Gibson on Article VII: Of the Old Testament

1. The opinions of those who rejected the Old Testament entirely, and claimed to be themselves superior to the demands of the moral law, as laid down in it. Of these Anabaptists there is a notice in a work of Alley, Bishop of Exeter, at the beginning of Elizabeth’s reign, which aptly illustrates the language of the article.

” Here I note only one thing, which is the temerity, ignorance, and blasphemy of certain phantastical heads, which hold that the prophets do write only to the people of the Old Testament, and that their doctrine did pertain only to their time ; and would seclude all the Fathers that lived under the law from the hope of eternal salvation. And here is also a note to be gathered against them which utterly reject the Old Testament, as a book nothing necessary to the Christians which live under the gospel.” ^

2. While some of the Anabaptists thus set aside the Old Testament as unnecessary, others adopted an error of a different character, and insisted that the whole civil and ceremonial law was still a matter of divine obligation for Christians. The outcome of this was seen in the extraordinary scenes that took place soon after 1533 at Mlinster in Westphalia, where the Anabaptists, under John of Leyden, set up what can only be described as a parody of the Jewish commonwealth, which they termed the ” New Jerusalem.” ^ That the error was causing trouble in England also appears from the ReforTnatio Legum Fcclesidsticarum, in which it is expressly condemned, together with the entire rejection of the Old Testament.

” De iis, qui vetus Testamentum aut totum rejiciunt, aut totum exigunt. Deinde quomodo priscis temporibus Marcionitarum sordes, Valentinianorum et Manichseorum fluxerunt, et aliae similes earum multae faeces, a quibus vetus Testamentum ut absurdum malumque, et cum novo dissidens, repudiabatur, sic multi nostris temporibus inveniuntur, inter quos Anabaptistae prsecipue sunt coUocandi, ad quos si quis vetus Testamentum alleget, illud pro abrogato jam et obsoleto penitus habent, omnia quae in illo posita sunt ad prisca majorum nostrorum tempora referentes. Itaque nihil eorum ad nos statuunt pervenire debere. Aliorum autem contrarius est, sed ejusdem impietatis error, qui usque adeo vetus ad Testamentum adhaerescunt, ut ad circumcisionem et a Mose quondam institutas ceremonias necessario nos revocent.”*

The principal subjects to be considered in connection with this article are the following : —

1. The Old Testament is not contrary to the New.

[…]

2. The old fathers did not look only for transitory promises.

3. The ceremonial and civil law of the Jews is not binding on Christians.

4. The moral law remains of lasting and universal obligation.

I. The Old Testament is not contrary to the New. The statement of the Article on this subject is as

follows: The Old Testament is not contrary to the New, for 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.

In the present day there is perhaps no probability of a revival of the view of many among the early Gnostics that the Old Testament is positively contrary to the New. Such a position could scarcely be taken up by anyone who started from the acceptance of the canon of the New Testament without mutilation. The several books of it are so interpenetrated with references and allusions to the Scriptures of the Jews, and the gospel is so manifestly built up upon the Old Dispensation that an actual contradiction between the two is almost inconceivable. But modern criticism has insisted so strongly on the inferiority of the Old Testament to the New, and has brought out into such strong relief the imperfection of the old system, that it may be well to point out that there is nothing in the article which calls us to deny this imperfection, or to maintain that the Old Testament is not inferior to the New. The general statements made in the article were clearly never intended to decide details of criticism or to bind the clergy who sign them to a particular view of the religious development of Israel

The principle which our Lord Himself has taught us that some things were permitted under the Old Covenant ” for the hardness of men’s hearts ” ^ admits of a wide range of application. But if the two dispensations are both from the same God they cannot be contrary the one to the other. That is the main point which the article is concerned to maintain, and room is left for whatever views the discoveries of criticism may establish or render probable as to the condition of Israel in early days, the origin of its sacred rites, and the course of its religious development.

