Chapter I: INTERPRETATION, then, in the largest sense of the term, I take to (3)

And this Evangelical complexion is to be recognized in the entire contents of the xxixth and xxxth chapters. They contain no single mention of ceremonial rites or observances,--of which the Law is, for the most part, full. But free obedience and perfect love are inculcated as the condition of blessedness: while hearty repentance is made the sole condition of forgiveness of sin.

In connexion with this, I may call your attention to a curious coincidence,--if indeed it be not something more. On the sincere repentance of the people, it is promised "that then the LORD thy GOD will turn thy captivity;" which the Targum of Jonathan paraphrases,--"His WORD will receive with delight thy repentance:" while the Septuagint even more remarkably renders the words--"will heal thy sins;" that is,--"will be thy JESUS." Moses proceeds,--"and gather thee from all the nations whither the LORD thy GOD hath called thee." And what is this but one of the very places, if it be not _the very place_, to which St. John alludes when he declares that Caiaphas prophesied that JESUS should die for that nation; and not for that nation only; but that He should gather together in one, the children of GOD that were scattered abroad[548]?

4. Nor is it, finally, a little remarkable that, by the general consent of the Hebrew Doctors, this xxxth chapter has ever been held to have reference to the times of MESSIAH. The restoration spoken, is referred by them to the restoration to be effected by CHRIST: while the promises it contains are connected with those prophetic intimations which clearly point to the days of the Gospel[549]. So much, then, for the evidence, _apart from Revelation_, which the general complexion of the place in Deuteronomy affords to the reasonableness of the meaning affixed to it by the voice of the later Scriptures. Before we proceed to examine a little in detail the words of the text, we may be surely allowed to remind ourselves of the Testimony which St. Paul bears to the Evangelical character of what is here delivered. He asserts, in the most direct and emphatic manner, that it is the Righteousness which is by Faith which here speaks[550]. He is contrasting the spirit of the Law, with that of the Gospel. He is setting the requirements of the one against those of the other. To exhibit the former,--he quotes from Leviticus. To enable us to judge of the latter,--he quotes this very place in Deuteronomy. Having shewn the justification under the Law,--which is by entire fulfilment of every enjoined work;--the Apostle describes the Righteousness of the Gospel,--which is by Faith in CHRIST. And he discovers its voice in the present chapter: nay, he calls our attention to its language; and, lest the intention of it should escape us, he proceeds to supply us, not only with an interpretation of it, but with a paraphrase as well.

Enough has been said, I trust, to render this proceeding on the part of the Apostle no matter of surprise Let us see whether the particulars of his interpretation are altogether novel and unprecedented either.--The words of Moses which we have to consider, it will be remembered, are these:--The "commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off. It is not in Heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to Heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it and do it? Neither is it beyond the Sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the Sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it[551]."

Now, that all this denotes something close at hand and easy,--in place of something supposed to be remote and difficult,--is obvious. The whole of the earlier part of it, St. Paul affirms to be tantamount to the following injunction,--"Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into Heaven, to bring CHRIST down; or who descend into the abyss, to bring CHRIST up from the dead." Concerning which words of caution, we have to remark that there seems to have been no intention whatever on the part of the Apostle, to warn _his readers_ against requiring a renewed Revelation of CHRIST in the flesh, or a second Resurrection of the Eternal SON from the dead. He is illustrating the nature of Legal and Evangelical Righteousness, by the language of the Jewish Law. He contrasts the two, in their respective requirements; finding the voice of both in the writings of Moses: of the former,--in connexion with the covenant of Sinai; of the latter,--in connexion with the covenant which the LORD commanded Moses to make with the children of Israel in the land of Moab, _besides_ the former Covenant. With characteristic fire and earnestness, glancing, as usual, at every side of the question before him,--having, a little way back, explained himself, without explanation, when he inserted that remarkable parenthetical clause, =telos gar nomou CHRISTOS=[552],--"for _CHRIST_ is the object of the Law;"--in order now to shew how thoroughly this is the case,--how full the Law is of _Him_, in whom alone it finds its perfect scope, end, and completion,--he explains that the very phrase "Who shall ascend up into Heaven?" pointed to nothing less than _the Incarnation_ of CHRIST: that, "Who shall go over the Sea?" contained a wondrous far-sighted allusion,--(not the less real because unsuspected,)--even to the _Resurrection_ of our LORD from death. So true is it, "that both in the Old and New Testament Everlasting Life is offered to Mankind by CHRIST, who is the only Mediator between GOD and Man, being both GOD and Man. Wherefore they are not to be heard, which feign that the old Fathers did look only for transitory promises[553]."

Moses then here warns the ancient people of GOD against an evil heart of unbelief. "Say not in thy heart, Who shall ascend up into Heaven?" for such words on the part of Man would imply disbelief in the doctrine that the SON of GOD should hereafter take upon Him human flesh. (Since "no man hath ascended up to Heaven, but He that came down from Heaven, even the Son of Man which is in Heaven[554].") "Neither say, Who shall descend into the deep?" for such words on human lips must imply disbelief in MESSIAH'S Descent into Hell, and Resurrection from the Dead.--The mystery of Redemption might not be impatiently demanded; but must be looked for in faith, until the fulness of time should come, and the whole mystery of godliness should be revealed to the wondering eyes of Men and Angels[555].

We shall perhaps be asked, whether it is credible that Moses can have had any conception that such a meaning as St. Paul here ascribes to his words, did really underlie them? To which we answer, first, that it is by no means incredible[556]. And next, that whether Moses knew the full meaning of the language he was commissioned to deliver, or not,--seems, (as already explained[557],) to be an entirely separate question: the only question before us, being, _whether his language contained that meaning_, or not.... To what extent the Prophets,--who, (we know,) studied their own prophecies[558],--were ever permitted to fathom their depth, is a mere matter of speculation[559]; delightful indeed, but in the present case quite irrelevant. In the meantime, we know for certain that _Moses prophesied of CHRIST_[560].

