be some standing here which shall not taste of death till they see the kingdom of God ;" or, as it is given in the parallel passage in another gospel, " till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."* To understand this of our Lord's second coming, is to make him utter an assertion which has not been realised ; and to refer it to the des- * Luke ix. 27 ; Matt. xvi. 28. PROPHETIC STYLE. 167 truction of Jerusalem is to put a meaning upon the words altogether gratuitous and improbable. The " coming of the kingdom of God " and of " the Son of man in his king- dom," are expressions having explicit reference to the ex- pectations of the Jews regarding the establishment of the Messiah's reign, founded upon the predictions of their own Scriptures. --i^ Our Lord's words, consequently, can be con- sistently understood in no other sense than, that, within the lifetime of many then hearing him, these expectations would be realised. What is this but to affirm that the fulfilment of those oracles which spoke of the glory of his kingdom, was then nigh at hand ? and to teach us that instead of fixing our thoughts and wishes upon some far- distant era, we should rejoice in that which commenced at our Saviour's resurrection, and amid which we now live, — that which is emphatically called in the Old Testament, '• the day of salvation," — as the period to which the ancient church looked forward through the vista of prophecy ?f The opinion just advanced, as to the light in which the Messianic prophecies should be interpreted, is more than hinted at by Bacon, in one of those sagacious paragraphs with which the writings of this great legislator of science are replete. "In this matter," says he, "that latitude must be admitted which is proper and familiar to the Divine predictions ; viz., that their fulfilment should take place continuously as well as punctually. For they bespeak the nature of their Author, with whom ' one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day;' and though the plenitude and summit of their accomplishment may be, for the most part, destined to some particular age or even given moment of time, yet have they in the meantime certain grades and stages of fulfilment, through different * Crusii Hypomnemata ad Theol Proph. Pars i. p. 101. Tlioluck's Expo- sition of the Sermon on the Mount, translated by Rev. R. Menzies, vol. i. p. 97, flf. + See Calvini Comment, and Raphelii Annot- in loc. 168 PECULIARITIES OF THE ages of the world. A work on this principle I judge a de- sideratum ; but it is one which must be undertaken with great wisdom, sobriety, and reverence, or altogether let alone."* What was a desideratum in the days of Bacon is, unhappily, one still. So little, indeed, has this " preg- nant passage" been understood, that Bishop Hurd quotes it as containing the author's suffrage in favour of the doc- trine of a double sense in the prophecies.f Even in the form in which the passage appeared in Bacon's first sketch of his work, which is that quoted by Bishop Hurd, I must profess myself utterly unable to trace any such doctrine in his words. A gradual, or as Hurd gives it, "a germinant and springing,''' is surely not a twofold fulfilment ; nor is a prophecy, which reaches its culminating point through successive stages, of the same sort with one which is ful- filled literally in one age, and then spiritually in another. I confess I am anxious to preserve the great authority of Bacon from being tortured so as to sanction a doctrine which, more perhaps than any other, has prevented pro- phetical interpretation from being either wise, sober, or reverential. 3. Closely connected with what has been just men- tioned is the vague and indefinite manner in which the prophets generally speak of the period to which their Messianic announcements refer. With the exception of a few predictions of facts in our Lord's personal history, the prophets supply us with hardly anything approximating to chronological data as to the fulfilment of what they an- nounce. Their most frequent form of phraseology, in in- troducing their oracles, is " in that day," by which they in- tend the day kut i^oxr)v, to which all the Divine purposes of grace towards man have respect, and which is elsewhere described as " the day which God hath made " — the latter * De Augment. Scient. lib. ii. c. 11, sub init. t Introduction to the Study of the Prophecies, &c. Serm. iii. PROPHETIC STYLE. 169 dispensation introduced by the advent of the Messiah.* To the same purport are such expressions as " in the latter days," " in the e-nd of the days," &c. ; terms which, as already remarked, are expressly interpreted in the New- Testament as describing the Messiah's reign in its whole extent.t Such vague and general modes of indicating time are entirely in keeping with the apparitional cha- racter of those revelations with which the prophets were favoured, and the pictorial cast of their oracles as delivered to others. Like all painters, they wrought, if I may so speak, in space, not in time ; and, consequently, must be allowed those liberties which the peculiarities of their art require. 4. In depicting their visions the prophets frequently employ symbols and figures, drawn from matters with which their countrymen were conversant, for the purpose of conveying a clear and impressive idea to their minds of the truths these visions embody. We find, from experi- ence, that there is no way of conveying a new or difficult idea into the mind so successful as to clothe it in figures drawn from what bears the strongest analogy to it within the region of observation occupied by the party to be in- structed. Hence, the all-wise Author of Scripture, in con- veying to us the knowledge of spiritual truths, has clothed these in symbols and figures borrowed from the relations, engagements, or phenomena of ordinary life. It is thus that he has sought to convey to our minds correct ideas of * Ps. cxviii. 24. So, also, in Mai. iii. 17, where Jeliovah says of the pious among the Jews, at the time of the Messiah's advent, " In that day which I have made they shall he my special treasure," referring obviously to Exod. xix. 5. Zechariah, speaking of this day, says (xiv. 7), "It shall be one day which shall be known to the Lord, not day and night ; but it shall be that in the evening there shall be Hght," i. e. it shall be " the everlasting age." t See above, p. 181, note. So, also, the Jews themselves understand the phrase : " uti jam diximus E. Moses Gerundensis et alii omnes sapientes per finem dierum intelligunt dies Messiae." Menass. de Resur. III. iii. 5, quoted in Bp. Chandler's Defence of Christianity, p. 101, 3rd edit. 1728. J 70 PECULIARITIES OF THE himself, of his government, and of his principles of action towards the sons of men. It is thus, also, that he has unfolded to our view the glories and joys of the heavenly- state, delineating these in metaphors furnished by the sublunary objects which are most associated in our minds with ideas of sublimity, purity, and beauty. Now heaven is not more really beyond the conception of us, living as we do under the full glories of the latter dispensation, than was the spiritual splendour of this dispensation itself to those whose lot was cast amid the shadows of the former. Indeed, they themselves speak of it in language which we are wont to borrow as expressive of our own ignorance of the unseen world : " Since the beginning of the world," says Isaiah, in a passage which Paul quotes as applying to Gospel times,* " men have not heard nor perceived by the ear, neither hath the eye seen, O God, beside thee, what he hath prepared for him that waiteth for him." How, then, but by allusions, direct or figurative, to such things as the •Jews were most familiar with, could ideas have been con- veyed to them of the spiritual glories of that reign which was to cover the whole earth with light, purity, and love ? We find, accordingly, that nearly all the Messianic pro- phecies are of a figurative character. The irrogress of the Eedeemer's kingdom is intimated by figures drawn from the actions of a victorious warrior ; its extent, by figures taken from the practices of monarchs who ruled over several subjugated empires ; and its prosperity by images borrowed from the condition of well-governed and happy nations, such as abundance of provision, security for life and property, equity in the administration of justice, and kindness to the poor and those who stand in need of com- fort. From these general allusions and symbols, it was but a step to such as were of a more specific and still more familiar kind. Hence the Holy City — the metropolis of * Is. Ixiv. 4 ; comp. 1 Cor. ii. 9. PEOPHETIC STYLE. 171 the Theocracy — becomes the symbol of the New Testament church, or kmgdom of the Messiah, and Mount Sion, of the seat of the Messiah's authority and royal dominion ; the inhabitants of Jerusalem become the representatives of the Messiah's subjects, the members of his spiritual church ; the enemies of the Jewish nation, especially Edom, Moab, and Babylon, appear as personating the adversaries of the Messiah, over whom his victories are to be achieved ; and the nations which were tributary to the Jewish kings, or rendered them homage and service, are introduced as re- presenting those who, once the foes of the Messiah, shall be brought to acknowledge his sway, and offer gifts for his service.* Closely allied with this is the practice of applying to the Messiah the name of David ; a practice originated not so much, I apprehend, by the circumstance that our Lord was to be " of the house and lineage of David," as by a felt analogy between the divinely-chosen king of Israel and the divinely-appointed Sovereign and Saviour of the church, t In the interpretation of these symbolical allusions of the ancient prophets, great advantage will be gained by attend- ing to the manner in which they are applied by the apostles in their citations of the passages in which they are con- tained. Proceeding upon the principle that it was spiritual relationship to the Father of the faithful, which constituted any one a member of that seed of Abraham who were heirs according to the promise, and that, consequently, "he was * Comp. Ps. ii. Ixxii. ex. Is. Ixii. Ixiii., &c. + It seems common to all oriental poetry to introduce certain characters by the names of remarkable individuals to whose circumstances theirs are analogous. Thus, in the following couplet from a Persian poet, quoted with the original in Dr. A. Clarke's Commentary on Eccl. iv. 14, describing the extraordinary elevation of Rushn Achter from a prison to the throne of Hindostan, the name Joseph is applied to that prince from the analogy between his circumstances and those of the patriarch : — " Rushn Achter [i. e. the bright star] is now become a moon, Joseph is taken out of prison and become a king." 172 PECULIARITIES OF THE not a Jew, who was one outwardly, nor was circumcision that of the flesh, but of the spirit," the New Testament writers seem clearly to unfold the idea, that at no time was the promiscuous mass of the Israelites the church of God, but that during the whole of the ancient economy, the only persons viewed as such, really and not typically, were true believers, devout worshippers, those who, like Simeon, *' waited for the consolation of Israel." It is to such, ac- cordingly, that the apostles regard the prophets as speaking, when they announce the restoration of glory to Jerusalem, and to the land of Judea ; and it is in accordance with the spiritual hopes, opinions, and feelings of such, that they interpret these predictions. Thus, the prophecy of Amos, that, under the reign of the Messiah, God would " raise up the fallen tabernacle of David, and build it as in the days of old," is explained by the Apostle James as having been fulfilled when the Gentiles were first added to the Christian church. "Simeon," says he, "hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. And to this agree the words of the prophets ; as it is written. After this will I return, and will build again the tabernacle of David which is fallen down ; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up, that the residue of men might seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, that doetli these things. "-i^ In these words we have an inspired explanation of the symbolical language of the prophet. The raising up of the tabernacle of David is interpreted as the resuscitation of the long dormant and depressed church, by the introduction into it of converts from the Gentiles ; and the declaration of the prophet, that this tabernacle thus raised up shall possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen which are called by God's name, is translated into a prediction that the residue of * Acts XV. u— 17. PROPHETIC STYLE. 173 men should seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles upon whom his name is called.* To understand this prophecy, then, as some persist in understanding it, of the literal Israel, and the restoration of the family of David to the throne of Judea, is to adopt the Neologian hypothesis of accommoda- tion, and give a direct contradiction to the insjDired com- ment of the Apostle. From the manner in which the New Testament writers apply these symbolical prophecies, we may gather further, that by the throne of David, on which the Messiah was to sit, is meant the exaltation of Jesus, by his ascension into heaven, to the place of supreme authority in the church, (comp. Isa. xxii. 22 — 24, with Kev. iii. 7; Ps. cxxxii. 11, with Acts ii. 30, 31 ;) by the kings that set themselves against the Messiah, and the nations that are to be de- stroyed by him, were intended the rulers and people of the Jews, no less than the other enemies of the Christian cause, (comp. Ps. ii. with Acts iv. 24 — 30 ; Ps. cviii. 10 — 12, 22, with Matt. xxi. 42—44, and Acts iv. 10—12 ;) by the promise of protection, deliverance, and blessing, to Israel, was intimated salvation, in all its extent, to the followers of Christ, (comp. Isa. viii. 13, 14, with 1 Pet. iii. 14, 15, and ii. 8; Isa. xxv. 8, and Hos. xiii. 14, with 1 Cor. XV. 50 — 57,) &c. These inspired explanations must be regarded by every conscientious inquirer a,s Jixed by Divine authority ; and they are valuable, not merely in relation to the passages in connexion with which they are announced, but as suggesting a principle of general application to all which may be justly regarded as coming under the same class.f * So also Paul interprets Isaiali's description of the subjugation of Edom, Moab, Ammon, and Egypt, (chap. xi. 14,) of the conversion of the Gentiles unto Christ, Eom. xv. 12. + See Davidson's Test of Prophecy; or, an Attempt to prove that the New Testament Interpretation of Prophecy is the o?ily sure and certain Criterion by ivhich the Meaning of all Divine Predictions may he discovered. Edin. 1839. — See also Appendix, Note N. 174 THEOEY OF A DOUBLE SENSE Among other advantages which the intelligent applica- tion of these principles promises to the student of pro- phecy, not the least important, in my estimation, is, that they enable him to dispense with the theory of a plurality of senses in prophecy. Whatever charms this theory may possess for the mystic, or the man of warm imagination, it is one which the sober interpreter will be very unwilling to adopt, if it can, by possibility, be dispensed with. A plurality of senses is so unlike what we should expect in a revelation of the Divine will ; the admission of it is so apt to be abused, and indeed, has so often been abused to the purposes of fanaticism and error; the principle of it is so arbitrary, and so entirely unauthorized by any of the New Testament expositions of prophecy; and the application of it is so uncertain and fluctuating, even in the hands of its most able advocates ;* that unless it can be shown to be absolutely indispensable for the consistent interpretation of prophecy, no sober inquirer after truth will consider himself justified in adopting it. It, in fact, exposes the prophetical Scriptures to be turned into a mere arena for the display of fanciful ingenuity, and en- dangers the entire evidence of prophecy, viewed as a pre- diction of future events. Nor are its advocates at all agreed as to the extent of its application, or the criteria by which its presence is to be determined ; some contend- ing for as many senses as the words will bear, while others restrict themselves to two — a literal and a spiritual ; some * It is a remarkable fact, that in hardly a single instance can this theory be carried out in its application to an entire passage. In most cases, its advocates present us, not with a double sense, a literal and a spiritual in each verse, but with two distinct subjects, of which now one and then the other is taken up. Thus, in Ps. xxii. for instance, instead of showing that every verse refers to David in one sense, and to the Messiah in another, we have the psalm cut into fragments, of which this is held to refer only to David, and that only to the Messiah. Of such a mingling of subjects, in- stances do occur in the prophetic Scriptures, but to speak of this as a doubU sense is plainly absurd. IN PEOPHECY. 175 proposing one test of its applicability, some another; whilst others, repudiating all tests, insist upon pursuing their ambiguous course from beginning to end of the Old Testament. Where a rule of interpretation stands itself in so much need of being interpreted, it is not to be won- dered at if it should be viewed with suspicion and distrust by those who, having no favourite system to defend at all hazards, aim exclusively in studying Scripture at evolving from its words the precise meaning which the Divine Spirit has embodied in them. The more the ancient pro- phecies are studied in this spirit, the more do I feel satisfied will it be found that such a principle of interpretation is un- necessary, and that, to use the words of a profound scholar, " there is really no prophecy which may not be restricted to one sense, — such a sense as fully meets all the exigen- cies of the connexion in which it occurs."* * Henderson's Introductory Dissert, to his Translation of Isaiah, p. 29. See also Marsh's Lectures on the Crilicism and Interpretation of the Bible, Lect. x. ; Smith (Dr. J. P.) On the Principles of Interpretation as applied to the Propheciei , &e., p. 51. LECTURE V. INTERNAL OR DOCTRINAL CONNEXION OF THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS. — SURVEY OF MESSIANIC PROPHECY FROM THE FALL TO THE TIME OF DAVID. " To Him gave all the prophets witness, that, through his name, whosoever helieveth in him shall receive remission of sins." — Acts x. 43. It has been customary with writers upon prophecy to divide its history into tivo great ages : the former reaching from the fall of Adam to the time of Samuel ; the latter from the time of Samuel to that of Malachi. Perhaps a more accurate division would be into three ages ; the first extendino' from the fall of Adam to the death of Saul, the second embracing the age of David and Solom.on, and the third stretching from the death of Solomon to the time of Malachi. The prophecies delivered during these three epochs are sufficiently distinguishable to justify, if not to call for, such an arrangement. I propose, accordingly, to follow it in the general survey of Messianic announcement, on which we have now to enter. The first of these ages is nearly identical with what is commonly denominated the patriarchal age. The religion of this period was marked by the simplicity of its forms, the spirituality of its worship, and the freeness with which its blessings were accessible to all. It was based upon the revealed purpose of God, to redeem mankind by the pro- pitiatory sacrifice of the virgin-born Deliverer; and its institutions seem to have had no otlier purpose than to FIRST GOSPEL. 177 preserve the knowledge of this great truth before the minds of those who lived under it. The covenant of God, which is repeatedly spoken of as " the everlasting covenant," was established with them on the same terms, and with the same gracious universality in its offers, as under the Christian dispensation. In this respect the earliest eco- nomy stands distinct from that which followed it, and more nearly resembles that which now exists.* The prophetical announcements regarding the Messiah during this age are characterised by their brevity, their simplicity, and their directness. They were conveyed usually in the form of express promises from God to his servants, or in that of valedictory blessings pronounced by eminent saints, according to the custom of that reverend age, upon their children or followers before their death. As the basis of all our subsequent inquiries, we must go back at the outset to the promise of a Deliverer, which was given by God to our first parents, immediately after their fall. In the Mosaic record of the interview which took place on that occasion, between the Creator and his guilty creatures, we are informed that God, in cursing the ser- pent, announced that implacable enmity should exist be- tween him and the woman, and between his seed and her seed; the result of which should be, the partial injury of the seed of the woman, and the entire destruction of her deceiver. We have already assumed that the words ad- * " The scheme of the new covenant behoved to be sach as to extend its life-giving benefits to all nations, so that none who would live according to it should upon any account, whether of country, of kindred, or of place, be im- peded. And in this respect the law and life appointed by our Saviour Jesus Christ appears as a going back to the oldest system of religion, that which prevailed before the days of Moses, and according to which Abraham, the friend of God, and his ancestors lived. Therefore, if you will compare the life of Christians and the religion disseminated among all nations by Christ, with the system of those who, in the time of Abraham, obtained a good report for holiness and righteousness, you shall find them one and the same." — Eusebius, Dem. Ev. I, 5, stib inil. Vll. N 178 FIRST GOSPEL. dressed to the serpent on this occasion, were directed against that malignant spirit by whom the brute serpent was possessed, and that the degradation inflicted upon the latter was intended merely to symbolize to the minds of Adam and Eve the spiritual degradation which their unseen destroyer had, by his assault on them, brought upon him- self. In accordance with this assumption, the declaration now under notice may be regarded as intended to convey to our first parents an intimation of God's gracious designs towards them, in the utter overthrow, by One closely and peculiarly related to themselves, of the dominion which their malignant and crafty deceiver had acquired over them. In this jDoint of view, the announcement of God to the serpent has been ever regarded as a declaration to man of a way of salvation through a Redeemer ; and hence it has with great propriet}^ been styled, TO nPiiTEYAlTEAION, or First Gosrel. The correctness of this opinion will be best evinced by an examination of the language of the passage. " And I will put enmity between thee and the v/oman, and between thy seed and her seed ; He shall wound thee, as to the head (i. e. vitally, incurably), and thou shalt wound him, as to the heel [partially, cur ably). '' '^ * Gen. iii. 1 5. MJ^"! "|Dl\r^ ^in. The pronoun here agi'ees with ^-yi, materially, not formally, inasmuch as the seed spoken of is thought of as masculine. The verb, which is the same in this and the following clause, denotes originally to gape tipon (= FINUJ, Gesen. in verb.), hence to seek tvith a hostile intention, to assault, Job ix. 17; and, as in the passage before us, to succeed in that assault, to wound. So also in Ps. exxxix. 1 1 , the only other passage in which this word occurs in Scripture, the meaning is, " If I say. Surely the darkness shall {assail, wound) destroy me, &c. ; " for as the preceding context shows, it is of the preserving, and not of the jmnitive omniscience of Jehovah that the psalm- ist is speaking. So the LXX. KaTaiTari](T^t, and the Vulg. conculcabunt. — CJX'I in this clause, and 2p3? in the following, are placed in the accusative as de- noting the part on which the action of the verb takes effect (Ewald. Heb. Gr. § 482, Eng. Tr.) ; both words appeal' to be used tropically— the former to denote the mortal, the latter the transitory and curable nature of the wound. No wound is so fatal to a serpent as one on the head, and nowhere is the bite of a serpent so innocuous to a man as on his heel. FIRST GOSPEL. 179 The first question which naturally arises here relates to what is intended by the seed of the woman, and by tlie seed of the serpent, in this passage. These two are placed in direct antithesis to each other ; and in attempting to explain the passage, this must be clearly kept in view. With regard to the seed of the serpent, it is obvious, at first sight, that this must be a phrase indicative of spiritual similarity and association; for no being can be the child of Satan in any other sense than that he is imbued with the temper, or is obedient to the influence, of that malignant spirit. In this sense our Lord charges the Jews with being " of their father, the devil," whose desires they loved tO' fulfil. (John viii. 44.) So also Paul denounced Elymas as a "child of the devil," because of his hypocrisy and mischievous wickedness, (Acts xiii. 10 ;) and John ex- pressly declares, that it is by the love and practice of sin that men become " children of the devil." (1 John iii. 8, 10.) With these statements before us, we can have no difficulty in determining who form part, at least, of " the seed of the serpent." In this appellation are obviously included all those "children of disobedience," in whose hearts the Prince of Darkness reigns ; and if to these we add that host of evil spirits who fell with Satan, own his supremacy, and co-operate with wicked men in furthering his designs, we shall not come far short of an accurate estimate of those of whom the phrase in question is used in the passage before us. As confirmatory of the above remarks, we may adduce the terms applied by our Lord, and by John the Baptist, to the impenitent and hypocritical Jews, whom they denounced as " serpents, and the pro- geny of vipers," fitted only for "the damnation of hell." (Matt. iii. 7 ; xxiii. 33.) From this interpretation of the expression, " seed of the serpent," we are led to infer, that that to which this is opposed, "the seed of the woman," must consist of that body with which Satan and his followers carry on an inces- 180 FIRST GOSPEL. sant conflict, — a body composed of all who fear and love God, and reverence his Son. That this is really the case seems to be rendered highly probable, by the circumstance that in the New Testament believers are assured of real- izing in their own case the triumph promised here to the seed of the woman: "And the God of peace," says Paul, " shall crush Satan under your feet shortly." (Rom. xvi. 20.) Why such should be denominated the seed of the woman, will appear if we consider that, from the close connexion subsisting between Christ and his subjects, names and dignities are often predicated of the whole body of which he is the head and they are the members, which are, strictly speaking, appropriate only to him.- This is ac- cording to a very common law of language; that, namely, in virtue of which a whole is denominated from its prin- cipal part, and of which frequent instances are found in Scripture. Now, that our Saviour is appropriately deno- minated " the seed of the woman," can hardly be called in question by any who admit the facts of his miraculous birth. To him and to him alone, of all partakers of human nature, is such a phrase applicable with any degree of propriety. According to the common usage of the word seed in Scripture, it is employed to designate the relation of a child to its father, and not to its mother. Such a departure from the ordinary phraseology of the sacred writers is of itself remarkable, and would lead us to expect that something unusual and contrary to the ordinary course of nature is here intimated ; nor does there appear any mode of accounting for the use of such a phrase in the present instance, (Adam being not only alive, but by the side of his wife, when these words were uttered,) but by understanding it of the birth of one whose appearance in * Thus, e. g. in 1 Cor. xii. 12, the tei-rn Chrisl is employed to denote the whole Church, including the Head, to whom alone that appellation properly belongs. A similar instance is supposed by many interpreters in Gal. iii. Ifci ; but this is more than doubtful. FIRST GOSPEL. 181 our world should be, in an altogether peculiar sense, a being born of a woman. The applicability of such a description to Jesus Christ, the son of Mary, — the "Word that was God and became flesh," cannot be disputed. Of him, therefore, as the child of a virgin, and the conqueror of Satan, in that nature which he derived instrumentally from the woman, as well personally as through his body the Church, w^as this assurance given to our first parents by their gracious though justly-offended God.* Between the two parties thus described, Jehovah declares that perpetual and implacable enmity shall subsist, the effect of which shall be, that the serpent shall wound the heel of the seed of the woman, and the latter shall wound the head of the serpent. The obvious meaning of this lan- guage is, that, as the head is a vital part of the body, whilst the heel is comparatively unsusceptible of external injury, and, even when injured, very slightly if at all affects the general health, so the result of this conflict would be the entire overthrow of the serpent's power, and the establish- ment of that of his antagonist, notwithstanding the impe- diments which the former might succeed in throwing in the way of the latter. These should amount to nothing more than such as a wounded heel might occasion to a * Many are disposed to confine tlie application of this prediction to the Saviour, and refuse to extend it so as to include his people ; hut the inter- pretation given in the text seems required, as well hy the general represent- ations of Scripture, regarding the identity of Christ and his Church, as by the conditions of that antithetical form in which the promise is conveyed. It is surely reasonable to infer, that if by the word seed a multitude be under- stood in the one case, a single individual should not be understood by it in the other. A view accordant Avith this is given by the Jerusalem Targum, and by that of Jonathan, as well as in the Rabbinical writings, in which the seed of the woman is interpreted of the Jews, who, in the time of the Messiah, should overcome Sammael, the evil Spirit. (See the places in the London Polyglott, and in Smith's Scrip. Test. I. 231.) Calvin also {in loc.) gives his suffrage for this interpretation, in which he is followed by Ston-, Opuscc. Acadd. vol. ii. p. 416 ; Heugstenberg, Christologie, I. 43 ; Tholuck, on Rom. xvi. 20 ; Stuart, on ditto : Olshausen, on ditto, Biblischer Comment. Bd. III. &c. 182 FIRST GOSPEL. traveller ; for a season they might retard the progress, and affect the spirits, of the conqueror ; but their influence should speedily wear off, whilst the wounds inflicted by him on his adversary should reach the very seat of empire, and smite it with incurable disaster. This mode of ex- plaining the language here used, seems greatly preferable to the interpretation usually given ; according to which the wounding of the heel of the woman's seed is understood of the jjersonal sufferings of our Lord, by which, it is affirmed, that he reflexively wounded the head of Satan, by bringing destruction upon his kingdom. Against this interpretation there arises, in the first place, the obvious objection that it entirely destroys the proper antithesis of the passage. It makes the speaker institute a contrast between things which are not capable of being contrasted. Contrast invariably supposes generic similarity as co- exist- ing with certain specific differences. Hence we never can institute a contrast between a man and a quality ; in other words, betw^een something which is a person, and some- thing which is not a person, but a property. But this is exactly the sort of false contrast whicli the interpretation in question would put upon this passage. According to it, the contrast lies between the jmrson of the Kedeemer, and the cause, or kingdom of Satan. To admit this, however, would be to violate one of the laws of human thought and language ; and hence we must adhere to the principle, that in this verse the metaphors on both sides of the anti- thesis relate to the same sort of thing. If by the heel of Christ be meant his person, in which he endured suffering, by the head of Satan must also be meant his person, on which these sufferings of Christ reflexively inflicted de- struction. No such fact, however, as the destruction, or even injury of Satan's jierson, through the crucifixion of our Lord, is in the most distant manner intimated in Scripture. On the contrary, we are assured, that still as much as ever he retains his malignant activity, and " goeth FIRST GOSPEL. 183 about seeking whom he may devour." To what, then, can the wounding of his head refer, but to the utter overthrow of his empire in this world, and his final expulsion from the region he has invaded to that which is his appointed place, at once of triumph and of torture ? But, if this be the meaning of the prediction regarding him, the laws of speech require that an analogous interpretation be put upon the prediction regarding the seed of the woman. It follows that by the wounding of the heel of the latter, we must understand the injury done by Satan to the cause of Christianity, in impairing the dignity and retarding the progress of its triumphs. In support of this interpretation, it may be added, further, that to suppose the propitiatory sufferings of Christ referred to here, is to imagine that these were of so slight and transitory a kind as to amount to nothing more, comparatively, than a slight wound upon the heel. But did not the exalted sufferer himself exclaim, " My soul is exceedingly sorrowful, even unto death?" — and was there not a moment when the agony seemed too intense even for him to endure, and the prayer, " Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me," was wrung from his burdened spirit? Was suffering such as this of a kind to be described as a mere wounding of his heel ? or can we imagine, for an instant, that He who " made the soul of his Son a sacrifice for sin," would have referred by such a metaphor to so fearful a scene ? As descriptive of the efforts of Satan in clogging the energies and retarding the triumphs of the Church, the metaphor is appropriate ; but surely it cannot, without grievous impropriety, be re- garded as descriptive of that dreadful and mysterious agony at which all nature stood aghast, and which poured into the soul of the Eedeemer the cup of trembling and of wrath. We have here, then, the announcement of man's deli- verance from the thraldom of Satan, and the utter destruc- tion of Satan's power by a virgin-born Eedeemer. After 184 FIRST GOSPEL. the humiliating interview between our first parents and their Creator, which had immediately preceded this an- nouncement, it would, doubtless, be listened to by them with feelings of peculiar interest. It was the first ray of mercy which had broken across the gloom of their fall. It spoke to them of hope, — it told them of restoration, — it uncovered the prospect of returning felicity and purity, — and it thus touched, as with the warmth of summer, the icy impenitence which had bound up the current of their better feelings, and made them reply against God. Jeho- vah thus prepared them for the announcement of those temporal penalties which their transgression had brought upon them, as well as for that new course of discipline through which they were about to pass, in their journey to a better inheritance than that which they had lost. And, in the contrast which the subsequent notices regard- ing Adam and his wife present to the haughty and hard- ened pride displayed in their replies to the Divine accu- sations during the preceding interview, we have a spe- cimen of that transforming influence which the message of redeeming love exerts upon the mind, in " casting down imaginations and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God." On the assumption that this declaration was understood by our first parents as conveying the promise of a deliverer from the spiritual thraldom under which Satan had suc- ceeded in bringing them, we might expect to find indica- tions in the subsequent history of such a hope being entertained by them and their descendants. Were it ex- pedient in the present inquiry to depart beyond the records of the sacred volume, it would be easy to show, from the traditionary records of many ancient nations, traces of the extensive prevalence of such an expectation among the earlier races of the human family.* Waiving, however, * The well-known passages in Virgil, Tacitus, and Suetonius, will at once occur to the classical scholai' ; those to whom they ai-e not familiar will find FIKST GOSPEL. 185 for the present such researches, let us confine our atten- tion to such evidences of the existence of this expectation as the Mosaic narrative supplies. To many able scholars it has appeared that one such evidence is furnished at the very threshold of the succeed- ing history in the exclamation of Eve on the birth of her first-born. To this opinion I cannot help attaching a very high degree of probability. The passage in question may be rendered thus : — " And Adam knew Eve his wife ; and she conceived and bare Cain, [i. e. gotten,) and said, I have gotten a man, even Jehovah," Gen. iv. 1. Here there appear to me three things worthy of notice. In the first them quoted and illustrated by Dr. Eedford, in tlie Congregational Lecture for 1837, p. 481. The traditions of the Greeks, which wei'e more vague, may be gathered from Hesiod, Opp. et Dies, v. 17 — 180. In one of the Dialogues of Plato {Alcibiad. II.) there is a very singular declaration ascribed to Socra- tes, who, in discoursing with Alcibiades respecting the proper manner of approaching the gods, concludes by saying : — " It is necessary, then, to wait until we can learn how it behoves us to conduct ourselves towards the gods and towards men." After which the dialogue proceeds as follows: — "Ale. When, pray, shall this time come, O Socrates? and who is to be the teacher? for it seems to me that it would be most delightful to see what sort of person he is. Soc. It is he who cares for thee. But, methinks, as Homer says that Minerva took away the mist from the eyes of Diomede, ' so that he could dis- cern well both God and man,' it is needful that he should first take away that mist from thy spuit which now happens to be on it, and then bring forward those things whereby thou shalt know what is evil and what is good; for now I do not think thou canst. Ale. Let him take away either the mist or any- thing else he pleases, for I am prepared to shun nothing which may be appointed by that person, whoever he may be, if I may only become better. Soc. Nay, truly, he also has a certain wonderful regard for thee. Ale. Till that time, then, I think it will be better to defer my sacrifice," &c. Platon. 0pp. ed. Stallbaum, Vol. V. Sect. i. pp. 359, 360. This passage is curious and interesting, as indicating a consciousness of want and ignorance on the one hand, and on the other a cleaving to the hope that a great religious teacher would some time or other appear. It is a pity the critics will not allow us to continue in the faith that these were the sentiments of Socrates ; but the evidence, it must be admitted, is very strong of the spuriousness of this dialogue. Stallbaum, however, does not place it much later than the age of Alexander the Great, whose death followed that of Plato, at an intei-val of only twenty-five years, — an interval too brief, surely, to admit of the proba- bility that a Pseudo-Plato would presume to palm his forgeries on the public. 186 EXCLAMATION OF EVE place, the term t3^« as applied by Eve to her babe is pecu- liar and singular. This word occupies the same place in the Hebrew which belongs to dvf}p and vir in the Greek and Latin; it denotes not only the male sex, but also, along with that, those adjuncts of power and dignity which are commonly supposed to be characteristic of that sex. I believe I am correct in asserting that the passage before us is the only instance in which it is applied to a babe ; the usual term for a male child in Scripture being ">?J. Considering the circumstances of the case, there is some- thing in this peculiarity which appears not unworthy of notice. — Secondly, it must be allowed to be somewhat re- markable that Eve should make use of the term Jehovah here. This is not the designation of Deity simply as such ; it is the appropriate and peculiar name (or revealed symbol) of God as sustaining relations of reconciliation and friend- ship to his own people. The knowledge of this name, therefore, on the part of Eve, involves an acquaintance with the revealed character and designs of God in con- nexion with the work of redemption, through which alone it is that He comes into any relations of amity with guilty creatures. Hence the exclamation which she is recorded to have uttered on the birth of her child, may be fairly in- terpreted as meaning, " I have gotten a great one, even that Jehovah who has been revealed to us."* — Thirdly, the significant name which Eve bestowed upon her son is worthy of notice. That name means gotten, and when taken in connexion with the exclamation from which it originated, it clearly indicates that the bearer of it was the object of earnest desire and expectation on the part of his parents. We can easily conceive of a multitude of other designations which it would seem vastly more natural that * The English Version renders mm nn, "from the Lord," as if n« stood for n«0, but the legitimacy of this is more than doubtful. By some nx is taken in the sense of ivith, i. e. tvith the help of; but of such a usage of the particle no instance has been produced. ON THE BIETH OF CAIN. 187 a mother should have bestowed upon her first-born under ordinary circumstances ; and the fact that this was the one to which in the first moment of her joy Eve gave utterance, can be attributed, I think, only to the intense desire she had to obtain the blessing which she believed to be real- ized in the birth of her child. What that blessing was, these considerations will help us to determine. Let it be remembered that our first parents had already received an assurance that a great deliverer, sprung from the woman, would sometmie appear to rescue them from the power of Satan ; and let it be con- sidered that along with this, there was, in all probability, an intimation conveyed to them of the mysterious cha- racter of that deliverer as Jehovah the Saviour, incarnate Deity, (for there is surely no reason to suppose that God would withhold from them that information which he freely conveyed to their descendants : there being the same ne- cessity for conveying accurate information that there was for conveying information to them at all ;) let these things be considered, and it will not appear very extravagant to suppose either that this formed the object of their most earnest expectations, or that, when their first-born ap- peared, the happy mother should have deemed that already had the great one, even Jehovah, come. It is quite impos- sible for us to form any adequate conception of the feelings of Adam and Eve, either in the anticipation or on the occurrence of this event. With what mingled emotions of curiosity, delight, and dread, must they have looked for- ward to it ! Something was about to happen which had never happened before — a new being, they knew not ex- actly what, was to be given to their affections and their society — the pangs of the threatened sorrow were to be endured by Eve, and for aught they could tell, the blessings of the first gospel realized in the birth of a child ; and, under all these circumstances, can we wonder that the en- raptured mother — feeling that she had survived her agony, 188 noah's blessing on his sons. and, borne along by that gush of unutterable tenderness with which she could not but survey the lovely being that she folded in her bosom — should have thought that her babe was none other than the promised seed — the expected Jehovah — at once her sovereign and her son ? Instead of deeming such an interpretation of her words harsh and strained, I cannot but regard it as putting into her mouth language the most natural for one in her peculiar circum- stances to employ. Expectant as she and her husband were of one in human form who was to destroy the ser- pent, it seems almost as if nothing short of an express revelation to the contrary could have prevented their fall- ing into the opinion which we regard Eve's words as ex- pressing. The fact that that opinion was a mistake, does not de- tract from its importance in relation to the position it is now adduced to support. On the contrary, this rather shows how strong and lively was the expectation in the minds of our first parents of the advent of their deliverer, inasmuch as it led them to lay hold, without any authority from God, of the very first circumstance that seemed to bear any resemblance to that event. When we come down to the times of the postdiluvian patriarchs, frequent instances occur of passages which can be interpreted satisfactorily only on the supposition that they involve a reference to the promised Saviour. Of these, the first I shall notice is the prophetical benediction pronounced by Noah on his sons Shem and Japheth : — " Blessed be Jehovah the God of Shem God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem," Gen. ix. 26, 27. The language employed by the patriarch in blessing Shem is strongly expressive of the religious superiority of that branch of his descendants. This is evident, partly from the use of the term Jehovah, which, as already remarked, designates God, not in his general rela- tion to the world, but in his special relation, ,as the revealed noah's blessing on his sons. 189 object of worship and author of salvation, to his people ; and partly from the declaration itself, that God, in this character, would be the God of Shem and of his descend- ants. Of this the patriarch was so certain, that he praises Jehovah for it as if the anticipated blessing were already- enjoyed.* In the blessing pronounced upon Japheth we recognise, in the first place, an assurance of a vast and wide-spread- ing progeny ; and, in the second, a prediction that the reli- gious privileges enjoyed by Shem should ultimately be imparted in a peculiar manner to Japheth. This latter I take to be the meaning of the expression, " He shall dwell in the tents of Shem."t In Scripture a tent or tabernacle is often used to denote the peculiar and most valued pos- session of an individual or nation. Thus, in Ps. Ixxxiii. 6, " the tabernacles of Edom and the Ishmaelites " are evi dently put for what constituted the chief glory and re- sources of that people. In like manner, the tents of Jacob and of Judah are used to designate that which was the peculiar privilege, honour, and defence, of the chosen na- tion, viz. their religious advantages and relation to Jeho- vah ; comp. Numb. xxiv. 5 ; Isa. iv. 6 ; xxxiii. 