The Project Gutenberg EBook of Companion to the Bible, by E. P. Barrows

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.net


Title: Companion to the Bible

Author: E. P. Barrows

Release Date: December 9, 2005 [EBook #17265]

Language: English

Character set encoding: ASCII

*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK COMPANION TO THE BIBLE ***




Produced by John Hagerson, Juliet Sutherland, David King,
and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team





COMPANION

TO

THE BIBLE.



BY REV. E.P. BARROWS, D.D.,

PROFESSOR OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE.




GENERAL PREFACE.


The design of the present work, as its title indicates, is to assist in
the study of God's word. The author has had special reference to
teachers of Bible classes and Sabbath-schools; ministers of the gospel
who wish to have ready at hand the results of biblical investigation in
a convenient and condensed form; and, in general, the large body of
intelligent laymen and women in our land who desire to pursue the study
of Scripture in a thorough and systematic way.

The First Part contains a concise view of the Evidences of Revealed
Religion. Here, since Christianity rests on a basis of historic facts,
special prominence has been given to the historic side of these
evidences; those, namely, which relate to the genuineness, integrity,
authenticity, and inspiration of the several books of the Bible. A brief
view is added of the evidences which are of an internal and experimental
character.

In the Introductions to the Old and New Testament which follow in the
Second and Third Parts, the general facts are first given; then an
account of the several divisions of each, with their office and mutual
relations, and such a notice of each particular book as will prepare the
reader to study it intelligently and profitably.

The Fourth Part is devoted to the Principles of Biblical Interpretation.
Here the plan is to consider the Scriptures, first, on the human side,
as addressed to men in human language and according to human modes of
thinking and speaking; then, on the divine side, as containing a true
revelation from God, and differing in this respect from all other
writings. To this twofold view the author attaches great importance. To
the human side belong the ordinary principles of interpretation, which
apply alike to all writings; to the divine side, the question of the
unity of revelation, and the interpretation of types and prophecies.

In each of the abovenamed divisions the author has endeavored to keep
prominently in view the unity of revelation and the inseparable
connection of all its parts. It is only when we thus contemplate it as a
glorious whole, having beginning, progress, and consummation, that we
can truly understand it. Most of the popular objections to the Old
Testament have their foundation in an isolated and fragmentary way of
viewing its facts and doctrines; and they can be fairly met only by
showing the relation which these hold to the entire plan of redemption.

The plan of the present work required brevity and condensation. The
constant endeavor has been to state the several facts and principles as
concisely as could be done consistently with a true presentation of them
in an intelligible form. It may be objected that some topics, those
particularly which relate to the Pentateuch, are handled in too cursory
a way. The author feels the difficulty; but to go into details on this
subject would require a volume. He has endeavored to do the best that
was consistent with the general plan of the work. The point of primary
importance to be maintained is the divine authority and inspiration of
the Pentateuch--the whole Pentateuch as it existed in our Saviour's day
and exists now. There are difficult questions connected with both its
form and the interpretation of certain parts of it in respect to which
devout believers may honestly differ. For the discussion of these the
reader must be referred to the works professedly devoted to the subject.

The present volume is complete in itself; yet it does not exhaust the
circle of topics immediately connected with the study of the Bible. It
is the author's purpose to add another volume on Biblical Geography and
Antiquities, with a brief survey of the historic relations of the
covenant people to the Gentile world.




CONTENTS.


PART I.

A CONCISE VIEW OF THE EVIDENCES OF REVEALED RELIGION.

CHAPTER I.

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 1. Christianity rests on a Basis of Historic Facts
inseparably connected from First to Last--2. This Basis to be maintained
against Unbelievers--3. General Plan of Inquiry--Christ's Advent the
Central Point--From this We look forward and backward to the
Beginning--4. Importance of viewing Revelation as a Whole--5.
Fragmentary Method of Objectors--Particular Order of the Parts in this
Investigation

CHAPTER II.

GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES. 1. Terms defined--Necessity of
knowing the Authors of the Gospels--2. Remarks on their Origin--They
were not written immediately, but successively at Intervals--Earlier
Documents noticed by Luke--3. Manner of Quotation by the Early Church
Fathers--4. _External Evidences_ traced upward from the Close of the
Second Century--Testimony of Irenaeus--Of Tertullian--Of Clement of
Alexandria--Letter of the Churches of Lyons and Vienne--5.
Comprehensiveness and Force of these Testimonies--Freedom of Judgment in
the Primitive Churches--This shown by the History of the Disputed
Books--6. Public Character and Use of the Gospels--7. Earlier
Testimonies--Justin Martyr--His Designation of the Gospels--They are Our
Canonical Gospels--Explanation of his Variations and Additions--His
References to the Gospel of John--8. Testimony of Papias--9. Epistle to
Diognetus--10. The Apostolic Fathers--Clement of Rome--Ignatius
Polycarp--The So-called Epistle of Barnabas--11. The Ancient Versions
and Muratorian Canon--Syriac Peshito--Old Latin--12. Testimony of the
Heretical Sects--Marcion--Valentinus--Tatian--13. Conclusiveness of the
above External Testimony--14. _Internal Evidences_--Relation of the
First Three Gospels to the Last--They differ in Time--The First Three
written before the Destruction of Jerusalem; the Fourth after that
Event--They differ in Character and Contents--Yet were all alike
received by the Churches--15. Relation of the First Three Gospels to
Each Other--They have Remarkable Agreements and Differences--These and
their General Reception explained by their Genuineness--16. The Gospels
contain no Trace of Later Events--17. Or Later Modes of Thought. 18.
From the Character of the Language

CHAPTER III.

UNCORRUPT PRESERVATION OF THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES. 1. What is meant by an
Uncorrupt Text--2. Ancient Materials for Writing--Palimpsests--Uncial
and Cursive Manuscripts--3. The Apostolic Autographs have perished, but
We have their Contents--This shown from the Agreement of
Manuscripts--From the Quotations of the Fathers--From Ancient
Versions--Character of the "Various Readings"--They do not affect the
Substance of the Gospel--4. The Ancient Versions made from a Pure
Text--This shown from the Public Reading of the Gospels from the
Beginning--From the Multiplication of Copies--From the High Value
attached to the Gospels--From the Want of Time for Essential
Corruptions--From the Absence of all Proof of such Corruptions--5. The
Above Remarks apply essentially to the other New Testament Books

CHAPTER IV.

AUTHENTICITY AND CREDIBILITY OF THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES. 1. General
Remarks--2. Their Authors Sincere and Truthful--3. Competent as Men--4.
And as Witnesses--5. Character of the Works which they record--
Supernatural Character of our Lord's Miracles--They were very
Numerous and Diversified, and performed openly--6. And in the Presence
of His Enemies--7. The Resurrection of Jesus--Its Vital Importance--8.
The Character of Jesus proves the Truth of the Record--Its Originality
and Symmetry--It unites Tranquillity with Fervor--Wisdom with Freedom
from Guile--Prudence with Boldness--Tenderness with Severity--Humility
with the Loftiest Claims--He is Heavenly-minded without Asceticism--His
Perfect Purity--His Virtues Imitable for All alike--Our Lord's Character
as a Teacher--His Freedom from the Errors of His Age and Nation--His
Religion One for All Men and Ages--This explained by its Divine
Origin--Our Lord's Manner of Teaching--His Divine Mission--Divinity of
His Person--Originality of its Manifestations--God His Father in a
Peculiar Sense--He is the Source of Light and Life--He has Inward
Dominion over the Soul--He dwells in Believers, and they in Him--The
Inference--His Power over the Human Heart--Supernatural Character of the
Gospel--A Word on Objections

CHAPTER V.

THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES AND THE ACKNOWLEDGED EPISTLES. 1. These Books a
Natural Sequel to the Gospels--2. _The Acts of the Apostles_--External
Testimonies--3. Internal Evidence--4. Credibility--5. Date of
Composition--6. _The Acknowledged Epistles_--Distinction of Acknowledged
and Disputed Books--7. First Group of Pauline Epistles--Second Group, or
the Pastoral Epistles--Their Date--Their Peculiar Character--8. First
Epistles of Peter and First of John--9. Mutual Relation between the
Gospels and Later Books--10. Argument from Undesigned Coincidences

CHAPTER VI.

THE DISPUTED BOOKS. 1. The Question here simply concerning the Extent of
the Canon--2. The Primitive Age One of Free Inquiry--3. Its Diversity of
Judgment no Decisive Argument against a Given Book--4. The Caution of
the Early Churches gives Weight to their Judgment--This Judgment
Negative as well as Positive

CHAPTER VII.

INSPIRATION AND THE CANON. General Remarks--1. Rule of Judgment
determined--It is the Writer's Relation to Christ--2. Christ Himself
Infallible--3. _The Apostles_--They held the nearest Relation to
Him--Their Infallibility as Teachers shown--From the Necessity of the
Case--From Christ's Express Promises--From their Own Declarations--
Summary of the Argument in Respect to the Apostles--4. Inspiration of
the _Apostolic Men_--5. Argument from the Character of the Books of
the New Testament--6. The Inspiration of the Sacred Writers Plenary--
7. Principles on which the Canon is formed

CHAPTER VIII.

INSEPARABLE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE OLD AND THE NEW TESTAMENT. General
Remarks--1. Previous Revelations implied in Christ's Advent--2. In the
Character of the Jewish People--3. Proved from the New Testament--
Christ's Explicit Declarations--4. The New Testament based on the Facts
of the Old--The Fall of Man--The Abrahamic Covenant, which was
conditioned on Faith alone, and fulfilled in Christ--Christ the End of
the Mosaic Economy--In its Prophetical Order--In its Kingly Office--In
its Priestly Office--5. The New Testament Writers the Interpreters of
the Old

CHAPTER IX.

AUTHORSHIP OF THE PENTATEUCH. Meaning of the Term--1. It existed in its
Present Form from Ezra's Day--2. "The Law" ascribed to Moses in the New
Testament--How Much is included in this Term--3. Force of the New
Testament Testimony--4. The Law of Moses at the Restoration--5. Jewish
Tradition that Ezra settled the Canon of the Old Testament--He left the
Pentateuch essentially as he found it--References to the Law in the
Books of Kings and Chronicles--6. The Book of Deuteronomy--Its Mosaic
Authorship Certain--7. The Inference Certain that he wrote the Preceding
Laws--8. This corroborated by their Form--9. By References in the New
Testament--And the Old also--10. Relation of Deuteronomy to the Earlier
Precepts--In Respect to Time--And Design--Change in Moses' Personal
Relation to the People--Peculiarities of Deuteronomy explained from the
Above Considerations--Meaning of "the Words of this Law" in
Deuteronomy--11. Mosaic Authorship of Genesis shown--From Antecedent
Probability--From its Connection with the Following Books--Objections
considered--Supposed Marks of a Later Age--And of Different Authors--12.
Unity of the Pentateuch

CHAPTER X.

AUTHENTICITY AND CREDIBILITY OF THE PENTATEUCH. 1. Its Historic Truth
assumed in the New Testament--This shown by Examples--2. It was the
Foundation of the Whole Jewish Polity--And could not have been imposed
upon the People by Fraud--Contrast between Mohammed and Moses--3.
Scientific Difficulties connected with the Pentateuch--4. Alleged Moral
Difficulties--Exclusiveness of the Mosaic Economy--Its Restrictions on
Intercourse with Other Nations--5. Its Numerous Ordinances--The Mosaic
Laws required Spiritual Obedience--6. Objections from the Toleration of
Certain Usages--7. Extirpation of the Canaanites--8. The Mosaic Economy
a Blessing to the Whole World

CHAPTER XI.

REMAINING BOOKS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 1. General Remarks--2. The New
Testament assumes their Divine Authority--Historical Books--3. Books not
strictly Historical or Prophetical--4. Prophetical Books--Argument from
Prophecy for the Divine Origin of the Old Testament--5. Christ the
Fulfilment of Prophecy--In his Office as a Prophet--as a King--as a
Priest--6. The Jewish Institutions and History a Perpetual Adumbration
of Christ preparatory to His Advent--7. Remarks on the Canon of the Old
Testament--8. Principle of its Formation--9. Inspiration of the Old
Testament

CHAPTER XII.

EVIDENCES INTERNAL AND EXPERIMENTAL. 1. External Evidences Important,
but not Indispensable to True Faith--2. Internal Evidences--View which
the Bible gives of God's Character--3. Code of Morals in the Bible--It
is Spiritual, Reasonable, and Comprehensive--Obedience to It the Sum of
all Goodness--4. All Parts of the Bible in Harmony with Each Other--5.
Power of the Bible over the Conscience--6. Argument from Personal
Experience--7. From the Character of Jesus--8. From General
Experience--The Love of Jesus the Mightiest Principle of
Action--Persecution first winnows, then strengthens the Church--The
Church corrupted and weakened by Worldly Alliances--9. The Gospel gives
an Inward Victory over Sin--It purifies and elevates Society--10. Its
Self-purifying Power--11. The Argument summed up

       *       *       *      *      *

PART II.

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT.

FIRST DIVISION--GENERAL INTRODUCTION.


CHAPTER XIII.

NAMES AND EXTERNAL FORM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 1. Origin and Meaning of
the Word Bible--Jewish Designations of the Old Testament--2. Origin of
the Terms Old and New Testament--Earlier Latin Term--2. The
Unity--Scripture has its Ground in Divine Inspiration--Its Great
Diversity in Respect to Human Composition--4. Classification and
Arrangement of the Old Testament Books--Classification of the Hebrew: of
the Greek Version of the Seventy; of the Latin Vulgate--No One of these
follows entirely the Order of Time--5. Original Mode of Writing called
Continuous--6. Ancient Sections--Open and Closed; Larger Sections called
Parshiyoth and Haphtaroth--7. Chapters and Verses--Caution in Respect to
our Modern Chapters

CHAPTER XIV.

THE ORIGINAL TEXT AND ITS HISTORY. 1. Chaldee Passages in the Hebrew
Scriptures--Divisions of the Hebrew and Cognate Languages--2. The
Assyrian or Square Character not Primitive--Jewish Tradition respecting
its Origin--3. The Hebrew Alphabet and its Character--4. Change in the
Language of the Hebrew Nation--5. Introduction of the Vowel-Points and
Accents--The Question of their Antiquity--6. Jewish Rules for the
Guidance of Copyists--Their Deep Reverence for the Sacred Text--Its
Uncorrupt Transmission to Us--7. Age and Character of Hebrew
Manuscripts--8. Form of Hebrew Manuscripts--the Public in Rolls, the
Private in the Book Form, Poetical Passages, Columns, Pen and Ink
Accompaniments--9. The Samaritan Pentateuch

CHAPTER XV.

FORMATION AND HISTORY OF THE HEBREW CANON. I. Meaning of the Word
"Canon"--Gradual Formation of the Hebrew Canon--Its Main Divisions--1.
_The Pentateuch_--2. General Remark on its Hebrew Name--3. The
Pentateuch forms the Nucleus of the Old Testament Canon--It was given by
Divine Authority, committed to the Charge of the Priests, kept by the
Side of the Ark, and to be publicly read at Stated Times--II. _The
Historical Books_--4. The Authors and Exact Date of Many of them
Unknown--Important Historical Documents were deposited in the
Sanctuary--5. The Authors of the Books of Joshua and Judges made Use of
such Documents--6. The Author of the Books of Samuel also--7. Original
Sources for the Books of Kings and Chronicles--8. These Two Works refer
not to Each Other, but to a Larger Collection of Original Documents--9.
Character of these Documents--They were written, in Part at Least, by
Prophets, and they all come to us with the Stamp of Prophetic
Authority.--10. The Books of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther--III. _The
Prophetical Books_--11. The Books enumerated--Paucity of Prophets before
Samuel--Schools of the Prophets established by him--The Prophets a
Distinct Order of Men in the Theocracy from his Day onward--12. The Era
of Written Prophecy--IV. _The Poetical Books_--13. Their General
Character--The Book of Job--14. The Book of Psalms--15. Proverbs,
Ecclesiastes, and Canticles--_Completion of the Canon_--16. Preservation
of the Sacred Books to the Time of Ezra--The Law; the Prophetical Books;
the Psalms and other Canonical Writings--17. The Completion of the Canon
ascribed by the Jews to Ezra and his Coadjutors--This Tradition True for
Substance.--No Psalms written in the Maccabean Age--18. Contents of the
Hebrew Canon--as given by Jesus the Son of Sirach, by Josephus, by
Origen and Eusebius, by Jerome--19. The Apocryphal Books

CHAPTER XVI.

ANCIENT VERSIONS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. I. _The Greek Version called the
Septuagint_--1. Its Antiquity; its Great Influence on the Language of
the New Testament--2. Jewish Account of its Origin--3. Judgment of
Biblical Scholars on this Account--4. Time occupied in the Completion of
the Work--5. Inequalities of this Version--Its Importance to the
Biblical Student--6. Its Close Connection with the New Testament--
Quotations from it by New Testament Writers--Their Manner and Spirit--
7. Hebrew Text from which this Version was made--II. _Other Greek
Versions_--8. The Septuagint originally in High Esteem among the
Jews--Change in their Feelings in Regard to it, and Rise of New
Versions--9. Aquila's Version--10. Theodotion--11. Symniachus--12.
Origen's Labors on the Text of the Septuagint--the Tetrapla and
Hexapla--III. _The Chaldee Targums_--13. General Remarks on these--14.
The Targum of Onkelos--Its General Fidelity and Excellence--Its
Peculiarities--Jewish Tradition respecting Onkelos--15. The Targum of
Jonathan Ben Uzziel--16. Of Pseudo-Jonathan and Jerusalem--17. Other
Targums--The Samaritan Version of the Samaritan Pentateuch--IV. 18. _The
Syriac Peshito_--Its Age and Character

CHAPTER XVII.

CRITICISM OF THE SACRED TEXT. 1. The Object to ascertain its Primitive
Form--2. Means at Our Disposal--Ancient Hebrew Manuscripts--Remarks on
their Quality and Age--3. Ancient Versions--4. Primary Printed
Editions--5. Parallel Passages--6. Quotations from the Old Testament in
the New--7. Quotations in the Talmud and by Rabbinical Writers--8.
Critical Conjecture


SECOND DIVISION--PARTICULAR INTRODUCTION.


CHAPTER XVIII.

THE BOOKS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT AS A WHOLE. 1. Province of Particular
Introduction--The Necessity of Understanding the Unity of Divine
Revelation--2. Relation of the Old Testament as a Whole to the System of
Revelation--It is a Preparatory, Introductory to a Final Revelation, of
which the Gospel everywhere avails itself--the Unity of God; Vicarious
Sacrifice; General Principles; Well-developed State of Civilization--
Connection of the Hebrews with the Great World Powers--Their Dispersion
through the Nations at our Lord's Advent--Relation of the Gospel to
Civilization--3. A Knowledge of the Preparatory Character of the Old
Testament Revelations enables us to judge correctly concerning them--
Severity of the Mosaic Laws; Their Burdensome Multiplicity; Objection
from their Exclusive Character answered--4. Office of each Division of
the Old Testament Revelations--the Pentateuch; the Historical Books;
the Prophetical Books--Character and Officers of the Hebrew Prophets--
Era of Written Prophecy--The Poetical Books--5. Each Particular Book
has its Office--6. The Old Testament was a Revelation for the Men of
its Own Age, as well as for those of Future Ages--the Promise made to
Abraham; the Deliverance from Egypt; the Mosaic Law; the Words of the
Prophets; the Psalms of David: the Wisdom of Solomon--7. Value of the
Old Testament Revelations to us--the System of Divine Revelation can
be understood only as a Whole; Constant Reference of the New Testament
to the Old; the Old Testament a Record of God's Dealings with Men;
the Principles embodied in the Theocracy Eternal; the Manifold Wisdom
of God seen only when the Whole System of Revelation is studied

CHAPTER XIX.

THE PENTATEUCH. I. Its Unity--Its Fivefold Division--1. _Genesis_--2.
Its Hebrew Name--Its Greek Name--3. Its Office--It is the Introductory
Book of the Pentateuch--Its Connection with the Following Books--4.
Divisions of the Book of Genesis--First Part and its Contents; Second
Part and its Contents--5. Its Mosaic Authorship--Supposed Traces of a
Later Hand--6. Difficulties connected with the Pentateuch--Scientific
Difficulties: the Six Days of Creation; the Age of the Antediluvian
Patriarchs; the Unity of the Human Race; the Deluge--Historical
Difficulties: the Two Accounts of the Creation; Cain's Wife--
Chronological Difficulties: Discrepancies between the Masoretic
Hebrew, the Samaritan Hebrew, and the Septuagint, in Respect to (1) the
Antediluvian Genealogy; (2) the Genealogy from Noah to Abraham--Remarks
on these Discrepancies--II. _Exodus_--7. Hebrew Name of this Book--Its
Unity--Its Two Chief Divisions--Contents of the First Division; of the
Second Division--8. Time of the Sojourn in Egypt--Sojourn in the
Wilderness--III. _Leviticus_--9. Its Character and Contents--10. The
Priestly Office and Sacrifices the Central Part of the Mosaic Law--IV.
_Numbers_--11. Office and Contents of this Book--The Three Epochs of its
History: the Departure from Sinai, the Rebellion of the People upon the
Report of the Twelve Spies, the Second Arrival of Israel at Kadesh with
the Events that followed--V. _Deuteronomy_--12. Its Peculiar Character,
Divisions, and Contents--13. It brings the Whole Pentateuch to a
Suitable Close

CHAPTER XX.

THE HISTORICAL BOOKS. 1 and 2. Their Office to Unfold the History of
God's Dealings with the Covenant People--General Remarks on the
Character of this History--I. _Joshua_--3. Contents of this Book. Its
Immediate Connection with the Pentateuch--Its Two Divisions with their
Contents--4. Its Authorship--5. Its Authenticity and Credibility--The
Miracle of the Arrest of the Sun and Moon in their Course--II. _Judges
and Ruth_--6. Name of this Book--Office of the Judges whose History it
records--Condition of the Hebrew Nation during the Administration of the
Judges--Office of this Book in the General Plan of Redemption--7.
Arrangement of its Materials--its Twofold Introduction; the Body of its
History; its Two Appendixes--8. Its Date and Authorship--9. Uncertainty
of its Chronology--10. The Book of Ruth. Its Place in the History of
Redemption--III. _The Books of Samuel_--11. The Two Books of Samuel
originally One Work--Their Name--12. Their Office in the History of
Redemption--Eventful Character of the Period whose History they
record--Change to the Kingly Form of Government--God's Design in
this--The Kingly Office Typical of Christ--13. Contents of the Books of
Samuel--Introductory Division; Second Division; Third Division--14.
Authorship and Date of their Composition--IV. _The Books of Kings_--15.
They Originally constituted a Single Book--Their Names and Office--Their
Manner of Execution--Their Main Divisions--16. The First Period--17. The
Second Period--18. The Third Period--19. Chronology of the Books of
Kings. Their Date and Authorship--V. _The Books of Chronicles_--20. They
originally constituted One Work--Their Various Names--They constitute an
Independent Work--Their Office different from that of the Books of
Kings--Peculiarities which distinguish them from these Books--Particular
Attention to the Matter of Genealogy; Fullness of Detail in Respect to
the Temple Service; Omission of the History of the Kingdom of Israel;
other Omissions--21. Position of the Chronicles in the Hebrew
Canon--Their Authorship and Date--Their Relation to the Books of
Kings--22. Difficulties connected with these Books--VI. _Ezra and
Nehemiah_--23. General Remarks on these Books--Change in the Relation of
the Hebrews to the Gentile Nations--Gradual Withdrawal of Supernatural
Manifestations--24. While the Theocracy went steadily forward to the
Accomplishment of its End--The Jews reclaimed from Idolatry in
Connection with the Captivity--Establishment of the Synagogue Service
and its Great Influence--25. The Book of Ezra--Its Authorship--Parts
written in Chaldee--Persian Monarchs mentioned by Ezra and Nehemiah--26.
The Book of Nehemiah--Its Contents and Divisions--First Division; Second
Division; Third Division--27. Authorship and Date of the Book--VII.
_Esther_--28. Contents of this Book--Feast of Purim--29. The Ahasuerus
of this Book--Remarks on its History

CHAPTER XXI.

THE POETICAL BOOKS (INCLUDING ALSO ECCLESIASTES AND CANTICLES). 1. Books
reckoned as Poetical by the Hebrews--Hebrew System of Accentuation--A.
_Characteristics of Hebrew Poetry_--_Its Spirit_--Harmony with the
Spirit of the Theocracy; Vivid Consciousness of God's Presence;
Originality; Freshness and Simplicity of Thought; Variety--Job and
Isaiah. David, Solomon; Diversity of Themes; Oriental Imagery;
Theocratic Imagery--_Form of Hebrew Poetry_--3. Its Rhythm that of
Clauses--Antithetic Parallelism; Synonymous Parallelism; Synthetic
Parallelism--Combinations of the above Forms--Freedom of Hebrew
Poetry--Peculiarities of Diction--_Office of Hebrew Poetry_--4. The
Celebration of God's Interpositions in Behalf of the Covenant People;
Song for the Sanctuary Service; Didactic Poetry; Prophetic Poetry--B.
_The Several Poetical Books_--I. _Job_--1. Survey of its Plan--6. Its
Design to Show the Nature of God's Providential Government over Men--7.
Age to which Job belonged--Age and Authorship of the Book--8. Its
Historic Character--II. _The Book of Psalms_--9. Its Office--Authors of
the Psalms--Date of their Composition--10. External Division of the
Psalms into five Books--First Book; Second Book; Third Book; Fourth
Book; Fifth Book--Subscription appended to the Second Book--Principle of
Arrangement--Attempted Classification of the Psalms--Frequent Quotation
of the Psalms in the New Testament--11. Titles of the Psalms--the
Dedicatory Title; Titles relating to the Character of the Composition to
the Musical Instruments, or the Mode of Musical Performance--These
Titles very Ancient, but not in all Cases Original--III. _The Proverbs
of Solomon_--12. Place of this Book in the System of Divine
Revelation--13. Its Outward Form--First Part; Second Part; Third Part;
Fourth Part--14. Arrangement of the Book in its Present Form--IV.
_Ecclesiastes_--15. Authorship of this Book and its View of Life--16.
Summary of its Contents--V. _The Song of Solomon_--17. Meaning of the
Title. Ancient Jewish and Christian View of this Song--18. It is not a
Drama, but a Series of Descripture Pictures--Its Great Theme--Caution in
Respect to the Spiritual Interpretation of it

CHAPTER XXII.

The Greater Prophets. 1. General Remarks on the Prophetical Writings--2.
Different Offices of the Prophets under the Theocracy--Their Office as
Reprovers--3. As Expounders of the Mosaic Law in its Spirituality--4.
And of its End, which was Salvation through the Future Redeemer--They
wrote in the Decline of the Theocracy--Their Promises fulfilled only in
Christ--I. _Isaiah_--5. He is the First in Order, but not the Earliest
of the Prophets--His Private History almost wholly Unknown--Jewish
Tradition Concerning him--Period of his Prophetic Activity--6. Two Great
Divisions of his Prophecies--Plans for Classifying the Contents of the
First Part--Analysis of these Contents--General Character of the Second
Part, and View of its Contents--7. Objections to the Genuineness of the
Last Part of Isaiah and Certain Other Parts--General Principle on which
these Objections are to be met--Previous Preparation for the Revelations
contained in this Part--True Significance of the Promises which it
contains--Form of these Promises--Mention of Cyrus by Name--Objection
from the Character of the Style considered--8. Direct Arguments for the
Genuineness of this Part--External Testimony; Internal Evidences--9.
Genuineness of the Disputed Passages of the First Part--II.
_Jeremiah_--10. Contrast between Isaiah and Jeremiah in Personal
Character and Circumstances--Our Full Knowledge of his Outward Personal
History and Inward Conflicts--11. His Priestly Descent--His Native
Place--Period of his Prophetic Activity--Degeneracy of the
Age--Persecutions to which his Fidelity subjected him--He is more
occupied than Isaiah with the Present--His Mission is emphatically to
unfold the Connection between National Profligacy and National Ruin; yet
he sometimes describes the Glory of the Latter Days--12. The
Chronological Order not always followed in his Prophecies--General
Divisions of them--First Division; Second Division; Appendix--Attempts
to disprove the Genuineness of Certain Parts of Jeremiah--_The Book of
Lamentations_--13. Its Hebrew Name--Its Authorship and the Time of its
Composition--14. Structure of its Poetry--III. _Ezekiel_--15. His
Priestly Descent and Residence--Notices of his Personal History--Period
of his Prophetic Activity--16. Peculiarities of his Style--17. His
Allegoric and Symbolic Representations--General Remarks on the Nature of
Allegories and Symbols--18. The Two Divisions of the Book--Contents of
the First Part; of the Second Part--Prophecies against Foreign
Nations--Promises relating to the Glory of the Latter Days--Ezekiel's
Vision of a New Jerusalem with its Temple--Meaning of this Vision and
Principles according to which it is to be interpreted--IV. _Daniel_--19.
Its Place in the Hebrew Canon--Notices of Daniel's Personal History--20.
Arrangement and Contents of the Book--First Series of Prophecies; Second
Series--Intimate Connection between the Book of Daniel and the
Apocalypse--21. Assaults made upon the Book of Daniel in Respect to its
Genuineness and Credibility--Grounds on which it is received as a Part
of the Sacred Canon--Its Unity; Uniform Tradition of the Jews and its
Reliability; Testimony of Josephus; of the Saviour; Language and Style;
Intimate Acquaintance with the Historical Relations and Manners and
Customs of the Age--22. Insufficiency of the Various Objections urged
against the Book--Chronological and Historical Difficulties;
Difficulties connected with the Identification of Belshazzar and Darius
the Mede; Silence of Jesus the Son of Sirach respecting Daniel; Alleged
Linguistic Difficulties; Commendations bestowed upon Daniel--The Real
Objection to the Book on the Part of its Opponents lies in the
Supernatural Character of the Events which it records--Remarks on this
Objection

CHAPTER XXIII.

THE TWELVE MINOR PROPHETS--1. Jewish Arrangement of these Books--Their
Order in the Masoretic Text and in the Alexandrine Version--2. General
Remarks on their Character I. _Hosea_--3. Period of his Prophecying and
its Character--4. Peculiarly of his Style--Contents of the Book II.
_Joel_--5. Place and Date of his Prophecies--6. Character and Contents
of his Book--III. _Amos_--7. Date of his Prophecies--Notices of his
Person--He was a Jew, not trained in any Prophetical School, and sent to
prophesy against Israel--Character and Contents of his Writings--IV.
_Obadiah_--8. Date and Contents of his Prophecy--V. _Jonah_--9. His
Age--10. Remarks on the History of the Book--11. Authorship and Historic
Truth of the Book--VI. _Micah_--12. His Residence and the Time of his
Prophetic Activity--His Prophecies directed against both Israel and
Judah--13. Divisions of the Book with the Contents of Each--Passages
Common to Micah and Isaiah--General Agreement between the Two
Prophets--VII. _Nahum_--14. His Prophecy directed against Nineveh--Its
Probable Date--15. Contents of the Book--VIII. _Habakkuk_--16. Date of
the Book and its Contents--Remarks on the Ode contained in the Third
Chapter--IX. _Zephaniah_--17. Date and Contents of his Book--X.
_Haggai_--18. Date and Scope of the Book--19. Its Different
Messages--XI. _Zechariah_--20. His Priestly Descent--Date of his
Prophecies--21. The Three Divisions of the Book--First Division; Second
Division; Third Division--22. Remarks on the Character of Zechariah's
Prophecies--XII. _Malachi_--23. Name of this Prophet--Date of his
Prophecies, and Condition of the Jewish People--24 Contents of the Book

APPENDIX TO PART II.

THE APOCRYPHAL BOOKS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT--1. The Term _Apocrypha_ and
its Origin--2. Remarks on the Date of the Apocryphal Books--Their
Reception by the Alexandrine Jews--3. History of these Books in the
Christian Church--4. Their Uses--I. _The Two Books of Esdras_--5. Name
of this Book--Its Contents--Its Date--6. The Second Book of Esdras found
only in Versions--Remarks on these Versions--7. Its Contents and
Date--II. _Tobit_--8. Accounts of the Contents of this Book--9. Various
Texts in which this Book is Extant--Its General Scope--III.
_Judith_--10. Contents of the Book--11. Remarks on its Character, Date,
and Design--IV. _Additions to the Book of Esther_--12. Account of
these--V. _The Wisdom of Solomon_--13. Its Divisions and their
Contents--14. Authorship of the Book--Its Merits and Defects--VI.
_Ecclesiasticus_--15. Its Titles and Contents--16. Date of the Book and
of its Translation--VII. _Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah_--17.
Character and Contents of the Book of Baruch--18. Second, or Syriac Book
of Baruch--19. So-called Epistle of Jeremiah--VIII. _Additions to the
Book of Daniel_--20. Enumeration of these--Their Authorship and
Date--IX. _The Prayer of Manasses_--21. Remarks on this Composition--X.
_The Books of the Maccabees_--22. Number of these Books--Remarks on
their Historic Order--Origin of the Name Maccabee--23. First Book--Its
Genuineness and Credibility--Its Authorship and Date--Original
Language--24. Second Book--Its Character and Contents--25. Third
Book--Its Contents and Character--Fourth Book--Its Stoical
Character--Its Contents--Fifth Book--Its Original Language and Contents

       *       *       *       *       *

PART III.

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT.

FIRST DIVISION--GENERAL INTRODUCTION.


CHAPTER XXIV.

Language of the New Testament--1. God's Providence as seen in the
Languages of the Old and New Testaments--Fitness of the Hebrew for its
Office in History, Poetry, and Prophecy--2. Adaptation of the Greek to
the Wants of the New Testament Writers--3. Providential Preparation for
a Change in the Language of the Inspired Writings--Cessation of the
Hebrew as the Vernacular of the Jews, and Withdrawal of the Spirit of
Prophecy Contemporaneous--4. Introduction of the Greek Language into
Asia and Egypt--Its Use among the Jews, especially in Egypt--Its General
Use in our Lord's Day--5. Character of the New Testament Greek--Its
Basis the Common Hellenic Dialect, with an Hebraic Coloring received
from the Septuagint, and an Aramaic Tinge also--The Writers of the New
Testament Jews using the Language of Greece for the Expression of
Christian Ideas--Technical Terms in the New Testament--6. Adaptation of
the New Testament Greek to its Office

CHAPTER XXV.

External Form of the New Testament--1. The Three Main Divisions of the
New Testament Writings: Historical, Epistolary, Prophetical--2. Natural
Order of these Divisions--3. Subdivisions--In the Historic Part--In the
Epistolary Part--Diversity of Arrangement in Manuscripts--4. Arrangement
of the New Testament Writings not Chronological--Importance of Knowing
this--5. Continuous Writing of the Ancient Uncial Manuscripts--
Stichometrical Mode of Writing--This led gradually to the Present
System of Interpunction Cursive Manuscripts--7. Ancient Divisions in
the Contents of the Sacred Text--Ammonian Sections and Eusebian Canons--
8. Divisions called Titles--9. Divisions of the Other New Testament
Books--10. Chapters and Verses--Church Lessons--11. Remarks on the above
Divisions--Paragraph Bibles--12. Titles and Subscriptions

CHAPTER XXVI.

THE NEW TESTAMENT TEXT AND ITS HISTORY--I. _The Manuscript Text_--1 and
2. General Remarks--3. Origin of Various Readings and their
Classification--Substitutions, Insertions, Omissions--Arising from
Inadvertence, or Unskilful Criticism--Wilful Falsifications cannot be
imputed to the Copyists--4. Materials for Textual Criticism--General
Results--5. Notice of some Manuscripts--The Vatican, Sinai, Alexandrine,
Ephraem, Palimpsest, Dublin Palimpsest, Beza or Cambridge (Bilingual),
Purple. Cursive Manuscripts--II. _The Printed Text_--6. Primary Editions
and their Sources--Complutensian Polyglott, Erasmian, Stephens', Beza's,
Elzevir Editions--7. Remarks on the Received Text--III. _Principles of
Textual Criticism_--8. Its End--Sources of Evidence--Greek
Manuscripts--Their varying Value--9. Ancient Versions and their
Value--10. Citations of the Church Fathers--11. Canons of Criticism

CHAPTER XXVII.

FORMATION AND HISTORY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON--1. General Remarks--2.
Different Periods to be noticed--3. Apostolic Age--4. Age of the
Apostolic Fathers--Remarks on their Quotations--5. Age of
Transition--Events of this Age which awakened the Christian Church to a
Full Consciousness of the Divine Authority of the Apostolic
Writings--Execution of Versions--6. Age of the Early Church
Fathers--They recognized a Canon, though not yet Complete--Canon of the
Syriac Peshito, Muratorian Canon--Canon of the Councils of Laodicea and
Carthage--7. Closing Remarks

CHAPTER XXVIII.

ANCIENT VERSIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT--I. _Latin Versions_--1. Interest
attaching to these Versions--2. The Ante-Hieronymian or Old Latin
Version--3. Its Canon--Remarks on its Text--Manuscripts containing
it--4. Jerome's Revision of the Old Latin Version--5. Jerome's New
Version of the Old Testament--Books left untranslated--The Vulgate and
its Diversified Character--Remarks on the History of the Vulgate--II.
_Syriac Versions_--6. The Peshito--It comprises the Old and New
Testaments--Its Date--Its Name--7. Character of the Peshito--The
Curetonian Syriac--Its Relation to the Peshito--Its high Critical
Value--8. The Philoxenian Syriac--Its extremely Literal
Character--Hexaplar Syriac--Remarks on these Versions--Jerusalem Syriac
Lectionary--III. _Egyptian and Ethiopic Versions_--Memphitic Version,
Thebaic, Bashmuric--10. Ethiopic Version--IV. _Gothic and other
Versions_--11. Gothic Version of Ulphilas--12. Palimpsest Manuscripts of
this Version--13. Ancient Armenian Version


SECOND DIVISION--PARTICULAR INTRODUCTION.


CHAPTER XXIX.

THE HISTORICAL BOOKS--1. The New Testament a Necessary Sequel to the
Old--The Two Testaments interpret Each Other, and can be truly
understood only as an Organic Whole--2. Remarks on the Use Made of the
Old Testament by the Writers of the New--Fundamental Character of the
Gospel Narratives--I. _The Gospel as a Whole_--3. Signification of the
Word "Gospel"--Its Primary and Secondary Application--4. General Remarks
on the Relation of the Gospels to Each Other--5. Agreements of the
Synoptic Gospels--6. Differences--7. Theories of the Origin of these
Three Gospels: That of Mutual Dependence; That of Original Documents;
That of Oral Apostolic Tradition--Remarks on this Tradition--Its
Distinction from Tradition in the Modern Sense--8. No One of the Gospels
gives the Entire History of our Lord, nor always observes the Strict
Chronological Order of Events--Remarks on our Lord's Life before his
Baptism--9. Remarks on the Peculiar Character of the Fourth Gospel--This
and the other Three mutually Supplementary to Each Other--10. Harmonies
of the Gospels--Relative Size of the Gospels--II. _Matthew_--11.
Personal Notices of Matthew--12. Original Language of his Gospel--The
Problem stated--13. Testimony of the Ancients on this Point--14. Various
Hypotheses considered--15. Primary Design of this Gospel to show that
Jesus of Nazareth was the Promised Messiah--16. He is also exhibited as
the Saviour of the World--17. Fulness of Matthew's Record in Respect to
our Lord's Discourses--18. He does not always follow the Exact Order of
Time--19. Place and Date--20. Integrity--Genuineness of the First Two
Chapters--III. _Mark_--21. Personal Notices of Mark--Intimate Relation
of Mark to Peter and Paul--22. Place--Date--Language--23. Design of this
Gospel to exhibit Jesus as the Son of God--He makes the Works of Jesus
more Prominent than his Discourses--24. Characteristics of Mark as a
Historian--25. Closing Passage in Mark's Gospel--IV. _Luke_--26. Notices
of Luke in the New Testament--27. Sources of his Gospel--His Relation to
Paul--28. Date and Place of Writing--29. Universal Aspect of Luke's
Gospel--30. Its Character and Plan--Comparison of the Gospels in Respect
to Peculiar Matter and Concordances--31. Integrity of Luke's Gospel--The
Two Genealogies of Matthew and Luke--V. _John_--32. John's Manner of
indicating himself--33. Personal Notices of him--34. Late Composition of
his Gospel and Place of Writing--35. Peculiarity of this Gospel in
Respect to Subject-Matter--Its Relation to the First Three Gospels--36.
General Design of this Gospel--It is peculiarly the Gospel of Christ's
Person--VI. _Acts of the Apostles_--37. Author of this Book--38. Plan of
the Book--Its First Division; Second Division--Notices of Antioch--39.
Office of this Book--Portraiture of the Apostolic Age of Christianity;
Cursory View of the Inauguration of the Christian Church; Various Steps
by which the Abolition of the Middle Wall of Partition between Jews and
Gentiles was effected--40. Concluding Remarks

CHAPTER XXX.

THE EPISTLES OF PAUL--1. General Remarks on the Epistles--2. Paul's
Epistles all written in the Prosecution of his Work as the Apostle to
the Gentiles--Nature of this Work--3. Paul's Peculiar Qualifications for
this Work--His Mode of Procedure--Union in him of Firmness and
Flexibility--4. Character of the Apostle's Style--5. Points to be
noticed in the Separate Epistles--Notices of Paul's Labors in the Acts
of the Apostles--6. Present Arrangement of Paul's Epistles and of the
Epistles generally--Chronological Order of Paul's Epistles--Four Groups
of these Epistles--I. _Epistle to the Romans_--7. Date and Place of this
Epistle--8. Composition of the Roman Church--9. Occasion and Design of
the Epistle--Its General Outlines--10. Special Office of this
Epistle--II. _Epistles to the Corinthians_--_First Epistle_--11. Place
and Time of its Composition--12. Notices of the Corinthian
Church--Occasion of the Apostle's Writing--13. General Tone of the
Epistle as contrasted with that to the Galatians--_Second Epistle_--14.
Place and Time of its Composition--15. Its Occasion--Prominence of the
Apostle's Personality in this Epistle and its Ground--Peculiarities of
its Diction--Its Office in the Economy of Revelation--III. _Epistle to
the Galatians_--16. Historical Notice of Galatia--Missionary Visits of
the Apostle to that Province--Date of the Present Epistle and Place of
Composition--17. Occasion and Design--18. Outlines of the Epistle--The
Historic Part, the Argumentative, the Practical--IV. _Epistles to the
Ephesians, Colossians, and Philemon_--19. Contemporaneousness of these
Epistles--20. Place and Date--21. Chronological Order of the First
Two--_Epistle to the Colossians_--22. Notices of Colosse and the Church
there--Occasion of this Epistle--Character of the False Teachers at
Colosse--23. Outlines of the Epistle--Its Argumentative Part, its
Practical--The Epistle from Laodicca--_Epistle to the Ephesians_--24.
Notices of Ephesus--Labors of Paul at Ephesus--Occasion of the Present
Epistle--Its General Character--Various Hypotheses respecting it--25.
Its Outlines--Its Argumentative Part, its Practical--_Epistle to
Philemon_--26. Its Occasion and Design--V. _Epistle to the
Philippians_--27. Notices of Philippi and the Formation of the Church
there--28. Occasion of this Epistle--Place and Date of its
Composition--29. Its Character--General View of its Contents--VI.
_Epistles to the Thessalonians_--30. Notices of Thessalonica and the
Apostle's Labors there--_First Epistle to the Thessalonians_--31. Date
and Place of its Composition--32. Its Occasion and Design--Outlines of
the Epistle--_Second Epistle_--33. Place of Writing and Date--Its
Design--Its General Outlines--34. Comparison between the Epistles to the
Thessalonians and that to the Philippians--VII. _The Pastoral
Epistles_--35. The Date of these Epistles and Related Questions--36.
Character of the False Teachers referred to in these Epistles--37.
Genuineness of the Pastoral Epistles--38. Their Office--_First Epistle
to Timothy_--39. Its Date and Place of Composition--Its Occasion and
Design--Its Contents--Scriptural Notices of Timothy--_Epistle to
Titus_--40. Its Agreement with the Preceding Epistle--The Cretan Church
and Titus--_Second Epistle, to Timothy_--41. Its Occasion and Character
in Contrast with the Two Preceding Epistles--Its Office--_Epistle to the
Hebrews_--42. Question of its Authorship--How it was regarded in the
Eastern Church--How in the Western--General Remark--43. Persons
addressed in this Epistle--Time and Place of its Composition--Manner of
Reference to the Levitical Priesthood and Temple Services--44. Central
Theme of this Epistle--Dignity of Christ's Person in Contrast with the
Ancient Prophets, with Angels, and with Moses--Divine Efficacy of his
Priesthood in Contrast with that of the Sons of Aaron--Design of the
Epistle--Its Office in the System of Revelation

CHAPTER XXXI.

THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES--1. Origin of the Name "Catholic"--1. _Epistle of
James_--2. Question respecting the Person of James--3. Place of Writing
this Epistle--Persons addressed--4. Question of its Date--5. Its
Genuineness and Canonical Authority--6. Its Practical Character--Alleged
Disagreement between Paul and James without Foundation--II. _Epistles of
Peter_--_First Epistle_--7. Its Canonical Authority always
acknowledged--8. Persons addressed--9. Place of its Composition--Its
Occasion and Date--Traditions respecting Peter--10. Outline of the
Epistle--_Second Epistle_--11. Persons addressed--Time of Writing--12.
Question respecting the Genuineness of this Epistle--External
Testimonies--Internal Evidence--General Result--13. Object of the
Present Epistle--Peculiar Character of the Second Chapter--Its Agreement
with the Epistle of Jude--III. _Epistles of John_--_First Epistle of
John_--14. Its Acknowledged Canonicity--Time and Place of its
Composition--Persons addressed--15. General View of its
Contents--_Second and Third Epistles_--16. Their Common
Authorship--Their Genuineness--17. The Occasion and Office of Each--IV.
_Epistle of Jude_--18. Question respecting Jude's Person--Time of the
Epistle, and Persons addressed--19. Its Canonical Authority--Its Design

CHAPTER XXXII.

THE APOCALYPSE--1. Meaning of the Word "Apocalypse"--Abundance of
External Testimonies to this Book--2. Internal Arguments considered--Use
of the Apostle's Name, Devotional Views, Spirit of the Writer, Style and
Diction--Here must be taken into Account the Difference between this
Book and John's other Writings in Subject-Matter, in the Mode of Divine
Revelation, in the Writer's Mental State and Circumstances; also its
Poetic Diction--General Results--3. Date of the Apocalypse and Place of
Writing--4. Different Schemes of Interpretation--The Generic--The
Historic--5. Symbolic Import of the Numbers in this Book--The number
Seven, Half of Seven, Six; The Number Four, a Third and Fourth Part; the
Number Twelve; the Number Ten--6. Office of the Apocalypse in the System
of Revelation

APPENDIX TO PART III.

WRITINGS OF THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS, WITH SOME NOTICES OF THE APOCRYPHAL
NEW TESTAMENT WRITINGS--1. The Writings of the Apostolic Fathers
distinguished from the Proper New Testament Apocrypha--Some Remarks on
the Character of these Writings

I. _Writings of Clement of Rome_--2. His Epistle to the Romans--Its
Genuineness Character, and Age--3. Its Occasion, with a Notice of its
Contents--4. The so-called Second Epistle of Clement to the
Corinthians--Its Genuineness not admitted--Vague and General Character
of its Contents--5. Notice of some Other Writings falsely ascribed to
Clement--Recognitions of Clement, and the Clementines, with their Plan
and Contents; Constitutions of Clement, and their Contents; Apostolic
Canons

II. _Epistles of Ignatius_--6. Notices of Ignatius--The Seven Genuine
Epistles that bear his Name--Unsatisfactory State of the Text--Syriac
and Armenian Versions--Enumeration of these Epistles--Their
Character--Strong Ecclesiastical Spirit that pervades them--His Letter
to the Romans--The Undue Desire of Martyrdom which it manifests--His
Letter to Polycarp--7. Spurious Epistles ascribed to Ignatius, and their
Character

III. _Epistle of Polycarp_--8. Notices of Polycarp--His Epistle to the
Philippians--Its Character and Contents--Time and Occasion of its
Composition

IV. _Writings of Barnabas and Hermas_--9. Their Doubtful Authority--10.
The So-called Epistle of Barnabas--Tischendorf's Discovery of the
Original Greek Text--The Author and Date of the Work--Notice of its
Contents--Its Fanciful Method of Interpretation--11. The Shepherd of
Hernias--Outward Form of the Work--Its Internal Character--Its Author
and Age

V. _The Apostle's Creed_--12. In what Sense it belongs to the Apostolic
Fathers--Apostolic Character of its Contents

VI. _Apocryphal Gospels and Acts--13._ Their Number--Their Worthless
Character in Contrast with that of the Canonical Gospels and Acts

       *       *       *       *       *

PART IV.

A DISCUSSION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.


CHAPTER XXXIII.

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS--1. Definition of Certain Terms--Hermeneutics,
Exegesis, Epexegesis--2. The Expositor's Office--Parallel between his
Work and that of the Textual Critic--3. Qualifications of the Biblical
Interpreter--A Supreme Regard for Truth--4. A Sound Judgment with the
Power of Vivid Conception--Office of Each of these Qualities and their
Relation to Each Other--5. Sympathy with Divine Truth--6. Extensive and
Varied Acquirements--The Original Languages of the Bible; Sacred
Geography and Natural History; Biblical Antiquities; Ancient History and
Chronology--7. General Remarks on the above Qualifications--8. The Human
and Divine Side to Biblical Interpretation--The Importance of observing
Both


FIRST DIVISION--INTERPRETATION VIEWED ON THE HUMAN SIDE.

CHAPTER XXXIV.

GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION--1. Signification of the Terms
employed how ascertained, with some Superadded Remarks--2. On
Ascertaining the Sense of Scripture--3. The Scope General and
Special--Its Supreme Importance illustrated--How the Scope is to be
ascertained--The Author's Statements; Inferential Remarks; Historical
Circumstances--Important Help derived from the Repeated and Careful
Perusal of a Work--4. The Context defined and distinguished from the
Scope--Indispensable Necessity of attending to it--This illustrated by
Examples--Question respecting the Limits of the Context--In some Cases
no Context exists--On the Use of Biblical Texts as Mottoes--Various
Applications of the Principle contained in a Given Passage a Legitimate
Mode of Exposition--5. Parallelisms Verbal and Real--Help derived from
the Former--Subdivision of Real Parallelisms into Doctrinal and
Historic--Importance of Doctrinal Parallelisms with Illustrations--Value
of Historic Parallelisms illustrated--Difficulties arising from them,
and the Principle of their Adjustment--Illustration--6. External
Acquirements--Various Illustrations of the Importance of these--7. Sound
Judgment--Office of this Quality illustrated--Inept Interpretations:
Interpretations Contrary to the Nature of the Subject; Necessary
Limitations of an Author's Meaning; Reconciliation of Apparent
Contradictions; Forced and Unnatural Explanations and the Rejection of
Well-established Facts--8. Remarks on the Proper Office of Reason in
Interpretation

CHAPTER XXXV.

FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE OF SCRIPTURE--1. Figurative Language defined and
illustrated--General Remarks respecting it--2. Rules for the
Ascertaining of Figurative Language--Nature of the Subject; Scope,
Context, and Analogy of Scripture--Error of understanding Literal
Language figuratively--Remark on the Interpretation of Prophecy--3.
Different Kinds of Figures--The Trope in its Varieties of Metonymy,
Synecdoche, and Metaphor--Remarks on Comparisons--The Allegory--Its
Definition and Distinction from the Metaphor--Distinction between True
Allegory and the Allegorical Interpretation of History--The Parable--How
distinguished from the Allegory--The Fable--The Symbol--Its Various
Forms--The Proverb--It always embodies a General Truth--Its Various
Forms--Signification of the Word "Myth"--It does not come within the
Sphere of Scriptural Interpretation--4. General Remarks on the
Interpretation of the Figurative Language of Scripture--5. Its Certainty
and Truthfulness--6. Key to the Interpretation of the Allegory--
Examples: The Vine Transplanted from Egypt, Psa. 80; the two Eagles
and the Cedar Bough, Ezek. 17:3-10; The Song of Solomon; the Two
Allegories of Ezekiel, chaps., 16 and 23-7. The Interpretation of the
Parable--How it differs from that of the Allegory--Point of Primary
Importance--How far the Details are significant--Examples: The Sower,
Matt. 13:3-8, 19-23; the Tares in the Field Matt. 13:24-30, 37-43; the
Ten Virgins, Matt, 25:1-13--Remark respecting the Personages introduced
in Parables with Illustrations--The Unforgiving Servant, Matt. 18:
23-35; the Importunate Friend, Luke 11:5-8; the Unjust Judge, Luke
18:1-8; the Unfaithful Steward, Luke 16:1-9--8. Scriptural Symbols-How
to determine whether they are Real or Seen in Prophetic
Vision--Principles on which they are to be interpreted--Examples--9.
Remarks on the Interpretation of Numerical Symbols


SECOND DIVISION--INTERPRETATION VIEWED ON THE DIVINE SIDE.


CHAPTER XXXVI.

UNITY OF REVELATION--1. Essential Unity between the Old and the New
Testament--2. This Unity one that coexists with Great Diversity--
Illustrations from the Analogy of God's Works--3. Unity in
Diversity in Respect to the Form of God's Kingdom--4. The Forms of
Public Worship--5. Forms of Religious Labor--6. Spirit of Revelation--7.
Way of Salvation--8. Sternness of the Mosaic Dispensation explained from
its Preparatory Character--9. Inferences from the Unity of
Revelation--9. Each Particular Revelation Perfect in its Measure--10.
The Later Revelations the Exponents of the Earlier; Christ and his
Apostles in a Special Sense the Expositors of the New Testament--11. The
Extent of Meaning in a Given Revelation that which the Holy Spirit
intended--12. The Obscure Declarations of Scripture to be interpreted
from the Clear, with Illustrations--13. Remarks on the Analogy of
Faith--The Term Defined--Rules for its Use

CHAPTER XXXVII.

SCRIPTURAL TYPES--1. Types distinguished from Analogy--2. And from the
Foreshadowing of Future Events by the Present--3. The Type defined in
its Three Essential Characters

I. _Historical Types_--4. In Respect to these Two Extremes to be
avoided--Typical History has a Proper Significance of its Own--This
illustrated by Examples: The Kingly Office; the Prophetical Office;
Typical Transactions--Remarks on the Inadequacy of All Types

II. _Ritual Types_--5. The Sacrifices the Essential Part of the Mosaic
Ritual--What is implied in them--The Sanctuary God's Visible
Dwelling-place where alone they could be offered--6. The Mosaic
Tabernacle described--7. Its General Typical Import--8. Significance of
its Different Parts and Appointments--Preciousness of the Materials;
Gradation in this Respect--9. The Inner Sanctuary with its
Appointments--10. The Outer Sanctuary with its Appointments--11. The
Brazen Altar with its Laver--The Levitical Priests typified Christ--12.
The Levitical Sacrifices typified Christ's Offering of Himself for the
Sins of the World--This shown from Scripture--General Remark respecting
Christ's Propitiatory Sacrifice--13. Characteristics of the Types
Themselves--The Levitical Priests had a Common Human Nature with those
for whom they officiated; were appointed to their Office by God; were
Mediators between God and the People; and Mediators through Propitiatory
Sacrifices--Points of Dissimilarity between the Type and the
Antitype--Remarks on the Central Idea of Priesthood--14. Scriptural Idea
of Sacrifice the Offering of One Life in Behalf of Another--
Classification of the Levitical Sacrifices with the Ideas
belonging to Each: Sin and Trespass Offerings; Burnt Offerings;
Peace-Offerings--Sacrificial Nature of the Passover--Other Sacrifices of
a Special Character--All Sacrificial Victims to be without Blemish--The
Unbloody Offerings and their Signification--15. Typical Transactions
connected with the Sacrifices and Oblations: The Laying of the Offerer's
Hands on the Head of the Victim; the Waving and Heaving of Offerings;
the Sprinkling of the Victim's Blood; the Burning of the Offering--16.
Typical Meaning of the Tabernacle as a Whole--The Several Points of
Adumbration considered: Adumbration of God's Presence with Men;
Impossibility of approaching God without a Mediator; Adumbration of
Christ's Expiatory Sacrifice and Heavenly Intercession on the Great Day
of Atonement; Burning of the Victim without the Camp--17. Distinctions
between Clean and Unclean--Levitical View of Bodily Infirmities

CHAPTER XXXVIII.

INTERPRETATION OF PROPHECY--1. General Remarks

I. _Prophecies relating to the Near Future_--2. Their Specific
Character--Examples

II. _Prophecies relating to the Last Days_--3. Meaning of the Term "Last
Days," and its Equivalents--General Character of this Class of
Prophecies--4. Prophecies in which the Order of Events is
indicated--Daniel's Fourth Monarchy; the Great Red Dragon of Revelation,
the Two Beasts that succeeded to his Power, and the Woman riding a
Scarlet-Colored Beast--5. Prophecies which give General Views of the
Future--Examples--6. The Prophets give an Inward View of the Vital
Forces which sustain and extend God's Kingdom--Unity of the Plan of
Redemption; its Continual Progress; Indications of the End towards which
it is tending; the End Itself the Chief Object of Interest--Great Crisis
in the Church's History--Spirit that should actuate the Interpreter of
Prophecy

III. _Question of Double Sense_--7. The Term defined--8. Examples of
Literal and Typical Sense--Melchizedek's Priesthood; the Rest of
Canaan--9. The Messianic Psalms--Different Principles on which they are
interpreted: Exclusive Application to Christ; Reference to an Ideal
Personage; Christ the Head and his Body the Church; Typical View--10.
The Principle of Progressive Fulfilment

IV. _Question of Literal and Figurative Meaning_--11. General
Remarks--12. Representative Use in Prophecy of Past Events--13. Of the
Institutions of the Mosaic Economy--14. The Principle of Figurative
Interpretation not to be pressed as Exclusive--15. Question of the
Literal Restoration of the Jews to the Land of Canaan--16. Question of
our Lord's Personal Reign on Earth during the Millennium

CHAPTER XXXIX.

QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW--1. General Remarks on the
Authority of the New Testament Writers--2. Outward Form of their
Quotations--Its very Free Spirit--This illustrated by Example--3.
Contents of the New Testament Quotations--The So-called Principle of
Accommodation; in what Sense True, and in what Sense to be rejected--4.
Quotations by Way of Argument--5. Quotations as Prophecies of Christ and
his Kingdom--Remarks on the Formula: "That it might be fulfilled"--6.
Prophecies referring immediately to Christ--7. Prophecies referring to
Christ under a Type--Closing Remark




PART I.

EVIDENCES OF REVEALED RELIGION.




PREFATORY REMARKS.


Many thousands of persons have a full and joyous conviction of the truth
of Christianity from their own experience, who yet feel a reasonable
desire to examine the _historic evidence_ by which it is confirmed, if
not for the strengthening of their own faith, yet for the purpose of
silencing gainsayers, and guarding the young against the cavils of
infidelity. It is our duty to give to those who ask us a reason of the
hope that is in us; and although our own personal experience may be to
ourselves a satisfactory ground of assurance, we cannot ask others to
take the gospel on our testimony alone. It is highly desirable that we
understand and be able to set forth with clearness and convincing power
the proofs that this plan of salvation has God for its author.

Then there is a class of earnest inquirers who find themselves perplexed
with the difficulties which they hear urged against the gospel, and
which they find themselves unable to solve in a satisfactory way. It is
of the highest importance that such persons be met in a candid spirit;
that the immense mass of evidence by which the Christian religion is
sustained be clearly set before them; and that they understand that a
religion thus supported is not to be rejected on the ground that there
are difficulties connected with it which have not yet been
solved--perhaps never can be solved here below.

Are you, reader, such an earnest inquirer after truth? We present to you
in the following pages a brief summary of the historic evidence by which
the Bible, with the plan of salvation which it reveals, is shown to be
the word of God; and we wish, here at the outset, to suggest to you some
cautions respecting the state of mind with which this great inquiry is
to be pursued.

First of all, we remind you that, whatever else may be uncertain, you
know that you must soon die, and try for yourself the realities of the
unseen world. The question now before you is, Whether God has spoken
from heaven, and made any revelations concerning that world. If so, they
are more precious than gold; for in the decisive hour of death you will
wish to know not what man, the sinner, has reasoned and conjectured
concerning a future judgment, forgiveness of sin, and the life to come;
but what God, the Judge, has declared. Now the Bible claims to contain
such a message from God. If its claims are valid, it will not flatter
you and speak to you smooth things, but will tell you the truth. And you
must be prepared to receive the truth, though it condemn you. Sooner or
later you must meet the truth face to face: be ready to do so now; you
have no interest in error; falsehood and delusion cannot help you, but
will destroy you.

Do not come to the examination of this great question with the idea that
you must clear away all mysteries connected with the gospel before you
believe it. The world in which you live is full of mysteries. One would
think that if any thing could be fully comprehended, it must be the acts
of which we are ourselves the authors. By a volition you raise your hand
to your head; but _how_ is the act performed? True, there is in your
body an apparatus of nerves, muscles, joints, and the like; but in what
way does the human will have power over this apparatus? No man can
answer this question: it is wrapped in deep mystery. Why be offended,
then, because the way of salvation revealed in the Bible has like
mysteries--mysteries concerning not your duty, but God's secret and
inscrutable methods of acting?

And since the question now before you is not one of mere speculation,
but one that concerns your immediate duty, be on your guard against the
seductive influence of sinful passion and sinful habit. There is a deep
and solemn meaning in the words of Jesus: "Every one that doeth evil
hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be
reproved." Corrupt feeling in the heart and corrupt practice in the life
have a terrible power to blind the mind. The man who comes to the
examination of the Bible with a determination to persist in doing what
he knows to be wrong, or in omitting what he knows to be right, will
certainly err from the truth; for he is not in a proper state of mind to
love it and welcome it to his soul.

Remember also that it is not the grosser passions and forms of vice
alone that darken the understanding and alienate the heart from the
truth. Pride, vanity, ambition, avarice--in a word, the spirit of
self-seeking and self-exaltation in every form--will effectually hinder
the man in whose bosom they bear sway from coming to the knowledge of
the truth; for they will incline him to seek a religion which flatters
him and promises him impunity in sin, and will fatally prejudice him
against a system of doctrines and duties so holy and humbling as that
contained in the Bible. Take, as a comprehensive rule for the
investigation of this weighty question, the words of the Saviour: "If
any man will do his will"--the will of God--"he shall know of the
doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself." So far as
you already know the will of God, do it; do it sincerely, earnestly, and
prayerfully, and God will give you more light. He loves the truth, and
sympathizes with all earnest and sincere inquirers after it. He never
leaves to fatal error and delusion any but those who love falsehood
rather than truth, because they have pleasure in unrighteousness. Open
your heart to the light of heaven, and God will shine into it from
above; so that, in the beautiful words of our Saviour, "the whole shall
be full of light, as when the bright shining of a candle doth give thee
light."




COMPANION TO THE BIBLE.

      *       *       *       *       *

EVIDENCES OF REVEALED RELIGION.

       *       *       *       *       *

CHAPTER I.

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.


I. The Christian religion is not a mere system of ideas, like the
philosophy of Plato or Aristotle. It rests on a _basis of historic
facts_. The great central fact of the gospel is thus expressed by Jesus
himself: "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son,
that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting
life," John 3:16; and by the apostle Paul thus: "This is a faithful
saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the
world to save sinners." 1 Tim. 1:15. With the appearance of God's Son in
human nature were connected a series of mighty works, a body of divine
teachings, the appointment of apostles and the establishment of the
visible Christian church; all which are matters of historic record.

Nor is this all. It is the constant doctrine of Christ and his apostles
that he came in accordance with the scriptures of the Old Testament, and
that his religion is the fulfilment of the types and prophecies therein
contained: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the
prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." Matt. 5:17. "All
things must be fulfilled which were written in the law of Moses, and in
the prophets, and in the psalms concerning me." Luke 24:44. The facts of
the New Testament connect themselves, therefore, immediately with those
of the Old, so that the whole series constitutes an indivisible whole.
The Bible is, from beginning to end, the record of a supernatural
revelation made by God to men. As such, it embraces not only
supernatural teachings, but supernatural facts also; and the teachings
rest on the facts in such a way that both must stand or fall together.

II. This basis of supernatural facts, then, must be firmly maintained
against unbelievers whose grand aim is to _destroy the historic
foundation_ of the gospel, at least so far as it contains supernatural
manifestations of God to men. Thus they would rob it of its divine
authority, and reduce it to a mere system of human doctrines, like the
teachings of Socrates or Confucius, which men are at liberty to receive
or reject as they think best. Could they accomplish this, they would be
very willing to eulogize the character of Jesus, and extol the purity
and excellence of his precepts. Indeed, it is the fashion of modern
unbelievers, after doing what lies in their power to make the gospel a
mass of "cunningly-devised fables" of human origin, to expatiate on the
majesty and beauty of the Saviour's character, the excellence of his
moral precepts, and the benign influence of his religion. But the
transcendent glory of our Lord's character is inseparable from his being
what he claimed to be--the Son of God, coming from God to men with
supreme authority; and all the power of his gospel lies in its being
received as a message from God. To make the gospel human, is to
annihilate it, and with it the hope of the world.

III. When the inquiry is concerning a long series of events intimately
connected together so as to constitute one inseparable whole, two
methods of investigation are open to us. We may look at the train of
events in the order of time from beginning to end; or we may select some
one great event of especial prominence and importance as the _central
point_ of inquiry, and from that position look forward and backward. The
latter of these two methods has some peculiar advantages, and will be
followed in the present brief treatise. We begin with the great central
fact of revelation already referred to, that "the Father sent the Son to
be the Saviour of the world." 1 John 4:14. When this is shown to rest on
a foundation that cannot be shaken, the remainder of the work is
comparatively easy. From the supernatural appearance and works of the
Son of God, as recorded in the four gospels, the supernatural endowment
and works of his apostles, as recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, and
their authoritative teachings, as contained in their epistles, follow as
a natural and even necessary sequel. Since, moreover, the universal rule
of God's government and works is, "first the blade, then the ear, after
that the full corn in the ear," (Mark 4:28,) it is most reasonable to
suppose that such a full and perfect revelation as that which God has
made to us by his Son, which is certainly "the full corn in the ear,"
must have been preceded by exactly such preparatory revelations as we
find recorded in the Old Testament. Now Jesus of Nazareth appeared among
the Jews, the very people that had the scriptures of the Old Testament,
and had been prepared for his advent by the events recorded in them as
no other nation was prepared. He came, too, as he and his apostles ever
taught, to carry out the plan of redemption begun in them. From the
position, then, of Christ's advent, as the grand central fact of
redemption, we look backward and forward with great advantage upon the
whole line of revelation.

IV. We cannot too earnestly inculcate upon the youthful inquirer the
necessity of thus looking at _revelation as a whole_. Strong as are the
evidences for the truth of the gospel narratives considered separately,
they gain new strength, on the one side, from the mighty revelations
that preceded them and prepared the way for the advent of the Son of
God; and on the other, from the mighty events that followed his advent
in the apostolic age, and have been following ever since in the history
of the Christian church. The divine origin of the Mosaic institutions
can be shown on solid grounds, independently of the New Testament; but
on how much broader and deeper a foundation are they seen to rest, when
we find (as will be shown hereafter, chap. 8) that they were preparatory
to the incarnation of Jesus Christ. As in a burning mass, the heat and
flame of each separate piece of fuel are increased by the surrounding
fire, so in the plan of redemption, each separate revelation receives
new light and glory from the revelations which precede and follow it. It
is only when we view the revelations of the Bible as thus progressing
"from glory to glory," that we can estimate aright the proofs of their
divine origin. If it were even possible to impose upon men as miraculous
a particular event, as, for example, the giving of the Mosaic law on
Sinai, or the stones of the day of Pentecost, the idea that there could
have been imposed on the world a series of such events, extending
through many ages, and yet so connected together as to constitute a
harmonious and consistent whole, is a simple absurdity. There is no
explanation of the unity that pervades the supernatural facts of
revelation, but that of their divine origin.

V. In strong contrast with this rational way of viewing the facts of
revelation as a grand whole, is the fragmentary method of objectors. A
doubt here, a cavil there, an insinuation yonder; a difficulty with this
statement, an objection to that, a discrepancy here--this is their
favorite way of assailing the gospel. If one chooses to treat the Bible
in this narrow and uncandid way, he will soon plunge himself into the
mire of unbelief. Difficulties and objections should be candidly
considered, and allowed their due weight; but they must not be suffered
to override irrefragable proof, else we shall soon land in universal
skepticism: for difficulties, and some of them too insoluble, can be
urged against the great facts of nature and natural religion, as well as
of revelation. To reject a series of events supported by an overwhelming
weight of evidence, on the ground of unexplained difficulties connected
with them, involves the absurdity of running into a hundred difficulties
for the sake of avoiding five. If we are willing to examine the claims
of revelation as a whole, its divine origin will shine forth upon us
like the sun in the firmament. Our difficulties we can then calmly
reserve for further investigation here, or for solution in the world to
come.

VI. When we institute an examination concerning the facts of revelation,
the first question is that of the genuineness and uncorrupt preservation
of the books in which they are recorded; the next, that of their
authenticity and credibility. We may then conveniently consider the
question of their inspiration. In accordance with the plan marked out
above, (No. III.,) the gospel narratives will be considered first of
all; then the remaining books of the New Testament. After this will be
shown the inseparable connection between the facts of revelation
recorded in the Old Testament and those of the New; and finally, the
genuineness of the books which constitute the canon of the Old
Testament, with their authenticity and inspiration. The whole treatise
will be closed by a brief view of the internal and experimental
evidences which commend the Bible to the human understanding and
conscience as the word of God.




CHAPTER II.

GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.


I. _Preliminary Remarks._ 1. A book is _genuine_ if written by the man
whose name it bears, or to whom it is ascribed; or when, as in the case
of several books of the Old Testament, the author is unknown, it is
genuine if written in the age and country to which it is ascribed. A
book is _authentic_ which is a record of facts as opposed to what is
false or fictitious; and we call it _credible_ when the record of facts
which it professes to give is worthy of belief. Authenticity and
credibility are, therefore, only different views of the same quality.

    In the case of a book that deals mainly with _principles_, the
    question of authorship is of subordinate importance. Thus the
    book of Job, with the exception of the brief narratives with
    which it opens and closes, and which may belong to any one of
    several centuries, is occupied with the question of Divine
    providence. It is not necessary that we know what particular man
    was its author, or at what precise period he wrote. We only need
    reasonable evidence (as will be shown hereafter) that he was a
    prophetical man, writing under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
    But the case of the gospel narratives is wholly different. They
    contain a record of the supernatural appearance and works of the
    Son of God, on the truth of which rests our faith in the gospel.
    So the apostle Paul reasons: "If Christ be not risen, then is
    our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain." 1 Cor. 15:14.
    It is, then, of vital importance that we know the relation which
    the authors of these narratives held to Christ. If they were not
    _apostles_ or _apostolic men_, that is, associates of the
    apostles, laboring with them, enjoying their full confidence,
    and in circumstances to obtain their information directly from
    them--but, instead of this, wrote after the apostolic age--their
    testimony is not worthy of the unlimited faith which the church
    in all ages has reposed in it. The question, then, of the
    genuineness of the gospel narratives and that of their
    authenticity and credibility must stand or fall together.

2. In respect to the _origin_ of the gospels, as also of the other books
of the New Testament, the following things should be carefully
remembered:

_First._ There was a period, extending, perhaps, through some years from
the day of Pentecost, when there were no written gospels, their place
being supplied by the living presence and teachings of the apostles and
other disciples of our Lord.

_Secondly._ When the need of written documents began to be felt, they
were produced, one after another, as occasion suggested them. Thus the
composition of the books of the New Testament extended through a
considerable period of years.

_Thirdly._ Besides the gospels universally received by the churches,
other narratives of our Lord's life were attempted, as we learn from the
evangelist Luke (1:1); but those never obtained general currency. The
churches everywhere received the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke,
and John, because of the clear evidence which they had of their
apostolic origin and trustworthiness; and because, also, these gospels,
though not professing to give a complete account of our Lord's life and
teachings, were nevertheless sufficiently full to answer the end for
which they were composed, being not fragmentary sketches, but orderly
narratives, each of them extending over the whole course of our Lord's
ministry. The other narratives meanwhile gradually passed into oblivion.
The general reception of these four gospels did not, however, come from
any formal concert of action on the part of the churches, (as, for
example, from the authoritative decision of a general council, since no
such thing as a general council of the churches was known till long
after this period;) but simply from the common perception everywhere of
the unimpeachable evidence by which their apostolic authority was
sustained.

    The narratives referred to by Luke were earlier than his gospel.
    They were not spurious, nor, so far as we know, unauthentic; but
    rather imperfect. They must not be confounded with the
    apocryphal gospels of a later age.

3. In respect to the quotations of Scripture by the early fathers of the
church, it is important to notice their habit of quoting anonymously,
and often in a loose and general way. They frequently cite from memory,
blending together the words of different authors, and sometimes
intermingling with them their own words. In citing the prophecies of the
Old Testament in an argumentative way, they are, as might have been
expected, more exact, particularly when addressing Jews; yet even here
they often content themselves with the scope of the passages referred
to, without being particular as to the exact words.

With the above preliminary remarks, we proceed to consider the
evidences, external and internal, for the genuineness of the gospel
narratives.

II. _External Evidences._ 4. Here we need not begin at a later date than
the last quarter of the second century. This is the age of Irenaeus in
Gaul, of Tertullian in North Africa, of Clement of Alexandria in Egypt,
and of some other writers. Their testimony to the apostolic origin and
universal reception of our four canonical gospels is as full as can be
desired. They give the names of the authors, two of them--Matthew and
John--apostles, and the other two--Mark and Luke--companions of apostles
and fellow-laborers with them, always associating Mark with Peter, and
Luke with Paul; they affirm the universal and undisputed reception of
these four gospels from the beginning by all the churches; and deny the
apostolic authority of other pretended gospels. In all this, they give
not their individual opinions, but the common belief of the churches. It
is conceded on all hands that in their day these four gospels were
universally received by the churches as genuine and authoritative
records of our Lord's life and works, to the exclusion of all others.

    _Irenaeus_ was a native of Asia Minor, of Greek descent; but the
    seat of his labors was Lyons and Vienne in Gaul, of the former
    of which places he became bishop after the martyrdom of
    Pothinus, about A.D. 177. He was born about A.D. 140, and
    suffered martyrdom under Septimius Severus A.D. 202. In his
    youth he was a disciple of Polycarp, who was in turn a disciple
    of the apostle John. In a letter to one Florinus, which Eusebius
    has preserved, (Hist. Eccl., 5. 20,) he gives, in glowing
    language, his recollections of the person and teachings of
    Polycarp, and tells with what interest he listened as this man
    related his intercourse with the apostle John and the others who
    had seen the Lord, "how he recounted their words, and the things
    which he had heard from them concerning the Lord, and concerning
    his miracles and teaching." And he adds that these things which
    Polycarp had received from eye-witnesses he related "all in
    agreement with the Scriptures;" that is, obviously, with the
    gospel narratives. Pothinus, the predecessor of Irenaeus at
    Lyons, was ninety years old at the time of his martyrdom, and
    must have been acquainted with many who belonged to the latter
    part of the apostolic age. Under such circumstances, it is
    inconceivable that Irenaeus, who knew the Christian traditions of
    both the East and the West, should not have known the truth
    respecting the reception of the gospels by the churches, and the
    grounds on which this reception rested, more especially in the
    case of the gospel of John. Tischendorf, after mentioning the
    relation of Irenaeus to Polycarp the disciple of John, asks, with
    reason: "Are we, nevertheless, to cherish the supposition that
    Irenaeus never heard a word from Polycarp respecting the gospel
    of John, and yet gave it his unconditional confidence--this man
    Irenaeus, who in his controversies with heretics, the men of
    falsification and apocryphal works, employs against them, before
    all other things, the pure Scripture as a holy weapon?" (Essay,
    When were Our Gospels Written, p. 8.) The testimony of Irenaeus
    is justly regarded as of the most weighty character. The fact
    that he gives several fanciful reasons why there should be only
    four gospels, (Against Heresies, 3. 11,) does not invalidate his
    statement of the fact that the churches had always received
    four, and no more. We always distinguish between men's testimony
    to facts of which they are competent witnesses, and their
    philosophical explanations of these facts.

    _Tertullian_ was born in Carthage about A.D. 160, and died
    between A.D. 220 and 240. About A.D. 202 he joined the sect of
    the Montanists; but this does not affect his testimony
    respecting the origin and universal reception of the four
    canonical gospels. His works are very numerous, and in them all
    he insists with great earnestness that the gospel narratives, as
    also the other apostolic writings, have been received without
    corruption, as a sacred inheritance, from the apostolic
    churches. His work against Marcion, whom he accuses of employing
    a mutilated gospel of Luke, is particularly instructive as
    showing how deep and settled was the conviction of the early
    Christians that nothing could be a gospel which did not proceed
    from apostles or apostolic men; and how watchful they were
    against all attempts to mutilate or corrupt the primitive
    apostolic records. In defending the true gospel of Luke against
    the mutilated form of it employed by Marcion, he says: "I affirm
    that not in the apostolic churches alone, but in all which are
    joined with them in the bond of fellowship, that gospel of Luke
    which we most firmly maintain, has been valid from its first
    publication; but Marcion's gospel is unknown to most of them,
    and known to none, except to be condemned." This testimony of
    Tertullian is very important, as showing his full conviction
    that Marcion could not deny the universal reception, from the
    beginning, of the genuine gospel of Luke. And a little
    afterwards he adds: "The same authority of the apostolic
    churches will defend the other gospels also, which we have in
    like manner through them, and according to them," (Against
    Marcion, 4. 5.) Many more quotations of like purport might be
    added.

    _Clement of Alexandria_ was a pupil of Pantaenus, and his
    successor as head of the catechetical school at Alexandria in
    Egypt. He was of heathen origin, born probably about the middle
    of the second century, and died about A.D. 220. He had a
    philosophical turn of mind, and after his conversion to
    Christianity made extensive researches under various teachers,
    as he himself tells us, in Greece, in Italy, in Palestine, and
    other parts of the East. At last he met with Pantaenus in Egypt,
    whom he preferred to all his other guides, and in whose
    instructions he rested. The testimony of Clement to the
    universal and undisputed reception by the churches of the four
    canonical gospels as the writings of apostles or apostolic men,
    agrees with that of Tertullian. And it has the more weight, not
    only on account of his wide investigations, but because, also,
    it virtually contains the testimony of his several teachers,
    some of whom must have known, if not the apostles themselves,
    those who had listened to their teachings.

    In connection with the testimony of the above-named writers, we
    may consider that of the _churches of Lyons and Vienne_ in Gaul,
    in a letter addressed by them to "the churches of Asia and
    Phrygia," which Eusebius has preserved for us, (Hist. Eccl., 5.
    1,) and which describes a severe persecution through which they
    passed in the reign of Antoninus Verus, about A.D. 177. In this
    they say: "So was fulfilled that which was spoken by our Lord,
    'The time shall come in which whosoever killeth you shall think
    that he doeth God service.'" In speaking again of a certain
    youthful martyr, they first compare him to Zacharias, the father
    of John the Baptist, affirming, in the very words of Luke, that
    he "had walked in all the commandments and ordinances of the
    Lord blameless," (Luke 1:6;) and then go on to describe him as
    "having the Comforter in himself, the Spirit, more abundantly
    than Zacharias," where they apply to the Holy Spirit a term
    peculiar to the apostle John. Here, then, we have indubitable
    testimony to the fact that the gospel of John, as well as of
    Luke, was known to the churches of Gaul in the west and Asia
    Minor in the east in the days of Pothinus, bishop of these
    churches, who suffered martyrdom in this persecution. But
    Pothinus was ninety years old, so that his knowledge of these
    gospels must have reached back to the first quarter of the
    second century, when many who had known the apostles were yet
    living.

5. These testimonies, let it be carefully remembered, apply not to one
part of Christendom alone, but to all its different and distant
divisions; and that, too, long before there was any attempt to bring the
judgment of the churches into harmony by means of general councils. The
orthodox churches planted in the different provinces of the Roman
empire, though in substantial harmony with each other, had nevertheless
their minor differences, which were sometimes discussed with much
warmth. In their relation to each other, they were jealous of their
freedom and independence. The history of the so-called _Antilegomena_
(Disputed Books of the New Testament, chap. 6) shows that the reception
of a writing as apostolic in one division of Christendom, did not insure
its reception elsewhere. Had it been possible that a spurious book
should be imposed as genuine on the churches of one region, it would
certainly have met with opposition in other regions; but our four
canonical gospels were everywhere received without dispute as the
writings of apostles or apostolic men. This fact admits of but one
explanation: the churches had from their first appearance indubitable
evidence of their genuineness.

6. Let it be further remembered that this testimony relates not to books
of a private character, that might have lain for years hidden in some
corner; but to the _public writings_ of the churches, on which their
faith was founded, of which they all had copies, and which it was the
custom, from the apostolic age, to read in their assemblies along with
the law and the prophets. (Justin Martyr Apol., 1. 67.) Earnestness and
sincerity are traits which will not be denied to the primitive
Christians, and they were certainly not wanting in common discernment.
Let any man show, if he can, how a spurious gospel, suddenly appearing
somewhere after the apostolic days, could have been imposed upon the
churches as genuine, not only where it originated, but everywhere else
in Christendom. The difficulty with which some of the genuine books of
the New Testament gained universal currency sufficiently refutes such an
absurd supposition.

7. We are now prepared to consider the testimonies of an earlier period.
Here _Justin Martyr_ is a very weighty witness, since he lived so near
the apostolic age, and had every facility for investigating the history
of the gospel narratives. He was born near the beginning of the second
century, and his extant works date from about the middle of the same
century. Before his conversion to Christianity he was a heathen
philosopher earnestly seeking for the truth among the different systems
of the age. Of his undoubtedly genuine works, there remain to us two
Apologies (defences of Christianity) and a Dialogue with Trypho a Jew,
designed to defend the Christian religion against its Jewish opponents.
In these he quotes the gospel of Matthew very abundantly; next in number
are his quotations from Luke. His references to Mark and John are much
fewer, but enough to show his acquaintance with them. He never quotes
the evangelists by name, but designates their writings as "The Memoirs
of the Apostles;" and more fully, "The memoirs which I affirm to have
been composed by his"--our Lord's--"apostles and their followers,"
Dialog., ch. 103, "which," he elsewhere says, "are called gospels,"
Apol. 1. 66, and in a collective sense, "the gospel," Dialog., ch. 10.
It should be carefully noticed that he speaks in the plural number both
of the apostles who composed the gospels and their followers. This
description applies exactly to our canonical gospels--two written by
apostles, and two by their followers.

    The attempt has been made in modern times to set aside Justin's
    testimony, on the alleged ground that he quotes not from our
    canonical gospels, but from some other writings. The
    groundlessness of this supposition is manifest at first sight.
    Justin had visited the three principal churches of Rome,
    Alexandria, and Ephesus. It is certain that he knew what gospels
    were received by them in his day as authentic, and that these
    are the very gospels which he quotes, affirming that they were
    the writings of apostles and their followers. Now, that the
    gospels which Justin used should have been wholly supplanted by
    others in the days of Irenaeus, who was of full age at the time
    of Justin's death, is incredible. But Irenaeus, in common with
    Clement, Tertullian, and others, quotes our four canonical
    gospels as alone possessing apostolic authority, and as having
    been always received by the churches. It follows that the
    "Memoirs" of Justin must be the same gospels. We cannot conceive
    that in this brief period an entire change of gospels should
    have been made throughout all the different and distant
    provinces of the Roman empire, at a time when concerted action
    through general councils was unknown; and that, too, in so
    silent a manner that no record of it remains in the history of
    the church. The supposition that the gospels known to Justin
    were different from those received by Irenaeus ought not to be
    entertained without irrefragable proof. But no such proof
    exists. "An accurate examination in detail of his citations,"
    says Semisch, Life of Justin Martyr, 4. 1, "has led to the
    result that this title"--the Memoirs of the
    Apostles--"designates the canonical gospels--a result in no way
    less certain because again called in question in modern days."

    The agreement of his quotations with our present gospels is of
    such a character and extent as can be explained only from his
    use of them. The variations are mainly due to his habit of
    quoting loosely from memory. "Many of these citations," says
    Kirchhofer, "agree, word for word, with the gospels; others with
    the substance, but with alterations and additions of words, with
    transpositions and omissions; others give the thought only in a
    general way; others still condense together the contents of
    several passages and different sayings, in which case the
    historic quotations are yet more free, and blend together, in
    part, the accounts of Matthew and Luke. But some quotations are
    not found at all in our canonical gospels," (see immediately
    below;) "some, on the contrary, occur twice or thrice."
    Quellensammlung, p. 89. note. Two or three more important
    variations are, perhaps, due to the readings in the manuscripts
    employed by Justin, since the later church fathers, who, as we
    know, employed the canonical gospels, give the same variations.
    Finally, Justin gives a few incidents and sayings not recorded
    in our present gospels. As he lived so near the apostolic times
    he may well have received these from tradition; but if in any
    case he took them from written documents, there is no proof that
    he ascribed to such documents apostolic authority. In one
    passage, he accurately distinguishes between what he gives from
    tradition or other written sources, and what from the apostolic
    records. "When Jesus came," he says, "to the river Jordan, where
    John was baptizing, as he descended to the water, both was a
    fire kindled in the Jordan, and as he ascended from the water,
    the apostles of this very Christ of ours have written that the
    Holy Spirit as a dove lighted upon him." Dial., ch. 88.

    It has been doubted whether certain references to the _gospel of
    John_ can be found in Justin's writings; but it seems plain that
    the following is a free quotation from chapter 3:3-5: "For
    Christ said, Except ye be born again, ye shall by no means enter
    into the kingdom of heaven. But that it is impossible that they
    who have once been born should enter into the wombs of those who
    bare them is manifest to all." Apol. 1. 61. To affirm that a
    passage so peculiar as this was borrowed by both the evangelist
    John and Justin from a common tradition, is to substitute a very
    improbable for a very natural explanation. Besides, Justin uses
    phraseology peculiar to John, repeatedly calling our Saviour
    "the Word of God," and "the Word made flesh;" affirming that he
    "was in a peculiar sense begotten the only Son of God," "an only
    begotten One to the Father of all things, being in a peculiar
    sense begotten of him as Word and Power, and afterwards made man
    through the Virgin;" and calling him "the good Rock that sends
    forth (literally, causes to _bubble forth_--compare John 4:14)
    living waters into the hearts of those who through him have
    loved the Father of all things, and that gives to all who will
    the water of life to drink." These and other references to John
    may be seen in Kirchhofer's Quellensammlung, pp. 146, 147.

8. Another early witness is _Papias_, who was bishop of Hierapolis, in
Phrygia, in the first half of the second century. He wrote "An
Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord," in five books. This work has
perished; but fragments of it, with notices of its contents, are
preserved to us by Eusebius and other writers. As Papias, according to
his own express testimony, gathered his materials, if not from apostles
themselves, yet from their immediate disciples, his statements are
invested with great interest. Of Matthew he says, Eusebius Hist. Eccl.,
5. 39, that he "wrote the oracles in the Hebrew dialect, and every one
interpreted them as he could." He speaks of this interpretation by each
one as he could as something past, implying that in his day our present
Greek gospel of Matthew (of the apostolic authority of which there was
never any doubt in the early churches) was in circulation, whether it
was or was not originally composed in Hebrew, a question on which
learned men are not agreed. Of Mark he affirms that, "having become
Peter's interpreter, he wrote down accurately as many things as he
remembered; not recording in order the things that were said or done by
Christ, since he was not a hearer or follower of the Lord, but
afterwards"--after our Lord's ascension--"of Peter, who imparted his
teachings as occasion required, but not as making an orderly narrative
of the Lord's discourses." Hist. Eccl., 3. 39. The fact that Eusebius
gives no statement of Papias respecting the other two gospels is of
little account, since his notices of the authors to whom he refers, and
of their works, are confessedly imperfect.

    Eusebius notices, for example, Hist. Eccl. 4. 14, the fact that
    Polycarp, in his letter to the Philippians, "has used certain
    testimonies from the First Epistle of Peter;" but says nothing
    of his many references, in the same letter, to the epistles of
    Paul, in some of which he quotes the apostle by name. We have,
    nevertheless, through Eusebius, an indirect but valid testimony
    from Papias to the authorship of the fourth gospel, resting upon
    the admitted identity of the author of this gospel with the
    author of the first of the epistles ascribed to John. Speaking
    of Papias, Eusebius says: "But the same man used testimonies
    from the First Epistle of John." Hist. Eccl., 3. 39, end. The
    ascription to John of this epistle, is virtually the ascription
    to him of the fourth gospel also. Eusebius speaks of Papias as a
    man "of very small mind." The correctness of this judgment is
    manifest from the specimens which he gives of his writings; but
    it cannot invalidate the evidence we have from the above
    passages of the existence, in Papias' day, of the gospels to
    which he refers. As to the question whether these were our
    present canonical gospels of Matthew and Mark, it is sufficient
    to say that neither Eusebius nor any of the church fathers
    understood them differently.

9. A very interesting relic of antiquity is the _Epistle to Diognetus_,
of which the authorship is uncertain. Its date cannot be later than the
age of Justin Martyr, to whom it is ascribed by some. It is,
notwithstanding some erroneous views, a noble defence of Christianity,
in which the author shows his acquaintance with the gospel of John by
the use of terms and phrases peculiar to him. Thus he calls Christ "the
Word," and "the only begotten Son," whom God sent to men. In the words,
"not to take thought about raiment and food," section 9, there is an
apparent reference to Matt. 6:25, 31.

In addition to the above testimonies might be adduced some fragments of
early Christian writers which have been preserved to us by those of a
later day; but for brevity's sake they are omitted.

10. Following up the stream of testimony, we come now to that of the
so-called _apostolic fathers_; that is, of men who were disciples of
apostles, and wrote in the age next following them. Holding, as they do,
such a near relation to the apostles, and familiar with the oral
traditions of the apostolic age, we cannot expect to find in them such
frequent and formal references to the books of the New Testament as
characterize the works of later writers. They quote, for the most part,
anonymously, interweaving with their own words those of the sacred
writers.

    One of the earliest among the apostolic fathers is _Clement of
    Rome_, who died about A.D. 100. Of the numerous writings
    anciently ascribed to him, his First Epistle to the Corinthians
    is admitted, upon good evidence, to be genuine. In this we find
    words which imply a knowledge of the first three gospels. Citing
    evidently from memory, in a loose way, he says: "For thus
    he"--the Lord Jesus--"spake, 'Be merciful, that ye may obtain
    mercy; forgive, that ye may be forgiven; as ye do, so shall it
    be done to you; as ye give, so shall it be given to you; as ye
    judge, so shall ye receive judgment; as ye are kind, so shall ye
    receive kindness; with what measure ye measure, with that it
    shall be measured to you.'" And again: "For he said, 'Woe unto
    that man; it were better for him that he had not been born, than
    that he should offend one of my elect.'"

    _Ignatius_ was bishop of the church at Antioch, and suffered
    martyrdom A.D. 107, or according to some accounts, 116. In his
    epistles, which are received as genuine, are manifest quotations
    from the gospel of Matthew, and some apparent though not
    entirely certain allusions to the gospel of John.

    _Polycarp_, bishop of Smyrna, was a disciple of the apostle
    John. He suffered martyrdom about the year 166. Of his writings,
    only one short epistle, addressed to the Philippians, remains to
    us; but this abounds in references to the books of the New
    Testament, especially the epistles of Paul. Of quotations from
    the gospel of Matthew, the following are examples: "Judge not,
    that ye be not judged; forgive, and ye shall be forgiven; be
    merciful, that ye may obtain mercy; with what measure ye mete,
    it shall be measured to you again." "Blessed are the poor in
    spirit, and those that suffer persecution for righteousness'
    sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." "The spirit indeed
    is willing, but the flesh is weak." For the gospel of John,
    Polycarp's testimony, though indirect, is decisive. In his
    letter to the Philippians, he quotes from the First Epistle of
    John, "For every one who does not confess that Jesus Christ has
    come in the flesh, is antichrist." 1 John 4:3. But that the
    gospel of John and this first epistle both proceeded from the
    same author, is a conceded fact.

    The recently discovered Sinai Codex, the oldest known codex in
    the world, contains the entire _Epistle of Barnabas_ in the
    original Greek. In this we find, among other references to the
    first three gospels, one to the _written_ gospel of Matthew of
    the most decisive character: "Let us be mindful, therefore, lest
    perchance we be found as it is written, 'Many are called, but
    few are chosen.'" Matt. 20:16; 22:14. The form of quotation, "as
    it is written," is employed by the writers of the New Testament
    only of citations from Scripture. In these words the writer
    places the gospel of Matthew in the same rank as the Scriptures
    of the Old Testament. That he was the Barnabas mentioned in the
    New Testament as the companion of Paul cannot be maintained; but
    the composition of the epistle is assigned, with probability, to
    the beginning of the second century, though some place it as
    late as its close.

    The testimony of other apocryphal writings of early date might
    be adduced, but for the sake of brevity it is here omitted. It
    may be seen in the essay of Tischendorf, already referred to.

11. A different class of witnesses will next be considered--the ancient
Syriac version, the old Latin version, and the Muratorian fragment on
the canon of the New Testament--all of which bear testimony to our
canonical gospels.

    The ancient _Syriac_ version, commonly called the
    Peshito--_simple_, that is, expressing simply the meaning of the
    original, without allegorical additions and explanations, after
    the manner of the Jewish Targums--is admitted by all to be of
    very high antiquity. Learned men are agreed that this version
    cannot well be referred to a later date than the close of the
    second century, and some assign it to the middle of the second
    century, at which time the Syrian churches were in a very
    flourishing condition, and cannot well be supposed to have been
    without a version of the Holy Scriptures. The Peshito contains
    all the books of the New Testament, except the Second Epistle of
    Peter, the Second and Third Epistles of John, the Epistle of
    Jude, and the Apocalypse. It testifies to the existence of our
    four gospels, not only when it was made, but at an earlier date;
    since we must, in all probability, assume that some considerable
    time elapsed after the composition, one by one, of the books of
    the New Testament, before they were collected into a volume, as
    in this Syriac version.

    Respecting the _Old Latin_ version, (in distinction from
    Jerome's revision, commonly called the _Vulgate_, which belongs
    to the fourth century,) various opinions have been maintained.
    Some have assumed the existence of several independent Latin
    versions of the New Testament, or of some of its books; but the
    preferable opinion is that there were various recensions, all
    having for their foundation a single version, namely, the Old
    Latin; which, says Westcott, Canon of the New Testament, ch. 3,
    "can be traced back as far as the earliest records of Latin
    Christianity. Every circumstance connected with it indicates the
    most remote antiquity." It was current in north Africa, at least
    soon after the middle of the second century. Though it has not
    come down to us in a perfect form, it contains, along with most
    of the other books of the New Testament, our four canonical
    gospels; and its testimony is of the greatest weight.

    The _Muratorian_ Fragment on the _Canon_ is the name given to a
    Latin fragment discovered by the Italian scholar, Muratori, in
    the Ambrosian Library at Milan, in a manuscript bearing the
    marks of great antiquity. Its date is determined by its
    reference to the shepherd of Hermas, which, says the Fragment,
    Hermas "wrote very recently in our times, while the bishop Pius,
    his brother, occupied the chair of the church at Rome." The
    later of the two dates given for the death of Pius is A.D. 157.
    The composition of the Fragment must have followed soon
    afterwards. Though mutilated at the beginning, as well as the
    end, its testimony to the existence of the _four_ canonical
    gospels is decisive. In its present form, it opens with the end
    of a sentence, the beginning of which is lost. It then goes on
    to say, "_The third gospel according to Luke_." After mentioning
    various particulars concerning Luke, as that he was a physician
    whom Paul had taken with him, that he did not himself see the
    Lord in the flesh, etc., it adds, "_The fourth of the gospels,
    that of John, of the number of the disciples_," to which it
    appends a traditional account of the circumstances of its
    composition. With the truth or falsehood of this account we have
    at present no concern; the important fact is that this very
    ancient canon recognizes the existence of our four canonical
    gospels.

12. The heretical sects of the second century furnish testimony to the
genuineness of our canonical gospels which is of the most weighty and
decisive character. Though some of them rejected certain books of the
New Testament and mutilated others, it was on doctrinal, not on critical
grounds. Had they attempted to disprove on historic grounds the
genuineness of the rejected portions of Scripture, it is certain that
the church fathers, who wrote against them at such length, would have
noticed their arguments. The fact that they did not, is conclusive proof
that no such attempt was made; but from the position which the leaders
of these heretical sects occupied, it is certain that, could the
genuineness of the canonical gospels, or any one of them, have been
denied on historic grounds, the denial would have been made.

    _Marcion_, one of the most distinguished leaders of those who
    separated themselves from the orthodox church, came to Rome in
    the second quarter of the second century. He separated
    Christianity from all connection with Judaism, making the
    Jehovah of the Old Testament a different being from the God of
    the New Testament. His gospel, called by the ancients the gospel
    of Marcion, is admitted to have been a mutilated copy of Luke's
    gospel. Of course it became necessary that he should reject the
    first two chapters of this gospel, (which alone he received,)
    since they contain our Lord's genealogy in the line of Abraham
    and David, and should otherwise alter it to suit his views. On
    the same grounds, he altered the epistles of Paul also. That
    Marcion was not ignorant of the other three gospels, but
    rejected them, is plain from the words of Tertullian, who
    accuses him, Against Marcion, 4. 3, of attempting "to destroy
    the credit of those gospels which are properly such, and are
    published under the name of apostles, or also of apostolic men;
    that he may invest his own gospel with the confidence which he
    withdraws from them." His real ground for rejecting some books
    of the New Testament and mutilating others was that _he_ could
    judge better of the truth than the writers themselves, whom he
    represented to have been misled by the influences of Jewish
    prejudices. Accordingly Irenaeus well says of the liberties taken
    by Marcion, Against Heresies, 1. 27: "He persuaded his disciples
    that he was himself more trustworthy than the apostles who have
    delivered to us the gospel; while he gave to them not the
    gospel, but a fragment of the gospel."

    A distinguished leader of the Gnostics was _Valentinus_, who
    came to Rome about A.D. 140, and continued there till the time
    of Anicetus. His testimony and that of his followers is, if
    possible, more weighty than even that of Marcion. His method,
    according to the testimony of Tertullian, was not to reject and
    mutilate the Scriptures, but to pervert their meaning by false
    interpretations. Tertullian says, Against Heretics, ch. 38: "For
    though Valentinus seems to use the entire instrument, he has
    done violence to the truth with a more artful mind than
    Marcion." "The entire instrument"--Latin, _integro
    instrumento_--includes our four canonical gospels. Clement of
    Alexandria and Hippolytus have preserved quotations from
    Valentinus in which he refers to the gospels of Matthew, Luke,
    and John. See Westcott, Canon of the New Testament, 4. 5.
    Respecting the gospel of John in particular, Irenaeus says,
    Against Heresies, 3. 11, that "the Valentinians make the most
    abundant use of it." Heracleon, whom Origen represents as having
    been a familiar friend of Valentinus, wrote a commentary on
    John, from which Origen frequently quotes; but if Valentinus and
    his followers, in the second quarter of the second century, used
    "the entire instrument," they must have found its apostolic
    authority established upon a firm foundation before their day.
    This carries us back to the age immediately succeeding that of
    the apostles, when Polycarp and others who had known them
    personally were yet living. The testimony of the Valentinians,
    then, is of the most decisive character.

    Another prominent man among the heretical writers was _Tatian_,
    a contemporary and pupil of Justin Martyr, who, according to the
    testimony of Eusebius, Epiphanius, and Theodoret, composed a
    _Diatessaron_, that is, a _four-fold gospel_; which can be
    understood only as a harmony of the four gospels which, as has
    been shown, were used by Justin; or of such parts of these
    gospels as suited his purpose; for Tatian, like Marcion, omitted
    all that relates to our Lord's human descent. With this
    Diatessaron, Theodoret was well acquainted; for he found among
    his churches more than two hundred copies, which he caused to be
    removed, and their places supplied by the four canonical
    gospels.

    As to other gospels of the second century, which are
    occasionally mentioned by later writers, as "The Gospel of
    Truth," "The Gospel of Basilides," etc., there is no evidence
    that they professed to be connected histories of our Lord's life
    and teachings. They were rather, as Norton has shown,
    Genuineness of the Gospels, vol. 3, chap. 4, doctrinal works
    embodying the views of the sectaries that used them.

13. We have seen how full and satisfactory is the external evidence for
our four canonical gospels. Considering how scanty are the remains of
Christian writings that have come down to us from the first half of the
same century, we have all the external evidence for that period also
that could be reasonably demanded, and it is met by no rebutting
testimony that rests on historic grounds. The authorship of no ancient
classical work is sustained by a mass of evidence so great and varied,
and the candid mind can rest in it with entire satisfaction.

III. _Internal Evidences._ 14. Here we may begin with considering the
relation of the first three gospels to the last, in respect to both time
of composition and character.

And first, with respect to _time_. The first three gospels--frequently
called the _synoptical_ gospels, or the _synoptics_, because from the
general similarity of their plan and materials their contents are
capable of being summed up in a synopsis--record our Lord's prophecy of
the overthrow of Jerusalem. The three records of this prediction wear
throughout the costume of a true prophecy, not of a prophecy written
after the event. They are occupied, almost exclusively, with the various
_signs_ by which the approach of that great catastrophe might be known,
and with admonitions to the disciples to hold themselves in readiness
for it. Matthew, for example, devotes fifty verses to the account of the
prophecy and the admonitions connected with it. Of these, only four,
chap. 24:19-22, describe the calamities of the scene, and that in the
most general terms. Now, upon the supposition that the evangelist wrote
before the event, all this is natural. Our Lord's design in uttering the
prophecy was not to gratify the idle curiosity of the disciples, but to
warn them beforehand in such a way that they might escape the horrors of
the impending catastrophe. He dwelt, therefore, mainly on the signs of
its approach; and with these, as having a chief interest for the
readers, the record of the prediction is mostly occupied. It is
impossible, on the other hand, to conceive that one who wrote years
after the destruction of the city and temple should not have dwelt in
more detail on the bloody scenes connected with their overthrow, and
have given in other ways also a historic coloring to his account. We may
safely say that to write a prophecy after the event in such a form as
that which we have in either of the first three gospels, transcends the
power of any uninspired man; and as to inspired narratives, the
objectors with whom we are now dealing deny them altogether.

But there are, in the record of this prophecy, some special indications
of the time when the evangelists wrote. According to Matthew, the
disciples asked, ver. 3: "When shall these things"--the destruction of
the buildings of the temple--"be? and what shall be the sign of thy
coming and of the end of the world?" These questions our Lord proceeded
to answer in such a way that the impression on the minds of the hearers
(to be rectified only by the course of future events) must have been
that the overthrow of the temple and city would be connected with his
second coming and the end of the world. "Immediately after the
tribulation of those days," says Matthew, "shall the sun be darkened,"
etc. The probable explanation of this peculiar form of the prophecy is
that it does actually include all three events; the fulfilment which it
had in the destruction of the city and temple by the Romans being only
an earnest of a higher fulfilment hereafter. But however this may be, it
is important to notice that the evangelists, in their record of the
prophecy, are evidently unconscious of any discrepancy, real or
apparent, that needs explanation; which could not have been the case had
they written years after the event predicted. "It may be safely held,"
says Professor Fisher, Supernatural Origin of Christianity, p. 172,
"that had the evangelist been writing at a later time, some explanation
would have been thrown in to remove the _seeming_ discrepancy between
prophecy and fulfilment."