Further, it will be noticed that the article bases the unity of the two Testaments on the hope of redemption through the Messiah, which is common to them both. The same position is maintained in the homilies. In the ” second part of the homily of faith,” the writer says of the ” old fathers ” that ” although they were not named Christian men, yet it was a Christian faith that they had ; for they looked for all benefits of God the Father through the merits of His Son Jesus Christ, as we now do. This difference is between them and us ; for they looked when Christ should come, and we be in the time when He is come. Therefore saith S. Augustine, * The time is altered and changed, but not the faith. For we have both one faith in one Christ.* ”^

It is impossible that this can have been intended to suggest that all the ” old fathers ” had a clear knowledge of the ” merits of Jesus Christ.” Such an assertion would be quite unwarrantable. But it is a simple fact of history that, under the Old Covenant, there did in time grow up a very clear and definite expectation of a Messiah to come. In early days, no doubt, the hope

1 S. Matt. xix. 8.

was but of an indefinite character, and there was little, if any, expectation of a persQ7ial deliverer. But as we follow out the course of the history we are able to see how the hope was gradually narrowed down to a race, a tribe, a family, and how it tended more and more to centre in a single person. To trace out the growth of this hope, and to mark its increasing definiteness, belongs to the province of the interpreter of the Old Testament rather than to that of the commentator on the Articles. The briefest outline must suffice here.

The earliest indication of the hope is found in the Protevangelium, immediately after the fall, when the promise was made that the ” seed of the woman ” should bruise the serpent’s head. After the flood it was not obscurely hinted that the blessing should come in the line of Shem, The call of Abraham y the choice of Isauc rather than Ishmael,* of Jacob rather than Esau, narrowed down the line still more ; while, whatever be the true interpretation of the words rendered in the English Bible * till Shiloh come,* the exalted language used in the blessing of Judah at the very least marks out this tribe for pre-eminence, and points to it as the one from which the promised blessings should be looked for.

• Gen. ix. 26, 27. All the commentators call attention to the significant fact that the name of the covenant God Jehovah occurs alone in the blessing of Shem.

3 Gen. xii. 1-3. * Gen. xiii. 15, xv. 4, xvii. 1-21,

• Gen. XXV. 23, cf. ch. xxvii.

•Gen. xlix. 9-12. The margin of the R.V. will show the English reader how doubtful is the rendering “till Shiloh come.” There is really no support whatever for it from antiquity, and it probably rests on an

The principle which our Lord Himself has taught us that some things were permitted under the Old Covenant ” for the hardness of men’s hearts ” ^ admits of a wide range of application. But if the two dispensations are both from the same God they cannot be contrary the one to the other. That is the main point which the article is concerned to maintain, and room is left for whatever views the discoveries of criticism may establish or render probable as to the condition of Israel in early days, the origin of its sacred rites, and the course of its religious development.

Further, it will be noticed that the article bases the unity of the two Testaments on the hope of redemption through the Messiah, which is common to them both. The same position is maintained in the homilies. Li the ” second part of the homily of faith,” the writer says of the ” old fathers ” that ” although they were not named Christian men, yet it was a Christian faith that they had ; for they looked for all benefits of God the Father through the merits of His Son Jesus Christ, as we now do. This difference is between them and us ; for they looked when Christ should come, and we be in the time when He is come. Therefore saith S. Augustine, * The time is altered and changed, but not the faith. For we have both one faith in one Christ.*”^

It is impossible that this can have been intended to suggest that all the ” old fathers ” had a clear knowledge of the ” merios of Jesus Christ.” Such an assertion would be quite unwarrantable. But it is a simple fact of history that, under the Old Covenant, there did in time grow up a very clear and definite expectation of a Messiah to come. In early days, no doubt, the hope

1 S. Matt. xix. 8.

was but of an indefinite character, and there was little, if any, expectation of a personal deliverer. But as we follow out the course of the history we are able to see how the hope was gradually narrowed down to a race, a tribe, a family, and how it tended more and more to centre in a single person. To trace out the growth of this hope, and to mark its increasing definiteness, belongs to the province of the interpreter of the Old Testament rather than to that of the commentator on the Articles. The briefest outline must suffice here.

