But was it well grounded? Is there any good reason in their Scriptures, in favour of such an opinion? So Jesus did not think; for, from the first to the last of his ministry among the Jews, he contended against their erroneous views relative to this very point. He often rebuked his disciples for the same extravagant and ungrounded expectations. Let us hear him, when addressing them, after they had expressed their disappointment on account of his death, by saying, "We trusted this had been he who would have redeemed Israel," i. e. from the yoke of the Romans. "O fools," said he, "and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken. Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?" Mark the sequel: "Then beginning at Moses, and all the prophets, he expounded unto them, in all the Scriptures, the things concerning himself." And again, when addressing all his apostles: "Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead on the third day." Luke 24: 25-27, 46.

66

So Paul also thought and reasoned. "Paul.... reasoned with them (the Jews) out of the Scriptures; opening and alleging that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead," Acts 17: 2, 3. So thought all the apostles, after they had become truly enlightened. But it would be useless to accumulate evidence, in regard to a point so perfectly plain.

The question now is, not what bigoted and misled Jews, groaning under a foreign bondage, puffed up with pride on account of their descent and privileges, and filled with darkness, thought and believed. The true question is, What did the sacred writers of the Old Testament Scriptures teach; and how did Christ and the apostles understand and explain them? If a candid Jew could read Ps. XXII. and Is. LIII. and not find in it a suffering Messiah, it would seem strange indeed. In fact, so generally has this been acknowledged among the Jewish Rabbins, that in modern times the fiction of two Messiahs has been invented; the one the son of David, who is the reigning and conquering prince; the other, the son of Joseph, who is the suffering and dying Messiah.

Such a fiction as this arose, no doubt, from deference to the opinion of the ancient Rabbins, who so clearly held to a suffering Messiah, that their opinion could not be overlooked or fairly set aside. Such for example are the following views: tres partes divisae sunt omnes castigationes et poenae ; unam sustinuerunt David et patriarchae; alteram, generatio nostra ;

tertiam, Rex Messias," Mechilta in Jalkut Rubeni II. fol. 90. 1, 2. So in the Zohar, Genes. fol. 29. col. 113, "Supremus inter illos qui in hoc mundo castigationes et dolores sustinuerunt, est Messias." Midrash Mishle, fol. 52. 2, "... a tribus castigationibus et poenis liberamini, a die Gog et Magog, a dolore Messiae, (i. e. such sorrows as the Messiah would suffer,) et a die judicii magni." Zohar, Numer. fol. 69. col. 274," Ille dominabitur et occidet multos, et ipsum quoque Messiam." Ille is the tyrant king of the Persians, of whom the writer is speaking.

But enough of these ancient Jewish traditions. Whoever wants to see overwhelming proof, in regard to the point of a suffering Messiah, may read Schoettgen's ample collection of rabbinic testimonies, in his Messias, Lib. VI. cap. 3. I add only, that the Targum of Jonathan exhibits the most indubitable evidences that he referred Is. LIII. to the Messiah; see the Targum, and especially in chap. 52: 13. 53: 10. Indeed the whole of the paraphrase evidently refers chap. LIII. to the Messiah, although most of the expressions that regard his sufferings, are construed away in some good measure.

If then the blinded, darkened, unbelieving, worldly-minded Jews expected a triumphant and splendid conqueror and king in their Messiah, it proves nothing more than that such men may pervert the Scriptures, and cherish expectations entirely different from those which they are designed to support. Is not this done every day, amid all the light and knowledge diffused among the present generation of men?

OBJ. 8. But the Jews did not expect their Messiah to rise from the dead. Of course they could not have understood Ps. XVI. as predicting such an event.

So Rosenmüller. But what is the evidence? We have already seen. The evidence is an obiter dictum of Maimonides, at the close of the twelfth century, a mortal enemy to the Christian religion, and gladly seizing on every occasion to traduce it. But why did not this celebrated critic examine further? In the Zohar, (now conceded to be one of the most ancient of all the rabbinical writings,) he might have found a different opinion; e. g. "Morietur his Messias, et occisus in statu mortis ad tempus permanebit." Does ad tempus mean always?

So Bereshith Rabba ad Gen. 44: 8. "Quando? Cum ascendent captivi ex inferno, et Schechina (Messias) in capite

illorum, q. d. Mic. 2: 13." Zohar, Genes. fol. 73. col. 290, in Esai. 60: 22, "Quidnam vult vox ? Idem est, ac tempore He(); illius, inquam, He () quod ex pulvere resurget." He () is the last letter in, and stands among the Rabbins for the mystical designation of the Messiah. Bereshith Rabba ad Gen. XXII. "Multae sunt in sacra Scriptura dies ternae; quarum una est profecto resurrectio Messiae." So Finus (in Flagello Judaeorum, VI. 79) quotes this passage; although it has been ejected from the later copies of the Bereshith Rabba.

