16.Second and third epistles of John.These two short epistles are so closely related to each other in style and manner that they have always been regarded as written by one and the same person. In considering, therefore, the question of their authorship we take them both together. Though reckoned by Origen (in Eusebius' Hist. Eccl., 6. 25) and by Eusebius himself (Hist. Eccl., 3. 25; Demonstratio Evangel. 3. 5) among the disputed writings, the external testimony to their apostolic authorship is upon the whole satisfactory, embracing the names of Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria, Dionysius of Alexandria, Jerome, etc. When we take into account the small extent of these epistles it is plain that no unfavorable inference can be drawn from the silence of Tertullian and others. Nor is there any internal evidence against them. That the man who, in his gospel, studiously avoids the mention of his own name, describing himself as "the disciple whom Jesus loved," and, in his first epistle, simply classes himself with the other apostles—"that whichwehave seen and heard," etc.—should in these epistles, where some designation of himself was necessary, speak of himself as "the elder" is not surprising. Compare 1 Peter 5:1.
17. Concerning the date of these two epistles we know nothing. The object of the first seems to have been to set before the lady to whom it was addressed the importance of a discriminating love, which distinguishes between truth and falsehood, and does not allow itself to aid and abet error by misplaced kindness towards its teachers.
In the second the apostle, writing to Gaius, commends to his hospitality, certain missionary brethren, who were strangers in the place where this disciple lived. It would seem that the design of these brethren was to preach the gospel to the Gentiles without charge; that he had in a former letter, commended them to the church where Gaius resided; but that Diotrephes had hindered their reception, and persecuted those who favored them.
Short as these epistles are, then, each of them containsweighty instruction—the first, in reference to ill-timed kindness and liberality towards the teachers of error; the second, concerning the character and conduct of those who love to have the preeminence, and the abhorrence in which they ought to be held by all who love the purity and peace of the churches.
18. The writer of this epistle styles himself "the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James." Chap. 1:1. This James is undoubtedly the same man who held so conspicuous a place in the church at Jerusalem, and was the author of the epistle which bears his name. Whether Jude was an apostle, or an apostolic man, like Mark and Luke, depends upon the question respecting the relation which his brother James held to Christ, concerning which see the introduction to the epistle of James. In either case the canonical authority of the epistle holds good. The close relation between this epistle and the second chapter of Peter's second epistle has already been noticed. See above, No. 13. It was probably anterior in time to that epistle, but not separated from it by a great number of years. If we may infer anything from the abundant use made by the writer of Jewish history and tradition, the persons addressed are Jewish Christians.
19. Eusebius classes this epistle also among the disputed writings (Hist. Eccl., 2. 23; 3. 25), yet the testimonies to its genuineness are ample—the Muratorian canon, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Jerome, etc.
It was objected to this epistle in ancient times that the writer quotes from the apocryphal book of Enoch (verses 14, 15). To this it may be answered—(1) that, if this be the case, Jude does not sanction the book of Enoch as a whole, but only this particular tradition embodied in it; (2) that the writer of the book of Enoch manifestly made use of a current tradition, and that, for anything that appears to the contrary, Jude may have availed himself of the same tradition, independently of the book of Enoch. That an inspired writer should refer to a traditional history not recorded in the Old Testament ought not to give offence. The apostle Paul does the same (2 Tim. 3:8, 9); and Jude himself in another passage (verse 9).
It was objected to this epistle in ancient times that the writer quotes from the apocryphal book of Enoch (verses 14, 15). To this it may be answered—(1) that, if this be the case, Jude does not sanction the book of Enoch as a whole, but only this particular tradition embodied in it; (2) that the writer of the book of Enoch manifestly made use of a current tradition, and that, for anything that appears to the contrary, Jude may have availed himself of the same tradition, independently of the book of Enoch. That an inspired writer should refer to a traditional history not recorded in the Old Testament ought not to give offence. The apostle Paul does the same (2 Tim. 3:8, 9); and Jude himself in another passage (verse 9).
20. Thedesignof the epistle Jude himself gives in explicit terms (verses 3, 4). It is to guard believers against the seductions of false teachers, corrupt in practice as well as doctrine; whose selfishness, sensuality, and avarice; whose vain-glorious, abusive, and schismatic spirit, he describes in vivid language, denouncing upon them at the same time the awful judgment of God. The apostolic portraiture has not yet become antiquated in the history of Christ's church.
1. The wordApocalypse(GreekApokalupsis) signifiesRevelation, the title given to the book in our English version as well from its opening word as from its contents. Of all the writings of the New Testament that are classed by Eusebius among the disputed books (Antilegomena, chap. 5. 6), the apostolic authorship of this is sustained by the greatest amount ofexternalevidence; so much so that Eusebius acknowledges it as doubtful whether it should be classed among theacknowledgedor thedisputedbooks.
It was known to Papias, to Melito bishop of Sardis, and to Theophilus of Antioch; is quoted as a part of Scripture by the churches of Vienne and Lyons in the last quarter of the second century; and is expressly ascribed to the apostle John by Justin Martyr, Irenæus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, the Muratorian canon, Hippolytus, Origen, Jerome, etc. The testimonies may be seen in Davidson's Introduction to the New Test., in Alford, and in the other works already frequently referred to. Eusebius, after giving a list of theacknowledgedbooks, adds: "After these should be placed, if it be thought proper, the Revelation of John, concerning which we shall give the opinions at the proper time." Then, at the end of a list of thedisputedandrejectedbooks he adds: "And moreover, as I said, the Revelation of John, if it be thought proper, which some, as I said, reject, but others reckon among the acknowledged books" (Hist. Eccl., 3. 25); and again, after mentioning with approbation the account of those who said that there were at Ephesus two who bore the name of John (John theapostle, and the so-calledpresbyterJohn), he adds: "For it is probable that the second, if any one be not willing to allow that it was the first, saw the Revelation current under the name of John" (Hist. Eccl., 3. 39). Those who denied the apostolic authorship of the book generally referred it to this latter, John the presbyter. So Dionysius of Alexandria and others. But for this they adduced no historic proof. Their arguments were drawn wholly from considerations relating to its internal character, especially in the case of some, its supposed millenarian views. Upon any fair principle ofjudging, we must concede that the apostolic authorship of this book is sustained by a mass of ancient testimony not rebutted by any contrary testimony which rests on a historic basis.