The earliest indication of the hope is found in the Protevangelium, immediately after the fall, when the promise was made that the ” seed of the woman ” should bruise the serpent’s head. After the flood it was not obscurely hinted that the blessing should come in the line of Shem? The call of Abraham? the choice of Isaac rather than Ishmael,* of Jaxoh rather than Esau, narrowed down the line still more ; while, whatever be the true interpretation of the words rendered in the English Bible * till Shiloh come,* the exalted language used in the blessing of Judah, at the very least marks out this tribe for pre-eminence, and points to it as the one from which the promised blessings should be looked for.

^ Gen. ix. 26, 27. All the commentators call attention to the significant fact that the name of the covenant God Jehovah occurs alone in the blessing of Shem.

3 Gen. xii. 1-3. * Gen. xiii. 15, xv. 4, xviL 1-21.

• Gen. XXV. 23, cf. ch. xxvii.

• Gen. xlix. 9-12. The margin of the R.V. will show the English reader how doubtful is the rendering “till Shiloh come.” There is really no support whatever for it from antiquity, and it probably rests on an

The choice of the house of David marks a fresh stage in the development of the hope. From the time of the great promise made to him in 2 Sam. vii., the consummation of the kingdom of God is connected with a king of the line of David, to whom God will be in a special way a ” Father,” and who shall be in a special way God’s ” Son.” But even so, for some considerable period, the thought is rather of a line of kings than of one individual;^ and not till the crisis of the Assyrian invasion in the eighth century do we find that the hope is definitely connected with the thought of a personal Messiah. In the prophecies of Isaiah and Micah we meet for the first time with detailed predictions, which point forward with unmistakeable clearness to a child who should be born, whose name should be called ” Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace,” and who should reign on the throne of David.2 From this time onward, the evidence of the expectation of a personal Messiah is clear and decisive, and may be traced in the writings of the later prophets, both before and after the Captivity,^ as well as in later

erroneous reading, mh’V for nhv. The latter reading is implied in most of the ancient versions, and would give one or other of the following renderings : (1) “Till there come that which is his,” or (2) *’ Till He come whose [it is].” In the latter case there is reference to a personal Messiah, whereas, if the former rendering be adopted, the clause must be regarded as an indeterminate expression of the Messianic hope. See, on the whole passage, S. R. Driver in the Cambridge Journal of Philology, vol. xiv. No. 27, and Spurrell’s Notes on Genesis, p. 335 seq.

^ That the thought is primarily of the line in the original promise in 2 Sam. vii. is shown by ver. 14. “I will be his father, and he shall be my son ; if he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men. ” It is impossible to apply these last words to the personal Messiah.

2 See especially Isa. vii. 14, ix. 6, 7 and xL 1-10 ; Micah iv. 8, v. 2-7.

3 In Jeremiah there are the great prophecies of ” the Branch ” in xxiii. 5-8, and xxxiii. 14-26, and in Ezekiel there is the promise of “one Shepherd, even my servant David,” ch. xxxiv. 23, xxxvii. 24; of. ch.

Jewish writings, such as the Book of Enoch and the Psalms of Solomon,^ which never obtained admission within the canon.

Modern criticism may affect the interpretation of particular passages. It may show us that texts which were relied on by the older expositors as prophecies of the Messiah can no longer be appealed to with the same confidence as formerly. It may even involve a rewriting of the whole history of the Messianic hope. But the broad truth stated in the article will remain untouched by this, for the undeniable fact that, before the Incarnation, the fathers who lived under the Old Covenant had come to look for the “redemption of Israel,” and were expecting a personal Messiah of the house of David is sufficient to justify the general statement 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.”

11. Tlie Old Fathers did not look only for Transitory Promises.

Here again it can scarcely be thought that the article is designed to close the door to criticism on a subject on which widely different views have been held by devout scholars within the Church, namely, the belief of the Jews, under the Old Dispensation, in a future life beyond the grave. The statement that they are not

to be heard which feign that the old fathers did look only for transitory promises can never have

xxi. 27, where there is a probable allusion to Gen. xlix. 10. In the prophets of the return from the Captivity, the clearest Messianic prophecies are those in Zech. iii. 8, vi. 12, of ” the Branch,” which rest on the previous ones of Jeremiah. In Haggai ii. 6-9 the thought of a personal Messiah is not prominent. See the R.V. “the desirable things of all nations shall come,” for “the desire” of the A.V. * See the Book of Enoch, ch. xlv-lvii., which describes the coming of