And next, if it be said that really this is only a proverbial expression,--a Hebrew phrase to denote something passing difficult, and hard of attainment:--(as when, in the Book of Proverbs, it is asked,--"Who hath ascended up into Heaven, or who hath descended[561]?")--we answer, we see no ground whatever for supposing that in the place just quoted, it _is_ a proverb, and no more,--although from its use in the Talmud, the expression would certainly appear to have become, at last, proverbial[562]. _If_ a proverb, however, it seems to have been a sacred one; nor can any place be appealed to where it occurs, nearly of the antiquity of _this_, in the writings of Moses. To pretend therefore to explain away a certain mode of expression, in the place where it _first_ stands on record,--and where it is declared to have a deep and mysterious meaning,--simply because, _subsequently_, it was (to all appearance) used _without_ any such pregnancy of signification,--is, manifestly illogical.

Nay, there is good ground for presuming, that the very place last quoted, contains a reference to the Eternal SON: for Agur proceeds to ask,--"What is His Name, and _what is His Son's Name_, if thou canst tell[563]?" ... But the reference is far more obvious when the same expressions occur in the Book of Baruch. "Who hath gone up into Heaven, and taken her, and brought her down from the clouds? Who hath gone over the sea, and found her[564]?" For _Wisdom_ is there spoken of; and Wisdom, as we remember, is one of the names of CHRIST,--the name by which He is discoursed of, in the Book of Proverbs.

The uninspired evidence which completes the connexion of this place of Deuteronomy with the second Person in the Blessed Trinity, is the traditional interpretation assigned to it by the Hebrew Commentators. The Targum of Jerusalem expounds the latter clause as follows:--"Neither is the Law beyond the Great Sea, that thou shouldest say, O that we had one _like Jonas the prophet_ that might go down to the bottom of the Great Sea, and bring it to us." So that the very Jewish Doctors themselves here become our instructors; and teach us that a greater than Jonas must be here,--even while they guide our eyes to that especial type of our SAVIOUR CHRIST in His Descent into Hell, and Rising again from the dead. I say, the very Jewish Doctors themselves here contribute their testimony; and yield a most unsuspicious witness to the inspired exegesis of the Apostle: for, "as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly,"--so, (they clearly mean to say), so should it be with the man whom Moses here indicateth: and so,--(these are the words of CHRIST Himself),--so was "_the Son of Man_ three days and three nights in the heart of the Earth[565]."

You will of course notice the facility with which the Jews themselves, interpreting their own Scriptures, have here exchanged the notions of going "_over_ the sea,"--("_beyond_ the sea," as it is in the Hebrew,)--and "_going down to the bottom_" of the sea. St. Paul seems, in this place, to have "accommodated" the words of Moses: but we cannot fail to perceive that the Hebrew text must cry aloud for such supposed "accommodation;" yea, cry aloud, even in the uncircumcised ears of the Jewish people; that their own Commentators, as if divinely guided by the good hand of GOD, should bear their own independent witness to the correctness of the Apostolic interpretation.

Nor may I fail to call your attention to the term employed by St. Paul to denote the Sea:--a term, surely divinely chosen. He had just before, (in the 6th and 7th verses,) employed the Version of the LXX: he was about to use it again in the 8th verse: but in this, (the 7th,) he departs from it. Instead of,--Tis diaperasei hêmin eis to peran tês thalassês; he writes,--=Tis katabêsetai eis ten abysson=. The term =abyssos=,--which is applicable to the deep places of the Earth, _and_ to the depth of the Sea, with equal propriety;--(being a more indifferent term even than our own expression "the deep");--affords a memorable example of the fulness and pregnancy of language on inspired lips. Adhering to the letter of the text he quotes, the Apostle, by changing _the word_ expressive of that literal sense, embraces the whole spiritual breadth and fulness of the passage:--reminding us of Him, by the blood of whose covenant were sent forth the prisoners of hope out of the pit _wherein is no water_[566],--even before he names Him; our SAVIOUR CHRIST!

I must also remind you, that there are many expressions used by our LORD, or used concerning Him by His Apostles, which help to shew, that, to have come down from Heaven,--and to have been brought up from the deep of the Earth again,--may be regarded as the mysterious summary of the SAVIOUR'S Mission[567].--"No man hath _ascended up_ to Heaven," (saith our LORD,) "but He that _came down_ from Heaven[568]." "I am the living Bread which _came down_ from Heaven.... Doth this offend you? What and if ye shall see the Son of Man _ascend up_ where He was before[569]?" In another place,--"I came forth from the FATHER and am come into the World: again I leave the World, and go to the FATHER[570]."--But the most remarkable place remains: "Now, that He _ascended_, what is it but that He also _descended first_ into the lowest parts of the Earth? He that _descended_, is the same also that _ascended up_ far above all Heavens[571]." I say, this brief summary,--given by CHRIST Himself, or by those who had seen Him,--of the mystery of His manifestation in the flesh,--throws light on the language of the Hebrew lawgiver. It shews that the language of Moses to Israel, in the plains of Moab, fairly embraced the two great truths which Faith even now can but be exhorted to lay fast hold upon, and to appropriate:--"If thou shalt confess with thy mouth that JESUS is the LORD,"--that is, confess that the man Jesus is the uncreated, Incarnate JEHOVAH; "and believe with thy heart that GOD raised Him up from the dead,--thou shalt be saved." ... Such is the form which the exhortation _now_ assumes. More darkly, of old time,--(as was fitting,)--was the same thing spoken: and, because reference was then made to an event not yet accomplished, the impatience of Unbelief is there repressed,--rather than the ardour of Faith stimulated. "Say not in thy heart who shall ascend into Heaven? or, who shall go down into the deep place?" ... But shall we deal so faithlessly with the Divine Oracles of the Old Testament, as to deny them the deeper meaning assigned to them in the New, because they speak darkly? Let us, from a review of all that has been humbly offered,--let us at least admit that there is good independent ground for believing that when Moses spake of ascending into Heaven,--it was with reference to the future coming of CHRIST:--when he made mention of descending into the Deep,--the Resurrection of the SAVIOUR of the World was, in reality, the thing he spake of.--Let us allow that _here_, at least, there is nothing in the language of the New Testament, which, when studied by the light of unassisted Reason, does not appear to have been fully included, contemplated, intended by the language of the Old:--that the accommodation has not been arbitrary;--say rather, that _here_ at least there has been _no accommodation at all_!