20 ; Zech. xii. 7; Mai. ii. 12; where not only the blessings of the Theocracy, but also the enlarsjed blessinors of the Mes- * The thrice-learned Bochart has a remark on tliis verse which I think it worth while to quote : — " Cum Chamo vel Chanaani nominatim maledixisset, cum ad benedictiones ventum est, Semo non benedixit, sed Deo Semi : Bene- dictus sit, inquit, Dominus Deus Semi. Absit tamen ut putemus hoc illi temere excidisse; quin latet mysterium in hac personarum enallage. Keo enim in propria persona maledixerat, propter admissum scelus, quia mali fomes et scaturigo est in ipso homine. At Semi pietate delectatus Deo maluit bene- dicere, quia Deum noverat esse auctorem hujus boni. Nam ex nobis nihil possumus, nee cogitare quidem, sed ex Deo est h iK-dvoTt]^ VSi/." — Geogr. Sac. 1. ii. c. 1. + Michaelis and Gesenius have strangely proposed to take DtJ as a common noun, and render " He shall dwell in tents of name," i.e. of fame and honour. For such a change of meaning from a proper name to a common, there is no reason whatever. ] 90 noah's blessing on his sons. siah's reign, are alluded to under this figure. Hence, to dwell in the tents of any one, may be understood to signify a participation in the peculiar advantages which that one considers himself to possess. Thus, " to dwell in the tents of wickedness," is to enjoy the pleasures and favour- ite pursuits of the ungodly. In like manner, restoration to the privileges of their nation is promised to the Jews by the expression, " I will yet make thee to dwell in taber- nacles as in the day of the solemn feast," i. e. as Jerome paraphrases it, "As at that time I delivered thee out of Egypt, and thou didst dwell in tabernacles hastening to go to the Holy Land and to the place of the temple ; so, also, now will I bring thee out of tribulation, and straits, and impending captivity, if thou wilt do what I have enjoined. "^^ In accordance with this the extension of spiritual blessings to the Gentiles is symbolized by such language as the following : " Enlarge the plan of thy tent, and do thou stretch forth the curtains of thy habitations ; spare not, lengthen thy cords, and strengthen thy stakes : for thou shalt break forth on the right hand and on the left; and thy seed shall inherit the Gentiles, and make the desolate cities to be inhabited. "f With both the sentiment and the language of this verse accords the interpretation above proposed of the words of Noah concerning Japheth. The peculiar distinction and privilege of Shem was that Jeho- vah was to be his God. In this, however, Japheth was ultimately to share ; he was to " dwell in the tents of Shem ; ' he was to be a partaker of those inestimable reli- gious advantages by which the family of his younger brother was to be peculiarly favoured. In point of fact, this has been the case. The family of Shem has been that from which religious blessing has flowed to all the nations of the earth, and especially to the descendants ol Japheth. * Hieronymi Comment, in Hon. xii. 10, apud Rosenmulleri Scholia. + Isa. liv. 2, 3. PROMISES MADE TO ABRAHAM. 19] For many ages these two races were widely separated, by nothing so much as by religious differences, but on the advent of the promised Deliverer this separation came to an end ; the sons of the wanderer have obtained *' inherit- ance among them that were sanctified ; " the " middle wall of partition " has been broken down, and He who is our peace hath made both one. This opinion, which is that espoused by the Chaldee Paraphrast, by Augustine, Jerome, and Chrysostom, as well as by Calvin, Bochart, Horsley, Sherlock, Hengstenberg, Tuch, and several other modern interpreters, is favoured by the consideration that to explain Japheth's dwelling in the tents of Shem, of the conquests which the descend- ants of the former should achieve over those of the latter, would be to make Noah announce both blessing and curs- ing upon Shem in the same breath. The curse upon Ham was the subjugation of his posterity to Shem and Japheth ; but if the posterity of Shem was also to be overcome by Japheth, then on him also would light a portion of that disaster, than which to men of their habits of thinking there could be few greater. It forms no part, however, of Noah's object to damp the hopes of Shem ; on the con- trary, the whole narrative impresses us with the conviction that upon him the largest and the fullest blessing came — an impression which at once forbids the idea that his father would, to gratify Japheth, announce a fact that could not but grieve and mortify his more favoured brother. The grand truth thus indirectly intimated to the sons of Noah, that the promised deliverer was to come in the line of the descendants of Shem, was more fully announced by God himself to the most highly favoured member of that family, Abraham. On three different occasions the assur- ance was given to that patriarch that through his seed a blessing was to come on all the nations of the earth : "And all races of the earth shall be blessed in thee (Gen. xii. 3, 192 PEOMISES MADE TO ABRAHAM. and xviii. 18) ; and in thy seed shall all nations of the earth bless themselves " (Gen. xxii. 18).* Assuming the accuracy of this translation, there are two questions respect- ing the purport of the promise to which we must advert. In the first place, does the blessing here spoken of refer to the enjoyment of temporal or of spiritual advantages ? In reply, I would say, that it refers to both, but to the former only as included in and flowing from the latter. That it relates primarily or exclusively to temporal blessings, as some affirm, appears inadmissible, on the following grounds : 1st. All the blessings enjoyed by, or promised to, the patriarchs, were connected with the maintenance of the true religion, and were dependent upon their continuing to love and serve Jehovah as he had revealed himself to them (see Gen. xvii. 1 ; xviii. J 7 — 19 ; xxii. 16 — 18 ; xxvi. 5). This being the case, they could not suppose that either they or their posterity could bless the nations in any other way than by extending to them the knowledge of those reli- gious truths by which alone they themselves were blessed.f * Bless themselves. 2 1j"\ann. The Hithpael of "va with 3 always signifies to bless one's self. There is no ground, however, for the explanation proposed here by Le Clerc, Jurieu, Gesenius, &c., viz., " AU. nations shall invoke upon themselves the blessing of thy seed." In the other passages where this formula occurs (Ps. Ixxii. 16; Is. Ixv. 16; Jer. iv. 2) the preposition marks the person //-om whom the parties bless (or seek blessing for) themselves. We should therefore infer, that here the phrase signifies, " From thy seed shall all nations seek for themselves blessing ;" i.e. they shall seek to obtain for themselves a share in the blessings that shaU come on thy seed. This exegesis, as Tuch remarks, alone is in keeping with the context, " which speaks of blessings that were to spread from Abraham over all the peoples of the earth. It is only," he adds, " as the Patriarch comes forth in his whole importance as the head of a great, a blessed, and a God-fearing, and thereby a prosperous people, as the founder of temporal and eternal welfare through piety and obedience, only thus that the thoughts standing in the words ap- pear; and one feels at once how vapid the whole would be were nothing meant but that he should serve to the nations for a formula of benediction, because he had kept God's commandments." Comvwntar, z. d. s. See also Jahn, Append. Hermeneuticw, Fasc. II. Vaticinia de Messia, p. 199, sq. f See this copiously illustrated by Jahn, Appendix Heimeneuiicce, Fasc. II. p. 102. PROMISES MADE TO ABRAHAM. 193 fJndly. How could A])mhara expect that all the nations of the earth could be blessed in his seed, only or chiefly in a temporal point of view, when he had been already assured that over many of them his posterity were to achieve con- quest, and by reducing them to bondage, to confer upon them the very opposite of worldly advantage ? 3rdly. Abra- ham would at once understand how, in a spiritual point of view, he had the means of blessing the world, inasmuch as he possessed the knowledge of those truths which all needed, and without which none could be happy ; but in what sense, or by what means, he or his family might be the communicants of direct outward advantages to the race, he Avould be utterly unable to perceive ; the thing itself would have been physically impossible without a miracle, and therefore we may conclude was as little ex- pected by Abraham as it appears to have been promised by God. The other question which may be raised upon this promise to Abraham, respects the degree of knowledge which he may be supposed to have possessed as to the particular manner in which it was to be fulfilled. His general conviction that it was by the dispersion of religious knowledge through the world that his seed was to become a blessing to all nations, did not necessarily involve an acquaintance with the fact that it was by the descent from him of the Messiah that this was to be accomplished. That Abraham, however, was ignorant of this fact, cannot, I apprehend, be without the greatest improbability sup- posed. In the first place, the very religion which his de- scendants were to diffuse, rested upon this as its foundation. It was in the promised Saviour that Abraham himself was blessed ; it was in him that he knew that his posterity CO aid alone be blessed, and hence he could not form any idea of their becoming the means of blessing others with- out conveying to them the knowledge of this Saviour. We may, therefore, legitimately infer that he had an intelligent VI r. o 194 PROMISES MADE TO ABRAHAM. perception of the manner in which this promise was to be fulfilled. Sndly. Om- Lord himself expressly states, that " Abraham saw his day afar off, and was glad."* Whatever meaning, in other respects, we attach to this declaration, we must regard it as affirming Abraham's acquaintance with the leading truths concerning Christ. But if he was acquainted with these, then must he have known in what way it was that blessing was to flow through him to all nations of the earth. 3rdly. The Apostle Peter intimates that the promise to Abraham took effect in " the sending of Jesus Christ to bless men by turning them away from their iniquities."! But if this be the purport of the promise, can we suppose that God, who had entered into a relation of the most gracious intimacy wdth Abraham (comp. Gen. xviii. 17), would conceal from the patriarch this glorious truth? 4thly. The Apostle Paul expressly states that the faith which Abraham exercised in this pro- mise was the faith of the gospel — saving faith (Rom. iv.j. The same thing is affirmed by him, if possible, still more clearly in writing to the Galatians (ch. iii. 8 — 16), where we are told that " the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gos- pel unto Abraham : In thee shall all nations be blessed ;" and again, " Now to Abraham and his seed were the pro- mises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many ; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ." Whatever difficulties may attach to the strict verbal interpretation of this latter quotation, there can be no mistaking its general purport, viz. that the promise to Abraham respected not his posterity as a whole, but that illustrious individual among them, for whose sake they had been chosen and blessed of God, and by whom alone real blessings could b,e conveyed to the guilty race of man. This, the Apostle tells us, was the form in which " the gospel" was announced * John viii. 56. + Acts iii. 25, 26. EENEWAL OF THE PRO:\rLSE TO ISAAC, ETC. 195 to Abraham. But in what way could this be an announce- ment of the gosi^el to Abraham, save as he was given to understand that from him was to descend, according to the flesh, the great DeUverer who had been promised to the race after the Fall, and upon whom the hopes of all the people of God had from that time forward been placed ? In this promise made to Abraham, then, we must recog- nise another of those gracious announcements of the com- ing Eedeemer, with which the faith and hopes of the saints in these early times were refreshed and strengthened. With what degree of frequency these announcements were given, we have no means of precisely ascertaining. In so far as they are recorded, however, it is worthy of notice that a firm and emphatic repetition of the truth they con- tained, seems to have accompanied each of those successive stages by which the human ancestry of our Lord was gra- dually contracted, until it became concentrated in a par- ticular tribe and family. In this matter, no regard seems to have been paid to the rights of primogeniture — on other occasions so sacredly observed; on the contrary, these appear to have been almost systematically set aside, as if to impress upon the minds of those concerned, the great truth, that the whole arrangement was a matter of pure sovereignty on the part of the Almight}' — that it was " not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." Thus Shem was a younger son, so was Abraham, so was Isaac, as respected Ishmael, so was Jacob, so was Judah, and so, at a later period, was David. Now, as the privileges which these favoured individuals were chosen to enjoy had respect to the advent of Messiah, there was a propriety in their receiving peculiar assurance of their own relation to that event. Hence we find, that to each of them an especial announcement of the descent from him of the promised Eedeemer was vouchsafed. Of these inaugural revelations, if I may be allowed the expression, we have already considered those appertaining 196 BLESSING OF JUDAH. to Shem and Abraham. Those enjoyed by Isaac and Jacob it is unnecessary particularly to examine, as they are little more than confirmatory repetitions to them of the promise which God gave to Abraham. In both these cases the departure. from hereditary prescription was as small as possible, and, perhaps, this rendered it the less necessary to introduce any new element into the family blessing. But when a selection came to be made among the twelve sons of Jacob, and the lot fell upon the fourth in""order of descent; as a greater departure was, in this case, made from the rule of primogeniture, so was it sig- nalized by a fuller and more minute announcement of the honour that was in store for him. As in the case of Shem, the fame of Judah was an- nounced in the form of a paternal benediction. Surrounded by his children, the fates of whose descendants he in turn foretold, the aged and expiring patriarch thus celebrated the fortunes of his most favoured son : — Thou Judah ! (i. e. 2>''aisc) thee shall thy brethren praise ; Thy hand (shall be) upon the neck of thy foes; To thee shall the sons of thy father do homage. A lion's whelp is Judah ; From the prey, my son, thou slialt go up. He shall lie down as a lion, And as a lioness — who shall rouse him? A sceptre (empire) shall not depart from Judah; Nor a ruler (lawgiver) from between his feet. Until Shiloh (i. e. peace, or the peaceful one) shall come, And Him shall the nations obey. To the vine he shall bind his ass ; To the vine-shoot the foal of his slie-ass. He shall wasli his garments in wine, And his robe in the blood of grapes. His eyes he shall dai-ken with wine, And whiten his teeth with milk.* ♦ Gen. xlix. 8 — 12. Ver. 8. Thij hand, S^-c. i. e. over all thine enemies thou shalt be victorious. — To thee ahaJl the sons, c^v. — The same language is used^ ch. xxvii. 20, by Isaac in blessing his son Jacob, and as there it is obviously intended to intimate the possession by Jacob of the birthright, it is BLESSING OF JUD AH. 197 This exquisite fragment of one of the most perfect poems of its kind which the records of antiquity have preserved probable that the same is intended here by its application to Judah. The figures in ver. 9 indicate the warlike character and power of the tribe of Judah. There is a gradation and rise in the comparison ; first, it is compared to a lion's whelp, then to a full-grown lion, then to a lioness, which exceeds all in fierceness when roused. — Ver. 10. IDIU)' a rod or sceptre, the emblem of supreme authority. The older versions drop the metaphor, and give the render- ing of poioer, or empire, or ruler. ppnQ, a legislator, a decider, a jicdge, a ruler. As parallel to tQiMJ, the last is the preferable signification. — V'7:n ]'2D, from he tween Jus feet. Many interpreters understand this as a euphemisTuus generationis, but to this the idiom of the language is repugnant. A better interpretation is that proposed by Ernesti {Opttsc. Phil, et Crit. pp. 173, sq.), and which is followed by Hengstenberg {Christol. I. s. 70), viz. that this phrase is equi- valent to the simple ^2'012^ Ernesti compares such phrases as tovTwv pk noHiv JiMev, ex hie aheramus, Xenoph. Cyrop. v. pp. 52. 10. ed. Steph. (V. iv. 34, ed. ScJmeider)', Servus Dejotari a pedibus legatorum, h. e. a legatis, ahductus, Cic. pro Dejot. c. 1 ; and ol ndSes roiv Bayj/dvTtov, a qui sepelivere, &c. Acts v. 9. Herder borrows an illustration of the phrase from the ancient Greek and Persian monuments, where, between the feet of a person seated on a throne, a long staff of rule is placed. But there is no evidence that such a repre- sentation existed among the Jews ; and, besides, the theme here is not the existence of royalty in the tribe of Judah, but the supremacy of that tribe over the others. Perhaps the best way is to take D'bai here, as in Jer. xii. 0, as the plural of "hTi, and translate, " Nor from his footmen a ruler," or " one bearing rule." So Seller, Ewald, and Tuch. — >3 "ly, the object of these particles is not to convey the idea that supremacy should continue to the tribe of Judah up to the time of the Shiloh's appearing, and then pass away, but simply that up to that time it should not pass away. The idea is, that Judah should keep the supremacy till the time when the sceptre should be put into the Shiloh's hands. So the same particles are used, ch. xxviii. 15, comp. also Matt. v. 18. — n^. No opinion seems so probable as that which regards this as a proper name of the Messiah — the peace-bringer, from nblD, qtdevit. The form of the word determines it to be a proper name; Tih^ was originally iV^ttJ^ as is evi- dent from 1 Kings ii. 2, 9 ; xii. 15. But "it is only in proper names that on is shortened to 6," as Ewald affirms (Heb. Gr. § 341; comp. Gesenius, § 83, n. 15 ). Shiloh, therefore, is either the name of a place, or of a person. Those who adopt the former here translate thus : — "until he (or they) shall come to Shiloh," or, " so long as they shall come to (assemble at) Shiloh." That the words may be so translated must be admitted ; but nothing can be more evident than that such a translation brings out a meaning alike feeble and improbable. At the time these words were uttered, the Shiloh of the later books (Jos. xviii. 1, 8, 10 ; Jud. xviii. 31) probably had no existence, certainly had no religious pre-eminence over other places ; so that Jacob's announce- ment would be utterly meaningless to his sons. Besides, as Israel came to L98 BLESSING OF JUDAH. to US, has ever been regarded by a large majority of inter- preters, both Jewish and ChristiaD, as containing an explicit description of the Messiah. Commencing with a general announcement of the estimation in which the tribe of Judah should be held by the others, and of the power and authority which that tribe should possess, the patriarch passes on to declare that of that supremacy there should be no end, until one to wdiom was appropriate the appella- tion of Shiloh, or the peace-bringer, should come, into whose hands it would then pass, and Avhose sway not only Judah and his brethren, but all mankind, should ultimately acknowledge. Of whom else than of Him who is in another part of Scripture spoken of as "the desire of all nations" can such language be used ?- When we look at the course of subsequent events, we find this prediction literally fulfilled. The tribe of Judah retained its pre-eminence among the other tribes to the last. In the journeying of the Israelites through the wil- Sliiloli as soon as tliey had subdued Canaan, and ceased to assemble there when the ark of the covenant was placed elsewhere, Judali's supremacy would on either translation have been very short-lived, and not worthy of being so grandly predicted ; to say nothing of the fact that it was not till afier the people had ceased to go to Shiloh that the supremacy of Judah became mani- fest. The twofold contrast here between Judah as a tribe and the Shiloh, is worthy of notice. Both were to rule ; but the rule of the former was to be limited, that of the latter was to be imiversal. Both, also, were to subdue their enemies ; but the one was to conquer as a lion, by force of arms, the other as the peace-bringer, by that very peace which he brought. — The eon- eluding verses describe, in highly poetical terms, the peace and plenty of the Messiah's reign. * The ancient Jewish Chui'ch is unanimous in referring this prediction to the Messiah. The Targum of Onkelos, the Jerusalem Targum, and that of Jonathan, agree in interpreting Shiloh of " the King Messiah, whose is the kingdom," " Sanhedrin, fol. xcviii. 2 : What is the name of the Messiah ? Those of the school of 1\. ShUa say, He is called Shiloh, as it is said, nntil, ^c. Easche: That is the King Messiah, whose is the kingdom; as, also, Onkelos explains it. Bechai, fol. lix. 2 : In tliis blessing two anoiuted ones are intended, the King David. and the King Messiah; and hence these words treat of tlie Messiah, the last Goel or Eedeemer." Ap. Schottgen, s. 260 — 27(\ BLESSING OF JUDAH. 199 derness this tribe took the precedence; under the theo- cracy, in the promised land, the only metropolis both civil and religious recognised by Jehovah, the great sovereign of Israel, was Jerusalem, the chief city of Judah;* and after the return from Babylon, this tribe gave name to the whole inhabitants of the ancient Canaan, and, even under the dominion of the Komans, retained a certain authority.! But on the appearance of Christ, this outward and limited supremacy passed into a spiritual and aniversal reign. "The Prince of Peace" had then ascended th-^ throne of David, and established that government of which there shall be no end. " The Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David," had appeared to vindicate for himself the right of opening the mystic book of prophecy, and by his death to redeem to God a multitude out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation, who as kings and priests unto God were to reign on the earth. Before leaving the patriarchal age, it will be proper to notice those passages in the book of Job which bear upon the present object of investigation. That patriarch's joy- ful and confident hope of a bodily resurrection, as expressed ch. xix. 25 — 27, we have already had occasion to consider ; and I refer to it at present simply for the purpose of re- marking, that in that hope there was of necessity involved a knowledge and expectation of the second coming of the Messiah in human flesh. There is nothing, indeed, in Job's Avords which directly expresses such a confidence on * A reviewer (^United Secession Magazine, for Nov. 1841) lias charged me witli a "blunder," in calling Jerusalem " the chief city of Judah," and asserts that it belonged to Benjamin. I am not sure, however, that the blunder is not with him rather than with me. The Jerusalem taken fi-om the Jebusites belonged partly to Judah and partly to Benjamin (comp. Josh. xv. 8, 63, and x\iii. 28) ; the Jerusalem of the Theocracy appears to have been whoUy Judah's, being rescued from the Jebusites by David, who occupied it as his own city; and in the period after the exile, it was, undoubtedly, the metro- polis of Judah. + Hengstenberg, Chrldologie, I. 74. - 200 TRACES OF ACQUAINTANCE WITH THE his part. The Vindicator whom he expected to appear on his behalf, is not so described as to identify him with the promised Saviour. But, if we admit that there is in the language used on this occasion by the patriarch a sufficient evidence of his belief in the resurrection, we can hardly refuse to admit that he must also have possessed an equally distinct belief in the existence and future manifestation of Him who is himself " the Eesurrection and the Life," and at whose voice it is that " they which are in their graves are to come forth." It would be preposterous to doubt that the terms of the first gospel, as well as the facts of the Fall, would occupy a very prominent place in the traditionary theology of the patriarchal ages ; more especially amongst such tribes and families as still adhered to the worship of the one true God. This should lead us to admit with less hesitation the fact of allusions to these in the notices we have of the life, manners, and opinions of the patriarchs and their associates, even when these are comparatively obscure, or of a very incidental kind. One such allusion, at least, may be with a considerable degree of confidence referred to, as occurring in Job xxvi. 13. In the common version, this passage is rendered thus : — " By his Spirit he hath gar- nished the heavens ; his hand hath formed the crooked serpent." Now, it naturally strikes one as somewhat strange that the formation of a mere reptile, however dan- gerous, should be adduced in such a connexion as an evi- dence of the Divine power and majesty, which is the theme of the speaker in this chapter. When one reads the glow- ing and elevated language of the preceding verses, one cannot help feeling as if there was a complete departure, not only from the proper dignity and majesty of the theme^ but even from the ordinary rules of good writing, in so sudden and unbroken a descent from allusions the most elevated to one of so very common-place, and even disagree- able a character. What connexion, it may be asked, is FIRST GOSPEL IN THE BOOK OF JOB. 201 there between the garnishing of the heavens and the for- mation of the serpent ? or what additional evidence of the glory of the Creator — of Him " at whose reproof the pillars of heaven tremble and are astonished, and who divideth the sea by his power," as the speaker has just declared — is afforded by this sudden transition to one of the least strik- ing, least lovely, and least useful of his works '? The diffi- culty here all the critics have felt, and various conjectures have been resorted to for the sake of removing it. The most popular is that adopted by Kosenmiiller, Hirzel, and others, who suppose that Job refers to the constellation Draco. I am not convinced that Job was altogether so much of an astronomer as some of his commentators would make him ; but, waiving this, I would observe on this in- terpretation, that I cannot perceive that it very much removes the difficulty. The question still arises, Why refer to the constellation Draco, and not to others, which must, to one in the latitude of Job's residence, have pre- sented a greatly more imposing aspect? And besides, is there not still, upon this hypothesis, an evident sinking in the sentiment, entirely out of keeping with the elevated and sustained poetry of the context? What good writer, for instance, in an eulogium upon an architect, would say, " He conceived and framed this mighty edifice ; he also made the windows and doors?" We should feel at once, in such a case, the incongruity and needlessness of the addition in the latter clause, and condemn the writer for something worse than bad taste. On what principle, then, can we admit an interpretation which would fix upon the inspired author of this book exactly such an error, and expose him to exactly such a charge ? It is further to be observed on this verse, that the word rendered "formed'' appears with this signification in this solitary instance in Scripture ; and that its ordinary mean- ing is not only different from, but directly opposed to, that which it is here made to bear. The original meaning of 202 TRACES OF ACQUAINTANCE WITH THE the verb '"^1!^ is he j^erf orated ; hence, m Piel, he oi^ened by tvounding, he woimded, subverted, destroyed (Ez. xxviii. 9 ; Is. xxiii. 9, &c.); ideas as far removed from that of creating or forming as can be well conceived. The rendering of our ti-anslators, therefore, in this case, must be regarded as entirely unauthorized, and, consequently, for their "formed" we must substitute " wounded," or " destroyed," as the proper rendering of the verb. When this is done the meaning of the passage becomes no longer obscure ; it contains a reference to that which, in the estimation of the patriarchs, would doubtless be regarded as one of the greatest and most memorable instances of the Divine ma- jesty — the overthrow of that malignant and crooked spirit by whose designs man had been betrayed into sin. The coiTectness of this view will be still further appa- rent, when we compare the following literal version of this and the preceding verse with the language of some of the Jewish prophets in reference, apparently, to this very subject : — " By his power lie raiseth the sea, And by his wisdom he hath destroyed Eahab. By his Spu'it he hath garnished the heavens, And his liand hath wounded the crooked serpent."* * Ewald renders thus — " Bright makes his breath the heavens; His hand pierced the fleeing Dragon," and understands the passage of the dealing of the heavens by a wind from clouds and tempests. Heiligstedt takes the same view, with the additional infomiation, that the Dragon here is the same as Leviathan, and that both denote the constellation Draco, which "aU an- tiquity believed to obscure the sun and moon." All this is mere gratuitous assertion ; and the whole exegesis is eminently rationalistic — bald and base- less, sceptical without reason, and credulous without evidence. Grotius suggested this astronomical interpretation ; but he had too much sense to adopt it : " Posset hoc ad Draconem, qui inter Ai-ctos est, refeni, si tarn iieteres essent ii quibus nunc utimur acrvepjcr/iot." There is avast deal in this "si;"' modem rationalism finds it inconvenient to limit its range by such con- ditions. FIRST GOSPEL IN THE BOOK OF JOB. 203 Compare this with Ps. Ixxxix. 9, 10: — " Tlioii rulest over the pride of the sea : When its waves rise, thoix stillest them. Thou didst crush Eahab like one wounded ; Thou hast scattered by thy hand of might thy foes." Compare, also, Is. xxvii. 1 : — " In that day [i. e. M«c?er the Messiah's reign, comp. xxvi. 1 ; XXV. 9, 6 — 7] shall Jehovah punish With his sword, — the heavy, the great, the strong [sv ord,] Leviathan, that crooked serpent, Even Leviathan, that tortuous serpent ; And he shall kill the dragon which is in the sea." And li. 9 :— " Awake, awake, put on strength, O arm of Jehovah ! Awake, as in the days of old, in the generations of the past ! Art thou not He that did cut Eahab ? That did wound the dragon ? " All these passages, apparently, refer to the same mo- mentous event ; and there is none in the previous history on which we can fix so probably as that great display of the Divine power which was announced to Adam imme- diately after his fall, and for the consummation of which he and his descendants were taught to look forward to the great day when the promised Deliverer should appear. It is true that Eahab (the strong or proud one) often occurs as a poetical appellation of Egypt in the sacred volume ; and there are some of the passages above cited in which we might, without any great violence, suppose a reference made to the triumph of Jehovah over the power of that ancient enemy of his people ; but, as there are others in which no such reference can be supposed, and as the phrase- ology would lead us to conclude that they all refer to one and the same great exhibition of Divine power in "the days of old," it seems preferable, on several accounts, to 204 TRACES OF ACQUAINTANCE WITH THE understand the whole as referring to that impressive and ever memorable instance of the Divine majesty and mercy, when he came forth to cast down that proud and strong one, elsewhere called " the old serpent," who had so fear- fully triumphed over the weakness of humanity, but over whom, under the auspices of the woman's seed, man was ere long to achieve a complete and perpetual victory.* If this interpretation be correct, we may justly regard the passage we have been considering as a striking evidence of the hope and comfort which the first promise of a Saviour afforded to the pious in the early ages of the world. In the lips of Job such a mode of magnifying Jehovah may be viewed as expressing much the same feel- ings as Dr. Watts has embodied in the following verses intended for the use of Christians : — " Terrible God, that reign'st on high, How awful is thy thund'ring hand ! Thy fiery bolts, how fierce they fly ! Nor can all earth or hell withstand. This the old rebel angels knew, And Satan fell beneath thy frown : Thine arrows struck the traitor through, And weighty vengeance sunk him down." B. II. Hy. 22. A passage indicating, with still greater minuteness and precision, the knowledge possessed by Job and his friends regarding the way of a sinner's acceptance with God, occurs in ch. xxxiii. 23 — 28. " The main purport of this chapter," says Professor Hirzel, whose general opposition to evangelical doctrine renders his opinion in such a case * The older versions greatly favour the interpretation contended for in the text. The LXX. gives the passage thus : — npocjaffxaTi 6e l-OavaTwae 6pd- Kovra aTroa-Tdrnv, By an edict he slew the apostate dragon. The Syi\ and Arab, of the Polyglott give the meaning of " And his hand killed the serpent which fled ; " and the Chald. Targ. that of " His hand devoured, or destroyed, Leviathan, which may be likened to the biting serpent." Walton renders the verb here by creavit ; but he has evidently confounded mn with iTQ. FIRST GOSPEL IN THE BOOK OF JOB. 205 more worthy of attention, "is directed to show that afflic- tions are often in the hand of God means of discipUne, by which the individual is led to a sense of his guilt, and delivered from the corruption of sin, in order that Job might view his trials in this light, and learn to use them for his salvation."* For this purpose Elihu tells Job (ver. 14) that there are two ways in which chiefly God seeks to deter men from sin, and keep their souls from perishing : the one is by warning visions, the other by painful afflictions (ver. 15 — 19). To these, however, he does not ascribe any saving virtue of themselves ; nor does he suppose that they will do more than lead the individual into a state in which, cured of his pride and self-con- fidence, he shall be disposed to avail himself of suitable means for securing the Divine favour. What these are he thus announces : — " Since tliere is on his behalf a commissioned Intercessor, One of a thousand, to announce to man his uprightness, And He [God] is propitious towards him [man], and hath said, Redeem from going down to destruction ; I have found a ransom [expiation] : His flesh shall become fresher than a child's, And he shall return to the days of his youth. He shall pray to God, and He shall be gracious to him ; He shall behold His face with exultation; And to man shall he render his righteousness. Then shall he sing to men, and say, — I have sinned, and perverted the right; But it has not been recompensed to me : He hath redeemed my soul from passing into destruction, And my life shall see light."+ * Hiob. erkliirt von Ludwig Hirzel, s. 201, 8vo. Leipz. 1839. + Ver. 23. as* implies here not possible but actual condition ; as in many other places, it is a particle of affirmation. Comp. ch. xiv. 5 ; xvii. 2 ("since there is not duplicity with me, mine eyes can endure their provocation "), 13 ; Prov. iii. 34, &c. — yhs, super eum, pro eo. Comp. Dan. xii. 1 — yOD "IH^Q. I take the former of these words in its proper sense, of one ivho is sent or com- missioned; and (according to a very common idiom of the language) as quali- fying Y>bn- The latter signifies an interpreter (Gen. xlii. 23), an ambassador 206 TRACES OF 4.CQUA1NTANCE WITH TOE Now, supposing Elihu to have possessed a knowledge of the great doctrine of propitiatory acceptance with God, (2 Chron. sxxii. 31), and an intercessor or mediator (Isa. xliii. 27) ; the last appears the preferable meaning here, as the case is not one in which the ofl&ces of interpreter or ambassador are so much required as those of an inter- cessor. Eationalist and Papist interpreters concur in finding here an interceding angel ; but for this there is no gi-ound. — One of a thousand, " i.e. a sort of person very rarelj'^ to be met with, and in this sense, perhaps, ^b' a. wonder, Isa. ix. 5." Lee, in loc. Compare ch. ix. 3 ; Eccles. vii. 28. The rendering " one of the thousands," which is followed by Hirzel, is inadmis- sible on several grounds, rhu being in the singular and inarticulated, and the allusion thereby introduced being foreign to tliis part of the sacred writings. — ITCV that whereby man might stand as just before God. Ver. 24. I follow Eosenmhiler, Ewald, &c., in regarding this verse as part of the protasis, and in fijiding the apodosis in ver. 25. In accordance with this, I have rendered the verbs in the past tense; which, indeed, the conver- sive Van prefixed to them renders grammatically necessarj'. — nrriD) from the verb rUTffl) he destroyed, means primarily perdition or destruction ; and so it is used Psa. Iv. 24, where the LXX. render by Sm^^opu, in Job svii. 14, &c. The rendering in the common version, pit, gives what is obviously a secondary and derivative meaning of the word {fovea, qu. locus v. instrumentum perditionis) ^ — 1S2, the word commonly used in the Old Testament in the sense in which XvTpov is used in the New, to denote a redemption-price, that which aftbrds an equivalent to the divine law for the liberation of the transgressor. Comp. Ex. xxi. 30 ; Job xxxvi. 18 ; Psa. xlix. 7, &c. Yer, 26. He shall beJiold, Sj-c. The verb here «T>1 may be either the imp. of Kal or of Hiphil. In the former case the subject is the man — " he shall see or behold;" in the latter it is God — "he shall cause iiim to see, &c." Perhaps the latter is preferable ; though elsewhere the phrase is always used as indicative of man's finding favour with the Almighty. — And to man, <^c. 1 have followed here the rendering given by all the interpreters to the verb'n'd> though I have some doubts of its accuracy. According to it the verb is the fut. in Hiph. of n^D. redirc, Hiph, redire faccre, rcddere. Is it not, rather, the pret. in Kal of l©>, sedere, permanere ! and ought not the passage to be trans- lated : " And to man shall his righteousness abide, or be established ? " In this case we give the Van convert, its proper force ; in the other not ; besides getting what seems to me a better meaning. If any object that the points forbid this rendering, all I can say is, it is easy to alter them, for surely.what was fixed at first very much by conjectm-e, maybe changed afterwards for any sufficient reason. The exegesis of the clause by Grotius is excellent, "Emendatum eum eo loco habebit quasi nunquam peccasset. Idem jus sanati quod forti." Ver. 27. -nri^ is by all the critics of note rendered as part of the verb Ttuj. con ere coming upon them, — the prophet announces, as consequent upon this, the introduction of that state of abiding excellence and felicity which is characteristic of the Messiah's reign. That the closing verses of this chapter relate to the ad- vent of the Messiah was not only the opinion of the ancient Jews,'"' but is confirmed to us by the authority of an inspired apostle. In a passage already cited in a former lecture, (Acts XV. 14 — 17,) the apostle James announces that this prophecy had its fulfilment in the establishment of the Christian Church, and the reception within its pale of Gentile converts upon equal terms with Jewish. That such a fulfilment v/as previously expected by the Jew^s, or could have been anticipated merely from what is stated by Amos, it would, perhaps, be rash to affirm. The passage, however, is one which no intelligent Jew could under- stand in any other way than as referring, generally, at least, to the Messiah ; for the hopes and destinies of that people were so interwoven with the promise of his a-p-penY- thinlv, be questioned ; Lut as tliis is not the place for elironological disquisi- tion, and as tLe table is sufficiently accurate for all tlie pui-poses of my present use of it, I have contented myself ATith implicitly following it. * Sohar: It stands written concerning the times of the Messiah by Amos, " At that time I will raise, &c," " When the ever-blessed God hath deter- mined, in the time of the Messiah, to stretch his right hand, with this excel- lent oil, over all, what stands written of that time ? What Amos says, &c," Ap. Schottgen, s. 189, 389. 360 MESSTAKIC ANNOUNCEMENTS IN THE ance, that in answer to the question of the prophet, " By whom shall Jacob arise? for he is small," (vii. 5,) no hesi- tation would have been felt in saying, " By the King Mes- siah." The prophecy, moreover, appears to be introduced with allusion to the promise of God to David by Nathan already considered. With the fulfilment of that promise the awful judgments denounced in the early part of the book, and in the commencement of the ninth chapter, might appear at first sight incompatible. If Israel was to be no better than Ethiopia, — if the chosen people were to be rejected, and all but utterly destroyed, — how, it might be asked, was God's promise to David, that in his seed should the throne of his kingdom be established for ever, to be fulfilled ? In reply to this, the prophet, as it were, assures his readers that, amid all the agitation and dis- asters which he had predicted, the word and the truth of God would stand secure. If not in the way which they had expected, yet certainly in a way consistent with his own vrords, and with the best interests of his church, that promise should be fulfilled. Nay, by the very agitation and suffering through which the sinful nation of Israel ■was to pass, and which was to end in their being rejected by God as his people, the way was to be prepared for the final and glorious accomplishment of this promise. " In that day,'' says Jehovah, — the day of vengeance to the sin- ners among his people, and of separation between the bad and the good, — " in that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as the days of eternity." The judgments of God upon his people, therefore, so far from being adverse to the fulfilment of his promise to David, were, by their rebellion and ungod- liness, rendered necessary as preparatory of that state of things in which alone such a fulfilment could take place, in the sense in which it was intended by God. Nor was this all that an intelligent Jew might have gathered from WRITINGS OF AMOS AND HOSEA. 261 this passage. From the announcement of Jehovah's de- termmation to preserve, in that new order of things which was to succeed the ruin of the Theocracy, those only who were true worshippers, it might be inferred that the king- dom of the Messiah was to be a spiritual kingdom, from which the ungodly, whether Jew or Gentile, were to be for ever excluded. From w^hat follows in ver. 12, " That they [the restored family and state of David, the Messiah and his church] may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the nations upon whom my name is called, sait,h Jehovah, who doth this," the Jews might further have learned, that this spiritual sway was not to be limited to persons of their nation, but was to embrace all those, even of the former enemies of God and his cause, upon whom his name was called, that is, who should acknowledge him as their God. Who shall say that these spiritual views of this prophecy were altogether hid from the minds of those ancient stu- dents of God's word, who " inquired and searched dili- gently" concerning that salvation which was to come ? HosEA. (B. C. 810 — 725.) Like his contemporary Amos, this [prophet directs his denunciations principally against the house of Israel, whose iniquities he depicts in the darkest colours, and whose condign punishment and final rejection he emphatically predicts. As in contrast to this, he introduces his Messianic intimations. Notwithstanding the utter rejection of the natural seed of Abraham, he,, nevertheless, declares that God's promise to that patriarch should be fulfilled. " Yet," says he, with evident allusion to Gen. xxii. 17, " the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered ; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said inito them, Ye are not my people, it shall be said to them, Y^e are the sons of the living God." (i. 10.) The latter part of this verse is quoted by Peter, (1 Ep. ii. 10,) and by Paul, (Rom. ix. 25, 26,) as referring to the introduction of converts into the Christian Church ; S6"2 MESSIANIC ANXOUNCEMEKTS IN THE and by the latter especially, as predictiDg the calling of the Oentiles in consequence of the rejection of the Jews. That the prophet directly, and in so many words, announces these things, the apostles do not necessarily afSrm ; but that his announcements refer to some such event as the fulfilling of the promise to Abraham from some other source than by the simple increase of his natural descend- ants, must have been plain to the mind of every attentive and unprejudiced reader of his words. If, notwithstanding the utter rejection of Israel as a people, the promise to Abraham was to stand firm, and the number of Israel w^as to be as that of the sand of the sea, — and if in that very place where the sentence of rejection had been uttered, the language of welcome and of acceptance was to be heard, — to what can it be supposed that the prophet refers, if not to the fact that the church of God, — the true seed of Abraham, — which, by the apostasy of the Israelites, was threatened with overthrow, Avas to be established in the midst of their nation in a new and permanent form, by the reception into it of such only, whether Jews or Gentiles, as possessed that character, the want of which had led to the rejection of the former possessors of its privileges ? From this it is no difficult matter to infer, as the apostle does, the calling of the Gentiles into a common participa- tion with the pious Jews of the promised blessings ; for after the national rejection of the latter, it was from among the former alone that the ranks of the sacred host could be recruited. Nor is such an idea so repugnant to Jewish notions and habits as we are apt to suspect. At no time were the privileges of the Theocracy perfectly exclusive. By the circumcision of slaves, procured from foreign na- tions, (Exod. xii. 44,) — by the admission of circumcised strangers to participate in the passover, (ibid. 48,) — by the command that they were to allow the child of an Edomite or Egyptian to enter the congregation of the Lord, (Deut. xxiii. 8,) — and by their continual practice in the reception WRITINGS OF ISAIAH. 263 of proselytes, — the ancient Jews were habituated to the idea that the number of the chosen people might be aug- mented by other means than that of natural descent. Isaiah. (B. C. 810 — 698.) The writings of this prophet excel all the rest in the number and interest of the Mes- sianic predictions which they contain. So prominently is this feature characteristic of them, that their inspired author has from a very early period in the history of the Christian Church, been regarded rather in the light of an evangelist than in that of a prophet.