been intended to compel us to maintain that the doctrine of a future life was clearly taught by Moses. We are expressly told in the New Testament that “life and immortality are brought to light by the gospel,” ^ and the whole tendency of modern criticism is to emphasise this by denying that there are sure and certain traces of a belief in a state of future bliss till a comparatively late period in the history of the Jews. It is patent to everyone that the promises of the Mosaic law, as a rule, refer exclusively to this life (see Ex. xx. 12, xxiii. 25—31 ; Levit. xxvi. etc.), and that length of days and temporal prosperity are the rewards contemplated in it. Moreover, it would seem that throughout the Old Testament, attention is for the most part concentrated on this life. It is ” the land of the living ” (see Ps. lii. 5 ; Isa. liiL 8 ; Jer. xi. 19, etc.). Death is regarded as an evil, and the dread of it is evident even among the best of the Hebrews, so that it has been said with some show of truth that they never spoke of death without a shudder (see Ps. Ixxxviii and Isa. xxxviiL in illustration of this). Nevertheless, while all this is admitted, it must not be forgotten that there is another side to it as well. Death is never regarded as annihilation. An existence of some sort after death is everywhere assumed in the Old Testament. Dathan and Abiram go down “alive” into Sheol (Num. xvi. 30). Jacob’s anticipation that he will go down to Sheol to Joseph (Gen. XXX vii. 35), and the familiar expression that a man was ” gathered to his fathers,” are evidences of a belief in a “something” beyond this life even in the

the chosen ruler of God, and ch. xc, where the Messiah is introduced under the figure of a white bullock. In the Psalms of Solomon, the Messiah of the house of David is spoken of in xvii. 23 seq. and XTiii. 1-9, and is for the first time definitely called xp^arbi K^ipioi, 1 2 Tim. i 10.

earliest days. But the state of the deceased, or the “shades,”^ in Sheol or Hades, was in itself a state of unblessedness, not worthy to be called ” life ” ; and only very gradually did the conception of a resurrection make its way among the Jews. What the pious Jew really looked for was life in and with God ; that is the ” eternal life ” which is offered to mankind in both the Old and New Testaments alike. It has been truly said that ” the antithesis in the psalmist’s mind is not between life here and life hereafter (as we speak), but between life with and life without God ; and for the moment, in the consciousness of the blessedness of fellowship with God, death fades from his view.” ^ So by degrees the Jew who had come to believe in ” the living God ” and his own communion with Him, came at last to see that there was involved in this the doctrine of a future life, for the communion could not be broken by death. It is, however, often hard to say whether the union of the soul with God, after which the psalmists were feeling, was contemplated by them as consummated in tiis life or the next. Such Psalms as xvi, xviL, xlix., and Ixxiii, which contain the most exalted language on this subject, have been variously interpreted. But even if we put it at the lowest, they contain ” the germ and principle of the doctrine of the resurrection.” Still, however we may interpret them, it is clear that the doctrine was no article of faith to the Jews. It formed no part of the creed of the Jewish Church. There could not be a better instance of the manner in which it was worked out by the individual than that given by the Book of

• D^K^*!, the word is used for the etSuXa Ka/iSprwp in Job xxvi. 5 ; Ps. Ixxxviii. 11 ; Prov. ii. 18, ix. 18, xxi. 16 ; Isa. xiv. 9, xxvi. 14, 19. It signifies properly “relaxed” or “weak.”

Job, which modern critics are inclined to regard as a late work, not earlier than the time of the Babylonish captivity. Had the doctrine of the resurrection formed a part of the traditional creed of the writer, it would not have been represented as only gradually dawning upon the mind of Job. Three distinct stages are apparent in his apprehension of it.

In chapter vii. there is utter disbelief in anything of the kind.

** Oh remember that my life is vnnd : Mine eye shall no more see good.

The eye of him that seeth me shall behold me no more : Thine eyes shall be upon me, but I shall not be. As the cloud is consumed and vanisheth away, So he that goeth down to Sheol shall come up no more. He shall no more return to his house, Neither shall his place know him any more” (vers. 7-10).