But I am impatient to leave this low rationalistic ground, and take my stand again, on the vantage ground of Faith. The position, I trust, has been established, that even in the case of words which seem least promising,--least likely to enfold the deeply mysterious meaning claimed for them by an Apostle,--the result of patient inquiry and research is to shew that such a meaning really _does_ exist there, to the fullest extent. We have discovered, from mere grounds of Reason, apart from Revelation, that what St. Paul has cited in this place from Deuteronomy, may very well contain all that he says it contains. But, were nothing of the kind discoverable;--were it a most hopeless endeavour to reconcile the meaning evolved by the inspired Apostle, with the text he professes to interpret,--the claims of the sacred exegesis would remain wholly unimpaired. We should still say that _this_, because it is an _inspired_ Commentary, is entitled to our fullest acceptance. We have, anyhow, the HOLY SPIRIT interpreting Himself. He surely must be the best judge of His own Divine meaning. He does but enrich the Treasury of Truth, even by His apparent departures from the original Hebrew verity. Shall not the HOLY GHOST, the Comforter, be allowed to speak comfort to His people in whatever way seemeth best to Himself? Is it not lawful for Him to do what He will with His own? Is thine eye evil, because He is very good?

Yes, it cannot be too emphatically insisted on, that the success which may attend investigations of this nature, is not to be admitted for a moment as the measure of the soundness of the principle on which they proceed. The reasoning whereby Newton shewed that the diamond is a combustible substance would have been no whit invalidated had the diamond resisted to this hour every chemical attempt to reduce it to carbon. We do not,--(what need to say?)--we do not discourage the endeavour to enucleate the deep Christian significancy of passages for which Inspired writers claim such sublime meaning. Rather do we think that Human Reason could not find a worthier field for the employment of her powers[572], than this. But we are strenuous to insist that the full and sufficient, and only irrefragable proof that a mighty Christian meaning does actually underlie the unpromising utterance of one of GOD'S ancient Saints, is,--_that an Inspired Writer declares it to exist there_.

There is no _accommodation_ therefore, when an inspired writer adduces Scripture. Human language _will_ sometimes require to be "accommodated:" Divine language, never! May not the HOLY SPIRIT lay His finger on whatever parts of His ancient utterance He sees fit? may He not invert clauses, and (in order to bring out His meaning better) even alter words? If He tells thee that the prophetic allusion of Isaiah to "our griefs" and "our sorrows" comprehends "our infirmities" and "our sicknesses" in its span[573],--is it for _thee_ to discredit His assertion? If He is pleased to intimate that the providential arrangement whereby CHRIST, though born at Bethlehem, grew up at Nazareth,--had for its object the fulfilment of many a detached and seemingly disconnected prophecy[574],--shall the unexpectedness of His disclosure excite ridicule in such an one as thyself? When He tells thee that besides the immediate scope of certain well-known words of Hosea and of Jeremiah, there was the ulterior aim He indicates; if behind Israel after the flesh, He shews thee the Anointed SON[575],--if behind those captive Jews of the tribe of Benjamin whom Nebuzar-Adan led past their mother's grave on their way to Babylon, He points to the slaughtered infant of Bethlehem; assuring thee that when He spake by the mouth of Jeremiah concerning the nearer event that remoter one was full before Him also; and that the solemn and affecting utterance of the Prophet was divinely intended by Himself to cover both[576];--wilt thou, when He discourses to thee thus, presume to talk to Him of "_accommodation?_" Is it not enough for thee to have cavilled at the first page of the _Old_ Testament on "scientific" grounds? Must thou, for Theological considerations, dispute the first page of the _New_ Testament also?

Scripture then, whether in its Historical or its more obviously prophetic parts, has this depth of meaning for which I have been contending. We must perforce believe it, for it is a matter of express Revelation. We cannot pretend to deny the probability,--much less the possibility of it; for we really _can_ know nothing of the matter except from an attentive study of Scripture itself. And the witness of Scripture, as we have seen, is ample, emphatic, and express.--Our LORD, being indignantly asked by the Jews if He heard what the children, crying in the Temple, said of Him,--made answer by quoting the 2nd verse of the viiith Psalm: "Yea, have ye never read, 'Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings Thou hast perfected praise'[577]?"--Pray was this "accommodation," or what was it? It was deemed a sufficient answer, at all events, by the Anointed JEHOVAH; whatever men may think!... When the Sadducees, disbelieving in the Resurrection of the Body, assailed our LORD with a speculative difficulty, He told them that they erred because they did not understand the Scriptures. "Now that the dead _are_ raised, even Moses shewed at the bush, when he calleth the LORD, the GOD of Abraham, and the GOD of Isaac, and the GOD of Jacob. For He is not a GOD of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto Him[578]." How, by the popular method,--how, by any of the new lights which have lately been let in on Holy Scripture,--was the Resurrection of the dead to have been proved by the words which the SECOND PERSON in the Trinity spake to Moses "in the Bush?" And yet we behold _that_ same Divine Personage in the days of His humiliation, proposing from those words, uttered by Himself 1500 years before, to _establish_ the doctrine in dispute!... Only once more. "In the last day, that great day of the Feast [of Tabernacles,] JESUS stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto Me and drink. He that believeth on Me,--_as the Scripture hath said, 'Out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water_[579]!'"--But _where_ does the Scripture say _that_? You will look a long while to find it. You will never find it at all if you adhere to the method which of late has been declared to be the method most in fashion. You will never even understand what our Blessed LORD _means_, unless you attend to the hint which immediately follows,--and which the Divine Author of the Gospel would not surfer us to be without,--namely, that, "This spake He of the SPIRIT, which they that believe on Him should receive:"--by which is meant, that as many of the Prophets as discoursed in dark phrase of that free outpouring of the SPIRIT which was to mark MESSIAH'S Reign, did, _in effect_, say the thing which He here attributes to them.

