universities by their religious principles, the nonconformists were unable to organize educational institutions of their own that were at all adequate, and hence the ministry fell back upon dogmatizing or spiritualizing, equally perilous, without an exact knowledge of the biblical text.1

In the meanwhile, the Humanistic spirit had maintained itself in the Church of England, and it found expression among the Arminians of Holland. The chief interpreter of the seventeenth century was Hugo Grotius, who revived the spirit of Erasmus. He laid stress upon historical interpretation. He was followed by the Arminians generally, especially Clericus. In Great Britain Henry Hammond had the same spirit and methods.3 Edward Pocock seeks as the main thing "to settle the genuine and literal meaning of the text." Daniel Whitby 5 also represents this tendency; and still later Bishop Lowth and John Taylor of Norwich. The latter says:

"To understand the sense of the Spirit in the New, 'tis essentially necessary that we understand its sense in the Old Testament. But the sense of the Spirit cannot be understood unless we understand the language in which that sense is conveyed. For which purpose the Hebrew Concordance is the best Expositor. For there you have in one view presented all the places of the sacred code where any words are used; and by carefully collating those places, may judge what sense it will, or will not bear, which being once settled there lies no appeal to any other writing in the world because there are no other books in all the world in the

1 It is the merit of C. H. Spurgeon that he has recently called attention to the neglected Puritan commentators and expressed his great obligations to them. See his Commenting and Commentaries, N. Y., 1876, and also Treasury of David, London, 6 vols., 1870 seq., which contains copious extracts from the Puritan commentaries.

2 Annotations in lib. evang., Amst., 1641; Annot. in Vet. Test., Paris, 1664. 3 Paraphrase and Annotations upon all the Books of the New Testament, 1653, 8vo, 3d ed., folio, London, 1671. In a postscript concerning new light or divine illumination, over against the Quakers, he insisted upon the plain, literal, and historical sense.

4 Com. on Micah, 1677, Hosea, 1685, Joel, 1691.

5 Pharaphrase and Commentary on the New Testament, 2 vols., 1703-1709, folio.

6 See p. 227.

7 Hebrew Concordance, 2 vols. folio, London, 1754.

pure original Hebrew, but the books of the Old Testament. A judgment therefore duly founded upon them must be absolutely decisive."1

Taylor acknowledges his great indebtedness to the philosopher Locke,2 and shows the influence of that philosophy in his exegesis. Toward the close of the century biblical interpretation more and more declined in Great Britain, and one must go to the continent, and especially to Germany, for the exegesis as well as for the Higher and Lower Criticism of modern times.3

VII. BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION OF MODERN TIMES We have seen in our studies of biblical literature that there was a great revival of biblical studies, especially in Germany, toward the close of the eighteenth century, which extended to all departments. For biblical interpretation Ernesti was the chief of the new era. Ernesti was essentially a philologist rather than a theologian, and he applied to the Bible the principles which he had employed in the interpretation of the ancient classics. He began at the foundation of interpretation, grammatical exegesis, and placed it in such a position before the world that it has ever since maintained its fundamental importance. He published his principles of interpretation in 1761.4 Ernesti was followed by Zacharia,5 Morus, C. D. Beck, and others. Moses Stuart translated Ernesti with the notes of Morus abridged.8

About the same time as Ernesti, Semler urged the importance

1 Preface of Hebrew Concordance. See also his Paraphrase with notes on the Epistle to the Romans, London, 1745, pp. 114, 127, 146.

2 In l.c., p. 149.

8 See pp. 227, 281.

4 Institutio Interpretis N. 1., 1761, 3te Aufl., 1774; 5te Aufl., ed. Ammon, 1809. It was translated into English and edited by Bishop Terrot in 1809 from Ammon's edition, for the Biblical Cabinet, I. and IV., Edinburgh.

5 Einleit. in d. Auslegekunst, 1778.

Acroases. acad. super Herm., N. T., 1797 and 1802, ed. by Eichstädt.

7 Monogram. hermeneutices librorum N. Foed., Lips., 1803.

8 Elementary Principles of Interpretation, translated from the Latin of J. A. Ernesti, accompanied by notes, with an appendix containing extracts from Morus, Beck, Keil, and Henderson, 4th ed., Andover, 1842. The earlier edition was republished in England with additional observations by Dr. Henderson, London, 1827, which were used in Stuart's fourth edition.

of historical interpretation.1 Semler was an open-minded, devout scholar, and appropriated freely the material wherever he could find it, and reproduced it in forms fashioned by his own genius. He was greatly influenced by foreign interpreters, and was the channel through whom the historical interpretation, still lingering in Reformed lands, made its way into Lutheran Germany. Among those who influenced Semler may be mentioned: J. A. Turretine, who had introduced the Swiss revolt against scholasticism,2 John Taylor of Norwich and Daniel Whitby, and L. Meyer, the Spinozist. Semler was followed by J. G. Gabler, G. L. Baur, K. C. Bretschneider, and others. These elements of interpretation were combined in the grammatico-historical method of C. A. G. Keil.5 The grammatico-historical method was introduced into the United States of America chiefly by Moses Stuart and his school.

