under the gospel are to be understood, as they respect the duty, of all persons; but, as they respect the event, only of God's people.

Thus, when the peace, that is foretold to prevail in gospel times, is stated to be so great that men should then beat their swords into plough-shares, and their spears into pruning-hooks that nation should not lift up sword against nation, neither learn war any more (Isai. ii. 4.); and that the wolf should lie down with the lumb, and the leopard with the kid (Isai. xi. 6, and lxv. 25., with other passages that might be adduced); all these highly-figurative expressions are to be understood of the nature, design, and tendency of the gospel, and what is the duty of all its professors, and what would actually take place in the Christian world, if all who profess the Christian doctrine did sincerely obey its dictates. And, so far as the gospel does prevail upon any, it reclaims their wild and unruly natures: from being furious as wolves, they become meek as lambs, and, from raging like lions, they become gentle and tender as kids, so far are they from injuring others, that they dare not entertain any the slightest thoughts of malevolence or revenge, towards their most inveterate enemies.

V. As the ancient prophecies concerning the Messiah are of two kinds, some of them relating to his first coming to suffer, while the rest of them concern his second coming to advance his kingdom, and restore the Jews; in all these prophecies, we must carefully distinguish between his first coming in humiliation to accomplish his mediatorial work on the cross, and his second coming in glory to judgment.

This distinction is sufficiently obvious in those passages which treat of either coming separately, as in Isai vii. 14., ix. 6., liii., &c. which treat of his first coming in the flesh; and in Isai. ii. 10-21., which refers to his second coming to judgment. To the former must be referred all those passages which relate to his humiliation. But it is more difficult to distinguish each advent in those passages, in which the prophet makes an immediate transition from the one to the other. For instance, in Isai. xl. 1-9., the prediction relates to the first advent of Christ; but in v. 10. his second coming to judgment is noticed, express mention being made of the solemn work of retribution, which is peculiar to judgment. Again, in Jer. xxiii. 5-7., the promise of sending the Son of God into the world is in v. 8. joined with a prophecy concerning the conversion of the Jews, which is yet future. A similar instance of uniting the two advents of Christ occurs in Mal. iii. 1-5. By distinguishing, however, between them, we shall be better able to combat the objections of the Jews, who apply to the Messiah all those predictions which refer to a state of exaltation, while they overlook all those plain though less numerous prophecies, in which is described Messiah's first coming in a state of humiliation.

Before we dismiss the important subject of prophecy, there are two cautions, which must uniformly be kept in view in studying the prophetic writings.

1. The first is, that we do not apply passing events as actually fulfilling particular prophecies.

It has justly been remarked that "a commentator upon the predictions of Daniel and John can never be too much upon his guard against the fascinating idea, that he may expect to find every passing event of his own day there predicted. Before he ventures to introduce any exposition founded upon present circumstances, he ought to make it clearly appear that it both accords with the chronological order so carefully preserved in those prophecies, that it strictly harmonizes with the language of symbols, and that it demonstrates every part of the prediction to tally exactly with its supposed accomplishments."

2. The other caution is, that we do not curiously pry beyond what is expressly written, or describe as fulfilled prophecies which are yet future.

Such secret things as unaccomplished prophecies belong unto the Lord our God; and it is a waste of time to weary ourselves with conjectures respecting the precise mode of their accomplishment. Upon these points, when we go beyond what is written, we exceed our commission; and it has almost invariably been found that a commentator, who attempted

Faber, Dissertation on the Prophecies, vol. ii. p. 277.

to show how a prophecy was about to be fulfilled, was by the event convicted of error. We may safely and posi ively declare what will come to pass, and we may even say hoa it will come to pass, so long as we resolutely confine ourselves to the explicit declarations of Scripture; but to point out the manner in which an event will be accomplished, any further than the word of God has revealed the manner of it, is to pry too curiously into what he has purposely concealed, and to aim at becoming prophets, instead of contenting ourselves with being humble expositors of prophecy. What the Bible has declared, that we may without hesitation declare: beyond this, all is mere vague conjecture.' [It will be well also to separate fulfilled from unfulfilled prophecies, and ascertain what or what part of an utterance is really prediction.]