It should be further noticed that the evangelists Matthew and Mark, in
reference to "the abomination of desolation" standing in the holy place,
throw in the admonitory words, "Let him that readeth understand." These
are not the Saviour's words, but those of the narrators calling the
attention of believers to a most important sign requiring their
immediate flight to the mountains. Before the overthrow of the city
these words had a weighty office; after its overthrow they would have
been utterly superfluous. Their presence in such a connection is proof
that the record was written before the event to which it refers.

Admitting the genuineness and authenticity of the book of Acts, (which
will be considered hereafter,) we have a special proof of the early
composition of the gospel according to Luke. The book of Acts ends
abruptly with Paul's two years residence at Rome, which brings us down
to A.D. 65, five years before the destruction of Jerusalem. The only
natural explanation of this fact is that here the composition of the
book of Acts was brought to a close. The date of the gospel which
preceded, Acts 1:1, must therefore be placed still earlier.

If, now, we examine the gospel of John, we find its internal character
agreeing with the ancient tradition that it was written at Ephesus late
in the apostle's life. That it was composed at a distance from Judea, in
a Gentile region, is manifest from his careful explanation of Jewish
terms and usages, which among his countrymen would have needed no
explanation. No man writing in Judea, or among the Galileans who
habitually attended the national feasts at Jerusalem, would have said,
"And the passover, a feast of the Jews, was nigh," 6:4; "Now the Jews'
feast of tabernacles was at hand," 7:2, etc. The absence of all
reference to the overthrow of the Jewish polity, civil and
ecclesiastical, may be naturally explained upon the supposition that the
apostle wrote some years after that event, when his mind had now become
familiar with the great truth that the Mosaic institutions had forever
passed away to make room for the universal dispensation of Christianity;
and that he wrote, too, among Gentiles for whom the abolition of these
institutions had no special interest. In general style and spirit,
moreover, the gospel of John is closely allied to his first epistle, and
cannot well be separated from it by a great interval of time; but the
epistle undoubtedly belongs to a later period of the apostle's life.

    From the language of John, chap. 5:2, "Now there _is_ at
    Jerusalem, by the sheep-gate, a pool, which is called in the
    Hebrew tongue, Bethesda, _having_ five porches,"--it has been
    argued that, when John wrote, the city must have been still
    standing. But Eusebius speaks of the pool as remaining in his
    day, and why may not the porches, as useful to the Roman
    conquerors, have been preserved, at least for a season?

We have seen the relation of John's gospel to the other three in respect
to time. It must have been written several years later than the last of
them; perhaps not less than fifteen years. If, now, we look to its
relation in regard to _character_, we must say that it differs from them
as widely as it well could while presenting to our view the same divine
and loving Saviour. Its general plan is different. For reasons not known
to us, the synoptical gospels are mainly occupied with our Lord's
ministry in Galilee. They record only his last journey to Jerusalem, and
the momentous incidents connected with it. John, on the contrary,
notices his visits to Jerusalem year by year. Hence his materials are,
to a great extent, different from theirs; and even where he records the
same events--as, for example, the miracle of the loaves and fishes, and
the last supper--he connects with them long discourses, which the other
evangelists have omitted. Particularly noticeable are our Lord's
oft-repeated discussions with the unbelieving Jews respecting his
Messiahship, and his confidential intercourse with his disciples, in
both of which we have such treasures of divine truth and love. How
strikingly this gospel differs from the others in its general style and
manner every reader feels at once. It bears throughout the impress of
John's individuality, and by this it is immediately connected with the
epistles that bear his name. It should be added that in respect to the
time when our Lord ate the passover with his disciples there is an
apparent disagreement with the other three gospels, which the harmonists
have explained in various ways.

The essential point of the above comparison is this: Notwithstanding the
striking difference between the later fourth gospel and the earlier
three, it was at once received by all the churches as of apostolic
authority. Now upon the supposition of its genuineness, both its
peculiar character and its undisputed reception everywhere are easily
explained. John, the bosom disciple of our Lord, wrote with the full
consciousness of his apostolic authority and his competency as a witness
of what he had himself seen and heard. He therefore gave his testimony
in his own independent and original way. How far he may have been
influenced in his selection of materials by a purpose to supply what was
wanting in the earlier gospels, according to an old tradition, it is not
necessary here to inquire; it is sufficient to say that, under the
illumination of the Holy Spirit, he marked out that particular plan
which we have in his gospel, and carried it out in his own peculiar
manner, thus opening to the churches new mines, so to speak, of the
inexhaustible fulness of truth and love contained in him in whom
"dwelleth all the fulness of the godhead bodily." And when this original
gospel, so different in its general plan and style from those that
preceded, made its appearance, the apostolic authority of its author
secured its immediate and universal reception by the churches. All this
is very plain and intelligible.

But upon the supposition that the gospel of John is a spurious
production of the age succeeding that of the apostles, let any one
explain, if he can, how it could have obtained universal and
unquestioned apostolic authority. Its very difference from the earlier
gospels must have provoked inquiry and examination, and these must have
led to its rejection, especially at a time when some who had known the
apostle yet survived; and no one now pretends to assign to it a later
period.

15. We will next consider the relation of the first three gospels to
each other. Here we have remarkable agreements with remarkable
differences. The general plan of all three is the same. It is manifest
also, at first sight, that there lies at the foundation of each a basis
of common matter--common not in substance alone, but to a great extent
in form also. Equally manifest is it that the three evangelists write
independently of each other. Matthew, for example, did not draw his
materials from Luke; for there is his genealogy of our Lord, and his
full account of the sermon on the mount, not to mention other
particulars. Nor did Luke take his materials from Matthew; for there is
his genealogy also, with large sections of matter peculiar to himself.
Mark has but little matter that is absolutely new; but where he and the
other two evangelists record the same events, if one compares his
narratives with theirs, he finds numerous little incidents peculiar to
this gospel woven into them in a very vivid and graphic manner. They
come in also in the most natural and artless way, as might be expected
from one who, if not himself an eye-witness, received his information
immediately from eye-witnesses. The three writers, moreover, do not
always agree as to the order in which they record events; yet,
notwithstanding the diversities which they exhibit, they were all
received from the first as of equal authority.

The natural explanation of this is that all three wrote in the apostolic
age, and consequently had access, each of them independently of the
other two, to the most authentic sources of information. These sources
(so far as the evangelists were not themselves eye-witnesses) lay
partly, perhaps, in written documents like those referred to by Luke,
1:1, partly in the unwritten traditions current in the apostolic
churches, and partly in personal inquiry from eye-witnesses, especially,
in the case of Mark and Luke, from apostles themselves. From these
materials each selected as suited his purposes, and the churches
everywhere unhesitatingly received each of the three gospels,
notwithstanding the above-named variations between them, because they
had undoubted evidence of their apostolic authority. We cannot suppose
that after the apostolic age three gospels, bearing to each other the
relation which these do, could have been imposed upon the churches as
all of them equally authentic. We know from the history of Marcion's
gospel how fully alive they were to the character of their sacred
records. On apostolic authority they could receive--to mention a single
example--both Matthew's and Luke's account of our Lord's genealogy; but
it is certain that they would not have received the two on the authority
of men who lived after the apostolic age.

16. In the gospel narratives are numerous incidental allusions to
passing events without the proper sphere of our Lord's labors, to social
customs, and to the present posture of public affairs, civil and
ecclesiastical. In all these the severest scrutiny has been able to
detect _no trace of a later age_. This is a weighty testimony to the
apostolic origin of the gospels. Had their authors lived in a later age,
the fact must have manifested itself in some of these references. The
most artless writer can allude in a natural and truthful way to present
events, usages, and circumstances; but it transcends the power of the
most skilful author to multiply incidental and minute references to a
past age without betraying the fact that he does not belong to it.

17. Every age has, also, its peculiar impress of thought and reasoning
in religious, not less than in secular matters. Although the gospel
itself remains always the same, and those who sincerely embrace it have
also substantially the same character from age to age, there is,
nevertheless, continual progress and change in men's apprehension of the
gospel and its institutions, and consequently in their manner of
reasoning concerning them. No man, for example, could write a treatise
on Christianity at the present day without making it manifest that he
did not belong to the first quarter of the present century. The
primitive age of Christianity is no exception to this universal law.
Under the auspices of the apostles it began to move forward, and it
continued to move after their decease. The pastoral epistles of Paul
bear internal marks of having been written in the later period of his
life, because they are adapted to the state of the Christian church and
its institutions that belonged to that, and not to an earlier period.
If, now, we examine the writings of the so-called apostolic
fathers--disciples of the apostles, who wrote after their death--we find
in them circles of thought and reasoning not belonging to the canonical
writings of the New Testament, least of all to the canonical gospels,
though they are evidently derived from hints contained in these
writings, whether rightly or wrongly apprehended. In this respect, the
works of the apostolic fathers are distinguished in a very marked way
from those which bear the names of the apostles themselves or their
associates.

18. Another decisive argument lies in the _character of the Greek_
employed by the evangelists, in common with the other writers of the New
Testament. It is the Greek language employed by Jews, (or, in the case
of Luke, if his Jewish origin be doubted--see Col. 4:11, 16--by one who
had received a Jewish training under the influence of the Greek version
of the Old Testament,) and therefore pervaded and colored by Hebrew
idioms. This peculiar form of the Greek language belongs to the
apostolic age, when the teachers and writers of the church were Jews.
After the overthrow of Jerusalem, the dispersion of the Jewish nation,
and the death of the apostles and their associates, it rapidly
disappeared. Thenceforward the writers of the church were of Gentile
origin and training, in accordance with the Saviour's memorable words:
"The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation
bringing forth the fruits thereof."

These internal proofs, coinciding as they do with a mass of external
evidences so great and varied, place the genuineness of the four
canonical gospels on a foundation that cannot be shaken.




CHAPTER III.

UNCORRUPT PRESERVATION OF THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.


1. It is necessary, first of all, to define what is meant in the present
connection by the uncorrupt preservation of the gospel narratives. When
a man, whose business it is to examine and compare manuscripts or
editions of a work, speaks of a given text as corrupt, he means one
thing; in a question concerning the truth of the Christian system as
given in the writings of the New Testament, a corrupt text means
something very different. The collator of manuscripts understands by a
corrupt text one that has been marred by the carelessness or bad
judgment of transcribers, whence have arisen so many "various readings,"
though these do not change, or essentially obscure the facts and
doctrines of Christianity, as has been most conclusively shown by the
results of modern textual criticism; but in an inquiry whether we have
in our canonical gospels the account of our Lord's life and teachings as
it was originally written by the evangelists in all essential
particulars, we have to do with the question, not of various readings,
such as are incident to all manuscripts, but of essential additions,
alterations, or mutilations--like those, for example, which Marcion
attempted--by which the facts and doctrines themselves are changed or
obscured. It is against the charge of such essential corruptions that we
maintain the integrity of the text in the gospels, as in the other books
of the New Testament.

2. The most important materials for writing in ancient times were the
paper made of the Egyptian _papyrus_ plant--whence the word _paper_--and
_parchment_, prepared from the skins of animals, the finer kinds of
which are called _vellum_. Both are of high antiquity. The use of the
above-mentioned paper was very common in the apostolic age; and from an
incidental notice in the New Testament, (2 John 12 compared with 3 John
13,) it appears to have been the material employed by the apostles
themselves. But the use of parchment became more common in the following
centuries, while that of papyrus-paper gradually ceased. To this
circumstance we owe, in a great measure, the preservation of our oldest
manuscripts; for the papyrus-paper was of a very perishable nature, and
the manuscripts written upon it that have come down to us from high
antiquity have been kept in specially favorable circumstances, as, for
example, in the ancient Egyptian tombs. With the disuse of papyrus-paper
ceased also the ancient form of the roll. All manuscripts written on
parchment are in the form of books with leaves. From about the eleventh
century, paper made from cotton or linen came into common use.

The costliness of writing materials gave rise to a peculiar usage. From
the leaves of an ancient work the original writing was erased, more or
less perfectly. They were then employed as the material for another
work, the latter being written over the former. Such manuscripts are
called _palimpsests_--_written again_ after erasure. The original
writing, which is very often the sacred text, can in general be
deciphered, especially by the aid of certain chemical applications. Some
of our most precious manuscripts are of this character.

The existing manuscripts of the New Testament are of two kinds. _First_,
the _uncial_, that is, those written in capital letters. Here belong all
the most ancient and valuable. The writing is generally in columns, from
two to four to a page; sometimes in a single column. There is no
division of the text into words; the marks of interpunction are few and
simple; and till the seventh century there were no accents, and
breathings only in special cases. _Secondly_, the _cursive_, or those
written in running-hand, with division of the text into words, capitals
only for initial letters, accents, breathings, etc., and often with many
contractions. This is the common form of manuscripts after the tenth
century, the uncial being retained for some ages afterwards only in
books designed for use in the church service. In both the uncial and the
cursive manuscripts, each century has its peculiar style of writing.
From this, as well as from the quality of the materials, expert judges
can determine the age of a given manuscript with a good degree of
accuracy.

    The details pertaining to the form of ancient manuscripts, their
    number, character, etc., belong to the department of textual
    criticism. The above brief notices are given to prepare the way
    for a statement of the evidence that we have the gospel
    narratives, as also the other books of the New Testament,
    without corruption in the form in which they were originally
    written. _See the PLATES at the beginning of this book._

3. Of the autograph manuscripts proceeding immediately from the inspired
authors we find no trace after the apostolic age. Here, as elsewhere,
the wisdom of God has carefully guarded the church against a
superstitious veneration for the merely outward instruments of
redemption. We do not need the wood of the true cross that we may have
redemption through the blood of Christ; nor do we need the identical
manuscripts that proceeded from the apostles and their companions, since
we have the contents of these manuscripts handed down to us without
corruption in any essential particular. This appears from various
considerations.

_First._ Several hundred manuscripts of the gospels, or of portions of
them, (to confine our attention at present to these,) have been
examined, two of them belonging to the fourth century and two, with some
fragments, to the fifth. All these, though written in different
centuries and coming from widely different regions, contain essentially
the same text. In them, not one of the great facts or doctrines of the
gospel history is mutilated or obscured.

_Secondly._ The quotations of the church fathers from the last part of
the second to the end of the fourth century are so copious, that from
them almost the entire text of our present gospels could be
reconstructed. These quotations agree substantially with each other and
with the text of our existing manuscripts; only that the earlier
fathers, as already noticed, chap. 2. 3, often quote loosely from
memory, blend together different narratives, and interweave with the
words of Scripture their own explanatory remarks.

_Thirdly._ We have two _versions_ of the New Testament--the Old Latin or
Italic, and the Syriac called Peshito--which learned men are agreed in
placing somewhere in the last half of the second century. The testimony
of these witnesses to the uncorrupt preservation of the sacred text,
from the time when they first appeared to the present, is decisive; for
they also agree essentially with the Greek text of the gospel as we now
possess it. Nor is this all. Davidson affirms of the Old Latin version,
that "the more ancient the Greek manuscripts, the closer is their
agreement with it." And Tischendorf says of the oldest known manuscript
of the Bible--the Greek Sinai Codex, brought by him from the convent of
St. Catharine, Mount Sinai, in 1859--that its agreement, in the New
Testament portion, with the Old Latin version, is remarkable. Through
the joint testimony, then, on the one hand, of the most ancient Greek
manuscripts, especially the Sinai Codex, which is the oldest of them
all; and on the other, of the Old Latin version which belongs to the
last half of the second century, we are carried back to a very ancient
and pure form of the Greek text prevalent before the execution of this
version, that is, about the middle of the second century. Tischendorf
adds arguments to show that the Syriac Peshito version, the text of
which has not come down to us in so pure a state, had for its basis
substantially the same form of text as the Old Latin and the Sinai
Codex.

    The substantial identity of the sacred text, as we now have it,
    with that which has existed since about the middle of the second
    century, is thus shown to be a matter not of probable
    conjecture, but of certain knowledge. Here, then, we have a sure
    criterion by which to measure and interpret the complaints which
    textual critics, ancient or modern, have made, sometimes in very
    strong language, concerning the corruptions that have found
    their way into the text of the New Testament. These writers have
    reference to what are called "various readings," not to
    mutilations and alterations, such as those charged by the
    ancients upon Marcion, by which he sought to change the facts
    and doctrines of the gospel. That this must be their meaning we
    know; for there are the manuscripts by hundreds as witnesses,
    all of which, the most corrupt as textual critics would call
    them, as well as the purest, give in the gospel narratives the
    same facts and doctrines without essential variation.

    Let not the inexperienced inquirer be misled into any wrong
    conclusion by the number of "various readings," amounting to
    many thousands, which textual criticism has brought to light.
    The greater the number of manuscripts collated, the greater will
    be the number of these readings; while, at the same time, we are
    continually making a nearer approach to the purity of the
    primitive text. As a general rule these variations relate to
    trifling particulars; as, for example, whether the conjunction
    _and_ shall be inserted or omitted; whether _but_ or _for_ is
    the true reading; whether this or that order of words giving the
    same sense shall have the preference, etc. A few of the
    variations are of a more important character. Thus, in John
    1:18, some manuscripts and fathers instead of _only begotten
    Son_, read _only begotten God_. But even here we may decide
    either way without changing or obscuring the great truths of the
    gospel narratives; for these are not dependent on particular
    words or phrases, but pervade and vivify the New Testament, as
    the vital blood does the body. The same may be said of certain
    passages which, on purely critical grounds--that is, the
    authority of ancient manuscripts--some have thought doubtful;
    as, for example, John 5:4, and the narrative recorded in the
    beginning of the eighth chapter of the same gospel. The
    insertion or omission of the passages concerning which any
    reasonable doubts can be entertained on critical grounds, will
    not affect in the least the great truths of the gospel
    narratives.

4. But it may be asked, Was the text from which the Old Latin version
was made, and with which, as we have seen, the oldest manuscripts have a
close agreement, substantially the same as that which proceeded from the
inspired authors? Here we must discard all groundless suppositions, and
adhere strictly to the known facts in the premises.

The first fact to be noticed is the public reading of the gospels in the
Christian churches, a custom which prevailed from the earliest times.
Justin Martyr, writing before the middle of the second century, says of
the memoirs written by the apostles or their followers and called
gospels (which have been shown to be our canonical gospels, chap. 2:7)
that either these or the writings of the Jewish prophets were read in
the Christian churches on the first day of every week. This is a fact of
the highest importance; for it shows that the witnesses and guardians of
the sacred text were not a few individuals, but the great body of
believers, and that no systematic corruption of their contents could
have taken place without their knowledge and consent, which would never
have been given.

Intimately connected with the above is a second fact, that of the great
multiplication of copies of the books of the New Testament, especially
of the gospel narratives, since these contain the great facts that lie
at the foundation of the Christian system. Every church would, as a
matter of course, be anxious to possess a copy, and Christians who
possessed the requisite means would furnish themselves with additional
copies for their own private use. If, now, we suppose one or more of
these copies to have been essentially changed, the corruption would not,
as in the case of a printed work, extend to many hundreds of copies. It
would be confined to the manuscript or manuscripts into which it had
been introduced and the copies made therefrom, while the numerous
uncorrupt copies would remain as witnesses of the fraud; for the
supposition of a very early corruption during the apostolic age, before
copies of the gospels had been to any considerable extent multiplied, is
utterly absurd.

A third fact is the high value attached by the primitive churches to the
gospel narratives, and their consequent zeal for their uncorrupt
preservation. No one will deny to them the qualities of earnestness and
sincerity. To them the gospels were the record of their redemption
through the blood of Christ. For the truths contained in them they
steadfastly endured persecution in every form, and death itself. Could
we even suppose, contrary to evidence, that private transcribers altered
at pleasure their copies of the gospels, it is certain that the churches
would never have allowed their public copies to be tampered with. The
resistance which Marcion met with in his attempt to alter the sacred
text, shows how watchful was their jealousy for its uncorrupt
preservation.

A still further fact is the want of time for essential corruptions, like
those now under consideration. That such corruptions could have taken
place during the apostolic age, no one will maintain. Equally certain is
it that they could not have happened during the age next succeeding,
while many presbyters and private Christians yet survived who had
listened to the apostles, and knew the history of the gospels written by
them or their companions. But this brings us down into the first part of
the second century.

Leaving out of view the apostle John, who probably died near the close
of the first century, and assuming the martyrdom of Peter and Paul to
have taken place somewhere between A.D. 64 and 67, we may place the
beginning of the age now under consideration at A.D. 65. Of the numerous
Christians who were then thirty years or less of age many must have
survived till A.D. 110, and even later. Polycarp, a disciple of John,
suffered martyrdom A.D. 167, and doubtless many others of his hearers
survived till the middle of the second century. The time, then, during
which such a corruption as that now under consideration can be supposed
to have taken place is so narrowed down that it amounts to well-nigh
nothing; and it is, moreover, the very time during which Justin Martyr
wrote his Apologies, and Marcion made his unsuccessful attempt to
mutilate the gospel history.

Finally, no evidence exists that the text of the gospel narratives has
been essentially corrupted. Of Marcion's abortive attempt we have
abundant notices in the writings of the early fathers. Their silence in
respect to other like attempts is conclusive proof that they were never
made. Had we the autographs of the evangelists, we should, with reason,
attach to them a high value; but there is no ground for supposing that
their text would differ in any essential particular from that which we
now possess. They would present to our view the same Saviour and the
same gospel.

5. What has been said respecting the uncorrupt preservation of the
gospel narratives applies essentially to the other books of the New
Testament; so that in the consideration of them the above arguments will
not need to be repeated.




CHAPTER IV.

AUTHENTICITY AND CREDIBILITY OF THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES.


1. The genuineness and uncorrupt preservation of our four canonical
gospels having been established, the presumption in favor of their
authenticity and credibility is exceedingly strong. In truth, few can be
found who, admitting their apostolic origin in essentially their present
form, will venture to deny that they contain an authentic and reliable
record of facts. We may dismiss at once the modern theory which converts
the gospels into myths--pure ideas embodied in allegorical narratives
which have no historic foundation. Myths do not turn the world upside
down, as did the preaching of Christ and his apostles. Myths do not
inspire the souls of men and women by thousands and tens of thousands
with heroic zeal and courage, enabling them steadfastly to endure
persecution and death for the truth's sake. It was love towards a
crucified and risen Saviour in deed and in truth, not towards the
mythical idea of such a Saviour, that made the primitive Christians
victorious alike over inward sinful affection and outward persecution.
To every one who reads the gospel narratives in the exercise of his
sober judgment, it is manifest that they are intended to be plain
unvarnished statements of facts. The question is, Are these statements
reliable? Here new arguments can hardly be expected; the old are
abundantly sufficient. Reserving for another place those general
arguments which apply to the gospel system as a whole, let us here
briefly consider the character of the authors and their records; of the
events which they record with the surrounding circumstances; and
especially of Jesus, their great theme.

2. It is natural to ask, in the first place, Were these men _sincere and
truthful_? Here we need not long delay. Their sincerity, with that of
their contemporaries who received their narratives as true, shines forth
like the sun in the firmament. With reference to them, the Saviour's
argument applies in all its force: "How can Satan cast out Satan?" "If
Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath
an end." The life-long work of the evangelists and their associates was
to cast out of the world all fraud and falsehood. If now they attempted
to do this by the perpetration of a most astounding fraud, we have the
case of Satan casting out Satan. But we need not argue the matter at
length. By what they did and suffered in behalf of their doctrines, as
well as by the artless simplicity of their narratives, they give full
proof of their sincerity and truthfulness.

3. We next inquire: Were they _competent as men_? that is, were they men
of sober judgment, able correctly to see and record the facts that came
under their observation, and not visionary enthusiasts who mistook
dreams for realities? This question admits of a short and satisfactory
answer. No proof whatever exists that they were visionary men, but
abundant proof to the contrary. Their narratives are calm,
unimpassioned, and straightforward, without expatiation on the greatness
of Christ's character and works and the wickedness of his enemies, as is
the way of all excited enthusiasts. What Paul said to Festus applies in
its full force to them and their writings: "I am not mad, most noble
Festus, but speak forth the words of truth and soberness." If any one
will condemn them as visionary, it must be on the sole ground that all
belief in the supernatural is visionary--a position that will be noticed
hereafter.

4. A further inquiry is, Were these men _competent as witnesses_? that
is, had they the requisite means of knowing the facts which they record?
With regard to the apostles Matthew and John, this matter need not be
argued. With regard to the other two, Luke states very fairly the
position which they occupied: "It seemed good to me also, having had
perfect understanding of all things," ("having accurately traced out all
things," as the original signifies,) "from the very beginning, to write
to thee, in order," etc. Luke had in abundance the means of accurately
tracing out all things relating to our Lord's life and works, for he was
the companion of apostles and others who "from the beginning were
eye-witnesses and ministers of the word;" and from them, according to
his own statement, he drew his information. The same is true of Mark
also.

5. We come now to consider the _character of the works_ which they
record, and the circumstances in which they were performed. Here it may
be remarked in the outset that it is not necessary to examine in detail
all the miracles recorded in the gospel history. Though they all
proceeded alike from the direct agency of God, they are not all alike
open to human inspection. If upon examination we find the supernatural
origin of many of them raised above all possibility of doubt, it is a
legitimate inference that the rest of them had the same divine origin.
Not to insist then upon the miracles ascribed to our Lord within the
sphere of inanimate nature, such as the conversion of water into wine,
the feeding of many thousands with a few loaves and fishes, and walking
upon the sea, all of which were done in such circumstances that there is
no room for questioning their reality, let us examine some that were
performed upon the persons of men. Palsy, dropsy, withered limbs,
blindness, the want of hearing and speech, leprosy, confirmed
lunacy--all these were as well known in their outward symptoms eighteen
hundred years ago as they are to-day. Persons could not be afflicted
with such maladies in a corner. The neighbors must have known then, as
they do now, the particulars of such cases, and have been
unexceptionable witnesses to their reality. Persons may feign blindness
and other infirmities among strangers, but no man can pass himself off
as palsied, deaf and dumb, blind, (especially blind from birth,) halt,
withered, in his own community. The reality of the maladies then is
beyond all question; and so is also the reality of their instantaneous
removal by the immediate power of the Saviour. Here we must not fail to
take into account the immense number of our Lord's miracles, their
diversified character, and the fact that they were performed everywhere,
as well without as with previous notice, and in the most open and public
manner. Modern pretenders to miraculous power have a select circle of
marvellous feats, the exhibition of which is restricted to particular
places. No one of them would venture to undertake the cure of a man born
blind, or that had a withered limb, or that had been a paralytic for
thirty-eight years. But Jesus of Nazareth went about the cities and
villages of Judea for the space of three years, healing all manner of
disease. With him there was no distinction of easy and difficult, since
to Divine power nothing is hard. With the same word he rebuked a raging
fever, cleansed from leprosy, gave strength to the paralytic, healed the
withered limb, gave sight to the blind, hearing to the deaf, and speech
to the dumb, and raised the dead to life. The same voice that said to
the man at Bethesda, "Rise, take up thy bed, and walk," said also to
Lazarus, who had lain four days in the grave, "Come forth."

6. It is with reason that we lay special stress upon the fact that
Christ performed many of his greatest miracles in the presence of his
enemies, who had both the means and the will to institute a searching
investigation concerning them, and who would have denied their reality
had it been in their power to do so. Sad indeed is the record of the
perverse opposition and calumny which our Lord encountered on the part
of the Jewish rulers. But even this has a bright side. It shows us that
the Saviour's miracles could endure the severest scrutiny--that after
every means which power and wealth and patronage and official influence
could command had been used for their disparagement, their divine origin
still shone forth like the unclouded sun at noon-day. If any one doubts
this, let him read attentively the ninth chapter of John's gospel, which
records the investigation instituted by the Jewish rulers respecting the
miracle of healing a man blind from his birth. In no modern court of
justice was a question of fact ever subjected to a severer scrutiny. And
the result was that they could not deny the miracle, but said in their
blind hatred of the Redeemer, "Give God the praise: we know that this
man is a sinner." So when they could not deny that Jesus cast out
devils, they alleged that he did it by the help of Satan; when it was
manifest that he had by a word healed a man that had lain
thirty-and-eight years a helpless paralytic, they blamed him for working
on the Sabbath-day; when Lazarus had been called out of his grave in the
presence of all the people, they said, "What do we? for this man doeth
many miracles." And then they consulted not to disprove these miracles,
but to put both him and Lazarus to death. Thus, in the good providence
of God, we have for the reality of our Lord's miracles the testimony of
his enemies and persecutors.

7. The _resurrection_ of Jesus is the miracle of miracles, of which we
may say with truth that it comprehends in itself all the other mighty
works recorded in the gospel history. We cannot but notice the
condescending care with which our Lord himself certified to his
disciples its reality. When he had suddenly appeared in the midst of
them, "they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had
seen a spirit." To convince them of the reality of his bodily presence,
he said, "Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me
and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. And
when he had thus spoken, he showed them his hands and his feet," that
they might see in them the prints of the nails. Finding them still
incredulous, "believing not for joy and wondering," he added another
conclusive proof that he was not a spirit, but a true man: he asked for
meat; "and they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb;
and he took it, and did eat before them." Luke 24:36-43. To the
unbelieving Thomas he offered the further proof which he had demanded:
"Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy
hand, and thrust it into my side; and be not faithless, but believing."
The certainty of this great event the evangelist Luke sets forth in his
introduction to the Acts of the Apostles: "To whom also," (to the
apostles,) "he showed himself alive after his passion, by many
infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the
things pertaining to the kingdom of God." The apostle Peter, in his
address to Cornelius and his friends, says: "Him God raised up the third
day, and showed him openly; not to all the people, but unto witnesses
chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after
he rose from the dead." Acts 10:40, 41. The apostle Paul, in his
enumeration of our Lord's appearances to his disciples after his
resurrection, 1 Cor. 5-8, mentions that on one occasion "he was seen of
above five hundred brethren at once; of whom," he says, "the greater
part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep."

It was not the greatness of the miracle, considered simply by itself,
but its relation to the gospel, that made our Lord's resurrection from
the dead the central fact of the apostles' testimony. It was, so to
speak, the hinge on which the whole work of redemption turned. Our
Lord's expiatory death for the sins of the world and his resurrection
from the dead were both alike parts of one indivisible whole. It was not
his claim to be the promised Messiah alone that was involved in the fact
of his resurrection. His completion, as the Messiah, of the work of
man's redemption was also dependent on that great event. "If Christ be
not risen," says the apostle, "then is our preaching vain, and your
faith is also vain;" and again, "If Christ be not raised, your faith is
vain; ye are yet in your sins." 1 Cor. 15:14, 17. We need not wonder
then that the apostles, in their testimony to the people, insisted so
earnestly on this one great fact in our Lord's history; for by it God
sealed him as the Prince of life.

8. The _character of Jesus_ of Nazareth, as drawn by the four
evangelists, is the highest possible proof of the authenticity and
credibility of the gospel narratives. Of this it has been justly said,
"The character is possible to be conceived, because it was actualized in
a living example." (Nature and the Supernatural, p. 324.) The
inapproachable excellence of Christ's character places it high above all
human praise. The reverent mind shrinks instinctively from the idea of
attempting to eulogize it, as from something profane and presumptuous.
We do not eulogize the sun shining in his strength, but we put a screen
over our eyes when we would look at him, lest we should be blinded by
the brightness of his beams. So must every man look at Jesus of Nazareth
with reverence and awe, who has any true sense of what is great and
excellent. What is now to be said of this character is not eulogy. It is
part of an argument for the reality of the events recorded in the gospel
history. Here it is important to notice not only the character itself,
but the manner of the portraiture, and its power over the human heart.

The character of Jesus is perfectly _original_. Nothing like it was ever
conceived of by the loftiest minds of antiquity. Nothing like it has
appeared since his day, in actual life, or even in the conceptions of
the most gifted writers. As there is one sun in the firmament, so there
is one Jesus Christ in the history of the world. His character has a
_human_ and a _divine_ element; and these two interpenetrate each other,
so as to constitute together one indivisible and glorious whole. Jesus
could not be, even in idea, what he is as man, unless he were God also.
And what he is as God, he is as God made flesh, and dwelling as man
among men. It is the _God-man_ which the gospel narratives present to
us. If we consider the qualities which belong to our Saviour as man, we
notice the union in full measure and just proportion of all those
qualities which belong to perfect humanity. In the case of mere men, the
abundant possession of one quality implies almost of necessity
deficiency elsewhere, and consequently one-sidedness of character. Not
so in the case of Jesus. He has all the attributes of a perfect man in
perfect fulness and in perfect harmony with each other. Let us
reverently look at some particulars.

His character unites the deepest _tranquillity_ with the deepest
_fervor_ of spirit. Our Lord's tranquillity shines forth through the
whole course of his ministry, and manifests itself alike in great things
and small. It is evident to all who read the narratives of the
evangelists that he performed his mighty works as one conscious that
divine power belonged to him of right, and that the exercise of it, even
in its highest forms, was nothing new nor strange. In connection with
his greatest miracles he calmly gave directions, as if they had been
ordinary occurrences. When he had fed many thousands with a few loaves
and fishes, he said, "Gather up the fragments that remain, that nothing
be lost." When he had raised from the dead the daughter of Jairus, "he
commanded that something should be given her to eat." When he had called
out of the grave one who had lain there four days, he directed, "Loose
him and let him go." Even in Gethsemane, when oppressed with agony too
great for human endurance, his self-possession remained as perfect as
his submission to his Father's will. That his serenity never left him
for a moment during the process of his arrest, trial, sentence, and
lingering death on the cross, is a truth which shines forth from the
sacred narrative as his own raiment did on the mount of transfiguration,
"white and glistering." Any attempt to describe it would be but mockery.
And yet this deep composure of spirit is not that of indifference or of
a cold temperament. It is the composure of one in whose bosom burns a
steady and intense flame of zeal for the glory of God and good will
towards men, by which he is borne forward with untiring energy in the
work committed to him from above. It is the composure of a spirit whose
depth of emotion none can measure.

We notice again the union in our Lord of perfect _wisdom_ with perfect
_freedom from guile_ and double dealing. That his wisdom was never at
fault all must admit. He was surrounded by crafty adversaries, who
contrived all manner of plans to entangle him in his talk. Yet in the
twinkling of an eye he turned their wiles against themselves, and they
found themselves taken in their own net. Meanwhile he always pursued the
straightforward course of sincerity and truth. Not the slightest trace
of deceit or cunning artifice appeared in his ministry from first to
last.

Closely allied to the above-named qualities are _prudence_ and
_boldness_, both of which met in full measure in our Lord's character.
That he feared no man and shrank from no peril when it was his duty to
encounter it, is too obvious to be insisted on. Yet he never needlessly
encountered opposition and danger. He was never bold for the purpose of
making a show of boldness. When the Jews sought to kill him, he "walked
in Galilee" to avoid their enmity. When his brethren went up to the
feast in Jerusalem, he would not go up with them, but afterwards went
up, "not openly, but as it were in secret." When, at a later day, after
the resurrection of Lazarus, the Jews sought his life, he "walked no
more openly among the Jews; but went thence into a country near to the
wilderness, into a city called Ephraim, and there continued with his
disciples." Not until the time had come that he should die for the sins
of the world did he expose himself to the rage of his enemies; and then
he went boldly into Jerusalem at the head of his disciples. His own
precept, "Be ye wise as serpents and harmless as doves," he perfectly
exemplified throughout his ministry.

We cannot but notice once more the union in our Lord's character of the
greatest _tenderness_ with unbending _severity_ whenever the cause of
truth demanded severity. He opened his ministry at Nazareth by reading
from the prophet Isaiah a portraiture of his own character: "The Spirit
of the Lord God is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the
gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the broken-hearted, to
preach deliverance to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind,
to set at liberty them that are bruised, to preach the acceptable year
of the Lord." Isa. 61:1, 2. The execution of this mission required a
tender and forbearing spirit, that would not break the bruised reed or
quench the smoking flax; and such was the spirit of his whole ministry.
For the penitent, though publicans and sinners, he had only words of
kindness. Towards the infirmities and mistakes of his sincere disciples
he was wonderfully forbearing. When a strife had arisen among the
apostles which of them should be the greatest, instead of denouncing in
severe terms their foolish ambition, he called to himself a little child
and set him in the midst, and from him gave them a lesson on the duty of
humility. Yet this tender and compassionate Jesus of Nazareth, who took
little children in his arms and blessed them, who stood and cried, "Come
unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy-laden, and I will give you
rest," and who wept at the grave of Lazarus--this same Jesus could say
to Peter when he would deter Him from the path of duty, "Get thee behind
me, Satan!" and could denounce in the presence of all the people the
scribes and Pharisees who sat in Moses' seat. In truth, the most severe
denunciations of hypocrisy and wickedness contained in the New Testament
and the most awful descriptions of the future punishment of the
impenitent fell from our Saviour's lips. In his tenderness there was no
element of weakness.

Our Lord's perfect _meekness and humility_ need no human comment. They
shine forth with serene brightness through all his words and actions. He
described himself as "meek and lowly in heart," and his life was a
perpetual illustration of these qualities. "When he was reviled, he
reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed
himself to him that judgeth righteously." But the point to be
particularly noticed is the wonderful harmony of this meek and lowly
mind with _claims_ more _lofty_ than were ever conceived of by any man
before him--claims everywhere boldly asserted, and which, as we shall
see hereafter, implied the possession of a divine nature. It is not that
he claimed and exercised power over nature or outward power over men,
even power to raise the dead, that fills us with awe and amazement; but
that he went within the spirit, and offered inward life, light,
strength, peace--in a word, life eternal--to all who would come to him;
and that he asserted, in a way as decisive as it was calm, his absolute
control over the everlasting destinies of all men. When we read the
account of these superhuman claims, we have no feeling that they were
incongruous or extravagant. On the contrary, they seem to us altogether
legitimate and proper. And yet, as has been often remarked, were any
other person to advance a tithe of these pretensions, he would be justly
regarded as a madman. The only possible explanation is, that this meek
and lowly Jesus made good his claim to be the Son of God by what he was
and by what he did.

Another quality very conspicuous in our Lord's character is his perfect
_elevation above this world_. "Ye are from beneath," said he to the
Jews; "I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world."
It was not in his origin alone, but in his spirit also that he was from
above. As he was from heaven, so was he heavenly in all his affections.
His own precept to his disciples, "Lay not up for yourselves treasures
upon earth, but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven," was the law
of his own life. He had no treasures here below but the souls of men;
and these are not earthly, but heavenly treasures. Satan plied him in
vain with the offer of "all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of
them." In him "the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the
pride of life" could find no place for a single moment. He kept the
world always and perfectly under his feet. Yet this perfect elevation
above the world had in it no tinge of _stoicism_ or _asceticism_. He
made no war upon the genuine passions and affections of human nature,
but simply subjected them all to his higher spiritual nature; in other
words to the law of God. Except temporarily for meditation and prayer,
he never withdrew himself, nor encouraged his disciples to withdraw
themselves from the cares and temptations of an active life, under the
false idea of thus rising to a state of superhuman communion with God.
He did not fast himself systematically, nor enjoin upon his disciples
systematic fastings, but left fastings for special emergencies. In a
word, he ate and drank like other men. His heavenly mind lay not in the
renunciation of God's gifts, but in maintaining his affections
constantly raised above the gifts themselves to the divine Giver. It
took on a human, and therefore an imitable form.

And what shall we say of our Lord's spotless _purity_ of heart and life?
We cannot eulogize it, for it is above all human praise. But we can
refresh the eyes of our understanding by gazing upon it, as upon a
glorious sun, until we feel its vivifying and transforming power in our
own souls.

In contemplating the above qualities, it is of the highest importance to
notice that, though they exist in such fulness and perfection, they are
yet human, and therefore imitable. They are not the virtues of an angel
in heaven, or of a king on the throne, or of a philosopher in his
school, or of a monk in his cell; but of a man moving among men in the
sphere of common life, and filling out common life with all the duties
appropriate to it. His example then is available for the imitation of
the lowest not less than the highest. It offers itself to all classes of
men as a model of all that is good in human nature. We may boldly affirm
that such a character as this could never have been conceived of, if it
had not actually existed.

       *       *       *       *       *

If now we look at our Lord's _character as a teacher_, we find it
equally original and wonderful. Writers on the gospel history have with
reason laid great stress on the fact that he stood high above the errors
and prejudices, not only of his own age and nation, but of all ages and
nations. He saw intuitively and perfectly what God is, what man is, and
what are man's relations to God and to his fellow-men; and was therefore
able to establish a religion for men, as men, that needs no change for
any age, or nation, or condition of life. He has sometimes been called a
"Galilean peasant." The phrase sounds unpleasantly in the ears of those
who adore him as their divine Lord and Master. Nevertheless it is in an
important sense true. He was educated among the common people of
Galilee, and had no special human training. It was an age of narrowness
and formalism. The scribes and Pharisees, who sat in Moses' seat, had
covered up the true meaning and spirit of the Old Testament beneath a
mass of human traditions that substituted "mint, and anise, and cummin"
for "the weightier matters of the law." Yet in such an age Jesus came
forth a perfect teacher of divine truth. He swept away at once the
glosses of the Jewish doctors, unfolded to the people the true meaning
of the law and the prophets as preparatory to his coming, and gave to
the world a religion that meets the wants of all classes and conditions
of men in all ages and nations. Considered as the good leaven which
Christ cast into the lump of humanity, the gospel has continual
progress. But considered as the plan of salvation which he revealed, it
cannot have progress, for it is perfect. It needs no amendment or
change, that it may be adapted to our age or any other age. As air and
water and light meet the wants of all men in all ages, so the gospel,
when freed from human additions and received in its original purity, is
all that fallen humanity needs. Here is a great fact to be explained.
The only reasonable explanation is that given by the Saviour himself.
When the Jews marvelled at his teaching, saying, "How knoweth this man
letters, having never learned?" he answered, "My doctrine is not mine,
but his that sent me." Such a religion as that described in the gospels
could not have been conceived of unless it had actually existed; and it
could not have existed without God for its author. Gifted men may be in
advance of their own age; that is, they may see before others what is
the next thing indicated by the present progress of society. But mere
men do not rise at once above all the errors and prejudices by which
they are surrounded into the region of pure light and truth. All the
work that men do is imperfect, and needs emendation by those who come
after them. A religion that remains from age to age as perfectly adapted
to the wants of all men as it was at the beginning, must be from God,
not from man.

Our Saviour's _manner of teaching_ was also as original as the teaching
itself. He saw through the world of nature and mind at a glance, and it
stood always ready at hand to furnish him with arguments and
illustrations--arguments and illustrations as simple and natural as they
were profound, and by means of which he unfolded the deepest truths in
the plainest and most intelligible forms. Take, for example, the
parables of the mustard-seed and the leaven. They contain within
themselves the whole history of Christ's kingdom in its inward
principle. They unfold views of its steady progress from age to age, as
a growth from an inward vital force, on which the most philosophical
minds especially love to dwell; and yet they are perfectly intelligible
to the most unlettered man. To teach by parables, without any false
analogies, and in a way that interested and instructed alike the learned
and the ignorant, this was a wonderful characteristic of our Lord's
ministry. In this respect no one of his apostles, not even the bosom
disciple, attempted to imitate him. Yet in the great fact that his
teaching was not for a select few, but for the masses of mankind, so
that "the common people heard him gladly," all his servants can and
ought to imitate him.

Thus far we have considered mainly the human side of our Lord's
character, though through it all his divinity shines forth. Let us now
look more particularly at _his divine mission and character_. On the
fact that his mission was from God we need not dwell. Nicodemus
expressed the judgment of every candid mind when he said, "Rabbi, we
know that thou art a teacher come from God; for no man can do these
miracles that thou doest, except God be with him." If there is one truth
which our Lord asserted more frequently than any other, it is that he
came from God: "The works which the Father hath given me to finish, the
same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me."
"If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and
came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me."

But Jesus had not only a divine mission, but a _divine person_ also; and
the manner in which he manifested his divinity is, if possible, more
original than any thing else in his history, and bears in itself the
impress of reality. A company of men who should attempt to give a
portraiture of a divine being simply from their own conceptions would
doubtless put into his lips many direct assertions of his deity, and
make his life abound in stupendous miracles. But it is not in any such
crude way that our Saviour's divinity manifests itself in the gospel
narratives. It is true indeed that in the manner of his miracles he
everywhere makes the impression that he performs them by virtue of a
power residing in himself; that while the _commission_ to do them comes
from the Father, the _power_ to do them belongs to his own person. In
this respect the contrast is very sharp between his manner and that of
the prophets before him and the apostles after him. In their case the
power, as well as the commission, was wholly from God, as they were
careful to teach the people: "In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth,
rise up and walk." "Why look ye so earnestly on us, as though by our own
power or holiness we had made this man to walk?" "His name, through
faith in his name, hath made this man strong, whom ye see and know."
"Eneas, Jesus Christ maketh thee whole." But not to dwell on this, let
us look at some very remarkable ways in which our Saviour manifested his
divine nature.

He called _God his Father_ in a peculiar and incommunicable sense. He
never said, "Our Father," by which he would have classed himself with
other men, but always, "My Father," showing that thus he stood alone in
his relation to God. As the son has the same nature with the father, and
when acting under his authority, the same prerogatives also; so Jesus,
as the Son of God, claimed the power and right to do whatever his Father
did, and to receive the same honor as his Father: "My Father worketh
hitherto, and I work." This the Jews rightly understood to be an
assertion of equality with the Father; for they "sought the more to kill
him, because he not only had broken the Sabbath, but said also that God
was his own Father, (so the original reads,) making himself equal with
God." To this the Saviour answered: "The Son can do nothing of
himself"--acting in his own name, and without the concurrence of the
Father's will--"but what he seeth the Father do; for what things soever
he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. For the Father loveth the
Son, and showeth him all things that himself doeth: and he will show him
greater works than these, that ye may marvel. For as the Father raiseth
up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he
will. For the Father judgeth no man; but hath committed all judgment
unto the Son: that all men should honor the Son, even as they honor the
Father. He that honoreth not the Son, honoreth not the Father which hath
sent him." John 5:17-23. Here the Son, though acting under the Father's
commission, claims equality with the Father; for without this he could
neither share all the Father's counsels, nor do all the Father's works,
nor receive from the Father authority to judge all men--an office which
plainly implies omniscience--nor be entitled to the same honor as the
Father. The point to be especially noticed in the present connection is
the originality of the way in which our Lord here asserts his divine
nature. We cannot for a moment suppose that such a way would have
occurred to one who was writing from his own invention. The only
possible explanation of the existence of such a passage in the gospel of
John, (and the same is true of many other passages,) is that it is a
true record of what actually took place in our Lord's history.

Again: our Lord represents himself as the source of _light and life_ to
all mankind. To the Jews he said: "I am the light of the world: he that
followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of
life." John 8:12. In comparison with what he here claims for himself,
the outward work of opening men's bodily eyes dwindles into nothing.
That was only the seal of his divine mission. But in these and other
like words, he does, as it were, draw aside the veil of his humanity,
and give us a glimpse of the glory of the Godhead that dwells within. So
too he says, "I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any
man eat of this bread he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will
give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." John
6:51. The resurrection of Lazarus, stupendous as that miracle was, does
not fill us with such awe and amazement as the mighty words which he
uttered to Martha: "I am the resurrection and the life: he that
believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: and whosoever
liveth, and believeth in me, shall never die," John 11:25, 26; for in
these words he represents himself as being to the whole human family the
author of all life, natural, spiritual, and eternal. He connects the
particular act of giving life which he is about to perform with the
final resurrection, "when all that are in the graves shall hear his
voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the
resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the
resurrection of damnation." John 5:28, 29. These utterances, so calm, so
lofty, so original, do not sound like the inventions of man. They wear a
heavenly costume. When we read them, we feel that the only explanation
of their existence in the gospel narrative is the fact that they were
actually uttered by our Lord.

And the same is true of another kindred class of passages, in which the
Saviour asserts his _inward dominion over the human spirit_. Hear him,
as he stands and proclaims: "Come unto me, all ye that labor and are
heavy laden, and I will give you rest." Matt. 11:28. "Peace I leave with
you; my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto
you." John 14:27. The world gives peace at best outwardly, and often
only in empty words; but Jesus has direct access to the inmost fountains
of feeling. He gives peace inwardly and efficaciously. When he turned
into songs of joy the tears of the widow of Nain by raising her son to
life, that was a wonderful instance of his giving peace; but far greater
and more glorious is the work when, by his inward presence in the soul,
he makes it victorious over all "the sufferings of this present time."
This is what he meant when he said to his disciples: "These things have
I spoken unto you that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall
have tribulations; but be of good cheer: I have overcome the world."
John 16:33. In his name, apostles raised the dead to life; but no
apostle--no mere man--would have ventured to say, "In me ye shall have
peace."

These last words naturally lead to the consideration of another very
peculiar form of speech first introduced by our Lord, and passing from
him to the church; that of the _mutual indwelling_ of himself and his
disciples: "Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit
of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide
in me." John 15:1-7. It is a vital union of the believer's soul with
Jesus, through which he receives from Jesus life and fruitfulness, as
the branch from its union with the vine. Here is an assertion of deity.
The Jews regarded Moses with the highest reverence; but no one of them
ever spoke of abiding in Moses, or having Moses abiding in himself. Had
any Christian disciple represented himself as dwelling in Peter or Paul,
the apostle would have rent his clothes at the blasphemy of the words.

Other peculiar ways in which our Lord manifested his deity could be
specified, but the above will suffice as examples. Let any candid man
consider all these examples in their connection, each of them so
original and so majestic, so simple and natural, and yet so far removed
from anything that could have occurred to one sitting down to draw from
his own imagination the picture of a divine person; and he will be
convinced that such a record as that contained in our four canonical
gospels was possible only because it is a simple and truthful history of
what Jesus of Nazareth was and did. Plain men can give a straightforward
account of what they have seen or learned from eye-witnesses; but it
transcends the genius of any man to invent such narratives of such a
character. The gospel narratives are marked throughout by artless
simplicity. Each of the writers goes straightforward with his story,
never thinking for a moment of what his own genius is to accomplish, but
intent only on exhibiting his Lord and Master as the Saviour of the
world. The apostle John, in giving the design of his own gospel, gives
that also of the other evangelists: "And many other signs truly did
Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this
book. But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the
Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through
his name." John 20:30, 31.

And because this glorious and divine person is a living reality, he
possesses from age to age an undying power over the human heart. Love
towards him is the mightiest principle on earth, both for doing and for
suffering. It makes the soul of which it has taken full possession
invincible. When Jesus of Nazareth is enthroned in the castle of the
human heart, not all the powers of earth and hell can overcome it. See
farther, chap. 12:8.

9. Since, as we have seen, the gospel narratives are an authentic record
of facts, it follows that in the person and life of Jesus of Nazareth we
have a _supernatural revelation_ from God in the fullest sense of the
words. That his origin was both superhuman and supernatural, the gospels
teach us in the most explicit terms. He says of himself: "I came forth
from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world,
and go unto the Father." John 16:28. "And now, O Father, glorify thou me
with thine own self, with the glory which I had with thee before the
world was." John 17:5. That the appearance on earth of One who dwelt
with the Father in glory before the world was, and after the fulfilment
of his mission returned to the Father again, was supernatural, is
self-evident. His person was, as has been shown, divine. He was God
manifest in the flesh; and wherever he went, his supernatural power
displayed itself. The miraculous element is so interwoven into the very
substance of the gospel history, that there is no possibility of setting
it aside, except by rejecting the history itself. It is the fashion with
a certain class of writers, after denying our Lord's divine nature and
explaining away his supernatural works, to be profuse in their eulogies
of his character. If they can first rid themselves of the obligation to
believe on him and obey him as their divine Lord, they are willing to
bestow upon him, as a man like themselves, the highest commendations.
But the attempt is hopeless. What will they do with the fact of his
resurrection from the dead--the most certain as well as the greatest
miracle in his history, and which includes in itself all the rest? Had
Jesus not risen from the dead, as he so often affirmed that he should,
then he would have been what the Jewish rulers called him--a deceiver,
and no Saviour; but since the miracle of his resurrection must be
admitted by all who do not reject the whole gospel history as a fable,
why deny the lesser miracles connected with his history? The assumption
that miracles are impossible can only go with the denial of God's
personality; and this, by whatever name it is called, is atheism. If
there is a personal God, who is before nature, above nature, and the
author of nature in its inmost essence, he can manifest himself within
the sphere of nature in a supernatural way, whenever he chooses to do
so. If God who made us cares for us, and is indeed our Father in heaven,
it is reasonable to suppose that he may reveal himself to us in
supernatural forms, when the end is our deliverance from the bondage of
sin, and our preparation for an eternity of holiness and happiness. To
deny this, would be to make nature the highest end of God--to put the
world of God's intelligent creatures under nature, instead of making
nature their servant and minister.

10. The objections that have been urged against the gospel history are
of two kinds. The first class relates to its doctrines, as, for example,
that of demoniacal possessions, that of eternal punishment, etc. To
enlarge on this subject would be out of place here. It is sufficient to
say that the only reasonable rule is to argue from the certainty of the
record to the truth of the doctrines in question. He who first assumes
that a certain doctrine cannot be true, and then, on the ground of this
assumption, sets aside a history sustained by overwhelming evidence,
exalts his own finite understanding to be the supreme rule of faith; and
to him an authoritative revelation becomes an impossibility. The second
class of objections relates to alleged contradictions and
inconsistencies between the different writers. The explanation and
reconciliation of these is the work of the harmonist. We need not wait,
however, for the result of his labors, that we may rest confidently on
the truth of the record. These apparent disagreements do not affect a
single doctrine or duty of Christianity. They all relate to incidental
matters, such as the time and order of the events recorded, the
accompanying circumstances, etc. Had we all the missing links of the
evangelical history, we might reconcile all these differences; but
without them, it is not in all cases possible. Nor is it necessary;
since, where different writers record the same transactions, substantial
agreement, with diversity in respect to the details, is everywhere the
characteristic of authentic history.




CHAPTER V.

THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES AND THE ACKNOWLEDGED EPISTLES.


1. The genuineness, uncorrupt preservation, and credibility of the
gospel narratives having been shown to rest on a firm foundation, the
principal part of our work is accomplished, so far as the New Testament
is concerned. We are prepared beforehand to expect some record of the
labors of the apostles, like that contained in the Acts of the Apostles;
and also discussions and instructions relating to the doctrines and
duties of Christianity, such as we find in the apostolic epistles. Our
Saviour established his church only in its fundamental principles and
ordinances. The work of publishing his gospel and organizing churches
among Jews and Gentiles he committed to his apostles. Before his
crucifixion he taught them that the Holy Ghost could not come (that is,
in his special and full influences as the administrator of the new
covenant) till after his departure to the Father: "It is expedient for
you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come
unto you; but if I depart I will send him unto you." John 16:7. "When
the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even
the Spirit of truth which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify
of me. And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from
the beginning." John 15:26, 27. Now we have, in the Acts of the
Apostles, first an account of the fulfilment by the Saviour of his
promise that he would send the Holy Ghost; then a record how the
apostles, thus qualified, obeyed the Saviour's command to preach the
gospel to Jews and Gentiles--a record not, indeed, complete, but
sufficient to show the manner and spirit in which the work was
performed. Some truths, moreover, of the highest importance the Saviour
gave only in outline, because the time for their full revelation had not
yet come. John 16:12, 13. Such were especially the doctrine of his
atoning sacrifice on Calvary with the connected doctrine of
justification by faith; and the divine purpose to abolish the Mosaic
economy, and with it the distinction between Jews and Gentiles. We have,
partly in the Acts and partly in the epistles, an account of the
unfolding of these great truths by the apostles under the guidance of
the Holy Spirit, and of the commotions and contentions that naturally
accompanied this work. The practical application of the gospel to the
manifold relations of life, domestic, social, and civil, with the
solution of various difficult questions arising therefrom, was another
work necessarily devolved on the apostles, and performed by them with
divine wisdom for the instruction of all coming ages. The book of Acts
and the epistles ascribed to the apostles being such a natural sequel to
the Redeemer's work, as recorded by the four evangelists, a briefer
statement of the evidence for their genuineness and authenticity will be
sufficient.

I. _The Acts of the Apostles._ 2. According to Chrysostom, First Homily
on Acts, this book was not so abundantly read by the early Christians as
the gospels. The explanation of this comparative neglect is found in the
fact that it is occupied with the doings of the apostles, not of the
Lord himself. Passing by some uncertain allusions to the work in the
writings of the apostolic fathers, the first explicit quotation from it
is contained in the letter heretofore noticed, chap. 2:4, from the
churches of Vienne and Lyons in Gaul, written about A.D. 177, in which
they say: "Moreover they prayed, after the example of Stephen the
perfect martyr, for those who inflicted upon them cruel torments, 'Lord,
lay not this sin to their charge.'" Irenaeus, in the last part of the
second century, Tertullian in the last part of the same century and the
beginning of the third, Clement of Alexandria about the end of the
second century and onwards--all these bear explicit testimony to the
book of Acts, ascribing it to Luke as its author; and from their day
onward the notices of the work are abundant. We may add the concurrent
testimony of the Muratorian canon and the Syriac version, called the
Peshito, which belong to the last quarter of the second century, and the
still earlier testimony of the Old Latin version. In a word, the book is
placed by Eusebius among those that were universally acknowledged by the
churches.

    The rejection of the book by certain heretical sects, as the
    Ebionites, Marcionites, Manichaeans, etc., is of no weight, as
    their objections rested not on historical, but on doctrinal
    grounds. As to the statement of Photius that "some call Clement
    of Rome the author, some Barnabas, and some Luke the
    evangelist," it is to be remarked that he is giving not his own
    judgment, for he expressly ascribes it to Luke, but the
    arbitrary opinions of certain persons; and these are
    contradicted by the obvious fact that the third gospel, which
    proceeded from the same hand as the Acts of the Apostles, was
    never ascribed to any other person than Luke.

3. The _internal testimony_ to Luke's authorship is decisive. The writer
himself, in dedicating it to the same Theophilus, expressly identifies
himself with the author of the third gospel: "The former treatise have I
made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and to teach."
Acts 1:1. Then there is a remarkable agreement in style and diction
between the gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles, as any one may
learn who peruses them both together in the original Greek. Davidson,
Introduction to the New Testament, vol. 2, p. 8, has collected
forty-seven examples of "terms that occur in both, but nowhere else in
the New Testament." Luke, moreover, as the travelling companion of Paul,
had all needed facilities for composing such a work. With regard to the
latter portion of the book, this is denied by none. His use of the first
person plural, "we endeavored," "the Lord had called us," "we came,"
etc.--which first appears, chap. 16:10, and continues, with certain
interruptions, through the remainder of the book--admits of but one
natural and reasonable explanation, namely, that when he thus joins
himself with the apostle he was actually in his company. As it respects
the first part of the book, we notice that he visited Caesarea with
Paul's company, and "tarried there many days," chap. 21:8-10; afterwards
he went up with him to Jerusalem, chap. 21:15. We find him again with
Paul at Caesarea when he sets out for Rome. Chap. 27:1. Now at such
centres as Jerusalem and Caesarea he must have had abundant opportunities
to learn all the facts recorded in the present book which could not be
gathered from Paul's own lips.

4. For the _credibility_ of this book we have, in general, the same
arguments which apply to the gospel narratives, especially to the gospel
of Luke. Its author is evidently a sincere and earnest man, who goes
straight forward with his narrative; and where he does not write as an
eye-witness, he had, as we have seen, abundant means of ascertaining the
truth concerning the facts which he records. His narrative is, moreover,
corroborated in a very special way, as will be shown hereafter--No. 8,
below--by its many undesigned coincidences with the events alluded to in
the epistle of Paul. To admit the credibility of the gospel of Luke and
to deny that of this work would be altogether inconsistent. In truth,
there is no ground for doubting the credibility of the Acts of the
Apostles other than that which lies in the assumption that no record of
miraculous events can be credible, and this is no ground at all.

    To some modern writers the narrative of the gift of tongues on
    the day of Pentecost has seemed to present an insuperable
    difficulty. Undoubtedly it is above our comprehension how a man
    should suddenly become possessed of the ability to speak in a
    language before unknown to him; but why should we doubt God's
    power to bestow such a gift? Can any one suppose for a moment
    that when our Saviour met with a person deaf and dumb from
    birth, he had, for the first time, a case beyond his healing
    power? The gospel narrative plainly indicates the contrary. Mark
    7:32-37, upon which passage see Meyer and Alford.

    The account of the sudden death of Ananias and Sapphira, chap.
    5:1-11, is not contrary to the spirit of the gospel. They died
    by the immediate act of God. His wisdom judged such an example
    of severity to be necessary in the beginning of the gospel, as a
    solemn warning against hypocrisy and falsehood in his service.
    Though the gospel is a system of mercy, it takes, as all admit,
    a severe attitude towards those who reject it; why not, then,
    towards those who make a hypocritical profession of it? As Nadab
    and Abihu were consumed by fire from heaven at the beginning of
    the Mosaic economy, so the death of Ananias and his wife came
    early in the dispensation of the Holy Ghost, as a testimony to
    all future ages of Christ's abhorrence of hypocrisy, and
    consequently of the doom which hypocrites will receive from him
    at the last day. Matt. 7:21-23.

    The fact that Luke has omitted some events in the history of
    Paul, as, for example, his journey into Arabia, which occurred
    during the three years that intervened between his conversion
    and his first visit to Jerusalem, Acts 9:22-26 compared with
    Gal. 1:15-18, is no argument against the credibility of his
    narrative. Difficulties that arise simply from a writer's
    brevity must not be allowed to set aside satisfactory evidence
    of his competency and truthfulness. The historical difficulties
    connected with Stephen's address do not concern Luke's
    credibility as a historian, and the discussion of them belongs
    to the commentator.

5. The book of Acts closes with a notice that "Paul dwelt two whole
years in his own hired house, and received all that came in unto him,
preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern
the Lord Jesus, with all confidence, no man forbidding him." As it adds
no notice of the issue of his imprisonment, or of what afterwards befell
him, we naturally infer that the book was written at Rome about this
time, that is, about A.D. 63.

II. _The Acknowledged Epistles_, 6. It is well known that doubts
existed, to a greater or less extent, in the primitive churches before
the fourth century, respecting the apostolic origin and authority of
certain books which now constitute a part of the New Testament canon.
Hence the distinction made by Eusebius between the _acknowledged_ books,
(_homologoumena_) that is, those that were universally received from the
first, and the _disputed_ books, (_antilegomena_,) books respecting
which some entertained doubts. The _acknowledged_ books are, the four
gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the thirteen epistles of Paul which
bear his name at the beginning, the first epistle of Peter, and the
first epistle of John; twenty in all. The _disputed_ books are, the
epistle to the Hebrews, the epistle of James, the second epistle of
Peter, the second and third epistles of John, the epistle of Jude, and
the book of Revelation; seven in all. The gospels and the Acts have been
already considered, and the disputed books are reserved for the
following chapter. Some remarks will here be made on the fifteen
acknowledged epistles.

7. The epistles of Paul may be conveniently distributed into two groups,
of which the second or smaller contains the three pastoral epistles, and
the former or larger, the remaining ten. Of the apostolic origin of the
larger group little needs to be said. They bear throughout the impress
of genuineness and authenticity. No doubts were ever entertained
concerning them in the ancient churches. There is, indeed, some ground
for suspecting that a few ancient copies of the epistle to the Ephesians
omitted the words _at Ephesus_--more literally _in Ephesus_--chap. 1:1.
But the genuineness of these words is sustained by an overwhelming
weight of evidence, and that Paul was the author of the epistle was
never once doubted by the ancient churches. The arguments of some modern
writers against its apostolic origin have no real weight, as will be
shown hereafter in the introduction to the epistle.

Respecting the apostolic authorship of the three pastoral epistles, two
to Timothy and one to Titus, there was never any doubt in the ancient
churches. They are supported by the testimony of the Peshito-Syriac
version, of the Muratorian canon, also, (as appears from Jerome's letter
to Marcella and the quotations of the church fathers before him,) of the
Old Latin version; of Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and a
multitude of later writers. There are also some allusions to these
epistles in the apostolic fathers, which seem to be decisive.

    Such are the following: "Let us therefore approach to him in
    holiness of soul, _lifting up_ to him _holy_ and unpolluted
    _hands_." Clement of Rome, First Epistle to the Corinthians,
    chap. 29. "But the beginning of all mischief is the love of
    money. Knowing, therefore, that _we brought nothing into the
    world neither have power to carry any thing out_, let us arm
    ourselves with the armor of righteousness." Polycarp, Epistle to
    the Philippians, chap. 4. The student may see other supposed
    allusions in Kirchhofer, Quellensammlung; Lardner, 2:39;
    Davidson's Introduction, 3, p. 101 seq.; Alford's New Testament,
    Introduction to the Pastoral Epistles, etc.

Respecting the _date_ of the pastoral epistles very different opinions
are held. The whole discussion turns on the question whether they were
written _before_ or _after_ Paul's imprisonment at Rome, which is
recorded in the last chapter of the Acts of the Apostles; and this again
is connected with the further question whether he underwent a second
imprisonment at Rome, concerning which learned men are not agreed. The
full discussion of this matter belongs to the introduction to the
pastoral epistles. It may be simply remarked, however, that the internal
arguments in favor of a late date are very strong, and that its
assumption accounts for the development of such a state of things at
Ephesus as appears in the two pastoral epistles to Timothy--a state very
different from that which existed when the epistle to the Ephesians was
written, between A.D. 60 and 64, and which makes it necessary to
separate the first epistle to Timothy from that to the Ephesians by a
considerable interval of time.

The _theme_ of the pastoral epistles is _peculiar_. It is the
affectionate counsel of an aged apostle to two young preachers and
rulers in the church respecting the duties of their office. From the
peculiarity of the subject-matter naturally arises, to some extent, a
peculiarity in the diction of these epistles; yet the style and costume
is throughout that of the apostle Paul.

8. The testimony of the ancient church to the first epistle of Peter and
the first of John is very ample. Besides that of the Peshito-Syriac
version, and of the church fathers Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Clement of
Alexandria, they have in addition that of Papias and the apostolic
father Polycarp. The first epistle of John is also included in the
Muratorian canon. It scarcely needs, however, any external testimony.
The identity of its author with that of the fourth gospel is so manifest
from its whole tone and style, that it has been always conceded that if
one of these writings came from the pen of the apostle John, the other
did also.

    The testimony of Papias to these two epistles, though indirect,
    is conclusive. Eusebius says, Hist. Eccl. 3. 39, "The same
    Papias has employed testimonies from the first epistle of John,
    and in like manner of Peter." Polycarp says, Epistle to the
    Philippians, ch. 7, "For every one who confesseth not that Jesus
    Christ is come in the flesh, is anti-Christ," with evident
    reference to 1 John 4:3. Eusebius says also, Hist. Eccl. 4. 14,
    that in the same epistle to the Philippians Polycarp "has
    employed certain testimonies from the first epistle of Peter;"
    and when we examine the epistle we find several certain
    references to it, among which are the following: "In whom,
    though ye see him not, ye believe; and believing, ye rejoice
    with joy unspeakable, and full of glory." Chap. 1 compared with
    1 Pet. 1:8. "Believing in him who raised up our Lord Jesus
    Christ from the dead, and gave him glory, and a seat at his
    right hand." Chap. 2 compared with 1 Pet. 1:21.

9. The relation of the gospel history to the writings now under
consideration--the book of Acts and the apostolic epistles--is of the
most intimate and weighty character. The truth of the earlier narratives
contained in the gospels implies the truth of these later works; for, as
already remarked, they are the natural sequel of the events there
recorded. On the other hand, the truth of these later writings implies
the truth of the gospel history; for in that history they find their
full explanation, and without it they are, and must ever remain,
inexplicable. All the parts of the New Testament constitute one
inseparable whole, and they all shed light upon each other. Like a chain
of fortresses in war, they mutually command each other. Unless the whole
can be overthrown, no one part can be successfully assailed. But to
overthrow the whole is beyond the power of man; for God has guarded it
on every side by impregnable bulwarks of evidence.

10. A special argument for the truth of the Scripture history of the
apostle Paul may be drawn from the numerous _undesigned coincidences_
between the events recorded in the book of Acts and those referred to in
the epistles. This work has been accomplished with great ability and
skill by Paley in his Horae Paulinae, to which the reader is referred. The
argument is very conclusive; for when we consider the "particularity of
St. Paul's epistles, the perpetual recurrence of names of persons and
places, the frequent allusions to the incidents of his private life, and
the circumstances of his condition and history, and the connection and
parallelism of these with the same circumstances in the Acts of the
Apostles, so as to enable us, for the most part, to confront them one
with another," we must be satisfied that the truth of the history can
alone explain such a multitude of coincidences, many of them of a minute
character, and all of them manifestly undesigned.




CHAPTER VI.

THE DISPUTED BOOKS.


The grounds on which each of the disputed books--Antilegomena, chap. 5,
No. 6--is received into the canon of the New Testament, will be
considered in the introduction to these books. In the present chapter
some general suggestions will be made which apply to them as a whole.

1. This is not a question concerning the _truth of Christianity_, but
concerning the _extent of the canon_; a distinction which is of the
highest importance. Some persons, when they learn that doubts existed in
the early churches, to a greater or less extent, respecting certain
books of the New Testament, are troubled in mind, as if a shade of
uncertainty were thereby cast over the whole collection of books. But
this is a very erroneous view of the matter. The books of the New
Testament, like those of the Old, were written one after another, as
occasion required; and the churches received each of them separately on
the evidence they had of its apostolic origin and authority. At length
collections of these books, that is, _canons_, began to be formed. Such
collections translators would of necessity make, unless they found them
ready at hand. The earliest canons of which we have any knowledge are
contained in the old Latin version, the Syriac version called Peshito,
and the Muratorian canon; each of which represented the prevailing
judgment of the churches in the region where it was formed. As this
judgment differed in the different provinces of Christendom in respect
to the books in question, so also do these canons. The Peshito contains
the epistle to the Hebrews and that of James, but omits the other five
books. The Muratorian canon omits the epistle to the Hebrews, the
epistle of James, and the second epistle of Peter; but contains the
epistle of Jude, the book of Revelation, and apparently also the second
and third of John, though in respect to them its language is obscure and
of doubtful interpretation. The old Latin version, so far as we can
judge from the quotations of the church fathers, agreed in general with
the Muratorian canon. It contained, however, the epistle of James,
(Codex Corbeiensis, _ff_,) and that to the Hebrews; and if, as has been
supposed, this latter was a later addition, it was yet earlier than the
time of Tertullian. See Westcott on the Canon, pp. 282, 283. Now this
diversity of judgment with regard to particular books does not affect in
the least the remaining books of the New Testament, which are sustained
by the authority of all the above-named witnesses, as well as by the
undivided testimony of the ancient churches. Did the New Testament claim
to be the work of _a single author_, the case would be different. We
should then have but _one_ witness; and if certain parts of his
testimony could be successfully assailed, this would throw a measure of
suspicion on the whole. But now we have in the separate books of the New
Testament a _large number_ of witnesses, most of whom are entirely
independent of each other. Doubts respecting the testimony of one do not
affect that of another. We receive the seven books in question as a part
of God's revelation on grounds which we judge adequate, as will be shown
in the introductions to the several books. But if any one feels under
the necessity of suspending his judgment with respect to one or more of
these books, let him follow the teachings of the other books, which are
above all doubt. He will find in them all the truth essential to the
salvation of his soul; and he will then be in a position calmly to
investigate the evidence for the canonical authority of the so-called
disputed books.

2. The diversity of judgment which prevailed in the early churches in
respect to certain books of the New Testament, is in harmony with all
that we know of their character and spirit. It was an age of free
inquiry. General councils were not then known, nor was there any central
power to impose its decisions on all the churches. In the essential
doctrines of the gospel there was everywhere an agreement, especially in
receiving the writings acknowledged to be apostolic, as the supreme rule
of faith and practice. But this did not exclude differences on minor
points in the different provinces of Christendom; and with respect to
these the churches of each particular region were tenacious then, as
they have been in all ages since, of their peculiar opinions and
practices. It is well known, for example, that the churches of Asia
Minor differed from those of Rome in the last half of the second century
respecting the day on which the Christian festival of the Passover, with
the communion service connected with it, should be celebrated; the
former placing it on the fourteenth of the month Nisan, the latter on
the anniversary of the resurrection Sunday. Nor could the conference
between Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna in Asia Minor, and Anicetus, bishop
of Rome, about A.D. 162, avail to change the usage of either party,
though it did not at that time break the bond of brotherhood between
them. We need not be surprised therefore to find a like diversity in
different regions respecting certain books of the New Testament. The
unanimous belief of the Eastern and Alexandrine churches ascribed to
Paul the authorship of the epistle to the Hebrews; but in the Western
churches its Pauline authorship was not generally admitted till the
fourth century. The Apocalypse, on the contrary, found most favor with
the Western or Latin churches. It has in its favor the testimony of the
Muratorian canon, which is of Latin origin, and also--as appears from
the citations contained in the commentaries of Primasius--that of the
old Latin version. Other examples see above, No. 1.

3. Although we cannot account for the universal and undisputed reception
of the acknowledged books by all the churches, except on the assumption
of their genuineness, the non-reception of a given book by some of the
early churches is no conclusive argument against its apostolic origin.
From the influence of circumstances unknown to us, it may have remained
for a considerable period of time in comparative obscurity. We have good
ground for believing that some apostolic writings are utterly lost. To
deny the possibility of this would be to prejudge the wisdom of God. As
the apostles delivered many inspired discourses which it did not please
the Holy Ghost to have recorded, so they may have written letters which
he did not judge needful to make the sacred volume complete. The
question is one of fact, not of theory. The most obvious interpretation
of 1 Cor. 5:9 and Col. 4:16 is that Paul refers in each case to an
epistle which has not come down to us. And if an inspired epistle might
be lost, much more might the knowledge and use of it be restricted for a
time to a narrow circle of churches. When such an epistle--for example,
the second of Peter--began to be more extensively known, the general
reception and use of it would be a slow process, not only from the
difficulty of communication in ancient as compared with modern times,
but also from the slowness with which the churches of one region
received any thing new from those of other regions.

Then again, if a book were known, there might be in some regions
hesitancy in respect to receiving it, from doubts in regard to its
author, as in the case of the epistle to the Hebrews and the Apocalypse;
or from the peculiarity of its contents also, as in the case of the
latter book. In the influence of causes like the above named, we find a
reasonable explanation of the fact that some books, which the mature
judgment of the churches received into the canon of the New Testament,
did not find at first a universal reception.

4. In the caution and hesitation of the early churches with respect to
the books in question, we have satisfactory evidence that, in settling
the canon of the New Testament, they acted with great deliberation and
conscientiousness, their rule being that no book should be received
whose apostolic origin could not be established on solid grounds. Did
the early history of the Christian church present no such phenomenon as
that of the distinction between acknowledged and disputed books, we
might naturally infer that all books that professed to have emanated
from the apostles, or to have had their sanction, were received without
discrimination. But now the mature and final judgment of the churches is
entitled to great consideration. This judgment, let it be remembered,
was not affirmative only, but also _negative_. While it admitted to the
canon the seven books now under consideration, it excluded others which
were highly valued and publicly read in many of the churches. On this
ground it is entitled to still higher regard. It is not, however, of
binding authority, for it is not the decision of inspired men. We have a
right to go behind it, and to examine the facts on which it is based, so
far as they can be ascertained from existing documents. But this work
belongs to the introduction to the several books.

    Three books alone "obtained a partial ecclesiastical currency,
    through which they were not clearly separated at first from the
    disputed writings of the New Testament." Westcott on the Canon,
    Appendix B, p. 550. This was on the ground that they were
    written, or supposed to be written, by the immediate successors
    of the apostles. The oldest known codex of the Bible is the
    _Sinaitic_, discovered at mount Sinai by Tischendorf in 1859,
    and which belongs to the fourth century. This contains the whole
    of the epistle of Barnabas, and the first part of the work
    called the Shepherd of Hermas. The Alexandrine codex, belonging
    to the fifth century, has appended to it the first epistle of
    Clement of Rome to the Corinthians, the genuineness of which is
    admitted, and also a portion of the second or apocryphal
    epistle, the remainder of it being lost. The explanation is,
    that these three books were read in some at least of the
    churches when these codices were formed. But they never obtained
    any permanent authority as canonical writings, and were excluded
    from the New Testament "by every council of the churches,
    catholic or schismatic." Tertullian, as quoted by Westcott, p.
    551.




CHAPTER VII.

INSPIRATION AND THE CANON


By the word _inspiration_, when used in a theological sense, we
understand such an illumination and guidance of the Holy Spirit as
raises a speaker or writer above error, and thus gives to his teachings
a divine authority. If we attempt to investigate the interior nature of
this superhuman influence, its different degrees and modes of operation,
and the relation which the human mind holds to the divine in the case of
those who receive it, we find ourselves involved in many difficulties,
some of which at least are to our finite minds insuperable. But if we
look at it from a practical point of view, restricting our inquiries to
the _end_ proposed by God in inspiration, which is to furnish his church
with an infallible and sufficient rule of faith and practice, we find no
difficulty in understanding the subject so far as our duty and welfare
are concerned. From such a practical position the question of
inspiration will now be discussed; and the inquiry will be, at present,
restricted to the writings of the New Testament. In connection with this
discussion will also be considered the subject of the _canon_, not in
its particular extent, but in the _principle_ upon which it is formed.

1. It is necessary, first of all, to find a sure _rule_ by which we can
try the claims of a given book to be inspired, and consequently to be
admitted into the canon of the New Testament. It cannot be simply the
writer's own declaration. It will be shown hereafter that, in connection
with other evidence, his testimony concerning himself is of the highest
importance. But the point now is, that no man's inspiration is to be
acknowledged simply on his own word. Nor can we decide simply from the
contents of the book. Very important indeed is the question concerning
the contents of any book which claims to be a revelation from God. Yet
we cannot take the naked ground that a given book is inspired because
its contents are of a given character. This would be virtually to set up
our own reason as the supreme arbiter of divine truth, which is the very
position of rationalism. Nor can we receive a book as inspired on the
so-called authority of the church, whether this mean the authority of a
man who claims to be its infallible head, or the authority of a general
council of the churches. Admitting for a moment the Romish doctrine of
the infallibility of the church, we could know this infallibility not
from the declaration of any man or body of men in the church, but from
Scripture alone. But this is assuming at the outset the infallibility of
Scripture, and therefore its inspiration, which is the very point at
issue. Looking at the question on all sides, we shall find for a given
book of the New Testament no valid test of the writer's inspiration
except _his relation to the Lord Jesus Christ_. This presupposes our
Lord's divine mission and character, and his supreme authority in the
church. It is necessary therefore to begin with the great central fact
of the gospel, that Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God, and that
through him God has made to men a revelation of his own character and
will for their salvation. This fact is to be first established according
to the ordinary rules of human evidence, as has been attempted in the
preceding chapters. After that we come naturally to the inspiration of
the record, and can establish it also on a sure foundation.

2. The great fundamental truth that Jesus is the Son of God, who dwelt
from eternity with the Father, knew all his counsels, and was sent by
him to this fallen world on a mission of love and mercy, being
established on an immovable foundation, we have a sure point of
departure from which to proceed in our inquiries respecting inspiration.
It becomes at once a self-evident proposition--the great axiom of
Christianity, we may call it--that the teaching of Jesus Christ, when he
was on earth, was truth unmixed with error. This he himself asserted in
the most explicit terms: "The Father loveth the Son, and showeth him all
things that himself doeth." John 5:20. "I am the light of the world: he
that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light
of life." John 8:12. "He that sent me is true; and I speak to the world
those things which I have heard of him." John 8:26. "I have not spoken
of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what
I should say, and what I should speak. And I know that his commandment
is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father
said unto me, so I speak." John 12:49, 50. Proceeding then from the
position of our Lord's infallibility, let us inquire whether any of his
disciples, and if so, who among them, were divinely qualified to teach,
and consequently to record, without error, the facts and doctrines of
his gospel. There are but two grades of relationship to Christ with
which we can connect such a high endowment: that of _apostles_, and that
of their _companions_ and fellow-laborers. Let us consider each of these
in order.

3. Early in our Lord's ministry he chose _twelve apostles_, "that they
should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach, and to
have power to heal sicknesses, and to cast out devils." Mark 3:14, 15.
In this brief notice we have all the distinguishing marks of an apostle.
He was chosen that he might be with Christ from the beginning, and thus
be to the people an eye-witness of his whole public life. When an
apostle was to be chosen in the place of Judas, Peter laid particular
stress on this qualification: "Wherefore of these men which have
companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among
us, beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was
taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his
resurrection." Acts 1:21, 22. In the case of Paul alone was this
condition of apostleship wanting; and this want was made up to him by
the special revelation of Jesus Christ. Gal. 1:11, 12. An apostle,
again, was one who received his commission to preach immediately from
the Saviour, a qualification which Paul strenuously asserted in his own
behalf: "Paul an apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus
Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead." Gal. 1:1. An
apostle, once more, was one who received directly from Christ the power
of working miracles. This was the _seal_ of his apostleship before the
world. In the three particulars that have been named the apostles held
to Christ the nearest possible relation, and were by this relation
distinguished from all other men. Have we evidence that they were
divinely qualified, through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, to preach
and record the facts and doctrines of the gospel without error?

That they must have been thus qualified, we have, in the _first_ place,
a strong presumption from _the necessity of the case_. Though our Lord
finished the work which the Father gave him to do on earth, he did not
finish the revelation of his gospel. On the contrary, he said to his
disciples just before his crucifixion, "I have yet many things to say
unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of
truth is come, he will guide you into all truth." John 16:12, 13. Let us
look at some of these things which were reserved for future revelation.
The purely spiritual nature of Christ's kingdom was not understood by
the apostles till after the day of Pentecost, for we find them asking,
just before his ascension, "Lord, wilt thou at this time restore the
kingdom to Israel?" a question which he did not answer, but referred
them to the promised gift of the Holy Spirit. Acts 1:6-8. Another of the
things which they could not bear was the abolition, through Christ's
propitiatory sacrifice, of the Mosaic law, and with it, of the middle
wall of partition between Jews and Gentiles. This great truth was
reserved to be revealed practically in the progress of the gospel, as
recorded in the book of Acts, and doctrinally in the epistles of Paul.
Then what a rich unfolding we have in the apostolic epistles of the
meaning of our Lord's death on Calvary, and in connection with this, of
the doctrine of justification by faith--faith not simply in Christ, but
in _Christ crucified_. Faith in Christ's person the disciples had before
his death; but faith in him as crucified for the sins of the world they
could not have till after his resurrection and exaltation to the right
hand of God. The abovenamed truths--not to specify others, as, for
example, what Paul says of the resurrection, 1 Cor., ch. 15; 1. Thess.
4:13-18--enter into the very substance of the gospel. They are, in fact,
integral parts of it. Can we suppose that our Lord began the revelation
of his gospel by his own infallible wisdom, and then left it to be
completed by the fallible wisdom of men? If Augustine and Jerome in the
latter period of the Roman empire, if Anselm and Bernard in the middle
ages, if Luther and Calvin at the era of the Reformation, if Wesley and
Edwards in later days, commit errors, the mischief is comparatively
small; for, upon the supposition that the apostles were qualified by the
Holy Ghost to teach and write without error, we have in their writings
an infallible standard by which to try the doctrines of later uninspired
men. But if the apostles whom Christ himself appointed to finish the
revelation which he had begun, and whom he endowed with miraculous
powers, as the seal of their commission, had been left without a sure
guarantee against error, then there would be no standard of truth to
which the church in later ages could appeal. No man who believes that
Jesus is the Son of God, and that he came into the world to make to men
a perfect revelation of the way of life, can admit such an absurd
supposition.

In the _second_ place, we have _Christ's express promises_ to his
apostles that they should be divinely qualified for their work through
the gift of the Holy Ghost: "But when they deliver you up, take no
thought"--be not solicitous, as the original signifies--"how or what ye
shall speak, for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall
speak. For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which
speaketh in you." Matt. 10:19, 20. "But when they shall lead you, and
deliver you up, take no thought beforehand what ye shall speak, neither
do ye premeditate: but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that
speak ye: for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost." Mark 13:11.
"And when they bring you unto the synagogues, and unto magistrates, and
powers, take ye no thought how or what thing ye shall answer, or what ye
shall say: for the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what ye
ought to say." Luke 12:11, 12. "Settle it therefore in your hearts not
to meditate before what ye shall answer: for I will give you a mouth and
wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor
resist." Luke 21:14, 15. The above promises are perfectly explicit; and
although they refer primarily to a particular emergency, in which the
apostles would especially feel their need of divine guidance, they
cover, in their spirit, all other emergencies. We cannot read them
without the conviction that they contain the promise to the apostles of
all needed help and guidance in the work committed to them. If they were
divinely qualified to defend the gospel before their adversaries without
error--"I will give you a mouth and wisdom which all your adversaries
shall not be able to gainsay nor resist"--so were they also to _record
the facts_ of the gospel, and to unfold in their epistles its doctrines.

The promises recorded in the gospel of John are more general and
comprehensive in their character. It will be sufficient to adduce two of
them: "These things have I spoken unto you being yet present with you.
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in
my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your
remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." John 14:25, 26. "I have
yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit
when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth:
for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that
shall he speak: and he will show you things to come. He shall glorify
me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you. All things
that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I that he shall take of
mine, and shall show it unto you." John 16:12-15. In the former of these
passages the special promise is that the Holy Spirit shall bring to the
remembrance of the apostles and unfold to their understanding all
Christ's personal teachings; so that they shall thus have a fuller
apprehension of their meaning than they could while he was yet with
them. The second promise is introduced with the declaration that the
Saviour has yet many things to say to his apostles which they cannot now
bear. Of course these things are reserved for the ministration of the
Spirit, as he immediately proceeds to show: "When he, the Spirit of
truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth." The Spirit shall
glorify Christ; for he shall take of the things which are Christ's, and
reveal them to the apostles. And what are the things which are Christ's?
"All that the Father hath;" for the Father has given all things into the
hands of the Son. John 13:3. Among these "all things" are included all
the Father's counsels pertaining to the way of salvation through the
Son. These are given to the Son; and the Holy Ghost shall take of them
and reveal to the church, through the apostles, as much as it is needful
for the church to know. In these remarkable words we have at once a
proof of our Lord's deity, and a sure guarantee to the apostles of
supernatural illumination and guidance in the work committed to
them--all the illumination and guidance which they needed, that they
might be qualified to finish without error the revelation of the gospel
which Christ had begun.

    The question is often asked: Were these promises given to the
    apostles alone, or through them to the church at large? The
    answer is at hand. They were given _primarily_ and in a _special
    sense_ to the apostles; for they had reference to a special work
    committed to them, which required for its performance special
    divine illumination and guidance. They were also given, in an
    important sense, to the church at large; since all believers
    enjoy, through the teaching of the apostles, the benefit of
    these revelations of the Holy Spirit. They are not, however,
    made to all believers personally; but were given, once for all,
    through the apostles to the church. The gift of the Holy Spirit
    is indeed made to all believers personally: through his
    enlightening and sanctifying power they have all needed help and
    guidance. But they are not called, as were the apostles, to lay
    the foundations of the Christian faith, and have therefore no
    promise of new revelations from the Spirit or of elevation above
    all error, any more than they have of miraculous gifts.

We are now prepared to consider, in the _third_ place, the _claims_
which the apostles themselves made to speak and write with divine
authority. Although their simple word as men could avail nothing, yet
this same word, taken in connection with their known relation to Christ,
with the work committed to them, and with the promises made to them, is
of the most weighty import. It was not indeed their custom to assert
gratuitously their superhuman guidance and authority. Yet when occasions
arose, from the nature of the subject under discussion, or from the
opposition of false teachers, they did so in unambiguous terms. Thus the
apostle Paul, writing to the Corinthians, says, "Now we have received
not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God; that we
might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things
also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which
the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual," 1
Cor. 2:12, 13: and writing to the Thessalonians concerning the
resurrection, "For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we
which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent
them which are asleep," etc. 1 Thess. 4:15. And again, in writing to the
Galatians, among whom his apostolic standing had been called in question
by certain Judaizing teachers, he says, "I certify you, brethren, that
the gospel which was preached of me is not after man: for I neither
received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of
Jesus Christ." Gal. 1:11, 12. This language is explicit enough. It could
have been used only by one who was conscious of having been divinely
qualified to teach the gospel without error. Accordingly, in the same
epistle, he opposes his apostolic authority to these false teachers:
"Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised Christ shall
profit you nothing." Gal. 5:2. In the memorable letter of the apostles
and elders to the Gentile churches, Acts 15:23-29, they say, "It seemed
good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than
these necessary things." "To the Holy Ghost and to us" can mean only, to
us under the guidance of the Holy Ghost. Besides such explicit
assertions as the above, there is a tone of authority running through
the apostolic writings which can be explained only from their claim to
speak with divine authority. They assert the weightiest truths and make
the weightiest revelations concerning the future, as men who know that
they have a right to be implicitly believed and obeyed. What majesty of
authority, for example, shines through Paul's discussion of the doctrine
of the resurrection, 1 Cor., ch. 15, where he announces truths that lie
wholly beyond the ken of human reason. "Behold," says he, "I show you a
mystery; we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed," as one
who has perfect assurance that he speaks from God. The same tone of
certainty runs through all the remarks which the apostle John
interweaves into his gospel, as well as through his epistles, and
through the other apostolic writings.

To sum up in a single sentence what has been said respecting the
apostles: When we consider the strong presumption, arising from the
necessity of the case, that they must have been divinely qualified to
teach and write without error, the explicit promises of Christ that they
should be thus qualified, and their explicit claims under these
promises, we have full evidence that they wrote, as well as spoke, under
the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and consequently that their writings
are of divine authority.

4. In the second grade of relationship to Christ stand men who, like
Mark and Luke, were not themselves apostles, but were the _companions of
apostles_, and their associates in the work of preaching the gospel. We
are not authorized to place them in the same rank with the apostles. Yet
they had the gift of the Holy Spirit, which was always given in
connection with ordination at the hands of the apostles. If, in addition
to this, their connection with some of the apostles was of such an
intimate nature that we cannot suppose them to have written without
their knowledge and approbation, we have for their writings all the
apostolic authority that is needed. The intimate relation of Luke to the
apostle Paul has been already sufficiently shown. We have good ground
for believing that he was with him when he wrote both the gospel and the
book of Acts. The intimate connection of Mark with the apostle Peter is
shown by the unanimous testimony of the primitive churches, and is
confirmed, moreover, by an examination of the peculiarities of his
gospel. In entire harmony with the position of these two evangelists is
the character of their writings. They never assume the office of
independent teachers, but restrict themselves to a careful record of the
works and words of Christ and his apostles.

5. A final argument for the inspiration of the books of the New
Testament, whether written by apostles or their companions, may be drawn
from their general character, as contrasted with that of the writings
which remain to us from the age next succeeding that of the apostles.
The more one studies the two classes of writings in connection, the
deeper will be his conviction of the distance by which they are
separated from each other. The descent from the majesty and power of the
apostolic writings to the best of those which belong to the following
age is sudden and very great. Only by a slow process did Christian
literature afterwards rise to a higher position through the leavening
influence of the gospel upon Christian society, and especially upon
Christian education. The contrast now under consideration is
particularly important in our judgment of those books which, like the
second epistle of Peter, are sustained by a less amount of external
evidence. Though we cannot decide on the inspiration of a book simply
from the character of its contents, we may be helped in our judgment by
comparing these, on the one hand, with writings acknowledged to be
apostolic, and on the other, with writings which we know to be of the
following age.

6. The inspiration of the sacred writers was _plenary_ in the sense that
they received from the Holy Spirit all the illumination and guidance
which they needed to preserve them from error in the work committed to
them. With regard to the degree and mode of this influence in the case
of different books, it is not necessary to raise any abstract questions.
That Paul might make to the Galatians a statement of his visits to
Jerusalem and the discussions connected with them, Galatians, chaps. 1,
2, or might give an account of his conversion before king Agrippa, Acts,
ch. 26, it was not necessary that he should receive the same kind and
measure of divine help as when he unfolded to the Corinthians the
doctrine of the resurrection, 1 Cor., ch. 15. And so in regard to the
other inspired penmen. Whatever assistance each of them needed, he
received. If his judgment needed divine illumination for the selection
of his materials, it was given him. If he needed to be raised above
narrowness and prejudice, or to have the Saviour's instructions unfolded
to his understanding, or to receive new revelations concerning the way
of salvation or the future history of Christ's kingdom--whatever divine
aid was necessary in all these cases, was granted. Thus the books of the
New Testament, being written under the guidance of the Holy Ghost,
become to the Christian church an infallible rule of faith and practice.

    If there be any limitation connected with the inspiration of the
    sacred writers, it is one of which the Holy Spirit is himself
    the author, and which cannot therefore injuriously affect their
    testimony. It did not please God, for example, that the exact
    order of time should always be kept in the gospel narratives;
    nor that the identical forms of expression employed by the
    Saviour on given occasions should always be preserved; nor that
    the accompanying circumstances should in all cases be fully
    stated; for in all these respects the evangelists frequently
    differ among themselves. Had the wisdom of God judged it best,
    minute accuracy in these particulars might have been secured.
    But the result would probably have been injurious, by leading
    men to exalt the letter above the spirit of the gospel. We
    should be glad to know with certainty which, if any, of the
    different ways that have been proposed for reconciling John's
    narrative with those of the other evangelists in respect to the
    day of the month on which our Lord ate his last passover with
    his disciples, is the true one. It would give us pleasure were
    we able to arrange all the incidents connected with our Lord's
    resurrection, as recorded by the four evangelists, in the exact
    order of their occurrence. Had we a full record of all the
    circumstances pertaining to these two transactions, this might
    be accomplished. But it would not make any essential addition to
    our knowledge of the gospel. We should have, in every jot and
    tittle, the same way of salvation that we have now, and the same
    duties in respect to it. To all who, on grounds like these, find
    difficulty with the doctrine of plenary inspiration, we may say,
    in the words of the apostle, "Brethren, be not children in
    understanding; howbeit, in malice be ye children, but in
    understanding be men."

7. The _extent of the canon_ is determined by the _extent of
inspiration_. The question to be settled respecting each book of the New
Testament is, Was it written under the guidance of the Holy Spirit? or,
which amounts to the same thing, Has it apostolic authority? If it has,
it is to be received; if not, it is to be rejected. There is no middle
ground--no division of the canon into books of primary and of secondary
authority.




CHAPTER VIII.

INSEPARABLE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE OLD AND THE NEW TESTAMENT.


Although the great central truth of redemption, that "the Father sent
the Son to be the Saviour of the world," and that we have in the New
Testament a true record of this mission, rests, as has been shown, upon
an immovable foundation, we have as yet seen the argument in only half
its strength. Not until we consider the advent of Christ in connection
with the bright train of revelations that preceded and prepared the way
for his coming, do we see it in its full glory, or comprehend the amount
of divine testimony by which it is certified to us. We have already
seen, chap. 5. 1, how the events recorded in the Acts of the Apostles
follow, as a natural sequel, from the truth of the gospel history; how,
if we admit the former, we ought, for very consistency, to admit the
latter also, since the two cling together as inseparable parts of one
great plan. It is now proposed to look backward from the Saviour's
advent to the preceding series of revelations, and show how naturally in
the plan of God they preceded that great event, and how inseparably they
were connected with it as parts of one great whole.

1. The supernatural mission of Christ furnishes, in and of itself, a
very strong presumption in favor of _previous_ supernatural revelations.
That such a mighty event as this should have burst upon the world
abruptly, without any previous preparation, is contrary to the whole
order of providence as well as of nature, which is, "first the blade,
then the ear, after that the full corn in the ear." And since the advent
of Christ was miraculous in the fullest sense of the term, why should
not the way for it have been prepared by miraculous revelations as well
as by providential movements? The natural sun does not emerge suddenly
from the darkness of night: his approach is preceded by the day-star and
the dawn. So were the revelations which God made to men from Adam to
Malachi, with the mighty movements of his providence that accompanied
them, the day-star and the dawn that ushered in upon the world the
glorious sun of righteousness.

2. We have the great fact that the Jewish people, among whom our Lord
appeared, and from among whom he chose the primitive preachers of the
gospel, possessed a firm and deeply-rooted belief in the unity of God
and his infinite perfections. That such a belief was a necessary
foundation for the peculiar doctrines of Christianity, all of which are
underlaid by that of trinity in unity, is self-evident. Now, this belief
was peculiar to the Jews, as contrasted with other nations; and it was
held, moreover, not simply by a few philosophers and learned men among
them, but by the mass of the people. No other example of a whole nation
receiving and holding firmly this fundamental doctrine of religion
existed then, or had ever existed; and no adequate explanation of this
great fact has ever been given, except that contained in the revelation
of God to this people recorded in the Old Testament. It was not by
chance, but in accordance with the eternal plan of redemption, that the
Messiah appeared where as well as when he did; not in Egypt in the days
of Pharaoh, nor in Nineveh, or Babylon, or Greece, or Rome; but among
the Jewish people, when now "the fulness of time was come."

3. The impossibility of any attempt to dissever the revelations of the
Old Testament from those of the New appears most clearly when we
consider the _explicit declarations_ of our Saviour, and after him the
apostles, on this point. If we know any thing whatever concerning the
doctrines of our Lord Jesus, we know that he constantly taught his
disciples that he had come in accordance with the prophecies of the Old
Testament. If there were found in his discourses only one or two remote
allusions to these prophecies, there would be more show of reason in the
favorite hypothesis of rationalists, that the disciples misapprehended
their Lord's meaning. But his teachings are so numerous and explicit on
this point that, even aside from the inspiration of the writers, such an
explanation is not to be thought of for a moment. It was with two of
them a matter of personal knowledge that "beginning at Moses and all the
prophets, he expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things
concerning himself," Luke 24:27; and with all of them that he said,
after his resurrection, in reference to his past teachings: "These are
the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all
things must be fulfilled which were written in the law of Moses, and in
the prophets, and in the psalms concerning me." Luke 24:44. That in
Christ were fulfilled the prophecies of the Old Testament, appears in
every variety of form in the gospel narratives. It constituted, so to
speak, the warp into which the Saviour wove his web of daily
instruction. Now if a single thread, unlike all the rest in substance
and color, had found its way into this warp, we might, perhaps, regard
it as foreign and accidental; but to dissever from our Lord's words all
his references to the prophecies concerning himself in the Old
Testament, would be to take out of the web all the threads of the warp,
and then the web itself would be gone. No unbiased reader ever did, or
ever could gain from the words of Christ and his apostles any other idea
than that Jesus of Nazareth came in accordance with a bright train of
supernatural revelations going before and preparing the way for his
advent. This idea is so incorporated into the very substance of the New
Testament that it must stand or fall with it.

4. Having contemplated the indivisible nature of revelation from the
position of the New Testament, we are now prepared to go back and look
at it from the platform of the Old Testament. We shall find this thickly
sown with those great principles which underlie the plan of redemption,
and bind it together as one glorious whole.

_First_ of all, we have in the narrative of Adam's fall and the
consequences thence proceeding to the race, the substratum, so to speak,
on which the plan of redemption is built. From this we learn that
alienation from God and wickedness is not the original condition of the
race. Man was made upright and placed in communion with God. From that
condition he fell, in the manner recorded in the Old Testament; and to
restore him, through Christ, to his primitive state is the work which
the gospel proposes to accomplish. The great historic event of
redemption is that "the Son of God was manifested that he might destroy
the works of the devil;" and these are the very works described in the
narrative now under consideration, namely, the seduction of man from his
allegiance to God, with the misery and death that followed. The
primitive history of man's apostacy contains, then, the very key to the
plan of redemption. So it is plainly regarded by the apostle Paul. He
builds upon it arguments relating not to the outworks of redemption, but
to its inward nature. He makes the universality of man's fallen
condition through the sin of Adam the platform on which is built the
universality of the provisions of salvation through Christ. "As by the
offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation, even so by
the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto
justification. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners,
so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous." Rom. 5:18, 19.
"Since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." 1
Cor. 15:21, 22. How could the original transaction of the fall, through
the wiles of the devil, and the manifestation of God's Son to destroy
the works of the devil, be more indissolubly bound together as parts of
one great whole than in these words of an inspired apostle?

_Secondly_, the Abrahamic covenant connects itself immediately with the
mission and work of Christ. It was made with Abraham, not for himself
and his posterity alone, but for all mankind: "In thy seed shall all the
nations of the earth be blessed." Gen. 22:18. And if the Abrahamic
covenant had respect to the whole human family, the same must be true of
the Mosaic economy in its _ultimate_ design; since this did not abrogate
the covenant made with Abraham, as the apostle Paul expressly shows,
Gal. 3:17, but rather came in as subordinate to it, and with a view of
preparing the way for the accomplishment of its rich provisions of mercy
for "all families of the earth." The Mosaic economy was then a partial
subservient to a universal dispensation.

The Abrahamic covenant was also purely spiritual in its character, the
condition of its blessings being nothing else than faith. The apostle
Paul urges the fact that this covenant was made with Abraham before his
circumcision, lest any should say that it was conditioned wholly or in
part upon a carnal ordinance: "He received the sign of circumcision, a
seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being
uncircumcised." Rom. 4:11. The seal of circumcision, then, did not make
the covenant valid, for the covenant existed many years before the rite
of circumcision was instituted. Faith was the only condition of
Abraham's justification. "He believed in the Lord, and he counted it to
him for righteousness." Gen. 15:6.

And if we look at the promise contained in the Abrahamic covenant, "In
thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed," we find it to be
the very substance of the gospel, as the apostle Paul says: "The
Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith,
preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all
nations be blessed." Gal. 3:8. The incarnation and work of Christ are,
according to the uniform representation of the New Testament, nothing
else but the carrying out of the covenant made with Abraham, for this
covenant was made for all mankind, was purely spiritual, being
conditioned on faith alone, and its substance is Christ, in whom all
nations are blessed.

And while God has thus indissolubly linked to the incarnation of his Son
this high transaction with Abraham, we see how he has at the same time
connected it with the first promise made in Eden, and thus with the fall
of man through the subtilty of Satan. The promise in Eden is that the
seed of the woman shall bruise the serpent's head. The promise to
Abraham is that in his seed, which is also the seed of the woman, all
the families of the earth shall be blessed. Now it is by the bruising of
the serpent's head, or, in New Testament language, by destroying the
works of the devil, that Abraham's seed blesses all the families of the
earth. The two promises, then, are in their inmost nature one and the
same, and their fulfilment constitutes the work of Christ.

_Thirdly_, the end of the Mosaic economy is Christ. Its general scope is
thus briefly summed up by Paul: "The law was our schoolmaster to bring
us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith." Gal. 3:25. But not
to insist on this, let us contemplate its three great institutions--the
prophetic, the kingly, and the priestly order.

The mode of communication which God employed on Sinai the people could
not endure, and they besought him, through Moses, that it might be
discontinued: "Speak them with us," they said, "and we will hear: but
let not God speak with us, lest we die." Ex. 20:19. Of this request God
approved, and promised: "I will raise them up a Prophet from among their
brethren like unto thee." Deut. 18:18. The point of special emphasis is,
that the great Prophet here promised, who is Christ, should be _one of
their brethren_, as Moses was. His personal advent was for many ages
delayed; but in the meantime his office was foreshadowed by the
prophetical order in Israel, consisting of men sent by God to address
their brethren. Thus the old dispensation and the new are linked
together by the great fundamental principle--that God should address man
through man--which runs through both. The whole series of Old Testament
prophecies, moreover, point to Christ as their end and fulfilment; "for
the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy." Rev. 19:10.

The kingly office of the Old Testament connects itself with that of
Christ in a special way. Not only did the headship given to David and
his successors over the covenant people of God adumbrate the higher
headship of Christ, but David had from God the promise: "Thine house and
thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall
be established for ever." 2 Sam. 7:16. This promise is fulfilled in
Jesus of Nazareth, "the seed of David according to the flesh," according
to the express declaration of the New Testament: "The Lord God shall
give unto him the throne of his father David, and he shall reign over
the house of Jacob for ever, and of his kingdom there shall be no end."
Luke 1:32, 33.

The priestly office, with the blood of the sacrifices connected with it,
prefigured Christ, "the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the
world." By the stream of sacrificial blood that flowed for so many ages
was set forth that great fundamental truth of redemption, that "without
shedding of blood is no remission." Heb. 9:22. The sacrifices of the
Mosaic law were continually repeated, because "it is not possible that
the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins." Heb. 10:4. But
when Christ had offered his own blood on Calvary for the sins of the
world, the typical sacrifices of the law ceased for ever, having been
fulfilled in the great Antitype, "in whom we have redemption through his
blood, the forgiveness of sins." Ephes. 1:7.

5. Since the Old Testament and the New are thus inseparably connected as
parts of one grand system of revelation, of which the end is Christ, it
follows that the later revelations of the New Testament are the true
interpreters of the earlier, which are contained in the Old. This is
only saying that the Holy Ghost is the true and proper expositor of his
own communications to man. From the interpretations of Christ and his
apostles, fairly ascertained, there is no appeal. And they are fairly
ascertained when we have learned in what sense they must have been
understood by their hearers. All expositions of the Old Testament that
set aside, either openly or in a covert way, the supreme authority of
Christ and his apostles, are false, and only lead men away from the
truth as it is in Jesus.




CHAPTER IX.

AUTHORSHIP OF THE PENTATEUCH.


The term _Pentateuch_ is composed of the two Greek words, _pente_,
_five_, and _teuchos_, which in later Alexandrine usage signified
_book_. It denotes, therefore, the collection of five books; or, the
five books of the law considered as a whole.

1. In our inquiries respecting the authorship of the Pentateuch, we
begin with the undisputed fact that it existed in its present form in
the days of Christ and his apostles, and had so existed from the time of
Ezra. When the translators of the Greek version, called the Septuagint,
began their work, about 280 B.C., they found the Pentateuch as we now
have it, and no one pretends that it had undergone any change between
their day and that of Ezra, about 460 B.C. It was universally ascribed
to Moses as its author, and was called in common usage _the law_, or the
_law of Moses_.

2. That the authorship of the law in its written form is ascribed to
Moses in the New Testament every one knows. "The law was given by
Moses;" "Did not Moses give you the law?" "Had ye believed Moses, ye
would have believed me; for he wrote of me;" "For the hardness of your
heart he," Moses, "wrote you this precept;" "Master, Moses wrote unto
us;" "What is written in the law? how readest thou?" etc. Since now the
whole collection of books was familiarly known to the people as _the
law_, or _the law of Moses_, it is reasonable to infer that our Saviour
and his apostles use these terms in the same comprehensive sense, unless
there is a limitation given in the context. Such a limitation the
apostle Paul makes when he opposes to the Mosaic law the previous
promise to Abraham: "The covenant that was confirmed before of God in
Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot
disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect." Gal. 3:17,
and compare the following verses. But in the following chapter Paul
manifestly employs the words _the law_ of the whole Pentateuch, to every
part of which he, in common with the Jewish people, ascribed equal and
divine authority: "Tell me, ye that desire to be under _law_"--under a
system of law, the article being wanting in the original--"do ye not
hear _the law_? For it is written, that Abraham had two sons; the one by
a bond-maid, the other by a free woman," etc., Gal. 4:21, seq., where
the reference is to the narrative recorded in Genesis, as a part of the
law. So also in the following passage: "Moses of old time hath in every
city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every
sabbath-day," Acts 15:21; the term Moses necessarily means the law of
Moses, as comprehending the whole Pentateuch, for it was that which was
read in the synagogues. Compare the words of Luke: "After the reading of
the law and the prophets," Acts 13:15. And in general, when Christ and
his apostles speak of Moses or the law, without any limitation arising
from the context, thus, "The law was given by Moses;" "They have Moses
and the prophets," etc., we are to understand them as referring to the
Pentateuch as a whole, for such was the common usage of the Jewish
people, and such must have been their apprehension of the meaning of the
terms.

3. But it may be said, Christ and his apostles did not speak as critics,
but only in a popular way. That they did not speak of the Pentateuch as
critics, is certain. They had no occasion for doing so, since no Jew
doubted either its divine authority or its Mosaic authorship. But when
we consider, on the one side, with what unsparing severity our Lord set
aside the traditions of the Pharisees as "the commandments of men," and
on the other, how he and his apostles ascribed equal divine authority to
every part of the Pentateuch, as will be shown in the next chapter, and
how unequivocally they sanctioned the universal belief that Moses was
its author, we must acknowledge that we have the entire authority of the
New Testament for its Mosaic authorship in every essential respect. This
is entirely consistent with the belief that inspired men, like Ezra, and
perhaps also prophetical men of an earlier age, in setting forth revised
copies of the Pentateuch, that is, copies which aimed to give the true
text with as much accuracy as possible, may have added here and there
explanatory clauses for the benefit of the readers of their day. Such
incidental clauses, added by men of God under the guidance of his
Spirit, would not affect in the least the substance of the Pentateuch.
It would still remain in every practical sense the work of Moses, and be
so regarded in the New Testament.

    Whether there are, or are not, in the Pentateuch, such clauses
    added by a later hand, and not affecting either its essential
    contents or its Mosaic authorship, is an open question to be
    determined by impartial criticism. At the present day editors
    carefully indicate their explanatory notes; but this was not the
    usage of high antiquity. At the close of the book of
    Deuteronomy, for example, there is immediately added, without
    any explanatory remark, a notice of Moses' death. We are at
    liberty to assume, if we have cogent reasons for so doing, that
    brief explanatory clauses were sometimes interwoven into the
    Mosaic text; as, for example, the remark in Gen. 36:31, which is
    repeated in 1 Chron. 1:43, a book ascribed to Ezra; Exod. 16:35,
    36, etc.

4. Going back now to the days of the _Restoration_ under Zerubbabel and
his associates, about 536 B.C., we find that the very first act of the
restored captives was to set up "the altar of the God of Israel, to
offer burnt-offerings thereon, as it is written in the law of Moses the
man of God." The narrative goes on to specify that "they offered
burnt-offerings thereon unto the Lord, even burnt-offerings morning and
evening. They kept also the feast of tabernacles, as it is written, and
offered the daily burnt-offerings by number, according to the custom, as
the duty of every day required; and afterwards offered the continual
burnt-offering, both of the new moons, and of all the set feasts of the
Lord that were consecrated, and of every one that willingly offered a
free-will offering unto the Lord." Ezra 3:1-5. About ninety years
afterwards, upon the completion of the walls of Jerusalem under
Nehemiah, about 445 B.C., we find Ezra the priest--"a ready scribe in
the law of Moses, which the Lord God of Israel had given," Ezra 7:6--on
the occasion of the feast of tabernacles bringing forth "the book of the
law of Moses, which the Lord had commanded to Israel," and reading in it
"from the morning unto midday, before the men and the women, and those
that could understand." In this work he was assisted by a body of men,
who "caused the people to understand the law;" and the reading was
continued through the seven days of the feast: "day by day, from the
first day unto the last day, he read in the book of the law of God."
Neh. ch. 8. It was not the book of Deuteronomy alone that they read. We
might infer this from the extent of the reading, which was sufficient
for all the preceptive parts of the Pentateuch. But here we are not left
to mere inference. On the second day "they found written in the law
which the Lord had commanded by Moses, that the children of Israel
should dwell in booths in the feast of the seventh month;" and that they
should "fetch olive-branches, and pine-branches, and myrtle-branches,
and palm-branches, and branches of thick trees, to make booths, as it is
written." Neh. 8:13-17. The precept concerning booths with boughs of
trees occurs in Lev. 23:40-43, a passage which they might naturally
enough reach on the second day.

    Ezra's assistants gave the sense not by labored expositions, but
    by interpreting the Hebrew in the Chaldee vernacular of the
    people. This would about double the time devoted to a given
    section. All that pertained to the structure of the tabernacle
    was superseded by the first temple, which served the returned
    captives as their model in the erection of the second. We may
    well suppose that this was omitted. There would then remain only
    four or five chapters in the book of Exodus. Thus the passage in
    question would naturally fall on the second day.

5. Jewish tradition ascribes to Ezra the work of settling the canon of
the Old Testament, and setting forth a corrected edition of the same.
Though some things included in this tradition are fabulous, the part of
it now under consideration is corroborated by all the scriptural
statements concerning him, nor is there any reasonable ground for
doubting its correctness. Be this as it may, it is admitted that from
Ezra's day onward the Pentateuch existed in its present form. We are
sure, therefore, that "the book of the law of Moses," out of which he
read to the people, was the book as we now have it--the whole
Pentateuch, written, according to uniform Jewish usage, on a single
roll. Ezra belonged to the priestly order that had in charge the keeping
of the sacred books, Deut. 31:25, 26, compared with 2 Kings 22:8, and
was moreover "a ready scribe in the law of Moses." His zeal for the
reestablishment of the Mosaic law in its purity shines forth in his
whole history. In his competency and fidelity we have satisfactory
evidence that the law of Moses which he set forth was the very law which
had been handed down from ancient times, and of which we have frequent
notices in the books of Kings and Chronicles.

    It is generally supposed that Ezra himself wrote the books of
    Chronicles. They were certainly composed about his time. To
    admit, as all do, that in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah the law
    of Moses means the Pentateuch as a whole, and to deny that it
    has the same meaning in the books of Chronicles, is very
    inconsistent. Certainly the book which Ezra set forth was the
    book which he found ready at hand, and therefore the book
    referred to in the Chronicles, and the Kings also. Any
    explanatory additions which he may have made did not affect its
    substance. It remains for the objector to show why it was not,
    in all essential respects, the book which Hilkiah found in the
    temple, 2 Chron. 34:14, and to which David referred in his dying
    charge to Solomon, 1 Kings 2:3.

6. Passing by, for the present, the notices of the law of Moses
contained in the book of Joshua, we come to the testimony of the book of
Deuteronomy. We have seen that the Mosaic authorship of the book, as a
part of the Pentateuch, is everywhere assumed by the writers of the New
Testament. But, in addition to this, they make quotations from it under
the forms, "Moses wrote," "Moses truly said unto the fathers," etc. Mark
10:3-5; Acts 3:22; Rom. 10:19. If we examine the book itself, its own
testimony is equally explicit. In chap. 17:24 Moses directs that when
the Israelites shall appoint a king, "he shall write him a copy of this
law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites." In
the opinion of some, this language refers to the whole law of Moses,
while others would restrict it to the book of Deuteronomy; but all are
agreed that it includes the whole of the latter work, with the exception
of the closing sections. By a comparison of this passage with chaps.
28:58; 31:9, 24-26, the evidence is complete that Moses wrote this law,
and delivered it to the priests, to be laid up by the side of the ark in
the tabernacle. If this testimony needed any corroboration, we should
have it in the character of the work itself. It is the solemn farewell
of the aged lawgiver to the people whose leader he had been for the
space of forty years. In perfect harmony with this are the grandeur and
dignity of its style, its hortatory character, and the exquisite
tenderness and pathos that pervade every part of it. It is every way
worthy of Moses; nor can we conceive of any other Hebrew who was in a
position to write such a book.

7. The book of Deuteronomy contains a renewal of the covenant which God
made with the children of Israel at Sinai. Chap. 29:10-15. Moses himself
distinguishes between the former and the latter covenant. "These are the
words of the covenant which the Lord commanded Moses to make with the
children of Israel in the land of Moab, besides the covenant which he
made with them in Horeb." Chap. 29:1. With each covenant was connected a
series of laws; those belonging to the latter being mainly, but not
entirely, a repetition of laws given with the first covenant. We have
seen that Moses wrote the second covenant, and all the laws connected
with it. From Exodus, ch. 24, we learn that he wrote also the book of
the first covenant containing, we may reasonably suppose, all of God's
legislation up to that time. The inference is irresistible that he wrote
also the laws that followed in connection with the first covenant. It is
an undeniable fact that these laws underlie the whole constitution of
the Israelitish nation, religious, civil, and social. They cannot, then,
have been the invention of a later age; for no such fraud can be
imposed, or was ever imposed upon a whole people. They are their own
witness also that they were given by the hand of Moses, for they are all
prefaced by the words, "And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying." When we
consider their fundamental character, their extent, and the number and
minuteness of their details, we cannot for a moment suppose that they
were left unwritten by such a man as Moses, who had all the
qualifications for writing them. Why should not the man who received
them from the Lord have also recorded them--this man educated at the
court of Egypt, and learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, who had
already written "the book of the covenant," and afterwards wrote the
journeyings of the Israelites, Numb. ch. 23, and the book of
Deuteronomy? An express statement from Moses himself is not needed. The
fact is to be understood from the nature of the case, and to call it in
question is gratuitous skepticism.

8. The form of the Mosaic laws that precede the book of Deuteronomy is
in perfect harmony with the assumption that Moses himself not only
received them, but wrote them. They bear the impress of having been
recorded not continuously, but from time to time, as they were
communicated to him. In this way the historical notices which are woven
into them--the matter of the golden calf, Exodus, ch. 32, the death of
Nadab and Abihu, Leviticus, ch. 10, the blasphemy of Shelomith's son,
Leviticus, ch. 24, and the numerous incidents recorded in the book of
Numbers--all these narratives find a perfectly natural explanation. Some
of these incidents--as, for example, the blasphemy of Shelomith's
son--come in abruptly, without any connection in the context; and their
position can be accounted for only upon the assumption that they were
recorded as they happened. In this peculiar feature of the Mosaic code
before Deuteronomy, we have at once a proof that Moses was the writer,
and that the historical notices connected with it were also recorded by
him. The result at which we arrive is that the whole record from God's
appearance to Moses and his mission to Pharaoh has Moses himself for its
author. The authorship of the preceding part of the Pentateuch will be
considered separately.

9. The above result in reference to that part of the law which precedes
Deuteronomy, is confirmed by the _testimony of the New Testament_. In
disputing with the Sadducees, our Lord appealed to the writings of
Moses, which they acknowledged: "Now that the dead are raised, even
Moses showed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham,
and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." Luke 20:37. It was by
recording the words of God, as given in Exodus 3:6, that Moses called
the Lord the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The apostle Paul, again,
referring to Lev. 18:5, says: "Moses describeth"--literally,
_writeth_--"the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which
doeth those things shall live by them." Rom. 10:5. Here also belong
certain passages that speak of precepts in "the law of Moses," as Luke
2:22-24, where the reference is to various precepts in Exodus,
Leviticus, and Numbers--Exod. 13:2; 22:29; 34:19; Lev. 12:2, seq.; Numb.
3:13; 8:17; 18:15--John 7:22, 23, where the reference is to Lev. 12:2;
for with the New Testament writers "the law of Moses" means the law
written by Moses. In like manner we find references in the Old Testament
to the books of the law of Moses that precede Deuteronomy--2 Chron.
23:18 compared with Numb. 28:2, seq.; 2 Chron. 24:6 compared with Exod.
30:12, seq.; Ezra 3:2-5 compared with Numb. 28:2, seq., and 29:12, seq.;
Neh. 8:15 compared with Lev. 23:40.

10. The relation of the book of Deuteronomy to the earlier portions of
the law deserves a careful consideration. And, first, in regard to
_time_. All that portion of the law which precedes the sixteenth chapter
of the book of Numbers was given in the first and second years after the
exodus; consequently thirty-eight years before the composition of the
book of Deuteronomy. The four chapters of Numbers that follow, chaps.
16-19, are generally dated about twenty years later--that is, about
eighteen years before the composition of Deuteronomy. Only the last
seventeen chapters of Numbers, which are mostly occupied with historical
notices, were written in the preceding year.

Then, as it respects general _design_. At Horeb the entire constitution
of the theocracy was to be established. This part of the law is,
therefore, more formal and circumstantial. It gives minute directions
for the celebration of the passover; for the construction of the
tabernacle and its furniture; for the dress, consecration, duties, and
perquisites of the priesthood and Levitical order; for the entire system
of sacrifices; for the distinction between clean and unclean animals;
for all those duties that were especially of a priestly character, as
judgment in the case of leprosy, and purification from ceremonial
uncleanness; for the order of journeying and encamping in the
wilderness, etc. In a word, it gives more prominence to the forms of the
law, and the duties of those to whom its administration was committed.
Not so on the plains of Moab. The theocracy had then been long in
operation. The details of its service were well understood, and there
was no need of formal and circumstantial repetition. The work of Moses
now was not to give a new law, but to enforce the law of Horeb, with
such subordinate modifications and additions as were required by the new
circumstances of the people, now about to take possession of the
promised land and change their wandering life for fixed abodes. He had
to do, therefore, more prominently not with the administrators of law,
but with the people; and accordingly his precepts assume a hortatory
character, and his style becomes more diffuse and flowing.

The _personal relation_ of Moses to the people was also greatly changed.
At Horeb he had the great work of his life before him, but now it is
behind him. He is about to leave his beloved Israel, whom he has borne
on his heart and guided by his counsels for forty years. Hence the
inimitable tenderness and pathos that pervade the book of Deuteronomy.

When now we take into account all these altered circumstances, we have a
full explanation of the peculiarities which mark the book of Deuteronomy
as compared with the preceding books. Were these peculiarities wanting,
we should miss a main proof of its genuineness. Nevertheless the book is
thoroughly Mosaic in its style, and the scholar who reads it in the
original Hebrew can detect peculiar forms of expression belonging only
to the Pentateuch. As to alleged disagreements between some of its
statements and those of the earlier books, it is sufficient to remark
that upon a candid examination they mostly disappear; and even where we
cannot fully explain them, this furnishes no valid ground for denying
the genuineness of either portion of the law. Such seeming discrepancies
are not uncommon when a writer of acknowledged credibility repeats what
he has before written. Compare, for example, the three narratives of the
apostle Paul's conversion which are recorded in the book of Acts.

The question as to the extent of meaning which should be given in
Deuteronomy to the expressions, "a copy of this law," "the words of this
law," "this book of the law," is one upon which expositors are not
agreed, nor is it essential; since, as we have seen, the Mosaic
authorship of the former part of the law rests upon broader grounds.

    In Deut. 27:3, 8, it seems necessary to understand the
    expression, "all the words of this law," which were to be
    written upon tables of stone set up on mount Ebal, of the
    blessings and curses--ver. 12, 13--contained in this and the
    following chapter. But elsewhere, chs. 17:18; 31:9, 24-26, we
    must certainly include at least the whole of Deuteronomy. If we
    suppose that it was Moses' custom to write out the precepts of
    the law with the historical notices pertaining to them in a
    continuous roll, which was enlarged from time to time, and that
    he added to this roll the book of Deuteronomy, then the words in
    question must be understood of the entire body of precepts from
    the beginning. But if, as seems to be intimated in Deut. 31:24,
    he wrote Deuteronomy in a separate book, ("_in a book_," without
    the article,) the words naturally refer to Deuteronomy alone.
    This work, as containing a summary of the law--_a second law_,
    as the word _Deuteronomy_ signifies--might well be spoken of as
    "this law," without any denial of an earlier law; just as the
    covenant made with the people at this time is called "this
    covenant," ch. 29:14, without any denial of an earlier covenant.
    The reverent scholar will be careful not to be wise above what
    is written. It might gratify our curiosity to know exactly in
    what outward form Moses left the Law with the historical notices
    woven into it; whether in one continuous roll, or in several
    rolls which were afterwards arranged by some prophet, perhaps
    with connecting and explanatory clauses; but it could add
    nothing to our knowledge of the way of salvation. In either case
    it would be alike the law of Moses and the law which Moses
    wrote, invested with full divine authority.

11. It being established that Moses wrote the whole law with the
historical notices appertaining to it, we naturally infer that he must
have written the book of Genesis also, which is introductory to the law.
For this work he had every qualification, and we know of no other man
that had the like qualifications. On this ground alone the Mosaic
authorship of the book might be reasonably assumed, unless decided
proofs to the contrary could be adduced. But we find, upon examination,
that the book of Genesis is so _connected with the following books_ that
without the knowledge of its contents they cannot be rightly understood.
The very first appearance of God to Moses is introduced by the remark
that he "remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with
Jacob." In addressing Moses he calls the children of Israel "my people,"
Exod. 3:6-10; and sends Moses to Pharaoh with the message, "Let my
people go." All this implies a knowledge of the covenant which God made
with Abraham and his seed after him, by virtue of which the Israelites
became his peculiar people. It is not simply as an oppressed people that
God undertakes to deliver them and give them possession of the land of
Canaan, but as _his_ people. Again and again does Moses describe the
promised land as "the land which the Lord sware unto your fathers
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give unto them and to their seed after
them." With the book of Genesis these declarations are plain; but
without it they are unintelligible. The Abrahamic covenant, which is
recorded in the book of Genesis, is not a subordinate, but an essential
part of the history of the Israelites. It underlies the whole plan of
redemption, and upon it the Mosaic economy, as a part of that plan, is
erected. Why should any one suppose that Moses, who recorded the
establishment of this economy with all its details, omitted to record
the great transactions with the patriarchs which lie at its foundation?
There are other references to the book of Genesis in the law of Moses.
The institution of the Sabbath is expressly based on the order of
creation recorded in the first two chapters; and when the people leave
Egypt they carry with them the bones of Joseph, in accordance with the
oath which he had exacted of them. Gen. 50:25, compared with Exod.
13:19.

To the Mosaic authorship of Genesis it has been objected, that it
contains marks of a _later age_. But these marks, so far as they have
any real existence, belong not to the substance of the book. They are
restricted to a few explanatory notices, which may well have been added
by Ezra or some prophetical man before him, in setting forth a revised
copy of the law. See No. 3, above. The passages which can, with any show
of probability, be referred to a later age, are, taken all together,
very inconsiderable, and they refer only to incidental matters, while
the book, as a whole, bears all the marks of high antiquity.

To the Mosaic authorship of this book it has been objected again, that
it contains the writings of _different authors_. This is especially
argued from the diversity of usage in respect to the divine name, some
passages employing the word _Elohim_, _God_, others the word _Jehovah_,
or a combination of the two terms. Whatever force there may be in this
argument, the validity of which is denied by many who think that the
inspired writer designedly varied his usage between the general term
_God_ and the special covenant name _Jehovah_, it goes only to show that
Moses may have made use of previously existing documents; a supposition
which we need not hesitate to admit, provided we have cogent reasons for
so doing. Whatever may have been the origin of these documents, they
received through Moses the seal of God's authority, and thus became a
part of his inspired word.

    Several writers have attempted to distinguish throughout the
    book of Genesis the parts which they would assign to different
    authors; but beyond the first chapters they are not able to
    agree among themselves. All attempts to carry the distinction of
    different authors into the later books rest on fanciful grounds.

12. That the Pentateuch, as a whole, proceeded from a single author, is
shown by the unity of plan that pervades the whole work. The book of
Genesis constitutes, as has been shown, a general introduction to the
account which follows of the establishment of the theocracy; and it is
indispensable to the true understanding of it. In the first part of the
book of Exodus we have a special introduction to the giving of the law;
for it records the deliverance of the Israelites from bondage in Egypt,
and their journey to Sinai. The Mosaic institutions presuppose a
sanctuary as their visible material centre. The last part of Exodus,
after the promulgation of the ten commandments and the precepts
connected with them, is accordingly occupied with the construction of
the tabernacle and its furniture, and the dress and consecration of the
priests who ministered there. In Leviticus, the central book of the
Pentateuch, we have the central institution of the Mosaic economy,
namely, the system of sacrifices belonging to the priesthood, and also,
in general, the body of ordinances intrusted to their administration.
The theocracy having been founded at Sinai, it was necessary that
arrangements should be made for the orderly march of the people to the
land of Canaan. With these the book of Numbers opens, and then proceeds
to narrate the various incidents that befell the people in the
wilderness, with a record of their encampments, and also the addition
from time to time of new ordinances. The book of Deuteronomy contains
the grand farewell address of Moses to the Israelites, into which is
woven a summary of the precepts already given which concerned
particularly the people at large, with various modifications and
additions suited to their new circumstances and the new duties about to
be devolved upon them. We see then that the Pentateuch constitutes a
consistent whole. Unity of design, harmony of parts, continual progress
from beginning to end--these are its grand characteristics; and they
prove that it is not a heterogeneous collection of writings put together
without order, but the work of a single master-spirit, writing under
God's immediate direction, according to the uniform testimony of the New
Testament.




CHAPTER X.

AUTHENTICITY AND CREDIBILITY OF THE PENTATEUCH.


1. The historic truth of the Pentateuch is everywhere assumed by the
writers of the New Testament in the most absolute and unqualified
manner. They do not simply allude to it and make quotations from it, as
one might do in the case of Homer's poems, but they build upon the facts
which it records arguments of the weightiest character, and pertaining
to the essential doctrines and duties of religion. This is alike true of
the Mosaic _laws_ and of the _narratives_ that precede them or are
interwoven with them. In truth, the writers of the New Testament know no
distinction, as it respects divine authority, between one part of the
Pentateuch and another. They receive the whole as an authentic and
inspired record of God's dealings with men. A few examples, taken mostly
from the book of Genesis, will set this in a clear light.

In reasoning with the Pharisees on the question of divorce, our Lord
appeals to the primitive record: "Have ye not read that he which made
them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this
cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife:
and they twain shall be one flesh? wherefore they are no more twain, but
one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put
asunder." And when, upon this, the Pharisees ask, "Why did Moses then
command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?" Deut.
24:1, he answers in such a way as to recognize both the authority of the
Mosaic legislation and the validity of the ante-Mosaic record: "Moses,
because of the hardness of your hearts, suffered you to put away your
wives: but from the beginning it was not so." He then proceeds to
enforce the marriage covenant as it was "from the beginning." Matt.
19:3-9, compared with Gen. 2:23, 24. In like manner the apostle Paul
establishes the headship of the man over the woman: "He is the image and
glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not
of the woman, but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for
the woman, but the woman for the man." 1 Cor. 11:7-9, compared with Gen.
2:18-22. And again: "I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp
authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed,
then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in
the transgression." 1 Tim. 2:12-14, compared with Gen. 2:18-22; 3:l-6,
13. So also he argues from the primitive record that, as by one man sin
and death came upon the whole human race, so by Christ Jesus life and
immortality are procured for all. Rom. 5:12-21; 1 Cor. 15:21, 22,
compared with Gen. 2:17; 3:19, 22. The story of Cain and Abel, Gen.
4:3-12, is repeatedly referred to by the Saviour and his apostles as a
historic truth: Matt. 23:35; Luke 11:51; Heb. 11:4; 12:24; 1 John 3:12;
Jude 11. So also the narrative of the deluge: Gen. chs. 6-8, compared
with Matt. 14:37-39; Luke 17:26, 27; Heb. 11:7; 1 Peter 3:20; 2 Peter
2:5; and of the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah, Gen. ch. 19, compared
with Luke 17:28, 29; 2 Peter 2:6; Jude 7. It is useless to adduce
further quotations. No man can read the New Testament without the
profound conviction that the authenticity and credibility of the
Pentateuch are attested in every conceivable way by the Saviour and his
apostles. To reject the authority of the former is to deny that of the
latter also.

2. For the authenticity and credibility of the Pentateuch we have an
independent argument in the fact that it lay at the foundation of the
whole Jewish polity, civil, religious, and social. From the time of
Moses and onward, the Israelitish nation unanimously acknowledged its
divine authority, even when, through the force of sinful passion, they
disobeyed its commands. The whole life of the people was moulded and
shaped by its institutions; so that they became, in a good sense, a
peculiar people, with "laws diverse from all people." They alone, of all
the nations of the earth, held the doctrine of God's unity and
personality, in opposition to all forms of polytheism and pantheism; and
thus they alone were prepared to receive and propagate the peculiar
doctrines of Christianity. Chap. 8, No. 2. If now we admit the truth of
the Mosaic record, all this becomes perfectly plain and intelligible;
but if we deny it, we involve ourselves at once in the grossest
absurdities. How could the Jewish people have been induced to accept
with undoubting faith such a body of laws as that contained in the
Pentateuch--so burdensome in their multiplicity, so opposed to all the
beliefs and practices of the surrounding nations, and imposing such
severe restraints upon their corrupt passions--except upon the clearest
evidence of their divine authority? Such evidence they had in the
stupendous miracles connected with their deliverance from Egypt and the
giving of the law on Sinai. The fact that Moses constantly appeals to
these miracles, as well known to the whole body of the people, is
irrefragable proof of their reality. None but a madman would thus appeal
to miracles which had no existence; and if he did, his appeal would be
met only by derision. Mohammed needed not the help of miracles, for his
appeal was to the sword and to the corrupt passions of the human heart;
and he never attempted to rest his pretended divine mission on the
evidence of miracles. He knew that to do so would be to overthrow at
once his authority as the prophet of God. But the Mosaic economy needed
and received the seal of miracles, to which Moses continually appeals as
to undeniable realities. But if the miracles recorded in the Pentateuch
are real, then it contains a revelation from God, and is entitled to our
unwavering faith. Then too we can explain how, in the providence of God,
the Mosaic institutions prepared the way for the advent of "Him of whom
Moses in the law and the prophets did write." Thus we connect the old
dispensation with the new, and see both together as one whole.

Other arguments might be adduced; but upon these two great pillars--the
authority, on the one side, of the New Testament, and, on the other, the
fact that the Pentateuch contains the entire body of laws by which the
Jewish nation was moulded and formed, and that its character and history
can be explained only upon the assumption of its truth--on these two
great pillars the authenticity and credibility of the Pentateuch rest,
as upon an immovable basis.

3. The _difficulties_ connected with the Pentateuch, so far as its
contents are concerned, rest mainly on two grounds, _scientific_ and
_historical_, or _moral_. The nature of the scientific difficulties
forbids their discussion within the restricted limits of the present
work. It may be said, however, generally, that so far as they are real,
they relate not so much to the truth of the Mosaic record, as to the
manner in which certain parts of it should be understood.

    How long, for example, that state of things continued which is
    described in Gen. 1:2, or what particular results were produced
    by the operation of the divine Spirit there recorded, we do not
    know. What extent of meaning should be assigned to the six days
    of creation--whether they should be understood literally or in a
    symbolical way, like the prophetical days of Daniel and
    Revelation--Dan. 7:25; 9:24-27; Rev. 9:15; 11:3, etc.--is a
    question on which devout believers have differed ever since the
    days of Augustine. See Prof. Tayler Lewis' Six Days of Creation,
    ch. 14. But all who receive the Bible as containing a revelation
    from God agree in holding the truth of the narrative. So also in
    regard to the Deluge and other events involving scientific
    questions which are recorded in the book of Genesis. Some of
    these questions may perhaps be satisfactorily solved by further
    inquiry. Others will probably remain shrouded in mystery till
    the consummation of all things. To the class of historical
    difficulties belong several chronological questions, as, for
    example, that of the duration of the Israelitish residence in
    Egypt. It is sufficient to say that however these shall be
    settled--if settled at all--they cannot with any reasonable man
    affect the divine authority of the Pentateuch which is certified
    to us by so many sure proofs.

4. The difficulties which are urged against the Pentateuch on moral
grounds rest partly on misapprehension, and are partly of such a
character that, when rightly considered, they turn against the objectors
themselves. This will be illustrated by a few examples.

A common objection to the Mosaic economy is drawn from its
_exclusiveness_. It contains, it is alleged, a religion not for all
mankind, but for a single nation. The answer is at hand. That this
economy may be rightly understood, it must be considered not separately
and independently, but as one part of a great plan. It was, as we have
seen, subordinate to the covenant made with Abraham, which had respect
to "all the families of the earth." Chap. 8, No. 4. It came in
temporarily to prepare the way for the advent of Christ, through whom
the Abrahamic covenant was to be carried into effect. It was a
_partial_, preparatory to a _universal_ dispensation, and looked,
therefore, ultimately to the salvation of the entire race. So far then
as the benevolent design of God is concerned, the objection drawn from
the exclusiveness of the Mosaic economy falls to the ground. It remains
for the objector to show how a universal dispensation, like
Christianity, could have been wisely introduced, without a previous work
of preparation, or how any better plan of preparation could have been
adopted than that contained in the Mosaic economy.

If the laws of Moses interposed, as they certainly did, many obstacles
to the intercourse of the Israelites with other nations, the design was
not to encourage in them a spirit of national pride and contempt of
other nations, but to preserve them from the contagious influence of the
heathen practices by which they were surrounded. On this ground the
Mosaic laws everywhere rest the restrictions which they impose upon the
Israelites: "Thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his
daughter shalt thou take to thy son. For they will turn away thy son
from following me, that they may serve other gods." Deut. 7:3, 4. How
necessary were these restrictions was made manifest by the whole
subsequent history of the people. So far was the Mosaic law from
countenancing hatred towards the _persons_ of foreigners, that it
expressly enjoined kindness: "If a stranger sojourn with thee in your
land, ye shall not vex him. But the stranger that dwelleth with you
shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as
thyself: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt." Lev. 19:34.

5. Another ground of objection to the Mosaic law has been the number and
minuteness of its ordinances. That this feature of the theocracy was,
absolutely considered, an imperfection, is boldly asserted in the New
Testament. The apostle Peter calls it "a yoke which neither we nor our
fathers were able to bear." Acts 15:10. Nevertheless the wisdom of God
judged it necessary in the infancy of the nation, that it might thus be
trained, and through it the world, for the future inheritance of the
gospel. It is in this very aspect that the apostle Paul says: "The law
was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified
by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a
schoolmaster." Gal. 3:24, 25. The divine plan was to prescribe minutely
all the institutions of the Mosaic economy, leaving nothing to human
discretion, apparently to prevent the intermixture with them of
heathenish rites and usages; perhaps also that in this body of outward
forms the faith of the Israelites might have a needful resting-place,
until the way should be prepared for the introduction of a simpler and
more spiritual system.

We must be careful, however, that we do not fall into the error of
supposing that the Mosaic law prescribed a religion of mere outward
forms. On the contrary, it was pervaded throughout by an evangelical
principle. It knew nothing of heartless forms in which the religion of
the heart is wanting. The observance of all its numerous ordinances it
enjoined on the spiritual ground of love, gratitude, and humility. If
any one would understand in what a variety of forms these inward graces
of the soul, which constitute the essence of religion, are inculcated in
the Pentateuch, he has but to read the book of Deuteronomy; there he
will see how the law of Moses aimed to make men religious not in the
letter, but in the spirit; how, in a word, it rested the observance of
the letter on the good foundation of inward devotion to God. The summary
which our Saviour gave of the Mosaic law, and in it of all religion, he
expressed in the very words of the law: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy
God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind,
and with all thy strength," Deut. 6:4, 5; "this is the first and great
commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy
neighbor as thyself." Lev. 19:18. Nor is this love towards our neighbor
restricted to a narrow circle; for it is said of the stranger also
sojourning in Israel, "Thou shalt love him as thyself." Lev. 19:34.

6. Of one usage which the Mosaic law tolerated, our Saviour himself
gives the true explanation when he says: "Moses, because of the hardness
of your hearts, suffered you to put away your wives; but from the
beginning it was not so." Matt. 19:8. This general principle applies
also to polygamy and the modified form of servitude which prevailed
among the Hebrew people. That the Mosaic economy suffered, for the time
being, certain usages not good in themselves, is no valid objection to
it, but rather a proof of the divine wisdom of its author. Though it was
his purpose to root out of human society every organic evil, he would
not attempt it by premature legislation, any more than he would send his
Son into the world until the way was prepared for his advent.

7. The extirpation of the Canaanitish nations by the sword of the
Israelites was contemplated by the Mosaic economy. The names of these
nations were carefully specified, and they were peremptorily forbidden
to molest other nations; as, for example, the Edomites, Moabites, and
Ammonites. Deut. 2:4, 5, 8, 9, 18, 19. The whole transaction is to be
regarded as a sovereign act of Jehovah, which had in view the
manifestation of his infinite perfections for the advancement of the
cause of truth and righteousness in this fallen world. Though we may not
presume to fathom all the divine counsels, we can yet see how God, by
the manner in which he gave Israel possession of the promised land,
displayed his awful holiness, his almighty power, and his absolute
supremacy over the nations of the earth, not only to the covenant
people, but also to the surrounding heathen world. Had the Canaanites
perished by famine, pestilence, earthquake, or fire from heaven, it
might have remained doubtful to the heathen by whose anger their
destruction had been effected, that of the Canaanitish gods, or of the
God of Israel. But now that God went forth with his people, dividing the
Jordan before them, overthrowing the walls of Jericho, arresting the sun
and the moon in their course, and raining down upon their enemies great
hailstones from heaven, it was manifest to all that the God of Israel
was the supreme Lord of heaven and earth, and that the gods of the
gentile nations were vanity. This was one of the great lessons which the
Theocracy was destined to teach the human family. At the same time the
Israelites, who executed God's vengeance on the Canaanites, were
carefully instructed that it was for their sins that the land spewed out
its inhabitants, and that if they imitated them in their abominations,
they should in like manner perish.

8. The Mosaic economy was but the scaffolding of the gospel. God took it
down ages ago by the hand of the Romans. It perished amid fire and sword
and blood, but not till it had accomplished the great work for which it
was established. It bequeathed to Christianity, and through Christianity
to "all the families of the earth," a glorious body of truth, which
makes an inseparable part of the plan of redemption, and has thus
blessed the world ever since, and shall continue to bless it to the end
of time.




CHAPTER XI.

REMAINING BOOKS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.


1. The divine authority of the Pentateuch having been established, it is
not necessary to dwell at length on the historical books which follow.
The events which they record are a natural and necessary sequel to the
establishment of the theocracy, as given in the five books of Moses. The
Pentateuch is occupied mainly with the founding of the theocracy; the
following historical books describe the settlement of the Israelitish
nation under this theocracy in the promised land, and its practical
operation there for the space of a thousand years. There is no history
in the world so full of God's presence and providence. It sets forth
with divine clearness and power, on the one side, God's faithfulness in
the fulfilment of the promises and threatenings contained in the Mosaic
law; and on the other, the perverseness and rebellion of the people, and
their perpetual relapses into idolatry, with the mighty conflict thus
inaugurated between the pure monotheism of the theocracy, and the
polytheism and image-worship of the surrounding heathen nations--a
conflict which lasted through many ages, which enlisted on both sides
the great and mighty men of the world, and which resulted in the
complete triumph of the Mosaic law, at least so far as its outward form
was concerned, thus preparing the way for the advent of that great
Prophet in whom the theocracy had its end and its fulfilment.

2. How fully the divine authority of these books is recognized by Christ
and his apostles, every reader of the New Testament understands. It is
not necessary to establish this point by the quotation of particular
passages. Though the writers of the _historical_ books which follow the
Pentateuch are for the most part unknown, the books themselves are put
in the New Testament on the same basis as the Pentateuch. To those who
deny Christ, the Mosaic economy, with the history that follows, is a
mystery; for when they read it "the veil is upon their heart." But to
those who receive Christ as the Son of God, and the New Testament as
containing a true record of his heavenly mission, Moses and the
historical books that follow are luminous with divine wisdom and glory,
for they contain the record of the way in which God prepared the world
for the manifestation of his Son Jesus Christ.

3. The Old Testament contains a body of writings which are not
historical; neither are they prophetical, in the restricted sense of the
term, although some of them contain prophecy. The enumeration of these
books, prominent among which are Job, Psalms, and Proverbs, with an
account of their contents and the place which each of them holds in the
plan of revelation, belongs to the Introduction to the Old Testament. It
is sufficient to say here, that they are precious offshoots of the
Mosaic economy, that they contain rich and varied treasures of divine
truth for the instruction and encouragement of God's people in all ages,
and that they are, as a whole, recognized in the New Testament as part
of God's revelation to men. The book of Psalms, in particular, is
perpetually quoted by the writers of the New Testament as containing
prophecies which had their fulfilment in Jesus of Nazareth.

4. The prophetical books--according to our classification, the Jews
having a different arrangement--are Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel,
and the twelve minor prophets. The vast body of prophecies contained in
these books--the prophetical portions of the other books being also
included--may be contemplated in different points of view.

Many of these prophecies, considered independently of the New Testament,
afford conclusive proof that the Old Testament is the word of God, for
they bear on their front the signet of their divine origin. They contain
predictions of the distant future which lie altogether beyond the range
of human sagacity and foresight. Such is the wonderful prophecy of Moses
respecting the history of the Israelitish people through all coming
ages, Lev. ch. 26; Deut. ch. 28, a prophecy which defies the assaults of
skepticism, and which, taken in connection with our Lord's solemn
declaration, "They shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led
away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of
the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled," Luke 21:24,
marks both the Old Testament and the New as given by the same omniscient
God, who declares the end from the beginning. Such also are the
predictions of the utter and perpetual desolation of Babylon, uttered
ages beforehand, and which presuppose a divine foresight of the course
of human affairs to the end of time: "Babylon, the glory of kingdoms,
the beauty of the Chaldees' excellency, shall be as when God overthrew
Sodom and Gomorrah. It shall never be inhabited, neither shall it be
dwelt in from generation to generation." "I will also make it a
possession for the bittern and pools of water: and I will sweep it with
the besom of destruction, saith the Lord of hosts." Isa. 13:19, 20;
14:23. See also the prophecy of the overthrow of Nineveh, Nahum, chs. 2,
3, and of Tyre: "I will also scrape her dust from her, and make her like
the top of a rock. It shall be a place for the spreading of nets in the
midst of the sea." "I will make thee like the top of a rock: thou shalt
be a place to spread nets upon; thou shalt be built no more." Ezek.
26:4, 5, 14. On all the above prophecies, and many more that might be
quoted, the descriptions of modern travellers furnish a perfect comment.

5. But it is preeminently in Christ that the prophecies of the Old
Testament have their fulfilment. As the rays of the sun in a
burning-glass all converge to one bright focus, so all the different
lines of prophecy in the Old Testament centre in the person of Jesus of
Nazareth. Separated from him they have neither unity nor harmony; but
are, like the primitive chaos, "without form and void." But in him
predictions, apparently contradictory to each other, meet with divine
unity and harmony.

He is a great _Prophet_, like Moses; the Mediator, therefore, of the new
economy, as Moses was of the old, and revealing to the people the whole
will of God. As a Prophet, the Spirit of the Lord rests upon him, "the
spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the
spirit of knowledge and the fear of the Lord." Isa. 11:2. As a Prophet,
he receives from God the tongue of the learned, that he should know how
to speak a word in season to him that is weary. Isa. 50:4. As a Prophet,
"the kings shall shut their mouths at him: for that which had not been
told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they
consider." Isaiah 52:15.

He is also a mighty _King_, to whom God has given the heathen for his
inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for his possession. He
breaks the nations with a rod of iron; he dashes them in pieces as a
potter's vessel, Psa. 2:8, 9; and yet "he shall not cry, nor lift up,
nor cause his voice to be heard in the street. A bruised reed shall he
not break, and the smoking flax shall he not quench: he shall bring
forth judgment unto truth." Isa. 42:2, 3. "All kings shall fall down
before him: all nations shall serve him," Psa. 72:11; and yet "he is
despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with
grief:" "he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before
her shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth." Isa. 53:3, 7. Many
other like contrasts could be added.

With the kingly he unites the _priestly_ office. Sitting as a king "upon
the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish
it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever," Isa.
9:7, he is yet "a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek." Nor
is his priestly office any thing of subordinate importance, for he is
inducted into it by the solemn oath of Jehovah: "The Lord hath sworn,
and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of
Melchizedek." Psa. 110:4. As a priest he offers up himself "an offering
for sin:" "he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our
iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his
stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have
turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the
iniquity of us all." Isa., ch. 53. When we find a key that opens all the
intricate wards of a lock, we know that the key and the lock have one
and the same author, and are parts of one whole. The history of Jesus of
Nazareth is the key which unlocks all the wards of Old Testament
prophecy. With this key Moses and the prophets open to the plainest
reader; without it, they remain closed and hidden from human
apprehension. We know, therefore, that he who sent his Son Jesus Christ
to be the Saviour of the world, sent also his prophets to testify
beforehand of his coming, and of the offices which he bears for our
redemption.

6. To sum up all in a word, we take the deepest, and therefore the most
scriptural view of the Jewish institutions and history, when we consider
the whole as a perpetual adumbration of Christ--not Christ in his simple
personality, but Christ in his body the church. It is not meant by this
that the Mosaic economy was nothing but type. Apart from all reference
to the salvation of the gospel, it was to the Israelitish people before
the Saviour's advent a present reality meeting a present want. The
deliverance of the people from the bondage of Egypt, their passage
through the Red sea, the cloud which guided them, the manna which fed
them, the water out of the rock which they drank--all these things were
to them a true manifestation of God's presence and favor, aside from
their typical import, the apprehension of which indeed was reserved for
future ages. So also the Mosaic institutions were to them a true body of
laws for the regulation of their commonwealth, and in their judges,
kings, and prophets they had true rulers and teachers.

But while all this is important to be remembered, it is also true that
the Mosaic economy was thickly sown by God's own hand with the seeds of
higher principles--those very principles which Christ and his apostles
_unfolded out of the law and the prophets_. Thus it constituted a divine
training by which the people were prepared for that spiritual kingdom of
heaven which "in the fulness of time" the Saviour established. "All the
prophets and the law prophesied until John"--not the prophets and the
law in certain separate passages alone, but the prophets and the law as
a whole. They prophesied of Christ, and in Christ their prophecy has its
fulfilment.

7. The consideration of the _extent of the canon_ of the Old Testament
does not properly belong here. It is sufficient to say that we have no
valid reason for doubting the truth of the Jewish tradition, which
assigns to Ezra and "the great synagogue" the work of setting forth the
Hebrew canon as we now have it. That this tradition is embellished with
fictions must be conceded; but we ought not, on such a ground, to deny
its substantial truth, confirmed as it is by all the scriptural notices
of Ezra's qualifications and labors. It is certain that the canon of the
Jews in Palestine was the same in our Lord's day that it is now. The
Greek version of the Septuagint contains indeed certain apocryphal books
not extant in the Hebrew. These seem to have been in use, more or less,
among the Alexandrine Jews; but there is no evidence that any canonical
authority was ascribed to them, and it is certain that the Jews of
Palestine adhered strictly to the Hebrew canon, which is identical with
our own.

8. The _principle_ upon which the canon of the Old Testament was formed
is not doubtful. No books were admitted into it but those written by
prophets or prophetical men. As under the New Testament the reception or
rejection of a book as canonical was determined by the writer's relation
to Christ, so was it under the Old by his relation to the theocracy. The
highest relation was held by Moses, its mediator. He accordingly had the
prophetical spirit in the fullest measure: "If there be a prophet among
you, I the Lord will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will
speak unto him in a dream. My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful
in all mine house. With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even
apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the Lord
shall he behold." Numb. 12:6-8. The next place was held by prophets
expressly called and commissioned by God, some of whom also, as Samuel,
administered the affairs of the theocracy. Finally, there were the pious
rulers whom God placed at the head of the covenant people, and endowed
with the spirit of prophecy, such as David, Solomon, and Ezra. To no
class of men besides those just mentioned do the Jewish rabbins ascribe
the authorship of any book of the Old Testament, and in this respect
their judgment is undoubtedly right.

9. The _inspiration_ of the books of the Old Testament is everywhere
assumed by our Lord and his apostles; for they argue from them as
possessing divine authority. "What is written in the law?" "What saith
the scripture?" "All things must be fulfilled which were written in the
law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms concerning me;"
"This scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost
spake before concerning Judas;" "The scripture cannot be broken"--all
these and other similar forms of expression contain the full testimony
of our Lord and his apostles to the truth elsewhere expressly affirmed
of the Old Testament, that "all scripture is given by inspiration of
God," 2 Tim. 3:16, and that "the prophecy came not in the old time by
the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the
Holy Ghost." 2 Peter 1:21. When the Saviour asks the Pharisees in
reference to Psalm 110, "How then doth David in spirit call him Lord?"
he manifestly does not mean that this particular psalm alone was written
"in spirit," that is, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit; but he
ascribes to it the character which belongs to the entire book, in common
with the rest of Scripture, in accordance with the express testimony of
David: "The Spirit of the Lord spake by me, and his word was in my
tongue." 2 Sam. 23:2.




CHAPTER XII.

EVIDENCES INTERNAL AND EXPERIMENTAL.


1. The external evidences of revealed religion are, in their proper
place and sphere, of the highest importance. Christianity rests not upon
theory, but upon historical facts sustained by an overwhelming mass of
testimony. It is desirable that every Christian, so far as he has
opportunity, should make himself acquainted with this testimony for the
strengthening of his own faith and the refutation of gainsayers.
Nevertheless, many thousands of Christians are fully established in the
faith of the gospel who have but a very limited knowledge of the
historical proofs by which its divine origin is supported. To them the
Bible commends itself as the word of God by its internal character, and
the gospel as God's plan of salvation by their inward experience of its
divine power, and their outward observation of its power over the hearts
and lives of all who truly receive it. This is in accordance with the
general analogy of God's works. We might be assured beforehand that a
system of religion having God for its author, would shine by its own
light, and thus commend itself at once to the human understanding and
conscience, irrespective of all outward testimony to its truth. Although
the internal evidences of Christianity have already been considered to
some extent in connection with those that are outward and historical, it
is desirable in the present closing chapter to offer some suggestions
pertaining to the internal character of the Bible as a whole, and also
to the testimony of Christian experience, individual and general.

2. To every unperverted mind the Bible commends itself at once as the
word of God by the wonderful view which it gives of his character and
providence. It exhibits one personal God who made and governs the world,
without the least trace of polytheism on the one hand, or pantheism on
the other--the two rocks of error upon which every other system of
religion in the world has made shipwreck. And this great Spirit,
"infinite, eternal, and unchangeable in his being, wisdom, power,
holiness, justice, goodness, and truth," is not removed to a distance
from us, but is ever nigh to each one of his creatures. He is our Father
in heaven, who cares for us and can hear and answer our prayers. His
providence extends to all things, great and small. He directs alike the
sparrow's flight, and the rise and fall of empires. To the perfect view
of God's character and government which the pages of the Bible unfold,
no man can add anything, and whoever takes any thing away only mars and
mutilates it. How now shall we explain the great fact that the Hebrew
people, some thousands of years ago, had this true knowledge of God and
his providence, while it was hidden from all other nations? The Bible
gives the only reasonable answer: God himself revealed it to them.

    The superficial view which accounts for the pure monotheism of
    the Hebrews from their peculiar national character, is
    sufficiently refuted by their history. Notwithstanding the
    severe penalties with which the Mosaic code of laws visited
    idolatrous practices in every form, the people were perpetually
    relapsing into the idolatry of the surrounding nations, and
    could be cured of this propensity only by the oft-repeated
    judgments of their covenant God.

3. Next we have the wonderful code of morals contained in the Bible. Of
its perfection, we in Christian lands have but a dim apprehension,
because it is the only system of morals with which we are familiar; but
the moment we compare it with any code outside of Christendom, its
supreme excellence at once appears.

It is a _spiritual_ code, made for the heart. It proposes to regulate
the inward affections of the soul, and through them the outward life.
Thus it lays the axe at the root of all sin.

It is a _reasonable_ code, giving to God the first place in the human
heart, and to man only a subordinate place. Its first and great
commandment is, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart;"
its second, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." Thus it lays
broad and deep the foundations of a righteous character. If any moral
proposition is self-evident, it is that such a code as this, which
exalts God to the throne of the human soul and humbles man beneath his
feet, is not the offspring of human self-love. If any one would know the
difference between the Bible and a human code of morals, let him read
Cicero's treatise _on Duties_, perhaps the best system of ethics which
pure heathenism ever produced, but from which man's relation to deity is
virtually left out.

