subsists between the Old and the New Testaments. To understand the prophecies of the one, with the fulfilment or comments made upon them in the other, cannot fail to throw a flood of light upon that blessed book, where the glorious Jehovah has revealed his mind in reference to a world of sinners and their salvation.

On reading the article referred to, I could not help asking, Can such views of Scripture as are held forth there produce this effect? Can they enhance our estimation of the word of God, or open up before our minds more fully and clearly its glorious and saving truths?

May I be allowed, Sir, to say, with all due respect for the author of the article in question, that it appears to me a negative answer must be given to these questions :

1. Do not such views tend in a great degree to obscure Scripture? Admit the principle contended for in the article, and we can be sure of nothing we find within the boards of the Bible. We thus would have an apostle quoting a passage in a totally different sense, and with a totally different object in view, from the prophet who first penned it. Both cannot be right; which are we to follow? If the original writer be correct, then the other must be wrong; and, to say the least, we have language without a meaning-mere words without a reality-and sound without sense. Upon this principle it would be impossible to follow out the reasoning and arguments of the New Testament writers; the passages they quote come in as a dark cloud, and obscure the subjects on which they are discoursing. We are irresistibly led to look at the meaning of the original writer, and here we find another subject altogether; our minds must become bewildered, and we cannot follow. Thus a passage of Scripture would mean one thing in the Old Testament, and another thing in the New-one thing in the mouth of a prophet, and another thing in the mouth of an apostle. If there be thus a disagreement between prophet and apostle, can we be sure that there is agreement between prophet and prophet, or between apostle and apostle? I apprehend not; and thus confusion and obscurity are thrown into the word of God, we are completely out at sea amid its contents; we cannot read because it is sealed.'

6

2. Can such views fail to shake the confidence of men in the truth and faithfulness of Scripture? Suppose any other writer were to adopt such a mode in reference to the subject of which he was treating, what confidence could be placed in him? Who could credit his writings, or esteem either him or his works? Certain authors are quoted in order to corroborate or prove the point in hand; but on turning up to these authors themselves, we find he uses their language in a totally different sense from that in which they use it, or it may be with a meaning the very opposite. What confidence could any one have in the writings of such a man? Suppose the subject to be the divinity of Jesus; the writer quotes certain authors, but on turning up their works we find that the language quoted has no reference to such a subject; or it may be these authors are Unitarian, and in such language they are attempting to prove the very opposite of the writer who quotes it! Take infant baptism, or any other subject, and let this mode be pursued, and at once the book must be thrown aside;

we

we can have no confidence in it. Now if the writers of the New Testament adopt the same mode, can we have more confidence in them? Suppose the subject is salvation by simple belief of the Gospel, the writer appeals to the Old Testament for proof; but on turning up the passage quoted, we find it has not the most distant reference to this matter, but is simply an exhortation to obedience given to the Jews: or suppose the subject is the universal proclamation of the Gospel by the apostles, again the Old Testament is appealed to; but on turning up the passage quoted, we find no reference to this at all, the writer is discoursing of the works of nature! must at once lose confidence in the writer, so far as these points are concerned; and if on these points, can we have full confidence in regard to any point?

We

3. Do not such views militate against the inspiration of the Scriptures? We can easily conceive that, through ignorance, misapprehension, or design, erring and fallible man might thus misapply the writings of another; but can this be done by the Holy Spirit? We must ever keep in mind that, in the quotations referred to, it is not one writer quoting the language of another merely, but the Holy Spirit quoting his own words: the writers are merely the instruments through which his mind is conveyed. Surely, then, the God of wisdom and of truth, in bringing forward his own statements, knows exactly how and where and why such and such statements are most suitable. I fear, however, it would be difficult to establish the inspiration of the whole Scriptures upon the principle contended for in the article in question. We find the apostle quoting the words of the Spirit in a totally different sense from what the Spirit intended; thus wresting them from their true and proper meaning. The question will naturally occur, Are these men inspired? If a negative answer be not given, then it may lead to something as bad. It does appear to be an awful trifling with the word of God; and if the apostles quoted Scripture in this way, may not uninspired and even profane men quote Scripture to suit any purpose, and be guiltless?