On the subject of apparent contradictions between prophecies and their accomplishment, see pp. 443-445. infra."

CHAPTER V.

ON THE DOCTRINAL INTERPRETATION OF THE SCRIPTURES.

As the holy Scriptures contain the revealed will of God to man, they not only offer to our attention the most interesting histories and characters for our instruction by example, and the most sublime prophecies for the confirmation of our faith, but they likewise present to our serious study doctrinal truths of the utmost importance. [“To exhibit and enforce these is the great object for which the Bible was given. From these it derives its principal value; and by means of them works those mighty transformations of character, by which sinners are converted and prepared for heaven."3 Some of them occur in the historical, poetical, and prophetical parts of the Bible; but the chief source of doctrinal theology is in the New Testament, in the discourses delivered by our Lord, and in the apostolic epistles which, though originally written for the edification of particular churches or individuals, are nevertheless of general application, and designed for the guidance of the universal church in every age. The 1 Faber, Dissertation on the Prophecies, vol. i. p. 77.

In addition to the writers cited in the course of this chapter, it may be stated that the fulfilment of prophecy is fully considered by Bishop Newton in his Dissertations, 2 vols. 8vo. See also Sir Isaac Newton, Observations on Daniel, and the Apocalypse, 4to; A. H. Francke, Introductio ad Lect. Prophetarum (Halæ Magdeburgicæ, 1724, 8vo.), pp. 1-88.: in pp. 91-247. he has applied his general principles to the interpretation of the prophet Jonah; Glassius, Philologia Sacr. lib. i. tract. iv. coll. 311-324., 4to. edit. Lipsiæ, 1725; Rambach, Observationes Selectæ de Parallelismo Sacro, pp. 219-235., and his Instit. Herm. Sacr. pp. 741-745, 779–791.; J. E. Pfeiffer, Inst. Herm. Sacr. pp. 795812.; Langius, Herm Sacr. pp. 133-150.; Turretin, De Sacræ Scripturæ Interpretatione, pars ii. cap. iv., Op. 1775, tom. ii. pp. 100-104.; in capp. v. vi. pp. 105–116., he has given an admirable illustration of the principles laid down by him in the preceding chapter by expounding chapters i. and ii, of the prophecy of Joel; Pareau, Institutio Interpretis Veteris Testamenti, pp. 468--519.; Principes Généraux pour l'Intelligence des Prophéties (Paris, 1763, 8vo.); Bishop Warburton, Divine Legation of Moses, book vi. (Works, vol. vi. p. 47., &c.); Dr. Hey, Norrisian Lectures, vol. i. pp. 235-240.; Dr. Smith, View of the Prophets, 12mo.; Bishop Hurd, Introduction to the Study of the Prophets (Works, vol. v.); Dr. Macknight, Translation and Commentary on the Epistles, vol. iv. (4to. edit.) or vi (8vo. edit. ), essay viii. sect. v.; Mr. Frere, Combined View of the Prophecies of Daniel, Esdras, and St. John, 8vo.; and the Rev. Wm. Jones, Lectures on the Figurative Language of Scripture, Theol. and Miscel. Works, vol. iv. These writers have all been consulted on the present occasion.

