pended solely upon the will of Jehovah, and every prophet stood in a certain relation to him, and not to the other prophets. Thus the argument which was adduced against the hypothesis of the whole Jewish people under No. 1, (p. 525 above,) applies to the advocates of the present interpretation in a still higher degree. The defenders of the former hypothesis can indeed appeal to passages where the Jewish people appear as an individual; but these latter cannot with justice appeal to a single passage, where the prophets are thus represented.

2. But this opinion appears most untenable, if we take the position of its defenders, and deny the genuineness of the second part of Isaiah. Immediately after the Babylonish exile, the prophetic office ceases; Jewish tradition, with one voice, represents Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, as the last prophets, and reckons prophecy among those things which were wanting to the second temple. The further communication of the prophetic spirit was awaited only in a future period. All the Jewish chronologists assume the cessation of the prophetic office as a chronological epoch, and begin with it a new era; as is done in 1 Macc. 9: 27; compare 1 Macc. 4: 46. 14: 41.* Now, even leaving entirely out of view the true idea of a prophet, it is difficult to conceive, how the prophet could here speak of a great . corporation of the prophets, while there were but few prophets in existence, and these, in respect to the power, the abundance, and the purity of the spirit, so far inferior to the more ancient prophets. It can also hardly be conceived, how the prophet could indulge the enthusiastic hope, that they whose standing had already sunk so low among the people before the exile, should hereafter arrive at such glory, should spread the true religion over the whole earth, and even, as the defenders of this hypothesis maintain, should live to enjoy a worldly triumph.

3. Of the arguments which have been exhibited above against the interpretation with respect to the whole people, those adduced under Nos. 2 and 4, (p. 526, 533,) apply also to this.

* Numerous passages from the Talmud and from other Jewish writers are collected in Knibbe's Historie der Propheten, ubers. von Freytag, Bern 1709. p. 347 sq. and in J. Smith's Dissertatio de Prophetia et Prophetis, c. 12; reprinted at the end of Clerici Comm. in Proph. Amst. 1731 fol. p. XXVI.

We find no example to show, that the prophets voluntarily devoted themselves for others, in the hope of delivering them from sin by their own sufferings. On the contrary, when sufferings are inflicted upon them, they always declare that a severe punishment from God will fall upon the authors of these sufferings. Compare e. g. Jer. 20: 12. That the prophets were very far from regarding themselves as entirely free from sin and guilt, we have already seen.

4. The servant of Jehovah can here be no other than he who forms the subject of the parallel prophecies, c. 42 etc. In these there occur still other things, which can in no way be referred to the prophetic order. Thus in c. 49: 3, the servant of God is said to be Israel,-a difficulty which Gesenius knows not how to remove otherwise, than by declaring, contrary to the authority of the manuscripts and versions, the word Israel to be spurious.

5. The prophet regards himself as distinct from the servant of God, and puts himself in opposition to him, v. 2 sq. He includes himself with the people. How could now the prophet say, that he took part in despising the prophetic order, that he endured his sufferings for himself, regarded himself as one smitten of God, etc? Gesenius appeals to c. 59: 9-13, where the prophet reckons himself with the people, and calls their sins his own. So also c. 42: 24. This however is a different case. The prophet, like every other member of the nation, had a real part in their sins; compare Dan. 9: 5 sq. But how could he take a part in despising his own order? how could the vicarious sufferings, in which he himself participated, be borne for him?

6. The sufferings which the prophets endured in exile, were the same as those which the people endured. The example of Jeremiah proves, that the prophets were in no wise peculiarly oppressed by the heathen. Nebuchadnezzar, after the conquest of the city, showed him great attention and left him free to choose the place of his residence. Compare Jer. 39: 11 sq. How then could the people depise them? how could they regard them as smitten of God?

7. The sufferings of the prophets could not be regarded as substituted for the sufferings of the wicked part of the people; for the latter suffered as well as the former.

* L. c. p. 159.

8. The prophets, according to this hypothesis, indulge the hope, that they should become the rulers of the restored and flourishing state, and should celebrate worldly triumphs. Aside from the folly of this hope, it would have been contrary to the very destination of the prophetic order. The government in the theocracy was, by divine appointment, for ever assigned to the posterity of David. The prophets, then, by usurping it, would have rebelled against the God whose rights they were appointed to defend. The prophets were extraordinary messengers of God, the invisible head of the theocracy; they were called to teach, to reprove, to warn, and to console; they were messengers of peace and righteousness to a rebellious people. That they ever remained true to this destination, is shown by the whole Israelitish history.