Why now should the dictum of a Jew in the twelfth century, be produced as evidence of so important a matter as the creed of the ancient Jews respecting the resurrection of the Messiah, while all these testimonies are not even adverted to? Had they been confined to the rabbinic treatises, and lurking only there, the question would have been very different. But they lie before the whole world, in the laborious, and in many respects excellent, work of Schoettgen, Horae Hebraicae, Vol. II. Truly there is reason to complain, that impartiality is more limited than professions of liberality and fairness.

'Sed.... manum de tabella.' If the Psalm in question is to be wrested from the hands of Peter and Paul, it must be done by more strength and fairer combatants than have yet attempted to do it. That I may not have committed errors myself, in such a protracted investigation, I do not even pretend. If so, let them be exposed; truth will be a gainer by it; and I shall surely rejoice. I only offer my humble contribution to illustrate and to vindicate a much abused, and (as I believe) a much misunderstood portion of the Scriptures, to which every Christian ought to attach a high interest, who acknowledges the authority of Jesus and of his apostles. If I have succeeded in my aim, and my contribution should be so fortunate as to meet the approbation of the Christian public, I may, if Providence permit, resume at a future period the subject of the predictions respecting the Messiah, and endeavour to explain other portions of the Old Testament, which have relation to this deeply interesting subject.

ART. III. ON THE GRAMMATICO-HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION

OF THE SCRIPTURES.

By Augustus Hahn, Professor of Theology in the University of Leipsic. Translated from the German by the Editor.*

INTRODUCTORY NOTICES.

THE following article from the pen of Professor Hahn of the University of Leipsic, will be interesting to the lovers of biblical literature, as giving a clear and practical view of the proper method in which the Holy Scriptures are to be interpreted; and as pointing out the reasons, why other modes prevalent in some countries, are not to be adopted. With many readers also, the article will have an interest from the circumstance, that it so fully developes the manner in which the Scriptures are regarded and treated by the rationalists of Germany.

Professor Hahn was born in Thuringia in 1792, and is now therefore in the vigour of life. In 1819 he became professor extraordinary in the university of Königsberg: and was afterwards ordinary professor in the same institution, and superintendent of the churches in and around that city. Of course, he must have been a stated preacher in one of them. In 1826 he was called to Leipsic, as ordinary professor of theology in that university, where he has ever since delivered lectures on systematic theology and the exegesis of the New Testament, and still occasionally preaches. While at Königsberg, he had acquired a high character as a man of learning and an oriental scholar, particularly by several publications on the subject of the Syriac language and literature; of which he was the first to discover the metrical principles. An occurrence which very unexpectedly took place not long after his removal to Leipsic, gave a new turn to his efforts, and called him forth as a prominent champion of the cause of revelation and of evangelical principles.

In most, if not all, of the German universities, a professor when he enters upon his office, is immediately eligible to all the duties and privileges of it, with the exception of being decanabilis, or dean of the faculty to which he belongs. In order to

* From the Theologische Studien und Kritiken, for April 1830.

enjoy this privilege in the theological faculty, he must first hold a public disputation in Latin pro loco in ordine theologorum olim obtinendo. For this purpose he usually prepares a printed dissertation, to which sometimes theses are appended,― which he undertakes to defend at a stated time in public. In ordinary cases there are generally three opponents, selected by the disputant himself; in a case like the present the whole faculty to which he belongs seem to be ex officio opponents, and thus have an opportunity of testing the qualifications of their new associate. After the stated opponents have finished, the lists are thrown open to all who may choose to enter.

For the subject of his disputation, Professor Hahn had prepared a dissertation entitled Commentatio hist. theol. de rationalismi, qui dicitur, vera indole; the object of which was to shew the identity of modern rationalism with the earlier naturalism. He gives the following, as the results of an accurate historical examination: That the term naturalism arose in the sixteenth century, and in the seventeenth had become general; it was applied to those who admitted no other religious knowledge than such as is natural, which every man can acquire for himself with his own powers. As to the different forms of naturalism, theologians distinguished three; the refined, which they also called Pelagianism, which holds the heart of man to be in itself purer than it really is, and therefore also his religious knowledge to be clearer; the low naturalism, which directly denies a special revelation; and the lowest of all, which holds the world itself to be God. The term rationalism was already used in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, of those who declared reason to be the only source and standard of faith. It seems first to have been employed by Amos Comenius in 1661; and was never used in a good sense. In the eighteenth century, it was customary to give the name of rationalists to those who had formerly been called low naturalists. From these facts the dissertation derives the following conclusions: 1. That rationalism has ever been regarded as hostile to Christianity. 2. That the name is not modern; but was given to those who were before called naturalists. 3. That this unholy name, as well as the thing itself, was introduced into Germany from England, France, Italy, and Holland.

Although the contents of this pamphlet were merely historical, they afforded matter enough to excite the opposition of the friends of rationalism. So long as the dispute was confined to