Inspired Reasoning, wherever found, may fitly obtain a few words of distinct notice here; but I shall perhaps speak more becomingly, as well as prove more intelligible, if,--(without further allusion to the sayings of that Almighty One "in whom are hid all the treasures of Wisdom and Knowledge[580];" sayings which it seems a species of impiety to approach except in adoration;)--I confine my remarks to the logical processes observable in the inspired writings of some of His servants, the Evangelists and Apostles of THE LAMB.

The difficulty which has been occasionally felt in respect of the argumentative parts of St. Paul's Epistles, is considerable, and may not be overlooked. His definitions, his inferences, his entire method of handling Scripture, gives offence to a certain class of minds. His reasoning seems inconsequential. There appears to be a want of logical order and consistency in much that he delivers. But,--can it require to be stated?--the fault is entirely our own. "The radical fallacy of any attempt to analyze the reasoning of Scripture by the ordinary Laws of Logic" requires to be pointed out. And the root of it all is our assumption that an inspired Apostle must perforce argue like any other uninspired man.

But, in the first place, it is to be recollected that he did not collect the meaning and bearing of the Old Testament Scriptures from induction, and study _only_. He was,--by the hypothesis,--an _inspired Writer_. The same HOLY SPIRIT who taught the authors of the Old Testament what to deliver, taught _him_, in turn, how to explain their words. By direct Revelation, he perceived the intention of a text, and at once bore witness to it. Thus St. Paul says of our LORD,--"He is not ashamed to call them brethren, saying,--'I will declare Thy Name unto My brethren, in the midst of the Church will I sing praise unto Thee.' And again,--'I will put my trust in Him.' And again,--'Behold I and the children which GOD hath given Me[581].'" Now, "the Apostles quoted such places as these from the Psalms and Isaiah, not as they were gathered by any certain reason, but as revealed to them by the HOLY SPIRIT, to be principally spoken of CHRIST. This understanding the mysteries of GOD in the Old Testament, being a special gift of the HOLY GHOST[582],--of the truth of which interpretations, the same SPIRIT, without any necessary demonstration thereof, bore witness also to their auditors and converts; and by miracles manifested the persons thus expounding them herein to be infallible[583]."

To quote the language of a thoughtful writer of more recent date,--"Inspired teaching,--explain it how we may,--seems comparatively indifferent to (what seems to us so peculiarly important) close logical connexion, and the intellectual symmetry of doctrines.... The necessity of confuting gainsayers, at times forced one of the greatest of CHRIST'S inspired servants, St. Paul, to prosecute continuous argument; yet even with him, how abrupt are the transitions, how intricate the connexion, how much is conveyed _by assumptions such as Inspiration alone can make_, without any violation of the canons of reasoning,--FOR WITH IT ALONE ASSERTION IS ARGUMENT.... The same may be said of some passages of St. John, supposed to have been similarly occasioned. Inspiration has ever left to human Reason the filling up of its outlines, the careful connexion of its more isolated truths. The two are, as the lightning of Heaven, brilliant, penetrating, far-flashing, abrupt,--compared with the feebler but _continuous_ illumination of some earthly beacon[584]."

"In a train of inspired Seasoning," (as the same writer elsewhere remarks,) "each new premiss may have been supernaturally communicated; and thus, in point of fact, the inspired reasoner but connects the different threads of the Divine Counsels; exemplifies how 'deep answereth to deep' in the mysteries of Revelation; and presents, in one connected train of argument, those words of GOD which had been uttered 'at sundry times and in divers manners[585]'"

To conclude.--There is no such thing as inconsequential Reasoning to be met with in the writings of St. Paul[586]--no such thing as arbitrary Accommodation of the Old Testament Scriptures, in the New:--though not a few have thought it; and the language of many more writers, Papist as well as Protestant, is calculated to convey the same mischievous impression[587]. The hypothesis is as unworthy of ourselves,--with our boasted critical resources and many appliances of varied learning,--as it is derogatory to the Sacred Oracles to which it is applied. It is a deadly blow, aimed at the very Inspiration of Scripture itself; for it pretends to discover a human element only, where we have a right to expect a Divine one: an irresponsible _dictum_, when we listened for the voice of the SPIRIT; the hand of man, where we depended on finding the very Finger of GOD! We come to the blessed pages, for Divinity, and we are put off with Rhetoric. We come for bread, and the critics we speak of offer us a stone.