It was known to Papias, to Melito bishop of Sardis, and to Theophilus of Antioch; is quoted as a part of Scripture by the churches of Vienne and Lyons in the last quarter of the second century; and is expressly ascribed to the apostle John by Justin Martyr, Irenæus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, the Muratorian canon, Hippolytus, Origen, Jerome, etc. The testimonies may be seen in Davidson's Introduction to the New Test., in Alford, and in the other works already frequently referred to. Eusebius, after giving a list of theacknowledgedbooks, adds: "After these should be placed, if it be thought proper, the Revelation of John, concerning which we shall give the opinions at the proper time." Then, at the end of a list of thedisputedandrejectedbooks he adds: "And moreover, as I said, the Revelation of John, if it be thought proper, which some, as I said, reject, but others reckon among the acknowledged books" (Hist. Eccl., 3. 25); and again, after mentioning with approbation the account of those who said that there were at Ephesus two who bore the name of John (John theapostle, and the so-calledpresbyterJohn), he adds: "For it is probable that the second, if any one be not willing to allow that it was the first, saw the Revelation current under the name of John" (Hist. Eccl., 3. 39). Those who denied the apostolic authorship of the book generally referred it to this latter, John the presbyter. So Dionysius of Alexandria and others. But for this they adduced no historic proof. Their arguments were drawn wholly from considerations relating to its internal character, especially in the case of some, its supposed millenarian views. Upon any fair principle ofjudging, we must concede that the apostolic authorship of this book is sustained by a mass of ancient testimony not rebutted by any contrary testimony which rests on a historic basis.
2. In modern, as in ancient times, the main arguments against the apostolic authorship of the Apocalypse have been drawn from itsinternalcharacter, especially as contrasted with that of the fourth gospel and the first epistle of John. On this ground the assaults upon the book have been many and strong, and they have been met with vigorous resistance. To review the arguments on both sides would exceed our limits. Many of them, moreover, presuppose a knowledge of the original languages of both the Old and the New Testament. We can only indicate some considerations of a general nature.
(1.) No valid argument against the apostolic authorship of this book can be drawn from the fact that the writer specifies his name in the introduction and elsewhere. Chaps. 1:1, 4, 9; 21:2; 22:8. It may surprise us that the man who studiously avoids mentioning his name in the fourth gospel, and who describes himself in his second and third epistles as "the elder," should here directly introduce his name at the beginning and in the progress of the book. But for this difference he may have had a good reason, whether we can discover it or not. The direct command, addressed to him personally, that he should write down his visions and send them to the seven churches of Asia would seem to imply the propriety, if not the necessity, of his connecting his own name with the record of them. He addressed the churches immediately and authoritatively in the name of the risen and glorified Saviour. What more natural and proper than that he should inform them directly who he was that had received this heavenly message.(2.) Thedoctrinalviews of the Apocalypse afford no argument against its apostolic authorship. The writer, it is true, moves to a great extent in a new and peculiar sphere of truth; but there is nothing in it contradictory to the teachings of John's gospel and epistles. On the contrary, the great central truths that relate to Christ's person and office are in perfect harmony with those teachings.(3.) Thespiritof the Apocalypse is not contradictory to that of the gospel and epistles. A writer in Alexander's Kitto says: "Quiet contemplation has full scope in the evangelist; mildness and love find utterance in affectionate discourse. But the spirit of the apocalyptist is stern and revengeful, with cutting reproofs, calls to repentance, commands and threatenings." The answer to all this is that, just as the human body has bones and muscles as well as fluids and soft tissues, so the mediatorial governmentof Christ has a stern as well as a mild side; and that the very nature of the visions contained in the apocalypse gives prominence to this side.(4.) The main objections are based ondiversity of style and diction. Notwithstanding all the true points of resemblance in this respect that have been adduced by various writers, the difference between the Apocalypse, on the one hand, and the gospel and epistles of John, on the other, is very striking. But here we must take into account, first of all, the great difference in thesubject-matter, which naturally brings a corresponding difference of language. Next, the difference in themode of divine communication. The gospel and epistles were written under that constant tranquil illumination of the Holy Spirit which all the apostles enjoyed. The subject-matter of the Apocalypse was given in direct vision—much of it, moreover, through the medium of oral address. To one who believes in the reality of the revelations here recorded it is vain that an opponent urge the difference in style between the first epistle of John and the epistles to the seven churches of Asia; since these latter are expressed in the very words of Christ. Inseparably connected with the peculiar mode of revelation in the Apocalypse are the peculiarmental state and circumstancesin which the apostle wrote. He composed the gospel and epistles in the calmness of tranquil contemplation and reminiscences of the past. The visions of the Apocalypse he received "in the Spirit" (chap. 1:10; 4:2); that is, in a state of ecstacy; and, according to the plain language of the book, hewrote them down at the time, beginning, as we must suppose, with the second chapter, the introductory chapter and some closing remarks having been added afterwards. The direction: "What thou seest write in a book" (chap. 1:11, 19), does not indeed imply that he should write upon the spot; but that he did so is plainly indicated elsewhere: "When the seven thunders had uttered their voices, I was about to write: and I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Seal up those things which the seven thunders uttered, and write them not" (chap. 10:4). In entire harmony with this is another passage: "And I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Write, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth," etc. (chap. 14:13); that is, "Write down now these words of comfort." The apostle, therefore, wrote down his visions one after another immediately after they were received. When he wrote he was not in a state of unconsciousness, but of mental and spiritual exaltation above his ordinary condition. To affirm that he could not have received this series of visions without being deprived of the capacity to record them at the time, would be to limit the modes of divine revelation by our ignorance. If we cannot understand how the apostle could hear "in the Spirit" the voices of the seven thunders, and immediately prepare to write down their utterances, we ought, at least, reverently to receive the fact as stated by him. To expect from one writing in such circumstances careful attention to the rulesof Greek syntax and the idioms of the Greek language would be absurd. Undoubtedly Plato in a like situation would have written pure Attic Greek, because that would have been to him the most natural mode of writing. But the Galilean fisherman, a Jew by birth and education, fell back upon the Hebrew idioms with which he was so familiar. Finally we must remember that, after the analogy of the Old Testament prophecies, this prophetic book is expressed inpoetic diction. It is full of images borrowed from the old Hebrew prophets, often spiritualized and applied in a higher sense. Looking to the imagery alone, one may well call this book agrand anthologyof the old Hebrew poets. But the poetic diction of one and the same writer may differ widely from his prose style, as we see in the case of Moses, Isaiah, and Jeremiah.If the above considerations do not wholly remove the difficulty under consideration they greatly relieve it. The apostolic authorship of the fourth gospel and the first epistle of John is sustained by a mass of evidence that cannot be set aside. That the same John also wrote the visions of the Apocalypse is attested, as we have seen, by the almost unanimous voice of antiquity. Far greater difficulties are involved in the denial of the ancient tradition of the church than in the admission of it.
