Mr. Horne* and some others have expressly denied it. We have, in the first place, the testimony of Josephus, who not only allegorizes some parts himself, (see Antiqq. Jud. lib. iii. c. 1; c. 7, &c.) but tells us, that Moses has in his writings "hinted at some things in a becoming manner, and allegorized others with gravity (σeμvóτntos), whilst those which it concerned him to announce directly he has expressly unfolded. If any," he adds, "would investigate the causes of these individually, a great and highly philosophical speculation (0ɛwpia) would arise, which I for the present pass over." Ant. Jud. Proem. ap. fin. At the close of this work also, he says, that among the Jews, those only enjoyed a reputation for wisdom, who were skilled in the law, and could interpret the force (dvráμv) of the sacred writings; and that, though there were many who laboured at this, hardly above one or two had succeeded so as to reap the reward of their toil," an assertion which can hardly relate to the ordinary interpretation of ScripFrom such passages, it may be inferred that the habit of searching for deep meanings in the Old Testament was common among the Jews in the time of Josephus; and, by consequence, (as such a habit does not grow in a day) in the time of our Lord.

ture.

Philo is our next witness; and every one knows how full are his writings of allegories. It is known also that he defends such upon principle, and goes the length of asserting, that without them we cannot reconcile many things in the Old Testament with the revealed character of God - a ground which Origen unhappily assumed after him. It is more important at present, however, to observe, that he ascribes antiquity to the practice. In speaking of the Therapeutæ, he says, that they, "possessing the most sacred writings, philosophize their country's philosophy by allegorizing them; since they regard the things (discovered by) the literal interpretation as symbols of a hidden nature, to be made manifest by conjecture. And they have also treatises by ancient men, who were the founders of their sect, and have left many muniments of the * Introduction, vol. ii. p. 361.

idea in the things which they have allegorized (odλà μvnμɛĩa τῆς ἐν τοῖς ἀλληγορουμένοις ἰδέας). Using these as archetypes, they imitate the manner of the party." De Vita Contemplativa, Opp. ii. 483. In this passage, we have not only a declaration to the effect that the peculiar philosophy of the Jews lay in allegorizings of their sacred books; but that many works of some antiquity written on this plan were extant among the Therapeutæ.

To the fact, that the practice of allegorizing the books of the Old Testament was greatly older than the time of Philo, we have, moreover, the express testimony of Origen, to whom all such matters were well known. In replying to an assertion of Celsus to the effect, that "many allegories had been written upon the Old Testament histories, worse than these histories themselves," he commences by saying: "He seems to speak here respecting the writings of Philo, or of those which are still older, such as those of Aristobulus." This Aristobulus, who was an Alexandrian Jew, and of the priestly family, was tutor to Ptolemy Philometor (2 Maccab. i. 10) B.C. 175. Of his writings we have only fragments preserved by Clemens Alexandrinus, Cyrill and Eusebius; but they are such as, coupled with the express statements of Origen, and of these, as well as other writers, leave no doubt as to the allegorical character of his productions. His great work was an Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Moses, in which he sought to show the mystical meaning of these writings, and to trace an identity between them and the speculations of the heathen philosophy. For a defence of the genuineness of these commentaries, as well as a thorough-going examination of every question connected with the subject, I refer the reader to Valckenaer's learned Diatribe de Aristobulo Judæo, philosopho peripatetico Alexandrino. Lugd. Bat. 1806, 4to.

These facts, coupled with the well-known prevalence of allegorical interpretations in the books of the Jews, and which they profess to have received from ancient tradition, seem to require

Cont. Cels. lib. iv. p. 198, ed. Spencer.

the admission that this practice was known in the days of our Lord, and might have been followed by him, as beyond all question it was followed by his servant Paul.* I trust I have shown in the text that this admission lends no support to the doctrine of Accommodation.

NOTE I. Page 201.

Herder on the Doctrine of Accommodation.

To those who know any thing of the writings of the famous J. G. Herder, it is unnecessary to say that he was far from being influenced by an over-scrupulous regard for the authority of Scripture. Even for him, however, the doctrine opposed in the text was too daring to be tolerated, as the reader will see from the following very characteristic passage, translated from his Briefe das Studium der Theologie Betreffend, 2ter. Th. s. 263, ff.

