1

III. The Books of Chronicles. Even a rapid survey of the Books of Chronicles will exhibit their object as both strictly defined, and of the most profound importance.

On the return of the Jews from their Captivity not only the means of reviving the spirit of the nation, crushed by a protracted exile, but also the renewal of the ancient sacred institutions and a fundamental reform of the abuses that had crept in, were the subjects which occupied all minds. Hence, the promises to the dynasty of David, the restoration of the Temple, and the details of public worship, were topics of absorbing interest. The contents of the Books of Chronicles exemplify this state of feeling :-The section 1 Chron. i.-ix. is devoted to genealogies; ch. x.-xxix. to the history of David; 2 Chron. i.-ix. contain the history of Solomon,—and this chiefly as regards his part as builder of the Temple; ch. x.-xxxvi. embrace the events of the Kingdom of Judah, with special reference to the worship of Jehovah. As to the historical details, it may be observed, in general, that their bearing upon other parts of the Old Testament, and their relation to the Divine Scheme, as there exhibited, do not yield in point of interest or importance to any other portion of Scripture. To prove this latter assertion I must restrict myself to a single example elucidating a principle already pointed out,2-viz., that God's Revelation has been, for the most part, conveyed according to the remarkable Law that "each prediction proceeds from, and attaches itself to, some definite fact in the historical present."

The twentieth chapter of the second Book of Chronicles contains an account of Jehoshaphat's victory over the Moabites, Ammonites, and other tribes. "A brilliant confirmation of this account is afforded by the prediction (without this information quite unintelligible) contained in Joel, iii. The entire form of the prophetic intuition rests upon the ground of this narrative it is the substratum of the great judgment pronounced by God upon the enemies of the Theocracy. In the valley of Jehoshaphat the heathen are gathered to be judged (Joel, iii. 2). As in that war, so here also Jehovah leads His heroes (Thither cause Thy mighty ones to come down, O Lord,'--ver. 11). Hosts upon hosts have assembled (ver. 14.—09927 Bran; cf. 2 Chron. xx. 2, 15—‍7 712). It is not now “the valley of blessing" (na p-2 Chron. xx. 26), but "the valley of decision" (py-Joel, iii. 14). A time still more happy, and incomparably more glorious than that under Jehoshaphat, (2 Chron. xx. 27, &c.) follows the victory of the Lord (Joel, iii. 18, &c.)3"

To return to the genealogies. The account of the genealogy of the

1 See Hävernick, "Einleitung," Th. II. Abth. i. s. 174 ff. Dr. Moses Stuarthaving enumerated, without annexing any refutation, most of the strong points which De Wette and others conceive that they have established against the inspiration of these books,―observes: "The devout and reverential reader of the Old Testament has, it must be confessed, some difficulties of a serious nature to encounter in regard to such things in the Chronicles as have been pointed out. The tyro in matters of sacred criticism must certainly feel that he has a formidable task before him; specially if he adopts the theory of plenary verbal inspiration."—On the O. T. Canon, p. 142. On the consideration of so extensive a subject I cannot enter here; but would refer to Hävernick's admirable criticism, which, I should observe, Dr. Stuart states (p. 146) that he has not seen.