(1.) No valid argument against the apostolic authorship of this book can be drawn from the fact that the writer specifies his name in the introduction and elsewhere. Chaps. 1:1, 4, 9; 21:2; 22:8. It may surprise us that the man who studiously avoids mentioning his name in the fourth gospel, and who describes himself in his second and third epistles as "the elder," should here directly introduce his name at the beginning and in the progress of the book. But for this difference he may have had a good reason, whether we can discover it or not. The direct command, addressed to him personally, that he should write down his visions and send them to the seven churches of Asia would seem to imply the propriety, if not the necessity, of his connecting his own name with the record of them. He addressed the churches immediately and authoritatively in the name of the risen and glorified Saviour. What more natural and proper than that he should inform them directly who he was that had received this heavenly message.
(2.) Thedoctrinalviews of the Apocalypse afford no argument against its apostolic authorship. The writer, it is true, moves to a great extent in a new and peculiar sphere of truth; but there is nothing in it contradictory to the teachings of John's gospel and epistles. On the contrary, the great central truths that relate to Christ's person and office are in perfect harmony with those teachings.
(3.) Thespiritof the Apocalypse is not contradictory to that of the gospel and epistles. A writer in Alexander's Kitto says: "Quiet contemplation has full scope in the evangelist; mildness and love find utterance in affectionate discourse. But the spirit of the apocalyptist is stern and revengeful, with cutting reproofs, calls to repentance, commands and threatenings." The answer to all this is that, just as the human body has bones and muscles as well as fluids and soft tissues, so the mediatorial governmentof Christ has a stern as well as a mild side; and that the very nature of the visions contained in the apocalypse gives prominence to this side.
(4.) The main objections are based ondiversity of style and diction. Notwithstanding all the true points of resemblance in this respect that have been adduced by various writers, the difference between the Apocalypse, on the one hand, and the gospel and epistles of John, on the other, is very striking. But here we must take into account, first of all, the great difference in thesubject-matter, which naturally brings a corresponding difference of language. Next, the difference in themode of divine communication. The gospel and epistles were written under that constant tranquil illumination of the Holy Spirit which all the apostles enjoyed. The subject-matter of the Apocalypse was given in direct vision—much of it, moreover, through the medium of oral address. To one who believes in the reality of the revelations here recorded it is vain that an opponent urge the difference in style between the first epistle of John and the epistles to the seven churches of Asia; since these latter are expressed in the very words of Christ. Inseparably connected with the peculiar mode of revelation in the Apocalypse are the peculiarmental state and circumstancesin which the apostle wrote. He composed the gospel and epistles in the calmness of tranquil contemplation and reminiscences of the past. The visions of the Apocalypse he received "in the Spirit" (chap. 1:10; 4:2); that is, in a state of ecstacy; and, according to the plain language of the book, hewrote them down at the time, beginning, as we must suppose, with the second chapter, the introductory chapter and some closing remarks having been added afterwards. The direction: "What thou seest write in a book" (chap. 1:11, 19), does not indeed imply that he should write upon the spot; but that he did so is plainly indicated elsewhere: "When the seven thunders had uttered their voices, I was about to write: and I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Seal up those things which the seven thunders uttered, and write them not" (chap. 10:4). In entire harmony with this is another passage: "And I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Write, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth," etc. (chap. 14:13); that is, "Write down now these words of comfort." The apostle, therefore, wrote down his visions one after another immediately after they were received. When he wrote he was not in a state of unconsciousness, but of mental and spiritual exaltation above his ordinary condition. To affirm that he could not have received this series of visions without being deprived of the capacity to record them at the time, would be to limit the modes of divine revelation by our ignorance. If we cannot understand how the apostle could hear "in the Spirit" the voices of the seven thunders, and immediately prepare to write down their utterances, we ought, at least, reverently to receive the fact as stated by him. To expect from one writing in such circumstances careful attention to the rulesof Greek syntax and the idioms of the Greek language would be absurd. Undoubtedly Plato in a like situation would have written pure Attic Greek, because that would have been to him the most natural mode of writing. But the Galilean fisherman, a Jew by birth and education, fell back upon the Hebrew idioms with which he was so familiar. Finally we must remember that, after the analogy of the Old Testament prophecies, this prophetic book is expressed inpoetic diction. It is full of images borrowed from the old Hebrew prophets, often spiritualized and applied in a higher sense. Looking to the imagery alone, one may well call this book agrand anthologyof the old Hebrew poets. But the poetic diction of one and the same writer may differ widely from his prose style, as we see in the case of Moses, Isaiah, and Jeremiah.
If the above considerations do not wholly remove the difficulty under consideration they greatly relieve it. The apostolic authorship of the fourth gospel and the first epistle of John is sustained by a mass of evidence that cannot be set aside. That the same John also wrote the visions of the Apocalypse is attested, as we have seen, by the almost unanimous voice of antiquity. Far greater difficulties are involved in the denial of the ancient tradition of the church than in the admission of it.
3. Thedateof the Apocalypse has been a matter of much discussion, the great question being whether it was written before or after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. The external testimony strongly preponderates on the side of a late date; for the great body of this tradition represents the banishment of the apostle to the isle of Patmos as having taken place under Domitian who succeeded Titus, and reigned from A.D. 81 to 96. This supposition also agrees with the fact that the recipients of our Lord's seven messages (chaps. 2, 3) are the seven churches of Proconsular Asia, among whom, according to the unanimous testimony of the primitive church, the apostle spent the latter years of his life. The hypothesis of an earlier date is but feebly supported by external testimony. It rests mainly on the alleged reference of the writer to the overthrow of Jerusalem as an event yet future, and as being the main subject of the prophesies contained in the book. But this reference has never been clearly established, and is contradicted by the general analogy of prophecy, by the contents of the book, and by its manifest relation to the prophecies of Daniel. Afew only of the briefer prophetic books, as those of Jonah and Nahum, confine themselves to one particular event lying in the near future. All the more extended among them, and many of the shorter, look forward undeniably to the distant future. The book of Daniel can be interpreted only as containing a great scheme of prophecy stretching forward into the distant future, and with this the revelation of John has the closest connection. Theplacewhere the revelation was received was the isle of Patmos, one of the group called Sporades in the Ægean sea off the southwestern corner of Asia Minor, where the apostle represents himself to have been "for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ" (chap. 1:9): that is, in accordance with ancient tradition, banished to that isle on account of the gospel.
