assumed to the New Testament he endeavoured to cover by the hypothesis, that many declarations, which referred primarily and literally to nearer events and persons, relate, in a higher sense, to New Testament times, a supposition which, in his case, is obviously merely a loophole, and which by no means does justice to the authority of the New Testament. For example, if Ps. cx. is not to be regarded as directly Messianic, the whole of the argument employed by the Lord himself in Matt. xxii. is utterly without foundation. A similar system of interpretation to that of Grotius was also adopted by Hammond, Clericus (particularly in his earlier period), Limborch, and the Socinians, some of whom preceded Grotius.1 This method of interpretation is evidently not traceable solely to the same cause, as that which led Calvin in many instances to deviate from the current explanation, even when it rested upon a sure foundation,—viz., to a reaction from the opposite extreme. Other causes must have co-operated with this. One of the principal reasons was a strong impulse towards a historical interpretation, and, at the same time, a want of acquaintance with the nature of the prophetic intuition. It was difficult to explain, how the anticipations of the Messianic salvation, in the case of the prophets, should be so closely connected in many cases with declarations, which indisputably referred to their own times and the immediate future. Grotius himself observes that it was this which chiefly determined his own method of interpretation: "feci autem hoc, quod viderem male cohærere verborum rerumque apud prophetas seriem, quæ cæteroquin pulcherrima est." His cold prosaic mind unfitted him for comprehending such intuitions, as far transcend the limits of ordinary experience. Moreover, just as love to Christ and firm faith in him had led the adherents of the opposite method to resort to many a forced interpretation, so, on the other hand, is it impossible to overlook the fact, that want of love and weakness of faith were among the determining causes here. The very persons, who refer the clearest passages of the Old Testament to any other subject rather than to their Lord and Saviour, when they come to interpret the New Testament, manifest a similar disposition to resort to a superficial, jejune, and spiritless expo

1 For details see Reuss, opusc. theol. ii., p. 118, sqq.

sition, and we are certainly not wrong in referring both to the

same source.

The venerable Leipzig theologian Chr. Aug. Crusius (in his hypomnemata ad theologiam propheticam, 3 vols., Leipzig 1764, sqq.) endeavoured to avoid both by-paths. Although in the main he took the side of the orthodox theology, in opposition to Grotius and his supporters; yet he spoke against the “præcipitantia de Christo interpretandi quæ et quatenus de isto non agunt, quo fit, ut suspecta etiam reddantur, quæ de illo recte intelliguntur." There are some general treatises in this work, in which we meet with very striking thoughts." In many respects it furnishes the clue to new and correct ideas, especially with reference to the nature of prophetic intuition.3 At the same time it is very evident, that Delitzsch has considerably overrated both the man and his work. Whoever passes from Delitzsch to the work itself, will very soon be undeceived. The labours of Crusius, in connection with the Old Testament, cannot by any means be compared with what Bengel has done for the

1 Vol. i. p. 113.

2 Thus, for example, we find in his work the correct explanation of the idea of Israel, which so many are now inclined to distort in a thoroughly Judaizing manner. Although he rejects-and quite properly so-the distinction between the natural and the spiritual Israel, he finds the legitimate continuation of Israel in the whole Christian Church, in which he follows the apostle Paul, who speaks of the Christian Church as the Israel of God (Gal. vi. 16), and says, with reference to all the true members of the Christian Church, whether circumcised or uncircumcised, we are the circumcision " (Phil. iii. 3). In Part i. p. 173, Crusius says, "Omnes veri Christiani accensentur Israeli, non tamen eo modo ac si Israel vetus, proprie dictus, typus sit Israelis spiritualis, improprie dicti. Vetus Dei Israel etiam, antequam Christus venit, proselytas sinu suo excipere potuit, qui deinde partem gentis faciebant. Multo magis vi fœderis et promissionis, postquam Christus venit, cujus fide' verus Israel etiam antea coram deo censebatur, et a maculis gentis (Deut. xxxiii. 5) discernebatur, gentibus quam plurimis secum coalescentibus jamjam amplificatus est, et postremum omnem omnino terram possidendam accipiet. Totum hoc ecclesiæ corpus, cujus basis fuit pars fidelis Israelitarum secundum carnem, aliquando reliquias posterorum partis degeneris itidem in sinum suum recipiet." Compare with this our own remarks in Vol. i. p. 210 sqq., and Vol. iv. p. 56, also the Commentary on Rev. vii. 4 and xi.

3 For example, Part i. p. 621, "Res, quas prophetæ prædicunt, plerumque sistuntur complexe, ita ut in universo ambitu summatim spectentur, vel xarà TÒ TOTEλioμa, h. e. secundum id, quod res erit, ubi ad fastigium suum pertigerit, non item adduntur partes singulæ, nec successiva graduum consecutio, aut periodorum temporis distinctio, etiam ubi de remotis, vel per tempora longe dissita divisis dicitur.

"Die bibl. prophetische Theologie ihre Fortbildung durch Crusius Leipz. 45.

VOL. IV.

2 A

New. (Bengel directed but little attention to the Old Testament, and his merits in this respect, which are so highly celebrated by Delitzsch,—viz., in the introduction of chiliasm, &c., are of a very questionable character). The very things for which Bengel is so distinguished, his spirit of submission to the Scriptures, and his microscopic observation, are those in which Crusius is very deficient. He has spun out for himself a philosophical system, and with this he approaches the Bible. His merits are altogether restricted to general points of view. Whenever he enters into the details of criticism, he is quite unprofitable. For historical interpretation his mind is but little adapted. You may read, for example, through the whole of the long section on Balaam, without finding a single remark which really helps you forward.