2 Lecture iv. p. 147, &c.

3 Hävernick, loc. cit. s. 216.

Patriarchs is followed by that of the Tribe of Judah, and of the house of David-1 Chron. ii.-iv. 23. Compared with this statement, the genealogical notices relative to Simeon, Reuben, Gad, and Manasseh (iv. 24-v. 26) are exceedingly brief; and these again are followed by the particularly copious genealogies of the Levites (vi. 1-18). The Tribe of Benjamin is mentioned at great length (vii. 6-12; viii. 1-40; ix. 35-44); but the Tribes of the Kingdom of Israel are either glanced at cursorily (as Naphtali, ch. vii. 13), or passed over in silence (as Zebulon and Dan): while, on the other hand, the sacred writer comes back once more to the families of the Levites in ch. ix. 1-34. Two important features of the case thus present themselves :-(1) We know that on the return from the Exile in Babylon all persons were excluded from the sacerdotal office who were unable to prove their Levitical descent (Ezra, ii. 61, 62; Neh, vii. 64, 65); and we learn from Josephus ("Cont. Apion.," lib. 1. vii., and “Vita," §1) that this strictness was never relaxed. Josephus also tells us the motive of such precautions: to this chosen family was committed the custody of the Sacred Books; and the accurate preservation of the genealogies he considers "both natural and necessary," in order to secure more perfectly a deposit so precious.' Hence, therefore, we clearly discern the importance of this portion of the genealogical records of the Books of Chronicles. But (2) we can at once perceive how the family annals of David's line are inseparably connected with the whole scheme of Redemption. The manner in which this record is inserted (see 1 Chron. iii.) is particularly striking. "In communicating the genealogy of the Davidic family alone the author makes an exception, and continues it to his own time. Not without just grounds. In the period that followed the Exile the Messianic hopes, awakened by the subjection of the people, were again excited: the Messiah Himself, in accordance with a promise recently given, was to adorn by His Presence the Temple which had been erected anew. It must have been a matter of importance for the writer's contemporaries to find collected here the names of the still remaining descendants of the ancient reigning house; who, although little celebrated, and even otherwise unknown to us from the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, were yet to be the ancestors of the longed-for Deliverer. He therefore continues the genealogy of the line of Solomon up to two generations after the Exile-i.e., perhaps up to his own time. Thus, ch. iii. 19, 20, the sons of Zerubbabel are named:-Meshullam, Hananiah, &c; to which are added the names of two sons of Hananiah, Pelatiah and Jesaiah, with whom the genealogy terminates-the author then proceeding to enumerate some of the posterity of David."

1 See Lecture ii. p. 68, and infra, Appendix F.

2 Movers, "Kritische Untersuch," s. 29. Hävernick confirms the justice of this remark by pointing out that, in a similar period of humiliation," in which but the faintest traces of the Messianic idea can be pointed out," viz., the age of the Maccabees, the idea of the permanence of the royal line of David was still vividly cherished: "David for being merciful possessed the throne of an everlasting kingdom.”. 1 Macc. ii. 57; cf. Ecclus. xlvii. 11; and as to the future glories of Jerusalem, see Tobit, xiii. 7–18; xiv. 4-7—ka@ws éháλyoav oi πроóñται ;—see his "Neue kritische 4-7-καθὼς ἐλάλησαν προφῆται; Untersuch. üb. das B. Daniel," s. 34.

APPENDIX C.

MODERN THEORIES OF INSPIRATION.

(LECTURE I-PAGE 34.)

ANY account of the theories of Inspiration which have been put forward in modern times naturally commences with the period of the Reformation. In the general religious commotion of that epoch, it could scarcely have been expected that the heat of party controversy should not have prompted men of the most opposite views to hazard opinions respecting the authority of Scripture, which in a cooler frame of mind they would have wholly disavowed. And, accordingly, we find both Protestants and adherents of the Church of Rome equally obnoxious to such a charge. In proof of this assertion one can appeal to the writings of Luther and of Erasmus.

I. The opinions of Luther with respect to Scripture, the Divine character of which, it is, perhaps, needless to remark, he resolutely and consistently maintained,-had relation to two distinct subjects: the canonical authority of certain portions of the Bible, and the nature of Inspiration in general. It has been already observed that these two questions, although continually confounded, are wholly distinct; and attention has been drawn to the fact-exhibited by every page of his writings--that Luther's rejection of particular Books arose, not from his refusing to acknowledge the Divine origin and character of the Bible, but from his venturing to lay down a certain standard by which to test the claim of any composition to have proceeded from God. The natural result of such a procedure on his part-and the same must necessarily happen in every similar case—was the rejection of those writings which failed, in his estimation, to satisfy the criterion by which he assumed that they must be judged.'

"These views of Luther," writes H. W. J. Thiersch, "of which the subordinate position occupied in our German editions of the Bible by the Epistle of the Hebrews, the Epistles of James and Jude, together with the Apocalypse, is a permanent memorial, were either upheld for a period by his successors, the orthodox Lutherans (although in a milder form), or, at least, were judged very leniently.""

