must be regarded as part of one Divine whole :-I mean the system of collective quotations, where a number of passages are brought together, in the same connexion, from various books of the Bible, in order to establish some one point of Christian doctrine.' Of this, the Epistle to the Hebrews affords many instances: but the most striking example is, perhaps, supplied by the passage commencing at the tenth verse of the third chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, where five different texts from the Psalms are combined in the same quotation with a text from Isaiah:-the whole series commencing with the formula "As it

is written." It is plain that in these collective quotations the

1 This fact affords a satisfactory reply to the opening observations of Mr. Coleridge in the passage quoted supra, Lecture ii. p. 53, note 2. Had the Bible not been generically different from "all other writings," such a "practice" would be indeed " unexampled."

* In Heb. i. 5-13, the exaltation of Christ above all creatures and angels is inferred from Ps. ii. 7; 2 Sam. vii. 14; Ps. xcvii. 7; xlv. 6, 7; cii. 25-27. In ch. ii. 68, 12, 13, the true human nature of Christ is inferred from Ps. viii. 4-6; xxii. 22; xviii. 2. In ch. iv. 4-10, the 'Rest of the people of God' is shown to have been predicted in Gen. ii. 2; Ps. xcv. 7-9. "No more instructive codex of prophetical theology could be presented to us than in these highly fruitful quotations."-Rudelbach, loc. cit., s. 48.

3 Καθὼς γέγραπται-Rom. iii. 10-18,-where the following passages are combined: Ps. liii. 1; v. 9; cxl. 3; x. 7; Isai. lix. 7, 8; Ps. xxxvi. 1. So also in Rom. x. 19, 20, with reference to the obstinacy of Israel and the call of the Gentiles, we find Deut. xxxii. 21, and Isai. lxv. 1, 2, united. Cf. in Rom. xi. 8-10, the quotations from Isai. xxix. 10; Deut. xxix. 4; Ps. lxix. 22, 23: where also (Rom. ix. 33), Isai. viii. 14, is combined with Isai. xxviii. 16; -the same combination occurring in 1 S. Pet. ii. 6-8, with the addition of a further quotation from Ps. cxviii. 22 (cf. S. Matt. xxi. 42, &c.). In the same manner 2 Cor. vi. 16, is composed of Lev. xxvi. 12, and Ezek. xxxvii. 26, 27; while in ver. 17, to the quotation from Isai. lii. 11, there is added an expression (εἰσδέξομαι ὑμᾶς) from Ezek. xx. 34, which briefly sums up the promise of Isai. lii. 12:-ver. 18 being taken from Jer. xxxi. 1-9, 33; xxxii. 38. Again, the words of S. Stephen (Acts, vii. 7), "and serve me in this place," are not found in either the Hebrew or LXX. of Gen. xv. 14. They are taken from God's words, Exod. iii. 12: -the combination of the two passages pointing out the connexion of the different parts of the Divine Scheme. The following examples of this procedure require some remarks: In S. Mark, i. 2-where the reading adopted in the English Version, "As it is written in the prophets" (ἐν τοῖς προφήταις), is certainly incorrect; and where we should read "in Isaiah the prophet” (ἐν Ησαΐᾳ τῷ προφήτῃ), -we find the language of Mal. iii. 1, combined with that of Isai. xl. 3. It is obvious that the words of Malachi, "he shall prepare the [a] way before Me" are based upon the expression of Isaiah-"Prepare ye the [a] way of the Lord:" and that this is not a mere undesigned coincidence on the part of the later prophet is proved by Malachi (iii. 2; iv. 5) having similarly incorporated in his own statements the language of another and earlier servant of God, viz., Joel, ii. 11, and 31. The design of Malachi here was to show the Jews who had returned from the Exile, and whose temporal condition seemed to present a contradiction to the promised glories of Messiah's reign, that Isaiah himself had already foretold that the evangelical promises were not as yet at hand; and that "the preparation of the way" must precede Messiah's glory. The passage quoted by S. Mark from Malachi, therefore, is not an independent prediction. Malachi is merely the auctor secundarius; and the Evangelist points out that this is the case by ascribing both commentary and text to Isaiah, whom he thus represents as the auctor primarius, the commentary being placed

Apostles adduce the several passages as all denoting, and from the first pointing to, one great truth;-although separately, in their primary connexion, such statements of the Old Testament had often merely a reference to more special relations.