Hitherto the conviction had been so universally entertained, that the Old Testament contained in general a genuine revelation from God, and in particular, predictions of the Messiah, dictated by His spirit, that the disputes had been restricted to details alone. It is since the last quarter of the eighteenth century, that a complete division of opinion has gradually taken place with reference to the fundamental view itself. Starting with the doctrinal premises, that nature forms a complete and independent whole, upon which God will not and cannot operate, either by inspiration from within or miracles from without, a totally new attitude was of necessity assumed in relation to the Messianic prophecies. Their very nature was destroyed. C. F. Ammon, who was the first to enter into an elaborate treatment of the subject from this point of view, in his " Entwurf einer Christologie des A. T." (Erl. 94), describes the purport of his work in these terms: "it seeks to prove, that by means of the entire history of the mental culture of the Jews, and even by means of the patriotic desires of the prophets, the way was indisputably prepared by providence for the coming of Jesus; but that there is nothing in the oracles of the Hebrew seers, to show that they had any clear and distinct view of the person and career of the divine founder of our religion."" We see here, that even in this

1 If consistency in itself and under all circumstances be really an honour, this honour must be awarded to Ammon in connection with this subject. In his "Weltreligion," which appeared a generation later, and in which he has compressed the attitude of his life into a single word, he writes exactly to the same effect.

respect, the influence of rationalism is, without exception, of a destructive character, and repudiates all connection with the Christian Church of every age.

The leading points in the rationalistic opinions were the following. The Messianic hopes are nothing more than a patriotic fancy of the so-called prophets, who are all open to the charge brought by Jeremiah against the false prophets, of prophesying "from their own hearts." They arose in a purely natural way, and without any direct intervention on the part of God. Under David and Solomon the nation had reached the summit of power and prosperity. But shortly afterwards it sank down again. The strength of the nation was first of all broken by the separation of the ten tribes; and the invasions of the Assyrians, and at a later period of the Chaldeans, brought it very near to destruction. Hand in hand with outward disaster went inward decay. Idolatry and immorality gained more and more the upper hand. What was more natural under such circumstances as these, than that the prophets, raising themselves above the present, should look forward to the return of the times of David and Solomon, and should associate these hopes with some great successor of David, under whose righteous government the nation would again be prosperous in proportion to its godliness, and would overcome its unjust oppressors ?1

To establish this view, which was hitherto quite unknown in the Christian Church, was not a very difficult thing for rationalism, which is nothing but atheism in the germ, and the whole tendency of which is to shut out God from earthly things, and thus prepare the way for a denial of his existence. The rationalists were aware of the sympathies of their contemporaries. We will just collect together the remarks, which we find scattered about

1 Vid. De Wette bibl. Dogm. § 138, "David was the first who united the divided and shattered nation, and raised it to prosperity and power. With the division of the kingdom this golden age came to an end. It was natural that the hope of its future return should be connected with the house of David, and that a hero should be expected to arise resembling his great ancestor. In the period anterior to David it is possible that the hope of reformation, common to all men, may have been entertained; but the hope of the Messiah could not arise till after the time of David, for it was under him that the nation, as it were, first came to its senses, and discovered the advantages of the theocratic kingdom. From this it naturally follows that the hope was of Jewish origin."

here and there, and submit them to investigation. (1). "The human form of the Messianic idea is apparent from the fact, that it changed with the changing circumstances of the nation. But it is impossible, that the variable image of different ages should be realised at one particular period, in a certain unchangeable subject."1 To this we reply, the Messianic announcement was only so far changeable, that those views were always presented, which were best adapted, under certain circumstances, to edify the people of God in accordance with the universal custom in the Scriptures, the searching effects of which are due to the fact, that they do not teach after the manner of a dogmatic compendium, but in living connection with the necessities of the times. The only thing, that would give any force to this argument, would be the discovery of actual contradictions. But these no one has ever been able to point out. The apparent discrepancy, for example, between the announcements of a suffering Messiah and those of a Messiah in glory, is removed by the fact, that in Is. liii., which forms the central point of all the announcements of a suffering Messiah, the suffering is represented as the pathway to glory, and its necessary condition. But what is decisive against the "human origin of the Messianic idea" is this, that notwithstanding all the variations in the announcement itself, the scattered features do admit of being combined together, so as to form one harmonious portrait, and this portrait tallies exactly with the historical appearance of Christ. The only possible explanation of this is, that behind the human instruments employed a divine causality lay concealed, which secured the manifold against degenerating into contradiction and disunion, and which completed this image in the course of centuries, by constantly adding fresh features, as the necessities of the Church demanded. (2). It is maintained that there is "not even a plain and distinct announcement of Jesus of Nazareth as the sole source of blessedness to both Jews and heathen," but that we meet on every hand with nothing but "poetical, indefinite and ambiguous delineations of the future." But it is the universal plan adopted by God in the Scriptures, to afford so much clearness, that faith, for which alone the Scriptures are

1 Ziegler in Henke's Magazin I. i. p. 83.

2 v. Ammon. Fortbildung des Christenthums zur Weltreligion i. p. 189 sqq.