"This is a matter which I cannot laugh at; it fills me with sorrow. For let us consider seriously and candidly to what it at last comes. I will grant that Paul, a scholar of the Rabbins, and that the Evangelists, Jews, and writing for Jews, might, in regard to matters non-essential, have, for the sake of explanation and illustration, кar' äveρwñov, made use of certain allusions and accommodated meanings; for by this the main theme is not affected, provided it be supported by other and better proofs. But if we suppose, that in regard to this also they used such modes of proof, if we say that Christ himself made use, in regard to his grand object, of such accommodations, where, I ask, will be left, I do not say inspiration, but the certain work of a God of truth? If God sent his Son into the world, could he not send him with infallible tokens? Could he not at least guard him and his witnesses against adducing evidences which were erroneous? If we grant the honesty of Christ, and suppose him to have been misled, even in so much as the adduction

See Gal. iv. 24, 25; 1 Cor. x. 4, &c.

of one prophecy which did not properly relate to him, but which he cut to suit his own purpose by accommodation, how came God to accredit him by miracles ?-by that greatest of miracles, his resurrection? Would he build us a trap-bridge between deceit in interpretation and honesty in conduct? It would be the most perilous bridge ever built, not for the Jews only, but for all people, in all times, into whose hands the Old Testament and Christianity should come! What! a Christ sent forth, for all times, for all nations, and yet accredited by Jewish accommodations, which were not, perhaps, adopted by all even in his own time; which, at best, were suited only for the Jews, and even for none but the weaker and more ignorant part of them? A messenger from the God of truth, would he have built this upon the twilight and mist of a time-conjuncture (Zeitverbindung)? Would he have confirmed it by miracles so incontestibly-by quotations of prophecies so imperfectly and erroneously? For what he and his servants adduced for themselves, we either do not now adduce at all, or let it stand thus shorn of half its honour! On the other hand, what we build upon chiefly, they did not; and who knows whether even we shall, in a short time hence, build on it either?* The interpreter does not hold by his dogma and cut away, he grasps his dogma itself handful after handful. How, when the bank alone is left, and the last sickle has cut,-how then?"

NOTE K. Page 224.

Knobel on the manner in which the Theocratic Prophecies were fulfilled by Christ.

In his learned and copious work entitled, Der Prophetismus der Hebräer Vollständig dargestellt a work which unfortunately I did not receive until the whole of this Lecture had been

This is prophetic. It is long since the party to which Herder alludes have discarded miracles as well as prophecies from among the evidences of Christianity.

sent to press.-Prof. Knobel, of Breslau, has some important remarks upon the fulfilment in Christ of the Old Testament prophecies, in which he adopts and illustrates, at considerable length, the opinion advocated in the text, regarding the spiritual fulfilment of those prophecies which bear a theocratic and national aspect. As this is a subject of some interest, and one in regard to which interpreters of prophecy have very often entertained the most erroneous views, I shall here translate part of what this able and unprejudiced writer has said upon it.

After remarking, that all the intimations and theocratic anticipations of the prophets were intended to find their fulfilment in Christ; and enlarging upon the spiritual and universal character of the system which our Lord set up, he passes to the conclusion, that only such prophecies as announced blessings of a purely religious character could be literally fulfilled by Christ in accordance with his system; and that, as those which intimated prospects of earthly and political blessings were not compatible with his scheme, he could fulfil them only in a higher and more general sense than their words taken literally would seem to imply. After illustrating at some length the former of these classes, the author proceeds to the latter, and remarks as follows::

"Jesus did not acknowledge himself called upon to fulfil those theocratic announcements which had an earthly-political character, in the sense in which they were uttered. For his plan was spiritual and universal, neither including worldly interests, nor contracted within national and political limits. He gave, accordingly, to all such announcements a higher and more general meaning, so as to realize them in accordance with such a scheme. Thus :

"1. The prophets had announced that Jehovah would deliver his people from the political calamities into which, through the conquering might of their foes, they had been brought. This Jesus fulfilled, but in a higher sense. He beheld the Jewish and heathen world under the thraldom of error and of sin, in circumstances of moral calamity, and he regarded himself as sent to effect its deliverance. In this sense he announced him