4. For theinterpretationof this book many and very discordant plans have been proposed. Setting aside at the outset all those schemes which do not find in the Apocalypse a view of the conflicts of Christ's people to the end of time and their final victory over their enemies, there remain two general principles of interpretation. The first may be called thegenericprinciple. Those who adopt it inquire only after the general import of the symbols employed, without attempting any particular application of them to the history of the church in connection with that of the world. Thus, the white horse of the first seal (chap. 6:2) denotes in general the conquests of Christ through his gospel; the red horse of the second seal (chap 6:4), war and carnage, as accompanying the progress of the truth; and so on throughout the other symbols of the book. But when we come to the most important part of the prophecies, those concerning the two beasts (chap. 13), and that concerning the woman riding on the scarlet-colored beast (chap. 17), this principle utterly fails. It cannot be that so many specific and very peculiar marks mean only persecuting powers in general. They point with wonderful clearness and precision to that grand combination of the civil with the ecclesiastical power of which papal Rome has ever been the chief representative.
We come, then, for the true key to the Apocalypse, to theother principle, which may be called thehistoric. This seeks in the history of the church and of the world for the great events foretold in this book. It is no valid objection to this principle, that in the attempt to apply it interpreters find great, and in many cases insuperable difficulties. The mystery of God is not yet finished. It may be that the mighty events of the future can alone throw a clear light on the entire plan of the book. Meanwhile we must wait in reverential expectation, having in the plain fulfilment of that part of its prophecies which describes the rise and character of the combined ecclesiastical and political power which, under the name of Christianity, persecutes the true servants of Christ, a certain pledge that all the rest will be accomplished in due season. Expositors are agreed that the predictions of the book do not run on in chronological order from beginning to end. Most find in chaps. 6:1-11:18 (with an episode, chaps. 10:1-11:13) one series relating more to the outward history of the world in its relations to God's people; while in chap. 12 the writer returns to the primitive days of Christianity, and gives a more interior and spiritual view of the conflicts of God's people along the track of ages and their final triumph, adding at the close various supplementary views of the same mighty struggle and victory.
5. On thesymbolic import of the numbersin the Apocalypse a few words may be added.
Sevenis the well known symbol of completeness, and this is the most prominent number in the book. Thus we have the seven churches of Asia represented by the seven golden candlesticks, and their seven angels represented by seven stars (chap. 1:4, 12, 16, 20); the seven lamps of fire burning before the throne which are the seven spirits of God (chap. 4:5); the seven seals (chap. 5:1); the seven trumpets (chap. 8:2); the seven thunders (chap. 10:4); the seven last plagues (chap. 15:1); to which may be added the seven ascriptions of praise—power, riches, wisdom, strength, honor, glory, blessing (chap. 5:12), blessing, glory, wisdom, thanksgiving, honor, power, might (chap. 7:12). Lastly, we have the seven heads of the persecuting beast in allits various forms. Chaps. 12:3; 13:1; 17:3. So far as the number seven has its fulfilment in the history of the world, we are at liberty to suppose that this is accomplished, in part at least, by the manner in which the wisdom of God has been pleased to group together the events of prophecy—a grouping which is always appropriate, but might have been different had the plan of representation so required. The final judgments which precede the millennium, for example, which in chaps. 15 and 16 are set forth under the figure of seven vials full of the wrath of God, might have been, by another mode of distribution, represented under the number two. Many think they are thus represented in chap. 14:14-20. Another prophetic number, occurring in Daniel and the Apocalypse, always as a designation of time, is thehalf of seven. Thus we have "a time, and times, and half a time," that is, three years and a half (chap. 12:14); or in months, "forty and two months" (chaps. 11:2; 13:5); or in days, "a thousand two hundred and threescore days" (chaps. 11:3; 12:6). Compare Daniel 7:25. Again, answering to these three years and a half, we have the three days and a half during which the two witnesses lie dead. Chap. 11:9, 11. The numbersix, moreover, from its peculiar relation to seven, represents the preparation for the consummation of God's plans. Hence the sixth seal (chap. 6:12-17), the sixth trumpet (chap. 9:14-21), and the sixth vial (chap. 16:12-16) are each preëminent in the series to which they belong. They usher in the awful judgments of Heaven which destroy the wicked. Here, perhaps, we have the key to the symbolic import of the number of the beast, 666. While it represents, according to the principles of Greek numeration, the number of a man, it seems to indicate that upon him fall all the judgments of the sixth seal, the sixth trumpet, and the sixth vial.
Fouris the natural symbol for universality. Thus we have the four living creatures round about the throne (chap. 4:6), perhaps as symbols of the agencies by which God administers his universal providential government (chaps. 6:1, 3, 5, 7; 15:7); the four angels standing on the four corners of the earthand holding the four winds (chap. 7:1); and the four angels bound in the river Euphrates (chap. 9:14). So also in the fourfold enumeration, "kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation," or its equivalent. Chaps. 5:9; 10:11; 11:9; 14:6; 17:15.A third and a fourth part, on the contrary, represent what is partial. Chaps. 6:8; 8:12; 9:18.
Twelveis the well-known signature of God's people. Compare the twelve tribes of the Old Testament and the twelve apostles of the New; the woman with a crown of twelve stars (chap. 12:1); the twelve gates, twelve angels, twelve foundations of the New Jerusalem, the twelve times twelve cubits of its wall, and its tree of life that yields twelve harvests a year (chaps. 21:12, 14; 22:2). We have also the same number combined with a thousand, the general symbol for a great number. From each of the twelve tribes of Israel are sealed twelve thousand (chap. 7:4-8), making for the symbolical number of the redeemed twelve times twelve thousand (chap. 14:1, 3); and the walls of the New Jerusalem are in every direction twelve thousand furlongs (chap. 21:16).
Tenis possibly only a symbol of diversity, as in the case of the ten horns of the beast (chaps. 12:3; 13:1; 17:3); though some take a literal view of it.