I will not detain you any longer. No apology can be needed for the subject which has been engaging our attention[588]. Those who watch "the signs of the times" attentively, will bear me witness that _unbelief_ is one fearful note of the coming age. The self-same principle, working in different classes of minds, produces results diametrically different: but it is still the same principle which is at work. Unbelief is no less the cause why so many have forsaken the Church of their Fathers, to run after the blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits of the Church of Rome,--than it is the parent of that shallow Rationalism which unhappily is now so popular among us.... Intimations of what is to be hereafter, may be every now and then detected. At intervals, hoarse sounds, from a distance, are known to smite upon the listening ear; signals of the coming danger,--sure harbingers of the approaching storm.--Holy Scripture is the stronghold against which the Enemy will make his assault, assuredly: nor can we employ ourselves better than by building one another up in reverence for its Inspired Oracles: opposing to the crafts of the Evil One the simplicity of a child-like faith; and resolutely refusing to see less than GOD, in GOD'S Word!

This must be the preacher's apology for disputing where he would rather adore; for discussing the Revelations of Scripture, instead of _feeding_ upon them; especially at this holy Season when the Apostle's exhortation finds an echo in all our services:--the mouth, engaged in the constant confession that JESUS is the LORD,--the heart, filled with the thought of Him, who as at this time died for our sins, and rose again for our Justification.

GOD grant us grace,--at this and every other time,--so to put away the leaven of malice and wickedness, that we may always serve Him in pureness of living and truth: through the merits of the same His SON, JESUS CHRIST our LORD!

FOOTNOTES:

[526] Preached at St. Mary-the-Virgin, April 27, 1851.

[527] See above, pp. 55-7.

[528] 2 St. Pet. i. 21.

[529] See above, pp. 53-4.

[530] See above, pp. 157-160.

[531] _Harm. Apost._ Diss. Post., cap. xi. § 3.

[532] See above, pp. 152-7.

[533] Consider again the Divine exposition, (in 1 St. John v. 6,) of St. John xix. 34.

[534] See Dr. Mill's _Christian Advocate's_ publication for 1844, _The Historical Character of the circumstances of our LORD's Nativity vindicated against some recent mythical interpreters_,--especially p. 402 to p. 434.

[535] Cf. Phil. iii. 7-9.

[536] Consider St. John vi. 46, and all similar places.

[537] On the words, =Hê de ek pisteôs dikaiosynê houtô legei=,--Theodoret remarks:--=Anti tou, peri de tês ek pisteôs dikaiosynês, houtôs legei· ou gar hê dikaiosynê tauta legei, alla dia Môseôs, ho tôn holôn Theos, peri tou nomou tauta eirêke· didaskôn Ioudaious hôs dicha ponôn tên tôn prakteôn didaskalian edexanto.=--Theodoret, _Cat._, p. 374.

[538] Our E. V., following the translations since Cranmer's, here inserts the word "again,"--which is certainly not implied by the Greek.

[539] The expression is, of course, wholly dissimilar from that in Ps. cvii. 23,--=hoi katabainontes eis thalassan en ploiois, k. t. l.=

[540] I cannot forbear transcribing the following passage in an elaborate apology which has recently appeared for _Essays and Reviews_:--"Among the many proposals which are floating about for Essays and Counter-essays to vindicate the Doctrines supposed to be combated in this volume, let us be allowed to suggest this one:--'The Nature of Biblical Inspiration, as tested by a careful examination of the Septuagint Version with special reference to the sanction given to it by the Apostles, and to its variations, by way of addition or omission, from the revised Text of the Canonical Scriptures.' The conclusions of such an investigation would be worth a hundred eager declarations on one side or the other, and would be absolutely decisive of the chief questions at issue." (_Edinburgh Review_, April, 1861, p. 483.).... Now I scruple not to affirm that a well-informed, and faithful student of the Scriptures would covet no better portion for himself than liberty to accept, in the most public manner possible, such a challenge as the foregoing.

[541] See the valuable exposition of the text, by Bp. Bull, in the Appendix (K),--to which I am very largely indebted.

[542] Opposed to Bp. Bull in his opinion, on this matter, seem Ainsworth, Patrick, Parker (_Biblioth. Bibl._), Cornelius à Lapide, the _Critici Sacri_, &c. I cannot but think that the truth is with the first-named Commentator.

[543] See 2 Cor. vi. 16, (quoting Lev. xxvi. 12), where see Wordsworth's note. Heb. viii. 6-13, especially ver. 10, (quoting Jer. xxxi. 33. Comp. Jer. xxiv. 7: xxx. 22: xxxi. 1: xxxii. 38.) Compare Rom. ix. 25, 26, (also 1 St. Pet. ii. 10,) with Hos. ii. 23: i. 10. See also Ezek. xi. 20: xiv. 11: xxxvi. 28: xxxvii. 27; and Zech. viii. 8: xiii. 9. Lastly, consider Rev. xxi. 3; where "the types of the itinerant Tabernacle in the Wilderness, the figurative ritual and festal joys of the Feast of Tabernacles, celebrated in the literal Jerusalem, are consummated in the Heavenly Jerusalem." (Wordsworth.) See also Rev. vii. 15, with the annotation of the same Commentator.

[544] =prokekyrômenên ... eis Christon.= Gal. iii. 17.

[545] Deut. xxix. 14, 15.

[546] Acts ii. 39: Compare iii. 25.

[547] Jer. xxxi. 32. Consider verses 33-4 quoted in Heb. x. 16, 17. See above, note (t, [our 544]).

[548] St. John xi. 49-52.

[549] "Diligenter observandum est, ex consensu Hebræorum, caput hoc ad regnum CHRISTI pertinere. Unde etiam Bachai dicit, hoc loco promissionem esse quod sub Rege MESSIAH omnibus qui de federe sunt, circumcisio cordis contingat, citans Joelem, ii. 28."--Fagius, (in the _Critici Sacri_,) on Deut. xxx. 11.