This review of what are plain matters of fact of itself brings to light the principle which guided the sacred writers, under the Gospel Dispensation, in the use which they have made of the Old Testament. The Holy Spirit, when inspiring God's servants in former times, had infused a deeper significance into their words than the men who uttered them, or who committed them to writing, perceived. The depth of meaning conveyed could only be apprehended, in the fulness of time, by those who, like the authors of the New Testament, "had the mind of Christ ;"" and who were thereby enabled to unfold the hidden mystery couched under the earlier form. Consider how Christ Himself has exem

3

first, as it serves to elucidate the text. S. Mark's exordium, "The beginning of the Gospel," also shows that he had in view the closing book of the Old Testament. That in S. Matt. iii. 1-4, these words of Isaiah are in like manner quoted with reference to Malachi is clear from the use of μετανοείτε-ver. 2, compared with Mal. iv. 5, 6, where "Elijah the prophet" is described as the preacher of μετάνοια. See Hengstenberg, "Christol.," B. iii. s. 398. On the principle here laid down, Hengstenberg (B. ii. s. 259) explains why S. Matthew (xxvii. 9) has ascribed to Jeremiah the words of Zechariah (xi. 13): -the Evangelist desiring to explain that Jeremiah was to be regarded as the auctor primarius of a prediction with which his readers were well acquainted, and to whose words (Jer. xviii. 1-3; xix. 2) the expression of Zechariah, "And the Lord said unto me, Cast it unto the potter," refers us; Jeremiah standing to Zechariah in the same relation as Ezekiel and Daniel to the Apocalypse. Nor is the reference in such cases to a single prophet unusual. The quotation, "That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold thy king cometh unto thee, meek," &c., in S. Matt. xxi. 4, 5, is taken from Isai. Ixii. 11, and Zech. ix. 9; on which Bengel observes: "Hic locus exemplo est multos sermones apud prophetas accipi debere, non solum ut ab illis dictos sed ut ab Apostolis dicendos." Cf. too, our Lord's words, S. Matt. xxiv. 30, with Dan. vii. 13; Zech. xii. 10-12. This combination of different passages meets us even in the Old Testament. Thus Nahum, in the words, "For now I will break his yoke from off thee, and will burst thy bonds in sunder."-i. 13, alludes to the expressions of Isai. x. 27 in language differing from them in some respects (eg. מוסר( ; both statements being combined in Jer. xxx. 8. See O. Strauss, loc. cit., p. 40.

1 See supra, Lecture v. p. 189, &c.

*

2 "Who hath known the mind of the Lord (νοῦν Κυρίου)? have the mind of Christ" (ἡμεῖς δὲ νοῦν Χριστοῦ ἔχομεν).-1 Cor. ii. 16.

plified this principle: -His saying, "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth," exhibits the spiritual sense of that inheritance of the promised land which so constantly forms the theme of Old Testament Prophecy; and in which Canaan, the terrestrial object of the Divine promises, symbolizes every Divine blessing. The argument founded upon these same promises in the Epistle to the Hebrews clearly shows how this idea pervades the entire organism of the Bible, and how it implies the realization of the Kingdom of God even in its earthly form.

But while the authors of the New Testament, by their full appreciation of the deeper meaning conveyed in the words of earlier sacred writers, show how widely they differ from that class of expositors who see no further intent in the language of Inspiration than its naked, literal signification; they are, at the same time, as widely opposed to that other class which fixes its exclusive attention upon the allegorical or mystical sense of Scripture. From this latter school the inspired penmen are severed by broad lines of distinction. In the first place, they assert unconditionally the literal signification and historical reality of every narrative in the Bible; insisting, nevertheless, upon the spiritual

3

mirably suited to express the truth which such texts convey: inasmuch as it implies that under the obvious signification of the words there lies, not indeed a different, but the same signification again, more profoundly apprehended. See also supra, Lecture iv. p. 153, note 1.

* **

*

**

1 S. Matt. v. 5-κληρονομήσουσιν τὴν γῆν. Cf. "I will give unto thee, and to thy seed all the land of Canaan for an everlasting possession."-Gen. xvii. 8. "Sic ergo et promissio Dei, quam promisit Abrahæ, firma perseverat Repromisit autem Deus hæreditatem terræ Abrahæ et semini ejus: et neque Abraham, neque semen ejus, hoc est, qui ex fide justificantur, nunc sumunt in ea hæreditatem: accipient autem eam in resurrectione justorum. Verus enim et firmus Deus: et propter hoc 'beatos' dicebat 'mites, quoniam ipsi hæreditabunt terram." "-S. Irenæus, Cont. Hær., lib. v. xxxii. p. 331. See Olshausen in loc.