- Besides many glow- ing delineations of the peace, prosperity, and felicity, of the Messiah's dispensation,— introduced, generally, by way of contrast to the disasters caused by the invasion of Israel and Judah by the Assyrian and Babylonian powers, — we find in his writings many minute predictions of the Mes- siah himself, which have been fulfilled in the person and work of Jesus Christ. His descent from the family of David, (xi. 1,) — his birth by a virgin, at a time when that family was in a low and almost expiring condition, (vii. 14; xi. S,) — his union in his own person of the Divine nature with the human, (ix. 6,)— the outpouring upon him of the Holy Spirit in all his fulness, (xi. 2; xlii. 1,)— the blessing which, through him, was to come upon the district of Galilee, (viii. 23,) — the announcement of his advent by a forerunner, (xl. 3,) — the indifference and opposition with which he should be received by the Jews, (liii. 1 — 3,) — the miracles by which he should confirm his pretensions, (xxxv. 5, 6,) — his substitutionary and propitiatory suffer- ings for mankind, (liii. 4 — 6,) — his unjust and cruel death, (liii. 7, 8,)— his burial with the rich, (liii. 9,)— and his * " [Esaias] non propbetiam milii videtur teseve, sed evangelium." HieronjTni de Led. Script. § 5. " Noii tarn propheta dicendus est quain evan- gelista; ita enim universa Cliiisti, Ecclesiseque mysteria ad liquidum perse- cutus est, ut non putes enm de future vaticinari, sed de proeteritis historiam texere." Ejusd. Prol. in Es. Proph. " Isaias de Cluisito et Eeclesia multo plura quam cfeteri propheta^dt: ita ut a quibusdam evangelista quam pro- pheta potius diceretur." Augustin. De Civ. Dei. sviii. '29. 264 MESSIANIC ANNOUNCEMENTS IN THE triumphant reward in the success of his efforts for the sal- vation of sinners, (Uii. 10 — 12, &c.) — are all presented with a clearness of statement which is more like that of a his- torian recounting events which are past, than that of a prophet announcing transactions which are yet to be realized in a far distant futurity. Of these predictions, perhaps the most striking and in- teresting are those contained in chap. vii. 14 — IG ; in chap, ix. 6, 7; and in chap. lii. 13 — liii. 12. These, at any rate, have been more violently assailed than any of the rest by the perverse criticism of the Anti-Messianists ; and on this account, as well as on account of their own intrinsic impor- tance, demand a more careful consideration ere we pass on to other parts of the prophetic volume. The first of these passages contains the announcement of the fact that the Messiah was to be born of a virgin. It is as follows : — Eeliold the vii'giu conceives and bears a son, And slie shall call his name Immanuel. Milk and honey shall he eat, Until he know to refuse evil and choose good. For before the child shall knovr To refuse evil and choose good, The land shall be desolate Because of whose kings thou art troubled.* * Ver. 14. Some have labom-ed to show tliat rrch'^ may mean a you7ig married woman, as well as a \irgin ; but this neither the etymology of the word, (from cb'S to hide, le concealed, unlcnown,') nor the common usage of it, nor the translation of it by irap^tvo^ in the LXX., will admit. Another etymology, indeed, has been proposed, viz., from the Arabic tX^ (Ghalem) to he ripe, mature, S;c., from which it is argued that nabs' means a young woman, one an-ived at puberty. But even if this be adopted, it proves nothing more than that Almah does not denote a very young gud ,• it does not prove that it means a manied woman. Usage is conclusive argument against ihit> mean- ing. In no case is the word applied to one actually married, and it may be doubted if it is ever used save of a rirgo iUihata. Dr. Davidson adduces Prov. xxs. 10, as proving that "the idea of pui-ity is not necessarily involved WRITINGS OF ISAIAH. 265 Part of this passage is cited by Matthew (i. 22, 23) as fulfiUed in the birth of our Saviour by the Virgin Mary. The citation is made in such a way as to forbid the idea of a mere accommodation of the passage to that event, for the Evangelist expressly says, " All this ivas done that it anight he fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, &c." Keverencing the Divine authority, then, by which Matthew wrote, we are shut up to the opinion that this passage contains a direct prophecy of the birth of Christ ; and in this light -we must interpret it, whatever difficulties may be thereby thrown in our way. These difficulties, it must be acknowledged, are considerable, but surely they are not insuperable; and, j^erhaps, if interpreters had viewed the passage more in connexion with some of those in the term." {Sac. Herm. p. 495) ; but this is by no means clear. On the contrary, as " the way of a man with a maid" is there classed with things which the wiiter could not understand, the passage would rather require us to give its usual sense to Almah. The reasoning seems to be: — " To me it is wonderful how the eagle can soar through the air, how the serpent can move over the face of the cliff, liow the ship can sail over the ocean, hoAv a man can debauch a pure virgin ; but the most marvellous of all is hov/ an adulteress can commit her impurity, and treat it as if it were a matter of no more criminality than eating or diiuking." To regard Almah here as meaning a hai-lot, would clearly mar the whole force of the reference. The use of the article n prefixed, shows that some particular virgin, well known to the Jews, is referred to. — The verb nib' is in the Benoni part., and is expressive of a present action. Dr. Henderson says, that this part, with n:rT always indicates the flit iirify of the action specified; but this remark is surely too unqualified. In Gen. 1. 5, and Exod. xxxiv. 10, we have instances to the contrary; and, in general, where the future is indicated by this construction, it is strictly such a future as is near at hand, a. present ox paulo post future. Ver. 15. The prep, h here is used in its temporal meaning of up to the time of, until, as in Lev. xxiv. 12. Ver. 16. Tlie land shall be desolate, &c. This seems to be the best render- ing of this passage, both because it is incorrect to say that Aliaz and his people abliorred tJie land, and because no instance occurs of "iSQ following rity. Henderson adduces xvii. 9, as a case in point, but in his own note he finds it necessary to suppose a constructio pragnans, and make '2DO depend from some verb understood. The construction of this adverbial form with the verb stp is frequent. It may be doubted also whether ':DQ ever means by. See Eosenmiiller and Maiu'er in loo. 266 MESSIANIC ANNOUNCEMENTS IN THE peculiarities of the prophetical style, to which attention was called in a former Lecture, they would have arrived ere now at a more harmonious and satisfactory conclusion regarding it. After a careful consideration of what has been written upon it by the most eminent expositors, I feel convinced that no one has more nearly approached to a simple and tenable interpretation of it than Calvin and Vitringa ; the latter of whom has devoted to it a Disserta- tion, no less modest than learned and acute, in his Ohserva- tiones Sacra ;-'■■ and has also followed it in his Commentary on this Prophet. The leading outline of this interpreta- tion I shall, therefore, endeavour to place before the reader. It will, I suppose, be admitted on all sides that no objection can be found to the direct application of this passage to the Messiah, except what arises from the con- text in which it stands. In itself, the passage is strikingly appropriate to our Lord Jesus Christ; and so far as this goes, I believe, no one will object to its application. But when it is compared with the context, two questions arise : — 1st. How could the birth of Jesus Christ be a sign to those whom Isaiah then addressed ? and 2dly. What con- nexion could there be between the birth and growth of Christ, and the overthrow of the nations by whose kings Ahaz was then vexed ? In order to answer these questions, let us look at the course of events in the chapter before us. We are told at the commencement of it, that Ahaz and his people were under great alarm because of the threatened invasion of the kings of Israel and Syria; and that Isaiah was sent to meet them with an assurance that their fears were ground- less, for that the Lord had said of the design of their enemies, " It shall not stand, neither shall it come to pass." To the impious and incredulous monarch this message brought no comfort; and hence, the prophet, to convince * Lib. V. cap. 1. WRITINGS OF ISAIAH. 267 him of his sincerity, desires him to ask a sign of the Lord his God, either in the depth or in the height above. Ahaz rephes to this by saying, with a tone of mock humility or ironicai sneering, '• I will not ask, neither will T tempt the Lord," — a piece of ungodliness which draws down upon him the denunciation of the prophet, who assures him, that though he should escape the threatened danger, yet the Lord would bring upon him a more fearful calamity from the king of Assyria. From this exhibition of royal folly and wickedness the excited spirit of the prophet, rapt into one of those sudden ecstasies which have already been de- scribed as incident to the Jewish seers,— and beholding in apocalyptic vision, as already happening, the occurrence of that mighty event which was the pledge and foundation of all God's promises and blessings to the Jews, — announces, for his own comfort, and that of all the pious of his day, a sign which no caprice or iniquity of the monarch could hinder, and which carried with it an assurance that, what- ever Jehovah promised, that w^ould he perform. " Behold," says he, "the new thing is come to pass. The Virgin conceives and bears her son. That son is Immanuel, our delivering God. The land around him is in plenty and peace. Is anything too hard for God ? I assure you, that before that child, whom I now see in prophetic vision entering the world, shall have passed the years of infancy, (i. e. within a period long enough for such a thing actually to happen,) your enemies shall be vanquished and their empire overthrown." We are now in circumstances to say what answer should be given to the questions above proposed. If it be asked nov:; in what sense the birth of the Messiah could be a sign to the Jews of the truth of the prophet's message, the answer is. In the highest of all senses, inasmuch as upon the certainty of that event depended the certainty of every promise which God gave to his people. The word here rendered ngn (m«) denotes anything the certain existence 268 MESSIANIC ANNOUNCEMENTS IN THE of which affords a pledge and assurance of the certamty of somethmg else, which is either not an object of sense, or for which there is not the same independent security as for the former. Now, it was in Christ Jesus, and in him alone, that all the promises made to the Jewish people stood certain. Every blessing they had to expect rested upon the fact that they were the people among whom the Messiah was to appear. Hence, as Calvin observes,- " It is usual with the prophets, in order to confirm special pro- mises, to lay this as the foundation — that God would send a Eedeemer. On this general j^rop God every where rests whatever he specially promises to his people. Hence, as often as mention is made of famine, pestilence, or war, it is by placing the Messiah before their eyes that he seeks to inspire in them the hope of relief." The words of the prophet on the occasion before us, then, would convey a sign by an argument a, fortiori. It is as if he had said : — " I see the fulfilment of that great promise which we all believe : and if God will fulfil that, can you doubt his ability or willingness to fulfil such a promise as that I have come to give ?" Isaiah, in short, uses here much the same sort of argument as the apostle employs when he says, " If God withheld not his o^\ti Son, but freely gave him up to the death for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?" If we are sure of the greater, how can we doubt concerning the less ? If it be said that this, after all, is making an event as yet unrealized the sign of another event also future, I reply, that this is an objection which will apply as well to any other interpretation of the passage as to that which I have proposed. Upon no hypothesis is the sign referred to supposed to have had any actual existence, save in the conception of the proi^het; and the only difference in this respect between this interpretation and those which sup- * Commeut in loco. WEITINGS OF ISAIAH. J269 pose the prophet to refer to some female then alive, or then actually before him, is that in the latter case the sign would be something which was to occur soon, whilst in the other, it must be viewed as something which would not happen for some centuries. In both cases, the only pledge which the people had at the time for the accomplishment of the promised deliverance lay in their conviction, that what Isaiah saw in prophetic vision concerning this sign would actually come to pass. Now, on which hypothesis, let me ask, would this be stronger ? Let us suppose the prophet's words to announce merely the birth of a child in the ordinary course of nature ; and what conviction would the belief that the prophet foresaw that afford of his also foreseeing their deli- verance from the impending attack of the hostile kings ? As Lutlier pithily remarks, a bystander might in such a case have said, "That truly is no sign; for the prophet may have his own reasons for knowing that what he pre- dicts will come about in the ordinary course of nature."* If, on the other hand, we suppose that the sign here referred to was the birth of the Messiah, how much more dignified, forcible, and rational do the prophet's words become ! That v/as an event which human agency could not accomplish. It was one, moreover, of the occurrence of which no Jew could have any doubts. It was the most certain thing within the whole region of Jewish antici- pation. It was that on which their very existence as a nation rested. To doubt it, would have been to become sceptics in regard to the most fixed principles of their national and religious creed. If it were uncertain, their entire system of polity and worship was a delusion and a falsehood. To what, then, could a prophet have appealed with more effect, than to a fact which all who heard him knew was as certain to occur as that they were Jews, and * " Dar Jiide siniclat : nein ! das ist kein zeichen well der Prophet die Alma gescliwangert liat." Ap. Oalovii Bib. Illust. in he. 270 MESSIANIC ANNOUNCEMENTS IN THE their nation the chosen people of God? To them his de- claration would become thus of the nature of an oatli, in which the certainty of the one event was asseverated by an appeal to the certainty of another of infinitely greater moment, and of which they had full assurance from the word and promise of God. The answer to the second question above proposed, viz., What connexion could there be between the birth and growth of Christ and the deliverance of the land of Judea from the assaults of those who vv^ere then vexing it ? is to be found, I apjDrehend, in that ^peculiarity of the prophetic style which arose from the ijvesent and actual character of the prophet's visions. The whole scene here described must be thought of as passing in vision before Isaiah's mental eye. He saw the child born, not as what should occur ages afterwards, but as an event actually realized at the moment when he spoke. Hence, when passing from the vision of prophecy to the realities around him, with his soul full of what he had seen, he still continues to speak of it as something which had actually there and then tran- spired. In short, the birth of the child in the prophet's vision becomes to him a real event, and supplies him with a date from_ which to calculate the time of the accomplish- ment of his prediction concerning Israel and Syria. The meaning of his v/ords, then, seems to be, tha'; before the close of a period long enough for a child, born at that moment, to become capable of exercising moral discrimi- nation, the land, on account of whose kings Ahaz and his people were distressed, should be desolated, and the deli- verance of Judea secured.* * In the very able review of the former edition of this volurae,'^Vhich appeared in the '"Scottisli Congregational Magazine" for August and Sep- tember, 184=1, it is objected to the above explanation, that no instance can be adduced of m« being " applied to an event which did not actually occur in the experience of those to whom the sign was promised;" and the writer says, "We will yield the point at once, if any [such] instance can be pro- duced," p. 359. I acknowledge at once that I can adduce no such instance WKITINGS OF ISAIAH. 27 1 If these remarks be correct, it appears that this passage admits of a direct and immediate reference to the Messiah. and if the question is made to hinge on this, I have no hope of maintaining the exegesis I have adopted of the passage. But though, as the nature of the case required, a sign was usually some event that was to occur in the expe- rience of those to whom it was given, does it follow that an event, which, though not actually to happen dming the lifetime of those addressed, was yet, in the judgment of all, as certain as any event in the whole range of their experience, might not he appealed to as a pledge or assurance of the happen- ing of something else in which they were immediately interested? Let it be borne in mind, that the sign in this case was not merely that a?i event should happen, it was the great event, on which the very existence of the Jewish state rested. This became a sign of the deliverance of the Jews from their present danger, not by happening before that deliverance, but because it ren- dered it certain that such a deliverance must take place. As the Jewish state existed for the Messiah, his birth was a pledge and assui-ance that it should not be ovei-whelmed by external assaults untU. he appeared. And this was a present pledge, because the Prophet saw it, as it were, actually taking place whilst he stood before Ahaz and the people. The reviewer gets over the difficulty mentioned in the text, and so pithily put by Luther, by saying, that tlie sign " did not consist in the fact that a person, who was a virgin when the prophet spoke, did aftei-wards bring forth a son. It lay in the fact, that before the infant had attained the age of dis- crimination, the land was forsaken of both her kings." But is not this making a thing the sign of itself? Of what did Ahaz and his people need to have a sign ? Was it not of the deliverance of Judea, predicted by the pro- phet, from the threatened invasion by the kings of Israel and Syria ? How, then, could that deliverance itself, within a specified time, be a sigri that the deliverance would come? I cannot offer these remarks, without adding an expression of affectionate remembrance of the talented and learned friend, on whose re\iew of my book they are made. That review was furnished by the late John MoreU Mackenzie , and whilst it bears many tokens of being written by a friend of the author, it at the same time contains strictures worthy of the learning and genius of its writer, and to which I have felt it my daty to pay the most careful attention. Would that he had been spared to see what deference I have rendered to his suggestions I Learning, abilities, piety, amiableness such as his, are but too rare amongst us for us to be able to witness the premature extinction of such a life withoat po'g-nant regi-et. He was taken away in the very prime of his days, and in the midst oi^his usefulness. '■ Purpureus veluti cum flos succisus aratro." But in his lovely life, and his heroic death, amid scenes calculated to appal the bravest, vve have the animating assurance that he has only been trans- ferred to a higher sphere, where his fine intellect and his sublime piety shine amidst congenial splendour. 272 MESSIANIC ANNOUNCEMENTS IN THE Of all the hypotheses which have been framed in order to give it another application — such as, that the "virgin" here spoken of was a young woman standing near the pro- phet at the time, or that it is of the queen of Ahaz that the prophet spoke under that term, or that it is of his own wife that he utters this prediction — itmay be safely affirmed that they are contrivances which it is difficult to reconcile with either philology or reason. This has been made abun- dantly clear by the scrutiny to which they have been sub- jected by the friends of the Messianic application of this passage ; so that it is now very generally allowed, that it is only on the hypothesis of the latter that any satisfactory explanation of this prophecy can be hoped for. To such the interpretation above given is submitted, as upholding the Messianic reference of this passage, and at the same time freeing it from those unscrupulous assumptions by which it has been too often clogged. The next passage in the prophecies of Isaiah to which I would particularly call attention, is that remarkable an- nouncement in chap. ix. ver. 5, 6 : — For to us a child is born, to us a son is given ; And the government shall be upon liis shoulder ; And his name shall be called Wonder, Counsellor, Mighty God, Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and its peace there shall be no end, On the throne of David, and over his kingdom To establish it and strengthen it with justice and equity, Henceforth and for ever: The zeal of Jehovah of Plosts shall do this.* * Ver. 0. The names liere given to the subject of this prophecy are not appellations by which he should be called, but annunciations of the qualities by Avhich he should be distinguished, vbs is anything that is strange, iron- derfid, or mysterious; and seems here to denote the supernatural and miracu- lous character of the person spoken of. The abstract is used for the concrete for the sake of emi^hasis. — ys"!' Counsellor, an epithet descriptive of the iris- dom belonging to the subject of this prophecy.— -m: "jx Mighty God. (Comp. X. 21.) The adjective here denotes one Avho excels in power and strength; WRITINGS OF ISAIAH. O73 This passage is introduced by a highly poetical descrip- tion of the change which at some future period was to be effected upon the troubled affairs of the people of Palestine. The darkness which was to visit them was not to be per- petual ; deliverance was ere long to arrive, and that from a quarter least expected — "the region beyond Jordan, Galilee of the nations" (viii. Q3). Joy and peace should be the happy result of that light which was to arise upon them ; the burdensome yoke, with the staff of the exactor, should be broken as in the day of Midian ; and all the accoutrements of the warrior should be " given for a burn- ing and for fuel to the fire." This happy state of things the prophet traces to the birth of the great Deliverer, whom he had already announced as Immanuel, the child of the virgin, and whom he now, in accordance with that, describes by epithets indicative of the mysterious and glorious cha- racter which he should sustain. That this passage refers to the Messiah is placed beyond any reasonable doubt, not only by the reference to it in the New Testament,'"' but also by the terms of the passage itself. Of whom but of Christ could it be said that he was a " child born," and yet the " mighty God," — partaker of the attributes at once of humanity and deity ? To whom but to him could the title " Father of Eternity," or Eternal One, be applied? Who but he was the '^ Prince of Peace?" And though there it is used of Jehovah, in Dent. x. 17, and of the Messiah, in Ps. xxiv. 8 ; Zeph. iii. 17. The attempt of Geseuius and others to render this, "mighty hero," is altogether untenahle. There is no instance of *:« occurring as an adjective, and hesides, vv'ere it so used here, the phrase must liave heen Gihlor El, not El Glhhor — "i:s> 'ix Father of Eternitu, i. e. the ahsolutely etei'nal one. Accord- ing to an Oriental idiom, a person is said to he the father of anything of which he is ahsolutely possessed; comp. i-TlX the father of liioivlcdge = tlie abso- lutely wise, &c. The Arabs carry this idiom so far as to apply it to animals ; thus, they call the camel, Abu-Ajjub — the father 0/ pa^iewce = the supremely patient. — mViJ ~t3 Prince of peace. There is, perhaps, an allusion here to tlie Shiloh of Jacob's prophecy. * Luhe i. f]-2, 33. VII. T 274 MESSIAKIC ANNOUNCEMENTS IN THE were many besides him of whom it could be said that they occupied the throne of David, of none of them could it, without the grossest extravagance and absurdity, be added that his dominion was boundless, his reign uninterrupted, and his throne established and settled for ever. The notion that Isaiah here refers to Hezekiah, king of Judah, which is the favourite hypothesis of the anti-Messianists, is really not worth a refutation. Not only is such a notion incompatible with the terms in which the prophet speaks of the subject of his oracle, — not only does it involve a chronological blunder, for at the time this prophecy was uttered Hezekiah must have been nearly thirteen years of age, but it renders unmeaning the prophet's direct allu- sion to Galilee as the district which was to enjoy, in a remarkable manner, the blessings which he predicts; for Hezekiah was in no way connected with this district, and in no sense conferred blessings upon it. The only con- sistent and admissible view of this noble passage is that which understands it of Him who came out of Galilee, and fully realized in his own person the elevated description of the inspired seer. We now come to what may be justly considered the most remarkable passage in all the Old Testament regarding the Messiah — that which is contained in Is. Hi. lo — liii. 12. Lo ! my servant shall act prudently ; * He shall he lofty, and exalted, and greatly raised. Inasmuch as many "were astounded at thee — So disfigm-ed from [hemg that of] rxian was his countenance, And his aspect from [heing that of] the sons of man — Even so shall he hespiinkle many nations : Kings shall close tlicir moutlin hecause of him; For, what had not heen announced to them have they seen, And -what tliey had not heard have they perceived. Who hath helieved our message? And Jehovah's arm, on Avliom hath it heen made manifest? For he v.as growing up as a sucker hefore tliem, * Chap. lii. 13. Act prudently. The verh here signifies both to act prudently and to act prosperowtly. The older versions generally follow the former in this WRITINGS OF ISATAH. 275 And as a shoot out of a dry ground : There was no form and no grace in him that we should gaze on him, And no aspect that we should desire him. Contemned [Avas he] and the feeblest of men, A man of sorrows, and familiar with affliction, And as one hiding his face from us — Contemned, so that we esteemed him not. Verily our griefs he bore, and as for our sorrows he carried them ; And we deemed him [judgmeut-]stricken, smitten of God and afflicted : But he was wounded for our transgressions ; He was bruised for oui' iniquities ; The chastisement of our peace was upon him. And by means of his scourging tliere came healing to us. All we, like slieep, had wandered, We had turned each to his [own] way ; But Jehovah caused the guilt of us all to faU. upon him. He was distressed, yea he was sorely vexed; But he opened not his mouth. As a lamb [which] is led to the slaughter. And as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, So he opened not his mouth. By violence and by a sentence was he taken off. And of his generation who shall consider That he was cut off from the land of the living, That for the transgressions of my people was there smiting to him ? And they appointed his grave with the wicked (But with a rich man [was he] after his death). Though he had done no violence, And [there was] no guile in his mouth. But Jehovah was pleased to mortally wound [him]. When he shaU have offered his soul an offering for sin. He shall see seed, he shall prolong days. And the pleasure of Jehovah in his hand shall prosper. On account of the travail of his soul he shaU see [and] be satisfied. By his knowledge my righteous servant shaU make many righteous, And their sins he shall bear. Wlierefore I will share to him among the many, And with the mighty shall he share the spoil, Because he poured out his soul unto death. And was numbered with transgressors. He bore the sins of many, and for the guilty wiU he make intercession. In the commencement of this section of his writings the prophet introduces Jehovah as speaking of some one place, and this, on tlie whole, seems the preferable. Hengstenberg would combine the two ideas, and render " shall reign weU," i. e. wiaely and buccess- 276 ^lESSIAXlC ANXOUXCEMENTS IN THE whom he designates his " servant," and of whom he an- nounces, that though he was to silffer the utmost indigni- fully. This, liowever, seems liai-dlj the prophet's idea here. He rather in- tends to repveseut the servant of Jehovah as in all respects acting as he ought, whether suffering or teaching, and, in consequence of this, as exalted hy God to glory and honom'. This idea seems to be the key-note of the whole passage. Of the latter hemistich of this verse, Kimchi says, that all the words used in Hebrew to denote loftiness, are employed in it to indicate the pre-eminent exaltation of the subject of this prophecy. Ver. 14. So disfigured, &^c. Litt. "So disfigured from man," &e. The effect of the preposition here is to be ex- plained from such passages as 1 Sam. xv. 23 : " Jehovah bath rejected thee from [the state of] king;" Jer. ii. 25 :" Withhold thy foot from [being] unshod ;" Is. vii. 8: " from [the state of being] a people," &c. The common version takes the preposition in its comparative meaning ; but this requu-es something to be added to make sense. W^e cannot say, " His countenance was disfigured more than a man." We must insert words, so as to read the pas- sage thus: "disfigured more than that of any man." It is better to keep closer to the original, and understand the prophet as meaning, that his coun- tenance was so disfigured, that it was changed from that of man, and hence the stupor, the appalled amazement of those who beheld him. — Yer. 15. Besprinkle. The verb here used denotes elsewhere the act of a priest, who sprinkles that he may cleanse from sin ; comp. Es. sxix. 21 ; Lev. v. 9, &c. The only weighty objection to its being so understood here, is that elsewhere it is used with the prep, "jj^ or bi<, to denote the object sprinkled; whereas here there is no preposition ; and hence Eosenmiiller, Gesenius, and others propose to render it here, " shall cause to exult." But if no instance can be adduced of the verb without the preposition being used to signify " to sprin- kle," as little can any instance be adduced of its anjwhere signifying "to exult, or cause to exult." I would suggest that the verb with the preposition answers to our English word " sprinkle," and withozit it, to our word " be- sprinkle." We say, "I sprinkle on an object," or "I besprinkle an object;" and perhai)s the Hebrew usage of mi bs and mi ""'as analogous. Taken thus, the passage may be viewed as intimating that the Messiah would act the part of a priest to the nations. Ch. liii. 1. Message. — The original word signifies either something heard by the speaker which he relates, or something to be heard by those to whom he speaks. Here both ideas are combined, and therefore the fitting syno- nyme in our language is " message" — something the prophet had heard from Jehovah, and which he conveys to be heard by men. Yer. 2. Before them. — v:3b may mean either "before him" (Jehovah), or "before them" (the peo- ple, taken collectively). The latter seems better, as in the eye of Jehovah the Messiah was always ' well pleasing." (See Henderson tn Zoc.) Yer. 3. Feeblest of men, dU'X bin. These words have been variously explained. h^U is a verbal adjective, signifying primarily " ceasing, failing, frail," as in Psalm xsiix. 5, " how frail I am," Sorae add the meaning, " deserted by," and they WRITINGS OF ISAIAH. 377 ties, yet should he rise to unequalled power and eminence, and become the priest of many nations. The prophet then adduce Job xix. 14, as an instance. But there it is tlie verb svbich is used ; and it cannot be concluded from tliis that the adjective may be so used also, even granting that "failed" is not the proper rendering of the word in that passage. In Ezek. iii. 27, it is used in the sense of " forbearing." or " omitting to do something." Its only authorised meaning is one which involves the idea oi failing, or coming short of, and therefoie i t may well be rendered " feeble, or "frail." Coupled as here with the constructive genitive, it has the force of the superlative degree. Compare 2 Chron. xxi. 17; Fzek. vii. 24, &c. See Ewald Heb. Gr. § 501. " The frail of men," is equiva]ant to the " frailest or feeblest oilmen." Symmachus : eXax'o-TOi- ui-Spaji/ ; Vulg. "novissimus homi- num;" Syriac: "humblest of men," &c. — Familiar with affliction. Some render this, "known by affliction" (Symm. Martini, &c.), and understand by it that affliction was the characteristic mark of the servant of Jehovah, liut it is better to take the participle here in its ordinary acceptation of " known of," or " an acquaintance of," as indicating the Messiah's /amjZzanV?/ with sorrow. So the LXX. Yulg. Syr. &c. As one hiding his face from us. — Tlie original here is difficult. Literally it means, " as hiding faces from us," or " him." Some take the word rendered hiding (nnOD) as a substantive, and translate, " As the con- cealment of tbe face from him," i. e. as one whose aspect was so unpleasant, that people turned their faces from him. But for this there is no authority, and the meaning is very forced. The word is a participle, and as such must be dealt with. Eosenmiiller and others take itiu a causative sense : " As one causing to hide faces from him;" but this is destitute of authority from usage. Gesenius translates, " As one from whom there was hiding of faces ;" but this requires us to suppose an ellipsis of -roto, and a diEereut an-ange- ment of the words. The rendering I have given is quite literal, and it afiords a very good sense. He was so despised, &c., that he was like one who, under a sense of aflront and obloquy, shrinks from observation — hides his face from the public. So the LXX., Aquila Chald. Jahn, Dereser, &c. So tfiat : The 1 here is taken in its causal sense, as in eh. xiii. 2, and often. Ver. 4. Verili/, l2i<. This word properly conveys the idea of certainty or sureness. Symmachus renders it here ovtcos; and it is often used in the sense oiprofecio, sane, verily. Comp. Gen. sxviii. 16 ; Ex. ii. 14, &c. The adversative meaning " but," which many would give it here, belongs to it, just as it does to the Latin verhn ; but in both cases this is a secondary meaning. — Judgment-stricken, jyijj- This word does not designate any kind of striking; it refers specifically to the stroke of divine judgments. Comp. Gen. xii. IT ; 1 Sam. vi. 9 ; Ps. xxxis. 11, &c. Ver. 5. Healing to us. Litt., " It was healed to us." The render- ing, " we were healed," hardly preserves the force of the original. Yer. 6. Sheep. Prop., the sheep or flock. The word is articulated, because the refer- ence is to the well-known tendency of a flock to scatter and wander. Comp. Ps. cxix. 176 ; 1 Pet. ii. 25.— Caused to meet, TiSn Hiph. of s?:D, which with 1 signifies to impinge upon, to rush upon, assail. Piosenmiiller foUows Kimchi in 278 MESSIANIC ANNOUNCEMENTS IN THE speaks in his own person, and, still continuing to refer to " the servant of Jehovah," gives a fuller exposition of what adopting the last of these meanings : " Et Jova incursare ferte instar, sive hostiliter ??i cum irruere jussit crlmina nostrum omnium." Most, however, prefer the generic sense, and render as above. The rendering of the Vulg. " posuit in eo," is literal; but like the English version, "laid on him," is too feeble as a rendering of the original. — Guilt, ps* prop, sin, crime, guilt; and it seems bet- ter to retain this, than to render penalty, or punishmoit. What came upon Christ was neither our si«, strictly speaking, nor our pimishvienf, but oiir guilt, i. e. our liability to be treated as condemned. — Ver. 7. The first clause here has been very variously translated. Kimchi, following a primary sense of the verb to:, as relating to the exaction of debts, renders " He was exacted," or " It was exacted of him," and this several have followed. Henderson ren- ders, "He was sorely afflicted, yet he submitted himself ; " Gesenius, "He was harassed, although he was afflicted," taking «"im, according to an Arabic idiom, as equivalent to cum tamen; and Knobel, who follows substantially the same rendering, gives the sense thus : " He endured even murderous assaults ; although, poor and despised, his condition was already pitiable." Dereser and others, " The debt was exacted of him, and he humbled himself." But there seems no need to depart from the simple meaning of the words. ©33 is used to denote any kind of severe and distressing pressure ; andms? means to sorely vex, to mishandle cruelly. Comp., for the former, Ex. iii. 7 ; Is. iii. 12 ; ix. 8 ; ] Sam. xiii. 6 ; xiv. 24 ; and for the latter, Ps. cxvi. 10 ; cxix. 107 ; Ixxxviii. 7, &c. The two expressions convey the idea that the servant of Jehovah was to endure deep, intense, and harassing afflictions. — Ver. 8. The first clause here also has been variously rendered. Most of the German ' critics understand it as meaning, that death liberated him from suffering ; but this sense is jejune, and it has to be forced out of the words. Henderson gives it, "Without restraint and without a sentence he was taken away;" Hengstenberg, " He was taken [to execution] by an oppressive judgment." Knobel seems to me to have come nearest the exact idea of the prophet : " By violence and by judgment (i. c. of God) was he cut off," though I am inclined rather to understand the judgment of man, than of God. np"? means to take away, to take forcibly, to take from life, to cut off. See, for the last meaning, Ps. xxxi. 13; Jer. xv. 15; Ezek. xxxiii. 4, 6. liJS' (from the verb n25?, clausit, cohibuit, &c.) means restraint, constraint, oppression, violence. Comp. Ps. cvii. 39, where there is also an instance in point of the prep. Jd being used with a causative or instrumental force. 'EEti3?D is properly a judicial sentence. Cf. Jer. vii. 16; iv. 12; xxxix. 5, &c. These two words may be taken as a hendiadys = a violent sentence ; but I would rather suggest that the statement is, that the servant of Jehovah was to be at once the victim of violence and of a judicial sentence. His was to be an unjust and cruel death, and yet the forms of public justice were to be preserved, and he was to be cut off by a judicial sentence as well as of violence. This brings out an additional point of agreement between this prophetical description and the actual expe- WRITINGS OF ISAIAH. 979 had been more briefly announced by God himself concern- ing him, enlarging upon the unmerited sufferings of the subject of his prophecy, on the mild and benevolent pa- tience with which he endured his sufTerings, and on the glory and honour which were to accrue to him as the result of these sufferings in the salvation of those for whom they had been undergone. The question mainly to be deter- mined in regard to the reference of this passage obviously is, Whom does the prophet here designate as " the servant of God?" rience of our Lord in liis closing sufferings. As to the second clause of this varse, I have followed Umhreit in the reading I have given. The guesses of iaterpreters at the meaning, are endless. Most agree that "n is here to be taken in the sense of contemporaries, the generation to which he belonged. It is not as Storr, Gesenius, &c. take it, a nominative absolute here, but governed by the preposition n^< (Ewald), "as to his generation," &c. nmir" is the Pilel of n'iB—to stretch forth. It signifies to stretch forth one's thoughts, to meditate, to consider reflectivelj'. Cf. Ps. c:Jiii. 5. The >3 here is demon- strative, not causal. It indicates that which was not the object of due con- sideration to the contemporaries of the JMessiah, viz. that it was for (p, prop' ter, oh; Deut. vii. 7; Ps. Lxviii. .30) the transgressions of God's people that he was cut off— a prediction striidngly verified in the case of our Lord. — Yer. 9. And they appointed, |n^- Litt., "there was given;" but this verb often sig- nifies to appoint, decree, intend, and such seems to be its force here. It was intended that the servant of Jehovah should have his sepulchre with the wicked; but he was with a rich man in or after his death. The contrast be- tween the plural, D'S"CT , loicksd vien, and the singular, T^iji?, rich man, is noticeable here. — Ver. 40. Mortally to loound him, ^bnn. Cf. Mic. vi. 3; Nah. iii. 19; Jer. xiv. 17. — Ver. 11. On account of the travail, &c. The com- mon version, "He shall see of the travail of his soul," cannot be retained. If we take "travail" literally, this would mean that the T.Iessiah should see toil and suffering after he had finished his work, and as part of his reward, which would be absurd. If we take it tropically for the fruits or rewards of toil, the meaning would be that he should receive only part of these, which cannot be supposed. The preposition p here has the sense of propter, oh, as in verse 9 ; and the meaning is, that on account of his travail he should see and be satisfied — i. e. shall realize a fully satisfying result. Ver. 12. — I will share, &c. Some render this, " I will allot him many ;" but the 1 before D'2"l forbids this construction. The verb relates to the sharing of spoil, or the division of property. Hitzig and others take am here in the sense of mag- nates, m'dchti gen; Knohel, grossen, great ; Gesenius, pote7ites. This is probably the meaning here, though it is somewhat doubtful. 280 MESSIA^'IC ANiNOUNCEMENTS IN THE Very numerous have been the theories which have been formed in order to answer this question in a way unfavour- able to the Messianic claims of the passage. To recount and examine all of these would be not only wearisome, but a needless waste of time and space, as most of them are only modifications of certain leading hypotheses which have had their origin in the school of the Jews, and the refutation of which involves the overturn of all the sub- ordinate hypotheses which have been erected upon them-"^ Those which appear most worthy of consideration, and that, chiefly, because of the number and eminence of those who have maintained them, are two : — the one, that by the servant of God is designated collectively the more pious portion of the Jewish nation ; and the other, that by this term is intended the whole body of the Jews. On these two hypotheses it may be of service to offer a few remarks for the purpose of showing their utter unsoundness. Those who maintain the former hypothesis, suppose- that the speakers in the fifty-third chapter are the wicked portion of the Jews, who, on their return from Babylon, and having witnessed the superior excellence and greater triumph of their more pious countrymen, are introduced as lamenting their own folly and sin, and expressing their obligations to the righteous. Against this theory there lie the most weighty objections. In the first place, it is purely gratuitous in its assumption. No evidence can be adduced to show that the two jiarties here are portions of the same nation, or that the phrase " servant of God " w^as * Tlie reader -who wislies to see this subject treated on the esliaustive sys- tem, may consult Heugstenberg's Christologie, i. 168 — 396. Part of this valuable and i^rofoundly learned dissertation has appeared in English in the American pjiblical liepository, from which it has been reprinted in the Edin- burgh Biblical Cabinet, vol. ix. p. 182. Valuable also is the work of Eeinke, Exegcsk Crilica in Jesaice cap. lii. 13 — ^liii. 12 ; .seic de Mcssia expiatorc pasmro ct morituro Commcntatio, Monast. Westphal. 1836. Eeinke is a Roman Catholic of tbe school of Jahn and Hug, and is at present Professor of Theo- logy at Munster. WRITINGS OF ISAIAH. 281 ever used to designate the righteous i)art of the people as distinguished from, the wicked. All this is mere assump- tion, neither very prohahle in itself, nor supported by a single instance in which that phrase is used. But 2ndly. This hypothesis is palpably opposed to the statements of the passage itself. The prophet, for instance, distinctly intimates that the speakers in the fifty-third chapter felt themselves indebted to the servant of God for the exemp- tion from deserved suffering which they enjoyed through what he had endured (ver. 5, 6). Now, on the hypothesis under consideration, this must mean, that in Babylon the righteous portion of the Jews alone had suffered, whilst the wicked enjoyed an exemption from suffering on account of their vicarious endurance. But is such a statement consonant with fact ? Is there the slightest hint in history that such a distinction was made in Babylon between the pious Jews and the wicked? Is not the very opposite more in accordance with all we know of the state of the Jews during their exile, when many of the pious w^ere pro- moted for the services they rendered to their masters, while the ungodly and insubordinate were frequently severely punished? It is preposterous, then, to suppose for a moment that such is the meaning of the prophet in this passage. Besides, in what sense could it have been said that the pious portion of the Jews had suffered a violent death, (ver. 8,) — had been buried with the wicked and the rich, (ver. 9,) — had offered themselves voluntarily as a sacri- fice for the sins of their countrymen, (ver. 6, 7,) — and yet had been exalted to enjoy happiness, to make many right- eous, and to make intercession for the transgressors ? (Ver. 10 — 12.) On such an hypothesis these expressions have obviously no meaning, or one which is self-contra- dictory ; — a reason amply sufficient for rejecting the hypo- thesis, as altogether inaj^plicable to the explanation of this passage. The second hypothesis appears in a double form. By 282 MESSIANIC ANNOUNCEMENTS IN THE all who have adopted it, the servant of God is regarded as the body of the Jews ; but some understand thereby, only that generation of the Jews which died during the Baby- lonish captivity ; whilst others understand by it the nation, as such, without any such limitation. By the former, the speakers in the fifty-third chapter are held to be the gene- ration of the Jews which returned from exile ; by the latter, the speakers are supposed to be the surrounding heathen. I shall briefly consider these opinions successively. Let us suppose, then, in the first place, that the servant of God is the whole of that generation of the Jews which had died in exile ; and that the speakers are the collective body of Jews who were alive at the close of the exile, and whom the prophet introduces as expressing the joy which they felt, that, in consequence of what their fathers had suffered, they had been delivered from bondage, and brought out of the grave of exile, into the life of restoration to their native land ; and, let us inquire how far this hypothesis agrees with the train of thought and expression in the passage itself. Now, in the first place. What, upon this theory, are we to understand by the statements in verses 4 and 5 ? According to it, these must mean that the former genera- tion of the Jews which had died in exile, had done no sin, but had suffered solely for the sins of their children. But is this the doctrine of Scripture ? Is it even common sense ? How, upon any intelligible principle, can sin be punished in one generation which is to be committed in that which follows it ? We read in Scripture of children suffering for the sins of their fathers ; but it is certainly a novel doctrine to find it asserted, that fathers are punished for the sins of their unborn posterity. It is plain, that the hypothesis which fixes on this passage such an idea must be false. 2ndly. How, upon this hypothesis, are we to account for the closing verses of the passage under con- sideration, in which is contained a description of the livinfj glory of the seiwant of God? By the supposition, that WRITINGS OF ISAIAH. 283 servant is the generation of Jews who had died in Baby- lon ; how% then, I ask, come they to be spoken of as still alive, and in the enjoyment of great honour and felicity? If it be said, that the latter part of the chapter refers to the generation then alive, this will introduce great con- fusion into the prophecy ; for we shall then have the speakers applying the same term alternately to themselves, and to the generation of their fathers. At lii. 13, the servant of God who was to be exalted, must, on this inter- pretation, mean the living generation; then ia the next verse, the servant of God whose visage was to be marred, must mean the former generation. But to any reader, it will be obvious that all this is mere gratuitous assumption, for the language of the prophet plainly intimates, that it is of one and the same person that he speaks in all these verses. Had he written in such a style as would thus be ascribed to him, no confidence could have been entertained by his readers in the possibility of ascertaining with any degree of jDrecision his meaning. 3rdly. In chapter liii. 7, it is said, " He was oppressed, and he was afflicted; yet he opened not his mouth; he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth." According to this theory, these words describe the meekness, patience, and unresist- ing submission with which the former generation of the Jews had gone into exile and submitted to its penalties. But was this the case ? Did they really exhibit this meek and willing acquiescence in the claims of the king of Baby- lon ? On the contrary, did they not resist to the last, and by every means in their powder endeavour to avert the calamity with which they were threatened ? How, then, can we suppose that the prophet would make use of such language in reference to them ? Here comes in that modification of the hypothesis under notice, which consists in making the speakers in this 53d chapter the surrounding heathen. By those who adduce 284 MESSIANIC ANNOUxXCEMENTS IX THE this view, it is supposed that the praises bestowed upon the servant of God, the Jewish people, are to be regarded merely in the light of a piece of flattery, uttered for the purpose of gaining the favour of the Jews, and here drama- tically put into the mouths of the heathen by the prophet. On this su^Dposition, it is hardly worth while to offer many remarks ; its entire gratuitousness, and direct opposition to the real character of Isaiah s wTitings, must awaken an insuperable objection to it in every pious and reflective mind. When, we may ask, does Isaiah or any other of the prophets, introduce the heathen as uttering their erroneous and false opinions, without giving due warning of the fact, of which there is here no trace? Besides, what writer who had any regard to consistency — any dramatical talent, if the passage is to be viewed as dramatical — would intro- duce a body of persons professedly acting the part of reli- gious penitents, and, at the same time, giving utterance to the language of false and fulsome flattery ? And, finally, even were such an idea admitted, as serving to account for the language in the 53d chapter, it will not account for the language used by Jehovah himself in the 52d, where the innocence of his suffering servant is as clearly, though not as fully, set forth as in the context which follows. On these grounds, we must reject the idea that the speakers here are the heathen. — Against the whole hypothesis, that the servant of God in this context is the Jewish people, it may be further remarked, that it assumes a doctrine to which the Old Testament, as well as the New, gives no place, viz., that the sufferings of one man, or body of men, may form a meritorious satisfaction for the sins of another. Even De Wette admits, that " in the Old Testament, the doctrine of human substitution is not found, and, accord- ing to the prevailing doctrinal idea, cannot be found. (Mic. vi. 6 — 8.)"'"''' Nothing, then, can be more violent * Dc mortc Christi exjnaioria, p. 22, ap. Hengstenberg, Christ, i. s. 882. WEITINGS OF ISAIAH. 285 than to suppose that Isaiah would so prominently intro- duce it into this part of his writings. The refutation of these two hypotheses removes the only interpretations which have ever come into real rivalry with that which finds in this passage a direct and formal prediction of the Messiah. How feebly that rivalry is maintained by them, the remarks already made will enable us to judge. Let us turn, then, gladly and thankfully, to that interpretation which was the first evor put upon the passage,* which was the prevailing interpretation in the early Christian Church, and which has come down to us sanctioned by the infallible authority of our Lord and his apostles.j- To this interpretation, there is nothing in the passage itself which offers the slightest difficulty ; on the contrary, all its statements receive upon it a due and harmonious explanation. The sinlessness of the suffering servant of God, — his vicarious substitution for others, — his meekness and unrepining gentleness under the cruel- ties of his enemies, — his triumph in the salvation of those for whom he suffered, — and even the historical allusion to the circumstances of his burial and resurrection, — all find their counterpart and fulfilment in the life and work of Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ of God. In vain has the perverse ingenuity of his enemies sought to find these criterial qualities exemplified in any other. The im- proved philology and hermeneutics of modern times, have only served more clearly to show that the earliest interpre- * A gi-eat collection of Jewish testimonies in favour of the ]\Iessianic in^ terpretatiou, is furnished by Hulsius, Schottgen, and others. As a specimen, the following may be given. Targuin Jonathan: "Behold, my servant the Messiah shall prosper, &c." Tanchuma: "Behold, &c. This is the King Messiah, -who shall be extolled, and exalted, and be high. He shall be ex- tolled above Abraham, exalted above Moses, and be high above the minister- ing angels." B. Alshcch : " The Piabbins of blessed memory, with one mouth, accordmg to the received traditions, declare that this discourse is concerning the I'ang Messiah." Ap. Hulsii, Theol. Jiid. p. 3-21, 8-2-2. + See Luke xxii. 3T; John xii. 38; Acts viii. 28 ; 1 Pet. ii. 21—25, &c. 286 MESSIANIC ANNOUNCEMENTS IN THE tation of this memorable passage is not only the best, but the only one that can stand the test of a searching and scientific scrutiny.* Joel. (B. C. 660.) This prophet does not introduce into his writings any allusion to the Messiah personally, but he announces as characteristic of the latter dispensa- tion, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon individuals * of all ranks and ages, without respect of sex or any of those official distinctions which were peculiar to Judaism, (ii. 28 — -2)0,) — a prophecy which Peter announced as fulfilled on the day of Pentecost, when he and his fellow-disciples assumed the office of teachers under the guidance Divine influence. (Acts ii. 16 — 21.) MicAH. (B. C. 758—669.) This prophet furnishes several delineations of the glories of the Messiah's reign, some of which are identical with those found in Isaiah.f He also announces the union of the divine and human natures in the Messiah, — refers to his mysterious birth, as a matter w4th which the Jews in his day were familiar, — and especially names Bethlehem as the place where he was to be born : — And thou, Betlileliem Ephratah, Too small art tlioa to be among the communes of Judah. — Out of thee shall He come forth unto me TVlio is to be ruler in Israel. But his forthgoings are from old, from the days of eternity. * See Hengstenberg, I. c. Henderson in he. Alexander do. Jahn, Append, in Her. Sac. Fas. ii. p. 3 — GO. Ivnobel, in his Comment, on Isaiah, has -with his usual perspicuity stated the reasons pro and contra each oi the views adopted as to the reference of this passage. He decides against the Mes- sianic application, but his only plausible reasons rest on the tacit assumption, that the " servant of Jehovah" in this passage must he exactly the same as in chapter xlii. 1 — 7, and xlii. 1 — '.■, an assumption which is by no means to be conceded. + Ck)mp.chap.iv. 1— 3, with Is. ii. 2— 4; chap.vi. C — 9, with Is. 1.11— 17, &e. WRITINGS OF JEEEMIAH. 287 Wherefore He [Jeliovah] shall deliver them up until the time when she who is to bear shall bear, and the residue of his brethren shall return unto the sojis of Israel.* jEREMLm. (B. C. 628—586.) As this prophet delivered his oracles very near the time of the Babylonish captivity, not only are his writings filled with sorrowful meditations upon the crimes and ruin of his nation ; but his Messianic predictions partake of a hue borrowed from the prevailing colour of his feelings. They consist chielly of announce- ments of the abolition of the Levitical system r.f worship, (iii. 16 — 18,) and the making of a new and spiritual cove- nant with the chosen people (xxxi. 31 — 34.) With these are coupled several announcements of the personal Mes- siah, under the name of " the Righteous Branch" whom God was to raise up to David, and with evident allusion to the promise of God to David by Nathan the prophet, * Mic. V. 1, 2. Newcome reads the second member of the first parallelism interrogatively, as the best mode, in the present state of the text, of bringing out the sense ; but this does not appear necessary, and the arrangement is against it ; nrn? "(*1*:? is literally " small to be," j. e. too small to be. — D'Db« prop. communes from M« to consociale. »b is not meo bono (Eosenmiiller) nor /or me, so as to fulfil my designs (Hitzig) ; but " me volente, ego ilium prodire jubebo." (Maurer.) And his forthgoings, &c. The word thus rendered, vnx!fim> usually means the place, and not the act of going forth. (See Hengsteuberg, Christ, iii. 29S ft'.) The clause in which it occurs here is in evident contrast to the preceding, and intimates, that though, as a man, the Messiah was to come forth from Bethlehem, yet, his birth-place was eternity. " The true sense of the words, ' his forthgoings are from antiquity, from the days of eternity,' is doubtless. He has been from eternity ; so that they teach the eternal existence of the Messiah, and of course his existence before his bii'th, his pre-existence, his divinity, and in union with the former hemistich, his in- carnation. As in hem. a,, an actual forthgoiug or origin of the Messia,h from Bethlehem is spoken of, so for the sake of antithesis his being from eternity is designated as a going forth of the same, and that from eternity; properly, in the case of an eternal existence, one cannot speak of a going forth, for the foretime cannot bring fortli eternity." Caspari uch. Micha den Moras- thiteii und aelne proph. schrift, &c. s. 217. — This accords with Isaiah's applica- tion to him of the title, " The Father of Eternity." For evidence of the 3Iessianic reference of this passage, see Matt. ii. 5 ; John vii. 41, 42. Q88 MESSIANIC ANNOUNCEMENTS IN THE (xxiii. 5 — 8 ; xxxiii. 15 — 22.) The most remarkable fea- tm'-e in these aiinoun cements, is the title "Jehovah our righteousness" which the prophet applies to the Messiah. Understanding by the term " Kighteousness" here, what is its leading biblical meaning, justification, or acquittal in the sight of God, the prophet must be viewed as announcing the grand fundamental doctrine of Christianity, viz. ; the justification of sinners through the merits of incarnate Deity. To avoid this conclusion, many have proposed to render the passage by " Jehovah is our righteousness ;" and in support of this, they adduce the practice which pre- vailed among the Jews, and which had been received by them from the patriarchs, of giving significant names to objects, not so much for the sake of describing the objects themselves, as indicative of the feelings of the person by whom they were bestowed. Thus Moses called an altar which he built, " Jehovah-nissi," Jehovah my Banner, as a memorial of the Lord's gracious interposition on behalf of his people when fighting against the Amalekites, (Exod. xvii. 15 ;) and so in like manner, it is contended, that the prophet here simply affirms, that the people who shall live under the Messiah's sway, shall, in gratitude to God for sending him, give him the memorial-name of " Jehovah- tsidkenu," Jehovah, our Righteousness. It must be allowed, that in this objection there is considerable force ; the more especially, that in chapter xxxiii. 16, the same name is appa- rently bestowed by the prophet on Jerusalem. Let it be observed, however, in the first place, that there are certain palpable difTerences between such announcements as that concerning Moses in the case referred to, and that made by the prophet here concerning the Messiah. (1.) The fact affirmed is not the same in both. In the one case, we are told that a particular individual gave a significant name to a certain object connected with a specified trans- action ; in the other, we have only a general declaration that an individual about to appear shall bear a particular WRITINGS OF JEREMIAH. O39 name, descriptive of his character and office. (2.) The ends to be answered by the two statements are not the same for both. Tlie pm-pose of the one is, that the reader may know the simple fact, that a certain person took the specified way of sliowing the importance he attached to a certain transaction ; the purpose of the other is, that we may obtain a more correct idea of the character and office of the individual announced. Under these circumstances, it seems hardly competent to compare the two cases for the purpose of putting upon the latter the same interpret- ation that w^e put upon the former, ^ndly. The Scriptural usage of the phrase '• his (or its) name shall be called," is in favour of the meaning which Christians generally have put upon this passage. It may be asserted confidently, that where that phrase is used for the purpose of announc- ing a significative name as pertaining to any object, it inti- mates the actual realization, at some future period, in that object of the fact or quality, as the case may be, which the significative name denotes. Comp. Gen. xvii. 5 ; xxxii. 28 ; Isa. iv. 3 ; Ixii. 4, &c. Upon this principle, the statement under consideration must mean, that the Messiah was actu- ally to be Jehovah the Eighteousness of his people. 3rdly. It is not unusual wdth the prophets to announce the truth concerning the Messiah, by giving him significative names. Comp, Isa. vii. 14; ix. G. So also in the New Testament, he is called " the True light," " our Peace," " our Hope," and is said to have been "made of God unto us, Wisdom, and Eighteousness, and Sanctification, and Eedemption.'"* Finally, with regard to chap, xxxiii. 16, it is to be observed, firstly, that it is not exactly parallel to chap, xxiii. 6, but is strictly rendered " This (is he) who shall proclaim to her," &c. or, taking the verb «:?i^: as in the Niphal conjugation, " This (is he) who shall be called by her," &c. ; and secondly^ that the readings here fluctuate between that in the * John i. 5; Epli. ii. U; 1 Tim. i. 1 ; 1 Cor. i. 3 Til. 290 MESSIANIC ANNOUNCEMENTS IN THE received text, and one the same as in chap, xxiii. 5. From this passage, therefore, no sohd support is obtained in favour of the objection to the ordinary interpretation of the passage under consideration. The removal of this objection on these grounds, leaves us in indisputable pos- session of the valuable testimony which this passage affords, of the knowledge dispersed among the Jews con- cerning the Divine dignity and justifying work of the promised Messiah.^'' Daniel. (b. c. 606 — 534.) The IMessianic announce- ments of this prophet, though not numerous, are very remarkable. Besides intimating in general terms the felicity and perpetual duration of the Messiah's reign, (ii. 44,) he expressly announces the coming of the Messiah as the Son of Man, attended by the clouds of heaven, to the Ancient of Days, to receive this kingdom, (vii. 1 3, 14,) — a statement which must be understood, I apprehend, of our Lord's triumphal ascension into heaven after his resur- rection, when he carried his human nature into the upper sanctuary, and, surrounded by a cloud of angels, took his seat as the God-man on the eternal throne, j Daniel also announces his violent and propitiatory death ; nay, fixes a time when that shall take place, and when, as consequent thereupon, the city of Jerusalem and the holy place shall * It is remarkable tliat, even where the Jews did not recognise in this passage any ascription of Divine honour to the Messiah, they nevertheless reo'arded it as setting forth his mediatorial righteousness. " Scripture calls the name of the Messiali The Lord our righicousness, because he is the medi- ator of God, and even obtains righteousness through his agency." Sepher. Ekrim, quoted by Le Moyne in his Dissertation on this passage. + Comp. Acts i. 9; Psalm Ir.viii. 17, 18. In the Xew Testament, cloud or clouds is a tenn used to designate a body of persons, as in Heb. xii. 1. The same is its meaning, obviously, in 1 Thess. iv. 17, where it is said of the resurrection and ascension of the blessed, that they shall ascend " in clouds" to meet their Lord. On the same principle, we ought, I submit, to interpret the frequent assertion, that our Lord is to " come in the clouds " to judge the world. Are not these clouds tlie attending myriads of " His own and his Father's angels"? WEITIXGS OF DAXIEL. OQl be destroyed (ix. 24 — 27). Whatever difficulties may attach to the determination of tlie time announced by Daniel for these events, two things seem to be placed beyond any doubt in regard to the meaning of this passage. The one is, that in it there is a real and direct announcement of the Messiah's death, as a sacrificial substitute for the sins of man, and of the sufficiency of his projiitiation, " to shut up transgression ; — to seal the sin-offerings ; — to expiate iniquity; — to bring in an everlasting righteousness; — to seal vision and prophet; — and to anoint [with the oil of gladness and triumph] an All-holy one."* The other is, that from whatever point we begin to calculate the sj^ecified time, provided only that we fix upon some point not far diverging from the ?era of the return of the Jews from exile, to which we are bound by the general language of the prophet, we shall find its close at or near to the period of our Saviour's death. These two points being ascer- tained, it is unnecessary for us to inquire further at present into the meaning of the passage, as they sufficiently fix its application to our Lord, to justify us in classing this pas- * A few sliglit departures have been made here from the common version, for which it may he necessary to account, i^by) is from the verb .sbD fo nhut up, to restrain. A various reading would make it part of the verb rf!2 to fiaish, or complete, and this our translators have followed. The textual reading, however, is unimpeachable, and gives a meaning more in accordance with what follows. To restrain transgression is the great end of the gospel of Jesus Christ.' — Dnn"? to seal. As a seal renders the letter to which it is affixed private, so the phrase to seal, is used tropically in Scripture to denote the placing of a thing in concealment. Comp. Deut. xxxii. .34 ; Job ix. 7; xiv. 17; Isa. xxix, 11, &c. From this, the transition to the idea of abolition is very easy, the concealment of certain things being, ipso facto, their annihilation. The meaning here, then, I take to be, that the Messiah should put an end to the sin-offerings of the Mosaic economy ; comp. ver. 27. m«!2n is the word used by Moses to designate the sin-offerings under the laAV. — "iM is the verb properly used to designate the offering of a ransom, or expiation for sin. The sealing of vision and of prophet, seems to refer to the removal of the prophetical office from the place it was to occupy till the coming of the Messiah. The verb is the same as in tlie preceding clause, where it is predicated of the sin- offerings. Comp. Matt. xi. 13, •^09 MESSIAKIC ANNOUNCEMENTS IN THE sage among the most remarkable and instructive of the Messianic predictions of the Old Testament. EzEKTEL. (B.C. 595 — 536). As this prophet delivered his oracles dm^ing the time of the Babylonish exile, his references to the Messiah are generally introduced in im- mediate connexion with predictions concerning the return of the Jews to their own land ; the one blessing being as it were suggested to his mind by the other. Hence, he speaks of the Messiah by the name of " David," (xxxiv. ^3, &c.) and of his kingdom, as if it were to consist in a com- plete re-establishment of the theocracy as it was in the happiest days of that prince (xxxvii. 1 — 28). At the same time, he gives us a key to the spiritual interpretation of these prophecies, by continually introducing into his Mes- sianic pictures, images and descriptions indicative of the fact, that it was no literal empire whose fortunes he pre- dicted, but the rise and establishment of that invisible and eternal kingdom " which is not meat and drink, but right- eousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost." Thus, in chap, xxxiv. 25 — 27, we have an animated announce- ment of the purifying operation of the Holy Spirit under the new economy, and of the entire spiritual renovation of the people of God in consequence. So also in chap, xxxvii. 26, 27, God announces, concerning the new state of things under the Messiah's reign, that he will make with his people a covenant of peace ; that he will set his sanc- tuary among them ; that his tabernacle shall be with them, and that he will be their God, and they shall be his people. The terms of these passages are such, that it would be doing violence to them to understand them in any other sense, than as predicting the realization, in the kingdom of the Messiah, of those scenes of holy beauty and spiritual excellence of which the Theocracy, even in its most per- fect state, contained only the outward type. In the eight concluding chapters of his book, the prophet WHITINGS OF EZEKIEL. 293 carries out his theocratical adumbration of the latter dispensation to an extent which has rendered this por- tion of his writings amongst the obscurest parts of the Old Testament. Havernick, who has expounded the writings of this pro- phet with great learning and ability, gives the following summary of this part of his book: — " I. In the new Mes- sianic Age there ensues a new and solemn occupation by Jehovah of his sanctuary, in which the whole fulness of the Divine glory shall dwell and be manifestci. To this end a new temple is built, different from the ancient one, altogether in keeping with that elevated design, and worthy of it, especially of mighty dimensions to contain the new communities, while a sanctity extends over the whole com- pass of the temple, so that in this respect there no longer obtains any distmction of one part from another. To this- end also everything is subjected to the most careful and minute destination, every individual part, and especially what had formerly remained indefinite, receives hence- forward a higher Divine sanction ; so that every thought of there being anything arbitrary about this temple is com- pletely excluded. This sanctuary accordingly is the wholly adequate and perfect revelation of God for the salvation of his church, (xl. — xliii. 12.) II. From this Sanctuary, as the new centre-point of all religious life, there flows forth a measureless fulness of blessing upon the people, which is thereby itself made new. A new and more glorious worship comes into existence ; a priesthood, and a theo- cratic magistracy, truly pleasing to God, arise, and right and justice reign in the community, wdiich, cleansed from all defilement, is now truly one that lives in God. (xliii. 1? — xlvii. 12.) III. The community thus renovated by these blessings, receives from the Lord the land of promise; Canaan is a second time divided among them, where, in perfect harmony and glorious fellowship, they serve the 294 MESSIxVXIC ANNOUNCEMENTS IN THE livinpf God, who witnesses himself in them, (xlvii. 18 — xlviii.)"'- Haggai. (b. c. 520 — 518.) This prophet furnishes only one decidedly Messianic passage. Living at the period of the building of the second temple, and commissioned to encourage and direct the people in their work, he comforts those who were grieved at the inferiority of that edifice to its predecessor, by assuring them that an honour was in store for it far beyond any that had been conferred upon the former temple ; for whilst it was standing the Messiah should come and fill it with the Divine glory: — "And I will shake all the nations, and the Desire of all nations shall come ; and I will fill this house with glory, saith Jehovah of Hosts," (ii. 7.) That by " the Desire of all nations " in this passage is meant the Messiah, has been the prevailing opinion among Christian interpreters from the earliest times. Those who oppose it, adopt the ren- dering suggested by the LXX. version of the passage, (i]^(i TO. iKkeKTct TravTGiv r^v iOvoiv,) viz. : " The desirable (pre- cious) things of all nations shall come," i.e. the heathen shall bring many rich and valuable offerings into this house. But, in the j^7-s^ place, even admitting the superior excellence of this rendering, it does not necessarily exclude the reference of the passage to the Messiah. Plural terms are not always expressive of a plurality of objects ; but are frequently used to indicate, merely, the intensity with which any quality inheres in the subject of which they are predicated ;t and the same may be said of collectives. In this view, therefore, even if we adopt the plural rendering * Commcntar. ueb. den Proph. Ezechiel, s. Cc3. See also his Torlesungen neb. die Theologie dcs A. T. s. 164. Fairbairn's E::ekiel and the Book of his Prophecy, p. 385, fl'. Duncan's Laio of Moses ; Us Character and Design, p. 308, fF. Dou- glas of Cavers, On the Structure of Prophecy, p. 08, ff. + So in the case of the very word here used, we have Daniel denominated rmorrO^N a man of desires, i. e. greatly beloved ; and in 1 Sam. ix. 28, where the sing, occurs in the Heb. we have it rendered as a pi. by the LXX. Comp. ■Catull. Carm. i. 1. " Passer, deliciw meoe puellas." WAITINGS OF KAGGAI. 295 of the passage, we may still understand it of the person of the Messiah. 2ndly. It is hy no means certain that the rendering in the received version is not the correct one. The only objection to it arises from the want of concord between the noun ninrj and the verb i^*3, the former of which is in the feminine singular, and the latter in the plural masculine. This certainly presents a difficulty ; but not, I think, an insuperable one. For, hov/ever strange such a construction may appear to us, there can be no doubt that the Hebrews made use of such anomalies. An instance in point occurs in Is. Ix. 5, a passage all but identical with the one now under consideration : " The power of the nations shall come to thee " {f, ^i<^; O'^^i ''^V). It is true that this comes under the usage of collectives, and so may the instance before us ; but that is no reason for denying that the latter may refer to the Messiah ; on the contrary, the use of the masculine predicate, rather necessitates our accepting n^n as referring to a jicrson:-'- If, however, this be rejected as philologically inadmissible, there still re- mains the construction proposed by Cocceius, who takes rnprr here as an accusative, and renders " And they shall come to the desire of all nations, viz., to Christ." Against this construction no objection can be offered ; and the meaning brought out is in perfect harmony with the pro- phet's train of thought. Srdly. The reference of this to the Messiah, is the only one that accords with the dignity of the passage. From ver. 6, it appears, that the realiza- tion of the blessing promised was to be preceded by great political convulsions and revolutions. The apostle under- stands this of the providential occurrences in the political world, by which the establishment of the Messiah's reign is to be secured, (Heb. xii. 26, 27,) a meaning which ac- cords well with the solemnity of the language employed. But, if we suppose the end to be attained to be nothing * See Gesenius, Il^h. Gr. § 113, uote 1. 296 MESSIANIC ANNOUNCEMENTS IN THE more than the constraining the heathen nations to beautify the temple at Jerusalem, we are ready to ask, was the end worthy of the means ? Must nations be overturned, that a frail and perishable fabric may be adorned with a few additional ornaments ? Shall God resort to such an ex- jjedient to gain an end which was neither useful in itself, nor dependent on such means for its attainment ? 4tlily. When Jehovah announces that " the glory of the latter house should be greater than of the former," (ver. 9,) he, of course, speaks of "glory "as it was reckoned by Him. Now, it was not in the outward beauty of the temple that he delighted, nor was it in this that, in the view of any real servant of His, its true glory consisted. The glory of the temple lay in the manifestation there of Jehovah's presence ; and it was the fuller display of this, by the appearance of the IMessiah, wliicli was to give the second temple its superiority to the first. This is con- firmed by what God says in ver. 8, a passage which, when comj)ared with one closely resembling it in Ps. 1. 9 — 12, must be understood as equivalent to an assertion, that such honour as silver and gold could confer Jehovah did not covet, and would not care for. Lastly. Such an appel- lation as " the Desire of all nations," closely harmonises with the prophetic promises concerning the Messiah, in whom all nations of the earth were to be blessed, and to whom the gathering of the nations was to be. Of him, therefore, we conclude that this prophecy is to be under- stood. Zechariah. (b. c. 520 — 518.) In the writings of this prophet, we have many remarkable intimations of the Messiah and his kingdom, delivered in a style which com- bines the symbolical imagery of Ezekiel with the animated diction and sublime conception of Isaiah. As to the proper interpretation of some of the symbols which Zech- ariah employs, there is considerable uncertainty and dis- sension among expositors ; but, leaving these parts of his WK [TINGS OF ZECHAEIAH AND MALACHI. 297 writings out of view for the present, there is enough of clear and precise announcement to render it matter of unquestionable certainty, that this prophet also gave wit- ness concerning Christ. The character of our Saviour, as a sovereign who should reign by peaceful and gentle means, and even the personal act by which he symbolized this when he entered Jerusalem sitting upon an ass, — an emblem not, as is often stated, of his humility, but of his peacefulness ; his betrayal for a bribe of thirty pieces of silver ; his cruel murder by the Jews, and the rejection of that people for their continued rebellion and infidelity, as well as their final restoration, and the remorse for their former impenitency with which this should be accom- panied, are all announced Avith more or less of clearness in different parts of his prophecies.* He refers also, with great distinctness, to the close union subsisting between the Messiah and Jehovah, to the sufferings of the former as the shepherd of the sheep, and to the combination in his person of the royal and priestly dignities.! The name by which the Messiah is emphatically designated by this prophet, is " The Branch,' in which there is an allusion to the lowly, and apparently feeble commencement of his ministrations as " the servant of God."| Malachi. (b c. 436 — 420.) The oracles of this prophet were delivered to the people of a degenerate age. Car- nality had usurped the place of devotion, and even in many cases the mere form of religion had been laid aside. Under these circumstances the prophet comes forth as a severe rebuker of his countrymen, and an emphatic preacher of the necessity of a real spiritual worship on the part of all who would approach with accceptance before God. In accordance with this, his predictions of the Messiah assume chiefly the form of threatenings denounced against * See chap. ix. 9, 10; xi. 12; xi. 1— U; xii. 10; siii. 1 and 9; xiv. 20, 21. + See chap. xiii. 7; vi. 9 — 15. + See chap. iii. 8 ; vi. 12 ; and comp. Jer. xxiii. 5 ; Isa. liii. 2. 998 MKSSIANIC ANNOUNCEMENTS IN THE the ungodly, and of blessings promised to the pious por- tion of the people. Instead of appearing, as the body of the nation were expecting, in the character of a mighty Prince who was to vanquish their enemies, and raise them to great earthly glory, the Messiah, according to Malachi, was to come as "the Messenger of the Cove- nant," to sit in judgment upon them as the people of the Covenant, and to separate, by a searching analysis, the ore from the dross. Not to the nation at large, fallen as it was from its high religious dignity, but to the few within it who still preserved among them the fear of the Lord, was the Messiah to appear as the bringer of salva- tion. By the former, the privilege of being God's especial treasure had been forfeited, and in the day of the Messiah, that should be found to be possessed only by the latter. The day of his advent was to be one of burning decision betv/een the righteous and the wicked ; a day in which the proudest of the wicked should fall and perish as stubble ; but when to those who feared the Lord " the Sun of Eighteousness should arise with healing in his wings."* With these glimpses into the spiritual character of the Messiah's reign, and with the announcement, that the forerunner already promised by Isaiah, who was to prepare the way of the Lord, should in spirit and power be a second Elijah, the prophet closes his oracle, and with it the volume of Old Testament inspiration. In the survey of Messianic Prophecy which has now been brought to a close, many things, doubtless, have been omitted which, with a less specific object in view, and a larger space at my disposal, it would have been interesting and instructive to have noticed. Partial, however, and cursory as that survey has in many respects been, enough, I trust, has been said to satisfy you in regard to the posi- tion, for the sake of supporting which, I invited you to * See cliay. iii. 1—3, 16—18 ; iv. 1—3. NYEITINGS OF THE Pr.OPHETS. 299 enter upon it. It has shown us how continuous a stream of gospel radiance pervaded the whole of that spiritual at- mosphere in which the saints of the former dispensations lived and hreathed. We have beheld the luminary of Divine revelation, emerging from the midnight gloom which covered the destiny of man after his fall, and have followed its course as it shone brighter and brighter unto the perfect day. Its rays, we have found, were able to reach as far on its first appearance above the horizon, as when it had attained to the full zenith of its splendour, and poured upon the object of its illumination its directest beams. The promise given to Adam was that of the salvation of his race through a virgin-born Kedeemer. " This," as an able writer has justly remarked, " was the primitive pro- mise : and the last of the prophets cannot go beyond it."=:'' It was left for them only to fill up the minuter parts of the picture, and bring out in more prominent relief the grand features of the scene. With matchless skill and consum- mate fidelity they fulfilled their trust. On one after another of the truths concerning the promised Seed they cast the revealing light of which they were the ministers, until, at length, the picture in every lineament stood displayed, and the mighty scheme of redemption drew to it the ad- miring gaze, alike of the prophet who had unfolded it, and of the anxious multitudes who waited upon his instructions, and to whom his words were as the bread of life. At this point, the whole church of God meets as at a common centre. Into these things the angels desire to look. To the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow, are drawn the regards of all the unfallen, and all the ransomed creation of God. On Him, as the key-stone of the arch, the entire superstructure of the Divine government rests. And when the grand result of all his propitiatory and mediatorial work shall be secured * Davison's Discourses on Prophecy, p. Td, tliixd ed. 800 MESSIANIC ANNOUNCEMENTS, ETC. in the final redemption of his people, to Him shall the according voices of angels and of saints sing, " Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing." LECTURE VIII. INTERNAL OK DOCTRINAL CONNEXION OF THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS — NATURE, CRITERIA, AND INTERPRETATION OF TYPES EXAMINATION OF SOME OF TPIE LEADING TYPES OF CHRIST IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. " Whicli are a shadow of things to come ; but the body is of Christ." Col. I-. 17. PART T. Having, in the immediately preceding Lectm'cs, consi- dered the information conveyed to tlie ancient chm^ch by means of prophecy, I now proceed to the investigation of the truths taught by the other instrument of instruction already mentioned as employed by Jehovah towards his ancient people, viz. Types. A type, in the sense in which that word is used in such discussions as the present, is a representation of spiritual truth by means of actions or objects placed before the senses, and calculated to convey through them to the mind a lively conception of the truth which they are designed to represent.- A type is not, as is too often imagined, any- * The word Ti/pe (iwor) signifies a model. Now, a model may be used for two purposes, according as it presents to us a copy to be followed by us, or as it simply enables us to conceive of the character and qualities of that of which it is a transcript. In the fomier sense, the word occurs in the New Testament frequently (cf. Acts vii. 44; Phil. iii. 17, &c.) ; in the latter, it is used in such inquiries as the present. The New Testament terms for the ancient t}'pes are, a-Ki:D INTKRPRETATiON OF TYPES. and, indeed, it would have been very strange, had God caused the prophet to perform an action, typical of the burial and resurrection of Christ, under circumstances in which there was no human being to receive any instruction by it except himself. A type is an acted lesson — a visible representation of invisible truths. To its utility, there- fore, spectators are as indispensable as actors ; and where the former are not present, to say that God appoints the latter to go through their performance, is to charge Him with doing something in vain.* Besides comparisons borrowed from the Old Testament histories, the New Testament writers occasionally allegorize events recorded in these histories, i.e. put a spiritual inter- pretation upon the historical occurrences. Thus, Paul, in order to explain the doctrine of the covenants, allegorizes the anecdote of Sarai and Hagar recorded by Moses, making Sarai represent the Abrahamic or new or everlast- ing covenant, and Hagar the Sinaitic or old covenant. (Gal. iv. 24, 25.) In the same way, he allegorizes the fact of the water from the rock following the Israelites through the wilderness, speaking of it as representing Christ in the blessings he confers upon his Church. (1 Cor. x. 4.) These allegorizings [dXXrjyopoviJLeva) are only comparisons without the form; and their use is obviously merely to * Some may say, in. reply to this, tliat though no person saw the trans- action, many read the record of it, and so learned by it. But to argue thus is virtually to give up the tj'pical character of Jonah's deliverance altogether : for the record that a type was enacted, is no more the enacting of a tj'pe than the history of a battle is a battle. If tj^Des were worth anytliing as instru- ments of instruction, it was by the actual cxJtihitton, and not by the mere description, of them that they served their purpose. — Others insinuate that the type was performed for our instruction, who have our Saviour's explanation of it. This is doubly wrong: 1st, by, as in the former case, confounding a type with the mere record of it; and 2nd, by maintaining that a transaction was performed many centuries before, for the instruction of persons who must possess the knowledge it embodies before they can find out that it was in- tended to convey it ! A was done to teach us B ; but it is only after we have thoroughly mastered B, that we can find out that such was the design of A '■ In such a case, of what use to us is A ? CEITEEIA AND INTERPKETATION OF TYPES. o2l explain one thing by another. To regard the objects thus allegorized as designed types of the things they are brought to illustrate, is to confound things which essentially differ. Between a type and such objects there are, at least, two very palpable distinctions. The one is, that the latter are historical events, whilst the former is a divine institution ; and the other is, that the allegorical sense is a fictitious meaning put upon a narrative for the sake of illustrating something else ; whereas, the explanation of a type is its true and only meaning, and is adduced solely for the sake of unfolding that meaning.* The radical difference be- tween the exposition of a type and an allegorical inter- pretation of history, is appai-ent from the use which the Apostle makes of them respectively. His allegorizings are mere illustrations on which, by themselves, nothing is built; whereas, his typical explanations are all brou^^-ht forward as forming the basis of arguments addressed to those who, admitting the type, were thereby pledged to the admission of the truths it embodied. IV. It follows, from the principles above laid down, that we should always expect in the antitype something more glorious and excellent than we find in the type. This is so obvious as hardly to require illustration. If the design of a type be, by outward symbols, to foreshadow sj)intual truths, it follows that, in proportion as the thing signified is more valuable than the mere sign, and as things spiritual and eternal are more glorious than things material and transitory, the type must be inferior in value and in ma- jesty to that which it is designed to prefigure. A remark so obvious as this it would hardly have been worth while to make, had not a disposition been shown by many to find the antitypes of some of the ancient types in objects * Creuzer lias briefly, but adequately, expressed the difierence between an allegory and a symbol thus : — " An allegory expresses simply a general con- cept, an idea diverse from itself; the symbol, on the contrary, is the incor- porated idea itself," — Symbolik und Myihologic im aussuge von Moser. s. 28. VII. Y 322 TYPICAL CHARACTER OF even less glorious and imposing than were the shado^YS of which they are adduced as the substance. PART II, Having made these preliminaiy observations on the Nature, Criteria, and Interpretation of Types, we shall be the better i^repared to enter upon the consideration of those symbolical Institutes by which God sought to keep alive, in the minds of his people, the memory of the truth concerning the way of redemption which he had iDrovided through the propitiatory sufferings of his Son. Of these, v»-e have a full account in the Old Testament, and especially of those of them which were organized by Moses, under the Divine direction, among the Israelites. That the entire system, not only of rites and ceremonies, but also of social and political relations, which this great legislator esta- blished, was designed to bear a typical character, can hardly admit of a question with any who receive as autho- ritative the declarations of our Lord and his Apostles. If the Law was only one great prophecy of Christ, as our Lord himself seems repeatedl}' to teach ; * if it v/as a mere shadow of good things to come, of which the body was Christ ; if it only served to the example and shadow of those heavenly things which are realized under the Chris- tian dispensation ; if it contained only the patterns of things in the heavens ; if its most solemn rites were only figures for the time then present, by which the Holy Spirit signified that the way to heaven, which Christ opened, was not yet made fully manifest ; if, in short, the dispensation which Christ introduced was not only one of grace as opposed to the rigid severity of the law, but one also of truth or reality as opposed to the shadows of the lawjf * Matt. V. 17; xi. xiii. ; Luke xxiv. 44, &c. + Col. ii. 17; Heb. x. 1 ; viii. 5 ; ix. 9; Jolin i. 17. THE LEVITICAL INSTITUTES. 323 what room can there be for any reasonable doubt as to the fact, that the Institutes of the Mosaic economy were de- signed and adapted adumbrations of that better economy under which Christians are privileged to live? Nor, upon any other hypothesis, does there appear a satisfactory mode of accounting for the minute directions given by Jehovah to Moses in regard to every part of the complicated system which he was appointed to establish. "Doth God take care for oxen?" is the question of the Apostle in relation to one of the Mosaic enactments concerning the treatment of animals ; -'■'■ and the x>^^'inciple of this inquiry may be ex- tended to all the other provisions of that code. If these provisions served no other purpose than the outward one which they immediately respected, we cannot refrain from the question, Was the end really worthy of the means employed, and of the anxious care manifested by Jehovah for its attainment ? Keeping in view the main purpose of our present inves- tigation, viz., the ascertainment of what kind and degree of information the Israelites possessed regarding the way of a sinner's acceptance with God through an atonement, I shall confine myself, in my subsequent remarks, to the sacred ritual of the Mosaic code, leaving out of view all those parts of it which concern the domestic, social, and political relations of the Jews. For the full development of a system of religious rites, as distinguished from a system of purely spiritual worship, four elements are necessary. 1. A sacred place to which the worshipper may turn as the centre-point of his religion — the peculiar habitation of his Deity. 2. Fixed and ap- propriate seasons at which worship may be offered in this place to its great inhabitant. 3. Certain appointed acts, by which the worshipper may approach acceptably to the object of his devotion. 4. A set of properly qualiiied/M72c- * 1 Cor. i.v. 9. 324 IvIOSAIC RITUAL. tionaries who may act the part of mediators between the sinful worshipper and the great Being whose favour he implores. In all systems of symbolical and ritual worship, these four elements may be traced with niore or less of distinctness and prominency. In that of Moses, they are all veiy clearly recognised and minutely prescribed. Before proceeding, however, to the consideration of these four elements of the Levitical ritual, I must offer a few brief remarks of a general nature, upon that system as a whole. 1. Whilst all the parts of that ritual were expressly appointed by the Divine instructions to Moses, the germ, and sometimes more than the germ, of them is to be found in the ceremonial worship of the patriarchal ages. As the latter was itself, doubtless, of divine origin, it was already suited to become a part of any system, of a m^ore extended and formal kind, which it might please the Almighty to appoint ; and hence we find it not superseded by, but rather incorporated with, the ritual of Moses. 2. Many things in the Mosaic system, not in themselves typical, have become so from the simple fact of their con- nexion with that system. As many words, from being placed in combination vath other words, acquire a mean- ing which by themselves they do not bear, so we find many things which, apart from the Mosaic institutes, pos- sessed no typical character, invested with th^it character from the simple circumstance of their being brought into contact with a system the prevailing character of which was typical. Thus, for instance, from the circumstance that the nation of Israel, as such, was typical of the spi- ritual kingdom, or church of Christ, arose the typical character of the royal and prophetical offices among the Jews. Considered in themselves, these offices were merely of a political and discijilinary character. But, viewed in their relation to the national institute — the type of the Church, thev became emblematical of that which, in rela- MOSAIC EITUAL. 325 tion to the Church itself, occupies the same place which belonged to them in relation to the type of the Church, viz., the royal and prophetical offices of Christ. Such may be called secondary, or relative types. 3. From this typical character of the nation of Israel, a twofold character came to belong to many of the sacrjd institutes of the Mosaic ritual ; the one arising from their relation to the nation as a visible community ; tlie other, from their being symbolical of certain spiritual truths, and typical of the facts of the Christian revelation. Thus, sa- crifice, for instance, came to possess a twofold character, as a propitiation for sin. Every sin committed by a sub- ject of the theocracy, was a political, no less than a moral offence ; an act of insubordination to Jehovah, at once as the King of Israel, and as the Moral Governor of the uni- verse. Hence it was provided, that the offerings made for sin should meet this twofold character of the transgression, by procuring really a pardon for the political offence, and typifying that sacrifice by which the guilt of the moral offence was to be carried away. Attention to this fact will throw no small light upon the whole Mosaic institute. It v;ill enable us also to understand how the Jews should have continued to offer sacrifices, even where there seemed to be the total absence of all faith in the sacrifice of the Messiah ; and what is meant in Scripture by a man's being righteous, and " touching the righteousness which is iu the law blameless," whilst he is still a stranger to true piety and spiritual obedience.* 4. Each separate part of the Mosaic ritual typified only one fact in the Christian dispensation. This follows, * Comp. Ezek. sxiii. 45 ; PMlip. iii. 6. I would recommend to the reader a work, now I fear seldom read, but full of most valuable material, bearing upon the subject of the Atonement, and containing much that strikingly elucidates Old Testament theology and worship, viz., The peculiar doctrines of revelation relating to piacular sacrifices, redemption by Christ, faith in him, Sfc, exhibited as they are taught in Holy Scripture, and the rationale of them illustrated. By James Richie, M.D., 2 vols. 4to. Warrington, 1766. ^26 THE TABERNACLE. necessarily, from the peculiar character of the rites of which that system was composed. They were not only symbol- ical of certain spiritual truths, but prophetical of certain great events with which these truths stood connected ; and their value as indices depended entirely upon the steadiness with which they pointed each to its own peculiar object. As a dial would be worthless if the gnomon cast more than one shadow, so a type, as a type, would have been worthless had it pointed to more than one given ful- filment. It is the more necessary to insist upon attention to this in interpreting types, because nothing is more common in this department than for writers to assign different refer- ences to the same tj'pe. Thus the tabernacle in the Jewish ritual has, by very able WTiters, been made to typify at once the human body of Christ, the Christian Church, and the heavenly world. This appears to me much the same as if one v/ere to affirm, that three separate bodies sub- tending different angles from the eye of the observer could cast towards him a common shadow, which is physically impossible. Having made these preliminary observations, I would now proceed to the explanation of some of the leading features of the Mosaic ritual, considered as typical of the Christian dispensation. I. Following the division already indicated, the first thing which falls to be considered is, the place in which it was appointed that this ritual should be observed. Of this, we have an account in Exod. xxv. — xxvii., and xxxv. — xxxviii. The edifice described in these passages was a large oblong erection, consisting of two parts separated from each other by avail; the outer part being denomi- nated the Holy Place, the inner the Holy of Holies, or Most Holy Place. There was also an open space before the entrance, called the Court of the Tabernacle. The building, as a whole, was symbolical of Jehovah's residence among his people: "Let them make me," said THE TABEKNACLE. 327 he to Moses, " a sanctuary ; that I may dwell among them."* As Judaism was monotheistic, it knew but one holy place where God was to be found. The Holy of Holies, which the apostle calls " the second tabernacle," was the appropriate residence of Jehovah as the God of Israel. Hence the tabernacle was called i?:i52 Vnj*^ the tabernacle of congregation, i.e., where God and his people came together. In the Sanctuary the principal thing was the ark, in which was placed " the testimony " (™^?>)^ and which was covered by "the mercy-seat" ['T^^i)- The testi- mony was the book of the law, and it was put into the ark as a witness against the people because of their sinfulness. (Deut. xxxi. 2(3, 27.) This symbolized the great truth, that the first relation into which Jehovah comes with the sinner, is that of a ruler whose law testifies against the trans- gressor. But this testimony was hid by the mercy-seat, on whicli the blood of atonement was sprinkled by the high-priest when he entered within the vail, and on which the visible emblem of the Divine presence — the shechinah between the cherubim of glory, was enthroned ; and in this there was an emblem of the fact, that the condemning and accusing power of the law was taken away by the propitia- tory covering which God had appointed. By all this was indicated the grand truth, that the character in which Jehovah dwelt among his people, was that of a justly offended but merciful and propitiated sovereign, who having received atonement for their sins, had put these out of his sight, and would remember them no more at all against them.f In the first, or outer tabernacle, were the altar of in- cense, the table with the shew-bread, and the golden * Exod. XXV. 8 ; see also xxix. 45. + riiilo says, regarding the capporetli, that "it was a cover {kirlOeixa.) like a lid (jrS/ia), and is called in the sacred books, a propitiatoiy {^i\a]pcov in this passage is rendered " propitiatorj' sacrifice ;" but this appeai-s inadmissible, on the gi-ound, that the usus loquendi having abeady assigned to iXaa-Ti'ipiov a proper technical signification, no writer would have used it in another without the addition of something to point out such a change. T6 lepov signifies only "the Holy," and might therefore be used of any thing which is holy ; but having by usage become nxed to the meaning of "the holy place," i.e., the temple, no writer would ven- ture to use it of anything else, without expressly mentioning the thing of which he used it. So in the case before us, had the apostle intended to use the word iXao-T^'ov of a sacrifice, he must have added ^"m«, or some such word. 332 THE SABBATHS. used in Scripture to denote the solemn festivals of the Jews generally ;* and in that part of the law which refers to them, we find prescribed concerning them all, that the same abstinence from labour which marked the Sabbath, strictly so called, was also to mark them.f Now, the idea of a Sabbath is generally supposed to be solely that of rest, or cessation from toil, a,nxiety, and sorrow. In this, how- ever, we have only, strictly speaking, the negative idea; mere abstinence from labour carrying with it the concep- tion of notliing positive, and, moreover, possessing no cha- racter, religious or moral. Hence, it is plain that some- thing more must be involved in the idea of a Sabbath than mere rest ; and tliis, some have supposed, must lie in the dedication of the appointed time to the Divine service. That such a mode of employing the hours of their sacred seasons was followed by the pious Jews, there can be little doubt ; but that this entered essentially into the idea of a Sabbath, neither that word itself, nor any part of the law regarding the Sabbath, supplies the slightest evidence. We must, therefore, endeavour to find some other idea than that of religious service, as that which formed the positive side of this conception. Here om* first step is, to have recourse to the meaning and usages of the word it- self and its cognates ; for, as has been already observed, there is no more faithful mirror of such ideas as that of which we are in search, than the words which by especial appointment were used to designate them. Now the word nitt? comes fi'om the root yw, which sigcifies to return^ and, in some of its parts, to he restored to a state of former ea:cel- lence. (I Sam. vii. 14 ; Ez. xxxv. 9, &c.) With this the idea of rest is closely connected ; for, as we invai'iably conceive of a state of repose as preceding one of motion, we natu- rally think of rest from activity as a returning to the ante- * See Lam. i. 7 ; Ez. xsii. 8, 2G, &c. f Comp. Lev. rsiii. and xsv. 10, ft'. SACRED SEASONS IN THE MOSAIC RITUAL. 333 cedent condition of repose. Carrying this meaning of the root, then, into the derivative, we get, as the complete idea of a Sabbath, a return from the toil and confusion of our present state, into one resembling that condition of rest and excellence in which man's primordial felicity consisted. As corroborating this, it may be observed, that on the weekly Sabbath the Shew-bread was renewed in the Sanc- tuary as emblematical of the renovation of the people, their return to new and fresh obedience. If this be cor- rect, we shall be justified in concluding that the Jewish Sabbaths were the symbols, not merely of rest, but of resti- tution, and became, consequently, the appropriate types of that state of blessedness which is to form the consumma- tion and perfection of the Messiah's reign, and which is described in the New Testament by terms answering to both of these.* This state is also called a Sabbatism, (Heb. iv. 9,) which supplies us with another evidence of the relation to it of the Jewish Sabbaths. f 2. All these festivals were appointed to be observed at and for definite periods of time, each of which is deter- mined, in one way or another, by the number seven. Thus, the seventh day of the week, the seventh month, the * Kararrauo-if, Heb. iv. 1; aTcoKaTaaracn^, Acts iii. 21. Among the Rabbins, the Sabbath is set forth as the type of eternity. Sohar. Gen. fol. 32, 125 : — " R. Simeon hath said, wherefore they have taught that the Sabbath is a type (wnnTl) of the TTorld to come." Jalkut Rubeni, fol. 96. 4 : — " The Israelites retorted, saying, O God of the whole earth, show us a type of the Avorld to come. To them the ever-blessed God replied, Such a type is the Sabbath." Ap. Biihr. Bd. II. p. 635. i- The opinion, that the idea of the Sabbath embraced the notion of spiritual restitution as well as of rest, is greatly confirmed by the terms of the law con- cerning the Sabbatic year of jubilee, which was the culminating point, so to speak, of the Sabbatic system. "And ye shall reiwrn (Dnniu) every man unto his possession, and every man shall return unto his family." Lev. sxv. 10_ " In the year of the jubilee, the field shall return to him of whom it was bought, even to him to whom the possession of the land did belong." Lev. xivii. 21. This institution was designed to effect, as much as possible, an entire restitution of property and personal condition to what it was at the beginning ; and in this lay its supremely Sabbatical character. 334 THE SABBATHS. seyenth year, and the year after seven times seven years, were the Sabbaths ; in the seventh month, were the Day of Atonement and the Feast of Tabernacles ; and with this month the Sabbatic year and the year of Jubilee com- menced ; the Passover and the Feast of Tabernacles lasted seven days ; the Feast of Pentecost was determined by counting seven times seven days from the first day of the Passover; and the Holy Convocations of the people, in each year, were seven. For this marked predominance of the number seven in relation to these festivals, there must have been some special reason ; and this is suggested at once by the consideration, that among the Hebrews, as among the Egyptians and others, that number was the symbol of perfection and holiness. Of this readers of the Scriptures are so well aware, that I need not adduce ex- amples. It may be worth while, however, to mention, as illustrative of the complete hold which this idea, as in- volved in the number seven, had acquired over the minds of the Hebrews, that according to an idiom of their language, to swear an oath was designated by the word for seven (i'?^') used as a verb i^y^.) Thus, Ezek. xxi. 28 (23), the words rendered in the common version by " to them that have sworn oaths," literally mean " to them that have sevened sevens." Compare also Gen. xxi. 28; Deut. iv. 31, &c. In the minds of the Jews, consequently, the idea of sacredness — of solemnity of consecration, was al- ways associated with the number seven ; and it was doubt less on this account that that number was made to pre- dominate so much in the arrangement of the festivals of the Jews. These were not only seasons of rest and reno- vation, but of holy consecration, when the whole people were refreshed, and appeared in their character as holy unto the Lord. There can be little doubt, flthink,',but that in this there was a type of that scene of glory and rest when the true Israel, the church of God, shall be presented SYMBOLICAL ACTIONS IN THE MOSAIC RITUAL. 3:35 to its great Head, holy and without blemish, to enter upon the rest and joy of heaven. III. The Symbolical Actions in the Mosaic ritual were of two kinds, Purijications and Sacrifices. Upon all occasions of ceremonial uncleanness, the indi- vidual by whom it was incurred had to undergo a lustra- tion before he could occupy his former place in the con- gregation. The most grievous case of ceremonial unclean- ness was that occasioned by leprosy, and for this the full- est purification was prescribed. Two birds were to be taken, one of which was to be killed over a stream of run- ning water, and the other, after having been dipped in the blood of the slain bird, was to be set at liberty. The leper was then to be sprinkled seven times with the blood, and after that was to shave his head, and wash his body and his clothes in water. By this process of purification he was rendered fit to appear among the people, but he was not yet qualified to approach the tabernacle. For this another process of cleansing must be gone through on the seventh day after his return to the camp, and on the eighth he was to offer certain sacrifices. On this occasion, the officiating priest was to touch, first with the blood of the trespass- offering, and then with oil brought for the purpose, the person offering it, on the tip of the right ear, on the thumb of the right hand, and on the great toe of the riglit foot ; after ^^'llich, he was to pour the remainder of the oil upon the individual's head. The latter was then declared to be thoroughly cleansed from his leprosy. Unless all this was a mere empty and unmeaning form, it must have had a symbolical reference. Nor is it ver^^ difficult to see to what great spiritual truths it pointed. As leprosy was a loathsome, an infectious, and a fatal disease, it became necessary to separate the person affiicted by it from among the people, and to take care that before he was permitted to return he v^as thoroughly cleansed. 336 PUKIFTCATION. But, as leprosy separated a man from the people of Israel, so does the practice of sin — the leprosy of the soul — separate a man from the church of God ; and as that church must be kept pure, no one who has been so separated ought to be permitted to return until he is thoroughly cleansed. For the cleansing of the leper, both blood and water were requi- site ; for with his disease, both guilt and impurity were connected ; and it is only by " having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water," that we can " draw near to God with the full assur- ance of faith," after we have sinned.* And as we need, not only the pardon of our sins and the removal of im- purity, but also the bestowal upon us of positive holiness, we must receive " an unction from the Holy One," even as the leper was anointed with oil above the blood of atone- ment, before he could stand and worship with acceptance before God. Besides the purification of the unclean, it was required that the priests should undergo a lustration every time that they entered the sanctuary to perform any of their official functions; and for this purpose the laver stood ready in the outer court of the tabernacle. The meaning and pur- port of this we shall consider when we come to speak of the office of the Priesthood. Into a full consideration of the important subject of animal sacrifice, my limits forbid any attempt to enter. I shall therefore confine myself to a few remarks in sup- port of the opinion that such sacrifices were piacular, and were intended to shadow forth the great atonement of the Son of God. By some it has been contended, that the ancient sacri- fices were not of a piacular character, but were either mere eucharistic or mere federal rites ; that is, were offered either as expressions of homage to the Deity, or, from being par- * Heb. 5. 22. SACRIFICE. 337 taken of by the offerer in the presence of God, as emblems of fellowship with him. For these opinions, however, there is no good ground in any of the facts, with which we are acquainted, connected with this subject. 1. The most general term for all kinds of offering in Hebrew is I|"|i^ oblation. Now this comes from a root which signifies to approach, so that the genuine idea of sacrifice, according to Hebrew modes of thought, is something by which we draw nigh or approach to God. Hence the priests, whose business it was to attend upon the altar, are called by Ezekiel, by way of distinction from the other sons of Levi '^J^'^^ ^''T}Fl, the approachers imto Jehovah. Ml this involves the propitiatory character of sacrifice. It presui">poses the fact of separation between man and God ; and it intimates that it is by means of a piacular offering that this is to be overcome, and man is to draw nigh unto God. 2. The notion that sacrifice was intended to propitiate the gods has prevailed universally among all heathen nations by whom the rite is practised. For this the evi- dence is so copious, that I suppose no one will call the assertion in question.* Now this universal consent of all nations, however remote from or strange to each other, carries with it a very strong proof of the justness of the opinion which they, in common, have entertained regard- ing sacrifice. For either they must have derived that view of the rite from a revelation enjoyed by the ancestors of the Avhole race from heaven ; or it must lie so essentially in the very nature of the thing itself, that no one, however degraded, can fail to discover it. Which side of this alter- native is to be preferred, I do not at present inquire ; it is enough, that, take which we will, it shuts us up to the ad- mission that the true and original idea of sacrifice is, that it propitiates the Deity towards the sinner. * See ]Magee's Dhc. on Atonement and Sacrifice. No. y. xxxiii. Ivi. VII. Z 338 SYMBOLICAL ACTIONS IX THE MOSAIC EITUAL. 3. The most ancient form of sacrifice was the holocaust, or whole hurnt-offering, in which the victim, after being- slain, was entirely consumed by fire upon the altar. This fact, also, is too well supported to admit of question or doubt; and it must ever form a fatal objection to the theory, that sacrifice was originally a mere federal rite. That theory rests exclusively on the supposition, that the offerer ate parts of the sacrifice which he had presented to the Deity. But in the case of the holocaust this was im- possible, for the ichole sacrifice was consumed by fire ; so that the idea of its being shared between the Deity and the worshipper was necessarily excluded. This shows incon- testably, that in the most ancient form of sacrifice, the notion of its being a federal rite was unrecognised, and consequently, that this cannot have been the primary and fundamental meaning of that observance. The same ob- jection does not arise from the fact nov/ under notice to the theory, that sacrifice was a mere act of homage to tlie Deity, for it is perfectly consistent with the gross concep- tions which prevailed in the heathen world as to the per- sonal gratification derived by the gods from the ofi'erings which were consumed upon their altars. He must be a bold theorist, however, who will venture to affirm that such notions were at any time entertained by the worshippers of Jehovah, or sanctioned by Him. 4. The existence from an early period of human sacri- fices, proves the originally piacular character of all sacri- fices. For this revolting practice nothing will account, but the reason which Cffisar assigns for its existence among the Gallic tribes. "Those," says he, "who are afilicted with severe diseases, or who are much exposed to danger and conflict, either immolate, or vow that they will immolate, men in place of victims, (in which sacrifices they use the aid of the Druids,) because, unless the life of man he given for the life of man, they imagine that the majesty of the immortal SAOKIiilCE. 3o9 gods will not he fjwpitiated.''* This passage shows clearly the principle upon which these sacrifices were offered; and, when we find them prevailing from the earliest periods, we are justified in drawing the conclusion, that the ideas of substitution and propitiation were essentially- connected with the offering of sacrifice from the time of its first adoption by the human race.f 5. The instances recorded in Scripture of sacrifice dur- ing the ages preceding the giving of the law by Moses, show that from the first this rite possessed a piacular meaning. The first of these was that of Abel, who, be- sides, or in place of, such a thank-offering as his brother Cain brought, presented a sacrifice "of the firstlings of his flock, and of the fat thereof. "| Kegarding this, we have the remarkable fact stated, that " Jehovah had respect unto Abel and his offering ; but unto Cain and to his offering, he had not respect," (ver. 4, 5.) Now it is natural to ask, whence this difference in the manner in which these offer- ings were received by Him to whom they were presented? Viewing them merely in the light of eucharistic gifts to the Supreme, the one was as appropriate to the circumstances of the giver, and consequently, as justly expressive of homage and gratitude, as the other; and if we regard them as pledges of a covenant union with God, indicated by the offerer's partaking of what he had laid upon the altar, the offering of Cain must^ be regarded, not only as * Be Bell. Gall. lib. vi. — Tlie prophet Micali (vi. 7) gives the same accoTint of the design of such sacrifices. — In further illustration of the notion, attached to them by the ancients, we may compare what Suidas says under the word irepi^rtfJia: "Thus, they said to that one of the criminals who was annually detained, Be our nepi^^riixa, (Purgation,) that is our salvation and redemption; and so they cast him into the sea as a sacrifice to Neptune." + ]\Ioses speaks of human sacrifice as a tiling already, at the time of the giving of the law, common among the Canaanites. (Lev. xviii. 21, 24 ; xs. 1^.) t Gen. iv. 4. 340 SYMBOLICAL ACTIONS IN THE MOSAIC BITUAL. equall}' suitable for the purpose for which it was presented with that of Abel, but greatly more so, inasmuch as it could be eaten, whilst the other, at a time when animal food was not permitted, could not. Excluding these two hypotheses, there only remains that which places the rea- son of the Divine preference in the fact, that Abel's offer- ing was a propitiatory sacrifice, and therefore better, be- cause more suitable to him as a sinner, than that of Cain, which was a mere expression of his reverence as a creature to his Creator. This seems to be placed beyond doubt, by the statement of the apostle, that it was " through faith" that Abel was led to offer his "more excellent sacrifice."* If this have any meaning at all, it must mean, that Abel acted under the influence of the belief of some Divine revelation which had been made to the human family at that early period. But the only revelation of which we i'ead as having been given at that time, was the assurance to our first parents of the birth of a Deliverer — the seed of the woman. Was it the faith of this, then, that led Abel to offer anhnal sacrifice, whilst Cain, from want of faith in it, only presented a thank-offering? If it was not, then what was it that he believed ? If it was, then what could his offering have been but a piacular sacrifice ? Further ; let us look for a moment at the reason assigned by Jehovah himself to Cain for the rejection of his offering, and we shall find a striking confirmation of this opinion. "And the Lord said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth ? and why is thy countenance fallen ? If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted ? And if thou doest not well, a sin-offering coucheth at the doo]'."t In these words Jehovah appears * Heb. xi. 4. + Gen. iv. 6, 7. For a satisfactory defence of the rendering here given to the latter clause of this verse, see Faber's Treatise on the Origin of Expiatory Sacrifice, p. 85, ff. The main difficulty lies in the construing of riSJlCPT, a noun feminine, with vyy, a masculine participle. Gesenius, Ewald, Tuch, &c., get over the difficulty by treating pi as a substantive = insidiaior lurJcer, Iter in SACRIFICE. oil to me to lay before Cain the grand alternative in his moral administration of our world — sinless obedience meriting the Divine favour on the one hand, or acceptance for the transgressor, through a sin-offering, as an act of grace, upon the other. These are fixed principles in the Divine government as it respects us. If we do well, we shall be accepted ; if we obey the law without failure, we shall live by the law ; but if we do not — if we fail in any point of obedience and well-doing, then it is only by means of an atonement, or sin-offering, that we can be accepted by the just Governor of the universe. If this be the meaning of the passage, it places in a very clear light at once the true meaning of sacrifice as an offering for sin, and the fact, that the way of salvation through an atonement was re- vealed to man from the earliest period of his existence as a fallen and guilty creature.* Finally, it may be added in wait; and tlaey take the meaning to be, tliat sin lies in wait at the door of the transgressor, comparing as a sense-parallel Ps. sxxvii, 8. Mr, Faber solves the difficulty by supposing a co?is/n'ith-God." He suffered for them, not only that they might he saved through him, but that they might reign with him. When he entered heaven, therefore, it was as the first- fruits of a great and precious harvest that was ere long to be gathered in. By so much does the reality of salvation exceed the shadows by which an idea of it v>'as conveyed to tiie minds of the ancient Israel. The survey which we have thus taken of the instruction by means of types, enjoyed by the people of God under the former dispensation, may suffice to show how full and impressive was the representation thus set before them of the grand truths of the Gospel of Christ. Of all that is essential to salvation, nothing appears to have been omitted. The guilt of the sinner, the evil of sin, and tlie importance of holiness : — the necessity of a mediator between God and man, and of a sacrificial atonement for man's trangressions ; — the freeness and sufficiency of that remission of sins which such an atonement procured, and the full realization of all these truths in the i:)erson and v/ork of the Messiah ; were continually held before the v'.ew of the Jews by the ceremonies of their symbolical ritual. Tliat ritual thus secured the preservation of the true religion among them, fed the faith, and kindled the hopes of the truly pious, and paved the way for that fuller and more permanent development of the plan of mercy which has conferred its peculiar glory on the dispensation of the latter days. GENERAL SUMMARY. 365 PART III. I HAVE now triiversed, thoug-h with hasty steps, the wide field which I proposed to myself in undertaking this course of Lectures. Allow me, before bringing it to a conclusion, to recapitulate, in one or two sentences, what it has been my aim principally to establish in regard to the connexion and harmony of the Old and New Testaments. Assum- ing the Divine authority of both, I have endeavoured to show — First :—Tlmt both belong to the same national litera- ture ; and, that on tlie composition of the latter, a great influence has been exerted by the familiarity of its human autliors with the former. Second : — That both teach the unity of the Divine exist- ence ; but at the same time, intimate the mysterious fact, of a plurality in that unity : the New Testament more fullv and dogmatically ; the Old, generally by hints and intima- tions, and, in one or two instances, by more express and explicit statement. Third : — That both present the same view of the moral character of God, as holy, just, and good ; and of the rela- tion in which man stands to Him as one who has broken his law, insulted his government, and merited his dis- pleasure. Fourth : — That the penalty denounced against sin in both, and which both assure us man has incurred and de- serves to receive, is, eternal death — exclusion during the whole course of his being from the love and favour of God. Fifth: — That both, representing God as full of love, announce the glorious fact, that he has found a way for the display of that love in the salvation of sinners, whereby so great an act of mercy has been rendered consistent with the claims of his government and law. oGb GENERAL SUMMARY. Sixth : — That both announce the great truth, that by the hicarnation of the Son of God, and his substitution on our behalf, this way of salvation has been opened up : — the Old Testament, by promises, predictions, and types : the New Testament, by the history of our Lord and the state- ment of his doctrines, in which all these promises have been fulfilled, and all these types substantiated. Upon the whole, the aim of the Lecturer has been, to show that the religion of Jesus Christ, the only religion which, as our own experience amply testifies, can meet the case, and relieve the miseries of man, has been from first to last the sole religion of Divine revelation, and unfolds the only plan which God has ever announced to man, as that by which he saves the guilty. Before concluding my work, there are one or two observ- ations of an inferential kind, which I am desirous of briefly illustrating. Of these I mention, I. That the researches to which this volume is devoted, tend to cast light upon the inquiry as to the kind and amount of religious knowledge which a pious and intelligent Jew. living under the former dispensation, might obtain. As tending to bring out this, I observe : — 1. That the fact that the Old Testament presents to us no perfect, no unsinning character, has an important bearing on this investigation ; for it most clearly excludes the notion that it is by personal obedience and virtuous perfection that the favour of God is to be secured. When we find men like Abraham and David — undoubtedly among the pattern specimens of Old-Testa- ment piety, falling into really gross sins, and when we find such very imperfect characters as many of the patriarchs and Jews were, marked as the objects of God's favour, the conclusion is irresistibly pressed upon us that the book which records such facts cannot possibly be designed to teach that it is by personal merit and realized perfection that men are to be accepted of the Almighty. And this, I may remark in passing, may be held to furnish sufficient CONCLUDING KEFLECTIONS. 367 response to the cavils of those who find fault with the Old Testament because its model characters are so imperfect. Had the religion of the Old Testament been a religion of self-righteousness, this objection would have had some force ; but when the recorded imperfections of these characters have the effect of guarding us against such a mistake, I hold it to be an excellence of the book for which we ought to be grateful as we would be for a beacon which, thousfh perhaps offensive to the eye of a sentimental tourist, serves to warn of danger and save from destruction. 2. It must be very plain to every reader of the Old Testa- ment, that it is from God himself, in the exercise of his free bounty, that all blessing — the pardon of sin and acceptance into his favour included — is represented as coming to mankind. This was the leading truth of that revelation of Himself which God gave to Israel through Moses : " The Lord passed before him and proclaimed the Lord, the Lord God, merciful and gracious, long-suffering and abundant in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity, transgression and sin."* In the writings of the prophets this truth is much dwelt upon. Nothing can be more explicit than the following declara- tion of God by Isaiah : " I am, even I am he that blotteth out thy trangressions, for mine oivn sake, and will not re- member thy sins."t And the faith of the ancient Church found utterance in such language as this : " Who is a God like unto thee, that pardoneth iniquity, and passeth by the trangression of the remnant of his heritage ? He retaineth not his anger for ever, because he delighteth in mercy. He will turn again ; He will have compassion upon us ; He will subdue our iniquities; and thou wilt cast all their * Exod. xxxiv. 6. + Isa. sliii. 25. 'jrnb " i. e. ex sola sua natura benigna atque ad clemen- tiam prona nullis populi HeLraici in se meritis motum." Eoseumiiller in loc. 3U8 CONCLUDING EEFLECTIONS. sins into the depths of the sea.'"" Nor had God merely revealed Himself as the author of salvation to mankind. He had also graciously condescended to bind himself by covenant engagement to be propitious to those who sought His mercy. In allusion to tliis, the prophet from whom we last quoted goes on to say — "Thou wilt perform the truth to Jacob, and the mercy to Abraham, v>hich thou hast sworn unto our fathers from the days of old." God had pledged Himself to Abraham by a solemn oath, re- peated to his descendants in the line of Isaac and Jacob, to confer spiritual blessings, as well as temporal favours, upon those who called upon his name. To this engage- ment all the pious looked with confidence for the salvation they felt they needed from guilt and sin ; upon this they took their stand when they sought to plead with God for favour. It is emphatically called by God himself, " the covenant of my peace ; " and He assured his people that it was an everlasting covenant that should never be removed. To discern this, and understand aright the privileges to be enjoyed through it, v,^as esteemed by pious Jews a special attainment in religion : " The secret of the Lord is with them that fear Him, and He will show them his covenant." — It is only haste and prejudice which has led men to con- found the covenant thus referred to with the covenant made with Israel as a nation, and under which only national blessings were promised. o. All through the Old Testament the promise of a great spiritual deliverer to be sent from God is held up to the view of men. The history of man as a fallen being begins v\-ith his receiving this promise ; and as revelation ad- vances, its utterances become more clear, copious, and precise, both as to the advent of this deliverer, and as to the nature and extent of the deliverance he was to effect. Whilst, however, it is abundantly clear, that it is through * Mic. vii. 18, 19. CO^'CLUDING REFLECTIONS. 369 this promised messenger that God will fulfil his engage- ments to be a Redeemer unto Israel, there is a remarkable diversity both in the manner he himself is described, and in the kind of work which is imputed to him. At times he simply appears as the servant of God, at others, he is described as anointed by God to sustain important offices in relation to men ; nov/ he is clothed in attributes of sorrow, humiliation, and suffering ; and presently he as- sumes the port and majesty of a great world-king, under whom all nations are to be subdued. Sometimes we should expect him to act only as a teacher, at others he comes before us discharging the functions of a priest, at others as receiving the homage due to a sovereign. Nay, in some passages, attributes and acts are ascribed to him that can with propriety belong only to God ; and as if in designed keeping with this, and for the sake of more fully substantiating it, God from time to time sends deliverance to his people through the apparent agency of one who, though called "the messenger of Jehovah," speaks and acts as if Jehovah and he were one, or at least both divine. — In all this there is what peremptorily forbids us to regard the Messiah of the Old Testament in no higher light than as a temporal deliverer for the Jewish state, and a restorer of the Jewish national glory. 4. Every reader of the Old Testament must perceive how important is the place assigned to expiatory sacrifice as a medium of acceptance for the sinner with God. Under the Jewish state this was carried out to its fullest extent; " almost all things," as Paul says, " are by the law purged with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission : " but it was not under the Jewish state alone that sacrifice was offered as the necessary medium of acceptance with God. We find it practised, if not by Adam himself, certainly in his family; w^e find it familiar to Noah and his sons; we find it the regular usage of Abraham and all who in his day were worshippers of the vir. B B 370 CONCLUDING REFLECTIONS. true God. On the other hand, the teaching of the sacred books goes to show that it was not the ojms operatum of sacrifice that constituted its value as a medium of moral pm-ification ; and so urgently was this truth sought to he impressed upon the Jews, that some of the strongest an- thropomorphisms the Old Testament contains are used for the purpose of conveying an unmistakeahle assurance of God's abhorrence of all sacrifice offered with such a viev/.--- Here, then, is a point pretty clearly ascertained in Old Testament theology ; without sacrifice there is no remis- sion of sins, and yet it is not the sacrifice 2^er se that secures that blessing. Now, without pursuing this analysis further at present, let us collect the facts at which we have been cursorily o-lancing, and ask whether there be any principle common to them on which they can be classified together so as to form one connected theory. Man, unable to merit the divine favour by perfect obedience, and not required to attempt this ; — God, the author of spiritual blessings, be- stowing them of his spontaneous grace, yet bound by his own enQ,agement not to withhold them from those who acceptably seek them ; — a great deliverer promised to men, who is to turn away iniquity from the sinner, vdio is to teach the ignorant, so that all shall know God, and who is to rei^'n as a spiritual sovereign over the whole world, one who is to appear as the servant of God to accomplish his purposes of grace, and who is yet the son of God, in some sense one with God, and in his manifestation " God with men;" — and piacular saci'ince as the appointed channel of acceptable approach unto God, yet not of itself adequate to secure for man the divine favour : — How are all these separate elements to be harmonized into one connected system of religious truth ? At the first glance this might * Ccmp. Isr.. i. 11— U ; 1 Sam. xv. 22, &c. CONCLUDING EEFLECTIONS. <371 almost seem impossible, but on a closer survey the case will not appear so hopeless. Let us begin with the last of these elements — that of sacrifice. The prominent idea here is substitution of the innocent for the guilty — escape for the latter from the penalty he has merited, through the suiterings of the former. But if sacrifice was not in itself an act which purchased the divine favour, then it could be valuable only as setting forth this idea. But of what use was the idea except as it represented a reality ? Why make remembrance continually of a vicarious satisfaction to tlie divine justice on the ground of which the sinner was to be pardoned, unless some such satisfaction was really provided ? or how could the sinner be pardoned by God, by simply commemorating a satisfaction unless such had actually been rendered, or was certain to be rendered for sin ? This seems fairly to indicate, that the mere fact that the Israelites were taught to approach God with sa- crifice as indispensable to their acceptance, whilst yet it did not of itself procure for them favour, shuts us up to the conclusion that they were taught to regard these sacrifices as merely symbolical and typical rites, intended to com- memorate, on the one hand, the principle that without a vicarious satisfaction to the divine justice there v/as no acceptance for the sinner, and on the other, ihejact that God, the spontaneous author of all grace to men, liad re- ceived such satisfaction, or at least knew when and by ■whom it would be rendered. Now it is worthy of notice, that to a people revolving daily such things in their mind, the prophets were commissioned to describe the promised deliverer as one who would do for them the very tiling which in sacrifice was set forth as needful, and commemo- rated as actual. He was to bear their sins — to be v/ounded for their transgressions — to be bruised for their iniquities. Himself sinless, the iniquity of all was to be laid upon him, and his soul was to be made an offering for sin. He o72 COXCLUDING EEFLECTIOXS. was to bear the sin of many, and to mak© intercession [procure favour by his merits] -'■ for the transgressors. He was to be cut off, but not for himself. He was to make an end of sins, to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in an everlasting righteousness. f From such de- scriptions, it is hardly possible but that all whose minds were open to the teaching of the Scriptures, must have learned that it was the promised Messiah, who was to per- form for sinners that real expiation, which in sacrifice was symbolically set forth ; and, in point of fact, we know that the ancient Jews did learn this.| We thus connect in the closest manner the institution of sacrifice among the Jews with the promise of the Messiah. But, further, it appears from the Messianic passages of the Old Testament, that the glory and empire of the Messiah were to folloiv upon his sufferings and to arise out of them (comp. Isa. liii. 10 — 12; Ps. xxii., &c.); so that an attentive reader of these could hardly fail to perceive that the kingdom which the Messiah was to establish was one of a spiritual kind, in which the blessings procured by his sacrificial sufferings were to be distributed. We may now see how all the separate truths above mentioned fall into harmonious order. Man, as a helpless sinner, is dealt with by God on gTounds of grace alone ; but, as God is just no less than merciful, he re- quires an expiation of men's sin ere it can be forgiven ; this, in the fulness of his grace, he has himself provided lor man, having laid his sin upon a substitute, one " mighty to save" — one of such dignity and purity, that his sufferings for man form an adequate compensation to the Divine government for man's transgression. By means of this, * See Lowtb's note on the passage ; also those of Henderson, Alexander, and the valuable monograph of Eeinke, Exegesis Crit. in Jes. cap. lii. 13; liii. 12. The explanation of the latter part of the l'2th verse, by Jarchi, which Eosenmiiller cites, is admirable — " per castigationes queevenerunt super eum obvenit bonum mundo." + Isa. liii. ; Dan. ix. 24, 36. + See Hulsii Theol. Jud. p. 321, 1. 1. Breda?. 