L. A. Sawyer, The Elements of Biblical Interpretation, New-Haven, 1836, chap. iii. sect. i. p. 100.

doctrinal interpretation, therefore, of the sacred writings is of paramount importance; as by this means we are enabled to acquire a correct and saving knowledge of the will of God concerning us. "No man studies the Bible in a right manner who does not study it with a special view to ascertain its doctrines. If we understand the doctrines of the Bible, we understand the Bible; otherwise not."1 In forming a just notion of what the scripture teaches, we must regard it as a whole- the complete revelation which God has made of his will to man, comprehending all that it is necessary for us to know. No part of it is superfluous, nor is any one in opposition to another part. Still we must expect to find varieties in the mode of teaching. Truths imperfectly known at one period are more thoroughly developed at another. The individuality of the different writers is plainly to be seen; and the particular circumstances under which they were called on to write naturally have their influence on the shape in which we find their writings. Truth is occasionally exhibited in its principles, more frequently it is applied to the special cases of the persons or communities addressed. But, whether we find the principle stated, or the application made, whether we see the earlier shadows afterwards giving place to the substance, and that which was taught in figure at last plainly spoken, the different parts are so adjusted as that each shall have its appropriate office, and all combine in illustrating most fully the magnificent purpose of God. Remarks of this kind are specially needed in relation to the several portions of the New Testament. Two errors have arisen. Some would comparatively neglect the gospels, as if Christ had merely planted the seeds the ripened fruit of which is found in the more developed teachings of the apostles. Others lower the value of the epistles, as if the disciples had but imperfectly apprehended their Master's meaning. But the one must be taken with and not balanced against the other. A right view of the relative position, individually and officially, of the servants to their Lord will obviate mistake. It is indisputably true that none ever spake as Christ spake: no mere man could comprehend in all its bearings God's will, as he who was God incarnate. "No man knoweth the Son but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father save the Son" (Matt. xi. 27.). But then it is added, " And he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.” And so by his informing Spirit he guided his apostles to communicate to his church what he revealed to them. He thus gave them instructions which before they were not able to bear. And, though as individual men they stood always infinitely below their Master, yet as teachers moved by the Holy Ghost they uttered (in their writings) the words of God. Christ's eye was on the whole, the great Masterbuilder: the servants were employed respectively on certain departments; and each was fully qualified for what he had to do, though his knowledge might not extend to that which lay beyond him.2 In his diction and modes of expression his individual mind was apparent; but he faithfully delivered the message he was charged with, and in his L. A. Sawyer, The Elements of Biblical Interpretation, New-Haven, 1836, chap. iii. sect i. p. 101. 2 See above, p. 300.

own especial sphere declared the whole counsel of God. In the completed body of the scripture, therefore, we have all truth, all that the divine mind deemed needful for the instruction and welfare of his church; and one member must not be exclusively honoured while another is unduly neglected. "The eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee; nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you." The greatest diligence is necessary in this department of study. "The only proper method of determining what the doctrines of the Bible are, is by interpretation. They cannot be guessed out... By the laws of interpretation they can be determined with accuracy and precision. Let these laws... be faithfully applied; and the great body of Christian doctrine will be clearly developed."i

Cellérier notices the alleged difference of teaching by our Lord and by his apostles, and, after saying that neither what he calls the orthodox nor the Socinian method of explanation is satisfactory, propounds three principles-those of individuality, of occasionality, of accommodation. With regard to the first point he considers the teaching of the apostles "in this respect inferior to that of Jesus Christ, not certainly dangerous, or erroneous, but less extensive, less absolute, less free from human ideas, and especially less complete. How can this be denied," he goes on, "in face of the debates, for instance, recorded Acts xv., and of the different formulæ given for justification by Paul and James? The complete and fundamental teaching on this point is found in Jesus Christ, who prescribes love. Works and faith are but special forms and partial aspects of this." That there is a difference between the words of the Master and those of the disciples has been already admitted; but Cellérier's assertions merit grave censure. The apostles and evangelists applied to particular cases the substantive truths which the Lord delivered to that great foundation they did not add, but they built upon it, and showed the comprehensive applicability of gospel doctrine in respect to time and place and circumstance. But each performed fully the part allotted to him. Cellérier's instances do not authorize his conclusion.]