4. Will the texts brought forward by the writer of the article bear him out in his views?

The only or principal text put forth in support of the double sense of prophecy, is the one quoted in Heb. i. 5, supposed to be, in the original passage, a promise in regard to Solomon, with some distant reference to Jesus. That such language was used in a promise given in regard to Solomon is certain, and that Solomon applied the passage where it occurs to himself is no less certain, but does this shut us up to the belief that there was no such prophecy made with direct reference to Jesus? I think not. In the 22nd and 28th chapters of 1st Chron. we find David declaring that such a promise had been given him by God in reference to Solomon; but it does not appear that this is the same given by God to Nathan the prophet (2 Sam. vii., and 1 Chron. xvii.), and quoted by the apostle in his epistle to the Hebrews. 1. In this prophecy the name of Solomon is never mentioned; it is simply, 'I will set up thy seed, which shall proceed out of thy bowels' (2 Sam. vii. 12); 'I will raise up thy seed after thee,

which shall be of thy sons' (1 Chron. xvii. 11). There is something in the language that leads us to look farther than Solomon; why not directly to Jesus? 2. The seed here mentioned was to be raised up 'when the days of David were expired, and he would sleep with his fathers.' Solomon was raised up and actually placed upon the throne before this took place. This again looks farther than Solomon; why not directly to Jesus? 3. The seed here mentioned was to be 'established in the house and kingdom of God for ever;' and the promise is made absolutely and unconditionally. This cannot apply to Solomon; why then not directly to Jesus? 4. The blessings promised to the people, under the reign of the seed here mentioned, are of such a nature as show them to be gospel blessings, and which were not bestowed in the days of Solomon (see 2 Sam. vii. 10, and 1 Chron. xvii. 9); why not then directly to Jesus? 5. To this view of the passage there is a very strong objection, founded on the words 'if he commit iniquity, '&c.; Jesus being sinless: but can the words not bear another rendering? In the original we have the relative pronoun and the infinitive of the verb with prefix and suffix (nivna ¬UN), which may be rendered, ' He who committeth sin I will chastise,' &c., 'but my mercy shall not depart from him' (the seed mentioned); drawing a contrast between the treatment Jesus would receive and those who committed sin. We see nothing here to prevent a direct application to Jesus, and view the apostle as quoting the passage in the same sense as it occurs in the original, and without any intermediate sense. In like manner I conceive the passage in Isa. vii. has direct reference to Jesus, and to Jesus alone., The virgin mentioned can be none other than the virgin mother of our Lord, and the Immanuel none other than our Lord himself. There may be difficulties, but still I have no doubt these difficulties may be satisfactorily cleared away, and the reference seen to be to them alone, without any intermediate persons.

6

Is

In reference to the accommodative system two passages are mentioned, both quoted in Rom. x. The first of these texts occurs in Deut. xxx. 11-14: the apostle quotes it to show the ease by which any sinner may obtain salvation by faith in the Gospel, having already shown the impossibility of obtaining it by the works of the law. this the same meaning that Moses intended to be conveyed in the original passage? does it prove the apostle's point? We think that this is the meaning Moses had distinctly in view, and that it does most clearly prove the point intended by the apostle. In this passage Moses is treating with the people of Israel concerning their return to God after their departure from him, and through that departure had been carried away into strange lands. Now how could they return? by what way were they to return? The law made no provision for this. They could return only through faith in the mediation and propitiation of the Lord Jesus, as typified and set forth in the sacrifices: and Moses tells them that this mode of returning to God had been so fully made known to them, and was so easily attained, they might reach it wherever they were, it was so near them that it may have been said to be in their mouth and in their heart, &c. This is the very thing

the

the apostle is proving. There is, then, no mere accommodation of language here.

6

The other passage is quoted from Psalm xix., and the apostle is proving by it that all men have heard the Gospel. Such, too, is exactly the meaning in the original passage; the heavens declare the glory of the Lord, and the firmament sheweth his handy-work: day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard. Their line is gone through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world.' To whom do these works of God declare his glory? To all men surely. In what sense do they declare his glory? In this, among others, that he is a God of love, a God of love to sinful men, and consequently a propitiated God; for no blessing can descend upon man but through the propitiation of Jesus. What is this but the Gospel proclaimed to all men? the very thing the apostle is proving. There is no mere accommodation of language here.

