66

site is a well-balanced understand ing. An unusual proportion of the writers on prophecy, if we mistake not, are men of one idea." They are not deficient in talents; some of them, it may be, have genius. But their intellectual furniture is ill-adjusted. A single tendency is inordinately developed. Some of them have no intellectual culture. Like the man in Zechariah, they might say, "We are no prophets, we are tillers of the ground." From the labors of the farm or of the shop, they resort at once to the exposition of the most difficult parts of the Bible. Henceforth, these become their only study. Nothing else is of any account. Other portions of the Bible are read in order to ascertain their bearing upon the favorite chapter or book. The pages of contemporary secular history are searched, that they may supply events corresponding to the oracle of the seer. The mind, thus made to revolve in one orbit, loses its healthful tone. Its energies, except in a single direction, are cramped. There is no comprehensiveness about its views, no "intermeddling" with all truth, no generous and scholar-like appreciation of general knowledge. The man is seized and fettered with one thought; nothing will content him but its apotheosis.

The importance of a well-adjusted intellect in the student of the prophecies may be argued from various considerations. The reverence which we justly feel for the Scriptures, may mislead us. We may feel that it is a kind of profanation to apply to them the common laws of speech. A sort of cabalistic or spiritual hermeneutics must be invented. Sound sense is needed to divest us of this superstitious feeling. The Bible is a revelation to man, and, therefore, to be comprehended by his faculties, according to the common laws of speech. Again, the nature of the subject is such as to demand caution, and a considerate application of

all the powers of the mind. Many of the events predicted are now fu ture, or are supposed to be. Full scope is thus given for the excur sions of an unbridled fancy. There is nothing fixed, as in the stern past, to repress and recall the wandering flight. We may revel, as we will, till time has confirmed or dispelled our theory. The greater is the necessity, therefore, for moderation, for the exercise of a well-balanced mind. We cannot, on this subject, trust our first impressions. Analogies may mislead us; or the points of resemblance may not be in the objects, but only in our own fancies. Besides, we are called to investigate the meaning of language as em ployed, not by philosophers and acute dialecticians, but by simple minded men. It abounds, indeed, in metaphor of almost every spe cies; and what is more common than the boldest figures in the dialect of herdsmen and vine-dressers ? Still in the interpretation of it, a sound understanding is demanded. It is the speech, often, of common life, and we are to judge of its meaning by the rules of common sense. An intellect, like that of Edward Irving, powerful, but misdirected, of great original strength, but sadly unsymmetrical, would be wholly incompetent to interpret David or Isaiah. It would make the oracle as disjointed as itself.

He

5. We name, in the last place, intelligent piety. Destitute of cordial love for the Divine word, one cannot, of course, rightly explain the meaning of it, especially of its more spiritual portions. has no key to unlock its mysteries. To its glowing delineations, there are no answering chords in his own bosom. The neologist and the mere critical student, being destitute of a cordial relish for the sacred truths which they dissect, necessarily reduce them to a level with their own worldly understanding. Hence the strenuous efforts to divest

the Old Testament of its Messianic character-to make Daniel an historian rather than a prophet. Simple piety, however, is not sufficient. Those in Great Britain, who maintain the doctrine of a personal, visible reign of Christ on earth, are among the most devout members of the church of England. Men of ardent, unchastened piety are, in one respect, most liable to fall into errors like those just alluded to. Their very attachment to the Redeemer may lead them to long for his visible advent. They wish to SEE Him whom their souls adore. And what they desire, they gradually place among the articles of their belief. To constitute an accomplished Scriptural interpreter, therefore, experienced, cultivated piety is demanded. Warmth of affection must be joined to soundness of judg. ment, a glowing love to the Redeemer to enlightened views of the spirituality of his religion. In other words, the more perfectly the soul of the biblical student is adorned with all the graces of his profession, the more adequately may he be expect ed to unfold the mysteries of the Divine word.

The above remarks, we trust, are not wholly inappropriate to the times in which we live. Many expound ers of the sacred hieroglyphics are running to and fro, but it is to be feared, that knowledge is not proportionably increased. Men, ill-fit. ted by nature or grace, often present themselves before us as prophets of the Lord. By bold assertion, by an air of solemnity real or affected, by startling appeals to the fears of men, and by apparently decisive arithmetical calculations, they seduce unstable souls, and involve the minds of multitudes in sad perplexity.

What is now, as it seems to us, most urgently demanded, is to find some common ground on which we may stand, to ascertain and settle some rules of interpretation. We need a fixed standard, something

which shall have the force of axioms, the authority of acknowledged common law. The minds of most interpreters of the prophecies are afloat on a wild sea. There is no union in regard to first principles. In this way, we may go on and propound different and warring theories to the end of the world, and no one be the wiser. In the interpretation of a poem of Homer, a drama of Sophocles, an essay of Longinus, there are some established canons which we are not at liberty to violate. When we pass judgment on an historical composition, there are a few universally received principles on which we proceed. But in the most difficult portion of biblical literature, it is not thus. All things are in most ad mired disorder. The spirits of the prophets are in our days not subject to the prophets.