6. Dark as are many parts of the Apocalypse and difficult of interpretation, the book as a whole is radiant with the promise to God's people of a final and complete victory in their conflict with the kingdom of Satan. Though long delayed, as we mortals reckon time, it shall come at last with a splendor above the brightness of the sun, and the earth be lighted from pole to pole with its glory. "Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus"!
1. A wide distinction should be made between thewritings of the apostolic fatherswhich are acknowledged to be genuine, or the genuineness of which may be maintained on more or less probable grounds, and the large mass of spurious works afterwards palmed upon the Christian world as the productions of apostles or their contemporaries. The latter constitute properly theNew Testament Apocrypha, though the term is sometimes applied in a loose way to both classes of writings. The writings of the apostolic fathers, though possessing no divine authority, are valuable as showing the state of the Christian churches at the time when they were composed in respect to both doctrine and discipline, as well as the various errors and divisions by which they were troubled. Their testimonies to the genuineness of the New Testament have been already considered. Chap. 2, No. 10. Some of the apocryphal works also, worthless as they are for instruction in the doctrines and duties of Christianity, throw much light on the religious spirit, tendencies, and heretical sects of the times to which they belong. Others of these writings are unutterably absurd and puerile, worthy of notice only as showing the type of the puerilities current in the age of their composition.
2. Appended to the Alexandrine manuscript (Chap. 26, No. 5) is anepistle of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians, followed by part of a so-called second epistle to the same church. The first of these epistles is acknowledged to be genuine. It was known to the ancient fathers as the work of Clement of Rome, and highly commended by them. Their quotations from it agree with the contents of the epistle as we now have it, nor does it exhibit any marks of a later age; for the author's reference to the well-known fable of the phoenix as a type of the resurrection (chap. 25), constitutes no real difficulty. It may prove that he was credulous, but not that he belonged to a later than the apostolic age. The ancients represent this Clement to have been identical withClement bishop of Rome. Whether he was also identical with the Clement named by the apostle Paul (Phil.4:3), is a question that we may well leave undecided. The epistle was written shortly after some persecution (chap. 1), which Grabe, Hefele, and others suppose to have been that under Nero; Lardner, Cotelerius, and others, that under Domitian. Upon the former supposition it was written about A.D. 68—a supposition apparently favored by the way in which he refers to the temple and service at Jerusalem as still in existence (chaps. 40, 41); upon the latter, about A.D. 96 or 97.
3. Theoccasionof the epistle, which Clement writes in the name of the church at Rome, is easily gathered from its contents. As in the days of Paul, so now, the Corinthian church was troubled by a "wicked and unholy sedition," fomented by "a few rash and self-willed men," who had proceeded so far as to thrust out of their ministry some worthy men. Chap. 44. It would seem, also, from chaps. 24-27 that there were among them those who denied the doctrine of the resurrection. To restore in the Corinthian church the spirit of love and unity is the grand scope of the epistle. The author commends them for their orderly and holy deportment before their present quarrel arose, traces it to its true source in the pride gendered by the honor and enlargement granted them by God, and urges them to lay aside their contentions by every motive that the gospel offers—the mischiefs that strife occasions, the rules of their religion, the example of the Saviour and holy men of all ages, the relation of believers to God, his high value of the spirit of love and unity, the reward of obedience and punishment of disobedience, etc. Comparing the church to an army, he insists earnestly on the necessity of different ranks and orders, and the spirit of obedience. Comparing it again to the human body, he shows that all the particular members, each in his place, should conspire together for the preservation of the whole.
Clement's style has not the merit of compactness and conciseness. He is, on the contrary, diffuse and repetitious. But a thoroughly evangelical spirit pervades the present epistle, and it is, moreover, characterized by a noble fervor and simplicity. "It evinces the calm dignity and the practical executive wisdom of the Roman church in her original apostolic simplicity, without the slightest infusion of hierarchical arrogance." Schaff, Hist. Christ. Church, vol. 1, p. 460. In its internal character, as in the time of its composition, it approaches the canonical writings of the New Testament more nearly than any other remains of antiquity.
4. Thesecondepistle ascribed to Clement is not mentioned by any of the fathers before Eusebius, who speaks of it doubtingiy: "But it should be known that there is said to be also a certain second epistle of Clement. But it is clear to us that this is not equally known with the first, for we know that the ancients have not made use of it." Hist. Eccles. 3. 38. It is generally acknowledged to be spurious, and is, perhaps, as Hefele suggests, one of the homilies falsely ascribed to Clement. With this suppositionits contents well agree; for it does not seem to have, like the first, a definite end to accomplish. It opens with a general exhortation that the Corinthians should think worthily of Christ in view of the great work which he has wrought in their behalf, and urges upon them a steadfast confession of him before men, not by empty words, but by a life of holy obedience. It sets before them the incompatibility of the service of God and mammon, and dwells with especial earnestness on the high rewards of eternity in comparison with the pleasures and pains of the present life; as if the writer had in mind those who were exposed to the double peril of substituting an empty profession for the living spirit of obedience, and of apostatizing from Christ through fear of persecution and martyrdom.
5. Besides the above, there is a mass of writings current in ancient days under the name of Clement which are acknowledged by all to be spurious. Among these are: TheRecognitions of Clement; TheClementines, or, according to the Greek title,Clement's Epitome of Peter's Discourses in Travel;Clement's Epitome concerning the Acts and Discourses of Peter in Travel—three forms of substantially the same work. It will be sufficient to give a brief notice of the Recognitions. The author, apparently a Jew by birth and a philosopher of the Alexandrine school, has embraced a form of Christianity mixed up with the dogmas of his philosophy. For the purpose of attacking and overthrowing the false religious notions of his age, he invents an ingenious historic plot. Clement, a Roman citizen, who, as appears in the sequel, has been separated in early life from his father, mother, and two brothers, whom he supposes to be dead, is introduced as sending to James, who presides over the church at Jerusalem, with an accompanying letter, an account of his early education; his acquaintance with the apostle Peter, who chooses him to be his companion in travel; Peter's conversations with himself and the rest of the company; his public addresses and acts; especially his famous encounters with Simon Magus, whom he overthrows and puts to public shame. In the course of their journeying they visit a certain island, where they meet with a poor woman begging alms, who is found, upon the relation of her history, to be the mother of Clement. Upon farther inquiry it appears that two of Peter's company, Nicetus and Aquila, are her sons and the brothers of Clement. Finally, Peter encounters on the sea-shore, whither he had gone to perform for the newly discovered mother and sons the rite of baptism, an old man who is found to be the long lost husband and father. From theserecognitionsthe work receives its title. But this historic plot is only the occasion of introducing the writer's theological and philosophical opinions, with especial reference to the prevailing errors of his day. Any page of the work is sufficient to show that Peter and Clement had nothing to do with its composition. It cannot be placed earlier than the close of the second or thebeginning of the third century. Prefixed to these Clementine writings, and having reference to them, are two spurious epistles, one from Peter to James, president of the church at Jerusalem, with the proceedings of James consequent upon the reception of it, and one from Clement to James. These it is not necessary to notice.
