NOTES.

NOTE A, PAGE 10.

THAT prophecy must be interpreted by history, unless an inspired interpreter be sent to explain it, appears to be declared by St. Peter, ii. E. c. i. 20: "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation." But as the meaning of the text is disputed, I have not introduced it into the body of the work.

Some propose to translate, "No prophecy of the scripture is of private invention;" that is, as they explain, no prophecy is invented by the prophet. But this translation cannot, I think, be allowed; because, as Macknight, who adopts and defends it, acknowledges the Greek word epilusis signifies no where else invention.

In the Lexicons of Schleusner, Wahl, and Parkhurst, it signifies interpretation.

It does not occur, I believe, in any other part of the Bible; but the verb from which it is derived, epiluein, to unloose, to solve, to expound, is found in St. Mark's Gospel: "And without a parable spake He not unto them; and when they were alone he expounded all things to his disciples."-iv. 34.

It

There appears to be another objection to this new translation. makes the apostle assert the same thing twice, and the second proposition to be the reason of the first.

Let invention be the rendering, and the passage is as follows: No prophecy of the scripture is of private (that is, as they explain, of the prophet's) invention. For the prophecy came not in the old time, by the will of man or the prophet. Invention implies deliberation, choice, the exercise of the will; when, therefore, it is asserted that prophecy is not of the prophet's invention, it is surely declared that it did not come by the will of the prophet.

I have no doubt the explanation of the passage turns on the meaning of idios, translated private.

2 A

66

The Greek word idios denotes the peculiar appropriation of the thing with which it is joined, to something previously mentioned or understood. It usually signifies his own, our own, your own, their own, as "their own righteousness," "his own blood," "a prophet of their own," your own stedfastness." Now, as St. Peter is directly addressing the Christians, "We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well to take heed as unto a light that shineth in a dark place," the passage may be translated, "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of your own interpretation." The Greek construction is the same as in iii. 17, which is thus rendered in our version, "Ye, therefore, beloved, seeing that ye know (knowing) these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness."

Further, idios, which denotes what peculiarly belongs to oneself, or the party spoken of, is opposed to allotrios, another's, or belonging to another; so that allotrios may be, and is substituted for, ouk idios, or idios with the negative. "Thy seed," God says to Abraham, "shall dwell in a land not theirs."-Gen. xv. 13. In the septuagint "not theirs" is ouk idia. In the Acts of the Apostles, vii. 6, where this passage is quoted, allotria is substituted for ouk idia.

"Ye men

St. Peter elsewhere has used the word idios in a like sense: of Israel, why marvel ye at this? or why look ye so earnestly on us, as though by our own (idia) power or holiness we had made this man to walk."-Acts, iii. 12. A miracle had been wrought, which filled the Jews with wonder and amazement. Now, when St. Peter denies that it was wrought by the power or holiness of himself and of St. John, he surely asserts that it was wrought by another, and, as the context shows, by the Lord.

When, therefore, St. Peter says that "no prophecy of the scripture is of private (or of our own) interpretation," he affirms that its interpretation is of another, who must be God; for only two parties are mentioned, man and God. When, therefore, it is denied to be of man, it is given to God.

But God interprets prophecy one of two ways; either, as in the case of Pharaoh's dreams and of the prophecies recorded in Daniel, by sending

1 It may be observed, that about the time of the translation of the Bible, "private" was used by the best writers in the sense of own. "This persuasion ought (we say) to be fully settled in their hearts, that in litigious and controversed causes of such quality, the will of God is to have them to do whatsoever the sentence of judicial and final decision shall determine. Yea, though it seem in their private opinion to swerve utterly from that which is right."-Hooker. Preface Eccl. Polity, s. 6.

an inspired interpreter, or by bringing the events to pass which accomplish, and thereby elucidate and explain the predictions. This is His ordinary method, and it is, doubtless, that which is alluded to here.

The meaning of the text, as thus understood, is easy, and consistent with the apostle's argument.

The Christians were suffering cruel persecutions when St. Peter wrote his Epistles, to comfort and encourage them to patient endurance. One main topic of encouragement is the power and coming of the Lord, to take vengeance on His enemies, and to deliver those who trust in and obey Him. His power and coming are evidently the subject of this part of the epistle. "We have not," says he, "followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.' -v. 16. He then proceeds to adduce two proofs of His power and coming. The first is the voice which was uttered from the excellent glory, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased," when he and two other apostles were eye-witnesses of the transfiguration on the mount. Inasmuch as He has been thus proved to be the Son of God, and to be glorified, it is a sure, though presumptive, proof, of His power and coming.

He then proceeds to the second proof, which he calls more sure,1 or irrefragable. We have a more sure word of prophecy, or rather (as the Greek construction requires, and as excellent Greek scholars have translated) "We have a more sure word, the prophetic; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day-star arise in your hearts."