1653. CONCLUDING EEFLECTTONS, 373 God's covenant is made with man by sacrifice, and the Messiah, as the messenger of the covenant, becomes also its surety. Of this man has to entertain a lively sense, and to make mention continually before God ; and so his prayers are heard, and blessing comes to him through sacrifice, without any merit of his own, or any inherent value in his sacrifice, but in fall accordance with the dignity of God's government and law. Such I take to be the way of reconciliation wdth God taught in the Jewish Scriptures, and such, with more or less of clearness, all the pious Jews understood it to be. Multitudes, it is true, entertained very different notions, some believing that they would be accepted of God simply on the ground of their descent from Abraham, whilst others sought a righteousness by merely attending to the cere- monial observances of the Mosaic institute. But such were ever held by the more enlightened and spiritual of their countrymen as erring, because they knew not or wil- fully neglected their own Scriptures. To those who studied these Scriptures with becoming diligence and docility, they taught no ambiguous doctrine, conveyed no superstitious beliefs, but clearly unfolded the way to eternal life. II. From the data furnished by this investigation, it is easy to deduce a conclusion as to what it is which consti- tutes the superior glory and advantage of the Christian dispensation over those which preceded it. It is not be- cause under it truths are revealed which were unknown before ; nor, because the religious system which it unfolds is radically different from that displayed to the patriarchs and the Jews ; nor, because under it any relaxation of moral discipline, or mitigation of the Divine claims upon the obedience and devotion of man has been conceded, that its glory is greater than that of its predecessors. On the contrary, its excellence lies in its being the fulfilment and substance of tliat of which the former dispensations contained only the germ and the shadow. It has no truth 374 CONCLUDING REFLECTIONS. of which the sons of God in the earlier ages were altogether ignorant; but it presents the truths which these saw through a glass darkly, in substance and reality before the mind. Where they had predictions, we have narratives ; where they had types, w^e have realities. They w^ere under the discipline of a schoolmaster ; we are under the guidance of the Master of the house. Whilst they had clear views of the jjrincijjles of Divine truth, but could have only vague and imperfect conceptions of the great /ac^s on which these principles rested ; to us, the facts are as certain and intel- ligible as the principles which they involve. Theirs, in short, was the season of the Church's nonage, when it was under tutors and governors ; ours is that of its full ma- turity, when, having received the anointing of the Spirit of truth, it needs not that any man should be its teacher;^' and when its unimpeded faculties are to be fully exercised in the service of its exalted Head. This view of the relation of the Christian dispensation to those which preceded it is unfolded, not only in the New Testament, but also in the Old. In the writings of the prophets, nothing is more clearly foretold than the cessation of the old covenant, and the substitution in its room of a spiritual dispensation, under which neither priest nor prophet from among men should be required for the religious prosperity of the Church. The law of God was then to be written on the hearts of his people. All were to be taught of God, so tliat none should teach his neighbour, saying, Know the Lord, for all should know him, from the least unto the greatest. The people of God should then be called the priests and ministers of Jehovah. They should be all righteous and holy. And so entirely should the outward distinction between sacred and profane, which had subsisted under the Jewish economy, be super- seded by the universal diffusion of true piety consecrating * 1 John ii. 27. CONCLUDING llEFLECTioNS. oT5 all things unto God, that even on the bells of the horses should be inscribed " Holiness to the Lord : " — that inscri])- tion which once belonged peculiarly to the High Priest, as the representative of the holy peoj^le." A carnal dispen- sation was adapted to the end which Jehovah had in view, in selecting'the ancient Israel, and separating them from all nations as a living type of his Church. But when that end was gained, the means used for its accomplishment were laid aside. " There was a disannulling of the com- mandment going before for the weakness and unprofitable- ness thereof. For the law made nothing perfect, but was the bringing in of a better hope, by which we draw nigh unto God."f When the darkness had passed, and the twilight had served its purpose, " the true light that lighteth every man " came into the world. In setting out upon a journey, it often happens to us to start while the mists of night are still upon the ground, and the features of the landscape are to a great extent veiled from our inspection. On such, occasions, the little we can discern serves oftener to perplex than to assist us in forming a true idea of the landscape; and though pass- ing, it may be, through the richest scenery, we may imagine that it has little which would interest us, even could we distinctly behold it. But after a brief space the veil is lifted up, and the sun casts his revealing lustre over the whole extent of the scene, unfolding to us beauties that excite our warmest admiration, and teaching us how uncer- tain are our conjectures, when, from the little we may at any time behold of the works of God, we form to ourselves a conception of the whole. Even so it is with us in our journeyings through the scenes v;hich mark the history of the ancient Church. So long as we have only the dim illumination of conjecture and theory, we mistake the cha- racter of the country, and are apt to pronounce it a mere + Jer. xxxi. 81 flf. ; Isa. liv. 1" ; Ixi. '! ; Isvi. 22 ; Zecli. xiv. 23. + Heb. vii. 19. 376 CONCLUDING EEFLECTIONS. barren and fruitless waste ; but Avhen vv'e so incline the horizon of our path, as to catch upon it the radiance of the Sun of righteousness, and gaze upon the scene under the light Avhich it has thus received, we stand amazed at the rashness of our former estimate. A scene of vast extent and glorious attraction bursts upon our sight. Everywhere we behold traces of the Divine skill, and power, and grace, equalled only by that scene of still greater beauty, into which the former is beheld gradually to expand. The land which, in our ignorance, we despised as sterile, we now see to be a land whose "mountains drop wine, and all whose hills melt;" and, hastening to retract our former censure, we linger amidst its abounding beauties, and exclaim, " The land is Beulah, for the Lord deiighteth in it." III. Besides the greater interest which such researches as those in which we have been engaged throw^ around the Old Testament, as a part of Divine Scripture, they present to us abundant materials for pleasing contemplation, in the view which they suggest of the pervading oneness of the Church of God, from first to last. They have con- ducted us to the cheering conclusion, that the same faith, and hope, and joy, are the portion of all the people of God, however great the distance in time or in space by which they may be separated. It is unspeakably animating, thus to find a sufficient basis laid for the harmonious intercourse and elevated sympathy of the holy and the good of all ages, when they shall meet together in the heavenly world. There is something sublime in the thought, that, by a few principles of truth revealed by God to man, conquests have been achieved over the power of sin, and vice, and igno- rance in our race, which have drawn to them the admira- tion of men in every age ; which have been gradually filling heaven with the trophies of regenerating grace : and which shall ere long spread over the whole earth the reign of righteousness and of love. Of Christ, " the whole CONCLUDING REFLECTIONS. 377 family in heaven and in earth is named ; " he is " Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, the first and the last." To him shall " the desire of all nations" tm^n, when the earth shall be full of people, as to him were the hopes of humanity directed when as yet there was but a solitary pair on its vast and uncultivated surface. Under the influence of such considerations, a scene of surpassing glory, rich with the wonders of redeeming love, opens to our view. Already we anticipate the time when the vast family of God shall be gathered into one, and by the hand of its exalted Head be " moulded into an immortal feature of loveliness and perfection." " The goodly fellowship of the prophets, the glorious company of the apostles, the noble army of martyrs," seem already assembled, vith '' the holy Church throughout all the world," to praise and ac- knowledge God. And as the elevating prospect floats before the view, it seems as if the jars and discords of a too long divided Church were at length composed ; as if the visions of prophecy were already realized, and all who had gotten the victory over the beast were already standing upon the sea of glass which is before the throne, and mingling their accordant voices in the somr of Moses and of the Lamb.* o "A^ios el ev naai Kaipols 'Yfjivelcrdat (pojvats Saiais, 'Yte Geou, ^cofjv 6 bidovs. Alo 6 Kocrfios ere do^d^ei. Hymn. Vespertin. Eccles. Antiq. * Eev. XV. 2, 3. APPENDIX. A. Page 3. MEANING OF THE TEKM Oiad-fjKT] AS ArrLIEB TO THE SACKED Vv'PvITINGS. The appellation usually given in the New Testament to the sacred writings is t] ypacp-^ or at ypacpal, sometimes ra lepa ypd/JixaTa. In the writings of Paul, however, frequent reference is made to the differ- ence between what he calls t] iraXaia diadiyct] and i/ Kaiv)] oia6v,K7] (2 Cor. iii., Heb. ix. &c,); and though in these passages the refer- ence is obviously not so much to any written documents as to the covenant, the promise, the engagement of God with his people imder the old and under the new dispensation, yet as that was the object of a written revelation, the term designating it may very legitimately be extended to designate the documents in which it is announced. The Apostle himself appears to have had this in his eye when, i?i writing to the Corinthians (2 Ep. iii. 14), he speaks of the avdyvcoais ■T5/S TT. 5. the reading of the old covenant, an expression which neces- sarily conveys the conception of a written document ; so that if we have not direct inspired authority for this usage of the word, v/e have the nearest approximation to such authority. The word SiadrjuTj having two meanings, that of a testament and that of a covenant, it has been a controversy of long standing, in which of these senses it must be taken when applied to designate the collected body of the Jewish or Christian Scriptures. The only proper mode of determining this controversy, appears to be to inquire in what sense the word is used by the sacred writers themselves, and especially by Paul, from whose use of it the appropriation of it to the purpose in question is derived. Now in regard to this point, it is admitted on all hands, that the almost unvarying sense attached to it in the Scriptures is that of covenant. By the LXX. it is used to express the Hebrew nni, and in the writings of the Evangelists and AjDostles there is only one instance, respecting wliich the mass 380 APPENDIX. of interpreters are not agreed in attacliing to the word tlic same meaning. That occurs Heb. ix. 15 — 17, where the Apostle is speak- ing of the necessity of the death of the diadefxevos, in order to the vaHdity of the SiaO^^Kr]. In the common version, the former of these words is translated "Testator," and the latter "Testament ;" but as they maybe also translated " the appointed victim" and "covenant," the question is, which of these is to be preferred r Dr. Macknight {in loc.) has followed the latter rendering, and the reasons which he has assigned for this appear perfectly satisfactory. 1. In what sense could the law of Moses be called a test-ament, which is a disposition of benefits to a person, which he may either accept or refuse as he pleases, seeing its obligations Avere imperative upon all who lived imder it ? 2. How was the Mosaic law, if a testament, established by the death of the testator? 3. If the gospel dispensation, as Christ's testament, was confirmed by his death, was it not as a testa- ment or will rendered null and void by his resurrection : If a tes- tator after being dead revive again, does his will continue of force r •4. What connexion have the office of a mediator and the sprinkhng of blood here mentioned, Avith the making of a will ? or what is meant by transgressions of the former Avill, to atone for Avliich the maker of the new will died? Do not all these things relate to a covenant, and not to a testament ? And, in fine, if Cln-ist died merely that his will might have effect, his death camiot be regarded as having been the procuring catise of the blessings thus offered to his people ; whereas, if we regard the Apostle as speaking here of cove- nants, Ave are taught to view our Lord as the great sacrifice by which the covenant was confirmed. On these grounds, Macknight appears to me to argue conclusively in favour of the rendering AA-hich he gives to this passage. Among the early Greek fathers, the Avord dLad-^icr] is used in both of the senses above given, so that from then- Avritings nothing certain can be determined as to the meaning attached by them to the term when employed to designate the sacred writings. By the Latin fathers, the word used is Testamentum, and that this usage must have prevailed from a A^ery early period is obAious, not only from the occurrence of it in the AVTitings of Tertullian, but from his express declaration that this was in his day the common designation of the tvv'o divisions of the sacred volume; " alterius Instrujnenti," says he, adv. Marc. lib. iv. c. 1. " vel {qxiod magis iistd est dicere) Testa- menti." This would seem to shoAV that among them, the idea of a Testament prevailed. The argument from this, hoAA'ever, in favour of our adopting the same rendering of dtaOr]KT] may be met by the APPENDIX. 381 suggestion that the usage of the Latin fathers in this respect is probably to be traced to their translating SiafiTjKT? into what was its primary and proper equivalent in their tongue, without adverting to the fact that, as used to designate the books of Scriptures, it bore a secondary and derived meaning. It may be doubted, moreover, whether the word Testamentum was really used in its ordinary mean- ing of '* a Will," when thus employed by the early Latin fathers. Thus the old translation of Irenoeus {ridv. Hcer, lib. iii. c. 11) makes him speak of four testainenta which have been given by God to the human race, viz., the Adamic, the Noachic, the Mosaic, and the Clixistian, thus clearly using the word in the sense of covenants, Tertullian also in the passage cited, whilst he states thai Testamentum was the ixsual word, seems inclined to substitute for it, at any rate uses as equivalent to it, the word Instrumentum, which means simply a confu-matory or authoritative document,* which would seem to indicate that whilst the word Testamentum was used as a literal ver- sion of 5ia6-fiK7i, it was not felt to be a suitable designation of the Scriptures. We may gather also from the pains which certain of the later fathers, such as Lactantius { Instit. Div, lib. iv. c. 20) and Ambrose {Lib. de Cain et Abel) take to defend the appellation of Testamentum in the sense of Will, that its propriety was doubted by many in their day. The Komish Church has all along strenuously defended the rendering "Testament," as tendmg to favour her doc- trine concerning the cup in the Eucharist being the pledge of Christ's legacy to his priests. The conclusion to w^hich these considerations lead is, that the proper meaning of diadriKr), as applied to the collected books of Scrip- ture, is that of Covenant. B. Page 3. OPINION'S OF THE CHRISTIAN PATHERS RESPECTINa THE CLAIMS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT AND ITS HARMONY WITH THE NEW. The repeated and strong avowals of reverence for the Old Testa- ment Scriptures on the part of the divine Author of Cliristianity and his inspired followers, and of the harmony of the doctrines therein revealed with those which they taught, must be familiar to every * "Instrumentum est Scriptura ad rerum gestarum fidem faciendam confecta." Vitriarius, Universvm Jus Civili Pnvatnm, &c. lib. iv. tit. 17. p. 1004.— Comp. Quintil. Inst. Orat. lib. xii. c. 8. oS"-^ APPENDIX. reader of the New Testament. Of these, notice will be taken in due course in the body of this work ; but it may not be uninteresting in this place to adduce a few quotations to the same eifect from the works of the earlier Christian fathers, for the sake of showing that the thesis maintained in this volume has, from the earliest ages of the Church, formed one of the things most constantly affirmed amongst Clu'istians. Ignatius. " But your prayer to God shall perfect me, that I may bo successful in that lot with which I have been favoured, betaking inyself to the gospel as to the flesh of Christ, and to the apostles as to the i^resbytery of the church [^. e. as to Christ still living, and to the apostles as to the permanent rulers of the church]. The prophets also let us love, because they also have preached, until the gospel, that men should hope in him and abide in him ; in v/hom they also hav- ing believed were saved by the unity of Jesus Clmst, being saints worthy of love, worthy of admiration, attested by Jesus Christ, and counted together with (us) in the gospel of the common hope." Ep, ad Philadelphenos, cap. 5. Patrum Apostoll. Opp. Ed. Hofele, p. 104. Irex^us. " Both Testaments hath one and the same Master of the household produced, even our Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, who spoke both to Abraham and Moses, and hath anew restored liberty to us, and multiplied that grace which is from himself." Adv. Hccres. lib. iii. c. 21. Clemens Alexandrinus. " First there was to the ancient people an old covenant, and the law tutored the people with fear, and the Word was an angel ; but to the new and recent people a nevv' and re- cent covenant hath been given, and the Word hath become (7e7eV77Ta£), and the fear is changed into love, and He, the mystical angel Jesus, is born. For this the same tutor Avho then said, * Thou shalt fear the Lord,' hatli charged us, 'Ye shall love the Lord thy God,' &c." P(udajog. lib. i. c 7. § 59. " Now prophecy and the law both came by him [Christ], and have been uttered by him in parables. Nevertheless the Scripture says, ' All things were right to those who xinderstood,'"* that is, to those who, receiving the interpretation ac- cording to the ecclesiastical canon, which was made clear to them by him, preserve it. Now the ecclesiastical canon is the concert and * Prov. viii. 9. Clement's mode of quoting tliis passage greatly resembles that in which the New Testament writers frequently quote the Old Testament. The original IS Tca\na ivwircov tou- avviovat Ka'i ipOa toIs thpicKovci -yvuiaii', Which is »quoted thUS t3y Clement, a-rtaina bpO('t evtifKtov TMv (TvvtevTwv. Ilere we have words transposed, grammatical changes introduced, and the whole aspect of the sentence altered, while its substance is retained ; as we shall have occasion to see in the course of this Lecture is frequently the case with the Kew Testament quotations from the LXX. APPENDIX. 383 symphony of the law and the prophets with the covenant given at the coming of our Lord." Stromat. lib. vi. c. 15. § 125. 0/»p. Ed. Ivlotz. vol. i. p. 14G, and vol. iii. p. 175. Tertullian in his AjJologetica argues, in support of the claims of the Jewish Scriptures, first on the ground of their " high antiquity" (cap. 19), and then on that of their "majesty," as the products of divine wisdom (c. 20). In the same context he speaks of the Chris- tians as *' a sect underpropped (sufFultam) by these very ancient documents of the Jews" (c. 21). Origex. '* The same God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ himself gave the law, the prophets, and the gospels ; he also is the God of the apostles, of the Old Testament as well as of the Nevr It is most clearly proclaimed in the churches that the same Spiiit inspired each of the sacred (writers) Vv'hether prophets or ajuostles ; and that it was not one Spirit in the old saints, and another in those who were inspired at the advent of Christ." Prco. in Ojms de Prin- cipiis, § 4. Apud Augiisti Chrestomathiam Patrist. vol. i. p. 25. " Wouldest thou see that Moses is ever with Jesus, the law with the gospel ? Let the gospel itself teach thee ; for when Jesus was glo- riously transfigured, Moses also and Elias appeared with-him in glory, that thou mightest know that the law, the prophets, and the gospel, always agree in one and abide in one glory. Moreover, when Peter Vv'ould make three tabernacles for them, he is branded with ignorance, as one that knew not what he was saying ; for the law, the prophets, and the gospel have not three tabernacles, but only one, wliich is the chtu'ch of God." Horn. VI. in Levit. Ajmd Rheimoaldi Ilomiliar. Patrist. I, p. 49„ — "By 'every good pasture,' and by *the water apiDointed,' here (Ezek. xxxiv. 17 — 19) I think the w^hole of the sacred Scriptures is intended ; and further, as there are some who select some parts of Scripture as useful, and reject others as not wholesome, these are they who, after they have fed upon the pleasant pasturage of such as they have chosen, and have drunk the water placed before them which they judged the best, trample down the rest of the ]3asture, and trouble the rest of the water with their feet. Of this sort are both such as choose the nev>^ covenant but reject the old, and such as affirm that of the ancient Scriptures, some parts are of a more divine and a higher power, others of a feebler But let us not trample down the prophetic pasturage, nor trouble the waters of the law. Moreover, as some sin against even the gospel pasturage, by tramj)ling down some parts of the gospels, and feeding on other parts as on good pasture, and of the apostolic writings either reject the whole, or select some and reject others, be it ours to 3Ri APPENDIX. feed upon the whole gospels, treading no part of them under foot, and to diink in all the apostolic doctrines, as much as we can, which is the water appointed for us ; these let us keep, and trouble notliing which is in them by that unbelief which confounds those who are unable to understand the things that are said."* Philocal. cap. xi. Ed. Spencer, p. 38. Lactantius. " All Scripture is divided into two Testaments. That Nvhich came before the advent and passion of the Lord, namely, the law and the prophets, is called the Old ; but those things which were written after his resurrection are called the New Testament. The Jews use the old, we the new ; yet are they not different, because the new is the fiUing up of the old, and the Testator in both is Christ." Divin. Listit. lib. iv. c. 20. p. 377. Ed. Spark. Oxon. 1684. Chrtsostom. "The old covenant anticipated the new, and the new interprets the old. And I have often said that two covenants, two handmaids, two sisters attend upon the one Master. In the Prophets, Christ is predicted ; in the new [covenant] he is preached. The new are not new, for the old anticipated them ; the old have not been extinguished, for by the new they have been explained." Horn. cxi. torn. V. p. 716. Ap. Suiceri Thes. Eccles. sub voc. SiaO-fjKT], tibi plura. Cyhill of Jerusalem. " These things are taught by the inspired writings of the old and new covenant. For of the two covenants the God is but one, who announced beforehand in the old the Christ who hath appeared in the new, and who by the law and the prophets tutored us unto Christ. If, then, thou shouldst hear any of the heretics blasphemmg the law or the prophets, retort upon him with the words of the Saviour, ' I came not to destroy the law, but to fulfil it.' " Cateches. Quarta. Ap. Augusti Chrest. Pat. vol. i. p. 153. The opinions thus entertained by the Fathers are retained in the confessions of all the orthodox Protestant Churches. The above extracts from their writings are not given as the best which their works contain upon the subject to Avhich they relate ; but simply as those which my ovm readings and the p>a''>'va supellex of my own library have enabled me to supply. * In this extract. Origen seems to have had the Marcionites in his eye. In his Dialogue against that sect he frequently introduces the subject of theu* low views as to the authority of the Old Testaiueut and the Apostolic Epistles. Compai'e p. 51, ff. 66, ff., &c. Ed. "VTetstein. Basil. 109 i. APPENDIX- 885 C. Page 7. WORKS TREATING OF THE SUBJECT OP THIS COURSE OF LECTURES. Without pretending to furnish a full enumeration of the works bearing directly or indirectly upon the subject of this Lecture, it may not be iminteresting to the reader to give the titles of a few of the more yaluable, esisecially of such as I have chiefly used in the pre- paration of this volume. Eusebius Pamphilus Bp. of Csesarea. De Bemonstratlo' le Evangelica, libri decern. Colonise, 1688. Polio. Calvin, Institiitionis Christians JRelif/ionis, lib. ii. cap. 7 — 11. Ed. Tholuck. 2 vols. 8vo. Berolini, 1831. Witsius, De (Eco7ioniia Fcederum Dei cum hominibus, libri iv. Utrechti, 1693. 4to. Huet, Bp. of Avranches, Deinonstratio Evanrjelica. 2 vols. Amstcl. 1680. Sykes, A. A. Essay upon the Truth of the Christian Religion, wherein its real Foundation on the Old Testafncnt is shoicn. Lond. 1725. 8vo. Chandler, Ed. Defence of Christianity from the Prophecies of the Old Testament. Thu'd ed. Lond. 1728. With a Vindication of the Defence. 3 vols. 8vo. Berriman, "W. Gradual Revelation of the Gospel from the time of Man's Apostasy. Lond. 1733. 2 vols. Svo. Becan, M. Prof, of Phil, at Yienna and Eather- Confessor to the Emperor Eerdinand II. Analogia Veteris ac Novi Tcstamenti in qua primurn Status Veteris, deinde consensus proportio et conspiratio illius cum Novo explicatur. Lovanii, 1754. 12mo. Jahn, J., Canon_ of the Metropolitan Chm'ch in Vienna. Appendix Hermeneuticce seu Exercitationes Exegeticce. Fascc, I. et II, Vaticinia de Messia. Viemase, 1813 — 15. 8vo. Michaelis, J. D. Entmurf der Typischen Gottesgelccrtheit, 2te Auil. Gottingen, 17G3. Svo. Kanne, J. Am., late Prof, of Orient. Literature at Erlangen. Christiis in A. T. Untersuchungen uberd. Vorbilder und Messianischen Stellen. Niirnberg, 1818. 2 thle. Svo. Eaber, G. S. Treatise on the Genius and Object of the Patriarchal, the Levitical, and the Christian Dis2Jcnsaiio7is. Lond. 1823. 2 vols. Svo. YII. C C S86 APPENDIX. Smith, J. P. ScrijHure Testimony to the Messiah. Vol. i. Second ed. London, 1823. 3 vols. 8vo. Hengstenberg, E. W., Prof, of Theology at Berlin. Christologie cles A. T. und Commentar iib. d. Hessian. Weissagungen d. Froxjheten. Berlin, 1829—35. 3 thle. 8vo. Hartmann, A. Th., late Prof, of Theol. at Postock. Enge VerUndung des A. T. mit dem N. atis rein biblischen stand2mnkte enticickelt. Hamburg, 1381. 8vo. Knobel, Aug., Prof, of Theol. at Giessen. Prophetismus der fiebriier voUst'dndig dargestellt. 2 thle. Breslau, 1837. 8vo. Biihr, K. Ch. W. F., Pastor at Karlsruhe. Srjmbolik des Mosaischen Ciiltus. 2 bde. Heidelberg, 1837—9. HaA'ernick, H. A. Chr., late Prof, of Theol. at Konigsburg. Vorlesimgen ueb. die Theologie des Alten Testaments. Erlangen, 1848. Other works, to which I have been more partially indebted, or which bear less upon the general subject of this volume, the reader •will find noticed in foot notes, as occasion demands. D. Pages 35 and 235. REMARKS ON SOME OF THE QUOTATIONS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT PROM THE OLD. !Mr. Horne has given, (in his Introduction, vol. ii. p. 282, ff. 8th edit.) a very iiseful Table of the quotations in the New Testament £i-om the Old, with explanatory Notes from Dr. Randolph and others. A stni more complete list, including not only passages directly quoted, but those also which are more obscurely hinted at, vnll be found appended to Knapp's edition of the Greek New Testament, Lond. 1824. On one or two of the quotations, wliich have been xisually regarded as most difficult to trace to any source in the Old Testa- ment, I have a few observations to submit to the reader in this place ; taking them in the order in which they occur in the New Testament. Matt. ii. 15. Oxit of Egypt have I called my son. This passage is generally said to be a quotation from Hosca xi. 1, but for no other reason than that the Hebrew of the prophet may be rendered by such Greek as we find in the Evangelist. Beyond this correspondence between the passages there is nothing to favour the idea that the one is a quotation of the otlicr. The subject of the one is entireb' APPENDIX. 387 different from that of the other ; the one being the deliverance of the Israelites from their bondage in Egypt, the other being the return of our Saviour from his place of safety in Egypt. Nor does the language of the prophet bear the remotest semblance of a prediction, but on the contrary is entu-ely expostulatory and historical. And, in fine, if his words are to be viewed as containing a prediction of Christ, they must mean, that though God loved him when a child and called him out of Egypt, yet when he grew up he ceased to please Jehovah and departed from him. This is plainly the state- ment of the prophet, but who would by any means apply this to Christ ? Various attempts have been made to show that Matthew merely accommodated this passage to the case of our Saviour ; but this appears to be forbidden by the obviously argumentative purpose for which he introduces it. Nearly akin to this is the opinion of those who argue that as Israel was a type of Christ, what was said of the one, might be applied to the other ; for this after all just amounts to the assertion, that Matthew accommodated what Hosea said of the literal Israel to what is supposed to have been the anti- type of that people. Had the evangelist quoted the supposed type itself as fulfilled in the antitype, his reasoning would have been direct and free from any accommodation ; but to suppose him to affirm that Hosea foretold Christ's being carried into Egypt, because he referred to the fact of the deliverance of the type of Chiist from Egypt, is only to affirm in a roundabout way that he accommodated the prophet's words to suit his own purpose. Besides, how absurd to talk of the deliverance of Israel from Egypt being a type of oui Saviour's being carried down to Egypt and back again by his parents ! One historical fact the type of another ! and that, when hardly any analogy subsists between them. The truth of the matter is, that the quotation is not to be found in the Old Testament, and Matthew does not say that it is to be found there. He simply affirms it to have been spoken by the prophet, and seems to have had in his eye not any of the written prophecies at all, but some one which had been handed down by tradition among the Jews. That there must have been many such, no one who remembers the names of Samuel, and Nathan, and Gad, and Elijah, and Elisha, and others who are mentioned in Scripture, all of whom doubtless prophesied concerning Christ, will see much reason to doubt.* That Matthew should refer to any of these it may be more * "Non duljitamlum est," says Surenlmsius, " qiiin apud Jtidajos multa veterutn proplietarum oraculamemoriatantum conservata fuerint sine scriptis eaque inter du m ad memoriam juvandam a quibusdam annotata fuisse.'— 1^*6. Kat. p. 25. 388 APPENDIX. difficult to admit : but when it is considered, in the first place, that, supposing such to exist, it was as natural and as desirable to show their fulfilment in Christ as it was to show that of the WTitten pro- phecies ; and secondly, that it is just as probable that the Evangelist should have referred to traditionary ^5>•oj9Aec^■es, as that the apostles should have referred to traditionary facts, as we have seen that they repeatedly do, — this difficidty may, perhaps, be sujmounted. I would submit to my readers whether it be not better to resort to such an hypothesis, than to make volcanic efforts to remove a difficulty which, after all, remains just where it was. I would propose to account upon the same principle for Matt. ii. 23 ; That it might he fulfilled which was spoken hy the lyrophets. He shall be called a Nazarene. It is well laiown that no such prophecy exists in the Old Testament, though many have toiled hard to find or make one. The favourite hypothesis appears to be that, since many pro- phets foretold the mean and despised estate of the Messiah, and as " ISTazarene " was a synonym with the Jews for a mean and despica- ble person, so the affixing of this name to our Lord was a ful fi lment of these prophecies concerning him. But in the first place, it is by no means certain that "Nazarene" was j^er se, among the Jews, a term of reproach ; it is clearly not so used Mark xvi. 6 ; Acts ii. 22 ; iii. 6, &c. ; and I find no instance adduced that it ever was so, apart from its later applications to Jesus Christ. The reverse, in fact, of the position assumed appears to be the truth : Jesus was not called Nazarene as a term of reproach, but Nazarene became a term of reproach from its being applied to Jesus. Secondly, from the hypothesis in question, it would follow that the onhj way in which our Lord fulfilled these prophecies was by bearing the name of Nazarene ; for Matthew does not say that he thereby fulfilled part of what was spoken, but the xohole : and it would also follow, that Joseph was divinely directed to take up his abode in Nazareth, in order that our Lord might acquire a nickname for the fulfilment of prophecies which make no allusion to his bearing such a name, and which would have been fulfilled, whether he had borne that name or not ! It is amazing that so absui'd a supposition should have found any quarter with any friend of inspiration. No less futile appears to be the hypothesis that Matthew here refers to Isa. xi. 1. If I understand the reasoning of those who support this opinion, it is this.— Nazareth was originally and properly called Nezer ; but Isaiah in that passage calls the Messiah Nezer ; therefore, when Jesus Clirist was taken down to Nazareth, and was called a Nazarene, this prediction was fulfilled. I am not aware of APPENDIX. 389 havmg misrepresented this theory, and yet when thiis reduced to its elements, it is so very ridieulons that I almost fear I may have mis- understood its supporters. According to it we must conclude, that what Matthew calls a fulfilment of prophecy, was really nothing better than a sort of pun upon words. Isaiah said that the Messiah should be a Nezer, and in fulfilment of this, says Matthew, he was carried to Nezer, that he might be called a Nazarene. Can we really suppose such arrant trilling as this on the part of the sacred writer ? Or can we wonder that infidels should laugh when, by such means as these, we seek to defend Scripture from their cavils ? On the hypothesis which I have submitted to the reader, these references are accounted for, without our having to resort to any violence of interpretation. The authority of the Evangelist is suffi- cient to satisfy us that such a prophecy had been delivered, and the fact which he has recorded is a sufficient proof that it was literally fulfiUed.* Matt, xxvii. 9. Two difficulties are found in connexion with this citation. In the first place, the passage cited occurs in the extant prophecies of Zechariah, whereas Matthew adduces it as from * On the above. Dr. Davidson has observed [Sac. Herm., p. 68), " Mr. Alexander has a novel mode of accounting for this and another citation. Resting, it would seem, on the expression of Matthew to pnBev, he thinks that the EvangeUst had none of the writteii prophecies in his eye, but traditionary prophecies alone. We greatly doubt the correctness of this solution. t6 f')riOev as employed in other cases, alludes to predictions not merely littered, but 10)' JWi?;i; and there is no reason for departing from the ordinary usage of the formula in two instances." On this I remarlc:— 1. That I entirely agree with Dr. Davidson in what he says concerning the ordinary force of TO pn^ei', and have distinctly stated so in the test of my Lectures (see pp. 43, 49, of the former edition, or p. 37 of this). 2. That I do not rest on this expression as the support of the hypothesis I have embraced in reference to the citations in Matt. ii. 15, and ii. 23. I only adduce the fact that Matthew has in both cases referred to the prophecy as something " spoken," in support of the position that we are not necessitated to take it as something " written." 3Iy argument is not as Dr. D. takes it :— " Matthew says this was spoken, therefore it was not written ; " but— "Matthew does not sp^y this was written ; therefore we are /ree, so far as this is concerned, to adopt the hypothesis that the prophecy he cites was preserved by tradition." 3, Dr. D. says—" There is no reason for departing from the ordinary usage of the formula in two instances." I think I have shown above that there is abundant reason for this, in the fact that on no other hypothesis can the language of Mat- thew be accounted for. If by any fair process Matthew's citations can be traced to any of the written prophecies, I shall most gladly relinquish the hypothesis I have embraced regarding tiiern ; but until this is done, I must hold by this hypothesis, in- asmuch as it alone accounts for the facts. 4. Though Dr. D. ascribes this hypotiiesis to me as its author (and so does a reviewer of my work in the Presbuterian Remew), I cannot conscientiously accept the compliment. My "novel mode of accounting for" the passage Matt. ii. 23, happens to be that advanced ,by Calovius in his Biblia Illustrata, in loe.; by Beugel in his Gnomon, i,i loc; and by others. I thought such books were so common in the hands of scholars, that it Was needless to indicate the soiu"ces of the opinion I had advanced. 390 appp:ndix. Jeremiali. Kuinoel and some others propose to get over this difficulty by supposing the quotations to be from some apocryphal Jeremiah ; but there is no need for our resorting to so violent an expedient. It is admitted that the ancient order of the prophetical books among the Hebrews -was, that Jeremiah should stand first, so as to appear to head that section of the sacred volume which the prophets occupied. "VVe have only, then, to suppose that Matthew, in giving a reference for his citation, contented himself with a general reference to the division, rather than a special reference to the book in which it occurred, and that in referring to the division, he did so by naming the writer who stood at the head of it, in order to remove all difficulty arising from the substitution of the one name for the other. Every reader of the New Testament must be aware how vaguely its writers quote the Old, and they must know also that the instance before vis is not the only one in which a section of the Old Testament is quoted by the name of the book or author, at the head of it. To me there seems nothing more strange in Matthew's having referred to a passage in the Prophets by saying that it is found in Jeremiah, than there is in Paul's indicating that a passage is taken from the Psalms by referring to it as "said in David," (Heb. iv. 7,) or that a passage occujs in the Old Testament by simply affirming that " it is written in the Law," though actually found in Isaiah (1 Cor. xiv. 21.) — The other difficulty arises from the apparent discrepancy of the passage as quoted by Matthew, and the passage as it appears in the place whence it is taken. To some, this has appeared so great that they ave not scrupled to charge upon the Evangelist a perverting of the sense of the original.* But though there be a considerable difference of form in the two passages, there does not ajjpear to be such a difference of substance as to justify such a conclusion, or prevent our regarding the quotation as standing on a par with many others in the New Testament, where the writer qu.otes according to the sense rather than the words of the Old Testament. On comparing the two passages, we find — 1. That the sum of money mentioned is the same in both — thirty pieces of silver. 2. That in both this is repre- sented as a contemptible value to be set upon the object for which it is assumed to be the equivalent. 3. That that object in the Prophet is Jehovah ; in the Evangelist it is one whom he designates 6 rerL- firjixevos — the honoured, precious one, the prince or chief,t and the context shoAvs that by this he means the Lord Jesus, the Jehovah * On this gi'ovmd, Mr. Norton (Evidence of the Genuineness of the Gospels, vol. i. p. 212), would reject the whole passage as spurious. t Comp. the usage of the word in Xenophon's Cyropsed. 8, 3, 9. ed. Schneider. APPZNDIK. 391 of the New Testament. 4. That the tone of both passages is ironical. 5. That in both the money is represented as carried to the same place, viz., the house of the Lord, i. e., the temple. (Comp. Matt. xxvii. 5.) 6. That in the Prophet the money is given to the potter ; in the Evangelist it is given for the potter's field, a diflerence which is more formal than real, for if the money was given for the field of the potter, it must have been given to the potter for the field. 7. That in the Prophet it is the speaker himself who is represented as talcing and giving the money to the potter, whilst in the Evangelist this is ascribed to another party, viz., the Jewish sanhedrim. Now, it is with reference to this last, that the only real discrepancy occurs. It is one, however, which it is very easy to dispose of, for it arises simply from the different point of viev/ from which the two writers surveyed the same transaction — the one prospectively and in vision, the other as an actual historical occurrence. What more natural than that Matthew, finding such a prediction as that contained in Zeehariah, and guided by inspii'ation to apply it to Christ, should, in making the application, drop the vague generality of the prophetic style, and give it more the form which it assumed in its fulfilment ? The truth is, Matthew, as is often the case with the New Testament WTiters, unites two thmgs which a modern author would probably have separated, viz., the citation of the prophecy, and the explana- tion of its fidfilment. Instead of first saying '* it was predicted," &c., and then going on to show how this was historically fulfilled, he runs the two together, and so cites the prophecy as to indicate, in the very terms into which he transmutes the original words, hoio it has been fulfilled. This argument has proceeded on the assumption that the dis- crepancies are as great as the common version makes them. I may now, however, suggest that the passages are susceptible of a render- ing which brings them much nearer to each other than as they appear in that version. I subjoin the tAvo in parallel columns. Zech. xi. 12, 13. Matt, xxvii. 9, 10. And I said unto them, If it is Then [in the casting down of goodinyour eyes, give my hire :* the thirty pieces in the temple, and if not, forbear. And they and the buymg of the potter's weighed my hii-e, thirty pieces of field] was fulfilled that spoken silver. And Jehovah said unto by the prophet [Jeremiah] say- Tliis may mean either "hire to rae" for work clone, or "hire for me" so as to secure me— j. e. the price of betraying me. 392 APrENDix. me, Cast it into the pottery : * the ing, And I took f the thirt}^ pieces magnificent price at which I was of silver, the price of the preci- prized among them ! And I cast ous one v/hom they prized, from it into the house of the Lord into the sons of Israel (and they gave the pottery. them for the field of the potter), as the Lord had commanded me. When so read, the two passages arc by no means further removed from each other than are multitudes of passages in the New Testa- ment from passages in the Old, from v/hich they are undoubted quotations. John vii. 38. He that believetJi 07i rae, as the Scripttire hath said, out of his belli/ shall flow rivers of living icater. If the latter part of this is to be taken as a quotation from some part of the Old Testament Scriptm-e, it will not be easy to determine satisfactorily what that part is. Perhaps the best solution of the difficulty is to regard our Lord as not making any direct quotation from any part of the Old Testament, but as only referring in metai^horical language, suited to the strain of his previous address, (comp. ver. 37,) to a fact which in plainer style is unquestionably announced in the ancient prophecies ; vi2. the abimdant possession of divine knowledge by those who shoidd live under the Messiah's reign. That this is wliat our Saviour here refers to is abundantly clear, both from what goes before, and especially from v.diat follows the passage in question. The " drink" •with which he offers to quench the thhst of those who should come to liim, can be nothing else than the truth concernmg himself as the Saviour of the world, which fully satisfies the anxious mind ; and if, as John tells us in ver. 39, the declaration in ver. 38 had reference to the effects that should result from the gift of the Spirit, to what else can it refer than to the abundant possession by the individual in his own mind of that truth which it is the Spirit's office to teach ? Now that such a privilege should characterise the subjects of the Messiah was clearly foretold bj- the prophets who predicted_^his advent (comp. * niJVn 'jx- This properly means " the potter," hut the LXX. render it by x"^vevT^ptov, which shows that it was understood of a place rather than of & person; while the use of the article shows that it was not «Hy pottery, but some one specifically dis- tinguished that is referred to. Perhaps the phrase was proverbially expressive of the utter casting away of anything ; in which case the Xew^Testament would here, as elsewhere, show that even in the phraseology of the Old.'.unexpected truths are in- Tolyed. t"EXa/3oi/ maybe eitherthe fn-st person singula!', orlthe third person plural, here, I prefer the foi-mer, as it seems required by the m"' at the close of the verse. The connecting of utto vlwv 'lo-pa>^\ with eXa/3ov seems indispensable to the construction. The taking of the words nal '^6u}Kav k. t. X. as a parenthesis cannot be objected to. APPENDIX. 398 Isa. liv. 13 ; Jer. xxxi. 33, 34 ; Joel ii. 28, 29, &c.) ; so that we may easily regard our Lord as making a general allusion to such predic- tions, on the occasion and in the manner recorded by John. 2 Cor. vi. 18. And I will be a Father imtoyon, and ye shall be my sons and daughters^ saith the Lord Almighty. There is no passage in the Old Testament to which this can with any degree of probability be referred. Mr. Scott conjectures that the apostle only intended to make a general allusion to such promises as those contained in Jer. xxxi. 1, 9, and Hosea i. 9, 10 ; an idea wliich is by no means un- likely. But perhaps there has in this case been supposed what really did not exist in the mind of the apostle, viz. an intention to refer to the Old Testament as the source from which these words are borrowed. To me it appears more likely that, having in the pre- ceding verses quoted, as applicable to Cliristians, Jehovah's gracious promise to the Israelites that he would dwell with them and receive them, Paul goes on in ver. 18, to explain more fully in his oion words the full import of that promise. James iv. 5. Do ye think that the Scrijyture saith in vain, The spirit that dicelleth in us lusteth to envy ? This passage is truly a crux inter- pretwn, both as respects its exegesis and as respects the source of the quotation which it professedly contains. Without occup^dng space by attempting an examination of the different suggestions which have been offered in explanation of it, I shall, in a few words, lay before the reader what has appeared to my ovv-n mind the most satis- factory view of the siibject.* Rejecting the division of the sentence into two questions, which has been proposed by some critics, as quite unauthorised, and as making James ask a question too indefinite to be ansv^-ered either one way or another, (for who could tell what was the purport of such an inquiry as "Think ye the Scripture speaketh in vain?") the first point to be determined is the object designated by the plixase, " The spirit that dwelleth in us." Is this the natural spirit of man, or the Divine Spirit in the believer? The translators of the received version have evidently followed the former of these opinions ; and in this they are countenanced by a great number of very excellent interpreters. It may be seriously doubted, however, how far they are correct in this. The phrase, " that dwelleth in us," is never used of the human spirit, which is regarded by the New Testament * Theile, in his commentary on tliis epistle, notices no less tlian eleven different modes of punctuating tliis verse, and eleven corresponding modes of explaining it. In the second Numher of the Theologische StiicUen unci Kriiilcen, for 1840, there is an able paper on this and the following verse, by Prof. Xyro, of Bern. 394 APPENDIX. A\Titers rather as the man himself than as something merely belong- ing to him ; while it, or something quite equivalent, is frequently used of the presence of the Divine Spirit in the heart of the believer ; comp. John xiv. 23 ; Eph. ii. 22 ; 2 Tim. i. 14 ; 1 John iv. 12, &c. It is questionable, moreover, whether Trvevixa is ever used in the NeAV Testament to designate the seat of carnal lusts and propensities in man, wliich must be the meaning of it here in connexion with eTVLTToOel, if it be used of the human spirit ; the proper word in such a case is '^v^rj or KapSta.