2 16 "Seeing, therefore, it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief: again He limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To-day, &c. There remaineth, therefore, a rest to the people of God."-Heb. iv. 6-9. In a similar manner Christ has pointed out the spiritual signification of the Mosaic rites, by referring the ordinance that all sacrifices must be sprinkled with salt (Lev. ii. 13) to the spiritual sprinkling of the soul with the salt of suffering and self-denial: "Every one shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt. Salt is good; but if the salt have lost his saltness, wherewith will ye season it? Have salt in yourselves, and have peace one with another." -S. Mark, ix, 49, 50.

* Two celebrated names in the early Church may be taken as representing these extreme opinions, Origen, and Theodore of Mopsuestia, the leaders of the schools of Alexandria and Antioch. Assuming alike the Divine origin and inspiration of the Bible, these teachers founded their systems of exposition on principles diametrically opposed; and which, moreover, are equally removed from that line of interpretation which Scripture itself has suggested. For some remarks on these two opposing systems, see Appendix G.

and heavenly import which underlies the earthly record. Secondly, their use of the Old Testament unfolds what the passage to be interpreted, taken in strict connexion with its context, actually does mean; in no instance exhibiting the capricious and arbitrary subtlety of allegorical expositors-their unnatural applications, or overstrained ingenuity. And, thirdly, their expositions invariably refer to the grand design of promoting the moral welfare of man. They do not strive to point out how far the sense of scriptural expressions may actually extend; they content themselves with indicating what shall profit those whom they address. Thus S. Paul, when expounding the spiritual significance of the Legal ceremonial, refuses to dwell upon the mysteries of the Cherubim."

1

Having thus pointed out the principle on which the sacred writers themselves have treated the language of Scripture; and having shown how, in pursuance of that principle, their system of interpretation attaches equal weight to the historical reality, and the spiritual import, --- we are prepared to enter upon the question of the form under which quotations from the Old Testament

1

See the excellent remarks of Olshausen, "Ein Wort," &c. s. 71 ff. Compare, too, the profound remark of S. Jerome, referring to Rev. v. 2: "Leo autem de Tribu Juda, Dominus Jesus Christus est, qui solvit signacula libri, non proprie unius, ut multi putant, Psalmorum David, sed omnium Scripturarum, quæ uno Scripturæ [scriptæ] sunt Spiritu Sancto; et propterea unus liber appellantur. De quo Ezekiel mystico sermone testatur, quod scriptus fuerit intus et foris; in sensu, et in litera. De quo et Salvator loquitur in Psalmis: 'In capitulo libri scriptum est de Me;' non Jeremiæ, non Isaiæ, sed in omni Scriptura Sancta, quæ unus liber appellatur."Comm. in Isaiam, lib. ix., t. iv. p. 393.

*

**

*

**

The following remarks of S. Th. Aquinas, discussing the question, "Utrum Sacra Scriptura sub una litera habeat plures sensus," may serve to connect with the present stage of this inquiry what has been said, supra, Lecture iv. p. 153, note 1; "Auctor Sacræ Scripturæ est Deus, in cujus potestate est ut non solum voces ad significandum accommodet (quod etiam homo facere potest), sed etiam res ipsas. Illa prima significatio qua voces significant res pertinet ad primum sensum, qui est sensus historicus, vel literalis. Illa vero significatio qua res significatæ per voces iterum res alias significant dicitur sensus spiritualis, qui super literalem fundatur, et eum supponit Multiplicitas horum sensuum non facit æquivocationem, aut aliam speciem multiplicitatis: quia sensus isti non multiplicantur propter hoc quod una vox multa significet, sed quia ipsæ res significatæ per voces aliarum rerum possunt esse signa. Et ita etiam nulla confusio sequitur in Sacra Scriptura, cum omnes sensus fundentur super unum, scilicet literalem, ex quo solo potest trahi argumentum; non autem ex iis quæ secundum allegoriam dicuntur. Non tamen ex hoc aliquid deperit Sacræ Scripturæ: quia nihil sub spirituali sensu continetur fidei necessarium quod Scriptura per literalem sensum alicubi manifeste non tradat." -Summ. Theol. Pars 1ma, qu. i. art. x. t. xx. p. 9. Cf. too, Lecture iii. p. 108, note 5.

