Spirit, and abounded in prophecies, revelations, and all the fruits of inspira- It is plain that the Bible is not in itself a revelation to men.' It cannot reach the human mind at all without help from without itself. At the lowest, it requires in those who are to be instructed by it, a previous knowledge of letters. To men who cannot read, (and they are probably a majority of the human race,) it is no revelation. The principle being admitted then that it is a revelation only to men in a certain advanced stage of intelligence, the question arises, What degree of intelligence is necessary to a full understanding of it? Does it unfold all its treasures to those who are merely able to read? Certainly not. Many of its narratives and some of its simpler doctrines and precepts are doubtless intelligible to this class, enough to give them an introduction to the school of heavenly truth. But we are safe in assuming that, in the view of the learned men whose anti-spiritual theories we are combating, the Bible as a whole is constructed for a far higher degree of intelligence than that implied in the mere ability to read. An acquaintance with its original languages, with oriental life, with the laws of interpretation, and with the commentaries of learned men, unlocks vast stores of truth which are inaccessible to ordinary readers. Thus far then, the apocalyptical power of the Bible increases as the intelligence of its readers increase. But the scale of possible human intelligence ranges from the mere ability to read, to the perfect clairvoyance of inspiration. The intelligence of the literati is only midway between these extremes. Now must we believe that the apocalyptical power of the Bible ceases to increase, at the highest point of literary intelligence? Are its treasures all open to those who have at command the apparatus of criticism? Has it no mysteries to disclose pe culiarly to those who have attained that higher intelligence which comes by inspiration? Assuredly God has provided in his revelation, for all readers their seasonable food; milk for babes, and strong meat for men; simple things for the ignorant; deeper truths for the learned; and still deeper mysteries for the inspired. The Bible is no revelation to those who cannot read; it is a revelation of certain introductory truths to those who can only read; it is a revelation of much curious wisdom to those who can read with the help of human learning; and it is a revelation of the deep things of God to those who can read with the help of the Spirit of truth. This is the sense, and the only sense in which the Bible is a 'revelation to men' Our The supposition that it is merely a revelation to uninspired men, and has no peculiar disclosures for any class above the literati, is utterly incongruous with the circumstances of its origin. The reader will recollect that Keil says" He who desires to understand and interpret the books of the New Testament, must, first of all, acquire some historic knowledge of the author of the book, and of the state of things existing when it was written." We accept the rule, but we propose an application of it which the learned writer probably did not contemplate. Who is the author of the Bible? If 'all scripture is given by inspiration,' (which will not be denied by those with whom we are dealing,) then God is the author, of whom some historic knowledge' must be acquired by one who wishes to form a correct idea of the Bible. The question which stands 'first of all' is not, What kind of a book would Matthew or Paul write? but, What kind of a book would God dictate? Is it to be presumed that the whole of a revelation, emanating from such a person as we know God to be, would be level to the intelligence of mere literary amateurs? Let Paul answer. What man (says he) knoweth the things of a man save the spirit of man which is in him? Even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. * The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.' historic' or even intuitive knowledge of the author of the Bible would lead us to expect mysteries in it beyond the depth of uninspired men. Let us now apply the second requirement of Keil's rule. sires to understand and interpret the books of the New Testament, must aoquire some historic knowledge of the state of things existing when they were written.” What then was the state of things when the New Testament was written? We have already suggested that the church of God, to which the New Testament was addressed, was in the full glory of the Pente costal baptism-flooded with spiritual illumination. And we aver that of all specifications concerning the state of things' at that time, this is the most im portant. By this fact we must estimate the profundity of the New Testa ment, and the degree and nature of the intelligence necessary to its interpretation. Yet we are not aware that this fact is taken into account at all by literary commentators. It certainly cannot have any great weight with those who hold with Stuart that inspiration is not a necessary qualification of an in terpreter. Here we have a book which was confessedly dictated by God, and addressed to men filled with the Holy Ghost; and yet the learned professors of Germany and Andover teach their young theologues to