In the prosecution of this important branch of sacred literature, the following observations are offered to the attention of the student:

I. The meaning of the sacred writings is not to be determined according to modern notions and systems; but we must endeavour to carry ourselves back to the very times and places in which they were written, and realize the ideas and modes of thinking of the sacred writers.

This rule is of the utmost importance for understanding the scriptures, but is too commonly neglected by expositors, who, when applying themselves to the explanation of the sacred writings, have a preconceived system of doctrine which they seek in the Bible, and to which they refer every passage. Thus they rather draw the scriptures to their system of doctrine, than bring their doctrines to the standard of scripture; of interpretation which is altogether unjust, and utterly useless in the

a mode

1 L. A. Sawyer, The Elements of Biblical Interpretation, New-Haven, 1836, chap. iii. sect. i. p. 101.

2 Manuel d'Herméneutique, part. v. sect. ii. pp. 345, 346.

attainment of truth. The only way by which to understand the meaning of the sacred writers, and to distinguish between true and false doctrines, is to lay aside all preconceived modern notions and systems, and to carry ourselves back to the very times and places in which the prophets and apostles wrote. In perusing the Bible, therefore, this rule must be most carefully attended to: it is only an unbiassed mind that can attain the true and genuine sense of scripture.1

II. Regard must also be had to the times and places when and where the books were respectively composed, to the peculiar state of the churches, cities, or persons, to whom particular epistles, especially those of St. Paul, were addressed; as the knowledge of such state frequently leads to the particular occasion for which such epistle was written.

66

'Although the general design of the whole of scripture was the instruction of the world, and the edification of the church in every age, still there was an immediate and specific design with regard to every book. This appears particularly obvious in reference to the epistles. With the exception of those properly called catholic or general epistles, and of a few written to individuals, they were addressed to particular societies of Christians, and were adapted to the state of those societies, whether consisting chiefly of Jewish or of heathen converts; whether recently organized as churches, or in a state of flourishing maturity; whether closely cemented together by the strength of brotherly love, or distracted by the spirit of faction; whether stedfast in adherence to the truth, or inclining to the admission of error. Now, if these considerations were present to the mind of the inspired writer of an epistle, and served to regulate the strain and the topics of his address, it is evident that they must by no means be disregarded by us in our attempts to ascertain the genuine and intended sense." 2 A knowledge, therefore, of the state of the particular churches, to which they addressed their epistles, is of the greatest importance, not only to enable us to ascertain the scope of any particular epistle, but also for the purpose of reconciling doctrinal passages, which, to a cursory reader, may at first sight appear contradictory.

For instance, the Galatian churches, not long after their members had been converted to the faith of the gospel, were persuaded by some Judaizing teachers that it was absolutely necessary they should be circumcised, and observe the entire law of Moses: hence great dissensions arose among the Galatian Christians. These circumstances led St. Paul to write his epistle to them; the design of which was to prove the Jewish ceremonial law to be no longer obligatory, to convince them of the moral and spiritual nature of the gospel, and thus to restore mutual good-will among them.

Again, Rom. xiv. 5., and Gal. iv. 10, 11., are apparently contradictory to each other. In the former passage we read: One man esteemeth one day above another; another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. The latter passage runs thus: Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years; I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain. Now, if we attend to the situation and character of the persons addressed, we shall easily be enabled to solve this seeming difficulty.

The Roman and Galatian churches were composed of both Jews and Gentiles; but they are not addressed promiscuously; neither are they the same description of people who are addressed in both passages. Those who "regarded days," among the Romans, were the converted Jews, who, having from their youth observed them as divine appointments, were with difficulty brought to lay them aside. And, as their attachment had its origin in a

Turretin, De Interp. Sacr. Script., Op. pars ii. cap. ix. p. 128. See also some sensible remarks on these perversions of the sacred writings in the Christian Observer for 1818, vol. xvii. p. 317.

* Rev. H. F. Burder, Sermon on the Duty and Means of ascertaining the genuine Sense of the Scriptures, p. 19.