* Understanding this phrase, then, of the Divine Spirit, the next question respects the meaning of npos (j)d6vov. Strictly speaking, this should be rendered " towards envy," as expressive of the direction of the action of the verb eViTro^e' ; but such a rendering is inadmissible here on two grounds : in the first place, because it would be absurd to say that the Divine Spirit could in any way tend towards enyj ; and secondly, because on this rendering it is impos- sible to make any sense of the passage, the whole of which would stand thus : — " The spirit which, &c. desires [someihinff'] towards envy." In lieu of the literal rendering, Winer and some others pro- pose to render the plu'ase adverbially, invidiose, enviously ; but even granting that there is authority for such a rendering, which I vehe- mently doubt, what meaning is to be made out of it, I cannot conjec- ture, unable to fix any definite idea to the words, " The spuit desireth [its object] enviously." By far the most tenable rendering seems to me that which gives Trpos the force of against — an unusual, indeed, but not unauthorised meaning of that particle. f The only remaining question respects the meaning of ennrodel. This verb denotes the desire of the mind for any given object — TvoQelv ini tl, — and is generally followed by the infinitive of another verb or the accusative of its object. In the present instance the object is not expressed, but there seems no great difficult)'' in sup- plying it. The object of desire to the Divine Spirit within believers is their sanctification ; and in accordance with this he desu-es all that would promote this, and all that is against that which would impede it. But nothing impedes it more than envy, malice, and strife among Christians ; and therefore all the desires of the Spirit are against these. It is to this that the apostle appears to refer here ; comp. Gal. v. 17. If these remarks be correct, we may translate the whole verse thus : * See Olshauseni Opuscc. TheoU. p. 115, ff. De Ifaiurce Ilumance Trichotomia Novi Testamenli Scriptorihus Eecepta. Eerolini, 1S34. t Comp. 1 Cor. vi. 1 ; Eph. vi. 11, 12 ; &c. APPENDIX. 395 — " Or think ye tliat tlie Scripture saith. in vain, The Spirit [of God] which dwelletli in you desiretli [that which is] against envy ;" and understand the apostle as dissuading the Christians to whom he wrote, from those unseemly strifes into which they had fallen, by reminding them that it was a doctrine of Scripti,u-e, clear and true, that the whole tendency of the Spirit's influence was against such conduct and tlie passions from which it springs, so that they could not retain the Spirit of God, and yet indulge such a course. Assuming this to be the meaning of the passage, we may regard the apostle as referring generally to those Old Testament Scriptures, which, in announcing the promise of the Spuit, enlarge upon the peace and jjurity which he should'produce in those to whom he should be given. If any of these in particular was present to his mind, it was probably Ez. xi. 18 — 21. The only other quotation I shall notice here is that in Heb. x. 5 — 7 from Ps. xl. 6 — 8. There is no difficulty in tracing this quotation to its soiu'ce ; the difficulty lies in accounting for the variation in the quotation from the original, and I notice it here because I shall have occasion to use the passage in a subsequent Lecture. The apostle has made the quotation from the version of the LXX., which he has closely follov.-ed, with the exception of a few verbal alterations. Tlie principal departure in this version from the original is in the render- ing given to the words -h nn^ D'2^« 7nine ears thou hast bored, for Avhich the LXX. substitute crcofia de KaTrjpricra) [xoi, a body hast thoupi'ejmred for ?ne, or rather, my body hast thou j'^rcpared. The difference here, how- ever, is more in appearance than, in reality ; for when we come to ascer- tain the sense of both, we shall find that they only state the same truth in different words. As respects the former, it is obvious that an allu- sion is made in it to the practice among the Jews of boring the ears of those servants who refused to avail themselves of the liberty which the year of jubilee afforded them of leaving the service of their masters. This was a symbol of the servant's entire devotedness to the master whom he refused to leave ; and hence the phrase " to bore the ear" came to be equivalent to a declaration of the unreserved submission and devotedness of the party whose ear was said to be bored to the party by whom that act was said to be performed. As used in the passage under consideration, therefore, it simply announces the entire devotedness of the Messiah to the service of his Father. Now this seems to be the idea expressed by the rendering of the LXX., only they have dropped the allusion and substituted for it a dii-ect state- m.ent. The word a-w}xa is often used in Scripture to denote the whole person (comp. especially E,om. xii. 1) ; and when our Saviour 396 APPENDIX. is represented here as saying, " Thou hast fitted or prepai-ed my body," the meaning ob-\T.ously intended is, that he held himself as entirely devoted to the Divine will and service. The expression is elliptical, but it is not difficult to supply the ellipsis from what goes before. If God did not reqxiire sacrifice and offermg from him, but had, instead of that, prepared his body, we naturally infer that the meaning is that, in place of the sacrificial services of the Mosaic ritual, God had appointed for the speaker the consecration of his entire bemg, his acojj,a or personal totality, which he would accept, and which the speaker was ready to render. — It may be added in support of this, the LXX. very frequently substitute for the figurative expressions of the original such direct statements as they conceived to be equiva- lent. Thus, e. g. Gen. iii. 8, for the Heb. expression, " at the breeze of the day," they give simply " in the evenuig ;" for the often recur- ring phrase, "to wallc ^^dth God," they generally use the simple ex- pression, " to please God;" for the words, '* All my people shall kiss upon thy mouth" (xliv. 40), they give " AU my people shall obey upon thy mouth ;" for "the beginning of my strength" (xlix. 3), they say, " the beginning of my children," &c. Cf. Toepleri DePen- tateuchi Interpret. Alexandr. indole Critica et Hermeneutica. Halse, 1830. p. 43. E. Paj?e 43. WISEMAN AND DAVIDSON ON THE SYRIAC USAGE OF THE PHRASE SIGNIFYING IT IS FULFILLED. " Two examples from the Syriac have been adduced by Dr. Wise- man for the same purpose as the Rabbinic phrase just referred to* ["iD«:^ rtD n^p which Surenhusius adduces as parallel to the plu-ase Iva TrXrjpaidfj in the N. T., and which he says is employed " quando id quod probandum est alius ionem \q\ fulchnentum suum habet in lege Mosis et in reliquis sacris Scripturis, et non solum quando rei pro- batis expressis verbis exprimitur "]. The fii'st is taken from a life of St. Eplirem. ' And m him (Ephrem) was fulfilled the word which was spoken concerning Paul to Ananias : he is a vessel of election to me.' The other example is from the writmgs of St. Ephrem himself * TMs is not quite con'ect. Wisemaa'adduces the instances lie gives from the Syriac, not as parallel to the Eahbinic phrase refeiTed to, hut as supplying, what that phrase does not, a usage similar to and illustrative of the New Testament usage of 7rXr]po(d> APPENDIX. 397 where he is speaking of Aristotle. * In liini (Aristotle) was fulfilled that which was -v\Titten concerning Solomon the wise : that of those who were before or after, there has not been one equal to him in wis- dom.' * * These examples,' says a writer in the Quarterly Christian Spectator (New Haven, vol. X. No. 1, Feb. 1838) ' are the more im- portant, as it is directly said in them that the passages quoted were spoken of other persons than those to whom they are applied by the writers making the quotations.' " Dr. Davidson, from whose valuable work on Sacred Hermeneutics the above has been extracted, says, in expressing his dissent from the conclusions at which the writers of these sentences would arrive : " This is reversing the right order of proceeding. The usage of un- inspired men is affirmed to be a proof that the same usage is found in the New Testament. And yet there is no essential connexion be- tween the modes in which formulas are employed by both classes of writers. The one niust be right — the other may be wrong ; the one must be proper — the other, when judged by a Scripture standard, may be improper." p. 484. I confess myself luiable to see the force of this ; indeed, I feel un- certain as to what the meaning of the learned Avritcr in these stric- tures may'; be. "What does he intend by saying, " This is ret" ersiVi^ the right order of proceeding ?" Would he have us, in investigating the meaning of a formula common to the sacred and the uninspii-ed ■writers of antiquity, to explain the form.ula as used by the latter ac- cording to what we assume to be the meaning of it as used by the for- mer ? Are we to argue here for instance that Ephrem meant to cite the passage he ap'plies to Aristotle as a direct prediction concerning that philosopher, because we assume that the sacred writers when they use the same phrase as he employs, always use it to indicate the ful- filment of a direct prediction ? If not, what is meant by saymg the reverse of the course followed by Dr. Wiseman is "the right order of proceeding r" — And then what is meant by the assertion that the sacred -writers "must be right whilst the others may be wrong?" Right in what? Right in the sense they attach to the formula iva 7rXr]pa)6fj ? Of coiirse ; but then the qiiestion happens to be, in what sense do they use that formula ? Now it is to answer this question that such instances as those adduced by Dr. Wiseman arc cited. The principle on which he proceeds is one which must commend itself to every one accustomed to exegetical investigations; and Dr. Davidson * Lectiires on tlie Connexion between Science and Revealed Eeligion, vol. ii. pp. 2-21, 225. 398 APPENDIX. ought to have been the last to find fault with it, for in a previous part of his book he lays it down as a rule that in order to ascertain the usus loquendi of the New Testament, "we may have recourse to the two Syriac versions, the Latin, the Arabic, and some others ; the profane writers, Polybius, Diodorus Siciilus, Arrian, Herodian, &c., em- bracing generally such as WTOte in the kolvt) 8iaXeKTos ; the %^Titings of Josephus and Philo ; the works of the scholiasts and the early lexicographers ; the catenge and commentaries of the Greek fathers." This is a sound rule of hermeneutics, which all good writers on that science agree in laying down. But what has Dr. Wiseman done in the case before us but simply apjohj this rule? And yet Dr. David- son, after laying down the rule, stigmatises this fair application of it as a "reversing of the right order of procedm-e ! " The truth is, that the learned professor has here heijged the question. The thing to be ascertained being in what sense a certain formula may be understood, he assumes that this sense is already determined, and reasons ac- cordingly. F. Page 74. ON CERTAIN USES OF THE PLURAL IN HEBREW. The solution given in the text of the usage in question must not be confounded with that frequently proposed by waiters in defence of the doctrine of the Trinity, viz., that the sacred writers adopted it in order to teach or at least to indicate that doctrine. To this it has been justly objected that it assumes that the sacred writers did usually involve doctrines of this kind in the 7nere forms of words*— a posi- tion not only destitute of evidence, but which seems altogether improbable. No such objections, however, can be ui-ged against the theory advanced in this volume ; for the solution which it proposes lies not in any supposed expedient resorted to by the sacred ^^Titers, but in a formal law of Hebrew thought. That the inspired writers should invent a form of speech in order to teach a particular doctrine is extremely unlilcely ; but that the Hebrew people should form their name for Deity after the analogy of their own idioms is altogether natural. Knowing the fact of the divine plurality in unity they used theu' term for Deity exactly as they were wont to use any other term denoting an object which combined plurality with unity. Lee's TIeh. Gram, p, 250, ed. isil. yiPPENDix. a99 There is an objection urged by Hengstenberg against the ohler theory which may seem also to affect that now proposed. " It is incapable, he says, * of explaining the use of the name □'nb.^ of the Deity in the most general reference, and is necessitated to ignore it. Even one single passage like that in 1 Sam. xxviii. 13, where the idea of Deity itself is too narroAv for the D^nbw, and where this word must have the vague sense of something unearthly, non-human, is sufficient to set it aside."* To this it is replied, 1. that there might be some force in the objection did Ave propose to account for all the instances in which Elohim is used of a singular object in the Avay suggested. But this is not the case ; it is only of the use of this term to denote Deity that our rule professes to offer explanations ; for its use to denote other objects let lis account as we can. Surely it is a strange position to assume that the same v/ord must in all its iisages come under the same rule of construction. "We have already seen the opposite in the case of Adonim, which is sometimes the plural intensive, and sometimes the plural of multeity in unity ; why may not a similar variety of law regulate the use of Elohim ? 2. In the case adduced by Hengstenberg, as utterly subversive of our rule, it is by no means clear that c^nb« means what he says it means. Wliy may we not suppose that, to the excited imagination of the sorceress, the awful and venerable form that came at her invocation from the invisible world appeared as none other than God himself ? 3. Hengstenberg seems to have forgot that this instance is no less fatal to his own theory of n^nb^j, than he says it is to that wliich he adduces it to overturn. If it be impossible from the fact of the Trinity to account for the calling of a supernatural object Elohim, it is no less so from the doctrine of the plural intensive. According to this doctrine the reasoning here shall stand thus : Eloah in the sin- gular signifies God ; therefore to express the idea of God in the highest the plural Elohim is employed. Now here it is something less than God that is denoted ; it is the mere vague supernatural ; and hence the term properly denoting God in the highest is used ! Such reasoning is self- contradictory. The above observations, along with some others which have been incorporated with the text, are taken from an article which I contri- buted to Kitto's Journal of Sacred Literature (No. II. for April, 1848) On certain Idiomatic usages of the Plural in Hebrew, As the subject is in itself one of interest to Biblical students, and involves questions which have been extensively mixed up with that discussed in the * Lih. Cil. i. 255. 400 APPENDIX. text, I shall append the substance of that part of the paper not nlready quoted here. As language is the sign of human thought, and as the laws of thought are uniform, it might be expected that in all languages the same modes of syntactical combination would prevail. Now, to a considerable extent, this is actually realized. There are certain great principles which regulate the combiaations of words in all languages and constitute the laws of universal grammar, being them- selves, in fact, formal and invariable laws of human thought. But from these normal principles we find in every tongue departures, to a greater or less extent, in the usages of speech prevalent among those by whom it is, or has been employed. Each general law, though recognised by all people, seems as if subjected to special modifica- tions, more or less, in each separate instance. All obey the rule, but all do not obey it invariably, or in exactly tJie same way. Hence arise those special phenomena which constitute the syntactical idioms (Idia^ara), or proper features of each tongue. These idioms have been too frequently regaided as mere accidental or arbitrary departures from ordinary r\ile, of which little more can be said than that they form "exceptions" to the general laws of grammar, to be traced to some unaccountable caprice of the people by whom they were used. To adopt this mode, however, of dealing with such a subject, though it may be compendious and easy, is unphilosophical and unsatisfactory. It seems but reasonable to con- clude that a linguistic usage which has received the sanction of a whole people must rest upon some principle regulatmg the habits of thought of that people — that a fixed and regular departure from a general rule in specific cases must be as much the result of a laic as obedience to that rule in general — and that, consequently, these idioms, instead of being mere isolated facts or anomalies, are to be viewed as the instances from which, by an accurate induction, we are to ascertain the grammatical principle which each set of them em- bodies, and by which the idiom itself may be accoxmted for. In making such investigations there are two rules which it seems important to bear in mind. The one is, that as an idiom is simply a formal departure from the general rule, not a real contradiction of it (in which case the rule itself would be invalidated), the true solution will show how the idiom may be brought under the rule, notwith- standing its apparent departure from it. The other is, that as language is purely subjective, denoting things as they are presented to the mind, and not as they are in themselves, the true solvation of an idiom •\^ill indicate some comeption of the mind, which has led to AP^E^'Dlx. 401 the apparent but not real departure from the fundamental rule of grammar. To account for an idiom, therefore, is to discover the mental conception which has led to such a formal departure from, along with real adherence to, the general rule under which the idiom stands. In the present paper it is proposed to attempt this with reference to certain well-known idioms of the plural in Hebrew. In that language, as in every other, the plural is used regularly to denote the conception which the mind forms of morewess* in the objects of its contemplation. But not a few cases are found in which an object existing in unity is designated in Hebrew by a plural noun. The thing to be ascertained is the reason of this, or, in other words, the mental conception which in each case produces it. Having ascer- tained this, the principle educed may be applied to the elucidation of certain usages which have been found difficult. I. The plural is often used in Ilehrcio to designate the abstract. — The rationale of this has been given by Ewald thus : — " The plural is used to combine the scattered individuality into a higher conception, so that it approaches very near to the conception of the abstract ;"t or, to express the truth more simply and clearly, as the abstract is a generalization from several individuals, the mind conceives of it as if it embraced these'individuals, and so designates it by a plural form. As instances of this usage the following may be adduced: Is. 1. 10, " Who is among you that walketh D'^rrr in darknesses," &c. ; comp. the Latin tenehrae ; " darkness " being an abstract term denoting what the mind conceives of as a combination of separate qualities. Is. xvii. 10. " Thou shalt plant plants □'?W2 o/ /oi;e/mess," &c., the combi- nation of all that is lovely and beautiful ; comp. Latin deliciae. So also the words for youth, D^Q^by, ^'''J^T-i, old age, D^opf, virginity, avina, with many others besides. These mstances sufficiently shov,- that it was a teaidency of Hebrew thought to put terms denoting the abstract in the plural. Here, however, the rationale of the usage shows that the departure from the ordinary rule for the use of the plural was formal, not real. II. In close connexion loith the abstract proper, is the personijied abstract or the embodied abstract. — After having by a process of gene- ralization conceived the abstract as apart from the concrete, the mind often invests the abstract thus conceived with personal attributes, or ascribes to it personal acts, thereby giving the subjective concejDtion, * Sit venia verbo ! Why should we not say moreness as the Germans say Mchrheit? t Kleine Gr. p. 225. VII. D D 402 APPENDIX. as it were, an objective existence. Thus, when Shakespeare makes one of liis characters exclaim, *' O Reason, thou art fled to brutish beasts ; " the Reason, though properly abstract, is personified and spoken of as if it had a real existence. This is often done in Hebrew, and in such cases the language shows a tendency to use the plural form. Thus, in Proverbs, Wisdom, when used to designate not what an individual, as such, may possess of knowledge or sagacity, but the personification of such knowledge or sagacity in the abstract, is frequently put in the plural ninzn, Aid. ch. i. 20 ; ix. 1, &c. The rationale of this usage is sufHciently obvious : the mind conceives the personified abstract as uniting in itself all the forms in which the quality personified may be displayed ; as thus a congeries of many, and as consequently properly d cnoted by a plural form. III. The plural is tised in Hehreio to denote the intensive, or ivhere anything is intended to he set forth as deserving of especial importance. — This usage is not peculiar to the Hebrew. Kiihner notices a similar idiom in the Greek poets, who, says he, " frequently use the plural instead of the singular form, simply for the purpose of investing the expression with greater weight from the generalization of the indi- vidual ; thus Eur. Hec. 403 yaka roKevo-iv (instead of rrj iirjTpi) eifcoro)? dvixovixepois. So," he adds, ** in Latin, 2J(i'>'entes, liberi, filii, . when only one parent, &c. is spoken of. The tragedians often say of a very dear person to. c^tXrara, to. rraidevfiara and the like (Comp. Aristot. Bhet. iii. 6, els oyKov rrjs "ke^eois {ad sermoiis granditateni) avixl3dXkeTat to ev TToWa. Troulv)."* The reason which Kiihner suggests for this usage seems hardly sufficient. It is not the generalization of the individual which leads to the designation of it by the plural ; but rather because that to wliich dignity is to be ascribed, or which is viewed intensively as the greatest or highest of its kind, is thought of as comju-ehending in itself the concentrated essence, so to speak, of the individuals composing its class — as if they had been com- bined and condensed in order to furnish forth this superior specimen. This usage is very common in Hebrew. Glassius has collected a number of instances m his Phil. Sac. lib. iii. tract, i. canon 24, and though some of these instances might be ranied under other heads, there remains a number, which he has not noticed, sufficient to make up for any deduction on this account. One or two will suffice here by way of specimen. Thus Ezek. xxviii. 10 : " Thou shalt die D^niD the deaths of the uncirciimcised," &c. i. e. by the cruellest death * Ausjiihrl. Gram. ii. 29. APPENDIX. 403 which wicked men can inflict. So in Isa. liii. 9 : « And he made his grave with the rich vniDl in or after his deaths,' i. e. his most cruel death. Jer. x. 15 : " They are vanity and the work D^iwr^ of deceits, i.e. of the grossest deceit. Lam. iii. 22 : "It is of the Lord's mercies" i.e. his infinite and vmbounded mercy, that we are not con- sumed, &c. Under this head may be ranked most of the words which are usually adduced as proving the so-called plural of majesty : such as D^:i« Lord, D'b^j Master, ninni huge beast. Some distingiushed scholars have endeavoured to show that thes-e are not plural, and that, consequently, they do not come really isito question in the present case. Thus Dr. Pye Smith, after Bochart and Eichhorn, contends that Behemoth is not the plural of Behemah, but is an Egypt- ian word composed of P or J5 the prefix, ehe an ox and moid aquatic, and is the proper designation of the Hippopotamus or river ox.* This is ingenious, but the soundness of the reasoning is doubtful ; for, 1st, it camiot be proved that at the time the book of Job was written the term Behemoth was ever applied by the Egyptians themselves to the Hippopotamus ; and 2nd, as the word stands it is unquestionably the plural of Behemah, and it seems very imlikely that in borrowing a name fi-om the Egyptians, composed of B, ehe, and mout, the author of the book of Job would have retained that word in a form not agreeing with the analogy of the Hebrew, and in v/hich also it might be readily conformded with one already existing in his ovvni language. It is characteristic of all languages which have appropriate forms of words, that in transplanting a foreign term they give it such changes of form as brmg it into analogy with their own words. Thus the Greeks, in transplanting the oriental word for a park or enclosed pleasure-ground, did not take the simple DTC, but changed it into 7rapddet,(TGs, in conformity with the analogy of then- own tongue. Comp. Xi^avcoTos frankincense from T^22^_, KctpTracros cotton from DQ")!), fc^TTos- an ape from F]ip, &c. Had this word then been really borrowed from the Egyptian we should have expected that the writer, mstead of leavmg it in a form not according to the analogy of the language in which he was writing, and apt to be confounded, from its identity of form, Avith a word already existing in that language, vvould have given it a shape more distinctly Hebraic ; as we find done in such Avords as T|^5«, Gen. xli. 43, ni"n5, DiinQ, Isa. xi. 11, &c. I am inclmed therefore to deal with this word Behemoth as the piiu-al of * ScrivtxirQ Testimonu to the Heisiah, i. 507. 404 APPENDIX. Beliemah, and to explain the use of the plural in Job on the princi- ple that it is the plural intensive, q.d. the beastliest of beasts — the hugest, fiercest, and most dangerous. "With regard to Adonim and Baalim, it has been affii-med that " it is only when in the construct state with possessive pronouns that these words occur in the sense of a single master or lord," and from this it is argued that the noun is not in the plural at all, but that the form V3nx or yhsi^ for instance, is the singular p.^ and hti with a paragogic ' inserted before the suffix for the sake of euphony. "For my own part," says a distinguished writer, ' since throughout the context of the passages referred to, the word, when not in construction with the pronoun sufhx, is in the singular number, and only assumes a plm-al form when in such con- struction, I should think it more simple and reasonable to conclude that Boli [Baali] is used as a singular form of the noun when in these circumstances of regimen.* He then adduces from Gousset {Comment. Ling, Heb.) the case of the prep. "?« becoming in some cases 'b«r and from Wilson's Heb. Gram, the cases of nx. n«! Dn as assuming iod before the affixes, and asks whether bs-i may not be another instance of the same kind. Dr. Smith adopts the same view, and his remarks are much to the same eftect.f This suggestion, it must be admitted, is ingenious, but the more I consider it the more \ am forced to doubt its soundness. In the first place ; though it be true that the form '•bS'i' when it signifies one individual, is never found except with the pronominal suffix, this is not the case with ^:iX' which occuj-s both in the construct form with other substantives, and in the full form as designating one individual. E. gr. Gen. xxxix. 20 : "And Joseph's master (r]Dr -?i«) took him," &c. 1 Kings xvi. 24 : " And called the name of the city which he built after the name of Shemer, owner of the hill, (irrn ^oix) Shemron or Samaria." These are instances of the word in the construct state, but it occurs also frequently in the full form, thus, e. gr. 1 Kings xxii. 17 : " And the Lord said, These have no master (nVi^b Q'?ii is properly a substantive standmg in the constriict state with the follow- ing noun (comp. Gesenius's Grammar, § 101) ; and which, though generally used m the singular, is by the poets occasionally used in the plural, perhaps for the sake of euphony, perhaps for some pro- 408 APPENDIX. sodiai reason not now ascertainable. The occurrence of 7« with. iod, then, gives no authority whatever for concluding that the iod in ''■»2 is paragogic. As regards the words for jfe^Aer, brother, father -in- lavj, the presence of the iod before the suffix is simply the retention of the full form of the word ; it is not a letter added to the word, but the v'ord itself in its entire and unapocopated form. nj &c. ; so that the occiu-rence of those forms is not a case of the insertion of the paragogic iod, but simply a retention of the word in its perfect form. The utter want of analogy between such cases and the supposed case of b*"*!, with the iod appended, did not escape Dr. Smith ; but the mode in which he tries to get over the difficulty is altogether unsatisfactory. " Since," says he, "Baal, like them (n^< father, n« brother, nn fathc'-in-laic), expresses one of the familiar relations of life, the usage in their case, though originat- ing in a different etymological reason, might become transferred to it by colloquial assimilation."* This sentence conveys to me, I con- fess, no definite idea. What, e. gr., is meant by asserting that the usage of Abi, &c., originates in a different etymological reason from the supposed usage of Baali, when, according to the -WTriter's own theory, the latter originated in no etymological reason at all, but was the result merely of colloquial assimilation ? And by v/hat con- ceivable process can we suppose Baali to be assimilated to Abi ? Shall we say that because a certain class of words retain their full, original form in certain circumstances, another w^ord occurring in the same circumstances, receives an addition to its original form in order that it may be assimilated to that class ? If this be a law of Hebrew, one wotdd like to see it substantiated by a few more examples ; and one would requu-e some reason to be assigned why, of all words expressing the familiar relations of life, Baal alone should be brought into assimilation with the forms Abi, Ahi, &c. In the absence of all such proof, I must regard Dr. Smith's solution as altogether unfounded. Viewing these words, then, as really plurals, the solution I would give of their usage to denote individuals is simply this : that here, as in many other cases, the pltu'al is employed to express the idea of the word intensified. Adon is a lord ; Adonim, used for an individual, is a lord intensified = oji absolute proprietor, or a harsh, severe task- master. So also with Baal. * ScripH'AX' Testimony, i. 509. APPENDIX. 40' G. Pasre 76. OPINIONS OF THE FATHERS REGARDING THE PLURAL APPELLATIONS OF DEITY IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. The argument in tlie text in favour of tlie doctrine of the Trinity lias been stigmatized by some Unitarian Avriters as a novelty which WIS unknown in the earlier ages of the Church. It is of little moment whether it be new or not, provkled it be only sound ; but as it is not nev it may be as well to show by a few extracts in what esteem it was heli by some of the very earliest christian vn-iters. larnabas, in his Epistola CathoUca, cap. 5, speaks of our Saviour as " tlie Lord of the Universe, to whom He (the Father) said, Let us makey" &c. Fatrum Apostoll. Ed. Hefele, p. 7. Tertullian, in an argument on the subject of the Trinity, in one of lis Tracts, says : " But if the number of the Trinity offend thee, as if i.ot connected in a simi^le unity, I ask, How comes a person who is done and single, to speak in the plural, ' Let tis make man in our image and lilceness,' Avhen he should have said, ' Let me make, &c.' as became one who was alone and single? Moreover, when he says afterwards, ' Behold Adam has become as one of us,' whether does he deceive and play upon us, in thus speaking as if there were a number whilst there is only one, sole and singular : or does he speak some- how to the angels, as the Jews, because they do not acknowledge the Son, interpret it ; or does he, because he himself was at once Father, Son, and Spirit, speak to himself ? Yes, truly, because already the Son, the second Person, the word of God, adhered to him, and also the third Person, the Spirit in the word, therefore he said in the plural, ' Let us make,' and ' our,' and ' us.' For with whom made he man, and to whom did he make him like ? Certainly with the Son, who was to put on man, and with the Spirit, who was to sanctify man ; and to them, as if to ministers and arbiters, he spoke from the Unity of the Trinity." — Tertullian, Adv. Pirtxean, cap. 12. (Augusti Chrest- omathia Patristica, vol. ii. p. 21, 22.) Ambrose, in commentmg vipon Gen. i. 26, says ; " To whom saith God this ? Not to himself certainly, for he says, ' Let «s make,' not ' Let me make.' Not to angels, for they are ministers ; and between a master and his servants, an author and his work, there can be no partnership of operation. He saith it to the Son, though Jews should be unwilling, and Arians should refuse, to admit it." — Hexaemeron, lib. vi. c. 7. 0pp. ed. Gilbert, Lips. 1840. Partii. p. 164. 408 APPENDIX. Augustine frequently notices this use of the plural in reference to the Deity in the Old Testament as an evidence of the Trinity. The following passage may be cited as a specimen of his argiimentatioji on this head : *' As respects the words, ' Let us make man,' it would be possible to understand them of the angels were it not for what fol- lows, — • in our image.' It w^ere impious to say that man is made in the image of the angels, or that the image of angels and of God is identical. Hence it is right to understand here the plurality of the Trinity. As, howeyer, this Trinity is one God, though he had said, ' Let tis make,' it is rightly added, 'And God made man in the imnge of God ;' not * Gods made,' nor * in the image of Gods.' " — De Chit. Dei, lib. ii. c. 6. Statements to the same effect by Gregory of Nyssa, Basil the Great, Theodoret, Epiphanius, and others of the Greek fathers, have been collected by )Suicer in his Thesaurus Ecclesiasticus, sub voce Tptds. H. Page 105. PRESIDENT EDWARDS ON THE DEATH THREATENED IN THE PRIMEVAL CURSE, 1 " The death that was to conic on Adam, as the punishment of his disobedience, was opposed to tliat life which he would have had as the reward of his obedience, in case he had not sinned. Obedience and disobedience are contraries : and the threatenings and promises that are sanctions of a law, are set in direct opposition : and the promised rewards and threatened punishments are what are most properly taken as each other's opposites. But none will deny that the life which would have been Adam's rcAvard, if he had persisted in obedience, was eternal life : and therefore we argue justly, that the death which stands opposed to that life is manifestly eternal death, a death widely different from the death we now die. If Adam, for his persevering obedience, was to have had everlasting life and happiness, in perfect holiness, union with his Maker, and enjoyment of his favour, and this vras the life which was to be con- firmed by the tree of life ; then, doubtless, the death threatened in case of disobedience, vv^hich stands in direct opposition to this, was a being given over to everlasting wickedness and misery, in separation from God, and in enduring his wrath. APPENDIX. 409 And it may witli the greatest reason, be supposed, that when God first made mankind, and made known to them the methods of his moral government towards them, in the revelation he made of himself to the natural head of the whole species, and let him know that obedience to him was expected as his duty, and enforced this duty with the sanction of a threatened punishment, called by the name of death, — I say, we may with the greatest reason suppose, in such a case, that by death was meant that same death which God esteemed to be the proper punishment of the sin of mankind, and which he spealvs of under that name throughout the Scripture as the proper wages of the shi of man, aiid was always from the beginnmg under- stood to be so in the Church of God. It would be str mge indeed if it should be otherwise. It would have been strange, if when the law of God was first given and enforced by the threatening of a punish- ment, nothing at all had been mentioned of that great punislunent ever spoken of under the name of death (in the revelations which he has given to mankind from age to age), as the proper punishment of the sin of mankind. And it would be no less strange if, when the punishment Avhich was mentioned and threatened on that occasion, was called by the same name, even death, yet we must not understand it to mean the same thing, but something infinitely diverse and infi- nitely more inconsiderable." The writer then proceeds to show, by a large induction of passages, that the word *' death" is used in Scripture in the sense of spiritual deaths, and that it is this " which the Scriptm-e ever speaks of as the proper wages of the sins of mankind." He continues thus : *' If any should insist upon it as an objection against supposing that death was intended to signify eternal death in the tlireatening to Adam, that this use of the word is figurative, though it should be allowed, yet is by no means so figiu'ative as many other phrases used in the history contained in these three chapters, as when it is said* ' God said, Let there be light,' God said. Let there be a firmament, &c., as though God spake such words with a voice. So, when it is said, God called the light day ; God called the firmament heaven, &c. ; God rested on the seventh day ; as though he had been weary, and then rested. And when it is said, they heard the voice of God walking, as though the Deity had two feet, and took steps on the ground. Dr. Taylor supposes that when it is said of Adam and Eve, Their eyes were opened, and they saw that they were naked : by the word naked is meani; a sense of guilt, which sense of the word naked is much further from the common use of the word than the supposed sense of the word death. So this author supposes the promise con- 410 APPENDIX. cerning the seed of the woman bruismg the serpent's head, while the serpent should bruise his heel, is to be understood of the Messiah's destroy mg the power and sovereignty of the deyil, and receiyuig some slight hurt from him, which makes the sentence full of figures, vastly more beside the common use of words. And why might not God deliver threatenings to our fii'st parents in figurative expressions, as well as promises ? Many other strange figures are used m these chapters. " But, indeed, there is no necessity of supposing the word death, or the Hebrew word so translated, if used in the mamier that has been supposed, to have been figtu'ative at all. It does not appear but that this word, in its true and proper meaning, might signify perfect misery and sensible destruction, though the word was also used to signify somethmg more internal and visible. There are many words in our language, such as heart, sense, vieAv, discovery, corruption, light, and many others which are applied to signify mternal things, as that muscular part of the body called heart ; external feeling called sense ; the sight of the bodily eye called vieAv ; the finding of a thing by its being uncovered called discovery ; the first begunimg of the foetus in the womb called conception ; and the rays of the sun called light : yet these words do as truly and properly signify other things of a more spuitiial, internal natui-e as those ; such as the disposition, affection, perception, and thought of the mind, and manifestation and evidence to the soul. Common use, wliich governs the propriety of language, makes the latter things to be as much signified by these words, in their proper meaning, as the former. It is especially common in the Hebrew, and I supjDOse other oriental languages, that the same word that signifies something external, does no less properly and usually signify something more spiritual. So the Hebrew words used for breath have each a double signification. Neshama signifies both breath and the soul, and the latter as commonly as the former. Kuach is used for breath or wind, but yet more commonly signifies spirit. Nephesh is used for breath, but yet more commonly signifies soul. So the word Lebh, heart, no less j)roperly signifies the soul, especially with regard to the will and the affections, than the part of the body so called. The word Shalom, which we render peace, no less properly signifies prosperity and happmess than mutual agreement. The word translated life signifies the natui'al life of the body, and also the perfect and happy state of sensible, active beings, and the latter as properly as the former. So the word death signifies destruction as to outward sensibility, activity, and enjoyment ; but it has most e-vidently another signification which APPENDIX. 411 in. the Hebrew tongue is no less proper, viz., perfect, in\isible, hope- less ruin and misery." — 0)1 Original Sin, Pt. II. cli. 2, § 2. I. Page 110. THOLUCK ON HEB. XI. 19. Of the opinions referred to in the text, a condensed recensio is given in the following note upon the passage in Tholuck's Commentar zum Briefe an die Hebrder. *' Interpreters have found great difficulty in the explanation of iv TrapajBoXfj. Passing over certain arbitrary meanings of the word, there are three modes of Adewing the phi-ase adverbially. In point of antiquity and number of supporters, the superior authority is in favour of the opinion that it means here as in ix. 9, ' a figure' or ' type.' So almost all the versions, the Peschito, Itala, Vulgate, Koptic, Ethiopic, Luther, and the English version. According to some, the type refers to the resurrection of Christ ; while others think it refers to the resurrection of man ; and others, again, combine both views. The Jitst opinion is supported by Theophylact, (Ecu- menius, Erasmus, Wolf. Chrysostom, who is generally classed as of this opinion, and that even by Kumoel, takes eV TrapajS. in the sense of dia 7rapa^oX.rjs, and refers it to the ram. The second opinion is supported by Cameron, Michaelis, Boehme, and Schvilz. The third by Theodoret and Von Meyer. A second class of interpreters adopt the meaning of quodammodo : ' He received him from the dead asif£ron\ the grave.' So Calvin, Castellio, Scagiier, James Capellus, Grotius (who has been improperly placed in the first class), Limborch, and Kuinoel. A thiixl class follow the classical usage of rrapa^aX- Xea9at, ' to expose one's-self to hazard, to risk sometliing ; ' of TrapdlBoXos, ' audacious, daring ; ' and of Trapa^oXr], ' hazard ;' and, accordingly, Homberg and Losner translate here x^'^'^^^ntissimo dis- crimine, Raphel and Krebs, prceter spem, and Camerarius, exponens se magno periculo [amittendi filii). Of these three explanations the least to be commended is the second, because it caiuiot be shown that iv irapa^oXf] or rrapa^oXiKcos is ever used in the sense of as eVoy eiTretv, The first is not inadmissible, but yet it is not without its difficulties. For noticing the typical relation of Isaac to Christ, there was no occasion in this place ; and hence" it is better to refer the difficult expression to the resui'rection of the dead generally, 412 APPENDIX. thus : He believed in Him who is able to raise from the dead, and as a pledge thereof he received his son, as a type of that resurrection, from the dead. But in this case should we not expect els irapa^ok-qv^ and perhaps also the addition r^? amcrracreoos' ? Judging philo- logically of the meaning adopted by the thii'd class, I cannot admit wdth Krebs that this interpretation is the only true one. At the same time, the objection urged against it by Kuinoel, that iv napa- ^oXfj cannot mean mse2-)erato, applies only to the loose rendering given by Raphel and Krebs, whilst that of Losner, and still more, that of Camerarius. is philologically correct. Polybius, especially, frequently uses Trapa^oXcos and 7rapdj3o\os. Thus he says of Hannibal, (I. XXV. 7,) — ' He escaped in a skiff, unexpectedly, and with risk (Trapa^oXcos) ; ' again he speaks of persons ' who carried through the men with risk,' (I. xx. 14 ;) and again of a person ' running into the port boldly and with risk ;' (I. xliv. 6 ;) see other instances in Schweighaeuser's Index. "We may therefore on good grounds render the passage before us by ' And brought him back from the dead, though at a bold venture.' " K. Page 122. DIFFERENT VERSIONS OF JOB XIX. 25 27. That the reader may judge for himself, I shall here place before him the different versions of this memorable passage enumerated in the text : rendering into English those that are in foreign tongues. Chaldee Targum : — But I know that my Redeemer is the Living One, and after these things his redemption shall come upon earth. And after my skin shall have decayed, this shall be ; and in my flesh shall I again see God. Whom [or because, n ] I shall see for me, and my eyes shall behold, and not another. My reins are con- sumed within me. LXX : — For I know that eternal is he who is about to release me upon the earth. My skin (body) shall rise again w^hich suffers these things ; for by the Lord have these things been accomplished. Of which I am personally conscious ; which my eyes have seen, and not another ; and all things are accomi:)lished to me in my bosom. * Vtilgate : — For I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that at the last day I shall rise from the earth. And agaua shall I see my God. * The readings of the Cod. AleXcandrinus have been followed in this translation. APPENDIX. 