grapple with it, as though it were merely written from men to men! We cannot conceive of a more outrageous violation of Keil's leading precept. "He who de The Bible was written by men to men; but this is not all that is true of it. This describes its body. As to its soul it was a communication from God, specially (though not exclusively) addressed and adapted to an inspired church. Jesus Christ as to his body was born of a woman, and appeared as a man among men. But had he no higher nature than that which was thus identified with humanity? Would a man be in a fit position to understand and interpret him, who should recognize in him nothing but the earthly part of his being? The Bible as well as Jesus Christ is called the word of God,' and in an important sense it is true of the Bible as it is of Jesus Christ, that in it human and divine elements are blended. As Jesus Christ by his incarnation opened communication between the Father and the lowest regions of humanity, so the Bible, in its scope of truth, extends from the highest mysteries of heaven to the simplest earthly truths. An interpreter equipped only with the qualifications prescribed by Keil, Ernesti and Stuart, may be able to expound much that belongs to the human element of the Bible; but one who will handle its divinity, must have higher qualifications-as much higher as the soul is above the body, or rather as the eternal Son of God is above the human form that was born of Mary. Another precept of Keil is that "the interpreter must possess a knowledge of the things respecting which the book treats." What are the most important things of which the Bible treats? Surely not those with which a man may become acquainted by studying philology, geography, chronology, civil history, and archæology. The human element of the Bible may be illustrated by these sciences. But the things which chiefly occupy that book and distinguish it as a divine revelation, are of a spiritual nature. It treats of supernatural powers, of the operations of the Holy Ghost, of prophetical illuminations, of regeneration, of localities and transactions in the spiritual world. A man can be but a very superficial interpreter of the Bible, however learned he may be in the usual way, if he has not an extensive and familiar acquaintance with these things. Suppose a professor of Mesmerism should write a manual for a class of pupils already initiated by his own personal labors into an experimental acquaintance with the elements of the science. Would any one be fit to translate that book from a foreign language, and interpret it, without any practical acquaintance with the phenomena and philosophy of Mesmerism? However minutely he might be versed in the topography and history of the writer's birth place, and in the philology of his language, he would still lack the most important of all qualifications of an expositor. But the Bible is a manual dictated by God, addressed to the pupils of the Holy Ghost, and treating of spiritual phenomena. Then no man is competent to interpret it, who is not a pupil of the Holy Ghost, and practically versed in spiritual science. Mental sympathy with the writers and original readers of the scriptures is an essential qualification of a good interpreter. Even the critics of Germany and Andover insist that we must place ourselves back in Bible times, and as far as possible in the exact position of those who wrote and read the original scriptures, in order to understand and expound them. But how can an unspiritual man sympathize with the writers and original readers of such spir itual communications as, for instance, the epistles of Paul? How can an unregenerate man be fit to expound the discourses of Christ and John on regeneration? And if regeneration is necessary as a qualification for interpreting fully the scriptures relating to regeneration, then inspiration is necessary; for regeneration is the effect of the infusion of the Holy Ghost, and that is inspiration. A mere inspection of the writings of the prophets-the apocalypse, for instance is sufficient to convince any sober man that the things with which one must be acquainted, in order to interpret them, are beyond the ken of human learning. The ignorance and incredulity of the natural man in regard to the things of the invisible world, is the manifest cause of the miserable perplexity in which the learned world is groping to this day, about the very plainest prophecies in the Bible-those relating to the Second Coming of Christ. And this ignorance and incredulity can be removed only by inspiration. Men will never be able to understand and interpret that large portion of the prophecies which relates to the inner mansions of the universe, till they have spiritual access to those mansions by the baptism of the Holy Ghost. Nor does the difficulty of interpreting the prophecies, which makes inspiration necessary, lie wholly in the nature of the subjects treated of. The Holy Ghost has certainly taken the liberty of using language in ways peculiar to itself. For instance, God said by Malachi will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord." Now who would have ever dared, on the strength of any ordinary law of language, to have applied this prediction to John the Baptist? John himself did