It is in this view, that we rejoice in the appearance of Prof. Stuart's Hints. One great object of the book, if we understand it aright, is to lay down certain general principles of interpretation in respect to the prophecies, or to submit to the examination of the Christian public two or three topics of fundamental importance, with the hope that they may lead to a greater union of views in respect to the method of investigation. The first point is in relation to the question of a double sense. If, for example, the second Psalm is construed as a description of the coronation of David, and all that is there said be historically applied, have we a right to go on and find in the words of this Psalm, a secondary or spiritual sense? Prof. Stuart answers in the negative, substantially for the following reasons. forsakes and sets aside the common laws of language. God has given the Bible to man for his instruction, and, therefore, he must speak so as to be understood. There is not one set of rules to be applied to the interpretation of the Bible, and anoth

It

er set to other books. In this respect all books are on a level. But if a passage in the Scripture has two meanings, then we cannot apply to it the common laws of language. Again, if there be both an obvious and an occult sense, how is the occult sense to be ascertained? Lex

icons, grammars, and the like, are all set aside, for they give no directions in regard to the hidden meaning of words. Besides, how can we determine within what bounds it shall be confined. Once admit a mystic second sense, and every interpreter may add to the number according to his fancy. If a double sense may be assigned to a passage, why may not forty nine senses? Once more, it can never be relied on for the establishment of any doctrine or precept. It merely gratifies the curiosity, or pleases the fancy. The New Testament writers give no countenance to the theory. They cite passages from the Old Testament in two ways only, first, as simply and directly prophetic; or secondly, they employ the language of the Old Testament, in order to suggest resemblances between past and future events. Thus when Jesus went down into Egypt, and was recalled from that country, it was strikingly analogous to what the prophet Hosea said in regard to the children of Israel, "I have called my son out of Egypt." It was not the fulfilment of a prophecy. The two events bear a resemblance to each other. The latter was a mere filling up, or fulfilment of the former. The two cases were analogous.

The second question discussed by Prof. Stuart is this: Are there prophecies respecting which God has a meaning which is attached to the language, though it has not yet been developed ?

To this a negative reply is given. Suppose John has written things in the Apocalypse which cannot be understood for two thousand years. To what purpose are those predic.

tions? For that long period they are a dead letter. Why then were they written? We are told, that the prediction will be understood only when the thing predicted comes to pass. What then is the thing which comes to pass? What thing was predicted? If an event is com pared with a prophecy, the only means of comparison possible is, that we first assign some definite meaning to the prophecy, and then compare the event with that meaning. If this be not the case, then we merely make a comparison of a known thing with an unknown. How are we to ascertain that they agree, when we confess that one of the two things compared is an unknown quantity? So long as it is unknown, we cannot ascertain whether there is an agreement or not, in the case supposed. The prophets were inspired so that they might with certainty and authority give information respecting things past, present, or future. To give information, necessarily presupposes that they possessed it. The language employed, therefore, means just what the writers designed it should mean. Every book is fully interpreted, when the exact mind of the writer is unfolded.

The remaining subject discussed is the Designations of Time in the Prophecies.

When the Bible designates times and seasons, the simple and obvious sense of the words is to be followed, unless there is some special reason for departing from it. That reason can be one only, viz. when the context gives us information that such a departure is to be made. This is done in Ezek. 4 : 5, 6, and Num. 14: 34. The passage Dan. 9 : 24, does not belong to this category. When the angel speaks of seventy sevens, or heptades, he must be understood as meaning so many hep tades of years, that is, four hundred and ninety years, because he had been making diligent search respect

ing the seventy years of the exile, and because years are the measure of all considerable periods of time. The context, therefore, and the nature of the case, suppose him to mean years, when he speaks of seventy sevens; (in the English translation erroneously seventy weeks.) So also of the forty two months in the Apocalypse, they were the literal three years and six months which elapsed between the formal declaration of war against Judea by Nero and the taking of Jerusalem by Titus in August, A. D. 70. The forty and two months in Rev. 13: 5, when power is given to the beast to do his own will, are the three and a half years of the bloody persecution under Nero.

Did our limits permit, we would give a fuller analysis of this small but very important and timely vol. ume. This is not, however, necessary, as the book has been already widely circulated, and is easily accessible by those who have not yet seen it. It is written with great per spicuity and plainness, and is fitted to the wants of the body of the intelligent lay-members of our churches, as well as to clergymen. We earnestly hope that it will receive a thorough examination, and that the arguments adduced in favor of the positions advanced, will be candidly, yet fearlessly canvassed. On this great sub. ject, we cannot hold fast that which is good, till we have proved all things.

AFTER the close of his very long and studious life, the venerable theologian and preacher of Franklin, now appears before us, addressing us in these his collected works. We hear; we judge; and placed between the dead and the living, in faithfulness to both would we speak. Indiscriminate praise, indiscriminate censure, never true, ever betrays a prejudiced judge; and will not receive approbation, either in the assembly of the departed just, or from the honest and conscientious among the living.

What then shall we say of Emmons? Where shall we place him among preachers and theologians? Without entering into particular comparisons, not assigning ourselves the task of fixing precisely the ele vation he holds among departed worthies, we will rather summon

* The Works of NATHANAEL EMMONS, D. D., late Pastor of the church in Frank

lin, Mass., with a Memoir of his Life. Edited by Jacob Ide, D. D. Boston: published by Crocker & Brewster, 1842.

our readers before his works; and as we pronounce on these testimonies our particular decisions, give them the opportunity to judge.

Well, here are the works before us, in six volumes octavo; neatly bound and lettered; affording the best evidence, within and without, of great care and nice mechanical skill in their preparation. We like this care and good taste in the style of getting up valuable books. A book we hold to be a little more readable, whatever its intrinsic contents, when the form and outward dress, the clear and open face of the page, the distinct and pure articulation of the print, represent the absent or the dead, while communicating to us their thoughts, in something of the vividness and beauty of the living and visible orator. A well executed editorial arrangement of matter too, has always the charm about it, and the cleverness, of an escape from a chaos into the regularity of a well ordered creation.

The contents of any work, how