In chapter xiv. the longing for a resurrection has arisen in Job’s heart. He sees that nature points to one, and feels that if he could only look forward to one for himself, he could endure his present sufferings with greater calmness ; but he is still very far from believing in one.

*’ There is hope of a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again, And that the tender branch thereof will not cease. Though the root thereof wax old in the earth, And the stock thereof die in the ground ; Yet through the scent of water it will bud, And put forth boughs like a plant. But man dicth, and wasteth away: Yea, man giveth up the ghost, and where is he? As the waters fail from the sea, And the river decayeth and drieth up; So man lieth down and riseth not : Till the heavens be no more, they shall not awake. Nor be roused out of their sleep. Oh that Thou wouldst hide me in Sheol, That Thou wouldst keep me secret, until Thy wrath be past,

That thou wouldest appoint mo a set time, and remember me !

If a man die, shall he live again ?

All the days of my warfare would I wait,

Till my release should come.

Thou shouldest call, and I would answer Thee :

Thou wouldest have a desire to the work of Thine hands ”

(Vers. 7-16).

Finally, in chapter xix., he rises to the certainty that God will appear as his ” vindicator,” and that he shall be granted a vision of God after death.

” But I know that my redeemer liveth. And that He shall stand up at the last upon the earth : And after my skin hath been thus destroyed. Yet from my flesh shall I see God : Whom I shall see for myself. And mine eyes shall behold, and not another” (Vers. 25-27).^

There are other late passages in which the hope of a resurrection appears with unmistakeable clearness, such as Isaiah xxvi. 19:” Thy dead shall live ; my dead bodies shall arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in the dust ; for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast forth the dead.” ^

In the vision of ” the dry bones ” in Ezekiel xxxvii., though it is a national restoration that is primarily contemplated, yet some knowledge of the resurrection is presupposed, as otherwise the passage would be almost meaningless. Clearer still is Daniel xii. 2, which in-

• Modern critics generally assign this passage to a post-exilic date.

»■-’

-«M

troduces most distinctly the idea of future retribution, and shows the highest point reached by the faithful under the old covenant :

” Many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament ; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and

ever. ^

That there was only some such gradual development of the belief, as has been thus briefly indicated, appears to be a most certain result of criticism. But, from what has been said, it will be evident that even from early days the way was prepared for the future doctrine, and in germ and principle it was there from the earliest day on which the Jew recognised God as his God, and felt that life in and with him was the supreme object of desire. When once he had grasped this, it could not be said that he ” looked only for transitory promises.” ^ Nor should it be forgotten that our Lord and His apostles teach us to see in the sayings of the Old Testament deeper tind fuller meanings, unrecognised probably by those who first uttered or heard them. ” That the dead are raised, even Moses showed, in the place concerning the Bush, when he called the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. Now He is not the God of the dead, but of the living ; for all live unto Him ” (S. Luke xx. 37, 38). “These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them, and greeted them from afar, and having confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. For they that say such things

^ See on all these passages Driver’s Sermons on the Old Testament, Semi. 4, •* Growth of Belief in a Future State.”

make it manifest that they are seeking after a country of their own. And if, indeed, they had been mindful of that country from which they went out, they would have had the opportunity to return. But now they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly : wherefore God is not ashamed of them, to be called their God ; for He hath prepared for them a city” (Heb. xi. 13—16).

It has never been seriously maintained that these passages decide once for all the question of the actual amount of knowledge concerning a future state possessed by the Jews, and since the article certainly says no more than they do, we may rest assured that it leaves us free to decide the critical question on critical grounds. And it may be added that it is a remarkable fact that when the reformers put forth the first book of the Homilies containing a sermon ” On the Dread of Death,” they could apparently find no passage to quote from the Old Testament for the belief of the Jews in a life of bliss after death earlier than the Book of Wisdom, on which, therefore, they fell back, appealing to it as ” Scripture,” and citing it as establishing the point in question.