not so apply it. (John 1: 21.) But Christ saw and declared that this was the Elias which was to come!' The expression 'Elijah the prophet' means literally the person who ascended to heaven in a chariot of fire. But John the Baptist certainly was not that person. Shall we say then that expression is to be understood figuratively-that the meaning is, I will send you a prophet like Elijah? The language of the prediction is too simple and positive to allow such a construction. Christ did not say that John was like Elijah, but that he was Elijah. (Matt. 11: 14.) The literal and the figurative senses then are both excluded; and these are the only senses recognized in the usus loquendi of the world. Yet it is evident to any one who knows enough of spiritual philosophy to perceive that the spirit of one person may be revealed in another, that the prediction of Malachi and the declaration of its fulfilment by Christ were strictly true, not literally, nor figuratively, but spiritually. John the Baptist came in the spirit and power of Elijah,' (Luke 1: 17,) i. e., he was identical with Elijah not in person but in spirit. Elijah was manifested, not personally, nor yet in any figurative unreal sense, but as a spirit actuating the person of John the Baptist. This is the only method of reconciling the fulfilment with the prediction without doing violence; and it is a satisfactory method; but it is a method that introduces a new element into the science of language. We learn from it that the Holy Ghost uses words in a sense that may be called spiritual, and is distinct from the literal and the figurative senses. This example is but a specimen of an extensive usage in the Bible. The truth is that the Bible brings to view things and relations for which no human language was constructed. It must therefore of necessity use the language of men in new ways. It is written 'not in words which man's wis dom teacheth, but in words which the Holy Ghost teacheth.' We must look therefore to the Giver of it, and not to lexicons and laws of language, as the ultimate guide of interpretation. Prof. Stuart says If the same laws of language are not observed in this revelation as are common to men, then they have no guide to the right understanding of the scriptures.' He means that they have no guide in their own independent wisdom; for he addsand an interpreter needs inspiration as much as the original writer.' This is just what we insist upon; and we see no very alarming consequences that are to result from it. What good would come from men's being independent of God in respect to the understanding of his word, we are at a loss to perceive. But we can see that there may be a very great benefit in their being placed under a necessity of seeking the help of the Holy Spirit in solving the interesting problems which the Bible lays before them." It is worthy of the consideration of those who think that the interpretation of inspired writings by inspiration is an absurdity or a foolish superfluity, that they themselves, in receiving the New Testament interpretations of Old Testament predictions, lay at the very foundation of their views of prophecy, inspired interpretations of inspired writings. Christ and Peter and Paul are our leaders in the interpretation of the prophets. We are absolutely dependent on their guidance in determining the sense of many of the most interesting passages of the Old Testament. For instance, who would undertake, without their assistance, to determine which of the Psalms are Messianic? But these men were inspired; and their interpretations are appealed to even by the learned as inspired interpretations. We may ask Prof. Stuart, then, whether their inspiration was or was not necessary to qualify them to interpret the prophecies which they handled? If it was, then those prophecies, according to his reasoning, were 'no revelations.' According to our view, they were no revelation to uninspired men, and were not designed to be. And we believe that this is true of a large portion of the rest of the Bible; and of course that inspiration is now, as it manifestly was in the times of the New Testament, an essential qualification of a finished biblical interpreter. Prof. Stuart lays down the following rule for the interpretation of types: "If it be asked, How far are we to consider the Old Testament as typical? I should answer without any hesitation; Just so much of it is to be regarded as typical, as the New Testament affirms to be so; and NO MORE. The fact, that any thing or event under the Old Testament dispensation was designed to prefigure something under the new, can be known to us only by revelation; and of course, all that is not designated by divine authority as typical, can never be made so, by any authority less than that which guided the writers of the scriptures." Ernesti, p. 17. Now types may be regarded as prophecies expressed by things, instead of words. There is no reason why typical prophecies may not be understood and interpreted as easily as verbal. Yet in regard to the former Prof. Stuart insists that we must have inspired interpretations, and allows no authority to any other; while in regard to the latter, he gives no place to inspiration as one of the necessary qualifications of an interpreter! |