1 See supra, Lect. i. p. 47, and Lect. ii. p. 79. The criterion which Luther proposed will be seen from the following extract from his Preface to the Epistles of S. James and S. Jude: "Das Amt eines rechten Apostels ist, dass er von Christi Leiden, und Auferstehung, und Amt predige, und lege desselbigen Glaubens Grund, wie er selbst saget, Joh. xv. 27: 'Ihr werdet von mir zeugen.' Und darinne stimmen alle rechtschaffene heilige Bücher überein, dass sie allesammt Christum predigen und treiben. Auch ist das der rechte Prüfestein aller Bücher zu tadeln, wenn man siehet, OB SIE CHRISTUM TREIBEN ODER NICHT. * * Was Christum nicht lehret, das ist noch nicht Apostolisch, wenne gleich Sanct Petrus oder St. Paulus lehrete. Wiederum, was Christum prediget, das wäre Apostolisch wenns gleich Judas, Hannas, Pilatus, und Herodes that." Werke (Walch's Aufg., B. xiv. s. 149).

2 "Versuch zur Herstell," s. 17. Of the evil consequences of Luther's rash decisions on this subject, every one who has looked into the writings of neologists, of whatever school, must be painfully aware. His expressions are invariably brought

With respect to the other subject touched upon by Luther-viz., the nature of Inspiration itself,—the following passage from the "Elementa Theologiæ Dogmatica" of the learned Mosheim gives a succinct and just

account:

"Duæ sunt sententiæ de vocabulo Sacræ Scripturæ. Multi, in primis doctores ecclesiæ nostræ, hoc vocabulum sensu latissimo sumunt, et per id intelligunt omne quod scriptum est, ut non modo veritates, sed etiam formam Spiritui S. tribuant. Duo nempe sunt in Sacra Scriptura: materia, et forma. Materia sunt ipsæ veritates; forma est stilus, vocabula, phrases, et constructiones, &c. At sunt tamen in ecclesia nostra nonnulli qui secus sentiunt, et docent Spiritum S. tantum materiam Sacræ Scripturæ inspirasse, sed non formam. Esto propositio: Fides sola justificat; hæc veritas a Spiritu S. proficiscitur, et forma ejus a sancto Paulo. Hujus sententiæ in nostra ecclesia auctor est ipse Lutherus, qui in nonnullis locis scriptorum suorum clare fatetur Spiritum S. modo materiam inspirasse. Præcipue Theologi Sæc. xvi. hanc sententiam habuere. Sed hæc sententia a Pontificiis in defensionem propositionum suarum trahebatur. Hanc enim Pontificii conclusionem fecerunt:-Si Spiritus S. materiam tantum inspiravit, fieri potuit ut Prophetæ et Apostoli in enunciando et scribendo erraverint, et satis luculenter propositiones et veritates a Spiritu S. inspiratas non proposuerint. Inde concludebant: necessarium ergo est, ut Scripturæ Sacræ aliud principium adjungatur. Quum ita concluderent Pontificii, Theologi nostri deserebant Lutheri sententiam, et sub fine Sæc. xvi. et sub initium Sæc. xvii. hanc sententiam assumserunt: Sacram Scripturam non modo quoad materiam, sed etiam quoad formam a Spiritu S. inspiratam esse. Hæc sententia primo in Saxonia oriebatur, et deinde per totam fere ecclesiam dilatata est. At supersunt tamen quidam Theologi, qui sententiam Lutheri dimittere nolunt."-pp. 111, 112.

The reaction to which Mosheim here refers may be exemplified by the theory of the younger Buxtorf, who went so far as to maintain the inspired authority of even the Hebrew vowel-points and accents: and the strict 'mechanical' theory itself of Inspiration (cf. supra, p. 21, &c.), in which that reaction terminated, is accurately laid down by Carpzovius, in his "Critica Sacra Veteris Testamenti :”

“Plura involvit Inspiratio momenta. (1) Nihil hic tribuendum esse hominibus præter operam solum ministerialem, qua illapsum divinum percipientes, prompte ac alacriter mentem manumque Deo commodarent, qui forward, however unjustly, as a justification of any amount of scepticism or disrespect to which such writers think fit to subject Holy Scripture. As examples I may refer to the complacency with which Bretschneider ("Handb. der Dogmatik," B. i. s. 342) alludes to Luther's opinions; as well as to the remark of Mr. Greg (" The Creed of Christendom"): Luther, in the Preface to his translation, inserted a protest against the inspiration of the Apocalypse, which protest he solemnly charged every one to prefix who chose to publish the translation. In this protest one of his chief grounds for the rejection is the suspicious fact that this writer alone blazons forth his own inspiration," p. 19.