The defects of the grammatico-historical method were discovered, and attacks were made upon it from both sides. Kant and his school urged rational and moral exegesis, to which the historical must yield as of vastly less importance. There was truth in this rising to the moral sense, but as it was stated and used by the Kantians it resulted in binding the Bible in the fetters of a philosophical system that was far more oppressive than the theological system had been. Stäudlein, Stern, Stark,8 and Kaiser, and above all Germar, 10 rendered great service by urging that the interpreter should enter into sympathy with the spirit of the biblical authors.

On the other side the little band of Pietists of the older Tübingen school urged the inadequacy of the grammatico-historical method, and insisted upon faith and piety in the inter

1 Vorbereit. zur theol. Herm., 1760-1769; Apparatus ad liberalem, N. T. Interp., 1767.

2 De S. S. interp. tractatus bipartitus, 1728. This was an unauthorized and defective edition, and it was repudiated by the author. A better edition was edited by Teller in 1776.

3 See Tholuck, Vermischte Schriften, Hamburg, 1839, pp. 30, 40.

4 Author of an anonymous treatise: Philosophiæ Script. interpres., 1666. 5 Lehr. d. Herm., 1810. 6 De interp. N. T., 1807.

7 Ueber den Begriff und obersten Grundsatz d. hist. interp. d. N. T., 1815. 8 Beitr. z. Herm., 1817.

9 System Herm., 1817.

10 Beitrag zur allgemein. Hermeneutik, Altona, 1828.

preter. The chief of these were Storr,2 Flatt and Steudel of Tübingen, Knapp of Halle, and Seiler of Erlangen.3

This conflict of principles worked more and more confusion. If the older exegesis was at fault in neglecting the human element and the variety of features of the Bible on the human side, the newer interpreters of the grammatico-historical school were still more at fault in neglecting the divine element and the unity of the Bible.

A healthful method of interpretation had been introduced from England in the translation of the works of Bishop Lowth, which urged literary interpretation. Herder, Eichhorn, and others exerted their influence in the same direction. Schleiermacher deserves the credit for combining all that had thus far been gained into a higher unity, by his organic method of interpretation.4

Schleiermacher lays down his principles in a series of theses:

"In the application (of Hermeneutics) to the New Testament the philological view, which isolates every writing of every author, stands over against the dogmatic view, which regards the New Testament as the work of one author. Both approach one another when one considers that, in the view of the religious contents, the identity of the school comes in, and in view of the details, the identity of language. . . . The philological view lags behind its own principle when it rejects the general dependence for the sake of the individual culture. The dogmatic view transcends its needs when it rejects individual culture for the sake of dependence, and so destroys itself. The only question that remains is which of the two is to be placed above the other; and this must be decided by the philological view itself in favor of its own dependence. When the philological view ignores this it annihilates Christianity. When the dogmatic view extends the canon of the analogy of faith beyond these limits it annihilates Scripture."

1 Reuss, Gesch. d. H. S. N. T., 4te Aufl., 1864, p. 582 seq.

2 De sensu historico, 1778.

3 Bib. Herm., 1830, edited in Holland by Heringa, and translated from the Holland edition and edited with additions by Wm. Wright, London, 1835.

4 His Hermeneutik und Kritik is a posthumous work by his pupil, F. Lücke, published in Berlin, 1838, but the influence of his method was felt at an earlier date, and expressed by his disciples.

5 In l.c., pp. 79-81.

Lücke, of Schleiermacher's school, well states the principle when he says that we must

so construct the general principles of Hermeneutics as that the proper theological element may be united with them in a really organic manner, and likewise so fashion and carry on the theological element that the general principles of interpretation may maintain their full value." 1

He also insisted upon love for the Word of God, as the indispensable requisite for the interpreter.2

The vast importance of this organic method is seen in the exegetical works of De Wette, Neander, Klausen, Bleek, Lutz, Meyer, and most of the chief interpreters of modern Germany.

The greatest defect of interpretation at this time was in the lack of apprehension of the true relation of the New Testament to the Old Testament. The Old Testament was neglected by Schleiermacher and many of his school. It was necessary for the discipline of Biblical Theology to come into the field ere this defect could be overcome. The unfolding of the discipline of Biblical Theology in the school of Neander established the organic unity of the New Testament in the combination of a number of historical types. The organic unity of the Old Testament was also especially urged by Oehler in the spirit of Neander, together with some of the features of the older Tübingen school. The organic unity of the whole Bible has been especially insisted upon by Hofmann of Erlangen, Delitzsch, and others of their school. This is a further unfolding of the organic principle of Schleiermacher, and the revival in another form of the Puritan principle wrapt up in the covenant theology, and which has worked through the schools of Cocceius and the Pietists, to attach itself to the scientific principles of exegesis that have thus far been developed. The school of Hofmann claim the principle of the history of redemption 3 as the highest attainment of Hermeneutics. This insisting above all upon interpreting Scripture as one divine book giving the history of redemption is the 1 Studien und Krit., 1830, p. 421; see also his Grundriss d. N. T. Herm., 1817. 2 See Klausen in l.c., p. 311; Immer in l.c., p. 66; Reuss in l.c., p. 605.

8 See Volck, in Zöckler, Handb., p. 661 seq.; Hofmann, Bib. Herm., Nord. 1880.