9. But if we take what is said of the servant of God figuratively, as indeed it must be taken; and find in the passage, not worldly, but spiritual triumphs; still, what is said would not even then apply to the prophetic order. It would be contrary to the analogy of all the other prophecies respecting the conversion of the heathen, were the prophets here to ascribe this work to themselves. We nowhere find an example to show, that the prophets mistook their destination to act only upon the covenant people; there is no where mention of any attempt made by them, to extend their sphere of action to the heathen also. They never attribute to themselves the accomplishment of the high hopes which they had with respect to the future; but always to the Messiah alone. Indeed, they are so little influenced by prejudices in behalf of their own order, they give themselves up so entirely to the guidance of the Holy Spirit, as even repeatedly to declare, that in the times of the Messiah the necessity for the prophetic office will entirely cease, because all will then be immediately taught of God. Compare e. g. Joel c. 3. Isa. 54: 13. 59: 21. 4: 3. 11: 9. Ezek. 11: 19. 36: 27. Jer. 31: 33.

10. It is an unnatural supposition of these interpreters, that the death and burial refer to one part of the prophetic order; the exaltation, on the contrary, to the survivors; while yet it is obviously one and the same subject, who suffers, dies, and is exalted.

Thus, then, the interpretation which rests upon the infallible testimony of the New Testament, is proved, by the weight of internal and external evidence, to be the correct one, in opposition to all those who reject that testimony. If now the ground which has produced these devious expositions be once removed; there will then be as little occasion for a detailed refutation of them, as there now is, that the interpreter should still notice the perverse interpretations of the Socinians. We conclude with the words of Storr :* "Let others deride so great a king; be with more justice derides the insignificant men, whom he knows to be given to himself to be broken in pieces, if they obstinately refuse to regard this prophecy and other numerous evidences of the truth (Ps. 2). O that those at least, who wish to be called the seed of Christ, would suffer themselves to be brought back into the right way and to be delivered from those sins, which Christ with the severest suffering has long since borne; and would thus learn to live unto righteousness, to walk in the steps of the Lord, and thus teach, by their example also, the efficacy of his doctrine, which many have already experienced."

* "Rideant alii tantum regem, ridet ille majori jure homunciones, quos sibi, si et hoc vaticinium et alia multa veritatis argumenta serio meditari pertinaciter nolint, nihilo secius, at conterendos, datos esse novit (Ps. 2). Utinam ii saltem, qui semen Christi salutari volunt, in rectam viam se reduci et peccato, quod cum summa patientia dudum Christus portavit, liberari paterentur, sicque justitiae vivere, vestigiis domini insistere et doctrinae ejus efficaciam, quam multi jam experti sunt, suo quoque exemplo docere discerent."

ART. IV. THE MERITS OF CALVIN AS AN INTERPRETER OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. *

By Prof. Tholuck of Halle. Translated by Leonard Woods Jr. Assistant Instructor in the Theol. Sem. Andover.

THE second centennial festival of the reformation, in 1817, which was so rich in various blessings, called anew the attention of theologians to the long neglected, but noble monuments of our restored church; and the influence which these began to exert upon the different departments of modern theology, was very soon visible. To Lücke belongs the honour of having first. referred, in the department of exegesis, to Luther, Beza, Calvin, Camerarius, and many other excellent interpreters of the period of the reformation. He was followed by the writer of these pages, in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. Pointed, as he was, on the one hand by Neander to the ancient ecclesiastical fathers, and on the other, by the newly awakened interest in the period of the reformation to the fathers of the Evangelical church, he supposed he could do nothing more useful for the exegesis of the New Testament, than to give an antepast of these exegetical works to his more youthful contemporaries, in copious select extracts, and thus excite an interest in these noble products of a sound Christian spirit. And especially he found himself compelled duly to acknowledge the great exegetical talent of Calvin, and to recommend him as a model. That he attained his object, is proved by the exegetical works of Rheinwald, Gebser, Hengstenberg, Boehmer, and Pelt, all of which are composed with a faithful use of the treasures of exegetical literature contained in the early fathers, and in those of the reformation, and more especially in the works of Calvin. Winer too, who did not even mention Calvin in the first edition

* The following article is from Tholuck's "Literarischer Anzeiger" for July 1831. It was written, as the reader will perceive, with particular reference to a new edition of Calvin's Commentaries on the Pauline Epistles; of which the first volume had then just left the press. This edition was undertaken at the suggestion of Prof. Tholuck; and some of his pious English friends furnished funds to aid in carrying it through the press, so as to permit it to be sold at a very moderate price.

EDITOR.