The so-calledConstitutions of Clementin eight books, embracing, as their name indicates, a system of rules pertaining to church order and discipline, were certainly not the work of Clement. It is not certain that they had their origin as a whole in the same age; but the judgment of learned men is that no part of them is older than the second half of the third century. The eighty-five so-calledApostolic Canonshave prefixed to them the spurious title: "Ecclesiastical Rules of the Holy Apostles promulgated by Clement High Priest (Pontifex) of the Church of Rome." The origin of these canons is uncertain. They first appear as a collection with the above title in the latter part of the fifth century. How much older some of them may be cannot be determined with certainty.
6.Ignatiuswas bishop of the church at Antioch, and suffered martyrdom at Rome by exposure to wild beasts A.D. 107, or according to some accounts, A.D. 116. Of thefifteenepistles ascribed to him, it is agreed among biblical scholars thateightare spurious and of later origin. The remaining seven are generally regarded as genuine, but the text of these, as of all the rest, is in a very unsatisfactory condition. There are two Greek recensions, a longer and a shorter, the latter containing approximately the true text, though not without the suspicion of interpolations. There is a Syriac version containing but three of Ignatius' epistles, and these in a much reduced form (which some are inclined to regard as the only genuine epistles); also an Armenian version containing thirteen epistles. See further Schaff, Hist. Chris. Church, vol. 1, pp. 469-471. As the question now stands, we may with good reason receive as genuine the seven mentioned by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. 3. 36) and Jerome (De Viris illust. 16). They were all written on his last journey to Rome; four from Smyrna, where Polycarp was the bishop, to the Ephesians, Magnesians, Trallians, and Romans; three after his departure from Smyrna, to the churches of Philadelphia and Smyrna, and to Polycarp bishop of Smyrna. The native vigor and energy of Ignatius, as also the depth and sincerity of his piety, shine forth conspicuously in these letters; but they differ from the epistle of Clement in the manifestation of an intense ecclesiastical spirit, by which, indeed, they are marked as belonging to a later era of the church. If we except the epistle to the Romans, they all abound in exhortations to render implicit obedience to their spiritual rulers as to Christ himself. Tothese precepts he adds exhortations to maintain unity, and to avoid false doctrines, specifying particularly Judaizing teachers and such as deny our Lord's proper humanity.
We cannot read his letter to the Romans, among whom he expected shortly to lay down his life for Christ's sake, without deep interest. But it is marred by the manifestation of an undue desire to obtain the crown of martyrdom, which leads him to protest against any interposition of the Roman brethren in his behalf. "I beseech you," says he, "show no unseasonable good-will towards me. Suffer me to be the food of wild beasts, by means of which I may attain to God. I am the wheat of God, and am ground by the teeth of wild beasts, that I may be found the pure bread of God." Chap. 4. His letter to Polycarp, a fellow bishop, abounds in precepts for the right discharge of his duties. It is interesting as showing Ignatius' idea, on the one side, of the office with its high responsibilities, and, on the other, of the duties which the churches owe to those who are set over them in the Lord.
7. There are some spurious epistles ascribed to Ignatius which it is sufficient simply to name. These are: A letter to one Maria a proselyte of Cilicia in answer to her request that certain young men might be sent to her people as their spiritual guides; epistles to the church of Tarsus, of Antioch, and of Philippi—theological dissertations mostly made up of texts of Scripture; a letter to Hero a deacon, containing precepts for the right discharge of his office, and abounding, like those just named, in quotations from Scripture: two pretended letters of Ignatius to the apostle John; one to the Virgin Mary, with her reply.
Finally, there are some fragments of Ignatius' writings preserved to us in the quotations of the ancients, which it is not necessary to notice.
8.Polycarpwas a disciple of the apostle John, and presided over the church in Smyrna. He suffered martyrdom about the year 166. Of his writings only one short epistle remains, addressed by him to the Philippians soon after the martyrdom of Ignatius, who passed through Smyrna on his way to Rome. This we gather from the letter itself; for in this he assumes that Ignatius has already suffered (chap. 9), and yet he has not heard the particulars concerning his fate and that of his companions. Chap. 14. This brief epistle is marked by a fervor and simplicity worthy of an apostolic man. The writer commends the Philippians for the love manifested by them towards the suffering servants of Christ, exhorts them to steadfastness, reminds them of Paul's precepts in his epistle to them,and proceeds to unfold and inculcate the duties belonging to the officers and several classes of members in the church. The immediate occasion of the letter seems to have been his transmission to the Philippians, in compliance with their request, of Ignatius' epistle to himself, with such others of his epistles as had come into his hands. Chap. 13. The preservation of the present epistle is probably due to this its connection with the epistles of Ignatius forwarded by him to the Philippians.
9. The writings current under the names ofBarnabasandHermashave by no means the outward testimony in their favor by which the preceding epistles of Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp are supported; nor the inward evidence arising from the consideration of their contents. We will consider them briefly in the order abovenamed.
10. Until recently the first part of theEpistle of Barnabasexisted only in a Latin version. But in 1859 Tischendorf discovered at Mount Sinai the Sinai Codex (Chap. 26, No. 5), which contains the entire epistle in the original Greek. That the writer was the Barnabas mentioned in the New Testament as the companion of Paul in preaching the gospel, cannot be maintained on any firm basis of evidence. As to the date of its composition learned men differ. Hefele places it between the years 107 and 120. Apostolic Fathers, Prolegomena, p. 15.