As the subject here is the power and coming of the Lord, the prophecies referred to must be those which foretell, and have their accomplishment in the manifestation of, His power and coming. This is a more sure or a more irrefragable proof of His power and coming than even the voice2 from heaven on the mount; for as that was heard by three of the apostles only, it is an evidence that depends on their vera

1 Firmus, qui non facile labefactari et concuti potest.-Schleusner.

2 "The Apostle tells us, in the 16th verse, that God declared Christ, by a voice from the excellent glory, to be his beloved Son; but this is not the thing he would prove, for he brings this declaration to prove something else; and this declaration is considered as one of the proofs to which he compares the word of prophecy."-Bishop Sherlock, Discourse I. on Prophecy. The mind seems to be more easily led, in the original Greek, to a perception of the things compared, than in the English version. The same Greek verb, in some of it's forms, is repeated three times, and must be understood, verse 19, at prophecy. It is translated twice "came," (17, 21) and once "moved:" "Holy men, as they were moved."

city; and, besides, it affords no more than an inferential proof. But as the object of the prophetic word is to attest directly the fact of His power and coming, to destroy His enemies and to save those who trust in Him, every person may, at all times, satisfy his own mind by a direct appeal to it; provided they will do what the apostle admonishes us to do, "take heed" to it, that is, study and meditate it.

But as the prophecies here referred to began to be accomplished after the ascension of the Lord, they were still very obscure (being only just beginning to be fulfilled), and were, therefore, when the epistle was written, a light shining in a dark place, whereunto the afflicted Christians were to take heed until the day dawned, that is, until the prophetic word becomes gradually elucidated, and the day-star (the full conviction of Christ's power and presence) arise in their hearts.

The reason and necessity of this patient attention to prophecy are then stated; "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of private interpretation," that it cannot be understood and developed by the wisdom and sagacity of man; for prophecy did not come by man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

NOTE B, PAGE, 84.

Although Gibbon here says, it is probable that Trajan's conquest of Dacia weakened the empire, yet in another place he regards it as one of his great exploits.

There can be no doubt that the reduction of Dacia to a Roman province was a very grave mistake. What the Romans had to dread, and the piercing intellect of Augustus seems to have perceived, was the attacks of the outlying and barbaric nations. Hence he recommended that the Rhine and the Danube should be the boundaries of the empire on the north; for they formed an excellent barrier, and could be easily guarded. But by extending the empire several (13) hundred miles, as in the case of Dacia, beyond the Danube, the Romans not only deprived themselves of an impassable barrier, but they were compelled to defend, against the barbarians of the north and of the east, nearly the entire arch of an immense circle, instead of its cord. And Aurelian, who was the most warlike of Trajan's successors, found it necessary, as Gibbon has observed, to relinquish Dacia.

But the historian of the Decline and Fall omits no opportunity of extolling Trajan. Hadrian did not attempt to maintain, or rather recover, his eastern conquests, and Gibbon remarks, "It was, however, scarcely in his (Hadrian's) power to place the superiority of his predecessor

in a more conspicuous light than by thus confessing himself unequal to the task of defending the conquests of Trajan."

According to Dion Cassius, Trajan was himself unequal to the task of defending his own conquests. The Greek historian says, "he did nothing worthy of his former exploits, and besides, he lost even all his conquests" (in the east).

Gibbon, in a note "There had been no throne (of the Roman Iceeded their fathers. the permission and unfruitful."3

NOTE C, PAGE 85.

appended to his account of these times, says, example of three successive generations on the empire); only three instances of sons who sucThe marriages of the Cæsars, notwithstanding frequent practice of divorces, were generally

I have cited this remark of the historian, that it may be compared with some facts recorded in another history.

David, on his death-bed, reminded Solomon of the promise which God had made to him: "If thy children take heed to their way, to walk before Me in truth, with all their heart and with all their soul, there shall not fail thee (saith He) a man on the throne of Israel."4

Notwithstanding the idolatry of Solomon, and the frequent lapses of the kings of the house of David, the throne was occupied by David and his descendants for 450 years; the son regularly succeeding the father in lineal succession. And this uninterrupted succession is frequently declared to be continued in consequence of the promise to David, and his strict observance of the law. But in the neighbouring kingdom of Israel, rent from the family of Solomon in consequence of his idolatry, and where idolatry was established for reasons of state,5 the palace was almost a perpetual scene of domestic treason, and the throne was occupied by nine different families. Besides, although the kingdom, consisting of ten tribes, was vastly more powerful than that of Judah, it

1 Decline and Fall, c. 1, p. 9. 2 Εμελλε δ' αρα.

μητε αξιον τι των προκατειργασμένων πραξειν, και προσετι και αυτα εκείνα απολέσειν.—Dion Cassius, B. lxviii.

29.

3 Decline and Fall, c. vii. p. 203.

4 1 Kings, ii. 4.

5 Ib. xii. 26, &c.

6 Jeroboam; 1 Kings, xii; Baasha, xv. 27; Zimri, xvi. 9; Omri, xvi. 17; Jehu, 2 Kings, ix. 14; Shallum, xv. 10; Menahem, ib. 14; Pekah, ib. 25; Hoshea, ib. 30.

They "departed not from the sin of Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin."