rising before us both of them like some enchanted ground on which nature has delighted to lavish the choicest and richest of her gifts. We have seen their Capitols, though varied in character, respectively springing up in the choicest spot which beautiful lands could furnish, and shining forth from the heights of the earth with a light and splendor that both awed and dazzled the nations. We have seen their high sanctuaries, though one is the abode of God and the other of an idol, both lifting their columns, strong walls and high domes from the most sacred spot within their Capitols, and sending for ages their mighty pulsations through the entire body politic, inspiring a religious veneration that was potent to restrain and mould the national mind. Such a national home, political head and sacred heart acting upon, and inwrought into, national character, language and literature, whether looked at separately or in combination, show something of the genius of that learning which the Hebrews and Romans have furnished the world, and the student who is aspiring to the lofty position of finished and independent scholarship, must drink deeply of this ancient learning. To acquaint himself properly with the history, character, language and literature, and with the home, head and heart of the Hebrews and Romans, so as to be able to draw thence for himself and country what he should imitate, or thence learn what he should avoid as base," he must resort to the original sources. He must

see in its true light the

In this way, and in this only, can he exalted genius of ancient learning. It is in the college and through it, that this genius is made to shine forth in its brightest effulgence. It is in this sacred retreat that the shafts in the mine of knowledge are sunk to their greatest depth. It is here, as from an armory furnished with weapons of burnished steel, that the youth are girded with their mightiest strength, to battle valiantly under the banner of truth. The college, the mental gymnasium, next to the church, is the great institution of mod ern times, to promote the march of a true civilization. It is the grand seat and focus of science and literature; the revealer of law, of the law of matter, the law of mind, and the law of God. It furnishes the fullest resources which the world has at its command for developing mind, for unfolding truth, for the right inter

pretation of the ways of God and of the word of God. Hither, then, when the youth comes, with his soul kindled with high and holy aspirations, while here he seeks such preparation as will best fit him for posts of honor and influence, while he aims in the highest and best sense to become "the man for the times," not for this time only but for all times, let him remember that "a new language is a new world," that it opens new forms of thought and feeling; nay more, let him remember that he who has mastered a new language in its letter and spirit, has, in the very act, had as if a new soul breathed into his own intellectual nature, to enhance his immortal being.

ARTICLE VII.

THE CITATIONS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW.

Translated from the German of Tholuck, by Charles A. Aiken, Resident Licentiate, Andover.

[THIS translation is made from the third edition of the author's treatise on "The Old Testament in the New," which is usually found as an appendix to his Commentary on the Hebrews. The preceding edition of the appendix was translated with the commentary, and published in the "Cabinet Library," of Messrs. Clark, Edinburgh, in 1842. The treatise has since that time been entirely remodelled (1849), and is, in its present form, in Germany, the standard discussion of this important and difficult subject. The fact of a former translation seemed to render desirable a new translation, rather than a mere abstract, as had been intended. Here and there a quotation or reference has been thrown into a foot-note; and one omission will be found noticed in its place. The high reputation of the author and the impor tance of the subject will be a sufficient justification of the attempt to lay this discussion before the readers of the Bibliotheca Sacra. -TR.]

§ 1. Historical Introduction.

The way in which all the writers of the New Testament, and especially the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, use the expressions of the Old Testament as proofs, is to us somewhat striking at the stage of development which exegesis has now reached, inasmuch as the passages of the Old Testament thus employed, have frequently a sense which seems to make them inappropriate to the argument, and, indeed, for citation at all in the connection. The Arminian theologians had, in their time, in support of the historical interpretation which they advocated, called especial attention to the fact, that among Jewish authors a like arbitrariness in the application of the Old Testament prevails; that they also explained passages of the Old Testament, and adduced them as proofs, or at least as parallels, altogether without regard to the original context. "So much every one perceives," says the Fragmentist, at the end of the last century (on the Design of Jesus and his disciples, p. 176), “that unless one is ready to assume beforehand, on the ground of his faith in the New Testament, this principle, this passage speaks of Jesus of Nazareth, no single one of these quotations proves anything, but that they all in their natural sense speak of quite other persons, times and events." Whether now, under the influence of the imperfect cultivation of the age, the Old Testament, in the passages in question, was expounded by the apostles, by Christ himself, generally in inconsistency with the connection, is to appear in the course of the following examination. True, special investigations are never undertaken without certain dogmatic presuppositions, more or less fixed; on the other hand, the results of the inquiry exert a reflex modifying influence upon former convictions, as here upon the Christology, and the doctrines of revelation and inspiration.

As long as the absolute freedom of the authors of the New Testament from error, stood fast as a premise unquestioned by interpreters, on account of the assumption of an inspiratio literalis, the interpretation and application of the Old Testament given in the New, must be the standard for Christian exposition. This was then the problem: to discover, in any possible way in these passages of the Old Testament, the specific Christian sense which had apparently been found in them by the

Two methods were here pur

I writers of the New Testament. sued. Without regard to the connection, one portion of the earlier interpreters seek to establish the specifically Christian sense as that historically given in the Old Testament; the other, believing that these passages of the Old Testament must be understood in the first place from their connection, assume a double sense, a vпóvoiα. Some follow now the one, now the other mode of explanation; so in the early church, the expositors Chrysostom and Theodoret, who occupy middle ground between the Alexandrian and the elder Antiochene schools. Yet Chrysostom expressly lays down this canon, that the connection is sometimes suddenly interrupted by a historical reference of the New Testament, that the discourse refers partly to circumstances of the time, partly to the future. With equal measures of orthodoxy the one class of commentators, nevertheless, at times, comes into sharp conflict with the other. While Calov, alluding to the citation in Heb. ii., says on Isa. 8: 17, 18: sunt verba ipsius Domini, habemus enim interpretationem indubitatam, and remarks on the citation in Heb. 1: 5: non sensum geminum habet, sed ut omnia scripturae loca unicum tantum, quia spiritus sanctus non Apollinis more locutus ambigue sensum diversum iisdem verbis occultavit; and, accordingly, on account of Matt. 2: 15, 18, finds in Hos. 11: 1, Jer. 31: 15, a prophecy of those events of the New Testament; the no less orthodox Chemnitz declares, on Matt. 2: 15: coacta et contorta est eorum explicatio, qui contendunt Oseam in Matt. 2: 15, de solo puero Jesu vaticinari; and Schöttgen on the same passage: nemo negat haec verba proprie de populo Israelitico intelligi debere. Among the early writers there belonged to the first class Augustine,2 Jerome, Cyril Alex., Luther, most of the Lutheran interpreters, so Tarnov, Seb. Schmidt,

1 He says on Psalm cix.: Περὶ τίνος ὁ ψαλμὸς εἴρηται; ἔνια περὶ τοῦ Ιούδα — τὰ δὲ λοιπὰ περὶ ἑτέρων· καὶ γὰρ οὗτος προφητείας πάλιν τρόπος ἐστίν. - καὶ γὰρ καὶ τοῦτο προφητείας εἶδος, μεταξὺ διακύπτειν καὶ ἱστορίαν τινὰ ἐμβάλλειν, καὶ μετὰ τὸ ταῦτα διεξελθεῖν πάλιν ἐπὶ τὰ πρότερα ἐπανιέναι. 2 Clausen, Aug. scripturae sacrae interpres, p. 159.

Yet Luther follows in this respect, as in others, no fixed rules of hermeneutics. In the Psalms he applies the words everywhere to Christ, so that he, e. g., in Ps. 102: 27, which is applied to Christ in Heb. 1: 10, refers "but thou art the same," to the fact, that God incarnate is no other than God in eternity. On the other hand, he does not allow himself to be in the least bound by the application of Isa. 8: 14 by the apostles to the Messiah, 1 Pet. 2: 8. Rom. 9: 33, but in the interpretation of Isa. viii. treats the expression as a “locus communis,” thus: so

Calov, A. H. Francke, in his exposition of the Psalms, and others; and, among the Reformed theologians, prominently Surenhus, who has applied this mode of exposition to all the citations from the Old Testament in his βίβλος καταλλαγῆς. Even down to the time of Andreas Cramer (1757) on account of the citation in Heb. 1: 10, the Messiah is regarded as the subject of Psalm cii., and, in yet more recent times, on account of the quotations in the New Testament, the Psalms in which the singer speaks in the first person are regarded by many as Psalms in which the Messiah is introduced as speaking; so Dereser, Kaiser, Klaus, Hengstenberg, in the Christology. Yet more widely extended in the early church was the assumption of a double sense; its advocates were Origen, Eusebius Cæs., Basil, Gregory of Nyssa and of Nazianzen, Ephraim in the Mesopotamian school of interpreters; in the Latin church, Hilary and Ambrose, and, as has been already remarked, to some extent, Chrysostom and Theodoret. Psalm lxix., e. g., according to Theodoret, treats, in its proper sense, of the miseries of the Jews in exile, typically, of the Redeemer; Psalm viii., according to Chrysostom and Theodoret, primarily of man in general, xvouregor of the first born of the human race, of Christ. The majority of Catholic interpreters, also, belong to this class. The most of the Reformed commentators, Zuingli, Pellicanus, Calvin, Bucer,1 Cocceius, also, attached themselves to it, for the sake of the historical interpretation. Melanchthon, also, on Ps. 22: 4, follows this method of interpretation. By Bengel this principle of hermeneutics is thus expressed (Gnomon on Matt. 1: 22): saepe in N. T. allegantur vaticinia, quorum contextum prophetarum tempore non dubium est, quin auditores ex intentione divina interpretari debuerint de rebus jam soon as one turns aside from the faith, we stumble at all the miracles and words of God, and adds: the apostles have in 1 Pet. ii. Rom. ix., applied this general expression to a particular thing. He also explains Isa. 8: 17, 18, not according to Heb. ii. of Christ, but of the prophet (Walch, VI. p. 121 seq.). The same free manner, regardless of consistency, he uses with regard to the language of the apostles, when he says on Matt. xxiv.: Matthew and Mark confuse the two (the end of the world and the destruction of Jerusalem), do not observe the order which Luke has preserved (Walch, XI. 2496).

1 Zuingli on Matt. 2: 18, says: evangelista detorquet haec verba ad Christum, omnia enim quae in Vetere Testamento etiam vere sunt gesta, in figura tamen contigerunt et figurae fuerunt, in Christo omnia consummantur et vere implen-. tur. Bucer, after much hesitation on the question, whether the historical sense is in all the Psalms to be regarded as the primary, decides at length in the affirmative, with the words: veritati enim nihil officit, et facit omnia clariora.