The writer was apparently a Hellenistic Jew of the Alexandrine school, and he wrote for the purpose of convincing his brethren, mainly from the Old Testament, that Jesus is the Messiah, and that in him the rites of the Mosaic law are done away. His quotations from the Old Testament are numerous, and his method of interpretation is allegorical and sometimes very fanciful, as in the following passage, for the right understanding of which the reader should know that the two Greek letters [Greek: IÊ], which stand first in the name [Greek: IÊSOUS], JESUS, and represent that name by abbreviation, signify as numerals, the firstten, the second,eight; also that the Greek letter [Greek: T] (the sign of the cross) denotes as a numeral,three hundred. "The Scripture says," argues Barnabas, "that Abraham circumcised of his housethree hundred and eighteen men. What was the knowledge communicated to him [in this fact]? Learn first the meaning of theeighteen, then of thethree hundred. Now the numeral letters [Greek: I],ten, [Greek: Ê],eight, makeeighteen. Here you haveJesus(Greek [Greek: IÊSOUN], of which the abbreviation is [Greek: IÊ]). And because the cross, which lies in the letter [Greek: T], was that which should bring grace, he says alsothree hundred." Chap. 9. The Rabbinic system of interpretation in which the writer was educated furnishes anexplanation, indeed, of this and other like puerilities, but novindicationof them.
11. TheShepherd of Hermas, as the work current under the name ofHermas is called, consists of three books—his Visions, his Commands, and his Similitudes. The four visions are received through the ministry of an aged woman, who is the church of Christ. The twelve commands and ten similitudes are received from one who appears to him "in the habit of a shepherd, clothed with a white cloak, having his bag upon his back, and his staff in his hand," whence the title TheShepherdof Hermas. All these are intended to unfold the truths of Christianity with its doctrines and duties. The writer has a most luxuriant imagination. In reading his books, particularly the first and the third, one sometimes finds himself bewildered in a thicket of images and similitudes, some of them grotesque and not altogether congruous. Yet the work throws much light on the religious ideas and tendencies of its age.
The ancients speak doubtingly of the authority of this work. Origen, whom Eusebius and Jerome follow, ascribes it to the Hermas mentioned in the epistle to the Romans (chap. 16:14); though it does not appear that he had any other ground for this than the identity of the name. The Muratorian canon names as its author Hermas the brother of Pius bishop of Rome. According to this, which is the more probable view, the date of its composition would be about the middle of the second century.
12. We put this among the remains of the apostolic fathers, not because there is any doubt as to its containing the substance of the doctrines taught by the apostles, but because, as is generally admitted, it did not receive its present form at their hand. "Though not traceable in its present shape before the third century, and found in the second in different longer or shorter forms, it is in substance altogether apostolic, and exhibits an incomparable summary of the leading facts in the revelation of the triune God from the creation of the world to the resurrection of the body; and that in a form intelligible to all, and admirably suited for public worship and catechetical use." Schaff, Hist. Chris. Church, pp. 121, 122.
13. These are very numerous. Under the head of Apocryphal Gospels. Tischendorf has published twenty-two works; under that of Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles, thirteen. To the student of church history they are not without value; for they illustrate the origin of many ancient traditions and some ritual observances. But if we look to their intrinsic character, they may be described as a mass of worthless legends abounding in absurd and puerile stories. The contrast between the miracles which they relate and the true miracles recorded in the canonical gospels and Acts isimmense, and such as makes the darkness of these spurious writings more visible. The miracles of the canonical books have always a worthy occasion, and are connected with the Saviour's work of redemption. But the pretended miracles of the apocryphal writings are, as a general rule, wrought on trivial occasions, with either no end in view but the display of supernatural power, or with a positively unlawful end, whence it not unfrequently happens that their impiety rivals their absurdity. Many samples of both these characters could be given, but the general reader may well remain ignorant of them.
1. The termHermeneutics(Greek,hermeneuo,to interpret) is commonly employed to denote theprinciples of scriptural interpretation. The Greek wordexegesis—that is,exposition—denotes the actualwork of interpretation. Hermeneutics is, therefore, thescienceof interpretation; Exegesis, theapplicationof this science to the word of God. The hermeneutical writer lays down general principles of interpretation; the exegetical writer uses these principles in the exposition of Scripture. The termsepexegesisandepexegeticalare used by expositors in a special sense to denote something explanatory of the immediate context.
2. The expositor'sofficeis, to ascertain and unfold the true meaning of the inspired writers, without adding to it, subtracting from it, or changing it in any way. Here we may draw an instructive parallel between his work and that of the textual critic. The textual critic aims to give, not what some one might think the inspired penman should have written, but what he actually did write. So the true expositor, taking the very words of Scripture, seeks not to force upon them a meaning in harmony with his preconceived opinions, but to take from them the very ideas which the writer intended to express. It is pertinent, therefore, to consider at the outset the qualifications which belong to the biblical interpreter. These include high moral and intellectual qualities, as well as varied and extensive acquirements.
3. Foremost among the qualities that belong to the interpreter is asupreme regard for truth. A general conviction and acknowledgment of the duty of truthfulness will not be sufficient to guard him against all the seductive influences that beset his path. Though he may be a sincere Christian, he will still be in danger of being misled by the power of preconceived opinions and party connections. He will need a constant and vivid apprehension of the sacredness of all truth, more especially of scriptural truth, which God has revealed for the sanctification and salvation of men. "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth." These words of the Saviour he will do well to ponder night and day, till they become a part of his spiritual life; and to remember always that, if such be the divine origin and high office of scriptural truth, God will not hold guiltless any who tamper with it in the interest of preconceived human opinions, thus substituting the folly of man for the wisdom of God.
4. The interpreter further needs asound judgment, combined with the power ofvivid conception. These two qualities are named together, because they mutually supplement each other. A large part of the Bible is occupied with description. Here the interpreter needs the power of conception, that he may bring before his mind a vivid picture of the scenes described, with the relations of their several parts to each other. Another large part of the Bible contains the language of poetry and impassioned feeling. In the interpretation of this, the faculty of conception is especially necessary, that we may place ourselves as fully as possible in the circumstances of the writers, and form a true idea of the emotions which filled their minds and gave form and complexion to their utterances. Pure cold logic, with the addition of any amount of human learning, will not enable us to comprehend and expound aright the forty-second Psalm. By the power of imagination, we must go with the poet, in his exile from the sanctuary at Jerusalem, across the Jordan to the land of the Hermonites; must see his distressed and forsaken condition; must hear the bitter taunts of his enemies;must witness the inward tempest of his feelings—a continual conflict between nature and faith—before we can have a true understanding of his words. The same might be said of innumerable other passages of Scripture.