413 Whom I myself shall behold, and my eyes shall see, and not another ; this hope is laid up in my bosom. Schultejis : — For I know my Vindicator, the Living One, and that he, the Last, shall stand upon the dust. And after they shall have bored through my skin in this manner, nevertheless, out of my flesh shall I see God. "Whom I shall see for me, and my eyes shall see, and not another's. My reins are consumed in my bosom. — Liber Jobi in Vers. Met. divisus cuin versione Latina Alb. Schultens, ^c. — Edldit Ricardus Grey, S. T. P. &;c. in loc. Rosenmuller : — I know my Yindicator, the Living One ; and that afterwards he shall stand upon the dust (earth) ; and though after my skin \]ms been wasted] they shall corrode this [bcdi/], yet out of my flesh (i. e. with my renovated body) shall I see God. Whom I shall see for me («'. e. on my side), and my eyes shall behold, and not another. My reins are consumed withm me. — Scholia in Vet. Test, in loc. Pareait : — This I know that my Yindicator cannot die, and that it shall be that he, ever-living for me, shall stand by my remains ; and that having laid aside my body, w^hich the worms shall gnaw and waste, and having put ofl" this flesh, I shall see God. Whom I shall see propitious to me ; whom with my eyes I shall behold, and that not unfriendly. — Commentatio de Imiyiortalitatis ac Vic. Fnt. notitiis ah antiqiiissimo Jobi Scriptore in suos usus adhibitis, &c. p. 183. Smith : — I surely do know my Redeemer, the Living One : and he, the Last, will arise over the dust. And after the disease has cut down my skin, even from my flesh I shall see God : whom I shall see on my behalf; and mine eyes shall behold him, and not estranged. The thoughts of my bosom are accomplished ! — Scri2:)t. Test. vol. i. p. 286. Hirzel : — I for my part know that my Redeemer exists, and as the Last will he appear upon the earth. And after my skin [is quite gone], which shall be cut to pieces, even this [which you see], and v^ithout my flesh, shall I see God. And him shall I see for my help, and my eyes shall behold him, and not aaaother. My reins are consumed within my bosom. — Hioh erJcldrt, in loc. Lee : — Biit I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand hereafter upon the earth : and that after this my skin shall have been pierced through, still in my flesh shall I see God : that I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold him and not a stranger, when my reins shall have been consumed within me. — 27^6 Book of the Patriarch Job translated, ^c, in loc. Eicald : — Nevertheless I know it, my Redeemer liveth ; an After- 414 APPENDIX. man oyer my dust shall arise ; and after my skin, whicli they cut to pieces, this [viz. this skin xohich ye now see], and -without my body shall I see God ; whom I shall see for me, and my eyes shall behold and not a stranger. My rems perish in my bosom [i. e. I am almost gone with joyful longing for it]. — Die Poetischen Bucher des Alteii Bundes erkldrt. III. er. Th. s. 187, 191. Hdvernick : — But I know that my Redeemer livetii, and over the dust will at last arise. After my skin, which is thus cut to pieces and bared of flesh, shall I see God. For I shall see him for my salvation, mine eyes behold him, the Gracious One. My reins languish witliin me. — Vorlesungen ueber die Theologie des Alien Testa- ments, s. 203, ii. L. Pasre 153. ALLEGORICAL INTEKPRETATIOXS OF SCRIPTURE AMONG THE ANCIENT JEWS. That the practice of affixing spuitual meanings to the Old Testa- ment histories was common among the Jews before the time of our Lord, appears too certain to be doubted, though Mr. Home* and some others have expressly denied it. "VYe have, in the first place, the testimony of Josephus, who not only allegorizes some parts himself, (see Antiqq. Jud. lib. iii. c. 1 ; c. 7, &c.) but tells us that Moses has m his ^vritings "hinted at some things in a becoming manner, and allegorized others with gravity [(re^voTrjTos), whilst those which it concerned him to announce directly he has expressly imfolded. If any," he adds, " would investigate the causes of these individiiaUy, a great and highly pliilosophical speciilation (deiopia), would arise, which I for the present pass over." Ant. Jud. Proem. ap. fin. At the close of this work, also, he says, that " among the Jews, those only enjoyed a reputation for wisdom, who were skilled in the law, and could interpret the force {^vva\iiv) of the sacred writings ; and that though there were many who laboured at this, hardly above one or two had succeeded so as to reap the reward of their toil," — an assertion which can hardly relate to the ordinary interpretation of Scripture. From such passages, it may be mferred that the habit of searching for deep meanings in the Old Testament was common among the Jews in the time of Josephus ; and, by * Introduction, vol. ii. p. 361. APPENDIX. ■ 415 consequence (as such a habit does not grow in a day), in the time of our Lord. Philo is our next mtness ; and every one knows how full are his writmgs of allegories. It is known also that he defends such upon principle, and goes the length of asserting, that without them we camiot reconcile many things in the Old Testament with the re- vealed character of God — a ground which Origen unhappily assumed after him. It is more important at present, however, to observe, that he ascribes antiquity to the practice. In speaking of the Therapeuta), he says, that they, " possessing the most sacred writings, philosophize their country's philosophy by allegorizing them ; since they regard the things (discovered by) the literal interpretation as symbols of a hidden natiu'e, to be made manifest by conjecture. And they have also treatises by ancient men, who were the founders of their sect, and have left many muniments of the idea in the things which they have allegorized (ttoXXu fiirqixela TTJs iv Tois aXkr]yopov[xevo(,s Ideas). Using these as archetj'pes, they imitate the manner of the party." De Vita Contemplafiva, 0pp. ii. 483. In this passage, we have not only a declaration to the effect that the peculiar philosophy of the Jews lay in allegorizuags of their sacred books ; but that many works of some antiquity written on this plan were extant among the Therapeutte. To the fact, that the practice of allegorizing the books of the Old Testament was greatly older than the time of Philo, we have, more- over, the express testimony of Origen, to whom all such matters were well known. In replying to an assertion of Celsus, to the effect that " many allegories had been vmtten upon the Old Testament histories, worse than these histories themselves," he commences by saying : "He seems to speak here respecting the writings of Philo, or of tliose xohich are still older, such as those of Arisfobiclus." ^ This Aristobulus, Avho was an Alexandrian Jew, and of the priestly family, was tutor to Ptolemy Philometer (2 Maccab. i. 10) b.c. 175. Of his writmgs Ave have only fragments preserved by Clemens Alexandrinus, Cyrill, and Eusebius ; but they are such as, coupled with the express statements of Origen, and of these, as well as other Avriters, leave no doubt as to the allegorical character of his productions. His great work was an Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Moses, in which he sought to show the mystical meaning of these "writings, and to trace an identity between them and the speculations of the heathen philosophy. Por a defence of the genuineness of these * Cont. Cels. lib. iv. p. 198. ed. Spencer. 41 G APPENDIX. commentaries, as well as a thorougli- going examination of exevj question connected with, the subject, I refer the reader to Valckenaer's learned Diatribe de Aristobiilo JucIcbo, ])hilosopho peripatetico Alex- andrino. Lugd. Bat. 1806, 4to. These facts, coupled with the well-known prevalence of allegorical interpretations in the books of the Jews, and Avhich they profess to have received from ancient tradition, seem to require the admission that this practice was known in the days of ovir Lord, and 7night have been followed by him, as beyond all question it %oas followed by his servant Paul.* I trust I have shown in the text that this admission lends no support to the doctrine of Accommodation. M. Page 157. HERDEE, ON THE DOCTRINE OF ACCOMMODATION. To those who know any thing of the writings of the famous J. G. Herder, it is unnecessary to say that he was far from being influenced by an over-scrupulous regard for the authority of Scripture. Even for him, however, the doctrme opposed in the text was too daring to be tolerated, as the reader mil see from the following very charac- teristic passage, translated from his Briefe das Shullum der Theologie Betreffend 2ter. Th. s. 263, ff. *' This is a matter which I cannot laugh at ; it fills me with sorrow. Eor let us consider seriously and candidly'to what it at last comes. I will grant that Pard, a scholar of the Rabbins, and that the Evan- gelists, Jews, and writing for Jews, might, in regard to matters non- essential, have, for the sake of explanation and illustration, kot civ- 6pco7rov, made use of certain allusions and accommodated meanings ; for by this the main theme is not affected, provided it be supported by other and better proofs. But if we suppose, that in regard to this also they used such modes of proof, — if we say that Clirist himself made use, in regard to his grand object, of such accommo- dations, where, I ask, will be left, I do not say inspu-ation, but the certain loorJc of a God of truth? If God sent his Son into the world, could he send him with infallible tokens ? Could he not at least guard him and his witnesses against adducing evidences which were erroneous ? If we §[rant the honesty of Christ, and suppose him to have been misled, even in so much as the adduction of one prophecy which did not properly relate to him, but which he cut to suit his * See Gal. iv. 21, 25; 1 Cor. x. 4, &c. ArPENDIX. 417 own purpose by accommodation, how came God to accredit him by- miracles ? — by that greatest of mu-acles, his resurrection ? Would he build us a trap-bridge between deceit in mterpretation and honesty in conduct ? It would be the most perilous bridge ever built, not for the Jews only, but for all people, in all times, into whose hands the Old Testament and Cliristianity should come ! What ! a Christ sent forth, for all times, for all nations, and yet accredited by Jewish accommodations, which were not, perhaps, adopted by all even in his own time ; which, at best, were suited only for the Jews, and even for none but the w^eaker and more ignorant part of them ? A messenger from the God of truth, would he havo built this upon the twilight and mist of a time- conjuncture {Zeitverbinchoig) ? Would he have confirmed it by miracles so incontestably — by quotations of prophecies so imperfectly and erroneously ? For what he and his servants adduced for themselves, we either do not now adduce at all, or let it stand thus shorn of half its honour ! On the other hand, what we build upon chiefly, they did not ; and who knows whether even we shall, in a short time hence, build on it either r * The interpreter does not hold by his dogma and cut away, he grasps his dogma itself handful after handful. How, when the bank alone is left, and the last sickle has cut, — how then?" N. Page 173. IvNOBEL ox THE 5IANNER IX WHICH THE THEOCKATIC PROPHECIES WERE FULFILLED BY CHRIST. In his learned and copious work entitled, Der Prophetismus der Hebrder Vollstdndig dargestellt, Prof. Knobel, of Breslau, has some important remarks upon the fulfilment in Clirist of the Old Testa- ment prophecies, in which he adopts and illustrates, at considerable length, the opinion advocated in the text, regarding tlie spiritmi fulfilment of these prophecies which bear a theocratic and national aspect. As this is a subject of some interest, and one in regard to which interpreters of prophecy have very often entertained the most erroneoiis views, I shall here translate part of what this able and unprejudiced writer has said upon it. * This is prophetic. It is long since tlie party to wliich Herder alhides have dis- carded miracles as well as prophecies from among the CTOleuces of Christianity. VII. 7- ^ 41 8 APPENDIX. After remarking that all the hitimations and theocratic antici- pations of the prophets were intended to find their fulfilment in Christ ; and enlarging upon the spiritual and universal character of the system which our Lord set up, he passes to the conclusion, that only such prophecies as announced blessmgs of a piu'ely religious character could be literally fulfilled by Christ in accordance with his system ; and that, as those which intimated prospects of earthly and political blessings were not compatible with his scheme, he could fulfil them only in a higher and more general sense than their words taken literally v/ould seem to imply. After ilkistrating at some length the former of these classes, the author proceeds to the latter, and remarlvs as follows : — "Jesus did not acknowledge liimself called upon to fulfil those theocratic announcements which had an earthly political character, in the sense in which they were uttered. For his plan was spiritual and universal, neither including worldly interests, nor contracted within national and political limits. He gave, accordingly, to all such announcements a higher and more general meaning, so as to realize them in accordance with such a scheme. Thus : — " 1. The prophets had announced that Jehovah would deliver his people from the political calamities into wliich, through the conquer- ing might of their foes, they had been brought. This Jesus fulfilled, but in a higher sense. He beheld the Jewish and heathen world under the thraldom of error and of sin, in circumstances of moral calamity, and he regarded himself as sent to efiect its deliverance. In this sense he announced himself as the Redeemer, who had come to save the world, to destroy the works of the devil ; to annihilate the powers of evil ; and to bring men from the kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of light. " 2. The prophets had predicted that Jehovah would again be united to his restored people ; would dwell among them, and no more give up the theocratic relation. This also Jesus fulfilled in a higher sense. He found mankind in a state of estrangement from God, arising from their lying in sin, and he viewed it as his vocation to bruig them back to God. He reconciled men to God — gave them access to God — united them to him as Ms dear children, and made his people one with God as he himself is one. *« 3. The prophets had declared that Jehovah would make his people thus redeemed and re-united to him, supremely blessed in the enjoyment of all earthly pleasures. To communicate such blessings in the literal acceptation of the words, was no part of the work of Jesus ; on the contrary, he often tells his followers, that they must APPENDIX. 419 lay their account with, much suffering. The blessings which he offers are of a spiritual kind, consisting in internal and unendino- fellowship with God. This is the ^corj, ^corj alwuio^. In the passao-es where he seems to speak of temporal blessings, (as e. g. in Matt. Yiii. 11 ; xix. 27, &c.) he either speaks metaphorically, or in reference to the ideas of those whom he addressed, and who were not quite emancipated from carnal hopes. " 4. The prophets had predicted, in general, the re-establishment of their people into a mighty state, which should endure upon the eaxth in imperishable splendour as an outward community. This prospect Jesus realized again in a higher and a spiritual sense, by establishhig a religious invisible commimity, internpily united by oneness of faith in God and of pure desire, which ever grows and reaches its perfection only in another life. The rise and progress of this man cannot observe, for its existence is in the invisible life of the Spirit ; (Lvike xvii. 20 ;) yet, the opposition of the wicked is an evidence of its approach. (Matt, xii, 28.) It has no political designs, for it ' is not of this world ;' and there are found in it no such gradations of rank as in earthly political commimities. (Matt. XX. 25.) What is external is not essential to it ; its prime element is mind, pious, devoted to God, and pleasing God. Hence, the kingdom of Jesus is composed of those who turn to God and his ambassadors, and in faith and life abide true to them. From this, it is clear, how sometimes this kingdom may be spoken of as present, and sometimes as future. Religious and moral truth works for ever, and draws under its influence one after another, until, at length, it shall reign over all. " In designating this community, Jesus made use of terms having a relation to the ancient theocracy ; it is the kingdom of God, or of heaven, though at the same time it is represented, rather, as the family, than as the state of God. This appears from many other phrases. The head of the ancient community was called Lord and King ; tliat of the new is called Father ; the members of the former were servants, i. e. subjects of Jehovah; those of the latter are so7is of God ; the feeling of the former towards God is described as the fear of Jehovah ; that of the latter, is believing confdeme, or love ; the chief duty of the former was righteousness ; the first duty of the latter is love. All these expressions are adapted to the constitution of the sacred community, either as a divine state, or as a divine famUy. It needs hardly, in conclusion, to be mentioned, that Jesus extended his fulfilment of these ancient prophecies in this spiritual sense to all r.xQixr —Erster Thell. s. 338 ff. 420 APPENDIX. O. Page 240. HENGSTENBEKG ON PSALM XLV. 6. Various attempts have been made by the Anti-Messianists, to set aside the argument in favour of the Messianic reference of this Psahn, drawn from the application to the person who is the subject of it, of the title *' God " in this verse. Of these, a condensed view and a satisfactory refutation have been given by Hengstenberg, in his Christologie, from which a few extracts may not be unacceptable to the reader. " Several take D'nbx here as a genitive, and not as a vocative. How very unnatural, and how purely arbitrary this is, appears from the fact, that none of the ancient translators, among whom the Jews certainly cannot be accused of being swayed by dogmatical interests, have hit upon it. All translate in the vocative Por this also the preceding word ("nia) ver. 4 speaks. But the un- tenableness of this interpretation will be best shown by a closer examination of the different modifications under wliich it has been advanced. 1. De Wette on the passage, and Gesenius on Isa. ix. 5, translate thus : — ' Thy God's throne stands for ever and ever,' «. e. thy throne entrusted to thee by God. They suppose that we have here an instance of a stat. constr. interrupted by a suffix, as in Lev. xxvi. 42, ipX''' *n'''i3' my Jacob's covenant, i. e. my covenant established with Jacob. But an essential difference has been overlooked between such instances as may be brought, apparently, to support this rendering, and the passage before us. The exception from the rule, that the STiifix belonging to two noims standing in the stat. constr. can only be appended to the latter of them, is, in the cases adduced, permitted only because the latter nomi is a proper name, which cannot receive a suffix. Here, however, there exists no reason why the suffix might not be appended to the second noun, so that the supposition that such an exception occurs here, is purely arbitrary. 2. Pollowing Aben-esra, Paulus, {Clavis, s. 123,) andEv^ald, {Gram. s. 627,) translate thus: — * Thy throne is God's throne,' supplying XD3 before C^nbt^- But none of the defenders of this rendering- have adduced any evidence in support of so violent an eUijDsis. Ewald calls it very unusual, and refers only to the passage before us. Still less tenable is the opinion of those who, after R. Saadias Haggaon, as quoted by Kimchi, take D^nb« as a nominative, thus : — ' Thy tlirone is God for ever and ever,' i. e. He will establish thy APPENDIX. 42 L throne for ever. For, on the one hand, this rendering has not the least appearance of philological authority ; and on the other, it appears from the parallel passages in 2 Sam. vii. 13, and Ps. Ixxxix. 29, that the eternal duration is the attribute of the kingdom, and not of God, Not a few interpreters admitting that □Ti'^^ here is m the vocative, nevertheless contend, that this appellation is bestowed upon kmgs and judges as well as on the Divine Being. This may- be admitted in reference to such passages as Exod. xxi. 26, and xxii. 7, 8, compared with Deut. xix. 17 ; and Ps. Ixxxii. 1; but none of these passages prove what is here wanted to be proved. Nowhere is a single ruler termed God, but only the magistracy, as such, representing the judicial authority of God. But if a theocratic ruler is never so termed, much lees would a king, on the festival of his marriage, be so called ; and least of all a Persian king, who could not be designated even a son of God, since this appellation belonged only to the rulers of the theocracy. 2. Gesenius on Isa. ix. 5, says, 'To understand n^nb« here of kings, is peciiliarly violent, since, in the Korahitic Psalms, it is the prevailing, almost exclusive, expression for the Deity in place of Jehovah.' 3. ' It appears from the context, that this noun must be received in all its plenitude, because, under the same appellation of God, "the prophet addresses the Messiah in the following verse, and which is no wise different from that which is applied to God in the same place. Unity of interpretation, therefore, compels us to understand both in the same sense.' Pareau, Pi-inaples of Interpretation of the Old Testament, Eng. Trans, vol. i. p. 207. When it is added, that in Ps. ii. and ex. Divine attributes, works, and names are ascribed ex- clusively to the Messiah, we shall the less hesitate to admit, that here also the term xy^rha is to be taken in its full and natural meanmg, and that, consequently, the Messiah is the subject of this Psalm." Th. I. Abt. i. s^ 116ff. P. Page 304. It may be useful to submit to the reader the following remarks, by an acute metaphysician, upon the mental phenomena referred to in the text. " A train of thought may be suggested, either by the perception of a real external object, or by a mere conception, or other feeling, which itself has formed a part of some preceding train of thought. 4'^2 APPENDIX. But though a new conception may be introduced in both ways, it is far from indifferent to the liveliness of the subsequent feeling in v/hich of the two ways the suggestion of it may have taken place. The thought of a beloved fiiend, for example, may, after his recent death, arise to our mind on innumerable occasions : but if it arise on the sight of some book which we have read together, of some drawuag which has been the work of his pencil, or of any other object, that is a relic and memorial of his former presence with us, tlie conception itself is more vivid, and the emotion of tender sorrow more instant and overwhelming. " A considerable part of this difference, certainly, arises fi-om the greater permanence of the object of perception ; in consequence of which, as Mr. Stewart has justly remarked, a greater number of conceptions akin, to this particular object cannot fail to arise when the object is one that is interesting in itself ; the effect of which series of conceptions, as a whole, may well be supposed to be greater than the effect of any one of them would have been had it arisen singly. But, though the longer continuance of the kindred perception may be one cause of the difference of result, it does not appear to me sufficient to account for the whole, or even the principal part of the diversity m a phenomenon so striking The most important cii'cumstances on which the remarkable differences of result depend, as it appears to me, are the felt reality of the object of perception, and the diffusion of this feeling of reality to the kindred conceptions that co-exist with it as one harmonious group. Without the presence of the external object, these conceptions, inconsistent with all that was i)erceived by us in the real scene around us, would have been felt as imaginary only : but Avith it, what was felt as imaginary before, seems instantly to live to our very eyes ; because, the feeling of reality which the object that is at the moment the most promment and interesting of all existing objects excites, is a feeling that readily mingles with the Avhole kindred group of which the perception itself is but a brigliter part." Brown's Physiology of the Human Mind, p. 216. I have quoted from this work rather than from the Lectures of this popular metaphysician, because of the more condensed form in which his sentiments are conveyed in it than in them. The reader may compare with the above, Dr. Bro\A'n's lengthened illustration of this subject in his 38th and 39th Lectures ; also Stewart's Philosophy of the Human Mind, chap. v. part i. § 1, and Payne's Elements of Mental and Moral Science, p. 241 ff. APPENDIX. Q. Page 347. MELCHIZEDEK. Did the Bible contain no other notices of this remarkable personage besides those which occur in the book of Genesis in connexion with liis interview with Abraham (xiv. 18—20), we should not have sus- pected that anytliing peculiar, still less that anything typical belonged to his character. There is nothing surprising in the fact, that a pious, God-fearing prince should be found in that district ; for though the mass of its inhabitants may have by this time sunk into idolatry, it is nevertheless just as credible that a tribe should be found in Canaan which retained the worship of the true God, and whose chief acted the part of a priest along with that of a king, as tliat a family should be found in Chaldea possessing the same dis- tinctive peculiarity. It is also quite natural that such a chief should call his city Salem, or Peace ; for it would be his aim to cultivate relations of a pacific kind with all around him, and to offer the blessings of peace to all who would place themselves under his pre- tejtion. Nor is there anything remarkable in his being called Mel- ciizedek, or king of Justice or Righteousness ; for his adminis- tiution might, and very probably would be so honourably marked by equity and justice, especially as compared with that of his neigh- bour-chiefs, that his people, and all around, might delight to accord to him so well-merited a title. As far, therefore, as the narrative of Moses goes, Melchizedek might pass for notliing more than a dis- tinjuished instance of a pious, godly, peaceful, and equitable prince, witii whom Abram would naturally form a friendship, and to whom he vould cheerfully offer homage as perhaps his superior in rank as weL as age. There is only one circumstance in the narrative that presBnts a difficulty on this view of the subject, and that is the peculiar mode in which Abram offered his homage to Melchizedek, viz., by paying him tithes of all he had taken from his enemies. To offer a tithe has always been regarded as a religious service ; and as due from a worshipper to the priest, who is the medium of his worship. Now, in the case before us, Abram, the offerer of this titte, was already a priest for his own household and retainers ; and besides, he was not one of Melchizedek's regular constituents, as only upon this one occasion does it appear that he availed himself of liis tacerdotal services. On these accounts it is difficult to account 424 APPENDIX. for his gh'ing, and for ]\Ielchizedek's receiving, a tithe. The only supposition one can make is that Melchizedek was a priest in some sense different from that in which Abram was — that perhaps his was properly a priestly office, and that his royal office arose merely from the accident of his having drawai a number of people around hin, who placed themsehxs under his authority in order to enjoy tlie benefits of his sacred offices— that, consequently, having no property of his o\ATi, and no royal revenues, it was by the voluntary offerings of those who came to avail themselves of his priestly functions that he was supported ;— and that, on this ground, Abram paid him tithe, not as what was obligatory upon him, but as what he freely gave in retui-n for the blessings of so holy and distinguished a priest. Still there remains some difficiilty about this part of the narrative viaved simply in itself, and in its purely historical character. What we learn of Melchizedek from other parts of Scriptiu-e :ends to dispel this difficulty, and to invest his character and position and history with a peculiar and theological importance. David, in tlie Old Test. (Ps. ex.), and Paul in the New (Ileb. v. 7) inform us that Melchizedek was a t}-pe of Christ— that is, that he was constituted H God what he was in order that he might prefigure to those arouid him what the Messiah was to be. This easily accounts for Abrsm offering him tithes. He was the type and representative of a higher priesthood than Abram's— even of that priesthood from which Abram' s derived all its value, and on which all the patriarch's hopes of salvation were placed. Some, not contented with this simple and Scriptural explanation of Melchizedek' s history and position have aimed at investing him with attributes altogether of a 7nysterimcs character. A somewhat favourite notion of this sort is that he was an incarnation, or if not an incarnation, at least an apparition of the Son of God ; in ocher words, that he was not the type of Christ, but Christ himself in a peculiar and earlier manifestation. For this hypothesis the only basis is an expression of the Apostle, in which he says, (Heb. vii. 3) that Melchizedek was "made like unto the Son of God" (o(/)a)/xoicox(-Vot Tw vlw Tov 6eov) ; but this expression, so far from sanctioning such an idea, is opposed to it. For, in the words of the Apostle, there is a comparison between Melchizedek and the Son of God ; and as every comparison implies that there are two distinct objects to be compared, the Apostle's language would be meaningless were Ilel- chizedek and the Son of God identical. Supposing that Paul had wished to intimate that Melchizedek was the same person as Cbist, why should he have said that the one was like the other, and not at APPENDIX. 425 once have said that the one icas the other ? His language in this case is constructed to mislead, not to inform ; for it Avould be just as reasonable to maintain that Moses and Christ are identical because the former said of the latter, " a Prophet like unto me shall the Lord youi- God raise up," as it is to maintain that Melchizedek was the Son of God because Paul says he was made like unto the Son of God. — The same conclusion is forced upon us by David's expression, when he says that the Messiah should be a priest after the order of Melchizedek ; for the one priesthood could not be after the order, or on the model of the other, if they were both one and the same. — And, finally, though there are instances on record in which a Divine person manifested himself to the patriarchs in human form, yet such apparitions were merely casual and temporary ; they give no countenance whatever to the idea that the Deity ever came down in the appearance of human form, and resided for years as a king and a priest in the land of Canaan. All this is mere fancy, and should not be allowed any hold upon our minds. Assuming, then, that Melchizedek was a mere man, but one con- stituted, appointed, and sanctioned by God to act among the fearers of the Most High as a type of the coming and promised INIessiah, it may be worth while to inquire. Of what concerning Christ was he a type ? and hovv- was this effected ? And here we must not give loose reins to a vagrant fancy, but must confine ourselves closely by the limits within which ins2nred guidance has been vouchsafed to us. In all types the first thing to be considered is the name which each bears ; for in the name is generally embodied a summary of the truths of which the type is the symbol. In the case before us, we have two names — Melchizedek and Melek-shalem — the former signi- fying King of Righteousness, the latter King of Peace. Now, it is important to observe, that these two names are not both of the same class ; the one is a personal name, the other is a name of rank, or olnce — the one denotes the king as king, the other describes him in relation to his place of authority. In himself he was a lover and practiser of righteousness — in his administration he was the author and the preserver of peace. It needs but little reflection to see how closely and how beautifully this twofold designation of this ancient Canaanitish prince and priest shadov>-ed forth the truth concerning Christ. In his case, as in that before us, if we would understand this trutli concerning him, we must distinguish between what he is in himself and what he is as the sovereign of his kingdom. In the former, he is to be admired and loved : in the latter, he is to be enjoyed and delighted in. In the 426 APPENDIX. former, we contemplate what we ai'e to find m liim ; in the latter, what we are to get from him; and in the union of the two we discover the perfect excellence and glorious sufficiency of Him as our heavenly king. In both these aspects the truth concerning Him was shadowed forth in the typical names of this ancient prince. If men asked in those days, What shall be the character of the Messiah as an individual ? The answer was, MelchizedeJt — :>. ok righteousness — a being loving righteousness — working righteduSiiess — promotmg righteousness — procui'ing righteousness — perfectly sin- less, and the enemy and abolisher of all sin. If, again, they asked in those days, What shall be the character of the MessiaL as a Sovereign ? the answer was Melek-shalem — king of peace — a sove- reign whose kingdom is an asylum for all who are miserable, a covert for all who are persecuted, a resting-place for all who are wear}-, a home for the destitute, and a refuge for the lost. And if, in fine, any asked, whether under the reign of the Messiah there would be no danger of justice distui-bing peace, or of peace invading justice — the answer would be, The king of righteousness and the king of peace are one — the two are identical — their harmony will never be inten'upted : righteousness and peace have met together, and embraced each other. And thus it was that in those early times the gospel was in symbolic guise announced to men, and the grand truth set to live and walk before their eyes, that He who is our righteousness is He only who is our peace. Another j)oint of analogy between Melchizedek and Christ lay in the union of the royal with the priestly office in both. This belonged only to these two. Under the law the king and the priest were tAvo, not one ; nor could the one intrude into the function of the other without sin. But under the patriarchal economy it was different : the chief of the tribe was also the high priest of the tribe, and not only governed his dependants, but was the medium through wliich they approached God. In this respect Melchizedek was the great example or pa.radigm of the patriarchal age ; and as such he was a striking type of Christ, who is not only the priest, but also the sovereign of his Clim-ch. This union is required by the work he has to do as the Messiah ; for first, he has to redeem a people out of the world, and then he has to sustain, sanctify, protect, comfort, and keep them until they reach his Father's kingdom above. Now, before this can be done there must be priestly acts and rectoral acts : priestly acts that they may be redeemed from the curse of a violated law, may be endowed with sanctifying grace from above, and may be accepted of a sin-hating God ; and rectoral acts that they may AITEXDIX. 427 be placed under that sound and wholesome discipline by which they may be fitted for heaven, as well as that they may be defended from those imiumerablc foes with which their path to heaven is beset. And as Christ does all for his people that they require, so he may do all he combines in his own person, the sacerdotal and the rec- toral functions, and "sits as a priest upon his throne." Of this, too, the patriarchs were made aware by the typical lessons embodied in such a fact as that the king of Salem was also the priest of the Most High God. But there were other points of resemblance at which the Apostle glances in Heb. vii. 3 : " Without father, without mother, without descent, graving neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually." Much mystery has been thrown around this statement : and mvich difficulty has been found with it. How, it has been asked, had Melchizedek been a mere man, could he have been without father, &c. ? Now, to this it is to be answered, that were these things spoken of the man Melchizedek they would be utterly inexplicable, except upon the hypothesis that God actually created a man, and carried him, without experiencing death, to heaven — an hypothesis which no sober mind will for a moment adopt. But the truth is, that the Apostle makes no reference to Melchizedek, viewed merely as a man, in this passage ; it is to Melchizedek as a tj^e that he refers ; and of all sound typical interpretation, it is a rule, that no account is to be taken of the natural as such, but that it is exclusively the super- induced, the constituted, or appointed, to which we are to dii-ect our attention. It is the neglect or forgetfulness of this rule which alone can cause any difficulty in explaining Patd's words. Beyond all doubt the man Melchizedek had both father and mother, both beginning and end of life ; but as a man he was no type of Christ, nor Avas it possible for any man, as such, to be a type of Christ. It was the royal priesthood of Melchizedek that was the type of Christ's royal priesthood ; and all that Paul means is that Melchizedek was Wxe first kingly priest, and the last of his race. He, derived not his dignity by inheritance, nor did he transmit to any other ; ^ith him it originated through divine appomtment, with him it terminated. Nor was his priesthood limited within certain terms of age ; there was no prescribed term for beginning it, and none for endmg it. In all these respects it was unlike Aaron's priesthood ; and to show this, is Paul's design in the passage. The Jewish High Priest was so simply because his father had been so before him ; and his eldest son would, on the same principle, succeed him. No special 428 APPENDIX.- appointment was reqnired— no qualification, intellectual or moral, "svas demanded, provided he was sane, and had a sound body. He was a priest simply by right of being the son of a particular father and mother. It was requisite, also, that he should have reached a fixed age before he coidd discharge the functions of his birthright office ; and after he had reached a further fixed age he had to resign that office to his eldest son : with him there was a beginning of official days, and an end of official life. Now, all this, in the sense alone in which he is speaking of him, the Apostle says did not hold true of Melchizedek. He was a priest, not because his father was one, but because God had made him one ; in his case, there was no descent or genealogy demanded ; and as regarded him there were* no fixed times when his official life began and when it closed. His priesthood was for a perpetuity, as the word used by Pciul means (ets to dirjvcKes) ; i, e., it lasted as long as he lived, and no one received it as his siTccessor. In all this he was a striking type of Christ. As a Priest he vt-as without father and without mother, without beginning of days or end of life. He came not of the priestly tribe among the Jews ; like Melchizedek, it Avas God's special appointm.ent alone which constituted him a priest. And as he became a priest by im- mediate Divine appointment, he retains for ever the office which he has received : to him belongeth "an unchangeable priesthood," so that " he is able to save to the uttermost them that ccme unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them." I submit these remarks to the reader partly as tending to cast some light upon a much-discussed and much-bedarkened subject; and partly as an illustration of the manner in which I think typical expositions should be conducted. INDEX. Abel's sacrifice offered in feith, 329, 342. Abraham, the gospel preached to, 194, 195. Acceptance with God for a sin- ner, the way of, 204, 205. Accommodation of scripture, 45 ; of prophecy, its theory, 148, 149, 416. Allegorical interpretation of scrip- ture, 153, 154 ; prevalence of among the Jews, 153 ; by the ancient Jews, 414. Allegorizing of scripture events, 320. Angel, the, of Jehovah, 76, 80 ; of Jehovah's presence, 86, 88. Animal sacrifices typical of Christ, 313; propitiatory typified Christ, 336, 346. Antitypes more excellent than types, 321. Apostles, the, familiar with the Old Testament scriptures, 43, 48. Atonement by the high priest tj^sical of Christ, 357, 364. Atonement with God, 130, 131 ; offered by Christ Jesus, 132, 134. Bacon, Lord, on the interpreta- tion of projohecy, 167, 168. Breast-plate of the high-priest, tj'pical meaning of, 353. Brown on association, 421. Burnt-offering not a federal rite, 338. Ca2sar, on human sacrifices, 338. Calamities of Israel and Judah, 256, 257. Christian dispensation, its supe- rior character, 373, 375. Christ's glory declared in the Old Testament, 23. Christ's humiliation and suffer- ings, 275, 284. Christ, the Angel of Jehovah, 76. Chrysostom on the scriptures, 384. Church of God, its oneness, 376, 377. Classics, heathen, quoted by Paul, 46; by the Christian fathers, 47. Clemens Alexandiinus, on the scriptures, 381. Comparisons and allegories of the Old Testament, 318, 319. Comiexion of the Old and New Testaments. — External, 1 ; in- ternal or doctrinal, 50. See Doctrines. Consecration of the priests tvpical of Christ, 355, 357. Covenant, its meaning, 379, 380. Cyril, on the scriptures, 384. David prophesies of Clmst,'^222, 252. David's last words prophecy of Christ, 223, 225. Davidson, Dr., on Isaiah vii. 14, 264 ; strictm-es on, 389, 396. Day of atonement, services on the, 359, 364. Death, as threatened to our first parents, 105, 408 ; as desired by the righteous, 116, 117. 430 INDEX. Divine revelation, its authority, 2. Di'dne titles, their origin in the Old Testament, 12, 13. Doctrmes regarding the Divine natm-e, 51 ; relating to the Di- vine character, 91 ; and the condition of man, 92. Edwards, President, on the death threatened to oirr first parents, 408. Elihu addressing Job, regarding a Mediator with God, 205, 208. Elijah's translation, 112. Elohim indicating the plurality in Jehovah, 65, 69 ; criticism re- garding that title, 70, 74, 398. Enoch's translation, 109, 111. Eusebius, on the patriarchal and Christian system, 176, 177. Eve expected the Messiah, 187. Ezekiel prophesies of Christ, 292, 293. Eaber, on the origin of expiatory sacrifices, 340, 343. Fall of man, 93,94 ; consequences of the fall, 95, 97 ; the penalty, 100. Eathers, the Christian, on the claims of the Old Testament, 382, 384. Festivals, Levitical, typical, 334. Eutiu-e state of rewards and punishments, held by the Jews, 106, 107 ; held by the patri- •archs, 108, 109. German divines, their false no- tions, 61, 62. God, etymology of the word, 12,13. God, his existence assumed by the scriptures, 54 ; manifesta- tion of himself to the patriarchs and to Israel, 55, 56 ; his unity and perfections, 57, 58 ; his relation to Abraham and his posterity, 63, 64. Gospel, the fii'st, 178, 179. Greek, the common dialect of the, in the New Testament, 9, 10. Hades and Sheol, the doctrine of, 113, 114. Haggai prophesies of Clirist, 294. 295. Harmony between the Old and New Testaments, 18, 52. Hebrew plurals, 398, 406 ; the Fathers on, 407. Hengstenberg on Psalm xlv. 6, 420. Herder, on accommodation,^ 416. Herod's massacre of the inno- cents, sorrow at, illustrate d, 40, 41. Plorne, the Rev. T. H., on quo- tations of scripture, 36. Human depravity declared in the New Testament, 95. Human sacrifices piacular, 338. 339. Ignatius, on the scriptures, 382. Inferences, practical, 366. Inspiration of the scriptures, 14. Lrterpretation of prophecy, 159, 160, 417. IrenoBUS, on the scriptures, 382. Isaiah prophesies of Christ, 263 ; of his bii'th, 264, 271 ; of his glorious greatness, 272, 273 ; of his humiliation, 274, 285. Israel, as a nation typical of the church of Christ, 324, 325. Jehovah, the Angel of. 88 manifested to men, 75. Jeremiah prophesies of Christ as our Saviovu-, 280, 289. Jerusalem destroyed by the Chal- deans, 254. Jewish scriptures included in the Christian, 2, 3. Jews, their possession of the scrip- tures, 16 ; theii" notions of the Trinity, 89. Job, the first gospel in the book of, 202, 203 ; different versions of xix., 25-27, 412, 413. Job's anticipations of death, 117, 120 ; prediction of the Re- deemer, 121, 122, 412; cri- ticisms on, 123 ; sacrifice, 343. Joel predicts the gift of the Spirit by Christ, 286. INDEX. 431 Jonah ill the iish, not a type of Christ, 319. Jortin, Dr., qnoted, 47. Judah, Messiah i^romised in his Une, 196, 199. Kidder, Bishop, on the murder of the mnocents, 40. Knobel, Professor, on the theo- cratic prophecies, 417, 419. Knowledge of salvation under the Old Testament, 134, 371. Lanctantius, on the scriptures, 334. Language of the several books of the New Testament, 10 ; He- braisms in that of the New Tes- tament, 11. Law of Moses, the, one great prophecy of Christ, 322. Lectures, the aim of, 366. Le-^dtical sacrifices expiatory, 344, 346. Literary connexion of the scrip - tiu-es, 7. Malachi prophesies of Christ, 297. Man's creation and fall, 93, 94 ; need of a Redeemer, 96, 97 ; consequences of the fall, 98, 105. Marsh, Bishop, on the types, 310. Melcliizedek, 347, 423. Messiah, earlv expectations of the, 185; by Eve, 186, 187 ; pro- mised to Abraham, 191, 194 ; to Judah, 195, 198 ; predicted by Job, 199, 200 ; his various characters as predicted, 369. Messiah's kingdom foretold by Amos, 259, 260 ; by Hosea, 261. Messianic prophecies, 133; their interpretation, 172, 173 ; pro- phecies from Solomon to Mala- chi, 252, 300. Messianic Psalms, 226, 252. Metatron, doctrine regarding, 89, 90. Micah predicts the birth-place of Christ, 286. Michaelis, on quotations by the apostles from the Old Testa- ment, 43, 44. Mitre of the high priest, typical meaning of, 354, 355. Moses, predictions of, regarding Chi-ist, 209, 2] 4. Nathan prophesies to David of the Messiah, 217, 224. Neology, its false notions, 61, 62. New Testament founded on the Old, 4 ; references in it to the Old, 20, 21. Noah's prophetic blessing of Shem and Japheth, 188, 189. Official dress of priests, typical meaning of, 348, 354. Old and New Testament, oriental and Jewish, 7 ; its prophetic character, 15, 20 ; its import- ance in relation to the New, 48, 49. Origen, on the scriptures, 383. Penalty of sin, spiritual death, 105, 408. Perfect character, none presented in the Old Testament, 366, 367. Plural, force of in Hebrew, 74, 398. Polytheism existed early, 59. Priestly office, the, tvpical of Christ, 315, 346, 357." Prophecies relating to the Mes- siah, 160, 161 ; partially known to many nations, 184, 185. Prophecy, 135, 138; respecting Messiah, 137, 138 ; internal cri- teria, 143, 144; external cri- teria, 145; regarded as such by the Jewish Church, 145 ; so ac- knowledged in the New Testa- ment, 146, 147 ; the study of necessary, 158, 159 ; plurality of senses indefensible, 174, 175. Prophet, the, like unto Moses, 210, 214. Prophetical character of the Old Testament, 15, 20; afflatus, 162, 163 ; style, 164, 166. Psalm, the second, predicts Mes- siah, 227, 229 ; the sixteenth foretels the resurrection of 432 INDEX. Christ, 230 ; the twenty-second foretels his humiliation, 231, 234 ; the fortieth, his sacrifice, 235, 237 ; the forty-fifth, Mes- siah as king of his church, 238, 242 ; the seventy-second, his kingdom and triumphs, 243, 245 ; the hundi-ed-and-tenth, tlie reign and dignity of Christ, 246, 252. Purification of the law typical of tlie cleansing of simiers by the grace and Spirit of Christ, 335, 336. Quotations, Home on, 386, 396. Quotations from the Old Testa- ment in the New, 27, 28 ; man- ner of making them by the apostles, 30, 32 ; made by the apostles sometimes from me- mory, 34, 35 ; some, the sense only, 36, S7 ; purposes for which they were made, 38, 39. Bedeemer, the Yirgin-born, pre- dieted, 183. Religion the same under both dis- pensations, 52, 53. Kules for the interpretation of symbols, 317. Sabbath typical of spiritual rest in Messiah's reign, 333. Sacred seasons, the, typical, 331. Sacrifices typical of Christ, 313; origin of them, 339, 342. Scriptures, theii' divine origin, 1, 2 ; their agreement and differ- ence, 3, 4 ; their mode of teach- ing religious truth, 8, 9 ; the Jews familiar with them, 15, 16 ; their divine authority, 17 ; Hebrew and Greek Old Testa- ment quoted by the apostles, 28, 29. Seed of the serpent, 178, 179. Seed of the woman, 179, 180. Shem, the Messiah to come in his line, 189, 191. Sheol, its meaning, 113, 125. Socrates, a conversation with, 185. Spirit of Jehovah, 83 ; a person, not an attribute, 84, 85. Sufferings of Christ foretold, 274 ; 284. Sykes, Dr., on the murder of the infants by Herod, 40. Symbolical actions and usages, 305, 307. Symbolical allusions in prophecy, 170, 171. Systems of religion fomided on revelation from God, 1, 2. Tabernacle, the, and its furniture, as the sanctuary of God, typical of Christ, 328, 339. Tortullian, on the scriptui'es, 383. Tlioluck, on Heb. xi. 19, 411. Traditionary knowledge among the Jews, 24, 25. Trinity, the, intimated in the Old Testament, 65, 68 ; objections to this considered, 69, 71 ; con- fu-mation of the doctrine of the, 84, 85. Types of the Old Testament, their nature, 303, 304 ; criteria of the, 308, 311; fanciful inter- pretations of, 312 ; animal sa- crifices types, 313. Unity and perfections of the Di- vine nature, 57, 60 ; taught in the Old Testament, 58, 60. Wiseman, on the phrase, "It is fulfdled," 396. Writings of the prophets, their character, 298, 299. Zechariah prophesies of Christ. 296, 297. THE END. Reed and Pardon, Printers, Paternoster Bow, London. Princeton Theological Seminary-Speer Library 1 1012 'o'l'l45""8942 ™ '■ -f 't k :-l3 i ■.'■: f^ r.vi S^ ^.