It is a _comprehensive_ code, not insisting upon one or two favorite
virtues, but upon all virtues. Just as the light of the sun is white and
glistering because it contains in itself, in due proportion, all the
different sorts of rays, so the morality of the Bible shines forth, like
the sun, with a pure and dazzling brightness, because it unites in
itself, in just proportion, all the duties which men owe to God and each
other.

Many who outwardly profess Christianity do not make the precepts of the
Bible their rule of life, or they do so only in a very imperfect way,
and thus scandal is brought upon the name of Christ, whose servants they
profess to be. But it is self-evident that he who _obeys_ the Bible in
sincerity and truth is thus made a thoroughly good man; good in his
inward principles and feelings, and good in his outward life; good in
his relations to God and man; good in prosperity and adversity, in honor
and dishonor, in life and death; a good husband and father, a good
neighbor, a good citizen. If there is ever to be a perfect state of
society on earth, it must come from simple obedience to the precepts of
the Bible, obedience full and universal. No man can conceive of any
thing more glorious and excellent than this. We may boldly challenge the
unbeliever to name a corrupt passion in the heart or a vicious practice
in the life that could remain. Let every man love God with all his heart
and his neighbor as himself, and bolts and bars, prisons and
penitentiaries, would be unnecessary. One might safely journey around
the world unarmed and unattended, for every man would be a friend and
brother. "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good-will
towards men," would reign from pole to pole. The whole earth would be at
rest and be quiet: it would break forth into singing. That such a
glorious result would certainly come from simple obedience to the
precepts of the Bible is undeniable. And can any man persuade himself
that this perfect code of morals comes not from heaven, but from sinful
man?

4. We have, once more, the wonderful _harmony between the different
parts of the Bible_, written as it was in different and distant ages,
and by men who differed widely from each other in natural character and
education, and lived in very different states of society. In outward
form and institutions the manifestation of God has indeed undergone
great changes; for it has existed successively under the patriarchal,
the Mosaic, and the Christian dispensations. But if we look beneath the
surface to the substance of religion in these different dispensations,
we shall find it always the same. The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,
the God of Moses, Samuel, and David, is also the God of our Lord Jesus
Christ. While he changes from time to time the outward ordinances of his
people, he remains himself "the same yesterday and to-day and for ever."
Under the Old Testament, not less than under the New, he is "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, and that will by no means clear the guilty."
Exod. 34:6, 7, etc. Under the New Testament, not less than under the
Old, he is to all the despisers of his grace "a consuming fire," Heb.
12:29; and his Son Jesus Christ, whom he sent to save the world, will be
revealed hereafter "in flaming fire, taking vengeance on them that know
not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ." 1
Thess. 1:7, 8. If the New Testament insists on the obedience of the
heart, and not of the outward letter alone, the Old Testament teaches
the same doctrine: "Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to
hearken than the fat of rams." 1 Sam. 15:22. "Thou desirest not
sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering.
The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and a contrite
heart, O God, thou wilt not despise." Psa. 51:16, 17. "I will praise the
name of God with a song, and will magnify him with thanksgiving. This
also shall please the Lord better than an ox or bullock that hath horns
and hoofs." Psa. 69:30, 31. "Take thou away from me the noise of thy
songs; for I will not hear the melody of thy viols. But let judgment run
down as waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream." Amos 5:23, 24. If
the Old Testament insists on obedience to all God's commandments as an
indispensable condition of salvation, so does the New: "Whosoever shall
keep the whole law, and offend in one point, he is guilty of all," James
2:10; "If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from
thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should
perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell." Matt.
5:29, etc. The Old Testament, as well as the New, teaches the doctrine
of regeneration and sanctification by the Holy Ghost: "Create in me a
clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me," Psa. 51:10.
"Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from
all your filthiness, and from all your idols will I cleanse you. A new
heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and
I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you
a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to
walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments and do them." Ezek.
36:25-27. The Old Testament, as well as the New, denounces
self-righteousness in every form, and teaches men that they are saved
not for the merit of their good works, but through God's free mercy:
"Not for thy righteousness, or for the uprightness of thy heart dost
thou go in to possess their land," Deut. 9:5; "Not for your sakes do I
this, saith the Lord God, be it known unto you: be ashamed and
confounded for your own ways, O house of Israel." Ezekiel 36:32. When
the holy men of the Old Testament so often beseech God to hear and
answer their prayers _for his name's sake_, they renounce all claim to
be heard on the ground of their own merit. Faith that works by love and
purifies the heart from sin--this is the substance of the religion
taught in the Bible from Genesis to Revelation. This wonderful unity of
doctrine and spirit that pervades the books of the Bible from first to
last, finds its natural explanation in the fact that they were all
written "by inspiration of God."

5. The Bible is distinguished from all other books by its _power over
the human conscience_. The apostle says: "The word of God is quick and
powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the
dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and
is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart," Heb. 4:12; and
this declaration is confirmed by the experience of every thoughtful
reader. Whoever studies the pages of the Bible in an earnest spirit,
feels that in them One speaks who has a perfect understanding of his
heart in its inmost workings; one who knows not only what he is, but
also what he ought to be, and who therefore speaks to him with
authority. The young are sometimes advised to study certain authors,
that they may thus gain "a knowledge of men." It cannot be denied that,
within the sphere of this world, the knowledge of men which some of
these writers possess is admirable. But the Bible contains not only all
this knowledge in its most complete and practical form, but also, what
is wanting in the authors referred to, a perfect knowledge of men in
their higher relation to God. With wonderful accuracy does the Bible
describe men's character and conduct as citizens of this world. But here
it does not stop. It regards them as subjects of God's everlasting
government, and thus as citizens of eternity also; and it portrays in
vivid and truthful colors the way in which they harden their hearts,
blind their minds, and stupefy their consciences by their continued
wilful resistance of God's claim to their supreme love and obedience. In
a word, it describes men in their relation to God as well as to their
fellow-men; and every man who reads the description, hears within his
soul the still small voice of conscience saying, "Thou art the man."
Whence this all-comprehensive knowledge of man contained in the Bible?
The answer is: He who made man has described man in his own word with
infallible accuracy; "because he knew all men, and needed not that any
should testify of man; for he knew what was in man."

6. We come now to the argument from _personal experience_. To receive
Christ in sincerity and truth, is to know that his salvation is from
God. Many thousands have thus a full and joyous conviction of the truth
of Christianity. They were oppressed with a deep consciousness of guilt,
which no tears of sorrow or supposed good works could remove. But they
read in the Holy Scriptures that Jesus is "the Lamb of God which taketh
away the sin of the world." They put their trust in his atoning
sacrifice, and thus obtained peace of conscience, and joyous access in
prayer to God as their Father in heaven. They were earthly in their
affections, and able therefore to render to God's holy and spiritual law
only an obedience of the letter, which they knew would not be
acceptable. But through faith in Christ they have been lifted up to a
holy and blessed communion with God, and thus enabled to render to God's
law an obedience of love "in the spirit and not in the letter." They
were oppressed with a painful sense of the empty and unsatisfying nature
of every thing earthly; but they have found in Christ and his glorious
service an all-sufficient portion. In a word, they are assured that the
gospel is from God, because it meets all their wants as sinners. They
have the same evidence that God made the gospel for the immortal soul,
as that he made bread for the stomach, air for the lungs, and light for
the eyes. The sincere believer has in himself the witness that the
gospel is from heaven, for he is daily experiencing its healing,
strengthening, and purifying power. To tell him that the Bible is a
cunningly devised fable, is like telling a man who daily feeds on "the
finest of the wheat," and is nourished and strengthened by it, that the
field of golden grain which waves before his door is only wormwood and
gall; or that the pure water from the bosom of the earth which daily
quenches his thirst is a deadly poison; or that the blessed air of
heaven which fans his lungs is a pestilential vapor. Not until error
becomes the nutriment of the soul and truth its destruction, can this
argument from personal experience be set aside or gainsaid.

7. The argument from the _character of Jesus_ has already been
considered at length in chap, 4, No. 8. It is sufficient to repeat here
that the very description of such a character, so gloriously perfect, so
far above all that the greatest minds of antiquity ever conceived, is
itself a proof of its reality. Very plain men may describe what they
have actually seen and heard. But that any man left to himself--and God
would not help in a work of error and delusion--should have conceived of
such a character as that of Jesus of Nazareth, without the reality
before him, is impossible; how much more that four unlettered men should
have consistently carried out the conception in such a life as that
recorded by the four evangelists.

8. Passing now from individual to _general experience_, we find another
proof of the divine origin of the Bible in the power of the
gospel--which includes in itself the whole word of God--over the human
heart. This is closely connected with the preceding head, since the
Christian's religion takes the shape of personal love towards the
Saviour--love which is awakened in the sinner's soul, as the New
Testament teaches, by the Holy Spirit revealing to him his lost
condition and the character and offices of the Redeemer, whereby he is
drawn into an inward spiritual union with him. This love of Jesus is the
_mightiest principle on earth_ for both doing and suffering. The man of
whose soul it has taken full possession is invincible, not in his own
strength, but in the strength of Him to whom he has given his supreme
confidence and affection. No hardships, privations, or dangers can deter
him from Christ's service; no persecutions can drive him from it. In the
early days of Christianity, at the period of the Reformation, in many
missionary fields in our own time, not only strong men, but tender women
and children, have steadfastly endured shame and suffering in every
form--banishment and the spoiling of their goods, imprisonment, torture,
and death--for Christ's sake. In times of worldly peace and prosperity,
the power of this principle is dimly seen; but were the Christians of
this day required, under penalty of imprisonment, confiscation, and
death, to deny Christ, it would at once manifest itself. Many would
apostatize, because they are believers only in name; but true believers
would remain steadfast, as in the days of old. It is a fact worthy of
special notice, that persecution not only fails to conquer those who
love Jesus, but it fails also to hinder others from embracing his
religion. It has first a winnowing power. It separates from the body of
the faithful those who are Christians only in name. Then the
manifestation of Christian faith and patience by those who remain
steadfast, draws men from the world without to Christ. Hence the maxim,
as true as trite, "The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church."
The Christian religion at the beginning had no worldly advantages, and
it was opposed by all the power of imperial Rome in alliance with the
heathen priesthood. Had it been possible that any combination of men
should crush it, it must have perished at the outset; but it only grew
stronger in the midst of its fierce and powerful enemies. It went
through ten bloody persecutions, "conquering and to conquer," until it
overthrew paganism, and became the established religion of the Roman
empire. Then it was not strengthened by its alliance with the state, but
only corrupted and shorn of its true power. And so it has been ever
since. The gospel has always shown itself mightiest to subdue men to
Christ, when it has been compelled to rely most exclusively on its own
divinely furnished strength. What the apostle said of himself
personally, the gospel which he preached can say with equal truth: "When
I am weak, then am I strong." How shall we account for this fact? The
only reasonable explanation is, that God is the author of the gospel,
and his power is in it, so that it is able to overcome the world without
any help from without. Were it the invention of man, we might reasonably
expect that it would be greatly strengthened by an alliance with the
kings and rulers of the world, instead of being thereby corrupted and
weakened, as we find to be the invariable result. Because God made the
gospel, and not men, when it is left free to work according to his
appointment, it is mighty in its power over the human heart; but the
moment worldly men take it under their patronage, that they may make it
subservient to their worldly ends, they bind it in fetters, and would
kill it, had it not a divine and indestructible life.

9. We notice, further, that the same love of Jesus which makes men
invincible to the world without, also enables them to _conquer their own
corrupt passions_, and this is the greater victory of the two. It is
easy to declaim on the sins and inconsistencies of visible Christians.
The church of Christ, like every thing administered by men, is
imperfect. Unworthy men find their way into it, making it, as the great
Master foretold, a field in which wheat and tares grow together.
Nevertheless, wherever the gospel is preached in its purity, bright
examples are found of its power to reclaim the vicious, to make the
proud humble, and the earthly-minded heavenly. It draws all who truly
receive it, by a gradual but certain process, into a likeness to Christ,
which is the sum of all goodness. In proportion also as the principles
of the gospel gain ground in any community, they ennoble it, purify it,
and inspire it with the spirit of truth and justice. Very imperfectly is
our country pervaded by this good leaven. Yet it is this, small as is
its measure, which makes the difference between the state of society
here at home and in India or China. Many thousands who do not personally
receive the gospel thus experience its elevating power. They receive at
its hand innumerable precious gifts without understanding or
acknowledging the source from which they come.

10. As a final argument, may be named the power of the Christian
religion to _purify itself_ from the corruptions introduced into it by
men. It is not alone from the world without that Christ's church has
been assailed. Corrupt men have arisen within her pale who have set
themselves to deny or explain away her essential doctrines, to change
her holy practice, or to crush and overlay her with a load of
superstitious observances. But the gospel cannot be destroyed by inward
any more than by outward enemies. From time to time it asserts its
divine origin and invincible power, by bursting the bands imposed on it
by men, and throwing off their human additions, thus reappearing in its
native purity and strength. So it did on a broad scale at the era of the
Reformation, and so it has often done since in narrower fields.

10. Let now the candid inquirer ask himself whether a book which gives
such gloriously perfect views of God's character and government; whose
code of morals is so spotlessly pure that simple obedience to it is the
sum of all goodness, and would, if full and universal, make this world a
moral paradise; all whose parts, though written in different and distant
ages by men of such diversified character and training, are in perfect
harmony with each other; which displays such a wonderful knowledge of
man in all his relations to God and his fellow-men, and therefore speaks
with such authority and power to his conscience; which reveals a
religion that satisfies all the wants of those who embrace it, that
makes them victorious alike over outward persecution and inward sinful
passion, and that asserts its invincible power by throwing off from
itself the corrupt additions of men--whether such a book can possibly
have man for its author. Assuredly in character it resembles not sinful
man, but the holy God. It must be from heaven, for it is heavenly in all
its features.




PART II.

       *       *       *       *       *

INTRODUCTION

TO

THE OLD TESTAMENT




PREFATORY REMARKS.

       *       *       *       *       *

To consider at length all the questions which the spirit of modern
inquiry has raised concerning the books of the Old Testament--their
genuineness, integrity, date, chronology, and credibility; their
relation to science, to profane history, to each other, and to the New
Testament--would far exceed the limits allowed by the plan of the
present work. To the Pentateuch alone, or even a single book of it, as
Genesis or Deuteronomy; to the books of Chronicles; to Isaiah or Daniel,
a whole volume might be devoted without exhausting the subject. In the
present Introduction to the books of the Old Testament, the aim has been
to give the results of biblical research, ancient and modern, with a
concise statement of the lines of argument employed, wherever this could
be done without involving discussions intelligible only to those who are
familiar with the original languages of Scripture and the ancient
versions. For such discussions the biblical student is referred to the
more extended Introductions which abound at the present day. The author
has endeavored, first of all, to direct the reader's attention to the
_unity of Scripture_. "Known unto God are all his works from the
beginning of the world." The plan of Redemption is the very highest of
these works, and it constitutes a gloriously perfect whole, gradually
unfolding itself from age to age. The earliest revelations have
reference to all that follow. The later revelations shed light on the
earlier, and receive light from them in return. It is only when the
Scriptures are thus studied as a whole, that any one part of them can be
truly comprehended. The effort has accordingly been made to show the
relation of the Old Testament, considered as a whole, to the New; then,
the relation of the several great divisions of the Old Testament--the
law, the historical books, the prophets, the poetical books--to each
other, and the place which each holds in the system of revelation; and
finally, the office of each particular book, with such notices of its
authorship, date, general plan, and contents, as will prepare the reader
to study it intelligently and profitably. To all who would have a
thorough and comprehensive knowledge of the _New_ Testament, the
diligent study of the preparatory revelation contained in the _Old_, is
earnestly commended. The present Introduction will be followed by one to
the New Testament on the same general plan. It is hardly necessary to
add that for much of the materials employed, in these two parts,
particularly what relates to ancient manuscripts, the author is
dependent on the statements of those who have had the opportunity of
making original investigations.




INTRODUCTION

TO

THE OLD TESTAMENT.

FIRST DIVISION, GENERAL INTRODUCTION.

CHAPTER XIII.

NAMES AND EXTERNAL FORM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT


1. The word _Bible_ comes to us from the Greek (_ta biblia, the books_;
that is, emphatically, the sacred canonical books) through the Latin and
Norman French. In the ancient Greek and Latin churches, its use, as a
plural noun applied to the whole collection of sacred books of the Old
and New Testaments, can be traced as far back as the fifth century. In
the English, as in all the modern languages of Europe, it has become a
singular noun, and thus signifies THE BOOK--the one book containing in
itself all the particular books of the sacred canon.

In very ancient usage, the word _Law_ (Heb. _Torah_) was applied to the
five books of Moses; but there was no general term to denote the whole
collection of inspired writings till after the completion of the canon
of the Old Testament, when they were known in Jewish usage as: _The
Law_, _the Prophets_, and the _Writings_ (see below, No. 5). In
accordance with the same usage, the writers of the New Testament speak
of the "law and the prophets," and more fully, "the law of Moses, and
the prophets, and the psalms," Luke 24:44. And they apply to the
collected writings of the Old Testament, as well as to particular
passages, the term _the Scripture_, that is, _the writings_, thus: "The
Scripture saith," John 7:38, etc. Or they employ the plural number: "Ye
do err, not knowing the Scriptures," Matt. 22:29, etc. Once the epithet
_holy_ is added, 2 Tim. 3:15.

    In 2 Pet. 3:16, the term _Scriptures_ is applied to at least the
    epistles of Paul; apparently also to the other canonical
    writings of the New Testament then extant. In the usage of
    Christian writers, the application of this term to the books of
    the New Testament soon became well established; but the above is
    the only example of such an application that occurs in the New
    Testament itself.

2. The terms _Old_ and _New Testament_ arose in the following way: God's
dealings with the Israelitish people, under both the patriarchs and
Moses, took the form of a _covenant_; that is, not a mutual agreement as
between two equal parties, but an _arrangement_ or _dispensation_, in
which God himself, as the sovereign Lord, propounded to the chosen
people certain terms, and bound himself, upon condition of the
fulfilment of these terms, to bestow upon them blessings temporal and
spiritual. Now the Greek word _diatheke_, by which the Septuagint
renders the Hebrew word for _covenant_, signifies both _covenant_, in
the general sense above given, and _testament_, as being the final
disposition which a man makes of his worldly estate. The new covenant
introduced by Christ is, in a sense, a _testament_, as being ratified by
his bloody death. Matt. 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20. So it is
expressly called in the epistle to the Hebrews, 9:15-17, where the new
covenant, considered in the light of a testament, is contrasted with the
old. It was probably in connection with this view that the _Old Latin_
version of the Bible (made in the Old Testament not from the original
Hebrew, but from the Greek Septuagint) everywhere rendered the Greek
word _diatheke_ by the Latin _testamentum_. When Jerome undertook the
work of correcting this version, he did not everywhere pursue the same
plan. The books of the Old Testament he rendered in general from the
Hebrew; and here he employed for the Hebrew word denoting _covenant_ the
appropriate Latin words _foedus_ and _pactum_. But in the Psalms, and
the whole New Testament, from deference to established usage, he gave
simply a revision of the Old Latin, leaving the word _testamentum_, by
which that version had rendered the word _diatheke_, _covenant_,
untouched. Hence in Latin usage we have in the New Testament the two
covenants, the old and the new, expressed by the terms _old testament_
(_vetus testamentum_, _prius_ or _primum testamentum_) and _new
testament_ (_novum testamentum_), and sometimes in immediate contrast
with each other, as in 2 Cor. 3:6, 14; Heb. 9:15-18. The transfer of
these terms from the covenants themselves to the writings which give an
account of them was easy, and soon became established in general usage.
Hence the terms _Old_ and _New Testament_ for the two great divisions of
the Bible.

    Another Latin term for the two great divisions of the Bible was
    _instrumentum_, _instrument_, _document_; a term applied to the
    documents or body of records relating to the Roman empire, and
    very appropriate, therefore, to the records of God's dealings
    with men. But as early as the time of Tertullian, about the
    close of the second century, the word _testamentum_,
    _testament_, was more in use. See Tertullian against Marcion, 4.
    1. A striking example of the superior accuracy of Jerome's
    independent version above his simple revision of the old Latin
    is the passage Jer. 31:31-33 as compared with the quotation of
    the same, Heb. 8:8-10. In the former, where the translation is
    made immediately from the Hebrew, we read: "Behold the days
    shall come, saith the Lord, that I will make for the house of
    Israel and the house of Judah a new _covenant_ (_foedus_): not
    according to the _covenant_ (_pactum_) which I made with their
    fathers," etc. In the same passage, as quoted in the epistle to
    the Hebrews, where we have only a revision of the old Latin, we
    read: "Behold the days shall come, saith the Lord, that I will
    accomplish for the house of Israel and for the house of Judah a
    new _testament_ (_testamentum_): not according to the
    _testament_ (_testamentum_) which I made for their fathers,"
    etc.

3. The _unity_ of the Bible has its ground only in divine inspiration.
So far as human composition is concerned, both parts of it have a great
variety of authors. The writers of the Old Testament, especially, lived
in different, and some of them in very distant ages. They were widely
separated from each other in native character and endowments, in
education, and in their outward circumstances and position in life. It
is of the highest importance that the student of Scripture not only know
these facts, but ponder them long and carefully, till he fully
understands their deep significance. He has been accustomed from
childhood to see all the books of the Bible comprised within the covers
of a single volume. He can hardly divest himself of the idea that their
authors, if not exactly contemporary, must yet somehow have understood
each other's views and plans, and acted in mutual concert. It is only by
long contemplation that he is able to apprehend the true position which
these writers held to each other, separated from each other, as they
often were, by centuries of time, during which great changes took place
in the social and political condition of the Hebrew people. Then, for
the first time, he begins to discern, in the wonderful harmony that
pervades the writings of the Old Testament, taken as a whole, the clear
proofs of a superintending divine Spirit; and learns to refer this
harmony to its true ground, that "holy men of God spake as they were
moved by the Holy Ghost." 2 Peter 1:21.

    According to the received chronology, Moses wrote the book of
    Deuteronomy about 1451 B.C, and Malachi, the last of the
    prophets, wrote about 397 B.C. The difference, then, between the
    time of these two authors is 1054 years; or say, in round
    numbers, about 1000 years. From Moses to the anointing of David
    is, according to the shorter chronology, 388 years; and from
    Moses to the composition of the books of Kings, nearly nine
    centuries. From Joel to Malachi we must assume a period of about
    400 years, within which space our present prophetical books were
    composed. The earlier of the psalms written by David differ in
    time from those composed at the close of the captivity by about
    530 years. Let the reader who has been in the habit of passing
    from one book of the Bible to another, as if both belonged to
    the same age, ponder well the meaning of these figures. They
    confirm the arguments already adduced (ch. 12, No. 4) that the
    unity of Scripture has its ground not in human concert, but in
    the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

4. The books of the Old Testament have been differently classified and
arranged. But in no system of distribution has the chronological order
been strictly observed.

(A.) _The Jewish classification and arrangement_ is as follows. They
first distribute the books of the Old Testament into three great
classes, the _Law_, the _Prophets_, and the _Writings_; that is, the
canonical writings not included in the other two divisions--the
_Hagiographa_ (_holy writings_), as they are commonly designated at the
present day.

The _Law_ is then subdivided into five books, as we now have them; for
the names of which see the introduction to the Pentateuch. Chap. 19, No.
1.

With reference to this five-fold division of the Law, the Rabbins call
it _the five-fifths of the Law_, each book being reckoned as one-fifth.
This term answers to the word _Pentateuch_, that is, _the five-fold
book_. Chap. 9, beginning.

The _second_ great class consists of the so-called _Prophets_. These are
first divided into the _former_ and the _latter_ Prophets. The former
Prophets consist of the historical books: Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and
Kings, in the order named. The latter comprise the prophetical books in
the stricter sense of the word, with the exception of Daniel; and these
are subdivided into the _greater_ and the _less_. The greater Prophets
are Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel. The less are the twelve Minor
Prophets from Hosea to Malachi, in the same order as that followed in
our English version.

The remaining books of the Old Testament constitute the _third_ great
class, under the name of _Writings_, _Hagiographa_; and they are
commonly arranged in the following order: Psalms, Proverbs, Job,
Canticles, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra,
Nehemiah, Chronicles. These books naturally fall into three groups.
_First_, devotional and didactic--the three so-called poetical books of
Psalms, Proverbs, and Job, which have in Hebrew a stricter rhythm;
_secondly_, the five rolls--Canticles, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes,
Esther; so called because written on five separate rolls for use in the
synagogue service on the occasion of special festivals; _thirdly_, books
that are chiefly of an historical character--Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and
Chronicles.

    The Talmud arranges the Greater Prophets thus: Jeremiah,
    Ezekiel, Isaiah. Of the Hagiographa, various other arrangements,
    Masoretic and Talmudic, are given, which it is not necessary
    here to specify.

    That the writing of sacred history belonged to the prophetical
    office is clear from various scriptural notices. Compare 1
    Chron. 29:29; 2 Chron, 9:29; 12:15; 20:34; 26:22; 32:32, 33:19.
    The narrative concerning Sennacherib inserted in the second book
    of Kings (18:13-19:37) is manifestly from the pen of Isaiah. The
    Rabbins rightly ascribed the composition of the historical as
    well as the other books which compose, according to their
    division, the _Prophets_, to prophetical men. But the grounds
    upon which they separated from these certain books, as, for
    example, Daniel, and placed them among the Hagiographa, are not
    clear. Some of the rabbins made the distinction to lie in the
    _degree of inspiration_, Moses enjoying it in the fullest
    measure (Numb. 12:6-8), the authors of the books which are
    classed among the prophets having _the Spirit of prophecy_, and
    those of the books belonging to the Hagiographa simply _the Holy
    Spirit_ (the Holy Spirit, but not in the degree necessary for
    prophetic revelation). But this distinction is untenable. Who
    had the spirit of prophecy if not Daniel? In the opinion of some
    modern scholars, they reckoned to the Prophets only books
    written by men who were prophets in the stricter sense of the
    term; that is, men trained to the prophetical office, and
    exercising it as their profession; while the writings of men
    like David, Solomon, and Daniel, who though they had the Spirit
    of prophecy, were yet in their office not prophets, but rulers
    and statesmen, were assigned to the Hagiographa. But this is
    inconsistent with the fact that the book of Ruth (which in
    respect to authorship must go with that of Judges) and also the
    book of Lamentations are in the Hagiographa. Others, with more
    probability, find the main ground of classification in the
    character of the writings themselves--the _Law_, as the
    foundation of the Theocracy; the _Prophets_, that record the
    history of the Theocracy and make prophetic revelations
    concerning it; the sacred _Writings_, occupied with the personal
    appropriation of the truths of revelation, and as such
    exhibiting the religious life of the covenant people in its
    inward and outward form. But even here we do not find perfect
    consistency.

(B.) _Classification of the Greek Version of the Seventy._ The ancient
Greek version of the Old Testament, called the _Septuagint_ (Latin
_Septuaginta_, _seventy_), because, according to Jewish tradition, it
was the work of seventy men, interweaves the _apocryphal_ with the
_canonical_ books. Its arrangement is as follows, the apocryphal books
and parts of books being indicated by italic letters. We follow the
edition of Van Ess from the Vatican manuscript, which omits the
apocryphal Prayer of Manasseh:

1.  Genesis.
2.  Exodus.
3.  Leviticus.
4.  Numbers.
5.  Deuteronomy.
6.  Joshua.
7.  Judges.
8.  Ruth.
9.  1 Kings (our 1 Samuel).
10. 2 Kings (our 2 Samuel).
11. 3 Kings (our 1 Kings).
12. 4 Kings (our 2 Kings).
13. 1 Chronicles.
14. 2 Chronicles.
15. 1 _Esdras_.
16. 2 Esdras (our Ezra).
17. Nehemiah.
18. _Tobit_.
19. _Judith_.
20. Esther, _with apocryphal additions_.
21. Job.
22. Psalms.
23. Proverbs.
24. Ecclesiastes.
25. Canticles.
26. _Wisdom of Solomon_.
27. _Ecclesiasticus_.
28. Hosea.
29. Amos.
30. Micah.
31. Joel.
32. Obadiah.
33. Jonah.
34. Nahum.
35. Habakkuk.
36. Zephaniah.
37. Haggai.
38. Zechariah.
39. Malachi.
40. Isaiah.
41. Jeremiah.
42. _Baruch_.
43. Lamentations.
44. _Epistle of Jeremiah_.
45. Ezekiel.
46. Daniel, _with apocryphal additions_--_Song of the Three Children in
the Furnace, History of Susannah, Story of Bel and the Dragon_.
47. 1 _Maccabees_.
48. 2 _Maccabees_.
49. 3 _Maccabees_.

The arrangement of books in the Latin _Vulgate_ agrees with that of the
Septuagint with the following exceptions: the two canonical books of
Ezra and Nehemiah appear together, as in the Septuagint, but under the
titles of 1 Esdras and 2 Esdras. Next follow the two apocryphal books of
Esdras (the latter wanting in the Septuagint), under the titles of 3
Esdras and 4 Esdras. The Greater Prophets, with Lamentations after
Jeremiah and Daniel after Ezekiel, are inserted before the twelve Minor
Prophets, which last stand in the order followed in our version.
Throwing out of account, therefore, the apocryphal books, the order of
the Vulgate is that followed by our English Bible.

    From the above it is manifest that in neither the Hebrew, the
    Greek, nor the Latin arrangement is the _order of time_ strictly
    followed. The Hebrew, for example, to say nothing of the Psalms,
    which were written in different ages, throws into the
    Hagiographa Ruth, Job, Proverbs, etc., which are older than any
    of the so-called latter prophets. The Hebrew places the books of
    Kings, and the Greek and Latin not only these, but also the
    books of Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther, before all the
    proper prophetical books, though it is well known that several
    of these were much earlier. In the Hebrew arrangement, the three
    Greater Prophets precede all the Minor Prophets, though several
    of the latter were earlier than Jeremiah and Ezekiel, and even
    Isaiah. In the Greek, on the contrary, Isaiah and Jeremiah, as
    well as Ezekiel, are placed after even the prophets of the
    Restoration. The biblical student should carefully remember
    these facts. He must not hastily assume that the books of the
    Old Testament stand in the order in which they were written, but
    must determine the age of each for itself, according to the best
    light that he can obtain. See further in the introductions to
    the several books.

5. In high antiquity, the _continuous mode of writing_, (_scriptio
continua_,) without divisions between the words, was common. We cannot
indeed infer, from the continuous writing of the oldest manuscripts of
the New Testament, that the same method prevailed in the ancient Hebrew
writing; for in very ancient inscriptions and manuscripts, belonging to
different languages, the words are distinguished from each other more or
less completely by points. Yet the neglect of these is common. In most
Greek and Phoenician inscriptions there is no division of words. The
translators of the Septuagint may be reasonably supposed to have
employed the best manuscripts at their command. Yet their version shows
that in these the words were either not separated at all, or only
partially. The complete separation of words by intervening spaces did
not take place till after the introduction of the _Assyrian_, or
_square_ character. Ch. 14, No. 2. With the separation is connected the
use of the so-called _final_ letters, that is, forms of certain letters
employed exclusively at the ends of words.

6. A very _ancient Jewish division_ of the sacred text is into _open_
and _closed_ sections. The former, which are the larger of the two, are
so named because in the Hebrew manuscripts, and in some printed
editions, the remainder of the line at their close is left _open_, the
next section beginning with a new line. The _closed_ sections, on the
contrary, are separated from each other only by a space in the middle of
a line--_shut in_ on either hand. The origin of these sections is
obscure. They answer in a general way to our sections and paragraphs,
and are older than the Talmud, which contains several references to
them, belonging at least to the earliest time when the sacred books were
read in public. Davidson, Biblical Criticism, vol. 1, ch. 5.

Different from these, and later in their origin, are the _larger
sections of the Law_, called _Parshiyoth_ (from the singular _Parashah_,
_section_), which have exclusive reference to the reading of the Law in
the synagogue service. These are fifty-four in number, one for each
Sabbath of the Jewish intercalary year, while on common years two of the
smaller sections are united. Corresponding to these sections of the Law
are sections from the _Prophets_, (the former and latter, according to
the Jewish classification,) called _Haphtaroth_, embracing, however,
only selections from the prophets, and not the whole, as do the sections
of the Law. The Jewish tradition is that this custom was first
introduced during the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes, (about 167
B.C.,) because the reading of the Law had been prohibited by him. But
this account of the matter is doubted by many.

    In the Pentateuch, the smaller sections called open and closed
    are indicated, the former by the Hebrew letter [Hebrew: P], that
    is, P, the initial letter of the word _pethuhah_, _open_; the
    latter by the Hebrew letter [Hebrew: S]=S, the first letter of
    the word _sethumah_, _closed_. The larger sections, arranged for
    the reading of the Law in the synagogues, are indicated by three
    [Hebrew: P]'s or three [Hebrew: S]'s, according as they coincide
    at their beginning with an open or closed section. In the other
    portions of the sacred text these divisions are simply indicated
    by the appropriate spaces. But some printed editions do not
    observe the distinction between the two in respect to space, so
    that the open and closed sections are confounded with each
    other.

7. _Chapters and Verses._ The division of the _poetical_ books and
passages of the Old Testament into separate _lines_, Hebrew, _pesukim_,
(answering in general to our half-verses, sometimes to the third of a
verse,) is very ancient, if not primitive. It is found in the poetical
passages of the Law and the historical books, (Exod., ch. 15; Deut., ch.
32; Judges, ch. 5; 2 Sam. ch. 22,) and belonged originally to the three
books of Job, Psalms, and Proverbs, which alone the Hebrews reckon as
poetical. See below, Ch. 21, No. 1. The division of the whole Old
Testament into _verses_, (likewise called by the Hebrews _pesukim_,) is
also the work of Jewish scholars. It existed in its completeness in the
ninth century, and must have had its origin much earlier in the
necessity that grew out of the public reading and interpretation of the
sacred books in the synagogue service.

In the Hebrew text the verses are distinguished by two points called
_soph-pasuk_ (:), except in the synagogue rolls, where, according to
ancient usage, this mark of distinction is omitted.

The present division into _chapters_ is much later, and is the work of
Christian scholars. By some it is ascribed to Stephen Langton,
archbishop of Canterbury, who died in 1227; by others to Cardinal Hugo
de St. Cher of the same century. The Jews transferred it from the Latin
Vulgate to the Hebrew text. There are, however, some discrepancies
between the chapters of the Hebrew text and those of the Vulgate and our
English version.

The division of the sacred text into chapters and verses is
indispensable for convenience of reference. But the student should
remember that these distinctions are wholly of human origin, and
sometimes separate passages closely connected in meaning. The first
verse, for example, of Isaiah, ch. 4, is immediately connected in sense
with the threatenings against "the daughters of Zion" contained in the
close of the preceding chapter In the beginning of ch. 11 of the same
book, the words: "And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of
Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots," contrast the Branch of
the Messiah with the Assyrian bough, the lopping off of which has just
been foretold; chap. 10:33, 34. The last three verses, again, of Isaiah,
ch. 52, evidently belong to the following chapter. The connections of
the sacred text, therefore, must be determined independently of these
human distinctions.




CHAPTER XIV.

THE ORIGINAL TEXT AND ITS HISTORY.


1. The original language of the Old Testament is _Hebrew_, with the
exception of certain portions of Ezra and Daniel and a single verse of
Jeremiah, (Ezra 4:8-6:18; 7:12-26; Dan. 2:4, from the middle of the
verse to end of chap. 7; Jer. 10:11,) which are written in the cognate
_Chaldee_ language. The Hebrew belongs to a stock of related languages
commonly called _Shemitic_, because spoken mainly by the descendants of
Shem. Its main divisions are: (1,) the _Arabic_, having its original
seat in the southeastern part of the Shemitic territory, and of which
the AEthiopic is a branch; (2,) the _Aramaean_ in the north and northeast,
comprising the eastern Aramaean or _Chaldee_, and the western or
_Syriac_; (3,) the _Hebrew_, occupying a middle place between the two.
The _Samaritan_ is essentially Aramaean, but with an intermixture of
Hebrew forms; the _Phoenician_, or _Punic_, on the other hand, is most
closely allied to the Hebrew. All these languages, with the exception of
the AEthiopic, are written from right to left, and exhibit many
peculiarities of orthography and grammatical forms and structure.

2. The Hebrew characters in present use, called the _Assyrian_, or
_square writing_, are not those originally employed. The earlier form is
undoubtedly represented by the inscriptions on the coins struck by the
Maccabees, of which the letters bear a strong resemblance to the
Samaritan and Phoenician characters. The Jewish tradition is that the
present square character was introduced by Ezra, and that it was of
Assyrian origin. The question of the correctness of this tradition has
been much discussed. Some wholly reject it, and hold that the present
square writing came by a gradual process of change from a more ancient
type. See Davidson's Bib. Crit., vol. I, ch. 3.

That the present square writing existed in our Saviour's day has been
argued with much force from Matth. 5:18, where the Saviour says: "Till
heaven and earth pass, one jot (_iota_) or one tittle (_keraia_) shall
in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." The _iota_ (Hebrew
_yod_) is the letter _i_ or _y_, which in the square writing is the
smallest in the alphabet ([Hebrew: y]), but not in the ancient Hebrew,
Ph[oe]nician, or Samaritan. The _keraia_, _little turn_, is that which
distinguishes one letter from another; as [Hebrew: d], _d_, from
[Hebrew: r], _r_; or [Hebrew: b], _b_, from [Hebrew: k], _k_. See Alford
on Matth. 5:18. (The recent discovery in the Crimea of inscriptions on
the tombs of Caraite Jews, some of them dating back, it is alleged, to
the first century, proves that the Assyrian or square character was then
in use. In these inscriptions the _Yod_ (iota) is represented by a
simple point. See Alexander's Kitto, vol. 3, p. 1173.)

The _Rabbinic_ is a modification of the Assyrian or square writing, for
the purpose of giving it a more cursive character.

3. The _Hebrew alphabet_, like all the other Shemitic alphabets--with
the exception of the AEthiopic, which is _syllabic_, the vowels being
indicated by certain modifications in the forms of the consonants--was
originally a skeleton alphabet, an alphabet of consonants, in which,
however, certain letters, called vowel-letters, performed in a measure
the office of vowels. The Shemite did not separate the vowels from the
consonants, and express them, as we do, by separate signs. He rather
conceived of the vowels as inhering in the consonants--as modifications
in the utterance of the consonants, which the reader could make for
himself. Various particulars in respect to the pronunciation of certain
consonants were, in like manner, left to the reader's own knowledge. For
example, the three Hebrew letters, [Hebrew: sh], _sh_; [Hebrew: m], _m_;
[Hebrew: r], _r_, ([Hebrew: shmr], to be read from right to left,) might
be pronounced, _shamar_, _he kept_; _shemor_, _keep thou_; _shomer_,
_keeping_--the reader determining from the connection which of these
forms should be used, just as we decide in English between the different
pronunciations of the word _bow_. As long as the Hebrew remained a
living language, that is, the language of the masses of the people, this
outline alphabet was sufficient for all practical purposes. The modern
Arabs read without difficulty their ordinary books, which omit, in like
manner, the signs for the vowels. The regularity of structure which
belongs to the Shemitic languages generally, makes this omission less
inconvenient for them than a like omission would be for us in our
western tongues.

4. During the long Babylonish captivity the mass of the Jewish people,
who were born and educated in Babylon and the adjacent regions, adopted
of necessity the language of the country; that is, the Aramaean or
Chaldee language. After the exile, the Hebrew was indeed spoken and
written by the prophets and learned men, but not by the people at large.
In Nehemiah 8:8 we are told that "they read in the book in the law of
God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the
reading." This has been explained by some as meaning simply that they
expounded to them the sense. But the more natural meaning is that they
_interpreted_ to the people the words read from the law. We find, soon
after the captivity at least, the old Hebrew supplanted as a living
language among the people at large by the Aramaean or Chaldee. Why not
date the change from the latter part of the captivity itself?

It was natural that the prophets and historians, all of whom wrote soon
after the exile, should employ the sacred language of their fathers.
This fact cannot be adduced as a valid argument that the body of the
people continued to speak Hebrew. The incorporation, on the other hand,
of long passages in Chaldee into the books of Daniel and Ezra implies at
least that this language was known to the people at large. As to the
children spoken of in Neh. 13:24, who "could not speak in the Jews'
language, but according to the language of each people"--the people, to
wit, to which their mothers belonged--"the Jews' language" here is
probably the language used by the Jews, as distinguished from that used
by the people of Ashdod, Ammon, and Moab. Keil, Introduction to Old
Testament, Sec. 18.

5. After the Hebrew had ceased to be the language of the common people,
its traditional pronunciation was carefully preserved for many
successive centuries in the synagogue-reading. It was not till several
centuries after Christ (somewhere between the sixth and the tenth
centuries) that the vowel-signs and other marks of distinction were
added in order to perpetuate, with all possible accuracy, the solemn
traditional pronunciation of the synagogue. This work is ascribed to
learned Jews of Tiberias, called _Masoretes_, from _Masora_,
_tradition_; and the Hebrew text thus furnished by them is called the
_Masoretic_, in distinction from the _unpointed_ text, which latter is,
according to Jewish usage, retained in the synagogue-rolls. From
reverence to the word of God, the _punctuators_ (as these men are also
called) left the primitive text in all cases undisturbed, simply
superadding to it their marks of distinction. After giving with great
minuteness the different _vowel-signs_ and marks (commonly called
_diacritical_) for the varying pronunciation of the consonants, they
superadded a complicated system of _accents_. These serve the threefold
office of guides in _cantillating_ the sacred text (according to ancient
usage in the synagogue-reading); of indicating the _connection in
meaning_ among the words and clauses; and of marking, though with
certain exceptions, the _tone-syllables_ of words. In addition to all
the above, they added a mass of _notes_, partly of a critical and partly
of a grammatical character, relating to various readings, grammatical
forms and connections, modes of orthography, and the like. These are
called collectively the _Masorah_, of which there is a fuller Masorah
called the _greater_ (found only in Rabbinical Bibles), and a briefer,
called the _less_, the main part of which is found in common editions of
the Hebrew Bible. To illustrate the _Masoretic_ as contrasted with the
_unpointed_ text, we give the first verse of Genesis, _first_, in its
simple unpointed form; _secondly_, with the vowel-signs and diacritical
marks for the consonants; _thirdly_, with both these and the accents,
the last being the complete Masoretic text.

[Hebrew: br'shit br' 'lhim et hshmym vet h'rts]

[Hebrew: bere'shit bara' 'elohim et hashamayim veet ha'arets]

[Hebrew: o bere'shit bara' 'elohim et hashamayim veet ha'arets]

_ha-arets. ve-eth hasshamayim eth elohim bara Bereshith

the-earth. and-it the heavens them God created In-the-beginning_

The round circle above the initial letter in the third line refers to a
marginal _note of the Masorah_ indicating that it is to be written
_large_.

Respecting the origin and antiquity of the Hebrew points a warm
controversy existed in former times. Some maintained that they were
coeval with the language itself; others that they were first introduced
by Ezra after the Babylonish captivity. But their later
origin--somewhere between the sixth and tenth centuries--is now
generally conceded. It is further agreed that their inventors were able
scholars, thoroughly acquainted as well with the genius and structure of
the language as with the traditional pronunciation of the synagogue; and
that they have given a faithful representation of this pronunciation, as
it existed in their day. Their judgment, therefore, though not invested
with any divine authority, is very valuable. "It represents a tradition,
it is true; but a tradition of the oldest and most important character."
Horne's Introduction, vol. 2, p. 15, edition of 1860.

6. The deep reverence of the Jews for their sacred books manifests
itself in their numerous rules for the guidance of copyists in the
transcription of the rolls designed for use in the synagogue service.
They extend to every minute particular--the quality of the ink and the
parchment (which latter must always be prepared by a Jew from the skin
of a clean animal, and fastened by strings made from the skins of clean
animals); the number, length, and breadth of the columns; the number of
lines in each column, and the number of words in each line. No word must
be written till the copyist has first inspected it in the example before
him, and pronounced it aloud; before writing the name of God he must
wash his pen; all redundance or defect of letters must be carefully
avoided: prose must not be written as verse, or verse as prose; and when
the copy has been completed, it must be examined for approval or
rejection within thirty days. Superstitious, and even ridiculous, as
these rules are, we have in them a satisfactory assurance of the
fidelity with which the sacred text has been perpetuated. Though their
date may be posterior to the age of the Talmudists (between 200 and 500
after Christ), the spirit of reverence for the divine word which they
manifest goes far back beyond this age. We see it, free from these later
superstitious observances, in the transactions recorded in the eighth
chapter of Nehemiah, when Ezra opened the book of the law in the sight
of all the people, "and when he opened it, all the people stood up." The
early history of the sacred text is confessedly involved in great
obscurity; but in the profound reverence with which the Jews have ever
regarded it since the captivity, we have satisfactory proof that it has
come down to us, in all essential particulars, as Ezra left it. Of the
primitive text before the days of Ezra and his associates we have but a
few brief notices in the historical books. But in the fidelity and skill
of Ezra, who was "a ready scribe in the law of Moses, which the Lord God
of Israel had given," as well as in the intelligence and deep
earnestness of the men associated with him, we have a reasonable ground
of assurance that the sacred books which have come down to us through
their hands contain, in all essential particulars, the primitive text in
a pure and uncorrupt form.

7. As to the _age_ of Hebrew manuscripts, it is to be noticed that not
many have come down to us from an earlier century than the twelfth. In
this respect there is a striking difference between them and the Greek
and Latin manuscripts of the New Testament, a few of which are as old as
the fourth and fifth centuries, and quite a number anterior to the
tenth. The oldest known Hebrew manuscript, on the contrary, is a
Pentateuch roll on leather, now at Odessa, which, if the subscription
stating that it was _corrected_ in the year 580 can be relied on,
belongs to the sixth century. One of De Rossi's manuscripts is supposed
to belong to the eighth century, and there are a few of the ninth and
tenth, and several of the eleventh. Bishop Walton supposes that after
the Masoretic text was fully settled, the Jewish rulers condemned, as
profane and illegitimate, all the older manuscripts not conformed to
this: whence, after a few ages, the rejected copies mostly perished. The
existing Hebrew manuscripts give the Masoretic text with but little
variation from each other.

Earnest effort has been made to find a reliable ante-Masoretic text, but
to no purpose. The search in China has thus far been fruitless. When Dr.
Buchanan in 1806 brought from India a synagogue-roll which he found
among the Jews of Malabar, high expectations were raised. But it is now
conceded to be a Masoretic roll, probably of European origin. Respecting
the manuscripts of the _Samaritan_ Pentateuch, see below, No. 9.

(A synagogue-roll has recently been discovered in the Crimea of the date
answering to A.D. 489. See Alexander's Kitto, vol. 3, pp. 1172-5.)

8. In respect to _form_, Hebrew manuscripts fall into two great
divisions, _public_ and _private_. The public manuscripts consist of
_synagogue-rolls_ carefully written out on parchment, as already
described, without vowel-points or divisions of verses. The Law is
written on a single roll; the sections from the prophets (Haphtaroth,
ch. 12. 6) and the Five Rolls--Canticles, Ruth, Lamentations,
Ecclesiastes, Esther (ch. 12. 4)--each on separate rolls. The private
manuscripts are written _with leaves_ in book form--folio, quarto,
octavo, and duodecimo; mostly on parchment, but some of the later on
paper. The poetical passages are generally arranged in hemistichs; the
rest is in columns which vary according to the size of the page. The
text and points were always written separately; the former with a
heavier, the latter with a lighter pen, and generally with different
ink. The square or Assyrian character is employed as a rule, but a few
are written in the rabbinic character. The Chaldee paraphrase (less
frequently some other version) may be added. The margin contains more or
less of the Masorah; sometimes prayers, psalms, rabbinical commentaries,
etc.

9. There is also a _Samaritan Pentateuch_; that is, a Hebrew Pentateuch
written in the ancient Samaritan characters, and first brought to light
in 1616, respecting the origin of which very different opinions are
held. Some suppose that the Samaritans received it as an inheritance
from the ten tribes; others that it was introduced at the time of the
founding of the Samaritan temple on Mount Gerizim; others that it was
brought by the Israelitish priest sent to instruct the Samaritans in the
knowledge of God, 2 Kings 17:27, 28. It is agreed among biblical
scholars that its text has been subjected to many alterations which
greatly impair its critical authority. These, however, are not
sufficient to account for its remarkable agreement with the Septuagint
version against the Masoretic text, in numerous readings, some of them
of importance. The explanation of this phenomenon must be the agreement
of the original Samaritan codex with the manuscripts from which the
Alexandrine version was executed. Probably both were of Egyptian origin.
See Alexander's Kitto, art. Samaritan Pentateuch.

In a brief compend, like the present work, it is not thought necessary
to notice particularly the _printed_ editions of the Hebrew Bible. The
reader will find an account of them in the "Bibliographical List"
appended to the fourth volume of Horne's Introduction, edition of 1860.
The text of Van der Hooght's Hebrew Bible, (Amsterdam and Utrecht,
1705,) which was chiefly based on the earlier text of Athias,
(Amsterdam, 1667,) is generally followed at the present day, and may be
regarded as the received text of the Hebrew Scriptures.




CHAPTER XV.

FORMATION AND HISTORY OF THE HEBREW CANON.


1. The Greek word _canon_ (originally a _straight rod or pole_,
_measuring-rod_, then _rule_) denotes that collection of books which the
churches receive as given by inspiration of God, and therefore as
constituting for them a divine rule of faith and practice. To the books
included in it the term _canonical_ is applied. The Canon of the Old
Testament, considered in reference to its constituent parts, was formed
gradually; formed under divine superintendence by a process of growth
extending through many centuries. The history of its formation may be
conveniently considered under the following divisions: (1,) the
_Pentateuch_; (2,) the _historical_ books; (3,) the _prophetical_ books
in the stricter sense of the term; (4,) a somewhat miscellaneous
collection of books which may be designated in a general way as
_poetical_.


I. THE PENTATEUCH.

2. In the name applied to the Pentateuch--"the book of the law," and
more fully, "the book of the law of Moses," "the book of the law of
Moses, which the Lord had commanded to Israel"--we have from the
beginning the general idea of the canon. A canonical writing is one that
contains a communication from God to men, and has therefore the impress
of divine authority. In its outward form it may be preceptive,
historical, or meditative. But in all these different modes it still
reveals to men God's character, and the duties which he requires of
them. The Hebrews never admitted to the number of their sacred books a
writing that was secular in its character. Even those who deny the
canonical authority of certain parts of the Old Testament acknowledge
that the Jews received these parts because they believed them to be of a
sacred character.