[550] "Apostolus dicit hoc esse verbum fidei, quod ad Novum Testamentum pertinet. Quæ ergo scripta sunt in libro legis hujus in figurâ dicta sunt, pertinentia ad Novum Testamentum."--Augustinus, in Nic. Lyra, _ad loc._

[551] Deut. xxx. 11-14.

[552] Rom. x. 4.

[553] Art. vii.

[554] St. John iii. 13.

[555] 1 Tim. iii. 16.

[556] The reader is invited to consider Acts ii. 24 to 31,--attending particularly to what St. Peter says in ver. 30-1. "Even without this key," (says Dr. M'Caul,) "the Rabbis interpreted Psalm xvi. of the Resurrection."

[557] See above, pp. 171-2.

[558] St. Pet. i. 11.

[559] "Though I think it clear that the Prophets did not understand the full meaning of their predictions; it is another question how far they thought they did, and in what sense they understood them."--Butler's _Analogy_, P. II. ch. vii.

[560] See Acts xxvi. 22, 23: xxviii. 23. St. John i. 46: v. 46. St. Luke xxiv. 27, &c.

[561] Prov. xxx. 4.

[562] e.g. "Si quis dixerit mulieri, Si adscenderis in firmamentum, aut descenderis in abyssum, eris mihi desponsata,--hæc conditio frustranea est."--_Nasir_ ix. 2, apud Wetstein, (in Rom. x. 6.)

[563] "The whole passage (Prov. xxx. 2-5,) may be thus paraphrased:--With my limited understanding I cannot attain the knowledge of GOD; _for to know GOD, is to know Him who is omnipresent, filling Heaven and Earth_; it is to know Him who is omnipotent, ruling over the winds and the waters, the most unstable of all elements; it is to know Him who created all things; it is to know His Name, and the name of His SON. But this knowledge can be attained only by Revelation: and he that would attain to it even from Revelation, must not pass over any one word as insignificant, for every word is purified like silver: neither must he add to Revelation, or he will be sure to go astray."--From the Appendix (pp. 46-7) to a Sermon by Dr. M'Caul, on _The Eternal Sonship of the Messiah_, 1838. (Interesting and precious as this paraphrase is, I humbly suspect that the words _in italics_ contain a vast deal more than the learned writer indicates.)

[564] Baruch iii. 29.

[565] St. Matth. xii. 20.

[566] Zech. ix. 11.

[567] Consider Ps. cxxxix. 7. Amos ix. 2, 3.

[568] St. John iii. 13.

[569] Ibid. vi. 33, 38, 51, 62.

[570] Ibid. xvi. 28.

[571] Ephes. iv. 9, 10.

[572] See above, pp. 176-7.

[573] St. Matth. viii. 17.

[574] St. Matth. ii. 23. See above, p. 149.

[575] Ibid. ii. 15.

[576] St. Matth. ii. 18.

[577] Ibid. xxi. 16.

[578] St. Luke xx. 37.

[579] St. John vii. 37, 38.

[580] Col. ii. 3.

[581] Heb. ii. 12, 13; quoting Ps. xxi. 23 and Is. viii. 17.

[582] 1 Cor. xii., xiii., xiv.

[583] Pseudo-Fell's _Paraphrase and Annotations_ on the New Testament, (Jacobson's ed.), _in loc._

[584] Professor Archer Butler, quoted in Professor Lee's _Discourses on Inspiration_, pp. 415-6.

[585] _Ibid._, p. 586.

[586] See above, pp. 132-7

[587] See the Appendix, (L).

[588] In the earlier part of the present Sermon many passages have been re-written. What follows stands exactly as it was preached in 1851.

SERMON VII.[589]

* * * * *

THE MARVELS OF HOLY SCRIPTURE,--MORAL AND PHYSICAL.--JAEL'S DEED DEFENDED.--MIRACLES VINDICATED.

* * * * *

ST. MARK xii. 24.

_Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the Scriptures, neither the power of God._

On a certain occasion, the Son of Man was asked what was thought a hard question by those who, in His day, professed "the negative Theology[590]." There was a moral and there was physical marvel to be solved. Both difficulties were met by a single sentence. The Sadducean judgment had gone astray from the Truth, (=planasthe= our SAVIOUR said,) from a twofold cause: (1) The men did not understand those very Scriptures to which they appealed so confidently: and, (2) They had an unworthy notion of GOD'S power.--There are plenty of Sadducees at the present day among ourselves. They are as fond as ever of finding difficulties in the self-same Scriptures. They are to be met, I am persuaded, exactly as of old; by shewing that their error is still the fruit of their ignorance of Scripture; the consequence of their unworthy conceptions of GOD. I propose to illustrate this on the present occasion. My subject, (one certainly not unsuited to the day,) is _the Marvels of Scripture_,--whether Moral or Physical. I would fain have discussed them apart; but I shall not have another opportunity. I must handle the whole subject therefore within the limits of a single Sermon: and by consequence I must be extremely brief.

Now, I venture to assume that whatever, from its extraordinary character, perplexes us in Scripture, is a difficulty only _to ourselves_; that moral Marvels and physical Miracles, alike, would cease to create any difficulty if we knew more about GOD. The Morality of the Life to come, I do believe will prove none other than the Morality of the life which now is; and so I presume that it may be their Divine Author's will, that the physical Laws of the Universe shall be eternal likewise. And yet, as no thoughtful man will probably be found to say that he thinks he knows as much about the nature of these last now, as he expects to know hereafter,--so it is to be presumed that a sublimer, and therefore a juster view of the relation in which the Creature stands to the CREATOR, will disclose to us much which, at present, we should be little prepared to admit, if it were speculatively presented to us, ("as in a glass, darkly,") respecting the Moral Government of GOD.

I. In the very fore-front, however, of what I have to say concerning those phenomena which are generally cited as the _Moral Marvels_ of Holy Scripture, I must freely declare my opinion that nothing is wanted but that the whole of the _historical_ evidence should be before us, in every case, in order that we might cease to look upon them as marvels at all. But so it is, that Scripture is severely brief: takes no pains to conciliate our good opinion: seems to care nothing either for our applause or our censure. Scripture, in short, has been made _an instrument of Man's probation_[591]. It is for _us_ to search curiously into the record; to take an enlarged view of times and manners; and finally, in the exercise of a generous Faith, to decide whether the difficulty is such as ought to occasion us any real distress. I proceed, in this spirit, to consider, as briefly as possible, the history of Jael; simply because I have heard stronger things said against _her_, than against any of the Worthies of old time who are mentioned with distinct approbation in the Book of Life.

1. Now, if you choose to consider Jael as one who lured a weary and unsuspecting soldier into her tent,--shewed him hospitality,--and when he was asleep, murdered him in cold blood,--you certainly cannot help recoiling from the inspired decision that, "Blessed above women shall Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite be." But I take the liberty of saying that this is quite the wrong way to read her story. You must begin it from the other end.

GOD pronounces this woman blessed, and distinctly commends her for her deed. From this point you must start; remembering that _no action CAN be immoral which GOD praises_. The Divine sentence, instead of creating a difficulty, is, on the contrary, exactly the thing which removes it[592]. To weigh the story apart from this, (which is the prime consideration of all,) is like condemning the immorality of an executioner without caring to hear that he is but carrying out the sentence of the Lawgiver. Furnished with the clue of GOD'S approbation of Jael's deed, we retrace our steps, and reconsider the narrative. If all were still dark and hopeless, we might be sure that there are circumstances withheld, which if known would have made GOD'S justice clear as the light. But, as a matter of fact, it generally happens that, when we "know the Scriptures," the difficulty in great measure disappears; and I am going to shew that it is so on the present occasion.

I find that when the people of GOD were on their way out of Egypt into Canaan, they were indebted to one family (the Kenites) for kindness and help[593]. The head of that family was Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses, high-priest of Midian,--in which land the LORD, from the burning bush, had commissioned the future Lawgiver of Israel to redeem His people from the bondage of Egypt. Jethro met them in the Arabian desert; became their guide[594] till they reached the promised Land; and with them entered the borders of their future possession. It was a covenant between the two races that they should share the goodness of JEHOVAH. Accordingly, the Kenites made their settlement amid the Royal tribe of Judah; and it is easy to foresee how close a bond would spring up between the alien family and their avowed protectors, when, to the memory of past dangers shared together, was superadded the consciousness of present blessings;--especially in an age when the law of hospitality was held most sacred. How strong the bond became, the sequel of the story convincingly shews[595]. The children of Israel, at the end of a hundred and fifty years, find themselves cruelly oppressed by the most powerful of the Kings of the conquered but not extirpated race. GOD promises deliverance: and Deborah is raised up to organize the resistance against Jabin, "the captain of whose host was Sisera." Now, while Heber the Kenite is gone with the rest to the battle,--(for he had pitched his tent, remember, by Kedesh; and it was from Kedesh[596] that Deborah "sent and called Barak the son of Abinoam;")--while Heber, the husband, I say, is gone to the battle, and Jael the wife is left alone, distracted with anxiety, in the tent;--when, weak and unprotected woman as she is, she beholds the Captain of the hateful oppressor of GOD'S people hastening to her tent, slumbering at her feet, and unexpectedly within her power:--will you pretend that _she_, a Midianitess, is to blame if she yields to the strong impulse which prompts her to compass the man's downfall, as speedily as she may? "There was peace between Jabin the King of Hazor and the house of Heber the Kenite[597]," you will remind me. True: (between _Jabin_,--not between _Sisera_, by the way:) without this, the whole incident would not have happened. Sisera presumed on the peaceful relations which existed between his lord and Heber; and supposed that the sympathy of one alien race for another was to outweigh every other consideration. Yet, how stood the case? Heber had thrown in his lot, irrevocably, with the people of GOD; while Jabin had already utterly violated the conditions of peace. For twenty weary years, had Jael and her family shared the hardships of that sacred line which Jabin had "mightily oppressed." All her life long[598], the highways have been unoccupied; and travellers have had to walk through by-ways; and the villages have been deserted by their inhabitants. Archers have infested the very places of drawing water[599]. Meanwile, a sure word has gone forth from the Prophetess who dwells under the palm-tree between Ramah and Bethel on Mount Ephraim[600], to the effect that GOD will give a mighty victory this day to His people[601]. Moreover, Deborah, (to whom the children of Israel go up for judgment,) has foretold that the LORD will "_sell Sisera into the hand of a woman_[602]". How _can_ you marvel at the rest!... With a faith strong and undoubting as Rahab's, Jael,--weak woman as she is,--seizes the wooden tent-pin and the mallet, (the only weapons which are within her reach!); and, (somewhat as David afterwards employed a stone and a sling for the slaughter of the Philistine,) with these vile instruments, at one blow, she smites to the earth the enemy of God's people.... O, it was _not_ because she was treacherous, or because she was cruel! Treachery and cruelty were not the vices to which a dweller in tents (and she a woman!) was prone, when a thirsty soldier begged a draught of water; and most assuredly, had she been either, she would not,--she _could_ not, have won praise from God! (Witness GOD'S wrath against David in the matter of Uriah, because _he_ had no pity[603]; as well as dying Jacob's denunciations against Simeon and Levi because "instruments of cruelty" were "in their habitations[604].") O no! It was because she beheld in the slumbering captain at once the enemy of her own afflicted race,--and of GOD'S oppressed people,--and above all of GOD Himself. _That_ was why "she put her hand to the nail, and her right hand to the workman's hammer!" ... The fight, you are requested to remember, had been a tremendous fight; and the battle, as she thought, was yet raging. Reuben, and Dan, and Asher had kept aloof from the encounter;--the first, in his rich pasture-land east of the Jordan, abiding "among the sheepfolds, to hear the bleatings of the flocks;" the two others, intent on their maritime pursuits. Only some of Ephraim, Benjamin, and Manasseh[605], had been found willing to throw in their lot with the two northern tribes of Zebulun, and Naphtali,--who had "jeoparded their lives unto the death." And the battle which these had fought had been the LORD'S; and as many as had taken part with them, were considered to have come "_to the help of the LORD_." Such then was the quarrel which Jael had made her own; and such the spirit in which she had done her wild deed of unassisted prowess!