แ

1 "Si Punctatio, et Accentuatio Biblica non profecta esset a Viris Propheticis, et extraordinariis Spiritus S. instructis donis; sed a sapientibus vulgaribus, quales seu his nostris temporibus, seu superioribus sæculis, post Prophetarum tempora, imo post absolutum et obsignatum Talmud, fuerunt; nullo modo ita raμþýþei et åvavriẞPÚTWS a gente Judaica esset acceptata," &c.-Tract. de Punct. Vocal., Pars II. c. v.

p. 335.

π

utramque pro libitu suo ageret, moveret, ac dirigeret. (2) Ad unum solumque Deum quicquid est Scripturæ S., tanquam ad causam principem, referri debere, ita quidem, ut non modo mysteria scripta, inde divina, sed ipsa quoque ypapʼn (tam scribendi actio transiens, quam ejus effectus, voces, apices, ac literæ θεόπνευστος esset, ac ἱερὰ γράμματα prodirent. (3) Idque propter immediatum et singularissimum cum amanuensibus, ad scribendi ministerium excitatis, concursum, quo eorum et voluntatem impulit ut prompte scriberent, et mentem illuminavit, ac suggestione rerum vocumque consignandarum replevit, ut intelligenter scriberent, et manum direxit, ut infallibiliter scriberent, neque tamen plus conferrent ad Scripturam, quam calamus velocis scribæ (Ps. xlv. 1).”—Pars I. p. 43.

II. The opinions of Erasmus may be inferred from an Epistle written to him by Eckius, dated "Ingolstadt, 2 Feb. A.D. 1518:"-" Primo autem omnium, ut hinc exordiar, plures moleste ferunt, te in Annotationibus Matthæi capite secundo sic scripsisse: Sive quod ipsi Evangelista testimonia hujusmodi non e libris deprompserint: sed memoriæ fidentes, ita ut fit, lapsi sint.' Istis enim verbis innuere videris, Evangelistas more humano scripsisse: et quod memoriæ confisi hæc scripserint, quod libros videre neglexerint, quod ita, hoc est, ob eam causam lapsi sint. Audi, mi Erasme, arbitrarisne Christianum patienter laturum, Evangelistas in Evangeliis lapsos? Si hic vacillat Sacræ Scripturæ auctoritas, quæ pars alia sine suspicione erroris erit? ut pulcherrimo argumento A. Augustinus colligit."(ap. Erasmi opp., Epist. 303, Lugd. Bat. 1703, t. iii. p. 296.)

These views of Erasmus were chiefly assailed by the church of Spain; and the excitement which they occasioned he himself describes in his address, "Candido Lectori," at the close of the writing entitled, Desid. Erasmi Apologia adv. articulos aliquot per Monachos quosdam in Hispaniis exhibitos" (Opp. t. ix. p. 1015). Quid hic commemorem quos tumultus excitarint primum in aula Cæsaris, deinde Salamanticæ; quoties palam ac publice vociferati sint hæreticum et Luthero deteriorem Erasmum ?"-(p. 1092). As an example of the objections of the Spanish Monks, may be taken the following, as stated under the heading, "Contra auctoritatem Sacræ Scripturæ, Evangelistarum, et Apostolorum :"-" Objectio 45. In annotationibus Matthæi cap. ii. in editione 3tia manifeste labitur Erasmus, si quis Christiana pietate rem consideret, non contentus verborum implicamentis. Nam et Evangelistas errasse, lapsosque esse memoria contendit. Asserit item ex uno errore in Sacris Literis non derogari totius Scripturæ auctoritati."-(Ibid. p. 1070.) Erasmus replied that he had not himself maintained this opinion, but had proposed it "adversus morosos et impios calumniatores," in order to defend the authority of Scripture; so that, even had its writers erred in unimportant matters, the whole structure might not be thereby overturned. Explanations of this nature, he adds, had been introduced by him "per fictionem;" and he obviously submits to the objections urged against him, when he says, "Responsio 45:" "Et tamen quod ad meum sensum attinet, magis eorum sententiæ faveo qui credunt Apostolos in Scripturis canonicis duntaxat, nec sententia nec verbo lapsos fuisse." The objectionable passages, too, appear to have been erased from subsequent editions of his Commentary.

The next appearance of any controversy upon this question within the