In support of this system of accommodation the writer of the article lays great stress upon two quotations, as proving his point clearly and distinctly. The first is a saying of our Lord, quoted by the evangelist John, in reference to the preservation of the disciples at the time Jesus was seized for trial and crucifixion. In looking to the saying as it originally occurs in John xvii., we find-1. That it is spoken with reference to the apostles directly. Jesus seems to have them in view, and them alone. 2. It is spoken in reference to his leaving the world and leaving them in it. 3. It is spoken in reference to those evils which would happen to them from the hatred of the world. 4. It is spoken in reference to his presence preserving them from many of these evils while he remained with them; and so gracious and powerful had been that preservation, that he had lost none of those given to him (as apostles) but the Son of Perdition, who was, at the time the saying was uttered, subjecting himself to evils far greater than could happen to his faithful disciples from all the persecutions of the world. Surely, then, the evangelist is correct when he applies this saying to the last act of Jesus, when parting from his disciples, in securing their preservation. Surely there is more than the mere accommodation of language here.

The other passage occurs in Matt. viii. 17, quoted from Isa. liii. 4. The New Testament writer takes the words in the original passage rendered griefs' and 'sorrows,' and applies them to the temporal 'infirmities' and 'sicknesses' which afflicted the people; and refers thebearing' them and carrying' of them to the removing of them by the miraculous power of Jesus. Now the question is, have the words in the original passage such a meaning? The proper meaning of the, rendered grief,' is sickness or disease, and is so rendered in various passages: the proper meaning of N, rendered 'sorrow,' is pain, and that of pain of mind or sorrow is only a secondary and figurative meaning. The verbs N, to lift up,' and, to 'bear' or 'carry,' may properly be applied to the removing of those 'diseases' and 'pains' spoken of, lifting them up,

and

and bearing them away, in other words, removing them by his power. Thus we see that the passage, as it occurs in Isaiah, has the very meaning which the Evangelist gives it; and there is more than mere accommodation of language when he quotes it.

A word on one passage more, namely, that occurring in Gal. iv. regarding Sarah and Hagar. 1. The part of Scripture here referred to by the apostle contains no prophecy nor abstract statement of truth; it is simply the history of certain persons. 2. The apostle brings it forward merely as an illustration of the point of which he was treating. Having mentioned the two sons of Abraham and the manner of their birth, he adds, which things are said allegorically' (ärivá Éσtiv åλŋyoρоúμɛva), said by himself, that is, Paul allegorizes these things. 3. There is thus a great difference in the original passage here from the others referred to (being a simple history of the persons mentioned), and a great difference in the mode of referring to it (Paul telling us, by way of caution, that he allegorized the things mentioned). And thus there is no need to suppose that the Spirit of God, in relating the history, meant us to understand the two Covenants, in regard to which Paul allegorizes it.

The subject altogether being of vast importance, it certainly would be a great boon were some of your learned contributors to take it up more fully.

Wick, December, 1848.

DAVID DRUMMOND.

REV. W. ROBINSON ON THE HISTORICAL CHARACTER OF THE FIRST OF GENESIS.

To the Editor of the Journal of Sacred Literature. SIR,-An article from the pen of the Rev. Baden Powell, inserted in your number for October last, contained the following sentences :'No competently informed person at the present day, I should have thought, could be ignorant that the now firmly established inductive truths of geology entirely overthrow the historical character of the narrative of the six days, and by consequence that respecting the seventh along with it. I need not here press this point further as I have already in other places gone fully into the subject.'

In a note the reader is referred to a work of Mr. Powell's On the Connexion of Natural and Divine Truth, and to the article Creation' in the Cyclopædia of Biblical Literature. The former I have no opportunity of consulting: the latter I have turned to in the expectation of finding a clear statement of the weighty reasons which, alone, it might well be thought, could lead the Reverend Professor to the momentous conclusions he does not hesitate to publish.

In the Cyclopædia, as in your October Journal, Mr. Powell writes with a confidence which appears to me to be in mournful contrast with the evidence he adduces. Indeed, he seems to have been led (perhaps unconsciously) to make up for the slenderness of his proofs by the most surpassing hardihood of assertion.

'The