To appreciate her constancy and courage, you may not overlook how fearful were the odds against the cause she was espousing: on the oppressor's side, nine hundred chariots of iron; whereas, "was there a shield or spear seen among forty thousand in Israel?" It had been so terrific a day, that if the LORD had not been on their side,--if the stars in their courses had not fought for Israel,--how could Sisera have possibly been overcome? But the very river was employed to sweep the enemies of Israel away,--"that ancient river, the river Kishon!" ... Now I boldly ask you, if the Angel of the LORD may curse bitterly the inhabitants of Meroz, "because they came not to the help of the LORD,"--(pray mark that phrase; for it shows exactly in what light the conflict was regarded!)--"_to the help of the LORD_ against the mighty;" shall we wonder if, by the Spirit of GOD, Deborah the prophetess proclaims "blessed above women in the tent" Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite to be;--the undaunted one by whose right hand the captain of all that mighty host had been slain? Find me another "_woman in the tent_" who may be compared with _her!_ ... Or rather, (for _that_ is the only question,) shall these words embolden us to impeach the morality of Holy Writ?... I am sure there is not one of you all who really thinks it. She was--was she not?--a courageous, a faithful, and (according to her light,) a strictly virtuous woman. She was content to risk _all_, "as seeing Him who is invisible:" and to _believe_ that "they that be with us are more than they that be with them[606]." From the unmistakeable evidence of her uncompromising boldness in a good cause, her unwavering faith, her readiness to cast in her lot with the people of GOD,--no one but a hypocrite will turn away to criticize the details of her deed by the Gospel standard of Grace and Truth. "He asked for water, and she gave him milk." What would you have had her do? It is by no means certain that she foresaw the deed which was to follow, and which _cannot_, (from the nature of the case,) have been the result of a preconcerted plan. The impulse to terminate the tyranny of Canaan, and the sufferings of her adopted people, as well as to decide the fortune of that critical day, by slaying one whom she regarded as the enemy of GOD Himself, may have seized her while she stood in the door of the tent,--weighing Sisera's petition against Deborah's prophecy. Be this as it may,--would you have had the woman connive at Sisera's escape,--the enemy of GOD'S people, when GOD Himself had unexpectedly put him into her power?

It will assist us to understand this story, that we should bear in mind how it fared with Ahab, King of Israel, in the matter of Ben-hadad, King of Syria, as recorded in the xxth chapter of the First Book of Kings. "Thus saith the LORD," (was the Divine sentence,) "_Because thou hast let go out of thy hand a man whom I appointed to utter destruction_, therefore thy life shall go for his life, and thy people for his people[607]." It is quite evident that as the _enemy of GOD_, in the strictest sense, each fresh oppressor of Israel was regarded; and that, as the enemy of the LORD GOD of Israel, Sisera was summarily slain by the Kenite's wife.

Be so good as to remember also, that forgiveness of enemies is strictly a _Christian_ duty. You have no right to expect to find the brightest jewels of the kingdom of Heaven glittering on the swarthy brow of an Arabian wife in the days of the Judges. "Grace and _Truth_ came by JESUS CHRIST[608]." You cannot expect to find the wife of Heber the Kenite more truthful than Sarah, and Rebekah, and Rachel,--or even than Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and David: neither should you be so unreasonable as to expect that the GOD of Truth will award praise and blame to His creatures by a higher standard of Morality than He has seen fit, at any given period, to allow. A perfectly enlightened conscience, no doubt, will never consent to lie. A Christian woman in Jael's place, ought not, of course, to be guilty of Jael's deed. But you are forgetting the time of the world in which _your_ lot is thrown. I say nothing of the circumstances of terror under which _she_ acted,--_she_ was _forced_ to act. How could she tell that Sisera would not awake ere she should strike the blow,--or at least before she could achieve his death? What if a company of Jabin's host should come up to the tent-door, the instant she had done the deed, and inquire after Sisera? Suppose the issue of that day's encounter should prove disastrous, what would be her own and Heber's fate?... Feel a little for the poor wife,--for the lonely, helpless "woman in the tent,"--_not_ entirely for the fierce soldier against whom you have heard the LORD'S decree of death!... O ye, who, living in the full blaze of Gospel light, in cold blood can reject the doctrine of the Atonement, and deny the LORD who bought you, and teach that the Bible is "like any other book;" who can make light of its Inspiration, and evacuate its Prophecy, and idealize its Miracles; who with your lips can profess the Church's doctrines, and with your pens can deny them;--go _ye_ and prate of Morality, and Honesty, and Truth! _We_ shall heed mighty little your opinion of Jael's conduct, and of the Divine Commendation which it met with. I believe that, instead of suspecting the morality of the Bible in this instance, there is hardly an honest Christian heart among us, but cries out, on the contrary,--"_So_ let _all_ Thine enemies perish, O LORD! But let them that love Him be as the sun when he goeth forth in his might."