” Now, the holy fathers of the old law, and all faithful and righteous men which departed before our Saviour Christ’s ascension into heaven, did by death depart from troubles into rest ; from the hands of their enemies into the hands of God ; from sorrows and sicknesses unto joyful refreshing, into Abraham’s bosom, a place of all comfort and consolation, as Scriptures do plainly by manifest words testify. The Book of Wisdom saith. That the righteoiLS men’s souls he in tlie hand of God, and no torment shall touch them. TJiey seemed to the eyes of foolish men to die ; and their death was counted miserable, and their departing out of this world wretcJied ; hut they he in rest. And another place saith. Thai the righteous shall live for ever, and their reward is with the Lord, and

their minds he vnth God, who is above all ; therefore they shall receive a glorious kingdom, and a beautiful crovm at the Lord’s hand. And in another place the same book saith, The righteous, though he be prevented ivith sudden death, nevertheless he shall be there, where he shall be refreshed’* ^

The remaining subjects in connection with this article admit of the briefest possible treatment.

III, The Ceremmiial and Civil Law of the Jews is not

binding on Christians,

In proof of the assertion that the law given from

God by Hoses, as touching ceremonies and rites, do not bind Christian men, it is sufficient to refer

to the account of the Apostolic Council held at Jerusalem to settle this very subject, when it was once for all decided that circumcision was not to be enforced on Gentile converts (Acts xv.), and to the whole line of argument in S. Paul’s Epistles to the Romans and Galatians, in which he vindicates the liberty of Christians from the burden of the law; while since the civil precepts of the Mosaic code were never imposed on any nation but the Jews, it cannot be supposed that they ought of necessity to be received in any commonwealth.

IV. The Moral Law remains of Universal and Lasting

Obligation.

If proof is wanted for the statement that no Christian

man whatsoever is free from the obedience of the commandments which are called moral, it

may be found in our Lord’s assertion that he came ” not

to destroy the law, but to fulfil ” (S. Matt. v. 17) ; in the special teaching of the sermon on the mount, in which the moral law is enforced, explained, and expanded (S. Matt. V. 21—48); in the reply to the question concerning ” the great commandment ” (S. Matt, xxil 37—40); and in the frequent insistence on the duties of the moral law in S. Paul’s Epistles (see especially Kom. xiii. 8-10).

De Tribus Symbolis.

Symbola tria, Nicanum, Athanasii, et quod vulgo Apostolorum appellatur omnino recipienda sunt et credenda. Nam firmissimis scripturarum testimoniis probari possunt.

Notes

• Alley’s Poore Afan’s Librark, ii. 97, quoted in Hardwick On the Articles, p. 395.
• The Homilies, p. 39 (Ed. S.P.C.K.). The reference to Augustine is to In Joan, Tract, xlv.
• Gen. iii. 15 ” The Protevangelium is a faithful miniature of the entire history of humanity, a struggling seed ever battling for the ultimate victory. Here is the germinal idea which unfolds in the suflferings and sorrows, the ho|>es and joys of our race, until it is realised in the sublime victories of redemption.” — C. A. Briggs’ Messianic Prophecy ^ p. 77.
• The Homilies, p. 39 (Ed. S.P.C.K.). The reference to Augustine is to In Joan, Tract, xlv.
• Gen. iii. 15 “The Protevangelium is a faithful miniature of the entire history of humanity, a struggling seed ever battling for the ultimate victory. Here is the germinal idea which unfolds in the sufferings and sorrows, the hoj)es and joys of our race, until it is realised in the sublime victories of redemption.” — C. A. Briggs’ Messianic Prophecy ^ p. 77.
• Professor Kirkpatrick on the Psalms (Cambridge Bible), vol. ii. p. 274.
• On this passage see A. B. Davidson’s commentary in the Cambridge BiblCj and cf. Driver’s IrUrodudion to the Literature of the Old Testament^ p. 393. Both the English and the Scotch professor agree in seeing in the passage distinct intimation of a belief in a life beyond the grave. The translation given above is that of the R. V., but “redeemer” would be more properly “vindicator,” and “from my flesh” probably signifies ” apart from” or “deprived of” my flesh, not as it is understood in the A. v., “in my flesh.”
• On this point see a remarkable letter in the Life of F. D. Maurice, Yol. i. p. 396,
• The third part of the Homily of the “Fear of Death,” p. 103 (Ed. S.P.C.K.). The references are to Wisdom, iii. 1-3, v. 15, 16, and iv. 7.