3. In Deut. 31:9-13, 24-26; 17:18, 19, we read: "And Moses wrote this
law, and delivered it unto the priests the sons of Levi, which bare the
ark of the covenant of the Lord, and unto all the elders of Israel. And
Moses commanded them, saying, At the end of every seven years, in the
solemnity of the year of release, in the feast of tabernacles, when all
Israel is come to appear before the Lord thy God in the place which he
shall choose, thou shalt read this law before all Israel in their
hearing. Gather the people together, men, and women, and children, and
thy stranger that is within thy gates, that they may hear, and that they
may learn, and fear the Lord your God, and observe to do all the words
of this law: and that their children which have not known anything, may
hear, and learn to fear the Lord your God, as long as ye live in the
land whither ye go over Jordan to possess it:" "and it came to pass,
when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book,
until they were finished, that Moses commanded the Levites, which bare
the ark of the covenant of the Lord, saying, Take this book of the law,
and put it in the side" (that is, not _within_, but _by the side_.
Compare Josh. 12:9; Ruth 2:14; 1 Sam. 20:25; Psa. 91:7; where the same
word is used in the original) "of the ark of the covenant of the Lord
your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee;" "and it
shall be when he"--the king whom the Israelites in some future age shall
set over themselves--"sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he
shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before
the priests the Levites: and it shall be with him, and he shall read
therein all the days of his life; that he may learn to fear the Lord his
God, to keep all the words of this law and the statutes, to do them."
These passages are of the weightiest import; for they teach us how the
_nucleus_ of the canon of the Old Testament was formed, and give us all
the particulars that enter into the idea of a canonical writing. It is
given by God as an authoritative rule of faith and practice; it is
committed to the custody of his people through their recognized
officers, and that for all future time; it is to be published to the
people at large, and diligently studied by the rulers, that they and the
people together may know and do the will of God. It is not necessary to
decide the question how much is included in the words "this book of the
law," Deut. 31:26, whether the whole Pentateuch, or only the book of
Deuteronomy. The arguments to show that the four preceding books came,
in all essential respects, from the pen of Moses have been already given
(Ch. 9, Nos. 7-9), and need not be here repeated. We only add that even
if the reference is to Deuteronomy alone, as some suppose, the rule for
this book would naturally be the rule for all the previous writings.
They also would be laid up by the side of the ark; for it is plain that
the priests and Levites, who had charge of the sanctuary, were made the
keepers of the sacred writings generally.

As a matter of simple convenience the book of Deuteronomy was written on
a separate roll ("in a book," Deut. 31:24). But if this book, when
finished, was laid up with the earlier portions of the law at the side
of the ark, so as to constitute with them a single collection, and if,
as we may reasonably suppose, Moses, in writing the book of Deuteronomy,
contemplated such a collection of all the parts of the law into one
whole; then, when the law is mentioned, whether in Deuteronomy or in the
later books, we are to understand the whole law, unless there be
something in the context to limit its meaning, as there is, for example,
in Joshua 8:32 compared with Deut. 27:1-8. The command to "read this law
before all Israel in their hearing," "at the end of every seven years,
in the solemnity of the year of release, in the feast of tabernacles,"
was understood in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah of the whole law, and
not of Deuteronomy alone (Ch. 9, No. 4); and so Josephus plainly
understood it: "But when the multitude is assembled in the holy city at
the septennial sacrifices on the occasion of the feast of tabernacles,
let the high priest, standing on a lofty stage whence he can be plainly
heard, read the laws to all." Antiq. 4.8, 12. "The laws," in the usage
of Josephus, naturally mean the whole collection of laws.


II. THE HISTORICAL BOOKS.

4. The history of these is involved in obscurity. In respect to most of
them we know not the authors, nor the exact date of their composition.
There are, however, two notices that shed much light on the general
history of the earlier historical books. In the last chapter of the book
of Joshua, after an account of the renewal of the covenant at Shechem,
it is added: "And Joshua wrote these words in the book of the law of
God, and took a great stone, and set it up there under an oak that was
by the sanctuary of the Lord." Josh. 24:26. Again, upon the occasion of
the establishment of the kingdom under Saul, we are told that "Samuel
told the people the manner of the kingdom, and wrote it in a book, and
laid it up before the Lord." 1 Sam. 10:25. From the first of these
passages we learn that a theocratic man after Moses, who had the spirit
of prophecy, connected his writings (or at least one portion of them)
with the law. This addition by Joshua, though never formally regarded as
a part of the law, virtually belonged to it, since it contained a
renewal of the covenant between God and his people. From the second
passage we learn that the place for other important documents pertaining
to the theocracy was "before the Lord," where the law was deposited.
Hence we infer with much probability that, besides the addition made to
"the book of the law of God," important historical writings, proceeding
from prophetical men, like Joshua and Samuel, were in process of
collection at the sanctuary all the time from Moses to Samuel.

5. If now we examine the books of Joshua and Judges, we must be
satisfied that the men who compiled them made use of such materials. In
the book of Joshua is recorded, with much detail, the allotment of the
land of Canaan among the several tribes. A document of this nature must
have been written at the time, and by Joshua himself, or under his
immediate direction. The same may be reasonably supposed of other
portions of the book. If then it was put into its present form after the
death of Joshua, as some suppose, the materials must still have been
furnished by him to a great extent. The book of Judges covers a period
of more than three centuries. Who composed it we do not know, but the
materials employed by him must have existed, in part at least, in a
written form. The book of Ruth may be regarded as an appendix to that of
the Judges.

6. The two books of Samuel (which originally constituted one whole)
bring down the history of the Theocracy from the birth of Samuel to the
close of David's reign--a period of about a century and a half. The
author, therefore, can have been, upon any supposition, only in part
contemporary with the events which he records. Yet if we examine the
biographical sketches of Saul, Samuel, and David contained in these
books, the conviction forces itself upon us that they must have been
written by contemporaries. Their freshness, minute accuracy of detail,
and graphic vividness of style mark them as coming from eye-witnesses,
or from writers who had received their accounts from eye-witnesses. Who
were authors of these original documents we cannot determine. It is
certain that Samuel was one of them. 1 Chron. 29:29. Who composed the
books, again, is a question that we are unable to answer. It was
probably a prophet living not very long after the separation of the
kingdoms of Israel and Judah. From the days of Samuel and onward there
was a flourishing school of the prophets at hand which could furnish,
under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, both the writers of the
original materials and the author of the books in their present form.

The attempt has been made to set aside the evidence that the writer of
the books of Samuel made use of earlier documents, from the example of
such men as Swift and Defoe, who composed works of fiction with all the
simplicity and circumstantial detail of those who write authentic
history as eye-witnesses. But, unless the design be to class the books
of Samuel with "Gulliver's Travels" and "Robinson Crusoe," the argument
is wholly irrelevant. With Swift and Defoe simplicity and minuteness of
detail were a matter of conscious effort--_a work of art_, for which
they naturally chose the region of fiction; and here they, and other men
of genius, have been eminently successful. Shakespeare has portrayed
_ideal_ scenes in the life of Julius Caesar with more vividness and
circumstantiality than any authentic historian of Caesar's age. But _real
history_, written simply in the interest of truth, never has the graphic
character, artless simplicity, and circumstantiality of detail which
belong to these inimitable narratives, unless the writer be either an
eye-witness, or draw his materials from eye-witnesses.

7. We come next to the books of Kings and Chronicles, the writers of
which confessedly employed previously existing materials. In the two
books of Kings (which, like the two of Samuel and of Chronicles,
originally constituted one work) reference is made to the following
sources: For the reign of Solomon, "the book of the acts of Solomon" (1
Kings 11:41); for the kingdom of Judah after the revolt of the twelve
tribes from Rehoboam to Jehoiakim, "the book of the chronicles of the
kings of Judah;" for the kingdom of Israel, "the book of the chronicles
of the kings of Israel." In the books of Chronicles we have: For the
reign of David, "the book" (history) "of Samuel the seer, the book of
Nathan the prophet, and the book of Gad the seer" (1 Chron. 29:29); for
the reign of Solomon, "the book of Nathan the prophet, the prophecy of
Ahijah the Shilonite," and "the vision of Iddo the seer against Jeroboam
the son of Nebat" (2 Chron. 9:29); for the reign of Rehoboam, "the book
of Shemaiah the prophet," and "of Iddo the seer concerning genealogies,"
that is, in the manner of a genealogical record (2 Chron. 12:15); for
the reign of Abijah, "the story" (commentary) "of the prophet Iddo" (2
Chron. 13:22); for the reign of Jehoshaphat, "the book of Jehu the son
of Hanani," who is mentioned (rather, _who is inserted_, i.e., as an
author) in the book of the kings of Israel (2 Chron. 20:34); for the
reign of Uzziah, "the prophet Isaiah" (2 Chron. 26:22); for the reign of
Hezekiah in part, "the vision of Isaiah the prophet" (2 Chron. 32:32);
for the reign of Manasseh in part, "the sayings of the seers," or, as
many prefer to render, "the words of Hosai" (2 Chron. 33:18). Besides
the above, reference is made to "the book of the kings of Judah and
Israel," "the book of the kings of Israel and Judah," "the story of the
book of the kings;" "the book of the kings of Israel." These last are
probably only different titles of the same collection of annals,
embracing in its contents the history of _both_ kingdoms; since the
references to the book of the kings of Israel are for the affairs of the
kingdom of Judah (2 Chron. 20:34; 33:18).

8. With regard to the above _original sources_, it should be carefully
noticed that the references in the books of Kings are not to our present
books of Chronicles, which did not exist when the books of Kings were
written. Chap. 20, No. 21. Neither can the allusions in the books of
Chronicles be restricted to our present books of Kings; for (1) they
refer to matters not recorded in those books--for example, to the wars
of Jotham, 2 Chron. 27:7; (2) they refer to the book of the kings of
Judah and Israel for a _full_ account of the acts of a given monarch
"first and last," while the history of the same monarch in our present
books of Kings refers for _further_ information to the book of the
Chronicles of the kings of Judah. It is plain that both writers had
access to a _larger collection of original documents_, which were in
great part the same. The chief difference in outward form is that, when
the books of Chronicles were written, the annals of the two kingdoms of
Judah and Israel seem to have constituted a single collection, whereas
in the books of Kings they are always mentioned as two separate works.
In making his selections from these annals, each writer proceeded
independently. Hence the remarkable agreements, where both used the same
materials; and the remarkable differences, where one employed documents,
or parts of documents, which the other omitted to use.

9. As to the _character_ of these original documents, it is plain that a
portion of them were written by prophets. By some the books of the kings
of Israel and Judah so often referred to, have been regarded as simply
the public annals of the two kingdoms written by the official annalists,
the "scribes" or "recorders" so often spoken of. No doubt such annals
existed, and entered largely into the documents in question. But the
right interpretation of 2 Chron. 20:34, shows that, in some cases at
least, the writings of prophets were incorporated into these annals. The
extended history of Elijah and Elisha cannot have been the work of the
public scribes of the kingdom of Israel, but of prophets, writing from
the prophetic point of view. The question, however, is not one of
practical importance, since, whatever may have been the source or
character of the materials employed, the writers of the books now under
consideration, used them at their discretion under the guidance of the
Spirit of God. To us, therefore, they come with the weight of prophetic
authority. The further consideration of the relation between the books
of Kings and Chronicles is reserved for the special introductions to
these books. It may be added here that the probable date of the former
is the first half of the Babylonish captivity; of the latter, the time
of Ezra under the Persian rule.

10. The books of Ezra and Nehemiah constitute a continuation of the
books of Chronicles, and need not be particularly noticed in the present
connection. For their authorship and date, as also for the book of
Esther, see the particular introductions to these books.


III. THE PROPHETICAL BOOKS.

11. Under the _prophetical books_, in the stricter sense of the word,
may be included the three Greater prophets--Isaiah, Jeremiah, and
Ezekiel--Daniel (though largely historical), and the twelve Minor
prophets. These will all come up hereafter for separate consideration.
At present we view them simply with reference to the growth of the Old
Testament Canon. From the settlement of the Israelities in the land of
Canaan to the time of Samuel, a period of several centuries (according
to the chronology followed by the apostle Paul, Acts 13:20, four hundred
and fifty years), we read of several appearances of the "angel of the
Lord." Judges 2:1; 6:11; 13:3. The notices of prophets during the same
period are only three in number. Judges 4:4; 6:8; 1 Sam. 2:27. But with
Samuel began a new era. He was himself one of the greatest of the
prophets, and he established a school of the prophets over which he
himself presided. 1 Sam. 10:5, 10; 19:20. From his day onward such
schools seem to have flourished as a theocratic institution throughout
the whole period of the kings, though more vigorously at certain times.
1 Kings 18:4; 20:35; 2 Kings 2:3, 5; 4:1, 38, 43; 5:22; 6:1; 9:1. So far
as we have notices of these schools, they were under the instruction of
eminent prophets; and "the sons of the prophets" assembled in them
received such a training as fitted them, so far as human instrumentality
is concerned, for the exercise of the prophetical office, as well as for
being, in a more general sense, the religious instructors of the people.
From these schools came, apparently, most of those whom God called to be
his messengers to the rulers and people, though with exceptions
according to his sovereign wisdom. Amos 1:1; 7:14. We find, accordingly,
that from the days of Samuel and onward the prophets were recognized as
a _distinct order of men_ in the Jewish theocracy, who derived their
authority immediately from God, and spoke by direct inspiration of his
Spirit, as they themselves indicate by the standing formula: "Thus saith
the Lord."

12. It is a remarkable fact, however, that from Samuel to about the
reign of Uzziah, a period of some three centuries, we have no _books of
prophecy_ written by these men, if we except, perhaps, the book of
Jonah. Their writings seem to have been mainly historical (like the
historical notices incorporated into the books of Isaiah, Jeremiah,
Ezekiel, and Daniel); and what remains to us of them is preserved in the
historical books of the Old Testament. See above, Nos. 6 and 7. But
about the time of Uzziah begins a new era, that of _written_ prophecy.
During his reign appeared Hosea, Amos, Isaiah, and probably Jonah, Joel,
and Obadiah. Micah followed immediately afterwards, being contemporary
in part with Isaiah; and then, in succession, the rest of the prophets
whose writings have come down to us. When the theocracy was now on its
decline, waxing old and destined to pass away for ever, they felt
themselves called to _put on record_, for the instruction of all coming
ages, their words of warning and encouragement. Thus arose gradually our
present collection of prophetical books; that of Lamentations included,
which is but an appendix to the writings of Jeremiah.


IV. THE POETICAL BOOKS.

13. These are a precious outgrowth of the theocratic spirit, in which
the elements of _meditation and reflection_ predominate. Concerning the
date and authorship of the book of Job, which stands first in order in
our arrangement, we have no certain information. Learned men vary
between the ante-Mosaic age and that of Solomon. Its theme is divine
providence, as viewed from the position of the Old Testament. See
further in the introduction to this book.

14. With the call of David to the throne of Israel began a new and
glorious era in the history of public worship, that of "the service of
song in the house of the Lord." 1 Chron. 6:31. As when Moses smote the
rock in the wilderness the water gushed forth in refreshing streams, so
the soul of David, touched by the spirit of inspiration, poured forth a
rich and copious flood of divine song, which has in all ages refreshed
and strengthened God's people in their journey heavenward "through this
dark vale of tears." Nor was the fountain of sacred poetry confined to
him alone. God opened it also in the souls of such men as Asaph, Ethan,
Heman, and the sons of Korah; nor did its flow wholly cease till after
the captivity. The Psalms of David and his coadjutors were from the
first dedicated to the service of the sanctuary; and thus arose our
canonical book of Psalms, although (as will be hereafter shown) it did
not receive its present form and arrangement till the time of Ezra and
Nehemiah.

15. After David came Solomon in the sphere of practical wisdom. This,
according to the divine record, he received as a special endowment from
God, though doubtless he had in a peculiar measure a natural capacity
for such an endowment. In Gibeon the Lord appeared to him in a dream by
night, and said: "Ask what I shall give thee." Passing by wealth, long
life, and the death of his enemies, the youthful monarch besought God to
give him "an understanding heart," that he might be qualified to judge
the great people committed to his care. The answer was: "Behold, I have
done according to thy word: lo, I have given thee a wise and an
understanding heart; so that there was none like thee before thee,
neither after thee shall any arise like unto thee." 1 Kings 3:5-12. Thus
divinely qualified, he embodied, in a vast collection of proverbs, his
observations on human life, and the course of human affairs. Our
canonical book of Proverbs is a selection from these, with some
additions at the end from other sources. For notices respecting the
arrangement of these proverbs in their present form, as well as
respecting the books of Ecclesiastes and Canticles, which are also
ascribed to Solomon, the reader may consult the introductions to these
books.


V. THE COMPLETION OF THE CANON.

The subject thus far before us has been _the growth of the materials_
which constitute our canonical books. The question of their preservation
and final embodiment in their present form remains to be considered.

16. Respecting the _preservation_ of the sacred books till the time of
Ezra and Nehemiah, our information is very scanty. Each king was
required to have at hand for his own personal use a transcript of the
law of Moses (Deut. 17:18), the original writing being carefully laid up
in the inner sanctuary, where Hilkiah, the high priest, found it in the
reign of Josiah. 2 Kings 22:8. We cannot doubt that such kings as David,
Solomon, Asa, and Hezekiah complied with this law: though after the
disorders connected with the reign of Manasseh and his captivity, the
good king Josiah neglected it. Jehoshaphat, we are expressly told, sent
men to teach in the cities of Judah, who had "the book of the law of the
Lord with them, and went about throughout all the cities of Judah, and
taught the people." 2 Chron. 17:7-9. Of course it was a copy, and not
the original autograph, which might not be removed from the sanctuary.
It is a natural supposition that other transcripts of the law were made
under the direction of the high priest, for the use of pious men,
especially pious prophets, princes, and Levites, who needed its
directions for the right discharge of their official duties, though on
this point we can affirm nothing positively. As to the prophetical
books, we know that Jeremiah had access to the writings of Isaiah, for
in repeated instances he borrowed his language. We know again that
Daniel had at hand the prophecies of Jeremiah; for he understood "by
books" (literally "by the books," which may be well understood to mean
that collection of sacred books of which the prophecies of Jeremiah
formed a part) "the number of the years whereof the word of the Lord
came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in
the desolations of Jerusalem." Dan. 9:2. The consecration of the Psalms
of David and his coadjutors to the public service of the sanctuary must
have insured their careful preservation by the Levites who had charge of
the temple music; and, in general, the deep reverence of the Jews for
their sacred writings is to us a reasonable evidence that they preserved
them from loss and mutilation to the captivity, and through that
calamitous period.

17. To Ezra and his coadjutors, the men of the Great Synagogue, the Jews
ascribe the _completion of the canon_ of the Old Testament. Their
traditions concerning him are embellished with extravagant fictions; yet
we cannot reasonably deny that they are underlaid by a basis of truth.
All the scriptural notices of Ezra attest both his zeal and his ability
as "a scribe of the words of the commandments of the Lord, and of his
statutes to Israel," a man who "had prepared his heart to seek the law
of the Lord, and to do it, and to teach in Israel statutes and
judgments." Ezra 7:10, 11. The work in which he and his associates were
engaged was the reestablishment of the Theocracy on its old foundation,
the law of Moses, with the ordinances pertaining to the
sanctuary-service afterwards added by David; and that too in the vivid
consciousness of the fact that disobedience to the divine law had
brought upon the nation the calamities of the captivity. In such
circumstances their first solicitude must have been that the people
might have the inspired oracles given to their fathers, and be
thoroughly instructed in them. The work, therefore, which Jewish
tradition ascribes to Ezra and the men of the Great Synagogue was
altogether appropriate to their situation, nor do we know of any man or
body of men afterwards so well qualified for its performance, or upon
whom it would so naturally have devolved.

That they arranged the inspired volume in substantially its present
form, we have no good reason for doubting. But we should not, perhaps,
be warranted in saying that they brought the canon of the Old Testament
absolutely and formally to a close. Josephus (against Apion 1. 8)
affirms that no book belongs to the sacred writings of his nation "which
are justly believed to be divine," that had its origin after the reign
of Artaxerxes, Xerxes' son (Artaxerxes Longimanus, under whom Ezra led
forth his colony, Ezra, chap. 7); and that on the ground that from this
time onward "the exact succession of the prophets" was wanting. This
declaration of the Jewish historian is in all essential respects worthy
of full credence. We cannot, however, affirm with confidence that all
the later historical books were put by Ezra and his contemporaries into
the exact form in which we now have them. The book of Nehemiah, for
example, contains some genealogical notices (chap. 12:11, 22) which,
according to any fair interpretation, are of a later date. We are at
liberty to suppose that these were afterwards added officially and in
good faith, as matters of public interest; or, as some think, that the
book itself is an arrangement by a later hand of writings left by
Nehemiah, perhaps also by Ezra; so that while its contents belong, in
every essential respect, to them, it received its present form after
their death. Respecting the question when the canon of the Old Testament
received its finishing stroke, a question which the wisdom of God has
left in obscurity, we must speak with diffidence. We know with certainty
that our present Hebrew canon is identical with that collection of
sacred writings to which our Saviour and his apostles constantly
appealed as invested throughout with divine authority, and this is a
firm basis for our faith.

    The attempt has been made, but without success, to show that a
    portion of the Psalms belongs to the Maccabean age. The words of
    the Psalmist (Psa. 74:8) rendered in our version: "They have
    burned up all the synagogues of God in the land," have no
    reference to the synagogues of a later age, as is now generally
    admitted. The Hebrew word denotes _places of assembly_, and was
    never applied by the later Jews to their synagogues. The
    Psalmist wrote, moreover, in immediate connection with the
    burning of the temple--"they have cast fire into thy sanctuary,
    they have defiled by casting down the dwelling-place of thy name
    to the ground"--and this fixes the date of the Psalm to the
    Chaldean invasion (2 Kings 25:9); for the temple was not burned,
    but only profaned, in the days of the Maccabees. By "the
    assemblies of God," we are probably to understand the ancient
    sacred places, such as Ramah, Bethel, and Gilgal, where the
    people were accustomed to meet, though in a somewhat irregular
    way, for the worship of God. But whether this interpretation be
    correct or not, the words have no reference to the buildings of
    a later age called synagogues.

    Some of the apocryphal writings, as, for example, the book of
    Wisdom, the book of Ecclesiasticus, the first book of Maccabees,
    were highly valued by the ancient Jews. But they were never
    received into the Hebrew canon, because their authors lived
    _after_ "the exact succession of the prophets," which ended with
    Malachi. They knew how to make the just distinction between
    books of human wisdom and books written "by inspiration of God."

18. The earliest notice of the _contents of the Hebrew Canon_ is that
contained in the prologue to the Greek translation of Ecclesiasticus,
where it is described as "the law, the prophets, and the other national
books," "the law, and the prophecies, and the rest of the books,"
according to the three-fold division already considered. Chap. 18, No.
4. Josephus, in the passage already referred to (against Apion, 1. 8),
says: "We have not among us innumerable books discordant and contrary to
each other, but only two-and-twenty, containing the history of all time,
which are justly believed to be divine. And of these five belong to
Moses, which contain the laws and the transmission of human genealogy to
the time of his death. This period of time wants but little of three
thousand years" (the longer chronology followed by him). "But from the
death of Moses to the reign of Artaxerxes, who was king of the Persians
after Xerxes, the prophets after Moses wrote the history of their times
in thirteen books. The remaining four contain hymns to God and precepts
for human life. From Artaxerxes to our time various books have been
written; but they have not been esteemed worthy of credence like that
given to the books before them, because the exact succession of the
prophets has been wanting." In this list the books of the Old Testament
are artificially arranged to agree with the number _two-and-twenty_,
that of the Hebrew alphabet. The four that contain "hymns to God and
precepts for human life" are, in all probability: Psalms, Proverbs,
Ecclesiastes, Canticles; and the thirteen prophetical books (see below)
are: (1) Joshua, (2) Judges and Ruth, (3) the two books of Samuel, (4)
the two books of Kings, (5) the two books of Chronicles, (6) Ezra and
Nehemiah, (7) Esther, (8) Isaiah, (9) Jeremiah and Lamentations, (10)
Ezekiel, (11) Daniel, (12) the book of the twelve Minor Prophets, (13)
Job. See Oehler in Hertzog's Encyclopaedia, Art. Canon of the Old
Testament. Origen, as quoted by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. 6.25), and Jerome
(both of whom drew their information concerning the Hebrew Canon
immediately from Jewish scholars, and may, therefore, be regarded as in
a certain sense the expositors of the above list of Josephus) make
mention of the same number, twenty-two. Origen's list unites Ruth with
Judges, puts together the first and second of Samuel, the first and
second of Kings, the first and second of Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah
(under the names of the first and second of Ezra), and Jeremiah and
Lamentations (with the addition of the apocryphal Epistle of
Jeremiah--an inconsistency, or rather oversight, to be explained from
his constant habit of using the Septuagint version). In the present text
of Eusebius, the book of the twelve Minor Prophets is wanting. But this
is simply an old error of the scribe, since it is necessary to complete
the number of twenty-two. Jerome's list (Prologus galeatus) is the same,
only that he gives the contents of the Law, the Prophets, and the
Hagiographa in accordance with the Hebrew arrangement, placing Daniel in
the last class, and adding that whatever is without the number of these
must be placed among the Apocryphal writings. Smith's Dict. of the
Bible, Art. Canon. The catalogue of these two distinguished Christian
scholars--Origen of the Eastern church, and Jerome of the Western, both
of whom drew their information immediately from Hebrew scholars--is
decisive, and we need add nothing further.

19. The _Apocryphal books_ of the Old Testament were incorporated into
the Alexandrine version called the Septuagint; but they were never
received by the Jews of Palestine as a part of the sacred volume.
Concerning them and their history, see further in the Appendix to this
part.




CHAPTER XVI.

ANCIENT VERSIONS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.


In the present chapter only those versions of the Old Testament are
noticed which were made independently of the New. Versions of the whole
Bible, made in the interest of Christianity, are considered in the
following part.


I. THE GREEK VERSION CALLED THE SEPTUAGINT.

1. This is worthy of special notice as the oldest existing version of
the holy Scriptures, or any part of them, in any language; and also as
the version which exerted a very large influence on the language and
style of the New Testament; for it was extensively used in our Lord's
day not only in Egypt, where it originated, and in the Roman provinces
generally, but also in Palestine; and the quotations in the New
Testament are made more commonly from it than from the Hebrew.

2. The Jewish account of its origin, first noticed briefly by
Aristobulus, a Jew (as quoted by Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius),
then given at great length in a letter which professes to have been
written by one Aristeas, a heathen and a special friend of Ptolemy
Philadelphus, king of Egypt, and the main part of which Josephus has
copied (Antiq. 12. 2), is for substance as follows: Ptolemy Philadelphus
(who reigned from B.C. 285 to 247), at the suggestion of his librarian
Demetrius Phalereus, after having first liberated all the Jewish
captives found in his kingdom, sent an embassy with costly gifts to
Eleazar the high priest at Jerusalem, requesting that he would send him
chosen men, six from each of the twelve tribes, with a copy of the
Jewish law, that it might be interpreted from the Hebrew into the Greek
and laid up in the royal library at Alexandria. Eleazar accordingly sent
the seventy-two elders with a copy of the laws written on parchments in
letters of gold, who were received by the king with high honors,
sumptuously feasted, and afterwards lodged in a palace on an island
(apparently Pharos in the harbor of Alexandria), where they completed
their work in seventy-two days, and were then sent home with munificent
gifts. The story that they were shut up in seventy-two separate cells
(according to another legend two by two in thirty-six cells), where they
had no communication with each other and yet produced as many versions
agreeing with each other word for word, was a later embellishment
designed (as indeed were all the legends respecting the origin of this
version) to exalt its character in the apprehension of the people, and
to gain for it an authority equal to that of the inspired original.

3. The letter ascribed to Aristeas is now generally admitted to be
spurious. It purports to have been written by a heathen scholar, yet it
bears throughout marks of a Jewish origin. It represents the translators
as Jewish elders sent by the high priest from Jerusalem. Yet the version
is acknowledged to be in the Alexandrine Greek dialect. For these and
other reasons learned men ascribe its authorship to a Jew whose object
was to exalt the merits of the Alexandrine version in the estimation of
his nation. But we are not, for this reason, warranted to pronounce the
whole account a pure fable, as many have done. We may well believe that
the work was executed under the auspices of Ptolemy, and for the purpose
of enriching his library. But we must believe that it was executed by
Jews born in Egypt to whom the Greek language was vernacular, and
probably from manuscripts of Egyptian origin. Thus much is manifest from
the face of the version, that it was made by different men, and with
different degrees of ability and fidelity.

    The name _Septuagint_ (Latin, _Septuaginta_), _seventy_, a round
    number for the more exact _seventy-two_, probably arose from
    this tradition of the execution of the work by seventy-two
    elders in seventy-two days. The story of the parchments sent
    from Jerusalem for the use of the translators (with the request
    that they might be returned with them) has been rejected on the
    ground that the text used by them differs too widely from the
    Palestinian text. See further on this subject in No. 5, below.
    It has been further affirmed that Demetrius Phalereus did not
    belong to the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, but to that of his
    father Ptolemy Soter, the son having banished him from court in
    the beginning of his reign. For this reason some have proposed
    to assign the founding of the Alexandrian library to the father
    and not the son. But whatever be our judgment in respect to
    Demetrius and his relation to the two Ptolemies, the voice of
    history is decisive in favor of the son and not the father, as
    the patron of learning.

4. It has been a question whether the Hebrew Scriptures were translated
at one time, or in successive portions. The tradition above considered
speaks only of _the law_, or, in the plural, _the laws_. These might,
perhaps, be understood as comprehensive terms for the whole Old
Testament, but they probably mean the Pentateuch alone, in which both
the Egyptian king and the Jews of his realm would feel a special
interest. It is probable that the Pentateuch--the _Law_ in the proper
sense of the term--was first translated, and afterwards the remaining
books. But how long a period of time was thus occupied cannot be
determined. Respecting the incorporation into this version of the
apocryphal book, see in the appendix to this Part, No. 2.

    When the translator of the Wisdom of Jesus, son of Sirach
    (Ecclesiasticus), says in his prologue, in immediate connection
    with his residence and labors in Egypt, that "the law itself and
    the prophets, and the rest of the books have no small difference
    [as to force] when read in their own tongue," he plainly refers
    to the Septuagint version as complete in his day. He visited
    Egypt "under Euergetes." But to which of the two monarchs who
    bore that title he refers is uncertain. If to the former, it was
    between 246-221 B.C.; if to the latter, between 145-116 B.C.

5. The version varies so much in its different parts that it is not easy
to give its character as a whole. It is agreed among biblical scholars
that the translators of the Pentateuch excelled in ability and fidelity,
according to the well-known judgment of Jerome--"which [the books of
Moses] we also acknowledge to agree more than the others with the
Hebrew." Among the historical books the translations of Samuel and Kings
are the most faulty. Those of the prophets are in general poor,
especially that of Isaiah. That of Daniel was so faulty that the
Christians in later times substituted for it the translation of
Theodotion. See below, No. 10. Among the poetical books that of Proverbs
is the best. As a whole the Septuagint version cannot for a moment enter
into competition with the Hebrew original. Yet, as the most ancient of
versions and one which also represents a text much older than the
Masoretic, its use is indispensable to every scholar who would study the
Old Testament in the original language.

6. Independently of its critical value, the Septuagint must be regarded
with deep interest from its close connection with the New Testament. In
the days of Christ and his apostles it was known and read throughout the
whole Roman empire by the Hellenists; that is, by those Jews and Jewish
proselytes who had the Greek civilization and spoke the Greek language.
As the Alexandrine Greek, in which this version was made, was itself
pervaded throughout with the Hebrew spirit, and to a great extent also
with Hebrew idioms and forms of thought, so was the language of the New
Testament, in turn, moulded and shaped by the dialect of the Septuagint,
nor can the former be successfully studied except in connection with the
latter. Then again the greatest number of quotations in the New
Testament from the Old is made from the Septuagint. According to Mr.
Greenfield (quoted in Smith's Bible Dict., art. Septuagint) "the number
of direct quotations from the Old Testament in the Gospels, Acts, and
Epistles, may be estimated at three hundred and fifty, of which not more
than fifty materially differ from the seventy. But the indirect verbal
allusions would swell the number to a far greater amount." The
discussion of the principles upon which the writers of the New Testament
quote from the Old belongs to another part of this work. It may be
briefly remarked here that they quote in a free spirit, not in that of
servile adherence to the letter, aiming to give the substance of the
sacred writers' thoughts, rather than an exactly literal rendering of
the original word for word.

    The prophecy of Isaiah, for example (6:9, 10), is six times
    quoted in the New Testament, wholly or in part, with very free
    variations of language. Matt. 13:14, 15; Mark 4:12; Luke 8:10;
    John 12:40; Acts 28: 26, 27; Rom. 11:8. From neither of these
    quotations, nor from all of them combined, could we draw a
    _critical_ argument respecting either the Hebrew or Greek text
    of the passage quoted. Neither can we argue from the exact
    agreement of a quotation in the New Testament with the
    Septuagint where that differs from the Hebrew, that the Hebrew
    text has been corrupted. The New Testament writers are occupied
    with the spirit of the passages to which they refer, rather than
    with the letter.

7. The Hebrew _text_ from which the Septuagint version was executed was
unpointed and much older than the Masoretic text. Were the version more
literal and faithful, and had its text come down to us in a purer form
(see below, Chap. 17, No. 2), it would be of great service in settling
the exact text of the original Hebrew. With its present character, and
in the present condition of its text, it is of but comparatively small
value in this respect. Yet its striking agreement with the text of the
Samaritan Pentateuch (Ch. 13, No. 8) is a phenomenon worthy of special
notice. Biblical scholars affirm that the two agree in more than a
thousand places where they differ from the Hebrew. For the probable
explanation of this see above, Ch. 14, No. 9.

    The reader must be on his guard against the error of supposing
    that these more than a thousand variations from the Hebrew text
    are of such a nature as to affect seriously the system of
    doctrines and duties taught in the Pentateuch. They are rather
    of a critical and grammatical character, changes which leave the
    substance of revelation untouched. See on this point Ch. 3.
    There is one striking agreement between the Samaritan text and
    that of the Septuagint in which many biblical scholars think
    that the true ancient reading has been preserved. It is that of
    Gen. 4:8: "And Cain said to Abel his brother, Let us go out into
    the field. And it came to pass when they were in the field."
    etc.


II. OTHER GREEK VERSIONS.

8. In the beginning of Christianity the Septuagint enjoyed, as we have
seen, a high reputation among the Jews; and as a natural consequence,
among the Jewish converts also, as well as the Gentile Christians. To
the great body of Gentile believers it was for the Old Testament the
only source of knowledge, as they were ignorant of the Hebrew original.
They studied it diligently, and used it efficiently against the
unbelieving Jews. Hence there naturally arose in the minds of the latter
a feeling of opposition to this version which became very bitter. They
began to disparage its authority, and to accuse it of misrepresenting
the Hebrew. The next step was to oppose to it another version made by
_Aquila_, which was soon followed by two others, those of _Theodotion_
and _Symmachus_.

9. _Aquila_ is represented to have been a Jewish proselyte of Pontus,
and to have lived in the second century. His version was slavishly
literal, following the Hebrew idiom even where it is contrary to that of
the Greek. For this very reason, not withstanding all the barbarisms
thus introduced, the Jews highly valued it, calling it _the Hebrew
verity_. All that remains of it to us is contained in the fragments of
Origen's Hexapla. See below, No. 12. Had we the whole work, its
extremely literal character would give it great value in a critical
point of view, as it would shed much light on the state of the Hebrew
text when it was executed.

10. _Theodotion_ was, according to Irenaeus, an Ephesian. Jerome calls
him and Symmachus Ebionites, Judaizing heretics, and semi-Christians. He
is supposed to have made his version in the last half of the second
century. According to the testimony of the ancients, it had a close
resemblance in character to the Septuagint. He seems to have had this
version before him, and to have made a free use of it. Of the three
later versions, that of Theodotion was most esteemed by the Christians,
and they substituted his translation of the book of Daniel for that of
the Seventy.

11. _Symmachus_, called by the church fathers an Ebionite, but by some a
Samaritan, seems to have flourished not far from the close of the second
century. His version was free, aiming to give the sense rather than the
words. His idiom was Hellenistic, and in this respect resembled the
Septuagint, from the author's familiarity with which, indeed, it
probably took its complexion.

Of other ancient Greek versions discovered by Origen in his Eastern
travels and made by unknown authors it is not necessary to speak.

12. The text of the Septuagint was never preserved so carefully as that
of the Hebrew, and in the days of Origen it had fallen into great
confusion. To meet the objections of the Jews, as well as to help
believers in their study of the Old Testament, Origen undertook first
the work called the _Tetrapla_ (Greek, _fourfold_), which was followed
by the _Hexapla_ (Greek, _sixfold_). To prepare himself he spent
twenty-eight years, travelling extensively and collecting materials. In
the Tetrapla, the text of the Septuagint (corrected by manuscripts of
itself), and those of Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus were arranged
side by side in _four_ parallel columns. In the Hexapla there were _six_
columns--(1) the Hebrew in Hebrew characters; (2) the Hebrew expressed
in Greek letters; (3) Aquila; (4) Symmachus; (5) the Septuagint; (6)
Theodotion. See Davidson's Bib. Crit., 1, p. 203; Smith's Bib. Diet., 2,
p. 1202. In some books he used two other Greek versions, and
occasionally even a third, giving in the first case _eight_, in the
second, _nine_ columns.

    "The great work," says Davidson, "consisting of nearly fifty
    volumes; on which he had spent the best years of his life, does
    not seem to have been transcribed--probably in consequence of
    its magnitude and the great expense necessarily attending a
    transcript. It lay unused as a whole fifty years after it was
    finished, till Eusebius and Pamphilus drew it forth from its
    concealment in Tyre, and placed it in the library of the latter
    in Caesarea. It is thought to have perished there when Caesarea
    was taken and plundered by the Saracens, A.D. 653." Bib.
    Criticism, 1, p. 206. Well did Origen merit by his vast
    researches and labors the epithet _Adamantinus_ [_Adamantine_]
    bestowed on him by the ancients. Fragments of the Hexapla,
    consisting of extracts made from it by the ancients, have been
    collected and published in two folio volumes by Montfaucon,
    Paris, 1713, and reprinted by Bahrdt in two volumes octavo,
    Leipzig and Lubeck, 1769, 1770. It is the hope of biblical
    scholars that these may be enriched from the Nitrian
    manuscripts. See further, Chap. 28, No. 8.

For the four "Standard Text Editions" of the Septuagint Greek version,
with the principal editions founded on them, the reader may consult the
Bibliographical List appended to the fourth volume of Home's
Introduction, edition of 1860.


III. THE CHALDEE TARGUMS.

13. The Chaldee word _Targum_ means _interpretation_, and is applied to
the translations or paraphrases of the Old Testament in the Chaldee
language. When, after the captivity, the Chaldee had supplanted the
Hebrew as the language of common life, it was natural that the Jews
should desire to have their sacred writings in the language which was to
them vernacular. Thus we account, in a natural way, for the origin of
these Targums, of which there is a considerable number now extant
differing widely in age as well as character. No one of them extends to
the whole Old Testament.

    The question has been raised whether the Targums have for their
    authors single individuals, or are the embodiment of traditional
    interpretations collected and revised by one or more persons.
    Many biblical scholars of the present day incline strongly to
    the latter view, which is not in itself improbable. But the
    decision of the question, in the case of each Targum, rests not
    on theory, but on the character of its contents, as ascertained
    by careful examination.

14. The first place in worth, and probably in time also, belongs to the
_Targum on the Pentateuch_ which bears the name of _Onkelos_. It is a
literal and, upon the whole, an able and faithful version (not
paraphrase) of the Hebrew text, written in good Aramaean, and approaching
in style to the Chaldee parts of Daniel and Ezra. In those passages
which describe God in language borrowed from human attributes
(_anthropomorphic_, _describing God in human forms_, as having eyes,
hands, etc.; _anthropopathic_, _ascribing to God human affections_, as
repenting, grieving, etc.), the author is inclined to use paraphrases;
thus: "And Jehovah smelled a sweet savor" (Gen. 8:21) becomes in this
Targum: "And Jehovah received the sacrifice with favor;" and "Jehovah
went down to see" (Gen. 11:5), "Jehovah revealed himself." So also
strong expressions discreditable to the ancient patriarchs are softened,
as: "Rachel _took_" instead of "Rachel _stole_." Gen. 31:19. In the
poetical passages, moreover, the Targum allows itself more liberty, and
is consequently less satisfactory.

    According to a Jewish tradition, Onkelos was a proselyte and
    nephew of the emperor Titus, so that he must have flourished
    about the time of the destruction of the second temple. But all
    the notices we have of his person are very uncertain. There is
    even ground for the suspicion that the above tradition
    respecting _Onkelos_ relates, by a confusion of persons, to
    _Aquila_ (Chaldee _Akilas_), the author of the Greek version
    already considered. In this case the real author of the Targum
    is unknown, and we can only say that it should not probably be
    assigned to a later date than the close of the second century.

15. Next in age and value is the _Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzziel_ on the
_Prophets_; that is, according to the Jewish classification (Chap. 13,
No. 4), Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and
the twelve Minor Prophets. In the historical books, this Targum is in
the main literal; but in the prophets (in the stricter sense of the
term) paraphrastic and allegorical.

    The Jewish tradition represents that Jonathan wrote the
    paraphrase of the prophets from the mouth of Haggai, Zechariah,
    and Malachi; a mere fable. Who was the real author cannot be
    determined with certainty, only that he lived after the
    so-called Onkelos.

16. There are two other Targums on the Pentateuch, one of them commonly
known as the _Targum of the Pseudo-Jonathan_ (because falsely ascribed
to the author of the preceding Targum) and the _Jerusalem Targum_. The
latter is of a fragmentary character; and its agreement with the
corresponding passages of the former is so remarkable that it is
generally considered as consisting of extracts taken from it with free
variations. But according to Davidson (in Alexander's Kitto): "The
Jerusalem Targum formed the basis of that of Jonathan; and its own basis
was that of Onkelos. Jonathan used both his predecessors' paraphrases;
the author of the Jerusalem Targum that of Onkelos alone." The style of
Pseudo-Jonathan is barbarous, abounding in foreign words, with the
introduction of many legends, fables, and ideas of a later age. He is
assigned to the seventh century. Keil, Introduc. to Old Testament, Sec.
189.

17. The Targums on the Hagiographa are all of late date. There is one on
_Psalms_, _Job_, and _Proverbs_, the last tolerably accurate and free
from legendary and paraphrastic additions; one on the _five
rolls_--Ruth, Esther, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Canticles; which is
not a translation, but rather a commentary in the Talmudic style; two on
_Esther_, one on _Chronicles_.

In the present connection, though not belonging properly to the Targums,
may be named the _Samaritan version of the Samaritan Pentateuch_,
printed with the originals in the Paris and London Polyglotts. It is a
literal translation executed in the spirit of the Targum of Onkelos, and
admitting the same class of variations from the letter of the original.


IV. THE SYRIAC PESHITO.

18. This is the oldest version made by Christians from the original
Hebrew. The word _Peshito_ signifies _simple_, indicating that it gives
the simple meaning of the original, without paraphrastic and allegorical
additions. It is upon the whole an able and faithful version. It often
exhibits a resemblance to the Alexandrine version. We may readily
suppose that the translator, though rendering from the original Hebrew,
was familiar with the Septuagint, and that this exerted upon his work a
certain degree of influence. The Peshito was the standard version for
the Syriac Christians, being used alike by all parties; a fact which is
naturally explained by its high antiquity. If it be of the same date as
the New Testament Peshito, it may be placed not far from the close of
the second century.

The _Old Latin_, and in connection with this, the _Vulgate_ of Jerome,
with some other ancient versions of the Old Testament, will be
considered in connection with the New Testament.




CHAPTER XVII.

CRITICISM OF THE SACRED TEXT.


1. The only _legitimate criticism_ of the sacred text is that which has
for its object to restore it, as far as possible, to its primitive form.
Had we the autograph of Moses in the exact form in which he deposited it
in the sanctuary (Deut. 31:26), this would be a perfect text; and so of
any other book of the Old Testament. In the absence of the autographs,
which have all perished, we are still able to establish the form of
their text with a reasonable degree of certainty for all purposes of
faith and practice. The means of accomplishing this are now to be
considered.

2. Here _ancient manuscripts_ hold the first place. It is obvious,
however, that in settling the true reading of a given passage we cannot
look simply to the number of manuscript testimonies. The _quality_ of
the manuscripts must also be taken into account. Here age is of primary
importance. Other things being equal, the oldest are the most worthy of
credence, as being nearest to the original sources. But, in estimating
the testimony of a manuscript, there are other qualities besides age
that must be carefully considered--the care of the transcriber; its
freedom from interpolations by later hands (which can, however, as a
general rule, be easily detected); and especially its independence, that
is, its independence as compared with other manuscripts. We may have a
group of manuscripts whose peculiar readings mark them as having come
from a single source. Properly speaking, their testimony is valid only
for the text of their source. The authority of a single independent
manuscript may be equal in weight to their combined testimony. Then,
again, the character of the different readings must be considered. The
easiest reading--that which most naturally suggests itself to the
scribe--has less presumption in its favor than a more difficult reading;
and that on the simple ground that it is more likely that an easy should
have been substituted for a difficult reading than the reverse. There
are many other points which would need discussion in a work designed for
biblical critics; but for the purposes of this work the above brief
hints are sufficient.

    The Masoretic manuscripts have a great degree of uniformity, and
    are all comparatively recent. Chap. 14, No. 7. We have reason to
    believe that the Hebrew text which they exhibit has a good
    degree of purity. But we cannot consider these manuscripts as so
    many independent witnesses. The text of the Samaritan Pentateuch
    is independent of the Masoretic text. Could we believe that we
    possess it in a tolerably pure form, its critical value would be
    very great. But, according to the judgment of the best biblical
    scholars, it has been subjected to so many alterations, that its
    critical authority is of small account.

3. Next in order come _ancient versions_, the value of which for
critical purposes depends on their character as literal or free, and
also upon the state of their text as we possess it. Other things being
equal, the authority of a version is manifestly inferior to that of a
manuscript of the original. But a version may have been made from a more
ancient form of the original text than any which we have in existing
manuscripts; and thus it may be indirectly a witness of great value. The
extremely literal version of Aquila (Chap. 16, No. 9) was made in the
second century. Could we recover it, its testimony to the Hebrew text,
as it then existed, would be of great value. The Septuagint version was
made (at least begun) in the third century before Christ. But its free
character diminishes, and the impure state of its text greatly injures
its critical authority. Of the Targums, those of Onkelos and Jonathan
alone are capable of rendering any service in the line of sacred
criticism, and this is not of much account.

4. We have also _primary-printed editions_ of the Hebrew Bible--those
printed from Hebrew manuscripts, which the reader may see noticed in
Horne's Bibliographical List, Appendix to vol. 4. The critical authority
of these depends on that of the manuscripts used, which were all of the
Masoretic recension.

5. _Parallel passages_--parallel in a _critical_ and not simply in a
_historical_ respect--are passages which profess not merely to give an
account of the same transaction, but to repeat the same text. Well known
examples are: the song of David recorded in the twenty-second chapter of
the second book of Samuel, and repeated as the eighteenth psalm; the
fourteenth and fifty-third psalms, etc. Such repetitions possess for
every biblical student a high interest. But in the _critical_ use of
them great caution is necessary. It must be ascertained, first of all,
whether they proceed from the same, or from a different writer. In the
latter case they are only historical imitations. If, as in the case of
the above-named passages, they manifestly have the same author, the
inquiry still remains _how_ the differences arose. They may be different
recensions of the same writer (in this case, of David himself), or of
another inspired writer, who thus sought to adapt them more
perfectly--the fifty-third psalm, for example--to the circumstances of
his own day. The gift of inspiration made the later writer, in this
respect, cooerdinate in authority with the earlier.

    _Historical_ parallelism, such as those in the books of
    Chronicles, as compared with the earlier historical books, do
    not properly belong here. Yet these also sometimes furnish
    critical help, especially in respect to names and dates.

6. The _quotations_ from the Old Testament _in the New_ have for every
believer the highest authority; more, however, in a _hermeneutical_ than
a _critical_ respect. For, as already remarked (Chap. 16, No. 6), the
New Testament writers quote mostly from the Septuagint, and in a very
free way. The whole subject of these quotations will come up hereafter
under the head of Biblical Interpretation.

7. _Quotations_ from the Old Testament in the _Talmud_ and _later
rabbinical writers_ are another source of sacred criticism. The Talmud,
embodying the ecclesiastical and civil law of the Jews according to
their traditions, consists of two parts, the _Mishna_, or text,
generally referred to the last half of the second century, and the
_Gemara_, or _commentary_ on the Mishna. The Mishna is one; but
connected with this are two Gemaras of later origin; the more copious
_Babylonian_, and the briefer _Jerusalem_ Gemara; whence the distinction
of the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmud. Whether because the Hebrew text
was rigidly settled in its present form in the days of the Talmudists,
or because their quotations have been made to agree with the Masorah, an
examination of the Talmud furnishes few various readings that are of any
importance. Most of them relate to trifling particulars. The quotations
of later rabbinical writers are of small account in a critical respect.

8. It remains to speak of _critical conjecture_. Of this a wise and
reverent scholar will make a very cautious use. He will content himself
with offering to the public his suggestions, without venturing to
incorporate them into the text itself. The recklessness of some modern
critics, who make an abundance of conjectural emendations, and then
embody them in their versions, with only a brief note, deserves severe
condemnation. Had the ancient critics generally adopted this uncritical
method, the sacred text would long ago have fallen into irretrievable
confusion.

    We add an example where critical conjecture is in place, though
    it may not venture to alter the established reading. In Psalm
    42, the last clause of verse 6 and the beginning of verse 7,
    written continuously without a division of words (Chap. 13, No.
    5), would read thus:

    [Hebrew: ky'od'odnu'sho'tpnyu'lhy'lynpshytshtvhh]

    With the present division of words:

    [Hebrew: ky 'od 'odnu 'sho't pnyu 'lhy 'ly npshy tshtvhh]

    the clauses are to be translated, as in our version:

    _For I shall yet praise him_ [for] _the salvation of his
    countenance. O my God, my soul is cast down within me_.

    Divided as follows (by the transfer of a single letter to the
    following word).

    [Hebrew: ky 'od 'odnu 'sho't pny u'lhy 'ly npshy tshtvhh]

    the rendering would be:

    _For I shall yet praise him_, [who is] _the salvation of my
    countenance and my God. My soul is cast down within me_.

    Thus the refrain would agree exactly with the two that follow
    (ver. 11 and 43:5). Yet this conjecture, however plausible, is
    uncertain, since we do not know that the sacred writer sought
    exact uniformity in the three refrains.

9. _General remark_ on the various readings of the sacred text. As a
general rule, the various readings with which textual criticism is
occupied have respect to minor points--for the most part points of a
trivial nature; and even where the variations are of more importance,
they are not of such a character as to obscure, much less change, the
truths of revelation in any essential respect. Biblical critics tell us,
for example, that the Samaritan Pentateuch agrees with the Septuagint
version in more than a thousand places where they differ from the
Masoretic Hebrew text. Chap. 16, No. 7. Yet these three texts all
exhibit the same God, and the same system of doctrines and duties.
Revelation does not lie in letters and syllables and grammatical forms,
but in the deep and pure and strong and broad current of truth "given by
inspiration of God." Reverence for the inspired word makes us anxious to
possess the sacred text in all possible purity. Yet if we cannot attain
to absolute perfection in this respect, we have reasonable assurance
that God, who gave the revelation contained in the Old Testament, has
preserved it to us unchanged in any essential particular. The point on
which most obscurity and uncertainty rests is that of scriptural
chronology; and this is not one that affects Christian faith or
practice.




SECOND DIVISION: PARTICULAR INTRODUCTION.

CHAPTER XVIII.

THE BOOKS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT AS A WHOLE.


1. The province of _Particular Introduction_ is to consider the books of
the Bible separately, in respect to their authorship, date, contents,
and the place which each of them holds in the system of divine truth.
Here it is above all things important that we begin with the idea of the
_unity of divine revelation_--that all the parts of the Bible constitute
a gloriously perfect whole, of which God and not man is the author. No
amount of study devoted to a given book or section of the Old Testament,
with all the help that modern scholarship can furnish, will give a true
comprehension of it, until we understand it in its relations to the rest
of Scripture, We cannot, for example, understand the book of Genesis out
of connection with the four books that follow, nor the book of
Deuteronomy separated from the four that precede. Nor can we fully
understand the Pentateuch as a whole except in the light of the
historical and prophetical books which follow; for these unfold the
divine purpose in the establishment of the Theocracy as recorded in the
Pentateuch. The Pentateuch itself gives us only the _constitution_ of
the Theocracy. The books that follow, taken in connection with, the New
Testament, reveal its _office_ in the plan of redemption; and not till
we know this can we be said to have an intelligent comprehension of the
theocratic system. The same is true of every other part of revelation.