But this power of vivid conception, when not held in check by asound judgment, will lead the expositor of Scripture into the wildest vagaries of fancy. Disregarding the plainest rules of interpretation, he will cover up the obvious sense of Scripture with a mass of allegorical expositions, under color of educing from the words of inspiration a higher and more edifying meaning. That high natural endowments, united with varied and solid learning and indefatigable zeal for the gospel, do not of themselves constitute a safeguard against this error, we learn from the example of Origen and many others. Not content to let the simple narratives of Scripture speak for themselves and convey their proper lessons of instruction, these allegorical expositors force upon them a higher spiritual sense. In so doing, they unsettle the very principles by which the spiritual doctrines of Scripture are established.
Origen, for example, in commenting on the meeting between Abraham's servant and Rebecca at the well in Haran, says: "Rebecca came every day to the wells. Therefore she could be found by Abraham's servant, and joined in marriage with Isaac." Thus he gives the literal meaning of this transaction. But he then goes on to show, among other things, that Rebecca represents the human soul, which Christ wishes to betroth to himself, while Abraham's servant is "the prophetic word, which unless you first receive, you cannot be married to Christ." See in Davidson's Sacred Hermeneutics, pp. 103, 104.
5. Another indispensable qualification of scriptural interpretation issympathy with divine truth; in other words, that harmony of spirit with the truths of revelation which comes from a hearty reception of them, and a subjection of the whole life, inward and outward, to their control. "If any man," said our Saviour, "will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself." John 7:17. In these words our Lord proposed to the unbelievingJews the true remedy for their ignorance and error respecting his person and office, which had their ground not in the want of evidence, but in their perverse and guilty rejection of evidence. Their moral state was one of habitual rebellion against the truth of God; and they could not, therefore, have sympathy with the Saviour's doctrine. They hated the light, and would not come to the light, because their deeds were evil. John 3:20. What they needed was not more light, but that obedient spirit which loves the light, and allows it to shine through the soul. The man who would be a successful interpreter of God's word must begin where the Saviour directed these Jews to begin. So far as he knows the truth, he must give it a hearty reception not in theory alone, but in daily practice. Then he will be prepared to make further progress in the knowledge of it, and to unfold its heavenly treasures to his fellow-men. But if he comes to the study of God's word with a heart habitually at variance with its holy precepts, and an understanding darkened by the power of sinful affections, no amount of scholarship or critical sagacity will avail to make him a true expositor of its contents. Having no sympathy with the great foundation doctrines of the gospel, but regarding them with positive aversion, he will neither be able to apprehend them in their true light, nor to explain them aright to his fellow-men. In the work of interpretation, a good heart—good in the scriptural sense—is not less important than a clear understanding and well-furnished mind.
6. How extensive and varied should be theacquirementsof the able interpreter will be manifest to any one who considers the extent and variety of the fields of knowledge covered by the Holy Scriptures.
Thelanguagesin which they are written are no longer spoken. The knowledge of them, like that of all dead languages, is locked up in books—grammars, lexicons, ancient versions, and various subsidiary helps—and can be mastered only by severe and protracted study. It is not indeed necessary that the great body of Christians, or even all preachers of the gospel,should be able to read the Bible in the original languages. But it is a principle of Protestantism, the soundness of which has been confirmed by the experience of centuries, that there should always be in the churches a body of men able to go behind the current versions of Scripture to the original tongues from which these versions were executed. The commentator, at least, must not take his expositions at second hand; and a healthy tone of feeling in regard to the sacredness and supreme authority of the inspired word will always demand that there should be a goodly number of scholars scattered through the churches who can judge from the primitive sources of the correctness of his interpretations.
The Scriptures are crowded with references to the cities, mountains, plains, deserts, rivers, and seas of Palestine and the surrounding regions; to their climate, soil, animals, and plants; to their agricultural products and mineral treasures; to the course of travel and commerce between the different nations; in a word, to those numerous particulars which come under the head ofgeographyandnatural history. The extended investigations of modern times in these departments of knowledge have shed a great light over the pages of inspiration, which no expositor who is worthy of the name will venture to neglect.
And if one collect and illustrate the various allusions of Scripture to the manners and customs of the ancient Hebrews, to their civil institutions and their religious rites and ceremonies, he will compose a volume onbiblical antiquities.
The connection, moreover, which the covenant people had with the surrounding nations, especially the great monarchies which successively held sway over the civilized world—Egypt, Assyria, Chaldea, Greece, Rome—requires an extended knowledge ofancient history, and, as inseparably connected with this, ofancient chronology. Biblical chronology constitutes, indeed, a science of itself, embracing some very perplexed and difficult questions, the solution of which has an important bearing upon the passages of Scripture to which they have reference.
7. We do not affirm that all the above-named qualificationsare necessary to a saving knowledge of God's word. Its great essential doctrines and precepts are so plain that the unlettered reader, who brings to the work an honest heart, cannot fail to understand them. In this respect God has made the vision so plain "that he may run that readeth it;" and the road to heaven so direct that "the wayfaring men, though fools, shall not err therein." But the interpreter of Scripture is expected to unfold the meaning of the difficult passages also, as far as human investigation will enable him to do so. They are a part of "all Scripture given by inspiration of God," which the apostle affirms to be "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." He should spare no effort, therefore, to ascertain their exact sense, and to expound this sense to others with all possible fidelity and clearness.
8. There is ahumanand adivineside to biblical interpretation—a human side, because the Scriptures address men in human language, and according to human modes of thinking and speaking; a divine side, because they contain a true revelation from God to men, and differ in this respect from all other writings. The neglect of the human side leads to visionary schemes of interpretation, in which the writer's fancy is substituted for the sober rules of criticism, and the word of God accommodated to his preconceived opinions. The rejection, open or covert, of the divine side, manifests itself in a cold, skeptical criticism, which denies or explains away all that is supernatural in the Bible; which, instead of seeking to discover and unfold that unity of plan and harmony of parts which belong to every work of God, delights rather in exaggerating the supposed inconsistencies and contradictions of the sacred writers, and in arraying one part of Scripture against another; and which, having no faith itself in the Bible as containing a revelation from God, infuses doubts respecting its divine origin into the mind of the reader. It is only by keeping steadily in view these two sides of revelation, which mutually supplement each other, that we can attain to a true knowledge of the inspired word.