* *

*

2 "And over it the Cherubims of glory shadowing the mercy-seat; of which we cannot now speak particularly."-Heb. ix. 5. Cf. too, the remark as to Melchizedek: "Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing."-Ibid., v. 11.

meet us in the New. On a former occasion I have proved that, in no instance can we account for such quotations by our Lord and His Disciples on the plea of 'accommodation' to the prejudices or errors of the Jews: it is therefore unnecessary again to enter upon that question. I would now observe further, that we must with equal earnestness reject the notion that the facts and statements of the Old Testament are introduced merely by way of 'application,' or as illustrations founded on some features of general resemblance." Were this view correct, the idea that the employment of such passages in the New Testament had been originally designed by the Holy Spirit of itself disappears: nay,

1 Lecture ii. p. 71-77. The single fact, indeed, that to a great extent the Gospels, as well as the majority of S. Paul's Epistles, were not addressed to Jews but to Gentiles, may of itself suffice to answer those who still maintain that the writers of the New Testament employed, in their citations from the Old, the principle of 'accommodation.' In addition to the answer of Tertullian to Marcion, which I have quoted supra, p. 74, note, I may adduce the reply of S. Irenæus to the same argument when advanced by the Gnostics: "Quemadmodum dicunt hi, qui sunt vanissimi Sophistæ, quoniam Apostoli cum hypocrisi fecerunt doctrinam secundum audientium capacitatem, et responsiones secundum interrogantium suspiciones [i. e. ὑπολήψεις] [i. e. adeo ut] non quemadmodum habet ipsa veritas, sed in hypocrisi, et quemadmodum capiebat unusquisque, Dominum et Apostolos edidisse magisterium Quis autem medicus volens curare ægrotum, faciat secundum concupiscentias ægrotantium, et non secundum quod aptum est medicinæ? Quoniam autem Dominus Medicus venit [S. Luke, v. 31], non igitur jam secundum pristinam opinionem loque

***

*

*

*

uti

***

batur eis," &c. - Cont. Hær., lib. III. v. p. 179. Tholuck, therefore, is inaccurate when he observes: "A peculiarity of modern times is the theory of 'accommodation,' according to which all quotations of this class (viz., the entire mode of proof adopted in the Epistle to the Hebrews) are disposed of as an 'argumentatio e concessis'-so Semler, Ernesti, Teller, Griesbach, and also, for the most part, Stuart." -Das A. Test. im N. Test., s. 5.

* Tholuck, for example, arranges the quotations to be found in the New Testament under the following classes: (1.) Direct prophecies. (2.) Typical prophecies. (These two classes I have considered already.) (3.) Supports (Anlehnungen), and Adaptations or Applications (Anwendungen). The quotations which he terms 'supports' are the same as those described supra, p. 307, notes' and 2. An 'adaptation,' or 'application,' Tholuck defines to be the citation of a parallel, with some formula of quotation; of which class he gives the following as examples: S. Matt. xiii. 35 ("That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet"); xxvi. 31 ("For it is written"); S. John, ii. 17 ("It was written"); Acts, i. 20 ("For it is written"); xiii. 40 ("Is spoken of in the prophets"); Rom. xi. 8 ("According as it is written"); 1 Cor. ix. 9 ("For it is written"); xiv. 21 ("In the Law it is written"); 2 Cor. vi. 2 ("For He saith"); viii. 15 ("As it is written"). -loc. cit., s. 26 ff. On which see infra. Stuart appears to reduce such passages to the principle of 'accommodation'-an 'accommodation,' however, to the writer's own views. "Such cases," he observes, "are frequent in the New Testament. God says by the prophet Hosea, 'When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called My Son out of Egypt'-ch. xi. 1. Now this is not prediction, but narration. But when Matthew describes the flight of Joseph and Mary, with the infant Jesus, to Egypt, he says, 'This took place, so that this passage of Scripture (in Hosea] had an accomplishment, ἵνα πληρωθῇ, κ. τ. λ.' Now here is, evidently, nothing more than a similarity of events." -A Comm. on the Hebrews, p. 600. The remarks already made will, I trust, supply the answer to such a system of exposition.