    The words of the apostle: "Ever learning, and never able to come
    to the knowledge of the truth" (2 Tim. 3:7), apply to many
    learned commentaries. Their authors have brought to them much
    accurate scholarship and research; but they have not seen the
    unity of divine truth. They have written mainly in an
    antiquarian spirit and interest, regarding the work under
    consideration simply as an ancient and venerable record. They
    have diligently sought for connections in philology, in
    antiquities, and in history. In these respects they have thrown
    much light on the sacred text. But they have never once thought
    of inquiring what place the book which they have undertaken to
    interpret holds in the divine system of revelation--perhaps have
    had no faith in such a system. Consequently they cannot unfold
    to others that which they do not themselves apprehend. On a
    hundred particulars they may give valuable information, but that
    which constitutes the very life and substance of the book
    remains hidden from their view.

2. It is necessary that we understand, first of all, the relation of the
Old Testament as a whole to the system of revealed truth. It is a
_preparatory_ revelation introductory to one that is _final_. This the
New Testament teaches in explicit terms. "When the fulness of the time
was come, God sent forth his Son." Gal. 4:4. Christ could not have come
in the days of Enoch before the flood, nor of Abraham after the flood,
because "the fulness of the time" had not yet arrived. Nor was the way
for his advent prepared in the age of Moses, or David, or Isaiah, or
Ezra. The gospel everywhere assumes that when the Saviour appeared, men
had attained to a state of comparative maturity in respect to both the
knowledge of God and the progress of human society. The attentive reader
of the New Testament cannot fail to notice how fully its writers avail
themselves of all the revelations which God had made in the Old
Testament of himself, of the course of his providence, and of his
purposes towards the human family. The _unity of God_, especially, is
assumed as a truth so firmly established in the national faith of the
Jews, that the doctrine of our Lord's deity, and that of the Holy
Spirit, can be taught without the danger of its being misunderstood in a
polytheistic sense--as if the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit were
three gods. It is certain that this could not have been done any time
before the Babylonish captivity. The idea of _vicarious sacrifice_,
moreover--that great fundamental idea of the gospel that "without
shedding of blood there is no remission"--the writers of the New
Testament found ready at hand, and in its light they interpreted the
mission of Christ. Upon his very first appearance, John the Baptist, his
forerunner, exclaimed to the assembled multitudes: "Behold the Lamb of
God, which taketh away the sin of the world." To the Jew, with his
training under the Mosaic system of sacrifices, how significant were
these words! Without such a previous training, how meaningless to him
and to the world for which Christ died! Then again the gospel, in strong
contrast with the Mosaic law, deals in _general principles_. Herein it
assumes a comparative maturity of human thought--a capacity to include
many particulars under one general idea. A beautiful illustration of
this is our Lord's summary of social duties; "Therefore all things
whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them:
for this is the law and the prophets." Matt. 7:12. We may add (what is
indeed implied in the preceding remark) that the gospel required for its
introduction a _well-developed state of civilization_ and culture, as
contrasted with one of rude barbarism. Now the Hebrews were introduced,
in the beginning of their national existence, to the civilization of
Egypt; which, with all its defects, was perhaps as good a type as then
existed in the world. Afterwards they were brought successively into
intimate connection with Babylonian, Persian, Grecian, and Roman
civilization; particularly with the last two. This was, moreover, at a
time when their national training under the Mosaic institutions had
given them such maturity of religious character that they were not in
danger of being seduced into the idolatrous worship of these nations.
Dispersed throughout all the provinces of the Roman empire, they still
maintained firmly the religion of their fathers; and their synagogues
everywhere constituted central points for the introduction of the
gospel, and its diffusion through the Gentile world. Such are some of
the many ways in which the world was prepared for the Redeemer's advent.
This is a vast theme, on which volumes could be written. The plan of the
present work will only admit of the above brief hints.

    Our Lord's command is: "Go ye into all the world, and preach the
    gospel to every creature." The history of missions shows that
    the gospel can be preached with success to the most degraded
    tribes--to the Hottentots of South Africa and the cannibals of
    the South sea islands, and that this is the only remedy for
    their barbarism. But the gospel did not _begin_ among savages,
    nor does it have its centres of power and influence among them.
    Christ came at the culminating point of ancient civilization and
    culture; not that he might conform his gospel to existing
    institutions and ideas, but that he might through his gospel
    infuse into them (as far as they contained elements of truth)
    the purifying and transforming leaven of divine truth. As the
    gospel began in the midst of civilization, so does its
    introduction among barbarous tribes always bring civilization in
    its train.

3. When we have learned to regard the revelation of which we have a
record in the Old Testament as preparatory to the gospel, we see it in
its true light. This view furnishes both the key to its character and
the answer to the objections commonly urged against it. It is not a
revelation of abstract truths. These would neither have excited the
interest of the people, nor have been apprehended by them. God made
known to the covenant people his character and the duties which he
required of them by a series of _mighty acts_ and a system of _positive
laws_. The Old Testament, is, therefore, in an eminent degree
_documentary_--a record not simply of opinions, but rather of actions
and institutions. Of these actions and institutions we are to judge from
the character of the people and the age in connection with the great end
proposed by God. This end was not the material prosperity of Israel, but
the preparation of the nation for its high office as the medium through
which the gospel should afterwards be given to the world. The people
were rebellious and stiff-necked, and surrounded by polytheism and
idolatry. Their training required severity, and all the severity
employed by God brought forth at last its appropriate fruits. The laws
imposed upon them were stern and burdensome from their multiplicity. But
no one can show that in either of these respects they could have been
wisely modified; for the nation was then in its childhood and pupilage
(Gal. 4:1-3), and needed to be treated accordingly.

An objection much insisted on by some is the _exclusive_ character of
the Mosaic institutions--a religion, it is alleged, for only one nation,
while all the other nations were left in ignorance. To this a summary
answer can be given. In selecting Israel as his covenant people, God had
in view the salvation of the whole world: "In thee shall all families of
the earth be blessed" (Gen. 12:3)--such was the tenor of the covenant
from the beginning. His plan was to bring one nation into special
relation to himself, establish in it the true religion, prepare it for
the advent of Christ, and then propagate the gospel from it as a centre
throughout all nations. If men are to be dealt with in a moral way, as
free, responsible subjects of law (and this is the only way in which God
deals with men under a system of either natural or revealed religion),
can the objector propose any better way? He might as well object to the
procedure of a military commander that, instead of spreading his army
over a whole province, he concentrates it on one strong point. Let him
wait patiently, and he will find that in gaining this point the
commander gains the whole country.

4. Having seen the relation of the Old Testament as a whole to the
system of divine revelation, we are now prepared to consider the place
occupied by its _several divisions_.

(1.) To prepare the way for our Lord's advent, one nation was to be
selected and trained up under a system of divine laws and
ordinances--the _theocracy_ established under Moses. The _Pentateuch_
records _the establishment of the theocracy_, with the previous steps
that led to it, and the historical events immediately connected with.
it. Hence the five books of Moses are called emphatically _the Law_; and
as such, their province in the Old Testament is clear and well defined.

(2.) The end of the Mosaic law being the preparation of the Israelitish
people, and through them the world, for Christ's advent, it was not the
purpose of God that it should be hidden as a dead letter beside the ark
in the inner sanctuary. It was a code for practice, not for theory. It
contained the constitution of the state, civil as well as religious; and
God's almighty power and faithfulness were pledged that it should
accomplish in a thorough way the office assigned to it. The theocracy
must therefore have a _history_; and with the record of this the
_historical books_ are occupied.

(3.) God did not leave the development of this history to itself. He
watched over it from the beginning, and directed its course, interposing
from time to time, not only in a providential way, but also by direct
revelation. Sometimes, for specific ends, he revealed himself
immediately _to_ particular individuals, as to Gideon, and Manoah and
his wife. But more commonly his revelations were made to the rulers or
people at large _through_ persons selected as the organs of his Spirit;
that is, through _prophets_. The prophet held his commission immediately
from God. Since God is the author, not of confusion, but of order, he
came to the people _under_ the Law, not above it; and his messages were
to be tried by the Law. Deut. 13:1-5. No prophet after Moses enjoyed the
same fulness of access to God which was vouchsafed to him, or received
the same extent of revelation. Numb. 12:6-8; Deut. 34:10-12.
Nevertheless, the prophet came to rulers and people, like Moses, with an
authority derived immediately from God, introducing his messages with
the words: "Thus saith the Lord." In God's name he rebuked the people
for their sins; explained to them the true cause of the calamities that
befell them; recalled them to God's service as ordained in the Law,
unfolding to them at the same time its true nature as consisting in the
spirit, and not in the letter only--1 Sam. 15:22; Isa. 1:11-20; 57:15;
66:2; Jer. 4:4; Ezek. 18:31; Hosea 10:12; 14:2; Joel 2:12, 13; Amos 5:
21-24; Micah 6: 6-8--denounced upon them the awful judgments of God as
the punishment of continued disobedience; and promised them the
restoration of his favor upon condition of hearty repentance. In the
decline of the Theocracy, it was the special province of the prophets to
comfort the pious remnant of God's people by unfolding to them the
future glory of Zion--the true "Israel of God," and her dominion over
all the earth. From about the reign of Uzziah and onward, as already
remarked (ch. 15. 12), the prophets began, under the guidance of the
Holy Spirit, to reduce their prophecies to writing, and thus arose the
series of _prophetical books_ that form a prominent part of the Old
Testament canon. Their office is at once recognized by every reader as
distinct from that of either the Pentateuch or the historical books;
although these latter were, as a general rule, written by prophets also.

(4.) There is a class, more miscellaneous in character, that may be
described in general terms as the _poetical books_, in which the
elements of meditation and reflection predominate. It includes the book
of Job, which has for its theme divine providence, as viewed from the
position of the Old Testament; the book of Psalms, that wonderful
treasury of holy thought and feeling embodied in sacred song for the use
of God's people in all ages; the book of Proverbs, with its
inexhaustible treasures of practical wisdom; the book of Ecclesiastes,
having for its theme the vanity of this world when sought as a
satisfying good; and the book of Canticles, which the church has always
regarded as a mystical song having for its ground-idea, under the Old
Testament, that God is the husband of Zion, and under the New, that the
church is the bride of Christ. How high a place this division of the
canon holds in the system of divine revelation every pious heart feels
instinctively. Without it, the revelation of the Old Testament could not
have been complete for the work assigned to it.

5. We have seen the relation of the Old Testament as a whole to the
entire system of revelation, and also the place occupied by its several
divisions. It will further appear, as we proceed, that each particular
book in these divisions contributes its share to the perfection of the
whole.

6. Although the revelation contained in the Old Testament was
preparatory to the fuller revelation of the New, we must guard against
the error of supposing that it had not a proper significance and use for
the men of its own time. "Unto us," says the apostle, "was the gospel
preached, _as well as unto them_." Heb. 4:2. And again: "These all died
in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar
off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that
they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth." "And these all, having
obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: God
having provided some better tiling for us, _that they without us should
not be made perfect_." Heb. 11:13, 39, 40. They had a part of the truth,
but not its fulness; and the measure of revelation vouchsafed to them
was given for their personal salvation, as well as to prepare the way
for further revelations. The promise made to Abraham--"In thy seed shall
all the nations of the earth be blessed"--was fulfilled in Christ. In
this respect Abraham "received not the promise." Nevertheless, it was a
promise made for his benefit, as well as for that of future ages. Into
the bosom of the patriarch it brought light and joy and salvation. "Your
father Abraham," said Jesus, "rejoiced to see my day; and he saw it, and
was glad." John 8:56. "He believed in the Lord," says the inspired
record, "and he counted it to him for righteousness." Gen. 15:6. The
deliverance of Israel from Egypt typified the redemption of Christ; and
it was, moreover, one of the grand movements that prepared the way for
his advent. But it was neither all type nor all preparation. To the
covenant people of that day it was a true deliverance; and to the
believing portion of them, a deliverance of soul as well as of body.
"The law," says Paul, "was our school-master to bring us unto Christ,
that we might be justified by faith." Gal. 3:24. But while it had this
preparatory office, it was to the Israelitish nation a true rule of
life; and under it many, through faith, anticipated its end. The
prophets prophesied for the men of their own age, as well as for distant
generations. The sweet psalmist of Israel, while he foreshadowed the
Messiah's reign, sung for the comfort and edification of himself and his
contemporaries; and Solomon gave rules of practical wisdom as valid for
his day as for ours. The revelation of the Old Testament was not
complete, like that which we now possess; but it was sufficient for the
salvation of every sincere inquirer after truth. When the rich man in
hell besought Abraham that Lazarus might be sent to warn his five
brethren on the ground that, if one went to them from the dead they
would repent, Abraham answered: "If they hear not Moses and the
prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rose from the dead."

7. There is another practical error against which Christians of the
present day need to be warned. It is the idea that the full revelation
of the New Testament supersedes in a great measure the necessity of
studying the previous revelation contained in the Old Testament. Few
will openly avow this, but too many inwardly cherish the delusion in a
vague and undefined form; and it exerts a pernicious influence upon
them, leading them to undervalue and neglect the Old Testament
Scriptures. Even if the idea under consideration were in accordance with
truth, it would still be to every earnest Christian a matter of deep
historical interest to study the way by which God prepared the world for
the full light of the gospel. But it is not true. It rests on a
foundation of error and delusion. For, (1.) The system of divine
revelation constitutes a _whole_, all the parts of which are connected,
from beginning to end, so that no single part can be truly understood
without a knowledge of all the rest. The impenetrable darkness that
rests on some portions of Scripture has its ground in the fact that the
plan of redemption is not yet completed. The mighty disclosures of the
future can alone dissipate this darkness.

  "God is his own interpreter,
  And he will make it plain."

(2.) We know that the writers of the New Testament constantly refer to
the Old for arguments and illustrations. A knowledge of the Old
Testament is necessary, therefore, for a full comprehension of their
meaning. How can the reader, for example, understand the epistles to the
Romans and Galatians, or that to the Hebrews, without a thorough
acquaintance with "Moses and the prophets," to which these epistles have
such constant reference? (3.) The Old Testament is occupied with the
record of God's dealings with men. Such a record must be a perpetual
revelation of God's infinite attributes, and of human character also,
and the course of human society, every part of which is luminous with
instruction. (4.) Although the old theocracy, with its particular laws
and forms of worship, has passed away, yet the _principles_ on which it
rested, which interpenetrated it in every part, and which shone forth
with a clear light throughout its whole history--these principles are
eternal verities, as valid for us as for the ancient patriarchs. Some of
these principles--for example, God's unity, personality, and infinite
perfections; his universal providence; his supremacy over all nations;
the tendency of nations to degeneracy, and the stern judgments employed
by God to reclaim them--are so fully unfolded in the Old Testament that
they needed no repetition in the New. There they became _axioms_ rather
than doctrines. (5.) "The manifold wisdom of God" in adapting his
dealings with men to the different stages of human progress cannot be
seen without a diligent study of the Old Testament as well as the New.
Whoever neglects the former, will want breadth and comprehensiveness of
Christian culture. All profound Christian writers have been well versed
in "the whole instrument of each Testament," as Tertullian calls the two
parts of revelation. Chap. 13, No. 2.

Modern skepticism begins with disparaging the Old Testament, and ends
with denying the divine authority of both the Old and the New. In this
work it often unites a vast amount of learning in regard to particulars
with principles that are superficial and false.




CHAPTER XIX.

THE PENTATEUCH.


1. The _unity of the Pentateuch_ has already been considered (Ch. 9, No.
12), and will appear more fully as we proceed with the examination of
the separate books included in it. Even if we leave out of view the
authority of the New Testament, this unity is too deep and fundamental
to allow of the idea that it is a patchwork of later ages. Under divine
guidance the writer goes steadily forward from beginning to end, and his
work when finished is a symmetrical whole. Even its apparent
incongruities, like the interweaving of historical notices with the
laws, are marks of its genuineness; for they prove that, in those parts
at least, events were recorded as they transpired. Such a blending of
history with revelation does not impair the unity of the work; for it is
a unity which has its ground not in severe logical arrangement and
classification, but in a divine plan historically developed. Whether the
division of the Pentateuch into five books (whence its Greek name
_Pentateuchos_, _fivefold book_) was original, proceeding from the
author himself, or the work of a later age, is a question on which
biblical scholars are not agreed. It is admitted by all that the
division is natural and appropriate. The Hebrew titles of the several
books are taken from prominent words standing at or near the beginning
of each. The Greek names are expressive of their prominent contents; and
these are followed in the Latin Vulgate and in our English version, only
that the name of the fourth book is translated.


I. GENESIS.

2. The Hebrews _name_ this book _Bereshith_, _in the beginning_, from
the first word. Its Greek name _Genesis_ signifies _generation_,
_genealogy_. As the genealogical records with which the book abounds
contain historical notices, and are, in truth, the earliest form of
history, the word is applied to the history of the creation, and of the
ancient patriarchs, as well as to the genealogical lists of their
families. Gen. 2:4; 25:19; 37:2 etc. In the same wide sense is it
applied to the book itself.

3. Genesis is the _introductory book_ to the Pentateuch, without which
our understanding of the following books would be incomplete. Let us
suppose for a moment that we had not this book. We open the book of
Exodus and read of "the children of Israel which came into Egypt;" that
"Joseph was in Egypt already," and that "there arose up a new king over
Egypt, which knew not Joseph." Who were these children of Israel? we at
once ask; and how did they come to be in Egypt? Who was Joseph? and what
is the meaning of the notice that the new king knew not Joseph? All
these particulars are explained in the book of Genesis, and without them
we must remain in darkness. But the connection of this book with the
following is not simply explanatory; it is _organic_ also, entering into
the very substance of the Pentateuch. We are told (Ex. 2:24, 25) that
God heard the groaning of his people in Egypt, and "God remembered his
covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob; and God looked upon
the children of Israel, and God had respect unto them." The remembrance
of his covenant with their fathers is specified as the ground of his
interposition. Now the covenant made with Abraham, and afterwards
renewed to Isaac and Jacob, was not a mere incidental event in the
history of the patriarchs and their posterity. It constituted the very
essence of God's peculiar relation to Israel; and, as such, it was the
platform on which the whole theocracy was afterwards erected. The nation
received the law at Sinai _in pursuance_ of the original covenant made
with their fathers; and unless we understand the nature of this
covenant, we fail to understand the meaning and end of the law itself.
The very information which we need is contained in Genesis; for from the
twelfth chapter onward this book is occupied with an account of this
covenant, and of God's dealings with the patriarchs in connection with
it. The story of Joseph, which unites such perfect simplicity with such
deep pathos, is not thrown in as a pleasing episode. Its end is to show
how God accomplished his purpose, long before announced to Abraham (ch.
15:13), that the Israelites should be "a stranger in a land not theirs."

But the Abrahamic covenant itself finds its explanation in the previous
history. For two thousand years God had administered the government of
the world without a visible church. And what was the result? Before the
flood the degeneracy of the human family was universal. God, therefore,
swept them all away, and began anew with Noah and his family. But the
terrible judgment of the deluge was not efficacious to prevent the new
world from following the example of the old. In the days of Abraham the
worship of God had been corrupted through polytheism and idolatry, and
ignorance and wickedness were again universal. The time had manifestly
come for the adoption of a new economy, in which God should, for the
time being, concentrate his special labors upon a single nation but with
ultimate reference to the salvation of the whole world. Thus we have in
the book of Genesis in a certain measure (for we may not presume to
speak of God's counsels as fully apprehended by us) an explanation of
the Abrahamic covenant, and, in this, of the Mosaic economy also.

4. In accordance with the above view, the book of Genesis falls into two
unequal, but natural divisions. The _first_ part extends through eleven
chapters, and is occupied with the history of _the human family as a
whole_. It is the oldest record in existence, and its contents are
perfectly unique. It describes in brief terms: the order of creation;
the institution of the Sabbath and marriage; the probation to which man
was subjected, with its disastrous result in his fall and expulsion from
Eden; the murder of Abel by Cain, and, in connection with this, the
division of mankind into two families; man's universal degeneracy; the
deluge; the covenant made by God with the earth through Noah, and the
law of murder; the confusion of tongues at Babel, and the consequent
dispersion of the different families of men, a particular account of
which is given by way of anticipation in the tenth chapter. In addition
to these notices there are two genealogical tables; the first from Adam
to Noah (ch. 5), the second from Shem to Abraham (ch. 11).

The _second_ part comprises the remainder of the book. In this we have
no longer a history of the whole race, but of Abraham's family, with
only incidental notices of the nations into connection with whom Abraham
and his posterity were brought. It opens with an account of the call of
Abraham and the covenant made with him; notices the repeated renewal of
this covenant to Abraham, with the institution of the rite of
circumcision; its subsequent renewal to Isaac and Jacob; and the
exclusion, first of Ishmael and afterwards of Esau, from a share in its
privileges. In immediate connection with the covenant relation into
which God took Abraham and his family, we have the history of the
patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, sometimes with much detail, but
always with reference to the peculiar prerogative conferred upon them.
The book closes with an account of the wonderful train of providences by
which Israel was brought into Egypt.

    Though Ishmael and Esau were excluded from the covenant, yet,
    apparently in consequence of their near relation to the
    patriarchs, genealogical tables are devoted to them; to Ishmael,
    ch. 25:12-18; to Esau, the whole of ch. 36.

5. The _Mosaic authorship_ of Genesis has already been considered; and,
in connection with this, the question whether the Pentateuch, and
especially Genesis, contains any clauses of a later date, Ch. 9, No. 11.
Some, as Hengstenberg and his followers, deny the existence of such
clauses; but others think that a few must be admitted, which were
afterwards added, as needful explanations, by prophetical men. We are at
liberty to decide either way concerning them according to the evidence
before us. On the question whether Moses made use of earlier written
documents, see Ch. 9, No. 11.

    The clauses for which a later date can with any show of reason
    be claimed are few in number, and none of them enter essentially
    into the texture of the book. They are just such extraneous
    remarks as the necessities of a later age required; for example,
    Gen. 36:31; Ex. 16:35. On the last of these, Graves, who
    considers it "_plainly a passage inserted by a later hand_,"
    says: "I contend that the insertion of such notes rather
    confirms than impeaches the integrity of the original narrative.
    If this were a compilation long subsequent to the events it
    records" (according to the false assumption of some respecting
    the origin of the Pentateuch), "such additions would not have
    been plainly distinguishable, as they now are, from the main
    substance of the original." On the Pentateuch, Appendix, sec. 1,
    No. 13.

6. The contents of the first part of this book are peculiar. It is not
strange, therefore, that we should encounter _difficulties_ in the
attempt to interpret them. To consider these difficulties in detail
would be to write a commentary on the first eleven chapters. Only some
general remarks can here be offered. Some difficulties are imaginary,
the inventions of special pleading. In these the commentaries of modern
rationalists abound. They are to be set aside by fair interpretation.
But other difficulties are real, and should not be denied or ignored by
the honest expositor. If he can give a valid explanation of them, well
and good; but if not, let him reverently wait for more light, in the
calm assurance that the divine authority of the Pentateuch rests on a
foundation that cannot be shaken. To deny a well-authenticated narrative
of facts on the ground of unexplained difficulties connected with it is
to build on a foundation of error.

    (A.) Of the difficulties connected with the first part of
    Genesis some are _scientific_. Such is the narrative of the
    creation of the world in six days. Respecting this it has
    already been remarked (Ch. 10, No. 3) that with all who believe
    in the reality of divine revelation the question is not
    respecting the truth of this narrative, but respecting the
    interpretation of it. As long ago as the time of Augustine the
    question was raised whether these days are to be understood
    literally, or symbolically of long periods of time. The latter
    was his view, and it is strengthened by the analogy of the
    prophetic days of prophecy.

    Another difficulty relates to the age of the antediluvian
    patriarchs, which was about tenfold the present term of life for
    robust and healthful men. According to the laws of physiology we
    must suppose that the period of childhood and youth was
    protracted in a corresponding manner; since in man, as in all
    the higher animals, the time of physical growth--physical growth
    in the widest sense, the process of arriving at physical
    maturity--has a fixed relation to the whole term of existence.
    After the deluge, in some way not understood by us, the whole
    course of human life began to be gradually quickened--to run its
    round in a shorter time--till the age of man was at last reduced
    to its present measure. All that we can say here is that we do
    not know how God accomplished this result. He accomplished it in
    a secret and invisible way, as he does so many other of his
    operations in nature. On the discrepancy between the Masoretic
    Hebrew text, the text of the Samaritan Pentateuch, and that of
    the Septuagint, in respect to the genealogical tables in
    Genesis, see below.

    The _unity of the human race_ is everywhere assumed in
    Scripture. Some modern scientific men have denied this, but
    their arguments for a diversity of origin do not amount to
    positive proof. They are theoretic rather than demonstrative,
    and the weight of evidence is against them. We must remember,
    moreover, that man lives under a supernatural dispensation. The
    narrative in the eleventh chapter of Genesis seems to imply that
    God interposed miraculously to confound human speech, in
    accordance with his plan to scatter men "abroad upon the face of
    all the earth." In like manner he may have interposed in a
    secret way to intensify the diversity in the different races of
    men. It does not appear certain, however, on physiological
    grounds, that any miraculous interposition was needed; and we
    may leave the question of the manner in which the present
    diversity among the children of Adam was produced among the
    secret things of which it is not necessary that we should have
    an explanation.

    The question of the _universality of the deluge_ is with
    believers in revelation one of words only, on which it is hardly
    necessary to waste time. The _end_ of the deluge was the
    complete destruction of the human race, all but Noah and his
    family. This it accomplished, and why need we raise any further
    inquiries; as, for example, whether the polar lands, where no
    man has ever trod, were submerged also? "All the high hills
    under the whole heaven" doubtless included all the high hills
    where man lived, and which, therefore, were known to man.

    (B.) Another class of difficulties is _historical_, consisting
    in alleged inconsistencies and disagreements between different
    parts of the narrative. For the details of these, the reader
    must be referred to the commentaries. One or two only can be
    noticed as specimens of the whole. It is said that the second
    account of the creation (Gen. 2:4-25) is inconsistent with the
    first; the order of creation in the first being animals, then
    man; in the second, man, then animals. But the answer is
    obvious. In the first account, the order of succession in the
    several parts of creation is one of the main features. It
    distinctly announces that, _after_ God had finished the rest of
    his works, he made man in his own image. The second account, on
    the other hand, which is introductory to the narrative of man's
    sin and expulsion from Eden, takes no notice of the order of
    creation in its several parts. In this, man is the _central_
    object, and other things are mentioned incidentally in their
    relation to man. The writer has no occasion to speak of trees
    good for food till a _home_ is sought for Adam; nor of beasts
    and birds till a _companion_ is needed for him. Then each of
    these things is mentioned in connection with him. No candid
    interpreter can infer from this that the second account means to
    give, as the veritable order of creation--man, the garden of
    Eden, beasts and birds!

    A difficulty has been alleged, also, in regard to _Cain's wife_.
    But this grows simply out of the brevity of the sacred
    narrative. The children of Adam must have intermarried, brothers
    and sisters. The fact that no daughter is mentioned as born to
    Adam before Seth, is no evidence against the birth of daughters
    long before. In the fourth chapter no individuals are mentioned
    except for special reasons--Cain and Abel, with a genealogical
    list of Cain's family to Lamech, because he was the head of one
    branch of the human race before the deluge. In the fifth chapter
    none are named but _sons in the line of Noah_, with the standing
    formula of "sons and daughters" born afterwards. We are not to
    infer from this that no sons or daughters were born before;
    otherwise we should exclude Cain and Abel themselves. At the
    time of the murder of Abel, the two brothers were adult men.
    What was their age we cannot tell. It may have been a hundred
    years or more; for our first parents were created not infants,
    but in the maturity of their powers, and Adam was one hundred
    and thirty years old when the next son after Abel's murder was
    born. Gen. 4:25. At all events, the interval between Abel's
    birth and death must have been long, and we cannot reasonably
    suppose that during this period no daughters were born to Adam.

    (C.) The _chronology_ of the book of Genesis involves, as is
    well known, some difficult questions. In the genealogical tables
    contained in the fifth and eleventh chapters, the texts of the
    Masoretic Hebrew (which is followed in our version),
    Hebrew-Samaritan, and Septuagint, differ in a remarkable manner.

    (1.) _Antediluvian Genealogy._ According to the Septuagint, no
    patriarch has a son before the age of one hundred years. It adds
    to the age of each of the five patriarchs that preceded Jared,
    and also to the age of Enoch, one hundred years before the birth
    of his son, deducting the same from his life afterwards. To the
    age of Lamech it adds six years before the birth of Noah,
    deducting thirty years afterwards. In respect to the age of
    Methuselah when Lamech was born, there is a difference of twenty
    years between the Vatican and the Alexandrine manuscripts. The
    latter agrees with the Masoretic text: the former gives one
    hundred and sixty-seven instead of one hundred and eighty-seven.
    Thus the Septuagint makes the period from the creation to the
    deluge 2262 years (according to the Vatican manuscript 2242
    years) against the 1656 of our Masoretic text.

    The Samaritan-Hebrew text agrees with the Masoretic for the
    first five patriarchs and for Enoch. From the age of Jared it
    deducts one hundred years; from that of Methuselah one hundred
    and twenty (one hundred according to the Vatican manuscript of
    the Septuagint); and from that of Lamech, one hundred and
    twenty-nine--three hundred and forty-nine years in all--before
    the birth of their respective sons. This places the deluge in
    the year of the world 1307.

    (2.) _Genealogy from Noah to Abraham._ Chap. 11. Here the
    Samaritan-Hebrew and the Septuagint (which Josephus follows with
    some variations) give a much longer period than the Masoretic
    text. They both add to the age of each of the six patriarchs
    after Shem one hundred years before the birth of his son. To the
    age of Nahor the Samaritan-Hebrew adds fifty, and the Septuagint
    one hundred and fifty years. The latter also inserts after
    Arphaxad a _Cainan_ who was one hundred and thirty years old at
    the birth of Salah.

    In respect to the variations in these two genealogical tables
    (chaps. 5 and 11) it is to be remarked: (1) that the authority
    of the Masoretic text is, on general grounds, higher than that
    of the Septuagint or Samaritan Pentateuch; (2) that in the
    present case there is reason to suspect systematic change in
    these two latter texts; strong external corroboration alone
    could warrant us in adopting the longer chronology of the
    Septuagint; (3) that any uncertainty which may rest on the
    details of numbers in the Pentateuch ought not to affect our
    confidence in the Mosaic record as a whole, for here, as it is
    well known, there is a peculiar liability to variations. With
    these brief remarks we must dismiss this subject. The reader
    will find the question of scriptural chronology discussed at
    large in the treatises devoted to the subject. For more
    compendious views, see in Alexander's Kitto and Smith's
    Dictionary of the Bible the articles entitled Chronology.


II. EXODUS.

7. The Hebrew name of this book is: _Ve-elle shemoth_, _Now these_ [are]
_the names_; or more briefly: _Shemoth_, _names_. The word _Exodus_
(Greek _Exodos_, whence the Latin _Exodus_) signifies _going forth_,
_departure_, namely, of Israel from Egypt. With the book of Exodus
begins the history of Israel _as a nation_. It has perfect unity of plan
and steady progress from beginning to end. The narrative of the golden
calf is no exception; for this records in its true order an interruption
of the divine legislation. The book consists of two parts essentially
connected with each other. The contents of the _first_ part (chaps.
1-18) are briefly the _deliverance_ of the Israelites from Egypt and
their _journey to Sinai_, as preparatory to their national covenant with
God there. More particularly this part contains: (1) an account of the
multiplication of the people in Egypt; their oppression by the
Egyptians; the birth and education of Moses, his abortive attempt to
interpose in behalf of his people, his flight to Midian, and his
residence there forty years (chaps. 1, 2); (2) God's miraculous
appearance to Moses at Horeb under the name JEHOVAH; his mission to
Pharaoh for the release of Israel, in which Aaron his brother was
associated with him; the execution of this mission, in the progress of
which the Egyptians were visited with a succession of plagues, ending in
the death of all the first-born of man and beast in Egypt; the final
expulsion of the people, and in connection with this the establishment
of the feast of the passover and the law respecting the first-born of
man and beast (chaps. 3-13); (3) the journey of the Israelites to the
Red sea under the guidance of a cloudy pillar; their passage through it,
with the overthrow of Pharaoh's host; the miraculous supply of manna and
of water; the fight with Amalek, and Jethro's visit to Moses.

The _second_ part contains _the establishment of the Mosaic economy with
its tabernacle and priesthood_. At Sinai God enters into a national
covenant with the people, grounded on the preceding Abrahamic covenant;
promulgates in awful majesty the ten commandments, which he afterwards
writes on two tables of stone, and adds a code of civil regulations.
Chaps. 19-23. The covenant is then written and solemnly ratified by the
blood of sacrifices. Chap. 24. After this follows a direction which
contains in itself the whole idea of the sanctuary: "_Let them make me a
sanctuary; that I may dwell among them_." Chap. 25:8. The remainder of
the book is mainly occupied with the structure of the tabernacle and its
furniture, and the establishment of the Levitical priesthood. Directions
are given for the priestly garments, and the mode of inauguration is
prescribed; but the inauguration itself belongs to the following book.
The narrative is interrupted by the sin of the people in the matter of
the golden calf, with the various incidents and precepts connected with
it (chaps. 32-34), and a repetition of the law of the Sabbath is added.
Chap. 31:12-17. The office, then, which the book of Exodus holds in the
Pentateuch is definite and clear.

8. With regard to the _time of the sojourn_ in Egypt, two opinions are
held among biblical scholars. The words of God to Abraham: "Know of a
surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs,
and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years,"
"but in the fourth generation they shall come hither again" (Gen. 15:13,
16); and also the statement of Moses: "Now the sojourning of the
children of Israel who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty
years" (Exod. 12:40), seem to imply that they spent four hundred and
thirty years _in Egypt_ (a round number being put in the former passage
for the more exact specification of the latter). It has been thought,
also, that the vast increase of the people in Egypt--to six hundred
thousand men (Exod. 12:37), which shows that the whole number of souls
was over two millions--required a sojourn of this length. On the other
hand, the apostle Paul speaks of the law as given "four hundred and
thirty years _after_" _the promise to Abraham_. Gal. 3:17. In this he
follows the Jewish chronology, which is also that of the Septuagint and
Samaritan Pentateuch, for they read in Exod. 12:40: "who dwelt in Egypt
and in the land of Canaan." The words, "in the land of Canaan," are
undoubtedly an added gloss; but the question still remains whether they
are not a correct gloss. The genealogy of Levi's family (Exod. 6:16-20)
decidedly favors the interpretation, which divides the period of four
hundred and thirty years between Egypt and the land of Canaan. To make
this table consistent with a sojourn of four hundred and thirty years in
Egypt, it would be necessary to assume, with some, that it is an
_epitome_, not a full list, which does not seem probable.

    Before we can draw any certain argument from the increase of the
    people in Egypt, we must know the _basis of calculation_. It
    certainly includes not only the seventy male members of Jacob's
    family, with their wives and children, but also the families of
    their male-servants (circumcised according to the law, Gen.
    17:12, 13, and therefore incorporated with the covenant people).
    From the notices contained in Genesis, we learn that the
    families of the patriarchs were very numerous. Gen. 14:14;
    26:14; 32:10; 36:6, 7. If Abraham was able to arm three hundred
    and eighteen "trained servants born in his own house," how large
    an aggregate may we reasonably assume for the servants connected
    with Jacob's family, now increased to seventy male souls? We
    must not think of Jacob going into Egypt as a humble personage.
    He was a rich and prosperous _emir_, with his children and
    grandchildren, and a great train of servants. With the special
    blessing of God upon his children and all connected with them,
    we need find no insuperable difficulty in their increase to the
    number mentioned at the exodus.

    Provision was made in a miraculous way for the sustenance of the
    Israelites in the wilderness. The question has been raised: How
    were their flocks and herds provided for? In answer to this, the
    following remarks are in point: (1.) We are not to understand
    the word "wilderness" of an absolutely desolate region. It
    affords pasturage in patches. Robinson describes Wady Feiran,
    northwest of Sinai, as well watered, with gardens of fruit and
    palm trees; and he was assured by the Arabs that in rainy
    seasons grass springs up over the whole face of the desert. The
    whole northeastern part of the wilderness, where the Israelites
    seem to have dwelt much of the thirty-eight years, is capable of
    cultivation, and is still cultivated by the Arabs in patches.
    (2.) The Israelites undoubtedly marched not in a direct line,
    but from pasture to pasture, as the modern Arabs do, and
    spreading themselves out over the adjacent region. When Moses
    besought his father-in-law not to leave him, but to go with him
    that he might be to the people instead of eyes (Numb. 10:31), we
    may well suppose that he had in view Hobab's knowledge of the
    places where water and pasturage were to be found. (3.) There is
    decisive evidence that this region was once better watered than
    it is now, and more fruitful. The planks of acacia-wood, the
    shittim-wood, which were employed in the construction of the
    tabernacle, were a cubit and a half in width; that is, in
    English measure, something more than two and a half feet. No
    acacia-trees of this size are now found in that region. The
    cutting away of the primitive forests seems to have been
    followed, as elsewhere, by a decrease in the amount of rain.
    But, however this may be, we know that, for some reason, this
    part of Arabia was once more fertile and populous. In its
    northeastern part are extensive ruins of former habitations, and
    enclosed fields. The same is true of the region around Beersheba
    and south of it. Here Robinson found ruins of former cities, as
    Eboda and Elusa. Of the latter place he says: "Once, as we
    judged upon the spot, this must have been a city of not less
    than twelve or fifteen thousand inhabitants. Now, it is a
    perfect field of ruins, a scene of unutterable desolation;
    across which the passing stranger can with difficulty find his
    way." Vol. 1, p. 197. And of Eboda, farther south: "The large
    church marks a numerous Christian population." "But the desert
    has resumed its rights; the intrusive hand of cultivation has
    been driven back; the race that dwelt here have perished; and
    their works now look abroad in loneliness and silence over the
    mighty waste." Vol. 1, p. 194. Ritter, the most accomplished of
    modern geographers, affirms that from the present number of the
    thin and negligent population, we can draw no certain conclusion
    respecting the former condition of the country. Erdkunde, vol.
    14, p. 927.

    Of the numerous objections urged by Colenso against the
    Pentateuch, and the book of Exodus in particular, many are
    imaginary, and vanish upon the fair interpretation of the
    passages in question. Others, again, rest on false assumptions
    in regard to facts. For the details, the reader is referred to
    the works written in reply.


III. LEVITICUS.

9. The Hebrews call this book _Vayyikra_, _and_ [God] _called_. Later
Jewish designations are, _the law of priests_, and _the law of
offerings_. The Latin name _Leviticus_ (from the Greek _Leuitikon_,
_Levitical, pertaining to the Levites_) indicates that its contents
relate to the duties of the Levites, in which body are included all the
priests. The book of Leviticus is immediately connected with that which
precedes, and follows in the most natural order. The tabernacle having
been reared up and its furniture arranged, _the services pertaining to
it_ are next ordained, and in connection with these, various
regulations, most of which come within the sphere of the priestly
office. Hence we have (1) the law for the various offerings, followed by
an account of the anointing of the tabernacle, and the consecration of
Aaron and his sons to the priestly office, with the death of Nadab and
Abihu for offering strange fire before the Lord (chaps. 1-10); (2)
precepts concerning clean and unclean beasts, and cleanness and
uncleanness in men from whatever source, followed by directions for the
annual hallowing of the sanctuary on the great day of atonement, and
also in respect to the place where animals must be slain, and the
disposition to be made of their blood (chaps. 11-17); (3) laws against
sundry crimes, which admitted, in general, of no expiation, but must be
visited with the penalty of the law (chaps. 18-20); (4) various
ordinances pertaining to the purity of the priestly office, the
character of the sacrifices, the yearly festivals, the arrangements for
the sanctuary, etc., with the law for the sabbatical year and the year
of jubilee (chaps. 22-26:2); (5) a wonderful prophetic chapter,
announcing for all coming ages the blessings that should follow
obedience, and the curses which disobedience should bring upon the
people (chap. 26:3-46). There is added, as a sort of appendix, a chapter
concerning vows and tithes. Chap. 27.

10. The priestly office, with its sacrifices, was the central part of
the Mosaic economy, for it prefigured Christ our great High Priest, with
his all-perfect sacrifice on Calvary for the sins of the world. On this
great theme much remains to be said in another place. It is sufficient
to remark here that the book of Leviticus gives the divine view of
expiation. If the expiations of the Levitical law were typical, the
types were true figures of the great Antitype, which is Jesus Christ,
"the Lamb of God. which taketh away the sin of the world." No view of
his death can be true which makes these types empty and unmeaning.


IV. NUMBERS.

11. _Bemidhbar_, _in the wilderness_, is the Hebrew name of this book,
taken from the fifth word in the original. It is also called from the
first word _Vayyedhabber_, _and_ [God] _spake_. The English version,
after the example of the Latin, translates the Greek name _Arithmoi_,
_numbers_, a title derived from the numbering of the people at Sinai,
with which the book opens, and which is repeated on the plains of Moab.
Chap. 26. This book records _the journeyings of the Israelites from
Sinai to the borders of the promised land_, and their sojourn in the
wilderness of Arabia, with the _various incidents_ that befell them, and
the _new ordinances_ that were from time to time added, as occasion
required. It embraces a period of thirty-eight years, and its contents
are necessarily of a very miscellaneous character. The unity of the book
is _chronological_, history and legislation alternating with each other
in the order of time. A full enumeration of the numerous incidents which
it records, and of the new ordinances from time to time enacted, is not
necessary. In the history of these thirty-eight years we notice three
salient points or epochs. _The first_ is that of the _departure from
Sinai_. Of the preparations for this, with the order of the march and
whatever pertained to it, a full account is given. Then follow the
incidents of the journey to the wilderness of Paran, with some
additional laws. Chaps. 1-12. The _second_ epoch is that of the
rebellion of the people upon the report of the twelve spies whom Moses
had sent to search out the land, for which sin the whole generation that
came out of Egypt, from twenty years old and upward, was rejected and
doomed to perish in the wilderness. Chaps. 13, 14. This was in the
second year of the exodus. Of the events that followed to the
thirty-eighth year of the exodus, we have only a brief notice. With the
exception of the punishment of the Sabbath-breaker, Korah's rebellion
and the history connected with it, and also a few laws (chaps. 15-19),
this period is passed by in silence. The nation was under the divine
rebuke, and could fulfil its part in the plan of God only by dying for
its sins with an unrecorded history. The _third_ epoch begins with the
second arrival of Israel at Kadesh, and this is crowded with great
events--the death of Miriam, the exclusion of Moses and Aaron from the
promised land, with the death of the latter at Mount Hor, the refusal of
Edom to allow a passage through his territory, the wearisome journey of
the people "to compass the land of Edom," with their sins and
sufferings, the conquest of Arad, Sihon, and Og, and thus the arrival of
the people at the plains of Moab opposite Jericho. Chaps. 20-22:1. Then
follows the history of Balaam and his prophecies, the idolatry and
punishment of the people, a second numbering of the people, the
appointment of Joshua as the leader of the people, the conquest of the
Midianites, the division of the region beyond Jordan to the tribes of
Reuben and Gad and the half-tribe of Manasseh, and a review of the
journeyings of the people. With all this are intermingled various
additional ordinances.


V. DEUTERONOMY.

12. The Jewish name of this book is _Elle haddebharim_, _these are the
words_. The Greek name _Deuteronomion_, whence the Latin _Deuteronomium_
and the English _Deuteronomy_, signifies _second_ law, or _repetition of
the law_, as it is also called by the later Jews. The book consists of
discourses delivered by Moses to Israel in the plains of Moab over
against Jericho, in the eleventh month of the fortieth year of the
exodus. Deut. 1:1, 3. The peculiar character of this book and its
relation to the preceding books have been already considered in the
first part of the present work (Chap. 9, No. 10), to which the reader is
referred. It is generally divided into three parts. The _first_ is
mainly a recapitulation of the past history of Israel under Moses, with
appropriate warnings and exhortations, followed by a notice of the
appointment of three cities of refuge on the east side of Jordan. Chaps.
1-4. The second discourse begins with a restatement of the law given on
Sinai. Exhortations to hearty obedience follow, which are full of
fatherly love and tenderness. Various precepts of the law are then
added, with some modifications and additions, such as the altered
circumstances of the people required. Chaps. 5-26. In the _third_ part
the blessings and the curses of the law are prominently set forth as
motives to obedience. Chaps. 27-30. The remainder of the book is
occupied with Moses' charge to Joshua, his direction for depositing the
law in the sanctuary by the side of the ark, his song written by divine
direction, his blessing upon the twelve tribes, and the account of his
death and burial on mount Nebo.

13. As the book of Genesis constitutes a suitable _introduction_ to the
Pentateuch, without which its very existence, as a part of the divine
plan, would be unintelligible, so does the book of Deuteronomy bring it
to a sublime close. From the goodness and faithfulness of God, from his
special favor bestowed upon Israel, from the excellence of his service,
from the glorious rewards of obedience and the terrible penalties of
disobedience, it draws motives for a deep and evangelical obedience--an
obedience of the spirit and not of the letter only. Thus it adds the
corner-stone to the whole system of legislation, completing it on the
side of the motives by which it challenges obedience, and investing it
with radiant glory. The Pentateuch, then, is a whole. The first book is
inseparable from it as an _introduction_; the last as a _close_. The
three intermediate books contain the legislation itself, and in this
each of them has its appropriate province.




CHAPTER XX.

THE HISTORICAL BOOKS.


1. In the Pentateuch we have the establishment of the Theocracy, with
the preparatory and accompanying history pertaining to it. The province
of the historical books is to _unfold its practiced working_, and to
show how, under the divine superintendence and guidance, it accomplished
the end for which it was given. They contain, therefore, primarily, a
history of God's dealings with the covenant people under the economy
which he had imposed upon them. They look at the course of human events
on the divine rather than the human side, and in this respect they
differ widely from all other historical writings. Human histories abound
with the endless details of court intrigues, of alliances and wars, of
material civilization and progress, and whatever else pertains to the
welfare of men considered simply as the inhabitants of this world. But
the historical books of the Old Testament, written by prophetical men
illumined by the Holy Spirit, unfold with wonderful clearness the mighty
movements of God's providence, by which the divine plan proposed in the
Mosaic economy was steadily carried forward, alike through outward
prosperity and adversity, towards the fulfilment of its high office.
After a long series of bloody struggles, the Theocracy attained to its
zenith of outward power and splendor under David and Solomon. From that
time onward the power of the Israelitish people declined, till they were
at last deprived of their national independence, and subjected to the
yoke of foreign conquerors. But in both the growth of the national power
under the Theocracy, and its decline, the presence of God and his
supremacy, as well over the covenant people as over the surrounding
nations, were gloriously manifested, and their training for the future
advent of the Messiah was steadily carried forward. Thus we have in
these historical books a wonderful diversity of divine manifestations,
which alike charm and instruct the pious mind.

2. It has already been shown (Chap. 15, No. 7) that the books of Kings
and Chronicles contain only _selections_ from a large mass of materials.
The same is probably true of the books of Judges and Samuel. The sacred
writers did not propose to give a detailed account of all the events
belonging to the periods over which their histories extended, but only
of those which were specially adapted to manifest God's presence and
guidance in the affairs of the covenant people. The history of some
persons is given very fully; of others with extreme brevity. But we may
say, in general, that this divine history, extending over a period of a
thousand years, is the most condensed in the world, as well as the most
luminous with the divine glory. The student rises from the perusal of it
with such clear views of God's presence and supremacy in the course of
human affairs, as cannot be gained from all the ponderous tomes of
secular history. Each book, moreover, presents some special phase of
God's providential movements, and contains, therefore, its special
lessons of instruction. With few exceptions, the _authors_ of the
historical books are unknown. We only know that they were prophetical
men, who wrote under the illumination and guidance of the Holy Spirit.


I. JOSHUA.

3. This book records the _conquest of the land of Canaan_ by the
Israelites under Joshua, and its _distribution by lot_ among the tribes
that received their inheritance on the west side of the Jordan. It
connects itself, therefore, immediately with the Pentateuch; for it
shows how God fulfilled his promise to Abraham that he would give to his
posterity the land of Canaan for an inheritance (Gen. 17:8), a promise
often repeated afterwards, and kept constantly in view in the whole
series of Mosaic legislation. The book naturally falls into two parts.
The _first_ twelve chapters contain the history of the conquest itself,
with the movements preparatory thereto. Joshua, who had been previously
designated as the leader of the people (Numb. 27:15-23), receives a
solemn charge to pass over the Jordan and take possession of the
promised land; the people prepare themselves accordingly; two spies are
sent out to take a survey of Jericho; the Israelites pass over the
Jordan dry-shod, its waters having been miraculously divided; they
encamp at Gilgal, and are there subjected to the rite of circumcision.
Chaps. 1-5. Then follows an account of the overthrow of Jericho, the
trespass of Achan with the calamity which it brought upon the people,
the conquest of Ai, the ratification of the law at mount Ebal with the
erection of the stones on which the law was written, the artifice of the
Gibeonites by which they saved their lives, the overthrow of the
combined kings of the Canaanites at Gibeon, and the conquest, first of
the southern and afterwards of the northern kings of Canaan. Chaps.
6-12.

The _second_ part gives an account of the division of the land by lot
among the several tribes. This work was begun as is described in
chapters 13-17, and after an interruption through the dilatoriness of
the people, for which Joshua rebuked them, was continued and completed
at Shiloh. Chaps. 18, 19. Six cities of refuge were then appointed,
three on each side of the Jordan; forty-eight cities were assigned by
lot to the Levites; and the two and a half tribes that had received
their inheritance on the east side of the Jordan (Numb., chap. 32) were
sent home. Chaps. 20-22. The twenty-third chapter contains Joshua's
charge to the elders of Israel, and the twenty-fourth his final charge
at Shechem to the assembled tribes, on which occasion there was a solemn
renewal of the national covenant. The whole book is brought to a close
by a brief notice of the death of Joshua and Eleazar, and the interment
of the bones of Joseph in Shechem. This brief survey of the contents of
the book reveals at once its unity, its orderly plan, and the place
which it holds in the history of the Theocracy.

4. The _authorship_ of the book cannot be determined from the title
alone, any more than that of the two books which bear the name of
Samuel. Jewish tradition ascribes it to Joshua himself, except the last
five verses. But it records some transactions which, according to the
most obvious interpretation of them, occurred after Joshua's death.
Among these are the conquest of Hebron (chap. 15:16-19, compared with
Judges 1:12-15), and especially the excursion of the Danites (chap.
19:47), which must be regarded as identical with that described in the
eighteenth chapter of the book of Judges. Unless we assume that this
notice of the Danites is an addition made by a later hand, we must
suppose that the book was written by some unknown prophetical man after
Joshua's death. He may well have been one of the elders who overlived
Joshua, since at the time of his writing Rahab was yet living among the
Israelites. Chap. 6:25.

    The eighteenth chapter of the book of Judges, which records the
    invasion of the Danites, is evidently an _appendix_, introduced
    by the words: "In those days there was no king in Israel;" and
    that this invasion took place not long after the settlement of
    the people in Canaan, is manifest from the object proposed by
    it. Judges 18:1. At the time of the conquest, Rahab was a young
    woman, and may well have survived that event forty years or
    more. The only apparent indication of a still later composition
    of the book is that found in the reference to the book of
    _Jasher_, chap. 10:13. From 2 Sam. 1:18, we learn (according to
    the most approved interpretation of the passage) that David's
    elegy on the death of Saul and Jonathan was written in the book
    of Jasher. But we are not warranted in affirming that this title
    was applied to a book of definitely determined contents. It may
    have been a collection of national songs, enlarged from age to
    age.

    Though Joshua does not appear to have been the author of the
    book in its present form, we may well suppose that the